Submitted by ziq admin in meta (edited )

No one is above the ToS, including (especially) admins, so I want to have an open dialogue about this and hopefully it will help /u/Tequila_Wolf understand why this rhetoric is harmful to women and why it reinforces structural oppression when they dismiss important feminist issues (women's reproductive rights).

This is the comment in question:

It's been interesting watching people care about this person as a US liberal reproductive rights hero in the same week that nobody gave a shit about the revealing of forced sterilisations of migrants at ICE detention centres.

White liberal feminism strikes again.

A user linked to a reddit post (on a brocialist sub) as an example of similar rhetoric and I do see the similarities between this comment and the above anti-feminist comment made on raddle. One tries to erase black people and the other tries to erase women, both by bringing up another group and pretending group 2's suffering somehow invalidates group 1's suffering.

It's not acceptable to dismiss the struggle for feminism and the hard battles fought by women to secure reproductive rights just because the state committed an atrocity against migrant women. It blames women for the crimes of the state. Blames women for the suffering endured by women.

It's a classic example of toxic whataboutism and it shouldn't be an argument made on raddle because it demonises feminism and basically shames (USAmerican) women for caring about their own lives, suggesting their lives and struggles don't matter as long as x suffering or x atrocity exists. It erases those fierce battles fought by generations of feminists and dismisses any woman who cares about her reproductive choices. It's sadly a cruel and misogynistic mindset, and it's a form of victim-blaming since it blames women for forced hysterectomies imposed on women by the empire.

Someone I care about left raddle a long time ago because she was attacked for talking about her rape, so this sadly isn't an isolated incident.

I'll leave you with the words of one of the users who pmed me and hope everyone who replies to this post or the linked comment will consider their words very carefully first.

It used to be “why do feminists not focus on women in the Middle East who have it worse than them?” to get women to stop asking for equal pay or abortion rights. Now it’s this. Literally no feminist I know is saying we shouldn’t care about forced hysterectomies in ICE facilities. In fact, my sample set of women I know have people equally upset about those as they are concerned that they and their daughters will lose their rights to have abortions.

14

Comments

The submission is locked. You cannot post new comments.

An_Old_Big_Tree wrote

Alright. So I hope I’ve adequately looked into this. There’s plenty chance I’m wrong somewhere and in that case I am happy to be corrected. I definitely don’t mean to dismiss the issue of reproductive autonomy in any way, it is a massively important issue, and I recognise that emotionally impacts people in an intimate way. I stand by what I said, so I am hoping that it will help to clarify.

I don’t think that what I have done is whataboutism at all, given my general understanding of what that is. What I said is the basics of what any regular critique of white liberal feminism looks like: “Why is it that there is excess of care given to this “feminism” and not that feminism?” That is real critique. If what I did is whataboutism then so far as I can tell, so are critiques of white liberal feminism generally.

I was not directing it at anyone on raddle at the time and did not indicate that - there was no overt white liberalism happening. What I was doing was noting white liberal feminism that I had been watching (mostly on Facebook).

Why have I been understood as attacking feminism and not the thing I said I was attacking, white liberal feminism?
I am not sure why it is not clear that my concern is with the whiteness and the liberalness of the “feminism” represented by a significant cog in the biggest anti-women machine in history. I am not sure if people here understand RBG to have given them any rights or anything valuable whatsoever. I do not believe that anything that can merely be legislated away is politically resilient - it is flimsy and false. I do believe that RBG could only do what she did because there were huge feminist movements doing real and valuable work. Those movements are who I will never dismiss as having worked hard for feminism, and they are all I care about in this broad context. So far as I can tell, RBG is the bird shit on the tip of of the worst part of an iceberg of feminism, and I don’t care at all how much she worked or not for what she believed in - it is diametrically opposed to what I believe in, even though reproductive autonomy is a shared value in an abstract sense.

It's not acceptable to dismiss the struggle for feminism and the hard battles fought by women to secure reproductive rights just because the state committed an atrocity against migrant women.

