#feminist review

[urmomswifesworld]

Fleabag, a Feminist Icon

I love the show fleabag with all my heart, it is an amazing piece of television which makes me feel so many emotions. I spent a lot of time pondering how this piece of art is involved/impacts/advocates for feminism and want to share my thoughts.

⁍ The use of breaking the fourth wall was a very poignant technique. It served as a commentary on the agency and autonomy of the female voice. Fleabag's direct engagement with the audience, while offering a deeper insight on the characters feelings thought and emotions, challenges the typical passive role female characters are given within story telling as she is an obviously active participant in HER narrative. ⁍ The show tackles often taboo subjects such as sex, a topic women have been shamed for talking about or indulging in for decades. Fleabag's unapologetic approach of her own desires and refusal to succumb to societal norms go against the stereotypical representation of women in television. Her sexual autonomy is a crucial aspect of her character and is never demoralised or shamed for her choices and instead encouraged to navigate her journey through validation and empowerment. ⁍ Fleabag also delves into the intricacies of female relationships. It views them of less of "gossipy" and more of a strong powerful sisterhood which is unlike what is usually presented in television. The shows central focus is on Fleabags relationship with her sister, not a man. It beautifully acknowledges the ups and downs of woman and sisterhood and shows that women are deeper than what is at face value. ⁍ It offers a critical examination of societal expectations placed upon women by showing the brutality of the guilt, grief, and self-worth issues Fleabag has to deal with which many other women can relate to. The show dismantles the typical perfect, put-together woman ,whom we are far to familiar with through all sorts of media, and instead presents a protagonist who is flawed, messy and REAL. It is a refreshing departure of the one dimensional female characters we are typically forced to indulge in. ⁍ The character of Fleabag challenges traditional gender roles and expectations by rejecting the idea that her worth is defined by her relationships with men or how well she adheres to social norms. The show is about HER journey of SELF-discovery and SELF-empowerment. This enforces the fact that a woman's narrative does need to revolve around conforming to societal expectations.

The show is a ground-breaking representation of feminism in contemporary media. Through its innovative narrative, unapologetic exploration of female sexuality, and nuanced portrayal of female relationships, the show defies stereotypes and provides a platform for authentic, multifaceted female characters. I highly recommend anyone to watch the show as it was a breath of fresh air.

[mythicandlovely]

Circe by Madeline Miller

5/5 stars

My first review had to be none other than Circe by Madeline Miller.

I don't think it's an exaggeration to say this book was luminous. Beautifully written, Circe is a retelling that follows the youngest daughter of Perses, a nymph and Helios, the sun god. Circe is unremarkable in her family as both a daughter and a nymph; her powers are negligible, her eyes hawk-like, her voice human and unpleasant to the immortal ear. It is her too-human curiosity and empathy that leads to her exile; after a chance encounter with Prometheus, Circe is banished to the island of Aiaia, where she finds her true calling as a witch. Many of the gods and legends of Greek mythology make appearances: Odysseus, of course, but also Hermes, Athena, Penelope, and even Medea and Jason.

I loved Circe as a narrator. I loved the novel's slow, deliberate pace. I loved the feminist perspective on why a woman who lives alone might find herself turning men into pigs.

A gorgeously written feminist retelling worthy of all the hype.

[thatweirdtranny]

always interesting how the same people who when i was a girl insisted that shaving is a personal choice that no one should ever judge you for are now the very same people who, now that i’m not a girl, will fucking RANT about how i and other transmascs/men are gross and lazy for not shaving the neck beard

[dworkinella]

I can’t even describe how insane this person is. How on earth do you see someone like Dr Cass trying to investigate and improve healthcare for trans people (just like the research that is being conducted CONSTANTLY in EVERY FIELD OF MEDICINE—because we all want to understand more about medical conditions and how to treat them… right?) and think “wow, this person is just like a Nazi!” This person is, as usual, purposefully misrepresenting serious research and shaming people into ignoring it. They’ll only be happy when research says exactly what they want it to.

[chiaki747]

Is this a bad time to note the Website I work for randomly got yeeted by tumblr?

So okay, fun fact, I edit for a funny little site called Anime Feminist. We're, according to Anime News Network readers, the fourth most trafficked site for anime/manga/Japanese pop-culture discourse on the Internet.

Wild!

Anyway, one of the shows premiering this season has a title that sounds like a porn bot claiming to have a░n░i░m░e░░i░n░░b░i░o or something and I guess Tumblr just decided to delete our account for spam or something.

Woah!

At least, that's our guess, since they didn't tell us anything about why it was deleted or anything, but I mean, that's our closest guess after trying to puzzle what could have possibly prompted this.

Wow!

So anyway, we've e-mailed the staff about it, but we're not sure if they'll ever respond.

What a functional website!

In the mean time, if you'd like to keep track, you can find us on Patreon, Bluesky, or the actual website itself!!!!

[uwmspeccoll]

It's Feral Friday!

If Special Collections were compared to a National Park- a thoughtfully curated, accessible experience of the wilderness of the natural world- where would its edges lie? What would be considered off the beaten path, how would its boundaries be defined, and in what ways would the landscape beyond those boundaries inspire our imagination and broaden our conceptions of the world and our communicative capacities?

That’s the realm of pluralistic inquiry explored by Feral Fridays, a new weekly post where we’ll feature items from our collection like zines, experimental book arts, independently produced poetry and other unruly materials that exist at the margins of publishing and literary traditions.

Let’s get Feral!   

