If Your Feminism Doesn't Include Iranian And Afghan Women, Then You're Not A Feminist.

I hate how people treat bisexual people (women especially) like we're just... sex receptacles, that have to put up with whatever in their sex partners want and who can't have any sexual boundaries. Bisexuals are still allowed to say no, to anyone, and anything, for any reason. No, we do not have to be your unicorns, we do not have to put up with "kinky" sex, and we can choose not to date men, even the one's who say they aren't men.

we really went from "women and girls can do anything" to im just a girl i only do girl math im a passenger princess i dont drive i dont eat i just do haha girl dinner im so sillyyyy i wear makeup bc i want to i also try and define all women into categories that are marketable omg what if we were just girls and we were so useless and helpless

all fetishism is bad because fetishes are fixations and sex is supposed to be relational - instead of being aroused by your partner and using things as props, you end up being aroused by a thing and using your partner as prop. if you fixate on a specific scenario for one and end up aroused by playing it out rather than the person you're having sex with, your partner is just an actor in it and could be replaced by whoever. that's why postmodernist pornography-fueled sexuality is so painfully unerotic - it's impersonal, without the intimate interpersonal element, desire of a partner as a person. it's literally regression in sexual development

This genuinely vindictive evil man is trying to drown his rape victims in legal debt. Male celebrities doing the woke song and dance do nothing but arouse suspicion and contempt from me.

Waiting to hear what Pedro Pascal is hiding behind his stupid "uwu I'm a smol bean 55 year old man let me rub you bc I have anxiety" act.

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

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

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

Love! Love! Love!

Jane Clare Jones hitting the nail on the head yet again!

exclusion of women from spiritual leadership (priests, pastors, imams, pandits etc.) is an explicit message that women are not fully human. women are not worthy to lead because they are inferior and deficient. they need a man to connect them to god, god did not make them equal with men

it isn't just about having female voices at the pulpit, it's an ideological foundation on which religions build their sex-class system. exclusion of women from leadership is a statement about the place of women. it encourages men to oppress and commit violence against women. it degrades the self worth of women until they learn to accept their abuse as divine. spiritual exclusion is how religions codify female inferiority as the will of god and it leads directly to real harm against women

Current queerness activism is off its rocker and needs an entire overhaul. I couldn't figure it out from the beginning.

"Let them pee!" was pretty good, actually, I did fall for that one, an emotional appeal that people could relate to, but they just couldn't keep the lid on the AGPs hateposting their erections in the ladies rooms and getting their sex crimes splashed all over the internet, all the while insisting that it clearly had never happened and never would, and was paranoid pearl-clutching.

And No Debate? People said that like it was a normal thing to say in political debate, and not a huge red flag.

And using a word as loaded as genocide to describe stroke-of-the-pen lawmaking? Really ill-conceived.

Transphobiaaaaaaaaa! worked for awhile, until there was only one thing left that wasn't transphobic, which was lesbians having sex with men, and now does it mean anything? Other than 'you're not doing what you're told'?

Not just those language problems, either, the academics took the idea public that words about women don't really, on any meaningful level, define anything, and there's nothing about a woman that makes her a woman, and pointed at clownfish and shrugged smugly, like a reproductive capacity of a fish meant that women had been mistaken all along in believing we were women.

And then there was the shitshow of 'bonus hole' and 'non-men attracted to non-men'. That was an own goal. Now WPATH is chucking cis-supremacy around like that means a single thing.

The whole affair has been an utter shambles from start to finish. Just staggering from one PR disaster to another, constantly doubling down, and consistently revealing motives that look pretty indefensible, like begging for blockers and hormones for children, or they will harm themselves, while adult trans identities are valid just by saying so, and that women should participate in sports, contact and otherwise, with men, and be locked up in prison with them.

Queer Theory doesn't care about women, or know anything about women, just like Michael Foucault. It doesn't even respect women enough to answer our questions about seizing our rights.

Back to the drawing board, QT. Maybe get a talking gecko.

It is a deeply anti-female movement, it hates that women talk back, protect their kids, and analyze its ideas. So please keep doing all of that.

Baffling. Madness.

Women in the west cannot be free until women in countries where western men go to do sex tourism are free. Rich women cannot be free until poor women are not being coerced into either sex/reproductive/domestic exploitation. White women cannot be free until black women do not face unique risks of sexual violence from the police, domestic violence from their peers, or maternal death. Abled women cannot be free until disabled women do not face increased risk of sexual violence from caretakers. Straight women cannot be free until lesbians have the right to say NO to men, without question or coercion. Our struggles are linked, and protections for the more vulnerable among us mean at that the more privileged among us have a better negotiating postion at the very least.

When some dude complains that feminists should shut up because women somewhere else have it worse: