#i also do think there is a general misogyny to the hatred ppl have for tswift fans who r mostly young women/girls lol

[lesbianlenas]

i have to say i find the way ppl talk abt gaylors to be strange…..i’m not one myself but as a lesbian i don’t like the way ppl act like gaylors are evil somehow for calling tswift a lesbian like in reality who cares…….truly i think it’s bc they r the only mainstream group of women speculating on the sexuality of a celebrity woman to that degree of fame. bc tswift fans who r obsessed w her heterosexual dating life r not in any way subject to scrutiny by ppl in general no one cares. and as much as there has been general debates on the ethics of speculating the sexualities of celebrity men and making fun of ppl that do there is a vastly different tone abt it. like ppl make fun of them and say they shouldn’t do it and whatnot (although i would like to point out that similarly this is mostly done by woman & all of this very much takes on a look at these silly women tone) but like there is a tone of superiority around ppl who dunk on gaylors and very much a tone of like look at these delusional women who have convinced themselves that someone sooooo obvs heterosexual is a lesbian aren’t they crazy. there is smth in particular abt talking abt a woman possibly being a lesbian that really rubs ppl the wrong way perhaps bc it is the antithesis of a woman’s role & it makes ppl uncomfortable to think a celebrity woman who has been marketed to them as being an ideal woman could potentially defy her expected role……i personally don’t think she is a lesbian but like other ppl calling lesbians delusional for thinking she is bothers me……so i am coming out to you all as a gaylor ally i stand w gaylors

[queer-ragnelle]

is there any text or tumblr post that dives into the ways in which sir lancelot is insane? like a freak? i’ve read a couple extracts ab him giving the idea that he was effed up a bit and like a whole murderbot with raging feelings of hatred and love? i would like to know more ab the crazy things he does or says that make ppl go “this man is a freakazoid”. also i adore your blog thank you for making sumn this nice!

hi there!

i'm unsure if you mean excerpts from medieval sources in which lancelot is "mad" or academic articles dissecting those instances...but i have both for you lol now a disclaimer: i'm neither a medievalist nor a psychologist, so all i can offer you is the raw material and my opinion. while we shouldn't "diagnose" anyone of the past as we do now, lancelot isn't a real person, so i think that affords us a little more freedom to speculate about him, and more importantly, what it is he represented: a medieval anxiety surrounding trauma and the resulting mental toll. info and sources below a cut. huge content warning for self harm and suicidal ideation.

Academic Sources: Medieval Attitudes Towards Mental Illness by Edith A. Wright, Of Metal and Men by Julie Singer, The Enemy Inside by Brian Burfield

Medieval Sources: The Knight of The Cart by Chréiten de Troyes, The Vulgate Cycle edited by Norris J. Lacy

so for starters, let's establish what it is people are responding to when they discuss lancelot's mental instability. the character first appears in "the knight of the cart" by chrétien de troyes, and right from the getgo, lancelot exhibits a lot of mental distress, up to and including, a suicide attempt.

from his inception, lancelot was unwell. at another point, he appears to disassociate so completely, he forgets his own identity, and loses perception of his body.

now you may have noticed that the text always links lancelot's episodes to his fixation on guinevere. we'd be here forever if we incorporated the way medieval authors offset the blame of their protagonists' deteriorating mental states onto the fault of a woman (see also: yvain/owain's madness when laudine/countess divorced him, tristan's madness out of longing for isolde, etc.) whereas when a woman shows upset, it's never attributed to her lover, but a shortcoming within herself. so for the sake of staying on topic, we'll focus on lancelot's symptoms as they are, rather than trying to unravel the middle ages-sized knot of misogyny that is the fictitious root of these madness episodes. "medieval attitudes towards mental illness" by edith a. wright discusses this trend in depth.

i'm going to be focusing on "the vulgate cycle" as my main source of lancelot's madness as he has multiple distinct episodes in that text written in excruciating detail that we can discuss. generally speaking, lancelot is presented as an extremely anxious individual that's highly susceptible to outside influence (whether that be guinevere's, galehaut's, etc.) but that in and of itself is not necessarily indicative of mental illness so much as a rarely explored introverted quirk of his personality. as discussed in "of metal and men" by julie singer, it seems lancelot's at his most confident when operating as an anonymous knight and therefore not subject to the scrutiny of societal expectation.

this, however, can develop in extreme ways when lancelot is pushed past his limits, and he succumbs to a berserker-like state neither his friends nor family can shake him from. while imprisoned at saxon rock, lancelot has to be segregated from the other prisoners, despite galehaut begging to be housed with him, the jailers refuse as lancelot's psychosis is so intense that he'd kill his fellow hostages and thus neutralize the enemy army's advantage. lancelot's refusal to eat exacerbates his symptoms. [Lancelot Part II, Ch. 71. Lancelot’s Madness and Cure; Defeat of the Saxons and Irish; Lancelot, Galehaut, and Hector Become Companions of the Round Table]

this psychotic episode continues even after lancelot is freed. eventually guinevere is forced to lock him alone in a room to protect the others, as he continues to attack anyone who comes near, including his own younger cousin and squire lionel who had attempted to talk him down and was struck. lancelot only recovers after his adoptive mother, the lady of the lake, arrives and utilizes strikingly modern de-escalation techniques, such as referring to lancelot by his childhood name to ground him, administering some medicine to help him sleep, allowing him uninterrupted rest, and then bathing him. (this is tinged with medieval mysticism, of course, but you get the idea.) the lady of the lake then instructs guinevere on how to care for him thereafter. once lancelot awakens from his magic/healing-induced coma, his sanity is restored.

it feels important to note here that, once lancelot regains his senses, he feels ashamed of his behavior, and worries that his mental instability would cause guinevere to love him less. but she assures him that she loves him and is committed as long as they both live. even in medieval times, people recognized that a strong support system was of utmost importance for the mentally ill to thrive.

lancelot is, for the most part, stable for a time after this, contented to live at sorealis with galehaut (and guinevere for a bit as well). but growing restless, lancelot leaves galehaut's company to go adventuring. through some misunderstanding, galehaut believes lancelot had died, and thus dies of heartbreak himself. on discovery of his beloved's tomb, lancelot grieves so bitterly that he intends to kill himself on the spot. [Lancelot Part IV, Ch. 120. Lancelot Discovers Galehaut’s Casket and Defends It; Lancelot Rescues Meleagant’s Sister]

it's here that a messenger of the lady of the lake arrives. the lady had been informed by her oracle that this would happen, so acting quickly, she sent someone to intervene. the messenger takes the sword from lancelot and immediately gives him a task, one that would exhume galehaut and bring his body to where lancelot would eventually be buried beside him. in the short term, this prevented lancelot from harming himself, and in the long term, guided him toward shifting gears long enough that he eventually overcomes his grief through completion of his lady's instruction.

the next time lancelot is driven mad is after he is beguiled by elaine of corbenic into bed with her at camelot. (this is the second time, galahad had already been conceived). [Lancelot Part VI, Ch. 176 Lancelot and Arthur Go to Gaul; Claudas Abandons Gaunes; King Pelles’s Daughter Deceives Lancelot; Guenevere Expels Lancelot]

at this point, lancelot is beyond the reach of even his mother, the lady of the lake, so this psychotic episode persists for many years. he's declared missing and all of the knights set out in search of him, to no avail, and he is assumed dead. lancelot, meanwhile, survives the winter by attacking people and stealing their resources. [Lancelot Part VI, Ch. 178 Lancelot’s Madness and Subsequent Cure]

eventually, while lancelot is subdued in a deep sleep, a pair of charitable brother knights, recognizing that lancelot is unable to care for himself and a danger to those around him, successfully transport him to their castle. they don't know who he is. they keep him chained for safety but feed and clothe him. during this time, lancelot mutilates himself to be free.

eventually, lancelot is calm enough to be freed from his bindings, and lives with the brothers in this way for two years. he eats little and completely loses touch with his identity and the reality of the world around him.

but one day, lancelot looks out his tower window and sees a passing boar. he's compelled to follow it and departs the castle of the brothers without a word. he ends up in a battle with the boar which he barely survives. a holy man happens upon him and tries to administer healing, but lancelot attacks him.

after this the holy man flees and enlists the help of some men-at-arms, who assist in capturing lancelot and forcibly strapping him to a litter to be drawn away. ultimately, despite the best intentions, lancelot's condition only worsens.

