#please make more LGBT+ people who don't have to face issues because of their identity | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

doberbutts · 2 years

Note

I know youve been told this like a million times but I wanted to tell you too: thanks for being a genuine advocate for trans men and standing up for the community. Im a trans man/genderqueer and ive been on Tumblr for a while but recently the blatant hatred and harassment towards trans men for doing nothing more than talking about the oppression we face and inventing words to describe that oppression is insane. Esp with Big Funny Meme blogs picking up those posts just to make fun of trans men and nothing else. Esp big funny meme blogs that are owned by LBGT people... Its really nice to have an oasis of safety in your blog, and learn a lot about dog care and training too!! Thanks so much Jaz 💖

I'm glad you've found refuge here! I have mostly stayed out of the trans community online for much of my life because it's always been filled with stupid petty drama, I think the problem is that right now there are particularly loud individuals who believe themselves untouchable because they have A Sacred Identity and thus any problematic behavior they exhibit cannot be called out because their Identity Is Good Actually.

Completely unrelated (or is it) to the whole thing going down on tumblr, I started being loud about this after two events last summer. The first when a very bad take regarding male SA survivors was reblogged uncritically by a mutual, and the second when I watched a trans masc friend in a LGBT-specific dog group on FB make his own post saying that the "jokes" about all men being bad and being attracted to men is a curse etc contributed to why he stayed in the closet for so long and could we please think of how this may hurt marginalized men when posting in a group that is, statistically, half marginalized men... and he was effectively called an incel and an MRA and told that he personally was responsible for male violence against women. Because he voiced, in a mixed group, that he was not comfortable with all of the jokes at his demographic's expense.

And the admins, two of who are also trans masc, just let it happen. They refused to police the thread and only closed it when two particular cis women started making violent threats against him for stating that their "kill all men including trans men, all men are rapists including trans men, all men are evil including trans men" was hurtful to see in a community that claimed to support everyone. Those two were allowed to stay in the group. He was told to "let it go" or leave. He chose to leave.

I cannot understand why so many within the LGBT community think that trans men and trans mascs aren't on the receiving end of transphobia, misogyny, and more. I don't understand why our words are so heavily policed. People have told me directly to my face that trans men do not experience misogyny because misogyny is "just for women". But then in the same breath they say "misandry isn't real" so trans men can't use that either to describe what happens to them. I've seen people go as far to say that because trans men are frequently erased and abandoned and left isolated until they kill themselves, because trans men go stealth or blend with GNC cis women (or in-betweener gender identities that are neither trans nor cis but no one likes talking about those), because trans men have an "easier" medical transition path (regardless of whether that's true or not), that trans men actually have it easy and that they don't really have any issues and thus do they even experience transphobia at all???

I've seen some real big brain shit takes about how trans men use the F markers on their paperwork to gain privilege, or how trans men "just have to bind and they're done", how trans men are born into privilege, and more. I don't know what world these people are living in. My world is not that clearcut or that easy. I've been transitioning socially for 16 years, fully out for about 8, and have not had a single dose of T but that didn't stop someone of saying I couldn't possibly know what she was going through transitioning "late" (in her mid-20s) because I transitioned as a teen. I'm 29 and have yet to start my medical transition journey. She blocked me when I corrected her.

In any case. I've been around for a long time. This is all cyclical old hat stuff that I saw back in the early/mid 2000s when I was figuring myself out. My best advice to you is to go hang out with LGBT people in real life, a group that's actually a community, loving, supportive, and leave this online bullshit for those who have nothing better to do than to run their mouths about experiences they clearly have no idea what they're talking about.

66 notes · View notes

sylvielauffeydottir · 3 years

Note

Hi I just saw your post about Israel and Palestinian. I don't know if you're the person to ask or if this is a dumb question but I was wondering if anyone has considered starting a second Jewish state? I was wondering because there's a bunch of Christian countries so why not multiple Jewish ones.

Sorry if I'm bothering you and Thanks for your time.

That’s actually a pretty interesting question. I am going to apologize right now, because I essentially can’t give a short answer to save my life.

I’m not a ‘Jewish Scholar,’ so while I can speak with some authority about the history of Zionism, I definitely couldn’t speak about it with as much authority as others. I mentioned in at least one of the posts I have written about the history of plans for a ‘Jewish state’ when Zionism was originally being proposed, and I can kinda of track the history of Zionist thinking for you if you are interested, though essentially it’s just about arguing where to go. But there are better scholars for this than me, so I would recommend Rebecca Kobrin, Deborah Lipstadt, Walter Laqueur … idk. Maybe just read some Theodor Herzl, honestly. With all of that said, I can speak with some authority about the post-war history of this in the Middle East. So let’s go.

In post-war times, there has really only been one serious discussion of an alternative Jewish state, as far as I know. And actually, this is part of why I find it so ironic that people are campaigning so hard to be “anti-Zionist” and to express views like “anti-Zionism” in their activism, because the Jews in Israel who are most anti-Zionist are actually the settlers of Palestinian territories, who want to secede and form a “Gaza-State” called Judeah. There's a great book about this called The Deadly Embrace by Ilana Kass And Bard O'Neill, if anyone is interested. Anyway, most of those people, who are largely Haredim (the Ultra-Orthodox Jews, though some of those settlers are semi Orthodox), have essentially been waging a “culture war” about what it means to have a Jewish state and what the identity of that Jewish state should look like basically since the 1980s.

There is a really good article about this that you can find right here written by Peter Lintl, who is a researcher at the Institution of Political Science for the Friedrich-Alexander Universitat. I’ll summarize it for the lazy people, though, because it’s like 40 pages. Just know that this paragraph won’t be super source heavy, because it is basically the same source. Essentially, the Haredim community has tripled in size from 4% to 12% of the total Israeli population since 1980, and it is probably going to be about 20% by 2040. They only accept the Torah and religious laws as the basis for Jewish life and Jewish identity and they are critical of democratic principles. To them, a societal structure should be hierarchical, patriarchal, and have rabbis at the apex, and they basically believe that Israel isn’t a legitimate state. This is primarily because Israel is (at least technically, so no one come at me in the comments about Palestinian citizens of Israel, so I’ll make a little ** and address this there) a ‘liberal’ democracy. Rights of Israeli citizens include, according to Freedom House, free and fair elections (they rank higher on that criteria here than the United States, by the way), political choice, political rights and electoral opportunities for women, a free and independent media, and academic freedom. It is also, I should add (as a lesbian), the only country in the Middle East that has anything close to LGBT+ rights.

[**to the point about Palestinians and Palestinian citizens of Israel: I have a few things to say. First, I have recommended this book twice now and it is Michael Oren’s Six Days of War, which absolutely fantastically talks about the ways in which the entire structure of the Palestinian ‘citizenship’ movement, Palestinian rights, and who was responsible for governing Palestinians changed after the Six Days War. If you are at all interested in the modern Middle East or modern Middle East politics, I highly recommend you read this, because a huge tenant of this book is that it was 1967, not 1947, that caused huge parts of our current situation (and that, surprisingly, a huge issue that quote-on-quote “started it” was actually water, but that’s sort of the primary secondary issue, not the Actual Issue at play here). Anyway, I’ve talked about the fact that Israel hugely abuses its authority in the West Bank and Gaza and that there are going to be current members of the Israeli Government who face action at the ICC, so please don’t litigate this again with me. I also should add that the 2018 law which said it was only Jews who had the natural-born right to “self-determine” in Israel was passed by the Lekkud Government, and I really hate them anyway. I know they’re bad. It’s not the point I’m making. I’m making a broader point about the Constitution vis-a-vis what the Haredim are proposing, which is way worse].

To get back to the Haredim, basically there is this entire movement of actual settlers in territories that have been determined to belong to the Palestinian people as of, you know, the modern founding of Israel (and not the pre-Israel ‘colonial settler’ narrative you’ll see on instagram in direct conflict with the history of centuries of aliyah) who want to secede and form a separate Jewish state. They aren’t like, the only settlers, but I point this out because they are basically ‘anti-Zionist’ in the sense that they think that modern Zionism isn’t adhering to the laws of Judaism — that the state of Israel is too free, too radical, too open. And scarily enough, these are the sort of the people from whom Netanyahu draws a huge part of his political support. Which is true of the right wing in general. Netanyahu can’t actually govern without a coalition government. Like I have said, the Knesset is huge, often with 11-13 political parties at once, and so to ‘govern’ Netanyahu often needs to recruit increasingly right wing, conservative, basically insane political parties to maintain his coalition. It’s why he has been so supportive of the settlements, particularly in the last five years (since he is, as I have also said, facing corruption charges, and he really can’t leave office). It would really suck for him if a huge chunk of his voters seceded, wouldn’t it?

Anyway, that is the only ‘second Jewish State’ I know about, and I don’t think that is necessarily much of a solution. I really don’t have the solutions to the Middle East crisis. I am just a girl with some history degrees and some time on her hands to devote to tumblr, and I want people to learn more so they can form their own opinions. With that said, I think there are two more things worth saying and then I will close out for the night.

First, Judaism is an ethno-religion. Our ethnicities have become mixed with the places that we have inhabited over the years in diaspora, which is how you have gotten Sephardi, Mizrahi, Ashkenazi, and even Ethiopian Jews. But if you do actual DNA testing on almost all of the Jews in diaspora, the testing shows that we come from the same place: the Levant. No matter how pale or dark, Jews are still fundamentally one people, something we should never forget (and anyone who tries to put racial hierarchy into paleness of Jews: legit, screw you. One people). Anyway, unlike other religious communities, we have an indigenous homeland because we have an ethnic homeland. It’s small, and there are many Jews in diaspora who choose not to return to it, like myself. But that homeland is ours (just as much as it is rightfully Palestinians, because we are both indigenous to the region. For everyone who hasn’t read my other posts on the issue, I’m not explaining this again. Just see: one, two, and three, the post that prompted this ask). This is different from Christians, for example, who basically just conquered all of Europe and whose religion is not dependent on your race or background. You can be a lapsed Christian and you are still white, latinx, black, etc right? I am a lapsed Jew, religiously speaking, and will still never escape that I am ethnically Ashkenazi Jewish.

Second, I think you raise a really good point about other religious states. There are many other religious majority states in the world (all of these countries have an official state religion), and a lot of them are committing a lot of atrocities right now (don't even get me started on Saudi Arabia). I have seen other posts and other authors write about this better than I ever could, but I am going to do my best to articulate why, because of this, criticism of Israel as a state, versus criticism of the Israeli Government, is about ... 9 times out of 10 inherently antisemitic.

We should all be able to criticize governments. That is a healthy part of the democratic process and it is a healthy part of being part of the world community. But there are 140 dictatorships in the world, and the UN Human Rights Council has condemned Israel 45 times since 2013. Since the creation of the UN Human Rights Council, it has has received more resolutions concerning Israel than on the rest of the world combined. This is compared to like … 1 for Myanmar, 1 for South Sudan, and 1 for North Korea.

