#and patriarchy and how to solve it all

[lady-tortilla-chip]

I will say as much as I genuinely enjoyed the Barbie movie, I reallyyyyy don’t like the response to it

[babykittenteach]

2023 in review! I made an effort to try more things and it worked mostly (at least for TV and movies). New things, new-to-me things, and new installments of old things all had characters to love even if I didn't necessarily feel fannish about them, and I'm hoping 2024 does, too.

[geometricalien]

It's 3 am. I can't sleep. And I'm still a little drunk so I'm going to word vomit into the void about Last Night in Soho.

I absolutely adore this movie. The acting, the directing, the cinematography, the themes- it's all fantastic! ... except for the character John. And this has nothing to do with the actor portraying him but John's place in the narrative as friend/romantic interest to Ellie while being a foil to Sandie's own "Johns".

Ellie's John is everything Sandie's aren't: kind (apologizing for taking her coke and offering to give it back, saving a seat for her in class, checking up on her through the semester), respectful (of her boundaries and her passion and personhood), supportive (showing up for her exhibition), and helpful (offering to look for Sandie in missing person cases and moving her out of her apartment at the end of the movie). Even Sandie - the character who hated men most - pardons him and absolves him of any perceived wrong doing, "Save the boy downstairs"; although just minutes ago she stabbed him in the gut and left him for dead.

Unfortunately, it reads alot like "Not all men!! ☝️"

For a movie to be so focused on the relationship between two women and one of them understanding the other as if she was herself, the crux of the film, the resolution of it is Sandie saying "You can't save me, it's too late for me. Save yourself. Save the boy downstairs." And it's only then that Ellie goes to safety, she saved herself to save a man.

It's frustrating.

It's also frustrating that any other girl around Ellie's age is vapid and facetious "So brave ❤️" or an insecure bully dragging people down. Of course, this serves to make Ellie's attachment to Sandie stronger but writing John as a woman without romantic connotations would not stop her from being starstruck by Sandie. It would only highlight the sisterhood theme.

Sandie saying, "Save the girl downstairs" would make way way more sense for her character, Ellie's character, and the themes.

You can still have Ellie bring home someone near Halloween and still have his name be John and still have him respect her boundaries when the vision bleeds into reality.

Gotta keep in mind that this would edge itself closer into the black best friend being a prop/support for the main white character without being afforded their own personhood cliché, but that could be easily circumvented with decent writing.

Overall, it would tighten the film's message of sisterhood, women supporting women, and advocating for each other. This film is at its best when Ellie is showing kindness to Sandie by pulling the blanket over her feet. Her being protective over Sandie by shouting, "She said no!" Trying to hug her and show her she isn't alone. Her hugging Alexandra and seeing Sandie. Her refusing the Johns' their revenge. By taking Sandie's side time and time again. And Alexandra asking Ellie after the dance when her John left, "Did he hurt you?" As if she would hobble down the street that very second with a knife to track him down.

Another girl must not suffer in that room. Not under that roof. Not in the whole damn world. Not if Sandie or Ellie or I have anything to say about it.

[mochapanda]

im gonna drink and play video games until i die of alcohol poisoning

[sidsinning]

Apothecary Diaries is pog as fuck bc serious political issues and dynamics from a woman's POV are rarely depicted in ANY form of media

It's always a man's world where women's issues surround him. Even if we get a female perspective once in awhile- it all comes back to how it facilitates his game in the end. She's a footnote in the overarching scheme of things. Misogyny exists. Back to the real plot.

Apothecary Diaries is strictly from a female perspective and how each class of woman has to act, what limits they have, what rights they have and don't have between each class, etc. These women have to behave a certain way under a patriarchy, which you would think makes it a man's story, but it never is. The women are THE focus of this show, their struggles are THE plot. The focus is about how the patriarch effects them.

Take the concubines for example. The show dives into how bearing a child affects their rank, how traumatizing it is to lose that child, the consequences of that, etc. We have barely seen the emperor who sired all these kids because this is not about him.

Jinshi's personal plot is secondary to Mao Mao's journey- he is mostly there to provide new cases for Mao Mao to solve and to learn more about the shortcomings of his class when taking care of citizens like Mao Mao.

Jinshi is not a bad person, but by virtue of his position in the higher classes, he cannot understand how harsh life as a poor WOMAN is specifically- he can only catch glimpses of it from what Mao Mao tells him and feel outrage but powerless in his wealth and luxury

Mao Mao is a fortunate commoner woman for what privileges someone in her class should and shouldn't have. She happened to be adopted by a knowledgeable man. She is allowed to read, write, learn, and has enough skill to be a poison tester and have a job EXTREMELY out of her class limit as an apothecary, also a job not traditionally meant for women

Mao Mao is not a "noT lIkE oThER gIrLs" protagonist, she is FOR THE GIRLIES. She only wants to help the women around her, and women are whom she has the closest relationships to. She sees a woman being harassed and can't let it stand. She sees a frail, traumatized woman dying from the recklessness of those who should be caring for her and spends day and night nursing her back to health, while also punishing the people who were so careless with her needs.

My girl has STUDIED UP on THE BODY to TEACH these upper class ladies on how to really HEAT things up in the BEDROOM

Sex depicted in Apothecary Diaries is both something women are not shamed to be enjoying, while at the same time being acknowledged as an unfortunately huge economic necessity to market themselves.

Like shit is just so real in this series???

Listen, I can go on and on about how GOATED the series and especially Mao Mao is but you get the picture

[autolenaphilia]

I don’t care about accusations of ”pedophilia.” I will not give a fuck, I won't investigate your claims, I will just ignore it.

For one thing the accusation of pedophilia is often entirely meaningless. This is because pedophile/pedo etc are words that carry the taint of child rape, of calling up the disgust such an act naturally produces, but are accusations that don’t require such an act or a victim of it. If you call someone a “child rapist” that has weight, but you also have to back it up with a victim this person supposedly raped for the accusation to actually be meaningful. But words like “pedophile” carries no such demands, it literally just means “someone who has an attraction to children.” It doesn’t require an actual victim. It’s an accusation about how someone feels in their head and can thus be liberally applied. Someone criticizes your asinine submarine idea to rescue some children in a cave? Call them a pedo. And even words that once had a more specific meaning, such as “grooming” can be stretched beyond all meaning to mean whatever it wants to. Someone talked to under-18 people about sex and gender in a way you don’t want to? Call them a groomer.

In a culture of pedohysteria, pedojacketing is easy. And it’s especially easy to weaponize it against queer people, the idea that queerness spreads through queers recruiting children by molesting them is one of the oldest queerphobic narrativeness out there. I’m using “queer” here because this is a narrative used both against gay and trans people. But in the present transphobic/transmisogynistic backlash it’s most often used against trans people, especially transfems, as transmasc people are more often infantilized.

But on a more deeper level “pedophilia” is the wrong framing of the real problem of child sex abuse. It’s literally a medical term, a diagnosis. It makes child sex abuse a problem of some sick individuals with a diseased attraction.

This is of course a bad and antifeminist understanding of what rape and sexual violence is. It’s an inevitable and natural expression of power. The widespread rape of women is caused by the patriarchy, of men having power over women. And the misogynist oppression of women with sexual violence naturally extends to young girls. But all children are disempowered in our society. Adults have power over them in the patriarchal family, in the capitalist school system and other institutions of our society. Sexual violence against children flows from the power adults institutionally and systemically have over them. The vast majority of sexual violence towards children comes from the family and schools, not the “stranger danger” of creepy weirdoes hiding in bushes.

This is the reality that the framing of sexual violence as the result of sick individuals with a diseased attraction obscures. And it inevitably calls for a reactionary carceral and psychiatric response, justifying the police, prisons and psychiatric institutions. That’s why “what will we then do with the pedophiles?” is such a popular clichéd response to prison and police abolitionism. This very framing of the problem calls for a carceral response. If the problem of child sex abuse is sick individuals instead of the system, if we constantly root out and punish individuals we will eventually solve the problem.

In reality carceral responses actually make the problem of sexual violence much worse. The police, prisons and involuntary psychiatric hospitals are violent expressions of power and thus create the conditions for rape.

