#This isn't even feminism at all it's just sexism

[theerurishipper]

I hate how ML become more and more like woke feminism. Like you know, those woman who only want man to cater to their need and do everything for them but don't want to do the same for their man. Because that's precisely how Ladynoir/Adrinette looks like for me. AdriChat is the one who always giving and giving and giving while Maribug barely do anything. People can scream that Maribug give AdriChat love, but you know, GabeMoth also give AdriChat love and give loves and being kind is just ...the barest minimum and no one, NO ONE should be suffice to be given kindness and only kindness, because that's just how human should be, give kindness to everyone, not limited only to the one who you loves.

You're right anon. I'll say it over and over, the writing of Miraculous isn't feminist. The way it treats its female coded character is the farthest thing from feminist. Adrien is constantly reduced to being emotional support for Marinette and he doesn't get that same support back. Switching them up doesn't make it progressive or empowering, it just refocuses the problem elsewhere instead of getting to the root of it, and when you've written your female coded character as an abuse victim as well, it just looks really bad. And that's not even getting into the overt misogyny when it comes to treating its female characters. I'm sure the writers don't truly have any ill intent and I don't want to condemn anyone here, but it really does send a bad message.

Thank you for your ask!

[nero-neptune]

maybe i’m just easily annoyed (and the news is depressing), but i feel like people on here (or the internet in general lbr) are more willing to criticize/dismiss (even label unrelated things as) “white feminism” (even if it’s bringing up important/relevant issues) than talk about feminism at all. sexism exists in every community you can think of, within every race, ethnicity, social class, religion, nationality, sexuality, what-have-you. it’s easier and more entertaining ig to point out how feminism is lacking or who’s doing feminism “wrong” then attempt to bridge/fill the gaps and actually, Seriously Talk about sexism in detail (and not like it’s some sort of 2nd tier, we’ll circle back to this much later, type of oppression which i Really get the impression of, even within supposedly-progressive spheres) on the regular and not as a series of gotcha posts that get enthusiastically reblogged for a blip in time and then. crickets. like as far as the patriarchy’s concerned (like if i’m looking at this from their perspective), this nitpicking appears very divide-and-conquer. nothing goes anywhere. and things just keep slipping backwards. maybe i’m crazy (maybe i’m way off base), but isn’t feminism meant to help All women, even the ones you dislike? even the ones you hate? like what’s going on here? am i missing something?

[drdemonprince]

The Barbie Movie is confused -- and it is confused on purpose, because it can't actually acknowledge the role that capitalism and white supremacy play in the patriarchal system that it wants to give itself credit for acknowledging. And so the film introduces patriarchy as a force with no agent or system behind it.

Ken, an oafish goof is able to find the concept of patriarchy and transmit it to the entirety of his society simply by learning about it and speaking about it to his fellow Kens. There is no use of force, no political organizing (notably, the Kens try to take over the political system after they have already taken hold of the culture), no real persuasion even -- simply by hearing about patriarchy the women in Barbieworld somehow become brainwashed by it.

This means we never have to really see the Kens as genuine antagonists, we can still laugh at their bizarrely crammed-together multiple dance numbers and forgive them when they, like the women, are freed of the patriarchy simply by women speaking about the fact that sexism exists. Both the origins of patriarchy and the solution to it is as simple as an individual person telling their story.

The CEOs that run Mattel in the Real World in the film are similarly cartoonish and devoid of real agency. They're even portrayed as generically interested in the idea of Barbie being inspiring to girls. The movie can't even acknowledge their profit motive, and it can't make any of the men running the company look too powerful or even too morally suspect -- but the film does still want to have Barbie encounter sexism in the real world and grapple with the harm "she" (the consumer product, and not the social forces and human beings that created her) has supposedly done.

In the Barbie Movie, patriarchy is a genie in a bottle, and no one is to blame - except maybe Barbie herself, since the movie spends a significant amount of time discussing how she is responsible for giving women unrealistic beauty standards.

And so Barbie is depicted as both sexism's victim and sexism's fault. She's dropped into a patriarchal world that the film acknowledges has a menacing, condescending quality -- but the film can't even have an underlying working theory of where this danger comes from, and who had the power to create this patriarchy in the first place, because that would require being critical of Mattel and capitalism.

And in the film, ultimately the real world with all its flaws and losses and injustices is still preferable to Barbieworld, because you get to have such depth of feeling and experience and you get a vagina, so how bad could really be? And hey, when you think about it, the Barbieworld is just an inversion of the real world, isn't it? A world with women in power is just reverse sexist, so it was justifiable for the Kens to want to take over, and what does it say that all things being equal Barbie still would prefer to leave behind her matriarchy and join the patriarchal capitalist world? That's the real world. Real world is struggle and sexism and loss and pain and capitalism and death and we must accept all of it but it's worth it..