i'm going to make a brief aside here as this reminds me of an article i read detailing a similar situation which occurred in real life. in "the enemy inside" by brian burfield, john of ancaster suffered mental distress as a result of the war in france, subsequently inflicting harm on himself and others. in this case, it was his father that restrained him into a horse-drawn cart, and brought him to a place of healing which was revolutionary of the time period, as friar bartholomeus recognized the connection between trauma and mental distress without attributing it to demonic possession, thus attracting many people in need of help to his monastery for treatment. so there is, at least in part, historical precedence of similar occurrences.

anyway, back to lancelot. he eventually flees from his intended caretakers yet again and wanders to the town of corbenic. there the children recognize his madness and begin to harass him, throwing stones and sticks, until he's incited to retaliate and wounds anyone who crosses him. eventually he wanders into the castle itself. the courtlings recognize he's mad, and feed him scraps. satiated, he literally curls up and sleeps on the floor like a dog. it's this, at last, that allows him to begin the slow recovery to wellness.

finally, after all these years, someone recognizes lancelot for who he is. none other than elaine of corbenic.

she tells her father pelles and he concocts a plan to capture and cure lancelot using the power of the holy grail. so as the times before, they wait until lancelot falls asleep, and bind him up. then at long last, his senses are restored.

when lancelot awakens from his stupor, he knows not how he got there, but begins walking upright and talking coherently again. he implores pelles to explain how he came there. once up to speed. lancelot is grateful no one but pelles and elaine recognized him. now let it be made clear that while lancelot's psychotic episode had finally concluded, he's not otherwise alleviated of mental anguish. he's still depressed about his banishment from logres and camelot, and deeply ashamed of his many years spent mad. thus he requests of pelles to live somewhere far away, where no one but pelles and elaine will ever recognize him.

so an island with a castle is located on which lancelot can live and he, together with elaine and a small court, go there to stay. lancelot loses his knightly abilities and instead takes up the daily ritual of subjecting himself to painful memories of logres, which then in turn bring him "relief" and "comfort". an apt description of rumination and self harm.

eventually, lancelot sends a secret message back to the land of logres intended to entice people to the island to fight him so he can relive the glory days.

in the end, it's lancelot's own half brother hector along with young and newly knighted perceval who find lancelot on the isle of joy. hector tells lancelot that the queen summons him, and lancelot immediately prepares to leave. on hearing this, galahad tells his grandfather he'll go and lodge in the abbey run by his great aunt, so that he might be nearer to his father. [Lancelot Part VI, Ch. 179 Hector and Perceval Find Lancelot, and They All Return to Camelot; Galahad’s Arrival Is Announced]

and with that, lancelot reenters society with his brother and son, which kicks off the grail quest in the subsequent book. that's a lot of info and reading, but all this to say that yeah, lancelot is known for his mental instability, to say the least. thanks for the ask!

[throwawayasoiafaccount]

if westeros was created to reflect our modern society instead of being loosely based off of western medieval society, then i think people would understand that these political marriages are for alliances, not love, and would agree that the modern lower class sentiments towards marriage are simply not applicable to these arrangements and both bride and groom cannot and should not expect love from their partner.

if our story occurred in a modern westeros very similar to our own modern society, then a lot of the obstacles our characters face would not happen because, simply put, modern society benefits from equality.

as an example, i am quite (100%) certain that the introduction of gender equality and other modern values and advancements to westeros would only be beneficial to rhaegar and elia, which means that this ideology benefits westerosi society on an individual level.

so, in this modern westeros au, if rhaegar and elia still married for a political alliance, and then had two children like they did in asoiaf, they could then peacefully divorce and write out a contract that secures both rhaenys and aegons inheritances. if lyanna and rhaegar met and fell in love while rhaegar and elia were married then the misunderstanding that sparked a war would never have happened. why? because lyanna would have a say in who she marries in this modern au. also, elia would have possibly been seeing others as well. why? because this was a political marriage and love shouldn’t be expected, so why would anyone be concerned about either party finding love outside of their marriage? plus modern westeros would have dna testing so there’s no reason to question the paternity of their children.

also, if elia had a child with someone else (in this hypothetical scenario, perhaps her lover died) and rhaegar decided to claim that child as his own while knowing that he’s not the real father in order to give this child a better life, then this wouldn’t be a problem either. why? because rhaegar’s in the know. (i’m only bringing this up bc of the rhaenyra and laenor situation. guys… laenor is perfectly aware that biologically those kids aren’t his, yet he still claimed them and loved them bc he and rhaenyra had an agreement. i do not understand why real ppl are even concerned about jace, luke, and joffs parentage. in the eyes of the law those boys are legally laenors.)

however, since asoiaf isn’t based off of our modern society and is instead a society riddled with misogyny, xenophobia and other social issues without the progress and advancements that we in the 21st century have benefited from, i will concede one thing to these antis who harp on and on about how selfish rhaenyra and rhaegar were for loving someone who wasn’t their spouse and for having a child(ren) out of wedlock.

because yes, rhaegar and lyanna’s love can be considered an act of selfishness, and rhaenyra loving harwin and having children with him can also be considered selfish.

but guess what? love in general is a very selfish state of being. you are prioritizing your partner and your desires over everything and everyone else in your life.

one of the greatest love stories of all time, romeo and juliet, is a tale of two selfish lovers who seek to be together despite the immense hatred between their families. selfless and dutiful children would never love an enemy. and yet, despite romeo and juliet’s love story ending in tragedy, no one would ever argue that these two lovers were in the wrong for simply trying to be together even though their love caused their families great grief. why? because the feud between the Montagues and the Capulets was stupid. and the story ends with the characters agreeing that this feud went on for long enough and acknowledging the fact that this petty feud between the families was the cause of their misery and the tragedy that befell them.

though the circumstances of all three love stories are different, it’s undeniable that these lovers were selfish for prioritizing their own desires over their duties to their houses.

to end this little spiel, i’d like to mention that the reason i first brought up a modern au was to remind people that the only reason rhaelya and rhaenyra’s relationship with harwin can be so decisively called selfish is because these characters live in westeros. and westeros is a fucked up society rooted in systematic oppression, violence, and abuse and other forms of exploitation in order to further the agenda of the powerful despite the harm it causes. any modern comforts and progressive ideas hinder the control the patriarchs have over their families and put a name to the bigotry expressed against these unconventional relationships. so yes, their love is selfish because being unconventional in such a backwards society is a recipe for disaster, especially since both of these relationships hinge on a woman deciding to take control of her sexual autonomy, which is a big no no in westeros since a woman’s body only belongs to her father and husband. so yes, these love stories are selfish because these characters are prioritizing themselves in a society that benefits from them losing their autonomy and harms them and their loved ones when they try to take back their autonomy.

to finish off, the reason i brought up the tragic love story of romeo and juliet is to remind people that even though rhaegar and lyanna’s love was selfish, other characters still need to be held accountable for their actions that helped to escalate this misunderstanding into a tragedy that consumed all of westeros.

[dairy-farmer]

Sorry if you've already touched on this, but what are your thoughts about the discourse/discussion about Tim in the comics and Tim from the lens of A03/fan fiction?

For example, I hear a lot from old comic fans about how the series with Tim dating Bernard was doomed to fail bc 'the writer wrote him like her fanfiction version of Tim and not the real character'. There was a lot of discourse with canonical announcing Tim as queer, and that's kinda all these older comic book fans seem to keep coming back to. Idk, there just kinda seems to be an underlying feeling of misogyny towards the female writers and anti lgtbq vibes that it's hard to hear like a real arguement against the series.

