#fake ass male feminist

[thekimspoblog]

[munegirl]

It's kind of shitty that in order to get guys to respect women and not act like total dicks to us, we had to tell them that being respectful and treating us like human beings would get them laid. Like, I can't count the amount of times I've seen a guy (tiktok is the worst about this) being overly 'respectful' because he knows that it will literally REEL in girls who have only ever been treated like a small brown stain on carpet. And they do this, mind you, because of the reception they get from it and then have the absolute AUDACITY to wear this face of condescendence in the face of other men AND women alike. Like do you think that making videos lecturing other people about consent and respect makes you look any better than the guy whose an upfront asshole? Because it does not.

[proudfreakmetarusonniku]

sorry to be negative again but it’s deeply funny to me how I’ve seen dream fans go “why are all the people making videos agreeing with us incredibly misogynistic? why can’t anyone be normal?” it is in fact bc your cc has been misogynistic for years and the only reason he isn’t a literal incel is bc he's able to fake being feminist for money. like bro goes mask off every other month with defending rape culture attacking women for things men had done making an objectifying music video and admitting to it without adding anything subversive at all not defending his female friends from misogyny treating sexual assault like a fucking joke ect ect ect. like he is the most “male feminist for brownie points” ass man ever and the fact all the people making video essays defending the dteam are fuckass alt righters who think george should have done more sexual assault bc they hate women is not surprising if you have like. any common sense. like this is a pattern of behaviour from them being misogynistic you can’t go shocked pikachu face when they attract more misogynists.

[crazykuroneko]

Rewind the Tape — IWTV S1E03 Rewatch

It's time to continue @iwtvfanevents Rewind the Tape with Episode 3. A disclaimer: this is my first time rewatching the show (excluding indirect watch through YouTube reactions), and it's purpose for me to refresh my mind and noticing things. So, I won't dwell on certain theories, but I'll take notes about it for myself. An extra disclaimer: I revoke my feminist card for Antoinette Brown.

Before that, this is my favorite shot of this episode:

• The music during the opening. It's a comedy show lol

• "I put you on this earth. Your purpose is to enjoy yourself." A bar. An extremely red flagging bar.

• "I know you don't believe that." This is entering a headcanon/personal theory zone, but I always suspect Lestat during this era has this "ideal life" he envisions for him and Louis. That vampires should be this or that, vampire family should be this or that etc. And he stubbornly holds to it which leads to him denying himself to be vulnerable and more communicative to Louis and Claudia. I wonder if we'll get some clue on this later. anyway, BACK TO THE MAIN PROGRAMMING

• "I desire *small voice* blood..." He is so cute

• ugh Louis' suit is Excellent. Carol Cutshall i worship you

• "Every one of them is capable of abomination, even the ones worthy of admiration" "Thrust them into circumstance,[...] and you'll see all kinds of depravity" Unfortunately, he is right.

• I, too, want to flirt with my spouse while talking about how to decide which human we'll kill.

• NOT THE CAT LOUIS 😭😭😭😭

• And with that, the theme of the episode is set: the consequence of Louis' eating disorder. Deeper exploration after establishing what he lost and not lost to vampirism in the previous episode.

• Antoinette is from Atlanta.

• "You're ashamed of what we are." Highlighting this for later.

• "Could you not use the word..." Louis 😂

• Louis has business in Clairborne. Google tells me it's dominated by Black population back then and has a lot of shops. (cmiiw ofc)

• "There it is". We're gonna back to this later.

• Not at Louis staring at Lestat staring at Antoinette. With Lestat already knew Morton will leave Louis soon, you know that his bad idea (he'd call it genius actually) of inciting Louis' jealousy and rage through Antoinette flashes in his little brain right there.

• Jolly Morton vs Lestat banter. what a moment 😂

• *Googles* Wolverine Blues was written in 1923.

• Okay, this is paraphrase, but Daniel said, "When you're still too close to it, the abused still loves the abuser. But you flipped it on its head" aka '70s Louis hated and trash talked Lestat, but now he romantisized him. Well, we'll definitely see the answer in S2. But I wonder if this raises a possibility of Louis meeting Lestat after the '70s interview? Or 2022 Louis believes Lestat is dead dead? You know, you could be forgiving after someone dies. Anyway, kind of fast forwarding here, but this and how Louis downplays Lestat's power in E01 and Louis' whole speech in E06 about "are we the sum of our worst moments?" establishes Louis' current POV actually softens Lestat. Beating that "Louis is lying to make Lestat look worse" allegations. (Unfortunately, he really loves that man guys 😞)

• It's so cute of Louis he really knows what page he has to read out loud when Daniel starting to question his story. Like, he's very aware there's accuracy problem to his memories.

• Louis looks so cute when he's happy (and what a good acting there from Jacob)

• I like that light blue vest on Lestat. Why do we only see it once (and with Antoinette on top of that)? 😭

• Lestat and Antoinette's gig is two weeks old by this time.

• "I understand the indulgence. I let it happen" Oh, Louis 😞

• Not at Lestat offering a threesome. And "I like burnished complexion". God, they should have killed this racist fake ass sooner. And woman even opens her dress herself 😭

• The editing during this scene is kinda jumpy though. But again, no male gaze on the naked woman body. I appreciate that.

