#how about instead of playing oppression olympics we all just like. accept that everyone has different experiences

[snekdood]

amazing. the right has successfully divided trans mascs and fems.

we’re all gonna die, lmao.

[chibimyumi]

Hi

I hope you're doing well

I have questions if you don't mind

Who do like Axel von Fersen in Marie Antoinette or Axel von Fersen in 1789 les amants de la bastille and also do you like Marie Antoinette in Marie Antoinette or in 1789 les amants de la bastille

Thank you for answering my questions

Dear Anon,

I am doing well, thank you very much! I hope you too.

Hmmm, as a quick answer I would say I prefer both Marie and Fersen from ‘Toho MA’, but the full answer is slightly more complicated.

Firstly, it is almost unfair to compare them to each other because in MA they are the main characters, whereas in 1789 they are main-support or secondary-mains at best.

Secondly, MA has a far bigger focus on the characters because that is what drives the plot, while the opposite is true for 1789, which mainly sells a spectacle. I myself am more fan of subtle and deep story-telling rather than spectacular shows, so the MA versions of Marie and Fersen are more to my liking.

Thirdly, the quality of the characters also depends greatly on the cast. My first view of MA is the A-cast, and therefore my impression of the characters is that they are incredibly well written. After comparison with other casts however, I started to wonder whether it was just the A-cast being too good, and the musical itself being ‘fine’. (In short; I’m not fully sure how much I’d ‘clearly’ have preferred MA Marie and Fersen were it not for A-cast. Click here for a comparison between the two casts written by my friend @wildandwhirlingwords)

But, I shall go into more detail for both characters why MA’s version appeals more to me - someone who enjoys character writing most.

🌹Marie Antoinette🌹

M.A. 2018

In my opinion Marie Antoinette is better in MA because you see her journey and her motivations. We all know that the historical Queen screwed up majorly, but in MA we see why, and in what ways she indeed had very little other choice from her own perspective. She was a flawed foreign woman in a time and place where flawed foreign women were hated most.

In the beginning of the musical the King comes tell Marie that she’d have to live more economically. Marie is clearly not very enthusiastic to hear that, but she also never protests. She just asks ‘why’ and then accepts the answer - albeit broodingly. More importantly however: we need to keep in mind that despite being called Madam Deficit, the historical Marie Antoinette was actually quite economical at first because the Austrian court where she comes from was way less extravagant than the French. It was after her marriage into French royalty that she became more extravagant, because she was criticised for “not being a proper royal” by the French. According to the court, the 14 year old Marie was “a peasant unworthy of becoming Queen.” When you’re that young and criticised by your entire new life, you do everything in your power to make sure you can actually have a life; you adapt. So when Marie was then suddenly told to stop ‘adapting and be a proper Queen worthy of the French”, we can see why more is at stake than “Karen needs to deal with only 10 dresses a week.”

Something else that adds depth to her character as opposed to her 1789 counterpart is that as the story progresses, Marie actually grows. She becomes more mature and more serious, and you see in her how all the events have a clear toll on her. From her own perspective, she really was trying very hard, but anything she tried was inadequate to improve the situation. What she didn’t know is that no matter how hard she tried, the situation was already un-salvageable before she was even born. The populace AND the court had already decided to hate her for being an unintelligent foreign woman from an enemy state, after all. This is an insight most historians nowadays agree on.

In a later scene where Margrid confronts Marie, she asks the Queen: “what makes you think you are better than us?” Marie confirms nor denies, but replies: “I am merely Queen as I was appointed by God.” When she adds: “All I know is duties, you are free,” there is also a clear sense she genuinely doesn’t know why she was appointed by God, but as she is now, all she can do is her best. She is still ignorant, which was a genuine problem about her. She does not know the hardships of not being from the top rank, allowing her say something as insensitive as: “at least you’re free.” But again, despite her ignorance, her feelings are sincere. From all the unfair expectations she was made to live up to from age 14, you really do see why ‘a life without duties’ seemed so much more appealing to her.

1789 - The Lovers of the Bastille

Marie in 1789 is more of a side-character, and the musical itself just is not very character/story driven as MA is. 1789 has the tendency to take the tropiest of tropes and stay on surface level with the characters. Ouki Kaname is an incredibly good actress and she tries her best; but she cannot do more than the script gives her to work with.

In this musical Marie is not portrayed in a very relatable or sympathetic light. She is extravagant because she has escapist fantasies, but we don’t really see what she’s escaping from. The sympathy from the audience is supposed to be drawn from the tragedy that she’s married to the King but is in love with Fersen. Oh, and she has a son but he’s mortally ill. Meanwhile however, you don’t see how her life is so bad she needs to escape... and you also don’t see Marie really being worried about her son than an occasional: “Oh Ill again? Sucks I guess. Gotta cry my eyes out on my lover’s lap, AHHH FERSEN 💗” It was not until her son had already died that Marie woke up, but the lack of portrayal of Marie’s perspective and the pacing really makes one legitimately wonder whether the child did not just die of Marie’s neglect. And about the forbidden love ...we’ve seen enough love triangles with star-crossed-lovers... I don’t know about you guys, but I am numbbbbb to this “problem”.

When Marie receives message from Olympe that she finally gets to meet her lover after a long separation at the Palais Royal, one of the first things she says is: “is that not the place where revolutionaries and prostitutes are gathered?” This immediately sets up an empathy-barrier between her and the common people. This Marie clearly views herself too good for people who do anything to get by; why would you care about her then? Because Marie’s story is not fleshed out you don’t see parts that can make you go: “oh, the revolutionaries really hate her for reasons beyond her control, she is in danger.” Or “she was raised by a puritan society, making her hate on sex-workers; that’s part of her character flaw.” Instead it’s just this Diva being quite judgemental.

Ouki was trying very hard to make the focus about her own safety, but with the script being what it is... she’s still a mostly unsympathetic character who is a martyr of forbidden love.

There is one scene where we see her take on a much more mature and responsible role. That was the first time I personally felt like Marie from 1789 is an actual human being with feelings and personal difficulties. But in great part this is Ouki’s acting... (the other cast didn’t do much for me). What is also important is that Marie was ‘humbled’ because her son died. Marie did not have much of a personal growth, and then she changes to a more sympathetic person because of an external factor just... feels less earned.

In the finale Marie appears again in her execution clothes, and the way Ouki appeared really felt like a punch in the gut. She sings “as a recompense for our griefs, people have learnt forgiveness.” However, the story skimped over the characters so much I was left to wonder: “who learned to forgive whom?” Do you think the people forgave you? Or was there somebody you hated but now learned to forgive? What was your grudge? Do you understand the angry mob’s grudge?

The finale of the musical treats like after the heroic sacrifice of the protagonist (Ronan) the oppressive monarchy was replaced by a good democracy, and a Reign of Terror will DEFINITELY not happen under Robespierre or something. But if you’ve had a BIT of European history you just know it’s a blatant lie. So the finale just feels too simplistic, and this simplistic feeling was in part presented by Marie’s very empty, lip-service-y line.

⚔️Hans Axel von Fersen⚔️

M.A. 2018

Fersen is a bit harder to compare which version is better, because honestly, depending on who plays Fersen in MA, Fersen is either the most generic Hollywood sweeping-lover-hero, or a diamond mine to excavate. In the same post linked above by my friend, she explains in detail the differences between TashiroFersen and FurukawaFersen. K-musical fans, don’t @ me, but from what I can tell, the Korean Fersens are also very... typical.

In this post I have discussed Furukawa’s Fersen in great detail, so I shall skip over these for this post. But to summarise, when portrayed by Furukawa at least, Fersen in MA is very nuanced and restrained. Even if we do not fully credit Furukawa however, then at the very least the script allows enough space and material for an actor to flesh him out so phenomenally well (I think Tashiro and some other actors just.... really missed out on the potential).

Fersen in MA incredibly memorable because the main atmosphere of the imminent doom awaiting everyone is carried by him in a way nobody else does. The moment Fersen enters you feel the tension that the musical wishes to tell. Fersen has seen revolutions, he’s seen the power of anger; he knows shit is going to hit the fan because he’s familiar with this trajectory. 

Fersen has excellent self control because he knows how a lack thereof would hurt Marie’s reputation and escalate the growing chaos. You can see very clearly how Fersen does want the intimacy, but to him duty and the grander picture has priority. In all the small actions from Fersen you see how he is a savvy intellectual through and through. (More about reservation later).

In contrast to 1789, we also get to see so much more of Fersen in MA because he is the narrator and a main character. Throughout the musical he’s been trying to de-escalate the chaos and even though his plans were actually well thought-out, the problems were just simply too big for any one person to solve. When Fersen mourns Marie there is a clear sense that he is not really surprised, just really upset that things had to come so far. Instead of singing something accusatory to the angry and hungry people, he sings: “fate, why did you give her everything, only to show her hell in the end?” Fersen truly understands why the people were duly angry, but that not taking away his sorrow of losing Marie who he knows is a better person than people make her out to be.

Also in great contrast to 1789, the finale of MA is rather grim. It does not suggest hope or that all problems will eventually disappear. The story for these people have ended, but the problems and the world will continue to our days, and days far beyond ours. It gives a feeling that the world of MA is so extensive that we - the audience - are part of it. In the finale when we see Fersen again, he also stays in tune with this feeling. “How can the problems of the world be solved, what is true justice? We remain clueless” he sings, and the way he looks into the unknown distance is almost a reminder to us that nobody has reason to stop worrying and fight for justice.

1789 - the Lovers of the Bastille

Now if we were to compare MA’s Furu Fersen to 1789′s Fersen, we see a stark contrast between the two. Where Furusen was incredibly reserved and hyper aware of everything, 1789′s Fersen is just the over-romantic lover who had been pining for his love. For a moment Marie realises she probably should not be cheating on her husband and backs away. Fersen however, is the one to make further advances, actively pulling her back to his side.

When he embraces Marie you see how he is just dreaming and indulging, something Furusen would never do. Furusen might hug Marie, but not without sh*tting 50 colours. 1789′s Fersen is the sweeping Romeo that most of history makes him to be, and little more. But again, Fersen plays but a very small role in 1789, so it is also unfair to compare him to MA’s Fersen.

Regardless of whatever nuance might or might not be there however, it is also just quite hard to like this Fersen because he is ‘just another privileged aristocrat who is just needy’. When making out with Marie in Palais Royale they find out that Ronan fell asleep there drunk. Ronan simply complained that Marie was too loud and woke him, and Fersen immediately shuts him up, and then draws his sword at him for ‘speaking rudely’.

First of all Fersen and Marie, if you’re gonna do a clandestine meeting, you CHECK your surroundings. Second of all, FERSEN Ò.Ó, this peasant is untrained and weaponless; you can’t just unleash your high-ranking martial arts at him with a shiny sword. This is EXACTLY the reason the revolution happened; the people were sick of the suppression of the powerless by the powerful. UGHUM. It truly is mind-blowing to consider how 1789 Fersen and MA Fersen are both...Fersens.

This Fersen is not very involved with the revolution from either side. He just proposes to help Marie and the King escape once, but got dismissed immediately. The following time we see him it is in the finale.

There he stands, a knight in shiny armour singing a really hopeful phrase to a relatively upbeat and hopeful music: “do not rely on force, but seek for hope and courage.” Here again unlike with MA’s Fersen, you don’t really feel like this Fersen has experienced anything. It was like he was an employed special guard, told by his boss there’s nothing he needed to do, his boss is dead, and oh wellll, moving on!

Conclusion

Because Marie and Fersen in MA are main characters whose stories are fleshed out, it really is very unfair to compare them to their 1789′s counterparts in a race of ‘who is better’. In the end of the day, 1789′s aim is to sell a spectacle, and it realllly is a phenomenal piece if you’re there for the spectacle. The choreography, songs, stage, everything is masterpiece-level. So if you’re there for the spectacle you get exactly what you went there for. The story and characters however... not so much. If one is more drawn to a direct, glittery spectacle with hands-down-amazing-songs however, they’d probably find Marie and Fersen from 1789 more enjoyable. If you’re into first and impressive impressions, the MA counterparts might demand a BIT too much attention and patience to get into.

Related posts:

Introduction and character analysis Fersen ‘MA’ 2018

Comparative commentary on MA Cast M and Cast A

[rpbetter]

Sorry, I wasn't trying to imply that you were excluding women! I was just chiming in because too often in the RPC's discussions of genderbending, I see women's stake in the conversation get ignored or dismissed. And the people who yell that loudest about it being transphobic also tend to dismiss women's viewpoints with the most aggression, often in a way that reeks of oppression olympics: "At least you have Eowyn, so sit down and shut up." As if we should be grateful for scraps. 1/2

2/2 They act like women are taking something away from the trans community by genderbending, which is an absurd stance. Adding more women doesn't mean we're erasing trans characters. We're both facing the same problem: Massive over-representation of male characters. The people who pit us against each other and turn it into a zero sum game are only making things worse, but they refuse to see that, and if you point that out, you get called transphobic (and often get set death threats, too).