Israel is the world’s only Jewish majority state. You want to talk about “ethnic cleansing” and “repressive governments”? I can give you about five other governments and world situations right now, off the top of my head, that are very stark, very brutal, very (in some cases) simple examples of either or both. If a person is ‘using their platform’ to Israel-bash, but they are not currently speaking about the atrocities in Myanmar, Kashmir, Azerbaijan, South Sudan, or even, dare I say, the ethnonationalism of the Hindu Nationalist Party in India, then, at the very least, their activism is a little bit performative. They are chasing the most recent ‘hot button’ issue they saw in an instagraphic, and they probably want to be woke and maybe want to do the right thing. And no one come at me and say it is because you don’t “know anything about Myanmar.” Most people know next to nothing about the Middle East crisis as well. At best, people are inconsistent, they may be a hypocrite, and, whether they want to admit it to themselves or not, they are either unintentionally or intentionally buying into antisemitic narratives. They might even be an antisemite.

I like to think (hope, maybe) that most people don’t hate Jews. If anything, they just follow what they’ve been told, and they tend to digest what everyone is taking about. But there is a reason this is the global narrative that has gained traction, and I guarantee it has at least something to do with the star on the Israeli flag.

I know that was a very long answer to your question, but I hope that gave you some insight.

As a sidenote: I keep recommending books, so I am going to just put a master list of every book I have ever recommended at the bottom of anything I do now, because the list keeps growing. So, let’s go in author alphabetical order from now on.

One Country by Ali Abunimah Rise and Kill First: The Secret History of Israel's Targeted Assassinations by Ronen Bergman Kingdom of Olives and Ash: Writers Confront the Occupation, edited by Michael Chabon and Ayelet Waldman The Girl Who Stole My Holocaust: A Memoir by Noam Chayut If a Place Can Make You Cry: Dispatches from an Anxious State by Daniel Gordis Israel: A Concise History of a Nation Reborn by Daniel Gordis The Deadly Embrace by Ilana Kass And Bard O'Neill Like Dreamers: The Story of the Israeli Paratroopers Who Reunited Jerusalem and Divided a Nation by Yossi Klein Halevi Antisemitism by Deborah Lipstadt Six Days of War: June 1967 and the Making of the Modern Middle East by Michael Oren The Yom Kippur War: The Epic Encounter That Transformed the Middle East by Abraham Rabinovich One Palestine, Complete: Jews and Arabs Under the British Mandate by Tom Segev Hollow Land: Israel's Architecture of Occupation by Eyal Weizman

#ask #jew tag

28 notes · View notes

hellomynameisbisexual · 3 years

Text

When we say something is biphobic, what do we mean? Many people are familiar with homophobia, but is there a specific different 'biphobia'? And do bisexuals face homophobia too?

Teenagers calling things they don't like "gay". Musicians writing lyrics urging the killing of "faggots". People using sexuality as a slur in the press. We're all increasingly familiar with what is meant by 'homophobia'.

The lobby group Stonewall defines homophobia as:

Homophobia is the irrational hatred, intolerance, and fear of lesbian, gay and bisexual (LGB) people.

These negative feelings fuel the myths, stereotypes, and discrimination that can lead to violence against LGB people.

From www.stonewall.org

What many people don't expect, and the above definition does set out, is that bisexual people suffer from homophobia too. The idea that identifying as bisexual is a way to avoid homophobia, or easier/safer than coming out as gay is a myth.

The people who hate us don't distinguish between us. In fact it's entirely possible to be discriminated against and bullied for being gay without actually being LGBT at all - it's about the perception (here's an example - Stephen English) that the bullies have of us. We're "wrong", "unnatural", "filthy". These people often don't distinguish between homosexuality and bisexuality - it's "not-heterosexual" and therefore to be feared, hated, distrusted. As a blanket term, some people prefer "heterosexism", and instead of biphobia "monosexism", but these aren't in common useage - perhaps because 'homophobia' is so widely known but also because they aren't as clear: 'monosexism' sounds like a version of sexism (maybe for people who believe there's only one gender?) whereas 'biphobia' is clearer that it relates to bi people.

In homophobic environments, whether schools or offices or households, bisexual people are scared to come out, because they'll be seen as "them" and "other".

There's an International Day Against Homophobia, Biphobia and Transphobia every May 17th.

How is Biphobia different?

But as bisexuals we face biphobia too, both from people that are homophobic and from ones who aren't. It's possible to be biphobic without being homophobic, as sayings like "you're either straight, gay or lying" make clear.

Our Bisexual FAQ tackles the most common myths about bisexuality, each of them is a biphobic statement. And people who subscribe to these are discriminating against bisexuals.

If, for example, bisexuals are unable to make up their minds, or commit to being 'straight' or 'gay', how can we be sure they're certain about other things? If saying we are bisexual is seen as a denial, what else are we lying about?

This is why these seemingly innoccuous statements like "People just say they're bi to appear cool" are harmful - they don't just upset us when we hear them but they damage other people's attitudes to us on other topics. People who perceive us as being confused, or in denial or lying about our sexuality think we're the sort of people who get confused, get into denial or are comfortable with lying. Should they ask a bisexual to commit to a project, they can't even commit to a sexuality! Should they ask us how we feel about another topic, when we can't even get our heads straight on our own sexuality!

