#to frame them as equally a part of the conversation about misogyny

[nothorses]

I think these conversations would go better if we conceptualized terms like "homophobia", "transphobia", and "misogyny" not as the "basic" oppression that you start with until you sprinkle intersectionality on top, but rather as names for where more complex experiences overlap.

"Transphobia" is not the "base" we start with and build on with other experiences; it's the place where more specific experiences overlap. It's the middle of the venn diagram where "transmisogyny", "transandrophobia", and "exorsexism"/"nbphobia" all overlap with each other.

It's the thing we all have in common; not the thing that some people get extra special versions of while others do not.

[eyestumblin]

thoughts on Barbie (2022)

If you're at all interested in this movie and its discourse, Broey Deschanel's video and Verily Bitchie's are worth your time. They explain how the film is propaganda to sell toys (of course) but its main purpose is to revitalize Mattel's brand and begin a new "marvel cinematic universe" with their IPs. Bringing beloved indie directors in as a promise they'll sneak authenticity through the corporate machine is part of that marketing tactic. Apparently, it's worked for Barbie despite many of the people who celebrate it feeling fatigue with Disney-Marvel for over-saturating the cinema landscape using the exact same tactics. Maybe because this time it's with the toys of their childhood instead of star wars and comic books it feels subversive, brave, and refreshing, but Barbie's vision of Girl Power is not even meekly rebellious and certainly not feminist.

There is a purposeful void where the feminism should be. It is the strawman that anti-feminists imagine: not a movement of liberation and equality, only a cry of "I want to be the one doing the oppressing!".

I understand how a Wakanda-like vision of a world without misogyny is a delightful fantasy to live in, and the few lines explicitly calling out impossible, often contradictory double standards held over women may be a wake up call for those who have not engaged with this conversation before. For baby's first feminism, simply recognizing what misogyny is and how it wears down and degrades women can be a powerful experience. However, there is no discussion of how and why patriarchy causes and enforces misogyny or how to dismantle it.

The movie acknowledges the male characters, especially Ken, as emotional beings with understandable pain, and gives him more attention than the troubled mother-daughter relationship that seems like it should be the core of a film for and about women. His existential crisis is a parallel to Barbie's, and so for a satisfying conclusion, it's important they both get the answer to their question: "Who am I? What do I need to be to deserve love?".

"You're not an accessory, you should just do your own thing without a woman" is a fine answer for Ken, but is an incomplete offering for men under patriarchy. For all the runtime this movie sinks into men, it seems to go out of its way to avoid ever acknowledging how patriarchy harms them, too. Bell Hooks said, "The first act of violence that patriarchy demands of males is not violence toward women. Instead, patriarchy demands of all males that they engage in acts of psychic self-mutilation, that they kill off the emotional parts of themselves." Will Ferrell's declaration that he wants to be tickled is the closest thing to acknowledging how patriarchy robs men of full access to their own lives but unless you already know feminist theory, it's just a throwaway joke on what a goofy little guy he is.

From birth, patriarchy teaches men the answer to the question of how to be worthy of love is a lifelong gauntlet of contests. Who collects the most valuable things (women being objectified and included in this tally), who can endure the most isolation and pain, who can conquer and stand alone at the top. Stepping on women is normalized as an easy way to raise ranks in these contests before even competing with other men. Treating women as equals is punished because it's not participating 'correctly' if he doesn't seek power over women and other men (I kept waiting for Allan to be some kind of comment on this, but nope!).

The word Patriarchy is littered throughout the script and used as a magic spell to transform Barbieland overnight without any further exposition. Men are framed as the adversary, but the happy ending is not to free everyone from patriarchy. Systemic injustice is not challenged, men and women do not unite as equals. Barbieland returns to Matriarchy and the narrator chuckles about how someday, perhaps, the Kens will only face the same level of oppression human women do on earth.

I saw more memes about Ken than any other character, and although there's validity to claims that he's most popular because men always get more positive attention than women, it's also definitely a consequence of the film's choices. He gets the most fully formed and sympathetic arc, a music number, and most marketable quips and visual gags. Getting through heartbreak and learning "I am Kenough" is a lot easier to relate to and make fun memes of than a flawless, immortal being meeting her creators and choosing to develop cellulite and die.

The reception of this movie has been enormous and enthusiastic, surely in part because its marketing budget cost as much as the movie itself. I was curious whether criticism and lack of accolade was really just misogyny at work as much of the internet believes. The conclusion I've come to is that Mattel strategically planned Barbie to be championed by women and rely on real misogyny ("pink movie for girls bad, cannot be good movie") to blot out any and all criticism of its weak writing and insincere, toothless social commentary. This happened with Ghostbusters 2016; the wailing and fury of nostalgic misogynists was so loud, it made denouncing them feel like an important fight to take up rather than just free advertising and clout for a mediocre, cynical corporate product.

I totally understand the ~fun~ parts of this movie and I'd enjoy watching some of the spectacle again. It's just frustrating to see Mattel catching earnest people hook, line, and sinker in the year 2023 even after a decade of seeing others strung along behind the same boat. They've successfully packaged the movie as important through implied (but critically absent) connection to feminism when all that's inside is, for better or worse, just a colorful plastic toy (20$).

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

By: Leor Sapir

Published: Feb 3, 2024

The 10 most popular NYT reader comments to the piece on detransitioners and the harms of "gender-affirming care" today: ⬇️⬇️⬇️ 

1. "I predict we will look back on this period with the same disgust we feel about the overprescription of amphetamines like Adderall to every 8-year-old boy who couldn't sit still for an entire day. The most damage is often done by doctors and parents who are so well-meaning that they cease to think critically." 

2. "Thank you for presenting a non-polarized view of this complex issue. Having been a 13 year old, I have a dim view of the enduring wisdom of decisions made at that age." 

3. "Thank you for publishing this. The conversation across liberal media has been too one-sided and has caused real harm for some. This is a very very complex issue. We can't ignore how lucrative this has been for the medical complex." 

4. "Isn’t being 'uncomfortable' part of being a teenager? There are transgender people, but I’m skeptical that the massive upswing in those that think they are transgender is the reality." 

5. "This is an incredibly important story - THANK YOU for bringing this conversation to light. The lack of space for thoughtful, left leaning people to debate this issue is terribly harmful. We need to be able to talk about this and ask questions without being labeled as being transphobic. The push for young people to disown their families as part and parcel of their journey towards transitioning is devastating for families but mostly for the individuals themselves in the long run. So, I say YES to open, calm, healthy conversations and lots of questions. NO to illiberal name calling from the left and the right." 

6. "Thank you, Ms. Paul, for your thoughtful column. No doubt you and the NY Times will be accused of being transphobic again. Any healthy movement and community should be able to engage in critical dialogue rather than shutting down conversations by labelling others as hateful or phobic. I have taught health care workers to give compassionate care to older transgender adults and as a wedding officiant, I have served couples where one or both identify as transgender. Yet when I have written about misogyny or concerns about women's spaces, I have been dismissed as a TERF. With kids, I have three primary areas of concern. Since the vast majority of kids seeking to transition are girls, I ask why are girls so unhappy? Do they feel so disempowered that they think they would be better off as boys? How are we failing to teach girls to love themselves? Second, the medical industry is a highly profitable one. We should question the motives from medical providers and big pharma. Third, is this movement for kids to make them heteronormative? I know lesbian and gay activists who are concerned that transitioning is the new conversion therapy. If a girl is attracted to other girls, is she encouraged to transition rather than to be a lesbian? I was always suspicious of the pink and blue flag--the gender conforming colors. I believe in equality for transgender adults and I also believe this recent phenomenon with kids should be examined more deeply." 

7. "I am a seasoned clinical psychologist. 20 years ago, if someone expressed discomfort with their gender and sought what was called medical "reassignment", standard treatment involved two years of psychotherapy with a gender dysphoria psychologist, including 6 months of living as the desired gender. Clinicians looked for evidence that the gender dysphoria was "persistent and consistent" and the person "insistent" about it, usually from early childhood. One might argue with the time frame for treatment, but it took very seriously both the patient's feelings and the life-long changes that the desired treatment would bring. Now, at least one highly respected health care organizations in my city prescribe hormones to adolescents 16+ and adults upon request. Here's a quote from their website: "In most cases your clinician will be able to prescribe hormones the same day as your first visit. No letter from a mental health provider is required." Imagine going to your MD and saying "I have diabetes and need medication" and the response was "I believe you - here's your insulin". Would anyone consider this medical care? I would consider this medical malpractice." 

8. "'To the trans activist dictum that children know their gender best, it is important to add something all parents know from experience: Children change their minds all the time.'" The fact that children change their minds all the time is one of the oldest insights of psychology. Yet the transgender movement totally leaves it out of their calculus. Both right-wing and left-wing thought are absolutely certain about way too much. Beware of both." 

9. "This is an excellent piece. I grew up in the 70s and 80s when very few people questioned their gender but there was a lot of freedom around expression - especially for women. Young people today seem to have lost that - if you don't fit the strictly feminine or masculine then you must be trans or non-binary. We need to re-expand our gender roles." 

10. "'I felt so detached from my body, and the way it was developing felt hostile to me,' Powell told me. It was classic gender dysphoria, a feeling of discomfort with your sex.' This is how a large number of kids feel when going through puberty, as their body is uncomfortable due to rapid changes. Assuming that feeling uncomfortable while going through puberty is "classic gender dysphoria" is a mistake. That may be one symptom, but it must be one of many, not the only or even primary symptom."

--

By: Leor Sapir

Published: Jan 2, 2024

Pamela Paul's piece on detransitioners and "gender-affirming care" in the New York Times today is a welcome journalistic contribution to the ongoing debate on a thorny subject.

Paul gets many things right and one thing wrong.

Thread 🧵 

Let's start with what Paul gets rights.

1. The recommendations of U.S. medical associations are out of sync with a growing number of countries and are not based on reliable evidence. These groups are not accountable for the harmful practices they are promoting. 

2. · The detransitioners featured in the piece were deemed good candidates for transition by clinicians practicing the “gender-affirming” model. As Paul notes, current evidence suggests detransition rates as high as 30%. Future rates could be higher, lower, or the same. 

3. Rapid-onset gender dysphoria is a real and documented phenomenon. Paul cited our recent peer-reviewed Letter to the Editor on ROGD demonstrating evidence for the phenomenon even in a survey trans activists cite as authoritative:

4. The narrative, favored by Democrats and some judges, that “parents should decide,” ignores mounting evidence that skeptical parents are regularly bullied by gender clinicians and others to agree to medical interventions. 

Whistleblower Jamie Reed (@JamieWhistle) decided to go public with her concerns in part because she saw this bullying take place at her clinic.

5. The “gender affirming” model itself requires this pressure on parents. The model is child-led and any decision to delay interventions for kids is deemed “conversion therapy.” Parents are given discretion, but only if they “affirm.”

6. The Democratic party is beholden to a fringe group of extreme activists and NGOs who are putting the health of children in jeopardy.

Paul: "the doctrinal rigidity of the progressive wing of the Democratic Party is disappointing, frustrating and counterproductive." 

7. Left-of-center media have for too long ignored the plight of detransitioners, what their experiences reveal about gender medicine in the U.S., and the lack of good evidence for pediatric transition. 

Here's what Paul gets wrong:

The belief that although some/most kids should not be transitioned a small number of kids are good candidates for transition, is unsupported by evidence. 

(Cont.) The evidence for the so-called conservative approach to pediatric transition is the original Dutch research, and as Paul herself notes, that research is severely methodological flawed. Nor has there been any long-term follow-up of these kids or any effort to study Dutch-approach transitions through randomized controlled trials.

(Cont.) The belief that at least some kids benefit from transition, and that careful clinicians can reliably pick these kids out from others with dysphoric symptoms, remains an untested hypothesis. For some, it is an article of faith. Even for the most conservative approach to pediatric transition, therefore, the evidence simply isn't there. 

(Cont.) I've called the failure to acknowledge this key fact the gold mean fallacy in pediatric gender medicine. "Conservatives want to ban it all, progressives want no restrictions, therefore the truth is somewhere in the middle."

No. The truth is where the evidence points.

Pamela Paul's excellent piece in the NYT today:

I forgot one last point that Paul gets right:

"Gender-affirming care" is very likely gay conversion therapy in disguise. Framing this debate as "pro-LGBT versus anti-LGBT" is absurd, given the available evidence.

--

==

The tide has turned. The era of "no debate" is over.

[titleleaf]

What are the Bad Hannigram Takes you're encountering? I watched the show but never got too involved in the fandom so I am fascinated

Oh god I'm so sorry, I have no idea how coherent any of this will be if you haven't dipped into the fandom and even for my part I've been mainly watching and reading from afar but hereeeee... are my thoughts. Disclaimer that YMMV, let people have fun, etc., but I am a gigantic hater.

[fandom negativity and a leetle canon-related negativity behind the cut: if for whatever reason you don't want to hear me bitching about people being Wrong On The Internet About A TV Show keep scrolling, mute me, block me, whatever]

Character-specific tunnel vision where Hannibal is the center of the universe -- not just in the sense that he's, yk, the title character of the show and the most memorable character created by Thomas Harris but in the sense that all characters are evaluated by how much they support or obstruct Hannibal's God-given right to do whatever he wants to anybody ever. And my God, it is so, so boring.

Nothing is ever Hannibal's fault, either. Delicate use of the exonerative passive voice — oh it's so sad, Will was framed, Beverly was murdered, Abigail was killed, but by whom? Hard to say! Especially funny when people whip this out regarding shit even Hannibal plainly regrets, like framing Will and then not having Will to hang out with. In general downplaying Hannibal's agency is such a weird move with a character who takes so much pleasure in doing what he wants. "To what extent are people a product of their external influences and life traumas, to what extent is Hannibal capable of not killing" is a whole other conversation but it's just a very odd reading of the character and the show as a text.

Nothing is ever Hannibal's fault, because it's actually the fault of... [scans crowd] that woman over there! Weird misogyny, often overlapping with the above (bc boy howdy, the list of women who Hannibal kills, maims, tortures, or otherwise fucks over is not short — Abigail, Alana, Bella, Beverly, Bedelia, Miriam, Margot, Georgia… I guess Freddie makes it out okay?) but sometimes seemingly just because, or to exonerate Hannibal of all blame for his own actions toward Will, as if this is the kind of show where it’s vitally important our blorbos be morally pure. Like… I’m sorry but I don’t think this is the show for you if that’s the case. People are really weird about Alana, people are really really weird about Bedelia, people are turbo weird about Molly... I'm sure there are people out there being weird about Chiyoh but I haven't encountered them yet, and I feel like there's some uhhhh other factors in play there too.

Baffling ship war stuff even once the canon's long since finished airing. I'm a big multishipper for this fandom so the weird competitive approach where Will and Hannibal's love must be the only real love (or even the only real erotic desire) they've either ever experienced ever is really off-putting. Showrunner Word of God here regarding Will's sexual orientation is in itself a take that annoys me, as a humorless bisexual man, but this is more commonly expressed via weird not-joking "jokes" about how the only reason Hannibal would ever have sex with a woman would be as an elaborate ruse (and how she'd deserve it for being stupid enough to believe he'd be into women) or how Hannibal's a better wife to Will than Molly ever could be. Dude... relax... your pairing has a literal love theme like a 1990s erotic thriller, why are you this insecure. People will do this with characters who don't even appear in the show! Now why is Clarice in it???? I need people to just be normal.

