#girls being girls means destroying oppressive govts | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

peakblr · 5 years

Note

rad asks: 3, 10, 16

ah hey!!!!!! thanks for asking 💕💐 sorry this took so long

3. Are there any parts of radical feminism, or beliefs commonly hold by radical feminists that you strongly disagree with?

im actually having a hard time answering this ahshskshdlska i wrote a really long rambly response but i ended up justifying what i was describing as disagreeing with LOL so like. idk no widely held radfem beliefs are coming to mind, sorry im just as disappointed as you are shdkshdlsjds i hope this doesnt sound sheepish or anything. So i’ll say what i do agree with, which won’t come as a surprise to anyone probably.

i’m anti porn, i think porn should be illegal, should not exist and all of it should be destroyed, pornstars should be given justice and compensated somehow for the govt allowing this shit, and all pornographers should be considered lower than dirt and killed publicly LOL. and i don’t feel bad about that, they don’t feel bad about filming rape and selling it, having the pornstars they abuse lie about how they love it when asked. i feel the same way abt prostitutes and their pimps, that paid consent is not consent and pimps can all drop dead.

i’m all for separatism, no it would not stop men from being men, but it would save women and girls a lot of grief, hurt and scarring.

i think gender isn’t real, is used to oppress women and helps no one, and that id rather it be abolished than exist to validate some people who like gender roles, ackshully.

ive been agnostic for a long time; my mom and my brother are atheists, my dad is a deist. but i will sooner believe that the creator of everything is female, having given birth to the universe than a male. A man’s involvement in creation is his ejaculation. No more, no less. life does not begin in the testicles, or you wouldnt see all this anti abortion stuff, you would see more anti male masturbation stuff–if it weren’t mostly about using women as incubators, lol. that being said i’m pro choice clearly.

i am anti surrogacy, for similar reasons. same sex couples should absolutely be allowed to adopt, but no one has the right to have a baby except the woman who can use her own uterus for her own baby. even with infertile women, there is no justification for paying another women to rent out her uterus.

i currently am not vegan but i admire the ideas behind it, and i see the similarities between how animals and women are treated. i do know however that those who are farming this produce are not necessarily treated well either. disclaimer i know literally jack shit about it so i can’t really speak much for it either way at this moment.

i know there are trans identified, detransitioned or reidentified females who don’t like words like “mutilation” to describe the surgeries they have had to remove their breasts or to alter their privates to mimic penises, and while i don’t insist on mutilation being the word used, i don’t see how it is inaccurate and i find it hard to talk about it in a positive light, less i be endorsing that women get these surgeries to ease their discomfort with their bodies. that being said i don’t want tifs or detransitioned/reidentified women to beat themselves up and constantly regret it. it is not their fault that they were made to be so disconnected from their bodies. they did not want that, and with the trans movement there were not a lot of people telling them that there are other ways besides transitioning to deal with these feelings. i don’t see how this can be hard to believe seeing as we call it the trans cult all the time, which is an accurate name by the way.

i like the alternative spellings of woman and women. womyn, wombyn, wimmin, womxn, a mon, wom or whatever it is. i don’t currently use them myself but i love them and i don’t care how “stupid” you think it is. you know whats stupid??? the words “trans woman,” “trans man,” and “nonbinary.” “Cis woman.” yeah ill take wombyn any day rather than agree that i “identify” as a woman for not subscribing to the transgender religion.

political lesbianism is shitty, i understand some straight women don’t wanna be celibate, but dating lesbians to stick it to the men and not because you love that lesbian is selfish i think. if youre bisexual then you are also not a lesbian but by all means be a febfem or just a bisexual who does not fuck with men.

prostitution will never be empowering. make up, nails, impractical clothes, revealing clothes is not empowering, having men think you are sexy or fuckable is not empowering. you are not “doing it for yourself.” “Poly” relationships are not empowering or woke, making yourself more accessable sexually to men is not empowering in the same way that it empowers men to have sex with multiple women.

idk ive been writing this for a million years but thats some things off the top of my head that i know i Do agree with, i know that wasnt the question but i still wanted to say something lol. i realize now this answered multiple questions from that ask post so im sorry if anyone else thought of asking those things that i answered LOL

10. What’s your relationship with the term “terf”?

ah! i do jokingly call myself that occasionally, you can see it right there on my about page. but in all seriousness it’s horseshit and goes to show how narcissistic the trans movement is. I see people, newly self described radfems who haven’t figured out what the point of it all is, who try to say “there’s a difference between terfs and radfems! You can be radfem and trans inclusive!” or whatever. To which I say,

these are not two separate groups. Actual radfems are called trans exclusionary because they don’t think men who identify as women can be oppressed by women, and that having been born as a woman is not a privilege, regardless of how that woman identifies.

radfems aren’t even trans exclusive, really. While there are many detransitioned, reidentified women, there are also many who have transitioned and intend to stay that way, or who are even transitioning currently for their own reasons and comfort, while still confronting their womanhood and how they have been affected or are effected by being a woman in our society as well as how transitioning is dangerous. it’s male exclusive more than anything, and rightfully so. any problems men have are created by other men, and as one user on here put it, feminism should not be “all lives matter.”

i forgot to say this initially but being “trans inclusive” is interpreted by some to mean “trans endorsing,” that being trans is an innate thing just like homosexuality, that brain sex is real, and that there is nothing wrong with trans identified females getting surgeries they don’t need on perfectly healthy genitals, or getting hormones they otherwise wouldn’t naturally have that have life altering side effects. otherwise i would be called trans exclusive. LOL. so it really does not mean anything, ultimately.

