#choice feminism is a lie

[ethicallysaucedlibraryfaggot]

Liberalism (and Choice Feminism) is Rotting Our Brains

I just saw a woman talking about the cosmetic surgery that she just had which is a surgery to remove the "excess" skin on her eyelids so her eyes would no longer be hooded.

This made me feel sick to my stomach, as it always does when I hear of/see people seeking to remove a feature that I also have.

Choice feminism would have us believe that every choice we make exists in a vacuum, that our decisions come solely from our whims and that they affect only us.

Cosmetic plastic surgery under this lens is sold to us (literally) as pure body customization and packaged in a cute little justification of "personal preference". If this were true, we would see the customization go both ways; you would see just as many people getting bigger noses, adding double chin, getting wrinkles, adding fat to stomachs. But you don't.

We are being fed white supremacy, antisemitism, anti-blackness, anti-indigenous poison and they are calling choice. When we point out that possession of these features are used to enact genocide even to this day (go look at the Nazi propaganda, look at the eyelids) we are accused of being un-feminist because we are shaming women for their "choices".

I am not against body modification, pierce, tattoo, stretch, mark your body to your hearts content. Just never believe the lie that our choices are exempt from white supremacy, patriarchy or capitalism. Over my dead body is some bourgeois surgeon getting 5 grand from me to help prop up Nazi beauty standards.

N.B. This in no way refers to gender affirming surgeries which are HEALTHCARE!

[thissmycomingofage]

Sorry I'm still on Daddy I Love him actually. She doesn't get the situation she was in, does she ? Because "my good name is mine alone to disgrace" really does sound like she thinks she was kept from ruining her image by associating with him...but no. Bestie your name was ruined. You did ruin it all by yourself. It's not his fault or ours if you associate with him without a single trace of care. When I criticize her for associating with Matty, I don't "want the best for her", I don't care about "changing the beat of her heart", I want a world where human beings, especially those with an influence such as hers, condemn disgusting people. That's all. She does that in I can fix him (no really I can) too. She really thinks we are worried about her. She doesn't realize we are disappointed and disgusted by her. There's a huge difference

[kthulhu42]

Stuck in a car with my sisters today and they were discussing the "evils" of J K Rowling

And whether or not the Basilisk being in the girls bathroom was a "metaphor" etc

And then they said "Nah, she's not smart enough to think up something like that"

.....

Smart enough to write 7 best selling kids books and buy a fucking castle though

Smart enough to know the difference between a male and a female though

Smart enough to look past choice feminism at the root of social issues and raise awareness and funds though

Maybe what they were arguing is "if she was smart, she'd lie and throw away her convictions to look good, like women are supposed to"

[yuri-for-businesswomen]

men pay for sex in lieu of putting in effort. men pay for sex because they dont care about female orgasm. men who pay for sex cheat on and disrespect their partners. men pay for sex because they want women to pretend for them to make them feel better about themselves. men pay for sex because they see women as vessels for their own sexual gratification. men pay for sex because they prefer an illusion over taking womens desires and humanity into account. men pay for sex because they feel entitled to have sex with (young and attractive) women. men pay for sex because they see women as trophies, and the ability to use money to make women sleep with them as a status symbol. men pay for sex because they prefer women to fake an orgasm instead of learning how to satisfy a woman. men pay for sex because they are lazy and entitled. men pay for sex because they want to degrade women. men pay sex because nobody is willing to perform their kinks. men pay for sex to dominate women. men pay for sex because they think marginalised women deserve it. men pay for sex because they want to do what they saw in porn. men pay for sex because they see women as objects. men pay for sex because they choose to believe a lie.

yet all the debate is about the womans choice. ✨feminism is when access to women‘s bodies can be bought instead of freely given and men are not held responsible for their choices and actions, teehee✨

[lorcandidlucienwill]

SJM's zionism as seen in ACOTAR: Fae males were territorial, dominant, arrogant—but the ones in the Spring Court … something had festered in their training.

Haha, what? You were just fine with them before, they revered you and respected you, and now they're suddenly suspicious because they live under Tamlin? It's giving "Ohhhh look at Hamas see see see? All Muslims are terrorists!" And I'm almost certain this is the justification SJM uses for Feyre to genocide the shit out of them in ACOWAR. HyBeRn'S aCtIoNs ArE tHeIr OwN sounds remarkably like Israel using October 7th to justify killing babies, maiming children, and abusing the elderly. They use this same mentality towards CoN citizens too despite Mor coming from there. But notice how Mor is somehow white. “Most of your soldiers are dead.” Eris only blinked. “And the good news?” “Two of them survived.” Nesta studied every minute shift on Eris’s face: rage glimmering in his eyes, displeasure in his pursed lips, annoyance in the fluttering of a muscle in his jaw. As if countless questions were racing through his mind. Eris’s voice remained flat, though. “And who did this?” Cassian grimaced. “Technically, Azriel and I did. Your soldiers were enchanted by Queen Briallyn and Koschei to be mindless killers. They attacked us in the Bog of Oorid, and we were left with no choice but to kill them.” “And yet two survived. How convenient. I assume they received Azriel’s particular brand of interrogation?” Eris’s voice dripped disdain. “We could only manage to contain two,” Cassian said tightly. “Under Briallyn’s influence, they were practically rabid.” “Let’s not lie to ourselves. You only bothered to contain two, by the time your brute bloodlust ebbed away.” Nesta saw red at the words, and Cassian sucked in a breath. “We did what we could. There were two dozen of them.” Eris snorted. “There were certainly more than that, and you could have easily spared more than two. But I don’t know why I’d expect someone like you to have done any better.” “Do you want me to apologize?” Cassian snarled. Nesta’s heart began to pound wildly at the anger darkening his voice, the pain brightening his eyes. He regretted it—he hadn’t liked killing those soldiers. “Did you even try to spare the others, or did you just launch right into a massacre?” Eris seethed. Cassian hesitated. Nesta could have sworn she saw the words land their blow. No, Cassian had not hesitated.

Cassian and Azriel are super duper mega warriors and they didn't even bother to try and save Eris's soldiers despite knowing they're innocent, yet we're expected to take Cassian's side over Eris's. It's giving "Israeli soldiers are traumatized over all the civilians they were 'forced' to kill" DAMN RIGHT YOU SHOULD BE TRAUMATIZED!!!