Nice polite sweet tea-sippin' Southern boy Will, and his equally annoying twin brother, Will with an inexplicable and phonetically-rendered Southern accent. 50% me being an extremely sensitive buzzkill about how the text presents Will's childhood and how the romanticized vision of the American South people draw on is superficial and rooted in white supremacist nostalgia, 50% me being a person who can hear Hugh Dancy speak dialogue in a television show and recognize basic American regional accents.

General... accrued fanon, I guess? All the tropes and memes and fandom in-jokes and fandom characterizations that build on one another to the point where their relationship to the show as a text (or to the novels, for that matter) is pretty damn tenuous.

In general, and while I know where this is coming from as a lover of dark stories/horror media/dark and destructive love stories who’s gotten flak for all of that: people getting so defensive about shipping something ~*~*~*problematique~*~* that they take other people talking about the things that textually make their dynamic fucked up (even if they’re talking about those things as something they like or something they enjoy exploring with the canon) as an attack or a sign somebody's Interrogating The Text From The Wrong Perspective. I think the show itself has some narrative weaknesses that lend themselves to this kind of fandom circlejerk but please... please Lord... I just want to write about a really weird guy getting his dick stepped on whilst classical music plays and having the time of his life, why is everyone doing this to me

On the much more benign end of things, “Will is totally normal average everyman while Hannibal is weird and pretentious and fruity” bc it just makes them sitcom parents. Show!Will is a weird fucking guy in his own right! They're both weird! And they're in love!

[tabby-shieldmaiden]

In light of the recent stuff about about aromanticism on this site, I think it’s worth it if I try to articulate out my views on the matter.

Firstly, I think the question of “is x inherently queer” is kind of like… it’s not a very useful question to ask in and of itself? As in, queerness is socially constructed. There’s no quantifiable essence which dictates whether or not someone is inherently queer. When people ask if xyz group of people is inherently queer, it’s typically in service of answering a bigger question*.

So, that poll asking if cishet aro men are queer is asking the question in service of something bigger. And looking at it, I don’t like what it’s implying.

Because like. I don’t think it’s just trying to make people question the legitimacy of asexuality/aromanticism as queer identities. There is a reason why I made the comparison to polyamory in my previous post. Because what this question asks and posits and how it functions in the discourse is comparable to how polyamory is spoken about.

As in, there are men who use polyamory and aromanticism as a way to take advantage of women through sleeping with them without caring about her as a person (investment in her inner life and so on). What I take issue with is how the question and the subsequent discussion around the question might frame this as an inherent part of aromanticism. Similar to the linkage people do with “fuckboys” and “open relationships”. There are people in these spaces who will take advantage of the label to take advantage of women. But that’s not an issue with aromanticism or polyamory, that’s an issue with misogyny. And it is equally perpetuated by the monogamous conservative heterosexual norm. (Lots of conservative husbands also do not care deeply about the inner lives of their wives.)

That’s the thing I’m concerned about wrt tumblr’s discussion of aromanticism. And it’s why this conversation is putting me a little on edge. It’s the worry about how people are going to link all of something fringe and romantic and sexuality related to only the worse parts of the community.

*My stance on are ace/aro people queer is that 1) most pride orgs think so on the grounds that many L, G, B and T people also identify with the labels + there are aspects of the asexual and aromantic experience which do go against the grain of cisheteronormativity; 2) I have friends who are L, G, B, and T along with different flavours of A which I’m not and I consider my community to be more my friends more so than a Non-SAM Aro I don’t know; and 3) I have volunteered at queer friendly events and the world didn’t blow up.)

[cardentist]

the insistence that trans men face a lesser kind of oppression than trans women is no different from the insistence that bisexuality is a watered down form of gayness

all of these groups can have different relationships with their oppression thanks to how they’re presented and perceived by society (invisibility in media vs overt demonization in media for instance) but these differences being boiled down to one group being distinctly More Important or More Authentically Oppressed than the other is legitimately harmful.

on the surface both of these ideas seem to make a sort of logical sense. trans men are trans people But Men, and we all know how men are treated by society. bi people are like gay people except they also like people of a different gender, and straight people like it when you do that. add on the relative invisibility and there isn’t much in the mainstream to challenge those ideas. 

the truth of the matter is that invisibility affects more than just mainstream media. this idea that bi people or trans men have lesser experiences with oppression are gut instinct because their voices, their experiences, have a history of under-representation. people don’t Hear the experiences that the people in these groups face and then create conditions within queer (and activist) spaces that treat those people like their voices matter less because they’re privileged. this creates a cycle where these groups are devalued and talked over because these groups are Already devalued and talked over.

this all pares horribly with the atmosphere in discourse (and particularly exclusionist) spaces where identities are used as social capital that is enforced by tearing down whoever it is you think is encroaching on your space. it’s not uncommon to see posts talking about the experiences of one identity that goes out of their way to exclude whatever’s being spoken of from another identity that they see as lesser, deliberately putting another identity down and crushing their voices in the conversation to lift themselves up. (the sheer amount of times I’ve seen a post start with “trans men Never-” while describing something I experience in my daily life is exhausting)

the most insidious thing about this is the fact that when you create an environment where oppression is social capital then someone trying to assert their lived experiences with their oppression when you view them as under you is considered overtly aggressive and is often framed as bigotry within itself, because theoretically if they’re equal to you then your social capital has been lowered. you see this Constantly within ace discourse, with people doing things like calling asexuality Inherently homophobic because they didn’t want to acknowledge another marginalized group’s oppression.

this can be particularly dangerous when it leaks into broader and more serious subject matter and colors how people look at and talk about a marginalized identity’s experiences. one of the bigger arguments in these spaces was that trans men are literally incapable of experiencing misogyny and this notion was enforced by people directly discrediting trans men talking about their experiences (telling people that they’re lying about their experiences, that their experiences didn’t happen in the way or for the reason that they said they did, and sometimes intentionally misgendering the person to discredit it). I had personal experience with that which was, not great I gotta say.

this kind of target vitriol isn’t unique to any of the mentioned groups, in fact it’s something that goes both ways. there are trans men who are absolutely Horrible to trans women. but well meaning people in activist spaces are particularly skittish to stand up for trans men in this situation because they’re Aware that trans women are particularly marginalized (which they are) while also being affected by the lack of visibility for trans men. I’ve seen people who engage with Nasty discourse defending asexuality, nonbinary people, transness in general, bi/pan people, etc who outright Refused to get involved in when it was trans men on the line because it wasn’t Worth it to them. that’s definitely anecdotal evidence on my part but it’s emblematic of a bigger issue.

moreover, there’s a common trend in and around queer spaces where people identify vulnerable groups based on how established they are and go out of their way to hurt those on the outskirts because they know that it’ll be tolerated. from asexuals to nonbinary people to mogai to neogenders to pan people to intersex people to polygamous people to bi people and beyond. what you’ll see a lot of is transphobic cis women extend performative activism towards trans women while being overtly transphobic towards trans men and justifying it with the fact that trans men are Men and therefore they’re punching up.

this wasn’t really made with one solid thesis in mind and I honestly could keep rambling until the sun died out, but to cap things off I want to remind people of something that I still think about to this day.

quite a few years ago trans men were looking for a term that they could use to describe their specific experiences with the intersection of transphobia and misogyny, particularly when trans men were being pushed out of spaces talking About that intersection. obviously “transmisogyny” was taken, so someone came up with the idea of taking that word as the root and changing it to be clearly and obviously about trans men. which is how the word “transmisandry” came about.

if you’ve lived through gamergate you probably just flinched reading that if it was your first time, which is fair. the point of the term was to make its meaning as immediately identifiable as possible. if you know what transmisogyny means and you know what misandry means then it’s not too difficult to put together what transmisandry is supposed to mean if you’re seeing it for the first time. that said, it (perhaps predictably) sparked quite a bit of controversy. but the criticism it got? was that trans men didn’t Need a term to describe their own experiences. trans men aren’t oppressed for being men, “transphobia” should cover all of their experiences because they don’t Have unique experiences, trans men don’t Deserve a term to describe their own experiences. a lot of this was attributed to ignorance after people started pointing out how fucked up that reaction was, how it was kneejerk, but I don’t think that’s an excuse anymore. I don’t think it should Ever be an excuse.

nowadays people tend to use “transandrophobia,” not because the meaning is any different, not because it’s a functionally better term, but because people weren’t Willing to overlook their kneejerk reaction to Not take a term away from another marginalized group because their ability to talk about their own lived experiences in their own spaces mattered Less than momentary discomfort.

[thegeneralguy]

The Champion of Olympus - Zeus´s Zeal

“To your right you can see the ruins of the fabled temple of Zeus, the once deity patron of the city. A statue in his honor was considered a world wonder in the ancient world. Now if you follow me…”

The enthusiastic tour guide waved her little red flag to gather the group of students listening to her. It was a particularly windy summer day when Markie Laur and some of his college classmates were taken on a tour through Greek archeological sites. This excursion was one of the only excuses’ students found in order to participate in this lecture. Markie himself had little to do in a Greek and Roman mythology course, being an engineering major. His two best friends convinced him to join the course so they could do a tour around Europe together. Besides, the free credits were always welcome.

The excursion moved sluggishly through the different ruins in the archeological site. Some students were very interested in the information and keen in on learning more. They engaged in discussion and conversation with the tour guide and their professor. Markie and his friends were none of them. They hung out in the back of the tour. Robert was showing Jordan different bars in Amsterdam on his phone, both plotting enthusiastically how many drugs they would be able to take and how many European girls were they going to take back to their hotel room once they were there. Markie just hung out on the back watching the sites in peace. Although the three 21 year old college students shared the same nerdy nature, Markie was the shyest of the three. He didn´t share the other two´s deliriums of grandeur, nor sexual preference for the matter. His insecure nature made him unsure to come out to the supposedly closest friends he had in college. He was friends with Robert and Jordan out of survival instinct more than true friendship.

Markie and Robert landed in the same dorm room on their freshman year. Jordan was Robert´s hometown neighbor that had the luck of landing in the same college as his best friend. Both were boastful economy majors who tried and failed constantly in on inserting themselves amongst the more popular social circles. Markie was more down to earth than the other two, completely conscious that the combination of his cherub face, short unathletic body and shy personality automatically put him on the bottom layer of the Darwinist ladder that was college life. Robert saw the physical similarities of his roommate as a reason to adopt him into their duo, and so the three of them started hanging out together, playing videogames, making complex plans to get into some fraternity parties and talking about their crushes. Markie just went along with it. Drug use, even though mild was where he drew the line, completely paranoid that he was going to get expelled if caught.

Now the three of them were finishing their sophomore year with cero conquests under their belts, so their trip to Europe was the only hope of Robert and Jordan to get some of the validation they had been craving.

The sun started setting down as the tour started heading towards the information center to compare notes and conclude the visit. The day had gotten increasingly stormy, with dark clouds gathering on the sky and blocking the sunset light. Markie was still on the far back of the group, his gaze scanning the surrounding ruins. He started wondering why the site was so empty, with none other than the little group ahead of him on sight.

“Maybe there´s bad weather coming.”

He thought as a chill crossed his spine. He stopped to take his sweater out of his backpack, completely missing that everyone, including his friends continued advancing down the road until he was left completely alone. Markie put on his oversized college sweatshirt, his body practically drowning in the garment. He looked around searching for his friends, but there was no one on sight. An ominous wind started blowing, moving the grass with an eerie rhythm. The trees rustled next to him, and the faint sound of thunder resonated in the distance.

“Guys? Rob?”

His anxiety started acting out, as he nervously wandered on the dirt road looking for his friends. The path started to disappear slowly, leaving tall luscious grass behind. An unseen force was guiding Markie through the glade. His mind was racing, already making up hundreds of scenarios where he got lost and was never able to return home. He just felt he needed to move forward, and so he did. The breeze around him kept getting stronger, with little droplets of rain being blown straight into his face.

Suddenly Markie found himself right in the middle of the ruins of the temple of Zeus. He recognized them from the tour, being the only part that really caught his attention for some reason. The sound of thunder kept getting stronger, as the air current suddenly started to form a whirlwind around him. The rain had gotten stronger, pouring down furiously and completely drenching him.

Markie started having a panic attack, his breathing getting to the point of hyperventilation. He suddenly felt an incredible pressure on top of him. He looked up to one of the columns and saw a gigantic golden eagle perched on top of it. A bright lightning bolt completely blinded his eyesight for an instant, and when he looked up once again, he was confronted with a vision of the most perfect man he had ever seen.

His gargantuan chest was framed by two sets of enormous shoulders, which were connected to two arms so muscular they must have been around the same girth as Markie´s waist. Powerful legs supported the massive body of the gorgeous man, whose height made him seem double the body size of the little 5´6 college student. The luscious curls of his golden beard fell right in the middle of his chest, as his gorgeous mane of equally beautiful hair framed a face that looked near aesthetic perfection. Features that exuded masculinity, but still kept a supernatural beauty that was only present in the sculptures of antiquity. The man was wearing a white robe tied only on top of one of his shoulders, with big golden bracelets on each of his wrists. The man emitted a light glow from his body, like his whole silhouette was encased in a halo.

“Who—o a—are you? Did I die?”

Asked Markie nervously. His gaze couldn’t find anything else other than the godly fantasy in front of him.

“Silence boy. I´m going to grant you a gift. A gift all mortals would kill for.”

“A gift? Please don´t hurt me. I´m really sorry if I trespassed, I can´t find….”

“I said quiet!”

The man roared with fury. Markie managed to get out a panicked yelp as thunder stroke the ground all around him.

“You really remind me of him. Come and find me when you´re ready. All your questions will be answered. Enjoy it boy, for it will come with a price.”

The man pointed his finger at him. Suddenly Markie felt a jolt of electricity course all across his body. He was afraid he was going to be fried by the stud in front of him. Lighting fell again very close to the man, completely blinding Markie again. When he looked up the storm was gone, and so was the man. He briefly thought he imagined everything, until he felt his soaking wet clothes. He could also still feel the light static effect he felt when the stranger raised his finder towards him. He wondered if his friends had pranked him by sneaking in some hallucinogen into his water bottle when the annoyed voice of his professor grounded him back on reality.

“Mr. Laur, may I remind you that profanation of ancient heritage sites is strictly punished by the law? Come back here this instant. The bus is waiting for us.”

Markie rushed out of the ruins to join his classmates on the bus back into town. He briefly looked back at Zeus´s temple one last time, and thought he saw a big bird fly fast into the sky.

 “Whoa man did you jump into the fountain or something?”

Asked Robert when he saw his roommate entering the bus soaking wet.

“Very funny Rob. It was the rain.”

Answered Markie unenthusiastically as he took the seat behind Robert and Jordan.

“What rain dude, its as dry as Angela´s pussy over there.”

Whispered Jordan giggling whilst nodding in the direction of one of their most conservative classmates. Markie didn´t even reply to his friend´s crude comment, as the bus slowly departed the site towards the hotel. Olympia wasn´t a big city, but his classmates had already made plans in meeting in the small bar next to the hotel to talk about the trip so far and have some drinks. Robert and Jordan kept snorting and laughing from time to time watching some random insta-girl´s page.

“What a pair of losers.”

