#early feminist writers

[thoughtportal]

Compiled and introduced by the UK-based anarchist collective Dark Star, Quiet Rumours features articles and essays from four generations of anarchist-inspired feminists, including Emma Goldman, Voltairine de Cleyre, Jo Freeman, Peggy Kornegger, Cathy Levine, Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz, Mujeres Creando, Rote Zora, and beyond. All the pieces from the first two editions are included here, as well as new material bringing third and so-called fourth-wave feminism into conversation with twenty-first century politics. An ideal overview for budding feminists and an exciting reconsideration for seasoned radicals.

Files

Quiet Rumours, An Anarcha-Feminist Reader, New Edition - The Dark Star Collective.pdf

(1.15 MB)

United States

Ireland

Bolivia

feminism

anthologies

[kideternity]

I know Kamen rider is about the bug men and non bug men and all for the most part but can we give it up for the women too I love the women in Kamen Rider. Ruriko you will never be forgotten

[day-dreaming-fox]

So who’s gonna make a Cinderella movie based on Marie-Catherine d’Aulnoy’s telling of it

[gatheringbones]

[“Coming out was very lonely. I had very few friends. Most of the adult lesbians I knew were alcoholics, chronically unemployed, prone to violence, self-hating, apolitical, closeted, cliquish. Lesbians hated each other. If you found a lover you stopped going to the bar because you could not trust other lesbians; they would try to break up your relationship. My first woman lover went into the military, where she turned in other lesbians so she would not be exposed. One of my dyke friends got a job as a supervisor in a cabinet-making company and refused to hire lesbians because, she said, they were unreliable employees who were disliked by the other workers. The only thing that seemed worse to me than the apolitical lesbian community I came out in was the strangulation of pretending to be straight. I came out only because I could not go back; there was no place for me to stand in the het world. I was driven out.

Moving to San Francisco improved things somewhat. There was more public lesbian space there—six bars instead of one. But it did not alleviate the loathing with which my family viewed me. Nor was San Francisco in the early seventies any sort of gay utopia. We had no gay-rights law, queer bashing was a frequent event, and everyone had lost at least one job or been denied a place to live. It was a relief to be surrounded by other lesbian feminists, but only to a point. Bar dykes and feminists still had contempt for one another. Feminism rapidly became a way to reconstitute sexual prudery, to the point that it seemed to me that bar dykes were actually more accepting of and knowledgeable about the range of behavior that constituted lesbianism. In the bars or in the women’s movement, separatism was pretty much mandatory, if you didn’t want to get your ass kicked or be shunned. Separatism deteriorated into a rationalization for witch hunts in the lesbian community rather than a way for women to bond with one another and become more powerful activists. The lesbian community of that decade did terrible things to bi women, transgender people, butch/femme lesbians, bar dykes, dykes who were not antiporn, bisexual and lesbian sex workers, fag hags, and dykes who were perceived as being perverts rather than über-feminists. We were so guilty about being queer that only a rigid adherence to a puritanical party line could redeem us from the hateful stereotypes of mental illness and sexual debauchery.

What did I gain? I came a little closer to making my insides match my outsides, and that was no small blessing. The first time I met other dykes I recognized a part of myself in them, and knew I would have to let it out so I could see who I was. For a time, being a lesbian quieted my gender dysphoria because it made it possible for me to be a different kind of woman. That was an enormous relief.

For a long time, I hoped that by being strong, sexually adventurous, and sharpening my feminist consciousness, I could achieve a better fit between my body and the rest of me. Lesbianism was a platform from which I could develop a different sort of feminism, one that included a demand for sexual freedom and had room for women of all different erotic proclivities. I had a little good sex and discovered that I was not a cold person, I could love other people. It was as a lesbian that I began to find my voice as a writer, because in the early days of the women’s movement, we valued every woman’s experience. There was a powerful ethic around making it possible for every woman to speak out, to testify, to have her say. But there were always these other big pieces of my internal reality that lesbianism left no room for.

The first big piece of cognitive dissonance I had to deal with, in my second coming out, was S/M. I date my coming out as a leather dyke from two different decisions. One was a decision to write down one of my sexual fantasies, the short story that eventually became “Jessie.” At the time I wrote the rough draft of that story, I had never tied anybody up or done anything else kinky. I was terribly blocked as a writer. I kept beginning stories and poems that I would destroy. I have no idea if they were any good or not. My self-loathing was so intense, my inner critic so strong, that I could not evaluate my own work.

So I decided to write this one piece, under the condition that I never had to publish it or show it to another person. I just wanted to tell the truth about one thing. And I was badly in need of connecting with my own sexuality since I was in the middle of what would be a five-year relationship with a woman who insisted we be monogamous, but refused to have sex with me. So I wrote about dominance and submission, the things I fantasized about when I masturbated that upset me so much I became nauseated. Lightning did not strike. As I read and reread my own words, I thought some of them were beautiful. I dared show this story to a few other people. Some of them hated it. Some of them were titillated. Nobody had ever seen anything like it before. The story began to circulate in Xerox form, lesbian samizdat. I found the strength to defend my story when I was told it was unspeakable or wildly improbable.

In October of 1976, I attended a lesbian health conference in Los Angeles and went to a workshop there about S/M. In order to go to a workshop, you had to sign a registration sheet. I was harassed by dykes who were monitoring this space to see who dared sign up for that filthy workshop. On my way, I had to walk through a gauntlet of women who were booing and hissing, calling names, demanding that the workshop be canceled, threatening to storm the room and kick us all out of the conference. The body language and self-calming techniques I had learned when I had to deal with antigay harassment on the street came in very handy, but how odd it was to be using those defenses against the antagonism of other dykes. Their hatred felt like my mother’s hatred. I am so glad I did not let it stop me.