Hello, again! Thank you so much for coming back, I really appreciate that. It's seriously such an extensive issue that I don't think we can have enough voices represented. I'm sorry, too, I didn't mean to imply you did think that for certain! I was just worried I had come across as excluding this really valid point and am definitely aware of how frustrating it feels when people are having a public conversation like this about a topic that has impacted your RP experience (and very like, overall fandom experience as well) without your experience being brought up. I'd feel extremely bad if I made someone feel that way!*

*Which, again, open invitation to anyone on the "this is transphobic" side or even "this is why I'm not comfortable with it" side to politely express themselves. I'm not trying to exclude anyone from this conversation who can have it nicely. If you feel that it can be a civil discussion, you are welcome to drop in and share your thoughts. I continue to irrationally feel that if we can all discuss reasonably where we're coming from that it breeds tolerance. We don't all have to agree, we can politely disagree while expressing our different takes, you know. However, I don't have the time to remind anyone this week that dropping in with aggression isn't going to be rewarded, so, let us please not do that.

Anon, I knew you were going to say Eowyn! I'm not in the LotR fandom, but with something so widely beloved, I have had plenty of friends who were. The same goes with the MCU, you cannot be in the RPC without at least being on the periphery of it, right? It's this way with my primary fandom as well, a predominance of male characters and the female characters you do have tend to lack the nuance and wide degree of choices.

Watching all three, and more, has always reminded me of being the only girl in my friend groups as a child when we played as characters from popular movies. Granted, I didn't want to be the literal only female character available in most of those movies anyway, they were simply not my kinds of characters, and looking back at it, it is kind of gross that my default option as an afab child was a single sexualized female love interest or simply, the sassy love interest. The hostility even as a five-year-old was intense when I refused to play as one of them and insisted on being one of the male characters instead...it was worse the few times when I got much older, like teen older, and did sort of genderbent takes on costumes for things like Halloween. Would have been fine if I was doing it as Sexy Main Character, but since it was simply Implied Gender Swap Main Character, oh no. Not acceptable!

It reminds me of all this because everyone who is comfortable with the choices they have refuse to accept anyone else's choices that have to be redesigned. And, people, look...I understand if someone doesn't like how that changes their canon interaction with the story and their own character, I don't understand vilifying someone for it. Just. Don't. Interact. Like so many things muns have a fit about, genderbending characters are never going to be the majority take, they're never going to be capable of pressuring you to interact purely because of that. No one is forcing anyone to like something or participate in it, I don't even say that someone can't complain about it in their own spaces, just let people live their lives without bringing harassment and trivializing serious matters like transphobia into it.

I think that a lot of the issue stems from the sort of community we have. Bad things generate bad things. The RPC has always been primarily made up of women and a ton of identities from the queer community, this was a safe space for many types of marginalized people to explore and participate uniquely in fandom with each other. Unfortunately, because so many of us are marginalized people, when we're aware that many of our platforms are infiltrated by bad actors, we start seeing them everywhere. Our own bad actors start weaponizing that suspicion and the language.

When it comes to women, there is the idea in fandom, absolutely coming from misogynistic ideas, that all women are interested in are "deviant," sexual stories and ruining spaces with their gross girl things. All women want romance novels, but make it more problematic. In itself, this idea is problematic lol romance novels are quietly popular because they're written as a different sort of fantasy-fulfillment that returns agency to female characters, allows them to be sexual without punishment, and makes them desirable as people, among other things. Any time a RPer is cisgendered female, especially if they are also heterosexual or lesbian, they are instantly categorized as a problem. You're automatically a radfem, a terf, you're fetishizing, etc. That's how any decision you make is going to be addressed.

So, coincidentally, one of the most visible groups doing genderbending is women and it's now transphobic.

I think you're right that it's an issue of "my oppression is worse than you're oppression, and you're now oppressing me." It's unfortunately true that we have women in the RPC that have some really poor takes and actions, but it's also true that we have everyone else here that does as well. This is divisive, and division among the marginalized benefits no one in that category.

All it's doing is exactly what you've said, it's giving a free pass to ignore the problem everyone is dealing with. There are a plethora of cis male characters only. If you don't want to write one, well, your two options are the tiny handful of consolation prize female characters that are nothing like the male ones or writing a transfem character. That's not alright. Turning this into stakes that benefit no one in this community is not alright. Sending people death threats and running them out of the community by essentially blackballing them as being transphobes is not alright. Whom do you people doing this think it is benefiting?

Genderbending a character isn't erasing a trans character. There aren't any canon trans characters in Lord of the Rings, in Marvel's cinematic universe, in Star Wars' film universe, in DC's film universe, I could keep going. Having a very hard time thinking of any hugely popular franchise that has a single canon, on screen depiction of a trans character. Your options are male or female, cisgendered. So, you're literally not erasing what isn't there to erase, for one.

Additionally, making a male canon female and not portraying them as trans isn't doing so either. RPers are not representation. It is, again, perfectly fine to be your own representation, we literally have to do this if we want to write characters more like us as individuals, but it's no one's job here to give you what Hollywood won't. RPers do not have to make themselves uncomfortable and inevitably be harassed for doing it wrong, or honestly, doing it wrong and being highly offensive because they were pressured. RPers are not obligated to interact with each other, either.

Not being comfortable writing with a trans iteration does not make one inherently transphobic either, you're not talking about real people here. If you won't interact with a real trans person, you're transphobic, yes. If you are uncomfortable interacting with a trans RP character, you probably have a valid reason - this damn RPC. It's alright to not want to interact with someone who makes one facet of a character the only facet, or who will become aggressive and accusatory if you don't agree to every plot, ship, etc. supposedly because their character is trans (or anything else). I'm sorry, I know that being treated badly online and off makes one suspicious and ready to jump to accusations and assumptions of others, but it's this very inclination that makes other RPers hesitant to interact with some folks in the RPC.

No, before anyone says it, no one here is under any obligation to be good representation and educational material who is infinitely positive and tolerant as a real, live human being. That's not what I'm saying. Just that the reality has become one of easy and quick accusations that are making other people wary of interacting. No one wants to be accused of being transphobic, racist, misogynistic, or ableist because they don't find your iteration of a character or original character compelling, they don't think you'll mesh as muns and writers, or they don't like any iteration of that character. Maybe, those people are also uncomfortable with how you've acted on the dash, maybe, they're concerned that if they or their character makes a mistake or they need to ask you a sensitive question OOC that pertains to the RP, that you'll explode and label them.

When you create a character who is not the usual, and in popular fandoms, yes, that's neurotypical cishet white male, you have to realize that you're going to run into people who literally don't know about the situations you're putting them into. Not everyone is educated to the same degree or in the same ways, not everyone is, knows, has relatives, or has been in relationships with someone who is ND, trans, a different race, whatever. You have actually opened yourself up to a unique situation, if someone is wanting to write with you, they are also open to learning and you shouldn't be vicious to them when they need to do exactly that.