It's not that I'm surprised the film's a clarion call for personal choice white feminism and consumer capitalism. I just expected the call to be a little more seductive or in any way coherent. I wanted to have frothy fun, and instead I was more horrified by the transparency of its manipulation than I was by even the most unsettling moments in Oppenheimer.

[torchwood-99]

There's a lot of discussion about Tolkien's work and feminism, is it sexist, is it feminist, how does the fact that Tolkien's work held feminist themes make sense with the sexist views he expressed in real life, is this plot point regarding a woman sexist or feminist?

And I think the key thing here is remembering that feminism isn't a state of being or a personality trait, it's an action and a thought. A person can both be feminist and sexist. They can hold sexist attitudes and do sexist things and they can also hold feminist attitudes and do feminist things. After all, feminism is complex and the rights of women is a fight on multiple fronts, a war made up of multiple battles.

Tolkien was an upper class white man raised in a time of great sexism, and lived and worked in a sexist environment. He also had a very strong bond with his wife and lived in a time when women's rights and the role of women were undergoing massive changes. His works have far less women in them, and his women often get side-lined and their characterisation/plot relevance are often influenced by sexist tropes (passivity, existing to be a trophy, role defined by make relationships).

At the same time, his female characters can show great heroism, competency and power, and perform feats of heroism in ways that have traditionally been seen as "masculine", showing that a woman being a woman doesn't inherently make her incapable or suited only for certain jobs. And not only that, his characters, like Eowyn, outright call out sexism (all you words say, you are but a woman....you have leave to be burned in the house because the men will need it no more). He also has an in-universe female character speculate on how history has overlooked women, the history he wrote.

Tolkien's attitudes and beliefs would have been influenced by the attitudes and beliefs of his time. He would have grown up in a sexist environment and internalised rigid views about women and femininity and their proper role. He would have also; perhaps subconsciously or despite himself, taken in the feminist arguments women were making at the time, or even noticed himself some of the injustices that women suffered. The man himself didn't need to identify as a feminist to have expressed feminist views. After all, "I'm not a feminist but...." followed by a statement that is definitely feminist, is something we've all seen at some point.

There's also the badass, wonderful Haleth, who was originally conceived as a man, only to be changed into a woman by Tolkien later on. Perhaps he himself noted, as his own characters did, that women had been overlooked in his work. Just as the world around him changed and attitudes towards women adjusted, it is possible that Tolkien's did too. There would have been a difference in what was conservative in the year he was born and what was conservative in the year he died.

So, are Tolkien's work sexist? Yes. Are his works feminist? Yes. Are his female characters sexist? Yes. Are his female characters feminist? Yes.

We can read Tolkien's work and find feminist messages and be uplifted by them. We can also read Tolkien's work and criticise the sexism that is at play.

[genderkoolaid]

Idk if this really fits ur blog (its not technically TRANSandrophobia) but i saw a post about how approximately 1/3 men have hpv and people in the notes are being, like, super radfem-ish and bioessentialist? Like, someone said that the reason this is the case is that “men generally don’t like getting vaxxed”, another person said “sex with men will kill you in some form” and lots more people were saying shit like “kill all men” (which, even ironically, makes me a little sick) and idk, it just felt very… weird? And wrong? And like, definitely morally questionable, if not outright wrong?

So I looked into this: apparently a study recently came out on HPV in men, and found that 1 in 3 cis men globally have HPV. The study itself brings up that most research has been done on cis women, concerning cervical cancer. Because that's a big concern, its why people need regular pap smears- but since there isn't an equivalent to that for those with penises, they are less likely to know they have HPV, especially since many cases are asymptomatic. This study is actually very important since its encouraging more effort be put into making sure everyone is given medical advice on HPV. Despite it being able to cause cancer in any sex, if its seen as a "female" disease, then everyone else is going to assume its not something they need to worry about. The CDC found that children AFAB started being recommended vaccinations in 2006 while children AMAB only started getting recommended them in 2011. Here's an academic paper on "the feminization of HPV" that dives into this issue, which I do recommend people check out, since it really illuminates just how much sexism has affected men's health in this regard.

So people with penises are a very under-researched group with regards to HPV, and that is killing people because they don't realize that they can get cancer and they aren't getting an equivalent to pap smears to check for it. This study is genuinely important! So people seeing the statistic "1 in 3 men have HPV" and jumping to "it must be because they hate getting vaccinated! this is proof men are disgusting and penises will kill you!" is absolutely some gross gross shit. Very radfem-flavored misandry. You are right to feel sick about this!

[brazenautomaton]

Do you differentiate between ideologies like radical feminism and the feminist movement you describe? Not asking from a hostile poise, just curious

I detailed that pretty clearly.

