#When i put in quote feminist is because she's not really one

[bugstung]

Never open up to a white cishet woman who thinks she's better and a good ally because she's a" feminist"

[this-is-exorsexism]

Hey, since I saw you speak German (making that assumption based on the fact that you mentioned a exorsexist comment being German in a post. Sorry if that’s a wrong assumption) I really want to talk about instances of exorsexism that I see so often in the feminist German speaking circles and that I’m so so tired off.

The terms “female read” and “male read” to refer to people, both when talking about, you know, just everyday things they saw ex. “I like seeing female read people sporting body hair” (just say you like people who don’t shave their body hair. Cause it’s not just the demographic of people that society pushes to present as “women” that are pressured into body hair removal.) and in context of feminist discussions “Cat calling affects female read individuals more than male read people. And male read people are more often the perpetrator of cat calling”. (This one irkes me so so much, because it’s a sweeping generalisation in general, which is just not okay.)

Another example that also falls into every day things and is even more removed from any “political” statement: “I saw a female read person that reminded me of my mother.” (This quote came from a nonbinary person which made the unnecessary gendering feel even more uncomfortable. There was no forceful gendering of the person necessary. It could have just been “I saw a person that reminded me of my mother” the assumption that it must have been a woman already is a possibility by the association with mother. And you sadly can’t get rid of it. There is no necessity to state it like that.)

One last longer example that is partly feminism related again (that is a near direct translation): “A lot of women and female read people know the feeling of standing in front of the mirror and asking wether or not they want to wear this or if it’s too revealing. Because choice of clothing alone can suggest you want to provoke men.[…] Even if a female read person wears tight clothing, because [she/they] feel sexy in it, is that no reason to insult [her/them] as a slut.” (The “she” could have also been meant in a “they” sense, because this is a translation situation where it isn’t 100% clear. That’s why I wrote it like that.) (This quote is again making assumptions and putting experiences on people and forcefully gendering people who experience these feelings. When these experiences actually can’t be categorised like that. Like even perisex cis men can experience this. It is also very telling here that only the “female read” wording was used when making social commentary, not the “male read”, when men where mentioned.)

(These statements are not always necessarily word for word quotes. They are partly just things I remember seeing in the past. Each example is from a different person.)

The description “female read”/“male read” as you likely know is typically said to be used to “to be more inclusive. Since we don’t know how someone actually identifies and we shouldn’t assume”. Which to me is just very much a “I’m gonna categorise you into man or woman on sight, just as anyone else, but I’ll say ‘male read’/‘female read’ to make it inclusive and not feel bad in case I’m actually misgendering you.”.

The fact that people think it’s more inclusive and isn’t just basically another way to categories man and woman, while claiming to be inclusive, drives me up the wall if I think about it for to long. The idea to be categorised as “female read” is honestly more dysphoria inducing than simply being assumed to be a woman, because it feels even more like failing at being uncategorisable, because the people supposedly not clinging onto the binary are categorising me as something I’m not. And as I hinted at, at the beginning, these two categories virtually ignore any possibility of seeing people who your brain can’t sort into the man/woman categories immediately, and pushes them into one or the other. Which also can ultimately lead to erasure of intersex individuals who could be sorted differently than both their sex and gender. (I hope my wording here is okay and it’s clear what I mean. If not. Please let me know.) The categories of “female read”/“male read” to me are ultimately cissexist, exorsexist and intersexist. This whole concept is just forceful gendering of people wrapped up in a pretty package that says “feminism”.

A big personal pet peeve of mine is people praising people who categorise like that. I’ve recently seen it done by a cis woman, intersectional feminist, who was praising a speaker for using the terms.

There is also the not uncommon occurrence where it’s just not even hidden anymore that “female read” or “male read” is just put in instead of woman or man or used interchangeably.

I just truly deeply dislike how these terms have become a very common thing in feminist circles, even between trans*(= very much meaning nonbinary here as well, hence the trans*) educators, feminists and influencers. It feels like such a gut punch to see even them reinforcing the gender binary in such ways.

(If you disagree with this being exorsexism I’d be very curious as to how. Because to me personally it is a very clear example of exorsexism that I’ve been wishing to talk about since I first encountered it. Also sorry if this is worded a bit confusingly at times. I tried my best.)

this is definitely exorsexism.

i know exactly what you're talking about and i have spoken about the misuse of these terms at length on my personal social media too.

to be honest, i was about to defend ~some~ uses of these terms, but after reading everything you said, i think these terms need to be retired.

i think at least half the time people use "female-read" and "male-read" to just mean women and men, because i don't know, maybe they think nonbinary people think that men and women exist is somehow offensive? a woman is a woman and you can and should just call her a woman, a man is a man and you can and should just call him a man. calling a woman "female-read" is entirely unnecessary and quite disrespectful too, in my opinion. it basically strips her of her identity as a woman and reduces her to how society sees her. the same is true for men.

"male-read people are often the perpetrators of catcalling" is also an interesting one because it proves that "male-read" and "female-read" are just stand-ins for the gender binary and gender oppositionism: "male-read" people have (perisex cisgender) male privilege and the entitlement and attitudes that come with it. they can never be victims of patriarchal violence, only perpetrators. "female-read" people are always more marginalised than "male-read" people. if you want to talk about people who are most likely to catcall, you must talk about perisex cisgender men.

as you've said, this doesn't take into account transgender, nonbinary and intersex people as it doesn't only sort us into a new male-female gender binary but also into a binary of "perpetrator of the patriarchy" and "victim of the patriarchy" in very oversimplified ways. in its attempt at inclusivity, this language completely obscures the experiences of people whom society sees as men or women but aren't. being seen as male when you're nonbinary or female, being seen as female when you're nonbinary or male, i.e. having your gender assumed incorrectly can actually be really dangerous. it also once again reduces us to how society sees us and acts as if our actual genders don't contribute to our experience.

one of the strangest ways people use this language is when they say something like "i saw a male-read person at the shop today". like, what do you mean? you read this person as male. you projected your binary thinking onto this person. using passive voice for this is just a way to try to remove your responsibility in participating in this system of gender assumption. at this point, you might just say that you saw a man at the shop. in this context, they mean the exact same thing.

these terms also don't take into account that there are different ways of being perceived as male or female. some people are perceived as transgender male rather than cisgender male, which are two very different experiences. being seen as transgender female rather than cisgender female is also very much not the same.

people also ignore that a lot the people they're trying to be inclusive of by using this language aren't actually consistently read as either binary gender or are read as something else entirely. "male-read" and "female-read" are pretty much used to be permanent life-long states of being perceived, with the exception of people transitioning and then going from one to the other and will be read as that and only that for the rest of their life. in reality, this looks very different. some of us are called he one day and she another. sometimes it depends on our gender presentation. sometimes it depends on the person perceiving us. for many of us, we actually have no idea how someone's perceiving our gender until they indicate this. also, many of us aren't read as either male or female. a lot of us are just read as "what the fuck are you" or [insert slur here]. none of these experiences can be mapped onto the idea of male-read and female-read.

not to mention how they keep using these terms to refer to body parts. "female-read" is too often just code for "has boobs". it's especially funny when they use this language for internal organs. like, sure, the catcaller on the street totally perceives someone's uterus.

"male-read" and "female-read" are what "women and femmes" or the transmasc/transfem binary will become if we don't stop it. they can always be replaced with other more precise terms that don't reinforce exorsexism, cissexism, intersexism and gender oppositionism.

[genderkoolaid]

hey! if you have the spoons, would you happen to have any posts/anecdotes refuting this thread? https://www.tumblr.com/neondyke/719263498717233152/nonhoration?source=share

so. one of my big problems with how we talk about TERFs is the sort of conspiratorial energy some people have towards them- not in that TERFs don't lie about their beliefs, but the idea that all radical feminists are part of this huge conspiracy where none of them actually believe any of what they say. The idea that no TERF actually, genuinely cares about women, or gender non-conforming people- or that none of them hate men.

Just because TERFism is misogynistic, harmful to GNC people, and often allies with conservative men, does not mean every TERF hates other women, GNC people, and likes men. Its vital to be critical of what TERFs say vs what their actions say- but we do ourselves and them a disservice by shoving our fingers in our ears and essentially saying that no TERF can be genuine, and I actually know what they really believe in their hearts. This is especially important when you aren't interacting with high-level TERFs (especially those making bank off public appearances & books & shit), but like. regular smegular everyday women who got radicalized, or people who are on the verge of being radicalized and are put-off by people who seem to be incapable of seeing TERFs as having genuine beliefs.

I say that all because the idea that TERFs aren't misandrists, that they don't really hate men, is just straight-up ridiculous. It assumes that radical feminism was born exclusively as a reaction to trans women, that none of its theorists or activists were genuinely trying to apply Marxist analysis to gender/sex dynamics and create a better world for women. Which ignores other parts of radical feminism, like their anti-sex work rhetoric/whorephobia. (If you have access to JSTOR, I recommend reading "Radical Feminism and Feminist Radicalism" by Ellen Willis, a former radfem; it dives into the problems with 60s radical feminism from an inside perspective).

I absolutely think TERF hatred for trans women is not exclusively a result of their misandry. This is because all transphobia is systematic, and everyone born and raised in transphobic society has transphobia woven into their thinking. So if you are a cis woman, probably one who has had traumatic experiences with misogyny coming from cis men- probably one with some interest in leftism, who is annoyed by liberal #girlboss feminism which feels lackluster, who is envious of the subversive, direct-action, "tear the system down" feminism of the past- and you have an unexamined, ingrained bias against trans people, well. TERFism will provide explanation and affirmation for your trauma and the promise of the radical feminist action of your dreams to allow you to lash out at your oppressors with the logic of the guillotine. Your unexamined bias against trans women will mean you don't see their transmisogyny as unreasonable, and even if you never really thought about trans women before, its gonna be real easy for you to accept them as a threat to Real Women.

But to assume that every time a TERF says "men" or "male," she means "trans woman," is just ignorant. TERFs are surrounded by cis men, because they live in the same society as us. They see cis men acting misogynistic, many of them have been personally hurt by cis men, they very much mean "cis men" when they say things like "all men should be castrated" or "all male babies should be aborted"- how exactly can you talk about males as a sex and never refer to cis men? When they talk about how using dildos or any sort of penetrative sex is patriarchal and Bad, that's not because they hate trans women, its because they see anything that could be associated with maleness as bad.

Here's a quote from Sylvia Riveria's very important work "Queens in Exile, The Forgotten Ones":

"Oh, yeah, we mixed with lesbians. We always got along back then. All the division between lesbian women and queens came after 1974 when Jean O'Leary and the radical lesbians came up. The radicals did not accept us or masculine-looking women who dressed like men. And those lesbian women might not even have been trans."

TERF hatred for transmasculinity goes back far before ROGD and the idea of transmasculinity as a social disease affecting "innocent young girls." Here's a quote from Leslie Feinberg's Transgender Warriors:

"A view that the primary division of society is between women and men leads some women to fear that transsexual women are men in sheep's clothing coming across their border, or that female-to-male transsexuals are going over to the enemy, or that I look the same as the enemy."

If TERFs have no real hatred for men or masculinity, why did/do they attack butches & transmascs? Why, before ROGD was the trendy way to attack transmasculinity, did they specifically attack us for being too masculine and therefore imitating the oppressor? The idea that trans women are the only ones blamed by TERFs for ROGD is also false- adult trans men, especially those with any public influence, are frequently blamed for "preying" on young "girls." (Also, fun fact: that last quoted paragraph ends with: "Trans people of all sexes and genders are not oppressors: they, like women, rank among the oppressed.")

Lastly, I feel like we- all trans people- have an issue of trying to match our genders & the way our genders do impact how we are treated, with the way our sexual/gendered misgendering also impacts how we are treated. For example, I am often frustrated by trans men who are resistant to talking about how trans men face misogyny because "it feels like misgendering." I don't think we can really deal with transphobia unless we cope with the fact that we are trans people- we are socially placed between genders and punished for that, and that means that we will be attacked because of our relationship to our gender assigned at birth (although not exclusively). See this post for more of my thoughts on that.

Obligatory "please don't harass any of the people in the screenshot above, just block them & move on" notice

[writing-for-life]

So, you mentioned something about Thessaly in a 90s context in one of your responses to another post, and I was wondering if you could expand on that. Because yeah, I have no problem with her *existing* as a character, because obviously she has a role in the narrative, but I highly suspect that her perceived role has changed a LOT in the intervening years since the initial writing.

As someone who first read Sandman in 2022, I figured that her character role was to get us to question what we think we know about Morpheus. Can we really trust that he's changed or improved, or that he's even all that likeable, if he's literally jumping into bed with this thoroughly unpleasant woman who likes violent murder *way* too much and also seems to be transphobic to boot?

At the same time, though, I got the uncomfortable sense that we were supposed to *like* Thessaly. In a sort of, "You go girl, be a #girlboss, let's show these boys we can be JUST as good at killing as them!" sort of way. Which I rationalized as "well, that probably was progressive in the 90s, but the idea of cold blooded violence and emphasis on the possession of a womb being feminist ideals has aged poorly."

So, yeah, I'm wondering if that is anywhere close to how she seemed in the "intended" context.

[As always: Send me asks about everything Sandman-related!]

This is such a good ask, and I feel there are a lot of bases to cover here. Not sure if I’ll do it justice, but here goes…

Disclaimer straightaway: I absolutely detest Thessaly and everything she’s done narratively, and I’m neither a Thessaly-apologist, nor someone who loves her as a character. But I think we need to discuss her with a bit more nuance than I see in lot of fandom spaces.

I think first of all, we need to look at:

Thessaly as a fictional character

As you already pointed out, she naturally has a role in the narrative. I also think parts of her role in said narrative are sometimes a bit misunderstood. One prime example would be the idea she never loved Morpheus. And yes, she absolutely always put herself and her own interests first, so from that angle, she loved herself more than she loved him. That doesn’t mean she never loved him at any point though. Many people quote her saying that she never did as proof that she didn’t. But what people say doesn’t always align with what they feel or do: She says at his wake she swore she’ll never cry over him again—and cries while she’s saying it. That tells us two things: She *did* cry because of him before. And she *does* cry now.

Again, she is a selfish, utterly horrid bitch, but she loved him at some point, and she was mad at him for neglecting her and not paying her enough attention. That’s when it turned sour (and we know how absolutely shit at communicating with women Morpheus is, so they’re both as bad as each other in that regard).

I see her as someone who is totally disconnected/dissociated from her emotions, to the extent that she probably really believes what she says, out of some deep-rooted fear of any kind of vulnerability. Why that is—we can only speculate, because Neil never went into it, hence nothing we assume will ever be canon.

What can be considered canon, however, is that Neil has confirmed the fact that she *did* love him at some point—most notably in the Sandman Companion:

Hy Bender: […] Of course, she’s lying when she says she never loved the Sandman.

Neil Gaiman: Of course; I think that’s made explicit by the final panel, where she says, `I swore I would never shed another tear for him’ while crying. But after he’s won her and then returned to his duties, he wasn’t enough for her anymore. She wanted attention; and when she wasn’t getting it, she said, “Right. We’re done,” and walked out on him.”

I’d also like to point out that the most trans-exclusionary prick in the whole of AGoY is actually George, just that he’s not a woman, and hence, no one ever seems to mention it (he’s actually the one egging Wanda on, not Thessaly). Plus, walking the moon road is maiden, mother and crone to a T, and consciously so. Foxglove is the maiden, Hazel is pregnant, and Thessaly is ancient. So Thessaly’s choice was also based on that, and the only one who Wanda really could have *potentially* replaced would have been Foxglove; she presumably never had penetrative sex, unlike Hazel (in the archaic definition of what penetration means, so we don’t need to argue about lesbian sex practices now). We don’t know that about Wanda, no matter if someone sees her as a man or a woman. I didn’t mean to get that explicit about maiden status, but I guess it *is* important in this context (although yes, of course Thessaly said Wanda is a man, and I’m not arguing that either, but I still think it was grounded in her belief how moon magic works).

