Angry Feminist Bitch

I heard you like cats so take these pictures of Finn

if you think your sexuality can be affected by trauma, you are a transphobe.

“penis aversion due to trauma” is a textbook transmisogynistic assault tactic and it is not and will never be valid so go fuck yourself.

‘penis aversion due to trauma is trasphobic’  lmao the stupidity level of this statement is too damn high.

@thecottongaslight

This is not ok. Stop pressuring people into shit thier not comfortable with. Especially if it’s cause by legit trauma like what the fucks wrong with you?

some really interesting and enlightening words from an ex-trans woman

sectioning personal thoughts about sex that have nothing to actually do with where you’re placed in society concerning gender and sexuality (gay bi or straight etc) is a completely useless endeavor and a liberal dead end of obsession with meaningless identity labels

to be frank, most of the plethora of labels created are either confusingly worded and generic, dismissive of gay people, and implying behaving a certain way in a relationship = the q slur you’re all obsessed with

placiosexual “you’re ok with your sexual feelings not being reciprocated” not only doesn’t even Sound like anything to do with being asexual at all, it’s also implying that 1. being a decent person is a sexuality and 2. being a horrible person about rejection is a sexuality

people have said “oh but it means you’d like to give but not receive!” that information is 1000% not supposed to be public. it’s funny how some (EMPHASIS SOME) members of the ace community, usually straight ones, love to imply that gay and bi not-ace-identifying people only ever blab about sex when it’s them who literally create new words in order to make sure everybody is immediately aware of their personal private sexual feelings

a lot of these specifications aren’t even shit strangers need to know. like ok, saying you’re gay or bi doesn’t automatically imply anything about you sexually, just who you love or seek relationships with (although straights love to argue that it means we are sex hungry demons by default lol)

but making up a word for, oh i don’t know, “i only want sex if _______” or “i only feel sexual attraction sometimes” or whatever is fundamentally useless and also tmi

the only person who needs to know that is your partner if you’re at that level and you don’t need a word for your feelings, just talk about your feelings. we don’t need worthless nouns for every single slightly different human experience it’s incoherent badly-written-latin-or-whatever-botched-language nonsense and you can all do better than this

thanks rome for articulating this, i didn’t want to make many posts replying to the plethora of remarks made criticizing me for the post on “placiosexual” as an illegitimate label bc i didn’t want to draw attention to it but yeah here take this guys.

Don’t date a man that watches porn.

well maybe he only watches porn because you dont satisfy him enough..

Rule number one of misogyny

People liked this so I made it a graphic!

Share, share away.

liberal feminism is literally never going to accomplish anything for women. liberal feminists wouldn’t have fought for abortion rights, because that would exclude trans women. liberal feminists wouldn’t have fought for the right to wear pants, because femininity is empowering. liberal feminists only care about validating people’s identities and reaffirming the same actions patriarchy demands (wearing makeup, creating porn, etc.). liberal feminism is not going to end patriarchy or help women fight their oppression. it’s useless and defanged and we as women deserve better than a movement that doesn’t give a damn about actually helping us.

I agree libfem isnt like going to dismantle the system, but can we stop holding women responsible for patriarchy (like obv women participate and support, but this feels hella tone deaf?) Its a special kind of victim blaming and misogyny.

Also this false dichotomy between libfem and radfem is hella shady cause its almost like terfs are claiming they are the reason we can wear pant and have abortion right?

They aren’t responsible, but they do help perpetuate it and keep it in place. That’s something we should all work on if we want to get anywhere. Also kindly you should really look into feminist history

Radfems do are the reason women can wear pants and have abortions lmao

like/reblog if you would pay money to never again hear about shit from male perspective ever again

Anyone knows about studies that debunk the idea of brain sex? Please let me know. Thanks!

Gendered characteristics are neither innate nor categorical - (original study)

There’s no such thing as a male or female brain - (original study)

Brain sex does not exist - a resource page that lists additional studies and several books that debunk brain sex theory 

whenever I hear about how feminism is “actually for men too” it just feels like just another context where someone is shoving “all lives matter” garbage, like let people have movements about their own needs as a marginalized group. The oppressed shouldn’t have to appeal to the oppressor in order to defend their own rights.

I just unfollow people who pull the annoyingly jejune prioritizing of the oppressed positionality as a marker for the only authentic opinion. Interestingly enough, leftist scholars like bell hooks and Angela Davis as well as Talal Asad and Saba Mahmood (people from subjugated groups) have warned against this liberal obsession to posit oppression as the only legitimate way to participate in a conversation. Giving a reader the either/or ultimatum in approaching a discourse/studying theory is reactionary bullshit. The average communist farmer in Okara, Pakistan doesn’t care if Marx was white or cis or both because the average communist, through simplification of the scholar’s theory, is more concerned with the antithesis of capitalism provided in Marx’s work. This is one of the reasons why identity politics, the key features of liberalism, becomes blind to ontological oppression. You’re more concerned with the biometrics of said scholar than the contribution provided to the discourse. I’m not saying it’s possible to unequivocally love a writer/scholar because it is not possible at all and I’m not saying all of these voices are beyond the realm of being “problematic” but if your idea of learning about something has more to do with pontificating about the white/cis/het/this/that status of the writer then you’re not here to learn, much less contribute. You’re doing what liberals do best: Engage in an endless circle of authentic and inauthentic positions.

Russia just decriminalized domestic violence. 14 000 women are already killed every year by their men or other relatives in Russia. Domestic violence already make out 40% of all crimes of violence in Russia, but according to women’s rights organizations it’s probably more. This is why we must be unyielding. This is why we need to be feminists, not the fun kind. This is why we must prioritize women’s liberation from the shackles of patriarchy and being owned and abused by men.

“Obviously those women should’ve just ~identified~ as male and then they wouldn’t be oppressed anymore” -genderists

not a receipt, but don’t let anybody criticize you for “bringing up sex” in cotton ceiling discussions. the term was coined by a literal porn actress talking about a lesbian refusing to do a scene with her because she was male. “cotton” refers to lesbians’ underwear. it has always been about coercing lesbians into sex. 

and not only is it an inherently sexual topic, but, uh, we’re grown-ups, not pre-schoolers whispering and threatening to tell a teacher because somebody said a naughty word. it’s okay to bring up sex. it’s okay to speak openly about your boundaries. gay people have been told for centuries to shut up about sex and sexuality to protect the delicate sensibilities of straight people – we don’t have to, we have nothing to be ashamed of. 

this is so fucking depressing. (originally posted by tomphelan9, but i didnt want to start shit with them)

white liberals holding woc to some higher standard of trans-inclusivity are nasty as fuck. 

this was prompted by an article i was reading where a trans man was complaining about midwives wanting to keep the word “woman” in midwifery (and terms for the female reproductive system, etc).

he said that the the pain of women of color signing that was “particularly pointed” (because of the amount of transphobia against tpoc ofc!! nothing about him wanting to wring more labor from women of color!).

but this is a pattern.

i’ve seen comments saying black lesbians are wasted on being “terfs,“ like they’re resources and not complex people who reject the current qu***r hivemind. 

on the countless posts accusing rad-leaning feminism of being “white feminism,” there’s a resounding silence whenever woc/global-majority say “radical feminism suits my needs more than liberal feminism” because as always, everyone only wants woc around when it’s politically convenient.

and if those woc who comment aren’t completely ignored, there are comments like “haha, i found the one terf who isn’t white, so weird for you to work against your interests!”

and i wanna ask…what interests do women of color have in common with yet more white people who only want to use us as pawns

i love how safe it feels when you are only surrounded by women