Tumgik
#even if they see themselves as feminist
mishkakagehishka · 2 months
Text
"We're old moms, we can't wait to stop breastfeeding so we can get [very excited, shrill even] botooooox!!!"
We are never making it out of the patriarchy.
25 notes · View notes
jasontoddenthusiastt · 7 months
Text
Since when did shitting on male characters (who are victims, in whatever form they may come in) to promote female characters (who typically aren’t actively angry about what happened to them, as the “ideal” victim) become the defining feature of being a feminist comic fan
#believe it or not being a misandrist is not cool#kelseethe#not to make general statements but so far#every person I’ve seen claiming that 1. Jason is obvs wrong and we shouldn’t think he’s right or#or 2. this female character is a better trauma victim than Jason because xyz#seems to be at least somewhat enthusiastic about female empowerment and promoting female characters/stories#but only at the cost of putting down male characters#their reasoning for why this female character is better is almost always that they've undergone redemption aka ‘bettered’ themselves#by realizing it’s wrong to stay angry and have demands#by conforming to the ideals that the patriarchal systems and the men who enforce this system project onto them#not only is this rhetoric of ‘you should like x character instead of y’ just plain stupid on it’s own#but saying if you’re a woman or feminist you should like x character INSTEAD of y is even stupider#on top of how this is bordering on terf ideology#implying that cis women should only relate to and enjoy stories about other women also implies cis men should only care about men’s pov#regressive and divisive and damaging all around#why do people think Jason fans (whether they be male female or anything else) need to justify liking him#this type of shit leads to the stupidest waste of time discussions#every person who has this opinion also feels the burning desire to tag it with Jason’s name which is just. wonderful#real thoughtful of you to assume we cared or wanted to see that
21 notes · View notes
Text
Men are absolutely losing it because women are seeing through their bullshit and I'm here to watch their collective narcissistic meltdown
#I understand anti feminists because feminism is a CIA funded plant that dug its own grave in regards to the trans stuff#I understand anti fems until they start saying we need to feel compassion for incels lol#I can tell these anti feminist women have never got stuck with a narcissist / borderline personality man before#The only way you can deal with a Cluster B is shut them down like the animal they are.#No sympathy no compassion... Their entire pathology is about exploiting your compassion to get you to enable their evil.#They are demonically possessed individuals#Even if you don't believe in that stuff... If you've dealt with one before and processed it... you know there's no fixing them#You can't love incels out of hating women#They have a deep-seated womb envy that transcends feminism or anything to do with the modern times#Coddling them literally makes it worse#See if the population understood enneagram things would be much easier lol#4s (incels) need to get they ass whooped by some harsh eugenic 1-ness#You cannot love them out of being hateful#And 2s (gender conforming women) need to grow some self awareness and understand that they keep themselves trapped in the “feminine role”#It's not muh social conditioning muh patriarchy keeping women sympathizing with gross men#It is our own 2-ish hubris#I need to write a book about gender dynamics inspired by enneagram 2 cuz this understanding is so so lacking in our culture#When you try to “fix” a broken man you are trying to impose your will on him and establish power over him.#It's absolutely not about you being a poor little innocent victim of patriarchy even though that's what you become when it backfires on you#Speaking as a 2-ish woman who has learned the hard way you can't fix broken hateful men
4 notes · View notes
marklikely · 2 years
Text
actually no i think the MOST insulting thing is when people are like 'ok fine bi women can be butch or femme but not if they have boyfriends!!' as if a woman is unable to have her own identity once she's dating a man
44 notes · View notes
lucarioguy15 · 5 months
Text
.
4 notes · View notes
secretariatess · 1 year
Text
.
