#radixx

[dontvap0rdawave]

Radixx remake!

Honestly, if anyone remembers this guy, you count for a veterans discount

For those who don’t know, he was my first JSaB OC, who in the beggining was a more larger and agressive version of Lycanthropy. That still stands, but he’s also now a cacti plant god.

He’s angry, hes poisonous, very agressive, half metal, and can contort his body at will. The holes on his body let out steam and highly corrosive fluid which is very painful if any shape touches it, and is a bitch to get rid off unlike corruption.

He’s considered a Beast of Paradise (like Ghost), but he holds more of a status with the plant life in general. Also because he deliberately goes out of his way to mess with people (unlike Ghost).

But he’s not always that bad, in spring his spines can grow flowers and that’s nice... Except for the fact that some of the cacti can use those as drugs and that is not very nice but, oh well..

[lorynna]

genuinely curious: i know radfem isn’t necessarily separatism, but genuinely what other solution do you have? separatism is the easiest way to stay safe from men. “radfems” that continue to date men are not real radfems and are frankly hypocrites (idk if that’s you, just wondering what you think)

Thank you anon for your question. I will use this post to summarize & clarify my stance on female seperatism:

What radical feminism means by criticizing heterosexual relationships is highlighting they are in majority of cases characterized by a power imbalance, which is caused by patriarchal structures. It is supposed to bring attention to said imbalance and educate women about what it generally means to partner with a man and the risks that come with it, while also encouraging them that female seperatism is an option for them.

Partnering with a man is not feminist, but neither is partnering with a woman. Framing one as more "feminist" than the other, implicates that sexual or romantic orientation is a political position & that at the same time, there are both choice and morals imposed on that sexuality. It's not feminist to impose a moral hierarchy onto women's sexuality, as if choosing a female partner automatically absolves you of patriarchal dynamics, or as if loving a man makes you complicit by default.

But sexual and romantic attraction to someone doesn't automatically mean that we can't resist the urge to be with them, right? There is still a choice to be made to engage in an active partnership? Yes, that it true. The action of dating men definitely can be criticized (to a certain extent) but the breaking point is that I disagree with the way most seperatist feminists or especially blackpillers are going about this & how devoid of empathy those conversations often are.

A good way of approaching the subject of seperatism would be saying that "female seperatism is a great tool of radical feminism and many women would most likely be happier." Destigmatize and break down women's fears of being single, tell them more about arguments pro seperatism while also spreading awareness about how to pick up on signs of toxic relationships, how to get out of them and if you have the capacity: lend them a listening ear. You cannot do more than giving women the resources they need in order to come to their own conclusions and make their own decision. You can't force any woman into seperatism. The only thing aggressive pushing for it causes, is further alienating potential radfems or already existing radfems.

There already is a distinct type of feminism called "seperatist feminism". I don't believe it is productive to use the label radfem when what you really mean is seperatist and to then go and get mad at other radfems for not being seperatists.

I think that radfems who do partner with men already have the best resources; know which red flags to look out for and are aware of the potential risks. I do think it's possible for women to have loving and equal partnerships with men, but at the same time those are rare. I also believe that by partnering with a man you as a woman have to taken on the role of a "teacher" for their male partners misogyny for the rest of their lives. A burden no woman should have to take on and should be able to opt out of at any point in time but it is ultimately her burden to bear if she wants to.

I think radical feminist communities thrive best when we conceptualize ourselves as a collection of women who are all pursuing radical feminist actions VS picturing ourselves as individuals who's every action is automatically radically feminist by the nature of identifying as one.

The first option dilutes the community by stretching the ideology to cover whatever choices and actions people want to make or take, weakening it. The second one views the ideology to be separate of the individual, and asks the individual to be in alignment with it to be a part of the community.

I'm a radical feminist because I agree and align with the values of radical feminism, which means I try to make choices in alignment with radical feminist ideology, but since no person is politically pure, some of my actions sometimes won't be perfectly aligned & I have accepted that. (I'm still an individual aside from the political stance I take and personally, I am looking out for what I think is best for me over what is perfect.)

I want radical feminist communities to be a place to learn from each other, help each other, organize, discuss feminist literature and to encourage one another to try and stick to radical feminist actions wherever we personally can. I don't want it to be a chronically online hive mind.

HERE is another take from me about female seperatism, focusing on a better approach and how the current one often openly discredites & berates non seperatist women, which is not beneficial when the goal is to convince them to join the movement.

All you can do is provide someone with resources. What they do is always their choice. It is neither a good investment of your energy to try and force anyone into something they haven't freely chosen for themselves out of genuine conviction & comittment nor is it to start and shame them if they decline.

