the news keeps reporting on that uni of Newcastle hazing video as “including footage of students made to drink from each other’s ballsacks” and geez that’s an ambiguous sentence i keep thinking the worst and that they’re puncturing them with straws like fucking capri suns but, it’s just like, holding out the scrotum and pooling alcohol in it like a kinda fucked version of belly button shots but oh my god the way they say it every fucking time i just hear. that they’re drinking scrotum fluid. They Need to find a more clear way to say this

sapphorb:

i read the sentence “abusers groom their character witnesses as carefully as they groom their victims” (in a comment thread in response to a “but i know [the accused] and hes such a nice man!!”) and it’s blowing my mind a weird amount even though i guess i already knew that

posttraumatickolya:

survivors of abuse have limits that can change very frequently. sometimes we’re less sensitive to triggers, while other times we’re more sensitive. 
i want to remind all of you: just because you’re feeling more sensitive today or any other day doesn’t mean you’re weak.
it doesn’t mean you’re no longer making progress. it means that today your limits are just a little bit lower than usual. 
if you panic about something that normally wouldn’t bother you at all, you’re not weak.
there are ups and downs in recovery, good days and bad days. 
you aren’t weak. you’ve made it this far, and just for that, you are so strong.
i’m proud of you.

creepycrawlycrazies:

you’re not stealing from “real” abuse victims if you’ve been bullied
you’re not faking or invading the community if your friend was your abuser
you’re not weak for being traumatized by “just” bullying

if you were bullied, your abuse was real abuse, you have the right to call your abusers what they are, your abuse and trauma isn’t lesser, and you’re strong for surviving everything you did. keep on going. i’m here for you.

warriorsdebt:

diskhorsedudes:

catnipkittie5:

aro-bendy:

I guarantee you, anyone with “x critical” wording in their blog description is either a radfem or unwittingly drinking radfem koolaid

not to be that dude but what about kink critical or people who are critical of the media they consume (like su critical). i dont think they’re drinkin the koolaid, i think its just unfortunate that radfems ruined ___ critical. (which im confused anyway because I’ve literally only seen radfems use gender critical)

Swerfs often consider themselves kink critical so that’s been ruined for me, too. That might not be the case for other people but it is for a fair amount of people.

kink-critical is 12,000% radfem koolaid and that’s just the facts.

Like I hate speaking about this publicly in any capacity for a lot of reasons but this is like the 4th example of this misunderstanding I’ve seen this week and it needs to be addressed because I feel like people are starting to lose the thread of radical feminism and its pervasive toxicity by boiling the entire ideology down to only the TERF [and occasionally SWERF] archetypes so I guess I gotta bring this discussion down on my own damn head.

So here’s the deal: the foundational tenets of radical feminism result in many wide-reaching beliefs About The World, and men, and women, and people of other genders, and the way they interact–and they have a great deal of interest in classifying those systems of interaction in ways that reinforce the foundational tenets. One of those beliefs is that men are abusers and women victims, unilaterally. They believe also that women are brainwashed by patriarchy to accept, normalize, or overlook violence done against them by men. This is tied in directly with beliefs about BDSM being a system which allows men to abuse women, and which encourages women to believe they want it when in fact they are being conditioned to accept violence. If you’re seeing some kernels of swerf n’ terf ideology in that portrayal, good–you’re getting the point. BDSM [or a straw man of it, anyway] is usually the big bad in this system of beliefs, but the formation of the argument allows it to reach well into other kinks and sexual practices, reclassifying them into some form that denies the agency of everyone involved, paints at least one party as an abuser exploiting a power system, and positions radical feminists as the noble crusaders defending Good Misled Women from Bad Exploitative Men–tying the whole thing back into the core ideas they have about the shape of the world, and also tying them into their other beliefs–what kind of people are men, for example, or what kind of behaviours women are A. not allowed to do and B. are too ignorant to realise they shouldn’t be doing [in their belief system].

Because that’s the thing about radical feminism at the end of the day. All of the beliefs are interconnected and products of the same twisted logic, usually reinforced with just enough grains of truth or plausibility to make them appealing–and to make them likely to be picked up, embraced, and circulated by people who may not recognize their origins. This is deliberate. Recruitment is a major game for radfems, and rather than hit a potentially open-minded, reasonable person over the head with “trans women are men” right out of the gate, they seed these other, tangential beliefs first. They package them in conspicuously TERF-free wrapping. They sprinkle them into communities where they’ll be taken at that face value. They market them to vulnerable people looking for a way to explain, understand, and heal from bad things that have happened to them. And then, when you’ve swallowed that key piece of their logic, they bring you into the fold by giving you more and more of the big picture, each step leading naturally and by design from the one you’ve already accepted.

And I know this, because that’s how they got me. They found a young, scared, confused, hurt person–someone who had had their interest in kink used by unscrupulous people to rape and abuse them, and someone who had been alienated from mainstream feminism due to complicated trauma reactions around those same events. It wasn’t my fault, they assured me. Of course Other Feminists weren’t equipped to understand me. They could help me heal. They could help me understand. They knew what I’d been through and they had the answers. They got me hook line and fucking sinker by using their kink-critical ideologies to exploit my trauma and vulnerability and position themselves as the answer to my pain. And then they fed me more, and more, and more beliefs that all seemed like such a natural extension of that first one, the one I was the most receptive to. It took me years to figure out what had happened and disentangle myself, and I’m still deprogramming a lot of it.

So, yeah. Kink-critical is radfem ideology down to the bones. And because I know it’s gonna come up–you’re allowed to not like kink in general. You’re allowed to be squicked or triggered by specific kinks, or even the whole affair. Complicated or even outright negative reactions to those things are well within the range of normal. But “kink-critical” as a whole, and as an unexamined belief including refusing to question where it came from, who it benefits, and what it leads to, is pure radfem bullshit. 

theauspolchronicles:

A One Nation candidate Mark Ellis resigns after allegations of kidnapping resurfaced online.

“The allegations of kidnapping were found to be invalid by a court! They came with me voluntarily! Sure, there was mentions of cutting fingers and we took their shoes, but they agreed to come with us in the end so it technically not kidnapping!” he said in reference to that time he, as a police officer, left 3 indigenous children stranded 12km out of town in 1994, which was only 23 years ago and so when he says “a 30 year old incident” we can only assume he’s getting confused about which of his multiple alleged kidnapping incidents he is meant to be defending himself against.

“Could be worse though,” he continued. “People could be focusing on how I mowed a swastika into my backyard and saluted it, then posted it on Facebook. I’m glad that one’s getting far less media attention.”

image

“But to be fair there’s just so much to choose from. The kidnapping incident, the nazi stuff, or the death threat I sent to a former employee. How can the media choose one aspect of me to focus on when I am such a complex and diverse piece of shit?”

It has become a long standing tradition for One Nation candidates to have their horrible pasts brought up to be used against them to prove their worth as controversial and despicable human beings.

Pauline Hanson has defended this selection process stating: “our voter base only wants the toughest of scum to represent them. Each candidate must prove they’re both a terrible enough person to receive massive amounts of scorn online and to be tough enough to not let it get to them. Mr Ellis unfortunately complained about the “pathetic haters” and realised the job was too hard on him and has resigned. But don’t you worry, we will continue to find the very worst of society to represent our party in the future.”