#not to sound like a feminist#but I'm not a fan of the female gender being used as an insult even as a joke#I get that men shouldn't be women and vice versa#and I get that women are weaker and slower than men#and those are undeniable facts#but that doesn't mean I like hearing guys call each other girls to#insult or degrade each other#how am I supposed to then believe that my gender is respected?#it's not that I want guys to be effiminate#and I get that guys will rag on each other#it's just *to me* it puts women down as a negative thing to be#and the lesser thing#No I don't believe all guys actually think anything of it beyond teasing their guy friends#so I know most of the time it's probably not meant to be a malicious statement about women#(most of the time but not all; there are men who do believe themselves to be superior to women)#I also feel that those kinds of insults (unintentionally) have contributed to harmful expectations of guys#and to women not wanting to be women#I know it happens in the reverse and I don't condone it anymore than I condone this#I just feel as though I see more of the female gender as insult than the other way around#I'm putting this as a rant in the tags because I'm not looking for a fight or debate#Or even make a political statement which I fear it would become#I just wanted to express an opinion I had on something that bothered me#I just . . . .if we're going to rag on people can we not use the opposite gender as an insult?#Even if it's true it doesn't need to be used as an insult
4 notes · View notes
maddenedbythesstars · 2 years
Text
Oh no, not people in the a.soiaf fandom arguing about the beauty (or lack of it) of two pre-teen young girls for fuck's sake
5 notes · View notes
acarillustrated · 4 months
Text
something that i really like about blue eye samurai, now that im thinking about it, is that it discusses violence against women without becoming torture porn. like, in a lot of media that portrays women's issues, they show you that scene. like they give you this extended visual of a woman experiencing something traumatic and then laud themselves as feminist for doing so.
blue eye samurai doesn't do that. the whole show is set in a world that is extremely antagonistic toward women, and it makes a point to tell you that being a woman right now sucks, because they are property and are used sexually. but even though it doesn't shy away from this, it doesn't show you the violence itself, which you would almost expect it to because of how graphic the rest of the show is.
im thinking specifically of kinuyo. they very well could have shown us a scene of her being abused, but they didn't. they didn't show the abuse itself, but they did show how it affected her. they showed her seeing a doctor for her sores. they could have made this incredibly traumatic and grotesque scene a spectacle, showing us exactly how powerless she is and how powerful he is. they could have shown us this incredibly triggering event in full detail for our entertainment, but they didn't. they chose not to. and i think that's how it should be.
it is not necessary to have an extended visual and auditory reenactment of violence against women. we the audience understood the gravity of the situation and were able to empathize without needing that scene. having that scene would have completely detracted from the point they are trying to make. it would have turned something completely reprehensible that women everywhere fear because it's a very real issue into entertainment.
10K notes · View notes
peridot-tears · 8 months
Text
Truths that Co-Exist
Barbie (2023) is a giant product placement that profits off nostalgia.
The writing is profound and life-changing and understands why we seek nostalgia in a way most nostalgia-driven entertainment doesn’t.
The film is self-aware about how even now, Barbie dolls set incredibly unrealistic beauty standards. Their “body diversity” does not even scratch the surface of what that phrase really means. I don’t expect this to change.
The film still made a beautiful statement with the scene on the bench about how societal beauty standards are narrow and restrictive! And that beauty comes from experiencing life and the marks it leaves on you!
Its feminist statements are validating. Many of us see our reality onscreen, and the great thing is that it includes how cishet men fall down a pipeline of toxic hypermasculinity. It also shows the solution, and allows men to express themselves despite what society expects them to be.
The film is a capitalist venture.
The cast (aside from the leads) and crew were probably overworked and severely underpaid during filmmaking.
We can still appreciate that something fun was made, and we all made another wonderful memory where we and our loved ones went to the movies color-matching in pink.
We should not feel guilty about seeing ourselves in this film.
Meanwhile, support the WGA and SAG-Aftra strike.
