#taking advantage?? of feminism?? as a WOMAN

[evermoredeluxe]

i love (ironic) how everyone is always like “taylor uses feminism to her advantage” because it’s like….. are you really condemning a woman for calling out double standards and misogyny and sexism she faces because it happens often and she’s had to point out what she faces regularly because you’re “tired of seeing the same argument again” ?? like are you hearing yourself lmfao

[geometricalien]

It's 3 am. I can't sleep. And I'm still a little drunk so I'm going to word vomit into the void about Last Night in Soho.

I absolutely adore this movie. The acting, the directing, the cinematography, the themes- it's all fantastic! ... except for the character John. And this has nothing to do with the actor portraying him but John's place in the narrative as friend/romantic interest to Ellie while being a foil to Sandie's own "Johns".

Ellie's John is everything Sandie's aren't: kind (apologizing for taking her coke and offering to give it back, saving a seat for her in class, checking up on her through the semester), respectful (of her boundaries and her passion and personhood), supportive (showing up for her exhibition), and helpful (offering to look for Sandie in missing person cases and moving her out of her apartment at the end of the movie). Even Sandie - the character who hated men most - pardons him and absolves him of any perceived wrong doing, "Save the boy downstairs"; although just minutes ago she stabbed him in the gut and left him for dead.

Unfortunately, it reads alot like "Not all men!! ☝️"

For a movie to be so focused on the relationship between two women and one of them understanding the other as if she was herself, the crux of the film, the resolution of it is Sandie saying "You can't save me, it's too late for me. Save yourself. Save the boy downstairs." And it's only then that Ellie goes to safety, she saved herself to save a man.

It's frustrating.

It's also frustrating that any other girl around Ellie's age is vapid and facetious "So brave ❤️" or an insecure bully dragging people down. Of course, this serves to make Ellie's attachment to Sandie stronger but writing John as a woman without romantic connotations would not stop her from being starstruck by Sandie. It would only highlight the sisterhood theme.

Sandie saying, "Save the girl downstairs" would make way way more sense for her character, Ellie's character, and the themes.

You can still have Ellie bring home someone near Halloween and still have his name be John and still have him respect her boundaries when the vision bleeds into reality.

Gotta keep in mind that this would edge itself closer into the black best friend being a prop/support for the main white character without being afforded their own personhood cliché, but that could be easily circumvented with decent writing.

Overall, it would tighten the film's message of sisterhood, women supporting women, and advocating for each other. This film is at its best when Ellie is showing kindness to Sandie by pulling the blanket over her feet. Her being protective over Sandie by shouting, "She said no!" Trying to hug her and show her she isn't alone. Her hugging Alexandra and seeing Sandie. Her refusing the Johns' their revenge. By taking Sandie's side time and time again. And Alexandra asking Ellie after the dance when her John left, "Did he hurt you?" As if she would hobble down the street that very second with a knife to track him down.

Another girl must not suffer in that room. Not under that roof. Not in the whole damn world. Not if Sandie or Ellie or I have anything to say about it.

[feral-radfem]

Hey if you're a non-radfem and you want to make a complaint that radical feminist critique keeps getting applied to you because you hang around radical feminist spaces here is my advice: leave.

Honestly, I'm so tired of seeing this shit. Go find some other places to hang out. I don't care that you came here because everyone else kicked you out for being a "transphobe". That does not make it our responsibility to soften our movement and our criticisms so that you feel comfortable in a movement you have no intention of of committing to. You are welcome here on the basis of being a woman, however, if you can't handle the feminist action that goes on in these spaces, then you need to leave. That is a you problem, not ours. I'm tired of hearing y'all whine that we don't coddle you enough and then adding anecdotal evidence of feminist harm or strawmen arguments for why you're justified in doing patriarchal actions were other women are not. There is not a single identifier or life experience you can tell me that is going to make me think that you deserve to be exempt from the same criticisms I would level at any other woman. If you're an adult, you should be mature enough to hear them. If you are not mature enough to hear feminist critique, you need to leave feminist spaces.

if you want to be self-serving, it is completely your right to do so. I've heard a number of you in passing claim that you "don't want to be feminist, you want to be people". Which, while that's an insulting sentiment as a feminist, just demonstrates that the only person y'all care about is yourself. You see being a person as inherently being self-serving and self-centered. First and foremost, it's all about you. That level of selfishness is pathetic and frowned upon in collective spaces. Feminism being one of them.

Just save us all the headache and go away. Y'all are one of the only groups of people on the internet who are able to piss me off in seconds, istg.

[rosecarlsonmemoirs]

Chapter 14Education

In his sleek black Porsche, we hit the streets of Cuba and began careening through the poorly laid-out network of roads. Not really roads, per se, but more a swath of concrete and rocks, sequestering class-stratified pockets. Large-scale automobile travel was obviously not the primary intent when forging those cobblestone thoroughfares. “Do you remember that first day,” he asked, “when I helped…

[ladycharles]

Occasionally JK Rowling says or does something so offensive to my sensibilities that I must speak. Sadly, today is one of those days.

This post, and the "male" she is referring to is a cis woman boxer from Algeria. There is an unconfirmed report that she might have an intersex condition in which one's chromosomes are XY. She may not even have this condition, but even if she does, it does not mean anything but that she has an unusual DNA quirk. We do not call Tom Cruise a woman for having an extra X chromosome, for example (nor would I expect Rowling to accept it if he decided to compete as a woman in the Olympics).

