#intersectional feminist

[ftmtftm]

Genuinely I think the biggest actual theoretical terminology vs layman's understanding linguistic failure of the last decade is the way the word "privilege" has been ground to dust.

To have "privilege" is to have benefits in life granted to you by institutions of systemic power that in turn place you in a position of power or status over others in a way that is in line with and benefits the institution.

"Privilege" is also absolutely not cut and dry. Institutions of power don't take turns dissecting people into individual parts to decide how to oppress or give benefits to people at any given moment. They treat them as a sum of their parts. That is quite literally the foundational core of Intersectional theory.

But that's a lot of words that require you to actually think about sociological concepts and attempt to understand them in-depth. Unfortunately though, people love simplicity and they hate social sciences - especially theory in social sciences that have been proposed by anyone who isn't White. Which is extremely, dishearteningly ironic in a conversation on privilege.

[mywitchcultblr]

I'm still in the closet and still doesn't have money to escape from this place, but celebrating pride in secret. Okay to reblog

#HappyPride

[intersexfairy]

with how we're all aware of how toxic masculinity leads men/boys to harass, assault, and abuse other men/boys, you'd think the fact they can be harmed by patriarchy and misogyny wouldn't be a controversial statment. *especially* marginalized men. but alas, many people have taken the "identity" in identity politics so literally, they just end up ignoring and reinforcing the harmful things they claim to be against.

also if you think the pain of the men harmed by toxic masculinity isn't a big deal because they're men... that is. that is literally you believing in toxic masculinity. like i thought we all knew part of toxic masculinity is that men shouldn't feel pain, they shouldn't cry, they can't ask for help or be truly hurt, etc. etc. and if they do any of these things, then they're not real men and not only deserve to be emasculated, but deserve to suffer. you just switched it to they are real men so they deserve to suffer.

and even though again, this is extra harmful for marginalized men, i shouldn't have to say that for you to care. if you only give support to people harmed by these systems when you think deserve it, you're always going to end up propping these systems up at some point. maybe you should stop that.

also. to any man reading this who feels like their pain doesn't matter: it does. you deserve to exist in a world where you're safe to be yourself and feel emotions, and get genuine protection and support. we all need to exist in that world. none of us deserve this hell.

[misespinas]

“The most oppressed man finds a being to oppress, his wife: she is the proletarian of the proletarian.”

Flora Tristan, “The Emancipation of Woman, or the Testament of the Pariah” (1843)

[chiaralbart]

We don't need flowers we need respect ⚡🌸 

( design I made some time ago for @punkypins ✨ )

[feminist-bitches-only]

Something that really pisses me off about the Amber Heard Johnny Depp situation that I never articulated is how it demonstrated people’s lack of shame in blatantly moving the goal post in believing women who are sexually/physically assaulted.

At first, when people wanted to defend the fact that they don’t believe victims, it was “well, *insert name of man accused* would never do that, it’s not in his character. He’s a good guy who hasn’t hurt anyone, so I find this unbelievable. He doesn’t even hang out in bad crowds either.”

Yet Depp was known to be an awful person by the people he worked around. He was known to be an alcoholic who struggled with drinking too much and getting really mean after drinking. He’s literally even friends with people of the likes of Marilyn Manson. Yet, people did not take this as a reason to consider not praising Depp and humiliating Heard during the trials.

Then people started turning to “well, I’m not gonna believe just one woman, because she could have any motive to want to do this to hurt someone, but if there are multiple women accusing the man then it’s believable.”

Yet, multiple people, including SOs & coworkers/past employees of Depp have described his yelling, physically harmful and intimidating behavior, and emotional abuse. However, this didn’t stop anyone from praising him and humiliating Heard.

Then it became “well, let me at least see some proof, like texts or pictures of injuries. Then I will believe you.” Both of these things came out proving Depp to be a terrible person - I mean what kind of person says over text that they desire to r*pe a woman’s [Heard’s] dead body if not the type of person to be abusive? Yet, no one took this as a clue that they might be wrong for riding for Depp and tearing down Heard.

[edit] I also want to add that it seems like our goal post has moved fully to “well if a woman has a shit ton of proof to demonstrate that she was abused by a man, I’m not going to believe her until she can somehow prove that she was never abusive to him” like?? That’s like telling someone to prove that there is no invisible flying pink elephant in the room. If no one has accused her of abuse, why would she need to, and how would she be able to, prove that she has never been abusive? And this will never get applied to male celebrities who accuse a woman of being abusive jsyk.

Here’s my hypothesis: two groups exist among these goal post movers, being 1) those who will decide to believe the man under any circumstance unless they are literally physically present to see the abuse happening, and 2) those who DO believe that the man is abusive [regardless of public ally pretending that they don’t] and just simply do not care that they are abusive.

[library-fae]

the fact that second wave feminism has been co-opred by transphobic cis white women as a creation made by and for cis white women is so aggravating because second-wave feminism was literally the time when the black panthers were advocating for black and brown people (including women) and their rights, the stonewall riots that was led by black and brown trans women, books on support of abortion rights, pioneered by black intersectional feminist florence rae kennedy, the indochinese women's conferences from 1971 fronted by women of colour, especially vietnamese women...

everything angela davis, audre lorde, winona laduke, chela sandoval, anna nietogomez and kimberly crenshaw did... and that's just the people we are most aware of

im so tired of history being gentrified, whitewashed, colonised and the removal queer people and people of colour from our past

[anxious-multishipper]

i have a very long list of book recommendations in stored in my laptop that i've had since like sophomore year of high school and imma just start posting those now because i feel like it

[ftmtftm]

There's a reason why I read Radfem literature to understand it and am sympathetic towards Radfems on an emotional level despite viscerally hating just about everything regarding the details of their beliefs and their political end goals. Their motivations make sense, even though I actively disagree with the manifestation of them.