Which brings me to a very important point: Thessaly is ancient. Culturally, we can’t compare her to someone who grew up in the 20th century, also with regard to her violent inclinations. She is thousands of years old. She’s seen it all. She has a fierce sense of self-preservation, maybe even rooted in some fears or trauma of her own. All not very nice character traits, no, but that’s not the yardstick, and probably was never supposed to be. I also remember Neil saying he consciously wanted to oppose neopaganism and the watered down, new wave witchcraft of the time (late 1980s/early 1990s, and that, I really remember), which was all about the “divine feminine”, female empowerment, tarot cards and incense sticks. I’m being a bit flippant now, but it isn’t far off. It was more of a trend than anything. He wanted to consciously oppose it with someone who would still act according to ancient, rather violent codes and rules. And Morpheus will have known those, and probably found them less surprising than we do (doesn’t necessarily mean he’d condone them either).

The fact whether Thessaly should make us question Morpheus in the comics is a tricky one. What she definitely *should* make us question is: Morpheus could have quite easily broken some rules in the Kindly Ones when Thessaly had set up the protection circle for Lyta, and the consequences probably would have been less disastrous than playing by said rules. And we can safely presume he knew. We are also supposed to question the same when he lets Nuala call in her boon and doesn’t just say: “This isn’t really a good time, can we do this later?” (and he absolutely COULD have done that), but actually follows through with going ,“Well, what gives, I basically grant you your boon now and leave the Dreaming, even though I know the potential consequences.” So yes, Thessaly is supposed to make us question Dream’s choices, but probably not the way we think. And for that, we perhaps should look deeper into…

Thessaly the TERF and Feminism in the late 1980s/early 1990s

This might get a bit longwinded, and I am showing my age here. I grew up at the intersection of second wave and third wave feminism, and as a bisexual woman, I made a lot of experiences during the early 90s that feel wholly aligned with the plot of AGoY (which was written during that time). I don’t want to write a whole essay about feminism here, but second wave feminism was on its way out in the late 80s. A lot of the bad associations some people have with feminism today stem from that time (not always justified, because a lot of good was achieved during that period. But parts of it in specific sub-communities—definitely problematic). Equality vs equity discussions within the feminist movement were dominating everything, and the divide between radfems and libfems was getting deeper. People like Audre Lorde IMHO rightly criticised that failing to understand that not all women start on equal footing, that not all women are the same, is problematic (so you could easily see how this is incorporated into the narrative of AGoY).

Second wave feminism wasn’t just about making sure women had rights. It was very much about “all of us can do everything men do, and we want the same a man gets”. It was all about the workspace (so often very white, CIS, middle class), not being at home with the kids etc (of course there were also other topics, but this one was really quite dominant). You could even see it fashion (massive shoulder pads etc). All the while, actually *being* a man was vilified (again, just in certain quarters).

So I feel you’re on to something with your #girlboss comment, only that I don’t think it was intentionally set up to like her, but rather as a criticism of what certain quarters of the feminist movement were like at the time.

Personal anecdote: I got that type of schtick from WITHIN the LGBT community at the time. Bi-erasure was big. And there were radfem lesbians that would actually tell you that being bi doesn’t exist, that you are basically a traitor to your “sisters” and just a lesbian who isn’t fully out. The same shite they used to criticise about men who would say you’re only a lesbian because you haven’t found the right guy yet. And here they went, telling you that you can’t be attracted to men if you’re also attracted to women.

Third wave feminism has a much stronger focus on the individual woman and what it means to be a woman to HER. This also included trans women, much more than during the second wave. Judith Butler’s work is actually exemplary for this (in essence, there is no such woman as “the” woman—we’re all different despite sharing common traits and problems. Trying to make us all the same will only harm us in the long run).

And with AGoY and Thessaly, we are exactly at the moment in time (in the comics) where that shift happens. I think Neil got it right for the time, and understood a lot of what was going on. Many people in queer communities felt really understood and seen, myself included. I absolutely see how that translates differently today. But it always saddens me when the historical context gets completely stripped away, and people don’t take the time a work of fiction was written into consideration and only measure it from today’s viewpoint. We can, and absolutely have to be critical if the TV shows fails to address these points and just translates everything 1-2-1. Which I am fairly certain won’t happen, because Thessaly has already been stripped off a lot of her obvious TERFiness in the Audible. I’m not even sure if we’ll get her in the show—we’ll hopefully find out.

Phew, that was long, I’m gonna lie down 😂

[lookupthewordjokeinthedictionary]

A mini essay on Janus and his whole "society" speech (And the ties with third wave feminism and Audre Lorde).

Audre Lorde was the first person who coined the term 'self care'. She said, in her cancer journals, a book she wrote while battling cancer herself, that self care is an act of political warfare. As a self proclaimed poet, philosophist, lesbian, warrior, socialist and feminist, she was the first who made the point that taking care of one's self, immediately contradicts what society is nurturing us to do.

A direct quote from her is:

“Caring for myself is not self-indulgence. It is self-preservation, and that is an act of political warfare.”

Now isn't that exactly Janus' speech in SvS? I'm not sure where Joan and Thomas got the inspiration for his character, but it wouldn't surprise me if it was from her.

Janus is self care, denial and deceit. He hates society because he understands that it immediately puts you in a disadvantage. Because society prides it's "boogey-man" more. What is the boogeyman? Laws.

"I don't want Thomas to be disadvantaged all for not following the rules made in the name of a lie"

This is what Janus said. He fears society because he understand, better than any other side, that society is based on selflessness. Society is based on putting others first. And by extension, keeps you repressed by telling you that the time will come, when your needs will be met.

However, that is a lie. That's why self care is an act of political warfare. And that's why it's so dangerous to completely misunderstand the word self care to mean indulgence instead of preservation. That's why, when we practice self care, we should uphold our personal needs as a community higher than the "boogey-man" that is Laws. That's why Ms. Lorde moved the black feminism movement forward to the third wave.

A little tss crit, if I may:

The current characterisation of Janus isn't only very OOC (something which I hope only goes for non-canon content), but very disrespectful to the nuance that is his character.

He is a "morality fighting snake", he is a "lying fibber", but he loves Thomas. A lot of people have made the analysis of his playlist and his actions to mean just how much he wants Thomas to be safe, to be happy, so I will not go into it right now.

And even though it's safe to say that all Sides do care for Thomas, because that's their job, you can see how differently they care for him, and how Janus just does the most.

Patton, on the other hand, cares for him probably as much as Janus without actually listening to Thomas. He does what he thinks is best, based on his beliefs and not Thomas' needs. And as we've seen before (POF) this was detrimental.

So, even though I've been waiting for the season finale for 4 years, and I really hope that Mr. Sanders knows how to write his own aspects of his own personality, I want to remind the fan base who will listen, abourg the duality of Janus' character and how his "society" talk isn't just a 'funny haha' moment, but a very helpful insight into his true character and intentions.

[justthoughts1310]

ATLA and Marvel have the same misogyny

So... I've finally made it to episode 8 of Netflix's Live Action ATLA.

This may be shocking for some of you, because I wrote a post about how Netflix ATLA is misogynistic a month ago, but now I'm back again.

I specifically want to talk about the absolutely ridiculous and bullshit feminist virtue signaling that we are habitually forced to endure.

The scene I am specifcally referring to is the scene in which Katara demands that Master Pakku let's her fight. Then all of a sudden, the camera pans to all of the healers in the Northern Water Tribe (the female water benders) who stand ready to fight.

Yet, despite their immense power, they are begging this old as man for permission, instead of just doing what needs to be done.

This scene is giving... stupid. It's giving the 999th Marvel movie that NOBODY freaking wanted... okay! Does anybody remember that scene from Avenger's End Game (of course you do), in which all of the female avengers assemble, and it's one female cameo after another? I have no idea who liked this scene, but I didn't. I HATED this scene! I thought it was tacky and cringe, and I didn't understand why I felt that way.

Then in the Marvels, there's this scene in which Captain Danvers gets knocked down, and then there's this sequence starting from when she was a little girl playing softball in which she gets knocked down and gets back up.

The whole thing is soooo cringe.

It's cringe because it's heavy handed. It feels like one of those inspirational quotes you put on your wall that says something stupid like "She believed she could so she did..." or "Shero" or "Herstory".

It feels like a moment in which the male writers were like, we got to make women feel seen, so let's stop the flow of the entire movie and series and whatever is going on and have this really stupid overproduced moment in which the women look like bad asses, before we hide the women back in the background and let the real heroes (the men) take over.

