Posts by SpiritKrabs@spinster.xyz
(DIR) Post #A1VT91gXFk4woaD5ea by SpiritKrabs@spinster.xyz
2020-11-23T16:30:21.284943Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
Sex is never a right-not even, or especially not within relationships. When women are accused of ‘withholding sex’, they are being accused of doing something that doesn’t exist. I do not live my life ‘withholding’ my kidneys from donation, it is quite literally impossible to withhold my organs from anyone else. In fact it is abusive to accuse someone of withholding sex in a relationship; it is furthermore abusive to do any of the following:Persistently ask to have sex despite being refused.Persistently relate sex to other actions within the relationship, or use other actions to bargain for sex (“I washed the dishes can we have sex now?”). Threaten to cheat or go to a prostitute if sex is not had within a certain time frame.Sulk and ‘have a bad mood’ as a result of not having sex.Show any emotional backlash to not having sex.Threaten divorce or couples’ counseling if sex is not being had (counseling is disadvantageous to the woman usually).Push for the woman to reveal her reasons for not having sex (if she doesn’t want to, she doesn’t want to, end of).Push for or approve of, in any way shape or form, ‘maintenance sex’, which is just emotionally coerced marital rape. Now to be clear if a person is not happy within a relationship due to lack of sex, they can and should leave/divorce. However using anything to threaten or guilt a woman into having sex, including the possibility of divorce, is wrong and is in fact a signal to the woman that she must divorce for her own wellbeing. If a man cannot live with a woman he purports to love with respect and kindness without having sex, sometimes for long periods of time, then he is at best useless and at worst a huge net negative. If sex within a relationship is to be consensual, there must be no emotional, physical, financial, or social consequence to the act of a woman refusing to have sex for any length of time, for any reason that does not involve cheating. This doesn’t mean that communication should not be ongoing, but it should also be respectful, and it should be with the goal of figuring out if there is any problem that can be solved that is behind the lack of sex drive. There are medical conditions that may completely wipe out sex drive even if the woman is otherwise content in the relationship, and in those cases if she does not want to have sex then it is her right, and being a loving partner means working with that rather than finding ways to push her.
(DIR) Post #A1j3oFUwvJ90vvE3pQ by SpiritKrabs@spinster.xyz
2020-11-30T07:07:26.396985Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@lezpaulguitars @ChiLady82 @woktavia I think that explains a lot. Modeling is a very feminine profession, in that it is based on self-objectification and display. It reduces the model to a live mannequin, and the people/ industry make demands of the model with impunity-like they are deciding specifications for custom dolls. So models modify their bodies, their diets, their lifestyles, etc. for the sake of a subjective ‘look’, and their view of themselves is dependent on how they think they come across to others.Their conception of identity also rests on external display aspects, so the industry will feed on that unfortunately.
(DIR) Post #A1rofOLWuImesYmHBo by SpiritKrabs@spinster.xyz
2020-12-04T18:52:27.377820Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
I see this idea that children ‘should be allowed to do whatever they want, regardless of gender’ in gender-critical media, and I do think it is well-meaning. However it’s a bit ‘libfem’; if you allow children to do as they want, that’s certainly better than forcing anything, but it isn’t going to change much-girls will still do ‘girl things’ and boys will do ‘boy things’. Society is full of gendered messaging, and peer groups, other adults, etc. can exert a lot of pressure and groupthink. This won’t impact boys much, because male socialization is far more humane and liberating than female socialization. Girls will still be harmed, because they will internalize femininity and start restricting and suppressing themselves even assuming ideal conditions (they don’t get hit on or sexualized, femininity isn’t pushed on them and modeled for them by adult women, etc.), simply because girls want to be part of their in-group, and will seek social approval.I think it is especially important that girls are raised in environments that neutralize society’s gender role for them as much as possible, and actively promote the same breadth and depth of activities, learning, exploration, etc. as is done for boys. Basically, treat all children the way boys are treated, but sans the emotional suppression. This is also doubly important when considering that early years and play experiences significantly impact intelligence and personality, and those are perhaps the only tools women have that can’t be bested by men.
