#fuck misogyny

[maebymaedayidk]

I've been seeing a lot of "delete your periode tracking apps" coming up due to the recent life-ending, gut-wrenching news BUT

There IS an option. Clue is a German based tracking app and the US and NO JURISDICTION over them, which means they that can PROTECT YOUR DATA.

As someone with a shitty fucking uterus who had to spit out 500 bucks under my Canadian health care system for birth control that would finally allow me to live WITHOUT debilitating pain I know how fucking important it is to TRACK THAT SHIT.

Keep a book!! Use apps like clue that aren't based in the US!! Pen and fucking paper I don't CARE but please, uterus owners-

Birth control and the right to an abortion are basic fucking human rights and I know you are so EXHAUSTED and TERRIFIED, I am too. But please, please, please remember to take care of yourself. In all of the ways. It sucks that you have to do this but you have to adapt, you have to stay so fucking vigilant, you have to protect yourself and take care of your mind and body.

Please DO NOT neglect yourself out of fear and hopelessness because your government is neglecting you. Protect yourself, protect your body. And DO NOT STOP FIGHTING.

[raisedbythetv89]

I hate all of this “well he was Buffy’s first love!” talk when discussing how much pain and devastation Angel caused in Buffy’s life as if for women our first loves MUST be horrible and painful always???? As if it was unavoidable anyway so let’s not be too critical of him.

First off, HE LITERALLY WASNT EVEN HER FIRST LOVE

The show acknowledges what happens in the movie so canonically what happened in the movie happened to tv show Buffy INCLUDING HER RELATIONSHIP. ANGEL WAS NOT HER FIRST LOVE.

Angel was just the first guy who stalked and targeted Buffy when she was at her most vulnerable and continued to constantly lie and manipulate her for his own selfish gains only to toss her aside once she no longer served her original purpose while continuing to lead her on and show up in her life every time she tried to move on and THAT is why it was so painful!!!

STOP NORMALIZING THE PAIN CAUSED BY ABUSE AND MANIPULATION AS THE SAME THING AS REGULAR HEARTBREAK IN NORMAL RELATIONSHIPS.

I did not have a good childhood, my parents had a horrible divorce when I was 7 and I had never seen a healthy relationship modeled IN MY LIFE - AND YET - my first serious relationship when I was 16 while it definitely had it problems like all young love does (his friends didn’t like how much time he spent with me and his mom both hated me for “taking her son away” but also loved me because she wanted a daughter so badly but only had sons - she was insane lol and we were both teenagers who made stupid teenager mistakes) he was with me for 3 1/2 years and absolutely would have married me if that was what I had wanted.

He would sneak out to see me when I was sad despite his strict parents, always bought me lunch because I would eat what I was sent to school with by 10 AM because I was STARVING because I had an almond mom who never fed either of us enough. Would happily listen to me rant about the twilight books as I read them during that whole phase, WROTE ME A SONG for my birthday (he was actually a talented musician and works as a sound engineer and music producer now) and basically just spent every second he could either with me or talking to me when we were apart. He loved taking me on dates and writing me love notes and we just laughed all the time. He was my best friend as well as my boyfriend and ending that relationship because I had outgrown him was SO PAINFUL because he loved me so much and even during the break up - which I handled HORRIBLY - he was kind and even gave me the birthday present he had bought me because he wanted me to have it even though it was still months away. (I say all of this to try and just show first loves CAN be more than just pain and devastation and if it isn’t making you happy a minimum 80% of the time and you instead just feel sad and confused THAT IS NOT NORMAL AND YOU DESERVE BETTER 🩷)

I know good experiences are not the case for everyone when it comes to first relationships and that’s awful and is not fair because young love SHOULD be innocent and naive. Just two idiots in love who have no clue what they’re doing but just happy to be around each other no matter what they’re doing (like what willow got to experience with Oz in high school) and Angel robbed Buffy of those experiences. He broke her trust of other people and in love and her trust in HERSELF - that’s not her “first love” that’s her first abusive relationship and calling it “her first love” or worse “her soulmate” only serves the patriarchy and harms little girls everywhere who grow up not knowing to look for or expect better because everyone around them and society is telling them “your first experiences with love and sex will be awful and painful and there’s no escaping it” when that is just NOT TRUE at all, especially if you date someone age appropriate in high school. Angel is the first older “man” she dated and like all older men with high school girls do, he took advantage of that imbalance in power in literally every way possible and I will despise that whiney little bitch until the end of time for that and wish he would have just stayed trapped in that hell dimension until the end of time as it is what he deserves.

“True love” doesn’t require severe pain and tears for it to be deep or meaningful. Don’t believe the lies terrible men like jw and so many others feed us.

[wanderingaldecaldo]

Who the fuck is this??? I hate all these awful, yassified, buffed out fem NPC mods on Nexus. Just admit you hate 99% of women and be done with it.

[mx-typewriter]

FUCK MISOGYNY-

REMEMBER, LADIES, YOUR WORTH IS NOT DEFINED BY SOME MAN, IT'S DEFINED BY YOU

[not-a-puzzle]

Why the "pick-me" insult is sexist and transphobic, and why it needs to stop being tossed around like rice at a wedding.

I can't hide it; I've hated this insult ever since I first heard it come out of a snobby teenage girl's mouth. Something about it fired up my instincts, it got under my skin like salt on a snail's underbelly where it scratched and burned until I had to get myself to address why I hate it so much.

Well first off was the way I first heard it used, in a snobby, holier than thou tone said in a very mean girl type way, y'all know what I'm talking about. The Blaire White type tone. Judgmental, derogatory, like the way Fundamentalist Christians say slurs against trans people.

And that brings me to my next point, the term is undeniably transphobic, or at least, regressive to non-binary expressions of gender. Ya'll might think it's an insult used towards a certain attitude or behavior, but alas, I've seen this term used against tomboys or any girl who doesn't express herself in a hyperfeminine way enough times to know it's really sexism fueling the sheer amount we hear this term flung about now. (And I suspect there's actually a right-wing element to this.)

But on top of that, it runs under the assumption that any thing girls do is soley to catch the attention of men. Wear a crop top? You're doing that for men? Showing your shoulders, OH YOU WHORE! So by assuming a girl is a tomboy or likes video games or whatever that they're just screaming, "OMG BOYZ PICK ME OMG!!" you are making a judgement based off fucking nothing, often by people who do nothing but yell the second they turn on a camera, or want a reason to bully someone, cause a guess life is too boring for y'all if you're not harassing someone at least once a day?

What makes it worse is that most girls aren't super feminine. Lots of girls like things boys like too and vice versa, and yet our society is still so segregated based on gender that we STILL gender things from color to hobbies to clothing. Isn't that so old-fashioned you can smell the rancidity??

My point is, GOD FORBID WOMEN DO ANYTHING!

And do you ever consider if she's trying to not be like other girls, maybe it has nothing to do with her not liking girls, but with the rapid capitalist fueled consumerism and shallowness and unwritten social rules girls are being brainwashed with. (I mean, look at the 10- and 11-year-olds making a mess of Sephora and tell me that's how girls are meant to act naturally. No, they've been brainwashed by social media, and sadly, they want to grow up far too quickly and don't value their childhood, but rant for another day.)

And to round out this rant, I will say a lot of tomboys are girls on the autism spectrum, thus they may find it easier to befriend guys than girls (at least when they're all young) because guys generally (note I say generally here) are less prone to enforcing unwritten social rules and confusing figurative language than girls are. And guess what? A hallmark autism is a more literal mindset than a social one.

And besides, in the situation that a girl takes on a new way of expressing herself to attract guys, what's actually wrong with that? Don't you know how often I've seen girls dress up and fake act like a guy's jokes are so funny so they can start a relationship? Because someone wants to loved or horny or both. (Which there's nothing wrong with.) So, why is it wrong to use the technique of wanting to attract someone by being interested in things they're interested in? Or worse yet, not running around shouting about how "all men are pigs." So, oh dear, pick me isn't just sexist against women, it's sexist against men, because I also often see it used against women who don't hate all men.

Or say it's an incel type situation, JUST FUCKING CALL HER AN INCEL? WTF is up with gendering our insults. Why do guys and girls need different terms if it's actually the case for showing the same behaviors? Call women simps, call them incels, stop reserving insults for guys until you want to assume a girl is just doing something for guy's attention for which you want to shame her for that aspect. (Because it's wrong to be horny all the sudden? This not only pisses me off, but it also confuses the hell out of me.) But hey, you judgmental bitches out there, maybe she, a girl a woman, LIKES SOMETHING!! OH NO!! How dare she, she's a femiod! (Do I need to point out the last few sentences are sarcasm?)

And remember girls, pick-me is not an insult against loser-type, blaming everyone else for their mistake's behavior like incel is, it's a direct insult against a girl DARING to go against pre-established gender roles. Who are the people actually putting boys and girls in boxes, affirming established gender roles by implying other types of behavior is against the norm? Is it the simple tomboy, or the jerks who continue using this insult without realizing it's an insult created specifically to force traditional femininity upon women instead of letting them be who they are.

(A lot of these "dreaded pick-me's" are probably non-binary too folks.)

Don't get me wrong, this gif goes both ways. Obviously when girls have been boxed in all their lives, they're gonna get obnoxious about it when they aren't inside the box anymore. Yet, those who fling around the pick-me insult are calling attention to the breaking of gender roles all the more, and in the way that actually enforces them rather than the thing I think "pick-me's" actually do, and that's desperately trying to build a unique personality and find themselves in a world that still limits women so much. Can you blame someone for trying to fight against something, even if they are doing so in a sloppy way?

Well, I'll leave off this long rant post with saying this was inspired when the Misery Machine posted a video of a woman who fucking murdered people, but instead of actually focusing on the crime, they focus on the aspect of her being a pick-me. Why? She was goth. Yup. I bet you're pissed too now. Her being a pick me had nothing to do with being a murderer, so why even bring it up?

I'm not trying to language police, I'm just trying to call out attention to quite frankly might just be a new slur, which people will look back on in shame. There's so much hatred against a lot of today's slang, so why isn't the worst slang getting more hatred than words like gyatt or fantom tax, which are harmless at the end of the day.

My main point, LET PEOPLE ENJOY THINGS and MIND YOUR OWN BUISNESS!!!! Let's be aware of all the little things designed to degrade people and bring them down while the corporations profit off our insecurities they created in us, and we can start by not using insults coined by Grey's Anatomy of all things.

[kimyoonmiauthor]

Literary theorists being AHs to women and PoCs

‘cause if I have to suffer, then you should also know how much of an AH these people are, so you can examine if their theories are even worth believing or if you SHOULD pay attention to their blind spots instead of saying it’s irrelevant to literary discussion. Personally, I think the fact they are unwilling to mention PoCs, particularly Black people and willing to actively dump on women is very relevant to current academic discourse. You can’t ignore Kant’s views on women, and see that the majority of the people who won in the end were people who showed hatred towards women.

Robert Scholes being an AH, Page 26-page 28 (Hilarious, but also homophobic and misogynistic) For context, EM Forster is gay, which makes this really homophobic.

Picture credit: https://www.brownalumnimagazine.com/articles/2017-03-03/memories-of-bob-scholes

‘Cause you see folks, the only decent writers in the world are men, cishet men. (notice the sharp sarcasm here).

E.M. Forster on Gertrude Stein (From Aspects of a Novel, a series of lectures he gave)

Credit: Getty Images https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/licensed-image?q=tbn:ANd9GcSjNW-FA-n5bkXFk2MFmMGMcBy1SJtQj185hrMceQN_8rK2L-6f2cu7Ct-PooBt8M6Mt7ffTDt5SPHpj00

https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/70492/pg70492-images.html

Granted, a Modernist (and gay himself, openly so at the time he gave this lecture), but still, the dumping on Gertrude Stein seems to be a tradition that extends to other people afterwards (Rowe did it sideways, Lajos Egri, directly). Seriously? Dump on the lesbian Jew trying to encourage ways to describe TRAUMA. OMG, we shouldn’t talk about trauma.

But I disagree heartily--we have entire story structures devoted to dreams that play with sense of time and reality *because* of Gertrude Stein. I mean, how could you conceivably get Inception without Gertrude Stein’s theories of how to move language and time? Besides that, you have Dream Diaries (Japanese), Dream Record (First Chinese then Korean--not imported into Japan because there was a war), and then the whole of Dream Time from Aboriginals which predate her. Non-linear storytelling has and can work--but you need thematic plotting to be stronger and tone plotting to really be tight (pacing helps, but isn’t as critical as the other two). Thank the Modernists for the European white version. I mean, Magic realism, anyone???

If you want to find ways to break linear time and describe trauma itself, and the feeling of missing time--Modernists are your best bet to find techniques to get you there. (Kinda Post Modernists, though I resent the focus on readers a lot--I heartily disagree, BTW, that Structuralists and Post Modernists are the same thing... as argued in this paper here: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/B0080430767039516. 

Post Modernists tried to find further ways to break the rules and structure by bending to the reader. 

Structuralists tried to impose a bunch of rules and binary. Like say, the panopticon and prison system/School system. There’s rigidity everywhere with Structuralists and Eurocentricism.) Or as the Raw and Cooked put it, a binary of acceptable and unacceptable, when some cultures don’t work off the Bible. So I think this paper here: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/B0080430767039516

is more likely.

John Gardner, The Art of Fiction for Young Writers, published 1983

Picture credit: https://blog.bookstellyouwhy.com/john-gardner-and-the-art-of-fiction

No one is surprised that its all men mentioned, right? 

But what makes ignoramuses bad writers is not just their inexperience in fair argument. All great writing is in a sense imitation of great writing. Writing a novel, however innovative that novel may be, the writer struggles to achieve one specific large effect, what can only be called the effect we are used to getting from good novels. However weird the technique, whatever the novel’s mode, we say when we have finished it, “Now that is a novel!” We say it of Anna Karenina and of Under the Volcano, also of the mysteriously constructed Moby-Dick. If we say it of Samuel Beckett’s Watt or Malone Dies, of Italo Calvino’s The Baron in the Trees, or Kobo Abe’s The Ruined Map, we say it because, for all their surface oddity, those novels produce the familiar effect. It rarely happens, if it happens at all, that a writer can achieve effects much larger than the effects achieved in books he has read and admired. Human beings, like chimpanzees, can do very little without models. One may learn to love Shakespeare by reading him on one’s own—the ignoramus is unlikely to have done even this—but there is no substitute for being taken by the hand and guided line by line through Othello, Hamlet, or King Lear. This is the work of the university Shakespeare course, and even if the teacher is a person of limited intelligence and sensitivity, one can find in universities the critical books and articles most likely to be helpful, the books that have held up, and the best of the new books. Outside the university’s selective process, one hardly knows which way to turn. One ends up with some crank book on how Shakespeare was really an atheist, or a Communist, or a pen-name used by Francis Bacon. Outside the university it seems practically impossible to come to an understanding of Homer or Vergil, Chaucer or Dante, any of the great masters who, properly understood, provide the highest models yet achieved by our civilization. Whatever his genius, the writer unfamiliar with the highest effects possible is virtually doomed to search out lesser effects.

Gardner, John (2010-05-20T23:58:59.000). The Art of Fiction . Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.

OMG, give this guy a prize, he managed to mention a Japanese man Kobo Abe. /s https://literariness.org/2019/04/15/analysis-of-kobo-abes-novels/ But then fails to mention the names of the authors of some of the novels he’s talking about (I’m literally begging Writer’s Digest, Knopf, etc to force these people to give better citations)

The closest he gets to noting a Black person is noting American Jazz on the page where Chapter 2 starts, and then fails to mention Jazz musicians. No, I’m serious. What makes a person an AH? The inability to mention a single work in 1983 by a female author?

Though the fact is not always obvious at a glance when we look at works of art very close to us in time, the artist’s primary unit of thought—his primary conscious or unconscious basis for selecting and organizing the details of his work—is genre. This is perhaps most obvious in the case of music. A composer writes an opera, a symphony, a concerto, a tone poem, a suite of country dances, a song cycle, a set of variations, or a stream-of-consciousness piece (a modern psychological adaptation of the tone poem). Whatever genre he chooses, and to some extent depending on which genre he chooses, he writes within, or slightly varies, traditional structures—sonata form, fugal structure, ABCBA melodic structure, and so forth; or he may create, on what he believes to be some firm basis, a new structure. He may cross genres, introducing country dances into a symphony or, say, constructing a string quartet on the principle of theme and variations. If he’s looking for novelty (seldom for any more noble reason), he may try to borrow structure from some other art, using film, theatrical movement, or something else. When new forms arise, as they do from time to time, they rise out of one of two processes, genre-crossing or the elevation of popular culture. Thus Ravel, Gershwin, Stravinsky, and many others blend classical tradition and American jazz—in this case simultaneously crossing genres and elevating the popular. Occasionally in music as in the other arts, elevating popular culture must be extended to mean recycling trash. Electronic music began in the observation that the beeps and boings that come out of radios, computers, and the like might sound a little like music if structure were imposed—rhythm and something like melody. Anything, in fact—as the Dadaists, Spike Jones, and John Cage pointed out—might be turned into something like music: the scream of a truck-tire, the noise of a windowshade, the bleating of a sheep.

Gardner, John (2010-05-20T23:58:59.000). The Art of Fiction . Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.

Iunno, is it glaring to you? It’s glaring to me. Avoid talking about Black people challenge. I can name at least a few off the top of my head. Dizzy Gillespie? Billie Holiday? Ella Fitzgerald? And then he mentions white people before then? I’m groaning.

And that’s the thing, particularly about Black authors/Black people, they are either not mentioned by name, but their work is--WTF, or totally skipped, probably because the whole of Black literature goes against these white men’s structuralism, and postulations. On one hand, I’m glad they left them alone, but on the other, the saying this is the only way, while glaringly missing the obvious really is sickening.

As for dumping on women--well... should we go back to Aristotle being an ass and starting the whole anti-choice campaigns because somehow Aristotle is Jesus, even though Jesus didn’t say anything about Ensoulment at conception? And then indoctrinated white women trying to rescue Aristotle from taking the axe because all of his scientific ideas were wrong? (Just axe him--he was popular with the Victorians for a reason--he was a misogynistic asshole and that reinforced their worldview very well.) (And if you think I don’t have references for the anti-choice statement... oh wait for it... I so have it)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ensoulment Wikipedia, but I found scholarly articles too--not sure you want to be buried with that. Aristotle is not Jesus. !@#$ And Aristotle thought women got their soul later than men, because, as I said, royal asshole, to the point I want to do a whole long rant about how much of an irrelevant ah he was.

