#that’s why intersectionality exists

[zoeywades-husband]

Misogyny and homophobia can literally go hand in hand. They work together because they are products of the same system that is the patriarchy. When you have someone publicly shaming a female LI who the majority of people romancing her are queer people (queer women, non-binary people, and bi/pan men) it is going to result in a two-fold situation of misogyny and homophobia.

This is especially the case when they are tearing down a female LI to prop up a male LI. Doing it on a public platform can result in queer players feeling alienated. This shouldn’t be something that is hard to comprehend.

It’s very similar to what happened to the reaction to the Sadie scene where people calling the scene “gross” or “nasty” and leaving it at that resulted in unintentional shaming of queer players because the majority of people who romance women in the fandom are queer people. There were discussions about how misogyny and homophobia go hand in hand and how it was reflected in the Sadie situation.

The same thing goes for this situation. We can see instances of this throughout the years choices has been around where unreasonable and unfounded shaming of female LIs are a product of misogyny and homophobia that work hand in hand and alienate queer players. You guys remember all the Ava hate?

This situation isn’t a “it’s misogyny or homophobia” but it’s both. They’re working together when there’s unfounded hatred and shaming of a female LI. And saying that this argument “assumes everyone romancing Valax is queer” and “assumes there are no queer people romancing Aerin” is a weak argument to ignore how homophobia and misogyny work together that has genuine negative effects on queer people. And then to say it “derails” from the main topic of misogyny completely overlooks how these two work together. It is a situation of intersectionality here

The majority of people romancing Valax are queer and while there are obviously going to be straight men who romance her there are less of them compared to queer people because it encompasses more genders in its inclusion. Even more importantly, cishet women make up a large portion of the fanbase within the fandom and many of them assume that female LIs are for queer people. When people, especially cishet women, therefore hate and shame female LIs for invalid reasons that results in misogyny and homophobia working together

Furthermore, this isn’t about queer people romancing Aerin (I’m one of them) but about how people who only/mainly romance men and then shame female LIs publicly result in alienating queer players who romance women due to how in this case misogyny and homophobia work together.

It’s not about whether or not all people romancing Valax are queer or about how it’s solely misogyny but about how misogyny and homophobia work together that has a genuine effect on queer players in the fandom

[rotzaprachim]

Jewlipinoly saying. Ashkenazigalogly saying. I think there’s way to easy a slap dashing of a “white” label or identity on mestize and Jewish people for various semantic points

[anniedreamwilldo]

I fear that anyone who says stuff like “ugh atyd is awful because Remus is so ooc and Sirius is a misogynist and wolfstar are so toxic in it” not only a) has terrible fandom etiquette but b) MISSED THE WHOLE POINT

Atyd is not a story about Remus Lupin

Atyd is not a story about Wolfstar

Atyd is not a story about the First Wizarding War

Atyd is a story about class and privilege. Atyd is a story about queerness and comphet. Atyd is a story about disability. Atyd is a story about the intersectionality of class, privilege, queerness and disability. Atyd is a story about growing up and learning how to be a person. Atyd is a story about morality, sometimes being a ‘bad person’ and what this even means. Atyd is about war and grief and societal circumstances forcing your hand. Atyd is a story about emotionally driven decisions and how they affect the people we love. On that note, Atyd is a story about love, but in all its beautifully complex and messy shades, not fairytale romance.

All The Young Dudes is one of the most layered and nuanced works of fiction to ever exist and 99.9999% of criticisms I see of it can be boiled down to “tell me you lack media literacy without telling me you lack media literacy”

Also again, for the love of Remus Lupin, please please PLEASE stop publicly slating fanfictions. Everyone has personal taste and you won’t enjoy everything you read, but fics aren’t published works that have invited critique. They’ve been provided to you for FREE by a fellow nerd in the community so keep any negative thoughts you have on fics to your self.

I’m not saying everyone has to enjoy Atyd or that people can’t think that Remus is OOC etc. BUT the fic is not bad because it’s not to your personal taste and like I said, the overwhelming justifications I see for why people think it’s bad seem to entirely miss the point/ the fact that some of these choices are absolutely intentional from the author. Like, of course Sirius makes objectifying comments about Mary… he’s a teenage boy in the 1970s who is massively overcompensating to cover his queerness. A huge part of his character arc is comphet???

“We want complicated characters!” people scream until they see a seventeen year old kid on the precipice of fighting in a war for a society that has shunned him for his disability be moody and mean to his boyfriend

Anyway enough of me rambling. Long story short, I’m an ATYD defender until I die

Muchos love n wolfstar xo

[ghostboyravenight]

i'm sorry if this is a really basic question, but while i understand that transmisogyny is oppression that results from the intersections of being trans and being a woman, how does the intersection work with transandrophobia? i saw a post some time back that said there's no cis equivalent to transandrophobia so I am struggling to understand where the intersectionality comes in for you guys, sorry again if this is rude i really respect trans men and your contributions to the community

Hi! I appreciate the question!

Basically, I think looking at the type of oppressions trans people face as having cis equivalents is already counterproductive. For example, there’s this idea that transmisogyny is simply the intersection between hatred for trans people and hatred for women (hence, trans + misogyny) but this simplifies the reality of what transmisogyny actually is and diminishes the experiences of trans women/fems.

It isn’t so much that they’re being targeted just for being both trans and women; they’re being targeted for being trans women. It’s an entirely seperate axis of oppression, that yes may have some overlap with what cis women face (though you could also say that transandrophobia contains some overlap with what cis women face) but overall it’s a specific type of oppression that trans women experience as they navigate through the world based on their existence as trans women.

