Fuck it, I don't know

@tellurium-iron

This is a whole fucking mess, idk. Going to completely update this soon

1,017 posts

“Do it scared” “do it badly” it’s time to drop the guide for do it alone

Doing it scared and doing it badly is one thing, but no one seems to talk about doing it alone. When you feel so isolated from your friends and your family but you have shit to do and you have to get it done no matter what. When your support system really is only you. For any myriad of reasons. We do not talk enough about doing it alone.

I lowkey hate how people misunderstood this post because it’s not about “go to a movie by yourself every now and then uwu” “be your own dinner date!!” it’s literally being at a stage in your life where the only person who’s gonna consistently be there for you, for whatever circumstances, is you. And it’s about the loneliness that comes w reminding yourself that that has to be fulfilling enough bc the only person who’s guaranteed to stay w us through anything is us. Thats what I mean by doing it alone.

"I'm no better than a man!" Men being horny for women is also morally neutral. Hope this helps.

Just adding OP’s response to the extremely buck wild comments , at least 80% of which are pickled brainrot. Look at that note count! Ifyou read “Men being horny for women is also morally neutral,” which is OBJECTIVELY true, and it made you angry, please just sit with that anger for a moment and contemplate why. Trust me, every off the cuff immediate-reaction-take you would say without pausing has been said. Please just sit in your discomfort for a moment. Really ask yourself, “what has brought me to this knee-jerk reaction? What is my anger actually trying to say?” Because it might be alerting you to the cognitive dissonance of having been indoctrinated by reactionary ideologies. But it might also simply be that you have trauma that needs healing, a serious issue that is both sadly and comfortingly near universal. And one last pro tip: you will never get away with burying trauma. It’s normal to need time and safety to deal with it, but ignoring it will make it so much worse when it explodes your life one day, seemingly out of nowhere.

"I'm no better than a man!" Men being horny for women is also morally neutral. Hope this helps.

cheshirelipstick

adulthumanproblem-deactivated20

Men being horny for women isn't inherently about power though. Like this is so odd. OP is completely correct and y'all should really acknowledge that yes, straight men being horny for women IS in fact morally neutral

Mens attraction being inherently predatory and destructive and needing to be restrained is, in fact, part of evangelical ideology, and i think a number of people have unrecognised evangelical beliefs, left over from their youth or gained from societal permeation of whatever. And maybe they should recognise and critically examine those beliefs. And think a bit about where they got them from, instead of thinking up feminist justifications for them.

hunter-rodrigez

"Mens attraction being inherently predatory" is an excuse to pretend men are mindless beasts who aren't in control of their own actions, which by extension also means they cannot be blamed for said actions.

It's "Boys will be boys" taken to the extreme.

It's the attitude that leads to bullshit like blaming rape victims for the way they were dressed.

It's not feminism, it's the exact opposite, it's a fucking scapegoat for the people these "radical feminists" claim to hate.

i think the person everyone is dog piling is talking about the fact that men are allowed to sexually harass and assault women with little more than a slap on the wrist in the rare scenario that they actually DO face consequences, which is unlikely. but on the other hand, if a woman politely expresses sexual attraction to a man, even in the most appropriate situation, like when talking about sex in the context of two people considering having sex with each other, or expressing sexual attraction to a sex partner, for example, she is treated like a sex predator and shamed.

it's about power. under patriarchy, sex isn't for women, it's for men. women are not allowed to have sexual preferences or desires or anything, because women are the sex object, they aren't allowed to objectify. it's not about "men are predators" it's about the fascist control over sex that is rampant in our culture right now that has created this status quo that "sex is inherently predatory" and just because you do not agree with that concept does not make it any less prevalent in our society. stop fighting with the people who want to make a difference in the world and start fighting the people who are keeping us down!!