There are "radical feminists" who openly hate men. All feminists accept the ideas and worldview that lead to "radical feminists" openly hating men, and no matter how many times they insist "but those aren't real feminists" they are acting on the same principles to the same ends, and will always shelter and cover for those "radical feminists" because it can't bring itself to say they're wrong.

It does not matter how many of them are "for real equality" and it does not matter how many times they claim that the obvious psychopaths they cover for are "not real feminists." Feminism is an ideology that says "here is how to be for real equality! everyone who is for real equality, believe these things!" and gives you a worldview that utterly despises men and wholeheartedly embraces sexism.

and "radical feminism" isn't just harmful because of how much it hates men. "radical feminism" is basically an ongoing hate crime against women. if the reason hate crimes should be punished more harshly is that they lead to members of the targeted group living in more fear, feminism constantly lying about how much danger women are in and how much of a threat men pose to them is a sustained campaign of terrorism. the "man or bear?" thing is an indictment of how deranged feminism is and every single feminist justification for it digs the hole deeper. they spread lies that cause women to live in fear in order to gain power, because they can point to that fear and say "look look see how afraid women are you have to give us more power."

all feminists do this, even the ones who are for "real equality." the ones who say "those aren't real feminists, not all feminists are like that" will still turn around and say that women are constantly imperiled by men, that women should feel overwhelming fear of men, that women's lives should be defined by the fear of victimization, and that it is the responsibility of men to use their agency to make women safer. any feminist who disagrees with this is instantly excommunicated. they may think they are working for "real equality" by trying to reduce the threat men pose to women but it doesn't matter what they intend when their entire worldview is made out of man-hating sexism.

[everythinandanything]

The Sad Thing About Dracula Adaptations

Is that, I truly think, they believe with their whole chest that painting Dracula as Mina's "liberator" and turning Lucy into a promiscuous woman is progressive and feminist.

Like, the intentions are there, but for some reason they can't get it in their heads that these two changes are far less feminist than they think it is. They pat themselves on the back for being "feminist" by making Dracula about women's sexual liberation, without seemingly comprehending the fact that they just turned it into a more sexist piece of media.

As many Tumblr blogs have pointed out, Dracula is nothing more than a rapist and a serial killer, his interactions with Mina and Lucy are pretty clear allegories for sexual assault. But adaptations frequently paint him as a 'sexual liberator", thus creating an implication that rape is 'sexually liberating". Which is such a slap in the face to sexual assault and rape survivors it makes my jaw drop. But adaptations do it, convincing themselves that this is a "feminist take".

Even if the Harkers were sexually repressed, rape is never a good thing. i never thought I would have to say this, but here we are. And they aren't sexually repressed. They couldn't keep it in their pants long enough to get out of Jonathan's asylum bed. Monogamy and sexual repression are. not. the. same. thing.

In a similar vein, turning Lucy into a sexually promiscuous flirt is not only disloyal to the novel, it adds a layer of sexism that wasn't even there in the novel. The novel never implies that Lucy's death was punishment for being sexually forward (which she ISN'T IN THE BOOK), so it is on the fault of the adaptors that there is this idea that Lucy's death was punishment for being more "liberated". In trying to make a more "feminist' piece, they circled back to making it more problematic, and straight up insulting/invalidating to sexual assault and rape survivors. To me, telling a survivor that their experience was their "liberation" is so, incredibly tome deaf and insulting that i can't understand how someone would believe it.

Let us go over the facts, shall we? Lucy dies a virgin (she didn't get married). She was kind to all living things, peaceful, never wanted to harm anyone, never worked outside the house, and her only desire was to be married before she was twenty.

Mina, on the other hand, is a working woman. It is never stated that she quit her job after getting married, and nowhere is it implied that Jonathan wouldn't be in full support of her working outside the house. Even if she did, she clearly mentions that she plans to work with her husband as a team, so she isn't leaving the workforce anytime soon. She isn't a virgin, because we know she marries during the novel, and had her wedding night in her husband's asylum bed (which carries the same vibes as "Mary Shelly had sex with her husband over her father's grave). She is perfectly willing to harm people , notice how she took an active role in tracking down Dracula. She gets to live happily ever after with Jonathan. Lucy embodies a lot of older virtues for aristocratic women, and she dies

Adaptors can't seem to realize that, if anything, the novel is all for sexual liberation, and women being independent. it just puts in a MASSIVE caveat that everything has to be completely consensual, and that rape is never the victim's fault. There is a feminist take that is already there, in the novel, but for some reason adaptors make changes in the name of "progressive feminism", which just makes things more problematic.

