#*most men don't benefit from the patriarchy* THEN WHO THE FUCK DOES

[hopalongfairywren]

Saw a mutual spouting progressive 'not all men' shit and am now considering unfollowing. Sigh.

[canichangemyblogname]

Actually, no. The shippers in the 911 fandom who primarily complain about Tommy and his past don't actually care about Tommy's past or his actions that contributed to the previous toxic workplace environment and harassment at the 118. Not everything is about a fucking ship, believe it or not, yet the only time they bring up his behavior is in relation to shipping. And because the only time they bring up a valid critique of Tommy's character is during shipping "discourse," I'm convinced it's not brought forth in good faith. Finding a way to tie everything to a ship—especially things like racism and misogyny—is cheap and tasteless. Not everything is about "shipping;" shut up about the shipping.

I don't think they actually want to discuss how white queers contribute to the marginalization of others, including other queer people, by weaponizing the patriarchy and/or white supremacy in their favor because so many of them are fellow white queers themselves. They don't care about how Tommy inadvertently, because of his past, provides a realistic portrayal of how white queers divide or hurt the larger community because of an inability to find solidarity with people of a different background, culture, or race (especially if it would "inconvenience" them or if it does not directly benefit them, like Chim saving Tommy's life). White people would rather choose misery and isolation over standing with or up for non-white people. White people are generally not willing to put in the work to build community; they'd rather contribute to the system or fly under the radar to avoid being shunned by the structures they, and the Ol' Boys Club, benefit from, like white supremacy or the patriarchy. Most white queers would rather be complaisant, complacent, and complicit. It's the white queer's adherence to oppressive systems that divide the community, not people's calls to tear those systems down. And it's only the white queer who can change their perspective on this.

Tommy only has himself to blame for his jealousy and alienation from a supportive and familial community, and only he can take the steps to ameliorate the situation. Tommy was an absolute fucking dick to Chim and Hen, and that has had long-term consequences on his life. Only he can correct for his behavior. He contributed to a toxic work environment, referring to Chim as a Chinese takeout delivery man, actively participating in Chim's hazing, and telling Chim that he did not like the man (mostly because he didn't know him). He would later call Hen "bitchy," and the men of the 118 would leave the "domestic work" to her as they did Chim, actively contributing to her hazing. He did not (verbally) stand up for her, iced her out, and also contributed to a homophobic work culture that made same-sex attraction the butt of jokes. He contributed to this toxic culture to fly under the radar, and that directly hurt people he should have extended a hand to.

Unfortunately for most of the fandom, this is, ultimately, a show that loves stories about redemption and resolution. And there is actual, explicit (meaning, non-subtextual) evidence that Tommy has put in some work to remedy what he did and who he was (including being able to 1.] own up to his past actions, 2.] understand how he hurt others, 3.] recognize why he did what he did and how that it is an explanation, not an excuse, and 4.] begin to make amends or rectify the situation, like reporting Gerrard and changing his mind about Hen and Chim). Hen and Chim would not have invited him for drinks regularly if they thought he was "irredeemable." The 118 would not have thrown him a going away party if they disliked him. Chim would not call in favors from Tommy on more than one occasion or even describe him as "so cool" if they weren't—well—cool. Eddie wouldn't enjoy ring-side fights and basketball games with Tommy if he didn't enjoy the man's company. Tommy also clearly refers to the type of man he was in the past tense, implying change over time. It can be argued that he has not put in enough work, but that's not what's being argued. We're getting bad faith arguments that Hen, Chim, and Eddie hate Tommy or bad faith arguments where Tommy's past actions are only brought forth as some sort of "gotcha" when a fan prefers canon representation over homophobic fan fiction tropes. You don't have to like Tommy, but making up non-textual reasons to dislike him is absurd.

Tommy, as a character in a narrative, provides a lesson for the general audience (GA), the majority of whom are white. It's not just important to see queer people on screen; it's important to see white people learn and change and admit they were wrong. It's also important that the show—well—shows the GA that whiteness and man-ness affect people's perception, position, and treatment. Tommy isn't just a gay man; he is a white gay man, and this has had a direct impact on how he navigates the world and how the world interacts with him. Gerrard treats men like Sal and Tommy differently than men like Chim or women like Hen, and staying in Gerrard's good graces—like the good graces of oppressive power structures—requires one to conform to a very narrow definition of a "real man," like being straight, white, palatable (like... not kinky, not risqué, not queer, all the things the fandom seems to actually hate Tommy for), and not helping oust regressive figures from positions of authority for the way they treat your coworkers. The audience got to see how Tommy went from being the prodigal son to being openly mocked by men like Gerrard. And it's important to show the GA that someone can and will be happier if they go against the grain and that admiration from men like Gerrard means very little in the grand scheme. Tommy is happier now after having been "rebuked" by men like Gerrard than he was when he strove for their praise and acceptance.

It's also important to show that men like Gerrard and his beliefs belong in the past, even though they exist in the present. This is a network TV show. A non-zero number of men like Gerrard catch this show weekly. It is still important to show that Gerrard is not the "type" of man anyone should aspire to be. His beliefs and actions are not commendable, and the show is very heavy-handed about this. The show is going to once again compare Gerrard ("bad captain") and Bobby ("good captain") to show how Bobby has created a good legacy at the 118. It began this parallel with Bobby Begins Again, continued to reinforce Bobby's good legacy in Buck's coma arc, and then revisited how Bobby has had a positive influence on the lives of the 118 in his season 7 montage. Now, the show is going to compare and contrast him and Gerrard to reinforce how important Bobby is to those around him. The show will also continue its inadvertent parallels between Buck and Tommy, showing how Buck is a different man under similar circumstances because he has had good influences (re: Bobby, Hen, and Chim) in his life. Buck and Eddie's relationship was shaping up to be very similar to Tommy and Chim's relationship: oppositional because of one-sided disregard and dislike, but it didn't because they had a good influence: Bobby (given the rather... fucked timeline, Tommy was likely newer to the 118 when Chim joined and, like Buck, his hostility and posturing were also likely influenced by insecurity and a desire to secure his position at the table).

