#failed heterosexual propaganda | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

rationalisms · 1 year

Note

You mentioned that you don't think legally blonde is progressive and I'd like to hear more of your thoughts on that if you don't mind.

i mean, in the first place (and i promise i'm not trying to sound condescending i just genuinely don't know how else to say this) i think it's important to like... let go of the binary "progressive/oppressive" model of thinking about media, and instead pivot to talking about analysing e.g. films through different theoretical lenses instead.

so instead of trying to make a definitive declarative statement on whether xyz mainstream hollywood romcom IS or ISN'T feminist, fullstop, it's much more useful and conductive to actual productive discussion to analyse it from a feminist perspective instead.

because when you're no longer limited to ones and zeroes, that'll allow you to, say, in the case of legally blonde, both talk about the way that it takes some steps forward in terms of e.g. letting its protagonist succeed at things that are traditionally seen as male, such as academic success (aside: extra ironic bc in most countries women are better students than men but when has propaganda every cared about that), or choose academic success and her career over her erstwhile romantic partner, but also many steps backward.

like the fact that marketing that brand of hyperfemininity/beauty rituals/etc to women as So Empowering Akshually is part and parcel of misogynistic industries owned by men that prey on women's self-image, time, and money to sell them products that they at best don't need and that at worst are actively bad for them. like, they have caught on by now that shaming women for failing to uphold standards of femininity doesn't work nearly as well as selling them as part of a Feminist Identity in which your 50 step skincare routine that you spend 2 hours a day on so as not to show a single sign of aging is actually just Getting In Touch With Your Body and Expressing Your Womanhood. i honestly do not have the time to get into it right now but i recommend reading "femininity and domination: studies in the phenomenology of oppression" by sandra lee bartky, "beauty work: individual and institutional rewards, the reproduction of gender, and questions of agency" by samantha kwan and mary nell trautner, and/or "choosing to conform: the discursive complexities of choice in relation to feminine beauty practices" by avelie stuart and ngaire donaghue.

and so like, the fact that her Grand Crowning Moments in this film (like her win in court or helping jennifer coolidge's character) actually almost all revolve around those beauty practices and how well she manages to uphold them and not, say, the knowledge she's gaining in the incredibly difficult university course she's taking.

OR such as the fact that there's a whole character who's just there to be the frumpy, masculine, feminist lesbian who's suuuuch a killjoy and combative to our poor protagonist for seemingly no reason and just Hates Feminine Women sooo much, and who we are meant to jeer and laugh at when the Right Kind of Woman (read: feminine and heterosexual) wins against her. or how the protagonist's happy ending still has to include a man anyway. or how you can count the people of colour that even just appear in this film on one hand.

this is at this point definitely already long enough lol but i hope you get what i mean? anyway. there's absolutely nothing wrong with enjoying this film obviously but it's good to be critical of the way these narratives are presented to us, as always.

#anon #reply

368 notes · View notes

self-loving-vampire · 1 year

Text

Historically, at the core of the modern conservative movement’s agenda have been its efforts to impose a particular family structure, one with a working father and dependent mother who plays the role of primary caregiver for her children. Through social and economic policies – namely, the erosion of the social safety net – conservatives aspired to make this patriarchal unit into the primary source of economic security and, in the process, sought to winnow the viable life and career paths available to women. They required the “protection” of the family, the right argued, which was one of the many reasons it opposed the Equal Rights Amendment that would have made men and women equal in the eyes of the law. The amendment, they insisted, would “strike at the heart” of what conservative activist Phyllis Schlafly in 1978 called “women’s family support rights.”

The right’s goals remain much the same today, but its hard-right faction has doubled down on their moral orthodoxy while rejecting many traditional conservative economic strategies. For this growing segment of the right, the primary problem facing the country is the supposed assault on what it sees as “traditional” American culture and family, led by the Democratic Party, the broader political left, feminists, LGBTQ+ people, and others who fail to fit their rigid views of gender. They want to impose, through the power of the state, stringent gender roles and social hierarchies, and to punish those who deviate from them.

...

Despite their exclusion from many of today’s most prominent hate groups, women are active participants in the hard right’s campaign to uphold male supremacy and create restrictive gender distinctions. One clear example is the so-called tradwife (or “traditional wife”) movement, which proclaims that women can achieve personal happiness and contribute to a healthier national culture by embracing subservience to men.

Women’s interest in the tradwife movement is, in some ways, a response to modern economic realities. The movement is “rooted in many young women’s sense of discontent with mainstream society and capitalist systems that – in the U.S., in any case – make balancing motherhood and work a near-impossible task, with virtually no childcare support, limited sick leave, and few protections for women who need time away from work for childcare or eldercare responsibilities,” Cynthia Miller-Idriss, a scholar of extremism and radicalization, has noted. Some women have responded by looking backward to a romanticized version of domesticity captured by the 1950s propaganda that forms the backbone of the tradwife aesthetic.

The tradwife movement exists largely online, led by influencers whose content depicts stylized domestic bliss – their homes, cooking, clothing and children – alongside captions that encourage chastity and, often, homeschooling, homesteading and fundamentalist Christianity. Tradwives present submission as freedom and a return to the natural order, before feminism deceived women into thinking they could achieve fulfillment outside family life and heterosexual relationships.

98 notes · View notes

myloveismineallmine · 9 months

Text

Just watched It's a Wonderful Life and I have so many thoughts... it's so interesting to compare it to the modern christmas movies we see. Many are those lifetime romances about a business woman who visits her hometown for christmas and gives up her job in new york/seattle/chicago/LA/ insert some other metropolitan city here so she can marry a more "traditional" hometown man and stay in that community. I've seen some people point out how it feels very traditionalist and almost anti-feminist and I'm inclined to agree.

I think they tried to elicit the themes from IWL but got completely lost in the sauce. The protagonist is a man who had always dreamed of traveling the world and getting out of his shitty small town. But multiple times he is given the opportunity to escape to bigger cities, and each time he choses to stay behind. Not because he personally wants to, he craves a life bigger than he has. And not for anything like romance, either. He stays because the community needs him to stand up to corporate greed and be a leader for them. After his brother comes back from school, he is once again offered an opportunity to escape via putting his brother in his position to run the family business. But he lets his brother move away because he sees that his brother has already started a life elsewhere and is very happy. This selfless action is rewarded for the protagonist when his brother later saves hundreds of lives during WW2 and becomes a national hero. The protagonist sacrifices his own honeymoon money so that the community will have enough money to get by when the bank goes under. He is rewarded by getting a brief ego boost when the villain of the film fails to shut down his company. Even when the villain offers the main protagonist a job with high pay to support his struggling family, the protagonist stands his ground and continues to live a poor life while also being able to help people in his community build houses and businesses. The main protagonist is offered many "outs" to live a better life, and yet he chooses to not take them because he is selfless and knows his community needs him.

This is one of the main differences, I think. Hallmark/Lifetime movies think romance is a justifiable means of sacrificing a "better" life. And maybe it is, though I think the actors should have chemistry if they want that to be true. But despite having romance, IWL is not about sacrificing your dreams to get married in a small town. It's about sacrificing your dreams to help build a community and fight against corporate greed. Which is why IWL feels less like a Christian traditionalist propaganda, despite having religious themes. The protagonist does throw away his lofty aspirations, but it's not just for one person, it's to bring a whole community together and to stand up against an actual evil (monopolistic capitalism.) They even show you how shitty things are when there's no one there to do that!

In short. Modern christmas movies usually miss the mark because they want to sell us a very white traditionalist heterosexual romance celebrating America's most consumerist holiday. Any actual critique on the problems within our society= too much of a risk. Too hard to thinky about. Brain hurty from actual deep topics and not just "love good, small towns good, urbanism BAD!!!"

#out here writing essays on films when i'm supposed to be on winter break smh #film brain goes brrrrrrr when i think about this stuff though so i have to write it somewhere lol #it's a wonderful life #film analysis

25 notes · View notes

queering-ecology · 6 months

Text

Chapter 5 . Non-white Reproduction and Same-Sex Eroticism: Queer Acts against Nature by Andil Gosine prt 1

“In Euroamerican-dominant cultural contexts, two kinds of sex have been (are) said to be toxic to nature; reproductive sex between non-white people, and sex between men.” (149)

The concept of ‘overpopulation’ has put the blame for global ecological disasters/climate change on the reproducing proclivities of the poor; due to the easy collaboration of capitalism with patriarchy and racism, that has meant the economically dispossessed non-white peoples of the world, particularly child-bearing (or potentially child-bearing) women from Asia, Africa, and South and Central American, as well as First Nations and non-white women in North America. (149)

“Although overpopulation propaganda and its material offshoots (family planing programs, coercive sterilization practices, etc.) and the criminalization and policing of sexual acts between men have been and are generally treated as distinct phenomenon, their genealogies are intimately interwoven through the projects of colonialism, development, and nation building. Read against the heterosexist, racialized formations of nature engendered by these projects (the creation of national parks,etc.), heterosexual, potentially reproductive sex between non-white people and homosexual sex, I argue threaten colonial-imperialist and nationalist ambitions. Both are “queer acts'' in that they challenge the stated norms of collaborating colonial narratives of race, sex, and gender, through which modern formations of nature have been constituted. Both fail to meet and are threatening to the white nation building projects engendered through the process of colonization, and uncritically buttressed in historical and contemporary discourses of environment and ecology.” (150)

Any acts seen to upset this agenda are constituted as not just unnatural but toxic to nature. This claim is not far removed from those made by postcolonial scholars and psychoanalysts who recognize sex as a primary site through which the terms of empire are negotiated and stipulated. (151)

