#making systemic change is very different than harassing individuals

[genderkoolaid]

So I read this interesting post from the MensLib subreddit, about how men's issues are always blamed on men themselves and never on society. The post itself as well as the comments are a very good read in digging in to antimasculism & the ways in which feminism has failed to critically examine men's suffering under the patriarchy. For example (all bolding by me):

Here again, the problems predominantly affecting women are addressed by changing society, while those predominantly affecting men are addressed by changing men (or by telling men to change themselves). The difference is not that one approach is right and the other wrong; they are both 'right' in the sense that they highlight genuine issues, but the approach to men's problems is more superficial. When dealing with men's problems, we focus on the immediate cause, which is usually the men's failure to cope with mental strain ("he should have gone to therapy", "he should have learned to open up more"); in contrast, when dealing with women's problems, we focus on "the cause of the cause", and try to remove the systemic social issues causing the mental strain, rather than telling the victims what they should have done to better cope with it.

I think this is a great point, and something we really need to tackle. OP also goes on to talk about self-repression, comparing girls avoiding sexual harassment and boys avoiding bullying:

Boys (and men) are notorious for repressing their emotions. They have a good reason: in boys' peer groups, a failure to control your emotions is almost as shameful as a failure to control your bladder; it is a sign of weakness, and any sign of weakness makes you a target for bullying and ridicule. So boys learn to wear a permanent mask of aloof toughness to avoid inadvertently revealing any sign of weakness or uncontrolled emotion, and many keep this habit into adulthood. It is generally well recognized that suppressing emotions is unhealthy in the long run, but it seems to me that the commonly proposed antidote is misguided: boys (or men) are told to "just open up more and be vulnerable" or to "learn how to cry", as if their reluctance to show emotions were some kind of irrational emotion-phobia, rather than a perfectly reasonable, perhaps even necessary, defense against the ridicule, contempt and loss of respect that society inflicts upon those who can't keep their emotions in check in the proper "manly" way.

It's something we don't really question in mainstream feminism. Women's issues have a societal root, and men's issues are issues that men put on themselves, and therefore men just need to fix it themselves and change.

And while yes, we all have a responsibility to unlearn harmful societal teachings, just saying "men need to fix their shit" doesn't help anyone. I've been annoyed for a while at how people will react to men suffering under the patriarchy with "UGH they need to go to therapy", as if

Needing therapy is a sign of failure or a bad thing, and someone not going to therapy when they need to is them being an asshole on purpose and not potentially a sign of them not feeling safe enough to go to therapy, feeling too ashamed, not having enough money or time, etc.

Individual men getting individual therapy will solve the societal problems of forcing boys and men to repress their emotions and view themselves as only valuable if they can perform manual labor and have a lot of sex with women. It's a problem that is only perpetuated by men themselves and if they just stopped doing that, then the problem would disappear.

No self-respecting feminist would ever react to a woman obviously suffering from the patriarchy with "ugh, she needs to go to therapy and fix herself." Yes, therapy would be helpful most likely, but that's not going to actually fix the underlying cause of her issues. So why do we, as feminists, think that "men just need to fix themselves" is an okay response to societal suffering under the patriarchy?

Who does this help? Who benefits from us ignoring these issues? Why do we assume that men's experiences under the patriarchy are so one-dimensional and that we have no responsibility for unlearning our societal biases around men and masculinity?

Someone in the comments also added this quote from the "perpetually relevant" I Am A Transwoman. I Am In The Closet. I Am Not Coming Out essay by Jen Coates:

Have you noticed, when a product is marketed in an unnecessarily gendered way, that the blame shifts depending on the gender? That a pink pen made “for women” is (and this is, of course, true) the work of idiotic cynical marketing people trying insultingly to pander to what they imagine women want? But when they make yogurt “for men” it is suddenly about how hilarious and fragile masculinity is — how men can’t eat yogurt unless their poor widdle bwains can be sure it doesn’t make them gay? #MasculinitySoFragile is aimed, with smug malice, at men—not marketers.

And then another commenter left this (and referenced bell hooks' work on men!!):

"Do you agree that we tend to approach women's problems as systemic issues, and men's problems as personal issues?" Yes, and there's even a name for this: Hyperagency. Individual men are assumed to be immune to systemic pressures because the people at the top of the hierarchies generating those pressures are also men. "And if you do agree with that, do you think this difference in approach is justified, or do you rather think it is a case of an unfair bias?" It's pretty clearly not rooted in reality. The idea that billions of ordinary men aren't beholden to the social constructs under which they were raised is just plain silly. I'd blame the empathy gap, but honestly I feel like it's more than that. Patriarchy hyper-individualizes every struggle a man faces as a way to shield itself from critique and gaslight ordinary men. The motivations there are readily apparent. However, we see the same blind spot appear even in more academic Feminist spaces (taking for granted that "Feminist" spaces on social media are hardly representative of the cutting edge of Feminist thought). bell hooks once postulated that some Feminist women are deeply afraid of acknowledging how little they understand about men, let alone taking the steps to broach that gap.

Another person explained hyperagency by saying "Every single individual man is a hyper agent who is just expected to bootstrap his way out of the patriarchy through sheer force of will."

[anendoandfriendo]

So, we have a LOT of gripes with this post but more just want to address then individually without giving the OP any harassment so:

These first and second paragraphs is fine honestly, we won't tell people how they should feel about their own experiences.

The problem starts at the next part where OP starts trying to tell people how they should feel about their own brain.

--------

Also we just REALLY need to get this out of the way woth no other comments —

"We don't label [implied word is diagnose] personality types"

LMAO try saying that to uhhhh — *checks notes* — people with PERSONALITY DISORDERS.

--------

People who generally live life functionally but who every now and then are reminded that they’re disabled and need help in very specific situations. Like somebody who doesn’t struggle much socially and who doesn’t need supports at school or work but who sometimes doesn’t have as much energy for doing the dishes because they’re exhausted from living as an autistic person in an allistic world.

Did you know that therapists require a diagnosis to see literally anyone, ever? At least in the United States?

By your logic the neurotypical idea that "nobody is normal" actually exists. Why is someone who goes to a therapist and is forced to get like, let's just say a depression diagnosis for the ease of thos conversation. Why are they allowed to get that diagnosis, do the therapy, then consider themselves completely neurotypical but an autistic person isn't allowed to do that?

Please make that make sense.

And if you didn't realize everyone who's ever gone to a therapist loses their neurotypical card and is lying to you (using YOUR OWN LOGIC these people would be lying/faking neurotypicality) then don't worry about that! We didn't know that either until this year.

Anyways, that leaves us two options: either everyone is disabled or these people are allowed to choose their neurotypes in spite of the system labeling them otherwise. We sincerely hope why you realize the former is more shitty and we do not have to explain to you even bodily autonomy you don't like is still an inalienable right.

--------

So if you’re like me, please don’t speak over higher support needs people. Recognise that, if you can generally live independently, you are lower support needs than a LOT of others.

Is this about the assholes who went "waaah!! Don't call yourselves nonverbal!!! You share the same brainbody!!!" yes and as a plural system, we are still DIFFERENT PEOPLE. SOME OF US ARE NONVERBAL AND CANNOT SPEAK WHEN FRONTING WITHOUT ADDITIONAL ASSISTANCE FROM ANOTHER HEADMATE. SOME OF US HAVE TO BODY DOIBLE EACH OTHER JUST TO GET THE DISHES DONE YOU DESCRIBED IN THIS POST.

YES WE DO STILL HOLD A JOB TAKIMG PHONE CALLS. BECAUSE THE VARIETY OF AUTISTICS IN OUR HEAD MAKES. IT. SO. WE. ARE. COLLECTIVELY. NON-DISORDERED.

We may be endogenic, but we would still not, in any way, survive the world as a singlet. We are low support needs on a fucking technicality because they confirmed us as an autistic person when the brainody was two!!!

Just because you do not benefit from a purely social model of disability doesn't mean there are autistics who straight up wouldn't have issues anymore if people just..accepted them and society in general was less shitty.

The ONLY!! WAY!!! We have seen this kind of statement be used is to gatekeep people like us who try to describe their experiences of plurmisia and its intersectionality with ableism.

We are a non-disordered autistic collectively with specific members in our system who ARE in fact disordered autistics. The only reason we don't have people who describe themselves as neurotypicals in this system is very specifically because they do indeed feel a change in them when they arrive here.

Yes! We are a lot lower in support needs! To the point we do not consider ourselves such! Because of our multiplicity. Not because our autism "isn't that bad" or anything like that.

------

TLDR:

Stop fucking telling people how to feel about their own experiences.

If youre trying to gatekeep what we think you are trying ro gatekeep, you're an asshole and need to stop. Maybe we are just lucky, who knows, but we have NEVER seen this kind of sentiment occur in a way that does not have an undercurrent of plurmisia and/or other ableism.

You can in fact be a nondisordered diagnosed person. It happens all of the time, otherwise therapists as an institution couldn't exist lmao.

Additionally, as far as we are concerned, there are, in fact, situations you can be simultaneously non-disordered and disordered.

How about you follow the advice you said to everyone else, and not tell no-support and low-support autistics how to feel about their experiences? You're a fucking hypocrite OP!

Someone or somesys with more experience analyzing this kind of thing from a mad pride lens and/or a bodily autonomy lens is absolutely free to add onto this but we're just. Tired. And also kinda we have to be at work in likeeee 10 to 20 minutes.

[fdcreviewswithmark]

So, I'm back. I haven't checked FDC in a while, nor SystemsCringe. I decided that today, I'm gonna be doing a review of both, in one.

So yeah 2-for-1 review, let's goooooo-

I'm doing 10 reviews in this post.

Note: DON'T HARASS ANYONE IN THE REVIEWS. They may be fuckwads, but we don't need to be fuckwads too.

1. From FDC - Tagged as Autism, titled "Very gross." - The post in question is a video from TikTok. A person, who I assume is a minor- though I could be wrong- is criticising diagnosed autistics who are against self-diagnosed autistics or those without a diagnosis, saying they're "Not iconic, you are just like them all". Based on the context, I believe that the person in the video is self-diagnosed autistic. The OP is calling them very gross for... Being self diagnosed? Well, that's nothing new for FDC.

