#here he's potentially more aware that two's being coerced into taking a certain course of action

[the--highlanders]

back on my phantom piper nonsense but like. I WISH it was clearer on why exactly jamie had a shard implanted when two's so set against them, and was able to talk his way out of having one himself (without letting on that he's not human)

like. the implant itself clearly wasn't consensual on jamie's part, given that he had to be held down and sedated. and yet he's both aware that he has the shard, obviously, and that two /doesn't/. but he doesn't seem to have a problem with that, at least not while the shard is implanted and potentially affecting him. it's definitely convenient for two to use him as a case study in trying to prove that the shards should be investigated, but that just. never comes up.

and that's such a shame!!! because it's /interesting!!/ especially given that this is post-evil of the daleks, i.e. their big breakdown over two using and manipulating jamie rather than telling him what's going on. two being able to avoid having a shard himself but not sparing jamie just seems odd - but if they'd made the decision to investigate in tandem by letting jamie have a shard, then why did jamie fight the operation? what did that achieve? on the flip side, if he didn't agree to it, he's super calm about the whole thing compared to evil - so either he's wildly ooc and lacking agency, or he's had a major shift in his boundaries and how much he's willing to challenge two. and the audio never takes the time to show us any of that.

[thejustmaiden]

Heyo, fellow Inuyasha fans! Happy Friday! This particular blog will serve as a collection of random thoughts I’ve been mulling over lately. Hope you’ll consider giving it a read. By the way, it’ll specifically pertain to the Sessrin ship. If that’s not something that is of interest to you, then no need to read any further. Whatever happens, I wanted to get this out before the sequel. Alrighty, let’s go! 

I’m not sure many of us realize just how much fiction sparks public dialogue and shapes culture. There have been countless studies and research done to prove it, therefore this really isn’t up for debate. What the real question here should be is have we taken the time to fully contemplate and assess just how much fictional experiences are able to change or influence our perspective on real, everyday life? The visual arts are just one of many evolutionary adaptations that serve to give us more insight into one another’s mind. If our outlook on fiction contrasts with said insight, then perhaps some re-evaluating is in order.  

Powerful works of literature such as 1984 and the beloved Harry Potter series are just two examples. George Orwell’s book contributed strongly to how readers viewed government and politics during that time, and to this day it’s a book that resonates with many. As much as Harry Potter is cherished all across the world, there are religious and academic institutions that condemn it or have even gone so far as to ban it. I may not agree with the extreme measures taken, but it’s fascinating nonetheless to witness the extent to which fiction can move and mobilize people for a cause.

The takeaway is that indicating fiction doesn’t have the power to create change in our everyday lives is misleading to say the least. So how exactly then can fictional stories that are, after all, completely made up affect society in such profound ways? It all lies in the power of the psychology of fiction. According to cognitive psychologist and novelist, Keith Oatley, who’s been researching the psychological effects of fiction for over a decade, he states that engaging with stories about other people can improve empathy and theory of mind. When we identify with these characters’ struggles, we begin to share their frustration for societal problems that plague them. These types of stories tap into our emotions more so than- believe it or not- nonfiction, and thus their effects inspire us and even have the ability to alter our worldviews. 

I’ll be returning to that specific topic a bit later, but moving on for now!

It’s safe to say that I speak on behalf of the majority of antis. That being said, I first want to add that we are aware that sessrin shippers claim to agree that there was nothing inherently romantic that took place between Rin and Sesshomaru during their travels together. The thing is we have trouble believing you guys when you time and time again provide contradictory statements to defend your stance.

Voicing things like, “all signs point to Rin” and “it’s been foreshadowed” sends the exact opposite message of what you supposedly stand for and, if anything, confirms that you’ve had romance on your mind long before it would’ve been acceptable to come out with openly. You can’t just go along with what we say when it’s convenient to your argument and then back it up later with “who else but Rin.” How can the relationship you’re imagining be so obvious if they didn’t hint at it for the whole duration of the original series like we agreed upon? Elaborate on how we could’ve possibly come to such wildly different conclusions when we started AND left off with the same views for and throughout the series. 

On top of that, making the excuse that we don’t speak for adult!Rin and that she has the right to make her own decisions once she’s old enough is a weak defense. Firstly, because we haven’t even met her. Secondly, because it’s unfair of you to assert that you know what’s best for Rin and then say we’re not allowed to just because it doesn’t align with your beliefs. I get that you feel protective over her character, but do recall that this adult version of her none of us have actually met yet. We have no idea what kind of woman she’s become, what her dreams or aspirations may be, and whether she’s married or even wants to be. I’m not against the idea of her falling in love, I just don’t think it’ll be with Sesshomaru. I guess I’m also a fan of the idea of her following in Kaede’s footsteps, because if anyone can grow up to be an independent, trusted, and wise leader of the community like her it’s Rin.

To make matters worse, way too many of you continue to celebrate the drama cd and profess that it was sweet that Sesshomaru basically promised he’d wait for Rin all while somehow ignoring the glaring grooming implications. Why do you only see what you want to see and fail to acknowledge that actual child grooming scenarios do in fact play out like this in real life? A high percentage of people who have been victims of grooming can attest to this. If Sessrin does go canon, all the sequel succeeded in doing to avoid the direct correlation with grooming was skip over the more questionable and dodgy portions of it. Take out the time jump, however, and you no longer have a loophole to cover up the scary unmistakable truth, which is that Sessrin and grooming are essentially one in the same.

No one case is identical to another so please don’t come to me with your “but how is it grooming if Sesshomaru didn’t manipulate Rin” refutes. Nobody knows what the hell went on during those years between The Final Act and this upcoming sequel. Based on everything exhibited so far- that is if we decide to recognize the drama cd like so many of you choose to do- Sessrin’s dynamic is eerily reminiscent of real life child grooming. Why else do you think a lot of us fans have a huge problem with it? It’s triggering for a reason. 

Let’s be honest, Sesshomaru’s supposed love confession could’ve just been the first of many gestures like it. Who really knows, right? According to you shippers, a major shift in their relationship took place sometime during this critical period none of us got to watch unfold. I’m sure you all have explored the various ways this would’ve gone down in fan fiction and through other creative means of expression. Not to spoil the fun, but all I can’t help but wonder about is just how many of those supposed “cute moments” would’ve been as creepy and cringey as that proposal. Hundreds of thousands (possibly millions?!) of fans would undoubtedly agree with me, too. It seems to me this ain’t due to a mere difference of opinion. Taste is one thing, ethics a whole other. 

By the way, in case you didn’t know, groomers don’t necessarily need to plan out every single move in order for their behavior to constitute as grooming. What we should be paying attention to instead is the fact that Sesshomaru made a conscious decision to act on his own selfish desire for a young girl who couldn’t have possibly known in that moment the magnitude of what he was asking of her. Why is it that a vulnerable Rin is put in a position that forces her to be the one responsible for making such a big, life-changing decision for the both of them? Yes, Sesshomaru gave her the choice and, yes, she doesn’t have to make it till later, but why on Earth is he coming to her with this well before a child her age is ready and mature enough to handle it? Even if his intentions are good (broadly speaking of course), his what you shippers probably call “innocent acts” are incidentally coercing Rin into reciprocating his feelings. Whether he planned for that or not, he’s at fault. Period. 

That’s one way the power imbalance works. A child wants nothing more than to please the adult they look up to and adore, because they’re impressionable like that. Maybe Rin processes this like she’ll want whatever he wants, so that’s what she trains herself to believe- either right then and there or over time. Plus, if you really think about it, why wouldn’t she trust him if in her eyes he’s been nothing but good to her and that’s all she’s ever really known? (Psst! Charm is integral to the manipulative nature of grooming so it’s deceiving AKA manipulation can come off as praise or flattery.) Bottom line is that Rin is too young to have to think about this kind of deep stuff at all, and Sesshomaru shouldn’t have taken advantage of the power he had/has over her to influence a decision she was by no means prepared to hear about much less decide on. Your headcanons seem to imply that she’ll eventually have to choose though, and Idk about you but I rather not push my own fantasy agenda onto a underage girl regardless of how much I want it. Idc if she’s fictional, it wouldn’t feel right so why would I want to see that? My principals couldn’t ever allow for it.   