When I got home from that workshop, I knew that I was not the only one. Not only were there other lesbians who fantasized about sadomasochism, there were women who had done these things with each other. I decided to come out again. If there were other leather dykes in San Francisco, they had to be able to find me, so I had to make myself visible. This meant that I often did not get service at lesbian bars, or I was asked to leave women-only clubs and restaurants. I was called names, threatened, spit at. I got hate mail and crank calls. But I also found my tribe. And because I had already experienced my first coming out, I knew we were not going to be an ideal, happy family. I could be more patient with our dysfunctions, and see them as the result of being scared, marginalized, kicked around. Being a leather dyke took me another step closer to dealing with my gender issues. I could experiment with extreme femme and extreme butch drag; take on a male persona during sex play. I gave up separatism because I needed to take support from any place where it was available. Gay men already had a thriving leather culture, and I wanted to learn from them. I also wanted to have sex with them. It still wasn’t okay as far as lesbian feminism was concerned to be bisexual, to be transgendered, but I could bring those folks into my life and make alliances with them. I could defend them in print. There was even more good sex, and people who loved me and received my love despite the fact that it was dangerous for us to show ourselves to one another. I faced my sexual shadow, and she bowed to me and then danced beautifully in profile against the white walls of my consciousness. My writer’s voice was unlocked.”]

pat califa, from layers of the onion, spokes of the wheel, from a woman like that: lesbian and bisexual writers tell their coming out stories, 2000

[romancearc]

i respect the writers in bridgerton for never faltering from their feminist narratives and how the characters' ages play into their relationship, despite any other shortfalls in the story.

as much as I hated how it happened, Penelope needed to tell Colin that he will never understand her plight as a woman. it was really important that Penelope stood up for herself in the bug ball, unlike in the books where Colin takes center stage.

what drives this home further are scenes where everyone speculates on who LW could be, some people still assume her to be a man. a complete feminine persona, gossip considered as mostly a womanly habit and STILL people think it could be a man because 'no woman could have a work of body this successful'. ew.

I also respect the writers for not depending on toxic romantic tropes and letting polin sort things out without any 'angry sex'. bros, as appealing as it sounds, when you're having an argument as severe as what polin were having- being intimate with each other while they had so many unresolved issues with each other would've been DISASTROUS. they needed to meet midway through. that can only happen through communication and maybe negotiating emotionally. which they did. for two idiots in their early 20s they did pretty well actually.

kanthony looks more mature because they ARE more mature. Kate was already 26 when she met Anthony. Kanthony's conflict was to stop being the certified adults all the time and let go of their inhibitions whereas Polin's was to be mature, look past each other's mistakes, not make rash decisions anymore and be. considerate. these are two completely different stories.

this is why bridgerton is such an interesting show. every story won't be everybody's cup of tea. but I truly hope eventually when the crowd calms down people come around to this season and acknowledge that the plot was pretty solid. not passionate like saphne, not always bickering like kanthony but an honest yet flawed interpretation of young love-messy, heightened emotions, dramatic yet sweet and lovely.

[wizzard890]

is your objection to mists of avalon because marion zimmer bradley was a monster, or is it just the book itself? (i haven't read it since i was a teenager, and for whatever reason the warlord chronicles made more of an impression on me when it came to modern arthurian retellings-- idk if that's better or worse)

Oh, I hated the book well before Marion Zimmer Bradley was revealed to be a detestable sex criminal, for reasons entirely unrelated to her real-world crimes.

However, some Mists of Avalon specific crimes include:

Writing a book that is not so much a story as a tedious polemic about how yonic egalitarian ~Celtic~ paganism was destroyed by the brutal militant power of Christianity and the penis, an idea that was both stupid and deeply academically dated by the time of Mists of Avalon's publication.

Her characterization of Guinevere, which is to this day the most misogynistic portrayal I have ever seen, including 14th century and Victorian depictions.

I use "characterization" lightly, since most of the people in this book are dull mouthpieces for ideologies, or a meager assembly of one to two personality traits, especially the men. (Morgaine is the most special princess of all, so she sometimes gets up to three personality traits!)

The male characters are paper dolls, which is an issue when you're re-telling the Arthurian saga. When you're doing a feminist retelling of the Arthurian saga it's actually an even worse issue, because:

She isn't a creative enough writer to take liberties with plot (something this book has in very short supply), so she's stuck with the framework of the legends, which usually involve women attempting to trick or compete for the male characters. Unfortunately, as perviously stated, the male characters are not good, so you're left with a bunch of women backbiting and fighting and risking it all for some interchangeable dipshit, which doesn't reflect well on them. For a book that's all about how women belong to some sacred and beautiful vagina sisterhood, the female characters in this book sure spend a lot of time hating one another for being prettier than them.

It's too long. It's two hundred and thirty six pages longer than Hilary Mantel's Wolf Hall, widely praised as one of the best books of the 21st century. We simply do not require all that, Marion.

Saint Patrick catches the stray of all time here; he's ported over to England for some reason, becomes Arthur's personal confessor, and boy he just hates women! The worst, those women!

Needless changing of people's names. Lancelet? Come on.

The reduction of early Christianity (and medieval Christianity) to basically whatever your personal childhood priest/pastor said that bothered you is an absolute epidemic in genre writing, and it's all over this book. The poster child for "he would not say that" but "he" is a bunch of monks on Lindisfarne.

This isn't a cardinal sin, but if a story is all about the tides of Goddess-blessed pagan freedom and ~sexuality~, then the sex scenes should be good, right? Like, these are thematically load-bearing, they need to hit. In a turn of events that everyone saw coming if they've read this far, Mists of Avalon is a "big, meaty phallus" sort of book.