Now Rowling, upon being pointed out that she essentially pulled the twitter equivalent of Austin Powers punching that old lady because she "looks rather mannish", moves the goalpost. She claims, against evidence, that she an unfair advantage, going so far as to imply that simply by competing with a rare condition this woman has cheated.

This might seem bizarre coming from a self professed FEMINIST. It is the contention of anti trans "feminists" like Rowling that womanhood is being erased and destroyed by "trans ideology"; Yet here a cis woman achieves a olympic victory and they accuse her of being a man, of cheating. They erase her achievement, they erase her womanhood.

The subtext is racist and misogynistic - a strong Algerian woman with features that do not reflect Western beauty standards is being denied the very womanhood that TERFs claim to protect. She has lost to women before, she has no clear advantage... Yet by virtue of her looks and a possible rare genetic condition, she is now a "man" and a fraud.

This doesn't surprise me, and I suspect that anyone who has had to deal with TERFs will agree. But in case anyone is shocked here's my take:

TERFism has always been a reactionary movement. While it draws from second and third wave feminists and has an ideology on paper, any space with TERFs will tend to feature mad crusades accusing cis women of being trans on looks, attacks against sex workers that are harsher than those on the men who make that industry dangerous, few towards actual men, and a sense of outrage that trumps any real ideology.

It is feminism much like how "National Socialism" was socialist. And like the Nazis did with socialism, it uses the idea of feminism to legitimize attacks on perceived enemies while preserving the status quo. For TERFs that's traditional gender roles, which they have twisted into something that protects women rather than subjugates them. (This is not to say TERFs are Nazis, but it is a decent comparison because fascism is the ultimate reactionary ideology; full of symbolism and mythology yet devoid of any substance but machismo and hate.)

In a nuanced, good faith society, we might discuss trans women in sports using science to determine whether there are unfair advantages, and consult stakeholders and experts in sport and biology. We might study if chromosomes do impart an advantage, and weigh that against the other myriad genetic advantages like long reach or faster muscle gain to determine if there is any problem with current regulations. We might not do these things too, considering we have gone the entire history of sport without a single women's league collapsing from secret "male" invasion.

In Rowling's world, we first attack the winning woman as a "man in disguise" and rail against her without evidence. We have people replying "just look at HIM, he is clearly male". We have people writing violent revenge fantasies in which the Algerian woman gets beaten by a man or a gang of women to "teach her a lesson"... and JK does not once jump in to say any of it is inappropriate or hurtful to women who happen to have androgynous features, like some less fanatic people sharing the story have done.

When this is how their "ideology" reacts to an apparently "male looking" woman winning, we have to ask whether the liberation of women was ever the goal.

And the one thing that makes it all make sense, IMO, is that it's the lashing out that's the point. These people seem to enjoy calling a cis woman a man in much the same way they enjoy calling a trans woman a man. They enjoy the feeling of power as together they act cruel towards a woman who had the audacity to beat a white European. They seem to relish the ability to present themselves as feminists in one breath while brutally harrassing and demeaning women. Unlike ordinary bigots, they constantly bring up their crusade, as if they're growing dependent on the thrill. The cruelty, as they say, seems to be the point.

The danger of these ideologies is really becoming obvious ahead of the US election. Years of social media bubbles and astroturfing have made people like Rowling convinced that they are a silent majority, ironic for people who can't shut up.

Times like this I think are important reminders of where this can really lead. They may spin about being gender critical or concerned about women when the pressure is on; This is what these people do when they think they can get away with it.

This is the dark heart of their movement, beating loud enough to hear.

[fangirleaconmigo]

You know what I think is missing from modern M/F ships? Women who Fuck Shit Up to protect the men they love.

Yes ok I’m queer and I love queer ships but I was thinking…I did used to have a M/F ship. I did love Mulder/Scully. What did they have?

It was this:

This is like ep TWO and Scully finds out that someone has kidnapped Mulder and THIS is what she does to find and rescue him. LOOK AT THOSE EYES THE HOMICIDE IN THEM!

I feel like modern writers think feminism and Strong Female means that women characters have to be unimpressed and cool and so critical of the love interest that you can’t even tell she likes the guy.

Fuck that.

Because when that happens I COULDNT GIVE TWO SHITS About that ship. She doesn’t even like his ass!! She should find someone she likes!!

The only caveat of course is that you make the man someone who is worthy of her (I.e. he respects her mind, supports her dreams, is loyal etc)

David Duchovny was asked about the chemistry between them in 1996 and he said:

Do you play it like Fox has impure thoughts about Scully?

No, what I tend to play is that I always want to check with her. Whenever I hear something interesting, I’ll look at her. That’s sexy to people.

If you’ve established that he respects her, then yes she should be a fucking simp. Otherwise I am not rooting for them!!! Otherwise! I! do! Not! Care!

Scully believed in Mulder immediately! She didn’t believe in aliens but she believed IN HIM. She defended him from DAY ONE to the higher ups, she fought for him, she respected how he really listened and how he really cared about regular people getting fucked over by the government.

In the same interview, Gillian said:

I think what makes the relationship between Scully and Mulder sexy is the respect they have for one another. They don’t manipulate or take advantage of one another. I’m sure that’s very intriguing for the audience.

So yeah.

Real respect. Real devotion.

And a woman who will demolish a motherfucker for harming her man.

