#human beings are flawed. men are flawed. women are flawed

[icarus-phaethon]

Men are loved conditionally only women are loved unconditionally

“Men earned their place and women were inherently valued for being women” Oh yeah? Why are we living in patriarchy and not matriarchy? Why are men’s rights unconditional and women’s rights conditional to how well it serves men? Why are women murdered for not performing their roles defined by men but men get away w being nothing but burden? Women are bad wives for not providing free labor but men are never bad husbands if they are broke as long as he isn’t killing her he is a good reputable man even if he overburdens her, even if hits her, cheats on her, he is a good husband and she should look past his flaws, women have to earn their place by racing to be fuckable by men’s standards, her value as a human discarded is she doesn’t get his dick hard, her value as a mother discarded if she didn’t change her whole life and sacrifice everything for her kids, her worth as wife solely depends on how well she does the job of a maid, how much sex she offers, she earns her place everyday by working, by her womb, she becomes replaceable as soon as she is deemed defected by patriarchy if she can’t have kids. Women have it easy and are loved unconditionally is a cope and a patriarchal lie.

[idiosyncraticrednebula]

If you expect your significant other to be "perfect", boy are you gonna be in a lot of trouble.

[uncanny-tranny]

The worst lie you can believe and be told is that women are emotional and men are logical, that men's, essentially, men's emotions are logical and neutral while women's are not, and are in fact frivolous and shallow.

[fortyfive-forty]

.

[yioh]

the whole csm discourse on twitter is so dumbbbbb oh my god😭

[wo-der-horizont-beginnt]

blows my mind how people can spend hours of brain power working out how two men who never touch or even like each other much in canon might eventually get it on, but see a woman who's emotions and motivations aren't spelled out in baby words and dismiss her. or see a woman who's been written in a way that is, sure, not stellar, and do the same. or see a woman and do the same.

[aroacehanzawa]

The Half Life of Valery K by Natasha Pulley would be so good if it was good

[drdemonprince]

The Barbie Movie is confused -- and it is confused on purpose, because it can't actually acknowledge the role that capitalism and white supremacy play in the patriarchal system that it wants to give itself credit for acknowledging. And so the film introduces patriarchy as a force with no agent or system behind it.

Ken, an oafish goof is able to find the concept of patriarchy and transmit it to the entirety of his society simply by learning about it and speaking about it to his fellow Kens. There is no use of force, no political organizing (notably, the Kens try to take over the political system after they have already taken hold of the culture), no real persuasion even -- simply by hearing about patriarchy the women in Barbieworld somehow become brainwashed by it.

This means we never have to really see the Kens as genuine antagonists, we can still laugh at their bizarrely crammed-together multiple dance numbers and forgive them when they, like the women, are freed of the patriarchy simply by women speaking about the fact that sexism exists. Both the origins of patriarchy and the solution to it is as simple as an individual person telling their story.

The CEOs that run Mattel in the Real World in the film are similarly cartoonish and devoid of real agency. They're even portrayed as generically interested in the idea of Barbie being inspiring to girls. The movie can't even acknowledge their profit motive, and it can't make any of the men running the company look too powerful or even too morally suspect -- but the film does still want to have Barbie encounter sexism in the real world and grapple with the harm "she" (the consumer product, and not the social forces and human beings that created her) has supposedly done.

In the Barbie Movie, patriarchy is a genie in a bottle, and no one is to blame - except maybe Barbie herself, since the movie spends a significant amount of time discussing how she is responsible for giving women unrealistic beauty standards.

And so Barbie is depicted as both sexism's victim and sexism's fault. She's dropped into a patriarchal world that the film acknowledges has a menacing, condescending quality -- but the film can't even have an underlying working theory of where this danger comes from, and who had the power to create this patriarchy in the first place, because that would require being critical of Mattel and capitalism.