That's not all, but I'm tired of thinking about this dumb story now and frankly it's a crime that Arthur, Lancelot, and Guinevere have a three-way in this book, and it neither fixes everything or makes anything worse. Mists of Avalon: a radical reimagining that never meets a novel idea it won't squander.

[gwenllian-in-the-abbey]

"Yet you toil still in service to men. Your father, your husband, and your son. You desire not to be free but to make a window in the wall of your prison."

Episodes 9

What's your opinion on the speech?

Rhaenys' speech here is a bit silly. What woman doesn't "toil in service to men" in this world? Medieval women were not even allowed to own property or sign contracts. Part of this show's problem is that some of the writers seem to be under the impression that Westeros is undergoing a feminist movement and Alicent is "team patriarchy" while Rhaenyra is "team feminism," as if Rhaenyra's own "right" to rule doesn't derive specifically from a man, her father, granting her that right, as if that same man couldn't snatch it from her on a whim. She has to toil in service to her own father, and even if she becomes queen, she will find herself surrounded by and beholden to men who will very quickly remove their support if she does not dance to their tune, and in fact we see this in the Dance, where Rhaenyra has terrible advisors but she's not really able to remove them because she can't risk them going over to the other side. And when she does attempt to assert herself against them, this is precisely what they do.

I think many people don't understand that the idea of women as an oppressed group, with solidarity across class lines, religious lines, and ethnic lines, that is, intersectional feminism, is extremely modern. Rhaenys cannot separate herself from her class interests, she lacks even the most basic framework necessary to do so. She might see her sex as a prison, but her greater allegiance would be to the Targaryen royalty that she was born into. Breaking free from the prison of patriarchy would mean also being metaphorically exiled from her own royal privilege. When it came to the council of 101, Rhaenys did not risk alienating herself from her grandfather the king in order to assert her right to the throne, instead she put forward her son Laenor as an alternative. In her marriage with Lord Corlys, she deferred to him rather than risk her status as Lady of Driftmark. Rhaenys did not pit herself against the might of the patriarchy because it would mean pitting herself against the might of the monarchy itself.

This isn't a criticism of Rhaenys. She only did what most women in her position would have done. She did not have what Rhaenyra had, the mandate of a king who had thrown the might of the monarchy behind her cause, declaring her an exception. Viserys did not sign a decree asserting absolute primogeniture because he could not pit the monarchy against the patriarchy when the monarchy itself relied on the patriarchy to uphold it. And in our world, knowing that monarchy and patriarchy waled hand in hand, many medieval/early modern queens regnant very much avoided overly associating themselves with womenhood, instead leaning into the rhetoric that they were female in body, but male in spirit. They believed that as exceptional women, they might claim a sort of honorary male status. Think of Elizabeth I's speech to the troops at Tilbury as they prepared to face the Spanish Armada, when she said:

"I know I have the body of a weak and feeble woman; but I have the heart and stomach of a king, and of a king of England too..."

Notice how she concedes the point about her "weak and feeble" woman's body? She then goes on to say that she has the heart and stomach not of a man, but of a king, aligning herself not only with manhood, but with royalty, which is the source of her exceptional status. And this is echoed in the idea of Rhaenyra seeing herself as an exception, when Lord Corlys reminds her that if she allows women to inherit the seats of Stokeworth and Rosby, she may lose the support of lords who took her side. They were siding not with a woman because they believed in smashing the patriarchy, but rather they were siding with monarchy, believing Rhaenyra had the mandate of the old king. However that mandate could be revoked if Rhaenyra were to turn against the patriarchy and attempt to divorce it from the monarchy.

So the ironic thing is, Rhaenyra is doing very nearly the same thing Rhaenys is accusing Alicent of doing, except if womanhood is a prison, then perhaps rather than building a window in the prison, Rhaenyra has secured parole for good behavior. She could be put back into the prison at any time and is keenly aware of that. The prison of patriarchy, after all, still exists within the walled confines of feudal monarchy, and neither Rhaenys nor Rhaenyra are attempting to climb those walls.

[uwmspeccoll]

International Women's Day

In celebration of Women’s History Month and International Women’s Day (March 8), we’re showcasing one of writer, educator, intersectional feminist, poet, civil rights activist, and former New York public school librarian Audre Lorde’s (1934–1992) early collections of poetry. From a Land Where Other People Live was published in 1973 by Detroit’s groundbreaking Broadside Press. This independent press was founded in 1965 by poet, University of Detroit librarian, and Detroit’s first poet laureate Dudley Randall (1914-2000) with the mission to publish the leading African American poetry of the time in a well-designed format that was also "accessible to the widest possible audience." A comprehensive catalog of Broadside Press’s impressive roster of artists (including Gwendolyn Brooks, Nikki Giovanni, and Alice Walker, to name a few), titled Broadside Authors and Artists: An Illustrated Biographical Directory, was published in 1974 by educator and fellow University of Detroit librarian Leaonead Pack Drain-Bailey (1906-1983).  

Lorde described herself in an interview with Callaloo Literary Journal in 1990 as “a Black, Lesbian, Feminist, warrior, poet, mother doing [her] work”. She dedicated her life to “confronting and addressing injustices of racism, sexism, classism, and homophobia.” From a Land Where Other People Live is a powerfully intimate expression of her personal struggles with identity and her deeply rooted critiques of social injustice. The work was nominated for the National Book Award for poetry in 1974, the same year that Broadside Press published New York Head Shop and Museum, another volume of Lorde’s poetry featured in our collection. You can find more information on her writings and on the organization inspired by her life and work by visiting The Audre Lorde Project.     

