vexingwoman

[vexingwoman]

Lately I’ve been doing this thing where when men give me shit at my job, I choose to instead speak to their wives/girlfriends/female counterpart. I had a dude today try to yell at me and I ignored him and instead spoke in a very level voice to his wife instead. He literally stomped his feet like a fucking toddler and said “stop ignoring me! I’m talking!” And his wife said “George, please use a quieter voice. You’re embarrassing me.”

[vexingwoman]

how do you deal with the presumably large volume of hate you get online?

Surprisingly, I don’t actually get that much hate on here. And the hate I do occasionally receive is always oddly detached and unsophisticated. For example, anonymous askers saying they hope I either kill myself or get raped to death.

It always lacks any direct criticism of my character or intelligence or opinions, which any torrent of hate should contain in order to be somewhat effective. But for someone to anonymously send “rope yourself cunt” to a woman they’ve never met and know next to nothing about? They might as well shout it into the void. That’s really how I imagine it.

It’s so generic and impersonal that it hardly registers as hate. All it actually reveals is that I angered someone who couldn’t meaningfully counter anything I said, so they had to resort to anonymous vulgarity. And most of the time my only reaction to those messages is little more than a puzzled smile.

#answered asks

[vexingwoman]

“The world taught woman nothing skillful and then said her work was valueless. It permitted her no opinions and then said she did not know how to think. It forbade her to speak in public, and said the sex had no orators. It denied her the schools, and said the sex had no genius. It robbed her of every vestige of responsibility, and then called her weak. It taught her that every pleasure must come as a favor from men, and when to gain it she decked herself in paint and fine feathers, as she had been taught to do, it called her vain.”

-Carrie Chapman Catt, 1902

#radical feminism #misogony #sexism

[vexingwoman]

One of the things that makes arguing with men so much more draining than arguing with women is the unequal distribution of credibility and contribution.

Somehow, whenever I argue with men, it always falls upon me to both prove my own claims, and to disprove his, while he does neither; his only obligation seemingly to dole out whatever ungrounded assertions he conjures up on the spot. Somehow, it is always wordlessly established that anything I say is false until proven true, while anything he says is true until proven false.

This same dynamic happened again over on tiktok, when a man claimed women are just as violent as men. Automatically, almost as if by muscle memory, I offered up the usual statistics on male depravity: men constituting 99% of rapists, 99% of mass shooters, 98% of killers, 95% of serious domestic abusers. And his only response was to say those statistics were wrong. No elaboration; wrong simply because he said so.

I already knew how the entire conversation would pan out: I’d give him my source, he’d find a reason to discredit the source, then I’d scour the internet to find a source that suited his standards, which he’d inevitably find a reason to discredit too.

So instead I simply said, “Prove the statistics are wrong.” And that was the only thing I responded with henceforth: prove it, prove I’m wrong, prove you’re right. Thus reversing the dynamics and positing that anything I said was true unless he demonstrated otherwise; unduly putting all the onus on him while I did nothing other than decide whether he was convincing me of claims thoroughly enough—and if he wasn’t, it just meant I was winning, of course.

He blocked me, and so far so have all the other men I’ve used this approach on. I don’t know whether it’s because they couldn’t actually disprove my claims or because they couldn’t stand to be treated the same way they treat women in debates. But I think more women should do this. Stop wasting energy proving your points to men, and start making them prove theirs to you.

#radical feminism #misogny #sexism

[vexingwoman]

How come lesbians are expected to give dick a chance, but trans women aren’t expected to consider the impact male socialization has in their mindset and the ingrained male entitlement they show when saying women are bigoted for not dating them?

#radical feminism #tras are mras

[vexingwoman]

girlypop I have a question about your post with the rancid ass take about what jobs men apparently should no longer take. What the fuck do you actually expect men to do?? Because if we go with your suggestion to kick men out of all professions where they might encounter a woman at some point, the only option left would be to stay at home and do nothing all day while the wife does literally everything, which in my books is the exact opposite of feminism (equality) but okay pop off ig 💀

Terfs: ugh men are so shit and stupid and do nothing all day

Men: do a reputable job that helps people

Terfs: ugh how fucking DARE they

Like make it make sense girl

The common denominator among the professions I listed in that post wasn’t simply that men “might encounter a woman at some point.” The common denominator was men, either in positions of authority or asymmetrical power dynamics, having guaranteed and unsupervised access to highly vulnerable individuals.