And in the film, ultimately the real world with all its flaws and losses and injustices is still preferable to Barbieworld, because you get to have such depth of feeling and experience and you get a vagina, so how bad could really be? And hey, when you think about it, the Barbieworld is just an inversion of the real world, isn't it? A world with women in power is just reverse sexist, so it was justifiable for the Kens to want to take over, and what does it say that all things being equal Barbie still would prefer to leave behind her matriarchy and join the patriarchal capitalist world? That's the real world. Real world is struggle and sexism and loss and pain and capitalism and death and we must accept all of it but it's worth it..

It's not that I'm surprised the film's a clarion call for personal choice white feminism and consumer capitalism. I just expected the call to be a little more seductive or in any way coherent. I wanted to have frothy fun, and instead I was more horrified by the transparency of its manipulation than I was by even the most unsettling moments in Oppenheimer.

[idiosyncraticrednebula]

I feel like whenever people discuss "gender roles" on social media and just in society at large, they simplify it way too damn much.

[batmanisagatewaydrug]

Do you have a list of good sex ed books to read?

BOY DO I

please bear in mind that some of these books are a little old (10+ years) by research standards now, and that even the newer ones are all flawed in some way. the thing about research on human beings, and especially research on something as nebulous and huge as sex, is that people are Always going to miss something or fail to account for every possible experience, and that's just something that we have to accept in good faith. I think all of these books have something interesting to say, but that doesn't mean any of them are the only book you'll ever need.

related to that: it's been A While since I've read some of these so sorry if anything in them has aged poorly (I don't THINK SO but like, I was not as discerning a reader when I was 19) but I am still including them as books that have been important to my personal journey as a sex educator.

additionally, a caveat that very few of these books are, like, instructional sex ed books in the sense of like "here's how the penis works, here's where the clit is, etc." those books exist and they're great but they're also not very interesting to me; my studies on sex are much more in the social aspect (shout out to my sociology degree) and the way people learn to think about sex and societal factors that shape those trends. these books reflect that. I would genuinely love to have the time to check out some 101 books to see how they fare, but alas - sex ed is not my day job and I don't have the time to dedicate to that, so it happens slowly when it happens at all. I've been meaning to read Dr. Gunter's Vagina Bible since it came out in 2019, for fucks sake.

and finally an acknowledgement that this is a fairly white list, which has as much to do with biases with academia and publishing as my own unchecked biases especially early in my academic career and the limitations of my university library.

ANYWAY here's some books about sex that have been influential/informative to me in one way or another:

The Trouble With Normal: Sex, Politics, and the Ethics of Queer Life (Michael Warner, 1999)

Virginity Lost: An Intimate Portrait of First Sexual Experiences (Laura M. Carpenter, 2005)

Virgin: The Untouched History (Hanne Blank, 2007)

Sex Goes to School: Girls and Sex Education Before the 1960s (Susan K. Freeman, 2008)

Bonk: The Curious Coupling of Science and Sex (Mary Roach, 2008)

Transgender History: The Roots of Today's Revolution (Revised Edition) (Susan Stryker, 2008)

The Purity Myth: How America's Obsession with Virginity is Hurting Young Women (Jessica Valenti, 2009)

Not Under My Roof: Parents, Teens, and the Culture of Sex (Amy T. Schalet, 2011)

Straight: The Surprisingly Short History of Heterosexuality (Hanne Blank, 2012)

Rewriting the Rules: An Integrative Guide to Love, Sex and Relationships (Meg-John Barker, 2013)

The Sex Myth: The Gap Between Our Fantasies and Realities (Rachel Hills, 2015)

Come as You Are: The Surprising New Science That Will Tranform Your Sex Life (Emily Nagoski, 2015)

Not Gay: Sex Between Straight White Men (Jane Ward, 2015)

Too Hot to Handle: A Global History of Sex Education (Jonathan Zimmerman, 2015)

American Hookup: The New Culture of Sex on Campus (Lisa Wade, 2017)

Histories of the Transgender Child (Jules Gill-Peterson, 2018)

Revolting Prostitutes: The Fight for Sex Workers' Rights (Juno Mac and Molly Smith, 2018)

Ace: What Asexuality Reveals About Desire, Society, and the Meaning of Sex (Angela Chen, 2020)

Pleasure in the News: African American Readership and Sexuality in the Black Press (Kim Gallon, 2020)

A Curious History of Sex (Kate Lister, 2020)

Boys & Sex: Young Men on Hookups, Love, Porn, Consent, and Navigating the New Masculinity (Peggy Orenstein, 2020)

Black Women, Black Love: America's War on Africa American Marriage (Dianne M. Stewart, 2020)

The Tragedy of Heterosexuality (Jane Ward, 2020)

Hurts So Good: The Science and Pleasure of Pain on Purpose (Leigh Cowart, 2021)

Strange Bedfellows: Adventures in the Science, History, and Surprising Secrets of STDs (Ina Park, 2021)

The Right to Sex: Feminist in the Twenty-First Century (Amia Srinivasan, 2021)

Love Your Asian Body: AIDS Activism in Los Angeles (Eric C. Wat, 2021)

Superfreaks: Kink, Pleasure, and the Pursuit of Happiness (Arielle Greenberg, 2023)

[transvarmint]

In discussions about transandrophobia, someone who is opposed to the concept will almost inevitably bring up Whipping Girl, or other [trans]feminist texts.

One of the biggest claims about the term transandrophobia, is that its a misuse or misunderstanding of feminist language and/or theory.

What people fail to understand is that the term is not a misunderstanding of feminist theory, it is an intentional critique of it.

Unfortunately, much of feminist theory completely ignores the existence of trans men. When we are acknowledged, we are typically treated as an afterthought. Our oppression is frequently diminished, and we are often treated as "collateral damage" - people are only ever coincidentally harmed in the aftermath of attacks on women. It is almost never recognized that we can be the direct targets of violence.

Our existence and our experience with oppression is treated as an inconvenience, or an exception case - because we challenge the core assumption that men as a class benefit from misogyny more than they are harmed by (i.e., that all men have male privilege).

Many people who are not trans men will make claims about our oppression and experiences, while completely leaving us out of the conversation. The preservation of pre-established academic theory is prioritized over giving us a voice to challenge those preconceptions.

The actual lived experiences of trans men can and should take precedent over currently standing academic frameworks. If trans men's discussions of our lives doesn't fit into feminist theory, than its the theory that should change - not the actual human beings who are speaking up about our experiences.

Feminism, like any other social theory, has always been flawed in some ways, and has historically excluded many oppressed groups. Until eventually members of those groups spoke up, made their voices heard, and didn't stop until those frameworks changed to be inclusive of their experiences.

We are no exception. No matter how uncomfortable it makes you, we are here to challenge people's assumptions about gender-based oppression. We have read the theory people keep citing and we are criticizing it because it leaves us out of the conversation. Telling us over and over that our experiences don't fit those frameworks will not silence us. If our voices don't fit into your understanding of feminism, its time for your understanding to change!

[butch-reidentified]

anyone here seen the show Resident Alien?

bc holy shit am I obsessed with the portrayal of 30-something women, their solidarity, feminism, friendship, and fun and self-expression! GODDD I did not realize how BADLY I needed to see a tv show actually depict (attractive but not "bikini models" by any means) adult (and admit they're adults, real adults not 20 yr olds) women as human beings with deep complex personalities and relationships, who really stand with each other despite being flawed humans who do sometimes hurt each other, who are silly and goofy and get into shenanigans bc oh my god WOMEN CAN STILL HAVE FUN AFTER TURNING 30.

