#and why i care so much about the origins of non-literal expressions like

[dumb-fictionkin-sideblog]

I think

I think that me thinking I'm a compulsive manipulator for most of my "aware life" has something to do with the tism

[olderthannetfic]

I have really mixed feelings about the small proportion of F/F fiction (original or fanfic), because yeah sure, people have their desires, they should write what they want, I get it. It all works out when I hear it from person to person. But somehow the logic only ever applies in one direction? "There are more male protagonists because men only care about male characters! Women also mostly care about male characters, because that's the majority of characters they get!" And then somehow we also yet kvetch when men write female characters (because it's incorrectly or something, nevermind if women are writing male characters correctly). Why don't we expect gay men to feel compelled only by femslash for the same reasons (but gender swapped) as the lesbian slashers/fujoshi? All of those very rational justifications are applied selectively, "for me for not for thee," and it all only leads to "idk I just don't wanna write femslash", for Reasons. Do we get to call them microaggressions yet?

--

No, you don't get to call other people's fantasy life a microaggression.

That is indeed "for me but not for thee" in the sense that you get to want what you want but other people aren't supposed to follow their id.

Do you also police gay men who spend too much time on drag and obsessing over female divas? That's an actual real world behavior that's somewhat equivalent. It frequently goes unchallenged, at least by progressives, because men are allowed to do whatever they want with chick stuff, while women are "stealing" if they dare to stray into dude stuff.

(God, I've seen so much more policing of drag kings being ~problematic~ for acting out stereotypical gender than policing of drag queens for the same. It's nuts!)

Fujoshi are often queer, but it's absurd to think we're mostly lesbians. We tend to be bi or asexual women with gender stuff going on, though there is a mix of everybody, including lesbians. There are also a lot of AFAB non-women who get lumped in with us. On the rare occasions I find a man willing to admit to being a similar demographic, he usually does like gender play in his hobbies and entertainment. It's just that men face even more pressure than women do to fit into tidy categories. Bi women get told we're whores. Bi men are told they don't exist.

Yes, I know plenty of lesbians who write more m/m than f/f, but in the big picture of all of AO3 or all of fanfic or all of media, they aren't the demographic driving these numbers. They're vastly outnumbered by the bi women, the asexual women, and the straight and gnc women.

The men we should be looking at as an equivalent aren't cis gay men but bicurious soy boys and the like.

Do most of us fujoshi object to equivalent men doing an equivalent thing? I've seen it sometimes, and I agree it's hypocritical. I'd like us to afford men the same ability to play and take on identities in their art. I remember enjoying Ranma fandom back in the day and reading quite a lot of f/f that was probably by men. It had some of that same sense of distance and fantasy that I so enjoy in m/m aimed at fujoshi. (I do consume some by-cis-gay, for-cis-gay content, both m/m and f/f, but it's often too literal and too bound up in specific named identities for my taste.)

On average, the people I see complaining most about men producing f/f material are the same people who think that because I have a clit, I should center my life around women exclusively. In other words, people spouting radfem ideology, perhaps on purpose or perhaps without realizing.

I do agree that some of the ways of expressing a lack of desire to write femslash can get pretty douchey. I want us to move away from some of the less accurate ones like "There are no compelling female characters" because of this.

But the reason for all these jerkass explanations is that women and people perceived as women who like m/m are constantly asked to explain ourselves. These aren't usually microaggressions: they're openly hostile. People get defensive and try to answer with important-sounding reasons about identity and pain because society at large won't accept "I like this" as the true explanation.

Pleasure is never enough of a reason for a woman to do something.

[the-bitter-ocean]

ICAC Siffrin,,, oh they're not going to be doing well postgame are they (didn't learn their lesson, had their worst doubts confirmed, not exactly particularly inclined to open up)

(ACT 5/ACT 6 SPOILERS) Hello, Anon! While I understand that a non- looping Siffrin may have a lot harder time opening up about their feelings and their past (or lack thereof) I don’t think it’s going to go in that particular direction!

I’m going to share my thoughts on this and talk more about my plans while writing ICAC under the cut:

Does Mirabelle unintentionally hurt Siffrin in that moment in act 5 during the failed attempt at doing the friend/ family quests with everyone ? Yes. Yes she does. In that moment, it did genuinely seem like Mirabelle was confirming his self doubts/ fears on if the party would stay together or if he was worth being remembered. Siffrin was hurt and expressed that hurt to her (which he has every right to do so because her behavior wasn’t okay).

That being said however, I think there are many scenes that I have written / drawn that I plan to share that would help Siffrin see that the group would stay together and that they’re loved etc. To name a few of them: the talk at the clocktower ( there’s a scene in it where the group reassures Siffrin that no one is being left behind and that they’ll all be able to help mira soon) the talk with Rewind (who tells the group the entire context in full of why mirabelle was acting so off kilter which would give reassurance that mirabelle didn’t suddenly hate everyone ) the vs friends fight (including the aftermath where they all are floating mid air and holding hands and the whole group talk about how all of them had wanted to continue to keep traveling together as a family etc) and also the heart to heart talk that mira will have with Siffrin in act 6 (which is a proper apology for lashing out at him and also a shared promise to be more open about feelings together) etc. All of these things would let Siffrin know that his family cares for him and won’t forget him. The whole group would say that in a heart beat, especially mirabelle who again, literally nearly broke the world via wishcraft because she cared so much about each and every one of them.

I feel like when/if Siffrin feels that way I think mirabelle would remind him that the whole group saw her at her absolute worst and still chose to stay with her and forgive her anyway. And if she can be forgiven and loved.. if she can still be allowed to stay and be remembered then there’s no reason why Siffrin can’t have it either.

Again like the original source material the au is based on (ISAT) I want people to know that ICAC is an au that ultimately does have a happy ending! It’s hopeful! I promise! Have faith in me yeah? Anyway ramble over I hope this helped alleviate any concerns!

[vampire-wizard-solidarity]

i think the way totk references skyward sword only highlights the problems with totk and gets a little insulting at times.

this is mostly about ganondorf’s demon king form being highly reminiscent of demise. i get that it makes sense, since ganon’s power most likely comes from demise’s curse, so when it’s amplified it visually references that. that’s neat, and not an inherently bad idea, even a good one in some aspects.

however, all it does for me is highlight just how much of a non character ganondorf is. demise is, to an extent, also a non character: he isn’t deep nor extensively fleshed out, but the thing is, not all characters have to be. and him, he works. most of the game is spent with ghirahim, his much more expressive and motivated sidekick. he’s fun, intimidating when he has to be, and balances being silly and being an actual threat well. demise is the kicker, the final punch, when ghirahim spent the entire game building him up, we finally get to see him, he’s intimidating, he’s serious in contrast to ghirahim, he immediately shuts the villain we spent most of the game fighting up, and reduces him to an object to be used to fulfil his own goals. his boss fight is cool, and so is he.

demise is a god of destruction, he doesn’t have a motivation beyond the fact that he is a representation and wields power over evil. and that’s the point. skyward sword’s themes largely center humanity vs inhumanity, link spends a large portion of the game running around fulfilling a plan he doesn’t fully understand, being roped into this ordeal before he even finds out about it, not really comprehending what’s happening or why for a long time. so, it’s only natural the final force he has to face is an equally incomprehensible threat, and he defeats it not because he comprehends it more now, or understands the ancient conflict between gods or any of that. he does it because he wants to protect someone he loves, he does it because he forms a genuine bond with the robotic, originally emotionless guide who was made only for the purpose of aiding him in this godly plan. humanity triumphs over godhood. humanity triumphs over inhumanity.

in totk, however? there really isn’t much difference between ganondorf before and after he becomes the demon king. he has no particular motivation before or after, he is a king who wants to rule over hyrule with evil, and then he becomes a more powerful king who wants to rule over hyrule with evil. he looks more like the god of destruction now, but that signifies nothing other than he is more powerful now. ganon has always been associated with power, and the way power corrupts has always been a fitting theme for him. he could’ve had development throughout the game, and him becoming more like the literal godly representation of evil could’ve signified that development. maybe he was a king with an actual motivation, an actual in story reason to oppose hyrule, we could’ve been shown his human side, what he actually cares for and why he does the things he does, and then we could’ve seen that side of him dissolve as he taps more into his power, becomes more like a being of destruction that destroys simply because that’s what it has power over. him taking visual cues from demise could’ve actually meant something, could’ve been a visual representation of the way his power corrupts him. instead, we get nothing. there was no reason to bring ganondorf back, because he still acts like a motivationless monster, who is evil simply because he is. all talk of this being “his game” was a lie, considering he could easily be replaced by a generically evil monster and nothing would’ve changed.

ultimately, i still wouldn’t have been happy with this story because it would still lean heavily on the orientalist narratives still alive and present in zelda, but this would’ve been at least something. the way it is, the fact that he takes visual cues from demise pisses me off because it highlights just how one dimensional his character is, it makes me feel only cynicism because it makes it clear that ganondorf was only brought back because he’s a popular and iconic character and not because he had any purpose in the story or because the writers had anything interesting to do with him.

[myfairkatiecat]

I think you're misunderstanding my point a bit, the problem is not "accidentally agreeing with someone when they also disagree with you on other points". I agree that worrying about that is silly. However both my hypothetical post and the actual post, in my opinion, have the problem of presenting a false dichotomy which is indicative of bias. "We need more single mothers in media" is a point which is completely unrelated to the much stupider point of "there are TOO MANY women with jobs in media", and the fact of the matter is that being bothered by seeing women in media who have jobs is, not inherently sexist, but certainly something you would expect more from a misogynist than a non misogynist.

Similarly the original post pairs a point that many agree with - "more fandoms/media should portray close brotherly friendships" - with an unrelated (and in my opinion, very entitled) complaint about fandoms being too gay, as if it's not possible for both gay relationships and brotherly ones to both be respected and given validity without choosing one as the correct or more valid interpretation. Or as if, as the person who responded to that post was alleging, the post was trying to imply that interpreting characters as gay is inherently worse than interpreting them as brotherly. Given that that's a very bold claim, I think supporting that claim with "btw this same person has said this on the topic of gay people irl" is quite normal?

The reason context matters is not because valid points become gross and wrong when said by the wrong person, but because valid sentiments can be used to mask other, less valid sentiments. If you agree with both points, that's one thing, but if you think complaining that fandom is just too gay is indicative of homophobia, "the person who said that has also publicly stated that they don't support the LGBT community" is relevant information in that discussion. And I frankly think that "actually, my friend thinking that fandom is too gay is completely unrelated to that same friend thinking being gay irl is sinful" is a very strange claim that I struggle to believe, in the same way I would not believe it if someone said "the fact that I get mad when I see women on TV with jobs is completely unrelated to me thinking women shouldn't have jobs because then I could sleep with them more easily".

Ok so this is the post in question by @gracefulchristiangirl:

why aren't guys allowed to have strong brotherly friendships anymore without being queer headcannoned anymore. like- not all strong relationships are because of romantic or sexual desire??? some people have life-long friendships with other guys who are literally their brothers???

Reading comprehension check: “NOT ALL strong relationships are because of romantic or sexual desire.” This post is a response to the frequent sexualization of male friendship, which feeds a culture of toxic masculinity. If showing affection is consistently interpreted as inherently gay (like posting a gif of Sam and Frodo with the caption “there is NO heterosexual explanation for this” which does happen quite frequently) then straight men are going to be discouraged from being affectionate with their friends because, understandably, they don’t want people unanimously agreeing that they must therefore be a sexuality that they aren’t.

This post is about people erasing the possibility of friendship between two men when they see a certain type of behavior, usually expressions of care or love. This isn’t a response to “I think it would be cool if Merlin and Arthur were gay so I’m going to write a fic where they’re gay,” it’s a response to “look at the way Merlin is looking at Arthur in this scene with so much love in his eyes. Look at the way he holds him tenderly ad he dies. They’re literally so gay, like wdym they aren’t lovers??” One such statement owns that it is something made up by the person with the headcanon, while the other statement makes affection between two men seem inherently romantic! I used the merlin fandom as an example because I have seen that second statement made, almost word for word, and it’s sentiments like those that make me glad for posts like the one we are discussing.

The post is not about gay people. The post is about viewing close male friendships as inherently romantic or sexual in fandom spaces, which is unfortunately very common.

This post is also not about fandom spaces being “too gay,” as you said in your ask. *wags finger like an aunt* mm-mm-mm, that’s not what OP said! She didn’t say fandom spaces were too gay!

[lover-of-mine]

Lady Whistledown here. I'm laughing that stuck, but I will take it. Literally, no one important just ended up there. The readers' digest version for those who didn't see the original goes like this.

In the beginning, it was all fun, and games and delusions of grandeur were written till E6, really.

That's when the Buck Tommy kind of flat lined, and what was shown was meh. Then they were desperately praying there would be on on screen pledge of commitment to shut us up before the season ended. Never happened. Pretty much all of the speculation came from paying for Lous Cameos. They built stories around them. Heavily used his cameo wearing the medal when he said they were "thriving." We all know they literally had one scene after that. Then Lou had to shut down his account, and now they were in a drought.

So they moved along into speculation territory for weeks until Oliver's live. Before then, we received their ire. We were bullies and harassing Lou ext. In the live, he basically grimaced and ignored the Buck Tommy question and smiled and blushed at Buddie. Have to remember with, in the same time frame, we had Ryan basically say so you know Buck and Eddie during an interview non 911 related, but also the old Lou interview started circulating again. The one where he basically says they called me last minute to kiss one of them and that he was basically called in to work out Bucks kinks as a starter relationship.

Clearly, this caused panic in the BT PR room!!

But it was weird because after Oliver's recent life, that's when they turned on him. Because now they had to confront why he had never posted about Tommy, followed Lou and only posted Eddie. I have seen that happen in other fandoms, but it's usually by main characters. Not a random side character. So my point is if Oliver continues as is, BTS starts popping up no Lou, Ryan, and Oliver promo. They are turning on Oliver if he doesn't promote BT. They already did and that was just the first trial by fire.

Since then, though, like any good conspiracy type behavior, it's like they forgot they were mad and never mentioned Oliver's expressions during it. Or the fact he seems to not care about the pairing.

They are back in delusional land. Some delusions include.... It's good Chris will be gone because it provides space for Buck to detach from Eddie, and we get more Tommy. Tommy will be more main character LI and involved with the team. Huge chance Tommy finally comes clean to Buck he was into Eddie before, and Buck being so loving invites Eddie to join them. Eddie secretly pines for Tommy. Tommy taking over father roles for both Eddie and Buck because clearly they need his help. Also sexual fantasies clearly written by straight people.

But mark my words... If it keeps going with no sign of Lou, Tommy, or Oliver acknowledging BT, it will because of us and Oliver. If that happens, I will, of course, message you.

And if people really want to know I am happy to always report back the gossip...

But if that was long winded as hell and you skipped to the bottom.. Yes, they turned on Oliver (behind closed doors) because his live was the first chance since the cameos to get anything. And he said let them eat cake....

Hello, my love 🩷🩷🩷

Wait wait wait wait you're telling me that after the hospital kiss when there were harassing everyone about how bt is now endgame, they were panicking about the way the relationship was portrayed? And that they realize the relationship was not defined on screen? Are you fucking with me? This is........ Okay, but seriously, do they realize how cameo works or do they think Lou was just saying those things because he felt like it? When you pay for those videos, you send him a message that prompts him. He was saying what they paid him to say. I'm...... I'm glad to know they are also unhappy with the way the relationship has been treated, I feel vindicated.

Also the way they also agree Tommy looked more interested in Eddie and are creating their own delusions on top of Eddie pining for Tommy? I don't even want to think about Tommy being a better parent, that one just makes me want to pick a fight. Interesting to know they are having the three-way fantasies in private while completely turning on Eddie out here.

Honestly, the chaos that will happen once filming starts is not something I'm looking forward to, because there won't be the level of content they want and that will 10000000% make them more feral. Especially considering the way Oliver is on our side, and even with bt on the making the promotion of s7 leaned HEAVILY on Oliver and Ryan together. And it worked. So it will probably happen again. And given how small Tommy's role was in the back half of the season, him not being around all that much is the more plausible scenario. And well, publicly turning on Oliver is not gonna get the reaction they think it will, so that's gonna be interesting for sure.

Please come back any time there's an update you feel is worth sharing, I'm loving having the inside view kapakapalapakpas

[allsadnshit]

healing my relationship with femininity has been so important this past couple years and I think sometimes the way it's talked about can make it so much harder and so shameful for a lot of people to admit they struggle with because there's so much rhetoric about like "are you a girls girl or not?" and like a very black and white cold "girls who don't have girl friends are RED FLAGS! TOXIC! EVIL! TRAITORS" when I think in reality it's such an obvious sign of wounding to not be able to connect with women, whether growing up or in adulthood.

for myself it stems so largely from being raised by a single father and older brother and having my literal connection to women (my mom) severed really traumatically early in life when she passed and to fit in and be included in family things always meant having to sacrifice things I might have liked at the time like tea parties and barbie and being forced to watch action movies and male sports just to get quality time and attention in my home because they never made time for my interests as a young girl and were passively dismissive of them too (never let me pick the music cause I'd play "girlie stuff", never wanting to watch the movies I wanted to see in theaters meaning I also just didn't get to see them, having any feminine interests and hobbies be less celebrated) and it really shaped me.

somewhat naturally there was a glaring disconnect between not just myself and men who I couldn't seem to become communal with even if I shared all the same hobbies which I tried very hard to do like getting into yu gi oh and kung fu, but when I'd be put into situations with all other girls I felt isolated and clumsy because I didn't watch the same movies, didn't know how to do things like cute hair styles or braiding, and was just generally behind and felt much more like an observer than like I had any place in it.

I've always had girl friends but they were often isolated relationships with girls who also struggled with their girl relationships and were otherwise bullied or cast out, and those relationships even though sacred to me also often would become poisoned with jealousy and comparison because society pits women against each other especially growing up it felt like a literal competition and it's so common to be ranked by boys and even other girls and adults in terms of who's prettier or most desired which is really strange to apply to an already vulnerable dynamic in a formative part of life.

Because of a mix of all these bad circumstances I've really rejected myself and a lot of my natural connections to girlhood and women and I think it felt like an easier and safer route to just disconnect entirely which is what I did for most of my life until around the time of the first lock down when I was very privately buying girl clothes for the first time in years and experimenting with the idea that I'd like to allow myself some movement and fluidity with my relationship to gender. It really makes me sad the way so much of society makes us feel we need to do things a certain way or see ourselves a certain way to be living "correctly" when I think it's a very personal journey and being scorned and shamed for what we do or don't do makes us self conscious and unable to act naturally. I've gotten a lot of nasty comments from women who feel it should be easy to connect with women because they have gotten the privilege of healthy relationships with mothers, grandmothers, sisters, and friends and so feel that anyone who hasn't is just toxic and doing it to themselves which I just find extremely unkind and self interested.

and that's part of why I reject terms like "girls girl" even as I lean into healing my relationship to femininity and relationships with women and the social pressures we face. I know that term came about originally with the intention of expressing a relationship to women that was non competitive and based on mutual respect and care, but it's been transformed and used now in a really hatefully isolating way and I do not claim it or the energy towards other women it gives off of not seeing their humanity and flaws as places to grow and be loved through but as a reason to further disengage from.

[i-darling-amaflower]

I've tried thinking about which characters in DFF are my favorite and which ones are my least favorite, but that becomes exceedingly difficult as the show progresses. The reason for this is, as many posts have pointed out, the way the show reflects reality and therefore has no "Good and Bad" no "Black and White," but instead simply has many different hues of grey. So, at the end of the day, it all comes down to one's opinion or the way one perceives a character. I will do my best to express my thoughts on each of the 9 main characters.

1. Por

The leader of the pack. He is one of the one's we're obviously not supposed to like as much; he bullied Non, he stole his work, he was two-faced, he almost killed Non. But he still has a bit of complexity added to his character what with his family situation. Ultimately, in my opinion, that does not excuse any of his actions. He is pretty low on my list.

2. Top

This is gonna be a short paragraph. I hate him. The things he did weren't as extreme as some of the things Por did, but he literally has no excuse whatsoever. He's just plain annoying, a bully with a backstory as long as his dick, which is to say nonexistent.

3. Fluke

I think he has morals? If he does he fully does not listen to them. His biggest flaw is his selfishness. I believe he would've ratted Top and Tee out when Top broke the camera if it wouldn't have caused a crack in the friendship of the group, and therefore his spot in the popular group in school. Because let's be honest, he doesn't give a rat's ass about his "friends," he doesn't wanna be a part of whatever they're doing 3/4 of the time. But his selfishness ruins what potential he might've had, to the point of him being downright creepy.

4. Tee

Now this is a character. I think his shade of grey is the perfect blend of both white and black. Yes, I obviously hate what he did, but at the same time I understand. I would rather jump off of a cliff than give someone other than myself problems, but if I was a little less like that and a little more cowardly, I think I could relate to him a lot. He wasn't as warm to Non as Jin was, but he definitely wasn't as cold as Por and Top were. And boy, does he have a past. It looks to me like he's been a part of his uncle's gang for quite a bit, which would obviously quiet the kindness in anyone's voice, if not in there whole being. He has a sick father he genuinley cares about and no other way to make money. He's in a corner. And while I believe there's always a choice, I understand why he saw the one he picked the clearest. The thing, though, is that he didn't want to hurt Non, he didn't want to bring Non to his uncle, it just wasn't as strong as his want for himself and his father to be fine. But this is what makes him stand out more than the other members of the original friend group. He regreted it. He feels guilty. It's quite literally haunting him. He never could and never will be able to escape that part of his life. He even brought Non 2.0 (aka White) right up close to himself, and he would do anything to keep White there, safe where he can see him. So while I don't like him, and he is easily one of the more everything-i-do-damages-Non characters, he is still a very interesting one.

5. Jin

I can't explain how much I hate him. When I was in elementary school there was an anti-bullying poster that said something like "a bystander that does not help is just as guilty as the bully." And although both Fluke and Jin acted as bystanders, I hate Jin more because he is under the impression that he is kind and innocent, and he is branded this way to all the other characters. Even Non believed it. He takes no responsibility for what he did, or rather, what he didn't do. I don't even think he feels guilty about what happened to Non, he so easily forgot about it. He moved on so fast for someone he saw as a "friend" or, going even further, a "crush." The most evil thing is that the change in the way he acted between the past (smiley, warm, there) and the present (frowny, cold, closed-off) was not due to the fact that he absolutely ruined this kid--someone he considered a friend--'s chance at a future by leaking a video of said kid being groomed, and then proceed to nearly (if not actually) kill this kid with the help of his friends. No, it was do to the fact that his new crush said they were just friends. That's so incredibly pathetic. I'm obviosuly not saying that crushes can't literally crush your soul, but I think he had other issues he could've been worrying about.

6. Phee

Up until episode 9 I absolutely loved him. But then he dissapointed me a bit (which he is aloud to do, he's literally still a kid; for that reason I haven't kicked him off of my list of characters I like just yet). He has a big heart, which was used to cause a lot of good, but unfortunately became his flaw. It started to grow until it out-weighed his sense of justice. I think he still loves Non and wants to know what happened to him, but not as much as he wants to forget and move on with Jin. He came to the house partly to get answers but mostly to fix his relationship with Jin. He started to like the friend group, so he wants to live in ignorance, and that I do not agree with.

7. Tan

Him and Non had a pretty weak relationship, but despite that, he still loves him (he loves his whole family, actually, even if their parents don't deserve it) deeply; deeply enough for them to be the only thing he's living for. In my--who am I kidding, the fandom's opinion, he is currently doing nothing wrong, killing people or not. He lost literally everything, and frankly, it shows. But instead of giving up, he perserved, which is more than Phee can say.

8. Non

Jesus Christ, this poor kid. A family that forgot about him while he was there, and loved him after he was gone, and a boyfriend that loved him while he was there, then quickly forgot him after he was gone. He'd never had it easy in his life and still didn't have it easy (possibly) after his life. If you think what happened with Keng was Non cheating on Phee, fuck you. Fuck you. That was grooming, Non was being taken advantage of. Although I don't really think of Phee sleeping with Jin as cheating, it was more cheating than Non and Keng. Yes, he pulled the rest of the friend group into the illegal money thing, but that was not his fault, it was Por, Top, and Tee's fault. So much shit happened to him, and none of it was deserved; I really hope he's alive and killing them.

9. White

I don't dare to have opinions on him yet because I'm really expecting a deeper backstory. I don't think he's as naive as he's letting on.

If you want to add any of your opinions, feel free to!

[antiradqueer]

Trigger warning for mentions of fetishization, pro-c for non-con stuff,paras, and like very little of cult tactics, nothing with much detail I believe. Sorry if i tagged these wrongly, I'm not really good at putting trigger warnings.

Lol, im in the rq community but its like really confusing, i dont agree with some terms that fetishize people and invalidate others but some parts are i agree with too so its weird.

Im not sure if i should leave and even if i do where do i exactly go i dont really know, also some of these terms really help me to explain and express my non-human identity better, and stuff like that. (i only have id with transbody terms that go like 'wanting to have more eyes' or 'wanting to be taller' due to non-humanity, im not sure if that is wrong. Because these terms really would be okay and very nice in my eyes if they werent soo,, interwined with pro-c for non-con paras and actual fucked up shit.)

Also the community is meant to be anti-harasment, which is what i am, knowing that harassment on the internet wont really work in anyway. Though the community is extreme (this goes for antis too, both sides are very extreme which sometimes wants me to just stay in the middle of it.) And people in the rq tend to ignore the pro-harassment rq's by saying stuff like 'oh theyre not actually rq' and that on itself sounds like very problematical to me. Maybe not just me, i have no idea.

I also thought of id as transabled due to my heavy signs of BIID, (though i am not diagnosed so it might be something else, so i wont self diagnose for now since it might be a placebo effect due to my legs not functioning well in the first place) but the things it implied was just,, not something i would like to be associated with. So idk if that makes me unvalid or anything of that.

Im so fucking confused and i dont really like the fact i am so confused and kind of not fitting for both sides and being neutral seems,, y'know,, ignorant to me because both sides have their extremes and problems, so god i have no idea.

Also i did notice rq community using ways that are like,, weird, and i have experienced cult tactics and when i noticed it literally didnt go away so yeah. And that certainly something I don't want to be associated with and harms me too.

Its weird, i have no idea, wa.

Also i quite literally dont care whos origin is what, i used to be heavily endogenic but after a while i was like,, 'dude i cant change these people nor should i can encourage possible harmful things to them and the plural community' and decided to be neutral especially because i have a traumagenic system of 750+ with some alters still heavily anti-endo and some pro-endo. Which again makes me feel like i will not be welcomed elsewhere.

I have talked to a few anti-rqs about my experience but idk

Also i have multiple paraphilic disorders and Paraphilias without disorders, so im not sure if i will be affected in the other communities since of my paraphilic disorders.

So sorry this is like very long, i apologize if i made y'all uncomfortable,, it was not what i intended.

first of all, I will just repeat what I tell every radqueer that comes into our inbox: think about if you really want to be part of and support a movement that inherently supports pro-c paraphiles of all kinds, is racist, ableist and whatnot. you simply can't on one hand call yourself radqueer and on the other hand pick and choose the parts of the community you like. if you use that label, you are supporting the WHOLE community, end of the story. of course there are disgusting people in every community, but it's different with radqueers - for example, there are quite a lot if pro-c zoophiles who are also therians and claim to be part of the therian community. BUT the therian label in itself is strictly against that and will never ever accept those people. the radqueer label however is inherently supportive of and welcoming to pro-c zoos, pedos and necros. and that's the difference. that's why you are still supporting those people even if you only use the term radqueer. please realize there are alternative terms you can use for the same experiences, which are not associated with radqueers and/or are coined by folk who are openly anti radqueer and anti transid.

aside from that, being neutral or unaligned is 100% a path you can choose! always put your own comfort and safety first and if the discourse stresses you out too much, you can always just back off.

I don't have too much to add honestly, to me it seems like you are THIS close to truly realizing how horrible the radqueer community actually is - I mean, you even noticed the cult tactics. but it is on you to take the final step and get out and I promise you, if you do, you will be welcomed by us antis and other communities!

[I won't comment on the endo system part, since we don't do syscourse topics here]

[onyxbird]

These are my thoughts about fan content clarifying what fandom values about a work that I mentioned in a response to @trivalentlinks.

The optimistic side of this post is that I think there is value in fan content forming a record for whoever chooses to look (even if that's only other fans), in the form of thousands of fanfics and fanart and fanposts, that these are the things fandom got out of a source work that made them love it. These are the versions of the characters that fans loved (or hated), whether or not that's quite what the writers/actors/etc. intended. These are the story beats that resonated so well that fans delve into them over and over and over, and these are the ones that flopped and get "fixed" again and again.

However a lot of the stuff below the cut is more pessimism and frustration about the crudeness of the "dialog," such as it is, between fandom and creators, using Leverage/Leverage Redemption as an example. I have no real answers, here.

Mostly, the thing is gets me is that 1) I know viewer numbers and ratings are what drive decision-making in TV/movie production and 2) on the viewer's end, the choice to watch or not watch a show/movie/whatever is such an incredibly crude, binary signal about something that so much factors into.

So taking Leverage as the example, since that's what touched this discussion off, imagine if Leverage Redemption just tanks next season. Lots of people who tuned in when season 1 launched stop watching. The obvious question that a lot of people are going to be asking is why. When Leverage originally aired, it was clearly popular enough to get 5 seasons and to eventually spawn a sequel series, and enough people started watching Redemption to get a second season greenlit, so the question would be what changed?

If you're looking solely at the show end to try to diagnose viewership/ratings trends, there are quite a few changes that could factor into reception, both obvious and subtle, and very limited "signal" from just numeric viewing/ratings data. Some of those changes are (all stuff I recall seeing discussed in fanposts in one form or another, BTW):

They became an Amazon production. They killed off Nate. They added Harry. They added Breanna. They made Sophie the Mastermind. They moved the setting to New Orleans. Hardison was away for most of the season. They gave Eliot a multi-episode love interest for the first time. They shifted the focus more towards the way the powerful can twist the system to their own ends to legally screw people over (linked to Harry's incorporation in the team). They had a more diverse pool of clients for the crew. They went little further over the realism line into the fantastical (e.g., literally talking guards to sleep). They seemed to explicitly refute the OT3 dynamic ("robot bodies" scene). They made a number of smaller, possibly unintended characterization changes to established characters (e.g., various stuff with Parker's portrayal). And, separate from Leverage Redemption itself, a local Portland news outlet put out an article (which doesn't appear to have been picked up by any wider news outlets) about alleged sexual harassment/assault on Electric Entertainment productions, including Leverage.

Lots of changes, both large and small. Some changes I think were excellent. Some were not. Some were non-ideal for the show, but obviously limited by circumstance (e.g., working around Aldis Hodge's availability). With (I hope) the exception of the abuse allegations, I suspect every change on my list has some fans who like it, some who hate it, and some who don't really care.

So… how would you figure out what accounted for a hypothetical drop in ratings/viewers?

In the absence of any direct feedback about what the fans are saying (or expressing through other fandom participation), there would be a lot of guesswork. The show is very centered around the crew, so I would guess the impact of cast changes would be a major objective change to look at. The original crew was well-liked in OG Leverage, so they'd probably assume no problems with returning cast. (Fans perceived some changes to how the OG crew were portrayed, but those are relatively subtle/subjective and likely not deliberate on the show's part.) Harry is a newcomer, but Noah Wyle was a core character in The Librarians, which also got 4 seasons, so I doubt him turning off fans would be the first guess. That leaves removing Tim Hutton (well-established actor, central to previous well-received series, resulted in major restructuring of crew once removed) and adding Aleyse Shannon (who seems to have fairly few previous roles) as major cast changes. (If the "Silence on the Set" article had gotten more press and really blown up, then that might make the list of possible reasons for turning people off, but I have only seen that discussed on Tumblr so far, and it appears to be only the one local article in a location they don't seem to be filming in anymore.)

Now, from what I've seen in the Tumblr fandom (both on my dash and in the main leverage tag), my impression is that people here largely think removing Nate was the right choice (either because of the allegations against Hutton or because Nate's arc had ended or both) and adore Breanna and her casting. But to know that, you have to look at what fans are saying and/or how they're engaging with the fandom rather than just looking at the fact that the new line-up isn't holding viewership. Otherwise, you might conclude, e.g., that getting rid of the (older, white, male) Mastermind and bringing in a young, queer, woman-of-color geek were a mistake for the show's popularity.

In terms of fanfic (the topic of the other post), I've seen people remark before about how little "fix-it fic" there is for Leverage. In terms of the changes in Leverage Redemption, I certainly haven't seen much, if any, fic that brings Nate back. I've seen plenty of fic that's enthusiastic about both Breanna and Harry. I have seen fic "fixing" the OT3 or having Parker do more masterminding or keeping Hardison in closer contact, suggesting that those are things that people genuinely did think were problems with the new setup.

Another obvious takeaway from the Leverage fanfic/fan content in general is that the Leverage fandom loves Eliot, but from the fic and posts I've read, my impression is that the Eliot the fandom loves is one who would never do the kind of shit Christian Kane is accused of. E.g., the fan content often delves more deeply into Eliot's bloody, ex-hitman past than the show ever has, while at the same time "Parker and/or Hardison have to practically sit Eliot down for a Powerpoint presentation to convince him they are romantically/sexually interested in him, too, because otherwise he will never make a move to avoid crossing their boundaries" is practically its own Leverage fic genre.

Now, are the creators/producers/etc. going to come to Tumblr and AO3 to figure out why their show is or is not doing well? Likely not, especially not AO3. (In this specific case, perhaps more likely than for other shows, since I think at least one of the creators has explicitly mentioned writing fanfic themselves.) But I do think there is value in the fandom talking about what they do like, what was done well, in addition to the things that make them walk away from watching further, even if the only people listening are other fans.

Leverage/Leverage Redemption isn't the only place where I have this frustration, BTW. I had a lot of fun with the MCU, before Infinity War/Endgame killed a lot of my enjoyment. And then, of course, they start rolling out a lot stuff following more diverse heroes, etc., whether that's highlighting already-established side characters (Sam Wilson, Black Widow), stuff that I'd never heard of before (e.g., Moon Knight; Shang Chi), and stuff that I had heard of and wanted to do well (e.g., Ms. Marvel, one of my cousin's favorite comics). And I just want to shake the people in charge and say "Why didn't you feature these characters before you soured me on the franchise as a whole? I didn't stop wanting to watch because you shifted away from white male superheroes. Now, if ratings go down, you're probably going to say people just don't want to watch [POC/Muslim/mentally ill/etc.] main characters, and that's not it at all."

I'm not really arguing that the fandom version of the show is actually going to get back to the creators/people deciding show funding/etc. and influence their decision-making or have a tangible impact on the way mainstream media operates, outside of (perhaps) explicit reviews of the work. I'm not arguing that people should continue to make fanworks for this reason, or should continue supporting shows just to avoid creators drawing the wrong conclusions. I'm just saying I find it comforting that there is a record out there, in all the fan content, of what it was about these works that spoke to people. And of what, in the show universe, put them off enough to warrant discussion or fix-its. I just think it matters.

[04dissection]

hi, for ask game~ 1, 3, 4, 11, 16 for Muu and 2, 5, 7, 8 for Fuuta, please 💖

HI ANON!!!!! Thank you so much for the question! This gets hilariously long so under the read more it goes.

Content Warnings: Discussions of suicide

Muu Kusunoki

1. favorite song lyrics?

I think it'd probably be these lines from After Pain.

"If you're going to make me the villain / It's okay to ignore me / If it's endurance, I'm used to it / It's just having another taste of it."

With the added context of It's Not My Fault, and with After Pain being very solidly about events after It's Not My Fault, I suppose you can say this is a part of Muu's difficulties with ascribing fault to herself- actually, since you asked me about both of them, I find it so intriguing T2 seems to exemplify a sort of contrast of fault and guilt that 0304 as a duo has. Muu doesn't feel guilty nor at fault, Rei deserved it because of what she did to her, while Futa does feel guilty and admits fault(or at least seems to), and, in a way, you can make their motives similar: they did what they believed was right. Sorry, tangent over, continuing on.

I just personally love this line because of how it's sung and how it somewhat subverts us expecting to her to hit a higher note(it's been forever since I've actually done any music theory, so I don't know the terms).

To include a line from It's Not My Fault, I really like this one! (Using the translation from Fandom as much as I... dislike using it since I couldn't find who made the translation originally and as we know It's Not My Fault's official translation is... rough).

"Don’t ever hate me, and don’t look for what lies “after and from” the pain. / Wait, wait, it’s not my fault! / You get it, right? It’s you, after all. / What a relief. Can’t be helped. Since I’m always meant to be pitied-"

I adored her referencing After Pain here, and telling us not to look into it- literally telling the audience 'don't look into me <3 you said you don't hate me! so you don't have to look into me!' I specifically always like 'I'm always meant to be pitied.' This line really says a lot about Muu, and especially of how she acted in T1- though that was also partially and probably mostly from fear.

I need to mention, though, Muu's not a manipulator. Even if she tries to, her personality will get in the way of it. The thing with her is that she sees relationships as purely transactional and that the right thing to do is just to let people get their way. It's not that she doesn't care about Haruka, it's that to her, his threat was what he wanted to do, so why should she get in the way?

She wants us to pity her because we, the audience, made pity mean forgiveness- so if we fit that into her framework of relationships, wouldn't that mean that the transaction is her making us feel bad for her in exchange for being voten forgiven? I hope that's something that will come up in T3.

3. favorite non-mv official illustration?

I can just say the cake art, but I actually really like the third anniversary art- which is my profile picture.

But I adore it. It's a very unsettling piece, what this the spotlight lighting and all, and her expression is so wonderfully creepy. I love this art set a lot, it's great.

4. favorite minigram episode/moment?

Episode 22! Specifically the third panel on this page: (x)

It's such a funny little minigram and I adore this single frame of Muu holding Jackalope so much. I like to imagine that she had wanted to hold him since he popped up in the interrogation room during her first voice drama. And I can agree, rabbits are really nice to hold on your lap as long as you aren't stressing them out too much.

Fun fact, actually- the minigrams associating Muu with plaid(31 and 38) is actually the reason why I have the my blog background as the squares. They made me associate her with those square patterns.

11. what are your favorite points about their story and the narrative surrounding them?

Definitely how both her and Rei caused the downfall of the other, in a way. Both repaid aggression with aggression, with one case leading to months of intense bullying and the other leading to a murder. I'm not saying that these are equal, but that doesn't make either good things to do. Muu and Rei both turned that hourglass on the other.

I don't know, it gets to me how much they seem to have torn into each other and the length of time they did. Rei wasn't some completely innocent girl, and neither was Muu- They're both messy with ugly emotions and ugly truths and ugly actions. In the end, both were hurt and more than likely both dead because of the abuse they suffered at the hands of both each other and their peers.

16. how do you think they actually sing in regular life?

I haven't seen what she says on the karaoke cards so if I'm wrong I'm wrong- but I think Muu is an alright singer at best. Her range is.... abysmal to put it nicely and her voice can be rather squeaky at times. If she is able to stay in her range though, she has a rather pleasant singing voice. I imagine she used to sing more and used to have a better voice, but once she began to get bullied she slowly just stopped.

Fuuta Kajiyama

2. favorite mv moment/frame?

Something really gets me about this moment in Backdraft. Something about watching yourself repeat your mistakes, and remembering how gleeful you were doing it- you really just become sick from the joy you derived from awful things. At least that's my interpretation of it.

