Rainforest~~☆

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.

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

Ways In Which Harry Potter Is Bigoted Trash

Rowling uses names like Cho Chang and Kingsley Shacklebolt for her Characters of Color.

Werewolves are a metaphor for HIV. Fenrir Greyback is a werewolf who likes to infect young children. Seeing as the Aids Crisis primarily affected gay men and there is a stereotype that gay men are sexual predators, this is pretty damning. Especially seeing as she has no visibly queer characters in her story.

Dumbledore is the only confirmed queer character in her story and she kills him off. I suppose Grindelwald was also confirmed as being gay, but that's not the best representation seeing as he was evil. She never explicitly states either of these characters are queer in the text, though.

Dobby wanting to be free is treated as an anomaly amongst the house elves. The rest are content being slaves.

When Hermione creates S.P.E.W. to try to help free the house elves and gets them rights, Ron and Harry both become annoyed with her and Ron outright mocks S.P.E.W.

The book treats any character who is overweight poorly. Typically, heavier characters are either nasty people or incompetent people whom she makes fun of.

The whole thing where the girls can get into the boys' dormitories but the boys can't get into the girls'. You could probably find something transphobic here, especially since JKR is a TERF, but even so, she ignores that through the use of magic, the girls could be just as dangerous as the boys.

She is oftentimes misogynistic, as seen when Mrs. Weasley believes the rumors spread by Rita Skeeter in Witch Weekly and begins to treat Hermione, a fourteen-year-old girl, poorly for them, but treats Harry just the same.

Even characters we are supposed to like, like Hagrid and Ron, make nasty comments about Muggles. And not just the Dursleys. Ron even makes ignorant comments about Muggle doctors, calling them people who "cut people up" and acting like they aren't as good as wizards. Considering they can't just wave a wand and make everything better, what Muggle doctors do is amazing and we all know it.

The goblins are antisemitic caricatures.

Feel free to add onto this if there's any I missed. It's been a long time since I read the series, so there's probably something in there that I've forgotten about.

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

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

PRINTS AVAILABLE

Another Botanical Drake added to the compendium. Today is the tropical Draco Monstera

𝔥𝔢𝔞𝔳𝔢𝔫 𝔥𝔦𝔡𝔢𝔰 𝔦𝔫 𝔱𝔥𝔢 𝔣𝔬𝔯𝔢𝔰𝔱 𝔰𝔲𝔫𝔟𝔢𝔞𝔪𝔰

a woman will see a game about raping women and be like "wow, its absolutely disgusting that someone made a game about raping women, i dont think a game platform should be selling a game about raping women" and people online will scream at her and call her a pro-censorship puritan fascist