Biphobic attitudes from gay and lesbian people have made many bisexuals unwilling to come out to them, preferring to remain 'under the radar' and pass as lesbian or gay in just the same way that other people pass as 'straight'.

A lot of this website deals with spotting biphobia, but these two pages are the best place to read up on it:

Our Bisexuality FAQ lists the main biphobic myths

The most common myth is "It's Just A Phase" - when a celebrity comes out as gay they are trumpeted in the press but when they come out as bi it's often that they are "allegedly bisexual" or "now says she's bisexual", because everyone knows bisexuality is a phase, is just confusion.

Bisexual erasure is rampant. We're gay when we have same-sex partners, straight when we have different-sex ones. (Yet, oddly, neither gay nor straight people become asexual when single). As soon as a previously thought-of as "straight" celebrity has come out as bi and they're then seen with someone of the same-sex, it's described as a "gay fling" or they've got a "lesbian crush".

We've always been a part of the LGBT scene (the first ever Gay Pride festival anywhere was the idea of a US bisexual activist - Brenda Howard) but the assumption that everyone there is homosexual, and the attitudes towards bisexuals, keep our achievements silenced and pushed down. As recently as 2010, London's LGBT Pride didn't fund a bisexual working group, and listed among their event goals "fighting homophobia and transphobia" (but not biphobia, or lesbophobia).

Combating Biphobia

When we talk about fighting biphobia, it's important to realise that we need to fight homophobia too. It's no good hearing someone being homophobic and then asking them not to include you because you're "only bisexual".

We here at the Bisexual Index believe one of the main causes of prejudice is ignorance. It's important to realise that a lot of prejudice isn't conscious, it's the result of long-standing attitudes that people may not have ever dismantled and examined.

The easiest enemy to hate and fear is the enemy you never meet, like the monster under the bed. We think the best way to make the transition from "them" to "us" is to come out as bisexual. We've got a page dedicated to that if you want some advice - Coming Out as Bisexual.

Celebrities and television drama caricatures of LGBT people are easy to ridicule and feel unfamiliar to the people mocking or hating them. But when "Them" includes work-colleagues, other people at school or church, the shopkeeper, the next-door-neighbour, or even Aunty Beryl then suddenly we are a little bit less alien and removed. Suddenly we're not "Them", but a bigger and more diverse "Us".

We should also stand up to negativity. We're not undecided - we've decided on bisexual. We're not confused, except by their prejudice. "Gay sex" isn't dirty, or a sin, or spreading diseases, and nor are bisexuals spreading diseases between the perceived gay and straight communities - it's actions that spread HIV, not identities.

What if you're not bisexual? Then you can still spread the word, correct biphobic myths, and support bisexuals. Help create a positive mood, support people when they come out and don't treat them like weirdoes. (Constantly asking your bisexual work colleague for details of their wild weekends, for example. We have the same lives as everyone else! It's all X-Factor and knitting...)

Biphobia and homophobia together make our society into one where bisexual people don't want to come out, even to other LGBT folk. We need to stand up to it, we need to disprove the myths, we need to start recognising bisexuals.

I'm facing biphobia, what next?

If you find yourself the victim of harassment at work or school, please tell other people. At work you should tell your manager, union representative or HR department (who may have a contact specifically for equal opportunities issues). Stonewall has a good summary of the Employment Equality (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2003 which we recommend reading if you find yourself being bullied or harassed at work. ACAS has some really good advice and information too.

At school we recommend talking to a teacher, but also to your parents and your friends if you're out to them - get support and don't allow the behaviour to be silently encouraged. You might also consider Schools Out which is a national charity.

In your family, tell your friends. Find a member of your family you can trust, and tell them.

You can also try local advice lines, citizen's advice bureaus, and local LGBT support groups. Maybe you have a local Bi Group you can turn to?

There's support out there when you need it. Please don't suffer in silence.

Bisexuals - We're Just Like You, Only More Bisexual!

6 notes · View notes

gettin-bi-bi-bi · 5 years

Note

1 - I feel like this message will be all over the place, I'm sorry. I just have to get it out. So I'm questioning my sexuality and have been for a while now, but I'm afraid to really think about it. I think I might be bi but it's hard to tell because I'm fairly sure I might be on the ace-spectrum as well which makes it extra hard to realize attraction since I don't think I feel sexual attraction. Or maybe I do but I'm just that dumb and don't get it?

2 - And at one point I thought I might actually be a lesbian bc my (romantic) attraction to men was paired with like a lot of nervousness and not actually wanting to date them if it came to it. But now that I have a crush on a girl (my first same gender crush that I can think of) it’s still the same; I’m super flustered around her and would do ridiculous things to impress her and just wanna hold her hand but if she were to ask me out I know I’d panic and decline.

3 - It doesn’t help that I’ve been depressed for years and I know my mental health is in a very bad place (but I’m getting therapy for it). Does that affect my confusion about my sexuality? I’m also very afraid to pick a label like bi or ace or both just in case I turn out not to be, I don’t wanna be “that straight girl” who tries to belong where she doesn’t you know?

4 - Doesn’t help that I’m terrified of the backlash I could potentially get if I was lgbt+, I don’t know if I could handle it, especially from my parents. I’m sorry if this is a lot, I’m just so confused.

I’m gonna go through this bit by bit again because there’s a lot of different issues and questions here. It’s gonna be a long reply but I don’t know how to condense it even more.