[konigsblog]

sexist!könig thots ...

tw: dub-con/non-con, intoxication, misogyny, sexism, free use, non-consensual touching. (read at your own risks pls :3)

☆‧₊˚. sexist!könig would take advantage of you while you're drunk...

you preach feminism, having respect for yourself, but even könig himself -- your boyfriend -- can't understand why you'd wear panties around him whilst drunk out your mind knowing exactly what he's like. you should've seen it coming, he's surprised you didn't predict this. flipping you onto your stomach and pushing your head down onto the couch to stifle your loud cries and gasps all whilst he pounds into you on repeat, making you shudder and shake with each agonizing thrust.

“so eine laute prinzessin, ja?”

könig mocks, tilting his head to the side and looking into your half closed, wet eyes, not stopping his pace for a moment. each thrust earns könig a gasp, or a moan. he pays no attention to the blood trickling down your thigh, he doesn't think of you, only himself. he's a soldier, he's fine with blood. you should be appreciative that he still wants you after he'd finished with you, dumping a thick and hot load in your cunt.

☆‧₊˚. sexist!könig believes in free use, that you should present your body to him so he can use it at anytime he wants.

it results in him taking all your panties away, practically wrestling you to take all your clothes off because he was so desperate and you were clothed. just bend over, keep cleaning the kitchen -- just like a woman should, he says -- while he ruts and rams into you roughly. huffing at your body while you sniffle, gripping the counters tightly for support, crying at the ache between your thighs and throb around your ass!

[punksocks]

Black Moon Lilith: And Your Untamable Femininity

*based on my experiences, please take this with a grain of salt

Lilith herself is from Judeo mythology, she was Adam’s first wife but she saw herself as his equal and that didn’t work out too well so Lilith got banished and Eve replaced her. Because this comes from a traditionally patriarchal perspective, Lilith was too much of a seductress and an unfit woman so she literally was cast out and became a demon. (Side note: it’s so interesting that the stories all demonize Lilith but Eve had too much receiving feminine energy herself and received the devil’s instructions and ate from the forbidden tree. It’s a very damned if you’re too feminine and damned if you’re not feminine enough sort of myth)

Lilith aspecting your planets and your houses will often charge the native with almost Plutonian energy. Like imo Pluto and Neptune combined, because you’re charged with this dark feminine energy that’s the opposite of light/traditional feminine energy and on top of that people tend to project on to you based off of this energy. You bring a lot of people’s biases to light.

So Lilith charges the native with energy they need to “tame” in order to be considered proper feminine women. Lilith’s interpretations have expanded the more autonomy women have gained.

Nowadays being being a naturally sultry woman is less shameful right? Well no. Never mind how progressive they may act, many people will expose their real behavior to that sort of energy. It really weeds out those who are actually well intentioned from those who aren’t. Even if you say that you want progress for all types of women you may not have done the internal work to become the person that truly acts that way. Do you actually respect women that carry that sexual/untraditional energy or are you only advocating for a traditional/untouchable feminine person?

With friends, family, possible love interests, peers, and even strangers this question is act every time someone with heavy Lilith energy interacts with them. Because of how these relationships tend to go in a patriarchal society that encourages one kind of good femininity, Lilith natives often find themselves being “tamed” (i.e. shamed) for having this energy.

A lot of Lilith natives get ashamed growing up “not acting like proper women”. Because of that Lilith natives tend to try to force a version of themselves that fits this feminine mold. It often doesn’t work and just gives people the impression that you’re hiding something from them. Like you’re acting as a wolf in sheeps clothing when you’re just trying to exist the way they told you you have to and you cannot fully mute your energy to do so.

Most interpretations of BM Lilith are of women/femmes/people reclaiming the power and alternative femininity they tried to stamp down for ages and embracing the often revealing effects that Lilith has for the shadow sides of other people. I think it’s no coincidence that interpreting Lilith as a more complex figure comes with waves of feminism and discourse around what femininity means exactly.

The real trick is balancing Lilith’s energy- being proud of the advantages and strength that can be found in her energy without being consumed by dark aspects of how her energy may manifest.

Lilith in Aries/1st House: You’re fire and passionate incarnate. You stand out as a leader in any room you’re in with your confident aura. You were probably shamed for being head strong and impulsive. But your braveness and how you embrace yourself at your core is admirable. You need to tame your me first behavior, and to be careful not to bully and bulldoze others while still standing in your strength.

Lilith in Taurus/2nd House: You’re so sensual and tactile. You live for the pleasures of food and luxury, whatever your idea of luxury may be. You may have been shamed for being “lazy” but you can be very grounded and sensual. You have to tame your inner hedonist and make sure you don’t get too lost in worldly pleasures and that you don’t use others to achieve these ends. (Don’t swing to other extreme and deny yourself any pleasure either, you deserve to have a good life, just not to be consumed by having one.)

Lilith in Gemini/3rd House: You’re a charmer with wit to spare. You think about everything and analyze all of your thoughts on what is good and what is bad. You were probably shamed for how you spoke and what you spoke about in your youth. You have to tame your desire to be the smartest one in the room and the impulse to reject all learning. We all have to learn from some source that knew better before us, otherwise knowledge would be empty and cyclic. You’re not lesser if you do not know everything.