For example, I witnessed, a few years ago, a RPer get run out of the RPC in my fandom for asking a mun an innocent question, privately, about how they should be approaching a smut scene with the mun's trans character. Their whole point was that they were really afraid of having their character do the wrong thing, say the wrong thing, be offensive. They simply didn't know, and honestly, every person is unique. Every cisgendered person, every trans person, is unique. That they were treating this as an opportunity to appreciate the uniqueness of how this mun's character wished to be viewed etc. and to educate themselves beyond what they had available online, which can be a ton of contrary takes since, again, all individuals, should have been a good thing. The question wasn't impolite, fetishizing, or otherwise gross, either. They were quick to put it up in the callout. Yes, that's an uncomfortable situation, but it was prefaced well, phrased well, and respectful. This person was just trying to be a responsible, respectful, RP partner and ally. They got weeks of death threats, accusations, and bullying that only ended when they deleted their account.

That's what people are afraid of, it is not an unreasonable fear. No more than running into a legitimate transphobe is. We've got to stop treating each other with this kind of automatic suspicion and hostility.

When fear runs things, we all lose.

Anyway, Anon, I'm so sorry that things are like this. No one needs to be happy with the scraps of mega-fandoms or be "transphobic."

I don't dislike the female characters that LotR has, some of them I like quite a bit, but they fall into character types and tropes that do not appeal to me as a writer. Meanwhile, I can think of three male LotR characters that do without trying. Same thing with the MCU, I enjoy two female characters, though both of them I did enjoy much more in the comics, admittedly. However, neither would I wish to write for the same reasons - they both fall into character types and stories that aren't for me as a writer. Again, I can think of a handful of male characters who do. If I wasn't comfortable writing male characters, genderbending would be my choice as well to resolve this problem and remain in my comfort zone as someone who doesn't feel comfortable speaking on myriad trans experiences not my own.

You're not doing anything that the rest of us are not, Anon. We're all out here trying to adapt characters and have fun with them! You do not deserve harassment for that.

[not-poignant]

If you're willing to advise, I really want to start donating to people's drives but i'm very overwhelmed. I can donate about $10 a week comfortably but there are so many people who need help that I don't know how to pick. I get very overwhelmed, and then try to prioritize(impossible), get overwhelmed, and end up not doing anything. I also keep seeing posts saying to factor in ppl's minority status into the decision? like donating to disabled people first. any advice on going forward?

Congrats on being in a place to support others in this way! That’s really awesome <3 Tbh, when I can afford it, I tend to donate most to the ones that resonate the most, whether that’s people in poverty who can’t afford their cat’s bills, or the Western Australian Indigenous Literary Fund which improves literacy outcomes in Indigenous Aboriginal outcomes and supports the publication of books by Indigenous folks. I pretty consistently choose organisations over personal drives, partly because we don’t have the same ‘crowdfunded health’ culture here, and partly because I find it easy to choose by subject - literacy outcomes, Indigenous run organisations, etc. Like I know the things that interest me and there will be charities doing work in that area. Also it can be pretty easy to get scammed by personal drives in certain circumstances.

Like, if you sit there and try and make a spectrum of ‘worst affected’ to ‘least affected’ you’re just going to stress yourself, and you’ll kind of be playing a crappy version of oppression olympics (which is crappy anyway) so as you say, that’s pretty impossible. All oppression sucks. Yes, some situations are absolutely worse than others, and if you feel a pull to donate to those situations, donate to those people and their situations. When you have the means to help people in this situation, you have to accept early on that you can’t help everyone. You can help one organisation or person a week. Picking the one that’s ‘most worthy’ may end up fucking with you (it would with me, I don’t want to be an arbiter of a person’s worth re: donations) -> so I go by resonance, like ‘oh god I know what it’s like to be broke and not able to afford cat vet bills, I’m going to donate’. If anxiety is a huge issue, I would suggest mostly keeping on some links and donating at the very beginning of the week rather than putting it off, and saving the other links somewhere that you can check in the following week. The other thing you can do if anxiety is a huge issue, is donate a $40 block once a month, get it out of the way on the 1st or 2nd of the month so you can relax for the next 4 weeks over it instead of angsting over what the ‘right call’ is.

If anyone else has some advice please leave it in the replies! :)

[rhythmic-idealist]

@dragonofyang reblogged your post and added: “rhythmic-idealist: I’ve talked about this before but I’m thinking...”

I think this is a really excellently-put analysis, because the ancestors as thematic devices is something I really wish Homestuck had expanded on if only to explore avenues such as this. I definitely feel like the text (intentionally or not on Hussie’s part) makes the point about hemophobia and bigotry, but then fails to properly bring it home the way it deserved, especially since one of the main themes of the comic itself is that challenging the status quo of arcs/destiny/etc. is something we can and should do because there is more to life than accepting your fate. In fact I’d even argue that fighting fate is what can really develop a character and a story.

Kankri grew up in a world of “niceness”. Where he’s coddled and cared for and the people are good to him, but he’s ultimately denied his own agency. Instead of overt oppression the way the Signless endured, he grew up in a world of microaggressions and a thousand cuts to his independence. People insisting he not do things or let others help him because it’s their job, regardless of whether he is physically capable or not. He’s not allowed to challenge himself because his destiny is to be cared for and kept in a gilded cage.

The Signless, meanwhile, grew up in a world where if you were off-spectrum, you’ll die and so will everyone you know, everyone you had contact with, and probably their neighbors for good measure and whatever passersby pissed off the subjuggulator doing you in. So in this world, kindness is a radical thing, and the Signless had this unique perspective of being able to remember a world where he, once upon a time, was taken care of and treated with (some) respect as an individual, even if not as an agent with his own free will. Anything is better than the overt violence of Alternia.

And with all the dialogue about free will and fate throughout (but especially toward the end), it would’ve been really beautiful to me to see this addressed more fully as well.

But it’s hard to figure out how to word it since Hussie and the text itself are very closely linked thanks to Homestuck’s unique history/creation, so I totally get your struggle there. I had a hard time figuring out how to respond to you partially because of that. I suppose you could arguably say that the canon text is given to us via an unreliable narration, given the general snark of the omniscient narration, and the deep character flaws that influence the story whenever we follow one specific character’s point of view. I don’t quite remember what character(s) we follow when we get that framing about how Beforus’ softness ruined Kankri, but given how he himself feels about his position in Beforan society, it’s entirely possible the framing is partially due to a character’s viewpoint, so arguing with the text itself is totally appropriate since it’s challenging specific biases characters hold thanks to their upbringing.

I appreciate your response SO much dragonofyang; I didn't say that enough below so I'm taking the time to again right now.

This is a really interesting comment to me and I appreciate it a lot. I think that in response to your point about what framed Kankri like that.... I had to stop and think about that. We get introduced to Kankri through Meenah, and interact with him as Karkat, Latula, and Porrim- and Meenah again, as he later jumps into a conversation she and Horuss are having (and Cro... nus.....? I think?). But I don’t think the framing.... is actually inherently in any of those characters, so what is it?