Especially later in season 1 and in season 2 (I'm still on s2), there's just so much female badassery and solidarity that I love. there's also a gym workout scene in s2 with my favorite character D'Arcy and tbhhhh that scene is 😨🥵 Like, my wife said "this scene was definitely filmed by a lesbian, right?" 💀 It really did feel like celebrating an attractive woman build muscle without the typical male gaze-y lens. it actually focused on her flexion, facial expressions, sweat, flushing, yk, the things we are supposed to pretend women don't do even while vigorously exercising.

this same woman leads her friends on a drunken midnight raid of town hall where they review the town budget and discover they're paid less than the men. cut to the entire group of women (one of whom is the mayor's wife) standing in the mayor's bedroom in the middle of the night, standing over him and informing him "no, this isn't a nightmare, what the fuck is wrong with you, pay us fairly" like?? holy shit lmao. D'Arcy then proceeds to RENT A HELICOPTER to drop fliers all over town telling women about this and encouraging female solidarity in fighting back. this barely scratches the surface of her character's feminist heroics. in another seen she cuts the brakes on her best friend's abuser's truck and sends it down a hill in front of him, before telling him she'll happily kill him if he gets near her friend again. it's just so much fun to see. she also rescues herself and 2 others from a crevasse in the glacier by climbing 30 feet in a storm with a broken wrist. oh and shes a FORMER OLYMPIC SKIER bc fuck you

I've actually been very impressed with this show in a number of ways. they have a young girl character whose family is Muslim, and the writers seem to want to critique Islam while being aware that they have to avoid performative liberals picking up on this too much. so at first I was a bit 👀 thinking they were going a certain way with the character, but they ended up sneaking in a lot of critiques of Islamic patriarchy. they keep surprising me.

[ladyloveandjustice]

I'm responding to a post regarding Marcille having conservative views about gender role, linked HERE (which I also responded to in the replies, but it's an interesting enough topic I want to make my own post). I think that post's point about not sanding off characters' flaws is good, but I do think the reasoning for Marcille is missing something.

I honestly don't think Marcille wants men to be masculine and in strict masculine roles. Look how femme (and long haired) the guys in the Daltian clan are and she WORSHIPS them. If you interpret the person she sees in the succubus bit as male, they are extremely femme.

She just wants human men to look like male (and female) elves, which means androgynous. Kui said the clothes elf men and women wear don't look super different, they all wear simple, pretty outfits and all look pretty. I do think female elves are expected to be slightly more femme and male ones can be a bit more masc (see Otta being mistaken for a man) but there's still an androgyny to everyone and appearance wise, both men and women have long hair and wear clothing other races would see as feminine.

(Elf men and women also aren't very different physically, as seem here in the canary genderbend where they switch sexes and literally look exactly the same. Boobs are given or removed and that's it)

Remembering elf beauty standards makes a lot of Marcille's opinions make sense.

Remember that she was super shocked Laios didn't look similar enough to Falin and exaggerated his masculine qualities to a unflattering, buffoonish degree in her mind, implying she finds them unattractive? She thinks Falin should wear feminine things and have longer hair because elves do. Laios having long hair is weird to her because he's not androgynous like she thinks he should be... so she just thinks it clashes and does nothing for him. I don't think she would care if Laios wore a skirt or something.

We don't really see her ever exhibiting any regressiveness about gender roles outside of people's appearances, and you'd think she would if it were about that right? She never says anything about gender roles in the story. She never says Falin shouldn't like bugs or be how she is because she's a girl, or that Izutsumi should act more feminine. Significantly, she also tells the guys in her group that the should pay as much attention to their hair and appearance as she does, rather than going "of course men don't understand hygiene and hair!" Or even bringing up gender at all.

Marcille does definitely have some regressive opinions and prejudices though, as seen with the orcs. She's a mess, and not seeing Falin's discomfort with femininity and imposing her own values is a serious flaw.

And she and Falin definitely have very different interests, with Marcille valuing all thing femme and Falin not at all being interested, and Marcille is repeatedly disappointed she can't share stuff with Falin (see her in the makeup comic) ...but Marcille loves her anyway, I agree completely on that.

She's a complex, flawed character, but I think my interpretation is not only valid, but makes a lot of sense with what's been shown in the manga.

[tgcg]

part 2 of something specific

CG: I’M GOING TO NEED TO WATCH THROUGH IT AGAIN TO REALLY HONE DOWN WHAT I THINK OF IT, BUT FUCK IT, I MIGHT AS WELL SHARE MY THOUGHTS NOW SINCE WE’RE FRESH OFF OF WATCHING IT.