16. How do you feel about the terms TIF/TIM?

i think they’re great. it says exactly what it means. it is much more appropriate than trans man or trans woman, and it makes it easier to talk about them with a little less word salad. the term trans man others tifs from females, and the term trans woman others tims from males. this is problematic. there is nothing differing tifs from females and tims from males outside of the fact that they are trans identified. the only differences they may have are if they have surgically and or hormonally transitioned, but it is not enough difference to make them the opposite sex, nor does it erase male or female socialization, and the benefits or consequences of being a man or a women, respectively. i worded this a lot better when i saved this draft last but tumblr seemingly ate it LOL so thats a drag. but yeah. tif/tim is great. i don’t think it should be offensive, there is nothing insulting or cruel about it. at best it is “invalidating.”

thank you for sending me these!!!! i’m sorry if my answers were unsatisfactory or hard to understand lmao i edited a lot of fluffy blabbering out of my responses believe it or not. i hope you’ve had a great day and that you’re having a lovely night 💌🌻😊

#ask

2 notes · View notes

mercedesloveless · 4 years

Text

Blog #4

Sociopolitical Art

The well known political artists Banksy, Emory Douglas, and Diego Rivera have used many different art forms to express their views on politics and use their social platform to demonstrate those beliefs. Graffiti, design, and typography have been just some of the types of art forms that these artists use. For this blog post, I found a piece of work by each of these artists that exhibit the views on some of the political issues they found important to portray.

This street art was done by the world-famous Banksy, who has become recognized as one of the most well-known graffiti artists of the contemporary art movement. He has repeatedly targeted problems with violence and war with this piece being one of them. This work depicts Banksy’s dark political sense of humor with a serious undertone of how he views war. He uses a stencil to design an outline of a little girl hugging a bomb, making for a controversial image that causes debate on whether we should be advocating for war or not. The use of the pink background shows the juxtaposition of the meaning and the happy color and emotion on the girl's face. By using a young girl to symbolize innocence and a large bomb to symbolize mass destruction and violence, this image holds a complex marriage of two sides of an argument. While always using an underlining battle against street art being ostracized, this work also brings heavy political issues to light. Ethically, Banksy is forcing the public to pick a side on what they prioritize. This art will impact people who favor violence and war more so than people who are already against it. It is meant to force people to look at this issue from different perspectives especially in countries where people are privileged enough to experience the tortures of war first hand.

Where Banksy uses graffiti for his design, Emory Douglas has used a lot of typography in his work. A newspaper called The Black Panther run by the Black Panther Party who was a revolutionary socialist political organization based in Oakland California used Douglas for his design skills. He offered a powerful voice for images that positively impacted the poor communities due to illiteracy rates. He would use terminology that was impactful and also relevant to the text so that readers would know what the context was, and could also empower the oppressed black community. This picture that was printed May 6, 1972, includes text that says “Hey, Mister, what you doin to the poor man. Lord knows you oughta quit it.” with people holding signs “Freedom now!” and “U.S Govt stop killing people now!!!”. There is a mixture of silhouette drawings and cutouts of black males and females in a range of ages with a blue-lined background. Since newspapers were predominantly black and white pictures, the blue grabs hold of the attention and add to the importance of the message being portrayed. Funny enough this poster was created nearly 50 years ago but remains extremely relevant in history. The ethics behind this image are clear and speak fluently in the field of black justice. Douglas, his collection of artwork, political work, and this specific image are crucial to the culture. He created an expressive outlet that gave an influential voice for the black community but also to educate the public if they (and often were) ignorant of the abuse of the oppressed.

Diego Rivera was also a great influencer and advocate for his political views. He was a part of the Mexican communist party and was active in movements like social realism, surrealism, and other modern art subjects. He created a lot of paintings but also worked on murals, which he often got commissioned for. This period, murals were accepted and a celebrated form of street art, because it was paid for. In 1933, Rivera created a mural for the Rockefellers in New York for the Rockefeller Center. The subject of the mural was “Man at the crossroads” and was supposed to depict how the 20th century would change socially, politically, scientifically, and industrially. The Rockefellers were very offended when Rivera painted a portrait of Vladimir Ilyich Lenin in the near front. The mural was destroyed but Rivera recreated it once back in Mexico. This mural was social realism mixed with primitive Christian art. A lot of Mexican art followed this overcrowded and overstimulating sense. The multitude of colors was important to the outcome and the largeness in scale added to the overall finish. The addition of Lenin in the painting was a rebellious act on Rivera’s part. He was knowingly unapologetic about his views and this mural proves that. He was crucial to the politics and social development of Mexico by the art he created.

Sources:

http://ahuskofmeaning.com/2011/11/the-passsion-the-majesty-and-the-

politics-of-diego-rivera/

https://www.aiga.org/design-journeys-emory-douglas#slideshow-1-5

https://guyhepner.com/banksy-art-as-a-political-weapon/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Panther_Party

0 notes