(DIR) Post #A23jFFCC8csr60dvJw by SpiritKrabs@spinster.xyz
2020-12-10T03:08:05.557260Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@terf_fret Honestly if a boy was raised like a girl is it would be called child abuse. I’m pretty sure there’s even some movie plots that use that scenario to induce horror in the audience.
(DIR) Post #A2BIqtdYCZdu4zyHuy by SpiritKrabs@spinster.xyz
2020-12-14T01:41:05.539010Z
1 likes, 1 repeats
It’s never really moved me when Indian men ‘fight’ against classism or casteism, because it’s abundantly clear that they only give a shit about hierarchies that are unfair to them. Even though I am against class and caste hierarchies as well, it rings an alarm when these men talk about how it’s the height of oppression that they aren’t able to ‘get’ an upper class/caste woman to have sex with them or marry them. Rich women are usually depicted as the ‘uptight bitch’ that needs to be ‘taken down a peg’ by the lower class male protagonist in most Indian movies/media, which blatantly reflects male fantasy. These men don’t actually give a shit about their fellow women, they just want the right to enslave all women equally. Even with so many ‘anti-racist’ Indian men I’ve seen, fantasies of ‘dominating’ the white man by owning/using the white woman (while also using the Indian woman) are very common. All of these supposedly ‘egalitarian’ men just want to be equal to other men in their capacity to own women. The thing they see as unfair about class/caste is that there are certain women who are off-limits to them, whose bodies they cannot access at will, and this enrages them. These men never fight for the right of their fellow women to escape being their punching bags and free prostitutes, only for the right of all women to be enslaved by them. And although I’m more familiar with India than the west, it seems like this trend is replicated in western ‘leftist’ men too.
(DIR) Post #A2WMSYSLBI1e0AnmF6 by SpiritKrabs@spinster.xyz
2020-12-24T01:23:03.592242Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
One argument I used to see a lot from the less libfem-leaning women when I was on reddit was this: tradcon men are usually not tradcon because they don’t want to provide even though they want women to follow the gender role of cleaning, cooking, and being a housewife/sahm. REAL trad men are good decent people and providers that don’t mind if their wife works but prefer that she stay at home and are graciously willing to ‘make it happen’. Ergo, men should first do their traditional gender roles before they demand women do theirs. This argument is incredibly misleading and dangerous, because it implies many false notions: 1: that there is in fact a way for a man who believes in traditional gender roles to be anything other than a predator, misogynist, and an evil, evil man who will ruin his spouse’s life. 2: that the trad roles are fine for women as long as the men do their trad part. 3: that cooking, cleaning, and bearing children in return for the husband’s money is, in any scenario, a fair deal. 3a: That a trad man can demand a trad woman no problem. No there is not- because the traditional gender roles are in no way equal. Men who prefer women to take on the maid role in the relationship are not decent, even if they pay for it. The female gender role demeans her, demands time, labor, and health sacrifices that can never be compensated, and explicitly lowers her authority in every domain of life. The male gender role empowers men as they earn more money, more status, and improve their health. Men who believe in trad roles do so knowing that they give them huge amounts of power over society and women. Always follow the flow of money, not fluff words and empty notions. No, being a paid maid, nanny, and prostitute for your husband is not a fair deal, because the man is building his net worth, earning potential, intellectual skill, and expertise, as well as social reputation and economic record. The woman, or rather clown, is also building the man’s net worth, earning potential, intellectual skill, social reputation, health, etc., only she is also literally decreasing her wealth, intellectual skill etc. to do this.3a. Traditional men demanding traditional women will always be wrong and evil, because they are desiring the perpetuation of a gross power imbalance between themselves and all women, not just their women. It is always the better choice to earn your own money, focus on your own career, etc. than it is to do house chores for someone who houses and financially supports you. Remember: time and health are the two real resources that once spent can never come back, and money is just a receipt for time spent. The woman giving up her time for the man’s money will never get anything but a gross loss, and men know this. That the trad gender roles demand sacrifices of time and health from the woman but not the man is not a coincidence. The idea that being a sahm or trad woman is or was ever a good or even neutral choice instead of an explicitly demeaning and disempowering one is a libfem delusion.
