#yes i'm using queer theory | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

bowtiepastabitch · 2 months

Text

Heaven's Not Homophobic in Good Omens, and Why That's Important

I need to preface this with, I am not trying to start a fight or argument and won't tolerate any homophobic or bad faith arguments in response to this. Cool? Cool.

This is in large part inspired by this ask from Neil's blog, which sparked some discourse that I don't want to get involved in but that brought up some analytic questions for me.

He goes on to reblog a question asking about Uriel's taunt specifically, clarifying that "boyfriend in the dark glasses" can just as easily be read/translated from angelic as girlfriend or bosom buddy. The idea is that an angel and a demon "fraternizing" is seriously looked down upon, not that heaven is homophobic. And that's super important.

We see homophobia in both the book and show, of course. Aziraphale is very queer-coded, intentionally and explicitly so, and we see the reaction of other humans to that several times. Sergeant Shadwell, for example, and the kid in the book that calls him the f-slur when he's doing magic at Warlock's birthday party. These are, however, individual human reactions to his coding as a gay man.

I am, personally, not a fan of heaven redemption theories for the show; no hate for people who want that it's just not something I'm interested in. I don't believe that heaven is good with bad leadership, or that God Herself remains as a paragon of virtue. To me, that's not in line with the themes and messages of the show. It's important, however, that heaven doesn't reflect human vices. Heaven can be nasty and selfish and apathetic in its own right without ableism, homophobia, transphobia, or racism. This matters for two reasons.

Firstly, we don't need the -isms and -phobias to be evil or at least ethically impure. In a world where we spend so much time fighting against prejudice and bigotry, our impulse is to see that reflected in characters whose motivations we distrust or who we're intended to dislike. While it's true that that's often the big bad evil in our daily lives, it can really cheapen the malice in fictional evil from a storytelling standpoint. A villain motivated by racism or as an allegory for homophobia can be incredibly compelling, but not every bad guy can be the physical representation of an -ism. Art reflects the reality in which it's crafted, but the complexity of human nature and the evil it's capable of can't be simplified to a dni list.

Secondly, and I think more importantly, is that for Good Omens specifically, this places the responsibility for homophobia on humanity. If you're in this fandom, there's like a 98% chance you've been hurt by religion in some way. For a lot of us, that includes religious homophobia and hate, so it makes sense to want to project that onto the 'religious' structure of Good Omens. It's a story that is, in many ways, about religious trauma and abuse. However, if heaven itself held homophobic values, it would canonize in-universe the idea that heaven and religion itself are responsible for all humanity's -isms and -phobias and absolve humans of any responsibility. Much like Crowley emphasizes repeatedly that the wicked cruelty he takes responsibility for is entirely human-made, we have to accept that heaven can't take the blame for this. To make heaven, the religious authority, homophobic would simply justify religious bigotry from humans. By taking the blame for religious extremism and hatred away from heaven and the religious structure, Good Omens makes it clear that the nastiness of humanity is uniquely and specially human and forces the individual to take responsibility rather than the system. Hell isn't responsible for the Spanish Inquisition, which by the way was religiously motivated if you didn't know, and heaven isn't responsible for Ronald Reagan.

This idea is perhaps more strongly and explicitly expressed in the Good Omens novel, in the scene where Aziraphale briefly possesses a televangelist on live TV. It's comedic, yes, but also serves to demonstrate that human concepts of the apocalypse and religious fervor are deeply incorrect (in gomens universe canon) and condemn exploitation of faith practices. Pratchett and Gaiman weave a great deal of complexity into the way religion and religious values are portrayed in the book, especially in the emphasis on heaven and hell being essentially the same. They're interested in the concept of what it means to be uniquely and unabashedly human, the good and the bad, and part of that is forcing each individual person to bear the brunt of responsibility for their own actions rather than passing it off onto a greater religious authority.

Additionally, from a fan perspective, there's something refreshing about a very queer story where homophobia isn't the primary (or even a side) conflict. The primary narrative of Good Omens isn't that these two man-shaped-beings are gay, it's that they're an angel and a demon. The tension in their romantic arc arises entirely from the larger conflict of heaven and hell, and things like gender and sexuality don't really matter at all. Yes, homophobia and transphobia are very real, present issues in our everyday lives, but they don't have to be central to every story we tell. There's something really soothing about Crowley and Aziraphale being so queer-coded and so clearly enamored with each other without constantly being bombarded with homophobia and hate. It's incredible to see a disabled angel whose use of a mobility aid makes no difference in their role and to see angels and demons using they/them pronouns without being questioned or misgendered. It's all accepted and normalized, and that's the kind of representation that we as queer people deserve.

#anywho that got real long #good omens #neil gaiman #terry pratchett #media analysis #good omens analysis #queer coding #queer representation #ineffable husbands #gomens #aziraphale x crowley #anywho happy valentines day #love my fandom #not beta read or majorly edited because I'm a busy guy with homework so lmk if there's any errors that need correcting (politely!)

273 notes · View notes

autolenaphilia · 8 months

Text

Farrell's Fallacy

One of the most common forms of antifeminist arguments is something I'm now going to call Farrell's Fallacy. I've discussed it before in this essay, but now I have a snappy name for it and what I said bears repeating. Farrell's fallacy goes like this.

"Feminists say we live in a patriarchy and men have male privilege. But look at this group of men undeniably experiencing marginalization and oppression. Where is their male privilege? Checkmate, feminists!"

It's named after Warren Farrell, "father of the men's rights movement." This is admittedly partly for alliterative reasons, but also because he used an early version of it in his 1993 book The Myth of Male Power, where he used the fact that working class men are exploited by capitalism and are drafted to die in wars to argue that, well, male power is a myth and in fact "men are the disposable sex."

Yet you can substitute any group of marginalized men in the argument, and the argument is pretty much the same. The "group of men undeniably experiencing marginalization and oppression" can be non-white men, disabled men, gay men, trans men, and so on, sometimes all of them at once. It's therefore very popular here on tumblr as a way to sell antifeminism to social justice people who have a poor grasp of feminist theory, because it appeals to their understandable desire to support marginalized groups.

And it is a fallacy, because it relies on a strawman. It presumes feminists are doing the most simplistic analysis possible of patriarchy and male privilege, where only gender is taken into account and complicating factors like class and race are ignored. In reality intersectionality has been an important part of feminist analysis for over 30 years.

And while Farrell's Fallacy uses real oppression as part of its argument, it dishonestly contextualizes that oppression. It ignores that the oppression is not on the basis of these men's gender, but on other factors. These men are oppressed, yes, but it's because of systemic injustices based on class, race, disability and queerness and so on.

This often means their male privilege is severely curtailed, but it doesn't remove it. Women also suffer from these forms of oppression and they are often worse for women because they often intersect with the misogyny of patriarchal society, which is why we have terms like misogynynoir, lesbophobia and transmisogyny. It is in comparison with similarly marginalized women that we can see the male privilege of marginalized men.

This is one of the most common antifeminist arguments, especially here on tumblr. And i hope this post helps you recognize it for the nonsese it is.

#my writings #farrell's fallacy #feminism #misogyny

634 notes · View notes

itsclydebitches · 1 year

Text

I need more time to put my thoughts in order about tonight's episode, but my initial reaction is that I'm surprised by others' disappointment? I mean, I'm actually not that surprised because coming out stories are intensely personal with viewers all looking for/needing vastly different things from their media, but it just feels like a lot of what (I thought) Ted Lasso was trying to do has gotten lost under specific expectations.