• The laugh omg. I don't know, maybe i'm kinda sick in the head and could see how crazy Lestat's brain works, so since the beginning, even before knowing the "inappropriate laugh" explanation from the books, I saw it as like him going "are you really saying you're not enough? LOL" but that's still fucking rude from Louis' POV. That's like the closest Louis ever being vulnerable and saying "I love you" to Lestat, but alas. In E01, Louis himself says he doesn't like how his family judges him, and now he gets Lestat laughing at his sincerity, so OF COURSE he will become more closed-off.

• "There. I said this" And as I said, we're back to the beginning of this episode. This whole thing with Antoinette is Lestat's "clap back" to Louis' shame about their vampirism, which he sees as a personal slight to him because he's Louis' maker. He's deliberately doing this in away that it betrays his own words. So, Lestat is not being hypocritical here, he's being, "Look, how silly it is when we go along with your words of sparing them according to the standard that pleases us?" He's trying to make a point. This is not unlike when Lestat uses "my love" on Antoinette after Louis calling him "my love" while presenting him the poisoned blood that would kill him in E07. I mean, they're both so petty to each other, and unfortunately they're literally this Taylor Swift meme:

• And as we know, unfortunately Lestat will keep using Antoinette to push Louis' buttons until Louis is numb enough to feel hurt about it 😞

• "So, I can fuck whoever I want?" And since it's basically about making a point, Lestat of course has never considered a possibility of Louis fucking anyone else. Because he assumes Louis would be mad and drain Antoinette himself soon. He's that genius (sarcasm).

• "sanctioned infidelity" Louis really has a way with bis words 😂

• Ordinance 4118. Segregating Storyville.

• Lestat standing right in front of the stage while Antoinette is performing 🤮. They're so overtly public. Rubbing on something he can't do with Louis as a couple.

• Oh Jacob's acting during the game and talking to the Alderman. He looks hot as well 🧎‍♀️

• Ngl since I'm not American and I don't know much about American history, I opened Google for these lines.

• God, after the incident with Benny, there's definitely no contact between Louis and his family because he only knows it's the twins' birthday from Jonah.

• "Do you remember the old days?" Oh, Louis is giving that whole montage of their youth for Lestat. Something they don't have together as a couple. They're so nasty to each other woo!

• Oh Lestat takes umbridge because Louis is praising Jonah's uniform, later saying it's Louis' "type"

• I believe here Lestat is honest he stops the thing with Antoinette because he sees his "clap back" doesn't work like it should be. Tries to wave the white flag of surrender to Louis by offering a night out together the next day, but unfortunately Louis chooses to go to his family. Interesting though, 2022 Louis definitely notices Lestat's disappointment at that time, judging from that shot of Lestat freezing there. Again, this goes with my assumption that 2022 Louis tries to understand Lestat better.

• In hindsight, it's interesting Louis himself offers the opening for Daniel to question his recollection by saying the mud on Lestat's boots could come from anywhere, because later he knows for sure Lestat was there in the bayou watching. During my first watch, I thought Daniel catching his error, but maybe Louis deliberately wants Daniel to catch it? Which makes his words in S2 trailer "I want to remember" more sense. He's been prepping Daniel to see through his errors.

• The eye contact with Armand there. So brief, but what a clue. Is he lingering for Jonah's bit or for the testing memory bit?

• That transition to the girls calling him a ghost. So clever.

• Six months of no contact.

• And Lestat claps back to the Jonah thing by bringing those soldiers to their home. Again, he's genius like that.

• "I think Bricks is onto us". Ofc Bricks knows (because like Antoinette says, they talk gossips), but making Lestat notices this from her after weeks of Lestat and Antoinette being so public is interesting. Idk where I'm going with this, but interesting.

• I still really like with how they did Lestat's face during this big showing of power. Kudos for special effects team

• And I watch you drain the dog and eat rats" Yes yes, Lestat did this whole plan to drive Louis to kill in rage but it ends up with him so close to eat properly yet still draining animals. I believe he'd be less mad if Louis drinks from Jonah there. Anyway, first proof of anything Lestat has planned never ends well (except the Come to Me record in E06, but that's not a long game) and yet we have people saying he's like Hannibal 🤷‍♀️

• Louis really makes him speechless there. Kudos.

• I'm glad to see Lestat supporting Louis here in front of Fenwick and Anderson, and rejects Fenwick's suggestion to make him the face of Louis' business, because I was ready to slap him if he said yes during my first watch.

• And of course Lestat calls it a "hobby" because he never takes Louis' human business seriously and he is unable to understand why his bussiness is important to Louis. The scene where Louis' making the No Whites sign proves it.

• So, Louis' remaining business after this riot in Clairborne is hats and grocery stores. And like Louis says, the money isn't that much. That and the remaining Azalea money (if he saved them, exclusing the amount he's been giving to his family as deputy in charge of their trust) are what funding his life and Claudia during Lestat is away in E06 and their whole trip in Europe in S2. That, if those shops survives the Depression.

• The directing during the killing of Fenwick is so 🤌

• Hanging him at the St. Louis church is too on the nose, Louis, but like Lestat, I really appreciate the style. (I wonder how they got the permit to hang it there. I zoomed this shot a lot back then to identify the church, so I'm pretty sure that's the real church not a replica)

• That zoom in on Louis by the window 🤌

• I went to Google and apparently the Ordinance didn't get time to be applied because it's challanged immediately by a mixed raced Madam, and Storyville ended up being closed due to military pressure. Read here. In the show though, it's applied, so logically it makes the existing racial tension even worse, and there's a big possibility of a race riot to happen with or without Louis' action.