Even if it wasn’t an official proposal, per se, it’s still disturbing to me that so many of you find joy in the thought of a grown adult male essentially waiting for a young girl HE KNEW to become old enough before pursuing her. I know this drama cd ain’t technically canon, y'all, but since this is literally the only source we have that may foreshadow a potential Sessrin to come, and it’s referenced a lot, I figured it still should be called out for exactly what it is- Grooming: 101!!!!

Just as I demonstrated above, fiction has the ability to make even the most inappropriate and uncomfortable situations be viewed in a favorable light when you put the right spin on it. *cough* Lolicon culture, need I say more? *cough* Despite what you may believe, the strategies fiction utilizes to explain themes/concepts can genuinely lead to how we perceive them, and ultimately to how we come to make sense of a similar event presented to us in real life. Especially if we have no prior experience with any of it and have nothing to compare something to, these perceptions can be dangerous yet still persuasive to certain fans- young ones in particular. The more narrative consistency across stories and different mediums, the more likely they’ll influence social beliefs. Minors don’t possess the same capacity as adults to think critically about the content they consume, and if we aren’t more careful about what we put out there then all of us will continue to face serious repercussions.

This is precisely why it’s crucial we persist in our fight against the rabid phenomenon of glorifying young girls in every sexual context imaginable. Just look at what something as seemingly harmless as fiction has the power to do. The scope of fiction is broad and far-reaching, and it’s about time we stop denying that fact and actually do something about it if we have the means to.

The truth of the matter is that we’re in desperate need of proper education and training programs on this issue in our communities. Families need to ensure their children have access to the necessary resources, but it isn’t just on them. ALL of us gotta do our part and ALL of us should be up for the task. It takes a village, right? If we do not properly discuss and address child sexual abuse (CSA) with our children and in public forums, including the internet, then we’re ultimately accepting incidents of CSA should they arise. Consequently, that also translates to indirectly accepting that the predators among us stay untreated and/or unpunished. That’s how the generational and societal aspect of the abuse can continue, and we must do everything in our power to secure our children’s future. Yes, even when it comes to fiction.

If you still somehow don’t think the Sessrin pairing has anything to do with grooming, allow me to break this down for you one more time:

1. If some of your fellow sessrin shippers say that a relationship like this in real life is harmful, then that should be pretty telling in and of itself.

2. Piggybacking off #1: if your only defense to that is “well it’s just fiction,” then you should ask yourself why you can’t ever come up with better reasons. Same goes for history and culture, so please stop using those to justify this relationship. None of the above can or should be applied since it’s already been established that fiction pervades our lives and vice versa.

3. If fellow shippers who are victims of grooming say they are drawn to Sessrin because it allows them in a way to “take back control” from their abuser so that they can better cope with past traumas, then they’re inadvertently admitting that Sessrin does possess qualities associated with the past child sexual abuse they underwent. AKA Sessrin is relatable for its abusive dynamic.

I have to ask by the way, but why do you get so offended when we don’t support your ship anyway? Is it because we interpret it to be controversial and you don’t like your ship getting a bad rap? Is it because it would be insulting to admit that antis actually have a point in it being problematic and you rather double down instead? Or is it because you’re projecting yourself onto Rin and prefer to not go into detail about why that is? Maybe it’s too personal, or maybe it’s because deep down you’re ashamed. Of course that doesn’t mean you’re bad people, but suppressing these kind of negative emotions can’t be healthy for anyone. A little awareness and self-reflection on your part can benefit not just you but all of us in the long run. Cognitive dissonance can suck, but it’s also part of being human. 

I recently came across a comment I’d like to share with you. Unfortunately, this is not the first time nor will it be the last I see the likes of it. Anyway, in it a fan stated how embarrassing it must be being an Anti in this fandom when an episode like “Forever with Lord Sesshomaru” exists. Guys, this shipper and all those who liked their post are showing their true colors. Perpetuating and/or anticipating these sexualized images of young girls is a grave issue in both our society and media alike. I think we can all agree on that, or at least I hope so. It’s remarks like these that prove we still got a long way to go in terms of progress, and if we ever hope to effectively reverse some of our backwards way of thinking. So serious question for ya in regard to this: Why is it too much to ask that grooming be portrayed for what it is? Grooming. To clarify, grooming is bad and needs to be painted in a bad light. It’s as simple as that. If only we could all acknowledge it for what it is, we wouldn’t be in this predicament. 

Historical accuracy and cultural differences aside, it appears the crux of the matter between Sessrin shippers and Antis is our acceptance and/or denial of fiction’s influence on real life. If we can’t agree on this, then we’ll never agree on anything else. As mentioned earlier, there is more than enough evidence to support the idea that fiction impacts our lives in extraordinary ways. I, for one, believe in the transformative power of stories. I think they do more for us than many of us give them credit for and/or are inclined to admit. 

This is partially why I believe that the majority of sessrin folk are missing the point most of the time. All they do is focus on insignificant and irrelevant information that accomplishes nothing but more gaslighting and strawmanning. Whether it be an intentional or unconscious decision, whatever we argue goes right over their head. All they do is throw around deflections and antagonizing remarks that serve no real purpose other than to make Antis out to be the unreasonable and irrational ones. Making connections between our own lives and our stories is a completely natural and normal occurrence. If those particular shippers insist on denying just how interconnected real life and fiction both are, what that tells me is they’re either out of touch with reality or deliberately choose to be.

Just to be clear, I am of the opinion that most if not all antis aren’t real life predators. If they say they aren’t, I honestly take their word for it. Speaking to Sessrin shipper directly: We know it’s not Sesshomaru you want to be but Rin. No, we’re not calling you pedophiles or groomers. None of us think you are using a fictional ship to attract underage fans to be the Rin in your life or anything of the sort. We are well aware that many of you are self-inserting yourself as Rin, so please don’t feel the need to tell us yourself because that would be stating the obvious.

I learned from a few of you since this sequel was announced that the Sessrin relationship isn’t just a ship but an opportunity for you to confront the person who used and abused you. So there’s two issues with this I’d like to raise. (Sorry if I’m repeating myself, but it’s urgent I stress this again!) This is what I have to say:

If fiction does not affect real life or have the ability to normalize anything as you claim to believe, then why does “fixing” what happened to you via your preferred choice of coping associated with these two characters in the first place? Why bring your past abuse into this at all if at the end of the day it’s “just fiction” and nothing more to you but a source of entertainment?

By confessing that you use Sessrin to cope with your past trauma, you therein reveal that Sessrin does in fact resemble an adult-child relationship with a grooming dynamic. So why then would you want other fans to be exposed to a pairing that brings to mind the very abuse you endured? We’re supposed to stop this toxic cycle- NOT find more ways to manifest and relive it, much less subject other fans to it. 

You may think that Sessrin doesn’t fit the textbook definition of what child grooming is, but that’s not to say it doesn’t embody it or that it doesn’t at the very least have traces of it that stand out. 

“Antis are miserable people who don’t know how to enjoy a good story. It’s just fiction, stop ruining it for other fans!”

Well, no, it’s not just fiction or just a story. Some of you evidently went and proved that yourself, and without my help, by revealing how you relate Sessrin to your own life and apply it to cope with past abuse. Past abuse or not, as far as I can tell we’re all equally invested in these characters. That speaks volumes and just goes to show that fiction touches our lives in long-lasting ways.

