della! @yonicgang - Tumblr Blog

the thing about female socialization is that you don’t stop performing it once you’re aware of it, and the steps you take to unlearn it are (at least initially) a performance themselves. it takes conscious effort to remind yourself to sit and stand comfortably, take up space, not apologize, not pitch your voice up to men or defer to them, to speak up, to unlearn misogyny towards other women, to choose women first and prioritize yourself.

unsound-methods-deactivated2022

i cant take it anymore (i can but i love to whine)

powerfem

I hate shapewear wtf I don't even have words for it. Of course your body isn't smooth, you aren't a chorizo. "Blah blah it gives me confidence" why does it give you confidence? Why do you feel like you have to wear toght clothes/body con dresses? Moreover, why do you have to look "smooth" in those?

How is this feminism?

theradicalbutch

Nowadays it seems really obvious to me that a lot of “beauty” products are designed with the intention of removing women from their humanity as much as possible. Women have to wear makeup that makes our skin not look like skin. if you’re too pale? Tan! If you’re too dark? Bleach your skin! Fake eyelashes, contour, lip fillers, facelifts, and other cosmetic surgeries will erase any other distinctive features you have on your face. Don’t forget to shave! Don’t like shaving? Wax it all off! Don’t like waxing? Pay to have your follicles burnt of with a laser! Have fat on your body? Here’s 50 new diets to try! Still have fat on your body? Suck it out and put it in your ass instead! Body not smooth? Wear a corset shape wear! We’re expected to wear tight clothes we can’t move in every day; we’re expected to wear heeled shoes that make us walk weird like a newborn horse to formal events. All of this combined makes it to where when you put a man and woman next to each other we barely look like the same species anymore. It’s easier for men to dehumanize us if we look more distinctly different than them.

dykemind

Womyn’s Land Masterlist

My main posts to answer your questions and help you get involved with women’s land. Will update periodically.

What the fuck is a Maize Directory? What kinds of jobs do women have? What kind of women are we looking for? What’s my day-to-day routine like? Favorite parts of living on women’s land? How does living on the land affect you? What about women with physical disabilities?

ms-hells-bells

the 13 that died on snake island, who said "fuck you russia" included multiple women. people fighting back include women. i'm sick of men online saying "brave men" "countrymen" and especially saying, even for women "huge balls", "balls of steel", etc. they're so obsessed with attributing masculinity to any sort of bravery. they either assume that everyone are men, or think that the ultimate compliment to women is being made 'honorary men'.

shed1nja2-moving-deactivated202

“I commonly run into the misconception that men from some national or ethnic groups behave much more abusively toward women than those in the mainstream of the United States and Canada. Social workers sometimes say to me, for example, ‘The family I am working with right now comes from one of those cultures where domestic violence is considered normal and acceptable.’ The reality, however, is that cultural approval for partner abuse is disturbingly high in our society, even among the privileged and educated, and our domestic violence statistics, while not the worst in the world, are on the high end. The United States is the only industrialized nation that has failed to ratify the UN convention on eliminating discrimination against women, which specifically refers to domestic violence as a form of discrimination. Pointing fingers at other countries can be a way to ignore the serious problems in our own. In reality, abuse of women - and societal approval of it - is a widespread problem in the great majority of modern cultures. The only places where it has been found not to exist are among some tribal peoples who are highly disapproving of all forms of aggression and who give women and men nearly equal power. Abusive men from some nationalities are very explicit and direct about their cultural or religious rules, which can make their attitudes appear to be unusually bad. A man might say, for example, ‘Part of a wife’s job is to give the man sex when he wants it.’ Do white American abusers think in these ways less than abusers of other cultures do? No. They do often hide their beliefs better and, by doing so, can create the impression of being more ‘enlightened.’ But the directness of a cultural message is not the same thing as it strength.”

— Lundy Bancroft, “Why Does He Do That? Inside The Minds of Angry and Controlling Men”

lesbianseparatist

amazonfeminist

Amazon Expedition: A Lesbianfeminist Anthology. 1973.