All of this despite the fact that in hindsight, of all of the avengers assembled there to fight Thanos that day (both male and female, alike), Scarlett Witch and Captain Marvel were the only one's canonically strong enough to stop Thanos. Yet, we can't have that, because a man needs to be the hero.

Like stop stealing women's W's. It happens all the time in shows like Naruto, in which the most powerful kunoichi will get caught up by the most stupid insignificant thing, so that a man can end up saving her and she becomes the damsel in distress.

The narrative of women can be strong but never as strong as men because men need to be the hero is weak and tired, tell a new story!!!

Especially, because it really isn't all that true anymore. After the industrial revolution and the boom of tech, women and men's physically strengths have become increasingly more similar for decades. Why, because very few people need to carry giant logs and chop down trees to survive anymore! You don't need to be swol to complete a spreadsheet.

I digress.

My point is what these scenes from ATLA and Marvel have in common. It's the reason why they are both cringe.

Men don't see women as women who are unique human beings with our own unique desires. Therefore, male writers force powerful female characters to embody male characteristics that appeal to men.

You know all that flexing and all the abs and the sweat and the thirst trap scenes of half naked men like Thor and Captain America (even the scene with Sokka in it). Do you think those scenes are for women? Well, they are not. They are for men. Men get hard-ons for these kinds of scenes, and these scenes are specifically created for men and the male gaze.

Then they try to extend this to female characters, to show that they are feminists. However, this completely ignores the female gaze and female motivation.

The scenes really are women quietly asking for permission (not really) and then men loudly given women permissions to stand out and be powerful, but only in a way that satisfies the male gaze. Which considering the fact that men are socially conditioned to like feminine or overly sexual women, I have no idea who these scenes appeal to!!!

Like bro... read a freaking book. Learn about history!!! Real history!!! Women do not need the permission of men to be powerful, intelligent, strong, tactful or ambitious. Women have already been all of these things since the dawn of time.

Therefore, women don't need weird cameos that break up the pacing of the story or scenes of little girls playing sports, getting knocked down, and getting back up to feel seen. Women and girls do not need to be convinced that we are powerful. We already know it. We've been working in the background for centuries while men have taken credit for our labors, efforts, and endeavors.

All we need is for men to get the hell out of our way! We can see it right now with education and employment. Ever since women were allowed to attend school, women have outperformed men in education is almost every subject (and men and women are at par with each other in Math and Science). Women are also out enrolling men in college 2:1.

So instead of giving women 5 minutes of permission to be powerful in movies and shows and embuing them with masculine characterists, write a compelling female character from the beginning of the show. Develop her character as a person, who has to deal with the unique intersectionality of being a woman. Don't make her whole personality being a woman.

And if you cannot, write a compelling female character, then get a woman to do it!

End Rant. Thank you for attending my TED Talk.

[docholligay]

Sing Her Down By Ivy Pochoda

the pitch: I started reading this, as I start to read many things, because it was available from the library when I wanted my next book. But I do read the blurbs and stuff before settling on one, and with this sentence, I was intrigued. For myself, but also for you: "No Country for Old Men meets Killing Eve in this gritty, feminist Western thriller."

Like, GIRL.

So I started reading, and within the prologue and about five pages into the first chapter, I knew I would tell you about it. The prose and character voice immediately pop. "Oh yeah, I'm on my way to places Doc will want to visit." Not just with the themes, but the way the author writes reminds me not unlike your own work. She has this beautiful way of weaving metaphors into the narration that amplify tone and mood, it immediately put me in the mind of your writing style. I usually wait until I'm done with something before I rec it to you. Not so here.

"Gripping and immersive, Sing Her Down is a spellbinding thriller setting two indelible women on a path to certain destruction and an epic, stunning showdown."

I mean, COME ON.

Non-spoilery: I’m not even sure if I liked this book but I really appreciated it. It’s an almost-modern-Western (though i would not quite call it that myself) that takes on the idea of victimhood and villainy and obsession, and being tied together. I loved its air of inevitability. I think it wanted for a little editing--I found myself wishing it had been rewritten. It reads like draft four. It’s good! But it could have been great, and unlike a lot of the time, I have the sense the author could have gotten herself there without too much trouble. But it has a really intriguing framing device that i LOVE, and fabulous narrative voice. (big compliment to say it reminds you of my work. I’m not sure I live up to it)  Not a waste of time for sure.  

I’ll leave the non-spoilery section with a quote i loved: “Like there’s no space for regret and power in the same body. Like these two things can’t cohabitate.” 

Spoilery: 

What a weird book (complimentary). I’m not sure I could ever explain to someone what its about in a way that really conveys the experience of reading it. In short, its about two women who are on their way to an inevitable showdown, and one of them at least must die. There is no evading this. They are as intertwined as the gunman and the outlaw in a Louis L’Amour bit. And the book makes no bones about this. 

Actually, the back of the book calls this “No Country for Old Men meets Killing Eve” and you know part of the reason I hate that fucking “blank meets blank” shit is it’s so often incorrect. This book owes a much greater debt to the ‘gritty’ pulp Westerns of the 70s and 80s than it does No Country. There are two women like in Killing Eve I guess, but Dios wanting to kill Florida, wanting to make Florida kill, has nothing to do with desire, and Florida is mostly a woman trying to escape. Florida is a coward in the face of action, in the face of even recognizing who she is, she sees herself as an innocent flower and not the killer she is, and not even in a cool way just in a way tht manages to dodge all accountability. 

Loved Kace! She is both character and framing device and honestly she is the only likeable one. If you go into this expecting to take either Dios or Florida’s ‘side’ you are going to be very disappointed because they both suck utterly. They are both fundamentally broken human beings. There is something WRONG with them. It’s not “what did society do to me” so much as Dios needs Florida to realize that, just like Dios, she is a wolf born into a world of dogs. She needs Florida to cop to that. They are Born Bad. 

But anyway Kace is the exception to all this, despite being 1000% certifiably crazy, she fels like the only fucking reliable person in the whole book. As readers, we trust her more than anyone, and the ways that happen unfold over the course of the book, we realize she thinks she can hear ghosts, or she actually hears them, depending on your take. Some of the best lines, including the one I put above, come from her. She, despite being, like I say, NUTS, is the only character who seems to have self-reflection. And I love that! I love that our trusted character, the one who seems to own up to it all and do what she can with where she’s at, is someone who, in the earliest parts of the novel, seems like your standard crazy burnout. It lets US reevaluate what ‘crazy’ looks like, especially contrasted with Florida. 

Lobos is such a waste in this book that I damn near forgot she was in it. Pochoda never goes far enough with her, and I think the book would be massively improved by either cutting her completely or actually fleshing her out to fully decide what sort of story you want to tell with her. This half-baked thing going on with her is actually my strongest criticism of the novel. 

ANYWAY, the point of these is that I don’t have to write god’s most perfect review, so I’ll let myself stop, but yeah, I think it’s a really fun, very fast read.

[gendercriticalthinking]

I'm a radfem but I have a boyfriend too. I don't talk about him online 1) obviously nobody wants to hear about men in radfem spaces, especially lesbians, which I don't blame them for 2) some people on here are really just not normal about it and I don't want the drama 3) I personally think you can have a bf and be a radfem if you have strong, uncompromising boundaries when it comes to sexism and not tolerating it. Idk, I feel weird about lying about it but I also don't want to invite issues when we attract so much hate for our beliefs as it is.

That's absolutely understandable, and I agree! Women, and lesbians especially, deserve to have female-exclusive spaces! It's just a little off-putting to come into a space where everyone says "my feminism is for all women!! female solidarity!! i center women first!!" and then something most women have in common and is innate to them causes multiple rounds of controversy???

2. Like that's the thing though!! If you want to be a feminist, and you claim sexuality is innate, how can you not be normal about the most common type of female sexuality. Yes the vast majority of men are awful and not worth being in a relationship with, yes I do think most women would be happier alone than with the average man, especially right now. But why is the conclusion here "het women bad and stupid, i laugh at your suffering because it's your fault for not listening to me as i berated you" and not "let's help women understand they're allowed to have standards and boundaries, and that they don't have to be in a romantic relationship to be happy"???

