#Stop romanticizing domestic abuse and violence just because it's a woman doing it

[miraculousalt]

The way Marinette fans or jus general ml fans really will use feminist movements like #metoo or the uprising of female abuse victims speaking up against misogynistic prejudice they face an suffer under to explain why Marinette has every right to reject Chat Noir the way she does is all really great an progressive unril the very same people will 80% of the time then turn round an honest to God explain or even DEMAND that Marinette doesn NEED to stop hitting Adrien, tying him up or otherwise physically restrain or use him and doesn't NEED to ask for consent in anything including KISSING or other sexual activities (you people aren't even attempting to hold Marinette to somewhat of the same healthy standards you make sure Adrien never EVER gets to break, under no circumstances) - even when they are DEPICTED IN A LOVING Relationship - because "its nothing serious.", "she isn't actually hurting him", "he deserved it he annoyed her!" and "that's slapstick comedy, it's FUNNY" is outright one of the most disgusting double standards this fandom glorifies into all heavens.

The way people will show ZERO self-awareness of what they're doin and excusing here an that this is EXACTLY how our real society treats (domestic) violence against men by women would be almost hilarious hypocrisy to point out if it wasn actually as downright depressing as it truly is.

Don't bring feminist movements into the conversation regarding Chats behavior towards Ladybug when you straight up support the characterisation of Marinette Ladybug bein seemingly incapable of NOT physically violating her boyfriend/husband/partner who has suffered under excessive abuse for all his life the moment she sees him transformed (or evn worse as CIVILIANS). Because therefore his "protective suit" can be used to all max as justification as for why Marinette apparently isn being abusive or treatin him badly, including taking advantage of him and his non existent boundaries thanks to his abusive home and the established Ladynoir dynamic that sometimes hardly let's Chat be more than Ladybugs tool to use so she can look cool and strong.

Don't bring up feminist movements when yall think the appropriate way for Adrien to react when he made Marinette angry is submitting and cowering in fear bc you somehow have convinced yourself that boys and men (even the ones, or ESPECIALLY the ones, you are in a romantic relationship with) getting scared of you when you're in a bad mood is you being EMPOWERED instead of you actively refusing to stop being outright abusive.

Canon Marinette is a flawed person but in the end of the day that still remains in at least some sort of limitations to not cross every line, but FANON Marinette Ladybug? That's so fucking often a glorified domestic abuser yall romanticize in a relationship with an abuse victim. But sure. That's alright for you, cuz yall don't truly believe that women can be abusers of people they love once you LIKE them as "strong, empowered women". And men can't truly be abused by women bc they just "respectfully drink respect women juice" in each an every conflict they have cuz men NOT havin to follow a women's every dominatin lead or dare to even expect of HER to do better and stand accountable for her hurtful behavior n be TRUTHFUL is toxic for you people.

I feel so fucking sorry for every male domestic abuse victim of their female abuser, who had to endure their pain an suffering getting invalidated, spit on and even JUSTIFIED as a womans natural unproblematic right by this fandom bc yall are really out here not thinking twice about the horrible implications of making Marinette Ladybug "lovingly" physically assault Adrien Chat for girlboss points or shits n giggles at every turn. No matter how fucking unnecessarily violently executed or even entirely unwarranted in the first place. You just don't fucking care.

The way this fandom has Marinette physically and emotionally violate Adrien Chat however extreme and even unwarranted as she pleases and then you people have the nerve to romanticize that abusive shit by having Adrien be INTO THAT and LIKE IT in a loving relationship while he never once gets to defend himself - bc now that would glorify domestic abuse right? - is the most backwards and hypocritical "feminist" characterisation teh show has to offer but yall truly make it into glorified abuse bc "woman strooooong and in control, its PROGRESSIVE! 💅🏼He respects and admires her strength an authority, he doesn mind getting put in his place à bit rougher by her bc he supports her as the powerful woman leader she is 😌."

Even the Marinette fans who claim to feel for Adrien in his abuse (or even ADRIEN FANS) turn around and laugh at or completely write it off when Marinette gets characterized in Canon and ESPECIALLY in fanon to basically just violate, assault, humiliate, insult and dehumanizes her male love interest for her "empowerment". Because yall claim to be so feminist and progressive but it's so fucking obvious that you only care about how WOMEN can benefit the best from everything. You want revenge porn that's all.

Adrien, his abuse and male abuse victims of any kind are a mere afterthought for you (sometimes not even that) in the feminism you believe in and s4 made that so fucking clear. 95% of this "progressive" Fandom wouldn't hold a female abuser accountable for her actions, even if it were to save the male victims life, the moment the woman isn't a 1 dimensional, obvious monster. If a woman has ONE sympathetic emotion in her portrayal yall will excuse and justify her getting the male victim served to her obedient an perfect an pretty on a silver plate.

95% of the miraculous Fandom has lost their fucking right to claim they care about abuse victims, because no you fucking don't. Not when it's a man and the scenario is coincidentally layed out perfectly to have the woman benefit on every level from the man getting abused, neglected and taken advantage of to 17 hells. Then youll look for n max out every excuse an justification on every meta level available to belittle the disgusting treatment the men went through.

YOU don't give a FUCK about abuse victims and their life's and pain the moment they are male, and s4 has an still IS now in s5 having you publicly blog that into the open internet because THAT'S how little you truly think of male abuse victims. Miraculous is a girl power show, so you will not think twice about dehumanizing and victim blaming boys for woke and even TOXIC feminist points, cuz the last thing you would ever do is hold women girls to healthy standards too in their dynamics an relationships with men boys under a feminist narrative.

"Feminism" for you is an excuse and Marinette fans in s4 proofed that in every way possible.

[miss-redvelvet]

You are not the problem

No matter how big your hips are, you deserve respect No matter how tall you are, you deserve respect No matter how you dress, you deserve respect No matter what you work on, you deserve respect It doesn't matter if you have a sex life, you deserve respect It doesn't matter if you are a man or a woman. You deserve respect

Let's stop romanticizing any kind of violence, the worst of which is that which leaves

Scars invisible as words. Women suffer every day, even if they are not beaten, but insults, prejudice and harassment are something that no one deserves.

Remember that our struggle is not because we want a simple life. We just want to live without the fear that our life depends on some man.

In quarantine cases of domestic violence have increased around the world, many women have been locked up with their abusers and even though they cry out for help they are not heard. Learning to hear the sounds of abuse not only saves a life, but also helps inspire women every day to fight for their freedom.

I come here to tell you, never put yourself in the second row, we have to support each other to stop validating any kind of abuse, there is nothing wrong with you to be suffering because of someone else. You are the owner of your life, look for help so that you can claim it and start giving yourself love, privilege and value, do not demand that gift forever.

Follow me instagram

Follow me we heart it

[elk-ambrose-scott-writing]

Top Five “Overrated” Classic books

*Disclaimer: I’m an opinionated bitch, but these are value judgements on the books (and the racist ass authors), not the people who like them* 

Genre: Garbage Gothic Tragedy

Author: Emily Bronte

Year Published: 1847

Plot in 20 Words or Less: A rich family adopts an orphan, love drama ensues, and nobody has a good time

Problematic-o-matic: Slurs against Romani people/travelers, romanticizing of abusive & toxic relationships 

Why (I think) it’s Over-rated: 

This book pushed some buttons for me. I’m a survivor of domestic violence, and Heathcliffe’s behaviour was so shitty and abusive that if I wasn’t reading it for school I would have set the whole book on fire.

Cathy was also toxic too, but Heathcliffe took it all the way to eleven. 

I wished the teachers would have trigger-warned us, and I kind of hate the prick for not doing that, don’t think I don’t see you Mr. A, you dickhead 

Beyond that, I didn’t like a single character in this book. Nobody. Not a one. Half of the characters were barely developed, and the ones that were developed were so unlikable that I hated them as much as they seemed to hate each other. 

I also thought the pacing wasn’t great, though that might be due to the differences in novels then and now.

Still, I thought this book was over-rated because all the characters sucked ass and I hated reading the book because of it.

Genre: Nonsense Science fiction, dystopia

Author: George Orwell

Year Published: 1949

Plot in 20 Words or Less: Big brother is watching you, and he’ll torture you if you hurt his feelings

Problematic-o-matic: Orwell was a grumpy old man who hated LGBTQ people, women, vegetarians (why), people who wear sandals (?) and communists. Didn’t appear to be racist though, so that’s...good. 

Why it’s Over-rated: 

This book had a lot of hype.  And I read it, and I hated it. 

I thought the pacing was terrible, and that there was a whole lot of talking, then a cringey, over the top saccharine romance (bleck) and then torture. 

That is terrible pacing. The whole story just grinds to a halt so Winston and Julia could fall in instalove. Ugh. Even now, instalove is a trope that’ll make me DNF unless it’s done expertly. This was not done expertly. 

My husband has argued with me that the point of the romance was to point out how the totalitarian state doesn’t allow love to exist and turns people against each other, but the fact remains that it was boring and dumb. 

Also, the ending is anti-climactic and a big let down. There, I said it.

Genre: Tripe Science Fiction

Author: Aldous Huxley

Year Published: 1932

Plot in 20 Words or Less: In a drugged up caste based society, a vacation goes horribly wrong

Problematic-o-matic: This book is ableist and racist. Like, so fucking racist, holy shit. Also, Aldous Huxley was racist, and may have been a plagiarist. (more in the link below)

Why it’s Over-rated:

This is one that made me hella uncomfortable. 

I’ll be honest, folkx, the racism in this book took me right out of the story. You see all these people defending it, but white people need to be quiet in this instance and listen to what the people being hurt by this work are saying.

And the idea of free love, but only if it’s hetero, rubbed me the wrong way too. Free love means free for everyone, baby. 

The writing itself is fine, but for one thing; characterization.

I found the characters really hard to like; even John, who was probably the most likeable character, was a total asshole by the end. Lenina was just...there. You could have replaced her with a lamp and it wouldn’t have changed much. Bernard was so, so annoying. Helmholtz was probably the only character I didn’t want to see kicked in the balls by a donkey, and he was barely in the book. 

So TL;DR: this book is so goddamn racist, and everyone sucks.

Genre: A goddamn mess Adventure/Mythology

Author: Homer (the boring one, not the yellow one)

Year Published: 8th Century BC, translated into English in 1488 (and the world was worse for it)

Plot in 20 Words or Less: Supposed smart guy gets lost for ten years, doesn’t listen to directions, and gets all his friends killed

Problematic-o-matic: Racist against cyclopes, I guess? The Ancient Greeks general distaste towards women?

Why it’s Over-rated: 

This one is petty, but Odysseus SUCKS and the book is BORING.

Sure, he’s smart and stuff, but apparently not smart enough to find his way back to his house and keep his men alive. 

My dog found it’s way back to our house when I was a kid, and that dog wasn’t very smart. Odysseus can’t do what a dog can do, and that’s really sad. 

Also, while his wife is waiting for him, staying celibate, despite all the suitors coming after her, Odysseus goes off and bones Circe and stays with her on her island. 

Which is funny, because my ex was like “oh, he was looking out for his bros and keeping this crazy woman happy” and then he cheated on me, because he thinks irony is something you use to press your clothes. 

After that point I wanted the book to end with Odysseus being eaten by a pack of wild boars and then shit out on the front lawn of his stupid castle in Ithaca. I bet his castle was ugly too. 

This book would have been better if Homer Simpson wrote it.

Genre: Dumpster fire Coming of age fiction

Author: J. D. Salinger

Year Published: 1951

Plot in 20 Words or Less: Teenage boy whines for way too many pages and almost gets shot by a pimp

Problematic-o-matic: J. D. Salinger was an abusive dick, and this book got banned at one point. And serial killers like it. So that’s...cool. 

Why it’s Over-rated: 

Holden Caufield is a whiny douche.

This book is so goddamn boring and the best part about it is that it’s short. 

The only controversy is that Holden Caufield is an asshole, and acts like a self-centered prick and talks about sex and stuff, which by today’s standards is really, really tame. 

He’s pretty realistic to a lot of teenagers; he thinks he’s the smartest, the best, that he sees through all the bullshit and he knows the right way for everything. 

But I also read this book as a teenager, and like Holden, I also had depression. I thought his portrayal was insulting on both fronts. He was incapable of seeing beyond his own world-view, and he acted like a jerk to people, even when they were nice to him. Not all people with depression are nice, but this wasn’t just not being nice, this was going out of his way to be negative to everyone around him.

I just wanted to grab the kid, smack him, and tell him to stop moping around and go spend more time with his sister.

Read the Full Post Here and Argue with Me about Books: https://elkascott.wordpress.com/2021/02/19/el-listicle-my-top-5-overrated-classic-novels/

[jewish-privilege]

Being an ethnically ambiguous person comes with a lot of privileges; however, answering the constant questions about my identity is not one them. Like many other exoticized women, I am asked on an almost daily basis: “What are you?” and “Where are you from?” followed up with “No really, where are you from?” after I reply “Brooklyn” to their line of questioning.  

When you tell folks in America that you are Romani, nearly 100 percent of the time they will ask if you mean Romanian. Often times, I will reply “No, Romani, which is gypsy but please don’t call us that because it’s a slur.” I’ve learned that Americans are familiar with the word “gypsy,” using it to describe a vagabond, free-spirited lifestyle, and have a faint idea of us as mythical creatures, but are ignorant to the plight of actual Romani people.

So, who are Romani? More importantly, why do we need to remove the word gypsy from our vocabulary?

Simply put, Romani are the largest ethnic minority in Europe, originating from northwest India, migrating through the Middle East, and some through North Africa, to Europe. There are Romani living around the world, with estimates of 10 and 12 million living in Europe and another million in the US. Europeans imposed the word “gypsy” on Romani when they came to Europe, believing that we originated from Egypt because of our dark features. Romani have a history of persecution in Europe; it is estimated by Roma historians that over 70 to 80 percent of the Romani population was murdered in the Holocaust, a fact that is little known or recognized. Even lesser known, Romani experienced chattel slavery in Romania for over 500 years ending in 1860.

Although it is rarely talked about, the situation for Romani has not improved much; we are still victims of hate crimes, receive inadequate health care and housing, experience segregated education, and die in prison. While policies in the US systematically discriminate in covert ways, many of the policies against Romani in Europe are overt, which is apparent through opinions from political officials. In 2013, Zsolt Bayer, co-founder of the Fidesz Party in Hungary, said, “A significant part of the Roma are unfit for coexistence. They are not fit to live among people. These Roma are animals, and they behave like animals. When they meet with resistance, they commit murder. They are incapable of human communication. Inarticulate sounds pour out of their bestial skulls. At the same time, these Gypsies understand how to exploit the ‘achievements’ of the idiotic Western world. But one must retaliate rather than tolerate. These animals shouldn’t be allowed to exist. In no way. That needs to be solved — immediately and regardless of the method.”

These ideas are not reduced to words; according to a study by the National Federation of Gypsy Liaison Groups and Anglia Ruskin University, 9 out of 10 Roma children have suffered racial abuse in the UK. In Hungary, 60 percent of Romani live in secluded rural areas, segregated neighborhoods, and settlements. The fact that 90 percent of Romani in Europe live below the poverty line is an even more extreme illustration of current living conditions for Romani.

We cannot have a conversation about the use of “gypsy” without mentioning what it specifically means to be Romani and a woman facing racism, classism and sexism, excluded from traditional feminist and Romani activist movements. Romani women experience particularly disparate treatment in the areas of education, reproductive health care, and in the labor market. Only 1.6 percent of Romani women attend college in Romania, while 90 percent of Romani women are unemployed in Hungary. Romani women in Slovakia, Hungary, and the Czech Republic were victims of forced sterilization, a practice that ended less than 10 years ago. Romani infant mortality remains an issue; it is double the national average in the Czech Republic. These policies that impact actual lives of Romani women are upheld by cultural attitudes, some of which people don’t notice they are perpetuating.

...The media offers two stereotypes of Romani women: the beggar, who is dirty and exploiting social welfare, and a hypersexualized magical being who threatens the patriarchy. So, while the use of the word “gypsy” seems innocent, it is dangerous to Romani women. It conjures up a romanticized image of poverty and sexualization, which doesn’t acknowledge that there is nothing romantic about being a victim of institutionalized racism. There is nothing romantic about the link between perceived uncontrollable sexuality and forced sterilization. There is nothing romantic about being a victim of domestic violence but afraid to speak out because law enforcement won’t believe you or it will further oppress your community. There is nothing romantic about lacking political power and representation, and being left out of both anti-racist and feminist politics.

