Messandrist⋆.˚

Pusillanimous comes from Latin pusillus ("very small") + animus ("spirit, courage"), literally meaning "small-spirited" or cowardly.

Pussy has a much more complicated etymology. Historically, it was a pet name for a cat (attested since the 1500s), and later became a slang term for female genitalia (attested by at least the late 1600s).

When pussy came to mean "a coward" (mainly in American English in the late 19th and early 20th centuries), linguists disagree about the precise pathway:

It may have developed from the sense of "cat" (suggesting someone timid or easily frightened, like a scared cat).

It may have been influenced by the vulgar term for female genitalia, reflecting sexist stereotypes that associate femininity with weakness.

Some scholars think both meanings reinforced each other.

What there is no evidence for is that the cowardly sense is derived from "pusillanimous."

The resemblance between pussy and pusillanimous is almost certainly coincidental. Etymologists do not trace one word to the other, and major dictionaries such as the Oxford English Dictionary and the Merriam-Webster do not derive pussy from pusillanimous.

Then we have the meaning which, isn't anything to do with women other than the house of the word that got certain groups up in their feelings.

Here's a practical example. Scat, poop, crap, shit. Which one is the most offensive of the set DESPITE meaning the exact same thing across the board? You don't like the sound. while the sound of the word has nothing to do with sexism and insulting women.

Truth be told I'd think you'd be proud. Pussy being used to describe a cowardly man. I've long since stopped trying to reason with feminists. You are a breed apart and make no sense.

I find it funny how their trans identity is only relevant during sex when it benefits them. If you're a lesbian or if you're just not interested in penis/males, choosing not to be romantically or sexually involved with a TIM just says soooo much about how you feel about trans people and their existence.

And so their trans identity is now a super relevant point of discussion when they feel rejected — this now causes the morals and character of the person who rejected them to be called into question, it's really coercive and manipulative.

But when trans people are able to pass well enough, or get whatever surgeries they need, this aspect of themselves is completely irrelevant. Where in any other instance, they'd be bringing up their trans identity in order to pressure and coerce people, they're now incredibly secretive about their identity.

Their transness doesn't matter, and it shouldn't matter — they manage to erase themselves. But what I don't get (I do, but just stay with me) is why? Why not disclose it unless you think that the person you're sleeping with opposes trans people and is dangerous? If that's the case, why not just remove yourself entirely?

In any other instance, associating yourself with a "transphobe" is super duper bad. You own a Harry Potter book? Evil TERF c*nt, go die!!

You actually choose to have a long-term relationship with a transphobe? Oh, well that's even worse, punch all transphobes.

Friends with a transphobe? Yup, you guessed it! Kill your local transphobe today!

But having sex with a transphobe (which I'm guessing they are if you don't want to disclose that you're trans) is actually totally fine. That says nothing about you according to TRAs.

Disclosing this part of yourself wouldn't matter if you knew that who you were having sex with was an ally, or if — and get this, you'd just leave everybody else on earth alone and be T4T.

They know that these people probably wouldn't want to be with a trans person, but we also know that if you don't want to sleep with a trans person you're apparently a "transphobe."

And so what makes engaging with a transphobe sexually more morally correct than engaging with them in a positive manner any other time?

Probably the fact that these people are all rapists.

They won't tell you this outright, but they love raping "transphobes" by deceiving them because rape is about domination. They get off on the idea that they're now dominating and using the people that are apparently supporting their literal genocide — which doesn't exist, by the way.

"Oh, you think I don't deserve to exist? You want me dead in the street, huh? You never wanted me and my filthy transness to ever make contact with your body? Well guess what? Now it is, and you haven't the faintest clue."

Having a long-term relationship (whether that be platonic or romantic) with a "transphobe" is bad because there's no deception or power dynamics, the transphobe's humanity is seen and acknowledged.

But they're okay with having sex with "transphobes" after deceiving them because the humanity of the "transphobe" isn't being considered this time, they're actively being raped.

