#which is such a misunderstanding of like. Gender politics and a lot of feminism | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

rat-bisexual · 4 years

Text

A lot of bisexual history has been erased so I figured I’d remind you all of some quotes and clear up any misunderstandings about bisexuality.

Bisexuality has been described as attraction regardless of gender for decades

"I am bisexual because I am drawn to people regardless of gender"

-‘The Bisexual Community: Are We Visible Yet?’, 1987

“In the midst of whatever hardships we [bisexuals] had encountered, this day we worked with each other to preserve our gift of loving people for who they are regardless of gender.”

-Elissa M., “Bi Conference,” Bi Women, 1985

“To be bisexual is to have the potential to be open emotionally and sexually to people as people, regardless of their gender.”

-Office Pink Publishing, “Introduction,” Bisexual Lives, 1988

“Being bisexual does not mean they have sexual relations with both sexes but that they are capable of meaningful and intimate involvement with a person regardless of gender.”

-Janet Bode, “The Pressure Cooker,” View From Another Closet, 1976

“Over the past fifteen years, however, [one Caucasian man] has realized that he is ‘attracted to people — not their sexual identity’ and no longer cares whether his partners are male or female. He has kept his Bi identity and now uses it to refer to his attraction to people regardless of their gender.”

-Paula C. Rust, “Sexual Identity and Bisexual Identities,” Queer Studies: A Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Anthology, 1998

“In the midst of whatever hardships we [bisexuals] had encountered, this day we worked with each other to preserve our gift of loving people for who they are regardless of gender.”

-Elissa M., “Bi Conference,” Bi Women, 1985

“To be bisexual is to have the potential to be open emotionally and sexually to people as people, regardless of their gender.”

-Office Pink Publishing, “Introduction,” Bisexual Lives, 1988

Bisexuality doesn’t have to mean a person “sees gender”

“[S]ome bisexuals say they are blind to the gender of their potential lovers and that they love people as people… For the first group, a dichotomy of genders between which to choose doesn’t seem to exist”

-Kathleen Bennett, “Feminist Bisexuality, a Both/And Option for an Either/Or World,” Closer to Home: Bisexuality and Feminism,1992

"Some bisexual respondents bypass the issue of 'degrees' of attraction to women and men by defining bisexuals as a humanistic, gender-blind way of relating to others. They see bisexuality as a way of loving the person, not their sex, or being nondiscrimintory in their attractions to others. For example, Ludwica wrote, 'I feel as if I'm open to respond to the person, not just the gender.' "

-"Bisexuality and the Challenge to Lesbian Politics: Sex, Loyalty, and Revolution" by Paula C Rust 1995

“I believe that people fall in love with individuals, not with a sex… I believe most of us will end up acknowledging that we love certain people or, perhaps, certain kinds of people, and that gender need not be a significant category, though for some of us it may be.”

Ruth Hubbard, ‘There Is No ‘Natural’ Human Sexuality, Bi Women’ ,1986

“Some women who call themselves ‘bisexual’ insist that the gender of their lover is irrelevant to them, that they do not choose lovers on the basis of gender.”

-Marilyn Murphy, “Thinking About Bisexuality,” Bi Women, 1991

“Some of us are bisexual because we do not pay much attention to the gender of our attractions.”

-Bisexual Politics, Quiries and Visions, 1995

Bisexuality is inclusive of all genders

“Who is this group for exactly? Anyone who identifies as bisexual or thinks they are attracted to or interested in all genders… This newly formed [support] group is to create a supportive, safe environment for people who are questioning their sexual orientation and think they may be bisexual.”

-“Coming Out as Bisexual,” Bi Women, 1994

“It’s easier, I believe, for exclusive heterosexuals to tolerate (and that’s the word) exclusive homosexuals than [bisexuals] who, rejecting exclusivity, sleep with people not genders…”

-Martin Duberman, 1974 “The bisexual community should be a place where lines are erased. Bisexuality dismisses, disproves, and defies dichotomies. It connotates a loss of rigidity and absolutes. It is an inclusive term.” -‘Essay for the Inclusion of Transsexuals’, Kory Martin-Damon, 1995

“Bisexual — being emotionally and physically attracted to all genders.”

-The Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network, “Out of the Past: Teacher’s Guide” 1999

"Bisexuality is much more than, and different from, the sensationalized 'third choice, best of both worlds' phenomena it's made out to be. Bisexuality is an inclusive term that defines immense possibilities avalable to us, whether we act on them or not."

-"Bi Any Other Name", Loraine Hutchens and Lani Ku'ahumany, 1991

"Bisexual consciousness, because of its amorphous quality and inclusive nature, posed a fundamental threat to the dualistic and exclusionary thought patterns which were- and still are- tenaciously held by both the gay liberation leadership and its enemies."

-"The Bisexual Movement's Beginnings in the 70s'', Bisexual politics, Naomi Tucker, 1995

Bisexuality historically and currently includes transgender and nonbinary people

“With respect to our integrity as bisexuals, it is our responsibility to include transgender people in our language, in our communities, in our politics, and in our lives”

-Bisexual Politics: Theories, Queries, and Visions by Naomi S Tucker, 1995

"Bisexuality is here defined as the capacity , regardless of the sexual identity label one chooses , to love and sexually desire both same - and other - gendered individuals . The term other-gendered is used here deliberately and is preferable to the term opposite - gendered , because other - gendered encompasses a recognition of the existence of transgendered and transsexual individuals , who may embrace gender identities other than [male and female]"

-"Bisexuality: The Psychology and Politics of an Invisible Minority" by Beth A. Firestein and Dallas Denny, 1996

“From the earliest years of the bi community, significant numbers of TV/TS [transvestite/transsexual] and transgender people have always been involved with it. The bi community served as a kind of refuge for people who felt excluded from the established gay and lesbian communities.”

-Kevin Lano, “Bisexuality and Transgenderism,” Anything That Moves, 1998

"Bisexuality means having the capacity to be attracted to people of both major genders ( don't forget: there are gender minorities, too) ." “As with the word Bisexual, they usually also imply that relations with gender minorities are possible.”

-‘Bisexuality: A Reader and a Sourcebook’, 1990

“There were a lot of transvestites and transsexuals who came to [the San Francisco Bisexual Center in the 1970s], because they were not going to be turned away because of the way they dressed.”

-David Lourea in “Bisexual Histories in San Francisco in the 1970s and Early 1980s,” Dworkin, 2000 Journal of Bisexuality

"The actual lived non-binary history of the bisexual community and movement and the inclusive culture and community spirit of bisexuals are eradicated when a binary interpretation of our name for ourselves is arbitrarily assumed."

-"Bi Any Other Name: Bisexual People Speak Out" by Lani Ka’ahumanu

"In the bisexual movement as a whole, transgendered individuals are celebrated not only as an aspect of the diversity of the bisexual community, but, because like bisexuals, they do not fit neatly into dichotomous categories."

-"Bisexuality and the Challenge to Lesbian Politics" by Paula C. Rust, 1995

#bisexual #bisexual history #bi pride #lgbt #lgbtq #lgbtq history #lgbt history

3K notes · View notes

pinkchaosart · 3 years

Text

On transphobia towards our Sisters (not just our cis-ters)

(TW: talk of transphobia, misogyny, gender and sex-based violence)

So I went and took a look at the post by @persistentlyfem that’s causing a major fuss, and I thought I’d address it as a lesbian femme myself. I see a lot of the common talking points that get thrown around and I’m seeing some truly toxic replies being thrown in her direction. Eight years ago I might have agreed with the replies, but I think it’s more useful to engage those talking points and maybe we can meet with some kind of understanding.

Now I want to get a few things out of the way first. Persistentlyfem says, if not in the main post then elsewhere on her blog, that she doesn’t identify as a radfem (radical feminist), so I won’t assume that she is one. I will however address the points she raises as being part of the trans-exclusionist radical feminist ideology, as that’s where the ideas seem to have come from.

One of the biggest misunderstanding between radical feminists and liberal feminists is the concept of gender vs. sex and their importance when speaking of identities. TERF ideology is rooted in second-wave feminism of the 60’s, 70’s and 80’s, which was a necessary step in the feminist school of thought and is the reason we have a lot of our modern rights. Most people who are trans-exclusionary would describe themselves as gender-critical, but in my opinion, I believe that being exclusionary towards trans women is rooted in the resistance to third-wave feminist ideas of individualism and diversity. But we’ll hold that thought for now.

The ideal of radical feminism is to liberate women by tearing down the concept of gender, abolishing it all together. The ideal of liberal feminism is to create equality by creating safe and inclusive spaces for everyone, regardless of gender, via social and legal reform. Basically the main difference between the two schools of thought is one seeks to destroy gender as a construct and the other seeks to expand it to be more inclusive. It’s important to note that being a radical feminist does not automatically mean that you must be trans-exclusionary.

So I’d like to talk about some specific talking points. I took a little stroll down Persistentlyfem’s blog to see what her experience has been and so that I can understand where she’s coming from. Normally I wouldn’t engage in this kind of conversation because I’m disabled so I have very little energy to spare, but as a fellow butch-attracted femme, I thought it might be useful to respond to her thoughts. I won’t respond to all the points in her recent post, but I will try to talk about the core ideas.

I see that she’s concerned with misogyny in LGBTQ2S+ spaces. I agree it’s widespread, often in ways that are covert. I see it in how butches treat femmes, how gay men talk about women, and how we speak to fellow gay women who disagree with our opinions. And, If I understand correctly, it’s that internalized misogyny that she believes is responsible for trans women believing they should be included in women-only spaces. I argue that it’s quite the opposite, and that it’s actually misogyny that keeps trans-women from being fully accepted.

What I mean is that I find the argument for “female-only spaces” (assigned female at birth, cisgendered women) quite reductive. It implies that there is only one way to be a woman and it reduces us to our genitalia. I don’t think anyone would say they’re a woman because they have a vagina and mean it fully (maybe you would, I don’t really know you). They would also say that their experiences shape them as a woman as well. And I agree, what makes a woman involves quite a lot of factors, and no two women’s experiences are the same. Persistentlyfem has argued that trans women are raised and socialized as male, but I disagree. Setting aside that trans women aren’t a monolith and have completely different socializations between individuals, I would agree that most trans women are treated as male growing up, but for the most part, it doesn’t quite….fit them. More accurately I would say our culture attempts to socialize them as men.

When I think back to my own experience growing up, I, like a lot of girls, had a “not like other girls” period. Internalized misogyny, great right? Because the socialization of “girl” didn’t quite right, the definition being narrow and rigid. Based on stereotypes. So I found my femininity later in my teens. I argue that this is something that most women go through in some way or another. We find our socialization as women uncomfortable and constraining. Not quite right.