However, that doesn’t stop the rampant consumerism and pop culture references associated with “gypsy.” Just to name a few examples: The Gypsy Shrine, Gypsy Warrior, Shakira’s song “Gypsy,” Fleetwood Mac’s song “Gypsy,” Cher’s song “Gypsies, Tramps, and Thieves,” and the latest, Netflix’s original series Gypsy. There are over 2,000 “gypsy” costumes on Amazon and over 250,000 “gypsy” items for sale on Etsy. When folks unknowingly or knowingly profit off of the word “gypsy,” claim they have a “gypsy soul,” or use “gypsy aesthetic” for a day at Coachella, they are reinforcing racist stereotypes of Romani women and dehumanizing us. People in the US must recognize the link between the language we use and how cultural depictions inform public policy for marginalized groups. Beyond language and the word gypsy, this is about how gypsies are struggling for liberation, and how Romani women suffer while gadje (non-Romani) profit off of our likeness. So before you put on that coin skirt and scarf, or proclaim your “free-spirited gypsy-ness,” remember that we already exist and will be always be gypsies and Romani.

---

I’m sick of seeing celebrities who are so good with anti-racism (and even antisemitism, which almost never happens!) “reclaim” the g-word when they, as non-Romani, have no right. When they are confronted with the history and present of the word, they either ignore it or scoff at the possibility that they are acting in a racist manner. I’m not Romani and it feels like a slap every time I see it; I can only imagine how painful and exhausting it is for a Romani person to deal with it on a daily basis.

[garden-of-succulents]

I was busy this weekend with a lot of work stuff, during which I had a couple related discussions with coworkers, friends, and mental health colleagues about safe spaces, about how people with different personalities or issues or mental health needs interact, and it reminded me of issues we’ve had in fandom, both among fans and when discussing the work we’re fannish about. I thought it might be worth introducing a concept into the discussion.

Something I only learned about as an adult when I got into disability advocacy was the concept of conflicting access needs. That is, disabled people may need certain accommodations to make a space accessible to them, like wheelchair ramps or braille signage; and sometimes those needs directly conflict in a way that is nobody’s fault and doesn’t mean anybody’s needs are invalid and evil. 

(Essay content notes: Trauma, mental illness, illustrative examples from a domestic violence shelter including abuse and suicide attempts. And also some examples that are a little less blameless and “nobody’s fault”)

For example, a person with poor vision may need bright lighting so they can see and read, while another person with chronic migraines or sensory processing issues may need low lighting to avoid headaches or overstimulation. These are both legitimate access needs, but they mean you probably cannot make the same space accessible to the same people at the same time. These are issues that need to be solved with a lot of thought and extra dedication of resources, and there’s nowhere near a standardized guide of responses to these situations.

Conflicting access needs come up all the time in the mental health field. For example, some people have strong emotions and need to be able to express them without judgment or restriction to be healthy; others have high levels of anxiety and extreme negative reactions to emotions expressed loudly or forcefully.  

Content warning: domestic violence, trauma, child harm: When I worked in a women’s shelter, one issue that came up a lot had to do with children: Women and children would arrive freshly traumatized and settle into a new, scary space with different rules and strange people. The children would often panic if they lost sight of their mother and want her near all the time. At the same time, their mothers needed time and space to process the trauma they’d been through and tell staff about what they’d been through.  Letting children sit in on their mothers’ interviews with staff, where they talked about the abuse they’d experienced, would be extremely harmful to the children--it substantially raises their risk of PTSD to see the adult they rely on to make the world safe break down and become overwhelmed with fear or grief, much less to hear about the things that had been done to her. We had to expend a lot of time, effort, and staffing hours to making sure that both mothers and children got what they needed--that there were a lot of staff on hand to soothe, distract, and play with children while their mothers were busy dealing with their own trauma, as well as counsellors and advocates available to help their mothers. End specific content warning

The more experience I get, the more I think it’s impossible for any one space or environment to meet everybody’s access needs at the same time. What some people experience as safety threatens others. Some people need to fall apart, and others need not to see someone falling apart in front of them. And unlike the shelter, friendships and social groups don’t have staff who are hired to put their own needs on hold for an eight-hour stretch; everyone involved has needs to look out for. (And actually, that’s not even true; as staff, our employer was non-negotiable about our need not to be physically threatened and prohibited us from working with clients who threatened violence against us. But we stretched ourselves thin ignoring our other needs--to sit down, to cry, to wait for the shaking to pass, to complain, to get angry, to go out for a snack or a smoke--when we had clients to take care of.)

(Relatedly, my experience with mental illness and mentally ill people is why I don’t believe in “safe spaces”: It is absolutely worthwhile to make a space safer, to remove a lot of obvious triggers and distressing material. But the more traumatized the group you are working with, the more elusive safety is because people carry their trauma around with them: they can’t be safe in their own heads and bodies. A lot of traumatized people constantly revisit and rehash what hurt them. To promise a “safe space” to many people is to make a false promise that will inevitably prove false and disappoint them. Therefore my view of what makes “safer spaces” work has changed a lot, away from restricting the kind of content on display, and towards empowering people to use tools to help themselves feel safe and in control. To saying, “Feel free to leave if you need to take time to yourself” or “Just put your hand up like this if you want us to leave you alone” or “here is how to keep this kind of content appearing on your screen”.)

These are issues I hardly got any training in and I’ve been in the mental health field for almost a decade. They’re discussions that feel like we’re breaking new ground in every time I have them with people with twenty years of experience. These are discussions that are hard find any clear, firm, 100% correct answer. Often the answer is “more resources”--more people, more empathy, more time, more thoughtfulness, more knowledge--and that’s a shitty answer when we’re in a situation where everyone is stressed, upset, at the end of their rope, in pain, and already doing the best they can.

These are tough issues.

I’m mentally ill and neurodivergent; I have mentally ill and neurodivergent friends. And it is so easy for us to hurt each other. My Autistic friend has an anxious week and has to stop spending all her energy on reading subtle social signals to finish her thesis; I’m depressed and socially anxious and feel the loss of her attention and lack of response to the small feelers I send out to see if she still likes me; when she finds out I’ve been sitting on my insecurity all week, she feels like a horrible friend.  We’re not necessarily bad, nor wrong, but we hurt each other all the same. And the reason we can still stay friends is because we can talk things through and find ways to give each other what we need.

Content warning: domestic violence, abuse, suicide: On the other hand, sometimes you can’t negotiate that gap and stay together afterwards. At the shelter, a lot of women who’d just left their abusive partner would come into the counselling office carrying their cell phones, saying, “He says he’ll kill himself if I don’t come back. He’s tried it before and I believe him. I think I should go.” Sometimes this is a bluff, an abuser’s tactic to get control back--and sometimes they’re not. But in those cases the women thought that their partner’s pain and distress--which were sometimes very real--meant they should put themselves back in danger. We had to remind them that their partner’s need for someone to help them deal was not actually greater than their need to stay safe and alive.  More than once, I helped a woman call 911 or the local Mobile Mental Health Unit to alert them to a person at high risk of suicide--because as much as she loved him and wanted him to be safe, she and I could look at the facts and know that her going back wouldn’t really help him, and would definitely harm her. End specific content warning

It matters a lot to me to try to have these discussions, tell these sorts of stories. A lot of my fiction is an attempt to complicate the bland, romanticized stories about mental health I got my information from when I was a teenager, that left me unprepared to handle these conflicts.

There isn’t an easy answer, not “more kindness” or “more boundaries” or “help others” or “look out for yourself”. The easiest answer I have is, “This is hard.” Caring about other people is an active struggle; being a good person isn’t a state, it’s a series of trade-offs and the best decisions you can make at the time.

Short, easy answers--”This is right, the alternative is wrong,” or “Fuck them” or “Only this is important”--may keep you safe or help you get through in the short term, but they also have their own costs. They’re coping mechanisms, not ultimate truths.

[judedoyle]

Basics

A lot of debate, in the past year or so, has come down to putting a label on people’s politics. So-and-so is A Liberal; thus-and-thus is A Leftist, or A Socialist. Mostly, this serves as a reason to dismiss somebody, whether or not they’re right — you would say that, you’re a liberal, or well, that’s just purity politics talking. But, as a feminist, it’s also my job to at least try to have solidarity with women who disagree with me. In the process of trying that, I realized I’d really never tried to write down a coherent description of my politics before. I’d called myself a “socialist” until maybe 2015, found myself called a “centrist” from 2015 through 2017, took a bunch of stupid political-compass tests where I always wound up on the same square as Jill Stein and/or anarchists (pretty far left, all the way at the bottom toward the “anti-authoritarian” end, to answer your burning question) and still really had no idea how to communicate where I stood or why I stood there in discussions with other women.  

Here, just because I imagine the question will come up again, is an attempt at a description of my politics — economic, identity-wise, role-of-Nazi-punching-wise, what have you. It’s not much, but as women increasingly have more good-faith arguments on the direction of our movements (which is lovely; I would rather do that than hear some man explain Why Identitarianism Is Ruining The Left any day of the week) it might give some grounds for an assessment of what I’m saying and why I’m saying it. I mean, assuming an “assessment” is the point, and not a Twitter fight — my optimism is boundless, I guess.