Ted goes off on a long, ridiculous, borderline disgusting story at the worst possible moment? Yes, that's the point. For all my fun TedTrent theories, Ted is (currently) serving the role of the well-meaning, but often ignorant straight man. His function is to both provide the insight and warmth that he's known for - "Actually it does matter to us" - while simultaneously showing how this intensely heteronormative culture would react to a player coming out. AKA messily. If we got a perfect scenario where everyone was accepting and said exactly the right thing, that would undermine the problems the show is trying to acknowledge in the first place. The focus on Isaac's complicated anger and Ted's foot-in-mouth syndrome is just as important to this whole scenario as the club's overall acceptance and the fact that Ted immediately realizes that he fucked up: "I regret that." Ted Lasso is a feel-good comedy, so it's all couched in over-the-top humor, but I thought that was an important acknowledgement: your allies - straight or not, out or not - are likely going to react in cringe-worthy, imperfect ways and the important takeaway there is not that they're irredeemable people who don't love you, but that they're trying and you should gently correct them (as Colin does) and allow them to grow (as Ted does). Despite being an absurd fiction, Ted Lasso is working to write about this in a semi-realistic sense. Instead of a Perfect Coming Out Moment that makes all the queer fans (myself included!) squeal at how ~wonderful~ our beloved cast is for being oh so perfect, we get that realistic awkwardness, misplaced anger, and regret.

We cut away from Colin coming out? Yes, because he's already come out to us. I understand why fans would be disappointed in that, but I don't think it's fair to characterize the show as not allowing Colin to come out at all. That was the entirety of "Sunflowers." Rather than trying to fit Colin's big moment into a locker room halftime, the writers crafted a whole episode where he could grapple with that fear of being outed, be reassured, have a heart-to-heart with Trent, sit together on the monument, go out later in celebration... Ted Lasso made space for all that and, understandably to my mind, didn't want to rehash many of those same beats three episodes later, especially not when we need time to work through the intersection of Colin's story with everyone else. (Because despite this being a queer story-line about a queer man, the show is about the team. Colin's conflict was always going to expand into the rest of the cast.) No, we don't get to see Colin come out specifically to the others, but we did see him come out - both narratively by kissing a man and to Trent - and we see the team's reaction immediately after the fact. Making space for Issac didn't feel like it was cheating Colin to me, or focusing too much on the straight characters, because Colin's story has been a season in the making (plus some details earlier on). To say nothing of the fact that his hesitance about coming out is specifically because he fears the team's reaction... so why wouldn't we grapple with Isaac's negative reaction? We already know Colin's worries, we know what he wants, we see him seeking advice from Trent, we see him reaching out to Issac, we see that failing, and after all that his queer story-line is functionally at a stand-still until something else gives. Issac's explosion is what finally tips the scales.

Idk I don't think I'm explaining this very well because it's late and I only just watched, but I'm of the opinion that Ted Lasso did a lot of work in previous episodes so that they'd have space in this episode to do different work, which is smart. From a narrative perspective, Ted doesn't need to be the perfect ally because Colin already has a supportive queer mentor. "La Locker Room Aux Folles" doesn't need to try to balance Colin's emotional coming out with Isaac's internalized homophobia because "Sunflowers" already gave the audience so, so much, allowing the writers to both keep things on screen for our benefit and then later cut away for the sake of time. As said, stories like these are always going to be a hit-or-miss depending on what each individual fan wants and needs, but I think it's worth keeping in mind that Colin's story is not this single episode; it's all of them combined. Has Ted Lasso really not treated his journey respectfully... or did it just not try to check every queer story-line box in a single episode?

#Ted Lasso #Ted Lasso spoilers #Colin Hughes

648 notes · View notes

andy-wm · 7 months

Text

I have thoughts about the Tiktok JK deleted

<<I realise its a few days ago now and you might be wondering 'what tiktok?' but I've been writing in snatches when I have a few minutes so it took a while. Anyway, here it is...>>

A few posts I've read have suggested JK did the silly>sexy Tiktok challenge backwards. That he did sexy>silly instead. That he was being random and funny.

I disagree.

What he did was unexpected, a little left of centre, and for the people who can read subtext, not random at all but very very clever.

I'll tell you why, (It may not be what you think) but first I need to vent about two things:

1. Give the man some credit. He knows what he's doing.

There are some who love JK but who see him as a naive innocent. He is not. He isn't a child or a himbo.

Saying he did the challenge just because it's trending, and he reversed the order of the content for a bit of a joke, is insulting to him as an artist. It would suggest he has no forethought or understanding of himself or his (global) audience, and his decisions are made on impulse with no idea of the consequences.

He's very intelligent and has plenty of experience with digital media and creating content. Besides being involved in producing complex visual narratives as part of BTS for the last ten years, he has directed and produced seven highly polished and professional GFC videos. And don't forget the MVs for Life Goes On. For the October issue of Vogue Korea he took on the role of Creative Director. That's a pretty big deal. So we can assume he knows what he's doing.

If he produces content in a particular way, it's because it enables him to communicate what he wants to communicate.

2. You may not understand the message. That doesn't mean there's nothing to understand.

A heads up to people who can't work it out... your inability to grasp meaning doesn't equate to 'no meaning exists'. Suggesting that people who recognise what he's doing are reaching or delusional is an insult to both the audience who can read this situation, and to Jungkook, who is sharing his message.

Consider a system of writing you can't decode. Lack of comprehension doesnt mean the writing is meaningless, it means you don't understand the language.

Even if you believe you understand what's being said, please recognise that context may play a role too, that it could reveal a richer and deeper message. Don't just assume the easiest (laziest) interpretation is correct.

(You may have guessed, someone suggested I was 'behaving like the cult' when I pointed out that JK's tiktok was more than being funny ... and now I'm mad 🤣)

Vent over. Now back to he topic at hand...

💜💛

What was he was really doing? And why is it not at all random?

Let's take a step back to recall what army has been saying about this...

Almost every interpretation i read suggests he reversed the order (silly>sexy becomes sexy>silly). The reason given is that his tiktok only makes sense if the order is reversed, and this idea is backed up by the caption saying "I go the other way".

But the 'reversed order' theory is based on a hereronormative perspective of what's sexy (and a stereotypical perspective of silly.)

So consider the content of his tiktok from a queer point of view...

For a man in a relationship with another man, the idea that he's with all those women is silly.

It's silly to believe he's got a girlfriend - or several. It's silly to think the womens' names in the song are relevant to him.

He posted this tiktok at a time when he's releasing music that fits the western pop norm of boy + girl, and when rumours of him dating several women at once are rife. The timing is not a coincidence and nor is the choice of background song for this.

All these assumptions and rumours are pretty silly, JK is telling us.

Now let's talk about the second part, the sexy part. Yes it may look silly on the surface, but we have seen him and Jimin make dorky faces at one another when they're flirting. It seems to be the visual equivalent of calling Jimin 'Jiminssssi'.

It's just another way they create distance and avoid 'getting caught'.

Maybe sexy for Jungkook actually is lying on the couch in your sweatpants making corny faces at your boyfriend.

Remember that he puts out 'stereotypical sexy' on command as part of his job so maybe that doesn't feel very sexy to him. Maybe that's work.