• He really says finding Claudia is a "before you and after you" type of moment 😭

• God, all the things Louis puts on the saving of Claudia. Azalea, Storyville, his people. *spoiler* It's no wonder unable to save Claudia in the end is very traumatic for him.

Summary:

So, we're here in episode 3 aka the essay of all consequences when Louis self-regulates too much. Side effects of his eating disorder we've seen in this episode: "barely energy to hold up a book", lacking libido, easier to become bitey when he is aroused (i mean, it took longer for Claudia in E04 but since she's way younger, she lost herself immediately unlike Louis), healing way later than it should be (a scar that should only take minutes to heal probably takes one good night sleep), unable to control rage hence he's prone to uncontrolled outburst.

If in the last episode, we see how bad Loustat handling a conflict, this time we see their ugly habit of "settling a score" when they're mad with each other instead of communicating like normal people. And when one of them let themselves vulnerable enough to communicate, the other doesn't respond well and instead worsen the other's insecurity (however, we can't blame Louis not noticing Lestat's moment vulnerability because unlike Louis who vocalize his insecurity and gets laughed at, Lestat conceals what he feels and why)

Anyway, can't wait to see this gets even worse 😂😭

[lifeonkylesfarm]

tw beauty standards, eating disorders

genuinely, the makeup, beauty, and cosmetic surgery industries are all so fucking toxic, and they'll do anything to stay in business

whether it's "you need this makeup to look beautiful" "you need this surgery to look beautiful" "wear makeup but do it for you queen" "get cosmetic surgery to empower yourself and be your best self girl!"

it doesn't matter

either way, they're convincing us that 1. we need or should change ourselves and our bodies, 2. that we are not okay as we are; we are not enough as we are, and 3. beauty is important, beauty is value. they have to convince us of these things so that they can stay in business. but in the process, they are a major contributing force to eating disorders and the chronically low, everlastingly horrific self-esteem of women.

in feminist circles, we talk a decent amount about makeup/cosmetics, but we rarely talk about cosmetic surgery and how harmful it is.

I feel like whenever I see talk about cosmetic surgery it's basically just "is Kim Kardashian's ass fake or real?" that talk alone is harmful. women are shamed for their bodies but then shamed for getting surgery to make them what society says they should be.

but also just,,, the way that I have seen people genuinely try to present cosmetic surgery as empowering. this is not plastic surgery, it's not reconstructive, it's not the surgeries trans people get or the surgeries people get after having breast cancer. this is the pressure to totally alter your body, literally just for men. they won't frame it like it's for men. they'll never frame it like that. it's always "feel comfortable in your body!" but the reason women don't feel comfortable in their bodies is beauty standards, beauty standards that are built into PATRIARCHY (i.e. for MEN, for male consumption)

women are taught to pick apart their bodies into alterable pieces, parts to improve, rather than a cohesive vessel that is the form we take in life.

[butch-reidentified]

since you're dysphoric you should understand better than anyone then. if "pussy power" is disturbing if ur female then you're to some extent trans. it makes me dissociate with womanhood x10. idgaf about how men wag their penises, it has nothing to do with me normally. but treason of the female gender is more personal. like an advertisement against "pussy power" because of how gross the nature is.

stop trying to moralize it when i said it's got nothing to do with womens rights too. just because female anatomy instruction was halted doesn't mean there's bad motivations between not liking the reduction to female parts. it's the same thing as lesbians not liking male bodies, a strong dislike but with no prejudice. just not finding the physicality of that reality appealing.

This is a follow-up to this ask.

Most of this is incoherent. Treason of the female gender?? What does that even mean?

I'm going to address the second part first: the sheer audacity of asking me a question and then trying to police my answer. If you didn't want to hear my honest perspective, you shouldn't have asked. You asked a question and I answered it. You say that it has nothing to do with women's rights, but that's absurd. You asked me a question - if you want me to provide an honest answer, you can't just put arbitrary parameters on that answer. There is no world in which I can accurately and adequately discuss this topic while entirely ignoring the oppressive material conditions that have led us to this point. You cannot ask me to explain why "we" (up until very recently it was basic universal feminist understanding that this is a matter of misogyny - radfems didn't pull this out of our asses) "make it a misogyny issue" (it is undeniably a misogyny issue) and then be upset that I discussed misogyny. This is like asking me to explain how icicles form without mentioning anything related to water or temperature.

This *is* a woman's rights issue. What other explanation can you offer for everything I listed in my answer and my follow-up reblog of said answer? What other explanation can you offer for the fact that many men and boys still think that vaginas become looser and/or labia longer the more PiV sex a woman has, but anyone would laugh if you suggested that lots of PiV makes penises shorter and balls smaller? Do you really think all these things I discussed are total unexplained coincidences in a male-dominated society?? If my first answer, my continuation reblog, and this long reply are not enough to show you how this is fundamentally a matter of misogyny, I have many more examples I can give. I'm sure my followers can contribute even more examples and sources as well.

It's dishonest of you to say "just because female anatomy instruction was halted." First of all, it was not "halted" at all - it never existed in the first place. Just as medical research has left female participants and even female cells out of studies entirely for most of history, and is still improving that issue at only an agonizingly slow pace, the inclusion and accuracy of female anatomy and physiology in education is coming along at a crawl. Never mind discussion and education of women's sexuality and pleasure... everyone knows how to make a man climax, but shocking numbers of women are still faking it because men can't find the clit, or think it isn't important, or are so pornsick they think women will squirt after 2 minutes if they just jackhammer their dirty-fingernailed hands into her hard and fast enough. Secondly, education was not remotely the only issue I raised in my responses, so don't come back to my inbox pretending it was (though even if it had been, that should be enough to show you what a systemic issue this is imho).

Now let's address "...doesn't mean there's bad motivation between not liking the reduction to female parts." I don't know what you mean here. Misogyny is the sex-based oppression of female people. The stigma against these body parts is not some mysterious thing that spawned into existence; it is a creation of patriarchy designed explicitly to oppress and control the sex who - barring congenital disorder or medical intervention - have all of these parts. The oppression of female human beings and the mystification of female bodies are fundamentally entwined. There is no separating them into unrelated bigotries. This is one of many reasons that it's so crucially important to be able to talk about biological sex and sex-based oppression. Things like vulva stigma don't exist in a vacuum.

Also! It does not "reduce" women to their body parts to say women are female any more than it reduces brunettes to their hair to say "brunettes have brown hair." I have seen trans spaces refer to "estrogen-dominant bodies" or "people who run on testosterone" countless times, and nobody claims that they're reducing people to their hormones. Talking about characteristics isn't the same as reducing people to those characteristics. This is common sense.

You are welcome to find "the physicality" unappealing all you like. What you are not welcome to do, however, is seek to silence women on a matter of female oppression just because you find it unappealing. You are free to separate yourself from such discussions, but you are not free to demand prevention of them. It is odd to me, in all honesty, that you would reach out and initiate this discussion with me if talk of female anatomy is so revolting and upsetting to you, but to each her own.

You said in the first ask that you "respect women's autonomy." That struck me as odd because that should really go without saying, yet you felt a need to say it. I wasn't wondering how you felt about women's autonomy until I got to that. It's a bit weird to me; usually when someone says something that should ideally be the default, it comes off suspicious (ex: how "I'm not racist!" makes people think you probably are racist). Here's the long and short of it: you can't respect women's autonomy and also desire/attempt to silence women on matters of misogyny, the female body and/or experience, etc.

Now the from the top of this follow-up ask:

This bit is especially incoherent to me, but I'm going to try to clarify my own perspective a bit further and hope our communication styles overlap somewhere along the way.

Regarding "since you're dysphoric you should understand better than anyone:" My dysphoria doesn't blind me to the material conditions in which we live, nor does it make me repulsed by discussion of female anatomy and the stigma around it. I am attracted to female anatomy in others, so it would be especially odd if discussion of it upset me. My dysphoria manifests primarily as "phantom penis" type of physical sensations. My mastectomy helped me with the chest aspect, and I chose to cope with the rest without further medical invention, partly since I knew bottom surgery would not give me what I wanted (in addition to being wildly expensive and exceedingly dangerous for me with my health issues), and partly for ideological reasons. Regardless, my dysphoria has nothing to do with gender, and nothing to do with how other people view me or how I look in the mirror, only the sensations of having the physical sex characteristics I have.

I have no desire to be viewed as a man socially; sometimes I am called he or sir or whatever, and it neither upsets nor delights me. I don't care. I consider myself a gender atheist, meaning I don't subscribe to the definition and perspective of gender that most trans people do. We all seem to understand that gender is a social construct, but we don't all seem to agree on what that means, and we don't all seem to ask the critical thinking questions required to analyze it. We need to take into consideration why that construct exists in the first place/where it originated, who benefits from it and who is restricted/limited by it, and what should be done about it.

Definition: I and many other feminists define gender as the roles, stereotypes, expectations, etc. that are assigned to human individuals on the basis of their sex. The WHO definition (below) works fairly well in terms of what the social construct is and how it functions, but fails to explain how it's assigned. How do people know which babies to put in blue clothes and give toy trucks to and which babies to put in pink bonnets and give dolls to? How do people know which people are expected to stay home with the kids and which people are expected to know how to fix a car? How do people know which person to yell "dyke" at for sporting short hair and cargo shorts? The answer is sex. Our entire lives, these stereotypes, roles, and expectations follow us on the basis of sex.

I believe there is more than enough evidence to support the feminist perspective that gender is a patriarchal tool designed to oppress the female sex. I'm happy to dive into why I believe that in a separate ask if you like, but this one is long enough as is, so to summarize, I'll give an example. Think about the clothing and grooming expected of women vs men. Women (as in female people) are expected to spend a shit ton of money, time, and energy making themselves physically and sexually appealing to men via clothing, makeup, hair styling, shaving, plucking, tweezing, waxing, bleaching, tanning, plastic surgery, botox, laser treatments, 20-step skincare routines, dieting (and starving), and much, much more. The clothes women are expected to wear are inconvenient, impractical, uncomfortable, potentially harmful (high heels), and often restrictive of movement. Women must toe the line between prudish and whorish in every outfit if they want to fit in. Men are expected to... be fairly hygienic, take decent enough care of their health, and wear comfortable, loose, unrestrictive clothing and reasonable shoes that don't literally damage the bone structure of their feet and make them unable to run if they need to. These kinds of expectations are assigned based on sex, often from even before we are born. They are not placed on us only after we declare a "gender identity," and continue to be enforced by sex even if we do declare one.

As such, it's clear to me that it is the female sex that is targeted and harmed by gender, making gender as a concept fundamentally anti-feminist. Without gender, both sexes are free to present, act, speak, and enjoy anything they choose.

I don't like the attitude of "it has nothing to do with me." Plenty of things have nothing to do with me (as in, it doesn't directly affect me), but that doesn't mean I just ignore it.