Pedohysteria is constantly used to justify the expansion of state power. Here in European Union we have had a legislative push to ban end-to-end encryption and make all online communication accessible to law enforcement, total online surveillance. And the reasoning is because otherwise pedophiles can use e2e communication to secretly send child porn to each other without the police being able to do anything, which is of course true, that does and will happen, but doesn’t justify killing all online privacy. This “chat control” act is literally called “regulation to prevent and combat child sexual abuse.”

The pedohysteria also justifies vigilantism, which tumblr callout culture is part of and is also a deeply reactionary and even fascist phenomenon. Vigilantism rests on the idea that what the police do is right, but they are not doing it well enough, because they are too reigned in by liberal ideas such as laws and regulations and the courts. So random people should take on the role of police to punish “criminals”, like pedophiles. And this goes through tumblr callout culture. A subtext running through pedojacketing callouts of transfems is the idea that transmisogyny does not exist and does not lead to transfems being disproportionately punished, but instead transfems are using their minority status to get away with sex crimes.

This standard conservative rhetoric about how liberals often literally let minorities get away with murder justifies their reactionary vigilantism. Of course in reality, transfems are far less likely to commit sexual abuse of children than other groups of people, because we are systematically excluded from the very institutions where such abuse happens, such as parenthood/the family or schools, because of the transmisogynist stereotype that we are all perverted child rapists. And the callouts of transfems as sex predators are in themselves abusive and protect actual abusers, just like how police and prisons are.

So no, I will continue to not give a fuck if you call someone a pedophile.

[secreteviltwin]

isn't it so much fun how people say "feminism should focus on solving racism and homophobia and transphobia and ableism and classism because patriarchy won't end until all these other issues are solved" all the time but absolutely no one ever says any other movement should try to solve misogyny. almost like it isn't about ending patriarchy at all and is actually a strategy to devalue and deprioritize activism that centers women's rights

[busket]

there's a discussion on Twitter about lesbian love being somehow different than the way that straight men love women but sooo many of these people are just parroting terf and radfem talking points and being quietly transphobic. either by implying that men or amab people are just biologically incapable of love on a deeper level either because of their minds or hormones (transphobic) or by saying it's just the way men are "socialized" in a patriarchal society and it's more about shared experiences (transphobic)

the following statements can be true at once:

there is no real difference between the way men and women love, because men and women are human beings and we are all capable of love and complexity. love as an emotion or experience is not ingrained or influenced by our sex or gender. love between women is beautiful and pure, and it can be abusive too. love between men and women is also beautiful and pure and it can also be abusive. it is sexist to say that women are less prone to committing abuse or violence, even if it seems like a positive stereotype.

the way that patriarchy puts men in a higher social position than women does lead to a higher rate of abuse from men towards women. many men are raised to believe they are innately better than women and this is a mindset that needs real work to unlearn. solving this requires building a society that raises sons to be compassionate and respectful, not to seek dominance over women.

when you insist that abusive or unloving behavior is ingrained within men or it is part of the male experience, what you do is reinforce the patriarchal expectation of men as inherently domineering and violent beings. gender roles are made up, and do not hold truth to what we really are in the genders we associate with. it is a self fulfilling prophecy. if you tell a boy that he's incapable of truly loving a woman without owning her, he will grow into a man that believes you, and become a man that believes control is how you show love

[genderkoolaid]

hey, i don’t know if you know the answer to this, but from what ive seen on your blog you are really well informed about gender stuff. so i saw someone say that transmedicalism is inherently racist and ableist. i was under the impression that transmedicalism is just believing that you need dysphoria to be trans. how is that inherently racist and ableist? if you don’t know the answer that’s okay and i am sorry for bothering you

For the racism:

Transmedicalism is fundamentally based on a Western understanding of transness as a medical disorder. But throughout human cultures, the experience we label as "transness" is seen in a ton of different ways. Many of these do not place special emphasis on one's discomfort with their assigned gender role (assuming that concept is even applicable). On top of it being a generally problematic way of constructing transness, it isn't relevant to all trans people. Transmedicalism tends to be very exorsexist (not believing in nonbinary identity); this is obviously at odds with cultures that have always had gender identities outside of a strictly female/strictly male binary. Transmedicalism tends to be at odds with a culturally relativistic way of understanding transness because of its roots in the Western medical system, which views itself as objective and authoritative.