Lilith in Cancer/4th House: You have an in depth relationship with your femininity. You may have grown up in an chaotic environment with family scandals and secrets and intense emotional dysfunction. You need to tame your desire for total emotional control over people in your life. Through your fear of feeling lonely you may have poor boundaries with others by way of doing too much and intern expecting too much emotional devotion/sacrifice. If you don’t manipulate others to be emotionally tied to you, you’ll open yourself up to genuine emotional connections and healing.

Lilith in Leo/5th House: You’re so fun and seductive. You’re a star that turns heads and knows how to have a good time. You were probably shamed for enjoying attention and affection you received in your youth and you could’ve been shamed for having crushes and such before you even began dating. You have to tame your desire to be the center of attention at all times and to escape away from the problems of life into frivolous affairs. (This another case of balance, which I’m finding a lot with fixed Lilith placements. Don’t run away from attention and close yourself off from affection either. It’s okay to receive attention and to enjoy it, the same with dating and healing and finding emotionally fulfilling relationships)

Lilith in Virgo/6th House: You’re a hard worker and a very efficient one at that. You rarely get enough credit for how many problems you solve and how many people you’ve saved with your smarts. You may have been shamed for being too uptight in your youth when no one was giving you any support to actually be able to relax. You have to tame your inner overworker. It’s okay to take a break, it’s okay to make a mistake, you work very hard but you’re human at the end of the day. It’s okay to take care of yourself. (And to be honest about your s*xual desires) Also watch out, your co-workers may not be trustworthy.

Lilith in Libra/7th House: You’re a beauty and a radiant individual, and you probably have a lot of admirers. You may have suffered a lot of injustice/unfair experiences at certain stages of your life. You need to tame your desire for balancing everything. I’ll explain lol, you probably attract a lot of people that have extreme personalities and you pour a lot of energy into them in order to help balance them out. You may also become anxious or vindictive if you’re rejected romantically. It’s okay to understand where the line can be drawn and to understand that harmony cannot be brought to every person/situation, especially not through the efforts of one person alone. And that’s okay.

Lilith in Scorpio/8th House: You ooze s*x appeal and you probably have a mesmerizing presence. You have a very powerful energy. You were probably shamed for your interest in s*x/sensuality throughout your life. You need to tame your desire to escape from your emotions/trauma into your s*xuality. You also need to tame your tendencies to become obsessed with the taboo. (This needs to be balanced of course. You shouldn’t deny your s*xuality or your interest in the taboo. It takes a special type of person to explore these sorts of ideas. Just make sure it doesn’t consume your inner world.)

Lilith in Sagittarius/9th House: You’re a firecracker with a sense of adventure and a need for freedom on your own terms. You were probably shamed for being outspoken and questioning the institutions around you throughout your life (heavy emphasis on higher education and/or your family’s religion). You need to tame your need for freedom to a degree. If you have interest in traveling to certain places but a fear of becoming too attached to that place you should still go and have that experience. If you have an interest in a certain religion but you’re afraid of being trapped in that setting you should still learn about that religion. Institutions are old and carry their own hierarchies but they shouldn’t scare you away from exploration. (Be careful not to become obsessive either)

Lilith in Capricorn/10th House: You’re a powerful person. You have a certain air about you that gives off dominant/authoritative energy. People in power tend to listen to you. But you were often shamed for having such a domineering presence, whether you were exerting power over others or they were just intimidated by the weight you held. You need to tame this desire for status and power and any urges to become cutthroat in order to social climb. I believe this is why this position can be prone to having a scandalous reputation. It’s important not to lose yourself to gain power because you’ll lose respect. (Saturn lessons bby)

Lilith in Aquarius/11th House: You’re the definition of a free spirit, you’re really a one of kind person in how you express yourself and your tastes. You could’ve been outcasted socially from a young age, and you may have dealt with bullies/groups turning against you. You need to tame your urge to disconnect from the humane. (Again it’s a lesson of balance, embracing what makes you unique and gives you your ability to think outside of the box, but also not going out of your way to socially detach from all people to the point of embracing truly bizzaro behaviors just to feel that freedom.)

Lilith in Pisces/12th House: You are a person with a deeply ethereal sense about you. You tend to ride the line between the hidden and the mundane in all things you experience. It’s the hardest placement to pinpoint where you were shamed exactly, it probably has to deal with your receptive energy and your sensitivity to other energies outside of yourself, and due to your conscious or subconscious experiences you carry effects of this negativity. You must tame you natural inclination to drift, to detach and separate yourself in an effort to escape. You must balance your understanding and acceptance of the spiritual and the internal with your experiences in the world in order to not be lost to the tumultuousness of this placement. (also stay empathetic but prioritize taking care of your mental health)

[tododeku-or-bust]

do you think this is a justified take? do you think “white feminism” could be another brand of misogyny? https://x.com/anamorphisis/status/1817222026119327908?s=46

This is a stupidly racist take lmao, and is very much a part of how White Feminism functions. I would highly suggest Hood Feminism by Mikki Kendall and White Tears/Brown Scars by Ruby Hamad, as well as listening to literally any Black and Brown woman on the topic of how White Feminism impedes the rest of us.

White Feminism (oversimplified) is white women with access to white privilege putting forth issues that affect them as "all women's issues". It's them thinking that we're all on the same page, at the same starting line with the same problems and solutions... and we're not. Because even amongst women, whiteness puts them at an advantage (and therefore a lack of perspective) over the rest of us.

And rather than confronting that, they'll accuse you of hating "women" (notice who gets defined as a woman, here 👀), simultaneously taking advantage of the very victimization complex set up by the WHITE PATRIARCHY (that they're supposed to be fighting!!) to show that they are the REAL victims. It'll never bring down the white patriarchy bc it depends on the very same whiteness for its own structure. It's why white women voted for Trump despite EVERYTHING; bc "white" holds more value than "woman".

As for this tweet, what I'm guessing is that she's saying that we can feel bad for both women, and that's true... But the reality is that I am not about to feel as bad for a millionaire white woman as victims of genocide using scraps for their menstrual cycle. Because far more people have dragged their feet about the latter. And the fact that I am being told that these struggles are equivalent and that I'm "hating on women" for not doing so is preposterous.

But yes. White Feminism is useless, and anyone who wants you to "not use it" to discuss the difference between white women and women of color is useless as well. 👍🏾

[familyagrestefanblog]

Throwing a disclaimer out because I think it's time I say it again just to be sure:

Me having fallen so much out of love with Marinette by now isn't because I hate that her side of the conflicts was given more weight than Adrien's or that I "don't understand that she's the main character"

My problem lies in HYPOCRISY. Marinette's writing ever since season 4 has been going out of its way to be as hypocritical as possible in basically every aspect of the story, but especially the love square, and then it was sold as "justified and totally morally sound feminism" just because it's a girl doing it.

The amount of harmful messages Maribug was retooled into teaching as "empowerment" without any genuine accountability on her part - beside some vagueness sometimes that stops meaning anything the next moment it actually matters - are insane and inherently on child abuse victims expense to the point where I don't actually trust alot of Marinette stans opinions on child abuse and leadership anymore which is the worst thing Marinette's character could have been made to cause.

I hate that sexist HYPOCRISY was declared EMPOWERING as long as the girl benefits from it. I stand under no obligation to support a harmfully hypocritical main character of a female empowerment kids cartoon, and if you think I do, learn what actual feminism is.

I repeat: my problem lies in the deeply interwoven and glorified hypocrisy

NOT in the fact that Marinette's side of the narrative was covered at all.

I was and AM perfectly fine and supportive of that, but what I don't support is the show ever since season 4 hardcore retooling the narrative into ONLY Marinette's side and benefit mattering and in some of the worst and most hypocritical ways possible to the point where Marinette never even made a single effort in finding Hawkmoth to actually DO HER JOB and take a fraction of interest in the man underneath his mask because that wouldn't have been about HERSELF.

Years ago, 2x01 "The collector" promised me a main character who will actually show initiative to end the war in more regards than herself first and foremost becoming the Queen of the world. I signed up for Marinette as main character who will actually SAVE Gabriel's victims with her compassion and drive to help people

I didn't get that beyond the most surface level way possible because Marinette and the narrative were written to prioritizing her being entirely in control of everything, girlbossing her love interest into being her submissive care taker for which she hardly took any accountability for, and looking cool hitting stuff including her love interest and the remains of her Villain's wife who never wanted this, but Marinette threw a fucking LIFT on her body to get a strategic advantage over Gabriel by taking advantage of Gabriel's remaining humanity and love for the very woman at the core of all this.

Emilie, who was fridged and silenced beyond anything resembling to feminism, but it HAD to happen because Emilie's story isn't about Marinette and the narrative had to make sure Marinette will be celebrated "as such a cool girlboss!" for throwing a fucking LIFT on the remains of the villain's loved one while she simultaneously failed Emilie's son - Marinette's own "partner" - so MUCH as partner and leader that he had literally no way to possibly make it out of this partnership because Marinette teached Chat Noir that she's all that matters, he gets no support, help, resources, or a voice when it isn't to her benefit.

When the chips are down, he has to die quietly and give up his ring because Ladybug couldn't be asked to look beyond her personal experience, benefit and comfort in this "partnership" while simultaneously needing to be taken care of, as good as worshipped, and celebrated by him like a mind reader for EVERYTHING because she wasn't "ill-intentioned"

Which she is explicitly written to prioritize people understanding that about her than actually working on herself in ways that truly matter.

I once signed up for Marinette being the main hero and savior of Paris and Gabriel's victims, but all I got is glorified hypocrisy thats sold as "empowerment" and a worshipped girlboss main heroine who postponed doing her job so fucking much that the main villain shaped the entire in-universe world already BEFORE he won and made his wish, as well as several characters being damned and irreversibly negatively affected by his power and influence over and on them by the time Marinette was finally spoon-feed into being able to face Hawkmoth at literally 11:59 pm.

But hey, I suppose all that mattered was Marinette BENEFITTING from that to sweep her own big flaws under the rug, as well as her looking cool hitting stuff in different super hero suits to she can become the Queen of the world.

I would apologize for having thought that Marinette's hero's journey was about more than that, but that's literally nothing I have to apologize for.

[hyperlexichypatia]

One time, when I was younger, I had an unpleasant encounter with an (apparently neurotypical) older man who wouldn't take "no" for an answer.

Now, I was fine. But I was scared.

Not so much because I was afraid the man would come after me -- although given the statistics around violence against women who refuse men's advances, that would be an entirely reasonable fear -- but because I was afraid that someone would find out what had happened.

Because, you see, if someone found out that I had been assaulted, I would be a Vulnerable Young Girl.

And the thing about being a Vulnerable Young Girl is that it doesn't matter if you said "yes" or "no."

It's not necessarily that people would have sided with my assailant -- this is a different flavor of rape culture. Most people would have agreed that what my assailant did was wrong. But they would have considered it equally wrong -- maybe more wrong -- if he were my chosen, consensual boyfriend I actively wanted to be with.

Because his crime was not disregarding my "no" and violating my bodily autonomy. His crime was Taking Advantage of a Vulnerable Young Girl. Preying on a Vulnerable Young Girl. Corrupting a Vulnerable Young Girl.

If you're a Vulnerable Young Girl, you don't have the right to say "yes," which means you don't really meaningfully have the right to say "no" either. You need to be Protected, and, of course, you don't have the right to say "no" to that, either.

And, look, once again, I was fine. I'm making the specific assault sound worse than it was. That's not the point. I wouldn't mention it at all, except that The Discourse is such that if you don't disclose a relevant personal experience, you're assumed to Not Care About Real People. But I am not alone in this.

I've heard multiple instances of the specific scenario "I was assaulted in college but I didn't report it because my parents would have made me leave school." Or "I was date raped and didn't report it because then my family would have never let me go out again." Or "I'm a psychiatric survivor and if I reported being assaulted I'd be put back into treatment."

These are real things I've heard or read assault victims say.

Framing assault victims as Vulnerable Young Girls actively discourages victims from reporting assaults.

Yet the people who use this framing seem to think it's somehow necessary to get assaults taken seriously, even though it does the opposite.

Feminists largely understand this when it's in the context of purity culture. When people say, "In purity culture, it doesn't matter if you say 'yes' or 'no,' sexual assault and consensual sex are considered equally bad, and that underlying premise minimizes the actual wrongdoing of sexual assault, discourages assault victims from reporting their assaults, and allows assailants to get away with their crimes," this is understood as a problem.

But the Vulnerable Young Girls framing comes from self-identified feminists. Who think they're helping. In the name of feminism and justice. They don't understand why being framed as a Vulnerable Young Girl would make a woman reluctant to come forward, because the coercive control she would be subjected to "isn't punishment". They're seemingly baffled by why young and/or disabled women don't want to be framed as Vulnerable Young Girls, even if they've been assaulted. Especially if they've been assaulted. Why are you so offended when we say that your wishes for your own body don't matter?

And... why? Why is this framing necessary? What is the purpose? What is the benefit?

If you hear about someone committing sexual assault against a young and/or disabled woman -- without her consent, against her will, disregarding her "no" -- what, exactly, are you trying to accomplish by jumping in and saying "Even if she said yes, that's still predatory! He's still Taking Advantage of a Vulnerable Young Girl!"?

What is the purpose of saying that?

If a young and/or disabled woman chooses a sexual and/or romantic relationship that you think is "bad for her," and you proclaim "Just because she agreed to it doesn't make it okay! It's still wrong!" -- well, I vehemently disagree with you, but at least you're responding to the actual situation that exists.

But if you hear about an assault, against the victim's will, without her consent, and feel the need to denounce the counterfactual scenario in which it was a consensual encounter... what are you even trying to accomplish? Is the sole purpose just to convey to the victims (and any other assault survivors and/or young and/or disabled women in the vicinity) "I need to make it unambiguously clear that my objection to this assault has nothing to do with the violation of your bodily autonomy. I actively do not care about that."?

[femalethink]

Developed in the early 1990s—at a time when feminism was undergoing a major crisis due to the impact of an institutional takeover, the entrance of women into male-dominated occupations, and an economic restructuring that demanded a more gender-fluid workforce—poststructuralist theories postulating that bodies and genders are the products of discursive practices and performance were undoubtedly appealing, and to many they may continue to be. But it should be clear that if "women" is discarded as an analytic/political category, then "feminism" must follow suit, insofar as it is hard to imagine an oppositional movement emerging in the absence of a common experience of suffered injustice and abuse. Indeed, employers, as well as the courts, have been quick to take advantage of the feminist claim of an irreducible diversity among women, through the denial of a class certification status for women workers of companies (like Walmart) denouncing gender discrimination, and forcing them, instead, to file their complaints individually. More importantly, surely can we conceive of experiences like maternity, childraising, and social subordination to men as constituting a common terrain of struggle for women even if it is one in which contrasting strategies may develop? Are alternative identities, such as gay, trans, and queer, less subject to fragmentation on the basis of class, race, ethnic origin, and age?

I write these words after watching the astounding images coming from the streets of Buenos Aires and other parts of Argentina, where for a number of years now women have poured by the hundreds of thousands to fight, despite their diversities and often disagreements—against violence against women, against women’s indebtedness, and for the right to abortion, making collective decisions that transform what it means to be a woman. What would such struggles be without the recognition of “women” as a political subject, as an identity that is clearly contested but also constantly redefined in ways that are important for constructing a vision of the world we strive to create?… I propose that denying the possibility of any social, political identification is a guide to defeat. It is a denial of solidarity among the living and with the dead, and truly imagining peoples without histories.

—Silvia Federici, “Beyond the Periphery of the Skin.”

[nimbusalba]

Neil Gaiman, my thoughts and my love for good omens

I already said something about all this deal with Neil Gaiman yesterday in another blog. But I still have Things To Say, so here it comes (with links to all the info):

Here is the article (thank you @procrastiel)

Here is a link to the podcasts for free (thank you @queermarzipan)

Here is the Xitter post with the accusations podcast thingy (thank you @embracing-the-ineffable)

Here is the transcript of the first podcast episode.

The Main Thing I Have To Say:

We need to separate the author from his work (and with this I’m not speaking only about Neil Gaiman). While we might not agree with some things about the author's life or thoughts, that doesn't mean we can not keep enjoying their work, as long as that work is not morally unacceptable, obviously. Let’s take the example of one of my favorite tv shows of all time (other than good omens): Buffy The Vampire Slayer (and with this I’m showing my age here, ahem). Buffy is a magnificent show, a wonderful exponent of feminism (strong female protagonist and secondary characters), diversity (one of the main characters is a lesbian), critical thinking, death, love, inner strength, battling your own demons… As we all know, accusations of harassment against Joss Wheddon appeared in 2020 and a lot of his work was left behind. I agree that knowing that the creator of something you love is an abuser breaks your heart. But that doesn’t mean that you have to stop loving that show, that it stops being a great work of art or that you should feel bad for still liking it. Buffy the vampire slayer is still one of my favorite shows and I still rewatch it from time to time (not on loop as I do with good omens, but that’s another problem). And why? Simply because in that show a lot of very talented people worked very hard to make it great, not just Joss Wheddon. And I appreciate it even more now knowing that the actresses and actors (and rest of the crew)  in the series didn’t have as good a time filming it as they should have. 

My take on this story:

I’ve already said that my first impulse is always to side with the victims in these cases, because they rarely lie and the accusations tend to be proven true in the end. In this particular case, for the time being, I’m waiting for developments, as the information that has transpired is fishy, to say the least. I’m not defending Neil Gaiman either, mind you. Maybe tomorrow we will find another 20 people accusing him of abuse. I don’t know him nor pretend to know what he’s done in his life. For the time being, as I said yesterday, this looks to me like consensual sex between consenting adults. That shouldn’t be news to anyone, even if the practices in themselves are not your kind of kink. It’s not on to have sex with someone who is working for you, of course, but still in this particular case that’s not exactly what’s happened. The woman in question (Scarlett) was a friend of the family, not strictly a worker. They already had a friendship relationship before turning it into a sexual relationship and a working relationship on top of that. With this I’m only trying to say that it doesn’t look like she felt forced to have sex with him in order to keep her job and she has said that the sex was consensual. The other victim has also said that even if she didn’t particularly enjoy the sex it was also consensual. 

It looks like both victims were pretty young when the relationships took place. It's true that younger people can have problems when it comes to place boundaries, and an older or more experienced partner could take advantage of that. It is also true that later in life, when that person is more experienced or has had time to think about things, they can think about what they did and feel uncomfortable with it, even though it didn’t feel wrong in the heat of the moment and they said nothing then. But, as far as I know, that's not sexual assault.

This looks to me as something that’s been designed to hurt Neil Gaiman’s public image. Maybe he’ll come out of it without any criminal charges, as he has already offered his help to the New Zealand police and they have refused to interrogate him for the time being, apparently because of lack of proof yet. But his public image has been tainted, not only because of the accusations, but because anyone who has their sexual life exposed and discussed publicly suffers a great deal of humiliation, even more so if their sexual practices are not exactly mainstream. With this I’m not implying that BDSM or any other kink is wrong, as long as it is being played by consenting adults. No judgment here, everyone has their own kink, and I don’t care as long as they don’t harm anyone (or if they want to be lightly harmed).

Keep also in mind that one is innocent until proven guilty and in this case there is not a lot of proof yet and the place the news is coming from is suspicious, to say the least. Wait for developments (and see).

Conclusion

So keep loving good omens, I know I still do, keep enjoying it, writing fanfic, drawing amazing art, writing metas and discussing about it. Because this show is still a brilliant show, in which a lot of very talented people worked very hard to make it the wonderful work of art that it still is and we shouldn’t dismiss all that work because someone wants to hurt one of the authors. 

(Edited because of wording)

[hadesoftheladies]

Hades' Personal Reflections on Separatism and Power XD

so here's my current definition of separatism:

any deliberate action that women take to divest from men that simultaneously transfers energy, resources and other forms of investment to female community. it must be an exercise of women's autonomy and power that deliberately excludes, de-centers and disadvantages men while promoting, centering and including women.

this definition would hence designate the following as not separatism:

-religious or non-religious sex segregation (this is not an exercise of women's autonomy)

-religious celibacy (this is not done for the sake of female community and also invests in male hegemony by focusing on male religion)

-girl's night out where the conversation is predominantly about relationships with men (even parasocial ones) XD

-domestic scenarios women are forced into where they find themselves able to talk to each other (i.e. women in the kitchen during a family reunion)

-sex segregation in general (because separatism is organized by the oppressed and segregation is organized by the oppressor)

this definition would include:

-exclusively female social groups (clubs, meetings, etc) where resources such as information and even financial aid are shared between women (like grandma's wednesday knitting club)

-women deliberately refusing to marry, date or befriend men (or all three at once)

-consuming only female products or intellectual property

Criticisms:

Some say separatism is better off being simply described as women physically separating from men. After all, who is the oppressor here? It is men that pose a threat to women and it is relationships to men that disadvantage and drain women while advantaging and reviving men. It seems silly to say that a woman who dates and lives with a man but reads only female authors is somehow radical or a separatist (and we must remember that separatism is an expression of radical feminism hence must be aimed toward radical reformation of patriarchal social structures). It's practically an insult to separatism by trivializing the very thing it exists to eradicate (unlike other forms of activism): male supremacy in the interpersonal sphere.

If we were to try distinguish between these forms and call celibacy "radical separatism" and reading exclusively female authors "quasi-separatism" none of these terms would make sense because separatism is (or must be) itself radical action and de-centering men while reading is still a form of male exclusion, divesting from male hegemony and financial/social investment in female community.

So we're at an impasse: because separatism must always be radical and yet, things that don't seem very radical still re-structure power on some scale (thus fulfilling the basic requirements of the end-goal of separatism which is to reclaim power as women in the interpersonal sphere by excluding male access to us). A woman who divorces her husband but keeps her son is divesting from male power in a socioeconomically impactful way on one end, but not on the other.

And there's the problem: she may disadvantage and separate from her ex husband (separatism) but is also investing in and raising her son (not separatism). So what we're really asking here is: "if not dating or marrying men was separatism and radical, does doing other non-radical things cancel out said radical action?"

I'd say no. Which is why I find the vegan metaphor unfitting for this discussion. I find it more useful to define separatism and radical action through the lens of power: who is getting it, who is losing it and to what extent they are empowered/disempowered.

For example, exercising is healthy but drinking heavily is unhealthy. Me exercising will always be a healthy action regardless of what I do after. Me drinking excessively will always be unhealthy. Does it make sense to then call someone who both exercises and drinks "only healthy" or "only unhealthy"? Or is it better to discuss which of their actions are healthy or unhealthy rather than attach an identity to it?

That seems to be the heart of this disagreement. Half of us think drinking heavily excludes you from being a healthy person period. I say that exercising is still meaningful action that counts as being "healthy" or contributing to health. Not because it's necessarily "more right" but because it seems more productive to me. Separatist action will always be separatist action. Non-separatist behaviour will be non-separatist. Does that make women practicing separatism in one form and not practicing separatism in another separatists or not separatists?

I think it's not that important. Separatism (exercise) is still good to practice and as many women as possible should engage with it however or whenever they can. Exercise will always be healthy (no matter who does it) the same way divesting from men and investing in women in any form will be a form of beneficial separatism that absolutely challenges the male status quo. Non-separatist action (drinking) will still never be empowering or radical the same way partnering with men will never challenge the male status quo. I find it more productive to ask how one can take more radical action rather than whether one is or is not radical.

Because to talk about being a separatist or radical feminist as something one is or is not rather than something one does (radical/separatist action) or does not is to inevitably limit it to ideology, which limits it to the realm of history and appeals to authority (feminist theorists and academics).

Note: I use my definition of separatism because I think anything that excludes males in order to empower women is best described as separatism rather than anything else. I don't think it makes sense to call these transferrals of power under these feminist goals "not separatism."

[trvefemcel]

I hate how the word "pickme" has become so overused that now the discourse mostly consists of feminine women feeling attacked when another woman doesn't share their taste. You mention you don't know how to do your makeup? Pickme, you're just saying that to feel superior. You didn't like the Barbie movie? You're obviously saying that to fit in with the boys. You speak about how other women subject themselves to beauty standards to the point of suffering? You're obviously jealous of their beauty. Even if some girls actually do that to put other women down and be chosen by men, they deserve compassion, not hate. They were probably bullied by feminine girls so they spent time with the boys and internalized their misogyny, but in the end the ones they're harming the most are themselves, by excusing the way men treat them. And some women (well into their 20s) take advantage of this to live their mean girl high school fantasy and incentive female competition, by being paranoid that anyone who doesn't conform to gender roles does it as an attack. Surely victimizing pickmes again is a great idea.

And don't even get me started on how a lot of those feminine women just bully "pickmes" just because they feel superior for being more desirable to MEN. "Men don't actually like girls who try to act like them, they like women who are feminine and do their makeup like me 💅". And the funniest part is that a lot of those women would die on a hill defending a man who's playing the victim against their ex. I've seen that so many times: a man claims on the internet that their ex cheated on him, the internet brutally harasses that girl, and a lot of those hyperfeminine """girls' girls""" participate in the harassment saying shit like "Oh that's so cruel I can't imagine being like her…" And then have the nerve to talk about "pickmes". Bffr

In the end all of this reminds me of that "feminism isn't there to make you comfortable" tiktok. Yeah it's true that men make fun of feminine things out of misogyny and because they can't relate, but you can't deny that a lot of the things we love are actually harming and a waste of time. Pointing that out doesn't mean that I think any less of you or that I'm competing with you. We should focus on defending each other against men instead of defending our egos from stupid things.

[t4transsexual]

ive been a feminist since before i knew what feminism was, and long before i ever knew what being trans was or that it was an option for me, but back when i was a kid the general idea with feminism that we were pushing was that women can do anything just as well as any man, possibly even better, and should have the equal rights and opportunity to do these things instead of being held back because of their gender or assigned sex at birth. and so much of terf ideology is the idea that men are innately superior to women and therefore women need to be protected from men/"males." any time a trans/intersex woman does anything, there will be terfs breathing down her neck about a "biological advantage." and im gonna be real with you, if youre saying men have an innate biological advantage over women in chess, running, or really any sport or ANYTHING, im not taking your feminism seriously whatsoever