#radblr discourse

[marblecakemix]

I kinda don't get why there's such a big dislike of bi women on here. Why are a lot of lesbians (I presume) so bitter about being left for a man? Maybe I don't understand the feeling, because I was never dumped by a bisexual woman, but it just seems so childish to say that in general bi women play with other girls feeling just to leave her for a man.

It do be like that sometimes. People will hurt you, that's the thing with relationships. No matter the reason or age, one way or another you'll be hurt by someone you think is the love of your life. And if it happens to be a bi woman who's now with an ugly man, so be it. Don't drag down other women for your tragedy 🤷

[mister-rad-boy]

OSA women are going to have an inherent desire to be with a man just as much as SSA women want to be with other women. Asking or even demanding OSA woman to live a separatist life from men is like Christian parents/teachers trying to preach abstinence to their children to prevent STD’s and pregnancies. It doesn’t work. Hormonal teens are going to sleep with each other, and OSA women (including radfems) are going to sleep with/have intimate relationships with men. Yes, separatism would work in making sure women are protected from men, but just like how pushing for abstinence won’t prevent the spread of STD’s and unwanted pregnancies, expecting even a majority of women to practice separatism isn’t realistic and constantly pushing for it won’t solve the issue.

[wild-wombytch]

When in 5y we'll have straight up the original of the tests we can see with our own eyes so people can't accuse this journalist of also lying, you can be sure it will be smothered to death by TRAs and lib left journalists, because they won't be accountable towards the women that suffered from it. They'll still find excuses. (And I'm not just talking about the athletes, but also the women who dared to take a stand and got harrassed by terrorists)

Anyway, they're men and could have taken a cheek swab if they didn't know it/weren't sure of it themselves, so I don't think they participated in good faith. Sex and drugs should be tested with the same seriousness.

It still doesn't justify the racism the athletes received online and it's 100% the ioc's fault, they were in charge of safety and fairness and this organisation is the one which should be flamed for not having clear rules, lying by omission and not having any procedures for intersex athletes. But female sports are not expendable. Contact sports should be especially extra careful with that.

Also stop assigning an arbitrary gender at birth to intersex babies and mutilate them. Genuinely, I've heard about how intersex people are treated by the medical body for about ten years now and it's never not horrifying, starting with the continuous mutilations and rapes and the misogyny.

[wild-wombytch]

Respectfully middle-class people know as much about poverty as men know what it is to be women.

You can't erase people who are actually poor by putting 65k/year people in the same bag as people who live in a house with literal holes on the walls, asbestos in the floor, who sleep on a bedless 35yo mattress found in a dumpster and have lived with literal starvation and homelessness. Who think buying super glue to fix their shoes is a luxury and resort to using their grandma's dusty sewing threads to fix the soles. Who still handwash their laundry. Who can't cook most food because they don't have a oven. Who live without heater all winter long in a house so poorly isolated that there is mist coming out of your mouth in the morning. Who as 6yo grew up with underwear worn out to the point of being rags. Who didn't pursue higher studies because of the cost. Who can't pay their parents' funerals and no they won't be able to take care of their parents when they age. Who don't have a driving license because of the cost. Who couldn't buy menstrual products in a all-women house during covid. And that's in a first world country and for those lucky enough to have a roof on top of their head and a mattress at all.

Like what the actual fuck? Unless there's some heavy cultural context I don't get (but I don't think so cue to the 17k comment), literally how are you the same category of poor when you own your house, have a car (new? That you send to car wash?), sometimes have two incomes and/or ma and pa backing you up financially, and so on? We clearly don't have the same problems if the middle-class obsession is to whine about how poor they are while shitting on actual poor people.

I used to follow tepkunset back in my TRA day and legit I still have more in common with her and more respect for her than people whining about having 65k and dismissing poor people. In what world are you living? 3 months before being homeless if you lost your income today? You know some people even with their income can't pay the rent, right? You know some people work while being homeless, right?

The only ones seeing a whole class as an enemy are the same who makes middle-class and poverty meaningless and tell us to look elsewhere but not critically look at them. And by doing that, you refuse to see your privileges in comparison to others. Heavens forbid we see privileges for what they are. Don't call the naked emperor naked if it makes the emperor feel bad. Do you all note that nobody even called you rich? You are literally attacking someone with less privileges than you on a strawman because of victim mentality. You cornered tepkunset out of nowhere because you are so protective of being called poor and unprivileged instead of standing with her saying everyone should have a minimum of 65k and fight in that sense, which would have actually been constructive and uplifting. Tepkunset is ALSO a nurse and essential worker (or was back in the day). And she takes care of two people! Can you fathom that some peeople do the exact same as you do, except with more hardships and still make less money and still have shittier situations? But why find solutions and listen to others who have less and uplift them when you can make a piss contest out of it every time we point out the discrepancies betweenways of life that are practically aliens to each others at this point.