(DIR) Post #A2WMSbz444z4wX8SAK by SpiritKrabs@spinster.xyz
2020-12-24T08:22:30.311315Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@notaclownfish This argument works precisely because I value mothering as important work-too important to be unpaid and treated the way it is in society. Money is the fundamental unit of value, and society has women take on the unpaid labor for a reason, so that they can be kept powerless. “Respected as an important job” means absolutely nothing unless the mother has the receipt for her time, labor, and health sacrifice-i.e. money. Society and the husband can bleat about how mothering is truly honorable and great and exalted but it’s just a delusion spun of words to keep women slaving away for nothing. From the perspective of the woman, it is absolutely better to make one’s own money-I am not denying the value of mothering one’s child, and I am not denying that in the event the mother makes a prenup stating that she will get half of her husband’s pretax income during her stay-at-home tenure transferred directly to her account (and her pregnancy-related expenses will come solely from his paycheck, even if she is a millionaire), the nuclear family might work out without hurting her too much. But your scenario, where the moneymaker simply “pulls equal weight”, still disempowers the woman.
(DIR) Post #A2tsVkAPhrEIBwX8TY by SpiritKrabs@spinster.xyz
2021-01-04T16:43:19.087826Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Ismat @feralfeminist @ArtistBristol @Justwanttobreathe @PontiacWitch @Robotpuppy I have a friend who is also from one such Keralite family, and she will get no wealth from her dad’s side because they have retained the practice of passing property down only through the female line. So I think it’s possible for women to try and engineer some of this in their lives, even within patriarchy. For example having one’s own (well-paying) career, and refusing to move for a man, even a husband, would be a first step. And women can make sure they remain much closer to their own parents (geographically) compared to the man’s. They can also make sure they consistently choose their family over his no matter the occasion. And of course maternal culture, heritage, tradition etc. must be much higher priority than paternal at every step. Should women not have birth family that will be there for them then they can make sure to have a strong friend network or extended family network (doesn’t have to be more than a few people, just has to be strong) and use the same principles. Matrilocality in one’s choices is extremely important in mitigating the patriarchal power imbalance inherent in heterosexual relationships. Women should refuse to be moved, either mentally or physically, for the sake of any man (or they should take their family with them, which I have seen done). I have seen family friends who do this and they are far more successful and stable than the ones who don’t.
(DIR) Post #A2wd1hANNleiMMbqiG by SpiritKrabs@spinster.xyz
2021-01-05T21:16:33.607009Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Spaghetti_Tree Actually, sometimes all it takes is some girls being more perceptive than their peers. One of my friends isn’t overtly gnc, and she is also heterosexual, but she noticed early on that most of the nonsense that adult women and her peers shoved down everyone’s throats as ‘good things about being a woman’ were just huge copes. She noticed that she would be, objectively, in every single way, better off had she been born a man. So although she didn’t end up identifying as trans (she’s in the biomedical field so she knew better than to think sex could be changed), she definitely does feel bitter that she is female and has to deal with both biological and societal vulnerability for it. This is why I also don’t like the moronic takes of ‘radfems’ who view girls who identify as trans as ‘having internalized misogyny’ and ‘hating on girls’ etc. Those girls aren’t the ones who think femininity is good or natural, or who think that girl=brainless caricature, it’s their peers who make sure to let them know that something is wrong with them for not seeing femininity and womanhood as a good thing, for not aspiring to be the stereotypical bimbo/Barbie/object. They’re iced out by the majority of girls and adult women, and told that they are delusional for thinking that girls’ lower spatial skills or obsession with looks or enjoyment of submissiveness are socially conditioned. Additionally, girls/women are generally more socially conformist than boys/men, so it’s harder for girls who are different to find peers and network with peers like them, and they end up thinking that what the majority of girls and women say is true, and that they are so anomalous a girl that they must actually be a boy. I find that radfems are too quick to blame men and trans-identified girls for these mentalities, but what they don’t understand is that girls will put far more stock in what women and female peers say about women than what males say, so the fatal blow is delivered by women and girls confirming that the wretched state they are in is the one they like and the one that is natural to them.