I think what frames Kankri that was is his existence as satire, and the fact that he’s being interjected into a conversation with context.

If Kankri was just a person, that would be one thing. But we know, immediately, that Kankri is a joke about Tumblr SJWs, in a broader joke about 1) Tumblr users (the nature of Bubblr), and 2) various internet-user tropes in general.

So there already is a joke about soft snowflake SJWs. There already is a perception that SJWs are sheltered from the real problems of the world, and that being less sheltered would help them- to the point that people think that things like trigger warnings, people asking that you use the proper language about their gender and orientation, and other things that are either accessibility tools or seeking a kinder but not fake, playing-pretend, or damaging world are bad.

There’s already this perception that softness creates sheltered people with no character development and trauma helps people build character, and with characters like Kankri and the Signless, they would fundamentally be inserted into that conversation whether Kankri was an intentional joke about it or not. And then, when deciding what to do about that- Kankri became a joke that targeted things that fundamentally upheld the “pull yourself up by your bootstraps”/“not only are all SJWs actually bad and damaging, but the reason they’re bad and damaging is because they were too soft and sheltered in their safe spaces” mentality.

And I am trying to be fair to Homestuck. More than I have tried to give benefit of the doubt, in the past. If you left Openbound with that impression, it could have been to play along with your those preexisting statements just to pull the rug from under you- like how you thought for a while (I admit to the fact that I did) that Bro training Dave sucked, but was just cartoon logic, and then the rug was pulled from under you and it was actually just abuse because abuse is real in this universe because these are people.

Kankri could have been set up to surface level enforce the idea that soft places generate what actual flaws he has (inconsistent ideology, weaponizing the language of progressive ideology against people he has personal grudges against, expending more care on looking right and sounding right than how you’re actually impacting people, playing oppression olympics) and then subverted with a jump back to look at Beforus properly- oho, no, look at all these little seeds I’ve planted, it is actually a complex web of oppressive forces, emotional safeguards built against them, poor resources and influences, and propaganda that did this. This is actually what happens when you build a planet that tries to softly coddle someone to sleep every time a hint of non-logic-based emotion slips into their argument. This is actually what happens when you beat down someone’s ability to emotionally connect with the people who need them most. This is actually what happens when you take someone who is primed to be The Signless and make them more terrified of being wrong than of the fallout their actions have on their friends. (And more. I don’t want to make this way longer than it is but please please know I know I know it’s more.)

But it didn’t.

So I can stand here and know that the seeds were planted, but they didn’t even- it doesn’t even clarify at any point to me whether they were planted intentionally, and at the end of the day, in terms of which messages I would ever hold Homestuck responsible for- whether the seeds for this argument were planted intentionally or not doesn’t matter to me. Right now, if they were, it would just be plausible deniability, in a joke that punches down and laughs not only at the places Kankri was wrong but several of the ones in which he was right or trying in the right way.

So anyway, I hold canon responsible for laughing at trigger warnings and MOGAI/“unusual” LGBTQ+ identities and (arguably, I need to fact check this) activism that isn’t (White) Feminism First, Everything Else After, etc.

Whether it’s saying that Beforus’s softness made the Signless into Kankri is I guess not the same as that, so I got off topic for a second.

But that last long paragraph, “the seeds were planted but-,” is what explains why I feel like I’m arguing with the text instead of explaining its authorial intent. The lens you were talking about turns out to be the fact that Kankri is satire, in a world that already has one extremely common way to satirize this thing, which Kankri wound up matching- despite any other content about him, because that content hasn’t been used to subvert this or twist against this- beat for beat.

[loudlytransparenttrash]

But why take the smartest students that will work hard when you can have diversity! Seriously it's so stupid. Just make a (good) test, no need to take in account race, gender or even your social status.

Exactly. Education is supposed to be based on the principle that through hard work and dedication you can achieve anything. But even this basic key for success which is proven by millions of people of every race is today “whiteness ideology,” according to a professor who criticized her students for believing “if I work hard, I can be successful,” “everyone has an equal opportunity to achieve success” and we are “socialized to believe that we got to where we are…because of our own individual efforts.” Two University of South Carolina professors also expressed their concern about white students being “color blind” (as if that’s a bad thing) because white students agreed that hard work plays a bigger role in achieving success than one’s race. Here’s the “implicit bias” checklist going around our schools which is used to expose students who don’t provide an acceptable answer to the statements as being “color blind.” 

You’re right, surely a blind admissions policy that doesn’t discriminate on race, only rewards achievement and hard work is the fairest available? According to University of Southern Indiana, students must “reject colorblindness,” as it’s today racist and micro-aggressive when white people say, “I don’t see color when I look at people.” A “good ally” instead identifies and “acknowledges the oppressed and disadvantaged group” to which the person belongs, and then behaves accordingly around them in order to “reduce their own complicity or collusion in the oppression” of that group. The moment we place race above hard work and achievement, we end up with our current situation where unprepared blacks are thrown into the deep end to satisfy racial quotas, where 50 percent linger at the bottom of their classes and are four times more likely to fail exams. We also get Princeton accepting students if they write #BLM a hundred times on their application and professors being called racist and protested for correcting a black student’s spelling and grammar. 

Well somebody’s gotta study Kendrick Lamar, Beyonce and Black Feminism  and Black Lives Matter: Race, Resistance and Popular Protest. The ever-expanding array of ethnic and race theory studies being made up from thin air by our schools is making plenty of students feel they’re learning something important and they’re going to change the world but in reality, for every black person who’s suckered into taking these courses rather than learning anything that can lead to a job afterwards, then all we’re doing is keeping them uneducated, unemployed and in debt, but as long as the university is making money and they can boast about their diverse student body, who cares? 

It’s hard to believe that “progressives” think they’re actually doing a favor to black Americans by telling them their underachievement and poor test scores is the fault of white people so they’ll be still rewarded anyway to “say sorry.” Imagine if we saw at the Olympics, an Asian athlete or white athlete having to hand over their medal to a black athlete because the podium wasn’t racially diverse. Progressives say the medal is owed to the black person simply for being black, conservatives say it’s only owed to him when he earns it, just like everyone else. If racism is prejudice directed against someone of a race based on the belief that their race is inferior, then what do we call it when schools and politicians are telling black students that they’ll never be good or intelligent enough to pass a test and be admitted on their own merits?

