#anti male supremacy

[she-is-ovarit]

The rape and brutalization of any women—including white women—in any country is not a "response" to colonialism, oppression, slavery, poverty, war, murder, and starvation.

It is done out of hatred of women and the pleasure of female pain, degradation, and humiliation. It is attempted to be justified through cultural relativism, through religion, by blaming women for male violence, blaming women for the actions of male systems of governance, blaming women for being in the wrong place at the wrong time—or around the wrong men. In times of war, the rape and brutalization of women demonstrates male behavior in the absence of rules and law.

It is depraved, shameful, disgusting, and absolutely unforgivable. It does not matter which men are doing it to which women in what place. Rape is never justifiable.

As a Jewish woman, would I shame Jewish men for raping the wives of Nazi men? Yes, I would. Would I shame black male slaves for raping white women? Yes, I would. And I would shame white men for raping black women, Nazi men for raping Jewish women. And I would shame male Israeli soldiers for raping Palestinian women and Palestinian males for raping Israeli women.

The rape and brutalization of any women is not an act of liberation, resistance, decolonization, self-defense, or freedom from oppression.

If your measure of the depravity, immorality, and disgust for rape hinges on what men are doing it and what women they are doing it to, you are a rape apologist. That is sexually predatory thinking, that is male supremacist thinking, and that is disturbing behavior. It is wrong to rape.

Female liberation, now.

#female liberation #violence against women #feminism #women's rights #gaza #israel #palestine #hamas attack #women's liberation #anti male supremacy #human rights

[burningtheroots]

IDK who made this but it couldn’t be more true.

#women deserve better #radfem #radblr #radical feminism #anti sex work #anti capitalism #anti male supremacy #men are evil #sex work is exploitation #onlyfans isn‘t safe or empowering #it‘s a pimp in disguise #women‘s rights

[yuri-for-businesswomen]

tw: sexual violence. this essay by ananya pandya is really good, here are some excerpts

her instagram is @/jesuswasajock

#i dont understand why she says violence is a product of capitalism and white supremacy #in an essay about how an indian man raped her #i would consider this patriarchal violence #but thats her prerogative #anti prostitution #male violence #save

[shirkers2018dirsanditan]

i am so sorry but now is actually the appropriate time for the party in the house, senate, and white house that has claimed to stand for the right to have AND access abortion to wield that power and pass a law codifying roe - and do whatever it takes to do that. when they are not doing that, it calls that commitment into question. and it can demoralize people in an election year. obviously, everyone needs to show up because we are all we got. that means using every tool available, including voting (and it is ridiculous and irresponsible to suggest throwing in the towel is going to help anybody). but to organize a dispossessed people, and women are among the most dispossessed in the world, we have to be clear eyed about their actual material realities and how that affects their perspectives on politics

#i wish it were true that this was exclusively partisan #but we all know it isn’t #for one male supremacy is not partisan #and for two…we don’t live in a one party country #election day is saturday for our runoffs in texas and i’ll be waiting to see if a young progressive latina can unseat an anti-abortion dem #jsyk

[ftmtftm]

Feminism has always, always had a history with Racism and White Supremacy - particularly in a way that promotes fascist leaning "Protection for Me and Mine" type "activism".

There have always been several Upper Class, White, Women at the helm of Feminist movements and it is something Poor, Working Class, Women of Color have been vocally criticizing since the First Wave.

I mean, US Americans, did you not learn about Sojourner Truth? Have you not read "Ain't I A Woman?"? It is one of the most famous early accounts of the racialized nature of gender. It perfectly highlights the way the social aspects of gender have always been barred from People of Color in a way they aren't barred from White People in a firsthand historical account.

Women's Suffrage, and subsequently the First Wave of Feminism was an actively Racially Segregated movement. White Suffragettes intentionally campaigned for themselves and themselves only because they thought that campaigning for Black, Immigrant, and Indigenous Women would undermine their own movement. They did not seek liberation for women, they sought the Systemic, Institutional Power of their White Male Peers and they got it - by intentionally leaving Women of Color behind them.

This is most evident in the fact that White Women received the right to vote in 1920, but Black Women did not receive the right to vote until 1965 with the Voting Rights Act. Almost 50 years later. That is over half a lifetime. This was also only approximately 2-3 years before Radical Feminism and the Second Wave began around 1967~1968.

If you think racial segregation and racism in the Feminist Movement ended with Black Women's suffrage and completely dissipated within the two years it took for the Second Wave to pick up it's feet, you are naïve at best and actively racist yourself at worst. The Women's Liberation Movement / Radical Feminism have always been White Woman's movements riding the coattails of the Suffragette's racism.

Look at the website for the Women's Liberation Front. WoLF is one of the original Radical Feminist organizations. It was founded in the late 60's and is one of the largest Radfem organizations to date. Now. Look at their board. Look at the photos of women they choose to include across their site. Look at the women who are speaking at their events. Beyond one or two token Black Women, it is a sea of Whiteness.