The Sex of Others

The sex of “Others” has long preoccupied the imaginations of social and economic stewards of Euroamerican culture. The author provides many examples of this. These fantasies exerted a powerful influence on figures such as Columbus and “informed the organization of colonial society around the tropes of race and gender” (Rattansi 1994, 44) (152) (ie the first time Columbus saw 'America' from his ship he compared the land to a woman's breast)

“The management of sexuality, parenting, and morality were at the heart of the colonial project” (Ann Laura Stoler 1995, 226) (152) Through the course of colonization, anxieties about non-white peoples’ sexualities would also inform the constitution of natural space across the world. The creation of “wildlife preserves' and national parks across the colonized world was predicated on the removal of their human, reproductive presence: the areas’ indigenous populations. Aboriginal peoples in Africa, North America, and Asia were viewed as both a part of and a threat to pristine nature, a contradictory argument that rested in no small part on fears about the potential reproduction and ‘abundance’ of them. (152)

Reproduction-Overpopulation

English cleric Thomas Malthus is credited with innovating the idea that the sheer growth of human population (and not what humans do) is socially and environmentally destructive. In his 1798 Essay On Population, Malthus argued that since agricultural production increases arithmetically and population soars geometrically, poverty and disease acted to check excess numbers of people who were outstripping available resources. (He was strongly influenced by his work as a colonial administrator in India for the East India Company)

Malthusian theory has been revitalized by racial theorists, birth control advocates, American military agents of imperialism and national security, ethno-nationalists, international development policy makers and project managers, and environmentalists.

The idea that population growth in non-white communities poses an ecological threat has throughout the twentieth century enjoyed considerable popular appeal, particularly in the Global North. (153) i.e. Tragedy of the Commons-Garrett Hardin (1968) (“Freedom to breed is intolerable”, eugenics, sterilization, against redistribution of wealth, privatized ownership of natural resources)

Most credible scholarship has outright rejected Malthusian claims. The overpopulation myth is simply bad science, unsubstantiated by lived experience and driven by particular ideological interests that serve to deflect attention from the fact that most environmental problems–global warming, pollution, deforestation, and so on–are the direct consequence of industrialization, over-consumption, and capitalist territorialization, and NOT simply the overabundance of people. (153)

For preservationist-conservationist environmental movements in North America, the myth of overpopulation was an appealing distraction from the effects of capitalism and industrialization that became especially apparent in the 1960s, effectively turning attention away from the consumption activities of white, middle-upper-class Americans who often made up the movements’ membership (Darnovsky 1992). (153)

One important point oft overlooked in Malthusianism is that in overpopulation discourse the main culprit is sex. Identification of overpopulation as the cause of poverty and environmental degradation necessarily implicates the people said to be engaged in dangerously overproducing themselves: non-white men and women living in the Global South engaged in heterosexual sex. Sex itself, then, is the act of destruction. (154)

#queer ecologies: sex nature politics desire #ecofeminism #colonialism #overpopulation #malthusian theory #critical ecology #sexuality #queer ecology #queer theory #erotophobia #environmental politics #heteronormativity #tragedy of the commons #conservation #racism #anti capitalism #eugenics

13 notes · View notes

mariacallous · 2 years

Text

Disappointing news today for those who blame feminism for the problems facing young men: research shows that challenging gender stereotypes and misogyny helps boys too.

A narrative has emerged over the last decade in popular culture and politics that portrays men and boys (particularly white, heterosexual ones) as in “crisis”, victimised by feminism and social justice movements, and now “left behind” or suffering so-called “reverse discrimination”. From the misogynistic memes that swirled around the Johnny Depp and Amber Heard trial, to the male MPs attempting to debunk the “bad press” men have been getting, to the description of #MeToo as a “witch-hunt” on flagship radio programmes, this argument has been steadily building up steam.

However, The State of UK Boys report released today by the Global Boyhood Initiative shows that, instead of being victimised by feminism, boys are facing an entirely different crisis. Violence and being “tough” is normalised as a natural part of being a man, which encourages boys to see violence (particularly male-on-male violence) as an inevitable part of growing up. The study, which comprised a literature review alongside interviews with experts, also found that these kinds of stereotypes are present from birth, with families, schools and peer groups all playing their part.

Of course the impact of this is immense, and reading about the boys in the report who justified male violence through notions of men’s possession and ownership of women goes some way to explain the shockingly high levels of sexual assault in schools. But these stereotypes also harm boys – look, for instance, at the under-reporting of violence and abuse against boys and men.

Instead of reinforcing these stereotypes, the report’s authors suggest, all children would benefit from a feminist approach to learning (something that will come as no surprise to many feminists, who have been arguing for this for decades). For example, boys would benefit from learning about the problems with gender stereotypes, and also from a destigmatisation of close friendships between boys, which are often discouraged by homophobic ideals of masculinity. Encouraging male friendships, the study finds, would provide opportunities for boys to learn reciprocity, empathy and intimacy.

The idea that white, working-class boys are neglected and “failing” is “both manufactured and actively misleading”, the report states. White boys are in fact less likely than Black Caribbean, Black African and Bangladeshi students to claim free school meals, and less likely to be excluded from school than Black Caribbean boys. White boys who do not receive free school meals get higher grades than some minoritised groups, too. With this in mind, it’s worth asking who benefits from peddling these misleading claims, and why? Perhaps it’s those who want to keep the status quo as it is.

For too long, we have been encouraged to view the challenges facing boys and men as entirely distinct from the needs of women and girls – and the heat on this argument has almost reached boiling point. Just a few months go, Harper’s Bazaar magazine ran an article headlined How Feminism Is Stifling Our Sons, and a book by academic Nina Power argued that men are under attack. This fear-mongering lie has been fuelled by the kind of online propaganda that’s spread by the likes of Andrew Tate, who has capitalised on the idea of male victimhood and racked up billions of views on TikTok, to “men’s rights activist” YouTube channels and Reddit forums. With half of 15- and 16-year-old boys estimating that they spend more than six hours a day on the internet, seeing this content can have a major impact on their lives and wellbeing.

Instead of feminism harming boys, the report has found that the opposite is true: challenging male violence and misogyny, encouraging different types of masculinity and seeing women as allies, all contribute to better mental health and educational attainment among boys. As GaryBarker, one of the authors of the report, and the CEO of Equimundo: Center for Masculinities and Social Justice puts it: “Boys need feminism and feminism needs boys on board.”

The old “boys don’t cry” narratives that say men shouldn’t be vulnerable about their feelings are part of the same system that portrays girls as “hormonal”, “hysterical” and unsuited to particular career paths. It may sound old-fashioned, but with Tate and his ilk saying that women should “shut the f**k up, have kids, sit at home, be quiet and make coffee”, it is terrifyingly present again. Recognising this does not mean undermining or ignoring boys’ needs, but finding ways to meet them. Our boys deserve better than to be used as a shield for anti-feminist provocateurs with more interest in stoking “culture wars” than actually helping them.

Laura Bates is the founder of the Everyday Sexism Project and author of Men Who Hate Women

185 notes · View notes

interplanet--janet · 8 months

Note

1, 3, 6, 13 ^_^

most overrated character? honestly even tho he's my boytoy i think kakashi is kind of overrated. people especially get way into his combat abilities (which I get it) but no one understands him like me

3) were naruto's intentions with sasuke selfish? i think especially at the beginning and the start of shippuden they were!!!! but over the war arc especially i think it changes. despite how it shouldnt have been them going back to the village but moving forward together (away from the feudal meritocracy)

6) what makes the Naruto ending bad? im too high for this literally where do i begin. i mean we can talk abt the buildup with kaguya that was ass, or how silly it was to have sasuke hold all the tailed beasts hostage, but most of all its the compulsive heterosexuality and nuclear family propaganda. i know shinzo abe is behind boruto i know it. 13) was kakashi trying his best? / was he a "good" sensei? MANS WAS A TERRIBLE SENSEI. he has cptsd. he is a child soldier PRODIGY. he was a state assassin before he hit puberty. he was trying his best in between hallucinations, paranoia, and childhood trauma. and then to be put in front of THOSE KIDS? hiruzen when i find you hiruzen. its amazing he didnt immediately paper bomb himself into oblivion but hes too good of a loyal dog to konoha anyways. it could be argued that he was an okay sensei to sasuke (totally failed naruto not to mention sakura) BUT sasuke is too much of a mirror for kakashi and so of course he teaches sasuke his assassination jutsu. bc youre a well adjusted young man. i know i said in the beginning that kakashi was overrated and he is. i stand by it. hes also misunderstood and has so much more depth than what most fans realize

#sorry im thinking so much abt kakashi right now #claire chit chats #also he is. transgender. bet most fans didnt think of that either huh

5 notes · View notes

warningsine · 2 months

Text

Few queer arcs annoy me more than the "I'm straight with one (1) exception" one. Almost as insulting as the Pink Kryptonite type of shit.

I whined about this very thing back when I watched s3, but quickly let it go, because I didn't want to be a Debbie Downer for the fans who did like it.

But nobody cares now and I'm rewatching s1 so...

S3 was a drag and only watchable (to me) because of Paleta; how she sold a woman in love.

The show messed the fake dating thing up (HOW? Virgin teenagers have executed this concept better on AO3, damn it), failed Mariana by not giving us her POV (although the weak acting didn't help matters either) and failed Ana too.

They did the ensemble thing and wasted valuable time on inane subplots. Literally, who gave a fuck about Pablo's friends? Conrado was funny exactly one (1) time and that's when he sang in drag because he was drunk.

Know your audience. Predominantly queer people (nationally and internationally) were supporting your Netflix show. Conservative heterosexuals boycotted it because it had "feminist/LGBT propaganda" and "favored mothers over fathers."