Most unfortunately for many, the show is also going to show how Tommy has changed due to the same influences (re: Bobby, Hen, and Chim). They wouldn't have re-introduced both Tommy and Gerrard and mentioned their dynamic on more than one occasion if they weren't going to do something with that. Season 7 set up Tommy's upcoming arc very nicely. He knows the man he was, he knows the man who shaped him into that, and he knows how and why that was wrong. We'll get Tommy confronting his obvious daddy issues, jealousy, and desire for community (and why he didn't get a family-like dynamic at the 118, re: Gerrard *and* Tommy's own behavior). Tommy has been explicit about this, literally telling Buck that he envies the relationship the people at the 118 have and mentioning that he was not a good person, and this played a part in why he didn't have the same rapport.

9-1-1 is not a perfect show, but it does reflect some of the positive changes of our time. It's important to see representations of comp-het—like Buck, Tommy, and Michael—and how it negatively impacts people's character or relationships, and then how they—the character—can amend that. It's important to see stories that depict how silence is complicity and how refusing to be silent—as Hen refused to be—makes change and changes minds. It's important that the show reminds the audience that Hen is a black lesbian and that this has impacted how people see her and treat her, but that she is just as capable, if not more so. This includes men like Chim. Because I see nearly none of the people who "critique" Tommy in the name of "shipping" ever bring up how Chim has leaned on the patriarchy for support and a position at the table. He may have been the kindest to Hen, but he was by no means normal about women. And it is important to see how non-white men benefit from the patriarchy even as they are victimized by white supremacy. It's also important that the show shows the GA that non-white men are not affected by white supremacy equally, as Michael and Harry have had discussions about blackness and police brutality, a conversation that Chim is never going to have to have with his children, but that doesn't mean that Chim won't have to one day have a discussion with Jee-Yun about how and why some people treat her differently.

But the fandom approaches everything in a very... Catholic way. They don't approach this from the view that people can change and should be pushed to change; rather, they shun people like they've been marked by original sin. The structures we live under have deeply affected each and every one of our worldviews. "You are not immune to the propaganda" includes your personal philosophies and ideologies as well as the things you were taught since you were a child, consciously and "subconsciously." But, people would rather condemn everyone else as "irredeemable" than look critically at their own behavior out of fear of being "one of the bad ones." They'd rather *not* accept the fact that everyone has learning and changing to do as that would reflect upon them, too. This leads to being very resistant to being told that you're mistaken, you've hurt others, or that your behavior and beliefs contribute to repressive, dangerous, or toxic ideas (and we've seen a lot of that; y'all do not create safe online spaces). This leads to a lack of personal change as well as a lack of change at the interpersonal level because rather than teach or challenge, they stick up their nose and turn the other way. "Their barbaric bigotry; my enlightened neglect."

So, really, they've learned nothing from a character like Tommy.

[decolonize-the-everything]

Transmisandry isn’t real. They’re getting hate for being Trans not for being men.

Misandry isn‘t real. It hatred for their race, not for being men.

Whatever men of color get, women of color get it twice as much.

Listen to women of color. Don’t silence us.

I do loudly listen and platform and follow and support Black women. I tell people all the time the Combahee River Collective was right when they wrote that if Black women free then everyone would be because their freedom would "necessitate" the destruction of all systems of oppression.

In a way that why I made that post ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Women of color get it worse than everyone.

Kimberlé Crenshaw created the term intersectionality after looking at a case where a factory worker had fired all the black women that he had employed. He had white women working for him and he still had black men working for him.

So the judge threw out the case Black women has started because courts did not have the infrastructure to recognize this overlap and said it would be a "Pandora's box" of other people trying to get rights if they did.

Isn't that wild??

And be honest, do you really think feminism listens to women of color? Mikki Kendall said this in her book Hood Feminism: Notes from the Women a Movement Left Behind.

"Feminism that could ignore police brutality killing women of color, that could ignore the study abuse and disenfranchisement and abuse in national and local politics of some women based on race and religion, wasn't about equality or equity for all; it was about benefitting white women at the expense of all others."

"We cannot and will not abandon our sons, brothers, fathers, husbands, or friends, because for us they don't represent an enemy. We have our issues with the patriarchy, but then so do they, as the most powerful faces of it aren't men of color. My husband may not always understand how misogyny impacts me, but he can absolutely grasp what it means when a boss's or a coworker's racism is an impediment. We sit together at that table, even if we don't face the exact same battles in every aspect of life. Women in communities of color must balance fighting external problematic voices with educating those inside our communities who are bad actors, and we expect feminism to do the same work on itself."

Here's something else that helped inform me

Black women have it worse than everyone and while the rest of us absolutely should shut the fuck up and listen, nobody does so I don't see where white women have gotten in their head that they don't have power over Black men or why they can't say anything?

When cis women absolutely hold power over trans men? (Esp trans men of color) since since you threw transmisandry in there.

You see where I'm going with this?

I think it very much an extension of white supremacy, anti-blackness, and anti-intersectionality to say that because you have it worse than someone else that someone else should shut up and not even have the Language to describe their experiences.

Either it applies to everyone and we all shut up for Black women or it doesn't :)

You have to judge people by their character, not their gender, weirdo.

Solidarity is for everyone and all their intersecting identities or it's just a white supremacist patriarchy for women.

Thanks for coming to my TEDtalk 💗

[molsno]

something that bothers me about the concept of transandrophobia is that it's often defined as the intersection between transphobia and misogyny, which just isn't true. there's already a word for that intersection, and that's transmisogyny.

I see a lot of trans men who believe in the movement argue that their oppression is largely defined by misogyny, and I can definitely see where they're coming from. one common complaint I see from trans men is that they'll never be able to come out or transition because their family will punish them for "giving up their womanhood," essentially valuing them for their femininity instead of recognizing and accepting their inherent right to live according to their own desires. this kind of misogyny, where people refuse to view you as a fully independent person capable of making your own decisions about your life and your body due to the value they perceive in your potential desirability to men, is the foundation of patriarchy. and it's incredibly painful! knowing that many people won't take you seriously because they view you as a woman is frustrating!

it's just... that experience is not unique to trans men. that's just plain old misogyny. it's the same logic underlying the constant attacks on reproductive rights: if you have a uterus, then your destiny is to become breeding stock for men and be a dutiful housewife and mother for your husband's children, so you're not entitled to make choices about your body that would inhibit your ability to do so, such as getting a hysterectomy or having an abortion. it's not even unique to people who were afab; because of ray blanchard's transsexual typology, most trans women for decades were unable to access gender affirming care at all if they were unable to meet a very restrictive definition of womanhood that was entirely determined by their potential sexual desirability and willingness to be subservient to men, and ONLY men.