[leaves-lilies-and-esther]

Anne with an E didn't invent feminism in the Anne of Green Gables series

I just saw a post on tumblr about how AWAE has feminism (as opposed to the original series, which apparently doesn't???) and my reply went past the word count, so here it is:

Firstly, I think that Anne is an incredibly well-done feminist character in her own right, and that's what offers her enduring popularity. She literally smacks a slate over the head of a boy who comments on her looks, publishes stories, is the first girl from Avonlea to go to Redmond, succeeds wildly at Queen's, is principal of a school, refuses to marry at all unless it's for love, etc. Moreover, she does all of this while being interested in fashion and typical 'girly' things, as well as remaining a flawed character who still feels completely real. She doesn't reject femininity, but she does as she pleases.

It's not like the books push sexism under the rug, either. The mathematics professor at Redmond "detested coeds, and had bitterly opposed their admission to Redmond". The older women of Avonlea don't particularly approve, either- Anne gets plenty of discouragement that Gilbert and Charlie Sloane never receive, and some even admit that they don't find it particularly proper for a girl to receive so much higher education. Specifically, she's told that she's only going to get married. Later in the books people inform her that she will never be married because she's "too particular" (Mrs. Harmon or Jane's mom), and that she should just settle as soon as she can. This is only in Anne of The Island alone, btw. In either the first or second book I think she even voices support for women being ministers, which isn't even a position to be taken for granted today.

There are loads of things I love about AWAE- Ka'kwet's storyline was amazing and added so smoothly, the casting is superb, etc. But they didn't introduce feminism to the series. In effect, I've also heard the argument that AWAE is less feminist. They take out so many of Anne's accomplishments at Redmond, as principal, actually getting published, etc. They remove her conviction on marrying for love. They end her story when she kisses Gilbert as if that's the end of all things lovable and Anne-related (although I know that's more the fault of Netflix than the directors). We never see the town's canonical reaction to going to Redmond, staying a single pringle for as long as she did, etc. In fact, quite the opposite, because the show kind of rushed Anne and Gilbert together, and as a result missed huge chunks of their friendship and romance. Again, not the fault of the directors, but I can only react to what we actually got... which is the removal of everything feminist about the original series. Yes, they added other points, but still...

Idk, I adore both but it still irks me when people say "if Anne was alive today/written more recently she'd be a huge feminist!!!". Yes, but she already was... in her own time. Anne-girl was a rebel from the start!

All hail Queen Anne 👑

[deadaldipshit-jpg]

shut the fck up with your Taylor agenda if you have a problem with her that's okay but you don't gotta spread hate

If you have a problem keep it to yourself reblogging isn't going to make any difference

Everyone has a problem with her selective feminism but nobody has a problem with her underserved misogyny and sexism?

Okay I don't see you spreading stuff about any of the other silent celebrities

What about your selective hatred?

To start of, if reblogging doesnt make a difference, then how should it affect you. You shiuld have no problem with it. And everyjne is allowed to hate people.

I know taylor swift has faced a lot of unwanted and undeserved misogyny and sexism. But so have other women. She isnt alone. And she often seems to call any sort of criticisms as sexism. Also, she forgers about intersectionality and belives that she had it the worst, even though she is a rich white women who had conections even before she was 15.

And if you want to see my hate towards other silent celebrities here you go

- selena gomez is a bitch who thinks her own emotions is more serious than the millions of people who are dying in gaza everyday. The same selena who actively spoke up for ukraine. She, her ceo and her beauty brand support the idf and are donating ti isreal while feigning support to palestine.

- lana del ray is a fucking zionist who people are still supporting. Another sexist bitch who gets away with shut cause shes white and has above average music.

- all those fucking celebs who signed the letter in support of bidens desicion, and say that they are neutral, cause neutrality is in support of isreal.

Dear anon if you want me to continue i will.

And i have valid reason to not like taylor swift. Within the last 3 months, she had produced 138 tons of co2 emmisons. She can ruin peoples reputation with one post. She uses 'feminism' to target people who are just saying what they were told. She is infamous for copyright striking people for tiny things. She is a fucking billionaire, and if she cared for people, had empathy and morals, she would never have reached it.

So anon, im not spreading hate, im telling you the actual facts. Just cause im appalled by these people doesnt mean what im saying isnt true.

[fizzingwizard]

my curse: "Gee I wonder what my old buddy Nightcrawler's up to in 2024? hmm let's check around and see -"

"... why did i look why did i look why"

Seriously why does Marvel do this? I won't deny that Nightcrawler fans like to joke about the tail thing. For the kinkier ones, it's maybe not as much of a joke too. (But - it still is. Y'all know that right. Real people don't have tails. Anyway, you're welcome to make fun of this, as long as I eventually see some dudebro extra show up and ICly ask Colossus about his giant metal wang.)