The result was--that even though s3 was longer than s2--Ana, the lead, didn't have enough time to explore her sexuality.

But still, they could have taken advantage of the fact they had Alma, Ana's mean/gossipy childhood friend, say that Ana has had a vibe since they were teens. (There's no smoke without fire.) That was in 1.03 when we, the audience, still thought Ana was straight. (At least, she didn't ping to me until later.)

They could have gone for bi Ana--what I thought they were doing in late season 1. It was clear that even though Ana didn't give a fuck that Mariana was bi, she didn't quite understand bisexuality herself.

"Who wouldn't want you? If I were a guy, I'd fuck you." (to make her friend feel better about her postpartum body) "I'm not a lesbian." (multiple times) Sure, but your bestie isn't one either and yet she still wants you.

(Side note: "You'd be surprised how many gay women I've heard that from.")

They could have gone for latebloomer lesbian in denial Ana--what I thought they were doing in most of season 2, because, hey, they would not stop using the word "lesbian."

Then I realized they were doing the classic "We dare not name bisexuality" until finally, finally Tere defended her own daughter in s3.

"My daughter is gay. Or bi. Idk, I love her."

At least, they didn't say that Ana and Mariana were "flexible" (TGW, I'm side-eyeing you) because "post radical queerness."

Smh creative teams think they're being progressive when telling the community that not using a label is a virtue.

If you're a cis straight liberal/progressive and say, "Labels don't matter," then you're not being honest with yourself. Because your label is "normal" to the rest of society.

Without any labels, there would be no LGBTQ+ community. Whose rights would people be fighting for exactly?

We're nowhere near close to the point that people no longer need to identify their community. Even in relatively liberal societies where gay marriage is legal and anti-discrimination laws exist, queer people continue to be marginalized and oppressed.

And I know that queer people do the post-label thing too, but things there get more complicated. Why? Because many queer people are in the closet, many are busy figuring their shit out, dealing with comphet and internalized stuff.

And it's not like being queer absolves you of having regressive beliefs either, e.g., there are gay people who are biphobic and/or transphobic etc.

#mshd

2 notes · View notes

cruelsister-moved2 · 1 year

Text

that good housekeeping article is actually so fucked... like starting with the story of someone whose first gay relationship was abusive in a way that's clearly trying to frame it as innocent previously heterosexual woman led astray by violent lesbian (even though they're both lesbians),and then a bisexual woman abused by a lesbian with emphasis on the lesbian's jealousy of men and masculine behaviours.

most egregious, disturbing misuse of figures to claim that lesbians represent 19% of IPV related homicides; I managed to track down where they got this figure and in reality it's ONLY discussing lgbt and hiv+ cases. extremely different figure that lesbians represent 19% of LGBT IPV related homicides:

even if you missed that, it's very obvious in that 1. there are clearly more than 6 IPV related homicides per year in the US 2. NO heterosexual women killed by their partners?! 3. men more likely to be victims than women (because these are lgbt figures where the men were mostly killed by other men) 4. concentrated in the south. this isn't a mistake you could easily make by accident, especially as the author is an abuse counsellor & should have been able to recognise this.

they then ALSO selected a hugely lowball figure, that 1.5% of US women identity as lesbians and 0.9% as bisexual, which other surveys do not bear out, one where lesbians outnumber bisexual women which is pretty demonstrably false, to attempt to claim that lesbians represent 0.75% of the population and 19% of IPV homicides i.e that we are more than 25x more likely to kill our partners than cishet men.

this is literally an article of straight up lesbophobic propaganda under the guise of concern for abuse victims. this is the oldest lesbophobia in the book. before we were ugly man hating dykes we were violent, murderous and mentally ill dangers to women who lead innocent girls astray and kill them in fits of jealousy or bloodlust. the comparisons to straight men made constantly throughout the article are reinforcing the idea that you're safer with a male partner, that lesbians are warped women attempting to be men, and turning violent when we fail.

#the absolute information illiteracy of everyone involved in writing this article and everyone who wasn't immediately like #hmm that doesn't seem right #read odd girls and twilight lovers bc I want to talk about how much this relates to historical lesbophobia but mannn #also interesting example of how even cis gay/bi women will be painted as like man adjacent when its useful #there are just a million issues w the language n subtle implications made by this article actually dieeeee

20 notes · View notes

liquidstar · 3 years

Text

I feel as if many people, myself included, have been having problems with the way “critical thinking” is conducted in fandom circles more and more. Which I’d say is a good thing, because it means we’re thinking critically. But still the issues with the faux-critical mentality and with the way we consume media through that fandom group mentality are incredibly widespread at this point, despite being very flawed, and there are still plenty of people who follow it blindly, ironically.

I sort of felt like I had to examine my personal feelings on it and I ended up writing a whole novel, which I’ll put under the cut, and I do welcome other people’s voices in the matter, because while I’m being as nuanced as I can here I obviously am still writing from personal experience and may overlook some things from my limited perspective. But by and large I think I’ve dissected the phenomena as best I can from what I’ve been seeing going on in fandom circles from a safe but observable distance.

Right off the bat I want to say, I think it's incredibly good and necessary to be critical of media and understand when you should stop consuming it, but that line can be a bit circumstantial sometimes for different people. There are a lot of anime that I used to watch as a teenager that I can’t enjoy anymore, because I got more and more uncomfortable overtime with the sexualization of young characters, partly because as I was getting older I was really starting to realize how big of an issue it was, and I certainly think more critically now than I did when I was 14. Of course I don’t assume everyone who still watches certain series is a pedophile, and I do think there are plenty of fans that understand this. However I still stay away from those circles and that’s a personal choice.

I don’t think a person is morally superior based on where they draw the line and their own boundaries with this type of stuff, what’s more important is your understanding of the problem and response to it. There are series I watch that have a lot of the same issues around sexualization of the young characters in the cast, but they’re relatively toned down and I can still enjoy the aspects of the series I actually like without it feeling as uncomfortable and extreme. Others will not be able to, and their issues with it are legitimate and ones that I still ultimately agree with, but they’re still free to dislike the series for it, after all our stance on the issue itself is the same so why would I resent them for it?

Different people are bound to have different lines they draw for how far certain things can go in media before they’re uncomfortable watching it and it doesn’t make it a moral failing of the person who can put up with more if they’re still capable of understanding why it’s bad to begin with and able to not let it effect them. But I don’t think that sentiment necessarily contradicts the idea that some things really are too far gone for this to apply, the above examples aren’t the same thing as a series centered solely around lolicon ecchi and it doesn’t take a lot of deep analysis to understand why. It’s not about a personal line anymore when it comes to things that are outright propaganda or predatory with harmful ideals woven into the message of the story itself. Critical thinking means knowing the difference between these, and no one can hold your hand through it. And simply slapping “I’m critical of my interests” on your bio isn’t a get out of jail free card, it’s always evident when someone isn’t truly thinking about the impact of the media they consume through the way they consume it.

I think the issue is that when people apply “Critical thinking” they don’t actually analyze the story and its intent, messages, themes, morals, and all that. Instead they approach it completely diegetically, it’s basically the thermian argument, the issue stems from thinking about the story and characters as if they’re real people and judging their actions through that perspective, rather than something from a writer trying to deliver a narrative by using the story and characters as tools. Like how people get upset about characters behaving “problematically” without realizing that it’s an intentional aspect of the story, that the character needs to cause problems for there to be conflict. What they should be looking at instead is what their behavior represents in the real world.

You do not need to apply real-world morals to fictional characters, you need to apply them to the narrative. The story exists in the real world, the characters and events within it do not. Fictional murderers themselves do not hurt anyone, no one is actually dying at their hands, but their actions hold weight in the narrative which itself can harm real people. If the character only murders gay people then it reflects on whatever the themes and messages of the story are, and it’s a major issue if it's framed as if they’re morally justified, or as if this is a noble action. And it’s a huge red flag if people stan this character, even if the story itself actually presents their actions as reprehensible. Or cases where the murderers themselves are some kind of awful stereotype, like Buffalo Bill who presents a violent and dangerous stereotype of trans women, making the character a transmisogynistic caricature (Intentional or otherwise) that has caused a lot of harm to the perception of trans women. When people say “Fiction affects reality” this is what they mean. They do not mean “People will see a pretend bad guy and become bad” they mean “Ideals represented in fiction will be pulled from the real world and reflected back onto it.”

However, stories shouldn’t have to spoon-feed you the lesson as if you’re watching a children’s cartoon, stories often have nuances and you have to actively analyze the themes of it all to understand it’s core messages. Oftentimes it can be intentionally murky and hard to parse especially if the subject matter itself is complicated. But you can’t simply read things on the surface and think you understand everything about them, without understanding the symbolism or subtext you can leave a series like Revolutionary Girl Utena thinking the titular Utena is heterosexual and was only ever in love with her prince. Things won’t always be face-value or clear-cut and you will be forced to come to your own conclusions sometimes too.

That’s why the whole fandom-based groupthink mentality about “critical thinking” doesn’t work, because it’s not critical. It’s simply looking into the crowd, seeing people say a show is problematic, and then dropping it without truly understanding why. It’s performative, consuming the best media isn’t activism and it doesn’t make you a better person. Listening to the voices of people whom the issues directly concerns will help you form an opinion, and to understand the issues from a more knowledgeable perspective beyond your own. All that means nothing if you just sweep it under the rug because you want to look infallible in your morality. That’s not being critical, it’s just being scared to analyze yourself, as well as what you engage with. You just don’t want to think about those things and you’re afraid of being less than perfect so you pretend it never happened.

