I’m a man. That means I grew up with propaganda from porn, the media, my peers and my church training me to use my male privilege to take advantage of women. Now I want to do the opposite - root out and discard my socialization - but libfems coddle men too much to address the root of the problem. For a man who wants to break free of his patriarchal conditioning there is no substitute for radical feminism. It is the premier ideology of women’s liberation.
It’s true that radfem analysis contradicts queer theory in fundamental ways. So some use radical feminism only as a vehicle to bash trans people. Others see this as a reason to suppress radical feminism entirely. I regret that I allowed my opposition to the latter (censorship of an indispensable idea) to push me too close to the former (bullying vulnerable people). I don’t agree with some of the claims the mainstream trans rights movement makes - but I do support trans rights. You deserve safety, dignity, and self-determination. If you find posts in my archive that are mean-spirited toward trans people please let me know; I will delete them and apologize. Going forward I want you to feel welcome here.
I’m a very pleasant customer at chipotle. All smiles, white rice please, chicken please. Thank you! The employee senses my sincerity and subconsciously adds larger scoops of food to my burrito. By the time they go to roll it, it’s so full that it bursts - and I get an extra tortilla for free. Who else 😈 devious?
Why would a satanist care about your closed tradition? Our goal is to blaspheme as much as possible. Worshipping a demon who is supposed to be off-limits to gentiles is just another kind of heresy.
Sometimes I just feel so jaded I really don’t think a man is capable of loving a woman. Like obviously not a single man throughout history could have loved a woman, because men saw women as objects and you can’t love an object. Sure, maybe he loved you like an expensive car or a well trained pet, but that’s not human love. You can’t love someone you don’t see as a person.
And that wasn’t that distant in the past. And in some places in the world, women are still seen as property by men. And even in countries where it isn’t official, many men still see women that way. We fought tooth and nail for our rights, but we don’t have the power to change the way the men actually feel.
So many men rape. So many haven’t, but would if they had the opportunity. Even more than that jack off to rape on tape. No one who can orgasm to your suffering is capable of loving you. It’s the most horrific thing I can imagine and it’s so common among men.
Men constantly mock romance movies and novels for how unrealistic they are to suggest a man would do nice things for a woman. Men openly admit that they use minor acts of kindness as a tool to get sex or other favors out of a woman. Men hate their naggy wives because marriage isn’t about love to them, it’s about having a maid they can fuck.
I wish I was wrong, because a lot of women love men. I wish their feelings were reciprocated. But everyday that just seems less realistic to me
I gave over a hundred young women at Loyola University Chicago the following instruction:
Many researchers have studied what the ideal woman looks like according to our society’s standards. Take a moment to think about what this cultures ideal woman looks like and describe her. Now pleas take a moment to imagine that you look like just the woman you just described. Think about the ways in which you believe your life would be different if you looked like this woman. How would things change for you?
The responses were so upsetting that I considered stopping the study early. One young woman told us that if she could just be beautiful, she would finally ‘be able to focus on her inner abilities and talent’. Another said that she might ‘genuinely feel happy most of the time instead of just faking it.’ A different young woman explained that if she could just look the way our culture wants women to look, she ‘would never have had an eating disorder, causing stress in everyone arounf (her) that (she) loved but still hurt.’ Over 70 percent of the women in this study said they’d be treated better by others if they looked like the beauty ideal.
Renee Engeln (2018): Beauty Sick. How cultural obsession this Appearance hurts girsl and women, p. 16
right now many teenage girls are telling themselves: maybe if I was born a man I wouldn’t get sexually harassed. maybe if I looked male I wouldn’t get followed in the grocery store. maybe if I was a man I wouldn’t be pressured to get married and have children. maybe if I was a man I would be taken seriously at work. maybe if I was a man I could wear what I want. they’ve absorbed this narrative. and instead of trying to make the world a safer place that affords women the same basic dignity as men we’ve told these girls that they ARE men.
I would take the concept of biphobia a bit more seriously if it wasn’t so often used as a synonym for heterophobia. No, it’s not bigoted in any way for homosexuals to make fun of straight relationships. Especially when so many bi people in those relationships are annoying us with “we’re still super queer and super gay!!!” Because they think their sexuality cancels out their opposite sex relationship.
Now they treat queer like a life force, everything they do has to be queer, even the words “straight relationship” can cause offense. It’s all just vibes to these people, they never think in terms of definitions.