In my view (I know this is subject to interpretation) they've been together for years now. This is not the first flush of love. When you've been with a partner for a while, sex is (hopefully) more fun and less serious. Maybe it's about having the confidence to be wholly unselfconscious.

(My partner makes a Pepé Le Pew face at me when he's goofing. No, i don't know why either... 🤣🤷)

But wait, what about that caption?

What about 난반대로 간다?

My beautiful Korean friend (who sadly has zero interest or care about jikook) confirmed the literal translation:

"I go the other way"

"I take the opposite direction".

It's not "it goes the other way" or "this goes the opposite direction". He's referring specifically to HIMSELF.

Jungkook goes the other way.

But it's more than that according to my friend.

It's a bold statement:

"I don't follow the mainstream."

It reminds me of his tattoo ...

RATHER BE DEAD THAN COOL

He doesn't do things just because everyone else is doing them.

"I don't follow the mainstream."

OK. HOLD UP.

This is where it gets interesting.

Then why would he do something as mainstream as a trending tiktok challenge? Especially something as vapid as this challenge?

And why would he tell us DURING that Tiktok challenge that he DOESN'T follow the mainstream?

And then delete it.

Creating content takes time.

And we know he's a busy man.

He's about to release an album. He's doing live performances. He's prerecording for music shows. He's overseas right now... for the fourth time in a month! Does he have time for this??

And he DELETED it...

Did he just WASTE all that time?

No, he did not.

He deliberately chose to do this.

He did it knowing ARMY studies every action, every video, and every media release.

He did it knowing ARMY would already have copied the video before he took it off his profile.

He said on Stationhead that he knows ARMY has it, and is sharing and posting it. He's FINE with that.

So he took the time to create and upload that video. He wants it out there.

He just doesn't want it on HIS page. That's an important part of the story.

So lets go back to the caption.

"I take the opposite direction"

"I go the other way"

"I don't follow the mainstream."

*Said boldly* remember. It's a loud statement, captioning an otherwise pointless very mainstream trending challenge.

So if he's not referring to tiktok itself, or to uploading challenges, what could he be referring to?

...

There's only one thing left: Himself.

I take the opposite direction

I go the other way

I don't follow the mainstream

Essentially... I swing the other way.

There's no way a queer man would make that statement and not fully recognise the message he's sending.

As for deleting the video, I'd say he knew it was too risky to leave on his profile, being a celebrity in Korea. He's managing his brand. Deleting it also gives him plausible deniability. He can say he made an error. As I said, he's very intelligent. He knows ARMY will see it and share it. He knows that those of us with a queer eye will hear the message loud and clear.

🏳️‍🌈🏳️‍🌈🏳️‍🌈 And we do hear it. 🏳️‍🌈🏳️‍🌈🏳️‍🌈

#jeon jungguk #jikook #kookmin #국민 #jungkook

230 notes · View notes

doberbutts · 1 year

Note

One of the things that really confuses me (I'm a cis woman of color) is this doubling down on the idea that Black men aren't oppressed because they're men, they're oppressed because they're Black, gay men aren't oppressed because they're men, they're oppressed because they're gay, trans men aren't oppressed because they're men, they're oppressed because they're trans, etc. It feels like people are being intentionally obtuse. You can't separate my identity as a POC from my identity as a woman. I am treated the way I'm treated because I'm a woman of color, those two things work together. That's where discussions of intersectionality originated. So to say you can separate a privileged identity from an oppressed one is just.... not how anything works?

I constantly see "masculinity isn't criminalized/demonized, Blackness, queerness, transness are" and it's like.... no, that's not how this happens. Marginalized men face specific oppression based on the intersection of their identities. It seems like lately people are willing to understand that for women but not willing to for men and I just don't know how we make any progress if radfem rhetoric has become so pervasive that people are refusing to see lived realities rather than some abstract hypothetical they've come up with.

Personally I think this is due to (white) people seeing and liking black theory that they personally agree with or that makes sense to be applied to their own lives, and then cut out all the parts that are inconvenient for them to have to reconcile. Much like how many, many, many black feminists who are cis women have said "hey, white feminists, stop it with the all men are rapists thing, it actively contributes to black men getting lynched for crimes they didn't commit because it gets weaponized unfairly against our brothers" and white feminists collectively forgot how to read and abandoned their listening skills while still praising other parts of black feminism that talk about domestic violence and sexual assault and oversexualization and reproductive rights and rightly taking black men to task for their continued complacency in this.

The phrase "intersectionality" originated in black feminist theory. I do not trust any white person to fully understand black feminism when they use it as a bludgeon to make the inconvenient bits be quiet. Much of what is on this blog is black feminism. It is inconvenient for white people to have to consider how their words and actions may harm people of color while still lifting themselves up.

As you have said, you cannot separate the "of color" from the "woman" parts of your identity. You are a woman of color. That changes how both sexism and racism works against you in a system that is both sexist and racist. I, in the same manner, cannot separate the "trans" from the "man"- if I were not a man, I would be a woman. I am AFAB, if I am a woman, I am not trans. There is no "you experience this because you are transgender, not because you are a man". In order to be a man, in my body, I have to be transgender*. Just like there is no "you experience this because you are black, not because you are a man". I am a black man. The black experience is inherently, often forcibly, gendered. I can tell you exactly how people treating me changed in a "before" and "after". I can tell you that yes, some of it absolutely stems from the "man" part, they treat me this way because I am a black man.

But people often misunderstand intersectionality to be, exclusively, axis of oppression. And so they say, well learn intersectionality, men aren't oppressed and thus it's not an axis of oppression to combine. But that ignores that some men are oppressed, marginalized men are oppressed and often with a very gendered slant. And it ignores that, like how you cannot separate the "woman" from the "of color", neither can you do that with men.

Men are not the default. They are slightly less than half the population, same as women.

*re: in order to be a man in my body I must be transgender; yes, I am intersex. However I have been out as transgender for 17 years, and discovered I am intersex 6 months ago. So for me, that is very much the case. For other intersex people who were assigned female at birth, that may not be the case. This is something that works on an individual level but cannot be broadbrushed as there are many different opinions among intersex people regarding our cisgender vs transgender status.

448 notes · View notes

carnivalcarriondiscarded · 20 days

Note

I have the smallest crumb of a theory. But what if howdy is mean to Latter because he’s self-conscious of being the only caterpillar (and repressed) and takes it out on his brother as a consequence. Because social expectations at the time gave him an excuse to do so?

no. ok. hoo boy. Allow Me To Be Insane Over The Most Prominent Thought I've Had Since Seeing The Update (about howdy)

i will try to be as eloquent and articulate as possible. ahem:

THAT FRUITY ASS CATERPILLAR IS REPRESSED AS FUCK, ARE YOU KIDDING ME??? DID YOU SEE THAT SHIT?? MY GOD. HOMEBOY HAS ISSUES STACKED ON ISSUES. GET HIM SOME THERAPY.

ok. ok ok ok. Now allow me to be articulate and eloquent

so obviously Howdy is almost certainly queer in the men-loving flavor. if i'm wrong about this my confidence will never recover. But I'm Willing To Take That Chance. so he's definitely queer, right? his.. well his everything points to it, but the final nail in the coffin are his rainbow suspenders from the group Homewarming artwork from Eddie's prolonged breakdown.

but this update i think showed us deeper into that part of him. and i take the shipping goggles off for genuine analysis, so when i say this i believe that there is Serious Evidence and seems Genuinely Plausible - if Howdy doesn't have feelings for Barnaby, i'll eat my cat.

the above is important to say because it Directly ties in to how Howdy treats Latter AND Eddie.

so. Howdy is likely gay or bi, what have you. i'm guessing gay. he obviously has feelings for Barnaby. SO WHAT I'M SAYING IS that i don't think Howdy treats Latter the way he does because of the caterpillar thing, I think Howdy treats Latter the way he does because Latter is genuine and Howdy is not.

what does this have to do with Eddie? well. look at Latter and Eddie in relation to each other. they're both... how do i say... Open. and not - not effeminate, but yes, for lack of of a better word, effeminate. just enough to make one go "huh." and Howdy treats them the same way - dismissive, apathetic, one could even say avoidant.

i wouldn't be shocked if Howdy picked up on their queerness (and if Latter isn't queer, his comfort with himself / his behavior & interests) and is on the defensive about it - likely subconsciously.

and with Latter specifically. Howdy could have also picked up on the way his other family members treat him if they're all also dismissive - as Seeya seems to be as well. i mean, it fits right in line with the time period! homophobia - internalized in Howdy's case (again, most likely). the blatant favoritism, the dismissive nature, it all adds up. even if no one outright knows, that subconscious recognition (or outright suspicion!) will do this

i mean, Latter makes me think of two things. 1) being the only queer kid in a family (especially large). 2) being a middle child. there was a third but i forgor. it felt important! it's gone now! anyway it's also Super telling comparing how Howdy treats Latter (emotional, earnest, open) to how he treats Beeya (oozing stereotypical masculinity)

tl;dr so i don't think it's really "expectations giving Howdy an excuse" as it is "subconscious / internalized homophobia causes Howdy to act the way he does"

as always, take all this with a Hefty grain of salt!

#i really dont think it's conscious behavior! not at the source anyway!#howdy Has to be soooooo so so deep in denial. he's gotta have five layers of repression there's no other explanation #howdy 'ill keep all of my feelings right here and then one day ill die' pillar #homebogging #wh speculation #welcome home speculation #it Would be the funniest outcome #if he really is like. deeply in love with barn but doesn't even realize it himself despite like. how goddamn obvious it is #ALL THE SIGNS POINT TO HIM BEING REPRESSED AND INTERNALIZED TO HIGH HELL AND BACK.#and being a caterpillar is like. symbolic to being open and accepting of yourself #< now im probably reaching However. The Symbolism Is There. intentionally or no #hence why barn is a caterpillar while everyone else is a butterfly #(hiya is on thin ice since her ref shows her as a caterpillar but the hullabaloo record art gives her wings)#latter is true to himself and open / out : butterfly #howdy is so deep in the closet that he's fighting wars for a lion : caterpillar #anyway so howdy. why do latter and eddie make you so defensive howdy #hm. hm. hm.#OH! AND WE HAVEN'T EVEN SEEN HOW HE ACTS AROUND FRANK YET! ohhhh that would be fascinating...#just One direct interaction between them could be So telling

118 notes · View notes

iwanthermidnightz · 6 months

Note

Ahhh did you see the new rolling stone gaylor article ?? I'm so impressed.

When Taylor Swift released the long-awaited rerecording of her genre-leaping album 1989, fans eagerly pored over vault tracks, theories of double albums, and limited edition vinyl releases that could predict Swift’s next re-record. But for Gaylors, a dedicated Swift fanbase that’s existed for over a decade, Swift’s prologue and a mention of her feelings surrounding speculation about her love life have dampened what should have been an exciting release.

Thinking about the 24-year-old she was when 1989 was released, Swift writes, “I swore off dating and decided to only focus on myself, my music, my growth, and my female friendships. If I only hung out with my female friends, people couldn’t sensationalize or sexualize that — right? I would learn later on that people could and people would.” Many users online interpreted that line as a subtle callout to Gaylors, supporters of the niche theory that Swift is queer or leaves queer messaging in her songs. But several members of the Gaylor community tell Rolling Stone they’re actually not convinced the callout is about them — and are receiving targeted and homophobic harassment in the process.

For those not extremely online, Gaylor is an unproven theory that Swift is queer and leaves messages alluding to past relationships in her work, a fan theory that originated on the blogging site Tumblr in the mid-2010s. It is also the fan name for groups of people who believe there are queer interpretations of Swift’s songs. (While Swift has been a vocal ally and advocate for LGBTQ+ rights and representation, she has never publicly commented on Gaylor and has only been in public relationships with men.) Gabriela, a 27-year-old Gaylor, tells Rolling Stone she doesn’t believe Swift’s prologue is about the Gaylor fandom specifically, but she’s frustrated at the use of the word ‘sexualize,” which she says has long been co-opted by fans who think Gaylor is harmful or inherently rude.

“I think it’s a call-out yes, but more to the media at large, rather than just about the Gaylor subset of her fandom, which is only a small piece of her complaint. [Swift] doesn’t want to be assumed to be in a sexual, romantic relationship with anyone she is seen next to,” Gabriela says. “Hetlors [those who object to the Gaylor discourse] are cherry-picking to make it about her ‘shutting down gay rumors.’”

As an internationally beloved artist — one capable of selling more movie tickets than Martin Scorcese and convincing an entire fandom to rebuy her music her way — Swift professes an unusually close relationship with her followers. The lyricist often hides clues in her work and visuals, encouraging fans to decipher what coded messages and hints she’s leaving behind. But Swift has also verbalized how upset slut-shaming and assumptions about her love life make her. Anna, a 23-year-old Gaylor who uses they/them pronouns, agrees that the prologue wasn’t about Gaylor specifically but says they do think all Swift fans online could operate with more boundaries.

“Of course, I’m a little annoyed that people are pulling one or two lines of the prologue out of context and using it as a justification to be homophobic and send death threats to my friends, but I don’t think Taylor is at fault for people misconstruing her words and I think she has every right to call out things that make her uncomfortable,” Anna tells Rolling Stone. “’Shipping’ culture across the fandom seems to have gotten really ugly recently on all accounts. I’ve seen people speculate on her sex life, openly and graphically, track her location, insinuate that she wants/has children and just overall cross a lot of boundaries. It may be unpopular for me to say it, but I do think members on all sides needed to be put in their place a little bit.”

All of the Gaylor fans who spoke to Rolling Stone expressed that beyond the prologue, much of the reaction to them as a group has stemmed from a lack of understanding about why the fandom exists and has lasted for almost a decade. Liv, 26, says that the Gaylor community has been a large part of her life — it’s even how she met her current boyfriend. And she tells Rolling Stone the identity has allowed her to have a deeper understanding of Swift’s lyrics.

“It’s always fun for me to think about what inspired a song. So even if it’s not what happened in Taylor’s life, it’s interesting for me to think about a song through a queer lens, because I feel like it adds a lot of layers that a song about a guy might not have,” Liv says. “And I don’t really know any straight people who are that deeply obsessed with Emily Dickinson.”

The X account @gaylornews has over 12,000 followers. The admin behind the account declined to include her name but tells Rolling Stone Gaylor isn’t just a fun internet conspiracy theory, but means a lot to the community.

“Analyzing her lyrics through a queer perspective is more about defying heteronormative narratives and finding representation and not about invading Taylor’s privacy or sensationalizing her personal life,” the account owner says. “Gaylor is about queer people finding a safe space which straight people not only find but already have everywhere, is about all the things you never learned about yourself, is about feeling seen and genuinely understood.”

Regardless of what people think the prologue is about, Gaylors are worried about one thing: targeted harassment from more mainstream fans of Swift. In an April 2023 report from social media tracking firm Graphika, researchers found that Gaylors made up nine percent of active Swift fans on social media, but are often exiled and isolated from neutral fan spaces. The study also found that anti-Gaylor accounts, also referred to as Hetlors, “play a key role” in how the theory is presented to mainstream audiences and often misrepresent commonly held Gaylor beliefs, which can lead to the harassment and doxxing of neutral Gaylor accounts. Each of the Gaylors who spoke to Rolling Stone detailed targeted harassment, hate speech, and homophobia they’ve received online, something they all believe Swift would stand against.

“I think that people who are against Gaylors think we’re way more serious about it than we are. A lot of the things we say are jokes or ideas or possible theories,” Liv says. “And at the end of the day, none of us know what the truth is about her personal relationships. And we shouldn’t want to because [Taylor Swift] is entitled to her privacy.”

(link)

#wow well done!

175 notes · View notes

snortoborto · 3 months

Text

This is literally the only website where fans of G3 Monster High can exist in peace without being fucking crucified by G1 purist types.

I grew up in Pony Fandom, I'm used to seeing how adults react to reboots, but I have never seen a fandom (of a children's toy line, lest we forget) act so horribly vindictive towards a reboot, and it's fans. A very high quality, thoughtful reboot at that.

You literally can't just enjoy G3 without someone screaming in your ear about how bitter they are that theyre not a kid anymore. That Monster High isn't catering to the youth culture of of 14 years ago.

I grew up in the 2010s and so many franchises from that time have been reworked. Some good and some bad, but I've never really seen quite the level of dedicated, continuous, distain for a reboot, that I see in the MH fandom.

Its just weird cause they're the same people who tout the "Be Yourself, Be Unique, Be a Monster" tag line of G1. Unless you like a different doll than them...I guess? It's so unserious. I think they remember G1 as being better, or more countercultural/progressive than it actually was. Those dolls and movies are not quite the high art, people pretend that they are.

They also constantly act like G3 killed G1. Wiped it off the face of the earth. All the old stuff is still there, PLUS Mattel is constantly releasing G1 collector dolls. Like, a lot of them.

The pride merch for this year had the G1 ghouls on it, eventhough G3 is the only version with actual cannon representation. (Yes Ik the G1 creator confirmed queer theories and intentions on social media, but it never explicitly made its way into the TV/movies. Its just coding, which is good, but still NOT explicit representation. Plus Garrett likes the new dolls, and posts them on socials. G3 has his blessing.) Why didn't we get some G3 Frankie merch to rep their NB identity? Why didn't we get G3 Clankie on a shirt or something? Mattel is still putting G1 first.

There's plenty of normal G1 fans, obviously, but the shitty ones are LOUD. Mattel can't even post an insta or tiktok video of the G3 cast, without the comments being full of people trashing G3 and attacking any commenter who likes it. Sometimes even shitting on the live action actors and VAs on their personal socials. It's gotten a little less bad since the reboot has been out over a year, but it's still a huge problem.

I'm genuinely confused as to why MH fans are acting worse about a reboot than literal bronies did about MLP G5. I love bronies, I'm a life long pony fan, but ik the fandom can have STRONG opinions on horse show.

When I started using Tumblr, I was surprised to only see love for G3. I'm sure there's hate somewhere, but not that I've seen.

Anyone else have any idea about why this might be? Are other doll-centric fandoms like this? I only really like MH dolls, so idk.

#monster high #monster high g3 #g3 monster high #mh #mhg3 #mh g3 #monster high reeboot #monster high dolls #queer representation #g3 mh #frankie stein #clankie

118 notes · View notes

rotten-pup · 2 months

Text

18 + Only, minors will be blocked, you are not welcome here

☆About Me☆

You can call me Rot. I'm 21, he/they, transmasc and this is my horny blog! This will be my general horny content blog where I'll post/reblog the stuff I like however I will separate some of my interests and kinks onto other blogs. I am pre-t and pre-op. Generally just queer but I like people of any gender however I do lean more t4t

My asks are open for anything! Send me stuff!!

My dms are openish. At this time I'm not looking to sext and heavily flirt. I'm going through a lot and will be slow to respond most times. I really only have the brainpower to hold conversations about my special interests or if someone infodumps to me and I get to ask questions.

I'm comfortable with most masculine or feminine terms when referring to the parts of my body, I don't usually have a preference. I'll update this when I find something I don't like! I should probably add on that I'm a switch/vers in theory, mostly a sub/bottom in practice as I'm not confident enough to fully dom/top quite yet.

(rest of this post is a work in progress, bear with me please)

Without any further ado; list of content/kinks I like that you may find here(list incomplete):

Absolutely Yes: Petplay, Degradation, Praise (giving) Bondage, Impact play, Breeding, Somno, Edging, Overstim, Oviposition, Humiliation, Primal Play, Intox, Light CNC, Mommy kink??

Sometimes/Maybe: Choking (receiving), Praise (receiving)

Hard Limits: Scat, Death/Slob Feedism, Inflation, Raceplay, Feet

Kinks that will be mostly likely on a separate blog that I still like: Hypno, Knife play, Heavy CNC

Outside of all that, I'm going to list my sideblogs and tags down below and any other information I see fit so this intro isn't too long! (ps: if you know me from my previously deleted blog, feel free to say hi, I'd love to talk to y'all again, I was going through a really rough patch and honestly I'm so sorry I just disappeared)

My tags:

- rotposts: original content

- rotbarks: answering asks

- rotspeaks: non horny, rambles, or unrelated content

My sideblogs:

- @barkandbarkandbark : vent blog, rambles, literally anything just me talking to the digital void

Just a little more about me:

- @boymommy-brainrot : Mommy kink blog, a mostly gentle softer vibe, pics of me will also be on here

*Mommy is mostly a title, I like taking care of people and being gentle with them and just making them happy through acts of service. My kink is in no way an incest thing and as much I may use certain terms/words it is also not a ddlg thing either

Major theatre nerd, musicals, plays, plays with music, don't matter I love them all! I've acted in a few local shows, I've ran lights, I've staged managed, done a few other things. I'm really into dungeons and dragons and other ttrpgs and board games, and card games like magic the gathering. I love to draw and I love my silly little ocs I've made. If you upload your ocs or your fursona on your blog, there's a chance I might draw them, I like making art for others when I have the time.

Uhhhh, idk what else. I'm currently playing palword, this war of mine, overcooked 2, lethal company, escape the backrooms. However I do have many other games and if you ever wanted to play, just dm me, I'm down to find sometimes as long as we've talked a bit first and we vibe! I have major brainrot for Dead by Daylight right now so so badly

Oh yeah I fucking love robots I absolutely love robots and puppets I'm surprised I'm not like into fnaf more but man I just want to scream they're so cool.

I'll probably think of some other things to put here idk lol

#rotposts #rotbarks #rotspeaks

85 notes · View notes

diabolocracy · 1 year

Text

"Problematique media bad because it harms people because mentally ill people or children might read it and try to do it :("

Let's ban Superman, then, since there are many kids who have leapt from high heights trying to fly because they saw him do it in comics or on the teevee. (Fun fact, dunno if it's national, but at least one Canadian province already technically has a ban on all comics/stories of that nature for the reasoning of "someone blamed these stories for their own chosen actions". Not that anyone enforces it, buuuut...)

Let's also ban anime. Remember that (unsupervised, might I say) kid that buried his head in the sand and died because he wanted to be like Gaara from the Narutos? No? Well now you know about it.

Oh, what's that? You like Superman? You like anime...? You don't want these things banned because some people are stupid and failed to give their children the "don't try to replicate what you see/read in fiction" talk? Too bad! Blanket ban!! For the good of the people who clearly cannot be trusted to teach their kids or take care of their mentally ill family!!!

While I'm on this rant,

"Problematique media bad because people can use it to groom others :("

As many people have pointed out time and time again, people who groom kiddies IRL use candy, cute animals, and other small gifts (if they don't just grab Little Timmy and pull him into their car in a drive-by abduction).

Let's ban candy! Let's ban cute animals! Let's ban plush toys, comic books, and all other little nick-knacks because again, people cannot be trusted to supervise or otherwise look after their own children or even provide their brats the most basic safety talks!

"But when I was a kid I thought [thing] was okay because I read about it in a fanfic :("

Well, buttercup, sorry to tell you this, but your parents and teachers all failed you! :) Perhaps this blame can even extend to the government, because when I was growing up there were PSAs on the television about NOT REPLICATING THINGS YOU SEE ON TV OR READ ABOUT IN FICTIONAL STORIES.

EDUCATION IS SUPERIOR TO BANNING.

EDUCATION IS SUPERIOR TO MAKING STRANGERS OR THE GOVERNMENT BABYSIT YOU OVER MOTHERFUCKIN' STORIES.

And that doesn't even stop at all this bullshit about problematique fiction! Unfortunately, rational human beings with a brain have to co-exist with idiots too uncurious and too stupid to learn about anything that makes them personally uncomfortable (like republicans and conservatives and TERFs and neo-nazis and, yes, fanpol, you too--I'd go so far as to call you guys "useful idiots" like fellow queers who fell for the "LGB drop the T" attempt to divide and conquer the queer community bullshit perpetrated by the Christian right and no that is not a bullshit conspiracy theory)!

🙂Anyway, back to making cookies run. Bye

#proship #screaming

526 notes · View notes

olderthannetfic · 4 months

Note

hiii i know you're just a person and not a library but if you happen to have them on hand, i'd greatly thank you for some resources on how social justice topics first entered fandom pre-tumblr-2010s, especially in the 90s or earlier is the period i'm interested in, if fans were very eager on being "politically correct" and went out of their way to find related academic texts or if they sort of had to be "kicked in the butt" to do research by people who were already involved in social justice irl, and also if there was pushback against social justice entering fandom & what the arguments were (i know the japanese had the yaoi ronso, i wonder if there is some clearly traceable event like that for the western fandom, or just some insight into the decades-long process it was and how the arguments have changed overtime, eg. yesterday i stumbled across a forum discussion about how a certain character using misogynistic language is "just how working class people talk", & it's so interesting bc that's a kind of argument which seems to have fallen out of circulation completely, so that got me wondering on what other shifts there could have been👀)

I mean... "fans" is pretty broad. But if you want to know about m/m fans in Western fandom, that's a lot more answerable.

Ye olde slash fandom did have plenty of discussion around queerness. There's a certain style that's much more common in older fic where one of them is really struggling with homophobia and doesn't like the idea of being into men and so does something or other awful to create drama in the fic, and even then, some fans would be like "Then he's an undatable jerk!"

The further back you go in that kind of fandom, the more everyone is a mega-nerd and quite possibly an academic. There are certainly things that are openly talked about today that people were clueless about then (trans issues, for example), but you have to do a lot more kicking now to get someone to read an academic article on average.

I really cannot express how much more default-intellectual this hobby was in the 90s and before.

Here's an example of the sort of thing people were coming up with:

Here's a bunch of early 00s meta:

Here's a fanlore article with a smattering of the many long discussions about Why Slash:

Here's a starting point on some rapey stuff in Pros fandom that people had meta thoughts about:

And a common practice of writing fic to debunk/respond to other people's fic that used to be so overt there was a term for it:

You could also just go through the history of Escapade, the oldest slash con that's still running in 2023, and see what the panel topics were:

I'm not sure "social justice" is quite the way to look at this. If you're curious about m/m shippers and misogynist language or treatment of internalized homophobia in fic, that will be covered quite well by things like the above. Plenty of individual fanfic people were involved in AIDS activism because that was everywhere back then. But race stuff? Other kinds of social justice? I don't remember those coming up much.

And of course fans were not eager to be "politically correct". Being involved in slash fandom in the 80s was seen as being a pervert and a purveyor of underground pornography. These were rebels, not pearl-clutching line-toers.

They might have been eager to be pro-gay, but they sure as fuck didn't express it in those namby-pamby terms.

103 notes · View notes

esther-dot · 4 months

Note

Do you think Jon and Sansa will meet again at Castle Black, and from there, they will plan to take Winterfell? Or will Sansa take Winterfell on her own and reunite with Jon along the way? I’m of the idea of two lost souls who, when united, find the strength in each other to take the land of their family. But I don’t know, I haven’t finished the books yet so I need guidance on this.

I don’t consider myself an ASOIAF expert, anon so I don't offer guidance, but I will def share my thoughts with you!

In order to talk about this, I'm afraid there are some ADWD spoilers, though. If you mind that, maybe revisit this post after you've read it? Short version, I agree with you. Sansa should be involved in retaking Winterfell because we need a Stark there:

Battles had been fought at Winterfell before, but never one without a Stark on one side or the other. (ADWD, Jon VII)

but I think the reunion happens first because of the The Girl in Grey theory. I'll explain more below the cut due to the major Jon spoiler.

In ADWD, a character named Melisandre tells Jon about a vision she has:

She stood beneath the scorched stones of the Lord Commander's Tower, cloaked in darkness and in memory. The light of the moon was in her hair, her red hair kissed by fire. When he saw that, Jon's heart leapt into his mouth. "Ygritte," he said. "Lord Snow." The voice was Melisandre's. Surprise made him recoil from her. "Lady Melisandre." He took a step backwards. "I mistook you for someone else." At night all robes are grey. Yet suddenly hers were red. He did not understand how he could have taken her for Ygritte. She was taller, thinner, older, though the moonlight washed years from her face. Mist rose from her nostrils, and from pale hands naked to the night. "You will freeze your fingers off," Jon warned. "If that is the will of R'hllor. Night's powers cannot touch one whose heart is bathed in god's holy fire." "You heart does not concern me. Just your hands."

"The heart is all that matters. Do not despair, Lord Snow. Despair is a weapon of the enemy, whose name may not be spoken. Your sister is not lost to you." "I have no sister." The words were knives. What do you know of my heart, priestess? What do you know of my sister? Melisandre seemed amused. "What is her name, this little sister that you do not have?" "Arya." His voice was hoarse. "My half-sister, truly …" "… for you are bastard born. I had not forgotten. I have seen your sister in my fires, fleeing from this marriage they have made for her. Coming here, to you. A girl in grey on a dying horse, I have seen it plain as day. It has not happened yet, but it will." She gazed at Ghost. "May I touch your … wolf?" The thought made Jon uneasy. "Best not." "He will not harm me. You call him Ghost, yes?" "Yes, but …" "Ghost." Melisandre made the word a song. The direwolf padded toward her. Wary, he stalked about her in a circle, sniffing. When she held out her hand he smelled that too, then shoved his nose against her fingers. Jon let out a white breath. "He is not always so …" "… warm? Warmth calls to warmth, Jon Snow." Her eyes were two red stars, shining in the dark. At her throat, her ruby gleamed, a third eye glowing brighter than the others. Jon had seen Ghost's eyes blazing red the same way, when they caught the light just right. "Ghost," he called. "To me." The direwolf looked at him as if he were a stranger. Jon frowned in disbelief. "That's … queer." "You think so?" She knelt and scratched Ghost behind his ear. "Your Wall is a queer place, but there is power here, if you will use it. Power in you, and in this beast. You resist it, and that is your mistake. Embrace it. Use it." I am not a wolf, he thought. "And how would I do that?" "I can show you." Melisandre draped one slender arm over Ghost, and the direwolf licked her face. "The Lord of Light in his wisdom made us male and female, two parts of a greater whole. In our joining there is power. Power to make life. Power to make light. Power to cast shadows." "Shadows." The world seemed darker when he said it. "Every man who walks the earth casts a shadow on the world. Some are thin and weak, others long and dark. You should look behind you, Lord Snow. The moon has kissed you and etched your shadow upon the ice twenty feet tall." Jon glanced over his shoulder. The shadow was there, just as she had said, etched in moonlight against the Wall. A girl in grey on a dying horse, he thought. Coming here, to you. Arya. He turned back to the red priestess. Jon could feel her warmth. She has power. The thought came unbidden, seizing him with iron teeth, but this was not a woman he cared to be indebted to, not even for his little sister. "Dalla told me something once. Val's sister, Mance Rayder's wife. She said that sorcery was a sword without a hilt. There is no safe way to grasp it." "A wise woman." Melisandre rose, her red robes stirring in the wind. "A sword without a hilt is still a sword, though, and a sword is a fine thing to have when foes are all about. Hear me now, Jon Snow. Nine crows flew into the white wood to find your foes for you. Three of them are dead. They have not died yet, but their death is out there waiting for them, and they ride to meet it. You sent them forth to be your eyes in the darkness, but they will be eyeless when they return to you. I have seen their pale dead faces in my flames. Empty sockets, weeping blood." She pushed her red hair back, and her red eyes shone. "You do not believe me. You will. The cost of that belief will be three lives. A small price to pay for wisdom, some might say … but not one you had to pay. Remember that when you behold the blind and ravaged faces of your dead. And come that day, take my hand." The mist rose from her pale flesh, and for a moment it seemed as if pale, sorcerous flames were playing about her fingers. "Take my hand," she said again, "and let me save your sister." (ADWD, Jon VI)

The vision keeps coming up and dictates some of Jon's decisions. Jeyne Poole (Sansa's friend) was forced to marry Ramsay in the guise of being Arya, she escapes, and people expect her to reunite with Jon and be the girl in grey (escaping a marriage, she was pretending to be his sister). Others point to Alys Karstark who runs to Jon to escape a marriage. The problem is, Mel doesn't know who it is, she only knows sister. People pick Jeyne because of the Arya connection, but neither she nor Alys are Jon's sister. And Jon has another sister, Sansa.

I would argue the reason that the girl in grey is Sansa (ie Sansa will flee North to escape LF's plots and reunite with Jon before Winterfell is taken/she is in a position of power), is if you read Jon's passage about the girl in grey, Jon being dead is written all over it. His white breath, the reference to him as a stranger, Jon telling himself he isn't a wolf...you see, here is the major spoiler...

Jon is assassinated at the end of TWOW.

Now, he may not actually be dead-dead, some of us have said he might be in a coma like Bran, but a) we believe he warged into Ghost (I am not a wolf--he will need to come back to himself, not lose himself in Ghost), b) the stranger = Jon is dead, c) the white breath = his body being cold cuz he's dead etc. The other side of this is, the way Jon sees Mel and remembers a different redhead can be viewed as foreshadowing for recently undead Jon seeing a redhead and mistaking her for Ygritte. The description of Mel's words like a song made people think of Sansa (it's been speculated Sansa's singing will help Jon remember things post rez/help him return to himself), and Ghost's strangely positive reaction to Mel may foreshadow how he reacts to Sansa as a familiar person. So, when I read that passage, it sounded to me like Sansa and Jon will be reuniting shortly after his rez, or even perhaps before his rez, so yes, I imagine that happens at the Wall.

Way back in 2013, a famous Jonsa essay predicted that Jon and Sansa would be reunited first of all the Starks, and then in 2016 that happened on the show which spurred a lot more discussion in the Jonsa fandom about Sansa being the girl in grey in the books as well.

I'll link some additional posts with various thoughts on how it might go.

Jon as the Stranger, Sansa as a silent sister. Pertinent quotes:

Then one morning she spied three women in the cowled grey robes of the silent sisters loading a corpse into their wagon. (ACOK, Arya VII) The women in grey bowed their heads. The silent sisters do not speak to the living, Catelyn remembered dully, but some say they can talk to the dead. (ACOK, Catelyn V) Grey was the color of the silent sisters, the handmaidens of the Stranger. (AFFC, Brienne VIII) When we find the Imp, we will find the Lady Sansa too. She is not dead . . . but before I am done with her, I promise you, she will be singing to the Stranger, begging for his kiss." (AFFC, Cersei IV)

@loveroflemons wrote a post in 2017 talking about Mel's prophecy and the map of the North to explain why Sansa is the Girl in Grey here. @une-nuit-pour-se-souvenir has a post explaining that Sansa is Ned's narrative heir and her path North will follow his here, and some general ideas for her TWOW story here.

@istumpysk talks about The Girl in Grey foreshadowing here. @aegor-bamfsteel tried to give us a time table here, @redteabaron has talked about the possibility that Sansa will be hunted by Ramsay for some Red Riding Hood parallels here, That and Sansa meeting Ghost while Jon is still out of it is discussed here as well. And this post talks about Jon saving Sansa from Ramsay while warged into Ghost using some king’s prize/thief quotes. I also found a Tolkien poem (Martin is a massive fan) that has Girl in Grey vibes here (not proof, just fun).

Anyway, it's a very popular Jonsa theory, for many of us, a given at this point. For a different ask i scrolled some BNF blogs and they mocked it a lot, called us delusional because they can point to the other girls as fulfilling the prophecy, but to me, that prophecy takes up too much space for it to disappear without a real payoff. It makes sense to me that Martin would use that vision to prep us for Sansa arriving in the North.

Let me know what you think after you read ADWD!

#soon i'll post links for book verse girl in grey fics anon #not meta but jonsa fics have a funny habit of predicting things to come!#jonsa #dot chat #the girl in grey

86 notes · View notes

autolenaphilia · 4 months

Text

The average tumblr queer hates fascism and terfs, and they should, but because they have zero understanding of what those ideologies actually is, they end up repeating such ideology anyway.

They have zero understanding that it is the transmisogynist bioessentialism that makes radfemism so poisonous. So they call trans women mentioning the words "misogyny" and "patriarchy" a terf, while their use of "afab/amab" reveal that they haven't unlearned any bioessentialism and transmisogyny. I've written about this at length before.

And this intellectually lazy acceptance of reactionary thinking goes far beyond that.

Criticize the institutions of religion and the family on this supposed queer communist site, and you'll get massive cries of protest from these queer leftists. And in content if not form they are basically indistinguishable from fascist rhetoric about how "queer leftists who read too many jewish writers (like Marx and Hirschfeld) are trying to eradicate the vital institutions of tradition, religion, family and community with their soulless materialist globohomo." (Note that the link is to a critical glossary of the alt-right on rationalwiki, so there are slurs galore)

And yes, that is what i'm doing, and I'm very proud of it. Abolishing religion and the family, and all of their sanctified traditions is a very important part of the communist project. The main Jewish writer who convinced me of this is Marx, read him.

"The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness." Literally read The Communist Manifesto, which openly calls for the abolition of the family. A lot of suppose leftists repeat what the manifesto calls "The bourgeois clap-trap about the family and education, about the hallowed co-relation of parents and child"

It's especially ironic to hear such things from self-described queers, as if family, religion and tradition aren't the most common tools used to oppress queer people.

A lot of reactionary garbage with a superficial anti-capitalist veneer has gotten into the left, which is not new. The just mentioned manifesto spends a whole chapter criticizing reactionary forms of socialism. I have myself used Marx's still valid analysis as my basis to criticize reactionary anti-capitalism.

There has been so much nationalist garbage absorbed by the left at this point that fascist thinking crop up all the time in the left. This is because planting the roots of 19th century romantic nationalism tends to bear the same fruit. And tumblr leftism is the most intellectually lazy kind of leftism.

Like your average pseudo-leftist position on nations is basically ethnopluralism, a neofascist ideology originating in the European "New right" that is trying to sell the old wine of blood-and-soil nationalism in new bottles for a postcolonial world. It's creator Henning Eichberg spent decades trying to sell his Völkisch ideology to the left. With some success, it seems like. Like the neofascist in ethnopluralist clothing position that "every culture has the right to preserve their own culture and tradition from the onslaught of global capitalist culture" is something that you'll see all the time regurgitated by supposed leftists. The one 19th century european/western concept that is seen as universally applicable is nationalism. It's bleak.

I can't even say the far-left cliché of "read theory", because a lot of theory is garbage. Not all of it though. This list comes from my libertarian marxist/"councilist" biases but Nationalism and Socialism by Paul Mattick is good, as is "Third-worldism and Socialism" an excerpt from an early 70s pamphlet by the British organization Solidarity, and the 1989 essay The Universality of Marx by Loren Goldner.

#my writings #pseudo-leftism

169 notes · View notes

ceilidho · 3 months

Note

i saw your post about your recommended nonfiction books and can’t wait to read them! would you happen to have any more you suggest? i love learning about the world and how others perceive it ❤️

oh yes i have sooooo many nonfiction recs......it's probably my favourite genre tbh, i try to always read 1 non-fiction for every fiction book i read.

"a natural history of love" and "a natural history of the senses" by diane ackerman. i'm also currently reading her book "the moon by whalelight (and other adventures among bats, penguins, crocodilians, and whales)". she is the most evocative nonfiction writer on planet earth.

i recommended this in my last list but "underland" by robert macfarlane.

"everybody: a book about freedom" by olivia laing - a very good book by a very good writer. queer history, gay liberation, women's rights, reproductive rights, what does it mean for a body to be 'free'.

mary roach, overall, is a very good and very funny non-fiction writer. i've read "spook" (about ghosts and the afterlife) and "fuzz" (about animals and the law) so far, both such good books.

"all about love" by bell hooks. tbh anything by bell hooks.

"the body in pain" by elaine scarry. not for everyone. it's a study on torture and pain and how pain makes and unmakes the world. i read it for a paper i had to write in grad school because i've always been interested in literary trauma theory and it was so informative. also, maggie nelson's "the art of cruelty" and susan sontag's "regarding the pain of others".

"freedom is a constant struggle" by angela davis. so much i could say about this book - it's not dense, it tackles so so much like palestine, prison abolition, the anti-apartheid movement in south africa, and so much more.

anything by rebecca solnit, but start with "hope in the dark" or "the mother of all questions".

"SPQR" by mary beard. if you are at all interested in roman history, this is where to start.

"a short history of nearly everything" by bill bryson is also a very good like....introductory / condensed history book. so so interesting!!

now i haven't read this quite yet but i'm soooooo excited to read "the dawn of everything: a new history" by david graeber and david wengrow.

"four lost cities" by annalee newitz. this book looks at the ancient cities of pompeii in italy, çatalhöyük in turkey, cahokai in the americas, and angkor in cambodia, and delves into how people lived in these cities and how they were built and used. very cool!!!

most of these are history or cultural conversations because those are my favourite non-fiction books to read (i'm not really a big memoir/biography girl). i left off some of my favourite literary criticism books because idk how many people care about that, but if you want those recs lmk!

#book recs

89 notes · View notes

actual-changeling · 3 months

Note

ohhh yanno...I think sometimes why I get so uncomfortable with meta and theories with GO (specifically in defense of Aziraphale) is that it really starts to resemble pro Christianity rhetoric...and I totally believe that everyone should feel free to believe/not believe in any sort of religion they choose...but it starts to get real uncomfy real fast when I'm reminded of my own christian family and their condemnations of me and the experiences I went through growing up christian and then realizing I didn't believe in any of it...

and for some people maybe that IS why they so staunchly defend Aziraphale, but for me, it's why his actions made me so mad, and why the firm "aziraphale defenders no matter what" lowkey skeeve me out...like that post you said about knowing Aziraphale in real life...yeahhhh no I'd never be friends with him, and maybe that does make me too biased for Crowley, bc I'm imagining myself in his position, bc I HAVE BEEN in that position, but idk I just can't find it in me to defend angel characters or super pro christian type thinking ones when too much of irl has been negatively affected by those types of people. and yeah fiction is not reality but when the premise of GO is a satirical look on religion idk it's just iffy to be so pro angel/heaven imo (obviously this isn't about those who view it with nuance hahaha)

I know what you mean anon, I definitely feel the same.

Seeing people fall into angel good/demon bad without even noticing is... painful, to say the least. Defending all of Aziraphale's actions because he had "good intentions" or "still has faith" or "was traumatized by heaven" is harmful and unhealthy to say the least, and it 100% looks like pro-Christianity rhetoric at times.

We're supposed to look at Aziraphale and see somehow who yes, has good intentions, but has refused to deal with his trauma and problems and ends up making incredibly bad choices as a result. He is supposed to change, so defending his actions is counter-intuitive to the message Neil and Terry want us to receive.

Aziraphale is that kid who tells you sure, it's fine to no believe in God, but you will go to hell and suffer forever, who tells you everyone just needs to "try harder" and that "poor people have mor opportunities" (I still cannot process that he canonically says and believes that), who tells you that you can be gay, but don't be it in front of the children or any people.

Aziraphale is the guy who refuses to deal with his internalized homophobia and asks his queer friends to go back into the closet because he cannot deal with seeing queer people be happy while he is stuck in self-induced misery.

There are reasons why so many people are uncomfortable with his behaviour and ideologies—and you are supposed to be.

#alex answers asks #alex talks good omens #good omens #crowley #aziraphale #good omens season 2 #go2 #aziracrow #crowley x aziraphale #ineffable husbands #ineffable wives #ineffable spouses #ineffable divorce #the final fifteen #good omens meta #i have so many thoughts on how aziraphale pushed crowley to emotionally suppress anything and everything #without him crowley would be emotionally open and tell people he loves them and spend time with them #he would be LIVING instead of just surviving but he suffered through that shit because he loves aziraphale

64 notes · View notes