(DIR) Post #A3HY2zFy6rNaqxQTmC by SpiritKrabs@spinster.xyz
2021-01-15T22:43:29.139943Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@sansa I think women's fashion is all about making women an object of someone's gaze (either their own, or another person). It's demeaning any way you look at it because 'modesty' and 'immodesty' are two sides of the same coin-they both operate under a framework of the woman's body as inherently up for consumption, especially sexual and male consumption. Even fashion that women are heavily into is about making the woman's body an ornament or addition to an aesthetic, for other women's gazes (which have been influenced by the male gaze anyway). And in the absence of other people, you become your own body's consumer. So I agree very much with your assessment that you become somebody outside yourself, judging from there. What I've found counters self-objectification is a focus on functionality, quality, and practicality (coincidentally, what men's clothing usually prioritizes). It's freed up a huge amount of my mental resources. Imo women do a huge disservice to themselves when they pretend that 'fashion' is a way for 'self-expression'-it's just an extra load that society wants women to take on in order to keep them from spending their time on honing their intellects/talents.
(DIR) Post #A3oMA2VNuoyIErYa1o by SpiritKrabs@spinster.xyz
2021-01-31T19:51:05.345439Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
What women 'enjoy' or 'like' is actually very irrelevant to the question of their liberation. Enjoyment, pleasure, happiness, etc. are all heavily malleable and conditioned by society to a great degree, especially considering how plastic the human brain is. Most, if not all things women 'enjoy' or are 'happy' doing are due to female socialization pairing certain powerful rewards (social validation, inclusion, safety) with the behaviors it wants women to perform (service roles/behaviors, feminine behaviors, display behaviors). The big flaw in liberal 'feminism' is its complete inability to realize this fact. Society has gone even further than just pairing rewards with submissive behaviors/mindsets. It has also punished and negatively reinforced those behaviors that are natural and human and good for women, by labelling them 'masculine' or even 'evil'. There are a lot of oppressive chains that women can break out of if they examine each and every one of the things they enjoy, and ask themselves not whether they 'truly' enjoy it, but whether or not men exhibit these behaviors, mentalities, and thoughts. Searching for 'true' happiness will not help women, at least not enough, because society has conditioned women to feel negative about liberating actions, and has made the taste of liberation bitter to women. To get past the aversion to liberation that has been programmed into them, women must instead ask, of any behavior, any choice, any like and dislike, what men choose. And then they must choose the same (as and when safely possible). Automatically they will find that they are reaping real benefits, benefits independent of others' valuation. This should be done when choosing careers, when evaluating how much to do for others, when placing a value on one's own time, when deciding whose name to the woman's children, etc. There is no way future women will be liberated if women constantly invest and participate in their oppression through their choices and conditioned responses. Men are not the only opponent-everyone in society is conditioned to be parasitic toward women, and women are conditioned to be hosts to not only male and female parasites, but also parasitic cultural and societal institutions. Therefore each and every tradition, trivial to large, must be resisted and reversed if it even symbolically privileges men over women. It is up to women at an individual and collective level to put this into practice in their daily lives, from the small to the big choices, and to stop investing their own time, labor, power, and energy into the patriarchy.
(DIR) Post #A3qOoyO6iVulZAidqi by SpiritKrabs@spinster.xyz
2021-02-01T22:06:22.303597Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@Ladyfat The hijab can aid a girl in certain situations, such as avoiding death, physical violence, psychological violence, etc. that is meted out to those who don't wear it. But even so it can't be anything but disempowering.
