“Power is being able to say complete and utter nonsense and have it be believed, powerlessness is where no matter how much cogent evidence and proof one has, to not be believed.” -Catharine MacKinnon
Men will never get how exhausting it is and how it will really fuck you up if people just don’t believe you.
And not even just with the big stuff like rape and sexual assault, no that’s a whole other conversation I’m talking about just growing up and having everything you’re doing questioned.
I have a bachelors in English lit, but if I speak to any man about literature he will always think he knows more than me, even though all his interpretations are spoon fed from high school.
I worked as tech support for a company once and had a random business guy I had to help question everything I was doing despite it being a simple computer set up and something I had done a hundred times over.
Hell I can’t even talk about my own goddamn reality without men feeling a need to argue with me because they CLEARLY understand better.
And you know what? I’m aware of all of this now, and I’m fighting all this now, but an entire life of never being taken seriously, of always being second guessed has absolutely nuked my confidence. I struggle with basic shit because I feel the need to double check myself now because when I was young, I was never allowed to be right even if I was.
I mean hell all radfems have seen this in political circles. We have stats for days, studies to back us up, historic and scientific data, but a man saying anything will always be regarded as more important.
And men will never understand just how much that can fuck you up.
Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
✓ Live Streaming✓ Interactive Chat✓ Private Shows✓ HD Quality
Anya is LIVE right now
FREE
Free to watch • No registration required • HD streaming
Once, as a young girl, I asked my mum why male dogs would chase female dogs in heat even when the female seemed most unwilling. She told me that was just the way dogs acted.
Then I learned about how other male animals act in a similar way. From dolphins to ducks to bears to salmon to bugs. How some species will have the male kill infants to mate with females. How female ducks quite literally evolved complex vaginas to protect themselves from male ducks' aggression.
Then I learned about how male dogs, chiefly intact ones, are responsible for most fatal dog attacks.
Then I learned about how human males commit the vast majority of violent crimes. Rape, child sexual abuse, murder, animal sexual abuse, torture. How most women have been sexually harassed in one way or another. I was a minor the first time it happened and unfortunately I'm not alone in that experience.
And everything seemed utterly hopeless for a while there. These days I don't buy it that men are inherently violent and evil. They choose to harm others, they choose to be horrible role models to young boys. It becomes an ugly cycle. "Boys will be boys" "It's in their nature" stripes them from any responsibility and takes away their autonomy. Raising boys to be compassionate, decent people seems like an impossible task when you know he'll meet many, many boys who think it's funny to harass girls or look the other way when they see one of their mates do it.
Now, do you know what females of other species often do to protect themselves? They stick together, they protect each other, they fight back as a group. And that's what women need now more than ever. We need to stick together, to work together, to prioritize the women in our lives. Misogyny being sex based made me feel like being born female was a curse for a while, but that's not the case at all, we're not cursed or paying the price for committing the original sin or whatever patriarchal bullshit we've been told. Stick together.
For the so called rational sex, men sure as hell behave like animals.
Really makes you think about the female enbies who are choosing objects for names: Leaf, Sock, Yellow, Apple, Park, Fox, Feather, Pebble, Moss.
There’s a large subset of tims consuming a woman they know, and a large subset of women who are object-ifying themselves. Just like you’d think would happen based on socialization.
^^^ This. The COMBINED population of the Twin Cities (Minneapolis and St. Paul) is only about 2.6 million. That's not small town numbers, sure, but compared to NYC (20.1 million in the metropolitan area)? LA? (12.9 million "")?
Minneapolis is being made an example of because they're the most bitesized target, and if you're doing a shock and awe campaign like this you need to not choke on national tv.
(And they're still having to fight for it. Minneapolis isn't taking this laying down, and more power to them for their courage.)
Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
✓ Live Streaming✓ Interactive Chat✓ Private Shows✓ HD Quality
Anya is LIVE right now
FREE
Free to watch • No registration required • HD streaming
I’ve noticed that the trans community is so quick to suggest medicalisation, especially to women and girls. They see medicalisation as step 1 for transition, not a last resort. Instead of telling people to start by trying to learn to accept their body, maybe by suggesting applying the body neutrality mentality, they immediately jump to “yup your body is wrong here’s all the things you need to do to fix it. And if you don’t fix it, you’ll be miserable for the rest of your life which will probably be cut short”. Then they have the audacity to tell detransitioners that their transition was their fault, that they didn’t do enough research, that they should’ve made better choices, etc. As if the community they trusted hadn’t been fast-tracking them to medicalisation and writing off any alternate solution as violent transphobia.
Love the way you answered that anon but I also wanted to add, from the perspective of a dysphoric person who was in the community, mastectomies aren't just held up as an aesthetic standard (that's obvious through fetishised and glamorised art/stories on here and a big topic of conversation between those of us who are "dysphoric without transition/detrans). The male body (and therefore body shape) is widely considered the default body socially and then obviously within these spaces too. A lot of non-binary, dysphoric, trans females feel like having their breasts gone gives them either a degree of neutrality or a "clean slate" to start transition to begin with, from my experiences taking with a lot of them. Whereas male bodies are praised and it's widely excepted that fully male-bodied people can be women, the reverse is not true for female bodies.
Thank you for your input!! I’ve noticed that as an outsider for lack of better term. The male-as-default mentality runs really deep, not just in the way that the male body is viewed as the default androgynous state, but also in the way women who identify as nonbinary view and talk about themselves. They get upset if they’re called girl(s), even affectionately like “hey girl!”…but they’re totally fine with and even enjoy being called boy(s). They call themselves “little guys” or “fellas”. Because these are all neutral terms to them in a way.
And really good point about the difference in how male and female bodies are treated in the trans community. This is also something I’ve noticed: men are told that their bodies are beautiful and amazing just as they are, and actually they’re better women than real women. All men who identify as nonbinary have to do is slap on some lipstick…cosmetic surgery isn’t really pushed on them. But women? They’re sold a whole new ideal to live up to, which includes removing their breasts. It’s just another way of capitalising on women’s insecurities and ensuring that women not be allowed to exist naturally.
Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
✓ Live Streaming✓ Interactive Chat✓ Private Shows✓ HD Quality
Anya is LIVE right now
FREE
Free to watch • No registration required • HD streaming
There’s this “gotcha!” about radical feminists being “obsessed” with female genitals, and there’s an automatic pushback against that, but it isn’t a negative in the first place. I think too many women miss that the sneer itself is misogynistic in the first place.
Our genitals are the reason that we’re oppressed. Ancient men didn’t understand the inner workings of the female body. Ancient Greek philosophers were convinced that women could suffer from a “wandering womb,” where the best treatment was marriage, sex and pregnancy - lucky for men, who were invested in owning, using and breeding us like cattle.
Today, many women still can’t point to their vulva. Too many grow up and are horrified when their black underwear turns a rusty red, unaware of their own body chemistry. Unsure how to safely clean themselves. Ashamed when on their periods, silent when in excessive pain during menstruation because they’re sure that they’re just complaining and too afraid to take up a doctor’s valuable time.
How is it not a strive towards liberation, when the mysterious, feared and disgusting vagina is brought into the light? How is it not a positive to share images of them and normalise them the way that we’re normalised to see cartoon penises etched across buildings, scrawled in notebooks, paraded in open sight, no age restriction needed?
Why should we answer the accusation of an obsession over genitals with anything other than a proud yes?
The language of the oppressor is constantly reclaimed, a way to normalise it, take the power away from it - or so it’s said. Words constructed by abusers to cut down who they see as their lessers, only for the oppressed to take it for themselves.
Our genitals have always been a part of us. There’s nothing to reclaim. We could never escape them. We could never change them. There was never any filth in us but the lies told about our nature.
