#hairy men...(bias)

[mozzaremi]

i swear i'll draw other sdv characters besides harvey, just let me have this moment

[whimsyworm]

just saw someone say anti masculinity in queer spaces wasn't real because men aren't oppressed ... my brother in christ trans women and butches are the main victims. this is a misogyny problem first and foremost absolutely

[hybbat]

Sometimes I'm tempted to draw Impulse as a tiny twink just to spite all the posts shaming and being awful to people for not drawing characters, who are canonically made of six cubes, how they want them to.

[jbake595]

I work with someone who also watches The Last of Us. I asked him what he thought of episode 3. He said “I saw a lot of two hairy men having sex.” I was really disappointed to hear this response, as I was hoping to gush about how much I liked the intimacy and vulnerability and how it broke my heart the way only true art can. All he saw was two dudes smashing, which wasn’t even shown onscreen. There was no panting, no thrusting, no movie-trope just-out-of-view sex scene. There is only a brief moment of seduction which tells the audience the characters are going to have sex, followed by a cut to some time after it has already occurred. My colleague’s take is informed by the same bias that causes deranged parents to berate school boards for discussing the existence of non-straight and transgender people in class. They think gayness is sexual in a way straightness is not. He saw roughly 2 minutes of 2 men being emotionally vulnerable, which led to offscreen sex, and all he could take away from the masterfully-crafted 60-minute love story was that 2 hairy men had sex. Deeply disappointing. Anyway if you haven’t seen it yet, it’s really great and I highly recommend watching it.

[verdantlyviolet]

Some Pet Dog Names from Ancient Greece

When the hound has caught the hare, or been otherwise victorious in the course, you should […] pat him with your hand and praise him, kissing his head, and stroking his ears, and speaking to him by name […] for, like men of generous spirit, they love to be praised; and the dog, if not quite tired out [from the hunt] will come up with joy to caress you. (Arrian, On Coursing, XVIII Pg 116 trans. William Dansey)

As many dogs were hunting hounds or guard dogs in Ancient Greece, it followed that the naming convention was dependant on psychology; to name the dog something strong or skilful was to boast of the animals’ superiority to others of its breed, just as it reflected on the owner. There are some well known dogs in Ancient Greek history that many are aware of, namely Cerberus, Odysseus’ faithful dog Argos, and Alexander the Great named a city after his dog Peritas. We are lucky to have two lists of excellent dog names from authors Xenophon and Ovid.

From Xenophon (~ 430 - 355 BC), in his treaties on Hunting, we have the below list:

Give the hounds short names, so as to be able to call to them easily. The following are the right sort: Psyche, Thymus, Porpax, Styrax, Lonchê (Lance), Lochus, Phrura, Phylax (Sentinel/Guardian), Taxis, Xiphon, Phonax, Phlegon, Alcê (Stout), Teuchon, Hyleus, Medas (Crafty), Porthon, Sperchon (Bustler/Hasty), Orgê, Bremon, Hybris, Thallon (Vigorous), Rhomê, Antheus (Blossom), Hebe, Getheus, Chara (Jolly/Ecstasy), Leusson, Augo (Bright), Polys, Bia, Stichon, Spudê, Bryas, Oenas (Blueskin), Sterrus, Craugê, Caenon, Tyrbas, Sthenon, Aether, Actis, Aechmê, Noes (Counsellor), Gnomê, Stibon, Hormê (Impetus). (Xenophon Kynegetikos On Hunting 7.5)

A kind person on Reddit suggested these names could also translate as:

Psyche = Psyche / Spirit

Thymus = Pluck

Porpax = Buckler

Styrax = Spigot

Lonche = Lance

Lochus = Lurcher

Phrura = Watch

Phylax = Keeper

Taxis = Brigade

Xiphon = Fencer

Phonax = Butcher

Phlegon = Blazer

Alce = Prowess

Teuchon = Craftsman

Hyleus = Foster

Medas = Counsellor

Porthon = Spoiler

Sperchon = Hurry

Orge = Fury

Bremon = Growler

Hybris = Riot / Insolence

Thallon = Bloomer

Rhome = Rome / Mighty

Antheus = Blossom

Hebe = Hebe / Youth (Young’n)

Getheus = Hilary / Happy

Chara = Jollity

Leusson = Glazer

Augo = Eyesbright

Polys = Much

Bia = Force

Stichon = Trooper

Spude = Bustle

Bryas = Bubbler

Oenas = Rockdove

Sterrus = Stubborn

Crauge = Yelp

Caenon = Killer

Tyrbas = Strongboy / Riot

Sthenon = Sky

Aether = Sunbeam

Actis = Bodkin

Aechme = Wistful

Noes = Gnome

And from Ovid (~ 43 BC - 17 AD), in his Metamorphosis, of the dogs that attacked their master Actaeon, we have:

First ‘Black-foot’, Melampus, and keen-scented Ichnobates, ‘Tracker’, signal him with baying, Ichnobates out of Crete, Melampus, Sparta. Then others rush at him swift as the wind, ‘Greedy’, Pamphagus, Dorceus, ‘Gazelle’, Oribasos, ‘Mountaineer’, all out of Arcadia: powerful ‘Deerslayer’, Nebrophonos, savage Theron, ‘Whirlwind’, and Laelape, ‘Hunter’. Then swift-footed Pterelas, ‘Wings’, and trail-scenting Agre, ‘Chaser’, fierce Hylaeus, ‘Woody’, lately gored by a boar, the wolf-born Nape, ‘Valley’, Poemenis, the trusty ‘Shepherd’, and Harpyia, ‘Snatcher’, with her two pups. There is thin-flanked Sicyonian Ladon, ‘Catcher’, Dromas, ‘Runner’, ‘Grinder’, Canache, Sticte ‘Spot’, Tigris ‘Tigress’, Alce, ‘Strong’, and white-haired Leucon, ‘Whitey’, and black-haired Asbolus, ‘Soot’. Lacon, ‘Spartan’, follows them, a dog well known for his strength, and strong-running Aëllo, ‘Storm’. Then Thoos, ‘Swift’, and speedy Lycisce, ‘Wolf’, with her brother Cyprius ‘Cyprian’. Next ‘Grasper’, Harpalos, with a distinguishing mark of white, in the centre of his black forehead, ‘Black’, Melaneus, and Lachne, ‘Shaggy’, with hairy pelt, Labros, ‘Fury’, and Argiodus, ‘White-tooth’, born of a Cretan sire and Spartan dam, keen-voiced Hylactor, ‘Barker’ […] First ‘Black-hair’, Melanchaetes, wounds his back, then ‘Killer’, Theridamas, and Oresitrophos, the ‘Climber’, clings to his shoulder. (Ovid Metamorphoses III 206-233 trans. A S Kline)

Theoi has Brookes More’s translation which offers a few English variations on the names.

