Reblog This To Show Support Of Curious Women Secretly Reading “terf” Blogs. You Can Ask Us Questions,

we need more mean bisexual radfems.

Gloomy day on the Jurassic Coast

I also hate that criticism of this is supposed hatred of bisexual women who have felt attraction to 99 women, but attraction to only 1 man ever in their entire lives, or like it's hatred of the same-sex attraction side of being bisexual.

It's frustrating because a lot of bisexual women have connected their sexuality to their activism, like falsely announcing that they're attracted to every single woman ever is somehow the same as being feminist.

Everyone with any sense knows those bisexual women are lying. Whether it's a lie to themselves to try and self-soothe over hating that they're bisexual, or whether it's to try and protect themselves from accusations of being male-centric in some way, it doesn't do anything but hurt themselves - and other bisexual women - in the long run.

Bisexual women who say "I'm attracted to all women and one man" are so cringe. It's just virtue signalling. And trying to compensate for the supposed negative of being male-attracted.

𝔥𝔢𝔞𝔳𝔢𝔫 𝔥𝔦𝔡𝔢𝔰 𝔦𝔫 𝔱𝔥𝔢 𝔣𝔬𝔯𝔢𝔰𝔱 𝔰𝔲𝔫𝔟𝔢𝔞𝔪𝔰

Feminism is unique in the sense that different groups of women have oppression and privilege on different axes, but we still need to work out the best way to have true solidarity on the basis of being oppressed as women.

I don't disagree with you. There's a lot of deliberate weaponisation of woman-on-woman violence by MRA and right wing types that want to undermine everything with "but women are worse, actually!" and it's entirely right to call that out for the distraction that it is.

At the same time, ordinary women who haven't read feminist texts, who are living their lives as best as they can, who then fail to relate to feminism because there's no space to talk about systemic vs interpersonal are then going to dismiss feminism as useless, and we're no further forward.

It's also true that every attack, abuse and act of misogyny large and small from men to women is interpersonal, but we just can't individually promote stories or offer individual protection to every single woman out there. It would be the dream to be able to do that. We can continue to donate to women's shelters and women-focused charities and offer support to individual women in our lives, but feminism's focus is on breaking down the patriarchy.

For me, I think it's more important to do as much as reasonably possible to reach out to women who have rejected feminism or who think feminism is useless to them. If we don't, then all that's going to happen is that feminists will sit and shake our heads and scream until we're blue in the face while nothing changes at all.

We need more women to wake up and be feminist, and telling the daughter of an abusive mother, essentially, "Mentioning your abusive mother is just amplifying the wrongs that women do while men get to get away with the very same thing" is going to do absolutely nothing but inflict more trauma on that victim, and turn her away from feminism, because while you and I will be able to sit back and have a reasonable chat about why that is thanks to the patriarchy, she is going to think feminism is full of abuse apologism, and she can't be near it at all because it's just triggered her PTSD.

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.

Happy Pride Month! To kick off pride I'm busting some myths about the Stonewall Riots, Marsha P. Johnson, and giving some love and recognition to Stormé DeLarverie!

This was sitting unfinished for months but I got it together and completed it in time for pride.

Edit (6/12/23): I believe only the first Joseph Ambrosini photo was confirmed to be taken the first night of the Stonewall riots; I couldn't find sources that indicated if the other photos were taken on that same night or not.

Mount Holyoke College students at pride in Northampton, MA in 1989. via mhlyonspride