More posts on Broadside Press publications  

More Women’s History Month posts  

More International Women’s Day posts  

-- Ana, Special Collections Graduate Fieldworker 

[female-malice]

I know everyone likes to say that global feminism is radical feminism.

But actually, maternal feminism is the most popular form of feminism globally.

If you want to understand non-western feminist movements, you need to be open to reading about maternal feminism. You need to be able to read it without immediately tearing down everything a maternal feminist writer is proposing.

Everyone wants to read about the Japanese anarcho-feminists of the early 1900s, right? You know, the ones that started an anarcho-feminist newsletter and aided in a coup attempt? Yeah! That sounds cool and badass, right?

But as soon as people realize the Japanese anarcho-feminists were maternal feminists, they tear apart their work. Modern western feminists write them off because motherhood was central to their perspective on female power. Meanwhile, these women were trying to violently overthrow their imperial government. And I have yet to see western feminists attempt something like that.

[thephantomcasebook]

I'm thinking they won't focus so much on Helaena. Phia isn't promoting anything and we haven't heard from Helaena. All the characters had something, except her. I really wanted to see her connection to Dreamfyre, but I don't think that's going to happen. I even believe they will kill her at the end of season two. Leaving Alicent isolated when Rhaenyra conquers KL in Season 3.

I just don't think they never knew what to do with Helaena.

I think they had a bunch of concepts that they never, really, followed through with.

Remember, this is me putting commentary before seeing Season 2.

But, for now, I think, because she's not girl boss, or feminist mouth piece, she must now take the place of victim of evil patriarchy, and an example of this man run world's cruelty to women!

When you write everything in the prism of gender politics, that's when you run out of creativity real fast. I can think of about 100 ways to utilize Helaena and give her a character beyond the "weird girl" to "Sad girl" pipeline. But you'd have to give up your political messaging bullshit and start thinking like a human being.

So, they'll never do it.

It's too bad, I think Phia Saban could've done it too. Her problem is that she went way too far into Helaena being autistic and couldn't pull back to give her a functioning character. The young tween actress did a really good job of playing dreamlike prescient while still playing a normal bratty Princess in her preteens.

It's the fault of the directors and the show runners for not telling Saban to pull back. I think they liked her choices initially ... till they had to write that characterization and then they got all trapped up.

The other major problem is that they're doing "Blood and Cheese" way too early and basically sacrificing characterization of getting to know "Team Green" for a cheap pop for the normie audience. Now, we're never going to see what Helaena is like, or what her interactions with her family is like day-to-day, because, she'll already be withdrawn and sick with sorrow from almost the outset.

If they had pushed "Blood and Cheese" till after Rook's Rest, and make it a botched assassination attempt on Aegon II in his hospital bed, after being wounded at Rooks Rest. Then, you'd have an entire season with Helaena and see her dynamic with not just her brothers and mother, but get to know her relationship with her children, before, making her basically mute and comatose. That way we get to know Helaena and the children, and feel something more at their death.

It's a missed opportunity, because, the writers and showrunners are chasing headlines rather than narrative.

[thoughtportal]

Charlotte Cooper-Davis delves into the life and legacy of Christine de Pizan, a late medieval writer who was actively involved in the production of her own works. Speaking with Emily Briffett, Charlotte explores Christine’s vast catalogue of written work and how she has since become seen as a feminist icon.

[transunity]

The Transunitist Manifesto

(here is a link to where it is being hosted- it is also copy-pasted below for easier reading)

Introduction:

21st Century trans politics is in many ways different to 20th Century trans politics. Some of the problems facing trans people then are gone. Others remain. And yet others are entirely new, borne out of the political landscape which we walk today. This Manifesto is simultaneously a response to the world as it is today for trans people and a commitment to building better solidarity and unity amongst trans people of all kinds. It is an affirmation to love, respect and help others in our community whenever we can- and to be alert to each others needs and problems, so that no-one ever feels like they are on their own. This is Transunitist theory at its core: compassion, respect and solidarity above all else.

Why Transunitism?

Transunitism was coined in the early 2020s by myself and a few other trans and nonbinary acquaintances online. Collectively we noticed that 21st Century trans politics had become unstable and imbalanced, inadvertently feeding into the transphobia it was supposed to be guarding against. Transunitism could be considered a wave of transfeminism, in that it draws from the same roots as transfeminism (and thus feminism as a whole), but recognises that a shake-up of the current trans politics is needed to better serve the community as it stands today.

The name Transunitism was chosen for its immediate understandability. Simply, it describes the desire to explicitly strive for greater transgender unity against our common and uncommon oppressions. In the last few years, trans politics has seen a rise in toxicity and vitriol between different transgender groups. This has had a negative effect on overall trans solidarity and unity when fighting against transphobia. As a result, transunitism is needed to help repair those bonds and create lasting solidarity against transphobia in all its forms.

Transunity theory largely draws from transfeminism, however, transunity theory also has some key developments of its own. Transunitism utilises transfeminisms beliefs that everyone has the right to define their own identities and to expect society to respect them- especially without the fear of discrimination or violence (1). It also utilises the transfeminist idea that trans peoples relationships with oppression, privilege, patriarchy and feminism are complex and at their most basic interpretations, are rarely black and white or as clear cut as is often suggested (1). These principles have been a part of transfeminism since its inception, however, subsequent interpretations of transfeminism have neglected one or both of these principles, leading to the need for transunitist theory to develop.