You know who is a special advisor to WoLF and the founder of the group "Standing for Women"? Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull, aka Posie Parker. Kellie-Jay is the woman who popularized "Woman means adult human female" as an anti-trans slogan. Kellie-Jay is also real good buddies with - you guessed it! Neo-Nazis and White Supremacists!

WoLF also takes money from the Alliance Defending Freedom, (ADF) a Right Wing Christian Organization, and it's members have worked directly with the Heritage Foundation, a Conservative organization founded during the Reagan Presidency.

Radical Feminism as a political movement cares about the lives and held power of White Women under the guise of "Women's Liberation" in the exact same way as their foremothers, the Suffragettes. It's a foundationally White Supremacist movement. Black Feminists, Indigenous Feminists, Immigrant Feminists, and Colonized Feminists have been talking about this for over a century but it falls on White ears so why would they listen.

#original post #long post / #anti radfem #anti radical feminism #anti terf #feminism #feminist #anti racism

[silverity]

i didn't hear about Alice Walker defending JK Rowling! she's a womanist/Black feminist who speaks so much on the unique Black female experience, which is often ignored and depreciated as Black women often are, so is it any wonder she questions the erasure of the female experience for all women? it's mad for anybody intimately familiar with her work to be surprised by this, madder still to construe this as "cis feminist ignorance" when this is so in keeping with everything she's been about.

for any fems unaware she received backlash from within the Black community after 'The Color Purple' film was made based on her novel, as it depicts Black male violence against Black women. Black men particularly accused her of being "anti-Black men". certainly she knows how important the discussion of sex, sexuality, sexual violence and exploitation is for feminism and isn't concerned about disrupting male supremacy.

i really love her for it & i'm sad Black folks, particularly Black women, are shutting her down instead of listening and considering her perspective. she is one of the Greats of Black literature and Black feminist thought, having coined the term womanism to mean Black feminism. it's insane to dismiss or even "cancel" an elder as great as she is.

#i replaced the broken link guys sorry! #radblr #terfblr #alice walker #womanism #black feminism #terf #feminism #original posts

[doberbutts]

I remember reading a post that men are the oppressor class so why would they bother to dismantle systemic patriarchy when they actively benefit from its existence? And as I read it, I thought, Damn, so an entire half of the population can never conceivably help us, and the people who love men in their lives are doomed. It wasn't a helpful post. It basically felt, here's some actual material analysis on feminism and said, That trying to educate and make men be part of feminism is fundamentally a flawed effort, because again, they are the oppressor class, why should they care about uplifting the oppressed?

And it made me think about this very good pamphlet I read, explaining how the white worker remained complacent for so long because at least they weren't a Black slave. And that the author theorized the reason labor movements never truly created exceptional, radical change is because of internal racism (which I find true) and failure to uplift black people. And the author listed common outlooks/approaches to this problem, and one of them was: "We should ignore the white folks entirely and hold solidarity with only other POC, and the countries in the Global South. Who needs those wishy-washy white fragile leftists who don't care about what we think or want?" (roughly paraphrased.)

And the author said, This sounds like the most leftist and radical position, but it's totally flawed because it absolves us of our responsibility to dismantle white supremacy for the sake of our fellow marginalized people, and we are basically ignoring the problem. And that blew me away because this is a position so many activists have, to just ignore the white folks and focus entirely on our own movements. I wish I knew the name of the actual pamphlet, so I could quote entire passages at you.

But I feel this is the same for men. Obviously, we should prioritize and have women-led and women-focused feminism. But saying that men are an oppressor class so they can't reliably be counted upon in feminist activism--it's such a huge oversimplification. And mainly, I'm a Muslim, and I've been treated with plenty of misogyny from Muslim men. And also plenty of misogyny from Muslim women. And I love my male friends, I want men to be part of the movement, and I dunno. Thinking about communities, movements, and the various ways we fail each other and what it means to be truly intersectional keeps me up at night.

I don't know the pamphlet you're talking about but I've read and been taught similar. There's a reason much of my anti-racism is so feminist and most of my feminism is anti-racist. Many people coming at this problem from a truly intersectional angle have seen that there is no freedom to be had without joining hands across the community. Not picking and choosing our allies based off of identity but off of behavior.

As used in a previous example, a white abled moderately wealthy man saying "wow Healthcare sucks in this country, why does this system suck so bad" should be told "hey, this system sucks so bad because it's built off of sexism, racism, classism, and ableism. You want to improve the system? Fix those things and it will be much better in the long run" and not "shut up you're a man. Healthcare is always going to be better for you". The second response doesn't fix that Healthcare is still a problem even if you are at the "top" of the privilege ladder. If we want true change, we have to dismantle the entire system at it's core and build it up without the yuck, otherwise you're gunna get to the top and realize this place sucks too.

Something something if the crabs worked together to hold each other up, they could all get out of the bucket and be free.