For the ableism, I'm not 100% what the person you saw's argument was exactly. But I have seen people make the argument that it is ableist because many people have disabilities that prevent them from accessing medical transition in various ways. Now, many transmeds are more concerned with people's desires than what they can feasibly attain; that being said, the way transmedicalism tends to manifest and the worldview it promotes means that everyone who isn't cis(het)-passing tends to be viewed with extreme suspicion. When you divide all trans people into "Real Transgenders" and "fakers who make us look bad," there's an impetus for everyone to constantly be monitoring others' and their own behavior for any signs of impurity. Which means people who can't afford medical transition, people who physically can't get it, people who don't want it, people who are gender-nonconforming (at least in the "wrong ways"), non-white and non-Western people who don't perform to white Western standards of gender... they all tend to be heavily scrutinized. Additionally, transness being medicalized means its subject to the ableism inherent to our medical system. Transness being a disorder means its seen as a problem in need of solving, as a disruption in need of re-aligning with the status quo.

On a more general note: transness-as-a-medical-condition undoubtedly emerged from cissexist views on transness & a desire to control trans people's minds and bodies to prevent us from meaningfully threatening the patriarchy. That doesn't mean anyone is wrong for feeling that is the best way to describe their transness. But as a model for transness in general, it has major flaws, has caused clear harm, and there are very good reasons for moving away from it.

[nothorses]

since TERFs are apparently looking at my blog atm:

if all you have to do in order to stop being oppressed is transition, do it. prove it's just to escape misogyny.

you should want to, right? it sucks to be a woman because of the patriarchy, your life is constant suffering and Sex Is Immutable anyway, so it's not even like you won't be a woman anymore, right? everything will be the exact same, you'll just, like, have more body hair and a bigger clit. that's nothing in the face of overwhelming oppression and constant danger; even a little temporary physical discomfort must be worth it.

you talk about how doctors are always pushing testosterone anyway, so like, go ask for some! live as a man! it's easy, it'll solve all your problems, and you'll know you're a woman even if everyone else thinks you're a man.

if everything you say is true, there's a solution to misogyny right here! a cure! and it's so easy to get! isn't that great news?

[turquoisemagpie]

With all the shit JKR has risen about feminism and what it means to be a woman, I’m always reminded of a metaphor I was taught by the amazing feminist philosophy lecturer back in university. This was back in 2017 (quoted from lecture notes I saved) way before terfs started getting traction, but it rings true today more than ever. 

“In feminism philosophies there are three types of philosopher: the individualist, the radical, and the socialist. 

Here’s a metaphor for how they work, called ‘The Wall, The Lion, the Sheep’. 

The wall represents society, particularly capitalist patriarchal society. The lion represents men, the sheep represents women. 

The wall cages both the lion and the sheep, which makes the lion angry because he wants to be free, but with no one else to attack, he attacks the sheep, the sheep dealing with both the caging of the wall and the force of the lion. 

The individualist feminist sees that the issue is the sheep and suggests “It’s the sheep’s fault for getting in the way of the lion” most them saying “That’s just nature/life!” or at ‘best’ suggesting “Move the sheep out of the way”. That may work in the short term, but the lion is still there, and he can move more freely; he will just attack the sheep again. The individual feminist says that any women suffering the abuse of men or the patriarchy should make their way out on their own, doing minimal effort to help, even blaming the woman for ‘doing this to herself’, falling into the easy solution of solving a problem by victim blaming. 

The radical feminist sees that the issue is the lion and suggests “Declaw the lion and take out his teeth.” That may stop the sheep being harmed in the short and long term, but now the lion is suffering. Radical feminists say that men are the issue and seek their punishment, “an eye for an eye”, not realising that they are ‘othering’ men in the same way women have been ‘othered’. Radical feminists see anything related to men as evil; they don’t see a trans woman as a woman, only as a lion in sheep’s clothing, nor do they see a trans man as a man, only as a misled sheep. They overlook the truth that not all men hate women; lions don’t eat everything that crosses their path. 

