#‘men’ actually is not a gender in the way we understand it. the proper definition of it is ‘people chuck dates that amara doesn’t like’

[quietwingsinthesky]

i love that one of the things amara says about chuck is that he “always had terrible taste in men.” amara what does that mean. men didn’t exist yet. what are you talking about. were you peeking outside of your prison just to see how shit your brother was at picking up guys.

[autolenaphilia]

The understanding of feminism on this site is absolutely terrible. To the point where people have no idea of what feminism even is. It’s especially annoying when people on here claim to be feminists, but contradict basic tenets of feminist thought.

And to be fair, feminism is a complicated and not united ideology at all. But let’s try to explain anyway. A basic tenet of any feminism is that society is a patriarchy. Women are oppressed and exploited, and men are the oppressor class. Men gain advantages for being men, which is what male privilege is. And feminism is about destroying this system of gendered oppression, the patriarchy.

This is as basic as it gets. And that we live in a patriarchy is easily proven. Patriarchy theory is a theory, but it’s a very well-supported one. Basic statistics and other evidence prove women are disadvantaged and discriminated against, and that men prosper in comparison. Misogyny is real, it’s an oppression that definitely exists.

Yet this basic understanding consistently eludes people on tumblr, even as they claim to be feminists and say “fuck the patriarchy.” People are at best reluctant to acknowledge misogyny as being real and lack understanding of it.

Talking about misogyny will get you accusations of being “terfy” when it’s just basic feminism. Even transfems get these accusations. I’ve already lamented that many people who are anti-terf (which you should be) don’t know what a terf is. What is actually “terfy” is having biological determinist and cisnormative explanations of who women are and what causes misogyny. In reality, trans women are very much women, and have to navigate the world as such. We constitute an especially oppressed subset of women, due to suffering from an intersection of both misogyny and transphobia: transmisogyny. The recognition of misogyny as an oppression we experience is needed to explain our experiences and suffering. We are not men, and are exiled from manhood and it’s privileges due to rejecting it and not performing masculinity.

Particularly disturbing are people who claim to be feminists and yet argue that “misandry” is a real thing. It’s often not said to be “misandry”, I’ve read words like “antimasculism” (more or less explicitly) used as substitutes for the term “misandry”. It is often phrased in terms of “the patriarchy hurts men too.” That the patriarchy is just harmful gender norms that oppress all genders more or less equally.

And those who adopted this have abandoned feminism, often without acknowledging it. They have abandoned the most basic feminist tenets, such as we live in a patriarchy, a society that benefits men. The idea that men do not gain privilege from being men and are in fact hurt by it is an anti-feminist idea.

It’s an incoherent way of analyzing gender. The question of who is the oppressor class in this analysis is eluded entirely. Who benefits from oppressing men via gender norms? Feminist theory is clear about men being the oppressor class who benefit as a class from the oppression of women. It’s a basic question, yet studiously avoided, sometimes in terms of blaming it on the system, understood as some impersonal monster, not as a system that exists to benefit certain people.

It also misunderstands how masculinity works. Sure, being forced to adhere to masculine gender norms hurts, I’ve been badly bullied myself for breaking them. But even if the patriarchy hurts men, it more importantly benefits them. It privileges men, because that’s the literal definition of patriarchy.

Masculinity benefits men, that’s why they perform it. The proper performance of masculinity is needed for being recognized as a man and thus given male privilege. It gives them power over women (cis or trans), even other men (like gay men) and degendered others, the ability to commit violence against them with impunity. Men who perform it are not the primary victims of masculinity, the victims of the violence done to prove masculinity are. And privilege is what men are afraid of losing if they appear non-masculine. It’s the fear of losing their status, of experiencing just a smidgen of the horrors trans women are given everyday. Men will do violence to avoid that. I don’t wish to downplay the horrors of being an openly gnc man (especially if they are also gay or queer in some other way). but they still have a privileged position compared to women in general, and especially transfems.

Of course, men are oppressed too, but it’s not for being men. Working class men are oppressed under capitalism. A long list of oppressive systems like racism, ableism, homophobia, transphobia and so on do oppress the men who are affected by them. Men thus often find their male privilege curtailed by these oppressions, especially if they are affected by several at once. And because of this there are indeed situations where women can hold power over men (white women do often hold power over black men in white supremacist societies for example). This does however just curtail their male privilege, not negate it entirely. You just need a more complicated analysis, that takes those factors into account. Still, all else being equal, men hold power over women. It’s when comparing gay men and lesbians, comparing disabled men and women, and so on, that you can truly see the privilege these disadvantaged men still hold despite the real oppression they experience. Women are also affected by these oppressive forces, and their effect is made worse by intersecting with misogyny. Men in oppressed communities still have power and privilege over the women in that community. Their experience of oppression looks different, but that’s due to the absence of misogyny, rather than the addition of any misandry (as another tumblr post put it, and which I can’t find now, so I can’t give credit. Would love to be given a link if you can find it).

And we have to be careful when talking about oppressed men, because their experiences are often exploited to justify anti-feminism. The fact that the oppression is real is exactly why it’s useful, because it can be decontextualized to argue that men are oppressed for being men. Propaganda often lies by omission, than by outright making things up. Warren Farrell, “the father of the men’s rights movement”, used the experiences of working class men dying in dangerous jobs and as soldiers in war to argue that male power was a myth, and in fact “men are the disposable sex” or “the expendable gender.” Those deaths are real, but the context that it’s due to capitalism exploiting the working class is removed, and instead attributed to their gender. The facts that working class women also suffer and die from exploitation and that capitalist men benefit from the exploitation of the entire working class are ignored. It also eludes why women don’t die as these men do. Women are kept out of many “dangerous” jobs and the military in order to justify their subjugation as “the weaker sex.”

It’s a terrible argument, and Farrell and the men’s rights movement he helped create are openly anti-feminist and deeply misogynistic, denying women’s oppression. Yet I’ve seen variations on Farrell’s argument posted by supposedly “pro-feminist” blogs. Queer bloggers here will hold up the sufferings of gay and trans men as proof misandry is real, that men are oppressed for being men, ignoring that their oppression is due to homophobia and transphobia. And still against all reason still use the word “patriarchy” and being feminists, despite denying the analysis of society as a patriarchy where men are privileged for being men.

At least Farrell and his fellow proud MRAs are honest about rejecting feminism and believing patriarchy is a myth. I’m glad at this point that I was and am a fan of David Futrelle’s blog criticizing and mocking the men’s movement, because that has enabled me to recognize and criticize the arguments they use, a thing some people here clearly need some help with.

Often these bloggers bring up the ancient anti-feminist accusation of feminists not being a movement for equality at all, but about hating men and their masculinity. Anything critical of men as a class who holds power over women is understood as “misandry” or “terfy”, and so is any criticism of masculinity as a gender role. Criticism of masculinity are only made in the context of “toxic” masculine norms hurting men, never in terms of how it confers men power and privilege and how the misogyny of hegemonic masculinity hurts women and other people. I suppose in this kind of thinking my earlier criticism of masculinity as a tool for gendered violence is enough for them to call me a misandrist. And like I’m not. All men benefit from patriarchy, but if you are a man and don’t abuse women or are a misogynist, you are okay as a human being in my book. What else can I say?

These criticisms are not just taken as misandry, but as some kind of widespread norm, despite really only being made in feminist and queer spaces. So making a tumblr post saying “it’s okay to be a man, it’s okay to be masculine.” is seen as reasonable, despite that being literally what the vast majority of society already believes (including the feminist spaces that can reasonably be targeted by this statement). It’s a bizarre statement to make in a patriarchal society that favours men and expects them to be masculine. It again echoes MRA complaints about how society has been captured by a feminist conspiracy (with anti-semitic undertones, as any conspiracy theory has, that’s how MRAs answer the question of “who is oppressor class for misandry?” btw).

It illustrates how a bad understanding of feminist theory leads people into some rather right-wing positions, all while clinging to the banner of being a feminist or progressive. Our society is a deeply misogynist one, yet in response to feminist gains it likes to cloak its misogyny in a kind of superficial feminism. And acknowledging misogyny is a real oppression is hard when you grow up and live in a society that justifies it. It’s especially uncomfortable to do so if you benefit from it. It’s more comfortable to deny misogyny. But it’s work that needs to be done. Or else you can turn into basically an MRA while still believing yourself to be a feminist, which seems to be the trajectory of some people on this site.

[jotarobutcat]

Turns out sometimes you have to force yourself to heal

Healing can feel impossibly hard, especially when you've internalized unhealthy values from both your parents and the culture around you. This may look like a pretentious middle school essay, but the truth is, I just needed to write about my healing process, and where it all started, somewhere. This will be a long ride, so buckle up.

I might be happier right now if I had just stayed a bigot, and given all the hate inside me just the right amount of fuel it needs to prosper, but I just couldn't do that to my friends. Funnily enough, this whole process started from my best friend coming out to me as transgender, not from some "a-ha!" moment in the middle of the night like most of my decisions.

Back then, I was your average "good Christian girl", or at least that's what I strived for. I didn't have many friends, especially when it came to people I was in contact with outside of the internet. I'd pretty much lost two of the three friends I had in middle school after it ended; one completely cut contact with me and my remaining friend, and one I just... didn't see again, since we took different paths in life and weren't really that close anyway. I'd recently become friends with another person online, and this person was very much open about being LGBTQ+ when asked. I didn't have a problem with that, because "well, he doesn't rub his homosexuality in my face". She knew my views on things as well, since I was open about my religion and how my values followed what I had been taught by my mother and the church as morally right or wrong. Back then, my views on the topic of LGBTQ+ people were, in a nutshell, "I think it's wrong to date a person of the same sex, and so is changing your body from how God created it, but I'm not going to insult, degrade, misgender or deadname people because I'm not an asshole". So in short, I was a bigot, but not a zealot. When my best and only in-real-life friend came out to me as a trans man, I assured him that I had no problem with him being transgender, and would be using his chosen name and pronouns from then on forwards if he wished me to do so. In reality, I was full of confusion, since I didn't really know what being transgender *actually* meant. Now, I could've just left it at that, but I felt that in order to give my friend the full support he needs and deserves, I should be able to at least understand what he's actually going through. At that point, my knowledge of the term trans, when talking about gender, was limited to "people who have changed their sex". It's not too far off, but I had no idea why someone would change it and what exactly counts as a transgender person, since my friend was pre-everything at the time and thus obviously did not fit the definition I had known before.

So, I decided to investigate what being transgender really means. During that time I watched videos a lot from a certain youtuber, and I knew his friend, who had been in some of his videos, had a channel as well and often posted videos reading memes and posts from different LGBTQ+ subreddits. I previously had had no interest in them, but I figured I could give some trans-themed videos a try, because humour is usually what gives the most authentic image of a person, as long as you know how to actually read people, and it's also a popular way to share life experiences and thoughts without making it too serious. I think the first one of these videos I checked out was on the r/egg_irl subreddit. That video was eye-opening. Some of the memes were scarily relatable, and I ended up realizing a while later, after doing some more proper research on what being transgender meant, that I fit the definition myself. Suddenly a lot of things made sense; why I always felt a prideful joy whenever being sorted together with boys or men, and hated it when someone added my name or "and girl" after referring to the group with a masculine term. Why I hated being called pretty or beautiful, and would rather substitute it for being called ugly. Why I had little to no interest in barbies and baby dolls and was fascinated by dinosaurs and my brother's Hot Wheels cars instead. Why I would rather play alone than join other girls in their play in kindergarten, and felt excited and happy whenever any of the boys would let me play together with them instead. Why I always hated dresses so much and secretly wished I could wear a suit, being exhilarated when I finally asked permission to do so and was given the okay without an argument or a fight. Why I always found interest in what the boys in my class were talking about, even if they were annoying, and why I kept secretly wishing I could join their friend group instead even though I got along with the girls just fine. Why I was annoyed by girly things or topics to the point I would actively avoid them, and feel proud for not participating in "girl stuff". Why I'd feel proud of myself whenever I acted "boyish" or "manly" enough. Why I felt proud of being able to sing the national anthem in a low voice. Why I wasn't able to appreciate having a near ideal body for the local female beauty standards. Why I felt ashamed of my breasts and "birthing hips". Why I felt disappointed to the point of near crying when I was given permission by my mother to get my hair cut short, and the hairdresser cut it into a butterfly bob instead of the kind of "boy hair" I had imagined. There were so. many. things. I could lengthen the list even more, especially if I added in things I've only recently realized likely had a connection with my gender incongruence.

This realization eventually led to a big battle between the values I had adopted in early childhood and followed ever since, and the new information about myself that clashed with what I believed was "right by God". This contradiction coupled with all the transphobic gaslighting, both from my family and random people on the internet, and drove me to what I have only been able to describe as an episode of psychotic depression, at least up until now. I felt awful, and hated myself for not being how I thought I "should be". I started wondering if I had just been influenced by the internet and gotten brainwashed, and began doubting the authenticity of my own feelings and thoughts. I couldn't trust myself at all anymore, and now that I think about it, I guess this was probably how my OCD manifested for the first time. It was like my mind split into two, one of which was "me" or "I", the other one being, well, the brain, I guess, and it was hell trying to figure out which thoughts were *mine* and not just something my brain pushed into my head... or something I, or another person, put in my head either on accident or on purpose. It's something I still struggle with sometimes, but being able to identify the problem(s) has helped a lot, and made things a lot less excruciating to deal with at times.

Well, I got over that. Somewhat, at least. I ended up pretty much avoiding thinking about my views on religion in general and basing my life principles on my own opinions instead of "God's". I still have my doubts and guilt, and sometimes fall back into the anxiety of not knowing what I'm doing is right or not. I will definitely have to work these things out in therapy, but I'd like to believe I've made a lot of progress outside of it on my own as well. Transphobia and homophobia aren't the only kinds of unhealthy values I've had to heal myself from. One of the biggest things that has kept me from healing for a long time is the teachings of toxic masculinity, particularly the idea of "only women are emotional". Being a trans man who almost nobody dear to me recognizes as a man, I've been clinging to every little thing that would validate my masculinity, even if it's extremely unhealthy, for years. This didn't start from my realization about my gender, but instead had been going on since elementary school, possibly even longer than that.

I have a tendency of turning into my friends' therapist whenever I get to know they're having a rough time. I feel it's much easier to give advice to people than to look for a solution to my own problems. Maybe it's empathy, maybe it's just avoidance of the shit I should actually sort out, but turns out these backyard therapy sessions can be mutually beneficial. On the internet, different people dealing with similar problems are often drawn together, kind of like stand users. At one point, the advice I gave to my friends dealing with the same problems I had started feeling pretentious. "I go around giving people advice I don't even follow myself... I guess it's grand time I take my own advice and cut myself some slack."

That's where the actual healing process started. When I felt ashamed of the fact I made mistakes and felt like condemning myself for having emotions, I forced myself to tell myself the same things I had told my friends; "Everybody makes mistakes, and while it may feel awful, it's a natural part of life. You're not worth any less for that. We don't have to look for a solution right away." "You're hurting right now, but that's okay. You're allowed to hurt. You don't have to be all happy and bubbly all the time." "That's right. You're angry right now. And that's fine. You're allowed these feelings just like everyone else. Let yourself be angry."

Notice how all of these have to do with self-acceptance? Yeah, that's what a lot of us lack. We condemn the parts of us we, or others, don't like and give ourselves more and more wounds. All of these parts have their right spaces in our hearts, but we keep trying to "heal" those spots, thinking we need to make sure none of these "unpleasant" parts of us have no place in our hearts before we can start healing the actual wounds. In reality, trying to close up the spaces just results in more wounds.

Think about your heart like a crow playing with one of those boxes with different holes for different-shaped objects; if you hide one of the holes, the crow will keep trying to push the corresponding object through a different hole. Some of these objects are small but sharp, and they make scratches on the box when the crow tries to push them through the wrong holes. These scratches hurt a lot, but are often quite quick to heal. Some of these objects are big, but more blunt. They might not hurt as much immediately, but they leave large wounds that affect a bigger area and take a much longer time to heal. Some of these objects have two sides, one big and blunt, one sharp and small, and thus cause different types of wounds depending on where and how you try to put them.

We all have this crow and these objects. The crow is stubborn, and will keep looking for the right places to put the objects until it finds them. None of our crows know where to put these objects from birth, and aren't really that smart, so they will naturally make mistakes and try to shove them in the wrong spots. This causes a lot of scratches and dents on our hearts along the years, and it's easy to feel like it's better to just close your heart to these objects altogether. The crow, though, has no other place to put them, so it will keep looking for the right hole for the object it's holding, because it knows there's supposed to be one, and that will just cause more scratches and dents in the long run.

Our crows also have assigned instructors. Some have prepared in every possible way to make sure the box gets damaged as little as possible. They put in extra effort, even before becoming an instructor, and do a great job at taking care of both the box and the crow. Some try their best to take care of the crow, but haven't really internalized that they also have to teach it to handle the objects and the box. Some are there just because it was on their checklist, and either don't really care about the task at hand, or quickly become overwhelmed and end up hurting the crow, making it confused and unable to find the right places for the objects. Some end up with the job on accident, some were forced into it, some are never around, and some came thinking they were prepared, but ended up giving the crow the worst kind of instructions possible. You could probably guess that the objects are these less pleasant parts of us. Most of them are negative emotions like fear and anger, some of them are painful or traumatic experiences. The crow is the person itself. None of us know how to handle our emotions and experiences from birth, and that's exactly why most of us have been given instructors, which are typically our parents. Our parents can teach us to handle these "objects" properly, but most aren't capable or just willing enough to teach all of the in-and-outs of the subject, so we'll naturally have to figure some stuff out ourselves. After all, we'll be stuck with these objects for the rest of our lives, whether we like them or not. So right now this little crow is trying to figure out the proper way to handle these things, hopefully with an extra instructor (a therapist) in the future. I think I'm doing good at it, especially considering the fact that the only thing I was taught was to keep the objects to myself.

[feralattentionwhore]

Get to know the blog:

So apparently my horny posts are something worth following for so I guess I'll do a bio and about me thing that definitely won't turn into a random ADHD ramble about shit

About me

I'm Feral, 19 and I never learnt how to read ✌️

^^ I'm leaving this up because I think it's hilarious but I'm 20 now

Living in the UK but not white

demisexual as fuck, preference for women but honestly I'm more interested in how we vibe than any gender. I tend to identify most with lesbian/sapphic labels because I feel most comfortable in this community.

fuck knows my gender either, I mostly present femme atm but I just identify as *all* I'd say I'm more nb/w or nb/nb & t4t but just in love with queer people in general. I am a girl but I'm also a boy, I'm not cis. You aren't straight if you're attracted to me

Owned, completely and utterly in love, technically poly. I'd rather start off as friends and see how it goes (benefits available if we vibe)

-Dni and more under than the cut-

DNI:

I'm saying this now, I love y'all but minors please get off my page *respectfully*. This includes blank blogs without your age/ age range

Cis men-Age regressors-People who fetishise trans people, s*ssies and cross dressers-Gender/sexuality correction-terfs/homophobes etc-

Oh and PSA this fucking includes people who gatekeep LGBT labels, including but not limited to hating on butch lesbians who transition, nb&he/him lesbians. Just honestly if you aren't accepting of the ✨ENTIRE✨ LGBT+ community and how people choose to identify please leave. No buts no ifs no maybes

How to give attention:

Asks are completely okay, if you want to talk through anon regularly pick an emote and I'll be sure to tag it so they're easy to find. Flirt with me or ask questions, just keep it within my limits please.

Requests are also totally okay along with reblogs of any of my posts. They're always appreciated!

Unless we've interacted before please don't randomly DM me. Mutuals are obviously always welcome to chat, for non moots I prefer asks as I get a lot of anxiety

I tend to check out profiles that reblog/follow so if you want to be moots then that's the way to go

I can't believe I have to say this, but if you're only messaging me to sext or roleplay or whatever you call it you can leave. It makes me uncomfortable, and will most likely make me feel weird about talking to you again in the future. I'm happy to flirt but unless we've talked about it nothing more.

Safe words and talks about boundaries and limits are non negotiable in kink. If you're not respectful of that you're not a dom, if you don't have complete understanding of how this works and expect to engage in anything sexual with someone without doing proper preparation you're practicing unsafe and frankly dangerous kink. Kink is something serious and you need to know what you're doing

I'm demisexual, with a partner and require actual communication before I engage in anything other than flirting. If you're literally only talking to me bc I'm hot or for sex n stuff you're going to be disappointed

I also have a shit tonne of anxiety, so I will disappear if something makes me feel unsafe. If I don't reply, don't make it worse by getting upset. I'm sorry but I really just don't have the energy to deal with things, especially when we don't really vibe.

About ✨whore✨me:

I'm a sub mostly, total bottom and complete mess irl. thought I was ace until this year and basically innocent af (I mean significantly less as of v recently but still fairly shy). Also kinda a hermit so I'm very touch starved.

Short long summary of my kinks.. To be continued..

- Praise and nicknames, specifically cute ones that start with "my"

- Exhibitionism Mostly being uh, fucked in front of people and stuff

- hands and fingersJust god, everything to do with them. In my mouth? Yes, Pulling my hair? Yesss, choking me?? Yesssssssss, hurting tf out of me?? Please

- being manhandled, strength, just be stronger than me and throw me around pls&ty

- being a simp for me and letting me get away with pretty much anything?? Yes

- being controlled and posessiveness Like a lot, like probably more than a healthy amount

- being teased, constantly

- marks.. Just fucking marks feeling owned and having proof of it with collars and stuff

- and also pain, pain and more pain all the hard kinks

- voices, dirty talk, the way they beg, and moan, and call me a good girl, the way their voice drops when they tease me. Everything about voices

- corruption.. 👀 😤

- being free use, letting friends fuuck me, being a whore for everyone. Them sharing my nudes with their friends, them letting their friends fuck me? Yes please

- affectionate domination / soft doms but rough sex

- most of this is just the long way of saying I have a massive kink for my pretty ass girlfriend though.. Just everything about them.. Mostly their hands, and their voice and uh.. Yeah just them

Limits:

-degradation, any way shape or form,I'll most definitely cry. Acting like you don't like me, hurt me because you love me not because you think I'm worthless

- pet play, Ddlg and that kind of vibe aren't for me

- I don't quite know how to explain it but the strict af, black suit and tie, academy / high protocol/training style/straight people bdsm. It's just way too nonpersonal for me and not fun. I prefer messing around and stuff plus my gf looks way better in a skirt

- discipline, punishments and other things that make me think you hate me (see: I'm a big ass baby and sensitive af)

- refering to my uhh *anatomy* just uh it gives me dysphoria like a lot so please don't

- body fluid shit, incest, feet, tickling, hypnosis

- other things that I'm not perticularly comfortable talking about here, you don't need to know unless we're talking

Tags I use:

Yes I'm insanely bad at tagging things, yes I'm trying, no it's not working. If I forget to, just get mad at me in asks or something. I'm sorry ADHD just kind of does that

#feral asks - all asks that I've answered

#feral music - music recommendations because I have a god complex about music

#feral in love - direct posts about my gf/wife/partner/Dom/love of my life

#feral tmi - random personal shit about myself and figuring out my body

#feral reblogs - stuff I reblog, I have a separate account where I keep most of my reblogs but sometimes I can't help it

#needy feral - me begging for attention on Tumblr

#feral exposed - photos of me

#tw feral - depressing shit, mute the tag if you don't want to see that shit

#dark feral - hard kink shit, mute if you'd rather not see it

#feral complaints - shit that bothers me

#feral blogs - thoughts, updates and questions for you all about the blog

[fabvilletales]

What's the same with our differences?

It is inherent to humans to look at something, find patterns, and then attribute characteristics to it. This phenomenon is otherwise known as Stereotyping - the oversimplification of attitudes we have towards others because we assume they hold the characteristics of a certain group, and it functions to help people make sense of the world. It is basically related to categorization, a natural instinct of survival. However, stereotyping has resulted in detrimental and even deathly effects. It has led to bullying, hate crimes, genocide, xenophobia, and countless more - these things are characterized by intolerance, and therefore, unacceptance and even alienation. 

There are other forms of intolerance. Some of these forms include things that we unintentionally and unwittingly do. And it scares me because I just realized the gravity that intolerance influences my daily life. Whether that’s fundamental attribution error or ultimate attribution error - I have been susceptible to these things many times than I want to admit. But it starts with that realization and that very acknowledgement of your own personal shortcomings and your own personal biases. As Doctor Parhar mentioned in his TedTalk, the first thing to fix one form of intolerance, racism, is to acknowledge that we have a subconscious bias - that it is easier for us to think of a particular group as homogenous rather than diverse, because it’s easier to deal with our perception about them. Thus, the same concept has been discussed in another video that explained why Koreans are racists towards people from developing or poor countries but not towards developed and western countries - it is because of subconscious bias. 

We have to humbly accept the fact that as human beings, we are likely to be stereotypical, but as human beings with the capacity for proper judgment and cognition, we are likely able to correct this. To bring them to the forefront and deal with them, deal with the negative implications of our biases, of our intolerance. This means that we actually have to perceive people regardless of their backgrounds, as unique. Of course, it does not mean we should strip them of their race, color, and their culture - it only means that we are able to get to know them for who they are. The danger about over generalization is that it gives men the entitlement and justification for the way they treat a specific group of people, and let that treatment be the definition of who they are. This explains why it is a common thing for people to treat those with tattoos as bad people or individuals from African descent as poor or primitive, when these things - which are most likely to be untrue - definitely do not define who they are. 

Racism, Stereotyping, Bigotry, Prejudice - these all stem from intolerance. It hinders people from actually focusing on the common things they have - their feelings, their interests, their ambitions - things that every human has regardless of race, gender, and status. We are so much more than our differences, so it is very necessary that we try to understand the problem - our individual - level influences to rhetorical media influences - and consciously and constantly make ourselves aware of our bias tendencies and the way we treat others. Ultimately, we need to always be directly addressing intolerance - to allow ourselves to be uncomfortable - to acknowledge our privilege, our language and the rhetoric we perpetuate, and to promote and advocate for inclusivity. It is important that we transcend the need to just tolerate and put up with our differences, instead, we should accept them first as well as our propensity to be estranging, to always try to be aware and be educated, and eventually, appreciate who we are, what makes us different and unique, and what makes us the same: living, breathing, humans in this world. 

[rainbowsky]

Anonymous asked:

Why is China so against homosexuality? [redacted] Upset gay turtle here venting.

Sorry, Anon, a lot of that rant came across as Sinophobic so I've removed it. I really urge us all to be careful about how we talk about these issues, and consider how our words might land on others. There's an incredible amount of racism and hate levelled at Chinese people these days, I believe it's our responsibility to do our best to lighten that load. Our pain doesn't justify giving others pain.

As for the issue of China and homosexuality, you're painting with a pretty broad - and apparently uninformed - brush, here.

I don't know nearly as much about this topic as I want to know (any book recommendations anyone has on queer history in China and/or translations of relevant Chinese poetry and literature would be greatly appreciated), but even in my somewhat limited understanding I know that the crackdown on queerness in China is quite recent. China has actually had a much more complex, much more nuanced, much more rich and interesting history with homosexuality and effemininity than most Western queer people would credit.

Also, the attitude of contemporary Chinese people toward homosexuality is by no means homogeneous, and queer acceptance and support for queer people is growing in China just as it’s growing everywhere else. Even those who are opposed to homosexuality aren’t necessarily opposed to it out of bigotry in the way Western queers might assume. There are cultural differences that impact all of this, so it’s important to approach issues like this with a spirit of inquiry rather than one of outrage.

Rather than try to dig into topics I’m less than qualified to educate people on, I’m going to point you to some content that might give you a broader picture of these issues.

There have been some excellent metas from Pie. I recommend reading those because they are incredibly interesting and well thought out, and present a massive amount of information on subjects related to this. (Please heed all TW and CW; some of this is not for the faint of heart).

What BL stories onscreen might mean for the queer community

Entertainment industry crackdowns and the future of dangai

The feminization of men

How China’s population policies impact the queer community

DD’s sneakers and ice cream post

This entire exchange in answer to some of my questions about the situation for queer people in China

There was also an interesting response from @exitchasedbyawookiee to a related topic that you might find interesting.

@peekbackstage made a post about masculinity in China that you might also find interesting.

One of my past posts you might find interesting:

Drag, Gender Identity and Queer Culture

There is a lot more to these topics than we are aware of in the West. They’re enormously complex, and influenced by a broad range of political, social, cultural and historical issues. As someone who has been trying to get my head around it all for a couple of years now, I can definitely say that it takes dedicated study to get any proper understanding of queer issues in China.

I urge all fans to please be extremely careful and respectful about how we talk about these issues. As I said, there is so much racism and hate against Chinese people right now and they don’t need more hurled at them, even out of carelessness. We must all take responsibility for our own attitudes and how our behavior might impact others. And it behooves us to remember that in the West we’re massively inundated with anti-China rhetoric on a daily basis.

I’ve said this many times in the past, no regime is representative of a country, no matter how much that regime wants it to be true. And it would be intellectually lazy and foolish to try to characterize billions of people with a few simple buzzwords.

I agree that it’s frustrating to see human rights trampled on, and as a queer person it can be very triggering to read some of the homophobic BS coming out of the regime these days. I understand the temptation to compare China with other Asian countries where things are more progressive, but it doesn’t serve any useful or practical purpose and only leads to more negativity.

Ultimately we all want to be good allies for queer people across the globe, and it can be difficult seeing people we love having to go without the rights, freedoms and support we want for them. I encourage everyone to guide that love and concern into positive channels. Support for GGDD and their projects and endorsements. Support for LGBTQ organizations, particularly ones dealing with queer refugees. Support for your local LGBTQ orgs as well.

In the immortal words of Johnny Rotten, “Anger is an energy.” At such a depressing, emotionally deflating time in history, anger can be exceptionally useful motivator.

Over-arching all of that, a spirit of inquiry and cultural exchange with queer people in regions we aren’t familiar with is probably the best approach to dealing with our concerns about human rights in those regions. As the old saying goes, “Nothing about us without us.” If we want to be supportive, we should let others take the lead in giving us guidance on what they need.

I know that is a lot easier said than done when it comes to China, given how walled off things can feel, but with patience and persistence it is possible. And while we’re going through that long process, I don’t think any queer person in China would begrudge us looking to our own backyards as well.

More on this topic, including educational resources, can be found here.

[charlie-rulerofhell]

An interview with Måneskin: “It's not about out bodies, it's about our music”

Heyo, I'm back with another translation. This time the article is from the German Rolling Stone website who met with Måneskin after their TikTok performance at the Schwuz, Berlin, and posted the interview yesterday. Again there were some interesting questions asked (and the pictures they added to the article are quite nice, though severely lacking some Ethan content, but check it out!).

Again, I hope that no one has already gone through the effort and translated it or is currently working on a translation. Also this is an official invitation, if you stumble across any articles or video interviews in German that you would like to have translated just message me and I'll get to it! (or if you just wanna chat about Måneskin, my inbox is always open :))

Have a great day everyone!

Full article under the cut.

-----------------------------

An interview with Måneskin: “It's not about out bodies, it's about our music”

Jose-Luis Amsler

July 6, 2021

Måneskin are just what this generation has been missing. Passionate, corny, and full-on honest. In an interview with Rolling Stones, the ESC winners explain to us why they would never work in a normal job and why the hype for their appearance is sometimes going too far.

Damiano, Victoria, Thomas and Ethan are entering the nearly deserted dance hall, before they wait on stage in a red-blue spotlight. They are wearing glittering fish net tops, black tape across their nipples, leather pants, heels and make up. The camera men who are filming in portrait format (9:16) suitable for TikTok are whirling up the haze of the fog machine.

Måneskin are [in] Berlin to give a TikTok concert. A TikTok livestream of this scale has not been done often – tension is in the air. The four Italians don't know at this point that due to the stream the few people present are not allowed to clap or cheer. In complete silence and with slight uncertainty the four are crossing Neukölln's club Schwuz. A few puzzled glances are exchanged. Finally,  Måneskin are striking the first chord.

Then the rich sound of Ethan's bass drum is tearing through the silence. It's almost as if someone has flicked a switch somewhere. There it is, the rock star presence that is hovering over everything they do, with an ounce of arrogance (in the best sense of the word). Singer Damiano is dancing lasciviously on his heels, and during an especially ecstatic solo guitarist Thomas is throwing himself down on the floor in a way it can only be done by a passionate 20-year-old musician who had never had to worry about the looming doom of an artificial knee joint [for 'passionate' the interview is using the term 'besessen' which means 'possessed', and although I think it's rather supposed to describe the way Thomas is 'possessed / obsessed' with the music, thus passionate for the music, you never know if they didn't mean to say that the way he dances looks 'possessed' … I mean, they might be on to something here ;)]. Around half an hour and about 120 decibel later, Damiano says their goodbyes with an almost shy-sounding “Okay, bye.” After the performance, we do our interview in the Schwuz.

Rolling Stone: It was a little bit weird, right, when you went on stage today?

Damiano: Yeah, that was really strange (laughs). They only told us after the performance that the audience was instructed to stay silent for the stream.

Vic: But at least they weren't silent because we were shit (all laughing). We are slowly getting used to playing without a live audience. I mean we are doing this now for more than a year.

RS: What do you think about these new kinds of concerts such as the TikTok livestream today?

Damiano: Well, at the moment it is the only option to perform anyway, so it's alright. But of course you cannot compare this to a proper concert.

Thomas: But it's pretty cool that so many people can experience our concert live.

Vic: Also we're gonna start touring again soon. Right now we are arranging some festival and gigs. In December we will be touring Italy and afterwards we are planning to go on tour through Europe. But we don't have anything fixed yet, there is just a lot going on at the moment.

“A lot going on”. Quite an understatement considering the recent journey Måneskin has made through the past weeks after their ESC win. Their singles “Beggin'” and “I Wanna Be Your Slave” went through the roof (also thanks to Social Media) and are currently dominating the international charts – lately they were also number one in Germany. There is barely a radio station that isn't playing the band on heavy rotation [would love to know what stations they listen to, have never heard Måneskin played in German radio tbh :( ], and everyone opening Instagram or TikTok these days is flooded by Måneskin content. Every second a new fanpage with the name of 'maneskin_obsession' or 'damianos_slut' is springing up like a (virtual) mushroom. It sounds like a cliche, but Damiano, Vic, Thomas and Ethan became international stars over night.

“Of course it's nice to get compliments. But sometimes they definitely cross a line.” – Damiano David

RS: How has your life as a band changed since your win at the ESC in Rotterdam?

Vic: I think we don't even notice a lot of what's happening. Right after the ESC we went to a studio in the countryside where we made music the whole day long. So at first we didn't realise that so many things were happening all around us – and that we had so many new fans. We're just now beginning to learn what's going on. We were at Sony yesterday, there were so many fans waiting for us. That was crazy.

RS: A large part of the attention you are getting now is about your outer appearance, your style, your attractiveness. Is that getting a little too much sometimes?

Damiano: Of course it's nice to get compliments (laughs). But sometimes they definitely cross a line. Especially when we just talk about our music or about a social or political topic that we care about. In those moments it's just completely inappropriate to reduce us to our appearance. Sure – when I'm posting a half-naked picture of myself on Instagram I know that I will get these kind of comments. And then it's totally fine, I mean in the end I'm posting the picture to show myself. But sometimes it's not the right place for it.

RS: And also you should be allowed to wear what you want without being sexualised, right?

Vic: Yes, absolutely. We are wearing these outfits because we feel good in them, not to put the focus on our bodies. And in general it shouldn't always only be about how you dress. We are musicians – so first and foremost it should be about our music. But I think it will still be a long way until we will reach that point.

“That the boys are wearing make up does not tell you what gender they are attracted to. Those things should never be equated with each other.” – Victoria De Angelis

RS: But still you are sending a message with your style against stereotypical gender roles. I guess it's also not only coincidence that we are in the Schwuz today, which is normally a party location and safe space for the LGBTQ community.

Vic: Yes, that is all part of the positive message that we try to send. We want to give our audience the feeling that they are free. Free to wear whatever they want to wear, be how they want to be and love whom they want to love. It's unbelievable that there is still so much intolerance in our times. That has always been really important to us so we try to talk about these topics. We also believe that the narrow-mindedness of society is an educational problem. When you grow up with people all around you telling you how you should be, you will never feel completely free. The more people are talking about it, the sooner things will change.

RS: Some artists who are advocating for these topics are accused of 'queerbaiting', that they are only pretending to be a certain way to gain more support from the queer community. Have you also been faced with those allegations?

Vic: Yes, a few times. But of course we never pretended to be anything. Some people accuse of us queerbaiting because we look and act the way we do. But that's flawed thinking. We don't believe that clothes are connected to a person's sexuality. That the boys are wearing make up does not tell you what gender they are attracted to. Those two things should never be equated with each other.

RS: This courage for free self expression that you are conveying is mainly lived by our (young) generation through Instagram and the like. What is your relationship to social media?

Damiano: For me it was almost scary at first. The more we grew, the more people were trying to twist all of my words. But over time you start to understand that with more fame you also get more criticism. The happier you look the more hate you will get. It's not only like that for celebrities. If you are brave enough to show the things that make you happy there will always be people that support you, but they are also those that envy you. Of course, this should never lead anyone to not express themselves openly but that's easier said than done.

Vic: We are also trying not to spend too much time on social media. In the end we just try to be honest with our fans and to avoid negativity.

[caption under the picture of Damiano: 'Is already being compared to icons such as David Bowie']

It's actually surprising how little power a win at the ESC holds in most cases. Almost 200 million people are watching this shining spectacle every year – and still, a few months afterwards it is hard to remember who those people were that got covered in confetti during the award ceremony. It's the well-known curse of a casting show that rests on the winning bands. When just next year a new sensation will come to marvel at, how much impact does a win have then? There are exceptions of course, like Lena who is until this day, 10 years after her win in Oslo, a part of the more famous music scene of German pop music. With their charisma, their unusual sound at least for our modern standards, and their contemporary message Måneskin could become such an exception, too.

It's likely also helpful that the band already had a standing in the Italian music scene prior to their ESC participation. Their first album 'Il ballo della vita' already achieved platinum in 2018, three years prior to Sanremo and the ESC. And then there is also the long way that led the four schoolmates to this point that helped them gain the necessary persistence. Because contrary to what some people might want to believe Måneskin are not a phenomenon that has just been deliberately bred to be this way by the entertainment industry for Eurovision.

“I have worked [in a 'normal' job] for a whole month in my entire life – it didn't really end well.” – Damiano David

RS: You were all raised in Rome, the capital of the catholic church. What was it like to start as a young progressive band in such a conservative environment?

Damiano: In the beginning, when we started as buskers, no one gave a damn about us anyways (all laughing). But of course … Once we got a bit bigger there were a few people who had a problem with us. For example when we went to Sanremo, there were quite many people who thought that the way we looked and acted we shouldn't be allowed to represent Italy. They didn't even want to listen to our music first.

Vic: Especially when it comes to appearance and sexuality, Italy is a little more backward than other countries. The church probably also has an influence there. They are often quite conservative of course, so many people grew up with such a [conservative] mindset.

RS: You once said that the song 'In Nome Del Padre' is an answer to exactly those people. What does the song mean to you?

Damiano: Back in the beginning [of our career] we had to deal with a lot of problems. They didn't want to let us play in clubs because we would take too much space as a band or because they didn't like our (fashion) style or because they didn't want to pay us. Italy isn't a good place for bands. Our musical style was also criticised a lot. Many people were telling us: Don't do that [rock music], you won't get popular with that in Italy, you will never achieve anything with it. Of course those comments were hurtful but they were also a good reason for us to continue with what we did. And we turned our sadness into anger. With that song we wanted to tell those people from back then: Fuck off and look at us, we did it!

RS: Did you ever consider working in a nine-to-five job and live a 'normal' life?

Damiano: Nah, not really. For one month in my life I worked [in a 'normal' job] – it didn't end well (all laughing).

Vic: We all made music since we were kids. It's a huge part of us, that we couldn't just ignore. And the most important thing is that you do something that makes you happy. At least that's what we believe. So we started from a young age to put all our time and energy into music.

Thomas: Yeah, exactly. Ever since we were in school together we always made music. That has always been our main focus and it is until today. We play and play and play because it is the only thing that …  

Ethan: … we live for.

