WHAT FUCKING YEAR IS IT

A trend I notice with radical feminist writers is how blunt and direct they are, which makes them easy to read. Valerie Solanas, Andrea Dworkin, Gail Dines--all of them cut straight to the point. Meanwhile, "queer theory" authors like Judith Butler and Michel Foucault are famously dense, obscure, and no one can ever agree on what their point is.

I see people talk about how there's an anti-intellectual backlash happening on the Left, but I think it's worse than that--it's not just that people are discrediting academics and research, they're discrediting common sense. It's common sense to say that a man who orgasms to the thought of women in pain is a misogynist. It's common sense to say that sex that is meant to hurt and degrade someone is not good sex. It's common sense to say that a man is not a woman.

And I think that's why radical feminist authors come across as blunt speakers--because they aren't intellectualizing the obvious, they're stating it. Meanwhile, the work of Butler and Foucault obscures reality as much as possible (oh sorry-- "problematizes" reality as much as possible).

I wish the people who accuse radical feminists of having dog whistles would actually read radical feminist literature and see how blunt the writing is--absolutely nothing has a double meaning or an implied meaning. Everything is direct.

Tokyo’s aquarium. By Japanese photographer あき @akira1027_photo

I'm trying to understand why feminism is hated by other women. Most of them say "I'm not feminist because I want equality and not women above men". They care more about men than us.

They care more about the same people who harass, rape and kill women just because they (we) exist.

fruitblush

i’ve been sitting here for like 5 minutes trying to think of a caption but i absolutely cannot think of anything funnier than this collection of images

Queen just accidentally implied that trans women are straight men pretending to be lesbians lmao

I love the malding that ensues when a woman mimics transbian behavior

Fata Morgana

a superior mirage caused by warm air resting on patches of colder air in an atmospheric duct that acts like a refracting lens. Objects on the horizon could appear to be mirrored, distorted, or float. This form of mirage could be the reason for the Flying Dutchman Legend.

these clowns will hear “women have vaginas” and say some shit like “wow you think women are baby factories huh” like mf not my problem you immediately associate vaginas with breeding! quit acting a fool!! stop being fucking annoying and wrong!!!

Not trying to go on a rant (and yet already ranting) but I’m sick of people faking that “granddaughters of the witches you couldn’t burn” isn’t an AWESOME feminist catchphrase, and branding it as white feminism because “Karen your granny is a christian conservative” like yesss it’s true my granny is a christian conservative but she also secretly had her tubes tied in an illegal clinic because my grandpa was against birth control, and my great-grandma ran away from home at 15 because her parents were against interracial marriage, and my great-great-grandma fled her country because there were no job opportunities for poor women there, and my other grandma also fled her country because her boyfriend tried to force her to have an abortion and she wanted to have her baby, and my mom never married and chose to raise a child on her own, and I am a feminist butch lesbian, and this is what this quote is about, it’s not about your granny being pagan, it’s about valuing your matrilineal lineage of subversive women, even if their subversion was minimal, because they could have been killed or maimed any time by men for not conforming to gender roles even in the slightest way, after all, the witches who indeed were burned were more often than not also just regular, mostly christian conservative, women that somehow pissed off a man