sure, it is blatantly transphobic to deny a trans man's right to self-identification, and it's misogynistic to refuse him this on the basis of his desirability to men. and I have no doubt that that's deeply painful! but the fact that these two forms of oppression are happening simultaneously does not mean they are intersecting. in order for that to be the case, they would have to compound on one another and form something new which is greater than the sum of its parts.

that's what transmisogyny is. because yes, people deny our right to self-identification, and decide our worth by our desirability to men, but transfeminine oppression is so much more than that. despite what people say, they don't really see us as men; they see us as a threat to the patriarchy because our mere existence stands in stark opposition to the notion that manhood and masculinity are superior to womanhood and femininity. they don't fully see us as women either, though; our inability to bear children means that we aren't entitled to the very few benefits afforded to cis women, so we have no place in society. as a result, we exist as women that you can abuse without consequence. we exist as fetish objects; just things that you can fuck when you're looking for an "exotic" sexual experience.

I'm more than aware that there are trans men who don't define transandrophobia as the intersection of transphobia and misogyny, and some even outright reject the notion that they experience misogyny at all, on the basis that it's misgendering. I can certainly understand that point of view, but the alternative definition would imply that misandry is a widespread form of oppression, which is undeniably false.

what I find most troubling, though, is that trans men who do state that misandry is real then assert that trans women's oppression is at least partially built upon it. I shouldn't have to state this, but if you're going to reject the notion that misogyny is a cause of your oppression on the basis that it's misgendering, then I have every right to reject the notion that misandry is a cause of mine.

that's really the problem with people who believe in transandrophobia, though: they're entitled. rather than recognize the common ground they have with others and stand in solidarity with them, they monopolize the conversation to claim that the oppression they experience is wholly unique. by doing so, they're able to talk over women by positioning themselves as experts who understand the subject far better than we ever could, which allows them to have a taste of the male privilege they feel they've been wrongfully deprived of. that's precisely why most transandrophobia truthers are white; trans men of color generally have a better understanding of intersectionality and are usually aware that this form of male entitlement will never be available to them because the racism they experience will result in them being perceived as a threat if they ever try to speak over white women.

trans liberation will never be achieved so long as you try to appeal to the patriarchy in the hopes of advancing in the gender hierarchy. even if you succeed, you will always find your new position is conditional; step out of line, be too trans, and it's gone. if you really want all trans people to be free, you need to acknowledge the people who have it worse than you and fight for them. if you want fellow trans men to have the freedom to come out and transition, you need to actively combat misogyny - even the kind that doesn't affect you personally: transmisogyny. if you want that freedom to be extended to all trans people, not just the white ones, you need to understand racism and stand against it whenever you see it. real liberation only happens when the white supremacist patriarchy is burned to the ground, so grab a torch.

[nothorses]

i agree with everything in your transandrophobia primer... and i understand that we're trying to appeal to a broad section of queer and feminist communities; but One thing, which i think we need to start talking about more in our communities, is that cismasculinity is also oppressed.

Not the same way (cis)femininity is, of course, not to the extent. Yes patriarchal power structures exist primarily to oppress women, but men get stuck in a box they can't violate or else (any emasculating or "feminine" behaviour is societally punished). men don't get the same amount of support cis women do. men are always assumed to be potentially dangerous, but also strong and self-sufficient and never in need of support. men are not generally seen as sexually desirable and desiring men is seen as gross amongst many feminists and queer people. etc etc etc etc. it's a different form of oppression for sure, and maybe not as violently coercive as misogyny, but it's also still plenty violent and plenty coercive, and it FUCKS MEN UP. like. not in a 2005 misandry no woman wants to sleep with me sense, but in a sense of most men are psychologically damaged in ways they can't express or seek help for, and this isn't something we can task individual men with solving. It has to be a societal shift, it doesn't mean send every man to obligatory therapy but it does mean change attitudes towards men, recognise men's unique oppression (as distinct and very different from misogyny, but still very much existent) and start the process of healing.

It's tough cus you can't really bring up that you think men have unique oppression under patriarchy without being called a MRA or incel, but we need to start talking about these things in earnest. it's the next step of feminism - in order to break down the oppressive forces of patriarchy, we simply cannot leave out like half the global population.

Yeah, I have talked about this before, but I don't know that I've called it "oppression". I don't think that's an "appeasement" choice, either; there's a tendency to think of oppression as implying the "opposite" group is privileged over that group, and there's also something very... distinctly different, imo, about the way patriarchy sees men vs. women, in contrast to the way any other oppressive system sees any two opposed groups.

The way men and women are positioned against each other is not the same as white people and people of color, for example; while white people do suffer certain drawbacks under white supremacy, those drawbacks are pretty much all directly related to the fact that belonging to an oppressor class comes with an inherent isolation from others. The way manhood is viewed- as dangerous, sexually aggressive, unfeeling, expendable- is very, very different from white people being incentivized to cut ourselves off from vital connections with people of color in order to maintain power and a sense of superiority.

But like, men do also have those same incentives to isolate, and similar rewards and consequences. Patriarchy as a system that positions men over women, as people who "deserve" power vs. people who are not to be trusted with it, is real and does exist.

But imo, that system is less about controlling or eradicating one group while universally uplifting the other, and more about controlling an entire population & fabricating reasons to get them to fight each other- instead of the minority of ultra-privileged, ultra-powerful men who are meaningfully controlling and benefiting from this system.

[runthepockets]

thanks for posting a free link to that trans article, i would love to hear some of your expanded thoughts/reactions on the piece if you ever had the time. you always are posting well spoken real shit man

Haha thanks dude. Tbh I thought it was a great article, I think it spoke a lot of truth that a lot of trans guys are afraid of confronting either because of their own fear of what the subconcious mind is capable of, and honestly it's nice to see another trans guy who's sympathetic to what turns young boys into incels / right wingers instead of shrugging it off and painting it as "cis man behavior", as if we're not all pretty active participants in patriarchy and internalize a lot of that thinking whether we benefit from it or not (some cases worse than others, there's a difference between a guy who refers to women as "females" and dudes who shoot up schools cus their crush rejected them.)

