Genuine question, because I don't know a lot about the topic and you're:
If someone identifies as non-binary and genderfluid, which from what I've gathered means something like "human" instead of male or female, doesn't that imply that women are not humans , like whole complete people with richer inner lives? And why is a dislike for (performative) femininity combined with a preference for things that are stereotypically associated with maleness an indicator that one is genderfluid? Does that mean a woman is only a woman if she loves to do make-up, wants to be a mother, only wears skirts, dresses and high heels, shaves daily, is always kind and never angry, has long hair, hates to get dirty and so on? Because I have never met a woman who's exactly like that in my life, but plenty who liked gaming, sports, being loud, opposed to shaving & make-up, who wore pants every day.
I do not believe this is a genuine question, but I'll answer it as if it was, just in case other people have to deal with this, and would like someone who is patient enough to give them the words.
The argument you're making here is something that already stems from a deep logical fallacy in the beginning argument. You assume "If you are neither A nor B, and instead C, you think that A cannot be C."
It is a logical fallacy to say "X implies Y" when it does not do so. By this logic, I also believe men are not human. By this logic, I believe only nb people are human.
Some - but not all - rectangles are squares. Some - but not all - animals are dogs. Some humans are nb.
I have given no information about how I present, nor my interests. I am not going to give you that information, because it's irrelevant. What I need you to understand is that, again, you are making the incorrect logical assumption that "If a person dislikes X and likes Y, they must be Z." For all you know, I dislike performative masculinity and like stereotypically feminine preferences.
You then assume your own statement is correct and move forward with your logic as if I had debated you. This is not a "genuine question" about how nb people work, this is assuming being nb is based on a series of preferences.
As a teacher, I do think it's important to tell you: even if this is coming from a genuinely confused place: you are conducting bad research. You begin with an inherently flawed question, as it biased and assumes a position I must defend against - "why don't you see women as people?" Then you make logical conclusions about my personhood and experiences and ask inflammatory questions as if you were debating me, which I am not interested in doing.
If you were my student, and genuinely curious about how nb people see gender, I'd have no trouble with you asking an out nb content creator. If you're really trying to collect information, ask honestly, without personal bias. Here's some examples of what a genuine question would have looked like:
- Do your preferences play into your gender identity?
- How has being nb informed how you see femininity and masculinity?
- What tools do you use to express your gender?
You are mistaking gender expression and gender roles as being part of my identity.
You are most crucially mistaking being nonbinary as being part of the binary and having to exist "in opposition" to other genders in order for it to "make sense". One of the most freeing things about realizing I was nb is that I don't exist in opposition to anything - and also that all gender works similarly.
Gender is a describing word, and this can be confusing for some people. In general, we tend to learn describing words in binary - short/tall, old/young, kind/mean. Therefore, there are (many) people who think - feminine/masculine must be oppositional. Gender is also a feeling word - and again, these are words that can be taught in opposition to each other. Hungry/sated, happy/sad, feminine/masculine.
But because gender is such a rare type of word - feeling and describing - it exists outside of binary. It exists more like art exists.
Green can exist in opposition to red, but it also just exists as its own color. Blue is a part of green, but it is also a part of yellow - blue is still its own color, and yellow is still its own color, and green is still its own color. One painting titled "still-life with fruit" may be a series of vague colors and boxes. Another may be a hyper-realistic singular plum. They are both how the artist expresses their personal vision of the fruit. They might even be by the same artist! And although we may compare them, they are not opposites.
One song by Hozier is not in opposition to one song by Britney Spears. They are different styles, not oppositional styles. You may choose to see them as oppositional - but that is your personal opinion, and not fact. And some people may feel and experience those songs as being actually incredibly in-line with each other.
This is why we say: gender is a spectrum. That all gender roles are made up. Personality, interests, and experiences may shape how someone sees and feels their gender, but it does not define how they see and feel their gender.
When we question gender roles and gender expression like this, it tends to make people upset. People like me tend to make people upset. So much bigotry is based on the lie that "feminine" and "masculine" are oppositional. Opposition is rigid and important - it keeps white hegemonic structures in power. I don't have time or space in this post to talk about how rigid gender roles/enforced gender expression rules are not just sexist but also racist, classist, ableist, homophobic, and bigoted; but I really recommend you do the research on how disruption of the gender binary might put the patriarchy at risk.
The thing you feel trapped by - that "being a woman" is a complicated series of rules - is exactly the kind of thing a nonbinary person would agree with you about. We have to fight hard to be recognized for what is a basic truth about our identity - of course we don't believe that gender expression is equivalent to gender identity.
And truth be told... I think you kind of knew that. I think you kind of knew all of this. I am going to hope that you are young. I'll tell you this: I was raised by someone who was a far-right extremist catholic asshole. I certainly didn't have the research/knowledge/exposure to interrogate this stuff honestly until I was probably 23.
I am so much happier now. I hope one day you get the same opportunities as I had. I hope you choose to move away from bigotry.
love u anyway. all this in kindness only.
1K notes
·
View notes
One thing that has forever confused me is why the kids always has cents on their pockets, but the Eds never have. Just, like, the Eds are all from poor families, or their parents are so avaricious who don't give even a nickel? It's pretty evident the Eds would have money for jawbreakers if they gets some allowance.
edd must get an allowance since he was able to buy those books from the library in a case of ed. it's probably pretty decent too, since i imagine his parents as the type to throw money at their problems lol. my hc is that he plays it down to his friends and saves his money or spends it on his own various interests. im sure he buys a round of jawbs every now and again, but it amuses me to think that he has the means to prevent the scammery he claims to detest by simply doling out a few quarters but chooses not to for whatever reason.
it's likely that ed and eddy get allowances, if their parents don't "forget"- eddy's also gotten a couple IOUs in the past- but they're pretty piddly and are immediately gone, spent on jawbreakers and possibly comics/magazines. i don't necessarily think their families are poor but that they may be living beyond their means?? or that things are occasionally tight. im kind of taking stabs in the dark here honestly but it's not that far-fetched imo. eddy's got all that cool, vintage stuff in his room (hand-me-downs), and ed lives in squalor with holes in his socks and underwear.
i don't think either of their mothers work (i hc eddy's mom peddling mary kay/avon but doesn't have many "clients"), so they've only got one income to support them. i forget who it was on here that had the idea of eddy's dad owning the used car dealership that ed's dad works at, but i like that idea. and crazy ed's auto is one audit away from collapse but that sure as hell ain't gonna put a damper on their good time.
ed's dad is utterly despondent bc big eddy won't give him a raise, despite his being there for 15 years (he should be grateful for the mug he got for his 10 year anniversary). but payments for the family jalopy are still being taken out of his paycheck, so he can't leave. ed's mom comes from a well-to-do family but she won't get a dime till her tightfisted folks die. the thought has crossed his mind.... but ed sr. is convinced that she's going to take sarah and leave him with the dumb one when they finally croak.
i got off track there but TL;DR: i think they do all get allowances but edd is a penny pincher who gets a wad every month but keeps it in an eddy-proof coffer. eddy's folks have next to nothing in liquidity and are living on credit and hot air. and ed is considered a discretionary expense during lean months.
20 notes
·
View notes
priest: i don't, ah, quite know what to say to you. if you are in such terrible danger, why are you taking it all so calmly?
constantine: hmh! i dunno, father. i had a bloke beaten to a pulp earlier this evening. that sound calm to you?
priest: you did what...?
constantine: i must've been off me bleedin' rocker. i've never done anything like it before in me life, y'know?
constantine: but there's header gets his guts blown out, and george is stickin' his head in the noose, and helen gets ... jesus, then friggin' sarah bites me head off — ! everything's coming to bits in me hands and it's so easy to just see red and now, shit, they could've killed the tosser for all i know!
and now i'm just like the bastards i've hated all me life! kill him! fire him! close them down! piss all over him! screw you, i can do whatever i want! i so much as blink and you're dead, pal! i'm in charge!!
...
constantine: 'scuse me, father. i'm always like this when i don't get me own way.
— hellblazer #81, "rake at the gates of hell pt. 4"
babygirl you are just....so, sooooo offputting. (and grieving, and guilty, and terrified, but yeah: offputting.)
anyway, it's issues like this one that remind me why i kind of hesitate over some of the retcons in the recent spurrier runs, like the one with him now having opened dream's pouch of sand and stolen some before they even met. because like, it's easy enough to look at john constantine now — with 70 years of worst possible choices and unresolved trauma crystallizing underneath his skin to cover up all the soft, hopeful bits where he's used to getting hit — and assign him arbiter of ill intentions, magus of wasted potential, saint of shit choices, but man . . . he was new to this, once. he was still new to this 80 issues in.
80 issues in, and he's not used to losing friends yet; he even has time enough between catastrophes to grieve each individual one. still has enough left to live for at this stage to necessitate running and hiding, instead of bodily throwing himself at the problem like he learns to later, or sitting apathetically by to do nothing except smoke and watch the world fall apart when he finally gives up. fuck, he still apologizes.
and you're telling me this guy, this soppy wet cat motherfucker hiding from the devil in a church basement, so guilty over not knowing what happened to the guy that he paid people (paid chas, so chas could pay people) to attack that the bottle he's holding in this scene isn't even his second or third........this guy's past, more innocent self lied right to the face of DREAM OF THE ENDLESS and got away with it?
hm. i just don't know about all that.
19 notes
·
View notes