Like, I have no problem with men being gender-non-conforming in their appearance - they can wear all the lipstick and sequins they want. They just shouldn’t try to dress up as a caricature of ‘female’ with fake tits, or claim that doing so makes them a woman.
my female privilege is that i can look that terrible for free
*spends thousands of dollars on extensive plastic surgery*
*slathers self in more make-up than the average drag queen*
*wearing $$$ of corsetry/spanx/shapewear, high heels, frills, dresses, sequins etc*
*strikes a contorted pose that no one would ever strike naturally*
*photoshops end result for two hours*
"See! We are ALL NATURAL WOMEN! We’re totally prettier than you ugly females/terfs/feminists! You’re just jealous!"
been opposed to those of men. Women’s interests have been opposed by them, too: men have not willingly extended to women the rights and freedoms they have claimed for themselves. As a result, historical advances have tended to be “men only” affairs. When history concentrates
solely on one half of the human race, any alternative truth or
reality is lost. Men dominate history because they write it, and their accounts of active, brave, clever or aggressive females constantly tend to sentimentalize, to mythologize or to pull women back to some perceived “norm.” As a result, much of the so-called historical record is simply untrue. For example, Joan of Arc was burned not for heresy but for wearing men’s clothes, as were other women right up to the
eighteenth century. Florence Nightingale was never called “the Lady with the Lamp,” but “the Lady with the Hammer,” an image deftly readjusted by the war reporter of the Times since it was far too coarse for the folks back home. Far from gliding about the hospital with her lamp aloft, Nightingale earned her nickname through a ferocious attack on a locked storeroom when a military commander refused to
give her the medical supplies she needed.
We also need women’s history because so much of women’s participation is frankly denied in the ceaseless effort to assert men’s “natural” superiority at all costs. Who knows now that the owner of the Round Table was not Arthur but Guenevere, or that generations of battling queens in India and Arabia helped to make their countries what they are today? And these distortions did not only occur in our
misty, distant past. Who ever hears of the all-female crack combat battalions in this century’s two World Wars, or knows what part women played in the discovery of quasars and DNA? What of the women’s space flight program in NASA’s glory days of moon landings, an initiative suddenly and ingloriously shut down without explanation, although the women’s results were at least as good as the men’s?
Reminders of women’s centrality to the human race are also crucial; they combat the persistent sense that discrimination against women is still somehow okay. In January 2000, Time magazine hailed Gandhi and Winston Churchill as two of the three “Persons of the Century” for their wisdom, leadership and all-around worth. The accounts of the two “great” men freely acknowledged that Gandhi had habitually abused women and that Churchill was a ferocious, lifelong
antifeminist, without any sense that this diminished their greatness at all. Substitute “blacks” for “women” and “racist” for “antifeminist,” and it is clear that both men would be candidates for disgrace, not for election to the pantheon of the great."
Both Churchill and Ghandi were raging racists, especially against black people, and they are still hailed.
Like I am trying to write a matriarchal (or at least truly non-patriarchal) fictional large, technologically developed society and even after lots of research the only way it seems plausible to me is if the women taught themselves secret magic or something - something to counteract the fact that men collectively have more physical strength. But maybe that wouldn’t be true if patriarchy had never existed? Maybe there would be less sexual dimorphism? IDK I’m just really obsessed with where patriarchy truly came from and whether it’s avoidable. It’s hard not to lose hope without a true alternative.
I wonder how different human history might have been if males were generally smaller and physically weaker than females instead of the reverse.
There doesn’t seem to be much evidence for innate psychological differences between men and women so maybe men just saw the immense value to them in controlling women’s bodies, and they had the ability to do it by force, so they did.
If a girl stops eating because she has internalised the message that she is worthless unless she is thin, is that a consensual starvation lifestyle?
If a woman uses alcohol as a way to cope with trauma, is she consenting to liver damage?
If a woman self-harms outside of the bedroom to relieve the pressure of her self-loathing and it brings her temporary release, does that make self-harm a positive and empowering choice?
Then why the fuck would sexualised violence in the bedroom be any different, even if it feels good sometimes to some women?