yungleanmorphine

Indian Tech Support ₹ Lesbian ₹ New Delhi ₹ ask me about my hyperpop playlist; updated daily — if I haven’t responded to your anon/message yet dw it’s queued :)

[yungleanmorphine]

this pussy is a colonial concept;

[thatbitchsimone]

[yungleanmorphine]

literally thought this was @menalez​ 

[yungleanmorphine]

Has anyone actually read the Adrienne Rich Compulsory Heterosexuality essay that everyone keeps talking about? I think we’ve been getting the definition of comphet wrong. Comphet is to heterosexuality what political lesbianism is to the sexuality lesbian. Like idk how to explain any better but you have to think of comphet as kind of like the acceptance of violent male sexuality. she cites humiliating porn that directs men to coerce their sexual partners to expand their sexual boundaries, acceptance of the institution of marriage ie. women as private property with doubled workload for women and its sexual divisions of labor, as the most idealized of economic relations. its the “sexual domination perspective”

According to the essay comphet can happens to all women ie. the conditioning and grooming of women into accepting male sexual domination. even cites how lesbian porn is humiliating to women, an invasion into something men are not supposed to be a part of.

The lesbophobia starts in part II of the essay Building on Mary Daly and Audre Lorde “lesbian contirunn” which is expanding women-women bonds beyond being erotic. She puts forwards the point how lesbianism is different from male homosexuality which I agree with for different reasons. “female antiphallic sexuality” is a term that caught my eye because I think it’s referring to both erotic lesbianism + female celibacy as a reaction male violence like separatism. I still don’t think sexuality is political and aversion to males purely from a separatist perspective should come under sexuality.

I actually have no idea how comphet started to be associated with only lesbians? I still think it’s misused in the mainstream definition of “self identified 🙄” lesbians to use as a justification for male crushes + I think it has been wildly taken out of context too.

If someone knows more I’d love to know + actually read about it in good faith.

Here’s the essay : https://web.archive.org/web/20140718162632/http://people.terry.uga.edu/dawndba/4500compulsoryhet.htm

[maletiring-deactivated20220802]

Seeing men perform hyper femininity and then say “cis women have privilege because they can wear makeup and can express themselves freely”, like are you fucking daft? Let’s contextualise your struggles for a second and point out that your problems begin only when you do not conform. You will get attacked only when you deviate from the norm. For women the possibility of violence is implicit in whatever they wear, HOWEVER they present. Everyone else has to literally fight for the right to not wear makeup while you’re sitting there saying “oh but cis women privilege”, what part of their existence seems privileged to you?? While it’s true that these are real struggles and conformity can’t be forced upon people and these are all offshoots of the patriarchy, please stop making it seem like “cis-women” are all of a sudden your oppressors, because the entire foundation of misogyny is based on men wanting to control and benefit from female bodies.

Not even intersectionality, because as a gay man who enjoys wearing makeup occasionally I could never look at a woman, even a straight woman or anyone and say “oh atleast you get to do this :/ check ur privilege” because what the fuck is your understanding of society then that you think these are privileges bestowed upon women. Do these people fathom the concept of ‘sex based oppression’, you can’t suddenly be like “no it’s only gender based oppression” because while that is very much there and very real, let us not forget that gender is at the end of the day the cultural interpretation of sex, and these things HAVE to stem from somewhere

[banji-effect]

“Tall, androgynous and armed — she held a state gun permit — Ms. DeLarverie roamed lower Seventh and Eighth Avenues and points between into her 80s, patrolling the sidewalks and checking in at lesbian bars. She was on the lookout for what she called “ugliness”: any form of intolerance, bullying or abuse of her “baby girls.” … “She literally walked the streets of downtown Manhattan like a gay superhero. … She was not to be messed with by any stretch of the imagination.””

— From the obituary of Storme DeLarverie, a native New Orleanian who threw the first punch at Stonewall. (via beignetsatwhistlestop)

[ms-newvegas]

I will never forget the post going around with a weird amount of support saying that it’s unfair to hate and mock misogynistic men because they might be trans wimmin with internalized misogyny

[shesay-deactivated20250513]

I wanna be friends with her so bad i wish I could dm her but I don’t wanna be a tryhard like what should i say “i love your blog and your opinions an absolute brilliant ily” or maybe not

[yungleanmorphine]

im actually like a very ugly jesus. grotesque n nasty.