cardassiangoodreads

If I, a lesbian, who has absolutely no stake in this because I do not need men to have romance and sex in my life, can acknowledge that there absolutely are sincerely feminist men out there, that no they're not just pretending at it to get into your pants (why would men be doing this to me? I know there are men out there who think they can "convert" lesbians but most are not that stupid, and I'm frankly not hot enough and too autistic for most men to give a shit), that nothing happening on Twitter is a representative snapshot of humanity and the medium needs to be taken into account along with the message when we are evaluating whether prevalence of hate online tracks to prevalence of hate in real life, and that it is in fact important for feminism to assert this precisely to shut up those misognistic men acting like women's only option for romantic happiness and good sex is to put up with their shit.... what is stopping some of the straight women on here? Like do I really have to hear this "are you sure they're not just lying to you?" Yes, I'm sure that I know my stepdad, my brothers-in-law, my close male friends and colleagues and professional mentors well enough, and better than you do. I do not believe every single one of them is some master manipulator only pretending to care about me and my rights for... no real gain in most of these cases? What would my male grad school professors have to gain from pretending at supporting me, including to the point of writing me strong recommendation letters, to help get me jobs if they secretly think I shouldn't have one? What would my brothers-in-law have to gain from pretending at feminism after they've already married my sisters, and in one case had a kid with her? What do my guy friends, who get nothing out of this friendship but my companionship, have to gain from pretending to be feminist for me if they secretly think I'm worthless and stupid (then why would they be hanging out with me and listening to my autistic ass prattle on about my latest special interest)? Just think about this for more than five seconds. Would this actually gain them anything? Does what you're positing follow any recognized patterns of human behavior? At least, is this perhaps why we should avoid absolute statements - given that any contrary examples wholly disprove them?

watered-down-oatmeal2

Every man benefits from the patriarchy, but not every man is comfortable accepting those benefits at the expense of women, and some of them do actually put in the lifelong work to get out of a patriarchal mindset. It's continuous work, like anti-racism, and it's important to watch for both actions and intentions, but like. Sometimes humans are willing to put in continuous work for the sake of building a better world long term. Also, like. Women also need to do continuous work to fight the patriarchy. Our perspective is valuable but the ability to see through the bullshit is not innate, and it's bonkers to pretend that women have a Feminism Chip that can be activated and men don't. For everyone, it's work.

Separately because the specific example isn’t really the point: everybody I think at this point understands that when the explanation for women’s absence from a job/field/role is “women are stupid” or “women are weak”, that’s sexism and gender essentialism.

I really wish it was as well understood that, in fiction and real life, when the explanation is “women are too smart to bother” or “women would be Too Good at this if they did it and then where would we be” or “women are too busy doing other more important things* to bother” that’s sexism and gender essentialism as well. Especially - extremely especially - if the thing they are allegedly too smart or potentially good at or busy to do is one that gives access to wealth, influence, and/or power.

See also: “oh the administrators/secretaries/low level staff (mostly women) actually run this place”. Okay but do they control the budgets though? Are they able to make important decisions without anybody else’s sign-off though? Are they paid commensurate to this alleged power though? Well, are they?

*double if the “more important things” are domestic labour or care work but I assume we all know that.

stripedroseandsketchpads

As a secretary (who is very lucky to have a boss who, because he's older, is aware of this and actively works against what he's seen at other workplaces), what "They're actually running the place" usually refers to is "they're keeping the place running", those are very different things. There's a huge disparity between your labor being needed and you having authority to make decisions.

And frankly giving credit where it's due for keeping things going, while nice, and preferable to pretending we're not there, is not in any way comparable to having a say in decision-making for stuff that's directly pertinent to us and consistent fair compensation and communication with employers.

#reminders #misogyny #gendered jobs #in the sense of how power dynamics and sexism influence the way these jobs are treated

Human relationships are not transactional but they are reciprocal, which I think many of you with your ‘i don’t owe anyone anything’ shtick are too happy to forget

Transactional: everything has to be exactly 50/50 all the time, pay me back for the £5 sandwich or buy me something worth exactly £5, I refuse to make an effort for you if there’s nothing in it for me

Reciprocal: you were there for me when I needed help, and I’m going to do the same for you, it doesn’t matter if one of us needs more or is capable of less, because the point is not equivalent exchange but mutual care

salvadorbonaparte

happy international women's day to international women

salvadorbonaparte

the wording of this is a joke but I'm serious in the sense of solidarity with immigrant women, refugee women, women in exile, women in the 'global south', women in all countries where women's rights are being attacked.

salvadorbonaparte

It should go without saying that this includes trans women, since they are women.

women's rights include many things from trans rights (see above), reproductive rights, voting rights, labor rights, access to healthcare, access to education and many many more issues. These are usually not exclusively women's issues but often primarily or openly target women and people read as women.