As I said, you can’t speak of trans women as a monolith, but from the stories and dialogue I’ve been involved in, countless stories sound exactly like that. Being socialized into a Gender Box that doesn’t suit you is like watching a video in a language you don’t speak. Internalized misogyny is a universal experience between girls growing up, cis and trans, and it is internalized misogyny that keeps trans women from accepting who they truly are. In fact, for them to run away from woman as their identity would inherently be internalized misogyny.

The idea that trans ideology is based in “regressive stereotypes about ‘boys and girls’” isn’t wholly incorrect. I think we all agree that gender is a social construct. But that doesn’t make my identity as a women more valid than someone who transitioned later in life. It doesn’t follow that a trans’ person’s gender is less real than a cis person’s gender. And while we live in our culture and our current society, gender is something that we interact with on a daily basis, which makes it real in a very real sense. We could argue whether it should be that way, but the situation is currently that gender is an important construct in our culture. Not to mention, the thought that all trans people fall in a strict “man” or “woman” binary is incorrect as there are plenty of people that embody other gender identities. Indeed, there are many wonderful trans people that we could argue are the radfem ideal of aegender and/or non binary.

Now the idea that “lesbians and straight men like vaginas. Gays and straight women like penises” is a bit of a stretch. Again, I think a statement like this is pretty oversimplified, but I don’t think that you’re inherently wrong. Generally speaking, sure. Although, again, I’ve met plenty of straight women dating trans men, and there are plenty of straight men that date trans women. But the inherent flaw in this argument isn’t that you’re wrong, but that it implies that attraction equals validity. Am I a woman because a man is attracted to my vagina? No. Am I less of a woman if men aren’t attracted to me? Again, no. My gender isn’t contingent on other’s attraction to me, and that is the same for trans individuals. I think this kind of argument comes from the pressure that is sometimes felt within our community, that if you’re not open to dating trans people then you’re inherently transphobic. I am not going to get into that argument, as this is a whole other can of worms. But what I am going to say is that nobody is going to force you to date a trans person. You don’t have to date someone if you don’t want to. You don’t have to tell everyone why you don’t want to date them, you can just politely decline.

I’m going to be blatantly honest: I am predominantly attract to butch women and afab non binary masculine people. I have never dated someone who was amab, and generally speaking I don’t find myself attracted to them. But that doesn’t mean I think that trans women aren’t women just because I generally don’t find myself attracted to them.

On top of this I’m going to agree with you: sex based oppression does exist. So does gender-based oppression. I know I have experienced bullying in my own time based on my own gender, my ability, my weight, all that good stuff. Maybe some of it was based around embarrassing period episodes (which I would file under sex-based bullying). But misogyny is not just sex-based, it is also inherently gendered. And if we know anything about trans women, it’s that they are overly targeted with violence based on their gender. Especially if they’re BIPOC. And it’s because their gender is feminine that they’re perceived as being targets; is that not the epitome of misogyny? To hate a person because they’re not perceived as the patriarchal male ideal?

Something else I would like to talk about is the concept that trans women are inherently misogynistic. I would argue that every woman, regardless of what they were assigned at birth, carries internalized misogyny. Cis women, however, have years to grapple with it before becoming women. Trans women tend to not have as much time to unlearn internalized misogyny before they become women. That doesn’t invalidate them as women, it just means that we should be more supportive of them, not less. All of this trans-exclusionary rhetoric only serves to increase their self-hatred and I argue that that kind of talk is a contributing factor to the poor mental health we see in the trans community. Instead of supporting some of the people with the greatest insight into the patriarchy, trans-exclusionists push women away and inflict them with even more gendered violence and gender-based discrimination.

The other thing I want to address is the idea that trans women transitioning is rooted in homophobia. Which seems to make sense if you think of trans women being only attracted to men. The idea that a man decides to be a woman because he can’t deal with being gay doesn’t make a lot of sense, though. Homophobia tends to be rooted in misogyny too, a fear of being less of a man. So it doesn’t follow that the solution would be to “become a woman” much like the solution to put out a fire isn’t to light more things on fire. Piggybacking off of this point, a lot of trans exclusionists will accuse trans women of being predators. In fact, often, they’ll hold these two ideas at the same time. But the reality is that, if a man wants to prey on women, he doesn’t need to become a woman. The sign on the bathroom door isn’t actually a deterrent if a man wants to follow a woman in. And again, it’s a counter-intuitive idea, that a man who wants to prey on women would go through all the legal hurdles, all the social stigma, even some medical treatments just to gain access to women’s only spaces. Besides the fact that this type of behaviour is a myth created by conservative right-wing christian groups to stir up fear, it doesn’t happen and assault is still illegal regardless of what your gender marker is.

I am not going to address anything about surgery or hormones. Those points are only ever brought up as enforcing points, they’re not the main issues. Most of the rhetoric is based in fear-mongering conservative right-wing christian groups drum up and it is, again, a whole other topic that requires nuance that most people don’t acknowledge.

The main point I see Persistantlyfem talk about, and something we can agree on, is the misogyny in LGBTQ2S+ spaces. We all like to think that, somehow through our journeys of discovering our true selves, we shed the misogyny along the way, that our spaces are truly accepting of all genders and presentations. That’s not the case. Misogyny is still a problem in every letter of our community and it will be for a long time. We see it when butches treat femmes as “high maintenance” or like property, we see it in how gay men talk about female bodies. We see it the self-hatred trans people of all gender identities feel towards themselves. We see it when lesbians reject bisexual women.

Throwing around “terf” helps nobody. Calling each other stupid and pretentious is not useful. I know this is a painful topic to many on both sides, but the infighting in the queer community is toxic and needs to come down from a boil if we’re going to make any progress. Most people that sling insults are younger and therefor are more hot-headed. I used to be too, and still can be sometimes but like I said, limited energy means that you tend to focus it more consciously and I hope that this time I’ve spent here can help.

@Persistantlyfem, I see that you were hurt, and I respect and honour your experiences. I suspect that some of those that hurt you were trans women. I understand, I’ve had trans partners hurt me as well. But those experiences don’t allow us to revoke someone else’s right to their own interpretation of themselves. And I’m sorry about all of the toxicity you’ve experienced in these last few weeks, you don’t deserve it. I hope that we can have a conversation in a respectable way, worthy of two adult gays who’ve been through a lot.

9 notes · View notes

asafespotontheweb · 3 years

Text

this post is a repost from <imgaybitheway.tumblr.com>, mainly because that blog seems to have since disappeared. this is really only for my personal keeping, as a reminder to the self. many of the typing errors have been fixed.

post begins below:

A lot of bisexual history has been erased so I figured I’d remind you all of some quotes and clear up any misunderstandings about bisexuality.

Bisexuality has been described as attraction regardless of gender for decades.

“I am bisexual because I am drawn to people regardless of gender.” - ‘The Bisexual Community: Are We Visible Yet?’, 1987

“In the midst of whatever hardships we [bisexuals] had encountered, this day we worked with each other to preserve our gift of loving people for who they are regardless of gender.” - Elissa M., “Bi Conference,” Bi Women, 1985

“To be bisexual is to have the potential to be open emotionally and sexually to people as people, regardless of their gender.” - Office Pink Publishing, “Introduction,” Bisexual Lives, 1988

“Being bisexual does not mean they have sexual relations with both sexes but that they are capable of meaningful and intimate involvement with a person regardless of gender.” - Janet Bode, “The Pressure Cooker,” View From Another Closet, 1976

“Over the past fifteen years, however, [one Caucasian man] has realized that he is ‘attracted to people -- not their sexual identity’ and no longer cares whether his partners are male or female. He has kept his Bi identity and now uses it to refer to his attraction to people regardless of their gender.” - Paula C. Rust, “Sexual Identity and Bisexual Identities,” Queer Studies: A Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Anthology, 1998

“To be bisexual is to have the potential to be open emotionally and sexually to people as people, regardless of their gender.” - Sex and Sexuality: A Thematic Dictionary of Quotations, 1993

Bisexuality doesn’t have to mean a person “sees gender”.

“[S]ome bisexuals say they are blind to the gender of their potential lovers and that they love people as people... For the first group, a dichotomy of genders between which to choose doesn’t seem to exist.” - Kathleen Bennett, “Feminist Bisexuality, a Both/And Option for an Either/Or World,” Closer to Home: Bisexuality and Feminism, 1992

“Some bisexual respondents bypass the issue of ‘degrees’ of attraction to women and men by defining bisexuals as a humanistic, gender-blind way of relating to others. They see bisexuality as a way of loving the person, not their sex, or being nondiscriminatory in their attractions to others. For example, Ludwica wrote, ‘I feel as if I’m open to respond to the person, not just the gender.’ ” - “Bisexuality and the Challenge to Lesbian Politics: Sex, Loyalty, and Revolution” by Paula C Rust, 1995

“I believe that people fall in love with individuals, not with a sex... I believe most of us will end up acknowledging that we love certain people or, perhaps, certain kinds of people, and that gender need not be a significant category, though for some of us it may be.” - Ruth Hubbard, ‘There Is No ‘Natural’ Human Sexuality, Bi Women’ , 1986

“Some women who call themselves ‘bisexual’ insist that the gender of their lover is irrelevant to them, that they do not choose lovers on the basis of gender.” - Marilyn Murphy, “Thinking About Bisexuality,” Bi Women, 1991

“Some of us are bisexual because we do not pay much attention to the gender of our attractions.” - Bisexual Politics, Quiries and Visions, 1995

Bisexuality is inclusive of all genders.

“Who is this group for exactly? Anyone who identifies as bisexual or thinks they are attracted to or interested in all genders... This newly formed [support] group is to create a supportive, safe environment for people who are questioning their sexual orientation and think they may be bisexual.” - “Coming Out as Bisexual,” Bi Women, 1994

“It’s easier, I believe, for exclusive heterosexuals to tolerate (and that’s the word) exclusive homosexuals than [bisexuals] who, rejecting exclusivity, sleep with people not genders...” - Martin Duberman, 1974

“The bisexual community should be a place where lines are erased. Bisexuality dismisses, disproves, and defies dichotomies. It connotates a loss of rigidity and absolutes. It is an inclusive term.” - ‘Essay for the Inclusion of Transsexuals’, Kory Martin-Damon, 1995

“Bisexual - being emotionally and physically attracted to all genders.” - The Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network, “Out of the Past: Teacher’s Guide” 199?