Damiano: Music has also something very therapeutic for us. Even when we are in a bad mood or fight with each other – yeah, that happens, too – then all of that is gone the moment we enter the stage. Maybe that's the beautiful thing about music – that it allows you to forget everything else. You're just standing on stage, having fun with your friends.

From most bands you wouldn't buy such a corny love letter to music. Mostly it just sounds like an empty phrase, a well-practiced quotable line. But when there is something that defines Måneskin and that becomes more and more evident during our conversation it's their uncompromising honesty. The four of them are definitely not lacking a sense of humour but they take their music very seriously. Which should not be taken for granted in a generation that has mainly produced sarcastic cloud rappers and has made cynical twitter comedy a national sport. And maybe Måneskin are exactly what this generation was lacking all along.

Still, the four musicians, all in the age of 20 to 22, are also prone to the constant need for self-expression, that has become an intrinsic part of today's life. This does not only reflect in the outfits of the band (always 'on fleek') and their Instagram profiles, but also in their lyrics. Their latest record 'Teatra D'Ira – Vol. 1' shows a clear theme: The album is an ode to individuality, accentuated by fast and hard sounds.

Sometimes this message fitting for a Disney movie [really? guess I have been watching the wrong Disney movies my whole life …] is wrapped in a contrasting loud and forceful packaging, but never so much that it becomes inauthentic or self-caricaturing [note: I'm honestly not entirely sure what they wanted to say with this sentence since it uses a lot of rhetorical devices that could be interpreted in different ways, but I'd say this sounds the most plausible]. And in the end, the thing that makes Måneskin so interesting is their unification of the spirit of this time – between TikTok hedonism and an omnipresent political statement – with the music of past generations.

“When you are twenty, you start to think about what the future will hold.” – Damiano David

RS: Your musical style is often described as classical 70s rock, but in fact there are many different influences in your music. Sometimes you groove almost into funk, sometimes it's more rapping than singing. How did this mixture come to be?

Thomas: It's just that we all have our own individual influences and then we meet somewhere in the middle. And we always try to stay open for experiments.

Ethan: Yes, we are very experimental in our song writing process.

Vic: We also don't want to limit ourselves to what is regarded as typical rock music. If rap fits better at some point then we just add that in. It just happens naturally without us thinking too much about it.

RS: So why was it still rock music in the end?

Vic: Because it's the style that we feel most represented by. But actually we just play the music that we enjoy playing. That's really important to us so that we can show something real on stage. We don't want to pretend to be something that we aren't or mock those people that really enjoy our music. You should always be proud of what you're doing and never fake anything just to sell more records.

RS: Is there something like an Italian rock music scene?

Vic: There are quite a lot of bands – but the most of them are much older than us or they are more going in the direction Indie rock. There isn't really a young rock scene, which we think is a pity. But ever since we got more famous people are telling us that they started listening to rock music because of us or that they bought their first guitar and such. That's incredibly nice!

RS: So you're saying that you also want to show this style of music to a younger generation. And you capture this contrast quite well in the song 'Vent'anni', which is a typical rock ballad but lyrically portrays the thoughts of today's youth. Where did the motivation come from to write that song?

Damiano: With the song I wanted to show that I'm just a normal guy, a really typical 20-year-old. I experience the same things that other people in my age are experiencing, I'm just doing another job than them. Also I wanted to describe this age as a whole because I think it's a really special age. At 20 you start to think about what the future will hold. I think it's one of the most important stages of your life. Since we (the four of us) are all in the same age, I then started to mix our experiences together. In the end the song shows what it means to us to be 20. There is a lot of good things – you are quite carefree and are looking at life enthusiastically. But on the other hand you're too young to do certain things and too old to do others. Some people are treating you like a full-grown adult, but …

Vic: … not entirely.

Damiano: Exactly. It can get pretty frustrating at times. We wanted to show our audience: Hey, we're also just 20 years old, and we're going through the same things as you. We understand you.

RS: Except that you are the ones who are becoming a world-wide phenomenon right now. How do you want to maintain this honesty?

Damiano: I think that we could just reach this point because we have always been authentic – for better or for worse. Also we are just trying to have fun with what we're doing together. That's something special that we don't want to lose. In the end we're just four friends who started to live their dream. It's actually pretty simple. Of course – we go on stage, we get a lot of attention, we give interviews – but when we come back home we're just four friends.

[ghost0loxer]

Imagine, a gender fluid teenager like myself has a favourite/feel-good film and that film is “Just One of the Guys,”from the mid 80s.

Picture this: theatre class, we watch “She’s The Man”, a dreamworks film from the 2000s. And yet, the social justice issues within the film are glaringly obvious to today’s society. Don’t get me wrong, it can be a funny film in a group setting - but then there are scenes that are just uncomfortable. Now, we discussed these themes in class, but I just can’t help but think about the film that came before it. Yes, StM (she’s the mans) is a modern day adaption of Shakespeare’s “Twelfth Night” but I was thinking about the modern day adaption before StM, “Just One of the Guys” from the mid 80s.

I love this film. For multiple reasons, which I hope to discuss.

Number one, our main character. Terry Griffith is stubborn. If she thinks something is right, she won’t let anyone say no or get in her way. Now in some cases, this is great. It’s definitely a shift in the usual romantic comedy female lead (especially for the 80s). But it’s one of her biggest flaws. In the beginning, Terry doesn’t win a contest for a part-time job at the Sun Tribune. She believes her article was amazing, but she speaks with her English teacher and he gives it to her straight. “You don’t have what it takes to be a reporter.” Her article is boring; it’s about the nutritional value of the lunch menu in the school cafeteria, of course it’s boring. But the words her teacher tells her has her convinced it’s because she’s a woman. Thus, she leaves school for two weeks and transfers as a buy to another school who are holding the same competition. Once she gives her article, she is told almost the same thing, but this time, she’s given proper feedback to improve it. Of course, there was some irony with this scene between Terry and the teacher. “Just because you’re guy, doesn’t mean you can’t be sensitive or light.” Thing is, she doesn’t give up, she strives to fix it and finds a new angle. I love her determination, I love the way she doesn’t let others push her around. Furthermore, her transition to a man. In StM, Viola as a guy is made to be cringey and comedic, you watch and think, there’s no way a guy would do that. But Terry, having grown up with a younger brother and is actually smart, manages to nail the role. Sure, she has slip-ups, but she stays afloat and she’s not being over the top. She’s chill and convincing, yet you as the audience can tell she’s trying to appear masculine. Her lines are witty and she’s sharp. Someone has something to say, she’ll be able to backtrack and answer with a joke or sarcasm quickly. I like smart characters.

Another point, the way women are written in this film. A lot of women in this film are treated like shit, but it’s probably a realistic depiction of the 80s. Everyone is talking about dating and sex, it seems to be the only topic the women in this film speak about, unless they are Terry. Terry seems to be the only character in this film whose main goal is not romance or sex. She strives to be a reporter, she wants to prove herself, and she rejects the advances upon her frequently. Whether it’s the boys asking her on dates in halls, or her own boyfriend attempting to seduce her when her parents aren’t home, she doesn’t put them above herself, yet she still lets them down easily, unless they become more pushy (case in point, her boyfriend, Kevin, in the beginning). She can stand up for herself, but she’s not the only one. Her best friend, Denise is one of the many women looking for love, nevertheless, she holds standards. I will admit, I didn’t like Denise’s acting in the beginning; she’s not a great character, but even she manages to reject men’s advances constantly. She’s not afraid to say it bluntly and she expresses her true emotions when certain guys try to ask her out. She tells it to them straight, and I respect her for that (despite her lack of empathy for some). Terry’s brother is constantly hitting on Denise, but she stands her ground. She doesn’t hit him or curse him out, she spins words around him and always lead back to the key word “no.”

This is my third, and maybe final point, (because I’m not great at writing but I’m starting to get tired) the way they handle sexual orientation. It seems if you’re going to make a film about a cross-dressing woman who falls in love with a man, you have to discuss sexuality and this film is not afraid to. That was my biggest beef with StM, when Viola confessed her love to Duke, the made it blatantly clear that it was “weird” and “unusual”; the editing and music cuts. It was done for comedic purposes, but in that moment, it just made me cringe. Even when the principal marched onto the field during the big match to expose Sebastian as “the woman he was all along,” he used a big megaphone and said to the whole crowd this man is in fact a girl. If it were to happen in the real world, and this character was a trans male, that would be traumatizing and so so insensitive. I couldn’t help thinking the way they handled the reveal in StM was poor and shitty.

But with JOotG (just one of the guys)? It’s done respectfully. Throughout the film, Buddy, Terry’s younger, sex-obsessed brother (I have thoughts on this character), often refers to Terry as a transvestite or sexually confused. They make references about her dating other women and jokes. It’s not treated like taboo, but just something people normally talk about, and as a questioning kid when I first watched the film, I really needed that. Although it was used for jokes, the fact that it wasn’t treated like a silent topic made me think more of it and discover who I was; it was media like this that made me accept myself.

Even with the reveal. Kevin, Terry’s boyfriend (or ex boyfriend by the end), stomps up to Terry after she’s wrestled with the school bully and was dumped into the waves at prom. Rick, who’s been Terry’s friend (and is the male lead) throughout her time at his high school, immediately questions who Kevin is and he responds with a harsh and sure “Terry’s boyfriend.” Of course, that doesn’t expose Terry as female, but makes Rick assume she’s a homosexual. But instead of calling her weird or replying negatively, he answers Kevin’s question calmly and says he’s just a friend. There is no prejudice, no disgust, Rick is shocked, but that’s expected. Furthermore, this reveal not only does not alienate homosexuality, it puts the center of focus on the main characters rather than have the whole audience/prom witness this exchange. Sure, the rest of the school is watching but the camera never pans over to them, and even then, Terry drags Rick away from the crowds to a secluded area to explain more.

Even once they’re secluded, Rick doesn’t yell at her or is homophobic. He just says “I understand, you’re gay.” As we know, Terry is not in fact gay and she reveals this to him in a similar fashion as StM, at least it’s not flashing a whole crowd. But the thing that hits me, is the fact that it’s not used as a joke or for comedy. Throughout the film, they’ve mentioned homosexuality and being transgender, but it was used as a light-hearted joke (nothing insulting or derogatory). In this moment, it’s not a joke, and it’s the bare minimum for a emotional scene like this, but it always hits me.

Of course, Rick gets justifiably mad that he’s been deceived and he storms off. Terry’s flaw catches up to her here, as she kisses him in front of the prom guests, stubborn to make him realize how much she cares. ( I didn’t agree with this action to be frank, I cringed ). The crowd gasps and it’s the usual reaction to a homosexual kiss and Rick just pulls back, says “It’s alright everyone, he’s got tits,” and leaves with Deborah.

In true romantic comedy fashion, life moves on. Terry gets the job at the Sun-Tribune after writing her article about posing as a guy and everyone who was longing for love in the beginning has found it, except Terry. The ending, however, is Rick coming back for her after a couple (days? Weeks? Idk all I know is it’s summer by the time he comes back, how much space between prom and summer?) and they kiss, go on a date and all is good.

Now after writing this long ass post, I’ve come to realize the main reason I like this film. Sure, Terry is a good character (not morally sometimes, but she’s interesting to watch), the way women are presented also is good, but my main source of affection for this film (in comparison to StM) is the way they handle the switching of genders. I’m gender fluid, I don’t always like being a woman or a man, I switch almost daily and half the time can’t decide if I want to grow out my hair or cut it. Seeing Terry, originally a woman, manage to convince people she was a guy made me wish I could do it too. It made me realize, I don’t always like being a woman. I want to be a guy sometimes, and I want that to be accepted. It was media like this, like Ouran High School Host Club, like Bare: A Pop Opera, that made me understand my gender and sexuality. (Even media that didn’t have any relation to LGBTQ+ helped).

When I first heard of “She’s the Man”, I had hoped it would be like these pieces of media. And it wasn’t. It was an alright film, but made me feel disappointed and somewhat let down. And that’s why I just prefer Just One of the Guys. Maybe it wouldn’t float in today’s political climate, maybe I’m wrong for seeing these points as reasons it’s one of my favorites, but its still better than StM and is one of my favourite films.

[vampish-glamour]

You know what's scary? I do understand where radfems come from... I really understand them. This whole bs that the term "female" is insulting to trans women and that even a hairy sasquatch kind of male, can call himself a woman now, without even being trans, is a fucking joke. They really push women into radfem thinking with this.

The only problem is, this hurts real trans people, that really struggle with disyphoria and won't be taken seriously anymore...

And in the end, women suffer once again, but this time it's not because of men, but because of the gender fandom.

I agree. I’ve actually been meaning to make a post about this, so I’ll just give my thoughts here.

I tend to find that radfems, on the very surface, can have good points. Examples being

The word woman has become meaningless and this isn’t okay

People think femininity = woman, and that’s harmful to women

The gender fandom is off the walls crazy

Now despite these not actually being exclusively radfem/terf beliefs… many posts about them are either made by radfems, hijacked by radfems, or assumed to be made by radfems. So it’s easy to end up in the radfem side of Tumblr after a while of searching through tags.

And it’s easy to think “yeah, this is something I can get behind”… because you may think that these points mean the following (and the posts about them probably are talking about the following as well)

Anyone can “identify” as a woman, even if they aren’t actually a woman, and this isn’t okay. (Woman = both cis and trans women)

People think that femininity = woman, which leads to women calling themselves nonbinary if they aren’t feminine enough, or trans women being made to feel like they aren’t passing if they aren’t feminine enough

MOGAI is off the walls crazy

But the radical feminists take these points to mean something else entirely, and the radical part of radfem eventually rears it’s head. Then those points turn into

The word woman has become meaningless because of the evil disgusting trans women who are invading poor cis women’s spaces!!!!