But Keir must have known, too. And said simply to Rhysand, “I want out. I want space. I want my people to be free of this mountain.” “You have every comfort,” I finally said. “And yet it is not enough?” Keir ignored me as well. As I’m sure he ignored most women in his life. It's giving, "I will colonize your land, I will trap your people in Gaza strip and systematically oppress you, but hey we didn't kill you! Why are you mad??" Also the white feminism in that last line I can't. THERE ARE WOMEN TRAPPED UNDERNEATH THAT MOUNTAIN GETTING ABUSED EVERY DAY!!!! It's the same reason no one cares that Palestinian women don't have clean menstrual supplies and no anesthesia for clean births. Because Palestinians are brown.

So Keir knew about Velaris. The Hewn City knew about Velaris. Before Rhys wiped their memory. This is a lot like Israel occupying Palestine and rewriting history to make it seem like they're the country and Palestine are the occupiers. But they can't delete all the evidence, and now the truth has come out.

[sokkastyles]

since you have spoken out of turn ONCE AGAIN I, “the stupid Stan” must educate you, the actually stupid Stan

This is one of the more depressing lines in ATLA, because Azula tried to peacefully coexist with Zuko earlier, because she tried to give everything he ever wanted and acted on the premise that it was possible for both siblings to be happy, successful, and equal.  

But as a result Zuko’s actions she’s come to accept the toxic paradigm of sibling competition created by Ozai and accepted by Zuko where the rise of one sibling inevitably means the fall of another, where it is impossible for her to coexist with her brother unless(at the very least) one of them has been violently forced into submission by the other(if it is possible to coexist at all).

You know, Katara runs out into the arena at the Agni Kai just when Zuko is beginning to taunt Azula about lightning. I have zero idea of what was going through her mind.

You know, ever time I think about the final Agni Kai, I’m reminded why I’m terrified that Zuko having Azula under his control post-canon would lead to him abusing her.  I like to think and hope that he’s better than that, but it would absolutely be keeping with the dynamics between the siblings.  Azula shouldn’t have power over Zuko, and Zuko shouldn’t have power over Azula; otherwise things will end poorly

#zuzu stans are retarded

I "spoke out of turn"? You came into my inbox, numbnuts.

Also, poor choice of words unless you're trying to mimic Ozai, which does seem the case considering everything else you've said.

At least you're not making any pretense that this is about protecting disabled people, since you feel very comfortable using an ableist slur, or about feminism, given the other asks you sent me calling me a "stupid bitch." I shouldn't bother with your nonsense but this one is actually really dangerous for the myths about abuse it puts out.

I like to think and hope that he's better than that

Don't lie. You are VERY willing to demonize Zuko and twist the narrative to make it look like he's the abuser. You just aren't very good at it.

Azula DID NOT try to "peacefully coexist" with Zuko, and that claim in and of itself is abuse apologism. Because there is no peaceful coexistence while Zuko is living with Ozai, and Azula not only brought him back there, she would have brought him back there as a prisoner if he hadn't sided with her.

She's not doing him a favor by bringing him back as an ally because she is the reason he was a prisoner in the first place. She's not doing him a favor by telling him to stay away from Iroh because she is also the reason that Iroh is a prisoner. But abusers are actually very invested in creating problems just to convince you that they can provide the only solution. It is literally an abuse tactic. That is what Azula does when she tries to "peacefully coexist" with Zuko. None of this is for Zuko's benefit, but it benefits Azula for Zuko to think it is.

It also benefits Ozai, since Ozai wants Azula to be his golden child and Zuko to take the blame for everything Ozai doesn't approve of. Ozai did not encourage them to fight each other, and he certainly didn't encourage them to compete. It makes no sense that he would, because he does not want Zuko, his scapegoat, to be able to or even think he could compete with his golden child. He doesn't want them to fight each other. He wants Azula to fight Zuko. And Azula wants that, too.

You say that Azula should not have power over Zuko but fail to acknowledge that Azula did have power over Zuko, which is why when she brings him back to his abuser with a heavy dose of "prove you're not a traitor" and the knowledge that if he didn't, he'd be thrown in prison, plus being separated from the one adult who actually cares about his well-being, it isn't a peaceful coexistence. Zuko is not peacefully coexisting, he shows telltale traits of being abused and gaslit, and describes how he feels like he's not himself, feels like he's losing his mind, is angry all the time but can't articulate why. It's because he's being abused.

Azula also has power over Zuko by virtue of being Ozai's golden child who Ozai allowed and encouraged to treat her brother badly. That's another big reason why there is no peaceful coexistence under Ozai's roof. Not because of some general idea that they're in competition or are mutually toxic to each other. That's actually a myth that abusers use to try and control their victims and obfuscate their own culpability.

Oh, there's also the fact that Azula tried to kill Zuko numerous times.

Azula should not be allowed to have power in any capacity and she's shown that she's very capable of manipulating Zuko and others even from the diminished position she is in in the comics, and that is because he wants to help her and makes the mistake of trusting her. Interpreting this as him somehow abusing his power over her is a very deliberate attempt to make the victim seem like the perpetrator.

Also lol at the victim blaming of Katara that is casually thrown in there. Really doesn't help your argument!

[theerurishipper]

Something I will never not be salty about is that Kwamis choice was Marinette's equivalent of Adrien's Kuro Neko, hitting their lowest points and "leaving bc they got rejected by their superhero partner"

which in Adrien's case wasn't even true, season 4 just had to suddenly pretend like it so Ladybug can get out of the conflict without learning anything and taking 0 accountability because that's the shows type of feminism, but Marinette in season 5 absolutely DID leave bc she couldn't have Chat Noir anymore. Oh how almost pathetically hypocritical.

Anyway, what I was getting to is that Kwamis choice part 1 is Marinette's Kuro Neko and MAN, that really shows off just how much Marinette is getting pampered senseless.

Loving parents who were worried about her, checked on her and baked her goods, Adrien and Alya checked on her, Miss Bustier had the homework being brought to her

And of course Adrien himself did everything in his power to be there for Marinette in the way NOT A SINGLE SOUL BESIDES PLAGG was there for him in "Kuro Neko"

I swear this show constantly pretends like no one had it ever worse than Marinette and she's oh so all alone and yet in comparison to Adrien/ Chat Noir she basically never is??

I WANT to be sympathetic towards Marinette's struggles and feeling of loneliness which has indeed gotten worse since the start of the show, but the show isn't LETTING ME because whatever Marinette thinks her loneliness and isolation are is simply nothing in comparison to the ACTUAL isolation and loneliness Adrien is being put through, in and outside the mask.

In comparing to Adrien in Kuro Neko, Marinette in Kwamis choice is simply being pampered senseless and it's so frustrating bc I hate that the show's writing has left me so unsympathetic towards Marinette in these cases. This IS normally a character story I highly sympathize with but the show is demanding of me to disregard the fact that Adrien/ Chat Noir has it worse and gets NON of the resources and support she has so, no?? I can't ? And that's the show's own fault.

Marinette is just as per usual crying harder and saying that no one will ever understand her pain when like.. gurl, Chat Noir is right tf THERE. Do u think he COULDN'T perfectly understand your struggle too? As if she doesn't know that unlike her HE ACTUALLY doesn't have anyone to confine in. Never had and continues to not get.

Gosh, I WISHED I could feel for Marinette in that episode and Elation too, but Jesus Christ is this hypocritical Towards Adrien/ Chat of season 4 in every possible way.

Like, I do get it. Trauma isn't a competition, and I understand the feeling of knowing that you have so much support around you, but still feeling like you're all alone. I understand that Marinette feels like she's living a lie and that she's all alone. I understand everything she's going through.

In fact, my problems with the way Marinette's struggles aren't because I think she's overplaying them or because I think they aren't valid. My gripe is that the show focuses on Marinette's struggles and Marinette's struggles alone. Like you said, at a certain point, it feels like the show is pushing the idea that Marinette is the epitome of human suffering and invented misery or something. Her struggles are valid, of course they are. But the show also doesn't seem to want to acknowledge Adrien's struggles in the same manner. And like you said, he doesn't even have a support system apart from Plagg the way Marinette does, and the narrative can't even be bothered to acknowledge that.

The show spends so much time on Marinette's struggles that it neglects to focus on Adrien's, or even other characters' in general. Adrien's struggles only matter when they relate to his relationship with Marinette or when they are beneficial to her in some way. Or else, it's just him being an inconvenience to her and he needs to stop being so sensitive and emotional, because that's not what emotional support partners are for. The show continually refuses to recognize how bad Adrien has it until it has something to do with Marinette. Adrien is being mind-controlled by his father and is living in an abusive home, and the abuse and mind-control are only treated as significant threats the moment they start threatening Adrienette.

Again, my problem with this isn't the fact that Marinette has struggles. My issue is that in order to deal with Marinette's struggles, Adrien's struggles are diminished and ignored by the narrative, and asking me to ignore that to focus solely on Marinette just ain't it for me. I wish I could feel sympathy for her, because her situation and her feelings are something I can greatly relate to. But I can't, not when the narrative is pushing her struggles forward at the expense of Adrien's. And Kwami's Choice even had Adrien be the one to bend over backwards to help and support her in ways she never does for him. All his struggles are made into the "Marinette is so sad because Gabriel is abusing her boyfriend" show, and I genuinely can't sympathize with her when this narrative is being shoved in my face.

I don't want Marinette to go "my struggles don't matter because Adrien has it worse!" I don't want the show to say Marinette's struggles are less worthy or less deserving of empathy than Adrien's. I just want Adrien to get some focus and get to deal with his problems outside of just being the perfect emotional support for her to lean on while he asks nothing of her. I want the show to stop pretending that Marinette is the end-all be-all of suffering. It really doesn't help me feel more sympathetic towards her.

Thank you for your ask!

[lilwifeynextdoor]

Your blog is amazing!

Imagine: You are a former feminist, a stay at home mom of many kids, and I'm your feminist friend who visits you one day. I am worried about you and ask if this is really what you want even as I rub your belly and smile. You listen to me rant, all the while thinking that what I really need is some cock and a baby or two of my own. That would keep me happy and see, part of me loves rubbing your pregnant belly already. You decide to slowly corrupt me into becoming an antifeminist breeder, friends don't let their friends remain sad. How would you manipulate me?

Thanks.

Thank you so much!! I'm sorry I took so long to respond! I've been a busy mommy and I wanted to find the time to give this a well thought out answer. Short story below:

I freed myself of feminism what feels like so long ago, but to some five years isn't a long time. Five years ago, I had fallen pregnant with my husband's first child. I dropped out of college and became a stay at home mom around my 7th month of my first pregnancy, upon my then boyfriend now husband's request. He didn't have to do too much persuading as I was already considering it due to struggling with fatigue, waddling, and brain fog. He was right, it was only going to get more difficult for me to walk to classes not to mention trying to think once in the classroom.

It was the right decision for us and his growing baby. But, most all my friendships faded now that I wasn't on campus anymore. You were the only one that came and visited me sometimes, we were best friends and we had met in women's history class. You were so inspired in that class, I could see the passion in your eyes when you spoke about feminism. I was inspired by your spirit, and for a long time I held on to the idea that feminism is about a woman's right to choose, and I made the choice to be a stay at home mom.

Our lifestyles are so different, years went by and our friendship faded more and more. Until one day you showed up at my husband's doorstep. It had been a long while since I had seen you, last we met up my husband and I had 2 children and now we have 5 with his 6th on the way.

Of course I invite you in. My husband is at work and my children are all down for a nap except for our current youngest who I am holding and nursing as we sit at the kitchen table.

You had been so worried about me recently, but now that you are here you take pause. The house was lovely and tidy, the tea I served you was comforting and delicious, and on top of that I was absolutely glowing. Then you notice, the bump I'm sporting moves as the baby inside rolls and kicks. Without thinking you start rubbing my belly, like some sort of strange magnetism, your hands were drawn to it. I scoot closer to you to invite you to continue.

"I've been worried about you" the words you've been meaning to say all this time spill out of you.

An incredulous gasp leaves me when I ask you why you've been worried about me.

"I see your posts on social media, I know this is your sixth in just as many years... congratulations by the way" You stumbled through your words. "Is this what you really want?" You look up from my belly to search my eyes for an answer.

"Of course! This is my choice" I gesture to my home. Which is to you: my cushy prison.

"No it's not, you can't tell that lie to me! I was there, I know what really happened!" You stand up, outraged. "He knocked you up and told you to drop out, he's controlling you and has kept you stuffed full of babies ever since so you can't leave! So you can't live your own life!" The passion in your voice was tinged with some kind of hurt, or jealousy?

"well hold on, you're right our first was a surprise to me. But, I am so happy. I really feel like my experiences have shown me this is the way life is meant to be." I try to soothe you, to call you down from the edge you've gotten yourself onto. "So no need to worry for me okay?" I smile to you, hoping you'll smile back.

When you smile and sit back down, I notice how worn thin you are. Your skin and hair is dull, the way you conduct yourself is full of sloppy and tired movements.