If you treat L G B and T as classes of people subject to material analysis all the woo goes away. When I (bi) dated a bi woman. She did all the cleaning, most of the cooking, kept track of the mental load of running a household. We did PIV because I wanted it and she took 100% of the risk of becoming pregnant. Materially that is a straight relationship! It fits the pattern that feminists have identified. A dose of radical feminist thinking could have set her free.
Anyone who finds herself in a straight relationship should do a material analysis of her situation. That’s why I’m worried for young people who are internalizing the liberal zeitgeist of our time. The limit of their critical analysis is personal freedom and vibes. “Analysis I don’t identify with does not apply to me” is a self-indulgent and dangerous point of view. It’s only when we accept and act on sober analysis of ourselves that we can avoid re-enacting patriarchy and oppression in our private relationships.
framing sex as one of the basic human needs is just wrong and coercive. you will not die without sex- sex is not a right. you are never entitled to sex the same way that you are entitled to food, water, oxygen, etc. it’s this mentality that fuels rape culture tbh.
Just saw a post saying genderqueer was good because their were "no rules". There are no rules for being female or male either. You just literally are. like just live girl you don't need a gender about it
«Liberal feminism envisions that equality of the sexes can be achieved by equal participation in global capitalism. This bypasses any critique of the structures inherent to a global free market system and its effects on women. A critical, or more radical, approach means interrogating patriarchy and the global institutions that sustain it. The liberal vision seeks only to make patriarchy more equitable by branding it as ‘choice’. This is not so much feminism as it is a westernised corporate strategy. ‘Choice’ is only relevant if you are a wealthy and powerful enough consumer; this is rarely applicable to marginalised women.
The proliferation of technology has resulted in the flourishing of pornographic culture and the male entitlement and misogyny it breeds. Simultaneously, globalised consumer culture is at an all time high. In essence, sexist male entitlement has gone global.
From early liberal feminist campaigns such as the pro-pornography movement, to the recent global ‘SlutWalk’ campaign, there is a move to rebrand sexual objectification as feminist. Some liberal feminist scholars argue this is diversification or ‘sex positivity’. However, more critical feminists see this as an ill-fated partnership with the capitalist exploitation of women.
While liberal feminism is not a corporate movement per se, on a theoretical level it relies on the same problematic assumptions based upon conventional economics and classical liberalism.
On an analytical level, liberal feminism avoids structural or critical analysis of power. It often discusses power as an individual negotiation rather than a structural, contextual reality. While this may help some women to feel ‘empowered’ on an individual level, it only makes invisible the broader systemic forces that undergird oppression.
On a practical level, liberal feminism evades empirical data on the realities of women’s oppression under globalised capitalism. For instance, high levels of sexual violence and sex trafficking are largely dismissed by liberal feminism. Rather than these trends being interrogated as urgent symptoms of growing global male supremacy, they are increasingly replaced with discussions on ‘whorephobia’, or the need to support ‘underage sex work’.
Feminism is at a crossroad. It can either fight to liberate women from growing male entitlement and the institutions that underpin it, or it can work to make patriarchy more acceptable by selling it as our ‘choice’.»
Business as usual, rebranded as ethics: the whitewashing of systemic injustice by Laura McNally
incels are just the first generation of men who have been brought up addicted to porn. every single incel talking point about women is from porn. incels think women are having sex from the time they hit puberty onward bc they watch porn with pedophilic undertones or actual cp/loli, incels think women can have sex at a moments notice w any man they want bc that's what happens to women in porn, incels think women regularly have extreme sex like anal or gangbangs bc that's what porn shows them, incels think women like men who are abusive or violent bc that's what women in porn like. u know that weird meme that's being going around abt white women fucking dogs? yeah that's been an incel thing for years. why is that when men are overwhelmingly the perpetrators of beastiality? bc most men will have come across animal abuse porn by the time they're graduated high school and incels, who watch porn even more than normal men, see women having sex with animals regularly. incels are just men who's only contact with women has been through porn, men who accept that porns depiction of women is accurate, and they hate women because they totally believe what they see in porn. when they try to roleplay what they see with real women, and the women have boundaries and personalities and lives outside of sex, it infuriates them not because they're mad women have been abused and misrepresented, but because they're upset they are not getting the ultimate male fantasy they were promised from childhood.
I watched an interview with an Incel. He claims that women in their 20s have had sex with “hundreds” of guys. The reporter was a woman and she said that she doesn’t know of any woman that has slept with that many men. The Incel just insisted that she needed to interview more women and that she just wasn’t aware enough.
Even the most sexual active women I know haven’t had sex with one hundred men, let alone hundreds. They really do believe that porn is accurate.
