rad4learning

[rad4learning]

it’s amazing how radblr has invented whole cloth a canon of “radical feminist” thought that has almost nothing to do with any movement history and draws almost exclusively on a bunch of bloggers and like, five books, only half of which are by even self-proclaimed radical feminists

[rad4learning]

So many stories of women being strangled without being asked or warned during sex because of this sick shit. (It happened to me, wasn’t asked or warned. I wish I had stood up for myself more but)

edit: shout out to some dude called Mike on Twitter

[rad4learning]

Reading Judith Butler’s new book Who’s Afraid of Gender.

I read Butler in undergrad but this book was published in 2024 and its arguments are asinine. I don’t remember her earlier work being THIS empty. NOWHERE in the chapters arguing against gc’s and radfems does Butler bother to state the position she’s arguing against (gender abolition).

I was interested because the blurbs on the back promise “dazzling intellect and moral confidence to orient us inside the maze of projections confessions and cooptations that make up today’s wars over gender”. Instead I just got pissed off.

Butler straight up makes the comparison between denying that a black person is black and denying that a trans woman is a female.

This page is shortly after a passage where she argues that radfems are opposed to addressing the unique struggles of WOC and working class women, wildly ironic as black rads were talking about double jeopardy decades before intersectionality was coined.

Ridiculous that this section made it through her editor as it’s entirely unrelated to her argument that people can change sex! It would indeed be upsetting if radfems were telling Jewish people they weren’t Jewish….but we aren’t 😛 and Butler seemingly can’t argue against the actual point we’re making.

Butler legitimately believes we can change the reality of sex by making legal and administrative alterations to what we mean by the term “sex”. This argument entirely based on the power of naming, but sex exists materially prior to our naming of it.

At the end of the day penile inversion procedures have nothing to do with changing sex.the vagina is self cleaning, self lubricating, and stretchy. The only similarly between a neo vagina and a vagina is the ability for penetration, and that’s only the case if a neovagina is regularly dilated 🙂‍↔️🙂‍↔️🙂‍↔️

Society cares so little about vaginas that a significant amount of people, including women like Butler, are now comfortable calling an inverted penis (or a hole made with material from the colon) a vagina.

proper care for them differs incredibly. Douching for example is harmful to vaginas. But douching is necessary to remove….material…..from neovaginas after they’re used.

After approvingly quoting Andrea Long Chu (“sissy porn made me trans” TIM) Butler proceeds to misrepresent gc and radfem arguments about rape for six pages straight.

It is abjectly ridiculous to go on and on about how being raped with a penis is no differnt from being raped by any other “instrument” without addressing the fact a penis is the only thing that can caused forced impregnation, which has happened to multiple imprisoned women raped by TIMs!

to not even mention that the vast vast majority of rape is done by male people (96% iirc) is SUCH a cop out. consistent theme is that Butler refuses to engage with the actual argument radical feminists are making. 🙂‍↔️🙂‍↔️

I find it interesting that Trans women are presented as hating/removing their penises, despite the fact that Butler vehemently disagrees that having gender dysphoria or wanting genital surgery is necessary to “change sex”. We also know that statistically the vast majority of trans people still have their natal genitals.

Butler can’t even bring herself to refer to what Karen White did as rape. The endless euphemistic terms for it infuriate me. How did we let someone who writes like this get as popular as she is ??

[rad4learning]

any company or advertisement that makes a gimmick out of not wearing foundation but redirects that focus into “skincare” isn’t focusing any less on standards of preternatural perfection for women but rather keeping the standards the same & giving you even fewer tools to try to attain them with

[rad4learning]

ironically i think it's easier for women to treat men like clueless little children who don't know what they're doing than consider the alternative. because the alternative to thinking he doesn't know and just needs to be taught and guided to the correct path is that he DOES know. he knows exactly what he's doing and how he's treating you and he could choose to do better but he preferred not to because it benefited him and because he didn't care or value you enough to stop it and because he knows you won't leave. that actually requires you to do something about the relationship you might not like.