"How are you, are you happy? Have you found your calling?" I ask, but already see the answer.

"Well I'm fine. Work is okay but it's not what it was cracked up to be. All the guys at work are losers, and they are always pissing me off. I do wonder if I haven't found my calling, yeah, maybe I majored in the wrong thing." Your sharp defensive tone falls to a nagging grumble as you go on and on.

"it's a little late to start all over like that and go back to school." I point out.

"You think I should keep sticking it out and climb the ladder?" You try to muster some hope into your voice.

"Actually I was thinking the opposite, you should quit that job. Look for something easier and part time. Do you have a partner? Surely he makes more than you and wouldn't mind you leaning on him for support." I ask, thinking surely you can't have stayed single all this time.

"What do you mean surely he makes more than me?! And no I don't have a boyfriend!" You bolt up again, feeling attacked.

You stormed out on me that day with your ego bruised. But you came back around. My words still stung, because I had a point. It gnawed at you and you couldn't help but try taking my advice. You did get that part-time job, and you spent your new found extra free time at my house helping me with my children and to-do list. With working less you were already doing so much better, not near as stressed, cleared skin, and your hair had shine again.

You slowly but surely stepped away from being career focused as I got you more and more comfortable with domesticity. Women belong in the home, so it was naturally very easy for you to fit right in to the lifestyle. My husband took us shopping as I needed bigger maternity clothes and you definitely needed something more becoming of an available young woman.

Then one day, I had you stay over for dinner and my husband brought one of his colleagues home with him to have dinner with us. The match making game had begun. Now that you were completely ready to settle down and assume the natural role of a woman beneath a man, serving him and birthing his children, any man would be so lucky to have you. You've become such an enlightened woman in these modern times where so many silly girls still cling to feminism like you once did.

Today you're absolutely beaming and radiant. You've announced your pregnancy! Your husband's first baby is officially on the way. I'm so happy for you and I hug you best I can with my husband's 7th due any day now. I'm truly proud of the woman you've become and will continue to grow to be.

(I'm so sorry I'm a confrontation person and not a manipulation person, I did my best, it's still something, I hope you enjoy!)

[f1minist]

Feminist Youtube Videos for Every Topic

A collection of feminist content, organized topically for ease.

Separatism:

on separatism and heterosexuality

why separatism is good

we're gonna die sometime. might as well be separatists.

stop choosing patriarchy

separatism is a choice

biggest impact, but most won't do it

on vetting men

the benefits of separatism are endless

men cannot be rehabbed

of course the slave is full of rage for her slave master

Lesbian Stuff:

who can use the word 'lesbian'?

on defending gay rights and spaces

what are lesbians supposed to do about het women?

gender critical lesbophobia

the constant rage for gold star lesbians

Political Lesbian Critique:

a simple breakdown of political lesbians

political lesbians... are you ok?

political 'lesbians' are not actually lesbians

i didn't 'come to lesbianism'. i was always here.

homosexuality is not a choice

for those who confuse polilez vs febfem

Comp Het Critique:

comp het isn't a thing

lesbihonest-art (RIP) on comp het

on lesbian experience, by @sunlight-beauty

on comp het, by @rakastiikeri

sespursongles (RIP) on comp het

Preferred Pronouns:

on 'cis' and other language

pronouns are rohypnol

preferred pronouns? no.

what are your pronouns?

Anti Make-Up / Beauty / Femininity:

3 years without makeup: 5 benefits i've experienced

sephora girls: why are ten year olds wearing make-up?

marked women

makeup isn't empowerment

why i stopped wearing makeup

bimbofication: a dangerously idiotic trend

empowerment? no.

give the middle finger to patiarchy

radfems in eyeliner

makeup infinity

on makeup and radical feminism

maintaining the status quo hurts all women

the audacity of the bare-faced woman

critiquing is not shaming

why do women do beauty?

choice feminism is a lie

actually gender critical

Anti Surogacy / Natalism / Procretion:

about mothers

forced pregnancy is involuntary servitude

egg "donation" is exploitation

on sperm giveaways

motherhood is not untouchable

homosexuality does not include reproduction

why i don't want kids

why i'm childfree

on procreation and patriarchy

Porn / Sex Work Commentary:

instagram vs porn

'sex-positive feminism' benefits men (and hurts women)

the influence of porn on the trans trend

on 'sex work'

speaking out on prostitution

'sex work is work'? no, not really.

let's stop acting like 'sex work' is empowering

is porn 'for women' okay?

porn is apocalyptical

'ethical porn' cannot exist

stop glamourizing 'sex work'

porn is the pinnacle of evil

is r/antiwork pro exploitation?

Trans Critical:

mainstream, revisionist, queer nonsense

why transwomen don't have 'female brains', from @ilistened2transwomen

why the hate?

why i decided to stop using the term 'transwoman'

on trans rights activists

TRAs loooove white men

the untouchable male creep - AGPs on parade, from @ilistened2transwomen

'intersectional' does not mean 'trans inclusive'

non-binary is deeply rooted in misogyny

25 questions for trans activists

women's sports are not a dumping ground for mediocre men

on "identifying as" women

stacia samaya on 'non-binary'

why sex is binary

trans rights, or trans privileges?

always chasing the dragon

27 ways in which trans activism is harmful

the actual human rights law

on 'trans women are women'

is transitioning ever 'the best' option?

autogynephilia - a brief overview

the rise of the heterosexual queer

phobia indoctrination

transing away the gay

5 tips for talking gender critical, by @runawaysiren940

the transing of language

autogynephilia, not dysphoria

rainbow-washed progressivism

transwomen are not women

how i became gender critical

autogynephilia explained

[ofbreathandflame]

Why you care so much about what feyre and her stans are doing🤔

you know, im actually very glad you sent this in anon, though i know it wasn't sent in good faith. when i say feyre 'stans' - i am being 100% sarcastic. my argument is that i don't believe the people who peddle the idea that they hold feyre to be first actually believe that ideal. i also believe they end up purposely derailing actual conversations about abuse, feminism, and racism bc they don't want to actual critique rhys, so they end up selling much more intentional bs to avoid the conversations all together,

as to why that matters - i can explain.

