#you have to deal with the violence that the patriarchy enforces

[bisexual-maelstrom12]

Something that I really like about the Barbie movie is that while there's this dialogue about how Barbieland is the real world in reverse, it's clear that the Kens don't have it as bad in Barbieland as women do in the real world. Yes, it's an unequal society which leaves Ken unsatisfied, but he doesn't face the sexual violence and danger that Barbie does in the real world. And I like it because there are so many movies or books where matriarchy is described as terrible and oppressive and just as bad as patriarchy, as if women in power would treat men the same way men have treated women for millennia. And the Barbie movie subtly interrogates that - like yes, the Kens not having power in society does block their self-realization, and it would be better for them if society was truly egalitarian, but in the meantime, they get to sit around on the beach all day and go to fun parties. Barbie under matriarchy does not wield the same oppressive power as real men in the real patriarchal world, showing that the problem with our world isn't just that men hold more political and economic power, but how they wield that power to terrorize women.

[nothorses]

Question about your points on the post about TERFs vs TIRFs you made bc it has me questioning a lot of the stuffI've been taught:

Why is it TERF ideology to think that women are oppressed by the patriarchy? Why is it TERF ideology to be intimidated by men if you’ve been a victim of sexual violence at the hands of men? Women (both trans and Cis) face so much violence all over the world, why is it radical feminism to acknowledge that?

I’m genuinely curious because I want to deconstruct any harmful biases but it feels incredibly harmful to dismiss violence against women under the guise of “talking about this is all radfem ideology”.

I'm glad you're asking these questions, and I'm glad you're being critical about that post!

You're absolutely right that it would be harmful to "dismiss violence against women under the guise of “talking about this is all radfem ideology”- and I don't want anyone to take that whole list as A New Set Of Rules without thinking any further about it.

The point of that list was not to say "all of this is Bad", but rather to lay out some logical through-lines and how these ideas all work together to reach harmful conclusions.

Any radicalization pipeline relies on a kind of "rabbithole", or as @psychoticallytrans recently called it, "milk before meat". The idea is that you're given the "easy" stuff first, the stuff that is or feels right, and then those ideas steadily lead into more and more extreme ideas.

Women are oppressed by the patriarchy, and pretty much every branch of feminism is going to agree with you there; that's not a radfem-only idea. What distinguishes radfems from the rest is that they believe "the patriarchy" is embodied by every single living man; every man is The Patriarchy, and every man oppresses every woman. No woman can oppress a man, no woman can harm a man... etc.

You can see where we lose the plot here: is the patriarchy a system, or is it every single man? Who, then, do we count as men? How old is a man? What about other intersecting forms of oppression?

One of my go-to questions to ask, when taking a critical look at some of these ideas, is: under this ideology, are white women oppressed by black men? How? Can white women do harm to black men? How would this ideology answer these questions, and how would they (do they) deal with the archetype of the "Karen"; a white woman using her white womanhood to enact violence on black men through state institutions of white supremacy, like law enforcement? (Hint: radfems tend to complain that "Karen" is strictly a misogynistic insult.)

To answer your other two questions:

Why is it TERF ideology to be intimidated by men if you’ve been a victim of sexual violence at the hands of men?

(For context:)

Short answer: it isn't.

Long answer: My point here was to outline the way that the "inherent woman trauma and justified fear of all men" is weaponized against trans women, first and foremost, but there's more nuance here as well.

There is a difference between a traumatic response that you cannot control and need time to heal from, and a fear being actively encouraged as "justified" and "accurate" by those around you. There is a difference between exercising practical caution (even if you shouldn't have to), and fueling paranoia and a fear of the outside world. There is a difference between grappling with your own personal healing process after a traumatic event, and generalizing a traumatic response to the entire world & everyone in it.

Some people's trauma after a sexual assault latches onto the gender of the person who hurt them. That is understandable. Some people, knowing they are perceived as women, take extra precautions to ensure their safety from potential sexual assault and harassment at the hands of, predominately, cis and straight men. That is understandable. But when that translates to "you should fear all men at all times because any of them can and will rape you given any opportunity to do so", we have a problem.

Again, we should be asking: does this ideology make room for other forms of oppression? Can white women oppress black men? How does this interact with the racist stereotype of the sexually aggressive and dangerous black man? How does this ideology deal with the history of white women accusing black men of sexual assault in order to sic white men and police on them & enact state violence, as well as reinforce white supremacy? (And more! What about trans women and trans lesbians, in particular? Are trans men seen as sexual aggressors instead, if not them? Is either remotely accurate to reality?)

Women (both trans and Cis) face so much violence all over the world, why is it radical feminism to acknowledge that?

This is mostly answered by the above, but again, the short answer here is that it isn't radical feminism to acknowledge misogyny or misogynistic violence.

What is radical feminism is that idea that this violence is enacted by individual men, and not patriarchy as a system of oppression. What is radical feminism is the idea that misogyny is the ultimate form of oppression, and that others only "intersect" in niche circumstances (if at all) that do not need to be included in the majority of these conversations.

In radical feminism, black women's oppression is its own conversation, trans women's oppression is its own conversations, and we can handwave things like "Karens" by saying that's about racism; we don't need to make room for it in feminist theory. When trans-inclusive radfems say "if men could get pregnant", and trans men say "we can", they can respond "you know what we meant"- because they don't believe they need to make space for transphobia in feminist theory.

Another good test: when radfems talk about sexual assault as a woman-specific issue, and transmascs point out that statistically, we face higher rates of sexual assault than cis or trans women (or any other demographic), TERFs will say that's because it's "sex-based oppression" & ignore that our rates are higher, because there's no room for transphobia in their feminism. Trans-inclusive radfems will deny that it's true or important in the first place, because men can't be "more oppressed" than women.

It's not radical feminism to acknowledge misogyny and patriarchy. It is radical feminism to ignore everything else.

[academicdisasterfic]

The Laws of Fandom Protect Whiteness.

Disclaimer: I do think that fandom only works if people stick to the Three Laws of Fandom, i.e. SALS, DL;DR, and YKINMK. I am anti-anti and I believe that writing problematic things does not make you problematic in real life. Basically: I'm on your side, fellow fic writers.

But there is a caveat. We have to remember why the Three Laws exist. They are there so that fandom is a safe space for everyone. So it can be a place we all come to and feel respected and heard. But this undoubtedly privileges White people.

The Three Laws of Fandom will inherently protect White people's safety because we don't have to worry about unconscious bias or racist conditioning towards our race or ethnicity. The Three Laws of Fandom do not inherently protect People of Colour because White people in fandom will have forms of racist bias that we have to unlearn. Therefore, the Laws only work if White people choose to be actively anti-racist and listen to POC in the fandom.

Let's expand on this.

This is not saying that writing racism, or writing racially-charged themes, should be censored or off-limits to White people. But when we do write them, we need to remember that the Laws also only work because fandom operates on a comprehensive tagging system. We are able to enforce DL;DR because we have tags showing us exactly what is in the fic. Therefore - don't like age difference? Don't like non-con? Don't like violence? You can opt out!

But if you write racially-charged themes and don't give appropriate content warnings, then you aren't giving POC the chance to opt out. In fact, you are endangering their mental and emotional safety by pulling them into subject matter that has real-world implications for them. And yes, entering fiction always carries a risk of reading something that you don't like - but is far more dangerous for POC than for White people.

It is one thing to accidentally read a fic that depicts a kink you don't like, it is another for a POC to read their own experiences being depicted in a way that makes them out to be no big deal, and not even a big enough deal to be appropriately tagged.

It is also important to note that a POC alerting you to racist themes or passages in your work and asking you to appropriately tag or consider the way you wrote them isn't the same as them flaming you. In fact, it shows care. This person thinks that you are worth their time and effort to try and have a conversation with. If you shut that down and prioritise your right to write anything you want above someone's safety, that is a racist act.

This type of racism results in people like Stitch's Media Mix taking a hard line against the Laws altogether, as they are so regularly used as excuses by White people to justify racism. While I disagree with Stitch's ultimate conclusion, can I blame her for how they got there? The Laws have certainly never been leveraged against me to dismiss my lived experience or concerns, and have only contributed to fandom being a safer space for me. But Stitch is Black and speaks about antiblackness and racism in fandom - and gets barrages of death threats and hate mail for doing so, from fans participating in these spaces.

How are we supposed to tell POC that the Laws keep their spaces safe when they so clearly do not?

On a related note, I think the prioritisation of ✨positivity✨ over any sort of critique or conversation is another mechanism to protect Whiteness. It's important to remember that particularly in slash fandoms, the majority of fans tend to be white queer AFABs or genderqueer people, so the normal structures of patriarchy and heteronormativity that we navigate in our regular lives don't enter into fandom as pervasively. Whiteness, however, is the oppressive structure that tends to persist in slash fandoms, and therefore we need to be cognisant of how this can marginalise and isolate POC fans.

If you avoid difficult, race-based conversations because you only spread "positivity", then you do not actually care about everyone in fandom having a positive experience.

Paraphrasing from 'Conflict is Not Abuse' by Sarah Schulman, conflict isn't inherently bad. It's productive. It shows care. It's growth.

The Laws of Fandom can and should work for everyone. But we are the actual enforcers. We have to recognise the potential ways people can abuse the Laws to marginalise, threaten and isolate POC fans.

People of Colour deserve a seat at the table of fandom. They deserve a safe space. They deserve to feel wanted and seen and respected.

I don't have all the solutions for this - I'm White and recognise that everything I'm saying here I only learned from POC and have probably not said it as well or as eloquently as they have been doing (but no one's listening). I welcome any additions, critiques or insights from POC to this post.

The type of fandom I want to cultivate is safe and inclusive for everyone, and we need to start thinking about what that actually means.

[transvarmint]

On Transandrophobia and Related Issues

How we define Transandrophobia:

Transandrophobia describes the intersection of transphobia, misogyny, and the marginalization of non-hegemonic masculinity & manhood.

Anyone, regardless of birth assignment, gender identity, gender presentation, etc, can experience transandrophobia at any point. However, it is primarily targeted as transmasculine people and adjacent groups.

Similarly, transmisogyny is the intersection of transphobia and misogyny that is primarily targeted at transfeminine individuals and adjacent groups. It can be experienced by anyone, but it is largely targeted towards transfems.

The same goes for exorsexism (oppression directed at nonbinary people) and intersexism (oppression directed at intersex people).

[More talking points below the cut].

"How are manhood and masculinity marginalized under the Patriarchy?"

Any expressions of manhood and masculinity that do not strictly adhere to white, Christian, colonialist, abled, cisheteronormative, allonormative, (+etc) standards can be harshly marginalized under the Patriarchy.

This is because for the Patriarchy to function, rigid enforcement of these standards is mandatory. Any sort of subversion of the status quo must be punished to maintain White Christian Hegemony. There is no room for self-expression, because that is a challenge to the Patriarchy, and may allow room for other people to challenge it as well.

Some examples of marginalized masculinity include Black men, whose manhood is demonized. They are often viewed as inherently violent or aggressive, especially if they display masculine qualities. This often results in police violence, which is usually justified with the fear that police felt simply by being in the presence of a Black man.