So you could say that transandrophobia is an equivalent of that, rather than trying to connect it with cis equivalents. Because we’re not cis! We are trans men, and how discrimination can manifest against us is what transandrophobia aims to describe. It’s things like forced pregnancy as a way of detransitioning us, loss of reproductive rights, TERF ideology that spreads around the idea of “rapid onset dysphoria” and paranoia around “young, confused girls” being coerced into transitioning, which leads to the restriction of gender affirming care for trans youth. These don’t have a cis equivalent, even if our infantilisation may come from a place of misogyny (but thus intersects with the transphobia of violently misgendering us).

Furthermore, when it comes to intersections, it also depends what intersections we’re referring to. When people say there’s no cis equivalent to transandrophobia, they’re most likely comparing us to the white cis men in power, which in turn means viewing all trans men as white.

Meanwhile, Black cis men and other men of colour do experience discrimination based on the intersection of their race and their manhood. There is an entire history of Black men in America being lynched in the name of “protecting” white womanhood, and the hypermasculanisation and vilification of Black men and moc leads to high rates of police brutality and incarceration. These are the types of intersections that tmoc have to face, alongside their transness, which is why so many discussions of transandrophobia are led by Black trans men and other tmoc (with the term itself being coined by a tmoc).

I think these discussions of transandrophobia and transmisogyny are being impacted by this idea that our oppressions need to be based on equivalent oppressions that cis people face, because this is still an attempt to force us into a cis binary. Intersectionalism isn’t as simplistic as black and white boxes. It is messy and complicated, and has many different overlaps in many different identities and many different cultures/countries/ethnicities etc., and the best thing to do is simply to listen to the lived experiences all trans people (because I haven’t touched upon the specific types of oppressions that enben and intersex people face, which also can’t be put into boxes of cis equivalents).

Hopefully this answers your question as best as possible, but feel free to ask any follow up questions!

[plaidos]

you know what actually i am gonna answer the bad faith anon to show everybody how bad faith it is.

ME LITERALLY FIVE HOURS AGO:

sorry dude but you cant make me grovel and repeat "trans women are rapists trans women are rapists trans women are rapists" like idk i actually think we dont need to make a big deal about how white trans women (throwing in white makes it progressive instead of transmisogynist!!!) are more likely to be rapists and this needs to be recognised. i think actually all of society is trying to do that enough already lol. like if i were posting about how men of color being non-white doesn't make them incapable of being rapists y'all would start giving me the racist side-eye, right? because, contextually, it would look like i was just looking for an excuse to say "non-white men are sexually aggressive". how would it make you feel if i started associating you with every non white guy who's sexually abused me or my friends?

like come onnnnn you know if you're making a criticism about white women you can just say "white women" you don't need to further lionise the idea that trans women specifically "always have more privilege than you might think!!!!!!" it isn't helpful for literally anybody except to recontextualise trans women as "more privileged" than men. because of course, you have zero mention of transfems of color until it comes time to mention what they can provide for you; it's funny how intersectionalism is only ever used by men to demonstrate how under-privileged they are comparative to women rather than, y'know, the other way around..... you only seem interested in the fact that white trans women (specifically. interestingly, not just white women... but white trans women specifically! that's weird wonder why that is 🤔) have privilege above trans men of color, you are totally uninterested in the reality that you still have privilege over the transfems of color you use as objects in your second to last sentence.

i actually shared your ask with some transfems of color i know and i was told "if someone thinks racism existing cancels out that genderwise everyone that was cafab has privilege over trans women. i sure fuckin hope none of the black and brown girlies theyre hanging out with are trans for their own safety."

[vanessagillings]

I’m posting the ever-so-rare photo of myself alongside one of my characters based on my childhood because today is World Autism Acceptance Day, and I wanted to show my little corner of the internet who this particular autistic person is:  

I was officially diagnosed in February, at age 38 (I’m now 39). A lot of people thought I couldn’t be autistic.  Some people who know me in real life still don’t.  And until around 10 years ago, I didn’t think I could be either, because I was nothing like the stereotype media portrays. I was told that autistics lacked empathy (untrue), and never played make-believe (also often untrue) and only enjoyed STEM.  I was — and am — an empathetic artist -- and make believe?  I can spend days sketching finely bedecked bears brewing tea or carefully choosing the right words to weave tapestries of fiction �� though perhaps my hyper focus was a bit of a red flag.  Even so, how could autism describe me?  I was a good student.  I got straight A's. I didn’t act out in class.  I can make eye contact…if I must.  And lots of girls hate having their hair brushed with an unholy passion, right?  Clearly I swim in sarcasm like a fish, so autism couldn't be why I was so anxious all the time, could it?

