She says she's technically not a radfem despite constantly reblogging radfem posts and talking highly of the movement and yet doesn't label herself because she doesn't necessarily agree with EVERYTHING radfems say (yet won't say anything specific that she disagrees with). Like lemme guess it's because she's embarrassed about the fact she'd be one of "those" radfems who acts like men are the problem men are trash etc etc while being married to one lol. Like straight women married to men on radblr already get shit but the fact that she's a bihet makes it so much worse. Also the fact that she puts bi in her bio so everyone knows she's not a boring straight woman like every other bisexual woman coupled up with a man lol

She's not the only woman on radblr like this but she's probably the most popular and it's sadly not surprising to me because her account is very much a watered down version of what you'll find posted by actual radical feminists. She's the "palatable" radfem adjacent woman that straight women/bihets can follow so they feel included in radblr. Just get so tired looking at accounts like hers, like you say all that but your man is different women should just pick better we know the drill.

i actually did not know this (or remember) so thx for letting me know… it’s funny when het partnered women need to make it known that they’re bi … are they looking for a side partner or something ? literally who cares 👎🏼

(poll 1/2)

You’re eager to criticize poor male behavior yet you also vehemently deny real-world oppression that we all suffer from? Acknowledging the wage gap and sexual violence statistics is all fun and games but deconstructing anything beyond that is somehow taking things too far? Do you not see the irony in condemning things like the cosmetic industry while degrading other women who choose not to shave?

I want to know at what point they think the oppression of women starts and stops. Do you genuinely believe that thousands of years of misogyny simply disappears overnight? Is it truly the case that your father, your brother, your boyfriend have miraculously been deprogrammed and it’s all other men that are the problem?

Op restricted the replices for the post so i will write it here.

"I'm tired of watching my sisters die"

if your first thought after millions of american women lost our right to bodily autonomy was "what's going to happen to me?" you. are. selfish. it's extraordinarily selfish to be incapable of caring about a cause that doesn't necessarily affect you. as a white person, it would be extremely easy to plug my ears and go "lalalalala" and ignore all the racism in my country, but i don't, because that would be selfish. and im capable of caring about things that don't directly affect me. why can't tras? i only hear tras talk about black people when they bring up "black transwomen being murdered" and it's usually only ever brought up to shut women up about femicide.

im tired of this selfish movement. you people rolled out a red carpet for trump because harris didn't bend her back enough for trans people. you people refused to vote. you are a part of the problem. radical feminists voted. did you? did you put your phone down for an hour to go to the voting place and vote? or did you sit on your ass and complain about trans rights and palestine while every trump supporter went out and voted? nazis voted, kkk members voted, white supremacists voted, proud boys voted, why on gods green earth didn't you?

"My very progressive wife"

Men really see women's compassion and care as something they can leverage for their own selfish desires. Misogynistic fantasy in your head on Tuesday and imploded your life by Saturday is insane. Get the fuck out of that woman's house.

I think this is a very normal ask. It's literally just "hey, what are your opinions" and I don't see why that shouldn't be welcomed in a supposed feminist space. questions drive conversation, and not everyone is of the same opinion, life experiences, or knowledge, you know?

To be charitable to the green poster, they're just answering. I do think the "is literally the most anti-punk and anti-feminist thing you can do without genuinely hurting other people" is a bit much, and I also think she's misreading the op. I read Op as asking "if you're a feminist, what are some of your general opinions on subversive make up, and here's a list of examples: goth punk emo" and green is saying "conforming to patriarchy is never punk, and make up is patriarchal."

So I think the next response from Op shows that she took it a little personal as if being called out for doing the most "anti-feminist thing you can do without genuinely hurting people," which to be fair I'd probably be a little miffed too on a first read. And I think she's trying to pull out her question a little bit more, trying to re-contextualize it so that green gets what she actually meant. But this is a casual social media site so she's being casual and social. She's saying "okay, sure, but I'm asking about make up trends that are outside of what's commercialized" but I guess the big no-no is that she said "not male fantasy." Because yes, I ultimately agree, just because it's a more subversive culture, doesn't mean it's specifically feminist, or that the trends with-in aren't dictated to some degree by male fantasy. And then of course she asks: "If a woman wants to, isn't it regressive to say she can't?" So, to be fair to Op, she never specifically asked if make-up was specifically feminist or punk. But to be fair to green, green never specifically said a woman can't wear make-up.

But this is when it goes a little sideways, because frankly neither of them were being rude-rude. But green's next response is pretty rude imo. I think the subtext is "you're a big dummy." Op is not, and Op's first ask is what actually could be a very interesting jumping off point to discuss a variety of intersecting interests for feminists. Because I'm going to be real with you, there is no "The Answer" to make-up. Just because make-up and consumerism is never specifically feminist, doesn't mean it's always specifically anti-feminist. Sub cultures like Goth can be multiple things at once - subversive, and conforming. They also don't exist solely in one way. Copse make-up isn't feminist not because it's make-up, but because it's just make-up. But, like, yeah there's an element of subversiveness within western culture. There's also an element of acceptance, as long as it stays in the agreed on designated zones. A tee-shirt can't be feminist, either. Even if the tee-shirt says something feminist-y and subversive, like idk "I hate men and I love to abort their children" or w/e. Like okay, it's just a tee-shirt. And if you didn't make it yourself, it was probably made with slave labor, anyway. So you can wear it to the feminist poetry open mic at the local coffee shop, and you can wear it to a conservative's house, and the reactions in either place don't prove much about it's effectiveness. But it is a form of self expression, it's a form of participating in our culture(s) one way or another, and women are people they do participate. They can't not. So participating with some level of intention is better than her letting life passively happen around her. It's just not one thing, which makes it interesting.