“Bisexuality is much more than, and different from, the sensationalized ‘third choice, best of both worlds’ phenomena it’s made out to be. Bisexuality is an inclusive term that defines immense possibilities avalable to us, whether we act on them or not.” - “Bi Any Other Name”, Loraine Hutchens and Lani Ku'ahumany, 1991

“Bisexual consciousness, because of its amorphous quality and inclusive nature, posed a fundamental threat to the dualistic and exclusionary thought patterns which were -- and still are -- tenaciously held by both the gay liberation leadership and its enemies.” - “The Bisexual Movement’s Beginnings in the 70s”, Bisexual politics, Naomi Tucker, 1995

Bisexuality historically and currently includes transgender and nonbinary people.

“With respect to our integrity as bisexuals, it is our responsibility to include transgender people in our language, in our communities, in our politics, and in our lives.” - Bisexual Politics: Theories, Queries, and Visions by Naomi S Tucker, 1995

“Bisexuality is here defined as the capacity, regardless of the sexual identity label one chooses, to love and sexually desire both same -- and other -- gendered individuals. The term other-gendered is used here deliberately and is preferable to the term opposite -- gendered, because other -- gendered encompasses a recognition of the existence of transgendered and transsexual individuals, who may embrace gender identities other than [male and female.]” - “Bisexuality: The Psychology and Politics of an Invisible Minority” by Beth A. Firestein and Dallas Denny, 1996

“Bisexuality means having the capacity to be attracted to people of both major genders (don’t forget: there are gender minorities, too).” “As with the word Bisexual, they usually also imply that relations with gender minorities are possible.” - ‘Bisexuality: A Reader and a Sourcebook’, 1990

“There were a lot of transvestites and transsexuals who came to [the San Francisco Bisexual Center in the 1970s], because they were not going to be turned away because of the way they dressed.” - David Lourea in “Bisexual Histories in San Francisco in the 1970s and Early 1980s,” Dworkin, 2000 Journal of Bisexuality

“The actual lived non-binary history of the bisexual community and movement and the inclusive culture and community spirit of bisexuals are eradicated when a binary interpretation of our name for ourselves is arbitrarily assumed.” - “Bi Any Other Name: Bisexual People Speak Out” by Lani Ka’ahumanu, ????

“In the bisexual movement as a whole, transgendered individuals are celebrated not only as an aspect of the diversity of the bisexual community, but, because like bisexuals, they do not fit neatly into dichotomous categories.” - “Bisexuality and the Challenge to Lesbian Politics” by Paula C. Rust, 1995

#don't reblog #don't like #don't share

2 notes · View notes

whattaloser · 3 years

Text

Why I’m a Leftist

I know I’m probably just some dude who reblogs cool stuff to most of my followers but I’ve got a nice long story/rant about my political beliefs here that I’ve been wanting to write for awhile

I am a leftist first and foremost because I value human life. Everyone matters. No person is inherently more important than another person. Everyone has inherent rights that should not be infringed. People who infringe on other’s rights are morally wrong to do so. In essence my leftism is based on doing what is right. Obviously everyone has their own opinion on what is right but what is vitally important is knowing why your moral code is right. This is why so many people become liberals or conservatives or otherwise rather than leftists. They simply do not know enough about how the world works. There are a lot of reasons they don’t know, not the least of which is intentional covering up history and preventing education. I don’t believe people who aren’t leftists are stupid, but I do believe leftists know more. It’s kinda fucked up but it’s the only way you can explain inconsistencies in other’s values.

My path to leftism was full of cringe. When i was 7 years old Al Gore was running against George Bush for president. I did not know enough to have a real opinion on it but I am happy to say that I wanted Al Gore to win. This thought was based on very little if any logical reason. I basically flipped a coin in my head I think. Or maybe there was some outside influence that I wasn’t aware of, like my older sister who I looked up to might have said she liked Al gore. Either way, from then on I was in favor of democrats and did not like George Bush. When 9/11 happened I remembered thinking how dumb it was that people lined up around the block to get gas. Even as a child I knew that some buildings going down wasn’t going to end the great nation of the United States. In general I thought the United States was a great country. I knew from movies and tv as well as elementary school history that the United States was the most powerful country in the world.

I recall in Sixth grade my teacher mentioned she liked George Bush because he was against gay marriage. Somehow at the time my opinion was the opposite despite being raised Catholic. I believed in god until I graduated high school and suddenly my desire to be religious slipped away and so did my belief. I do not consider this a great loss.

Sometime in middle school or early high school I had solidified my opinion that the war in Iraq and Afghanistan was pointless and George Bush was a bad president. I was heavily influenced by movies and somewhat by video games that had imparted plenty of anti-war messages. Talks with my dad about nuclear missiles, watching History channel shows about world war 2, and playing Metal Gear Solid which had explicit nuclear disarmament messages, all informed me on the horrors of war. This was not enough to make me totally anti-military. In high school I wanted to join the military because I thought it was an easy way to get life experience and eventually pay for college. I was attracted to the Marines because of how cool movies like The Rock and video games like Call of Duty made it seem to be a Marine. I thought they were the best of the best. I was simultaneously against war, against veteran worship, and very pro-military. I was indoctrinated by years of government propaganda but also disillusioned by all forms of media including the book All Quiet on the Western Front which was about a soldier becoming disillusioned by witnessing horrors of war and the negative impact it had on everyone in his country. I spoke with a recruiter during my senior year and expressed my desire to be a Marine but I told him I wanted to wait a year after high school so I could get physically fit enough. The recruiter did not care that I was underweight and out of shape. He didn’t even care that I was very enthusiastic about joining, he was still putting on his best salesman demeanor which made me incredibly uneasy. The experience is supposed to pressure people into signing up on the spot, I think they even had forms for me to sign (i can’t really remember though) but I was not ready and was aware enough how I was being manipulated although not entirely cognizant. After that I no longer wanted to be in the military.

I also have to point out that I grew up in an unstable household. My parents were both loving but they were flawed and made mistakes and had problems. My dad was a typical Gen x man’s man. A little bit too emotionally repressed, but actually really good with kids when it came to play time and still is. He worked a lot because my mother couldn’t. My mother has been diagnosed with bipolar disorder as long as I can remember. Her medical bills related to her problems combined with other financially bad decisions by my parents caused my home life to be fraught. I lived in varying degrees of poverty until my parents separated and me and my siblings moved with my mother to her parents’ house away from my father. Prior to moving though, we endured great financial difficulty. We were unable to afford school lunches but could not apply for free or reduced lunches because technically my father made a lot of money, however it was all garnished for medical bills. My father always tells about how he bought a car that had hidden frame damage and when he attempted to sue the dealership for selling a bad car he lost and was garnished for that as well. Despite making over 25 dollars an hour in 1999, my father could not afford school lunches for three kids and couldn’t afford to pay the gas bill. Without going into too much more detail, life sucked and continued to suck until I graduated, at least financially. I still found plenty of joy and it wasn’t always that bad. We still found ways to have good things like video games and we could always rewatch old movies but there’s a lot of psychic weight that comes with being that poor as a child and I’m sure it affects me and my ability to empathize with others who in bad conditions.

So i watched a lot of movies and documentaries, read a lot of books growing up, discovered internet forums at the age of 11, played video games, moved to a town that had a very large Hispanic population, and I even grew up poor. All of this life experience turned me into a very average liberal upon graduating high school. I was a very optimistic 18 year old. I thought science could save the world. If I was 18 today I would be an average redditor stereotype probably. The point here though is I still wasn’t a leftist. Only vaguely progressive and full of optimism. This is when I got sucked into the anti-feminist pipeline.

I can’t remember what exactly what I had going on in my life but I remember it was around the time of Gamergate. Everyone on the internet, celebrities, and pop culture were saying “if you believe in equality between genders you’re a feminist” an did not like that. And there was a ton of people online to tell me I was right in not liking that. They all said feminism was not necessary anymore because legally you couldn’t discriminate against women and I agreed. Gamergate made it worse for reasons too complicated to get into in this already long post but suffice it say I was “pro Gamergate.” This put me at odds with my closes friends who thought feminism was great and had no qualms with it, and were already embracing the idea of being a “social justice warrior.” Despite reading all kinds of anti-feminist think pieces and reveling in the discourse, I was still very progressive and liberal minded person. Still thought the military was bad, that black people were discriminated against etc. But so many aspects of anti-feminism were appealing to me as a white guy who tried their hardest to do what they’re told is right, had low self esteem, undiagnosed adhd and depression, and a fundamental misunderstanding of what feminism was. Two things got me out of anti-feminism though. The first and most important thing was having friends who were patient with me about it. I didn’t reveal how into anti-feminism I was because I was ashamed but they could sense it and pushed back when they could. The second thing that got me out of it was actually finding feminists online and reading what they had to say, staying away from poorly written clickbait articles that fueled misogynist tirades against feminism. After reading and learning from feminists it finally clicked. Our society is patriarchal and that affects how people interact with each other regardless of what is legal. Many of the complaints of anti-feminism talk about how men have it in society, so how can society be patriarchal. It’s because of patriarchy that men are put in bad positions. Some of the more self aware anti-feminists had retorts against these ideas but they were emotionally charged. There’s still some anti-feminists I have respect for because of how well prepared and logical they were when it came to disputing feminism. But when it came down to the fundamental tenants of feminsim all they could respond with was anger or outright denial of reality. (If you’re like I was and don’t understand how anyone can thing modern feminism is good please feel free to ask me more, I just can’t get into specifics in this long ass post) Anyways, once you understand patriarchy and how it affects an individuals actions then you can start seeing how other institutions and cultural norms can affect an individual. This is basically fundamentals of leftism. I’d say about 90% of my path to leftism was just naturally absorbing cultural and historical information through consumption of media. The most conservative people I know are people who haven’t read very many books or seen very many movies. I’m not saying watching Austin Powers at the age of 10 will make everyone a leftist but constantly recontextualizing the world by learning something new, even if you learned it from some dumb comedy movie, can give you better grounding in a shared reality. Don’t know how to end this but I want to say when I was a teenager I thought “communism is good in theory but it doesn’t work in practice” and I had almost no historical basis for it other than the vague notion that USSR = bad despite having consumed a massive amount of media. None of it taught me what communism actually was, I didn’t know who Karl Marx was, and I had no clue why communism in the USSR failed. You can know a lot without knowing the truth so if you’re struggling with a loved one who is mind poisoned by conservative keep in mind that they know a lot but they’re missing something important to give clarity.