Transfeminism originated as a movement mainly by and for trans women, but much like feminism as a whole, many others can find solace and support in it. However, one of the flaws in early transfeminist theory was the neglect of non trans women in transfeminism. This has since been recognised by many early writers of transfeminist theory, however, mainstream transfeminism continues to neglect or even deliberately deprioritise non trans womens issues in the movement. The initial error is understandable, but is by no means the way forward. Feminism (as arisen from cis gender dynamics) prioritises mainly cis womens issues due to the lack of support womens issues have compared to those of cisgender men. The error is that those cis gender dynamics are frequently applied to transgender politics, but such a thing is not possible to achieve and often leaves other equally marginalised people with little to no support from transfeminism. The truth is that transfeminism has its roots in the mainstream feminist movement, but has different dynamics to it and requires more nuance in its application. Often, the (incorrect) application of transfeminism has been to prioritise trans womens issues on the unfounded assumption that other kinds of trans people's issues (particularly trans mens) have more support. Clearly, this is not the case for the following reason: Namely, that patriarchy does not value trans men as men the same way it does cis men (nor would it value nonbinary people the same way), therefore non trans womens issues are not receiving support from the patriarchy and thus prioritising trans womens issues at the expense of other, struggling trans groups is in the long run, damaging for solidarity and detrimental to non trans women.

Transfeminism's Role:

Since transfeminism was coined in 2001, its usage has morphed and changed. At present, the dominant strand of transfeminism does not promote unity and solidarity. Instead, it has fallen into relying upon toxic and often separationist politics- a crude distortion of the founding ideas of transfeminism. Emi Koyama, author of The Transfeminist Manifesto, was explicit in transfeminisms inclusion of all trans people in its movement. She wrote that transfeminism began primarily for trans women and that "it is also open to other queers, intersex people, trans men, non-trans women, non-trans men and others" (2). Her initial publication of The Transfeminist Manifesto was in the year 2001. Two years later, she revisited it and added the following in the postscript of the 2003 edition "I take full blame for the fact that this manifesto is heavily focused on issues male-to-female transsexual people face, while neglecting unique struggles that female-to-male trans people and other transgender and genderqueer people face" (3). Numerous other transfeminist publications recognise the need for greater solidarity between all trans people and for transfeminism to be explicitly inclusive of all transgender and nonbinary people. Talia Bettcher explained in 2017 that "since trans men are also vulnerable to sexism, transphobia, and the interblending thereof, trans feminism would be ill-advised to exclude them from its purview" (4). Despite the academic push for greater inclusion and solidarity, socially these ideas have not manifested. And so transunitism was created to bring awareness to these ideas with clarity of intent and purpose.

Transunity Theory:

Transunitism is not solely created from transfeminist and feminist theory. It also draws upon ideas of stewardship towards fellow trans people that are based upon ecological and environmental concepts.

Transunitism was coined by myself and a small group of other trans people online, but what is known as the transunitism symbol is my creation. I took inspiration from ecological and environmental movements to create a metaphor to explain transunity theory. Hopefully, many readers will be familiar with the recycle symbol and a variation on the three Rs. The recycle symbol usually consists of three arrows in a triangle shape. Each arrow point melds into the point above it and so on. The symbol represents how steps taken to recycle refuse follow on from one another and are interconnected. Typically, the three Rs are reduce, reuse, recycle and all three are equally important steps one can take to help the environment. The three Rs can be reordered and the sentiment still makes sense. For transunitism, the concept is much the same- three elements of trans theory which interlock and intersect which must all be upheld, otherwise neglect is risked. Instead of the three Rs, transunitism considers the three Transphobias.

The Three Transphobias

The three transphobias (or types of transphobia) are the subdivisions that transphobia can be broken down into. Transphobia itself is an umbrella term and while it can be used universally on any kind of anti-trans discrimination, it is helpful to subdivide it further in some instances to describe the specific challenges each part of the trans community faces. Over recent years, there has been a movement to establish a term for the transphobia primarily experienced by trans men. This manifesto will use the most popular term, transandrophobia, to refer to the concept. The transphobia primarily experienced by trans women is known as transmisogyny, while the most popular term for the discrimination primarily experienced by nonbinary people is exorsexism. There exist less popular terms for these concepts, but these will be the three used in this manifesto. I also acknowledge that further groupings exist within the trans community which the terms trans women, men and nonbinary people do not adequately cover.

Transmisogyny is described variously as either the transphobia primarily experienced by trans women or as an intersection of transphobia and misogyny. The term transmisogyny itself is at a crossroads- it is used often to refer to the transphobia usually experienced by trans women, but it is also often used to refer to any intersection of transphobia and misogyny- this has proved to be problematic, especially when attempting to include non trans women's experiences in transfeminism. There are transfeminists who believe that only trans women, as women, can experience an intersection of transphobia and misogyny. However, this is a flawed understanding of misogyny, since many non-women experience misogyny frequently (i.e. much homophobia directed at gay men is based in misogyny). Nevertheless, this has become the prevailing view in much of mainstream transfeminism. This is a problem, since transmisogyny as a concept could very much describe the experiences of trans men and nonbinary people as well as it does the experiences of trans women. However, it is my view that transmisogyny, at its crossroads, should take the path in which it simply describes the transphobia primarily experienced by trans women. This manifesto will use that definition henceforth.

Transandrophobia describes the transphobia primarily experienced by trans men. While trans men do experience an intersection of transphobia and misogyny, they also experience an intersection of transphobia and a hatred of men or masculinity. Arguably, much of what is called transmisogyny for the experiences of trans women is also partially an intersection of transphobia and a hatred of men or masculinity. The ideal word for the concept is sadly marred by disingenuous cis men, but to use 'misandry' here tentatively is not an endorsement of any kind of MRA-style politics, but a convenient shorthand for a kind of hatred of men or masculinity which has a significance in (and only in) the context of transphobia. As alluded to, the term transandrophobia is the most popular term presently for the transphobia primarily experienced by trans men. Earlier terms did include 'transmisandry', which, aside from one academic usage in the context of an intersection of transphobia and racism (5), has not enjoyed much usage due to knee-jerk rejection of the term's suffix. In short, 'misandry' in this solely trans context conveys the transphobia rooted in a hatred of men or masculinity.