2. From FDC - Tagged as Autism, titled "straight up offensive". - I assume the post is from TikTok. It's another young person, who is just showing that autism can present in a lot of different ways, and it can even change on an individual level. Sometimes it's debilitating, sometimes it's beautiful, or curious, or overwhelming, it can be cool, pretty, draining and depressing, and it can be happy and free. The end finishes up with a note that "autism is not a line scale you can place people on" and such. And... I don't see how this is offensive in the slightest???

3. From SystemsCringe - tagged as Fake DID/OSDD (Good job forgetting that the rest of CDDs exist! What more could anyone expect from that shithole, though. -Adam) - The post is an alter that had formed an hour ago. The OP immediately criticizes this for some of the dumbest, most absurd reasons I've heard. They say that the alter shouldn't be able to know how to type, write, understand anything... And then goes off on just a rant, criticising the alter for making an intro at all. Oh, and before that, they fucking went on a separate rant about "oh something traumatic must've happened that day" and then immediately goes to "shut up, you're making a mockery of actual systems." People on SystemsCringe tend to not do basic research or use any thoughts or insight in these things. If they did, they would know that alters don't work like that for one, and two, sometimes parts will split after an event. It's called Post-traumatic for a damn reason. And this? This is all just the first damn slide of the introduction. There are 13 fucking slides. 13 slides of sheer stupidity and misinformation. This is why I think that SC is worse than FDC when it comes to bashing those they dislike. And, no, I'm not gonna review the other 12 pages of dumbfuckery.

4. From FDC - Tagged as Other Disorders, titled "I hAvE sChIzOpHrEnIa!!!!!!" - The post is clearly of someone in heavy distress on- you guessed it, the only place which FDC targets anymore- TikTok. The person claims that they're being forced to move out in 2 weeks, and they don't have somewhere to go. They go on to say that they think they're having a schizophrenic attack. Basically, the poster is calling the person in the video fake. The person who is breaking down on video, seen getting progressively more distressed over what's happening.

(Okay, note/rant from multiple alters here- That post? This one that we're talking about? We'd say it's heartless but that's an insult to heartless people. This is someone who's in extreme distress over a horrible situation, someone with schizophrenia who's being forced out of their living space with only 2 weeks to find a new one, and all OP can think about is that "this person is faking". Frankly, I think they lack more empathy than a lot of our alters do, and that's saying a lot, especially considering Mark is literally an apathy holder. End rant.)

5. From SystemsCringe - Tagged as Fake OSDD/DID, titled "just straight up spreading lies, lol". - The post is a series of screenshots from either questioning systems, systems making fun of their past selves, or non-systems asserting that they aren't systems. It's hard to tell. Either way, they're somehow faking. Oh, plus, in the last slide, there's a commenter who claims to have also done the actions described in the screenshots but also don't remember having any trauma. Another comment below it kindly explains that not everyone will remember their trauma. None of this is spreading lies.

*major time skip by literal months lmao. Also I forgor to do the tags, sorry.*

6. From SystemsCringe - Titled "fictive dump". - In the post, the OP screenshotted a bunch of introjects on Tumblr anon... being introjects. Literally nothing else. The comments are gross, like saying how they "just need to stop pretending" and such. Ick. I've already gone over why introject hate is dumb, I believe, so we'll move on.

7. From FDC - Titled "Crab cakes?" - It's a video. The post is literally just an alter talking about how there's some really fucking good food in the fridge that they can't have because they belong to another alter. Wowww, systems can have rules and shit, they're tooooootally faking! Fuck, these FDC dumbasses suck the joy out of everything they touch.

8. From SystemsCringe - Titled "...7??" - System introjects 7 versions of one character after hyperfixating. Unfortunately, that means they're fake. To sum this up, it's another case of "introjects cannot exist because I said so." Nothing we haven't seen a trillion times before.

9. From FDC - Titled ""14" "*Professionally* diagnosed with osdd". - Yet another screenshot of someone's... probably carrd? Is that what it's called? Anyways, I think it's important that we don't forget that minors CAN be diagnosed with DID, OSDD, stuff like that. It's hard, sure, but genuinely possible. So, FDC is fakeclaiming a diagnosed system for being a minor. The logic here is either beyond me or non-existent.

10. From FDC - Titled ""Romanticise your disorders!"" - A long conversation that I didn't bother to read all of. The gist is, apparently, you're not allowed to romanticize your own disorders. Which... yes, you are, they're your disorders and you're allowed to accept them and be prideful about them. Plus, who's stopping you? C'mon, MAD pride, babyyyyyy-

(Note: it's your GAHD DAMN HUMAN RIGHT, BROTHER. THE FUCK DO YA THINK FREEDOM MEANS, EARL?)

So, a summary...

... nah, FDC and SC just suck, they don't deserve one. I might as well do my typical "how to be correct according to FDC and/or SC" though.

How to be correct, FDC edition:

- Don't self-diagnose.

- Be disordered in only The One Right Way™.

- Your disorder must be static and never change at all.

- Don't be distressed.

- Don't be disordered and online.

- No, just... don't be disordered.

- Don't have rules as a system.

- Don't have fun.

- Don't be diagnosed while being a minor.

- Don't be okay with being disordered.

- Suffer! ✨

How to be correct, SystemsCringe edition:

- You have to be utterly clueless when you first form. (But also if you are then you're faking.)

- Don't introduce yourself separately from the rest of the system.

- Don't be traumatized. (But if you aren't, You're faking.)

- Don't do stuff that you can't control in a way that I don't like.

- Remember your trauma. (Also don't remember your trauma btw.)

- Don't have Introjects.

- Don't have hyperfixations.

So, there. Phew, finally got that done... Y'all enjoy the rest of your days and stay safe. Don't harass anyone. Until we meet again, I guess. (That was cringe as hell 💀)

[kithj]

i need to complain at length about bit(2019) so im sorry for this

this movie flopped hard. i really wanted to like it because of the premise, it calling itself a "queer intersecional feminist movie" & the fact that it got a lot of hard backlash initially online from the "manosphere" for supposedly being "misandrist" (it's not at all) but unfortunately it's executed horribly. i also think i'm extremely critical on it because there are some similar themes in this movie that i'm exploring with blood choke and seeing someone else tackle them and fail so massively makes me want to rip my hair out lmfao. overall the current reviews for this movie that i found were actually very positive, which makes me feel more insane for all of this. sorry

a group of queer(the leader is the only one who specifies and calls herself a "full blown dyke" so we know she's a lesbian and this will be relevant later) feminist vampires have one rule, which is No Men Allowed. the leader, duke, claims that all men are corrupted by power, and turning them into vampires will always end with them using their vampire powers to lord over and abuse women and others. she is basically the stereotypical man hating lesbian of the movie.

a lot of places online when reviewing this movie claim that the female vampires "only" hunt men and this is why it's misandrist however it's explained in the movie that in general they try to only hunt "bad" people (including predatory men) and one of the examples is a qanon guy that harasses women and others online and is a hateful bigot. it also shows duke killing some frat bro types later in the movie as well. but they do hunt and kill women and other people throughout the movie so i'm not entirely sure where this idea that they only hunt men comes from ? they don't really have any kind of "morality" because they are Vampires. i point this out because this is one of the big criticisms about it (again that it's "misandrist") which i don't agree with (im critical of it for very different reasons lol). they were going to kill and eat the main character at first before duke randomly changes her mind because she thinks she's hot and the main character is *gasp* a woman.

in fact she's a trans woman which is emphasized in a lot of the marketing and the actress is also trans, but in the movie it's barely even touched on so that felt particularly misleading to me since they made it seem like it was going to be significant (also part of why a lot of manosphere types hated it lol). like the word trans is not even spoken once in the entire movie, the audience is just supposed to Know what everyone is talking about. and duke, who otherwise spouts bioessentialist nonsense for a lot of the movie, has no issue with the mc in their very brief exchange that only vaguely touches on it. which is nice, i guess.

duke again makes the comment that you can't give men power, and the mc asks "what about me?" duke says "never even crossed my mind." and that's it. that's like the extent of the mc's transness in the movie. it felt like a cop-out to avoid having to actually challenge duke's ideas in any meaningful way. it would have been more interesting if the mc could have pushed her harder and made her realize that she was wrong. this is what i thought the movie was going to do, with its loudly declared trans mc. we could have talked about the patriarchy at a systemic level rather than an individual level, about how it effects trans women, about how this misogynistic behavior in men (and other women!) is typically rewarded but is not inherent, especially since duke does seem to understand this despite what she says; she's not a terf, nor is she an exclusionist in general, since it's implied some of the other women are bi, so why do we treat her like one? but none of it matters, and duke is just flat out punished in a horrible way later in the movie anyways.

we find out then that duke was hypnotized by a man after he saw her kissing women in a bar. he hypnotizes her, a lesbian, and enslaves her for years and years and forces her to be his wife. duke was abused in a variety of ways during this time until she was able to break his mind control and overpower him, sealing his heart in a lockbox that she's slowly been consuming to absorb his powers, since his heart wouldnt burn.

with this backstory reveal i did feel more sympathetic towards duke and i didn't like the direction the narrative was taking and i knew it was going to go downhill from here lmfao.

the mc, laurel, does get turned into a vampire. she is caught up in her new life and ends up ignoring her boy bestfriend and her brother who both get increasingly annoyed with her (understandably so). however, her boy bestfriend, after being ignored by her for a bit, decides to try and take his own life. it's heavily implied by the movie that this is all laurel's fault. her brother blames her for it and tells her that everything is her fault, he complains that he was always such an Ally and Supportive of her, but she's just a selfish bitch. and this is like... meant to be accepted by the audience, we are meant to be on the brother's side. i found this all very distasteful, especially since laurel's transness is only ever this vague concept that people either "didnt even think about" or just are "supportive" of and it was really gross to rub that in her face on top of blaming her friend's attempted suicide on her all for... having a life outside of him? i'm not saying that it's fine to ignore your friends, but the fact that neither of them also realized something traumatic was going on with her and just assuming she was intentionally ignoring them was also kind of shitty on their end, too.