This has been my Ted Talk

#rambling #rant #Leftism #Conservative #feminism #anti feminism #Communism #Media #I definitely did not accomplish what I wanted to with this lol #Someone please clap #uwu

2 notes · View notes

by-mana · 3 years

Text

Commissions Redux

Hi Folks!

This has been copied from my main blog and cleaned up a bit, since I’m trying to separate the fan stuff from the main to keep something like a semblance of an order. Commissions are therefore moved from Mana-chan’s Corner to here. They are still open and perfectly free, just read the rules, please. In case you wish to support me, you can do either of these things:

» Leave a Tip

» Buy Me a Coffee

As I am currently jobless (thank you Corona) every bit is appreciated.

» Full Update

For a long time I didn’t take any commissions because the fandoms and pairings I have inspiration for is a limited fraction of my active fandoms (i.e. the fandoms I engage with via reading fic, commenting, enjoying content, reblogging, etc.) and I didn’t want to disappoint.

Recently, in an unexpected strike of utter genius (which only took me like... 5 years to work out), I had the epiphany to compile a list of fandoms+pairings I’d be more than happy to write as you desire.

» Commission Rules/FAQ. Please read before commissioning.

» For full list of available fandoms/genres click below.

» Fandoms

» The Untamed | Mo Dao Zu Shi

The most recent fandom, also the one that currently dominates my mind.

Including: CQL, Novel, Movies. I haven’t read a lot of the source material, but I’m intending to and I already did some research. For now I think I prefer a mix of canons.

» Pairings

» Lan Wangji/Wei Wuxian

» Jiang Cheng & Wei Wuxian (mostly gen, but I believe I could do something sexual/romantic as well, but please ask first if you have any specific ideas)

» Jiang Cheng/Wen Qing (please read the rules)

» Jiang Cheng/Wen Ning (tentative)

» Nie Mingjue/Wei Wuxian

» Nie Mingjue/Lan Xichen (tentative, though I mostly see myself as writing them on the side)

» Any version of the 3zun (same as above)

» Lan Xichen/Wei Wuxian

» Jin Zixuan/Wei Wuxian

» Specific Canons / Prompts

The Untamed basically exploded over my head and didn’t leave me alone. In the past few months a few plotbunnies developed which I’d all love to write at one point. You can chose to prompt me either of these or pick any general prompt, or anything you’d like to read, as long as it aligns with what I can write.

» The First Witness

Genre: Case Fic, Modern AU, Canon retell, Drama, Tragedy, Romance, M/M

Pairings: WWX/LWJ

Includes: Forensic Medical Examiner Wei Wuxian, Inspector Lan Wangji, Single Dad Wei Wuxian, Wei Sizhui / Wen Yuan, the dead ones are dead, Badass Grandmother Baoshan Sanren, Yunmeng Bros Reconciliation, Businessman Jiang Cheng, Murder Mystery, Pining, Getting Together, HIV positive character, past off-screen rape (mentioned only). It’s basically what it says, a canon retell wrapped in a modern day case fic. It was the first thing that I had inspiration for.

» Nurse Wei Wuxian slice of life Modern AU

Genre: Modern AU, slice of life, recovery, drama, tragedy, adoption, M/M, hurt & comfort, getting together, romance, fluff

Pairings: WWX/LWJ

Includes: pediatric nurse Wei Wuxian, pediatric nurse MianMian, elementary school teacher Lan Wangji, pediatrician Lan Xichen, intense care nurse Jiang Yanli, intense care doctor Wen Qing, teacher’s aide Wen Ning, Yunmeng reconciliation, only some are dead, Wen family+WWX living together.

Premise: Former convict Wei Wuxian, fresh out of nursing school, applies for a job at Dr. Lan Xichen’s pediatric practice. Lan Xichen (who sometimes takes pro bono foster children abuse cases) isn’t quite sold on the idea of a former felon turned nurse attending to already traumatized children, but upon interview decides to give WWX a chance. Not only does he never regret it, it turns out it’s to be the best decision he’s ever made, not only in regards to his practice. Meddling ensues, love blossoms, truths are revealed, happy end. Probably the fluffiest story on the list.

» ABO Yunmeng Shuanjie Fake Marriage AU

Not what you think. Does not involve pseudo-incest (at least not for a long time, haven’t decided on the end results yet). First ABO I’ve ever considered writing, but all the more exciting, since I know now what I want of it.

Pairing: WWX/LWJ (temporal, non-endgame - so far, platonic), WWX & JC (gen, ruling partners)

Includes: fake marriage, extra marital affair, male pregnancy, abo (mostly non-traditional, I think?), not actual pseudo incest, adoption, canon divergence, not everybody dies, Wen Chao being a monster, sexual assault (interrupted), golden core loss, NO golden core transfer, misunderstandings, complicated political situations, the Wens are saved and live in Lotus Pier, a-Yuan is still adopted, “sometimes love is not enough”

Premise: shortly after concluding the studies at Cloud Recesses LWJ starts courting WWX. Engagement is discussed between the two clans, but the Wen indoctrination and the burning of the Cloud Recesses gets in between. When LWJ refuses to lie in order to save WWX from Wen Chao’s assault, JC steps in and pretends to be the one engaged to WWX to save his brother from a forced bond. To prevent this from being debunked and to ensure a future marriage (which will now be more challenging to achieve, given the state of Cloud Recesses), LWJ and WWX mate and bond in the Xuanwu cave. Then Lotus Pier is sacked, JC loses his golden core, the Jiangs are dead and the Yunmeng siblings flee for their lives, find refuge in Yiling, etc. Plays out as in canon except they find out WWX is pregnant and transferring the golden core would cause an abortion. WWX still says do it, but changes his mind in the last minute, leading to JC finding out about his plan upon waking up and remaining coreless. They flee to Meishan and marry to protect WWX’s reputation (since a marriage would now be impossible for a long time on both sides - Gusu and Yunmeng, AND JC needs WWX more than ever and WWX is not abandoning his little brother) Sunshot happens, WWX invents the control tower & still saves the Sunshot campaign. The sixteen years that follow are utter chaos.

» Nie Mingjue/Wei Wuxian arranged marriage AU

You know what this is inspired by.

Pairing: Nie Mingjue/Wei Wuxian, Lan Wangji/Wei Wuxian (unfullfilled, for a long time)

Includes: arranged marriage, some characters die, Nie Mingjue dies but later, revenge, wwx adopts a-yuan, canon divergence, slow burn, learning to love, the Wens live, political intrigues, wwx and nhs teaming up against jgy

Premise: To save the Wens and himself from qi deviation Wei Wuxian marries Nie Mingjue (in spite of being in love with LWJ). Slowly some truths are revealed and feelings blossom but some tragedies cannot be prevented. NMJ realizes the feelings that are between WWX and LWJ, but they both marry regardless. Later WWX realizes that NMJ is similarly in love with Lan Xichen. With time they learn to love and respect each other, NMJ learns about what WWX did for JC, WWX learns clarity to play for NMJ when JGY nearly succeeds killing him (WWX suspects but he has no proof). NMJ still dies (disappears) and widower WWX spends the next decade or so seeking revenge and searching for his husband’s body so that he can rest in peace. It’s all very bittersweet, but there’s a happy ending.

» Hakuouki + Extended Universe

The longest active and steadiest fandom. I know exactly what I’ll write and what not.

Including characters from: Urakata, Toki no Kizuna, the most recent overhauls (Kyoto Winds, Edo Blossoms). I’ve seen all three anime seasons, played a few routes of Kyoto Winds and read some walkthroughs. I’m not completely done with all of them, but I’ll take the time to research if the commission demands it.

» Pairings

» Harada Sanosuke/Nagakura Shinpachi (I lovingly refer to them as my naval battle cruiser)

» Harada Sanosuke/Shiranui Kyou

» Shiranui Kyou/Takasugi Shinsaku

» Kondou Isami/Hijikata Toushizou (tentative)

» Hijikata Toushizou/Saitou Hajime (tentative)

» Nagakura Shinpachi/Saitou Hajime

» Saitou Hajime/Toudou Heisuke

» Yukimura Chizuru/Sen-hime

» Ibuki Ryuunosuke/Kosuzu (please read the rules)

» Specific Canons / Prompts:

I’ve had a number of inspirations for this, which I’ve never written, but would love to delve into. You can chose to prompt me either of these or, of course, pick a general prompt.

» Fabulous Family Series

The one in progress, you can check it out on AO3. You can prompt me in this, if there’s something you’d like to read.

Pairings (current and planned): Harada/Nagakura, Kondou/Hijikata, Okita/Chizuru (casual), Heisuke/Saitou, Takasugi/Shiranui, Chizuru/Sen-chan, Ibuki/Kosuzu, Ibuki->Saitou (one-sided crush), Saitou/Chizuru (temporal)

Tags: adoption, modern AU, lgbtq+ issues, M/M, genderfluid character, disabled character (future), teenage pregnancy (future), slice of life, sexual assault (future), child abuse (future reveal), romance, ace/aro character, casual sex, underage sex,

» Gender Swap AU

Main Ship: Harada/Nagakura

Side Ship: Ibuki/Kosuzu

Summary: Sannan secretly tests a version of his experimental Ochimizu on a few of the captains. The result is that the new day dawns with some drastic changes to their bodies that have nothing to do with white hair, glowing eyes or bloodthirst, but with a whole other set of complications.

Premise: Original story was supposed to be about Shinpachi developing and unexpected attraction to Sano, them “experimenting” together and Sano falling pregnant. While the others manage to turn back to their original bodies, Sano doesn’t and it is all very complicated. Eventually he does (after giving birth), but instead of it being a good thing it just makes things more complicated. In the end, he choses to live in a female body instead of death and marries Shinpachi. Would include trans issues, gender dysphoria, friendship vs. love, the nature of attraction, respect, feminism and female issues. I wanted to write it as a multi-chapter, but never got around to it. But I’d love to put it out there in any form I can.

» Prince of Tennis

Tentatively putting this down as one of my oldest fandoms. I never wrote for it as cosistently as with other fandoms, but a few years back I rp-ed it for quite a while and could probably still write for it, if the pairing’s right.

Including: ShinTeniPuri characters up to Pirates and Black Holes (I haven’t read much further, but I’ll probably catch up at one point? I always do.)