[sespursongles-deactivated201906]

I was thinking about this post from yesterday again. Centenarian man says the key to living a long life is to have a woman around. Centenarian woman says the key to living a long life is to have no man around. And that other post about how studies consistently show that girls do better at school when there are no boys around, while boys do worse when there are no girls around. This is a pattern that holds true in other contexts; women tend to be happier, healthier, less stressed, without men; while the opposite is true for men.

It boggles the mind that with this kind of information out in the open, known, with obvious conclusions screaming in our faces, feminists today still ridicule and devalue the concept of separatism. It can take so many forms too—supporting female-owned businesses so that more women can earn a living without having a male employer; female-owned housing options because so many women are preyed upon by their male landlord; female-only vacation venues so that more women can have a male-free holiday every once in a while; supporting female creators so that women have more choices if they decide to only read female authors or listen to female musicians, and then of course the more ‘drastic’ fight for larger female-only institutions in society. But while some of these struggles (usually the low-stakes, non-threatening ones) are sometimes given perfunctory support in the name of Girl Power, the larger topic of separatism is hardly ever given coherent thought, support or space to grow; the fact that the best thing feminism can do for women is giving more women in all strata of society the possibility to exclude men from various aspects of their life, is still pretty much taboo and rarely given serious consideration outside of small feminist niches (often disparaged as extremist or utopian). Instead, feminists devote most of their energy and resources to activism that still involves men at some level, or on supporting women who choose men and will ultimately siphon all that support and energy and time and money back to men. 

I didn’t expect to get 30K notes on my childbirth post and won’t have time to answer all the asks and comments I got about it, but someone asked what inspired me to write it—it was reading about the lives of the women I mentioned in that post. I read a lot about women’s lives, be it biographies or diaries or letters, so patterns become obvious, and all other factors balanced, if you value physical safety, intellectual growth and self-realisation, you have to come to the conclusion that not having a man in your home was and is a blessing. And really you could extend this to having any man in your life at all—father, brother, son, male employer… Among the memoirs I read this year there was one by a woman who was exploited and raped by her boss, and then Lydia Cacho’s writings about her fight to help little girls victims of sex trafficking and to keep her shelter for battered women open. I don’t exactly seek out this kind of stories—after the Cacho book I picked up the memoirs of a Hollywood actress, expecting it to be a fun mindless read, and there ended up being a long section about how she was molested by her older brother as a kid and ended up as an anti-CSA activist as an adult. I discovered that most American male politicians who outwardly portrayed themselves as good family men fought tooth and nail behind the scenes to try and prevent anti-child rape laws from being adopted.

When you read (or hear) enough women’s life stories you really have to wonder what feminism is good for if it doesn’t focus on helping women to keep men out of as many aspects of their life as they want, and fighting for female-only spaces and institutions (like Cacho’s shelter, but not only—the litmus test for useful feminist activism should be “Will this contribute to denying men access to women in some way, thus empowering the women who would like to keep men out of some aspect of their life?” The women who don’t want to keep men out will always be able to make that choice because our entire society is structured around supporting it. Feminism should support the other choice, make it possible and safe for more women. Criminalising pimps & johns while helping women exit prostitution contributes to that second choice. So do anti-child rape laws. And women’s bars or cafés. And women’s studies programmes (“gender studies” don’t). And anti-porn activism. And fighting for women’s right to father-free parenthood (eg right to use anonymous sperm donors, rather than wanting fathers to be more involved with their children. And generally fighting for the opposite of fathers’ rights, which are coincidentally a major concern of the MRA movement.) And fighting for legal family / social units where women can share property and healthcare and pass on inheritance. Etc, etc.)