I also liked how he refers to himself as a boy getting hazed by other boys instead of doing the whole "AFAB socialized" thing. Not every guy has to fall in line with binary thought in context of their transitions but I think the former perspective sheds light on how the way trans men are treated by their cis male peers isn't really that unique to trans men at all, it happens to nonwhite guys in big groups of white people and neurodivergent guys in big groups of neurotypical guys, and, fuck it even happens to like, straight guys who dress goth and still sleep with stuffed animals. I like that he ties it all in with the oppression of trans women too and how it others them from womanhood in some weird shitty impulse a lot of guys have to misgender themselves in order to avoid accountability. I think it's important to identify how hate movements start and how all struggles are connected and I think the writer does a good job of conveying that while also putting emphasis on how trans men's experiences under patriarchy are still unique, just like a black or Asian dude's are.

Tbh though I don't necessarily relate to or agree with the whole "being wary of men despite being one" thing. Just kinda makes me roll my eyes. Idk when guys are dipshits to / around me I either tell them to shut up or stop hanging out with them. I've done it to friends and family, I once walked out on a job in the middle of a shift cus both of my male bosses were assholes and one was an annoying pervert on top of it. I'm stubborn and confrontational by nature so it's kinda annoying seeing this sort of universal helplessness everywhere in trans guy spaces, despite living as men full time and especially from guys who spent most of their pre transition days complaining about men not holding other men accountable and spend most of their current transition (rightfully) talking about being self made men who choose their own destiny, so I'm kinda over it. That's no fault or flaw of OP's though that's just my opinion.

I also honestly don't care if misogyny is different whether it's a trans or cis guy doing it, I don't care if we don't "benefit" from doing it, I don't care if it's a trauma response, a lot of shitty people have trauma and use it as an excuse to be assholes, I don't care if they're cis or trans, a dick is a dick. Misogyny is a concious decision and it's the wrong one. Again I appreciate him explaining where the hatred comes from and I suppose a bit of elaboration is necessary to garner sympathy from the types of people who like to paint trans men as uniquely misogynistic but I don't think we need to coddle these guys anymore, especially when 4 years prior they were complaining about cis dudes who do the same shit. Not only are they assholes, they're also hypocrites, and I don't have the patience or sympathy for it.

None of that was a big enough deal to not reblog though, it's still a great article and OP made some wonderful insightful points, it was nice to just see a trans guy be honest instead of telling everyone what they wanna hear. Trans guys really like doing that for some reason.

[ramblings-of-a-mad-cat]

I don't know who else to turn to about this, because I want to ask the question but I don't want to get -cancelled- Can you tell me why so called "terfs"/radfems are wrong? because as far as I can tell they make a lot of sense but I know that makes me a "bigot" I just don't understand why. Men have already taken so much from us, is is so much to ask that they leave us the identity of womanhood? This is a serious question if thats okay.

…

(I’d like to find a gif of a character pouring out a glass of alcohol for something like this. On the other hand, I don’t drink, so it would be distinctly out of character…) 

Okay, let’s see if I can explain this to the best of my ability. 

It’s not men who are coming after you, not in this case. Because Trans women are women, and that’s a full sentence. It’s a fact. And that’s the real point here, but I’ll either persuade you that it’s true, or I won’t. At a certain point, I can’t choose what to believe for you. I can only tell you that on this one, you are wrong. TERFs are some of the most disappointing enemies we face in the fight for LGBT rights, because you are so, so close to getting the point, and yet you still miss it by a mile. The irony is that misogynists and other bigots of a similar caliber are glad you exist. Because intentionally or not, you are doing their dirty work for them. 

Let me try to put it another way. 

Let me ask you a single question - why. Why would men make the choice to “pretend” they’re women? The current social climate doesn’t exactly welcome trans people with open arms. People are being ostracized to the point of suicide. People are being murdered. Coming out as Trans typically involves, at the very least, changed pronouns and possibly a different name. But in the examples that TERFS usually talk about, it involves men “dressing up” as women. It often involves physical transitioning, up to and including sexual reassignment surgery. I repeat my question - why? Why would a cisgender man pretend to be otherwise? What benefit are they going to gain from that? The Patriarchy has done everything in it’s power to reduce womanhood, and with that in mind…why would men ever want to “steal” it from you? So they can go into a girl’s bathroom to assault people? I shouldn’t have to remind you of this, but men have been walking into girl’s bathrooms and assaulting them since the dawn of time, without bothering to use a disguise. They don’t need to do that. Our system is so fucked that they’d get away with it just fine in plain clothes, and that’s a bigger problem. You know what else is a bigger problem? Trans people having their privacy invaded when they try to use the bathroom they’re comfortable with. What does it even matter? It’s a bathroom. They don’t need to be gender-segregated in the first place, and plenty of them aren’t. So I’ll say it one more time - why? What’s the motive here?

While I can understand the instinct that there are certain things only cisgender women experience…that sentiment is true for just about every group you can conceivably name. Trans women likewise have unique experiences, just as Trans men do. And cis men. And nonbinary folk like myself. It’s not a competition. We should all be on the same side if we stand for equal rights. And that’s the main problem with the TERF ideology. You’re not standing for equals rights. I know you think you are, but you’re not. Who are you, who are any of us, to tell a Trans person that their identity is wrong? I assume you’ve heard of dysphoria, but if you’re cisgendered, that’s another experience that you can’t truly know or understand yourself. And speaking honestly, neither can I. But maybe I don’t have to understand it entirely. Maybe I just need to be considerate and look out for other people. Maybe feminism means standing up for the rights of all women, even the ones who don’t fit our perception of what it means to be a woman.

Because that perception is largely built on the back of the gender binary. 

I should put this out there, I am not a psychiatrist. I’m not even claiming to be particularly smart. But this is my interpretation of what’s going on here, and I think there’s some merit to it. I believe transphobia is largely rooted in misogyny. Because the Patriarchy’s power comes from the pecking order that’s been established and entrenched into every aspect of our lives. And you can’t keep women properly subjugated if the definition of a “woman” isn’t clearly defined and based on traits that cannot be negotiated or changed, like the genitals we’re born with. The misogynists at the top depend on this gender binary, and on the two sexes being irrevocably linked to it. What if the people we thought were men yesterday turn out to be women today? How does that calculate in the inherent system we have for men and women? It’s just too confusing, right? Makes it too difficult to keep everyone in their allotted places. 