So far as I can tell, I’m not doing that at all, and I hope that I can express what is important to express here. I think that the liberal rights frameworks are fundamentally oppressive. I’m pretty confident I have have expressed versions of this multiple times on this site over the years, while considering rights and human rights generally. I believe rights frameworks within our globalised system do and always have created in-groups and out-groups for whom the rights apply or don’t, but not only that, the rights of the in-group actually depends on the continued existence of targeted out-groups. In our current world, that in- and out-group divide is regularly around nationality and skin colour. Which is to say that the whole US empire, which is inseparable from its rights framework that people fought and suffered for, a framework has nothing to do with actual feminism located in people and movement, is actually oppositional to and does come at the expense of the well-being of women who are in the out-group.

Supreme courts don’t give rights, they gatekeep them, and the whole thing needs to be abolished. This is the same general logic behind Indigenous Action's Voting Is Not Harm Reduction.

It blames women for the crimes of the state. Blames women for the suffering endured by women.

If I blame anything for the suffering of women it is the whole system, including white liberal feminists who are coopted to it, regardless of how hard they fought for their white liberal feminism (i.e. a seat at the master’s table).

a form of victim-blaming since it blames women for forced hysterectomies imposed on women by the empire.

White liberal feminists are complicit, they are systemically on the side of empire.

I believe that there are no liberal heroes and that RBG was anti-women, because liberalism is. Intentions and hard work mean nothing. That is how systemic critique works. Liberals think that they are good people. I don’t think any of this is controversial here.

It used to be “why do feminists not focus on women in the Middle East who have it worse than them?” to get women to stop asking for equal pay or abortion rights.

As is hopefully clear by now, I am not asking people to drop their fight for reproductive autonomy because there is some more important cause. I am saying that RBG and the genuine fight for reproductive autonomy have little to do with each other, and that disproportionate care is given by white liberal feminists to causes that they believe affect them, which is part of the standard critique of white liberal feminism. I’m calling for a genuine feminism that is intersectional, decolonial, and anti-authoritarian.

This is what I think, and from the best I can judge at the moment those of you who saw an anti-woman position in what I said need to work on your decolonial theory as well as do more thinking about how you relate to rights as given by authorities, because I think those thoughts should be present with you always.
I am confused about why people assumed I was anti-women, so much that I feel I may have missed something, or perhaps it was how I said it. Insofar as I shamed anyone for caring about their own lives I would appreciate if someone who is willing could help me understand in a less general sense what exactly made that happen, because it was not my intention at all, and I would like to guard against that in future.

I am happy to be wrong and to learn. This is the best I have at the moment, but I learn all the time.

12

bloodrose wrote

You just added "white" and "liberal" in front of feminism and attacked it. The reason RBG is getting a LOT of media attention is the very real not existential threat of the loss of a basic human right. A human right that affects all women, not just white women. If you really looked at it, you could say because white women are on average richer than those of color that this issue would affect them even less because they will be more likely able to afford to fly to Canada for an abortion or birth control pills (because they want to take that from us women, too).

You are using intersectionality to attack people caring about intersectional issues.

I honestly thought you were lashing out because you were angry at RBG for good reasons and didn't like seeing that people cared about her passing. Your response of digging in has saddened me. I thought it was gonna be an "oops, I didn't mean to use bad faith tactics, I'm just mad." :(

8

ziq OP wrote (edited )

You just added "white" and "liberal" in front of feminism and attacked it.

That's my reading of it too. Obviously it's not just white liberals who will be affected when the court that has the authority to outlaw family planning is filled with misogynistic male judges appointed by a known rapist.

And even if it were just white liberals who were at risk, potentially millions of women being violated by laws passed by those handful of men (including at least one known rapist who got away with gaslighting his victim on an international stage) isn't something to make light of, whatever their politics.

American women are terrified of this overwhelmingly-male court's power to abuse them, and collectivising and attacking them as "white liberal feminists" when those fears are at their most heightened due to the death of one of the three women justices is just obtuse...