A few fun ideas to keep in mind if looking to name a new pet in Ancient Greek style.

For I have myself bred up a hound whose eyes are the greyest of grey; a swift, hard-working, courageous, sound-footed dog[…]. He is most gentle, and kindly-affectioned […] as soon as he catches sight of me, showing symptoms of joy, and again trotting on before me. […] He is the constant companion of whichever may be sick; and if he has not seen either of us for only a short time, he jumps up repeatedly by way of salutation, and barks with joy as a greeting. (Arrian, On Coursing, V Pg 78-80 trans. William Dansey)

🐶 Sources

Xenophon Kynegetikos

Arrian On Coursing

Ovid Metamorphoses III

Dog shaped Rhyton by the Brygos Painter in Aleria

[hirsuteandcute]

It is so so hard and sad to have a conversation with people who wont or can’t confront their anti–female body hair bias/socialisation esp re cleanliness. I feel like I might actually scream if I have to hear “but it just FEELS cleaner/I just FEEL dirty with body hair” one more time. I know we’re not supposed to police people’s decisions especially regarding their body but tbh statements like that shame women who DO have body hair whether they’re intended to or not.

You’re admitting you believe there is an inherent dirtiness to WOMEN’S body hair specifically. Even if you believe you’re talking about your own feelings, these assumptions don’t exist in a bubble. And quite frankly its so bizarre to me how many women will saying this whilst sleeping with their boyfriend who may or may not wipe themselves after they urinate, wash their hands regularly, have flakes of shit in their butt crack hair etc. Men sweat more too, so shouldn’t it be even more vital that they shave their body hair to “feel clean”?? But no, its just assumed their hair is the norm, in fact people find it weird when men shave.

I truly believe it’s because a lot of people believe women’s bodies have an inherent dirtiness, and have a severe lack of understanding of how women’s bodies (including their own) actually work and so have a lot of shame towards their body. This girl was saying to me how she just feels ‘cleaner’ with no pubic hair and I didn’t want to argue with her or anything, I was just trying to understand what the logic is and in my head I’m thinking - i know why. You think its gross because its hair on a vulva and therefore must be gross because vulvas are gross because women’s bodies and their functions are gross (obviously this isn’t what I actually believe, but I believe a lot of people are encouraged to feel this way).

I said to her, is the hair on your head gross then? Because it gets exposed to more pollution, dirt, germs, etc, so wouldn’t it “feel cleaner” to shave it? And she was like “nooo i could never!!” In fact women are encouraged to grow it as long as possible and even shamed for cutting it short let alone shaving it! I shower every day including washing my body and pubic hair, but I only wash my hair three times a week and most women I know do the same. So what is the logic there? There is none because this thought pattern is so stupid. How is my freshly washed body hair and soft skin any dirtier than shaved skin with ingrown hairs, whiteheads, and shaving cuts?

Anyway, there is no real point here, just to say that when you look at the structure of so many of the beauty standards enforced on women they really are so dumb and misogynistic. I honestly pity women who feel this way but it’s agonising as a hairy woman to constantly feel like you have to defend your hygiene, especially to people who seem to make up hygiene standards on the spot lol.

[tuesdayinthedas]

I personally headcanon Saiyans to be hairless, except on their head and occasionally facial hair. How about you?

Hmmmmmm Im honestly torn on this and I guess it depends on the mood I’m in hahaha

The case for hairless :

Just based on canon and what Vegeta has made comments about it on the past. With Saiyans not having to worry about hair growth (also I have this vanity head canon about Vegeta based on some posts I have come across on tumblr and from what Ive seen in the manga and the anime) I feel he’d shave anyway. I like how the half Saiyan/Human kids change hairstyles and really emphasised that the monkee bois are stuck with the hair they have haha. You have probably noticed I mostly draw them with out extra hair because I either am trying to draw in canon style or I forget 😅

The case for hairy:

I do love love hair on people and drawing hair on characters, and like Saiyans are Monkeys. And i just love the thought that they are furry to some extent? This is also why I am bias on loving the ss4 design, give me furry men with tails please!

*bites this furry bastard*

So honestly I head canon both options and its mostly based on what Im trying to tell/communicate at the time to benefit my narrative 😂😂

[boreal-sea]

@vriskarights

Reply to this post:

https://www.tumblr.com/vriskarights/706085331968065536/why-do-tras-call-lesbians-who-dont-like-dick

For whatever reason, Tumblr isn't letting me reblog to add my answer to your questions. Before we get to the questions though:

"by definition, no lesbian likes dick."

First, we're going to immediately denounce your transphobia right from the get-go.

Lesbians can like dick. Dicks are not gendered. Dicks can be attached to women. Trans women with dicks exist. Cis women lesbians can like trans women lesbians with dicks.

Lesbianism is not about "not liking dicks" and that's a super weird way to define your sexuality.

Now, if you personally don't like dicks, even when they are attached to women, that's fine. You're allowed to have a no-dick preference. Just don't sit there and act like you get to define lesbianism for the rest of the planet, because you don't.

Moving on.

"Do you have any sources of radfems partnering with and benefitting fascist organizations?"

Yes, I do. It's not hard to find these sources. Radfems saying things like "At least ISIS knows what a woman is" are literally everywhere.

Here's a news article for you from The Washington Post, "Conservatives find unlikely ally in fighting transgender rights: Radical feminists".

https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2020/02/07/radical-feminists-conservatives-transgender-rights/

The Women's Liberation Front (WoLF) has become very friendly with conservatives of various kinds in recent years. They've been featured on Tucker Carlson's show and have presented at the Heritage Foundation, which is an organization that promotes conservative values. WoLF received money from another conservative Christian organization, the Alliance Defending Freedom, to help promote an anti-transgender bill during the Obama administration.

That's a lot of damning evidence from just one source. Believe me, there are more. Bottom line: transphobic radfems eagerly align themselves with conservatives when it suits their needs.

"How is recognizing the relevance of biological sex to sexism and homophobia fascist? And how are we bioessentialist--what innate qualities do we assign to males and females?"

Recognizing that humans generally come in two sexes is not fascism. It becomes bigotry when you decide - against the evidence of science - that sex is binary and immutable. It's bigotry to say either sex has any inherent qualities. It's bigotry when you decide gender and sex are inherently linked and that trans people do not exist. Bigotry becomes fascism when you try to pass oppressive laws to enforce your bigoted beliefs, like anti trans laws.

Many radfems do assign inherent qualities to the sexes. Not all of them do it outright - it's much more of an unconscious bias. But almost all radfems are disgusted by males, masculinity, and manhood. Many radfems believe whether consciously or unconsciously that males are, at their core, bad.

Testosterone is usually listed as the thing that causes this badness. We'll get into how this affects their opinions on cis men and trans women, but I first want to prove this is bioessentialism by using trans men as an example. The radfem's fear, hatred and revulsion of trans men, and the way they talk about trans men, is all rooted in bioessentialism and associating maleness with disgust.