I really have no clue what the last sentence of this ask means. "An advertisement against 'pussy power' because of how gross the nature is." ??? What is gross? The nature of what? What do you mean by advertisement? I'm totally lost here. This is about as much as I can do in the middle of the night without getting more clarity.

The only other thing I can say is that the entire premise of your original ask was centered on the idea that "pussy obsession" exists in the first place. I have never met anyone obsessed with pussy besides heterosexual males. Feminist efforts to destigmatize female anatomy are not in any way "pussy obsession." The very fact that you - along with the majority of men and some anti-feminist women - have labeled it such while entirely ignoring the actual obsession our society has with dicks shows just how much phallocentrism is seen as normal (to the point most people don't even notice it). And the flip side of that coin is how NOT normalized any non-sexualized positivity toward female anatomy is.

[exitpursuedbyavulcan]

i know it should be assumed because you’re an aegon & aemond fan but to clarify, do you support the claim of aegon being the firstborn son (greens) or rhaenyra’s right as the heir to the throne (blacks)?

In real life? I agree with Shireen. Everyone sucks and ideally no one would be on the throne.

But if I'm thinking in-universe, show-wise? Yeah I'm Team Green. Not because I think Aegon would be a good king, bc he definitely sucks bigtime (there's another rant I can go on in terms of show v book Aegon but I digress), but I think it would have an overall better end result, if there somehow wasn't a civil war.

Aegon has no interest in being king. Therefore, he would pretty much let his mom and Otto run the kingdom. As we've seen from Vizzy T's rotting years, they're pretty good at it. Aegon would just be a puppet for people much more competent that him. It's not ideal, but it's not outright harmful.

But Rhaenyra? In the show, we're told that she doesn't have much interest in her duties as heir (the wheelhouse conversation in episode 3), and the one time we see her in the Small Council meeting, she's pushing for an action I don't agree with (going to war with little to no provocation). Unlike Aegon, she would want to be an active ruler. But in this case, I don't think that's a good thing. I think, like her consort Daemon, she would make rash decisions without fully thinking them through and they would lead, more often than not, to bad outcomes.

I want to be a feminist and say that Rhaenyra's gender shouldn't matter, and that she is the rightful ruler bc she was born first and Vizzy named her heir, but I just can't. The feminism in me, in this case, is outvoted by my logic. Rhaenys was right: the Lords would never have accepted her when there was a male heir. And even if she put all that unrest down (big if), I just don't think she would be a good queen.

The way Rhae and Daemon treat the Greens also really bothers me. Rhaenyra blaming Alicent for marrying her dad instead of her dad? Who was the grown-ass adult capable of making better decisions? The KING who Alicent couldn't say no to? I blame Otto for this too, btw. And how she responded to all of Alicent's efforts to mend that relationship so negatively? Don't even get me started on Driftmark, that's not good for my blood pressure. The way both of them treated Alicent when they came back to KL for Luke's petition is also heinous, but you can scroll in my 'hotd' tag to read about that.

But yeah, I know this is an opinion that may lose me some followers, but whatever. It's all fake, so does it really matter? And I still enjoy all these characters and would gladly take them to bed, so in the end it doesn't really matter all that much to me either.

There's my two cents, hope you at least found it interesting, even if you don't agree!

[nikethestatue]

you’re absolutely right when you say that with sjm it’s all about men. her “feminism” is so fake just like many other authors’ and their “bad ass” female mcs. it’s gotten to the point where these sword swinging stabby rude females written as an act of “feminism” are the only ones getting validated because they engage in traditionally “masculine” (that’s bullshit of course) behavior. idk if that made sense but sjm is not a real feminist, her “feminism” is male centered feminism and i hate that she’s going to ruin elain and make her a nesta or bryce 2.0

Yeah, it will be interesting to see if SJM is able to write a non fighting female protagonist. So far, she hasn’t. The only somewhat non fighting characters that I can think of are Elide and Yrene.

Even Elain’s own claim to fame is the king’s killing.

But ultimately, I think she has no appreciation for ‘femaleness’. She doesn’t care for non masculine attributes. Most of her characters don’t do anything domestic, don’t begin existing until they pick up a sword or a gun. It’s really a shame.

[itsexclusive2]

TBH, Fuck andrew tate and all of those fake ass alpha male scumbags trying to tell women how to be. And fuck all of these white supremacist feminists telling black men we are toxic for existing. They are two sides of the same sexist white supremacist coin. One seeks to silence the voices of black women and girls, and the other seeks to silence the voices of black men and boys (especially those "anti-black misandry doesn't exist" types). They are all monsters and have no place in society.

[lesbiangiratina]

Anji Mito first feminist male character for having his theme song be entirely about a female character.

Unlike Zato's fake ass who makes it all about himself.

LITERALLY rock parade is sweet thank you anji. You cant fix her though sorry. Zato go fuck yourself

[midnight-mama]

Full Oc Bio(Coming Soon)

Verses

╔═*.·:·.✧ ✦ ✧.·:·.*═╗

Name: Alya Richards

Age: 33 years old

DOB: July 7th

Gender: Female

Sexuality: Bisexual (Male leaning)

Current Residence: Manhattan, New york

AKA: Mystic Moon

Powers/Abilities: Telekinesis: Alya has Advanced Level telekinesis and, therefore, can do advanced techniques. That being said, Alya's powers aren't as refined as she could have them. There are many abilities Alya can't use or can not control well.

╚═*.·:·.✧ ✦ ✧.·:·.*═╝

╔═*.·:·.✧ ✦ ✧.·:·.*═╗

Alya Richards is an African American woman from Washington DC. She's the oldest sibling of four and a single mother to an 11 year old girl.