If someone had told me when I was younger what autism ACTUALLY is — instead of the nonsense I’d seen on screens — I would have seen myself in it.  I didn’t hear that autistics have sensory issues until I was in my mid-twenties, which is when I first began to really research autism symptoms, and I had almost all of them:  sensitivity to light, smells, fabrics, temperatures, textures, and certain touches, all of which make me feel anxious, I fidget (stim), I never know what the hell to do with my hands or where to look, I talk too little or too much, I have special interests, I have entire animated movies memorized shot-by-shot and can remember the first time and place I saw every movie I've ever seen but I often forget what I'm trying to say mid-sentence, I echo movies and tv shows (my husband and I have a whole repertoire of shared echolalias, making up about 20% of our conversations), I was in speech therapy as a kid, I have issues with dysnomia and verbal fluency, I toe-walk, I can't multitask to save my life, I like things just-so, I’m deeply introverted but not shy, I need to recover from all social interaction — even social interaction I enjoy — and I find stupid, every day things like grocery shopping, driving and making appointments overwhelming and intensely stressful, sometimes to the point where I struggle to speak.  It turns out, I am definitely autistic. My results weren't borderline. Not even close. And while these aren’t all of my challenges, and not everyone with these symptoms is autistic, it’s definitely something to look into if you present with all of these things at once. 

So why did it take me so long to get diagnosed? The same bias that exists in media threads through the medical community as well, and because I'm a woman who can discuss the weather while smiling on cue, few people thought I was worth looking into. Even after I was fairly certain I was autistic, receiving an official diagnosis in the US is unnecessarily difficult and expensive, and in my case, completely uncovered by my insurance.  It cost me over $4000, and I could only afford it because my husband makes more money than I do as a freelance illustrator — a job I fell into largely because it didn’t require in-person work; like many autists, I have been chronically underemployed and underpaid, in part due to physical illness in my twenties, which is a topic for another day.  But it shouldn’t be like this.  It shouldn’t be so hard for adults to receive diagnoses and it shouldn’t be so hard for people to see themselves in this condition to begin with due to misinformation and stereotypes. Like many issues in America, these barriers are even higher for marginalized groups with multiple intersectionalities. 

It’s commonly said that if you’ve met one autistic person, you’ve met one autistic person.  This is why it’s called a spectrum, not because there’s a linear progression of severity (someone who appears to have low support needs like myself might need more than it seems, and vice versa), but because every autistic person has their own strengths and weaknesses, challenges and experiences, opinions and needs.  No two people on the spectrum present in the same way.  And that’s a good thing!  No way of being autistic is inherently any better than any other, and even if someone on the spectrum struggles with things I don’t — or can do things I can’t — doesn’t make them more or less deserving of respect and human dignity.

But speaking solely for myself, the more I learn about autism, the happier I am to be autistic.  I struggle to find words and exert fine motor control, but my deep passion and fixation has made me good at art and storytelling anyway.  I find more joy watching dogs and studying leaf shapes on my walks than most people do in an entire day.  More often than not, the barriers I’ve faced weren’t due to my autism directly, but due to society being overly rigid about what it considers a valid way of existing.  My hope in writing this today is that maybe one person will realize that autism isn’t what they thought — and that being different is not the same as being less than. My hope with my fiction is to give autistic children mirrors with which to see themselves, and everyone else windows through which to see us as we actually are.

If you’re interested in learning more about autism or think you might be autistic, too, I recommend the Autism Self Advocacy Network  autisticadvocacy.org and the following books:

What I Mean When I Say I’m Autistic by Annie Kotowicz

We're Not Broken by Eric Garcia

Knowing Why edited by Elizabeth Bartmess

Unmasking Autism by Devon Price, PhD

Loud Hands edited by Julia Bascom

Neurotribes by Steve Silberman

(trigger warning: the last two contain quite a lot of upsetting material involving institutionalized child abuse, but I think it’s important for people to know how often autistic children were — and are — abused simply for being neurodivergent).

Thanks for reading 💛

[blkaroculture]

As a black aromantic, amatonormativity looks different to me in compared to white aromantics.

When looking back into history of amatonormative as well as how my black family perpatuates it, it really all boils down to the same old story: white people forces thing onto black folks so black folks adopt it to survive cause they didn’t have a choice but to.

This is especially why I roll my eyes when they mention alloromantics to be the bane of their existence because to me that includes black alloromantics. Majority of the conservatism the black community holds is because they had no choice but to. And the reason they had no choice but to is because of white people, which is also what they are. I think when white people are also oppressed, because they’re taught to consistently center themselves in every conversation, they use their personal experiences to paint it as the universal community experience. There’s a lack of self awareness and intersectionality that really can only be solved through more black aro voices empowering themselves in this community.

[butch-bakugo]

You didn't hear it from me but the entire reason why transradfems/baddels HATE that trans men talk about their past experiences as cis women (at the time) and the horror they went through is because if you got far enough back in their past, you'll find that they are the " I avoided the red pill pipeline by becoming a trans woman" type shit (and they are still red pilled, still discuss cis women/Transmascs like redpills, still believe racist conspiracy theories like redpills... if not redpill, why redpill shaped? Why constantly calling "tme" people (who they only ever mean to be cis women and transmascs) sub humans with less thought capacity/smelly vaginas/whores/whiney bitches? Hmmmm) and you'll probably find some questionable views they never worked through. It's why you never see them talk about anything but feminism/gender based discrimination but never interphobia, nbphobia, racism, ableism, etc, they never actually bother to intersectionalize their feminism when it applies to non-perisex trans women and when they do, they sound like the typical surface level ally who only tolerates your existence so long as you don't speak up when then say shit that shows their true intentions...

You hate when they talk about their past with discrimination as an afab/cafab intersex person? You don't like it because you're jealous of those experiences and things you think delegitimize your experiences (they don't, other people exist) or you just don't like Transmascs having a space in women's healthcare because naming yourself Milo isn't a full hysterectomy (you want them to fit the mold of cis men so you don't feel bad being cruel to them and the only people who benefit from being paired with cis people exclusively in a radical feminist lense is trans women, not trans men) or because you've got some skeletons in your closet and can't bring up your past? Wonder why they all have 4chan and Reddit accounts.... Hmmm.... Quite the thinker.....

