I know the answer is "radfems and terfs poisoned the well" but I really wonder when the general direction of modern feminism went from "we can get men who otherwise wouldn't be on our side to change their minds by pointing out that men suffer under the patriarchy too, and that feminism isn't about switching the power balance or replacing the patriarchy with some sort of man-hating matriarchal society, but to destroy the system and harms ALL of us" to "actually I hate men and I think they should suffer and I should get to be a huge asshole to them 24/7 because I'm a woman and letting me be a horrid bitch to half the population with no regard for intersectionality is justice actually"

I just hate seeing how much terfs and radfems have completely fucked up entire branches of important conversations with their bullshit and knowing how it's not only hurting trans women, it's hurting ALL OF US and it's exhausting to constantly remind people of all the other radfem and terf dogwhistles only to see them getting spread around again and again disguised as progress

"Average Team Green fan is bastardphobic" "Team Green thinks irl bastards are worse than other people" "Team Green fans are bad people because they actually don't like bastards"

Not sure if y'all know this but... fiction is not real life, and recognizing or discussing the actual dynamics of a cruel and unjust fictional world as it is written by the author does not equal an endorsement, promotion, or adoption of those elements or beliefs as they exist in that fictional world or in real life.

In real life, I and likely most if not all Team Green supporters could care less about the institution of marriage as one of making legitimately born babies. Personally I don't care if your parents were married to each other. Many people don't get married and still have families together. Children are children, people are people. Luckily in the modern world, in many places, having children out of wedlock is not really even that much of a taboo anymore. People can do what they want as long as they're happy. If I get married and/or have kids ever, that's my own business. I have no specific duties expected of me by my family or the world and the messages coming from society that I as a woman need to be married and make babies before I get too old? I can just ignore that. Nothing happens if I do.

In the fictional world of ASOIAF though, this is very clearly and unequivocally not the case at all. Westeros is obsessed with blood and bloodlines. Blood brings power. Blood continues power. The blood and the name together bring power. Great houses intermarry to bring themselves more power and alliances, under the agreement that the next generation will share the blood of their parents and families and that blood will preserve their power and status as it has for generations. This is essential to feudalism and the way that power and inheritance works (in Westeros and in the real-life history upon which it was based).

This is why it's such a taboo to have or be a bastard in Westeros, and why it's illegal to try to place a bastard in the line of succession. Marriage alliances are built on the principle that the trueborn children made from those matches will come from those particular parents and pass down that particular family's blood. If someone without that blood tried to claim that name and power, people would view that as the family losing the power they've held for generations. They would see it as an injustice. Wars would be willing to be fought over it. It's an indisputable fact that in this world trying to place a bastard in the line of succession will lead to bloodshed. This is especially the case for the Iron Throne. If you don't agree, read the source material and rethink how this world views women, bastards, bloodlines, and the right to the throne.

I'm not sure when people started thinking that the discussion of in-universe conflicts and issues as they exist in fictional worlds actually reflects on an individual's real life personal values or feelings. People knowledgeable of the world of ASOIAF criticize the character of Rhaenyra for birthing three obvious bastards (while she is already on rocky political ground as the first woman named heir) and then attempting to unsuccessfully gaslight everyone into thinking they are legitimate heirs despite the opposite being so clearly true. This criticism stems from knowledge and awareness of the world, beliefs, and laws of Westeros (that Rhaenyra herself also knew but believed herself to be the exception to). Yet when people point out how dangerous or stupid it was of her character to do this, knowing everything that is known about the world of ASOIAF and this specific conflict, suddenly stans feel the need to defend the vision of her that exists in their heads (one incorrectly furthered by the show's adaptation of the character as a modern feminist girlboss who can do no wrong) and make up fake scenarios or claims about the world of ASOIAF or about the critics to support their incorrect takes.

Saying Team Green fans, those who are not a fan of Team Black, or those who criticize the show's adaptation are bastardphobic in real life is similar to those Team Black stans who claim that Aegon's actor is a morally corrupt rape apologist because he plays a character who got written to be a rapist (likely after he was cast, by the way) or people who say authors shouldn't write a scene about murder or murderers because it endorses or promotes such behavior. Y'all really out here rewriting the Hays Code and essentially campaigning for censorship of media because you can't distinguish between real life and fiction. It's crazy that media literacy is at such an appalling state, though unfortunately it's clear that certain forms of internet fandom have really exacerbated issues that have already existed. Now, any character can be shoehorned into specific categories or types or memes that fit their understanding of media and those who disagree or desire actual thought, complexity, and analysis to go into stories or characters apparently shouldn't have a voice or platform to express their point of view, or if they do, it means something about them as a real-life human beyond this person is interested in discussing the story.

I've previously expressed that despite the fact that I love this story as a truly a morally gray conflict with gray characters that tells a rich sociopolitical story of a family tearing itself apart for power, and despite the fact that there are no winners, heroes, or correct sides to this conflict, I would call myself a Team Green supporter. And largely this is due to the lack of media literacy and understanding of the source material that the writers and general audience (see: uncritical Team Black fans) seem to have and the absolutely insufferable ways that they seem to constantly want to demonstrate to everyone that actually they're right and correct in their surface-level takes.

Hello, I want to say that I enjoy reading Lore Rekindled. I used to try and get into Lore Olympus back when it was starting, because I'm a huge Mythology Nerd, especially when it comes to Greek. But, even though the comic had so much potential, I really hated it. The art style was very inconsistent and messy. Like I see why it was appealing because it was striking and unique for the time on Webtoon, but it strained my eyes because it was hard to tell who was who half the time. The writing was all over the place with so many plot's that were supposedly to exist but were either settled in an anti-climatic way or just never were addressed at all. And the characters... by gosh, they act more like fake celebrities' and cardboard cutouts than their actual counterparts. It's so laughable when people say "I can relate to Persephone" like... the girl doesn't have any set traits, she's just a self-insert with no actual flaws! And the fact LO labels itself as a feminist retelling, while it pits women against each other, labels them as objects for men and vilify them for having justifiable concerns... yeah that is a laugh. And I'm not even gonna touch on the Apollo plot... you know the one. But when I heard about Lore Rekindled from Dazzling Kate on Youtube, I decided to check it out because I figured a fan version could not be any worse than what Rachel herself created. And holy Hades, I can see the un-to god effort and care this comic has! This is the complete opposite of LO: it has consistent character models with stunning backgrounds and art, the plotline makes way more sense and is easy to follow with no unnessearcy subplots, and the characters actually have separate personalities! I know Lore Rekindled is still in it's early stages, but already it has shown more promise and potential than what Rachel has created in the last six years! This is why ghost writers and fanfiction have a special place in my heart, because they care more about the stories than the authors themselves! Seriously, what you are doing is incredible! I really hope you continue with Lore Rekindled and I will be following the story because you have sparked my interest! It takes a special kind of talent to turn something that an individual like myself loathes, into a piece of work that I can find joy and entertainment in.

On that note, because I really love your story so far, I wanted to ask your permission on something. I have a YouTube channel, it's a small one but I do a bunch of things there like voice dubs, reviews, theorizes, and writing advice. So if it is alright with you, would it be okay if I could do a review of your Lore Rekindled Series and maybe potentially do a comic dub of the story as well? I'll be sure to credit you, I just want people to see this story that you worked hard on.