Men themselves repeatedly demonstrate that these are not positions which they are worthy of when they commit atrocity after atrocity against the individuals under their supervision.

And you know, I could the take time to really showcase why excluding men from these professions is necessary. I could dole out the usual statistics on male depravity, and how it unequivocally spikes when men have access to women who are either undressed, unconscious, isolated, mentally handicapped, or underage. I could mention the frequency of male morticians raping corpses, or the frequency of male prison guards sexually exploiting female inmates, or the frequency of male therapists molesting or fantasizing about their female patients.

I could mention all the Larry Nassars of the medical world, like the male anesthesiologist who raped countless unconscious women, or the male doctor who carved his initials onto women’s abdomens during C-sections, or all the male gynecologists who have been caught taking pictures of women’s vulvas during exams. I could even bring up the fact that in most of these professions, you already have the option to choose a female provider, because other people besides evil radical feminists like myself recognize how catastrophic it can be to give men of authority unsupervised access to highly vulnerable individuals.

But it would all be futile, because at the end of the day, I’m never going to be convinced that naively giving men the benefit of the doubt is ever worth increasing the risk of female victimization, even by a minuscule amount. In reality, assuming the worst in men is often the safest and most reasonable approach, no matter how hurtful your ego may find it. And if that offends you so much, take it up with the men who created these fucking circumstances.

#radical feminism #answered asks #female separatism #gender critical #misogny #sexism

[vexingwoman]

When I was on anonymous venting sites, I came across a homosexual guy and a homosexual girl who had both been sexually abused as children, and who both had female perpetrators.

Both of them discussed a deep sense of shame regarding their homosexuality, and how they were mortified of the idea that others would attribute their homosexuality to the fact that they were child sexual abuse victims.

It was the first time I really noticed that homosexuals can never simply be recognized as victims of sexual abuse in the same, uncomplicated way that heterosexuals are. For homosexual people, it seems that whether their abuser was of the sex they're attracted to, or the sex they're not attracted to, the sexual abuse will always be blamed for either making them gain or lose attraction to the sex of their abuser.

#radical feminism

[vexingwoman]

My sweet, sweet kitty. My angel. My baby.

[vexingwoman]

"We are here to defend ourselves and our children - all we stand for against all we have lost".. "We have seen so much."

The school yard in Port Sudan has transformed into a combat training site for women and girls, where they learn drills and how to operate AK47 machine guns. Gathering daily, they prepare for the ongoing conflict against the Rapid Support Forces, turning a once vibrant place of education into a symbol of resilience.

(x)

#save

[vexingwoman]

every day i thank internet femboys for revolutionizing gender expression and teaching us that you don't need to be masculine to be violently misogynistic and racist

#y chromie chronicles

[vexingwoman]

Referring to JK Rowling, of course. Interesting how these unhinged cultists never conjure up similar, overly detailed rape and torture scenarios about conservative men whose opposition to trans ideology stems from homophobic and misogynistic views (like Matt Walsh, Ben Shapiro, or Jordan Peterson).

Interesting how these rape and torture scenarios are reserved exclusively for the one woman whose opposition to trans ideology stems from radical feminist and gender abolitionist views.

#radical feminism #gender critical #radblr #terfblr

[vexingwoman]

I got you girl

‼️ATTENTION WOMEN IN MY PHONE‼️ -

can someone provide me with papers that show the high percentage of males who have violent crimes compared to women?

it’s for a paper pls fellow radfems!

#radical feminism #y chromie chronicles

[vexingwoman]

Wait if you just got accepted into a uni, are you a recent high school graduate or just a mature student?

I’m a transfer student. Meaning, I just earned my associates degree in college, and now I’m going to a university to work on my bachelor’s :)

#answered asks

[vexingwoman]

I’ve enjoyed over-analyzing fiction through a radical-feminist lense with you all on here, though unfortunately I have gravely eroded my ability to fully immerse myself in fictional narratives anymore. I now struggle to view characters as representations of people or simple plot devices, and instead painstakingly view them as mere vehicles to explore either the author’s or audience’s unconscious biases in regards to sex and/or sexual orientation dynamics. Basically, consuming fiction now feels like reading an essay or critiquing a social theory, rather than entertainment. I have lost my ability to suspend my disbelief, in a way. If that makes any sense.