Why shouldn’t we be pleased to celebrate what was once - and still is - shrouded in darkness and shame? Why should we shy away from reclaiming ourselves, when so many others rejoice in reclaiming a word?
Women stand together because of our oppression. We are still treated as lesser because of biology. Social misogyny is only an evolution from the abuse of our genitals, built from the ground up on the backs of men disgusted by periods, but who wanted to use our bodies and own every inch of us. Who saw those things in our biology and then wrapped themselves in “logic” to make us the weaker, fairer sex.
When we’re accused of being obsessed with our genitals, too many women rush to explain themselves. It’s internalised misogyny that has us rushing to distance ourselves from those accusations.
They might type “You reduce women to their genitals!” but what they mean is “Hide your genitals away, they’re not natural, they’re wrong, they make us uncomfortable, nobody should see them, women shouldn’t know their bodies, women shouldn’t speak about what binds them, they’re a humiliation!”
Think about why it’s easier to pretend that what we’re doing isn’t based on our genitals. Think about why it feels right to deny it.
public reminder that your sexual orientation is unchangeable AND that any negative opinions people have of it do NOT make you a bad person. sexual orientation isn’t about what you can tolerate ‘for the greater good’, it isn’t about what’s been done to you or what you wish it was or what the church wishes it was or your parents or peers wish it was, it’s about what you’re attracted to without the influence of threats or violence.
it’s also NOT a moral failing to stay in the closet, you are under NO obligation to put yourself at risk or make yourself uncomfortable by coming out. IF you want to come out out, then the time and place you do is up to you, and the people who you tell are also up to you. Pride and privacy are not mutually exclusive. it can even be possible to talk to others like you and even date without being fully out of the closet, and it is NOT childish to do so.
Please stay safe and know that same-sex love will always exist all over the world. There are millions and millions of us spread thinly across every nation every culture in every job and faith and organization. Wherever your life may lead, please know one thing:
Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
✓ Live Streaming✓ Interactive Chat✓ Private Shows✓ HD Quality
Anya is LIVE right now
FREE
Free to watch • No registration required • HD streaming
I'm on a tour with my new book, the international bestseller Enshittification: catch me next in Burbank (TODAY!), Lisbon, Cardiff, London and Oxford! Full schedule here.
A blockbuster Reuters report by Jeff Horwitz analyzes leaked internal documents that reveal that: 10% of Meta's gross revenue comes from ads for fraudulent goods and scams, and; the company knows it, and; they decided not to do anything about it, because; the fines for facilitating this life-destroying fraud are far less than the expected revenue from helping to destroy its users' lives:
The crux of the enshittification hypothesis is that companies deliberately degrade their products and services to benefit themselves at your expense because they can. An enshittogenic policy environment that rewards cheating, spying and monopolization will inevitably give rise to cheating, spying monopolists:
You couldn't ask for a better example than Reuters' Facebook Fraud Files. The topline description hardly does this scandal justice. Meta's depravity and greed in the face of truly horrifying fraud and scams on its platform is breathtaking.
Here's some details: first, the company's own figures estimate that they are delivering 15 billion scam ads every single day, which generate $7 billion in revenue every year. Despite its own automatic systems flagging the advertisers behind these scams, Meta does not terminate their account – rather, it charges them more money as a "disincentive." In other words, fraudulent ads are more profitable for Meta than non-scam ads.
Meta's own internal memos also acknowledge that they help scammers automatically target their most vulnerable users: if a user clicks on a scam, the automated ad-targeting system floods that user's feed with more scams. The company knows that the global fraud economy is totally dependent on Meta, with one third of all US scams going through Facebook (in the UK, the figure is 54% of all "payment-related scam losses"). Meta also concludes that it is uniquely hospitable to scammers, with one internal 2025 memo revealing the company's conclusion that "It is easier to advertise scams on Meta platforms than Google."