(DIR) Post #A6CQx27biyR6yygdd2 by SpiritKrabs@spinster.xyz
2021-04-13T09:03:55.480705Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
I never got what this supposed 'harm' that patriarchy did to men/boys was. It doesn't seem bad to be told 'be tough' or 'be strong'-these are good qualities to cultivate, and while in women 'tough' and 'strong' are used as synonyms for 'capacity to suffer/sacrifice/willingly swallow bullshit', in men they are used to mean assertiveness, independent sense of self, ambition, stubbornness, conviction, and physical and mental fortitude/clarity. There is literally nothing oppressive about this, and if women were taught the boys' version of 'tough' and 'strong', they would be much better off intellectually and physically than they are now. As for 'boys aren't supposed to cry'-yes, it's unfair, but not really a big deal. Male tears are respected and given far more weight than female tears. Men and boys are allowed to take out their anger, grief, stress, emotional turmoil, etc. out on women/girls, and are excused for their inherent sadism as long as it does not infringe too much on another man's right to their female punching bag of choice. Men are allowed a huge range of emotional expression and multidimensionality compared to women, both by other men and other women. Moreover, they are allowed to be volatile, to externalize their anger, sadness, and other negative emotions, with no change to their credibility, their social status, or their political/economic power. They are spared from the self-harm that is stamped into girls. Not only this, but even when men/boys go too extreme with their stress relief by harming women more than their male owners consider acceptable, the result is usually only ever an outpouring of sympathy and understanding for the male's point of view. Kindness and worries for their state and the state of their male peers is stressed, and the majority of women are all too eager to lick the boots of each and every male they can. Men and boys are treated incredibly kindly, humanely, and respectfully-from a young age they are given more autonomy, more freedom, and more respect, than girls are. They are raised without female socialization, kept away from 'girly' subculture, which allows them to flourish and develop freely, the way humans ought. Furthermore both men and women shill for men, support men, and view men as human. Both men and women feel entitled to the labor and use of women, and the vast majority of women have the opposite of class consciousness, in that they bond over 'best slave' contests and competitions, ostracizing women who don't conform to the bootlicker gender role and throwing them under the bus. Men get the benefit of solidarity with fellow men and unending service from most women.So I don't get this whole "men are oppressed by patriarchy too!1!" bullshit. They aren't oppressed by anything on the basis of their sex-they may oppress each other on the basis of class, but even the poorest man is given his own set of women/girls to enslave, use, and dominate. Men have such class consciousness that the poorest, most downtrodden man will be favored by his rich male peers over the wealthiest and most intelligent of women [examples: voting rights, property rights, education rights, literally any history of human rights recognition, etc.]. So even with regard to class, women lose, for even the wealthiest of women is subject to men; the wealthy woman's only claim to power is that of her male owner. The only way a wealthy woman can gain power over the poor man is in situations where he poses a threat to her male owner's rights to her (wealthy men only give a shit about 'defending' wealthy women when it's some sort of rape/sexual assault/threat to their property rights). So what oppression do men/boys really face from 'patriarchy'? They 'can't cry' (except for when they can, and do), while girls are taken less seriously because perceptions of female hysteria and exaggeration begin very early (doctors and adults, including adult women and mothers, take girls' pain less seriously than boys'). Girls' tears mean nothing at all-their hurts, injuries at the hands of males, exclusion, spatial limitation, stunted+horrible socialization, etc. mean literally zero, especially not when considered against the feelings of the poor little boys who couldn't help but systematically exclude, hurt, bully, hit, and rape them. And no, not being able to wear makeup/skirts is not oppression. While it is wrong to bully a boy/man because he likes these things, and certainly boys should be allowed to play with dolls etc., society punishes boys who do feminine things because it views boys as fully human, and therefore above the degrading acts of self-decoration and the intellect dulling propaganda that it shoves down girls' throats as femininity in all its forms. That society keeps men/boys away from femininity is actually a huge benefit and kindness to men's intellectual+physical development. There is no kindness that society will not give to men/boys.
(DIR) Post #A6fKS18cGuSdYupsiO by SpiritKrabs@spinster.xyz
2021-04-27T08:07:15.470378Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@Butterfly_tsuji Given the way it's going, in a few more days Ovarit users will be using the 'bodily autonomy' argument to defend porn consumption, BDSM, and women being traditional and feminine submissive wives. As long as women genuinely want to be doormats for all the societal systems, traditions, and males that oppress them, no problem! And if any woman says otherwise then she's a hard-hearted [insert string of ad hominem labels] hater who needs to 'be kind' and 'unlearn her internalized misogyny'.