"Trans men who go in T become ugly, they're balding, greasy, covered in acne, fat, smell bad, and they're hairy" - all of those are innate qualities they associate with maleness and disgust. To radfems, body hair on a trans man isn't just hair, it's gross, even though they're feminists and they're supposed to support natural body hair.

The intense body shaming radfems express towards trans men betrays not only their own hypocrisy with regards to body positivity, but their bioessentialism as well. They would not be revolted by these traits if they did not associate them with maleness, and maleness with being bad and negative.

Almost all radfems I've seen have said something along the lines of "all men are bad". They don't ascribe this badness to socialization and often rarely even mention "male socialization" - no, they directly associate maleness with badness, as noted above.

Radfems are often not just afraid of males, they are disgusted by maleness, masculinity, and manhood. That's assigning a quality to the sexes: male = disgusting, female = good. That's bioessentialism.

Other innate qualities I have seen radfems assign to the sexes: males are always bigger and stronger than females, and females can never (or very rarely ever) overpower males. Therefore males are a risk to females, but females cannot be threatening or dangerous towards males. This is why radfems feel females need safe spaces but males do not. This is also why radfems rarely ever believe male rape victims of female rapists, and in some cases, do not believe males can be raped by a female at all.

That's all bioessentialism. And maybe you don't believe any of those things, but a lot of radfems do, and it informs their rhetoric. This is why radfems treat trans women like predators: not because of "male socialization", but because trans women were assigned male at birth, and that makes them tainted from the womb.

Cis men are completely capable of controlling themselves; they are not biologically predisposed towards cheating or rape or violence. That's all socialization's fault. But you'd never think that, listening to radfems.

Testosterone in someone's system does not make them good or bad, ugly or pretty. It does not make someone predisposed towards violence. It's just a hormone. If anything, listening to trans men describe their experiences and how T makes them feel proves that cis men who are actually awful cannot blame their behavior on their biology, as they desperately want to do.

Next!

"Believing that man is the word word adult human males and that woman is the word for adult human females (as the dictionary states) isn't bioessentialist as it ascribes no innate qualities (i.e. tough, nurturing, sporty, motherly) to the sexes."

The problem with the claim that male = man and female = woman is that it only works if language is immutable and never changes, and if trans people don't exist. I've already explained how radfems very much do assign qualities to the sexes. The belief that male = man and female = woman is bioessentialist because it erases the existence of binary trans people and nonbinary trans people, plain and simple. If you argue the only way to be a man is to be male, you are assigning a quality to both of those things.

"Recognizing trends brought on by socialization and observable in statistics != assigning innate qualities to males and females (i.e. acknowledging that the majority of violent crime is committed by men is not bioessentialist because it is a fact)."

It wouldn't be bioessentialist if radfems didn't follow it by saying that these statistics mean "ALL men are untrustworthy". The instant you say every man should be treated as potentially violent, it's bioessentialism, because you are now applying violence to maleness as an inherent quality.

"I have been called a fascist and a nazi for not liking dick,"

No you haven't.

"and for acknowledging that my female homosexuality (exclusive same sex attraction) is what makes me a lesbian."

This is why you have been called a fascist and a nazi, for reasons explained above. Not liking dick is perfectly fine; redefining lesbianism around your hatred of dicks is weird and also transphobic.

"As have many lesbians (hence why we’ve grown to be critical of the trans movement--it is homophobic and to our detriment, and why should we sacrifice ourselves when we’re already an oppression minority?)."

Cis lesbians as a whole have not become critical of the trans community. Transphobes like you are, thank the gods, a tiny minority. Most cis lesbians love their trans siblings, both trans women and trans men.

You are tiny, loud, annoying parasites leeching off feminists and lesbians. Like mosquitos.

[doodlepede]

What do you think gay men are attracted to in men that they can’t be attracted to in women?

It can’t be anything about femininity or masculinity obviously. That’s both sexist, and cultural so can’t be what drives men-only attraction.

It can’t be anything about stated identity because someone could lie just as easily as they could tell the truth in such a statement, and it makes no sense because homosexuality and heterosexuality exists in other species with no stated identities. It’s not like other animals without gender are all pan.

Saying idk it’s the vibes or some indescribable trait men have that women can’t but “I can’t explain” is a nonanswer.

Soooooooo what is it? Or do you think any sexuality but bi/pan is just cultural performance or an identity rather than an inborn orientation?

- [ ]

but why cant it be (part of) what "drives" (what does that mean? causes? informs? unclear) [monosexuality]. why am i supposed to take your restrictions as given? (also i dont appreciate you putting words in my mouth at the end there. never said or implied that, where is that coming from? i actually have no idea what specifically you're arguing against so its difficult to argue against this ask. I'm without context.)

(also also yknow published jane goodall tier zoologists dont know why all non-human animals which exhibit homosexuality do so? youre assuming it must work with the same logic, and thats a MASSIVE assumption. if the zoologists being funded to research this don't know, how am I supposed to answer that? we dont know how it works in humans, even. That's why you initiated this poor-faith dialogue)

the answer is that it depends on who you ask. some gay men like big muscles or fat, or skinny or hairy or hairless or shorter or taller or femme or masc, or dont care. maybe they straight up dont care as long as there's a penis. but some dont care about that much either. there are as many answers as there are gay men. maybe you should ask gay men what they like and why, and not just the gay men youre choosing to listen to for your confirmation bias.

cant you just respect people and leave them alone instead of trying to force square pegs into round holes? oh no people identify in a way that doesnt make sense to you. this matters so much

for the record im not mad at you, if you stay polite, we can continue this dialogue

[chilled-ice-cubes]

And let’s not forget Depp’s well-established misogyny. He has defended Roman Polanski, befriended fellow alleged abuser Marilyn Manson and said the accusations against Harvey Weinstein were implausible because his wife wasn’t “some hairy-backed bitch.” His texts from early in his relationship refer to Heard as an “idiot cow," “filthy whore” and “worthless hooker.” One says, “I'll smack the ugly cunt around before I let her in, don't worry."

These are officially “jokes,” but other correspondence has a sharper tone. In an e-mail to Elton John (!), Depp described the mother of his children as “the French extortionist (ex-cunt).” Later texts refer to Heard as "flappy fish market," "cum guzzling whore" and “scumbag gold-digging cunt.”

Call it bias if you want, but I simply don’t find it difficult to believe that a troubled man with a history of drug problems and violent outbursts — not to mention all the entitlement that comes with being a beloved and wealthy movie star — brought that pattern into his marriage. 

Source:

https://www.readthepresentage.com/p/johnny-depp-amber-heard?s=r

[path-of-my-childhood]

Taylor Swift headlining Glastonbury isn't outrageous; it's outrageous it took this long to invite her

By: Neil McCormick for The Telegraph Date: December 16th 2019

Oh dear, here we go again. Taylor Swift is headlining Glastonbury festival and some people are a bit upset because - let me see if I have got this right - she’s a girly girl who plays girly pop music. For girls. Or something like that.

The 30-year-old American pop star will close the 2020 festivities with a Sunday night set on the Pyramid Stage. Given that all 134,000 tickets sold out in half an hour in October before any artists had even been announced, you might think festival goers would be excited at the prospect of being entertained by one of the biggest musical superstars in the world right now, who has won 10 Grammys and was this year voted Artist of the Decade by the American Music Awards.

But apparently not.

On the reliably combustible Twitter, fans were threatening to eat their tickets and throw themselves out windows. A Twitter user answering to the handle @TheVillaDecree helpfully summed up the problem in one grammatically suspect tweet: ‘Where the proper modern rock?! Very disappointed.’

Where the proper modern rock, indeed?

There persists a strange notion in some quarters that Glastonbury is an ancient and venerable institution dedicated to the worship of men with guitars, and that to allow this hallowed stage to be trod upon by anything other than a hairy rock band is an act of spiritual sacrilege.

That was essentially what Noel Gallagher was trying to express back in 2008, when he objected to rap superstar Jay Z’s headline set on the grounds that “I’m not having hip hop at Glastonbury. It’s wrong.” But, of course, Jay Z performed a fantastic set for a huge audience and even amusingly played one of Noel’s Oasis songs to rub it in.

Last year, by universal critical and popular acclaim, the stand-out headline performance was delivered by another rapper, Stormzy. He made history as the first British black male to headline Glastonbury. It was treated as a historic moment. But as a representative of the music Britain actually listens to now, that helps shape and reflect the consciousness of the young people who most obsess over it, you could argue that Stormzy did not need Glastonbury as much as Glastonbury needed him. Because pop culture is ever-changing and a music festival as ambitious and wide-ranging as Glastonbury needs to change with it or be left behind. And this year Taylor Swift is very much part of that change.

Swift will be only the sixth female solo artist to ever headline Glastonbury festival. On its 50th anniversary. Think about that. A festival that has been running for five decades, with three major headliners each year, has only managed to make top billing space for a handful of women.

They were Suzanne Vega in 1989, Sinead O’Connor in 1990, Kylie Minogue in 2005, Beyoncé in 2011 and Adele in 2016. We should add to that list pop duo Shakespears Sister in 1992, rock band Skunk Anansie in 1999 (fronted by Skin) and Florence + The Machine in 2015 (with the proviso that Florence Welch only got the headline spot because American rock band the Foo Fighters pulled out).

If you really want to express outrage about something on Twitter, that might be a place to start. Women have been marginalised in music for as long as there has been a music business, and Glastonbury’s paucity of female headliners is just another reflection of that. I wonder how much of that has been caused by a bias against the very idea that there is a kind of female pop music that just isn’t worthy of the serious attention and reverence accorded men with guitars?

But pop is the sound of our times. Not modern rock. Not old school rock. Not rock at all. And female artists are making some of the most imaginative and adventurous pop music that has ever been heard. And right there at the head of the pack is Taylor Swift, a witty, emotional singer-songwriter who uses confessional, diaristic songcraft to turn the narratives of her life into huge anthems that have reverberated around the world.

She sells in multi-millions and streams in the billions. She has been among the top 10 touring artists worldwide this decade, which would suggest she knows how to put on a show. The question isn’t whether she deserves to be at Glastonbury, the question is why Glastonbury has taken so long to invite her?

She is going to smash it. And hopefully the next time a major female superstar deigns to grace Glastonbury festival with her presence, it will not be seen as something to moan about on social media, but just show-business as usual.

[rushingheadlong]

Okay, so I’ve vague-blogged about this a few times and I’ve had this discussion off tumblr or one-on-one with friends, but in the continuing adventures of “RushingHeadlong Is A Fucking Killjoy” let’s talk about Brian’s shoulder hair.

Specifically, let’s talk about the fact that Brian getting shoulder hair in the late 90s/early 2000s is not a Sudden And Weird Thing but is actually just… him aging like most cis men do???

First off, in case you don’t already know this, part of what contributes to body hair growth is due to prolonged exposure to testosterone. That’s why teenage boys who are just starting to go through puberty don’t grow a full mountain man beard overnight, and that’s why trans men who start T often find that their facial hair is one of the last changes to come in. It takes time for your body to respond to testosterone levels to produce excessive body hair, and that’s why it’s not uncommon to see older men who still have very hairy backs, arms, eyebrows, or ears even if they’re going bald. (And in case you’re curious, bald heads are caused by a testosterone derivative called DHT which only affects hair follicles on the scalp not on the back and shoulders.)

Given how little body hair Brian seems to have had when he was younger, I’m not surprised that it took him until his 50s for the first little wisps to really start showing up!

I’ve also seen some people say that Brian must have had some sort of spike in his T levels in the late 90s to account for the shoulder hair?? But honestly this is probably really unlikely. Generally speaking T levels will drop as men age, not increase:

“In some men, testosterone levels remain high throughout life, but in most they begin to decline at about age 40. Unlike the precipitous drop in hormones that women experience at menopause, however, the decline in men is gradual, averaging just over 1% a year. This drop is imperceptible at first, but by age 70, the average man's testosterone production is 30% below its peak.” [x] 

The odds of Brian having some random “spike” when he reached 50 is incredibly small - like I can’t even give you a statistic on how unlikely it is, because there is little to no research into T levels spiking like that because most of the time when it happens it’s connected to steroid usage:

“Having too much naturally-occurring testosterone is not a common problem among men… In fact, most of what we know about abnormally high testosterone levels in men comes from athletes who use anabolic steroids, testosterone or related hormones to increase muscle mass and athletic performance.” [x]

The point being that Brian, in 1998, has had 51 years of exposure to testosterone and androgens in his body, resulting in a gradual increase in body hair due to that long-term exposure. This is normal. This is not some weird biological quirk unique to Brian, this is not some inexplicable weird mystery, this is not a sign of some Big Medical Crisis... This is just Brian, aging in a way that most men do!

But I also want to point out that we need to consider image quality and the close-ups we have available as well, because the fact is that even though the 80s and 90s gave us some tank top content the photos and videos were usually grainier or at least far enough away that wispy little hairs are going to be harder to see!

Take this screencap of Brian in Rio in 1985:

Is he perfectly, completely smooth or is he just wet and the faint hairs that are there aren’t visible?

Is Brian completely smooth and hairless in these photos? Maybe in the one from 1985 but I would argue that you can start to see some hair coming in by 1993 - it’s just much fainter than it would become later, which would make sense given all the biology I explained above. 