Men think that they’re women because they wear dresses!!!!!

The gender fandom is crazy and by gender fandom I mean not just MOGAI and non dysphorics, but dysphoric trans people too!!!!

And the insanity of radical feminism/terfism really shows through.

But that insanity aside, on the very surface I do understand where they’re coming from, in the sense that I can tell what it is they’re against, and what they’re misunderstanding. I can also understand what they’re angry about… and see where they blame the wrong people (dysphoric trans people).

They seem to often come from a place of thinking that MOGAI and non dysphorics speak for the entirety of trans people, so end up grouping dysphoric trans people in with the she/theys and genderfluids. They look at a genderfluid talking about “sometimes I wear boy clothes and sometimes I wear girl clothes”, and think this applies to a dysphoric trans woman… despite the two being vastly different.

They see one trans woman, often a “non dysphoric”, talking about how awful it is for lesbians to not like male genitalia (which yes, is incredibly homophobic), and then think that this applies to all trans people, despite the majority of trans people understanding that it’s okay for people to not be interested in dating trans people.

They see literal men claim to be trans women while experiencing no dysphoria, and claim that they represent all trans women. So they go on about how these men are ruining the definition of woman (and yeah, I do agree that it’s bullshit that any man can just “identify” as a woman)…but don’t seem to get that dysphoric trans women are completely separate from that issue.

They see a bunch of modern day activists claim that the word “female” is offensive to trans women, or that we need to use degrading gender neutral language like “people who bleed” and “birth givers” to be inclusive to trans people… and assume that it’s actual trans people making these arguments. When in reality, from what I’ve seen most actual trans people are against it.

After looking through radfem/terf blogs and seeing what they had to say, I came away with a solidified belief that modern day “trans activism” is actually harming trans people. Because it allows transphobes like these to form a completely false idea of what a trans person is, and base their bigotry off of that.

They generalize based on the loud majority, and unfortunately the loud majority is the “gender fandom”, while dysphoric trans people are pushed to the back. It’s very clear that radfems haven’t listened to or spoken with actual dysphoric trans people, and don’t understand what being trans actually is. Because of this, I can understand where people get these beliefs about trans people from. Because you have the loud majority claiming that “this is what being trans is!!!” While spotlighting absolute bullshit.

And that’s how they can get sucked into radfem ideology, because they start out with the sensical surface level things, and then get pulled into the more radical beliefs that end up being absolute batshittery.

So yeah, I can absolutely see where many radfems come from when it comes to gender. They have no idea what a trans person actually is, because all they’ve been exposed to is the mainstream activism. The upsetting thing is, that this leads to transphobia that hurts actual trans people in the long run.

I’m in no way trying to excuse the rampant transphobia from radfems. Many of them probably are just genuinely transphobic, and would hate trans people even if the mainstream activism wasn’t a factor.

But I do believe that for many, the mainstream activism is a tipping point. If real trans people were at the front of the activism, and making it known what being trans really is… instead of the crazies who are currently in the spotlight, I think we’d have much less people going towards transphobic ideologies, because they’d have a proper understanding of what being trans is, rather than only seeing the bullshit that is currently pushed. And they wouldn’t be in a spot that allows them to be pushed towards radfem/terf beliefs in the first place.

[misswenndy]

Submissive Men

I think it’s time someone cleared the air around what it means to be a submissive man.  The public perception of a submissive man is not a good one.  There is a huge taboo on it, and many misperceptions on what a submissive man actually is. This is really sad, because many women are missing out on some fantastic men, that just might meet them on all the levels they always wished a man could meet her on.  But since he admits he’s submissive, he is often dismissed as a potential partner in her eyes, due to these misunderstandings.

First of all, the biggest misperception  is that being submissive is weak.  Now lets take a look at this from a few angles.  Being submissive can simply mean, he likes to be led, and he likes to put others before himself.  That he is less aggressive, but more compassionate and thoughtful and selfless.

Now many women, like chivalry, and being courted.  For chivalry to exist, men must put aside their own needs and put hers first, for “regular men” this usually comes with the ulterior motive to get into her pants.  For a submissive man, this comes naturally and his desire to make her happy, and putting her first, makes him happy. So, does a man that wants to please, and wants to make her happy, does that make him weak? In what way?  

Now if you turn it around and look at a “regular man” who is courting and being chivalrous simply to get into her pants for his own selfish needs what do you see?  I see a man that simply wants to use her, and once he’s “conquered” her, he will likely move onto the next woman that he deems worthy of chasing.  Her happiness is often a non issue to him as long as he gets laid.  This is what we see in night clubs and bars all over the world. This isn’t uncommon.  We live in a world where we actually have to explain the definition of consent, lets not forget that.

So, how is a submissive man weak, compared to a “ regular man”?  If you really have a good look, the “regular man” has no commitment, he has no burdens, no sacrifices, therefore, where is the strength?  When you look at the submissive man, he has to put aside his own needs, that takes strength.

He has a willingness to learn who she is, and what she needs, and strive to make her happy, that takes a lot of mental strength and self control.  And, all of that, is before she is even interested in dominating him, he must show and prove his strength of character to her, long before she even considers the idea.  

So he must be strong on the emotional level as well as mental.  Now physically, “regular men” and submissive men, is quite irrelevant. There are submissive men of all forms and “regular men” of all forms, so this isn’t about who is physically stronger. So that’s a non issue.

Physically however, submissive men, tend to be more diplomatic, and try to resolve problems without resorting to violence whenever possible.  “Regular men” on the other hand, tend to be more aggressive, and lack empathy to greater degrees, and tend to resort to violence before proper communication. This is seen all the time in road rage and so on, and lets not even get into rape and all that…

Another misconception about submissive men, is that, they’re gay.  This one is huge, and makes many submissive men hide in the closet afraid to express their submissive tendencies because of the strong taboo.  Being submissive, and being gay, are extremely different things.  That includes submissive’s that gravitate toward cross dressing.  Submissive men, may be a little more gentle, and sometimes a little less masculine. At the same time, we do have a huge issue of toxic masculinity in the world.  So submissive men kind of bring a bit of a balance to what it means to be masculine.  Men are brought up into a world, that teaches them that showing emotions as a man is gay or weak.  

Submissive men, want to show their emotions, because they understand that suppressing these emotions isn’t healthy for anyone in their lives.  Allowing emotion to flow freely through them, enables them to be vulnerable with the women in their lives, who are no strangers to vulnerability, with toxic masculinity always chasing her.

When you take a good look at vulnerability in this way, you can begin to see it as a strength and not a weakness.  A submissive man allowing himself to be vulnerable means he must open up in all the ways he fears the most.

In other words, he must face his deepest fears, and allow himself to be naked, emotionally with his partner.  This is something many men, never, ever, experience.  They’re not strong enough to let go that much.  They’re too busy believing that being macho and unfeeling is somehow the only way to be strong in this world, and as a result we have a world at war, which is nothing more than a big dick contest.

So submissive men, actually bring a balance to masculinity, that can meet the feminine on the levels most men never can. So instead of seeing submissive men as being gay, perhaps we can change the perception to having the balls to be emotional.

Even if a submissive is a cross dresser, or a sissy, it does not mean he is gay.  It means, he wants to understand the feminine, that the raw power felt exploring what it means to be feminine, humbles him as a man.  It actually helps him become a better man, because he is balancing his masculine and feminine sides within him, which will give him a stronger intuition, bring him more in touch with his body, and the natural world.  

It will make him feel more alive, more in tune, and give him heightened senses.  So exploring the feminine side isn’t necessarily a bad thing for a man to do, and I would recommend that all men be open minded enough, and dare I say, strong enough to actually explore it a little.  

Now many men, especially if not submissive, reading this, would be offended by that.  If you’re not comfortable enough to explore the feminine side, how can you call yourself a macho man? There’s a weakness there, inhibitions, fear of vulnerability. It has nothing to do with being gay, that’s the excuse that you come up with to rationalize your decision to never explore it.  The ego in full force.

There is only one thing that makes anything gay, and there is nothing wrong with being gay either. But lets at least get our definitions straight.  The only time anything is gay, is if it’s being done, or desired to be done, with the same gender.  That’s it, nothing more.  

A girl can take a man up the ass with a strap on, and it’s not gay. It’s anal sex. It’s not gay sex.  He can desire to be taken up the ass by his girlfriend, or even on his own, with a butt plug.  Again, not gay.  If he desires a man to be doing it, then yes, that’s gay.  A man wearing panties is not gay either. A man being feminine isn’t gay. A man being with another man, masculine or feminine, that’s gay.  I think you’re getting the point I’m making?

I hope you are, because, the stigma is ridiculous, and the misperception needs to rectified. There are so many submissive men in this world that deserve a chance.

Submissive men must be so strong, to face the extreme levels of vulnerability to submit to a woman in a relationship, that strength and value is often not given credit.  So much of what we see on the internet portrays submissive men as weak, and worthless, to be degraded and humiliated and treated like a dog.  Now, the idea of the things above, in fantasy, can be a turn on, because it caters to a submissive’s desire to submit, no matter how hardcore.

But in reality, it’s a very different picture. In reality it can be a whole lot more romantic and intimate, passionate and charming.  A submissive can be cherished by a woman, and make a fantastic partner that can really meet her on all the right levels and satisfy her needs, not just sexually, but around the house, and in life in general.  He wants to. He needs to.  

It’s a part of who he is, to make her happy is to make him happy.  He’s a man with the ulterior motive of making her happy to make him happy. It’s a very different approach than simply getting laid and moving on to the next.  

A relationship with one partner dedicated to making the other partner happy, is difficult to fail.  It sets a foundation from the start and it has the ability to evolve, because communication is open.  Trust is inherent.  Where there’s trust, there’s always going to be passion and intimacy.  Without trust, there are always insecurity issues, cheating issues, masturbation issues…. etc… With a submissive man, all of those issues are non existent.  It helps her to fully relax knowing he’s there for her, without any doubt of his intentions.  How many women and men, could benefit from this kind of relationship?

And that, is precisely why I wrote a book dedicated to introducing this kind of relationship in a gentle way that doesn’t scare people away with intense fetishes or erotica. A practical approach to a relationship that can set you both free in ways you can’t even imagine yet.  The human body is designed to love, to feel, to be vulnerable, to let go of inhibitions and be accepted for who you really are, with another, down to the deepest level of your soul.

[eruvadhril]

(Link to thread on twitter)

Transcript under the cut

I've seen a lot of people trying to parse out what the hell Tolkien is talking about in this footnote. If I may have the floor please, and Tolkien scholars beyond my ken please correct me if I'm wrong but. A THREAD

[Screenshot of the footnote in question, which reads: In this matter the Elven-tongues make distinctions. To speak of Quenya: Love, which men might call “friendship” (but for the greater strength and warmth and permanency with which it was felt by the Quendi) was represented by √mel. This was primarily a motion or inclination of the fëa, and therefore could occur between persons of the same sex or different sexes. It included no sexual or procreative desire, though naturally in Incarnates the difference of sex altered the emotion, since “sex” is held by the Eldar to belong to the fëa and not solely to the hröa, and is therefore not wholly included in procreation. Such persons were often called melotorni ‘love-brothers’ and meletheldi ‘love-sisters’.]

What I believe is happening here in this passage is Tolkien trying to rationalize how Elves are capable of the higher ideal of romantic love without sex, whereas Men are not, which draws very heavily on the Oxford Academic of the 50s' concept of the Platonic Ideal.

For elves, there is a higher level of "Friendship" (his quotation marks, or the editors) that men can't comprehend and interpret as "love" presuming that love in their case fundamentally involves procreative sex. Note that Tolkien does still call it love at the end of the passage

This also makes sense in terms of how Tolkien viewed man (human beings on our earth) as Fallen in a Christian sense, and men and women incapable of intimacy without sex, but that's a tangent. Still worth considering in relation to Men vs Elves here.

Then he goes on to rationalize that this level of love is a love of the soul. Soulmates basically. And the reason elves can experience same-sex soulmate love is that their souls are gendered as well as their bodies, but soul and body can function independently on this level.

So what he means is, if the Body and the Soul can function independently, then two souls, independent of sexual drive, can fall in love. He is, with the same brush stroke, confirming same-sex romantic love, and brushing same-sex sexual desire under the rug, which, unsurprising.

He then, shockingly and also not shockingly at the same time, takes a sharp right from rationalization to give them proper elvish linguistic signifiers, making them common place and definitive. melotorni and meletheldi are now actual words in our Quenya lexicon.

What he's doing here is really interesting in relation to two things, a. his relationship with the classics and b. his relationship with actual people in his life. But that in detail is. Literally part of my PhD concept. BUT IN SUMMARY in relation to this--

a. What Tolkien's doing here is pretty much the same thing he does with Sam & Frodo (who are, we should note, not Men, and therefore has not YET been defined as how their fëa and hröa work.) What he's saying is that the most elevated love between two people is the Platonic Ideal.

That is to say, a higher, intimate understanding and deep respect for one another that is absolutely, definitely Love, between equals--as both the Greeks and an Oxford academic in the 50s would see it--Between men on a level that women are incapable of relating to.

This is specifically a version of the Platonic ideal that omits the unspeakable vice of the Greeks, because sex between men was *absolutely* happening. We know historically that the ivory tower has ignored this for decades if not centuries at this point.

But also I think importantly, b. Tolkien wrote a Second World with the intention of it being wholly realistic within itself. He had gay people in his life who were at the very least respected colleagues, and likely friends.

