#it all stems from the belief that women are self -victimizing manipulators and you can’t change my mind

[iceyrukia]

when people expect you to feel sorry for male rapists and go “you ruined his life” as if their willingness to commit such a terrible act doesn’t appropriately go hand in hand in order to show how depraved these human scum are - willing to selfishly traumatize women and leave a scar on their livelihood all for a five second orgasm.

[stranger-rants]

There’s something about the desire certain people have to study “toxic men” (their words) like Billy that really irks me because of how easily it slides into problematic views of male victims such as placing them strictly into the role of “the oppressor” and “the perpetrator of misogyny” rather than as victims traumatized by the very system these people are supposedly criticizing. I do think it’s why we experience the same hot takes over and over, such as:

1. “Billy is a full grown man who is fully aware of his adult male privilege, using it to harm women and children.”

Billy is canonically 17/18 who is highly reactive to the different situations he’s been in. To say he is an adult fully aware of his impact on others ignores his developmental differences from full grown adults and how his brain has been wired from chronic trauma / adverse childhood experiences. He has limited privileges, and he is living with an adult abuser who has significant control over his life. This results in Billy displaying erratic and (self) destructive behaviors. He exhibits most symptoms of CPTSD and he should be understood as a traumatized person with limited to no support systems. Additionally, condemning him as a survivor while praising less-violent survivors teaches survivors with violent tendencies that they don’t deserve to get better which only continues the harm.

2. “Billy is a womanizer who demands sex with women without any emotional investment.”

All of Billy’s ‘relationships’ with women have been consensual on their part, and there’s no indication that he abuses them in any way. The idea that romantic attachment is owed is amatonormative. You are not owed romantic connection any more than you’re owed sex. Billy has attachment issues that stem from trauma - specifically, abandonment. There are more logical reasons as to why Billy sleeps around often and doesn’t get invested in relationships other than he’s a “womanizer.”

3. “Billy is a home wrecker for seeking out sex with adult women vs. Karen is liberating herself by seeking out sex with a teenage boy.”

This is a common way in which male victims of female predators are treated. Karen had adult privilege, which she should have used to protect Billy rather than prey on him. The reframing of sexual abuse, manipulation, assault, et cetera as women’s liberation has done so much damage to the feminist movement as a whole. Not only is it hypocritical, but if you do not recognize that boys should also be protected from sexual abuse and violence then you cannot adequately protect anyone from it.

4. “Billy is a mirror of his father who won’t/can’t break the cycle of abuse because he’s inherently toxic/evil.”

Max also mirrors Neil’s behavior, which reflects how Neil as the adult abuser has pit Billy and Max against each other. Billy only mirrors his father in the context of his father handing down punishments to him if he doesn’t keep Max in line. Billy is used as a proxy, because Neil cannot directly harm Max. Despite this, Billy mirrors his mother at his core much more than he does Neil in his appearance, his dress, his defiance, the way he fights and the way he runs away. Furthermore, a lot of assumptions are made about what Billy would say or do based on what Neil would say or do without any critical thought. For example, the pervasive belief that Billy would be homophobic because Neil is homophobic ignores how Billy is canonically a victim of Neil’s homophobia regardless if he’s confirmed on-screen to be queer.

5. “Billy just hates women. You can tell by how much he hates Max and Susan.”

It’s more telling that Billy was abandoned by his mom, yet holds no obvious resentment towards her as is the stereotype of “male characters with mommy issues.” He always loved her and he defended her from domestic violence. His unwillingness to accept Max as his sister stem from his inability to form healthy attachments to people without fear of abandonment. This is made worse by the fact that Susan is literally a bystander to the abuse he endures, abandoning him every time she looks away / pretends it’s not happening. If you want to hold him accountable for calling women in Hawkins “cows,” then you might want to be less selective about when and where you care about misogyny considering how beloved characters on this show have said worse.

Billy is an interesting character for many reasons, but if your goal is to “study” him exclusively as a model for toxic masculinity then I don’t trust you. There are a multitude of characters you could do the same analysis with to look at the bigger picture and it’s often better that way because it doesn’t help to blame systemic issues on the individual when it’s, well, systemic. Otherwise, just say you don’t understand or care to understand male victims of abuse and shut up. There’s nothing valuable you have to say at that point.