Her hero persona(Mystic Moon) presents herself as a strong feminist and civil rights leader. She is loud and proud, going to almost every rally that is planned in the city. She’s very aggressive and will use hot words to get people to agree and support her

╚═*.·:·.✧ ✦ ✧.·:·.*═╝

╔═*.·:·.✧ ✦ ✧.·:·.*═╗

Alya is extremely cocky and Sassy. She just says what she feels like at the time and runs with it. That's why she has so many fans, she comes off as the unfiltered rebel Supe and people connect with that. She can also be really manipulative when she feels the need. If she has to save her ass or she wants something, she has no issues using someone. When she cares about another person, she is much nicer and sweeter. She will defend that person against others and will be much more emotional available.

╚═*.·:·.✧ ✦ ✧.·:·.*═╝

╔═*.·:·.✧ ✦ ✧.·:·.*═╗

✧*̥˚ EXTRA *̥˚✧

•It is believed that Alya's daughter is Homelander's. This hasn't been publicly confirmed by either party but the girl does look like him.

•Alya is the oldest child of 4

•Has two homes, one provided by Vought and another that very few people know about

•Was branded “The women’s Hero” at one point

•Has horrible taste in men

•Alya hates the feeling of leather on her bare skin. So much so that she can tell the difference between fake leather and real leather

•Its very common for her to toss someone out a window

•"Well that was stupid. I told ya....what did we learn, Babes?"

•Will call you Babes, Doll, Sugar, Honey, or Baby but it has no romantic backing.

•In LOVE with professional wrestling. She loves watching it and going to events. Alya has been known to fuck around with wrestlers and she's proud to admit it.

•Never grew up out of teenage nerd phase. Alya still plays video games and watches Anime and 90s cartoons

╚═*.·:·.✧ ✦ ✧.·:·.*═╝

[qqueenofhades]

To bounce off the previous anon's ask, what is your favorite literary genre? Have you read/re-read any good books recently? What is a book (fiction and/or non-fiction) you feel everyone should read?

I am currently reading The Light Ages by Ian Macleod, which I swear up and down that I read as a teenager and spent a long time trying to find again, but which I don't actually remember at all. I'm pretty sure that this was one of the books which first got me into social-commentary steampunk as a genre, so yes. The books next on the list are The Stardust Thief by Chelsea Abdullah, The Inheritance of Orquídea Divina by Zoraida Córdova, and Perdido Street Station by China Miéville.

Books that I have on pre-order and are both scheduled to be released in August include Husband Material by Alexis Hall (sequel to Boyfriend Material which is one of my favorite books, a gay fake-dating romcom that always makes me laugh my ass off), and Babel: Or The Arcane History of the Oxford Translators' Revolution by R.F. Kuang (author of the Poppy War trilogy), which could not possibly be more up my alley if they had designed it in a lab. It is set in a magical 19th-century Oxford and incorporates aspects of The Secret History by Donna Tarrt and Jonathan Strange and Mr Norrell by Susanna Clarke, both of which are also some of my favorite books, while featuring a Chinese protagonist and exploring racism, linguistic and cultural imperialism, and why the British Empire sucks. It comes out on August 23, which is the day before my birthday, so yes, happy birthday to me.

As you can probably tell, therefore, my favorite genre is well-written literary fiction, feminist, queer, racially and culturally diverse fantasy and sci-fi, space operas and sprawling speculative-fiction sagas, historical fantasy (especially written by women of color, since I almost never read straight white male fantasy authors for, uh, many reasons) and reimagined classics. I will try almost anything if it looks interesting and/or funny (one of the quickest ways to make me lose interest is for a book to have no sense of humor at all and/or take itself way too seriously), but I have too much stuff on my list to stay with it if it doesn't grab me.

A few books not already mentioned that I think more people should read, whether because they are Serious Literature that is worth experiencing, they are good and I enjoy them, they were formative for me as a youth, or some combination of all these things, include:

The Odyssey, trans. Emily Wilson

Midnight's Children, Salman Rushdie

The Historian, Elizabeth Kostova

Reamde, Neal Stephenson

Circe, Madeline Miller

The Bartimaeus Trilogy (The Amulet of Samarkand, The Golem's Eye, Ptolemy's Gate), Jonathan Stroud

The Priory of the Orange Tree, Samantha Shannon

Red White and Royal Blue, Casey McQuiston

The Mask of Mirrors and The Liar's Knot, M.A. Carrick

These are all fiction (much of my nonfiction reading is related to historian work), but I also tend to enjoy narrative nonfiction such as that of Erik Larson or Rachel Maddow. Overall, I read between 50-100 pages every night, occasionally more, but rarely less. I had a long period where I could afford neither the books nor the brainpower, as a broke and overworked PhD student, so I have been going a little hog-wild ever since.

[sowhatnotcreative]

Are you truly a radical feminist if you still buy into male fake science such as "men are biologically hardwired to like young women"? Can you really be radical if you think that "men also need feminism"? Are you a feminist at all if you refuse to question any and all status quo?

To be a radfem I believe it's not enough to follow the leader as in certain other movements. You also need critical thinking skills of your own. You need to be able to question men and partiarchy when it pulls shit from out its ass.

I know a lot of women on here believe feminism is an action, but before it can be a action you need to be conscious. If you don't understand it, yet want to take action there is a whole movement out there who would love for you to join such great feminist endeavors as "the slut walk", or perhaps selling your body to men? What about encouraging porn consumption for kids in the name of "sexual education"?