“incels hate women because they totally believe what they see in porn“
this right here is what feminists mean when we say, porn is hate speech against women. men who invest in the narratives told by porn end up hating women.
Just wanted to link this article here which is a really good read on debunking several pro-porn studies that go against the idea that porn enforced misogyny. Unsurprisingly, the data is skewed and not representative of the general population.
For centuries, people have held mistaken assumptions about the origins of male-dominated societies, writes Angela Saini.
In 1930, when London Zoo announced its baboon enclosure would be closing down, the story made headlines.
For years, "Monkey Hill", as it was known, had been the scene of bloody violence and frequent fatalities. The US news magazine Time reported on the incident that proved to be the final straw: "George, a young member of the baboon colony, had stolen a female belonging to the 'king,' the oldest, largest baboon of Monkey Hill." After a tense siege, George ended up killing her.
Monkey Hill cast a long shadow over how animal experts imagined male domination. Its murderous primates reinforced a popular myth at the time that humans were a naturally patriarchal species. For zoo visitors, it felt as though they might be peering into our evolutionary past, one in which naturally violent males had always victimised weaker females.
In truth, Monkey Hill wasn't normal. Its warped social environment was the product of too many male monkeys being placed with tragically too few females. Only decades later – with the discovery that one of our closest genetic primate relatives, bonobo apes, are matriarchal (despite the males of the species being bigger) – have biologists accepted that patriarchy in our own species probably can't be explained by nature alone.
Over the past few years, I've been travelling the world to understand the origins of human patriarchy for my book The Patriarchs. I learned that, while there are many myths and misconceptions about how men came to have as much power as they do, the true history also offers insights into how we might finally achieve gender equality.
For starters, human ways of organising ourselves actually don't have many parallels in the animal kingdom. The word "patriarchy", meaning "rule of the father", reflects how male power has long been believed to start in the family with men as heads of their households, passing power from fathers to sons. But across the primate world, this is vanishingly rare. As anthropologist Melissa Emery Thompson at the University of New Mexico has observed, inter-generational family relationships in primates are consistently organised through mothers, not fathers.
Among humans, patriarchy isn't universal either. Anthropologists have identified at least 160 existing matrilineal societies across the Americas, Africa, and Asia, in which people are seen to belong to their mothers’ families over generations, with inheritance passing from mother to daughter. In some of these communities, goddesses are worshipped and people will stay in their maternal homes throughout their lives. Mosuo men in southwestern China, for instance, might help raise their sisters' children rather than their own.
Often in matrilineal communities, power and influence are shared between women and men. In matrilineal Asante communities in Ghana, leadership is divided between the queen mother and a male chief, who she helps to select. In 1900, the Asante ruler Nana Yaa Asantewaa led her army in rebellion against British colonial rule.
The further we dive into prehistory, the more varied forms of social organisation we see. At the 9,000-year-old site of Çatalhöyük in southern Anatolia in modern-day Turkey, once described as the oldest city in the world for its size and complexity, almost all the archaeological data points to a settlement in which gender made little difference to how people lived.
"Most sites that archaeologists dig, you find that men and women, because they have different lives, they have different food and they end up with different diets," according to archaeologist Ian Hodder at Stanford University, who led the Çatalhöyük Research Project until 2018. "But at Çatalhöyük you don’t see that at all." Analysis of human remains suggests that men and women had identical diets, spent around the same amount of time indoors and outdoors, and did similar kinds of work. Even the height difference between the sexes was slight.
Women weren't invisible, either. Excavations of this and other sites dating to around the same time have unearthed an abundance of female figurines, now filling the cabinets of local archaeological museums. The most famous of these is the Seated Woman of Çatalhöyük, today behind glass at the Museum of Anatolian Civilizations in Ankara. It depicts a woman sitting upright, her body deeply indented with age and glorious rolls of fat spilling out around her. Underneath her resting arms appear to be two big cats, possibly leopards, looking straight ahead as though she had tamed them.
As we know, the relatively gender-blind way of life at Çatalhöyük didn't continue forever. Over thousands of years, social hierarchies gradually crept into this broader region, which spans modern-day Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. Thousands of years later, in cities like ancient Athens, entire cultures had developed around misogynistic myths that women were weak, not to be trusted, and best confined to the home.
The big question is why.
Anthropologists and philosophers have asked whether agriculture could have been the tipping point in the power balance between men and women. Agriculture needs a lot of physical strength. The dawn of farming was also when humans started to keep property such as cattle. As this theory goes, social elites emerged as some people built up more property than others, driving men to want to make sure their wealth would pass onto their legitimate children. So, they began to restrict women's sexual freedom.