By Aryn Baker

Mary and her family were members of the Nuer tribe in South Sudan, caught up in a vicious power struggle between the new country’s President Salva Kiir, a member of the Dinka tribe, and his Vice President, Riek Machar, a Nuer. Their war, fought largely along ethnic lines, has turned the northern part of the country into a wasteland. At least 50,000 people have been killed, according to the U.N., nearly 4 million face famine, and another 2.2 million have fled their homes, recounting tales of civilian slaughter, gratuitous torture and even forced cannibalism. Mary and her family were among the tens of thousands of civilians seeking refuge at a U.N. peacekeeping base in the northern city of Bentiu when they ran into Kiir’s forces on the road in June 2014.

The 27-year-old recounts what occurred next distantly, as if she were explaining something that happened to someone else. The soldiers told Mary that they considered the Nuers in the camps to be rebels, and that they killed her sons because they couldn’t risk letting them grow up to be fighters. “We don’t kill the women and the girls,” the soldiers told Mary. “They said they would only rape us. As if rape were different than death,” says Mary, speaking in a safe house in neighboring Uganda run by Make Way Partners, an American Christian organization that provides housing, medical care and schooling for South Sudanese orphans and victims of human trafficking. After the soldiers killed her husband and sons, five of them held her down and forced her to watch as three others raped her 10-year-old daughter. Her name was Nyalaat. When the men were done, Mary says, “I couldn’t even see my little girl anymore. I could only see blood.” Then the men took turns with Mary. Nyalaat died a few hours later. “I wanted to die too.”

Instead, Mary made it to a U.N. camp for civilians displaced by war. The conflict raged on, and soldiers—she’s not even sure from which army—were able to slip in to the camp through gaps in the fence and rape whichever women they could catch. “It happened to all of us: little girls, grandmothers. They didn’t care.” The rules were simple, says Mary, who asked that her full name not be used. “If you calm down when they are raping you, they won’t beat you. But if you resist, they will beat you, even so much to use the gun in you.”

Men’s misogynistic movements (and I’m not saying this to praise them) often appear stronger because they don’t usually exclude other men from joining. Even when they disagree, they tend to keep them within the movement and place them into different categories rather than removing them entirely. They understand that collective power requires having more people involved. These groups aren’t free of internal conflicts either; they still divide over things like ideology, race, religion, class, leadership, and tactics. However, they often prioritize a shared goal over their differences, which can make them appear more unified.

Social media is a great tool for spreading ideas, and finding community where one physically has no access to a community with like-minded people. A lot of women will discover feminism, criticism of surrogacy, prostitution, and the trans movement through online blogs and discussions. Tumblr is an accessible way to keep up with news, studies, and articles from a feminist perspective which is seen by thousands of women even if the notes do not reflect it.

The problem is that like most social media, tumblr has a circlejerk problem where many of you feel empowered to refer to women you disagree with in degrading ways, and treating separatism like an ultimatum. I've blocked many blogs calling married women with families stupid bitches or subhuman cock-suckers because a straight woman engaging in her sexuality or becoming a mother is seen as immoral.

And coming in like that when the question wasn't even directed at you is insane, even with your reply I still don't understand OP's perspective because you aren't OP, but thanks.

First off, I'm literally heterosexual, and secondly, my feelings regarding how I feel about misogynistic slurs and terms is quite easy to go look up on my page. Nevertheless, feminists that look at heterosexual relationships and sex critically in ways that don't dehumanize women far outnumber the 5 blackpilled women on Tumblr that have you all disgruntled.

The fact of the matter is that straight women aren't attracted to feminism because straight women aren't attracted to their liberation or what's needed to actually get there — and no, I'm not saying this in defense of women who see male-partnered women as beneath them.

But let's be honest, men look down on male-partnered women — any woman, actually. And yet the only reason we're having this discussions is because despite that fact, women have not felt driven away by men in the same way you're saying they feel driven away by feminism with a spine.

I don't think that the disrespect or dehumanization that some women participate is the core issue, even though it is an issue.

I shouldn't have to explain to you that since 90% of women are heterosexual women that either have been with men before, or have desired to be with men before, most feminists critical of heterosexual sex or relationships have been the women that they critique at one point or another.

You brought up misogynistic women who lurk in feminist circles supposedly driving male-partered women away, okay, but women still aren't being barred from feminism for being heterosexual lol.

Women who feel driven away by feminism for its bad apples but who simultaneously dont feel driven away by men despite males literally being their oppressors are unserious individuals, I'm sorry.

