mother of budgies

1. First woman to enter deep space, Christina Koch, went as a mission specialist to help test the preventative measures against the radiation that causes cancer in the ships, and primarily affects women. It affects men too but less so. Christina's literally so inspiring to me.

2. This mission and further Artemis missions are testing safety concerns to help push the boundary of what we've been able to explore up to this point. Safety is the primary purpose of the trip. This is the first step to exploring Mars and further planets! Including Europa (my beloved.)

3. Before this, only 24 humans have ever entered deep space. Of that 24, 5 are alive today and they're all in their 90s. We very much needed a newer trip to help confirm or change whatever information we had from years and years ago. Having 4 living testaments of space exploration is a very important part of keeping said exploration alive.

4. Even though it wasn't the primary purpose of the trip, we've gotten so many rare pictures! Including my favorite "Hello, World" taken by commander Reid Wiseman:

1) you are a pro-censorship fascist

2) you hate harmless fun

x

TOMORROW IS HALLOWEEN!!!

TOMORROW IS HALLOWEEN!!!

TOMORROW IS HALLOWEEN!!!

TOMORROW IS HALLOWEEN!!!

TOMORROW IS HALLOWEEN

The same shit works with internalised misogyny. Radfems recognise that even though we're actively deconstructing patriarchy, we are still left with internalised misogyny. It's extremely hard to fully remove beliefs that were instilled in you from the day you were born. For some of us, full removal of internalised misogyny will never happen, but that's OK. So long as we understand these beliefs shouldn't be rooted in society or into people in the first place, we're willing to fight against it and supportother women.

The same applies to internalised racism. Hell, even I, as a Black woman, have internalised racism, so you sure as hell do too. Sit with yourself and take the time to realise that you have deep-rooted racist "beliefs", and don't beat yourself up for it if you really want to support every non-white sister.

You will do everyone a favour by admitting to it, working on it, and continuing to support women of colour instead of trying to come up with excuses and defend yourself when you slip up or get butt hurt from women of colour pointing out generalised racism.

I understand what OP is saying, i’m white myself and when i first started getting interested in politics and social issues as a teen i remember trying to find a way to explain this same concept to myself. I used to use the term “internalised” as well until i learnt the correct meaning.

Now i’d rather describe it as unconscious (?) bias or prejudice, what often manifests as “casual racism” (i got this last expression from “casual misogyny”). These are the terms i found but other terms found by people of colour may be more correct as i do not experience racism and i believe class experience to be fundamental when making language for purposes of liberation.

So yeah my reblog is just to point out the correct language bc i also used it incorrectly in the past! I wouldn’t have anything to add anyway, i’m literally white.

But I do want to put it out there that the binds on the female mind wrt sex and pleasure are so strong that you might not realize the ways you act as your own sexuality police even if you feel the most enlightened as you ever have about sex, and you can keep yourself from really getting to the truth of the matter: there is NO secret knowledge men have over women when it comes to sex, not in the sense of what is innately sexual about our bodies and our animalistic desires. Your body is capable, and its natural reactions do not need external validation. If you feel horny, that's because you're a mammal. If you feel aroused, that's because you're a mammal. If you feel enticed, that's because you're a mammal. It needs no explanation. Of course you crave sex, of course it feels good. Of course it does not need porn, or fetish, or religion, or taboo.

"Separatism encourages women to withdraw from society and positions of power, to give up cultural capita... Separatism in this form is a rebranding of nunhood"

at its core, it is almost blatantly saying "please other women, please put yourself in a bit more danger personally [by interacting with males, when men known to a woman are most likely to be her murderer or rapist or abuser] so on a larger scale men could become a bit less violent". not to mention: does women interacting with men more actually lead to less crimes AGAINST Women? bc the main point thats reiterated is that it lowers mens rates of violence... well, against who? bc im not quite fond of presenting women as collateral so men bash eachothers heads in a bit less.

we know that boys in mixed sex schools are less violent to eachother bc they have girls to torment. someone they consider a natural weaker easy target. is there a reason to assume this is not whats happening on a larger social scale? that naturally, men who are surrounded by less women lash out more against eachother/the state/peoples property bc they have less women to enact their violence against?

what i found disturbing specifically about that linked blig entry was the juxtaposition of "oh yea men who had only their male kids living with them often abused them and these boys went on to have relationships with adults males" and "men who were around their kids and women more were less violent" as though you ougtha give men access to children like its some kinda vaccine against becoming a pedophile and abuser, like its a moral obligation. like letting a kid get a hamster they could very easily neglect and kill but hey! the lesson in responsibility was well worth the silly hamster's life!

also, the intellectually dishonest "all the worst misogynists i know dont have womentheyre friends with" um, duh? thats not bc they turned misogynist due to not having female friends, men literally admit all the time that they dont want female fruends bc women arent people worth knowing and a personality is only a thing they tolerate so they get to fuck a certain woman.

fundamentally i will never see eye to eye with any feminist whos main plea is for women to please please raise and shape and change men! i say no, and fuck you, too.

and i honestly laugh at women who say "well its never gonna be possible as a large scale feminist praxis!" yea, no shit sherlock. theres women alive rn in the 21st centure unable to even SPEAK. we are VERY far away from seperatism becoming a viable option for literally 99% of women. not to mention it is extremely obvious a definitive seperation of humanity into the male and female half could logistically never work out, good thing then that thats literally not even slightly the goal everyone with even a few marbles left up there is focusing on.

1) Is it my life's goal to "pacify" men?

2) If men are less dangerous when they are in contact with women, why are the men most likely to hurt, rape and kill women their own family members and lovers? How can you claim that giving men access to women and kids makes them less violent when men kill their own wives and rape their own daughters every day?

3) Why is it that the one way to combat misogyny is by doing exactly what misogynists want?

4) Why are men not alarmed at all by the idea that women stay with them and get involved in the patriarchy society, but get angry at separatism?

5) Why is it necessary for you to fight against something so marginal and already so vilified as female separatism, female celibacy, and childfree women? Is there nothing more important and urgent than telling women to stay with men?

6) Why do you think calling us "nuns" is an argument?

7) You're a reformist when separatists are revolutionaries. What makes you think we need more reformism given the fact that in 2025 men are still killing their wives, marrying little girls and throwing acid in their sister's face?

8) Considering everything men have done and still do to us despite living with us (and our babies) which is supposed to be "pacifying" them, how much more violent are they supposed to get?

9) If men need babies to behave like civilised people, do we have a duty, as women, to become pregnant and give birth? Is abortion as dangerous and counterproductive as separatism?

10) Why do you think that if women refuse to participate in a patriarchal society to supposedly change it from the inside, it means women refuse to participate in society period? Do you think women are incapable of creating their own society, culture, jobs and models? Why do you call it a "small life"? Is it "small" to be creative and ambitious? Is it small to be a political activist? Is it "small" to be free? And is marrying men and giving them babies a "big life"? Is working for the government in a patriarchal society a "big life"? What makes for a "big life"?

11) Why do you think that only seeking relationships with women leads to an "isolated" life? Do female relationships not count?

12) Isn't it a bit offensive and irresponsible to claim that it's harmful for women to stay away from those who harm them?