#and I was definitely not the only liberal feminist who felt that way

[gatheringbones]

[“As history has shown, and as I was at the time experiencing, a strap-on can be sexy, but it can also be a failure and a threat. It draws attention to how contradictory and fragile our definitions of male and female are, and how tightly we cling to them, even in relationships between women, where gender and sexuality are more flexible.

I think it’s important to look at how this played out, not just in the history of straight men policing lesbians but in the lesbian community policing itself. In the 1940s and 50s a bar scene began to develop in cities across the country, marking the first time when lesbians, particularly working-class ones, gathered publicly and in large numbers. During this time a butch/femme culture developed that included strict codes of dress and behavior both in and outside the bedroom. Butch women slicked back their hair, wore suits and jeans, and were, generally, the “givers” of sexual pleasure. Femme women wore dresses and makeup and were the “receivers” of sexual pleasure. In some ways, this culture was liberating, as it represented a powerful, cohesive group aesthetic and safety in numbers. Especially for women who actually identified as butch, it was also a chance to finally adopt masculine dress without being seen as failed or dangerous but rather as sexy and loveable. For others this culture was a trap, pushing women into restrictive sex and gender roles in the same ways heterosexuality had. It is by no means the only lesbian aesthetic, but I think part of the reason it has stuck around for so long in the popular imagination as the way lesbians are is because it allows straight people to again see themselves as the center of the sexual world.

In either case, strap-ons were not widely used, or at least not talked about. In Boots of Leather, Slippers of Gold, a book that documents the lives of Black and white lesbians in Buffalo, there is a pretty exhaustive set of interviews about sex acts and terminology, but no one mentions owning, liking, or even trying sex with a strap-on. Indeed, the one mention of a dildo is one of bewilderment as Vic, a self-identified butch, talks about her friend pulling her into the bathroom to show her the new strap-on she got. “Jesus, she whipped this thing out . . . I’m supposed to be butch and my face felt like a neon sign. I could feel the embarrassment. How do you admire a dildo? No seriously, what do you say?”

Butches in the book took great pride “in their own hands and their ability to please,” which “did not dispose them to think that a dildo would improve their lovemaking.” It’s interesting that they considered the dildo less potent and successful than hands. This could be read as displacing the power of the dick, but, coupled with the silence surrounding strap-on use, it also points to a greater fear about the lesbian body. How regulated and small it had to be to exist. How easily it could be diminished by something outside itself, or destroyed altogether.

In the lesbian radical feminist movement of the 1960s and 70s, there was also a great deal of attention focused on creating distance from dicks. Jill Johnston argued in A Lesbian Nation that the only true road to female liberation was the conscious “withdrawal at every level from the man to develop woman supremacy.” This meant that not only butch/femme dynamics but also penetrative sex were out. Anne Koedt developed the theory that the vaginal orgasm was a myth perpetrated by Freud in order to center male sexual desire for penetration, though her evidence for this was a study done by Kinsey—a man—that found the vagina was not particularly sensitive to touch. True orgasms, Koedt argued, only came from the clitoris—even though she interestingly also called the clit “the female equivalent of the penis”—so if women wanted to have enjoyable sex there was no need for penetration, only clitoral stimulation. Andrea Dworkin went so far as to call the penis “a hidden symbol of terror” and argued that “violence is male, the male is the penis.”

Dorothy Allison writes about the effects this had on herself and other lesbians at the time. “No one admitted to using dildos, wanting to be tied up, wanting to be penetrated, or talking dirty—all that male stuff . . . my lover wanted us to perform tribadism, stare into each other’s eyes, and orgasm simultaneously. Egalitarian, female, feminist, revolutionary.” In attempting to free themselves from the penis, in many ways radical lesbians ended up reinscribing the power of the dick and sacrificing the range of sexual pleasure they could experience in the process.

In a counter to this, the lesbian sexual outlaws of the 1970s, 80s, and 90s argued that dildos were actually great, not problematic, but primarily because they didn’t reference the penis at all. Some even argued that wearing a dildo turns a woman into a cyborg, not woman, man, or even human, just a body involved in the mechanistic movements of giving and receiving pleasure. While there is something freeing about this argument, as it gets us out from under the idea that we can’t talk about strap-ons and that a woman wearing a strap-on is only trying to make up for a never-ending lack, it still bypasses the sticky, complicated reality of the gendered/human world we live in and the simple fact that sometimes lesbians want strap-ons to look like penises.

All of this begs the question: can a dyke wear a dick and just have some damn fun?”]

amy gall, from my dick, your dick, our dick, from wanting: women writing about desire, 2023

[itisthefunpolice]

Men in Feminist Clothing

It was brought to my attention that some men are now not only claiming they are feminists but radical feminists specifically.

For those who may not be aware, many men claim to be "feminists" but because feminism is a women's liberation movement for women by women a male cannot be a feminist by definition, even if he is sympathetic towards, believes in, and promotes feminist politics.

In reality, most of these men are not only using the term "feminist" improperly, they're actively using it against women, often actual feminists. These men will gain the trust and loyalty of women and then use that trust and loyalty against them. Even men who's work is respected in radical feminist spaces, like Lundy Bancroft, author of Why Does He Do That?: Inside the Minds of Angry and Controlling Men, are regularly outed as charlatans, predators, and abusers.

I will be using two videos to illustrate how these men often operate and red flags you should look out for when dealing with men who claim to support feminism:

Video #1:

https://vm.tiktok.com/ZGJCmHBxt/

Video #2:

https://vm.tiktok.com/ZGJCmfXhr/

From here on out I will assume you have watched both videos and be referring to them as Video #1 and Video #2.

Video #1 is specifically about a male issue, circumcision. There is nothing wrong with men talking about men's issues. However, this man then goes on to compare this men's issue to a women's issue. Men trying to equate men's and women's sex based issues is a red flag.

In Video #2 he chastises women for both centering themselves and their own issues and for speaking about a men's issue they could never experience, circumcision, yet in Video #1 he felt comfortable talking about a women's issue he could never experience, female genital mutilation, and comparing the two experiences. If these experiences are indeed equivalent then women should be able to speak about circumcision and if they are not equivalent then he shouldn't be able to speak about female genital mutilation with authority. Hypocrisy that favors male voices over female voices is a red flag.

In Video #2 you'll also notice he deflects from any critique of a man talking about feminism by saying "patriarchy effects everyone". This is a clever use of language to make the viewer believe women and men are equally effected by patriarchy and therefore he is allowed to be an authority on the subject, but this is not true. Patriarchy is specifically the oppression of women by men so, while it does effect both sexes, it does so by giving men institutional and structural power over women, not by oppressing men. One could also say "homophobia effects everyone" but this wouldn't suddenly mean heterosexuals are oppressed and can be an authority on gay liberation. Anyone saying men are effected by patriarchy the same way women are is a red flag.

He then goes on to accurately describe radical feminism, but then says intersectional feminism was "developed an expanded largely by people of color". This makes it seems as if men were involved because he says "people" instead of "women" and as if we don't know who those women were. He never mentions these feminists by name, like Audre Lorde or Kimberlé Crenshaw, only citing Bell Hooks at the very end of the video. When a man talks about feminism but either never mentions the women who's ideas he's speaking about or attributes those ideas to men it is a red flag.

He then confuses intersectional politics, in general, with intersectional feminism, specifically. Intersectionality is looking at how different types of oppression interact with one another. Intersectional feminism is looking at how different types of oppression, specifically race, interact with misogyny, which is where the term misogynoir comes from. It is intersectional feminism because it looks at female oppression in combination with other types of oppression. I don't know any intersectional feminists who would agree with his sentiment that a white billionaire woman is not oppressed by a poor black man because intersectional feminism is based on class analysis, which means they recognize how she oppresses him based on her race and financial class and how he oppresses her based on his sex. Any man saying men don't oppress women, no matter how many qualifiers they put in front of those categories, is a red flag.

He then proceeds by saying he identified as a radical feminist. This is a major red flag. Any man who is familiar with radical feminism, and he's made it clear that he at least knows what it is, should know he is by definition not a feminist. That means he's either choosing to ignore that and is therefore ignoring women's boundaries or doesn't actually know anything about feminism, both of which mean he shouldn't be speaking on the topic.

He then says he felt "dehumanized, dismissed, excluded, and scapegoated" in radical feminist spaces. I would like to remind you, feminist spaces are for women, are made by women, and center women. Most of them are female exclusive. Male feelings are not the priority, female liberation is. The fact that this man thinks males being uncomfortable in radical feminist spaces is an issue with the movement shows that he feels entitled to our time, energy, and space, which is a red flag. For reference, imagine an oil executive inviting himself for a rally against climate change and then complaining that he felt "scapegoated" because the attendees talked about the harms fossil fuels have done to the environment.

It's very telling that he then goes on to praise intersectional "feminism" (again, unclear if he actually means intersectional feminism or some other branch of the intersectional movement) for loving men. This shows his priority is men, which does not align with the priority of feminism, which is women. That is a feature, not a flaw. Any man who thinks feminism's priority should be men is a red flag.

He also says centering men prevents them from "self-flagellation and male guilt". It is not feminists job to reform men, men are accountable for how they respond to feminism and patriarchy as a whole. If men's response to seeing women discuss how men oppress us is to feel guilty that is not our fault and comforting them is not our responsibility. Men have to choose to reform themselves, demanding women hold their hand through this process is sexist. If you're familiar with the concept of "white guilt" you can understand why this is such an insulting request. Men complaining about how feminism makes them feel bad is a red flag.

It's also interesting how he acknowledges that intersectional feminism is lead by "people of color", again, ignoring that these people are women specifically, and therefore it is a more challenging space for white women than radical feminism. However, you'll note that he is a white man so these spaces should be even more challenging for him both due to his race and sex. This perhaps is a subtle way to pit women against each other or claim radical feminism is sexist by default, but it's unclear. In any case, men trying to pit women against each other is a red flag.

What is very obvious though is that he clearly heavily favors the spaces that acknowledge men and men's issues. You'll note these spaces he's describing sound more like humanist activist spaces than feminist activist spaces. Anyone who tells women their activism should focus on everyone is really telling women that female focused activism is not important enough to have its own movement and falls back on the old sexist tactic of unpaid female labor, which is a red flag. This is doubly true for the black women who build intersectional feminist spaces who are often told to take a back seat in both black liberation movements, which are male focused, and western feminist movements, which are white focused.

Radical feminism is described now as not being "actually liberatory or healing for men". Men created patriarchy and uphold it, they are not oppressed by it. If they feel they need liberation from patriarchy what they are seeking is liberation from other men, not from women. A man blaming women for things men do is a red flag.

If it has not become clear for you at this point, this man is essentially a Men's Rights Activist. This would not be an issue if he specifically focused on male specific issues and organizing men to address them. Instead he is using men's issues as a way to disrupt feminist activism, distract from women's issues, and minimize female oppression. This is why MRAs are widely regarded as anti-feminists. He may claim patriarchy hurts him, but he still uses it for his benefit. These are all red flags.

Then there is the age old "feminism needs to appeal to men". What this is really saying is "women need men". For reference, I can't think of a single case where an oppressed class did not have to fight for their rights and were instead just given them because they were nice to and cooperative with their oppressors. Anyone insisting women need men, including needing men to give them their rights, is a red flag.

This example was rather easy to break apart due to him being very up front about his desire to prioritize men, but not all "feminist" men are so blatant in their disrespect of feminism and women in general nor is this list comprehensive of all potential red flags.

Be vigilant, be smart, be safe.

[youremyheaven]

Your perspective on astrology is unique in that it cuts through the bullshit. I like how quick you are to point out what is obviously woman-bashing propaganda from centuries past, and what is actually plausible and in-tune with the nature of the sign/nakshatra. However, I am actually really curious about your perspective on monogamy? There are some ideas circulating in feminist circles that monogamy was enforced to benefit men (to ensure that the offspring is theirs) at the expense of women's freedom and choice. For example, in one of your older posts, you implied that an evolved Venus in Aries would be more willing to accommodate a monogamous relationship, despite the placement having a reputation for being more... sexually liberal, I guess. Or that a Venus in Gemini is fickle only when they're unevolved, wherein the implication is that flings are only for the unevolved and the relationships endgoal is a strictly monogamous relationship. Then again, I am pretty sure you made those observations based on tropical astrology, so maybe there's a different way to look at it from vedic.