[rad4learning]

I want to show you how easy it is to fall under the dysphoria trap, and to do this we’re going to look at the UK’s National Health Service’s website and what they say about the condition. Let’s check out what they say Gender Dysphoria is:

“Gender dysphoria is a term that describes a sense of unease that a person may have because of a mismatch between their biological sex and their gender identity. This sense of unease or dissatisfaction may be so intense it can lead to depression and anxiety and have a harmful impact on daily life.” Signs of gender dysphoria 1. low self-esteem 2. becoming withdrawn or socially isolated 3. depression or anxiety 4. taking unnecessary risks 5. neglecting themselves

Many people reading this may think “Well that’s quite broad, I could tick some if not all of these symptoms off ” and that’s exactly part of the issue.

From the Gender Dysphoria Trap by Ritchie Herron

[rad4learning]

it’s another excuse to hide misogyny

[rad4learning]

I know that this isn’t the point being discussed here but one of the mentioned quotes is:

“Men are thinking, writing, and creating, because women are pouring their energy into those men; women are not creating culture because they are occupied with love.

- Shulamith Firestone”

One of her better known quotes is:

“a revolutionary in every bedroom cannot fail to shake up the status quo. And if it is your wife that is revolting, you can’t just split to the suburbs. Feminism, when it truly achieves its goals, will crack through the most basic structures of our society.”

From the dialectic of sex, in which she also discusses the ideal society & what she believes is required to achieve that (which does not include women abstaining from partnering with men).

She was a founding member of Redstockings - which championed the “pro-woman line” (“women are messed over, not messed up”) arguing that women are not brainwashed and that choices which appear to be made as a result of brainwashing are adaptations to oppression.

An excerpt from the personal is political essay (Shulamith Firestone was an editor of the publication and may have coined “the personal is political”):

“The groups that I have been in have also not gotten into “alternative lifestyles” or what it means to be a liberated woman. We came early to the conclusion that all alternatives are bad under present conditions. Whether we live with or without a man, communally or in couples or alone, are married or unmarried, live with other women, go for free love, celibacy or lesbianism, or any combination, there are only good things and bad things about each bad situation. There is no “more liberated” way; there are only bad alternatives.

This is part of one of the most important theories we are beginning to articulate. We call it “the pro-woman line.” “

The amount of misogyny in some of those quotes from women is concerning. Yet more quotes basically saying women are too stupid and ignorant to realise they're being brainwashed into being straight and aren't capable of being human beings full of life and happiness if they're in a relationship with a man, true happiness and freedom can only come from being single or being with a woman. Do you not see the glaring misogyny in that? The complete removal of agency? I'm asking genuinely, because it's so glaringly there to me and that's the issue I'm having with radical feminism at the moment.

Women can find happiness and freedom in or out of relationships with anyone but to point the finger at a group of women and say how sad how pitiful these women are pretending to be happy or equal with their partners but they're not, they're just blind to the subservience and oppression, THATS MISOGYNISTIC.

You're doing the same thing pathetic misogynistic men do and say about women, just you're saying it under the guise of radical feminism that's trying to save women, but then saying a woman needs to be saved or can't save herself is also a bit borderline infantilising.

Patriarchy is a systemic issue, emergent as a result of class society and upheld by political and economic structures. So long as there is class divisions, there will be patriarchy.

Telling women to not date men doesn't exactly work to solve the root causes of the problem that is patriarchy. It also doesn't stop rape and violence against women. It's like telling someone "oh you don't like capitalism? then don't buy anything ever again".

It's frankly quite silly.

Why does all spawns of feminism always end up falling into the same hole of telling women how they should be, telling women they're a bad feminist for this or a good feminist for that. It always ends up with telling women how to live, how to be, and if you don't fall within these lines then you're brainwashed, you're ignorant, you're part of the problem, you're not a real feminist.

Can we seriously just let women be how they want to be for once and not put blame or shame on them? Can we not do that?

Wanna live single? Have at it! Live a full life!

Wanna live with a woman? Have at it! Live a full life!

Wanna live with a man? Have at it! Live a full life!

