#identifying: inferior

[arthropodboy]

Wow people really do be being biphobic in our lords year of 2025... I cannot imagine watching the western world fall to facism (while living in the western world) and still putting time and energy into creating division in the queer community. Like. Your human rights are in major peril. What the fuck are you talking about.

[proustianrevelry]

Honestly, I kept not telling people my real age throughout my early twenties, because that's still in the splash zone of "sexualizing feminized ppl's youth and relative powerlessness against Adult Men"

[equalperson]

on the one hand, I'm very neurotic, but on the other hand, I just have so much difficulty relating to outright vulnerable narcissists that I'm this 🤏 close to just identifying as a grandiose narcissist irregardless.

I see a lot of narcissists say things like "oh narcissism isn't about being some uncaring egotist, it's about constant feelings of inferiority and self-criticism and depression and perfectionism and a debilitating fear of failure!" and I just,. don't really relate to that?

I am an uncaring egotist TBH, and I only really hate Myself when My avoidant personality takes the reins and I have a shame spiral.

I say that I'm destined to succeed, that I can do whatever I want, that I'm the smartest and prettiest/handsomest and overall best person in the room at all times and--even though I disguise it as a joke most of the time--I fucking mean it.

I don't relate to the feeling that narcissism is just endless inferior suffering that's simply compensated for with grandiosity.

call Me anosognosic, but the episodes where I hate Myself feel much more like when I'm losing track of who I really am than My baseline self-aggrandizement ever has. even at My most shame-prone, I still felt this way.

this isn't to say that narcissism is exclusively this superpower or that it isn't disabling in any way (My severe mood swings speak for themselves), but just that. I don't know. I just don't experience Myself as this empty person masquerading as something.

if anything, I experience My narcissism much more similarly to how I experience My autism: something that has amazing strengths as well as some deeply debilitating pitfalls, that impairs My ability to use certain cognitive skills without taking away from My depth as an individual.

[spoonietimelordy]

Privating my previous post because it was too personal to stay public, but I think what I meant is that policing people for the way they perceive themselves is bad. Telling someone that they're not disabled or that they are oppressing others for choosing to distance themselves from a word that they think is too medical is absolutely vile.

[zhuhongs]

oh noninonononóooo

[polscisucks]

George Simmel, Camille Paglia, Julia Serrano and Jean-Jacques Rousseau have the same view on gender I’m killing myself

[da-mous]

I'm reading Whipping Girl and I'm really fond of the word "cissexism" the way Julia Serano uses it, defined by her as:

"The belief that transsexuals' identified genders are inferior to, or less authentic than, those of cissexuals"

She defines cissexism as a separate (but related) phenomenon to regular transphobia, and I've found it an extremely useful distinction to be able to make. This word needs to make a comeback tbh

[transandrobroism]

i am not being needlessly alarmist when i say that popular feminism has become extremely radfem-esque and that the normalisation of negative stereotypes towards men needs to be resisted. like. i clearly remember when feminists were derided as "man-hating feminazis" and the main counter-argument to that went something like "we don't hate men, feminism is for everyone, patriarchy harms men too and our goal is to dismantle that oppressive system, this will benefit everyone including men, men can and should be feminists because feminism is a movement for gender equality"

in fact the major rebuttal to men forming "men's rights" movements was always that the issues these groups identified were the negative impacts of the patriarchy on men. they didn't need a separate group because feminism was for everyone and feminist thought and theorising already accounted for the ways patriarchy harms men. which is true! many of the societal issues faced by men stem from white supremacist patriarchy and restrictive gender roles and traditionally feminism has given thought and time to those issues. feminism is for everyone and it is concerned with men's struggles under patriarchy alongside women's.

but somewhere in the last few decades that attitude fell by the wayside and now popular online feminism is this radfem-flavored "all men are bad forever" thing. now mocking, belittling, or hating men is #feminist #praxis. it's feminist to make jokes about #killallmen. it's feminist to view masculinity as inherently bad and dangerous. it's feminist to talk about the men in your life like they're animals who need to be house trained, or emotionally stunted children who need to be babied and distracted.

it's this idea of flipping patriarchy on its head and saying that actually women are the Superior Gender, women deserve to run the world and make all the decisions, and actually it's men who are the Inferior Gender who can't be trusted or left unsupervised.

these attitudes will always have the most severe negative impact on marginalised men. i don't know how we got here but it's past time we circled back around to "feminism is for everyone".