I have something I want to say concerning some of who believe that it’s inconsiderate of antis who have been victims of grooming or another form of child abuse to tell other victims who ship Sessrin how they should cope with their trauma. Now as much as I respect the various means victims discover to deal with their painful pasts, there’s always an appropriate time and a place for these things to occur. We must seek out better ways to safely cope with the abuse we lived through (if any) without running the risk of hurting and endangering others. 

There are plenty of fans in other fandoms who don’t try to defend their ships going canon, because they’re able to recognize an unhealthy or toxic pairing when they see one and won’t try to justify it. A Sessrin romance simply does not belong on a show geared towards teens, and I really don’t need to go into detail about why we shouldn’t support it, at least canon-wise. Shipping Sessrin is your right, but if you don’t keep it to yourself and your corner of the fandom then you really shouldn’t be surprised by the opposition. All we ask is you respect that their specific dynamic falls under the category of child grooming (or very close) and should be treated as such in public. The world of fiction may be wider than the world we live in, but that doesn’t always mean “anything goes.” In the creative spaces our minds occupy we must still adhere to the same fundamental and moral guidelines we live by in life. There’s nothing wrong with exploring new terrains and experimenting with ideas, but we must also remember that our stories are all about communicating and connecting with people. So let’s please be more mindful of the sort of messages they’re sending. 

Besides, this isn’t only about you and what makes you feel safe, it’s about all of us. I don’t know how much more I can stress that really. How can thoughts endanger our children, you ask? Well, it’s not like we’re suggesting that our thoughts can jump out of our tvs, materialize themselves, and place kids under mind control. The forces behind fiction are a lot more complex and nuanced than a “monkey see, monkey do” approach, so don’t waste any more time trying to  describe that to us. You’re taking this argument in the wrong direction. 

Take the “violent video games breed killers” theory. I’m afraid you’re misconstruing what we’re saying and then taking it quite too literally. Please stop twisting our words, because nobody on our side is saying that just because you play violent video games that you’ll become a violent person. The Sessrin equivalent of that would be if you ship them then you must be a pedophile or turning into one. *sigh* I know you guys are feeling attacked, but I’m afraid your defensive nature is keeping you from thinking straight. Clearly, there are always exceptions (I’d recommend reading up on the Slender Man case), but Antis aren’t saying you’re one of them.

You see, it’s not so much about the content as it is the notion of the content. Kids and teens who are playing these video games have been informed that killing is wrong, because they grew up learning that early on like the rest of us. No sane person would advocate for violence and nonsensical killing in real life. Since they fully understand the severity of the consequences of killing a person in real life, they are able make a clear distinction between the two. When it comes to killing there is hardly any ambiguity. Sadly, that is far from the truth when it comes to sexualizing girls. It should immediately be perceived as wrong leaving no room for interpretation, and yet here we are still putting up with these inaccurate and demeaning female representations.

Most children who have been groomed don’t realize it till years down the road. If they aren’t ever taught the telltale signs to properly labeling grooming situations, how do you expect them to make sense of and relate to a fictional version? Let’s think of about it from a child’s perspective. Yes, this includes teens who rely pretty heavily on adult guidance and the content we put out there for them. Put yourself in their shoes for a moment and picture that you’ve never had child grooming explained to you (because that’s just the reality for so many unfortunately). Wouldn’t you say it’s possible for them to deduce that what they see on their screens is how they come to discern something in real life, especially if they have little to no experience with it? Perceived realism is plausible, y'all.

What it comes down to in the end is that the ideas and emotions we cultivate behind these stories leave an impression on others. Impressions are capable of influencing the way we see the world, which in turn affects us and beyond just our imagination. The way I look at it, stories contribute to how and why we normalize certain beliefs and trends. If fiction reflects real life like most of us tend to agree, then wouldn’t you say Sessrin is a (in)direct result of this world’s tendency to place young girls in overly sexual or romantic environments? Where do you think fiction draws its inspiration from? Sure, some of it originates from our imagination, but most of what drives us to create these stories is the real world and the people who live in it.

Fiction is meant to mirror reality, but it’s ridiculous to suggest that it’s only a one-way street. That fiction in no way, shape, or form influences our reality? Or that it only works the other way around? With all due respect, that’s simply not true. No productive discourse can be had if we choose to ignore the truth and don’t come together (at least halfway) to tackle the real issues at hand. 

Okay, I think I’ll leave it off there! Thanks so much for reading. I expect this to be my last blog on any topic regarding Inuyasha in the near future. As much as I’ve looked forward to answering all of your asks and writing all the blogs I have over these past almost 5 months, I think it’s best if I spend some time away for now. With the sequel fast approaching, I’m doing what I always do: hoping for the best and preparing for the worst. I’ve met some amazing people along the way, that’s for sure. And who knows, maybe you’ll see me active in the tags sooner than we think. Until then, it’s been an absolute pleasure! Enjoy the sequel, all of you. 💜

[cardentist]

I’ve been chewing on trans discourse here on tumblr for around 8 years now. it’s been a very slow process of learning how to put a words to feelings that I couldn’t understand or that I didn’t know were there how I interactive with and consume this discourse has fundamentally changed over the years, in part because the consumption of that content has fundamentally changed me in that same time

I don’t have eyes on the entire internet, and certainly I don’t have eyes on the trans community as a whole, as it is or as it’s always been, so my perspective is inherently limited. that said, there are some trends that I’ve noticed in the parts that I Have seen, and I think I’m finally putting words to one of them now I will say now though that as a trans man this is reflecting on trans men, because I’m currently speaking on my experiences as a trans man. I’m certain that some of what I’m about to say can apply to other trans people, but I’m speaking from a place where I don’t need to speculate. it’s not my place to speak for trans women or nonbinary people or multi-gender people, but I would more than welcome anyone from those groups to speak up here likewise I’m a white man, no matter how much effort I or any other white person puts into listening to and understanding poc experiences we will never be able to speak from a place of truly Knowing. I greatly encourage poc trans men and poc trans people in general to spread their voices and experiences here if they’d like.

but I think people view trans men as the platonic ideal of what trans men “”“should be””” rather than who they are. when people speak about trans men as a group in a generalization they speak about them as if they’re fully transitioned, fully socialized, fully male presenting in aesthetics, and in a sense totally indistinguishable from cis men. of course people know that fully transitioned trans men don’t just spring out of the ground, but even so they speak as though this is what all trans men Want to become and as if that want or even just the eventuality of Becoming itself inherently erases all that came before

and this has, Several different branching consequences. I mean, speaking realistically there’s potentially as much diversity in how these ideas mingle within our community as there are People in said community, but both my perspective and my time are limited. so to keep this at least somewhat digestible I’m going to be speaking on this from the perspective of masculinity being treated as the inherent ideal that trans men are expected to not only strive for but be measured against and from the perspective of trans men being stripped of their lives as previous or Currently feminine people to be painted as outside of femininity itself and outside of the reach of misogyny. 

it would be foolish to suggest or even imply that the enforcement of hyper-masculinity as a standard for trans men has nothing to do with misogyny, internalized or otherwise, or the hyper-masculinity of society at large. however, I think tumblr culture has found a way to re-brand this toxicity, as tumblr does, and specifically peddle it in discourse and activist spaces.

particularly you see this in the backlash against gnc trans men, trans men who can’t or don’t want to bind, and of course in the backlash against trans men without dysphoria.  not all of these are inherently tied to the idea of masculinity, but even so you see it in the way that the general groups of people talk about and depict trans men that they feel don’t perform masculinity correctly.

caricatures of “real” vs “fake” trans people, a line that superficially is only supposed to be drawn at having or not having dysphoria, consistently depict “”fake”” trans people, those with dysphoria, as aggressively feminine, as curvy, as not binding, as wearing make up and heels, and more often than not as hyper sexual in a way that specifically speaks to how women are coerced into presenting for men.

the message is clear, trans men who don’t replicate masculinity purely enough aren’t real trans men, Especially if they do so by choice. to present outside of the platonic ideal of what a trans man should be is to forfeit your place as a trans man I shouldn’t have to explain why this is harmful, I shouldn’t and yet I do.