Thought Markie to himself as he pondered on his friends’ blatant misogyny. He kept staring out the window into the dark void in front of him. His smooth boyish face greeted him back on the black window. He took a moment to really look at himself. Other than the childish rounded cheeks and soft features, he wasn´t so ugly. His dark brown eyes gave him a friendly look, and his teeth were straight and white. He could look much cuter if he put some effort into it. Stop shaving his dark brown hair with an electric razor, paid an actual hairstylist to get him on of those popular haircuts every guy on the internet had and get some actual sunlight in order to improve the corpse looking hue on his skin would get him far. He could finally stop hanging out with those guys.

The sudden confidence rush went away as fast as it came, leaving Markie languishing in self doubt once again.

“Who am I kidding? I´ll never have the confidence to be on my own.”

Crippling social anxiety and low self esteem were the true shackles tying him to a lonely existence, not the way he looked. Confidence could completely change someone´s image of themselves, making him attractive to himself and by inertia to others as well.

The sudden epiphany caused a golden spark to light in on Markie´s eyes, just an instant so he could see it, but not slow enough so he could know if it was real or a product of his imagination. The static feeling was slowly turning into a constant tingling spreading all across his body. A droplet of sweat travelled down his temple as he felt his body heat slowly rising. He took away his sweatshirt only to find his equally wet t-shirt clinging to his thin body, but showing a tiny strip of skin belonging to his lower belly. If it were dry Markie would´ve also noticed a certain tightness on the kid sized garment, his torso gaining an almost imperceptible amount of mass. He still felt as if he was being asphyxiated by his own clothes. His temperature was rising so high that he could almost feel a humidity cloud form all around him coming from his wet clothes.

“Markie! Man you´re really off today.”

Markie was so busy fighting his need to rip his t-shirt off so hard he barely noticed the curious eyes of both of his friends staring at him.

“We need to get you some new clothes. You have to look your best if we´re gonna go hunting man!”

Said Robert enthusiastically as he high fived Jordan. Markie just answered with a nervous laugh as he kept trying not to cause a scene in a moving vehicle.

After what felt like an eternity the bus arrived at the hotel. Markie practically jumped out of his seat and rushed towards the exit. He could also feel his jeans ending a bit above his ankles, and his shoes constricting his feet. The first thing he thought was that the water had shrunken his clothes, but after feeling the sensation spread along the static tingling, he suspected this could be related to that fever dream he had in the ruins.

The professor gathered everyone right outside the bus to plan the rest of the evening. Markie stood there impatiently among his fellow classmates feeling increasing discomfort. The tingling turned to numbness, making him lose sensation on his hands and feet. The only thing he wanted was to get back to his room so he could wash himself and get into fresh clothes. His usual nervous expression started turning into an angry sneer, as his impatience grew along with his discomfort. As soon as the professor dismissed them, Markie rushed straight through the small hotel doors directly to the room he shared with his two friends. He got into the bathroom slamming the door behind him.

He was sweating profusely and his body heat started rising so high an actual steam cloud started forming around him. The numbness in his limbs had turn into an excruciating pain, as cramps travelled all across his body tensing the little muscle mas he had. He felt like he was being electrocuted. He looked into the mirror and was greeted by a bizarre image of himself wearing a little kid´s clothes. The t-shirt looked more like a crop top now, the little sleeves were being strained by two longer arms. His pants were riding halfway up his calves. He managed to kick out the shoes that were also clearly a few sizes too small for his grown feet. Markie did his best not to scream in pain due to the sensations assaulting his body.

The small lightbulb illuminating the bathroom started flickering and a small air current started forming around Markie. A sharp pain in his stomach made him turn to the toilet and throw up the little food he had ingested during the day. Shivers crossed his body as the cramps got stronger. He could see the ligaments in his hands contracting and moving on their own because of the strong muscle spasms. He turned his face back into the bowl and retched loudly clasping his stomach, tears of effort running down his cheeks.

“Markie? Are you alright in there?”

Asked Robert knocking on the bathroom door. He was so distracted by the sensations assaulting his body that he completely missed his friends enter the hotel room. He responded with a quiet “yeah” and made a conscious effort in making it sound as calm as possible. The last thing he wanted was those guys seeing him in his current state.

“I´ll be out in a minute.”

Said Markie as he managed to pull himself back on his feet. The wind in the bathroom had gotten stronger, and Markie could swear he could hear the faint sound of thunder inside the room. He grabbed the edge of the sink and looked into the mirror. His face was completely red, and his hair was dripping sweat as if a cloud was pouring rain on top of him. He looked at himself straight in the eyes, and then it happened. A golden color started to seep out of his pupils, changing the brown hue of his iris. It looked like molten gold was being directly injected into his eyes. Once the new color took completely over, the lightbulb started shining so bright it completely burst after a few seconds. Markie heard the glass shards fall on the ground, and the room was left in complete darkness. The only source of light were his iridescent golden eyes.

He tried to move to the side, but he accidentally stepped on a few glass pieces and slipped on the wet floor. He howled in pain and steadied himself with the bathroom sink. He also didn’t realize his hand moved way too close to the electrical outlets next to the mirror. A faint crackling sound could be heard, and white sparks started jumping out of the outlet.  Suddenly, a lightning bolt shot straight out of the outlet directly into Markie´s hand. He tried to scream, but not a single noise came out of his mouth. The wind started flowing stronger, forming a vortex with the college student straight in the center. Another lightning bolt coming from an electrical outlet on top of the floor flew straight heading for his other hand. Both currents formed two chain lightning shackles that tied the boy in the center of the room.

Markie felt vertigo, as his growth spurt continued on an accelerated pace, putting him over a foot from his original height. His feet grew proportionally to help him stabilize his now towering stature, the skin on his soles hardening and expelling the glass shards he slipped on earlier. The electric shackles started spreading lighting bolts up his arms and into his torso, completely burning the remains of the already ripped small t-shirt. He felt an excruciating pain while his bone structure changed. His clavicle extended, pushing both of his shoulders further to the sides. His ribcage also expanded together with his waist. The remains of his pants started digging painfully into the skin of his hips. Once the bones finished their transformation, the pain started to subside.

Markie stood in the middle of the room completely disoriented. His new height made everything take on different dimensions and the irregular sparks and lightning bolts were illuminating the bathroom in all kinds of bizarre ways. Not to mention the wind throwing all kinds of hygiene supplies all around. His gaze found his reflection in the mirror. He looked like an underfed giant of a man. It was like the little muscle mass he had was distributed evenly across his new size, leaving him practically just bones and skin. He watched the flashy shackles fascinated, as sparks jumped and squirmed in the air before fading into blackness.

Suddenly, he felt the strong static feeling on his wrists, as lightning bolts dug under his skin and spread through his body. He could feel the electrical current inside of him, the pain of the intense cramps returning in major scale. Electricity was contracting every muscle fiber, breaking and healing them very rapidly. New muscle nuclei started forming as well in order to endure the work the chain lightning was putting them through. Markie´s hands were the first to grow. Delicate long fingers filled with strong muscle, as his palms expanded and hardened. Callouses formed to protect them from the heavy labor they were now designed to do. They looked comically large, comparable to big baseball mitts on a small child. The transformation immediately shot right up his forearms, expanding them to incredible size that would put Popeye out of work without question. Strong sinews connected his powerful hands to his elbows, giving them a vice like strength too atop of their intimidating look. His upper arms picked up on the growth too, biceps inflating to the size of a cantaloupe and triceps completely defying gravity jutting so far out the back of his arms it looked like someone had welded big horseshoes on his already enormous arms. The shoulders expanded next, gaining epic proportions comparable to a pumpkin on top of each arm. Markie gritted his teeth in pain as he caught a glimpse of what has happening to him. He looked like a doll that had gotten the arms of a He-Man toy accidentally glued on his lanky torso.

A strong spasm in his chest caused him to fall forwards, the shackles on his arms preventing him from touching the ground. He was scared for a second, he was having a heart attack, as each pectoral muscle twitched and pulsed manipulated by the electric current. His chest started inflating rapidly in all directions, rising high on the top reaching for his chin, and squaring off in the bottom, leaving a big shelf hanging from the distressed student´s upper body. The electric bolts reached for his nipples, hardening them and expanding them until the former tack sized miniatures grew to a more manly dollar coin size.

Markie could feel the electricity running all across his spine, engorging his back so support such a top-heavy body. His traps developed in the upper part, reaching for his ears, and his lats expanded to the sides pushing the gargantuan arms to the sides on a permanent forty-degree angle. His lower back developed strongly to support the heavy muscle on the top. Then he felt as if someone was punching him straight on his stomach, as each individual abdominal muscle popped from his midsection, carving a deep valley in the center of his body, and leaving him with a truly enviable small waist that made the proportions on the upper body look more freakish.

The cramps then travelled down his waist, focusing on his practically non-existent glutes, contracting and twisting them. His ass started to slowly inflate into two pairs of gravity defying boulders, completely ripping the rest of his pants and leaving Markie with his tight white briefs, which looked more like a thong being swallowed by the two monstrous muscles. His manhood was left completely ignored by the electrical current, leaving him practically flat on the front. Each quadricep spasmed and developed deep cut muscle, growing to gigantic proportions in order to move this behemoth of a body around. Calves inflated next leaving him with two powerful football looking muscles ready to propel Markie in whichever direction he wanted. His feet were the last part of his body to change, filling with powerful strength to support the now card-carrying bodybuilder.

As soon as the last part of his body concluded growing, the electrical shackles were absorbed into Markie´s body. He started to emit a faint glow, dimly illuminating the bathroom. His pale skin took on a golden hue. He looked into the mirror once again and he saw his face with two glowing eyes on top of a body that wasn’t his. The miniature storm inside the room also subsided, leaving him quietly staring into the mirror.

“Is that really me?”

Asked Markie to himself whilst touching his powerful chest. He accidentally brushed one of his nipples with his hand, and it caused a small electrical current to travel across his chest. Only this time it wasn´t pain what he felt, but pleasure. Markie had a very prude attitude, barely exploring sex by himself, let alone with somebody else. But this sensation sparked something else in him. An instinct buried so deeply within insecurities, that it had remained imperceptible to him. But something inside his was pushing him to do it again, to finally unleash the real him.

“I can´t believe it. This can´t be real.”

Markie raised an arm and flexed. Powerful muscle twitched and pumped inside of him, his bicep raising higher and higher. He chuckled slightly. A quiet laugh that increased in intensity, as Markie explored and felt every new part of his anatomy. He then took his other nipple between his fingers and pinched it slightly. An even stronger pleasure jolt shot across his body.

The college boy was becoming less and less of a boy the more he touched himself. Confidence was flooding every inch of his being. Someone who looked like a God should behave as a God as well thought Markie, while his slow caresses of his body turned to an intense erotic massage. His hand touched the deep crevices of his abdomen, and slowly found its way to the boy´s less than impressive endowment.

“This simply won´t do.”

Said Markie in a quasi-trance like state. He slowly reached to the electrical outlet again, and focused all of his energy in summoning that spark again. His call was quickly answered, as an intense lightning bolt shot straight towards his hand again.

“Yes. Give me more. More strength. More power.”

Said Markie, his boyish voice taking on a powerful commanding voice. He then took the hand connected with the electricity to his crotch, and grabbed his bulge once again. The electricity then travelled directly into his manhood, shotting bolts of pleasure all over Markie´s body. His mind was filled with images of intimacy, of epic scenes of desire and encyclopedic sexual knowledge.

“Fuck yeah. More.”

He cursed for the first time in his life, while the overwhelming sensation clouded the last of his senses and erased the old Markie from existence, leaving a blank canvas for his new godly persona to take place. His manhood started growing to divine proportions, completely straining the briefs to the point of breaking. White tatters fell to the floor, as his equine endowment raised straight and up, reaching almost a foot in length. Like the rest of his body, the girth proportions adjusted too, leaving him with practically an extra limb on his lower body, as thick as a baby arm. His testicles inflated like water balloons until each was the size of a lemon. The powerful divine seed inside them started seeping it´s essence to the rest of his body, as Markie reached the final step of his transformation.

His neck thickened, and his moans of pleasure started dropping in pitch until his boy-like cadence reached an intimidating deep baritone. He grunted as his mandible contorted and expanded into comic book hero proportions. A cleft formed on his powerful chin, and his teeth grew to fit the new size of his mandible. His lips thinned out giving him a serious look. The baby fat on his cheeks evaporated, leaving sharp angular features behind. His nose remained straight, but grew to accommodate the aesthetic of the new man´s face. His brow expanded and hooded over his eyes, giving him a stern serious look.

His shaved brown hair then started growing on the top, parting sideways and acquiring a thick silky texture, along with a golden tone. The new blonde´s body hair flourished right afterwards. Clear body hair sprouted on his forearms and on top of his hands, but the rest of him remained smooth. The hair in his pits and on his pubic region also changed to a blonde hue, before falling down leaving the new man completely shaved. Changes in the hair follicles were made, as this was a very hairy man that manscaped regularly. Thick stubble then grew on his face, leaving a permanent five o´clock shadow. Finally, a thick mustache and a soul patch formed around his mouth, completing the transformation.

Where once stood a puny college student, now stood a complete god of a man. The former 21 year old looked almost a decade older, not that it would worry him too much because his mind also started changing to accommodate the new bodybuilder. His fears and worries completely evaporated, leaving behind a man that lived in the moment. He ate when he wanted to, he went where he wanted to and he fucked whenever he wanted to. His repulsion for his nickname grew, and he decided to adopt his full name from ow on.  Where there was once a Markie now stood Marcus, the champion of the thunder god Zeus.

He flexed and roared in triumph as one last lightning bolt shot through the outlet reaching him. Veins started popping on his arms and legs, like lightning coursing through a stormy sky. He turned around and opened the bathroom door, stepping into the world for the first time.

“What do you think of this one?”

Said Jordan whilst showing his friend one of the many fedora hats he brought to the trip.

“Who cares? Fedoras aren’t cool anymore man. It´s all over the internet, look it up.”

Answered Robert exasperated of having to go through another wardrobe dilemma. He couldn´t stop thinking about Markie and his weirder than usual attitude these last couple of hours. His roommate had been in the bathroom for a while now, but there was no sound coming from the bathroom ever since Markie answered him, he was fine.

“Do you think Markie is okay in there?”

He asked Jordan, who barely looked up from his suitcase.

“I don´t know. But who cares man? Less dead weight for us when we go for the chicks later.”

“He´s not a dead weight Jordan. I know Markie is shy and kind of weird, but he´s a great guy. Trust me, I know. I live with him.”

“We both know why he´s like that. Not that I have anything against it, but its impressive how he thinks no one realizes the way he looks at those douches from the frat sometimes.”

“He will tell us whenever he´s ready. And even if he´s not it´s okay. He will still be my friend. And I hope yours too Jordan.”

“Come on man. I like gay dudes. Less competition for us. I just don´t want him to ruin our hunt with his angst when we go out to the bar.”

“It´s about time to get going though. I´m gonna ask Markie if we should meet him directly in the bar, if It hasn´t confused him with a child and kidnaped him through the sink.”

Both friends laughed at the reference just as Robert approached the bathroom door once again.

“Markie my man, we´re gonna get going. You can meet us there if you want, but don´t feel rushed take your time. Hope that you´re okay though.”

He said knocking lightly on the door. A faint grumble could be heard on the other side, but Markie didn´t answer. Robert took that as a response, and he turned around to prepare his stuff and go.