» Pairings / Characters (mostly Shitenhouji and Higa centric)

» Oshitari Kenya/Shiraishi Kuranosuke

» Oshitari Kenya/Chitose Senri

» Oshitari Kenya & Oshitari Yuushi (gen, ask me about cest)

» Shishido Ryou/Oishi Shuuichirou

» Oshitari Yuushi/Kikumaru Eiji

» Oshitari Yuushi/Hirakoba Rin (this relates to that rp)

» Kai Yuujirou & Hirakoba Rin (both gen and slash)

» Kite Eishirou/Hirakoba Rin

» Watanabe Osamu/Sakaki Tarou

» Higa gen

» Shitenhouji gen and casual relationships (ask me about specific ones)

» Hara Tetsuya/Taira Yoshiyuki

» Mori Juuzaburou & Hara Tetsuya (mostly gen, but I probs could do casual slash as well)

» Ochi Tsukimitsu/Mori Juuzaburou

» Marui Bunta/Hara Tetsuya (you will never get this, but it derives from that rp I did and would still def write it if people are interested)

» Tango Pair (Sanada Genichirou/Atobe Keigo)

» Specific Canons / Prompts

Most of what I had in my head has faded but a few things remained. Of course you can also come with your own prompt at me.

» College AU, future fic

Premise: Everyone has grown up and moved on. The Oshitari cousins are now rooming together, both studying medicine at Tokyo University. They’re upper neighbors with Shishido Ryou (paedagogy) and Oishi Shuuichirou (medicine), who both miss their doubles partners, but have seemingly moved on from their middle school days and broken hearts. No such thing can be said about Kenya, who can’t get over his break up with Shiraishi following their graduation, or Yuushi, who seems to hold secrets of his own.

I haven’t developed much for this, most of it are scattered ideas, but I’d love to explore it. I’ve thought of some pairings for it, but none of them final. It would also leave a lot of room for casual stuff or one-night stands. It’s actually an ideal prompt premise, from that standpoint.

Pairings (at start, no necessarily final): Oshitari Kenya/Shiraishi Kuranosuke (past), Oishi Shuuichirou/Shishido Ryou (current), Oishi Shuuichirou/Kikumaru Eiji (past), Shishido Ryou/Ootori Choutarou (past), Oshitari Yuushi/Kikumaru Eiji (current, secret),

» It takes two to Tango / Tango towards Destruction

An old fic that was supposed to be a series which I never finished, but could pick it up and remaster it. It’d be a nostalgia project.

Pairing: Tango Pair

Premise: Atobe’s father finds out about him and Sanada dating and threatens to disown him if they don’t break up. In the original Atobe runs away, but I’m thinking now he simply might not take it seriously enough and then it would escalate. He ends up moving in with the Sanada family. Your typical rich boy loses everything and struggles through poverty, finding meaning, building a life for himself, coming off age.

» One Piece

A fandom older than even TeniPuri it’s been with me the longest. Unfortunately it doesn’t inspire me anymore the way it used to, but I’d still be able to write some things for it, if the right muse struck me. I kinda want to. Nostalgia, you know.

» Pairings

» Zoro/Sanji

» Ace/Zoro

» Ace/Sanji

» Luffy/Law (tentative, like, I ship them hard but I don’t know if I’d be able to write something for them? Oh but I’d like to try)

» Mihawk/Shanks

» Mihawk & Zoro & Perona family dynamics

» Zeff & Sanji adopted family dynamics

» Usopp & Yasopp gen

» Izo? I’d like to try an Izo.

» Canons

» Canonverse

Set in the original canon of the fandom.

Including (not limited to): backstory - past canon, present canon, future fic (please specify), canon divergence

» Modern AU

Including (not limited to): no powers, modern with magic (potential, please ask), slice of life, mystery, case fic, ‘job AU’ (coffee shop, doctors, idols, etc., please specify/ask)

» Sci-fi AU

Including: original sci-fi canon, Star Trek, Star Wars, Firefly, Cowboy Bebop, Dune (tentative), Hyperion (tentative), for everything else ask. I know a lot of sci-fi, but not enough lore for each of them to set a story in. I might be interested but it'd necessitate research.

» High Fantasy AU

Including (not limited to): original fantasy canon, Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter, Witcher, but overall I’d prefer if you ask about this. I haven’t read/seen a lot of the most recent and popular franchises (mostly because I’m writing my own high fantasy and don’t want it to be too influenced by other things, and someone already told me it sounds like Game of Thrones, so that one’s a big no. Sorry...)

» No Powers, other than modern AU

Including (not limited to): everything that doesn’t fall under the modern AU list, but has no powers in it, i.e. historical AU (specify time & culture), future AU (near & far), cyberpunk dystopia (possibly), post-apocalyptic (possibly). I don’t write zombies.

» Superpowers / Hero AU

Including (not limited to): X-Men, Avengers, Wildstorm Universe, original superhero canon

» Genres

I do mostly serious stuff, like drama, tragedy, intrigues, arranged marriage, tragic backstory, etc. I like to put my characters through a lot of suffering. I always joke that it’s very easy to spot my favorite character by the amount of torture I put them through. I feel that it makes the happy ending weigh even more. Sometimes I even prefer a bad ending, if it gives the story more meaning (I mean, imagine LotR trilogy have a happy ending. It would totally take away all the development and the lessons the characters went through.) I wish I could write light stuff but so far I have not succeeded. I use a lot of sarcasm and irony though?

My shorter fics tend to be fluffy and sweet rather than funny, if full of playful banter and teasing. Relationships are usually depicted in a naturalistic rather than romantic way (I’m ace/aro myself, and I have lots of opinions about the nature of love and attraction, and how a functioning relationship ideally looks like and it tends to seep into my writing). Instead of traditional romance I like to write a non-traditional one. Slow burn, instead of love on first sight. Learning to love instead of falling hard. But it also depends on the pairing. I can write most things if I put my mind to it, so don’t hesitate to prompt me and I’ll let you know whether it works for me or not.

I’m not shy of dealing with child abuse, assault, suicidal ideation, trauma, disability and other difficult topics in my writing, so if you wanna request any of these or something similar I’m a-okay with it, as long as you discuss it with me. I’m not knowledgeable in everything so it’s likely I’ll need to do research, but I’m more than alright with it. Honestly, it’s very probable that I’d love to try.

» Kinks

I’m okay with most stuff. Where I draw the line is the really hardcore stuff like scat and kinks involving feces, some forms of humiliation, zoophilia, necrophilia, mutilation, stuff like that.

I’m alright with both dub-con & non-con (although I refuse to depict is as normalized, or glorified), bondage, s&m, dom/sub, light bdsm (ask me about the harder stuff. I’m not against it, I’m just not always in the mood or right mindset for writing it), omorashi (tentative, ask me), daddy kink, breath play, age play, spanking, verbal humiliation, dirty talk, edging, come eating, orgasm denial,... all the good stuff.

#commission me #fandoms #genres

4 notes · View notes

manonblackbeack · 4 years

Note

Can you explain feminism to me? All around I hear it said as a bad, dirty word and i don't know what to believe anymore. In India there's not much respect for this movement.

Hello, sweet anon! Before we dig in one of my most favorite subjects in the whole world, I'd like to add that I am a feminist in progress. I'm not some kind of expert with a diploma or an influencial figure on the matter. For this reason and this reason only I will try to summarize MY opinion and MY knowledge on the subject. For further information, I highly recommend following the activity of Michelle Obama, Emma Watson, Jameela Jamil, Sophia Bush, Nina Simone, Gloria Steinem or Ruth Bader Ginsburg. (among others but these were the first ones on top of my head)

Feminism is a movement that started as a fight for women's rights. At first it was about the right to own possessions such as gold and property (we're talking ancient Greece in Plato's time) and the emperor was scared to give them power, knowing women are equal, if not superior, to men. Then it shifted to the role of a women in life, as if a woman's life was only about pleasing their husbands and raising children. Far later, it became about voting and the right to have access to education. This started in 15th century and persisted for centuries.

Nowadays, the movement shifted its direction a bit. It became less about the right to vote (although, there are "3rd world" countries where this basic right it's still forbidden) and more about fundamental rights. It demands full equality between sexes. In voting, in law, in politics, in parenthood, in pay, in everything where inequity is still a huge part of culture. It's a continuous fight with the bigots that still believe women are guided solely by emotions and not their minds.

On a personal note, I think it also became about owning yourself and respecting others. Being raised as a woman in a society built on patriarchal values is not easy, even if one may think evolution got the best of us. There's an enormous amount of hate between women, based on many factors, such as: race, gender, sexuality, religion, body shape and even clothes. There is also a huge misunderstanding of the term "feminist" because some choose to hate men and be vocal about it (usually referred as feminazi, which BTW, is not a real thing). Some choose to unfairly hate women that are assertive, outspoken, loyal to their partners (men, especially), women psychologically trapped in toxic relationships and a lot of other things that are NOT bad. (note: staying in a toxic environment means NOT realizing how harmul can the relationship or environment be to your mind, body and soul and is called Stockholm Syndrome is extreme cases. NGOs are fighting daily for these persons trapped with aggressors but can't help them due to the victim's belief of being in love)

In all honesty, society will ALWAYS find a reason to judge you based on every little thing that makes you unique. The biggest form of rebellion is to take that hate and love yourself & others & treat them with kindness. Feminist is not a bad word. It's a fight for basic human rights that need to be demanded because they're often overlooked by cis white men. It includes all genders, races, sexualities, able bodied or not, mentally ill and everyone that needs a voice. My recommendation is to be their voice, not another echo that gets lost in a crowd.

Feel free to message me for more of my wisdom because it's a huge subject to discuss and this is merely a scratch for what lies underneath this movement.

#feminism #feminist #answered

10 notes · View notes

shutterupp31 · 4 years

Text

Toxic masculinity-Whats wrong with our boys?

For centuries men have been condemned for acts of aggression, violence, and sexism, contributing to the ongoing popularity of the phrase ‘toxic masculinity’ which distinguishes these traits as toxic and unhealthy. The American psychological association have even recently introduced new guidelines for therapists working with both men and boys, indicating that early signs of extreme ‘traditional masculine behaviour’ can root themselves in personality traits that encourage outcomes of violence and misogyny, and must be disestablished early.

With the increase in male suicide rates and drug overdoses in the western world, combined with the rise of fourth wave feminism, as you can imagine, the debate on toxic masculinity is becoming all the more relevant amongst both genders. Mass media have blamed toxic masculinity for rape, mass shootings, online trolling, climate change and even the election of Donald Trump.

BUT is the phrase toxic masculinity actually helpful, accurate or universal? Let's discuss.