Even here, compare these two photos from 1998 and 2005. Everyone talks about how Brian was “sooooo hairy!” in the late 90s but he honestly wasn’t. Yes, we’re starting to get much more visible hair, and yes that’s a departure from what we’ve seen before, but he is nowhere near as hairy as he would continue to become!

The point I’m trying to make is that, can we really say that Brian didn’t have a single hair on his shoulders before 1998? Or are we drawing that conclusion simply because the photo quality and lack of extreme close-ups are creating a confirmation bias issue here.

I don’t want to shit on the jokes that everyone cracks and I’m not saying that everyone has to adore Brian’s hairy shoulders... but it does get to be grating when people start speculating with a ton of theories that directly contradict or ignore cis male biology. 

Brian got old, and like most older men he got hairy. I promise there’s no bigger mystery to solve here!

[manifestoonmoralmanlove]

Gormless Ch. 9 -  Maccon’s into violence, hypocrisy, raceplay, but worst of all progressive politics.

A well-meaning friend gave me a book series that is hilariously bad. The first book was Souless and my riffs were entitled brainless. This second book is entitled Changless and these riff are then gormless.

I mean to say I have entitled them gormless! Not that my riffs are dumb, and the effort I spend on them stupid since I’m the only one who enjoys them. HAHA!

The story is SUPPOSED TO be about how a badass lady wearing a rad-looking carriage dress hits baddies with her umbrella and bangs her hot werewolf husband.  In reality it’s mostly poor attempts at being witty, flirty, and superior.

For the last book check out the brainless tag.

If you want the TL;DR version but want to read these new riffs anyway?

This story is set in supernatural Victorian steampunk England.  Alexia is our NOT LIKE OTHER GIRLS protag.  She is a soulless, which means she’s able to negate the abilities of vampires and werewolves by touching them. She’s recently married a big oaf, named Lord Connel Maccon.  He’s the manchild in charge of the supernatural police with a zillion dollars and he’s totes super hot too ok.  Their relationship is mostly arguments about how Maccon can’t tell her fucking anything.  Alexia has also recently become head of ~Soulless affairs~ in Queen Victoria’s government.  She has a dumb friend named Ivy, a gay vampire friend named Akeldama, a family who’s evil because they do the same shit as her but while being blonde, and most importantly Alexia is better than everyone cause…cause.

Last time on Gormless:

There’s some mysterious force that’s turning the Vampires and werewolves into humans. Alexia is in charge of figuring out that deal, and she is doing a bad job at it.  They are at her husband’s old pack castle about it.  Are they hiding something?????

Chapter 9 – Maccon’s into violence, hypocrisy, raceplay, but worst of all progressive politics.

So off to dinner we go!  They talk about what a FRIGHTFUL sight it was that Alexia didn’t style and unfrizz her hair before going down to dinner with such dramatic terms that make me wanna gag. But I went from that to barfing myself inside out when I read the following line about Alexia’s frizzy hair:

“Lord Maccon adored it.  He thought she looked like some exotic gypsy and wondered if she might be amendable to donning gold earrings and dancing topless about their room in a loose red skirt…”

GOD DAMN AUTHOR!  We went from some poor choices but plausible deniability to straight up…

Like a lot of my racism complaints are subjective and nit-picky I will give you that.  But the author done goofed good and fucking proper with that line jesus fucking Christ.

GY*SIES IS A SLUR, AND ROMANI WOMEN ARE NOT ~EXOTIC~ SEXUAL OBJECTS! GOOOOOOOOOOOOO FUCK YOURSELF!

I could fume about that fucking egregious shit the rest of the day but let’s try to distract myself with the parts of this story that aren’t openly racist.

At dinner, LeFoux is talking to some nerd about nerd shit.  Ivy is trying to talk about fish to some dude even though both of them don’t know anything about fish.  There’s a bit of drama when Lady Kingair (aka Sidheag) allows Maccon to sit in the Alpha seat, which TO BE FAIR is kinda bullshit, but the drama dissipates with a harmless distraction.  There is a brief interaction between Alexia and Maccon on the subject of the Tunstell/Ivy drama.  Maccon says they’re a bad match and Alexia agrees DESPITE THE FACT SHE LEGIT TRIED TO HOOK UP THE TWO AT THE END OF THE LAST BOOK BUT THAT’S FINE! Maccon ends the conversation about this slipshod ship-fest by sighing out a perplexed…

“Women”

Maccon you’re literally agreeing with a woman right now!  Boy howdy am I getting increasingly sick of how Maccon uses that word. If a male partner of mine used that word (woman) the way Maccon uses it (as this bullshit signifier that #yesallwomen are so hard to understand and difficult to deal with) I would uppercut him in the fucking taint.

CAN YOU BE ANGRY ABOUT THE ACTUAL CONTENT OF THE STORY FAPS INSTEAD OF THESE THROW-AWAY LINES THAT YOU’RE OVERANALYZING!

BLATANT RACISM AND SEXISM AREN’T THROW-AWAY LINES, BUT YOU BET YOUR ASS I CAN BE MAD AT MORE STUFF! I AM ALWAYS HUNKERING TO ANGRY IT UP!

There’s a point where they call Alexia curse-breaker multiple times (cause she’s a soulless that can negate the powers of the supernatural.)  Ivy and Felicity have no idea what that means and don’t know Alexia is a soulless but nobody bothers to inform them.  I don’t know if this is going to be a conflict at some point or not.

Alexia then has to ~make a fuss~ by asking them about the humanization problem. They act like she is breaking some taboo, but honestly I don’t understand why.  They’re having a problem; it’s her and Maccon’s job to solve the problem, so they should ask about it so they can solve it right? Also these Scottish folks seem much more down to earth and don’t subscribe to the stuffy social mores of British society. So it’s dumb that they act as if Alexia is rudely asking why cousin Larry has two weeping pussies where his ears should be, while jabbing at them with a pencil, and making sexist jokes about it.

But she doesn’t ask questions that are going to be useful until a few pages into this conversation which means just in time for the author to avoid it with a distraction.  I have a feeling the author is going to do the same thing in this book that she did last book.  Started with a mystery, dances around it for the vast majority of the book without adding much to it, and just ¾ the way in the book SUDDENLY SHIT HITS THE FAN ALL AT ONCE AND IT’S REAL DUMB!

So it’s now after dinner and the men and women are separated to chit-chat. Alexia starts quizzing Lady Kingair. Lady Kingair says she wishes she could be a full blooded werewolf.  The only werewolf within a zillion miles who is powerful enough to turn someone into a werewolf is Lord Maccon, cause of course it is.    But Maccon doesn’t want to try to turn her because she’s his last heir and women very rarely survive the transformation.  