Wanna paint, wanna read, wanna sew, wanna skip wanna whatever the fuck it is you want to do as a woman? HAVE AT IT! LIVE A FULL LIFE!!

I came here to get your views and try to understand this strain of radical feminism more but the more quotes you give the more sad I become. Seriously read back some of those quotes, I could pick out something in all of them thats playing into misogynist narratives and haven't explained how women in relationships with men, not just sexually too I might add, relationships come in all forms it's not always about sex, but none of the discussions I've seen about women in these relationships are upholding patriarchy have actually explained how that can be without blatantly demeaning women and engaging in misogyny.

I'd like to add the use of 'you' is not at you personally, but at radical feminism as a whole, or this particular line of thinking as a whole.

I appreciate that you took the time to read what I suggested. Unfortunately, it seems rather pointless.

Is it easier to respond to a straw man of your own making than to actually address what women are saying? Is it easier to say "basically what you're saying is" and then completely fabricate an argument that was never made? Obviously no woman that I quoted ever insulted you or your intelligence. You're just so defensive that you read political analysis and feel personally attacked.

No, I don't see the misogyny in saying that dating our oppressors prevents us from escaping oppression. Are you sure you know what "misogyny" means? Misogyny means the hatred of women. How is acknowledging that men oppress women in the private sphere in any way hating on women? If I hated women I wouldn't bother explaining basic feminist principles to them, as I'm doing now.

And what "complete removal of agency" are you talking about? Are radical feminists putting a gun to your head or something? We're trying to convince you that's all. Is society not pressuring women into dating men? Are women and girls still not forcefully married all over the world? What "agency" am I removing by telling you that, hey, dating your oppressor might be a little bit counterproductive? It's like you've just discovered political activism and your brain is imploding: Wait what? People have opinions and want to change the system? They're asking me to do some stuff that they believe would benefit their cause? They're saying I might be doing something wrong? How offensive!

No, it's not "MISOGYNISTIC" to evaluate that women are oppressed by men. Not even if you capitalise the word, I'm afraid. It's feminism 101. Oppression doesn't stop at your bedroom door. When I say that poor people who vote right wing are deluded, manipulated and acting against their best interests, I'm not hating on poor people am I? So I'm not hating on women either when I say that dating your oppressors reinforces our oppression. It's just logic.

And you know what, you say you don't want to be infantilised but you keep acting like a child. Little kids don't see past their own interests and are stuck in the present, they don't think of the consequences. That's what you sound like: "My choice my choice my choice me me me, it's all about me, how dare you judge me me me? Now I'm sad!" Your choices aren't made in a vacuum. Some of your choices stem from sexism, or racism, or classism, etc, the sooner you acknowledge it, the sooner you can do better.

Also, a typical sign of abuse is when you perceive those who try to free you as the real monsters. Reading you feels like it's sexist to denounce sexism and that feminists are the real misogynists. Maybe you ought to think about that. Your boyfriend, part of the oppressor class, is not a misogynist. But feminists, women who fight against misogyny, are the misogynists. You don't see how absurd you sound?

So, like I said, you lack class consciousness. It's just you and Prince Charming living the dream, equal, sexism-free, exceptional. Even the most liberal of woman typically acknowledges the power imbalance in her relationship with a man, but not you, you live on another planet. Your man is beyond all that. He's untouched by the patriarchy. He was raised by wolves. He's an angel descended on earth to guide all men towards the light. He still watches porn though. Oops.

I don't think you know anything about politics, systems of oppression, socialisation, anything. You proved it by saying that the patriarchy is a matter of socio-economic class issue. You're parroting leftist men. Is your boyfriend one of them? I bet he is. "Oh don't worry girls, everything will be fixed once we implement real Marxism! It will fix our contempt for your sex! We won't jerk off to rape videos after that we swear! We won't molest our own daughters any more, pinky promise! We only did that because of capitalism! So forget about feminism and focus your pretty little heads on socialism for us okay?"

Rich men, poor men, white men, black men, right wing men, left wing men, they all beat their wives when they feel like it.