But then doubling down on that obtuseness by misapplying decolonisation:

those of you who saw an anti-woman position in what I said need to work on your decolonial theory as well as do more thinking about how you relate to rights as given by authorities

That's just cruel. American women (on raddle or elsewhere) not wanting the state to deny them their bodily autonomy aren't doing colonialism... Wanting to maintain control of your body is just basic survival and it doesn't make you culpable for the crimes the state commits against other women.

It took me 2 days to finish reading their response because it felt so discomforting, and sadly it only got worse. I hope they better understand your perspective after having a couple days to think it over.

1

bloodrose wrote

Yeah, this bit

those of you who saw an anti-woman position in what I said need to work on your decolonial theory as well as do more thinking about how you relate to rights as given by authorities

reminded me of people who passive-aggressively say

I'll pray for you

It feels like an attack that is meant to keep them in the superior position and doesn't actually mean anything in the context of the argument/discussion. I purposely ignored it as, at best, useless to the discussion. At worst, it is as you say, attempting to make women fighting for basic survival culpable for the crimes the state commits against other women.

I feel like the response we received was deliberately pulling away from the accusation so as to water-down the accusation. I chose to ignore most of the arguments as 1) I'm too damned lazy to have multiple side arguments 2) I shouldn't have to jump through additional arguments to discuss the point and 3) I wasn't done with the first discussion.

3

An_Old_Big_Tree wrote

I don't think I've made myself understood at all, and I can't tell why.

I'm not talking about rights within the US. I'm talking about a planetary scale. I'll try to come back to this ASAP, I just didn't want to seem to ignore you after responding to ziq.

1

bloodrose wrote

To me it looks like what happened was you engaged in whataboutism, got called on it. Tried to say you didn't and added a whole bunch of reasonable arguments about issues that aren't related to try to to obfuscate what happened.

6

existential1 wrote

As far as I can tell, some people view a comment on reproductive rights to be something that is not to be contextualized with other things. It is inarguably a critical right, not even just as human right even though most people seem to not view these rights as inherent for animals or plants.

RBG's defense of American women's reproductive rights (and women's rights in general) also inarguably seemed to be contingent on conservative views of citizenship. I don't see why this is controversial. Its just reality. She was good on some issues in a way that over time became more obviously narrow. And that is why it seems to be classic white feminism. Its a logic that fights for self interests and lifts up others so long as they cant be differentiated from white women. It isn't particularly unique to RBG or white feminism either, it's a characteristic that seems to apply to those with power and proximity to it over others. Which makes it very odd for a defense of the legacy of a goverment official or political situation based on a government official's death to cause so much consternation, especially here. Is not the anarchist take that government's don't have the authority to make such decisions for people anyway? Also, my family is in several states where reproductive procedures are already nearly impossible. I have young cousins that are alive only because the a-word was not able to be performed given their location and means...and that's in the US today in largely Black communities in the south. Which is why they aren't worried about losing rights they already didnt have. Which is also why the concern can be framed as a white concern...since the concern wasn't there for my folks when they needed it. And thats the reality in the US.

Lastly, I think people are emotionally stressed for very good reason and slightly more sensitive given the times. So nuance isn't a given these days. Lastly lastly, RBG wasn't even close to as radical as Thurgood Marshall, she's the woman equivalent of Obama. She's a really smart centrist that looks progressive because conservatives have been shifting further and further right.

5

bloodrose wrote

Literally no one is defending RBG.

4

existential1 wrote

The first paragraph and first line of the third pararagraph describe what people seem to be defending in my own words. RBG isn't mentioned in those bits.

The RBG portion is the 2nd paragraph and last line of the 3rd. Those serve as what I think TW tried to express in their own words and sentiments.

I commented under TW's post here just cuz it was unanswered at the time...not having to do with your take at all.

