No title available
AnasAbdin
$LAYYYTER
pixel skylines
Love Begins
One Nice Bug Per Day
NASA
almost home
Sade Olutola
wallacepolsom
tannertan36
Lint Roller? I Barely Know Her
Three Goblin Art
PR's Tumblrdome
Keni
todays bird
Mike Driver
No title available
d e v o n
Monterey Bay Aquarium
seen from United States
seen from Malaysia
seen from Malaysia
seen from United States
seen from Canada
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from Australia
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from Portugal
seen from Australia
seen from South Korea
seen from Germany
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from Türkiye
seen from Türkiye
@rightoidinterloper
Awwww what a nice video about a well-done and respectful trans woman character in an anime, I wonder what the first comment is
CAN YOU BASTARDS LET WOMEN HAVE ANYTHING WITHOUT MAKING IT ABOUT YOURSELVES
okay wow, trans inclusionary lowkey misandrist? that's a... self consistent position...?
im a political blog i can't have hobbies
sorry for calling a predatory misogynistic sexpest “he” will you ever forgive me
ah yes, feminist infighting. clown civil war effectively
on the libfem side, "harmless post venting about cishet men" are we just... is misandry okay? the problem is that it hurts a group we care about?? would it not be a problem if "oh i only mean cishet men" was added??? it's like if someone argued "oh what seems like a harmless post venting about black men can have harmful intentions towards white men" like hello??? elephant in the room? (this is only a contradiction because libfems claim to be for equality. if you don't actually believe in that this doesn't apply to you)
on the terf hand... touch grass? unironically i think most terfs need medication, a therapist, and an internet detox more than they need logical argumentation. the logic for misandry is sound, but that doesn't mean the numbers you put in are correct. most terfs significantly overestimate the prevalence of dangerous men and their threat level. like, treating women with office jobs as if they encounter the same demographic as strippers do (ignore everything i've said if you are actually a stripper or prostitute or whatever btw, the men who buy those services are almost as dangerous as terfs claim average men are)
“Misandry” and its either common sense or misogyny with extra steps
“Men can’t cry!” because emotions have been deemed feminine and “feminine = bad.” Same with wearing pink and being a stay at home parent.
“Men have to pay for meals!” because women couldn’t make money for a long time and it became tradition.
“Men have body standards too!” which are the exception instead of the expectation. Men can strive to be muscular and tall with lots of body hair, but women have to be skinny, petite, shaven, with big, but not too big boobs.
“Women avoid men!” I wonder why…
“Women never give guys a chance!” because they don’t owe you a date, dingus. No one owes that to anyone else.
“But the ‘Kill all men!’ and ‘I beat my husband 🤪’ people!” a 13 year old making a bad joke on the internet isn’t oppression.
Male victims are absolutely valid but that’s still not misandry. In fact, woman on man crime is usually excused because “woman weak, man strong! a woman could never hurt a man!”
When I say feminism is anti patriarchy and not anti men, this is what I mean. The patriarchy and misogyny hurts men too (although you shouldn’t need it to hurt men to fight against it).
ahhh this one
"misandry is common sense" i have already addressed this in a poorly written post. tl;dr: it is, accepting that it means every other kind of discrimination is both not fallacious and not a property rights violation (although might be factually untrue) is the hard pill to swallow
the rest is interesting, so let's go one by one
“Men can’t cry!” aren't men biologically less capable of crying? besides that, i also seemingly doubt this author actually gives a fuck. ad hominem and mind reading yes, but it is just giving "i only mentioned this because it was on the list" speaking of, i don't actually consider this a problem and don't have a real counter argument anyways. might write a post about it after researching the topic
"Same with wearing pink" kinda strange that they went with pink instead of like a dress or something. or maybe the author just didn't think about it idk the origin of gender roles is complicated and i might have to put this in its own post.
wow these first two are wrecking me, and we aren't even out of the first paragraph, at this rate i might even have to reconsider-
"being a stay at home parent." yeah this one isn't it... to make a long story short: >woman get pregnant >pregnancy make work hard >men need work harder to support their children when women not working >childcare needs means one parent should stay home >mother best option to stay home because she has milk (not as important anymore) and the aftermath of pregnancy >mother ends up staying home longer and raising the kids, father ends up working >monkey brain compiles this into a Meme, and forgets the origin >a father who isn't working has failed at his job of supporting the family and is thus bad
if it's still too long: stay at home mother trend is biological in origin. humans are stupid animals. stupid animals make stupid decisions
"“Men have to pay for meals!” because women couldn’t make money for a long time and it became tradition." no notes. trvth nvke.