I'm really conflicted on this myself, I guess I can definitely see where both ways of thinking are coming from. It'd be lovely to hear your current perspective, if you are willing to share. Thank you for your work!

those posts are from atleast one year ago and i will admit most of my early work on tropical astrology is a bit shallow.

that said, i dont think monogamy curtails women's freedom or choice. do i find "monogamy" empowering? not necessarily but i also dont find casual sex "empowering". the truth is there is no winning either way. marriage/monogamy is an institution that is deeply flawed but what is the opposite of it? having as many partners as one wants? maybe it suits some but (and i know ill get flak for saying this) an "evolved" person is one who abstains or exercises self-control. not just with regard to sex but with any kind of indulgence, be it alcohol, drugs etc. i think its really flawed to view "freedom" as the ability to consume limitlessly. anybody who lives like that will tell you how self-destructive that is. you indulge too much (in anything) and you risk your own ruin.

we need structure, order and stability, otherwise we feel disoriented and spiritually lost. ive never looked at someone who's partying every night, doing a cocktail of 10 substances and waking up in a different person's house every morning and thought "wow they're so free!!". i know this is a very binary way of thinking and not what you intended to ask but im just airing my thoughts out.

as corny and cheesy as it sounds, i think the only thing that makes a partnership between two people "right" is love. a lot of men want a bangmaid or they just want to bang. neither of which is empowering for the women involved. im not trying to say that sex in itself is disempowering but that the ways in which men who only want sex from you treat you are. casual sex or having multiple sexual partners is fun but ive always felt like its disingenuous to call it empowering bc i dont think empowerment is something we get from having sex??? i feel like sex positivity has become a way for men and women to delude other women into thinking that they'll be happier or "freer" if they have more sex.

i dont want to be someone's sexdoll and neither do i want to be bangmaid.

but i believe in love and the highest form of love is consideration. the only way we can transcend systemic issues is if we have love for each other because if you love someone, you will value them, prioritize them, respect them and do whatever it takes to make things easier for them. expecting servitude and sex from women means you've never loved anybody in your life lol. i dont really think equality can exist or will exist simply because our world is really imbalanced but i do think individually we can champion each other and help each other rise up, if we move through the world with love and grace. i dont expect anything from "men" and atp i dont want to associate with them anyway but i do believe a man in love is one who will extend grace and id never feel like i needed anything else (from another man).

all of this is just my perspective and i will admit its vvv hard for me to find a man attractive or feel "connected" to him. i feel pretty asexual if im not seeing someone and i can only be intimate with someone i love and connect to deeply. this is why things i say or describe in my posts often dont have sexuality in them or are monogamy centered. that said, im not an advocate for it or anything, everyone above the age of 18 can do what they like and make decisions for themselves<3

[faithfromanewperspective]

how did you arrive at your progressive punk christianity outlook after being immersed in conservative christianity?

ooh!! good question. see I don’t really think what I was immersed in was particularly conservative—in circles I’ve been around we’ve always dissed Americans for being conservative (kinda mean I know) and my dad used to take me to climate change protests in the 2000s and I was always taught the 6 days of creation aren’t literal, the rapture isn’t real, women in stem etc. idk how it was anywhere else but the part of sydney I grew up in was just Like That, there was encouragement to give to the poor to actually end poverty and people actually did even though none of us really had heaps and I guess I wasn’t raised to be okay with entitlement but simply be kind to everyone? And I didn’t even know what conservative was until I was maybe 17 (I thought it was a style of fashion for ages and then I thought it meant conserving nature and history). It was always just Christians are meant to be genuinely kind and not have sex til you’re older and preferably married yknow?? and work hard, like the protestant work ethic was def a thing but somehow in a non ableist way as much as this is possible— I get real impatient with people bitching about stuff getting taken away from them, not realising how much they have when I probably have less and I’m usually giving away as much as I’m able and as much will put me in a state of perceived danger. It’s definitely a form of rebellion against them to see how little I can survive on which I’m working on. I also didn’t even know that so many Christians were transphobic like I thought it was only the extreme theobros. I also had a really lovely geography teacher in high school who was also a Christian and used her faith to drive environmental action, my biology teacher was a Christian and stood up for trans rights and I also had acccss to the internet to read up on clobber passages and hear peoples stories and it was always like ‘oh yeah some Christians believe different things based on how they read this stuff’ and I don’t think it was until I was old enough to actually vote and saw what propoganda was going around I really realised the power dynamic behind it, with the rise of the Australian Christian lobby which felt like it was straight out of the US. I fully thought voting was just liberals if you like fossil fuels, greens to save the environment, and labor if you’re a people pleaser and like fun little rhymes like ‘Kevin 07’ and attempting to be feminist but not really getting anything done. I actually met Martyn Iles once and was like ‘damn this guy is a fake Aussie this isn’t how we do Christianity’. I also got super burnt out by how hard and how biblically I tried to love my classmates on top of the Protestant work ethic about my schoolwork I never really cared about for myself, and was well versed in theology enough to be like HA! Grace means that we don’t have to do all that and can just do our sustainable best, still thinking my view was mainstream. I went to uni to study enviro sci at 17 and I thought my convictions to not drive unless Absolutely Necessary were driven by Christian ethics (which they were, how rigid I was with it was a pda response though). Then over the years realised very belatedly how people often didn’t validate my views and experiences and I’d expect they would (bc they were biblically rooted) and got quite hurt when they didn’t. Spent years in different volunteer ministries trying to put together the kind of community talked about in books like Philippians only to constantly be let down and feel isolated and that only driving me to work harder, despite knowing God’s grace meant I didn’t have to feeling like I couldn’t stop while my earthly needs for connection were unmet, saying yes to things I’d previously said no to because I got a sense of temporary community and belonging every time I joined a new serving team. Tried extra hard to make places inclusive and expected everyone else to be working as hard on it as I was and feel the desperation like I did and got super hurt when they didn’t, oh I guess I’ll have to do it all myself then.

I’ve always struggled with the concept of hell, tbh I heard about it way too young and never had a drop of self preservation instinct in my body only didn’t want to let God down by saying no. I’ve particularly always struggled with the whole urgency motivation like I’m trying, I’m doing the best I can, I listen to people and actually speaking the gospel into their lives in a way that hits home for them (bc I was thinking about how to do this in an empathetic and understanding and autonomy respecting way from a Very Young Age like I used to attempt to evangelise on moshi monsters to get an idea) and shit, I’m like 19 years old at this stage and I’m tired. If only I could just have one last hurrah to change places with someone so they can go to heaven instead of me? Id take it. and I basically worked myself to the point of being that suicidal and kept fucking going because God made me good at science so I can save the planet and end world hunger, and I had this conviction to contextualise (this is what we learned at afes btw) the gospel to really be real to queer folk and indigenous folk and other people of colour and marginalised people (it’s easy to see oppression with my background and my neurotype tbh) and maybe I could make myself suffer now bc God wasn’t gonna let me do that for eternity? anyway eventually left afes bc I was being so stretched and getting so isolated and the work I was doing there wasn’t achieving any of these things and I realised if I stayed I might end up dead and I wasn’t ready to go to heaven yet when my work wasn’t done. or at least so constantly dysregulated I wouldn’t be as able to be kind to others and show them the gospel.

around this time I’m also putting together a pretty comprehensive framework for how to actually solve global problems in a productive way, I’ve unpacked the pride in a lot of Christian mission projects and how they often were a feel good thing but not actually respectful or effective and I’d come up with literally hundreds of ideas for projects I could do to actually help, none of which I obviously had time for I think I was working up to 3 jobs while studying and serving in church and doing my hobbies that kept me kind of sane as well? which was discouraging to say the least, driving a kind of rageful resentment. Around that time I also discover PDA and my whole life makes sense, I start on my adhd meds which I had to jump through a million hoops to get and realise maybe I can finish uni.

a pda framework as I dive more into that and how to be actually neurodivergent affirming and actually recover from burnout long story short makes me realise how ableist much of our concept of sin and holiness really is and how much we need to destigmatise sin and stop using it as a way to intellectualise actual things happening in our brains and nervous systems and maybe we’d feel a lot less hopeless about it like it’s some big mystery if we actually did unpack the fear and threat responses and trauma behind it. Which we always say we will do but practically, church doenst give a space to do that bc you’re gonna be shamed. even for the people who are non affirming I’d be like, but isn’t it a logical step to someone who’s not yet been convicted to celibacy (if that’s something they think they should be) and realised this whole thing is unrealistic, not because the bible is wrong but because people think you can control your own brain by simply trying and trying again every time you fuck up as if that’s not gonna drive learned helplessness or actually traumatise you when you so desperately want to do better? Either that or drive you to be numb about it which I realised is what usually happens, there are certain sins people are blind to in every congregation and they’re actually intellectually unable to be convicted of that as sin because they’re stretched as far as they can go covering all other bases and being like ‘Christ covers that I didn’t Choose To Sin I’m trying not to even though it doesn’t really work’ like I’m a solutions person. if something isn’t working we’re gonna think of a new method and suddenly I understand how my brain works and those of so many others especially those who feel marginalised by the church!

and so long story short when I eventually had to quit what I was doing at church because someone cared enough to realise I hadn’t been doing well for years I was like I’m gonna follow this urge of the Spirit or simply my own head and desire for true connection I often found In exvangelical spaces and hear as many experiences as possible and use it to shape my worldview and get a bunch of hope from people who yes they’ve been marginalised but the gospel is real to them. that’s my only criteria I’m not gonna judge based on theology and I’m not ever gonna think my theological takes make anyone else wrong I’m just gonna be open to listen and shape them so there isn’t any cognitive dissonance and the grace found at the cross is real and practical and doenst have weird arbitrary limits, and I’m also gonna listen to those hurt by Christianity who some might judge as being hard hearted but I know how trauma works. and I’ve been doing that ever since, gradually getting there more and more and I think the best/funniest thing is even in more conservative spaces literally everyone I still talk to has been super encouraging of it and if we have any disagreements they’re pretty minor compared to the fact that we all believe the gospel is for everyone and we all wanna invest in social justice too (which makes me question how conservative those spaces ever were tbh). like there’s def parts of my story I won’t always tell but I feel like I come with a perspective people respect these days no matter where I am, and that’s nice in contrast to being that weird kid trying to do adult things being told either not to worry or that I don’t understand.

[papirouge]

I can’t stop crying, I’ve lost more friends in Gaza… yet so many Christian evangelicals have yet to even mention that Christians in Gaza exist. Or if they do, it’s criticism and blaming Gaza for the genocide that’s happening. It’s as if they fully believe it’s a Jew/Muslim conflict when it’s not. It’s an idf-Hamas conflict.

I lost contact with one of my friends and haven’t been able to get any info. The terror keeps coming. And there was no where to go, it hurts. And I’m so angry at that Christians in the west just ignoring it all

.......... I'm really sorry anon...

I've never felt that powerless in my life, and my heart aches for all those people being murdered before our eyes, and the Christian community either condoning such heinous act or turning the head around... They will have to take accountability for their cowardice....

The body of Christ is ONE. If someone cuts your leg or hand, you will definitely feel it and your whole body is going to react to it. But Western Christians? They look away like the cowards that they are. Mind you, they are the same ones that are so suuuuure to resist the antichrist when he will come. Meanwhile, they are unable to voice the slightest support to our Christian brothers in Palestine out of fear... What kind of clownery is that? At least, I don't mind people refusing to cover any sort of world news bc they are consistent in their lane, but I'm thinking about all those Christians who have aaaaaalways so many things to say abt the latest stupid stunt in the news, the wokes, feminists, liberals... Suddenly they are VERY quiet. That's a choice. They are disgusting.

Even the anti Muslim/let's protect Christianism from Islam uwu Christian YouTuber squad are pulling out video exPoSinG Hamas while not saying a single word abt the Christian casualties (David Wood, Apostate Prophet, etc.) They are full of it, and I will never ever again take them seriously in their defense of Christianity in middle east when those ghouls don't even have a word to say about our Palestinian Christian brothers dying under Israeli strikes and PLEADING for our attention and prayers... They only care about Christians dying because of ISLAM, when they die for any other reason, they will defiect. Like, yeah, Hamas sucks - we been knew. What's the point of making 1 video a day about them? In what way does it remotely dismiss the atrocity of whatever's happening in Gaza???

It's so sick to see pro Israel constantly move the goalpost to paint themselves as the only victims, and worse, downplaying what's happening in Gaza.

