August 2, 2022

Any man that wants or accepts a platform should always be treated, at the very least, with the greatest suspicion.

Great feminist acts for woman are organising, protesting, connecting with other women, fundraising, researching, writing - all kinds of different ways to raise class consciousness and fight the patriarchy exist that every woman of every means and ability can do.

Actual male allies can do the basics required of them by actually sharing physical and mental labour with the women in their lives, ditching weaponised incompetence, refusing to use porn, standing up against other men being misogynistic in their presence, etc.

To fight patriarchy, women need to come together to fight the system oppressing us.

Men, on the other hand, need to improve themselves in their own private lives. If they genuinely care, then they don't need a platform to do the fucking dishes.

Feminists really need to stop giving male “feminists” a platform

It's the difference between understanding individual and systemic issues.

The fact that men are the most likely to be perpetrators of violence and abuse, where women are most likely to be the victims of violence and abuse proves that there's a systemic issue of male violence that victimises women.

That fact doesn't stop a woman being abusive to another woman, or a man being abusive to another man, or a woman being abusive to a man. In every individual case, the victim needs support and the perpetrator needs to face justice.

All that we can do is fight the systemic causes of overrepresented male violence to prevent as much harm against women as possible.

There will always be evil individuals that will commit evil acts because they want to. Even in what would otherwise be a utopia, there will always be those that harm because they enjoy harming.

But the MRAs won't acknowledge any of that. It's much easier for them to be misogynists and go "but what about...!" There is no what about. Male victims will need male-only spaces to find safety after escaping abuse and the MRAs can go support those individual victims. Meanwhile, feminists who actually give a damn want to destroy the roots of male supremacy that makes so many men feel like they're entitled to beat, abuse and rape women (and other men, but the MRAs forget about that part because it doesn't help them try to justify their hatred of women).

At the end of the day, if it was only a case of "well some abusers abuse and feminists obsess over male abusers," then rape and domestic violence statistics would show that male and female abusers and victims both hovering around the 50/50 mark - but that isn't what's happening, is it?

I hate when males bring up female abusers as if it’s supposed to deflect from the majority of abusers being men. As a girl who was sexually abused by another girl from ages 6-10 I can acknowledge that it happens but is nowhere near as common as a male being an abuser. Yes there are female abusers but that does not deflect from the fact that majority are men, no matter how many women abusers there are it will still never compare to the amount of male abusers.

At midnight last night I came up with a concept: an adaptation of The Little Mermaid where the underwater world is in a stark black and white shadow puppet art style, while the human world is in vivid colorful stained glass? I may paint more of this for Mermay!

real talk: how could people get off to their partners being hurt in bed. i don't even want to entertain that though. it's awful. it's sickening. whoever is into violent pornography or sexual acts should be executed. why is it not okay in any general setting but the moment it's in bed it's okay.

Plank, markers, acrylics, plants... And dragon. d:

Naoki Ito: Urban Nature (2009)

❤️❤️❤️

rinie_fotografie

seeing all the hatred against straight women by men is why we absolutely need to stand by them. straight woman are a vulnerable population and already deal with so much bullshit from men. they can't even have games with fictional males who love them without men shitting all over it and calling it "femcel gooner material".

I'm sorry, but I genuinely can't read this. I have absolutely no idea what you're attempting to say, so I'll explain my point of view and reasoning a little more clearly.

If asexuality is a sexuality, it would be short and sweet to understand. Sexuality is very simple that way. There don't need to be other caveats. Lesbians are women who are only attracted to other women. Straight people are only attracted to the opposite sex. Bisexuals can be attracted to either sex. Therefore, as a valid sexuality, asexuals would be unable to be attracted to either sex.

If asexuality is nothing but a spectrum of "utterly sex repulsed" to "fine with sex with someone I love," then that isn't a sexuality, that's personal preference over physical intimacy and intercourse, and to compare it to the oppression of marginalised sexualities is entirely wrong.

The reason that I bring up misogyny around asexuality is there are a lot of women who feel so pressured to be sexual that they think that having the label of "asexual" will protect them and separate them from others who they believe are much more content with a ton of sex. That they're conflicted about some same-sex attraction, and hide behind asexuality. That they were abused and use asexuality to protect themselves. Romance has been destroyed by the normalisation of hookup culture to the point that there are women who believe that wanting to wait and form a connection with someone else before any intimacy is asexuality and therefore pathological, which is down to misogyny and pornification of the world around us.

I think that the comparison to aspec and nonbinary is accurate, because there is no such thing as being "biromantic heterosexual." As a bisexual, it's incredibly offensive. It's either a bisexual who's so in pain over their sexuality that they've been made to feel that they have to bury it under a different label, or a straight person who thinks that caring deeply for someone of the same sex entitles them to our space.

You cannot have your cake and eat it with wishy-washy, meaningless words.

For the record, trans people are not inherently "queer." They're men and women. I still hear "queer" being used as a slur, and will never accept it.

As a feminist, I believe that women should have the right to be able to say that they never want sex again. If a relationship is fulfilling without sex, amazing. I am personally uninterested in sex right now, if that helps. I'm also uninterested in hearing about how much or how little sex anyone else is having - aside from criticising kink and prostitution etc.

I will always support someone who says that they are asexual, as in, "I do not feel attraction to either women or men, that is how I was made," but I can't take any other kind of "asexuality" seriously. It doesn't make sense at all.

If it really is just a bunch of people claiming to be oppressed and navel-gazing over nothing more than how much or how little sexual intimacy they have in their relationships, then they need to grow up and find a hobby. I remember seeing a billion different versions of "demisexual demigirl" back in the day, and I don't know how it isn't just nonbinary but make it sexuality flavoured.

I really dislike radfems hating on asexuals. Not desiring sex is deviant from what is expected of society, whether among the right or the left (yes, even among radfems and it's quite obvious). There's a level of sex negativity that is encouraged in these spaces (don't have sex with men), but people taking it further upsets you (because you're a woman with the same desire for sex as the men you dislike). I will always support asexuality and acespec identities. If you want sex positivity in any form and don't want those "annoying asexuals" to bother you, just go outside. Stop acting like your stance on sex is not a mainstream opinion