#reminders #still relevant

can’t even criticize the diet industry or the recent wave in misogyny and return of thinspo with the rise of ozempic as a weight loss drug without everyone having this knee jerk reaction to defend “women’s rights” to be malnourished and conform to white patriarchal beauty standards in the name of feminism. god forbid we not encourage eating disorders and unhealthy body image in women. choice feminism is a disease and everyone is licking the rats it’s driving me crazy

how insidious to make young girls buy hundreds of dollars worth of makeup, to force them to read up on its theory, to make them practice it for hours in order to escape mockery, to make them feel safe only when performing this hyper femininity, and then to even have the audacity to package it in feminist language so that they firmly believe it sets them free.

thisusedtoberum-deactivated2017

who called you out on your sloppy wings

I know you probably think you’re really witty, but I just want you to know that you, and all the other people who made that joke, prove my point exactly.

bonediggercharleston

The problem is not that make up doesn’t work or that make-up theory is incorrect or that painting your face and decorating yourself isn’t fun.

It’s that women, at their most vulnerable age as girls, get indoctrinated into thinking that not being beautiful is a flaw that can ruin their life. The “do-it-for-yourself” and “self-expression” promoted by make-up brands that realized that in a modern world you cannot explicitly say that you need to be pretty so men will like you is just the nicer version of buy our product because we make you hate your natural self.

And we, as a society do our part. Marketing make-up at children should be as illegal as marketing gambling and alcohol. It is not. Child beauty pageants are a thing, not as a fun event for kids but as a cut-throat competitive scene where children have careers. Pretty privilege is a thing, in the sense that sure, pretty people often get treated better, but more importantly, people deemed not pretty get relentlessly bullied.

There was a line between dressing up nicely because you like it and dressing up nicely cause society demands it and it was crossed a long, long time ago.

There needs to be a social movement that says it’s okay to be an ugly slob. This is not a joke. Kindness is all that matters, beauty should not be tied to goodness and worth and morality like it is today.

#misogyny #beauty culture #beauty industry

the problem with even entertaining the notion that "men are hurt by the patriarchy too!" is it obscures the fact that all men are beneficiaries of patriarchy first and foremost. attempts to "recruit" men by claiming that feminism is in their best interest are simply not true! the privileges of patriarchy are the material incentive for every man to participate in its perpetuation, and our goal as feminists is to dismantle the systems that award them that privilege.

i don't want to work with men who are waiting for their turn for feminism to benefit them because that day will never ever come. the only man i can trust to work with is an avowed, unabashed class traitor.

#feminism #reminders

dragon-in-a-fez

"thought crimes aren't real, it's your actions that matter" and "your mindset informs how you treat others, so you should try not to have a shitty one" are another pair of things that are both true btw

lesbian-sweeney-todd

The history of feminism, as understood by the average Tumblr user

1920: After decades of hard work, women won the right to vote. Which women? All of ‘em. Which country? The only one that matters :)

1949: Simone de Beavoir boldly declared that “One is not born, but becomes, a woman.” That’s actually the only thing she said. Short book!

1950-2000: A bunch of evil manhating dykes who were, by the way, WHITE, took over feminism and totally ruined it by being too misandrist. Oh, did I mention they were white? It’s okay to hate them because they were WHITE women.

The glorious 21st century: Intersectionality says that you’re not allowed to say men oppress women. You have to be nice to men! :) Intersectionality is a really great framework that just kinda arose out of nowhere. Oh also bell hooks said you have to be nice to men. So you HAVE to be nice to men or they’ll throw a tantrum

2026: Men around the world are becoming increasingly more fascist. This is feminism’s fault.

lesbian-sweeney-todd

there’s something particularly fascinating about TERFs enjoying my posts on feminism. it always feels like they are moments away from realizing that transsexual women are comrades in feminist struggle… but they never will get there, huh?

we can be! you're absolutely right. but i know what a woman is! and that's okay too!

lesbian-sweeney-todd

"what is a woman" is the dumbest gotcha. why are we still doing that one.