[walks-the-ages]

anyways, if you use Firefox and have a Mozilla Account, and you are a trans man or you are intersex, or you just generally believe in intersectionality and solidarity within the trans community, please consider leaving a Review on Shinigami Eyes expressing your disappointment,

that they are now openly marking people Red for daring to talk about transandrophobia, exorsexism, or just daring to exist as an intersex person with "afab transfem" in your bio, because the trans women behind Shinigami Eyes are now openly saying you are "transphobic" if you talk about your experiences as a trans man, or if you dare to have a "confusing" label like "afab transfem" which is a term a lot of intersex people use, but is not limited to intersex identities-- but trans rad fems refuse to talk to intersex people or people who don't have perfectly binary-boxed identities with experiences outside of their own, so they're now saying its "an attempt by special snowflakes to co-opt trans women's oppression" or some shit like that.

Anyways, if you actually care about the entire trans, nonbinary, and intersex community and not just one subsection of it, please leave a review about why you're no longer using or no longer trusting Shinigami Eyes for being exclusionary to trans men and intersex people, and for embracing radical feminism by demonizing all trans men "because they're men"

[ultfreakme]

Jay is the heart of the Jay-Jon-Nia "Love Triangle", not Jon.

The external premise of the JayJonNia dynamic as we've been told in promotions and such is that Jay & Nia are vying for Jon's affections. The general DC fandom is also taking this as the conclusion since Jay loves Jon, and Nia also has feelings for Jon. The existence of these romantic feelings immediately makes people think this is going to be some tug-of-war for Jon's attention but that is not the source of their current tension at all.

The reason these three are fighting is because of Gamorra.

Gamorra is what brought these three together, and it is what's splitting them apart. Saving Gamorra was where ALL of them debuted as superheroes in the comics. This was Nia's first introduction to the mainline story, Jay's suit debuted here, and Jon's first big superhero mission was this.

It is a significant place for them as heroes but also personally as people because it's Jay's home.

If you remember this interaction, it stated with Nia showing up, explaining that if they don't stop Bendix, the entire Justice League would be in trouble, and Jon & Nia jumping to go save Gamorra alone.

Then Jay slows both of them down and says this:

Jay is advocating for Gamorra's autonomy and this speech then becomes the crux of the issue.

Jay explains to Jon & Nia that they can't fight FOR Gamorra, but they can fight with it. He constantly speaks for his country's rights. He started all of this for his country. So when I say Gamorra is the reason they are where they are, it also very much means JAY is why they are all where they are.

Jon & Nia's failure to understand the importance of autonomy, the necessity for intersectionality and knowing their own limits landed them here.

Nia has good intentions but she doesn't have the power. Physically yes, but systematically, she was a new, young hero with little experience. But her belief in her own physical powers led her to making some....bad choices.

She obviously didn't want to work for Waller but accepting any sort of deal with her was a bad move. Jon warned her, she didn't listen. Afterthought gave her his premonition, she ignored it. In her efforts to protect Parthas she couldn't see far ahead enough to understand what she will have to put to the slaughter to save her own home. Jay wanted teamwork, he went into this with that, but Nia and Jon have a bad habit of taking everything on themselves.

Jon is just as bad. That lecture from Jay was directed specifically at Jon and all of SOKE was Jay showing Jon that he isn't alone. He keeps trying to give Jon community, get him more involved in ground-level work, and tries to show him that even if he is Superman, he needs a place to rest. Jon's penchant for doing everything alone means he's also shortsighted about who's the wrongdoer, and how systematic violence works.

SOKE starts with Jon worrying about how Superman can't punch dictatorships, oligarchs, corruption or pollution. Then we're introduced to Jay, a reporter whose main goal in the story is explaining that Jon doesn't have to do it alone, and that these things take time.

Jay wanted teamwork, he went into this with that, but Nia and Jon have a bad habit of taking everything on themselves. He is their glue, he gave these two direction when they were fumbling in their new roles as heroes.

Nia

Then it all goes to shit and Gamorra is colonized once more.

Nia is deeply, painfully aware that she fucked up big time by the end of Dream Team. She keeps trying to scaffold the damage and fix things but the train has left the station a long time ago. All she can so by the end of it is watch, while still somehow trying to be the hero she desperately wants to be.

And this all leads to Nia taking her most direction action to suppress Jay when she could've genuinely made a different choice; the chase in the forest.

In Nia's eyes, she can't be forgiven or be the hero she wants to be unless she fixes this for Jay. She asks JAY for forgiveness, she tries to explain herself to him, she tries and tries from Ground Zero all the way up to Secret Six, where she's only really talking to Jay throughout the run. Jon is the one giving justifications and explanations, Nia doesn't try to explain herself, but she does want to get Jay justice. The run opens with Nia's guilt about Jay, it's eating her alive. She'd go so far as to kill for him! She doesn't give a shit what Jon would think (she does, she cares but not enough to stop her), she's said it plain as day in Absolute Power.

Nia is here, to appeal to Jay and earn some kind of absolution for what she was involved in. She cares about Jon, has feelings for him, but ultimately, his acceptance isn't what she wants.