Women hitting on Nightcrawler and being overtly sexual towards him in a way that would be pretty creepy IRL isn't a new thing in the comics. It's weird, but even though it reads as creepy, it's intended to show that despite looking like a gargoyle, Nightcrawler is hot and can attract girls and is totally an authentic superhero. It's complimentary creepiness 9_9 I don't take issue with that because that is superhero comics, everyone is horny all the time, and attraction is inexplicable. Basically it boils down to "I've got lips/ And I've got lips/ Let's get together and use those lips"

However. In the Draco, we got Jubilee, who was like 18 at the time, complimenting a naked and extremely distressed Nightcrawler on his, uh, junk. His reaction amounted to "..." Then a couple years ago, we got a... demonically possessed?? Illyana - whose age is a fucking mystery, she's not a teen anymore, probably Kitty's age, but anyway she's young - hitting on Nightcrawler as well. Once again he's brilliantly "..." about it. And now we've got this girl. I don't know how old she's meant to be, but she's written to sound like a young chatterbox - while being blonde and buxom and dressed like a Hooters waitress. "OH EM GEE" she spells out vocally??? Then exoticizes him, then asks him sexual questions???

There's definitely a way to comment on the invasiveness of fans who feel entitled to any detail no matter how personal about someone famous. But must it be through teenage girls you purposely drew to be hot and stupid? And I'm being generous by even suggesting that's what the intent here is. I think it's way more likely this is just another version of the "complimentary creepiness" shtick, only made more awful by the like twenty year age gap (I guess Crawler was aged down with everyone else but come on do any of us feel that's real in any sense). You get to lust after this girl while hating her simultaneously for being everything wrong with young women. Who is this for? They can't imagine it's for Nightcrawler's female fans. They can't be that obtuse. It's obviously for the boys.

So then the question is, what is there for the female fans? Because having female fans is kind of something Nightcrawler's known for. And any time something happens to a character - or a story - that the bros don't like, they blame the change on pandering to female fans. On feminism. On reverse sexism. But please someone sit down and explain to me how it's pandering to us female fans to write our favorite character like a tongue-tied himbo ("uh... um... uh..." wow crawler you smooth criminal! it's really obvious you've been a grown ass man since the 70s) while simultaneously insulting our entire gender as vapid nymphos?? Several times???

gosh. next time please just let crawler react by saying "sister you've got boundary issues and should be hitting on someone your own age goodbye." honestly this shit wasn't even cute when Claremont did it and he gets a pass on everything

[nicosraf]

Could you speak a little bit about your approach with the female humans in A&M?

Miriam seems happy or at least secretly pleased to wed Armoni who married her against his will through force and coercion. Idith and Samyaza had some dubcon and even a bit of non-con going on. The men in your story (and people in real life) blame Eve and label women as sinners/evil.

Satan and the demons often use 'she/her' pronouns. Even Samyaza, a character which many readers are frustrated with for the hypocrisy, has a femme and sapphic reading.

A lot of current retellings usually have a "feminist" spin or at least an attempt to give their female characters more agency. You seem to have a somewhat more authentic take but instead of choosing sides of good and evil your characters seem to exist is a deep morally gray area (at least that is how I read them).

Anyways, I was just wondering how you decided to interpret the female characters?

Hello! It's pretty straight forward actually! I was just more interested in trying to depict women, like those in my real life, authentically than anything else. My mother is a good person, but she's also a bad person at times, the same goes for my sister, my other female relatives, and all my women friends, though I'll admit I based most of the women in A&M off my female relatives.

I think A&M's feminist narrative is glaringly obvious and simple at times, but I didn't want to do "women good, man bad," even if some characters — like the Watchers — have this reading. Women in real life perpetuate sexism and do wrong things all the time, and that doesn't make them not victims of patriarchy. Eve isn't suddenly not-a-victim because she hurts one of her children. (And ABM is about this too: you can be a victim and do bad things. You can be a victim of abuse and an abuser.) (Point 2: I think your commitment to a cause shouldn't rest on your perceived moral purity of those you support; womens wrongs don't negate the need for womens rights)

I realize women characters will be judged harsher. (I do always notice how Eitan and Idith are treated differently by some people!) I know women just existing in movies or books puts them under intense scrutiny. Here's the thing though: if someone is the type of person to scrutinize women characters, looking for a reason to hate them, then I don't really care about their enjoyment of my book in the first place.

Not that I should be the one dictating what feminism is or isn't, but I think I can say that one part of it is that women deserve to have all the gray complexity that male characters have and that the genderqueer angels/demons have.

Oh and I've seen the backlash against feminist retellings of myths lately (the "girlbossification") that I don't think I can comment on it too much given I am, you know, a man — but, for A&M, I wanted to depict humans fairly realistically, knowing this might make them seem simple, unlikable, weak, or even boring compared to the fantastical, long-lived gay angels. It's important to me because A&M is an introduction to humanity. My approach in Angels #3 will be different, but... you'll see.