"Men have body standards too!" no problem here? like men have body standards so they need to fit it or find someone who doesn't care; women need to do it too. if there's other people who you aren't dating who care... fuck 'em? legitimately women just need to take the advice men get on this, gynocapistan might be on a hill, but it was built on the same clay as androcapistan
"“Women avoid men!” I wonder why…" i wonder why...
“Women never give guys a chance!” the invisible hand of the dating market tried to hang itself, but couldn't find a neck to wrap the noose around. dating is fundamentally broken
"because they don’t owe you a date, dingus. No one owes that to anyone else." i need to go over this with my "incels are gender communists" post i keep putting off. this reasoning is entirely correct, the average left winger just... isn't ready to accept the consequences "nobody owes anyone anything" necessarily ends in ancapistan. "okay but love is special and cant be bought" yes, it is. please follow that to its logical conclusions and realize just how grimdark and fundamentally doomed the world we live in is.
"But the ‘Kill all men!’ and ‘I beat my husband 🤪’ people!" which 13 year olds have husbands???
"a 13 year old making a bad joke on the internet isn’t oppression." you see. voters* are people. people are humans. humans are stupid animals. you can say "you shouldn't care about this" all you want, but it doesn't make them stop caring (*not just men. women are people and thus also capable of caring) democracy is rule of majority and inherently authoritarian, every ballot is one millionth of a gun held to your head. we live in democracies, so you have to actually appeal to a voter base, because that voter base is holding a gun to your head to force you to comply with their demands. "your concerns don't matter, shut up and let us continue to care about real people" isn't a message that wins over voters
"Male victims are absolutely valid but that’s still not misandry. In fact, woman on man crime is usually excused because “woman weak, man strong! a woman could never hurt a man!”" ah yes, misandry is when men are specifically treated as less than for very specific reasons, but misogyny is when anything happens at all that's different based on gender... uh huh yes men being perceived as worse people is actually misogyny... uh huh. i wrote an incoherent rambling post that's tangentially relevant
"When I say feminism is anti patriarchy and not anti men, this is what I mean. The patriarchy and misogyny hurts men too"
feminism in its most self consistent form is opposition to gender roles. but... a self consistent gender equality movement has very little in common with feminism, especially not the names language is a social construct, and if you have to clarify a word again and again and again, maybe that word is a terrible word for that concept. take a look at "physical removal", it's about a social boycot and is very much non-physical (unless you start violating the NAP). even "anarcho capitalism" implies the wrong things. those names are dogshit and the ancaps really need to change them similarly, feminism's concepts are poorly named and their names need to be changed for clarity.
"(although you shouldn’t need it to hurt men to fight against it)." you know i could just do a word replacement here, but there's a more insightful point to be made: the genders are inherently tied together. problems for one inevitably become problems for the other, either because of obvious consequences, or because they have the barest, minimal, microscopic modicum of empathy, or in the worst case because they're dating
for example: women living under some very goofy rules (that should've been more part of an actual social contract signed when joining the community instead of law) ends up in the creation of a very goofy neo-marxist ideology men living with the very goofy rules (that should've been more part of an actual social contract signed when joining the community instead of law) and the rules the new goofy ideology made, ends up in people rejecting said goofy neo-marxist ideology
Overall Rating (unserious but tradition): 5/10 overall, would have been 7/10. great propaganda, but held back by re-iterating some narratives that the average "feminism hurts men" reader has heard and calcified their opinions on.
i remember someone said that it "feels like being made a second class citizen in your own victimhood," which i think best describes why it lost two points for this
Fun Experiment: the treatment of men is actually so consistently apathetic across the political spectrum that it might as well be the baseline. i don't recommend using "treatment in comparison to men" to measure just how strong biases are in a serious way but it would be a lot of fun to run that operation
you left out some really interesting words when quoting my post! do you, uh, wanna read it again? no? yeah didnt think so
i mean if you want me to go over every single word i can do that
you were given orders, you were given time, and yet i find you unprepared for equality
no seriously y'all had an entire philosophy and effectively the entire culture dedicated towards figuring out "how do we do gender equality?" and y'all still fucked it up
is it really that hard to consider the other sex as like, actual people??? can y'all not do that??? we have BOOKS on this shit and you can't figure it out???
like no wonder civilizations who's only experience of the concept of gender is "oh these guys are stronger and better at doing what's needed" and "these guys are like half useless when they do the baby thing we're a few millennia too early to actually comprehend" come up with the idea of women being worse
"blood is unclean because its icky gross" "but women produce blood without being wounded?" "so women are unclean got it" "i'd make a counter-argument but we're desert dwelling tribes in 3000 BC and thus have no idea what a period is"
but like at least when they do it they have the excuse of no scientific backing and a world where strength is life or death, where's your excuse for thinking boys have cooties when there's an entire philosophy industrial complex literally right there?