Exorsexism describes the transphobia primarily experienced by nonbinary people, which, like transmisogyny and transandrophobia, can contain elements of misogyny, 'misandry' and discrimination based on existing outside of binary sex or gender (henceforth 'misandrogyny'). Like transandrophobia, other terms exist for exorsexism, such as ceterophobia or simply 'nonbinaryphobia'. The most high frequency term is exorsexism and this manifesto will use this term for clarity and consistency.

The three transphobias (as has been touched on somewhat already) intersect, interconnect and intermeld into each other, much like the 3 arrows in the recycle symbol. Hence, in the transunitist symbol, it is transmisogyny, transandrophobia and exorsexism feeding into each other. They are the 'arms' of transphobia. This metaphor comes with some important tenets to transunitism theory:

You cannot dismantle transphobia as a whole by only focusing on one arm of transphobia. E.g. eradicating transmisogyny, for instance, will not bring about the eradication of transandrophobia and exorsexism. Eradicating transmisogyny is a noble goal, but it can't be achieved in isolation. It is interconnected to other two transphobias. By working on eradicating them all, transphobia can truly be fought in all of its forms. Relating back to the recycle symbol, only doing one 'R' will technically help, however, it will have more impact if one strives to do all three. Just recycling is helpful, but reusing will extend the lives of items that would have only been recycled, and reducing your consumption altogether would prevent some waste altogether. The same is true of transphobia- all arms must be tackled to achieve greater trans liberation.

The three arms of transphobia are not exclusively experienced by their main target. E.g. Transandrophobia is the transphobia usually experienced by trans men, but a nonbinary person could be targeted with it for resembling a trans man. The same goes for anyone resembling a trans woman being targeted with transmisogyny (e.g. gender nonconforming cis men) or anyone who is perceived as nonbinary (exorsexism). When helpful terminology is gatekept because the victim of the bigotry doesn't belong to the main group targeted by it, nobody benefits. It is useful to defer to the main targets of a bigotry as authorities on it, but space must be held for all victims of bigotry. Not just some. E.g. Many Sikh men have reported being the victims of islamophobia because bigots had mistaken them for muslim men. While not the main targets, they are equally victims of islamophobia as the muslims who are targeted with it.

All trans groups experience a mixture of misogyny, 'misandry' and misandrogyny- the levels of which vary from group to group. Trans women may experience misogyny (such as unwanted sexualisation for being female and trans), however, they may often experience 'misandry' (such as the vitriol some transphobes espouse which accuses trans women of being 'violent males) and misandrogyny (such as transphobic rhetoric which centers around a trans person's appearance being androgynous and thus not easily sortable into male or female categories . This may result in slurs like 'heshe' being used). Trans men, on the other hand, may experience 'misandry' (such as accusations they are going to transition into -'violent men'), misogyny (such as insinuations trans men are being led astray and that they are incapable of thinking for themselves) and a similar kind of misandrogyny trans women may face. Nonbinary people may experience misandrogyny (such as being forcibly put into a male or female category against their wishes, especially in a medical setting), misogyny (such as rhetoric which claims being nonbinary is a social contagion amongst those assigned female at birth) or 'misandry' (such as rhetoric that claims those assigned male at birth who are nonbinary are identifying as such in order to be predatory). In short, every kind of trans person experiences a mix of misogyny, 'misandry' and misandrogyny. It differs from group to group as well as from person to person.

These tenets are foundational to transunitism. A synthesis of transunitism theory and transfeminism results in what the transunitism movement stands for.

It is my hope that through transunitism theory, we will create a trans community that includes all, aids all and fights for all.

Thank you for reading.

Luke, 01/01/2023

References:

Koyama, Emi. The Transfeminist Manifesto, 2001 & 2003 p. 2-4

Koyama, Emi. The Transfeminist Manifesto, 2001 & 2003 p. 1

Koyama, Emi. The Transfeminist Manifesto, 2001 & 2003 p. 10

Bettcher, Talia, Trans Feminism: Recent Philosophical Developments, 2017, p.2

Martino, Wayne, Omercajic, Kenan, A trans pedagogy of refusal: interrogating cisgenderism, the limits of antinormativity and trans necropolitics. Pedagogy, Culture & Society. 29, 2021, p.679

[queenvhagar]

The whole point of Fire and Blood is white supremacy. Viserys didn’t want Argon as king because his blood was not pure enough, he was of “Alicent blood”. So why, if they wanted a black and white moralistic show, they are on the side of white supremacy.

An important thing to recognize, that the writers and fans fail to see, is the fact that GRRM wrote the ASOIAF series as a subversion of common fantasy tropes. Good and just royals, chivalrous and honorable knights who protect the innocent, prophecies as a force for good, enlightened and benevolent magic race of beings, fairytale love stories and happily ever agrees, clear black and white stories of good vs evil... all of these things GRRM wrote to subvert in his books. Royals play their game of thrones and are concerned with their own power most of all, knights are not always good people or honorable and in fact are tools of an oppressive system, no race is inherently superior and believing this drives violence and destruction of those very people, people marry for duty and duty is the death of love, and there are no clear cut black and white conflicts in the real world, just complex and nuanced situations where both sides think they're right and do what it takes to reach their goals for their own reasons. This subversion of fantasy tropes and elements in favor of a realistic exploration of what the sociopolitics of those worlds would be is something that defines the ASOIAF series and sets it apart from the rest. The faithful adaptation of these books and maintenance of those subversions and the integrity of the underlying themes of the works is what made the early seasons of Game of Thrones such outstanding and praiseworthy television.