(1) i think a lot of people who work under the idea that they like feyre 'first' believe that a female perspective = feminist. in theory, i believe a lot of rhys stans subconsciously (or consciously) understand that his actions are villainous (to some capacity). like they do understand that there's only so far they can actually support sexual assault. i think a lot of people use feyre to circumvent this issue: if feyre agrees or even likes the abuse, then it cancels out the implication of the it. and this partially because the book flocks to do the same thing - it never introspects about what x character's actions say about them as a character. think about it - even if we work with the idea that rhys doesn't enjoy the abuse he put feyre through, going as far as to reiterate that he feels shame -- we have to question why the story responds to that with plainly stating that feyre actually enjoyed the abuse and/or felt genuine attraction rhys in those moments. because then it (a) removes the idea of moral-greyness; rhysand never has to reflect because the story always believes he secretly justified. (b) there should still be a conversation about what that means. the mating bond operates as both a justification and a rebuke of feysand's actions (c) it puts into question what the story is actually arguing about feyre's trauma from utm. if feyre always secretly wanted rhysand utm...so much to unpack there. we're not genuinely rebuking abuse. and that's fine if you're drawing a scene or simply entertainment - it becomes worrisome when we considered that there is a lesson being put forth.

(2) people who use feyre as the scapegoat to often time sidestep conversations. feyre's narration is only considered when it validates rhysand's abuse - other times, the idea that we should consider canon wholly (analyze the information we're given v. what we're told) becomes nonexistent. so even though feyre has reiterated her boundaries to rhysand (and even though rhys is already aware of those boundaries via his mental snooping), there still this need to 'hear things from rhys side' - even though we know what feyre choice would have been. we know that feyre would have never wanted that information kept from her. its literally been her only consistent trait- don't lie. and as i said in this post: even the act of creating the intervention undermines three books of feyre's narration cementing her boundary.

(3) 'feyre stans' often hijack the conversations; the conversation about racism (and rhys's absue) always stalls because -- AGAIN -- there's only so much analysis they can happen before you realize the problem is both sjm's ideology and her obsession w/ rhys. at some point they always end up defending sjm (and her racism and misogyny). there's a struggle between actual unpacking rhysand's action and what that means for him as a character. they do want to have the serious conversations, just not in a way that detrimental or all-encompassing. selective reading, plain and simple.

i also believe thats why there so much overblown hate for tamlin (that in my opinion, backfired terribly esp over the last three years) is merely insecurity about the problems w/ rhys's charcater. morally, there only so many conversation we can have before the weirdness rears it head. we can't argue tamlin is abusive and then in the same breadth argue for the neccessity of the same form of abuse. we can't argue that rhys is morally-grey and then ignore the greyness area. we also cannot say rhys grows as a character if we argue that he never grows from the person we met utm. we can't say that we 'recognize' he was wrong, but then constantly uplift those very moments as moments of love. we can't say sjm has racial/moral in her story and then remove how that effects more favorable characters.

[pillarsalt]

How do you cope with loneliness? My friends are so important to me but sometimes I feel like I can't fully relate to them anymore, and I just think about how they would hate me if they knew I was GC. I have TIF and even a few TIM friends that I love and cherish very dearly because I can see that they've just fallen victim to a toxic ideology feeding their body dysmorphia and self-esteem issues. But I can't tell them how genuinely worried I am about their mental health or send them detrans testimonies that I think they would relate to because they'd think I was some hateful violent monster that I'm not. Even the content creators that bring me joy and comfort are all so fiercely anti-TERF and it just makes me sad. I don't want to hurt anyone. I even distanced from the radfem community a bit because I felt like I was becoming too hateful towards men and TIMs when I truly believe many of the ones in my life are just trying their best and fell victim to a manipulative ideology that myself and other women also fell for. It's not that I wish I was still a TRA, because I feel much more at peace internally with my identity and my belief system, but I don't know if I can say peaking has made me happier overall. I feel like I don't fit in anywhere now. Making radfem friends helped a little bit but it's not the same as being around people I've known for years and gotten close to for reasons other than this one shared belief. I don't just want to abandon them all. And it's FRUSTRATING to see people spew misinformed fearmongered nonsense and not be able to actually help them dissect those beliefs. Feeling like the only one who sees things for how they really are, but forced to play along regardless, is just so restrictive and isolating.

To be completely honest with you, I don't have a great answer. I've been lucky to have one or two close friends at a time to whom I can tell everything, including my uncensored feminism-related beliefs. I've also been (and currently am) in friend groups with multiple people who identify as trans or are dating someone who identifies as trans, and have had to keep my thoughts and opinions to myself to keep the peace. I agree it's incredibly difficult sometimes, and I know a fair few of them would instantly drop me if they knew I was a "terf". It's kind of funny because I know some of them have an inkling of what I think about the issue, but say nothing so they don't have to fight with me. If anyone asked my opinion directly, I wouldn't lie, but I admit that I lie by omission.

It is hard to watch the ones who take the medicalization route hurt themselves. My ex girlfriend and I still talk, she's a they/them nonbinary now and despite always and still being very feminine and never expressing discomfort with her body before (including posting thirst traps often,) she wants to get a mastectomy soon. It sucks because of course after having looked into this phenomenon for so long, I'm well aware of the complications and side effects that can result from a major procedure like this: phantom pain/itching, extensive and restrictive scarring, the risks of infection and necrosis, and of course the risk of regretting having an entire organ unnecessarily removed from your body later on when it's no longer fashionable to do so. It sucks that voicing even the mere suggestion that it might be a bad idea is enough to have you shunned as an apostate. I genuinely care about her and I would feel similarly if she was having any other radical cosmetic surgery like breast implants or a BBL. At the end of the day, our friends will make their own choices regardless of how we feel about it, and the only thing we can really do is be there for them in the end.

I feel similarly to you in that I don't want to hurt anyone, only to protect people and especially women from the harms that are intrinsic to trans ideology. Unfortunately, you can't help anyone who doesn't want to be helped. Sometimes though, you can play dumb and ask questions that might get them to think a little bit more about the rhetoric they're repeating. For example, I often go out for drinks with coworkers, one of whom is a she/they nonbinary woman. One time she said something about how she couldn't be a full they/them because she's still 'girly' sometimes. I said something like "doesn't it seem kind of regressive to associate how feminine you are with how much of a woman you are? what about butch lesbians?" She didn't have an answer and brushed it off, but I could see the cogs turning a bit. Playing the uninformed normie pointing out the obvious sometimes gets them to realize how twisted the logic in trans echo chambers can be. And I think sometimes expressing your disagreement with the dogma can show your friends, who know you well and know you're a good person, that, contrary to what they've been told, not everyone who disagrees with gender ideology is an evil nazi out to slaughter transwomen in the streets.