Which like, there’s no reason so far why the werewolf club has to be vast majority male.  No ALL MEN orgies, and no SINCE YOU’RE THE ONLY GIRL WE’VE SEEN IN 80 YEARS ALL OUR ERECTIONS POINT TO YOU FEMALE PROTAG!  Perhaps there is some plot point later on.  But honestly? I suspect it comes down to the bias that simply werewolfism is considered a male phenomenon. You can read all sorts of analyses of this but basically it comes down to that men are supposed to have a violent, animalistic nature that they try to suppress.  But women aren’t supposed to be angry, powerful, uncontrollable, or like worst of all HAIRY!  So I don’t want them even as no-name background characters yuck!

Also, oddly enough, last book they said that werewolves sought out actors, and arty types cause they seemed more likely to survive the transformation. Creativity is tied to ~extra soul~ or whatever.  So I want to know why all these werewolves are dim-witted, gruff, military philistines instead of sweet, sensitive, arty twinks, smooching each other?  Is it cause her type is gruff meathead and like an idiot she outright contradicted her own story for no particular reason?

SEEMS SO! GOD I WANT A CASTLE FULL OF HAIRY BESTIAL WOMEN AND/OR CUTE SENSITIVE TWINKS! IS THAT SO MUCH TO ASK FOR?

Nothing else really comes out of the conversation with Lady Sidhaeg Kingair and thankfully we’re saved from that conversation by the sounds of the men folk fighting.

Maccon is fighting with the current beta.  Maccon wins, cause of course he does.  They both grumble bitterly at each other for BETRAYAL and nothing is revealed. Like I am glad there was action, but this was so limp and tepid.  It could have easily been dramatic and they should have revealed something, especially considering they dump the whole story at the end of this chapter.

So Alexia takes him upstairs for fade to black SEX, cause of course she does. Like I won’t kink-shame much, but getting all hot that your husband beat up another dude who is clearly weaker than him for no real reason is bogus yo. A thousand kink-shames upon you.

Afterwards Maccon FINALLY fucking explains something.  He says the reason why he left the Kingair pack is because everybody in the pack was planning to kill the queen of England and didn’t tell him about it.  They’re Scottish and Supernaturals and APPARENTLY the crown hates both of those things.  She appoints Scottish and Supernatural people to the highest places on her court and we have not seen any oppression but just trust us okay.  They kept it from Maccon, because Maccon is a ~progressive~ and thought killing the queen would be a bad idea.  He believes this because the Queen is giving Supernaturals more rights and that if they kill her that it would make Supernaturals look real bad and innocent Supernaturals would be targeted.

That’s a reasonable fear, and honestly since we’re supposed to be on Maccon’s side she doesn’t really try to explain the other side.  Like was it supposed to be a military Coup so that werewolves would be in charge of Britain, since the military is made up of werewolves? Cause that’s honestly pretty fucking interesting.  I know the author says there are a lot more humans than werewolves…but I don’t know why they would fear much of a backlash if they all have superpowers, lots of the money, and are the ENTIRE military.  The fucking Spartans quelled every slave uprising even though slaves vastly outnumbered their military cause their military was trained as hell. Those masc 4 macs thug bros weren’t even able to turn their faces into dog faces.

Also Maccon’s feelings were really hurt when they were going to kill the queen with poison.

“Poison is for bitches amirite?” Maccon laughs misogynistically.  Alexia chuckled in kind and sprinkled something in Maccon’s 5th glass of Scotch.  As he dies in agony Alexia licks her fingertips in triumph. Oops they still had poison on them and she dies.  LeFoux travels to reality and she has the good sex with me. The End!

Okay that exchange didn’t happen, I just wish it did.

So anyway due to the ~betrayal~ Maccon left his pack and it really fucked his pack a big one because nobody was powerful enough to turn other people into werewolves so their pack couldn’t grow and outsiders were disinterested in serving them.  (BTW humans who serve werewolf packs in exchange for being turned into werewolves are called Clavigers in this book.) But this was their punishment for betraying him.  Not punishment for the high treason of attempting to murder a queen and thus throwing the entire country into violent chaos which could have resulted in millions of deaths. The focus for the punishment is highlighted as Maccon’s feelings were hurt.

I have a million questions about this situation but I can forgive the author for not going into more detail. This is a fluff story and doesn’t need to be bogged down with politics.  I can’t help but be  frustrated because the author doesn’t give anything of substance, so when something mildly interesting happens I want to latch onto it but it’s just plywood stuck to a cliff with bubblegum, it ain’t gonna hold my weight.

Thus I plummet back into the pit of frivolousness, hoping futilely there maybe something enjoyable I can grab in order to save my sanity from this stack of bullshit.

PS – I’m way into the fact that the thing they did reveal is not relevant to the actual conflict at the center of this book.

LOVE THAT!

PPS – The fight should have had the Beta forcefully removed from the fight. That he thrashes against another werewolf about how ineffectual Maccon is.  That he has all sorts of strength, power, and money but he’s just a complacent lapdog.  Since he has been dubbed ‘one of the good ones’ he’ll let the less fortunate ones of his race rot while he nibbles pheasant in his castle.  Maccon fires back how hypocritical it is to say you want what’s best for werewolves/Scottish folks while picking fights and putting the less fortunate on the line.  That he’s proving to the kingdom that werewolves are valuable by being a good example and working within the power structure to help his own kind. Afterwards Maccon goes back to his room physically and emotionally exhausted, and cuddles with his wife while he explains the backstory. He cries over his guilt of hurting his pack, and wonders if what he is doing is the right thing.

Problem with that is it doesn’t make the conflict easy to understand and cut and dry.  It also makes Maccon emotionally vulnerable…which like I’M INTO but seems as if it’s not the author or this set of reader’s fetish.

Say something nice Faps:

After pulling teeth for a book and a half we learn something about Maccon.  And it’s actually potentially interesting.

Ivy’s back and forth about her lack of knowledge about fish was genuinely cute and funny.

[1979semifinalist]

20 Best Rogue & Gambit Covers (Part II)

Here’s the same stuff I said before: 

For the hottest couple in the Marvel universe, there are surprisingly few truly great (and truly hot!) Rogue & Gambit covers to be published since the characters began flirting literal decades ago.

In the run up to our BIG RELEASE of Rogue & Gambit #1 on 1/3/18…and with a all of us aching for the lettered preview to drop, I thought I’d count down the 20 best Gambit & Rogue covers.

I AM including Kris Anka’s publicly released covers for our series in the running, even though they are not yet published…because…well, because this is the FIRST EVER ROGUE & GAMBIT COMIC AND HOW COULD I NOT???

If you think I missed something…it’s possible. But it’s also possible I’m just not a fan of that cover. To each their own as they say.

Most importantly…can anything we’ve seen yet beat the most iconic Rogue & Gambit cover of all time? (C’mon, you know the one!)

Anyway, here’s to A LOT MORE Gambit & Rogue hotness in our future and onto the list! :D

And HERE’S Covers #1 - #10!