I guess as a long time a03/Fandom person, I'm so used to just creating another little reality for the things I disagree or want to explore with a character, that it's strange to see people so upset that Canon doesn't flow the way the want.

it's no problem!! and i haven't really touched on the newer comics all that much mostly because i also don't particularly like them, not for any specific reason-they're decent enough but i don't really think they're 'tim'-but i do know what you're talking about. on twitter and tumblr i see a lot of different takes regarding tim and how he's written in this newer robin series.

for starters: i get what you're talking about where criticism of the comics might partly because of anti-lgbt attitude. especially since tim getting confirmed to be bisexual made A LOT of people mad (including ppl who arent homophobic but are mad that it wasn't THEIR favorite robin who got confirmed queer like dick, jason, or damian etc). comic bros and even casual comic fans who had never even heard of tim or even gave a shit about him were now furious. and while there might be ppl with genuine critiques- some of hatred of the way tim is written in the newer comics you really have to take it with a grain of salt because it very well could be comic bros hating because "robin isn't gay".

same with the writer, meghan fitzmartin. in general, women DO have an uphill battle when it comes to working in comics because it is very male dominated. and it's no secret that a lot of comic fans are opposed to women writing in comics. so misogyny, and even jealousy also plays a role with how much criticism is ACTUALLY warranted. but that doesn't mean a woman in comics isn't allowed to be criticized if they do a bad job or do a botched execution when their job is supposed to be making good, enjoyable, stories that do justice to the characters. i do think meghan may have some decentish ideas but whether she genuinely has the writing chops to deliver on those big ideas is well...iffy. but then again i genuinely don't keep tabs on comic writers or they're projects so maybe that will change.

when it comes to the critique of tim being written like a "fanfiction" version and not a "real" version of him i do see what they mean.

when I think of fanon tim I think of all the mischaracterizations that have been popularized. a coffee obsessed gremlin that doesn't sleep who is deeply insecure and agonizes over his place in the family, thinking he doesn't belong. people LIKE that tim is portrayed like that (in fanfiction) otherwise that characterization wouldn't be so pervasive in fics (there's also the possibility that a lot of ff writers DON'T know any better because many don't read comics but they do read fics and so they base their portrayals solely off what they read in fics resulting in this racoon eyed, coffee loving character who they believe to be an actual portrayal when it's really just someone's idea/exaggerated interpretation of tim).

i really don't see a lot of that in meghan's writing, the issues with tim's writing with her are different. if anything WFA is the one that really have the 'written as a ff character' vibe. but that series is also SUPPOSED to be deeply unserious as a fun slice of life universe where nothing goes wrong for anyone ever as a soothing balm for the oftentimes depressing stories in batman comics.

but in meghan's writing I also don't see a lot of what i consider to be core tim values. is she the best writer for tim? no i don't really think so. but there is a certain degree of understanding for his character. I see the comics and I can recognize that it's tim. so it's not offensively OC.

a lot of complaints seem to stem from his relationship with bernard being too much of a focus. people say how tim does too much thinking about him when...he was a lot worse in the 90s with steph. I remember getting so irritated when entire comics of robin would be narrated by steph or about her, i'd be like 'I want to read about ROBIN and his adventures, not steph, why is she even relevant?'. but tim's relationships to other people are a core part about him so you just have to take it.

the part that i think is justified in critique is in talking about whether her writing of bernard dowd is good. that is a much easier thing to answer. and its that its not good writing. in fact it's a pretty bad, inaccurate portrayal of him given how he was written when we first knew him. he's sort of been...sanded down? kind of remade into some new, almost unrecognizable character that fits into what she believes would be a nice, wholesome, gay partner for tim. which is an issue for me because we have seen and know what tim is like in relationships. tim had tension with, disagreed with, got annoyed with, fought and argued with his other partners like stephanie and ariana. but he also enjoyed himself and was happy with them. there was a balance there of good and bad because tim's unique situation of being robin made it so there had to be good and bad. with bernard it's all very passive and easy. they don't argue, they don't really fight, or have any struggles in their relationship when trying determine compatibility. avoiding tension in the relationship when tim has a track record of it makes it almost seem like she's afraid of the risk of portraying a gay relationship in anything less than a golden light. which is not good writing. BUT it is also very NEW. so maybe that will change (but there's a similar problem with jon kent and his bf so idk)? i personally believe kon would've been a more ideal partner with their shared history, chemistry, tension, the fact that fans have wanted it for decades, and the fact that it would've been such a good addition to the arc of self acceptance for kon's character. and many of the issues that tim being with bernard wouldn't be a thing because tim and kon famously don't see eye to eye 100 percent of the time and so their relationship would struggle and grow as they go from friends to romantic partners.

ultimately in my opinion to write a truly good tim drake you need to be able to accurately portray the thing that made him such a great robin: his heart of gold. tim cares about doing the right thing SO much. he cares about helping people. he's not some cold, unfeeling calculated computer who uses people as pawns and abandons his morals at the slightest inconvenience or seduction to the 'dark side'. and he's not some coffee drinking hacker man that is 20 steps ahead and smug about it.

tim worries about people, he's upset at injustice, feels guilt at not being able to save people, is judgy, sometimes a brat, sarcastic, gets angry at people for throwing their lives away, gets very invested in things that catch his interest, is too curious for his own good, nosy. he lies through his teeth and then bats his eyes in sweet as pie innocence. will think VERY rude thoughts about people but will bite his tongue because he's a nice boy👼 but sometimes things slip out. he is somehow simultaneously able to be the 🥺 and 😈 emoji at the same time. his odds of making bad decisions increase by 100 fold if in the company of other stupid teenagers.

now i write tim as a very exaggerated version of that core self. that's what a lot of ff authors do. they choose a handful of traits they like best about him and spin entire fics about it. i don't think writing tim as a fanfiction version of himself is a bad thing because some fanfic is genuinely better than the source material and that comes from being very good at understanding the character. the tim of today can't be written the same way he was in his golden age, the 90s, because a lot of his struggles and hurdles that he dealt with in those comics are over. they're done. tim can't be 30 years old and still wondering if he's doing a shit job as robin. tim IS a good robin and he should be able to acknowledge that (funnily enough one of his clear acknowledgements of that is often wiped away by fics- that being the titans tower scene where jason asks if tim thinks he's the better robin and tim, without hesitation, says yes) a lot of older fans are clinging to problems that tim has already resolved. he's not thirteen and insecure about his abilities. he's not on his first relationship with someone (but he is in his first relationship with a boy). he's not still learning how to navigate his relationship with batman and the rest of the family or struggling to come to terms with his civilian and caped life. do some of those things still trouble him on occasion? yes but they're not the main focus anymore.

tim has to have new problems, new challenges, new growth.

i had some hope for new tim comics.

would i like to have seen more tim centric material or at least good stories. and often times in the new tim comics tim was exactly the same at the end of the issue as he was at the beginning. tim struggling with his identity is something that made an appearance in 90s comics a lot but I think for the newer ones that it would've been better received/more interesting if it were...written better?

idk. i don't know a single comic fan that loved every detail of their fav's comics. was it the best run? no. but it was okay enough i guess. it was lukewarm, not standing ovation worthy but also nobody should be throwing tomatoes at the performers either, it just earned a polite clap of acknowledgement which i don't think is a very bad thing but still i hope we get something better!

[gatoraid]

At times, Reading He Who Drowned the World felt like I was the one being flayed and steamed alive, being cut into a thousand little pieces by a knife. The mental and physical agony the characters go through is so painful it feels even excessive at times. But even when the most horrible things were happening and I was almost losing hope towards the end, I couldn’t even be mad because I could feel what the author was trying to tell me with all this pain and suffering, and I can buy that message 100 %.

Through these deeply painful scenes, the story shows how strict gender roles, toxic masculinity, misogyny and homophobia hurt and restrict us, and how lethal they can be.

Major spoilers after this

I was especially gutted by Ouyang’s death, but I feel like his storyline drove the themes of the story home in a very pronounced way. In the end, Ouyang was killed by the harmful ideas about masculinity and manhood that had been ingrained in him all his life.

His tragedy was never about having to avenge his family, but rather being so entrenched in the toxic culture of pride and revenge and masculinity that he would rather kill the one he loved and retain his ”honor” than put the idea of honor aside and love and be loved in return.

These toxic ideas are also the reason that stops him from forming real solidarity with Zhu. Even though they are both very similar, living as men while their bodies are not viewed as a man’s by the society, Ouyang cannot accept Zhu as an equal because he’s learned to project his self-hatred into hating everything even remotely feminine and female. It’s very upsetting to see how he loses his chance at healing and changing as a person by Zhu’s side, but I think that’s the whole point. This is a book series about broken people and how people who have been hurt sometimes only learn to hurt others, and how patriarchy and other harmful structures pit women, queer and trans ppl and basically anyone against each other. This theme is visible in almost all the pov characters of the story.

Madam Zhang is incapable of letting go of the ideas about what men and women can or cannot do, which leads to her not being able to accept Zhu as an ally and subsequently her own death.

Baoxiang has been equally hurt by narrow views of masculinity and manhood, and been scorned and rejected for his femininity all his life. His pain becomes so all-consuming that he is almost suffocated by his need to revenge the society that has wronged him. In the end, he is only able to survive because he can cast things like pride or shame aside in order to start anew.