Internally, Meta has made plans to reduce the fraud on the platform, but the effort is being slow-walked because the company estimates that most it will ultimately pay in fines worldwide ads up to $1 billion, while it currently books $7 billion/year in revenue from fraud. The memo announcing the anti-fraud effort concludes that scam revenue dwarfs "the cost of any regulatory settlement involving scam ads." Another memo concludes that the company will not take any pro-active measures to fight fraud, and will only fight fraud in response to regulatory action.
Meta's anti-fraud team operates under an internal quota system that limits how many scam ads they are allowed to fight. A Feb 2025 memo states that the anti-fraud team is only allowed to take measures that will reduce ad revenue by 0.15% ($135m) – even though Meta's own estimate is that scam ads generate $7 billion per year for the company. The manager in charge of the program warns their underlings that "We have specific revenue guardrails."
What does Meta fraud look like? One example cited by Reuters is the company's discovery of a "six-figure network of accounts" that impersonated US military personnel, who attempted to trick other Meta users sending them money. Reuters also describes "a torrent of fake accounts pretending to be celebrities or represent major consumer brands" in order to steal Meta users' money.
Another common form of fraud is "sextortion" scams. That's when someone acquires your nude images and threatens to publish them unless you pay them money and/or perform more sexual acts on camera for them. These scams disproportionately target teenagers and have led to children committing suicide:
In 2022, a Meta manager sent a memo complaining about a "lack of investment" in fraud-fighting systems. The company had classed this kind of fraud as a "low severity" problem and was deliberately starving enforcement efforts of resources.
This only got worse in the years that followed, when Meta engaged in mass layoffs from the anti-fraud side of the business in order to free up capital to work on perpetrating a different kind of scam – the mass investor frauds of metaverse and AI:
These layoffs sometimes led to whole departments being shuttered. For example, in 2023, the entire team that handled "advertiser concerns about brand-rights issues" was fired. Meanwhile, Meta's metaverse and AI divisions were given priority over the company's resources, to the extent that safety teams were ordered to stop making any demanding use of company infrastructure, ordered instead to operate so minimally that they were merely "keeping the lights on."
Those safety teams, meanwhile, were receiving about 10,000 valid fraud reports from users every week, but were – by their own reckoning – ignoring or incorrectly rejecting 96% of them. The company responded to this revelation by vowing to reduce the share of valid fraud reports that it ignored to a mere 75% by 2023.
When Meta roundfiles and wontfixes valid fraud reports, Meta users lose everything. Reuters reports out the case of a Canadian air force recruiter whose account was taken over by fraudsters. Despite the victim repeatedly reporting the account takeover to Meta, the company didn't act on any of these reports. The scammers who controlled the account started to impersonate victim to her trusted contacts, shilling crypto scams, claiming that she had bought land for a dream home with her crypto gains.
While Meta did nothing, the victim's friends lost everything. One colleague, Mike Lavery, was taken for CAD40,000 by the scammers. He told Reuters, "I thought I was talking to a trusted friend who has a really good reputation. Because of that, my guard was down." Four other colleagues were also scammed.
The person whose account had been stolen begged her friends to report the fraud to Meta. They sent hundreds of reports to the company, which ignored them all – even the ones she got the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to deliver to Meta's Canadian anti-fraud contact.
Meta calls this kind of scam, where scammers impersonate users, "organic," differentiating it from scam ads, where scammers pay to reach potential victim. Meta estimates that it hosts 22 billion "organic" scam pitches per day. These organic scams are actually often permitted by Meta's terms of service: when Singapore police complained to Meta about 146 scam posts, the company concluded that only 23% of these scams violated their Terms of Service. The others were all allowed.
These permissible frauds included "too good to be true" come-ons for 80% discounts on leading fashion brands, offers for fake concert tickets, and fake job listings – all permitted under Meta's own policies. The internal memos seen by Reuters show Meta's anti-fraud staffers growing quite upset to realize that these scams were not banned on the platform, with one Meta employee writing, "Current policies would not flag this account!"