10. X-MEN LEGACY #259 - CLAY MANN. Absolutely gorgeous. Again, BIG points off for Rogue bringing another dude to the party, but this is gorgeously illustrated, has a ton of tension and heat. What Mann manages to do with just Magneto’s hand on Rogue’s shoulder and Gambit’s on Rogue’s thigh and her hands on both of theirs is...sorta awe inspiring? And the fact that she’s got her eyes locked on the reader just puts it over the top intensity wise. It’s ironic, because this loses points for including Magneto...and yet the things that make it work like gangbusters demand that Magneto be there...conundrum. I think what it really highlights is what a shame it is that we never got a hot canon Rogue & Gambit cover from Mann.

09. GAMBIT #16 - YANICK PAQUETTE. Finally THEY. ARE. KISSING. Omg. I can’t believe we had to get to #9 before we’ve got them actually kissing! AHHHH. So. This is a great illustration. Beautiful treatment of both Gambit and Rogue...I love the body language especially. And I don’t mind the minimalist red background - and it might even be intended as a call back to the red background on that iconic Rogue & Gambit cover (you know the one). The big problem with this has nothing to do with Paquette’s lovely work at all...it’s that hideous absolutely massive “storyline banner” that takes up more than a fifth of the entire cover. It honestly wrecks EVERYTHING and makes me furious tbh. 

08. ROGUE & GAMBIT #1 - KRIS ANKA. Amazing energy and movement, love the confident use of white space, and the sassy attitude they both have in body language and expression. I am also a really big fan of the title block text as it is here...BUT that’s not how the final is going to look as it will have the “Marvel Legacy” trade dress...which is fine, but not as good as this. So slight points off there. I still like the actual “Rogue & Gambit” title block itself a lot. And the “Ring of Fire” part 1 text banner is small/high/unassuming, so it’s pretty good overall! You’ll see. And yes, I’m very biased here. Fully admit that. I’m a huge fan of Kris Anka’s work, he’s my friend, and this is my book. I come with ALL THE BIAS AND AM HAPPY TO ADMIT IT. ;D

07. X-MEN LEGACY #224 - LEE BERMEJO. This is a little dark compared to what we’re used to seeing for these two in covers and a little more realistic than I tend to prefer...but I totally dig it. It’s got a ton of intensity, and the body language and expression work is awesome. They really feel almost about to kiss, which, if you’re not going to get the actual kiss, is quintessential Gambit and Rogue, right? The title block stuff is really simple and unassuming as well.

06. UNCANNY AVENGERS #5 - CARLOS PACHECO. A really nice homage to the accepted most iconic Rogue & Gambit image of all time...it doesn’t beat it, but it’s totally lovely. A gorgeous illustration that feels like that old cover, but nicely updated and its own thing. It loses points for a little bit too much text nonsense going on...and the expressions don’t QUITE work for me, plus I’ll never love Rogue with short hair ;D but all in all, a beautiful piece.

05. ULTIMATE X-MEN #53 - ANDY KUBERT. If you can believe it...this is the only other cover on the list (ever?) with an actual lip lock! Crazy. But at least it’s GORGEOUS. I really do love this one - the blue tones, the rain, the intensity, the simplicity, I just love it. It loses a few points for really dumb stuff though. I hate the blue borders with the X symbols (so dumb) and some slightly obnoxious title block/giant numbers stuff, but mostly...I just...really hate Remy’s hair? Yeah, it just doesn’t look like Gambit with that weird wavy hair. That’s honestly my biggest beef with this otherwise gorgeous piece.

04. ROGUE & GAMBIT #2 - KRIS ANKA. Admittedly this is getting a bit of a pass for not having the title block on it, but since I know about what that will look like, I think I know enough to be okay with it. And I think people will love this cover even more when they see what’s inside the issue. But based on what we have here - it gets so many points for pure fun, plus it has great energy and movement. PLUS the obvious connection/chemistry between our leads. Bonus points for Rogue’s glorious thighs. Bonus points for Gambit’s conveniently torn uniform (and hairy chest). And Bonus points for Gambit’s perfect smirk! Again, noted that I’m highly biased...and I don’t care!

*runs away, fingers in ears*

03. X-MEN 92 #2 - PEPE LARRAZ. So here’s how much I love this cover...I don’t buy print comics any more (no room!) just digital and then trades for some stuff for my shelves. But for this I went out and bought a print copy. Had to have this in my hands. I love everything about it. Well, okay, in a PERFECT world Cassandra isn’t in the background, but everything else is perfection. The swooning, the love, the drama, even the little raven with the “heart” word balloon. LOVE IT. And no surprise really because Pepe Larraz is a hell of an artist who went on to draw a spectacular Rogue (and sometimes Gambit) in Uncanny Avengers!

02. ROGUE & GAMBIT #3 - KRIS ANKA. So...there are great, beautifully illustrated covers...and then there are great, beautifully illustrated covers that are also PERFECTLY CLEVER and instantly become iconic. That’s this one for me. As if a dozen versions of Gambit and Rogue weren’t fun enough, the heart shape they make... *kisses fingers* ...it’s perfection. I wish nothing more than us not having to put ANY text on this. I wish we could just send it out as is. Alas, no. And that is gonna knock it down JUST ENOUGH to NOT unseat the iconic classic. (But maybe issue #4 or #5 will??? We still have time!) :D

01. X-MEN #24 - ANDY KUBERT. It all comes down to this, as you knew it would. The classic cover that launched a thousand ships...or rather... CEMENTED them. It’s just gorgeous. It’s perfectly 90′s. It just BATHES in the nostalgia of classic Gambit and Rogue. it’s not afraid to cover up more than half the title block (YOU KNOW WHO THEY ARE, YOU DON’T NEED NO PESKY TITLE BLOCK!). That it rocks the most classic, well-known, and beloved looks for both of them only cements things further. And because they were still doing the “no touching dance” in these early days...their state of almost touching is just...PALPABLE. I’ll also say that though Rogue’s face gets the focus, Gambit is just really lovingly rendered too.

HOTT.

So. There you have it. My picks for the 20 Best Rogue & Gambit covers of all time.

Don’t forget to hit up your LCS on Wednesday 1/3/18 (or Comixology) for Rogue & Gambit #1 and keep reading to see if we (ahem, KRIS ANKA) can unseat the 20+ year title holder of “Best Rogue & Gambit Cover of All Time”

No pressure, Kris! :D

[stressthings-blog1]

Stress is a universal physiological response experienced by every person in the world. Stress has become a word that we automatically associate with negative connotations, and in today's health-driven society, this word has become a variable boogeyman

[aplusblogging]

SOC 120 Blog 5: We Are Not a Wave, We Are the Ocean

What the heck is a "wave" of feminism? The "first wave" secured women's right to vote. The second gave us access to abortion. Now we're in the third wave and we're doing trans rights. Right? It's more complicated than that. As Constance Grady wrote for Vox in 2018:

The wave metaphor can be reductive. It can suggest that each wave of feminism is a monolith with a single unified agenda, when in fact the history of feminism is a history of different ideas in wild conflict.