3. I'm not a radfem and haven't read much primary-source info on it outside scattered quotes posted here, so I can't say whether or not having a boyfriend/husband is incompatible with it or not. Either way, the fact that you and I and other women feel weird/guilty/uncomfortable about talking about one of the most important people in our lives is a huge red flag to me. Either something rings true about radfem criticisms of het relationships and he might need to go, or something really stinks on here. Or both, I guess. But again, helping women figure out their worth and their standards does a lot more good than telling them "your whole life you just listen to what random men tell you to make them happy. that's bad. now listen to what i, a stranger, tell you to do to make me and other women happy." She still is operating on female-socialization autopilot where her personal beliefs and boundaries don't matter, it's just that she's doing it for you and other women instead of men. Which is progress to some people I guess???

Overall I think it'd be better if radfems with this mindset called themselves lesbian feminists instead of radfems, since their beliefs align with that strain so much. Or make up a new name for it if they want idk. But either way, they're putting women off feminism as a whole and making things worse as a result (and if you point this out to them they often don't seem to care, having a "fuck those dick riders they don't deserve to be happy then" attitude, which again, odd way to react if you claim to be a feminist).

Like if giving up makeup--an optional hobby that's something even women who like it are sometimes willing to admit is expensive or annoying or time-consuming or uniquely targeted at them--is still a sore topic to a majority of women, how tf do they expect "suppress your innate sexuality" to go over??? And it'd be one thing if it were just Some Ladies Online, but uhhhh there's a history here. Multiple books were published touting political lesbianism as praxis. It's A Thing and you should probably talk about it more than you do if you actually want the women you mock to engage with the movement and leave their abusive male partners!

(For the record, I'd be over the moon if women stopped wearing makeup every day and never felt the need to again... but it's so easy for me to say and think that when I never liked it in the first place. To me, small things like getting women to admit part of the reason makeup makes them feel good is because it's a societal expectation for them to wear it, or if they slowly start feeling comfortable wearing less of it or less often in public, that's real progress that could never come about from hardline cold-turkey-now-or-you're-antifeminist guilt tripping. Much like transgenderism, regardless of how it makes the people involved feel, at the end of the day reality and actual progress is most important, and if believing/talking a certain way doesn't actually get us anywhere then it's time to try something else.)

I wish I could remember the user on here who wrote about this in her tags, but it comes down to "You say you believe misogyny is pervasive, near-invisible, taught to us in such a way that we believe it without realizing it, and extremely difficult to fight back against, yet you're so impatient and unkind to women who don't snap out of it the moment you dump extremist tenets on them. Do you need a reminder of why feminist is an uphill battle, or do you not actually think it is?"

I've said this before, but it feels like they've turned feminism into their own version of NLOG, where lesbians and febfems and celibate women are the True And Wise Women and the rest of femalekind are the vapid selfish Other of the "other girls" giving the True And Wise Women a bad rep and causing their undeserved suffering.

TL;DR Feminism that cares more about hating men than helping women gets us nowhere.

[ailous-arts]

I strongly believe that Courtney is not a comphet lesbian, or even a lesbian at all.

It’s something that I have thought about for a long time. A lot of people claim her to be one, but by her actions, it is so obvious that she is not (this post isn’t to bash anyone who believes this, of course).

Firstly, using the original source of the term “Compulsory Heterosexuality and Lesbian Existence” by Adrienne Rich, compulsory heterosexuality in short (to my understanding) is something that the patriarchy and capitalism forces upon women. That from birth, society pushes heterosexual as the normal to benefit men and their needs.

“Women have married because it was necessary, in order to survive economically, in order to have children who would not suffer economic deprivation or social ostracism, in order to remain respectable, in order to do what was expected of women because coming out of "abnormal" childhoods they wanted to feel "normal," and because heterosexual romance has been represented as the great female adventure, duty, and fulfillment. We may faithfully or ambivalently have obeyed the institution, but our feelings - and our sensuality - have not been tamed or contained within it.”

“But whatever its origins, when we look hard and clearly at the extent and elaboration of measures designed to keep women within a male sexual purlieu, it becomes an inescapable question whether the issue we have to address as feminists is not simple "gender inequality," nor the domination of culture by males, nor mere "taboos against homosexuality," but the enforcement of heterosexuality for women as a means of assuring male right of physical, economical, and emotional access.”

Whether you agree with Adrienne Rich or not, this is the definition we must base Courtney’s sexuality on.

So why isn’t Courtney a comphet lesbian? As what I stated earlier, her actions to me do not seem like something a person would do to make themselves like/love someone. Try putting yourself in Courtney’s shoes. If you were a lesbian or gay, and by the pressure of society, you were forcing yourself to love someone of the opposite sex, would you really take the time to collect multiple photos of the one you’re forcing yourself to love and collage them onto your desktop screensaver? Would you really sit there alone and stare at the screen and mutter their name for god knows how long? (Take note, that those photos are ones of Maxie “through the decades”, meaning that they might not be recent ones/ones that she took. Would you really take the time to hunt down baby pictures of someone you had no real and natural attraction to??)

(Original video link here)

“Courtney is a former scientist. She is known to have a brilliant mind, and she adores Maxie.”

I think it’s interesting that the word “adores” was used on the website for her character summary, too. Adore being defined as to love and respect (someone) deeply. I acknowledge that Courtney’s crush on Maxie is not actually confirmed and is slightly in the air, but this quote, along with her actions and the quote from the grunt in the demo “I totally know how she feels...” imply that her love for him is more romantic than platonic.

If one believed that Courtney’s love for him was platonic and not romantic, and that they truly think she’s a comphet lesbian, they would be just as right as I, but in the end, I do think Courtney’s adoration for him is out of romantic love. It’s just sad that she fell in love with the biggest homo on Earth.

[pink-lemonadefairy]

i think people being upset at the pushback of taylor being person of the year are very out of touch. it really should not take that much brain power to understand what a joke that magazine is and how taylor didn’t deserve to be on that cover. maybe we have different opinions on “influential”, but she has barely lifted a finger regarding political issues. she has failed to use her mammoth of a platform to speak up about the injustice going on, in her home country especially. people conveniently forget miss americana to shift any sort of social responsibility away from her. she gave herself the duty to use her voice for good; for the things she cares about. her activism has been waning. to be honest, there wasn’t much in the first place regarding (white) feminism. i respect her art, i admire her art, and i can acknowledge that her art has brought a lot of people together and touched the hearts of many but i can also criticise her lacklustre efforts of activism for things i used to think she really felt passionate about. don’t even get me started on the “feminist” quote from the magazine that was basically saying it was okay for capitalism to exist and i don’t even know what else, it made zero sense. this isn’t about misogyny or tearing down a powerful woman for most people (if it is, then they suck), it’s about acknowledging the unfair praise about someone’s achievements in the political sphere. it’s just gross that she is on the cover when she has made millions of dollars this year, has shown her eras tour film in “israel”, stayed silent on the genocide of palestinians, failed to speak up about don’t say gay laws or bans on drag queens or the numerous trans people murdered in america this year. so many other musical artists have put their work and their career on the line to raise awareness yet arguably the most powerful one can’t utter a word. meanwhile, she is chosen by that absolute garbage magazine to be person of the year.

you are a hypocrite if you say that she has no obligation to speak about these things or that someone shouldn’t be looking to celebrities for “how to be an activist” or whatever the fuck. i have seen countless times those same people praise her for supporting the lgbtq+ community and other marginalised groups…why are you silent now? do you see how that makes no sense? you admire and praise her for one thing and when people get upset she isn’t keeping up with it, you turn into vultures and say “it’s not her problem”. i guess it checks out that her fans are selective in their activism too.

i wish time had given that title to a palestinian journalist. one of many who are reporting live every single day while their home is bombed ruthlessly. they’ve lost loved ones and see horrors every single day because of the israeli occupation. they are literally living through a genocide, with the whole world watching and turning their cheek. why did zelensky get to be on the cover for his resistance but not them? maybe its a good thing. i mean, they did have trump as person of the year once. those journalists deserve better than that.