the enforcement of masculinity or femininity is inherently violent. if your presentation isn’t a choice then it is a limitation, a confinement. if a trans man looks inside of himself and sees that there are parts of femininity that he likes, not because he was expected or forced to like it but because it’s something that he enjoys, then it’s no one’s place to tell him that he shouldn’t engage with it. forcing someone to lose a part of themselves just so they have the Right to be respected as a human being is a violent act.

and outside of that, there are people who just aren’t where they want to be yet and who may never be. someone may be pre t because they’re young, because they’re poor, because they’re not safe where they are, or because they medically cannot be. there are people who are forced out of presenting masculinely or outright forced into performing femininely don’t need to have their features plastered on a meme painting them as “fake trans.” they don’t need to be told that who they are isn’t good enough for the cis Or the trans community. and they sure as shit don’t need scumbags here on tumblr dot com coming directly to them to harass them.

whether through necessity, situation, or genuine want there are always going to be feminine trans men. reinventing and rebranding toxic masculinity to try to cut other trans people out of their community won’t make you feel better and it won’t make the transphobia trans people face go away

stepping away from denying trans men the choice of feminine presentation, we have the denial of femininity as a whole in relation to trans men.

this is something that I’ve noticed for a very long time, far longer than that the resurgence of trumeds and far longer than I myself have identified as a trans man, and it honestly played a role in creating the self doubt that delayed my own growth and understanding of myself. 

at it’s worst, from what I’ve seen, this is a rebranding and refocusing of the transmisogynistic “predatory man” trope that views men as invaders of women’s spaces, as leeches vying for resources and spaces that they don’t deserve. and certainly I don’t doubt that this came from the influence of terfs in feminist spaces, even people who understand that terfs are wrong are still influenced by their talking points and ideas, particularly those presented without being Overt. laden with “concern for the safety of women” and who gleefully take advantage of genuine and deserved outrage of toxic masculinity to insist that all men are inherently violent and evil and deserve to be hurt, and if internally you two happen to disagree with who exactly counts as male then only one of you knows it. and another one of those ideas has been portraying trans men as misogynistic women betraying their sex because they’re desperate for a slice of male privilege they can rub in the face of other women

bucking this influence, even in progressive spaces, in with people who really do know better, is a process. because the language is everywhere, terfs and people influenced by them are constantly evolving, constantly finding new ways to make their ideas palatable. and people consume their ideas may still integrate them into their own worldview even as they fundamentally disagree with terfs as an ideology. even people who are making an active effort to improve this regard will take time doing so, will miss the ways it’s influenced them subconsciously.

a few years back I’d see this manifest itself more overtly. such as posts promoting solidarity between cis and trans women that Also just so happened to go on a tangent about trans men being Male Invaders in women’s spaces such as women’s homeless and crises centers.

it’s typically less severe nowadays, though that in itself is both a sign of progress and problematic to making progress. on some level the lessening of the severity is a sign of growing awareness of terfs and, if not informed understanding of what makes them awful at least a surface level awareness of that fact. however, intentionally softening your ideals to make it more palatable is on vogue with extremists nowadays. a skinhead with a swastika tattoo isn’t going to get as far as someone “concerned about the safety of our borders” in a crisp suit, but ultimately they believe and want the same thing

this is obviously an incredibly complex and active issue, and I’d be Incredibly ridiculous and just outright dishonest to suggest that trans men are the only target here, but for the sake of this post and my sanity I will be focusing on generally one specific issue from the perspective that I have to offer. again, I highly encourage further conversation on this topic if you have it.

generally speaking, this can be boiled down to “trans men are men, men are privilege, privilege is bad” none of these ideas are inherently malicious, but together they’re the cursed lovechild of the radical feminist idea of trans women being violent, selfish, aggressors and the idea that trans people genuinely are the gender they identify as. it’s a bucking of terf beliefs because they’re wrong about who is and is not a man, not because their beliefs themselves are wrong.

in service of this, trans men are stripped of their femininity and seemingly stripped of their past as being treated as women. they are the platonic ideal of what trans men are supposed to be, indistinguishable from cis men even if they’re still acknowledged as being “not as bad as” cis men

this is problematic and in some situations violent even if it is true, but we have to remember that it isn’t. even under the assumption that every single trans man in the world holds the goal of becoming indistinguishable from cis men and will eventually achieve that, every single trans man has been affected by misogyny. they have been raised with the expectation that they will identify as women. they have lived their lives up until a certain point being treated exclusively as a woman. and indeed there will always be people who see them as women

even for a trans man who fully and completely embraces their masculinity, healthily or otherwise, being forcibly parted with any part of their femininity is being asked to forget or ignore their own lived experiences 

trans men who can live up to the “platonic ideal” of what trans men are supposed to be are the minority, but every single trans man has been treated as a woman

and again, for many people they live actively as trans men without transitioning, whether that be temporary or for their entire lives.

you can argue that trans men experience misogyny separately from their identity, as many people do, that it’s “misdirected misogyny” which while to a degree that may be true that can only matter so much when what you’re asking people to do is separate who they are from their lived experiences 

I didn’t identify as a trans man when I was assaulted, but I am a trans man I was assaulted and those two things have both shaped who I am and my feelings on one inherently impacts my feelings on the other. it may have been “misdirected” but they’re inescapably connected in my life. because I’m not a conversation, or a statistic, or a compilation of discourses vaguely shambling in the shape of a man, I’m a person

and even still, there are people who know I am a trans man, who even make an effort to respect that, who are still misogynistic towards me. and even more still who are misogynistic towards me Because I’m a trans man

trans men have a better ability to pass in some cases yes and trans men are generally less well known, but the ability to hide is not itself a privilege, it’s fear. it’s repressing a part of yourself knowing that if you slip up in front of the wrong person at the wrong time that could mean the end. it could mean violence, it could mean discrimination, it could mean death

trans men are denied this fact, sometimes incidentally sometimes intentionally they’re denied language specific language to express this because Trans Men Are Men, And Men Aren’t Oppressed For Being Men.

ultimately, trans men and trans women both face an intersection of transphobia and misogyny, with our oppression being Different but Intertwined  denying or ignoring one means limiting our understanding of the other and vice versa

there are trans men who hurt trans women and there are trans women who hurt trans men but we as a community need solidarity not just because it’s mutually beneficial but because our experiences are closer than some want to make them out to be

taking radfem rhetoric and pointing it somewhere else will never be the answer, and it’s Certainly not going to help keep transwomen safe

[ethompson928]

We are Bulletproof (BTS GANG AU) Part 16

Previous Chapter / Next Chapter

The kiss was very soft. It was a very cautious kiss, almost gentle as if Hoseok was scared that Ally was going to break. His thumb very gently caressed her knuckles in soothing circular motions. His grip wasn't too strong but was reassuring. Ally's eyes had slipped closed as she welcomed the warmth the kiss he gave her brought. She felt like she was dreaming, his lips were incredibly soft, not dry and rough like she was expecting but the kiss was a huge surprise and she almost choked but melted into the kiss like sinking into a warm hot bath. Time seemed to slow down and they were the only two people in the room. The silence was nice and accommodating as they poured out all the emotions they had bottled up into the one kiss they shared briefly with each other.

Pulling away they simply stared at each other, it wasn't awkward and it wasn't scary. It felt normal. A small smile graced Ally's lips and Hoseok breathed out a small sigh of relief. He had been daring himself to kiss her and was worried she would freak out or reject him altogether. He was about to lean in again when someone cleaned their throat by the door, the two stepped away from each other once they realised they weren't alone.

Standing there was Jungkook.

He didn't look happy.

"Namjoon wants to see you...now." He stated his voice devoid of emotion, his eyes darted once or twice between the two before nodding at Hoseok.  He briefly caught Allys eye and he promptly ignored her as Hoseok followed him out of the room.

