#not queer men thinking they can get away with misogyny because they’re also victims of the patriarchy but then not acknowledging the ways

[livvyofthelake]

elon should buy tiktok next. kill it. i hate it. i want it dead

[i-did]

hi hello i couldn't sleep last night so i was scrolling thru all ur asks and stuff and ur opinions and analyses are so interesting!!! and then afterwards i was thinking about what u were saying about mlm smut and i'd also been thinking about such things a little bit recently bc like.....at a certain point it becomes quite clear that the vast majority of smut-writing is just imitation. like there's the sex noise verb list and all and the whole general mechanics of the sex and those things just .... replicate over and over. and the whole thing w people writing mlm vs wlw smut regardless of their own sexual orientation..... like i feel like a big part of that is just a self-perpetuating thing. like if u have not had sex and u r getting all ur (pleasure-related) sex ed from fandom (even if u do watch porn, that doesn't rlly tell u how to describe stuff? idk) regardless of What fandom , the majority is going to be mlm smut. which is itself majority imitation of other mlm smut, imitating and imitating back to whoever knows what the first smut fanfic was etc. there's just way More to mimic than there is on the women side of things. which then becomes a self-perpetuating thing, bc the mimicry continues and generates more and more. and---if there are fundamental misunderstandings of anatomy involved---those self-perpetuate as well. and maybe even exaggerate. and yeah. does this all make sense? idk i was just thinking about it. like all the stereotypes and stuff continue bc writers are getting their inspo from other writers rather than their own brains. or something. idk!!!!! it's just all... divorced from reality? bc words. or something!! i hope u get what i'm trying to say. just thoughts i've been thinking. anyway i think ur thoughts are cool. and ur writing. ok bye have a good day!!

Okay yeah this is kinda messy but hope u see this, uhh yeah I think you're right about the echo chamber effect fr about stuff. I think it's a mix of projecting too sometimes. talk more under the cut and also link to a video essay since I love video essays.

Here’s a video that sort of touches on this topic: 

“Gay fanfiction” by Sarah Z. (has CC)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H8E_C00dKwI

This video begins to talk about fetishization at the end, but also… not really. The words “gay fanfiction” is used as a catchall, when really gay fanfiction is largely mlm written by non-mlm.

Fandom is a largely women's space dominated by the female gaze in a media industry world that is dominated by men and the male gaze. I'm really glad women have this space to explore creativity and queerness, and I don't expect the female gaze to go away, but I am still ultimately bummed out I can’t read most fanfic or interact with most fandom spaces without having fetishization in my face. 

So about 80% of fandom is women, and most of those women aren't straight, but 90% of those women prefer mlm ships. Why don’t they prefer wlw ships? Well definitely part of it is the fact that queerbaiting is centered around white straight men, and then there is also the fact that women tend not to be written as well charcter wise. But the fact still remains that you get jerjean getting priority over Layla and Alvarez who are in canon just as much and are a canon wlw couple who actually interact as well as Alvarez could likely be a woc because of her Hispanic last name. Korasami doesn’t get nearly as much hype as zuko and saka, despite the fact that they are 2 fully dimensional characters who canonly kiss and hold hands, something the creators fought for and ended up having to sacrifice another reboot for. 

I do believe the fandom echo-chamber is largely responsible for… a lot of things, like you're saying. But what's interesting is that the complaints I've heard about visual porn from non mlm in the fandom space is that they can’t get off to it because its for the male gaze and misogynistic usually. But they also don't seem to notice how the mlm smut circles has the female gaze and is also… almost always mlm. If it was a pure anatomical not knowing thing, I get that, but I also think that leads to the question of “then why the male body for porn, and not your own? The one you know and are familiar with?” 

I know some people want to get outside of their own body for porn and don’t want to think of their own anatomy at all, but overall I'm still uncomfortable. If an anglo said “well I watch porn of only Mexicans so I don't self insert” I'm gonna be like … hhhh in a similar way. I understand people “like what they like” but I wish they also noticed said patterns in the first place. I understand the t4t tumblr porn circle, and how it's different from cis people who only watch trans porn. 

I actually wished that instead of fandom focusing on mlm ships where some asshole guy hits on bottom troupe charcter for top troupe character to save, was instead… a wlw character experiencing said shitty getting hit on and other wlw swooping in. what's interesting is fandom writes a lot about misogynistic experiences without often realizing it. Ive read fanfic where guys get called sluts for sleeping with people or called bitch for speaking their mind, these arent things men usually experience, but rather women. Fandom has a lot of internalized misogyny and also queerphobia imo. Women characters often get pushed to the sidelines and men become the canvas for female fans to project onto. 

There is this natural inclination to mlm. When people are talking about “gay shipping” or “gay books” or “gay feels” or even just “gay” mlm is what’s largely in mind. I honestly am kinda saddened by this because if gay fanfiction was really solely about writing more to feel represented, then you would see a lot of bi and ace and lesbian rep, but this isn't the case. Queer women are seriously underrepresented, and I want to hear their stories and read them in fanfiction as well as published. 50% of lgbt literature is mlm, and of that its largely written by women. Becky Albertalli, Rainbow Rowell, Maggie Stiefvater, are the YA big names and are all women writing mlm. Red white and royal blue is written by Casey McQuiston and Captive prince (which is not YA) is written by C. S. Pacat, who is non-binary, but is also TME and not mlm. These are all the big names in mlm lit, behind them is some gay men, but honestly their stories aren't preferred, they're not the right “flavor” for the consumers usually, who are largely women. In general YA consumers and authors are women, but I wish that they… just wrote about women too. I think there is a certain… snowball effect to the overrepresentation of mlm representing the whole LGBT community that leads to fetishization, as well as misogyny playing a factor in: less women characters being written well to write fanfic on, when they are written well they're taken less seriously or the audience struggles to relate to them, they're less marketable then men. 

Idk I never feel “seen” or “represented” by any of the books above, which don't address boyhood and manhood and queerness intersecting really, and AFTG doesn’t either. I relate to AFTG as a trauma victim who has experienced a lot of what many of the characters go through and have gone through in the EC as well as them just overall being very well written characters, but I don't relate to it as a mlm really. I've never seen like.. gay voice or being straight passing or femphobia or how boyhood can be affected from a young age by those around you sensing you're ‘other’ or if you didn't experience this you feel outside the mlm community. Let alone sub cultures like bear and leather and pup, at most you see the word “he's such a twink” in fandom which... i fr hate non mlm using that word because it's usually used to replace the f-slur essentially, used derogatorily or to call him “such a bottom” and stuff like that. It’s like a joke or an insult.

Long story short, idk mang this was a ramble and I think I'm coning down with something. I wanna see more queer women rep and women authors writing about being a queer woman too. I think it's a complex web of fetishization and a bit of forbidden love yaoi culture (or it used to be in the BOYXBOY days) as well as misogyny on an industry level, creator level, as well as reader/consumer and fandom level. I don’t think it’s inherently wrong to explore other peoples stories and what we read has to be segregated, “only mlm are allowed to read and write mlm, only wlw are allowed to read and write wlw,” but I also think author’s intent and audience and background is telling, as well as overall statistics. Like about an hour ago I was looking for cookbooks in spanish or in english, and I was looking for some mexican food cook books, but I had to look for them using words in spanish because otherwise what came up was a bunch of “fiesta party, easy as uno dos tres authentic cooking!” and I was like… hm. Since I could tell they were marketing to anglos. (also the author’s last names were like michelle smith, james cooper, and this could be for a variety of reasons, but I trust Hispanic names more tbh and deadass would look at the authors pictures and if they had other books in Spanish or what their specialties were.)

anyways. not sure how to end this. uhm if anyone has any book recs (my to read list is like 500 books tho no joke) preferably not YA white mlm written by a white lady, hopefully queer women written by queer woman, LMK, I need more wlw and queer women stories on my list. I have a decent amount but always looking for more. I kinda wanna link my goodreads or my storygraph but I also don't want to get doxxed and it has my legal name on it so.

Also, I'm dyslexic and using spell check but if there's like some wild typos my b.

[2ndblogg]

Hey! Just read your hot take on novel!wangxian and I absolutely agree. I'm gonna have to say here that I believe it boils down to the fetishization of homosexual men in a lot of the fandom culture that surrounds mlm shipping, as you said it's a space for a lot of women to experiment with their desires and whatnot, but I think therein lies the breaking points between reading novel!wangxian as a good, healthy relationship vs. reading it as a very flawed and toxic one. As an LGBT person, reading the way the author dealt with their relationship made me extremely uncomfortable, it just really feels like something that is written by someone who is more invested in using her queer characters for satisfying her and her reader's own pleasure than a well-built, strong relationship between two characters. Not to take away from the novel in some other aspects, I believe that novel!wwx is a much better, much more nuanced character than what he is in cql, but when it comes to wangxian, I think the intentions are very different for each of them. To each their own, I guess, but I do find it very troubling that some people in the fandom have a really hard time admitting that novel wangxian is not even remotely healthy.

Absolutely.

And can I just say how glad it makes me to see that not everyone is praising this book for it’s lgbt representation...

But I guess that’s also why I just occasionally feel the need to scream my frustrations into the void or try to make sense of the novel.

And why I try to be understanding and accepting of people’s opinion of the novel and not take it ‘personally’ (in the sense of sitting there thinking “holy shit this is how they view ME, this is what they think of ME” etc).

I was in fandoms back when they were really a place dominated by straight (homophobic) women and realism or lgbt representation wasn’t on anyone’s mind (and the occasional dude butting in to say that’s not how sex works or bottoming is experienced was ignored or told to get out). I experienced this change to fandoms being more of a lgbt space, of people becoming aware that media can shape your views of groups of people, of people becoming aware of their fetishizing of fictional gays vs. their prejudice against real life lgbt people etc.

And tbh MXTX just writes like one of those, she writes wangxian like everyone wrote their gay relationships around 2005 and earlier; clear power imbalance, clear roles and attributes that are divided into ‘manly’ and ‘feminine’, certain physical attributes (like the female self insert character aka the bottom being pretty and slight and weaker and shorter), men/the penetrating partner can’t really be raped so anything the woman/bottom tries isn’t really ‘bad’, the male love interest is forceful and self centered but ONLY because he’s so in love and since he’s emotionally stunted he has to express that through sex, men/tops NEED sex and it’s rude/mean to deny them that, the girl/bottom isn’t THAT horny or in charge of their own sexuality but wants to please their partner and what they really get out of it is the emotional aspect, decisions need to be made for them because the dude/top just knows better, the girl/bottom is childish and flirty and the guy/top suffers through it until he finally snaps and shows the girl/bottom who'sboss etc etc. (honestly homophobia and misogyny is so tightly knit in this kind of fiction, if it wasn’t so frustrating it would be very interesting).

Tbh I disagree with novel!wwx being more nuanced (despite a lot of ppl whose opinions I really respect also feeling this way), because I simply cannot seperate him from the wangxian relationship. All I see are tropes and stereotypes applied to make him ‘work’ in the context of the wangxian relationship instead of an actual personality...

To me, in CQL WWX is clearly the main character and you love his interactions with LWJ and want more of them and value them, wheras in the novel most of the time WWX plays second fiddle even when a scene should technically be about him and LWJ’s presence is incredibly suffocating, because he’s always being controlling or at the very least influencing WWX.

I also don’t feel like WWX has much of a character arc/growth. We’re essentially told he had one but the only thing that really actually changes is him hating himself a bit more and letting LWJ smash..., and I guess: he’s less independent than ever, he’s more isolated that ever...

I’ve called novel!wangxian a relationship between an abuser and his victim, because you can find evidence of that in the text. Not because I think the author wanted to portray an unhealthy gay relationship. Like you said, she was fetishizing and wrote for a similar crowd. But to me that ‘realization’ helped...I still don’t see how people can call it a masterpiece but I can at least understand hyping something you like up...

And like, badly written gay relationship or not; gay/straight,man/women, I see how people can find it hot. Exploring your sexuality through fictional characters isn’t necessarily a strictly straight girl phenomena. I probably have read fic that was exactly like this, I can’t judge anyone for it. But no one prints out the last PWP they read and goes, “this is ideal lgbt representation and nothing will ever be this good, the fact that it includes rape makes it so realistic” like????

(Is that part or an effect of the woke and purety culture? you can’t say ‘i like this book but it has flaws’ or ‘i’ve enjoyed this but it’s not up the feminism or lgbt acceptance that i preach/live’ so you have to pretend it’s flawless?)

And like, I do think novel!wangxian is a nightmare when it comes to lgbt representation and I do believe this is largely due to a cishet woman writing about gay men and fetishizing them (the fact that a lot of peoples arguments why novel!wangxian ‘is better’ boils down to ‘there’s kissing and sex’ is also pretty telling). And I am frightend and worried by some peoples response to it.

But is it really fair to see it as just that? It’s a problem sure, but that same thing happens in straight media (which I am admittedly not well versed in). Stephanie Meyer didn’t set out to write Edward Cullen to be a creep and non of the teenage girls that went crazy over him viewed it as such...Reylo fans (aside from some of them proclaiming Finn to be the real villain and saying it’s racist and misogynistic to not find Kylo Ren hot) found a way to view him threatening her as romantic and sexy, Loki fans that didn’t ship him with Thor usually fell into the camp of “he would be a perfect boyfriend” or “what if this OFC was his slave and he raped her everyday <3″... like ignoring/glorifying/romanticizing behaviours or exploring what kinks you might have through the safety of fictional characters and fictional settings isn’t JUST happening when it comes to ‘the gays’...

And not just specifically in fandom spaces either, a lot of ‘romantic’ movies include inappropriate touching, the boy/guy knowing better than the girl what she wants etc. And I absolutely do believe that that’s something that normalized these things for a lot of young girls and guys (I don’t want to get into this too much, I’ve really seen a change in the past few years, but before that it was pretty common for young boys to believe they need to keep pursuing and pressuring a girl that has said no, girls truly thought boys could die of blue balls, girls thought it was their duty as good girlfriends to let their boyfriends fuck them even when they weren’t in the mood, that they couldn’t talk about what they want in bed or what they don’t find enjoyable because ‘sex is for boys and girls get a relationship in exchange’ etc.).

And in much the same way movies have only relatively recently begun being called out for that, it’s also still pretty recently that they’re being called out for having their one queer coded character be a pedophile and a murder or whatever...Like, society as a whole becoming aware of these issues.

But do authors that publish their work with a specific target audience in mind have a responsibility to think about the effect it might have on them? (And I can already hear loud screams of ‘no way, it’s not your fault if your audience isn’t smart enough to understand that this bad thing is bad’, but I actually do believe in a way they do. That doesn’t mean you can’t or shouldn’t write whatever you want, just maybe take a look at HOW you bring your point across. (We do KNOW people are influenced by what propaganda they’re consistantly fed. I mean, you wouldn’t write a pro-drugs childrens book...) )

What if the author isn’t aware of their bias and prejudices? Or their target audience isn’t their actual audience?

And do we, society and media, judge female and male authors differently when it comes to romance and sex in fiction? (The answer is yes btw) But also, where do we draw the line at calling something ‘badly written’ and calling it toxic? Can it be both? As I’ve said before, a lot of people claim that only the physical intimacy scenes of novel!wangxian are bad, because they’re badly written and OOC, some say the book as amazingly written and only the wangxian relationship is bad because the author doesn’t know how to write gay men. In my ‘hot take’ I essentially said that’s not necessarily bad writing so much as it’s simply an (okay, unintentional) toxic relationship. And would this relationship still come across as toxic (or badly written, whichever you want) if we didn’t know the author to be a cishet woman? Or if a gay man had written it? (my personal, eloquent answer for this is: yes, but differently.)

Which was really all just a rambly way to get to my point of: it’s not just fetishizing of gay men, it’s also the homophobia and self-inserting in a safe situation.

You can literally replace WWX in the novel with a female character and it wouldn’t change a thing. The author takes such an effort into building up this power imbalance in every aspect of their life that if WWX were a heroine nothing would change in this (sexist/ancient society) setting.

(And clearly this is something that appeals to people if you look at the amount of female!WWX fics...)

Not even the sex scenes. There are maybe two allusions in all of them combined that WWX might also have a dick but like, you can’t be sure and it sure as hell doesn’t need stimulation.

(and again, that could be written as a kink...but it’s just not.)

CQL is a gay love story. MDZS at it’s core is none of that.

But I also very much agree with your ‘to each their own’, like here I am criticizing and trying to find explanations and whatever, but at the end of the day it doesn’t matter why someone might like (or write) a book like this, I vastly prefer CQL!wangxian but people have their own reasons for not doing so.

The ‘problem’ really only lies in, as you said, people not being able to accept that it’s not a healthy relationship. Or claiming it to be perfect lgbt rep.

And because my brain can’t shut up today:

I also can’t stop thinking that the way some people ‘glorify’ the book as due to their age and ‘inexperience’.

When I was a pretty young kid and got into fanfiction, there was nothing but completely OOC!whump to be found in the first two fandoms I was in. And I loved it. It was YEARS later that I thought I might like to read something with the characters being...in character. What I’m trying to say, in different stages and phases of your life you might enjoy different things, for different reasons...and obviously, in that moment, you won’t think about ‘what appeals to me here/should this appeal to me/etc’.

I don’t mean inexperience as ‘sexual inexperience’ here, though of course that could be part of it, but also like, inexperience with this genre (is this the first book like this you read, or did you just read 50 in a row that all had the same unhealthy vibes?), with lgbt people and issues (do you know any lgbt people or is your only image of them either the cute boy you can’t have and don’t want to see with another girl or grown men in full kink gear in front of children during CSD? and also: do you think ‘i like this’ and that’s the end of it or do you notice how many people idolize this objectively unhealthy relationship and won’t allow critique on it...)  

I...just wanted to say thanks really.

I just can’t stop rambling apparently and I know I mostly just repeated what you said or what I already said but in longer... I just really do feel very strongly about novel!wangxian and the perception of them and have actually at times felt very personally...worried/affected, by people’s acceptance and love of them and I just... have to try and make sense of it...

[eelsfeelgross]

Conclusions: Trans Activism v. Radical Feminism, a first-hand account

This is current stance after a lot of direct investigation on both radfems online and trans activists online. No group is judged based on the observations, rhetoric, or propaganda of any outside group, but from my own first-hand observations in combination with objective knowable facts such as actions known to be committed in public record by the likes of criminals or celebrities. However, the bulk of this is based on what I have seen, what I know to be true because it’s been done before my own eyes. While my conclusion may lack information on the more nitpicked aspects of things, I believe their overall impressions still hold true with the amount of experience I’ve had. Keep in mind: this is not my only account. I have dipped into the radfem community before, each time from a different perspective, at a different time, and with open eyes ready to receive whatever I was given. The same is true of the trans community.

Trans Activism

I want to make clear that these conclusions were mainly drawn from my direct experience with the trans community from within. I am not relying on critics of the trans ideology to tell me any of this, though they often echo the same concerns and observations.

The trans community has a serious problem with misogyny, homophobia, and sex denial. They employ magical thinking and emotional pleas to justify their conclusions and commit to arguments of definition that are ultimately lacking substance. However, while lacking rational, they are abundant with emotional reasoning and can be incredibly powerful rhetorical tools in convincing others to believe them without the necessary evidence of anything claimed.

This is especially prevalent when discussing sexual biology and sexual orientation. They consider self-harm to be the fault of other people, even in adults, and use this as a manipulation tactic to make it seem as if they’re being killed at higher rates than their general demographics. This plays hand in hand with the appropriation of statistics around things like racial violence or violence against sex workers to make it appear trans people, particularly white heterosexual (attracted to the opposite sex) trans women from the middle class of Amerca who aren’t victims of prostitution, are under much more persecution than their lived experiences actually reflects.

This has grown into a political ideology not dissimilar to a religion, but without the usual trappings we associate with a religious group. It requires blind faith in the concept of gender and the “life saving” virtues of expensive hormone treatments and plastic surgeries without proper regard for the risks and consequences of these procedures. Challenging the dogma or asking critical questions is considered a sin itself, even when done with excessive caution for other’s feelings. Violence towards known dissenting groups is considered not just ok, but admirable. Expressions of this desire for violence against the out-group is seen as virtuous to the point that doing it too much will be taken as virtue signalling rather than a sign of deep-seeded anger issues as it would for any other situation. Self-identity is their belief system, and public shame are their tools of punishment to control those within the belief system. Due to sex denial, females suffer especially in this paradigm no matter how they identify or what presentations they choose.

However,

Radical Feminism

Once again, I want to make clear that these conclusions were mainly drawn from my direct experience with the radfem community from within. I am not relying on critics of the radical feminist ideology to tell me any of this, though they may echo similar observations.

Radical feminism, as it exists today in action and not in theories from the 1990s, has a huge problem with transphobia, homophobia, and racism. The focus has shifted almost entirely from protecting women to attacking trans women, understandable on some level but counter-productive to all but the individual ego. There is a preoccupation with what women are “allowed” to do, rather than whether their actions and the consequences of those actions actually benefit the cause of anti-sexism. People feel entitled to be nasty, hurtful and even downright transphobic and homophobic if it means hurting their “enemies” somehow. I’m not sure if they fail to see the big picture or have just given up on caring, but it makes all their pleas for compassion and an end to the trans community’s homophobia seem pretty disingenuous.

This focus on “women deserve more as reparations”, when self-applied to the individual, does nothing to combat sexism as these self serving actions often do little to stop sexism and everything to benefit the individual currently existing within a sexist system. It totally ignores the vital role women play in perpetrating sexism through the generations, from mother to daughter or sister or sister or peer to peer through an intricate web of social pressures.Its not totally ignored mind you, but it is conveniently unaddressed whenever addressing it would prevent them from acting aggressive and toxic toward someone else. However others in the community who aren’t personally benefitting from this at the time will notice, thus leading to endless pointless arguments as the egos clash.

This hypocrisy undermines all attempts at broadening their reach to a new generation of women. Similarly, this toxic attitude undermines all opportunity for organization and real activism which requires a certain level of tolerance and the ability to give basic respect to those you don’t like or agree with. All those who do not tolerate such behavior will simply assume radical feminism must be a hate movement because all they see is vitriol and toxicity, no matter how justified the perpetrator feels about it or the underlying motivators. They will not take the time to read theory because they’ve already seen the practice and they have the sense to know it’s bad. Then when these newcomers see this bad behavior for what it is, they’re belittled or deprived of their agency for their decision to turn away from your movement, called things like “handmaidens” and accused of being either selfishly misogynistic or plainly brainwashed, driving them ever further away. The refusal to take responsibility for your own image and the consequences of your behavior under some false impression of ideological purity justifying it only further cements this takeaway outsiders have.

The most egregious example that comes to mind is the “queers” issue. Radfems are adamant about queer being slur, and they’re right. I myself grew up having queer flung at me by violent straight men and I’m not even that old. I feel no joy in the sanitation and generalization of the term. That is not reclamation, that is erasure and appropriation of pain. Most radfems agree on this wholeheartedly. That is, until you decide to spell it “kweer” and start flinging it at trans people who fit a particular homophobic stereotype: strange appearances, unorthodox body modifications like piercing and colored hair, unwashed, perverted to the point of being predatory, self important children who are just playing pretend to be different. All these qualities call back to the stereotype of queers, gays, and it is deeply intrenched in homophobia going back generations. And yet, while radfems would condemn the trans community for the appropriation of queer and its homophobic implications, they have no problem employing it as a slur when it suits their own toxic impulses.

Some even seem to believe that misspelling the word or being homosexual themselves absolves this. It does not. Anybody without the blinders of radfem internal rhetoric will quickly see past this nonsense. If the trans community came back and started calling radfems “diques” and associating the term with severely lesbophobic stereotypes like being unwashed or too ugly to get a man or any of the other countless stereotypes around the slur “dyke”, radfems would be rightly livid. Making a point to only target straight radfems with this insult would not make it any different. But addressing these kinds of hypocritical positions has become a taboo within the radfem community, yet another spark to relight the fires of senseless infighting.

This is the worst example I’ve personally seen, but it is not the only one. There’s also the tendency for radfems, desperate for others who are gender critical to connect with, to make alliances with right wing conservatives despite their racism and homophobia simply because they’re also transphobic but for completely different reasons. And also a tendency to be much more forgiving of misogyny coming from these new “allies” that will glady destroy you too once trans people are out of the way. But I will not labor my point any further by bringing up everything all at once. Regardless, for those who harp on and on about getting to the root of the problem, the moment anyone suggests you try getting to the root of your own problems, taking accountability and making changes, all that self-righteous posturing seems to go out the window just like it does in the trans community. You’ve become a reflection of what you hate in an attempt to combat it, and it will be the death of your movement if you don’t make a serious effort to reform these behaviors and distance yourself from those who employ these forms of rhetoric.

It’s a harsh fact, but the world at large does not care what you deserve, just like sexual biology doesn’t care about your personal feelings about your sex. It just doesn’t. That’s why patriarchy exists in the first place. It is your job as a social movement to use your words and actions to convince them to care. That is what the trans community has managed to do successfully, in my opinion often for the wrong reasons but successfully nonetheless, but such things do not stroke the ego of the individual radfem and therefore simply doesn’t happen in an organized, ideology-wide manner. Small islands of rational stand isolated in a sea of this pointless vitriol, and alone they are hopeless against the attacks against radical feminism born from the trans community and their sex denial that leads to egregious misogyny.

Conclusion

When it comes to the underlying theory, the ideological core, I find that radical feminism has the best chance of growing to become a social movement for genuinely good change in the world, particularly for women and women-loving-women specifically. Trans ideology, in my opinion, is inherently flawed as its core tenants require faith in what one cannot prove and a rejection of science that doesn’t support said faith.

Trans ideology as it exists in 2020 is more akin to religion than science, and has proven its capability to do harm through its use of magical thinking and distorted points of view that constantly shift and change to make space for the core trans ideology to be “correct”. Core ideas such as: sex is either fake or less relevant than gender, that gender is an objective fact of the human psyche, that others failing to fix your own poor mental health are responsible for your harm or death, that transition is always a good idea if someone wants it and no gatekeeping should be performed regarding using plastic surgery to treat mental discomforts, and so on. Remove all these ideas, and the whole thing falls apart.

Meanwhile, removing the toxicity of the radfem community as it exists now will not destroy its underlying core beliefs. Its just that the current people who advertise themselves as radfems and take up that mantle do not actually follow the core ideology of their own movement when it doesn’t benefit them. It has been infiltrated and run amok with bad faith actors who abuse the movement for personal gain, whether they are aware of it or not. And with their combination of being excessively vocal and lacking any shame for their misdeeds, more and more are drawn into their toxic games to the point that the ones who actually speak to the spirit of the core theory get drowned out or attacked to the point none will associate with them openly. The ones who actually know the theory and practice it end up effectively shunned from a community that widely hasn’t even read the theory and thinks hating trans people and thinking pussy = superior makes them a radfem. And thus, by allowing this, that is what radical feminism has become in practice. No amount of appealing to that core philosophy will matter if the actual people don’t apply that theory properly.

So my conclusion? Radical feminism has the greatest potential for good, but it is grossly unrealized and will remain that way without radical internal changes. However, if anyone is equipped to get to the root of the problem and make a radical change it should be radfems. Or at least, the good faith radfems who aren’t abusing the movement, of which I’m convinced have become the minority of radfems in the present day. Perhaps it is time for feminism to once again branch off, not to try returning to the 2nd wave but to set the stage for a true 4th wave as many have talked about. A 4th wave that is based on the foundations set by 2nd wave feminist thinkers, but forward thinking, self-critiquing, and not limited by the hangups of the last wave. I guess only time will tell what radfems value more: their egos in attachment to the idea of identifying as a radfem, or the effective dis-empowerment of patriarchy through organized effort at the expense of satisfying your personal vendettas against all men.

[sarriane]

it's interesting to see so much meta about 'the timeless children,' still, and considering all of the reviews, kneejerk reactions, criticism, love, hate, anger... it just makes me come back to the idea of how it's an attempt to restructure and recenter the show. whether it's a bad or good attempt is one fandom is never going to agree on (fandom never agrees on anything). but every little piece i see about it, every reaction kind of brings to light how it both suceeded and failed.

there's so much in the racial + gender dynamics to pull apart, places where they failed, places where they did well. i think it's the problem with a show that is still so white and so dominated by men, that while they're making an effort towards diversity, there's so many fatal missteps. things in the script that seemed innoculous in another circumstance are entirely changed when you add in identity factors.

(why would you cast a south asian actor and then put him in a nazi uniform? while it's great they cast an actor of color in a classic role, one who was clearly the perfect choice, it's also an unfortunate consequence that we now see the familiar racist image of a man of color "menacing" a white woman. thanks.)

it's not a problem limited to dr who, either -- i remember when kelly sue deconnick finished her run on her first volume of captain marvel, the villain was a genius scientist, and a woman of color. one fan commented (paraphrased): 'hey, i finally saw myself in your comic book - and i was the bad guy.' i remember KSD said something like "i thought all representation was good representation?" and she noted it, and i did too. again and again, we see this: creators in positions of privilege trying to provide representation, but falling short because of the racism, and misogyny, and bigotry they haven't unlearned.

and it's not easy. i certainly don't know how to write a story about a villain of color and a white woman and avoid any pitfalls -- perhaps the solution is to leave those stories to people who are actually from those racial backgrounds, or have those identities. but how to do that when the people in power making casting + writing decisions are white men? obviously, dr who needs more people of color working in it. it needs more women's voices, more queer voices. but even that's not a solution. RTD and JNT definitely didn't have eras free of homophibia and transphobia.

(we get this shit with queer-coding, too, which is why i've never advocated for doctor/master to become canon. i will happily read a million fics exploring the relationship, but i don't want to see the master portrayed as a predatory gay, thanks. and i don't want to see the doctor portrayed as a man caught in an abusive relationship, eventually ending with him literally keeping his romantic interest locked up and isolated while he tries to reform/brainwash her. i'm not into warden/prisoner porn, thx.)

i'm still working on my ideas about how/why doctor who has been irrevocably changed by 'the timeless children,' because the reviews aren't all bad. there are very much people who feel seen. in my opinion, it's very very difficult to take a show that's centered around england and turn it into a post-colonial narrative. dr who has hosted a variety of political opinions over the years, and so has the doctor (don't fucking @ me about kill the moon). in 2020, it's hard to continue to write the story of the doctor as a voice for the repressed when he's an old white man from a planet of "lords," that are a bunch of other old white men. at some point, it's another goddamn white savior narrative with a mansplainer at the center. (note that whittaker's casting does not solve this, but at least it's a start, i suppose? ugh, give us more jo martin!!)

so, the doctor is a woman now, and she has a history where she has been victimized, but she's overcome that. the knowledge of that does not victimize or martyr her, it allows the doctor to recenter herself in the narrative as a voice for the oppressed because she's been there.

i wish i could say that the show treated the jo martin incarnation with the respect she deserved, but even then, she's once again the Wise Old Black Woman trope. she goes from her character in 'fugitive of the judoon,' a doctor in her own adventure who refuses to let another co-opt her story, to a literal support character, the good angel on the doctor's shoulder reminding her who she is. and while it's nice to see a black woman doctor affirm who the doctor is -- she's affirming it to a white doctor. she's a prop. it's such a devastating waste of the character.

'the timeless children' reminds me a lot of captain marvel, and i think some of its failures are in that thirteen is not a Big Damn Hero. it's difficult to suddenly turn the privileged renegade into the timeless child, but also push the classic idea of: "should we trust the doctor?" because we shouldn't! she isn't a superhero. she isn't carol danvers, she has never had a history of fighting for everything she has - everything was handed to the doctor, including when he took the TARDIS and ran away. there's a note in an essay someone wrote in the 70's about 'the deadly assassin,' that showing us gallifrey takes the "who" out of "doctor who." for as much as the 'timeless children' tried to reclaim that, some of the questions it leaves us about the doctor are not pretty. especially when she lets an old, kind man die in her place (and grandpa joe from derry girls, for shame).

(on a wider note, in 50 yrs, will media criticism talk about the period of third/arguably fourth wave feminism in scifi? where white blonde women were treated like science experiments so empires could be built on their backs? but they refused victimhood and became heroines, standing up for those who canmt protect theirselves? which is great, except for the "white, blonde" element and the fact that this narrative, if it becomes a trend, is literally coopting parts of african american history.)

i hate that i have to settle for what we have, because i think media can always be better, and we deserve better, and they should try better. i've seen it said before that doctor who can't break down barriers, since it's a kids' show that airs before 8pm and has to be centrist enough to appeal to a wide audience. i think that sentiment is a little naive of what science fiction actually is and does. whatever the case, it seems clear to me that the next season of doctor who needs to involve more people of color in the cast + crew, and more women, and more queer folks. and it makes me aware of something much more in my control - that i've seen very few responses to the episode from fans of color. and i'm really not sure how to find these voices and amplify them, other than to follow and reblog, and listen.

i hope one day to reform these thoughts into something resembling proper media criticism, but i think it will take time, and revisiting old and new who, and probably seeing how the next special treats the reveals from 'the timeless children.' i've got so many thoughts about s12 and gender and race and the writing's almost "colorblind" approach to it all, and i never expected this to get longer than a paragraph long rant. there's just too much to talk about.

[dogsliampaynedoesntinstagram]

So I have a lot of somewhat diverging, incoherent thoughts about things you and your anons've said said, and I'll try to whip them into shape. 1) I wonder if there is a some gap between rational acknowledge and subconscious - bias (or if we're being impolite, homophobia) when it comes to these things. Of course, that can be rationalized away to an extent, but what I'm mainly talking about is the subconscious bias that Louis "reads" as gay to a majority of people and Harry does not. 1/

To use external examples, one of my favs from kpop is Zhou Mi from Super Junior M, and it’s pretty much an open secret in his fan base that he’s gay. He got a lot of flack when he and another member late-joined the group which can be attributed to overzealous fans and xenophobia, but Zhou Mi, unlike the other new group member, reads as less straight even in a non-Western context and still to this day (9+ years) gets more hate/is less popular. 2/

OTOH we have someone like Matt Bomer who is publically out, but still has a lot of straight female fans who are outright thirsty for him. They campaigned for him to be Christian Grey, and recently I saw someone describe him as “Can look, can’t touch”. To me, Bomer - and Harry (and Ziam) - doesn’t necessarily read as “straight” but more as “not-NOT straight” (the new Hollywood soft action hero) whereas Louis doesn’t get that benefit. 3/

This has very little to do with their actual sexuality, but again just subconscious bias. Unless if we’re able to acknowledge and confront our bias, oftentimes that can turn into discomfort and hate/anger, which might explain some of the over-the-top reactions we’ve seen in the past against Louis (and Zayn too - his otherness, in more obvious ways). 2) In terms of the straight female fans/queer female fans/desiring - desirability/triangulation of desire conversation– 4/ 

I just want to make a couple of observations (1) Queer female fans who make up a large part of L’s fanbase also include women / NB individuals who ARE attracted to men, as well as women / NB individuals who aren’t attracted to ANYONE. It felt worth mentioning to be factual and objective that actual ability to desire is not always the issue. Of the ones I follow who identify as bi/pan/other queer, a majority seem to express similar aesthetic reverence towards H and L instead of sexual. 5/

(2) I’ve seen at least one lesbian-identifying blogger recently who recently got a lesbian-identifying anon who said they would be happy to do [explicit sexual things] to Louis despite the fact she was a WLW and Louis is a MLM and the blogger agreed. So there might be something else going on there– But in terms of general fan response, similarly, over many fan polls, Zhou Mi’s fans often cited that they’d rather be his friend than date him. So it might have to do with how Louis/ZM are “read” 6/

3) In terms of your “There’s nothing wrong with a woman fantasising about Harry fucking her.” comment – I might be misinterpretting or overreading your intention with that statement, but it makes me uncomfortable for a few reasons. I respect why you’ve come to feeling this way and for other bloggers “shaming” women, but I inherently disagree because there’s other factors at play. 7/ 

 I think we can readily agree that men vocalizing their violently objectifying and sexualizing comments towards women, especially women they don’t know, is problematic (e.g. Adam going “I’d fuck [Celebrity A]” while joking with his friends, Brad saying, “Her face don’t do it for me, but I’d take her bare on her hands and knees.”) I know that are ways in which the relationship is inversed with Harry because he is white, male, rich, privileged, in an industry where that is the peak of power 8/ 

That being said, you yourself pointed out that One Direction, and many boy bands, are treated the same way that females in the industry are treated – objectified, devalued for the actual talents they are selling while being told their most valuable feature is their desirability. ESPECIALLY for Harry, who has been given this role despite his vehement objections. For many larries, who are queer women, the violent objection against other [straight] women sexualizing Harry might be commiseration 9/

–as they themselves are often subjected to sexualization and unwanted advances despite their own sexuality or feelings, which is another level on top of just harassment. I want to point out that that commiseration is *empathy* with someone they perceive as a victim of systemic homophobia (also something else they experience) and not necessarily internalized misogyny against women and what they feel as a requirement for reciprocity in order to express desire for another party. 10/

I agree you can’t help who you’re attracted to, and if the fantasy is between you and yourself, then no harm done. However, in my experience on Tumblr, many straight fans of Harry do take it the next level equivalent with the Adam/Brad example I created above, in a way that treats Harry like an object for their fantasies rather than a person with autonomy, and a person who’s expressed discomfort in the past for being made into this object. 11/12

I understand if you disagree with me, but I wanted to offer another perspective that’s more nuanced than “women hate that women have desire because of internalized misogyny which is why they’re angry when women express desire”. Anyway if you read this… uh thanks!

**************

Hi Discluded - thanks so much for your asks.  I think they’re really interesting.  I think your idea of people being seen as not-NOT-straight is a really useful way of looking at some of the different ways celebrities are read.  I think your comments will be really interesting to people who have been part of this discussion.  I’m only going to respond tot he last bit, about Harry and het fans.

I’m not sure I agree that Harry has vehemently objected to being the object of desire at this point in his career.  He definitely objected to being seen as someone with a huge desire for women, but that’s not quite the same thing.  While he’s put some boundaries up (including literally with his wardrobe), his album gave heterosexual fans everything they needed in order to feel desired by him.  I’m not saying I know how Harry feels about all this, but I am saying I’m very wary of other fans using a claim that they know Harry’s feelings as a way of bolstering their own reactions.

To your more substantive point - you end with motivations, why people might be objecting to fans who desire Harry. It’s not something I had touched on.  If I was going to give a reason for why I wouldn’t talk about internalised misogyny.  I would probably start with fandom dynamics - in this case Larries creating a ‘bad’ fan’ to differentiate themselvesselves from.  I agree that a feeling of empathy and experiencing their own boundaries is probably a factor for queer women (although I’m not sure I think that queer women are more likely than straight women to express objection to women desiring Harry).

I think that people can have very good reasons for why they respond the way they do and still end up reinforcing existing power structures in the way they express that response (a distinction that tumblr is quite bad at acknowledging).  It’s possible that queer women are responding to particular aspects of how particular women express their desire to Harry, but the easiest language to hand is language that shames women for having sexual desires. 

For women who are objecting to particular articulations of other women’s desire for Harry then the way to make it clear is to be specific. To name expressions and actions that are crossing the line, rather than focusing on women’s desire.

And while I don’t think it negates your main point since I’ve been thinking about the gendered nature of desire - I also wonder about the example you used.  The whole point of hetreosexuality (as like a social instituion) is that it’s not easily reversible.  The language around sex gives very little option but to portray men as active and easily ignores women’s consent.  I’m not sure that ‘Fuck me in that hat Harry’ in the tags is very similar to your example with Adam and Brad.  I’m not sure I think heterosexuality works that way.

Thanks for your thoughts - and I’d love to hear anything else you have to say.

[i-am-very-very-tired]

Alia E. Dastagir, USA TODAY Corrections and clarifications: A previous version of this story included a definition of "women of color" that has since been updated. Like any "ism," feminism is rich with jargon, which can lead deeply personal conversations to turn unnecessarily dense. While some terms are entrenched, others are contemporary additions to an evolving lexicon. To help you break through, here are definitions for everything from "feminism" and "misogyny" to "bropropriated" and "feminazi." The Basics Feminism: Belief in and desire for equality between the sexes. As Merriam-Webster noted last month: "the belief that men and women should have equal rights and opportunities." It encompasses social, political and economic equality. Of course, a lot of people tweak the definition to make it their own. Feminist activist bell hooks calls it "a movement to end sexism, sexist exploitation, and oppression." Patriarchy: A hierarchical-structured society in which men hold more power. Sexism: The idea that women are inferior to men. Misogyny: Hatred of women. Misandry: Hatred of men. A Little Deeper Hostile sexism: The one most people think about. Openly insulting, objectifying and degrading women. Benevolent sexism: Less obvious. Kind of seems like a compliment, even though it's rooted in men's feelings of superiority. It's when men say women are worthy of their protection (off the sinking boat first) or that they're more nurturing than men (therefore should raise children). It's restrictive. Internalized sexism: When the belief in women's inferiority becomes part of one's own worldview and self-concept. Misogynoir: Misogyny directed toward black women. LGBTQ: The acronym for “lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer.” Some people also use the Q to stand for "questioning," meaning people who are figuring out their sexual or gender identity. You may also see LGBTQIA. I stands for intersex and A for asexual/aromantic/agender. Cisgender: A term used to describe a person whose gender identity aligns with the sex assigned to them at birth. Transgender: A person whose gender identity differs from the cultural expectations of the sex they were assigned at birth. Transphobia: Prejudice toward trans people. Transmisogyny: A blend of transphobia and misogyny, which manifests as discrimination against "trans women and trans and gender non-conforming people on the feminine end of the gender spectrum." TERF: The acronym for "trans exclusionary radical feminists," referring to feminists who are transphobic. SWERF: Stands for "sex worker exclusionary radical feminists," referring to feminists who say prostitution oppresses women. Gender fluidity: Not identifying with a single, fixed gender. Non-binary: An umbrella term for people who don't identify as female/male or woman/man. Women of color: A political term to unite women from marginalized communities of color who have experienced oppression. It could include women of African, Asian, Latin or Native American descent. Title IX: Protects people from discrimination based on sex in education programs or activities that receive federal financial assistance. Victim-blaming: When the victim of a crime or harmful act is held fully or partially responsible for it. If you hear someone questioning what a victim could have done to prevent a crime, that's victim-blaming, and it makes it harder for people to come forward and report abuse. Groups working to eradicate abuse and sexual assault are clear: No woman is guilty for violence committed by a man. Trigger: Something that forces you to relive a trauma. Trigger warning: A statement that someone is about to experience challenging material that could potentially be disturbing (graphic, racially-insensitive, sexually explicit, etc.). The practice is controversial on college campuses. Yes means yes: A paradigm shift in the way we look at rape, moving beyond "no means no" toward the idea that consent must be explicit. Male gaze: A way of looking at the world through a masculine lens that views women as sexual objects. Privilege: The idea that some people in society are advantaged over others. Sex positive: An attitude that views sexual expression and sexual pleasure, if it's healthy and consensual, as a good thing. On The Internet Bropropriating: Stealing an idea from a woman and putting it into the world as your own. Mansplain (verb) mansplainy (adjective): When a man explains something to a woman in a condescending way when he either 1) doesn't know anything about it or 2) knows far less than the woman he is talking to. Sorry, if you already knew that. Manterrupting: When a man interrupts a woman, especially excessively. Examples: During the 2009 MTV Video Music Awards when Kanye West grabbed the mic from Taylor Swift, who had just won an award and was trying her best to accept it, to let everyone know "Imma let you finish, but Beyoncé had one of the best videos of all time.” Or, during September's presidential debate when Donald Trump interrupted Hillary Clinton 22 times in the first 26 minutes. Or when Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell interrupted Elizabeth Warren’s recitation of Coretta Scott King’s 1986 letter against Jeff Sessions, but allowed Bernie Sanders to read it the next day. Manspreading: When men take up excess space by sitting with their legs far apart. This is such an actual thing that in 2014 New York's Metropolitan Transportation Authority launched a campaign to get guys to close their legs to make more room on the subway. Woke: Rooted in black activist culture, it means you're educated and aware, especially about injustice. Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Ca., has told young people to "stay woke." If you're thinking about it in the context of women's rights, look at the #SayHerName campaign, which works to raise awareness for black women who are victims of police brutality. Woke misogynist: Nona Willis Aronowitz paints an all-too-familiar picture of the guy who acts like he's all about gender equality, but then turns around and demeans, degrades and harasses women. His misogyny may not always be overt, but it's there. He's a feminist poser. Emosogynist: Zach Braff in Garden State, according to Jezebel. He's emotional, full of angst and seems like a feminist, but what he really wants is a real-life manic pixie dream girl to manipulate and eventually discard after he finds himself. Whimpster: Lloyd Dobler in Say Anything... A white, wimpy, emo guy who uses his male insecurity to prey on women who want to nurture. Feminazi: A derogatory term for a radical feminist. Types Of Feminism Intersectional feminism: If feminism is advocating for women's rights and equality between the sexes, intersectional feminism is the understanding of how women's overlapping identities — including race, class, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation and disability status — impact the way they experience oppression and discrimination. Transfeminism: Defined as "a movement by and for trans women who view their liberation to be intrinsically linked to the liberation of all women and beyond." It's a form of feminism that includes all self-identified women, regardless of assigned sex, and challenges cisgender privilege. A central tenet is that individuals have the right to define who they are. Women of color feminism: A form of feminism that seeks to clarify and combat the unique struggles women of color face. It's a feminism that struggles against intersecting forms of oppression. Womanism: A social and ecological change perspective that emerged out of Africana women’s culture and women of color around the world. Empowerment feminism: Beyoncé's Formation comes on at the club, and you and your friends hit the dance floor hard. Empowerment feminism puts the emphasis on "feeling," though some feminists would argue feeling amazing is not a great gauge of how society is actually supporting your self-expression and flourishing. Sheryl Sandberg's perpetually controversial Lean In, which focuses on how women can make changes to achieve greater success in the workplace, is another example of empowerment feminism. Commodity feminism: A variety of feminism that co-opts the movement's ideals for profit. Ivanka Trump has been accused of peddling this brand of feminism, using her #WomenWhoWork campaign to sell her eponymous lifestyle brand. Equity feminism (conservative feminism): Christina Hoff Sommers, a resident scholar at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, is a champion of what she calls "equity feminism." In her view, "equity feminism" is focused on legal equality between men and women, while "gender feminism" focuses on disempowering women by portraying them as perpetual victims of the patriarchy. In the words of President Trump's advisor Kellyanne Conway: “I look at myself as a product of my choices, not a victim of my circumstances, and that’s really to me what conservative feminism, if you will, is all about.” Waves Of Feminism *Some feminist scholars are moving away from "waves" since it can give the appearance that feminists aren't always actively fighting inequality. But if you see them, here's generally what they're referring to: First wave feminism: Kicked off with the 1848 Seneca Falls Convention to discuss the "social, civil, and religious condition of woman" and continued into the early twentieth century. It culminated in 1920 with the passage of the 19th amendment, which gave women the right to vote, though some states made it difficult for women of color to exercise this right until well into the 1960s. Second wave feminism: Began in the 1960s and bloomed in the 1970s with a push for greater equality. Think Gloria Steinem, Dorothy Pitman Hughes, Betty Friedan. It was marked by huge gains for women in legal and structural equality. Third-wave feminism: Beginning in the 1990s, it looked to make feminism more inclusive, intersectional and to allow women to define what being a feminist means to them personally. Also, Buffy. Feeling "woke" and "empowered"? Find more at women.usatoday.com