Like any phrase or term regularly recycled within gender debate, the stereotypes it highlights have divided peoples opinions drastically, a predictable conflict that has most definitely contributed to the terms rise, (Yay politics). On the right we have many conservatives who allege that the charges of toxic masculinity is itself an attack on manhood. With mental health problems amongst males consistently rising, combined with the challenges the men's right movement already face, including paternity rights, homelessness, education to name a FEW, these people argue that it is dangerous and unfair to strip boys of what some would say is a necessity for them to discover their true selves as men in their time of need.

On the other side we see many ‘progressives’ who believe that the detoxification of masculinity is absolutely essential on the road to gender equality.

NOW, i'm sure (I mean I hope) we can all agree that issues including sexism, rape, violence and so on are obviously important and anyone male or female that possess these traits and/or actively defends them, needs help! Research consistently shows that those who hold sexist attitudes are more likely to perpetrate gendered violence. (DUH), but the potential biological and cultural contributions to why these figures are disproportionate amongst men and women is not something I wish to discuss at present, that's a whole other debate.

What I do want to talk about (and what a lot of people aren't talking about) is this ‘painting every male with the same brush’ phenomenon and the extent to which this could be harmful.

My issue with the shift we have seen in which masculinity is rapidly becoming a dirty word, is that it genuinely encourages a narrative in which masculinity is fundamentally toxic.

The assumption that the majority of what can be considered as male specific characteristics, as fundamentally harmful, is becoming increasingly worrying within socialist politics. Traits such as aggression, violence and dominance are more and more often being lumped in with those such as strength, confidence and independence and this is the problem. Yes masculinity can indeed be somewhat destructive, (AGAIN VIOLENCE IS BAD VERY BAD, NON VIOLENCE GOOD VERY GOOD) but both conservative and liberal stances on this issue commonly misunderstand how the term functions.

When people use it, they tend to diagnose the problem of masculine aggression and entitlement as a cultural or spiritual illness, something that has infected today’s men and leads them to reproachable acts. But toxic masculinity itself is not a cause. Over the past thirty years, as the concept has morphed and changed, it has served more as a barometer for the gender politics of its day and as an arrow toward the subtler, shifting causes of violence and sexism.

Acts of violence, aggression and sexism arise for a whole host of reasons, including socioeconomic factors such as education, class, and poverty, NEWSFLASH, not all men that celebrate the idea of being emotionally or physically strong intend to murder and rape the entire female population!

THOUGHT EXPERIMENT TIME

How often do you see women on social media celebrating what it means to be a woman? All the time right? Now, don't get me wrong, this rise of what I'm gonna call ‘girl power culture’ is phenomenally empowering.

But how often do you see men innocently celebrate their manhood or say they are proud to be a man online in the same way?

Very rarely, and if they do they are often immediately attacked for being misogynistic and failing to recognise their privilege by Feminazi’s who fail to read context and get triggered by buzzwords.

Ooooo Controversial? Perhaps, but AGAIN, I'm not failing to recognise that things like lad culture, and boys will be boys culture exist, and perhaps this obvious difference on social media has something to do with the years of oppression against women up until very recently, in fact it probably, most certainly is, however not acknowledging the multiplicity of reasons for these toxic behaviours, and not allowing men to celebrate that they like and may even enjoy being one, in the same way as its widely excepted amongst women, is well, kinda just dumb.

Don't believe me yet? Let's look at the evidence.

First I think it is important to establish where the term originated. Despite the term’s recent popularity among feminists, toxic masculinity did not originate with the women’s movement. It was coined in the mythopoetic men's movement of the 1980s and ’90s, motivated in part as a reaction to second-wave feminism. Through male only workshops, wilderness retreats, and drumming circles, this movement promoted a masculine spirituality to rescue what it referred to as the ‘deep masculine’, a protective ‘warrior’ type masculinity, from toxic masculinity. Men’s aggression and frustration was, according to the movement, the result of a society that feminized boys by denying them the necessary rites and rituals to realise their true selves as men.

The claim of a singular, real masculinity has now been roundly rejected by a new sociology of masculinity. Led by the sociologist Raewyn Connell, this school of thought presents gender as the product of relations and behaviours, rather than as a fixed set of identities and attributes. Connell’s work describes multiple masculinities shaped by class, race, culture, sexuality, and other factors, often in competition with one another as to which can claim to be more authentic. In this view, which is now the prevailing social scientific understanding of masculinity, the standards by which a “real man” is defined can vary dramatically across time and place.

Connell and others theorised that common masculine ideals such as social respect, physical strength, and sexual potency can of course become problematic when they set unattainable standards. Falling short can make boys and men insecure and anxious, which might prompt them to use force in order to feel, and be seen as, dominant and in control, HOWEVER Male violence in this scenario doesn’t emanate from something bad or toxic that has crept into the nature of masculinity itself. Rather, it comes from these men’s social and political settings, the particularities of which set them up for inner conflicts over social expectations and male entitlement.

The popular discussion of masculinity has often presumed there are fixed character types among men, and I think it's become increasingly more important to be skeptical of this in order to understand the situations in which groups of men act, the patterns, and the inevitable consequences, because without doing so ,YOU may be contributing to the reinforcement of the toxic masculinity in which you despise so much, which brings us on to….

The blame game-are you contributing to toxic masculinity?

Where do these sexist attitudes come from? Are men and boys just the victims of cultural brainwashing into misogyny and aggression, requiring reeducation into the ‘right’ beliefs? Or are these problems more deep rooted, and created by the myriad of insecurities and contradictions of men’s lives under gender inequality? The problem with a crusade against toxic masculinity is that in targeting culture as the enemy, it risks overlooking the real life conditions and forces that sustain culture.

It is more than likely that you have somewhat contributed to the reinforcement of toxic masculinity without even realising. Something I see so often is both men and women emasculating men for being emotionally vulnerable and this specific topic is something I personally find alarming. In the same way I defend a man's right to choose how and whether he verbally expresses emotions, I strongly believe that there is work to be done to deconstruct the stigma that is attached to this, when and if they choose to do so.

In similar fashion, in the way we have fought so hard to reject female beauty standards, it's really essential that we consider the male equivalent. Don't think there is one? Ask any man under 5 foot 8, ask any bald man under the age of 30, ask any man who has been shamed for the lack of, or excess of body hair. We have to start recognising that there is a double standard, and without too much speculation, could these expectations and lack of attention we are giving them in comparison to a lot of feminist issues in mass media, be somewhat contributing to the frustration and anger that manifests into these toxic traits we have been discussing. YEAH, FUCKING PROBABLY.

Anyway, in summary what I'm saying is, in the same way that the toxic traits we subscribe to masculinity are not universal amongst all males, the solutions to those issues that we have identified within this culture, are also not universal. Recognising differences in the lives of men and boys is crucial to the effectiveness of efforts to resolve gender violence and inequality once and for all, some food for thought.

Stay kind always, Abbie x

2 notes · View notes

all-things-are-nothing-to-me · 5 years

Text

Degenerations – Between Pride and Gender Victimhood

I am an anarchist, I am not a feminist because I see feminism as a sectarian and victimist withdrawal, I have never made any gender discrimination although I don’t use gender-friendly linguistic conventions, on the contrary I often use dirty politically incorrect language. I think that the annulment of gender privilege and similar oppression is already contained in the search for anarchy, that is to say in the practice of anti-authoritarian relations, and should be cultivated there. Ah, I forgot, I loathe consciousness-raising in public meetings and I also consider assemblies to be blunt instruments. I understand and also have the will to meet. But I see how all too often the assembly degenerates into sterile self-representation.

You see nowadays you risk having to start off with such a preamble in order to enter the thicket of clichés on gender and feminism, disentangling yourself in the intricate incapacity to relate to the anarchist galaxy, with a range of behaviors going from hyper-emotiveness to the bureaucratic calculation of what stand (and degree of negotiable compromise) to take in a struggle. I don’t think that authoritarian and sexist behavior can be fought by trying to spread new linguistic conventions or by cooking up shreds of mainstream indignant rhetoric (among which #nonunadimeno [enough is enough], the femicide count on TV, pride, red shoes and rainbow ribbons) in an alternative sauce.

Rather these should be recognized as signs of yet another operation of the deconstruction of real meaning and recuperation in act. Convinced that one is opposing them, in actual fact one is adapting to the very behavioral and normative codes conceded by dominion as ways of releasing tension.

It’s nothing new that economic and political power is tending to swallow up and re-digest everything, faster and faster; consider for example the pearls of anti-sexist, anti-racist or whatever it might be neo-conservatism and conformism that are being dispensed by the media every day.

I believe that the first misunderstanding is the inability to put certain kinds of behavior into context, within what should be a wider critique of relations and communication and interaction between individuals in the anti-authoritarian sense, reducing them to the level of questions of gender.

Gender categorization, in LGBTI (XYZ…) style, should be left to those who need to feel themselves a protected category, in pigeonholes more suited to a Linnaean categorization of individuals than free bodies and minds. Instead, we find such pigeonholes in anti-authoritarian milieus, which should already have internalized their refusal.

By the way I’m far from believing that so-called liberated spaces really are such, in fact they often become parking lots for various forms of malaise and instead of enhancing the quality of life and relationships they risk lowering it even more.

For example it’s not possible to see every inability to interact in a meeting as sexism, authoritarian imposition or gender violence: I read in a pamphlet [1] that was around last year stigmatizing the latent violence in relations between comrades ‘the oldest exercises power over the youngest, those with more experience impose themselves on those who have less, whoever is stronger on the not so strong, mirroring the relations of the existent we say we want subvert.’

This is supposed to be a critique of authoritarian attitudes in anti-authoritarian milieus and it would be valid, were it not that it banalises and flattens everything: there is a fundamental difference between imposition of strength and the expression of experience. The inability to express oneself or to act is neither authoritarian nor anti-authoritarian, and can only be solved individually… otherwise we come to the idiocy of praising inability and inaction.

The concept of emotive violence or the violation of emotional integrity is even more ephemeral, because it promotes this analytical junk among anti-authoritarian individuals who should have far sharper critical weapons and practical capacity of intervention. As well as emptying of meaning the inflicted and brutal violence it is being compared to.

How can we claim to engage in an unrelenting struggle against authority and dissertate on revolutionary and liberatory violence if we cannot even react individually to some ‘undesired comment in the street’ (by taking it for what it is, and dealing with it accordingly with the person who spat it out) or keep up an animated discussion during a meeting without having recourse to the shield of violated sensitivity? Why do we find ourselves reading the disarming and obvious idiocy that advises making love with a woman in order to avoid an unwanted abortion? [2] Why codify, even in the field of gender, only for “female gangs”, like conquest, self-defence from aggression and harassment? Isn’t this a problem common to all genders among liberated beings?