--Ana, Special Collections Graduate Intern

Images:

That Way Issue 1, Spring 2021

That Way Issue 1, Spring 2021, pp. 23-24 (excerpt from interview w/Erma Fiend)

Thing Issue no. 3, Summer 1990

Re: Creation by Nikki Giovanni, Broadside Press, 1970

Aquarius Rising by Ben Fama, Ugly Duckling Presse, 2010

excerpt from Ugly Duckling Issue 6, October 2003

Lynch by Inch: an interview to Ali Khalid Abdullah 2003

Blue Horses for Navajo Women by Nia Francisco, Greenfield Review Press, 1988

Mildred Pierce Issue 3, April 2009

The Match! Number 97, Winter 2001-2002

[emmellas]

a few points ...

1. 'poor things' is only "a porno" if your own patriarchal gaze inhibits and degrades her down to a sex object. bella views all experiences in her life as holding equal weight in that they are informative to her, whether good or bad, and she has an insatiable desire for knowledge. "if i know the world, i can improve it."

2. bella would fiercely resist her story being depicted in a way that censors anything as to her and any person who has the capacity to see her AS a person, sex is a part of her life, she has no shame about it, and would want it all shown honestly. you see, this film isn't told how you want it told, which is likely unfairly biased by social onuses. it's told how bella would want it told as telling a story about a woman in a way that ensnares her in the very confines she spends the entire time resisting wouldn't be very liberating, now would it?

3. the pearl clutching with the nudity is inherently sexist because you are blaming a woman- fictional and her real life counterpart, whose role and agency as a producer you insidiously deny- for a man's putrid views. you really think men (or anyone who harbors patriarchal views) viewing women as objects is going to change if they have clothing on or not? it's victim blaming.

i always am disheartened when i hear emma and yorgos, in poor things promotional content, talk about how society is a nasty place but they're hopeful the world is ready to see bella's story. unfortunately, it seems many weren't, but it was never about you, anyway. it was about removing the unjust societal conditioning that holds us- not just as women but as people- prisoner and allowing a woman to experience life on her own terms. i'd suggest asking yourself why this bothers you so much, if applicable. it would seem a little introspection could do you good.

it should be the goal of all to improve, progress, grow. perhaps the film can serve as impetus to those who desperately need to with regard to their own biases.

[fridaysdaughter]

“The Cass review is intended to hurt trans children!”

The Cass review isn’t the one distributing diy hrt to potential minors.

[thecanadianweeb]

Barbie Movie Review (TW: Spoilers!)

So I saw the barbie movie yesterday with my GF and her mother too.

Since people were wearing pink to the movie, i wore my pink Y2K tracksuit that my aunt got at a flea market for me. My gf wore a pink dress with a leather jacket. My tracksuit totally fit the vibe! Anyways my theater was full of gays, including us.

So the movie starts really wholesome, with feminism as it's motto... until barbie starts having an existential crisis. Then she goes to the weird barbie, the black sheep of barbieland. The weird barbie tells her that whoever is playing with her at the moment is causing the crisis. Then she goes to the real world and ken is the tag-along (man) child.

In the real world, barbie meets Barbra Handler while sitting on a bench, while trying to regain memories of who was playing with her.

she finds out that it was a high-schooler named Sasha. she goes up to find her, while ken starts getting into conservative politics.

Eventually, Mattel themselves finds out that barbie has escaped her world and ended up in the human realm. they then send out agents to get her because it could have serious consequences on both worlds.

Barbie soon finds Sasha, but then gets roasted by her because she hates barbies due to unrealistic (body) standards. Barbie sits down on the curb of the school and cries until Mattel's agents find her. Barbie is kinda happy to see them because she's always wanted to see what some of her creators have done. Meanwhile, Gloria, Sasha's mom is picking her up when she sees barbie getting picked up by Mattel but is too late.

When barbie is at Mattel headquarters, she explores the building and goes to the CEO's office. They then put her in a box that nearly kidnaps her, so she makes a run for it while the agents chase after her! Meanwhile, Ken is going back to barbieland with his new political agenda.

While running away from the Agents, Barbie runs into Ruth Handler, The mother/creator of Barbie itself! She tells barbie a secret escape method and it works! Barbie then meets Gloria and her daughter. They stare for a bit with a lot of queer-coded Sapphic tension. Then barbie flops into the car due to the agents catching up. Which cues a car chase scene!

in this car chase scene, Gloria and barbie talk about their problems and find out that SHE's the one that's messing with her life. Gloria also talks about her male partner is all by himself, practicing his spanish on duolingo. eventually they get away from the agents safely, and barbie takes the two newfound friends back to barbieland, which has now been turned into kendom. Barbie is obviously unhappy, because her friends have been turned into sex slaves with maid outfits! (Weird, right?) The constitution was also about to be changed too!

Barbie then becomes incredibly depressed and goes to the only refuge left: Weird Barbie's house! the other barbies which weren't brainwashed were staying there for safety as well. Then there's a narration stating that Margot Robbie probably wasn't the best actress for this scene, because ya know.

The Mattel agents realize that changes have aleady been made to both worlds and send the agents into barbieland to stop it as well!

Then there's an actual commercial for a depressed barbie doll, which is super funny. but also kinda sad.

Gloria and Sasha decide to go back to the real world, but ken has issued the construction of a Donald Trump-esque wall! And what's worse, Someone hitched a ride on the pair's Car! Turns out that it was just Allan, and he's actually a nice guy trying to escape the conservative government. Then out of nowhere, He literally jumps out and punches the Construction workers, serving as a distraction!

Gloria and Sasha have an "Oh Sh*t, we gotta help her" moment and go back to help save Barbieland! they end up finding her in the strange Barbie's house. And Gloria gives an inspiring speech about life and it's hardships. She's also wearing a shirt with the Lesbian flag colors on it!