This also can be interpreted as his way of negotiating his Christianity and his relationships with people in his life. This higher, elevated, love that included the homoromantic, but brushed the issue of sex under the rug. A classic 'I love my friends but not their way of life.'

Anyway this one footnote wrote at least ten pages of my thesis for me and I haven't even written a proposal yet so here we are. This is ABSOLUTELY a win for queer readings of the Legendarium, we could have expected no better and a lot worse.

Oh, and one last note, the fact that he even broached this subject at all speaks volumes. He didn't have to. There was zero obligation. But he considered it, which says a lot.

I LIED, ONE MORE ASIDE. This is extremely gendered. Shocking! But one could certainly apply a queer lens to it and say, so are the fea & hroa always the same gender? That's an interesting question. And we honestly don't know how JRRT would answer. We might when the book drops.

[dwellordream]

“In February 1924, Illustreret Fagblad for danske Damefrisorer, one of the leading trade journals for Danish women's hairdressers, reported that short haircuts for women were becoming increasingly common throughout most of Europe. Although the trend had not yet reached Denmark, it was likely to do so, the journal predicted, since "we have seen within the last couple of months the first signs of .. . shorn hair here in Copenhagen." The prediction proved correct. In July 1925, Ugens Spejl, another trade journal, reported that the new fashion was spreading "like fire in old houses." That same year, the president of the Ladies' Hairdressers Association estimated that 25 percent of Copenhagen's female population had their hair cut short.

The following year, one Copenhagen barber claimed that no less than 75 percent of women under the age of 30 had adopted the new styles, leading the editor of yet another trade journal, Danmarks Barber-og Frisortidende to conclude that "there is something almost epidemically contagious about the advancing shingling. Each and everyone who lets her locks fall for the scissors immediately draws four or five others with her." Although contemporaries may have exaggerated the numbers, contemporary street photography and surviving photo albums suggest that a significant number of young women did in fact dispose of their long hair in the second half of the 1920s. 

It is also telling that no fewer than 48 of the 59 women interviewed for this project recalled having their hair cut short before 1930. As Anne Bruun explained many years later, "That was just what you did. If you were young and wanted to be in style, that was definitely the look. Anybody who wanted to be up-to-date did that." Helene Berg agreed. "Short hair made you look chic, made you look modern," she claimed. Besides, as Louise Ege pointed out, short hair "kind of fit with the other things that were fashionable. Short dresses and all that." But despite their enthusiasm for the new hairstyles, actually acquiring one of the fashionable bobs was not always easy. While the number of beauty salons had been growing since the turn of the century, women's hairdressers generally shied away from providing their female customers with the short haircuts they desired.

For decades women's hairdressers had worked hard to create a respectable female profession by promoting themselves as specialists in hygiene and conventional feminine beauty, an accomplishment they were not willing to sacrifice by embracing the controversial new styles. Moreover, since most hairdressers were only used to working with combs, brushes, and curlers, few were actually competent to cut hair. As a result, many women had to enter male barbershops to have their hair cut, a step many took with considerable trepidation. The difficulties of finding a stylist both willing and able to cut a woman's hair was not the only obstacle to a fashionable appearance. Many fathers and husbands explicitly prohibited the new styles. Others let their disapproval be known more indirectly.

As Magda Gammelgaard Jensen recalled, "I really wanted to get my hair [cut] short, but I didn't know how to go about it. It wasn't so easy when there was a man around." According to Mr. H. M. Christensen, the president of the Danish Grooming, Toilet and Sanitary Workers' Union, many women therefore chose to "have their hair cut at a time when their husbands and fathers [were] not at home." Outside the private sphere, other forces also strove to contain "that unfortunate tendency among young ladies to shear their hair." Some workplaces openly discriminated against women who adhered to the new fashion. Several prominent department stores did not hire women who sported the new hairstyles. Others fired employees after a visit to the hairdresser. 

In 1924, the personnel director at Crome & Goldschmidt, one of the leading clothing stores in Copenhagen, flatly declared that he "would absolutely not engage or employ any young woman with bobbed hair." Other businesses had similar policies. The president of Salomon David Jr. Inc., Inger Diemer, explained that she had "banned bobbed hair." "I demand," she continued, "that the women who work with us, sign [a contract] that they will not wear short hair. In my mind, that is not proper in an old, highly esteemed firm." The director of Bispebjerg Hospital, Charlotte Munck, also banned short hair for all nurses under her supervision.

Even women in less publicly visible occupations faced ostracism if they chose to adopt the modern styles. Inger Mangart, for example, who worked as a part-time cleaning assistant in a private home in the late 1920s, recalled being dismissed the first day she arrived with short hair. The press was equally adamant in its stance against the new styles. To discourage young women from following fashion, newspapers and popular magazines delighted in sensationalist stories about domestic turmoil caused by short hair. Divorces, physical abuse, family disintegration, and even murders were described as tragic, but predictable, outcomes of women's changed appearances.

Assuming, however, that young women were more likely to follow fashion prescription than sensible guidance, journalists and other commentators figured that the most efficient way to combat the modern styles was simply to declare them unfashionable. "Bobbed hair is no longer in style," one beauty advice columnist thus warned as early as 1922, several years before the new styles hit Denmark. "We hardly have to repeat that bobbed hair has already received the death sentence abroad," another fashion expert claimed that same year. "There is no doubt that this fad, the short hair, is coming to an end," Ugebladet asserted a couple of years later, and in 1925, B.T. was pleased to report that "all countries now agree that the fashion of short hair is finally on the retreat."

Yet despite these elaborate efforts to suppress the new haircuts, women's enthusiasm did not wane. Many critics therefore felt compelled to explain the dangers of the new styles in the hope that young women would be swayed by their arguments. Some journalists and beauty advice columnists sought to discourage young women from having their hair cut through use of the kind of racist imagery that permeated early twentieth century European culture. By labeling the new styles "Hottentot hair" or "Apache cuts," they strove to impress upon young women the incompatibility of short hair with refined Western womanhood. "Surely, no young lady wants to look like a monkey," one reporter thus argued, apparently hoping that young women would recognize the similarity between women's short hair and animal fur. 

Other observers claimed that short hair simply made women look ugly and unattractive. Cutting one's hair was therefore inevitably at the risk of losing "the man's admiration and desire." Although some men admitted that a short-haired woman might serve "as a drinking buddy," those who participated in the public debate all insisted that the new styles did not mix with marriage and motherhood, implying that short-haired women could expect to live out their lives as spinsters and old maids— an argument that presumably would dissuade any young woman from such reckless behavior. While most female critics tended to focus on the aesthetic aspects of the new styles, it was quite different considerations that fueled much of the vehement male opposition. 

Like many other people in the early twentieth century, these commentators believed there was a direct correlation between external appearance and internal self. When a woman cut her hair, she was not only defying conventional standards of femininity but was also prone to develop some of those mental traits that usually characterized people with short hair—namely, men. As Ludvig Brandt-Meller, a male hairdresser who opposed the new styles, explained, "Short hair tends to emancipate the woman. It is as if it affects her psychologically." Others found that short-haired women became "like men in character and gestures," insisting that "that 99 out of 100 women with short hair have simultaneously acquired boyish or mannish manners."'

A few alarmists saw even greater dangers ahead. The very act of cutting a woman's hair, they argued, would eventually alter a woman's biological constitution and turn her into a man. Believing that the mass of hair on a human body was constant, some argued that short hair would necessarily cause women to grow beards. Others predicted the advent of female baldness. "The evidence is right there, since 60 percent of all men over forty [who presumably had cut their hair since childhood] are bald, while less than 0.1 percent of all women [who had never previously cut their hair] suffer from this weakness," another critic of the new styles explained. 

While men had tended to object to short dresses because they rendered women too attractive, their reactions to short hair were therefore quite different. According to male critics, short hair "emancipated" women and made then unwomanly, even masculine, and not attractive enough, a violation of gender norms that seemed to them much graver and ultimately more unpleasant than women being overly sexy and seductive. Even those who did not necessarily believe that short hair would actually turn women into men found this quite disturbing because, as one correspondent wrote to the editor of the newspaper B.T. in 1925, "If there is something we men cannot stand, it is precisely women void of femininity. "

Young women's seeming disregard of men's opinions about the new styles only made matters worse. Apparently, young women were no longer pursuing physical beauty and style for the purposes of male pleasure and admiration. How, then, were men to understand women's enthusiasm for short hair as anything but a sign that women cared less about male approval than about their own "emancipation"? Some even feared that the popularity of the new styles might indicate an explicit sexual and emotional detachment from men. In comparison with those who defended short dresses when they first appeared, supporters of the new hairstyles were therefore faced with a much more difficult task. 

The opposition to women's short hair was much fiercer than the opposition to short dresses had ever been, as short hair connoted emancipation, female defiance, and rebellion against men's judgment in a way that short skirts never had. During this entire controversy, the voices of women who cut their hair were rarely heard in public. Under heavy fire, most young women seemingly preferred to avoid the discursive battles that raged around them. On the few occasions that any of these women did speak up, they generally adopted a very cautious stance, seeking to diffuse the opposition by reassuring critics of their whole-hearted commitment to femininity and respectable womanhood. 

In 1925, one young woman who described herself as "old-fashioned" despite her short hair thus sought to counter criticisms of the new styles by denying that there was any link between appearance and identity. "Why in the world should a young girl not be equally feminine and good whether she has bobbed hair or long hair?," she wondered. "It does, after all, not change the nature of the young girl to have her hair cut off." More often, young women simply tried to skirt criticisms by emphasizing the very pragmatic concerns that allegedly had led them to the barbershop. "Much can be said both for and against the bobbed hair, but the fact that it is a practical way of wearing one's hair, nobody can deny," one woman argued.

Nonetheless, the relative silence on the part of the women who wore the new hairstyles did not mean that no voices were raised in their defense. Complicating the picture of vocal male opponents and a largely silent group of female supporters, the chief public advocates of short hair for women in the 1920s were in fact male barbers. Not that barbers were a particularly fashion-conscious bunch or especially committed to young women's right to determine their own appearance. These men simply saw the new styles as a means to propel their profession out of the crisis in which it had lingered for decades. 

The rise of the medical and dental professions had dealt the first blow to the former surgeon-barbers, eliminating what had been the most profitable areas of their occupation. Later, when men began to shave themselves rather than frequenting the barber twice or three times weekly, the financial base of most barbershops had been further undercut, and scattered attempts at cultivating new areas of business expertise such as facial massage and manicure had contributed only little to their economy. 

In this context, the fashionable new styles for women seemed a god-send for barbers eager to cultivate both a new clientele and new sources of income, and since women's hairdressers generally opposed the short hairstyles and most often refused to cut women's hair, barbers were left with the uncontested responsibility for providing young women with the look they desired. Of course, barbers were not oblivious to the offense women's short hair provoked or the wrath they might incur by accommodating female customers. 

It was therefore in their own best interest to counter the opposition, and toward that end they adopted the same strategy that fashion advocates had successfully used a few years earlier, namely, to attempt to disassociate short hair from any kind of subversive intentions on the part of women. Short hair, they insisted, had nothing to do with defiance of feminine conventions or even modern fashions. It was a style adopted for reasons of comfort, ease, and practicality only. "It is not the senseless mimicking of fashion follies that has led women to allow their hair to be cut off," one barber thus insisted in 1926. "Rather, it is the natural development in all social strata that has forced the women to choose a practical hairstyle."

To give credibility to this claim, barbers traced the origins of women's short hair not to feminist rebels or decadent fashions, but to that highly respectable, self-sacrificing female heroine, Florence Nightingale. "When a war begins," one writer explained, "masses of younger and older women who wish to be nurses in the army immediately sign up. The healthiest among them are selected, and the first step on the road to their new vocation is to cut their hair as short as men's, first, because the daily care takes too long time, and secondly, because a nurse cannot run around with a zoo of carnivores [sicl] in her long hair." Upon their return, the reasoning continued, admirers adopted similar hair styles. 

Although there was little historical evidence to support such an explanation—after all, Florence Nightingale's reputation had been established during the Crimean War almost three quarters of a century earlier, and few women had followed her example in the intervening years —this argument had several advantages. First, it disassociated short hair from any kind of female defiance. Second, it sought to ground the popularity of the new hairstyles in admirable, patriotic concerns. And third, it tied short hair to notions of health and hygiene. From the mid-1920s, particularly the latter, combined with arguments about the practical requirements of the labor market, formed the core in the defense of women's short hair. 

In addition, barbers also sought to address anxieties over the seeming dissipation of gender differences by calling attention to the cultural and historical versatility of hair styles. In an article entitled "Masculine Girl Hair and Feminine Boy Hair," the author set out to prove that "women have not been 'the long-haired sex' for as long as we believe." A sampling of Greek, Roman, and Persian traditions led him to conclude that "long hair appears just as frequently on men as on women when one examines history, which is why hair has nothing whatsoever to do with sexual character." 

Just as long hair did not make men less masculine, short hair would not eradicate women's femininity. In fact, some argued, it held the potential of actually heightening it by drawing attention to women's fine facial features. "The shape of the face, the beauty of the skin, as well as the soft lines of the neck" were accentuated by short hair, one barber wrote, poetically comparing a woman's face to a "painting [that] is also seen more clearly in a simple frame." In the case of modern dresses, fashion advocates had gradually managed to convince most critics of their compatibility with conventional womanhood. Short hair fared differently. 

Short, simple haircuts for women never gained acceptance in the 1920s, at least not among the men and women who publicly expressed their opinions. The controversy over women's hair only died down at the end of the decade, when a new, modified style of short hair became popular. Ironically, this new short style, which eventually appeased critics, emerged from the beauty salon run by women's hairdressers. Having been entirely unsuccessful in their attempts to coax women into preserving their long hair and eager to regain some of the professional territory lost to barbers, women's hairdressers found themselves forced to dispense with their rejection of the short fashions. 