[shirkers2018dirsanditan]

this is so crazy like frederick douglass was like white women are second class citizens and black women are entirely nonfactors and angela davis who literally just told us in chapter one about how black women were black men’s equals in resistance and in the brutality they faced from the slaveowning power structure is like. see this was fine because it was strategic

#literally told us the story of a black woman who was whipped so badly for her fierce resistance to the slave master’s domination that you #could not lay a finger in between the welts on her back #but that woman had to wait 50 years for suffrage because of some so called fucking strategy lol #this is literally ‘benevolent’ male supremacy lol this is wildly insulting and sexist #and deeply anti-woman #just because it isn’t malevolent or hostile does not change that #what the hell lmao #this is also recalls the so called benevolent colonialism of the british in india and the mideast

[trans-androgyne]

TERFism & Transandrophobia

Hi folks, the radfems are on their shit again. They are trying to insert themselves into our conversations and spaces. They flatten transandrophobia to “just misogyny” and attribute it to transfems and other people they consider “male.” They are trying to use the backlash and transandrophobia we’ve received from some transfems as proof that “afab people” are specially oppressed by all “amab people.” They claim that trans women oppress cis women and promote “afab solidarity” against transfems. I’ve seen the radfem @/detransraichu (block them and @/vaelystrasia) talking about trying to get trans people—especially transmascs who acknowledge transandrophobia—to swallow their points better by using “afab” and “amab” instead of “female” and “male.”

If you have a moment to read below the cut, I wanted to briefly remind us all of some more crypto-TERF/radfem/gender critical rhetoric to look out for in these conversations.

1) Using amab/afab as nouns or adjectives instead of verbs — It isn’t always a radfem, but they basically find&replace “male/female” to amab/afab for the optics, so it’s something to look out for.

2) The idea of “male/amab supremacy” or “sex-based oppression” — belief everyone amab oppresses everyone afab. They use this to say trans women oppress cis women.

3) “Afab solidarity” — asking trans people afab to side with cis women over trans women. Erases the power cis women can have over transmascs. Think “trans men are my sisters.”

4) Male/female socialization — insists people are destined to become a specific way based on their agab. What they use to consider everyone amab dangerous and everyone afab safe. Always, always be extremely suspicious of anyone saying “women/afabs are safe, men/amabs are unsafe” for any reason. However, not everyone talking about their agab affecting how they were raised is a radfem. It’s acceptable to say that growing up when amab/afab affects how you were treated or how you act today. It is not okay to assume how others’ perceived socialization affects them, ever.

5) Bio women/bio vaginas/bio breasts — transphobic ways to exclude trans women or refer to their body parts in a way that implies they are cosmetic rather than biological.

6) “Afabmisogyny” — used to describe misogyny presumed to only affect people afab. Positions any misogyny experienced by transfems as less important.

7) “Kink critical” — radfem rhetoric is often very anti-kink, anti-porn, and anti-sex work(ers) as they believe all three are used to oppress females.

These are the points I thought were most relevant to transandrophobia conversations, but feel free to add on if you’re able!

#transandrophobia #transmisandry #anti transmasculinity #transphobia #transmasc #rad/feminism tag #TE/RFism #mine #long post #resources

[centrally-unplanned]

Since I am discussing anime academia today, I was reading another paper that was equally frustrating, along a different axis:

“Do female anime fans exist?” The impact of women-exclusionary discourses on rec.arts.anime

This as a premise is a good concept; someone mining the 90's Usenet anime communities for how the fandom saw female fans back then (the article title is quoting one such thread). So of course, the opening line of this article about the anime fandom in the 90's is....sigh....a reference to Donald Trump:

Commenting on the 2016 American presidential elections, multiple news reporters noted that a relationship could be found between Donald Trump supporters and online anime fans

It of course goes on to discuss Gamergate, 8chan, online right-wing radicalization, references to the "Fascist" themes of Attack on Titan, and on and on. The obvious problem with this is that it is irrelevant; the "methodology" section involves this aside about how they pulled this data from Google Archives but Google is an advertising firm and not a replacement for a real archive and we need to Fight The System and buddy my dude that is not germane to your sample size!!! But more importantly, it is backwards. I don't need to explain the argument here in detail; the article is positing a throughline from 90's anime discourse to modern right-wing internet politics through a sort of 'lock-in' effect of built culture norms around misogyny. Which is fine, you can make that argument - but why is all this future stuff in the first section? You haven't really presented the argument yet! This isn't a book, its not the intro chapter - literally 30% of the text of this article is stating a conclusion upfront, justified not through the text itself but citations to other articles about its truth.

This is something media studies pulled from traditional science - traditional science states "established facts" up front that the paper is building on. But that is because - a thousand caveats aside - in chemistry those facts are....facts. They may be wrong facts, but they can, ostensibly, be objective descriptors. This paper cites "anime is still synonymous with far-right ideologies of white and male supremacy, and events of anti-Blackness" like its citing the covalent bond count of carbon. That is not and never will be a fact one can cite, that is an argument; and its not one that is important for understanding this analysis of Usenet groups. This structure is pulled from other sciences, but it flourishes because it lets you pad the citation count of your peers. Its embarrassing how often you can skip the first 1/3rd of a paper in this field - really the worst possible thing to copy from economics (ding!)

