angelfacemjj

[angelfacemjj]

I don't think younger/newer users fully grasp the shit show that ace discourse was around 2014-17

It was so hostile that, to this day, discussions that begin to derail just enough can make me physically nauseous, some specific mockery trigger crying sessions years later. We lost most accounts with any sort of ace positivity. There was no information, no support, and all this damage was done predominantly by other queer people.

All this to say that you, however you identify yourself, should be engaging with aphobic comments the same way you do any hate. We don't sugarcoat or try to be comprehensive with people who are blatantly racist, homophobic or terfs, so why give it a pass just because it's coming from a queer person? I see how this tolerance goes and it's done enough damage as it is.

[angelfacemjj]

Why we don’t like it when children hit us back

To all the children who have ever been told to “respect” someone that hated them.

March 21, 2023

Even those of us that are disturbed by the thought of how widespread corporal punishment still is in all ranks of society are uncomfortable at the idea of a child defending themself using violence against their oppressors and abusers. A child who hits back proves that the adults “were right all along,” that their violence was justified. Even as they would cheer an adult victim for defending themself fiercely.

Even those “child rights advocates” imagine the right child victim as one who takes it without ever stopping to love “its” owners. Tear-stained and afraid, the child is too innocent to be hit in a guilt-free manner. No one likes to imagine the Brat as Victim—the child who does, according to adultist logic, deserve being hit, because they follow their desires, because they walk the world with their head high, because they talk back, because they are loud, because they are unapologetically here, and resistant to being cast in the role of guest of a world that is just not made for them.

If we are against corporal punishment, the brat is our gotcha, the proof that it is actually not that much of an injustice. The brat unsettles us, so much that the “bad seed” is a stock character in horror, a genre that is much permeated by the adult gaze (defined as “the way children are viewed, represented and portrayed by adults; and finally society’s conception of children and the way this is perpetuated within institutions, and inherent in all interactions with children”), where the adult fear for the subversion of the structures that keep children under control is very much represented.

It might be very well true that the Brat has something unnatural and sinister about them in this world, as they are at constant war with everything that has ever been created, since everything that has been created has been built with the purpose of subjugating them. This is why it feels unnatural to watch a child hitting back instead of cowering. We feel like it’s not right. We feel like history is staring back at us, and all the horror we felt at any rebel and wayward child who has ever lived, we are feeling right now for that reject of the construct of “childhood innocence.” The child who hits back is at such clash with our construction of childhood because we defined violence in all of its forms as the province of the adult, especially the adult in authority.

The adult has an explicit sanction by the state to do violence to the child, while the child has both a social and legal prohibition to even think of defending themself with their fists. Legislation such as “parent-child tort immunity” makes this clear. The adult’s designed place is as the one who hits, and has a right and even an encouragement to do so, the one who acts, as the person. The child’s designed place is as the one who gets hit, and has an obligation to accept that, as the one who suffers acts, as the object. When a child forcibly breaks out of their place, they are reversing the supposed “natural order” in a radical way.

This is why, for the youth liberationist, there should be nothing more beautiful to witness that the child who snaps. We have an unique horror for parricide, and a terrible indifference at the 450 children murdered every year by their parents in just the USA, without even mentioning all the indirect suicides caused by parental abuse. As a Psychology Today article about so-called “parricide” puts it:

Unlike adults who kill their parents, teenagers become parricide offenders when conditions in the home are intolerable but their alternatives are limited. Unlike adults, kids cannot simply leave. The law has made it a crime for young people to run away. Juveniles who commit parricide usually do consider running away, but many do not know any place where they can seek refuge. Those who do run are generally picked up and returned home, or go back on their own: Surviving on the streets is hardly a realistic alternative for youths with meager financial resources, limited education, and few skills.

By far, the severely abused child is the most frequently encountered type of offender. According to Paul Mones, a Los Angeles attorney who specializes in defending adolescent parricide offenders, more than 90 percent have been abused by their parents. In-depth portraits of such youths have frequently shown that they killed because they could no longer tolerate conditions at home. These children were psychologically abused by one or both parents and often suffered physical, sexual, and verbal abuse as well—and witnessed it given to others in the household. They did not typically have histories of severe mental illness or of serious and extensive delinquent behavior. They were not criminally sophisticated. For them, the killings represented an act of desperation—the only way out of a family situation they could no longer endure.