Still unwilling, however, to embrace the bobbed look, they devised a new strategy. Arguing that short hair unfortunately had been "carried to extremes... by the less cultivated segments of the female population" and was sported by "each and every factory and shop-girl," (middle-class) women were offered a chance to distinguish themselves as "finer ladies" through "feminine and graceful styles with curls and waves" while they were waiting for their hair to grow out again. By fashioning themselves as aides to women concerned with the reestablishment of their femininity and by presenting their care for short hair as a form of damage control, hairdressers were able to legitimize their growing interest in women's new hairstyles. 

With relatively few ideological scruples they were therefore able to plunge into this profitable market during the last years of the 1920s, gradually recapturing the patronage of most women. However, that women left the barbershop and (re)turned to the beauty salon did not indicate that long hair was regaining its popularity. Fashionable hairstyles for women remained short for the rest of the decade. What did change was the way short hair actually looked. Female hairdressers, one fashion columnist noted with applause, did "everything to give the short style a more feminine air than earlier." 

Permanent waves and curls, artificial hair pieces, decorative combs, ribbons, and barrettes all contributed to this goal. This new, feminized version of short hair quickly gained popularity among women interested in variation and possibly weary of public hostility. Within just a few years the original simple, straight styles had virtually been abandoned. Customers, one hairdresser noted with pleasure in 1927, now wanted "to become more feminine, not with completely long hair, but with longer short hair, enough to be curly in the back and around the face .. . so that the repulsive boyish head becomes beautified and more feminine."

Thus, after a brief but troubling intermission where women's adoption of short hair seemed to be blurring gender differences, new curlier versions of bobbed hair marked the reestablishment of gender distinctions in fashionable self-presentation. Even though women continued to cut their hair, the clear stylistic differences between short hair for men and short hair for women soothed critics, and gradually their opposition faded. With their confidence in the stability of sexual difference restored, some of the harshest opponents were even able to admit a few years later that they actually found short hair quite charming and attractive—if not on their wives, then at least on their daughters.”

- Birgitte Soland, “The Emergence of the Modern Look.” in Becoming Modern: Young Women and the Reconstruction of Womanhood in the 1920s

[alloftheimaginesblog]

You’re Never Helping Again (Indiana Jones x Plus Size History Professor Reader)

Plot: A follow up to ‘Let Me Help’ in which it's made apparently clear that Indy definitely overestimated his ability to teach the gendered nuances of Victorian Medical practice or something. All your students demand that you never let him teach one of their lessons again, He pretends that it went effortlessly and was the best lesson he's ever taught.

Character: Indiana Jones x Plus Size History Professor Reader

Requested by @hufflepuffing-all-day-long​

PART TWO OF ‘Let Me Help’ 

Part of my Secret’s Out Saga (Plus Size History Professor Reader x Indiana Jones) series and part of my Plus Size Reader x Character series!

For once in your life, you listened to Indy and you did exactly what he instructed you too. You never liked following rules, especially when it came to men and boyfriend’s rules but you knew that he was right. You were running yourself into the ground and you needed to let yourself up for air, even if it was a few hours of self care.

You’d been in Indy’s apartment many times before, you stayed over multiple times during the week, but you’d never been here alone. You’d never let yourself in with a key before, you’d never kicked off your shoes and hung up your jacket as though it were your apartment; you’d never even made yourself anything to eat here before, Indy always took care of that! It felt strange, extremely odd, that you were here in his apartment without him. It almost felt... exciting? He had said he was meaning to give you a key soon anyway... was this what it was like? A proper, long-term adult, serious relationship? You smiled to yourself as you explored his apartment, wanting to soak up everything whilst he wasn’t here. You’d never really had this before - never had anything this serious before. Men just never treated you the way he did. Men around here just weren’t... they weren’t like Indiana.

His living room was organised chaos. There was mess, like coffee cups lying on the table and on his desk and his jacket and shoes in a pile the end of the sofa, but the rest of it was organised chaos. Piles of papers stacked high and low, messy but organised. He had piles of essays to grade, dissertations to grade, books stacked, piles for his newest research papers; it was organised but it was chaos. His living room was exactly how you’d imagine it to be; brown and leather - that academia look. He had trophies and certificates on shelves, you smiled as you read over them, he was still young but my god, he had accomplished so much. He had replicas of artefacts on the walls and on the remaining shelves but as you looked, some of them looked a little too old and a little too perfect that you were sure it was the real thing. He never failed to surprise you.

You made your way to his bedroom, now this was your favourite part of his apartment. It was simple, not a lot in his bedroom. Four post brown wooden bed, messy bed (he was never one to make the bed in the mornings), wooden drawers and wardrobe. It was very basic but it was the little details that you loved. He had drapes around the bed, that usually remained tied up they were more for decoration, but he had told you the story of how he came to be in possession of them. When you glanced at them they just looked plain white with some dark embroidery but when you looked up close, you realised that it was writing all around the bottom of them. He’d told you that he’d been in India years ago and helped them get an artefact back and they’d given him these drapes which had ‘Indiana Jones; our hero’ in their native language all around it. You had laughed when he told you that, “Of course, you’re the only person I know that would have drapes singing your praises on them and get away with it.”

A photo in a frame was perched against his bedside cabinet. It was a picture of you, not you and Indy, no, just you. It was a picture of you reading a book whilst curled into his couch. It was a grainy photo, black and white and a little faded but he loved that picture. You’d never really liked it, the curls in your hair had come loose, your lipstick was all faded, your glasses were half way down your nose, you were in your pyjamas and could see all your lumps and bumps and yet, Indy loved it. You’d asked him why he loved it so much one day, he just smiled and said, “It’s just... you.” You placed the photo down before heading to his closet. You did have a bag of clothes here but who in their right mind would turn down the chance to steal one of his shirts?

You filled the bath and whilst you waited, you were reading his newest research paper. He had let you read the drafts but now, this was close to being the finished thing and you couldn’t help but want to read it. He never failed to amaze you with his academic talent, the knowledge that man had; the first hand experience this man had with so many cultures and artefacts, it blew you away every time. You’d finished reading just as the bath was ready, “Incredible,” you whispered as you stood to put it away back on his desk - you knew that if you kept it in the bathroom with you you’d somehow end up dropping it into the bath.

The bath was a perfect temperature, you were glad for it. Sometimes if a bath is too hot you get too stressed about trying not to lobster yourself that you don’t enjoy it and sometimes if you make it too cold... well, that’s just no fun, is it? You sunk into the warmth of the water, relishing in its soothing touches. You washed your hair, trying to detangle the mess of curls with your fingers as you let the soapy suds clean away all your worries.

Soon, you were out of the bath and padding around the kitchen trying to find something to eat. You’d put on one of Indy’s looser fitting shirts. It didn’t button over your stomach so you’d pulled on one of his stretchy t-shirts under it. You found leftovers in the fridge from the night before, homemade spaghetti and meatballs. You had been surprised when you found out that Indiana was a decent cook. You thought that with him being so busy teaching, writing and adventuring that he wouldn’t have a lot of time to cook for himself. Sure, he loved Chinese take out but he could whip up a decent meal.

It wasn’t long after you’d reheated the spaghetti that you heard the front door open and heavy footsteps. You poked your head out of the kitchen to see Indy taking his jacket off and taking his glasses off, “How you feeling?” He asked as he walked into the kitchen with you.

“A lot better,” you admitted, “thank you... Really, Indy, thank you.” He smiled bashfully as you thanked him, “I hope my students weren’t too wild for you.”

He shook his head, “One of the best lessons I’ve ever given actually,” he said quickly... too quickly.

“Yeah?” You asked with a frown, “cause it was going to be a pretty full on lesson about Victorian medical practice, that can get quite tricky especially when we bring gender into the equation-” He cut you off.

“You don’t think I could handle it?” Indy asked, unusually defensive.

“Of course you could, Indy,” you rolled your eyes, “I was merely saying that sometimes even I find teaching Victorian medical practice hard going, there’s just a lot and I know my students, I’ve trained them to question everything so that they know and understand every single detail.”

Indy raised his eyebrows, “Oh I know they question everything... Believe me, I know.” You eyed him suspiciously but he seemed eager to drop the subject and he’d already done so much for you today that you just shrugged and passed him a plate of spaghetti.

The rest of the night was spent with you going over the research you had and what you still didn’t have sources for. Indiana proved to be very helpful. He had hundreds of books, some in shelves, some scattered around, and he was able to find the sources and missing pieces of information that you needed. It didn’t take long until you had finished your first draft. You beamed as you put the pen on the desk, “I’m finished. I did it!” Indiana was right there beside you, giving you a kiss on the forehead, and singing your praises, “I couldn’t have done it without you, Indy,” you whispered as he congratulated you, “Thank you.” 

It seemed a wise choice to take the rest of the night off after that. Yes, you were aware that you had papers to grade and dissertation drafts to sift through but you could get to them tomorrow. Tonight, Indy had better plans for you. He was going to help you relax with something a little more intimate and pleasurable than grading papers.

The next morning, you’d used some of your spare clothes that you left at Indy’s to get dressed and found him in the kitchen with two mugs of coffee waiting. You ate a small breakfast with him, talking about your lesson for the day, “You might want to go over yesterday’s lesson again with your class,” Indiana said nonchalantly, “Some of your students didn’t really fully understand and I ran out of time.”

You narrowed your eyes but nodded anyway. He didn’t know that your students would tell you exactly what happened yesterday so you let him believe that he was safe for a while longer.

You felt great. You felt like the weight had been lifted off of you shoulders and you were refreshed and well-rested. It just showed you how much having someone help you out benefited you. You couldn’t thank Indy enough, you just appreciated it so much; that he would help you out like that. His sweet gestures always made you feel like the luckiest woman alive.

With your lesson plans and papers in hand, you walked into your class to see all of your students already there, “Class doesn’t start for another forty five minutes!” You frowned, “What’s going on?”

“Thank god you’re back!” One of the girls, Sarah, said with a huff, “You are never letting Dr Jones teach us again!” 

You put everything on your desk and sat in your chair, “Why?” You asked tentatively, “What happened?”

“He had no clue, Professor!” A boy at the back told you, “First twenty minutes started out strong but as soon as we started asking questions, he just rambled and could not figure anything out.”

You couldn’t help but laugh as they told you more about what really happened. Poor Indy. He had tried, he really had tried but he was just not prepared for the inquisitive nature of your students, “He was getting so annoyed that we asked so many questions,” another girl said, “after about an hour of his rambling, he eventually handed us out textbooks and told us to read in silence for the rest of the time.”

Wiping your eyes for the tears of laughter, you took a breath, “Well, Dr Jones really helped me out yesterday and he at least tried to teach you, that’s more than what some people would do. I apologise that I wasn’t here though.”

“Professor, please promise that he’ll never teach us again. Promise us.”

This started your hysterical laughter again, “I promise.”

You couldn’t wait to see Indiana at lunch. As always, he was waiting outside of your class to walk you to his where the two of you would eat lunch, “I went over everything again and they all seem to understand a lot better now,” you said, trying to not smile.

“Yeah?” He asked, clearing his throat, “Good.”

“They did tell me something about yesterday though,” you smirked as you walked into his classroom, “they never want you to teach again.”

And so, the jig was up, “They told you, huh?” You found yourself doubled over laughing as you recounted what they’d said to you, “Well, it’s not my fault they ask too many questions!” Indiana exclaimed, “Everything I said, they questioned!”

“Thank you for covering for me but you’re never helping me again.”

[emjee]

The Glorious Queer Potential of Viola and Orsino in Twelfth Night

for Shakespeare Appreciation Week - Day Three - Lovers Day

This is a long-promised essay/ramble and I’m chucking it under Lover’s Day because it mostly concerns Viola and Orsino. I suppose an alternate title for it could be Orsino: He’s as Queer as the Rest of Them.

Before we begin, brief caveat: queerness exists in many forms and means many things to many people. This is my reading as one (1) singular queer person. Also, as you will have noticed if you read this far, I’m using the word queer. Not only is it an academically accepted term and one of my personal identifiers, it is in many cases the best descriptor for people and relationships in a play written in a time where gender and sexuality were constructed differently than they are today. Am I going to use the word “bisexual” when I talk about Orsino? Probably. But overall, the play’s just queer, in terms of gender, sexual attraction, and social relationships.

Let’s start with Viola (another heads up, I’m going to refer to her mostly as Viola because that’s how she seems to think about herself, and I’m going to use she/her pronouns). I believe @shredsandpatches recently made an argument that Viola can be read as a trans woman, which is an argument I love—she’s clearly uncomfortable with her masculine disguise (“Disguise, I see, thou art a wickedness, / Wherein the pregnant enemy does much. / How easy is it for the proper-false / In women's waxen hearts to set their forms!”) but she also passes as a man marvelously well. Like, people make a few comments about her higher voice, but nobody actually seems to suspect that she’s a woman until she’s finally in the same place as Sebastian and everyone goes “twins?!” Viola being a trans woman would also make the whole “she and Sebastian are literally identical” thing much more plausible, although one should never let “biological technicalities” get in the way of a good twin plot. I think there are also arguments to be made for playing Viola as a gender nonconforming cis woman who thinks, “It’ll be safer if I just pass as a man”, or with some other relationship to genderqueerness. (And by the way, when I say “arguments to be made”, sometimes that can mean the argument is “I, a queer person, feel like playing Viola this way.” Sometimes you just gotta do it for the queer joy, you know?)