And though I’m making this post, it’s not mine or anyone else’s job to hold your hand through all this and tell you “Oh this show is okay, but this show isn't, and this book is bad etc etc etc”. Because you actually have to think for yourself, you know, critically. Examples I’ve listed aren’t rules of thumb, they’re just examples and things will vary depending on the story and circumstance. You have to look at shit on a case-by-case basis instead of relying on spotting tropes without thinking about how they’re implemented and what they mean. That’s why it’s analysis, you have to use it to understand what the narrative is communicating to its audience, explicitly or implicitly, intentionally or incidentally, and understand how this reflects the real world and what kind of impact it can have on it.

A big problem with fandom is it has made interests synonymous with personality traits, as if every series we consume is a core part of our being, and everything we see in it reflects our viewpoints as well. So when people are told that a show they watched is problematic, they react very extremely, because they see it as basically the same thing as saying they themselves are problematic (It’s not). Everyone sees themselves as good people, they don’t want to be bad people, so this scares them and they either start hiding any evidence that they ever liked it, or they double down and start defending it despite all its flaws, often providing those aforementioned thermian arguments (“She dresses that way because of her powers!”).

That’s how you get people who call children’s cartoons “irredeemable media” and people who plaster “fiction=/= reality!” all over their blogs, both are basically trying to save face either by denying that they could ever consume anything problematic or denying that the problematic aspects exist all together. And absolutely no one is actually addressing the core issues anymore, save for those affected by them who pointed them out to begin with, only for their original point to become muffled in the discourse. No one is thinking critically because they’re more concerned with us-vs-them group mentality, both sides try to out-perform the other while the actual issue gets ignored or is used as nothing more than a gacha with no true understanding or sympathy behind it.

One of the other issues that comes from this is the fact that pretty much everyone thinks they’re the only person capable of being critical of their interests. That’s how you get those interactions where one person goes “OK [Media] fan” and another person replies “Bro you literally like [Other Media]”, because both parties think they’re the only ones capable of consuming a problematic piece of media and not becoming problematic themselves, anyone else who enjoys it is clearly incapable of being as big brained as them. It’s understandable because we know ourselves and trust ourselves more than strangers, and I’m not saying there can’t be certain fandoms who’s fans you don’t wanna interact with, but when we presume that we know better than everyone else we stop listening to other people all together. It’s good to trust your own judgement, it’s bad to assume no one else has the capacity to think for themselves either though.

The insistence that all media that you personally like is without moral failing and completely pure comes with the belief that all media that you personally dislike has to be morally bad in some way. As if you can’t just dislike a series because you find it annoying or it just doesn’t appeal to you, it has to be problematic, and you have to justify your dislike of it through that perspective. You have to believe that your view on whatever media it is is the objectively correct one, so you’ll likely pick apart all it’s flaws to prove you’re on the right side, but there’s no analysis of context or intent. Keep in mind this doesn’t necessarily mean those critiques are unfounded or invalid, but in cases like this they’re often skewed in one direction based on personal opinion. It’s just as flawed as ignoring all the faults in the stuff you like, it’s biased and subjective analysis that misses a lot of context in both cases, it’s not a good mindset to have about consuming media. It’s just another result of tying media consumption with identity and personal morals. The faux-critical mentality is an attempt to separate the two in a way that implies they’re a packaged deal to begin with, making it sort of impossible to truly do so in any meaningful way.

As far as I know this whole phenomena started with “Steven Universe Critical” in, like, 2016, and that’s where this mentality around “critical thinking” originated. It started out with just a few people correctly pointing out very legitimate issues with the series, but over time it grew into just a trend where people would make cutesy kin blogs with urls like critical-[character] or [character]crit to go with the fad as it divulged into Nostalgia Critic level critique. Of course there was backlash to this and criticism of the criticism, but no actual conversation to be had. Just people trying to out-do each other by acting as the most virtuous one in the room, and soon enough the fad became a huge echo-chamber that encouraged more and more outrageous takes for every little thing. The series itself was a children’s cartoon so it stands to reason that a lot of the fans were young teens, so this behavior isn’t too surprising and I do believe a lot of them did think they were doing the right thing, especially since it was encouraged. But that doesn’t erase the fact that there were actual real issues and concerns brought up about the series that got treated with very little sympathy and were instead drowning out people’s voices. Though those from a few years back may have grown up since and know better (Hopefully), the mentality stuck around and influenced the norm for how fandoms and fandom people conduct any sort of critique on media.

That’s a shame to me, because the pedestal people place fandom onto has completely disrupted our perception on how to engage with media in a normal way. Not everything should be consumed with fandom in mind, not everything is a coffee-shop au with no conflict, not everything is a children’s cartoon with the morals spoon-fed to you. Fandom has grown past the years of uncritical praise of a series, it’s much more mainstream now with a lot more voices in it beyond your small community on some forum, and people are allowed to use those voices. Just because it may not be as pleasant for you now because you don’t get to just turn your brain off and ignore all the flaws doesn’t mean you can put on your rose-tinted nostalgia goggles and pretend that fandom is actually all that is good in the world, to the point where you place it above the comfort and safety of others (Oftentimes children). Being uncritical of fandom itself is just as bad as being uncritical of what you consume to begin with.

At the end of the day it all just boils down to the ability to truly think for yourself but with sympathy and compassion for other people in mind, while also understanding that not everyone will come to the same conclusion as you and people are allowed to resent your interests. That doesn’t necessarily mean they hate you personally, you should be acknowledging the same issues after all. You can’t ignore aspects of it that aren’t convenient to your conclusion, you have to actually be critical and understand the issues to be able to form it.

I think that all we need is to not rely on fandom to tell us what to do, but still listen to the voices of others, take them into account to form our opinion too, boost their voices instead of drowning them out in the minutiae of internet discourse about which character is too much of an asshole to like. Think about what the characters and story represent non-diegetically instead of treating them like real people and events, rather a story with an intent and message to share through its story and characters, and whatever those reflect from the real world. That’s how fiction affects reality, because it exists in reality and reflects reality through its own lens. The story itself is real, with a real impact on you and many others, so think about the impact and why it all matters. Just… Think. Listen to others but think for yourself, that’s all.

#see i told you guys id find that essay and post it for real. i wasnt kidding.#good luck inbox of mine :praying:

163 notes · View notes

potteresque-ire · 3 years

Video

youtube

Happy Pride! 🏳️‍🌈 (June is Pride Month where I am 😊) For the occasion, may I recommend this animated musical short, 秘密港 Safe Haven, by the Beijing Queer Chorus (北京酷兒合唱團)? Published on the International Day Against Homophobia, Transphobia and Biphobia (IDAHOBIT; May 17th, 2021), the animation, with its lovely (and at times, heartbreaking) song, is about a queer person and their friend who tries to offer their support. The lyrics is English-subbed.

(Below the cut: a wish for the c-queer community; conception of Safe Haven, as explained by the Beijing Queer Chorus; CW/TW for homophobia, violence and forced abortion)

Background for my wish: with the recent Chinese government’s aggressive turnaround in its population control policy to combat its declining birth rate—on 2021/05/31, China further lifted the cap of number of children allowed per couple from 2 to 3 (the number was 1 for almost four decades, 1978-2015; the population control measure has therefore been colloquially called the “One Child Policy”), younger generations of Chinese are already feeling the pressure and fearing the consequences of non-compliance (for example, if the state levies heavy fines on non-child-bearers).

While I have not yet read articles that directly connect the major policy shift with the c-queer community, I imagine it may bring both relief and additional challenges. The relief will likely take time to come; the challenges, meanwhile, will likely be immediate.

This has to do with the root of antagonism against homosexuality in Chinese societies. Unlike in their Western counterparts, Chinese queers have consistently reported that family, instead of societal, pressure as the greatest challenge they face (societal pressure includes that from religion, from government etc). C-queers are expected to abide to the heteronormative traditions of opposite-sex marriage and child-bearing, in a collectivistic, conformist environment still strongly influenced by the Confucian notion that continuing the bloodline is the primary responsibility of a filial child. Men, especially, are under heavy pressure to carry on their family surname. Those who fail to do so are seen as irresponsible at best, moral failures at worst. They suffer anything and everything from constant nagging from their relatives, to ostracisation, to disownment.

A better known consequence of this cultural antagonism against homosexuality in the tragic Tongqi (同妻 “homo-wives”) phenomenon that is, perhaps, unique to China.

Tongqi are straight women who unknowingly entered marriage with closeted gay man, who often learn about their spouse’s sexuality only after the filial obligation of having children has been fulfilled. It’s a form of marriage fraud; women who file for divorce, however, are likely to lose custody of their child(ren) under Chinese laws, and so many of them keep mum. The gay men involved are also victims in many cases; the lack of public, open education and discussion of queer topics in the country mean even the queers themselves may not have a full understanding of their own queerness, believe that “straightening” themselves is something they can do with sufficient willpower and love for their family.

As one may expect, these marriages are mostly unsatisfying; psychiatric issues and intimate partner violence (IPV), which include verbal, emotional and physical abuse, have also been frequently reported. Just how prevalent are Tongqi’s in China that, in turn, reflect how many gay men in China are pressured to remain in the closet and get married? The following numbers may serve as comparison. In 2010, the percentage of gay men married to heterosexual women in the US was 15-25%. In China and in 2018, meanwhile, the reowned Chinese sexologist, sociologist and LGBT rights activist, Li Yinhe (李銀河), quoted an estimate of 80% of China’s ~ 20 million gay men were married to heterosexual wives; i.e. the Tongqi population amounted to ~16 million. Literature has reported a similar estimated size of the Tongqi population—at 13+ million, in 2016.