(via lesbianseparatist)

furiousradfem

reminder that every person alive on this planet was carried, given birth, fed, and for the most majority raised by women, this is the labour women did for no pay, without being valued or appreciated for it, and result of this work created entire population of this planet. women created everyone who live. don’t forget who are the true creators.

goblinous

Oh boy there’s someone in the notes saying the dad “carried the sperm to the egg”, which (1) no, the sperm swam to the egg, and (2) ejaculating is hardly a burden. Ejaculators need to get over themselves. Women spend 9 months building a human from scratch, providing most of the instructions and every material required from their own bodies (several pounds of proteins and minerals), men contribute one especially tiny cell with less than half the instructions and none of the materials, and they think that’s equal? Ejaculators “contribute” to making a baby the same way they “contribute” to making a tissue or a sock crusty. They’re not the ones with permanant damage to their health, and they’re not the ones at high risk of their genitals being torn open.

bingus-terfus

the sperm swam to the egg

Even that is not exactly accurate. See the article: The idea that millions of sperm are on an Olympian race to reach the egg is yet another male fantasy of human reproduction

Other findings fly in the face of the popular scenario, too. For instance, most mammalian sperm do not in fact swim up the entire female tract but are passively transported part or most of the way by pumping and wafting motions of the womb and oviducts.

The female organs are actually responsible for storing, preserving and at least partially transporting the sperm to the egg, as well as providing obstacles to reduce the number of sperm to avoid problems like polyspermy. The so-called “passivity” of women in reproduction is such a RIDICULOUS claim I can’t fathom how someone can suggest it without immediately dying of shame.

vegradfem

Everything men say about women is a projection. “Women are only good for sex!” That’s literally all males are good for, they do not carry life in them. Men’s blood does not create life.

Men cannot handle how irrelevant they are in terms of creation and

this created this system and rant “but women need men if they want babies!” No, men need women of they want to have babies, and they absolutely resent that fact and resent the fact that they come from women. Anti choice men identify with a fetus that could be male.

png-heaven

Vintage and antique love tokens

luxlightly

Lemmings don't jump off of cliffs unless they're being chased. Frogs don't stay in boiling water unless they've been lobotomized first. Crabs don't pull each other back into the bucket unless they are desperately and randomly grabbing for anything to try to get themselves out, out of fear for their lives.

Actions taken in specific, negative conditions don't exemplify the nature of all beings.

Before you mock a sheep for staying with the flock, ask what dogs nip at its heels when it strays too far, and what wolves wait just beyond the edge of the pasture.

sib-studies

Oil paintings by Svetlana Tartakovska

Muse: Tara de Ridder

femsolid

I've been poor enough to go to the food bank. On christmas they gave us a special package with different items and products. The packages had "women" or "men" written on it. So I opened my "woman" christmas gift, as a poor woman trying to get by, and found anti-aging creams, anti-cellulite creams, anti-strech marks creams, other skin creams, a razor, some make-up removers and other garbage products that have nothing to do with necessities. There were also socks, a single tampon, a candle and some candies. I wonder what the men got?

It reminds me of when my local job center put in place a special class. It was for women only and it lasted one full week. The supposed goal was helping women find a job and get out of social isolation. To do so, an instructor would teach them about politeness, make-up and hairstyles. Monday was dedicated to choosing the best color for your skin tone. And I was left wondering once again what the male equivalent was. Except in this case there simply was no male equivalent.

And it reminds me of yet another time when I went to see my ex social worker. I was doing okay mental health wise but she said: "you seem completely unmotivated, like you've given up, you need to get it back together". The next time I saw her, I was deep in the pit of depression, unmotivated, hopeless, suicidal. She said: "it's nice I can see you're back on your feet and have gotten your motivation up." Why? Because both times she had assessed my well being and motivation based on whether or not I was performing useless "beauty" rituals. The first time I hadn't slept all night due to 2 painful ear infections and therefore had made no effort into looking like a doll. The second time I had made the effort. So in effect, she blamed me for being sick and not trying to hide it but congratulated me for trying to please despite my suffering.

everythingisconnected

That's something I noticed too. I work at a women's shelter and around Christmas time we get plenty of donations as xmas gifts for our residents. It's my second xmas here and for the second time (and many times before, probably) they all got make-up. 90% of their gifts are make-up. (others were gift cards which is actually a very good idea!)

