see there you go again saying words i don’t believe you know the meaning of. i don’t believe women are “intrinsically exploited” (meaningless phrase) because of biology, and you can’t point to where i ever said that because i didn’t and that’s nowhere close to my philosophy.
I am radfem. I disagree with unilinearity. Positing "women" are intrinsically exploited for their biological reproduction presupposes women as a stable historical category to be exploited in a stable relation (of which was not stable)
https://t.co/FliOZT8PNd
“the art of debating” like ur srsly dumb. i’m not debating, that’s what blocks are for. and there is no worth in it when your opposition has no complexity. like it’s literally too predictable defaulting to the female hysteria shit to try to reassume perceived lost power.
this tweet actually perfectly demonstrates how leftist men view the oppression of women as the natural state of things. things like rape don’t even register as an oppressive tool to them.
which “love” sounds so ridiculous to apply to these periods of time and the people instead of understanding things through a sense of survival mostly, i wouldn’t do it, but she did it!
tbh i only read this to see where adrienne rich was coming from and she was being entirely real. in this proposed more “accurate” origin of the family, it’s just no possibility of being anything but a woman who loves and desires men and wants to love, protect, and support them.
The left has a serious, and I mean desperately serious, pretty much almost as bad as right-wingers, misogyny problem and we won’t make any progress unless the men reckon with it.