[communistkenobi]

the other day I was going through the blog of a self-identified terf who had shown up in my notifications, and I saw them say that they wanted people to stop using asab terminology (assigned sex at birth) and instead use osab (observed sex at birth). which like at a basic level is very funny - don’t like the words being used to describe your body, hm? I can’t imagine what that feels like - but it does reveal this very particular commitment that anti-trans and anti-intersex reactionaries have to insisting that sex is just a natural objective fact, that all sexual and gendered violence is a result of men neutrally observing and then responding to the self-evident sexual properties of women. As if the act of observation is not political! It is a request to naturalise the assumptions of the people doing the observing. More fundamentally, it is a request to enshrine through language the assumptions of patriarchy, that sex is a complete and distinct property of the body that can be observed without interpretation, that it is self-evident. Observation itself is defined as a complete process; any part of the object under investigation that is not in view of the observer is rendered irrelevant. Thank god we’re just talking about sex, a very simple element of the human body that is easily cordoned off from the body its attached to!

And of course this wilfully ignores an obvious part of why trans and intersex people call attention to the assigned nature of sex. “Observed sex at birth” is already the first step in the assignment process, it is already implicated in the act of assignment, because the ritual of observing sex at birth is based on the assumption that this is a part of the body that is uniquely worthy of observation. The obvious follow-up question is why is sex worthy of observation in the first place? What assumptions go into the calculation of ‘worthiness’? If it’s so worthy of observation, who gets to be the observer? What are the consequences of this observation process? And if this is so important, how you do record the results of this observation process? Through a series of administrative, medical, and legal assignment procedures, perhaps? What if someone makes a mistake carrying out these procedures? What if the observer observes something they aren’t expecting (and where do those expectations come from)? What if they can’t observe anything? What do they do?

If you take this distinction seriously, if you insist ‘observation’ is somehow less politically or socially contingent than ‘assignment,’ you are advocating for a horrifically nihilistic worldview, one in where the ‘observations’ society makes about sex are all made natural. It is a request that is based on a political pursuit to fully enshrine patriarchy as a natural part of human life. I observe that the subjugation of women produces adverse educational, social, economic, and medical outcomes for them - I guess it’s just because women are naturally inferior. I mean what else could it possibly be? The doctors did a genital inspection on them when they were a baby. It says F right here on the birth certificate

[velmiraa]

Astro Observations – II

Mars in the 1st House People with Mars in their 1st house often struggle with anxiety or anger issues. They might even have a noticeable scar on their face. This placement can make them really energetic, but sometimes that energy comes out as irritation or restlessness.

Pluto in the 1st House Natives with Pluto in their 1st house usually go through intense transformations—both in their appearance and in their overall character. Think of someone who’s super religious for years and then suddenly becomes an atheist. They often have mesmerizing eyes, too, the kind that practically hypnotize people!

Mercury in the 2nd/3rd House If Mercury in 2nd doesn’t have many hard aspects, these folks usually have a beautiful speaking voice. If Mercury’s nicely aspected by Venus, they’re often great singers as well. Having a beautiful speaking voice is also connected to Mercury in 3rd house, since it's the house of communication. But the 3rd house is also tied to talents in writing, painting, handwriting, crafts, or even cooking—basically anything involving skillful hands. People with strong 3rd-house energy just know how to control their hands.

Mars–Venus Hard Aspects I’ve noticed that Mars–Venus hard aspects can sometimes show up in the charts of individuals who identify as homosexual. It’s not a strict rule, of course, but it’s an interesting pattern I’ve come across.

Venus–Pluto Conjunction A Venus–Pluto conjunction tends to create a really obsessive streak when it comes to romantic relationships—or it can attract obsessive partners. Sometimes it’s both! These individuals definitely know how to pull their partners back in, no matter how far they stray, lol.