The writers of House of the Dragon do not see the truth of this. Instead, they have co-opted symbols of fantasy and other surface level elements present in the ASOIAF series and used them to construct a story more in-line with traditional fantasy stories. In their hands, the conflict is a black and white morality tale of good vs evil that presents a magical race of people as superior to others and presents prophecy as an uncritical force for good and justification for a devastating war. Sprinkled in are characteristic yet surface level shock value factors - like incest and extreme violence - that were present in Game of Thrones. Ironically, their writing is antithetical to the ASOIAF series and what GRRM set out to write with his stories. This is the fundamental issue with House of the Dragon and the ultimate failure of its adaptation.

Because the writers and fans have bought into an unsubverted fantasy story, they choose to support a race of people who believe themselves superior to all others and the violence they use to keep control of their subjects. The critical view of fantasy as a genre and stories set in medieval feudalism are entirely lost on them, beyond a surface level, modern viewpoint focusing on one isolated element of oppression that existed in those times. Because the story only focuses solely on the dimension of misogyny as a system of oppression and fails to acknowledge its intersection with other systems of oppression present - racism, classism, and ableism, namely, among others - it fails to fully explore the dimensions of power present in this society and therefore its politics feel limited and messages feel shallow. It's the focus on misogyny and setting aside of all other dimensions of oppression that firmly centers this show on a white feminist perspective, to its detriment.

All of this said, to the first part of your ask: I don't think that was really a reason for Viserys' decision to not make Aegon is heir. Even though it certainly is an instance of him othering his children by Alicent and viewing them as separate from Rhaenyra, he supports Rhaenyra as heir because she is his favorite child and the child of his first wife. The context of the line concerns when Alicent proposes a union between Aegon and Rhaenyra and Viserys dismisses the idea because he thinks her sole motivation is that she wants her own bloodline on the throne, which to be fair to Alicent is what anyone would want in her situation. It's not necessarily of him not having "pure" blood per se. If something like that was really an issue to him, he would have wed a Valyrian, and he did have the option to do just that; instead he married Alicent and has multiple children with her.

Aside from Viserys' wishes, Targaryen supremacy is absolutely linked to white supremacy. And so many choose not to see it in lieu of uncritically seeing Targaryens as actually belonging to a magical, exceptional, and superior race of humans. Their buy-in to this fantasy trope is in opposite to the actual intentions and goals of the original author.

[gatheringbones]

best books of 2022 rec list:

fiction:

chouette by claire oshetsky

forty thousand in gehenna by cj cherryh

fierce femmes and notorious liars by kai cheng thom

sula by toni morrison

everyone in this room will someday be dead by emily r. austin

jane eyre by charlotte bronte

villette by charlotte bronte

non-fiction:

gay spirit by mark thompson

we too: stories on sex work and survival by natalie west

transgender history by susan stryker

blood marriage wine & glitter by s bear bergman

love and rage: the path to liberation through anger by lama rod owens

gay soul by mark thompson

between certain death and a possible future: queer writing on growing up in the AIDS crisis by mattilda bernstein sycamore

the man they wanted me to be: toxic masculinity and a crisis of our own making by jared yates sexton

nobody passes: rejecting the rules of gender and conformity by mattilda bernstein sycamore

cruising: an intimate history of a radical pastime by alex espinoza

gay body by mark thompson

what my bones know: a memoir of healing from complex trauma by stephanie foo

the child catchers: rescue, trafficking, and the new gospel of adoption by kathryn joyce

the opium wars: the addiction of one empire and the corruption of another by w. travis hanes III

a queer history of the united states by michael bronski

the trouble with white women by kyla schuller

what we don't talk about when we talk about fat by aubrey gordon

the feminist porn book by tristan taormino

administrations of lunacy: a story of racism and psychiatry at the midgeville asylum by mab segrest

the women's house of detention by hugh ryan

angela davis: an autobiography by angela davis

ten steps to nanette by hannah gadsby

neuroqueer heresies by nick walker

the remedy: queer and trans voices on health and healthcare by zena sharman

brilliant imperfection by eli clare

the dawn of everything: a new history of humanity by david graeber and david wengrow

tomorrow sex will be good again by katherine angel

all our trials: prisons, policing, and the feminist fight to end violence by emily l. thuma

if this is a man by primo levi

bi any other name: bisexual people speak out by lorraine hutchins

white rage: the unspoken truth of our racial divide by carol anderson

public sex: the culture of radical sex by pat califa

I'm glad my mom died by jenette mccurdy

care of: letters, connections and cures by ivan coyote

the gentrification of the mind: witness to a lost imagination by sarah schulman

skid road: on the frontier of health and homelessness in an american city, by josephine ensign

the origins of totalitarianism by hannah arendt

nice racism: how progressive white people perpetuate racial harm by robin diangelo

corrections in ink by keri blakinger

sexed up: how society sexualizes us and how we can fight back by julia serano

smash the church, smash the state! the early years of gay liberation by tommi avicolli mecca

no more police: a case for abolition by mariame kaba

until we reckon: violence, mass incarceration, and a road to repair by danielle sered

the care we dream of: liberatory & transformative justice approaches to LGBTQ+ health by zena sharman

reclaiming two-spirits: sexuality, spiritual renewal and sovereignty in native america by gregory d. smithers

the sentences that create us: crafting a writer's life in prison by Caits Messner

[city-of-ladies]

A pioneering female composer, Barbara Strozzi (1619-1677) defied the norms of her time. Unlike many women of her era, she was not a wife, a nun, or a courtesan; but an independent woman devoted to her music.