at this point it was clear that the movie was going to "subvert" expectations and pull a Not All Men in the most inelegant and awful way possible. duke has now become The Enemy and it's revealed she's been using subtle mind control powers on the other vampires to keep them away from men, a power she's been gaining from eating the old man's heart. everyone is mad at her which is fair. however the movie treats this as if it is just as bad as what her husband did for some reason, who was enslaving and raping women for hundreds of years..... it's interesting that they chose this route considering it was already obvious that the women in this group were together out of necessity rather than any real comradery. the opening scene is all of them turning on one of the other women because she bit a man; this fragile alliance is built out of fear and survival, because they know society will never accept them. there's already a lack of agency; society has stripped them of that because of their identity as queer women. laurel's introduction could have changed this, but instead they decide to go the mind control route and just throw all that other commentary out the window. it's all duke's fault now.

a fight breaks out because laurel accidentally bites her brother and she refuses to let duke kill him. she ends up releasing the old vampire who reforms and immediately starts berating duke and the other women. duke understandably freaks out and has her heart ripped out, but the other girls manage to burn the vampire again and lock up his heart. duke, after being forced to face her abuser and rapist and have her heart literally ripped out, is then cast out and locked away as punishment for being mean to men. this is done by laurel literally Kicking her bleeding heart across the floor and down into a cell, which duke has to crawl after and fall down into in the most demeaning way possible.

truly the worst ending i could think of. punishing a woman for rightly being angry about her abuse and comparing her directly to her abuser.... i don't think duke was right at all but i wish they would have approached her character with more sympathy and done something more interesting than just "ACTUALLY... women are just as bad as men sometimes." even though she literally does nothing comparable to what he did lol and the things she was doing were a direct result of what he did to her to begin with. obviously not saying that as an excuse, but that this is what should have been explored in the movie, either by laurel's prompting or by duke having a come to jesus moment with herself after befriending laurel.

and touting that laurel was trans in all the promotional material only for it to never be relevant to the plot aside from her brother and friend whining to her about being such good allies was really gross. being a good ally is not something you do in the hopes of people reciprocating, you do it because it's the right thing to do. you should never make your allyship conditional or something that you use to hold over a person's head.

i do understand that it's important to depict trans characters who are more than just "trans." i know there are people of the opinion that laurel was a good trans character because it was so casual and "wasn't a big deal." i agree, to an extent. because obviously it WAS a big deal, for her brother to have so much resentment towards her about it. and the way it's handwaved off throughout the movie otherwise felt more like they were afraid of fully acknowledging it rather than just being "casual" about it. i suppose that's up to personal interpretation, though, but compared to the rest of the movie, the refusal to even say the word trans just left a bad taste in my mouth. i also understand that this whole post may come off as a "it's not that deep bro" moment and maybe you're right maybe i should just be happy i got a fun vampire movie but personally just accepting shit because it calls itself feminist and has gay people in it is not something i plan to get in the habit of doing.

i recently watched bottoms (which was excellent) and it made me think about this movie again. bit felt like originally they wanted to make something for an ingroup, but then chickened out half-way through and decided to try to appease a wider audience by turning duke into a villain. versus bottoms, which felt like they had a target audience and that's who it was for & they didn't care about how people outside of that group would perceive it.

bit ended up being careless and clumsy in my opinion because they got too concerned about optics rather than just focusing on the story, and the people being represented within that story. it sucks that they took such a shitty approach to duke's character and wrote off all of her concerns as her just being an Evil Bitch Lesbian. obviously there was a lot she was wrong about, but treating all of her concerns about misogyny as equally bad as a man brainwashing and raping women is not the way to send that message.

laurel's brother turns into a vampire in the end, and he asks her if duke was right, if he'll end up being a bad person, and laurel responds by basically just saying "no you'll be fine just don't be an asshole" which is true! it frustrates me that it took this fucking long for someone to say it. this was literally one of the last lines in the movie. why did duke have to brainwash anyone and why did she have to be punished so horribly for us to get here. why is the lesbian, who was abused for years and years by a man who was correctively raping her, given so little sympathy in this "feminist queer movie"?

duke absolutely still could have ended up being a villain. it's just the way they went about it was so heavy-handed; having her use the same power as her abuser, having her heart ripped out like him to imply they're the same, while completely ignoring her trauma and the things he did to her. i understand that they were going for a "power can corrupt ANYONE" message but to me it just simply did not hit. she wasn't "corrupted"-- we know why duke hates men, and it was because she was enslaved and abused by one for years. the movie all but refuses to acknowledge the things she went through and how horrible they were outside of the initial lore-dump flashback. why even bring it up if you're just going to treat her the same regardless? she is given no sympathy or nuance for this backstory.

i think it especially bothered me because i couldn't help but compare duke to valentina. while valentina doesn't have the same hatred for all men, she does hate the council and she hates standard. even the mc worries sometimes that valentina may hate her because she fears that her butchness makes valentina afraid of her and see her as a man.

valentina is absolutely not a good person, and she can be nasty and do bad things. she can be considered a villain. but because of her backstory, because of the things that were done to her, i can't imagine not still depicting her with some sympathy; she's a tragic figure. it's not just black and white. and especially with the current societal climate, the extreme & often violent misogyny being normalized online, the lesbophobia and transphobia, it feels like we should be taking special care with these stories, particularly when we ARE marketing them to a wider audience. (this would be a different conversation for stories written by and for an ingroup, but again, bit clearly chickened out of doing that)

when i watched this movie, all i could think about is the people that would walk away from this with the idea that duke-- the only woman who actually calls herself a dyke-- and other lesbians irl are the real problem. it does not take a lot for a lesbian to be called "man-hating." this is often the default when people are talking about us, whether it's true or not. and lesbians are often blamed for "infighting" in queer spaces, for pointing out lesbophobia and misogyny (alongside people of color pointing out racism). duke is exactly how they imagine all lesbians to be. and of course duke was wrong, but how many people are really understanding why she was wrong, when the movie refused to actually talk about it? why wasn't laurel even allowed to mention that she was trans, why wasn't she allowed to point out the flaws in duke's thinking for the audience to see?

there's not a lot of actually like... Good lesbian vampire movies; they're either fetishistic or "problematic" (i use that word only half-seriously) but there's a reason why lesbians do get depicted as vampires so often, and it's because people think they are evil and predatory. so it's disappointing to see one that's supposed to be on our side reiterate the same old song and dance again for the hundredth time. and again i just felt that duke's punishment at the end was so fucking cruel for no reason.... i really wanted this movie to be the supposed "queer intersectional feminist movie" it claimed to be but it just wasn't.

1 out of 5 stars for the reasons above but also because duke's outfits were really ugly and that pissed me off, too. watch bottoms instead.

[russeliarat]

So like incredibly short intro for us three hosts. We would introduce you to other members of the system, but we have 100+, possibly way way more so it's very hard to get intros for everyone when we don't know half the people in the noggin'

~-------❁❋❁❋❁❋ .: ʚɞ

❁❋❁❋❁❋~~~~~~Russelia ~~~~~~❁❋❁❋❁❋

So I've been running this blog probably solo for more than a year now, so y'all already know me eheh. My name's Russelia, but call me Russ. I use they/them and flutter/flutterself, and lean very very feminine presenting. I'm the host/co-host, but also function as a main protector for my system, as well as a trauma holder. In headspace, I take the form of a humanoid moth and thus have an obsession with moths - I also have children in headspace whom are varying forms of moths. I'm some form of aroace.

I'm 17 years old but change with the body's age, and I'm taken by another host in a different system <3 I formed ~2020, took over as the primary host around 2021-2022 though was dissociated with our now 'higher up' headmate, and as of recently (July 2023) I gained Jash and Whole as my co-hosts!

Those who knew me as Redd, I was actually blurred with them through a large portion of 2021- April-ish 2023 and believed myself to be them, though they are a different headmate who has too many responsibilities to take the role of host/co-host anymore.

❁❋❁❋❁❋~~~~~~Whole~~~~~~❁❋❁❋❁❋

Writing with Russ's help since apparently no one writes properly enough for em /aff

I'm Whole, CCCC fictive and co-host to the system. 22 years old and I'm taken by another headmate. Because of how marriage works, I'm Russ's stepdad, but they compare us to best friends a lot because we knew each other far before I married their dad. I'm pan, I use he/him.

Formed around May this year (2023) and I function as front's protector and soother, though I'm also a 'higher up' as we like to call the role, I have an admin job for the system essentially - manage system and the new formers, layers, stuff like that, I just get to comfort people and sort out their issues to. We work like a well-oiled clock like that, eh? I prefer to stay silently watching but I'm not against putting my opinions and reblogs here and there.

(Fun fact, Russ thought I was a fever dream when I formed)

❁❋❁❋❁❋~~~~~~Jash~~~~~~❁❋❁❋❁❋

Hey, I'm Jash, I'm a Chonny Jash factive but treat me like I'm my own person (should be an obvious thing but you'd be surprised) I'm eternally stuck at age 20 for some reason, I'm also pan and use he/him pronouns. I'm married to Whole and share memories with Russelia which make us child and father. I function as a protector, comforter and Russ and Whole's co-host. I have an interest in feminine fashion believe it or not

I've got a lot of medical issues, I tend to prefer not to talk about medical issues and stuff, but I'm not totally against chatting about it. We are bodily disabled so at some point I've got to talk about the overlap, right? I'm a bit more vocal than Whole but not as much as Russ, so yk I'll talk here and there. I'm private about my personal life though so don't push it. I find it simply hilarious the entire line up of hosts is one big family, it's incredible. Line up of 'autotune Aussies' or something as Russ puts it /lh /aff

~-------❁❋❁❋❁❋ .: ʚɞ

If there's something we want to individually talk about, we'll use tags for our names:

(examples: -Jash, -Whole, -Russ)

But, if there is none, assume it's either Russ or a combo of all three of us. You'll occasionally see a post with new name tags pop up, these are our other headmates. You'll see this a lot when we're sending asks to our friends' blogs. You can ask about them, but don't expect them/us to answer. If they do, sometimes we'll have to keep information very minimal to protect them such as in the case of a vulnerable headmate or a little for example. Do not harass them for more information, we will not respond or block you depending on the severity.