Mars in the 7th House Mars in the 7th house can lead to frequent arguments with romantic partners. The nature of the fights often depends on the sign Mars is in. If it’s in Virgo or Gemini, expect more verbal spats. But if it’s in Aries, there’s a much higher chance of physical altercations—so watch out!

Saturn in or near the 10th House (or in hard aspect/conjunction to the 10th House Ruler)

This placement basically says: you’ve got to work or study harder than most to succeed in your career. You’ll likely shoulder more responsibility than the average person, and if you mess up, Saturn won’t cut you any slack. This can also point to workplace bullying or a tough work environment. Accept the challenge and do your absolute best—Saturn rewards persistence.

Saturn in the 2nd House Folks with Saturn in the 2nd house can have a bit of an inferiority complex, putting extra emphasis on material things for security-especially food. They might have some eating disorders as well. They need to learn self-love first; once that’s in place, they’ll feel more confident navigating the material side of life.

Saturn in the 12th House People with Saturn in the 12th house often struggle with various phobias because of deep-seated, subconscious fears. This effect doubles if Saturn is in a hard aspect to the ruler of the 12th house. It’s like a cosmic nudge to do some serious inner work.

Pluto in the 8th/6th House Those with Pluto in the 8th house can carry heavy traumas, fears, or secrets related to sex, the occult, or death. If Pluto sits in the 6th house instead, it could bring traumas, fears, secrets or issues related to work environment, colleagues, health, or daily routines. In some charts, if Pluto is heavily afflicted and everything else supports it, there’s even a possibility of OCD.

Hope these insights spark your curiosity! Remember that every chart is unique, so always look at the bigger picture before jumping to conclusions. See you in my next post!

[prettieinpink]

SELF VALIDATION

First things first, if you validate your existence on externalities, you will never truly be happy. While it’s important to have values and to act on them, it shouldn’t be your main source of happiness. 

E.g. parent validation, academic validation, and male validation. So, here are some tips to validate yourself. 

VALUE YOUR OPINION. You should have the ability to make decisions and identify yourself solely on your opinion. Trust, giving people that ability to shape your decisions and curate your identity, allows them to dictate your worth. 

SELF LOVE OVER OTHERS. Ensure you are doing everything in your power to treat yourself lovingly. Even if it means sacrificing a few things in life. E.g. going to sleep early instead of cramming for a test. 

BE RESILIENT. When I say that, I don’t mean ‘don't let anything affect you’ but rather, build yourself up to the point that when someone/something knocks you down, you can bounce back easily. 

BECOME SELF AWARE. Know your strengths, and weaknesses, and be mindful of the truth. Be genuine when it comes to this because self-awareness helps us with becoming more in touch with our inner selves.

AVOID NEGATIVE SELF TALK. This can cause us to rely on others to hear good things about ourselves. Instead, say affirmations in the mirror.

STOP PEOPLE PLEASING. There’s a difference between genuinely being nice, and being a doormat. You shouldn’t have to bend over backwards for others, and they give absolutely nothing back. Invest that time and effort into yourself.

SOMEONE’S GAIN IS NOT YOUR LOSS. This is a mindset shift that will change the game. You have to stop seeing successful, wealthy, pretty or intelligent people as threatening your skills or talents. There is enough success for everyone.

DETACH FROM OTHERS. Friends, family, males, etc. Stop letting how other people treat you, dictate your mood for the rest of the day. The only factor your mood should depend on is you. What you do, say, and act is the only factor. 

KNOCK OTHERS FROM YOUR PEDESTAL. The only person that should be on top of your pedestal, is you. By doing this, you create an inferiority complex for someone else and give them superiority. 

OTHER’S OPINIONS ARE MOMENTARY. They will always move on with their day and see what needs to be done. They do not care about you as much as you think. So, do not even try to give them the time of day. 

BUILD BOUNDARIES. With others and yourself. Both are equally important because you value yourself enough not to do something you’ll regret. 