[mssapphire]

The fallacy of being “Open minded”

(also known as the tolerance paradox)

Some people think that being open to anything and everything, and “respecting” every believe and behavior out there, makes them somehow better people.

And it doesn’t. There are some things that require opposing.

But beyond applying this to political believe (like “we must tolerate nazis because of freedom of speech”), I was thinking more about the role this plays in interpersonal relationships.

Specially so when people try to hide behind the excuse of “you have to accept me or this behavior of mine, because it doesn’t affect you” - and although this can be true in some cases (like, idk, what color you dye your hair or what diet you choose to have), it is often an excuse abusers use to justify their abuse.

First and foremost, people are allowed to enforce boundaries and tell you:

- You’re not gonna mistreat me and, if you can’t not do that, then I need you out of my life.

- I disagree with that behavior and I will not be an accessory or an accomplice to it - if you can’t keep me out of it, then you can’t be in my life.

Second of all, this belief that everything goes, everything is valid, and everything must be tolerated, stems from two things:

- Either you are delusional and you want other people to accept your harmful behavior without any pushback, criticism or consequences.

- Or you are simply misguided, misinformed, and unaware about how your actions hurt others.

I have a particular pet peeve with people who think their substance abuse is just a “personal choice” that hurts no one but themselves - as if drugs didn’t literally rewire your brain, affect your mood and behavior, your impulse control and your ability to empathize and foresee the consequences of your actions (not to say the entire socioeconomical and political aspects of it). Drug abuse absolutely affects everyone around you - you just don’t want to see it, and/or surround yourself with people who will justify it because they also abuse drugs and admitting to this would be having some self-awareness (and, god forbid we have any of that).

It also applies to other abusive behavior. Can you really “tolerate” the behavior of your friend once you learn he’s a womanizer who exploits women and predates on girls younger than him? Can you really be “open minded” with someone fully knowing that they’re manipulative and liars and gaslight people in their life? with someone who hits and terrorizes their kids?

No. And you shouldn’t be. And you’re conflicted when this is someone you love. Because how can this person who is so important to you be so harmful to others? And then you fall into the trap of justifying them.

First, you have compassion and understanding and you try to get to the bottom of why they are like that (and this is not a bad thing to do). But then comes the question: when I see this person engaging in this behavior, what am I supposed to do? call them out? stop them? intercede? and, sure, you can do that - but then you fall into the role of being their Jiminy Cricket, of having to tell them that what they’re doing is wrong, and that they shouldn’t do it. And then it happens again, and again, and again. And the relationship completely falls out of whack - because it’s no longer equal, because you’re putting in so much emotional labor. Because now they’ve put you in the role of mother, and teacher, and nurse. Now you have to be the fixer because they just can’t be decent.

So what is your other option? setting boundaries. Sometimes it’s easier, sometimes it’s harder. You start by not wanting to discuss the behavior - you just, don’t want to know anymore if they did or if they didn’t do the thing. But then it becomes stiff, and awkward, because they have no option but to lie to you - sometimes out of deep shame, sometimes because they just don’t want to be held accountable. And the relationship breaks. Because if there’s no honesty, how can you really connect?

And then, the last and inevitable realization is that you too could be victimized. And that they probably have victimized you before. And that they will continue to do so - and that, the more trust there is in the relationship, the more likely it is that they will either victimize you or use you as an accomplice to victimize others.

So that’s how you finally understand that, no, not every behavior is justified. That you’re not supposed to condone everything they do and “agree to disagree”. That sometimes you have irreconcilable differences that cannot be bridged. And that the only way you can stay in relationship with these people is if you let them drag you with them.

And that’s when you have to decide to part ways, unless and until they decide to make a change.

And this doesn’t make you intolerant, this doesn’t even make you love them any less. You’re just rejecting to be in relationship with this person if and as long as it is framed in this way. And hey, you can only hope that this will be the wake up call to reconsider - but that’s on them, not on you.

[colorisbyshe]

Expecting the ace community to have a grasp on healthy sexual relationships is probably considered acephobia or something but I often wonder how many women are clinging to their ace label because they're in a shitty relationship with a guy that doesn’t give a crap about their physical and romantic needs and they think the problem lies with them instead of their partner. I know this isn't something that only ever happens in straight relationships but you know… society ('contd)

The ace community adopting the qu//r label somehow led to this belief that suggesting there might be a different reason for someone’s asexuality beyond self-identification is on the same level and more than comparable to telling someone they aren’t really gay or bi or trans. I just wonder why the ace community is so opposed to change, growth and questioning your identity. It’s bullshit and it’s ugly that the members of the ace community don’t give a single shit about the harm they’re causing.            