(DIR) Post #A7JlLnVAWlF2cN2YSG by SpiritKrabs@spinster.xyz
2021-05-16T20:11:16.953137Z
1 likes, 1 repeats
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/019251384005003002This is an older research article on wife-beating- the conclusion: wife-beating is particularly high in societies wherein women have relatively high general status, but the husband is dominant at home. This article is relevant because it dispels the delusion that it is possible to be a 'feminist in the streets' and a 'tradwife in the sheets'. If a woman is a CEO but a handmaid to her husband, all she has done is affirm that even the most powerful women must have a male owner, and even the most dignified woman must be a slave. This also ties into why separatism is a must in all its forms: women having rights 'in theory' and 'in general' will get them nowhere if they are not maximizing the power they have in public and private both, especially at the sociocultural level. Even the women who can't completely abandon their male relations (yet) must adopt mental separatism, the way men have always done. In the western countries, egalitarianism is present legally, but the heterosexual dynamic is heavily tilted towards men, and the girly culture/propaganda that women consume by the tankful ensures that they are too stunted to even comprehend the extent of how low they sink in relationships. Feminists will call their marriages 'egalitarian' even though their marriages follow the male-dominant blueprint almost exactly. And the reason for this is lack of mental separatism: men never get into relationships with women or commit acts that would go against the status of men or the class interests of men. Men will live with women but will never do anything for women that would involve effacing themselves even symbolically. A good example is naming: Men are aware of the symbolic power that comes with naming. So they'll never voluntarily allow their children to take a name other than theirs, nor change their own names. In contrast, 'feminists' will loudly screech about their 'egalitarian' marriages, and yet:1. They take their husband's last name, or hyphenate theirs.2. Their children, whom they risk their lives to birth, have their husband's last name. And these feminists will have a hundred illogical excuses for why they're the ones to change or hyphenate their names: they'll talk about how they hate their families, how 'all last names are male names anyway, so it doesn't matter', how 'names aren't such a big deal' etc. However they will not spare even one brain cell to wonder why men don't give these justifications a tenth as often, even though plenty of men hate their families. These feminists will never have an answer to why they don't pick a new female name and make it their last name, or why they don't give their children said new names- at least not one that doesn't reduce to "I am too desperate for marriage to care about any of this." And there is the difference: for men, in marriage, no affront to their dignity is too small to fight against, and no tradition is trivial enough to tolerate being devalued by. No social norm can exist that asks men to efface themselves, to devalue their status on the basis of being male in 'return' for power on some other axis. But for the majority of feminists, anything and everything can become a 'trivial issue' when faced with the prospect of losing a man's company, or losing social approval in general. Feminists behave this way because they're socialized to view women as inherently without identity, heritage, the right to permanence, or the full humanity that men have. The only way women can jolt themselves out of this self-effacing 'tradwife in the sheets' nonsense is if they practice, at minimum, mental separatism (which will naturally lead to full physical separatism for many). The mental separatism that men practice is sorely needed for women, as that's when they'll be able to see men for what they are, and gain the ability to pursue more power on the axis of their sex, and resist any devaluation on the basis thereof. They'll learn that there's a difference between experiencing transient affection for a male, and actually being attached to the male-and that they will be much happier without attachment to back any affections. Women should be attached first and foremost to themselves and their humanity, and the humanity of their sex class. And all of this can only occur if women practice separatism in at least one of its forms.
(DIR) Post #A7NVpO7SdqJHwtsXkO by SpiritKrabs@spinster.xyz
2021-05-18T15:42:14.377119Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@ndkaldjen Agreed, but porn doesn't just 'involve' abusing women. Porn is, by definition, abuse of women. Sex acts done for money can never be consensual, so even the most 'nonviolent' porn is rape. And anyone who voluntarily views any porn is by definition a direct contributor to rape.
