Weaponized Femininity is Shit

Someone lamented how draining and exhausting it can be, starting a new relationship always means having to explain to another guy about why she needs to know where the security cameras are in places where she'll have to go alone at times when there aren't any other people there, and sometimes they just refuse to get it, because the only part of "sometimes men assault people" they hear is "men", and they'll immediately start defending themselves, that he personally would never assault anyone.

Then someone suggested to her, has she tried dating trans guys? Plenty of them are straight, have about the same range of personalities and interests as cis men do, and depending on her preferences essentially the only difference is that they get it. The original person hadn't considered that, and thanked for the suggestion.

Which would all be unnecessary if you just didn’t concede the radfems’ point in the first place: that hetero male attraction to women is automatically suspicious, probably inherently predatory.

If you concede that point, then various types of queer or trans people have to find a way to differentiate their own attraction to women as different than hetero male attraction. “How dare you imply that I as a butch lesbian/trans woman/male-attracted bisexual woman am in any way analogous to a hetero male in my sexual interest in women.” Since you’ve already conceded the point that hetero male attraction is bad, you’re stuck fighting a rear-guard action to prove that not all sexual attraction to women is bad, it’s only bad when it comes from cishet men–perhaps only when it comes from white cishet men because some of the more advanced woke people understand the historical atrocity of identifying black male sexual interest as dangerous.

And this discourse will never end. You’ll never effectively delineate who is ~wholesome~ when they want pussy and who is ~yikes~ when they want it. Not unless you’re going to be an out-and-out TERF who can easily cut through this issue by simply refusing to agree that trans women are women and trans men are men.

You could, of course, refuse to concede the point in the first place. You could say “no, it’s actually fine to be horny. It’s fine to want pussy. Men aren’t doing anything wrong by being sexually interested in women and pursuing sexual relationships with women.” 

Just found this old screenshot, detailing exactly what I was talking about. “Remember not to let your seething hatred of men bleed over into self-hatred just because you share a trait in common with them, uwu”

This is the kind of thing I was talking about.

I’m also going to add to this that given the intensely connected world we live in it us natural and healthy to objectify people at least some of the time because it is impossible for you to carry the compassion and care for each person you interact with on a daily basis that you would need to to NOT treat people like objects sometimes and so you know what, it’s okay to only conceive of the pretty girl in your 300 seat bio lecture as just something pretty to look at and not as Jackie Marie, equestrian fast food worker with three siblings and a dog named Applesauce, because you CAN’T keep every person you meet as Jackie Marie, it’s not possible, it’s okay to think someone is pretty and never want to talk to them or get to know them so long as thinking they’re pretty doesn’t prevent you from thinking of her as Jackie Marie, whole person, when you get assigned to a group together.

Objectification isn’t inherently harmful so long as you don’t treat people like vending machines for nudes and therapy and while we’re at it nonsexual objectification IS a thing that can also be harmful and holding up stories about, say, one sex worker who hated the work as an example of why no sex workers should be allowed to do sex work, is an example of the kind of harmful objectification radfems use all the time.

The Point: cavalierhood is a gendered subject position whose performance when done 'correctly' demands an openness to flagrant fetishisation and dehumanisation, a borderline abusive relationship to yr body and yr physical fitness, and a very literal self-sacrifice born out of an understanding of yourself as entirely secondary to your 'partner'

baby gideon dreaming of fleeing abuse & getting buff to do that. crying

the sword & muscles were forced on her by the oppressive structures of cavalierhood and indentured servitude, respectively. she is a tool of her necromancer & her house. admiring starving people bc they're skinny, servants bc they're strong, it rings the same.

+ i think it's interesting what it says about the people who do make comments about her muscles. jeannemary, coronabeth (i think?), cytherea (who was openly fetishistic)...

Amber Hollibaugh, My Dangerous Desires: A Queer Girl Dreaming Her Way Home. Found and well-substantiated on We Are All Subversives. (via wonderwomanproject)

It just read to me as cartel-y. Like “curb your expectations, boys; how dare you fantasize about a woman who shares your interests and is easy to get along with and is a raunchy bastard like you are”.

With a certain kind of jealousy over… The notion that someone might authentically be Like That. Mixed with the notion that no one could be, and it’s just pandering to men. (And that merely portraying it in fiction is dangerous precedent!)

And then… The undercurrent of jealousy over… Well, the notion that this hypothetical woman might actually get along easily with men, might have easy casual friendships and relationships.