The world has dramatically changed since the first affirmative action policies were put in place almost 60 years ago, it’s probably a good time to put it to bed and start treating black people as equals rather than hopeless invalids. While I’m not suggesting that the playing field has been completely leveled, there’s plenty of barriers that the poor have to overcome to obtain their education, to make the claim that it is justifiable to elevate certain groups solely based on skin color all because “it’s about time” or “diversity” not only ignores the self-inflicting impact it has on blacks but also the backlash it causes against Asian Americans. An admission policy that keeps blacks uneducated, unskilled, broke and unemployed, and removes a large percentage of Asian Americans from the school? They’re really stickin’ it to those oppressive white people, aren’t they? It still boggles my mind how conservatives have been pinned with the racist tag.

[sophygurl]

Beyond the Fix or How do I Live This F***ing Life? - WisCon 41 panel write-up

These tend to be long and only of interest to specific segments of folk so click the clicky to read.

Disclaimers:

I hand write these notes and am prone to missing things, skipping things, writing things down wrong, misreading my own handwriting, and making other mistakes. So this is by no means a full transcript.

Corrections, additions, and clarifications are most welcome. I’ve done my best to get people’s pronouns and other identifiers correct, but please do let me know if I’ve messed any up. Corrections and such can be made publicly or privately on any of the sites I’m sharing these write-ups on(tumblr and dreamwidth for full writings, facebook and twitter for links), and I will correct ASAP.

My policy is to identify panelists by the names written in the programming book since that’s what they’ve chosen to be publicly known as. If you’re one of the panelists and would prefer something else - let me know and I’ll change it right away.

For audience comments, I will only say general “audience member” kind of identifier unless the individual requests to be named.

Any personal notes or comments I make will be added in like this [I disagree because blah] - showing this was not part of the panel vs. something like “and then I spoke up and said blah” to show I actually added to the panel at the time.

Beyond the Fix or How do I Live This F***ing Life?

Moderator: R. Elena Tabachnick. Panelists: Kate Carey, Shayla D, Jesse the K, Lenore Jean Jones

#BeyondTheFix - for some good livetweets and resources

The panel started out with some good-natured joking about the moderator being late for reasons having to do with the panel topic and how they’d just get started. 

Jesse introduced herself by saying “I’m a loud mouth”, as well as talking about how she’s been coming to WisCon for a long time and worked with others on improving access at the con and has watched how WisCon has improved and embraced better understandings around disability over the years.

Kate introduced herself by saying this was her 4th WisCon and that the membership assistance fund is what allowed her to get to her 1st one. She’s a champion of talking about invisible disabilities, and as a larger woman she gets especially tired of people who say “well if you exercises more...” [hear hear Kate!]

Lenore introduced herself by telling us this was her 20th WisCon, that she is Hard of Hearing but passes as hearing, and also that she is depressed. She touched on how depression is often co-morbid with other disabilities, or is often exacerbated by other disabilities.

Shayla introduced herself as someone who is both disabled and taking care of her mom who is disabled. Shayla talked about how she is just blind enough that she can’t drive but not blind enough that anyone gives her any money for it. When her pain symptoms were growing, she had doctors tell her it was all in her head, and once it was diagnosed, she was like “why yes, the cause was in my pituitary gland which is in my head thanks!” 

Elena came in during the intros so was able to give hers at the end of this - she has a rare genetic disease, but insurance won’t pay for the genetic testing to confirm this. She never thought of herself as disabled, as she’s had this since she was a kid. She didn’t have a diagnosis, so everyone just thought she was weird. She kept getting more disabled, and had to keep giving up more things. 

Right now she can’t leave her house for long, she can’t wear shoes or socks. It took her a long time to call herself disabled, but now she loves the identity - it helps to be able to say this about herself. 

Jesse talked about having had mental health issues “since jump”, but that she didn’t know it was something that could be dealt with. In her 20′s, she started having pain everywhere and was diagnosed with fibro and cfs. Eventually, she stopped working and got to have the Disabled label. 

She has also worked with Blind and Deaf communities and realized how much assistive technology and community can help. She applied that to herself, and realized how much using a wheelchair could help her. She was waiting for some authority figure to give her the Disabled label, but finally just took it and claimed it for herself. 

A big change came when Jesse realized she didn’t have to be independent but could be interdependent.  [I have a buncha stars and underlines in my notes right here - thanks Jesse!]

Kate talked about struggles she’s had because when she was “just fat”, she didn’t want that identity to define her life or limit her. Then she became sick and wanted to feel the same way about that but her symptoms included being unable to breathe and she had doctors telling her to lose weight. She felt like fatness was seen as a moral failing. She felt ashamed and at fault for her own sickness. 

She realized she was willing to go to bat for friends, for example, who smoked and had COPD - but when it came to defending herself, it was another issue. At first she took on the label of “sick” but not “disabled” because sickness was something you could get better from. WisCon has been helpful to Kate in accepting disability. 

Shayla talked about how her first neurological disorder was something that happened primarily to fat people. She found her family blamed one another for making her fat, and therefore causing her blindness. Her stance was - who cares how I got this way, this is now, let’s deal with it. 

Shayla likes to pop out her white cane because her other disabilities are invisible, but when she uses the white cane, she’s more visible as disabled. When people tell her “you don’t look blind”, she replies “you didn’t look like an asshole...” (general laughing from the audience).

She talked about wanting something like a “crip card” to be able to show to people to prove she’s really disabled. Much laughter and discussion ensues on this topic.

Lenore talked about having impostor syndrome around disability; being “not disabled enough” or “not Deaf enough”. 

At this point, a funny conversation happens around the live captioning of the panel and how other panelists are reading over Lenore’s shoulder in fascination as their own words scroll by.

Lenore continued with a story about talking with Jesse and apologizing for not being able to hear her and Jesse telling her not to say sorry about that and how much it meant to her. She didn’t know she was Deaf until she was 15, so she had subconsciously learned to lip read. 

Shayla said - instead of apologizing, say “thank you for being patient with me” and referenced a comic online on the topic (check the hashtag - it’s linked to a couple of times). 

An audience member brought up that all of this apologizing in regards to our disabilities has to do with the social model of disability.

Elena talked about having to say no to things and how adopting the Disabled label helped to give her permission to do that. Before that, she was broken and felt at fault.

Kate talked about how our self-worth is based on our ability to work and contribute something to society. She stated that she could work under some very specific circumstances, but even then she would lose much needed benefits. She gets told “if you just had more gumption!” We apologize because our disabilities are seen as a moral failing. 

[Kate then made some comments comparing abelism to racism which felt a lil oppression olympic-ey to me in regards to wishing people could see disabilities as just a part of who we are the way race is. My personal thought on this is that there absolutely are people who see poc as having a moral failing due to their race, as well, so I get where Kate was trying to take this analogy but I feel like most analogies of this kind tend to fall apart on further inspection. Another comment was about how she strives to do colorblind reading so she isn’t taking the author’s race into account when choosing a book or while reading it, which again, I think is a very well-meant intention but that taken in practice as a whole would end up with many poc authors not being read because publishing and marketing practices are already set up against them so if we don’t specifically make attempts to read more books written by poc - we won’t be finding as many of them to read. 