But it does more than that. It interferes with the way young men are supposed to think and feel, what they’re socialized to think and feel. A boy can’t have feelings for another boy without being “gay” and that’s not supposed to happen, but that’s easy enough to work around. Just don’t date boys. But hold on a second! If the gender binary is thrown out and we accept the premise of trans women (as we should) this completely upends the system. Now they can’t judge people as men or women, with all the preconceived notions they have about both sexes, because just looking at a person no longer tells you what they are. And the misogynists cannot stand that. Because it prevents them from assigning people their designated role, and in doing so, it puts them in a place they fear. Now they can’t tell if the women they pursue are actually “men” or not. This is the infamous concept of the “trap.” Not only has led to trans women getting murdered, but historically, the “trans panic” defense actually held up in court! People committed literal hate crimes and got away with it. 

…Can you see why Trans women are not the real enemies here? You think they represent the demographic that has always preyed on you, but that’s simply not true. They’ve been turned into a scapegoat because the only solution bigotry could think of, to subjugate trans people and stop them from destroying the precious gender binary…was to sexualize their identities and try to paint them as predators. So the people who should be their allies will turn against them. And the TERF movement is proof that it worked. 

Like I said, I can’t make this journey for you. I may not even be able to convince you of anything I’ve written here. But if you’re wondering why TERFs are “canceled” this is why. Because, from where we’re standing, you’re fighting for the wrong side. The LGBT movement includes the “T.” Excluding any letter (and there are more, I’m just using the shorthand) goes against the entire spirit of what the movement is about in the first place. 

[papirouge]

a radfem tried to argue, after she told me "Depp won't fuck you🙃" for not dissing him enough I guess? and that I said it was fucked up, that it wasn't a sexual slur 🤡

...when I'm 100000% positive if a man would've said that to her, ALL HELL WOULD BREAK LOSE and omg men cannot diss women without resorting to sexualizing them!!!! and yada yada

Remember ladies: radfem/feminist are the masters of gaslighting

They will shift narrative regarding what's currently convenient to them, and act like victim for calling them out (she said I was ableist for calling her "freak💀"). That's why they'll call pro lifers "women hating", when they're out there calling any women who doesn't subscribe to (rad)feminism pickme", "cock sucker", "handmaiden" and whatnot. They will shame and humiliate any woman for wrong behavior or crime thought. Which is precisely one of the key patterns of the so called "patriarchy".

On my run on this blog, most of the harassment and slurs that I received was from so called "feminist". The same feminist that are whining about 'class traitors' because not every woman on earth wants to mule for them or care about their hubris against powerful Western men they have no idea exist....

The other day I listened to a podcast from a Black feminitity channel, and she said that White feminism were only trying to get power from White men and have has much power (if not more), but that didn't mean that once they get that power, they'll be willing to share it equally with other women. They thrive to become equal to White men - but they never ponder whether women from other communities actually thrive for that?

That's why whitefeminist are lowkey salty at Black women taking none of their "white crocodile tears", saying that we were "male identified" for not systemically muling for them...🤦🏾‍♀️ This is also why they have no issue centering themselves as the modelfold of female oppression, while not realizing how utterly self centered and dismissive of other women's unique struggle it is

Just look how happy these women are at being told "yeah, rich white women oppression is peak "pure misogyny"" and not realize how tone deaf this statement is.... So what? other women oppression is 'unpure'? Is the oppression of rich women from developed countries is somehow less representative of misogyny bc they're not White?🤔 Do these whitefem think men from countries where white women are nonexistent use them as a compass for misogyny??

I lost count of all the so called feminist who posted lr reblogged statement saying "if white women can't get fair justice, what does it mean for Black women, or other women of color??" and it got me like "White women aren't a universal compass for female's rights, Stacie. Mistreated women in Kinshasa don't wake up and be like "damn, I wish I could get the same rights as Ashleigh living in Arkansas🥺" White women aren't a compass of femalehood worldwide. Once again, White people CANNOT do anything without centering themselves, and White women aren't past such mental projection, unfortunately.

That's why as a Black woman I thrive to have my own lane and will never let myself be bullied & gaslighted by whitefem for not being a good ally enough. Because my end goal isn't to compete with men. I will never be another intersectionality mule and blindly fight for things that aren't benefiting to me or that I do not believe in.

[floatingbook]

My best friend, my brothers and hell even my other male family are misogynistic, what does one do in a situation like this?

I've known my best friend for 3+ years, I love him even when we broke up to stay friends and most people wouldn't be friends with exes, I love him but I don't appreciate him calling me misogynistic slurs as a greeting, I love him but I hate how silent he goes with women's issues, I love him because he is my best friend and I dont know how to leave him. In fear of regret.

I hate how my family members but especially my brothers would say the most vile things, just to get a reaction out of me, a silly "harmless" joke. I hate how they always bring up their patriarchal bullshit and how they say most women love to do things that are deemed acceptable under patriarchy. I hate how they are right-wingers and absolutely fucking adores gender roles and how "it is what is". I hate how they laughed in my face when I talked about my trauma with men and say vile things behind my back.

I hate how my female family members always backs them up.

I'm so fucking tired, I really can't take it anymore. I'm ridiculed, ignored, told I'm the problem, laughed at, just to go back to speaking nonsense.

What do I do ms. Floatingbook?? No matter how much I try to stand up for women, myself, call out my male family members and who knows what else I tried, I was and will always be ignored and laughed at, knowing that they only think of me as an object that that's supposed to be attractive, nothing more, nothing less.

And I hate knowing it won't change.

The crux of the matter, anon, is that men won’t change, because they have no interest in changing. However that doesn’t mean that nothing will ever change. Your “it” can change, but it has a lot more to do with what you will do than anything they ever will.

You and I both know that men benefit immensely from the system of oppression they’ve created against women. They have no incentive to change, because an appeal to do what is right will not put food on their table, cleanliness to their clothes or a compliant body in their bed. They don’t benefit from the change we want. They gain nothing by not being misogynists.