Why should we revisit the most outworn products in the wardrobe of 1970s feminism, such as separatist meetings… maybe calling them workshops (a really ugly term that combines work and shop, borrowed from business conventions and unworthy of free discussions)?

I read the spectre of the same reductive and banalising mechanism in another recent publication, the Italian edition of the Rote Zora claims [3], i.e. the intention to sensitize only a female audience about a group of women who carried out armed struggle in the 1980s and 90s in Germany, insisting on the choice of gender, of very great interest on some feminist topics, as a privileged discriminating factor for taking them out of oblivion… given that one doesn’t want it ‘to belong to official history. It is written by men’ [4]… What?!? Is it not that official historiography tends to not talk about them because they were angry, not angry feminists? Just as it doesn’t deal with – or distorts – the history, actions and writings of so many other angry men and women? The partial vision is not that of Rote Zora who experimented their own path of individual and collective struggle and liberation in the context of wider anti-imperialist and anti-capitalistic action, but of those who try to make a flag out of it in order to give more credibility and specific weight to their own theorizing, to then reduce themselves to looking for ‘paths of self-defence’.

Why entrench oneself in a ‘feminist and lesbian’ discourse [5]? Why yet another protective cage, rather than develop the beauty and infinity of more advanced ideas of the critique of domination (not only gender), put forward and tested?

‘Sisterhood’ has always seemed to me to be a form of allusive alienation of transversal political alliances between oppressed and oppressors, between ‘inter-classist’ as it has become fashionable to say again… adverse parties. I also happened to see a booklet [6] recently containing an Italian feminist’s interviews of some female veterans of the Spanish revolution in 1936, aimed at finding a questionable ‘sisterhood’ between women anarchists engaged on the front line (and in the background with Mujeres Libres), the POUM and Stalinist women.

It was quite significant that almost centenarian anarchist revolutionary women were far more lucid and open in their critique about the limitations of feminism than their interviewer imbued with 1970s’ clichés was: in the extreme calm of a life lived to the full, they were able to explain simply the equal relations between male and female comrades, and how they managed to ridicule and neutralize the machismos that emerged among the most retrograde and stupid of their comrades. In short the practices and theoretical contribution of these women are far more advanced along the path of liberation of the individual and the negation of authoritarian dynamics than those of feminists who glean from their experiences, defending simulacra of struggle instead of the struggle itself. The need for auto-da-fé, the ‘deconstruction of one’s male privileges’, the search for separate places for discussions, self-awareness and self-analysis in public seem a little too much like signs of these times of over-exposition and woolly thinking, parading ‘struggles’ by category and interior struggles, to end up not struggling at all.

Anna,

Women’s prison of Rebibbia, Italy

October 2018

[1] Violenza di genere in ambienti antiautoritari ed in spazi liberati [Gender violence in antiauthoritarian milieus and in liberated spaces], Italian edition translated from Spanish in 2017[2] Critica all’aborto [Critique of abortion], Jauria – Trans-feminist publication for animal liberation, issue 1, Summer/Autumn 2015[3] Rote Zora – guerriglia urbana femminista [Rote Zora – Feminist urban guerrilla], Autoproduzione Femminista, 2018[4] From the introduction to the same book[5] Which the Rote Zora women themselves didn’t think relevant. From a 1984 interview with Rote Zora: ‘Some of us have children, many others don’t. Some are lesbian, others love men’, page 51, ibidem[6] Donne contro [Women against], Isabella Lorusso, ed. CSA editrice, 2013

#Anna Beniamino #Féminas Brujas and Insurrectionalists #insurrectionary anarchism #post feminism #post feminist anarchy #queer nihilism #anarchism #communism #anarcho communism #feminism

13 notes · View notes

mautadite · 5 years

Text

september book round up

17 books this month! almost done with my goal for the year, pretty excited about that. don’t know what i’ll concentrate on after i am... probably more schmoopy romance lol. my job broke my contract for the month so i’ll be home for a while with lots of time to read hopefully. or listen, i should say. all of these (other than kaiju maximus) are audiobooks!

society of gentlemen series - k.j. charles ⭐️⭐️⭐️ victorian m/m series that deals with politics, democrats vs tories, sedition. thought provoking material in a light enough package, and the romance is the main focus. i liked all three books and all three couples, though each book had its issues. in the first, it was that one of the protags was somehow comfortable to settle into the life of luxury that he criticises, and in the third i was a little bewildered by the dynamics. the second was probably my favourite. but still, a good series.

everything between us - harper bliss ⭐️⭐️⭐️ sweet f/f romance. i liked that it dipped into feminism and fat acceptance and other topics that romance books generally just never address. really appreciated that. and i really liked the main character! i just sometimes felt like characters would speak as if they were reading from a textbook, especially when talking about sj issues. it was kinda awkward.

zero visibility - georgia beers ⭐️⭐️⭐️ f/f... not quite enemies to lovers. awkward acquaintances to lovers? and there was a lesbian ice queen who was literally an ice queen, she used to be a skiing champion lol. this was good, well written and had a nice small town romance vibe. moved pretty slowly, which i can appreciate in a romance. there were multiple povs, other than the two main characters, which i didn’t like, and there was one super biphobic character who never got taught a lesson. otherwise: pretty good!

bear, otter and the kid - t.j. klune ⭐️⭐️⭐️ very very cute romance/coming of age. guy falls in love with his best friend’s brother while taking care of his little brother after their mother abandoned them. it got very melodramatic never the end (a la misunderstandings and forced break up, it just made me annoyed) and the story was honestly very predictable. but it was funny and sweet and well written for the most part.

trapped - sally bryan ⭐️⭐️⭐️ now this is lesbian enemies to lovers... but it wasn’t great. seriously, the speed at which they went from hating each other and maligning each other to declaring their ilus was ridiculous. i know the premise is that they were in a life altering situation, but come on. :/ that said, this book was a giant ‘cuddling for warmth’ trope and i was here for it.

orlando - virginia woolf ⭐️⭐️⭐️ one of those classics that i wish i liked better than i do. and i mean i do like it. but it moved so slowly in the beginning, i was so impatient for the gender stuff and the queer stuff to start happening. things picked up when they did, and i adore virginia woolf’s writing, i did soooooo much bookmarking... but idk, just never got immersed in the story. this would benefit from a second read, but idk if i’ll ever drum up the patience to do so.

the horse mistress chronicles - r.a. steffan ⭐️⭐️⭐️ a poly romance series set in a fantasy world against the backdrop of an invasion by a larger empire. the main character is a gender fluid horse tamer who falls in love with a eunuch werewolf priest and the strongest warrior in her tribe, and the story follows the course of their triad relationship and their personal developments and the war. i feel like it had a serious pacing problem, especially near the beginning, wrt how quickly i was asked to believe that they fell in love. the world building, while good, fell flat very often. i left the series satisfied, but also kinda underwhelmed.

too bad about your girl - saranna dewylde ⭐️⭐️⭐️ short story, f/f friends to lovers. cute, and i knew what i was getting into with a short story, but as soon as it ended i wanted more. they were solid characters, and i felt like a bigger story could be told about them! but it was still cute.

the music of what happens - bill konigsberg ⭐️⭐️⭐️ m/m ya romance that made me kinda... eh. bill konigsberg is one of those ya authors who always gets recommended but idk that i’m a fan of his style of writing. this had an unbelievable premise, very little chemistry, an irritating passage against ~~~pc culture~~~ and a scene involving forced exercise that made me very uncomfortable. but it was well meaning and the characters were cute. the narrators saved this for me.

truth will out - k.c. wells ⭐️⭐️ m/m murder mystery romance that was very sweet... but a pretty bad mystery! i figured it out so fast! and as i am NOT particularly clever or any kind of sleuth... :/ yeah. it’s always a bummer when you find out whodunnit miles before it’s revealed. especially annoying in this case because the author made it obvious by having EVERYONE BE A POTENTIAL SUSPECT... except the guy who ended up doing it lol. the romance part was nice tho.

good to know - d.w. marchwell ⭐️ a romance novel about a gay cowboy adopting his nephew and falling in love with his nephew’s new teacher should be really cute, right? alas, this was bad. constant pov switching, meh writing, ridic sex scenes, entire conversations in different languages and characters who were frankly unlikable. skip this.

kaiju maximus(r) - kai ashante wilson ⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️ a short story by one of my faaaaaaavourite writers that i read in an anthology years ago; had an urge to read it again. in a post apocalyptic world, a mighty hero and her family search out a new threat. told from the husband’s POV with kaw’s beautiful beautiful prose. always a treat.

that’s it for september. it’ll be more of the same of october probably; lots of queer romance. currently reading poison kiss by ana mardoll.

#book talk #long post

4 notes · View notes

tervacious · 5 years

Link

I first spoke with Dianic Priestess Ruth Barrett about how to create a Samhain ritual, which you can check out HERE. In part 2, we get into the roots of radical feminism.

AfterEllen: I wanted to talk to you about lesbian feminists embrace of Dianic spirituality. In the 1970s a lot of women turned away from the religions in which they grew up, because they identified them as patriarchal, and they turned instead to a new women-focused spirituality.

Ruth Barrett: I want to name one of our foremothers Mary Daly, feminist theologian, she languaged for many of us the realization that as long as god is male, the male is god. It was one of those took-your-breath-away paradigms that was hiding in plain sight. So for a lot of us in the 1970s-80s the notion of ‘how do we recognize spirituality, religion, politics? and how does patriarchy affect all of these things?’

There was this examination that continues to this day. As your readers know, our lives don’t take place in a vacuum, they are always in a context of history or herstory.

In the 1970s as women were working primarily for equal pay, reproductive rights, equity in the workplace, all of those things, the notion of a feminist spirituality did not enter the consciousness for some time. That had to do with the fact that Marxist politics was influential on the left. Religion was the opium of the people. Spirituality was a distraction from the work people needed to do to be free. It wasn’t until the latter half of the 1970s that women started to think about it differently.

Z Budapest is a Hungarian-born immigrant who came over after the communists had invaded Budapest, and she brought with her her mother’s folk traditions, folk religion. She also became a feminist, so she began to merge these two things.

Around 1976 or ’77 she was arrested for fortune telling in LA, it was against the law. It was the witch trial that occurred in LA in that year. That got the attention of the feminist movement of the time. They had struck out against that woman for tarot reading. The movement took notice and things really went well from there. It was a spiritual revolution. The idea of ‘where do we oppress ourselves from the inside?’