Address misogyny when you see it, but you aren't being excluded by feminism for being heterosexual any more than you're being excluded by society and men for being a woman — this is a matter of picking your battles.

You can consider their absence a loss, which is fine, but I think their reluctance to focus on the women who do speak about certain subjects in good faith speaks to a larger issue.

Again, call out misogyny when you see it, absolutely, but you can't weaponize the existence those horrible women simply because you don't want to make changes to your life — women who share their viewpoints with love do exist.

Separatists and feminists as a whole don't need to be your scapeoats.

The issue is that women are more committed to finding a golden unicorn male than they are to actually engaging with the vast of majority of feminists, whom of which are in fact very understanding. And why? Because of some individuals that get rightfully called out most times?

They'll argue with separatists because they believe that there are incredible males out there that they simply have to keep looking for, but actual incredible feminists that are in abundance have to bear the onus of keeping you from being driven away by some (admittedly, horrible) individuals?

Where's the same grace? They're already sharing their views as best as they can, but bad people do exist even when they're rightfully addressed.

Sorry, those women and their feelings are valid, but there's a gap in logic.

And if you mean that these women won't want to commit to feminism because it'll cause them to have to look at their males and see that the best they have is a benevolent misogynist, then.. lol.

You can stop acting dense, rushing in and talking about what's easy to understand or not when I'm asking OP to explain their viewpoint was done in poor taste, and I'm sure it was intentional given the tone of your entire post, quite frankly.

If I understood exactly what they meant when they made their post, I wouldn't have asked. All I did was ask them a question so that maybe a discussion surrounding their viewpoint could be had after they gave me some insight into how they thought.

And so yeah, while I'm sure OP resonates with a lot of your points, nobody's gonna ooze gratitude just because you decided to answer in a sort of obnoxious way on somebody else's behalf. OP might think it's a good gesture, I however, was completely fine with not receiving any reply.

You didn't humor me, I found myself actually quite irritated by your approach, and by extent, your entire post. "I shouldn't have to explain" and yet you did, even when you weren't asked to, and so I'm not sure why you're pretending like I'm going crazy for peeping that you viewed engaging with me as if it were some sort of chore.

And my suspicions are validated when this same attitude carries over into your newest reply, "I humored you will a well-written response that you weren't owed." Lol.. okay? Again, mama, you did me no favors, I was sleeping peacefully for the past 2 weeks without a reply, I forgot I even asked my question.

Pusillanimous comes from Latin pusillus ("very small") + animus ("spirit, courage"), literally meaning "small-spirited" or cowardly.

Pussy has a much more complicated etymology. Historically, it was a pet name for a cat (attested since the 1500s), and later became a slang term for female genitalia (attested by at least the late 1600s).

When pussy came to mean "a coward" (mainly in American English in the late 19th and early 20th centuries), linguists disagree about the precise pathway:

It may have developed from the sense of "cat" (suggesting someone timid or easily frightened, like a scared cat).

It may have been influenced by the vulgar term for female genitalia, reflecting sexist stereotypes that associate femininity with weakness.

Some scholars think both meanings reinforced each other.

What there is no evidence for is that the cowardly sense is derived from "pusillanimous."

The resemblance between pussy and pusillanimous is almost certainly coincidental. Etymologists do not trace one word to the other, and major dictionaries such as the Oxford English Dictionary and the Merriam-Webster do not derive pussy from pusillanimous.

Then we have the meaning which, isn't anything to do with women other than the house of the word that got certain groups up in their feelings.

Here's a practical example. Scat, poop, crap, shit. Which one is the most offensive of the set DESPITE meaning the exact same thing across the board? You don't like the sound. while the sound of the word has nothing to do with sexism and insulting women.

Truth be told I'd think you'd be proud. Pussy being used to describe a cowardly man. I've long since stopped trying to reason with feminists. You are a breed apart and make no sense.

Especially with the rise of girls being exposed to the internet at increasingly younger ages, we need to try and break the cycle for those girls.