No one asked that lmfaoo 😂 she told you she already knows. The mannishness is showing through

lesbian-sweeney-todd

And there’s the rhetorical cudgel 😉

Fascinating that our feminism includes them, but theirs never includes us. Hmm.

lesbian-sweeney-todd

Transphobic feminism is fundamentally pro-hierarchy. It affirms the continued status of transsexuals as a subaltern-gender class, thus protecting cissexual women by redirecting some male violence away from them. This is why transphobic feminism is appealing in the short term, and doomed to failure (and right-wing appropriation) in the long. Transphobic feminism owes its success to the violence regularly done to transsexuals.

lesbian-sweeney-todd

prev, yes absolutely. Hence why Kyla Schuller identifies transphobic feminism as a form of “white feminism”.

#feminism #intersectional feminism #trans inclusive feminism

afloweroutofstone

I definitely still have some level of distaste for astrology, true crime paranoia, etc., but I think my negative feelings towards this bundle of woman-coded vices has declined as I've grown more familiar with the modern era of men-coded vices. It is harder to focus on the irrationalist nature of tarot or the abundance of low-quality smut appearing on book store shelves recently when some of the big trends among Dudes online seem to be betting your life savings on sports, becoming more conservative than your grandfather, hitting yourself with a hammer to look hotter, and eating so much raw red meat that you invent new diseases

wokeuphighbyvanessacarlton

evenlesssentimentaltranslator

I grew up with astrology in magazines. It's almost always just a thing people do for fun. Meanwhile organised religions around the world - yes, including Christians in the West - are forcing little girls into marriage and grooming a whole lot of other little girls for a future life of domestic servitude in the name of supernatural beings that they wholeheartedly believe in, and people only got mad when women started doing tradwife PR on the internets.

As for true crime, the main difference between that and my interest in Air Crash Investigation, as far as I can see, is that when planes kill, they do it insentiently and impartially. A machine killing a demographic that could include white men, and always includes men of some race(s), is an acceptable topic of interest. An interest in men killing women out of malice, when the interested party is a woman who is conscious that a man could decide to do the same to her, is a threat to a society that would, by and large, very much like for men to keep being allowed to commit violence against women.

Frankly, I do not pledge unquestioning allegiance to the anti cop movement because my questions include "What does the anti cop movement intend to do to stop male violence?" and the answer is always either "well, cops are also frequently shitty about male violence (so why should we take accountability for the kind of structure our own movement wants?)" or "stop being a disingenuous bitch Karen". I don't hold any particular allegiance to cops; it's hard to when you see the shit a lot of them pull, but I see the anti cop movement's total lack of interest in the safety of women and children and it's clear as day to me that most of the anti cop stuff that we see is just another men's movement.

PS: I also see the grating, yappy hypocrisy of left wing Cool Girls who are So! Very! Outraged! about apolitical girlies saying "I'm just a girl" on the clock app but refuse to apply one iota of critical thought to anything left wing men say about women, girls, or structures and norms that affect women and girls, even when it's wildly misogynistic.

#misogyny #gendered products #astrology #true crime #racism

doe-eyed-disaster

it's exhausting to see constant TMA/TME discourse that fundamentally does not understand intersectionality. Transmisogyny affected, TMA, describes someone who cannot leverage your assigned gender to mitigate the oppressive force of transmisogyny. Transmisogyny exempt, TME, describes someone who is able to leverage their assigned gender in some way to mitigate the oppressive force of transmisogyny. They are not identity labels; they describe a person's relationship to transmisogyny.

doe-eyed-disaster

these labels also do not categorize people as ontologically "victims" or "oppressors". everyone, including TMA people, can wield transmisogyny and everyone can wield it most effectively against TMA people. just as cis women can perpetrate and enforce misogyny against other cis women, so too can trans women leverage transmisogyny against one another. however, given the relative lower social status of TMA people, we are less able to advance their own social standing by leveraging transmisogyny. Caitlin Jenner is both TMA and openly transmisogynistic, but she is less successful in advancing herself compared to TME people like Marjorie Taylor Green. this is similar to how cis women can wield misogyny against men (like suggesting that an fashionable man is inherently less masculine), but a similar criticism from another man will generally be a more potent attack.