[thekimspoblog]

I just think "fake-ass fair-weather male feminist" is such an interesting archetype when done correctly. Being surrounded with blatant, hateful misogyny and machismo, and declaring yourself "one of the good ones" just because you are marginally better than that. But all the grand romantic declarations that he would die for his raison d'etre hide something which is still insidious.

[gossipgurlingursht]

You're being targeted by disinformation networks that are vastly more effective than you realize. And they're making you more hateful and depressed.

(a copy of this long ass reddit post)

TL;DR: You know that Russia and other governments try to manipulate people online. But you almost certainly don't how just how effectively orchestrated influence networks are using social media platforms to make you -- individually-- angry, depressed, and hateful toward each other. Those networks' goal is simple: to cause Americans and other Westerners -- especially young ones -- to give up on social cohesion and to give up on learning the truth, so that Western countries lack the will to stand up to authoritarians and extremists.

And you probably don't realize how well it's working on you.

This is a long post, but I wrote it because this problem is real, and it's much scarier than you think.

How Russian networks fuel racial and gender wars to make Americans fight one another

In September 2018, a video went viral after being posted by In the Now, a social media news channel. It featured a feminist activist pouring bleach on a male subway passenger for manspreading. It got instant attention, with millions of views and wide social media outrage. Reddit users wrote that it had turned them against feminism.

There was one problem: The video was staged. And In the Now, which publicized it, is a subsidiary of RT, formerly Russia Today, the Kremlin TV channel aimed at foreign, English-speaking audiences.

As an MIT study found in 2019, Russia's online influence networks reached 140 million Americans every month -- the majority of U.S. social media users.

Russia began using troll farms a decade ago to incite gender and racial divisions in the United States

In 2013, Yevgeny Prigozhin, a confidante of Vladimir Putin, founded the Internet Research Agency (the IRA) in St. Petersburg. It was the Russian government's first coordinated facility to disrupt U.S. society and politics through social media.

Here's what Prigozhin had to say about the IRA's efforts to disrupt the 2022 election:

Gentlemen, we interfered, we interfere and we will interfere. Carefully, precisely, surgically and in our own way, as we know how. During our pinpoint operations, we will remove both kidneys and the liver at once.

In 2014, the IRA and other Russian networks began establishing fake U.S. activist groups on social media. By 2015, hundreds of English-speaking young Russians worked at the IRA. Their assignment was to use those false social-media accounts, especially on Facebook and Twitter -- but also on Reddit, Tumblr, 9gag, and other platforms -- to aggressively spread conspiracy theories and mocking, ad hominem arguments that incite American users.

In 2017, U.S. intelligence found that Blacktivist, a Facebook and Twitter group with more followers than the official Black Lives Matter movement, was operated by Russia. Blacktivist regularly attacked America as racist and urged black users to rejected major candidates. On November 2, 2016, just before the 2016 election, Blacktivist's Twitter urged Black Americans: "Choose peace and vote for Jill Stein. Trust me, it's not a wasted vote."

Russia plays both sides -- on gender, race, and religion

The brilliance of the Russian influence campaign is that it convinces Americans to attack each other, worsening both misandry and misogyny, mutual racial hatred, and extreme antisemitism and Islamophobia. In short, it's not just an effort to boost the right wing; it's an effort to radicalize everybody.

Russia uses its trolling networks to aggressively attack men. According to MIT, in 2019, the most popular Black-oriented Facebook page was the charmingly named "My Baby Daddy Aint Shit." It regularly posts memes attacking Black men and government welfare workers. It serves two purposes: Make poor black women hate men, and goad black men into flame wars.

MIT found that My Baby Daddy is run by a large troll network in Eastern Europe likely financed by Russia.

But Russian influence networks are also also aggressively misogynistic and aggressively anti-LGBT.

On January 23, 2017, just after the first Women's March, the New York Times found that the Internet Research Agency began a coordinated attack on the movement. Per the Times:

More than 4,000 miles away, organizations linked to the Russian government had assigned teams to the Women’s March. At desks in bland offices in St. Petersburg, using models derived from advertising and public relations, copywriters were testing out social media messages critical of the Women’s March movement, adopting the personas of fictional Americans.

They posted as Black women critical of white feminism, conservative women who felt excluded, and men who mocked participants as hairy-legged whiners.

But the Russian PR teams realized that one attack worked better than the rest: They accused its co-founder, Arab American Linda Sarsour, of being an antisemite. Over the next 18 months, at least 152 Russian accounts regularly attacked Sarsour. That may not seem like many accounts, but it worked: They drove the Women's March movement into disarray and eventually crippled the organization.

Russia doesn't need a million accounts, or even that many likes or upvotes. It just needs to get enough attention that actual Western users begin amplifying its content.

A former federal prosecutor who investigated the Russian disinformation effort summarized it like this:

It wasn’t exclusively about Trump and Clinton anymore. It was deeper and more sinister and more diffuse in its focus on exploiting divisions within society on any number of different levels.

As the New York Times reported in 2022,

There was a routine: Arriving for a shift, [Russian disinformation] workers would scan news outlets on the ideological fringes, far left and far right, mining for extreme content that they could publish and amplify on the platforms, feeding extreme views into mainstream conversations.

