We comment (without spoilers) on TikTik's viral 51-part series 'Who TF Did I Marry?' by ReesaTeesa, an American working-class woman from Atlanta. Discussion includes how marriage is increasingly an ambition of and gateway into the middle-class, sibling rivalry for twins, why your place in birth order matters, and the relationship between failed narcissism and  psychosis. Plus, how social media is the new frontier for marketing, but also a playground for con artists,  how to really find security as a woman, and that realising drinking water is good for you is fairly recent knowledge...

We put forward a central problem for feminists working with the Left, specifically, that leftwing men are not at all leftwing when it comes to women and women's issues. Suddenly, leftwing men, who dominate the Left both in numbers and ideologically, are no longer social constructionists, but total naturalists and genetic determinists, immediately when it comes to women. We give our experiences of leftwing men discussing much more seriously, and with far greater care, the rights of animals than women's rights. 

We also put forward our case for socialist policies that would transform society for the better for women, and point out the only leftwing men who sympathise with these also tend to have sympathies for radical feminist analysis. Leftwing men are typically not even social democrats regarding the issues of women. This episode also includes how you should not bring your whole self to work, womb envy, the greater alienation women live under, the lie of male provision and protection, and the need for the state to bypass men in providing salaries for housework as a bid to end the possibility of women's dependence on the family. 

We conclude that the suggestion from some feminists that feminists should work with the Left, is actually asking us to work with the equivalent of the far-right on women's issues. We cite a historical example to support that conclusion by discussing how the far-Left in Germany during the early 20th century did not support the right to vote for women, claiming women's suffrage should only be a concern after the revolution. Today, if the vote were removed for women, we speculate that most socialist men would overwhelmingly dismiss it as a bourgeois concern.

We delve into the sheer impossibility of feminists working with the political Left, overwhelmingly due to the door being slammed by the Left itself. By the Left we mean socialist groups and communist parties, not liberal or rightwing Labour parties i.e the radical leftwing who have a vision to liberate humanity (given that feminists seek to liberate women). It is difficult to get across just how hostile the Left is to any women wanting to organise as women, who believe women are oppressed on the basis of sex, or simply want to highlight and tackle male violence. 

We provide our reasoning as to why the Left is so hostile to feminists, why some feminists on the Left still think it's possible (typically because they're married to leftwing men they wish to view as nice / kind), and give some examples of women being expelled, ostracised, and attacked, for simply pointing out male sexual violence or wanting to organise politically as women. We also discuss how today's Left is a collection of defunct sects either having been taken over by, or looking to be taken over by, anti-social men who want their own personal fiefdom, which goes someway to explaining why the Left is so beset by sexual scandal. 

At the end we issue a challenge: a leftwing gender critical feminist should run the experiment of joining a socialist or socialist-leaning group, announce her politics around Trans, bring up male violence, and offer her analysis against prostitution and surrogacy, then report back as to how long she lasted before being ousted.

We mount a defence of Taylor Swift and the barrage of inane criticism she receives online. We discuss 'girl culture', how fandoms are replacing sub-cultures, and how people and things idolised by women are so often denigrated. Now that Swift's lawyers have intervened to stop the sexualised 'deep fake' images of her appearing on Twitter, we hope that could force new legal restrictions on sexual 'deep fake' images of women generally. We also discuss the backlash from some Conservatives against Swift, how she could likely run for President and win, and together imagine that once installed as our Dear Leader, we promise to listen to and learn more about her music in order to leave the Swiftian re-education camp complex.

We discuss the age of consent laws in the UK (currently 16) and present the case for the age of consent being raised to 18, with a two-year close in age exemption (so that teenagers could date other teenagers of a similar age i.e their peers). We also try to 'steelman' the arguments against. Could there be feminist arguments against raising the age of consent? Would it have to be the same for same-sex relations? And what are the impacts around other 'age of majority' legal questions, such as smoking, joining the army, etc. We also discuss why it's predominantly the lumpen underclass and upper class wealthiest elites who seem to openly believe child sexual abuse is normal and harmless. 