TLDR: I like writing women, and femmes generally, who are flawed despite how much they may have suffered.

[boreal-sea]

Just wondering, would it ever be possible for radfems to truly divorce themselves from terfs or terfy ideology? Have a friend who calls herself a radfem but doesn't support terfs

I personally don't think so, because radical feminism is what TERF ideology is based on. "The call is coming from inside the house", as they say. The poison isn't TERF ideology, it's radical feminism.

TERFs are radfems. They have one additional rule ("No trannies!"), but their foundation is radical feminism. If you listen to TERFs, you understand that there is so much more about their feminism that is toxic and harmful even without the addition of "we hate trans people".

This is because the reason they hate trans people is because they hate males and manhood - and that comes from radical feminism.

Why do TERFs think trans women are sexually perverse fetishists? Because they think all males are sexually perverse fetishists. Why do TERFs think trans AFABs who take testosterone will become violent, angry rapists? Because they believe all males are violent, angry rapists, and taking testosterone makes you like them.

Those are radical feminism's beliefs. To be quite honest, it's difficult to find radfems who are not transphobic, and just as difficult to find radfems who are not "misandrists" who openly hate boys, men and males - because those two concepts are inherently connected.

Radical feminism is inherently bioessentialist: male=dangerous, female=victim. It is therefore sexist, transphobic, and racist. It was founded by middle class white cis women who had a narrow view of oppression and privilege, who only experienced sexism as an axis of oppression, and who therefore believed sexism was the ONLY important axis of oppression.

Every offshoot of radical feminism is more toxic than the original. Female separatists, lesbian separatists, political lesbians, TERFs... they're all standing on a poisoned foundation, so of course they are toxic, too.

[astraltrickster]

Some reminders for whenever you're in a predominantly queer hobby space:

There is no universal queer experience that is not also a universal HUMAN experience. No, not even that one. Not that one either.

Being gay and homophobic isn't a jokey laughable meme because it's impossible; it's a jokey laughable meme because it's as tragic as it is assholey

Just because a stereotype is affirming to YOU doesn't mean you get to throw it at other people

Top and bottom are sexual preferences, not personality types, which ties to -

Reinventing and especially holding others to stereotypes from ancient Greece doesn't become the height of progress just because you turn it around and say "and that's okay and fun to be uwu"

The line between celebrating queer genderfuckery and doing those last 3 things is easier to miss than you think it is when you're crossing it

Either all words can be degendered or none of them can (and in practice it tends to be a quantum superposition such that they all can but also can't); don't try to use surface-level feminism to make it "okay" to misgender someone in one direction but not another, and DO respect people's boundaries about gendered terms, yes this means WITHOUT accusing people of sexism and toxic masculinity for being uncomfortable being called "princess"

People do not owe you any details about their queerness, they don't even owe you being out at all, and trying to pry because you feel entitled to a disprivilege checklist to contrast against your own is not only a dick move but also highly suspect

Bullying someone for being a flavor of queer that you can argue is theoretically more privileged than you is still bullying a marginalized person for the same reason they're marginalized from mainstream society and you're still an asshole

"Gatekeeping is bad 99% of the time" means the 1% exception is for assholes who enter a space actively showing disdain for the people already in it, refusing to learn the rules and culture, and demanding it be changed to their specifications, NOT "cringey" obscure identity groups, no not even if you can stereotype the whole group as said assholes

Someone talking about their own oppression experience and how it ties into the hobby space is not denying the existence of yours

If you publicly use queer terms as insults, even lightheartedly, you are indistinguishable from a garden-variety 4chan troll

If you use slurs as insults against other queer people, you are not "reclaiming" them

If you are in a predominantly queer space and you're convinced that you're just SURROUNDED by an unprecedented concentration of pedophiles and other sexual predators, congratulations, you've internalized some VIOLENT queerphobia, now go unpack that instead of making it everyone else's problem!

The "vibes" you're "picking up" are probably just old stereotypes you internalized, especially if you're new here

You cannot make sex-negativity queer-positive; most queer people fuck, many queer people have WEIRD sex sometimes, and sometimes in creative hobbies we will even express it THROUGH that hobby; you're free to be grossed out by any detail but other consenting adults' sex lives do not have to be appealing or even palatable to you, learn how to say YKINMKATO and filter shit instead of making it everyone else's problem

Finding you personally annoying is not inherently queerphobic

Not being down with the specific approach you take to queering the hobby is not inherently queerphobic

Liking the same thing does not make people inherently compatible as friends and being queer doesn't change that; the block button, on the other hand, will ALWAYS be your friend

Just because someone doesn't talk about queer issues outside of how they relate to the hobby space doesn't mean they're "faking," "playing the queer card", or reducing their own issues to petty hobby drama; it's far more likely that it means they're using the hobby space to get AWAY from that shit but unfortunately can't do so entirely because too many people forget a lot of shit on this list

[genderkoolaid]

Hi!