But addressing your take...I believe adding "white" and "liberal" in front of feminism is a meaningful distinction that provides context necessary to understand TW's take. Also, I don't view TW's statement to be negative "whataboutism" either as I believe intersectional critiques and analysis can very well be used to explain disparities between otherwise similar identities. Which the last sentence of your first paragraph seems to demonstrate you also believe (where u talk about Canada and such). I think maybe the difference is I assumed this is what TW meant and you would've preferred they be more explicit about spelling out this level of distinction. And that difference is what I was talking about in the first two sentences of the last paragraph of my previous comment.

Sorry for shitty formatting and not using quotes, I'm on mobile and phone is trippin.

4

bloodrose wrote

Because pitting white women and women of color against each other is the true intersectionality. I'm so glad you've taught me my lesson.

6

existential1 wrote

I don't think we have a common basis of definition of intersectionality if that's your take. Your take seems to assume that the distinction isnt made a reality by those who identify with those labels and judges TW, or myself in this case, as "pitting" white women and against women of color as though it is something to be ideated and has no basis in lived experience. If it has a basis in lived experience, I can't pit anything. It either does or doesn't exist and I can acknowledge it or not. And acknowledging doesn't mean blowing out of proportion, it just means understanding it exists and has implications. I'm sorry I have memories of conversations of family weeping because they can't get the care they need and being livid with the white people (women included) in their state that made their situation what it was. I'll take your previous sarcasm as reason to exit here. Just wanted to give my personal experience to juxtapose what you seem to be insinuating as some intellectual positioning in which I have the power to harm the liberation of women of color by pointing how that white women have historically been complicit in their condition. I'll see my own way out.

6

bloodrose wrote

No, sorry, I was just mad. What I should have said was:

I think critique of intersectionality is reasonable and fine. It just shouldn't be in response to a feminist issue. It is it's own, separate critique. It's valid and worth discussing but not as a response to a feminist issue. Much like talking about the rape of men is valid, it isn't a valid response to talking about women being raped.

I also should have said I'm sorry for the situation your family and friends have been in. I was just talking to my husband the other night, saying we need some kind of underground railroad to fund peoples' flights to other states so they can get abortions.

Sorry, I lost my temper because I feel like everyone is bending over backwards to see things from TW's point of view and I'm not being given the same courtesy and I'm not good with jealousy/anger. I apologize for being flippant.

6

existential1 wrote

It's all-good. And I'd say the quoted bit is fair. There are apt times and places for all things...except archy.

5

ziq OP wrote (edited )

liberal rights frameworks are fundamentally oppressive

Dismissing family planning as "liberal rights" is part of the issue. We don't live in an anarchist utopia, and women being able to get abortions and birth control isn't something that should be scoffed at just because it's not full liberation for every being on the planet.

It's still incredibly important to women living in the empire's capital that they be able to maintain control over their own bodies and not have the state deny them that control. That's not a "liberal right", it's every woman's autonomy, every woman's ability to survive without being forced to breed, and it shouldn't be dismissed as being "liberal" because that only invigorates the fundamentalist Christian right as they destroy more women's lives by stripping them of their agency.

Saying it's "fundamentally oppressive" for women to want to maintain their freedom of choice and not have it taken away by the state is all kinds of wrong.

White liberal feminists are complicit, they are systemically on the side of empire.

This is the other issue, you're using "white liberal feminist" as a catch-all attack against family planning and women's liberation in general. You're not really talking about "white liberal feminists", you're talking about every woman in that country who depends on family planning clinics and certain legal rights for survival. Even if you were only talking about "white liberal feminists", they are still women and are still understandably terrified of losing their autonomy right now. There's no evidence feminists, liberal or otherwise are saying they don't care about migrants having their autonomy violated. The news about the migrants has been deliberately kept out of the mainstream media so few Americans even know about it.

Supreme courts don’t give rights, they gatekeep them, and the whole thing needs to be abolished. This is the same general logic behind Indigenous Action's Voting Is Not Harm Reduction.