The women who scoff at this or rush in with “not all men” are typically very self-centered (”I sure don’t want to separate from men, so why should I think of the women who do?”), and refuse to look any further than their own Good Dad or nice boyfriend (and it’s worth mentioning that Lydia Cacho said all the men she talked to in brothels, including the brothels offering child prostitutes, were ‘normal’ married men, probably described by their wives as good husbands and fathers.) Your average mainstream feminist will tell you that “feminism is about choice” but feminism should not concern itself with helping women choose men, as patriarchy already has this covered. Meanwhile, women’s choice to distance themselves from men is not currently supported by feminism at all, when it should be the beating heart of feminism. More often than not, it is derided and disparaged. Marilyn Frye explained why in her essay about people’s attitudes towards women who want to separate from men even in minor ways: 

[…] When those who control access have made you totally accessible, your first act of taking control must be denying access. Access is one of the faces of Power. Female denial of male access to females substantially cuts off a flow of benefits, but it has also the form and full portent of assumption of power. [And] if there is one thing women are queasy about it is actually taking power. As long as one stops just short of that, the patriarchs will for the most part take an indulgent attitude. We are afraid of what will happen to us when we really frighten them. This is not an irrational fear. It is our experience generally that the defensiveness, nastiness, violence, hostility and irrationality of the reaction to feminism tend to correlate with the blatancy of the element of separation in the strategy or project. […]

By comparing Charity and Sylvia’s life to the lives of their contemporary women who had 18 children, what I meant was “being able to choose to live free from men is a blessing”, but a lot of women have interpreted that post to mean “birth control is a blessing”. But the makeshift, imperfect shield that protects you from someone who might hurt you and doesn’t care if he does is a very minor blessing compared to the power to live your life free from this person and the associated worries. Has birth control empowered women to deny men sexual access if they choose to? (Some women have argued it has done the opposite.) Feminism has become a very hollow word but nowadays I measure the sincerity of a woman’s commitment to feminism by the support, help and sympathy she extends to the women who want to keep men out of their lives / sex lives / children’s lives / bars / feminist groups / etc.

Before anyone interprets this as “lesbian extremists want me to become a lesbian, leave my man and live in the woods with them” because many het/bi women feel threatened by separatism and lash out defensively when the topic is brought up—this is about being able to choose to keep men out of some aspects of your life, or your entire life. How this choice should be facilitated and how the women who make it deserve to be supported and respected much more than they currently are by feminism (I won’t even touch the obvious lesbophobia behind the rampant ridicule and contempt towards separatism). How feminism becomes just another patriarchal institution if it values & supports choices that include men more than choices that exclude men.

And although the creation of female-only options in society would benefit even the women who do not want to distance themselves from men (because then they would be able to make a real, informed choice between life with men and life without men, having experienced both), the fact that many women would not choose separatism is irrelevant. The feminists who fought for the right to divorce didn’t sabotage themselves with “What about the women who WANT to stay with their husband??” They fought to give a choice to all the women who don’t. They understood that some situations are beyond fixing and you have to be able to divorce. Feminism that fights to improve & reform men or to help women who choose men be happier & more comfortable with that choice is the equivalent of fighting for het couple therapy. Feminism that fights for separatist options and female-only spaces and institutions is the equivalent of fighting for the right to divorce. If you understand why divorce is important, you should understand why separatism is important. It’s actual female liberation—it’s not forcing any woman to swear off all men forever, it’s giving women as a class the possibility to choose to ‘divorce’ men as a class. Giving safe and good options to any woman who isn’t interested in ‘fixing’ men or her relationships with them but just wants out. A feminism that doesn’t fight for this has completely lost its vision.

[icoclusterranger]

this is shifting the overton window. we need to swing the pendulum further than what’s currently considered “realistic” so that we expand our potential of reality. otherwise we’ll continue to live in stagnation as women under the control of men, and that’ll remain the norm and our confines. living under men is like a fish living in water, to reference david foster wallace: 

“There are these two young fish swimming along and they happen to meet an older fish swimming the other way, who nods at them and says ‘Morning, boys. How’s the water?’ And the two young fish swim on for a bit, and then eventually one of them looks over at the other and goes 'What the hell is water?’”

asking men to shift the window in favor of us is impossible (or at least virtually impossible) for them to even consider (or want to consider). women need to be in charge of stretching this boundary, showing it’s possible, if we want any form of true empowerment, empowerment that doesn’t need to be filtered thru whether or not men have access to our reproductive abilities.