The socialist feminist sees that the problem is the wall and suggests “Break the wall down.” The lion is free and runs away to be free, as does the sheep. The problem is solved for both the sheep and the lion. A socialist feminist recognises that the harshest societies have moulded us to be the oppressed ways we all are, and the most effective way to help women is to help everyone; tear it up from the roots. With the oppressive system broken, not only will women have more freedom from patriarchal tyranny, but men will be freed from the toxic masculinity that comes with those systems. Everyone is happy. To be a true feminist is working to destroy an oppressive system to truly help women and all those who are othered by capitalist patriarchy, and anything that allows men to escape the enforced repression of the patriarchy is a great bonus. 

The biggest issue that holds back true feminists is this: walls are harder to break when they keep getting rebuilt by the ones who are so stubborn that the problem is the lion or the sheep. To them, using the oppressive forces of a closed wall gets them what they want, which is to be right, rather than to actually solve the problem.”

JKR is now using the transphobic tory party, currently in charge of the UK government, so further restrict trans voices; a radical feminist that seeks to use the bricks of this current Wall to make sure she is heard, oblivious and probably careless to the fact she’s deafening the voices of other feminists who will now probably feel ashamed to say they’re feminists... 

Feminism is not just helping women, it’s helping those marginalised, those oppressed for who they are, those othered by a system that wishes to box the un-boxable. Feminism is just the name of another movement to help as many people as possible. 

I am non-binary, and I’m a feminist, and the opinion of one close-minded author isn’t going to change that. 

[doberbutts]

Feminist theory is not the same as feminist activism, which is what I specificied in my ask, intentionally. There is feminist theory about men's issues (yes Bell Hooks is by far the most famous theorist in this space), and that is good, but it is not the same as activism to improve men's conditions in the here and now. I wanted to give a different perspective, and have a discussion about something that I feel is a problem that has lead to and continues to lead to a lack of progress for men. I mean, the other ask you got saying thst feminism persistently centers men just by talking about our issues, that proves my point. That is an incredibly common view. Not even working towards solving men's problems, just talking about them occasionally is considered too much. There is an obvious solution to that, which I said previously. Regardless, I am and will continue to believe in the cause of fighting to improve things for both women and men, because we all deserve better. Anyway, I won't bother you anymore, but I hope you know this was written in good faith about something that is important to me.

Theory informs activism, so if you want to see feminist activism that does what I'm talking about, find the feminists talking about what I'm talking about.

Respectfully, despite referencing the other ask, you seem to have not read it if your stance is still "what has feminist activism done for men", because I gave pretty direct examples there.

But you're right. That sort of feminism is harder to find especially nowadays. A lot of people's feminism regards men as "ewwww boys are icky" and "men are 100% solely responsible for all of women's problems". Which was the entire point of my post that started this conversation. It's also compounded by the fact that a lot of times this doesn't look as big and loud as rallies and marches, and so it gets ignored. In reality, the feminist activism that follows the theory I'm describing looks like parents teaching their sons that gentleness and femininity is not bad. Dads who wear nail polish and tutus to support their sons' interests. Boys being encouraged to watch and read the "girl books" and "girl movies". Dads who do not abandon their sons' need for physical affection as they age out of fear of homosexuality.

It looks like restructuring the ways we look at sexual assault and rape so it doesn't automatically exclude the most common way men are attacked. It looks like teaching young men that they do not need to take abuse from a romantic partner or family member on the chin just to be a man. It looks like teaching men that "masculinity" does not need to be defined by stoicism and that the concept of "manning up" is harmful. It looks like teaching boys that there are ways to communicate affection that aren't violent or sexual in nature. It looks like teaching teenagers that playful ribbing is one thing, but tearing your friends down all the time so you can be the biggest man on the block is toxic behavior, and only leads to more isolation because all your friends learn to be mean to each other.