I (24 nb) am having a serious issue with girls my age being quite misandric and using radfem rhetoric in their speech.

The issue is I understand their fear and mistrust of men in patriarchy and with many of them having horror stories to share about bad heterosexual relationships. But i am deeply uncomfortable with misandry and i don't know how to effectively point out that no it's not good feminism to hate on men.

Do you have any resources you could recommend me to build a good argument? I want to be prepared for this kind of discussion because it keeps happening more and more frequently.

I know it's not the main topic you cover on your blog but as it is closely related to transandrophobia I was hoping you (or your followers) could still give me some advice.

I wish you a wonderful day

My advice would be to start with talking about the negative impact of misandry on women first (although don't use the word misandry, at least at first). Starting off with "it hurts men" in any regard will likely not go over well, but if you first bring up the issue in relation to a group they already really care about, they'll be more likely to listen. Also, I would reaffirm that having trauma or bad associations with men isn't the problem, they aren't obligated to associate with men in ways that make them uncomfortable or exhausted, and that they have a right to feel their emotions, be angry, be annoyed, etc. Affirm that your concern is with how their actions and attitudes could be causing real harm to others, and that anger being valid does not mean you don't need to take responsibility for how you choose to act.

Some potential talking points:

When women are perceived as manly or masculine, they tend to get viewed with the worst traits of masculinity: butches and trans women are seen as aggressive, violent predators who prey on sweet, feminine straight/cis women. The patriarchy doesn't just hurt women through their femininity, but through their (real or perceived masculinity as well.

Even inside queer spaces, butches are expected to fulfill toxic masculinity: they are expected to be sexually dominant tops, not be emotionally or physically "weak," not do feminine things, etc. Butches can get ridiculed by others, even partners, for not fulfilling these things. Things like balding and small penises, that are traditionally seen as failures of masculinity in the patriarchy, are also made fun of in queer spaces; it seems like queer spaces have issues with how they deal with (real or perceived) masculinity.

When spaces make jokes about hating men, put a lot of emphasis on gatekeeping men, etc., it makes it a lot harder for trans women and nonbinary people assigned male feel safe. Some trans women & genderqueers might not realize their gender because they are kept out of spaces that could've helped them realize because of how queer & feminist spaces act regarding men. Butch trans women and genderqueers often face heightened scrutiny because of their masculinity, from both inside and outside their communities. (Also, send them this article.)

^ As a result of all of that, maybe we need to be more careful with how we think and talk about masculinity. It seems like we are reusing a lot of negative patriarchal stereotypes about men & masculinity in ways which hurt marginalized people the most.

From there, you can bring up marginalized men: you can talk about how trans men, multigender/nonbinary men, men of color, Jewish men, fat men, disabled men, etc. are negatively affected by negative patriarchal stereotypes about men & masculinity- I emphasis that because its how I would go about referring to "misandry" or "antimasculism" without actually using a word. Since misandry (and anything that sounds similar) is such a trigger word for many, its important to set the foundation that there is a big difference between the MRA concept of misandry, and the transunitist concept of misandry. Transunitist misandry focuses on how sexism & genderism* is used to target marginalized groups (specifically trans* people). Transunitist misandry does not say that misogyny doesn't exist, or that men are oppressed in the exact same way women are; its saying that the patriarchy (as a part of kyriarchy) uses gender and sex to harm not just marginalized women, but marginalized men too.

My goal with this would be to introduce and try to convince them of the idea that Misandry Is Harmful Maybe, and then once they realize how its harmful, bring up the idea that this kind of stuff needs to be named. Once they generally agree with these ideas, I think it will be much easier to help them understand why misandry is bad even beyond marginalized men: because the patriarchy relies on harmful ideas and expectations for men, even as (dominant/non-marginalized) men have a different place and more rewards; because liberationist feminism must be concerned with universal liberation, and that means it must be concerned with everyone's wellbeing and liberation; because we cannot disnantle the master's house with the master's tools, and letting any patriarchal thinking in poisons the well of your feminist praxis; because it just makes you a meaner and shittier person. In my experience people who think in the ways you described are resistant (not necessarily for bad reasons) to any kind of criticism towards sexism/genderism towards men, so my tactic would be starting with areas (like women) that they are concerned with not hurting and show how misandry hurts that group. Connecting the harm of this way of thinking to something they care about is going to make them more open to seeing it as an issue in general.

*I use "sexism" to describe the system of oppression based on physical sex, and "genderism" to describe the system of oppression based on gender identity/presentation/roles.