In contrast, Zhu is able to not only survive but even thrive in some way bc she doesn’t really care about those roles. Even if she is not a woman, she never rejects or undervalues femininity and is able to use it to her own advantage when needed. She also knows that pride and honor cannot comfort you when you’re dead and she would rather live, and I think this extends to a more metaphoric level too. What’s the point of becoming ”successful” or hanging on to the idea of what a ”real man” should be like, if it only leads to you being dead inside?

Obviously, letting go of these harmful and hurtful ideas and structures can not be a individual effort, but something that needs to be addressed on a more systemic level. That’s why Zhu has to get on that throne herself in order to change the world. And it feels very meaningful that at the end, when she ascends on the throne, she’s wearing a maid’s skirts, owing her win to both the feminine and masculine sides of her.

For me, at least, the very final chapter of the book managed to justify all the awful things that happened. With mercy and grace, Zhu (and Ma!) demonstrate that to make it all worth the pain and suffering, you have to stop hurting and killing others and break free from that cycle of toxicity that their world has been built upon until now.

(Also as a disclaimer, I generally prefer to read about healing and letting go of pain and generally don’t think pain and suffering make things more deep or worthy… but I also think that this book managed to use these elements in a very meaningful way.)

[angrylesbianreview]

Just to get some things out of the way that I don't wanna be constantly explaining

Do you hate men?

When I say I hate men I mean it the same way that gay people say they hate straight people and trans people say they hate cis people. I obviously know that people that are men aren't all automatically bad, there are a lot of men in my life that I love and are great people. Just as "straight people" can be used as a catch all for hating homophobia, microaggressions, straight dominated culture, and general misinformed straight people, hating "men" is a catchall for hating patriarchy, sexism, male dominated culture, misogyny, etc.

TLDR: if you are a man I don't hate you automatically. I like everyone who at least tries their best to be nice, respectful, and not a serious idiot.

Terf?

No fuck Terfs. When I speak about women I mean all women. I wanted to say this because I know that ppl being super into feminism stuff can throw up some red flags for trans people so I want to be clear about this.

But what if the roles were revers--

Stop that. That argument is stupid because the roles already are reversed. Oppressors have the advantage of showing their hatred through everything they do and having it be seen as normal, and then when the oppressed vent their frustration in a more direct manner they can go "woah woah but (oppressor) said that about (oppressed) everyone would be up in arms :///" Go look in the mirror at yourself for a solid hour and think before you speak.

You sound mean.

I'm just very passionate. I try to be nice in my everyday life and I hate upsetting people, but to go through every day watching people openly state their hatred without batting an eye, and watch idiots be worshipped just because they are white cis nepo straight men, it's a lot to bottle in. I realized at a certain point that if I don't have a place to vent it I might just start punching the walls like a gorilla.

Credentials?

Well I mean I have a BFA in Art I watch a lot of shit and also I'm a human person with a brain.

[autogyne-redacted]

My Theory Brian had playing around with the idea that the intense and conflicting ways in which others can project meaning into transfems sets us up to function like a kind of symbolic wildcard that can be, like, ritually sacrificed to give others a way to resolve the contradictions in their identities and moral systems.

.

discussion of transmisogyny including violent forms, banishment/general social disposal, sexual fetishization, misgendering, etc.

Sometimes it's less than a sacrifice, but it still strikes me that were a powerful object in others symbolic rituals. Misgendering us in sex allows others to maintain an identity as whatever combo of gay or straight and man, woman, or nb they want, with the option to lean into a contradictory construction of us to ~flavor~ the sex.

Eg a cis woman or cafab femme can say they're respecting our gender and that they're extremely gay while projecting masculinity and manhood into us to have an experience akin to straight sex. (Or a man can have something akin to gay sex while maintaining an identity as straight, etc.)

//

We can also see harassment and violence from men as a way of resolving the tension between a misogynistic hatred of women and the kind of chivalrous ideals that say you shouldn't do violence to women. We can simultaneously be constructed as an embodiment of femininity (and thus a proper outlet for misogynistic ire) and as a predatory man, thus letting those who do violence to us position themselves as chivalrous protectors of women and children.

///

I've talked before about the kind of symbiotic polarization between framing social conflict within a community (no matter how severe) as drama that should be brushed aside vs escalating every conflict into a schismatic one. Rather than having a static position on one pole or another, I think lots of ppl osculate. It would feel bad (especially in the context of rad scenes) to let too many years go by without doing anything to show you're materially opposed to abuse, but this is in tension with not wanting to disrupt the community, lose a close friend, or come into messy conflict with someone who has social power. The regular disposal of transfems is an easy fix.

//

I also keep coming back to this thought when I try and think about why feminist transmisogyny plays out the ways that it does. I've largely been thinking about the tension between the build up of anti-man resentment that is encouraged in idpol feminist spaces and the fact that most ppl ultimately want to be in social proximity to men and be on friendly terms with them. Idpol feminists will often frame anti-man sentiment as simply venting or "punching up," which privileged ppl just need to become comfortable with and (like reverse racism) is harmless since you need systemic power to oppress anyone.

The desire to find an outlet for these vindictive tendencies aligns with the dominant attempt to cast the blame for the harms of patriarchy onto transfems and suddenly there's the right arrangement of social power to live out revenge fantasies.

What is the "welcome to womanhood" impulse other than glee at the "role reversal" of having someone who can be misgendered as a man facing misogyny?

See also:

-women talking about how great it'd be to objectify men more vs how they relate to transfems

-the pressure for transfems to "prove" their lack of "privilege" by being extremely disempowered + experiencing a ton of misogyny.

-the frequent glee at our suffering.

-Id also say the extreme amount of "anti-white" sentiment that gets thrown at (often non-white) transfems also makes sense within this framework of using a socially acceptable / non-powerful target to live out revenge/role reversal fantasies and just projecting whatever identities and actions onto them are necessary to justify it and make the script work.

///

I feel like I'm probably bouncing off of ideas I've seen ppl vaguely gesture at, and I'm still playing around with all these ideas. Curious about y'all's thoughts tho and thought I'd share <3

[sageritual]

There's so much toxic feminism on tumblr. Being a feminist doesn't mean you hate men. Can we stop all this "hate all men" bullshit?

If a man came out and said "all women are trash and I hate them all" everyone would be at that person's throat. Yet when a woman says this, she's being praised.

Yes, men do horrific things. Yes, men can be mean and say hurtful things. But it's not all men. Because women can do the same exact shit and don't get any backlash for it.

These toxic generalizations need to end.

Feminism is about equality. Not putting others down to raise yourself up, whether it's a man, woman, etc.

By saying hurtful things like this and accusing people of things that have never happened, it makes you just as bad as what you're trying to "abolish".

I went on a date with a girl recently, (I am also a girl), and she told me that every single man she meets is automatically a r@pist to her. She told me that if it was legal, she'd want to kill men just because of how bad men have treated women in the past.

Sure this might be an extreme case, but take a look around on tiktok, tumblr, etc. There's an obscene amount of ppl who think shit like that.

You can't try to make innocent people "pay" for trauma that women endured. If you're not familiar with the term Misandry, let me tell you what it means. It means "dislike of, contempt for, or ingrained prejudice against men".

Oddly similar to another word we are very familiar with: misogyny, except that instead of being a hatred towards women, it's towards men. Here's the thing. I'm not one who supports bad men who were proven to have done, said, acted in bad ways. But I am someone who will defend men who are being hated against for no goddamn reason.

.

Sincerely, a feminist who is absolutely fucking tired of being badly portrayed simply because some idiots who also call themselves feminists don't know what equality is and how to behave themselves.

[itsclydebitches]

ngl voyager gets a whole lot of very disproportional hate from the fandom and i'd hazard a guess that a lot of that is just garden-variety misogyny (and probably racism mixed in, considering how many of the most prominent characters are women, poc, or both). like, is voyager perfect? absolutely not. and no spoilers but there was a lot of executive meddling that wound up leading to the finale/conclusion being lacking and there's a lot of reasonable dissatisfaction with that--but again that was largely thanks to the execs fucking the show over and i recommend looking into that if you can once you've finished the show. but overall? voyager is trek right to its very core--it has heart, it's about family, and it never loses sight of that imo, even if some episodes are weaker or just duds (but, like, would it be a trek series without some episodes that just kinda suck but are still fun to watch???)

anyway, i absolutely love that you're getting into voyager, it is my all-time favorite trek series to this day for a lot of reasons, and i hope that ppl like that anon dont put you off bc i'd love to continue to see your thoughts as you watch the series!

