♀

me: damn why am i always so tired

united states of america

no offense but how can one claim that men aren’t entitled to sex or to women’s bodies and in the same breath say that they support full decriminalization? 

Let me describe to you what kind of world gender abolitionists actually dream about: When a child would be born it’s biological sex, being an actual physical reality, would be noticed but not a single assumption regarding the child’s personality would be made based on it. Growing up, children would be free to chose what toys and clothes they prefer. If they want to play with toy trucks or dolls, it would be fine either way. If they want to dress comfortably or in frilly colorful dresses, it would be fine. Regardless of the child’s biological sex. Certain personality traits would not be encouraged in members of one sex and discouraged in the other. Females would be free to be strong, brave and assertive and males would not be shamed for being shy and soft spoken. No female child would be called a tomboy and no male child would be called a sissy. No kid would ever be bullied for what we in our gendered world call “gender expression”. When children would reach puberty they would still be free to dress how they want. Females would not be pressured to wear clothes that reveal their bodies and males would not be shamed if they chose to. Everybody would have a free choice of accessories, which would not be categorized as “men’s” or “women’s” but people could should whichever they liked. Or chose to not wear accessories at all if that’s what they are more comfortable with. Females would not be pressured to keep their bodies slim, soft and hairless. Males would not be pressured to be athletic and muscular. Expectations of femininity and masculinity upon the body would not exist and affect negatively people’s relationship with their own body. Everyone could choose a career without fearing stigmatization within that particular field because of their biological sex. The most important thing would be competence and not what someone has between their legs. Domestic work would not be considered “women’s work” and would be shared equally between the sexes. Biological sex would only be thought about when relevant. Like for example in regards to issues surrounding sexual activity, reproduction or treatment of medical conditions related to a person’s biological sex. And everyone would be free to be themselves without ever having to worry about gender expectations. Nobody would feel the need to repress certain parts of their personality and exaggerate others in order to fit into some gender role that is being forced on them. Gender abolitionism is not about restricting people’s choices but about giving them greater freedom.

most cis women–radscum especially–simply cannot get over it when they see trans women who are prettier than they are.

radical feminism: physical beauty is irrelevant to a woman’s worth as a human being

Emirbayer further differentiates the relational perspective from substantialism in a way that draws attention to the difference between what we would consider a weaker notion of relationality and more profoundly relational thought. Citing Dewey and Bentley (1949: 108), he argues that approaches that are concerned with inter-action between participants who remain intact and unchanged by the interaction are, in fact, a version of substantialism, because they begin with a notion of pre-existing entities ‘among’ which relations happen (Emirbayer, 1997: 285). Participants are seen as bounded and unchanging entities who remain that way throughout the interaction, each independent of the existence of the others. Herein, lies the fundamental difference between interactional substantialism – which we see proposed as ‘relational’ in much recent sociology of personal life – and the transactional approach that Emirbayer names ‘relational sociology’. In contrast, trans-action does not assume a final attribution to the elements or other detachable entities. In the transactional or relational approach, the units involved in transaction derive their meaning, significance and identity from the transaction. The basic unit of analysis, then, is not the constituent elements of reality, but rather the dynamic, as an unfolding process (Dewey and Bentley, 1949; Emirbayer, 1997) For example, one of us (Ketokivi, 2008) suggests that the disruptive event of the loss of a partner by death or divorce can either be seen as a separation of two distinct persons whose ways part (substantialist understanding) or as a process in which not only the relationship, but also persons, undergo a transformation that does not leave them the same.

this is it people, the epitome of womanhood: pampering and facials!

Splitting is manifested on a cultural level through societal demands that women love men no matter what they do to us and that women devalue women no matter how good we are. Dr. Edna Rawlings and I have asked students in our classes to describe characteristics of people whom they’ve heard called “man-haters” and “woman-haters.” A man-hater is a woman who speaks her own mind, a feminist, or a lesbian: in other words, a woman who has her own voice and doesn’t put men first is a man-hater. By contrast, students are unable to recall any situations in which they have heard someone being called a woman-hater. We ask, “Are rapists and wife batterers woman-haters?” They answer, “Just because a man rapes or batters women doesn’t mean he hates women.” The differential definitions ascribed to terms that should have equivalent meanings suggest an enormous collective need both to deny male hatred of women and to derogate independent female action (which might be used to expose expressions of that male hatred). –Dee Graham, Loving to Survive, page 142-143