Ahhh I'm so glad you like it! Everything you mentioned about LO's missed or lost potential was exactly why I set out to make Rekindled, so it always brings me so much joy when people tell me it connected with them, means I gotta be doing at least something right LOL Though I've had to adjust Rekindled's update schedule to make room for other projects and priorities in my life, there's still loads left with it that I wanna tackle.

If you wanna do a review or any sort of video content with it, by all means! DazzlingKate's review took me by surprise (in a good way) because I had no idea it was happening until someone linked me to it after it was posted haha It's a little nerve-wracking sometimes to see it breach outside of Tumblr, but so far all the occasions of such have been generally fair game without any issues so I don't see why not! ~ <3

Thank you again, I hope Rekindled continues to entertain you and bring you joy ( ´ ∀ `)ノ～ ♡

Hi, this may not be the right place to ask, but I’m just wondering what’s so wrong with radfem ideology? I can’t really find any proper resources detailing why it’s wrong, besides screenshots of either toxic people saying toxic things, or screenshots of tradfem blogs. My own research hasn’t brought up anything either, as I can’t really find radfems saying anything horrible like a lot of anti radfem posts describe them saying. Again, sorry if this is the wrong blog, feel free to ignore this ask if that’s the case!

BEFORE WE BEGIN: I AM NOT AN EXPERT. I USED ARTICLES WITH NUETRAL OPINIONS ON RADICAL FEMINISM, AND BASED MY OWN OPINIONS ON IT. USE THIS AS A SOURCE AT YOUR OWN RISK

This one is actually kind of tricky, because some radfem beliefs are actually very valid and are arguably reasonable.

For example, Wikipedia states, "Radical feminism is a perspective within feminism that calls for a radical re-ordering of society in which male supremacy is eliminated in all social and economic contexts" Which like, totally makes sense! The patriarchy needs to be dismantled entirely in order for women to have true freedom.

However, radical feminism dismisses the idea of legal/class based misogyny, which is ridiculous, considering the fact that women in higher classes often have more power over lower class women, and sometimes even enforce gender roles against lower class women (making them do household chores like taking care of the children or cleaning the house for them, etc.)

And let's not forget the racism rooted in radical feminism. Radfems claim that misogyny is the most basic form of oppression, which completely erases the oppression of people of colour, which has been around since almost forever.

In fact, in the early days of this movement, many black women refused to associate with radical feminists due to their ignorance of oppression against women of colour. It was only after radical feminists began to listen to woc, and start including them in their feminism that they decided to join the ideology.

Moving the discussion over towards prostitution and pornography. Radfems believe that both of those are inherently bad things. It is true that women in lower socioeconomic classes have a higher chance of being prostitutes, but it shouldn't be true. Yes, women who are coerced into sex work in any way should have the freedom to quit, but this should not clash with a woman's freedom to join the industry if she wants to.

So, sometime after the radical feminism movement was started, radical lesbian feminism began.

These women believed that they were helping women fight oppression and misogyny simply by being lesbians, because "heterosexuality inherently oppresses women". This statement is incompatible with the belief that women should have the freedom to do what they want. If lesbians are unable to control who they're attracted to, then why isn't that the same for heterosexual women? And let's not ignore the blatant biphobia that comes with that. A bi woman should have the freedom to choose to be in a male/female relationship without judgement (as long as she isn't being coerced into the relationship) and saying otherwise completely erases bi women's experiences as queer people.

Speaking of queer people, we all know and love the classic TERF, or, FART, as I like to call them. (Also, if you couldn't tell, I was being sarcastic about loving TERFs. No one loves TERFs.)

Trans Exclusive Radical Feminists believe that the trans movement "perpetuates patriarchal gender norms," and "is incompatible with radical feminist ideology."

If you couldn't tell, this is greatly untrue. Radical feminism just believes that we need to get rid of the patriarchy and has nothing to do with how people identify. If you take a look at pretty much any article that discuss radical feminism, you'll see the history of anti-trans rhetoric being spread by the ideology.

Being anti trans is probably what radical feminism is most well known for. Over the course of many decades, the ideology has become less about women's movement, and more about punishing trans people for their existence. Hell, even a quick search of "radical feminism" on this god forsaken site will reveal that their main motive is no longer about women's liberation and has now become all about oppressing trans people.

As my mum put it; "it's the cycle of abuse. These women are so traumatized by the patriarchy and misogyny, that they feel the need to abuse the easiest target."

To recap, the radfem ideology is racist, biphobic, and most notably, transphobic. And if that's not enough to convince you that it's problematic, I don't know what is.

Disheartening to see social media pushing BDSM relationships/DDLG/bimbofication/sugar baby/stay-at-home girlfriend/"why did feminists fight for our rights, I want to just be cute little wifey boohoo" lifestyles because of alienation under capitalism and the general struggles of modern life. women and girls who think these lifestyles mean they'll be "taken care of" by a competent man who will handle the executive decisions and responsibilities so they can have "no thoughts, head empty" lives free of worry and rat-race stress.

Even if one was so "fortunate" to end up the fantasy perfect rich benevolent man, it's still a choice of willful de-skilling. I remember talking to a woman who kept a side-job as a home organizer, and she told me many of her clients were older, widowed women struggling to manage their homes and lives after their husbands' death because he was the one who handled "the important responsibilities" like insurance/bills/mortgage, and these women would be left with no understanding of how to manage their finances or property, minimal employment history or marketable skills, dependent on their adult children to take them in.

These relationships like to pose giving up agency to another person as a romantic expression of trust or vulnerability. I think that if a person actually cares about you, they would want you to be capable of caring for yourself if they can't be there or able to seek support outside of them.

All things are uncertain and the best strategy any of us have is knowledge and self-sufficiency. What is the "empowered bimbo" woman going to do when her "daddy" gets in a car accident and dies, or loses his job and house, or decides to dump her?

jealousy at its finest is taylor haters 😭😭

"she's a billionaire though" what they meant to say is "im angry that she made it big and i have no money and am unemployed because i'm too lazy to work for my money like so many others do and like she did herself."

"she's only a feminist when it's convenient to her/billionaires cant be feminists" so supporting women's charity, donating to sa survivors, making songs about the patriarchy, and speaking out about women's oppression isn't feminism? if anything, being a feminist in this day and age is an inconvenience. it just means more hate. and if you're gonna say billionaires can't be feminists, at least back up that claim with evidence. oh wait! you don't have any.

"she dated a minor" 17 and 19. 2 years off. if the man was the 19-year-old and she was the 17-year-old, no one would give a shit, and her relationship with john mayor is perfect proof of that.

"her carbon emissions" they're not the best, but they're also not the worst. what about kim k? what about travis scott? why don't we talk about them? oh, because you just want to find any way to hate on her? that makes sense. not only that, but no one gives two flying fucks about the economy until tay's involved. if the 8 billion people on this earth actually cared about its well being, do you think the world would be this deep in shit to start?