The heiress of the Muses

Barbara was immersed in music from an early age. Her father, Giulio Strozzi, an illegitimate member of the noble Strozzi family, played a significant role in Venetian musical life, writing librettos for major composers and poetry. Her mother, Isabella Garzoni, was Giulio’s longtime servant, possibly of Greek origin, as she was known as “La Griega” or “La Greghetta” (“The Little Greek”).

Unlike Nannerl Mozart, Barbara benefited from a supportive environment. Her father acknowledged her and provided her with a comprehensive education, allowing her to develop her talents from a young age. She trained with opera composer Francesco Cavalli, and by the age of 15, Barbara was already performing at gatherings in the Strozzi home. She possessed an impressive and flexible soprano voice, capable of singing complex compositions.

Her talent was widely recognized. In 1635 and 1636, composer Nicolò Fontei dedicated two volumes of solo songs to her. She also performed at meetings of her father’s intellectual circle, the Accademia degli Unisoni (“Academy of the Like-Minded”). Among the attendees was Giovanni Francesco Loredan, a supporter of feminist writer and nun Arcangela Tarabotti, who remarked that “had she been born in another era, surely she would have usurped or expanded the place of the muses.”

An extraordinary career

Barbara went on to publish her own compositions. In 1644, she released Il primo libro de madrigali (First Book of Madrigals, Opus 1), dedicated to Vittoria della Rovere, Grand Duchess of Tuscany, known for her patronage of female convents and musicians—a strategic choice on Barbara’s part.

Despite the dominance of opera, Barbara achieved recognition as a composer of chamber music. Her compositions showcased her vocal talent, though she sometimes wrote with other female voices in mind. Her songs explored themes of love, jealousy, joy, despair and sensuality. Most of her work was secular, but she also composed religious pieces in Latin—a unique accomplishment for a Catholic laywoman in early modern Europe.

Barbara’s work was more than just a portrayal of women as sensual temptresses; she also demonstrated a powerful and dramatic voice. An example of this is “Lagrime mie” (“My Tears”) from 1657, a poignant expression of a lover’s despair that fully utilized her vocal abilities.

Over her lifetime, Barbara published around 125 compositions across eight volumes, making her more prolific than any other female composer of her era. By 1656, her works were included alongside those of male composers in printed collections. While she did not perform publicly, her music has been preserved.

A troubled personal life

Barbara never married but had four children, at least three of whom were fathered by Giovanni Paolo Vidman, a friend of her father. Long-term concubinage relationships like theirs were not uncommon at the time.

The nature of their relationship remains unclear. An anonymous commentator wrote in 1677 that Giovanni Paolo had raped Barbara. This might seem contradictory given the length of their relationship, but societal norms of the time regarding female virginity sometimes forced women to remain with their aggressors to protect their reputations.

Through her work, Barbara was able to provide for her children. Giovanni Paolo died in 1648, leaving provisions for her and their children. Both of Barbara’s daughters entered convents, with the entrance fees paid by Giovanni Paolo’s wife, Camilla. Barbara rented a house from Giovanni Paolo’s brother until 1677 when she traveled to Padua, where she died of illness.

My Ko-Fi

Further reading

Kendrick Robert L., “Intent and textuality in Barbara Strozzi’s sacred music”

Magner Candace, “Barbara Strozzi, a brief history”

Ray Meredith K., Twenty-five women who shaped the Italian Renaissance 

[brothermoth]

I'm reading Game of Thrones and watching the show at the same time just to compare...and honestly I think the show really fucked up from the start.

The books are a perfect example of empowering women in a historical setting. There is much less on page sexual assault than in the show. For example: Daenerys is a 14 year old girl married to a 30 year old man for the sake of her brother's political gain. It's horrible, and yet it's the most free she has ever been. She verbally consents to sex on her wedding night (she's a minor and it's always inappropriate but I would like to express that there was no age of consent in the past. This series is based off the medieval period which frequently saw girls married to older men; the fact that he even ASKED for her consent is very indicative of respect for her) and Khal Drogo is gentle with her, not forcing her into it or harming her. He touches her hair, asks her if it is something she wants (despite the language barrier the intent is clear). GRR Martin has genuine empathy and respect for the women he writes. They are people, good and bad and making the best of the world around them.

As a history student and a feminist I think ASOIAF is easily one of the greatest examples of genuine historical empowerment. I can tell Martin is very knowledgeable about powerful women of history and has gone out of his way to examine the social climate of early medieval Europe. For a middle aged man he's done an absolutely admirable job of it.

Cersei is a terrible person, but the narrative has sympathy for her. She is married to a man who gave her power but only a shell of it. He openly laments not having been able to marry Lyanna Stark in front of his wife and berates her and insults her in public. Her actions are awful but Martin's writing asks you to wonder: is she so wrong? Her husband is lucky she didn't kill him YEARS ago. Everyone would have been better off if she had. Yes she fucks her brother which is...which is deeply uncomfortable, but there's psychological implications to the action. Her brother is the only person who genuinely cares about her. He says openly that he loves her when nobody else does. It's very Freudian I hate when that man is right.

I'm only about halfway through the first book but considering I'm late to the party I do know like half the plot points that are yet to come. Despite being put in an awful situation, Dany MAKES something of it. She finds a confidence and position that she never would have had otherwise. That is how many women lived in history. They were married off like chess pieces on a board and yet they etched their names into history books because of it. Her brother sold her for his own benefit, but in the end she is the one who got a throne, not him.

I adore the way Martin works with symbolism and that sense of foreboding that he builds up before any main characters even start to die. He's a really underrated writer, dropping hints for plot points that don't come about until BOOKS later (and years, he's slow as molasses). The show is interesting and all but the books deserve praise far more.