[bethanydelleman]

It's not just for accuracy's sake that I argue that Darcy isn't shy or painfully socially awkward, it's because it changes the story and makes it worse. Elizabeth telling Darcy to practice talking to people becomes an extrovert demanding that an introvert just get better at masking or some B.S.. But Elizabeth can in fact identify shy people and she's exceedingly nice to them:

With astonishment did Elizabeth see that her new acquaintance was at least as much embarrassed as herself. Since her being at Lambton, she had heard that Miss Darcy was exceedingly proud; but the observation of a very few minutes convinced her that she was only exceedingly shy. She found it difficult to obtain even a word from her beyond a monosyllable... her manners were perfectly unassuming and gentle. Elizabeth, who had expected to find in her as acute and unembarrassed an observer as ever Mr. Darcy had been, was much relieved by discerning such different feelings.

Georgiana’s reception of them was very civil, but attended with all that embarrassment which, though proceeding from shyness and the fear of doing wrong, would easily give to those who felt themselves inferior the belief of her being proud and reserved. Mrs. Gardiner and her niece, however, did her justice, and pitied her.

Elizabeth meets Georgiana and is like, "Nope, nothing like her brother, this girl is super shy." The descriptions are very different too, Georgiana's manners are "gentle" while Darcy's "though well bred, were not inviting". Now is Elizabeth better at reading females than men? Absolutely. But this is an Elizabeth who knows herself better and, more importantly, understands Darcy, and she is like, "Wow, these siblings are super different. One of them will just stare at me without being nervous and the other can barely talk while visiting a party of three even though she's socially superior."

Georgiana and Fitzwilliam Darcy are not the same and one of them shy.

[lesbianchemicalplant]

1. he was not "for gay marriage". he literally led the christian opposition to gay marriage in argentina

The law is expected to bring a wave of marriages in the gay-friendly capital, Buenos Aires, though only citizens and residents can wed in the country.

A campaign against the bill by the Roman Catholic church and evangelical groups had drawn 60,000 people to march on congress, with parents in churches and schools urged to fight the plans.

Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio led the campaign, saying "children need to have the right to be raised and educated by a father and a mother".

(2010)

his position later was, again, that gay couples and unmarried couples are sinners, and that marriage is between a man and a woman. love the sinner, hate the sin

But while the Vatican statement was heralded by some as a step toward breaking down discrimination in the Catholic Church, some LGBTQ+ advocates warned it underscored the church’s idea that gay couples remain inferior to heterosexual partnerships.

The document from the Vatican’s doctrine office elaborates on a letter Francis sent to two conservative cardinals that was published in October. In that preliminary response, Francis suggested such blessings could be offered under some circumstances if the blessings weren’t confused with the ritual of marriage.

The new document repeats that condition and elaborates on it, reaffirming that marriage is a lifelong union between a man and a woman. And it stresses that blessings in question must not be tied to any specific Catholic celebration or religious service and should not be conferred at the same time as a civil union ceremony. Moreover, the blessings cannot use set rituals or even involve the clothing and gestures that belong in a wedding.

2. I know you fucking hate trans people

In an interview with veteran Italian journalists Andrea Tornielli and Giacomo Galeazzi, the pope compares genetic manipulation and nuclear weapons with gender theory, a broad term for how people learn to identify themselves sexually and how it's transmitted culturally.

Let's think of the nuclear arms, of the possibility to annihilate in a few instants a very high number of human beings," the pope says. "Let's think also of genetic manipulation, of the manipulation of life, or of the gender theory, that does not recognize the order of creation."

"With this attitude, man commits a new sin, that against God the Creator," he continues. "The true custody of creation does not have anything to do with the ideologies that consider man like an accident, like a problem to eliminate."

[jukashi]

If we take a break for a moment from the funny meme or self-aware kink indulgence understanding of the 'bimbo', and instead examine it as a sort of sexist fantasy - that is, literally a fantasy of ideal womanhood as imagined by a sexist - then we can come to understand that the 'himbo' is not the masculine counterpart. There is discourse to mine out of the idea that the himbo represents a sexist fantasy of ideal manhood, but I think that the himbo actually represents a sort of halfway step between the bimbo and her true counterpart.

