#or indeed recognize as feminism

[aeide-thea]

'yeah i'm totally trans-inclusive, as long as you don't expect me to remember that womanhood doesn't map tidily onto the ability to get pregnant [some women are postmenopausal! some women are infertile! some women don't have uteruses, and not even all of those women are trans!], or to ever frame anything in a way that isn't Men Vs Women As Antagonistic Binary! unbelievably insulting of you to suggest otherwise!'

[juju-or-anya]

It's hard not to find irony in the criticisms directed towards Eloise Bridgerton and the elevation of Penelope Featherington as a more genuine and hardworking figure in contrast with Eloise's supposed privileged circumstances and her discourse on feminism. Indeed, some voices have pointed out Eloise's feminism as something white and privileged, and while this is not without merit, it's akin to rediscovering what others have already noticed, akin to Christopher Columbus "discovering" America.

Understanding the context in which "Bridgerton" unfolds is essential. The series is set in Regency England, between 1813 and 1825. This historical period is marked by a highly stratified and conservative society, where women, especially those of the upper class, were relegated to traditional roles and lacked basic legal rights. In this context, any discussion of feminism must consider the unique limitations and challenges of the time.

It is true that Eloise Bridgerton, being part of a respected family in English nobility, embodies many of the characteristics associated with the white and privileged feminism of the time. However, this should not diminish the value of her role in advancing feminist ideas in her historical context. It is thanks to women like Eloise, who challenged social expectations and dared to question the status quo, that doors were opened for future, more inclusive feminist movements.

On the other hand, when analyzing Penelope Featherington's role in contrast with Eloise Bridgerton's, intriguing nuances worthy of a more detailed critical exploration are revealed. Although both come from upper-class families, Penelope's experiences differ significantly from Eloise's. In the society depicted in "Bridgerton," Penelope is portrayed as a more marginal figure, overshadowed by the prominence and glamour of the Bridgerton family. She is often seen in the background, struggling to find her place in a world where her social status does not put her at the center of attention.

Throughout the series, Penelope exhibits a distressing lack of empathy and solidarity towards other women. Instead of fostering unity and support among her peers, her writings are propelled by feelings of envy, resentment, and desires for revenge. Striking examples of this include her actions to publicly reveal Marina Thompson's pregnancy, intending to undermine her relationship with Colin Bridgerton, or defaming individuals such as Daphne, Edwina, and Kate Sharma, often with no apparent reason other than personal gain.

Penelope's behavior as Lady Whistledown sheds light on her complex nature and motivations. While it may represent an attempt to find her voice in a world dominated by more powerful figures, it also reveals a tendency towards manipulation and selfishness. Ultimately, her role as the mysterious chronicler is more than just a quest for identity; it is a reflection of the moral and ethical complexities underlying the society of "Bridgerton."

In summary, asserting that Penelope is more feminist and hardworking than Eloise due to her role as Lady Whistledown is, at best, simplistic and, at worst, deeply misleading. Both women, while privileged in their own right, have chosen different paths in life and have faced their own challenges. However, the narrative of Penelope as a morally superior and more genuinely hardworking figure should be questioned in light of her actions and motivations, which often reveal a lack of integrity and empathy towards her peers.

It's important to note that when Theo confronts Eloise, questioning her understanding of the real world and her privileged position, Eloise doesn't reject this criticism but uses it as a catalyst to seek greater understanding. Recognizing the validity of Theo's observation, Eloise actively seeks to broaden her horizons. She engages in conversations with Theo and John, seeking to break free from the bubble of privilege in which she has lived so far.

On the other hand, Penelope takes a different stance towards her own privileged position. Instead of acknowledging her situation and seeking to understand the realities of those less privileged, Penelope vehemently denies any suggestion that she also benefits from the system. Rather than accepting her position of privilege, she portrays herself as a victim, despite her actions suggesting otherwise. Ultimately, this divergence in attitudes between Eloise and Penelope highlights the complexity of individual perceptions of privilege and personal responsibility in an unequal world.

PS: The comment: "Penelope saved Eloise by writing that she hung out with radicals, she doesn't know what it's like to be grateful" is shit. Whose fucking fault is it that the Queen is on a crusade with torches and pitchforks, looking for blood and a rolling head? From Penelope because she doesn't know when to keep her hand still and stop writing, if it weren't for Penelope, the queen wouldn't think that Eloise is Lady Whistledown, Penelope wasn't looking to help Eloise, she was looking to save her skin.

[certifiedwhore4slashers]

Death Follows

pairing(s): dark!harry potter x reader, ron x hermione

summary: harry, your best friend, has been acting odd lately, very odd, deciding on one occasion to follow him, leads to your demise.

warnings: obsession, yandere, implied murder, blood, manipulation(slightly), perverted behavior(not from Harry), possessive!harry, toxicity, etc…

reader is pretty much gender neutral since I don’t describe any feminine pronouns or masculine pronouns, or feminity.

also this au has been in my mind a little bit lately lol. obviously everyone is 18+ in this. keep that in mind. dark themes ahead.

You couldn’t take it anymore. You were so worried for Harry. He was your best friend and nonetheless, something obviously was going on with him.

“Y/n, calm down, Ron said.”You’ve been worried this whole week.” “Look, haven’t any of you noticed that he is well, distant? Doesn’t tell us much? You ask. “I have but, maybe he’s going through stuff and coping with the whole dark lord thing, having to defeat him is a lot, Hermione pointed out.

“True, You say.”I guess. But, I still-“ Ron groaned, you couldn’t help but form a smile as it was kind of funny.”I’ll shut up now, Ron. At least about Harry.”

“Good, Ron replied, wrapping his arms around Hermione, they had been dating for four months now. You couldn’t be more happier for them.

“Where are you going? hermione asks. “Nowhere! You lie. Hermione rolls her eyes. “He said not to talk about it anymore! You say, outsmarting Ron.’

You walk a bit louder than you should have. At Hogwarts, Quietness was rare, and noise was frequent. Also a lot of chaos.

“Where is he? You murmur, trying to find Harry. You were so in love with him you’d be willing to do anything for him.

Sure, this could be because of the amount of pressure he has to stop Voldemort. But there had to have been something else.

Harry, was a introvert indeed, but this bad and distant? That didn’t seem like himself. When you spot him, You secretly follow. Maybe this was stalking or out of pure obsession, you weren’t obsessed with him, just in love, that was all.

You only followed his footsteps as you went to see where he went. Maybe you shouldn’t have. After all, curiosity kills the cat. But this was out of concern for your best friend, who you’ve grown up with pretty much.

You were doing the right thing weren’t you? Harry suddenly turns around and you hide. You almost had been caught. Almost. You were scared of what would happen if you were caught by Harry. Especially since he was more aggressive. That wasn’t like him. This whole situation was odd itself.

You probably would find that it wasn’t as concerning as you thought it was, or completely different to the scenario in your mind. You hoped it wasn’t the scenario you pictured in your mind.

Calm down, you’re overthinking, You thought. And yet, I feel drawn to this whole thing. What’s wrong with me? Am I truly becoming obsessed?

You were more than filled with self doubt, but you prioritized helping Harry with whatever he needed. Of course, only if it was good. Not if his intentions were corrupt.

You weren’t like that at all. And when you finally stopped where Harry stopped, but hiding a bit further so he didn’t see you, you didn’t find anything interesting, much to your dismay but relief as well.

You chuckle softly, for a moment you thought he was working with Voldemort. How silly of you to think such things.

You begin walking back to your dormitory, it should’ve been a short and swift walk, if you didn’t bump into someone.

“I’m so sorry, You apologize. “Don’t be, He winks, and in a suggestive tone. Already, making you feel uncomfortable.”Where did you come from?”

“Um, I was just looking for my friend, couldn’t find him, You lied. “What a shame, The ravenclaw said. You would’ve been surprised if it had a hufflepuff.

Truthfully, Every house had bad people in it. “I better get going…. You say. “I recognize you, He says.”Y/N right? The chosen one’s friend?” He said that as if you were more than that. Which you weren’t, unfortunately.

“Yes, now can I get through? You ask, a bit more sternly and assertive. You weren’t going to get out of this mess unless you did something. And you normally didn’t like doing that. You hated confrontation.

“Oh sure thing, can I walk you to your dorm? He asks. “Sure, I guess, You say nervously. He says his name and you say yours. As awkward as it is, maybe the feeling of someone actually being into you was nice.

Though, you knew his motives were anything but nice. Still, you’d never let it take that far. “Here is my dorm, You smile.”I hope I see… you around.” “You definitely will, He winks, leaving you to your dorm.

It wasn’t a good way either. He’d probably ask you out on a date eventually. “y/n, what did you find? Hermione asks. “Not much, You say.”But, before you say I told you so, I know he is hiding something.”

She sighed.”You are too in love to think logically, Y/N.” You scoff.”I’m not in love with him! I found someone!”

“You did? Both Ron and Hermione say in unison. The common room was empty somehow, making things better.

“Mhm, that ravenclaw guy or something, said his name was Bastian or something.”

Hermione groaned.”Y/n, he’s an asshole who’s only using you for sex!” “I know, and I’m not letting him use me, U just met him, doesn’t mean anything, You defended.

“Thank god, Hermione said. “I heard he’s hot though, Ron said. “Not the point, You say. Ron laughed and so did you.

“Ron, you have something to say? You joke. Hermione looks over, smirking. Ron blushed.”I’m not gay! I love ‘Mione!”

“Cute nickname, Hermione smiled, sitting beside him. “To be fair, he didn’t come up with it first, You smiled.

You looked proud and smug, as you had come up with it in Year 1. Hermione loved it and it stuck ever since. Though, it was a nickname only her closest friends, you, Ron(her boyfriend now), and Harry.

It got darker, and by the time you were in bed, you hear noises coming from the Common Room. So, much to your curiosity, you go downstairs to the common room. Relieved, You say,”Merlin, Harry, I thought you were something else.”

“No, just me, Harry said calmly.”You thought I was Voldemort or something?” “No, you laughed.”You came in really late. Won’t you get some sleep?”

“I’m not that tired, Harry assured you.”You don’t have to worry about me, Y/N.” “I think I do, You tease.”You need someone to look after you, Harry.”

He smiles.”Always putting everyone’s needs over your own, typical of you.” “It’s kind of how you are, You say.”Selfless, caring…” He sighed, plopping himself down on the couch.

“Harry, I’m worried for you, okay? You say, sitting beside him.”What’s going on?” “It’s nothing, he says. That’s a lie, you knew.

“Harry, I know that’s a lie, You say.”And…” you stop, looking down to see blood all over his clothes. You stand up.”Harry, what did you do?”

Confused, He asked,”What do you mean?” “Did you fall or something? Hurt yourself? You’ve got blood all over, You say nervously, about to pull your wand out when Harry took action quicker.”Expelliarmus!”

He disarmed tour wand, making you taken aback. Why did he do that? You weren’t a threat by any means. Pulling out your wand he probably assumed you’d hurt him or something.

“I’m not going to hurt you, I… I’m just a bit scared, okay? I need my wand to-“

He grabs it before you do. His demeanor, you just knew changed. “I’m not giving it back until I can trust you, Harry said sternly.

“God, you sound like my father, give it back! You say, reaching out for it but not succeeding.”And what makes me untrustworthy?”

“The fact you’re questioning me, and immediately go to your wand! Harry said. “Shh! They can hear you! You say, when he grabs your wrist, making you jump.

“You really want to know? He asks, his tone angrier than you’ve ever heard from him. You nodded nervously, more so afraid. This side of him you’ve never seen before.

Pulling you closer to him, Harry whispers in your ear,”I killed that creep.” “No… You say.”He wasn’t a creep. And how did you know?”

“I knew you followed me, and I saw it, Harry added.”I’m not as stupid as you might think, y/n.” “Okay, then what were you doing? You ask.”I know you’re hiding something, Harry.”

“Feeling bold, aren’t you?”

“Maybe, You reply, your voice filled with venom and a bit more confidence as you spoke. You never felt so confident in your life. But you had to hide your fear and intimidation of Harry.

“Alright then, Harry smirked.”I didn’t exactly lie about defeating Voldemort.” “Okay… You say. “I already killed him, he continues.”Which that makes me the new Dark Lord.”

“What? You say.”Okay, Maybe your trauma made you-“ His hand was wrapped around your throat, not choking you but he could.”I’d rather you keep your mouth shut about this.”

You somehow whimper and nodded. He lets go.”Good.” “I have a feeling there was more to murdering that ravenclaw, You whisper.

“The fact is, you’re mine, and I just made sure he knew, Harry said possessively. This side of him scared you.

“What are you going to do as the Dark Lord?”

“Destroy those who wronged me and the people I love, obviously.”

[demilypyro]

Terfs' insistence that all amab people are inherently predatory speaks of a society with real problems, one that frequently encourages men to disregard women and traumatize the women they interact with, either directly or indirectly. Recognizing these systemic issues is a core value of feminism; the patriarchy is real and is a real problem that will take generations to dismantle, if it can even be done.

It does not, however, mean predatory behaviour is indeed somehow inherent to the male sex, and that notion is unhelpful in solving the aforementioned systemic issues because it replaces people's responsibility to recognize and resist the negative social influences that affect them with a flawed understanding of biology that essentially frees both men and women of the burden of self-improvement by making it impossible.

The implicit existence of a "predator" sex and an "victim" sex is deeply flawed, it flies in the face of self-determination and falls apart the moment a woman does something bad or a man does something selfless. It ignores the times when men abuse other men, or when women abuse other women. It also disregards how those who do not conform to their assigned genders are disproportionately targeted.

Everyone should be held responsible for their actions, should recognize what led them to wrongdoing and should work to improve. Arguing that men are always going to be predatory and women are always going to be victims does not accomplish this, it is not feminism, it is defeatist. It ignores the deeper issues that result from patriarchy, and it hurts those who can improve by taking that possibility away from them.

[alpaca-clouds]

Let me talk about Lenore (again)

Let me talk about something that irks me about a certain subset of Lenore fans. This really is a subset of the fans, mostly made up of straight guys who are simping hard for her. But they really, really do annoy me. Because they often like to use feminist language to be horribly sexist - because they do not actually understand feminism.

What they basically tend to argue is that depicting Lenore as a villain or to note that she is abusive of Hector is totally a sexist thing to do and that nobody would argue the same if the gender roles were reversed. And that actually Lenore is just a misunderstood sweet, innocent girl.

And what shall I say? Thanks, I hate it.

For once, I would argue that if the gender roles were reversed a lot more people would realize the abusiveness of the relationship, because we are as a society more likely to recognize abuse as such when it is a man abusing a woman. Now, it can absolutely be argued that in that case there would probably still be a lot of fans - especially female fans - thirsting over "Leon", but the general consensus would still be to recognize that "Leon" is abusing "Hester". And there would also be a lot less argument in active fandom about the sex being rape. Because, again, we are a lot more used to recognizing it, if it was that way around.

Which gets me to the second problem though. Because turning Lenore into an innocent girl, who actually means good and does the best with the options she has... that is sexist. It takes a complex female character and turns her into one of the most sexist female stereotypes, taking a ton of her agency with it.

The Styria sisters are well written and actually a good example of female characters, because they have agency and because they are allowed to fall into very different character types than a lot of female characters are. They are not treated different from the male antagonists.

And yes, this sadly is still a big deal. Because if media struggles with one thing it is the female villains. Mostly because we still have this inherent bias that we feel that "a woman being punched in the face" is actually a bad thing. Which is also why in most action-heavy franchises we do not get to see female villains partaking in battles.

Sure. It is starting to get a bit better. But it is still a big problem. Which is why Castlevania having Carmilla as one of the big bad was great. And why Castlevania: Nocturne having the two main villains be female is amazing.

And yes, it would have been even better if Carmilla had been part of the big main battle in the end of the show. But I still maintain that I am fairly certain, that it was indeed planned like that originally - and then the fact that it was only one more season after s3 ended up with the Styria-storyline and the Wallachia-storyline never merging.

[adarkrainbow]

what exactly is 'the bad “woke movement'. you mean Disney's attempts at political correctness in their casting choice? describing it as "woke" is a serious misuse of black slang.

I was a bit confused at first since I have switched the subject out of the Disney Snow White controversy some times ago.

I am sorry to inform you that the use of "woke" as a deragoratory term to designate the people we once called ironically "Social-Justice Warriors" is actually not a "black slang" anymore. In fact I didn't even know it was supposed to be a "black slang" originally, my perception of it was that it was originally a term that was created on the Internet in a positive way, to designate people that were actually fighting against all sorts of discriminations and social problems, and opening their eyes to the wrongness of societies and modern age... Only to then be switched, by the Internet itself at first, and then by the media who took the word back, to be used as a designation of extreme social-justice warriors, or people who'se extreme self-righteousness, mixed with either hypocrisy or just ignorance, resulted in them coming of as a more mad or harmful than helpful.

If you do not like me using the term, unfortunately for you you'll have to go after pretty much every American media, then after after European media - and I am not even counting the politics of both America and Europe! The term "woke" has left its Internet-exclusivity a long time ago, and now is used even in non-English speaking countries (such as France) to designate the extremes to which some people or groups carry on the "social war". Now the thing to be careful of is that many extreme-right or very hateful people will use "woke" as a way to degrade or humiliate rightful defenders of things such as feminism, transgender rights, homosexuality, etc, etc... So I want to insist: I am not susbscribing to any extreme-right ideology, and I know very well they are using this term for their own negative agenda.

But I am not of the extreme-left either, and as someone who saw very well the dangers of any kind of extremes, I have to recognize that there is indeed a bad, extreme "woke" movement, that ranges from the ridiculous to the hateful. It exists. To imagine that all fights for the right reasons are done with the right means is to be too naive.

A very recent case - which is not woke, because it isn't about social justice or social blights, but about ecology, however it illustrates VERY well the stupidity and hypocrisy of some of these modern extreme groups. In France there is an extreme ecological group that has been making a lot of noise and some extreme actions to alert people and authorities about climate change and asking for something to be done. Interesting, right? Good, right? Except that their actions are VERY dubious in effect. For example some times ago they did protests related to, I think it was the droughts and water supply handlings? I can't recall exactly the why of the protest - but they did so by destroying entire fields and putting several farmers in difficult position because they had their entire crops gone. It wasn't some big mass-industrial farming, it wasn't genetically modified stuff, it was just your regular farmer with his fields, and he had his whole crops destroyed by the group's protect - which wasn't even aimed at him (if I recall there was something about them mistaking his field for another nearby, or something). Now my memory of this case is very blurry as you can see - but one other case popped up just two days ago so I can clearly tell you the problem this time: a few days ago, the group protested against the instalation of a toxic waste disposal site near a city and precisely near a river that passed by the water's city. To protest that and alert the city's citizens, they poured tons of products in the river's water that turned it bright, glowing green - to show them the fear of toxic products reaching them by the water.

But what's the twist of the story? To make the water bright green, they poured ACTUAL toxic chemicals and colorants in the water, which resulted in killing numerous fishes of the river. It went viral on the Internet, the whole "ecologists kill fishes" thing, but it shows how by ignorance (here ignorance of the toxicity of the products you use), those who fight against pollution become the pollution-makers themselves.

Now, that was not related to social things so "woke" isn't to be applied to them - but it is a good illustration of how fighting one extreme can lead to another. But if you want a case of "bad woke" actions I have a perfect one for you - which is from before the term "woke" was taken back by the media. It was something that happened in the French part of Canada (and in general when you want some misguided and extreme woke behavior, you can go to Canada, they are very talented here at misguided good actions). It was a gesture done by Christian (Catholic) religious groups, related to the whole dreadful rediscovery of the horrors of the special so-called "schools" they had prepared for First Nations kids. You know, the ones with mass graves and such. To show that they wanted to bury the past behind them and reject the discrimination of Native-Americans, they decided to collect all sorts of old classics of French childhood literature that had depictions of First Nations people deemed offensive (for example Lucky Luke and Asterix comic books)... and they burned it in a huge bonfire.

Of course, thats CERTAINLY the best way to prove you want to help the people you have persecuted and killed for so long: do not give them money, do not change the laws, do not actually do something for them, just become book-burners! That's CERTAINLY going to help and that's CERTAINLY going to make you the "good guys".

You see what I mean by the "bad woke" movement? It isn't a movement in itself, but just the extremes these attempts at "good" and fighting against discrimination can lead to. Sometimes to the point of just coming off as a new form of discrimination. Another case, that was in France, and done in Paris. I personally think that it was a dubious idea, and maybe someone will disagree with me, but it was a project brought forward - to handle the help provided to rape victims. The whole idea was that man should be banned of all groups, organizations and help systems brought to rape victims, because in the politician's words, women had to stay between themselves, and rape victims had to cut all ties with men to get better. Another similar dubious "woke" incident (it happened, just like the one above, in Paris, because Paris recently went through a wave of bad-woke incidents and propositions thanks to the local government in power), was when a "set of safe space" was created, from which men were banned - all men - and which only welcomed... "Women and transgenders". The phrasing and formula might seem weird, and that's literaly how it was said, and it took not a long time to understand the problem: it welcomed all transgenders, and all women, but banned all men. Aka: transgender men either had to be banned from it, because they were men (so they lied upon saying they welcomed all transgenders) ; either they were allowed in, but thus not recognized as actual "men" and still considered women.

You see how there's some good intentions buried down there, but in effect it is twisted and warped in another form of discrimination?

When it comes to my worries about the new Snow-White movie, it isn't about an active, harmful, reverse-discrimination type of "bad woke". But I do fear about the "accidentally harmful" and "plain ridiculous" bad-woke. To handle the idea that a character named "Snow-White" is black is something that needs carefulness and intelligence - and Disney's had the bluntness and grace of a hammer wielded by an angry bear recently. I have one precise fear for example that I keep repeating around: if they choose to still refer to Snow-White's name as a reference to the fact she has a lighter skin and thus is beautiful because of it, and given they have chosen an actress with a light skin tone - it can result in a scenario enacting "colorism" fully. Aka, a practice and set of worldviews put in place in the slavery and discrimination-era America, about how the lighter the Black person's skin, the "better" and more "beautiful" they were. This resulted in practices such as putting "lighter" Blacks above "darker" ones, for example choosing Black people with light skin to oversee "darker" slaves and the "lighter" ones being given a less harsh treatment than the others.

Its a whole another cesspool of discrimination born of the horror that was America in this era - but it is still something that Afro-American people fight against and dislike today, and something many media have been accused of doing by putting "lighter skinned" Black characters in the position of "prettier" or "better" characters than "darker skinned" ones.

No need to tell you the whole dwarf issue is also a big "bad woke movement" move on the part of Disney. To answer to a loud minority that thinks the dwarfs roles in Snow-White is backward and insulting, they simply decide to erase them from the story... Despite the role of the seven dwarfs being something that many actors with dwarfism enjoy and defend because it was often their first entry into the acting world, and despite the fact that the original Disney seven dwarfs were positive and complex characters that were far more compelling and powerful than many other Snow-White adaptations (in fact, that's the problem, the reason the dwarfs are seen as "backwards" today is because so many post-Disney adaptations reduced them to goofy, joke secondary characters as flat as a cardboard cut-out). There are tons of ways of making the dwarfs strong and badass and cool and powerful characters - and it has been done before. (Just remember how the dwarfs in the original Disney movie are the only ones who stand up to the evil queen, and the only ones who make her VISIBLY AFRAID as they hunt her down to kill her in revenge).

So we come with the mixed and complicated result we have: Because a role is deemed "problematic", it is erased and replaced - but as a result, erasing an opportunity for actors with dwarfism to become famous and appear in a big blockbuster seen by millions is perceived as discrimination against said actors with dwarfism, as they are replaced by so-called "normal" people. They could have simply worked on making the dwarfs' characters a badass role the actors could have had no shame of playing, and they could have just gone wth what the original movie did - make the dwarfs the true heroes and protagonist of the tale. But they rather decided to close the door and make actors with dwarfism even less visible on screen.

I hope it clarifies my whole position on the subject.

[senseofmonachopsis]

Gee, I wonder why so many non-homosexual feminists falsely claimed to be lesbians....

"But the sexual issue that tyrannized the most over lesbian-feminists who wanted to be politically correct in the 1970s was bisexuality. Ironically, at a time when bisexuality became quite acceptable to liberals, it became unacceptable among lesbian-feminists. Jill Johnston called it a “fearful compromise” because half the bisexual woman’s actions were “a continued service to the oppressor.” Women who were bisexual were accused of “ripping off” lesbians—getting energy from them so that they could “take it back to a man.” Bisexual women were the worst traitors to the cause, lesbian-feminists believed, because they knew they were capable of loving women and yet they allowed themselves to become involved with men and neglected their duty to help build the Lesbian Nation. Bisexuals were especially suspect because they received all the heterosexual privileges—such as financial and social benefits—whenever they chose to act heterosexually. Although lesbian-feminists recognized that human nature was indeed bisexual, they pointed out that the revolution had not yet reached its goals and women who practiced bisexuality were “simply leading highly privileged lives that … undermine the feminist struggle. It was suggested that, at the very least, those bisexuals who could not ignore their heterosexual drives should put the bulk of their energies into the political and social struggles around lesbian-feminism and keep secret from the outside world their straight side so that they would not be tempted to fall back on their heterosexual privileges.”

- From "Odd Girls and Twilight Lovers: A History of Lesbian Life in Twentieth-Century America" by Lilian Faderman

[determinate-negation]

This protective power constitutes the all-important aspect of authority, without which the fantasy is not satisfying. This authority is what inspires love and transforms violence into an opportunity for voluntary submission. Although the elements of self-control, intentionality and authority are meant to uphold the difference between violator and violated, control, as we have seen, tends to become self-defeating. The fact that each partner represents only one pole in a split unity creates the major difficulty in sustaining tension. The continual problem in relations of domination, says Bataille in his commentary on Hegel, is "that the slave by accepting defeat... has lost the quality without which he is unable to recognize the conquerer so as to satisfy him. The slave is unable to give the master the satisfaction without which the master can no longer rest." The master's denial of the other's subjectivity leaves him faced with isolation as the only alternative to being engulfed by the dehumanized other. In either case, the master is actually alone, because the person he is with is no person at all. And likewise, for her part, the slave fears that the master will abandon her to aloneness when he tires of being with someone who is not a person.

Eventually the other's unreality becomes too powerful; the sadist is in danger of becoming the will-less thing he consumes unless he separates himself completely. And the masochist increasingly feels that she does not exist, that she is without will or desire, that she has no life apart from the other. Indeed, once the tension between subjugation and resistance dissolves, death or abandonment is the inevitable end of the story, and, as we have seen, Story of O is deliberately left open to both conclusions. This ambiguity is appropriate because for the masochist the intolerable end is abandonment, while for the sadist it is the death (or murder) of the other, whom he destroys.

Jessica Benjamin, The Bonds of Love: Psychoanalysis, Feminism, and the Problem of Domination

[marzipanandminutiae]

If i remember that house renovation post correctly it was because the urls of the people that posted it (that are censored in that version) were obvious terf/radfem urls

Interesting. Although that's still not the same as being a tradwife- tradwives are usually opposed to feminism, right? while terfs and such pretend to espouse it? -and I'd still like to see said URLs for myself

like if you're trying to prove a point about the blogs in question, censoring the URLs so readers can't check for themselves still just ends up with people assuming everyone who holds similar views is whatever the commenter claims they are

I've seen a thirtysomething childless female academic who lives in a smart house and has a career called a "tradwife" for saying it's kind of annoying that historical fiction acts like only women who violently reject femininity are worth listening to. no joke

UPDATE: a friend found the uncensored post. OP is indeed anti-choice and transphobic as well as conservative Christian, so certainly sharing some tradwife leanings. but again, it boils down to "being able to check that for yourself and recognize this person as an outlier" vs. "just assuming anyone who says something similar is a trad"

[haggishlyhagging]

But while in many parts of the world socialist ideas (such as free public education and a graduated income tax) helped achieve greater social equality and brought relief from brutal poverty for millions of peasants and industrial workers, socialism and communism also retained important androcratic components. Part of the problem lay in communist theory. Marxism, which developed into one of the most influential ideologies of modern times, did not abandon the androcratic tenet that power is to be attained through violence, as attested by its well-known adage "The end justifies the means." And part of the problem lay in how Marxism was applied in the first nation that adopted communism as its official ideology: the Soviet Union. Marx and Engels had recognized that a profound alteration of relations between women and men during prehistoric times ushered in the class society they so abhorred. Consequently, in the early years of the Russian Revolution there were some efforts to equalize the position of women. But in the end, men—and just as critically, "masculine" values—remained in control.

Indeed, one of the most instructive lessons of modern history is how the massive regression to violence and authoritarianism under Stalin coincided with the reversal of earlier policies to replace patriarchal family relations with an equal relationship between women and men. As Trotsky was to remark (but only after his fall from power and exile), the failure of the communist revolution to achieve its goals in large part stemmed from the failure of its leadership to bring about a change in patriarchal relations within the family. Or in our terms, it lay in the failure to bring about any fundamental changes in the relations between the two halves of humanity, which continued to be based on ranking rather than linking.

During the nineteenth and into the twentieth century other modern humanist ideologies—abolitionism, pacifism, anarchism, anticolonialism, environmentalism—also emerged. But like the proverbial blind men describing the elephant, they each described different manifestations of the androcratic monster as the totality of the problem. At the same time, they failed to address the fact that at its heart lies a male-dominator, female-dominated model of the human species.

The only ideology that frontally challenges this model of human relations, as well as the principle of human ranking based on violence, is, of course, feminism. For this reason it occupies a unique position both in modern history and in the history of our cultural evolution.

-Riane Eisler, The Chalice and the Blade: Our History, Our Future

[lily-orchard]

What exactly IS radical feminism?

Depends on who you ask.

In a vacuum, it's feminism that exists outside the Overton Window (the spectrum of politics that is considered acceptable and non-extreme by your average dipshit). The short version is that it calls for a radical re-ordering of society in which male supremacy is eliminated in all social and economic contexts, while recognizing that women's experiences are also affected by other social divisions such as in race, class, and sexual orientation.

The reason it's called radical is because, like most radical politics, it's all about mass revolutions and wide sweeping changes rather than gradual change within the system.

In 2023, the term "radical feminism" is largely (and in my view, erroneously) associated with the internalized misogyny of conservative women, largely due to misogynist movements doing what all right wing movements do: stealing rhetoric from the left to use as a smokescreen.

For example: Conservative women will take a radical feminist critique of the adscititious oppressive nature of the sex industry and use that to demonize sex workers (A Swerf). Or will take radical feminist critique of themselves (conservative forces infiltrating feminist movements) and redirect it at trans women (a Terf).

In my personal opinion, the willingness of many to surrender the term to conservatives and misogynists erases the work of Catharine MacKinnon, John Stoltenberg, Andrea Dworkin, Monique Wittig, and Finn Mackay. Who were all trans-inclusive.

I think we're a little too eager to surrender terminology (and indeed entire diverse philosophies) to conservatives just because they claim it. Like, we reclaim fundamentally useless shit like the Q-slur but just let go of this? Seems faulty. And like the kind of thing conservatives would love to catch on in more places.

[dumbdomb]

brown marxist feminist here, you are seriously brainwashed if you think critique of gender is comparable to naziism, an ideology which killed millions IRL.

putting a naziism aside, here's a quote that explains the difference between feminist critiques of gender and the far rights insistence on traditional gender roles:

gender critical feminist: "sex is a material reality. gender is constructed to oppress and control females. there is no requirement for a link between male and female and masculine and feminine. indeed, gender should be eliminated."

far right, conservative: "strict association between sex and gender. men are masculine, women are feminine. departures from this are morally deviant expressions. inferior gender roles for females inevitable."

many gender critical feminists were trans identified at one point, including myself. hope this helps!

do i need to add "feminists dni" to my pinned? as a black, queer, womanist who has received much harassment from "gender critical feminists" who don't recognize intersex people and nonbinary genders, or even non-western gender roles for men and women... this ask is only adding more affirmation and positivity to conservatives. being trans doesn't mean you are incapable of being transphobic. we all have our own personal journey with unlearning the misinformation and propaganda we've been taught, just like we have to relearn Our history from HIStory. if you think being gender critical is not in alignment with actual third reich research and conservative ideology, please expand your approach to learning about eugenics, hegemony in society, and the benefits of functional gender criticism. learn intersex history. broaden your studies on queer history among non-white people. can you explain how this ask moves away from serving, or aiding, conservative goals and intentions of actual nazis throughout history? what is your intention in sending a message like this to a fellow trans person?

i'm tired of seeing gender critical, transphobic, feminists recruiting teens and young women into this hatred fueled culture of discourse. i don't send hate to anyone. i don't send messages like this to people who may think differently than me. why are you actively contacting me? for what purpose?

are you upset that many feminists are in complete agreement with nazi ideology? why is this a matter to message Me about??? do you think fascist leaning feminism will not take away all of our rights? do you think feminism, in all it's white-washed conservative glory, is not responsible for contributing to the loss of many people who would still be here otherwise?

because this sounds exactly like the hate and harassment i get from conservatives, yet you claim to believe in the rights of all women- including women like me.

if you wanted to have a serious and honest conversation, you wouldn't have opened with name-calling me "brainwashed". you began with a level of immaturity and disrespect, showing your narrow mindedness in discussing big topics in a healthy, responsible, and mature way. if people have approached you and said things to make you feel bad about certain issues, please go to a public library and ask for someone there to help you learn more about how political propaganda and recruitment for their movements to push an agenda works. this is not how adults speak to each other.

[pinkhutia]

You know the other post the one you just avoided commenting on because you dipped into white power terf theory and recycled homophobia. I was very, very fucking clear on what you did and said as you tried to justify your hatred. So what wasn't clear?

i didnt intend to “avoid” commenting on it because i was focused on your original ask. your reply to the post on woc came across as an appeal to authority and dogma, and didn’t seem to make an independent argument on the theory itself. it didnt really go through my individual points, i dont think. i also still havent found alice walker’s retraction that you mentioned (again, i do not point this out facetiously)

approximating “terfism” with white power merely in plain words does not make the idea clear to me. how exactly is the reality of sex tied to white supremacy, to you? yes, i’ve read much on the “coloniality of gender” but those theorists (incl. the originator lugones) recognize sexual divisons among pre-colonial societies, too. their assessment of the european-centricity of modern gender roles resultant of colonialism does not negate sex-based oppression. the packaging of gender roles does not alter the underlying premise

feminism does indeed have horrible problems with racism—all strains of feminism do. this alone does not make a particular feminist ideology inherently racist, as virtually all ideological frameworks retain implicit bigotries which are being challenged daily from both followers and dissenters

[caniscathexis]

For there is no sex. There is but sex that is oppressed and sex that oppresses. It is oppression that creates sex and not the contrary. . . . The primacy of difference so constitutes our thought that it prevents turning inward on itself to question itself, no matter how necessary that may be to apprehend the basis of that which precisely constitutes it. To apprehend a difference in dialectical terms is to make apparent the contradictory terms to be resolved. To understand social reality in dialectical materialist terms is to apprehend the oppositions between classes, term to term, and make them meet under the same copula (a conflict in the social order), which is also a resolution (an abolition in the social order) of the apparent contradictions.

monique wittig, "the category of sex"

[A] language, a semiotic system, because it is a framework for expressing meaning created to serve all members of a society regardless of class, cannot be considered an oppressive superstructure in itself. It is when a language “give[s] preference and support to some one social group to the detriment of other social groups of the society” that it “loses its virtue” and becomes a “jargon”. Where gender is the language, indifferent to all classes, restrictive gender roles are patriarchy’s attempt to enforce a jargon.

. . . In resistance to the patriarchal jargon of restrictive gender roles, the feminist movement emerged to develop a gender system that is not a jargon, one that serves society as a whole, even if it has not necessarily always seen itself in such terms. Transfeminism, the most advanced form of feminism, with its recognition of the need to rethink gender entirely to properly account for the people that fall beyond even the link to a “sex” coercively assigned at birth, represents the culmination of this mission.

In the quoted section, Alyx shows that her thinking is indeed materialist: mechanical materialist, not dialectical materialist. “Our genders and our selves are produced by society”, she declares, positioning “society” as something beyond our control. “Patriarchy is the subject” and “we’re the object”, she claims, but if her thinking were really dialectical she would recognize that people are not the object to society’s subject, but that both people and society are simultaneously subject and object, influencing each other in a dialectical relationship.

kinsey tamsin favre, “the gender politics of [alyx mayer's] 'eroticization'"

The use of speech, such as it is practiced everyday, is an operation that suffocates language and thus the ego, whose deadly stake is the hiding, the dissimulating, as carefully as possible, of the nature of language. What is caught unaware here and suffocates are the words between the words, before the “fathers,” before the “mothers,” before the “you’s,” before “the arising of the dead,” before “structuralisma,” before “capitalisma.” What is smothered by all kinds of talk, whether it be that of the street or of the philosopher’s study, is the first language (of which the dictionary gives us an approximate idea): the one in which meaning has not yet occurred, the one which is for all, which belongs to all, and which everyone in turn can take, use, bend toward a meaning. For this is the social pact that binds us, the exclusive contract (none other is possible), a social contract that exists just as Rousseau imagined it, one where the “right of the strongest” is a contradiction in terms, one where there are neither men nor women, neither races nor oppression, nothing but what can be named progressively, word by word, language. Here we are all free and equal or there would be no possible pact. We all learned to speak with the awareness that words can be exchanged, that language forms itself in a relation of absolute reciprocity. If not, who would be mad enough to want to talk? The tremendous power—such as linguists have made it known to us—the power to use, proceeding from oneself alone, all language, with its words of dazzling sounds and meanings, belongs to us all. Language exists as the commonplace where one can revel freely and, in one stroke, through words, offer to others at arm’s length the same license, one without which there would be no meaning. “Par toutes leurs voyelles, par toutes leurs consonnes (les mots) se tendent, s’ouvrent, aspirent, s’imbibent, s’emplissent, se gonflent, s’épandent à la mesure d’espaces infinis, à la mesure de bonheurs sans bornes” [With all their vowels, their consonants, (words) stretch, open up, inhale, become saturated, fill up, swell, spread over infinite space, over boundless happinesses].

Language exists as a paradise made of visible, audible, palpable, palatable words. . .

monique wittig, "the site of action"

[blackswallowtailbutterfly]

Anon has a point though. Women are in fact expected to be passive, nurturing and accommodating. The second we put our own needs first, we're selfish monsters. And I think it's only natural that women who aren't natural caregivers/group oriented/organized would feel slighted by people implying that these are qualities women are born with. I'm not the most tidy person and I admittedly get annoyed when people praise woman for being naturally tidy.

Listen, assuming you're not the same anon, you are getting tied up in the notion that being a good person is the same as being a pushover.

For what is hopefully the last time I'm going to have to say this, Patriarchy does indeed argue that exact thing when it comes to women. Patriarchy is wrong.

So yet again:

Being compassionate doesn't mean being passive.

Being empathetic doesn't mean excusing abusive behaviours.

Striving for communication doesn't mean being over-accommodating.

Being nurturing doesn't mean letting your needs get ignored.

Caring about other people = good

Letting yourself get walked over = bad

Caring about other people =/= Letting yourself get walked over

Empathy, compassion, nurturing, communication, organization, being group-oriented are good things. Objectively. Our species literally could not have survived without them. These are traits that are good to have, woman or man. Men should have these traits. Many even do when it comes to other men, but not for women. That is bad. That is a problem. It is not bad that women display these traits more; it is bad that men display them less.

Men lie. Men say, if you loved me you'd forgo all your needs to serve mine and expect nothing in return, but that isn't love, it's servitude. Men want women subordinate. They conflate objectively good traits that should be gender-neutral with traits of a desirable servant/slave because it benefits them to confuse women. They win either way. A woman who think it's the same and chooses kindness is easily subordinated. A woman who thinks it's the same and chooses to be an asshole can't find solidarity with other women.

The woman who recognizes it for what it is seeks mutually fulfilling relationships with women (whether romantic, familial, etc.) and can call a man on his shit.

So I am once again asking women to please stop falling for patriarchal bullshit. Feminism cannot succeed if women aren't empathizing with, caring for, nurturing, and organizing with other women.

[killjoypat]

Why do conservatives always feel the need to argue feminist media is crypto-conservative?

Ross Douthat’s conservative reading of Barbie interprets sexual awakening as “reproductive destiny”. In "Why Barbie and Ken Need Each Other" (a wily choice of words that alludes to coalition building when actually perpetuating misogynistic ideals), Douthat concludes his article with, “In the movie they made, ‘Barbie and Ken’ is a statement of reverse subordination, female rule and male eclipse. But in reality, nothing may matter as much to male and female happiness, and indeed, to the future of the human race, as whether Barbie and Ken can make that ‘and’ into something reciprocal and fertile — a bridge, a bond, a marriage.” 

This idea that any interest a woman has with her gynecology and sexuality must revolve around a desire for reproduction is age-old patriarchal propaganda that subjugates women to the reproductive economy and denies them sexual liberation. Considering Douthat’s anti-abortion history, this reading becomes particularly dark. This reading of Barbie is also incredibly heteronormative and subscribes to the confines of gender binary. Ascribing happiness to reproduction and heteronormative marriage weaponizes joy. Douthat’s argument is irredeemably rooted in the idea that women would and should be happy providing uncompensated reproductive labor in a gender dynamic and societal structure that neither appreciates nor releases her from this work. 

Of course, there are complexities and nuances to motherhood, especially the relationship between mother and daughter, which Barbie as a film explores (though I'd argue should be a larger focus of the movie). But the idea that as women become mothers they are expected to leave behind their childhood and imagination is a large critique the film makes, which Douthat ignores. Barbie isn't driving women towards motherhood, it's recognizing and celebrating a specific relationship between women (that of mother and daughter) and within the feminine experience.

The female experience is riddled with demands of what to do with your body, from being slut-shamed to being told you have “only this many good years left” to "achieve" marriage and motherhood, that the female body has failed if it has not satisfied a man and provided a child. It is so disappointing to see that a feminist narrative precisely denying the need for women to exist relative to men ends up being co-opted by a pro-lifer insisting the film is crypto-conservative. 

I am so tired of patriarchy trying to frame what is more often than not an exploitative system designed against women as the key to our happiness. 

I am so tired of cishet white men at the height of privilege trying to sell us marriage and motherhood.

For more resources on weaponized happiness and the logical flaws of framing anti-abortion as a morality argument, I recommend reading Sara Ahmed and Judith Jarvis Thompson's works!

Ahmed's Promise of Happiness I recommend starting w chapter 2 if you don't have time to read the whole book

TW: mention of rape (pg 80, ch. 2)

Thompson's A Defense of Abortion

You might also be interested in where do WOC stand w Barbie's white feminism?