So there is very, very, very little that you can do to change the male specimens of your family’s perspective on this. They are never going to really listen to you. You’d be wasting your breath and energy and time on them. You are similarly—and I know it is hard to hear—wasting your time on that so-called “best friend” of yours. Would a best friend really insult you to your face with slurs? Would a best friend stay silent when you are facing injustice? Would a best friend refuse to help you achieve a better life? He is no best friend to you, no friend either. It’s unfair, and that reality might leave you feeling betrayed and lonely, but aren’t you betrayed and lonely anyway, with this kind of relationship? You don’t have to put with that kind of disrespect, no matter how much time and love you’ve already invested in that relationship. Be a little selfish for once, do what’s good for you and don’t try to spare his feelings. Let him go. Make some female friends instead, and spend your energy on them instead.

As for the rest of your family, and any other male you have to interact with, whether at work or when you go out, don’t engage them. They don’t deserve your time or your attention. It’s not your job to teach them how to be decent human beings; you can’t love or smile them into being good persons. Don’t respond when they try to bait you; ignore them; don’t listen to their unhinged ramblings; convey your boredom and your contempt. Don’t entertain their arguments in good faith. You don’t have to bear with them. Walk away.

What they think of you doesn’t matter. Pointing out to them why they are morons isn’t the only way you can stand up for women. First, stand up for yourself. If they don’t clean up their acts, don’t share your time with them. Save yourself the trouble. Warn away any women who might want to interact with them (whether or not they listen is something else entirely, but you can’t make these women’s decisions for them). If you have younger sisters or cousins, remind them that this is not an acceptable treatment and that they should expect better. Focus your energy on your female relatives, reminding them that they hold inherent worth, that they should have high standards, and that they too are full persons who deserve respect. You can’t reach everyone, but your time will be better spent on them than on trying to reform your male relatives. And to combat your isolation, try to join women-only groups, be it politically inclined groups agitating for women’s liberation or groups focused on shared hobbies for example. Create your own if you can’t find one. Reach out to similarly minded women.

You’re not alone, and don’t waste your time on men. You have my best wishes for the coming year; may you make new friends, ones who will treat you with the respect you deserve.

[fuckyeahasexual]

I don't know how to word this. Someone said that asexuals never do anything for the wider community, and I know I shouldn't let it bother me, but it does. So I wondered if you had evidence to the contrary?

I’ve been thinking about this post for about a day and a half. I answer a lot of posts via my phone because it’s more accessible but I knew this one would have to wait until I had a keyboard and because of that I’ve been able to connect more thoughts about how misguided the person that said is. 

Let’s first take a look about America’s over focus on “being independent”. How that is the most valuable thing you can be in this culture. How it’s inherently impossible. But this focus on “Well what did you do for us?” That question does not value community effort. It does not value effort that is by people that benefit something other than the self. 

And because so many people’s focus is “Well what did you do” we have a  culture of celebrity and one of icons. Were we put people on a pedestal as if they were above, or better, or greater than the rest of us lowly people. 

And at this first point you, but more probably that acephobe, might be thinking ‘what the hell, answer the question. What did aces do for the community? Which again, this is a misunderstanding how community building works. A community is a nebula to swirls around births ideas. An idea makes a footnote, long past it’s first thought. Decades or even centuries after the idea was first had. It doesn’t mean the last person “did it.”

In at least America, there are extremely few people we can look at and say X did Y for the community. Even if you name 20 names. Those were the leaders. Or those were the ones who had the supreme court case that made it to the court. Not the countless others of cases. It ignores and places no value on those who fought, inspired, helped, or did some other duty that aided the whole. While leaders should be remembered, I think it’s very important that we don’t isolate ourselves into thinking “Well we only have [Icon Name Here].” It’s wildly untrue. 

People who say want you to point to an celebrity with a shared label also ignore how English works in regards to labeling. And how labels historically are a overall in the grand scope of history a new invention. 

An while aces directly challenge things like heteronormativity, compulsory sexuality, and rape culture. Each of those systems plays into the patriarchy, and white supremacy. And everything we do fights against those systems, and benefits those harmed by them. We also as individual people also fight in ways that may have nothing to do with asexuality but aim to keep the wider community safe. For example, I have an ace friend who is not an “queer activist” but has sewed and given out I dunno like 50 masks for people during this pandemic for free. Therefore literally enabling life to go on.

Not only do I gotta point out the folly in “what have you done for me?” when it comes to human rights. White supremacy has made a lot of enemies, and it wouldn’t be wrong to say we aren’t free until we are all free because oppression of one kind is aided by another. I also gotta point out the vile implication that someone else’s rights are only worth fighting for because they may aid your specific needs.

And if you believe that being queer, wherever personal label on the wide range of options, is inherently natural, then you cannot deny that aces or trans people or [label here] have always existed and always helped out. If you are looking for aces who helped, look at any human rights movement and see what was being done. I know there’s plenty of recorded history with aces and lesbians on women’s rights issues. But that doesn’t mean ace men weren’t doing things. History as a record is incomplete. If it wasn’t it you’d have to relive it nearly in real time.

I also inherently hate this idea of “What did X group do for Y-over arching group”. I see this a lot from white people who are like fighting racism doesn’t help me. Despite the known history of black communities feeding the poor, or fighting for voting rights, and surely a countless number of things. The “oppressor class” whom ever it may be would rather have you believe that were only out for themselves. Because that way, if you aren’t an oppressor yourself, you don’t trust or value efforts of those who aren’t you either because you believe them useless to “your cause”. It’s not again not only untrue, but I think denies the truth that no one is this American idea of independent. We are all connected. 

We are currently in the information age, and the internet has allowed us to better see our interconnection to each other. And I’m sure you, or maybe the person who asked that, wanted Name-Here, that has a wikipedia page that you can learn more about that like said fuck my own rights, I’m fighting for seemingly unrelated issue. I won’t give you evidence for that, because you don’t need it.

Instead I hope you can see that the question bugged you for a reason, a good reason. But the answer, should be instead the realization that the asker just wanted to make you feel disconnected, not only from the community today, but from that nebulous timeless beauty that is humans working tirelessly, namelessly together for each other. Human history is full of so much cruelty to each other, but I think despite whatever oppressive system there is humans are social beings that like helping each other. And I think that’s fucking hopeful even in the darkest of times. 

[rametarin]

What's your takeaway on the whole "men have built this world's problems so they don't get to feel bad about it affecting them" take? Or the new surge of hatred towards men due to Bill Cosby's release (and the idea that men in general get away with sexual assault regardless of class)

Same old shit, anon.