"only 100k to the survivors? that's like me donating 10 dollars" AT LEAST SHE DONATED AT ALL??? it might be 10 dollars to her, but its still ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS to the people she donated it to. be so fr. would kanye west give even a penny to that family? a dime? no. he wouldn't.

"she's mediocre." AOTY four times. person of the year. 13 grammys. number 1 artist in all of the world. billionaire. do you think she'd even have ONE grammy to begin with if she was "mediocre"? im sorry, that woman won AOTY at 18, and her records sold for fearless have never been beaten. that was SIXTEEN years ago. SIXTEEN. not only that but she's compared to SHAKESPEARE HIMSELF.

"she isnt a good vocalist. beyonce is better." who in their right fucking mind said she was better than beyonce in the first place. i'll wait. anyone can admit that shit because it's true. but if beyonce were a better lyricist and singer OVERALL, she'd be, 1, more known, 2, worth more financially, 3, her songs would be WAY more famous, and 4, more fans. it is so rare that i see a diehard beyonce fan. sorry. it's also the literal way they're friends and have no bad blood (yknow it used to be mad love) and you guys just want to pit them against each other for absolutely no reason other than to argue.

time to get a reality check and stop hating on women who have no reason to be hated on 😘😘

you mocking feyre for not being able to read is tearing her down for something she can't control.

you say she's barely an adult, but she's twenty years old. you're taking a horrific tragedy that affects 12 million (according to my government's statistics) girls under eighteen are forced into every year and using it to shit on a fictional couple you don't like.

as for the breeding cow and lapdog comments, i seem to have mistaken you for someone else, and if that is the case i apologize.

also addressing the illiterate fans thing, even if i was just an irate nesta anti, you are not a person who's opinion i care about.

all this to say something very simple: the words you use matter. the negative connotation you speak about feyre with (belittling her for her life experience, choice of partner, using housewife as a negative word) matter. there is misogyny in the way you speak, whether you see it or not.

so while yes you absolutely can speak on the misogyny in fandom, you should do it with the open caveat and knowledge that you have several times spoken with misogynistic language. and unfortunately, that language you use does in fact make you less credible within the overall conversation.

"Belittling her for her life choices" why do you keep confusing me with other people? Or are you just making general accusations again?

Telling me to shut up about the misogyny in these books because I'm not cheering the main character's every decision is not the feminist move you think it is

Firstly, feminism is not putting every woman or every action by a woman on a pedestal. Some women are complicit in not just upholding systems of oppression but benefiting from them.

Let's take Feyre for example

Since you obviously know nothing about me: I have said Feyre has every right to stand up for herself, that she has no obligations towards Nesta, that she is a strategic thinker etc

I have also said she has narcissistic tendencies and makes stupid decisions and that she's unsuited to the position of HL - partly because of her lack of education

That last thing is probably the one that got you red in the face but ask yourself why only the criticism is counted as belittling her life choices?

I am not mocking Feyre for being unable to read something she can't control but then rejects the offer Tamlin makes to teach her?( I mocked a stan for using the first few chapters of acotar to call Nesta lazy when in those chapters she chops wood twice)

When I point out Feyre's illiteracy, it is mostly to point out how sjm put no effort into developing the character or showing us how Feyre is suddenly qualified for the highest administrative seat and power over others lives. She - like the rest of the nepotism gang and their greasy king - uphold and benefit off of the labour and oppression of others.

I live in a country where unqualified and corrupt people - including the wives and girlfriends of important men - use nepotism to benefit themselves so excuse me for not being happy for her

Also I don't think I ever used the term housewife in a negative connotation??? - again not sure where this is coming from since I and many other people have actually pointed out how the elder Archerons domestic work in the cabin years is devalued (again, because this book and it's fans tend to be misogynistic)

Now about the child bride thing.

First, I want to explain in the simplest terms possible : removing context and intention from what is said in order to make it seem like meaning can only be derived from the words themselves is not only an obtuse and disingenuous act, it's also an act rooted in racism and misogyny.

I don't have the energy to get into it but for example, certain cultures have practices not rooted in misogyny but rooted in gender. If someone from that culture says "women don't play this instrument and men don't wear black" and you swoop in to tell them they are sexist, are you not being racist and ethnocentric? Context matters.

"cunt" is a word rooted in misogyny but you're not gonna accuse someone of being a misogynist for using it are you?? Sometimes it's not even meant to be an insult, sometimes it's an aesthetic praise, "she got a buzzcut and dyed it green, that with the sock boots, ugh, she looks so cunty"

Sorry for literally having to teach you but with that can you understand that when I say Feyre is a child bride - the context pertains to the fictional book I'm addressing???

I am not talking about 12 year old girls in arranged marriages. I am talking about a fictional character in a book that was sold to teenagers and told them that the kidnapper groom was the "feminist king"

You, suddenly using the very real issue of child sex trafficking and how many girls are affected in your country, as a shield for Feysand of all ships is the act of insanity.

Which do you think adds more to the issue : me saying child bride or sjm writing a book for kids where a 19yo gets kidnapped and then marries her kidnapper?

Maybe the word gets a reaction out of you cause you're finally confronted with the horror of the situation? Idk and idc

Secondly, I don't appreciate this attempt at tone policing. (Another thing you do thats rooted in misogyny and racism - guess you're less credible now or something?)

You don't have to like the way I say things for them to be considered worth anything. Your understanding is not the standard I have to adjust myself to.

The kicker here is that I have said, more than once, I am not an unbiased source of information or content nor have I ever claimed to be

So on every level of this attempt to bash me, you have failed to bring anything worthwhile to the table.

You can just disagree with me because you like Feysand, I'm literally not gonna judge you but you don't have to do Olympics level mental gymnastics to try find some way to discredit my posts. (Which again are just half-joking rants on my personal blog)

Wonder what you think of letting people do as they please as long as they don't claim that it's feminist? Like personally, I believe that letting people do whatever they want to their bodies is important, but I disagree with people that claim that wearing makeup, for example, is an expression of feminism. I also choose not to wear makeup because I think it demeans women, but would not ask the same of another person. I guess what I'm asking is if you would advocate for a mode of behaviour among women or if you could maintain their right to choose things while still critiquing their choices as being anti-feminist?