...As a weird aside, I ended up spending like, half an hour trying to see if there was a word in psychology for what I meant. I'm still figuring out a new search engine over google(playing with a bunch of different ones) so my results are definitely different feeling. But it did remind me of flashbulb memories, so I guess it wasn't for nothing.

I also should mention I love the fact that Bring It On is 4:04 minutes long. As you probably know, that's an error code!

"The server cannot find the requested resource. In the browser, this means the URL is not recognized. In an API, this can also mean that the endpoint is valid but the resource itself does not exist." (x)

5. favorite voice drama line/moment?

Braze You! at the start is just 4 minutes of Es tearing into Fuuta and it's beautiful. I think it's just nice to see Es having a good time, even if that's from harassing Fuuta.

But that's not my favorite moment- Braze You! is definitely very fun to watch, but Baptism of Fire is absolutely one of the best VDs we've gotten so far- with Fuuta calling Es out on the hypocrisy of our previous votes- why WAS Kotoko innocent and him not? While personally, I'd argue that it was dependent on how both were framed in their videos, Fuuta doesn't know about those. And anyways, he's right. We ARE doing this all for fun. Even if he got entertainment out of cancelling people, we're still not that much better than him- in his perspective at least. At the end of this day, Milgram is a work of fiction. There's a degree of separation from the events we can give ourselves, even if the characters attack the fourth wall with all their might.

7. favorite relationships with another character if they weren't in milgram, the way you'd imagine or would like them to be?

Oh this is a difficult one for me... I'll go with Fuuta and and Yuno. She likes messing with people a lot and I think it'd be funny. I adore when characters mess with other characters in a playful way. Yeah this is short, but Fuuta doesn't exactly give me a lot of lee-way with how he talks about everyone.

8. what is your theory for their crime? if there is general consensus on it in the fandom, do you have any other, not-so-widely-accepted thoughts on it?

I generally do believe in the consensus that Fuuta was part of some sort of online 'purist' group- named 'the dark triad,' very ironic name you guys- and seemed to start a campaign on Killcheroy that led to her death- with him doxxing her at some point due to how close she lived to him. I'm not entirely sure on the importance of Rumerie as of now, but I can say for certain that he is important- I mean, the graffiti in Backdraft is literally both Fuuta and Rumerie's online names intertwined- but he's important in some aspect that I just haven't figured out yet.

...While I don't have much evidence for it, I think my major divergence from common consensus is that Killcheroy did not commit suicide. If there's anything that's been obvious symbolism in this series, it's that it uses the practice of taking off your shoes before committing suicide to convey the action- please note that with Mahiru's boyfriend, Hinako, and Muu(Haruka does not participate in this, but he does have his atrocities against shoes). But notably, in Undercover:

Killcheroy Es has both their shoes on.

Undercover is a music video that definitely needs more examination(There originally was a Mikoto derailment here, but that's a different post), and this is one of those things- because Undercover doesn't lie- it might dramatize, such as showing Mahiru strangling Es while they stand in for her boyfriend, but that's in a way, right- Mahiru is here for the fact she directly led to her boyfriend's suicide. While you could argue and say that Fuuta has no idea what happened- and as such doesn't know if she committed suicide or not, as he says in Baptism of Fire:

I believe this is jumping to conclusions. We have to remember: Undercover is not Fuuta's song. It isn't even Es' song, they're just the conduit. This is the song of Milgram itself, I believe. And Milgram definitely is not restrained by real world law and theory. So far, all the bodies of Es as the victims roughly match to what happened- even Mikoto's, who is just plain unable to access the memory. So why would Fuuta's be different?

That argument aside, while I currently don't have a lot of basis for it as I'm still figuring out a lot of the details in Fuuta's case, I believe Killcheroy died from health complications exacerbated from stress- presumably a heart condition, as a lot of the blood in the Undercover art looks like it came from approximately the chest area. My evidence right now is that I made it the fuck up, sorry, but it's the main one I can think of since I really don't think she committed suicide.

[goblinsofdiscord]

👹 SHADOW WORK 👹 + BONUS ON ENNEAGRAM

written by Larissa

Part 1 ☯ What is Your Shadow Side?

The concept of the “Shadow Self” is a Carl Jung original, although I don’t care much for the background of anything I’m interested in, so that concludes your history lesson. Distilled gold or bust.

The “Shadow” is essentially what we, as humans, deny or reject in ourselves. The “bad” or “good” qualities that we revile or relish. The Shadow can be what doesn’t gain us acceptance, parts of ourselves we were told were nasty, or parts that got us the kind of attention we despise, and so we unceremoniously stuffed them into the Shadow. BUT It’s also what we idealize in others, as if it's something we are unable to access. This process is largely unconscious, as our ego automatically shoves what’s undesirable into the Shadow, and highlights what’s desirable (in whatever frame that manifests for you, personally).

Why would we push traits we admire in others into our shadow? We may have been shamed, humiliated, chastised, or put in other “dangerous” feeling situations as a result of those traits. Like if you have a fear of standing out it’s probably because something negative happened in your past as a result - like a pack of envious girls kicked you out of your friend group or your parent made you feel like shit.

When our shadow is activated by a person or situation, it can show up as “triggers”, bursts of reactivity or projections. We can feel immobilized by terror, envy, shame or anger. It can literally paralyze you, often pulsating out of your chest, rising up to your face in red hot heat… you go into fight or flight. Or sometimes on a lower level, it just shows up as being illogically reactive and hostile or overly annoyed at someone or some situation. But it’s often where our principles, ego and self-righteousness reside. The absolutely non-negotiable terrain that you firmly plant your feet in each and every single day.

You might encounter someone out in the wild, socially, or at work - and they rub you the wrong way. You end up stewing on what a piece of shit they are for hours, and how you can’t believe someone can behave in such an abhorrent way. However, it’s possible they’re simply reflecting your Shadow back at you.

The Shadow is what you deny about yourself, or simply deny yourself, and project onto others. Another way of looking at the Shadow is as your repressed “Id”; the urges, desires and impulses (both libidinal and destructive) that you stifle and deny expression. And the more you repress these urges and desires, the bigger the Shadow gets.

Part 1 ☯ What is Your Shadow Side?

The concept of the “Shadow Self” is a Carl Jung original, although I don’t care much for the background of anything I’m interested in, so that concludes your history lesson. Distilled gold or bust.

The “Shadow” is essentially what we, as humans, deny or reject in ourselves. The “bad” or “good” qualities that we revile or relish. The Shadow can be what doesn’t gain us acceptance, parts of ourselves we were told were nasty, or parts that got us the kind of attention we despise, and so we unceremoniously stuffed them into the Shadow. BUT It’s also what we idealize in others, as if it's something we are unable to access. This process is largely unconscious, as our ego automatically shoves what’s undesirable into the Shadow, and highlights what’s desirable (in whatever frame that manifests for you, personally).

Why would we push traits we admire in others into our shadow? We may have been shamed, humiliated, chastised, or put in other “dangerous” feeling situations as a result of those traits. Like if you have a fear of standing out it’s probably because something negative happened in your past as a result - like a pack of envious girls kicked you out of your friend group or your parent made you feel like shit.

When our shadow is activated by a person or situation, it can show up as “triggers”, bursts of reactivity or projections. We can feel immobilized by terror, envy, shame or anger. It can literally paralyze you, often pulsating out of your chest, rising up to your face in red hot heat… you go into fight or flight. Or sometimes on a lower level, it just shows up as being illogically reactive and hostile or overly annoyed at someone or some situation. But it’s often where our principles, ego and self-righteousness reside. The absolutely non-negotiable terrain that you firmly plant your feet in each and every single day.

You might encounter someone out in the wild, socially, or at work - and they rub you the wrong way. You end up stewing on what a piece of shit they are for hours, and how you can’t believe someone can behave in such an abhorrent way. However, it’s possible they’re simply reflecting your Shadow back at you.

The Shadow is what you deny about yourself, or simply deny yourself, and project onto others. Another way of looking at the Shadow is as your repressed “Id”; the urges, desires and impulses (both libidinal and destructive) that you stifle and deny expression. And the more you repress these urges and desires, the bigger the Shadow gets.

Part 1 ☯ What is Your Shadow Side?

The concept of the “Shadow Self” is a Carl Jung original, although I don’t care much for the background of anything I’m interested in, so that concludes your history lesson. Distilled gold or bust.

The “Shadow” is essentially what we, as humans, deny or reject in ourselves. The “bad” or “good” qualities that we revile or relish. The Shadow can be what doesn’t gain us acceptance, parts of ourselves we were told were nasty, or parts that got us the kind of attention we despise, and so we unceremoniously stuffed them into the Shadow. BUT It’s also what we idealize in others, as if it's something we are unable to access. This process is largely unconscious, as our ego automatically shoves what’s undesirable into the Shadow, and highlights what’s desirable (in whatever frame that manifests for you, personally).

Why would we push traits we admire in others into our shadow? We may have been shamed, humiliated, chastised, or put in other “dangerous” feeling situations as a result of those traits. Like if you have a fear of standing out it’s probably because something negative happened in your past as a result - like a pack of envious girls kicked you out of your friend group or your parent made you feel like shit.

When our shadow is activated by a person or situation, it can show up as “triggers”, bursts of reactivity or projections. We can feel immobilized by terror, envy, shame or anger. It can literally paralyze you, often pulsating out of your chest, rising up to your face in red hot heat… you go into fight or flight. Or sometimes on a lower level, it just shows up as being illogically reactive and hostile or overly annoyed at someone or some situation. But it’s often where our principles, ego and self-righteousness reside. The absolutely non-negotiable terrain that you firmly plant your feet in each and every single day.

You might encounter someone out in the wild, socially, or at work - and they rub you the wrong way. You end up stewing on what a piece of shit they are for hours, and how you can’t believe someone can behave in such an abhorrent way. However, it’s possible they’re simply reflecting your Shadow back at you.

The Shadow is what you deny about yourself, or simply deny yourself, and project onto others. Another way of looking at the Shadow is as your repressed “Id”; the urges, desires and impulses (both libidinal and destructive) that you stifle and deny expression. And the more you repress these urges and desires, the bigger the Shadow gets.