Lots of people tend to front at once, at one point we have about 20 people in front and it gave us a huge migraine lol, so if a group of people want to talk about something, we'll put multiple names in tone tags. Some of em might decide to colour code each other, let us know if the colours are hard to see ^^

[cordycepsfem]

I am with you on the need for a more prominent anti pedophilia movement withing LGB spaces.

I think there is a weird problem within the LGBT community where two different groups see issues:

-Gay men have a LONG history of being classified as deviants and pedophiles for normal pieces of life. Consider for instance the aggressive anti sodomy laws compared to extremely lax (or non existent) age of consent and child marriage laws through much of the US until recently. The concern among some (particularly gay men) is the battle cry of "kill sex offenders! Prison for life for groomers!" Is that the definitions of both of those will be legally changed to encompass normal healthy behavior. Consider also how the idea of "child molestation" to most Americans conjures an image of a man molesting a boy, even though girls are MUCH more likely to be molested.

-Creeps and creep apologists (Yaniv, Long-Chu, etc).

There are still some very worrying child marriage laws in the US (and around the world)!

I agree that gay men do face unfounded scrutiny and accusations of being deviants/pedophiles, and that should not be wielded against them. However, I don't think that when gay men see a bill against pedophiles or child abusers, many of them immediately think, "Oh no, this will somehow harm me," whereas the literal first place I saw a post about Florida's child abuse law was in a quote tweet from a trans person complaining about how this would affect the trans community.

The problem there is that there is a very large, bizarre faction of the trans community who are terminally online. They don't see how suggesting that an anti-child abuse bill is "anti-trans" makes trans people as a whole look. I read that and cringed on behalf of my trans friends, who are not terminally online individuals, and who never cross my mind when I think about TRAs online.

The additional point about creeps is that they also make the trans community look bad by association, and many of them do it by exploiting the system. Yaniv got his name changed so it was legal for him to file harassment claims against people who "misgendered" him, and spent untold amounts of Canadian taxpayer dollars suing women of color, most of them immigrants, for not wanting to touch his balls. And it was entirely legal for him to do so!

Long-Chu and "Grace" Lavery wrote books about how being thought of as a woman was a sexual thrill for them, how being a "hole" was all that it meant to be a woman, how women are blank-eyed sex puppets... Lavery even had the gall to name his book about being a woman after his penis. But because they're men-who-claim-to-be-women, we must celebrate them, write articles about them, give them money, allow them to be professors where they teach undergraduates about pornographic writing.

You've got "Erin" Reed on Twitter who screams about genocide but can't read a legislative bill for shit, and "Alejandra" Caballero from Harvard who is made out to be some sort of legal expert but actually got called into the Senate to defend threats he made against the Supreme Court on Twitter (best lawyer). And Kevin "Kathryn" Gibes, who's had two "vaginas" made for him, because he let the first one close up, and if you're a US citizen, your tax dollars paid for both - and his breast enhancements; he makes no efforts to hide any of his fetishes and ties all of them to being trans.

And there's the big rubber boob shop teacher, and every male on a lesbian dating site, and every single individual who has ever made their presence known in a place it was not wanted on behalf of their super important "trans" or "queer" identity - whether it's "gay" trans men screaming about homophobia from actual gay men or "lesbian" trans women talking about how actual lesbians need to suck their dicks.

The problem with this is that there are huge scaffolds in place to support all of this madness, rather than make it meaningful for trans people to exist. There are hordes of mommies trying to trans their children, and because we want to love and protect children, of course that rallying cry about children needing health care must be heeded! And if so many people cry about genocide for so long and so often, there must be some sort of truth! If websites post headlines about trans people being murdered in the streets, without any justification for it being a hate crime, it still must have been one! If a legislator introduces a bill that even whiffs of trans, it's set out to kill all trans people! There's no room to call out weirdoes and creeps because they're driving the caravan.

The LGB should do its best to call out predators and pedophiles, to make our community unwelcome for those individuals, and speak out against situations or bills that look to actually harm gay and bisexual people, and cut off the TQ entirely. I have no doubt there are bad actors in the LGB, as there are in every community, but it is the job of those of us in that community to take responsibility and call them out, not to give them the microphone and let them dictate the score.

[multiplicity-positivity]

hi, feel free to not answer this or delete it if u want. i’m an anti-endo system, who’s been hurt a lot by the endo community before, however every once in a while i retake a look at both sides of syscourse and such, u know? anyways, in doing so, i’ve come across ur blog, and i want to say it seems like an awesome blog, particularly for inclusivity. u seem to be against misinfo and harassment and u help people, whether they are traumagenic or not. so thank u for being that type of blog. have a nice day :)

hey thanks! here on this blog we want to create a safe and inclusive environment for all systems. this includes both pro and anti endos (we’re all systems and we all deserve support). this is why we do try to keep syscourse off of this blog.

that being said, we’d like to say a final thing about syscourse and its presence here. it’s under a cut for accessibility (please don’t click to read if you are sensitive to syscourse!)

🐢 kip (and 🦇 kandi - this may be goths first time helping write a post here? rawr won’t be very active here in the future)

we reblogged that warmline warning post because we care about the health and safety of other systems. we don’t want anyone taken advantage of, and we encourage everyone to do their own research and come to their own conclusions. after doing research of our own, our system personally is not interested in supporting the plural association.

we try to keep syscourse off of this blog for the safety and well-being of others. i (and another member of my system) do have a syscourse blog where we’re happy to engage in discussion with all sides of the “syscourse debate” (@kipandkandicore). please interact with us there instead of here anyone who is interested in talking about syscourse!

we’re all multiple, plural, or systems. many of us are struggling, lonely, and in need of support, regardless of our stances on syscourse. there is so much hatred and anger towards each other within the plural community, and that can cause serious, long-lasting harm to fellow systems as well as really cloud one’s vision and make it harder to face facts. as we learn more about our disorder and meet other systems, we’re learning to accept some truths without dismissing the truths of others.

we believe in the theory of structural dissociation. we don’t believe that it is the only way to be plural (rather, one of many, many ways), but that doesn’t change the fact that there is research out there to back it up. we don’t believe in the demedicalization of complex dissociative disorders, but we do believe plurality as a concept and neurodiverse experience needs to be demedicalized, as there are many, many systems out there who do not need treatment, whose plurality does not cause distress, and who formed without trauma. we believe that it is hurtful and pointless to try and police the lived experience of others, and that individual systems are more capable of describing their lives than anyone else. so we will always vouch for the validity of all systems here, no matter what.

we believe that education and giving systems the tools to advocate for themselves in a singlet-dominated world will always be more productive than tearing each other down because of our differences. note that we ourselves are still learning, and while we will never claim to be experts, we will share resources we’ve encountered on plurality in all its forms and talk about what we’ve learned so far. we are always welcome to being corrected when misinformed, but our core beliefs on the treatment of others and the existence of non-traumagenic plurality are not up for debate.

we understand syscourse is a difficult, triggering topic for many, and we want this to be a positive space. that being said, we encourage anyone who wants to engage with us with intentions of discussion to hit us up over on @kipandkandicore :) we have a shared special interest in plurality and do enjoy engaging in these discussions, so please don’t be hesitate to reach out to us there.

[homosexuhauls]

I was reading your tags on that teacher being accused of sexual assault thing, and I was wondering what a teacher is supposed to do if a student admits to having feelings for them? Is simply telling them "oh, well, I'm your teacher and those feelings aren't going to go anywhere" not enough? Do they legit have to report it to somebody?

Surprisingly, I couldn't find any official guidance for how teachers should handle students with crushes. So maybe take my comments with a pinch of salt, it might not be required everywhere! The teachers I know, however, are required to report every disclosure or observation they notice, however seemingly minor or innocuous.

(Usually reports are made via an internal online portal, which would then pass up the chain of the command as necessary. So a minor disclosure might result in just a note being left in the system, but something major could be taken externally. However, if enough minor things are noted about a single student, that would also flag up in the system and result in potential escalation. I have no idea if this is how such observations are made in all schools, or just the ones my friends and family members work in, so ymmv.)

There are a few reasons for this, which I'll explain using the "student crushing on a teacher" scenario as an example. Obviously situations vary though, and the way a teacher handles a 7 year old with a crush would differ massively from handling a 15 year old with a crush! Some of the points below are irrelevant in most circumstances, but guidelines are intended to cover all manner of situations, not just the clear-cut ones. Teachers are always expected to use their discretion, but overall, it's better to overreport than underreport.

Transparency - It is very rarely appropriate for adults, especially teachers or those in positions of power, to keep secrets with children. By not reporting the student's crush, the teacher is inadvertently entering into a sort of pact of silence with the student. This can be dangerous, as in the situation with the falsely accused teacher - her silence between the first and second incidences left room for an alternative narrative to be concocted - but even where no accusations and/or abuse occur, it affects the teacher's position as a trustworthy adult.

Spotting patterns - A child who has a crush on a teacher at any age is most likely a minor thing, but a child who, for example, repeatedly discloses age-inappropriate expressions of affection towards a teacher, or teachers, might be a cause for alarm. This ties back into the transparency point, as teachers being open and reporting a student's behaviour can result in that potential vulnerability being addressed, whereas silence and secrecy might leave that student open to exploitation.

Preventing escalation - If other staff know about a student's crush on a teacher, they may be able to step in or make changes to prevent the student's inappropriate behaviour from escalating. This is mostly not necessary, most young kids and teens are just gonna be a bit giggly or silly when they fancy the teacher, or at most it might lead to some mild classroom disruption or teasing. But where it is showing signs of escalation, sexual harassment etc, colleague support is essential, and again going back to the transparency point (there's a pattern here haha), obtaining that support is a lot easier if everyone has been in the know the whole time.