separatism isn’t even the furthest we can push the window. honestly, separatism doesn’t even sound wild or unreachable to me anymore. i moved past the feelings of “this is impossible, but a hopeful goal to strive for, like the moon, and being respected a bit more by men will be our stars” to “this should be normal, and im not waiting for men’s stamp of approval to embody this way of life and to actively advocate for it” right quick lol

[ms-hells-bells]

me whenever i see a male youtuber

[pearl-fem]

Immaterial Girl: The Myth of the Man-Made Woman by RadFemFatale

[comrade-meow]

“The foundational Marxist text dealing with the oppression of women is Engels’ The Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State. According to Engels, while there has always existed a sexual division of labor in human society, it is not until the rise of private property that this division becomes hierarchical. Before the rise of private property, society was organized under what was called “mother right”, i.e. a person’s family is traced through their mother, given the difficulty of identifying with certainty the father in primitive communist society. But because private property grew out of male labor, and became concentrated in male hands, mother right gave way to “father right”. In order to bequeath his property to his son, the father needed to know with certainty who his sons were. This meant controlling the reproductive labor of the female sex, and its subordination to male supremacy; thus the advent of patriarchy. In Chapter II of Origin of Family Engels calls the overthrow of mother-right “…the world historical defeat of the female sex. The man took command in the home also; the woman was degraded and reduced to servitude, she became the slave of his lust and a mere instrument for the production of children.”[3] Note that Engels here is dealing with sex, with biology. Women are not oppressed because of some abstract gender identity, but because of their sex. Class society and patriarchy, the two of which exist in a symbiosis, need to control women’s reproductive labor to sustain themselves. To put it more bluntly, they need to control the means of reproduction. Thus, women’s oppression has its origin in material reality.”

— Misogyny is Revisionism Part 1: On the Left’s “Woman” Problem

[tchaikovskaya]

being privileged on one axis or many axes doesn’t magically make systemic oppression disappear lol. i feel like so many of you are SO eager to dismiss women talking about misogyny and their experiences and to make it more palatable to other people running in the same circles you dogpile on white cishet rich women and pretend they dont face oppression too or that they’re somehow cushioned from it, just so you can construct an image of a woman you’re *allowed* to tear to shreds without being rightfully labeled a misogynist :))))) different social circumstances of course affect how the oppression of women manifests but its still always There thats sorta the whole entire point of analyzing this shit in the first place. its almost the 2020s why are we still on this, where have we lost you lmfao

[iwillseethegoodness]

I rant about this all the time but people are really out there acting like rich white women don’t get beaten, raped, and murdered by their partners every single fucking day. I can only roll my eyes at the willful ignorance at this point. 

And let’s not forget every time a white woman comes forward about rape within 4 hours the narrative changes to her white rape victim privilege.

[mariacallous]

now gods, stand up for girlbosses

[danoriddler]

do u realize that that male/female brain article supports the radfem ideology ?

tysm for pointing it out, it's deleted now, im not great at spotting radfem/t*rf dogwhistles but im trying to get better

[lilithslabrys]

science (the notion that brain sex is fake — a scientific fact) is a terf dogwhistle. you are on CRACK crack

[never-obey]

“If you do not recognise the material reality of biological sex or its significance as an axis of oppression, your political theory cannot incorporate any analysis of patriarchy. Women’s historic and continued subordination has not arisen because some members of our species choose to identify with an inferior social role (and it would be an act of egregious victim-blaming to suggest that it has). It has emerged as a means by which males can dominate that half of the species that is capable of gestating children, and exploit their sexual and reproductive labour. We cannot make sense of the historical development of patriarchy and the continued existence of sexist discrimination and cultural misogyny, without recognising the reality of female biology, and the existence of a class of biologically female persons.”

— Rebecca Reilly-Cooper (source)

[whimsicalwomon-deactivated20231]

being smarter than a twitter user isn’t an achievement, that’s how you get all of these contrarian anti-idpol people who’s entire politics is dunking on the libs and their radical feminist counterparts dunking on troons or whatever and think saying something a libfem wouldn’t say is a radical stance. being hyperonline is truly a disease that we’re struggling with and i mean that honestly. i keep telling myself to go outside and touch grass or something! i don’t want to do this anymore!