[esther-dot]

I sent the show!Jonsa ask! Yeah, I was toying with it because one of the sticking points for me is figuring out why the show did or didn't do Jonsa and why that may or may not happen in the books. That to me is really some of the most damning stuff, and I can't point to Dany's arc in the show or Stannis' etc. (many of the examples you use) as argumentation for what makes sense in the books but have yet to have happened without, too, including Jonsa.

Anon asks are limited by length (and I would not want to waste your time with adding caveat after caveat lol) but I do also have complicated feelings about D&D; on the one hand I think there were serious problems on set and I have a lot of capital F feminist problems with them, but that doesn't belie all the creative work they put into the show (I do think there are Choices they made about how to portray romance without the source material at hand, and even before that honestly, but I already wrote that ask lol).

You're definitely right about the heaping of romantic parallels; one or two of those relationships alone could be written off, but the Sam/Gilly one is very weird, and Kit's acting choices are... very weird lol. Re: Sansa's jealousy, I had read that more as Dark Sansa foreshadowing as opposed to Jonsa jealousy, so I don't know???? When it comes to show!Jonsa I mostly only like the S6 dynamic anyway, so that might be down to some of my bias.

Basically I'm trying to entertain alternative ideas that might explain things as opposed to genuinely arguing for show!Jonsa being an accident, and I was thinking about this as well because it is an issue I've encountered with shipping/romance/fandom in general before. The male-gazey tropey dynamic ends up feeling off, but by virtue of the romance goggles of the author not being applied to another dynamic, it ends up feeling more mutual and less objectified and more interesting lol. A good example off the top of my head, given you've just watched the MCU films, is that I shipped Steve/Natasha (yes...) because the dynamic in Winter Soldier was above and beyond any other M/F pairing in the films. Naturally everybody goes on about ~platonic soulmates~ but I love good guys with sad/evil/redeemed ladies so I can't help it. Not saying it's at all canon though, I think they absolutely stumbled into that one.

I'm glad your nephew enjoyed the MCU films! I remember when I rewatched Endgame with my best friend, her dad came in and we had to keep explaining who the 'blue one and the green one' were. It made the film much better.

Anyway, thank you so much for entertaining my ask, and as always, being such a good sport. 🥰💝

(continuation of this convo)

You have no idea how much I sympathize with the caveat issue. I write answers and then delete entire paragraphs because I have such a tendency to try to clarify everything that it makes things less clear because I bury the point, but then I regret it when the vague blogs start. We all have limited time though, and every answer can't be thousands of rambling words! Sometimes I've literally just said "insert caveat" lmao!

I do also have complicated feelings about D&D; on the one hand I think there were serious problems on set and I have a lot of capital F feminist problems with them

I read this article about Emilia's experience on set for GoT (I have not been able to relocate it, but I did actually read an article with her quotes--it wasn't just a tumblr post), and I felt that she was taken advantage of when it came to the nudity/sex scenes. I actually think she meant for some of the stories to be amusing, but I felt sick reading it. She didn't say it was D&D, but apparently when she wanted to do less nudity going forward, she was told her fans expected it and it became a fight trying to move away from it, and....I just worry about the power dynamics with all these young actresses and what they're told they "need" to do. The fact that even if they ultimately agree to certain things, it still may be a result of coercion or they aren't actually being taken care of/feel safe when doing it...it left a very bad taste in my mouth regarding the behind the scenes stuff. And obviously, we all noticed the changes they made to the story, what they did to Sansa...plenty of things we can take exception to purely on what made it to our screens.

Basically I'm trying to entertain alternative ideas that might explain things as opposed to genuinely arguing for show!Jonsa being an accident

I enjoy doing that too! Groupthink is boring! I don't expect everyone to think the same way/come to the same conclusion, and I've changed my mind on a few things which only happens if we're willing to entertain different ideas instead of shutting people down. I mean, I'm not easily persuaded to a different way of thinking, but I try to be open to it. With the condition that someone interprets Sansa in a way I can live with which excludes most of the fandom/their theories tbh.

I basically work myself to one position and then back to where I started when it comes to show Jonsa. If it was an accident, I don't love it any less, if it wasn't, I'm curious what the hell happened. I didn't get what I wanted there, so it really doesn't matter to me what people conclude. I genuinely thought it was amusing when Kit acted surprised when he was asked about Jonsa because it was his face that was saying "not normal sibling feelings here." Silly man. 😂 And, D&D fucked up enough I don't like to take them too seriously, so I can't say, "this doesn't make sense therefore it was an accident" because, uh, a lot of their choices ultimately made no sense.

it is an issue I've encountered with shipping/romance/fandom in general before. The male-gazey tropey dynamic ends up feeling off, but by virtue of the romance goggles of the author not being applied to another dynamic, it ends up feeling more mutual and less objectified and more interesting lol.

I certainly agree about the general male v female view of romance. I found that a problem when I said that they didn't write a romance for Jonerys, and the guy I was talking to was like, "they had sex tho???" There was just...a massive gap between what we were looking for when talking about the characters/relationships. Although, he did know what I meant when I said "well, they filmed Jon and Sansa like a ruling couple." He immediately understood that. And, considering what they did to the sandsnakes (I'm not saying the line), I do understand the argument that if they meant for there to be a romance, they would have done it in such a way that we would have objected.

I think part of the reason I believed Jonsa was intentional was because I don't ship non canon pairings. My brain isn't one to think, "oh but what about those two" as I wasn't even involved in fandom before, and I generally just took what a story was and reacted to it, rather than re-configuring it. Obvy, having been in the fandom for so long now, that's changed somewhat, but for me, s7 was a total puzzlement, and Jonsa / some variation of poljon was the only way it connected to everything we had established before. In a bizarre twist, we didn't get the story that would make it coherent, but we still got the endpoint: Jon betraying Dany for Sansa. It's still weird to me, all these years later. Now I'm mainly bemused rather than angry though.

[genderkoolaid]

So I came across this quote by Julia Serano, and I wanted to share my take on it:

“When you’re a trans woman you are made to walk this very fine line, where if you act feminine you are accused of being a parody and if you act masculine, it is seen as a sign of your true male identity. And if you act sweet and demure, you’re accused of reinforcing patriarchal ideas of female passivity, but if you stand up for your own rights and make your voice heard, then you are dismissed as wielding male privilege and entitlement. We trans women are made to teeter on this tightrope, not because we are transsexuals, but because we are women. This is the same double bind that forces teenage girls to negotiate their way between virgin and whore, that forces female politicians and business women to be aggressive without being seen as a bitch, and to be feminine enough not to emasculate their alpha male colleagues, without being so girly as to undermine their own authority.”

Now, I absolutely agree that this behavior is based in misogyny. The only thing I really disagree with is the idea that it doesn't have anything to do with being trans.

For one, trans men also are forced to walk this tightrope, if in the opposite direction. If a trans man is feminine, he's actually a girl, but if he's masculine, he's idolizing toxic masculinity. If a trans man is sweet and passive, he'll never be a real man, but if he's outspoken and demands to be heard, he's a raging misogynist wielding male privilege. Nonbinary people, too, have to walk the tightrope, with the added element of "too masc/fem and you aren't really nonbinary, too androgynous and you are suspicious and cringe and probably a pedophile". Reducing this tightrope down to just misogyny, in my opinion, obscures the way that other trans people besides trans women are also forced to walk this tightrope.

Additionally, while I understand why she compares it to things like the madonna/whore complex, I don't feel like it's exactly the same thing. If a cis woman (especially/specifically a white, straight-presenting one*) acts masculine or assertive, she'll certainly be called a bitch, a cunt, evil, unfeminine and ugly, all the misogynistic tricks in the book- but she'll never be called a misogynistic entitled male.

Cis women do not face the combined forces of misandry/misogyny/misandrogyny the way trans people do. Cis women do not have to fear being seen as male and therefore sexually predatory, naturally aggressive, and an oppressor to be taken down in the way that all trans people are. Cis women are seen as women, while trans people are seen as grotesquely occupying the space between genders. Cis women are punished for acting outside of the bounds of the class of woman, while trans people are punished for acting outside the bounds of binary gender. We fail to be proper women or proper men, and so anything we do is punishable because transness is seen as something which taints any gender it touches. Trans people are deviant women who need to be put in their place, and dangerous men who are a threat to patriarchal men, and androgynous freaks who threaten the very foundation of the gender binary and the patriarchy built upon it.