Oh, it would take a whole lot more than some anons being salty that others enjoy things to turn me off :D 

Thus far (I lost internet last night so I’m still only on Episode 7 of Season 2), Voyager is the Trekiest Trek I’ve watched. Which is a weird sentence, but I mean it in the way you said it’s “trek right to its very core.” What is Star Trek, if we strip the intent of the story down to its basics? It’s about exploration, discovery, that “wagon train to the stars,” wrapped up in the argument that life is fundamentally good. We have problems, but we can work past them. We have differences, but they strengthen us. Diversity is the lifeblood of the universe and the future will continue to improve so long as we embrace that. 

Voyager is (again, from what I’ve seen so far!) basically a love song to that premise. I didn’t do too deep a dive because I’m trying to avoid spoilers, but I did look at a couple threads discussing why Voyager is so hated. Again and again I saw the same reason pop up: wasted potential. Now, a lot of fans left it at that (as if the answer to what potential Voyager apparently missed out on is self-evident. It’s not), but those who did expand on the idea consistently claimed that the show needed to be darker than it was, even if they rarely said it like that. Why aren’t the Federation and the Marquis at each other’s throats? Why isn’t the crew going crazy under these circumstances? Why aren’t characters getting killed off left and right in hostile space? “Anything could have happened out there and they played it safe!” but the “anything” here is always... awful. There’s this very pervasive idea that the world is inherently cruel, people are inherently divisive, that when pushed to the brink everything will fall apart... and that (while making for one kind of great story) is very much not Star Trek. 

See, Voyager created an unimaginable scenario--lost in space, 75 years from home, forced to live indefinitely with strangers--and their answer to the question of “What happens?” is “People make it work.” They learn to respect one another, they uphold their ideals, they maintain a love of life and discovery, and they create a family. And that’s fucking fantastic. That’s Star Trek! I’m not going to pretend there aren’t problems with the show, with plenty more to come, I’m sure, but I don’t think this is one of them. Why do so many viewers think that hatred, horror, death, and growing jaded is the only potential here? Why would they expect that in a Star Trek show whose premise is the very antithesis of those things? 

“But they don’t do enough with those things, even if they have happy outcomes.” They do plenty, they just do it in an episodic rather than serialized nature. I can point to multiple episodes where the replicator rations or Maquis differences are driving the characters’ actions. “But without that horror there’s no conflict.” There’s plenty of conflict. Hostile aliens aside, I just watched an episode where Tuvok and Chakotay are pissed as hell at one another because they fundamentally disagree over how to handle problems, but--because they’re adults with a well-tested respect for one another--they apologize and work through it. “But the characters don’t develop at all.” You mean they don’t grow harder. That’s not the same thing as no development. Tuvok is figuring out how to be more flexible, Chakotay is becoming more willing to accept cultures he doesn’t agree with, Harry is growing more confident now that he’s far from home, the Doctor is learning to see himself as a person, Paris is grabbing his second chance with both hands by making strong ties, and Janeway is learning to command and care for her crew simultaneously. I honestly believe that a lot of people think of “character development” as the character becoming a fundamentally different person, unrecognizable from where they started out. But  characters can also grow into the people they wanted to be in the first place. “We’re far from home, in hostile territory, tempted to do horrific things to survive... but no. Right now at least, we’re holding onto who we are. We’re scientists, so we’re going to explore and learn. We’re peaceful, so we’re going to make friends with as many species as we can. We’re members of a society that teaches acceptance, so we’re going to form a family on this spaceship.” That’s incredible!! Did fans miss why Seska was an antagonist in the episode she was unmasked? Because she was trying to convince them to give up everything they believe in in the name of survival, an ends justify the means argument. And the crew said no, we will not give up what we believe in just to make it through. I legit saw a ton of fans saying some version of, “I can’t believe they were that far from home and actually followed Starfleet’s rulebook.” It’s because those rules don’t exist for the hell of it. Overlooking their practical function, they’re a philosophy that the characters believe in, and they’re figuring out how important that part of their identity is to them under these circumstances. Am I willing to steal a specie’s technology if it gets us home? Am I willing to die to help another uphold their own philosophy? (Chakotay in “Imitations”). What regulations should we bend or change to accommodate our new situation? The first two things Janeway does are a) giving the guy who just came out of a penal colony a rank and b) deciding that she needs to be more familiar with her crew than is normally encouraged for a captain because she’s essentially their mom now. Developing doesn’t have to mean characters do a 180 on their initial personality, or characters getting killed off when stuff gets “boring” so that others can do edgy things in response. 

Voyager upholds Trek’s premise and runs it to its logical conclusion: 

Voyager has the most literal trek--a trek back home. 

Voyager has the most diverse crew--a woman Captain, Native American First officer, black Vulcan, Asian-American communications officer, and a White Dude pilot that realizes he wants to be soft and kind towards those who took a chance on him because Toxic Masculinity who? 

Voyager has the most literal family--not just a 5+ year mission, but a crew who expects to raise the next generation. They have no choice but to work together, so they indeed come together rather than pulling apart

Except they do, of course, have a choice. In “The 37′s” the crew is allowed to stay on the Earth-like planet with a city of other humans and Janeway is convinced that a sizable number will choose that. After all, they may never get home and this is a safer, kinder future for them. In fact, the real question is whether so many will stay that they can no longer run the ship... but Janeway would never dictate her crew’s choices in that manner. So she swallows her worry down, opens the door... 

... and finds that not a single person decided to stay behind. And the show has ensured we understand that this is not just because they all have some unshakable belief that they’ll get home (many don’t), but because this is their family now. This is home. 

And fans want to toss that out for a generic, gritty, sci-fi adventure where hope is scarce, the universe is cruel, and people need to be pushed to the limit just to admit that they maybe, sort of, like each other?? Obviously like what you like, but that’s a hard pass for me. I’ll take the bridge crew comforting each other in “Twisted,” thanks. Besides, we already have shows like that. And we already have DS9 which grapples with many of those dark, pessimistic themes. Voyager feels like a breath of fresh air, even within the breath of fresh air that is Star Trek as a franchise. It’s a show that says, “Yes, when everything goes wrong people will come together. They will love each other. They will make it through.” 

What’s more Star Trek than that? 

[adorpheus]

on fujoshi and fetishization

Lately, more and more, both here on tumblr and on other sites, I keep seeing people spew unfiltered hatred at fujoshi - that is, women who like mlm content such as gay fanfic and fanart featuring men with other men. And I don’t mean like a specific type of fujoshi, like the ones who are genuinely being weird about it, but just like a general hatred for girls (but especially straight identifying girls) who express love for gay romance.

I hate to break this to you all, but women (including straight women!) actually are allowed to like mlm fanfiction and fanart, even enthusiastically so. A woman simply expressing her love of gay fanfic, even if it is in kind of a cringey way or a way that you personally don’t like, is NOT automatically fetishization.

I’ve been on the receiving end of fetishization for my entire life, from a very young age, as many black and brown folx have, so I consider myself pretty well acquainted with how it works. Fetishization isn’t just like, being really into drawings of boys kissing, or whatever the fuck y’all are trying to imply on this god forsaken site. 

Fetishization is complicated imo, and can encompass a lot of things, such as (but not limited to):

1 - dehumanization, e.g. viewing a group of people as sexual objects who exist purely for entertainment purposes, rather than acknowledging them as actual people who deserve respect and rights

and

2 - projecting certain assumptions onto said people based on their race/sexuality/whatever is being fetishized. These assumptions are often, but not always, sexual in nature (like the idea that black people in general are more sexual than other races, etc etc etc).

I’m going to use myself as an example to illustrate my point. Please note this isn’t the best or most nuanced example, but it is the most simplistic. A white person finding me attractive and respectfully appreciating my black features as part of what makes me beautiful is not, on its own, fetishization. A white person finding me attractive solely or mostly because I’m a PoC is now in fetishization territory. Similarly, assuming I’m dominant because of my blackness (like saying “step on me mommy” and shit like that) is hella fetishistic. 

That being said, theres definitely a difference between how fetishization works in real life with real people, and how it shows up in fandom. 