Contrary to what you said, feminist separatism does go to the root of the problem. The patriarchy exists because men want to control our bodies, specifically our ability to give birth. That is its root. They wanted free access to our bodies, they wanted to own us as property to make sure we gave them lots of sons so that they could ensure their bloodline would prevail. That's what "patriarchy" means: The Rule of the Father. It's about fatherhood and the enslavement of women to control reproduction. So taking away their access to our bodies is the best way to counter their supremacy. Men don't care about anything else you do, as long as you sleep with them.

You complain that we are "telling women how they should be" well, welcome to politics my dear. People have opinions about how to improve the world and they try to argue their case. Vegans tell people they shouldn't eat animals, socialists tell people they shouldn't hoard money, trans activists tell people they should use their pronouns etc. Not everyone has the luxury of just floating through life unaffected. People defend what they believe in and they try to change society, right or wrong, that is your opinion to have, you can't be neutral in politics. You shouldn't be scandalised by the fact that activists tell others what to do. It's what activism is about.

It's quite telling that you wrote "we shouldn't tell women what to do" and immediately followed it by talking about hobbies like sewing, reading and painting. Like feminism is just a club where we say "we're feminists" and do nothing. It's a political movement, how many times do I have to say it?

It's like saying: "Hey, I'm a vegan who eats meat. Who are you to tell me what to do? So what if I eat meat? It's so silly for you to judge me! If you want to eat meat, have at it! If you don't want to, have at it! Just don't tell me what I am. If I say I'm vegan then I am *bites into a chicken wing*"

It's empty, it's vapid and those who do nothing to change the system are complicit in the system.

There are fundamental questions we must always ask when discussing feminism.

What happens when women refuse to do X? Do men benefit from women doing X? Are men doing X too? Does the patriarchy rely on women doing X?

And you can ask those questions about dating men.

What happens when women refuse to do date men?

Some women are killed for rejecting men or for leaving men. Others are stalked and harassed. They're mocked. They face financial difficulties and social pressure. Lesbophobia. Men try to suppress female only spaces. When wives refuse sex for too long, husbands resort to rape. Bitter old cat lady trope.

Do men benefit from women dating men?

They get free domestic labour, emotional labour, child rearing, sex and control over the reproduction.

Are men dating men too?

No, men are, for the most part, not dating men.

Does the patriarchy rely on women dating men?

Entirely. It's its raison d'être.

[rad4learning]

[rad4learning]

People who identify as gay because their attraction to the opposite sex “feels queer” don’t understand that gay people do not feel like that. Our attraction doesn’t feel weird to us, it feels normal and natural. The thing that feels weird to us is seeing society treat something that comes to us so naturally as perverse and strange.

[rad4learning]

my favorite is when someone clearly doesn't want to challenge their views in any way but has the need to be Correct about every topic so they start saying things like "i dress feminine as a form of protest"

[rad4learning]

pretty sure one of the worst things u can do in life for urself is get a "i cant change i cant learn" mentality abt urself tbh

[rad4learning]

the idea that your true self is someone that lies outside of who you already are now, and that it’s possible to slowly transform into that person, is a dangerous philosophy to introduce to those who hate themselves

[rad4learning]

pseudoscience people talk about hormones like crystal people talk about energies.

[rad4learning]

a lot of us mightve known the risks going into transitioning, but we were also way more willing to take those risks because we were under the impression that it was either accepting the risk of complications or do nothing and in a few years you’ll k*ll yourself from dysphoria. we accepted the risks, but because we were under the impression that the risk of not transitioning were far greater. how is that fair consent? were you really accepting the possible side effects of transitioning or were you too scared to say no?

imo informed consent on transitioning requires accurate statistics for what might happen for both a yes and a no. “you have dysphoria, here are your options and the pros and cons for each option”

[rad4learning]

Compare the pair!

“Women should have sex with one ‘worthy’ man, any expression of sexual desire or anything that could suggest she wants to be viewed as sexy by other men threatens this, therefore making her ‘impure’ and ‘less valuable’. (How will the ‘worthy’ man be confident in his heirs now???)”

“Suggesting something is sexy doesn’t exempt it from critique or examination.”