‘let people do what they want’ is just not a real stance. A, because it’s just not a philosophy that anyone actually has, except maybe a few anarcho-rapists. people who say they don’t care about others wearing makeup because ~people can do whatever they want~ don’t really believe anyone can do what they want, so why do they make the exception for makeup? because it doesn’t personally affect them/they don’t see it as ‘wrong’, and that’s fine if you think that, but say it. it can’t simultaneously demean women but also be harmless. we know it’s not actually harmless just because it doesn’t create direct physical harm.

and B, because we have no power to actually prevent anyone from doing what they want, such as wearing makeup. it’s a null argument. so yes i expect other women if they are feminists to make feminist choices, but at the end of the day i have 0 power in ‘enforcing’ that, so to let or to not let women do what they want re putting on makeup - neither are real stances. the letting of is imaginary when you have no power to stop them anyway.

all we can control is ourselves, so to answer your last question, yes i suppose i do advocate for the mode of behaviour of not wearing makeup, for many reasons, but advocation is not forcible prevention and doesn’t stop them from doing what they want regardless and definitely doesn’t infringe on any rights. For example, every single one of my female friends and both of my sisters all wear makeup pretty much all of the time, we’ve had plenty of open discussions about makeup/the beauty industry/beauty expectations of women, and every single one of them agrees with me, but continues to wear makeup. they all also claim to be feminist. i guess the mode of behaviour i mostly strongly feel is that if you are a feminist you should make a very real effort to make choices that further feminism and ditch things that are unfeminist/harm women. it’s not black and white, i know that, that’s why i said make a conscious effort. i don’t really see how women can be feminists without changing any of their behaviours. but a mode of behaviour among women as a whole is simply unrealistic, I’ll still advocate against makeup bc it’s harmful, bad for the planet, bad for their skin, etc, but I’d only expect it to be ditched from a feminist perspective if that person believes themself a feminist.

hopefully that makes sense and answers your question. it’s not helpful to get hung up on what other women can or can’t do especially from a standpoint of personal morality. but there are universal truths about makeup that should be highlighted so women can make informed choices for themselves about wearing it. If they’re fine with their choices despite acknowledging the misogynistic and capitalistic overtones, frankly that’s on them

What’s your most unpopular DN opinion? (It can be about canon, fanon the fandom)

This is a hard to answer question for me because I don't know that I have many unpopular opinions, or any at all?! So I'm just going to ramble a little bit at you. I hope this is the quality content you were looking for.

I am FAR from confident that my own characterization of Light and L is right, but I sometimes feel like my view of them is an unpopular one because I see different sides of fandom taking certain traits and pulling in totally different directions - Light is either dramatic with a hair-trigger temperament and ready for Violence OR he is very soft and fluffy. (Or, he is either constantly openly and shamelessly putting women down or actually a #feminist.) Same thing with L. L is very soft and gentle and full of angsty feelings, or (and I think the following is a view that some people have adopted as a rejection to the Uwu L ™ characterization that was king in the early days of the fandom, sjsksjd) he is a confident asshole with almost no consideration towards other people beyond what is useful to him to be able to solve a case.

But then of course I know this is a bit like saying nothing because all fandoms will do this to their blorbos, and all characters are more complex than you'd think from a cursory search through their Tumblr tag. I was discussing this with a beloved friend and she illuminated me by mentioning that fandom... just loves Drama and Heightened Feelings... People consume the source material and want more Feels out of it (especially media like Death Note, I'd imagine, which really doesn't spend more time than necessary dwelling on anyone's feelings) and so they take... Light having a yelling fit and make it a very prominent trait of his personality. Or L having a soft moment and fill him with soft feelings that are coming out all the time. Which is a reasonable instinct to have! even though I think the interesting part of those moments in canon is precisely the fact that they are extraordinary in some way.

So I AM saying nothing and this does happen in every fandom, and contrary to what that cursory search through any fandom tag would tell you, a lot of people certainly treat the characters with subtlety and pay careful attention to all of their dimensions. I mean, evidently, most people do it much better than I could ever hope to do!! (In my defense I have to say that if I stress myself out with writing Light and L properly in-character I will drive myself insane, so not doing it is Self Care for me). But, ah! hopefully this is still some sort of answer, anon!

The L thing bothers me more, because he is my beloved boy and because I think people insist a bit too much on the view of him as confident asshole who doesn't give a fuck. Cleverer people than me have discussed this, particularly in the Lawlight server in which I am, but L does in fact Give Some Fucks. I'm noticing it more now that I'm rereading the manga! A lot of soft little L moments are making me sort of understand why people back in the early fandom days really ran with that Soft Uwu L interpretation haha. It's not remotely accurate to reduce him to those traits! but it's not accurate either to reduce him to the opposite ones?

And I feel like the same phenomenon happens with Lawlight, My Beloved Ship. Sometimes it feels like, if people don't portray them as a very soft and fluffy couple, they can portray them as a couple that would be so toxic and unhealthy that they couldn't have a normal, loving relationship without mind games and manipulation always running through the undercurrent of it. Idk we all know these boys are crazy insane but I don't think they'd be quite THAT toxic!!

Rereading the manga has made me have the realization once again that (I think) L and Light honestly just fit together very well, and don't hate each other with nearly as much venom and intensity as one might think, and there's a lot of common interests and genuine mutual appreciation and fun in their relationship. Particularly in a no notebook AU where there'd be no need for 70% of their mind games of course lol, but it's also there just, like, canonically.

↑ they discuss the news and buy groceries together and read different books silently on the couch actually.

Hello ! I saw a post of yours where you said that "the radical feminist -> TERF -> NAZI pipeline is very well documented" I'm looking for things exactly on that subject, do you have receipts and stuff like that ?

The radical feminist to TERF to NAZI pipeline isn't so much a pipeline as they are both sitting in the same sewer called "bioessentialism", which is in and of itself a fascist belief system.

Summary: belief in gender bioessentialism is an open door to being convinced of the authenticity of other forms of bioessentialism like racism and antisemitism and ableism, and the people promoting those things are NAZIs. Many radfems already believe some of this shit, and you can find it on their blogs.

(I'm going to use man/male and woman/female interchangeably a lot here because to a lot of these people, those words mean the same thing)

---

Bioessentialism is the belief that there are traits about people that govern your behavior and are baked into your genes, your chromosomes, and your hormones.

According to gender/sex bioessentialism, women/females are inherently weaker than men/males and men are inherently more violent than women. Biologically, men can't help but want to dominate women. In "nature", this creates a "natural" hierarchy with men on the top and women on the bottom.

Gender/sex bioessentialists believe there's absolutely nothing we can do to stop men from doing these things, because these behaviors are not a result of someone's upbringing, they are baked into their very being.

(radfems hate this hierarchy, and patriarchs love it, but they both agree it exists and is immutable)

If you are a radical feminists and you believe this, it's basically impossible to not become transphobic. Men are horrible evil monsters! Being trans isn't real, therefore they must be doing it on purpose to "invade women's spaces" and "fetishize female suffering".

Trans people are so hated by bioessentialists because they are defying the natural order, "playing god", and perverting nature. Some radfems are pro-eugenics - quite a lot of them think that trans people deserve death instead of life-saving care, even when they simultaneously view us as mentally ill.

There are some fringe beliefs that come out of this. A few radfems promote "female separatism", that is, entirely separating society into females and males. Some radfems literally want all males to die out, though admittedly this group are a fringe minority of radfems, so they don't really reflect the wider radfem movement. But it's a natural extension of their beliefs.

---

Bioessentialism is, of course, crap. It's also racist and ableist, among other things. But it produces a hierarchy, and that's what these people want. And that's where the NAZI shit comes in, because NAZIs are also bioessentialists, and they apply it to race and ability and a bunch of other things on top of gender. You know - smart rich abled white men on top, white women just below them, then disabled people and Jews and people of color on the bottom, etc.

Notably, the only people who get to have "real genders" under white fascist bioessentialism are white people. This is why so many of the "gender markers" you'll see transphobes talk about seem really racist: because they are. They define womanhood based on white Eurocentric beauty ideals, and anything that deviates from that is "masculine". It's why white TERFs so often accuse women of color of being "men" - because they're racist! Also, a lot of white radfems are extremely racist towards men of color.