Jon

This is obvious. Jon is deeply in love with Jay. From the moment they met, Jay gave him direction, purpose, and most of all, safety. Jon was desperate for someone to not treat him like a ghost or a tragedy, and Jay was it. He didn't love him for Superman, he always called him out, he debated with him, affirmed him, and generally engaged with Jon without any duplicity.

Jon has been living a life of lies, hiding and manipulation. The first 9 years of his life, he lived under a different name- Jon White. Then turns out his dad's Superman. The move to a new town and turns out everyone there is an alien who have been used to control Jon by Manchester Black. Then his kryptonian grandfather comes in and starts talking strangely about who he is. He gets lost in space and is under the thumb of a deeply emotionally abusive man for years. Then he gets used as a weapon by having his brain hijacked.

Point is, Jon has control issues and trust issues. He needs people to be direct with him and he needs to be in control of a situation. Jay provides him this with ease.

It is canon text that Jay is the only thing that makes sense for Jon. He is his home, his side is the only side he will ever take, and through Super Son, we see that no matter what Brainiac Queen or Nia did to his mind, he will always, ALWAYS remember Jay Nakamura because he is at the core of who Jon Kent is.

Jon wants Nia in his life, he wants to know her and he loves her in his own way but ultimately, she is not who he looks to for direction.

Nia was inside Jon's brain crafting dreams for him to hold onto, and every single time, Jon turned to her and went "where is Jay?". He would actually let his mind collapse over losing Jay.

And Jay proves this trust right every time! Nia wanted to secretly kill Waller? He told Jon the second he found a chance to do so. Jay has never let Jon think he could ever reconcile with Nia. He is clear about how much he hates her even if Jon himself disapproves. Jon is unhappy about this but he WANTS this honesty. Hell his need for control and clarity is so far gone that he has been snooping on Jay's laptop!

Nia and Jon, in this event, have both set each other's approval and acknowledgment aside for one person and that is Jay.

Jay doesn't care for their acknowledgement. He never tries to make himself palatable to appeal to them. He comes as he is and if they have an issue, they can fuck off. Jay is the one being chased here.

So yes there is a love triangle here, but not in the way anyone expects.

[velvetvexations]

this is not a new observation, and i can’t speak on it with authority because i’m not a Black man, but it’s honestly really. funny. in a way. to go from the latest discourseposting about how trans men’s proximity to maleness gives them all the inherent privileges of cishetero white patriarchy no matter their material conditions…

over to. like. a video by FD Signifier (Black video essayist, highly highly recommend his work) where he just outright uses the term misandry and discusses the intersectionality of maleness with other marginalizations and the way that patriarchy punishes and polices any man who doesn’t fit the patriarchal mold.

idk, it’s almost like the system of patriarchy is bad for everyone, and if you’re going to argue for a more equitable society, you cannot disregard the ways that patriarchy disempowers and damages even the men it upholds, because there’s an extremely narrow range of what’s considered acceptable maleness.

like, for fuck’s sake, even beyond racism and ableism and other intersecting identities — it’s a meme that a lot of adult cis men these days don’t have any close friends, are completely out of touch with their emotions, don’t go to therapy because they don’t know they need it, and are emotionally dependent on their wives.

but no, this is the nuance is dead website, so the fact that white cishet patriarchy hurts literally everyone is… an MRA psyop or something, and not one of the foundational points of intersectional feminism.

Yeah, one of the things about "transandrophobia implies androphobia exists" is that I do not find that to be an apocalyptic scenario. Literally who cares. I need someone to articulate to me why the potential existence of generalized misandry is such a terrifying concept that it justifies picking apart every new word another marginalized community comes up with. What makes that such a dangerous risk that people need to police the language of an oppressed group they don't belong to.*

*this is different from TMA/TME because the issue with that is that it doesn't simply describe transfem oppression, it describes the experiences of other people and defines them as lesser than the pain of transfems

[blackpilljesus]

Why I'm no longer a feminist

For context I've been heavily involved in liberal & radical feminist spaces, skirted around marxfems but they're all similar behaviour wise while claiming to be better than others which is what all the below points are based on. All of these apply irrespective of the type of feminism.

Feminism failed - Around 2020/2021 when I was still a feminist, I read an article about how feminism failed and realised it was right. It highlighted how it's been decades of feminism yet it took a pandemic to set women back (women turning to sex work to survive, women quitting their jobs to take care of kids) and it got me thinking. All this pandering to moids, all this work, yet women are always one political disaster away from losing it all. Now tbf it isn't exactly a fair battle with decades of established feminism going up against millenias of oppression but the below points certainly do not help feminism move womens freedom/rights forward.

So much infighting - Nobody is ever a true feminist. Despite everything feminists would say about maIe violence & how it affects womens lives; they'd lash out, smear, or block women that actually hated maIes. I'll never forget being blocked by a big feminist page for saying how women would be better off living without maIes in our lives using their poll data collected on what women would do if maIes didn't exist for 24 hours. They claimed I was being hateful to maIes like come tf on everyone else gets to hate their oppressor but women. Also I've noticed feminists are generally nicer to maIes despite all the abuse but harsher to women they disagree with. Complaining about maIes is just a hobby to them, when a woman more serious comes along they attack that woman more than they attack abusive maIes. Similarly they defend maIes more fiercely than they defend women & girls. Says a lot about their character. I'll expand more on these phenomenons on lower points. Having civil disagreements among feminists is rare (which is what happens when there's no direction) as disagreements will end up in explosive fights full of abuse, smearing, doxxing, etc. It's especially worse as a lot of the time these fights are over moids.