China is joining in with AI

Last month, the New York Times reported on a new disinformation campaign. "Spamouflage" is an effort by China to divide Americans by combining AI with real images of the United States to exacerbate political and social tensions in the U.S. The goal appears to be to cause Americans to lose hope, by promoting exaggerated stories with fabricated photos about homeless violence and the risk of civil war.

As Ladislav Bittman, a former Czechoslovakian secret police operative, explained about Soviet disinformation, the strategy is not to invent something totally fake. Rather, it is to act like an evil doctor who expertly diagnoses the patient’s vulnerabilities and exploits them, “prolongs his illness and speeds him to an early grave instead of curing him.”

The influence networks are vastly more effective than platforms admit

Russia now runs its most sophisticated online influence efforts through a network called Fabrika. Fabrika's operators have bragged that social media platforms catch only 1% of their fake accounts across YouTube, Twitter, TikTok, and Telegram, and other platforms.

But how effective are these efforts? By 2020, Facebook's most popular pages for Christian and Black American content were run by Eastern European troll farms tied to the Kremlin. And Russia doesn't just target angry Boomers on Facebook. Russian trolls are enormously active on Twitter. And, even, on Reddit.

It's not just false facts

The term "disinformation" undersells the problem. Because much of Russia's social media activity is not trying to spread fake news. Instead, the goal is to divide and conquer by making Western audiences depressed and extreme.

Sometimes, through brigading and trolling. Other times, by posting hyper-negative or extremist posts or opinions about the U.S. the West over and over, until readers assume that's how most people feel. And sometimes, by using trolls to disrupt threads that advance Western unity.

As the RAND think tank explained, the Russian strategy is volume and repetition, from numerous accounts, to overwhelm real social media users and create the appearance that everyone disagrees with, or even hates, them. And it's not just low-quality bots. Per RAND,

Russian propaganda is produced in incredibly large volumes and is broadcast or otherwise distributed via a large number of channels. ... According to a former paid Russian Internet troll, the trolls are on duty 24 hours a day, in 12-hour shifts, and each has a daily quota of 135 posted comments of at least 200 characters.

What this means for you

You are being targeted by a sophisticated PR campaign meant to make you more resentful, bitter, and depressed. It's not just disinformation; it's also real-life human writers and advanced bot networks working hard to shift the conversation to the most negative and divisive topics and opinions.

It's why some topics seem to go from non-issues to constant controversy and discussion, with no clear reason, across social media platforms. And a lot of those trolls are actual, "professional" writers whose job is to sound real.

So what can you do? To quote WarGames: The only winning move is not to play. The reality is that you cannot distinguish disinformation accounts from real social media users. Unless you know whom you're talking to, there is a genuine chance that the post, tweet, or comment you are reading is an attempt to manipulate you -- politically or emotionally.

Here are some thoughts:

Don't accept facts from social media accounts you don't know. Russian, Chinese, and other manipulation efforts are not uniform. Some will make deranged claims, but others will tell half-truths. Or they'll spin facts about a complicated subject, be it the war in Ukraine or loneliness in young men, to give you a warped view of reality and spread division in the West.

Resist groupthink. A key element of manipulate networks is volume. People are naturally inclined to believe statements that have broad support. When a post gets 5,000 upvotes, it's easy to think the crowd is right. But "the crowd" could be fake accounts, and even if they're not, the brilliance of government manipulation campaigns is that they say things people are already predisposed to think. They'll tell conservative audiences something misleading about a Democrat, or make up a lie about Republicans that catches fire on a liberal server or subreddit.

Don't let social media warp your view of society. This is harder than it seems, but you need to accept that the facts -- and the opinions -- you see across social media are not reliable. If you want the news, do what everyone online says not to: look at serious, mainstream media. It is not always right. Sometimes, it screws up. But social media narratives are heavily manipulated by networks whose job is to ensure you are deceived, angry, and divided.

Edited for typos and clarity.

P.S. Apparently, this post was removed several hours ago due to a flood of reports. Thank you to the r/GenZ moderators for re-approving it.

Second edit:

This post is not meant to suggest that r/GenZ is uniquely or especially vulnerable, or to suggest that a lot of challenges people discuss here are not real. It's entirely the opposite: Growing loneliness, political polarization, and increasing social division along gender lines is real. The problem is that disinformation and influence networks expertly, and effectively, hijack those conversations and use those real, serious issues to poison the conversation. This post is not about left or right: Everyone is targeted.

[anothersebastianblog]

so basically their feminists eras are when he's single (at least officially). Part-time feminist

such feminism to bash and deride other women simply because they disagree with you 🙄. I can absolutely respect that we have different opinions and I don’t condone name calling and harassment, bullying. But to say you actively hope for nothing more than the opportunity to say I told you so, isn’t that much different than the people who you target. I’m not saying that some aren’t gonna hate any woman, but that’s not the case for all of us. What about those who are attracted to women and don’t like her? What about those who haven’t liked her before she was with Seb? It’s your generalizations that are the issue, not other people who don’t agree with your opinions. Spoken as a bi woman who works in a male dominated industry, so don’t come at me with your bullshit about me just being blind and covertly anti-feminist, because I deal with misogynistic asshats every day.

Just from your description about yourself/your believes i can say you are not part of the women the anon (and I) was talking about

I honestly don’t know why this is difficult to understand. Do you constantly post against every gf of your fave male celeb? Do you make up crazy ass theories to convince yourself each of his rs is fake? Do you left nasty comments under her pics? Do you spread fake rumours about her? Do you call her names? Do you always blame her for everything and paint him as a victim of his own agency? If all the replies to these questions are NO, you are not part of the problem