Ally was excluded from the meeting about an upcoming mission, she had been left completely in the dark and was not to be included as instructed by Namjoon.  Namjoon told her it was something that didn't involve her as the door was promptly closed in front of her face.  Feeling a little rebellious she pressed her ear to the door and listened:

"I still have no idea who has been following us.  I've been monitoring the spys and they've no apparent connection to any of the groups that have territories in the area."  Hoseok mentioned.

"We have to find them.  I'm not risking everything we've worked so hard for to be taken away from us.  We've come too far to give up now and I'll be damned if we lose this fight.  Time to start planning ahead on more defense, expansion and expenses."  Namjoon commented.  Ally couldn't see them but she was convinced that Namjoon was not happy.  At all.  "Let's work on the boys Suho's gang...do we carry out an infiltration?  Maybe negotiate to bring down a gang that's a threat to both of us and split the bounty?  Keep playing nice or take them down, that is the question. "

"We've never had any problems with them before, so I think we should keep them on our good side till we know that we'll be able to have a strong advantage."  Jin's voice sounded.  It was a lot quieter.

"You forget Jin that we have a new assest we can use.  She's not exactly ready for it, but she can give us a wildcard other groups won't be expecting.  Like yes Suho is aware of her but imagine what we could get by using her."

A small chuckle was heard and Ally tried to hear more by getting closer to the keyhole.  She knew they were talkkng about her and she needed to know what was going to happen to her.  

"You're willing to risk her life?  What happened to using her to help us?"  Jimin asked.

"She will be helping us.  She just isn't aware of how she'll be helping us in the long run, by the way which one of you was keeping an eye on her?"  Namjoon asked.

"I was"  Hoseok's voice rang out.  "We were practicing fighting techniques since someone seemed to abandon that duty and we don't want her dying out in the field, thats when Jungkook pulled me away for this meeting".

Jungkook let out a light scoff and Ally decided enough was enough as she heard footsteps coming closer to the door.  She ran away down the corridor back to her room.  

--

Later that day Namjoon called Ally up to his office.

"Take a seat, don't worry you're not in trouble or anything."  Ally collapsed into the chair across from Namjoon's desk where he sat opposite her leaning back in his chair and studying her from a distance.  "I didn't think you would actually work hard for us Ally.  You've behaved like a good girl and have been improving in your fighting class, so Hoseok tells me, Jungkook on the other hand says you need more work and you lack skill.  But I suppose it'll be easier to learn when you're in a real fight first hand."  Namjoon rubbed his knuckles under his chin and had a thought.  "V tells me that someone recognised you when you were out with him".  He got straight to the chase.

"Yeah, it was weird.  I'd never seen him before and he knew who I was...I'm scared because I have never met him before in my entire life."

"Can you remember what he looked like?"  Namjoon asked leaning forward.

"He had a hat on so his face was covered.  He looked similar to Suga's age and he had light brown hair."  Ally tried to wrack her brain to remember this mysterious man but her fear was not allowing her to think clearly.

Namjoon nodded and went on to explain that whatever V gave her to put in his drink would disorintate him a bit and he might forget what happened whenever he woke up and that is the best choice scenario which put Ally's already frantic mind at rest.

"I know you're scared and this is all new to you but you'll get used to it."  Namjoon smiled as he stood up and walked around in front of his desk.  Ally took this as her cue to stand up and prepare to leave.

Walking out of the room altogether Ally bumped into what felt like Jungkook, he had been avoiding her for a good long time now and she still hadn't realised what she had done wrong.  "Why are you ignoring me?"  She asked almost to herself more than anything but loud enough for Junkook to hear.  He stared at her before sidestepping past her into Namjoon's office and slamming the door closed.  Rude.  Ally decided to stop by the kitchen to get some food for her tummy that decided to start rumbling when Namjoon asked her about the stranger.

Grinding her teeth together and letting out a huge breath at her annoyance of Jungkook, Ally buried her head into her arms on the small table in kitchen.

--

Over the couple of days Ally still found herself held in Bangtan's house.  Helping out here and there where she could and doing her part trying to keep Namjoon happy.  During this time Namjoom seemed to be loosening the reigns a little after her apparent will co-operation during the plan at Suho's casino, he started to allow her to do more than just play the distraction, she was actually allowed to help and not in a girly way where she had to seduce the unexpecting male target.  This was good in her opinion, she was able to build up her trust and she was going to start planning an escape soon.  She just had to get a plan, but as she was constantly being watched, she wasn't allowed to be allowed to be by herself.

However, there was the occasional day or two that the boys would leave on a mission and not tell her what they were doing, only listening through Namjoon's office door was she able to discern that they were trying to expand their territory and had to "get rid of" or "take over" certain groups and it was too dangerous, or she'd be in the way.  So typically one member of Bangtan would be left behind to keep an eye on her much to the happiness of Suga (whose real name she still did not actually know) and Jungkook was was still distancing himself from her as much as possible.

Hoseok had grown a lot more finder of Ally since their spontanious kiss in the practice room.  He would sit beside her more often, hold her hand and caress her knuckles when no one was looking and grew more protective of her (even though neither of them addressed the kiss since, it was all natural), volunteering to stay behind if she was ever left behind, but Namjoon began to figure something was going on.  He kept the two away from each other and one potential day he stopped Ally on her way to her usual training session.

"Ally, a word please."  He asked and guided her into the living room, offering her a seat.

"Am I in trouble?"  She asked sitting down on the edge of the sofa her fingers pulling at the edge of the t-shirt she was wearing.  Her large eyes looked into Namjoon's as he stayed standing.  The air was filled with tension as she waited for what he was going to say, time seemed to slow to a ridiculous crawl as she anticipated what was going to happen.  But as Namjoon opened his mouth to talk, fear and anxiety overtook her and she spoke almost uncontrollably:

"I swear it wasn't me who broke the vase...Jimin who dared Taehyung to do dizzy dizzy elephants while blindfolded during hide and seek!"  Her face went a bright beetroot red as she recalled Jimin and Taehyung coercing her into playing hide and seek with them in their joint bedroom and an unfortunate accident that involved an old vase that was on the shelf.  If anything, yesterday's events reminded her what it was like to be a child again.

"That's not what I was going to ask but thank you for informing me the boys aren't doing their jobs...I'll be sure to see that they don't get distracted by you again...don't talk..." he interrupted as Ally went to speak over him.  "Is there anything you want to tell me about you and Hoseok, Ally?  Is there something going on between the two of you?"

There was no way that Namjoon didn't know there was something happening.  He just wanted to hear it from Ally first.  Namjoon was an intellect, of course he knew but he didn't want to risk the lives of his men over something as childish as puppy love, something that would fizzle out after a while and would only cause complications later on for not just the two of them but the whole time and Namjoon didn't have time for this to be a liability.

"I also wanted to inform you that Jungkook is going to resume his duty of training you whether he or you like it or not.  I've noticed Hoseok has been training you and there has been improvement but I refuse for you to be distraction to my boys so you are no longer allowed to train under Hoseok unless I tell you.  This may seem unfair to you but believe me when I tell you this is all for your own good and ours."  Namjoon finished, he spoke with a much nicer, calmer tone.  Ally felt much more at ease when he spoke to her like that.  "You are a part of our family now and I do whatever I need to do to keep my family safe and trust me when I say I want to keep you safe too."  Namjoon finished before he led her out of the office.  All of this seemed fishy to Ally.  First of all they kidnap her and take her away from her life only to treat her nicely, was this all a genuine act or do Bangtan have something slightly more sinister planned?