“I think I might be bi but it's hard to tell because I'm fairly sure I might be on the ace-spectrum as well [...] maybe I do but I'm just that dumb and don't get it?”Sexual attraction can be a difficult concept to understand especially if you’re on the ace-spectrum. But you’re not “dumb” for having trouble with this. You simply live in a society that treats sexual attraction a standard experience that ~everyone~ is supposed to have so it’s not really talked about what it really means. Of course it’s an individual thing to an extend but generally speaking, sexual attraction means you can look at someone (even a random stranger) and feel a desire to have sex with them. It doesn’t mean one has to act on that desire but it’s certainly a “oh this person is hot - I wanna bang!!” in the most primitive sense lol I can imagine that being on the ace-spectrum can make it harder to explore what other types of attraction you might experience and to which genders. But it’s not impossible. There’s plenty of asexual/biromantic people and I’d recommend trying to talk to some of those as well and just generally get involved with the ace community.

“my attraction to men was paired with like a lot of nervousness and not actually wanting to date them if it came to it [...] but if she were to ask me out I know I’d panic and decline.”I mean... what you talk about regarding men can be a sign of being a lesbian but I guess it can also just as well be a sign of being asexual since “dating” and “relationships” are often associated with sex and though some ace people do have and enjoy sex there’s also sex-repulsed asexuals. So if you genereally don’t want to have sex or are iffy about it that explains why you backed off whenever you had the chance to date someone - bc you thought this would have to lead to sex which you may or may not want to have. Regarding the girl you currently have a crush on, the whole ~being ace and possibly sex-repulsed~ can also play a part plus internalised queerphobia. Since you struggle to accept your queerness and you currently don’t dare claiming a label for yourself it’s evident that you have a lot of shame that needs to be unpacked. As long as you have this much anxiety about your (a)sexuality and potential biromanticism your gut reaction to a girl’s advances will be panic. It’s not surprising. Crushing on a girl forces you to think about being bi and since you’re scared of facing this reality it’s a logical consequence that you’re freaking out!

“It doesn’t help that I’ve been depressed for years [...] Does that affect my confusion about my sexuality?”Yes, it definitly can affect your sexuality and/or your questioning process. Being queer in an inherently queerphobic society is a form of constant low-key (at best; high-key at worst) trauma. A lot of queer people have some form of PTSD just from ~being surrounded by everyday queerphobia~. But even if your depression has totally different reasons, it can still affect how you deal with sex in general, how you experience romance, how you experience yourself. Questioning one’s sexuality is (unfortunately!) not a safe thing to do for many people which means it can be anxiety inducing. And queer people have higher rates of mental health problems that non-queers. That’s a fact. Anf if you’re already depressed for whatever other reason and then add anxiety over being queer to the mix, well... you do the maths! It’s hard, man. It sucks. But it’s great you’re already getting help already. I’d hope your therapist is queer-friendly so you can talk about these things with them. And additionally you should try to get some queer counselling if there’s something available in your area. If your therapist isn’t queer-friendly then I would strongly advice you to find a different one.

“I’m also very afraid to pick a label like bi or ace or both just in case I turn out not to be, I don’t wanna be “that straight girl” who tries to belong where she doesn’t you know?”’Okay, look. I recently answered two asks that touch on that subject and I don’t think I can say it better than there so I’m gonna quote myself and link you to them so you can read the whole thing if you want.

1) Even when you’re not entirely sure of your bisexuality yet, questioning people belong into the community as well. The “Q” in LGBTQIA+ stands both for “queer” and for “questioning” - some people even use a version of the acronym that has two Qs to highlight that! So you belong whether you already identify as bisexual or not. The LGBTQIA+ community is supposed to be an environment where you can safely explore your sexuality - even if you turn out not to be queer. You still belong for as long as you are questioning because “questioning” is a queer identity. (x)

2) “Straight” women are allowed to experiment and explore their sexuality. I put “straight” in quotes here because a lot of these women might actually be questioning or they are bisexual and struggling with internalised biphobia (which won’t get better if biphobic lesbians keep telling them they are “just one of those straight girls”). And even the women who do end up realising that they really are straight have had every right to experiment. It’s their sexuality and they can do with that as they please as long as they don’t hurt anyone. They don’t owe anyone to come out as queer. “Only to say they are straight” sounds like it’s a huge disappointment when all these women did was live out their sexual curiosity. Any half decent queerfeminist should know better than to police women’s sexuality - even when the women in question are straight. (x)

“Doesn’t help that I’m terrified of the backlash I could potentially get if I was lgbt+, I don’t know if I could handle it, especially from my parents.”I understand it can be terrifying, especially if you know your family won’t support you. But the thing is... no matter how much potential backlash there is, you won’t stop being queer. You cannot stop. You cannot run away from your sexuality. You can certainly try but it won’t make you happy and it will take a toll on your mental health. This is not to say that you ~must~ come out. You can be as much out or closeted as you want and as is safe for you. But you cannot convince yourself of being something you are not. There will probably be some people you can safely come out to, others you’d rather not tell. That’s the on-brand queer experience. Maybe one day you can afford to not give a fuck about what your parents think, even if it comes at the price of losing them. That’s gonna be a problem for future!You though. And if you work on self-acceptance through therapy and through connecting with the queer community, building a support system - then it’ll get easier over time.

It’s unfortuantely very common to be scared of this but being scared won’t make you any less bi or ace or whatever type of queer you wanna be. And yes, I say “wanna be” because at the end of the day what label you use and feel comfortable with is your choice. You cannot technically be “wrong” about your sexuality. Even if you pick a label now and then later realise another one suits you better - then you just change your label. No harm done.