(Reason for the numbers being estimates: the exact size of the c-queer community isn’t known. China’s decennial census questionnaire from late last year (2020) once again excluded questions about its own LGBT+ community. "Room mate” is how many c-queers have to refer to their partners).

While the Chinese government decriminalised homosexuality in 1997 and its current laws carry no clauses that target the queer community—the official stance of Chinese government on homosexuality is currently 不支持，不反對，不提倡 “not supporting, not opposing, not advocating”—what may seem to be its non-queer-related policies have indirectly but majorly impacted the lives of c-queers. In particular, the “One Child Policy” has been hypothesised to exacerbate the challenge faced by c-queers, as the only child becomes the sole “next generation” available for producing grandchildren and extending the family bloodline.

Hence, my expectation / hope that the relaxation of "One Child Policy”, by lifting the cap on the number of children a couple can have, will bring relief to the LGBT+ population—even if the relief will only come years down the road, as the newer generations of c-queers will then have siblings to share their filial responsibilities.

However, this also explains my worry for now, for the immediate months and years to come, for not only c-queers but the younger generations of Chinese in general. My worry is about how, exactly, the state intends to drive its birth rate upward, and the hardship the new policies may bring.

The practices of China’s population control policies have historically been brutal. Forced, late-term abortions were common, for example. This is reflected in the country’s birth control propaganda banners, commonly seen in Chinese villages until late 2000s, which were infamous for their verbal violence:

“Beat it out! Abort it! Miscarry it! Just cannot give birth to it!”

Fines, which were levied on offenders of the One Child Policy, may seem like a better option but can place an unbearable burden on poorer families, of which there remain many in China. Premier Li Keqiang reported, in May 2020, that >40% of China’s population—600 million—are living with a monthly income of ~$140 USD or below, despite the glitz often seen in the country’s entertainment productions. Using One Child Policy era fines for reference, the famous Chinese director 張藝謀 Zhang Yimou was fined 7.48 million RMB (~$1.17 million USD) for his three children, in 2013. Defying the new population control policies may therefore be a privilege reserved for the very powerful and very rich. And the government is likely to be aggressive in enforcing its new policies—the social media accounts of > 20 feminist activists, who advocate for reproductive freedom among other women’s rights, have already been shut down in the recent weeks.

Will the Chinese government find ways to penalise members of the queer community who do not contribute to the new baby count? Will it turn a blind(er) eye to the Tongqi 同妻 (and to a lesser extent, Tongfu 同夫 ~ heterosexual men married to lesbian women) tragedies happening every day? It’s impossible to say yet.

For this year, therefore, I wish the c-queer community this—I wish it to be safe from the reach of China’s population control policies, whatever they will be.

Back to the animated short, Safe Haven, which is about coming out. In 2016, a 18,000 people survey by the United Nations Development Programme reported only 5% of Chinese queers had come out to people outside their families. Only 15% have come out to their families. A more recent survey reports a significant improvement in these percentages, with ~50% of gays, bisexuals and transgenders and 70% of lesbians having come out to their families (Table 2). Fully out queers remain rare (<10%).

There’s still, therefore, a long way to go. With queers often being out (if they’re out at all) only to their most immediate/intimate social circles, with the state’s censorship of LGBT+ presentation in visual media, many (especially older generations of) non-queers in China haven’t seen a living, breathing, outwardly queer person before. The process of coming out, by extension—what it means, what it takes for both the giver and receiver of the message—may have never entered the thoughts of these non-queers before.

What should they say? What should they do? What words and actions will convey support? What won’t?

Safe Haven is about these questions. I’ll end this post with a translation of the Weibo post in which the animated short was first published, in which Beijing Queer Chorus explained the project’s conception:

#517 IDAHOBIT# Do you remember how it was like, the first time you came out of the closet, or someone came out of the closet to you? Who was that person? What did you say at the time, and how did that person react?

The person who voluntarily exposes their heart requires courage. The person who receives the message may have their own heart filled with unease.

Maybe, both are thinking: “What should I do?”

Coming out is such an important occasion. It can, perhaps, change a relationship forever.

Some will welcome warmth and hugs. Some others will get their first taste of homophobia. Yet some others will find neither.

After a queer person came out to their friend, they got, in return, “Don’t worry. I’ll still treat you as a friend.” It made them uncomfortable for a long time. But their straight family and friends didn’t understand. How could this be not a kind thing to say?

What is gay-friendly? What is homophobic? It appears that everyone has their own standards. The same words and behaviours transmit warmth to some, deep offence to others.

So, when we’re talking about “homophobia”, what are we talking about?

To commemorate this years #517 IDAHOBIT#, the Beijing Queer Chorus interviewed its tens of members and their relatives and friends, in hopes of investigating the difference in perspectives between homosexuals and straight people. How can this barrier be crossed, how can they work together to take care of the valuable relationships.

In the stories of all interviewees, a warmth like this can be felt: even with the risks, there remain those who are brave enough to display their true self; even with the misunderstandings, there remain those willing to keep the secrets of others, willing to learn to understand a whole new world.

We condensed these stories into an original, animated musical short, Safe Haven.

We hope every boat riding the winds and waves can find a harbour to unload their secrets. We also hope every person has enough gentle strength to be the safe haven for others.

We offer our best wishes to every queer who lets their heart be seen ~ may your courage reap its rewards.

We thank every friend and family who have treated these hidden matters of the heart seriously. You make the world a better place.

#pie metas #lgbt #pride 2021

102 notes · View notes

transsexualhamlet · 3 years

Text

sherlock holmes reactions part 4 (?) ive lost count already but unsurprisingly ive grown even more attached to him

using this as the cover image because i made him a playlist. cause im awful

no legit this is gonna need a read more because it's SO LONG SHIHEWIESHEFSHIEWHF

Had three mental breakdowns this week and realized i do in fact kin sherlock motherfucking holmes. this does not bode well for anything in my life mentally I've diagnosed him with so many things

Oh boy lol you want the list I think hes autistic (undisputed honestly) plus also adhd but on top of that there's the manic depression and uhhh the bpd lmao I dont even think that's it those are just. the obvious ones

But yeah man's a fucking mess and a shit person but in the same way as me so 👍

Some highlights I thought were very funny:

watson: we are in fact going to be waltzing into a place where people are Shooting People you do not have your gun. this is a problem

sherlock: don't worry watson I have my trusty stick!

watson: visible pain

This clearly happens like every day or so with them

but yeah there were some really honestly sweet scenes with them at the apartment and why am i getting soft over the crusty man being gay

have you considered tho. have you considered them

have you considered sherlock, who usually only plays absolute garbage on his violin serenading watson to sleep when he was tired and in pain and watson being so fucking in love with the man and waxing poetic about falling asleep to his music and waking up to see him fallen asleep on the couch next to him and oh my god them

They're just really sweet together for such a completely dysfunctional couple so much of the time lol I just. Sherlock being like.

Sherlock half of the time: watson you're fucking stupid. no i won't take care of my personal needs stfu. watson get a goddamn life. watson shut up. watson no one cares about your goddamn opinion. no i need to disturb you in the middle of the night it's for science. hey watson mind if i manipulate mansplain malewife

Sherlock the other half of the time: HELLO SIR YOU ARE MY FAVORITE MAN TO EVER MAN HELLO MAY I SPEND THE REST OF MY DAYS WITH YOU HELLO I WILL DO ANYTHING FOR YOU WE ARE PERFECT MATCHES I LOVE YOU AND I NEED YOU YOURE SO MUCH BETTER THAN ME PLEASE MARRY ME

They're... they certainly are.

ALSO OH MY GOD.

THIS ONE TIME WHEN SHERLOCK WAS JUST PACING AROUND THE ROOM AT 3 AM GOING "IT DOESNT MAKE SENSE >:(((" AND HUDSON LIKE BARGED IN TO COMPLAIN AND THEN WATSON WAS LIKE DUDE YOU GOTTA STOP DOING THIS AND PROCEEDS TO SAY THE LINE "YOU ARE KNOCKING YOURSELF UP, OLD MAN"

BAHGHSFHGRHEWHEWHIFEW

BRB SOBBING

CALLING HIM AN OLD MAN???? KNOCKING HIMSELF UP?? I DONT KNOW WHATS FUNNIER

The main highlight of this part was I have now gotten to see him have a great time watching his homo homie get married

Its so fucking funny.......

I was prepared for a funny reaction by yuumori sherlock's face when he said it lol but. Damn i was really not prepared tbh

watson: I'm engaged!

sherlock: *pained groaning*

watson: do you... not like her?

sherlock: no she's fine she's great you'll be wonderful together bUT I HATE IT WHEN PEOPLE ARE HETEROSEXUAL WATSON DO I HAVE TO MARRY MYSELF THEN WATSON? ARE YOU GOING TO MAKE ME MARRY MYSELF.

watson: yeah... yeah... fair, I feel really bad because you did this whole case and I got a girlfriend out of it and all you got was me leaving you alone fuck man im sorry what are you gonna do without me

sherlock, highly sarcastic: dont worry watson I've always got my handy cocaine! *pulls it out and gets high in front of watson just as he's about to leave*

watson: *in fucking agony*

sherlock: good for you!