#radical feminism #whump

[vexingwoman]

isn’t it fucking weird how women birth their own oppressors?

[vexingwoman]

I got accepted into my top-choice university today, with a merit scholarship (which I don’t know anything about yet). It’s good news, though I just feel very nonchalant about it. Maybe because one of the administrators had told me early on that my acceptance was almost guaranteed due to my GPA. Now I don’t know if I should even bother applying to all the other schools I was considering anymore.

[vexingwoman]

hi sorry (one of the previous wumph anons): this is completely random and there’s no need to answer this but… you said you got a lot of anons on the topic. What was the general consensus on the whole phenomenon among them?

Just to contextualize this ask: I recently mentioned how the whump community (known for romanticizing the extreme anguish, torture, and trauma of fictional characters) has an abnormally high amount of members who identify as trans men. And more interestingly, that almost all the characters whose anguish this community romanticizes are male as well. Many radical feminists have subsequently discussed why this might be.

I can’t say there is much of a consensus at all. Most theories I received as to why this community almost exclusively romanticizes the anguish of male characters were vastly different, and at times, outright contradictory. However, here are the most common ones:

-It’s a homoerotic fetish. This is an obvious and uncomplicated conclusion to draw; most members of the whump community are simply girls who fetishize male homoerotic dynamics. This effectively explains why the whumpee, the whumper, and even the caretaker are most frequently all male characters.

-Readers have too much compassion for female victims. Many radfems expressed that female anguish is too reflective of reality—especially considering most whump themes are forms of abuse that, outside of fiction, females are the primary victims of. The result is an uncomfortable degree of realism in which female readers may involuntarily project themselves onto the victimized female character. Therefore, replacing the victimized female character with a male helps to dilute the degree of realism and create a necessary distance between the reader and character.

-Readers lack compassion for female victims. Other radfems including myself feel that whump consumers fixate on male victimization because female victimization is expected, eroticized, and trivialized—meaning, female-coded anguish is only recognized as horrifying and emotionally compelling when experienced by a male character. Essentially, female victimization titillates the audience, but male victimization is treated rightfully as a horrific and traumatic incident. Thus, the appeal for male victims is an obvious conclusion; only then is trauma and violence treated as it should and only then is the victim truly treated as a victim.

-Male victims are an intriguing reversal of gendered expectations. Self-explanatory. A handful of radfems stated that seeing a male character in a vulnerable, victimizing, or compromising situation might be an intriguing reversal to the assertive and combative male character archetype. This is a convenient answer, except that it fails to explain why the abuser (or whumper) in these scenarios is still male and not female, considering that a female abuser would also constitute as an intriguing reversal of gendered expectations.

-Male characters are generally more compelling. Again, some radfems have stated that male characters are simply better written, but I find this another highly convenient yet fallacious theory. In my opinion, this is an oversimplified analysis in which female readers fail to consider how deeply, unconsciously, and invisibly their internalized misogyny actually runs, and instead choose to project that internalized misogyny onto the author. I elaborate more on this here.

-Male victims are vicarious revenge for misogyny. This was the rarest and most conflicting answer. Only three radfems expressed that seeing male characters in victimizing situations operates as a form of imagined revenge for either the male character’s machismo or the machismo of real-life men. This is unconvincing not only because of the obvious fact that female readers adore these victimized male characters, but also because the main appeal of this genre appears to be sympathizing and rooting for the male victim. An anonymous asker articulated the issue with this theory quite nicely:

In conclusion, it’s a highly controversial but fascinating discussion. I’ve enjoyed everyone’s commentary so far, even if I disagree with some of it. And I’ve tagged all posts related to this discussion under #whump on my account, in case you want to read through them and form your own opinion.

#apologies if this was a mess! i really don't know if this makes any sense. #they connect with the female victims position but that stops them from seeing her as a person. so they feel compassion but also dont. #it all comes back to the idea of women being seen as a symbol #men are offered individuality and humanity so its far more satisfying to 'whump' them whereas women are consigned to the 'female' role #femaleness snaps them out of the fantasy either way #instead of 'reclaiming' the violence to make it enjoyable they run from it and eliminate women from the idea of suffering and violence #whump