No one is defending courts, the issue is you're coming off as dismissing women as "white liberal feminists" for caring about family planning. It's easy to say "just abolish courts" but these women don't have any ability to do that, and they'd rather not be denied autonomy over their own bodies in the meanwhile. When women hear someone say their autonomy doesn't matter because they're liberals or white or because (strawman that they don't care about migrant women), they'll understandably be upset.

Haven't read your whole comment, might reply with more later.

5

[deleted] wrote (edited )

3

ziq OP wrote (edited )

I don't know anything about some USA judge, I'm not an American. All I know is shitting on US citizen's reproductive rights because migrants are being sterilised is nonsensical and equating reproductive rights with "white liberal feminism" is toxic.

3

An_Old_Big_Tree wrote

So far as I can tell, I haven't been doing either of those things, I think I haven't adequately conveyed my meaning. I really tried to explain and I'm trying not to lose my mind today so I don't think I can respond further right now.

In the meanwhile, if you have energy, can you try re-read it? I'm trying to talk about reproductive autonomy as something that was made by movements and not RBG, I am not trying to say that it is worthless. I did that as part of an elaboration on how what I'm doing is not whataboutism - is that part at least clear?

If somebody understands what I'm saying can you help out?

4

mofongo wrote

I think you're going too deep to come across.

3

[deleted] wrote (edited )

2

bloodrose wrote

If you only paid attention to/read the parts about RBG, electoralism and government, then you missed the part that upset people. In my response to TW's original comment, I literally said that I loved that they were engaing in /f/Kill_Your_Idols type of discussion. This is great discussion to have.

What you missed was that in the original post they pitted two groups of women against each other. This is classic anti-feminist rhetoric and is done to water down women and non-men's demands for rights. What I took exception to was that there was a knee-jerk reaction to anti-feminist rhetoric instead of thoughtful discourse. I think if we allow these types of arguments to stand unopposed they become accepted rhetoric.

I feel like adding arguments of why one doesn't like RBG doesn't actually address the original argument made. Because it isn't about RBG. It's about the type of argumentation that allows misogyny to fester.

7

[deleted] wrote (edited )

4

bloodrose wrote

I'm starting to get too angry to reply well because it seems like a bunch of people need chiropractors for all of the bending over backwards they are doing to defend the misogyny. sigh I'll try to be a bit more polite and reasoned because you've done a fab job of it yourself. Forgive me if I fall astray.

I think critique of intersectionality is reasonable and fine. It just shouldn't be in response to a feminist issue. It is it's own, separate critique. It's valid and worth discussing but not as a response to a feminist issue. Much like talking about the rape of men is valid, it isn't a valid response to talking about women being raped.

And that above paragraph is probably how I should've responded to a few other commenters. Thanks for being kind and gentle with me so I could get to that argument. My ears are red and my face is hot from feeling like everyone is on the side of misogyny and I'm alone, except for ziq. I might just go have a good cry in a minute, after I edit some angry responses I gave...

6

Faolinbean wrote

I'm totally with you

just dead inside and unable to really participate

i know that's no comfort but you're not alone like it feels like i promise

5

Sandy wrote

Do you post here so rarely because of the misogyny?

4

bloodrose wrote

it is a comfort, actually. <3 i'm happy to be the lightning rod if i'm being helpful. :)

4

GlangSnorrisson wrote

I’m a couple days late to this thread, and I’ve got fuck all to contribute, but you’re not alone, I agree with you.

4

[deleted] wrote

2

bloodrose wrote

Actually, your kindness made me go back and apologize for being a turd and helped calm me down so it was a good comment and I appreciate it. Thanks. <3

6

ziq OP wrote

Yeah I totally agree with all that, I thought it wasn't the place to make the argument. A flippant response to a legit fear women have at the moment isn't the time for that more complicated meta discussion.