But yes, in general, it is very very isolating to hold radical feminist beliefs. I'm sorry you're going through it. One thing to remember is, there are tons of women even in your general vicinity, who like you, don't buy into gender rhetoric but aren't saying anything in order to preserve their safety and social lives. I do believe that as the world seems to be becoming more aware of the reality of the situation, more and more people will feel able to be open about their dissent, and it will become less of a fringe opinion as the flaws in the ideology are exposed. Here's hoping I guess. Keep your chin up anon.

[allgirlsareprincesses]

I'm so curious as to what your thoughts are on acomaf/Rhys. Personally, the reason the second book infuriated me was bc SJM completely shifted Tamlin's good traits onto Rhys, while erasing the fucked up things the latter did (like breaking Feyre's arm 😅), and thus clumsily erasing chances for interesting complex grey-morality characterizations for both characters. Also Feyre forgot about Tamlin so fast it almost made the first book seem useless lol. idk, I just liked Tamlin and feel he was done dirty with the weird lib-feminist makeover acomaf got. I did continue reading the series though. I'm not trying to make you uncomfortable speaking about this, so feel free to ignore this ask. Have a lovely day 💖

Phew! So my issues with the series are NUMEROUS and some day I will go into all the reasons I quit ACOMAF 3/4 of the way through, but for now, let me sum up my problem by comparing it to another modern phenomenon: Frozen.

Like ACOTAR, I have many specific dislikes about the Frozen series, but my main problem with it is the way it cynically uses fairy tale motifs against the audience, but then still wants to claim it is a fairy tale. Frozen's setup gives the audience absolutely zero reason to doubt or distrust Hans (other than the arrival of Kristoff). In fact, Hans and Anna have one of the best insta-love songs from the Disney collection, and it galls me TO NO END that it's a trick, a lie. And then the rest of the movie repeatedly mocks the audience for believing in fairy tale love ("You can't marry a man you just met!"), as if to say everyone who has enjoyed Disney fairy tales up to this point is a sucker. Yet then it expects us to invest in the Anna-Kristoff romance after punishing us for the Anna-Hans one. And meanwhile, Kristoff is about as interesting as stale bread (sorry not sorry, it's true. I love you Jonathan Groff, it's not your fault sweetie.).

So anyway, back to ACOTAR. Book 1 is a straightforward Search For The Lost Husband. Taken on its own, it honestly rules as an example of this Cupid & Psyche tale type. It has the hunter-huntress motif, the jealous sisters, passage into the otherworld, hidden/cursed prince, supernatural helpers, three trials in the underworld, and even resurrection from death. It's literally perfect, other than Rhys marking her and just generally being creepy.

And then the next book PUNISHES the reader for enjoying that. HAHA you fool, you sucker, you got taken in by an abuser! Actually that whole book was a f*cking waste of time and a lie, and what Feyre really needs is this dude who's secretly perfect and who has all the aesthetics of a tormented prince but none of the actual psychological damage (like, say, Tamlin had). And who pursued Feyre not because of any natural affinity but because he knew she was his predetermined MATE (ew ew ew and I repeat EW). And who dictates every f*cking plot point and then magnanimously gives Feyre the OPTION of participating and we're all supposed to cheer because he says "It's your choice" before repeatedly using her and endangering her.

And to the extent that this is another Search For The Lost Husband, why would I want the same story told again, especially when the narrative wasted my time and mocked me for investing in the last romance? I just... really resent the author using those motifs without signaling sooner that she's going to deliberately undermine them (which can be done, in fairness, but it takes more skill than SJM has displayed).

So yeah, that's my issue. It really seems to come from this faux feminism that has a lot of antipathy toward traditional fairy tales, but doesn't know how to critique them without mocking the protagonist and audience alike.

[philosopherking1887]

On Individualism and Collectivism

I saw a post promoting collectivism over individualism going around a while back, which inspired me to write a post about a philosophical issue I've been thinking about for a while. I was going to reblog a version of that post with some interesting commentary added, and add even more commentary to it, but it was getting incredibly long, so I thought it was best to make my own post, and just include a link -- here -- to the post with the relevant commentary, to which I will occasionally refer in the discussion below.

I got into a disagreement a few years ago with another academic philosopher about whether feminists must be individualists, in which I attempted (unsuccessfully, I'm afraid) to explain a distinction between what I have since started calling surface and fundamental individualism and collectivism:

Surface individualism or collectivism describes the emphasis of the cultural ethos that members of a society are taught.

Fundamental individualism or collectivism refers to where the fundamental locus of ethical value is taken to lie: the individual or the community.

Here's my overall thesis, fully explained and argued for under the "keep reading" link (which may be similar to what @reasonandempathy was trying to get at in the first reblog comment on the post linked above):

Surface collectivism is probably better than surface individualism because it promotes the well-being of more people; but fundamental individualism is necessary to justify the protection of individual rights to autonomy over one's life and body.

Neoliberal individualism is surface individualism. The culture emphasizes individual choice, individual action, makes individuals feel like they must always support themselves and rely on no one else, tells them that that is what constitutes real "freedom." This is the outlook that the other philosopher was (correctly) arguing is wrongly thought, by some white Western feminists, to be necessary to feminism; it is sometimes promoted by Western aid agencies that encourage women in the Global South to start their own businesses to achieve financial independence from (apparently) oppressive family and community structures. Surface collectivism would mean a culture that tells people to always think about their relationships with others, how they are embedded in a community, what they can accomplish by working with others. That sounds a lot better, especially to those of us who are well-acquainted with the pernicious, alienating consequences of surface individualism.

Fundamental collectivism says that only the collective matters in itself, or has intrinsic value, and any given individual has significance only a means to the survival and flourishing of the collective. It's ambiguous, but this seems to be the attitude being articulated in the tweet at the top of the linked post. And that is what @conservativemalarkey talks about in the third comment on that post as a justification for forcing anyone born with a uterus and ovaries to give birth: according to fundamental collectivism, that person's reproductive capacities are in the first instance a resource for the community to reproduce itself, and their individual preferences about what to do with their body do not matter. There is no individual right to bodily autonomy; there is only the duty to perpetuate the community. To put it in the terms that @nothorses brought up: the collective has rights but no obligations/duties to its individuals; individuals have obligations to the collective, but no rights that it is required to respect.