doe-eyed-disaster

oppressions can look similar: racialized women, particularly black women, are often degendered in ways which superficially resemble transmisogyny. for example, Michelle Obama was mocked for having supposedly "mannish" features. to the extent that transmisogyny might have impacted her, she was able to mitigate it by leveraging the fact that she was assigned and conformed to expectations of women. she was unable to leverage her race to deny the full extent of this public abuse because degendering is a tactic empowered by both racism and transmisogyny. a black trans woman who is similarly degendered cannot leverage TME privilege because of her gender assignment at birth. both people are targeted and harmed in some way by degendering, but one is more able to mitigate that harm due to being able to exempt herself from transmisogyny.

in a similar example, Imane Khelif was subject to simultaneous pressure from transmisogyny, racism, and intersexism. because she is TME, she could leverage her gender assignment and was not barred automatically from competing in women's events at the summer Olympics (an option unavailable to TMA athletes facing similar scrutiny). she also enjoyed an outpouring of public support in favor of her continued participation, whereas TMA athletes received little sympathy or support in the press (in fact, the event that prohibited them was hailed as especially inclusive for lgbtq+ athletes). however, she was still pressured sufficiently by racist and intersexist policies to undergo invasive medical procedures and to publicly reveal medical details that she might have preferred to keep private. the fact that Imane Khelif was subject to other systems of oppression in no way disproves the validity of transmisogyny because she was able to do the thing that defines being TME: she leveraged her assigned gender to exempt herself from transmisogyny.

doe-eyed-disaster

in Kimberlé Crenshaw's formulation of intersectionality, she describes the unique marginalization of black women. unlike white women, black women cannot leverage their race to mitigate the impacts of racism. unlike black men, black women cannot leverage their gender to mitigate the effects of misogyny. thus, black women are demonstrably subject to a unique synergy of white supremacy and misogyny (misogynoir) from which others are able to exempt themselves to varying degrees and by various means. the same formulation can be applied to TMA people, who are unable to leverage either their gender assignment or social identity, to mitigate oppositional and traditional sexism, thereby rendering us uniquely vulnerable to the synergistic oppression of those forces. (and of course, we cannot forget that TMA people can also be subject to other discrimination from which they cannot exempt themselves; TMA people can also be variously racialized, disabled, poor, intersex, and so on.)

doe-eyed-disaster

great tags from @futchlingg

doe-eyed-disaster

I'm glad the tone i struck was accessible to you. I'm going to continue to be very generous right now: this response is transmisogyny. one of the kinds of privilege that TME people experience is getting to be judged as individuals whereas TMA people are always judged collectively. TMA people should not have to be as precise, nonjudgmental, and even in tone as i was in this thread. i chose to put in the effort to explain things in these terms, but i did so because when TMA people like me aren't, we get taken with the worst possible faith.

if a cis woman wrote a post like mine about the ways in which men leverage misogyny against her, it would be obviously misogynistic for someone to reply "oh thank goodness. i never really got feminism because they're always just so bitchy about men". this would be the case regardless of who said it or what their proximity to misogyny is. the same is true here: i made a long post with very precisely chosen language, and this reply contrasts me against all those other, apparently uncouth trans women who don't haven't decency to be nice about our oppression. (if you know trans women like that, please send them my way. they sound based.).

TMA people do not owe any deference to TME people's feelings when talking about our oppression. y'all can get away with shit on the regular, usually against us, that is far crueler than incivility. TMA people shouldn't have to make posts that are hundreds of carefully chosen words long with step-by-step logical constructions from first principles and real-world illustrations whose relevance is spelled out on exacting detail. this was a high effort post and WE DON'T OWE THAT TO ANYONE. we shouldn't have to do that every time we want to talk about the fucked up things that happen to and around us, especially not to TME people who benefit from doing those fucked up things to us.