I don't wanna claim to know the true reasons behind why Serano comes to the conclusions she does, so this is just my own reading of this quote:

It feels like she is leaning heavily into the "its all misogyny" to make a point about how trans women face the same struggles cis women do, therefore they should be considered equally female and equally oppressed by misogyny as cis women. Transmisogyny is just another way to oppress women, as women, and therefore cis feminists should accept trans women as women.

And I don't blame her for that, if that was her motive. Especially considering that a lot of her writing was done during a time where radical feminists were intensely scrutinizing trans women's oppression & trans activism was even less well known or supported by mainstream feminism than it is now. But I do think that, in trying to align the experiences of trans women with the experiences of cis women, it has led to the thriving idea that trans men cannot experience equal levels of oppression, because they are men and therefore their experiences must be closer to that of cis men's.

It's not that the thing she's talking about isn't transmisogyny, or that she should've brought up trans men- I have no issues with her specifically talking about how this impacts trans women and how its based in transmisogyny. But I feel very strongly that the three-arm model of transphobia explained by @transunity is a far more accurate way of conceptualizing transphobia & all of its individual forms (transmisogyny, transandrophobia, exorsexism). It accepts that all trans people can be attacked from the position that they are men, or women, or both/neither.

It also makes sense that this model comes from the transunity movement, because it prioritizes shared experience & solidarity between all trans people rather than shared experience & solidarity between trans people and cis people who share their gender. Not that that is intrinsically bad, because it isn't- but I feel that Serano's model of transmisogyny, in rejecting the idea of "trans" as a class of its own, negatively impacts other trans people and especially trans men by forcing them to be seen only in relation to their cis counterparts, and not as trans people first and foremost.

*Edited to specify white/straight womanhood

[marta-bee]

Continuing on with Aldarion & Erendis. The next bit was surprisingly feminist, at least viewed a certain way. A long quote and longer musings are below the cut.

Thereafter for a while doubt again assailed Erendis, for Aldarion turned his thoughts again to the works at Rómenna, and busied herself with the building of great sea-walls, and the raising of a tall tower upon Tol Uinen: Calmindon, the Light-tower, was its name. But when these things were done Aldarion returned to Erendis and besought her to be betrothed; yet still she delayed, singing: "I have journeyed with you by ship, lord. Before I give you my answer, will you not journey with me ashore, to the places that I love? You know too little of this land, for one who shall be its King." Therefore they departed together, and came to Emerië, where were rolling downs of grass, and it was the chief place of sheep pasturage in Númenor; and they saw the white houses of the farmers and shepherd, and heard the bleating of the flocks. There Erendis spoke to Aldarion and said: "Here could I be at ease!" "You shall dwell where you will, as wife of the King's Heir," said Aldarion. "And as Queen in many fair houses, such as you desire." "When you are King, I shall be old," said Erendis. "Where will the King's Heir dwell meanwhile?" "With his wife," said Aldarion, "when his labours allow, if she cannot share in them." "I will not share my husband with the Lady Uinen," said Erendis. "That is a twisted saying," said Aldarion. "As well might I say that I would not share my wife with the Lord Orome of Forests, because she loves trees that grow wild." "Indeed you would not," said Erendis; "for you would fell any wood as a gift to Uinen, if you had a mind." "Name any tree that you love and it shall stand till it dies," said Aldarion. "I love all that grow in this Isle," said Erendis. Then they rode a great white in silence; and after that day they parted, and Erendis returned to her father's house.

I'm thinking of a thought I've always wanted to develop from the Sherlock Holmes fandom: that Mary Morstan is a threat to Watson's and Holmes's relationship in modern adaptations like Sherlock, in a way she really isn't in the ACD originals, because of all the progress we've made on gender equality in the 130-odd years.

That's a lot of big words and involves another fandom, so bear with me. In the Doyle stories, John Watson has a fulltime career and he still runs after Holmes solving crime and turning up at 221B Baker Street at odd hours. Even whle he's married. And that works in the Victorian context because men and women occupied such different spheres, John Watson having a close male friend with whom he went off and did the things men did together, and no doubt filled a niche it wasn't thought Mary as a woman could fill. Running off after criminals was a bit less usual than hours spent together at the club, but the time spent together and the emotional intimacies between men, that seems at least passably normal.

Compare that to the modern Sherlock 'verse. Moving in together, getting married, having a kid, this all centers John's life much more strongly around Mary than it would in Victorian times. Because society has evolved in the last century-plus. Because there aren't these great zones where women weren't allowed, and whether you think Holmes and Watson are having sex, their relationship is emotionally intimate in a way modern adult friendship doesn't often make space for. "Just the two of us against the rest of the world" is a much bigger challenge to having a wife and kid at home than it would have been in the Victorian period, at best it's either skirting that line of emotional infidelity or really hollowing out the depth of Sherlock's and John's relationship. Put simply, I want John and Sherlock to be soulmates --platonic or otherwise-- and it's really hard to make space for that without cheating Mary out of what I think a married woman would reasonably want and expect.

I should really leave space for the emotional equivalent of polyamory here. I don't doubt that's possible, and more power to writers and artists that write them that way. But if you're doing that in a modern context, that's still very different than John Watson/Mary Watson and John Watson/Holmes just existing in different spheres so not really coming into conflict.

This is all a bit inelegant and underdeveloped because I'm trying to cram a whole meta into a few paragraphs. But I hope you get my gist.

Why bring this up at all? Because I'm seeing a really similar love triangle brewing between Aldarion, Erendis, and his love of the Sea; and Erendis has no interest in sharing. Husbands have to work away from their wives to provide for them, of course. He's crown prince so he's not hurting for cash, but his duty to the crown and his people have a similar role. And I don't think she wants to stand in the way of that.

But his love of the sea is more like a love affair, a passion and an identity she has no place in. And Erendis is not Victorian!Mary. She doesn't want her husband to go have his adventure and then come home to her once it's all done. "When his labours allow, if she cannot join in them" is not the kind of love she wants to build her life around. The kingship, or his explorations, might be Aldarion's work, but she expects that she will be his soulmate.

Which is really very interesting and more enlightened than I'd expect of a romance set in Arda. I wouldn't call it modern because it's not, but still there's enough to make my feminist-informed heart take note.

[quiveringdeer]

ok but in a universe that didn't suck, Gabi would literally be like Sasha's mini me and shadow!

you shan't convince me otherwise!!

it kills me that they literally look so much alike too!! we ain't gonna talk sad shit on this post but gods connie and jean watching gabi grow up in canonverse and her looking so much like their sasha!!! 😭😭

ok but for real, they'd be like two peas in a pod. Gabi is just as rambunctious and matches Sasha's infinite energy! They're always getting into shenanigans and pulling pranks on the others! Jean. Connie. Reiner. Porco. Eren. Bertie. Even Annie and Mikasa at one point! No one is safe from these two's hijinks!

Imagining them having their version of "girls day". Getting up really early to go hunting and exploring. They help Sasha's mom with dinner and then afterwards, Sasha's siblings join them for snacks and movies on the living room floor. Kaya picks out the amazing feminist classic, Legally Blonde, starring Reece Witherspoon. Gabi's never seen it before and is a little 😕 --cause at this age she probably is in the I don't like pink and doing all those "girly" things stage-- but Sasha says she loooooves this movie and has seen it so many times that her and Kaya are quoting parts and so Gabi is paying attention cause if her "big sister" (I'm crying 😭😭😭😭) likes it than it's gotta be good?

By the halfway point Gabi is INVESTED! When Elle ends up sticking to her promise of keeping Brooke Taylor's alibi secret, Gabi is all like, "Elle what're'you doing!?!?! You're gonna lose the case! Just tell them!"

Kaya is about to say something but Sasha puts a finger to her own mouth and shakes her head for her to just let things happen.

Gabi is rolling her eyes like all the other characters with the way Elle is fumbling through her cross examination and grumbling how she was starting to like her but this was such a dumb move. BUT THEN!

Then comes the iconic moment! Elle zeros in the inconsistancy in Chutney's story and goes in for the kill. So to speak. Gabi's eyes are huge as she watches it all unfold. And when Chutney ends up blurting out her confession Gabi literally throws both her arms up in surprise and elation!