CG: SO, THEY’RE ACTUALLY A REALLY FASCINATING EXAMPLE OF RED ROMANCE. I’D GO SO FAR AS TO SAY VERY SUBVERSIVE OF ALTERNIAN UNDERSTANDINGS OF THE SORT, COMPARED TO WHAT YOU’D USUALLY SEE IN FICTIONAL MEDIA. IT’S LEVELS ABOVE THE TYPE OF DYNAMICS I WOULD TYPICALLY SEE IN MY NOVELS, DISREGARDING THE QUALITY OF VACILLATIONS AND YOUR QUOTE-ENQUOTE “POLYAMORY” PRESENT. BECAUSE SAKURA’S POSITION IN THIS IS PRACTICALLY POINTLESS, BUT I DIGRESS.

CG: ACTUALLY — THAT WAS KIND OF FUCKED UP, BY THE WAY. WHY IS SHE WRITTEN SO POORLY?

TG: remember when i told you about misogyny

CG: I WILL NEVER FUCKING GET THAT. OUR MOST POWERFUL FIGURES WERE GENERALLY GIRLS. HOW THAT TRANSLATED SO FUCKING TERRIBLY IS BEYOND ME!

CG: AND HOW THE SHIT DID THE UNIVERSE *I* HAD A DIRECT HAND IN CREATING END UP BEING SO MIND-BOGGLINGLY BACKWARDS ABOUT ROMANCE?

CG: DID NOT EVEN AN ERRANT TRICKLE OF MY INFLUENTIAL THINKPAN OOZE MAKE IT THROUGH THERE? AT ALL?

TG: not even a droplet my man we decided to be equally anal about other stupid shit i guess

CG: NO KIDDING!

CG: ANYWAYS.

TG: if yall managed to get through that door and reign supreme over the human race for lip smackin eternity you know mens and womens would be macking on each other in various gender arrangements with gleeful wild abandon 

TG: itd be a goddamn utopia

CG: FUCKING EXACTLY! BUT INSTEAD I’M HERE. DOING THIS. WITH A GOD, UNIVERSE PENDING. INSTEAD OF BEING A GOD REIGNING OVER A UNIVERSE MYSELF.

CG: *ANYWAYS*!

CG: THEY START OUT WITH A RIVALRY, SURE, BUT THERE’S ACTUALLY NOTHING BLACK ABOUT IT. THEIR FEELINGS FOR EACH OTHER ARE STRICTLY POSITIVE, IF HIDDEN BEHIND A MORE AGGRESSIVE FACADE. THE VIOLENCE OF THEIR RELATIONSHIP BOTH COMES FROM THE SOCIETY THEY WERE RAISED INTO, AND SOME OF THEIR MAJOR CHARACTER FLAWS AND INSECURITIES. NARUTO IS FIERCELY DEFENSIVE OF ANYONE WHO JOINS HIS CIRCLE BECAUSE HE’S DESPERATE FOR CONNECTIONS, AND REFUSES TO LOSE THEM AT ANY COST EVEN IF THEY LEAVE SUPPOSEDLY OF THEIR OWN ACCORD. SASUKE SEPARATES HIMSELF FROM THE PEOPLE HE LOVES OUT OF FEAR – AND DESIRE FOR REVENGE AGAINST HIS BROTHER CONVINCING HIM THIS IS NECESSARY.