VERY serious dismantling of TERF ideology
"i believe in equality for everyone. except men i don't like them. i HATE the demographic most likely to kill people, i want them to know that, and i want them to live in a world where everyone else hates them too, but won't do the bare minimum to keep them even mildly content. i am canonically a rational and intelligent character."-villain of a dystopian YA novel that ends in the government falling apart due to revolution
terfs need to take more inspiration from the nazis, ripping their propaganda isn't enough tbh "no no, ze evil zoldiers go on your side and oppress ze outsiders; putting ze stormtroopwaffen on ze outgroup team leaves you defenseless"
transphobes dont see trans women and trans men too differently, they see us all as “trannys” and we can stop trying to give their bigotry microlabels
they do actually, see the reasoning goes that "trans women are icky boys sneaking into women's spaces," and "trans men are idk men or something can we deny-deflect-downplay to someone i care about?"
both TERFs and conservative transphobes do this, i suspect it's because fear and lack of empathy are things that happen to men, so you always want to focus on men when demonizing your outgroup
“Misandry” and its either common sense or misogyny with extra steps
“Men can’t cry!” because emotions have been deemed feminine and “feminine = bad.” Same with wearing pink and being a stay at home parent.
“Men have to pay for meals!” because women couldn’t make money for a long time and it became tradition.
“Men have body standards too!” which are the exception instead of the expectation. Men can strive to be muscular and tall with lots of body hair, but women have to be skinny, petite, shaven, with big, but not too big boobs.
“Women avoid men!” I wonder why…
“Women never give guys a chance!” because they don’t owe you a date, dingus. No one owes that to anyone else.
“But the ‘Kill all men!’ and ‘I beat my husband 🤪’ people!” a 13 year old making a bad joke on the internet isn’t oppression.
Male victims are absolutely valid but that’s still not misandry. In fact, woman on man crime is usually excused because “woman weak, man strong! a woman could never hurt a man!”
When I say feminism is anti patriarchy and not anti men, this is what I mean. The patriarchy and misogyny hurts men too (although you shouldn’t need it to hurt men to fight against it).
ahhh this one
"misandry is common sense" i have already addressed this in a poorly written post. tl;dr: it is, accepting that it means every other kind of discrimination is both not fallacious and not a property rights violation (although might be factually untrue) is the hard pill to swallow
the rest is interesting, so let's go one by one
“Men can’t cry!” aren't men biologically less capable of crying? besides that, i also seemingly doubt this author actually gives a fuck. ad hominem and mind reading yes, but it is just giving "i only mentioned this because it was on the list" speaking of, i don't actually consider this a problem and don't have a real counter argument anyways. might write a post about it after researching the topic
"Same with wearing pink" kinda strange that they went with pink instead of like a dress or something. or maybe the author just didn't think about it idk the origin of gender roles is complicated and i might have to put this in its own post.
wow these first two are wrecking me, and we aren't even out of the first paragraph, at this rate i might even have to reconsider-
"being a stay at home parent." yeah this one isn't it... to make a long story short: >woman get pregnant >pregnancy make work hard >men need work harder to support their children when women not working >childcare needs means one parent should stay home >mother best option to stay home because she has milk (not as important anymore) and the aftermath of pregnancy >mother ends up staying home longer and raising the kids, father ends up working >monkey brain compiles this into a Meme, and forgets the origin >a father who isn't working has failed at his job of supporting the family and is thus bad
if it's still too long: stay at home mother trend is biological in origin. humans are stupid animals. stupid animals make stupid decisions
"“Men have to pay for meals!” because women couldn’t make money for a long time and it became tradition." no notes. trvth nvke.
"Men have body standards too!" no problem here? like men have body standards so they need to fit it or find someone who doesn't care; women need to do it too. if there's other people who you aren't dating who care... fuck 'em? legitimately women just need to take the advice men get on this, gynocapistan might be on a hill, but it was built on the same clay as androcapistan
"“Women avoid men!” I wonder why…" i wonder why...
“Women never give guys a chance!” the invisible hand of the dating market tried to hang itself, but couldn't find a neck to wrap the noose around. dating is fundamentally broken
"because they don’t owe you a date, dingus. No one owes that to anyone else." i need to go over this with my "incels are gender communists" post i keep putting off. this reasoning is entirely correct, the average left winger just... isn't ready to accept the consequences "nobody owes anyone anything" necessarily ends in ancapistan. "okay but love is special and cant be bought" yes, it is. please follow that to its logical conclusions and realize just how grimdark and fundamentally doomed the world we live in is.
"But the ‘Kill all men!’ and ‘I beat my husband 🤪’ people!" which 13 year olds have husbands???