Eventually, the refugee barbies and Gloria come up with a plan to undo the ken Regime (that's what I'm gonna call it) and bring order back.

this plan includes cheating on all of the other ken dolls and making them fight against each other, lord of the flies style.

it ends up working and everything is back to normal. when the kens come back from a homoerotic lord of the flies battle, they see that their changes have been undone and are upset. Ken tries to seduce barbie, but she ignores it bc they are both gay in denial or possibly bi/aro, etc. the girls then tell the kens that they are enough if they stop being stupid and actually be supportive for once.

Then the agents meet up and talk to barbie saying that's she's the hero and deserves a happy ending with ken. Barbie disagrees, saying that she doesn't know who or what she wants to be. Then Ruth comes back and tell her about how she was her actual mother and it's up to her to decide her destiny in an inspiring speech. Barbie then decides to stay in the real world and it's unclear if the portal was left closed or open. Same thing with ken and barbie being gay. All it shows in the end is barbie asking if she's celibate, which is a recurring joke in the film.

I think since it has an ambiguous ending, barbie might actually be in a poly relationship with Gloria and her partner.

Anyways, TLDR, Barbie has an existential crisis, gains a girlfriend (Both ways ig) and discovers herself.

If you are a Parent, don't bring your children to this movie unless they can handle mature topics or you are willing to explain stuff. it is rated PG-13 in my country, however. Other than that, A great movie! (unless you have mommy issues)

[intersectionalpraxis]

I deactivated my account late last night after seeing this, and they emailed me back saying one of my reviews didn't meet their guidelines. I won't be re-activating to 'appeal their decision' by changing it because I haven't used this site in forever. But my 'review' when I used to work for a problematic wellness retail chain was mostly about rampant micro-management, a lack of proper pay raises -especially since there was zero commissions for the amount of work you do in-store, to not being compensated properly for work outside of your duties (and the blurring of those responsibilities because I would often do things a store manager would do or an assistant even when I stepped down -like training). I wrote it very professionally, without profanity, so it makes me wonder what the hell I said that was so inappropriate.... interesting Glassdoor.

[mecasloth]

The whole Quinton Reviews thing really puts it into stark lighting that most people's "believe victims" ends with men.

[whilereadingandwalking]

In her utterly superb writing, Joanna Russ discusses all the techniques that have been used to suppress women authors, keep them from the canon, and dismiss their work—from lauding their one exceptional work as separate, unusual, to isolating them from their fellow authors and community, to labeling their choice of topics as immodest or confessional or particular—and much more. How to Suppress Women's Writing is a must-read, superb and now covered in my annotations, highlights, and underlines.

She emphasizes that the solution is not bringing women one by one into an already set canon but by allowing for multiple "centers," multiple ways of writing and of great literature. She also does a good job in an afterword of highlighting her own privilege and describing how her categories can be applied to many different marginalized groups.

(Note: I thought Jessica Crispin's forward was so awful (she does the same thing to women writers that Russ literally describes in this book, describes Russ as an exception who wrote unlike other ’80s/’90s icons, then claiming she's been left out of a literary canon of those women SFF authors, which she has not) that I carefully removed it from my volume of the book.)

Content warnings for sexual assault, misogyny, suicide.

[rave-melancholia]

Barbie is pure apologetics for girlboss feminism and doesn’t engage with one seriously interesting or intelligent idea. Next.

[cardentist]

Context: [Link] (highly recommend reading even if it’s long) I debated where I should put this, but with the length of this post I want to put @nothorses master post about transandrophobia right at the top [Link] if this post is too lengthy for you or you'd like to read more after chewing on this then I Implore you to open that link and hold onto it.

I don't want to call out this person in particular, I'm certain they don't mean any harm by it and it's not within our best interests to pick fights with people who have (in this commenter's words) Nearly all of the same beliefs with some minor squabbles who are willing to support each other anyways.

but it's exactly Because I'm certain this person means well that frustrates me.

years ago I would've said something along the lines of "this is no different from saying 'I'm not homophobic because I'm not afraid of gay people.'" that it's nitpicking Accurate terminology by breaking it into pieces and judging the words its made up of individually when they're obviously intended to be seen as a whole. trans Men face oppression for being trans Men in a way that cis men do not, just like trans Women face oppression for being trans Women in a way that cis women do not.

but that was a long time ago, the perspective has changed.

"trans men can't have this term because it's too close to affirming cishet white men when they say that they're oppressed for being men" was a talking point back when "transmisandry" was the terminology that was landed on. and while my thought process about that was the same I Understood the kneejerk reaction. because there Was a concerted effort by certain cishet weirdos to make "misandry" a term that made them systematically oppressed by women, and more specifically was used to Deny the existence of misogyny (very ironically from how they acted).

(that said, I have my own reasons for liking that term even if I do see the problems with it, I understand why it was chosen at the time. which I get into here [Link])

"transandrophobia" was coined Specifically to avoid that connotation, to Denounce the association and address that frankly (on the surface) Reasonable kneejerk reaction while still being recognizable and serving the same purpose.

but the talking point about it remained Exactly The Same, completely unchanged despite the change in association. because the point was never About it evoking something unpleasant (though that certainly helped with swaying bystanders in the conversation) it was about the absolute refusal to believe in the concept of people being hated For their manhood. in masculinity intersecting with oppression More than just as a neutral trait.

now, what I'm Not going to say is that the concept of androphobia is a systemic oppression that's upheld by the majority or any governmental body. not mine and certainly not any that I've heard of. but I will Also say that conflating the Recognition of a sentiment that real people express With systemic oppression is not only unhelpful (there's a lot of things that aren't systemic but still matter) but has Also been used to gate keep minorities by exclusionist groups Plenty of times before.

such as when people stopped being able to insist that asexuals don't experience trauma for being asexual At All and instead insisted that it wasn't Systematic and therefore they didn't belong in the queer community. no amount of studies, no amount of personal accounts, no examining of actual law and actual acts of oppression from governing bodies or places of work would sway them. because as long as they could say "It's Not Systemic" they could dismiss it out of hand. when, really, even if they were right it shouldn't matter. if someone experiences trauma they deserve to have the source of that trauma taken seriously no matter the underlying cause. they shouldn't have to Prove that it's important enough to justify caring about.

but to get to my point 9 paragraphs in from where we started, the idea that anti-masculinity or androphobia or anti-man sentiment or Whatever you want to call it Doesn't Exist is pretty ridiculous coming from within the trans community for Several Reasons.

terfs hate trans women because they're transphobic, but they Also hate trans women because they're radfems. a core tenant of radfem ideology Is The Demonization Of Men And Of Masculinity. they think trans women are dangerous Because They See Them As Men Trying To Infiltrate Women's Spaces. and Yes that is obviously transphobia, but the way they talk about trans women is Not magically disconnected from their view of manhood or masculinity or Men As A Group. though Undoubtedly they will side with cis men if it gives them the opportunity to attack trans women, in part because it Is that intersection of Both anti-man sentiments And transphobia And misogyny that has them frothing at the mouth to hate trans women.

(see this: [Link] for a more in depth discussion on radfem ideology as a whole)

and the thing is, someone might be tempted to say "well their hatred of masculinity is Obviously tied to trans women, so there's no point in acknowledging it as anything But transmisogyny." and in fact, that's not a hypothetical at all, it's the default relationship people have with this concept.

but this mindset affects everyone, Especially otherwise marginalized groups.

radfems seeing men as Inherently And Biologically Violent, as rapists and unthinking monsters, Absolutely And Undeniably affects how they treat people of color (Especially black people). white women stalking black men and calling the cops on them because they see their existence as Dangerous has been a Thing for as long as cops have existed (it's the Reason that cops exist) and has been Documented as a current issue in the wake of black lives matter and the murder of black men by the cops. it is an attempt from white women to have black men murdered, to cause violence to them without having to physically implicate themselves, all while using the perception of themselves as inherent victims (small and docile and innocent) with the perception of black men as monsters.

and it Should go without saying, but this Obviously Is Not Saying that black men inherently have it worse than black women. recognizing the oppression of one demographic within an oppressed group Should Not Inherently Mean pitting them against other demographics within that same group. we should just be allowed to point out an experience that some people can have and let that be a neutral (if important) statement. the things black women go through because of Their intersection of racism and misogyny are well and truly Horrific, I certainly don't need to prove that.

and In Fact, black women are victims of that Same intersection of racism and androphobia that we see both from terfs and from white people everywhere. because "womanhood" Almost Without Question means "White womanhood," to have black traits (or to have Non-White traits) is to be closer to masculinity in the eyes of racists.

when terfs post a picture of a cis woman and harass and mock them for Clearly being a trans woman who will Never fool anybody it's universally because the woman in the picture has traits that aren't traditionally upheld as the standard for white women. it's misogyny, it's androphobia, it's transphobia, it's racism. because these ideas Aren't Inherently Separate. they Build on each other and they affect Everybody, because people who think this way don't just turn it on and off like a switch when they're attacking the "intended" target.

and All of these ideas come together and inform the situation with trans men, both on this issue specifically and As A Whole.

just the same as we see that intersection of transphobia and misogyny and androphobia with how trans women are treated (combined, of course, with other relevant aspects of an individual) we see much the same with trans men.

the difference is that people inherently Recognize that what's happening to trans women is more than Just ideas of transphobia (more than Just wanting people to stay the gender that they were assigned at birth), but they recognize Only the misogyny aspect. so when the same conversation is turned onto trans men people don't know what to do with it, Especially when combined with the (unfortunately common) denial that trans men experience Misogyny either.

that complex web of interlocking concepts, and in some cases the Idea Of intersectionality At All, are Denied to trans men. who are then minimized For the perceived lack in complexity (in their oppression, in their identities, and in their lived experiences).

"why not just call it anti-transmasc sentiment then? people might take it more seriously." even Ignoring Everything I've mentioned so far, the Reason I'm not happy with this is because trans men Are attacked (harassed, oppressed, however you want to phrase it) Specifically For Their Identities As Men. and as much as I Also want to establish that behavior and sentiment As stemming from transphobia, I Also don't think we benefit by erasing or softening that idea to make it more palatable to people who don't want to believe it.

this was a response I got to that post I linked at the very top of this essay. I trust that anyone reaching this point has an idea of how silly this is in context, if they haven't read that context themselves. and in fact I wasn't going to acknowledge it at all (I only have this image on hand because I took it to have a laugh with friends). but it's a Convenient and Simple illustration of this exact issue.

the hatred of trans men in trans, queer, and activist spaces is informed and Justified by the hatred of men as a whole. because If you can convince people that trans men are Inherently a privileged group you can justify presenting anything they do as attacking those less privileged than them.

Men are violent, Men shout down women, Men are misogynists, and so a trans man pointing out the existence of his own oppression while actively acknowledging the oppression of nonbinary people and trans women (Only making the point that it's unhelpful to try to quantify this oppression as a tier list and use that to inform how you treat individual people) that trans man is Actually just a Typical Violent Man Exerting His Privilege To Oppress Poor Women.

it's, very ironically, a silencing tactic to avoid addressing the oppression of a minority group to the benefit of the person doing it.

a trans man's manhood is a weapon that is Constantly used against him, and I Might (Might) be willing to call that "anti-trans masc sentiment" if I didn't know where it Stemmed from.

the relationship between radfems and the queer community is, to understate it, Fraught.

for most people who consider themselves to be trans allies, it's Easy to see that terfs are, you know, Bad. to understand that they're a transphobic group and Therefore dangerous. but by-and-large that'd Main and Only thing that that's understood about them.