If I got a penny every time a middle-class people came crying on my shoulders about how they can't even pay a cinema ticket these days or go in vacations outside of the country or "womp womp we can't live with two 6k incomes a months, life is hard :'(" ...I'm sure I'd be able to talk about my dental care without laughing. You don't need to be a CEO billionaire to have privileges over otther people.

One day I swear I'm gonna charge a zoo trip in my fancy poor person social housing with no toilet seat, with the authorization to sleep on the floor for a fee so some of you can say you have seen one poor person in your life and can say "eww is that a slug on the floor and water from condensation?" once in your life. This conversation is nuts. I can't even wrap my head around this. Let us eat cake, I guess.

By the way, compost the richs, it's better for health and the planet and you can grow more foods out of them. Maybe make it so classes like gender disappear and everyone has basic needs met.

We ask your questions so you don’t have to! Submit your questions to have them posted anonymously as polls.

[sublimewastelandkid]

I wish more people would acknowledge how many little girls the brony fandom absolutely scarred. The misogyny it takes to misappropriate a cartoon about colourful talking horses for your sexual gratification as a grown man, flooding the search results for said show with porn that any child would be able to find even with safesearch on, normalising pedophilia within the fandom by not reporting them out of fear of the conservatives being right. It's disgusting, I will never forgive the brony fandom for what it did to the internet.

[mister-rad-boy]

You're not an ally you're a male. We don't want you here don't use our fucking tags

My title as an ally is something I don’t really care about. If you don’t want to see me in the tags that you use, you are free to block me.

[girlfishes]

@go-aywey thanks for bringing my attention to this edit and @radfemcroatia here is my response.

Your last paragraph betrays a fundamental misreading of my post. As it stands, misogyny does reward men in life. When I said “they will grow up seeing misogyny doesn’t reward them in life” I was referring to little boys who grow up in a system in which women have all of the political power. Not to boys and men right now.

And by saying that you believe that men will always be our biggest oppressors, you are admitting that you don’t think women are capable of gaining societal power over men.

In fact, my whole argument hinges on the fact that women are capable of organizing and gaining political and cultural power over men, and that once that happens the behavior of men will shift.

And lastly, the post you take back your apology for was claiming that I was married to a man and implying that my opinion isn’t actually based on reason but just me wanting some dick. The most textbook misogynist statement out there. I’m disappointed in you.

Radblr hot take here but I believe that men are capable of changing to be better. To say that they are incapable of being good is saying that they aren’t fully responsible for what they do because they aren’t capable of being better.

No. They can be better. And they are morally worse and more corrupt for it. Men can choose to fight the patriarchy and treat their female counterparts with respect and dignity. But they choose not to, because they can reap the same or more societal benefits by being misogynistic.

Baby boys aren’t born misogynistic. Sure, they may be born with whatever male hormonal differences do, but that isn’t even 1% of the reason why they grow up to be misogynists.

As they grow up they learn that misogyny is rewarded. As they grow up they are exposed to porn which they choose to use as a sexual role model. As they grow up they watch their parents model a hierarchal power dynamic. They see all of this, and they like it. They choose it for themselves.

I think that men can change for the better. People here hear this and say “you can’t teach them” or “coddling them won’t do shit” and I agree. What women need to do is stop rewarding and enabling their behavior.

We need to free women from human trafficking and exploitation, and we also need to convince women who make porn of their own free will to stop. We need to punish the men who make it. We need to help women out of their abusive marriages, and we also need to convince women who are in relationships with even slightly misogynistic men to end them. We need to have zero tolerance for casual misogyny. We need to start shunning men who are misogynists. We need to hold accountable women who are enabling the men in their lives to hurt other women. Shun men who watch porn. Shun men who say slurs. Stop having their children.

And for the men sympathetic to our cause, we need to convince them to use their privilege as men to further feminist goals. We need them to vote for women’s rights. We need them to intervene during “locker room” misogynistic talk when women aren’t around. We need them to break up the male solidarity around misogyny in a way only they can do.

But we can’t do this as individuals. Strength comes in numbers. Women do face societal consequences for standing up to misogyny. Other women need to defend her and provide for her needs. And in order to do this we need to educate ourselves. Make money. Be independent of men. Become doctors, lawyers, teachers. We need to do everything we can to support women in places where they cannot do these things.