This shit is easy to observe if you go on their blogs - A lot of them will be openly antisemitic on their blogs, especially right now. They will use marginalized women as a front to be openly racist towards men of color, or to be Islamophobic, or antisemitic, etc. They don't actually give a shit about those women though, and will turn right around and falsely identify a woman of color or a Jewish woman as a "man" whenever they feel like it.

A lot of them are fully willing to align themselves with right-wing/ conservative celebrities and politicians if it means advancing their transphobic rhetoric. In the USA, they'll even go so far as to align themselves with the "alt-right", which is the USA's current fascist party. "Well known" radfems have been seen on talk shows with these jerks.

Also, right-wing men love the gender bioessentialism of radical feminism. Women are weak? Men are strong? Hell yeah! Conservatives/ right-wingers/ fascists eat that shit up. They LOVE it. Bioessentialism is literally the core of the patriarchy because it is how they justify the hierarchy of men on top, women on the bottom.

The only difference between men who love the patriarchy and women who are radfems is what they think the solution is: radfems advocate for female-lead cultures or female separatism or male genocide, while the men who love the patriarchy think women would be happier if they all stopped being feminists and accepted their natural position in the hierarchy: on the bottom.

But they both believe in the hierarchy produced by bioessentialism.

Do I have research papers or screenshots? No. But it's not hard to observe this stuff in radfem and terf circles for yourself.

The problem with thinking that Team Black is the “feminist” side and Team Green is the “patriarchal” side, is that it ignores the fact that Rhaenyra is no feminist. She doesn’t care about the rights of any other women, she’s just fighting for the right to sit on the throne herself. The Greens are patriarchal but so is Rhaenyra, she just sees herself as the exception to patriarchal rules.

Therefore, both sides are bad because they ultimately wage war over the throne which causes the suffering of many smallfolk. The Greens may have started it but the Blacks certainly responded, and violently. So yes, I do see this story as “pick your favorite war criminal and enjoy the show.” Rhaenyra and Aegon both suck as human beings and as rulers, and the Targaryen monarchy as a whole shouldn’t exist in the first place. The iron throne is a symbol of oppression.

So I hope this gives you a better understanding for why some of us are Team Green. It’s not because we think women shouldn’t rule, we just happen to like the Green characters more and think Rhaenyra isn’t any better than Aegon. Aegon is a piece of shit but so is Rhaenyra. We aren’t here to claim our side is the most moral one, we just cheer for the Greens because we like them most not because we think they are the good guys.

The fandom would be so much less toxic if Team Black could do the same instead of trying to claim some moral high ground. We do admit that the show has being framing the Blacks as the “heroes” and the Greens as the “villains” but you guys have been able to identify other bad writing in the show before, surely you can identify that as bad writing as well.

"The problem with thinking that Team Black is the “feminist” side and Team Green is the “patriarchal” side, is that it ignores the fact that Rhaenyra is no feminist"

Stop right there. The entire basis of your argument is wrong, because nobody said that we like Rhaenyra cause she's feminist, nor that the Black side is the "feminist" side. Nobody even talked about feminism actually. We just talked about misogyny, because while feminism as a political ideology doesn't exist in universe, misogyny does. There are those who fight against it, for themselves, and those who weaponize it, for themselves again. You chose your side.

The fandom would be "much less toxic" nonnie if green stans and/or Targ antis like yourself never even existed because you're not supposed to exist.

Also let me do the math here : you think both are bad, "Rhaenyra isn't any better than Aegon" but you're team Green nonetheless? How did we get from A to B? Because "you like the Greens better", you mean because you find Olivia and Ewan hot. That's what you mean. Ok.

Also, just to clear things out, you claim you are not misogynist but you literally said, in that ask, that a woman whose biggest sins are that she had sex out of wedlock, and bastards, and became violent and bitter in the end, "isn't any better" than.......... a man who sexually harasses women, in canon, like, in the book. And you go further and say that you're team Green, which means, you literally want said man to take her place.

Ok.

I'm only posting this so that my followers admire yet again the inconceivable damage this shitshow has done to the legacy of this poor book.

That’s when, somehow, the proprietary logic of our emotion, what Alva Gotby calls our “emotional reproduction” of one another and ourselves, along these propertarian lines, is weakened and loosened. Instead we see outbreaks of Red Love, as Alexandra Kollontai called it. Red Plenty, was Mark Fisher’s term. (I’m not sure Mark Fisher was down for our family abolition at all.) I think the emotional level of “red plenty” is the feeling that we are secure in the very contingency of our caring and cared for-ness. Where we don’t need containers like the family, like marriage, like private property, to reassure us that we will be held tomorrow, as well as today.

Indeed, those containers that I just mentioned, family, and all the mechanisms that come along with it (like inheritance and marriage and so on): they are already quite fallible. They do fulfill certain social reproductive functions adequately from capitalism’s point of view. But everyone knows a husband can walk out on you (or worse, maybe, not walk out on you, in some cases?). It is us that the family is not serving. It’s serving the market and the state pretty well.

I keep noticing that the conversation about the crisis of white masculinity in America doesn’t really refer to the ample evidence, the sociology, that shows that men benefit massively from heterosexual marriage. Even with all their complaints, like: “there’s no male breadwinner household anymore” and “women aren’t respecting men anymore.” Whatever narrative is being peddled by Jordan Peterson, basically. The hard evidence is basically that marriage is a great deal for men. It’s a great labor deal for heterosexual men. That’s why they don’t leave marriages. They cheat, but they don’t leave (unless their wife has a life-threatening disease).

TFSR: One of the things that you said that’s really important that comes in feminist and Gay Liberation texts from the ’70s is this idea that the family gives to the worker this mini hierarchy. You get yelled at by your boss at work, but you come home and you get to lord over your wife and children. And then there’s a chain of hierarchy there too, where the husband has power over the wife, or the wife maybe has power over the children. It’s the little laboratory in learning your place. And then also the violent pleasures of having power over someone, too.

I think that’s really an important thing to pull out. That’s how I tried to explain to myself this current movement of, in a moment of devastation and economic precarity for so many people, why there’s a parental rights movement. Why is that the thing? That’s one place where these people are naturalized into having power over someone where they have no power in any other situation perhaps?

SL: Yeah, yeah. That’s fascinating.

Gosh, there’s something I literally thought just a minute before getting on this podcast with you, Scott. Someone shared a snippet of Hannah Arendt, who is a philosopher I’ve always disliked. She’s very, very conservative, in my opinion, anyway. But there was a section of an essay by her that I’d never read, which was her essay opposing desegregation! I didn’t even know this existed! Anyway, she argues that it is too great of an infringement on parental rights, basically, to demand that children go to desegregated schools if their parents don’t want to create a desegregated family culture. She has this fantastically clear and strong statement in favor of the primacy of family: the supremacy of parental authority over the realm of the public. I don’t know if this is actually useful, you may want to cut this from the recording. But I was just thinking about the social crisis that she was writing from within. The tumult of that moment. She’s writing from this moment of racial justice, upheaval, and movement and she’s saying, “The Family is threatened by this, and I choose to uphold the Family.”

