#rather than singling her out and calling her a bad feminist | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

joesalw · 9 months

Note

All of Taylor's albums were tailored to the most popular aesthetic at the time. She didn't make shit popular, she just adapted. Especially when she made the transition into pop music.

True. She's currently jumping fences with rep as well. Making it out to be a goth punk moment and using trendy words like 'female rage'. The album has the most romantic songs she's ever written. C'mon now. The whole record is electropop with some R&B elements thrown into the mix.

She portrays 'Lover' as her social justice warrior era. 'If I was a man, then I'd be the man'. Yeah, we've seen it Taylor. Miss 'me becoming a billionaire is good for the world because I'm a woman'. She makes herself out to be this 'feminist girl's girl' when in reality it couldn't be further from the truth. She's not a feminist and she doesn't want to be the woman that's advocating for women's rights and leads the path for the future generation of women. She wants to be the man at the top. Her motto is literally 'gaslight, gatekeep, girlboss, greenhouse gases'.

Another thing is her queer allyship. She's mentioned it when and only when it was profitable to her. During her tour she hadn't said a thing when the number of states signed anti-trans bills and the state of Tennessee where she says she lives *according to her own documentary* banned drag. I don't think she said anything about the anti-abortion legislation either. Her activist era started and ended in 2019.

Don't get me started on her position regarding the BLM movement. She only posted something because her own fans started calling her out and then declared that she's 'ferociously anti-racist'. She positioned herself as an advocate *by herself* and then immediately dipped when it stopped being as profitable. If you don't want to be dragged for your silence about social and political crises, don't proclaim yourself as an activist. Simple as that.

I've also seen the video on Youtube about TS being a narcissist (someone posted it on your blog earlier I think). And the guy in the video brought up her guitar teacher. So I looked him up and found an article where he talks about his experience with the Swifts which he got sued for later. According to the man, Taylor's mother was interested in him teaching her daughter how to play country music and was just a stage mom in general. And TS says that she'd been begging her parents to allow her learn how to play guitar and that she's self-taught. She wants her success story to be a rags to riches so bad I can't even.

She's a woman with an extremely fragile ego where millions of people could be praising her and a single negative comment would set her off. She can't handle any form of criticism, break ups or inconveniences like a grown woman simply because she doesn't have enough emotional intelligence to do so. Her being surrounded by yes men also doesn't help the situation. If i were her, I'd rather invest in a good therapist rather than 2 PJs. She drowns herself in work and relationships so she doesn't have time to go inwards and sit with her thoughts.

I kinda feel bad for her, honestly. She's been in the industry since she was 15 and her success was almost immediate. She doesn't know what the world's like because she's been sheltered her whole life and then had other people do things for her. I don't think she has many real friends as well. By real I mean people who aren't afraid to tell you the truth and are able to call you out in your face. Instead she has a bunch of people who appease her afraid of pissing her off and ending up on her bad side and as a result her vanity grows and she completely loses any sort of perspective whether in her friendships, romantic relationships or maybe even her own family.

I also wonder what she thinks about her fandom pirating her concert film instead of paying to rent it. I sort of hope that her fans are starting to wake up to her conning schemes. I mean, you've already made a shit ton of money from the theatre release, why charging 20$ more to RENT IT?Not even buy it. Or is it another narrative about how 'no one can own my work but me'?

This woman sells well but her cultural impact is almost nonexistent. She hadn't done any good for the world causes or inspired several generations of performers like Michael Jackson has with his philanthropic endeavors and incredible performing skills. The artists like Beyoncé, Lady Gaga, Bruno Mars, Justin Timberlake (bleh) and The Weeknd were hugely influenced by MJ. These artist create their own unique legacy and impact on their communities. Especially the ladies. Gaga's been an avid LGBT+ advocate since the beginning of her career and created a foundation that focuses on issues like self-confidence, well-being, anti-bullying, mentoring and career development. She also participated in anti HIV and AIDS campaigns, spoke against immigration laws in the US, contributed to 2011's earthquake and tsunami relief campaign in Japan. Beyoncé's a huge advocate for the black community and black women especially which always finds its way in her work and visual art in particular. She's been platforming black culture and history for her whole career (2016 Superbowl and Coachella performance are the brightest examples of black american culture and releasing her Lion King album to showcase African artists' excellence). She also has a foundation where she provides black youth scholarships, clean water for communities abroad and housing to families in need in her home state.

What exactly makes Taylor Swift's cultural impact? Thousands of tons CO2 emissions? Music labels putting a clause in the contract so the artists can't re-record their material for 10 years now instead of 5? Making several versions of the same CD or vinyl so the sales are bigger? Mind you, that's all excessive plastic and paper. Some countries and US states are banning gas stoves. Her position regarding artists being paid during the early days of streaming (when the platforms were launching with a free period tial) was right but no one really benefited from it but her. She was shitting on Apple Music, then they offered her money, filmed an ad and released her 1989 Tour DVD exclusively on their platform. She shat on Spotify, then when LWYMMD came out, she was all over their biggest playlists all of a sudden and recorded Spotify Singles later on. Spotify's always promoted her every release like a motherfucker shoving her in every corner of the platform. Especially for the past 3 years. She doesn't have any memorable outfits or unique style to be called a fashion icon either. She's not a trailblazer she thinks she is. She is only popular because a lot of people *mostly ww* who peaked in high school see themselves in her. She's average in everything she does, her writing topes are also the same (only now she started using compound or uncommonly used words to mask it) but she's extremely commercially successful so that those people can see themselves in her. She doesn't have unique music style or chameleon-like discography like Gaga, Bey, MJ, Madonna, Shakira, Kelly Clarkson, Miley Cyrus or Nelly Furtado. She doesn't have a unique singing voice like Bjork, David Bowie, Freddie Mercury, Janis Joplin, MJ or Bob Dylan. She's no instrument prodigy either. And swifties say that 'Michael couldn't play any instruments'. Well, he was an exceptional beatboxer. She can strum 4 guitar chords and play basic piano, that's it. She doesn't have an outstanding dancing and/or vocal skill.

What is she gonna be remembered for? Her numerous relationships with famous men? While that might be misogynistic or sexist to some degree, she's the one who makes her relationships the centre of her music and public persona and brings them up even 10 years after they ended. Her public feuds with men and women that she can't get over years after? This woman is certainly can hold a grudge and is extremely vindictive. The leader of a parasocial cult that blindly defends her bigotry? I believe so. I don't think I've ever seen a fandom as toxic and as hive-minded as swifties. And again, it's Taylor's own creation. She's the one that constantly says 'look closely for the easter eggs' in her content making her fans theorize on every aspect of her life, or 'if you're very loyal I might invite you to MY HOUSE and you can listen to the new album early, we'll take pics and I'll bake you some cookies'. Of course they'll follow your any order. I'm glad I escaped.

Oof, I'll stop here. That's a very long one already

sorry hehe

#anti taylor swift #anti swifties #swifties dni

123 notes · View notes

intersectionalpraxis · 10 months

Note

from a feminist perspective, what do you think when isnotreal women post garbage like this? https://www.tumblr.com/anneemay/736470687414386688

and also about how taylor swift has been silent on everything but last night I saw a tweet that she was seen going to one of ramy youssef's shows and all proceeds would go to gaza humanitarian relief? a bunch of isnotreal girls were freaking out and saying things like 'I don't see it!' and 'she's hopefully just pro-peace and not against us!' and 'some people are pro-isnotreal but just feel bad for palestine'. I would think as the time person of the year (lol the gazan journalists and doctors deserve it) with a lot of influence, she should speak up? when she told everyone to vote, there was a huge surge in voter registration. not to give her more power than she has because she obviously can't influence policy but if she were to join the ceasefire demands, it would bring out even more support and put more pressure. idk! just wanted to hear your thoughts on these topics if you have the bandwidth to do so!

I really do not know how much more depraved settlers can get, and I'm continually reminded it get can get lower and lower each time I see something like this:

From slut shaming a Palestinian women when an IOF soldier found her lingerie in her OWN fucking room that they were raiding, to an IOF soldier happily destroying a small stationery shop, to another IOF scum stealing a Palestinian woman's silver necklace he looted (a necklace that was supposed to be worn on her wedding day, but she was killed in an attack) in order to give it to his own girlfriend...

I just... the layers of indoctrination here is incredibly evident (I actually intend to post something about this in the near future) as one element, because you cannot do something or say something like this without being void of humanity -and also, without being so deeply ingrained in this notion that Palestinian people are not human beings -and that by degrading, humiliating, and dehumanizing them in ways like this will somehow justify the violence, terror, and genocide the IOF is committing... it's just so wild to me.

Because the IOF is continuing to commit heinous war crimes, crimes against humanity, and has and will continue to disproportionately commit sexual violence against Palestinian women and young boys, and it is absolutely inhumane and despicable -and the fact that this person thinks the IOF has a 'good' reputation -is absolutely next level shamelessness. My stance has and always will be if you're a 'feminist' who supports the IOF, you're not a feminist -you're a genocidal apologist like the rest of those sympathetic to IOF crimes.

As for Taylor Swift, like her fellow celebrities -and every single one of them that signed that document in support of the IOF, including those who have been and remain silent -they are all complicit. A part from saying celebrity culture needs to be dismantled and diminished because why -like why are these people put on pedestals is one thing, but also -if you have to do go through mental gymnastics to defend that silence or complicity (like fans of Selena Gomez did), I need people to critically reflect A LOT more. And that if your fan base is more concerned about your 'side' rather than a ceasefire... then I think the people who need to be calling this out especially are Swifties themselves -and to acknowledge that this is an issue. Just like how Taylor Swift for YEARS made bank fully well knowing white supremacists LOVED her -and only being more 'socially aware' when she could monetize it has also never sat well with me.

There are SO many voices encouraging people to vote, to get involved in their communities and to raise awareness about social issues (a lot of whom are Black, Brown, and Indigenous artists and creators -so many of which get backlash a lot more than their white colleagues do), so even with her platform, I think she's always going to be motivated by what will make her money and will appease the people she works for (which, I want to assume as pro-IOF).

And even if she was supportive [like morally knows what the IOF is doing is criminal, violent, and unethical] but is not vocal about it, I think it's important we stop putting our energies into getting celebrities and influencers like her to talk about this (especially given her track record). Generally speaking, I would prefer to elevate Palestinian voices and activists like so many have already (like Hind, Motaz, Muhammad, Bisan, Plestia, and many more) than people like her. I do understand why people with millions of 'followers,' are powerful -they are (like Kehlani for instance -and I love this woman with my whole heart because she has been very open about supporting Palestine); but the one's who aren't transparent -they are also millionaires/billionaires who have social and financial capital in ways that are beyond excessive and I do not believe any one of them will speak on Historic Palestine if they haven't from the start or haven't already and addressed the reasons as to why, especially given the US's position -which is that the IOF has a right to 'defend itself.'

So I say support the artists and people who have been aligned with Palestine since the beginning, and to be wary of the people who have remained silent -and to boycott and call out the people who are complicit in this genocide. I know that this was an incredibly long response, but at the heart of it -I don't like or trust Taylor Swift. And I am amazed every single time I see her fans run to her defense (I know there are exceptions, which I respect), but at the end of the day she's a celebrity/an entertainer, and she will capitalize and monetize on 'feminist' or 'social justice' issues when it can be sanitized and watered down in a way that is not 'too political,' but makes a statement -so that it can still sell records and sell out stadiums.

I posted a video recently where a creator on tiktok called Taylor Swift out and The Times, if I can link it here I will as well.

Thank you so much for your questions, and if you have any remaining feedback or insights, please do not hesitate to send another message.

#feminist #feminism #social justice #freepalastine🇵🇸#palestine #free palestine #free gaza #gaza #gaza strikes #gazaunderfire #gaza strip #settler violence #settler colonialism #colonialism #celebrity culture #fuck capitalism #israeli propaganda #israeli war crimes

29 notes · View notes

a-tale-never-told · 10 months

Text

But that's... Impossible! It can't be... I refuse to believe it! Ngh!.... Gh...

Look, I know that it's incredibly difficult to admit when you're wrong about something that you genuinely believe in. I understand that in your head, you obviously might think that you're in the right for these sorts of actions and that Hinata and all of the other talentless people who wronged you are simply stepping stones for a greater hope or something.

So I'm gonna tell you what I think about all of that.

*She grabs him by the shoulders*

Nagito Komaeda, it's time to stop!. It's time to stop with your hope-obsessed rants and your inability to understand how talent and the real world actually work. You keep putting down the Reserve Course and Hajime for simply not having talent, constantly taking every single opportunity to belittle them, while also trying to avoid accountability by excusing your actions and self-loathing as "for the greater good"

I completely understand why you absolutely despise the Reserve Course and consider them to be awful people. Trust me, none of us like the Reserve Course, but that doesn't excuse you from belittling them for their talent and behaving just like them! Think about this, Komaeda, you called Mahiru a feminist when she was just disagreeing with you about your ideological beliefs, and she was actually incredibly calm towards you and trying to help you.