Disabled men, conversely, often experience having their masculinity entirely diminished. This relates to the phenomenon of "degendering" in which those who do not fit into certain standards will have their ability to access manhood entirely revoked.

As for transgender men and transmasuline people, our entire experiences of manhood and masculinity are marginalized. The fact that we express these things at all is a slight against the patriarchy, and our masculinity is transgressive by default.

"But trans men have male privilege"

Having male privilege means that one benefits from misogyny on both an interpersonal and systemic level. Because trans men are unilaterally oppressed by misogyny, this means that we cannot benefit from male privilege, regardless of how well we pass.

Some trans men who pass may receive interpersonal male privilege (i.e. being treated with more respect by strangers), but this is extremely conditional. It is conditional upon staying closeted and that nobody ever finds out you are trans. Because the moment that happens, the supposed "privilege" evaporates, and he is now immediately subject to potential violence.

This is very similar to the argument about trans women experiencing male privilege. A trans women who stays closeted and attempts to adhere to patriarchal standards of manhood may receive conditional benefits, but she will always be oppressed by misogyny on a systemic level. So she does not actually benefit from male privilege systemically.

"Saying that trans men face misogyny is misgendering / it's only misdirected"

Saying that trans men face misogyny is a demonstrable fact, and it only appears to be misgendering because of the assumption that only women face misogyny.

However, trans men deal with misogyny on a regular basis, both interpersonally and systemically. Having our reproductive rights controlled is a key example of this, as even a trans man who passes is still impacted by anti-abortion laws and other reproductive restrictions.

It cannot be misdirected when we are the direct targets of it. People often see us as failed women who need to be corrected and put into line. They very much see and acknowledge us and are disgusted by us, and wish to use violence to correct us.

"Androphobia isn't real"

It is not "trans + androphobia" it is "transandro + phobia". As described above, it is the intersection of multiple things. Words do not just mean the literal definition of their roots. By the same logic, cissexism would mean sexism against cis people, rather than the assumption that everyone is cis.

And besides, marginalization of some forms of manhood and masculinity is very real, as elaborated above. The hatred and fear of our masculinity is an essential aspect of our oppression.

"Trans men oppress trans women / transandrophobia implies trans women oppress trans men."

Trans people cannot oppress each other (on the basis of being trans) as they do not have the systemic power to do so. There are no (or very, very few) trans people in positions of power that are creating and perpetuating the system structures used to oppress us.

Trans men also do not materially benefit from transmisogyny in any way. We do not gain anything from the oppression of trans women - and in fact, any attack on the trans community harms trans people as a whole.

Lateral aggression is absolutely a real thing within the trans community, but it comes from every part of the community, not just one group to another.

"What trans men face is just transphobia, not some special category"

Every trans person faces unique intersections of oppression based on the demographics they occupy.

The argument frequently made is that trans men only face oppression for being trans, and not for being men. This is false, and is incongruent with the experiences of many trans men. We are targeted specifically for being transmasculine / trans men. People notice our masculinity and manhood and are disgusted by it, and choose to use violence to suppress it. To say that people only hate us for being trans, is an attempt to separate us from our manhood / masculinity (which coincidentally, is exactly what transphobes do as well).

Also, the idea that gendered violence against trans men is "just" transphobia, while other types of transphobia are more specific, wrongly centers men's experiences as the default, and all others as deviations.

By creating a word to describe this specific type of transphobia, it now puts everyone on an equal playing field where no experience is treated as the default. Transphobia now becomes the umbrella term that trans people are unified in our fight against, and all the other more granular terms are useful labels to describe overlapping types of oppression.

[handoverthekawaii]

“Have the Lambs Stopped Screaming?” — Silence of the Lambs Analysis

Note: I undertook no research before writing this post. It is solely based on my own impressions watching the film. If these conclusions have been reached before, then please forgive my lack of originality.

Yesterday I watched Silence of the Lambs for the first time in some years. Last time I watched the film, I was still a teenager, and I found that watching the film as an adult granted me a different perspective. The overarching theme that I observed this time was how individuals navigate gender-based violence.

From the moment we first meet Clarice, we see that she is a perpetual object of men’s attention. Her fellow recruits ogle her, law enforcement distrust her, and men she meets through work hit on her with impunity.

And then she meets Hannibal Lecter.

In her first few meetings with Dr. Lecter, there were two exchanges that really piqued my interest.

#1: Lecter had just dismissed Clarice, but he loses his cool when Miggs throws semen at her as she leaves the cell block. “Agent Starling, come back! Agent Starling!” he shouts, followed by, “I would not have had that happen to you. Discourtesy is unspeakably ugly to me.”

Shortly thereafter in the film, we learn that Miggs has died. Lecter whispered to Miggs all through the night, psychologically torturing Miggs until he killed himself.

This sequence of events sets Lecter apart — he is no bystander during acts of sexual harassment. He is a monster, but (at least in this instance) he uses his power to right a wrong. In fact, Lecter is the only male in the film to stand up against other men perpetrating gender-based violence.

#2: During their second meeting, the two are discussing the Buffalo Bill case when Lecter brings up Clarice’s mentor.

HL: Jack Crawford is helping your career, isn’t he? Apparently he likes you, and you like him too.

CS: I never thought about it.

HL: Do you think Jack Crawford wants you sexually? True, he is much older, but do you think he visualizes scenarios, exchanges… fucking you?

Clarice dismisses Lecter’s suggestions, but the question is planted in her mind: is Crawford trustworthy? Is Crawford requesting her assistance because he values her insight, or because she is a beautiful, young woman who arouses his interest?

The answer remains ambiguous for the rest of the film, down to Clarice and Crawford’s final, uncomfortably long handshake. I found myself, as a viewer, observing Crawford with the same mistrust that Clarice increasingly held.

So we see that Lecter, unlike other men in Silence of the Lambs, is deeply aware of the harassment and degradation Clarice (and other women) experience on a daily basis. Lecter is willing both to interrogate the motives of other men (as with Crawford), and to put a stop to gender-based violence that occurs in his presence (as with Miggs).

Finally, Lecter is curious how Clarice deals with the unfortunate reality of being a woman in a man’s world. And this, I would argue, is where the lambs come in.

Clarice discloses to Lecter that as a girl, she ran away from her cousin’s ranch when she awoke to the screams of the spring lambs being slaughtered.

HL: And then you ran away?

Through subtext the film is asking, what can one woman do when confronted with systemic gender violence?

CS: No. First, I tried to free them. I opened the gate to their pen, but they wouldn’t run. They just stood there confused. They wouldn’t run.

She might try to help other women escape, but some of those she helps won’t make it out. They may not know the danger they are in, or they may feel helpless to do anything but accept their fates. They may be afraid to leave the patriarchy’s gilded cage.

HL: But you could, and you did, didn’t you?

CS: Yes. I took one lamb and I ran away as fast as I could.

She might try to save one. If she can save just one life, that might be enough to erase the guilt of not saving them all.

CS: I thought I could save just one, but he was so heavy...

HL: …What became of your lamb, Clarice?

CS: They killed him.

Or maybe… her only choice will be to save herself.

HL: You still wake up sometimes, don’t you? You wake up in the dark and you hear the screaming of the lambs. …And you think if you save poor Catherine, you could make them stop, don’t you? You think if Catherine lives, you won’t wake up in the dark ever again to that awful screaming of the lambs.

CS: I don’t know… I don’t know.

In the end Clarice does save Catherine, but what we don’t know is whether the lambs have stopped screaming in her nightmares. Was saving Catherine’s life enough, or does Clarice remain haunted by all the women she cannot save? Lecter wonders the answer to this, as well, as during their final phone call he asks her, “Have the lambs stopped screaming?”

Clarice doesn’t answer the question, and I think it’s up to the viewer to interpret why that might be. Perhaps the lambs HAVE stopped screaming — perhaps there is “enough” that any one of us can do as we combat the patriarchal system. Perhaps, past that point, we can rest assured that we have all played our parts.

Or perhaps the lambs are still screaming, and they will never stop until gender-based violence is eradicated.

[sang-moon]

Materialism and Idealism in Mob Psycho 100

Idealism – The world around us is constructed of immaterial things which originate from immaterial forces. These immaterial things are fixed in their relationships to each other. For example, the world that surrounds us is God and change is brought about through prayer. Another example, poor people are poor because they have bad behaviors, and if they change those behaviors they will be rich soon enough. Another example, the police protect us from criminals because that's what they do.

Materialism – The world around us is material and originates from material forces. Additionally, via dialectics, the world is constantly in flux. For example, unhoused people are defined by their lack of stable housing, however that manifests. Another example, the working class person is defined by the sale of their own labor power.

Mob Psycho presents us with a fictional world where psychic powers exist in few people. Through the existence of psychics, a hierarchical society covertly develops, largely justified with an idealist philosophy surrounding the essentialism of psychics versus non-psychics, wherein psychics are held to exist differently and superiorly to non-psychics. Despite dealing with fictional forces of telepathy and telekinesis and the likes, the main conflicts that arise in the show can be boiled down to idealism and materialism--where Mob's materialist view of society supported by the egalitarianism of Reigen, disproves the idealist views of the enemy psychics that seek to divide society hierarchically. A critique can be made that the materialist view of Mob's society stops at the threshold of psychics vs. non-psychics, and does little to address the existing socioeconomic hierarchies that are still present within modern capitalist society, however for the purpose of a show focused on teenagers who have yet to enter independently into society, it remains a clear display of the dichotomy between the two philosophies. In order to do this, we must examine the conflicts between Mob and the other psychics, and the interactions between psychics and their non-psychic peers.

Conflicts between Mob and other psychics center around debunking the idealist essentialism that psychics are superior to non-psychics. In this respect, it can mimic existing essentialisms surrounding race and gender, e.g., white-supremacy and patriarchy. This hierarchy manifests in three distinct scenarios: Mob vs. Psychics, the psychic kids and the Awakening Lab, Reigen vs. the Scars. 

Mob first encounters Teru and the established hierarchy within Teru's school. In this, Teru has used his psychic abilities to place himself at the top of the social hierarchy through the use of implied violence against other students. His justification of doing so was that he is special for having psychic powers and that he deserves the social position because of his powers. His idealist view of the world, that he exists on an internally defined position above the others at his school, enables him to use violence against his peers. Against Mob, however, who has a view of the world that he is no better than his peers (and sometimes worse than that, c'mon dude you got a lot going for you), and has never harmed another to assert a social position above them, the use of violence to determine superiority is unfamiliar. As there is no hierarchy of psychics over normal people to enforce, there is no force needed, at least to Mob. Teru believes this hierarchy exists and that the position on top is determined by who can exact the greatest degree of violence. This attitude is reinforced later on in conflicts with the other psychics in Claw, and it is resolved in a similar way: Teru and the other psychics take on an oppressor role, seeing Mob as another to be oppressed. Through the use of violence, they push Mob into a contradiction, where he doesn't want to use violence but is forced to do so in order to stop being oppressed. By forcing Mob to use violence, their superiority dissipates when they lose the conflict. However, rather than reinforcing the hierarchy they believe in afterwards, Mob offers them a different solution: to relinquish their social status as psychics and to reenter society as equals to all. In reality, asking someone to reenter a capitalist society is pretty cruel, but, again, for the purposes of the limited setting, the call to join the masses is the correct way to dissipate the hierarchy.