and to an extent, that's because people believe that that understanding is Enough. that it's Enough to dismiss it out of hand and refuse to look at or Think about what terfs have to say. which is Understandable.

the issue is that no matter how much they Believe that terfs are bad and wrong, they're Still Vulnerable to being influenced by radfem ideology, talking points, and Active Intentional Manipulation if they don't actually know the Details of what it is they believe and how to spot them.

as a Very basic example, people who Believe "terfs are bad because they hate trans people" but Don't understand "radfems are bad because equate men and masculinity as being Inherent Violent and therefore inherently harmful to women" can see something like "men don't belong in women's spaces" and Not Understand that something they may be genuinely trying to consider or understand Is Radfem Rhetoric.

that specific example is, at this point, commonly understood as a terf dog whistle. but it's largely Only understood as a stand in for trans women and called out as transmisogyny.

which is a problem when, say, someone looks at a trans man talking about his experiences is oppression and trauma and says "this Man is shouting down women! this Man is being misogynistic and stealing spaces away from women! this Man doesn't Belong!" and Not Understand That It's The Same Idea. Because the person being targeted Isn't being misgendered (Most of the time), the exact Same silencing and othering tactic is used Effective against trans mascs while not being Recognized as that At All by the majority group.

sometimes these things happen because people passively absorb radfem rhetoric, integrate into their own way of thinking, and then use it against other minority groups without understanding what they're doing. sometimes this is done Very Intentionally by terfs trying to spread their own ideology and break up and cause rifts between groups.

this is not a hypothetical, this is Repeating History that we see over and over again with exclusionists in queer spaces. masterposts at the time had Dedicated Segments talking about the ways these groups shared ideas between each other, between radfems, even when the individuals Don't hate the same people [Link 1, Link 2]

there were Documented Instances of terfs Admitting that they had secret aphobe accounts that they were using to try to indoctrinate ace and aro exclusionists into their beliefs. there's documented instances of terfs admitting that they got to that point By Being indoctrinated through ace and aro exclusionist beliefs and talking points. we had terfs Openly comparing their ideologies to exclusionists Explicitly to recruit them. [Link 1, Link 2, Link 3, Link 4, Link 5]

Because if you're Willing to accept that these ideas Are True, that the Logic that terf ideology is based on is Sound, then you're More Likely to accept when that same logic is pointed at another group. they target people that you're more willing to hate to pull you into their beliefs entirely.

and some people will go on never hating trans people (or never hating trans Women or trans Men or Nonbinary People or Binary Trans People, whatever the particular poison they're drinking), but it doesn't suddenly become Okay when radfem ideology is being used to hurt groups that aren't common sense associated with it.

what's more, these exclusionists groups Hated when you pointed out that connection. would spit and yell and call you bigoted for Daring to make the connection, even when (at it's peak and Most Ridiculous) they were quite literally taking posts originally written by terfs and replacing "trans women" with "ace people." Word For Word. which means it Never got addressed, no matter who pointed it out or how obviously wide spread it was.

and it's Tiring to have to say "if you can't care about how this affects trans men then at Least consider how perpetuating this idea puts trans women in danger" But It's True.

if you let people perpetuate the idea that trans men are Violent, that they're Oppressive, that they don't Deserve to have their own spaces, that they Inherently talk over and erase other oppressed groups by talking about their own issues and asking for compassion, if you Let people say "this group of trans people is Inherently Lesser" Because They Are Men, Because Of Their Closeness To Masculinity, Because Testosterone Or Maleness Is Inherently Corrupting

the jump between Which trans group you think of this way is not as difficult as one would hope. and if we're Never able to address it for what it is, address it As radfem driven androphobia And transphobia And exclusionism then we're going to Keep creating spaces where people are vulnerable to indoctrination. to radfems, to terfs, to exclusionists, to Extremist Reactionary groups of all kinds.

and beyond all of That, as alarming and Important as it may be, it's Also worth noting that radfems (and even Terfs Specifically) Do use androphobia against trans men, even as they force feminine labels on them.

Yes there are the obvious direction that terf oppression of trans men takes. treating them like confused women and trying to indoctrinate and detransition them to Save them or Fix them (which, in itself, is a type of violence). and there's the Resentment of "the frigid uncaring woman trying to identify out of her oppression to instead oppress other women," which isn't a sentiment totally Removed from the issue with how trans mascs can be treated in queer spaces (quite the opposite really, punishing trans men for daring to Be men by equating them with privilege and thus treating them as both an outsider and a threat).

but there Are instances of terfs treating trans men as outright Predatory. as a threat to Them and as a threat to the "poor confused women" that get "manipulated" into "the trans cult" by the trans men they Couldn't indoctrinate.

trans men are vulnerable little girls that are too stupid to know what's good for them and have to be converted Saved, they're the poor lesbians being stolen away from the beds of Deserving radfems women, up until they're Too masculine. until they have beards, until their voices are deep, until they stop wearing makeup, until they're balding or their waste changes or or or-

then they've Mutilated Their Bodies, then they're Frightening, then they're Aggressive and Invasive and Need To Be Dealt With, then they're Ugly Men even as radfems try to deny it.

the feminine trans man is a mark, he's a damsel in distress that radfems want to isolate and indoctrinate. the masculine trans man is Frankenstein's Monster, he's an ugly brutalized image of masculinity, the picture of what radfems hate othered away from what they're a Picture Of by radfems' transphobia. Uncanny and hated just the same.

this isn't "worse" than what terfs do trans women, it's not "better" either, It's The Same, It's The Same.

transphobia, misogyny, and androphobia in a Melting Pot to create a horrific buffet of oppression and abuse. manifesting Differently in different situations and between different people, and yet Fundamentally Connected through the beliefs and ideologies at play.