Protecting oneself - Lots of schools discourage or even prohibit teachers from being alone with individual students. This isn't because teachers are likely to assault students, or students are likely to make false allegations. But it does reduce the possible windows of opportunity for either of these things to occur. Obviously this is to protect the students, which I'll get on to, but it's also done in order to protect teaching staff. A single accusation could potentially end a teacher's career (not a bad thing imo, just a necessary side effect of child safeguarding). Therefore, teachers must not be put in potentially compromising situations. But teachers must also protect themselves from potentially compromising situations, and a student having a crush on them is one of those.

Child safeguarding - Ultimately, this is the thing all the other points lead back to. A teacher must remember that they have power over their students, both as an adult in general and as an authority in their lives. A child admitting to you ("you" being the hypothetical teacher) that they have a crush on you could be a really big thing, they've made themselves incredibly vulnerable to you, an adult we've already established has a significant amount of authority and influence over them. Now you have even more sway and power over them. It's easy to cross boundaries or build inappropriate bonds without realising, and I'm not referring to sexual or romantic grooming by predatory adults. I'm just talking about power dynamics, vulnerable children and teens, and the adults navigating the difficult job of having a duty of care over those young people without getting inappropriately attached - or letting their students get inappropriately attached.

So overall it's a variety of things, but mostly a child welfare thing. Obviously in the case I was commenting on, the student's welfare wasn't as risk so much as the teacher's, and I want to make it absolutely clear that I don't blame her for any of the horrific things he did to her, she (of course) didn't deserve to be assaulted and my heart breaks for her because you can tell she was really just doing her best to support someone she assumed was vulnerable. But she definitely didn't act in the best way from a safeguarding perspective - once she realised her mistake in downloading Snapchat for him to contact her and tell her "his secret" (seriously, teachers, NEVER EVER DO THIS), she should have been the first one to bring the issue to her head of year/next in command. Both to protect the student she still believed was vulnerable, and to protect herself.

What I didn't even get to in this post, and what I really wanted to talk about, were the reasons (I believe) she didn't say anything, and why those reasons frustrated me. I think the reason she most likely didn't report her student's inappropriate behaviour - and to be clear, he did more than just innocently confess a crush, he was clearly trying to make advances whilst understanding the inappropriate nature of his actions - was because she was embarrassed. I know I'm making assumptions here, but I think we're all aware of the stereotypes invoked when teenage boys have crushes on their female teachers. There's an implied feeling that it's her fault for somehow enticing him, for looking or acting or dressing a certain way, the same victim blaming applied to all women and girls who find themselves lusted after by creepy men and boys, but amplified because she's his teacher, she should "know better" (know better than what? To care about her pupils? The horror). Aside from the embarrassment that her initial assessment of the situation was way off - and maybe a lil racist idk* - and the general ick of knowing a child/teen fancies you, I presume she felt the weight of that sexist judgement at some level. And while I understand and empathise with that, it worries me that a teacher cannot bring her safeguarding concerns to her colleagues for fear of the ramifications for her reputation and career due to pervasive misogyny. Maybe I'm way off though, who knows.

*not saying she's racist necessarily, just saying she may have potentially worried about being perceived as racist for making the initial assumption about her student being radicalised.

[genderfluidtechnoblade]

i’ve been thinking about making this post for a while now but uh:

post about dsmp + drm content on this blog going forward + opinions on the driscourse

tws discussion of the drm situation. if you dont know what it is im not explaining it. w/e

tldr dsmp might show up occasionally but i havent cared about it since prison break anyways so no skin off my back, cdream is and has been my oc for months now at this point, not supporting drm individually, wanna see where it goes before dropping his associates

first of all. i think its important to believe what a victim says. so if this girl states that dream was inappropriately messaging her, including sexual conversations she wasnt comfortable with, i believe her. i do also believe that presumption of innocence is important for a justice system and a human right, however, so i want to wait for the outcome of the court case. it’s not that i don’t believe that dream was messaging her and that she was uncomfortable- i want the most information that is available to us about specifics and the verdict irt what exactly took place.

“oh but thats a cop out” thats how a justice system is supposed to work dumbass it’s not supposed to be a he said she said where you side with whichever person you like more. burden of proof is on the accuser. it’s good to believe as the default, because the alternative is defending a harasser/abuser, but there still needs to be substantiated evidence in order to confirm. “but the justice system is going to be biased against this young girl versus this wealthy man” yeah. and i dont know how to account for that. in an ideal world, which is not the one we live in, we get a verdict based on facts and not on which defendent is more likeable.

this is basically a long winded way of saying yeah i believe the girl saying dream messaged her and made her uncomfortable but theres a very large difference in criminality of dick picks versus grooming allegations, yk?

either way. there is enough here that i believe, without court standing, that what dream did was, at minimum, deeply irresponsible. (at maximum is court case shit).  he has a significant pattern of doing something with his platform that is deeply irresponsible. i feel pity for him because he was thrust into a very large spotlight very suddenly, but that pity wanes as years go on and behavior does not change and his platform only grows. dream has shown time and time again that he is incapable of handling his platform.

theres a reason that before i said i liked dream as a favorite creator when he wasnt being stupid. he does things constantly that show he is an immature person, and usually its low enough stakes that, in my opinion, i can get over it and continue to enjoy his content. however, with recent allegations being something more serious than being annoying about mcc, i can no longer in good conscience enjoy this man’s content. even if the court case rules him completely 100% innocent, i feel his irresponsibility in response to these allegations is too serious to ignore. i dont watch or support dream as a creator.

however, i dont want to completely drop his associates at this moment for two reasons. 1) presumption of innocence still stands until proven guilty, and i don’t feel comfortable condemning random internet celebrities via association to someone who’s court case has not been finished 2) said internet celebrities have not given their stance:tm: at this point, and at the moment i am fine with it while things are still technically up in the air. if they try defending dream after a proven guilt, however, then they’re gone. that simple. i understand this doesnt jive w everyone but thats how im approaching it.

on a related note i will still probably occasionally dsmp post. i’ve mostly phased out of it, as i was a techno lore frog, but the characters still bring me a modicum of joy. if someone has an issue w dsmp posting that isnt severe enough to consider unfollowing me, i can start tagging specifically dsmp posts for filtering. however, if youve ever talked to me, and as many people can attest, i have always cared very little for ccdream’s “intent” when it comes to cdream, and many of the things i find enjoyable about the character are largely accidental on his part. therefore i will still be cdream posting along with dsmp, not ignoring him.

if you want me to elaborate on any of these points i ask that you do it in dms cause this thing is annoying and long already. free to chat about difference of opinions but atm this is where i stand. so yeah.

[femdomliterature]

FemLit 0368 - Mens' Sufferings Under Patriarchy

So I read this interesting post from the MensLib subreddit, about how men’s issues are always blamed on men themselves and never on society. The post itself as well as the comments are a very good read in digging in to antimasculism & the ways in which feminism has failed to critically examine men’s suffering under the patriarchy. For example (all bolding by me):

Here again, the problems predominantly affecting women are addressed by changing society, while those predominantly affecting men are addressed by changing men (or by telling men to change themselves). The difference is not that one approach is right and the other wrong; they are both ‘right’ in the sense that they highlight genuine issues, but the approach to men’s problems is more superficial. When dealing with men’s problems, we focus on the immediate cause, which is usually the men’s failure to cope with mental strain (“he should have gone to therapy”, “he should have learned to open up more”); in contrast, when dealing with women’s problems, we focus on “the cause of the cause”, and try to remove the systemic social issues causing the mental strain, rather than telling the victims what they should have done to better cope with it.

I think this is a great point, and something we really need to tackle. OP also goes on to talk about self-repression, comparing girls avoiding sexual harassment and boys avoiding bullying:

Boys (and men) are notorious for repressing their emotions. They have a good reason: in boys’ peer groups, a failure to control your emotions is almost as shameful as a failure to control your bladder; it is a sign of weakness, and any sign of weakness makes you a target for bullying and ridicule. So boys learn to wear a permanent mask of aloof toughness to avoid inadvertently revealing any sign of weakness or uncontrolled emotion, and many keep this habit into adulthood. It is generally well recognized that suppressing emotions is unhealthy in the long run, but it seems to me that the commonly proposed antidote is misguided: boys (or men) are told to “just open up more and be vulnerable” or to “learn how to cry”, as if their reluctance to show emotions were some kind of irrational emotion-phobia, rather than a perfectly reasonable, perhaps even necessary, defense against the ridicule, contempt and loss of respect that society inflicts upon those who can’t keep their emotions in check in the proper “manly” way.

It’s something we don’t really question in mainstream feminism. Women’s issues have a societal root, and men’s issues are issues that men put on themselves, and therefore men just need to fix it themselves and change.

And while yes, we all have a responsibility to unlearn harmful societal teachings, just saying “men need to fix their shit” doesn’t help anyone. I’ve been annoyed for a while at how people will react to men suffering under the patriarchy with “UGH they need to go to therapy”, as if

Needing therapy is a sign of failure or a bad thing, and someone not going to therapy when they need to is them being an asshole on purpose and not potentially a sign of them not feeling safe enough to go to therapy, feeling too ashamed, not having enough money or time, etc.

Individual men getting individual therapy will solve the societal problems of forcing boys and men to repress their emotions and view themselves as only valuable if they can perform manual labor and have a lot of sex with women. It’s a problem that is only perpetuated by men themselves and if they just stopped doing that, then the problem would disappear.

No self-respecting feminist would ever react to a woman obviously suffering from the patriarchy with “ugh, she needs to go to therapy and fix herself.” Yes, therapy would be helpful most likely, but that’s not going to actually fix the underlying cause of her issues. So why do we, as feminists, think that “men just need to fix themselves” is an okay response to societal suffering under the patriarchy?

Who does this help? Who benefits from us ignoring these issues? Why do we assume that men’s experiences under the patriarchy are so one-dimensional and that we have no responsibility for unlearning our societal biases around men and masculinity?

