Pedro Pascal Calling JK Rowling A Loser Fucking Pissed Me Off So Bad And People Were Praising Him (majority

Feminism is in trouble. Underneath a veneer of supporting women, there's too much navel-gazing over which women deserve to be protected and which women deserve to be blamed and hated.

Misogyny is the oldest form of bigotry. It is the original form of oppression. Cultures from around the world, across time, decided that women were inferior so that men could control, rape and abuse, all in isolation.

Intersectionality is important for feminism, because misogyny is so entrenched into all sorts of different societies that it also is entrenched into every other form of bigotry, too. Every woman that happens to be part of a different oppressed group too has specific extra examples of specific misogyny that she faces because of that intersection.

That begs the question: can misogyny even be erased before every other kind of bigotry and hatred is erased? Or can no other form of bigotry be erased until misogyny is defeated?

It's interesting just how intersectionality has both the power to bring all women together of all different female lived experiences - but also the power to ensure that there can never be any form of class consciousness for women at all.

How can there be class consciousness and solidarity for all women when there are both white women that gloss over black women's lived experiences at one end, and then lesbians who victim-blame straight women for the abuse they receive at the hands of male romantic partners on the other?

Actual feminism is incredibly hard. Actual feminism means supporting and advocating for all women, not just women you like. It means offering a hand to women who have previously spat at you, or hated and abused you. Women who have been misogynistic or who promoted misogyny. Women that you otherwise (even rightly) hate. It means women who are oppressed in other ways, too, standing shoulder to shoulder with women who are part of oppressor classes because we're all women.

Especially in online spaces, it seems like the bar to be a feminist is to hate men, maybe prioritise and care for some groups of women (aside from using all women as statistics to justify hating men to focus on men again), and, if lucky, possibly a few scan-reads of some foundational texts, and then that's good enough to become a sudden shield to use so that it becomes safe again to make up some new misogynistic slurs. So that it's acceptable to understand that female socialisation is the cause for some anti-feminist behaviours, but it's all those evil women's faults and their free choices to attack and hate others depending on the narrative.

It's obvious that in online spaces, so many that describe themselves as "feminist" come from TRA spaces, because they have hierarchies of women in mind, fuck you, [identity label] woman, stupid fucking handmaiden, you get what you fucking deserve. It's just a remapping of prioritising men to prioritising certain women, like feminism is a new religion instead of a difficult movement with difficult and uncomfortable inner work, even before that has to translate to offering actual solidarity to all women that isn't just lip service.

If you call yourself a feminst, be honest with yourself: are you actually a feminist, or do you just like how the title sounds?

Front page of North Bi Northwest (Oct/Nov, 1995)

❝ Why I Am Bisexual ❞

Can reddit user "lesbianwithabeard" leave bisexuals out of their homophobic fetish?

Those fucks were the ones that pushed back any idea of bisexual confidence by screeching that bisexuality as a sexuality was automatically transphobic. They always latch on to actually oppressed groups to try and force others to feel sorry for them - and then immediately attack them afterwards for not grovelling enough at their feet.

No one owes anyone else dates or sex at any point ever. To claim otherwise is to be pro-rape. That's it.

Lesbians are more trans accepting than gay males yet I don't see tifs complain about "transphobic preferences" as much as tims do. I suspect it's because lesbians are more pressurized to be accepting than gay males are, and you know why.

One of the things that feminism needs to better grapple with is the difference between systemic and interpersonal issues.

The biggest reason that a lot of women push back from feminism with their additions to #NotAllMen is because those women know and love men who aren't rapists and who aren't physically abusive. It's entirely natural to rail against something that you see as attacking someone that you love.

When feminists advocate for single-sex schooling to protect girls, there's an automatic push back and outcry over the very real bullying that goes on in girl-only schools that have had long-lasting impacts on ex-students.

Glossing over the abuse that mothers put their daughters through often gives the impression that anything that counters any women-supporting-women narrative has to be stamped down on and ignored, or at worst, even denied, for the good of feminism.

It's far too easy as feminists to see criticisms like the above from women and then dismiss them, or repeat more statistics and then get frustrated at those women or call them handmaidens, instead of engaging and understanding why they're railing against what's being said.

No, not every single man is a raping woman-beater, but there are a ton more male abusers than female abusers, and a ton more female victims than male victims. That's a systemic issue, and we need to fix it. That doesn't make those loved fathers, brothers, cousins, friends or partners suddenly monsters out of nowhere.

No, female-only schools aren't perfect and there are bullying scandals in all schools, that doesn't excuse the individual abuse that victims have been through, but in general, they're safer for girls, and girls achieve higher grades than in mixed-sex schools, which is important to discuss and improve on.

No, abuse victims shouldn't be silent over what they've been through, and female abusers deserve to face justice. Continued cycles of abuse and female socialisation and mental illess etc might explain some of the abuse, but it doesn't excuse it. The point of feminism is to free all women from patriarchy, so that even the worst of the worst of women don't suffer with misogyny, not coddle the evil and the abusers just because of their sex.

There is so much difficult nuance, and there's too much reliance on the systemic to the point that the interpersonal is completely erased. It stops individual women from seeing anything in feminism that's useful to them. If they have counter-examples to any systemic issue, then they'll use those personal examples to dismiss that there's a systemic issue at all. If they're met halfway and the systemic vs the interpersonal is explained, then there's a much better chance that they'll pay attention or even go away to think about it to eventually become feminists, too.

by yasminemei

Weird question but since you're bi and not dating men, do you still allow yourself to fancy them?

Absolutely! I feel zero guilt for feelings of attraction. I spent way too long feeling awful for being bisexual to play that game. If I see a man I find attractive, I enjoy the sight. I don’t pursue relationships with men because of the risks related to domestic relationships with them, but if a hot guy is in a movie? If I see an attractive man at the park? I don’t try and police the natural attraction I feel. Nor do I feel guilty.

Same with women. I no longer torture myself for seeing a beautiful woman and feeling attracted to her. It’s not automatically predatory or objectifying to just feel my feelings. Nor is it a betrayal of my politics or lifestyle to feel attraction to men.

i loved an Angel, but it made me weak.

when a man does something wrong, whose fault is it?

a. his mother

b. “society”

c. every woman who will never have sex with him

Like Velvet...

Bristol, Vermont