taking away one of these terms used to Describe this phenomenon doesn't Help, it obfuscates the fact that these things Are connected. which Worsens our ability to Understand them and Address them.

these ideas are Important, not just for trans men but for All Of Us.

and while I'm here, I'd like to address the Other issue I have with proposed alternatives like "anti-trans masc sentiment," Even when proposed in good faith.

if we were to go back and reexamine the terminology for the queer community as a whole and assess if these terms are the most Efficient they possibly could be, would we change them? would we stop using a term like "homophobia" if softening it could make it more palatable? make it easier to introduce the concept to people on the fence? make it easier to ask people to address their own biases without alienating them? if we did away with terms like "internalized homophobia" and instead asked people to address their "complex relationship with gayness" would we be able to get More people to listen?

maybe we could, Maybe softening the term would instead lead to people taking these ideas Less seriously exactly Because it's less direct, Because it's soft, Because it deliberately seeks to Not draw a reaction from a reader. I genuinely couldn't say how this would play out in practice, though we'd probably see both reactions to a degree and thus endless discourse about its effectiveness as a term.

but that's ultimately overshadowed by the Bigger Picture (though, more accurately I could say that it also Informs that bigger picture).

and that's Unity. Cohesion. Communication. Community.

the point of creating terms like this is, of course, in part to give minority groups the vocabulary and perspective necessary to convey their experiences to people outside of said group. and this purpose is endlessly important of course.

but More than that it gives a Community the ability to open a conversation with each other, to take their experiences as Individuals and create a melting pot where they can get a bigger picture of what We As A Group, As A Community, Experience.

this is completely invaluable in every way. it's what allows people to find each other, to know they aren't alone. it allows people to move conversations forward, to unravel complex ideas in a way that Can Acknowledge a vast array of often conflicting and yet Connected experiences. to be able to Build a community together, when lacking a physical space to inhabit, we need Words to connect us. both in passing as neighbors and to Find as Strangers.

when you take a community that already has established terms and you try to popularize an alternative, Especially while encouraging people to Stop using the previous terms, you Split Up that line of communication. people who congregate around one term Won't be in conversation with people who congregate around another, which inhibits the community's ability to grow and deepen.

people who Dislike a term (because it's trying to take something away from them, because they've been told that it's morally reprehensible) Won't engage with it, so posts that are tagged with Only that term will not be found. and even If that term is (unrealistically) universally adopted over time There Will Be A Period where people are simply ignorant of it.

and this is Very Much So used as a weapon by people who Don't want these communities to unify. who Don't want them to talk to each other and Get Ideas. and the smaller, more tentative, less supported a group and term is the more Vulnerable they are to this tactic.

this was and Is used Regularly by exclusionists, though I'm most familiar with how it was used by ace and aro exclusionists Specifically.

they would argue Endlessly about how Anything the ace and aro groups coined for themselves was Bigoted Actually. "aphobe" was attacked by Insisting that it was a term used by autistic people to describe their oppression (a lie, and a ridiculous one at that. there's nothing bigoted about the same term being used for multiple purposes). and "Allo" faced An Endless Barrage of never Ever accepting any term, no alternative, because They Didn't Want Ace People To Be Able To Define The Group That Oppressed Them, because they didn't Believe in that oppression.

Exactly in the same way that transphobes tried to argue that "cis" was really an acronym for something bigoted and so "cis" should be abolished as a term. Exactly in the same way that people argue that "transandrophobia" is offensive Specifically Because they don't believe that trans men are oppressed for being Trans Men.

the point is that they will never accept a replacement term, no matter what. if there Isn't an issue with it (by coincidence or from a certain angle) they will lie to invent one. it's Already Happened with transadrophobia being the intended replacement for transmisandry.

because the Point is double. First to break up the intended target community to hinder conversation around an idea that you don't want to exist, to make it harder and harder for it to be found and (by extension) Understood and expanded upon. and Second to prevent communities from being able to solidify In The First Place.

this wasn't the only tactic that was used to hurt ace and aro people, but it Can't Be Denied that the affect that it had as a whole was devastating. it's been Years since this whole thing started, since it died down even, and the ace and aro communities have yet to recover.

it's Easy to fall into the trap and say "well if we just get the term Right this time then it'll be okay ! if we Fix It then they'll stop!" but it Is exactly a trap. the point of phrasing it like this, of making it about bigotry or about the term being Problematic, is Both intended to demonize the group for having the Audacity to create a term for themselves at All, And to take advantage of well meaning people within the targeted community to do the leg work for them.

it's about silencing, it's about destabilization, it's about Breaking Apart communities so they can't Grow.

"Meet me halfway," they say. you take a step forward, they take a step back. "Meet me halfway," they say.

[poppletonink]

10 Things I Hate About You Review

★★★★★ - 5 stars

"But mostly I hate the way I don't hate you. Not even close, not even a little bit, not even at all."

Katarina Stratford does not conform to everyone else's ideas of teenage normalcy: she doesn't wear things based on what's trendy, she likes indie rock music and feminist novels and most importantly, Katarina Stratford does not want to date. On the other hand, her sister, Bianca does want to date. After their father decides that Bianca can only date when Kat does, a boy named Cameron (who has a crush on Bianca) comes up with a plan to pay someone to date Kat.

I love the characters in this film so very much. Kat is a feminist icon who I've idolised ever since I first watched this masterpiece. Bianca annoyed me at first but the whole punching Joey in the face thing was very cathartic for me, so she increased her placement in my favourite character ranks. Patrick Verona is amazing, and all of the Kats in the world know that not falling for him is a very trying task. Cameron, on the other hand, is the complete opposite of Patrick and yet he's extremely sweet and endearing - a hopeless romantic at heart (and a definite James Potter variant for sure).