1) The center point of my political engagement, the thing everything else revolves around, is feminism — ending misogyny and default male power in America. I don’t think it’s inherently superior to any other locus; your activism could center queerness, black lives, economic inequality, and be just as meaningful, if not more so. But I choose feminism, because feminism chose me. By the time I left elementary school, I had seen two instances of near-fatal domestic violence within my immediate family. In one of them, a woman was shot in the spine and left paralyzed for life. I knew about other cases where women’s boyfriends or husbands controlled what they ate, or “accidentally” killed their pets. I knew two girls who had been raped by my sophomore year of high school, and that count only increased once I got to college. And, of course, I experienced my own share of violence. Basically, by the time I was sixteen, I knew I lived in a world that violently hated women — that hated us enough to kill us, and that did kill us more often than anyone wanted to admit. I have spent the rest of my life figuring out what to do about that. It’s what I care about, and I admittedly care about it more than anything else, including my own self-interest at times. You’re free to choose your focus. This is mine.

2) There is no useful feminism without intersectionality. In fact, feminism, arguably more than any other cause, is bound to intersectionality, just because every single group in the world has women in it. This makes it practically impossible to craft a universally true statement about “women,” or to issue a blanket call for “women’s solidarity.” Women will probably always have opposing interests, or disagreements, and (as long as we live in an oppressive society) some women will always be able to oppress or exploit other women. I’m pretty obviously a flawed vehicle for intersectional feminism, given that I’m white, and straight, and cisgender. So I try to stay educated about the interests and experiences of other women, to reflect on those in anything I write as best I can, and to keep those women in mind before assuming my own experience is universal. I try to fight for the interests of all marginalized groups — or at least to support fighters, where I’m not qualified to speak up myself — because all of that is essential to supporting women as a whole.

2a) One place where you might disagree with me: I do believe that even extremely privileged women experience misogyny. Misogyny is a structural factor that impacts women because they are women, and for no other reason; I also believe that misogyny alone can ruin or kill a woman, even if she has everything going for her. So I don’t necessarily view even very privileged women as “enemies” — any woman can, potentially, be enlisted to the cause — and I try to frame any criticism in a way that steers clear of misogynist tropes.

2b) Another place for good-faith disagreement: I believe that getting women and other marginalized people into positions of power has real, positive impact on its own. Of course, you have to take into account what those women believe — no-one is saying Sarah Palin or Ivanka Trump are feminist sheroes — but if a woman is reasonably progressive, she represents a concrete improvement over the white man who currently occupies that position. There are different value levels to this: Getting women into government is far more important than getting women into corporations. But giving women higher-paying jobs matters, too. Sexism, like everything else, is economic; the reason women face economic discrimination is the same reason that over 90% of all abusive relationships involve financial abuse, which is that patriarchy wants to instill dependence in women. Patriarchy wants to make it impossible for a woman to survive without a man’s patronage and approval, and thereby render those women passive, submissive, and (this is important) unable to resist violence or walk away, because they cannot survive outside of the relationship. Ideally, all women would have equal access to resources. In the meantime, women should be supported in building bases of economic power within the world we have.

3) And, speaking of economics: I believe that American socialism is the goal, but that it’s not exactly a short-term goal. Which is to say: Everything I’ve read suggests that structural and identity-based oppressions are in fact improved under socialism, because the marginalized have that base of economic power from which to resist their oppressors. And, in America, class is deeply tied to identity; poverty is reliably caused by bigotry, and fighting poverty therefore fights bigotry. Yet I’m skeptical about getting there quickly, and don’t think any of us should live as if “the revolution” is going to happen tomorrow, or in five years, or in ten. The nation that elected Reagan in a landslide within my lifetime, the nation that made George W. Bush a two-term President, the nation that recently elected Donald Trump, does not seem like a nation that’s going to turn into Scandinavia (or even Canada) before I turn 40. I think we are more likely to get there via a gradual leftward culture shift, and pragmatic policies aimed at increasing the social safety net in specific ways (like the FAMILY Act or Obamacare) than we are through one huge victory or grand deluge that changes everything.