Fetishization manifests in many different ways in fandom, but most commonly on the mlm side of things, I personally see it appear as conservative (or centrist) women who love the idea of two men together, but don’t actually like gay people, and don’t necessarily think LGBT+ people deserve rights (or “special treatment” as its sometimes dog whistled). These women view queer men as sexual objects for entertainment rather than an actual group of people who deserve to be protected from systemic oppression. I’ve noticed that they often don’t even think of the men they “ship” together as actually being gay, and may even express disgust at the idea of a character in an mlm ship being headcanon’d gay. In case its not obvious, this is pretty much exactly the same way a lot of cishet men fetishize lesbians (they see “lesbian” as a porn category, rather than like, what actual LGBT people think of when we read the word lesbian). There’s a pretty popular viral tweet thread going around where someone explains seeing this trend of conservative women who like mlm stuff, and I have also personally witnessed this phenomenon myself in more than one fandom. 

The funny thing is, maybe its just me buuuut.... The place I see this particular kind of fetishization happen most is not in the anime/BL fandom, from which the term fujoshi originates - I actually see these type of women way way more in western fandom spaces like Supernatural, Harry Potter, and Hannibal. I can’t stress this enough, there’s a shocking amount of people who are like, straight up trump supporters in these fandoms. If you want to experience it, try joining a Hannigram or Destiel group on facebook and you will probably encounter one eventually especially if you happen to be living through a major historical event. Like these women probably wouldn’t even be considered “fujoshi”, because that term doesn’t really apply to them given they aren’t in the BL/anime fandom, yet they’re the ones I personally see actually doing the most harm.

Of course this isn’t the ONLY kind of fetishizing woman in the mlm/BL world, there are other ways fetishization shows up, but this is the most toxic kind that I see.

A girl just being really into BL or whatever may be “cringe” to you, or she may be expressing her love for BL in a “cringey” way, but a straight woman really enjoying BL is not, on its own, somehow inherently fetishization. Yes, sometimes teenage girls act kind of cringe about how much they like BL and that might be annoying to you, but its not necessarily ~problematic~. 

That being said, IT NEEDS BE REMARKED that a lot of the “fujoshi” that you all hate so deeply, are actually closeted trans men or nonbinary people who haven’t yet come to terms with their gender identity, or are otherwise just NOT cishet. I know because I was one of these closeted people for years, and I honestly think tumblr and the cultural obsession around purity is one of the many reasons I was closeted so deeply for so long. STORYTIME LOL!!! In my early adolescence, I was a sort of proto “fujoshi”. I identified as a bi girl who was mostly attracted to men, or as most (biphobic) people called it, “practically straight”. I wrote and read “slash” fanfic and looked at as well as drew my own fanart. We didn’t use the term fujoshi back then, but that’s definitely how I could have been described. I was obsessed with yaoi, BL, whatever you want to call it, to a cringe-inducing degree. I really struggled to relate to most het romances, so when I first discovered yaoi fanfics (as we called them at the time), I fell in love and felt like I finally found the type of romance content that was made for me. I didn’t know exactly why, I just knew it hit different. LGBT+ fanart and fanfiction brought me an immense amount of joy, and I didn’t really think too hard about why.

At some point, in my early 20s, after reading lots of discourse™ here on tumblr and other places like twitter, I started to get the sinking feeling that my passion for gay fanfiction was ~problematic~. I had always felt a sense of guilt for being into mlm content, because literally anyone who found out I liked BL (especially the men I dated) shamed me for liking it all the fucking time (which btw is literally just homophobic, like can we talk about that?). In addition to THAT bullshit, now I’m seeing posts telling me that girls who like BL are cringey gross fetishists who inspire rage and should go die? 

Let me tell you, I internalized the fuck out of messages like this. I desperately wanted to avoid being ~problematic~. At the time, I thought being problematic was like the worst thing you could be. I was terrified of being “cancelled”, before canceling was even really a thing. I thought to myself, “oh my god, I’m gross for liking this stuff? I should stop.” I beat myself up over this. I wanted so badly to be accepted, and to be deemed a Good Person by the internet and society at large.

I tried to shape up and become a good ally (lmfao). I stopped writing fanfic and deleted all the ones I was working on at the time. I made a concerted effort to assimilate into cishet culture, including trying to indulge myself more deeply in the few fandoms I could find that had het content I did enjoy (Buffy, True Blood, Pretty Little Liars, etc). I would occasionally look at BL/fanfic/etc in private, but then I would repress my interest in it and not look for a while. Instead I would look at women in straight relationships, and create extremely heterosexual Couple Goals pinterest boards, and try to figure out how I could become more like these women, so I, too, could be loved someday. 

This cycle of repression lasted like eight years. Throughout it all, I was performing womanhood to the best of my ability and trying to become a woman that was worthy of being in a relationship. I went in and out of several “straight” relationships, wondering why they didn’t make me feel the way reading fanfic did. Most of all, I couldn’t figure out why straight intimacy didn’t work for me. I just didn’t enjoy it. I always preferred looking at or making gay fanfiction/fanart over actual intimacy with men in real life. 

Eventually, I stumbled upon a trans coming out video that someone I was following posted online, my egg started to crack, and to make an extremely long story short, after like 3 years of introspection and many gender panic attacks that I still experience to this day, I realized that I’m uh... MAYBE... NOT CIS..!? :|

I truly believe if I had just been ALLOWED TO LIKE GAY STUFF WITHOUT BEING SHAMED FOR IT, I probably would have realized I was trans way way sooner. Because for me, indulging in my love of gay romance and writing gay fanfic wasn’t me being a weirdo fetishist, it was actually me exploring my own gender identity. It is what helped me come to terms with being a nonbinary trans boy.

Not everyone realizes they are trans at age 2 or whatever the fuck. Sometimes you have to go through a cringey fujoshi phase and multiple existential crises to realize how fucking gay you are AND THATS FINE.

And one more thing - can we just be real here? 

A lot of anti-fujoshi sentiment is literally just misogyny. omg please realize this. Its “women aren’t allowed to enjoy things” but, like... with gay fanfics. Some of the anti-fujoshi posts I see come across my dash are clearly ppl projecting a caricature they invented in their head of a demonic fujoshi fetishist onto any woman who expresses what they consider to be a little too much enthusiasm for gay content and then using their perception of that individual as an excuse to justify their disdain for any women, especially straight women, ‘invading’ their ~oh so exclusive~ queer fandom spaces.

 god get over yrselfs this is gatekeeping by another name

idk why i spent so long writing this no one is even going to read it, does anyone even still use this site

*EDIT: HOLY SHIT WHEN DOING RESEARCH FOR THIS POST I FOUND OUT THAT Y-GALLERY IS BACK OMG!!! 

[herefortheace]

“Ace Discourse” - Things You Should Know About It

1. What is the “ace discourse”?

It’s a name given to posts on here that deal with the ace and aro communities and criticism of them in some form. This is a broad definition, but it’s difficult to narrow it down more. The question of whether or not aces/aros are inherently LGBT+ is often said to be the core issue, but a lot of it is about aces and aros more generally and whether or not we and our communities are horrible. There are, to be frank, many people involved who hate aces and aros. We’ll get to that in a moment - I promise I’m not exaggerating.

Most of us speaking out against the latter really do not like the term “ace discourse”, because it gets used to portray what’s going on as a harmless, entirely legit debate that we should be willing to engage in - when really a huge part of it is plain shitting on aces and aros.

The term “ace discourse” with how it usually gets used also erases aros. 

2. What is the assertion about that there are many people involved who “hate” aces and aros? Do you just mean they don’t think aces/aros are inherently LGBT+?

No. A ton of people in this mess really really despise aces and aros for being ace/aro. Here’s a list with proof regarding the kind of shit I’m talking about. Sexualizing and sex-shaming people in our communities is an issue, as is comparing us to people like Trump and literal white supremacists. There’s declaring our identities invalid, spamming our positivity tags with hate, spreading misinformation about us, telling us to not talk about being ace/aro and painting us as evil. Racism gets thrown at aces and aros of color, ableism is a problem, there’s been misogyny, ... I could go on, just check out the link for a general overview with proof.

A good number of ppl have also wished aces and aros dead (and although wishing us all dead is not generally supported, it’s happened rather a lot even if you don’t count anon threats).

3. Aren’t there various -isms and problems in the ace and aro communities that need to be talked about and addressed?

Yes! And this is extremely important. And we need to do a lot better.