They will deflect on antisemitism in pro Palestine protests (while acting like the very same didn't happen in pro Israel protests with the most rabid islamophobic genocidal crap), semantics about what Zionism is and whether it's antisemitism (meanwhile palestinians are literally DYING), that they don't care about Gaza as long as the hostage aren't fred (when if they actually really cared abt the hostages they wouldn't encourage Israel to bomb Gaza bc the actual hostages risk dying out there along the Hamas...🤦🏾‍♀️), or shouting "free Gaza from Hamas !!" as if any of that justified bombing civilians... oh and let's not forget the feminist/liberal edge of Israel defense with the "Palestianian are sexist/homophobic so there's no point defending them" stupid narrative....

I think the reason pro Israel are so bad in their rhetoric is that for years they've been used to leverage their Jewishness to get empathy and immunity against accountability.

But it's over now. We have social medias and we can witnessing in real time the horror of Tsahal actions. How they aren't any morally better than Hamas. We've seen the Israeli mocking Palestianians nit having water or food...

"you were quiet when the Hamas assassinated Israelis" we were quiet because this operation went so fast and that Israel quickly retaliated. There was no way to stop the Hamas bc NO ONE knew it was coming, so what did they expect us to do?? Just bc we don't say anything doesn't mean we approve. Do you see people condemn suicide/terrorist attacks whenever they happen?? IMO there wouldn't be such an outrage is Israel left it at that and didn't go overboard with launching a whole war against Gaza. The reason the world is siding with Palestinian is because we are witnessing the ongoing massacre of population with the actual (political and/or economical) backup of our respective countries for DAYS now. Unlike the Hamas attack, there are ways to stop it. The Hamas didn't cut the water & food supply of Israelis. Palestinians aren't clowning on social medias the Jewish civilians who were killed by the Hamas. That's why the world is shocked and is siding with Palestine and is slowly but surely getting fed up with the cognitive dissonance of Israelis crying oppression while acting like soulless ghouls. Crying antisemitism isn't fooling anyone anymore.

[lemonhemlock]

"I wonder if they changed that because they wanted to show Rhaenyra as more in charge and independent, entering a relationship with Daemon because of her free will, not because she felt compelled in some way." You see that's where I start to get into it with Daemyra stans who claim that Rhaenyra is a sexually, liberated, independent woman when she isn't. It's like you said she got with Daemon because she was made to feel like she needed to be with him. Which makes her story all the more tragic. She's not a liberated feminist who has an enviable sex life. She's a young woman whose been taken advantage of since she was a child by her creepy uncle, who made sure that he ruined her ability to have a functioning healthy relationship with other men. It's because of him that he almost causes her to be disinherited and sullies her reputation, which in turn, she's forced to marry her gay cousin. As a result, neither of those 2 knuckleheads can at least try to conceive a legitimate heir. This leads to her having a not-so-secret affair with Harwin, and it's because of her daddy's protection that is the only reason why Harwin hasn't been executed and she hasn't been disinherited. But sure she's an independent woman.

Let's backtrack to her and Cristion's little rendevous. If it weren't for Daemon's grooming she wouldn't have been so bold and inconsiderate to even sleep with Criston. Nor even think that it was a good idea to ask Criston to be her side piece. Nothing about Rhaenyra's character screams independent woman because her entire world revolves around toiling in service to men in order to be "free" to do what she wants. Her stans need to stop acting like she's a Dornish woman because she isn't. Nothing that Rhaenyra does or thinks truly even comes from her own mindset. It's either something that Daemon has taught/instilled into her or it's something that her father has pressed upon her to want. In other words, her and Alicent are in the same boat.

Yeah, I don't think Rhaenyra is a sexually liberated feminist by getting together with Daemon either.

I suppose you could argue some of that in regards to her relationship with Harwin, that she pursues love and sexual gratification for her own ends, within the confines of her station and sham marriage, and that's not a conversation without merit. Of course it is unfair that a woman (or anyone else) has to marry for political reasons and that she can't engage in sexual exploration on her own terms, according to her own needs and her timeline. But, in this context, the consequences brought about by her selfish actions shouldn't be glossed over either: she brings three innocent children into the world that now have to suffer from her indiscretions, as they are actively put in danger by their mother's lies. She is so deep in the hole she dug for herself that she has to alienate another noble house's entire patrimony in order to cover up for herself.

This is certainly something she took from Daemon - his whole speech about how marriage is a political arrangement and that dragons take what they want, exemplified by him trying to take her maidenhead in a brothel. Certainly, I agree with you that she never would have pulled that shit with Criston if she weren't feeling frustrated and horny and under his influence, taking in the "teaching" that giving into your impulses can only be a good thing.

But, at the same time, I would argue that, while Daemon definitely fucked with Rhaenyra's psyche, she didn't really do herself any favours either. Daemon is shown to be a wanderer, he never stays that much in one place. In ep. 1 it is implied he has been gone for some time now. Then he leaves again. Realistically, he is not spending all that much time with Rhaenyra either. Surely he has great influence over her, but she is not completely without agency either. After her wedding, there is a 10-year time jump and she does not seem to do any self-reflection during this time. When they finally reunite, Daemon is not really pursuing her in any way, so what happens next is completely put in motion by her.

So this is not to say that she's a liberated independent thinker deadset on exercising her sexual freedom, but more like... she recognizes she is in deep shit and doesn't know how to get out of it. Note how everyone keeps pointedly staring at her bastard sons in Driftmark; Rhaenyra recognizes this and sends them to bed so that they'd be out of sight. She sees Daemon and thinks "oh, he is scary enough and seems to know what he's doing, so, if HE would be my husband, I wouldn't have to worry about the consequences of my own actions". Basically her modus operandi of appealing to the men in her life to help her out.

Anyway, I find it interesting, because, on the other hand, I also receive asks like this (from this week):

Anonymous asked: It's funny how the show made everything revolve around Rhaenyra even Daemon's character is just him being a simp for Rhaenyra and not the dangerous ambitious man he was in the book.

This one is quite contradictory, actually. In this view, Daemon is the one constantly trailing after Rhaenyra and her being the one calling the shots. Perhaps this is a reaction from having Daemon appear declawed, so to speak, after the time jump. Whereas before the time jump, he would do all kinds of chaotic stuff when he appeared on screen. After 10 years, he seems rather mellowed out and I think this is one of the reasons the general public started to think of him as a malewife and were quite shocked at the choking scene. They must have thought that the years took some of Daemon's edge off.

and this one

Anonymous asked: I completely agree what you said about Daemyra. The chemistry between young Rhaenyra and Daemon was off the roof plus the whole forbidden aspect made them very shippeable to a lot of people (as opposed to forced incest like helaegon). Then it just fell off after the timeskip and I don’t think its the writers’ fault entirely (although they REALLY could have tried to write a better sex scene befitting the two) - the chemistry is just not there. The way Daemon looks at Rhaenyra now makes me think of a man who settled for a woman because of some promise or gain, not love. Like it literally feels like Daemon ticked off marrying Rhaenyra from his checklist, like it’s a duty, to finally put an end to the pinning and unresolved sexual tension but in such an unsatisfactory, dull way that it just fell flat. Daemyra has potential to be a badass duo, encouraging each other’s awfulness, a true force to be reckoned with. But alas no, because Rhaenyra is a lost puppy in a big castle, an eternal victim to everything whilst Daemon stands around, mentally pocking a stick into her saying DO SOMETHING! They became pathetic. At least if they were pathetic in love or something, but no, it’s just pathetic. Young Daemyra worked because young Rhaenyra had a spunk in her, spirit for adventure and risk taking that present Rhaenyra lacks. So why is Daemon attracted to her now?

There's a reason young Daemyra took off so much and people became enamoured with them. For as awful as the grooming implications were, they had the potential to be this fascinating Cathy-Healthcliff pairing that, while destructive and unhealthy, had that arresting trainwreck quality, a petri dish of heightened human emotions, an exploration of our darkest impulses and indulgences.

But adult Daemyra kind of fell flat at that. Now they were just a regular couple only with occasional choking thrown in (lol). I don't fault the actors for being confused. Some of it is writing choices, some of it is, yes, the lack of chemistry. 🤷

[hereforb99]

Also posting a book review of 'Desperately Seeking Shah Rukh' by Shrayana Bhattacharya that I posted last year on Instagram.

'Desperately Seeking Shah Rukh' isn't about Shah Rukh Khan but about the lives of a few of his female fans in India. Economist Shrayana Bhattacharya has provided a glimpse into the personal trajectories-the jobs, desires, love affairs, etc. of a diverse group of women. These women belonging to different economic groups remain united by their fandom-they turn to Shah Rukh when the real world and its oppressive structures let them down. Shah Rukh remains a construct through which these women navigate the world and try to make sense of their love lives, independence and desires.

These fan women, all born in the 1980s were his first set of fans, having discovered Khan through his debut in 1992. Their love for him has evolved over the years with many preferring his off-screen persona to his movies.  Not only was this book a great privilege check for me, it also provided some sort of validation and inspiration to continue being a fangirl, just like how these women were unapologetically engaged in fandom despite being ridiculed or restricted in some way. It also serves as a reality check to all those who talk about how 'progressive' India has become, because nothing really has changed for women in India post-liberalization. Women still find it difficult to express themselves and claim independence, no matter which economic group they belong to.

Shah Rukh might not be a feminist icon, but definitely a female one. One main reason these women loved him was because of the way he talked to women and gave them the space to be heard, seen and appreciated. It was a rarity back then to see a male actor be so vulnerable on screen, a sharp contrast to the men these women have seen in their real life.

Unlike these fan women, I am not his first set of fans, I could very well be his last generation of fans yet I felt a sense of connection in the way these women indulged in the Shah Rukh Khan fandom.

By the end of this book, you'll appreciate SRK's existence that has been a ray of hope for many women. Moreover, you'll learn about the private rebellions that many women undertake, the sort of rebellions that social media doesn't account for.

[roses-edge]

I got two questions for you:

Do you think more men and women would be terfs if they listened to terfs more?

Do you think more TIFs and TIMs should be radfem allys?

So to answer the first one: yes and no.

I think people need to be open to receiving the message and ready to hear it. To explain more Ill try to summarize how I became a radfem.

In my case, I didn't start as a feminist at all. When I was young, I was on tumblr during the emergence of otherkin discourse. I then learned the term SJW amd became an Anti-SJW and that was basically my "politics" at like 14.

I then started getting into YouTube, specifically Lauren Southern and Blaire White and Roaming Millenial around the 2016 election 💀 which really kickstarted my anti-feminist phase. Even though I watched Blaire White, she didn't really cover much trans issues (I only remember the video on Riley Dennis) and I found his perspective intriguing. I didn't really get too much into trans issues.

Basically I was anti porn and "sex work" but everything else in rightwing spaces, I didn't agree with. But no other group hated these things. It definitely played into my internalized misogyny, that all other women are whores. But I also felt isolated because while I agreed with these women I also was hearing their pro-marriage sentiments, but I was also a teenaged girl who hated herself and thought she was ugly.

So if a woman's purpose is to serve men, but if she can't get one, is she useless? Was basically the spiral I went down. I then found MGTOW (Men going their own way) and it was eye opening to how men see women.

And then I found r/femcels. Because I was an ugly girl, but obviously MGTOW was not female friendly and I didn't want to be in the male dominated spaces that Lauren Southern, RoamingMillenial and Blaire White curated. I was disgusted and repulsed by them, I had a real crisis. I remember telling my dad very doomer things about being a girl, how it's easier for men in life as they don't have to worry about hitting a wall and being ugly. Hearing what men say about women, about even the right wing women who pander to them, broke whatever spell conservatism had on me.

But when I found the femcel subreddit not only did I find other girls who hated themselves, that's how I was introduced to the feminist subs like r/pinkpillfeminism (and I also browsed r/femaledatingstrategy but I was a femcel to my core so seeing women talking about how to get a man wasn't for me).

And it was amazing. Women who were anti porn, kink, sexwork; women who knew right-wing manosphere rhetoric and could put into words why I disagreed.

From there I found r/gendercritical and that's how I learned about trans ideology. And after all those subs went down, I had to go looking for community again. And that's how I found myself back at the beginning, on Tumblr and on Radblr.

Basically I was always looking for a space like this. Growing up, trauma, and my insecurities made me an easy target to hate women using my hatred of myself against me.

So yes and no - Radfeminism draws people to it for a variety of different reasons. For me it was my realization of male depravity that lead me here, and to love myself afted years of self hatred. For others, they were peaked by the growing homophobia of trans ideology, or a mixture of everything. Either way, I think that you can argue with TIFs and TIMs online all day. But if they aren't ready to hear you, they won't.