They spend some time talking about the movie after and because they're all still wired off snacks and Elle's badassery, Sasha proposes another movie and they end up introducing Gabi to Mean Girls. 😌

[aseriesofunfortunatejan]

I know I'm coming towards this with a set opinion but this is a genuine question: why do people choose to say "radfem" when they mean "TERF"?

The term "TERF" (Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminist) was coined by a feminist expressively because she wanted to differentiate radfems, with whom she had been able to work positively, from the trans exclusionary kind. The fact that "TERF" exists implies in and of itself that there are radfems who aren't trans exclusionary. Later on, she suggested using "TES" instead, I quote: "After a bit more reading, I think the trans-exclusionary set should better be described (sic.) as TES, with the S standing for separatists. A lot of the positions that are presented seem far too essentialist to be adequately described as feminist, let alone radical feminist."

I explored this in my own little widdle essay in 2022, in which I talked about how TERFs have taken advantage of the fact that "TERF" caught on and "TES" didn't by wrongfully framing themselves as feminists when they're not even doing anything that resembles feminism.

One argument I could see working to support describing them as radfems - putting "radfems" in your DNI when TERFs are those you really want to avoid - is that I have seen a few TERFs every now and then who are smart enough not to out themselves as TERFs and instead call themselves radfem. Since we've comfortably let TERFs reclaim the term "radical feminist" for themselves, at this point, they can recognise each other by using this label. In my personal experience, those with that sufficient intelligence were also ones to actually interact with feminism and perpetuate transphobia in a manner less direct and intense as the stereotypical TERF.

There are clearly grey areas and many shortcuts taken when there are different groups to consider:

Transphobes who happen to be women (oftentimes get labelled "TERF" nonetheless, which was what inspired my essay back then)

Transphobes who happen to be women and self-label as TERFs

Feminists who are also transphobic (probably a lot of those walking the Earth, unfortunately ; will most likely be labelled "TERF" too)

Radical feminists who are also transphobic and self-label as TERFs (or are recognised as TERFs)

Radical feminists who are not transphobic (and are at risk of being labelled "TERF" nonetheless)

At this point in time, however, we may have to add:

Radical feminists who are also transphobic but do not self-label as TERFs

Because of those, I understand why someone, nowadays, would see "radfem" as a red flag for transphobia. I would too. But I believe that as a feminist, it is important for my cause that my groups, which are trans positive or trans neutral, are not wrongfully associated to transphobes. Again, this was what my essay was about - I wanted to put across that trans exclusionary radical feminism is not feminism, and through exploring the subject, I found that that trans exclusionary radical feminism isn't radical feminism either. TERFs have historically attacked radical feminist groups because they included trans women.

So my question is such: are the people conflating radfems to TERFs aware of this, and using it as a catch-all term to cover the entire red flag - with no personal interest in fighting against the conflation of both groups - or are they some of the many people who wrongfully think radfem is inherently and historically synonymous to TERF?

[sebastianshaw]

I decided to do the questions *I* want from THIS FANTASTIC X-MEN ASK MEME by @katatonicimpression​ instead of reblogging it, because I know which ones I want to answer/have an answer for and which ones I don’t, so here’s a bunch of X-opinions! 2. The best thing about the Krakoa era is....? Absolutely having characters together that would just otherwise never interact, or never interact in a non-battle context. It’s such fantastic fuel for dynamics and development that could probably not happen in any other setting. This is added to with the “bringing people back” aspect, which I also really like, for the same reason---it makes for stories and interactions that just couldn’t be done in anything else before.  6. What's the funniest retcon? Shinobi’s paternity. I hate it, yeah, but it’s also so hilarious because Duggan wanted SO BAD to remove all Shaw’s connections that he for real fucking wrote Shaw, whom he otherwise really wants to demonize, as choosing to take on a child as his that he knew very well might not be at all. Like. No. No, that’s so wrong it’s actually FUNNY. It’s stupid and I dislike it for a lot of reasons, but it’s also just HILARIOUS. It could be he was trying to give Shaw some kind of complexity, and while I do think he did make an attempt with that in other issues, here I think it’s more that Duggan seems to think it’s “boys vs girls” with his cast and Shaw, being our sexist villain, would always help another man out (which, ok, it is Harry, but) I also cannot prove this or base it on anything, but I really truly believe that he wanted to put in that Shaw’s actually impotent or infertile, and just wasn’t allowed to. It seems like his brand of “feminist” dudebro writing that shoots down evil sexist men using....sexism, like when Kate calls him a bitch, which is cool when she does it but bad when he does it, because it’s not using the term “bitch” is sexist, it’s just who uses it! Just like how his Emma is a “feminist” who uses a ton of gendered insults in the second issue to refer to some hypothetical woman she thinks Shaw is sleeping with.  But yeah, the one time he writes Shaw being anything other than a strawman, it’s still THE MOST WILDLY OOC THING POSSIBLE and I just have to laugh at that point. Runners up: - Sinister was originally intended to be the projection or creation of a mutant child, albeit an immortal one, who couldn’t grow up “So he built himself an agent in a sense, which was Mister Sinister, that was, in effect, the rationale behind Sinister's rather—for want of a better word—childish or kid-like appearance. The costume... the look... the face... it's what would scare a child.” (quote from C.laremont) And then they don’t use that, so it’s “he looks like this because he’s literally just that flamboyant and ridiculously over the top” I mean yeah that’s not technically the reason for the white skin and all, but it’s funny.  - The first backstory we get from Emma is in G.eneration X where she tells the kids her parents placed her in an institution when she started “hearing voices” from her budding telepathy. She implies she was sexually assaulted by the guards until her psychic powers increased enough to make one carry her out...and she burned the place down behind her. We learn later through her backstory series that this isn’t what happened at all, even if it was likely intended as the truth at the time. You can mush them together I guess, and I think a lot of people do, but if she was indeed lying, then that means that. . .she stole her brother Christian’s horribly traumatic story (being put in an asylum by their parents), then decided to add in some rape implications for drama, all for a story she is telling TO TEENAGERS ON CHRISTMAS EVE . And if it was the truth? It means she also BURNED ALL THE OTHER INNOCENT INMATES TO DEATH WITH ZERO THOUGHTS OR REGRET.  So either option is so horrible it’s actually hilarious to me.  8. 🔪 to your throat, Rob Liefeld or Greg Land? I hate Land, but I will say he drew one of the best Shaws (it’s the one in my sidebar!) and his art isn’t as immediately ugly as Liefield’s is. . . but I give t to Liefeld because firstly, HE DOESN’T TRACE PORN, and secondly, his brand of bad is also just funnier. Like come on the pouches and guns and tiny feet are funny, Land’s porn traces are just gross. I also just feel his art is more sincere, I guess. Like it took TIME to put 80 billion lines on everyone’s face and a million pouches and all that weaponry. I don’t think it looks good but I can at least respect the effort. 15. Which x-parent is the worst parent? Harness. I’m not talking about Harness. You can look her up. But since no one else will bring up Harness, I’m bringing up Harness. 16. Who has the kinkiest powers? (No explanation required) Benedict Kine. Of course he was in Shinobi’s Inner Circle, even if they didn’t get along. it actually perpetually shocks me he wasn’t designed by Claremont but I guess he’d be written very differently if he was 17 Favourite villain team? OG Hellions. They were the first dead D-list baddies I ever got fixated on, way back when I was about 13 years old. They’re really not villainous at all, making what happened to them so much more tragic, and they had some very interesting personalities and dynamics with each other and the heroes. If I had to pick some REAL villains, it would of course be the Hellfire Club, followed by the Upstarts, I like pretty much all the Upstarts to varying degrees. Yes, even Fitzroy--I hated him as a child because he killed the Hellions, but now I actually like him quite well and am more just frustrated his backstory with his future’s Emma (his motive for the massacre) was never expanded. I think he’s an example of how I learned to view characters not as real people who need to be hated and punished for the things they did bad, and more as tools who did their job in the story badly, or well, or COULD have done better in the right hands (like him and a lot of my favs) Of course there’s still a lot of “seeing them as a person” to me too, it’s why I also can’t stand certain villains because they’ve just crossed a particular line for me, but I think generally I take a position between then two, hence my fondness for absolutely ROTTEN people in particuliar!