Women Saying "no."

Monstera deliciosa

You know I think the suffragettes were right about how we need to ban men from gambling

Like they were about the ban on prostitution and slavery.

Isn't it strange how the gender movement has so much momentum (both social and financial), yet women's rights like abortion don't seem to have much backing?

I wonder why that is? 🤔

Ironically, I think that it's the modern evolution of political lesbianism, just without the (historically accidental, because back then it was encouraged by some actual lesbians too) lesbophobia.

There has been the idea from at least 1970 that to be a lesbian is to be an inherently better feminist, because lesbians are supposedly magically better at seeing through patriarchy, they're so pro-woman that they even centre other women romantically, and they reject male supremacy so much that they would never be attracted to a man. It's a strange fetishisation of what is (or at least should be) a neutral sexuality that a woman happens to be born with.

It makes lesbians the top-tier of feminists that all other women should emulate and aspire to be, but also be separated from. It then allows the smaller number of misogynistic lesbians that claim to be "feminists" to feel entitled attack bisexual and straight women under the guise of "feminism," and then when called out for that misogyny and biphobia, claim that they're doing nothing but speaking out about their oppressors, and accusing others of lesbophobia for demanding that lesbians centre their oppressors after that criticism.

In reality, no lesbian ever has to centre straight women. It's understandable if they don't. The problem is that the smaller number of lesbian "feminists" who behave like that like the idea that they are the peak feminists that can speak for everyone, and they enjoy wielding power over women that they like to deem as lesser. If they didn't, if they genuinely wanted to stay focused only on lesbian issues and lesbian support networks and other lesbians (which is entirely reasonable!) then they wouldn't cling to call themselves "feminists" while spouting misogyny and trying to make certain types of misogyny "acceptable" in feminism.

The fact is, to be feminist is to support all women. The vast majority of women are straight. The vast majority of those women have been socialised to get married and have children or be seen as a failure, where it's drummed into their heads so much that they fear dying alone and unloved and unwanted. That's even before the anon's facts that love can happen whenever and wherever, and it is hard to stop it from happening.

That doesn't mean that straight women need to be front and centre of everything, fuck us bisexual women and fuck lesbian women too, but it does mean that their struggles are equally important because freedom for all women is important, and to ignore them or dismiss them is inherently anti-feminist.

I really appreciate your response to the post victim blaming straight women. I was astonished when wanting a life partner was compared to "hitting a hornet's nest". That's like. Not remotely the same thing. Or calling a desire for a partner simple "socialization". No. It's an *instinct* that most people have. And romantic love can be an absolutely incredible and lovely experience. Some of the most beautiful experiences of my life involved romance. Saying that forgoing it is a simple and easy thing and you're just stupid if you don't is massively simplistic. I especially hate this when it comes from lesbians. You're asking straight women to give up something amazing that you aren't at all expected to give up. It is indeed true that most men are terrible and getting into a relationship with them is a big risk, because repeatedly men have shown that they have the ability to be deceptive about the truth of who they are until marriage and/or children have tied their female partner to them. But that doesn't somehow make straight women simply stupid or pathetic for getting into relationships with men. It makes them human beings with human desires. I'm lucky enough to be bisexual, so I'm not inherently going to be deprived of romantic love if I want to keep myself safe from men. But I have fallen in love with men before. Not because I went on dating sites looking for them--I actually select only looking for women on them--but because I've met men at work and school, and fallen for them. Resisting the urge to act upon those desires is massively difficult if not impossible. It's not going out of your way to kick a hornet's nest. It's trying to ignore the call of something primal and potentially beautiful. Sneering at straight women is unempathetic and disgusting, and I would expect better from women who purport to be feminists.

It's because those "feminists" are just lesbians with a superiority complex.

I am also fortunately bisexual, honestly I'm finding that the only people I can trust to be Normal about women is bisexual women.

What makes it even funnier is if you DON'T think straight women are helpless dumb dick addicts swatting at a hornet's nest, you MUST support dating men. Like. No I have a whole ass tag of reasons to never date men, because based on the data it is my belief that it is not beneficial to women. But I do not view women as inherently lesser for giving in to biology.

How We Got Here

The misapplication, distortion, and clumsy/careless use of social justice concepts is one of the most pressing issues facing women and racial and sexual minorities. People have taken insane, disrespectful liberties with the language and justice tools invented by oppressed groups to name and explain their realities. The result is that once effective justice tools - such as anti racism, anti-homophobia and anti-misogyny- has now lost all credibility and has been rendered a joke. The constant appropriation and careless abuse of these justice tools, (largely by inherently privileged people) has devastated liberation movements to such an extent that one could imagine it's being intentionally done as a form of sabotage. Once useful, powerful ideas and concepts have been watered down and misapplied to the point of absurd parody. Most notably, the concept of "gender". The word "gender", once understood to refer to the system of sexist oppression inflicted on women- is now used to refer to personality traits, fashion sense, mental and psychiatric symptoms, aesthetic preferences and one's degree of conformity to social and cultural stereotypes. This has devastated the coherence, clarity, and intellectual respect of feminist theory. What's worse, this total abuse and disrespect of justice language is now being used to justify an "anti-woke" movement, where people suggest that genuine justice concerns be dismissed along with the nonsense meanings and misapplications created by careless, privileged individuals who greedily appropriated justice tools and borrowed from their legitmacy for selfish, nefarious purposes. This must end. Grassroots justice movements must reclaim their language, ideas, and concepts and rebuild. We must resist the psychological and intellectual theft.

Too many bisexuals are allergic to admitting that they're just bisexual.

It's always been bad with bisexual self-hatred, but the rot worsened when the definition of bisexuality was eroded to "attracted to two or more genders" that allowed straight people entry.

I remember being at university years ago and seeing signs up saying what was essentially, "If you have close friends of more than one gender, you may be bisexual" as part of all this. I wish I was joking.

re: your post on serial killers

you just described Richard Ramirez--opportunistic spree killer, think he even raped a few male victims--versus Ted Bundy, who attributed his obsessive focus on women to the porn he was addicted to.

do female-exclusive serial killers ever commit crimes *without* being porn addicts, or is porn addiction an essential part of their complex?

i could see a subcategory of fiends labeled "pornography-driven serial killers". especially because all male serial killers are misogynistic in some capacity already.

maybe not for vigilante killers, but calling vigilantes serial killers strikes me as a misnomer anyways.

i wanted to add to the post something about porn, or at least i kept it in mind for later. one of my friends is doing an assignment on bundy at the moment in criminology, one quote i found from him that i'm not yet sure how to feel about is:

You are going to kill me, and that will protect society from me. But out there are many, many more people who are addicted to pornography, and you are doing nothing about that.

alongside

I’ve lived in prison for a long time now, and I’ve met a lot of men who were motivated to commit violence just like me, and without exception every one of them was deeply involved in pornography Without question, without exception, deeply influenced and consumed by addiction to pornography,… the FBI’s own study on serial homicide shows that the most common interest among serial killers is pornography.

it kinda haunts me. some say he only said this to appeal to anti-porn republican groups and to appear as a "victim" to porn, and unfortunately, most of the info i've found on this topic are from Christian or catholic websites, but all the same, they seem all too based in reality to be complete lie.

also side note, fun fact: Bundy was not referring to and (as far as i'm aware) never did refer to filmed pornography, he was referring, at least in these quotes, to literary and magazine pornography. he started with magazines as a preteen and stated:

you reach that jumping off point where you begin to wonder if maybe actually doing it would give you that which is beyond just reading or looking at it.