And as for the second one, I would rather have TIFs be allies. However I still think TEHMs or GNC males can be allies if they talk to the men in their lives about feminism, not talk over the women in their lives. Basically a good male ally is one who promotes our voices and listens. One who works on himself.

I mean, I think the original male allyship was during the fight for gay liberation, with the formation of the LGBT. I think that it's possible to have male allyship again, with straight men too... but honestly, as things are going, female separatism seems to be the only way to see males change their tune and to make a change.

Porn brainrot, society, and conservatism poisons every male. And a lot of them don't want change because they enjoy their power. So I fully welcome male boycotting, but I also welcome males who want to learn and not derail conversation.

I hope this wasn't too rambling.

[f1ghtsoftly]

Statement of Purpose? My political lines? My don’t doxx me e-plea?

I think what really interests me now is application, ok-I’m convinced of most of the radical feminist analysis but how do we marry that to the left? How do we force left wing parties to accept our program and/or be effective on our own?

Because of the stigmatization of “radical feminism” in left spaces this blog is mostly anonymous unfortunately. Tumblr has always been a space where I feel I can be most myself so you will definitely see personal, aesthetic and historical content but the meat of this blog is a theoretical and historical exploration of how to get women’s issues on the docket. If we even can.

About me:

I am a Marxist Feminist with two degrees in American history a BA and an MA. I am also a lesbian. I was radicalized into feminism at age 20 after hearing a lecture on “queering ecosocialism” after receiving news that a former gay acquaintance had recently passed from drug addiction and sex work. The dichotomy between true lived gay and lesbian life experiences and the use of “queer” as a political and literary device made me sick, sad and angry and I took to the internet and found that there were a good deal of lesbians who felt the same way.

While I studied American history, I’m not an academic and this work is not peer reviewed. I will do my best to be transparent about my source material and get access to scholarly sources when I can so that you have the most knowledge to make an informed decision about my writing. I welcome substantive feedback, particularly since I have not been trained in political theory, economics or philosophy even though I read widely. Unfortunately, writing about gender and feminism in the candid way I want is difficult in the academy right now for both financial and political reasons. Some people can learn to handle mass harassment but, I am but a rat, I try to avoid it where I can. Getting mass harassment on a poverty salary is a type of vulnerability I’m not really willing to take on.

While Marxism isn’t the only lens I view politics from, it’s a really important one to disclose. I am not affiliated with the Democratic party outside of generally supporting everyone to vote fascists out of office but even then, I think fascism will be rooted out through the education and uplift of the people generally, not through Democratic party politics.

This means that I focus on building grassroots power through unions and collectives over voting for specific candidates and I believe that the very structure of US society will continue to negatively impact regular working people no matter what party is in power. The only solution is the broad restricting of our economy and society which regular people can accomplish by coming together and solving problems in their community and within our country and world. I draw upon a robust historical tradition of trade unionism in the United States and in my home countries if Italy and The Republic of Ireland (so yes, I am whiter than snow ahaha).

Many radical feminists have a left liberal framework, I aim to spend a good deal of time writing about how many radical feminists were socialists affiliated with Mao and expelling some myths that both the Sexist Marxist Left and the Liberal American Feminist Left. I do this with the intent of creating a cohesive left wing vision that offers liberation for all under one banner-my intent is not to fold women into a male dominated left. Anti-Imperialism and Anti Racism is an equally important struggle and it’s one I engage in through a vigorous anti imperialist and anti fascist line but I do not speak from experience. Given the current culture on the far left, I do not engage with individuals whose only claim to argumentative superiority is identity based, you have to tell me why your ideas and perspective is better, life experience and feelings count.

Given that I’m white and catholic and grew up in a rural area. Racial issues can be a blind spot for me, I’ve done a great deal of academic and personal work to remediate this from studying the African Diaspora and Indigenous American culture, philosophy and statecraft in the Caribbean, Brazil, Quebec/New York and the Pacific Northwest to living, working and learning from people of color with vastly different life experiences from me. I’m happy to accept feedback and to promote feminists of color even if we have theoretical disagreements because I recognize that the personal experience of the colonized individual is a distinctly valuable resource in crafting strategies to destroy it but I do not believe there is a singular “woc perspective” and am very sharply critical of liberals who prioritize anti racism in the United States over imperial struggle abroad.

What I do not partake in is abusive cancellation campaigns. While there are a lot of bad actors in all types of politics I don’t think harassment is an effective strategy to encourage good behavior. I believe in good faith engagement and good emotional boundaries. If the content on this blog upsets you you’re 100% free to write a post detailing why you think that and offering improvements and solutions but I will block you if you harass me, call me a fascist without evidence or mischaracterize me. I have enabled abusers and abusive behavior under the guise of idpol in the past but will no longer.

[olivieraa]

I'm at such a weird, weird place mentally. Like I'm just kinda floating around. And there's posts I wanna make about my feelings on specific things

Women for example

Rad-feminism seems very pro women, which is great, bc nothing else has ever been pro-women. Lib-feminism was anti-women without me knowing it during the years I was a libfem (again, didn't know I was a libfem, didn't even know there were different types of feminism)

And I was surrounded by only libfems. The most vocial obviously being Americans. And no matter how anti-American these American libfems are, they're still so insanely unaware how American they still talk and act, like the world revolves around them. Every single American friend I had on here had similar ways they wrote and spoke, just blissfully unaware that not everything that happens there happens elsewhere.

But anyway, yeah, I was very very VERY pro-women. To the point I felt like I was annoying. Esp when it came to violence against women. I was the only one in my corner being as anti violence against women as possible. Friends would "like" my posts, but a like doesn't always mean agreement. A like can just mean "I am a friend and I saw your post" or "hey I dont agree but I'm liking your post cause I want you to know I read it", etc.

I was rooting for women in every libfem way as well tho (tho I dont think these actually are pro-women), from being pro-stripper, to pro-porn star, pro-prostitution, pro-bdsmer, all these things. Always prioritising the women's choice and voice.

And then I... had an odd year. I moved away across the country for college. And I was in a dorm. And I honestly cant even explain how much I wasn't myself when I was there. I drank a lot, and I had an on and off again thing with what you would basically describe as an MRA. And had sort of a threesome with him and one of his female friends (and when I saw that he was an MRA, lets just say I was shocked he even HAD one female friend, a black liberal af feminist). Oh, and she loved being hurt during sex (not that I did it, he did).

Why the fuck did I partake in being with this guy? And anything he did? Honestly, I feel like I'd need to bring an essay into a therapist to explain it and I still dont think they'd understand.

Like, ok... how to even sort of explain. Gender posts and sexuality posts have been cringy for a long time now. With people making up a new type for each per day. From being cloudgender to acronymsexual. Its insane.

But......... I've never... ever related to someone's sexuality before. I dont relate to being straight, lesbian or bi. And I thought pansexual fit until but Ive heard 5 different definitions for it and then asexual but Ive heard about 50 definitions for that so I've never been able to explain it.

What I experienced during that odd year was an attraction to the freedom I was experiencing. The location I was living in. Not... the people I engaged in sexual acts with. I projected these things onto them. I projected my freedom onto human people, especially the guy, and became kind of addicted to being around him, despite knowing deep down I didn't like him as a person. I kept questioning why the fuck a feminist like me would go near someone who stood for everything I hated. He made me hate women. He made me jealous of other women.

And it took about 2 years before I started feeling normal again after this happened. To not look at women with this hatred. (and yet, still remained protective of women, but also extremely jealous and always wondering "oh I bet HE would be attracted to her" and "oh she's SO doing that for male validation")

So I recovered from that weird year, but... I never went back to myself before that year. Which is why not even radical feminism fits me. Women... annoy me too much. I literally cant keep defending them and boiling it down to internalised misogyny and heteronormativity still being so prevalent.

I was there when TikTok started. Two years before it blew up. And it was thanks to that male from that weird year. He showed me what he looked at and it was very VERY anti-women. At the time there was about 12 tiktok trends, yeah, ONLY 12. And most were about sexualising women or telling women to get back in the kitchen, or hurting women. And women and young girls were the ones predominantly taking part in them. Belle Delphine was rising on there, this woman who is so anti-women and perpetuates the worst misogyny and is causing women to hate themselves, but rad feminism will tell me "oh its not her fault tho!"

No......... no it is her fault. I absolutely cant stand her. And any woman like her. For women like her I truly dont believe in the idea that she's being socialised to act like that. She absolutely loves making fun of women and making men happy.

And unfortunately in this day and age, its so insanely common. Women are constantly defending and sticking up for men, during a time when their eyes should be waaaaaay more fucking open by now. So I just cant do it. I cant love women like I used to. I'm still as protective over women as I was, but liking them... is a different story.

I'm hoping I'm going through a phase. And I'll be different in 2 years. And regret this mindset and making a post like this. Maybe my judgement is clouded, and I need to start seeing other things, to bring me to a more radfem mindset. But I'm defo not a libfem, and I lean into radfeminism, but I defo cant be one, unless I combat this hurdle.

I dont like women that much, but I cant stand men. That's where I'm at.

[royaltozaki]

Hi dovee how are youuuuu?

I actually feel rly bad for her cuz before they even found out she was trans, there were a lot of men who were being rly degrading to her in her comments and also threatening to start stalking her. Like she had to make a post about how she felt uncomfortable and for them to please stop making threats to her safety. This discourse of men and bear tbh gives me headaches cuz men are so butt hurt that they made a video (ai) of a zombie-like bear (slippery skin if I'm not mistaken) that would "definitely kill women" because its literal goal is to brutalize women but only those who chose bear over men. Like imagine having your ego so hurt that you make this as a response to a hypothetical question that was made to inflate the ego of a man who was trying to flirt. And again, because they fail to have any common sense they can't understand the question and why people answer the way they do😭 I saw a 3-minute long video of a girl explaining the answers so that that kind of men could understand and on the comments, there were still some guys who were like "oh, but the bear would definitely kill you!" like-

HIIIIII OMG my fav person to talk to abt 🤢men🤮 omg i didnt know they were saying that stuff to her even before they found out she was trans? thats terrible omg i genuinely think the less centralised womens lives are around men the more misogynistic they get like did u see the recent bumble billboards? a man HAD to have made that and crazy too as like a response to the 4b movement gaining traction in the west they had to be like “celibacy isnt the answer guys!” like what?!?! u can also be celibate and still date men?? and from BUMBLE too like the platform that was meant to champion women making the first move and everything its so disappointing

ok i recently also watched poor things and i DESPISED it like it got so much love and wtv from being a ‘feminist’ film but um????????? no absolutely the fuck not all it did was champion pedophilia like the director (A MAN) ltr just put all his kinks in one movie and called it feminist bcs it was ‘sexually liberating’ and GOD I HATE THIS ARGUMENT like i HATE that the only thing men have gotten out of the feminist movement is “oh! women enjoy sex too? amazing go women!” like NO SHUT UR ASS UP sexual liberation was important bcs it gave women autonomy about WHO they wanted to have sex with, if they even WANTED to have sex with people, it gave them more purpose to sex than just bearing children it allowed them to enjoy sex just as men have been able to for centuries. but feminism is SOOOO much more than that but ofc thats the only part that men pay attention to right? UGH i ranted abt this film more in my letterboxd review LMAO but i wont text dump here

OMG YES EXACTLY THAT LIKE THE MAN V BEAR QUESTION WAS POSED BY A MAN like exactly what u said he asked it bcs he thought it’d be an easy ego boost since in his head there was no way a woman would choose a bear over him. and this zombie ai thing?? wtf theyre literally going to show EXACTLY what we’re talking about bcs people that r making that are also the ones killing women in video games and normalising violence against women and combining it with sexualisation of women? so its rly if they had the tools to do it they would and THEY HAVE THE TOOLS so no wonder we’re terrified?

last point i swear but the line between lust and anger? is SO CLOSE lots of men dont realise it but they can go from being absolutely in love with someone and willing to do anything for them, to wanting them dead or worse (junko furata)

[nothorses]

Interview With An Ex-Radfem

exradfem is an anonymous Tumblr user who identifies as transmasculine, and previously spent time in radical feminist communities. They have offered their insight into those communities using their own experiences and memories as a firsthand resource.