But what did you do? You blatantly disrespected her and insulted her in front of our faces, implying that she was too stupid to form a basic counterargument. Then you tried to dehumanize Hajime by calling him names and terms on a regular basis and even tried to insult his family by saying that you feel ashamed of his parents for even giving birth to him. How can you even say that to somebody and think that's okay to say it in public?!

...

Also, the reason why his file could've been in the Headmaster's office is that either they ran out of space to store files or that the headmaster has taken a particular interest in Hinata, for whatever reason, I'm not sure of, but at least there's SO much more explanations and reasons as to why Hinata's biography ended up in the Headmaster's office, rather than just assuming that he's normal and willing to degrade him on a regular basis

Also, I find it incredibly infuriating and hilarious that the reason for all of these hope-filled speeches and constant posturing over the past few hours was simply due to reading Hinata's file, and you, being the narcissist and hope-filled maniac that you are, automatically assumed that he's a bad person just by reading a file that may not have accurate information instead of actually meeting him in person. You call Hinata the pathetic one for having his parents pay him money to get him to Hope's Peak, when in reality, YOU are the pathetic one for simply believing something that isn't true!

?!!

But the most hypocritical part of these rants is how you seem to belittle them on the aspect of not working or providing anything substantial or useful to society by being talentless, yet you are exactly the same as them, in fact even less so because your talent doesn't contribute anything at all to this academy.

That's not-

Tell me, what does "Ultimate Lucky Student" even mean exactly? What kind of a talent even is that? At least with me, I have an actual talent that is beneficial to society and is useful in athletic activities. Mikan has a talent that is useful in the medical world, being a talent that saves thousands, if not millions of lives each day. Hell, even Gundam's talent actually is useful for saving the environment and preventing different animal breeds from going extinct due to poaching and natural disasters.

But what does Ultimate Lucky Student even contribute or do anything unique for society? Oh, wait! I know! Nothing. Ultimate Lucky Student isn't a talent, but a rather glorified symbol of status that you like to act and pretend that it's an actual talent when it's not!. As much as the Reserve Course are scum, they at least contribute to the school's net worth and funding by attendance. You, on the other hand, contribute zero worth to this academy by simply complaining about Hope and Despair instead of trying to change.

I'm not trying to say this in a negative way, as even though you're a total psycho, Nagito, I still consider you my classmate. But I will not step aside and watch as my friends get insulted and put down by a talent-obsessed, miserable excuse of an Ultimate, that is an utter hypocrite and self-righteous jerkass! I say all of this, Nagito because I CARE about you. WE care about you, but if you keep going on this self-righteous path of self-loathing and hatred, then you're only going to push more people away from you.

Tell me, do you like feeling lonely? Abandoned by your closest friends? I don't think so, but that's the path you're heading on if you refuse to take responsibility for your actions and not making an effort to change. So it's time to decide what you're going to do in life, Komaeda. Are you going to continue on this path of madness and constantly push away those who are trying to help you? Or are you going to actually make an effort to change and become a better person from this experience?

Because no matter what those in the academy tell you every day that talent is everything in life, it's far from the truth. Talent doesn't define you as a person, but rather, you and your actions define your personality and life! We have the power to decide our own futures, and I won't let a simple talent tell me otherwise that it isn't the case! So? Are you willing to rebut that argument? Or do you finally hold responsibility for the fact that you're completely wrong about talentless people and talent in general?

...

#danganronpa #sdr2 #super danganronpa 2 #danganronpa 3 #dr3 #nagito komaeda #honami sato #a tale never told #dr #twlight syndrome arc

3 notes · View notes

lunar-years · 6 months

Note

the thing about the t*db*cca tantrums is if they had gotten together in the end... it actually would. have been bad writing. like they spent three seasons making it very extremely clear how much their relationship was Not About That and just reversing that in the last episode would have been... extremely nonsensical. and like... why would you WANT your ship to be treated like an afterthought?

they heard romcommunism and ignored the subversion part

hm I don't necessarily agree that t*db*cca getting together would've automatically been bad writing/an afterthought. I was very much in the "this could go either way" and "i don't care either way" camps (and honestly watching the finale, the multiple "fake outs" were sort of annoying even as a non-shipper, lol). However, I definitely agree that the point of either one of their stories/purpose of their arcs was never getting together with the other (which t*db*ccas clearly don't agree with). The story is So Not About That and the significance of their bond/relationship wouldn't have changed for me if they had taken it into romance territory, only the shape of it.

The problem for me is more in the specific language some shippers use to claim that not putting them together was "bad writing." You can think that's where it was going and be pissed off that it didn't and call that bad writing, but claiming it as genuinely *problematic* writing in a "this is a terrible way to portray a powerful successful cool woman how dare she not be with my Favorite Male Character. What a crime against feminism!1!" manner (which yes, i literally have seen multiple say about both Rebecca and Keeley 🤦‍♀️) is straight up goofy & nonsensical. We shouldn't be basing whether or not woman is written "well" on her end relationship status. IMO, it would be just as ridiculous to claim it was a powerful feminist slay for Keeley to be single at the end. Like, I don't think those two things alone are directly correlated?? Rather, good portrayals of women boil down to whether or not they are written complexly and with the same level of care and nuance as their male counterparts. The status of Rebecca and Keeley's love lives has incredibly little to do with it (and for what it's worth, even with allll the problems I had with Keeley's plotline specifically, I think she is overall a wonderful female character and representation. Her s3 storyline sucked but she didn't suck, you know? She's not a flat one-note stereotypical lifeless female character at all, she's multi-faceted and complicated and so much more than her bad storyline. therefore, I think the writing for her was bad but not "anti-feminist")

Also, you are definitely right about people hearing romcommunism and ignoring the subversion. Even (imo) the show's most blatant rom-com reference/parallel (Roy returning to Richmond in Rainbow) is about love that's not romantic love. anyway... Ted Lasso is a Love Story but it is not a Romance Story...To Me.

#ted lasso #for me #its sort of like people who get furious when women character are written as bad or evil and immediately scream 'BAD REPRESENTATION'#when it's like? way more nuanced than that. let women be evil too!#just make sure their motivations and actions are purposeful and complex as their male counterparts #rather than cartoonish. you know?#idk i hope im making sense #anti t*dbecca

4 notes · View notes

ukrfeminism · 3 years

Text

I was always a good girl, by which I mean a people pleaser, because that is what being a good girl is. I enjoyed the benefits that such a personality brings (straight As at school, a close relationship with my parents, a decent job) and endured the usual downsides (teenage anorexia, frequent bouts of insomnia, lifelong anxiety). I had what a therapist later described as “total conflict avoidance”, which is a therapy way of saying I would rather eat my hair than argue with someone.

For example, when I was 10, I wore a Santa jumper to school. “You can’t wear Santa, you’re Jewish! Do you believe Jesus was born on Christmas?” a girl in my class said to me. I didn’t really know what she was talking about, but I knew what she wanted me to say, so I said it: “Yes, Jesus was born on Christmas.” She walked away, satisfied, and I felt a little like I’d given something away, but I was mainly relieved I’d avoided an argument.

And that’s how things continued for me, until 2014, when everything changed.

I was reading the New Yorker one evening and came across an article with the headline “What is a Woman?”. It was, according to the standfirst, about “the dispute between radical feminism and transgenderism”, a subject about which I knew nothing. I read it, vaguely interested in the social shift that meant being “transgender” no longer refers to someone who has undergone a sex change operation, but is now “how someone sees themselves”, as the writer Michelle Goldberg put it. This meant, Goldberg continued, that women-only spaces were increasingly changing to women-and-transwomen spaces, even if those transwomen still had male bodies — and to query this risked accusations of bigotry.

What really interested me was how quickly institutions were falling into line with this new ideology: venues cancelled talks if a radical feminist was on the bill; all-female bands pulled out of women-only festivals for fear of looking transphobic. How strange, I thought, that those with authority capitulate to the obviously misogynistic demands of a few extreme voices. Oh well, that’s just America — obviously it will never happen in the UK.

Oh, the innocence of eight years ago! Today, gender ideology — the belief that who a person feels they are is more important than the material reality of their body — is firmly in the ascendent. Activists like to claim that the only people who have a problem with this are “Right-wing bigots”, because it keeps things simple to suggest that this is a good (gender ideology) versus bad (Right-wing bigots) issue.

Yet I know a lot of non-Right-wing, non-bigots who are extremely angry at how things have shifted. My friendship group consists mainly of thirty-something to fifty-something progressive women, all, like me, lifelong Labour, or Liberal Democrat, or Green voters, all teachers, or civil servants, or writers, or lawyers. Most are not on Twitter, or TikTok, or any Mumsnet message boards. But when we meet up these days, they talk about Lia Thomas, the Ivy League swimmer who recently transitioned and is allowed to compete against female swimmers and is duly smashing women’s swimming records.

They talk about JK Rowling, vilified for saying that women — not people — menstruate and calling for single-sex spaces to be preserved. They talk about Kathleen Stock, a philosophy professor, who had to leave her job at Sussex University due to ongoing harassment from gender activists. They talk about political parties which explicitly describe women’s sex-based rights as transphobic, including the Green Party and the SNP. They talk about politicians who say things so stupid about gender it’s impossible to believe that they truly believe what they are saying, from Dawn Butler’s claim that “a child is born without a sex”, to Layla Moran’s insistence that she doesn’t care about a person’s sex because she can see “their soul”, to Keir Starmer’s stammering insistence that it’s wrong to say “only women have a cervix”.

You can — and many do — dismiss these angry women as irrelevant middle-aged mums, or just a bunch of Karens, but they do not fit into the “Right-wing bigot” pigeonhole, however much gender ideologues try to squash them in. As a result, many on the Left would prefer that this debate about gender, with older feminists on one side and gender ideologues on the other, was not happening at all, because it doesn’t fit into the good versus bad dichotomy with which the Left frames the world. So they tell themselves that this is a “niche” issue and “normal women” (ie, women not on Twitter or Mumsnet) don’t know or care about it.

Let me disabuse them of both of those notions: they do and they do. The threats, the abuse, the no-platforming of gender-critical feminists: despite the activists’ best efforts to make all of this vanish, none of it has worked. This is the issue that readers and friends want most to talk to me about, albeit only, they say, with no small amount of frustration, in private.

It did not – and I cannot stress this enough – have to be this way. In 2016, Maria Miller, then the chair of the women and equalities committee, produced a report that suggested switching gender should just be a matter of “self-identification”. This statutory declaration would replace the previous gender recognition process, which involved living in one’s chosen gender for two years, being diagnosed with gender dysphoria and being questioned by a panel.

Yet it is a pretty basic fact that male bodies are bigger and stronger than female ones, which is why sex-based rights exist in the first place. So how, I wondered, would self-ID work in practice? Would a person born male now be able to compete against women in sport, or be incarcerated with female prisoners? I assumed the government had thought about this. I assumed wrongly.

In a 2017 interview with The Times, Miller was unable to answer the most basic questions about how her proposals would affect women, which seemed weird to me, because surely you’d think about women when massively overhauling women’s rights? If Miller had given this even a moment’s thought, and acknowledged that women and transgender people’s rights needed to be balanced, rather than selling out the former to appease gender ideologues, it seems highly likely to me that the debate would never have become as fraught as it is. Anyway, after four years of anguished discussions, Miller’s reforms got kicked into the long grass in 2020, although they are still scheduled to go forward in Scotland, backed by the SNP and Greens.

Many transgender people have said how much they have hated being the subjects of political and online debate over the past five or so years, and who can blame them? Yet this issue is not just about them. Debates about gender rights are also debates about women’s rights, because activists are asking, essentially, for the abolition of women’s sex-based rights. This made and makes no sense to me, not because I think that trans women are terrible people, but because women’s sex-based rights exist for a reason.

I started having tentative discussions about this with other progressive journalists, but I was invariably the only one at the table who believed (or was willing to say out loud) that there is a clear clash between gender-based rights and women’s rights. When I said to one journalist that women need women-only spaces, he replied, “So you’re defending segregation?” Another time, when I said it was ridiculous to make prisons mixed-sex, someone I consider a friend said, “You sound like a homophobe in the Eighties saying you wouldn’t let your kids have a gay teacher.” Someone else told me I sounded like a “bigoted radical feminist” and I thought, “I used to be a deputy fashion editor, so if I’m now radical then the Left really is in trouble.” Another one said that by arguing for women’s sex-based rights I was beating down on “the most oppressed minority in Britain”, i.e., transgender people.

I have no doubt that transgender people suffer horrific bigotry in this country and everywhere. But when I found the statistics showed one trans person is tragically, killed a year in the UK, but two women are killed a week in England and Wales, I was accused of engaging in “the victim Olympics”. People who claimed to care ever so deeply about women’s physical safety during the MeToo movement now sneered at any woman who expressed doubt about sharing private spaces with male-bodied people. The most obvious example here was JK Rowling, who wrote about how her experiences with domestic violence informed her views, an inconvenient truth her critics conveniently ignored. Women are raised to fear male strength, and with very good reason. And now we’re called bigots for doing so.

For the first time in my 20-plus years of being a liberal journalist, I felt completely isolated. I knew I could make my life easier if I just reverted to being the good girl and shut up. “Be kind,” women were told by gender ideologues: be good girls, don’t ask questions, just nod and say what we tell you to say. You don’t want to be mean, do you? But how can you be a writer and not write your doubts about something so important? How can you be a journalist and not ask questions? Occasionally a professional peer would send a text saying that they agreed with me, but they couldn’t say so publicly because their editor wouldn’t like it, or their teenage kids would shout at them, or it was just too stressful.

So I questioned myself. Of course I did. Would my children be ashamed of me in twenty, ten, five years time? “Am I the baddie here?” I asked myself. But I just couldn’t make it square up: how can feelings (gender identity) always take precedence over material reality (biological sex)? Trying to convince myself that I was wrong and the gender ideologues were right was like trying to convince myself that one plus one equals a unicorn. How can you shut your eyes to your own experience and say something that makes no sense? Apparently some people can, but I could not.

I understand why some people see parallels between the modern transgender movement and the gay rights struggle. Like many gay people, trans people experience terrible marginalisation and discrimination, and some are rejected by their families, and that is tragic. Like gay people, they have been cruelly vilified in the Right-wing press (which is partly why the Left-wing media is then so loathe to raise any questions about the transgender movement. They don’t want to look like the evil Tories, right?). But there are other ways to see this situation, too.

It felt at times like men’s rights activism as a religion. Whenever I or a female colleague dared to voice our doubts about gender ideology, we were pilloried; whenever a male colleague did, he was given a free pass. It was, in the vast, vast main, women who were condemned as bigots, all because they didn’t believe the right things, because they were trying to defend their legal rights. Left-wing men — both in person and online — told me that unless I repeated the mantra “trans women are women”, I was a bigot. It reminded me of that time in school when I was questioned about Jesus to prove my worthiness to wear a jumper.

At the same time as all this was going on, Labour’s seemingly never-ending anti-Semitism scandals were unfolding. Everyone was being urged to listen to those with “lived experience”, and yet non-Jewish people on the Left were telling British Jews that they knew better than them what anti-Semitism was. Now many of those same men were telling me that they knew better than me what a woman was. So this time I didn’t give up a part of myself. Instead, I felt real anger, and I wrote an article in which I told them to get lost. This provoked a huge backlash on Twitter, and no, it wasn’t pleasant. But it was definitely preferable to staying silent just because I was scared.

Other people, however, did not react like that. It was astonishing to me how quickly universities, publishing houses, NHS services, political parties, newspapers and TV networks capitulated to the gender ideologues, who were often not even trans themselves. Mainstream newspapers were suddenly using ideological terms like “cis”, a term which endorses the highly dubious belief that we all have an innate gender identity, and “top surgery”, a tidy euphemism for an elective double mastectomy. NHS services would talk about “cervix havers”, “chest feeding” and “pregnant people” (although prostate-havers were, notably, still men). ITV made a much-publicised drama, Butterfly, about a little boy who decides he’s a girl because he likes to wear make-up and jewellery, because clearly a boy playing with make up needs some kind of medical intervention — and what else is a girl but jewellery and lipstick?

Many of the people demanding these institutional shifts were and are not transgender themselves. They are bullies who set themselves up as moral arbiters, using self-righteous hysteria and factually questionable claims to demand censorship, instilling fear that anyone caught engaging in wrongspeak or even wrongthink will be publicly shamed and professionally destroyed. Bullies who insist they need to reshape women’s rights entirely, and then accuse any woman who even wants to discuss this of being hateful, stupid and dangerous. I have seen some people refer to gender-critical feminists as bullies, but I have never seen a gender-critical feminist call for writers to be no-platformed, words to be banned, books to be pulped, or articles to be deleted from the web. Gender activists do all of that as a matter of routine.

Contrary to what these bullies have claimed, gender-critical feminists do not hate trans people. I certainly feel no anger or animosity towards trans people. The only feeling I have towards them is compassion. Not to the point where I’m willing to give up all of women’s sex-based rights, no. But I do know I can only imagine the trauma and pain they have endured in their lives. I also know that so many of the arguments that are happening in their name are not ones that they wish for at all; they are conducted largely by provocateurs who are just burnishing their online brands.

No, my anger is directed at the cowardly institutions that have allowed themselves to be bullied by a tiny misogynistic online minority instead of maintaining even a shadow of a backbone and doing what they know is right. Bristol University, for one, which is currently being sued by a young Dominican woman, Raquel Rosario-Sanchez, on the grounds of sex discrimination and negligence. Rosario-Sanchez came to Bristol to do a PhD on the male exploitation of prostitutes, but because she chaired an event with the feminist group, Woman’s Place UK, trans activists bullied and intimidated her.

She follows in the now extremely established lineage of women like Kathleen Stock, Maya Forstater, Allison Bailey, Rosie Kay — all women who have suffered huge professional setbacks and personal upheaval simply for believing that biological sex is the defining factor in women’s oppression. Do their employers think they’re wrong? Do they really think that something called gender identity, which I’m guessing most of them had never even heard of until six years ago, is the most important quality to a person, and any woman who doubts this must be shunned from society? Or do they just wish to be on The Right Side of History?

That’s a phrase I’ve heard often over the past few years. An editor said it to a friend of mine when she wanted to look at the effect of puberty blockers on gender dysphoric children (“I know, I know, but we want to be on the right side of history…”), and a US magazine editor said it to me when I asked if I could interview Martina Navratilova about her views on trans athletes: “I know what you’re saying, and I’m on your side, really I am. But you have to wonder what the right side of history is,” he said. It’s a concern that’s entirely based on vanity, because it’s about wanting to look good, to be seen as the good guy, polishing one’s future legacy. It’s also a way of abdicating responsibility for one’s choices: I’m not making this decision because it’s what I think – it’s what the future thinks!

And then there’s Twitter. When I wanted to write for a magazine about the vilification of JK Rowling, I was told no, because it would cause “too much of a Twitter storm”. A friend wanted to put together a book of collected gender-critical essays, but an editor told her “the Twitter kickback would be too strong, and it wouldn’t get past the sensitivity readers anyway”. It amazes me how much power some people give to Twitter, because as someone who has been the object of several Twitter storms in my time, I’ll let you in on a little secret: Twitter means nothing, unless you give it the power to mean something. People should really stop giving Twitter so much power, because it’s making them bad at their jobs.

I’m lucky — I haven’t lost my job because I believe something that everyone believed up to five years ago, and most people still believe now. (Gender activists love to produce sweeping surveys which they insist prove most people support trans rights. When people are questioned about the rights of trans people who have not had gender reassignment surgery, or dig into the specifics of sport and prisons, public opinion, unsurprisingly, changes.) I did, however, stop writing my column. I was tired of being seen as the Phyllis Schlafly of The Guardian.

I’m currently writing a book about anorexia. Multiple doctors have confirmed to me what I already suspected, which is that there are obvious parallels between what gender dysphoric teenage girls say today — about their hatred of their body, their fear of sexualisation, their assumptions about what being a woman means — and what I said while in hospital as a teenager.

This is a fact, and an important one about adolescent mental health, and yet when other people have tried to make similar points in print, they have come up against enormous barriers. Abigail Shrier’s book, Irreversible Damage, which looked at the disproportionate rise in numbers of teenage girls seeking gender transition, was ignored by progressive newspapers and magazines, even though it sold well. A US supermarket stopped stocking it after protests by activists. The deputy director for transgender justice at the ACLU, which still claims to be a free speech organisation, said that suppressing Shrier’s book was “100% a hill I would die on”.

Repeatedly, women who write about this tell me they are subjected to impossible edits: pleas for balance, softened language, a more neutral tone, dissenting voices, more equivocation so as to render their original argument into meaningless slurry — everything editors do to a piece when, really, they would rather spike it and save themselves the bother. It doesn’t matter how many facts you have, what matters are the feelings.

I don’t discount feelings. Feelings are important. But it’s interesting whose feelings matter. Andrea Long Chu, a trans woman, wrote in her 2017 memoir that the “barest essentials” of “femaleness” is “an open mouth, an expectant asshole, blank, blank eye”. How did that get past the now ubiquitous sensitivity readers? It certainly didn’t hurt the writer’s career, who continues to get very high-profile commissions, whereas I personally know women who have lost their jobs for saying that the barest essentials of their femaleness was their biology. Or how about this line from a recently published memoir by Grace Lavery: when describing how hormone treatment has affected her body, she writes that her penis felt “as though I were laying my own miscarried foetus across my hand”.

I had a miscarriage. Two, actually. And so has almost every woman I know who has been pregnant. I wonder if anyone at that publishing company thought how we might feel, seeing our failed pregnancies compared to a flaccid penis? I’m guessing none, and fair enough, because I actually don’t think fear of offence is a reasonable excuse not to publish something. The double standards are ludicrous: you can now say any old garbage about women, but anything that even questions gender ideology will be anxiously second-guessed and overly edited into oblivion, no matter how many facts and even genuine feelings are behind it.

Someone described this to me recently as “a period of over-correction”, and I get that. For so long, transgender people were underrepresented, mocked and harassed, and now it’s their moment to have their say, and fair enough. But this should not be an either/or situation: both women and trans people should be able to speak out equally and honestly in progressive spheres. Instead, I see Left-wing feminist writers being funnelled towards Right-wing publications, simply because Left-wing ones are too anxious to stay on The Right Side of History to publish them. This makes it easier for the Left-wing bullies to discredit them, but it does not make what they’re saying any less true.

Recently, Mumsnet hosted a live discussion with Stella Creasy and Caroline Nokes about women and mothers in politics. When the majority of the questions were about gender and what Creasy and Nokes think a woman is, the journalist Marie Le Conte called the Mumsnetters “obsessive” and “radicalised”. There were many problems facing women today, she wrote, but instead of working together on low rape convictions and workplace discrimination, feminists were arguing over this one issue.

Le Conte is right, of course: these are things women should be focusing on, because they affect women. But how can women focus on them if politicians won’t even say what a woman is anymore? If sex and gender are being blurred together, how can we discuss who’s being discriminated against and why? In the workplace, a woman might be sacked because, say, she got pregnant, which is sex discrimination. A trans woman might be sacked because of transphobia. These are very different issues, and while inclusion is a laudable aim, it can’t come at the cost of clarity and efficacy.

It is not bigoted to say these things. And yet, there was a period, about three years ago, when I honestly thought about quitting my job. I felt so hated for saying things — things that are scientifically, biologically and factually true — and so unsupported by people who I know secretly agree with me but are too scared to say so out loud that I nearly left journalism. Well, I didn’t. Instead, I decided to stop being so frustrated by it all, and to stop taking what is going on in the progressive media circles and institutions so personally. For so long, I defined myself as a Left-wing journalist, but political categories are watery these days, and I’m OK with feeling out of step from so many people I once thought of as my side. I know they see things differently from me and I fully support their right to express their views; that feeling, I know all too well, is not mutual.

I don’t feel like I’ve become radicalised, because I don’t think anything I didn’t already think six years ago. I do, however, feel much better about myself for not just thinking it but saying it. I have learned that there is something worse than people telling me I’m a bad person, and that is allowing bullies to reframe the world, to dictate what we can all think and to define my reality. They might have triumphed over some institutions, but they haven’t triumphed over me. It turns out life is much better when you’re no longer the good girl.

227 notes · View notes

fancyfade · 3 years

Note

so I know some people say that barbara getting cured was good because that’s what happens to men who get injuries like that

shouldn’t they just be more in favor of injuries and consequences being explored in men? Not sure if I’m explaining my question right but just curious on how you think about that argument

yeah exactly! (and heads up typing this I realized I changed topics halfway through)

It's like "Well men get this ableist trope, why can't women get it as well? #equality"

rather than

"let's get rid of the ableism"

and it is so transparent that it is ableist like when john stewart (green lantern) is being cured of his paralysis by hal jordan (parallax or smthing?) in final night, hal goes on about how a hero like john doesn't deserve to be a cripple or something* and i'm like "wow didnt know I did something to deserve being in constant pain"

so yes, the fact that they frequently magicure men is related to sexism of the writers. many times they value male characters more and due to being ableist they show the value in terms of being physically non-disabled, and the specific instance they're referring to was initially routed in sexism (the TKJ specifically, not the follow up to it). (but also funny how babs is the ONLY character they can think of that proves DC just has it out for women, they don't know other women who were disabled and then magicured like wonder woman getting blinded by medousa and then having her sight restored)

However they don't understand that the sexism of that act was already addressed by the writers who turned barbara into oracle. The writers ALREADY centered her as a protagonist and allowed her to call out her own bad treatment and become something more powerful than what she was before. Like Oracle: Year One (in Batman Chronicles #5, a single issue comic, highly recommend reading it) Babs straight up tears bruce a new one (link) addressing the way the writers treated her as a periphery character to bruce's and her dads manpain.

But abled feminists who don't want babs as oracle don't care about that, because they aren't looking into narrative significance or character agency but rather whether she can walk or not as the true value of her character.

*EDIT: Okay specifically it was “final night: parallax” and hal thinks “a cripple (bolded). John doesn’t deserve this.” and then waxes on about how john’s everything a green lantern should be, which I’m not even disagreeing with wrt him being a good green lantern, but I think it is showing the ‘being disabled = fate inflicted on undeserving person’ and also what’s stopping the writers from letting john be disabled and be a green lantern its a magic ring just build yourself a green lantern construct wheelchair

#hotchocolatier #barbara gordon #magicuring #ableism #ableist tropes #dc comics #oracle

157 notes · View notes

flightlessnightingale · 3 years

Text

On Lesbianism

I’ll state it at the top here, because many have not understood my stance. The purpose of this essay is not to say that Lesbian cannot mean “Female homosexual.” Rather, my objective is to show that Lesbian means more than that single definition suggests. Female Homosexuals are lesbians, unless they personally do not want to use that label. Now, on with the show: Lesbianism is not about gatekeeping, and I don’t want to have to keep convincing people that the movement popularized by someone who wrote a book full of lies and hate speech then immediately worked with Ronald Reagan is a bad movement. In the early ’70s, groups of what would now be called “gender critical” feminists threatened violence against many trans women who dared exist in women’s and lesbian spaces. For example, trans woman Beth Elliott, who was at the 1973 West Coast Lesbian Feminist Conference to perform with her lesbian band, was ridiculed onstage and had her existence protested. In 1979, radical feminist Janice Raymond, a professor at the University of Massachusetts, wrote the defining work of the TERF movement, “Transsexual Empire: The Making of the Shemale,” in which she argued that “transsexualism” should be “morally mandating it out of existence”—mainly by restricting access to transition care (a political position shared by the Trump administration). Soon after she wrote another paper, published for the government-funded, National Center for Healthcare Technology — and the Reagan administration cut off Medicare and private health insurance coverage for transition-related care.

Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminism is a fundamentally unsustainable ideology. Lesbianism is a fundamentally sustainable existence.

There used to be a lesbian bar or queer bar or gay bar in practically every small town — sometimes one of each. After surviving constant police raids, these queer spaces began closing even Before the AIDS epidemic. Because TERFs would take them over, kick out transfems and their friends. Suddenly, there weren’t enough local patrons to keep the bars open, because the majority had been kicked out. With America’s lack of public transportation, not enough people were coming from out of town either.

TERFs, even beyond that, were a fundamental part of the state apparatus that let AIDS kill millions.

For those who don’t know, Lesbian, from the time of Sappho of Lesbos to the about 1970′s, referred to someone who rejects the patriarchal hierarchy. It was not only a sexuality, but almost akin to a gender spectrum.

That changed in the 1970′s when TERFs co-opted 2nd Wave feminism, working with Ronald fucking Reagan to ban insurance for trans healthcare.

TERFs took over the narrative, the bars, the movement, and changed Lesbian from the most revolutionary and integral queer communal identity of 2 fucking THOUSAND years, from “Someone who rejects the patriarchal hierarchy” to “A woman with a vagina who’s sexually attracted to other women with vaginas”

How does this fit into the bi lesbian debate? As I said, Lesbian is more of a Gender Spectrum than anything else, it was used much in the same way that we use queer or genderqueer today.

And it’s intersectional too.

See, if you were to try to ascribe a rigid, biological, or localized model of an identity across multiple cultures, it will fail. It will exclude people who should not be excluded. ESPECIALLY Intersex people. That’s why “Two Spirit” isn’t something rigid- it is an umbrella term for the identities within over a dozen different cultures. In the next two sections, I have excerpts on Two-Spirit and Butch identity, to give a better idea of the linguistics of queer culture: This section on Two-Spirit comes from wikipedia, as it has the most links to further sources, I have linked all sources directly, though you can also access them from the Wikipedia page’s bibliography: Two-Spirit is a pan-Indian, umbrella term used by some Indigenous North Americans to describe Native people who fulfill a traditional ceremonial and social role that does not correlate to the western binary. [1] [2] [3] Created at the 1990 Indigenous lesbian and gay international gathering in Winnipeg, it was "specifically chosen to distinguish and distance Native American/First Nations people from non-Native peoples." [4] Criticism of Two-Spirit arises from 2 major points, 1. That it can exasperate the erasure of the traditional terms and identities of specific cultures. a. Notice how this parallels criticisms of Gay being used as the umbrella term for queer culture in general. 2. That it implies adherence to the Western binary; that Natives believe these individuals are "both male and female" [4] a. Again, you’ll notice that this parallels my criticisms of the TERF definition of Lesbian, that tying LGBT+ identities to a rigid western gender binary does a disservice to LGBT+ people,—especially across cultures. “Two Spirit" wasn’t intended to be interchangeable with "LGBT Native American" or "Gay Indian"; [2] nor was it meant to replace traditional terms in Indigenous languages. Rather, it was created to serve as a pan-Indian unifier. [1] [2] [4] —The term and identity of two-spirit "does not make sense" unless it is contextualized within a Native American or First Nations framework and traditional cultural understanding. [3] [10] [11] The ceremonial roles intended to be under the modern umbrella of two-spirit can vary widely, even among the Indigenous people who accept the English-language term. No one Native American/First Nations' culture's gender or sexuality categories apply to all, or even a majority of, these cultures. [4] [8] Butch: At the turn of the 20th century, the word “butch” meant “tough kid” or referred to a men’s haircut. It surfaced as a term used among women who identified as lesbians in the 1940s, but historians and scholars have struggled to identify exactly how or when it entered the queer lexicon. However it happened, "Butch” has come to mean a “lesbian of masculine appearance or behavior.” (I have heard that, though the words originate from French, Femme & Butch came into Lesbian culture from Latina lesbian culture, and if I find a good source for that I will share. If I had to guess, there may be some wonderful history to find of it in New Orleans—or somewhere similar.) Before “butch” became a term used by lesbians, there were other terms in the 1920s that described masculinity among queer women. According to the historian Lillian Faderman,“bull dagger” and “bull dyke” came out of the Black lesbian subculture of Harlem, where there were “mama” and “papa” relationships that looked like butch-femme partnerships. Performer Gladys Bentley epitomized this style with her men’s hats, ties and jackets. Women in same-sex relationships at this time didn’t yet use the word “lesbian” to describe themselves. Prison slang introduced the terms “daddy,” “husband,” and “top sargeant” into the working class lesbian subculture of the 1930s. This lesbian history happened alongside Trans history, and often intersected, just as the Harlem renaissance had music at the forefront of black and lesbian (and trans!) culture, so too can trans musicians, actresses, and more be found all across history, and all across the US. Some of the earliest known trans musicians are Billy Tipton and Willmer “Little Ax” Broadnax—Both transmasculine musicians who hold an important place in not just queer history, but music history.

Lesbian isn’t rigid & biological, it’s social and personal, built up of community and self-determination.

And it has been for millennia.

So when people say that nonbinary lesbians aren’t lesbian, or asexual lesboromantics aren’t lesbian, or bisexual lesbians aren’t lesbian, it’s not if those things are technically true within the framework — It’s that those statements are working off a fundamentally claustrophobic, regressive, reductionist, Incorrect definition You’ll notice that whilst I have been able to give citations for TERFs, for Butch, and especially for Two-Spirit, there is little to say for Lesbianism. The chief reason for this is that lesbian history has been quite effectively erased-but it is not forgotten, and the anthropological work to recover what was lost is still ongoing. One of the primary issues is that so many who know or remember the history have so much trauma connected to "Lesbian” that they feel unable to reclaim it. Despite this trauma, just like the anthropological work, reclamation is ongoing.

Since Sappho, lesbian was someone who rejects the patriarchal hierarchy. For centuries, esbian wasn’t just a sexuality, it was intersectional community, kin to a gender spectrum, like today’s “queer”. When TERFs co-opted 2nd Wave feminism, they redefined Lesbian to “woman w/ a vag attracted to other women w/ vags”. So when you say “bi lesbians aren’t lesbian” it’s not whether that’s true within the framework, it’s that you’re working off a claustrophobic, regressive, and reductionist definition.

I want Feminism, Queerness, Lesbianism, to be fucking sustainable.

I wanna see happy trans and lesbian and queer kids in a green and blue fucking world some day.

I want them to be able to grow old in a world we made good.

#Lesbian #Trans #Transgender #Queer #Queer positivity #Queer history #Police brutality #Gay #Linguistics #Sappho #History #Femme #Butch #R #TERF #Terf friendly haha jk fuck tERFS

245 notes · View notes

hushpuppy5-blog · 2 years

Text

https://www.out.com/celebs/2022/3/14/emma-watson-threw-shade-jk-rowling-while-presenting-baftas

“I’m here for ALL the witches by the way.”

All the witches, except J.K. Rowling, who is the main one responsible for your presence in that stage.

It’s bad enough the Harry Potter actors lack talent. No, no, no. They also had to be a bunch of disrespectful, hasty brats who refuse to show even a sliver of gratitude to the woman who made them who they are. They could have plucked any child actor off the street to play those three. Of course, Daniel Radcliffe was picked because he shared a likeness to the character that Rowling fancied. I don’t even know how Hermione and Ron got snagged. Again, they could have been played by anyone. Either way, I guess we could say that their acting has improved slightly throughout the years. They’ve convinced everyone that they are hefty supporters of the gender cult and will spite anyone who says otherwise. As we’ve seen in these recent years, it seems that the stake at which any opposers are burned is solely reserved for women. Rowling is far too influential, leading into every bit of the gender cult’s lives. They read her stories and loved every page of them. They related to them. I’m sure the actors related to them as well. What the heck happened?

“Transgender women are women,” said Radcliffe, like every other "scientist" on the bird app.

Ron, played by Rubert Grint. has also expressed concern over Rowling’s own tweets, alongside the other dogs in the cast willing to roll over and beg for forgiveness from the gender gods. I expected less from the males who will receive little if any consequence from women losing not only their status, but also the very name to describe themselves. That is why I find Emma Watson, who has decided to be the most vocal about it, all the more disappointing. She is a woman, but she believes a man, regardless of his history of abusing or opposing women, or basic biology, can claim female one day and be validated accordingly. She brought this belief to the BAFTA (British Academy of Film and Television Arts) awards of 2022, where she expressed her subliminal yet pivotal comment that she’s here for “all the witches”. This was after Rebel Wilson, who has also taken shots at Rowling (join the club!) introduced her as not as feminist, but a “witch”. Arguably, feminism and witchcraft go hand in hand. Using your inner power to effect the world is about as feminist as it gets.

There is a power in realizing one’s sense of self, which women have been stripped of. If she channels that power by waving a wand or meditating to positive mantras every single day, go for it, girl. It means nothing, however, when you use that “power” as a means to verbally put down another woman in her show of power. Especially when many of us with common sense know that prioritizing ourselves in the midst of gender ideology is the only true power. Giving in to the social contagion does not make you brave, Watson, et al. It just means that you are more than willing to lay down and take whatever these abusive jerks have to give you. I don’t even know which celebrities are worse: the ones who go out of their way to appease the gender cult, or the ones who stay silent. They have all that power and influence, but they would rather push or ignore this dangerous ideology than lose their status. They will chant “transwomen are women” and effectively leave trans men—->biological women<——in the dust. Why? Because they are still women, and they will always be oppressed by the dominate male society, regardless of what they call themselves.

It would be foolish to say that women have no solidarity. We are allowed to believe and act separately of each other while loving one another. However, that can not be at the expense of our own rights. A woman should be able to state clearly what a woman is. Not the IDEA of a women, but the basic science of one. A woman is an adult human female. A girl is an infant, adolescent or teenage human female. Women with DSDs, who the gender cult loves to throw under the bus due to how they've developed, are still adult human females.

A male’s delusions should not be our conclusion.

If Emma Watson is here for all the witches, those witches certainly don’t consist of women. From this incident, most of us women are wondering how Hermione would behave. Arguably, Hermione is the true feminist AND witch of the two, fictional or not. Hermione never backed down, especially if it meant another person being bullied. Heck, if it was HER getting bullied. None of us non-celebrities can truly describe what goes on behind closed doors with most people in the entertainment industry, but it doesn’t appear to be good. J.K. Rowling, due to her status as a writer, may have more freedom with her words. As with anything, people are free to critique those words. More celebrities are subjected to slander. What is not okay, however, is the threats of violence that have been made toward her. Men and women alike, threatening to have revolting things done to her, and all because she acknowledge biology. What would all of them do with those special little labels they put on themselves if biology wasn’t real? It seems real enough if you want to change it, medically or by name. Their idea of gender is no more real than the Harry Potter characters, but their minds have not grasped that because these people are experiencing a strange case of Peter Pan Syndrome. The rest of us have to coddle them like Wendy Darling as they scream and kick up a fuss over something people have known for ions but now seem to have forgotten.

Even more interesting (and again, I don’t expect a single valuable word out of her male co-stars), while Watson claims to be a feminist, she seems more than willing to ignore the violence being spewed toward Rowling in particular. While she says nothing, this action reveals everything. Acts of violence against women are fine, especially if we disagree with her.

Hermione, fellow savior of Hogwarts and founder of SPEW (Society for the Promotion of Elfish Welfare), does not approve.

P.S., SPEW was also adapted from the real life organization, Society for Promoting the Employment of Women. As more proof of her witchiness, in Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, she states, "The truth is, you don't think a girl would ever been clever enough." Hermione knows the game of the wicked world we live in.

And J.K. Rowling got into this whole disaster for speaking out FOR another woman. Not against her. She knows a woman shouldn't be fired over a non-violent opinion, nor should we ignore the dangers that gender ideology poses.

Emma Watson thinks everyone can be a woman, if they wish. Even the males that have harassed her and other women, both on and off stage. She has been brainwashed.

But she's the feminist.... Okay….

#harry potter #radfems do interact #radfem #stand up #speak out #womanist #feminist #all the witches

9 notes · View notes

antiloreolympus · 3 years

Text

14 Anti LO Asks

1. To the one anon: good question - how is it that the mortals dont know who Persephone is / assume she is a minor goddess and therefore its okay to mess with her but the gods (or Olympians / underworld denizens) know exactly everything about her (despite her being there only every so often and only being 20ish) - enough to say shes "wearing her signature white color" during a murder trial.

Also the reason why Persephone is wearing white is because

A). RS wanted persephone to always be "dressed as a bride" (and have Hades dressed as a groom respectively) to show that their matching / is supposed to be a visual cue that their eventually gonna be together.

B). I believe this is RS way of saying that Persephone (despite murdering some mortals) is innocent because in purity culture White = innocence, virginity, youth etc. (Even though RS explicity ssid she wanted to go against purity culture morals shes very much leaning into them).

2. why are Psyche’s eyes yellow even in her human form? Is she sick??

3. honestly? LO is just gossisp girl at this point, espect even GG (at least in the first season) bothered to saturze the rich and was calling out how wealth and power makes them corrupt assholes. meanwhile LO is just GG season 2 and on of being like no no, the poor people are the evil people and the rich people are the oppressed ones! all while also fawning over their wealth and status and being way into grown men wanting to bang barely legal teens and claiming to be "feminist" somehow.

4. Tumblr is well-known for broken tag system. Check the post' tags before complaining that it's op's fault. How about you guys not tag greek mythology when posting about LO? LO is not one-shot or short fancomic. It's also definitely not considered actual greek mythology. LO is years long webcomic with huge fans. LO has its own tag. Tell your fellow fans to stop using the greek mythology tag.

5. I would argue nyx is the only woman with a unique in design in LO but thats only because she looks like a deformed chicken woman. why was my night mom disrespected this much 😭

6. So now that LO is back from break and I can finally read chapter 170 - Why oh Why do ALL the female characters Have to be defined by their male love interests??? (Or really just love interests in general).

I understand LO qualifies as the "romance" genre and there are certain stipulations or I guess themes or what have you that make it romance but for f*cks sake.

Psyche being worried about Eros loving the "fake" her I kinda get, but really? Thats your most pressing concern?? Hera is defined by her garbage marriage to Zeus - King of the gods (of which is why she is Queen of the gods). Hestia + Athena are now defined solely by their relationship to each other (not the TGOEM or their respective traits of being a goddess of the hearth + goddess of war, strategy etc etc).

Aphrodite is defined by giving Persephone "relationship" advice (e.g: telling her to curb stomp Minthe because "nymphs dont take things from gods" - doubly implying that people are things to own) And by her jealousy of Persephone in the first place because Hades made a comment about how he thought Persephone was prettier than her. And also because of her "house of debauchery" (Artemis' words) - and relationship with Ares.

Persephone is defined both by Apollo raping her and by her fated future status as Queen of the underworld (so her relationship with Hades). Hell, even the minor characters such as nymphs are defined by this relationship status / standard. Minthe is defined by her mean spirited personality yes, but Also because of her abusive relationship with Hades prior to the introduction of Persephone. Psyche is defined by her relationship woes with Eros. Daphne is defined by her relationship with Thanatos (and because shes a flower nymph) but also mostly because she looks like Persephone.

Rhea is defined by her marriage / relationship to Kronos (lets ignore the whole "fertility goddess power" plot for a second). Even Aetna is defined by Haphestus creating her! Is there not a single character (especially female) is isnt defined by their romantic love interest???Sorry. Maybe I'm overthinking this, but thats definitely how ot comes off as of late, in regard to the latest chapters.

Okay, same anon as earlier - I take it back somewhat - we have Artemis and Hecate that are not defined by their romantic relationships - but rather their lack of one.

However the way they are shown - it still comes off as a standard - "Artemis is stingy / a stick in the mud" because shes not romantically involved and is "barbaric" (according to Hera). And Hecate is still somewhat defined by her being Hades' employee (and cheerleader for him and Persephone to be together).

So technically yes, we have at least 2 characters that are not defined by their romantic interests / relationships, but they are still held to the standard of their "un-ladylike / undesirable" because their not romantically involved.

(I guess I should count Demeter, but only because shes more defined by just being "Persephone's overbearing mom" )

7. i think whats also kinda weird about this trial is like?? persephone is obvs framed as not liking the attention (bc duh) but she didnt like the previous press either, she wanted to be private, but wouldnt being with hades force her to be in the spotlight that makes her uncomfortable? also the citizens of the underworld already dislike hades, why would they want a uncontrollable felon as their queen, even if she found innocent? idk the whole thing just makes the endgame less plausible, tbh.

8. love that rachel was able to find a random deity name to name her random nymph the greek word for "beans" meanwhile apparently cant google actual greek names for even one off characters? like andrew, ellen, george, alexis, damian, luke, phoebe, sophia, and so any other english names are also greek, but she cant even bother with that? what exactly is her "research" if she cant even bother to spend 30 seconds googling greek names? at this point LO seems determined to be as un-Greek as possible.

9. wait so everyone in LO went from having no idea who persephone was, to her only showing up on ONE magazine cover, to now being the most well known person with a signature color? all in the span of two weeks with no genuine public outings? how does that make sense? also white isnt even her signature color if 90%+ the female cast and even a lot of the men ((including ZEUS) all wear it too.

10. the fact the courthouse WASNT the areopagus, aka the place in greece where they say the first ever trial ever happened and where the court system was invented, is just another point of rachel talking out her ass about being "respectful" or "researched" on greece and their mythology. its literally one of the most famous mythology spots ever with some fantastic stories to it and she's just like "nah! boring rectangle will do!" like why even both with mythology then if its this devoid of it?

11. Anons are saying Hades in the FS chapter is leaning down and talking to Persy like a child. Say it aint true.

(I wanna see. I thought RS was finally giving Persy adult proportions). 😨

12. So wait, hold up. I kinda get where RS is coming from with the law school in the underworld (because Hades is supposed to be a kinda Judge, jury, executioner situation in the afterlife when it comes to mortals and their "punishments" and whatnot). However, is RS stating that the ONLY law school / courthouse exists in the underworld? If so, why? Why wouldn't Athena be there then. She's a goddess of strategy and justice (among other things).

Also is RS really implying that Hades owns not only the banks and underworld but the law too? She really wants Hades to be a Gary Sue along side her Mary Sue - Hades controls everything that matters and since its his realm and blah blah blah rules, Zeus, king of the gods cant do anything about it.

(Which is dumb. Because you would think that because Persephone committed the crime in the mortal realm / on, or near Olympus that therefore she would be brought back there to dole out justice under Zeus jurisdiction because she committed the crime in His Realm).

13. FP Spoiler ahead:

Why on earth couldn't the reporters have Greek names? There is so much wrong and bad with this story, yet this irks me so much. It is Brenda all over again.

14. i dont really get the point of the trial plotline, tbh. even persephone says she should be punished and held accountable, but hades is framed in the right for trying to go against that and weasel her out of it. so?? plus zeus has legit reason to punish them? persephone is a danger to others, demeter and hermes both committed treason to cover it up, and hades was harboring a fugitive of the law and is now trying to force the system to let her go. how is zeus in the wrong for this?

#anti lo #anti lore olympus #lore olympus critical #lo critical

32 notes · View notes

stillness-in-green · 3 years

Note

they don’t see the Japanese fan talking about her hopes for the end of the series riding on her perception of Horikoshi as being relatively progressive and sensitive.

what kind of end is she hoping for?

She had observed that HeroAca had been good about delving into societal issues thus far, and she enjoyed seeing male and female characters getting along, so she hoped that the series wouldn’t have a forced hetero-romance ending–what I think Western fandom tends to call things like “timeskip marriage endings.”

This is something shonen-oriented properties (and not just them; we have ‘em here, too) have been doing for a long time, but discussion about it has been growing in Japan, along with the expected pushback from people accusing those who complain about it of being gross fujoshi(1)/strident feminists trying to force their BL pairings/radical views about women onto this innocent dude author just trying to write his story.

There are, of course, lots of reasons why someone might not want to see HeroAca end with timeskip romances. Sure, some might have BL pairings they prefer, but for myself, at least, I don’t want to see it because I don’t want to see any author who thinks relationship drama is too boring to bother giving it any screentime jam in relationships at the end anyway. That sort of thing treats women as little more than rewards for men to get at the end of the story, or like settling down is what you do after all the interesting parts of your life are over, and it’s regressive tripe. It seems women in Japan are getting more comfortable expressing that sentiment openly as well.

There are actually quite a few elements I’ve heard of Japanese people (fans and haters alike) pointing to as indicative of Horikoshi being relatively forward-thinking. Hit the jump for some brief, generalized musings.

So there are, of course, the obvious/big things, like that the series borrows elements from Western superhero comics (disliked by the hardcore nationalist types, who think it’s pandering to the U.S.), or that the Japan it portrays is a brightly colored dystopia with lagging regard for human rights (generally seen as a good portrayal of a bad thing).

Then there are the smaller things. For example, many Western fans point to Magne and Tiger as Bad Trans Representation because they’re seen as regressive stereotypes or jokes, and Magne is the series’s first named character death, in a much more gruesome display than the manga had tended to portray up to that point.

Conversely, some Japanese readers point to Magne and Tiger as Trans Visibility, and feel the manga is portraying trans characters in a positive light. After all, Tiger is a hero, and Magne’s embrace of her identity is something the manga goes out of its way to see her praised and even envied for. Horikoshi may have some outdated ideas of what trans people look like, but it does not seem to be the case that those designs are coming from a place of malice.(2)

Another thing I’ve heard is the matter of Jirou’s parents–specifically, the husband taking his wife’s name, rather than the other way around. The law in Japan states that married couples must have a single family name, but doesn’t specify that it must be the wife who takes the husband’s. Obviously, it’s by far the most common choice (96%!), but every so often, you do see the opposite–and because it’s so uncommon, it remains somewhat controversial.

My general impression of the Japanese fan response to HeroAca is that it’s much easier for them to see the broader societal scope of the work. While it’s obvious from the numbers that the hero kids are wildly more popular with, at least, the voting readership, you still get those discussions of the ways that e.g. while the villains are too extreme in their actions, they still have legitimate complaints that have to be reconciled(3) in order for the series and its world to reach a happy conclusion. Even the people involved in the work say similar things, like Uraraka’s voice actress talking about the upcoming events of the anime changing from being about justice versus evil into being a clash between two different ideas of justice, or Horikoshi himself talking about how Shigaraki will be the greatest challenge to Deku’s drive to save.

Meanwhile, here in the U.S., we’re still stuck with Hero Stans baldly misquoting a three and a half year old interview to say that Horikoshi himself says Shigaraki is too far gone to be saved while Villain Stans talk about the blatant, obvious injustices in the series as if they’ve unearthed some great mystery the author himself put in completely unintentionally.(4)

Anyway, disclaimer that I don’t read Japanese fluently, nor do I hang around in Japanese fan spaces on the regular, so take these viewpoints with a grain of salt; they are, after all, isolated opinions plucked with the randomness of what Twitter spits out in response to search terms, and there’s no guarantee that they represent a larger fan consensus. And Horikoshi is still a product of his culture, with all of the problems it very definitely has, particularly where rampant sexism is concerned, and of course people are allowed to talk about that, and be uncomfortable with it.

Still, I wish the tumblr fandom were a bit more willing to research and weigh cultural contexts outside of their own when talking about BNHA, rather than falling all over each other to judge the work and its author without even thinking about the lenses they themselves are bringing to the table--be it the most extreme of the Hero Stans' normalized views of state-funded police violence or the most extreme of the Villain Stains' dogmatic tumblr ethics that are still steeped in black and white moralism about who it's okay to bully/oppress/kill.

----

(1) You know, just in case you thought that fujoshi was an outdated smear word in Japan or think that people who try to explain to Western fans the word’s origins as a reclaimed insult are lying. No, it’s still in active use by the kinds of fandom 2channers who came up with it to begin with. The new one in their lexicon, which came up in the responses in question here, is fuemi (腐ェミ), a mashup of fujoshi and feminist, for double the derogatory scorn!

(2) Given that the trans community has been arguing against having to Perform Gender to an outsider’s specification in order to be accepted, I think Magne’s relatively butch presentation is just fine, but of course, I have my doubts that Horikoshi is all that up to date on gender presentation discourse. Still, her lips are the only thing I would change about her design, because they call to mind visual stereotypes about “gonk” characters who can certainly be noble or sympathetic, but can also be cheap comic relief–and as often much worse. On the other hand, Sato from Class 1-A has them, too, and the worst coding that commonality suggests is “underdeveloped,” so again, I don’t see maliciousness being a factor there.

(3) I wrote that Why Deku’s Ultimatum To Overhaul Is Bad post a while back? I’m pleased to note that I did have brought to my attention some similarly worded feelings from a Japanese fan: that Deku being unwilling to face Overhaul’s feelings while still demanding that Overhaul change them is not a good or heroic way to go about facing villains. A sentiment from a One Piece antagonist was referenced: “Justice doesn’t win; justice is whoever wins.” In other words, Deku was exhibiting a “might makes right” mentality, not at all in line with his desire to save. Likewise, there was another person who thought that trying to force Overhaul to change his feelings before letting him see his Pops was unlikely to work, and therefore just impractical. So, you know, it’s not just about saving the “villain trio” and calling it a day–even when the villain Deku’s facing is someone as loathsome to his sensibilities as Overhaul.

(4) I’m not immune to this, I’m sure–indeed, I hope I can look back on the series and see that some of my more extreme fears are/were unfounded and that my rants about Overhaul and the PLF mass arrests were premature. Still, I like to think I’m at least doing better than e.g. the people who think My Hero Academia demonizes the mentally ill because it portrays Twice as a criminal, without ever stopping to think about the likelihood that the circumstances of Jin’s turn to villainy are an intentionally portrayed flaw of Hero Society.

#stillness answers #bnha #bnha culture gap

8 notes · View notes

woman-loving · 3 years

Text

Lesbian Unintelligibility in Pre-1989 Poland

Selection from ""No one talked about it": The Paradoxes of Lesbian Identity in pre-1989 Poland, by Magdalena Staroszczyk, in Queers in State Socialism: Cruising 1970s Poland, eds. Tomasz Basiuk and Jędrzej Burszta, 2021

The question of lesbian visibility is pertinent today because of the limited number of lesbian-oriented activist events and cultural representations. But it presents a major methodological problem when looking at the past. That problem lies in an almost complete lack of historical sources, something partly mended with oral history interviews, but also in an epistemological dilemma. How can we talk about lesbians when they did not exist as a recognizable category? What did their (supposed) non-existence mean? And should we even call those who (supposedly) did not exist “lesbians”?

To illustrate this problem, let me begin with excerpts from an interview I conducted for the CRUSEV project [a study of queer cultures in the 1970s]. My interlocutor is a lesbian woman born in the 1950s, who lived in Cracow most of her life:

“To this very day I have a problem with my brothers, as I cannot talk to them about this. They just won’t do it, I would like to talk, but. . . . They have this problem, they lace up their mouths when any reference is made to this topic, because they were raised in that reality [when] no one talked about it. It was a taboo. It still is. ... I was so weak, unable to take initiative, lacking a concept of my own life—all this testifies to the oppression of homosexual persons, who do not know how to live, have no support from [others], no information or knowledge learned at school, or from a psychologist. What did I do? I searched in encyclopaedias for the single entry, “homosexuality.” What did I learn? That I was a pervert. What did it do to me? It only hurt me, no? Q: Was the word lesbian in use? Only as a slur. Even my mother used it as an offensive word. When she finally figured out my orientation, she said the word a few times. With hatred. Hissing the word at me.”

The woman offers shocking testimony of intense and persistent hostility towards a family member—sister, daughter—who happens to be a lesbian. The brothers and the mother are so profoundly unable to accept her sexuality that they cannot speak about it at all, least of all rationally. The taboo has remained firmly in place for decades. How was it maintained? And, perhaps more importantly, how do we access the emotional reality that it caused? The quotes all highlight the theme of language, silence, and something unspeakable. Tabooization implies a gap in representation, and the appropriate word cannot be spoken but merely hissed out with hatred.

Popular discourse and academic literature alike address this problem under the rubric of “lesbian invisibility” (Mizielińska 2001). I put forward a different conceptual frame, proposing to address the question of lesbian identity in pre-1989 Poland not in terms of visibility versus invisibility, but instead in terms of cultural intelligibility versus unintelligibility. The former concepts, which have a rich history in discussions of pre-emancipatory lesbian experience, presume an already existing identity that is self-evident to the person in question. They assume the existence of a person who thinks of herself as a lesbian. One then proceeds to ask whether or not this lesbian was visible as such to others, that is, whether others viewed her as the lesbian she knew she was. Another assumption behind this framing is that the woman in question wished to be visible although this desired visibility had been denied her. These are some of the essentializing assumptions inscribed in the concept of (in)visibility. Their limitation is that they only allow us to ask whether or not the lesbian is seen for who she feels she is and wishes to be seen by others.

By contrast, (un)intelligibility looks first to the social construction of identity, especially to the constitutive role of language. To think in those terms is to ask under what conditions same-sex desire between women is culturally legible as constitutive of an identity. So, instead of asking if people saw lesbians for who they really were, we will try to understand the specific epistemic conditions which made some women socially recognizable to others, and also to themselves, as “lesbians.” This use of the concept “intelligibility” is analogous to its use by Judith Butler in Gender Trouble, as she explains why gender conformity is key to successful personhood[...].

For Butler, cultural intelligibility is thus an aspect of the social norm, as it corresponds to “a normative ideal.” It is one of the conditions of coherence and continuity requisite for successful personhood. In a similar vein, to say that lesbians in the People’s Republic of Poland were not culturally intelligible is of course not to claim that there were no women engaged in same-sex romantic and erotic relationships—such a conclusion would be absurd, as well as untrue. It is, rather, to suggest that “lesbian” was not a category of personhood available or, for that matter, desirable to many nonheteronormative women. The word was not in common use and it did not signify to them the sort of person they felt they were. Nor was another word readily available, as interlocutors’ frequent periphrases strongly suggest, for example, “I cannot talk to them about this. ... They ... lace up their mouths when any reference is made to this topic” (my emphases).

Interviews conducted with women for the CRUSEV project are filled with pain due to rejection. So are the interviews conducted by Anna Laszuk, whose Dziewczyny, wyjdźcie z szafy (Come Out of the Closet, Girls! 2006 ) was a pioneering collection of herstories which gave voice to non-heteronormative Polish women of different ages, including those who remember the pre-1989 era. Lesbian unintelligibility is arguably a major theme in the collection. The pain caused by the sense of not belonging expressed by many illustrates that being unintelligible can be harmful. At the same time, unintelligibility had some practical advantages. The main among them was relative safety in a profoundly heteronormative society. As long as things went unnamed, a women-loving woman was not in danger of stigmatization or social ostracism.

Basia, born in 1939 and thus the oldest among Laszuk’s interviewees, offers a reassuring narrative in which unintelligibility has a positive valence:

“I cannot say a bad word about my parents. They knew but they did not comment. . . . My parents never asked me personal questions, never exerted any kind of pressure on me to get married. They were people of great culture, very understanding, and they quite simply loved me. They would meet my various girlfriends, but these were never referred to as anything but “friends” (przyjaciółki). Girls had it much easier than boys because intimacy between girls was generally accepted. Nobody was surprised that I showed up with a woman, invited her home, held her hand, or that we went on trips together.” (Laszuk 2006, 27)

The gap between visceral knowing and the impossibility of naming is especially striking in this passage. The parents “knew” and Basia knew that they knew, but they did not comment, ask questions, or make demands, and Basia clearly appreciates their silence as a favour. To her, it was a form of politeness, discreetness, perhaps even protectiveness. The silence was, in fact, a form of affectionate communication: “they quite simply loved me.”

Another of Laszuk’s interviewees is Nina, born around 1945 and 60 years old at the time of the interview. With a certain nostalgia, Nina recalls the days when certain things were left unnamed, suggesting that there is erotic potential in the unintelligibility of women’s desire. Laszuk summarizes her views:

“Nina claims that those times certainly carried a certain charm: erotic relationships between women, veiled with understatement and secrecy, had a lot of beauty to them. Clandestine looks were exchanged above the heads of people who remained unaware of their meaning, as women understood each other with half a gesture, between words. Nowadays, everything has a name, everything is direct.” (Laszuk 2006, 33)

A similar equation between secrecy and eroticism is drawn by the much younger Izabela Filipiak, trailblazing author of Polish feminist fiction in the 1990s and the very first woman in Poland to publicly come out as lesbian, in an interview for the Polish edition of Cosmopolitan in 1998. Six years later, Filipiak suggested a link between things remaining unnamed and erotic pleasure, and admitted to a certain nostalgia for this pre-emancipatory formula of lesbian (non)identity. Her avowed motivation was not the fear of stigmatization but a desire for erotic intensity:

“When love becomes passion in which I lose myself, I stop calculating, stop comparing, no longer anchor it in social relations, or some norm. I simply immerse myself in passion. My feelings condition and justify everything that happens from that point on. I do not reflect upon myself nor dwell on stigma because my feeling is so pure that it burns through and clears away everything that might attach to me as a woman who loves women.” (Kulpa and Warkocki 2004)

Filipiak acknowledges the contemporary, “postmodern” (her word) lesbian identity which requires activism and entails enumerating various kinds of discrimination. But paradoxically—considering that she is the first public lesbian in Poland—she speaks with much more enthusiasm about the “modernist lesbians” described by Baudelaire:

“They chose the path of passion. Secrecy and passion. Of course, their passion becomes a form of consent to remain secret, to stay invisible to others, but this is not unambivalent. I once talked to such an “oldtimer” who lived her entire life in just that way and she protested very strongly when I made a remark about hiding. Because, she says, she did not hide anything, she drove all around the city with her beloved and, of course, everyone knew. Yes, everyone knew, but nobody remembers it now, there is no trace of all that.” (Kulpa and Warkocki 2004)

Cultural unintelligibility causes the gap between “everyone knew” and “nobody remembers” but it is also the source of excitement and pleasure. For Filipiak’s “old-timer” and her predecessors, Baudelaire’s modernist lesbians, the evasion, or rejection, of identity and the maintaining of secrecy is the path of passion. Crucially, these disavowals of identity mobilize a discourse of freedom rather than hiding, entrapment, or staying in the closet. The lack of a name is interpreted as an unmooring from language and a liberation from its norms.

Needless to say, cultural unintelligibility may also lead to profound torment and self-hatred. In the concept of nationhood generated by nationalists and by the Catholic Church in Poland, lesbians (seen stereotypically) are double outsiders whose exclusion from language is vital.[1] A repentant homosexual woman named Katarzyna offers her testimony in a Catholic self-help manual addressing those who wish to be cured of homosexuality. (It is irrelevant for my purpose whether the testimony is authentic; my interest is in the discursive construction of lesbian identity as literally impossible and nonexistent.) Katarzyna speaks about her search for love, her profound sense of guilt and her disgust with herself. The word “lesbian” is never used; her homosexuality is framed as confusion and as straying from her true desire for God. The origin of the pain is the woman’s unintelligibility to herself:

“Only I knew how much despair there was in my life on account of being different. First, there was the sense of being torn apart when I realized how different my desires were from the appearance of my body. Despite the storm of homosexual desire, I was still a woman. Then, the question: What to do with myself? How to live?” (Huk 1996, 121)

A woman cannot love other women—the subject knows this. We can speculate that her knowledge is due to her Catholic upbringing; she has internalized the teaching that homosexuality is a sin, and thus untrue and not real. The logic of the confession is overdetermined: the only way for her to become intelligible to herself is to abandon same-sex desire and turn to God, and through him to men. Church language thus frames homosexuality as chaos: it is a disordered space where no appropriate language can obtain. Within this frame, unintelligibility is anything but erotic. It is rather an instrument of shaming and, once internalized, a symptom of shame.

For many, the experience of unintelligibility is moored in intense heteronormativity, without regard to Church teachings or the language of national belonging. Struggling with the choice between social intelligibility available to straights and leading an authentic life outside the realm of intelligibility, one CRUSEV interlocutor, aged 67, describes her youth in 1960s and 1970s:

“I always knew I was a lesbian ... and if I am one, then I will be one. Yes, in that sense. And not to live the life of a married woman, mother and so on. This life wasn’t my life at all. However, as I said, it was fine in an external sense. So calm and well-ordered: a husband, nice children, everything, everything. But it was external, and my life was not my life at all, it wasn’t me.”

She thus underscores her internal sense of dissonance, a felt incompatibility with the social role she was playing. The role model of a wife and mother was available to her, but a lesbian role model was not.

The discomfort felt at the unavailability of a role model may have had different consequences. Another CRUSEV interviewee, aged 62, describes her impulse to change her life so as to authentically experience her feelings for another woman, in contrast to that woman’s ex:

“She visited me a few times, and it was enough that I wrote something, anything ... [and] she would get on the train and travel across the country. There were no telephones then, during martial law. Regardless of anything, she would be there. And at one point I realized that I ... damn, I loved her. ... She broke up with her previous girlfriend very violently—this may interest you—because it turned out that the girl was so terribly afraid of being exposed and of some unimaginable consequences that she simply ran away.”

The fear of exposure, critically addressed by the interlocutor, was nonetheless something she, too, experienced. She goes on to speak of “hiding a secret” and “stifling” her emotions.

A concern with leading an inauthentic life resurfaces in the account of the afore-quoted woman, aged 67:

“I couldn’t reveal my secret to anyone. The only person who knew was my friend in Cracow. I led such a double life, I mean. ... It is difficult to say if this was a life, because it was as if I had my inner spirituality and my inner world, entirely secret, but outside I behaved like all the other girls, so I went out with some boys. ... It was always deeply suppressed by me and I was always fighting with myself. I mean, I fell in love [with women] and did everything to fall out of love [laughter]. On and on again.”

Her anxiety translates into self-pathologizing behaviour:

“In 1971 I received my high school diploma and I was already . . . in a relationship of some years with my high school girlfriend. . . . But because we both thought we were abnormal, perverted or something, somehow we wanted to be cured, and so she was going to college to Cracow, and I to Poznań. We engaged in geographic therapy, so to speak.”

The desire to “be cured” from homosexuality recurs in a number of interviews. Sometimes it has a factual dimension, as interlocutors describe having undergone psychotherapy and even reparative therapy—of course, to no avail.

Others decide to have a relationship with a woman after years spent in relationships with men. Referring to her female partner of 25 years, who had previously been married to a man, one of my interlocutors suggests that her partner had been disavowing her homosexual desires for many years before the two women’s relationship began: “the truth is that H. had struggled with it for more than 20 years and she was probably not sure what was going on.” Despite this presumed initial confusion, the women’s relationship had already lasted for more than 25 years at the time I conducted the interview.

Recognizing one’s homosexual desires did not necessarily have to be difficult or shocking. It was not for this woman, aged 66 at the time of the interview:

“It was obvious to me. I didn’t, no, no, I didn’t suppress it, I knew that [I was going], “Oh, such a nice girl, I like this one, with this one I want to be close, with that one I want to talk longer, with that one I want to spend time, with that one I want, for example, to embrace her neck or grab her hand”.”

Rather, what came as a shock was the unavailability of any social role or language corresponding to this felt desire that came as a shock. The woman continues:

“It turned out that I couldn’t talk to anyone about it, that I couldn’t tell anyone. I realized this when I grew up and watched my surroundings, family, friends, society. I saw that this topic was not there! If it’s not there, how can I get it out of myself? I wasn’t so brave.”

The tabooization of homosexuality—its unintelligibility—is a recurring thread in these accounts; what varies is the extent to which it marred the subjects’ self-perception.

#lgbtq history #poland #lesbian history #unintelligibility #lesbian unintelligibility #this might be deleted in the future so read it while you can

30 notes · View notes

marisandini-chu-blog · 4 years

Text

Bruce Wayne is a Simp for Bad Bitch

OmG I can’t believe I’m writing the obvious but the idea is in my head and I need a place to word vomit.

Okay, so it occurred to me that Bruce has a more serious and intense relationship canonically with three women, as far as I know; Andrea Beaumont, Talia Al’ghul, and Selina Kyle. All of whom are the epitome of Bad Bitch with the capital B. (Yes, I’m ignoring Rachel Dawes from Nolanverse. The only thing I like about it is the Iconic Joker. No batman movie is good enough without the Batfam.)

Why do I raise this point, you might ask? Well, that’s because I want to rant that Bruce, my boy, my man, my childhood comfort character is actually a SIMP?!?!

Like... I’m just... urgh.... okay... I am very vocal for a healthy relationship with commitment and based on mutual love and respect. So the fact that Bruce has only bad, iffy, or casual relationships really want to tear my hair out. And why my heart don’t want to ship with any of them, even though BatCat is one of my favorite pairing!

I am a WonderBat shipper because I love watching them in JLAU as a kid and even though I’m not slash shipper unless it’s canon, SuperBat made much more sense to me. Heck even a threesome with the Trinity would have been healthier relationship rather than whatever Bruce had with the three of them and here’s why:

You might not have heard of Andrea, but she’s canon from the Timmverse movie called Batman and the Mask of Phantasm which is A REALLY GREAT MOVIE. Totally recommend. One of the best Batman movie at all times (Yes, I say Batman movies not Batman Animated movies). Has great plot twist and good pacing. so Spoiler Alert! Andrea was Bruce’s fiancé, making her possibly Bruce’s first love, before his journey and possibly could have stop him from becoming Batman (I would say he’s a simp in this case, but he would have had a much more happier, healthy household so it’s not bad thing) if she hadn’t disappear for being a Mob Boss’ Daughter!!!

I repeat, a mob boss’ daughter.

And she came back only to be a mask avenging assassin that went toe-to-toe with Batman.

And she could have choose to stay with Bruce but she didn’t because she choose vengeance over him. Like.... Bats, you should stop with the “I am Vengeance” routine you’ve got going on because she does it better than you ngl.

So she left and I cried at the end of that movie because trauma wasn’t enough, you put heartbreak after heartbreak to my boy. Thanks DC.

Then there’s Fucking Talia Al’ghul which is a no brainer why she’s not Bad but BAD. Like, Talia groom Jason, supervise Damian’s harsh, brutal, and abusive training, control Damian through the implant spine to kill Dick, orders Damian execution before regretting it, DRUG BRUCE when CONCEIVING DAMIAN!!! And that’s only the top of my head.

And if you want to blame it on Morrison’s writing, THAT’S FINE. We’ve bitched about Tom King’s writing enough to know it’s valid.

But, BUT, bUt... it needs to be address that even before Morrison, Talia CHOOSE to stay in the League of Assassin. People can tell me that she’s a complex character that’s loyal to her father but love Bruce and that her upbringing makes her complicated or whatever. Nuh-uh. You don’t get to make Talia helpless when it suited you. Talia is a fucking Bad Bitch (TM). She’s been taught to do whatever the fuck she wants according to her belief and ideal. At some point, Talia knew she wanted to be in position of power in the League rather than staying with Bruce.

But it’s canon that Talia, if I remember correctly, doesn’t like Gotham or Bruce’s mission. She thinks being a hero is beneath them or whatever. And doesn’t understand why Gotham is special to Bruce. So yeah, you might not agree how Morrisons write her. But do not fucking tell me she’s not a character who will not be willing to do what she thinks it’s necessary to get what she wants, including training her son as an assassin. I mean, she likes being the Demon’s Daughter in the league. She may not agree with her father but Talia wants to give Damien what she wants. Power.

Talia loves Bruce. That’s a fact. He’s probably the only person that makes her feel like she’s a person instead of the Demon’s Daughter. Bruce has a knack for that. To make people want to be better, even just a little. Talia could have chosen him, if she wanted to. The fact that she helps him so much when fighting against her father numerous times is proof enough.

I'm highly suspecting the reason she stays is because she knows Bruce would always forgive her (SIMP ALERT) unlike her father who would straight up stab her if she ever betrays him.

I’m not saying there’s no love for her son, I’m just saying if she even looks at the batfam funny than I will raise my flamethrower on that bitch’s face. Because you can’t rely on Bruce on that. That man would give bullshit excuse for her or want to handle her himself because your “history” with her makes you entitled.

Aaaah, don’t you just love it when there’s a great villain you can hate on so much?

I'm not saying she can't be a good person. Pre-morisson made Talia more of an anti-hero. But I do like Talia "I'mma cut a bitch" al'ghul. It's just... I like ruthless Bad Bitch like her. Though preferably she could have balance it with more of her maternal side through Damian.

Okay, I’m getting off tangent. Now comes to my favorite girl. Catwoman. Selina Kyle. The famous ship of all Bruce’s relationship sans SuperBat.

I... am conflicted the most about this.

See, Selina is one of the few people who understands Bruce. Who was there when he needed a shoulder to rely on. Someone who doesn’t take Bruce’s shit, and one of the constant person in Bruce’s life.

But not... constant enough. Which is a theme of her, even in her fursona... I, I mean PERSONA, PERSONA!!!

Anyway, I love seeing these two broken people. One handles it with violence and vigilantism, the other through thieving with a Robinhood-esque thing going on. So of course they get each other. It always helps that they try to make each other better. Selina taught Bruce to be okay of being selfish of wanting to be happy, and Bruce believed there’s good in her that makes her feel she’s not a hopeless case, y’know? It’s even canon that in one universe, they’re married and have daughter, Helena Wayne. So... yeah? Happy end! (Until they died but that’s non issue here at the moment.)

Then Tom King (Urgh, him again) wrote Bat proposing to Cat, and by the time they’re about to be married. Selina left him at the altar.

So yeah.

But then they get metaphysically? Figuratively? married after the Flashpoint which they turn Thomas Wayne into a villain (At least make him from alternate universe instead of timeline!!!) and kill Alfred (WhYYYYYY?! Bruce suffered enough why do you go kill both his fathers dammit!!! Let the goddamn butler rest in peace). And basically Selina and Bruce promise each other forever. Which is sweet. BatCat Forever, am I right???

Yeah, here’s the problem. (And I’m just nitpicking here, okay). For all Tom King’s character assassination of Bruce, he did Selina right in one thing. Which is the fact she doesn’t like being tied down by anything.

If Talia puts importance in power. Selina puts importance in freedom and her self-independence.

I remember as a kid watching BTAS, that Selina didn’t want a relationship with batman if it meant changing who she is. So when Selina left the altar, I wasn’t surprise at the news. Then she actually agreed to marry him, only this time, she didn’t need a judge or a paper to make the marriage legit, y’know. And I thought, yeah that’s so her.

But the thing is Bruce. Accepts. Her. Every. Single. Time.

Without a single thought. She asked, “Do you still want to get married?” and he asked “When?”

Even though it’s not the first that Cat leaves him hanging.

Tell me he’s not a simp for that.

It’s great that he accepts her for everything she is. But I’m conflicted because Selina stays static. She stays with the cat theme in the fact she doesn’t want to held back by anything. She takes what she wants. She loves who she loves. And no one was gonna change her. But then where’s the character growth?

Is it regressive of me to think Selina should be ‘tied down’ or express commitment when she never has been tied down before even though she loves Bruce?

Is it not-feminist of me to think Selina has to change herself for a man?

I just don’t like the fact Bruce and Selina enables their masked persona. Their relationship is strongly base on their cat-and-mouse chase. They nicknamed each other “Bat” and “Cat” for God’s sake. Even though yes, it’s canon that “Batman” and “Catwoman” is their real selves and their civilian life is their masks. Heck, she didn’t go for the altar because she believed (though manipulated) that making Bruce happy would make Batman insufficient, or losing him entirely (Thank Tom King for that).

That would be true, and stay true if not for one thing. Which is some thing what Bruce has that Selina doesn’t:

The Batfam.

Bruce’s real identity isn’t just the Batman anymore. He has to be a single father with growing children he never plan to adopt but did anyway because they needed each other. He can’t use his batman persona to be a father at his house, but he will when training them to be his partner. His family became the strength to Bruce’s fight for Justice.

Bruce is the Batman, but he’s not everything who he is. Selina is supposed to be part of the batfamily yet sadly, I haven’t read or watch anything that has her interact with them in a positive way or actually bond with them. Heck, when Alfred inform the proposal to the batfam they were shocked and thought it was a bad idea even (And they’ve known her for almost half their life by the way.)

The fact that Tom King implied Bruce was never happy or wasn’t happy enough without marrying Cat when his Batfam should be the source of his pride and joy?! Apparently family means nothing to Batman. Woah DC, what a great message you’re sending here.

I guess that’s why, I was a bit iffy when Selina “marriage” with Bruce isn’t official. Because she commits to the man but she doesn’t say she’ll commit to the family (though I suppose it could be imply or I just forget stuff). The batkids are grown up enough that they don’t really need a maternal figure, but that doesn’t mean they don’t need more emotionally available people in the family. And that I haven’t seen much of her taking effort to bond with the people that’s the most important to Bruce.

It just makes her want to commit to Batman instead of Bruce Wayne, in my eyes I guess.

So yeah, that’s why Wonderbat and Superbat makes more sense to me. Because they’ll make an effort to be THERE for the family and they’ll be just generally be a healthier relationships because, again, emotionally available so they might talk when they have a problem instead of running off the altar when you think a Happy Batman is Bad Batman. But no, DC have to make Bruce is a simp and his life edgy.

Anyway, I might be wrong in some things because, you know. Canon becomes a blur to me after a while.

109 notes · View notes

lincnok · 4 years

Text

Disney Princesses are all excellent role models

Nowadays, we see something called the feminist movement, something that was born to empower young women, and equalize society, a noble cause; now it is nothing like it’s original goal, and some even bash more feminine, or soft spoken women in the fictional media. I have seen many ‘feminists’ go off about how earlier princesses, like Snow White, Cinderella, Aurora and Ariel are all ‘weak’ and are ‘unfit to be role models for young girls’ whilst princesses like Moana and Elsa are praised for their ‘empowerment’. In all of these events, both on the opposite sides of the spectrum, there is barely ever any space for the girls in the middle like Tiana and Pocahontas. Whilst these characters aren’t recognized, some get bashed, and others praised above the rest, which is unfair as they are all excellent role models and here’s why.

(I’m gonna start from the first movie cuz I find it easier that way)

Snow White:

This princess is overlooked and consistently talked about as weaker and ‘less than’, when in actuality, she is as strong a role model as any other. Even in the face of death, she is kind-hearted and care-free, choosing to clean the dwarves home, and never saying one bad word about her step mother. Yes, she did open the door to a stranger and eat the apple, but she was fourteen, and in the original story, had been living with the dwarves for two years, essentially leaving her ‘sheltered’. She lived in the middle of the forest with a group of tiny men for God’s sake, do you really think she would understand the no strangers rule? And even then, eating the apple was something she did out of politeness, rather than stupidity. It was her innocence taken advantage of that got her poisoned, not stupidity or weakness. She is a positive role model because she was able to stay level-headed, polite and innocent, even under severe pressure.

Cinderella:

Now in her story, she is claimed as weak because, in some people’s eyes, she did nothing in the face of abuse. Is that true? Absolutely! But not because she is weak, but because she is strong enough to know when not to fight. She cried and had bad days, but still chose to do the things she was asked in order for things to remain peaceful. She worked hard to achieve what she wanted. When she was told she had to do all her chores and more in one afternoon to go to the ball, she did, and made a dress on top of that. She would’ve gone to the ball anyway if it were not for her step-family’s spite, all she need the fairy godmother for was a change of clothes and a ride. She was honest and hard working, unbending even in the face of abuse and pain, something all girls should aspire to be.

Aurora:

This is the one that gets the worst media, as she had little lines and screen time and ‘slept through her whole movie’. But in all honesty, the girl lived in the forest with three fighting fairies, who did little to help with education and knowledge of the outside world, keeping her as sheltered as possible. She was happy and loveable, with a definite affinity for singing, something she did on the regular. Of course, we don’t get to see much of her personality there, but I’d like to say that she was something of a carefree spirit, happy and optimistic, trying her best to keep others happy too. She was a little boy crazy, yes, but she was fifteen, and Prince Phillip was the first man she had ever seen, so you can’t really blame her for her fascination with him. She had no idea about a curse, and if something possesses you, you don’t really have anything to do about it, and you can’t do anything if you’re asleep for one hundred years. But she kept herself happy and cheerful even in loneliness, as the prince was not only the first male she’d seen but also the first human she’d seen since she was a baby, and yet she was obviously happy, jubilant enough to sing for hours in the forest, despite being alone for most of her life. Happiness can be found in the even in the loneliest of places and that is what Aurora teaches us.

Ariel:

This girl gets bad media too because of her choice at the end of the film. Through out the film, she is presented as a curious soul, wanting to find out how the humans lived, collecting the trinkets and items from the shipwrecks said humans left. She did go too far in her curiosity, though, signing her voice away for legs. But she was eager to learn, and that is something all girls should aim to be. As I said before, she is bashed for making the decision to stay on land and get married, rather than going back home, but that is a very common thing to do, more common that people think. If a girl falls in love with someone in another country, she has every right to stay there with him, and thus Ariel shouldn’t be penalized for something so common and accepted. Her family didn’t condemn her, they came to her wedding and were happy for her. She chose her happiness over cultural norms, and that kind of confidence is something we should all aim to have.

Belle:

Belle isn’t bashed so much as diagnosed, and I feel like that isn’t right to do. I’m not saying that it isn’t true, but there is so much that is ignored about Belle’s story that should be mentioned. Like the fact that she is educated. This is something that was very rare in the time period in which she lived, and she definitely needs to get more recognition because of that. In an essay I read, it was said that she would be the equivalent of the village’s ‘IT guy’ and that is exactly right. When she rejected Gaston, she never said a bad word about him, nor wrote off his affections or was rude, she simply declined, which is something that should be respected and applauded rather than bought down. There is also the fact that she is quite feminine in appearance and picks a decidedly feminine dress despite being raised by a single father, which is a detail I rather liked, as it lets Belle be on both sides of the spectrum, being able to expertly communicate with her male friends, whilst also being ‘girly’ with her female friends, and thus makes her a well rounded character. Her falling in love with the Beast, may have well been a psychological disorder, but it wasn’t like her feelings weren’t reciprocated. And she wasn’t kidnapped. Kidnapping is abduction, meaning that you are taken or held somewhere against your will. She chose to stay. And it wasn’t like she was held in particularly bad conditions, the only condition was that she couldn’t leave. Yes, she was provided an ultimatum, but she chose to stay. And then made the best out of it. The falling in love was a side effect. Belle was educated, but not arrogant, kind and humble, polite and feminine, and those traits are wonderful, and make the princess an incredible role model.

Jasmine:

Jasmine is one of those princesses who is forgotten about, but I’ve come here today to let you know she is an absolute girlboss. In her movie, she was the crown princess, and her family ‘needed’ her to marry so that they could have a king and her dad could retire. But she wanted to marry for love instead of just political power and wealth and thus turned all her suitors away. This meant that she never gained any of the rights she would get if married and had to live in the palace for the rest of her life until she found ‘the one’. And if you pay attention, you’ll realize that Jasmine was the ruling monarch because Jasmine was royalty and Aladdin was not. She was also only 17 when she became queen, which makes her queendom so much more impactful. Her little outing one the outside gave her that little bit of compassion that she would’ve needed to become a great sultan. She may not have been a warrior, but in terms of political prowess, she was one of the most powerful. She is the ruler that girls should want to look up to and follow, a role model to her community as well as her audience.

Pocahontas:

I don’t really know much about her, but I know enough to say this. In the film (not real life), she made the opposite decision to Ariel, and chose to stay with her tribe rather than stay the man she loved. That was a brave decision, and the fact that she made it in the face of pressure is to be admired.

Mulan:

Ah, yes. The great feminist icon. But the one who gets condemned for having a prince. Yes, she was a great warrior, and yes, she was professional, but that all doesn’t mean she’s not allowed to find love. She can be all those things and still be a mother and a wife, they don’t have to go separately. And, you know what? The fact that she had a prince just made it all the more inspiring, because thats what the #MeToo movement should be about, embracing all kinds of women, and not separating the roles of mother and wife from the roles of leader and independent. Having a husband doesn’t make you any less, and that, among other lessons, is what Mulan teaches us.

Tiana:

Tia should get about as much hype as Mulan, but in reality, she doesn’t. She is very much forgotten about other than the fact that she is black. Her story isn’t about ‘conquering racism’ or anything attributed mainly to ‘black media’, but instead is about a working girl, doing just that, working. She worked hard to achieve her goal, and not once did she even try to take a short cut. She found love along the way, made some friends and lost some friends, impacted some friends for the better, and achieved her goal, no short cuts and a whole lotta jazz music. That’s what the Princess and the Frog is about, working hard to achieve your dreams. That sentiment is something everyone should learn, and the fact that that’s a black girl up there being that role model for us just makes it even better.

Rapunzel:

Rapunzel, the queen of self-isolation. But despite that, she was always happy and optimistic, which is something us cynics could stand to learn about. She was curious, but had some common sense. She was probably the most organized out of all the Disney princesses, as she had a set schedule for everything. She was probably the most artistically gifted as well. She definitely not stupid, but instead innocent and gullible, but capable of defending herself and running a good negotiation. She could’ve been a lawyer! She was a perfect example of someone talented using their talents to better the people and that’s what makes her someone to look up to.

Merida:

Another warrior, except this time, set in Scotland without a prince. You guys know the story. Bought up in a home where all she was expected to do was get married and have kids, Merida yearned to be outside with her bow and arrow, but instead was told no. Eventually, tired of the pressure, she goes to a witch to get a charm to make make her mother more lenient. Instead, the charm turns her mother into a bear, and turns her curious little brothers into bear cubs. The race is on for Merida to get the cure before it is too late. She successfully cures her mother and brothers, fights the evil Mor’du and comes to appreciate her mother more. This little family story shows a headstrong girl getting love and affection from her family without condescending, and the best interests at heart. She sets of to fix her own mistake, something still not really shown in media. She teaches girls to love their family even when you don’t agree, stand up for themselves, take responsibility for their actions and try their best to fix their mistakes.

Elsa:

I’ll start with her because this list is oldest to youngest. Another Princess without a Prince, she’s actually a queen for most of the movie, and isn’t even the mainest main character. She still teaches girls something. With her headstrong character, she was morally sound despite dealing with an immense feeling of self-hatred and fear. Only when she really broke did she ever intend to hurt anyone. She shows you how to be yourself in spite of the of the danger. She is brave and strong, with powerful abilities and love for her sister.

Anna:

Anna isn’t in the spotlight as much as Elsa was, seemingly naïve and gullible. Except, you have to realize that Anna is that she was left literally alone for God knows how long. Hans was the first person she’d met and liked who didn’t leave her alone. She liked him a lot, and it is believable that she would’ve said yes to Hans when he proposed. But still, as the story went on she became more mature, but didn’t lose her childlike spirit. She teaches us to go to the ends of the Earth for the ones you love, but to not be a push-over. To stand firm in the face of danger, but to not be reckless. Anna teaches us what true love is.

Moana:

“If I go there’s just no telling how far I go!” Moana is an adventurous soul, unafraid of nonconformity, and in love with the great unknown. She falls in love with the sea, and, even though she is prohibited, follows her dreams. She is the picture of determination and willingness to go out into the unknown, and she isn’t afraid to be herself, even amidst hardships, rejection and danger. Such a sprit is something to admire and aspire to have.

Every last one of the girls on my list is a role model and I hope you now understand why. So don’t look down on a little girl when she says her favorite princess is Cinderella. Don’t cuss out the little black girl who says she wants to be Snow White for Halloween even when there’s a princess that looks like you or vice versa. Don’t roll your eyes at the girl who says she likes Anna better than Elsa, or she wants to be a queen like Jasmine. Don’t hate on these characters because of circumstances they couldn’t control or because they’re not like you, because every single one of them is and can be a role model to a little girl, they all just cater to different types. Yes, the Disney princess line isn’t all representing, and many of these tales are taken out of context or made more light hearted, but no matter what the story is, these girls are their own characters and we should respect that, and everyones opinions on them.

Aight, I’m out.

#respect #disney princess #disney pride #merida #snow white #tiana #disney movies #modern disney princess #aurora #moana #mulan #rapunzel #pocahontas #everyones a princess #elsa #anna #jasmine #ariel #cinderella

107 notes · View notes