(and if you think my reply here is veering into incivility, let me invite you to examine why it is that you're feeling so defensive. let's internalize and practice those analytical skills which i described apparently so well in those first canonically non-bitchy posts.)

doe-eyed-disaster

a common (and exhausting) misconception seems to happen around the word "exempt". let's be clear: transmisogyny isn't just "misogyny that happens to trans women". transmisogyny is a social force which influences *all* people which posits that differently gendered people are intrinsically different in some meaningful way and that one gender is in some way socially superior to another. the ways that we construct, define, inscribe, navigate, and relate to gender are all influenced by transmisogyny. if getting to wield misogyny without consequence is the carrot of patriarchy, then the threat of faggotization for being too great a failure to one's assigned boyhood is the stick. I've seen transmisogyny described as the psychological lynchpin that holds patriarchy together. some people can leverage their gender in some way to mitigate the impact of this force, but it is a fundamental part very sea that we all must swim in.

the same can be said for other marginalizing forces. temporarily nondisabled people can experience negative consequences of ableism, but feeling burnt out from an excessive workload is a fundamentally different experience when not fully exposed to ableism. for instance, you might have your exhaustion taken more seriously by your doctor if you are not yet disabled and consequently receive better medical care. a straight man might be mistreated if others believe him to be gay, but he's dealing with one moment of interpersonal bigotry rather than an entire lifetime of being under threat (for example, his right to the social and financial benefits of marriage are far more guaranteed than they might be if he was gay). and so on.

TME people experience transmisogyny but they are not its primary targets and can exempt themselves from scrutiny and mistreatment by leveraging their gender in some way that TMA people cannot. one pernicious way that this happens is through a kind of affected incompetence, positioning themselves to always be seeking education from TMA people about transmisogyny and offering shallow rebuttals and critiques such as the images attached (which they may not even consciously recognize as such). this positions TMA people as bearing the expectation of answering and clarifying on demand and being held to account for all the other TMA people who have come before her.

like i just spent nearly a thousand words giving the piss easiest "intersectionality 101" and you're complaining that the language is unclear or flawed in some way that precludes your understanding or prevents you from internalizing what you've just read, complaints which would be irrelevant if you just read the first paragraph again in which the terms were defined in clear, simple language. if this is your response, you are exactly who i was complaining about from the beginning.

tankie-transfeminist

This is transfeminism!

#transfeminism #intersectional feminism #tma/tme

A lot of "egg" discourse can be improved by making it clear that it's less "you are gravely insulting a cisgender millionaire youtuber John Johnson by assuming being gnc makes him a woman" and more "you're assuming performing femininity is tied to womanhood around a lot of queer/trans/gnc people who have their own experiences with these things".

fierceawakening

Yeah. “I think estrogen might make that person happier, it did me” makes sense to me. “That person wants estrogen even though he’s literally saying he doesn’t, so I’m gonna keep saying so lol” doesn’t—if he’s literally asking you to stop saying that, it costs you nothing to stop.

(And gloat inwardly and silently if he changes his mind. Yes, sometimes you were right.)

Yup. To me, the ultimate goal and ideal is a world where people are just more chill and flexible about gender, where anyone can dress how they want, participate in whatever activities they want, change their bodies in ways that make them feel more comfortable or closer to their own ideals, experiment with what language feels right, etc.

A stance of "anyone who does X or Y must be a woman/man even if they say they're not" is actively counterproductive to this goal, and is just another flavor of gender essentialism which ends up limiting and constraining people.

I get personally weirded out by anyone who is very convinced that they "know" who is or isn't trans, like it's this code they can crack. Because they're frequently wrong in both directions. It's common to hear of fiction and art dealing with trans themes "this feels like it was created by a cis person" only for the writer to later come out.