It is safe to say that generally speaking feminism and rom-coms do not go hand-in-hand skipping down a flowery hill (what with most rom-coms being Chick Flicks, a controversial genre in the eyes of feminists everywhere). However, 10 Things I Hate About You manages to meld together these two assumedly opposing topics into an amazing masterpiece. It discusses a horrible idea formulated within society - that idea being that a woman cannot be in a relationship with a man, whilst retaining her status as a feminist. The irony of it is that feminism is about equality and yet we put this boundary between men and women, both of whom can be classified as feminists, and say 'No, you cannot date and wish for equal rights.' That's what is so wonderful about 10 Things I Hate About You: Kat Stratford is a feminist icon in her own right (what with her love of Sylvia Plath and riot grrrl bands, and her blatant "Well I suppose being male and an asshole makes you worthy of our time" comment) and yet she is also the star of a rom-com. She's a feminist who simultaneously "gets the guy".

Aside from the amazing characters and the amazing feminist representation of 10 Things, one of the best things about it is its music. Music plays such a big part in 10 Things, from it playing to represent the character's emotions to Kat wanting to start a band. The soundtrack overall is amazing, with riot-grrrl bands galore and Joan Jett as the queen of rock 'n' roll. Without a doubt my favourite musical moment of 10 Things is Heath Ledger singing "Can't Take My Eyes Off You"- it's one of the most romantic moments and an important part of Kat and Patrick's journey.

In case it could not be gathered from my prior statements, this modern, feminist adaptation of Shakespeare's Taming Of The Shrew is one of my favourite films of all time - on par with the likes of Dead Poet's Society and Clueless. It's wonderfully witty, romantic and heartwarming, and furiously feminist all in one - and if that does not convince you to watch it, then I don't really know what will.

[notexactlyrocketscience]

Love, Theoretically by Ali Hazelwood: a critically kind review from a femme acespec physicist <3

> scroll to the next section for my review on the physics academia content in this book!

First, a quick romance novel review!

spoiler: it wasn’t my favorite but I gave it a ⭐️⭐️⭐️.75 because being a writer has made me a generally more appreciative reader + I am so starved of woman in physics rep.

the good

It just felt good to read about a woman physicist, who are still incredibly underrepresented in fiction, especially as protagonists. (I’ll go off about that in a minute.)

The romance is so swoony with shoujo manga vibes, I haven’t read straight M/F adult romance novels in a while and I just loved the flutteriness of it.

A couple of chapters were so soft with excellent pillowtalk. There was something about the ambience of the snow, the hypnotic sadness of failure, the prescence of a comforting person.

I enjoyed identifying the relatable parts about physics academia. Hazelwood clearly did a lot of research, and I have to say I was pleasantly surprised. It definitely kept me reading!

the bad

The academia issues are so over-simplified it’s almost juvenile. For an adult novel, even one marketed as a romcom, I expect more nuance, more explanations, more explicit lingering in tight positions.

And then the romance tries to be complex (and has a lot of potential!) but not a lot of conflict really happens.

A fictional physics fued between theorists and experimentalists is a really fun (and actually not far off) concept, but I would have expected some things to be the other way around. (More on that later!)

Okay this is personal but the main couple both have terrible taste in movies. Twilight vs white male rage movies??? There is no lesser evil here

Elsie’s hardships aren’t put in a very serious light. Her diabetes and lack of access to health insurance is used as a plot device to engineer romantic momentum between the characters and/or comic relief.

Just overall, the book tried so hard to remain “light” that I think it fails to garner depth. Because adult lives really aren’t that light all the time, and a book can bring relaxation and joy whilst including real worldly negative experiences.

There were aroace and sapphic side characters, but I wanted so bad for Elsie to be demisexual. It's set up so perfectly only for it to be averted—As a demisexual person myself, Elsie’s feelings about attraction felt acutely familiar to me, and every other reader I've spoken to has agreed that the book took a dissapointing and unexpected turn. I understand Hazelwood may not feel equipped to write queer protagonists but if I were her editor, I would have flagged that and recommended she make it canon. It would have added so much more context and dimension to Elsie, and would’ve put hetero demisexuals on the map. </3

Following up on the above: The smut tries so hard to be meaningful but it ... really is icky, stereotypical, unrealistic allocishetero stuff. Think: the shy inexperienced girl vs the man who knows exactly how to advise her. The characters try to subvert the trope by calling it out, but it feels performative because all is forgotten in the next second. The PiV sex is weirdly conventionally idealistic considering the pairing’s size difference. I’m picky about smut but also forgiving when I do like the dynamic. I just didn’t here.

Following up once again: I was ready to ignore all the repetitive comments about how sexy Jack’s height and muscles were, because sure, I guess Elsie has a type. But the sex scenes solidified the redundancy of it all. I've read this same dynamic in countless smutty heteronormative M/F paperbacks. And I have also been made aware by every Hazelwood reader that all her books focus on this kind of physical build pairing. I just want more diversity, you know?

IDK, I just wanted more physics in here than complaining about teaching, glossed over toxic mentors, and using some quirky physics term in every other sentence. (More on that below!)

I just wanted ... more? It’s not an extremely short novel, but both the plot and the character development fell flat. The ups and downs were too fast and easy, and the placement felt off. I finished the book and wondered, “That’s it? That’s all that happened?” It just wasn’t fulfilling. The side characters aren't expanded upon, and don’t get enough pagetime. My other romance reads this year were Bellefleur's The Fiancee Farce and Mcquiston’s One Last Stop. In both of those novels, the drama was fleshed out with so much care and detail. In comparison, Love, Theoretically may mention similar social difficulties in passing, but failed to really, really show us.

Overall ... the novel was fun for being about physicists but I really don’t see myself picking up another Hazelwood book, especially considering this isn’t even a debut novel. The conventional white steminist vibe and the particular allocishetero M/F dynamic just isn’t my thing.

