.png)
This article here by Rachael Healy concocts the idea of a “Femosphere” by conflating different branches of women's online relationship discourse into one , while drawing a tepid, try hard comparison to online incels - who commit mass terrorist shootings - and Andrew Tate followers - who seek to emulate the way he trafficks children into sex slavery for profit.
The woman who wrote this is embarrassing , cringe and naive .
I saw this too! It’s so crazy to me that FDS is considered extreme or even “dark,” when all we do is tell women the truth about men’s exploitative practices, reject liberal feminism, and work to protect women from harm.
This isn’t dark - it’s light and truth.
And here we go, buried deep in the article: “There’s no evidence to say that the femosphere is radicalising its members in the same way as the manosphere, which has seen members committing shocking acts of real-world violence and fuelling populist political movements.”
We women have to protect ourselves. We are not violent. Why are we criticized for keeping ourselves safe from bad men? Oh ya, the patriarchy.
The author either has serious internalized misogyny - or she’s just going for click bait engagement on her article.
https://youtu.be/PuXaFC2XMjo?si=nqP-7Y09GwrRnoyJ
This gender confused wokie is soooo triggered. Even saying " what about men with disabilities? They are broke!" Like, duh, should we date out of pity now?
every now and then a pickme pops up to remind everybody that not all men and bash FDS and 4B and whatever other female-centered movement/community for bringing attention to male depravity. they really do think we are just as bad as incels. it's almost as if they couldn't imagine people living their lives differently from what men have set under patriarchy. hmm...
these women are half the problem with society. men are the other half. together, they make the patriarchy a self sufficient system.
we have the right to create our own strategies to survive and protect ourselves from men.
LOL I read this article as well, I found it somewhat amusing (though very misleading in the title and beginning of the article).
Amusing, because the author was trying to paint it as a bad thing that women are recognizing how the majority of men are worthless to us, in particular in the post-third wave feminism era (which taught women that we can do it all - we can be the ones to birth and raise a family AND be the ones to hold a successful career, all at the same time). And I kept nodding along and going “yes, yes that’s true, most men ARE worthless to us, now that they have nothing to hold over our heads.”
“… to counter women’s lesser earning power (the gender pay gap in the UK was 14.3% last year), rather than fighting for pay equality, a man should provide for a woman financially”
Right, because fighting for pay equality and gender equity has worked SO WELL in the past decades of feminism. Why shouldn’t we seek maximum benefit when dating men? This is something men have done for thousands of years, and continue to do. They don’t care about fighting for pay equality, so until they do, we should fight for maximum benefit for ourselves when involved with men for any reason.
Ah.... the Guardian. I'm not going to read it. Sounds liek a straight up pick me desperate for male (and fellow pick me) approval.
HNY all.
It reminds me of the "good old times" when we were trending on Reddit regularly, and there were tons of posts where men were losing their minds over us. They were extremely aggressive and spread so many lies about FDS. That’s one of the reasons the mods chose to close the subreddit—because they could no longer stop men from infiltrating this female-only space.
It's full of useless articles out there