I think we need to get braver. I think we need to be able to say, against the right-wing assault against Critical Race Theory: yeah, fine, this does threaten the family. I think there are so many similarities between that “integration” fight and this moment of organized assault on trans children and trans life more generally. Do people have the guts to understand the structure? The way in which the far right is sometimes onto something when it accuses anticapitalists, feminists, leftists of seeking to undermine the sanctity of the Family? Against Arendt, for example, can we insist that that parental rights can go get fucked, when appropriate?

I think the missing part of left discourse is the willingness to say, “Yeah, we do oppose the Family on x and y fronts.” Or even the willingness to merely criticize the family. I’d like us to be able to say: “We do not consider parental rights a supreme value on this terrain.” But we have to be very clear that at the same we oppose the devaluation, dispossession, expropriation and dehumanization of Black parents. There are many groups whose “parental rights” are always already pretty much null and void within the Child Protective Services industry.

Dorothy Roberts has important scholarship on family policing and the very, very white supremacist structure of parenthood as it is defined in settler-colonial law, and in child protection generally. We can, according to her, and I agree, seek to abolish family policing (and to that extent, basically argue almost for the voices of Black parents to count more), while at the same time fighting for family abolition, as a longer term anticapitalist goal. We can defend disenfranchised parents and at the same time struggle for parental rights to be limited or balanced out (relative to the rights of children).

But family abolitionism is full of these slightly tricky-to-think-through contradictions. Because we live in a world in which family is always already a racially bifurcated technology. Which is not to say that Black, or racialized, or immigrant, or queer, or proletarian working class families aren’t part of the privatization of care into private households. As I said, that privatization is the main thing about the family, so, even these alternative forms of household and social reproduction and kinship (which in many ways have skills and experiences that are going to be super useful for family abolitionism) are part of the family regime. It makes no sense to make exceptions for these sorts of marginalized and underserved and underbenefited families. People who benefit the least from the edifice of family values and the regime of familism (as an economic system) should not be used as a reason to shore up the family!

Saying like, “Oh, we don’t mean those families, we just mean, like, the white bourgeois family!” is much safer. People always want me to say that. They want me to specify that, when I say family abolition, I mean the white bourgeois family. But I think if you define the family—as I think it is correct to do—as a mechanism that really affects everybody and is reproduced, wittingly or not, by everyone, then then you really have to be talking about the privatization of care. It is non-bourgeois, non-white, non-settler people who are going to benefit the most from family abolition. In that sense, they deserve it the most. They should not be exceptionalized, or for that matter, romanticized. Because the private nuclear household is not somehow a wonderful thing, just because it happens to be situated in a racialized, proletarianized community. Unfortunately!

TFSR: Yeah, I want to get to the trans stuff, but where you’re leading me is thinking about the selling out of the radical liberationist movements of the women’s movement and gay movement by taking family abolition off the table. Is that another moment of white supremacist consolidation? I’m thinking about gender abolition, for example, or the word gender itself already includes the power structure. I think family maybe does, too, by thinking that family is related to blood and naturalized relationships, it erases other forms of relating to people that happening, but get called the family maybe, wrongly, and reproduces a kind of racialized logic that our belonging is based on blood.

So, what I’m thinking about here, and what I want to ask you about is on the one hand, why was it taken off the table? Do you think it has to do with this racialized logic? On the positive end of this question, how do we relate family abolition to these other kinds of abolitionist movements? Connecting it back to the abolition of slavery, but also police and prison abolition, which is explicitly Black liberationist and fighting against an anti-Black world? Do you have thought on why that was sacrificed in the vision of the movement and how we can make those connections now?

SL: Yeah, it’s really interesting. The collapse of that imaginary at the height of the struggles that proliferated around 1970 is definitely linked to, simply, our material defeat. It’s literally just the epistemic consequences (epistemicide) of the murder, frankly, and repression, that the state successfully carried out. Our people were stomped into the dust. We can’t really state that enough.

You can look at the beginning of the ’70s and the end of the ’70s and simply compare the texts! I found two things that struck me that were amazingly different. From the early ’70s and, then, in contrast, the early ’80s. A text by Pat Parker, who is a Oakland-based Black liberationist radical nurse and “third world” feminist, who has a speech that she gave at an anti-imperialist convergence, and it is all about how white women on the left need to get with the program of family abolition and stop being scared, because capitalism and the state will not fall until women and children explode the cell of the family (i.e. the private nuclear household).

That text [of Pat Parker’s] is amazing, because it puts Black women really squarely at the forefront of that politics [of family abolition], which I personally kind of imagined, like everybody else imagines, until I looked in the archive, was probably most forcefully articulated by the white, Jewish feminist Shulamith Firestone. It’s just not the case. Actually, Black women were saying it way harder, I discovered.

But then 10 years later (and, again, we have to think of all the successful State repression of Black liberationist struggle in the interim), we have Hazel Carby’s very famous and also very well articulated open letter, White Woman Listen!. I think that’s from 1984. And it’s basically about why white feminists’ excessive emphasis on the family as an oppressive structure is harmful to Black women. And she says, “Black feminists do not deny that the family can be a source of oppression, but it’s also, for us, an important site of survival and resistance to the state.” That’s the text that everybody knows. What people don’t know is the previous one, the one 10 years before that. Because as I said, the memory has been erased.

I find it so interesting that essentially, we’re talking about the defeat of Black feminist abolitionism in the widest sense. The abolitionism of the present state of things in its entirety: family, capital, state, criminal justice system, all of it. That intensity was actually voiced by the Black feminist imaginary. Which makes sense given, for example, Hortense Spillers’ analysis of how it is the Black woman who falls out of the symbolic logics of gendered humaneness in the grammar of American life. And it is the Black female social subject who needs to be made a place for. We don’t know what that place would be. She says she doesn’t know whether that place would be called a family anymore. That’s possible.

Tiffany Lethabo King reads Hortense Spillers’ epochal text, “Mama’s Baby, Papa’s Maybe,” as potentially family-abolitionist. Tiffany Lethabo King is one of the Black family abolitionist theorists thinking and working today. And she’s not the only one. I quote in my book from Lola Olufemi and Annie Olaloku-Teriba, who are working on “patriarchal motherhood” from a Black radical perspective in the UK right now. I do think maybe it is the defeat of Black power that we must point to, if we want to explain why family abolitionism was no longer thinkable by the end of the ’70s.

im the anon who lurks in regretful parenting subs... Honestly, i'm believing most men simply do not like being monogamous thus why they feel like they're trapped in a relationship. Even when it's the men themselves that insist to get their wives pregnant, even if through inmoral means (some women talk about finding out their husbands removed the condom at some point while having sex), it's usually because they want to pass their genes more than genuine love for their wives and wanting to build a family with this person they adore.

Like it's not only the way they talk about their wives, but also that they see sleeping around as a thing to be proud of and men who can bed many women as someone to look up to. There's also that phenomenon of older married men ogling younger women even when they're with the wife, watching porn even if they're still having sex irl, and so on.