It teaches young men that pleasuring your partner involves more than just a penis, and sometimes doesn't even require a penis at all. It teaches them that their worth is far less in the length of their shaft or the hardness of their muscles or the number on the scale, but far more how they treat others. It teaches them that height and beard length and shoe size and how much alcohol they can consume or their favorite sport team aren't indicators of "manhood", because they are men regardless of the answers to any of those things. It teaches them they can be any type of man they want to be, they don't have to be what the patriarchy tells them are their only options.

And I know this, because I have watched plenty of my butch friends who are devout feminists and have been their entire lives teaching these things to their sons. This is established feminist theory that has existed for a long time. Many followers of this theory do in fact practice what they preach.

Genuinely, I don't really care what you call it. If you want to call it "man's liberation", go for it, I don't care. But to me, this is just feminism. I'm not going to call it men's lib because the feminism I was taught by the women in my life covered these things. Same as how I don't use the word "transandrophobia" because the trans theory I was taught by the trans women in my life told me "transmisogyny" covered these things.

Anyway. I urge you to go read some black feminist theory and then spend some time talking to practitioners of said theory. It might just surprise you how similar the conversation is. It might surprise you to see how their kids and families interact. I'm not saying all black people, because not every black person who is a feminist is specifically a *black feminist*, but when you find someone who fits this description you will know.

[communistkenobi]

one thing that’s been very clarifying for me in the course of reading Paxton’s Anatomy of Fascism is the way he lays out how fascists appropriate left-wing rhetoric for their own pro-nationalist and pro-capitalist ends. The age old talking point “did you know the Nazis were actually socialists” is a direct result of this - fascist power is in part built by obscuring the reality of class division in order to appear “working class” and to claim they have popular support (which is a lie). they do this by appropriating left-wing talking points to speak to the middle class, blaming foreigners and foreign competition for their economic precarity, blaming marxists for trying to destroy democracy, etc. this tactic seems to still work fantastically given how so many liberals and middle class progressives still insist that bigotry is the domain of the working class. Adorno also describes how fascists use antisemitism in particular to appear anti-capitalist, by casting Jews as the misfit bourgeoisie, framing the problem of capitalism as something that can be solved by a changing of the guard, replacing the weak rulers with the strong. fascists are not anti-capitalist, they dislike when capitalism degrades conservative social norms, such as requiring middle class white women to work outside the home, or allowing beer companies sell alcohol with pride flags on it, or make visible the non-white working class. They don’t want an end to capitalism, they want their women in the home and their servants invisible and the image of themselves reflected back at them in their consumption habits at all times.

this is, also, how terfs continue to cast themselves as left-wing - they appropriate the language of feminism for their own right wing goals, which is a society in which gender division is comprehensively enforced by the state. Their biggest issue right now is that the enforcement of this division has waned - trans people are “allowed” into bathrooms now, into change rooms now, into sports now, and most of all, we are now visible in public life. They want to build the power of the state up, not so that they may seize it to liberate women or abolish patriarchy, but to reinforce the traditional gender norms they see as withering away. This is why terfs align themselves with the right wing - this is not an uneasy alliance, there is no contradiction here. They want right wing power for themselves, and they use their feminism as a spectacle to obscure this goal. once you understand this, it’s incredibly easy to tell the difference between a terf and a left wing feminist. these people are as left wing as the nazis, which is to say, not at all

[taylovelinus]

Honestly the CRAZIEST bit about the dyl*n mulv*ney song for me wasn’t even the listing of things that “girls” do — i.e. apparently being a woman is about popping pills, having sex with total strangers, shopping for clothes, getting drunk, etc. No, the craziest line in the whole song for me is the line about how “patriarchy’s over”.

Newsflash everyone, Dylan solved patriarchy because he said so!!! Thanks to Dylan, all of those poor oppressed women in Nepal who are dying in period huts can just leave! wow! And those women in Iran? They’re totally free now to not wear hijab! FGM? Solved! Breast binding? No more! Mass rape in warfare? Female infanticide? Sex trafficking? Abortion restrictions? Thank God, it’s all over now! Thanks Dylan! What would we do without you to tell us that everything is totally fine now, and that women can finally just get back to playing dress up!