Suddenly, the bathroom door opened with such a force it ripped it out of it´s hinges. A blinding light was coming from the bathroom, together with enough steam to turn the small hotel room into a sauna. Robert and Jordan watched completely in shock as the new Marcus stepped out of the bathroom, his whole body enveloped in a golden halo. Both college students looked tiny in comparison to the enormous wall of muscle standing in front of them.

“Who—o a—are you? Whe—ere´s Ma—arkie?”

Managed to squeak Robert nervously while his eyes scanned every mountain and every valley that composed the behemoth´s body.

“It is Marcus now, my friends. Come and bathe in all my glory.”

Said Marcus while raising both of his arms and flexing his latissimus muscles, completely eclipsing the now small in comparison bathroom door. A potent smell started wafting through the air, impregnating the steam with masculine pheromones coming directly from the giant´s underarms. Both Robert and Jordan were put in a trance like state, and approached the shining man.

“Yes. Come to me. I will show you the true meaning of pleasure.”

Deep primal instincts were awoken in both boys. Lust, submission and adoration completely eclipsed the nervous feeling both had. As soon as their hands touched Marcus´s chest, an intense shock of pleasure shot through both of their bodies, travelling directly to their brains completely burning their old personas out of their heads. Both boys had their irises completely drained of color, leaving white mindless eyes behind. Marcus took each one of them by their waists and pulled them close. Their hands started exploring the giant´s body, leaving a trail of sparks jumping off the radiant skin.

He then leaned down to kiss Robert, while Jordan worked his way down licking the sweat off his chest and descending slowly through the cobblestone road on his midsection. His giant manhood was already hard as an iron bar, eager for attention. As soon as Jordan´s mouth made contact with the pulsing member, a strong stream of electricity started inundating his body. The small muscles spasmed and expanded to ridiculous proportions. The small belly he had grown out of eating too many pizza slices and drinking mountain dew evaporated into this air, leaving a hard six pack behind. His chest raised, forming two pillows sticking far out of his chest. His limbs contracted and expanded into heroic proportions, leaving the new man at least a hundred pounds heavier with pure lean mass. He stayed at the same 5´6 height, making the new man a fireplug of a bodybuilder.

He had already kneeled down and was worshipping the godly pole in front of him, savoring the nectar coming from the tip as if he was drinking ambrosia directly from the source. His face cracked and rearranged leaving brutish heavy features, but still holding onto some beauty. Age seeped into his skin and his muscles, seasoning them with the hardness of a more adult male. All his hair fell down, except his eyebrows, leaving the man completely smooth. His skin took on a stronger golden hue than Marcus, without the glow.

Meanwhile Marcus was inserting his large tongue into his former friend´s mouth, completely invading him. Robert´s jaw cracked and rearranged into a sharp square. His cheekbones raised and the fat melted off his face, leaving a shockingly handsome face behind. Unlike his friend, Robert stayed young, his visage devoid of any single imperfection. He slowly grew up a couple of inches, but still remaining far off the height of the god sodomizing his mouth. His body then expanded, muscles piling on top of each other, but also craving themselves deep into his body. His former chubby physique completely shed off any excess fat, leaving him at a single digit body fat percentage. His chest didn´t hang as far as Jordan´s, but it squared off in the bottom as if being carved out of a marble statue by a classical sculptor. His eight pack was accentuated by the sharp Adonis belt pointing downwards. His legs and arms grew muscular, each individual sinew visible thanks to the thin skin on top of them. He had a bit less mass than his kneeling friend, but was way more defined. His body hair also fell down entirely, leaving the new handsome hunk as smooth as his former best friend.

Both new men´s manhood stayed the same size though, which made them seem much smaller on their larger bodies. Marcus then looked at his two new servants. He was completely conscious he was their master and demanded their adoration, but also felt a deep bond to them. He was free to fornicate with whomever he wanted to, but these two were going to be forever bound to him, desperate for his love and addicted to his divine masculinity. As for the two men worshipping their new master, their sole purpose of existing was serving and pleasing this new god among men.

He then ordered the former Jordan to lay on the bed, and pushed the former Robert right next to him. Although it was his sexual debut, Marcus felt as if he had done this for all of eternity. He was ready to claim what was his and become the supreme being he was destined to be.

The students evacuated the hotel in panic, together with their professor and fellow guests. An unusually strong lightning bolt had stricken the small building, completely blowing up an entire corner. Three students were missing. Cries and sirens resonated through the night sky. The professor tried desperately to communicate with the local authorities, completely ignorant that the three students had disappeared forever.

 A car approached the ruins of the temple of Zeus. A giant figure then got out of the vehicle, accompanied by two large silhouettes that stayed behind. Marcus approached the center of the ruins. He was wearing a tight pair of black underpants, unable to find any other fitting clothes. Not that he needed to, his enormous body produced large amounts of heat, and still emitted a low shine highlighting him in the darkness. He had no need to hide. He was a gift to humanity, their savior. Anyone should feel blessed and humbled on his presence.

A lightning bolt fell directly in front of him, but the man stayed completely unfazed. Zeus appeared in front of him, still towering over the new Marcus, but seeming less than a giant next to the behemoth in front of him.

“You turned out very well. I was not mistaken in choosing you Marcus Laur.”

Said Zeus examining his perfect handiwork. He would say he was surprised by how well the job was made, but it was he who had done it, so it was only natural it was perfect. Marcus bowed in front of his creator and said with a respectful, but firm tone.

“Your words are my command my lord. What is it that I should do?”

Zeus´s stern face showed a glimpse of joy.

“I need you to be my envoy on this world, imprinting it with my will, which shall be your own. Humans are sheep, you shall be their shepherd. Come to the base of Mount Olympus. I shall put you through fearsome trials. Fear not though, with my power as your own you shall overcome them without problem.”

He then looked at the two muscular men standing right next to the car.

“I see you already got a taste of your powers. Good. You have two weeks to discover and reach your full potential. Do not fail.”

“Thank you, my lord. I shall not disappoint you.”

Marcus watched as lightning fell again, and Zeus disappeared. The golden eagle was already flying out of sight in the night sky. Zeus was very pleased with himself. He had many things in mind for his new toy. Not ever since meeting Ganymede had he felt an infatuation like this for a mortal, only this time he used his will to turn him into his ideal for true human beauty, and he imbued him with some of his divine power. His desire was going to burn the other competitors out of the way, thought the god of thunder. Marcus would become the Champion of Olympus.

[bodtabs]

reposting and pinning this

being a straight black trans guy is really weird. there’s so many intersections of experience, and not in the dumb “technically i can reclaim this axis of oppression” level of terminally logged in lgbt person i mean it in a “going about my life” way.

for starters, idt i ever “hated” being a woman, i don’t really relate to that trans narrative, i just realized it was an identity that became increasingly frustrating to align with and moved on to a label that finally fit me. being a black girl was cool, despite all the social toll that came with it, black girls have contributed so much to popular culture and even to our own communities, so there was no real reason for me to dislike it other than “it just doesn’t feel like me anymore” and i like it that way. i have a very comfortable relationship with both black girlhood and black manhood, if anyone asks i’d probably fall under that “i remember being convinced i was a little boy. not knowing why my parents didn’t see it too and insisted on treating me like a little girl.” narrative that seems to be the narrative a lot of "trans stories that won’t make cis people uncomfortably avert their gaze” media. i had (and still do have) genuine interests in a lot of traditionally masculine aesthetics, music, career paths, and hobbies, but i don’t recall ever feeling disgusted, embarrassed, or insecure parts of my life where i was identifying as / being coerced into woman aligned individuality, and the strained relationship i had with my mother because of these things, like a lot of trans guys (understandably) seem to be with theirs. this proves for disconnect occasionally, between who i want to be and who i actually am, but the more time goes by the less i give a shit about who thinks what. i don’t take shit from anyone as a guy because i didn’t do it as a chick, which leads for a lot of leeway in being comfortable with who i was and who i currently am.

i still have a lot of pleasant associations with being a gay woman, i probably wouldn’t be where i am today without a lot of the gnc lesbians and trans bi women, i still feel a sense of community with that identity (never to the point of being invasive, i hope.) i’m never not going to get sentimental about a woman being happy with another woman, comfortable in their own skin; that’s just how my brain is default-wired at this point. i’m not offended by women (cishet or otherwise) not wanting me in their spaces (it’s honestly more validating than being seen as a defanged token feminist boy who will bring no harm or whatever, i much prefer people hearing about me or holding a conversation with me and deciding what direction they want to take with me based on those things, like you would any other human being) but it’s still cool to know that i can have these feelings– still be deeply involved and still have feelings for this culture i’ve ingrained in myself from a young age– and not feel like an intruder or outsider, despite being a straight dude, i’m always going to have a pretty firm grasp of gay culture and won’t get freaked out by people putting the sex back in homosexual like a lot of cishets and even a lot of gnc tenderkweers tend to get every 3 months. it’s honestly been the side of gay culture that i’ve always preferred lol.

i call a lot of bullshit on this “toxic masculinity intricate rituals” stuff that’s come into public conscious in the last couple of years or so as well, not only was it mostly popularized by MRAs (around the same time as public concious on ellior rodger and incel/chad terminology as well…shoulda been a red flag from the beginning imo) not just because it frames men as the ones who suffer the most due to their own actions rather than the women and children they torture on a daily basis, but it’s also been used to racially pathologize the boundaries and mannerisms i have that my (racist) white partners have been uncomfortable with in the past. your weird entitled impulse to police my body and the way i present myself in a way i genuinely enjoy and am comfortable is not remotely subtle, and the mental gymnastics behind your desires to impress your frat buddies does not excuse you brutalizing women on a daily basis and shaming children to the point they have serious issues coping with a lot of hardships that face them later in life.

the most visible majority of the trans masc community is white dudes and they all fucking suck. they’re terrible to women, trans nonbinary and cis, are either extremely liberal in their political stances or simply never talk about anything relating to it at all (and they all have garbage taste in fashion and music, i know that’s kinda petty but i think i’m allowed to be rude to people who try to make wanting to transition into a humanstuck karkat gijinka a universal experience and hozier and constantly self infantalize and weaponize their own softness while expecting everyone else on the planet to wait on them hand and foot.) i’ve met maybe 3 good white trans guys in my life and one of them i’ve been friends with since high school, it really put me off transitioning all together because i was raised mostly by women and a lot of my idols have been women since i was a kid (and even if this weren’t the case, colonialist concepts of respect / equality / gender in general are very different from nonwhite cultures, so even if i wasn’t constantly in immediate proximity of women or didn’t have any “significant” woman figures in my life it would stil feel very weird and removed.)

none of this, of course, is to imply that black men aren’t horrendously misogynistic (especially towards black women. lbr, mostly towards black women, lol. this is another one of those weird intersections, knowing that misogyny is not exclusively a product of white supremacy but that colonialism has definitely catalyzed it.) or that black men won’t use their race to get out of being rightfully accused of misogyny similar to the ways a lot of white gay people use their sexualities as a get out of jail free card, but i really don’t understand white trans guys like this. i think they realize they’re oppressed and cling to it as a personality trait, and when anyone calls them on it they get really offended cus they have nothing else to fall back on, hence all the gatekeeping and regurgitated TERF rhetoric (which any and all TME people have been guilty of, at some point, and a lot of whom unfortunately are still doing as i write up this post) and truscum antics. this nonsense got so bad that it put me off transitioning for like 5 years.

i’m here now, though, and i’m content with it, so i try not to hold too many grudges about it even if it is a bit frustrating and put me behind a lot of my peers. i’m mosly just focusing on how many doors open to you when you’re finally comfortable in your own skin lol.

[nothorses]

I’m not really sure who to ask about this but I’m conflicted about personally associating feminism with intense hostility towards men & masculine identities, and I thought maybe you could help with answering this (if not that’s understandable)

Is there a way to hold emotions of fear towards women and feminine-aligned people and to express a boundary of not wanting to be around folks who talk about ‘women’s rights’ without seeming like a jerk? Like if there’s not, that’s fine I guess (I know managing this isn’t the responsibility of others), just that filtering systems are flawed and randomly encountering posts/media that try to frame feminism as a supportive thing tire me out

(for context ig: I’m neither cis nor trans, I fluctuate between calling myself butch and vaguely masculine)

Tbh I think it might be helpful to try to learn about and engage with feminism/feminists that are actively inclusive of men and men's rights.

Intersectional feminism, especially the original definition of the term as it relates to black women and women of color, is probably a really good starting point; gender essentialism is tied up very strongly in white supremacy, and you may find those spaces more welcoming than the louder liberal, radical/cultural, and mainstream feminist spaces dominated by white cis women.

I say this because it seems like you know feminism isn't 100% overrun by these kinds of ideas, but your lack of experience with the more positive aspects makes it hard to understand that on a more fundamental level. (Which isn't your fault necessarily, but it's worth knowing- if that is true for you)

And like, you don't need to be totally on board with all feminism at all times- I definitely have been disillusioned with feminism for a long time for the same reason, and it's only recently that I've been able to engage a little more- but I think the mindset that any conversation about women's rights & anyone who thinks feminism is supportive is a bad thing or an inaccurate thing, is uh... definitely not accurate, not helpful, and very close to falling into some very dangerous misogynistic beliefs- if not already there.

Patriarchy is still a real thing, and misogyny is still a real problem. Feminism does and has done a lot to counter those problems. In order for it to be effective, feminism needs to also take into account queer and trans issues, racism, and the issues men face as a result of the exact same systems (among other forms of bigotry- fatphobia, ableism, classism, antisemitism, islamophobia, etc.). If it leaves a majority of the people who are impacted by these systems out of it's activism if it can't advocate for and include all of these people. That can range from ineffective, to actively harmful.

And yeah, most of the feminists people are listening to right now either don't include these people, or actively attack them. And that sucks. But the core ideas & goals of the movement, and especially of some of the branches of the movement, are still a necessary part of gender equality activism- we need to be able to acknowledge that at minimum, and ideally, we need to work toward repairing some of the damage done & moving forward in a better direction.

[jageunyeoujari]

hello yaejin. i wanted to apologize for last night. i'm sorry i brought your mental health into an argument, and i'm sorry i invalidated your feelings. that was out of line, and i honestly fucked up. i saw a pattern ive seen before and i jumped to conclusions and it was inappropriate and cruel, especially while we were having an argument. i was dealing with a mental health crisis of a friend and i let it influence me and i wasn't good enough to walk away and say i couldn't talk rationally.

 (sorry, limit). my own situation doesn’t make it okay what i said, and i don’t want to imply it, i just wanted to let you know the context. i’m sorry again.

apologizing for what exactly. sorry for what exactly. you “brought up my mental health” as if it was just a little no-big-deal comment when you used my vulnerability in talking abt my recent mental health struggles as proof that i’m going insane & thus everything i say is illogical when i was talking abt racism in white ace/aro discourse. the ableism was literally a vehicle for you to derail a conversation about race so by copping to just the one, you’re not actually acknowledging the underlying issue framing it. this is such a vapid, spineless, fake apology that doesn’t acknowledge the underlying intent or impact of what that ableism did which was to derail my points abt RACISM & my experience as a lesbian woc who’s also ace. you’re just copping to the obvious thing that even some of the ppl in your clique might feel vaguely bad abt & ignoring everything else.

& you say you just “invalidated my feelings?” LET’S GO IN-DEPTH. first, you were openly hostile for even daring to question you. you brought up corrective rape as a gotcha bc you knew that was an explosive thing to drop & you could derail any objections i have to your ranting as invalidating survivors. & when i asked for proof for your claims of ace/aro oppression & them facing corrective rape, you said you didn’t want to look at triggering material when YOU were the one who dropped corrective rape in the first place w absolute no warning & w no thought if it would trigger ME (which it fucking did btw, thx.) it was curious to me that you used corrective rape as a gotcha for ace/aro oppression when it was created to describe the violence that black lesbians face in south africa. esp in light of how you seem to have this pattern of insinuating how lesbians are somehow so accepted by the lgbt community when we’re so uniquely bigoted & we never try to keep out terfs but don’t seem to take into account how ace/aros can can also be transphobic/terfs as well as homophobic & lesbophobic. that’s not a matter of a few “shitty” ppl. lgb ppl are also allowed to be wary of any non-same sex attracted person being homophobic as they necessarily benefit for not being same sex-attracted esp when have been oppressed for displaying any kind of sexual desire & deemed better if we are asexual. & it seems like you have a pattern of only calling out lesbians instead of like also gay/bi men which i find curious. maybe you do tho & i just haven’t seen. but lesbophobia in the lgbt community esp against lesbians of color is real so it’s just odd that for you to keep saying that we have a completely comfortable position in it. also you positing lesbianism & ace/aro identity as exclusive categories does play into the stereotype that lesbians are hypersexual which is esp damaging to lesbians of color. 

anyway, when i researched on my own & found no convincing evidence to support your claims, you threw a tantrum bc NO MY PERSONAL EXPERIENCES & FEELINGS OF BEING OPPRESSED = ULTIMATE TRUTH OF ACE/ARO OPPRESSION. your experiences are valid & all. you’re allowed to feel upset by them. but i fail to see being ace/aro constitutes institutional oppression.  in my search, i mainly saw claims of individual microaggressions and acts of verbal violence as evidence of oppression when those things by themselves don’t prove that there’s an explictly anti-ace/aro system of oppression. i can experience microaggressions for being asian & also not being into sex but those are entirely on different levels for me. i know instinctively that racism is an institutional oppression. i’m literally ace & microaggressions for that mean nothing to me in comparison. you feel differently abt it & you’re allowed but again, personal experience of microaggressions doesn’t prove institutional oppression. i also saw vague citings of a study of ppl apparently being more likely to say they’d discriminate against asexuals than lgbt ppl. the study seemed too flawed to me & doesn’t seem to take into account how ppl might know it’s bad to admit they’d discriminate against lgbt ppl but that doesn’t prove they’re not actually homophobic/transphobic. like liberal white ppl likely won’t admit that they’re racist bc they know that looks bad. doesn’t mean they’re not racist. as for corrective rape, i don’t remember finding anything that wasn’t abt violence against black lesbians & certainly not any that cites specifically anti-ace/aro motivations. i’m not saying it can never happen. but in comparison, it can be proven that cr is part of an explicit system of homophobia & misogyny against black lesbians in south africa but i didn’t see any for ace/aros. & i mean, i researched this while reading abt cr which is deeply upsetting to me as a lesbian so it’s not like this was easy for me. but i don’t rly think you have a leg to stand on in this instance bc you never provided any proof & didn’t say what your exacting reasoning on this is. it didn’t even have to be abt cr & i’m not saying you should disclose traumatic experiences, but just… say something to help me understand where you’re coming from. otherwise you look like you’re just expecting a woc to blindly accept & follow you.

& i have to bring up white ace/aro discourse elides how misogyny & patriarchy & racism & other -isms impact pressures to be sexual or asexual.  poc esp black ppl are stereotyped as either hypersexual or asexual. being seen as hypersexual is dehumanizing & can be traumatic & lead to real life serious consequences. i’m literally asexual but i empathize w non-asexual poc esp woc & the struggles they face & thus have no interest in white ace/aro rhetoric that posits being sexual as a universally normal, ideal, uncomplicated privilege & asexuals are oppressed by them. also being seen as asexual/actually being asexual can be so damaging & traumatic to poc which is why so many of us are alienated by white ace/aros who posit it as a universally positive thing to be proud of. white ace/aros also imply that they can somehow face oppression by like non-sexual poc which is concerning in light of the history of racist/colonialist ideas of backwards, hypersexual black & brown menaces & seductresses versus the purity & chastity of whiteness. controlling the sexuality of poc is a key part of white supremacy so there isn’t an obvious oppressor/oppressed dynamic here like men/women, white/poc. & considering how reproductive justice is constantly under fire & how there’s societal pressure for women to be effectively asexual until (hetero) marriage, it’s hard for me to think how non-asexual women not in hetero relationships actually… benefit from being non-asexual. there’s also different expectations abt being sexual for men, esp white men, than women & white ace/aro discourse tends to ignore that. sure, men are generally encouraged to be sexual & the shaming of asexual men likely sucks. but shaming doesn’t necessarily mean ace/aro oppression & seems more like to me a symptom of patriarchy/gender roles & heteronormativity.  so in my estimation, misogyny & patriarchy & racism as well as other systems of oppression like ableism, homophobia, transphobia, & classism better explain these differing expectations for being sexual or asexual rather than ace/aro vs non-ace/aros being an entirely separate dynamic. i literally couldn’t find any evidence for your claims & you got so upset at me for that but never tried giving me one piece of proof. yes, i know that oppressors demanding the oppressed to prove their oppression to them is a legitimate thing & the oppressed don’t need to feel obligated to educate them. i’ve experienced this frustration many times myself. but your behavior in this instance strikes me as white entitlement & again, a sign of you being frustrated that a woc isn’t blindly accepting you’re automatically right.

& when i started getting rly into the racism in white ace/aro discourse, you rly lost your shit. you dropped your abuse history & claimed i was invalidating you being abused for being ace when i literally never did. you straight up lied abt that. & also i know you know that i have experienced abuse & if you like bothered to think, you would take into account that i could be triggered by you dropping that out of nowhere, but instead you dropped it in an attempt to derail & get me to shut up. now this is when you suddenly rave abt how it’s obvious i’m on a bad mental health spiral & i’m believing in conspiracy theories & i’m paranoid, all a transparent attempt to make everything i said abt racism apparently wrong. w/o giving me a chance to reply, you promptly blocked like a coward. oh, also truly hilarious how you’re such a hypocrite for bringing up your friend’s mental health crisis as an excuse for your racialized misogyny when you literally used my mental illnesses to derail & attack me & dropped 2 instances of potentially triggering shit as gotchas & never took into account how this all could impact MY mental health. 

rose also sent me a long ass screed abt how i’m rigid & narrow-minded & crazy & paranoid & lied abt how i’m guilting her abt not being an activist which i explained multiple times i wasn’t. she blocked before i could respond. so not just you but your clique sure seem to love throwing tantrums abt how your feelings equal the ultimate truth & how dare some bitch try to think critically abt institutional oppression & process her thoughts on her private twitter & be, god forbid, socially conscious. who does that chink think she is, am i right? why isn’t she just a doormat & shut up? why is she making us UNCOMFORTABLE?!?!?!! like maybe ask yourselves why you take it so personally & you all don’t like it when i talk abt sj & activism. rly look inside yourself for why that is. 

& as soon as you’re all done with your ravings, which are full of lies & deliberate misinterpretations of what i said & massive projection & anti-intellectualism & manipulation & guilt-tripping, you all block so you don’t have to face the consequences or have to hear me out. that’s so fucking spineless & cowardly. & that’s so loaded since you all prevented me from saying anymore on racism. that’s just classic white fragility & a fear of outspoken, critical woc making you uncomfortable abt race. oh, also shout out to runa who acted “impartial” but did effectively the same thing as you. she acted concerned abt my mental health so she could convince me i’m crazy & get me to shut up abt institutional oppression & racism & instead focus on “fun things” (i.e. non-political, safe topics so she could feel comfortable). i feel esp disappointed in her bc that kind of wishy washy behavior is extremely irritating & patronizing & two-faced to me. i hated her acting like she was worried abt me when she was effectively doing the same thing as you, silencing me & making me feel crazy which means everything i say is wrong. 

really try to reflect why you all thought it was threatening when i tried to facilitate a productive dialogue, i did try to be level-headed & open-minded, emphasized that i just want to understand your pov, researched on my own for your claims, & processed my thoughts on institutional oppression & my experiences as a lesbian woc who’s also ace. i tried to open up a dialogue but you refused & threw a hissy fit bc i dared to not join your echo chamber & tried looking at actual data instead of just believing that you’re automatically right w no proof which is esp loaded in this situation bc you’re white. sjc also pulled this on me too so yes i am angry you also did the same. you all treated me in such bad fucking faith & pulled such fucking passive aggressive, manipulative, cowardly, idiotic bullshit.

god, you know what? your behavior in this indicated a huge sense of white entitlement & a problem w black & white thinking & accompanying self-righteousness. i try so hard to be nuanced & compassionate & flexible & see from your pov & i clearly stated i wanted a dialogue.. what did i get in return for it? not even the bare minimum. you treated me like fucking shit & never gave me even a tiny bit of effort or consideration. that’s racialized misogyny. how fucking dare you give me this fucking insipid half-assed fake apology. you didn’t even fucking try to think abt how you actually hurt me. all i’m getting here is you attempting to assuage a vague sense of guilt FOR YOUR OWN SAKE. not even attempting to think abt how i’m an actual real human being w my own emotions, thoughts, & will. how fucking selfish can you get. not the first fucking time white ppl wanted me just be a doormat, to be their submissive smiling oriental doll only there to validate their stupid, self-centered asses & not the first time their apology was abysmal. actually, you know what, i don’t even know why i even bothered writing all this fucking shit trying to explain myself & wasting my time on you again when you’ve never tried to do anything for me, not even make a fucking decent apology.

in conclusion, this was all v obviously steeped in racism & white entitlement/fragility all in an attempt to silence me bc how fucking dare some woc bring up social justice issues in a way that’s not catered to you. you’ve all shown your asses & clearly demonstrated ableism & racialized misogyny. i’m profoundly disappointed in all of you & you’ve all hurt me so much. i’m blocking you now bc you’ve proven yourself to be a lost cause. 

[bravestage-blog]

The Dangers of Binary Identity Structures in the LGBTQ+ Community

Note: At the end of the post, I have included a glossary of terms which explain some of the identities that I reference.

The LGBTQ+ community is a complex group of individuals with a variety of different identities, experiences, and opinions. While mainstream media and individuals outside of the community often like to talk about queer experience as a monolithic entity, this practice fails to acknowledge both the diversity and hierarchical systems which exist specifically within this community. Intersectionality is a crucial thing to consider when examining the experiences of people, whether they are members of the LGBTQ+ community or not. The overlap of race, class, ability status, sexuality, and more all tie in to how we, as human beings, experience life. While our societal issues of racism, sexism, transphobia, xenophobia, and more are commonly associated with conservative values, they are by no means absent from the LGBTQ+ community. While these are complex, multi-faceted issues, they are crucial to understand because they develop structures of power and oppression within our world. Different societies have different norms and acceptable behaviors put forth by groups in power. Today, I would like to discuss a norm which permeates the general perspective of identity: the binary.

The insistence on binary systems, both generally in our country and more specifically within the queer community, is both problematic and diminishing to individuals with more fluid identities. This post will delve into binary structures and attitudes within the LGBTQ+ community which impact the experience of bisexual, pansexual, and queer sexualities, as well as trans//non-binary gender identities. My argument ultimately discourages binary-only thinking. It examines the dangers of binary norms which further marginalize and alienate people who exist along a spectrum, rather than at the ends of it. Such issues remain prevalent even within a community that is supposed to protect and validate queer identity. I believe that commitment to binary systems and rejection of fluid identity ultimately hinders our ability to grow, open our minds, and understand one another. It is counterproductive and illogical to put people into boxes, especially within the already marginalized LGBTQ+ community.

When I speak of the hierarchies which exist within the queer community, I refer primarily to the influence possessed by white, cisgender* gays and lesbians. There are plenty of queer individuals who exist within a binary themselves, and that is their truth. But that reality does not apply to other LGBTQ+ individuals, and should not be forced upon them. The experiences of bisexuals within the queer community is perhaps the most frequently discussed example. Their experience can best be summarized from Youtube channel “Bisexual Real Talk.” Alex Anders makes the important point that “Every time we tell young people who are bisexual to go and search the LGBT community, we are creating certain expectations in their mind. And what do you think does more damage: when a person who knows they are going to be discriminated in a certain group and then gets discriminated in that group, or when a person is told that they will be able to find solace in a group and they lower their guard and then they’re discriminated against?” This statement perfectly frames an ongoing issue within the queer community.

A variety of studies have been conducted surrounding biphobia in LGBTQ+ spaces. As a bit of explanation: “biphobia seeks to undermine the legitimacy of bisexual identities and comes in many forms: jokes, stereotypes, non-inclusive language and even abuse. The fear of being dismissed as “too gay” or “too straight” often makes it hard to be open” (HRC). In a study conducted by Corey E. Flanders at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health in Toronto, “Many of the participants reported not only encountering professionals who were clueless about bisexuality, but also feeling unwanted at Pride events just for being bisexual. The results indicated “young bisexual women perceive monosexism and biphobia as significant challenges to their mental health at the institutional, community, interpersonal and intrapersonal level” (Flanders). Additionally, a study by Tangela S. Roberts and Sharon G. Horne of the University of Massachusetts, and William T. Hoyt of the University of Wisconsin surveyed 745 bisexuals of various ages, genders, and ethnicities to share their stories of experiencing biphobia. The study found that “although the bisexuals surveyed experienced more biphobia from straight people, they also experienced an alarming amount of biphobia from lesbians and gays” (Roberts). A common argument that people, queer and otherwise, like to make about bisexual individuals is that they are confused. There is an idea surrounding bisexuality that women just experimenting or men are gay but afraid to fully commit. While this mentality is shifting, it is still undeniably present among queer and straight people alike. Hurtful terminology within the LGBTQ+ community has even developed surrounding the bisexual identity. Pride.com created a list of terms/phrases used by gays and lesbians against bisexuals. Examples include “Hasbian,” and “bi now, gay later.” Terms like this suggest that bisexuality is a transitional phase which people use to ease themselves into the queer community before assuming a “real” identity, which falls within the binary of either gay or straight. So, why does this matter so much? According to the Bisexual Resource Center, approximately 40 percent of bisexual people have considered or attempted suicide, compared to just over a quarter of gay men and lesbians. Additionally, according to The Williams Institute, “bisexual-identified people make up approximately half of the total population of the LGBTQ community — but only 28 percent of bisexual people report being out to those closest to them.” This represents a clear, pressing issue on the dangers of binary identity structures and biphobia.Biphobia is closely related to “monosexism,” which is “a belief that monosexuality (either exclusive heterosexuality and/or homosexuality) is superior to or more legitimate than a bisexual or other non-monosexual orientation” (Everyday Feminism). Monosexism also invalidates pansexual* and other queer sexualities that are not as binary as gay or straight. While binary sexuality research has primarily focused on bisexuals, there is also the experience of transgender* and non-binary* individuals to consider.

Discussions of transgender identity have been a more prominent topic of conversation in the United States over the last couple of years. The ongoing debate argues whether or not there are more than two genders. Many people, within and outside of the LGBTQ+ community, believe that the body that we are born into dictates our gender and how we are supposed to act/present ourselves. This is again representative of binary identity modeling. Transgender and non-binary identities exist contrary to this mindset. Transphobia is a huge problem in the LGBTQ+ community, despite the T representing transgender people. Pride, a well-known celebration for the queer community, is meant to commemorate the transgender-led Stonewall Riots back in the 1960s. However, transgender people are often forgotten in these celebrations today. Trans and non-binary individuals do not receive nearly as much support or recognition within the LGBTQ+ community. As a result, such individuals are struggling at alarming rates. According to the New York Times, a recent survey of more than six thousand self-identified transgender people showed that 41 percent have attempted suicide, a staggering twenty-six times the rate of the general population. There is conversation within the queer community that trans and non-binary people are “hurting the movement.” These people fail to acknowledge the work done by courageous trans women like Sylvia Rivera and Marsha P. Johnson, work that has greatly benefited the LGBTQ+ community as a whole.

The common understanding of gender as a binary system is not one that includes all people. It is also one that leads to deeply rooted problems for queer and straight individuals alike. Strict adherence to a gender binary and, subsequently, gender roles, can perpetuate issues of misogyny, hypermasculinity, domestic violence, homophobia, transphobia, and more.Identifying within the binary is not the problem. The problem is believing solely in the binary. It is the belief that things must only be one way or the other which complicates and oppresses individuals in many ways. Existing in the binary model may work for many of us, but forcing it onto other people is neither fair nor beneficial. Humans are not meant to be diminished into narrow categories with little room for expansion or exploration. We should not be limited by binaries, especially surrounding gender or sexuality.

If the LGBTQ+ community really wants to advocate for acceptance, equality, and human rights, then it needs to extend it’s fight to all of the individuals who exist within the community. This means acknowledging non-binary sexualities and gender identities, acknowledging race, and, ultimately, acknowledging the intersectional nature of human existence. Empathy and openmindedness are crucial to the fight which the queer community continues to advocate for. Feeling a sense of community with those who are similar to you is crucial for support, happiness, and general wellbeing. For this reason, my “Spread the Word” project will delve further into the queer community and how a hierarchy exists even within this marginalized group. Ultimately, I hope that people who get to view parts of this project can identify with or learn something new from the experiences I highlight and examine. To fellow LGBTQ+ individuals: if we cannot look out for each other, how can we expect people outside our community to look out for us? We must fix the problems within our own spaces and find unity if we truly hope for change in our world. Erasing the binary-only mentality is a great way to begin such reforms.

Vocabulary:

Cisgender: identifying with the anatomical sex that you were assigned at birth (a physical male identifying as a man, a physical female identifying as a woman)

Transgender: identifying with a gender that does not align with your anatomical sex at birth (someone who is assigned male at birth who identifies as a woman, someone who is assigned female at birth who identifies as a man)

Genderqueer or non-binary: people who do not subscribe to conventional gender distinctions but identify with neither, both, or a combination of masculinity and femininity

Bisexual: sexual attraction towards two or more genders (attracted most commonly to cisgender men and cisgender women)

Pansexual: sexual attraction towards people regardless of their sex or gender identity

Queer: a reclaimed term used by LGBTQ+ individuals to describe themselves (in terms of sexuality and/or gender identity)

[exploringsocialinformatics]

Blog #6: The Internet Could Empower Women If People Would Just Be Cool For Once

I wrote this based on the article Young Women’s Blogs as Ethical Spaces by Mia Lovheim, which I chose because I was interested by how constructive the Internet was framed and because, as a woman who has strong opinions on the internet, I know that isn’t necessarily always the case.

I have been a woman on the Internet for roughly seventeen years and it has opened up so many opportunities for me to express myself, to meet and engage with people I could’ve never connected to in real life and to collaborate with similarly-minded writers and artists. I’ve made lifelong friends online, fallen in love online (I wouldn’t recommend this but it’s fun while it lasts!) and developed so many aspects of my identity.

The only reason that I have been able to do these things is because I have done them in woman-dominated spaces and queer-dominated spaces.

Because while I’ve shared my opinions on Tumblr as a curated, personal space, I’ve shared the same opinions on Twitter and had someone threaten to rape me.

The internet is amazing! It’s also a toxic cesspool that limits my ability to express myself and open up my ideas to a wider audience! Both things are simultaneously true even though it’s sometimes difficult to rectify them.

There’s an encouraging amount of literature surrounding gender-based harassment online. Many of them give strong examples of the kind of harassment that women and female-presenting people face when they do things like say words and have emotions where people can see them online. Most women won’t need to dig into that literature because they see this in their daily lives; men experience online harassment at dissimilar rates and of a dissimilar nature (harassment aimed toward men is typically homophobic or belittling their masculinity; gendered but not nearly as violent [Jane 533]), but if they’d like to see examples of the vitriol that women face, all they need to do is read replies to tweets by women who talk about politics or sports or video games or television or music or movies or. . .you get the picture.

The point of this is not that the internet is irredeemable—although I am going to share enough of that literature that it may appear that we absolutely should burn it down and start over—but that it needs to be redeemed. We’ll get there, though.

Amnesty International has done a lot of work studying the issue of online harassment of women. In response to the #WomenBoycottTwitter day, they commissioned a poll that included women between the ages of 18 and 55 in Denmark, Italy, New Zealand, Poland, Spain, Sweden, the UK and USA. They found that 33% of women in the United States had experienced online harassment or abuse—and it’s important to remember the context that these are not all necessarily people who are actively using social media, especially considering the age range (”Amnesty Reveals Alarming [. . .]”).

TIME reports that the United Nations did a study that said that 73% of women have experienced online harassment—I would lean toward accepting theirs as it seems Amnesty’s sample size was limited (Alter 2015).

I’m going to toss out a list of statistics that came from the Amnesty poll that are genuinely upsetting to consider:

41% of women who had experienced harassment were made to feel physically unsafe

26% were doxxed by their harassers

46% said the harassment was rooted in misogyny specifically

25% were threatened with physical or sexual violence  (Amnesty International 2017)

Remembering again that this was a poll targeting women and not just women who are regular social media users, these numbers are staggering. And these aren’t just individual occurrences or one-off attacks. The nature of Twitter in particular means that messages spread rapidly—and so do attacks. According to studies of Twitter’s abuse reports, at least 29% of the reports filed by women were addressing ongoing attacks (Women, Action & Media) and according to an additional poll from Amnesty: the more visible and vocal a woman in, the more frequent harassment she’ll endure. A study of 778 female politicians and journalists (disproportionately women of color) found that they received abusive tweets every 30 seconds—1.1 million a year between them.

I couldn’t possibly get into #GamerGate here and give it the attention it deserves but, if you managed to avoid that nightmare in 2014, it’s something to look up that will really cement this problem for you.

And it is a problem—but it’s not just a problem because women feel threatened, because allowing a culture of harassment and degradation like this is inherently wrong, because this is something that impacts our lives on a semi-regular basis even if we’re not public figures. It’s also a problem because women are being silenced.

Even back in the early 90s before the insane access that we all have to each other online, women were “found to introduce fewer topics of discussion and receive fewer public responses than men” (Megarry 29). It’s no different than women speaking less in a classroom or meeting (Tannen 2017)—just a different venue. That form of silence seems more rooted in social norms, though, and in the early 2000s, according to Rodriguez-Darias and Aguilera-Avila, “the expansion of the online world was hailed as a catalyst for the development of democracy, equality and women’s empowerment by enabling access to information and social support” (63).

All of that is still true in 2020 and has made an incalculable difference to women all across the world. It’s just that now they’re statistically far more likely to receive hundreds of threats of violence and rape and have their address shared all across social media platforms because they said something about a video game.

Those threats and that atmosphere that makes women feel unsafe and like they can’t truly express themselves creates a framework that holds women back. When I said that I formed my identity on the Internet, it’s some of the most tender important parts of me—if I had been faced with this kind of harassment when I was younger, it would have been detrimental and I would have lost one of the few safe spaces I felt I had. People use the internet to convey their identities in so many ways that can be taken away from women: hashtags “convey attitudes and social identity” (Fox, Cruz, Lee) but also makes it easier for harassers to target you, “gendered avatars and usernames” (Assuncao) allow for gender expression that. . .makes it easier for harassers to target you, and all of these things tie into self-esteem that women could be building if they had access to positive, empowering communities. And it is unquestionably impacting their self-esteem: according to Amnesty International’s report, 61% of women experienced lower self-esteem and Emma A. Jane compiled information about how women described their experiences with online harassment, with words like “distress, pain, shock, fear, terror, devastation and violation” (536).

Because of that distress, that fear, that terror—women self-censor themselves. According to the same Amnesty report, 76% changed the way they used Twitter after facing attacks and 32% stopped talking about certain topics altogether. By being forced to endure the same gendered violence and discrimination that we face in the real world in a virtual setting, it’s like there’s no escape.

There’s one issue that can be brought up to complicate this: freedom of speech. This argument doesn’t really stand up to scrutiny on a base level. Social media networks aren’t actually entirely beholden to the First Amendment—which prevents the government from silencing you, although its reach has differed—and Twitter has a conduct policy that prohibits threats, slurs, degrading people, wishing ill on people, etc (Hateful Conduct Policy). The Internet often exists as a lawless, Wild West-type place, though (your Reddits when poorly monitored, your 4Chans, for example), and there will always be people on it that will believe that the freedom to speak their minds supersedes everything else. Freedom of speech is important and these are useful conversations to have to make sure that the platforms that we’re using are operating equitably.

A platform that allows women to be shamed or threatened into silence is not operating equitably, though. We should have the freedom to speak openly without worrying about our safety. Twitter is already addressing this issue but it hasn’t been enough—according to the survey of their abuse reports, only 55% of reports led to suspended accounts, 67% of women who reported said they’d done so at least twice and, mostly notably—Twitter’s staff at the time of their study (2014) was 79% men (Women, Action & Media).

Let’s loop back around to my ultimate point here: redeeming the Internet. Focusing on Twitter, there are plenty of plans of actions they could take to do better, including hiring more women and actively listening to their feedback, training their employees more thoroughly to recognize and address forms of harassment, and being more open about condemning both misogyny and other systemic issues like the spread of White Supremacy. These are all relatively small steps that could start to change the wider culture and start the inevitably unbearably slow process of detoxifying the Internet so it’s accessible for everyone.

Resources

Alter, C. (2015, September 24). UN: Cyber Violence is Equivalent to Physical Violence. Retrieved from https://time.com/4049106/un-cyber-violence-physical-violence/

Amnesty and Element AI release largest ever study into abuse against women on Twitter. (2018, December 18). Retrieved from https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2018/12/crowdsourced-twitter-study-reveals-shocking-scale-of-online-abuse-against-women/ 

Amnesty reveals alarming impact of online abuse against women. (2017, November 20). Retrieved from https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2017/11/amnesty-reveals-alarming-impact-of-online-abuse-against-women/

Assuncao, Carina. (2016). “No girls on the internet”: The experience of female gamers in the masculine space of violent gaming.” Press Start, 3(1).

Fox, J., Cruz, C., & Lee, J. Y. (2015). Perpetuating online sexism offline: Anonymity, interactivity, and the effects of sexist hashtags on social media. Computers in Human Behavior, 52, 436–442.

Jane, E. A. (2012). “Your a Ugly, Whorish, Slut.” Feminist Media Studies, 14(4), 531–546.

Megarry, J. (2014). Online incivility or sexual harassment? Conceptualizing women’s experiences in the digital age. Women’s Studies International Forum, 47, 46–55. 

Rodríguez-Darias, A. J., & Aguilera-Ávila, L. (2018). Gender-based harassment in cyberspace. The case of Pikara magazine. Womens Studies International Forum, 66, 63–69.

Tannen, D. (2017, June 28). Do Women Really Talk More Than Men? Retrieved from https://time.com/4837536/do-women-really-talk-more/

Twitter. (2020). Hateful conduct policy. Retrieved from https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/hateful-conduct-policy

Women, Action & Media. (2015, May 15). Reporting, Reviewing, and Responding to Harassment on Twitter.

[stopkingobama]

‘Feminist Economics’: Coming to a College Campus Near You

If you haven’t yet heard of “feminist economics,” get ready, because liberal economists, policy organizations, and activist groups are pushing the concept as the next battleground for women’s rights.

Because condemning catcalling and “toxic masculinity” in cultural terms isn’t enough, they’re now targeting government policies and institutions they contend are oppressive and discriminatory toward women.

In order to level the playing field, feminist economists are calling for a massive expansion in government benefits, from universal child care to universal health care plans that cover abortion, birth control, sterilization, fertility, and surrogacy.

What Is ‘Feminist Economics’?

In order to understand “feminist economics,” you must first understand what those on the left side of the aisle call the “economics of misogyny.”

The economics of misogyny describes “how these anti-woman beliefs are deeply ingrained in economic theory and policy in such a way that devalues women’s contributions and limits women’s capabilities and opportunities,” explained Kate Bahn in an article for the liberal Center for American Progress. “[D]espite the central role of women in the economy throughout history, our economic policy and government institutions often treat women’s diverse needs and capabilities as an afterthought to ‘real issues’ in the ‘real economy.’”

The topic was discussed at length last month at a Center for American Progress event, “The Economics of Misogyny.” Scholars and economists gathered from a handful of top colleges and universities from around the nation for panel discussions on “The Intersection of the Family and the Labor Market” and “The Economics of Bodily Autonomy.”

One of the goals behind feminist economics is to put a monetary dollar to the cost of the work women traditionally do for free, such as child, elderly, or sickness care. By ignoring the monetary value of this work, they suggest, women themselves are being undervalued and held back.

How It’s Happening and What to Do About It

Discrimination against women in the labor market has a long history, explained Nina Banks, an associate professor of economics at Bucknell University in Lewisburg, Pennsylvania. And central to it is the concept of intersectionality—the idea that categories such as race, class, immigration status, and gender are all connected. An African-American woman, for example, is more disadvantaged than a white woman.

Intersectionality explains the “grand narrative about work that is framed around the labor market experiences of white women, primarily white, married women,” she said. “It’s a white-centered bias when we look at these experiences. That’s a problem.”

Building on this idea, Michelle Holder, an assistant professor of economics at John Jay College of the City University of New York, suggested that government policies that encourage marriage should be abolished, because the black community has significantly lower marriage rates than white Americans. (According to a study on marriage patterns performed by the National Institutes of Health, black women, compared with white and Hispanic women, “marry later in life, are less likely to marry at all, and have higher rates of marital instability.”)

“Most African-American women aren’t a part of a couple, [so] I think it’s problematic to privilege couples, whether they are same-sex or different-sex couples,” Holder said. “I think we need to redefine unpaid work around these different kinds of family structures.”

Conservatives generally disagree and have long supported government policies that encourage—or “privilege”—marriage, because couples who get married prior to having children are far more likely to flourish financially.

Panelists didn’t just want to remove policies that encourage marriage, however. They also proposed subsidizing “care labor”; meaning, instead of working with your husband, wife, or the surrounding community to raise children and take care of sick or elderly family members, the state does it for you.

“Women doing unpaid care work creates particularly difficulties for women in the economy,” said Randy Albelda, an economics professor at the University of Massachusetts at Boston and director of the College of Liberal Arts.

In order to address this “discrimination and occupational segregation,” Albelda proposed helping families “by providing the care work through a collectivized way that most countries do.” For example, she said:

Universal education and care, which I actually think would probably be the most important policy for all women, particularly low-income women in this country … It’s sort of a no-brainer … . If economists were really concerned about efficiency … they would be on top of this in a flash, because it is such a waste of all sorts of things. It increases our poverty rate. It reduces women’s labor force participation. It generates more inequality. Early education and care is one of the biggest engines of inequality in the United States.

Judith Warner, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, floated the idea that the hours a mother spends caring for her children or family could be factored “into someone’s Social Security payments down the line.”

“That’s a great point. It’s not just symbolic value; it’s actual production,” responded Joyce Jacobsen, an economics professor at Wesleyan University in Middletown, Connecticut. “We used to talk about strikes of household workers—that you would actually lose a huge amount of production if … people just refused to take care of their children, refused to take care of their sick parents, refused to do housework. It would be chaos. It’s not even just symbolic.

“We can come up with actual dollar amounts for the loss of productivity, and I think that’s, again, where economists can be of great help in pointing out that there are methods to do those calculations.”

‘The Economics of Bodily Autonomy’

It’s not just care work that feminist economics strives to monetize. They contend that “bodily autonomy” also plays a crucial role in women’s ability to fully engage in the economy.

“Targeted regulation for abortion providers, mandatory waiting periods, limitations on late-term abortions, all these things are happening in a much bigger group of states,” said Adriana Kugler, a professor at the McCourt School of Public Policy at Georgetown University. “And actually, we find, really limit labor market opportunities and economic opportunities for women.”

Until the government provides universal health care plans that cover unrestricted access to abortion, birth control, sterilization, fertility, and surrogacy, women will never truly be equal, she contends.

Conservatives—and conservative women, in particular—say the abortion industry itself undermines women’s rights.

“The abortion industry not interested in abortion clinic regulations that are crafted to protect women’s health and safety, or informed consent requirements that include scientifically accurate information about the unborn child and information about the risks and alternatives to abortion,” said Melanie Israel, a research associate at The Heritage Foundation focused on the issue of life. “And the abortion industry is certainly not interested in a health care system that empowers women to obtain a plan that both meets their needs and reflects their religious and moral values.”

Furthermore, Israel said, “Telling women that the path to success requires destroying the life inside them presents a false ‘choice.’”

The reality is, ensuring that both mom and baby are able to thrive is not an either/or endeavor. That’s why across the country, the pro-life community, and life-affirming pregnancy resource centers strive so hard to offer women services, education, supplies, counseling, and compassionate options to women experiencing a tough pregnancy.

Another area where economics plays into bodily autonomy, the panelists argued, is the national debate over transgender individuals and public restrooms.

Lee Badgett, an economics professor at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, cited the so-called “bathroom bill” in North Carolina, which mandated people use bathrooms and locker rooms in schools, public universities, and other government buildings based on the gender listed on their birth certificates, as an example of a government policy regulating bodily autonomy.

These regulations, she argued, can hold women—and all people, for that matter—back.

“There was an exodus of businesses who were thinking of investing in Charlotte, and the other areas of North Carolina … so who’s hurt the most? It was actually, probably … hereosexual people. They’re the ones who would mainly have had those jobs, and they’re not having them. So I think it’s a way … we all have an incentive to have an inclusive society for everybody.”

An “inclusive society,” according to liberal groups such as the Center for American Progress, takes the form of government mandating society to use certain pronouns, teach transgender ideology to children, and open public restrooms to people based on their gender identity. But if transgender-friendly bathrooms made good economic sense, one might think there’d be no need for a law forcing businesses—public or private—to adopt these policies.

In North Carolina, however, it wasn’t just the government that got involved. Big businesses and special-interest groups stepped in, attempting to use their influence and economic power to impose their liberal values via bullying and boycotts.

Ryan T. Anderson, a Heritage Foundation senior fellow and author of “When Harry Became Sally: Responding to the Transgender Moment,” calls this“textbook cultural cronyism” at “the expense of the common good.”

The Future of ‘Feminist Economics’

The role of “feminist economics” in our political conversation is still young. And with Democrats arguing Ivanka Trump’s paid family leave proposal doesn’t go far enough, it’s likely to continue. As the Center for American Progress put it: “Feminist economics provides a starting point to developing a broader understanding of how women’s varied lives and complex needs interact with the economy.”

At its heart is one idea: Women are better off with government as our husbands, fathers, caretakers, and moral arbiters. Anything short is discriminatory against women.

Commentary by Kelsey Harkness. Originally published at The Daily Signal.

[thebrewstorian]

Feminism and the Beer Industry Pt. 3: Brewing as a platform for change

I wanted to keep this final part of my current exploration into women in the beer industry fairly brief. This specific topic has been discussed numerous times by brewers and journalists alike, so it can be easy to fall into the clutter of the same few contentions. Still, it’s important for us to keep talking about and acting on improving the presence of women and minorities in brewing because the problem of excluding them won’t go away if we ignore it. I did notice something curious though. When we talk about sexism (or any form of discrimination) in the brewing industry, we make a point to emphasize how big and clear a problem it is. This often includes asking the women in the industry about their experiences with sexism in their work. Some women make a point to thoroughly discuss the issue, while others don’t think much of it. This may seem strange, but in her oral history, Robyn Schumacher addressed the fact that she doesn’t really focus on her experiences with sexism because sexism in brewing is just like sexism in any field. Sexism is indeed everywhere as a part of our culture, with women growing up knowing it’s an extra struggle to live through. This begs the question then: why do we care so much about sexism in the brewing industry?

To answer this question, it’s good to first look at the history and culture surrounding beer. As mentioned in Part 1, brewing was one of the few opportunities women had to be independent and support themselves financially in ancient and medieval times. This role was also high status and relatively high income, meaning that women could be a major support in their communities as well as rise above the trappings of the gendered economic systems during that time. While taking on the role of alewife came with heavy persecution from the guilds and the churches in later periods, it could also have been liberating (it’s hard to find direct accounts on women brewers’ feelings for this work) for these women to break out of the traditional social and economic roles they were forced into. In a more general sense, brewpubs also brought people of many different classes and roles together, blurring the social separations that were common at the time. Beer and brewing provide a bridge between people, connecting communities together through the need and/or enjoyment of the drink. This essence of liberation and unity is still a common theme in the craft brewing industry today, and with it, it makes sense that we would assume that women and minorities are welcomed in equally. This is where the history also clears away our assumptions. Women brewers were negatively stereotyped for their association with taverns, for their rebellion against the traditional female role, and for partaking in a business that was held in suspicion. Similarly, minorities were pushed out of (or prevented from entering) brewing following Prohibition because of how they were negatively stereotyped in association with saloons, which were suspected as areas of crime. Similar stories of exclusion, suspicion, stereotyping and economic power dynamics abound everywhere, to the point where we’ve whitewashed much of the history in our country and erased the struggles and successes of many different people.

Knowing this history, the reason why women and minorities are not more prevalent in brewing becomes obvious. However, the establishment and growth of the craft brewing industry provides an opportunity to change this. While craft beer has been around since the 1980s, it’s still only just taking hold in many areas of the US, such as in California. Such beginnings force social roles to blur again as everyone needs to pitch in. That’s the thing, the beer industry is old, and it’s been represented by white men for much of it. Having a long history of discrimination habituates us to this system, making it harder for women and minorities to get jobs in macrobreweries or be involved in the start of the craft beer movement. Craft brewing culture now, though, has built a reputation for friendliness and community support. Combining this with lack of social stratification as brewing communities are established in new areas, we have an opportunities to build new, more inclusive habits. This seems to be working, as (slowly) more women and hispanics are joining both the brewing industry itself, as well as its consumer base.

Going forward with this, there are a few things we need to be aware of as we continue to talk about sexism or other discrimination in the brewing industry. The main thing is that sexism is nuanced. As Judith Bennett said in her paper Misogyny, Popular Culture and Women’s Work, “it is unreasonable to expect firm linkages between popular ideas and real experiences.” Each person approaches the world in a unique way, and so not all women will experience sexism in the same way. Discrimination is based on the context of where they live, the type of community they’re immersed in, their professional experiences and how their gender intersects with their race or other identities. For some women, awareness of gender and sexism is central to how they navigate the world, while for others, their education and interests are more important. Therefore, it is important to be receptive when we ask women these questions about the experiences of womanhood in their lives. Oral histories, for example, provide a chance to bring feminist practices into history through asking these difficult questions about gender and discrimination while listening more closely to the emotion and unique experiences the interviewee had. In essence, these interviews allow us to preserve and give voice to the stories that go unheard or are misconstrued by history and what we want to hear. We as humans like simplicity and easy answers. Living through and resisting discrimination, however, requires many different tactics and is complicated. In listening better to these stories, and as taking women brewers as more than just a token or symbol of their industry, we frame the conversation of sexism in brewing in a more thoughtful and nuanced way.

The other main thing we can do more of is get better statistics on the demographics of the brewing industry regionally. Through all this reading and writing on this topic, a theme has arisen: representation is key. It was this theme that in fact sent me on this journey of exploration. When Tiah had me start searching for how many women are brewing or owning breweries in Oregon, I had a very hard time finding any meaningful information on this demographic. Without accurate, up-to-date data on these demographics, it becomes more difficult to identify and address the problems in exclusion found a city or a state. With this data, we could actually start tracking the progress of a more inclusive brewing industry, one that we can all be proud of.

Further questions:

How is sexism expressed towards women in different roles within the brewing industry? How do challenges for women brewers differ from those experienced by women taproom servers?

~Gillian

[nothingman]

For years, Reddit’s r/TheRedPill forum has been one of the worst corners of the internet. It’s the home of the pickup artist movement, it gave Milo Yiannapolis a fawning fanbase, and it’s the hub of the perceived “manosphere”–a community built around the “men’s rights” philosophy that feminism is a sham built to oppress men.

Reddit is deliberately designed to protect anonymity. But that doesn’t mean users don’t also have to work to protect themselves–something that someone probably should have told Robert Fisher of New Hampshire, who has just been outed by The Daily Beast, via a trail of usernames and custom URLs with ties to Fisher’s email address, as the creator of the misogynistic forum.

Fisher, by the way, also happens to be a member of the New Hampshire House of Representatives, not that the connection is very surprising. If I had to name the two communities most vocal in their loathing of women, I’d probably go with Red Pill dudes and the GOP.

In addition to Red Pill, Fisher’s reported aliases had also written and published a pickup artist site, a blog attempting to “Explain God,” and one site titled “Existential Vortex.” He also was or maybe still is a singer-songwriter and kazooist in an “indieelectronic” band. Basically, he sounds like exactly the sort of bro-ish college kid, straight off a few frat party rejections and his first philosophy class, whom you would expect to found a misogynistic Reddit forum with a name referencing The Matrix. (Except Fisher had, at the time of Red Pill’s creation, aged out of the follies of youth excuse. He’s 31 now.)

Fisher’s reported “Pk_atheist” alias started the subreddit in October 2012, just before he lost his first election—one he ran as a Democrat. He won his seat in November of 2014, by which time the subreddit had grown to 83,000 members. He had already stepped down as a moderator in early 2013, but continued to be active in the community.

The Daily Beast writes that “within hours of contacting Rep. Fisher, and after delivering by email a summary of his apparent connections to The Red Pill kingpin, his two primary Reddit usernames had been wiped, and four blogs connected to him were deleted or made private.”

[Update: His own colleagues, on both sides of the aisle, are already calling for his resignation. Fisher responded with a statement asserting he is “not disappearing,” adding, “I will continue to stand strong for men’s rights and the rights of all.”]

But the internet doesn’t let you hide from your awfulness that easily. Through archived posts and comment threads, we have way too clear a window into this man’s mind and his motivations for starting this giant sexism feeding ground. Here are just a few direct quotes.

Content warning for, well, for everything Red Pill is about. (Misogyny and rape denial abound.)

–If you want the short version of his views on women: “I find women’s personalities in general to be lackluster and boring, serving little purpose in my day to day life. So I usually only compare body types.”

–“Because when I told myself I thought they were smart, I really had the footnote in the back of my head … smart … for a woman.”

–“I don’t hate women. I just understand what use they are to me. Stimulating conversation is not one of them.”

–“Understand that in the old days, women were not brought up the way they are today. Before feminism, there was less freedom, and therefore it was not necessary to teach women consequence. Consequence was strictly a man’s game.”

–“Women are not oppressed- they’re literally free from a lot of the responsibilities men are- to the extent where women have no need for the functioning every-day knowledge that most men have by the age of 18 … If you took the conversation skills, the sub-par intelligence, the lack of curiosity and put it in a man’s body- would you hang out with that guy? No! Would he be successful? Hell no! Those things are useless without a woman’s body attached.”

–In a post with “seduction” advice, he proposes “There’s a good girl voice inside each woman telling her that she needs to make sure to be proper and avoid being a slut.” He follows up with a lot of tips on how to invade the “good girl’s” personal space and trick her into letting out the “slut.”

–In response to a question about the Free the Nipple movement: “Hot women are a cartel, and they will continue to keep prices as high as possible. Anybody “freeing” their nipples will either be low-quality, or they will have a smear campaign against them to make them seem low-quality, despite the equality implications supposedly working for the cartel.”

–He defended being sexually attracted to teenage girls. “15 year old girls have boobs. Puberty doesnt strike at 18 overnight. Secondly, not creepy- 15 year old girls and guys are commonly sexually active. Its just illegal.”

–In one of his many comments alleging women frequently falsely accuse men of rape, he says he has a video camera in his room, presumably to record his exploits for proof of innocence.

It’s bad enough that someone could hold all of these beliefs, let alone feel confident to enough to put them out in public (even if anonymously so). Add to that the fact that there are, as of now, nearly 200,000 subscribers to the subreddit.

But nothing is scarier than knowing that this is what at least some (and some is too many) of the men who make our country’s laws think about women. And if you think Fisher’s purported Reddit persona is all talk, it’s not. It’s clear that his misogyny infects his platform.

Taking a quick look at Fisher’s terrible, stock-photo-filled campaign website, you can see the threads. In the site’s “Family” section (complete with a stock picture of what I assume is a random family of strangers, so you know he really cares), he says he wants to “strengthen the family.” But all that seems to mean to him is something about the family court legal system. He writes, “It is long over-due to bring oversight and accountability to our family courts. Every parent deserves justice in our courts regardless of race, gender, ethnicity, or orientation.”

This obsession with family courts looks to date back to 2012, when his colleague and fellow men’s rights activist Joshua Youssef began publicly decrying the “feminist judicial tyranny” over a custody battle with his ex-wife. A reddit username the Daily Beast attributes to Youssef posted a lengthy rant about the “corruption, deception, greed, lawlessness, and feminist entitlement-mindedness, of the family court” to /theredpill, with Fisher in the comments defending him.

Remember that comment about “low quality” women exposing their nipples? Another one of New Hampshire’s Reps, Al Baldasaro, insulted the physical appearance of a female legislator who was fighting a bill, written by an all-male team, which would have outlawed breastfeeding in public.

Just four days after the 2014 election that put him in the New Hampshire House of Representatives, with only 100 subscribers, Pk_atheist wrote a manifesto of sorts, explaining the point of the, as of then, two-week-old forum.

“Our culture has become a feminist culture,” he wrote. “A president cannot be elected today without succumbing to the feminist narrative and paying them tribute. How many times has Obama given credit for his manhood to his wife? How many times has the debate hinged on women’s pay gap – which is a myth that gets lip service because if you don’t you’re a misogynist!”

Yet he maintained, “It’s too easy to blame feminism for our troubles.” He’s all for equal rights, he says, although he takes care to specify, “Equal rights are something I strongly am in support of. For men and women.” As opposed to unequal equality, I suppose.

His big message is that feminism has led not to equal rights, but to female domination. Women, as he puts it, control the conversation. “I am here to say, for better or for worse, the frame around public discourse is a feminist frame, and we’ve lost our identity because of it.”

Therefore men, he proclaims, need to take back this role of central dominance from women. The Red Pill is “men’s sexual strategy,” designed to counter feminism, which is, apparently, nothing more than a sexual strategy itself.

This, through the Daily Beast’s sleuthing, appears to be Robert Fisher’s worldview. This is a man who gave a space to hundreds of thousands of others looking to blame and conquer women, while simultaneously being elected into public office, where he has the ability to affect real policy.

Here’s the kicker, and keep this in mind the next time you think your vote doesn’t matter: In Fisher’s small New Hampshire district, he won his re-election by only 700 votes. He won his first election in 2014 by 276 votes. Squashing the internet’s rampant misogyny is a challenge too big for any one of us, but if you’re eligible to vote, you can do your part to keep immature, idiotic monsters like this one out of office.

  (via Daily Beast, image: Shutterstock)

Want more stories like this? Become a subscriber and support the site!

—The Mary Sue has a strict comment policy that forbids, but is not limited to, personal insults toward anyone, hate speech, and trolling.—

via The Mary Sue

[judedoyle]

While the Strike is Hot

It’s an odd position to be in, being vehemently and angrily agreed with by your colleagues. Still, in the weeks since I published my essay on the upcoming Women’s Strike, I’ve become aware that a few women and feminists see me as the voice of “anti-strike” thinking. I was puzzled by this, at first, simply because I think it requires a backbreaking amount of work to read that piece as anti-strike; I explicitly endorse the strike, and say how cool I think it is, at many points throughout the piece. When I’ve seen critiques of my work that I’ve agreed with, I’ve passed them around, in the name of keeping the conversation open. Yet the bad feeling bubbles on -- most recently, in a piece by Dayna Tortorici of n+1, where I am the sole “anti-strike” feminist cited in over 2,000 words. 

I like Tortorici’s work, a lot. I have no doubt that she’s a smart and deeply progressive thinker. Yet I’m flat-out bewildered by her reading of my essay. So, because I am an idealistic fool who never learns -- and because the conversation is more important than the handful of sexist douchebags who’ll inevitably respond to it on social media with whooping and hollering about the cool catfight going down -- I’m responding to her response. 

Now: In order to even get into this, we have to address the elephant in the room. Due to the fact that I (a) supported Hillary Clinton, or (b) reported sympathetically on allegations of fairly severe sexist and racist harassment coming from “the left” during the 2016 primaries, there are several people who view me as a kind of bogeywoman; an emblem of the evil, careerist, “identitarian” feminism that nailed Our Messiah, Bernard of Sanders -- and, with him, all hope of American socialism! -- to the cross at the Democratic National Convention. This argument doesn’t much line up with the facts, or my politics -- for example, the fact that I’ve worked at a labor publication since 2011, and have specifically covered class differences and exploitation between women, the dangers of consumerist feminism, cynical pop feminism and femvertising, and misogyny on the left for years. (Until 2016, you see, it was widely held that these critiques were not mutually exclusive.) But it has served to divert attention from my real arguments and to imbue my every move and word with some kind of sinister resonance for certain people -- the sense that, even if what I’m saying sounds perfectly reasonable, I must have some hidden, malevolent reason for saying it.

Most of the people who dislike me this way have skin in the game, often because they were directly implicated in the harassment allegations, or simply because their work has been criticized as sexist. Alternet’s Ben Norton, for example, did not like the Elle article about the strike, and repeatedly told his Twitter followers I was attacking the strike as part of my role as a “relentless Hillary Clinton propagandist” -- but that’s because Ben Norton once angrily e-mailed me, demanding I change an article because it contained a single sentence critiquing a piece he wrote about Joe Biden, until my editor stepped in and told him not to contact me again. I don’t engage with Norton’s arguments because, well, he doesn’t have arguments; what he has is hurt feelings, and his “critique” is just an attempt to breach the “do not contact” rule by other means. But men refusing to honor a woman’s express wish not to hear from them is nothing new, in a bar or on the street or (in this case) at work. You can’t have a good-faith argument with a bad-faith interlocutor, so I don’t. 

However, one of the inevitable side effects of living through a smear campaign designed to paint you as a sinister, scheming character is that otherwise reasonable people will start to find you sinister, for no good reason, simply because they’ve heard the same groundless accusation repeated so many times. (Someone should ask Hillary Clinton about that.) I’d like to think there’s a qualitative difference between someone like Tortorici -- who certainly doesn’t seem like the sort of person who’d knowingly attack a feminist colleague just so that leftist men don’t have to deal with the soul-scorching horror of being called sexist on the Internet sometimes -- and someone like Norton. I feel compelled to engage, if only to test my own assumption that good-faith debate between feminists is still necessary, and still possible. 

Yet I can’t help feeling that my innate evil seems to be the foundation of Tortorici’s critique, which is entirely based on her deep reading of my true feelings, or my hidden intentions, a reading which is not backed up by -- and indeed, at points, is blatantly contradicted by -- the actual text of my piece. 

For one thing, Tortorici concludes that the piece asks women not to strike, when its actual headline -- one which she quotes -- begins “Go Ahead and Strike.” 

Let’s roll tape. 

When we join other women in a general strike, we do not do so on equal terms. Some of us risk more in not working than others, and for some of us the risk is too much. 

Fair; I agree with every word. 

Some see this as an insurmountable obstacle to women’s unity. 

An obstacle, yes; insurmountable, no. It is, however, very tough to surmount, which is exactly why we need intersectionality -- the understanding that “women” are not monolithic, that we have different needs and different amounts of power, that we are capable of harming or exploiting each other, and that blanket calls for solidarity “as women” don’t do much good unless our strategy is tailored to the reality of different women’s different needs and lives. 

I mean, I don’t imagine that Angela freaking Davis is unfamiliar with these principles; I’m just stating them to re-affirm what I imagine are the common grounds of our debate. 

This point was made recently by Sady Doyle in an op-ed on the Women’s Strike for Elle, under the finger-wagging headline “Go Ahead and Strike, but Know That Many of Your Sisters Can’t.”

... It was?

Also, while I do regret that Tortorici doesn’t like the headline, as someone who works in media, she’s probably well aware that writers don’t choose their own headlines. That said, what’s underneath the headline is an admittedly wide-ranging article that tries to do several things in a fairly small space. 

First, it tries to educate an audience on what a “general strike” means and what a “women’s strike” means. (Elle is a general-readership publication, not an explicitly left-politics publication like n+1 or In These Times; you can’t just assume your audience has read Rosa Luxemburg.) Second, it sketches a brief history of women’s strikes, including the famous 1970 women’s strike that catalyzed the second wave as we know it, in order to show how powerful and cool these things can be when they work. (Why do I want readers to think strikes are cool? Well, I want those readers to strike, something Tortorici seems to miss.)

Third (and this is what Tortorici objects to) the piece interrogates the potential problems and complications of such a strike. It suggests that we can’t just import the framework of the great ‘70s strikes into 2017, given how much gender roles have changed; it also points out ways in which women could betray or exploit each other during the strike, specifically how rich women can betray or exploit poor women. Finally, it calls for feminists to keep these complications in mind, and work together to create a clear, specific, creative vision of what “women’s work” means in the present day, and how we want it to change through our protesting and striking.

The fact that the article is so crowded may lend to its being easily misread. So some good-faith misreadings are genuinely my fault. But it is odd to take the one faintly critical portion of the piece -- which amounts to nothing more than a call for intersectional class consciousness -- and characterize that as “finger-wagging.” As I say in the piece, “these questions aren't meant to undermine the women's strikes, which are (again) exciting for their promise to unify feminist theory and revolutionary practice.” Yet asking questions is being framed as undermining. 

To be blunt, it seems more than a little like I’m being called a nag or a buzzkill. I suspect Tortorici and I agree on rich women’s ability to be exploitative -- it’s just that I’m not supposed to bring it up, for some reason. 

Here, as far as I can tell, is the reason: 

The implication seemed to be that privileged women should feel guilty for striking, and therefore abstain... The alternative course of not striking—preserving one’s daily status quo, espousing instead “a kind of guilty, stagnant solidarity of intention,” as Magally Miranda Alcazar and Kate D. Griffiths write in the Nation—helps no one. Instead, it places some women’s fear of hypocrisy over the needs of those they might join[.]

Here, I have to say, is where Tortorici’s argument really starts spinning out into the ether. She can’t point to a place where I say privileged women shouldn’t strike, for the very obvious reason that I never say it. She’s even conceded that “Doyle endorses the strike,” which I do. 

So she’s arguing that somehow, behind the text of the piece that encourages women to strike, I have subliminally asked women not to strike -- or, at least, that I have felt that women should not strike, without ever actually saying so -- and is left analyzing the implications of the implications of the thing she imagines I wanted to say while saying the thing I said. At this point, any actual analysis of my article is far behind us, and we are dealing exclusively with Dayna Tortorici’s psychic insight into the hidden workings of my soul. 

She does object to one real line: “Without a specific, labor-related point, after all, a ‘strike’ is just a particularly righteous personal day.” Here, for fuller context, is how I expand on that sentiment in the piece:  

A woman with a comfortable office job may be able to ‘strike’ simply by taking paid time off and feel confident that her job will be there when the strike is over. But for women in lower-wage positions with few or no protections, leaving for even a day might mean going without necessary wages, or incurring the wrath of an abusive boss, or even losing her job entirely... [A women’s strike] might [also] mean that a female CEO has to do without her nanny and her secretary, putting her in the position of being the potentially vindictive boss. 

Now, there is one “solution” for this, which is for women with office jobs not to strike. Tortorici and I agree that this would be a comically bad fix for the problem. 

But there is a worse solution, which I point to in the piece: Privileged women can “strike” while still exploiting less privileged women. The nice liberal white woman who runs the cafe can take the day off because she’s so angry at Trump, but tell her female kitchen workers and waitresses (many of them immigrants, or economically vulnerable women working for far less than a living wage) that there’s really no way she can let them off work. The upper-middle-class stay-at-home mother might decide that she’s going on a strike for emotional labor and childcare -- because she assumes she can pass the kids along to a nanny or a day-care center anyway. She might then fire the nanny when she doesn’t show up for work. The college student might strike, and decide to celebrate with a little “self-care” -- like going out for a manicure, unaware that the largely female staffers at the parlor are unable to walk away from their jobs due to the abusive working conditions. (Yes, there’s a call to only support women-owned businesses, but let’s be honest -- how many of us could name the women-owned businesses in our communities off hand? And what guarantee is there that your local manicure parlor isn’t owned by an exploitative woman, rather than a man?)

By calling attention to the inequalities between women, I am not calling on those privileged women not to strike. I am calling on them to strike mindfully, to show solidarity with something other than a red t-shirt or a self-care day. I say this pretty clearly in the piece, something else Tortorici blows past while, somehow, quoting: 

This argument, as Doyle herself concedes (“True, part of the point of a strike is for middle- and upper-class women to stand in solidarity with working-class and poor ones”), is based on false premises... The Women’s Strike isn’t undermined by the fact of difference. 

I think writing that Sady Doyle doesn’t want women to strike, in an article that contains the sentence “Doyle endorses the strike,” is also a pretty interesting example of an argument based on false premises.

The full line is “part of the point of a strike is for middle- and upper-class women to stand in solidarity with working-class and poor ones, protecting them from reprisal by joining in the action.” It may be true that the Women’s Strike isn’t undermined by difference or inequality between women -- or, at least, it can be true. But it can only be true if that solidarity actually holds; if middle-class and upper-class women are well-versed enough in what it means, and clear enough on the power they hold, that they don’t wind up sabotaging less privileged women’s efforts inadvertently. You cannot simply assume this will happen, in the same way that you can’t simply assume everyone knows what the phrase “general strike” means; these ideas are not all that mainstream, even in 2017, and as the Women’s March demonstrated, under all those pussy hats were people with widely varied levels of activist experience. 

The article’s notes about complication are aimed toward getting us all onto the same page. I am calling on (my fellow) privileged women to recognize that they are not just oppressed, but also, potentially, oppressors -- and to make striking possible for all the women in their lives, not just to take the strike as a special day for themselves. In one of the piece’s more controversial lines, I say “protest can be a privilege,” not because it is inherently privileged, because it can be -- and will be until we make protest accessible by supporting each other.  

Now: You can fault me for not making this call clearly or explicitly enough. But I think the organizers of the march and I are probably on the same page when it comes to making it. And I think they’ve done exceptional work on this front. 

Thankfully, much of my Elle article is now out of date; since I first faulted the International Women’s Strike for non-specificity, and for not making plans available for women who could not get the day off, they’ve rolled out detailed plans, with multiple ways to strike, including strike actions for women who can’t get away from work. In response to my original article, two of the organizers also wrote a detailed and thoughtful response in The Nation. I admire their response, because it contains lots of the historical and contemporary analogues and labor analysis I asked for, because it is stringently fair -- it sticks entirely to the text on the page, and even admits at some points that a passage may admit of multiple readings -- and because the fact that it exists shows that the organizers are committed to transparency and responsiveness.

I wish I felt the same about Tortorici’s. As is, I feel like I’m awkwardly wedged in to her (much larger and more all-encompassing) essay because the piece needed a villain -- and that need may have overwhelmed any commitment to an accurate reading of what I wrote. This is particularly frustrating because, as I say, I admire Tortorici’s work -- and because we so clearly agree with each other. 

By withdrawing my work, I show my place in the larger economy; when we all do (or don’t), we invite one another to see how our work is interdependent, see the ways we are compelled to exploit one another. And when we see it, we may be able to say with confidence—as the benefiting and exploited members of this system, speaking together—that this is not the system we want.

What an excellent vision! If I may, I’d like to respond with a quote from another feminist’s endorsement of the strike: 

It may be that, just as all the old revolutionaries promised us, we will discover our power through the very act of striking; we'll see what "women's work" looks like when women stop doing it.

We are at a moment of unexpected possibility. If we're able to seriously discuss a general strike, then any number of previously unthinkable options are within reach. These movements are being formed out of resistance to unacceptable conditions, and yet it might also behoove us to get more creative, and more specific, when we envision the world we want. We may be able to ask for more than we think.

Tortorici and I are not just agreeing with each other -- we are sometimes nearly word-for-word mirrors of each other. We may ferociously, sarcastically, angrily mirror each other at times -- about half of all feminist or progressive activism is just that -- but I don’t think we have to. And even if we have to, it’s not the end of the world. People only fight over what matters to them, and if we’re fighting over the strike, then at least it matters to us both. 

Solidarity between women and feminists is possible. I’d like to think that Tortorici and I, along with any given woman who likes or dislikes my piece, will be acting in solidarity by strike day. But solidarity can only work if we work it -- and it should never preclude discussing the things that matter, or asking uncomfortable questions.