But perhaps a reader wanting more of a novel and its characters is a good problem to have. Never say never, I guess! I look forward to keeping tabs on what Hazelwood publishes in the future!

Now, onto the physics!

First, most physicists, as good scientists, understand that theory and experimentation are fundamentally linked. It’s true that we each are often biased towards our own methods of research, but it is quite a stretch to imagine full professors so blatantly feud against others solely because of theory vs experimentation. Regardless, I was happy to suspend my disbelief for the sake of the plot that was framed in a genre-specific, lighthearted, humorous way.

Secondly, both theory and experimentation have sources of funding that are motivated in different ways, and Hazelwood's decision to have the theorists struggle with funding cuts due to declining interest in pop culture/the general public is actually quite credible. Experimentation garners a lot more interest from the application and engineering end of society, parts that are easily fueled by capitalism.

However, I think experimentalists in general are far less likely to be mean to theorists than the reverse scenario. Dr Fatima Abdurrahman has a great video essay about that called on her YouTube channel called “Quantum Physics, Feminism, and Objective Reality: What Physicists Don’t Want You to Know About Quantum Mechanics.” Dr Fatima outlines how old white men in physics have maintained this image of unwavering scientific objectivity in the name of rigor, despite studying a field that fundamentally is barely fathomable for humans. In simpler terms: Men, even in theory, pretend to be better, smarter, and more valid as physicists despite being in an infamously iffy field. And I would have liked to see that represented. It was just really hard for me to buy narcissistic grad students mansplaining Elsie about her field, and Elsie’s righteous feminine rage, when the field in question is … physics theory? It just didn’t make sense to me, when all of my personal experiences point to the opposite.

But every cloud has a silver lining, and having a woman theorist in a physics field that’s less popsci-oriented is actually … really cool. And having her love interest be a man in experimentation … sort of subverts gender roles and conventional media expectations.

Let me explain. The reality is that when women are represented in STEM, media prefers to put them in biology, like a nurse to a doctor, a people-oriented nurturer, a mere sidekick to the real “objective” scientist—often a mathematician or an astrophysicist who is always a man. And when women are placed in physics, they are automatically assigned to observational astronomy, which is dismissed as passive and easy. (This is wildly untrue—though styles of research in astronomy has interestingly allowed a somewhat more diverse array of researchers in history. Even today, you’ll see a higher frequency of women and queer people in every astronomy department.)

I think my ideal version of this novel would be retaining Elsie in theory, while also making theorists the overall bad guys in the feud. I would love to have her talk about the unique sexism she faces as a theorist. I would kill for a scene in which Jack gets gobsmacked by how fucking good at math she really is, compared to him (instead of, like, only making fun of it like it’s easy). I would love to read about her getting a tour of his lab, and just more physics content. But maybe I’m the only one saying that, because I’m a physicist. Maybe Hazelwood simplified it all to keep the book appealing to the general masses.

Still, it all read more like a girlpower!!! chant rather than a real commitment to represent a woman in STEM. I savored every moment Elsie or George would go off about physics. I loved Elsie’s conversations with Olive, a different STEM academic. (Monica was more complicated and actually quite interesting, and I wish we could have seen more of her. Heck, I wish we had actually been given any tangible info about Jack’s mom, even.) But I genuinely felt these instances were rare. Elsie referred to being a physicist a lot (and frankly, her mind is more physics-y than any IRL physicist considering the sheer number of physics-inspired figures of speech she uses … but I excused that as silly comic relief, a quirk in Hazelwood’s writing style). But she didn’t tangibly do physics on page. It was disappointing, considering women characters in STEM is what Hazelwood is known for.

And there are physicists who love teaching—even physicists who solely want to teach. Physicists who do pedagogy research. I know the book was mainly trying to criticise the adjunctification and dismissal of physics higher education, and it’s actually quite accurate in representing that most physicists in academia would prefer not to teach. But the excecution also ends up erasing physicists who aren’t in academia just for research. And I say this especially because the validity of teaching physicists as physicists is dismissed in real life. It’s used as justification to further force all physics academics to try to juggle between both research and teaching, whether they want to or not.

Which leads us to bad mentors. I’ve had a bunch of those. As Olive pointed out in an excellent quote, “Academia is so hierarchical, you know? There are all these people who have power over you, who are supposed to guide you and help you become the best possible scientist, but . . . sometimes they don’t know what’s best. Sometimes they don’t care. Sometimes they have their own agenda. […] Sometimes they’re total shitbuckets who deserve to step on a pitchfork and die.” And the thing is, the novel really doesn’t show us any of that (perhaps other than in Monica). We don’t fully get to know what happened to Jack’s mom, or Olive. We are not shown what Dr L’s agenda really was. Their final confrontation was so quick, when in reality shitty mentors are often sticky and entwined with your work, hard to cut off and scarier to talk back to even after you’ve finally realized they’re toxic.

Which isn’t to say the novel is just inadequate about everything. It’s correct in how goofy physics faculty are, and how white man-dominated the field is, how students try to mansplain women profs, how theorists madly work on their computers (as an experimentalist, I could never understand), how publishing is finicky (to put it kindly), and how tenured faculty fail to understand the reality of the job market in academia today. There are certain parts (like the quote above!) where I felt incredibly seen as part of a minoritized identity group in STEM academia. It’s rare to have a book written from this PoV, and as a first I think this novel will always be special for me!

If you’re interested in reading about more fictional women physicists, I would highly recommend skimming through this list I made on GoodReads (and feel free to add more!).

And if you’d like to support memoirs and science communication books by IRL women physicists, then look to further than this other list I’ve also made. (We’re actually currently seeing a boom in these which is inanely exciting to me, so again, contributions are always welcome!)