However, the way problems in our communities are often treated in “ace discourse” is... well, frequently it’s the opposite of helpful. For one, the ace and aro communities are by no means unique or exceptional in having big problems, and it’s harmful to pretend otherwise. We’re not worse people than others by virtue of being ace/aro, or by virtue of being ace/aro and on tumblr, and people should not distance themselves from their own privilege acting as though they are better than aces/aros with the same privileged identities as them.

Speaking of which, we’re also not privileged groups: we as communities don’t collectively benefit from any -isms. So when, for example, someone talks about “ace tumblr” (an unhelpful term to begin with) being racist, they’re also talking about aces and aros of color. When people start to come across like they’re forgetting or trying to erase the fact that PoC exist within the ace and aro communities... then you have a problem. And a lot of additional racism and people forgetting their own privilege has resulted from it.

I used racism as an example here because I know too personally it’s a big issue in all this, but there’s a more general trend here. Much the same with sexualization and sex-shaming, which are often brought up as problems in our communities - only for people to then far cross the line and treat us like an oppressor group in this regard. But many aces and aros are negatively affected by sexualization and sex-shaming. A big number of aces and aros belong to various oppressed groups specifically targeted by these things.

When people talk about problems in the ace and aro communities as if many many people within our communities aren’t hurt by them, but instead use them to paint us as horrible people overall who need to be put in their place and/or to talk about us as though we’re oppressor groups, then that is dealing those of us hurt by these problems a lot of damage.

4. What’s wrong with the term “ace tumblr”?

It’s literally used to paint aces and aros as an evil ideology-based group rather than a diverse group of actual people who share an orientation and happen to hang out on tumblr. As I said, there’s calling out problems in our communities and then there’s literally dehumanizing and demonizing us - and the term is frequently (almost always) used for the latter.

In addition, like “ace discourse”, the term “ace tumblr” also erases aros, who usually get included in it by people (unless someone suddenly wants to claim that “ace tumblr” hates aros, which has also happened).

5. How is talking badly about “ace tumblr” different from venting about white people or men, etc.?

I already touched upon this, but just to be very clear, because this is incredibly important: aces and aros are not oppressor groups. We can literally belong to any oppressed group. Even if someone wants to deny aces/aros are shoved aside or treated badly by society in any way for being ace/aro, we’d still not be a privileged group (although some ppl have outright claimed we are).

So much goes on in “ace discourse” that is really really damaging and it’s important for people to be aware of it, because it’s alarming how much misinfo and blatant hatred for aces and aros is going around, and how little nuance there frequently is to people talking about problems in our communities. We seriously need to fix this

[nicemango-feed]

Empowering Islamists under Trumpism

Apart from the glaring, 'handing ISIS a great recruiting tool' effect,  there are many other ways in which Islamists are being empowered in this climate. So many people exist on the edge of extremism, and Trump will tip them over & convince them, that yes they are at war with the West. 

Trump's "Muslim ban" will be counterproductive to keeping America safe and assist with terrorist recruitment https://t.co/thgTsW5pHh

— David Pakman (@dpakman) February 1, 2017

This chaotic, potentially dangerous, and inhumane ‘muslim ban’ (which The White House is now saying isn’t a ban, after calling it a ban themselves on multiple occasions)...has many consequences…some of them obviously horrific…separating families, handcuffing children & generally creating chaos around the world - But other effects are less obvious, less noticeable...and can slip under our radars. 

It's important to keep an eye out for those. 

Donald Trump's White House says 5-year-old boy was 'handcuffed' because he was a 'security threat' https://t.co/bbVEFQ5GvK

— The Independent (@Independent) January 31, 2017

.@jaketapper with a remarkable 2-minute fact-check on @PressSec http://pic.twitter.com/GGjQ21GMUb

— Nolan D. McCaskill (@NolanDMcCaskill) January 31, 2017

*

Islam is Being Held in Higher Regard Each Day

Amidst all the false accusations of ‘Islamophobia' even when people of muslim background would raise their voices to mildly critique something like misogyny or homophobia in their own communities….there were some people spouting legitimate anti muslim bigotry, right alongside them… 

Unfortunately, that has boiled over.

The resistance to allow open discussion of Islam, caused a massive failure to address grievances with Islamic extremism.

This left the floor open for the right to swoop in and fear monger, campaign from an angle of xenophobia…it couldn’t be more obvious than in a time like this. Where muslims are being singled out by the fucking president of the United States...and banned. 

This is a time where innocent muslims were shot while peacefully practising their faith, by a far-right, deranged Trump and Marine Le Pen supporter. People’s hijabs are being ripped off in the street, we hear of such stories more and more. The emboldened bigotry vibe seems infectious - people who were always slightly sympathetic, are more and more comfortable sharing their feelings now.  

What do right wing nationalists want exactly? What does Trump want? If he really hates muslims, he's achieving the opposite of making them a widely detested group.

Artwork by Shepard Fairey

This Sunday, mosques around the UK will open their doors to their neighbours. Find out how to get involved here > https://t.co/GtG0WS44jI http://pic.twitter.com/QTlRubE7tW

— Ben & Jerry's UK (@benandjerrysUK) February 2, 2017

In fact, he’s doing an excellent job of victimizing them to such a degree that Islam/Muslims are being held in higher and higher regard each day. Its becoming 'the anti Trump', the symbol of defiance…to a problematic degree actually. The pendulum always swings too far.  It swung too far right in opposition of the left's defensiveness around Islam, and now it is swinging further in favour of islam. There are reactionaries on either side - and their pendulums are a' swingin'.  The reasoned voices will become increasingly invisible. 

I try not to be hyperbolic, but on my worst days I fear we’re headed to a place where the polarization won’t stop till it gets to 'Nazis vs. Jihadists'

But that apocalyptic scenario is a whole other blogpost in itself. 

*

Muddying The Water 

Now, I’m a long time critic of hijab and Islamic modesty garb - but I come at it as a person who cares about equality, feminism, minority rights…compassion, and someone who truly wants the best for the Muslim community. I just feel the best would be a move towards secularism, a dismantling of orthodoxy and a shedding of its most patriarchal misogynistic symbols...and honest open conversation. 

From a previous post - artwork by yours truly

From a previous post - artwork by yours truly

There are also others who jump on this hijab-critical bandwagon, and because of them, we can almost never have a baggage-free and clear discussion about what an awful practice it really is. Those people are the xenophobes - who hate it because it’s different, its 'of the other'. They are not concerned with women’s rights…especially not with the rights of Muslims, be they men or women. They make that plain as day, repeatedly by participating in far-right, nativist movements, immigrant demonization, support for Trumpian bans…but they don’t hesitate to use “muslim women” as a point scoring technique in their displays of faux-minism. 

From a Pegida Rally in Birmingham in 2016 Image from here

Astounding hypocrisy from an anti immigrant far-righter who doesn't care a bit about Saudi women.. only uses them. http://pic.twitter.com/rASvGmW8Mx

— Eiynah -- (@NiceMangos) February 1, 2017

Anne Marie Waters, co heads Pegida UK with 'white genocide' lunatic, Paul Weston and ex leader of the far right group EDL, Tommy Robinson. 

< ppl who legitimately hate immigrants using hijab-criticism to further hatred is what makes ppl want to glorify hijabs.

— Eiynah -- (@NiceMangos) February 1, 2017

You may have seen these faux-minists come out in response to the hugely successful women’s march protest. Their caring about muslim women is limited to furthering their own agenda, and pointing the finger away from any feminist efforts in the west. 

These obscurantists continuously fall prey to the fallacy of relative privation, or “not as bad as” fallacy…. a silencing tactic commonly used by people on the right to minimize fights for equality in the West. Be they women’s rights, trans rights, whatever..

"Oh feminists in the West think its ok to parade around in silly pussy hats and protest? They have it so good here… what about women in the Middle East? They are being caned for immodesty, stoned for adultery. *Those* are the women you should be fighting for." 

All this is, is basically trying to shame those who want to better their situation here. 

I cannot stress this enough: Just because things are worse in Saudi Arabia, doesn’t mean we in the West cannot also fight for betterment on our scale. 

This is called progress. 

There will always be something worse to point to.

The islamic right also uses this tactic.. 

"Oh you think Islam is bad? Islam fought for women's rights...You should have seen what they were doing before Islam, burying girl babies. Be thankful you don’t have it as bad, and appreciate how far we’ve come." 