No clear goal or direction - It can't even be agreed among feminists who the movement is for, who is benefitting & being harmed by the system, and the goal. I get that there's usually factions within big ideologies but there's almost no cohesion among feminists which makes it difficult to even discuss let alone advocate so instead of moving forward, feminists go around in circles. Feminism doesn't seem to actually be going anywhere.

Not helpful to marginalised women (in the west) - Despite claims of adopting Intersectionality, marginalised women are often left out of serious mainstream conversations by feminists i.e. black women left out of blm as voices & efforts are focused on marginalised maIes.

Lot of copium - Rather than addressing problems, many feminists want to pretend the problem doesn't exist with a sister circle of women that'll do the same.

Realised how toxic & complicit women are - Even several feminists can be toxic maIe lovers willing to drag any woman & her name through mud for maIes sake. So much enabling behaviour is peddalled in the name of "sisterhood" but let it be a woman that doesn't want anything to do with maIes and feminists have no problem excluding & hating on her. Feminists speak about how women are just too kind & empathetic for their own good which is very misleading. Women are manipulative & also calculative with their actions, they aren't the innocent victims feminists preach them to be (not saying they have to be innocent but it's disingenuous & reckless pretending otherwise). Women (including feminists) will be gentle with maIes but harsher with women; especially women that merely disagree with them. Another issue I have with feminists is that (especially with radfems) they push "men bad women good" agenda when women are also bad. Just because they're oppressed doesn't mean they cant be bad. Whenever women have power (esp over other women) they can be evil. Besides the fact that women still love moids despite everything they do & their "bountless empathy goodwill nature" mostly extends to maIes says a lot about their so-called "goodness".

Realised most of this is just a pass-time until women find & lock in their nigels - Even fierce radical feminists of the 80s that went all out eventually settled down with a moid & kids reflecting on their radfem days as a hobby. I'm not looking to do the same. Many feminists, even the most staunch ones eventually end up bragging about finding a good man that's not like the rest, he's different they're sure of it (said every woman ever). The thing that gets me is that they cant even shut up about their nigel in a space supposedly for women, they want to affirm their ego by flaunting their special nigel to other women then months down the line it's "actually he was a manipulative POS" sure sis.

Saw how common maIe panderering is - each type of feminist accuses the other of pandering to maIes when they all do it, just in different ways and yes this includes radfems which was my last straw. Also many feminists prop up maIe voices even for the most simplest thing, they'll stand behind maIes being treated like crap by other ones for defending women but they wouldn't do that to women. I've realised that for most feminists it isn't about helping women advance irrespective of maIes but reforming maIes for their personal desires which takes me to the next point.

Despite all the complaining, statistics, news, theory, analysis; most feminists want to be with a moid & reproduce at some point completely overlooking everything they preach - I've realised how performative most feminists are. Separatism & the notion of not dating or reproducing with maIes gets so much hate bc these women only want to complain & get dopamine off playing victim. They want to have their cake and eat it and I want to part in that. Gets draining being in these spaces if you actually want nothing to do with moids & their evil. You get attacked for hating or wanting nothing to do with maIes instead of wanting to reform them. It's at a point where I'm agitated seeing the same headlines, discourse, theory, etc repetitively. It's like a pest, it irritates me because nothing will change. Moids will continue to abuse women with no consequences & women (including feminists) will continue to love them. I just dont care anymore. I've noticed the maIe panderers & reformers obsess over the repetitive theory, headlines, stats, etc because they want to change maIes to make it easier to settle down with them. Those of us who see that moids are past the point of redemption & want them gone aren't spending our days dolling out the same stats & theories. Look at many serious separatist/4b et al pages, many of them don't talk about maIes much (second half of this anons ask was questioning why I don't prominently speak about men & misogyny) and this is because we see the pattern, have drawn our conclusions, and now want to move forward. Saw the below photo in my gallery & it sums up this point tho it applies to all feminist communities. Drives you crazy when you're not invested in maIes or forming relationships with them. SN; bear discourse is also an example of this.

Realised that this goes beyond witty one-liners & comebacks - I feel like many feminists have created a culture of who can have the hottest take & it's become a thing of snapping back at maIes sorta like the below video explains rather than caring about women.

At some point when you actually don't care for maIes, you don't feel much & the discourse means nothing. I dont care if their behaviour is social or biological, I dont care if they can be reformed, I don't care if I or my actions dont make sense to moids, I just view them all as threats & want to be safe from their evil. No amount of throwing stats & headlines at moids will get them to change. Even if you "win" debates it doesn't bring material value for women but of course this pads many feminists egos as they've got an interest in changing maIes.

Saviour complex - many feminists have saviour complexes which causes arrogance fuelling many of the problems above. People are more aware than they let on and this includes about misogyny but a lot of feminists care more about looking like heros to feel good about themselves rather than actually helping women & girls. P.S todays set of feminists aren't the first set (or even first 3) of women to have the 'theory' of patriarchy that they do.

Feminism has generally done good work over the years for women but with what I want I dont see feminism achieving it. The light switch flipped for me when I saw that these issues from feminists weren't because of a minority but a majority. This isn't even personal I've seen feminists treat other women like crap for maIe validation. Look at what happened when the depp v heard trial was going on & how several feminists initially sided with depp to prove they can hold "female abusers" accountable & claim moids are victims with the expectation maIes can do the same. Feminists even went against andrea dworkin herself when she was raped. I've realised most women do not want liberation as this will likely come without their happily-ever-after life with maIes so they settle for reformation; however this cant be done without other women also taking hits which is why they'll pull the "we're all in it together bs".