Someone in the comments also added this quote from the “perpetually relevant” I Am A Transwoman. I Am In The Closet. I Am Not Coming Out essay by Jen Coates:

Have you noticed, when a product is marketed in an unnecessarily gendered way, that the blame shifts depending on the gender? That a pink pen made “for women” is (and this is, of course, true) the work of idiotic cynical marketing people trying insultingly to pander to what they imagine women want? But when they make yogurt “for men” it is suddenly about how hilarious and fragile masculinity is — how men can’t eat yogurt unless their poor widdle bwains can be sure it doesn’t make them gay? #MasculinitySoFragile is aimed, with smug malice, at men—not marketers.

And then another commenter left this (and referenced bell hooks’ work on men!!):

“Do you agree that we tend to approach women’s problems as systemic issues, and men’s problems as personal issues?” Yes, and there’s even a name for this: Hyperagency. Individual men are assumed to be immune to systemic pressures because the people at the top of the hierarchies generating those pressures are also men. “And if you do agree with that, do you think this difference in approach is justified, or do you rather think it is a case of an unfair bias?” It’s pretty clearly not rooted in reality. The idea that billions of ordinary men aren’t beholden to the social constructs under which they were raised is just plain silly. I’d blame the empathy gap, but honestly I feel like it’s more than that. Patriarchy hyper-individualizes every struggle a man faces as a way to shield itself from critique and gaslight ordinary men. The motivations there are readily apparent. However, we see the same blind spot appear even in more academic Feminist spaces (taking for granted that “Feminist” spaces on social media are hardly representative of the cutting edge of Feminist thought). bell hooks once postulated that some Feminist women are deeply afraid of acknowledging how little they understand about men, let alone taking the steps to broach that gap.

Another person explained hyperagency by saying “Every single individual man is a hyper agent who is just expected to bootstrap his way out of the patriarchy through sheer force of will.”

[kedarconnect]

Online Matchmaking: The Internet Dating Revolution and How it is Changing the Dating Game?

Introduction

Online dating has been on the rise in the last decade, with online dating apps and matchmaking sites being very popular.

Most people nowadays are using online dating apps or websites to find love, friendship, or just someone to chat with. With these modern day tools it  now much easier for people to find a suitable person to a start relationship with. People now no longer have to worry about wasting their time with uninterested individuals in bars or clubs, rather they can take their time finding the perfect person for them.

There are a number of benefits of using online dating over more traditional methods such as bars and clubs. Some benefits include convenience, anonymity, reduced opportunity cost (saving time), access to more potential partners (lots of single people use these tools), less pressure put on the user, it is much easier to weed out unsuitable matches etc.

With more and more people trying their hand at online dating, there is a strong sense that the rules of engagement have changed.

In the past, matchmakers would use physical traits such as dress size, occupation or level of education as a way to match identical souls. Online dating has made it much easier for people to be matched with others who are compatible in terms of values and lifestyles.

Matchmaking and dating have changed, drastically. It is now easier to find a partner thanks to the internet. And it’s not just singles who are changing the game. The advent of dating apps has changed how we date and find love, bringing a new way of thinking about romance, monogamy and commitment into our lives.

Online matchmaking has become one of the most popular ways to find a date. It has become so popular that more and more people are turning to online dating apps, rather than going out in person.

Online dating has many benefits for the people who take advantage of it, with some being the convenience of meeting multiple people at the same time and not having to worry about running into someone from their everyday life.

Another perk is that you can be yourself and not have to worry about what you are wearing or how you come across. You can always go back and edit your profile if need be, even if it is just for a few hours before going on another date. Online dating also gives singles access to try new things, whether it be different hobbies or type of food they would never try in real life.

Online match-maker services have been around for a long time. They allow singles to meet other singles who are looking for the same thing as them. Some of these services are free, some charge a fee. They also offer different features such as chat rooms, forums, and instant messaging.

The first step in finding your soulmate online is to find the right website that suits your needs and interests. You should choose one that you feel comfortable with and not be afraid to experiment with different sites until you find one that is just right for you.

If you are a woman, be careful when online dating websites are a start. Some websites only cater to men and they can be extremely scary to women. Women who feel sexually harassed online should simply leave the website if they feel the person is not comfortable with them.

Go to the website and sign up, if they allow you to create an account. Make sure you choose a website that has a good reputation for online safety and match-making.

You are going to be using the website a lot for finding matches so you want to make sure they are safe for you to go to. Match-making websites are usually free. You are paying for the services that they provide you with. Some of these services include the online chat feature, the chat room, and the online profiles.

When you are searching for a match you can choose if you want to just find a new friend or if you want to find a romantic relationship. Usually when you are using the chat feature or chatting on forums there will be a matching system. If you choose to meet people through chat, you should use a service that matches you with people who have similar interests.

Conclusion

There are many different ways to meet singles nowadays. One of the most popular is online dating apps. There are plenty of different apps to choose from, but which one is the best for you?

Match-making services have been around for a long time and they are very popular. They provide a way for singles to find their perfect match in person. However, with so many people looking for love these days, match-making services just can't keep up with demand. That's why there are now online matchmakers that can help you find your perfect match without ever having to leave home!

[1ddiscourseoftheday]

Mon 1 Apr

Update theme of the day, me being cranky! We have entitled people treating Harry like an object, and reckless massaging of logic, two things that really chap my hide! April fools, the joke is on anyone who follows me for, well, jokes. Better luck tomorrow. Well let's get it over with...

First up, the Incident with Harry- I laughed about the stalkers getting in a fight in front of him in NY but even that was kind of a bummer honestly, and it turns out the reality was even worse. In fact, a jet lagged Harry came out of the restaurant where he had dinner after his big event, probably dead on his stylishly shod feet at this point, to a small crowd of fans. He understandably said he wasn't up for pictures, sad but okay it happens: at this point one of the fans STARTS YELLING AT HIM about it and condescendingly calls him "sweetie" in a tone that honestly makes me want to smack her. Poor Harry, not being a jerk unlike me I would snap and knowing it'd probably make international headlines if he refused, then has to smile for pictures cheek to cheek with these entitled creeps. The whole display is gross as hell, the idea that people feel such entitlement to anyone's time or body, regardless of their status as, for example, a celebrity; I think it would do (mostly female) fandom some real good to reflect on the ways it parallels female oppression and consider how being treated like an object who owes your body or smile to someone for any reason makes you feel. Is catcalling or grabbing strangers or pressuring in the face of a clear no ever okay? Is it something that's okay to do to men or to famous people just because the dynamic of oppression is different? Or do we want to be better than that rather than just flipping the roles? I know for sure that I at least want these particular boys who I care for to be treated with more respect than that.

Of course, there's more than simple interpersonal dynamics at play here- the chances are high that those fans were told where to wait for Harry by HSHQ, which would have fueled their sense of entitlement, as has been seen over and over again. The boys' management absolutely have power over what kind of behavior is tolerated- if they really started denying access to more people who behave badly, rather than continuing to invite them places and give them gifts, that behavior would stop. It's upsetting that that continues to not be a priority.

AND THAT'S NOT ALL I have even more ranting for you today! I didn't comment a lot on the NYC lousquatch vid cause I didn't really think it warranted it but it's still a hot topic and today people were going around saying that the pics of Louis at the footie game Sat were from an earlier date and were posted now to hide the fact that he was in NY so okay fine. Listen. Are you suggesting that the Hadley official football club AND the opposing team posted pictures on their official Facebook pages of a match that took place at a different time claiming it was the previous day's match and that just... worked? That no-one who follows them thought that was strange? Did they play a whole match that was kept secret to make this possible now? I think people are underestimating the football fandom and overestimating the extent to which LTHQ can manipulate the world, but okay, it was a small footie league I guess anything is possible, I'll keep going. The NYC video is of someone being papped which would be a very odd choice for a Louis who was theoretically sneaking around to be in NY and is honestly the biggest argument against for me, the person in the video is entering a different restaurant than the one Harry was seen exiting, video OP is a creep and a troll but even he said it wasn't Louis, the guy in the video was imo too skinny to be Louis, Harry flew home as quickly as possible alone on a public flight, and no, time zones and flight times do not really allow for Louis to have been in NYC the evening of the 29th and at that game the afternoon of the 30th.... Like yeah, maaaybe it's technically possible and I can muster up arguments to combat most of this but they require a lot of wild maybes and none of them remotely allow for the possibility that Louis is genuinely taking some time off for self care which I hope to god is the case, and I gotta say I think the simpler explanation is a lot more likely; that Louis is in London. And so is Harry now, after pretty obviously running himself completely ragged to manage that. And while Harry was gone Oli and Louis went out for the day. Anyway now more pics of Lou from that day are popping up so you would think it'd be a moot point but I thought that yesterday too AND I just saw someone wondering if the new ones were photoshopped so I'm just gonna leave this here.

Anyway the only funny thing I have today is imagining Louis' dismay at Pizza Hut calling him "fineapple", after his least favorite pizza topping. There's probably a topping joke to be made in there but despite what the rest of this post may make you think I'm not actually trying to get blocked by everyone in this fandom so I'll just let that one go by...

Meanwhile Niall was papped in London looking smoking hot tbh, but like Niall DO YOU MIND I'M BUSY WITH OTHER STUFF TODAY go be visible tomorrow!!

[olderthannetfic]

Hi! I know you're one of the older fans on Tumblr & I wanted to ask you about the anti movement. I'm 19 & when I see people talking about the ages of anti fans, they're often within the 14-25 age range & I have no idea why. I also feel it's a little unfair to say that younger fans tend to be antis, though it is understandable since I've also made mistakes when I didn't know things. Why do you think most antis are younger fans? What should younger fans who aren't antis do to be more involved?

Hee! I’m 40, which, tbh, actually isn’t that old for Tumblr (though it’s certainly old compared to the common perception of tumblr), so sure, I can probably answer this. I guess there are two questions here: 1. Is it true and 2. why, if so?

1. Experience suggests that antis do tend to be young... but it does not follow that young people tend to be antis. (You’d have to know the proportion of antis relative to the overall population of fandom, which we don’t. I think the majority of people of any age tend to want to read fic in peace and not be roped into endless wank.) I definitely see some ringleaders who are older and good at manipulating fandom trends for their own ends too.

