138
I am tired. Can we talk about male violence without trans issues injecting themselves into the discussion?
I get that it's a definition problem. But I am tired of seeing how the discussion in the UK in the last week has moved from "women are victim of male violence" to "womxn, non-binary, femmes, whaterver, whatever with a skirt, whatever with a fetish, etc.. is victim of violence by people" and once again the conversation moved to that definition.
I was holding my breath hoping that this issue would not be derailed. Seeing the phrase "male violence" and the word "women" in terms of oppression makes me anxious that trans issue will be brought up. But I hoped for once. Just once.
Just, I am tired
Fuck you, sisters uncut. And fuck you Reclaim the street, you fraudulent "activist" group.
I am always amazed when these stories involve them not letting their bride in on the disguise pre-marriage.
Begrudgingly I must admit these women transition into male entitlement considerably more convincingly than any TIM I’ve seen performs female empathy.
Of course I’m sure there’s been plenty of people where the ‘husband’ is known to the wife and this is their way to stealth the relationship and make more money but they don’t get found out I guess and are lost or history.
Erm it was 1859… do you not think that it was a convenient excuse to get out of a lesbian relationship without being judged too harshly?
Well I see that but wouldn’t outing the former husband endanger both of you? You could always claim you never consummated the marriage.
I recognise that due to the oppression one woman pretending to be a man might make you safer but what I am kind of surprised at is the idea some of these brides were not told this is the kind of danger they were getting into. Idk maybe they were all lying but crossgender cat fishing still does happen today and in the west there is not the same risk of exposure anymore.
I’m just thinking like in some of the ‘crossgender catfishing’ cases, it seems to be a woman who is unwilling/unable to come out who pushes the other woman under the bus to save herself
We have always been capable and we will always be capable. Men are the only reason why we were unable to achieve nearly as much as we could.
Women contribute--the ones who rather a man "take care of her" than take care of herself. (The plurals are all over the place in that sentence, but it's too early to grammar).
But that's a derail. If we look at history, when women got men's knees off their necks, they were entirely capable of keeping society going. History also shows how women's freedoms, even in such circumstances, are circumscribed and limited in scope and duration. See, for instance, the feminist scholarship around women's experience during the two World Wars. There's also a fascinating book called Gender and Disorder in Early Modern Seville (Mary Elizabeth Perry) where she describes how the city of Seville operated as the commercial capital of Habsburg Spain, when commerce meant that most of the men were conducting trade elsewhere and the women were running home-base. She also describes the consequences for women of the Counter-Reformation, as their rights and freedoms were removed by religious authority.
Your user name is accurate: you're finding treasure in the sands of time! Great find, thank you for sharing.
Your username is amazing as well!!!