That's why I have come to believe (and was attempting to argue with the other philosopher) that fundamental (not surface) collectivism is incompatible with feminism: it provides no grounds to protect individuals' rights to bodily autonomy. That, of course, harms everyone; historically, communities have often forced men and boys to risk their lives going to war to defend the community, or to add to its wealth and territory. But it especially notably harms those who are assumed to have the capacity to gestate and bear children (gendered by cisnormative society as women and girls, giving rise to sexism and misogyny that affect anyone associated with that category), because that capacity is, so to speak, the "limiting reagent" for reproduction in the community: it is a scarce resource, far more limited in the lifespan, costly in time and energy, and dangerous to the life and health of the possessor than the capacity to fertilize. For that reason, patriarchal societies (incredibly widespread historically and geographically) effectively regard the reproductive capacities of potential child-bearers as community property, or as a commodity regulated by the community. A (presumed) woman*'s value, and the purpose of her life, consists in her ability to reproduce within the socially approved constraints; women's sexual activities are everyone's business; everyone feels entitled to comment on the bodies of women of reproductive age, especially when pregnant, and how they raise their children.

[[*Meant to encompass anyone perceived as a woman, which in most contexts, historically, also means being assumed to have childbearing capacities; includes AFAB people who do not identify as women as well as trans women who pass as cis. The general attitude also, of course, affects trans women who don't pass as cis but are understood to be communicating a self-identification as a woman.]]

Can a community be said to flourish if a large number of the individuals in it are miserable? Structurally, yes: it can successfully perpetuate itself, grow, become wealthy, while all its individuals dutifully sacrifice themselves to it. Ironically, for a society based so heavily on surface individualism, modern capitalism looks a lot like that: individuals are expected to sacrifice themselves for The Economy, which grows and maintains itself like an organism without regard for whether the vast majority of the individual 'cells' that make up its organs and tissues are satisfied with their lives. This is also true of patriarchal cultures in which at least half of the population is limited in the way they can live their lives, and are taught to see this as natural and inevitable.

Fundamental individualism, by contrast, says that the locus of value is the individual: what matters is the well-being of individual human (or sentient) beings, and communities are valuable only insofar as they contribute to the well-being of their individual members. Fundamental individualism is perfectly compatible with surface collectivism, and it is very probably true that most individuals will be happiest if they live in communities that emphasize their communal ties and encourage them to think of themselves as enmeshed in and dependent on a community. BUT fundamental individualism will say that this kind of culture is good because it is what is best for the greatest number of individuals.

According to fundamental individualism, the collective, qua collective, has no value independent of the individuals in it. Individuals have rights to autonomy and to have basic needs met which the community must respect. Do individuals have obligations to the collective? Yes, but only as a surface shorthand for their obligations to all the other individuals that make it up. Communities, cultures, collective forms of life have no intrinsic value, because they are not independently sentient: they cannot feel pain, pleasure, desire, or satisfaction. The loss of communities and cultures is terrible because of the harm that it causes to the individuals who lose their sense of connection, identity, and purpose. But if a way of life systematically fails to promote the well-being of a great many of its members, and/or systematically violates their rights in a way that cannot be remedied without ending that way of life, then it deserves to be ended. Again, most of us here have no trouble saying that about modern capitalist society, but it's equally true of any form of social organization.

Are people (outside of academic philosophy) generally familiar with Ursula K. Le Guin's story "The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas"? Here's the text, available from libcom.org (short for "libertarian communism," apparently). Spoiler alert: episode 1.06 of Star Trek: Strange New Worlds, "Lift Us Where Suffering Cannot Reach," is very obviously based on it. That is one of the starkest, most evocative illustrations of collectivism that is not balanced by consideration of the rights and well-being of individuals: one individual is forced to live in unending misery so that the rest of the community can be happy.

"But that's not real collectivism!" someone will protest. "Real collectivism means everyone takes care of each other! They would have compassion for every member of the community and never allow that to happen to one of them!" Well, it depends on what you mean by "real." Many forms of surface collectivism could mount an argument against that arrangement, on the grounds that a healthy community must care for all its members, even (or especially!) the humblest and most vulnerable. From the perspective of either surface or fundamental collectivism, it might be argued that permitting any member of the community to suffer in this way would damage the cohesion of the community by encouraging callousness regarding the suffering of (certain) other members.

But nothing about fundamental collectivism says that a community must care for all its individual members in order to flourish; on the contrary, it says that individuals do not matter for their own sake, but only for what they can contribute to the community. Fundamental collectivism can only offer an indirect, instrumental argument that allowing the Omelas situation would harm the community because of how it would affect the community ethos. In Le Guin's story, all members of the community do know about the condition of their society's thriving; that's how some of them decide that they should walk away. But in the SNW episode, most people do not understand what their happiness rests on; they can blissfully believe that the community does care for all its members, so fundamental collectivism could not find anything wrong with the arrangement.

Crucially, fundamental collectivism cannot capture the real reason most of us will think the Omelas situation is horrifying: that it violates the rights of an individual who does not choose to sacrifice their well-being for the sake of the community, but is forced to suffer so that the community can thrive. If you're thinking it would be OK if, and only if, the individual did choose to be the sacrifice for the community: that's something that might be promoted, even glorified, by surface collectivism, which would encourage people to see their individual happiness as less important than the well-being of the community. But fundamental collectivism could not account for the profound ethical difference between a chosen and a forced sacrifice: the importance of individual autonomy; the principle that no one should be able to make such a momentous choice about the course of an individual's life except that individual.

Mind you, this does not mean that a fundamentally individualistic ethics will necessarily rule the Omelas situation impermissible. There are some forms of fundamental individualism that could justify it -- notably, utilitarianism, which would say that the suffering of one individual, however appalling, is far outweighed by the perfect happiness of thousands or millions of other individuals. Fundamental individualism is not sufficient to rule it out; and you might not think it should be ruled out, considering the numbers involved. But fundamental individualism is necessary to even say what the problem is. The only objection that fundamental collectivism could offer doesn't even locate the problem in the terrible forced suffering of the individual, but in the way that knowing about it might affect the cohesion of the rest of the community.

So while I'm generally in favor of a surface-collectivist ethos, I'm convinced that any fundamentally collectivist ethical theory has profoundly immoral consequences. The ultimate locus of ethical value must be the individual. It's fine for a culture to encourage individuals to prioritize the community over themselves, but there is something genuinely wrong with the community forcing sacrifices on its members, and that can only be accounted for with reference to irreducible individual rights.