The bimbo embodies sexist 'ideals' of womanhood, taken to an extreme and bent to the desires of the sexist (presumed straight, male) imagination. She is:

1) physically attractive in sexual terms, to an extreme - both a pleasure to possess and a status symbol to display to others

2) always horny (thus, always sexually available)

3) unintelligent in the traditional sense - not good at organization, STEM fields, academic learning, etc. this keeps her...

4) nonthreatening - she won't outshine a man in any domain of (the sexist ideas of) male competence, and

5) dependent - in need of a big strong smart man to provide for her, reassuring said man's sense of self-worth

All of these line up with traditional sexist ideas of womanhood - where the bimbo has flaws, they're not feminine flaws, and she still possesses feminine strengths (according to the sexist mindset).

So, the male counterpart of the bimbo should embody sexist ideals of manhood, taken to an extreme and bent to the desires of the sexist imagination. If we compare to the bimbo's features listed above, then:

1) physical attractiveness is desirable for men but not a key feature - a man can be manly while being ugly in a way a woman cannot be womanly if she is ugly.

2) horniness is not seen as desirable for men - it is expected and excused by sexists, but it's considered threatening to those who are its targets and a lot of sexism towards men is based in this assumed threat.

3) traditional intelligence is considered manly, but emotional intelligence isn't - in fact, it's seen as unmanly.

4) being threatening is harder to extract from manliness, as is...

5) being dependent, but it is possible, even required - men are just expected to be non-threatening and dependent in a different way.

Remembering that we're looking for a sexist ideal rather than a sexual ideal, we need to identify how sexism towards men works. Men are not sexually objectified under traditional sexism, but they are still objectified. This objectification is based on utility - an objectified man is reduced to a tool. He is wanted for what he can do and how well he does it, not in himself. His personhood is reduced to what makes him useful and controllable, and when he is not being of use he is unseen. He does not feel pain, he does not feel emotions that make him less of a perfect undemanding worker or soldier, he is permitted to suffer or rage or weep only for the things he serves and never for himself.

The male counterpart of a bimbo would be:

1) physically obviously useful - big and strong and tough, to an extreme, convenient for whoever he serves and an implicit threat to their enemies

2) seldom horny (thus never sexually threatening)

3) emotionally unintelligent - lacking the ability to understand or express the feelings of others or even his own (if he even has them) - in order to help make him:

4) unthreatening, in the sense of being easily controllable and socially inferior, and

5) dependent - in need of an inspiring leader, abstract ideals or a sole source of comfort to fulfill his emotional needs, further securing his loyalty and obedience.

I put it to you, then:

Space Marines are the male counterpart of bimbos, and becoming one is bimbofication.

[jackawful]

The current transphobic backlash of course impacts trans people most but I think assuming it's About Us or even that we're a convenient scapegoat due to being such a small proportion of the overall population is like. A big rhetorical & tactical mistake, actually.

It's about reifying gender for everyone. It's about enforcing gender essentialism. TERFs are an important part of the puzzle here because feminism has become somewhat the default position in our society & the right knows they are unlikely to convince most women out of identifying as feminists, but if you can redefine feminism to include beliefs like "women are inherently weaker than men" (and therefore cannot beat men at sports) you can recouperate feminism enough that it doesn't matter. The end result is still a society that takes it as fact that men and women are inherently biologically different and therefore must take different roles in society. It's laundering the christian complementarianism I was raised with for people who would be repulsed by tradwife shit if you presented it on its face.

The dividing line between the sexes must be rigid and impermeable to enforce this worldview in law. The existance of trans people and especially the possibility of medical transition reveal that this line isn't rigid, which then implies that cis women aren't inherently destined to be babymakers and cis men aren't inherently superior at...well, maybe anything. If you want to ban abortion and birth control and force women out of public life and insist that men are superior in all the ways that happen to correlate with men wielding power in society, you first have to drive trans people out of public existance.