[hausofmamadas]

SE LA ARRANCA A MORDIDAS | mystery of Amado's anonymous lady-hustlers, solved

⁂

Holy father who art in heaven, do I have some fucking cracked ass head-canon nonsense for us to👏🏽 day👏🏽 …………….. let’s get to it shall we??

so idk if anyone anyone being the largely nonexistent narcos fandom aka the void Im speaking into remembers that one scene from Narcos in S3 where sleazy!OG!Amado told that one story about those sex workers who robbed him blind, mid-mamadita?

anyone ..... no?

dwdwdw that's okay bc I brought some visual aids to assist in our collective remembrance of this glorious occasion

⁂

The scene starts like this: 👇

Okay, yeah, right? legendary? legendary. just truly legendary behavior skfjskj on all fronts. but the identities of these social justice warriors— no wait activists— no wait, crusad— er no, patriarchy demolishers? iconic crimies with a penchant for for mid-fellatic felonies like armed robbery have been completely anonymous thus far.

…………… until now.

Bc as always, Narcoverse papis Doug Miro, Andrés Baiz, and Carlo Bernard, never fail to fill in the blanks except when they do cause Griselda left a lot to be desired and this is arguably the best ep of the show which, yeah. it’s never ideal when the best ep of a 6ep limited series is the 2nd one si me entiendes😬😬😬 but we digress because im 99.99999999999999% sure if these two sex workers from Griselda aren’t also the two legends who hustled Amado’s dick money out his pants pockets without having to fire so much as a single shot, I’m fairly certain they’re at least inspired by and carrying the torch aka bottling and distilling that Big Dick Energy to perfection of those brave women.

What gave me this idea? So glad you asked dear reader you didn’t but we’ll just pretend you did cause this my haus KEKW…. No like even I rolled my eyes at my own self for that but i couldn’t refrain either.

It all happened when I was nursing my new obsession with a one, Mr. Darío Sepúlveda a name I would most certainly believe to be fucking fake were he not an irl human bean.

👇👇 THIS slice of sweet, cherry pie right tf here

And I stumbled upon this one specific part, where the look on this chick’s face is SO FUCKINGKDHDHDGWVE SIMILAR to Amado’s face, when he’s explaining 👇👇👇👇👇👇👇how the burgling commences when the gurgling is interrupted by with an uncomfortable silence, as this chick proceeds to, hog still in mouth, cease any and all throat activity and fuckingskdfjskl just stare. up. at. him.

all 🙇🏻‍♀️🙇🏻‍♀️🙇🏻‍♀️🙇🏻‍♀️🙇🏻‍♀️🙇🏻‍♀️🙇🏻‍♀️

Like tell me homegirl’s face here👇👇 👇👇 doesn’t look just like it????????????

YOU CANTSJSHSJSHWUS YOU cANT. EVIDENCE IS IRREFUTABLE.

Anyway. Movingright along.

So, if aforementioned homegirl is the 🙇🏻‍♀️ from la historia del grande señor de los cielos, then that makes this ☝️☝️☝️☝️☝️☝️☝️☝️☝️☝️☝️ ... homegirl’s accomplice

with the👇👇sidearm

and like the general only slightly subtle "I eat dicks like urs for breakfast, lunch, dinner, and a midnight snack" vibes that this duo is serving throughout but esp below bc never will I ever not refer to a fuckboy as mancito from now until I'm in my grave alsdkjfa like MANCITO. THE WAY SHE SAYS IT WITH SUCH ALSKDJFKS CONTEMPT, CAN YOU STAND IT????? makes it so clear in my mind's eye how they could 100000000000%% be the unnamed heroes thieves from Amado's little story

also full 180 just on the low but can we all moment of silence for this 👇👇 FUCKINGSDLDFJ LOOK ON DARIO'S FACE WHEN SHE CORRECTS HIM, "quien te dijo eso? ... un mancito?" LIKE HE FUCKIGNSLDFKJSLKJ KNOWS, HE KNOWS HE HAS ERRED ON THIS PATH, HE KNOWS HE CANNOT PASS GO, CANNOT COLLECT 200 DOLLARS AND HE HAS THE GOOD SENSE TO BE GRACIOUS ABOUT IT AND IMAS;DFLIJA;LWEJF;KAJWE;FAKJ; SFUCKINGS DFKLJSLDF JA;K CRYING, SCREAMING, THROWING UP, INCONSOLABLE. LIKE LOOK. AT THIS. OKAY, THAT A MAN, NO MANCITO