[eichy815]

Swarming Samantha Bee

In the past two weeks, political wasps from all across the spectrum have been buzzing about Samantha Bee.  During the May 30 broadcast of her TBS late night comedy/satire show, Full Frontal with Samantha Bee, she called out First Daughter Ivanka Trump for being insensitive to destroyed families who were separated from their children at the U.S./Mexican border.  After Ms. Trump had posted to Twitter a photo of herself affectionately holding her son, Bee used her TBS program as a platform to quip aloud:

Let me just say, one mother to another, do something about your dad’s immigration practices you feckless cunt!

Adding in a glib incest “joke,” she continued:

[Your father] listens to you!  Put on something tight and low-cut and tell your father to fucking stop it.

Unfortunately for Bee, she committed this faux pas one day after Roseanne Barr found her sitcom revival canceled in the aftermath of posting a racist tweet against Valerie Jarrett.  Conservatives were just looking for the opportunity to skewer a liberal pundit...and Samantha Bee gave them that gift on a silver platter.

The very next day, Bee officially apologized on Full Frontal:

...for using an expletive on my show to describe her last night.  It was inappropriate and inexcusable.  I crossed a line, and I deeply regret it.

TBS followed suit, issuing a statement:

Samantha Bee has taken the right action in apologizing for the vile and inappropriate language she used about Ivanka Trump last night.  Those words should not have been aired.  It was our mistake too, and we regret it.

Of course, the predictable apologism (on Samantha Bee’s behalf) spilled in from certain segments of Hollywood.  Former Daily Show host Jon Stewart challenged the selective outrage at Bee from right-wingers, citing how the Far Right frequently tries to play the victim while simultaneously being the bully.  Oscar winner Sally Field said:

I like Samantha Bee a lot, but she is flat wrong to call Ivanka a cunt.  Cunts are powerful, beautiful, nurturing and honest.

With all due respect to Sally Field (who I usually adore) and Jon Stewart (whose comedic chops I admire) – they are wrong, here.

I also would like to point out how, back in September of 2017, when I wrote a piece excoriating the “performance art” of conservative pot-stirrers Alex Jones and Milo Yiannopoulos, one of the pundits whom I’d name-dropped as a potential future leftist counterpart to Jones and Yiannopoulos was none other than Samantha Bee (as well as Bill Maher, whose own ancillary vice I’ll address momentarily).  Unfortunately, less than a year later, Bee is now causing my words to become outright prophetic.

Here’s the biggest gripe I have with Samantha Bee’s apology:  I don’t think she actually meant it.  Upon what do I base this suspicion?  Well, as discussed by TownHall writer Guy Benson, a follow-up “apology” from Bee on her June 7 broadcast contained loads of contrite subtext.

First, Benson pointed out that Bee’s follow-up mea culpa for using the C-word contained no reiteration of a personal apology to Ivanka Trump herself (even though Bee apologized to women in general who may have felt offended).  This suggests that Bee’s (earlier) original scripted statement apologizing to Ivanka had been a mere coerced formality.  She also – during this two-minute monologue – made it a point to say:

Many men were also offended by my use of the word.  I do not care about that.

Then, Bee lamented how her use of an obscenity had distracted the conversation away from President Trump’s abhorrent immigration policy itself.  As Benson rebuts:  perhaps if Bee and TBS hadn’t made that calculated decision to air the uttering of that particular word (directed at Ivanka), they actually could have motivated the general viewing audience to more critically dissect Trump’s treatment of undocumented families.

Essentially, Bee’s “non-apology” was an intentional doubling-down of her original toxic sentiments...to which her live audience reacted with hearty applause and cheers, of course.  Which, eerily enough, was conceptually similar to Roseanne Barr’s own post-termination Twitter meltdown.

Yet, it isn’t just elite segments of the Hollywood community allowing Bee to get away with a double standard.  

Jen Chaney of Vulture objects that criticism of Bee is simply an attempt to silence voices on the Left via some faux-outrage over perceived misogyny.  After all, Chaney brings up, no one had any problem with it when Bee used the C-word to describe Woodrow Wilson during a comedy set back in April of 2017.  The other difference, according to Chaney, is that a figure such as Jemele Hill was calling out someone’s racism (in that case, President Trump’s) whereas Roseanne Barr had used Twitter to exhibit racism herself.

Jen Chaney is performing some pretty spry mental gymnastics.  She tries to write off Bee’s critics as applying a false equivalency argument:

Maybe Bee shouldn’t have used that specific word.  I’ll concede that she could have been less crass, even though she’s used the same language in the past and no one said boo until Barr got fired.  Bee’s larger point was to criticize Ivanka Trump’s insensitive and tone-deaf photograph.  The point of Barr’s tweet, in as much as it had a point, was that Barr thinks Jarrett is both an Islamist and an ape.  Saying that both women deserve to be fired suggests their offenses are identical.  They are not.

Then she goes on to state:

Now, Bee has been forced to go on the defensive, even though her transgression is not nearly as egregious, offensive, or cruel as what Barr did.  Even worse, the biggest offender of all still sits in the Oval Office, tweeting and saying whatever he wants.  For those who are genuinely concerned about nasty profanity being spouted into the cultural ether, I suggest you pick up the phone and check your caller ID.  The worst rhetoric of all?  It’s coming from inside the White House.

What Chaney is missing here would be the reality that critics have the ability to equally take Roseanne Barr and Samantha Bee and Donald Trump to task for their individualized words and sentiments.  She’s right that many conservative critics are applying selective outrage to Bee while giving Barr and Trump a free pass.  But, conversely, many people who oppose Trump’s agenda are downplaying the vile invective wielded by Bee...presumably because they agree with Bee politically.

They just don’t want to admit it.  They want to bestow upon Samantha Bee the same “celebrity privilege” exemption that some liberals and progressives feel should have been likewise given to Al Franken.

Apparently, if an offender shares your ideology, then mental gymnastics are wholeheartedly encouraged and embraced.

The Times-Picayne’s Tim Morris makes an astute point about this hypocrisy.  He observes how, since TBS also chose to consciously apologize for allowing Bee’s obscene speech to air, the network is essentially admitting that it tried to get away with the offense...and got busted for it.  Full Frontal is pre-taped and vetted for content by network executives.  He summarizes:  

Is it simply that Barr was fired for a blatantly racist slur while Bee was just being vulgar, which appears to be the state of comedy these days even on network television?  Does it make any difference that Barr was ranting on Twitter while Bee's noxious words were planned, scripted and presumably reviewed and approved by others on her show and at the network?  Will our public discourse ever improve if we don't condemn incivility on all sides?

Besides that, as Bee and TBS were surely aware, Chelsea Clinton came to Ivanka’s defense, tweeting how “It’s grossly inappropriate and just flat-out wrong to describe or talk about @IvankaTrump or any woman that way.”  In his assessment, Morris further states:

Bee defenders will rightly point out that the White House has still not condemned Barr’s racist tweet and that Bee’s language is not that much different than what President Trump’s was in that Access Hollywood tape.  But that seems to be the [very same] ‘whataboutism’ that Trump defenders are often accused of.  If you think Barr was wrongly fired for what she said then it's inconsistent to argue that Bee should be punished in the same way for her comments.  But if you endorsed the ouster of Barr then it's difficult to avoid the hypocrisy of not demanding some repercussions for Bee.

What it really boils down to is that Samantha Bee and TBS “apologized” purely for optics.  Bee’s subtext was really, “I stand behind what I said, but I realize it made people uncomfortable and I’m sorry you feel that way.”  TBS’s subtext was basically, “We knew exactly what we were doing, but we’re sorry we got caught.”

Christine Flowers of The Times Record writes how she used to enjoy watching Samantha Bee because of Bee’ s “mean-girl humor,” “her delivery,” and “her sass” – and due to having an affinity for Canadian-born TV personalities. However, Flowers has resolved to no longer watch Full Frontal, for the following reason:

Samantha Bee is a darling of the evolved liberal set, the ones who talk about how much they care about human rights.  But that doesn’t give her, or any other progressive, carte blanche to slander Ivanka Trump.  I’ve been called a certain word online and in emails, and while I don’t really get upset anymore, it is always revelatory how little respect so-called [‘]progressives[’] have for the women who disagree with them.  And poor Ivanka didn’t even say anything disagreeable.  She just posted a lovely photo of her child, and the gates of hell opened up on social media.