"a 13 year old making a bad joke on the internet isn’t oppression." you see. voters* are people. people are humans. humans are stupid animals. you can say "you shouldn't care about this" all you want, but it doesn't make them stop caring (*not just men. women are people and thus also capable of caring) democracy is rule of majority and inherently authoritarian, every ballot is one millionth of a gun held to your head. we live in democracies, so you have to actually appeal to a voter base, because that voter base is holding a gun to your head to force you to comply with their demands. "your concerns don't matter, shut up and let us continue to care about real people" isn't a message that wins over voters
"Male victims are absolutely valid but that’s still not misandry. In fact, woman on man crime is usually excused because “woman weak, man strong! a woman could never hurt a man!”" ah yes, misandry is when men are specifically treated as less than for very specific reasons, but misogyny is when anything happens at all that's different based on gender... uh huh yes men being perceived as worse people is actually misogyny... uh huh. i wrote an incoherent rambling post that's tangentially relevant
"When I say feminism is anti patriarchy and not anti men, this is what I mean. The patriarchy and misogyny hurts men too"
feminism in its most self consistent form is opposition to gender roles. but... a self consistent gender equality movement has very little in common with feminism, especially not the names language is a social construct, and if you have to clarify a word again and again and again, maybe that word is a terrible word for that concept. take a look at "physical removal", it's about a social boycot and is very much non-physical (unless you start violating the NAP). even "anarcho capitalism" implies the wrong things. those names are dogshit and the ancaps really need to change them similarly, feminism's concepts are poorly named and their names need to be changed for clarity.
"(although you shouldn’t need it to hurt men to fight against it)." you know i could just do a word replacement here, but there's a more insightful point to be made: the genders are inherently tied together. problems for one inevitably become problems for the other, either because of obvious consequences, or because they have the barest, minimal, microscopic modicum of empathy, or in the worst case because they're dating
for example: women living under some very goofy rules (that should've been more part of an actual social contract signed when joining the community instead of law) ends up in the creation of a very goofy neo-marxist ideology men living with the very goofy rules (that should've been more part of an actual social contract signed when joining the community instead of law) and the rules the new goofy ideology made, ends up in people rejecting said goofy neo-marxist ideology
Overall Rating (unserious but tradition): 5/10 overall, would have been 7/10. great propaganda, but held back by re-iterating some narratives that the average "feminism hurts men" reader has heard and calcified their opinions on.
i remember someone said that it "feels like being made a second class citizen in your own victimhood," which i think best describes why it lost two points for this
Fun Experiment: the treatment of men is actually so consistently apathetic across the political spectrum that it might as well be the baseline. i don't recommend using "treatment in comparison to men" to measure just how strong biases are in a serious way but it would be a lot of fun to run that operation
how happy do you think men were when they discovered they could destroy any pro-woman argument (anti-kink, anti-prostitution, anti-pornography, et cetera) with “that’s terf/radfem rhetoric” and people would listen? how happy do you think men were when they realized they could switch from ‘misandrist’ (too heavily associated with MRAs, not taken seriously by feminists) to ‘terf’ (scary prospect to be called, grounds for being cancelled, easy to guilt feminists with)? must have been a really good day for them.
men
error: overly specified
that's right we're doing post reviews!
"how happy do you think men were when they discovered" men didn't discover shit, libfems did. i suspect the gender ratio of people calling them "TERFs" is north of 60:40 in women's favor. this is how you can tell radfems are leftoids btw, they really do this kind of collectivist argument
"any pro-woman argument (anti-kink, anti-prostitution, anti-pornography, et cetera)" libfems (again, not men) are against these because they're what the right believes btw. TERFs are sooo close to it, they're still just stuck on collectivism. if they embraced a more individualist philosophy they could ascend. i should write a TERF post
"with “that’s terf/radfem rhetoric” and people would listen? how happy do you think men were when they realized they could switch from ‘misandrist’ (too heavily associated with MRAs, not taken seriously by feminists) to ‘terf’ (scary prospect to be called, grounds for being cancelled, easy to guilt feminists with)? must have been a really good day for them." i can sooo relate to getting jumped with ad hominem accusations by the left and especially feminism. like the way they dismiss both MRAs and misandrists despite agreeing with both is sooo bad faith. hey we have so much in common, how about we stop by my politics, we take your collectivist neomarxism off, and we see some true freedom (/s)
2/10 propaganda only works for people who agree with you already, doesn't get over the kneejerk rejection poor factual basis, mistakes "anti-TERF" for "men" when that is not the case. also a mistake every leftist culture war eventually makes. eg, feminists mistaking "anti-feminist" for "men". or feminists mistaking "anti-feminist" for "misogynystic." or feminists mistaking "neo-marxism" for "making sense" -1 point for not realizing how similar this is to MRAs, men complaining about their problems, or rightoid idpol
1/10, terrible post. would have been a 0 or -1, but got clamped because it doesn't actually inspire hatred in me. 0 is reserved for the worst of the worst
Brown men say it's white men
White men say it's brown men
Left wing men say it's right wing men
Right wing men say it's left wing men
Muslim men say it's Christian men
Christian men say it's muslim men
Poor men say it's billionare men
Billionaire men say it's poor men
Gay men say it's straight men
Straight men say it's gay men
What's the common denominator? Are you noticing a pattern here?