[joandfriedrich]

My apologies if you have answered this before but I was wondering what are your thoughts on the portrayal of Jo in Little Women (2019)? I like Saoirse Ronan as an actress and I think she did wonderful in the movie but the role she was playing didn’t feel like Jo March at all. It feels like a completely different person with the same name. Does that make sense? Like Jo in the 2019 version is a different person than the Jo in the books. And honestly I was kinda disappointed because the aesthetic and scenery are lovely but the writing was not little women at all.

No worries, I don't know if I've ever done a full detailed explanation of my feelings on Jo's character in the 2019 specifically, so this is a good excuse to talk about it. I completely understand what you mean, her portrayal did not feel in anyway the Jo March I came to know and love after all the years. Let's explore Jo's character assassination.

When I first heard of the project, I was so excited because for a long while Saoirse Ronan was my first choice to play Jo. I have seen her in many movies from "Atonement", "The Lovely Bones", "Brooklyn", and I agree, I believe she is an amazing actress, and I was excited to see what she would do for Jo. On a technical standpoint, she did act very well in the film, but whether or not I felt she deserved an Oscar nom for the part is something different. I personally think she didn't deserve it, not because she's a bad actor, but I don't think what she gave for the character felt worthy of it, you know what I mean? If anything, I think Lupita Nyong'o deserved it much more for her parts in "Us" than Saoirse did for this film.

So where does the problem lie? The writing. I would like to have it on record, I am not one of those people that say that every book adaption must be 100% exact from page to screen, I am open for leeway, creative choices, and cuts, but what I felt was done wrong here was simplifying and changing characters to the point they felt like hollow versions of their flawed but beautiful book counterparts.

Jo is one of the most complex characters in the novel, as her arch starts as a 15 year old girl who is all tomboy and rebel to an independent but loving woman she becomes. We see her reject ideas of marriage because of the social pressures she feels to marry well and how marriage at the time was a loss of freedom for women, to understanding that being a woman isn't contained to one specific box, that she is able to be independent while also having a husband who supports her dreams. She has a temper, it isn't something she gets over as quickly as she has a moment of crisis, she learns how to handle it, like Marmee did. She has internal misogyny that colors her viewpoint of the world, especially women, to understanding that women are as different as each March sister is, and that doesn't lessen their worth as women. Are these lessons we find in the 2019 film? No, it isn't.

Gerwig wrote Jo as if she was trying to appeal to the masses, giving her contradictions that go against her growth and character. Seeing her yell at Friedrich, throwing a tantrum worthy of a kindergartner, and acting selfish throughout her adulthood when it's the time she is the lest selfish is so wrong for her. Jo as a child was not kind, I think we as a society need to stop demonizing a 12 year old Amy for getting fed up when her 15 year old sister continually picked on her for so long that she snapped and did something she came to regret. These are kids, they are meant to be flawed, even annoying, and yet, so many people try to raise child Jo up as if she is the symbol of feminism when she was anything but. And Gerwig followed suit.

Throughout the movie, Jo acted so childish and it was portrayed as liberating, that her maturing means a sacrifice of her true self, that it leaves her sad and alone, and I feel like this is the opposite of real life. I am about to be 30 in a week, and as I have reflected in my life, I have never felt more like my true self in my whole life. It's because I had trials and tribulations to challenge me, question how I see the world, what do I want, where do I wish to go? These are questions we all go through as we get older, and it doesn't mean that we grow older and sadder, it means we change and become more self aware, closer to who we may truly be than anything else. And never forget, there is still so much life ahead, we have so much to learn, plenty of time to become who we ought to be. As David Bowie said "Aging is an extraordinary process whereby you become the person you always should have been."

Jo by the end of the film gains no character arch, she remains practically the same, having issues with change, relying on the familiar rather than ready to explore the unknown, going back on her feelings on Laurie to the point of writing a letter to accept him, which NEVER happened in the book, as she stayed firm on her resolve that she didn't love him romantically. The lack of an arch for Jo means we don't see her grow up, she stays this perpetual 15 year old girl who is selfish, can't take criticism (which book Jo gladly did as an adult), is pressured by her sisters to chase after a man she didn't even seem that interested in (if you go with the one ending), or ends up sad and alone with her book which is what she didn't want to do as she proclaimed she was lonely (if you follow the other ending). Her story is unsatisfying, as it paints her this tragic figure that never got what she wanted in life, despite that not being the case.

She gets to open a school that helps underprivileged kids to get an education, she gets to become an author in the following books, marries a man who loves her not only as a wife but as an equal, has children she loves dearly, and by the end feels she has had a fulfilled life that she wouldn't have traded for anything in the world. Gerwig didn't seem to understand that Jo could be all these things and decided to stick with what she wanted the character to be, but knew she had to satisfy the divided fanbase, hence the confusing ending and character that is Jo March.

Gerwig tried to add in elements of the real life Alcott, thinking that the idealized version of Jo and she were exactly one in the same, but it's not true, as Alcott did long to have a family of her own, had been in love with Henry David Thoreau, and wrote the character of Friedrich Bhaer as the expy of him to be with the expy of her. If Gerwig truly wanted to respect the wishes and vision of Alcott, she didn't need to look further than the wonderful novel she wrote over one hundred years ago.

In the end, the Jo we see in the 2019 film is nothing more than a hollow shadow of a great literary character that was destroyed by someone who, like the people she pandered to, never quite understood Jo in the first place, and therefore didn't deserve her.

[trashy-corvian]

I'm kinda obsessed with this template not gonna lie

More random oc facts under the cut

Hemlock

Beautiful voice and talent for music, would make a great composer

Loves chikens, always has some in his garden

Very uneasy around fungus/mushrooms. The angel responsible for their creation was Creepy and Hemlock can't help but feel xir watches him somehow

"What can i do" from Encanto is a perfect song for a pre-fall Hemlock

Sees sex as another way of commmunication, mostly power play with this guy.

Don't ask what he uses as fertilizer for plants, just don't

Biggest flaw is his arrogance. Thinks he knows better, no matter how right you are if he doesn't like you he won't listen

Lilith

I headcanon that all angels are created genderless and can determine their identity later on. But even then, presenting masculine is strongly encouraged, especially if you're a high rank. So Liliths choice to present so feminine was seen as strange and rebellious. She adores feminity, loves to indulge in different aspects of it.

Often uses instilled streotypes to get her way, can pretend to be vain/air headed. Lucifer secretly found this hilarious

Lives peaches, it's her go to flavor

Would be an amazing event and/or wedding planner

Please, don't let her near thread and needle, it will end in disaster

Had a short lived crush on Adam

I don't know if it's her biggest flaw but she's very noisy and stubborn. It's not over until she says it is.