Men’s misogynistic movements (and I’m not saying this to praise them) often appear stronger because they don’t usually exclude other men from joining. Even when they disagree, they tend to keep them within the movement and place them into different categories rather than removing them entirely. They understand that collective power requires having more people involved. These groups aren’t free of internal conflicts either; they still divide over things like ideology, race, religion, class, leadership, and tactics. However, they often prioritize a shared goal over their differences, which can make them appear more unified.

Social media is a great tool for spreading ideas, and finding community where one physically has no access to a community with like-minded people. A lot of women will discover feminism, criticism of surrogacy, prostitution, and the trans movement through online blogs and discussions. Tumblr is an accessible way to keep up with news, studies, and articles from a feminist perspective which is seen by thousands of women even if the notes do not reflect it.

The problem is that like most social media, tumblr has a circlejerk problem where many of you feel empowered to refer to women you disagree with in degrading ways, and treating separatism like an ultimatum. I've blocked many blogs calling married women with families stupid bitches or subhuman cock-suckers because a straight woman engaging in her sexuality or becoming a mother is seen as immoral.

And coming in like that when the question wasn't even directed at you is insane, even with your reply I still don't understand OP's perspective because you aren't OP, but thanks.

First off, I'm literally heterosexual, and secondly, my feelings regarding how I feel about misogynistic slurs and terms is quite easy to go look up on my page. Nevertheless, feminists that look at heterosexual relationships and sex critically in ways that don't dehumanize women far outnumber the 5 blackpilled women on Tumblr that have you all disgruntled.

The fact of the matter is that straight women aren't attracted to feminism because straight women aren't attracted to their liberation or what's needed to actually get there — and no, I'm not saying this in defense of women who see male-partnered women as beneath them.

But let's be honest, men look down on male-partnered women — any woman, actually. And yet the only reason we're having this discussions is because despite that fact, women have not felt driven away by men in the same way you're saying they feel driven away by feminism with a spine.

I don't think that the disrespect or dehumanization that some women participate is the core issue, even though it is an issue.

I shouldn't have to explain to you that since 90% of women are heterosexual women that either have been with men before, or have desired to be with men before, most feminists critical of heterosexual sex or relationships have been the women that they critique at one point or another.

You brought up misogynistic women who lurk in feminist circles supposedly driving male-partered women away, okay, but women still aren't being barred from feminism for being heterosexual lol.

Women who feel driven away by feminism for its bad apples but who simultaneously dont feel driven away by men despite males literally being their oppressors are unserious individuals, I'm sorry.

Address misogyny when you see it, but you aren't being excluded by feminism for being heterosexual any more than you're being excluded by society and men for being a woman — this is a matter of picking your battles.

You can consider their absence a loss, which is fine, but I think their reluctance to focus on the women who do speak about certain subjects in good faith speaks to a larger issue.

Again, call out misogyny when you see it, absolutely, but you can't weaponize the existence those horrible women simply because you don't want to make changes to your life — women who share their viewpoints with love do exist.

Separatists and feminists as a whole don't need to be your scapeoats.

The issue is that women are more committed to finding a golden unicorn male than they are to actually engaging with the vast of majority of feminists, whom of which are in fact very understanding. And why? Because of some individuals that get rightfully called out most times?

They'll argue with separatists because they believe that there are incredible males out there that they simply have to keep looking for, but actual incredible feminists that are in abundance have to bear the onus of keeping you from being driven away by some (admittedly, horrible) individuals?

Where's the same grace? They're already sharing their views as best as they can, but bad people do exist even when they're rightfully addressed.

Sorry, those women and their feelings are valid, but there's a gap in logic.

And if you mean that these women won't want to commit to feminism because it'll cause them to have to look at their males and see that the best they have is a benevolent misogynist, then.. lol.

@spagootski

You’re right. And feminists who disagree are fucking blind to the fact that men being allowed to treat female animals as property means they transfer that behaviour on to us because they ALSO see us as animals.

here's a link to @barbievspredator 's rb of a post discussing this, and heres a link to the study (the one in the post appears to be broken):

—

A TIM scared to go outside and scared to interact with people, including other men, is considered by progressives and leftists not paranoid, but reasonably fearful. It’s such a scary time to be trans, they say. There’s a genocide going on, they claim. It’s perfectly understandable that a trans woman is scared and wants his transfem spaces, his communities, his transfem specific resources.