i figured out reblogging so i can do this now
5/10 propaganda. might convince someone who isn't already on board, but generally they're going to be thinking "well some of them are just wrong"
poor factual basis, specifically >straight, right wing and white men don't blame the other guy >muslims and billionaires skip the "giving a shit what women think" step and thus don't bother blaming someone else >most of these other groups don't really bother with gender war. like only straight men really care and they don't blame the gays
good writing with the pairings, but that pairing clearly took over the factual basis
3/10 overall. mediocre propaganda, questionable factual basis, good writing technique that becomes a negative with how it takes over the post
"What Does She Bring To The Table?"
or: "an analysis of gender roles and dating from a female perspective under an anti-feminist and monogamy bargain framework" for an incredibly pretentious alternative title.
recomended reading: The Monogamy Bargain, evopsych slop (now selling on every non-sleeping dating forum), required reading: "how to recognize if content from a heterosexual female perspective isn't about you" by Dr. R. Gray (r is short for rainbow)
now immediately, your misogyny neurons might start tingling. why does a woman have to "bring something to the table" to be worth something? shouldn't being a person be enough?
Just Existing Is Not Enough:
there's a myth going around that all a woman has to do to get a relationship is just stand there, or that women are better partners than men on average, or that men are somehow worse people because they're less desired. this comes from failing to properly comprehend how men operate (yes i'm talking about men in a women centric post, physically impossible to get away from that with dating)
think about the perfect man. you know, morally good, cute, funny, wealthy (optional), is a woman (optional), and somehow miraculously single. if you already have a boyfriend or husband, think of him instead. if you don't, you should probably communicate with him about this.
now think about this: you're not really that special. if you like him, it's likely women similar to you also like him. now consider his perspective*, he's got all these women who are willing to date him, and almost all of them just, have** a functional*** reproductive system. if you bring yourself to the table, you're going to be competing against all the other women who bring themselves
well the government can't regulate this market, so you've got to compete. be better than the others so he selects you****, be a high value- wait a second
if you want a high value man you have to be a high value woman? what??
*get used to this btw, men who tolerate women who don't consider his perspective are... questionable boyfriends **demographically, a good portion of the audience who actually does this experiment aren't terfs, implying their "perfect man" wouldn't actually mind someone without a female reproductive tract... hmm... (obviously doesn't apply if you're anti-T) ***caveat for women who are infertile. or on birth control and don't want children. or just... listen you get the point by now ****you have to select him back btw, you're not just an item on the shelf and a trade requires two way consent. eg, you both need to pick eachother. this also means you shouldn't settle for terrible men
Hey Wait A Second I Recognize This:
it's time i talk about the elephant in the room: men "didn't you already talk about men?" only in the way they're relevant to your dating, now we're talking about them as actual people (humanize them more than i did btw, i'm not liable if you date a man who is fine with people being treated like that)
"being better so he selects you," "filter for men who don't suck," "bring more to the table than your competition" this is just bootstraps rhetoric. specifically, it's the same low level redpill stuff, but for women
which... is not a coincidence.
once you get to the point where the men bring more value than a woman's uterus, then it becomes a more equal exchange. sure you wouldn't have to bring quite as much other "stuff" as a man would, but a million dollar man isn't going to notice ten thousand dollar ovaries, and getting 10k off your own million dollar value means you still need to be worth 990k to match him (metaphorical dollars. a man who dates a woman who only likes him for his cash is likely to trade you in for a newer model)
the reason the male dating situation seems so out there is their struggle to get past the hurdle of being worth more than a vagina, and then go all the way up to an actual normal person. you're effectively starting on flat ground while they're in a hole, so y'know, check your privilege? (stop digging.)
from in that pit, it seems incredibly unfair that everyone else gets to stand on even ground. it is unfair, we just don't give a fuck. and i'm not really here to convince you to believe fairness is a good thing; just that you shouldn't pretend you believe in it if you don't
What Even Is Value:
by value i mean subjective valuation by people you're willing to date, not an objective value measurement.