Part 2 ☯ 👹 How Does Our Shadow Affect Our Lives? (a short example)

Imagine, if you will, a little boy named Billy Joe. He grows up as part of the proletariat. His pa, Alvin, works twelve hour days, and doesn’t like his job none but it’s an honest livin’ and he cain’t do nuthin’ to change it. “It’s how it is for us folks.” He gets home and puts his stinking socks up on the rotting ottoman and only interacts with his family insofar as he can bark at them to get him another cold one from the fridge. At dinner time, ma serves up the Honey Boo Boo ‘sketti special or maybe on nights when she’s feeling generous of spirit, boiled wieners with the fancy mustard.

Now there’s an uncle, let’s call him Uncle Rick. He didn’t settle for less like his brother Alvin, and when they are forced to see him each year over Christmas he causes quite a stir. Rick dares to have a “career.” He’s confident. He keeps himself in shape. He’s coiffed. He smells pleasant and doesn’t shrink to fit in with his low-striver siblings or parents. Maybe he has a young, attractive wife. He’s frivolous with his money and thinks nothing of picking decadent, over-priced alcohol for the big torturous Christmas event. His signature move is rolling up late in a flashy new car, while announcing his presence by dramatically wrapping up some deal on his cell phone. And while he might impress Billy Joe, the child also notices the eye rolls, groans and quiet comments from the rest of the family. Uncle Rick is so selfish, braggadocious, a scumbag city slicker.

Depending on Billy Joe’s personality type, or perhaps his age, he might interpret this information to mean that confident, successful men are hateable demons. This is internalized and goes into his Shadow. As he struggles to gain acceptance and love from his bloated alcoholic pa, he might unconsciously repeat these familial patterns - end up in a job he despises, drinking to dull the pain, and hating anyone he sees living their life in a more ostentatious or individualistic way. He may view others' successes through an envious or defeated lens, thinking it’s not possible for “us folks.” Maybe he gets a raise at work but is too embarrassed to share it over one of those Christmas dinners, for fear of rejection from his father. His Shadow keeps him small.

Now, if little Billy Joe is a totally different type of person, he might grow up despising his pa and internalize “working class” people, or viewing people with lower standards of living to be putrid and weak. He may seek to distance himself as much as he can from his family’s image. He now only eats fine, organic food. The mere smell of cheap beer makes him nauseous. Unlike Uncle Rick, BJ’s too ashamed to bring his hot wife to meet his undignified family. In Billy Joe’s Shadow lies the fear of failure, being broke, being seen as a worthless, weiner-eating loser. He sees someone struggling in the cold, shaking a mug for coins, and stares at them derisively for daring to pollute his short walk between Starbucks and the lavish tower he’s a CEO.

Part 3 ☯ 👹 The Shadow, The Ego + Self-Image

The Ego, which is Freud’s concept, is the protective mechanism we utilize to prevent us from experiencing pain, shame, humiliation, danger and any other rotten thing that threatens our self-image – which ironically is what CAUSES us pain, shame and humiliation. The Ego is our identity and where we can be deeply wounded. Much like the Shadow, the Ego’s purpose is to keep us “safe”. However, the rules and limiting beliefs created by the Ego become prison bars as we get older. They limit us from our full potential, prevent us from changing and from being truly self-aware.

The Ego is who you THINK you are. It’s a construct. A self-image. It’s what you tell yourself about yourself in the negative and positive. It’s your IDENTITY. It’s the “you” that you’re conscious of. You’re probably proud of these traits, as it’s the part of you that you feel “safe” or positive with identifying as “you”.. Like I can ask you - describe yourself in a sentence. You might say - Well I’m Suzie, I love kids/kids love me, I love cooking/cookin loves me, I give the best back rubs - oh yeah - and I’m a tenured secretary at Burn the World Acquisitions + Mergers.

THe Shadow is the parts of you that you do *not* identify as you, that you reject or envy. The Shadow is largely unconscious, The Ego is more conscious. It’s what you think you are or need to be in order to survive in this world. The Ego wants you to be what it thinks makes you “safe” - even if that’s not true.

Much like the Shadow, when your Ego boundary is butted up against it can become reactive, hostile and destructive. It’s the piece of you that believes with total certainty that you are a specific way, or you must be a specific way to survive. Anything that threatens that belief or image is “bad” or threatening.

Example - Maybe you have a strong conviction that you are the World’s Sexiest Man Alive. It’s how you define yourself. You oil yourself up with Sandalwood essence and perform extraordinary glute acrobatics in the large ornate mirrors mounted over your bed and on every wall. You are perfection. That’s great that you have that self-belief - it’s positive. But what happens when it’s threatened?

You’re the WSMA and then you meet a man who, somehow, is even sexier and not only that but is younger and richer. That cannot be. Your Ego will seek to crush him - whether it’s by trying to get outside opinions that you are indeed the sexiest one of all, or by pushing him as far out of your field of consciousness as possible. What if you can’t though? What if he gets hired at the same corporate Hellscape as you? Or your wife’s eyes linger a little too long on his biceps and she gets his number for business reasons. You can’t escape it. he becomes the star of The World’s Next Top Sexiest Man Alive. It’s possible murderous delights will dance through your head as you inevitably spiral into self-destruction. Unless, of course, you realize what’s happening and *sparkle emoji* heal and integrate *sparkle emoji*.

To the same token, if your ego is wrapped up in a more “negative” self-image, like say you identify as an unlucky fucker. A sad sack. You’d describe yourself as the World’s Unluckiest Lady Alive. Then when experiences, and information, and opportunities to the contrary appear in your life that you actually you could change, be happy, life could get better for you, you have skills, people like you - then your Ego will actively work to sabotage you. Basically. So if you find yourself in these negative self-image loops - this is why. Because your Ego has positively identified with a “negative self-image” and to think of yourself and believe the opposite for you is true, feels threatening.

👹 What is your Enneagram shadow type? 👹

You have an enneagram type in each center (head, heart, gut) and a wing on each of those types. The wing is the type on either side - so if you’re a 7, you would either be a 7w6 or a 7w8.

These wings create our “shadow” - an aspect of ourselves that we have access to but either reject, abhor or envy in others - because we don’t really see or acknowledge those elements so much in ourselves. So if you’re a type 9 with an 8 wing, you might see other people doing 8-ish behaviors - like being assertive, taking up a lot of space, streamrolling, being controlling - and it might trigger you, upset or annoy you, or you might wish to be more like that and therefore it creates a kind of envy.

The irony is, you do have access to those behaviors, they’re just in your shadow. And we have that in each center. So, if you have a 4w3 in your heart center, even if it’s not your core type, you will have an awareness of what your wing is doing in the heart or “image center”.

4’s are overly self-indulgent and inwardly self-focused and in a constant state of separateness, and often find 3-ish behavior’s of self-promoting, putting themselves out there, networking, social climbing, greasing people’s wheels, adapting to ideals - to be totally grotesque and cringe. Or the 4 heart may envy their shameless ability to do these things as the 4, even if not the core type, so a fix, still has access to it and can behave this way - they just cannot see it in themselves.

And if in your head center, if you have a 6w7, you have “superego” in the head center which is giving you an awareness of rules, morality, doing what’s right, how what you do impacts others or the people you care about, the collective, and unconsciously seeking a kind of baseline consensus or agreement - and because this is also the “fear” center - you are seeking security in your dominant instinct (social, sexual, or self-pres). So when you see 7’s or 7 fixers out there being chaotic and feeling the rules don’t apply to them, just making shit up on the fly, not caring about how what they say or do affects others, it can be both or either triggering/annoying or something you wish you had access to. “If only I could be so confident and careless.” But again, you also have access to that, you just don’t necessarily see it.

So you have a core type, a trifixation/trifix,, and then you have your shadow type… what you loathe, envy, ignore or are annoyed by… can you see your shadow? What do you dislike or like about what you see?

[chaosintheavenue]

Design Doc 3: Boulder

Chaos's obsession level: 3/3

I adore the Boulder Dome, so buckle up for a wild ride!

Bio med gel (the stuff inside these bad boys) was invented in the Boulder Dome.

'Those who refuse are put in cold sleep, using technology the original Dome scientists developed to aid space travel'- I've said it before but I'll say it again: Outer Worlds much?

This might be my British ass underestimating the size of the US, but it's always seemed utterly outrageous to me that it took Agnes and co a year to travel from California (let's assume Shady Sands or the Boneyard) to Boulder.

So, allegedly the Boulder scientists picked up on broadcasts from Denver, but ignored them because they were afraid of being attacked by 'diseased people'? My siblings in VB, YOU are the diseased people here.

Wagner from Denver makes a daring cameo appearance.

'Presper was able to talk everyone into a conference via video monitor' Zoom calls canon. I don't make the rules.

What does Presper consider Goddard responsible for? My best guesses would be a) The Plaguening of the scientists (which I believe was an accident and not Presper's intent) and/or b) The deaths of some of the scientists during the journey to the Dome.

There were mini quests planned that sound a whole lot like the 76 daily quest Ecological Balance.

We have our first mention of nutrient paste.

On how designers should express the overall feel and tone of their area to the audio team: 'Emote if necessary. Do interpretative dance. I don't fucking care'. This may or may not have been present in the last two documents, but it tickled me this morning.

Presper calling the Jackals 'humanitarians' is peak comedy to me.

The nutrient paste is the only food they have?!

Interesting difference between my lore and design doc lore. Officially, the interior of the Boulder Dome is very brightly lit, but in my version, all non-essential lighting is meticulously switched off to conserve power.

And now the design doc is mildly contradicting itself re: why the scientists wear environmental suits. It's definitely intended to be because they have the New Plague first and foremost, not because of the broken air filtration.

'Check for emergencies and task list'- I swear, these scientists are just playing real-life Among Us.

Who or what is Bedhead?

The original Think Tank appears. I find it equally adorable and hilarious that they want to 'taste' things like Nuka Cola and Mentats by having them dropped into their tank.