[pumpacti0n]

We should always be aware that it isn't some innocent mistake that authoritarian "leftists" have constantly failed to acknowledge systems of power other than a vulgar "anti-capitalism" or "anti-imperialism", like they've carelessly left out an ingredient in a cake recipe.

"Whoops, we've acknowledged one abusive hierarchy, but the other ones slipped through our fingers, silly us!" Nope. The reason this analysis of power isn't included in their ideology and praxis is because they consider these hierarchies useful to their projects.

This is why they'll mock or ignore discourse related to youth liberation, disability justice, gender self-determination or anti-patriarchal struggle, for example, or engage in apologetics for capitalist regimes in other countries -- they want to "have their cake, and eat it too".

A key reason why "the left", as some might call it, is not as powerful as it could be isn't because of some lack of discipline (or "degeneracy"), but rather a lack of intersectionality, a criticism that many of those within the black radical tradition, (black feminists and transfeminists more specifically,) have been highlighting in one way or another for at least 50 years.

Authoritarian "leftists" don't want to sacrifice the power that these hierarchies afford them, which explains why they're largely not opposed to prisons, borders, police, the enforcement of gender roles and even capitalism itself, if it's under the purview of the "socialist" ("workers") state and its bureaucrats.

And this is why I keep putting "leftist" in quotes...We're not free until we're all free, so the implication that we should settle for addressing one or two systems of domination while allowing all the others to flourish until we address them in some vague point in the far future is a distortion of what truly radical liberatory politics should entail.

It's simply a myth that we can address capitalism while leaving racism, ableism and misogyny etc. intact, as if they aren't mutually reinforced by one another, as if fascists and reactionaries will forget that they exist once capital is abolished. This is a fantasy, a delusion.

Authcoms love to pose questions like "without a state to enforce class rule, how will the proletariat defend itself?" but a better question would be: "if we fail to acknowledge the hierarchies that atomize and disempower the masses, how could we ever be a threat to capitalists in the first place? how would abandoning the most vulnerable populations serve the interests of the "working class" and "anti-imperial" struggle?

For example, (cis) women make up approximately 50% of the world's population -- so if women are still subjugated by patriarchal rule and the gendered division of labor, how will we have the numbers to fight?

Similarly, a significant portion of the world's population are currently incarcerated. If we don't abolish prisons, allowing the State to continue extracting labor from prisoners and destabilizing untold millions of social relations in the process, how can we hope to match or exceed their powers?

If we do not challenge the capitalist, productivist logic of endless resource accumulation, with its constant pollution of the environment and the displacement and erasure of indigenous peoples and non-human animals, there will be no habitable planet left for us during this "revolution", because we will have destroyed all of it in the name of profit...so what would be the point?

These aren't minor concerns that we can put off indefinitely, and it isn't some innocent mistake that they are left out of the discourse, but are instead deliberate attempts to co-opt liberation struggle for the sake of advancing counter-revolution and authoritarian projects.

It's no wonder then, that they are eager to dismiss any criticism of their projects the result of "western propaganda", as if these same critiques aren't leveraged by very people belonging to populations they constantly tokenize whenever it suits their agenda.

They'd much rather treat every marginalized community as some monolith or as primitive victims in need of saving and representation by a vanguard. This chauvinist, colonial, assimilationist, antisocial attitude is endemic in (often white,) authoritarian circles, because it forms the basis of their position towards racial and gender hierarchies, that they are a natural and inevitable factor of organization itself. They are wrong.

In this sense, they aren't meaningfully different from the capitalists they pretend to hate so much. In truth, they are just jealous and greedy for more cake.

[necrofuturism]

since it's coming up a lot in discussions nowadays thanks to the US election, here's a really good reddit post about the 4B movement's transphobic + homophobic roots.

tl;dr - any sort of "female separatism" movement needs to be interacted with critically because of its inherent want for a definition of "female." the only thing that can define a woman is herself.

for the love of trans women, lesbians, bi women, black women, brown women, gnc women, gay men, and queer people who are affected by this type of exclusivity, let's nip this shit in the bud.

radical feminism helps nobody, it only hurts.

full reddit post transcript under the cut:

The 4B movement is not what you think. Please do some research.

I know that the 4b movement has been heavily suggested recently due to the ongoings on America, but if it's something people are interested in, I heavily, heavily advise people to look into it and think about the implications, especially if you care about minorities. Trumps administration does not only effect women, and the 4b movement in South Korea is a radical feminist movement that has done harm to other movements.

To put it simply, it lacks intersectionality. 4B has three main issues within its community: 1. Rampant transphobia, 2. Homophobia, and 3. The demonisation and bullying of other women. I don't think it should come as a shock that a movement like this will become a breeding ground for transphobia - in South Korea, at protests, pamphlets have been handed out to identify and push out transgender women, even escalating to a case of many members of the 4B movement rallying to have a transgender woman stripped of her degree.

The website Womad is an online community of woman in South Korea. It uses the same upvoting system as reddit, except the upvote is replaced by a swtsika and has a very weird obsession with Htler = good takes and many young women getting into Nzism along with radical feminist. The website originated because a website banned the use of homophobic language and the outing of gay men, and many women apart of the 4B movement decided they wanted to do that, and created womad to be able to continue. It is the main site for 4B, and very akin to our 4Chan - rampant with bigotry, a hatred of transgender people, gay men, and other women. Many Korean women have been ridiculed and bullied for dating men, for being pregnant, some lesbians even targeted for "acting as men do".