The problem with this is that women have always done agricultural work. In ancient Greek and Roman literature, for example, there are depictions of women reaping corn and stories of young women working as shepherds. United Nations data shows that, even today, women comprise almost half the world’s agricultural workforce and are nearly half of the world’s small-scale livestock managers in low-income countries. Working-class women and enslaved women across the world have always done heavy manual labour.
More importantly for the story of patriarchy, there was plant and animal domestication for a long time before the historical record shows obvious evidence of oppression based on gender. "The old idea that as soon as you get farming, you get property, and therefore you get control of women as property," explains Hodder, "is wrong, clearly wrong." The timelines don’t match up.
The first clear signs of women being treated categorically differently from men appear much later, in the first states in ancient Mesopotamia, the historical region around the Tigris and Euphrates rivers in what is now Iraq, Syria and Turkey. Around 5,000 years ago, administrative tablets from the Sumerian city of Uruk in southern Mesopotamia show those in charge taking great pains to draw up detailed lists of population and resources.
"Person power is the key to power in general," explains political scientist and anthropologist James Scott at Yale University, whose research has focused on early agrarian states. The elites in these early societies needed people to be available to produce a surplus of resources for them, and to be available to defend the state – even to give up their lives, if needed, in times of war. Maintaining population levels put an inevitable pressure on families. Over time, young women were expected to focus on having more and more babies, especially sons who would grow up to fight.
The most important thing for the state was that everybody played their part according to how they had been categorised: male or female. Individual talents, needs, or desires didn't matter. A young man who didn't want to go to war might be mocked as a failure; a young woman who didn't want to have children or wasn't motherly could be condemned as unnatural.
As documented by the American historian Gerda Lerner, written records from that time show women gradually disappearing from the public world of work and leadership, and being pushed into the domestic shadows to focus on motherhood and domestic labour. This combined with the practice of patrilocal marriage, in which daughters are expected to leave their childhood homes to live with their husbands’ families, marginalised women and made them vulnerable to exploitation and abuse in their own homes. Over time, marriage turned into a rigid legal institution that treated women as property of their husbands, as were children and slaves.
Rather than beginning in the family, then, history points instead to patriarchy beginning with those in power in the first states. Demands from the top filtered down into the family, forcing ruptures in the most basic human relationships, even those between parents and their children. It sowed distrust between those whom people might otherwise turn to for love and support. No longer were people living for themselves and those closest to them. Now, they were living in the interests of the patriarchal state.
A preference for sons is still a feature of traditionally patriarchal countries today, including India and China, where the bias has led to such high rates of female foeticide that sex ratios are grossly skewed. The 2011 Indian Census showed it had 111 boys for every 100 girls, although data suggests these figures are improving as social norms change in favour of daughters.
Exploitation of women within patriarchal marriages continues. Forced marriage, the most extreme version of this, was designated a form of modern-day slavery by the International Labour Organization in its statistics for the first time in 2017. The most recent estimates, from 2021, indicate that 22 million people globally live in forced marriages.
The lasting psychological damage of the patriarchal state was to make its gendered order appear normal, even natural, in the same way that class and racial oppression have historically been framed as natural by those in power. Those social norms became today's gender stereotypes, including the idea that women are universally caring and nurturing and that men are all naturally violent and suited to war. By deliberately confining people to narrow gender roles, patriarchy disadvantaged not just women, but also many men. Its intention was only ever to serve those at the very top: society's elites.
Like Monkey Hill at London Zoo in the 1920s, then, this is a warped system, one that has fostered distrust and abuse. Movements for gender equality across the world are symptoms of the social tension humans have been living with in patriarchal societies for centuries. As the political theorist Anne Philips has written, "Anyone, given half a chance, will prefer equality and justice to inequality and injustice."
As daunting as the struggle against patriarchy may feel at times, though, there is nothing in our nature that says we can't live differently. A society made by humans can also be remade by humans.
*Angela Saini is a science journalist and author of four books. This essay is based on her latest, The Patriarchs: How Men Came to Rule, which was recently shortlisted for the Orwell Prize.
women have been cohered and forced to have men’s babies for thousands of years, and now that we have the ability to perform medically safe abortions they want to take it away and part of the reason is “what if he wants children” okay well what if i fucking DONT
Also like, who fucking cares if he wants children? His body isn't growing the child isn't donating its nutrients to the child, isn't literally rearranging its organs to accomodate the child. A man can't DIE from having a child nor be submitted to life-threatening conditions during the process of creating a child. So if he wants a child, WAH WAH. Find a woman who wants one.
