Pretty crazy that we lived through an era where some people thought it was more rude to stare at unexpected genitalia than to expose genitalia unexpectedly
FFS. If someone dangles their genitalia in front of my nose, I'm gonna stare ( if I WANT to, but unlikely at my age). Bugger rudeness. I presume the well-known liberal feminist would also think it "rude" if he put his genitalia in my daughter's genitalia without permission?? I am a feminist, of which rank or file I couldn't tell you. But girls and women need to learn to turn their shame into rage and fury, even quiet revenge. Lorena Bobbit had the right idea but she just didn't execute it well...
That's why I'm not a fan of feminism in general, I'm an advocate for female emanzipation. The erosion of women's rights began, when we moved away from women demanding emanzipation, which is the right to make our own decisions, be respected and valued as people for our individual contributions to society and have the right to live independently, and turned towards feminism, which is the demand to celebrate women for being female and behave like toxic men.
Feminism turned away pretty early from the needs of women towards transforming women into something else, that can join the struggles of men and turns us away from anything actually female.
Women's emanzipation movements wanted to advocate for women, it strived to make the value of women specific contributions like caregiving, motherhood and emotional availability seen and valued. Those movements demanded rights like voting rights, proper medical research and options for women to gain financial stability, while being entirely focused on the basic needs a woman has that men never will have.
Emanzipation was telling women if they were in any way or form feminine and chose to fulfil their natural role they were betraying women and they had to change because only men's contributions count and have value. So feminism was never about women's needs, ot eas always infested with the toxic mindset that women were somehow subhuman and of they don't contribute in the exact same way as men, they don't have value. They must be career driven, push for intellectual advances, they must be totally independent and can't have any 'weak', 'stupid' womanly urges. Oh, and of course must be promiscuous sex maniacd just like men, always available but never want a family or a husband, oh no! That's a stupid trad wife thing to overcome, and hell on her if she dares to care for her children.
And that's were feminism went wrong, that's were it betrayed women and invalidated their needs in favour of toxic masculinity for women too.
And that simister, misogynistic development is biting us today.
Because promiscuity isn't good, just because shame based rejection of female sexuality is factual bad.
Promiscuity is still extremely harmful for most women, because we pay a much higher price for that. And I'm not talking about body count, or any of those riddicuöois talking points about being used up or such nonsense. I'm talking about the natural urge and desire of women for a stable connection and safety. We are emotionally open creatures with an inherent desire to forge bomfs and connections. Our bodies are biologically designed to have a higher release of oxytocin if we have intimate physical contact, we are much more likely to get emotionally invested in our intimate partners, and promiscuity is more likely to harm is emotionally.
But feminism told us being promiscuous and turning ourselves into a commodity was women's liberation. But all it really does is heighten our availability for men, and lower their threshold to get sex. It doesn't suit women's needs.
Sexual liberation aimed at women's wellbeing would be to accept that women have sexual needs and sensuality, informing young girls how their bodies work and promote female masturbation, which is actually beneficial for women, since our arousal is triggered in our heads, not just physical stimulation. It would include making women aware how their bodies work, what feels good for them, and how to advocate for themselves in a relationship and forst and foremost: telling them they can say no for whatever reason, and shouldn't allow any man access to their bodies when they don't want to or don't feel emotionally safe and ready for intimacy.
I myself fell for the lies of feminism in my youth, and I can confirm that random sexual encounters are detrimental for the female perception of self. Ot feels entirely unnatural, and it costs is a lot to push ourselves into masculine sexual patterns. I have yet to meet any 'sexually liberal' woman, who has a healthy awareness of her needs and boundaries. Promiscuity means for women to erase her insincts and ignore the warning signs in her head to make herself more available to men she doesn't really want. It robs us of pur sensitivity for good versus bad potential partners, and trust men we barely know, and accept behaviour we would usually instinctively avoid, because it signals unsafe partners who will leave us hanging as soon as they're satisfied.
Of course, that doesn't mean that women having fun and meeting men just for intercourse is a bad thing in itself, but that's also not the same as promiscuity.