I DONT EVEN- THIS SCENE KILLED ME MULTIPLE TIMES OVER WHAT

ITS SO GODDAMN NONCHELANT ABOUT IT SHERLOCK IS JUST LIKE YEAH I WILL IN FACT NOT BE MENTALLY HEALTHY IF YOU ARE NOT WITH ME 24/7 BUT WHATEVER YOU DO YOU /S

I'd like to apologize to watson on sherlock's behalf lmao. man is being a bit too codependent on main

The last thing about sign of four I do need to address is yeah, there's the Horrific Amounts Of Racism in that one and the whiplash hearing it is just ridiculous because they seem to be so knowledgeable in all other areas and fairly... politically correct, taking sherlock's original misogyny as a purposeful character flaw, but then they just mention someone indigenous once and suddenly its all parrotting racist propaganda and just... really awful shit. There's no way I'm gonna speak for the group that just got absolutely hate crimed here but anyone can tell the author just has no clue what he's fucking talking about and it's physically painful.

And I don't know, it's just so bad it seems out of character? Doyle's making these motherfuckers say shit that honestly, Sherlock would know better about. And especially Watson. Come on, you cannot tell me watson is mentally capable of being prejudiced against someone. Please do not make him that way.

I'm not sure how to handle it specifically, or what's the proper way I should handle something like that in a media I otherwise like. Is it ok to say Doyle was clearly a piece of shit on the matter and separate those characters from his bias or is that insensitive?

I don't know, I was Not a fan of it and I'm glad to see they've at least finally shut up about the guy

But anyway yeah, uhhhh onto the short stories because I'm trying to read those before I get to the final problem

Scandal in Bohemia was a fucking ride, first of all, before we even get to Sherlock's girlboss arc we have to discuss how gay the whole situation was and how Doyle's attempt at making them less gay failed spectacularly

Like he's all "ah yes I need to marry off watson and uhhh make sherlock ummmm interact with a woman so they dont look gay" but he does it SO BADLY that it makes them look EVEN GAYER

cause i mean, even the conversation they had about watson getting married back in sign of four was gay af, but how Doyle handled things afterward was in no way straighter.

Cause you know, the man kind of wrote himself into a corner with the fact of Watson narrating these stories. So Watson has to be around to witness them, and to witness Sherlock's own thought process rather privately, so he has to be around sherlock at night, a lot. But trying to come up with a reason for that happening just... it didn't occur to Doyle. He just went. Ah yes this makes sense. And it's Watson just like Sleeping Over At Sherlock's like every other goddamn day and every time his wife leaves town and having them basically still live that cute domestic home life but they have absolutely no excuses for doing it anymore. It's quite funny

Like it was gay already the way they interacted when they officially lived together but it was like, a necessity for them. Now it's not, Watson just comes over because he goddamn wants to, and it's hilarious to me.

LIKE IDK I THINK THEY KIND OF BROKE UP FOR A YEAR OR SO BC OF WATSON GETTING MARRIED AND THEY LIKE DONT HAVE CONTACT WITH ONE ANOTHER BUT ONE DAY WATSON JUST INEXPLICABLY HAS THE URGE TO COME VISIT SHERLOCK ON NO NOTICE AND THEN SUDDENLY THEY ARE TOGETHER NEAR 24/7 AGAIN LIKE BARELY ANYTHING CHANGED AHIEHOEWH

SIT DOWN AND TRY TO TELL ME THOSE ARE NOT HOMOSEXUALS

Watson walks in on no fucking notice after a full year and Sherlock is just. In the middle of some experiment obviously but hes like

Sherlock, carrying around unidenfiable chemical mixtures: W A T S O N you look good you look good! i see you've gained seven pounds!!

watson: uh. thanks??? Hey lol *awkwardly waves* Uh um Wanted to Uhm sEe you

Sherlock: ABOUT gODDAMN TIME AND YES WONDERFUL LOOK LOOK SIT DOWN I HAVE THINGS TO INFODUMP ABOUT

watson: :) ok :) *turns to camera* and we were back to the old days

sherlock: makes a deduction

watson: wowwwwwwwwwwww !! so true bestie !!

sherlock: !!!!!!!!! :))) !!!!! :))) uh fuck im supposed to be smooth Its Elementary Lol

watson: *turns to camera* when i stroke his ego like this and compliment him he blushes like a girl like i just complimented his dress so i do it more because he likes it. this is a homie trait

watson: well i should probably get going! my wife will notice that i am gone my dear buddy bro homie!

sherlock: NO DONT LEAVE IM LOST WITHOUT YOU (pretty much a direct quote lol) your. wife doesn't. get back home until monday. I know this because I am smart and definitely have not been stalking you.

watson: alright :)))))

AND THEN HE FUCKING SLEEPS OVER LMAO FUCKING HOMOS

So yeah they're right back where they were before pretty much and there's a case bc of course there is

And honestly I think this short story specifically was so insane mostly just because of how absolutely fast it all went. Yuumori kind of made me believe the original Irene Adler was more of an important character than she really is? And I think that's. Honestly so funny. Motherfucker shows up for ten pages, girlbosses her way around town, and changes sherlock's entire opinion of the female gender while still keeping him gay?

LIKE NO LOL SHES NOT IN ANY WAY A LOVE INTEREST AND WATSON GOES OUT OF HIS WAY TO SPECIFY THE FACT THAT IN NO WORLD WOULD THEY HAVE BEEN ROMANTICALLY INVOLVED BECAUSE. SHERLOCK. DIDN'T DATE WOMEN.

HE WAS JUST??? SO IMPRESSED AND SHELL SHOCKED BY HER EXISTENCE HE DECIDED IT WAS TIME FOR GIRLBOSS APPRECIATION DAY TODAY AND ALL DAYS HENCEFORTH???

AND THEY HAVE LIKE O N E INTERACTION?? God, the power this woman(?) has. Watson looks at her once like. damb shawty 😳 and she's like "no<3" and he's like FUCK

Like yeah it's pretty much just the king walking up like "help girl the whore is blackmailing me" and sherlock being like "ok lol this will be easy" and then it proceeded to not in fact be easy or even possible

sherlock like... posed as a dead body and tried to get her to give up the location of the photo but she out-acted him and skipped the town the next day after doing the 'good night mr. sherlock holmes' thing with sherlock completely tricked

and she just. sends a letter like "dear sherlock holmes. you're a fucking idiot and i think it's funny that you lost. nice job tho mad respect" and sherlock just SHORT CIRCUITS

the king comes back a bit later like "hey Dude where's my Photo" and sherlock's like oh yeah uhhhhhhhhhhh about that and the king is like HOW COULD IT POSSIBLY HAVE BEEN THAT GODDAMN HARD i would have dated someone more noble if she wasn't so pretty i swear im on a whole different level from her

and then. GIRLBOSSIFIED SHERLOCK HOLMES RESPONDS "from what I have seen of the lady, she seems indeed to be on a very different level from your majesty" ABSEHHESHEFHHFES ROASTED

and the dude just LEAVES

After that I read a few more of the short stories and well the highlights I got from that pretty much were these conversations

Watson: sherlock. honey. have you. eaten anything today

Sherlock: IT DIDNT OCCUR TO ME DEAR WATSON

Watson: ITS FIVE PM

and:

Sherlock: *having one of his Moment Moments at three in the goddamn mornig* GRRRR CRIME ISNT WHAT IT USED TO BE

Watson: MY DEAR SHERCOCK WHAT IS CRIME S U P P O S E D TO BE LIKE ACCORDING TO YOU

Sherlock: no one's original anymore fucking copycats

Watson: so you want the criminals to make things harder for you specifically.

Sherlock, exasperated: yes!

I love them your honor.

#rowan's hyperfixation essays #rowan screams into the void #rowan views moriarty #sherlock holmes

14 notes · View notes

sapphicambitions · 4 years

Text

Phase 1: I am obsessed with Captain America and The First Avenger and The Winter Solider and those characters

Phase 2: I don’t want to watch those movies because they are unnecessarily Hetero and I hate the military

Phase 3: there is not a single heterosexual person in any of those movies and it is my Goddess Given right as homosexual to reclaim the movies for the gays and see how while some might see the movies as Pro Miliatary and Pro America (and to a certain point, let’s be real, they are) they are about the failings of the government and those in charge and how we must hold our government accountable and question the usage of the military and recognize propaganda when we see it and recognize fascism when we see it and the toll that war takes on people and the amount of loss it in war and understanding our past in order to understand our future and that there’s some queer history to delve into too and also teaches us how the powers of queer love transcend time and is stronger than anything

#lesbianlaynie #shut up i know i sound stupid just let me have this

12 notes · View notes

bobbypizazz · 3 years

Link

N1M Charts | week 17, 2021

Hi Bobby Pizazz!

Congratulations, Your songs are in Hot 1000 N1M Chart! 1Nashville Americana 1Tennessee 16UnitedStates 20GlobalAmericana

Share this song to help it move up in the charts!

SOUTHERN BELLE https://www.n1m.com/bobbypizazz/song/702735-SouthernBelleUnpluged

We don't need anymore Dragqueens4fakeJesus

DEAR HAUGHTY Dragqueens4fakeJesus JESUS LOVERS CLERGY HOMOSEXUALS4FAKE3IN1JESUS, YOUR INCOME IS ABOUT TO DRY UP!

JUST SO WE ARE CLEAR! GOOD vs EVIL

THE LORD GOD ALMIGHTY IS GOOD 1. THE LORD GOD ALMIGHTY IS GOD, THERE IS NO OTHER GOD! NONE! GOD ALMIGHTY IS GOOD

CHRIST JESUS THE ONLY BEGOTTEN SON IS GOOD!~ 2. CHRIST JESUS IS THE ONLY BEGOTTEN SON OF THE LORD GOD ALMIGHTY! IS GOOD he gave of his POWER FROM ON HIGH ITS ALL GOOD

ROME'S JESUITS fake 3in1 JESUS IS EVIL 3. EVIL MEN SELL 933FAKE gods LIKE FAKE TRINITY ROME'S 3in1 JESUS gods of PREDATORY ROBED HOMOSEXUALS PENISLOVERS OR 12STEP BUDDHA 12STEPWICCA OR 12STEPPAGAN OR AA12STEPJESUS

OR FACEBOOK FACK CHECKER HOMOSEXUALS WIZARDS & WARLOCKS SEXUAL PERVERTS

AS-CENSORS FOR THE WORLD of FACEBOOK AGAINST HETEROSEXUALS?