a man's racist alpha male group chat calling him a gigachad doesn't make him more attractive (unless it does. you do you girl, just remember all single men are single for a reason, and it's your job to determine if he's a hidden gem, an uncracked geode, a poison that tastes like ambrosia to your species, or a "this man is not a man of honor" situation)
the only thing that determines your subjective aggregate value is what the people you're willing to date think your value is. doesn't matter if all the girls think you're a 10 if you give off a pheromone that repels men from your area, and it doesn't matter if conservative men think you're a 6/7 when you want to date a breadtuber (questionable choice but i'm not one to prevent women from making decisions, even if they're bad ones)
Okay So What Do I Do With This:
... be aware? i guess? i mean you can try to reverse engineer some pinkpill from the redpill guys but that's questionable at best
like men, all single women are single for a reason. so if you're a single woman and looking to date a single man, you have to try and understand what's wrong with both of you. if there isn't a major malfunction there, you haven't been looking hard enough
Conclusion:
*rips a blunt* "duuude like, what if the humans were the same species and like... and they looked and acted differently, but they were like... the same deep inside?" "stop tearing my weapons and pretending you're high" *the ear splitting screech of a sledgehammer being torn in half* "duuuude i'm seeing like the ninth dimension or something... what if like, what if they both wanted the same thing but couldn't see it because-" *hic* "-'cause they weren't programmed for it, and there was like a big irony theme" "Interloper, your OC species sounds stupid"
-"""Chronicles""" of the Interloper, a satire
Medical Rant
"average female sexual disease never cured" fact check: half true
female biology is an incredibly complex control panel with none of its buttons labeled, and you're pretty sure half of it is either built or run by chatGPT but can't be certain because it disappears when you cut it open like quantum mechanics male biology is a brick with a single LED labeled "on"
periods and pregnancy are complex, multifaceted operations using all sorts of different hormones, tissues and systems. a dick produces semen unconditionally until he dies
the diseases women get (fibroids, endometriosis, etc) are all very complex and hard to deal with because the female reproductive system is complex and hard to deal with.
male diseases are easier to cure because there's jack shit going on inside there. men can't get uterus lining in their ovaries because they don't *have* either, and testes don't grow uterus lining
tl;dr: this is the biggest criticism of equality and it's accidental too. turns out, humans aren't equal, especially not sexually. so either we have equality and diseases go uncured, or we don't have equality and focus on just helping people, and end up living in a world where women get more resources and assets just for who they are.
of course, there's a third option, but you might not like it very much
Unpack it down skittles squad, i got a post for you
actually not you rainbow people, this is only for the cotton candies. the blue to pink sylveon ones.
trans women, MTF, tim, whatever your specific branch of culture war brainrot calls them, just ctrl f replace it mentally, language is a social construct and i'm sure you know who i mean by now
actually scratch that you pinkblue shiny sylveon get back here sorry i jumped you too fast (trans men, FTM, ti- whatever you get it)
this post is abouuut AGP (and AAP); that's right, the rightoid is finally talking about it
But AGP (and AAP) Doesn't Exist!
we taught rats to have a jacket fetish, teaching humans to be into getting very close to what they're attracted to is less out there than something like tiles.
now that i've burned down the literal reading, we can stop fighting strawmen and get to the actual point they tried to get at:
AGP (and AAP) Isn't The Cause Behind People Being Trans!:
obviously an exception must exist, but this is trying instead to get at "that's not the reason all of them are like that" which... sure? the exact percentage isn't measurable, or rather it is but is nearly impossible, but it's clearly neither 0% nor 100% but... hmm... let's dive another level down
AGP (and AAP) Can't Be The Cause Because It Would Invalidate Them:
i've got the inside scoop on this one because i'm actually a rightoid (and an interloper!), and this is... well it's a consequence of the left's poor handling due to making propaganda for questionably competent people
the far right ancap answer is that you own your own body (or your parents do if you're a minor), so nobody can really prevent you from buying some estrogen or testosterone if you feel like it. sure a hoppean private community could kick you out, but you could just join one that doesn't. the inability to regulate makes it impossible to regulate well or poorly. (i'm more moderate than ancaps, so this might not exactly be the case)
the mistake the left made was basing it on moral validation. "give trans people their heckin' rights because they're heckin' valid" instead of "hey why exactly can't companies sell you this without a prescription? why isn't someone grabbing the tech and making cheap, safe and effective hormones? we can do it and there's a market for it (eg, DIY), so why can't trans people just do it themselves without even needing to see this bum ass healthcare system?" (the answer is government btw; if the market doesn't do something it's usually the government)
post over right? not... exactly.