(DIR) Post #A7nSSQVFROwAs8dMJ6 by SpiritKrabs@spinster.xyz
2021-05-31T01:01:16.026943Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@sansa I don't think they would oppose them if there was a 'choice' (where choice means that socialization is a slight bit more subtle and there won't be overt violence). It's strange because ex-fundamentalists come much closer to condemning practices as inherently inhumane, regardless of choice-and yet they seem to lapse into dependency on emotional comfort in the end. As an ex., I used to follow an ex-fundamentalist. She went through incredibly horrible abuse by her parents+fiance, and had very sharp insights. However at some point she met her Nigel, and began spouting libfem bs. So even though her parents were rotten child abusers, they became 'good people' who just got 'brainwashed' into beating their own daughter up, and stunting her health to the point of chronic illness. She wrote a post on the utter brutality of the beatings, and then ended it all with what amounted to 'but I don't think they're abusers, they love me, so it's all good'. The final blows were when she became a BDSM shill; she wrote on how she loved her Nigel beating her up because it helped 'empower her' to deal with her chronic pain, and 'take back her body'. Then her efforts to spin a delusion in which christianity/religion could be feminist, or rational, followed. Anyone who criticized it was met ultimately with a sob story of how it was 'twisted' by men. Likewise, criticisms of islam and of the oxymoron that is an islamic feminist were labelled islamophobia. In the end, as you point out, these people are cowardly, and don't have the strength to be intellectually honest enough to acknowledge that the things they are attached to are unhealthy and anti-feminist. They are also submissive to the ideology of their social group; they get the best of both worlds-they can feel like rebels while skipping the critical thinking.
(DIR) Post #A7nSSut2TVnF6bzmYS by SpiritKrabs@spinster.xyz
2021-05-31T01:26:07.041978Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@sansa That's an excellent description of what happens-unfortunately even many who have the option to leave the environment and free themselves that way don't-they are so desperate to find the 'softer and kinder' version that they become blind to how there can be no 'softer and kinder' version of injustice, only a more palatable or better-hidden form. I agree, it's incredibly depressing, especially since more women than men seem to fall for it, and if anyone needs to avoid self-harm it's women.
(DIR) Post #A9Ukxq4Xg0wZjbt80e by SpiritKrabs@spinster.xyz
2021-07-20T23:11:20.350788Z
2 likes, 0 repeats
The 'issue' with single mothers and the children of single mothers is not the 'absence of the father', but rather the complete lack of societal, cultural, and legal support for mothers in general, combined with societal denigration and vitriol aimed at any woman who does not have a man in her life and isn't playing house with him. The reason children of single mothers, especially sons, turn out as poorly as they do is because they learn early on through society that older women are not worth respect or authority, and that female authority figures, including their mothers, are at most well-meaning nags, at worst the b****es that were responsible for 'driving the dad away'. Therefore any values that the mother tries to teach them, especially in the case of sons, are completely disregarded. It's not that the fathers aren't there to 'teach them about manhood'-it's that the good values that a mother tries to teach her sons are completely disregarded unless she can first nag her husband into echoing her words to the children. In the case of married mothers, two factors work in their favor: first, they are not the sole breadwinners, and so have much more time to dedicate into arranging their entire lives around the kids' socialization. Second, they may sometimes be able to nag their husband enough to enforce their own authority to the kids and get them to listen to her, which models at least one semi-positive male-female relationship to the children, and 'legitimizes' female authority through the approval stamp of the male, which is required in society. The single mother loses out because she neither has enough time to dedicate her entire life to nagging her kids to behave properly, nor does she have the male approval stamp that society teaches her kids is necessary for her own authority to have any weight. Human males, as a rule, do not and have not ever contributed much in the way of actual parenting, nor actual economic provision. Among most hunter-gatherers, especially those that live in and around the equator, women are the primary economic providers for their children, and the men's hunting activities are used to gain men political status across tribes/clans-in fact, hunting is such an unsuccessful provision strategy that women must offset the shortfalls of men's hunting with their own much more productive gathering efforts-at the loss of their own chances at political power. This situation has not changed today: even, or especially, in the developed countries, including the so-called 'equal' nordic countries, men assign childbearing, childrearing, and some amount of direct economic provision to the wife, which gains them the incredible amounts of leisure time needed to dedicate themselves to gaining political power, money, and networks with other men. The usage of the example of the single mother to emphasize the 'importance of the father' is therefore disingenuous, for it is not the lack of male role model that is the problem; it is the lack of male legitimization of the mother's authority, which children learn through society as the deciding factor in whether they should respect their mothers and follow her lead.