15K notes · View notes
sensazioneultra · 8 months
Text
nothing makes me lose faith in humanity as much as seeing transphobes laugh at trans people's transition pics. these people are so nasty and cruel
1 note · View note
Text
In this book you focus on the idea of gender as a global ‘phantasm’ – this charged, overdetermined, anxiety- and fear-inducing cluster of fantasies that is being weaponised by the right. How did you go about starting to investigate that? Judith Butler: When I was burned in effigy in Brazil in 2017, I could see people screaming about gender, and they understood ‘gender’ to mean ‘paedophilia.’ And then I heard people in France describing gender as a Jewish intellectual movement imported from the US. This book started because I had to figure out what gender had become. I was naïve. I was stupid. I had no idea that it had become this flash point for right-wing movements throughout the world. So I started doing the work to reconstruct why I was being called a paedophile, and why that woman in the airport wanted to kill me with the trolley. I’m not offering a new theory of gender here; I’m tracking this phantasm’s formation and circulation and how it’s linked to emerging authoritarianism, how it stokes fear to expand state powers. Luckily, I was able to contact a lot of people who translated Gender Trouble in different parts of the world, who were often gender activists and scholars in their own right. They told me about what’s happening in Serbia, what’s happening in Brazil, Chile, Argentina, Russia. So I became a student of gender again. I’ve been out of the field for a while. I stay relatively literate, of course, but I’ve written on war, on ethics, on violence, on nonviolence, on the pandemic… I’m not in gender studies all the time. I had to do a lot of reading.  There’s a lot of focus in the book on how the anti-gender movement has moved across the world in the past few decades, and how it’s inextricable from Catholic doctrine. It was clarifying for me; domestic anti-trans movements in the UK mostly self-identify as secular.  Judith Butler: In the UK, and even in the US, people don’t realise that this anti-gender ideology movement has been going on for some time in the Americas, in central Europe, to a certain degree in Africa, and that it’s arrived in the US by different routes, but it’s arrived without announcing its history. It became clear to me that a lot of the trans-exclusionary feminists didn’t realise where their discourse was coming from. Some of them do; some people who call themselves feminists are aligned with right-wing positions, and it’s confusing, but there it is. There’s an uncomfortable history of fascist feminism in movements like British suffragism, for instance. Judith Butler: Yes, and of racism. But when Putin made clear that he agreed with JK Rowling, she was probably surprised, and she rightly said, ‘no, I don’t want your alliance’, but it was an occasion for her to think about who she’s allying herself with, unwittingly or not. The anti-gender movement was first and foremost a defence of Biblical scripture, and of the idea that God created man and woman, and that the human form exists only in this duality and that without it, the human is destroyed – God’s creation is destroyed. So that morphed, as the Vatican’s doctrine moved into Latin America, into the idea that people who advocate ‘gender’ are forces of destruction who seek to destroy man, woman, the human, civilisation and culture. 
4K notes · View notes
Text
I think it's so fucking ridiculous that men have so, so many things catered towards them. Movies, shows, books, even sports. Things that were created and for a long ass time were only produced with men in mind. Things that women can enjoy too, absolutely, but to which they're not the target audience.
But the second a movie comes out that's not specifically targeted towards men, they start crying about inequality and "anti-men" and woke feminist agenda. The moment they see themselves represented in one (1) movie the way women have been represented since cinema exists, they scream about oppression and injustice.
4K notes · View notes
autolenaphilia · 4 months
Text
Edit: as hoshi9zoe pointed out, the original version of this post needlessly berated other transfems like Jennifer Coates, for which I do apologize, and I have toned it down in this edited version. The original version survives in reblogs.
Some months ago, I was searching through this transandrobro blog to see if they posted a callout of me, and i found this reblog, which I couldn't really write about for months, because what do I even write. I recently wayback machined it for posterity, and I guess this is my attempt to write a post about it.
It's saint-dyke himself, the coiner of transandrophobia, saying that the infamous (at least for me) article "I am a transwoman. I'm in the closet. I'm not coming out" is what made him coin the fucking word. It's literally bolded and underlined: "Reading this article is what made me coin “transandrophobia”.
The reason I put off writing this post is that reading that article makes me feel like i'm drinking poison. And it is poison, make no mistake, it's internalized transmisogyny brainworms dripping out of the writer's brain and onto the page.
It's a justification for why the author, known by pseudonym Jennifer Coates, doesn't want to transition, despite knowing she is a trans woman. And it's the exact kind of internalized transmisogyny that keeps trans women in repression and not transitioning. "I'm not going to pass, i'm forever going to be an ugly freak who will at best be humored by other women, the closet is uncomfortable but at least it's safe"
It's the same exact bullshit a lot of represssed trans women tell themselves because it's what society tells us about trans women, that we are freakish parodies of women, that we will never pass, and if we don't pass we have failed and are ugly freaks. It's all to scare us into staying in the closet and make others hate and fear us. Transmisogyny permeates our society, and the majority, maybe all transfems will absorb and internalize some of it.