There’s a lot of different levels to why this is happening. One is the fact that aces fucking cling to “We’re only 1% of the population, we can’t do anything for ourselves!!” narrative. Which like… just doesn’t hold true but whatever. But it’s there to cultivate this kind of bulletproof victim complex which makes them immune to criticism but also constantly reaching out for people like them to build up their numbers and feel less like victims while still being able to play up their victimhood. “It’s hard to be ace, we’re valid, come join us.”

But unlike any other “sexuality” (if we’re going to call it such) is that… the way they reach out is at similar broad experiences rather than something specific. Like, whereas Gay/Bi/Trans all have strict definitions and therefore pretty specific elements to them, asexuality can pretty much be anything–experiencing sexual attraction but not wanting sex is considered ace in some circles, not experiencing sexual attraction but wanting sex is considered ace, wanting sex and experiencing sexual attraction but only after the 4th date is a variety of ace.

A gay person reaches out to someone struggling with “When I see girls, I get kinda nervous and just wanna be close with them… am I gay, oh my god?” but an ace person sees, “I’m 14, terrified of the idea of being penetrated, and feel isolated from my peers who are losing their virginities already (so they tell me but spoiler alert they’re lying, are talking about trauma, or more often than not regret it later on)” and goes “Yeah, sounds just like me, a 28 year old who loves and has sex but I’m not like the other girls because I don’t wanna fuck strangers.”

Because of this “Anyone is ace if you warp your understanding of sex and sexual attraction enough” mindset, they end up reaching out to a lot people dealing with genuine problems, like you’ve mentioned, and essentially offer a bandaid solution to problems that can be gaping holes.

And, in many ways, make it much, much worse. Women are told that having sex you don’t really want for yourself to make your partner happy is a normal and healthy way to have a relationship. Trans kids with dysphoria who haven’t realized it’s dysphoria yet are told that they can’t imagine themselves having sex because they’re ace, not because… they’re dysphoric. And the list goes on and on and on–fat kids who have shame over their bodies that makes it hard to see themselves as sexual beings, LGBP kids with internalized homophobia, trauma survivors who haven’t processed their trauma–all these people are told “That is asexuality and that is an essential part of who you are that cannot be changed, lest we call it internalized aphobia.”

And it’s absoFUCKINGlutely an intentional manipulation tactic. Think about the average ace person. I promise you what first comes to mind isn’t a cis straight neurotypical white dude. I promise you it’s probably someone who is either neurodivergent/mentally ill, LGBT, or a woman. Or they’re a teenager–often not even an older teenager but hovering around 13-16. Or they’re just someone completely socially awkward and probably is in their 20s without having sexual experiences in their 20s because the chance just literally never came up.

A lot of very vulnerable, often very young people are preyed on by adults and told their very much non-ace experiences are asexuality.

Are there genuinely ace people? I’m sure of it. Are there genuinely ace people who are genuinely trying to help other people they relate to and perceive as ace? Of course! Are these people actually finding other ace people? On occasion, yes.

But by and large what is happening is something different–it is intentional manipulation or in more innocuous cases it’s the blind leading the blind. It is an attempt to cultivate an identity around victimhood to fit into specific social contexts, like on tumblr, where victimized people have platforms to speak, communities to fall back on, and a culture to enjoy. There are a lot of people using this incoherent identity to gain status, gain friends, and be ~relatable and to use this supposed victimhood as a shield to avoid criticism and acknowledging privilege. And the more people they convince are Just Like Them, the harder it is to criticize them and the more legitimate they are seen as.

By specifically taking up the label queer, they are attaching themselves to the LGBT community avoid criticism and to, directly or not, make parallels between their experiences and ours. This is, again, to avoid criticism and acknowledge their privilege. It’s victim status by association. It’s culture by association. It is legitimacy by association.

And much of this is deliberate. A lot of it stems from young people not knowing better. But EVERY single adult involved in this knows what they’re doing, what the cost of it is, and how much pain they’ve caused.