I'm not like an expert at deradicalizing terfs or whatever. But I suspect that pushing back against the idea that women are inherently inferior to men in certain realms - that women are designed by god or biology to take Different But Complementary Roles than men - is going to be extremely important in the fight for both trans rights and against the recouperation of feminism.

[radfemsiren]

🤍A basic rundown of my beliefs as a radical feminist 🤍

(I don’t represent every radical feminist, but these are usually the standard opinions you’ll find of many radfems. Hate or disagree with them, that’s fine! But know the truth of who I am and what I stand for beforehand)

- there are 2 sexes, the male sex is oppressing the female sex

- femicide, rape, child sex abuse, hijab laws, female genital mutilation, domestic labor, trafficking, war crimes, revenge porn, prostitution… women and girls around the world are being exploited, tortured, and killed because of this oppression, and it must end.

- female oppression is sex based oppression, meaning a woman can’t just identify out of her oppression (for example hijab laws)

- sex is biological and an immutable truth, gender is a social construct

- gender should be done away with because gender roles are male supremacist and result in women and girls being stereotyped, dehumanized, barred from education, safety, bodily autonomy, etc.

- defining women with anything other than biology is misogynistic and relies on stereotypes

- the biological differences between men and women must be acknowledged in order to effectively end patriarchal oppression

- radical feminism is getting to the root of female oppression (radical -> root)

- misandry is not real and is just an extension of misogyny (for example, “men are told not to cry!” Yes because women are seen as inferior and any trait associated with us is seen as degrading/emasculating for men. This is why there is no female equivalent to emasculation.)

- all current religions are patriarchal and made by men to exploit and control women

- access to abortion is a human right and should never be threatened, women are the creators of life and deserve to gatekeep it, as well as exercise full autonomy over our own bodies

- Using sexist gender roles to define yourself is giving these misogynistic stereotypes power (wearing makeup or dresses doesn’t make anyone less or more of a woman, this is misogyny)

- the beauty industry is patriarchal and exploits women, our bodies and our money

- sex work is not work, it’s always exploitation (consent can not be bought)

- the porn industry is patriarchal and relies on trafficking, coercion, and rape to function. It also conditions its watchers to be aroused by violence against women, and results in more real life consequences for women and girls

- women’s spaces and institutions must be protected. Women’s safety is more important than catering to male feelings

- marriage is a patriarchal institution made to exploit the domestic labor of women for her entire life

- BDSM/kink are patriarchal and only center the pleasure and well being of men.

- hookup culture is patriarchal and the risk to reward is not worth it for women to engage in it

- gender ideology is patriarchal and is a direct hindrance to female liberation (we can’t define ourselves or our oppressors, we can’t create spaces away from our oppressors, we can’t create laws and policy based on these definitions, people who are gender non conforming / have gender dysphoria are pressured to alter their bodies to conform to a rigid standard and become lifelong medical patients, etc)

- choice feminism and liberal feminism caters to conforming to patriarchal standards and institutions, and refuses to examine why women make choices under patriarchy

- women of color face oppression on the axis of our sex and race, men of color only face oppression on the axis of their race

- non white patriarchal institutions must be criticized: a mullah is just as dangerous to the liberation of women as a pastor is

- women should decenter the men in their lives just as men have done with women. That means prioritizing us! Engaging in women’s media, art, stories, fostering female communities and support networks, uplifting and empowering their sisters around the world

- being a radical feminist means consistently taking radical action, big or small, we all can do it! Go support a female artist, go donate menstrual products to a shelter, go tell off a man when you see him making a woman uncomfortable. We all can make a difference!

…My feminism focuses on criticism of Islam and middle eastern patriarchy, but there are radfems with many focuses/passions… some in eco feminism, some on uplifting Romani women, black women, neurodivergent women, women with disabilities, prostituted women… some are passionate about women’s sports, women’s art, women’s writing, women’s history, lesbian and bisexual women’s stories… everyone has their passion on here, so before you come to attack, just check out my blog and click around at the different profiles on this corner of the internet…. maybe we might not be the terrible witches you thought us to be. Or maybe we are, but witches are awesome so who cares lol