- Heide, Why Kids Kill Parents, 1992.

Despite these being the most frequent conditions of “parricide,” it still brings unique disgust to think about it for most people. The sympathy extended to murdering parents is never extended even to the most desperate child, who chose to kill to not be killed. They chose to stop enduring silently, and that was their greatest crime; that is the crime of the child who hits back. Hell, children aren’t even supposed to talk back. They are not supposed to be anything but grateful for the miserable pieces of space that adults carve out in a world hostile to children for them to live following adult rules. It isn’t rare for children to notice the adult monopoly on violence and force when they interact with figures like teachers, and the way they use words like “respect.” In fact, this social dynamic has been noticed quite often:

Sometimes people use “respect” to mean “treating someone like a person” and sometimes they use “respect” to mean “treating someone like an authority” and sometimes people who are used to being treated like an authority say “if you won’t respect me I won’t respect you” and they mean “if you won’t treat me like an authority I won’t treat you like a person” and they think they’re being fair but they aren’t, and it’s not okay.

(https://soycrates.tumblr.com/post/115633137923/stimmyabby-sometimes-people-use-respect-to-mean)

But it has received almost no condemnation in the public eye. No voices have raised to contrast the adult monopoly on violence towards child bodies and child minds. No voices have raised to praise the child who hits back. Because they do deserve praise. Because the child who sets their foot down and says this belongs to me, even when it’s something like their own body that they are claiming, is committing one of the most serious crimes against adult society, who wants them dispossessed.

Sources:

“The Adult Gaze: a tool of control and oppression,” https://livingwithoutschool.com/2021/07/29/the-adult-gaze-a-tool-of-control-and-oppression

“Filicide,” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filicide

[angelfacemjj]

[angelfacemjj]

I am spoiling the live action Lilo & Stitch. And I am doing it up front and plainly.

Do not fucking see this movie. Do not waste your money on this. Period.

They made Nani give Lilo up to the American government. They made Nani LEAVE Hawaii and pursue being a marine biologist. They made a native Hawaiian character give up her sibling to pursue a dream that she originally did not have. This is imperialist propaganda at its FINEST.

The original fucking movie is about family staying together. It's about indigenous people being able to stay with each other and stay in their home and be together! That's the whole fucking point! Nani is Lilo's last living relative on her homeland—it is jarring, it is disgusting and disturbing that Nani would not only leave her last blood relative alone, give her up to the very government that is harming native Hawaiians TODAY, but also travel to the "mainland" for her dream!

Not to mention, Nani's actress isn't fucking Hawaiian. She's much paler in photos and real life. They fucking darkened her for this movie.

Don't even get me started on the transgender subtext of Pleakley's "human" disguise from the original movie being completely erased in favor of him being played by a regular ass white man. Jumba doesn't have his accent, they made him more villainous, and his "human" disguise is a non-fat white man—which part of his original joke, I know, is that he was bigger and was more clumsy in the movie because of his size, but to have the main shape of his character completely removed is also fucking weird.

This live action movie is a desecration to the original. I encourage you to not see it, please. Don't give Disney any of your money on this one. Just watch the original. Please just watch the original.

The new message in the live action movie is disturbing and gross.

This is one of the most disrespectful live actions I've seen and heard of. I implore you to not watch it.

[angelfacemjj]

OK I swear I already went on one rant about the misuse of the term

"Lavender marriage"

But I can't find it to add to so separate post IG.

You do not WANT a lavender marriage.

Lavender marriages are for safety in a homophobic society you do not want to be hiding who you are attracted to.

What you want is a platonic or queerplatonic marriage.

And at this point I'm like 90% the reason people are misusing the terms is aphobia.

Cause what other reason would there be to ignore the important history of lavender marriages, to change their meaning to something that already has a word.

Other than because it's largely aspec people who use that word.

"That's a reach" Mate they still don't like to acknowledge the split attraction model and there's no explanation for that other than the sane thing.