If we can do all of this, men will change. Maybe not the men who are already set in their ways. But those growing up will see that misogyny does not reward them in life. They will not see porn. They will not see their mothers submitting to their fathers and they will not see women submitting to men. And they will choose to treat women as human beings. Because they can.

Radical feminism is not a doomerist movement. I have a future in mind. I hope you do too.

[hadesoftheladies]

‘Sex strikes’ aren’t the feminist win they appear to be. Here’s how to get really radical | Finn Mackay | The Guardian

So just read this entire article, and while there's worthwhile information on the history of separatism, 4B and political lesbianism, there's several statements Finn Mackay makes that grind my gears.

The main problem with the idea of a women’s sex strike is that rape exists. Much of the commentary in response to women’s videos and content openly makes this point, as young men reply that women don’t always have a choice. The slogan “your body, my choice”, which has circulated online since Trump’s victory, bleakly summarises this stance.

Rape is, obviously, never done with a woman's consent. But one must really ask, why are so many young women seeing celibacy as a legitimate solution? I recall a scene in Bottoms (2023) when the highschool girls gathered in a cirlce in the gym and the protagonist asked them how many of them had been raped. None of them raised their hands. When the protagonist asked, "Okay, what if we allow for grey areas?" all the girls raised their hands.

Rape is largely seen as something that is done to women walking home alone at night, outside on the street. It must be overt, obvious and completely unavoidable for it to be legit to the public mind. But many teenage girls and women experience rape in romantic relationships with men. SO MANY experience sexual abuse in initially consensual relationships. A LOT OF RAPE occurs during an initially consensual sex act and in initially consensual marriages. We've heard the stories of girls being choked in the middle of making out (without consenting), or being brutalized and disregarded when asking their romantic partner to stop. The normalization of rape in marriage is also proof of its prevalence.

THAT is why so many girls and women are willing to do away with it altogether. Even if it is not likely to change the hearts of men (and here I agree with Mackay), it is WISDOM and COMMON SENSE to close the bedroom door on a man or boy hyped up on violent pornography and indoctrinated by male supremacist notions.

Celibacy is not going to keep out every rapist, but it will reduce the odds of rape endemic to the culture of heterosexual dating/marriage. And even if it wasn't very effective in doing so, the solution certainly wouldn't be, "Hey, I know 60-80% of boys and men are literally primed to sexually brutalize you, but just follow your heart and take a chance anyways and maybe you'll find a good one despite your dogshit odds." Why are we sending girls to the lions' den because the lions will prowl anyway??? Hello?

It is also debatable whether the idea of a sex strike is inherently a feminist act. A problem with seeing a sex ban alone as somehow revolutionary is that it plays into the very problems that arguably created the need for activism in the first place. In this framing, sex is labour – work that women do for men, and can then limit, manipulate or withhold alongside demands for improved conditions. That is not radical. Sex has long been defined under patriarchy as something men want and women should do. Such understandings of sex are why it took so long for rape in marriage to be recognised as a crime, for example – because how could a husband take from his wife what was rightfully his by the law of marriage? Framing sex as women’s labour for men results in sex being commodified and objectified, and the problem is that what can be bartered, exchanged or sold can also be taken. This is not an empowering position from which to call for revolution between the sexes.

Except on a SOCIOECONOMIC SCALE, sex for women is very much already commodified, already labour and already exploited. Prostitution, surrogacy, etc are thriving industries at the moment, so sex (in addition to marriage and motherhood) can very much be defined as a kind of labour in modern society. Even if calling sex labour is also patriarchal rhetoric, it is also an economic fact. Marriages and reproductive labour are invaluable to a patriarchal economy.

SECONDLY, 4B rightfully recognizes sex as the domain men use to exercise their power over women. Patriarchy is fundamentally sexual and deeply intertwined with the heterosexual dynamic. In fact, for the most part, however unfortunate, it defines it. The question isn't whether sex is labour we can use to get men to give us our rights, but whether it is a reclaiming of power and the female identity by refusing men access, by refusing to acquiesce to the fundamental domain of patriarchal power.

The sexual exploitation of women is the gist of patriarchy. That's like it's main thing. By opting out whenever and wherever possible, the woman redefines herself in patriarchal society as explicitly the opposite of what Mackay and many Western liberals suggest she is doing by "sex striking." She is defining herself outside the heteropatriarchal framework and declaring herself an individual independent of the patriarchal state. Men would not be so enraged by this loss of sexual access if this meant nothing to patriarchal power.

It is a little funny to me that Mackay insists that 4B women are agreeing to patriarchal rhetoric by literally refusing to give men what they want and expect of women. These women know sex is expected of them, which is why they're saying no. But Mackay sees it as them adopting the patriarchal narrative themselves. Just . . . fascinating.