IF YOU SELL IDOLATRY TRINITY 3in1 JESUS as, YOUR gods of HOMOSEXUALS

YOUR INCOME IS ABOUT TO DRY UP Dear @PopeFrancis THE DEVIL’S LGBTQ TROJANS OF ROME'S BOLDFACED PREDATORY ROBED LIARS

NAZI PREDATORY PEDOPHILIA BRAINWASHING HOMOSEXUALS LIARS YOUR TOTAL INSANE

Dear PopeFrancis ROBED PREDATORY PEDOPHILE LIARS

PREDATORY SEXUAL PERVERTS JUDGES & HAUGHTY ROBED HOMOSEXUALS JUSTICES...THERE IS NO JUSTICE! It's Unacceptable

PopeFrancis's NAZI MKULTRA FAR-LEFT POLITICIANS 2020FRAUD FAILED HUMAN SOCIAL EXPERIMENT PRODUCED PREDATORY SEXUAL PERVERTS JUDGES & HAUGHTY ROBED HOMOSEXUALS JUSTICES...THERE IS NONE!~!!

IT'S OUR CONCLUSION "GOD'S OATH DECIPHGERED MINISTRIES" AFTER YEARS OF RESEARCHING BIBLES QURANS TALMUDS & TORAHS, SONG CATALOGS OF LEGENDS & HERO'S ... GLOBAL WIZARDS & WARLOCKS DECEIVED HUMANITY!

EXAMPLES: NATD & NSAI & AFTRA .... ARTISTS, ACTORS & SONGWRITERS SOLD THEIR SOUL TO THE DEVIL'S FAKE 3in1 JESUS the fake gods of 933gods INVENTED By JESUITS PhDs ROME'S SEXUAL PERVERTS & HOMOSEXUALS INCLUDING ASTROLOGY TO DECEIVED HUMANITY FOR KNOWING

"THE TRUTH IS WRITTEN IN THE STARS NAMES" ...INSIDE EACH CONSTELLATION

TRINITY ROMES JESUITS PREDATORY PEDOPHILES in ROBE'S WHO SELL 3in1 JESUS LIARS 325/AD Invented THE NICENE CREED 3in1 JESUS?...

THE DEVIL'S FAKE GODS TRINITY JESUS SAVES WHAT?

MUSIC ROW SUPERSTARS & HIT SONGWRITERS DOVE CMA & GRAMMY AWARDED ARTISTS for TRINITY 3in1JESUS ...KNOWINGLY DECEIVING HUMANITY FOR MONEY

ARTISTS CEOs PRODUCERS ALL BECAME COCKSUCKING PENISLOVERS & DRUGGIES 4DEVIL'S JESUS

TRINITY CLERGY LIARS! SELL BOLDFACED LIES IN 3in1 JESUS gods of SEXUAL PERVERTS & DICKERSUCKERS4JESUS THE DEVIL TRINITY JESUS

Flint MI 1919 "Civic Park" Start of Rome's @Pope's #NAZI #MKULTRA #FARLEFT FAILED HUMAN SOCIAL EXPERIMENT which PRODUCED FAR-LEFT POLITICIANS LAWYERS CEOs WHO PROMOTED HOMOSEXUALITY...

FAR-LEFT POLITICIANS JUSTICES & JUDGES HIRED & PLACED BY ROME GLOBAL ARM OF ELECTION FRAUD

THEY USE BRAINWASHING NAZI RADIO Frequencies changed IN 1957 to A440Hz NAZI BRAINWASHING PEDOPHILE inducing a feeling of sexual uneasiness NAZI'S MINISTER OF PROPAGANDA PAUL JOSEPH GOEBELLES STARTED THE INDUCTION OF BRAIN WAVES ALTERING IN 1957 FOLLOWED BY BEATLE 1963 ...HYSTERIA

ROME PREDATORY JESUITS in ROBE'S SEXUAL PERVERTS & HAUGHTY HOMOSEXUALS hidden in THE CHURCH since WW2... NOW BEING EXPOSED JESUS IS NOT GOD! POPE'S TRINITY 3in1 JESUS ( IS A BOLDFACED LIE ) ROME'S fake 3in1 JESUS the gods of ROME's PREDATORY HOMOSEXUALS CLERGY, ALL LIED THEY SERVE THE DEVIL FAKE 3in1 JESUITS invented NICENE CREED

TRIUNE JESUS 3in1 gods of JESUITS FORCED ON ALL TRINITY CHURCHES TO AGREE UPON FAKE TRIUNE JESUS... OR THEY MURDERED THEIR LEADERS...

SO JESUS IS A BOLDFACED DEVILS LIARS OF LIES PENISWORSHIP 4 JESUS HUMAN DESPOTS4CHILDSPERM PENIS #JESUSLOVERS ARE LIARS

DO YOU MAKE YOUR LIVING

SELLING TRINITY IDOLATRY?

LIKE 3in1 3D JESUS of ROME'S JESUITS DONKEYS in ROBES

ROME'S GLOBAL PLACED CLERGY PREDATORY HOMOSEXUALS DESPOTS DICKSUCKERS4JESUS

MAJOR RADIO DJs on fake WSM FISH WNAH RADIO ALL SELL FAKE JESUS PUSHING NORMALIZATION of HOMOSEXUALITY

DID YOU KNOW THAT HOMOSEXUALITY IS AN ABOMINATION UNTO THE LORD GOD ALMIGHTY?

FAKE JESUS 3in1 gods of ROMES JESUITS PREDATORY PEDOPHILES HOMOSEXUALS IN ROBES say #JESUSSAVES IS A BOLDFACED LIE

JESUS DON'T SAVE SHIT ITS A FAKE PERSONA gods invented in YOUR MINDS BY PREDATORY PEDOPHILES ROME'S CLERGY HOMOSEXUAL LIARS

THEY WRITE A440Hz SONGS POEMS BOOKS MOVIES & IMAGES OR BIBLES' QURANS' TALMUDS' TORAHS' PROMOTING HOMOSEXUALITY?

IF YOU SELL IDOLATRY TRINITY 3in1 JESUS as, YOUR gods of HOMOSEXUALS

YOUR INCOME IS ABOUT TO DRY UP

MOWING DOWN MUSIC ROW CHESTER SOLD TRINITY LIES DON'T YOU KNOW A MIGHTY DEN OF SEXUAL PERVERTS MOVED IN BACKROOM PENCILS DICKS TREE- IN-1 SONGS 4JESUS

MOWING DOWN MUSIC ROW HOMOSEXUALS LYING BASTARDS HAVE TO GO BYE BYE MOWING DOWN MUSIC ROW LEGENDS & HERO'S FAMILIES TURN YOURSELVES IN FOR TREASONOUS 3in1FakeJESUS

MOWING DOWN MUSIC ROW CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY YOU ARE ALL CAUGHT BOLD FACED 3in1 LIARS4JESUS DEVILS DICKSUCKERS4CHRIST NOW YOU LOSE EVERYTHING MOWING DOWN MUSIC ROW

Dear u/PopeFrancis ROBED fake JESUS LOVERS PREDATORY PEDOPHILE LIARS SEXUAL PERVERTS

HOMOSEXUALS DESPOTS43in1JESUS LISTEN UP...YOUR FAR-LEFT LAWS CAN’T MAKE WRONG INTO RIGHT

Tolerance & Acceptance of ROME'S MEN THE DEVIL'S HOMOSEXUALS IS INSANITY TO LET PREDATORY SEXUAL PERVERTS BE JUDGES & HAUGHTY ROBED HOMOSEXUALS BE JUSTICES... THERE IS NO JUSTICE! IT'S UNACCEPTABLE

HOMOSEXUALITY IS AN ABOMINATION UNTO THE LORD GOD ALMIGHTY

Dear PopeFrancis THE DEVIL’S LGBTQ TROJANS OF ROME'S BOLDFACED PREDATORY ROBED LIARS

NAZI PREDATORY PEDOPHILIA BRAINWASHING HOMOSEXUALS LIARS YOUR TOTAL INSANE

PopeFrancis YOUR ROBED PREDATORY PEDOPHILE LIARS YOUR CLERGY RAPIST ALL BELIEVE IN 3in1 JESUITS JESUS as gods of HOMOSEXUALS & SEXUAL PERVERTS???

THE 7 HILLS OF ROME IS THE DEVIL'S RICH MAN'S INSANITY...

THE WHOLE FUCKING THING IS COMING DOWN ALL YOUR INCOMES DRY UP FROM TRINITY IDOLATRY

BYE BYE

It's All Because Of You .... DESPOTS4FAKEJESUS

https://youtu.be/_zzaiCoUuWc

1 note · View note

eelsfeelgross · 4 years

Text

Conclusions: Trans Activism v. Radical Feminism, a first-hand account

This is current stance after a lot of direct investigation on both radfems online and trans activists online. No group is judged based on the observations, rhetoric, or propaganda of any outside group, but from my own first-hand observations in combination with objective knowable facts such as actions known to be committed in public record by the likes of criminals or celebrities. However, the bulk of this is based on what I have seen, what I know to be true because it’s been done before my own eyes. While my conclusion may lack information on the more nitpicked aspects of things, I believe their overall impressions still hold true with the amount of experience I’ve had. Keep in mind: this is not my only account. I have dipped into the radfem community before, each time from a different perspective, at a different time, and with open eyes ready to receive whatever I was given. The same is true of the trans community.