The doc is now claiming that the Prisoner was intended to be a vault dweller? Nah, no thanks.

Goddard's little Drama section is titled 'Angry Authority' lol.

The Daughter of Hecate living with the Jackals is literally called 'Crazy Bitch'.

I absolutely love how it's made abundantly clear that Goddard is irreversibly bald, just to make sure the Prisoner doesn't get any ideas of delegating the Jackals problem to him.

Goddard's terminal login is Sisyphus jhgfdfgh.

It's now been specifically pointed out twice that characters here don't smile much. Welp, can't say I blame 'em...

Saw a throwaway mention of Isaac Gant's armor and squealed. This is what I've been reduced to. God help us all when I get to doc 7...

The Robobrains subtly attempting to self-destruct despite their programming is sad.

There's bits of the Denver design document duplicated in here. Pretty sure the quest section was copied across as a template. If I had a penny for every time I've had to read about getting the brewery units working again...

I knew I didn't invent the name 'Nutripaste'!

Podunk, Colorado is back again in another copy-pasted segment.

Ending slides time. Most of these are fucking bleak. Poor Xian...

I find it intriguing that there was an ending slide for a ghoul victory.

[songsforthepierce]

Odd Tracks: Emo Kid - Adam and Andrew

So as I decided to not review a certain gamer song by a musician who gets into twitter fights with anyone critiquing him since I didn’t want to give him more attention (as of now, I may want to make a post talking him and making a bigger point about his behavior but I want to wait awhile for that). As I heard his early discography one of his songs unlocked a long buried memory within me, “This song reminds me of Emo Kid for some reason”.

Content warning/trigger warning for light discussions/mentions of self harm, homophobia, transphobia, mention of lgbtphobic slurs and use of, suicide, and eating disorders. I get this is a stupid comedy song but I don’t want to ruin someone’s day, all right?

I don’t really remember how I originally found this song but I probably found it in an amv or something. This song is very much a time capsule in subject matter, the sound, and how it handles said subject matter. This is a comedy song about well the emo scene at the time. The song did came out in 2006 after all. The first half is dumb but does give me a light smile. It feels like a parody song I would find on youtube. The “Blood Red Romance” is so clearly meant to be My Chemical Romance. It is just poking fun at the subculture with the look, the moody stereotype, an-

I'm an emo kid Non-conforming as can be You'd be non-conforming too if you look just like me I have paint on my nails and makeup on my face I'm almost emo enough to start shaving my legs Cause I feel real deep when dressing in drag

Wait, what was that last line? Was that meant to refer to the fact that there were guys in the emo community who would come off effeminate to androgynous or-

I call it freedom of expression Most just call me a fag Our dudes look like chicks and chicks look like dykes Cause emo is one step below transvestite

OH, well then...casual homophobia and transphobia sure was a lot more common in 2006 (not saying it still isn’t around but you know what I mean). ..this part really did not age well. Which like I know comedy songs have a 50% chance of either aging fine, to somewhat okay, or just not well at all. The fact these two straight (as far as I know) guys just casually said fag, dykes, and transvestite is...making me concerned if outside the song they would just use it regularly back then.

I'm dark and sensitive with low self-esteem The way I dress makes everyday feel like Halloween I have no real problems But I like to make believe I stole my sister's mascara Now I'm grounded for a week

The last two lines are funny I will give it that. But okay, like the part I understand that it is meant to be making fun of like emo teens and how they “don’t have any real problems” which I do remember that critique from back then. Though most emo kids i knew when I was an emo teen myself came from neglectful, dysfunctional, to abusive homes...sooo uhhhh...

Sulking and writing poetry are my hobbies I can't get through a Hawthorne Heights album without sobbing Girls keep breaking up with me It's never any fun They say they already have a pussy They don't need another one

Oh god, I can literally feel this aging badly as the song goes on. Also wait, why did they make a parody name for MCR but then said the actual band name for Hawthorne Heights? I know the earlier part of the song was like making a joke about how edgy the names of emo bands can be but actually you know what? I don’t care. I am moving on to the more important part which is the whole making fun of a guy for being effeminate which oh boy was that a common thing people made fun of emo for. 

Stop my breathing and slit my throat I must be emo I don't jump around when I go to shows I must be emo

You know it is hard getting back into this verse as a reoccurring part of the song when I keep getting hit by lines and verses that make me recoil in my seat. Also, the suicide imagery I know is meant to reference how emo had a huge stereotype of depression and people being suicidal when like were there people in the scene who were depressed and were suicidal? Yes. I think there is a better way to like bring up how there were people in the community who romanticized such but I don’t think the song was going for that. Also this is not the only references to suicide in the song with the line, “ I play guitar and write suicide notes”

My life is just a black abyss.. Ya know It's so dark

You know I would find this more funny if I just wasn‘t still recovering from how badly aged this song is turning out to be. Was I expecting this song to actually age well? Not really, but I didn’t think it was like this.

And it's suffocating me Grabbing a hold of me And tightening its grip Tighter than a pair of my little sister's jeans Which look great on me by the way When I get depressed I cut my wrist in every direction Hearing songs about getting dumped gives me an erection

I know the “Tighter than a pair of my little sister’s jeans” is meant to reference how skinny a lot of the guys in the scene would be. Like concerning skinny. I won’t deny there was fatphobia in the community and there were people in it who had eating disorders. Yet another jokey reference to self harm-Wait...what was that last line?

I write in a live journal And wear thick rimmed glasses

Wasn’t the thick rimmed glasses more of first wave to at the least second wave emo? Like really early emo? I guess that type of emo was still around. Also, I am surprised they didn’t say myspace since a lot of emo kids did use that and I tend to associate myspace with the emo era. I guess I should be grateful this part has nothing really bad in it. Like I know the two lines afterward are about the narrator telling his friends he bleeds black and cries in classes which okay whatever. I don’t care. But knowing this song when something bad happens-

I'm just a bad, cheap imitation of goth You can read me 'Catcher in the Rye' And watch me jack off I wear skin tight clothes while hating my life If I said that I like girls I'd only be half right

Oh here we go! Okay so there were goths and non-goths at the time who called emo that. There was also emo people who called emo teens and those who were more into Hawthorne Heights, My Chemical Romance, and other popular emo pop punk “mall emo” similar to how there were goths who called goth kids into musicians suck as Rob Zombie, Marilyn Manson (eugh), Slipknot, and such as “mall goth”. Also, yet again another weird reference to getting turned on by suffering. I know the singer is comparing the narrator to the main character of the book as both are seen as whiny when like the whole point of the book is it is about a teen going through a really shitty situation and not coping with trauma well. Oh and the narrator I guess is meant to be bi? Diversity win or loss or whatever.

I look like I'm dead and dress like a homo I must be emo Screw Xbox I play old school Nintendo I must be emo

Another casual homophobia moment I see. Also, what is with the Xbox and old school Nintendo line? Was that actually a thing in emo? Was that part of the subculture? Because I don’t remember that part when I dressed emo to light goth as a teen. Maybe it was and I just somehow I missed that.

Me and my friends all look like clones I must be emo

You know this could be a good critique on how even though emo is suppose to be nonconformist similar to goth but the people in both expect you to look a certain way so therefore everyone looks the same. But little bit too late on that and I think there are better people who could critique this.

My parents don't get me ya know They think I'm gay just because they saw me kiss a guy Well, a couple guys But still, I mean it's the 2000's Can't two or four dudes make out with each other without being gay? I mean, chicks dig that kinda thing anyways

Oh my god we couldn’t ended without yet another homophobic shit. I was about to ask how much longer this song was but it actually isn’t that long when thinking about it...but I feel like 3:03 is too long for this.

I feel like tacos

Look, I am sorry last line of the song where I almost typed “like” as “liek” you cannot save this song.

Well this song was...something. I remember I would listen to it as a teen and didn’t have a problem with it...but I was a stupid edgy teen so there’s that. Like again, I didn’t expect this being good when I went back to it in 2023 as an adult. I knew even back then the song was dumb but saw it as silly dumb. But now I am just like, “Wow, this song sure is a time capsule of the era”.

During my search for the song I did find the musicians official youtube channel where they posted their performance of the song and I found their facebook page. Oh and their myspace page. They haven’t been online in a long time. That or just don’t really post much nowadays. You know, I do wonder how they look back on this song or any of their other music since 2006? Also, there is a different version of this song where the beat is replaced with sounds from super nintendo. I remember in existed but I can’t find it. Like, I could look deeper but I really don’t care enough to at this point. This was certainly a song and I don’t know if I could recommend this to anyone. I mean, I guess if someone wanted a small window view of how the general public to an extent saw emo during the time period well here you go. This song has not aged well and I didn’t expect it to but there is a lot of this where I am just like “This song could be taken as a very mean spirited joke towards the community”. This was very certainly a song and no wonder I hadn’t listened to this since high school.

[uncloseted]

but femininity and womanhood aren't the same thing. you even said it. you're contradicting yourself. "she wasn't girly like other girls so she probably wasn't a girl. or maybe she was!" that sounds insane and also it makes no sense. it's progressive now to say that if girls don't like to be feminine they (probably) aren't girls?. even if it's a common experience for nb people, no one would've guessed that miley cyrus would come out as nb. most people don't even remember or care. a lot of people

who might seem cis (and not just from the way they look) would say that they're "just a person" or "just me". and i don't recall franky being asked about her gender. people just kept pressuring her to come out as a lesbian. and also many lesbians identify as non binary or even transmasculine. you don't believe me because you're not a lesbian. you have your statistics and studies but i know the real people i've seen. and i know i'm really annoying with this but my only friend changes the subject

when i try to talk about gender, my therapist i can't debate with, and people at suicide hotlines have better things to do. i'm literally going insane because I can't believe I'm the only one who sees this

With all due respect, I don't know what you're expecting to get out of this message. I've given you my views on this several times. I've unpacked the metaphysics of gender and provided a biopsychosocial model of gender that I think is compelling. As you say, I've given you statistics and studies about trans and nonbinary identities. I've given examples that you might be able to relate to of what the trans experience is like and provided resources created by trans people to help you understand how they view themselves and what their experience is like. You don't have to agree with me. But you know my views on this. You're not going to change my mind by trying to catch me in hypothetical "gotchas" about fictional characters. And I mean this with all the love and respect in the world, but if you feel like you have to call suicide hotlines to discuss your views on gender, it may be taking up too much of your mental energy. At the end of the day, whether you "get it" or not, whether you agree with it or not, the way other people live their lives isn't your responsibility. It's okay to be like "wow, that's weird and I don't get it, couldn't be me" and then move on.