After acknowledging that ABC was right to fire Barr for Barr’s racism, Flowers also admits that broadcast decency standards are different on late-night cable than they are during primetime.  But she continues:

You should not be able to say the things that Bee said and get a pass for being a [‘]feminist.[’]  No woman who attacks another mother the way that Bee did is a true feminist.  If you cannot show respect to people with whom you disagree, and if you can’t hold your fire when a young mother displays genuine affection for her child, you are the other c-word:  Classless.

Samantha Bee’s problem is that she already has a history of neofeminist and neoliberal sympathies (much like Roseanne Barr had a track record for making other racist, sexist, and bigoted statements).  Bee has proceeded to epitomize this reverence for “female exceptionalism” by declaring how she flat-out didn’t care what any males thought of her words.  She keeps trying to divert the discussion back to Donald Trump’s obvious deficiencies, even though Bee’s own support for the corrupt Democratic establishment is a big part of what ultimately enabled Trump’s own rise to power.

It’s like the journalists who currently whine about how Trump is abusing his presidential powers...even though they’re the same ones who gave him all of the copious airtime and free publicity (back in 2015 and 2016) in the first place.

More mental gymnastics: Glamour’s Angelica Florio tries to excuse Bee’s behavior by saying how the C-word wasn’t necessarily considered offensive or obscene back in the medieval times, as it was often used as an emotionless synonym for the female anatomy (the same way we would use the word “vulva,” today).  

She mangles the narrative by rationalizing:

The backlash against Bee’s use of the word “cunt” almost says more about the ways in which society views women’s genitals than it does about the invisible lines that Bee may or may not have crossed.  The New York Times, for example, couldn't even use the word when reporting about Bee’s misstep!  Instead, they alluded to Bee’s usage as a “crass insult” and a “vulgar epithet.”

Florio compares it to Donald Trump’s infamous menstruation comment about Megyn Kelly from 2015, and points out that some feminists have chosen to reclaim the C-word (much the same way some black people have chosen to reclaim the N-word).  She implies how, consequently, the pearl-clutching in reaction to Samantha Bee’s speech could be considered a form of body-shaming.

Which is it, Ms. Florio?  Is the C-word reclamatory or insulting? I reckon her answer would be:  “women can use it whenever they want; but men should never be able to use it under ANY circumstance.”

Ted Diadiun, writing for Cleveland.com, acknowledges that the circumstances surrounding Bee’s and Barr’s respective controversies are indeed different.  Nevertheless, he asks: why should either of them be lionized?  As Diadiun puts it:

The only thing these two have in common is that they are both loud, annoying, crass and profane people who said – far from the first time – something offensive...Why does anyone care what Roseanne Barr or Samantha Bee thinks?  Who watches these crude shows?  I don't know.  I've taken an informal survey, and thus far I'm happy to report that I haven't found any Bee or Barr fans among my friends (and if you are my friend and do enjoy them, please keep it to yourself).

So what should Samantha Bee have done (in the aftermath of her use of the C-word), instead?  I will quote a follow-up post from Guy Benson, who wrote up a hypothetical SINCERE apology that Bee could have alternately recited:

Hi, I'm Samantha Bee. 

Last week, I used an ugly word – a word that I’ve used before on this show, yes – but in this instance, I deployed it deliberately to insult Ivanka Trump, the president’s daughter and advisor.  I didn't say it spontaneously, out of anger.  I wrote it into my script because I was angry.  I was angry about her father’s immigration policies.  Doing so was wrong and exhibited poor judgment.  I want to be provocative and honest on this show, but as I told the New York Times in an interview last year, I want to make sure that I strive for decency in what I see as a troubling political era.  I told the Times that we need to seek out the humanity of people who disagree with us.  So last week, I failed to live up to my own standards, and I’m very sorry.  I shouldn't have said what I did.  I apologize without caveat, qualification, or asterisk to Ivanka Trump and the people who love her. 

Of course, I still feel strongly about her father’s policies and political decisions.  And I’ll keep articulating my views on this show every week.  I absolutely do not apologize for that.  But that’s not what this is about tonight – right here, right now.  It’s about saying sorry after crossing a line, which I did.  I’ve also heard from many women, in particular, who are offended by that word – that epithet – who want people with platforms like mine to lift fellow women up, not drag them down with terms specifically designed to demean women.  I hear you, and I'm sorry.  When we talk about civility – and we call out incivility – it's important to remember that ultimately, civility has to be about more than just using nicer words or sanitized speech.  It’s about how we act, and how we treat each other.  That applies to our president.  That applies to how we treat immigrant families.  And yes, that applies to me.  I should have done better, and I didn’t.  I hope you'll accept my apology.  Now, don't worry: I'll be back next week, rocking the boat and pushing the envelope, as always.  I’ll just do it through the lens of this clarifying and humbling mistake.  Thank you for watching, and good night.

But Samantha Bee didn’t say any of that.  Which tells me that she was blatantly PROUD of what she did and said...along with the way it all unfolded.

In addition, during a New York Times interview a couple of weeks prior to Donald Trump’s 2017 inauguration, Bee herself had advocated “a broad coalition of straight-up decency” to find common ground with others in spite of our political differences.  According to her, “some things will have to be off limits if we’re going to find the humanity on the other side of the aisle.”

Now, Bee’s words from a year-and-a-half ago ring hollow.

During a June 1 roundtable discussion of this controversy on ABC’s The View, cohosts Sara Haines and Paula Faris both agreed that Bee’s speech was disgusting...and there should be at least some consequences.

Sunny Hostin, a proven neoliberal and neofeminist voice on their panel (who, ironically enough, constantly complains about our nation’s “lack of civility” during the Trump Era), defended Bee by adopting the Jen Cheney position on how criticism of Samantha Bee is supposedly a deflective distraction from the sins of Roseanne Barr and Donald Trump.

Guest cohost Ana Navarro criticized Bee for playing right into the Far Right’s narrative, but she still believed that Bee’s apology was appropriate and genuine (wow, Samantha has really got you snookered, Ana!).

But Joy Behar took the most odious position of those on the panel that day.  Obviously a fellow graduate from the Angelica Florio School of Hypocrisy, Behar declared that losing State Farm and Autotrader as sponsors was a sufficient enough “punishment” for Bee and Full Frontal.  Acknowledging that the C-word has a misogynistic connotation, Behar opined that it’s much worse when a man uses the word than when a woman does.

Navarro agreed with that lattermost neofeminist sentiment of Behar’s.  Conversely, Haines and Faris both said that no one should ever use the C-word.

And then, Behar invoked cultural relativism by arguing how the C-word is much more acceptable in the U.K. (citing the frequent usage of it by comedian Ricky Gervais), and that – as a Canadian-born person – Samantha Bee shouldn’t be held hostage to such puritanical American norms.  Of course, Behar is also saying that those American norms should only apply if males try to use the C-word.

I wonder if Joy Behar would be as accommodating if Joni Ernst had used the C-word to describe Hillary Clinton?  Or if Ann Coulter had used it to describe Meryl Streep?

But then, would Behar turn around and suddenly think it was acceptable if Clinton used it against Ernst...or if Streep used it against Coulter?

This is a rhetorical question.  I suspect Behar – much like Samantha Bee – believes that “an exception” should be made if the accused party is someone with whom she politically identifies or admires.  Behar, not surprisingly, is also amongst the celebrity apologists who wanted to let Al Franken off the hook so easily.

I’ll also point out that I had defended Behar, back in March of this past spring, when Mike Pence (and his acolytes) came after her for purported “religious insensitivity.”  ABC forced Behar to apologize for comparing Pence’s beliefs to mental illness – and I found Bob Iger’s and ABC’s coercion of Behar to be absolutely ridiculous, since Vice-President Pence has clearly proven himself to be a religious extremist.