[gsirvitor]

Can you explain this, if society was created to cater to men. Then why in America Black men had to fight tooth and nail for civil rights on paper about 60 years ago?

Feminism feel very classist to me, am I crazy?

First, I'm going to explain society.

Society was never created to cater to men, it was created to help survive the harsh world we came to exist in, then again, that isn't even true due to the fact that society wasn't created, it's a natural evolution of our social dynamics.

Groups of hunter gatherers banded together in the same way Chimps and other apes do, we are a social species who have never existed outside of our societies, even at our most primitive.

We went from wandering nomadic peoples to sedentary villages, towns and cities because we developed agriculture and animal husbandry, now, to protect our tribe from others we would use those in society most today would find abhorrent, the violent and strong men of society.

As we progressed these men came into positions of power because of the protection they could offer, more powerful protectors could allow societies to grow larger and more affluent, while those who couldn't were generally wiped out or were relegated to other roles in society.

The need for strong men is readily apparent, as the old saying goes, hard times created strong men, these strong men create good times.

Strong does not just mean physically strong, these men make easy times because they take responsibility and will make it a point to not only improve their own lives, but that of others. Thus, creating good times in the process

It is those in society, who take the good times as granted and have chosen to abandon responsibility, duty and so on, that create hard times.

The men of the past knew that society was not needed to protect them, but what they cared for, such as women and children, why is this the case?

It is innate for men to lead and be the protectors. It is our most basic biological instinct, this is why men are protective of their loved ones.

And can even be territorial, explaining why we are competitive towards other guys who might threaten our position in our jobs, society and relationships.

Society was built for the betterment of what men love and cherish, to protect what we find precious, the advent of law is a expression of this.

Sorry if I'm rambling.

Now onto your questions.

The reason why black men had to fight tooth and nail 60+ years ago for equal rights was because of Democrats, you see in 1870 the 15th amendment was ratified, which ensured that all men regardless of race could vote.

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

Southern Democrat states opposed this and prevented blacks from voting by instituting literacy tests and grandfather laws, then well, Jim Crow, in Northern states blacks could vote since 1870.

It wasn't until 1964 that the 24th amendment was passed and they could vote in Southern and other, now Democrat states.

Feminists, or should I say Suffragists, opposed black women getting the vote alongside them, so due to Democrat racism both black men and women were denied the vote in Democrat areas, especially since these same Suffragists, such as a one Susan B. Anthony and her friends, used black women to work their vinyards.

Feminism is exceedingly classist, and has a history of racism and sexism, along with terrorism, but we won't get into that.

Now to end this with some quotes from the mother of women's suffrage;

“I will cut off this right arm of mine before I will ever work or demand the ballot for the Negro and not the woman,” - Susan B. Anthony

“What words can express her (the white woman’s) humiliation when, at the close of this long conflict, the government which she had served so faithfully held her unworthy of a voice in its councils, while it recognized as the political superiors of all the noble women of the nation the negro men just emerged from slavery, and not only totally illiterate, but also densely ignorant of every public question.” - Susan B. Anthony

“The old anti-slavery school says women must stand back and wait until the negroes shall be recognized. But we say, if you will not give the whole loaf of suffrage to the entire people, give it to the most intelligent first. If intelligence, justice, and morality are to have precedence in the government, let the question of the woman be brought up first and that of the negro last.” - Susan B. Anthony

You're not crazy, Democrats have just never changed.

[femmesandhoney]

brought up the epidemic of pornography rotting the minds of boys and men and i think the second i said the word pornography all the women around me cringed like women do NOT have the confidence to speak about these subjects until they see another woman do it first. it makes women flinch away, it makes them highly uncomfortable. and half the time it's because they don't know that much to speak on it, which makes them doubly uncomfortable bc they cannot parrot libfem rhetoric forever.

all women have an opinion on feminist topics even if they're tradfem conservative women and yet no one has the gulls to say what they believe, none of them. at least tradfems keep quiet in open spaces bc half the time they know they're wrong as all hell and will get destroyed in a debate by any normie woman with a brain, but even the normie women with general good faith care about women and feminism won't even go past just saying they're pro choice. it's like that's the only feminist stance they know and are aware of, it's quite sad and disheartening. but it makes me even more committed to bringing new ones up and making them aware of other feminist stances and areas they can make a difference in, or at least form an opinion on. Women are being kept so removed and discouraged from even trying to understand what feminism is about that they cannot form any basic opinion on most feminist subjects, and personally I think even if a woman isn't that knowledgeable about feminism, they should still at the least have the confidence to speak from their heart about the intimate knowledge women just gain while growing up as a female in our society and seeing and hearing about misogyny and sexism. they can be more educated later, but like i know every woman has been exposed to misogyny in some way and i know yall can form an opinion on it.

i'm like shaking the women around me to just have a fucking opinion.