Coates says that it all is just applicable to her, but again so many transfems believe this shit before transitioning and realizing it's a pack of lies. If this bullshit was in any way valid, a lot of trans women shouldn't transition, because before we actually transition many of us believe it word for word. And "it's only true for me" is how we justify it to ourselves. We tend to be way harsher on ourselves than others. This kind of self-hating transfem tends to think: "Other trans women are beautiful graceful goddesses, earthly manifestations of the divine feminine, always destined to be women, while I'm an ugly forever male ogre who just has a fetish."
It's all bullshit, it's poison, it's internalized transmisogyny.
And the rest of the article is bullshit too. It is not some insightful mediation on gender as some people say, it's the author confusing and mixing up actual transmisogyny with an imagined problem of misandry. She does this because she has gone full repression mode, and decided she has no other choice to live as a man, so her dysphoria and experiences of transmisogyny are actually men's problems.
It's a bad article, excusable because as Coatas points out, it's "essentially a diary entry." that was meant to be a way to "vent frustration" and she "did not intend for anyone else to actually read it." It is clearly not the product of a healthy mind.
I hope the author sometime in the past seven years eventually did transition, and that for whatever reason she didn't want to publicly repudiate her own article. Maybe she lost access to the medium account so she can't delete it.
Far worse than the article itself is the response to it. I've seen it passed around as some insightful commentary on gender by the "feminists are too mean to men, misandry is real" crowd. I have argued against this before. And other people have made insightful comments about it.
And learning that saint-dyke claiming that he was inspired to coin the word "transandrophobia" because of this article is the cherry on top of this shitcake of transmisogyny. For my thoughts on "transandrophobia" theory and how transmisogynistic it is, see here.
Of course, Saint-dyke absolutely could be bullshitting here. Claiming that Coates's article is what inspired him to coin the word might be a lie to claim that transandrophobia theory is not transmisogynistic because it came from listening to trans women.
This is why "listen to trans women" doesn't work. Because TME people will always choose a trans woman who confirms their prejudices. Blair White has made an entire career out of this. And Coates article is popular because it says that misandry is real and trans women's issues are partly caused by it, misgendering herself and other trans women.
And it's popular for another reason. Coates has thoroughly internalized transmisogyny, and thus her article presents a trans woman that is exactly as transmisogynistic patriarchal society wants her to be. She is suffering, but ultimately accepts her assigned role. She truly believes that her biological sex dooms her to forever be male. She literally "manages her dysphoria by means other than transition" as conversion therapy advocates want us to do. She never makes an social claim on womanhood by actually transitioning, so she doesn't invade the sacred women's spaces. Yet she performs the role of woman perfectly by serving men, by defending them from supposed feminist misandry. And she fulfils the ritualistic role that the rhetorical figure of "trans women" sometimes serves in progressive spaces, of giving a blessing to TME people's pre-existing views and actions, all while actual flesh-and-blood trans women are destroyed by those same deeply transmisogynistic spaces. This time it's a blessing for the same "misandry is real" soft-MRA bullshit that has infested the online left and created the transandrophobia crowd.
That is why this article and the positive response makes me sick, makes me feel like i'm drinking poison. This is what its fans want trans women to be like. I'm acutely aware this kind of self-denial is exactly what transmisogyny wants from me and tried to indoctrinate me into doing it. And I want none of it. I want to live, I want to be a woman.
2K notes · View notes
quillyfied · 1 year
Text
There being two movies now in the Benoit Blanc world, and both movies sharing some recognizable tropes and archetypes to build its flavor, there’s a specific type of character that I’m struck by, particularly as a white woman, in both Knives Out and Glass Onion:
The Sympathetic White Woman.
In KO it’s Meg. In GO it’s Whiskey. They both bond with the (WOC, very important to emphasize) protagonist by being less crappy to her than the rest of the cast, and both signal to the audience that they’re trustworthy as far as the protagonist goes. They tell the protagonist that they’re on her side. They try to be supportive. They’re sympathetic to the audience.