#egg discourse #trans egg #gender noncomformity

when can we start calling it disinformation

petrichorandozone

no sorry NOT sorry actually i hate this take.

came back up to put this here - this is a long rant !

it's gender bioessentialist. feminism should've never been named what it is. it is precisely what enables terfs &or misandrists. i swear to god, believing men are inherently evil & acting like they don't, in fact, suffer from the patriarchy is the actual disinformation. don't make me defend a man. the whole idea is reductive and reduces us to our biological sexes.

if your idea of feminism is flipping who's the oppressor & who's oppressed (i.e. 'men cannot be harmed by the patriarchy' 'women are just better than men anyways') then you never actually cared that anyone was suffering at all. you just cared that it affected you, directly.

i believe this is also why this variety of bigotry - the j.k. rowling special - is so popular w cisgender white women. they don't genuinely care about the things they complain about, they just resent that they're not in charge. that, or they latch onto I'm a Real Woman and I Bully Trans Women Because I Am So Insecure In My Identity That I Tie It Wholly To My Uterus. which is disgusting. as a cis woman w pcos, i find it nauseating that there are other women out there who genuinely think this way.

acknowledging that the gender binary is harmful to everyone isn't disinformation. sorry, but what was "progressive" circa 20-fucking-10 isn't anymore. the WHOLE POINT WAS THAT YOUR GENDER DOESN'T DEFINE YOU. HOW HAVE WE LOST THE PLOT? people grow, people learn!! you should, too. and if this post pissed you off, you need to reexamine your biases.

the conversation was not about "does patriarchy harm men." it does, but it's a meaningless observation without also describing the mechanism by which men are incidentally harmed by the patriarchy, and in every case it's misogyny. "men aren't allowed to cry"* is because emotional vulnerability is feminine and femininity is abject under patriarchy, for example. "men are the ones dying in wars" because they decided that women are incapable of being capable fighters due to our biology or psychology, which is misogyny.

i could go on, but it's not even the point being discussed in the original image. your reply is the result of a failure to read and comprehend. the person in the screenshot is asserting that INTERSECTIONAL feminism is about "how the patriarchy hurts everyone including men." that is verifiably untrue. intersectional feminism as laid forth by Kimberlé Crenshaw is about how womanhood intersects with other marginalizations, such as race and abledness, in such a fashion that marginalized women are always worse off than identically-marginalized men.

the reason for this is all women are affected by misogyny, the oppression of women by men. there is no corrolary. women do not oppress men. misandry is not a real social force; women do not occupy a position of power to enforce such. General Motors had no problem hiring black and white men, and no problem hiring white women, but black women were underrepresented (DeGraffenreid v. General Motors). the WOMEN, NOT THE MEN were unfairly affected by their hiring practices and the government's decision in the case. if a man is suffering for being poor, a poor woman must also contend with misogyny that the man does not. if a man is suffering for being gay, a lesbian must also contend with misogyny that the man does not. the way these women are oppressed is best explained as a more more complicated and specific synthesis of their marginalizations - transmisogyny, misogynoir, and lesbophobia, as some examples.

oppression doesn't happen because of individuals being insecure or bullying others, though it is a symptom of it. oppression occurs because a group benefits materially from the subjugation of another. all men benefit from the subjugation of women - even the nice ones, even the gay ones, even the trans ones, even the poor ones, etc. you're going to have to read Demarginalizing the Intersection of Race and Sex if you want to keep up because right now you're embarrassing yourself.

and furthermore "feminism should have never been called what it is" the movement for women's liberation shouldn't center women??? how is this related to TERFism?? i'm really glad you pointed out that you're cis because i'm sick and fucking tired of you people talking over trans women about how we're oppressed, especially since you don't know the first thing about it. if you're trying to insinuate that TERFs are Trans Exclusionary because they "hate men" (and you are, i know you are you little worm) you simply should not be discussing feminism until you have a grasp of the fundamentals. no investigation, no right to speak!

#feminism #intersectional feminism #debunking misinformation #misogyny

thirteens-earring

I love ace ppl bc they’re like you know you don’t have to right. And it’s true. you dontttttt have to

thirteens-earring

[ As long as people don’t know about asexuality—hell, forget about the label, so long as they don’t know that saying no forever and for any reason and in any context is okay—sex education, sex therapy, and popular depictions of sex are incomplete and people don’t have the relevant information to fully consent. Sexual rights should not be assumed and self-determination must never end upon entering a relationship. You can give a no with zero caveats in each and every situation, full stop. You can say no if someone loves you and you love them back. You can say no for the rest of your life. ]

Angela Chen, Ace: What Asexuality Reveals About Desire, Society, and the Meaning of Sex (2020)

Fuck it, I don't know @tellurium-iron - Tumblr Blog | Tumgag