And even if you go through a period of questioning, try on multiple queer labels and then have the grande epiphany that you are actually just a basic ol’ heterosexual heteroromantic cisgender person - you did not harm the queer community in the slightest. I wish more straight cis people would question their sexuality and gender and come to the informed conclusion that they really are straight and cis - instead of taking it for granted because our society treats it as the default. What’s the point in questioning if only people who already know that they are queer were allowed to do it?! What’s the point if everyone who questions their sexuality ~has~ to realise that they are queer?

So.... long story short... sounds like you have the very common Queer Anxiety on top of your existing depression and they are probably affecting each other and make each other worse. You should definitly try to work on your internalised biphobia and acephobia and talk to your therapist about it. I have advice on internalised biphobia here - you can use those methods for asexuality as well.

Maddie

#Anonymous

3 notes · View notes

nikkifilm · 5 years

Text

Maynila Sa Mga Kuko ng Liwanag (1975) & Insiang (1976), dir. Lino Brocka

Maynila sa mga Kuko ng Liwanag had a small cast, yet it was effective enough to be able to portray what the director wanted to show the audience. For the most part of it, I find myself being drawn to the movie which is definitely a good thing, by the way, but in all honesty, I don't like how the turn of events follow throughout the film. I didn't like what was happening in the movie, but it doesn't necessarily mean that I don't like the movie itself; there's a thin grey line there. I do get the point that the plot of the film isn't exactly rainbows and sunshines, but it was all so heavy to take in. Although yes, that is the point, and maybe it says about how harsh life can be when set foot to the city of Manila where you think it's where you'll become successful yet only a start of something that could change your life forever. I happen to always put myself in the characters' shoes in every film, whether it may be something I have experienced myself or not. It's a way for me to be able to comprehend and fully understand what the characters are going through and how they deal with it. I'd say one is a good movie when it makes me feel something. Since I was able to empathize with the characters in this movie despite the differences in the generation, experience, and status in life, I was still able to feel for them, and that I think is what makes it a good movie for me.

The same can be said on the other Lino Brocka film, Insiang. The characters in the film aren't a lot too, yet it effectively shown what its message is. I adore how the characters are all unique in their own way and have their respective personalities. They all have their own voice in the movie, regardless if their character is likeable or not. To some extent, you are able to see some gradual character developments in the film despite the setting being the same places over and over again. Especially with the main character, Insiang. You'd see how she's very passive and innocent-like. It's as if despite all the things that had happened to her, she still doesn't try to fight back. She attempts to get help from the people she trust but to no avail. I've been waiting that if not any of the people in the film can help her, maybe she'd help herself by finally fighting back and standing up for herself. What we did see though is her doing things unexpected of her, like how she starts to seduce and give in to Dado when she was harassed by him without being scared of what her mother nor her boyfriend would react about it. It then turn out to be Insiang using Dado as a way to get revenge on her boyfriend and her using her mother's anger towards Dado's betrayal in order to drive her to murder Dado as a way to get revenge on both him and her mother.

With regards to the style or visual of Maynila, the setting really do depict the contrast between rural and urban areas. The setting has this realistic vibe that builds up to the scenes and blends well with its entire plot. This adds up to the realistic approach the film wants to put. Also considering the time this was made, the cinematography is well put out. I'm quite impressed how they've managed to pull of some of the shots. With the era this has been made where there are little to no resources with regards to visual or special effects, the film has successfully achieved a visually pleasing masterpiece. The shots are done raw and all so naturally which is just right for the entirety of the film. In terms of the narrative, it's immensely focused on the character of Julio, how we can see his development that would later turn into his transformation into a violent person. I love this way or storytelling because you, as a viewer, would feel more connected to the film and get invested to the character that would have a greater impact. In this way, not only do you get emotionally invested, it makes you want to watch the film as you get hooked waiting for what would happen next. As I watched the film, I was able to see that and also feel empathy for the main character. It's something that rarely occurs to a film that you may not be familiar with or a big fan of or something that doesn't really sparks your interest, and that says a lot about how this film was able to go beyond what you are expecting and makes you root for the character and as well as the entire plot.

For Insiang, however, the style and visual wise, it had shown the rawness of the lifestyle within a small town that is typical of the Philippine setting. The way they captured this goes the same with Maynila, and that's one of the little factors that makes you think that they are both made by a single director. It's pretty much similar to Maynila in a way that it depicts the way of life in a certain community and a certain household. You could also see some similarities with the actors and actresses in both films. What I was able to notice too is how the setting they utilize in the film are always fixed that you don't just see the places once or twice, it's pretty much shot within a particular area that is noticeable. There's nothing bad with that, though. It's in fact fascinating how they repeat the settings without it feeling dull and tiring. There's always something new or different within the setting that is constant throughout the film that enables you to observe how some of the characters progress or change and indicates how the story develops.

What I have observed from the film languages are how they have utilized the different angles in certain scenes that depict how a person is low down the slums or high above anyone else. It also indicates how something is important or when something is about to happen. There's nothing much to point out with regards to it, but the fact that they have used this as a means to tell something to audience is really prominent and I love how it speaks directly to the audience. You know when someone is connected or disconnected to a person. You also know when someone is trustworthy or sketchy. There have been a lot of this that plays around with the viewer's perspective. Nonetheless, it had been effective at delivering a message and telling a story behind it.