Last year a huge hardware store gave us plenty of boxes full of tools to give to the women. And ALL women cried because those tools represented emancipation and freedom. They didn't need someone else to help them anymore. They could repair their own stuff.

None cried because of the make-up they got. Most were surprised to get gifts at all and flattered. But none got emotional like during my first year with their tool boxes.

It was heartbreaking to see all this money dumped into beauty products while these women need basic stuff like gift cards for food, household store and etc. They all already own make up. And the ones that don't wear any just ended up giving it away and not having any gifts at all.

eliyanah-deactivated20220918

so sick and tired of coddling the feelings of women who like makeup. every fucking criticism of makeup has to come with the caveat “ohh but it’s ok if you like to wear it!!” newsflash, almost every woman who wears makeup “likes” it, because they like how it makes them feel— it’s psychologically and socially rewarding to conform. but makeup is damaging for individual women and women as a class. wearing it actively pressures the women around you to comply and conform to femininity. wearing makeup is never a feminist act. and i don’t care if that makes you feel bad. meaningful social change requires taking actions (or inactions) that make you uncomfortable.

radicalurbanista

Chocolate companies are among the defendants named in a lawsuit brought by former child workers in Ivory Coast

Seven major cocoa companies ‘should have known’ about alleged child labour in their supply chains, court papers argue

The companies had been sued by a group of six adult citizens of Mali that claimed they were taken from their country as children and forced

Mars, Nestle, Hershey, Mondelez, and Cargill enslave children for their chocolate production. The Supreme Court protected them 8-1 in June 2021.

sespursongles-deactivated201906

That article where a law professor argues that battered women are morally entitled to kill their abusers has an interesting quote: “ Men can kill women with their bare hands, and they do. Women almost never kill men that way. They can’t. […] While very few women kill abusive men who are asleep or passed out, it’s “unfair” to charge them with first degree murder, Sheehy argues. “It’s not fair to characterize it as the most heinous form of murder, because it may be their own route to survival. ” There have probably been feminist analyses of this already, but it’s worth discussing how the concept of self-defence, especially in domestic violence cases, was designed by men to benefit men. In my country at least, your attack is only considered “legitimate self-defence” if it is a) necessary, b) immediate, c) proportionate. A concept of self-defence that only applies if you hurt or kill someone while they are attacking you, and if you hurt or kill them using the same weapons as them (your bare hands, if that’s what they are using) only benefits people who are likely to be attacked by people of similar size and physical strength, and is utterly useless to women.

When a bigger, stronger male beats up his much smaller wife, it’s almost impossible for her to kill him in self-defence (immediately and proportionately ie with nothing but her fists), and yet it’s the scenario through which she can hope to be acquitted or get a light sentence. That’s not a coincidence. The other two scenarios (and she will be despised if she picks either) are for her to 1) kill him later (when he can’t use his physical advantage, eg when he’s asleep or has his back turned on her), but it won’t be self-defence because it won’t be immediate. (In the Jacqueline Sauvage case, one of the main arguments against her was that she shot her husband in the back at a time when he wasn’t actively beating her up) 2) use a weapon, but it won’t be self-defence because it won’t be proportionate. Obviously this condition also benefits men, because when a woman gets punched by her husband and she punches him back, it’s seen as a proportionate response but it shouldn’t be, because her punch (typically) won’t do nearly as much damage as his. Anything else she does (like use a weapon) to try and hurt him as much as he hurt her will be considered a disproportionate response and will mean it wasn’t self-defence.

The idea that killing your abuser in a honest face-to-face fight with your bare hands is honourable and forgivable, but killing your abuser in any other way is shameful and wrong, utterly benefits men and protects men. It’s also why poison was historically reviled as a ‘female weapon’ and as the most cowardly way to kill someone. Poison has been described as “a great equalizer” - no wonder men hated it. Men have always hated, and will keep hating, shaming, and outlawing, any form of attack through which women can compensate our disadvantage in strength and size, and they will keep praising as the only valid method of self-defence, the method that presents the smallest risk of being effectively used by women against them.