I don't post this to dissuade or slander the movement. In theory I understand it and why people are wanting it to take off, and I do understand why it became so popular in South Korea, due to the horrific misogyny the women face. However, I do urge people to realise women are not the only people in danger in America at the moment. These types of movements are breeding grounds for bigotry (as proven by its current existence), and when so many other people are at risk, if you actually care for their rights as well, I hope that you atleast do some research into 4B without jumping straight into it.

[olderthannetfic]

My probably controversial opinion is that people really need to kinda figure out that someone pointing out: "Hey it's a bit weird to specifically mention that you think a female character is trans because she's tall and has a deep voice." Does not inherently discredit the idea of wanting to read a female character as a transwoman. (In regards to someone specifically mentioning that "It makes more sense to view this female character as trans than cis.")

You can do a trans reading of any character, even for the reasons of "tall and deep voice" , if it mentions that she has broad shoulders and slim hips, you can also do a trans reading. Trans comes in any shape and body type. But at the same time one should also have the ability to see why claiming female characters as trans for specifically that reason has a bit of a sour angle to it. Yes trans women can look like that. But so can cis women also cis women. It's also true that "tall, deep voice." are classically "male" attributed features, same with broad shoulders and slim waists. (You don't need to discredit the idea that cis women can have these attributes btw.) Wanting to see yourself in those features is completely normal and valid. But yeah, as mentioned, there's just this really convoluted intersection of sexism, trans issues, AGAB and Sex, and male VS female coded traits, sexism towards women, including the expectations of AFAB women to portray perfect embodiments of stereotypically and societal-expected feminity and "female traits". To ignore that people will react on this massive mountain built of intersectionality is almost a bit short sighted. Saying a female character makes more sense as a trans person and you specifically zeroing in on traditionally masculine viewed traits? As the main and most presented reason, because it's canon. (And in this case that sparked this sub, despite using canon, at the same time openly rejecting the canonical fact that the character gave birth.) It just really ignores the mountain for the molehill. The loud defensive voices when this situation gets pointed out, even when it's trans or NB people, or even Cis women with these body types pointing out, really need to figure out that: "Ok but trans women are women though." Is not a good argument and ends up being short-sighted. It doesn't actually deal with the nuances and the societal expectations and sex/AGAB stereotypes and widely accepted attributions, or even certain transphobic problems that are adjacent or even a bit of a focal point to these issues.

The simple thing is that, Imo, you can read a character as trans for any reason. Hell, even the most cis character to exist can be read as trans. Yeah turns out there's not actually a hard divide between being trans and cis; gender and expression is more fluid than that, and experiences can be shared amongst them. But all of this will always happen on a huge mountain of intersectionality that pertains everyone, from AFAB to AMAB, Cis women/men, NBs, Trans women/men, Trans masc/femme, Femme/masc presenting etc.

--

[doberbutts]

It's astonishing to see people say "All fear of men is reasonable and okay, but you shouldn't be afraid of black people obviously" and you having to reply, "Hey, question? Aren't black men people?" Everyone clinging to their fear of men while never examining their actions which could harm men of color, in this case, black men who have historically been killed and lynched in great numbers by white women weaponizing this fear to end their lives. Read the Will to Change! bell hooks talks about this! She talks about how white people, especially white men, have distracted from their own patriarchal masculinity by portraying violent women-haters as aberrant and abnormal (So, clearly Black men are more likely to be dangerous because they're already aberrant and abnormal in our white supremacist society). PLEASE understand your fear isn't fucking value-neutral and can be inherently be trusted!!!

Also, on the topic of patriarchal masculinity, I think that term really encompasses what we're talking about when we say male privilege is highly conditional. It's also what makes this uncritical man-hating so devious. Like, bell hooks says, contemporary feminism has provided a place for some women to construct a sense of self outside of sexist expectations, but the same can't be said about men. So by distrusting trans men, telling them they should accept feeling unwelcome in queer spaces because "your identity as a man means you have to earn other's trust (even if you haven't done anything other than exist), you're conflating transmasculinity with patriarchal masculinity. Which is so fucking damaging? Not to mention how people love to destroy and hurt transmasc's emotional selves, the same rituals that bell hooks talks about which so severely damage cis men (who were the book's main topic), and we're doing this to a marginalized, queer group who face immense systemic oppression.

Just--I hate how we mutilate trans men's emotional selves, demonize them because we assume all men possess patriarchal masculinity. I hate how we can't talk about marginalized men because apparently, that means we believe in misandry, when in reality, we're trying to talk about how men of color are portrayed as the worst of masculinity to deflect from white men's violence.

Disclaimer: Sorry for this big ass ask. Just seeing you have to respond to people with a basic lack of understanding of intersectionality and who weren't subtle about their racism--gosh.

And the biggest issue is that I understand why the kneejerk reflex happens- there's a lot of men who have engaged in the most bad faith of bad faith discussions about men's issues and somehow have turned it all onto "so it's WOMEN'S fault things are like this" rather than "so how do we work together with everyone in society to break free", and so a lot of people have their guard up from the start and don't care to listen to the last bit because they think it's more of the same.

Unfortunately, all this will do is continue to make us spin our wheels. We are always stronger together.