Yup. And then afterwards when people get upset about it, instead of trying to understand their perspective, they try to lecture people:

those of you who saw an anti-woman position in what I said need to work on your decolonial theory as well as do more thinking about how you relate to rights as given by authorities

Really condescending response that shows they don't really understand the complaint at all. No one is defending the judge, or the institution of the supreme court like they keep insisting, the women I spoke to are just taking issue with the way Tequila used the judge's death to attack "white liberal feminists" (but really all American women in states where abortion clinics still exist) for being scared of losing their reproductive autonomy.

3

[deleted] wrote

0

[deleted] wrote

−1

[deleted] wrote

2

[deleted] wrote (edited )

0

[deleted] wrote

2

bloodrose wrote

The tone didn't help.

How is

I'll just try to attract your attention to the type of argument you made and hope that you see that it crossed a kinda crappy line. after literally saying that it is awesome they are deconstructing RBG in other comments and places a bad tone?

How demure do women have to be to complain about misogyny?

3

[deleted] wrote

2

bloodrose wrote (edited )

Seeing as my comment was the one that compared it to reddit, which you specifically called out:

I don't think immediately comparing TW to concern trolls on reddit

I thought you were talking about my tone in my comment. I apologize if I misinterpreted who you were trying to speak to/about.

Edit to add: I very much did give TW the benefit of the doubt, assuming the argument was just a crappy argument, not a long-held belief.

3

[deleted] wrote

2

bloodrose wrote (edited )

I think critique of intersectionality is reasonable and fine. It just shouldn't be in response to a feminist issue. It is it's own, separate critique. It's valid and worth discussing but not as a response to a feminist issue. Much like talking about the rape of men is valid, it isn't a valid response to talking about women being raped.

5

[deleted] wrote

0

bloodrose wrote

Original comment. I feel like TW's response here hasn't actually addressed the original comment and has served to be confusing and obfuscating.

3

An_Old_Big_Tree wrote

Hey all, I just saw this. I'm not going to be able to respond for a while as I'll need time to consider this and give it due care, while being particularly overwhelmed with my own situation at the moment. But I will once I can.

10

An_Old_Big_Tree wrote

Hey all.

I appreciate everybody who has participated in this conversation. I'm trying to understand what is needed from me to make things right.

Currently the main concern I'm reading from u/bloodrose is the following:

It just shouldn't be in response to a feminist issue. It is it's own, separate critique. It's valid and worth discussing but not as a response to a feminist issue. Much like talking about the rape of men is valid, it isn't a valid response to talking about women being raped.

I agree with this principal, and for that I apologise.

What follows in this paragraph is not to excuse myself but to explain my thought processes, so you can understand where it came from and make your own judgements about me and my capacities/values:
So far as I can tell, I made a mistake here in not being sensitive/knowledgeable to that context, (as well as not understanding the accusation of whataboutism to mean the above critique,) which further lead me to not understand the above critique being leveled at me. I think it's a political sensitivity I haven't developed yet within the North American context. What I did was read an f/news post with no commentary from the poster and understand the conversation to be at at least at one remove from feminism rather than feminism first, and so open to the comment I made. That's my best understanding on this point, and how I understand myself to need improvement.

The second set of mistakes I made were in my response, so I'll address those:
If I had understood that the above was the initial critique I would have responded better in the first place, because the shifted frame makes everything else said fall into place. In relation to the knock on-effect of my original mistake, including affect elements (the condescension u/ziq noted), I apologise also.

If there is something I can do to make amends I hope to do that, and I am open to suggestions. What I can say is that I'll be more contentious about it in future, and in assuming that I don't have this sensitivity will work do develop it and keep my mouth shut about relevant parts in the meanwhile.

My brain is a bit fried after a week from hell, and there are possibly other things I should be addressing that I haven't, but I've tried to be comprehensive here on this point. If there's anything further I need to engage, could willing actors in this please remind me / point me in the direction I need to go. I don't intend to make work for anyone though.

3

ziq OP wrote

Thanks for addressing the issue and explaining your perspective and frame of mind, it makes a lot more sense now and I'm glad to see a positive resolution has beem reached.