You live in a world that is not made to support an important aspect of your identity. You live in a world that has traumatized you over and over again. That eats at you. You get angry. You get resentful. You find other people that not only feel the same way but also encourage your anger and resentment. This all radicalizes you. You fall into an echo chamber. You find scapegoats. You center yourself and your trauma above anyone else because you are hurt and scared and are surrounded by people encouraging you to weaponize that pain and fear.

The SCUM Manifesto is objective proof of this in many ways. I think Valarie Solanas was a deeply vile person, but she was also so deeply hurt and traumatized she couldn't imagine any other way of navigating the world than to externalize it all.

Violence begets violence, unresolved anger and trauma encourages extremism.

I think scared, hurt people lash out and hurt others. You personally do not have to engage with people like that. You can think they are vile and horrible. You can protect your own peace and mental well-being. But that doesn't make the scared, hurt people any less human or any less capable of change. Fear and anger and pain live in all of us and it is dangerous when that gets externalized, but it's worth combatting with compassion over more harm in my opinion.

There's a reason why I am so drawn to bell hooks, and my girlfriend placed it really well awhile back when she listened in to me watching a bell hooks talk. It's because bell hooks' ideology sounds like therapy. It's full of self healing and searching for understanding. It acknowledges the pain of the world and says "you can combat this suffering and heal from it without inflicting it onto others - especially not onto others who are also hurting from other directions"

I think there's a lot of meaning to be found there.

[mywitchcultblr]

Lesson of the day to remember: Don't fuck with me or with my fellow LGBTQIA+ brethren, that account was active a few hours ago

[intersexfairy]

a necessary part of feminism is acknowledging that any and all cisheteropatriarchal ideas of gender can be used to enact harm - not just masculinity and manhood.

if your feminism denies how people weaponize femininity and womanhood (or even a lack of masculinity or manhood) to harm others, you are not advocating for liberation. if your feminism denies how toxic masculinity and manhood harm men and masculine people, you are not advocating for liberation. if your feminism denies the existence of queer people, their oppression, and any harm they enact through gender, you are not advocating for liberation.

gender based oppression/privilege is not black and white. it does not exist in a bubble, separate from other forms of oppression & privilege. if you act as otherwise, you're ultimately affirming the suffering and oppression of others. gender liberation includes everyone. that's the entire point.

[misespinas]

I feel like the thing Mulan (1998) accomplished better than any other Disney ‘princess’ film was how her society valued women based off 1. their attractiveness and 2. their ability to be submissive.

Other Disney movies (ex. Beauty and the Beast) make references to the misogyny women face for being unable to fulfill traditional female roles, but the disgusting standards aren't explored nearly as much as they are in Mulan. The entire song “You'll Bring Honor to Us All” focuses on all these horrible beauty standards she is expected to uphold:

“With good breeding/ And a tiny waist”

“Like a lotus blossom/ Soft and pale”

“a perfect porcelain doll”

But the song also reflects the social status of women and their roles in society:

“Boys will gladly go to war for you”

“A girl can bring her family/ Great honor in one way/ By striking a good match”

“Men want girls with good taste/ Calm/ Obedient/ Who work fast-paced”

“A man by bearing arms/ A girl by bearing sons”

Mulan’s reflection of this caricature she is meant to become is so much more powerful and sticks out even compared to other more recent Disney movies (Frozen, The Princess and the Frog, etc.)

I personally feel like Mulan is the only ‘princess’ who does not fall into the society's expectations of feminity in come category. She does not seek to become an object, and she defies the roles her society wants her to uphold. Mulan is the only Disney film that shows the impossible standards women are given. The only film that comes close to this would be Brave.

[chiaralbart]

Find my GRL PWR print on Casetify’s #iwd2023 collection all about empowering women, which you can find here 💗 Also, $5 from each case sold from the collection will go towards She’s The First ✨🌸

[existentialcrisis-servedhot]

i told someone in my family about the ah vs jd trial. like a summation and what happened and who won and stuff ('cause they're kinda old; don't use the internet so didn't know) and their first answer was "SHE beat HIM up? and what was he, stupid? why did he let it happen?"

like

the only proof you need that more conversations need to happen around male dv and if you're abused you're not "weak" and you don't need to "man up". it's got nothing to do with gender. it's about power imbalance. it's about psychological harm. it's about manipulation. if your loyalties are still bound to gender, that women can just NOT be a bad person, you need to revaluate your moral stands, point blank period. anyone can be in a abused relationship and the fact that we gotta reiterate that in fucking 2022 is really disgusting. feminism has never been about "women are god uwu" it's always been about equality and this discussion is just an appendage of that

[crazycatsiren]

Tradfems fuck off my blog challenge.

[vamprzhope]

hey, i posted an essay on the effects pornography is having on women, and i wanted to share it here!