When women are aware of their needs, they usually choose reoccurring partners, who are willing to invest time in their sexual partners, even in a situationship. They usually prefer to know the potential fling, and usually prefer to move slower, even in a casual dating environment, and while they could rack up a higher body count, truly self assured women usually prefer a smaller pool of safe partners and a rather regular and controlled form of casual intimacy.
Promiscuity is throwing your natural instincts over board because girls just wanna have fun, which always includes getting rid of doubts and shame to the point of reclessness.
A man can afford that, he's by nature less vulnerable, at least on the average. But women endanger themselves doing so, and our society will still blame them if it ends badly. Even without considering our actual emotional needs and the harm it does to us even if we're not raped.
Transgender people are obsessed with misrepresenting their sex (“genitals”), so it is no wonder their misinformation is getting debunked.
Transgender advocates do not know what the word “obsession” means. “Obsession” is something disturbing and often unreasonable. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/obsession. Debunking transgender misinformation is neither disturbing nor unreasonable.
That is my cue to stop reading the article. No evidence supports the ongoing existence of patriarchy in the U.S.(https://biard.substack.com/i/194664037/authority-and-power). Patriarchy is the fantasy of feminist-ideologues, not reasonable people in touch with reality. The intended audience is ideologues, not serious people. That is okay. Substack is for all kinds.
Have you written a piece yet about “Top Twenty Fallacies That Yet Persist About Transgenderism After Fifteen Years Of Explaining This Stuff To People on the Internet”?
You have articulated so we'll what I've been trying to explain to some but never managed to get anywhere. Thank you 😊
Pretty crazy that we lived through an era where some people thought it was more rude to stare at unexpected genitalia than to expose genitalia unexpectedly
This is possibly your best yet. Thank you for speaking up for female survivors of domestic abuse.
FFS. If someone dangles their genitalia in front of my nose, I'm gonna stare ( if I WANT to, but unlikely at my age). Bugger rudeness. I presume the well-known liberal feminist would also think it "rude" if he put his genitalia in my daughter's genitalia without permission?? I am a feminist, of which rank or file I couldn't tell you. But girls and women need to learn to turn their shame into rage and fury, even quiet revenge. Lorena Bobbit had the right idea but she just didn't execute it well...
Thank you for sharing this despite it's age. I like the way you write.
This is really very good, and it resonated with me. Thanks for sharing it.
That's why I'm not a fan of feminism in general, I'm an advocate for female emanzipation. The erosion of women's rights began, when we moved away from women demanding emanzipation, which is the right to make our own decisions, be respected and valued as people for our individual contributions to society and have the right to live independently, and turned towards feminism, which is the demand to celebrate women for being female and behave like toxic men.
Feminism turned away pretty early from the needs of women towards transforming women into something else, that can join the struggles of men and turns us away from anything actually female.
Women's emanzipation movements wanted to advocate for women, it strived to make the value of women specific contributions like caregiving, motherhood and emotional availability seen and valued. Those movements demanded rights like voting rights, proper medical research and options for women to gain financial stability, while being entirely focused on the basic needs a woman has that men never will have.
Emanzipation was telling women if they were in any way or form feminine and chose to fulfil their natural role they were betraying women and they had to change because only men's contributions count and have value. So feminism was never about women's needs, ot eas always infested with the toxic mindset that women were somehow subhuman and of they don't contribute in the exact same way as men, they don't have value. They must be career driven, push for intellectual advances, they must be totally independent and can't have any 'weak', 'stupid' womanly urges. Oh, and of course must be promiscuous sex maniacd just like men, always available but never want a family or a husband, oh no! That's a stupid trad wife thing to overcome, and hell on her if she dares to care for her children.
And that's were feminism went wrong, that's were it betrayed women and invalidated their needs in favour of toxic masculinity for women too.
And that simister, misogynistic development is biting us today.
Because promiscuity isn't good, just because shame based rejection of female sexuality is factual bad.