I discussed this with Kate afterwards and she agrees that the analogy falls apart and wishes she’d phrased things differently, just FYI.]

Somewhere in there, Shayla made her patented case against kale-pushers and I jumped in to add “well if you Deep Fry the kale...”

(Either Elena or Lenore, my handwriting is not clear here) said that if people blame us for our disabilities, it allows them to believe that it won’t happen to them.

Jesse brought up the role capitalism plays in all of this, and how it’s not a good system. Also the failure of the medical system - it doesn’t work for people like us, so we annoy them. Additionally, some spiritual traditions have the idea of health as being a gift from God, so what does that mean for those of us who don’t have it?

Shayla talked about social issues involved when you have to cancel on friends so many times that they give up on you.

Elena talked about her dislike of the Paralympics - not the people who do it, but the cultural stuff around it as “inspirational.” This allows people to think that even if they do become disabled, they can be one of those ones who can do all this other stuff. 

Often, even if fiction, you only know a character is disabled due to the occasional mention of their wheelchair - otherwise they’re described exactly like the other characters. They never get tired, need downtime, require help with transfers or bathing, etc. It’s not a realistic portrayal of disability.

She added on to what Shayla had said above saying that she has difficulty socializing because she can’t leave her house. 

Kate talked about how online gaming helps her - she can interact with people on her own terms. She talks about “painsomnia” [ha! yes! great word!] and how she is often up at random times and being able to socialize online at those times helps. 

Kate and Lenore both agree that the word “should” is toxic. 

Kate said another helpful aspect of the gaming was that she found games she was good at. She was good at her job and losing that was hard, so finding something else she could feel proud of herself about has helped a lot. The fact that this is something that isn’t valued by society is frustrating.

She revisited the topic beforehand about inspiration porn and said it’s not even about the disabled person really, but about the abled people around them. 

Kate talked about giving herself a gold star some days just for getting out of bed, or getting dressed, etc. She talked about her “standing skills” as another thing society doesn’t value enough.

Jesse discussed how she has coped over the years by waving her hand up and down. She defined herself as a brain in a jar who could learn things - and then that was the last thing that she lost. She has coped in part by splitting herself somewhat mentally from past selves and can look back and say that she is so glad to know that person that could do those things without that being a judgement on who she is today. [my notes at this point read “me: crying” because I was sobbing my eyes out at the wisdom of this that I desperately needed]

Lenore said she is still working on that whole gold star thing. She is trying to reframe things from “I ought to be able to...” to “this is what I can do now.” [phew! yea.]

Elena talked about still doing the grief thing and how depression is connected to not being able to do things. [my notes: the grief never fully stops]

She talked about being in an online writing community but how she isn’t writing now, and re: Kate’s gaming thing - she is still seeking that thing that she’s good at and can do.

Kate said it’s okay to grieve it the same way you would the loss of a family member. Grief continues on but it’s not always as hard as it is at first all of the time.

An audience member talked about how all they can currently do is work and sleep and how to survive if they can’t get disability. They are worried because they need insurance but can’t work full time - when do they reach a point where they can apply for disability? The panelists all answer pretty much together that it sounds like they already ARE at that point - it’s time to start applying. Fill out the forms for your worst days, not your best - that’s a common mistake.

The audience member said their doctor tells them “well you’ve managed so far...” I and other audience members and the panelists all agree - then they need a new doctor! 

Jesse emphasized that the system has failed us, not the other way around. 

Kate brought up the ticket to work program and told the audience member to start the disability process now so they don’t get stranded. [v. good advice]

Elena talked about getting a geriatric doctor if you can because they’re less concerned with issues around weight loss and about fixing you - they know you’re going to die anyway so shrug. (big laugh)

There’s a moment where everyone sings Jesse’s praises as someone who is both a good resource on how to manage this stuff on a personal level and as someone who has good resources for others. I nodded emphatically through all of this and here’s another great thing about Jesse - instead of deflecting, she just smiled and took the compliments. What a good role model! 

Shayla talked about her struggles with being able to work for awhile, then crashing, being homeless, being able to work for awhile, rinse repeat and having people say “well you can work...”

(Edited to add at Shayla’s request that she also said “I COULD work... If it was at a job I could do in the dark, on my back, *legally*. (Hell, illegally has crossed​ my mind many a time.)”)

Kate talked about how applying for disability is work. 

Shayla talked about the difficulty in not knowing how she’s going to feel day to day, even minute to minute. 

Lenore stressed the importance of asking for things that we need. 

I added from the audience that to add to the list of toxic words - “burden”. Thinking of ourselves that way makes it hard to ask for what we need. 

Jesse talked about how giving is a help too. So asking for help allows other people to give in that way. 

Kate said that love is asking for help, because it shows that we’re putting our trust in them.

An audience member talked about The Ultimate Guide to Sex and Disability as being a beneficial resource to reclaiming their sexuality.

Another audience member talked about a youtuber - ability powered - a disabled gamer who likes to help other disabled folk in gaming.

Someone else from the audience talked about having a sister who is disabled who she lives far away from and wants to know how to help. 

Kate stressed listening and acknowledging. Ask what she is doing not how she is doing. Sometimes the best thing is getting to vent to someone who isn’t the same three people she talks to everyday [yes, this!]. It can be really helpful to be asked if you want to vent or need help problem solving - or even do you just want me to do the talking for awhile. 

An audience member offered that arranging for things like prepared meal deliveries and cleaning can be of use.

Kate said framing things like the above as “I want to do this for you” so they feel better about accepting it. She also added that she enjoys skyping with people she doesn’t get to visit with so she can actually see them.

Kate talked about having to skype to her mother’s funeral and how at least she was able to be part of it in that way. She also brought up FB live as ways to take disabled people to things they couldn’t otherwise go to.

An audience member also stressed the importance of knowing the people in their lives WILL say no if they can’t, which makes it easier to ask them. They can trust them to be honest about their limits.

Lenore emphasized offering to just hang out with someone and not talk if they don’t have the energy to talk - just be there with them.

We hit overtime for the panel and Kate said “I just have a few more things” - at which point I lol’ed (having paneled with Kate before) and closed my notebook so I don’t recall what those few more things were - sorry!

But do check the hashtag for this one, as folks did add many of the resources that were brought up during the panel. 

[loudlytransparenttrash]

The reality of feminism

Feminists themselves say that they are a movement for gender equality without batting an eye. To them, it is such a normal and simple thing that they can’t believe they have to explain themselves. But of course, action speaks louder than words. You must understand that what feminists claim their movement is supposed to be and what it actually is are two completely different things. 