Background

I was raised in an incredibly fundamentalist religion, and so was predisposed to falling for cult rhetoric. Naturally, I was kicked out for being a lesbian. I was taken in by the queer community, particularly the trans community, and I got back on my feet- somehow. I had a large group of queer friends, and loved it. I fully went in on being the Best Trans Ally Possible, and constantly tried to be a part of activism and discourse.

Unfortunately, I was undersocialized, undereducated, and overenthusiastic. I didn't fully understand queer or gender theory. In my world, when my parents told me my sexuality was a choice and I wasn't born that way, they were absolutely being homophobic. I understood that no one should care if it's a choice or not, but it was still incredibly, vitally important to me that I was born that way.

On top of that, I already had an intense distrust of men bred by a lot of trauma. That distrust bred a lot of gender essentialism that I couldn't pull out of the gender binary. I felt like it was fundamentally true that men were the problem, and that women were inherently more trustworthy. And I really didn't know where nonbinary people fit in.

Then I got sucked down the ace exclusionist pipeline; the way the arguments were framed made sense to my really surface-level, liberal view of politics. This had me primed to exclude people –– to feel like only those that had been oppressed exactly like me were my community.

Then I realized I was attracted to my nonbinary friend. I immediately felt super guilty that I was seeing them as a woman. I started doing some googling (helped along by ace exclusionists on Tumblr) and found the lesfem community, which is basically radfem “lite”: lesbians who are "only same sex attracted". This made sense to me, and it made me feel so much less guilty for being attracted to my friend; it was packaged as "this is just our inherent, biological desire that is completely uncontrollable". It didn't challenge my status quo, it made me feel less guilty about being a lesbian, and it allowed me to have a "biological" reason for rejecting men.

I don't know how much dysphoria was playing into this, and it's something I will probably never know; all of this is just piecing together jumbled memories and trying to connect dots. I know at the time I couldn't connect to this trans narrative of "feeling like a woman". I couldn't understand what trans women were feeling. This briefly made me question whether I was nonbinary, but radfem ideas had already started seeping into my head and I'm sure I was using them to repress that dysphoria. That's all I can remember.

The lesfem community seeded gender critical ideas and larger radfem princples, including gender socialization, gender as completely meaningless, oppression as based on sex, and lesbian separatism. It made so much innate sense to me, and I didn't realize that was because I was conditioned by the far right from the moment of my birth. Of course women were just a biological class obligated to raise children: that is how I always saw myself, and I always wanted to escape it.

I tried to stay in the realms of TIRF (Trans-Inclusive Radical Feminist) and "gender critical" spaces, because I couldn't take the vitriol on so many TERF blogs. It took so long for me to get to the point where I began seeing open and unveiled transphobia, and I had already read so much and bought into so much of it that I thought that I could just ignore those parts.

In that sense, it was absolutely a pipeline for me. I thought I could find a "middle ground", where I could "center women" without being transphobic.

Slowly, I realized that the transphobia was just more and more disgustingly pervasive. Some of the trans men and butch women I looked up to left the groups, and it was mostly just a bunch of nasty people left. So I left.

After two years offline, I started to recognize I was never going to be a healthy person without dealing with my dysphoria, and I made my way back onto Tumblr over the pandemic. I have realized I'm trans, and so much of this makes so much more sense now. I now see how I was basically using gender essentialism to repress my identity and keep myself in the closet, how it was genuinely weaponized by TERFs to keep me there, and how the ace exclusionist movement primed me into accepting lesbian separatism- and, finally, radical feminism.

The Interview

You mentioned the lesfem community, gender criticals, and TIRFs, which I haven't heard about before- would you mind elaborating on what those are, and what kinds of beliefs they hold?

I think the lesfem community is recruitment for lesbians into the TERF community. Everything is very sanitized and "reasonable", and there's an effort not to say anything bad about trans women. The main focus was that lesbian = homosexual female, and you can't be attracted to gender, because you can't know someone's gender before knowing them; only their sex.

It seemed logical at the time, thinking about sex as something impermeable and gender as internal identity. The most talk about trans women I saw initially was just in reference to the cotton ceiling, how sexual orientation is a permanent and unchangeable reality. Otherwise, the focus was homophobia. This appealed to me, as I was really clinging to the "born this way" narrative.

This ended up being a gateway to two split camps - TIRFs and gender crits.

I definitely liked to read TIRF stuff, mostly because I didn't like the idea of radical feminism having to be transphobic. But TIRFs think that misogyny is all down to hatred of femininity, and they use that as a basis to be able to say trans women are "just as" oppressed.

Gender criticals really fought out against this, and pushed the idea that gender is fake, and misogyny is just sex-based oppression based on reproductive issues. They believe that the source of misogyny is the "male need to control the source of reproduction"- which is what finally made me think I had found the "source" of my confusion. That's why I ended up in gender critical circles instead of TIRF circles.

I'm glad, honestly, because the mask-off transphobia is what made me finally see the light. I wouldn't have seen that in TIRF communities.

I believed this in-between idea, that misogyny was "sex-based oppression" and that transphobia was also real and horrible, but only based on transition, and therefore a completely different thing. I felt that this was the "nuanced" position to take.

The lesfem community also used the fact that a lot of lesbians have partners who transition, still stay with their lesbian partners, and see themselves as lesbian- and that a lot of trans men still see themselves as lesbians. That idea is very taboo and talked down in liberal queer spaces, and I had some vague feelings about it that made me angry, too. I really appreciated the frank talk of what I felt were my own taboo experiences.

I think gender critical ideology also really exploited my own dysphoria. There was a lot of talk about how "almost all butches have dysphoria and just don't talk about it", and that made me feel so much less alone and was, genuinely, a big relief to me that I "didn't have to be trans".

Lesfeminism is essentially lesbian separatism dressed up as sex education. Lesfems believe that genitals exist in two separate categories, and that not being attracted to penises is what defines lesbians. This is used to tell cis lesbians, "dont feel bad as a lesbian if you're attracted to trans men", and that they shouldn’t feel "guilty" for not being attracted to trans women. They believe that lesbianism is not defined as being attracted to women, it is defined as not being attracted to men; which is a root idea in lesbian separatism as well.

Lesfems also believe that attraction to anything other than explicit genitals is a fetish: if you're attracted to flat chests, facial hair, low voices, etc., but don't care if that person has a penis or not, you're bisexual with a fetish for masculine attributes. Essentially, they believe the “-sexual” suffix refers to the “sex” that you are assigned at birth, rather than your attraction: “homosexual” refers to two people of the same sex, etc. This was part of their pushback to the ace community, too.

I think they exploited the issues of trans men and actively ignored trans women intentionally, as a way of avoiding the “TERF” label. Pronouns were respected, and they espoused a constant stream of "trans women are women, trans men are men (but biology still exists and dictates sexual orientation)" to maintain face.

They would only be openly transmisogynistic in more private, radfem-only spaces.

For a while, I didn’t think that TERFs were real. I had read and agreed with the ideology of these "reasonable" people who others labeled as TERFs, so I felt like maybe it really was a strawman that didn't exist. I think that really helped suck me in.

It sounds from what you said like radical feminism works as a kind of funnel system, with "lesfem" being one gateway leading in, and "TIRF" and "gender crit" being branches that lesfem specifically funnels into- with TERFs at the end of the funnel. Does that sound accurate?

I think that's a great description actually!

When I was growing up, I had to go to meetings to learn how to "best spread the word of god". It was brainwashing 101: start off by building a relationship, find a common ground. Do not tell them what you really believe. Use confusing language and cute innuendos to "draw them in". Prey on their emotions by having long exhausting sermons, using music and peer pressure to manipulate them into making a commitment to the church, then BAM- hit them with the weird shit.

Obviously I am paraphrasing, but this was framed as a necessary evil to not "freak out" the outsiders.

I started to see that same talk in gender critical circles: I remember seeing something to the effect of, "lesfem and gender crit spaces exist to cleanse you of the gender ideology so you can later understand the 'real' danger of it", which really freaked me out; I realized I was in a cult again.

I definitely think it's intentional. I think they got these ideas from evangelical Christianity, and they actively use it to spread it online and target young lesbians and transmascs. And I think gender critical butch spaces are there to draw in young transmascs who hate everything about femininity and womanhood, and lesfem spaces are there to spread the idea that trans women exist as a threat to lesbianism.

Do you know if they view TIRFs a similar way- as essentially prepping people for TERF indoctrination?

Yes and no.

I've seen lots of in-fighting about TIRFs; most TERFs see them as a detriment, worse than the "TRAs" themselves. I've also definitely seen it posed as "baby's first radfeminism". A lot of TIRFs are trans women, at least from what I've seen on Tumblr, and therefore are not accepted or liked by radfems. To be completely honest, I don't think they're liked by anyone. They just hate men.

TIRFs are almost another breed altogether; I don't know if they have ties to lesfems at all, but I do think they might've spearheaded the online ace exclusionist discourse. I think a lot of them also swallowed radfem ideology without knowing what it was, and parrot it without thinking too hard about how it contradicts with other ideas they have.

The difference is TIRFs exist. They're real people with a bizarre, contradictory ideology. The lesfem community, on the other hand, is a completely manufactured "community" of crypto-terfs designed specifically to indoctrinate people into TERF ideology.

Part of my interest in TIRFs here is that they seem to have a heavy hand in the way transmascs are treated by the trans community, and if you're right that they were a big part of ace exclusionism too they've had a huge impact on queer discourse as a whole for some time. It seems likely that Baeddels came out of that movement too.

Yes, there’s a lot of overlap. The more digging I did, the more I found that it's a smaller circle running the show than it seems. TIRFs really do a lot of legwork in peddling the ideology to outer queer community, who tend to see it as generic feminism.

TERFs joke a lot about how non-radfems will repost or reblog from TERFs, adding "op is a TERF”. They're very gleeful when people accept their ideology with the mask on. They think it means these people are close to fully learning the "truth", and they see it as further evidence they have the truth the world is hiding. I think it's important to speak out against radical feminism in general, because they’re right; their ideology does seep out into the queer community.

Do you think there's any "good" radical feminism?

No. It sees women as the ultimate victim, rather than seeing gender as a tool to oppress different people differently. Radical feminism will always see men as the problem, and it is always going to do harm to men of color, gay men, trans men, disabled men, etc.

Women aren't a coherent class, and radfems are very panicked about that fact; they think it's going to be the end of us all. But what's wrong with that? That's like freaking out that white isn't a coherent group. It reveals more about you.

It's kind of the root of all exclusionism, the more I think about it, isn't it? Just freaking out that some group isn't going to be exclusive anymore.

Radical feminists believe that women are inherently better than men.

For TIRFs, it's gender essentialism. For TERFs, its bio essentialism. Both systems are fundamentally broken, and will always hurt the groups most at risk. Centering women and misogyny above all else erases the root causes of bigotry and oppression, and it erases the intersections of race and class. The idea that women are always fundamentally less threatening is very white and privileged.

It also ignores how cis women benefit from gender norms just as cis men do, and how cis men suffer from gender roles as well. It’s a system of control where gender non-conformity is a punishable offense.