But, on the matter of Samantha Bee, I have to sharply dissent with Behar: she’s dead-wrong, here.  Behar is enabling Bee’s own agenda to integrate neofeminism as an accepted social norm.  And let me be clear:  by “neofeminism,” I’m referring to the doctrine that females are inherently “superior” to males in most areas of life.  This third-wave manifesto of “female exceptionalism” suggests that men (and boys) should be submissive and deferential to women (and girls), by default, a majority of the time in a majority of circumstances.

It’s sort of like how, during this past spring’s April 12 airing of The Talk on CBS, when moderator Julie Chen “joked” that pregnant women should be able to squeeze the testicles of their husbands (or their baby daddies) to relieve stress while in labor.  Or how, on the May 22 episode slightly more than a month later – when discussing the allegations of Patrick J. Adams “bullying” a woman on social media after that overweight woman had body-shamed Adams in person (at Heathrow Airport) by telling him he’d looked a bit “chunky” at the Royal Wedding – Chen stated that males shouldn’t be able to call out females publicly in that manner...but, in her view, it’s fine (or “not as bad”) if females do it to males.

Samantha Bee is proving that either she desires to be a “performance artist” (in the vein of one of her recent defenders, Bill Maher, who’d declared how a hypothetical economic crash would be worth the trade-off of bringing down Trump’s presidency)...or, alternately, she has a serious intent to use “comedy” to normalize misandry within our social discourse.

Or maybe a little bit of both?

I really don’t care if Samantha Bee views herself as being above moral standards just because she happens to be a comedienne.  If she continues to entrench herself within the Entertainment Industry as a misandrist voice of neofeminism, she *will* be held accountable for her hate speech.

[haleyfishharbour]

The Subtle Assault of Sexual Microaggressions

Two days ago I read an article on sexual microaggressions. It threw me into a series of flashbacks, a flow of tears, and a sick feeling in my stomach. Today I’m still feeling a hint of hangover from the experience. The article (written by Lux Alptraum) wasn’t graphic, or angry, or even particularly heated. It was informative and considerately written, citing examples both from media and from the author’s personal life. But as I read it, the words yanked up a slew of memories and gave them new perspective. I was suddenly seeing seemingly minor occurrences for the sharp disrespect that they were. Let me share some examples. My first long-term boyfriend was quite fond of the ‘money shot’ to the face, which I despised. But he was also my first sexual partner, and I was anxious to please, so occasionally I allowed it (as long as we were in the shower so I could immediately wash off). I never could pinpoint why exactly it bothered me so much, but I felt it went far beyond the simple sticky grossness. After reading that article, I did a little digging…both into my own self, and into further articles. In the process, I found a quote from veteran porn actor and producer Bill Margold: "The most violent we can get is the cum shot in the face. Men get off behind that, because they get even with the women they can't have. We try to inundate the world with orgasms in the face." No wonder I hated it. There was a subtle violence to it, a dehumanization, an “I don’t care about you” hidden within the action. Another “I don’t care about you” occasion with this partner of mine occurred when he was interested in trying a bit of bondage. Again, I wasn’t interested but I was eager to please, so we gave it a go. Nothing major…all he did was tie my wrists to the headboard. It took only moments before I found myself crying, and just as I didn’t understand my disgust for the money shot, neither did I understand my tears. The worst part? He didn’t even notice. I was trying to suck it up and stop crying, and he just kept going until finally I spoke up. I told him I couldn’t do it, that I didn’t know why but I just couldn’t. He was all compassion then, of course, but that didn’t fix the wound he’d inflicted. I was shown over and over that my enjoyment and participation didn’t matter. Fast forward to a later boyfriend. The only boyfriend I truly regret. With him, I learned that not only could my enjoyment and participation be disregarded, but so could my consent. Before you judge me for being with him in the first place, please understand that a) we all make mistakes, b) I was not the most emotionally stable when I met him, recuperating from deep emotional abuse and in the middle of moving to a new city and starting a new job, and c) I’d never met someone as manipulative as he was, so I didn’t see at first how he was taking advantage of my situation and vulnerability. The first red flag that I ignored was when he refused to wear a condom. (Actually, maybe it was when he coerced me into a blowjob on the first date, but I digress.) He used the ever-popular excuse that condoms kept him from being able to ‘finish,’ which implied that if I insisted he use one then I’d be denying him full satisfaction. I was at a place where I couldn’t afford birth control so I was more than hesitant, but he convinced me to use the pull-out method. I’d like to shake my younger self for that, looking back…but I’d never been good at letting people down, even to my own detriment. And for a while, he showed excellent self-control. Then one night as I felt him near release, I realized that he wasn’t pulling out. I tried to move away but he gripped me tighter, and then let loose inside me. I was furious but unpracticed in expressing my anger - and also very much in shock - so instead of unleashing the Kraken like I wanted to do, my response was more like a weak blend of irritation and hurt feelings. (That's a whole other story: the conditioning of women to be the 'good girl,' to acquiesce and not make waves because anger is unladylike.) He didn’t even try to make an excuse, stating simply that he “felt like it,” and claiming that he was keeping track of my cycle and there was no danger of pregnancy. It still boggles my mind that I stuck around after that. Even when he did it a second time. I have counted my blessings – innumerably – that no child was spawned from that relationship. This man also taught me that when people discuss rape and tell you to “just say no” to avoid any misunderstandings, they don’t know what they’re talking about. With him, I discovered that “No” just means “Try asking another way.” I could say “No” ten times and have ten different reasons come back at me until I was too mentally exhausted and invalidated to argue anymore. So yes, in some cases I did agree to certain sexual acts with him…but not because I wanted to. It was only because I couldn’t hold my ground under the onslaught of wheedling and guilt-tripping. Plus he was a foot taller than me, easily 100 pounds heavier, and I could see the potential for a temper riding just below the surface of his carefully crafted charisma. He made me nervous. My feelings around him were a strange combination of striving to see the best in him…and fearing him. Now, I don’t share these stories because I want sympathy or attention. I share them because they are my personal experience of a much wider-spread problem. As an editor who specifically works with the personal stories of others, I get to see inside the lives of women who have overcome some horrific traumas. I see where they are now, and as I work with them I get to see where they’ve been. And it both inspires me and breaks my heart. These are women from all walks of life, all ages and backgrounds and locations and classes, and they have endured all manner of abuses. The problem affects us all. Not every woman gets raped behind a dumpster, or has beer bottles cracked over her head. Not every woman has black eyes and bruises to hide. These are the more obvious manifestations of the problem, the chunks of driftwood that float the surface while so much more debris simply sinks and settles. I share my story here to show that there’s something more going on. Something at a level so deep and pervasive that we often don’t even notice. It's the catcalling and the "I'd tap that" and the "butterface"; it's the guilt trips and the excuses and the not giving two sh*ts if she came, too. It's the all-too-personal examples I just illustrated. These are the microaggressions described in the article I read: the little pushes past our boundaries, the little moments that invalidate and dehumanize us. A quote from that article puts it plainly: “…by refusing to recognize the harm caused by these sexual microaggressions, we teach women to accept them as normal and minimize their pain—and we teach men that they can get away with violating women.” By offering a few examples, perhaps I can help other women to no longer see these things as “normal.” I share my story because my eyes are open now. I can see these actions for what they were. The pain that arises from this realization will be brief; by tomorrow the emotional tidal wave will likely have receded. But now I am looking at these experiences head-on, and I am forgiving myself for the blindness that caused me to allow them. And if sharing my story can bring such awareness to even one other person – can help them recognize these actions as violent even in their subtlety, and give them the strength to stand up for themselves where I could not – then as nerve-wracking as it is to bare these pieces of myself to the world, I believe it is absolutely worth it.