The plain truth is that: Feminism has never been a movement for equality. Feminism has always been about maximizing women's power at the expense of men. The feminists want: special treatment just by crying victim, privileges without responsibility, advantages just for being a female, government protection and funding, and for men to serve their every fickle whims and demands. Simply put, they want a world that revolves around them. And of course, they will deny this. When have they ever admitted to the truth? I would actually be disappointed if they told the truth about their own nature. Instead, they lie with even greater emotional hysteria and cower behind the word ‘equality’ as usual. 

The reason this lie of ‘equality’ is repeated over and over again by them is because no one would accept its hateful and toxic ideology at its face value. Feminism had to be sugar-coated with the ideals of liberation, freedom, and equality so that the general public would swallow it. And so it happened: everyone from naive women and women with chip on their shoulders to groveling men bought into the ugly lie of feminism. And feminism is a movement that can only exist through lies. Feminism needs deception as much as fish needs water, for its entire ideology is based on twisted facts. And there are no ends to the lies, the double-standards, and the hypocrisy of feminism:

• Feminists have distorted history to make it appear as though they’ve been exclusively oppressed throughout the ages.  • Feminists continue to lie about the wage gap, which has already been debunked many times over. • Feminists lie about rape statistics to whip up the hysteria of “rape culture” to shame, control, and subjugate men. • Feminists complain about how men slut-shaming women when women are, by far, more judgemental of each other's sexual ventures. • Feminists complain about how there aren't enough women in the tech field when, in fact, women are twice more likely to be hired for STEM faculty positions. • Feminists continually drone about violence against women, but they say nothing about the violence against men who are far more likely to be victims in all types of violence. (Why not campaign to stop all violence?) • Feminists complain about non-existent biases against women, but they remain completely silent to alt the biases against men within the legal system from divorce settlements to sentencing for crimes. There are countless examples of women getting away with crimes that men would be punished for which they also conveniently ignore. • Feminists whine non-stop about how there aren't enough women in science and engineering programs, ignoring the fact that women are less likely to opt for it by choice, and also ignoring the fact that women dominate almost all other fields in colleges and universities. To them, having far more women in post-secondary education than men is progress while having more men than women in one specific field is a sign of institutional sexism. • Feminists have done nothing to ensure "equality" for men other than to spread sickening lies, treat them all like potential rapists, harass and attack them, and send death threats and rape threats, yet they want men to take action to do more to help their cause and play a supplicating role to them.

And this is only the beginning. It doesn't matter how many of the above facts you point out to a feminist, she just will not care. She will rationalize them, downplay them, or just flat out ignore them, but she will never accept them. The only thing feminists will do in the face of truth is to double down on their victim rhetoric and scream "sexism" and 'misogynist' to shut you down. Feminists love telling people, especially men, how to think, talk, and behave, but they will not tolerate an ounce of disagreement from a man even if he was a feminist himself. 

You have to understand that these are not sensible human beings that we're dealing with. Many feminists are manipulative and full of spite, zealously looking for men to blame their problems on. Feminism is akin to a cult where its members vent out their blind hatred through their collective hysteria and emotionally directed delusions. 

I cannot emphasize enough just how unimportant the truth is to the feminists. Truth is a mere obstacle as the only thing that matters to them is themselves. The all-important question for them is: Does this further the agenda of expanding women's power while diminishing men's? If the answer to that question is a 'yes', the feminists will not be concerned whether it is the truth or not. They will tell the truth if it serves their purpose and they will tell lies if it maximizes women's power while decreasing their responsibility. Expecting feminists to be honest is as vain as expecting birds to mind where they shit - they simply don't care. 

And I don't believe that feminists themselves understand their own nature. They are delusional to a point of believing in their own lies. Their rational mind is either not functioning properly or have been hijacked by their unstable emotionality. They seem to be living in their own bubbles that cannot be penetrated by the truth, and their weakness and fragility to the real world only serves to cement their group-think. It’s no wonder they believe in something as ludicrous as the “Patriarchy” even as they live in a society that pampers them like children.

The reason they save their most vile hatred for the men's rights groups is because they see them as competitors for the victim olympics. How dare do men ask for rights? There is only a finite supply of victim-privileges given out by society and the feminists can’t stand having competitors who threaten their monopoly.

These same feminists whose entire movement is based on playing the victim will mock any men for adapting to the social situation and using the same tactics as them. Suddenly, when they see others playing the victim, the ludicrousness of it all becomes apparent, but they can’t seem to hold up the mirror to see their own ludicrous existence. Perhaps like Medusa, they implicitly understand that it will be fatal.

Know that feminists are noxious and emotionally unstable individuals who use their equally demented ideology to vent out their rage out onto men. The irony is, they don't even seem to be aware that their entire existence is possible because of all the powerful men in governments and corporations who support them. Do they really expect to be able to harass and attack men on their own without taking advantage of the system and other supplicating men? But as rve said in the beginning, hypocrisy is a fundamental trait of feminists. They will continue to attack men as they get support from them at the same time. There is no irony or contradiction here. 

And what do these feminists want exactly? To understand the kind of world these feminists want to create, you only have to look at the direction the feminist infested societies are heading towards.

We already live in a society that expels men from universities without an evidence or due process with a mere accusation of rape. We live in a society where women can destroy a man's career, reputation, and life just for arguing with her on social media. We live in a society where a man will be charged for rape just for walking past a woman. This is the kind of world we already live in, and the feminists are campaigning to make everything even worse for men just for the crime of being men. 

Will feminists ever be satisfied? No. Since their true goal is not equality, they will never be satisfied no matter how much they're given. You give into one of their demands and they will conjure up ten new ones. They're continuously on the search for new things to get offended by, new ways to police and restrict people, and new ways to define sexism and rape to perpetuate their eternal victimhood. This is a movement with a bottomless pit that will devour any and all notion of human decency. 

From all my experiences interacting with feminists, I have decided that the great majority of them are either emotional vampires who drain your energy to feed their own egos or just complete human trash who exist only to put men down, thus making up for their own insecurities. 

Feminists have destroyed the relationship between the sexes and like any other extremists, they have even attacked the group they're supposedly advocating for: other women, for not accepting their dogma. I don't think feminism will go away completely anytime soon as long as the current socio-cultural system remains intact and as long as their daddy government supports their movement but we have started to see their demise with the country standing up to the social justice circus, they know their movement is slowly dying and just like any feral animal that’s been kicked to the side and waiting for its death, we are seeing them lash out more than viciously than ever but it’s only a matter of time before they collapse. 

In the meantime, I think the best way to fight back against feminism is to laugh at their tantrums and buzzword insults and keep telling the truth so that decent men and women around the world can see it for the disease that it is.