4

[deleted] wrote

3

bloodrose wrote

I agree on all points. I think there should be a comfort level in talking about problematic stuff.

2

bloodrose wrote

As I said, ever too briefly, I agree with lettuceleafer. You seem to understand what the issue entails and I appreciate you taking the time to consider it. I can't speak to the others who had contacted ziq but since I openly engaged in discussion, I feel the need to openly acknowledge your response. I don't feel there is any need for amends. Simply understanding is enough for me to be happy. I appreciate you taking our views into consideration. Thanks so much.

3

An_Old_Big_Tree wrote

Thanks bloodrose - I hadn't read your response to lettuceleafer until now.

4

An_Old_Big_Tree wrote

Hey, life's gotten in the way, haven't had a chance to look at this again, I should have my first free moments around tomorrow afternoon. Sorry for the wait.

2

conquestoftoast wrote

You’ve got to be kidding me.

−4

Sandy wrote

Thats not constructive.

2

conquestoftoast wrote

Oh fuck off this is just another opportunity for ziq to act fake woke, and for the rest of y’all to get into each other’s shit because you’re choosing to nitpick tw criticizing white liberal feminism. Ffs.

−6

bloodrose wrote

Ziq is actually responding as they received messages from users. They're looking out for their users. Whether ziq is real or fake woke, they are addressing concerns users have brought up.

3

conquestoftoast wrote

Yeah excuse me if I don’t just wholesale buy into ziqs altruism given their history on here and the type of shit they apparently are still pulling.

−5

bloodrose wrote

you’re choosing to nitpick tw criticizing white liberal feminism

Nope, that's not what we're doing. We're calling out someone who used knee-jerk misogyny as a response to a feminist issue. You can call out white liberal feminism as a discussion topic until the cow's come home without being called a misogynist. You can't do it as a response to a feminist concern as a way to discredit said concern without some amount of misogyny involved.

2

conquestoftoast wrote

I get what you’re saying, I just don’t think that’s what happening here. What it looks like is a bunch of people projecting intentions on to tw with pretty much zero foundation for it.

−1

Sandy wrote

So you're just going to ignore the real misogyny brought up by bloodrose and tell us to fuck off for wanting raddle to remain a safe place for women? You're despicable.

0

conquestoftoast wrote

I’m a woman but go off. I guess I’m despicable for not intentionally misinterpreting tw’s perspective to feed whatever ego bullshit y’all have got going on. Why have enemies when I have friends like you huh?

−2

bloodrose wrote

I’m a woman but go off.

Women are not unable to be misogynist. Internalized misogyny is real.

3

conquestoftoast wrote

For sure but I can’t benefit from that misogyny structurally. What tw is talking about isn’t misogyny, it’s just pointing out the US’s very fucking real issue with white liberal feminism.

−2

bloodrose wrote

As I have said multiple times, discussing intersectionality is a legit thing to do and super welcome. However, doing it as a response to a feminist issue as a way to discredit it is misogyny. This is akin to only bringing up the problem of male rape in response to women saying they have been raped.

3

conquestoftoast wrote

I’m sorry did I miss the part where they were discrediting it or is that just another narrative being pushed into this shit show?

−2

bloodrose wrote

Apparently you did miss it.

2

conquestoftoast wrote

Good talk 👍🏻

−3

bloodrose wrote

It's, like, all in there. It's really fucking obvious. Multiple people have pointed it out. I have explained it multiple times. I'm not going to hold your hand.

2

conquestoftoast wrote

Yeah I read everything before making my initial comment. “Obvious” to you seems to mean “ if you assume I’m right before reading it you’ll see it”

−2

bloodrose wrote

Fine, I'll hold you hand.

It's been interesting watching people care about this person as a US liberal reproductive rights hero in the same week that nobody gave a shit about the revealing of forced sterilisations of migrants at ICE detention centres.

people care about this person as a US liberal reproductive rights hero

Group A: People who are worried about/care about their and others' reproductive rights

forced sterilisations of migrants at ICE detention centres

Group B: Migrants who faced forced sterilizations at ICE detention centers.