(DIR) Post #AAnSwYpOj0PtOqrddQ by SpiritKrabs@spinster.xyz
2021-08-28T21:43:23.896233Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
There is a class of women, perhaps the majority, who are of the opinion that motherhood was valued in the past, and that it is being denigrated at present by feminists. They hold that life is *so* difficult for them because they are oppressed by feminists for wanting to be feminine and suction their lips to their male master's boots as faithful wives and dutiful mothers. These women are handmaidens who show that society has been successful in lobotomizing women with only socialization as its weapon. There is no other explanation for why these women would persist in such delusion in the day and age of the internet, when the history of women's perpetual torture at the hands of male-ruled society is at their fingertips. As someone who didn't grow up in the west, and therefore observed this allegedly mother-worshipping traditional past in action, the only way the past 20+ centuries can be held as having 'valued' motherhood is if the definition of 'value' equals rape, chronic sleep deprivation, beatings, and the type of physical servitude that leaves 45 year old women with the physical and mental damages of an 80 year old man.Women were never valued as mothers, or as wives, any more than slaves were valued by their masters; just as masters may have doled out some verbal praise to their 'good' slaves, so too did society and religion engage in some verbal bullshitting about the holiness of motherhood in order to prevent women from even daring to criticize or protest the roles assigned them (for if they did, like the feminist harpies that forced these poor feminine women to vote and pursue careers and escape abuse, they would immediately be labelled as demeaning mothers and devaluing the sacred role of women). Mothers of the past were never 'treated well'-they were raped, beaten, and imprisoned by their husbands, medically experimented on by male doctors, and gaslighted left and right if they dared question anything. They were held as property by their fathers, husbands, and sons-they were given no power, authority, or wealth of their own in recompense for their great contributions to society as mothers. These things didn't happen only to some few poor women at the bottom of society-they happened to wealthy and poor women alike. Their lives were completely under the purview of the male that owned them, and they could retain ownership over exactly zero products of their labor. Women were expected to bear as many children as the husband desired-and if they died after pregnancy by rape, then they would soon be replaced by a new wife appliance, fresh from the marriage market. Even when their husbands weren't overtly violent, women who did not wish to have sex with their male owners had exactly zero options for defending themselves, because they depended on their husbands for financial support, and this was something all women knew. Therefore there was no real freedom to say no, for the married woman of the 50s, or 20s, or 1800s, or 1100s, and so on. Those women who were rebellious and did say no to their husbands took the risk of being adversely punished. The 'revered' homemakers and mothers of the West past, just as in the east and everywhere else on earth, were first to rise in their households, last to sleep, and last to eat-the most nutritious food was given to the men, then the boys, then the women and girls. 'Revered' housewives were responsible for cooking, cleaning, laundry, sewing, fetching firewood, fetching water, processing food for storage in the winter, and running a side-business as well-most women would sell produce, or goods they made/wove, etc. for extra income, if they didn't have full time jobs as cooks, servants, or midwives (if rural, then the women toiled alongside men in the fields as well). These 'revered' mothers would then have to serve their male master, have sex with him when he pleased, go through pregnancy after pregnancy until menopause, and then spend the majority of their old age nursing their aging husbands. Both of my grandmothers, who lived in India (a society that is stuck in the 'glorious past' these handmaidens are so fond of), had upwards of 10 pregnancies and six children. Their husbands never stopped raping them into pregnancy. My grandmas would have given their lives for a chance at completely separating from men and becoming 'wage slaves' (somehow, trad women think men being wage slaves is not demeaning, but women being wage slaves instead of home slaves is). Mothers have never been 'revered' or 'worshipped'-if they were, they would be the majority of politicians, the wealthy, and the stakeholders in society's decisions. These handmaidens are blaming feminists for exposing trad womanhood as the utter and complete scam it is, and for exposing how society actually treats its mothers even as it 'worships' them with a few vague propaganda pieces about how mothers are so 'important'.