[most-iconic-triangle]

[alephskoteinos]

So apparently there's something called the "Incel Wiki", which as the name suggests is literally just Wikipedia but for incels, made by incels, about the whole philosophy of inceldom. And you can tell it's an incel encyclopedia because they have whole pages about feminism being evil, physiognomy being a science, and literally a page about "female sneakiness", which I only bring up because of this hilarious fucking bullshit right here:

The rest of the page is really nothing nice either. Just a comprehensive list of all the itemized incel misogynist tropes about why women are basically ontologically evil or whatever. All the usual whiny bullshit about lying, "whoring", makeup, "virtue signalling", the fact that they don't feel compelled to have sex whenever a man commands them to, you get the picture.

But the funny part to me is that, for however much we can say about Lilith as the icon of rebellious feminity that she seems to be taken to be since maybe the 19th century or so, it was Eve who, by hearing the voice of the serpent (or the Devil, per interpretation) and eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge, began the exile that led the human species out of the cage of Eden and thus began the downward ascent of humanity towards the realm of the gods, and, in so doing, caused every incel, traditionalist, and really misogynist male of all stripes to seethe and mald over it from the dawn of civilization until the end of time.

And you just know that the hatred of Eve comes from one place more than any other: the fact that apparently all Adam ever wanted, at least when the chips were down, was to live as God's pampered pet for all eternity. Of course, Adam did join Eve in eating the fruit, and he did it voluntarily without any gripes about it. But when afterwards God told Adam and Eve that they were to be cast out of Eden for it, then Adam blamed Eve for the fact that he ate the fruit. Of course in the Genesis narrative Eve also turned around and blamed the serpent for the fact that she ate the fruit, after Adam blamed her for it, not that it did either of them any good as far as God was concerned. But the point I'm making is that the only reason Adam scrambled to blame Eve at all, even though he was fine with eating the apple the first time, is because all of a sudden God's punished him with exile and toil, and although God gives him dominion over his wife, the pampered existence that came with obeying God's orders is now gone, and that's all Adam really wanted. And so begins a long chain of desire for metaphysical regression, the desire to return to the garden.

It's honestly little wonder that fascism, and the metaphysical regression that animates fascist desire, is so deeply linked to misogyny. Of course fascists have always preferred rigidly patriarchal societies and the more or less complete control over women they felt they had because of fascism, but there's also the point that fascist regression aches with the desire to return to the purity of eternal order, which in the Genesis narrative is rather epitomized by Eden.

[girlthings48]

Today I just learned about phrases like "bubblegum pink" and men & boys have never given me the ick more... Fucking disgusting.

[fourletterwords]

[yasminmeadowflower]

[termagax]

yknow what pisses me da fuck off. how gay men get to be like teehee im too gay to care about women but lesbians are still expected to center men to the extent that jokes about Characters Who Are Lesbian Icons are always men. "lesbian and her boy blorbo" are the most popular jokes about lesbians on this website. "x man is a he/him lesbian" headcanons outnumber actual content about lesbian characters 10:1 even in series with well-written female characters. but sure youre Too Gay to think about a Yucky Female for ten seconds and you HAVE to broadcast this fact in the notes of posts abt fandom misogyny

[puer-luna]

for all women suffering right now, im keeping you in my prayers. 🤍

[marzipanandminutiae]

Of course, the burkini ban is messed up on grounds of religious freedom and racial discrimination. But also

Under any other circumstances, people would be HORRIFIED at a government mandate that women have to show a certain amount of skin. Like. That’s fucking dystopian, and the absolute opposite of feminism. If a government tried to pass a law that all women had to wear tube tops and miniskirts to go outside, people would rightfully be up in arms demanding blood

But because it’s targeting a marginalized religious group, many folks are lauding the blatant forced sexualization of women. Appalling

(apparently the ban also outlaws things like sun – protecting bathing suits if they cover too much skin. Which like. Yes, let’s give everyone skin cancer just so we can spite a religion we’ve decided to hate. Sounds like a good plan </s>)

[unicorntyrant]

OMG! I found a better one!!! 🤣

[gaytoesugayru]

dunmeshi fandom has lost 😭