In Pakistan I always heard, "Why are you complaining about Pakistan… at least we don’t have morality police and enforced burqas like Saudi Arabia." 

One I often hear from fellow atheists is:

"Oh you pathetic bleeding heart liberals, fighting for trans rights? Here you are arguing about what pronouns to use while ISIS is throwing gay people off buildings. " 

From Trump Supporters:

"Oh you think Pence is bad? They *kill* gays in Saudi Arabia! "

"Oh you think Trump’s Muslim ban is bad? What about Saudi Arabia not letting any non Muslims into Mecca? What about THAT ban?" 

Hey #Saudi! When will you lift your BAN on non-Muslims even entering ONE step in Mecca? Exit ramp: for non-Muslims. #NoBanNoWall http://pic.twitter.com/0svuAQIsLg

— Asra Q. Nomani (@AsraNomani) January 27, 2017

Hey Iran! How about lifting your BAN against the entry of women like @NaziPaiki @Fide_chess who don't cover their hair? #NoBanNoWall

— Asra Q. Nomani (@AsraNomani) January 27, 2017

"Oh hindu nationalist extremists are bad? They only rarely kill ppl for eating beef, at least they aren’t suicide bombers."

and my personal favourite: “Oh you think Trump is bad, at least he’s better than Mohammed"

Yes, congrats he’s better than a 7th century desert warlord who married a child. His values as president of the US in 2017 are better than those in 7th century arabia…what a high bar you have! 

Not to mention, Isis is pretty much a gift to extremists and apologists of far-right movements everywhere. It’s the worst thing of our times, something they can always, always point to that they are better than… 

This is what people do when they don’t want to address the thing in question. 

The left has it’s versions of  'not as bad as' too, the same way it has it’s versions of faux-minists, like those who champion the hijab carelessly as a feminist symbol, or those who think Sharia apologist Sarsour was a good pick to lead the Women's march. 

And I’m sure we’ve all fallen prey to this fallacy at some point or another - but the levels of this I’m seeing on the right nowadays are astronomical, its a running theme not an occasional slip. Panicked flailing attempts at diverting attention from the total mess that Trump's created. 

There’s even a whole new type of 'stealth right' movement that insists its on the left….they insist they are not fans of Trump or Milo… but they spend unimaginable amounts of time defending these people they supposedly dislike, they spend a disproportionate amount of time criticizing those who oppose these people…(but i swear, they don’t like them or anything).  

"I don't like Trump, (I just ALWAYS oppose those who oppose him)" - I see you. 👁️👁️

— Eiynah -- (@NiceMangos) February 1, 2017

@alexmassie It's a whole new punditry genre. "People who are embarrassed to admit they like Trump so instead attack people who don't."

— Hugo Rifkind (@hugorifkind) January 31, 2017

(As for Milo protests and Nazi punches: for the record I’m against violence, and find it to be an ineffective tactic, one that sets a worrying precedent for people who others may perceive as ‘dangerous’. If we leave it up to the public to decide who’s dangerous, some will get it terribly wrong. And ‘dangerous' is subjective too..to a hardcore theist, there’s nothing more dangerous than a charming, well spoken atheist who dismantles the terrible ideas so revered in holy books. This is a slippery slope that could effect ex-muslims, atheists, satanists…muslims even. This also fuels Milo’s fire, gives him more publicity, more support. I think that creative campaigns to peacefully and wittily protest his appearances would be more effective. 

So yes I feel all that, but I am also not compelled do defend him or Richard Spencer for days on end on social media, nor would I be compelled to defend or shed any tears over Anjem Choudary, if he got punched).

*

Ripe climate for Islamists to frame Criticism as Victimization

Non muddied water and clear distinctions/discussions are important now..more than ever. If you retweet, promote or associate with far-right critics of Islam, you are damaging this discussion, and making it harder. 

This climate of genuine muslim victimization is a time when extremists sneak in their rhetoric and leverage the situation for their benefit. Since the Muslim ban I have seen Islamists tweeting furiously against anyone critical of hijabs or any security or safety bans on modesty garb, like in the airport. This is being framed as further ‘victimization' of an already victimized group. 

Yes...Trump is victimizing muslims, we must strongly condemn and oppose it. 

But Islamism is an ongoing problem, allowing face coverings in places others are not allowed to cover should not be framed as part of this victimization. 

Hijabs on children should not be crept into the mainstream discussion as 'acceptable', just because, Trump is victimizing Muslims. 

Two things at once, Trump is an anti muslim bigot, hijabs on kids are also wrong. 

Trump is an anti muslim bigot, but that doesn’t mean that everything to do with Islam is automatically amazing and should be free from criticism. 

Two things at once.

Christian homophobia sucks, so does Muslim homophobia - and we still have a long way to go with rights for LGBT Muslims. Don’t let Islamists frame legitimate criticism in this time, as unfair scrutiny. 

There are more events now, being organized for people to wear the hijab 'in solidarity'… the hijab is a garment mostly used to oppress women in the Muslim world. 

There are kids events, card-making marathons  “to islam” "with love” ...cringe....cringe...cringe

I am 10000% for solidarity with muslims, but this is turning into fetishization of a religion. And one that commands more orthodoxy than other major present day ones.

Imagine this happening over Christianity…it’s just as cringeworthy to liberals of Muslim background who are struggling and fighting for change. 

No one has the right to take your modesty from you. Supporting sisters who are being forced to give up their right to cover #IStand4Hijab http://pic.twitter.com/XpUwaZGtVo

— Mufti Ismail Menk (@muftimenk) January 17, 2017

Of course you stand for hijab, your goal *is* to keep women covered and less visible in the public sphere, ffs. 

You know how people in the west laugh at this christian persecution complex, mostly because there is no persecution whatsoever…*but* imagine if in an environment where Christians were legitimately being mistreated, people like Ken Ham swept in to push creationism in schools … free from scrutiny. And if you pushed back, you were automatically 'piling on'. Or if Westboro baptist wanted to push their nasty hateful agendas under the cover of Christian persecution. 

Be wary, is all I’m saying. Stand with muslims, yes...but don’t let anyone tell you Islam is above criticism. More important now, for us to take this discussion in a liberal direction, rather than let the far right own it. Maybe we can start chipping away at their hate, with better alternatives. 

There are more countries and communities that force niqab, but gay bashing cleric mufti menk decides to ignore that. #WorldHijabDay2017 http://pic.twitter.com/HQV3aXjGeQ

— zeeshan (@zeeshxlifex) February 1, 2017

I’m all for women having the right to choose their modesty coverings if they truly have a choice and they want to perpetuate this practice, but the disproportionate focus on women’s right TO wear something that majority of women wearing it in the world get forced into, is in incredibly bad taste…its preventing liberals from muslim backgrounds from gaining the same equality for women that has been won in the west.

Today we celebrate a woman's right to wear the hijab! #WorldHijabDay #RightToCover #IStand4Hijab #Hijabi #WomensRights #No2H8 http://pic.twitter.com/SvqlMUE8xl

— Faith Matters (@FaithMattersUK) February 1, 2017

How cute! #worldhijabday #istand4hijab http://pic.twitter.com/W1NAby9x9D

— World HijabDay (@WorldHijabDay) January 20, 2017

Dressing children up in hijab is essentially sexualizing children. Something liberals in the muslim world have fought consistently against. It’s a garment meant to ‘protect women from the lust of men’ what sort of message are we glorifying here…

Privileged to have been appointed Ambassador for Gibraltar for World Hijab Day. Watch this space 😉 #WorldHijabDay #IStand4Hijab http://pic.twitter.com/MewQsZsbLV

— Nadia Esserti (@NadzE00) January 19, 2017

imagine how this message sounds to someone who has had run ins with morality police, who have enforced this type of modesty…here we are, in the West... promoting campaigns that are telling people to ‘cover up for a day’, akin to 'try this chastity belt for a day.' 

----

Don't let 'anti-Trump' become synonymous with 'Islam is awesome', similarly... don't let Islam-critical perspectives be conflated with pro-Trump illiberal, intolerant ones. We must open another door, for liberal, compassionate critique of Islam as any other religion.

p.p1 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 13.0px Helvetica} p.p2 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 13.0px Helvetica; min-height: 16.0px} p.p3 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 13.0px Helvetica; color: #9e4a2f} span.s1 {text-decoration: underline} from Nice Mangos http://ift.tt/2jGZdqv via IFTTT