All that said, against my better judgement, I'm going to answer the questions you've presented in your ask. Not because I think it will change your mind, but because I think it might help other people who are seeing this post to understand.

The original ask was about why people felt like Franky should have been nonbinary and the answer I gave is what I think. Rightly or wrongly, nonbinary people saw themselves in Franky's experience and they wanted that to be an official aspect of her character. I think masc or gender nonconforming lesbians felt a similar kinship to Franky and wanted that to become an official part of her character, too. There's nothing wrong with wanting to see yourself reflected on television or relating to characters who present themselves similarly to you. I think because Franky's gender identity was never really explored in series 5, lots of different types of people could relate to her experience.

Gender expression is a very personal thing, and people can present themselves in similar ways for different reasons. It's like we were talking about the other day with "dressing like a lesbian" - a girl can dress cottagecore in a tradwife way or in a lesbian way, and it's hard to know which it is without more context about the way the person views themselves. The same is true for people who present themselves in a way that's different from the traditional presentation of their assigned sex at birth. Some AFAB people present in a traditionally masculine way as an expression of their non-binary or trans identity. Other AFAB people present in a traditionally masculine way as an expression of their lesbian or WLW identity. Other cis AFAB people present in a traditionally masculine way because they just like how that style looks on them, or because they deal with body dysmorphia, or because they're a "tomboy", or because it works better for the lifestyle they have and activities they engage in, or a hundred other different reasons. Without talking to them, you don't know what their reasoning is for presenting the way they do. It's less that "if girls don't like to be feminine they (probably) aren't girls?" and more like "if people who were assigned female at birth don't like to be feminine, one of the possibilities is that they're trans/non-binary/genderqueer/genderfluid."

In Franky's case, she dresses in a way that's gender non-conforming, so she might be a girl, or she might not. We never really get Franky's view on it in series 5 of the show. In series 6 the official answer becomes, "Franky is a straight, cis woman who was uncomfortable with herself in series 5, but now that she's feeling confident, she presents herself as femme." That was a disappointing answer for a lot of people, nonbinary people and lesbians alike, and I think is a big reason why people still talk about it all these years later.

Also, and I say this with no respect, you can fuck right off with your assumptions about my sexuality. I am, and always have been, a proud member of the LGBT+ community, to the point where I live in a historically queer neighborhood to be closer to my community. That's one of the reasons I care about this so deeply and fight to protect the trans people.

[autolenaphilia]

Misandry is not real part 2

Transandrophobia bloggers turning into outright misandry believers seems to be a thing. This is another example. Like they say that "transmisandry/transphobia" doesn't imply the existence of misandry/androphobia, but apparently it does. I literally found this via a link from the same blogger's "transandrophobia faq". This blogger just calls it antimasculism instead.

This is literally just the concept of misandry rebranded, as ey admits farther down:

"It exists as an alternative term to “misandry”, which has been heavily co-opted by anti-feminists, from it’s original use by pro-feminist men to describe the ways in which the patriarchy and gender roles harm men."

So yeah, antimasculism literally trying to make the concept of misandry palatable by re-branding. And it's use for feminist theory is doubtful, because as defined here it's hopelessly vague.

"Men and masculine people" refers to anyone who identifies as a man or with masculinity; see the concept of masculine of center"

Like this is literally the justly mocked "women and femmes" but masc, lol. Antimasculism is apparently a kind of oppression that affects cis men, trans men, non-binary people, gnc women, which is a wide net of people with different positions in the patriarchy and issues. Hell you don't even need to be masculine to be affected, "it also affects non-men and non-masculine people."

It's simultaneously vague and yet essentializing, positioning anyone "masculine" as having the same interests, affected by the same oppression.

The lens of there being some bias against men and masculinity in a patriarchy is weird and I don't think holds any water.

The examples of "antimasculism" this text brings up describe real problems but I don't think they are best explained by some kind of oppression against masculinity and men. It describes things that are already accounted for by basic feminist theory, and the analytical lenses of patriarchy and (trans)misogyny.

For example it mentions butchphobia as a form of antimasculism. But describing it as part of a general "antimasculist" oppression doesn't make much sense. Butch women's masculinity is disdained, but that's not because masculinity in general is seen as bad. That oppression is instead grounded in the patriarchal expectation that women should be feminine, marry men and have children. This is why butch lesbians are especially hated by our society (especially trans butch lesbians), and why trans women are exiled from womanhood because we don't have wombs. This is basic (trans)misogyny and the gender essentialism that upholds it.

The other examples of antimasculism are even weirder, lumping some very disparate things together. "Transandrophobia" is of course also "antimasculism".But it adds even more shit to the list.

For example, it sees men feeling limited by the masculine gender role and forced into "toxic, patriarchal masculinity" is also "antimasculism". The post lists things like "Masculine people being seen as inherently violent, unable to be soft or caring" and "Masculine people being pressured to not discuss their emotions or issues, or show any vulnerability except for specific circumstances/relationships" as antimasculism. It also has "Gender non-conformity from men and masculine people being heavily criticized (often accompanied by accusations of predatory behavior)" as an example of antimasculism (you might have alarm bells ringing about what is included in the antimasculism concept going off right now, and you are right, but we'll get to that later).

I have expressed my doubts about the term toxic masculinity before, but that's not that relevant. But there are so many problems with this framing. Like, this kind of pressure to adhere to the uncomfortable parts of masculinity usually isn't directed at "masculine people" in general, but men in particular.

But the bigger question is: Isn't this the opposite of antimasculism? It's people, but especially men being oppressed for not being masculine, or feeling uncomfortable with aspects of masculinity. They are not oppressed for being masculine, but for being unmasculine or feminine.

It's a sign of how over-stuffed the concept of antimasculism is. It sees gnc women and gnc men being oppressed and tries to explain this in terms of some bias against masculinity. It's not masculinity, but gender nonconformity that is the basis of oppression here.

All while basic feminist theory explains this as men being expected to be masculine and women are expected to be feminine, in order to reproduce the patriarchal system. Women are expected to be feminine and be mothers, and men are expected as part of hegemonic masculinity to use violence to control women (cis or trans) and various other dissenters such as gay or otherwise gnc men.

Another example the text uses shows the basic problem with the idea of antimasculism. "Black and brown masculinity being seen as extra threatening and dangerous, and being seen as lesser than white masculinity." Isn't this explained better by racism rather than some bias against men and masculinity? Because you know, white masculine men don't experience this, which they logically would if it was some oppression against manhood and masculinity.

And this shows the basic problem with any idea of misandry/antimasculism. Yes, men are oppressed. But it is not on the basis of them being male. It is due to things like racism (especially anti-black racism), homophobia, transphobia or ableism. Some men are unfairly and disproportionally seen as physically and sexually threatening to (white) women. But it is black men and mentally ill or otherwise neurodivergent men. (I discuss how autistic men are targeted by mainstream incel discourse in this post)

It's not men in general, which would be the case of antimasculism/misandry was real. It's instead certain men who are oppressed and viewed with suspicion and disdain, due to transphobia, homophobia, ableism and racism. And the oppression of other "masculine people" are better explained by (trans)misogyny (in the case of butch women, cis or trans, or butch transfems in general) or transphobia and nbphobia.

But I'm not done yet, because that's not all the oppression that is thoughtlessly included in "antimasculism". Remember those alarm bells I talked about earlier? They were justified:

"Transfeminine people and others perceived as men also have antimasculism used against them, due to their perceived proximity to masculinity."

Of course we fucking get "transmisogyny is actually misandry" too. i have written extensively about this in a previous post. But I'll explain it again. I have been critical up to this point, but genuinely dispassionate, but this is personal and makes me rage.

When you stop seeing us transfems as oppressed by misogyny and instead affected by your antimasculism/misandry concept of oppression towards men, because we are misgendered as men, you are essentially continuing that misgendering and transmisogyny that you claim to just describe.

It is a rhetoric that lumps in transfems with men and claim we suffer from the same oppression.

It does this by boiling down transmisogyny to how people perceive and interpersonal interactions with transfems, instead of a systemic oppression that makes us an oppressed class that has little in common with cis men (which we would have to be for this misandry/antimasculism framing to make any sense).

It gives transmisogynists too much credit, takes them at their word instead of looking at the effects of their actions. And their transmisogyny only hurts transfems. Men are not harmed by their actions. Men are not being shut out from public spaces by being denied the use of the bathroom or changing rooms, transfems are.

It might be phrased in terms of safeguarding "real women" from "predatory men", but that only means transfems. Like transmisogynists like Posie Parker are fine with men going into women's bathrooms with guns if they are there to kill trans women.

When transmisogynist of the radfem type talk about "men" or "males" in negative terms, they often mean transfems. Like how else can you read your average "gender critical" blog when it's 99% explicit transmisogyny about how trans women are bad, interspersed with the occasional general statement that "men are trash". In the context of the blog it's clear that the "men" the blogger hates are transfems.

A lot of people who are against terfs base their idea of them on stereotypes of man-hating rabid unshaven feminists from 50 years ago. But I have written elsewhere that the real problem with "terfs" is not that they hate men, but that they hate women.

The whole thing about trans women being "perceived as men" also ignores how transmisogyny often takes the form of a violent degendering. We are seen as failures both at being men and women, trash in human form, an "it" that it is fine to do violence against.

Transfems are not treated like cis men and claiming that is itself misgendering. Seeing our oppression as being due to us being "perceived as men" is calling us men with extra steps. We are not hated for any perceived maleness, but for our womanhood and femininity.

Fuck your attempts to convince people misandry is real, whether you call it that or not. And especially fuck your attempts to explain transmisogyny with it.