Btw Men Know What They’re Doing.

the most infuriating thing about personal growth is that even if someone else did have the answer you needed and conveyed it to you in a precise and effective matter, it won't make sense until you're ready for it. you could hear it every day of your life and it wouldn't matter a fucking bit until it finally clicks. there's very little you can do to influence when that happens, either

Ugh, that's true. I stand corrected, I could imagine that brainrot turning into, "I'm NB because black nail polish is fun, and if I'm NB and into women, that would make me queer/bi" stupidity.

If you’re ever feeling insecure about your intelligence just remember there are males out there who call themselves bisexual because they’re attracted to females and trans-identified females

a small reminder to questioning people that it’s okay to read opinions you don’t agree with. there’s nothing immoral about reading and considering what other people have to say. taking in information and learning is not in itself a transgression and your beliefs won’t be shaken by reading things unless you do, in fact, think that they are accurate, which is okay and you should be free to explore that further without anyone breathing down your neck. 

anyone who attempts to make you believe that you can’t read things said by certain people is trying to control you, because they know that alternative opinions could cause some people to stray from being under the influence of their own group, and they don’t care about these individuals’ well-being at all, only their own status and how many people will uncritically listen to everything they say. 

it’s always okay to question. there’s nothing you aren’t allowed to think about. 

This is exactly what I mean.

There isn't an either/or choice that has to be made here. It is entirely possible to criticise that socialisation, explain the risks and strongly encourage women not to partner with men, as well as be there for them if they make that choice anyway, because we're supposed to be feminists and support all women, even if the choices that they make are anti-feminist.

Pretending that me basically saying "let's actually be feminists and remember just how strong a drug female socialisation is, so maybe don't be misogynistic and victim-blame women that get abused" is the same as "never speak against that harmful socialisation" is just ridiculous.

It's reasonable to feel frustrated sometimes when it comes to women still partnering with men, but the rush there is to attack them and blame them for patriarchy grinding them down enough to partner with men despite knowing feminist theory personally sickens me.

And I don't want to hear any version of "but you shouldn't be criticising women when men do..." because if feminists don't keep our house in order and can't even show the basics of compassion over that, the cornerstone of what patriarchy wants, then we may as well roll over and show men the white flag. There's no hope for women if feminists can't even be kind and offer grace to other women.

I love how the concept of female socialisation and patriarchy completely disappears out of the window for some feminists as soon as straight (and some bisexual) women cave into getting into relationships with men.

The mountains stand guard, the river tells tales, and the trees listen.

I'm sorry, but I genuinely can't read this. I have absolutely no idea what you're attempting to say, so I'll explain my point of view and reasoning a little more clearly.

If asexuality is a sexuality, it would be short and sweet to understand. Sexuality is very simple that way. There don't need to be other caveats. Lesbians are women who are only attracted to other women. Straight people are only attracted to the opposite sex. Bisexuals can be attracted to either sex. Therefore, as a valid sexuality, asexuals would be unable to be attracted to either sex.

If asexuality is nothing but a spectrum of "utterly sex repulsed" to "fine with sex with someone I love," then that isn't a sexuality, that's personal preference over physical intimacy and intercourse, and to compare it to the oppression of marginalised sexualities is entirely wrong.

The reason that I bring up misogyny around asexuality is there are a lot of women who feel so pressured to be sexual that they think that having the label of "asexual" will protect them and separate them from others who they believe are much more content with a ton of sex. That they're conflicted about some same-sex attraction, and hide behind asexuality. That they were abused and use asexuality to protect themselves. Romance has been destroyed by the normalisation of hookup culture to the point that there are women who believe that wanting to wait and form a connection with someone else before any intimacy is asexuality and therefore pathological, which is down to misogyny and pornification of the world around us.

I think that the comparison to aspec and nonbinary is accurate, because there is no such thing as being "biromantic heterosexual." As a bisexual, it's incredibly offensive. It's either a bisexual who's so in pain over their sexuality that they've been made to feel that they have to bury it under a different label, or a straight person who thinks that caring deeply for someone of the same sex entitles them to our space.

You cannot have your cake and eat it with wishy-washy, meaningless words.

For the record, trans people are not inherently "queer." They're men and women. I still hear "queer" being used as a slur, and will never accept it.