It can reduce each wave to a stereotype and suggest that there’s a sharp division between generations of feminism, when in fact there’s a fairly strong continuity between each wave — and since no wave is a monolith, the theories that are fashionable in one wave are often grounded in the work that someone was doing on the sidelines of a previous wave. And the wave metaphor can suggest that mainstream feminism is the only kind of feminism there is, when feminism is full of splinter movements.

And as waves pile upon waves in feminist discourse, it’s become unclear that the wave metaphor is useful for understanding where we are right now. “I don’t think we are in a wave right now,” gender studies scholar April Sizemore-Barber told Vox in January. “I think that now feminism is inherently intersectional feminism — we are in a place of multiple feminisms” (Grady, 2018).

So with the understanding that this framework is kind of reductive, let's surf these supposed "waves" a little.

The first wave (1848 to 1920) did indeed centre around women's suffrage for the right to vote. Suffragettes were originally abolitionists, but then got mad when Black men—former slaves—got the vote before them, and Black women were often barred from or forced to walk behind white women during suffrage marches. Margaret Sanger opened the birth control clinic that would become Planned Parenthood during this wave. Women also worked to secure equality in education and employment, though there was a double standard when it came to women in the workplace; Black and brown women were considered less ladylike and more capable of labour, while white women were protected by the white men who held power, considered delicate and expected to stay in the home and raise children. There's some of those differing agendas within the movement.

The second wave (1963 to the 1980s) was called such because it had seemed that feminist activity had died down until Betty Friedan published The Feminine Mystique in '63, sparking a new "wave" of feminist activity. She talked about "the problem that has no name," which was that white middle-class women's "place" was in the home and they were being pathologised if they didn't like being stuck doing housework and childcare.

The Feminine Mystique was not revolutionary in its thinking, as many of Friedan’s ideas were already being discussed by academics and feminist intellectuals. Instead, it was revolutionary in its reach. It made its way into the hands of housewives, who gave it to their friends, who passed it along through a whole chain of well-educated middle-class white women with beautiful homes and families. And it gave them permission to be angry (Grady, 2018).

The phrase "the personal is political" comes from this time; the idea that small things that can seem like individual problems are actually a result of systemic oppression. Systemic sexism is defined as "the belief that women’s highest purposes were domestic and decorative, and the social standards that reinforced that belief" (Grady, 2018). Other things that were fought for during this time include equal pay; access to birth control (and an end to forced sterilisation of Black and disabled women); educational equality; Roe v. Wade and the right to have consensual abortions; political independence rather than being legally subordinate to husbands; working outside the home (for white middle-class women); awareness of and an end to domestic violence and sexual harassment. Some of the same things that women of the first wave were fighting for. Black feminists, however, were starting to get tired of white people obliviously hogging all the limelight; bell hooks "argued that feminism cannot just be a fight to make women equal with men because not all men are equal in a capitalist, racist, homophobic society" (University of Massachusetts, 2017). This started the tradition of Black feminist thought and womanism.

The third wave, starting in the 1990s and inspired by work in the 80s, embraced a lot of stuff that the second wave rejected.

In part, the third-wave embrace of girliness was a response to the anti-feminist backlash of the 1980s, the one that said the second-wavers were shrill, hairy, and unfeminine and that no man would ever want them. And in part, it was born out of a belief that the rejection of girliness was in itself misogynistic: girliness, third-wavers argued, was not inherently less valuable than masculinity or androgyny (Grady, 2018).

In this time we had the riot grrrl phenomenon on the music scene; the continuation of the fight that started in the 80s for access to medical treatment for HIV/AIDS and the humanisation of queer people; queer politics which emphasise that there are more types of queers than just middle-class white gay men and lesbians; sex-positive feminism advocating for sexual liberation and consent; and transnational feminism, which "highlights the connections between sexism, racism, classism, and imperialism" (University of Massachusetts, 2017). Kimberlé Crenshaw's coining of the term "intersectionality" in the 80s to refer to the intersections between different kinds of oppression (woman AND Black, woman AND disabled, woman AND immigrant, etc.), became the name of the game.

Arguably, we are now in a fourth wave of feminism, an online wave, which "is queer, sex-positive, trans-inclusive, body-positive, and digitally driven" (Grady, 2018). We use hashtags like #MeToo on Twitter and we organise SlutWalks online and we circulate our revolution magazines with hyperlinks rather than paper. We don't have to attend a rally in order to make our presence known, and we don't have to leave the house and gather together in person in order to hear each other's stories and energise each other to act. We're enabled to be lazier, but we're also enabled to do something with minimal energy when we don't have very much due to a medical condition or other disability. We don't have to exhaust ourselves after work by driving or walking to another meeting place, we only have to log on. We face less physical danger online than we do on the streets. We're empowered in different ways than our predecessors were, and we have access to information and audiences in a way they could never have dreamed of.

I won't go into too much detail about the conflicts between generations or "waves" of feminism like Grady does in her Vox article. There will always be squabbling amongst group members. There will always be splinter movements off of the "mainstream" effort. The focus should be on the goal that we all share, that of ending some kind (or all kinds) of oppression. We should be helping each other to achieve that goal and promote real equality, not letting ourselves be divided along temporal, generational, racial, gender, or any other kind of lines. Coalitional feminism is essential—"politics that organizes with other groups based on their shared (but differing) experiences of oppression, rather than their specific identity"—the opposite of identity politics, which revolve around one identity at a time (University of Massachusetts, 2017).

Unity can be difficult when some groups consider their aims fundamentally at odds, but tearing each other down rather than working to tear down the walls that separate the marginalised from the mainstream is just wasted energy. So while the wave structure can be useful when talking about different "main" events in the historical record of feminist activism, ultimately it just attempts to neatly compartmentalise something that has always been vast and complex and noisy. Feminism's nuances are part of its legacy. If there is anything that all feminisms have in common, it is that we have always been a thorn in the side of the establishment.

Vox as a media corporation is a bit left-leaning, but feminism also tends to be left-leaning. Their niche is in explaining political and social goings-on to a lay-public who may not be keeping up with all the news regarding any given topic. Their sources are credible and their reliability is rated highly by Ad Fontes Media and Media Bias/Fact Check.

[1,432 words]

Grady, C. (2018, July 20). The waves of feminism, and why people keep fighting over them, explained. Vox. https://www.vox.com/2018/3/20/16955588/feminism-waves-explained-first-second-third-fourth

“Introduction to Women, Gender, and Sexuality Studies” by University of Massachusetts, 2017. CC BY Creative Commons Attribution 4.0.

(http://openbooks.library.umass.edu/introwgss/)