But even if a fraudster does violate Meta's terms of service, the company will not act. Per Meta's own policies, a "High Value Account" (one that spends a lot on fraudulent ads) has to accrue more than 500 "strikes" (adjudicated violations of Meta policies) before the company will take down the account.
Meta's safety staff grew so frustrated by the company's de facto partnership with the fraudsters that preyed on its users that they created a weekly "Scammiest Scammer" award, given to the advertiser that generated the most complaints that week. But this didn't actually spark action – Reuters found that 40% of Scammiest Scammers were still operating on the platform six months after being flagged as the company's most prolific fraudster.
This callous disregard for Meta's users isn't the result of a new, sadistic streak in the company's top management. As the whistleblower Sarah Wynn-Williams' memoir Careless People comprehensively demonstrates, the company has always been helmed by awful people who would happily subject you to grotesque tormets to make a buck:
The thing that's changed over time is whether they can make a buck by screwing you over. The company's own internal calculus reveals how this works: they make more money from fraud – $7 billion/year – than they will ever have to pay in fines for exposing you to fraud. A fine is a price, and the price is right (for fraud).
The company could reduce fraud, but it's expensive. To lower the amount of fraud, they must spend money on fraud-fighting employees who review automated and user-generated fraud flags, and accept losses from "false positives" – overblocking ads that look fraudulent, but aren't. Note that these two outcomes are inversely correlated: the more the company spends on human review, the fewer dolphins they'll catch in their tuna nets.
Committing more resources to fraud fighting isn't the same thing as vowing to remove all fraud from the platform. That's likely impossible, and trying to do so would involve invasively intervening in users' personal interactions. But it's not necessary for Meta to sit inside every conversation among friends, trying to decide whether one of them is scamming the others, for the company to investigate and act on user complaints. It's not necessary for Meta to invade your conversations for it to remove prolific and profitable fraudsters without waiting for them to rack up 500 policy violations.
And of course, there is one way that Meta could dramatically reduce fraud: eliminate its privacy-invasive ad-targeting system. The top of the Meta ad-funnel starts with the nonconsensual dossiers Meta has assembled on more than 4 billion people around the world. Scammers pay to access these dossiers, targeting their pitches to users who are most vulnerable.
This is an absolutely foreseeable outcome of deeply, repeatedly violating billions of peoples' human rights by spying on them. Gathering and selling access to all this surveillance data is like amassing a mountain of oily rags so large that you can make billions by processing them into low-grade fuel. This is only profitable if you can get someone else pay for the inevitable fires:
That's what Meta is doing here: privatizing the gains to be had from spying on us, and socializing the losses we all experience from the inevitable fallout. They are only able to do this, though, because of supine regulators. Here in the USA, Congress hasn't delivered a new consumer privacy law since 1988, when they made it a crime for video-store clerks to disclose your VHS rentals:
Meta spies on us and then allows predators to use that surveillance to destroy our lives for the same reason that your dog licks its balls: because they can. They are engaged in conduct that is virtually guaranteed by the enshittogenic policy environment, which allows Meta to spy on us without limit and which fines them $1b for making $7b on our misery.
Mark Zuckerberg has always been an awful person, but – as Sarah Wynn-Williams demonstrates in her book – he was once careful, worried about the harms he would suffer if he harmed us. Once we took those consequences away, Zuck did exactly what his nature dictated he must: destroyed our lives to increase his own fortune.
If you'd like an essay-formatted version of this post to read or share, here's a link to it on pluralistic.net, my surveillance-free, ad-free, tracker-free blog:
Internally, Meta has made plans to reduce the fraud on the platform, but the effort is being slow-walked because the company estimates that most it will ultimately pay in fines worldwide ads up to $1 billion, while it currently books $7 billion/year in revenue from fraud. The memo announcing the anti-fraud effort concludes that scam revenue dwarfs "the cost of any regulatory settlement involving scam ads." Another memo concludes that the company will not take any pro-active measures to fight fraud, and will only fight fraud in response to regulatory action.