Trans Activism

I want to make clear that these conclusions were mainly drawn from my direct experience with the trans community from within. I am not relying on critics of the trans ideology to tell me any of this, though they often echo the same concerns and observations.

The trans community has a serious problem with misogyny, homophobia, and sex denial. They employ magical thinking and emotional pleas to justify their conclusions and commit to arguments of definition that are ultimately lacking substance. However, while lacking rational, they are abundant with emotional reasoning and can be incredibly powerful rhetorical tools in convincing others to believe them without the necessary evidence of anything claimed.

This is especially prevalent when discussing sexual biology and sexual orientation. They consider self-harm to be the fault of other people, even in adults, and use this as a manipulation tactic to make it seem as if they’re being killed at higher rates than their general demographics. This plays hand in hand with the appropriation of statistics around things like racial violence or violence against sex workers to make it appear trans people, particularly white heterosexual (attracted to the opposite sex) trans women from the middle class of Amerca who aren’t victims of prostitution, are under much more persecution than their lived experiences actually reflects.

This has grown into a political ideology not dissimilar to a religion, but without the usual trappings we associate with a religious group. It requires blind faith in the concept of gender and the “life saving” virtues of expensive hormone treatments and plastic surgeries without proper regard for the risks and consequences of these procedures. Challenging the dogma or asking critical questions is considered a sin itself, even when done with excessive caution for other’s feelings. Violence towards known dissenting groups is considered not just ok, but admirable. Expressions of this desire for violence against the out-group is seen as virtuous to the point that doing it too much will be taken as virtue signalling rather than a sign of deep-seeded anger issues as it would for any other situation. Self-identity is their belief system, and public shame are their tools of punishment to control those within the belief system. Due to sex denial, females suffer especially in this paradigm no matter how they identify or what presentations they choose.

However,

Radical Feminism

Once again, I want to make clear that these conclusions were mainly drawn from my direct experience with the radfem community from within. I am not relying on critics of the radical feminist ideology to tell me any of this, though they may echo similar observations.

Radical feminism, as it exists today in action and not in theories from the 1990s, has a huge problem with transphobia, homophobia, and racism. The focus has shifted almost entirely from protecting women to attacking trans women, understandable on some level but counter-productive to all but the individual ego. There is a preoccupation with what women are “allowed” to do, rather than whether their actions and the consequences of those actions actually benefit the cause of anti-sexism. People feel entitled to be nasty, hurtful and even downright transphobic and homophobic if it means hurting their “enemies” somehow. I’m not sure if they fail to see the big picture or have just given up on caring, but it makes all their pleas for compassion and an end to the trans community’s homophobia seem pretty disingenuous.

This focus on “women deserve more as reparations”, when self-applied to the individual, does nothing to combat sexism as these self serving actions often do little to stop sexism and everything to benefit the individual currently existing within a sexist system. It totally ignores the vital role women play in perpetrating sexism through the generations, from mother to daughter or sister or sister or peer to peer through an intricate web of social pressures.Its not totally ignored mind you, but it is conveniently unaddressed whenever addressing it would prevent them from acting aggressive and toxic toward someone else. However others in the community who aren’t personally benefitting from this at the time will notice, thus leading to endless pointless arguments as the egos clash.

This hypocrisy undermines all attempts at broadening their reach to a new generation of women. Similarly, this toxic attitude undermines all opportunity for organization and real activism which requires a certain level of tolerance and the ability to give basic respect to those you don’t like or agree with. All those who do not tolerate such behavior will simply assume radical feminism must be a hate movement because all they see is vitriol and toxicity, no matter how justified the perpetrator feels about it or the underlying motivators. They will not take the time to read theory because they’ve already seen the practice and they have the sense to know it’s bad. Then when these newcomers see this bad behavior for what it is, they’re belittled or deprived of their agency for their decision to turn away from your movement, called things like “handmaidens” and accused of being either selfishly misogynistic or plainly brainwashed, driving them ever further away. The refusal to take responsibility for your own image and the consequences of your behavior under some false impression of ideological purity justifying it only further cements this takeaway outsiders have.

The most egregious example that comes to mind is the “queers” issue. Radfems are adamant about queer being slur, and they’re right. I myself grew up having queer flung at me by violent straight men and I’m not even that old. I feel no joy in the sanitation and generalization of the term. That is not reclamation, that is erasure and appropriation of pain. Most radfems agree on this wholeheartedly. That is, until you decide to spell it “kweer” and start flinging it at trans people who fit a particular homophobic stereotype: strange appearances, unorthodox body modifications like piercing and colored hair, unwashed, perverted to the point of being predatory, self important children who are just playing pretend to be different. All these qualities call back to the stereotype of queers, gays, and it is deeply intrenched in homophobia going back generations. And yet, while radfems would condemn the trans community for the appropriation of queer and its homophobic implications, they have no problem employing it as a slur when it suits their own toxic impulses.

Some even seem to believe that misspelling the word or being homosexual themselves absolves this. It does not. Anybody without the blinders of radfem internal rhetoric will quickly see past this nonsense. If the trans community came back and started calling radfems “diques” and associating the term with severely lesbophobic stereotypes like being unwashed or too ugly to get a man or any of the other countless stereotypes around the slur “dyke”, radfems would be rightly livid. Making a point to only target straight radfems with this insult would not make it any different. But addressing these kinds of hypocritical positions has become a taboo within the radfem community, yet another spark to relight the fires of senseless infighting.

This is the worst example I’ve personally seen, but it is not the only one. There’s also the tendency for radfems, desperate for others who are gender critical to connect with, to make alliances with right wing conservatives despite their racism and homophobia simply because they’re also transphobic but for completely different reasons. And also a tendency to be much more forgiving of misogyny coming from these new “allies” that will glady destroy you too once trans people are out of the way. But I will not labor my point any further by bringing up everything all at once. Regardless, for those who harp on and on about getting to the root of the problem, the moment anyone suggests you try getting to the root of your own problems, taking accountability and making changes, all that self-righteous posturing seems to go out the window just like it does in the trans community. You’ve become a reflection of what you hate in an attempt to combat it, and it will be the death of your movement if you don’t make a serious effort to reform these behaviors and distance yourself from those who employ these forms of rhetoric.

It’s a harsh fact, but the world at large does not care what you deserve, just like sexual biology doesn’t care about your personal feelings about your sex. It just doesn’t. That’s why patriarchy exists in the first place. It is your job as a social movement to use your words and actions to convince them to care. That is what the trans community has managed to do successfully, in my opinion often for the wrong reasons but successfully nonetheless, but such things do not stroke the ego of the individual radfem and therefore simply doesn’t happen in an organized, ideology-wide manner. Small islands of rational stand isolated in a sea of this pointless vitriol, and alone they are hopeless against the attacks against radical feminism born from the trans community and their sex denial that leads to egregious misogyny.

Conclusion

When it comes to the underlying theory, the ideological core, I find that radical feminism has the best chance of growing to become a social movement for genuinely good change in the world, particularly for women and women-loving-women specifically. Trans ideology, in my opinion, is inherently flawed as its core tenants require faith in what one cannot prove and a rejection of science that doesn’t support said faith.

Trans ideology as it exists in 2020 is more akin to religion than science, and has proven its capability to do harm through its use of magical thinking and distorted points of view that constantly shift and change to make space for the core trans ideology to be “correct”. Core ideas such as: sex is either fake or less relevant than gender, that gender is an objective fact of the human psyche, that others failing to fix your own poor mental health are responsible for your harm or death, that transition is always a good idea if someone wants it and no gatekeeping should be performed regarding using plastic surgery to treat mental discomforts, and so on. Remove all these ideas, and the whole thing falls apart.

Meanwhile, removing the toxicity of the radfem community as it exists now will not destroy its underlying core beliefs. Its just that the current people who advertise themselves as radfems and take up that mantle do not actually follow the core ideology of their own movement when it doesn’t benefit them. It has been infiltrated and run amok with bad faith actors who abuse the movement for personal gain, whether they are aware of it or not. And with their combination of being excessively vocal and lacking any shame for their misdeeds, more and more are drawn into their toxic games to the point that the ones who actually speak to the spirit of the core theory get drowned out or attacked to the point none will associate with them openly. The ones who actually know the theory and practice it end up effectively shunned from a community that widely hasn’t even read the theory and thinks hating trans people and thinking pussy = superior makes them a radfem. And thus, by allowing this, that is what radical feminism has become in practice. No amount of appealing to that core philosophy will matter if the actual people don’t apply that theory properly.

So my conclusion? Radical feminism has the greatest potential for good, but it is grossly unrealized and will remain that way without radical internal changes. However, if anyone is equipped to get to the root of the problem and make a radical change it should be radfems. Or at least, the good faith radfems who aren’t abusing the movement, of which I’m convinced have become the minority of radfems in the present day. Perhaps it is time for feminism to once again branch off, not to try returning to the 2nd wave but to set the stage for a true 4th wave as many have talked about. A 4th wave that is based on the foundations set by 2nd wave feminist thinkers, but forward thinking, self-critiquing, and not limited by the hangups of the last wave. I guess only time will tell what radfems value more: their egos in attachment to the idea of identifying as a radfem, or the effective dis-empowerment of patriarchy through organized effort at the expense of satisfying your personal vendettas against all men.

#radfem #radical feminism #trans activism #terf safe #terfs do touch #guilt tripping or baseless accusations = ignored #who am i kidding nobody is going to read this #nuance is dead and im wasting my time #RIP feminism i guess

9 notes · View notes