[angelfacemjj]

[angelfacemjj]

Okay, so this is a question that has been encuckin me for a bit of a time now; I have noticed that my experiences with femininity are way different from most trans folk out there that were also imposed as female growin up.

Different from many others, I never really hated femininity or being fem, in fact I do like pink, n wearin dresses n skirts, I really did & do like to feel cute. But the thing is, as a transneutral person, I never felt connected to the experiences of other folk who were on the same settin as me, apparently.

To the point I'd resonate more with trans women representation on the internet, than with trans men representation, which was supposed to be “more relatable” to me since I'm technically closer to that, given the lack of nonbinary visibility in trans spaces. (Sayin that on an extremely surface level, of course, because my femininity is not cisgendered n definitely not binary like trans women's in most of these representations).

N idk if that's because of the hipermasculinization of black women that ended up affectin me n my experiences, because I have little to no memories from my childhood, n I found out I'm trans on my early teens, but there could be a possibility since I had lil to no fem representation to be forced to copy like white trans folk normally has. N one of the only things I can remember, regardin to that, is that I rejected masculinity as much as I could back then. For apparently little to no reason. Which could be because of the aforementioned, or because of the gender roles I was constantly imposed to, livin in a christian household.

[angelfacemjj]

this honestly deserves to be seen by everyone

Creds to @batfam-fanatic2010 for the joke

[angelfacemjj]

[angelfacemjj]

What do you mean Madagascar 2 isn't about being a child of color who's trying to get back in touch with their roots?

[angelfacemjj]

[angelfacemjj]

Gloria, pointing to thin air: On this side are all the time I’ve gotten mad at you for having a problem. Zero times.

Gloria, pointing to a small pile of rocks: And on THIS side are all the times I was upset because you had a problem and didn’t tell me, so I couldn’t help.

Gloria: Now, what do we do with problems?

Melman: Work harder to hide them so you won’t be sad.

Gloria: I’m getting another rock.

[angelfacemjj]

[angelfacemjj]

Wrong, she's actually Miku's edgy oc.

We have Chubby Hatsune Miku, yes…but..what about Chubby ZATSUNE Miku?

i remember Zatsune being the spicy ver of Miku

[angelfacemjj]

Caralho, I knew that a L&S live action would already be bad, but this is worse. Way fuckin worse.

my rage increases with everything i hear about the live action lilo and stitch

what do you mean nani gives up custody of lilo.

what do you mean no jumba redemption— and he’s the twist villain???

what do you mean no pleakley in drag.

what do you mean no nani and david romance subplot.

what do you mean no gantu.

what do you mean no ugly duckling scene.

what do you mean no anti-tourism theme.

what do you mean jumba just sounds like some random american guy.

what do you mean cobra bubbles isn’t the social worker

not to mention nani’s actress being in brownface.

and more than anything— showing an indigeneous family being separated by the government, and having it be shown as a “happy ending.” the original ending was perfect. nani kept custody and gained a support system.

disney’s rise in conservatism is showing bigtime

[angelfacemjj]

The unadulterated trans joy of people using your chosen name cannot be described!!!

[angelfacemjj]

Antisemitism in anti-masculinity:

Over the last few years, a term created to disparage those of us who recognise transmasculine specific transphobia exists, has gathered steam and is frequently deployed to dismiss transmasculine suffering. The term is "transandrophobia truther"

Many Jewish trans people have pointed out it is very antisemitic and transphobic to call trans men this. "Truther" in the traditional sense usually refers to someone who doubts an official version of events given (usually) by an authority or government. Very often, as conspiracists do, they end up blaming Jewish people for the 'truth' being concealed. This is why using truther against trans men talking about their oppression is both transphobic and hugely antisemitic.

Now- as someone who believes transandrophobia exists, I'd rather be believed about my own experiences. However, if you do *genuinely* doubt the existence of transandrophobia and wish to have a conversation- you do not start said conversation by relying upon alarmist and antisemitic language like 'truther'.

You wouldn't say that gay people are "homophobia truthers"- not unless you are a homophobe. Ergo, if you persist in calling people "transandrophobia truthers"- you are a transandrophobe. And in both instances, you would be an antisemite as well!

If you want to disagree, be civil. Even then, you aren't owed our attention.