*smacks own face, jiggles head back and forth, takes deep breath* anyway.... back to the story

and this is where this prob super unhinged really solidifies bc let's join hands class and pledge alliegance to the most impressive and noteworthy alpha but in the most non-cringe way assertion of dominance I have ever fucking witnessed in all my days. Like, legit the next time i'm into a dude the way i say this like it's not an 'if' bc RIP to my love life lbr fuck all that playing coy, fuck all that flirting. We just gonna get right to the point bc imma climb all over his lap, purr in his face, and ask about his hobbies like it's the 1978 equivalent of a Hinge profile SKSKKSK

and the next time I am spurned I will absolutely grab his junk in a naked hahahaksdjfk grab for a proper leash power to gain the upper hand in the situation and shame any and all menfolk who claim to not like me bc I'm not their 'type.' which like sksjsjsjs admittedly poor Dario just said that as a pretense to get the chisme from the chick who hates Grislenda bc the look of unconcealed regret on his face when Mistress Mamma Crotch Snatcher Morton gets up seems like a good indicator he would've paid to play with his balls

BUT LIKE SIDE BY SIDE WITH AMADO GETTING TO THE metaphorical CLIMAX bc I sincerely doubt they let him bust, mid-robbery OF HIS STORY, CAN WE NOT SEE HOW CLEARLY THESE TWO WOMEN WERE THE ONES WHO JACKED AMADO OFF– NO WAIT THEY DECIDEDLY DID NOT DO THAT ALL OF AMADO’S SHIT, LIKE CAUGHT PAPI WITH HIS ACTUAL PANTS DOWN SKSJSB

and lest any of us were convinced that Lady "Hijueputa Mandona Esa" who hates Griselda wasn't the one holding the gun on Toque, telling Amado she's gonna have her friend chew clear through his disco stick like some froot by the foot, please refer to exhibit B here ☝️☝️☝️☝️☝️☝️where she's manspreading for jesus in these fucking hot pants. I mean try to tell me that ain't power. c'mon

AND THEN THE WAY SHE FUCKINGSLDFKJSL HUSTLES DARIO FOR EXTRA CASH, ALL "you gotta pay me more than that pittance bc yeah, she were a mouthy bitch but I didn't hate her that bad" ensuring he had no choice but to leave a tip, just like our pobre mujeriego, himbo extraordinaire, Sleazy!OG!Amado

And if this isn't the most iconic reminder to tip your servers, folks which everyone should be doing already I truly don't know what is.

═

taglist: @ashlingnarcos @tofuwildcard @narcolini @drabbles-mc

[hadesoftheladies]

i love marxfems and socfems on the internet. i love them so much. but every time they show disdain for radfems i cringe (don't get me wrong i love it when they clapback at imperialist so-called feminists). when they start responding primarily in mao or lenin quotes i cringe. because when i read marxist/communist/socialist theory most of the time i think "yeah this is fantastic structural analysis of the capitalist system" but it's so clear to me that dedicating my life to abolishing capitalism would not solve the "root" issue. so many radical revolutionary women make feminist struggles secondary, almost non-issues "until capitalism is dealt with" which is exactly how their male counterparts think and i doubt that's a coincidence.

capitalism would not exist without patriarchy. all economies are social arrangements/agreements and the capitalist economy flourishes because of patriarchal society, philosophy and culture. it could not exist without it. kind of like how the feudal system worked because a lot of the serfs genuinely believed in the divine right/eternal power of the monarch.

all this to say, tackling capitalism is, of course, in a lot of ways, tackling patriarchal oppression, it is absolutely integral. tackling imperialism, too. but the bottom line that i hope every woman regardless of if they're a radfem, socfem, marxfem or whatever, grasps is that women's liberation will ONLY happen because of women.

no political party will save us from the tyranny of men. only women can and will liberate women. because when men say they want to be classless, they mean it only for men. they will not take the final step in eradicating class. only women have ever been willing to go that far.