The Deepest Layer:
see, here's the thing. why does AGP being the cause invalidate them? you want to be the the opposite gender and think life would be better if you did it; how is it being a mental illness or part of who you are or your brain structure any more or less valid than it being a sick fetish?
these aren't rhetorical questions by the way, and unfortunately for everyone involved, they have an answer:
AGP is gross.
you may have noticed, i didn't add "(and AAP)", that's because they never really cared about their existence. here at the deepest layer, we don't even have to pretend they ever cared.
obviously something something misandry something something male sexuality is gross/creepy/scary something something people are way less accepting of kink than they think something something "transmisogyny measurably doesn't apply here because they aren't concerned about gyny," not the point, go to your tumblr curators for that post
no, i'm here to own the libs for being self contradictory. at its core the denial of AGP (and AAP) existing is because they think it would invalidate trans people, and they think that because they don't really believe you should be able to just identify as whatever you want and have everyone go with it.
someone who did believe that, but thought you didn't, would instead argue, well, what i just did here. "sure it exists, but it's not all of them, and not even a bad thing, educate yourself on this topic and stop fearing icky boys, or let me educate you instead"
man i'm a political blog but gah damn tumblr politics is brainrotted
like idk if i just don't know how to search but like everything left leaning is completely schizo and the only thing right of stalin is submissive bdsm content
enough shouting into the void, time to start shit
The Word Tangent
speaking of people knowing women and men were the same thing but different, apparently for english "man" was gender neutral, and the words were "wereman" and "wifman", which still exists today in "werewolf", making the correct word "wifwolf" and not "step on me mommy"
What Even Is Rape?
Trigger Warnings and Disclaimers:
i could just say "trigger warning: rape" here, but that's a joke. you wouldn't take it as seriously as you should. no, the real concern here is an irreverence for sex and callousness towards victims of sexual assault. if the phrase "rape is similar to a paper-cut" upsets you: you need to click off immediately. You have been warned.
Silly Haha Brainrot Warning: please be aware that this is trying to analyze why we believe the things we do. responding to "people believe the sky is blue because they look up and see it is blue, and it's blue because (tangent)" with "the sky is blue because it just is" is both kind of silly and literally making yourself exhibit A. try not to be a source of evidence, or at least provide something more than just evidence
I Can See Them Too You Aren't Special: i am not in fact arguing that rape is good. people who believe i'm saying that and think that's bad are making a strawman and should probably have read the previous two disclaimers. people who believe i'm saying that and think that's good are making a strawman and should probably have read this disclaimer, and maybe even read the actual post it's pretty interesting
Get On With It:
so what is rape? well in libertarian philosophy it's a property crime. specifically, violating the right to control your most important capital property: your body.
now something might immediately jump out at you, especially if you're a left-leaning individual or bluepilled generic dnc/rnc voter: "wait, no, rape is way worse than a mere property crime, what the fuck?"
Why We Believe Rape Is Worse Than A Mere Property Crime:
War of the Sexes; Monarch of The Earthen Hells
so you all know the generic story, species where the females control the most valuable resource (female reproductive ability) and thus select mates, males try their best to get control of it- wait a second
their goal is to get control of it, not be selected. so wouldn't it be more expedient to skip the whole mating dance and just take what you want by force?
well animals actually do this, and the female reproductive strategy hates it. not for any ensouled actual human reason like "feeling violated," we're talking about ducks, chickens and squirrels here, but because it takes away the ability to control reproduction. individuals that can't control reproduction reproduce worse than individuals that can.
the male reproductive strategy however loves getting raped. like, imagine companies sent you job offers, and then paid you for not doing anything. the only thing evolution loves more than ruthlessness is not having to put effort in.
you can tell this is the case because of anti-forcible-impregnation techniques various female animals implement, like the duck's famous ludicrous internal piping; and the subsequent pro-forcible-impregnation adaptations the males respond with, like the duck's famous ludicrous external piping.
you can also tell there's no care for how the individuals themselves feel, because none of these adaptations actually give a fuck about preventing insertion unless it's an efficient way to regain control.
nature is evil and ruthless basically, and you are a tool for its agenda, believing it's not sort of implies there's a supernatural force pulling against natural selection
Okay Back to Humans (evopsych slop yay)
You can immediately see some connections here. maybe that sense of violation and trauma is programming to make you hate this happening... unfortunately, it's evopsych, so it can't explain everything. humans have souls and are more than just puppets for their biology, human men aren't feral animals raping everything they see, believing that would be ludicrous. wink. (i'm throwing shade at this idea for reference, not really an argument just felt it would be good for the flow)
in chronological order of when the cultural hypothesis would have come about:
1a. the first is just "this thing makes me feel bad, so it's bad." given the previous section it's not hard to see why this would be a thing. (combined with "this makes them feel bad so it's bad" from the unfair sex. turns out both genders define culture, weird that.)