Promiscuity is still extremely harmful for most women, because we pay a much higher price for that. And I'm not talking about body count, or any of those riddicuöois talking points about being used up or such nonsense. I'm talking about the natural urge and desire of women for a stable connection and safety. We are emotionally open creatures with an inherent desire to forge bomfs and connections. Our bodies are biologically designed to have a higher release of oxytocin if we have intimate physical contact, we are much more likely to get emotionally invested in our intimate partners, and promiscuity is more likely to harm is emotionally.
But feminism told us being promiscuous and turning ourselves into a commodity was women's liberation. But all it really does is heighten our availability for men, and lower their threshold to get sex. It doesn't suit women's needs.
Sexual liberation aimed at women's wellbeing would be to accept that women have sexual needs and sensuality, informing young girls how their bodies work and promote female masturbation, which is actually beneficial for women, since our arousal is triggered in our heads, not just physical stimulation. It would include making women aware how their bodies work, what feels good for them, and how to advocate for themselves in a relationship and forst and foremost: telling them they can say no for whatever reason, and shouldn't allow any man access to their bodies when they don't want to or don't feel emotionally safe and ready for intimacy.
I myself fell for the lies of feminism in my youth, and I can confirm that random sexual encounters are detrimental for the female perception of self. Ot feels entirely unnatural, and it costs is a lot to push ourselves into masculine sexual patterns. I have yet to meet any 'sexually liberal' woman, who has a healthy awareness of her needs and boundaries. Promiscuity means for women to erase her insincts and ignore the warning signs in her head to make herself more available to men she doesn't really want. It robs us of pur sensitivity for good versus bad potential partners, and trust men we barely know, and accept behaviour we would usually instinctively avoid, because it signals unsafe partners who will leave us hanging as soon as they're satisfied.
Of course, that doesn't mean that women having fun and meeting men just for intercourse is a bad thing in itself, but that's also not the same as promiscuity.
When women are aware of their needs, they usually choose reoccurring partners, who are willing to invest time in their sexual partners, even in a situationship. They usually prefer to know the potential fling, and usually prefer to move slower, even in a casual dating environment, and while they could rack up a higher body count, truly self assured women usually prefer a smaller pool of safe partners and a rather regular and controlled form of casual intimacy.
Promiscuity is throwing your natural instincts over board because girls just wanna have fun, which always includes getting rid of doubts and shame to the point of reclessness.
A man can afford that, he's by nature less vulnerable, at least on the average. But women endanger themselves doing so, and our society will still blame them if it ends badly. Even without considering our actual emotional needs and the harm it does to us even if we're not raped.
Christ almighty.
You should feel bad about feeling bad.
That’s it really.
It’s fucking shameful.
A powerful piece of writing.
Thank you.
Transgender people are obsessed with misrepresenting their sex (“genitals”), so it is no wonder their misinformation is getting debunked.
Transgender advocates do not know what the word “obsession” means. “Obsession” is something disturbing and often unreasonable. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/obsession. Debunking transgender misinformation is neither disturbing nor unreasonable.
Transgender advocates often post their sexual fantasies that I am a homosexual (arguably sexual harassment) (https://docs.google.com/document/d/e/2PACX-1vQxD9XPtstkGS1MmM-rUrA3vMnE32l-45bsmAEQfCxS3ir3iGvJ03ziiFfLGLpXW6Zu7kIKnjQ_yFpN/pub), like they do about Piers Morgan in the article—they are sex-pests, showing how “valid” and “respectable” transgenderism is.
“It is about the absolute patriarchal basics....”
That is my cue to stop reading the article. No evidence supports the ongoing existence of patriarchy in the U.S.(https://biard.substack.com/i/194664037/authority-and-power). Patriarchy is the fantasy of feminist-ideologues, not reasonable people in touch with reality. The intended audience is ideologues, not serious people. That is okay. Substack is for all kinds.
I’ll start: “Transgenderism and DSD’s (disorders of sexual development) are exactly the same diagnosis and that’s why they have different names”
Have you written a piece yet about “Top Twenty Fallacies That Yet Persist About Transgenderism After Fifteen Years Of Explaining This Stuff To People on the Internet”?