[crescairis]

hi, i genuinely don't understand how a lesbian person can be attracted to men? like i really don't get "pan lesbian"/"bi lesbian"/etc... im an AFAB, transmasc NB lesbian myself but i am, for all intents and purposes, exclusively attracted to women.

i thought the term "lesbian" meant "any non-man exclusively attracted to women/fem-aligned people"

please explain? this is not hate or anything, this is a genuine question!

hi there! thanks for your good faith questions! :] this is gonna be a long one, so buckle up

the simple answer is that queer identity is never as simple as A + B = C. people can be multigender, genderfluid, genderqueer, Literally Just Butch, etc... it puts a wrench in very simple descriptions like that. there's gotta be some wiggle room for labels to work—and even then, it's entirely against the idea of queer liberation to let anyone but yourself define your connection to a label. as the saying goes, "not gay as in happy, but queer as in fuck you". (not directed at you, ofc :) /lh)

plus, the "non-men" definition kinda...inherently misgenders people who aren't men but aren't lesbians either. i know people who aren't men and would frankly bite anyone who tried to call them a lesbian for the sole sake of them liking women. a label based on exclusion is always going to run into road bumps like that.

but, if you want a more historical answer...

basically, the definition of lesbian has changed a lot over time. for a while in the 20th century, lesbian basically just meant "woman attracted to women", or even just "women who sleeps with women", regardless of how they felt about men.

the idea of lesbianism inherently not including men only really came around with the advent of lesbian separatism in the 1970s:

"In essence, lesbian feminists tried to untie lesbianism from sex so heterosexual feminists were more comfortable. ... Lesbian feminists responded by distancing themselves from stereotypes of “masculine roles,” maleness, and patriarchy. One way they were able to do so was by disentangling lesbian sexuality from heterosexuality and re-conceptualizing heterosexual sex as consorting with “the enemy”. ... They were then able to draw a distinction between lesbian sex and heterosexual sex, claiming that lesbian sex was “pure as snow” since it did not involve men." —Yamissette Westerband, "Lesbians in the Twentieth Century, 1900-1999"

this was coupled together with political lesbianism, and putting this all together, you got a doctrine that followed as such:

lesbianism was a conscious, feminist, and correct choice. (political lesbianism)

any relations with men were considered traitorship towards women and compliance with the patriarchy. (lesbian separatism)

this meant that bisexual women were considered traitors to their sisters. (biphobia babey!!)

this, at its core, was the belief of radical feminists—and it certainly wasn't something that was met with full agreement. while there were many lesbians who scorned any physicality with men, there were just as many lesbians who refused the idea that to be a lesbian, one must completely remove men from their lives.

there are accounts of bisexual women who saw their lesbian identity as a political stance alongside their bisexuality, or even the other way around. [there's a few here!] the phrase "lesbian-identified bisexual" comes up a lot in the literature spanning from the 1970s-1990s.

here's a couple select quotes from the page i linked:

"[Betty Aubut]: ... I never used to identify as lesbian out of respect for women who made the lifelong choice never to sleep with men, but then I realized that was a lot of bullshit. Calling yourself lesbian does not necessarily mean you have made that lifelong decision. Now I mostly identify as a lesbian–so I call myself a bisexual lesbian." —Robyn Ochs, “Bi of the Month: Betty Aubut,” Bi Women Vol. 5, No. 2, April-May, 1987]

"10 years ago when I left my husband and full-time role of motherhood, it didn’t make me less conscious of what being a mother means. In fact, it gave me a deeper understanding. I am still a mother. That experience cannot be taken away from me. In much the same way, my lesbian awareness isn’t lost now that I claim my bisexuality. When I realized my woman-loving-woman feelings, and came out as a lesbian, I had no heterosexual privilege; yet there were important males in my life, including a son. I am bisexual because it’s real for me, not in order to acquire or flaunt the privilege that is inherent in being with men. My political consciousness is lesbian but my lifestyle is bisexual. If I keep myself quiet for another’s sense of pride and liberation, it is at the cost of my own which isn’t healthy–emotionally, politically or medically. Not only is it unhealthy, it’s ineffective." —Lani Kaahumanu, “Bisexuality & Discrimination,” BBWN Vol. 3, No. 6, Dec 1985-Jan 1986; Reprinted from the 1985 Gay Pride March magazine, San Francisco

regardless of what anyone thought, this was still an opinion that stretched forward into the modern day, though it feels that a lot of exclusionists have all but forgotten it was the belief of radical feminists—or even accepted it, becoming modern radfems all on their own.

there's actually a huge radfem population on tumblr, and has been since tumblr's inception—and that's a big part of why this belief system was able to push its way into the wider queer community. with such a lack of queer elders coming out of the AIDs crisis, queer teens on the web didn't really have very many ways to learn about queer history—especially with bigoted parents around, leaning over their shoulders.

thus, radfems were given a perfect opportunity to deliver their verdict, and these queer teens just...didn't know better. i'd go so far as to say that i've seen radfems and exclusionists alike scorn their queer predecessors, claiming that, in nicer words, "being older doesn't mean you're right". it sucks a lot.

in general, a lot of the hatred comes down to the views of radical feminists. that men and masculinity are inherently evil, that to have relationships with men is a betrayal to one's sisters...when really, there's a lot of men who don't benefit from the patriarchy at all. if the patriarchy were some magical force that protected all men, we wouldn't get cishet men being called f or t slurs for showing emotion. men wouldn't be constantly doubted every time they admitted that they'd faced abuse from women.

instead, the patriarchy only rewards complete compliance and gender essentialism. to be viewed as a good man under the patriarchy, there can't be a whiff of femininity on you. likewise, to be a good woman, you can't be masculine in the slightest. (this is a big part of why things such as stay at home husbands and working wives are seen as such a "horrific" phenomenon. it's also the basis of—you guessed it—homophobia!)

it doesn't just tie into gender; in fact, it's very much tied to white supremacy as well. to quote gerald torres, in his book "Understanding Patriarchy As an Expression of Whiteness: Insights from the Chicana Movement" (which i highly suggest you read, as i can only say so much on the subject, being white myself):

"Whiteness has a gender. The history of American racial thought held that to be white was to possess certain superior characteristics that on closer inspection turned out to be as gendered as they were racial. Though the content of the construction of race and gender changed over time, the gendered nature of whiteness, and of race in general, remained constant. Whether attempting to claim white privilege for themselves or positioning themselves in opposition to that privilege, America’s racial and ethnic minorities have historically defined and redefined themselves in relation to the core characteristics of whiteness. To be white was to be civilized, rational, moral and in command of one’s emotions. Of course, these are also gendered characteristics. The absence of these characteristics was stereotyped as definitive of lesser races, and was sometimes even characterized as such by the occupants of those classes."

to double back to radical feminism, this actually also ties into a lot of queer issues that people feel much less vicious about; transmascs are seen as traitors by radfems as well, abandoning their womanhood to join "the side of the oppressors", or even that, by being men, they automatically have all of the same privileges that cishet men do, completely ignoring the fact that a LOT of transmascs don't ever get to access the male privilege that radfems believe they have by nature of being men. (gnc transmascs, those who don't or can't pass, etc)

the same goes for the trend of mlm positivity posts being hijacked by women who feel the need to complain about how "ugly" and "gross" men are, or that people with male partners should "dump them and get a girlfriend instead".

this lateral attack on queer people all comes down to the idea that "it's okay because men are the ultimate oppressors", yet another idea that both benefits radfems by implying that, because they're women, they're the ultimate oppressed party, while also ignoring the fact that, by nature of many of them being white, or cis, or dyadic, or allo, they still have power over those who are people of color, or trans, or intersex, or aspec.

all in all, this isn't to say that you have to like men as a lesbian. you don't! you yourself can define your lesbianism as completely absent of men, and no one can stop you from doing that. in fact, i would defend your right to do that just as much as i defend bi lesbians.

the problem is when people try to define everyone's lesbianism by their own personal definition, and/or they decide that to like men as a lesbian (or at all) is some irrevocable sin. it's ahistorical, it enforces gold star lesbianism, which is already a lesbophobic concept, and it completely contradicts the idea of queer liberation and autonomy.

and to any radfems and exclus who decide they're gonna send me some mean messages after reading this: hi <3 anon is off. show me your pretty urls so i can block you.

[middlenamesage]

Black Moon Lilith and Lilith the Character Archetype: My Reflections Coming out of Black Moon Lilith Conjunct the North Node

Following the astrological transits, both the collective and my personal, I have for a while noticed that when Black Moon Lilith is at play, it’s really hard for this to go unnoticed in my life. I always could sense this energy, I knew what it felt like, but used to find it hard to describe, or at least to dissect enough to understand with any valuable meaning.

Physically speaking, the astronomical point known in astrology as Black Moon Lilith is the point along the Moon’s orbit that is farthest from Earth (the lunar apogee), a point that changes position in the zodiac along with the changing orbit of the moon. To me it makes sense this point can be so potentially relevant to us, as all living beings are very much guided by the Moon, who keeps us in connection with each other. Out where the Black Moon is, in this metaphorical place of exile, it’s more of an “every man (or woman!) for himself!” vibe. Lilith is very much about the instinct of self preservation. It’s about resisting control or exploitation by others (and/or internalizing its effects). Often the two occur together as two faces of the same trauma. Black Moon Lilith represents the areas where life has taught us that we absolutely must advocate for ourselves. However, she can also bring shame and denial of wants wherever she is placed, or transiting, because this is something that generally develops where we have been told or shown we can’t have something.

Black Moon Lilith is in fact named for Lilith in the old testament/Jewish folklore, and the way we have come to make sense of its effects (rather, its correlations to our lives) is in considerable measure inspired by this character, and her archetype- who has many interpretations. Lilith was Adam’s first wife, before Eve, who left his ass! She refused to lie beneath him during sex, saying they were created equal. I think we can interpret this metaphorically, of course, as resistance to being controlled in many potential terms… but also literally, as there is a focus of unconstrained sexuality concerning Lilith, which I have observed has some definite relevance to the Black Moon too, but is far from the only or even the most important way to understand it.

Various legends say that after fleeing Eden, Lilith went on to become a she-demon/succubus/baby kidnapper/baby killer/so on….. (those are just the accusations I’m recalling off the top of my head). But over these many years, Lilith has picked up many other story lines, provided inspiration for phenomena such as Black Moon Lilith, and gained many evolving faces and interpretations. Other than being a religious figure, and/or a she-demon, some of her contemporary associations include witchcraft/dark magic, creative renditions in fantasy and horror, gothic culture, and the biggest switch of all, her status as the first feminist.

As a potent force from the most distant shadows of the Moon’s reach, where connection to one another is compromised and we must turn to ourselves to defend our basic natures, I’ve found that Black Moon Lilith can have both positive correlations- such as going one’s own way where it truly benefits one’s life, putting one’s foot down to mistreatment, and stepping into one’s personal power- and negative correlations such as pushing away and/or disregarding other people, general concern with defending one’s own initiatives, to the point where it is premature or anti-productive, and the shame, denial and/or rage that many have developed from being disallowed their power by others.

How we express Black Moon Lilith can be instigating healthy boundaries on one hand, and setting up unnecessary walls of defense on the other. It can be self respect on one hand, and self obsession/failure to consider others, on the other. It can be self protection on one hand, and self sabotage on the other. It can be shame and denial over who we really are/what we really want on one hand, and it can be where we liberate ourselves from shame on the other. Very often, it seems to dole out as a complicated mix of both the “bad” and the “good”.

It used to be that reflecting on my own experiences, despite my fascination with it, there was very little “good” I saw about the Black Moon’s correlations in my life. I came to associate the energy of Black Moon Lilith with a few of my “trauma responses” that have caused me to sabotage relationships. I felt she had helped me stand up for myself/walk away from people a few times when I actually needed to, but for the most part, she seemed to just make me quick to unconsciously wreck budding relationships, reject others, put up lots of walls, or not want to cooperate/compromise with others- even though this was also betraying my own desires deep down to be close with others. My natal Lilith is in Libra in my 7th house, so the relational element of her is especially relevant.

I think that this Black Moon wound of mine in the realm of partnerships has several big origins/perpetuators I can site, but one of the first and biggest that I can consciously analyze, is having internalized the messages I was told by a parent growing up (not necessarily said in as blunt of terms as I received them) that no one would ever want to be with me because I am too difficult to live with. (I was also shown this when my parents sent me elsewhere to live.) Internalizing this message about myself stripped away my personal power when it comes to partnerships. For so long I approached all relationships assuming they were damned to end before they ever got too serious (something I still do struggle with), and I long believed, a belief that at some times was not as much conscious as it was confirmed with my deeply engrained unconscious behaviors of sabotage, that a ‘true’ and committed relationship is simply something I can’t have. This long internalized belief has given rise to many of my independent behaviors in relationships... both in destructive ways that compromise my connection with others and/or alienate them, and in positive senses that protect my individuality and self respect.

Here’s the thing. I was never wrong to see my trauma responses in the force of Black Moon Lilith. Black Moon Lilith and Lilith the archetype are in fact rooted in trauma. We mustn’t trivialize that part. The defense mechanisms, rage, shame, denial, sabotage, the desire to leave people and things behind, and the general mechanisms for self-preservation which can accompany Lilith stem from instances where we have felt held down, lead to believe we don’t have power, mistreated, and in some cases even horribly abused/violated. But the reality of Black Moon Lilith’s painful origins does not make it all a bad thing! It can be a very empowering thing potentially, because where we are hurt is also where we can find the avenues for healing, and for gaining acceptance of our most authentic self and desires. And there is a very good reason we develop many of these less than savory reactions from traumatic experiences and messaging. Lilith teaches us to recognize our boundaries, and to reclaim the personal power that once was lost! - even if at times we may run too far with these prerogatives in stubborn quests for independence and personal autonomy wherever she resides.