Applying the context of the Auteur Theory in both films from Lino Brocka, you'd see the similarities between the two in general. With Maynila, you see how it's a story about a man from province grew from innocent to violent because of anger and vengeance. Same goes to Insiang, you'd see how a simple girl from the slums of Manila grew from silent and passive to vengeful and passive-aggressive. Both of the main characters in the films have this common ground and goal. Same with how their character was developed into something they didn't use to be. What can be said from these similarities are how the director wants to send a message. Perhaps it had something to do with the repression. It can be seen in Maynila that the one who held Julio's girlfriend, Ligaya captive in the urban city is actually a Chinese. That subtly indicated that at that period there have been already a quarrel between the Philippines and China. As for Insiang, it is seen how the people she's close to or hold on to for help don't actually care for her and are not sincere. They all have their selfish minds and cruelty on Insiang which is why she turned on them. Perhaps it also tells something about repression, maybe something about how we have been colonized only to be used and abused.

The two films, besides having major similarities, have an identity that makes you think that it is a Lino Brocka film. By watching them, there's that unspoken truth that lies between the films that it is something made by this particular director. It reflects how he has these ideals and perspective in the Philippine context. Perhaps it's also safe to assume that he is driven or motivated to direct said films because of an underlying issue or problem that the country is facing.

Maynila tackled the social issue with regards to the twisted side of Manila, and how people from provinces are blinded by it. It shows their naivety, how they think highly of those who reside in Maynila. Although to some extent, I find it becoming extremely cliché, it's still the reality we have that's still happening up to this date; it probably have gotten worse throughout the ages. However, they don't only show the bad side of Maynila. They have also shown that despite the wrong people they've trusted and encountered along the way, there will always be people who are genuinely kind and concerned. It's a balance of the good and the bad side of Maynila, although the bad side of it is dominant; and as someone who grew up in Metro Manila, I do agree with it to a certain point. There are also scenes that show the side of the LGBT Community back in this era, that they are more objectified and stereotyped that aren't a good reflection of how they identify with compared to this day. They are seen more of a threat to the society and are only seen as people who are obsessed with men and sex, who would also do everything to make money out of prostitution and in exchange, pursue them.

On the other hand, Insiang had tackled more on the abusive side of Manila or the country in general, especially during those times. How particular women are always objectified and abused. These can be observed with the first few parts of the film, how the women in the film are abused or harassed and there is little to none justice to it besides personal vengeance from family members or friends. It's as if it's a norm and not considered as a crime or a sort of abuse compared to how sensitive a topic it is to this date. Rape culture in the country have also been tackled in this film, and it is alarming how back then, there weren't much protection for women and how lacking the generation was with its awareness towards rape. It also signifies how victims aren't heard but are often judged, and when it comes to asking for help, there are little to none that you can reach out to or would actually offer to help you with it. That being said, it had also talked about the toxic masculinity especially back then where men were in power compared to women and that they "own" the women they "love". Another is how in every conflict, it must be resolved through violence where in not only it is toxic but also unnecessary as not everything has to end up with that. It had also tackled the judgmental society, how every action that you make, regardless of what intentions you have or if it really is a fact, people will always talk about you the way they choose and want to see it. People create their own truth, and although this film didn't entirely focus on that, the fact that it is there speaks about the society we have back then and up to this date. Lastly, it also tackled about the toxicity within family members, that despite their abusive traits, you must stay with them because they are "blood". This is shown through Insiang's mother, how she talks down to Insiang and see her more as a maid than her daughter, ordering her around every time.

Maynila had a lot of scenes I personally didn't like, but doesn't necessarily affect the quality of the film. One of the things that I only find unnecessary in the movie were certain events like two of Julio's friends dying throughout the film, Perla's home burnt down, Julio being robbed by a cop, him encountering gay prostitutes, and so on. I find them completely absurd and irrelevant to the main plot of the film which mainly revolved (or at least what it implied) within Julio's job and the whereabouts of his significant other, Ligaya. I kept having questions as to what happened and how it led there, but these events are constantly happening in between the film which to some extent infuriates me until I get tired or bored of it. It made me grew frustrated, probably because they kept teasing like how they showed that one Chinese place Julio thinks Ligaya is in yet gets no leads or progress from it besides when he sees the lady that brought Ligaya in Maynila. Maybe it would've been much better if they put out some of those unnecessary scenes that I might as well call “fillers”. But I do get it though, it adds up to what I was talking about when they were trying to also show the bad side of Maynila. I also didn't like how they portrayed the LGBT Community but I do understand that it's different back then compared to today. But there is certainly no denying that I didn't like how that turned out to be.

Same with Insiang, there are also a number of scenes that I didn't like, and those are the aforementioned social issues that have been tackled in the film. One of those that I have mentioned that I particularly didn't like was the way they have shown how badly treated Insiang was, particularly women. I didn't like how the other women Insiang trusted turned back on her, especially her mother. Women are supposed to help each other against the repression against abusive men, but that wasn't shown in this. Although what substituted to that was how they shown Insiang develop into a vengeful woman and indirectly ruined their lives which is what I liked about it. It was powerful, they way she took revenge on the people who have hurt her. You would expect that she'd turn on them typically by forming an alliance or taking them down violently or anything that anyone would expect to happen. This one took a different perspective on vengeance, how she was able to take down the people who had hurt her without getting in trouble nor getting her hands dirty. It was something logical and psychological, and that's something I didn't expect from a film that's dated a few decades ago.