2. Why would this be the case?

When I was in college, we used to joke about all the freshman year Marxists. It’s an eternal phenomenon: people who don’t have much experience learn a new thing and are on fire to change the world using the one tool in their toolbox. (To a man with a hammer, yadda yadda.) There’s no passion like the passion of the newly converted, and young people tend to have a lot more energy and often a lot more free time to yell on social media. Antis may be one expression of this among people currently in that age bracket. It’s not like people my age didn’t do other annoying-ass things when we were that age. You just don’t see it because it was 20 years ago, a lot of it was never online, and all the websites/platforms from then have been systematically destroyed. (Often by yahoo. Fuck yahoo.)

The other half of the reason, in my opinion, is that there have been concerted efforts to sway lefty/socially liberal people in specific--often TERFy--ways. It’s somewhat reminiscent of the right wing radicalization of gamer guys.

People are susceptible to it because their lives suck and because they don’t know enough history or have enough confidence to form their own opinions and stand up for them. Sure, some people are going to go hardcore for anti views no matter how much they know, but a lot of people are just being swept along with the tide because something sounds superficially pro-gay or pro-protecting kids or whatever.

I cannot emphasize enough that the things that make someone ripe for the alt right are the same things that make them ripe for cults and for various kinds of toxic fandom shit: it’s usually the smart, sensitive overthinkers who don’t have enough close actual friends and who aren’t in a good place in their lives.

---

So what can you do?

You can try to make fewer more significant friendships and make sure your support system isn’t people you only know because you currently share a fandom. Most of my offline friends are people I found through fandom meetups, don’t get me wrong. I’m all for making fandom your life and only hanging out with fandom people, but we’re just regular friends who have dinner parties and shit (well, when it’s not the plaguetimes). Most of the time, we don’t share specific ships or fandoms. It’s vitally important to have a real support network that can’t be ripped away by social media wank.

The next thing we can all do is publicly stand up for what we believe in and not cave to pressure just because someone yelled “think of the children”. It’s important to be clear about the real history and logic behind these things, whether it’s the history of censorship that inspires people to support AO3′s extremely permissive policies or the fact that ‘queer’ was a fully reclaimed umbrella term in the 90s.

It’s okay if we don’t all agree. What’s not okay is appeals to emotion and ignoring science. A lot of anti bullshit is like “Rape fantasies are an abnormal red flag”, and this goes against every damn thing we know about human sexuality.

Part of this is examining our own stances for illogic and hypocrisy. If thought crimes aren’t real, then all of them aren’t real. I see way too many “Okay, but that one gross kink though!” comments from people who claim to be on my side, and this is very silly.

Possibly the biggest thing, though, is that we as a planet need to start being savvier about shitty social media and how it’s destroying our mental health. I don’t have a good overall solution, and obviously, I’m still on tumblr, but we all really need to cut down the amount of time we’re on sites like Facebook and Twitter and probably tumblr too. The more it has an algorithm and the less it has moderation, the more it’s a problem. Individual discords and spaces that can have moderation are better. It’s fine if some of them are 100% antis. The point is to have multiple spaces with rules that suit different groups.

A thing you can do is make your own spaces: be the owner of a discord for your ship, not just a passive participant at the mercy of shitty mods in an existing one. Run a fic exchange with rules you think are sensible and be firm when people try to scream about problematique things you don’t agree are a problem. One of the most pernicious anti problems is mods breaking the rules of their own spaces (usually a “no kinkshaming” one) to cave to social pressure from the loudest, most assholish set of people in the server. They don’t know how many people quietly disapprove and quietly leave their fandoms because they only fear the loud harassers, not the silent toll of caving to them.

Honestly, the climate of fear is the big issue more than a bit of yelling: I routinely meet 20-somethings who live in fear of being canceled and shunned. You can help this by... not being like that with your friends. If they’re friends with a canceled person, don’t ask them to drop the canceled person or face the same fate. If you disagree about some fandom hot take, talk about it calmly and don’t act like the friendship will be over in 5 seconds and you’ll use all your knowledge of them against them in a public callout because they didn’t instantly agree.

Basically, have some self confidence and don’t be fucking terrified all the time... which can be a tall order and probably explains the age thing also.

[cacodaemonia]

okay but. when the vast majority of the "antis" are poc asking you to take a moment to consider the often racist tendencies behind your actions, have you considered that you /might/ be in the wrong here?

if you're doubling down on this stance because you feel you've been harassed, there are some really helpful and well worded posts i can send you if you're interested that explain some of the issues facing the tcw fandom at large! as a white person, they've been very helpful showing me some of the harmful aspects of fan engagement that i didn't have the words for

Ah yes, another anon with concrete proof of their claims.

Anyway, this is a good example of a whataboutism, where anon is trying to take my stance that sending death threats to real people over fictional ships is shitty, and turn it into me being racist.

It's a super common tactic in political arguments, and is often successful at burying the original point in layers of other, usually unrelated topics or accusations.

As I've said before, I'm not going to argue or try to change people's minds, because that's an exercise in futility.

The rest of this post, under the cut, is not directed at the fandom police (who, by not just blocking me, show how devoted they are to being angry over harmless internet content), but to others who might be at risk of being manipulated by their gaslighting.

So first, I apparently need to point out that shipping doesn't inherently have anything to do with race or racism. It can, for certain individuals, and there are obviously a plethora of nasty aspects of fandom that are racist and awful. But antis muddy the waters by crying wolf about others enjoying fictional space people who do not in any way represent a real world group and have no equivalent because they're millions of literal clones.

When they make such a fuss about something that is not harming anyone, they drown out the voices of those addressing actual problems. I know of several poc who have been driven out of fandom because they disagreed with the antis and were then shouted down and harassed for not caving to the arbitrary demands (much like religious extremists, who harm others if they don't conform to their religious creed).

As someone who has been heavily involved in political activism (not keyboard activism) for anti-racist causes and various other progressive issues for many years, it's easy to see through the attempts by antis to hide their obsession with policing fandom experiences of others behind the claim of 'speaking for poc.' Elevating the voices of those who have been historically marginalized is extremely important, but when they simply use that as an excuse to be hateful, they're not doing anyone any good.

Ask yourself: by harassing individuals (about whom they truly know nothing) online, how are the antis helping marginalized or disenfranchised groups? If they really wanted to create positive change, they could put their excessive energy toward fighting systemic racism and inequity by holding mass media and lawmakers accountable, rather than bullying fans who have no power and just happen to have slightly different views on fictional characters.

It's a way to get attention and feel powerful, plain and simple. They drag others down in order to feel superior—or whatever motivates people who enjoy harming others, idk.

I'm glad that the internet preserves this stuff, because maybe some antis will look back in a few years, after they've had enough life experience to understand that real world issues aren't black and white and can't be solved by screaming on the internet. Maybe some of them will realize how needlessly cruel they've been, and how much harm they've caused to real people who just want to share something they like with others.

I won't be responding to any other similar asks. I'm on Tumblr to have fun with fandom stuff, not to engage in the dumpster fire that is the real world or listen to poorly constructed arguments for why everything is 'problematic.'

[punkylilwitch]

Types of Witches

Traditional Witch - Traditional witches are witches who have a base in the history of witchcraft and the Old Craft that came before Wicca. 

They take a historical (traditional) approach to their practice and often will study their ancestors or other folklore attached to witchcraft. 

They want to honor the “old” ways of practicing their craft, and will often focus on working with the local history, nature, and spirits of where they are or where they’ve come from. 

Sea Witch - A sea witch has strong ties to water and the ocean and uses that element often in her practice. 

Sea and ocean magic will often use sand, shells, driftwood, or other elements that come from that place. 

Sea witches feel connected to water and ancient folklore involving sirens etc.

Kitchen Witch - Also known sometimes as a hearth witch or a home witch, kitchen witches create most of their magick in the home or in the kitchen. 

They are very home-based, often incredibly nurturing, and love to make their home a truly special and sacred space. 

Kitchen witches love to cook and brew and use herbs, sometimes gathered from their own garden. This does now, however, mean that they are the same as green witches.

When practicing they combine their own personal and individual magical energy with essential oils, herbs, food, and everyday objects to create their spells, rituals, and magic.

Hedge Witch - Hedge witches practice what’s known as “hedge jumping” which is venturing out of this world and into the Otherworld. 

Hedge witches can communicate with the spiritual world and can send messages between both worlds. 

Hedge witches practice astral projection as well as work with herbs and Earth based magic. 

But what makes them specifically a hedge witch is their ability to cross the “hedge” aka: the boundary between this world and the spirit world. 

It’s thought that the “flying on a broomstick” legend was a misunderstanding based on hedge witches “flying” into the spiritual realm.

Elemental Witch - Elemental witches study and practice based on the four elements: earth, air, wind, and fire. 

An elemental magic is work based on and honoring each element. 

An elemental witch may have an altar for each specific element. 

Elemental witches call on the elements when casting spells and performing rituals, and may even have an element that they personally identify with and work towards finding.

Ceremonial Witch - Ceremonial witches have many practices, but ceremonies and rituals are practices that they hold in especially high regard. 

Ceremonial magic is worked into most of the elements of their practice. 

They likely work a ritual or ceremony into whatever they’re casting or trying to accomplish. 

They often call on specific beings and spiritual entities to assist them with whatever they’re casting.

Green Witch - Also called garden witches or forest witches, green witches are highly connected to the earth the energy that it possesses. 

They may have their own garden where they grow their own herbs, but they also study their area and practice with local plants and their own environment. 

They use plants/greenery in their spells and magic and sometimes, even their cooking and in their home. This does not mean that they are the same as a kitchen witch however.

They are often very natural and love to be in nature and near anything “green”—plants, trees, flowers, etc. They do this to be as close to Mother Earth, and the spirit she encompasses, as possible.

They are likely to be in-tune with the seasons and often use natural materials to create their own magical tools. They most likely try to perform all their spellwork and rituals outside in nature when possible.

Hereditary Witch - A hereditary witch is a witch that was born into witchcraft. It is a part of their family and/or their lineage. 

Their magic and practice are passed down from previous generations, though they may work with their own individual practices as well or instead of their families. However, there is still choice. 

Hereditary witches must be born into witchcraft, but if you do not choose to practice witchcraft you won’t STILL be a hereditary witch. Just because someone is born in a witch family it does not necessarily mean that they will be more knowledgeable or powerful than a non-hereditary witch either.

Cosmic Witch - Cosmic witches are contemporary witches who look to the cosmos, astrology, and astronomy and work those elements and celestial energy into their practice. 

Also called “Star Witches”, these witches often follow the planets and the alignment of the stars and base their spells and rituals on the different placements.

Secular Witch - Secular witches still cast spells, use crystals, herbs, oils, and candles, but they don’t attach spirituality to their practice. 

Secular witches don’t worship a deity or higher being—their practice is entirely non-religious. 

They don’t believe in the power behind energy or that there is energy in their work. 

This isn’t to say that a secular witch CAN’T be spiritual, it’s simply that their work is not. The two are entirely separate.

Solitary Witch - A solitary witch can be any type of witch, but they choose to practice alone rather than with a coven. 

This could be by choice or because they haven’t found a group to work with yet.

A solitary witch can incorporate various different paths based on their interest and may or may not use witchcraft as part of a wider spiritual path or religion.

There are also legends that solitary witches are reincarnations of witches who have been practicing for generations and at puberty, their knowledge is awakened. 

Since they already remember and understand the craft, their need for a coven is less than a newer witch.

Eclectic Witch - An eclectic witch does not have one set religion, practice, tradition, or culture that they pull from. 

Their practice derives from many sources and, ultimately, becomes the witch’s own. 

They may worship a higher being, or their practice may be primarily secular, or it might be its own kind of spiritual. 

They rely on a variety of different cultures, beliefs, and systems to formulate their own personal witchcraft practice which may change and evolve over time. An eclectic witch ultimately makes their own “rules” with their practice—it is entirely unique based on the individual witch.

Other Witches Not Mentioned

Storm witches - work with weather and help create and guide storms

Specified witches - witches that work specially with magick like sex magick, glamor magick, divination, etc.

White witchcraft - witches with the goal of transcending the material world in favor of spiritual advancements.

Death Witches - work mainly in necromancy and with materials associated with death like grave dirt and bones.

Religious Witches - people who incorporate witchcraft as part of their religion/religious ceremonies/religious practices.

Bad Witches - witches who harass others, gatekeep, refuses criticism, appropriates other religions in favor of looking “worldly”,  uses age/time spent practicing witchcraft to talk down to or manipulate baby witches

Digital/Tech witches - a witch whose practice is located mostly online

Art/Craft witch - creator (and occasionally seller) of magickal tools and uses art to cast spells

Urban witches - witches who incorporate modern twists into their craft

Music witch - uses songs, poems, and chants to do magick (= more such as sigils on guitar picks) 

https://www.vondechii.com/post/the-different-types-of-witches-creating-magic-all-around-you

http://www.arcane-alchemy.com/blog/2018/6/26/10-types-of-witches

http://www.lunalunamagazine.com/dark/im-an-urban-witch-heres-how-it-works-for-me

[mojoflower]

WHY is fanfiction not the appropriate venue for your political or social battle?

We can all agree, I posit, that there are changes that need to be made in the world (racism, for example;  patriarchal inequalities;  rape culture;  capitalism;  plug in your personal cause here).

We can all ALSO agree, I think, that the way culture, media, etc. portray things influences a consumer on an unconscious level.

We can agree that, in real life, certain things are clearly bad:  abuse of others, non-consensual sex, systemic inequality, I can go on….

So.  Let me feel my way through this.  I, personally, feel like fanfiction (specifically on AO3, since that’s where I encounter it) is NOT an appropriate battleground for enforcing cultural change by:

Leaving comments about how someone’s work is (in your, the commenter’s, opinion) wrong, damaging, unfair, insensitive, etc.

Telling the writer they should change this or that.

Telling the writer they must add or delete tags.

Broadcasting your opinion of the writer’s egregiousness outside AO3 (twitter, for example, or here on tumblr).

Organizing a campaign of harassment against the author if they don’t change to suit your personal requirements.

First of all:

 Be the change you want to see.

Fanfiction, unlike any other media out there, is INDIVIDUAL.  It is one work, from one single person – voluntary and unpaid.  You yourself are one single person.  You can have as much influence as this writer.  Write the works you want to read, instead of demanding that the writer change to suit you.  This is how romance novels changed from non-con, non-condom-wearing, shudderingly unequal stories in the 70s and 80s to where they are now, for example.  New people started writing stories, and eventually established authors started changing, too (or dwindled away).

Remember that you know nothing about the author.

You don’t know their culture, their skin color, their age, their gender.  You don’t know their socioeconomic status or how much free time they have.  You don’t know their current mental or physical conditions.  You don’t know any of the things going on in their life.  AND.  You are not entitled to know these things.  When you lash out at an author for not doing research, for not editing, for… anything at all… you cannot assume that they’re not fourteen, not suicidal, not a native speaker, not disabled such that writing a single paragraph is a tremendous effort.  You don’t know they’re not in an abusive situation, or economic peril.  You do not have the right to tell them to change.  Whether you are asking them to change text, tone, tagging, ships, plot, you name it.  Anything.

Dead Dove:  Do Not Eat.

Don’t like, don’t read.  These are simple concepts, and the tagging system on AO3 helps you to avoid many triggers.  Simple common sense, once you're into a story that’s raising your hackles, will warn you away from the rest.  If you say, ‘no, this person can’t write that, it’s contributing to pain in the Real World’ then you are functioning as a censor.  I mean, at its most basic level, a censor is someone who strikes out passages in books or other media because it’s… immoral/bad/etc.  The problem is that morality is incredibly tailored to the group you’re in, and also incredibly fluid, shifting over time.  So… why do YOU get to be the censor and not the author?  What makes YOU the final word?  Seriously, think about it.

Fanfiction writers are the most vulnerable group you could target.

Which makes them easy prey, and possibly makes them the juiciest and most satisfying targets.  Address your anger to Hollywood or Simon & Schuster or Congress – and your voice will doubtless get lost in the shuffle.  Address it to an author on AO3 and you can deliver your blow personally, one on one, and witness the damage.  There is no professional buffer between your resentment and their reaction.

Who are fanfiction writers?  Overwhelmingly women, overwhelmingly queer, often very young and inexperienced.  Wow.  What a rewarding group to start slapping around.  You wouldn't be the only one to think so.  Seriously.  Aim your anger at someone who is STRONGER than you.  Not someone who is (likely) weaker than you.  You’re kicking a kitten, while a lion lounges behind you.

Censoring someone’s thoughts is bad.

People should be allowed to THINK.  And they can think whatever they want.  Whether and where and how it should be expressed is another matter.  AO3 is a safe place for whatever weird-ass thoughts you have.  It is expressly written into their mission statement.  AO3 was SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED so that authors could have a place for their dead dove fics.

So.  Why is [your pet cause] okay on AO3 and not on a script in Hollywood?

AO3 requires membership before you can post anything, so it’s arguably private.  AO3 provides tools for readers to avoid works they might find triggering.  AO3 profits no one.  Follow the money, and there are your true culprits.  Not a housewife from Hoebokken.

Fanfiction writers make no money.  When they write, they are not lawmakers, filmmakers, teachers or preachers.  This is not their job.  They do not have a responsibility to the community, because they are vested with no power and no paycheck.  Please move your battlefield to one of these other venues.  Your fight will be harder, but it will also do a lot more good than traumatizing some naive  kid away from writing forever.

Fanfiction comprises an individual’s personal thoughts and personal works, written for their own enjoyment, shared only through AO3 to (presumably) like-minded readers.  Fanfics are a person’s fantasies and daydreams.  They might be an author’s therapeutic exercise.  Or someone trying to explore something new, whether it be cultures, ideas, sexualities or kinks.  Humans need a place where they can be wrong and make mistakes.  Think about that, I implore you.  If you are constantly pointing out someone’s errors, you may eventually either silence them forever, or instill in them permanent resentment.  This does not further your cause.

You have your personal cause.

I’ve seen a lot of them.  Incest is bad, you’re not allowed to write about it.  Pedophilia is bad, you’re not allowed to write about it.  Abusive relationships are bad, you’re not allowed to write about them.  Racism is bad, you’re not allowed to write about it.  Genderswap is transphobic, you’re not allowed to write about it.  A/B/O romanticizes damaging gender inequalities.  There are many.  If every single one of you got to stamp out your personal crusade, then fic would be scant on the ground and many people wouldn’t try to create anymore.  It’s stifling to creativity and terrifying to an author that they might slip up and be called out.  No one, as far as I know, likes to think of their fanfiction as something that will be turned in for a grade.

Your standards are your own.

What are the precise parameters of an abusive relationship?  Transphobia?  Racism?  Pedophilia?  Fetishism?  Where does dub-con become non-con?  No one is the mouthpiece for the whole world.  You are only the mouthpiece for yourself.

If you think to yourself that it’s not okay to tell someone they can’t write about, say, a gay relationship, but it IS okay to tell them they can’t write about a certain ship or dynamic (for Reasons), then maybe you should step back and check yourself and your entitlement to someone else’s endeavor.

In conclusion:

I’m not saying that racism doesn’t exist in fanfiction.  Or creepy sexual abuse, or glorification of harmful dynamics.  It certainly does.  I’m not trying to play semantics with you.

But when you see these things, when they bother you... back right out.

That’s it.  Just back out, ignore it and find a different fic.  (Or better yet, write your own!)  Shower the fics you approve of with love and comments about why you think they’re great.  Give them kudos and bookmarks and shout-outs on your blog.  Eventually, if your opinion is popular, authors who thought otherwise will realize that readership is looking for something different.  They’ll change or they won’t, but the body of work will change over time, and THAT is what you’re looking to accomplish.  Not to stamp out fanfiction altogether.