Then comes the moment when the Sympathetic White Woman’s security is threatened.
(Brief added interruption to just say: please dig through the notes and replies on this baby for some additional excellent thoughts from other people, including the very important distinction that Marta is a white Latina and not a woman of color (my mistake thank you for the corrections), and more thoughts on Whiskey’s actual/additional betrayal moments!)
For Meg, it’s her mom telling her she has to drop out of school if they don’t get the inheritance money. For Whiskey, it’s Duke dying. In both cases, the protagonist reaches out—Marta tells Meg she won’t let that happen, she’ll support Meg with whatever money she needs; Helen tries to soothe a hysteric Whiskey by telling her she doesn’t need Duke and he deserved what he got (not realizing Duke is dead, of course). It’s a slightly different moment in each movie, but the basic framework is the same: the woman of color protagonist reaches back to the Sympathetic White Woman, and notably, reaches DOWN, offering the support the Sympathetic White Woman offered earlier.
Only…the Sympathetic White Woman was never intending to be the one the protagonist had to reach down to. So she snaps. Meg tells her family about Marta’s mother and they use it to threaten her. Whiskey latches onto the belief that Helen killed Duke and tries to kill her with a spear gun in what she thinks is self-defense. The Sympathetic White Woman Heel-Turn.
Meg and Whiskey both also sort of try to make amends after their Heel-Turn moments, but…the trust is already broken. The protagonist knows better now. The Sympathetic White Woman is not to be trusted.
Why this sticks out to me personally is the very obvious callout that feminists of color have been making about white feminists for literal decades: that white feminism lacks any true support or compassion for non-white people, that it’s empty promises of support and when the chips are down, white feminism upholds whiteness over feminism in an act to protect itself. And whiteness…is a damn difficult thing to even see when you’re white and raised in an overwhelmingly white community, let alone begin to pick apart and unlearn. It’s reactionary, how Meg and Whiskey turn on Marta and Helen to protect themselves.
It would make Meg incredibly vulnerable to support Marta fully, the way she promised to back when she thought she had the resources for it, but Marta is that vulnerable every day just existing as a Latina woman in America. Whiskey’s Heel-Turn moment is a little more immediate trauma based, but when looking for someone to blame, she doesn’t hesitate to blame Andi (Helen), scrapping together the few pieces of information she has—Andi hates all of the Disruptors, Andi got screwed over by them, Andi fought with Duke just minutes before he died, Andi was in their shared room tearing it apart when Whiskey came in distraught. She’s looking for an outlet. There’s Helen red-handed and in view. Boom. Whiskey grabs the spear gun instead of talking it out with the person she admitted just hours ago to feeling sympathy for.
Growing up white and steeped in whiteness causes defensive reactions when that whiteness is brought up, or, god forbid, challenged. It’s a knee-jerk thing for people who haven’t begun to deconstruct it for themselves; even for people who have, to see just how far and deep in American society that reaches is troubling. Humbling. Enraging. The Sympathetic White Woman archetype is, to me, a warning to not let whiteness overrule sense and morals. To be smart about it. And, crucially, to check myself for condescension, especially when interacting with non-white folks in any capacity.
(Also why the presence of Benoit Blanc is so important. He is also sympathetic, he also offers his own support, but crucially, he just uses his whiteness to clear a path for the WOC protagonist to take her place and do what she needs to do. He doesn’t speak over her, he doesn’t turn on her, he just listens, and presents the truth for her to do with it what she will. Or, in one case, hands her highly volatile crystal hydrogen for when she’s really ready to tear the Murderer’s crap down.)