Though I have been fascinated by and intent to ponder Black Moon Lilith for probably over a year now, my reflections on it, and later on the character Lilith for which the lunar apogee is named, have really gained a lot of new ground during this last month+ of Black Moon Lilith’s conjunction to the North Node. (Which is currently separating, but still in effect.) The Lunar North Node is another very important point in relation to the Moon’s orbit, which shows the path forward. Black Moon Lilith with the North Node in Gemini has proven too be so ripe with many new experiences for me to learn about Lilith. It’s hard to say if anything has actually changed about my relationship with Lilith, or if I am just starting to see more of the positive in her that was always there, instead of just noticing and perpetuating the glaring negative. Also, I decided it was about time to accept Lilith as a part of who I am. I can’t deny the power the associated energies and the archetype has had on my life, so I might as well embrace it- both the good parts and the parts that are a work in progress. (And that is the story of my new little stud earrings with the Black Moon Lilith symbol!)

One aspect of my relationship with Lilith that I think actually has started to bloom forth in more of a clear-cut positive way with this Lilith-North Node transit, is finding the power to actively and productively embrace a part of myself, via finding/claiming opportunities to keep cultivating this part, even though it’s meant having to disregard my reservations, and even fighting through some shame. I can see now that there is a whole world of great personal empowerment to be tapped into with Lilith, and not just in the ability to leave people behind. (But of course leaving people behind is one means she’ll employ, if it is necessary for stepping into her power!)

I have always seen myself as a writer. It’s not even by choice, and a great deal of the time, for a very long time, I have really resented this natural compulsion of mine. You see, I have a deeply complicated relationship with writing, one that undoubtedly needs some healing. Well, this Black Moon Lilith/North Node conjunction in Gemini, moving through my 3rd house of communications (and as I only found out the other day, also conjunct my natal White Moon Selena, i.e. the lunar perigee/polarity to Black Moon Lilith) ended up bringing me my first opportunities ever getting paid to write… something I guess I just used to assume I couldn’t do, due to my lack of a college degree, as well as the difficult relationship with writing and my paralyzing perfectionism. But with this transit, I placed aside my assumptions of what wasn’t possible for me, and I have some hope now that accepting the opportunity to write for other people, on subjects that generally don’t even mean anything to myself, may just turn out to be the good dose of objectivity needed to help restore some healing to my writing relationship.

Once again, where you’ll find the wounds in your relationship with your personal power, is also where you’ll find how to heal them, and use them to empower yourself and others- and that healing is really what Black Moon Lilith conjunct the North Node has been trying to facilitate for us all. Of course, the process is basically never straightforward and easy, nor all enjoyable. This transit has brought a wide range of Lilith experiences in my life to comment upon.

Some other occurrences have been: abruptly ending an extended off and on relationship with someone where there was always a good deal of power struggle (and would have been power imbalance if I had not stood my ground in a lot of instances), unconsciously driving away or creating distance with a few friends, being consciously and stubbornly persistent in putting more distance between myself and my family than ever before, and facing a couple situations providing awkward trial and error experiments in how I communicate my dissatisfaction to others who wronged me. But I know that all of these experiences are helping me to evolve, and to better understand my responses which stem from wounds that have set into me with the nature of Black Moon Lilith.

And I marvel at the fact that millions of other humans have also been going through experiences which are forcing them to confront and/or evolve their own instincts and behaviors associated with the Black Moon, whether they realize it or not.

Lilith says, “These are my boundaries[or conditions]. You will respect them, or I am outta here.” She says, ‘I know what I am capable of, so I’m gonna fight for it- even if I have to shut out other people.” The placement of our natal Black Moon Lilith shows a prominent area where power has been stolen from us, whether through physical or psychological means (and where the Black Moon is transiting can bring up these issues in other areas, as well). Lilith develops from a wound, and her determination to not feel the powerlessness again can serve as either the healing or the perpetuation of it.

* * * * * * * * * * *

P.S.

For any astro heads reading this with this knowledge of their birth chart, I welcome you to comment or reflect on where 5° Gemini falls in your chart. This is where the (currently separating) conjunction of Black Moon Lilith and the North Node occurred, so the house in your natal chart where it’s transiting, and any natal placements that may be in aspect to this point, especially conjunctions and oppositions, may be able to show where/how you have embodied or encountered Black Moon Lilith energy in recent times.

NOTE :

If anyone is wondering which “Lilith” in astrology I have been referring to, since it is a fairly infamous fact that there are actually 4 things bearing this name in astrology… I have for the most part only followed the mean calculation of Black Moon Lilith (and with Black Moon Lilith’s conjunction to the North Node, mean Lilith is what I’m referring to).

There is also Osculating Black Moon Lilith (aka True Lilith), which is a different calculation of the same concept I have discussed with Black Moon Lilith. A calculation that is actually technically more precise about the moon’s orbit, for the moment that it is taken, as the lunar apogee technically jumps around a little bit a whole lot… yet I have personally found Mean Lilith to be more worth following, especially when following collective transits, if trying to examine the effects of something lingering over an extended period of time, or if conceptualizing Black Moon Lilith’s cycles throughout the entire zodiac. I don’t doubt that the calculation of osculating Black Moon Lilith (which often is not too far from the mean calculation) has a lot of validity to it too though, perhaps especially for natal chart interpretations, and progressions.

As for the other two Liliths, there is the asteroid Lilith- but that is named for a French composer, not the Lilith archetype as we know her. Not saying it isn’t something worth looking into, it just hasn’t been a point of focus for me. And lastly, there is Dark Moon Lilith (aka Waldemath Moon), which is said to be a dark body of unknown origin revolving around the Earth- but there is a lot of debate as to whether it actually exists. I don’t have an opinion one way or another, and I haven’t followed it in transits. However, its placement in my natal chart, with an opposition to Black Moon Lilith for one, does peak my interest.

[woman-loving]

I don’t identity as a “bi lesbian,” but I feel there is room for a woman to identify as both bisexual and gay/lesbian, and I don’t agree with the arguments I’ve seen against “bi lesbian” identity.

One thing that annoys me about detractors of the identity is the occasional claim that it is basically an internet phenomenon that arose within the last five years or so. Actually, women have been claiming both bisexual and lesbian identities for decades. There have constantly been debates about how bi women fit within lesbianism, lesbian identity, and lesbian community since the gay/lesbian movements have been active. This isn’t something that has ever been universally agreed upon, and there never will be universal agreement on it.

Just for reference and historical interest, I’ve compiled a few selections from articles and books, mostly from the 80s and 90s, that are by or about lesbian-identified (or gay-identified) bisexual woman, or that at least mention them. Inclusion doesn’t indicate my approval of the author’s perspective or argument; this is to provide a bit of history on the discourse.

What is a Lesbian? To me, a lesbian is a woman-oriented woman; bisexuals can be lesbians. A lesbian does not have to be exclusively woman oriented, she does not have to prove herself in bed, she does not have to hate men, she does not have to be sexually active at all times, she does not have to be a radical feminist. She does not have to like bars, like gay culture, or like being gay. When lesbians degrade other lesbians for not going to bars, not coming out, being bisexual or not sexually active, and so on, we oppress each other.

--Trish Miller, "Bisexuality," Lavender Woman, Vol 2 Issue 5, August 1973.

*

The definition of lesbian that I suggest, one that conforms to the two methodological considerations above, is the following:

5. Lesbian is a woman who has sexual and erotic-emotional ties primarily with women or who sees herself as centrally involved with a community of self-identified lesbians whose sexual and erotic-emotional ties are primarily with women; and who is herself a self-identifed lesbian. 

My definition is a sociopolitical one; that is, it attempts to include in the term lesbian the contemporary sense of lesbianism as connected with a subcultural community, many members of which are opposed to defining themselves as dependent on or subordinate to men. It defines both bisexual and celibate women as lesbians as long as they identify themselves as such and have their primary emotional identification with a community of self-defined lesbians. Furthermore, for reasons I will outline shortly, there was no lesbian community in which to ground a sense of self before the twentieth century, a fact which distinguishes the male homosexual community from the lesbian community. Finally, it is arguable that not until this particular stage in the second wave of the women’s movement and in the lesbian-feminist movement has it been politically feasible to include self-defined lesbian bisexual women into the lesbian community.

Many lesbian feminists may not agree with this inclusion. But it may be argued that to exclude lesbian bisexuals from the community on the grounds that “they give energy to men” is overly defensive at this point. After all, a strong women’s community does not have to operate on a scarcity theory of nurturant energy! On feminist principles the criterion for membership in the community should be a woman’s commitment to giving positive erotic-emotional energy to women. Whether women who give such energy to women can also give energy to individual men (friends, fathers, sons, lovers) is not the community��s concern.

--Ann Ferguson, “Patriarchy, Sexual Identity, and the Sexual Revolution,” Signs, Autumn 1981.

*

Individuals who came together a month ago to discuss bisexuality and its relationship to radical feminism decided recently to begin a serious, regular study group on human sexuality and its social/political/psychological manifestations in our culture.

There are eight of us in the group. For all, understanding bisexuality, both in our own lives and and in our society, is a primary goal. To this end, we decided on a format of readings and discussion, with a facilitator for each meeting, that would bring us through the range of sexual options available in the United States today, from male-identified heterosexuality to lesbianism, to a final informed examination of bisexuality in the context of all that we had learned. Throughout our exploration, feminism will provide both a point of departure, and a point of return.

We started by trying to define some terms, specifically "feminism," "gay-identified bisexual," and "bisexual". Alot of us were amazed to see how many different interpretations each term, especially "gay-identified," could have. Is someone "gay-identified" because they devote a majority of their time, energy and emotion to the gay community? Or does an individual's radical critique of heterosexuality make them "gay-identified"? And does "gay-identified" also imply "women-identified"? Some people felt that one could be gay-identified, and still not be woman-identified. And exactly how many Meg Christian concerts make you "lesbian-identified"?

We didn't reach any conclusions, but had fun realizing that being bisexuals, we are dealing with a whole realm of experiences that can be classified in any number of different ways; and that the variety of possible bisexual lifestyles is as varied as the women who are in the Network.

--Barb H, “Study Group,” BBWN, Vol. 2 No. 4, July-Aug 1984

*

I recognize that homophobia is at the root of biphobia. I came to lesbianism long before my sexuality was clear to me. I lived an open lesbian lifestyle for four years. I cannot deny the importance of this experience, nor do I want to. For me lesbian identity is more than, and/or in addition to sexuality; it is a political awareness which bisexuality doesn't altar or detract from. 10 years ago when I left my husband and full-time role of motherhood, it didn't make me less conscious of what being a mother means. In fact, it gave me a deeper understanding. I am still a mother. That experience cannot be taken away from me. In much the same way, my lesbian awareness isn't lost now that I claim my bisexuality. When I realized my woman-loving-woman feelings, and came out as a lesbian, I had no heterosexual privilege; yet there were important males in my life, including a son. I am bisexual because it's real for me, not in order to acquire or flaunt the privilege that is inherent in being with men. My political consciousness is lesbian but my lifestyle is bisexual. If I keep myself quiet for another's sense of pride and liberation, it is at the cost of my own which isn't healthy--emotionally, politically or medically. Not only is it unhealthy, it's ineffective.

Since I have come out I have triggered many lesbians to blurt in whispered confidence--"I have a man in the closet. You're brave to be so open. What am I going to do?" These are not easy times. AIDS has given biphobia free reign in the lesbian community (and admittedly with much less destructive effect than how AIDS is fueling homophobia in society at large), it is all right to trash bisexuals, not to trust us for fear of AIDS. Bisexuals are untouchable to some lesbians.

We have to deal with oppression in a constructive way or we will be factionalized forever. Time is running out. We have to see the whole and the part we play in it. Forming family communities with people who share your sexual identity is important, but trashing is nonproductive. The sexual choices we make are equally valid for our individual experiences. AIDS is not a gay disease; it is a human tragedy, a plague that doesn't recognize boundaries. I urge bisexuals to take a political stand, and to become a visible, viable energy force. It is important and timely to open this dialogue in each of our communities. Nobody belongs in the closet. The only way to get a sense of "our" community is for us to begin to speak out and identify ourselves. When we verify the connections and the networks of our oppression, we build a unity that avoids the, "I'm more oppressed than you" syndrome

--Lani Kaahumanu, “Bisexuality & Discrimination,” BBWN Vol. 3, No. 6, Dec 1985-Jan 1986; Reprinted from the 1985 Gay Pride March magazine, San Francisco

*

What makes the Third Annual Northeast Conference on Bisexuality what it is? The breakfasts and dinners--the entertainment--the excitement of meeting others who feel like family. My first event of the conference was stumbling onto a cocktail party just around the corner from the Registration Desk, which turned out to be part of the Woman's History Week! A bit embarrassing after greeting many people with wine glasses in hand, asking them how they heard about the bisexuality conference!