4) And, speaking of the deluge: I would prefer my activism to remain as non-violent as possible for as long as possible. Yes, I know the state is violent — more violent than any black bloc or riot could be — and I know that intolerable conditions inevitably generate violence. Still, my activism has its roots in resisting violence, and in witnessing violence, so I can’t romanticize physical force easily. I think violence tends to generate chaos and harm as many innocent people as it helps, and I can’t participate gladly in hurting or killing people.

4a) I do, however, make a distinction between violence and self-defense. Edward Crawford is not “being violent” in this picture — he is throwing a weapon that was intended to harm him back to his attackers, sparing himself from their violence. A woman who speaks up about being raped, harassed or abused is not “being violent” if that man loses his job or goes to jail, nor is she “being violent” if, in a one-on-one confrontation, she fires a warning shot into the ceiling; she needs to get the abuser or harasser away from her, to stop him, and if he will not respond to requests, she will have to use force. Taking Milo’s check mark or book deal away is not an act of aggression. Nobody reasonable has a problem with Nazi-punching. I believe that the oppressed must sometimes use force to limit or contain the oppressor’s violence, basically. Where that fits into the greater picture of limiting or containing state violence, or of “revolution,” I don’t know, except that I don’t want to shoot people.

5) Because those most impacted by economic oppression are women, people of color, and other marginalized folks, any leftist movement should be led by women, people of color, and other marginalized folks. In many cases, like Black Lives Matter (which is largely led by women, including queer women) this is already the case. But if I look at a group of “leftists,” I should see mostly women — or, at least, 51% of the attendees should be women. The reasons for this are practical, not ideological. For example, I recently saw a leftist say they supported the “Norwegian model” for abortion. Norway limits abortion at thirteen weeks. This is before any substantive genetic testing to ensure the viability of the fetus can be done (even the most expensive cell-free fetal DNA testing, which is normally done at around ten weeks, would take a while to return results) let alone before the 20-week test when many fetal abnormalities are first detected. It’s eight weeks earlier than Donald Trump’s proposed 20-week limit, which is already barbaric. Norwegian women & trans people can theoretically get an abortion at up to 22 weeks (still only two more weeks than a ban endorsed by Donald Trump, for fucksakes) but they need the government’s permission, and doctors are allowed to flat-out refuse at any point in the pregnancy for reasons of “conscience” — not exactly “pro-choice.” This is a socialist paradise, and their abortion laws are worse than America’s. There are other instances of this, like the racism of the New Deal, which have been rehashed endlessly. In short: The reason for leadership by oppressed people is that, if your socialism or leftism doesn’t specifically take their concerns into account, it will end up specifically leaving them out.

6) There are also a lot of old-school, probably “liberal” values I hold dear: I think people have a god-given right to disagree with each other, or with The Movement. I ultimately believe in democracy, no matter how frustrating it gets. I believe that it must always be safe to note that the Emperor has no clothes — and it doesn’t matter who this week’s Emperor is, or how “progressive” he claims to be. Hate speech and abusive speech needs to be checked, but “unity” isn’t a positive goal if it means you’re not allowed to make your own choices or say what you think. 

7) But she voted for Hillary Clinton! Yes, I did. I grade a candidate on gender politics first (see Item #1) and didn’t much like those of her opponents. I also just like her, as a woman, for reasons I’ve gone on about before. But Hillary Clinton lost four months ago, and won’t run again, so she’s really not the most important part of my work to anyone except people who hate Hillary Clinton. More generally, I believe that voting for mainstream, left-of-center candidates in a general election is not incompatible with further-left activism. I think the two are interdependent. You vote for the candidate who has a chance of winning (which means taking into account all Democrats, not just your own stripe or social group), who will preserve gains rather than rolling them back, and who will be at least somewhat responsive to leftward pressure. Then you apply the pressure through protesting, marching, striking, and creating media and culture change. Some people understandably harbor anger toward those politicians (my husband is intense about Obama and drone strikes, for example) but I mostly don’t — they work in a system designed to limit them, and it’s our job to alter that system. Electing Clinton, or Obama, or whoever, isn’t the end goal of progressive politics. It’s the beginning, setting an acceptable battlefield in the ongoing work of activism — which belongs, not to our elected officials, but to us, and which will not end within our lifetimes.

Well, those are the basics. I imagine there are a thousand points I’ve left unaddressed. But this is the core of what I believe, so that we can argue about that, rather than someone else’s fevered imagination about what I believe, the next time we talk.