This hierarchy dissipates in two other conflicts, though through realization mixed with conflict. The psychic kids and the Awakening Lab are more subtle in their reinforcement of the hierarchy between psychics and non-psychics. Simply by individualizing the psychic kids, Ritsu included, the Awakening Lab have communicated to them that they are special and that they exist separately from those without psychic powers. This implants within them the idealist essentialism mentioned earlier. This idealism then manifests in Ritsu's behavior within the student council and his violence wielded against the delinquents in the other schools. In this scenario, Ritsu becomes an oppressor, like Teru, whose idealism justifies his violence. While the same can't be said of the other kids, it can be said that because they collectively experience violence at the hands of the psychics within Claw, they understand that their psychic powers do not innately grant them high positions within the hierarchy, and that they can for reasons unclear, be relegated to the oppressed group. It is likely due to this experience that they do not see themselves as special and drop out of the Awakening Lab to enjoy their personal and school lives. Like Mob's defeated opponents, they see themselves as part of the masses and reject the proposed hierarchy.

What then follows is realization bred from losing in the form of Reigen and Claw. Similar to Mob's conflict, it differs in the social positions that Reigen and Mob hold, where Reigen is an adult who is integrated within society, albeit somewhat on the fringes due to his economic position. In this sense, Reigen is a part of the masses and represents those who Claw wishes to directly place themselves above. Although Mob's powers protect Reigen from physical harm, he is able to win the conflict not from physically overwhelming the enemy, but from dismantling their idealist philosophy. His conflict with them is the most explicit representation of the conflicts described above. To them, their toy swords, dramatic outfits, and weird creatures are powerful weapons, intimidating uniforms, and deadly monsters. To Reigen, they are exactly as they are, and he states as such. Though his call for them to rejoin the masses is a tad crude, they do come to the realization that their accessories are as they are, and that they are no different from the masses. The conflict remains representative of the materialist assertions disproving idealist essentialisms.

---------

Between Mob and his non-psychic peers, idealist myths that more closely mimic real life manifest. School-life, its difficulties and confusions, presents Mob with several idealist myths, pertaining to individualism and social position. I want to focus on a few specific relationships: Mob and the Body Improvement Club, Mob and Emi and Mob and Minori.

Mob's relationship with the Body Improvement Club is probably my favorite because it closely mimics my own realizations of health and fitness. In this case, Mob has an idealist view of fitness, believing that it is closely tied to social status, yet also understanding that it is a material way of changing oneself–sounds familiar, but I digress. This interaction between materialism and idealism is a common pitfall. In other words, by believing that social recognition follows from materially changing ourselves, we idealize social recognition to be dependent on physical aesthetic, class position, or some other expression of private property rather than our actual social interactions with others. Change encompasses both a change in physical property and a change in social and material relationships, and both must be addressed in order for true change to occur. Changing our bodies to either fit some performance, gender expression, or aesthetic ideals (ideals ≠ idealism), and seeking social recognition of those changes are two separate activities. The Body Improvement Club happens to package both the change and recognition together, at the same time, making a simple and powerful message–change and growth can be shared, acknowledged, and at meaningful times, celebrated. In Mob's case, the rest of the club is supportive of him, reminding him of the progress that he's made, the effort he's put in, simultaneously helping him change himself and his relationships to others. 

While Mob is initially prey to the social stratification of middle school and the idealism that accompanies it, in the case of Mob and Emi, we see how the social recognition Mob learned from earlier episodes/seasons is employed to challenge the practices of social stratification. For Mob and Emi's fake relationship, they bond as normal people do by sharing platonic things about themselves. In doing so, we learn that Emi likes writing stories, and that Mob earnestly enjoys them, because even if he doesn't fully understand them, he can tell that it's something that Emi cares about and enjoys. When the relationship is eventually revealed to be fake, we see two clear statements from Mob: "I'm going to acknowledge my feelings and not hide them," and, "my powers can be kindness." Both of these directly address the isolation of social stratification as follows. By acknowledging his feelings and, importantly, sharing them with Emi, he chooses to open himself up for social connection rather than isolation. As for Emi, she acknowledges her own feelings and rejects the social practices entailed with stratification (in this case, apathy to abuse by her peers) to do so. This also opens up a large development for Mob surrounding his powers: he had been taught that his powers and abilities were either that of labor (working for Reigen) or that of power (fighting spirits and other psychics). In saving Emi's shredded story with his psychic powers, he finds a way to use them to socially connect with others in a way that doesn't fetishize himself. In leading with kindness, his abilities become an expression of his humanity rather than an expression of his exceptionality. This genuine connection, of being physically present and socially acknowledging one another as we are, destroys the idealist lens that is dependent on seeing others based on their abstracted social position, replacing it with something concrete.

The last situation is fascinating in that for Mob and Minori, they inhabit an actual idealist world within Minori's conscience that is constructed according to an idealist philosophy. In there, Mogami's hyper-individualistic worldview isolates Mob from his social connections, essentially eliminating whatever change and growth Mob had experienced prior to that moment, and he says, "This is the real world," as if Mob wasn't living in reality before, and that this idealized reality that they currently inhabit, made by paring down significant aspects of reality, is somehow more real. While this causes Mob to endure a significant amount of abuse, the false reality reaches its limit in only being able to facilitate violence and isolation. When confronted with friendship, humor, affection, connection, the reality literally begins to crumble. As well, Mob says something rather simple, "I believe people can change." All these things directly oppose the idealism baked into the reality of Mogami's fake world. To believe cruelty and violence is innate to human behavior is to ignore the material conditions that facilitate and systemize that behavior (late-stage capitalism), as well as ignore human development itself. Applying the definition of idealism, it can be restated that the primary reality of Mogami's is oppression, and a relation that dictates all human interaction. In reality, although different dialectics appear frequently, the oppressor/oppressed dialectic is not omnipresent and can be resolved, as seen historically, via the masses socially connecting with one another and taking action. Interestingly enough, after the fight and when Mob and Minori both wake, Mob asks Minori if she always acts like that to which she confirms that she does. The selfish, cruel, and coddled reality she lives in is similar to Mogami's individualist one and is shattered when Mob saves her, showing her that strangers can care for each other and that all the times she acted as an oppressor were moments of ignorance towards that fact. While it's unclear whether or not she takes steps to eliminating her social position as an oppressor, it's clear that she does have admiration for Mob's quiet act of kindness and doesn't make light of it. At the very least, like Mogami, she chooses to concede.

----------

So now that we understand how idealism serves as the philosophical basis for quite a number of social hierarchies as well as how they manifest via Mob Psycho 100, we may begin to examine our day to day interactions to understand the implications of idealism and materialism:

Say that there is an older, white, cisgender, heterosexual man who teaches a class on social science. He says the following and expects his students to be able to understand the statement without a material basis: "As women grow older they become more assertive and as men grow older, they become more empathetic." The students are then forced into a philosophical trap, whereupon they must see both social development and gender as fixed aspects of people rather than as reflections of social conditions and conditioning. In divorcing gender and socialization from their material origins, we have to believe that these gendered expressions just sort of happen, because, uhh, that's just how humans are.

In addition, this opens up acceptance to idealist thought such as: "a job gives you a purpose," which sees labor not as a means of survival in a modern capitalist society nor as a way of generating capital for the capitalist and instead frames it a social purpose in society, embedding into it a contradiction (it holds significant social meaning but also primarily generates surplus value for the capitalist, not society) not easily resolved by an individual; or...

"People have pandemic-fatigue. We shouldn't worry about COVID-19 because it is now like the flu," which does things like absolving the state from any sort of responsibility in managing the pandemic by labeling further management as authoritarian, as well as equating COVID to a disease that has little overlap in terms of spread, lasting symptoms, and long-term recovery path. This embeds a societal contradiction wherein we depend on each other for life necessities (food, housing, electricity and utilities, etc.), yet we are unable to make decisions that benefit that interdependence. It also obscures the scientifically determined nature of a fast spreading illness.

This societal contradiction highlights how liberalism is another idealism, or how organizing society in a way that emphasizes the individual erodes the social connections of the individual, and thus, also erodes the individual. If we are materialist, we recognize the interdependence of society and thus recognize the importance of egalitarian action, of seeing ourselves as part of a whole that must be improved. So long as we serve capital, we will never act truly for ourselves, never truly grasp freedom as men and women born of the past, held to the present, and inheriting the future together. 

And so we must join together as comrades, as brothers and sisters to rise against our oppressors: our landlords, our bosses, the cops, those who worship and protect capitalism. We must embrace a dialectical materialist philosophy and build towards a better world, together, with decisive joy and devotion to each other and to the people from which we cannot separate. For as we change ourselves we change as a people, and as we join together, we dismantle the social stratifications that prevent our unification! The path forward is bright, my friends! A world where we serve each other is in sight! We have nothing to lose but the chains that bind us!

[dhaaruni]

Hi! Hope you’re having a good day - mines been pretty shit tbh so if the tone of this is dumb I’m sorry and it’s also very long and rambling so feel free to ignore but I’m just kind of shocked to see you defend being bdsm (aka being against the sexualisation of abuse and violence particularly against women)?

Like ‘what a man does in the privacy of his own home is his own business’ has always been peoples response to mens abuse. I just don’t understand how is it not incredibly fucked to get off on abuse? How is the physical damage done when strangling/beating/hurting someone in one of the millions of ways people (men) hurt each other (women) different when done consensually? If my boyfriend hits me during sex why is it a big deal if he does it during an argument if he didn’t even hit me as hard during the argument as he did in bed? What if he strangled me in bed (something that could kill me and is one of the biggest indicators that a man will kill you) then hitting me isn’t actually that bad in comparison considering the level of harm. What is the difference between ‘after care’ and bringing your girlfriend flowers after hitting her? How does it not create the same trauma bond? A lot of people into bdsm make it very clear that they are mentally unwell (not judging, I am too just different poor coping mechanisms) and I just don’t see how being a masochist different from self harm. How is bdsm not the biggest example of rape culture? How can you recognise the patriarchy’s influence on so many womens choices but not the choice to want to submit sexuality? How are teen girls supposed to cope with their boyfriends literally wanting to beat and rape them but all the adult sources around them are telling them thats totally normal and not dangerous they just need to consent? Because teenage girls are amazing at enforcing their boundaries and totally don’t give in to peer pressure or do things they don’t want to do for male approval. How are you meant to break up with a man who you know enjoys and is capable of beating and raping you?

TLDR : I’m just trying to understand your perspective because it seems very contradictory to your other views like being against rape, violence against women, anti racist, anti incest ect. just everything that bdsm sexualises and normalises

No you're all good, I don't mind answering lol. I'm not letting this be reblogged for obvious reasons though.

I completely agree with you in that societally speaking, BDSM is constantly used to excuse violence against women and it's really fucked up to get off on hurting others, and any man that says they're into BDSM on principle should likely be in jail.

That said, I also think that in the context of consensual romantic sexual relationships between adults, it's possible to enjoy certain things on occasion that aren't super vanilla on principle. And, I'm not really talking about hookups here, I'm talking long-term relationships with people you trust lol. I'm also not giving teenagers sex advice and I think "blowjobs are empowering" feminism that young millennials and Gen Z was raised on did more harm than good to our perceptions of healthy sexuality, but the rumors are true: I, an unmarried adult woman, enjoy sex with people I romantically like and trust as people lmao.

But to clarify, I'm really not a proponent of anything truly extreme, and I'm extremely intentional about setting boundaries and if anybody crosses them, they get blocked and banned for life. I'm generally cool with trying sex positions, but both parties always have veto privileges if something is painful or uncomfortable or simply not enjoyable. And personally, anything involving metal, spanking or hitting, choking, etc. are all total no-gos for me and I will never be swayed on that. A light hand on the neck is not remotely the same thing as asphyxiation, and to even get to that point, I need to trust the guy.

And, I would never trust let alone fuck a guy who can't get off without that stuff! My point is that it's okay to try things out, whether that's basic kink or weird sex positions that you fall out of and laugh at yourselves, not what you do every single time you have sex. If a guy whines about women being boring in bed or "vanilla," kick the man to the curb lmao.

All that said, I would never tell women they're bad people if they are against stuff I'm personally comfortable with. My point is just that sex isn't like a cut and dry thing, and it's really healthy to communicate and discuss what you like and don't like with your partner.

Does that make sense lol?

[thorne1435]

like. ideology. oppression is enforced through violence and someone has to do or be willing to do that violence. men arent inherently violent but a system where they would be responsible for violence to keep others in line, where they would have to be complicit in violence in order to secure *less* violence being done to them was sold to a population of cis straight (and a whole bunch of other vectors of oppression) men during primitive accumulation and they took it. they took it and every man who hasnt been an abolitionist for the patriarchy has implicitly ratified that deal every day since. complaining about what you have to perform in order to qualify for that privilege isnt fucking oppression it's buyers remorse. like yes i agree it was a bad deal **but we cant fucking equivocate between the bad deal oppressors took from the ruling class and the fact that the oppressed werent party to that deal; we, you and i, were the ones for sale.** and as a term misandry, and by extension transmisandry does that. its written all over the history of the term. stop giving quarter to that kind of bad faith whinging.

No, wait.

Do you mean to imply that every man is willingly oppressing women?

I don’t think they are. I think they’re just as confused as everyone else. Normal people aren’t very well-versed in politics. It’s often the minorities and the oddballs who have to be politically aware or just enjoy it (respectively).

With that in mind, it’s really difficult for me to agree with you fully. I just don’t think it’s fair to say that “Men” accepted anything. They were born into this, just like we were. And, well...most people just don’t look up.

It’s kind of cruel to say that men are just born different in that regard. I hope that’s not what you mean, but I really don’t see another way to take this.

[firespirited]

Here's how I use shinigami eyes (not saying you have to do it this way)

I see a post that’s got a red name and click which leads straight to posts that have been heavily through the terfosphere, usually marked 'terfs do touch' 'rf gc do interact' and some of my muted tags. I open all the non red urls who reblogged from red urls, scroll to their main, ignore any intro and read one page of their blog. If they're cruel to a trans person within 10 posts they get marked. That's the low bar to pass. Ten posts without obsessing. Read more for length and word blergh.

The point of shinigami eyes is to mark transphobes not just radfems, it's just that radfems are bigoted 95% of the time, and a bunch that say they're not radfems/terfs have a post explaining that they don't align with the feminism part (anti choicers, women libertarians...). It's also important to keep going when there are no terfy indicators as there are a bunch of right wingers who also enjoy blogging about trans people as 'cringe content'.

It feels like doing something useful by not making trans folk have to see that vileness and I feel a strange responsibility as a brit and a feminist who started with the radical texts and knows them well.

I don't care who created the extension, it's useful and I can't exactly be picky from my slave and blood mineral computer chips on billionaire monopoly software.

There are things I'd very much like to discuss without it getting co-opted by bigots or turned into pile on fodder. It happens so fast and with such ferocious accusations that you have to be in a good head space and towards the start of the day so you can disable reblogs or delete a post if it gets into the wrong hands. Right now I'm marking about a dozen or more a week, it doesn't make you feel safe writing anything when you feel you have to check all reblogs on a post because a bunch won't be marked as haters before it's too late.

Word blergh ahead :

I want to be able to talk about what it means if scotland and wales leave the UK for someone who has family in all, about our femicide epidemic, about the teachers having to learn to deprogram boys from manosphere ideology, about women in stem, prison abolition, how alienated I feel from gender performance, how I think Dylan Mulaney is the most annoying toxic positivity theatre kid turning transition into hashtag content I can't stand her she's not even mean just so confident in her ignorance, and can I rant about women enforcement of patriarchy while also running support networks within churches but always being on edge for what they will or won't refuse support about, girl bullying and teen girl pressure hurting deeper, trans folk helping me rediscover gender euphoria and also how I find rupauls drag race reductive and catty. How I'm still furious the covid vaccine wasn't tested on pregnant women and we don't have data about covid and womb damage/period disruption when given the kind of cells involved we really should be seriously looking into it. I want to talk about male violence or female labour exploitation with the understanding that we're talking about the social constructs that we're all tangled up in. I want to talk about ugliness, medical misogyny, all the adhd things my dad could get away with

and I can't without having to stick asterisks everywhere saying I don't believe in gender essentialism, i do believe in patriarchy and if this doesn't apply to you congrats on being one of the good ones there are good people and my experiences as a woman are not universal

and I hate transphobes so much for hijacking what should be basic human rights for their culture war of distraction when we have so so many problems to deal with and yet this issue is so important because it's breaking the sex binary and comphet down and they're so scared they're recycling the anti-gay talking points without even filling the serial numbers off! The disruption to ideas about patriarchy is worth the fight even if there weren't flesh and blood humans getting hurt (it's a strong motivator though ilu all my gnc and trans friends).

I get so tangled: I think sending death threats is wrong, i regularly call for the death of the pope and posted about stoning king charles yesterday. I have catholic friends. I'm problematic and enjoy problematic media. I'm conflicted when I see quotes from books that helped me understand why I was so miserable back then and why the world was so unfair so much remains true. Those books also left huge fragments that didn't fit and by all that is dear to me: working class and black womanists provided the missing pieces then trans and non binary folk added more and then the disability activists who'd read all that and had more nuances to add, my heart.

I have so much I've held inside because of people who can't even be bothered with Dworkin's evolving philosophy of gender or that maybe we might have learned a few things since the Sixties because they take individuals like me and throw them to mobs and I really don't want to retraumatize my trans friends either. Aaaaargh.

It's complicated. I'd rather have to censor 'kill' and have hate speech enforcement to be able to speak openly about feminism or gender in general without the bullies swarming. I know for many that's just talking about any politics and it's silly to complain when I'm not even trans just a 'traitor' to these women but Tumblr had been safer, it's certainly a place where I haven't been attacked as much for being socialist. The mobs on twitter were frightening in scope, the ones on tumblr accused me of things that felt horribly personal. I feel like a big coward for not wanting to deal with fallout so I haven't shared some of the amazing feminist reading and learning I've been doing the past few years.

[maneaterwithtail]

Yeah he said something to her and let her enact violence! ITS ALL HIS FAULT, he literally started it?!?!?!?!?! Not Wanda? Damn I mean. Yeah I do NOT appreciate his approach and dismissal of Monica's assessment and her approach. But the problem is both are valid actions with justifiable reasons tipping with equally valid measuring of valid sympathies. He isn't shooting Wanda because she's in Westview Nesting While Romani. He's aiming missiles after someone proven hostile and hostaging and yeah with fucking documented violent history, including violent radicalism against civilians/noncombatants

and She’s doing it again!

​Though clear he comes from a place of bias. But that's just not Eeeeevil enough. It has to be of greed. and being that asshole who neggs you at place outside your safe bubble home, kind of... sort of.

 Unlike your black best friend who knows what you're going through and will risk irradiating mutation just to give you the solid dick (that she can do this when a specialized armored vehicle fails to is a given. She is protagonist in the making, but still she IS using this, her personal truth to power, one heroic miracle, FOR YOU) Did I say friend I mean prearranged friend from the mighty gods of webcasting, Disney-Marvelplus Diocese Oh and to be clear why we should see Monica as the rightful lead? he 'failed upward' into the job (I guess staying and going operating special department after massive literal die off just ain't a virtue. If you are not Black Widow its to hide your inherent incompetence fraily behind discriminatory dismissal) This wouldn't bother me if not told so bluntly; so manipulatively; and unearnestly- even compared to the intentional, "idealized sitcom life with a darkness/secret underneath"* (doesn't help as Moviebob pointed out we are better part of decade past that of Sinister Sitcom Suburbia: The Series. As Aimed at Ladies. Who Watch Sunday Night TV. On ABC!) Again outside plot/world seem faker and more convenient than an episode with a one day pregnancy, selective power outages, indoor rain, and an errant stork that can't be poofed away. It shouldn't have been given how started when dealing with the fantastic blip returning scene. It just somehow got that way. And can't help but feel, and as Marvelous Escape pointed this out so NOT just me, in service of.. well flattering and sympathetically framing Wanda out of fear of the sexist implication...breakdowns happen and seeking help and noticing them is hard but is the best thing as to denying yourself true life and progress while letting your real problems and the world spin out to crush you (as it will as the illness while can pretend to CANNOT help you). Its not even sexist to say "a breakdown/mental illness doesn't just hurt/inhibit you." That's great advice/perspective, you might feel powerless. Saying, "You have power, but you must take control of it. Maybe you cannot or don't know how. So you need family, doctor, etc, so here they are and how using can start" is GREAT. Especially in wake of loss or complex crises. Because, "if not seek recovery. Well enforcement come for you and by then. Well it can justly harm you. Don't let that happen." And this is NOT "don't be sad, depressed person" this is "You can get better, depressed person, it exists and for you. There are ways and means how, and incentive of both personal accomplishment and vital need to do so. The valid bad stuff can be worked at and the invalid cut through but your 'comfort' with your illness IS blinding you to harm coming or you are inflicting. We need you to see it and seek that help. Just as we all have! Before the price gets higher." *I just appreciate it had a sign of female authority/power in the first two episodes! Yes the fifties had real real issues and sitcoms often FaILEd to reflect that but seriously women didn't suddenly start contributing, working, and RULING with bra burnings even in ugh 'patriarchial' society**. Even IN that false reality version. Bewitched STARRED the ladies over the men. Donna Reed was the star. That Girl had the lead, again a woman, working behind the camera and with the showrunners. Ladies like Agnes could happen if I'm watching the Walnut episode of DVanD right. Not in true form but no truer than what Hayward stands in for **Fuck that net talking point corruption of a valid social theory murdered by twitter used in isolation... I need to take a break I am making myself needlessly angry.

[the-desolated-quill]

She Was Killed By Space Junk - Watchmen (TV Series) blog

(SPOILER WARNING: The following is an in-depth critical analysis. if you haven’t seen this episode yet, you may want to before reading this review)

The first episode was a shaky, but intriguing start. The second episode was both incredibly provocative and intelligently written. What about the third episode? Um... I’m honestly not too sure what to make of it, if I’m honest. I watched it twice like I do with everything I review and I genuinely don’t know what to say about it. I couldn’t even tell you if I liked it or not. I think I liked it.... but I couldn’t tell you why.

Okay. Sorry. Hi guys. Let me explain what happened. I wrote that first paragraph and then I got writer’s block, so I decided to step away from it. I had a nap, played a video game and then decided to watch the episode again for a third time with fresh eyes. Now my thoughts are a little more concrete. So. She Was Killed By Space Junk. Having watched this episode three times now, I’ve decided that I don’t like this episode very much at all, and that’s less to do with what’s in the episode and more to do with what isn’t. 

Let me explain.

Reviewing episodes like this one can often be very frustrating because it’s hard to tell what is a genuine flaw and what is merely setup for what’s to come. I have a number of problems with this episode, but for all I know, what I’m about to talk about might not actually be problems at all and will all be explained in a future episode. Or they are genuine problems and I’m inadvertently giving the writers way too much credit. I don’t know. That’s why it’s so frustrating.

My main point of contention is with the character of Laurie. First of all, let me just say that Jean Smart doesn’t put a foot wrong. She gives a great performance and is a good choice to play an older Laurie. The problem I have is with her characterisation. Or, at the very least, bits of her characterisation. I don’t know. It’s complicated.

Laurie’s inclusion in the TV series was something I was actually most looking forward to because I felt her character was kind of shortchanged in the graphic novel. Initially starting out as an effective and scathing critique of how women are often presented in comics, over the course of Watchmen’s story her role was reduced until she ended up becoming little more than a prop for the male characters’ stories. It was disappointing and it’s led to me arguing multiple times that Silk Spectre is one of the most underrated and wasted elements of Watchmen. The HBO series felt like a perfect opportunity to right some wrongs and give Laurie the attention she deserves. She Was Killed By Space Junk certainly gave her the focus and attention she didn’t receive in the graphic novel, but I’m very much struggling to ascertain what the show was trying to achieve here.

Let’s quickly remind ourselves where the graphic novel left us with her character. She had recently discovered that the Comedian, the man who tried to rape her mother, was her biological father, she was in a relationship with Dan Dreiberg, aka Nite Owl, and they were both on the run from the law, hellbent on continuing their lives as vigilantes. Okay. How does the HBO series continue this? Well it turns out she and Dan are no longer together. I know some fans really don’t like this, but I personally don’t have a problem with it. In fact I’m perfectly happy with it. In my review of A Stronger, Loving World, I explained how I didn’t believe their relationship could possibly last long term because it was clear that they were together not because they were in love, but rather because they were indulging in each other’s fantasies, and the fact that Dan’s seeming fascination with the Silk Spectre porn comic supported this. Showrunner Damon Lindelof clearly agrees, so cool. It’s always nice to be proven right.

Anyway, at some point between the graphic novel and the HBO series, the fantasy was shattered and the pair split up. I’m assuming what shattered the fantasy was them getting caught by the FBI. It’s unclear what’s happened to Dan at this time. Judging by the fact that the police in Oklahoma are using Owlships and goggles, I’m assuming that Dan was arrested and his equipment was appropriated by law enforcement. Laurie meanwhile has struck some kind of deal and now she’s working with the Anti-Vigilante Taskforce and enforcing the Keene Act, which is an interesting parallel with how her father, the Comedian, served the American government during the Vietnam War. But you see this is where I start to get a bit confused.

The episode opens with Laurie setting a trap for a vigilante known as Mister Shadow (basically Fake Batman) and shooting him, either not knowing or not caring whether or not Mister Shadow’s body armour would save him. She’s also taken on the Comedian’s last name Blake and displays a very similar nihilistic attitude, making dark jokes and exhibiting uncaring, unsympathetic behaviour. Now I don’t necessarily have a problem with Laurie becoming more nihilistic, given what she’s been through. Having witnessed Ozymandias and his squid of doom, it’s bound to affect her worldview. However, her turning into a female Comedian doesn’t really marry up with her character at all. And yes, I know at the end of the graphic novel she talked about getting a gun and body armour, like the Comedian, but it didn’t work there either. It felt too drastic a character shift and was painfully on the nose. I didn’t like it there and I don’t like it here either. I just don’t buy that she would want to emulate the man who tried to rape her mother. 

I especially don’t like her violent, uncaring attitude toward Mister Shadow. Why does she have such a disdain for vigilantes? Is it because of what happened with Dan, and she’s projecting that onto everyone else? Has she become so nihilistic that she just doesn’t give a shit anymore? There’s a moment later in the episode where she asks someone if their civil rights are being violated only to then turn around and say she was being sarcastic. That really didn’t sit right with me. It just doesn’t feel like something Laurie would say.

And then there’s the whole thing with Doctor Manhattan. Throughout the episode we see her in a phone booth trying to tell a joke to Manhattan (quite what the purpose of these phone booths are, I don’t know. Considering that people in the world of Watchmen believe that Manhattan was giving people cancer, why would anyone want to call him?). She clearly misses him to the point where she has a large blue dildo hidden a briefcase that’s clearly a direct reference to Pulp Fiction. I REALLY don’t like this. At all. The reason Laurie left Manhattan in the first place was because he couldn’t emotionally satisfy her, being an omnipresent demigod and all. So why would she be pining after him? The blue dildo joke in particular just felt kind of degrading. Just... why?

Weirder still is the joke she spends the whole episode trying to tell him. It’s clearly an indirect reference to the Pagliacci joke from the graphic novel, except the Pagliacci joke had a specific purpose in the graphic novel and its meaning was clear. Rorschach was remarking on how America was relying on the Comedian to save them from violence and corruption, which was futile considering what a violent and corrupt person the Comedian was. Here, however, I have no idea what Laurie is trying to say with the brick joke at all. I’m assuming the bricklayer is her father and she’s following in his footsteps. Okay, I kind of get that (except not really for the reasons I’ve already mentioned, but whatever). But then we come to the whole bit with God at the pearly gates sending Nite Owl, Ozymandias and Doctor Manhattan to Hell, only to then get killed by the brick from the previous joke. Now... what the fuck is that all about? I’ve been racking my brains, checking what other people said, and I can’t find any satisfying answers. It just feels like pretentious, unnecessary fanwank. The best I can come up with is that Laurie is expressing how she’s not letting men dictate her life anymore. But... she’s spent the whole episode pining after Doctor Manhattan, she’s modelled herself after her rapist father, and at the end of the episode, she sleeps with her assistant Petey, an agent who claims to not to be a fan of superheroes, but is totes a fan of superheroes. So... is that the joke? She wants to escape from the shadow of the men in her life, but can’t? Or she intends to overcome the patriarchy that has kept her down, but she still ends up choosing to indulge in the power fantasy of Petey? Or does it refer to something else she’s planning to do later? It’s all so frustratingly vague.

As I was watching this episode, I honestly lost track of the number of times I thought to myself ‘I don’t know where Lindelof is going with this.’ Sometimes this approach works, keeping the audience in the dark in order to build intrigue and suspense, but for Watchmen, a story that’s famous for its dense material and subject matter, it’s just plain annoying. In fact this whole episode feels really off to me. Instead of focusing on character narratives and thematic storytelling, She Was Killed By Space Junk relies more on a plot heavy story that moves the pieces of the larger arc forward and keeping certain specific details vague in an attempt to keep people watching. Except that’s not really what Watchmen is about and it results in leaving the more integral aspects of the story in the dust. Angela barely gets a look in here, and considering a significant portion of the episode focuses on Judd Crawford’s funeral, it feels like a massive, missed opportunity. How does it feel discovering that the man you liked and respected wasn’t the man you thought he was? Does that change your feelings toward him? Does it invalidate the good times you had with him? And with Laurie there, the show could have compared and contrasted the two. How these two women move forward knowing these uncomfortable truths about the men in the lives? But the show never really capitalises on this.

And the annoying thing is, for all I know, all the things I’m talking about could actually be addressed in a future episode, thus rendering what I’m saying moot. I don’t know. I can’t tell if this is all just really bad setup for an eventual satisfying payoff or if it’s just plain bad.

That being said, while I do ultimately dislike this episode, there are a few things I like. For instance, I do like what we learn about the larger world of Watchmen. We learn that Oklahoma is the only state that’s allowing the police to mask up and that this law was passed by Joe Keene Jr., whose father was responsible for the Keene Act that was passed outlawing vigilantes. Joe Keene Jr. was briefly introduced in the previous episode and it looks like he’s going to be playing a larger role from here on out. Let’s wait and see where that goes. 

We also learn that Looking Glass knows Laurie and has prior history with her. He even confirms Sister Night’s secret identity to her, albeit reluctantly. So is he a plant? Maybe sent by the FBI to try and sabotage Keene Jr? Hmmm, what’s going on here then?

And then there’s Ozymandias.

While I dislike how Laurie is being handled so far, I love, love, LOVE what they’re doing with Adrian Veidt. After the events of the graphic novel, it seems he’s gone into self imposed exile. Whether this is as a punishment or as a way to make sure he doesn’t inadvertently blab about his involvement with the squid is unknown. Anyway, he’s been here for three years now, judging by the candles on the cake, and he seems to be going a little bit stir crazy. He’s sacrificing his clones in order to try and find a means of escape and now he has to contend with a bloodthirsty game warden (another clone). The idea of Ozymandias being hoist by his own petard and being oppressed by the very tools and instruments of his own vanity is absolutely tantalising, and I love what Jeremy Irons is doing with the part and the way he’s depicting the character’s slow descent into lunacy.

Also a special shoutout has to go to the costume department for the Ozymandias costume we see Adrian finally don. It’s gloriously, breathtakingly terrible. Truly one of the worst superhero costumes ever seen on screen... which is exactly what it should be! 

One of the things I intensely disliked about the 2009 movie was Zack Snyder’s attempts to make the characters look cool and stylish when in reality these characters are supposed to be the complete opposite of that. Rorschach looks like a hobo, puts on a gruff voice and wears lifts on his heels in a pathetic attempt to look more imposing. Nite Owl wears a ridiculously tight fitting costume that shows off his belly bulge. Silk Spectre’s outfit looks more like something a stripper would wear and is not even remotely practical. They look stupid to us, the outsiders, but to the characters, it makes them feel powerful. That’s the whole point, and the HBO series captures that perfectly. Adrian is going to war with the game warden and wants to feel powerful, so he puts on his objectively silly purple and gold shawl in an effort to reclaim the power he once had. It’s laugh out hilarious, made all the more funnier by the fact that he’s clearly far too old to be playing dress up. It’s moments like this that demonstrate that Lindelof clearly does understand the source material, which is what makes the way Laurie is treated all the more baffling.

She Was Killed By Space Junk isn’t a bad episode. There’s stuff to like, but it doesn’t have any of the intelligent thematic storytelling or characterisation the previous two episodes had. Coupled with the apparent mishandling of Laurie’s character and the deliberate vagueness of some of its plotting leads to it being an episode that’s ultimately more frustrating than enjoyable to watch.

[jewish-privilege]

Being an ethnically ambiguous person comes with a lot of privileges; however, answering the constant questions about my identity is not one them. Like many other exoticized women, I am asked on an almost daily basis: “What are you?” and “Where are you from?” followed up with “No really, where are you from?” after I reply “Brooklyn” to their line of questioning.  

When you tell folks in America that you are Romani, nearly 100 percent of the time they will ask if you mean Romanian. Often times, I will reply “No, Romani, which is gypsy but please don’t call us that because it’s a slur.” I’ve learned that Americans are familiar with the word “gypsy,” using it to describe a vagabond, free-spirited lifestyle, and have a faint idea of us as mythical creatures, but are ignorant to the plight of actual Romani people.

So, who are Romani? More importantly, why do we need to remove the word gypsy from our vocabulary?

Simply put, Romani are the largest ethnic minority in Europe, originating from northwest India, migrating through the Middle East, and some through North Africa, to Europe. There are Romani living around the world, with estimates of 10 and 12 million living in Europe and another million in the US. Europeans imposed the word “gypsy” on Romani when they came to Europe, believing that we originated from Egypt because of our dark features. Romani have a history of persecution in Europe; it is estimated by Roma historians that over 70 to 80 percent of the Romani population was murdered in the Holocaust, a fact that is little known or recognized. Even lesser known, Romani experienced chattel slavery in Romania for over 500 years ending in 1860.

Although it is rarely talked about, the situation for Romani has not improved much; we are still victims of hate crimes, receive inadequate health care and housing, experience segregated education, and die in prison. While policies in the US systematically discriminate in covert ways, many of the policies against Romani in Europe are overt, which is apparent through opinions from political officials. In 2013, Zsolt Bayer, co-founder of the Fidesz Party in Hungary, said, “A significant part of the Roma are unfit for coexistence. They are not fit to live among people. These Roma are animals, and they behave like animals. When they meet with resistance, they commit murder. They are incapable of human communication. Inarticulate sounds pour out of their bestial skulls. At the same time, these Gypsies understand how to exploit the ‘achievements’ of the idiotic Western world. But one must retaliate rather than tolerate. These animals shouldn’t be allowed to exist. In no way. That needs to be solved — immediately and regardless of the method.”

These ideas are not reduced to words; according to a study by the National Federation of Gypsy Liaison Groups and Anglia Ruskin University, 9 out of 10 Roma children have suffered racial abuse in the UK. In Hungary, 60 percent of Romani live in secluded rural areas, segregated neighborhoods, and settlements. The fact that 90 percent of Romani in Europe live below the poverty line is an even more extreme illustration of current living conditions for Romani.

We cannot have a conversation about the use of “gypsy” without mentioning what it specifically means to be Romani and a woman facing racism, classism and sexism, excluded from traditional feminist and Romani activist movements. Romani women experience particularly disparate treatment in the areas of education, reproductive health care, and in the labor market. Only 1.6 percent of Romani women attend college in Romania, while 90 percent of Romani women are unemployed in Hungary. Romani women in Slovakia, Hungary, and the Czech Republic were victims of forced sterilization, a practice that ended less than 10 years ago. Romani infant mortality remains an issue; it is double the national average in the Czech Republic. These policies that impact actual lives of Romani women are upheld by cultural attitudes, some of which people don’t notice they are perpetuating.

...The media offers two stereotypes of Romani women: the beggar, who is dirty and exploiting social welfare, and a hypersexualized magical being who threatens the patriarchy. So, while the use of the word “gypsy” seems innocent, it is dangerous to Romani women. It conjures up a romanticized image of poverty and sexualization, which doesn’t acknowledge that there is nothing romantic about being a victim of institutionalized racism. There is nothing romantic about the link between perceived uncontrollable sexuality and forced sterilization. There is nothing romantic about being a victim of domestic violence but afraid to speak out because law enforcement won’t believe you or it will further oppress your community. There is nothing romantic about lacking political power and representation, and being left out of both anti-racist and feminist politics.

However, that doesn’t stop the rampant consumerism and pop culture references associated with “gypsy.” Just to name a few examples: The Gypsy Shrine, Gypsy Warrior, Shakira’s song “Gypsy,” Fleetwood Mac’s song “Gypsy,” Cher’s song “Gypsies, Tramps, and Thieves,” and the latest, Netflix’s original series Gypsy. There are over 2,000 “gypsy” costumes on Amazon and over 250,000 “gypsy” items for sale on Etsy. When folks unknowingly or knowingly profit off of the word “gypsy,” claim they have a “gypsy soul,” or use “gypsy aesthetic” for a day at Coachella, they are reinforcing racist stereotypes of Romani women and dehumanizing us. People in the US must recognize the link between the language we use and how cultural depictions inform public policy for marginalized groups. Beyond language and the word gypsy, this is about how gypsies are struggling for liberation, and how Romani women suffer while gadje (non-Romani) profit off of our likeness. So before you put on that coin skirt and scarf, or proclaim your “free-spirited gypsy-ness,” remember that we already exist and will be always be gypsies and Romani.

---

I’m sick of seeing celebrities who are so good with anti-racism (and even antisemitism, which almost never happens!) “reclaim” the g-word when they, as non-Romani, have no right. When they are confronted with the history and present of the word, they either ignore it or scoff at the possibility that they are acting in a racist manner. I’m not Romani and it feels like a slap every time I see it; I can only imagine how painful and exhausting it is for a Romani person to deal with it on a daily basis.

[nix-that-rad-lass]

A Bunch of Links, Receipts, and Sources for my fellow Terves

A Girls Place In The World by William Buckner About the reality of women and girls around the world https://quillette.com/2019/05/09/a-girls-place-in-the-world/

I Was A Lesbian Tomboy Allowed To Be Female; I Fear Young Girls Today No Longer Have That Choice by Tonje Gjevjon About the transing of gender nonconforming girls that would likely grow up to be lesbians if not for being transitioned before they are even old enough to understand what transition is. https://www.feministcurrent.com/2019/06/11/i-was-a-lesbian-tomboy-allowed-to-be-female-i-fear-young-girls-today-no-longer-have-that-choice/

Dagny on Social Media, Gender Dysphoria, Trans Youth, and Detransitioning. A transcript of a talk given by Dagny, a detransitioned young woman and member of the pique resilience project https://www.feministcurrent.com/2019/06/04/dagny-on-social-media-gender-dysphoria-trans-youth-and-detransitioning/

Ross Douthat Revealed the Hypocrisy in Liberal Feminist Ideology, and They’re Pissed by Meghan Murphy Self explanatory title https://www.feministcurrent.com/2018/05/04/ross-douthat-revealed-hypocrisy-liberal-feminist-ideology-theyre-pissed/

A Neo-Liberal Concept of Freedom has Allowed Gender Ideology to Take Hold by Heather Brunskell Evans https://www.feministcurrent.com/2018/12/02/neoliberalism-patriarchy-gender-identity/

Inauthentic Selves: The Modern [LGB(TQ+)] Movement is Run By Philanthropic Astroturf and Based on Junk Science https://medium.com/@sue.donym1984/inauthentic-selves-the-modern-lgbtq-movement-is-run-by-philanthropic-astroturf-and-based-on-junk-d08eb6aa1a4b

Politicians are Betraying Women in the Rush To Support Trans Rights by Jenni Russell Self explanatory https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/comment/politicians-are-betraying-women-in-the-rush-to-support-trans-rights-xzvhcf7m8

“Don’t Forget”, a compilation of sources, receipts, and other resources on male violence, compiled by @astro-didacted on tumblr https://nixtheoneandsecond.tumblr.com/post/188876269165/dont-forget?is_related_post=1

Pretty much a masterpost of RadFem beliefs and resources, compiled by @unleashtherage on tumblr https://nixtheoneandsecond.tumblr.com/post/188804771810/radical-feminism-is-a-political-movement-in

PDF of Lundy Bancroft’s “Why Does He Do That” https://www.docdroid.net/py03/why-does-he-do-that.pdf

The Wikipedia Page for the one and only TERF Icon, Magdalen Berns. She deserved better! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magdalen_Berns

A bunch of Andrea Dworkins works in a google drive PDF https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1i3r-gSizLC6UbyvM1ZJyCYMHtYvdss-S

Sex Before Kissing: How 15 year old girls are dealing with porn obsessed boys by Melinda Tankard Reist Self explanatory https://fightthenewdrug.org/sex-before-kissing-15-year-old-girls-dealing-with-boys/

Some tea on the tumblr porn ban from 2018. https://fightthenewdrug.org/tumblr-banned-porn-from-its-platform-one-year-ago-how-is-the-site-doing-now/

Why Victims Freeze Up During Sexual Assaults by Jackie Hong Tells about experiences, and the fight, flight, and freeze response. https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/wd7945/i-froze-up-when-i-was-sexually-assaulted-and-we-should-stop-dismissing-that-response

Why Women Have Higher Rates of PTSD Than Men by Melanie Greenberg (spoiler: its because of sexual violence and misogyny)https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-mindful-self-express/201809/why-women-have-higher-rates-ptsd-men

The Difference Between Toxic Masculinity and Being A Man by Harris O’Malley Finally, a small handful of men are actually attempting to be better and make a difference! Took em long enough! https://goodmenproject.com/featured-content/the-difference-between-toxic-masculinity-and-being-a-man-dg/

Criminal Justice System: The Actual Amount of Sexual Assault Perps, Pimps, Johns, Rapists, and Pedophiles that Get Away With It https://rainn.org/statistics/criminal-justice-system

The First Legal Abortion Providers Tell Their Stories by Alex Ronan https://www.thecut.com/2015/10/first-legal-abortionists-tell-their-stories.html?mid=twitter-share-thecut#

How Much Does An Abortion Cost? by Charlotte Cowles Not only covers the price, but also types of abortion, prevention, and more on reproductive health https://www.thecut.com/2018/11/how-much-does-an-abortion-cost.html

8 Signs Your Partner Is Being Sexually Coercive by Suzannah Weiss https://www.bustle.com/articles/155328-8-signs-your-partner-is-being-sexually-coercive-because-you-can-always-say-no

Why Conservative Women are Okay With Harassment by Jennifer Wright This is regarding not only the general societal expectations which conservative women help uphold and enforce, but also why they are surprisingly okay with electing sexual predators to the government https://www.harpersbazaar.com/culture/politics/a23453699/conservative-women-response-brett-kavanaugh-allegations-sexual-assault/

Archaeologists Find New Way To Determine Sex of Cremated Individuals by Katherine J Wu Because we all run into those TRA’s that say its impossible to know someones ‘gender’ or ‘sex’ by just looking at them, or their remains in the case of those already passed. https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/article/archaeologists-find-new-way-determine-sex-cremated-individuals/

Analysing the Bones: What Can A Skeleton Tell You? by Hayley Dunning Again, because TRAs love to say that skeletons are ambiguous when, in fact, they are not https://www.nhm.ac.uk/discover/analysing-the-bones-what-can-a-skeleton-tell-you.html

Sex Determination in Skeletal Remains from the Medieval Adriatic Coast - Discriminant Function Analysis of Humeri Hmm, wonder what this is about. You guessed it! More differences in the bone and skeletal structures of male and female humans https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3692335/

Sex Determination from the Talus of South African Whites by Discriminant Function Analysis Woah, more information on telling skeletons apart by sex! Almost like human skeletons differ between the sexes https://journals.lww.com/amjforensicmedicine/Abstract/2003/12000/Sex_Determination_From_the_Talus_of_South_African.3.aspx

The Reliability of Sex Determination of Skeletons from Forensic Context in the Balkans Oh my god, whats this?? More factual evidence of differences in physiology between the *gasp* TWO human sexes?? https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/15567621/

Mandibular Ramus Flexure: A New Morphologic Indicator of Sexual Dimorphism in the Human Skeleton Okay, okay, I think thats all the skeleton stuff for now https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/(SICI)1096-8644(199603)99:3%3C473::AID-AJPA8%3E3.0.CO;2-X

Further Evidence to Show Population Specificity of Discriminant Function Equations for Sex Determination Using the Talus of South African Blacks Partner to a previously aforementioned article https://www.astm.org/DIGITAL_LIBRARY/JOURNALS/FORENSIC/PAGES/JFS2003431.htm

Why Talking About Bowie’s Sexual Misconduct Matters by Angelina Chapin Article about David Bowie and his misconduct. pretty much, you shouldnt always separate the art from the artist. https://www.huffpost.com/entry/why-talking-about-bowies-sexual-misconduct-matters_b_9009230

Witches, Midwives, and Nurses: A History of Women Healers by Barbara Ehrenreich and Deirdre English http://www.feministes-radicales.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Barbara-Ehrenreich-and-Deirdre-English-Witches-Midwives-and-Nurses-A-History-of-Women-Healers.-Introduction..pdf

This entire blog is gold. To quote them: Saying No To Penis is NOT Hate Speech [ffs] http://thenewbacklash.blogspot.com/?

Steven Hassan’s BITE Model about what constitutes a cult. You know, like the gender cult. https://freedomofmind.com/bite-model/

What Is Darvo? by Jennifer J Freyd DARVO is the reaction that many sexual offenders display in response to being faced with the consequences of their actions. https://dynamic.uoregon.edu/jjf/defineDARVO.html

Sick Woman Theory by Johanna Hedva Genuinely just read this, its too good to summarise http://www.maskmagazine.com/not-again/struggle/sick-woman-theory?fbclid=IwAR2cQyCRT5olIzkBGfO_F5HvES28bhdIcbUyc9g1W_p0L6o7U8gopDp5Kxw

Taking Back Your Mind: A Radical Feminist Approach to Recovering from Porn Use by Kitty at medium com https://medium.com/@kittyit/taking-back-your-mind-a-radical-feminist-approach-to-recovering-from-porn-use-8ae9347c3d8f

About Female Infanticide http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/abortion/medical/infanticide_1.shtml

About Female Genital Mutilation https://www.who.int/en/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/female-genital-mutilation

About Child Marriage https://www.girlsnotbrides.org/about-child-marriage/

Who Cooked the Last Supper? from @aeroposter

https://aeroposter.tumblr.com/post/166368772300/who-cooked-the-last-supper-by-rosalind-miles

Breast ironing: Abhorrent Practice Becoming Endemic In UK by Alexandra Sims

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/breast-ironing-abhorrent-practice-becoming-endemic-in-uk-a6950521.html

About Forced Pregnancy

http://www.stopvaw.org/harmful_practices_forced_pregnancy

Did Sissy Porn Make Me Trans or Was I Trans All Along? As if we needed any more proof that it is, indeed, a fetish

https://www.reddit.com/r/asktransgender/comments/2mn8au/did_sissy_porn_make_me_trans_or_was_i_trans_all_a/

Did Porn Make Me Transgender? Who coulda thunk it

https://forum.nofap.com/index.php?threads/did-porn-make-me-transgender.61492/

Jealous of Lesbians? Yep, thats right folks. Transbians really are just rapey straight guys with a lesbian fetish. https://www.reddit.com/r/asktransgender/comments/55zkbs/jealous_of_lesbians/

Just when you thought men couldnt get much worse... https://metro.co.uk/2013/07/09/peeping-tom-arrested-after-hiding-in-septic-tank-and-staring-at-people-using-the-toilet-3874756/

Houston Man Posed as a Doctor to Rape a Student

https://abc13.com/5730127/

Rape In War: Challenging the Tradition of Impunity

https://www.hrw.org/legacy/women/docs/rapeinwar.htm

Doctors & Sex Abuse: Patients Sexually Abused While Sedated

http://doctors.ajc.com/doctor_sex_abuse_sedated/

Man pretended to be gay in order to get close to a woman and ultimately rape her

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/man-convicted-of-raping-woman-who-he-allegedly-befriended-by-pretending-to-be-gay/

Complete collection of Andrea Dworkins work

http://radfem.org/dworkin/

[neurodiversenerd]

How to Include Autistic Women in Your Feminism

Hey, given that this is an activist post, I might be mentioning certain issues that might be triggering to some. Check the tags and stay safe. Ily. ❤️ 

Ever since activist and feminist Audre Lorde devised intersectionality as a way of describing the experience of multiply-marginalized women, feminism has adapted to include women of color, trans women, queer women, disabled women and religious minority women. Although white, non-intersectional feminism is still pervasive and is the dominant ideology carried on by cishet white women, a significant portion of the feminist movement has embraced the identities and diversity among various groups of women.

Intersectionality allows for us to look at the various ways womanhood affects those experiencing it, instead of just slapping one catch all experience of femininity onto all women. It lets us understand that a woman of color, for example, has less amounts of racial privilege than a white woman and must deal with the burden of specific stereotypes around being a woman of color. Intersectional feminism centers the women with multiple identities, or “intersections,” that society considers unfavorable or marginalized.

However, with all the strides intersectional theory has made in social justice circles, the plight of Autistic women is largely ignored by even the most inclusive feminist circles.

Disabled women as a broader group are often lumped together, even though cognitively disabled, intellectually disabled and physically disabled women contend with incredibly different forms of ableism. Alternatively, the feminist movement also tends to cater to physically disabled women who often have more visibility (which, granted, isn’t a lot) and acceptance than those whose minds are thought to be lesser.

It’s common in the disabled community for people to justify their humanity by asserting their neurotypicality, while erasing and oppressing non-neurotypicals. The pro-Autistic movement itself is mostly made up of women, queer individuals and people of color, and yet somehow it always ends up headed by cis white men. In both feminism and Autistic advocacy, women (especially ones with multiple intersections) are ignored and pushed to the sidelines despite typically facing greater oppression than cis autistic men.

Thus, it’s important to make sure to be inclusive towards autistic women and GNC individuals in both feminism and disabled activism. Here are some ways that I’ve compiled on how to make your feminism both inclusive and accepting as a queer, Autistic feminist.

1.       Mention Autistic Women and Bodily Autonomy

Women’s rights to their bodies are an important topic to discuss in feminism, but Autistic women deal with specific challenges in regard to consent and access to care and their bodies, so it’s important to bring up these issues in your discussions.

For starters, the court case Buck v. Bell still stands to this day. The case itself took place in the early 20th century during the eugenicist movement, and the court’s ruling allowed the forced sterilization of anyone labeled feebleminded. It’s legal for parents and guardians of the disabled to sign paper and sterilize anyone under their control regardless of whether the person in question consent to it even now. This is especially unsettling for women of color, who have historically been abused by eugenicist doctors. (See The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks and the book Imbeciles for more information on these topics).

In the medical industry, there are also barriers Autistic women must deal with. Today, there are still ableist debates about whether Autistic and other disabled people deserve emergency medical treatment and organ transplants. Once again, this is especially bad for women of color who deal with medical abuse and malpractice committed against them in modern times.

The gist is, the most vulnerable Autistic women often don’t have the ability to consent to harmful and damaging procedures.

For transgender Autistic women, the burden is tenfold. Many Autistic trans people on social media have shared their stories about how people struggled to believe that they were trans because of their neurological difference. This makes transitional care and access much harder for GNC Autistic people and trans people, as their gender identity is viewed as a symptom.

2.       Talk About Consent

Along with consent to medical procedures, there’s also the fact that Autistic women are particularly vulnerable to the whims of violence against women. Here are some ideas to mention when talking about consent.

First off, many Autistic women use alternative methods of communication. Neurotypical women can usually say an explicit ‘yes’ or ‘no,’ though they still face violence. For Autistic women who are nonverbal and communicate through AAC, in a victim blaming culture such as ours their hindered ability to consent can be used against them.

Through ABA therapy, Autistic women are also further taught that their ‘no’ doesn’t matter. True ABA therapy, created by Ivar Lovaas, is essentially legal conditioning. The aim of this psychological form of abuse is to train Autistic children into seeming more Neurotypical instead of embracing their unique neurology and changing their environment to fit their needs. These kids are taught to obey authority at all times, or else they’ll deal with the use of an aversiv e. This of course, discourages their active consent to a situation and puts Autistic women in a dangerous position.

If they are physically as well as cognitively disabled, they may not physically be able to resist or run from an attacker. In many cases, an incidence of assault is justified by the perpetrator claiming that the victim wouldn’t have had a consensual encounter otherwise because they are “ugly” or unworthy of a healthy relationship. Autistic women are often considered to be such..

Trans women and women of color, who are often assaulted more frequently than cis white, women are of course very vulnerable when it comes to this issue. As such, it’s vital to mention this at any discussion of consent.

3.       Know that Toxic Femininity Affects Us More than Neurotypical Women

To preface this, I want to say that there’s nothing wrong with being feminine. I myself identify as a femme woman, out of my own personal fashion sense and aesthetic. I like being a feminine woman and wearing dresses and having long hair, though these also aren’t the only ways to be feminine, of course. Embracing femmeness does not mean that someone is servicing the patriarchy, and embracing androgyny and/or butchness also doesn’t mean said person has internalized misogyny. Everyone is entitled to the way they want to present, and feminism should be about uplifting how people choose to present themselves instead of putting down women they don’t think look “liberated” or “feminist” enough.

That being said, the patriarchy tends to enforce feminine roles on cis women and police the feminine expression of transwomen to make them “prove” they’re really trans and “sure” about being women. I like to call this “Toxic Femininity,” the way that women are pressured to conform to Eurocentric femininity regardless of how they actually want to present, but then oppressed for both their femmeness or their alternate presentation if they disregard the aforementioned. Either way, women can’t win.

Abiding by gender roles is exhausting for anyone, but for Autistic women who have limited energy to go into their daily activities and deal with sensory issues and neurotypicals. As such, gender presentation is often pretty low on our list of priorities. Autistic women are often unable to conform to society as our hindered social skills prevent us from perceiving these norms. It’s hard for us to fully conceptualize what’s acceptable and what’s not. As such, it takes extra effort for us to live up to Toxic Femininity.

With our sensory perception, certain clothes are uncomfortable for us and it’s sometimes a necessity to wear certain textures. Men’s clothing or androgynous clothing are often more comfortable, so it’s not uncommon to find us wearing those. As such, we are often labeled butch or non-femme regardless of how we actually identify our presentation. We are cast aside by Toxic Femininity.

This is of course, even more true for fat women, trans women, and physically disabled Autistic women, who’s bodies already don’t abide by the unattainability that Toxic Femininity forces us to live up to.

4.       Downplay the Voice of Neurotypicals in Autistic Women’s Issues

Despite their position of being privileged oppressors of the Autistic community, most of our advocacy is done by parents and relatives of Autistic people who believe that they are more entitled to our community and voices. They are the “Autism moms” and those with blue puzzle piece signs in their backyards, constantly yelling over us.

Most of the Autism organizations are run by these people, who often don’t consult with Autistic people about the needs of our community. Even though most of them don’t think they hate Autistic people and may even share common goals with the community, they still oppress us because they’re centering the voices of the privileges instead of the voices that are affected no matter how supportive they are.

An Autistic inclusive feminist space means downplaying Neurotypical rhetoric, meaning stopping the use of hate symbols like puzzle pieces and functioning labels. Cut out the influence of ableist organizations and monitor the use of words like “retarded” in your space. This will be difficult in a pervasively ableist society, but it will be worth it in making a more united social justice movement.

It also means allowing Autistic people to have input in their own issues, and allowing them to reclaim their agency. Know that no matter how many Autistic people you know, if you’re Neurotypical, you will never truly experience being Autistic even if you know more about the condition.

5.       Autistic Women Can Still be Racist, Homophobic, or Transphobic – Don’t Be Afraid to Let Them Know

There are usually 2 stereotypes Neurotypicals believe about us, and strangely enough, they’re complete opposites. We’re either hyperviolent, unfeeling school shooters to them or perfect innocent angels who never do anything wrong. Obviously, these are ableist because they assume that all Autistic people are the same, but most people tend to look at us as the latter stereotype because it’s more “politically correct” even though both viewpoints are hurtful in different ways.

As such, when Autistic people are genuinely oppressive, they aren’t held accountable. I’ve had interactions with homophobic Autistic people who accepted me for my Autism but not the fact that I was a girl who loved girls. I’ve met misogynist Autistic men who viewed me as an object and wouldn’t respect my boundaries and right to say ‘no’ to a relationship. As an Autistic white person, I myself hold institutional power over Autistic people of color and as such, am able to be racist.

Autistic people shouldn’t be given a free pass for their bigotry, and assuming that they should denies them their agency and oppresses others in that space.

Autistic women have a lot to contribute to feminism, and neurotypical women should allow them the opportunity to rise against their own oppression. Thanks for reading and for making your feminism inclusive –

Trust me, it means the world to us.

[theexistentiallyqueer]

@papercraftcynder replied to your post “lastvalyrian: I really, REALLY detest people who consume a fictional...”

I fail to see how people can look at a character and say," that character didn't physically do anything. Therefore, they're useless to the narrative." Stories are ruled by characters' reasons for doing things. Save the world? Been there, done that. The question is why, and a character who chooses not to take action is just as important as the ones who do.

And then there's asking if a character always does the smartest thing. Watching characters succeed every single time may be fine for a kid's show, but it gets boring after a while.

If a character makes a plan with serious consequences for failure and there's no guarantee for their success, the entire scene will be so much more nerve-wracking to watch. Furthermore, if the character did make a miscalculation, made a gamble and lost, or just simply screwed up, then you have an interesting story arc where they have to deal with the aftermath of their failure.

Yeah, it’s definitely a thought fallacy. No one calling a character useless to the narrative is actually interrogating the text. Like, let’s take the case of Sansa again and set aside the actions she takes with her own agency that drive the narrative forward in huge ways (going to Cersei to tell her they were leaving, saving Dontos and subsequently conspiring with him to escape King’s Landing, her regular and almost incidental kindness to the Hound, and now in TWOW, orchestrating the tourney of the Winged Knights). Even if you ignore all of those very small, critical actions she takes, Sansa brings a tremendous amount to the narrative.

Narrative does not equal out to just plot. Narrative is also theme, and one of the major themes of ASOIAF is the effect Westeros’s brutal, militaristic patriarchy has on anyone who isn’t a wealthy, able-bodied, martially-endowed man. Sansa and Arya, being the only two young girls among the primary POV characters who are actually embedded in Westerosi society (Dany being in Essos and her experiences with misogyny having a different context). Sansa’s and Arya’s thematic role are to compare how femininity is enforced in Westerosi girls, then contrast how two very different girls would respond to those expectations, and then finally to explore how that would impact their experiences with power, war, and violence.

By that token, Sansa is beyond useful to the narrative as a character in feminine coming of age tale set against a backdrop of cruelty. It’s also no coincidence fairy tales play such a huge role in Sansa’s individual narrative, as traditional fairy tales are often very dark and heavy with themes of agency, female empowerment, and justified retribution. As ASOIAF is about the changing of the seasons as a metaphor for the destruction of society giving way to the possibility of renewal and change (a feast for crows, the winds of winter, a dream of spring), it’s no surprise Sansa is most closely associated with the myth of Persephone/Kore, who sheds her youth to descend into the underworld to rule and then rises again as the goddess of spring. 

In a well-crafted story, every character, every action, every word serves the narrative. “Useless” is a descriptor that’s used by people who hate a certain character for failing to measure up against some kind of arbitrary, and usually misogynistic, racist, homophobic, and/or ableist, standard to bludgeon fans of that character. It has no meaning the way antis use it, because it’s a code they use to mask their bigotry.

[berniesrevolution]

THE OUTLINE

When anti-racist protesters held a demonstration against the white supremacist rally in Charlottesville in August, their protest was protected by an informal militia of 20 rifle-toting leftists who surrounded the perimeter of Justice Park. “It’s a deterrent,” Kevin Smith, a member of a leftist gun club who was part of the informal security detail, told the Colorado Springs Independent. “There were people there who wanted to come over and start [fights] with people, but they saw us and stayed across the street.”

“GUNS ARE A NECESSARY FORM OF SELF-DEFENSE SO LONG AS THERE IS AN OPPRESSIVE, RACIST STATE THAT EXISTS TO UPHOLD WHITE SUPREMACY.”

— Courtney Caldwell, gun owner and Democratic Socialist

As Democrats and Republicans debate gun control in the wake of last week’s shooting in Las Vegas, which left 59 dead and more than 500 injured, some socialists and other leftists are rejecting the Democratic Party’s call for stricter regulation of firearms. The result has been a fraught intra-leftist gun debate that raises questions about the efficacy of gun control, as well as the roles racial and economic justice should play in curbing gun violence.

“I would describe myself as a pro-gun socialist,” Courtney Caldwell, told The Outline. Caldwell, an active member of the Denton, Texas chapter of the Democratic Socialists of America, doesn’t quite fit the profile of the average gun owner: white, male, high-income, and over the age of 55, according to a 2015 Columbia University study published in the journal Injury Prevention. For her, gun ownership is a fundamental part of her leftist identity. “Guns are a necessary form of self-defense so long as there is an oppressive, racist state that exists to uphold white supremacy,” Caldwell said. This doesn’t just mean self-defense in the traditional sense — defending one’s body from harm — but also the collective defense of marginalized communities.

Several leftist pro-gun organizations are committed to doing just that. There’s Redneck Revolt, a self-described anti-racist, anti-capitalist grassroots organization that seeks to build solidarity between the white working class and people of color. Founded in 2016, the organization has more than 40 chapters across the country. In addition to providing security at protests, Redneck Revolt relies on counter-recruitment — reclaiming gun culture from white conservatives as a way of reaching out to working-class gun owners who feel alienated from mainstream liberal politics. The Dallas-based Huey P. Newton Gun Club, established in 2013 and named after the founder of the Black Panther Party, was formed in response to right-wing gun advocacy groups in the region. In 2015, the group’s founder Charles Goodson told Vice magazine he wanted his organization to become the “black alternative to the NRA.” But Goodson’s gun club focuses on more than just individual gun ownership. That same year, the club staged its first openly-armed patrol in a predominately black Dallas neighborhood where police killed a young black man in 2012. “No longer will we let the pigs slaughter our brothers and sisters and not say a damn thing about it! Black power! Black power! Black power!” the rally’s leader shouted.

Joe Prince, a law student and black leftist living in Washington D.C., defined his community’s relationship connection to guns as “complex.”

“The relationship is not a loving one, to say the least,” Prince told The Outline. He isn’t a gun-owner himself — “I think guns are terrible. I never want to own a gun,” he said — but understands the appeal gun-ownership has for people of color, and for leftists of color in particular. “Martin Luther King, Jr. owned guns,” Prince said. “He spoke frequently about how much he didn’t like guns, about how nonviolence is the way forward for civil rights, but at the same time he had people with shotguns protecting him so he would be able to live to make those speeches.”

Not all leftists are sold on this idea. “From a pragmatic, realistic standpoint, the first thing we need to remember is that two-thirds of gun deaths — the majority — are suicides,” a socialist writer who goes by the name Lana Del Raytheon told The Outline. Having worked in suicide prevention for six years, Del Raytheon’s main concern is the correlation between gun ownership and suicide rates. “There is something to be said about hypothetical situations and preparing for those, but at the same time, what is the real cost of having a gun in your home to prepare for something that will never happen? Once you have a gun in your home, your chances of suicide or of killing an intimate partner skyrocket.”

The leftists I spoke to all agree that the Democratic Party’s focus on mass shootings — tragic incidents which nonetheless account for a minority of gun deaths — shifts the focus from the root causes of gun violence in America.

Homicides account for just a third of gun deaths, and research suggests that these deaths in particular tend to be tied to socioeconomic status. As theAtlantic reported in 2011, there’s a positive correlation between gun homicides and poverty. A recent report by Demos, a left-wing think tank, found that a massive disparity exists between the wealth of black and white households in the U.S. The racial wealth gap is so pervasive that the median white household led by a high-school dropout is wealthier than the median black household headed by someone with a college education. According to data from the Economic Policy Institute, the median net worth for white families was $134,230 in 2013, compared to $11,030 for black families. Mark Kaplan, a professor of social welfare at the UCLA Luskin School of Public Affairs who studies suicide and gun deaths, found that 77 percent of white gun deaths are suicides while 19 percent are homicides. Among black Americans, 14 percent of gun deaths are suicides and 86 percent are homicides, numbers that are hard to separate from the starkly disparate household income statistics. In his research, Kaplan found that countries with more income parity tend to have lower rates of gun-related deaths.

“WHEN THEY ENFORCE [GUN] LAWS, WILL BLACK YOUTH BE SAFE FROM ARBITRARY PUNISHMENT FOR GUN LAWS? WILL THEY MOSTLY TARGET BLACK YOUTH?”

— Joe Prince, law student

Despite their differing views on guns and gun control, the people I spoke with all agreed on one thing: Politicians looking to curb the gun violence epidemic, particularly in low-income communities and communities of color, should focus on education and economic equality rather than on punitive gun control legislation. If gun control legislation passes, Prince asked, “Will the police be disarmed [too]? Do we trust the government to make sure black people are safe from threats, from terrorism from white nationalists? When they enforce [gun] laws, will black youth be safe from arbitrary punishment for gun laws? Will they mostly target black youth?”

“We know that so many vectors of interpersonal violence are related — from our alienation due to capitalism, and also from the allostatic load, the elevated stress levels from dealing with racism, dealing with patriarchy, and other kinds of systemic oppression,” Del Raytheon said. “[Policies] that can address that would be a really good start in preventing gun homicides without really targeting people of color or lower-income people and putting them through the carceral state.”

(Continue Reading)