I find Maynila great despite of how a lot of things change in our society, views, and culture. Simply by looking at how things were way cheaper back then compared to now is already a big factor of change, which is why it's somehow challenging to be able to review a film from a different generation objectively especially since there had been drastic changes in the field of cinema as well. Nonetheless, it's fascinating how the movie can still speak to you and how there are things that haven't changed — like how some issues tackled in the film can still be seen nowadays, and it's alarming. It serves as an eye-opener to each and everyone of us, no matter where you came from. Whether you were born in Metro Manila, raised in the province, or vice versa, you will be able to feel for this film. It's how great its impact is, especially to the Filipino.

As for Insiang, it wasn't something I was expecting from the beginning to the end. It's very unpredictable and at the same time a great film. It's way ahead of its time, and it's also something that speaks to the audience, especially with the underlying messages and social issues that it has. Regardless of what period you are in, it's safe to assume that the issues that it tackles will always be relevant in the society you live in. It makes you think how these things are already occurring back then yet is still happening today. Although it's alarming, this film had managed to be able to send that message off to its viewers and that alone is something commendable for a film and a director. You'd see how Lino Brocka really has that deep kind if mindset towards these things and it does help you too, as an audience to become more wary of the society and the issues we are facing, regardless if you are directly affected by it or not.

There's nothing much recommend really, but I wished there were parts that they changed or didn't do, especially when it has little to nothing to do with the plot or storyline. But the main reason too as to why there's nothing much to recommend is because of how these films are made during its time, where all the values, ideals, culture, and mindset were different comapred to how it's shaped to this date. All in all, both films directed by Lino Brocka are something that each one of us need to watch. It may not be suitable for everyone, yes, but you know that the message behind every film he makes have something to tell you that a certain problem in the country is happening at this point and we have to do something about it. It's a food for thought that films like these are a medium used to communicate to people and spread awareness on the coexisting problems we face or people face on a daily basis. In conclusion, not only does Lino Brocka have a mindset that's beyond his time, he also sees to it that the films are something that will speak to the general audience despite the differences in perspective and experience.

1 note · View note

sure-to-lure-someone-bad · 7 years

Note

i've been following you for a long time and you seem like a pretty rad person, but i just cannot deal with the ace discourse stuff. sorry, but it took me a long time to accept my identity, to the point where i still hate myself for being the way i am, and i'm getting really sick of people telling me i don't belong in the LGBTQIA+ community JUST because my experiences weren't the same. i'm sure you're a cool person, but i'm not sticking around for this

Hey, do whatever’s best for you, okay? I don’t blame you for feeling overwhelmed by everything happening here, and I usually avoid posting Ace discourse tbh. It’s not really something I like to talk about because I know there’s a lot of emotions and feelings on the subject.I definitely don’t want anyone to feel like they aren’t welcome in the LGBT+ community, and I think ace/aro people are completely valid and exist. I’m still forming an opinion on the discourse myself. Honestly though, I was a bit upset today. A lot of the facebook LGBT+ groups I’m in have become overrun with this discourse, and someone asked me to stop talking about my wlw relationship in one because they’re sex and romance repulsed.

Idk, but it seriously sucked to feel like one of the only places I could talk about my relationship were taken away from me. I’m not allowed by my family to be out on FB publicly, and none of them are willing to let me talk about it. So yeah I was a bit salty today.

Honestly though, I do have a bit of a weariness with cishet aces/aros in the community. Like. Every item in the media still caters to them. They still benefit from the system of oppression LGBT+ people face. They still don’t face a lot of the problems LGBT+ people face.I think that the idea of “oppression olympics” is ridiculous. This isn’t a race for whoever has the most experience with being marginalized. However, it feels unfair that I have to open up spaces I considered safe for myself to straight people (even if they aren’t like a lot of other straight people). I’m sorry, but straight aces/aros are never going to face the problems the rest of the LGBT+ community faces.

They’re never going to fear holding their girlfriend’s hand in public. They’re never going to be faced with the thought “Is this facebook status too gay?”. They’re never going to be ostracized and hated for being in love.

They still have their own problems though. Society pressures people to have sex, it pressures people (women especially) to fall in love and get married, and it treats the people who don’t abide by these ideas as wrong and like trash.

I find these to be two completely separate issues though. The first, the goal is to not get murdered for being in love and to push for more rights that allow that love to bloom. It also has the goal of pushing for more rights and acceptance for other gendered people and transgender individuals. The main goal being more rights and acceptance.

The second, the goal is to change society’s view. Rights don’t really have a part in it to me. Straight asexual/aromantic people already have rights. Now the goal is to have society accept them as valid and change the societal pressures surrounding sex and romance.

Being asexual or aromantic on its own (without being LGBT+ romantic or sexual) doesn’t fit being in the LGBT+ community, to me. That doesn’t make the identity less valid, though. It also doesn’t exclude anyone from LGBT+ safe spaces. If we let allies in, why would we exclude anyone else?

Being asexual/aromantic is real and faces its own issues. I’m not here to debate on your right to exist or feel the way you do. I completely apologize for any distress I’ve caused you or my other ace/aro followers.

I hope you’re doing well, and you don’t have to follow me to message me if you need to, okay? I’m still here with open arms and ears.

((Anyone reading this, please do not reblog this. I’m really not wanting to be dragged into this discourse. I really don’t want to end up turning anon off in the future from death threats or whatever))

#anon ask #do not reblog

5 notes · View notes