To answer your question: What solution do I have?

Black and white thinking is sadly incredibly common on radblr whereas nuance is often unwelcome. A person not partaking in seperatism or criticizing aspects of the online discourse is often seen as "being against it" in the sense of "If you're not with me, you're against me!" Which is not true.

The truth is that it is unrealistic to expect all osa women to refrain from dating men and I repeat: you cannot force women into seperatism. What is the alternative to accepting that not all women will want to join the movement of seperatism?

Does this now mean that all effort is futile and you should stop separating yourself from men or talking about the positive effects seperatism? Also no!

Regarding seperatism, it involves more than "not dating men". Broken down quickly, it means actively centering women in your life whenever possible. Reading books written by women, listening to music made by women, supporting female owned brands, prioritize female friendships, overall taking actions that benefit women as a class, using micro feminism in daily life... - which is something that can still be done for radfems with male partners.

More and more I am continuing to see how different the type of separatism being portrayed on tumblr is to real life separatism. Tumblr separatism rarely moves beyond aesthetic disillusionment and personal boundaries that are framed as moral superiority. It's less about dismantling structures of male dominance and more about creating an ingroup identity based on who has successfully renounced men, sex, or relationships.

Tumblr separatism is often portrayed in a performative-purity-test kind of way with little real world application. This stands in stark contrast to real life separatist movements like the one in South Korea, where women aren't just retreating from men for ideological validation, but organizing around concrete political demands: safer public spaces, legal reforms, and systemic protections from male violence.

Those women aren't measuring each other's worth by relationship status, instead they are strategizing, marching, building, and resisting collectively.

Holding men accountable doesn't require pretending that they're a monolith, nor does having a male partner mean that this woman believes she's "found the only good man" or sees herself as some kind of superior person that is exempt from male harm. It means she understand structural power, context and that individuals exist within that and can consciously choose to reject and work on their socialization. The point of feminist analysis isn't to retreat into separatism as a defense mechanism and call it morality, it's to understand the world enough to navigate it with clarity, not fear.

Trying to redefine the label “radfem” as a "female separatist" aka women who reject all contact with men is historical revisionism. It strips radical feminism of its political roots and turns it into a lifestyle identity. The original movement wasn't about personal virtue, it was about collective resistance. Rewriting the label erases its history and silences/excludes the women who built it and if your definition of radical feminism would've kicked out the founders, maybe rethink it, because you might be engaging in historical gatekeeping and no true scotsman fallacies. Movements are defined by their originators and core texts.

I have written another post about this topic of historical revisionism when it comes to "radfems can't be het partnered" in particular.

Regardless, every radical feminist action any woman takes, regardless of if she is 30% radical feminst, 90% radical feminist, or 0% radical feminist, is an action that is good for her and other women.

And another woman in the fight is another woman in the fight, right?

I might add to this text or work on this in the future.

[lorynna]

reg the WizardLiz thing (but also in general) i also get annoyed when everyone insists that all horrible men are unavoidable and undetectable and their evidence for this is that all women who get together with men who turn out abusive/cheaters/neglectful etc. at one point thought their man was "different"

simply bc thats really not true, first, because it assumes all women generally have the same standards and recognize the same things as red flags and second because (and this is more personal) it can make one feel completely powerless when it comes to identifying men ones vicinity to stay away from.

take for example women like Liz who believe in such a thing as a divine feminine energy or whatever. i think if you asked her "would it be a red flag for you if your man insisted women shave and be feminine and put a lot of effort into their appearance?" she would likely say no, not at all, thats a normal expectation. just like if you asked a self proclaimed "traditional woman" if she thinks its a red flag when a man says he wants to be leader of his household, that women should stay in the kitchen and kids should be seen not heard, she would mosy definitely say no, not a red flag at all, completely normal. i remember my ex BFFs boyfriend who i hated and all the red flags i constantly pointed out to her but she truly did not share my opinion that having cheated on her multiple times, being homophobic, calling her misogynistic slurs, trying to control what she wears and where she goes, were behaviors that inherently made him a misogynist and disqualified him from being a good boyfriend immediately. after that, she dated a guy who literally called himself a misogynist, like telling her point blank, and when i said how insane it was to date a guy like that because hello youre a woman he doesnt respect and hates you! she laughed and said not its not like that shes not like other women so he wouldnt hate her its just all his previous girlfriends were sluts so its understandable he hates women now. like my chin hit the floor bro...

if you asked average women if porn, bdsm, interest in much younger women, a showboating personality, having one-night-stands, believing in gender roles, not taking womens advice, getting loud and aggressive when playing video games.... and so much more socially acceptable stuff, are red flags to them inherently, they would majority of the time say no. because the vast majority of women arent second wave oriented feminists who see the misogyny poking through in everything, or they simply have misogynistic believes themselves that they ofc wouldnt see as taboo suddenly if a man shared them.

maybe this is a bit of a cope because i couldnt live with a reality where most men are like evil chameleons as in that they manage to fool you perfectly all the time, even when you do truly see many more sentiments and behaviors as evidence of misogynistic beliefs than the average person.