I'll skip now to describe my experiences at the lesbian-identified affinity group and the two workshops I attended. Why do women who identify as lesbians go to a bisexuality conference? There were about 10 of us in the room, each with a different answer. Most of our relationships at the present time were with women; after that the similarity ended. One woman had affairs with men when not seriously involved with women. Another, in a non-monogamous long-term lesbian relationship, had recently begun a sexual involvement with a man. one woman, now involved with a bisexual woman, was here to discuss her feelings about the situation. Some of us had led exclusively lesbian lives for a number of years and were wondering if we'd closed off important parts of ourselves. Whether or not we would act on our sexual attractions for men, acknowledging them were important to us.

Our personal herstories contributed to our diverse opinions. For some, coming out was relaxed and easy and relationships with women refreshingly egalitarian. Others found sexual awakening and coming out difficult, and lesbian relationships fraught with many of the same difficulties as straight ones. We also discussed reasons lesbians don't accept bisexual women, such as fear that she'd leave for a man or desire to preserved woman-only space. We questioned the reality of "heterosexual privilege," wondering whether any women could really have it. We discussed the sorrows in our lives, such as family histories of alcoholism, incest or physical abuse, and the joys of our relationships, our work and our lives.

--Stacie, “Lesbian-identified Affinity Group Workshops: Lesbian Sexuality & Politics of Sexuality,” BBWN, Vol. 4, No. 2, April-May 1986

*

[Robyn Ochs]: What is your current sexual identity?

[Betty Aubut]: I call myself a "bisexual lesbian." I will always politically identify as bisexual, which to me means opposing restrictive categories. Some days I feel real separatist, and other days I feel that I want to be involved with men. Being bisexual to me means that I see men and women whom I'm attracted to. A man would have to be very special for me to want to get involved with him but I will fight for bisexual rights whether or not I'm sleeping with men. I see the bisexual community and movement as a very important bridge between gays, lesbian and straights. As long as gays and lesbians are considered completely 'other' from the mainstream, we'll never have any power. I consider myself gay. I think bisexuals are gay and gay liberation is our liberation. I don't consider myself 100% straight and 100% gay; I am 100% gay. That doesn't mean I won't sleep with a man every now and then--some lesbians do that. I never used to identify as lesbian out of respect for women who made the lifelong choice never to sleep with men, but then I realized that was a lot of bullshit. Calling yourself lesbian does not necessarily mean you have made that lifelong decision. Now I mostly identify as a lesbian--so I call myself a bisexual lesbian. I don't sleep with men right now, but I have male friends whom I spend time with and cuddle with. I've even become socially involved with some of the men from the men's network. I'm proud of where I am now because it's been so hard for me. People who have known me for a long time can't believe the change.

--Robyn Ochs, “Bi of the Month: Betty Aubut,” Bi Women Vol. 5, No. 2, April-May, 1987

*

Sharon Sumpter is a bisexual lesbian activist and psychotherapist who works with women survivors of abuse, institutionalization and sexual oppression. Her book-in-progress, In Pieces, is dedicated to opening the closet doors for former "mental patients." "I went into my work to undo the criminal things that were done to me and that I saw done to other women." She thanks Deena Metzger and Asherah for this, her first published work.

--Contributors' Notes, Sinister Wisdom, Issue 36, Winter 1988/89

*

Representatives of lesbian-feminist separatism may feel singled out as special targets of our anger and distress. To the extent that this is true, the seeds of anger lie in lesbian separatism as a politic: In this reading of feminism, specific sex acts take on politicized meaning. These are said to have consequences for the consciousness of the person performing them. Lesbian feminism is arguably the most proscriptive gay or lesbian politic, generating in its adherents the greatest tendency to judge others' (especially sexual) behavior. Gay men, for example, seem more likely to cite personal antipathy or simple stereotypes about bisexuals as a source of their chagrin. A great many bisexual women, particularly those who are feminist and lesbian-identified, have felt both personally and politically rejected and judged by the separatist sisters. Even those with no such experience may feel wary having heard of other bisexual women's stories. No one like to feel attacked, even politically.

----Carol A. Queen, "Strangers at Home: Bisexuals in the queer movement," Out/Look, Vol. 4, Issue 4 (16), Spring 1992

*

Closer to Home successfully deals with these and other problems of self-identification. As most of the writers are "lesbian-identified bisexuals" (one of several labels used for the sake of convenience), the definition of lesbianism is also reevaluated. Is a lesbian a woman who relates emotionally and erotically with women or a woman who does not relate emotionally and erotically with men? Must a woman fit both criteria to be considered a lesbian?

The "Principles and Practice" section expands these main course theories of identity with side dishes of memories and personal feelings--feelings of not being queer enough; of breaking all the rules, even the gay rules; of being dissatisfied with the waste of energy from political infighting. It's odd for lesbian-identified bi's to find themselves viewed as politically incorrect. It's maddening to have one's past feminist work invalidated by the inclusion of a man (or men) in one's life. It's frustrating to find oneself faced with a choice of being honest or potentially losing support of women's groups. It's confusing to work for the freedom to come out of one closet only to be asked to stay in another. As Rebecca Shuster write:

"If we choose a lesbian identity, we are subject to systematic oppression and internalize that oppression in a package that includes marginality; invisibility; isolation...; and countercultural rules about how to relate to women and men. If we choose a bisexual identity, we are subject to systematic oppression and internalize that oppression in a package deal that include a feeling of not belonging or having a home; defensiveness; isolation...; and countercultural rules about how to relate to women and men. Precisely because bisexuality represents freedom of choice, society ensures that the identity comes with its own package of mistreatment and constraints."

----Beth Herrick, "Bisexual Women Pushing the Limits," Sojourner, Vol. 18, Issue 10, June 1993

*

The first step is to move toward building alliances within our bisexual communities. Many communities are united by a commonality of the oppression. This is not so in our community, partly because of the different ways people identify as bisexual: gay-identified, queer-identified, lesbian-identified, or heterosexual-identified. Some people are bisexual in an affectional manner only; some are bisexual both affectionally and sexually; and some are bisexual only sexually. Since there are so many ways to express our bisexuality, the first step toward alliance-building is to work internally to accept all members of our own community. It is imperative that we build alliances across our own differences; otherwise, alliance-building will fail. Acceptance of the diversity of bisexual labels within our community will allow us to pursue alliance-building with decisive strength in the heterosexual community and what many of us consider our own lesbian/gay community.[3]

--Brenda Blasingame, "Power and Privilege Beyond the Invisible Fence, in  Bisexual Politics: Theories, Queries, and Visions, 1995

*

Personally, I am unable to separate out the various ways that I am oppressed (as a woman, as an African American, as a bisexual lesbian, as an impoverished single mother) and say that one oppression is worse than the other, or that I desire one form of liberation more than another. I do not want to experience threats to my life, my child custody, or my job security because of racism or homophobia. I don't want to be oppressed for any reason!!!

--Dajenya, "Which Part of Me Deserves to Be Free?," in Bisexual Politics: Theories, Queries, & Visions, ed. Naomi Tucker, 1995

*

A good deal of criticism has been written about heterosexuals who are surprised when they find out the true sexual orientation of someone who they didn't think "looked gay." These criticism assert what is of course true--that there is no such thing as a gay or lesbian "look," since of course, everyone who is gay, lesbian or bisexual, looks that way.

Unfortunately, many of my experiences as a lesbian-identified bisexual woman have said to me that having an appearance or demeanor that diverges from the expected means I will not be accepted as truly belonging in the lesbian community. Despite my attendance at gay pride parade, dollars spent at gay resorts and in support of gay causes, and numerous attempts to participate in gay and/or lesbian groups and volunteer events, I have often felt unaccepted by this community.

--Amy Wyeth, "Don't Assume Anything," Bi Women Vol. 13, No. 4, Aug/Sept 1995

*

Joan Tollifson relays her struggle to make sense of her life and her spiritual awakening in Bare-Bones Meditation. Born with only one hand, she grew up feeling different, found identity and purpose as a bisexual lesbian and a disability rights activist, but struggled with drug and alcohol addiction. She first embraced Zen Buddhism then a very bare-bones form of spirituality that has no form. This exuberant and amazing testament is for the many people who don't fit into the conventional molds of existing religious traditions.

--"And on Publisher's Row," complied by Jenn Tust, Feminist Bookstore News, Vol. 19, Issue 4, Nov-Dec 1996

[roublardise]

hiii 🥰 2, 6 and 23 for the books ask 💕

hiiii 🥰

2. Did you reread anything? What?

yes yes yes yes!!!! I've actually reread a lot (when you do a ratio of reread/how many books read i think, idk i don't do maths) 🤔 I'm gonna make a little list:

- Murder on the Orient-Express, by Agatha Christie A classic I had read when I was in high school. I remembered the big plot twist, so it was super interesting to reread it knowing it (and nothing else bc I have a shitty plot memory).

- Détective Conan, by Gosho Aoyama I've started rereading them in late 2020, so in 2021 I've read from vol 20 to 78. I've been having so much fun it's sooo good 😭 my bro is also reading them we can be obsessed together 💕 I'm only at vol 78 by now, bc the scans I was reading changed? like the french is now fansub, and I can't read their typography lol. So I gotta read in english, and it's weird to read this manga from my childhood in english, and I also struggle more to understand the cases 😔 I'm taking my time, but it's there, always in the back of my mind!

edit: the reread is only up until vol 50 or so, with a big lapse between 23 and 51 bc that's the vol I owned

- THE HUNGER GAMES TRILOGY, by Suzanne Collins 💕 Loved loved loved loved loved going back into it!!! I had read it at least three times already, but I hadn't in a few years and idk I felt like it. I didn't plan to, but I took the opportunity to read the prequel as well.

Fascinated bc, well for once I do remember a lot of the plot, but I still rediscovered a lot (with a lot of "wait I thought it went [smth which was changed in the movies]"). But especially when it came to the whole political ideas, like I'm way more political than I was when I've read it before, so I was able to think more about that part of the books. I also had a whole new view on it bc I'm not close to Katniss' age anymore, and I was going "she's so young leave her alone" all along 💀

Masterpiece writing truly Suzanne Collins GETS IT soooo much. And it's not the question but people who gave the prequel two stars on goodreads do NOT get it they can't read imo. All her choices are so deliberate I'm truly amazed it's beautiful, she knows what she's doing!! I was a bit frustrated by the end bc we don't know what the political state is by that point, and I was so curious. But I had to remember that it wasn't the point of the trilogy, not really. It makes sense, it's just a bit frustrating bc I have so many questions about it.

.

6. Was there anything you meant to read, but never got to?

I wanted to (rere)reread Six of Crows, by Leigh Bardugo as well, but I know I'll get obsessed so I had to wait. I was already taken by spn, detective conan, and thg, and I was supposed to finish my master 😂

I wanted to read, finally, Les Orageuses, by Marcia Burnier. It's about anger & feminism, it was rec to me by a friend bc it's 100% my vibe. But it's one of these books I'm waiting for the Right Time for, and it wasn't this year.

And the book my big bro got me for my bday it seems soooo cool but I wanted to wait until my master to be done to read it! It's Sur les ossements des morts, by Olga Tokarczuk. It's likely there's an english title somewhere bc it got a Nobel prize, but it's a polish book so it won't be the original title who cares lmao. There's so much in this book deep with meaning I can't believe my bro found that, there's a murder, the main character is into astrology, it's a polish book, it's written by a feminist, and the cover is stunning 🥺🥺 I can't wait to get into it!!!

.

23. What’s the fastest time it took you to read a book?

Oh well, an afternoon? 😂 It was a book about gender stuff, but pretty basic, it's about giving notions. I've read it when I was planning an intervention around these topics for work, bc my brain is so academical I struggle to write easy definition for some concept so I needed to get back to a "beginner" level.

It was Beyoncé est-elle féministe?, by Osez le féminisme ! and it's so liberal and racist 😭 I didn't know it was written by this collective when I read it, otherwise I'm not sure I would have bother. They contradict themselves from one page to another, and I'm not over a racist drawing in like, p30 or smth 💀

Otherwise I was a slow reader this year, I may have took 3 days for some books, but overall going more around one week.

end-of-year book ask