8K notes · View notes
shigure · 8 months
Text
it's not en vogue to hate women, even jokingly, anymore, but it's not like men have stopped hating women. they've gotten quieter about it in some places. speaking as an anime fan, a sentiment i've picked up on is "we left to keep our opinions to ourselves while watching vtubers and playing gacha games, so if you get into those things and get upset when the subculture is misogynist, that's your own fault - this is our only refuge." in a way i can sort of appreciate that effort of self containment, even if it's horrifying.
to that end, if a vtuber/company or gacha game does something "feminist," the hatred is swift and vitriolic. there's an impulse to extinguish it to the roots before it can "poison their sanctuary." i've seen guys spewing the same sentiment YOU thought was over - women belong in the kitchen, they have no minds of their own, and if they start acting like they can think we need to punish them severely before they hurt others or themselves. it becoming the norm for japanese companies and artists to treat women as people is literally nightmarish to them (in part due to racist wishes projected onto japan obviously), and they will become physically violent in an effort to terrify people back into their place. it hasn't stopped.
what a shame that antifeminism is so prevalent that companies in other countries have to worry about violent threats and escalation if they work with a feminist artist. what a shame that nobody that's not an anime fan is talking about this, because the entire subculture has been mostly written off as unsalvageable anyway. what a shame that feminism has become a shambling corpse of reactionary ideology paraded about by corporations for a quick buck, while abject hatred continues to fester in plain sight. what a shame that it's not just an american issue, and the situation sparking this post (artist being fired for being pro-choice since the company that hired them is getting violent threats) is happening due to men's hatred of feminism in south korea.
and the saddest part of it is i see how much energy and unity these men display in eradicating feminist thought in their subcultures - the organization and commitment is impressive. i see that, and i have to reckon with the fact that i will never see that level of devotion from the rest of us in stomping out misogyny. i think about how republicans are better at organizing than democrats, i think about how feminism as a movement is more or less "over and solved" in most people's minds, and i find myself asking why are we so fucking lazy.
3K notes · View notes
gothhabiba · 9 months
Text
The 2023 Barbie film is a commercial. I’m sure it will be fun, funny, delightful, and engaging. I will watch it, and I’ll probably even dress up to go to the theater. Barbie is also a film made by Mattel using their intellectual property to promote their brand. Not only is there no large public criticism of this reality, there seems to be no spoken awareness of it at all. I’m sure most people know that Barbie is a brand, and most people are smart enough to know this and enjoy the film without immediately driving to Target to buy a new Barbie doll. After all, advertising is everywhere, and in our media landscape of dubiously disclosed User Generated Content and advertorials, at least Barbie is transparently related to its creator. But to passively accept this reality is to celebrate not women or icons or auteurs, but corporations and the idea of advertising itself. Public discourse around Barbie does not re-contextualize the toy or the brand, but in fact serves the actual, higher purpose of Barbie™: to teach us to love branding, marketing, and being consumers.
[...] The casting of Gerwig’s Barbie film shows that anyone can be a Barbie regardless of size, race, age, sexuality. Barbie is framed as universal, as accessible; after all, a Barbie doll is an inexpensive purchase and Barbiehood is a mindset. Gerwig’s Barbie is a film for adults, not children (as evidenced by its PG-13 rating, Kubrick references, and soundtrack), and yet it manages to achieve the same goals as its source material: developing brand loyalty to Barbie™ and reinforcing consumerism-as-identity as a modern and necessarily empowering phenomenon. Take, for example, “Barbiecore,” an 80s-inspired trend whose aesthetic includes not only hot pink but the idea of shopping itself. This is not Marx’s theory on spending money for enjoyment, nor can it even be critically described as commodity fetishism, because the objects themselves bear less semiotic value compared to the act of consumption and the identity of “consumer.”
[...] Part of the brilliance of the Barbie brand is its emphasis on having fun; critiquing Barbie’s feminism is seen as a dated, 90s position and the critic as deserving of a dated, 90s epithet: feminist killjoy. It’s just a movie! It’s just a toy! Life is so exhausting, can’t we just have fun? I’ve written extensively about how “feeling good” is not an apolitical experience and how the most mundane pop culture deserves the most scrutiny, so I won’t reiterate it here. But it is genuinely concerning to see not only the celebration of objects and consumer goods, but the friendly embrace of corporations themselves and the concept of intellectual property, marketing, and advertising. Are we so culturally starved that insurance commercials are the things that satiate our artistic needs?
— Charlie Squire, “Mattel, Malibu Stacy, and the Dialectics of the Barbie Polemic.” evil female (Substack), 2023.
3K notes · View notes