What you just shared is such an important reminder of how deeply normalized misogyny is in our patriarchal society and that there isn't a one shoe fits all type of situation. The average woman doesn't even think about male crime stats or the broader patterns of abusive male behavior. So when they meet someone, they see the individual, not the statistical profile.

It's also crucial to point out that what looks like a red flag to one woman might appear completely harmless or even desirable to another. You can break things down objectively and present all the proof in the world to them, but at the end of the day, people's perceptions are shaped by what they've been taught to accept and what is normal. And growing out of that takes a spine plus an awful lot of continuous dedication.

The problem isn't that the red flags are impossible to detect, it is that we're socialized to override our instincts, make excuses, or believe we're overreacting.

And often, red flags get presented as something positive:

"He is controlling what you eat and wear because he cares about you!" - control means love

"He is only so mean to you because he secretly likes you. Boys don't know how to express their feelings." - aggression is romantic

"A woman shouldn't do the dirty work. She should stay at home with her children". - a woman's ultimate proof of love is self-sacrifice

"He only gets so jealous because he loves you so much!" - possessiveness is devotion

"Don't be so sensitive because he criticizing your outfit choices, he only wants you to look your best." - hurtful remarks are just honesty

...etc there's too many...

Red flags are called that for a reason, they are warning signs, small signals that something bigger might be lurking beneath the surface. With awareness and feminist understanding, we can learn to recognize many of them. Am I saying that means dating becomes completely risk-free? Absolutely not. There's always risk. But most men aren't actors or master manipulators, many red flags are real and visible if we pay attention.

Also - am very sorry about your ex friend. It must have been devastating to watch her go through that with one guy and after barely catching a breath - with the next one. What happened with her is past subtle signs. From my experience, most women who tolerate such behavior are deeply insecure about their own self worth or have at some point watched their mother go through a similar, traumatic situation with the same type of man. It's a toxic cycle that needs to be broken. In this case this man made her feel like she's different from all the other women he hates and she excused his behavior to stem from past relationships where he got hurt.

As feminists, we are sensitive to the subtle signs of misogyny because we have read, critically examined, and unlearned. And we can't turn this awareness off in daily life. But if you asked an average woman, someone who hasn't been exposed to feminist theory, what misogyny looks like, she would probably describe the most obvious and open forms of abuse. The smaller and more casual signs go totally unnoticed.

I think that sometimes we fail to think back to our own starting points - who we were before we became feminists. It's incredibly easy to look back with frustration at women who don't recognize misogyny or excuse harmful male behavior, but many of us once held similar beliefs. Some of us believed in a male god, performed excessive femininity, made ourselves smaller for the comfort of others etc. We weren't born with feminist awareness but we had to actively unlearn what we were taught, question the status quo and make sense of a world that gaslights women into accepting their own dehumanization. Even waking up to it is a process and it does not happen in a day.

Generally talking: To spot red flags, you have to know your own boundaries first. Write them down, before you get enamored by anyone. Pay attention to how a man talks about other women. Does he have female friends? A sister? How does he treat his mother? Does he listen to their opinions and advice? How does he react to your independence and how does he handle your "no"? Does he make you feel guilty or show you less love and attention if you don't act the way he wishes you did?

Be financially stable, keep nurturing strong female friendships and most importantly, know when to leave. If one red flag shows up, don't wait to collect more. Leave and don't look back. If most women pulled through with this, most relationships would end in the early stages of between 1 - 3 months.

Thanks for the submission!

[dontvap0rdawave]

Making some song based boyos,more incoming, these are just the first two

First one is based off Close to me - SabrePulse, second one Final Boss - NitroFun

[dontvap0rdawave]

Basically every of my ocs when they realized Wave had a boyfriend-

[dontvap0rdawave]

Some doodle pages from school

[silkyblackgold]

Whitney Houston - It's Not Right (Radixx Remixx)

[endless--nights]

Whitney Houston - It's Not Right (Radixx Remixx)

________________