Before they gave that point of view a name and an organized set of beliefs, they'd just sneak that rhetoric and direction into any conversation about any given problem between the sexes. At least in this modern day they'll call it The Patriarchy- rather than just use flowery, neutral, benign seeming language to have plausible deniability about it.

Take the right to vote, for example. Women had the right to vote, as did men. Then it was revised so UNLESS you were someone that had to go to war and die for your country, you didn't get to vote. And women were exempted from going to war for biological reasons, economic reasons, and just simple ergonomic reasons. So, naturally, they couldn't vote.

When the suffragettes fought to give women the right to vote, how did they fight for it? Did they fight to remove the draft for both sexes and fight for women to get the right to vote on the basis of citizenship, not applicability for serving the military? No. Did they argue to also draft women, because women deserved the same rights and responsibilities as men? No, they wanted the rights but didn't want the responsibilities or obligations the men did. Did they do anything but revise it just enough to say, "Women can vote just by being alive :^)"? No.

The minute your group claims it's for civil rights and you have the opportunity to change something to improve it, but only for your demographic, you become responsible for that group's continued abuses. That's why we don't attribute slavery to Britain that continued under the newly formed United States' rule. The moment that country was founded and didn't immediately abolish slavery (and there were practical and economic reasons not to for a bit) they became responsible for that.

And similarly, the suffragettes and feminists are not exempt of responsibility for giving themselves the right to vote on the basis of sex, but not men. They had the opportunity to either change the rules to allow women to be inducted by the draft, abolish the draft as the prerequisite to being able to vote for anybody, etc. They chose to endow themselves with a right purely for their sex and say, "fuck you, I got mine, you aren't my responsibility" to the men. The men that supported them, the men that consented for their little princess party that changed the right to vote from one of given by drafted, compulsory military service, to a national, civil right based on being alive and a citizen- if you're a woman. Not contingent of dying in a war.

Most problems men face today are like that. Because feminism dusted its hands, went, "Not my problem, you're the oppressor. I'm out for mine because freeing me frees the people that matter." And then smugly passed the buck on for men to change things for themselves if they wanted anything at all.

This is why feminism does not and cannot speak up on behalf of men's rights. They only see men as a secondary extension of women, and think whatever rights are endowed to women do not belong to men equally, as equal rights on the basis of being a man threatens their endowed, sexual budgets and entitlements from society.

As for Bill Cosby; it was inevitable. I don't know whether or not Bill Cosby actually dateraped all those women. I'm going to assume he did, because he accepted responsibility. But the outrage over his recent release was inevitably going to spill into "convuhsayshun uwu" about "male privilege," and his release rather than dying in prison, proof this society treats men like gods and women like tenga eggs.

Never one to waste opportunity to try and shape the imaginations and minds of young women to turn them into emotional, radical, bitter teenaged Social Justice Warriors, naturally The Conversation would be how Cosby being released for whatever nebulous reasons "must" be proof.

While simultaneously turning a blind eye to the fact the reason rape is so narrowly defined around if a man forcefully had sex with a woman, and the reason most all domestic violence arrests are men, is because of radical feminist policy making, proving not only are they just as cemented in our institutions, but our institutions also lean towards erring on the side of caution to give women the benefit of the doubt in all cases.

They'll happily point at much publicized examples of people like Cosby getting off free, whether that's true or not, and then use that as background dressing for their rant about how misogynistic and androcentrist this "society" is. While kicking under the rug just who, by the Duluth model, gets to go to prison if the police are called for a domestic violence dispute.

Unless the circumstances are BLATANTLY, BRAZENLY, OBVIOUSLY one sided, like a woman is stabbing a man that's holding a baby with a steak knife, an arrest WILL be made, and the "taller," "larger," person will be taken in, as an arrest HAS to be made for a domestic violence call. We do not arrest women and stick them in prison just because men call the cops; you cannot say the same when it comes to women.

Similarly for rape. You could be a woman, strap on a big ole horse dick and dilate the buttholes of half a county's worth of questionably aged minors, and in the past, not one legal definition of, 'rape' would stick, because rape was defined as using a biological penis, and/or being a biological male. You weren't male? You couldn't be charged for rape. Just sexual assault and battery.

And then radfems would want to have "convuhsayshuns uwu" about how men are bad and the rape statistics about whom is raping whom would prove it. Because, you know, "As a feminist, I an committed to FACTS and LOGIC and actual RESEARCH to support MY points. Not feelings and outrage and baseless assumptions! I'm a secular realistic FEMINIST!"

Then barrage you with bad faith requests to, "see your statistics and studies :^)" Knowing full well academia wasn't readily available to fucking gradeschoolers unless their parents were creepy intellectuals or something, and access to ones that didn't have this ideological confirmation bias was even more rare. If you couldn't produce any almighty holy writ evidence or counterargument based on these "professionals" writings, they'd do the verbal equivalent of today's "KUNG POW PENIS LOL" and then mock you in front of their friends, and shit.

So they had the very criteria that cops and feds used to record the incidences of rape based on bad, skewed values, designed to spare women from being charged with responsibility for rape or abuse. Then they cited these statistics that skewed so badly showing 90%+ of all rapes and domestic violence charges were from men.

So they could just “stawt a convuhsayshun” making broadsweeping, inflammatory statements like, “men commit practically all the violence in the home,” or, “men are rapists because they’re men and men rape very frequently and it’s very common,” and talk about it like that’s just a thing MOST men do, boo on men, men bad.

And if you dared challenge them on it, out come the cooked statistics and bias in the professions that led to them, where they then “humbly” try to get you to put forth counter-evidence. Since they assert unless you have any, then your opinion is worthless and you’re an emotional crybaby. They will not hesitate to insult your character or intelligence and assert their use of “objective facts” makes their argument sound and yours shit.

Youtube atheists doing that shit learned these lessons by diffusion from their millenial childhoods being tormented by these disingenous groomed baby radfems.

So them using the Cosby thing to sow this outrage is nothing new.

[evilelitest2]

What do you think are some of the pitfalls of modern day feminism and how can we improve feminism? I don't think the current feminist movement does enough to help lower class women who are more likely to deal with things like sexual assult, domestic violence and restricted access to abortions. I think the transition from an academic setting to the blogosphere has lead to a lot of feminist terms being misused or overused. What do you think?