CG: LIKE, EVEN WITHIN THE FIRST MAJOR ARC IN THE LAND OF WAVES YOU CAN SEE THAT THEY CARE ABOUT EACH OTHER SO DEEPLY THAT SASUKE WOULD DIRECTLY SACRIFICE HIMSELF AND HIS POTENTIAL FOR NARUTO’S. AND BELIEVING SASUKE TO BE DEAD IS THE FIRST CATALYST TO NARUTO’S POWERS BEING RELEASED. THAT IS *REALLY* EXTREME. ESPECIALLY BY TROLL STANDARDS, BUT I UNDERSTAND KILLING PEOPLE IS A MUCH FUCKING LARGER DEAL PSYCHOLOGICALLY FOR HUMANS. THAT KIND OF REACTION TO DEATH WOULD ONLY BE RESERVED FOR A CURRENT OR POTENTIAL QUADRANTMATE… AND IS OTHERWISE ONLY EXPRESSED BY TROLLS WITH DISEASES.

TG: oh yeah like the friendship disease right

CG: UGH.

[doberbutts]

why on earth do you purposefully misrepresent rape and sexual assault statistics? yes obviously men being sexually abused should be taken seriously, but claiming that it happens at the same frequency that it happens to women at is completely false. this is true both in official crime statistics, and crime surveys.

Probably because new science is saying that's not true and it's estimated now to be roughly equal. I've given links on this before that you've clearly ignored.

This is a less than 1% variance.

AND it's a feminist take.

Why do you continue to ignore modern studies who are actively telling you that you're wrong and pointing out the flaws in the way these statisics and studies were collected and conducted? Is it because it's not useful to your narrative? Is it because if you admit that sexual violence is not solely conducted by men and that all people are endangered by it, then it's more difficult to argue that you're justified in hating and fearing half the population of this planet? Is it because you've gotten so used to thinking there's no way any man could ever share any experience with a woman that you've forgotten at the end of the day that the human experience is rich with common ground?

[sokkastyles]

I'm not sure if you're tired of seeing asks like this, so it's okay if you don't want to give a lengthy answer, but I have some thoughts about why female fans (in general) are more open to the idea of Zutara or hearing takes about them as a pairing compared to male fans (in general). I think it might partially have to do with how men (in general) see women versus how women (in general) see themselves. I feel like a lot of male fans are very resistant to the idea of Katara being a flawed person because it gets in the way of their perception of what makes Katara desirable and a good character. For a lot of male fans it seems like Katara's darker, more complicated emotions are separate from who she is as a whole person or something that needs to be fixed, but for a lot of female fans Katara's complicated emotions and her trauma are considered an essential part of understanding her as a character and not something that needs to be corrected or fixed. Personally, as a brown girl myself, I loved the fact that Katara was realistically flawed, decided to handle her trauma on her own terms, and had Zuko supporting her through it and understanding her. I'm not really sure if this makes sense, and I might be very off base, but these are generalizations based on my personal observations. What do you think?

I think you're spot on. Just look at, for example, Katara's characterization with regard to her mother's death. Her taking on motherly traits is something that makes her a desirable love interest when those motherly instincts are turned on Aang, yet Aang especially refuses to deal with the negative side of that, Katara's trauma over her mother's death and the toll that this emotional labor takes on her. Women are supposed to be motherly by nature. They aren't supposed to complain about it or be negatively affected by having to carry other people's needs all the time without attending to their own. They aren't supposed to be human. The way that Aang thinks Katara should deal with her trauma is by being endlessly forgiving, and that's telling. It's framed as coming from Aang's personal cultural beliefs, yet he does not tell other characters, like Zuko or Sokka, that they should forgive the people who hurt them. He did not forgive the people who destroyed his people or who stole Appa. This need to forgive is focused solely on Katara, even though Sokka points out that Kya was his mother, too. And oh, we can talk all day about the difference between the way Katara and Sokka feel about their mother, but at the end of the day, these are fictional characters and the writers made a decision to portray Katara's pain, that is directly connected to the ways they established her as a motherly figure to Aang, as bad and irrational and something that stood in the way of her reciprocating Aang's love. That this aspect of her personality needed to be purged or repressed so that she could fulfill her role as Aang's motherwife.

Men dichotomize women like this all the time, without realizing that they have created these dichotomies. No woman ever fits into these boxes because women are not dichotomies, they are full human beings. That's why a lot of women identify with this aspect of Katara and resent the show's attempts to dichotomize her.