#Oppressed Logic

[the-agent-of-blight]

also, i really find it interesting how people can genuinely go about saying "Well this group isn't attacked for their identity so they can't be queer " while then turning around and. attacking said group. for their identity. and exemplifying classic __-phobic tropes. It's really dumb. You are being the thing that you claim does not exist

[watermelinoe]

essentially what's frustrating abt being a bi woman on here is that if you bring up the fact that our statistics reflect the markers of being an oppressed class, despite a large percentage of us being partnered with the other sex, it's treated as if you're arguing that heterophobia exists

[mxtxfanatic]

Ngl, I’m actually pretty uncomfortable reading my old posts defending the goodness of the common people and their right to defend themselves—as persecuted groups or as individuals—from hierarchical tyranny, given how easily in this current irl moment a not-insignificant amount of people have fallen into supporting an active genocide, because I cannot separate this from how much pushback I got (and still sometimes get) for being consistent in my politics

[asharaxofstarfall]

i think that one of the biggest fandom flops when it comes to asoiaf is the justification of wrong doings because "its standard in westoros". we are not supposed to look at this society and world and approve of the their customs. yeah, people would not have thought that rhaegar x lyanna was too bad in terms of age gap, but we know that a married man in his twenties shouldn't abandon his wife and kids to run off with a teenage girl. as the readers, we're supposed to look at these events through a modern lense. sieging isn't too awful in universe but we can obviously use our critical thinking and come to the conclusion that it's disgusting and wrong. hoster might have been "just a normal father" by westorosi standards, but we've learned time and time again that westorosi standards are very low. we are meant to criticise these books!!!

[forlix]

now that the global strike has started, here’s your reminder that not having the fiscal availability to do so is NOT a valid reason NOT to support palestine.

boycotting is FREE. retweeting, reblogging, or boosting well-informed news to your friends and family is FREE. arab.org has been donating a portion of its adsense to the united nations relief and works agency for palestine refugees in the near east (UNRWA) for the past seven years and requires nothing, no identity verification, no captchas, none of your money whatsoever, and NO MORE THAN TWO CLICKS.

doing nothing makes you complicit in the ongoing genocide. oblivion is a privilege and neutrality is a vice. wake up

[neechees]

Because it fucking is you idiot. It doesn't even matter whether you think people have "decided" it is, that's what it is??

Israel was only created through the genocide and displacement of Indigenous Palestinians, where they ALSO constantly encourage (specifically White) other people, especially Americans, to go move to Israel, and they keep fucking bulldozing Palestinian homes and land for new Israeli settlements. Which is the definition of a settler colonialism state. It's a state created by coloninialism & genocide of the Indigenous population that also seeks to displace them & replace them with settlers. Why do you think Israel won't let Palestinians return home, even if they lived there before?

[rotzaprachim]

there are a lot of goyim esp from other Marginalised backgrounds that are taking the wrong lessons away from the fact that it turns out that a group of primarily socialist/communist people from an extremely oppressed cultural group with deep ties to an area are in fact more than capable of founding a regional settler colonial ethnostate in that area, a state that was capable of the mass dislocation and then intergenerational imprisonment of hundreds of thousands and then millions of people, and that while many non Jews feel morally pure and free of this ideology, the reality of the situation should terrify everyone

[coochiequeens]

Women face misogyny. Men in dresses face discrimination for being outside the norm.

[nando161mando]

Stop victim blaming

[xxlovelynovaxx]

[Img ID: post reading "it doesnt matter if we're feminine or masculine or androgynous. they'll want us dead anyway. THIS POST IS ABOUT TRANS MEN AND TRANSMASCULINE PEOPLE. DO NOT DERAIL. MAKE YOUR OWN POST." /end ID]

I think actually we've reached terminal selfishness and self-centeredness when "look basic transphobia. THIS IS ONLY ABOUT SOME TRANS PEOPLE. MAKE YOUR OWN POST" is considered acceptable behavior, like

1 this is the reblogging posts site. if you don't want it "derailed", turn off reblogs

2 it's not "derailing" to talk about experiencing the exact same type of oppression for the exact same reasons. like, this is tagged transandrophobia. y'know, the word coined to talk about oppression UNIQUE TO or MORE TYPICALLY EXPERIENCED by trans men and mascs? Like I know we're all super sensitive to "it's just transphobia" because bad faith actors use it to shut us up about our own oppression, but even if transandrophobia is ANY transphobia experienced by transmascs, this one is SO not unique and SO universal that calling other trans people "derailing" for daring to acknowledge they experience it is honestly transphobic itself

3. Are you being transmisogynistic or exorsexist it both? Do you find it offensive that a group even more erased than transmascs (trans people who are neither transfem nor transmasc) might "take the spotlight" by experiencing the same pain as you? Are you just mad that transfems suffer from hypervisibility (a key factor in transmisogyny, no less) that you're wrongly viewing as some sort of privilege?

Like this is the logical end conclusion of exclusion, separatism, and the idea that it's immoral or even just dickish to talk about SHARED experiences of oppression. Even those who aren't convinced that there's no overlap and oppression fits into neat little boxes based on your actual identity (and that people with multiple identities experience each oppression as discrete separate forms of violence OR a new unique form of oppression that no one else ever does) are like "I have the right to shut people out of a discussion of their own pain and trauma just because *I* experienced it for THIS reason

Like, I draw the line at someone saying anything more exclusionary than "oh I didn't name all groups that experience this because this was a more personal vent post, but please share your experiences because this isn't exclusive to us".

Idk I can't even articulate what's so gross and off-putting about this. But whatever, this intersex transneufemmasc is making their own post so they aren't (implied) transandrophobic by, idk, being transmasc but also other things and experiencing this same thing based on those other identities, or acknowledging that those other identities share these experiences in the absence of transmasculinity.

Also, nontransmasculine/non-trans-men experience transandrophobia, you fucking asshole. Transneutral, abinary/atrinary, neutrois, maverique, and other trans people that are seen as transmasc by bigots experience no material differences in the oppression they face. Their experiences are almost identical to yours - except they have to either be misgendered to be acknowledged or get erased. What functional difference do you think there is between an afab person pursuing what you forcibly label a "masculine" transition facing this exact shit, and you, other than that they respect your gender and you don't return the favor. Or you do, only to shut them out of a conversation that they have less of a voice in than you do.

That's just fucking transphobia. Fuck off.

If you're being so defensive over past trauma you bite people BEFORE you know they're unsafe, maybe you need to get a fucking grip.

[juni-ravenhall]

the "but almost all games nowadays are exploiting children (and all ages) players?" type comments about the sso thing are just haunting me. the "but thats weird, why this?" reaction, instead of "hell yeah! we need to destroy exploitative manipulative advertising and companies that do this to people!"

ppl are so used to being bombarded with exploitative advertising and dishonest marketing and being manipulated and brainwashed and exposed to schemes to try to get you to waste money on useless gambling and subpar quality products. and ppl are so used to *children* being bombarded with that. that it feels okay to them. that it feels like "well, thats just how things are".

and i keep thinking about how extremely insane it is to me that ppl will be actively mad about fandom shit but NOT ACTIVELY MAD about advertising and exploitative tactics.

like. if you are mad about ppl saying "i hate this game", or by people drawing fanart you dont like, or whatever, if that somehow affects you personally emotionally (it really doesnt have to you know - its not a good place to be in) but youre. not everyday being personally emotionally affected by the fact that capitalists do this shit to everyone and to children who cant even fucking tell that theyre being advertised to. the children dont fucking understand that the companies are preying on them. they cant recognise advertising for what it is. they dont know quality standards. they dont understand what gambling is or why its bad. they dont know how to tell when companies are lying. they dont know how bad plastic is. they dont know how much all of this explotative capitalist shit can hurt them and everyone else and our planet.