This episode discusses polyamory and makes the claim it is ultimately not a real relationship formation by any measure, representing instead a lack of boundaries and disorganised attachment styles, subsequently making it a performance attractive to sexual losers i.e those considered to be 'low-value' within the sexual marketplace. We begin with the early radical feminist critique of monogamy and marriage, before turning to the present day to consider how it is chiefly the absence of sexual ethics on the Left that created a vacuum to be filled by the dominant ideology i.e neoliberalism. This can be seen in how those claiming to by polyamorous treat their sexual partners as consumer products, exchangeable commodities, or purely use-value objects. 

Existing as a kind of accelerationist infantile utopianism, there's a pretence in the performance of polyamory that the bedroom can somehow by free of ideological chains (it cannot) and that the psychosocial world we are constituted by somehow evaporates in the hallway of our homes. Infantile leftists believe polyamorous arrangements to be 'revolutionary' simply because it differs from trad marriage and the nuclear family (the unit that emerged through the development of capitalism). Polyamory, if it were real, would, like polygamy, be the relationship scenario that is the least equal, least likely to engender trust among participants, and be far less mutual than traditional monogamous marriage. We share some anecdotes of polyamory from our own leftwing circles that demonstrate the attempt to do polyamorous arrangements tends to end quickly and badly, often in violence or humiliation (typically of a woman).

We conclude that pretending to be polyamorous is about signalling to anyone and everyone that you are sexually available and desperate for sexual validation, whilst also not being up to the adult task of commitment and all of the responsibility and limitations on freedom that entails. That reality, of not being emotionally mature enough to find and maintain a committed relationship is offered an illustrious cover story by claiming to be doing polyamory, as if existing on a more sophisticated or higher sexual plane, when in actuality it means not being able to manage commitment, or find it from someone worth investing in.

We talk about how the infantilisation of LGBTQ+ politics has helped kill off lesbian nightlife and its effects. Including, the awkwardness of asexual discos, gay bars becoming popular with straight people and then inevitably changing, and the difficulty of maintaining a policy that only allows women through the door in the era of gender identity. We cover the wider context of historical neglect of lesbian venues due to an optimism that they would always exist, how a women's disco is not the same as a lesbian event, and  monogamy's impact on lesbian footfall through nightclubs.  

Also discussed is the reality that it's a challenge to maintain venues for any minority that is less than 1% of the general population, how poor provisions in those that do exist reflect lesbians low social status, and the apparent fact that hiking and cruises are much more attractive to lesbians than going out late night. The episode also includes the door policy at Heaven of checking women's fingernail length, the 'lesbian manicure' that brings new meaning to the phrase 'bowling alone', the now unimaginable time of weekly student gay nights pre-2008 economic crash, and Hannah regales a very award gay disco at Labour Party conference.

Are contemporary fascists and communists in practice all ultimately moderates due to the political climate that has narrowed around capitalism since Soviet collapse? We discuss that question, as well as why the rightwing are bold whilst the socialist left are pessimistic and tribal, the purpose of the Labour Party, and ask why socialists are masochistically loyal to organisations who hate them. This episode also includes commentary on 'stuck culture', living in times of social decay, why rightwing women are more likely to acknowledge male violence than socialist women, and the imagined scenario of Keir Starmer shitting in Jeremy Corbyn's house.

Gypsy Rose Blanchard has been released from prison after taking part in the plot to murder her Munchausen's by Proxy mother, after decades of neglect, physical abuse, and medical abuse.  We discuss women's relationship to their bodies, their children, fictitious disorder (the new term for Munchausen's Syndrome), and the predicament of dealing with a low sense of Self.

This special edition episode discusses the taboos surrounding Christmas, including overfamiliarity, serving up passive-aggressive 'shit sandwich' situations to younger relatives, the weird 'queer' concept of 'chosen family' (that doesn't exist in practice), and the traditional expectations of harmony and happiness which many families do not manage. We also consider the questions of unequal domestic labour amongst the sexes within family structures, the non-existence of feminist communes as alternatives, and fraught dynamics between people who do, or are pretending, to love one another.