Honestly, I do feel like only a man of God could truly remain faithful for the right reasons. I guess that does go for some women too, we all have our faults lol but even then I unfortunately know some terrible cases. Like this Christian woman I followed who seemed to have a great husband and children, always talked about the importance of putting God first in your life, and even gave dating advice to women that wasn't about being submissive (wordly) and a pick me but was quite fds-y actually while still being biblical. Then she dissappeared for a long while and when she returned she admitted her husband had raped her and beat her. I was so heartbroken for her. She had to had a divorce and thankfully the husband went to jail, but she was left struggling with the trauma and four kids to feed.

To be fair, i'm starting to believe I might be seeing so much of this stuff because God wants me to stay a celibate. I'm convinced He wants me to focus completely in my religious path and in helping others and not get distracted with a husband and children.

The regretful parent sub is a mixed bag really

I understand the struggle of people who got one child and eventually regretted bc of all the changes and missed opportunities this pregnancy caused into their life, but I couldn't help but shake my head in disbelief at people ending up with 3 kids and finally realizing parenthood wasn't for them. Sorry but that's stupid and reckless.

I think it's unfair to put unplanned pregnancy on men alone bc a fair share of women are pretty reckless with their lack of birth control. Feminists will hate me on this, but women have the upper hand when it comes to birth control. Both men and women can poke holes in condoms, but women can also deceive men in having unprotected sex while pretending to be on birth control. A man removing condom is observable, a woman with or without birth control is not.

One post stuck with me about a man who had a little girl, divorced his wife, and regretted becoming a dad because being away of his daughter was too much painful and would rather never have a child to not feel such strong attachment to another human being. This was actually touching

And yes, I'm very wary of trad people flaunting their life online. This is the anti thesis of trad imo. Remember the twitter tradwife who was financially abused by her husband for years?? You never know what's going on behind closed doors

I will never this sentence I heard from pink pilled ladies "you can be a single mom while being married" That's why it is sooooo important to chose wisely your husband. No marriage no womb obviously, but also husband and wife need to explicitly talk about they will share tasks in the house. Many sahw struggle bc they are expected to work from home 7 days a week when the husband at least have a few days away from office. IMO I would ask a share of tasks on weekend. Like, daddy would take care of the kids and the wife would have some time off to focus on other/lighter tasks.

Vetting is also important. Men who never lived alone when in their 30s are a red flag bc there are chances dude can barely take care of a house and will use their wife like a maid/2nd mom. I said that bc I knew a girl who was dating a guy who lived with his ex, and as soons as they broke up, he went back to live with his mom.... That's suspicious.

I also pray a lot to God to remove from my way all the men who aren't supposed to be in my life. I pray for my husband. God already shown him to me (in dreams) twice so I know I'm good :) As much as I craved emotional intimacy, I also realized that marriage involves a ton of responsibility (+parenthood) that's why I'm less eager to find my life companion lol The years I spend alone and free to do whatever I like will never come back so I might as well enjoy them as much as possible. It really helped me to be more content with my singleness 💙

I just wanted to say I saw your response to the ask about Nex and I wanted to say that the way you explained your stance is very well thought out…

I hold the same beliefs as you, and I would like to not be on Anon but I fear if my friends found I hold these beliefs that they would call me transphobic and hate me (it is a kinda complicated situation…)

I just want to say I admire your bravery to speak your thoughts and opinions so openly and seemingly without fear of being rejected because of them. I hope one day to be able to have the confidence to speak my thoughts on subjects without fearing to be criticized.

-A shy anon 🪼

I have been criticised a lot for my stance because it creates conflict and many people just dislike conflict in general, which I understand. I just avoid trans spaces online and irl these cause they are predominantly filled with trenders and “non binary”. I prefer LGBT mixed spaces cause atleast those are not just a group made up of women who ID as non binary. Since it’s LGBT and not “trans”, there is less room for radical feminist man hating bullshit cause gay men will tell them to stfu.

Non binary in my experience and research is really just radical feminism lite, it reminds me of “political lesbians” who were straight femcels out of choice. All core beliefs of non binary activism heavily align with radical feminist theory more than it does with anything about trans rights. Contrary to popular belief, many radical feminists believe that medical transition is fine aslong as you retain that you’re a masculinised female or feminised male and don’t assert you are changing your sex or try to be in any of your group’s gendered spaces. Though, this treatment is mainly only directed at trans women - they rarely care about trans men sharing spaces with cis men cause they see it as “rebellious against the evil patriarchy” and benefiting.

This is why most “detrans” TERFs you find will have identified as non binary but then switched, usually after trying testosterone and ACTUALLY getting dysphoria. If you go to non binary subreddits, there’s countless posts about being scared to start T cause “I don’t want *insert literal male sexual characteristic*” or even worse “I don’t want to be perceived as a cis male”. The comments are filled with encouragement to start T anyway, saying you can microdose to control effects (a lie, it just makes it slower), suggesting taking certain hormone blockers to literally block male sexual characteristics but get very minimal ones that could be achieved through diet, exercise and voice training. Or worse, suggestions that laser hair removal isn’t even hard or expensive, it’ll work blah blah.

These retards then go on T, get side effects that cause actual dysphoria and then go full blown radical feminist.

At this point? I think anyone who identifies as non binary should be banned from transitioning medically. I don’t think you should qualify for a gender dysphoria diagnosis unless you want to be the opposite sex; not some magical androgynous being to get out of misogyny in society.

Though I do keep my beliefs to myself in many situations to avoid conflict but I also play heavily on my autism as an excuse for things, if the government and society wanna deem me as retarded then I’ll play into it. So, no I struggle with singular they cause I’m autistic. Honestly, I actually do struggle with singular they especially if they look entirely as their birth sex. I just don’t bother putting in effort cause I don’t care about how they feel. The worst woman I ever encountered who got mad at me for this was self diagnosed autistic, had a fucking child and was raising him “as non binary” so she got mad if you used he/him. I’m all for not raising kids with no gender roles or stereotypes but doing that is gonna fuck up the kid.

I also know a woman who started T cause she thinks she’s non binary and immediately stopped cause of body hair growing. Now she complains about her slightly deeper voice and says she wants to get pregnant again but worries that T hurt her. Oh she still retains she’s non binary tho, just that she likes living as a female “cause its way more comfortable” - yeah cause you’re a cis woman!

Anyway sorry for the rant, I’m glad that my opinions aren’t all seen as me being uwu disrespectful and mean cause my intent isn’t to be “mean” it’s to use critical thinking. If you want, you can privately DM me to discuss more on this so you don’t feel so alone in your convictions. It’s one of the reasons I have stopped showing my face online publicly cause trenders tried to doxx me, dangerous at times to not believe in non binary.

I was wondering if a radfem might brave that post to tell us what we got right. Hi there @capybarad , I appreciate your stopping by and being civil. I disagree with you on a lot of things most likely, but I appreciate your civility.

So I’m going to reply, but just so you know, I’m non-binary and many of my friends are trans. I don’t know if you’re trans exclusionary or not, but if you put trans people down, I’m no longer going to engage, as I care more about them feeling safe here as they’re my friends than I do about this discussion.