White liberal feminism strikes again.

How dare Group A care about their issue while Group B exists?

This was done not as a separate post of "hey, let's talk about intersectionality" This was done in response to the (at the time) ONLY SINGLE POST about RBG's passing. The response to the death of someone who was barely able to hold the line on abortion rights (fucking barely and I have opinions about that!) was to pit Group B against Group A to shut Group A up.

2

conquestoftoast wrote

RBG is symbolic and inherently tied to the systems she maintained, good bad or indifferent, you cant just seperate her as a person from the work that she did. In that same line, the folks who speak about her in various "common media" will not talk about what happens in the ICE detention center but will talk about RBG as a force for womankind or whatever weird ass horseshit thats being peddled. You trying to make this about pitting groups against each other when American media has already fucking chosen the white liberal narrative on all this is disingenuous at best, and intellectually dishonest at worst. You used to be way better than this. Do better, I'm not impressed.

−1

bloodrose wrote

For someone who left the site because they felt it wasn't protecting transwomen enough, it's weird that you are coming back to harass someone fighting to protect another class of unprotected people on raddle. I will admit I didn't do enough to help protect the transwomen but I don't think I actively went into discussions about it saying "that's not transphobia, you just don't understand." For what it's worth, I've been thinking a lot about clouds lately as I've been understanding the desire to implode all over the website and fighting myself to keep it in meta. Feeling a lot of empathy for her right now. But this? Coming to tear down someone who rather politely pointed out the misogynistic argument? This is not helping anyone.

I remember fondly clouds calling me out for saying something in a terf-y way and me just saying "oh shit, thanks for teaching me." This could be that kind of moment. But the misogyny on the site is so fucking rampant, it's a huge ass multiple day argument.

4

conquestoftoast wrote

Look maybe I came at you to intensely at first, and I'll own I shouldve kept my shit in check for another 5 minutes before jumping down the rabbit hole.

I left for a lot of reasons, and while a big portion of it was, like you pointed out, due to this site not giving a shit about trans women, it was also because the only people, with a few exceptions, I really respected also left. Galdra was pretty much the only person who made this site worth a damn.

Remind me again about what happened to clouds? Oh right she was banned.

I feel like I pretty clearly stated my case why I didn't believe it was misogyny, and not that you explicitly said this, but like my being trans doesnt make me less able to suss out and determine if something is misogyny or not. You mightve had a case if the person in question who died wasn't literally being discussed on a national scale and therefore different contextual elements need to be addressed.

I remember you being a lot more thoughtful and nuanced, but whatever all this is, isn't that. I stand by what i said, and I still believe you're reaching and that this entire thread was unnecessary and appears to me to just be another starting point to villainizing yet another trans person on here, because thats how all the others started.

−2

emma wrote

You know very well clouds wasn't singled out and banned for being trans.

5

Sandy wrote

You're working at erasing the lived experiences of a minority on this site and lashing out like you're a cornered wounded animal, and you accuse others of having ego?

2

conquestoftoast wrote

I’m from the south darlin, it’s just how we talk, you can push whatever narrative you want but the only wound I see is you getting pissy because I don’t buy into y’alls intentions. What happened to not blaming women for women’s suffering? You’re real quick to flip the script when it suits your narrative. See? I can twist words too.

−3

Sandy wrote

You're the one blaming women, all I did was ask you to cool it. Why go into a post about misogyny to deny the misogyny matters and accuse everyone that experiences it of being on an ego trip? You're deliberately doing harm.

4

conquestoftoast wrote

Lol the only thing I did was accuse the people in this thread of being on an ego trip. That’s the only thing you got right. I didn’t deny misogyny matters? Nor did I accuse anyone of being on an ego trip for experiencing misogyny. If you reached any further you’d tap yourself on the shoulder. Y’all in here actively twisting my words and trying to gaslight me but I’m the one “doing harm”. Eat shit buttercup.

−2