So, Orsino. The two most memorable Orsinos I’ve seen have been Nicholas Bishop in the 2017 RSC production and Oliver Chris in the 2017 National Theatre production (truly we were blessed with Twelfth Nights in 2017). The RSC production chose to look at Orsino and immediately go, “This is not a Straight Man” which was valid of them—from the get-go, you understand why Orsino might go for a person who’s got some excellent gender-fuckery going on. In the NT production, Orsino is much more of a jock and, to my interpretation, definitely Thinks He’s Straight, which is fun because you get to see his heterosexuality crumble before his very eyes. (The moment where Viola reveals herself as a woman and Orsino lets out a long “oh thank God” breath can read a little too close to “no homo” for my liking, but Oliver Chris is good at making even asshole characters weirdly endearing, so I will let it pass.)

With both of these productions, you also have to consider the era they’re set in: the RSC is in the Victorian era, the NT in the 1970s (I think. I’m pretty sure it’s the 70s. Could be the 60s?) In the RSC, one could infer that Orsino’s commitment to getting Olivia to love him stems from the homophobia of the society he’s living in. Would he love to be able to just get with men? Sure. But the odds of him getting away with that for his entire life are low. The show’s design really makes this production Shakespeare-by-way-of-Wilde: the sets, the costumes (especially Antonio, who’s literally wearing a green carnation in his lapel). By evoking Wilde and his persecution, the production reminds the viewer that plenty of the people in this play—Antonio, Olivia, Viola, Orsino—can’t show the outside world their true queer selves, however much they might want to be.

Now, the NT production’s version of Orsino reads to me very much like someone going through a bisexual awakening. Source: I have undergone a bisexual awakening and I took one look at Orsino in this production and went *John Mulaney voice* “Oh, okay.” To me, Oliver Chris’s Orsino is going through the motions of compulsive heterosexuality. By all accounts, he should be in love with Olivia. It makes sense to him. He knows all the motions to go through. He’s talked himself into loving her because that’s what you do when you feel you need to be visibly in love with a woman and she’s the most suitable person around.

But once Orsino meets Viola, he seems to immediately adore her, in his own bro way, for herself. This isn’t what he’s used to attraction being like, he doesn’t immediately recognize it because Cesario is a guy, sometimes guys are just friends with other guys and do a lot of homoerotic boxing practice (still not over it) and it’s just dudes being bros and chilling on a table at your fortieth birthday part five feet apart because you’re not gay (spoiler: you’re actually really gay, and by gay I mean pick your favorite flavor of polysexual queerness).

Orsino continues to refer to Viola as Cesario up until the end of the play, mostly because Viola is still wearing men’s clothes. In early modern England, clothes were a huge part of gender expression. Cross-dressing was against the law (I’m 99% sure, someone please correct me on this if I’m wrong; it’s been several years since I discussed queer early modern stuff in a formal setting). Orsino referring to Viola as Cesario even when he knows she’s a woman is one of those things that has a reasonable historic explanation, but can also be read nowadays as: he likes it. Orsino’s into genderqueerness, and good on him. Genderqueerness is attractive as hell.

I know we sometimes lament the end of Twelfth Night along the lines of “But Will! Tell us what the original super-gay ending was!!” I totally understand why people want to see Olivia and Viola wind up together (Olivia—another raging queer who I didn’t even get to in this ramble—does seem to be truly in love with Viola and it’s hard to leave her disappointed at the end of the play), and I think we’re all heartbroken for Antonio (he just loves Sebastian so MUCH). However, I want to point out that men and women can still have queer romantic relationships with each other.  A love story between Viola as a straight trans woman and Orsino as a bisexual cis man is still a queer love story.

Happy Lovers Day, my loves! Have a fabulously queer day.

[ltleflrt]

So I was having a conversation on Discord about omegaverse tonight, and my brain won’t shut up about it, because as usual I come up with my arguments after the discussion is over.  I should have been asleep 3 hours ago, but it’s hot and I can’t unwind, so I’m going to stay up EVEN LATER while the a/c brings things down a few degrees, and I try to get these thoughts out of my head.

I was pro-omegaverse, and trying to explain why *I personally* like the genre, and why I think even with it’s problematic origins and frequently used elements, it’s still a cool genre.  I was essentially having 2 discussions, but they were both using my answers to their questions, even though I was usually addressing them 1 at a time.  That happens when you’re in a Discord chat, and I wasn’t @ing my answers to them, since we were all in the room together.  And I think that cunfuddled the discussion and my thoughts.  So here’s a breakdown.

Issue 1. Biological Essentialism is gross and rapey.

Answer:  Yes, it is.  But so what?  Some people like pure rape-fantasy.  Is it healthy?  That can be argued either way, and it definitely depends on the person writing, or the person reading.  People like gross and rapey stories to get their rocks off.  Whether we like non-con or not, rape fics should be allowed to exist because some people like it.  It doesn’t matter if I think their reasons are valid.  As long as they’re not actively trying to harm someone, let people get down and dirty with their rapey fantasies.

Also, the whole biological imperative to mate isn’t that far off from Soulmate AUs.  Truemates = Soulmates.  Whether we like Soulmate AUs or not, are we also arguing that they shouldn’t exist because they’re problematic?  No, we’re not.  Soulmate AUs are romantic for a lot of people.  Let people have their uncomplicated, fluffy, 1 Destined Love stories.

Something to keep in mind though, is that not all omegaverse fics use the true mate trope.  And quite a lot of fics have characters with a lot more self control during their mating cycles than what you’d find in the short smutty one shots.  It’s common for them to avoid each other during heats, and only share their mating cycle as an act of love, trust, and devotion.  After they’ve been dating for a while.  (I love it when the alpha brings over snacks and water for the omega, and immediately hightails it out of there once they get a whiff of their sexy love interest.  “Take care of yourself, text me when you feel better, loveyoubye! *nyoooom*”)

Issue 2. It’s transphobic.

Answer:  This one is harder to argue, because yeah.  It can be.  But so can non-omegaverse.  Transphobia is, unfortunately, everywhere.  Exploring human gender through non-human gendered beings isn’t a bad thing though.  Cis people should be allowed to explore those things too.  This is step 1 to fighting the Patriarchy.  Questioning it.  Someone may come out of the experience still cis, but they’re going to be more open minded to trans people.  Not to mention, all the trans and enby folks who probably figured themselves out through the gender exploration to be found in omegaverse.

Now, if someone’s into omegaverse and they tell you they won’t read a story about a trans character?  Red flag.

Personally, I like the gender exploration in omegaverse.  Not just in the hormonal stuff, although I do kinda love the idea of seeing cis male characters suffer cramps once a month lol... but I like the stuff about social inequality that women have to go through mapped onto a male character.

I brought this up in the chat, and my use of the term “women’s issues” raised a terfy flag I think, which upset me and made it harder to make my point.  Cuz if there’s one thing I’m not, it’s terfy.  But I do see women’s issues as also trans issues.  Trans Men are treated differently after they start to present as male.  There’s a marked difference between their treatment as a woman pre-transition, and as a man afterwards.  And they still have to be really careful about accidental pregnancy.  I cannot fathom how awful the dysphoria would be for them if they get pregnant.  Trans Women are treated horribly pre-transition if they give any hint of feminine interests.  There’s a reason “girly” is an insult, and it’s because Toxic Masculinity Is The Worst.  And then when they transition?  Hooooboy, gods bless those ladies because Trans Women are treated worse than Cis Women on the social pyramid.  And Enbies?  Oh you sweet things, how the hell do you deal with the rest of us bastards? 

When I say that I am interested in seeing the characters I like deal with women’s issues, I am talking about social inequality, not just periods and cramps (although that a little bit too, because I wish a cis man could just fucking UNDERSTAND why I need a goddamn nap okay? lol), but also sexual health rights, including birth control, including the right to choose whether or not to take hormones, the right to equal pay, the right to equal education.  Feminism, for me, includes trans and enby folks at the table. 

But anyway, the characters I like right now just happen to be men.  I see Dean as a man.  That could mean he’s a trans man too, because trans men are men, yo.  Castiel I see either as a man or non-binary.  So if I want to put them through “women’s issues”, I have to plunk them in a special universe for that.  No one is writing Matriarchy AUs, so Omegaverse it is!

(Side note: If my OTP were f/f, I’d still like omegaverse.  And I could see lots of interesting ways to use all those same tropes for 2 female presenting characters.  So it has nothing to do with genitalia.  Unless it’s smut.  But I swing all the ways, so still not an issue for me lol)

(Side note part deux: I like to read trans stories too.  They have unique things about them that cannot be found in stories about cis characters, even in omegaverse.  And when I see Dean and Cas as men or enby, I’m not putting down people who like them gender flipped.  I just see myself enjoying Trans Woman Claire dating Enby Kaia, more than I’d like to see Dean or Cas written as cis/trans-women.)

Issue 3.  Internalized misogyny!

Answer: This is an argument used against women shipping m/m in general, and has nothing to do with omegaverse.  It just so happens that omegaverse was created for m/m pairings.  But there are TONS of reasons we ship more m/m than any other pairings, ranging from those are the most interesting characters presented to us, to--yes--internalized misogyny.  But I’m tired of that one.  Internalized misogyny is rampant, and telling women that their fantasies are problematic isn’t going to cure them.  There’s better ways to go about it. 

Omegaverse now covers m/f and f/f pairings as well, sooooo... yeah, this one just doesn’t hold water like it used to.  We just need to yoink the media out of the hands of the cis-men who are mostly in charge, and make them give us more compelling women to ship.

Issue 4: That’s not how human bodies work.

Answer: They’re not human lol!  Okay but real talk here.  This issue actually sounds transphobic to me, because it strikes very close to the XX vs XY chromosomes argument.  Omegaverse characters have intersex variations.  Alpha females and Omega males can have both a penis and a vagina in some fics.  It depends on how the author wants to write it, of course.  I usually go with the (horrifying) cloaca for omega males, and the (hyena inspired) psueudo-penis for alpha females instead, but to each writer their own lol

But again... not human.  Let wet buttholes be a thing, lube is expensive and sometimes the bottle gets tangled in the sheets, and you have to stop what you’re doing to find it and... anyway, convenience in fantasy sex is nice lol

In Conclusion: 

Personally, I only like non-traditional omegaverse.  The stuff that subverts the “problematic” tropes.  I was asked what I liked about the genre, and when I explained, it devolved into discussion of the topics above.  But I think what was forgotten in that discussion, was that I kept saying I don’t like the “problematic” things.  I like flipping the tropes.  Which I like in general, when I’m looking for things to read.  I mean, how many Castiel Thinks He’s Straight fics are there?  Not many!  So I wrote one!  Because flipping tropes is my jam! 

I don’t like Soulmate AUs, but with the proper twist I can still enjoy it.  I don’t like Highschool AUs, but I’ve read some that touched me so deeply I still think of them years later.  There’s always someone subverting the tropes I don’t like and turning them into something I do like.

And yet even though I kept saying I liked the subversion of the genre, the discussion kept coming back around to the parts of omegaverse that I *don’t* like.  I will still defend anyone’s right to like the parts of it that aren’t for me though, so I argued away XD

And? Sometimes I like the dark problematic stuff when I’m in the mood to get my rocks off.  Don’t judge, you’re all a little weird in some way or another ;D

Anywho, now that I got this stuff off my chest, hopefully I can sleep.  It has also cooled down by like 4 degrees, and I no longer feel like I’m going to melt in my sleep.  Tomorrow is going to suck, because I have to get up in 5 hours.  Yay!

[franklyautistic]

The Boundaries of Neurodiversity

Neurodiversity refers to the diversity of human minds. It is traditionally understood to refer to conditions like autism, ADHD, and dyslexia. I have argued elsewhere - and more than once - that we should take a broad approach to neurodiversity advocacy, including the full range of brains and not just ones which diverge in a pre-approved way.

Bipolar disorder is a neurodivergent condition, and should be represented in neurodiverse advocacy.

Dementia is a neurodivergent condition, and should be represented in neurodiverse advocacy.

Learning disabilities are neurodivergent conditions, and should be represented in neurodiverse advocacy.

Antisocial personality disorder is a neurodivergent condition, and should be represented in neurodiverse advocacy.

OK. So. These are all ways in which brains are medicalised, right now, in the DSM and the ICD. But should we stop there?

Well, no.

The neurodiversity framework wishes to reduce the pathologisation of brains, but it won’t stop advocating for e.g. autistic brains if autism is ever formally depathologised. Diagnostic manuals can be useful tools for helping people understand themselves, but they are neither exhaustive nor definitive.

Left handedness is neurological. We don’t pathologise left handedness any more, but it can still be understood through a neurodiversity framework. Every argument for neurodiversity is an argument for acceptance of left-handed people.

Sexuality is neurological. We don’t pathologise sexuality in the West, but some countries do - and even places that don’t pathologise sexuality usually have lingering homophobia. Every argument for neurodiversity is an argument for equal treatment based on sexuality.

Gender is neurological. Every argument for neurodiversity is an argument for equal treatment based on gender - whether that’s for treating women and girls the same as men and boys, or treating trans people the same as cis people, or some overlap between the two, or even for maligned neogenders.

Personality is neurological. Many personality traits are not explicitly pathologised, but may still be treated negatively in society. Introversion, extraversion, neuroticism, disagreeableness, cowardice - many things which might be easy to view negatively are actually just different ways of being. We might want to discourage, for example, selfishness, but we shouldn’t discourage it through eugenics or similar extreme measures - a degree of “selfishness” is healthy in helping us set proper boundaries.

What else? Well, probably a lot that doesn’t immediately come to mind. But neurodiversity is not “about” autism, it is a way of viewing the world.