As a feminist, I believe that women should have the right to be able to say that they never want sex again. If a relationship is fulfilling without sex, amazing. I am personally uninterested in sex right now, if that helps. I'm also uninterested in hearing about how much or how little sex anyone else is having - aside from criticising kink and prostitution etc.

I will always support someone who says that they are asexual, as in, "I do not feel attraction to either women or men, that is how I was made," but I can't take any other kind of "asexuality" seriously. It doesn't make sense at all.

If it really is just a bunch of people claiming to be oppressed and navel-gazing over nothing more than how much or how little sexual intimacy they have in their relationships, then they need to grow up and find a hobby. I remember seeing a billion different versions of "demisexual demigirl" back in the day, and I don't know how it isn't just nonbinary but make it sexuality flavoured.

I really dislike radfems hating on asexuals. Not desiring sex is deviant from what is expected of society, whether among the right or the left (yes, even among radfems and it's quite obvious). There's a level of sex negativity that is encouraged in these spaces (don't have sex with men), but people taking it further upsets you (because you're a woman with the same desire for sex as the men you dislike). I will always support asexuality and acespec identities. If you want sex positivity in any form and don't want those "annoying asexuals" to bother you, just go outside. Stop acting like your stance on sex is not a mainstream opinion

Any man that wants or accepts a platform should always be treated, at the very least, with the greatest suspicion.

Great feminist acts for woman are organising, protesting, connecting with other women, fundraising, researching, writing - all kinds of different ways to raise class consciousness and fight the patriarchy exist that every woman of every means and ability can do.

Actual male allies can do the basics required of them by actually sharing physical and mental labour with the women in their lives, ditching weaponised incompetence, refusing to use porn, standing up against other men being misogynistic in their presence, etc.

To fight patriarchy, women need to come together to fight the system oppressing us.

Men, on the other hand, need to improve themselves in their own private lives. If they genuinely care, then they don't need a platform to do the fucking dishes.

Feminists really need to stop giving male “feminists” a platform

Anything That Moves (Summer, 1991)

❝ BISEXUAL FREEDOM ❞

One of the things that feminism needs to better grapple with is the difference between systemic and interpersonal issues.

The biggest reason that a lot of women push back from feminism with their additions to #NotAllMen is because those women know and love men who aren't rapists and who aren't physically abusive. It's entirely natural to rail against something that you see as attacking someone that you love.

When feminists advocate for single-sex schooling to protect girls, there's an automatic push back and outcry over the very real bullying that goes on in girl-only schools that have had long-lasting impacts on ex-students.

Glossing over the abuse that mothers put their daughters through often gives the impression that anything that counters any women-supporting-women narrative has to be stamped down on and ignored, or at worst, even denied, for the good of feminism.

It's far too easy as feminists to see criticisms like the above from women and then dismiss them, or repeat more statistics and then get frustrated at those women or call them handmaidens, instead of engaging and understanding why they're railing against what's being said.

No, not every single man is a raping woman-beater, but there are a ton more male abusers than female abusers, and a ton more female victims than male victims. That's a systemic issue, and we need to fix it. That doesn't make those loved fathers, brothers, cousins, friends or partners suddenly monsters out of nowhere.

No, female-only schools aren't perfect and there are bullying scandals in all schools, that doesn't excuse the individual abuse that victims have been through, but in general, they're safer for girls, and girls achieve higher grades than in mixed-sex schools, which is important to discuss and improve on.

No, abuse victims shouldn't be silent over what they've been through, and female abusers deserve to face justice. Continued cycles of abuse and female socialisation and mental illess etc might explain some of the abuse, but it doesn't excuse it. The point of feminism is to free all women from patriarchy, so that even the worst of the worst of women don't suffer with misogyny, not coddle the evil and the abusers just because of their sex.

There is so much difficult nuance, and there's too much reliance on the systemic to the point that the interpersonal is completely erased. It stops individual women from seeing anything in feminism that's useful to them. If they have counter-examples to any systemic issue, then they'll use those personal examples to dismiss that there's a systemic issue at all. If they're met halfway and the systemic vs the interpersonal is explained, then there's a much better chance that they'll pay attention or even go away to think about it to eventually become feminists, too.