it just drives me crazy. that ppl can be so upset about random things individuals online are doing who are not capitalist and not abusers and not exploiting children or vulnerable people, but youre not actively fucking screaming against capitalism, against how people are being killed in the name of Owning More and Making Money (the wars killing people are about money and resources and land!!! capitalism!!!), about the planet being destroyed, about human rights being violated, all these things, are less important to you (you dont get that upset about it everyday, you dont scream about it everyday) than some fucking random harmless people saying your favourite game or movie sucks, bc now thats a real issue, or someone writing a fanfic you think sucks, bc now thats a real issue, or someone telling you to stop being mean to harmless people is sooo awful what a crime cant believe your human right to free speech is being suppressed like that, while people are fucking dying to make your sweatshop fashion and your slavery chocolate.

boohoo i have real issues too, yeah heres the thing, im sure you do have a few real issues. like being ND is a real issue, or being queer, or being oppressed for how you were born, or how you look, all of those things are real issues. but if you get mad about fucking dumb ass fandom things like ppl criticising a game or disagreeing with you about a fandom topic (not a human rights one) or god forbid people telling you to be kinder and more respectful to others. if those are things you get mad at. and you go "huh but exploitative advertising and monetising towards kids is normal?" or "but theyre a company they have to do pay staff?" i just want to fucking scream

[watermelinoe]

patrick star it's not my wallet meme but it's just "class-based oppression exists" "yes" "oppression is based on material class and not how an individual is perceived" "yes" "for example trans men who pass as men socially are still oppressed for being female" "yes" "because oppression manifests as more than surface discrimination" "yes" "therefore even straight-passing bisexual people are oppressed for being bisexual" "NO you can't be oppressed for being straight!!!!"

[meteorherd]

also like idk. i feel like people who use "monosexual," "non-lesbian," etc. don't really understand why "nonblack" is an appropriate term to use but "non-asian," for example, isn't. or at least there's some sort of overlap in people who use those terms when describing lgbt oppression. you have to understand how axes of oppression and hierarchical oppression work...those sorts of terms within the lgbt community don't really work when the oppression is horizontal rather than vertical.

[thenetvvork]

"well when you as a system experience ableism it isn't SPECIFICALLY because you're a system it's just because you're Not Normal so actually systems aren't oppressed for being a system" I think people were put on this earth just to piss me off

[haggishlyhagging]

[Hag’s Note: This is a longer quote but I had to share all of it. Don’t fall prey to the illusion that men of today are in any way different to the men described below.]

“As the woman in charge of Newnham, [Anne Jemima Clough] was not Emily Davies's best friend. This was because Emily Davies (1830-1921) struggled long and hard to establish Girton on particular principles, and she thought Newnham was undermining everything she hoped to achieve. Rita McWilliams-Tullberg (1975) has said that from the very outset of the women's education movement there were two factions, ‘those for whom education was an end in itself, and those for whom it was a particular end, proof of equality with men’ (p. 25). Anne Jemima Clough was more sympathetic to the former while Emily Davies was unequivocally in favour of the latter. She argued strongly that 'women could only challenge men's intellectual dominance if they matched them at their own tests' (ibid., p. 26), and she most definitely wanted to challenge men's intellectual dominance so she therefore unyieldingly insisted that the women at Girton follow to the last letter and in every detail the tests which men had set up for themselves.

She was not to be persuaded that the tests were stupid, or that there were extenuating circumstances for females (who, for example, had often not enjoyed the same facilities or the same teacher expertise as their male counterparts), and it seems fair to say that she would have resisted to her dying breath any attempt to set up separate systems where women received one form of education and men another. To Emily Davies this would have achieved nothing in terms of changing the relationship between the sexes, for she believed that unless women's education was the same as men's it would not be considered valid and would make no difference to the intellectual status of women, who would continue to be denied intellectual competence precisely because they had not received the same education as men.

In some respects I think Emily Davies's analysis was accurate — there was no way men would treat women as serious intellectual beings while women undertook a different form of education, which was bound to be seen as a 'deficient' or 'lesser' form of education in a male-dominated society. What she omitted from her analysis, however, was the possibility that no matter what women did, men could continue to treat them as intellectually incompetent and that education was not the one and only rationale men might use. Men could still treat women as intellectually incompetent and inferior beings even if and when they had access to the same education!

Of course she had grounds for her argument. She had been closely involved with Elizabeth Garrett's campaign to gain entrance to the University of London, where the men certainly suggested by their behaviour that anyone who qualified in their terms as a medical practitioner was indeed a qualified medical practitioner and deserved to be treated as a proper medical practitioner. This was why no more women were permitted entry through the Apothecaries Society.

Emily Davies also encountered the frequent opposition of those who believed that if women were allowed to do the same examinations and courses as men, men would no longer hold such examinations and courses in high esteem. As this was precisely what Davies wanted, for men not to be able to laud an exclusive achievement over women, she pursued the goal of the same education for women with single-minded purposefulness.

Today, I would argue that she omitted another factor in her analysis: that the education that men had (and that women imitated) was designed by men, about men, for men, and that the battle for women's education was but a battle for women to find out in a systematic and legitimated way, just how prestigious and authoritative men are (and how inferior and deviant are women, in contrast). I would argue that it is because men control the construction and distribution of knowledge and because they have simply conceded to women the opportunity to partake of the knowledge they construct about themselves and the world, that women still do not have the same education as men. Women have no control over the knowledge which is generated, no control over what women learn, or what men learn: the authority of men remains unchallenged despite women's entry to the 'halls of learning' and because women are still excluded from the 'halls of power' (see D. Spender, 1981b). That is why the women in this book are not the substance of education, and will not become so while men remain in control. It is why the intellectual contributions of women past and present can be appropriated by men.

But if Emily Davies did not foresee this development, neither did the men who tried to prevent women from gaining access to the university. Rita MeWilliams-Tullberg (1975) has given an excellent account of the resistance they mounted and the ‘logic’ that these illustrious dons used to defend their territory and retain their authority. Although, primarily through the efforts of Emily Davies, women had been attending lectures at Cambridge since 1872, their presence was based on a complicated system of private arrangements which could be revoked at any time, and in 1897 an attempt was made to formalise the situation and to have women accepted as official students who could be granted degrees. For six months before the vote was to be taken (by all men of course) a campaign was begun (for and against) and a veritable battle was waged in the press. Numerous were the men who adopted the position that every penny spent on women's education was a penny less spent on men's, and many were the men who indicated that they would fight any move women made to share in the government or privileges of the university.

Using the intelligence for which men are so famed, W.B. Skeat wrote of women's entry to the university that:

If given the B.A., they must next have the M.A. and that would carry with it voting and perhaps a place on the Electoral Roll; a vote for the University Livings and all the rest. Even the B.A. degree would enable them to take 5 books at a time out of the University Library on a ticket countersigned by ‘their tutor’. I am entirely opposed to the admission of women to 'privileges' of this character. And I honestly believe they are better off as they are (quoted in McWilliams-Tullberg, 1975, p. 89).

There were educated men — the cream of the intelligentsia and the custodians of authority — who expressed their bafflement that women should want education at all and who prophesied gloom and doom if it should come to pass. Women would be unsexed and men would be unable to control themselves they warned, seemingly unaware of the contradictions in their case. The abuse that was heaped upon women, and the vitriolic nature of much of it, suggests that men were quite frightened by the possibility that women might come to share their intellectual haven.

The vote was lost: women were not to be admitted (at Cambridge they were not to be admitted as full members for another fifty years). Some of the men celebrated by taking to the streets and rioting — in logical and objective manner, of course. 'The undergraduates began their celebrations by storming down to Newnham with the news' that the women had lost, says McWilliams-Tullberg (1975) and ‘a student there remembers listening from the roof of one of the Newnham buildings, to the roar from the town which increased in volume as the attacking force gradually approached, to be finally held up by the closed College gates, with the (women) dons assembled beneath the archway. When their gentlemanly instincts were appealed to they left the women alone and returned to the Market Place for a night of wild celebration' (p. 139).”

-Dale Spender, Women of Ideas and What Men Have Done to Them

[sorin-sunchild]

Also, a secondary reason that I auto-block anyone who says unhelpful generalising stuff like 'all men are disgusting' and 'all men should die' is that they so rarely have any grasp of intersectionality when it comes to oppression let alone anything complex at all so I can't trust them to be normal about race or transpeople either.