Fun fact, I tried to answer this question three times and every time something happened and I lost all my writing.  But yes, great question, but sort of difficult because there isn’t one form of feminism, my critiques of Second Wave Feminism are totally different from my critiques from 4th Wave, or my critiques of Marxist feminism, its like having a single critique of every form of goverment, technically possible but the specifics matter a great deal.  Some forms of feminism focus exclusively on lower class women, others do in fact ignore them.  That being said, there are a few broad critiques I can make of the movement, but a few caveots i want to make clear first.

     Firstly, every movement, regardless of its ideals, are going to have stupid people, simplistic people, and bullies within its ranks, and there is no real fix for “some feminists online are dumb”.  The question when it comes to a movement is “are these just idiots attached to the wrong cause” or “is the cause itself rotten” which isn’t true of feminism the way that White Natioanlism is fundementally broken 

     Secondly, every movement interested in human rights struggles with intersectionality, it is not a uniquely feminist thing, intersectionality is hard both practically and psychologically, and that is something I think all of the movements are struggling with, feminism has done better than some with its active efforts to incorporate queer efforts into its larger movement.  

Ok so actual critiques 

1) Branding.  Feminism has major major problems with its image, one thing I notice constantly is that various feminist ideas and terminology might be easily accepted by people because they are objectively useful, but when people hear that they are feminist, suddenly people are like “eww no” .  Feminism really needs to rebrand itself to try to be more approachable, especially in regards to the usefulness of the ideas, because many of these concepts are just make life objectively easier to understand, but also there need to be active attempts to countermand the way feminists are depicted in the media, especially that sort of man hating militant 

2) Clarify terms:  THis is actually for the larger left wing movement, but the reason why the right can so easily strawman/co-op our rhetoric is that we aren’t specific about it . I mean take privilege for example, the fact of the matter is every person on the planet has some privilege in some context, a trans lesbian lower class black women in the Us still has privilege of being able bodied, or American citizenship.  A wealthy white man might still have down syndrome, privilege isn’t like a bioware morality system with most privilege vs. least, its a complicated interconnected system of power relationships.  

Or the Bechdel test, it isn’t just a scoring system for sexism, its a way of measuring an observable reality of the film industry, its a measurement of a larger trend rather than a condemnation of any specific movie.  The more vague these terms are, the more they can be strawmanned and approprated by reactionaries.

3) Tell Terfs to fuck off: Terfs suck, end of story 

4) Drop the moon goddess shit: This is more of a 2nd wave feminism issue, but i notice a lot of people perception of feminism comes from things like feminist fantasy or the sort of 2nd wave rements online, and its just utterly absurd.  All of the sacred femininity, primordial matriarchy, feminine nature magic stuff is extremely dated and makes the whole movement come off as a neo pagan nonsense movement.  Facts are on the side of feminism, embrace those 

5) Embrace complexity.  Again this doesn’t really apply to academic feminism, but more the way it is understood by tumblr folks, but we need to be more comfortable with larger complexity.  Bad people can make good art, somebody can be problematic in one regard and useful in another, simplicity remains as always a tool of the right, so that needs to just be abandoned. 

6) Explain utility: How is Feminism useful to me?   Yeah this one kinda sucks, because when it comes to basic human rights, there is something kinda upsetting about having to be like “oh yeah, these people are being fundamentally oppressed but here is how caring about their plight can help men” like that fucking sucks.  Problem is though, a lot of people are selfish, and if we can’t get them to support this cause, they will drift towards reactionary causes.  Fact is, for men, it is beneficial to them to support sexism on the surface, they benefit from it, and feminism is never going to win out if you don’t draw more men away from opposition.  So as much as it sucks, feminism needs to explain how patriarchy hurts men, how toxic masculinity is actually really destructive for men, how many of the issues that MRAs pretend to care about are issues caused by patriarchy rather than by feminists, how embracing gender equality is actually better for everybody involved.  

7) Finally and maybe most importantly, embrace humor, I think the “humorless angry feminist” sterotype  is one of the greatest weapons of the reactionary right, so we need to drop it.  I admire what Anita Sarkeesian is trying to do but beyond the fact I think her videos are simplistic, she is really really boring and utterly without humor.  Which i think weakens the movement as a whole, if feminism is funny and approachable, it can win adherents, cause again, the facts are on itself, it doesn’t need to hide its core identity the way that reactionary movements do.  

Bonus Round: Feminism should not be equated with other causes, feminism isn’t necessarily communist or pacifistic, 

Edit: 

Ok one thing I think I should add here, and this isn’t really the task of feminism but I think this needs to happen for Feminism to figure out where it go next.  There needs to be a clearer way for men to relate to the world feminists hope to build.  Now I don’t mean that in the sense of “oh no feminism hopes to oppress me and leave men obsolete” and all that conservative nonsense, I mean that when patriarchal gender norms are challenged and broken down (as they should be) it isn’t necessarily clear where men should go.  And many times they return back to reactionary hyper conservative gender norms, because those are simply and easy ad all that jazz.  Like, this isn’t the fault of feminism, its more of an unintended consequence that happens when change comes a calling, like how ebay has been putting malls out of work.  But while men should be able to come up with their own purpose once masculine identities are torn down, creating new identities based upon themselves rather than vague socialist expectations...that clearly isn’t happening, so feminism would do well if they could offer suggestions and try to address those anxeities.  Which....isn’t fair.  I mean its totally not fair at all that feminists have to both care for the needs and interests of a systemically oppressed under class....AND spend time trying to address the emotional needs of the oppressive class but you know...life isn’t fair.  And its just easier, if men, episodically young boys, can’t find a new purpose and identity, they are going to drift back to conservatism, this is how MRAs recruit.

   Honestly, a Men’s movement focusing on how to address men’s issues within the context of feminism and addressing the legitimate issues facing men (suicide, toxic masculinity, sexual insecurities etc) would be a really great thing, but that has largely been co-opted by MRAs as a way to recruit troubled young men into a reactionary hate group.  It shouldn't’t be feminist job, but finding answers for the anxieties of these young men will help them greatly in the future, its just more practical to address that from the outset rather than let them be corrupted by simplistic conspiracy theory narratives about the castration addicted matriarchy bent on white genocide.