This paper also does the insane thing of jumping between citations from 1992 and events in the 2010's like anime culture is continuous between those time periods. Its an extremely bold claim it just does in the background... but lets set that aside.

This hyper-politicization & hyper-theorizing leads to the second issue of extreme under-analysis. This is the actual value-add of this paper:

From this search, I was able to find the discussion threads “How many females read r.a.a.?” (135 messages; opened on July 13, 1993), “Question: Girls on r.a.a?” (23 messages; opened on February 25, 1994), “Female Otakus” (221 messages; opened on June 25, 1994), “Women watching anime” (72 messages; opened on October 4, 1994), and “Female fans - Do they exist?” (61 messages; opened on October 26, 1995). While these discussions may seem like they were spaces for marginalized users to discuss their experiences, they were often started and overwhelmingly occupied by identified male users. In total, I extracted 252 messages from 1992 to 1996 that were relevant to the gendering of anime fandom, and among those, I classified them as 7 kinds of negative networking discursive practices: (e.g. Table 1. Negative networking practices on rec.arts.anime).

252 messages, five threads - later on it will name other threads, so its more than this, but you get it. It has a bunch of data. And from that data, the article quotes...less than half a dozen examples. There are no quantitative metrics, no threads are presented or discussed in detail from this data set. Some other event is discussed in detail, but again it quotes essentially one person once. The provided "Table 1", the only Table, is a list of the author's categorizations of the data; the data itself is not present. Its file format is a CSV, presumably to mock me for clicking it.

There is, from top to bottom, a complete lack of engagement with the data in question. This would fail an intro anthropology seminar; the conclusion is simply presumed from 1% of the sample size while the rest of the messages are left on read. I just don't think there is any value in that, a handful of messages from 1996 divorced from their context and stapled onto modern politics as a wrap-up. What did the people on this Usenet value? How did they think of women collectively? As anime fans, as outsiders, as romantic partners, as friends? What subfactions existed? Questions like those would presumably be the point of this investigation, but they are treated as distractions.

And this article was, in anime academic circles, a pretty well-trumpeted one. I'm not cherry-picking a bad one here, it was the "hot paper" of the month when it came out. Its just that the standards can be so low, its a field that simply lacks rigor. Which doesn't stop a ton of great work from being done btw, that isn't my point at all. My point is that the great work is not selected for; it goes unrewarded, bogged down by academic standards divorced from discovering real insights.

(I do not think the question "why are they misogynist" ever crossed the author's mind. That should be your literal thesis, and its a ghost. Just ugh.)

#anime academia

[anonymous-dentist]

"It's not that deep"

Yes, yes it is. It is that deep. Buying a Trump flag is that deep. I don't know if most of these Dream fans leftover in their echo chamber of a fanbase remember this, because they were probably kids, but the Trump presidency signaled the end of the world of minorities all across the United States. We're still feeling the repercussions of that today in 2022, almost two full years into Biden's administration. White supremacists are out in louder numbers than they have been in years. Antisemitism is on the rise. Abortion is being threatened in most U.S. states after the conservative-packed Supreme Court overturned Roe v Wade this summer, a court packed by Trump and including Christo-fascists, racists, misogynists, homo- and transphobes, and literal alleged rapists and actual cult members. Anti-queer legislation is being pushed in a significant number of U.S. states and in the federal government by members of the legislature who have been emboldened by having a president that agreed with them.

The 2020 presidential election was huge- some of the largest numbers in decades- because people wanted this man out of office. And he's running again in 2024 despite having been impeached twice (the most for any sitting president in the history of the United States) and despite being under investigation for a bajillion federal crimes, including a recent indictment brought against him in response to him instigating, encouraging, and assisting an attempted insurrection and violent takeover of the government in January of last year. (You people might remember it for Doomsday on the smp; many others remember it as one of the most terrifying moments in U.S. political history.) He's running despite the several charges of campaign fraud and election interference brought against him. The Republicans might not be done with him yet, which is a terrifying thought. Even if they are and they're going with DeSantis for 2024, Trump is still planning on running, and he's bankrupt right now. He's broke. His company is broke. He is broke. The only income he gets now are from MAGA supporters buying his merch. Those funny little NFTs from last week? Those support him.

Know what else directly supports Donald Trump and his campaign? Flags. Buying flags.

Does this mean that Dream and Sapnap are Trump supporters for buying a Trump flag as a gag gift for their British friend? No, absolutely not, but the joke of 'lol look at this stupid idiot flag we got you' doesn't land when, A, the person giving the gift is a former Trump supporter himself, and, B, the person that the flag was bought from is a literal white supremacist and fascist who is friends with white supremacists and fascists who all want queer people to die, they want women to be silent or to die, they want civil rights overturned, they want to turn this country back into a shell of itself in the name of white male Christian supremacy

Dream's audience is young and vulnerable. Many members are queer. Many are POC. Most are young. They might not remember how fucking terrifying 2016 through 2020 were. People woke up in tears the day after election day in 2016 for a reason. The polls were flooded in 2020 for a reason. These audience members might not remember that because they were so young, or they might not realize the gravity of the situation. What does it say to them when their hero pulls out a Trump flag and says it's a gift? It's something to laugh at, yeah, but is it really? It shows people that it's okay not to take Trump seriously, and he and his followers are still a threat to America today. It's dangerous not to take him and his followers seriously. And since the Democrats don't seem to have anybody they're pushing for for 2024, it's especially important for potential voters (because that's what these fans are, many will be old enough to vote by 2024) to start to research and understand the opposition.

Oh, and this also alienates members of Dream's audience that do remember the Trump administration. Reminder, thanks to Trump and his buddies, being queer is becoming illegal again. POC are constantly under attack because of the racist remarks encouraged by Trump during his administration. Treating Trump as a joke could, and probably has, alienated a portion of viewers. It shows them just how seriously Dream thinks these issues are. It's all worth it for a funny joke that won't appear for longer than a minute on a several hour long stream train, one viewed by tens of thousands of people live and hundreds of thousands more via vods and clips in the 12+ hours that have passed since.

You'd think that Dream would know better with a platform this size and with a fanbase as unique as what his used to be, but I guess not. Critical thinking is vital in this industry, whether you're a fan or a creator. Do I think he meant any harm in this? No, I think he's just a moron. A terrible man, yeah, but not for this. For this, he's just a fucking idiot, and he needs to get a PR guy, and he needs to fucking think before he does things for once in his life. Because it could've been funny to some people, including himself, but there is a responsibility to be, well, responsible with yourself and your audience when you're a content creator. It's very easy to send the wrong message out. There's a certain level of critical thinking that needs to be put into place, and that clearly is not a skill that Dream has.

#dream situation #sorry this is my last post on the topic #i just feel like some people might not understand why that was such a bad thing #because it was a bad thing! #hi i'm a.d. i'm a history student and i've studied the rise of f@scism for coming up on 10 years now #i'm also old enough to remember All Of This Happening #it was bad and it can't happen again #also to be clear i hate him anyway. he's a piece of garbage and he should be deplatformed immediately

[horizon-verizon]

Master Post of Anti-Criston Cole-ism

He was Never Raped or SA-ed

A) [HotD] HotD's Episode 4, from the Actor and Writers

i)

🔗LINK to Entertainment Weekly Article that Describes Frankel & Writers Making this Scene Consensual Sex Scenes where Criston "Chooses" to Forget his Vows

Neither of these reveal that either the actor nor the writers or directors wrote the sex scene to be something Criston was afraid of or didn't want. The way it's talked about, with people "discovering" each other and themselves shows consent and enjoyment. Frankel wanted to play out his fear of Criston's own desire to break his own vows and facing the guilt of that; Rhaenyra never pressured him into anything.

REMINDER: He's still not "commonborn" nor Dornish, since:

he has a last name, which peasants don't have AND his father/house is House Cole, stewards of the Dondarrions...the Tyrells at one point were stewards to House Gardner in the Reach & they were still nobles of that time, stewards don't mean full fledged "servants"

Blackhaven is in the Stormland part of the Dornish Marches, not the Dornish part of the Dornish Marches...Samwell Tarly's family's castle is in the foothill of a part of the Dornish Marches, ....Barristan Selmy's family's castle, Harvest Hill, is based in the Dornish Marches in Stormlander territory, so is Barristan Selmy Dornish? Cole is a Stormlander!

Marchers hate Dornish people more than other nonDornish Westerosi do...Criston said his dad was a steward of the nonDornish Dondarrions...HotD has never shown us whether either of his parents are Dornish by origin so what proof do we have he is Dornish even in the show?!!! And we see no discrimination (hint or overt) the court has against Cole...

lets' say that Cole was Dornish...the Velaryons are black and realisitically, even rich Black people do not manage to avoid subtle racial discrimination (there's a black woman on TikTok from a wealthy family that talks about it, idk her name)...so if Criston faces racism and the Velaryons don't either the writers are incompetent or don't know racism

Not only is this a misreading of what the Dornish Marches are on the HotD writers'/producers' part, it's a misreading or understanding of race either in medieval times or the modern day, AND people have tried to use a supposed racial disparity b/t Rhaenyra (Valyrian-Targ princess) to argue that Cole (the racially-inferior) felt racial pressure as well to comply to sleep with her and avoid censure or punishment if she blabs...as if his race would give him the right to sleep with a teen girl who some have argued was also very drunk here-- even if Criston was Dornish!

ii) [HotD] HotD's Episode 4, from the actual Episode

People don't know what SA or rape actually looks like...can we just, please?...

B) "If the Roles were Reversed" [HotD AND the Original Story]

i)

Rhaenyra didn't "make" him do anything b/c she doesn't have the ability to take on that new level of risk. So much protest using the "if the genders were reversed", and yet no acknowledgment or breakdown of what their respective unique positions are.

A male heir =/= a female heir in terms of power and privilege, gender really matters even here, as every source on the matter--whether HotD or the original story--has made every single minute to point out and emphasize...the only reason we are even talking about the Dance is that it was a group of people arguing that no woman should go before a man inn any line of succession which comes from the belief that women are inherently insufficient military leaders. And female chastity is a whole concept in of itself where the woman/girl must be sexually "pure" as to ensure that a man's and his family's lineage remains "proven" to be inherited by someone blood-connected to them. To preserve that wealth and privilege. etc., within that family. Female chastity - female "obedience" or submission to male supremacy.

Women could never be knights so they can never be Kingsguard.

Brienne is not a knight...yet[?], and she exists YEARS after the Dance; even if there were female monarchs before, check out real history for how medieval people regarded female rulers if they didn't happen to be very "good" ones...I mean just check out Juana I of Castile!

We can never equalize these situations in matter of gender because this society structures on the inequality of its genders.

A World of Ice and Fire shows us glaring examples of women over men being brutally sidelined or physically attacked to make way for male leaders or candidates (Shiera Blackwood, Agnes Blackwood, that unnamed Lannister woman who had to marry a non-Lannister man so he could take her name just so he could lead the Lannister house instead of her, Argella Durrandon, Marla Sunderland); Fire and Blood has a bunch of girls raped, mutilated, SA-ed or sexually manipulated so the men can inch their way towards power or to just feel in control (Cassandra Baratheon, Lucinda Penrose, those Tumbleton 8-year-olds, the septas, etc.).

Making as if sexual violence against men or just general violence against men is treated the same, as frequent, and socially justified as violence against women and girls both in real life and in the ASoIaF/HotD/GoT universes is disingenuous. As long as we live in a society where enough people think a woman's body is never totally her own, it never will be.

ii) Let's play with this "Reversal" Anyway:

a) We already see Rhaenyra-Criston in the version of her approaching him...

In F&B, we already have one verison of what happened b/t them in Mushroom telling us of a situation of Rhaenyra approaching Criston and Criston denying her, with no material consequences for him...and he freely decides to hate and try to destroy her anyway ("A Question of Succession"):

Even IF Rhaenyra approached Criston and in this way, she does not go to Viserys to ruin Cole or do anything else to him. She sleeps with Harwin instead. And why doesn't she go to Viserys to fuck Criston's life up? Bc he has been her trusted guard for ages, but also because of what I say below in section b) below and i) above.

Reminder, Viserys in both the show and book forces Rhaenyra to marry Laenor, and book!her explicitly is rumored to say she wanted Daemon. She faces censure or punishment, not Cole.

Show!Rhaenyra has also been "friends"/friendly with Cole for years; what reason do we have to expect or fear that she'd complain to Viserys? How much does Criston really expect Rhaenyra does, since he's the said friend in her "confidence"?

b) Occam's razor

Since women cannot be Kingsguard in Westeros, the female-Cole would either be a lower-ranked noble woman or she would be like Jonquil Darke, the female sworn-shield of Alysanne Targaryen (who still wasn't part of the Kingsguard). JD was also a Darkling bastard.

It's so very unlikely that even if female-Cole become the guard to young/older male-Rhaenyra.

That's inconceivable to these people. Why would the probably already-sword trained male-Rhaenyra need a personal female-guardsman when they'd have an actual Kingsguard knight (still all male) as the male-Rhaenyra's guard before a female warrior is ever considered? This is the mindest of these royals and nobles, btw.

And again, Jonquil was the protector of Alysanne, not Jaehaerys. But Jaehaerys did use Jonquil to stop Saera from running away, and this proves that Jonquil's "final boss" is and always has been Jaehaerys, aka, the Monarch, not the person she was protecting. If a male-Rhaenyra approached a female-Cole (but not a bastard) who was a sort of Jonquil Darke person, even with that female-Cole being well-versed in swordsmanship or anything physical to defend herself, the social consequences of that woman sleeping with a royal man while not being married to him is still as real and worse for her than for him. She'd be less willing to fully engage with him and dread the consequences of his growing angry with her.

What if female-Cole was just a regular noblewoman, either ranked high from a prestigious family/Great House (Starks, Martell, Hightowers, Lannisters, Manderlys] or from a lower ranked or not-as-prestigious and influential family (Tarlys, Selmys, Boltons, Wyls)? And male-Rhaenyra took a liking to female-Cole but didn't want to or expect to marry them?

Because female-Cole is a female noble and had grown up knowing that women & girls are socially condemned for actually practicing sexual autonomy, they'd be much more cautious and vulnerable to censure in either scenario:

If the female-Cole was from a more prestigious or "Great" House, male-Rhaenyra wouldn't as likely approach them unless they thought they'd be good for marriage because that house is powerful and important enough to put some pressure on them IF they ever found out. An affair is very possible, and depending on female-Cole's age and assessment of her own abilities and worth growing up female, we don't know whether they'd be willing to pursue a true consensual affair with male-Rhaenyra without there being a hope or guarantee for marriage. Because, like Lysa Tully, they still run the risk of tainting their family/house' image and face punishment or abuse from their own family if such affairs were made public. (If I have to explain Lysa Tully to people, they either forgot what happens b/t her & Petar Baelish or never read the bks, and if the latter they should not speak on anything to do with any character in things like this that requires lore knowledge AND some objectivity. Or they don't see what happened to her as "a big deal"...) Still, there is room for her to not want the attention because women are not a monolith of the exact same personalities or circumstances for us to believe every single woman would go for a real affair regardless of there being a desire or expectation of marriage. Thus what I describe below for lower ranked women/girls still counts. If anything, the stakes can be said to be higher because her family's prestige or power is so high that they could also take the path of blaming her. Therefore, a woman/girl of this group could still feel cornered.

If female-Cole came from a lower/less prestigious house, male-Rhaenyra is more interested & likelier of pursuing an affair or making female-Cole their paramour/mistress. Same situation, but the girl has even less reason to believe that there would be a marriage bc her house' rank/prestige/powers are so low for a possible marriage to the future King. She'd have to be either be mentally incapacitated (Priscella Hogg), under another immense pressure, or very young to believe that. So in this case, there is a stronger likelihood that if she sleeps with male-Rhaenyra, it's because she was cornered or felt she couldn't avoid him and had no assurances to avoid him later on. Or that he'd later feel slighted and begin rumors of her in court and her reputation gets ruined either way.

in either case, because male-Rhaenyra is a man while female-Cole isn't and men are far more likely to use physical force to intimidate or push a woman down then the reverse; men on average feel entitled to women's bodies' and attention, what more a royal prince like Aegon & Aemond? (I didn't use these examples by accident: that 12 yr old "paramour" Septon Eustace informs us and Alys Rivers)

And male-Rhaenyra would be the heir, still. There would be no doubt against male-Rhaenyra because she'd be male, male leaders are credited their deserving to rule armies by being male. His path to ascension is clearer than what real-Rhaenyra currently and will have to face. Male-Rhaenyra has no reason to even be all that secretive with female-Cole if he did intend on making her his paramour & he thought he'd get away with just making her his paramour...which is most likely a woman in a much lower "rank" or of a family with much lower powers than some others. Yes, Viserys would say that he is acting "unseemly", he could be called stupid or reckless, and some lords and ladies would think he's acting too licentuously...but no one would begrudge or hate male-Rhaenyra long for extramaritally/premaritally sleeping with a woman of any origin as to say they were a "whore" or try to use this as their primary reason be shouldn't be the next King. The "new" greens don't as much shit to stand on. They'd look silly(ier) for actually using this as a reason to say he shouldn't be King.

Female-Cole has little to no leverage against a male-Rhaenyra in the specific moment of a sexual cornering bc there is simply more risk for her than for him based on their respective genders AND ranking. We can't separate the two, they will inform the other.

Cole-Cole has more social leverage than a woman actually corned by a male higher-ranking noble/royal bc Rhaenyra-Rhaenyra's reputation can be ruined a lot easier than a male heir's. In any iteration, female-Cole rather than Cole-Cole has more risk & pressures in because women are given less grace in events where it's known they extramaritally/premaritally sleep with a man. Because she's already side-eyed or doubted to be a capable leader or worthy, censures against her lack of practicing female obedience and chastity would make her seem less deserving of the throne and give her enemies more fuel to fire their own agenda.

Again, this hierarchical feudal society is built on making gender, class, etc. essential differences that grant individuals privileges over others.

Finally, Criston Cole, his relationship with Rhaenyra, AND their sex /how it happened cannot be compared to a modern-day boss-employee-relationship/sexual harassment sort of sex-reversed MeToo! situation. Viserys is, as many have said on both camps, Criston's real and unequivocal "boss". Really, this whole argument then diminishes what actual SA is and the MeToo! movement's focus on holding mainly male professional superiors accountable for willfully using their positions to assault those under them.

The writers trying to make Rhaenyra the one in with more psychological control over Criston when canonically there' isn't much evidence to support that is very suspicious.

Reasons to Hate Cole

A) Show/House of the Dragon

i)

Let's really think about Criston's suggestion to run away and marry.

The guy said this in episode 5 of season 1:

I've soiled my white cloak. And it's the only thing I have to my fսck¡ng name! I thought if we were married, I might be able to restore it.

Criston's logic reveals he's more concerned about retaining his own sense and perception of his honor and not "honor" in general bc running away to elope would bring great disgrace to both his and Rhaenyra’s families & houses. Not just Rhaenyra herself. If it is Rhaenyra's "duty" to marry Laenor, she would be breaking her vows to become Queen. If she runs away, she arguably broke her vows to "protect" the realm from the Others as by her and Viserys' conversation about Aegon's prophecy. Cole may not have heard this from Rhaenyra, but he didn't want to hear anything from her because all he wanted was for her to go along with what he wanted, not to actually listen to her any misgivings she may have had.

He looked at marriage as a way to "bring back" a sense of honor for himself. Vows hold "sacred" honor. Criston is trying to distance himself from the very idea of freely and willfully “soiling” his cloak by trying to "replace" his brken vows with new marriage vows.

Remeber, he consented to sex with Rhaenyra, so it was his willful decision to sleep with her and "soil" his own "cloak". The writers and the actor, again, both work in the understanding that Cole "chooses to lie with Rhaenyra" [top of this post].

Criston absolutely knows that she can't marry him in the usual, open way and still retain her position as heir or even as part of the royal family. He's asking her to abandon her entire family...let that sink in. It shows a gender disparity that does not justify "if the roles were reversed". Lower-ranked-Female-Cole would never and could never hope to convince the male-Rhaenyra to run away with her and start an entirely new life, abandon both of their families (for marriage specifically) bc he doesn't have to in order to marry her. He may lose some people's respect if he marries her, but the consequences for him versus a female heir are not the same. A female heir would have to run away & not be among other Westerosi nobles, become a peasant, etc. to marry someone like Cole. *EDIT (3/17/24)* Example: Prince Duncan and Jenny of Oldstones. *END OF EDIT*

He was attracted to her, but his main motivation was to escape the shame of his soiled cloak and soiled honor. That his honor is actually a lie, a made-up thing in itself. That he, himself, soiled it and thus he, himself, has made himself a liar.

ii)

He has been living in court being Rhaenyra’s personal guard for years. Some of us thought that he should have known that nobles largely do not follow the same rules that excuse their positions through rumors. That they withhold and lie to protect themselves. (And generally, humans are wont to try to bend their own rules to satisfy their own desires.) 

And so we think that he should have done the same--patiently withhold information and observe what happens so he could adapt to it--while Alicent was getting to ask if Rhaenyra had slept with Daemon, and not if he slept with her.

It may not be faithful to one's vows, but if he actually knew what kind of person Rhaenyra was--that she would never run away with him (as he should after so many years of being with her and thus I think he did know but asked anyway, this he never really cared about her but himself)--then he should have never brought up the suggestion of running away or thought she'd ever marry him. What exactly did he think would happen for him after sleeping w/her? And as I argued, he had much more choice than some may think and took advantage of it. As nobles often do.

And yet, he decides that Rhaenyra is responsible for what he freely chose for himself AND what he could have easily avoided as a man/Kingsguard and her being female. And he does so so he can avoid accountability. Rhaenyra is much less likely to be able to & doesn't want to, once again, "make" him do anything with her. And Rhaenyra does not control Criston Cole's conscience nor his penis nor his reasoning.

Occam's razor again.

iii)

He decides to take it out on the Velaryon boys, as clued by what happens in the training yard of episode 6. It's obvious he refuses to treat them similarly to the green princes and train them at the same level. He's also much more physically rough with Jace than with either green boy. Finally he presses for Aegon to get more violent than necessary against Jace, clearly taking pleasure in vicarious revenge against Rhaenyra.

He's a loser who uses children's pain to inflict his own frustrations. And no, "illegitimate" children are not less human than "trueborn" ones.

B) Fire and Blood (The Original Story)

These are the versions of what happens b/t them, Septon Eustace's vs Mushroom's ("A Question of Succession"):

Really, alinahams already tackled this HERE, so check them out.

Excerpt:

In both versions, Criston is never involved with Rhaenyra in any way. Both versions take care to mention how it was all about Rhaenyra's choices about her life and body that bothered Criston and made him hate her. It's never about Criston being used and discarded. That is what makes Criston an Incel and a villain. Rhaenyra never did anything wrong to him. She didn't do anything to deserve his life long hatred and betrayal. It was his own twisted madonna/whore complex that ruined his friendship with Rhaenyra.

Criston decides to make it his life mission to destroy Rhaenyra because he couldn't handle her making her own decisions, bc honestly even if she (a 16-17 yr old) had decided to try to seduce him as Viserra did with Baelon...did Baelon hold it against Viserra or say that she was a whore or try to condemn her or get back at her for daring to "disturb" him in his grief over his dead wife, their sister, Alyssa?

Even with Baelon being a prince to Criston's Kingsguard, we see that both Viserra & Rhaenyra were desperate to have some sense of control over their own bodies through sex--and for Viserra through a marriage to a more powerful man--because it is through sex and marriage that their entire autonomy is being taken away or suppressed. And some in this fandom have argued that Viserra was bad or amoral for trying to seduce Baelon in his grief, and some have even said she was trying to take advantage of him! But does Baelon think this way or try to "avenge" himself on her? No.

Why try to ruin her and her kids' entire lives? Once more, Rhaenyra, even in Mushroom's version, does not ever complain to Viserys or try to ruin Criston. So....

#criston cole #criston cole's characterization #fire and blood characters #hotd characterization #rhaenyra and criston #rhaenyra targaryen #rhaenyra's characterization #hotd episode 4 #hotd episode 5 #asoiaf #fire and blood #hotd #book vs tv show comparisons