I cant speak for others but the reason why I personally don’t post about things like fgm but do post about things like US conservative traditionalists who are misogynistic and gross and such is just that… I’m not sure what circulating posts about fgm actually does. Where if I’m commenting on something going on in my own culture, I might very well have a chance to sway someone who’s tempted by that rhetoric. I pick my battles now because trying to pick them all in years past just made me exhausted and too drained to fight well for anything.

I appreciate you mentioning that pornography and the harms you see in it are the biggest issue for you, and I can see why you’d want more mainstream feminisms to ally with you there since it’s important to you. The problem is… again, I can’t speak for other people as well as for myself, but what I read of radical feminist theory on pornography as research for the I’ll fated dissertation just… was unconvincing to me.

First there’s my personal experience. Male partners who liked porn were non abusive; the lesbian I met and got together with in feminist circles was. One person’s experience proves very little; there’s surely someone else out there (maybe even you yourself) who’s had the opposite experience.

What would adjudicate this would be clear data. What percentage of people who watch porn go on to pressure or abuse their partners? Is the correlation solely with porn watching, or is it porn watching AND something else (so maybe someone who is low on authoritarian values and watches porn has no problem relating to a partner, but someone who is highly authoritarian sees it as a justification of sexual cruelty and does)? While radfems would claim to have data, it always seemed that it was old, or funded by odd organizations, or not shown to have been repeated consistently. Consequently I doubt that most people who watch porn coerce their partners.

Similarly, it’s clear that exploitation exists in the industry, but the claim seems to be that all participants are exploited more so than any other job under capitalism and that we don’t need actual data to show this. ThT theory alone can tell us that sex work is uniquely and inherently degrading, even if people who do it say this is not so. I’m unconvinced that theory alone can tell me what other people are experiencing, so again, I want data. How much of the industry is exploitative? What are we defining as exploitative, also? What trends are there in’s h in workplaces are better than others?

Relying mainly on theory here just seems as wrongheaded as “I have a theory that most feminists are traumatized, so you can’t possibly care about Women’s issues for rational reasons.” It just doesn’t make sense. Where if there is a fact of the matter, careful research will bring it to light.

Then there’s the theory itself. It may have changed some since I was studying this, I’ve kind of avoided radfems since. But I do have Pornography Embodied on my bookshelf (if it didn’t get spring cleaninged into the trash), and the theory in that was that orgasm is uniquely good at training humans into behavior patterns in ways that other pleasurable experiences aren’t.

Again though, it seemed to me like this was presented as theory, not as something with evidence to back it. And without that evidence I’m not convinced.

(Again, anecdotes are not data, but I can’t think of any time in my life that I laser focused on one particular fantasy over all others, and I have purchased and looked at porn made by lesbian creators. There are some fantasies that I really enjoy and go back to many times, but I don’t experience that as needing x over and over, much less as needing increasingly intense versions of it. That doesn’t mean it’s not a thing people do, but again… which people? What percentage of humans? How do we know when this is happening?)

So if you’re aiming to sway me personally, the best projects would probably be ones where you discover that a particular performer or studio is violating the ethics standards of the industry itself. In cases like that I’d be glad to call for someone’s firing or maybe even for a particular studio to close down.

But opposition of the whole industry based on theoretical principles? No, I’m highly unlikely to be convinced that way.

About Me

This is my feminism sideblog. I have always been a feminist although there have definitely been times where I had feminist awakenings by discovering just how evil men are. I was raised by conservative Christian parents. My mother was a stay at home mother and loved criticising other women for not doing that, for working instead of taking care of their children. Even as a child I thought she was insane and sexist. I saw that women couldn't live lives the way men could if they had children. At dinner we would all sit in silence while my father monologued about his day at work and whatever else he wanted to talk about.

My first feminist awakening was reading the Bible when I was about 19 and 20. There was so much woman hating in there that I just couldn't take it anymore. Non Christians may know about the Ten Commandments given to Moses, but they are just a small section of many rules. One of the rules was that if a woman is raped and she is not married, she must marry her rapist. (May update this later when I can be bothered to find it.) I saw then that men do not see rape as assault, but theft of another man's property. The Bible is split into two sections. The Old Testament, which is before Jesus, and the New Testament, during and after Jesus. Christians tend to worship the New Testament and pick and choose which bits of the Old Testament they want to follow, which I never understood. For example, they will agree with the bits that condemn homosexuality, but when presented with stuff like "marry your rapist", they will say, yeah, that's bad, but don't worry, you don't have to do that anymore. I didn't understand why they were picking and choosing which rules to follow. As a Christian, I thought shouldn't we follow all the rules? But I didn't agree with the rules, or with Christians picking and choosing their own rules, so I stopped being a Christian.

My second was joining tumblr and seeing the misogyny of the trans rights movement. I'm straight, and I wanted to be a good ally to LGBT people, so at first I just thought it was fine, everyone has the right to respect. But I soon found out just how insane they were. My "peak trans" moment was reading this article in buzzfeed about the author Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie. She was asked in an interview about trans women, and I saw nothing wrong with her response. Reading the article I realised that transgender people don't live in the world of reality. I learned that trans women really believe they are actually women, and to say that they were once men is not only wrong, but hate speech. I didn't understand this at all. Surely that's why they were trans women? Also, annoying sjw (for lack of a better phrase) types on the internet love to bang on about intersectional feminism, demonizing the straight white man, and supporting people with marginalized identities, the more marginalized, the better. Yet here was a black women talking about feminism, and hordes of white men (I refused to see them as women anymore) were telling her to shut up. I saw how fake people who bang on about straight white men really are. She didn't say anything offensive, but they were acting like she'd called for their extinction. It didn't make sense.

After that I started following feminist blogs on tumblr. Most of them were lesbians, and I discovered that not only was the trans movement sexist, but it was also homophobic. I tried reblogging their posts, because hey, people on tumblr hate homophobia, right? They love gay people? Wrong. I couldn't believe how many people blocked and unfollowed me for suggesting that lesbians shouldn't have to be attracted to trans women. Eventually I got tired and deleted tumblr. I have a new fandom blog now, completely free of any feminism. I decided to start a feminism blog to post any thoughts I have. I reblog other people's posts at https://www.tumblr.com/blog/snow-and-shadow-fairy-archive.

I believe that sex is the most important part of feminism. Men want sex from women. They want women to be sexually available at all times. Pornography and prostitution abolition should be the main focus of feminism. Women not having to have sex with men if they don't want to should be the main focus of feminism.

Feminists who love to talk about intersectional feminsim love talking about race but never talk about sexuality. Lesbians face the most discrimination due to not wanting to have sex with men. I always knew how creepy men were about lesbians but finding out about the trans rights movement and hearing the phrase "cotton ceiling" really disgusted me even more. It's really sad that "intersectional" feminists don't talk about the intersection of sexism and homophobia. The right pretend that it is only disadvantaged men who assault women. Meanwhile the left pretends that it is only advantaged men who assault women, and do not care when disadvantaged men do it. It's disgusting to see the left completely ignore the misogyny, homophobia and lesbophobia of the trans movement.

Even though I am attracted to men I have never been in a relationship with one and never will. I am genuinely scared of men. I can't even imagine loving one. I'm happy being single. I was delighted when I found out about the South Korean 4B movement. I think that's exactly what women need everywhere.