So with all that being said, I think op's response is a sassy response to feeling like they're being spoken to rudely, which I think is fair enough.

This is not fair enough, and I find it bizarre. Maybe I missed something in another comment or post, but Op didn't 1. talk down to anyone and 2. didn't insult anyone who disagreed with them. But, to be charitable to pink - I understand why some women are on edge with the proliferation of troll accounts. But my ultimate advice to any women, young or old, trying to participate in a feminist space is to know that feminism is not a "solved" thing. Women have a variety of ways to think and approach a problem, and just because two ideas are conflicting doesn't mean they can't both have some merit. And since I think Op is a genuine person, this comes across as ostracizing a woman for asking a good natured, good willed question towards feminists to incite some discussion. A thing that should be welcomed if anything.

And then this response tries to be fair to Op, but also seems completely tone deaf to what she ever said. When in any of this exchange did Op ask for validation on anything? She admitted she is in a sub culture that both men and women use make up in, didn't specify what the subculture was, and then asked "hey, what are your opinions on this situation a little outside the norm of how we normally criticism make up." Then reacted to what one person's responses were, which the first response was simply direct but the second one was dismissive and rude.

So my point is, in order to be a successful feminist, I think you need to be able to navigate conversations with women that involve thinking outside the bun without devolving into sassiness when they aren't in complete lock step with you and have a predictable amount of curiosity. Feminism is a living discipline, and this could have been a moment of a meeting of the minds and a moment of cooperation to consider multiple sides of a question. That should be the ultimate goal.

And, to circle back to complete fairness of green's first response: when women are being direct with you, and maybe even misreading you a bit, it's worth taking a beat and thinking "can I read this in a kind tone at all? and if yes I'm going to assume that was the intention" because it can help get these conversations moving in the direction of cooperation rather than fighting.

"I refuse to listen to women talking about their lived/ observed experiences because they challenge my world view and identity as an 'ally'. also I am literally incapable of not proving the point of the original post."

anyway here you go bozo:

correction, the writer's name is Jacob Tobia and the article has since been removed from Playboy's site, but here is an excerpt:

"Yet, here’s the rub: if sexual objectification is so categorically awful, then why do I want it so badly?In my academic and feminist training, I’ve been told over and over again that sexual objectification is bad. The thinking goes like this: women around the world have been treated as sexual objects instead of people. Women who, in the course of trying to run a board meeting, have been hit on by their colleagues. Or, during a job interview, have been sexually harassed. Women who have had their brilliance diminished by solely placing value on their bodies. Women whose day-to-day experiences have been marred by unwanted sexual attention, catcalls, leering looks and once-overs. This type of sexual objectification is seriously dehumanizing; it reduces women and feminine-of-center people to objects, flattening out who we are and taking away ownership of our own bodies. As such, my feminist training taught me that sexual objectification is categorically undesirable, categorically patriarchal. Therefore, we must fight against sexual objectification in any form and create a world where no one is sexually objectified again. Yet, here’s the rub: if sexual objectification is so categorically awful, then why do I want it so badly? The idea that being seen as a “sex object”–at any time, ever–is universally a bad thing is too simple, like many tenets of straightforward, non-intersectional feminism."

How do you even know if any of those were real? They could've been joking, or troll accounts, or terfs like you trying to poison the well.

Charitably, let's assume that all of those are real and 100% legitimate. So what? There are eight trans women out there who've taken misogyny and turned it into something that supports them. What does that change? It certainly doesn't prove anything.

did you watch the video? they're both transwomen who are readily admitting exactly what the op was referring to. did you read the comic? it's from Kylie Wu, who happily talks about porn addiction and experiencing euphoria boners from misogyny in almost every single comic. did you read the other writings of Jacob Tobia? The excerpt quoted wasn't a one off by any means.

You only ever linked back to the reddit comic, but I think it's especially telling that one of the top replies on it throws your whole point out of whack.

Look, I can use anecdotal evidence too!

And once again, hand-picking a few sources that make trans women look bad and using them to make sweeping generalizations about an entire population is just being willfully ignorant. None of those people speak on behalf of the entire trans community, and you and I just know that.

Not that you'll ever stop denying and coping because as an apologist it's your job to act like you're blind and act like women pulled this out of their ass but for people silently reading: It's clearly an opinion that has more than enough cultural saturation for it to be critiqued. This essay was published by major media organizations.

ALSO Hunter Schafer, the most successful working transwoman actor of her generation-shared publicly to her IG page of now several million followers (now deleted):

More academic intellectual sources of this sentiment:

Pioneering trans author Julia Serano, his works are considered essential reading for an introduction on trans perspectives, he has published several books and currently works at UC Berkeley: