#but me not liking them is not an antifeminist issue | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

trans-androgyne · 23 days

Note

Sorry if this is an irritating ask or anything, but could you please explain to me what people find wrong about the term transandrophobia? As far as I’m aware it’s literally just a word to describe trans men’s oppression. I’m not against the idea that it might have something wrong with it (as a transmasc person), but through all this fighting I’ve never once seen someone clearly explain what the problem is.

I’ve seen people claim that transmascs keep throwing transfems under the bus, but the only thing I’ve ever seen is actually the OPPOSITE way around, and only when I go searching for it (but that might just be because I make an effort to keep my dash free of that kind of thing) again I’m not saying it doesn’t happen, I just… don’t quite understand all this.

Sorry abt this rambly ask, I’m just tired and frustrated and I HATE that we’ve been pitted against each other

I will do by best to genuinely present and respond to the main arguments I have heard made against using the term. Apologies in advance for the length.

The most common in my experience is that “androphobia/misandry doesn’t exist,” or “men aren’t oppressed for being men,” based on the terms transandrophobia and its origin, transmisandry. It feels like a non-sequitur to me, completely bypassing the actual meaning of the term. Some people do include androphobia or misandry in their definition of the term, but many more don’t and just use it to describe the intersection of transphobia and misogyny in the lives of transmascs or even just “transphobia against transmascs.” I personally do believe androphobia exists in a literal sense—the fear of men that has serious consequences—but not in the way they mean it. They are attempting to paint us as MRAs, but nobody who gets any eyes on them using the term has ever argued that women oppress men as a class. MRAs are antifeminist, and the transandrophobia conversation is very much a feminist one.

The simplest is just that transmascs just “don’t need a word” to talk about their oppression. Our experiences are called “just transphobia” or “just misogyny” based on whatever they think applies most in the moment. Our theorizing is painted as useless infighting or just being jealous that trans women have a word to describe their oppression. I vehemently disagree with this one, I think everyone deserves language to describe their experiences. I think it’s impossible to ignore the way that both transphobia and misogyny interact to affect us in a new way (the very definition of intersectionality), and that we deserve to recognize and describe that intersection. Even the coiner of the word “transmisogyny” appears to agree with us on this.

Other people will focus on the term’s perceived origins. They frequently call the person who changed the term “transmisandry” to “transandrophobia” a “lesbophobic transmisogynist” and rape fetishist. From everything I’ve been able to put together on the matter, it seems to be that they’re referring to him having engaged in someone else’s detrans kinks as a sex worker on a private blog. I’ve heard from others he may have harassed people, absolutely cannot verify that. To me, it feels like another case of accusing trans people with kinks others find unsavory of being a sexual predator/sex pest, which people generally recognize as transphobic. In any case, even if every single part of their outrage was true, I do not think the behavior of a person who didn’t even come up with the ideas means that transandrophobia theory is inherently transmisogynistic.

In regard to “throwing trans women under the bus,” I think a lot of those ideas come from oppositional sexism. It’s assumed that what we’re saying is true of men must be the opposite for women. Trans women, including the woman who coined “transmisogyny,” have been using trans men’s perceived “opposite” experiences to prove their points for many years. They try to make a claim for transmisogyny by saying trans men don’t experience similar issues (violence, sexualization, demonization, safety issues, misogyny, trouble passing). But the reality is, trans men do experience those issues — some to a lesser extent, some in a different form, some just less visibly due to our chronic erasure — and have other issues of their own that trans women don’t face (like abortion rights issues). An attack on the idea that trans men have it easier is seen as an attack on transmisogyny as a concept. But it isn’t!! Transmisogyny is so blatant and oppressive of a system that it doesn’t need to compare itself to transandrophobia/trans men’s issues to have ground to stand on. Trans people are all harmed by transphobia in different, complex ways and none of us have gendered privilege.

Very few people engage with the actual meat of transandrophobia theory. We have really bad optics, I’ll give them that. It’s hard to like a word with “androphobia” in it, talking about men’s issues puts people on edge due to MRAs, and there are TERFs actively trying to recruit us. (The last part is used against us when it shouldn’t be, they try to recruit transmascs of all stripes for detransitioning and are only using us in particular because so many transfems have been awful to us because of the term. They are trying to widen that divide while most of us discussing transandrophobia are trying to close it.)

We (people who use “transandrophobia”) are often characterized as a unified movement that hates trans women (like in that post that blew up in the wake of predstrogen’s banning). We are not a movement any more than “transmisogyny” or “exorsexism” are. We don’t all believe the same things, the only thing we share in common is that we feel transmascs have a specific kind of oppression and deserve a word to describe it. And, obviously, we are doing our best not to perpetuate (trans)misogyny! The number of disclaimers I have seen people put on their post to make it exceedingly obvious to the piss on the poor website that they’re not talking about trans women is absolutely astounding. I’m sure our circles do have some transmisogyny in them, everywhere does! We do our best to combat it and I know my personal spaces have a couple transfems in them that help keep us in check. If we were being genuinely transmisogynistic, I would ask people to actually point to what they’re seeing that’s harmful instead of just dismissing all of us as evil bigots.

I think what contributes to the backlash the most is simply that trans men do not fit into current understandings of feminism well. People have gotten it into their heads that men are gender oppressors and not gender oppressed — which doesn’t shake out so well when you put being trans into the equation. I grew up hearing “ew men are gross” “I hate men” “kill all men” sentiments due to being in LGBT spaces. Some people really, really do not want to let go of the idea that men are bad and icky and dangerous and women are good and pure and safe, especially when it benefits them as non-men. Many transmascs themselves have internalized the idea that they are gender oppressors, traitors to feminism, more likely to be dangerous/predatory/misogynistic, and take up too much space because they are men/mascs. I sure felt like that before finding these conversations! I sincerely think that as we grow our transfeminism and heal from our gender essentialism a little more, this rhetoric will be left in the past.

#long post #resources #ask #mine #transandrophobia #transmisogyny #transphobia #intracommunity issues tag

77 notes · View notes

olderthannetfic · 5 months

Note

Wish has dragged the "adorkable female hero" criticisms back out of the mud, and I don't disagree with them per se - for me, my main issue is with the fact that so many movies are just incapable of genuine emotion these days and every emotional moment has some sort of crappy "well...THAT just happened" one-liner. But I also feel like peoples' issues with "adorkable" heroes can become quite sexist. One film reviewer I usually like a lot even said "at least Anna and Mirabel have 'reasons' to be awkward because they're sheltered and traumatized," and it doesn't at all sit right with me to argue that the only justification for awkwardness is...trauma? Lots of people are awkward. Do we all need "reasons" to be? What makes Encanto good to me is that Mirabel is awkward but also compassionate and competent, she has a sense of humour but is also a rounded human who is allowed to feel emotions. My criticisms are when "adorkable" heroes aren't allowed to be more than a collection of one-liners and visual gags, not with "adorkable" heroes themselves. It's an issue when peoples' annoyances with "adorkable" heroes end at the point that they're basically just arguing that women heroes NEED to be demure, feminine, modest and serious to be likeable, and...is that the hill we all want to die on? Seriously? And because I'm at it, can we pleaaase stop the facade that old Disney princess movies were subversive bastions of feminist progress. It's not antifeminist to have a fantasy about being rescued by a prince but come on, they weren't intelligent genre deconstructions either. Disney's real era of subversive masterpieces was in the late 80s and then the late 90s/early 00s when Pixar hit the scene, IMO. It's true that Disney isn't as competent as it used to be, but it's not as if "fantasy for fantasy's sake with a straightforward plot, basic to nonexistent morals and themes, and no attempts to deconstruct the genre" is NEW for Disney. That's...most of their old princess movies. And I LIKE the princess movies! None of this is an attempt to shit on them. I know we're all tired of the "it's a movie for children" defense, but I feel like there is some truth to the idea that it's not BAD for a movie to just set out to be a hero versus villain fantasy and not set out to be the next Toy Story, you know? They don't have to have these massively nuanced themes. I'm sure if the old princess movies were released now everyone would complain about them too.

36 notes · View notes

ninthprime · 7 months

Text

mildly arbitrary rating of every gundam i have watched so far

in order of me starting them

witch from mercury: 7.5/10. we’re never gonna get confirmation of people’s various theories that this show was originally planned for 50 episodes and i’ve also heard that the showrunner’s series tend to be kind of just Like This, but gwitch has a lot of missed potential mostly focused on 1. its seemingly incomplete worldbuilding and 2. the fact that the arcs of much of its secondary cast (guel, nika, shaddiq) appear to jump over a few steps or just are missing something. on the other hand, the arcs of its primary cast (particularly suletta) are great, suletta herself is a top-tier protagonist, the tertiary cast is one of the best i’ve seen in gundam (i love earth house), and sulemio is probably objectively the best gundam romance even if i’m pretty sure it’s not my personal favorite.

gundam 0079: 9.5/10. the GOAT. you know how it is. every single person who got into gundam via gwitch like i did but still hasn’t gone back to watch 0079 is doing themself a total disservice. you watch this show and both everything about mecha and everything about modern anime in general suddenly clicks completely in your brain. everyone who has been obsessed with char aznable and amuro ray for the last 40+ years has been completely right. i think its only big flaws are some of its treatment of women (though later shows like ZZ have way more glaring issues there) and its shortened length, but frankly if you hadn’t told me it got cut short seven episodes early i would not have noticed, because its finale may be one of my all time favorite television finales ever. just go watch it. i’m sitting you down right now

zeta gundam: 8.5/10. a really ideal sequel in a lot of ways that are remarkable considering the gap of time between it and 0079. focuses on new characters who reflect on the last show while still being their own things, and brings back the cast of the last show in ways that feel like they make sense while still being unexpected and making you look at things in a new light. deeply iconic and atmospheric in ways that are a little overwhelming at times; it is a dour show. has way more glaring flaws for me than a lot of the fandom brings up though, mostly in its pacing and its villains. this show has an entire middle section i barely remember and do we need both the four and rosamia storylines? and frankly i do not care about the titans that much (other than sarah).

zz gundam: 8.5/10. zz defender crop is here. please ignore everyone who tells you that you can skip zz. zeta’s other half in ways that aren’t just “it started two weeks after zeta in real life”- it also fixes zeta’s pacing, provides a welcome counterpoint to its dire tone, and its villains are literally just improved versions of zeta’s (glemy is better scirocco! haman is a top tier gundam villain in general!). i think the middle section of this show- the entire time they are on earth- is my favorite section of UC gundam, or at least tied with 0079’s ramba ral and finale arcs. i do think the dip in quality people say it has in the last arc is true. also probably has the largest Woman Problem in any gundam i’ve seen so far (i have a threshold for bad women writing so high it is practically antifeminist but unfortunately emary breaks that threshold, what the hell is up with everything about emary) even though i love some of those women very much. secretly has the boldest and most thematically interesting gundam finale so far. ple forever

char’s counterattack: 8/10. as i’ve said before: a gorgeous film about two men being so divorced that thousands of people die. genuinely iconic and also very bold but i often find myself torn as to whether i want tomino to be more explicit about what he’s saying here. we could have saved ourselves years of “was char right??” debates but then again, it’s the spirit of cca to claim that only you have the right take about cca. beyond the time is a good song

gundam unicorn: 7.5/10. politics here are often confusing and messy, and i think it suffers from its core characters (banagher and mineva) and their relationship not getting the time they need. on the other hand, i’m interested in what it says about the worldbuilding of UC (even if i think it didn’t execute it that well) and its secondary cast is great; i did nearly cry about marida and zinnerman so that sure works. full frontal does not bug me nearly as much as he bothers most people although i think he has the same “needs more time to cook” issue banagher and mineva have. i even kind of like what they do with riddhe and i usually dislike that archetype. in other words: i would have been nuts for the forty episode (and properly paced) version of this show. marida forever

gundam hathaway: 7/10?? hard to tell here without having the next two movies. was a bit hard to get invested in the conflict near the end as we met many characters who are not developed yet. but the relationship between the core trio here is intriguing and i like hathaway as a protagonist a lot.

the rest of my “gundams i am most interested in list” is victory -> turn a -> 00 -> iron blooded orphans so that’s the next four shows. after…who can say

#gundam personal tag #hot takes post. watch out. weeoo weeoo

21 notes · View notes

butch-reidentified · 8 months

Note

Your lack of self awareness about your own "dysphoria" is causing you to justify an extremely antifeminist industry and those profiting from selling marginalized women self-destruction. You have all the expected comorbidities (OCD/anorexia/body dysmorphia plus unresolved trauma from extreme homophobia) of someone in your position, shared with most female people who seek this surgery, and not someone with an implausible, never validated neurological disorder that coincidentally happens to map precisely onto misogynistic and homophobic ideas of the female body. Your "resolution" of symptoms is dependent on defending your decision and not the actual reality of the results. Your comorbid issues (especially OCD, which your wife is enabling) are obviously still raging through your life no matter what you say. It is a direct insult to every woman who feels violated by what happened to them to claim that not only are you one of the only people on the planet to truly need this surgery but that you read their stories of profoundly woman-hating trauma to convince yourself that you were a uniquely informed and more authentic candidate. P.S. I would "pull up" but I have a job instead of whatever grift you run. Good luck and hope you figure this out before too many other women see you as a role model.

LMAO this is so so amazing thank you. when I tell you this reads like TRA arguments... straight up making things up, projecting, absurdity, and ad hominem bs. delightful!

long post incoming but I am gonna break this down on a micro level bc I haven't talked about these topics in a minute + I'm high and it seems like fun, like a satisfying puzzle, kind of, to break this down into individual parts and address each part. Plus, asks like this provide opportunities to really dive into nuance and detail on several of one's ideas, experiences, and worldviews all in one place, which I've always enjoyed.

I am gonna preface by saying several parts of this are blatantly bad faith, and I am answering more for others to read than for anon. In particular, the claim that I said I am one of the few people who "truly NEED" this surgery. Given you clearly read at least some of my posts on dysphoria, certainly you saw that I repeatedly emphasized that I never have or will view this as a "need." It's also worth noting that most of my posts on this were written quite some time ago, and I don't remember everything I ever wrote on the topic off the top of my head, but I 150% do know myself and what thoughts and feelings I've had and which I've not had on the matter.

ok so first off, I have literally not ever ever even once encouraged anyone to pursue a single elective surgery & have very consistently done the opposite. just because I feel chill about my surgery personally does not mean that I support that industry, actually. in fact, if i knew everything i know about that industry now, I would not get the surgery... but that's a matter of choosing to boycott the industry, not a matter of how i feel personally about my individual experience. how I feel has literally nothing to do with my opinions/beliefs/values. I dont choose how I feel, but I fully choose my moral code.

in fact, my honesty about my story is not supporting that industry in a single way - it simply is not lying. people like you would have me lie to further a narrative rather than be genuine and candid, which puts us on the level with TRAs since that is precisely what they do. it comes down to this: you are asking me to either be silent about (lie by omission) or knowingly misrepresent (outright lie) my experiences because you lack the capacity for nuance to fit them into your narrative without harming the integrity of said narrative. But I don't under any circumstances do that, regardless of whether or not I agree with said narrative (and in this case, I very much do agree). If you cannot work the nuances of my lived experiences into your narrative about gender ideology and transition without it threatening the narrative that's on you; it's entirely possible to do. I'm not going to lie or censor myself just because you're limited in that way.

to be clear, my theory about neurological sex dysphoria is not "implausible;" it is also not something I'm insisting definitely is correct, or I would not call it a theory. And do you even have the qualifications to rule it such, knowing that I am a published neuro/neuropsych researcher (though now retired from that field because I recently found my truest passion)? However, it is not based on absolutely nothing. This answer is already waaay too long, bad habit of mine, but my #ntsd tag includes some posts that elaborate on this. The only thing I am going to specifically say on this matter is that having a processing disconnect (which has literally been visialized on fMRI) that caused my breasts to physically feel like a prosthetic attachment... is not "coincidentally mapping precisely onto misogynistic and homophobic ideas of the female body." This assertion doesn't even make sense in the context of everything I've said previously. I have never believed in the "body mapping" theory of dysphoria that you clearly are referring to by "mapping... onto the female body."

Additionally, I am not sure how you see logic in making this claim when misogynistic ideas of the female body are not known for being devoid of breasts. As I've said in practically every single post on this topic that I've made, I never went through a period of actually wanting to reject womanhood, be perceived socially as not-a-woman, or believing that womanhood and femininity were synonymous. That simply was not my motivation, and as I've said before, pain from chronic cysts was a large part of my decision. Lots of women on here have spoken about how they never went through those period either, yet I'm the only one I've seen get shit for it & get accused of thinking I'm better than other women for it. I never claimed or remotely implied that, and it has never in my life so much as occurred to me as even a hypothetical concept to feel superior about something like that. The only difference between me and most of the women on here who never went through those periods is that I had an elective mastectomy - but I did so while still entirely secure and at peace in my womanhood. Whether you find my truthful experience to be inconvenient or hurtful is entirely on you, not my responsibility to bury my own feelings and my own story for your comfort.

My lack of regret is not remotely "dependent on defending my decision." This is another statement that you would never make in a million years if you'd ever had one single irl conversation with me. I have no hesitation about admitting when I'm wrong. I do it /all/ the time. I don't have a pride issue, so "defending my decisions" is not something that matters to me. Again, you are projecting and you are assigning qualities to me without even the most basic knowledge of me as a person. I have not to date had a single human being on here miss quite this hard in an attempt to come at me. There's a lot about me, like anyone, that's ripe for completely justifiable criticism, and you've somehow managed to select some of the least applicable few assertions about me that you could find. Fact of the matter is I'm not prone to regret in the first place, and even factoring the dysphoria thing out of the conversation entirely, I genuinely like not having the inconvenience of large breasts and not having the pain of constant cysts, which i would still have if I'd gotten a reduction rather than mastectomy.

furthermore, you are making wildly unfounded claims. "lack of self awareness" lmfao this is pure gold. the people that hate me most in the entire world would laugh out loud if you tried to say that about me in front of them. I have plenty of flaws, plenty of areas I need to improve, but self-awareness is not one of those, not something I have ever in my entire life before this ask had a single soul give me constructive feedback about. so that was kinda trippy actually!

I literally do not have a single one of the mental health issues you're claiming I do, nor do I have any unhealed trauma at all (and have not in a long time), as I've spoken about in-depth more than once, especially since my first ever Neuropsych research publication was on PTSD and I previously worked as a trauma therapist for patients with comorbid substance use disorders. I have a number of genetic physical health conditions, but my mental health is honestly excellent. Not to say I've just been totally cheerful my entire life, but at this point in my life, I have been healed long enough that it's almost surreal to look back on a time when I wasn't, and I am deeply happy with my career, my marriage, my relationships with my family and friends, my home and my pets, my hobbies... all of it. And I'm incredibly excited for the plans my wife and I have for our future.

The body dysmorphia claim is especially funny to me because one literally cannot possibly be any more neutral and at ease in their relationship with their body than this. I have said it several times on here, but I place as much value on my appearance now as I did when I was 4. Pretty much the only time I consider my appearance at all is to make sure I look professional and sharp for something like a business meeting. I talk about true body neutrality being attainable fairly often specifically because I've experienced it firsthand, so I know it can be done. I have a strict rule against speaking on shit I don't actually know.

but if you think that by reading my tumblr blog, you know my mind better than I do and better than medical professionals, that's just blatantly delusional and peak chronically online behavior. ESPECIALLY as someone who does not know me in any capacity. the audacity to make claims about not only me but also my WIFE, who you know nearly nothing about and does not even use this site.... it's genuinely mind-boggling for you to be running your mouth about some "lack of self awareness" shit given the content and tone of this ask.

same thing with you deciding you are able to speak for "every woman who feels violated by what happened to them." that is lack of self awareness and it is projection. your assertion that I read those women's painful stories of woman-hating trauma before having my surgery "to convince myself that I was a uniquely informed and more authentic candidate" is SUCH bullshit even you have to know you're lying. that comment is so bad faith it's a bit impressive, but mostly just disgusting on your part. I read detrans stories freely shared by both sexes on public platforms, with the specific intention of canceling my planned surgery the second I encountered one single thing I might have in common with those stories in terms of motivation to get the surgery. There is such a massive difference between trying to learn from others' mistakes and using others' trauma to validate your choices. You are lying if you try to act like I wasn't very clear about which one I did. I waited 5 or 6 years from when I learned that this surgery was even a thing to move forward. I waited until my prefrontal cortex was "done cooking" as the internet likes to say. I pursued multiple other treatment options, not one of which was "gender affirming" bc I did not buy into gender ideology back then, either. And I educated myself on the experiences of those who regretted it with the purpose of minimizing my risk of regret by NOT moving forward if I found that I related to any of the motivations that led them to pursue surgery and ultimately regret it. I was not blindly stubbornly committed to surgery; I was always very much open to canceling if it felt right. Yes, having chosen that process of literally informing myself DID make me uniquely informed... that doesn't mean i'm better than anyone else, though. it's just the reality of putting a half decade of work and analysis and thought into a decision that absolutely nobody pressured me into, compared to the pretty common experience of being misled by trans ideology and/or rushing into this surgery. I am very much aware that I'm not special or superior just because I am flat out lucky enough to have not had anyone trying to manipulate, mislead, rush, or pressure me to get surgery, and insanely lucky to have not had pain or complications from it. And yes, despite my unconventional path to surgery, I also know I am very lucky to not regret it. All the more reasons I don't promote it.

you have constructed an image of me, my wife, and my daily life in your mind based on reading my blog and absolutely nothing more than that. even if you are engaging negatively with that image, criticizing it/me, etc., this is a parasocial engagement by definition.

The above is exactly what you have done. Parasocial interactions don't have to be positive. You are deluding yourself if you truly, genuinely believe you have the remotest understanding of who I am or how I live.

out of curiosity, did you intentionally fail to mention that I had medical reasons for my mastectomy in addition to dysphoria? or did you just conveniently forget about that despite how frequently I've talked about it?

as an afterthought: the implication that unlike you, I don't have a job is fucking golden given that you've clearly been reading a LOT of my posts and I don't believe for one second that you simply missed all the posts where I've talked about the fact that we bought our own home at 24, the fact that my wife and I own our own business, and the extra shit I do just because. but if you like, we can compare our records of how much time per day and week spent on social media 💀

thank you for this ❤️❤️❤️

#mine #ask #anon ask #anon #parasocial relationships #sex dysphoria

14 notes · View notes

lettucedloophole · 8 months

Note

hi apologies if youve alr made a post abt this (if u have, then maybe u can add a link to that specific post?) but i just wanted to ask for ur perspective bc this is smth i keep getting hung up on and i rlly only trust u to answer:

why would abolishing gender be harmful to trans ppl if transphobia stems from emphasis on traditional gender roles, and the abolishment would further their focus on relieving dysphoria thru physical sex change instead of relieving it by having to conform to sociological femininity and masculinity as a means to adapt in this patriarchal society?

thank you for taking the time to read and answer this <3

no worries! i haven't made a post about this before since no one's asked, but i'll answer it right here for you.

the answer is, it wouldn't be harmful. abolishing gender would ultimately be the best for everyone, but especially lgbt people & women. however... the contextualization of this point is what makes or breaks it. let me explain--

trans people have a negative reaction when people discuss abolishing gender not only for the same reason cis people might (a kneejerk reaction to protect the status quo), but also for the very valid reason of wanting to defend transness in a transphobic society. it's the same reason why some gay people will react negatively to the fact that homosexuality is a social construct, and therefore cannot be innate; most people use this argument to justify homophobia & patriarchy.

the thing is, to abolish gender, sex must also be abolished as it's the primary method of naturalizing gender. sex is a social construct-- it's not natural. however, terfs and any garden variety conservative will reify gender through the naturalization of sex. they'll say, "cis women and men are natural, but trans people aren't. therefore, they must be eliminated." similarly, "heterosexual people are natural, but gay and bi people aren't. therefore, they must be eliminated." eliminated can mean killed or, forcibly dissolved into the "natural" categories via bullshit self-loathing propaganda.

a really easy way to understand why this is so upsetting to trans people is just comparing their situation to gay people or women's, really, as they are so similar. if you walked up being like "wow i cant wait for gays to be abolished<3" ofc people will assume you mean it in a homophobic sense rather than a complicated, radical feminist sense, and if you're focusing on the abolition of minority groups in particular, it does likely stem from bigotry. not saying that you've said anything like that lol, but those examples are the best way i can illustrate the point.

also, everyone on the internet hates radical feminism, so regardless of how eloquently you explain your point & how sensible it is, if you associate it with radical feminism people will ignore what you say, misinterpret you so severely that it seems deliberate but could very well be internet stupidity, and also throw tomatos at you. 😭 radfems, matfems & a handful of marxist, anarchist, intersectional fems + womanists are the only ones i trust to not be covert antifeminists.

last p.s.: we don't know what a society outside of patriarchy looks like. assuming people will continue getting sex changes assumes the existence of a natural sex binary, though it's possible people may change "sex" characteristics as they please. trans people's issue is not only being forced into gender roles, but a hatred of transness which puts them into a catch-22 regarding survival under patriarchy-- they're "reifying patriarchy" if they transition, but plagued with dysphoria, martyrs to a post-patriarchal world centuries away from us if they don't. perhaps, a similar scenario would be if you told a gay or straight person to simply see people as gender/sexless and to experience attraction, to give affection as though we lived in a post-patriarchal society-- it just wouldn't be possible, and for the gay person who is particularly vulnerable under patriarchy, it would more likely be traumatizing. dworkin put it so succintly in woman hating...

i hope that wasn't too repetitive or long, i just wanted to be thorough. admittedly, this is kind of a loaded answer if you aren't familiar with sex as a social construct, so if you have anymore questions, feel free to ask!

#trans inclusive radical feminism #radical feminism #asks #ex-terf #ex terf #tirf #trans inclusive radfem #sex abolition #gender abolition #transphobia #i love to quote Dworkin Quote which expresses everything i wanted to say but shorter and better lmao #i am obsessed with this quote istg. but i also am with many other dworkin quotes and her in general...#her succinctness is truly something to be envied. i simply keep on rambling and talking in circles forever #i was gonna make a joke about how dworkin wouldnt mind because mackinnon was also quite long winded loll #but mackinnon is succint she just also uses a lot of big words that makes it seem . longer 😭😭😭#reading mackinnon is kind of like when you put your tickets into the chuck e cheese ticket eater guy machine #because thats how my brain sounds like when i read mackinnon its a lot to process #very good but i am going to need some time and a dictionary to digest this #perhaps this is why i prefer dworkin and hooks-- the accessibility of them managed without blunting their incisiveness & insight

8 notes · View notes

somethingmissingthiswaycomes · 1 year

Text

I have a habit of going and seeking out transphobes to block when I can't sleep at night.

God, it's so... disheartening... to see transandrophobia so fucking normalized that even using the word gets you belittled. It feels like when I used to actually get into arguments online and how certain phrases like "rape culture" or "patriarchy" would immediately have the antifeminist I was butting heads with dissolve their responses into mockery because you Believe Women Are Oppressed or Believe Rape Culture Exists, LOL. They weren't listening anyway ofc, but once you drop The Noun™ they take issue with, you're not worth even the pretense of respect.

I'm doing much better about not doing the whole... engaging with bullshit thing. But I still see it, and it makes me feel unsafe. Fucking sucks.

I suppose it is helping me with one very important lesson, though: You can't trust or distrust someone based on their presentation or identity. That trans person could be horrible. That cis person could be the most understanding person you've ever met. That twig of a person could be more capable of hurting you than that mountain of muscle.

It does really suck, though. I wish I could look at someone and determine whether to trust them from something I can observe. I wish I could categorize people into trustworthy vs untrustworthy based on common experiences. Intuitively, you'd think...right? And maybe the odds of a trans woman on the street being kind to me is higher than the odds of an old white man being kind to me, because demographics... have... tendencies... you know?

But... Ugh. I don't know. I'm tired. It's almost 4am. Real world queer spaces are probably a lot better than online ones.

The more nuanced and complicated I realize things are, the less easily I trust. It's... painful. But I suppose I was never good at trusting anyway. I'll be okay.

But the harm...

I dunno.

I'm very tired.

#transandrophobia #feminism #antifeminism #insomnia #this is OK to rb just b nice pls #Always OK to rb if I don't turn off reblogs

12 notes · View notes

smuppethole · 8 months

Text

Recently, I saw the Barbie movie. It was enjoyable but I had some issues with it.

The main issue I had was that it failed to commit to either “serious look into feminism”, “silly movie about Barbie”, or “artistic brand biopic”. Had one been the main focus instead of all three fighting for attention, it would have made the messages less muddy, but as such, they were conflicting and cheapened the very real messages.

For a movie about feminism, having a plot point centered around an oppressed class rising up and becoming the oppressors was antithetical to the message that we should be equal, and frankly reminds me of antifeminist fear-mongering about how women want the world to be a matriarchy instead of wanting equality.

Another issue was the casual stigmatization of cellulite, which is how fat looks on an estrogen dominant body. It’s not a particularly feminist move to explicitly treat natural traits most often seen in women as a disease after all.

For a lighthearted movie about Barbie, it had too many moments where it swerved into serious topics and heartfelt moments in ways that felt jarring and feverishly real instead of extensions of the Barbie universe.

For example, when the Kens ask for equal rights, the Barbies give them token positions instead, directly and intentionally mirroring the real world history of women’s equal rights.

Another example would be the scene that leads up to Barbie’s assault. The way it was framed made my skin crawl in ways it hasn’t crawled in years, which worked very well for the feminist Barbie movie, but took away from Lighthearted Barbie movie.

This subtractive muddying between the serious and the lighthearted was especially showcased in the deprogramming chapter, which I felt was a strangely cheap and shallow look at internalized misogyny (as in, I believe the programmed Barbies failed to portray internalized misogyny at all, to the point of their actions while programmed being much more relatable and understandable when analyzed through the lens of sub frenzy.)

This is also ignoring that programming in the real world is a form of intentional conditioning using abuse, and as such, cannot be “cured” or recovered from in a single day, let alone in 40 seconds of some stranger venting at you.

For an artistic brand biopic, it barely talked about the brand. The movie was 90% feminism and silly Barbie antics that was bookended by and peppered with occasional Barbie-related infodumps, none of which leaving me with less questions than what I started with.

Another reviewer said that Barbieland was dry and that the real world was wet, and I agree. The pink arid sterility of Barbieland isn’t something you notice immediately, but it’s something that sticks to your brain like bone to tongue and follows you home.

In Barbieland, you can be any color or profession or ability. In fact, to be a Barbie, you can be anything, as long as it is dry, sterile, and hairless.

Nobody in Barbieland is alive, nor are they actively dead, confining them to a sort of unalive (but not undead) purgatory. They do not eat, drink, or breathe, nor do they change, with the exception of malfunctions.

The yonic shape of Barbieland itself, as well as the signature pink color only add to my thesis: That Barbie is best viewed as a movie about being born into humanity. (Especially in the context of being a fictive.)

Barbieland is the arid, sterile womb which functions as source media for Steriotypical Barbie, later named Barbara. It, and the dolls within, lack life. It is “perfect”, not because it has what the real world does not, but because it lacks.

The dolls lack life, and move under the power of the invisible Other, the author. Barbara only begins to be infused with life after a human forms an emotional bond to her, using Steriotypical Barbie as a way to cope with the stressors of life, as well as her daughter beginning to distance herself from her.

As Barbara becomes more alive, she does something wonderful and horrifying. She changes.

At first she rejects this, wanting to sink back into the comfortable sterility and stagnation of her source, but in order for things to return to what they were, Barbara must cross over into the real world to find the person playing with her, whom I will refer to as her host for the pleasant double-meaning.

Barbara is… woefully underprepared for the real world because she was raised in another. She and Ken struggle to figure out the “new rules” and to find her host, whose memories are bleeding through to her.

Barbara has to navigate the world as an adult in adolescence, as someone who is Becoming and changing at a very rapid pace, but also as someone without the safety net of caregivers and local community. It is only when her host, Gloria, recognizes and then saves her, that she can begin to form community rapport.

When they return to Barbieland, it is still sterile, but no longer stagnant. At this point, Barbieland is no longer the source media, but an inner world filled with the psychodrama of a woman experiencing misogyny for the first time. It also contains the psychodrama of a man attempting to display power and control to paradoxically attract and enact revenge on his intended lover, as well as garner respect from his peers.

As a momentary tangent, I would like to pivot into diet psychoanalysis of our main Ken. He is the poster child of co-dependance, which makes his relationship (and lack thereof) with Barbie/Barbara interesting. Co-dependence is usually shown inside of a relationship and usually by a woman, so seeing a co-dependent man who isn’t in a relationship with the person he’s co-dependent on is… fascinating to say the least.

It is then only with the help of Gloria that the Barbies are able to restore power, explicitly due to her having more experience with the real world and its complexities.

Near the end of the movie, Barbara makes the choice to because human after talking to the creator of Barbie (brand/original doll) in an explicitly liminal off-white void. Their conversation tugs at many strings in the fictive’s psyche, such as the oxymoronic grief and joy of change, the awareness of death, and the strange position of having a human creator and if/how close to being a parent they are.

It’s interesting actually, that Barbara becomes less of a creation and more of a daughter once crossing over into the real world, even taking the name of her creator’s daughter.

The movie ends with her arriving to her gynecologist appointment, marking her definitively as human and no longer her source (while still clearly having it have had been a part of her).

In conclusion, 7/10 movie best enjoyed as a story about fictivehood.

#Discourse.#Barbie movie.#Movie review.

2 notes · View notes

dakotadawn · 2 years

Text

I hate when people try to act like hatred of GNC men, gay men, and trans women is "misandry". Not only is "misandry" an antifeminist MRA talking point, but this perspective acts like masculine straight men share any of the same issues. Like I should feel some kind of solidarity or shared struggle with them. No. They're my oppressors.

The homophobia and transphobia I face in life isn't proof of misandry. I've been discriminated against for being same sex attracted and for being transsexual, I have never been discriminated against merely for being male. Do not use me as a mouthpiece for "patriarchy hurts everyone 🥺".

Masculine straight men created the standards of manhood that they tried to force me to conform to. It is unfathomably insulting for them to then turn around and try to use the oppression THEY have enacted on me to prove that THEY'RE somehow oppressed in the same way.

Homophobia, transphobia, and hatred of male femininity do not prove the existence of misandry. I'll make another post about that.

#trans #gay #tirf #gender roles #feminism #gender abolition #gnc #gnc man #gnc men #feminine men #transsexual #trans woman #misandry isn't real

10 notes · View notes

crimefighter-bae-b · 1 year

Text

I just want to be very clear where I stand on the Harry Potter issue.

It is not a crime to still like the books, to care very deeply for it, or to still participate in the fandom.

People who didn't care for them when they were kids (or say they didn't care for them because they think that matters) are not better people. They don't have better taste. They were not more woke. They just didn't like them while a lot of other people did. Who cares.

What I think you should think about is if you want to still give money to and support a woman who:

Actively threatens and harms the trans community,

refuses to be accountable for the anti-Semitic depictions in her work,

Aligns herself with right-wing, antifeminist bigots who claim to be feminists, but in reality are very happy to strip women of their rights,

Is against Scottish independence and actively works against it, and

Who considers the continued support (monetarily) of her work a validation of her politics and opinions.

I would also ask that if you decide to participate in the fandom that you be careful of the people you interact with. There are people who will continue to purchase and buy into Rowling's particular brand of hate not despite of it, but because of it. And it is our job as members of a fandom (any fandom) to be sure that the people we give a voice in those circles are not espousing the hatred that will marginalize and silence other people.

Block people, call out anti-trans and anti-Semitic rhetoric when you see it, and take no shit.

I may not love canon Harry Potter anymore, but there are a wealth of people who have, through fic and art and genuine love, turned it into something even more magical for me. I find myself more critical now of the interpretations I encounter, but I will still continue to find joy in it- even if part of that joy is as simple as pissing Rowling off because we are still here, we are still queer, and Harry Potter is trans.

2 notes · View notes

rf-times · 1 year

Note

Hey, I was seeing all this discussion on female characters in your blog and got reminded of this post,

"There’s this… incredibly oversimplification inside the feminist fandom of most fictional works where the fans limit or encompass the entire feminist spectrum inside one character, the one, and everything outside that specific character is either misogynistic or, in lesser terms, less feminist than the one they chose to project themselves as females. I understand that underrepresentation inside fictional works (particularly action fictional works such as super-hero comics and Shönen mangas) sparked the search for female representation inside the narrative by latching onto the most potable feminist character out there, but as of now in modern times, this search misrepresents womanhood as a whole.

Beautiful but not conscious of that prettiness (the shyer, the better), kind but not allow everyone to stomp on her, bold but not THAT bold, smart but not as much as her male counterpart, desirable but not for everyone or she’ll be a Mary Sue, sexy but not a slut, and most importantly, strong.

These contradictions between the two ends of the spectrum limited women’s representation inside stories (as they were “too complicated to write”), yet the response to this patriarchal erasure brought a new entire issue because, now, women are forced to be flawless in order to be likeable (so any characteristic that doesn’t match with our cultural idea of “likeable” gets either labeled as “misogynist” or completely ignored. Dr. House is incredibly rude and unrelatable, but it doesn’t matter because he’s a man, so he isn’t representing the entire male gender).

Many female heroes are mostly portrayed as physically strong, the obsession of Western media with depicting “feminist role models” as women with physical strength and calling it a day baffles me, as it hasn’t stopped yet.

Why is so important for a woman to be physically strong? Well, because -of course, it means that not only men are strong; you see, women can be strong too! Although… not all women, rather, this one specifically because is the one this portion of the fandom chose to represent themselves inside the narrative and making all women equally powerful would strip the character they decided was the most feminist one of the uniqueness they want and in turn would make her… well, common.

She needs to be the strongest in this specific physical field because is the easier one to show, doesn’t need to construct an actual plot around it (so complexity for her character isn’t necessary), and she could “easily” take other characters down if needed (and in the context of a comic-book or shönen, that’s intrinsical). Neither Batman nor Iron Man are considered the strongest inside their respective universes, yet they’re the smartest, so they don’t need this physical skill to be considered a menace even against other characters that considerably surpass them (like Superman or Captain America). DC and Marvel also allow them to lose (and without giving them a romantical moment as a “reward”) because they don’t need to be the best in order to be compelling -something female characters aren’t allowed, as their capacities as fighters (strategically or physically) is their most intrinsical and important value; so if they lose or make a mistake they aren’t feminist enough: it erases everything they had going for them."

What do you think?

We should be cautious about taking one character and separating them from the rest of their work and their author as a given.

The quest for palatable female characters is a liberal feminist one, its individualistic and does not take into account the complexity of women nor the overall effect of a fictional work. The discourse surrounding female characters is messy, filled with many different ideological viewpoints ranging from feminist to antifeminist posing as feminist. Notice how the discussion of characters is rather limited to big blockbusters and especially superhero movies, the most capitalist, antiintellectual and anti-art hellscape. The reality is these bland characterisations of women are being made by male capitalist executives, not by feminist bloggers.

The voices claiming that a female character is a Mary Sue, vs one saying they love that she's the strongest and must never make a mistake, ones saying this character is a feminist and another from the work isn't. All of these are different ideological viewpoints and this post is overslimplyfing these reactions and acting like they're coming from the same place.

No one wants a bland female character who is supposedly the best in their field but has no cunning, exists only to be defeated by male love interests, etc. That is the bullshit we're handed. And of course antifeminists who see any nuanced complex but physically strong female character and says "but why can't she be feminine???"

3 notes · View notes

sparklypinktutu1 · 2 years

Text

Why are trans women so obsessed with knowing all of cis women’s secret and private sexual/anatomy stuff? What good or bad shit do they get out from those “inner circle secrets”? Is it truly a fetish and pervert boundary-breaking thing??

I think it is also the fantasy that they will get accepted into the private inner circle of women and be able to participate in secret, female-only stuff (which they think includes sharing tampons with each other). Posting about tampons on TikTok and other places is part of the fantasy; it's aspirational for other transwomen watching it, and the transgal doing the posting gets pleasure both from building up his fantasy and from knowing that other TW envy his “successful invading of the cis women’s inner circle”. Trans women get really horny from doing that privacy and boundary breaking into women’s private/honest/sexual talk kinda thing, they think how they just wanna fuck those cis women at the same time as knowing secrets and just “being with the girls”. Idiotic.

In reality, not only is "sharing tampons" a fantasy, but these males AMAB will never be accepted into cis aka bio women's inner circles or honest secret talk circles. Not even the handmaidens & pickmes actually want to hang out with the transgals in real life(thats why got so many transwomen-exclusionary antifeminist pickme women, they will say “obey males but if they act femme or wear a wig or get the penis inversion surgery, these pickmes dont respect you either”), handmaiden support of brave transwomen extends to commenting enthusiastically on posts to show how enlightened they are, lip service to earn virtue signal points for clout and nothing else. Most men who have already transed out know this deep down, about the “gals and women’s most honest secret talk circle” when they get together, which is part of why they're so bitter and miserable and always trying to bring up sexual and private stuff in conversations with cis girls.

Even when pickme was being nice to the 'good' ones that thought were mentally ill there were still things she wouldn't tell them. I don't just mean about periods, I also mean things about sex or relationships. Things that would talk about frankly to other cis women, especially other cis lesbians. Trans “women” don't seem to realize that people go through the world in various states of code switching behavior. I have friends that I would talk to about interests that are a mix of all different types of people and I don't behave the same way I would if I was talking to close friends about something like to do with relationships. They don't get that people want private spaces like that. Trans “women” can always have privacy - because you will never understand their struggle as an evil exclusionary cis oppressor - but you cissies can't apparently. What kills them deep down is they know cis women do and are talking privately about the deep sexual/anatomy, relationship stuff with each other, and they cant ever share or break into that part. The other thing I've noticed is that trans women often try and force this very false, intense bond with people, like the equivalent of FORCING CHEMISTRY TO TRY TO GET SEX from PUA and straight men. Perhaps it is because they are terminally online shut-ins but I don't believe anything people tell me about themselves on the internet until they've proven themselves. Too many LARPers. I don't think people have much in the way of cynicism online anymore and that was always what I thought was basic internet safety 101.

The 'good' ones of trans women will still try and push their way into private areas of your life and probe for your secret frank talk though, like they MUST be included or else they will violate the boundary by force, fear or mindfuck, the 3 basic male misogynist techniques. Sometimes I look back and think I prefer the types who aren't hiding the fact they are shitty people, or have issues, because they don't get into your head and manipulate aspects of you that thinks you are dealing with a human being in pain and not a narcissist, unlike those more desperate “low-value” trans women who have the crazy eyes look. Trans women also put cis women’s beauty and sexual stuff before their humanity and dignity too, just like most men.

3 notes · View notes

blackberryrambles · 1 month

Text

Hoping this reaches the right people and not... the tradwifey/antifeminist side of the internet, because what I'm gonna day validates some of their points when they don't have their listening ears on. I'm only talking to people with depression issues that struggle with self care.

There is nothing wrong with wanting to look good for your significant other, (or your family, or your friends, if those are *healthy* relationships in your life.) Sometimes the energy to care about yourself for yourself just doesn't exist. If those relationships are truly healthy, they won't care if you do or don't lose that bit of weight that's affecting your self esteem no matter how hard you try to self love it away, or if your face is glowing, acne free, and moisturized or not. But if you *want* to want those things and you can't bring yourself to make that first step... you can look to others and want to give them the self you WANT to be. What YOU think is your best self.

For me, that's not skinny; I never felt pretty at skinny. I was skinny all my life growing up. I feel prettiest at 20 lbs over; at 5'2", that's not insignificant. A deep depression took me to a point where I look in the mirror and just can't like what I see. I know there's nothing morally wrong with my body; I know my boyfriend likes it. I don't even mind it, most days. I don't *hate* it. I appreciate all my body does for me, and there's parts I like quite a bit.

And you know what? I eat *healthy.* I love veggies and fish and stews and curries, and I adore cooking.

I know all I have to do is exercise. Not to any extreme; just 20 minutes a day would probably do it, knowing me. But I never could get the drive to do it for myself.

But for my boyfriend? To hear him compliment my body the way he already always does and actually *feel* it's true, because I worked hard to get there...?

That gets me out of bed. That gets me up and trying. And that might not be what everyone tells you is the "right" way to do it, but sometimes, living for others is *exactly* what gets me back on the path of living for myself.

0 notes

wangliangying · 4 months

Text

Reading

1.Blais, M. and Dupuis-Déri, F. (2012) ‘Masculinism and the Antifeminist Countermovement’, Social movement studies, 11(1), pp. 21–39.

This book is about the impact of masculinity on feminism and the dichotomy between the sexes. This book talks about the relationship between gender issues and social issues in a very profound way.

It made me start to think about the fact that many girls in developed countries have their proper gender consciousness. It also says that men in developed areas are afraid that women will take their place in society and become masculinized. However, in the poor and backward areas, women feel that they are born to be paid by men. I think that the real need for feminist thinking is in the poorer areas, whereas in the developed areas there's a greater need for gender parity, rather than antagonistic relationships.

https://doiorg.ezproxy.herts.ac.uk/10.1080/14742837.2012.640532

2.Chatzipanagiotidou, E. and Murphy, F. (2021) ‘'Devious silence': Refugee art, memory activism, and the unspeakability of loss among Syrians in Turkey’, History and anthropology, 32(4), pp. 462–480.

This article is about the current state of artists from Turkey Syria, and countries at war. They are refugee artists. They want to let the outside world know more about refugees through their artwork.

The article mentions that many people think this kind of refugee artwork is free of charge and belongs to public welfare activities. However, refugee art and the danger of war need to be understood by the public, and the better value of art is not to tell people that the world is beautiful, but to reveal the bad side of it. It's appropriate to charge money so that artists can have the money to make better art.

3.Dawson, L. (2014) ‘The Other: gender, sexuality and ethnicity in European cinema and beyond’, Studies in European cinema, 11(3), pp. 151–154.

This article tells that sex began without a distinction between male and female. The need for a social system differentiated the positions of males and females. This leads to women often being oppressed in relationships.

This article makes an interesting point, the distinction between female and male is just as much a social necessity as the above point. I've also been thinking about how people don't want to live longer just because they want to and because society believes that human longevity increases the labour force in society. Just like we do with our gender, men aren't born proud of their strength, and women aren't born thinking that being attentive and considerate makes them good girls.

All the distinctions we make about sex are essentially a necessity of societal development, not a point of difference between males and females at birth.

https://doiorg.ezproxy.herts.ac.uk/10.1080/17411548.2014.972672

4.Ezzedeen, S.R. (2013) ‘The portrayal of professional and managerial women in North American films. Good news or bad news for your executive pipeline?’, Organizational dynamics, 42(4), pp. 248–256.

This article focuses on describing, in the modern film industry, most depictions of professional women always have women discussing love, getting married and having children. Even superhero films with female protagonists have a primary audience of men. However, the audience for professional films about women's success is mostly women. That's why the book mentions that women will watch both male and female-oriented films, yet men only watch male-oriented films.

Although the article points out that this is discrimination against women by men in today's society. I believe that discrimination is part of the reason, and more because in the mainstream of society, men are treated favourably and women aspire to be men. However, in female-orientated professional works, men can feel that what they can easily get is portrayed as so difficult by women, and it's more about an inability to empathise.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.orgdyn.2013.07.002

5.He, Y. (2019) ‘Boris Groys and the total art of Stalinism’, Thesis eleven, 152(1), pp. 38–51.

This article writes about the reasons for the relatively late development of art in the Soviet Union and the relationship between art and politics. The USSR was a socialist country like China, where art became a tool of the political system and not art.

Modern socialist countries can indeed be extremely strict in their scrutiny of art, which is detrimental to the innovation and development of art. But I believe that it is not only socialist countries that set up art as a part of politics, but capitalism as well. It relies on rich art and colourful life to attract people to emigrate in large numbers.

We all live in a world dominated by politics, and I don't think our art has ever been truly free.

6.Maguire, C. (2017) ‘Learning With Refugees: Arts and Human Rights Across Real and Imagined Borders’, Art education (Reston), 70(4), pp. 51–55.

This article is about how art is an expression of human rights, and how it can be an aggravating factor for people with disabilities, and refugees …. for social, cultural and artistic identities.

One interesting point in this article is that art plays a central role in facilitating personal and social transformation, meaning that art can help others to better integrate into society. By bringing art to a refugee area, art becomes a comfort food for the refugees and makes them forget about their injuries. This is more about the relationship between art and human rights. A lot of artists think about caring about the world, and they want to make people care about the world as well through art.

https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/learning-with-refugees-arts-human-rights-across/docview/1933262169/se-2?accountid=14660

7.Nishi, N.W., Matias, C.E. and Montoya, R. (2015) ‘Exposing the white avatar: projections, justifications, and the ever-evolving American racism’, Social identities, 21(5), pp. 459–473.

This article is about how, in a system that heavily promotes racial equality, the representation of blacks by whites in various media productions has instead exacerbated the racial tensions between blacks and whites. Just for example, classic American films like to write about whites as saviour figures and blacks as servants who follow them. Even awards are given to blacks for playing good mothers and servants in films. In games, they also like to portray that white people wear hoods to make their faces black and do what black people do as if they give black people understanding and respect.

Through this article, I have come to believe that there is no system of equality or respect in the world at all, that everyone's lives are completely different, and that there is still a long way to go to achieve equality in the breed.

https://doiorg.ezproxy.herts.ac.uk/10.1080/13504630.2015.1093470

8.Pregitzer, L. (2022) ‘Women Artists — Still Invisible Today? A Critical Approach to Strategies of Making Women Artists Visible’, On_Culture (Online), 13.

This article primarily discusses the decreasing presence of works by female artists in contemporary society's art exhibitions. It reflects the lack of representation and recognition of women in the artist community, emphasizing the need for more attention to address this issue.

There's an interesting perspective in the article that discusses in the context of a predominantly male artist community, many works by female artists are often perceived through a male perspective. This led me to contemplate the prevalence of female nudity in contemporary art exhibitions, where the number of artworks featuring female nudes often exceeds those depicting male nudes. This may indeed be influenced, in part, by the male gaze in the art world today.

Therefore, this article profoundly illustrates the societal phenomenon of inadequate status for women.

https://doi.org/10.22029/oc.2022.1279

9.Saha, A. and Lente, S. van (2022) ‘Diversity, media and racial capitalism: a case study on publishing’, Ethnic and racial studies, 45(16), pp. 216–236.

This book is about, the ambivalence of racial capitalism. On one hand, they want to make their audience predominantly white through the media, while on the other hand, they are promoting ethnic republicanism equality and tolerance. But this preaching of racial equality becomes a tool to make money.

This article got me thinking about how national policies for diverse cultures are often racially peaceful and inclusive. But where politics goes is often to become a tool for profit. As this article mentions, a writer writing books about racial equality can make a lot of money. But I think this is a bad phenomenon. The nature of art is to warn people and make them see more of the differences in the world, not to continue to write about what has already been seen to increase the sense of identity.

https://doiorg.ezproxy.herts.ac.uk/10.1080/01419870.2022.2032250

10.Wexler, A. (2018) ‘BLACKLIVESMATTER: Access and Equity in the Arts and Education’, Art education (Reston), 71(1), pp. 20–23.

This paper discusses the fact that even though some schools are willing to waive tuition fees to facilitate access to arts education for non-white students, non-whites still face significant barriers to the arts.

The article mentions that the arts are not suitable for youth of colour to appreciate or to pursue as a future career. This phenomenon does exist. I couldn't agree more with the author that the main cause of this phenomenon, besides poverty, is the lack of regional development. Similarly, the article describes a black man taking his father to an art gallery and repeatedly explaining to him the image of a naked woman and saying "That's not me".

From this article, I felt that many artists have their ideas about protecting the planet and caring for refugees. But art cannot warn the whole world. Art belongs only to those whose ideas resonate.

0 notes