Additionally, sexual relationships with men, with or without abuse, are often the gateway to domestic and maternal exploitation. Part of 4B is refusing to marry men and mother children from or with them, both legitimate modes of socioeconomic patriarchal power. Women get pregnant and married purely in relation to sex with men. So sex with men is either the gateway to such exploitation or the justification for it.

The mainstream take on 4B frames it as a sex strike by young, marketable, heterosexual women. An alternative would be to reject such sexist constructs of sex and sexuality, and to imagine, and work towards, an egalitarian future where men and women are not divided up into predator and prey. Rather than a sex strike, there is another tried and tested form of activism, utilised by women and men the world over: a workers strike, the withdrawal of our wage labour that fuels the systems of capital that dare to govern us. Ban patriarchy, not sex.

This is one of her more mistifying statements. I agree with the first sentence entirely. But it goes downhill quickly from there. Imagining a world where men and women are equal does not erase the fact that for a huge chunk of history to the present, women are prey and men predators. That's just the reality. Imagining will not make it go away, and it isn't wrong for women to use language that highlights this reality, no matter how crude.

The second half is even more vague. To me, it's the equivalent of a shoulder shrug. Mackay has spent so much of the article discussing the pitfalls of 4B and separatist thought, and when pressed for an alternative, she just says "capitalism bad."

This is what I mean when I say the zeitgeist is severely divorced from women's experiences. Of course, class struggle is important, but women and men do not experience class struggle the same. We have had all sorts of revolutions over the course of history and a diversity of governmental structures to bat. Yet, communism, monarchy, capitalism and socialism have all failed to eradicate patriarchy. The nuclear family, the home, remains a stronghold in post-revolution societies. So the home, this cell of society, must be the primary battlefield on which human progress--women's liberation--is fought and won.

Like, this article is so shallow in its conclusions its tasteless. How will women "ban" patriarchy exactly? How will they do it on a governmental level if they can't even do it in their homes? How will they find the time and energy to fight for their own rights if they first have to fight for every other cause and then use the rest of that energy on their boyfriends/husbands/children?

The biggest flaw in anti separatist/celibacy/4B posts is that they all consisntently ignore the primary modes of women's socieconomic exploitation at the hands of men: sex, marriage and reproductive labor. AND LET'S BE CLEAR: all these aspects of women's sexuality and sex have been commodified LONG BEFORE our modern age. Girls and women were bought and sold into marriage in order to bear children for men's estate. Critics also frequently ignore the fact that female-only spaces consistently bolster feminist thought and activism. Female solidarity is a huge threat to patriarchy.

So if we as women aren't striking against the very spheres that men use to dominate us, then how on earth can we claim to be advocating for our own cause? How can we combat patriarchy and ignore it's primary functions? If we aren't getting rid of patriarchal institutions and reclaiming power from domains male supremacists have invaded (e.g. our sex lives) then how on earth could we possibly measure the progress of our own liberation?

We cannot keep "let them eat cake"-ing our way to women's liberation. Radical feminists more than ever need to embrace being anti gender, anti marriage, anti religion, anti cosmetics, etc. Or we're fighting for everyone and everything but ourselves.

[mister-rad-boy]

As a male, I do not and should not speak as an authority figure on feminism, but I will voice my opinion as an outside observer on my own blog on a public media website.

[irlmagicalboy]

I’ll never understand those who are anti radqueer.

Queer people have never been accepted by society including when using queer to describe LGBTQIA+ we’ve always been seen as strange

Why do we feel the need to turn labels into a box for cishet individuals to understand, if it feels comfortable someone should be allowed to use it

Stop trying to change things to fit the norms cishet people try to place on us.

[lorynna]

Trends come and go in waves and it seems like the "boyfriend discourse" is again dominating #radblr. "Can het partnered women be radfems?" "NO!" "Yes, but I draw the line at having male babies! Abort all male fetuses!" "Het partnered women are class traitors!" "Cum-dumpsters! Dick-lovers!" "Why do you think you're smarter than other women? Your Jakey will murder you in cold blood!"

give me a break with this absolute brain rot.

won't answer to anyone reblogging this bc I'm too fucking drained

[raccoon-living-in-the-garage]

I was confused about my sexuality when I was in my early teens because everyone kept saying lesbians could be attracted to men. It took me years of flip-flopping around between the lesbian label and the pansexual label before I realized I was just fucking bisexual. If nobody spread that dumbass discourse, that confusion would've never occurred.

[aliceofcyberia]

This Reddit post put my thoughts pretty well on radblr fujoshi discourse to be honest