1b. cultures that didn't abhor rape ended up extinct cultural natural selection basically; rape is bad for the survival of your society, so if you don't crack down on it you end up not surviving. this in effect arguing that "Rape is Degenerate." which is really funny, but anyone who'd care about that has most assuredly stopped reading part of this might
1c. modern new stuff listen feminism got one thing right okay? i can admit when people i disagree with on other topics are correct
i could've sworn i had more for this section
So What Does Being a Property Crime Imply:
here's the thing. in terms of direct, physical harm, a rape that doesn't result in pregnancy has a similar level of permanent physical* impact as a workout. in the most measurable form it's as bad as a papercut. it's why evolution doesn't prevent penetration, only fighting against the expensive pregnancies (*not psychological and especially not cultural)
Retroactive Consent Withdrawal Doesn't Make Sense: Consenting: knowingly, while in control of your faculties, able to consent, and a complex asterisk for coercion vs sweetening the deal vs gun to your head vs bread to my locked box that leads towards a generalized capitalism vs communism debate.
consent in this framework is consenting to trading sexual encounter for... something. really, what matters is that at least one of them put sex in the deal. maybe both did and it's just a team effort, or maybe one's a prostitute and trading sex for money*, either way the sexual encounter's in the trade window.
once the deal has been made you can't just undo it. you can't just unfuck somebody. like withdrawing the consent makes sense if you can withdraw the act (like canceling mid session, or before you drop your pants), but you can't alter the past.
imagine you get a job, work your two weeks, get a paycheck, and then they're like "aactually we regret hiring you, we're taking the money back and we'll unhire you" you can't unwork those hours. you might be able to unmake the product you made on company time but you won't be able to go back and work on your hobbies instead. the HR manager just has to cope with losing that money to the company's bad decisionmaking
tl;dr: retroactive consent withdrawl is a really silly idea.
Tangent: retroactive consent is also silly, but it falls under "no harm no foul i guess?" it doesn't make the original act not rape, but you can't really prosecute a crime if the defense is the victim of it.
*you might have noticed that this kind of has a women vibe to it, right? like how prostitution is mostly women selling to men. that's because female reproduction is a much more scarce resource than male reproduction, and thus fetches a significantly higher price this is pretty clear and i've gone over it before, but it does lead to an interesting question: if property rights crimes are considered worse the more valuable something is, what about theft of an asset worth very little and easily replaced?
Male Victims of Having Your Uterus Stolen:
rape against men is treated a lot more like the papercut it is physically on the legal side and the "free stuff gifted to you" it is evolutionary on the cultural side. almost all of the "hey maybe raping men should be punished" that exists in the modern day is just bleed from women
like obviously it hurts them psychologically, but none of these forces that provide an objective value to an event actually care about psychological damage. or at least, not this specific kind dealt to men
"Male Victims of Having Your Uterus Stolen" is a triple entendre; the phrase "male victims of violence against women and girls" is the gift that just keeps. on. giving.*
So What Do We Do With This?:
honestly, i don't know. i just thought it would be interesting to think about and wrote my thoughts down on a page; it doesn't really change or advocate for changing anything.
negative emotions being borne of chemistry and biology doesn't make them less valid; "we only think rape against women is bad because we were programmed to; so thinking that is bad" is a really stupid argument,
humans are fundamentally irrational creatures at their core
side note: i forgot to actually say anything about women or people who are victims of sexual violence and aren't men; so women again. this is because they're kind of not really the point? what do you want me to say that hasn't already been said? if you need everyone to repeat "this is bad it's bad when it happens" every time sexual violence is brought up, then you really, really should have read my disclaimers
Stuff I Couldn't Fit In The Flow:
and had to cut
The Section 1a Rant:
tangent, and also killing one really bad argument i've seen: patriarchal societies without feminism are actually capable of feeling things when women feel things, like caring about what half the population thinks wasn't invented in 1920 in the US. it's blatantly obvious animals can feel things and they communicate non-verbally. a hypothetical human man who doesn't realize someone who is the same species, came out the same place, in the same way, and speaks the same language, is actually the same thing as him isn't a "brutish man in a patriarchal society," he has a developmental disorder. like imagine someone telling you with a straight face "matriarchal societies didn't even subconsciously consider male feelings on being tortured to death because men look slightly different and can't give birth so they're obviously less aware of what you do to them than actual plants"
the second entendre: was originally supposed to be in there, but ruined the flow
Tangent: while i'm on the topic, a certain bad take can be executed right now: "society doesn't care when women are raped"
like, no, sorry, society cares, a lot. we can tell it cares because it's illegal. a society that doesn't care wouldn't criminalize it. still to this day there are countries men don't show up in rape statistics because it turns out you can't fit a clit inside a dick
anyone who gives you stats that say shit like "men commit 99% of rapes" is too unaware of even the most basics of the topic to be worthy to say literally anything. sure it's an ad hominem fallacy but someone who will say with their full chest "rape is when men forcibly sex women" and then in the next breath say "women are better than men because they don't rape" is completely clueless.
Conclusion:
this post is a half finished mess; i might come back and edit or improve it as i think up new ideas. this is a shockingly interesting topic in fact