This is what I came up in in my teens and early 20s. Where are we complicit and colluding with the values of patriarchy that we have been indoctrinated into?

AE: You had mentioned the witch trial of Z Budapest

RB: The “Year of the Woman,” let me point out.

AE: Was Z a lesbian?

RB: Yes, and she still is (laughs).

AE: So the movement takes up the cause of women’s spirituality. There was a fair amount of denigration of women’s spirituality within the movement I imagine, in the same way there was the denigration of the “Lavender Menace.”

RB: Many women did not embrace the idea of a feminist spirituality. You have generational trauma over patriarchal religion and rather than seeing it as something that could be healing, there was an outright rejection. There was a lot of Eastern influence and New Age thinking that entered goddess spirituality as well. The Dianic tradition was based in radical feminism, but the larger goddess movement was not necessarily. It really depended on who feminists ran into, in terms of what they could relate to.

I founded a community in Los Angeles; I was ordained in 1980 and that community is still going. It’s the longest running Dianic community. The work that we do is not only personal, it’s political. We do work to counter the dominant power in the best ways we can. We work to heal from the effects. To model the way we want to see the world, through our activism.

It’s because we came out of Second Wave feminist politics. Those who identify in the Dianic tradition still have some form of political activism in terms of their magic and their rituals.

The Dianic tradition — in the beginning most of us were lesbian — but it grew and is now not specifically lesbian. A lot of people assume it’s a lesbian religion, but it’s not. It’s for any female who identifies with those values of radical feminism.

AE: Oftentimes patriarchal loyalists and people who want to denigrate older women make the claim that crusty, old, privileged, white women bought into Dianic traditions or goddess traditions because they buy into gender essentialism. Can you speak to that?

RB: Well there’s a lot of goddess traditions, so there may be a seed of truth regarding some of those traditions. But let’s look specifically at Dianic tradition. Gender essentialism is a misunderstanding coming from the fact that Dianics focus on the sexed body as a metaphor for life. Gender is arbitrary designations of behaviors or characteristics ascribed to the body, whether you are female or male. The women that come to Circle are very diverse in their presentation. It was not just women in flowing robes that were participating, then or now. There were women who were not conforming to gender roles. Essentialism is put on goddess traditions, but Dianics don’t focus on a [gendered] duality. When you don’t focus on a duality, you don’t have the issue of genderism [the gender binary]. In the Dianic tradition, we are whole unto our selves. We model wholeness, so it’s not like females have this one set of characteristics and males have the other. It means we have it all. I can wield the sword and I can cook a meal. Whatever would be gendered behaviors or skill sets — it’s not like, because I have this body I’m more this or more that “naturally.”

That’s what’s happening now because of trans/gender ideology. At the same time people think we’re getting away from the binary, we’re actually reinforcing it. Essentialism means I’m a sexed female, therefore I’m more prone to these attributes and of course these characteristics are gendered. And Dianics just out and out reject that. Who made this up and whose cause does it serve? Where did we get this notion that we have a male side and a female side? What they’re saying with the duality of [masculine or feminine] behaviors or attributes is a crock, we are all whole.

Women can be and behave and aspire to whatever we want and the only thing stopping us is cultural conditioning. That’s the opposite of essentialism.

AE: So Dianism puts forth that there is no single way to be a female.

RB: The maiden/mother/crone metaphor is just a way to talk about our lives. The maiden is youth, mother includes warrior, amazon, creatrix, and crone is the woman who is elderly. Phases of life like the inhale of woman’s breath, you sustain that breath for a moment, then you exhale. It’s a way of talking about cycles. Creation, sustenance and death. So there’s many ways we use language to talk about it and the women-centered symbols is another way to talk about that.

AE: There has been an explosion of women returning to personal practice, a mainstreaming of witchcraft. To the point that there was a witch starter pack that was going to be sold at Sephora.

RB: It may be an entry point for women. You can’t see me rolling my eyes right now, but I also want to think, “what could be positive about this?” The backlash reveals the idea that power in the hands of women is inherently evil. In a sense to normalize it, to do divination or turning inward for guidance, the idea that we could assist one another in our healing — that’s not a new idea, that’s an old idea. Becoming commercialized may trivialize it, but it also means that this idea is no longer terrifying to women to consider their own power or their own authority.

AE: But this might be the first spark for a woman to turn inward for guidance. There is a wide commodification of witchcraft and ethnic and folk traditions going on right now, certainly Sephora is the worst example of trivializing and feminizing since it is part of the multi-billion dollar makeup industry. It is also happening on Etsy and Instagram from boutique sellers. But it’s so interesting that this came from a makeup store since this is one way that women participate in our own feminization and conformity to gendered stereotypes.

RB: It’s also interesting that there’s this thread in magic of “glamoring” and that has to do with influencing others to see you in a certain way. So I hate the stuff, but I’ve put on mascara or something knowing that if I do it with perfect application, I’ll be treated in a certain way.

AE: As a feminine-of-center lesbian, I don’t want to denigrate makeup-wearers, and I definitely wear makeup sometimes, but it’s so true that in liberal feminism the party line is that enacting gender stereotypes can be empowering.

RB: In liberal feminism, anything goes. There is no consistent analysis.

Glamoring, the definition is the quality of fascinating alluring or attracting. Glamoring, in magical terms, can be a charm, enchantment, or witchery. Glamoring is taken from the intentional creation of an illusion.

#surprised to run across this #after ellen has been such a joy

106 notes · View notes

weather-witch · 5 years

Link

Maybe we could find common ground if you knew what we stood for.

It has been a while since I was sufficiently frustrated to sit down and write a bit by bit response to a piece of writing, but here I am baffled at how utterly misunderstood our position as gender critical feminists is. However, it is not my frustration nor my bewilderment that has me writing this tonight after sitting in Auckland traffic for over an hour. Nope. It is a pathetic skerrick of hope I have that if people who have expressed so much hate for us can be so fundamentally wrong about what we stand for then perhaps if they learnt the truth we could find just a little bit of middle ground.

Gotta love a trier, right?

The piece is What is ‘Gender Critical’ anyway? On essentialism and transphobia by Danielle Moreau — hopefully I can help her find out.

Transphobes are having a moment in Aotearoa. Attempts to pass a bill allowing transgender people to change the sex on their birth certificates without having to go through the courts have been met by vigorous opposition from a small but well-organised group of Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminists (TERFs) or — as they would rather be called — ‘gender critical feminists’. These activists, who probably number in the dozens rather than thousands, have been joined on social media and petition websites by a large contingent of overseas allies, most notably from the UK. In the process, we have learned of the existence in that country of a trans-exclusionary subculture that has been radicalised by, of all places, the parenting forum Mumsnet.

First of all, thank you. Our campaign to halt the BDMRR Bill and sex self-identification was hard work and I appreciate that you could see how well organised it was. However, the persistent myth that we are two ‘TERFs’ in a trenchcoat is as ever totally inaccurate. Likewise, the conspiracy theory of an army of Mumsnet poms wielding cups of tea and scary opinions is laughable. We are in contact with gender critical feminists in the UK though…and Canada…the United States, Australia, France, South Korea, Portugal, Argentina, Nigeria, and more. There is an international community of gender critical feminists because we are all fighting a lot of the same battles. We support each other; commiserate, celebrate, and share resources. We are just like any other community.

It may be a good time, then, to examine what being ‘gender critical’ actually means.

At first blush, the phrase ‘gender critical feminist’ is essentially meaningless: all feminism is ‘gender critical’ by definition. The TERF label is at least partially descriptive, since exponents of this ideology are certainly trans-exclusionary, but it may be too generous to suggest that they are either radical or feminists. Feminism is a big tent, but it is hard to welcome into it a group so dedicated to returning us to the values of the Victorians.

Feminism is at its roots (that’s where the name Radical Feminism comes from by the way) gender critical. Past iterations of feminism were entirely gender critical, but there is little that can be said to be gender critical about third wave feminism. This is why gender critical feminists reject it. We prefer the radical analysis of our foremothers. Radical does not mean wild or extreme it simply refers to “relating to or affecting the fundamental nature of something”. It is about stripping everything back and analysing the nature of female oppression. For gender critical or radical feminists our “central tenet is that women as a biological class are globally oppressed by men as a biological class.”

What makes TERF ideology reactionary rather than radical is its dedication to binary gender essentialism. The concept of gender essentialism is practically timeless, and reaction to it is key to understanding why feminist theory exists in the first place. Gender essentialism is the idea that there is an innate, immutable ‘womanness’ or ‘manness’ which expresses itself in what we consider ‘femininity’ or ‘masculinity’. It posits, for example, that women as a group are naturally more caring and empathetic and men as a group are more aggressive and clever, and — crucially — that these gendered qualities exist inherently, without societal influence. Another key aspect of essentialism is that it is often, but not always, tied to bodies and ‘biology’. So, because a lot of women give birth, gender essentialism associates childcare with women because they are biologically ‘destined’ for it.

I’ll ignore the incorrect use of the word radical for the rest of this piece and move on to the extraordinary claim that we are dedicated to “gender essentialism.” Not only are gender critical feminists not gender essentialists, we are actually the complete opposite. In our CRITIQUE of gender we are more accurately described as gender ABOLITIONISTS. There is nothing immutable about gender. It is not innate. Rather, based on thousands of years of socialisation, survival, hierarchy, and oppression, gender is the set of stereotypes and roles that we as societies have imposed on the sexes. A more accurate moniker for gender critical feminists would be “sex essentialist”. That is because we believe that it is our biological sex and our biological sex alone that makes us women. It is not the gender stereotypes that we are socialised to associate with womanhood. It is not the “empathy” or outward expressions of femininity like how we dress or style our hair. Our POTENTIAL to become pregnant is a core part of our femaleness and it is central to a lot of the experiences women have in common. I say ‘potential’ because not all women want to or are able to get pregnant. However, it is society’s perception of us as potential ‘breeders’ that brings with it some of our most acute oppressions around bodily autonomy and biological functions.

I am going to take my refutation of the assertion that gender critical feminists are “gender essentialists” a step further. I contend that it is in fact proponents of gender identity ideology who are gender essentialist. After all, it is they who think gender is so innate that someone can be born in the wrong body. They conceptualise gender as a kind of soul that exists as separate from the biology of the person. Is it not terribly gender essentialist to suggest that a man who feels an innate sense of ‘womanness’ because he is (perhaps) empathetic, nurturing, gentle, sensitive, and presents femininely, must actually be a woman? Because no man could possibly possess those characteristics and present in that way? Rather than embrace the feminine man or the masculine women, gender identity ideology would have them switch place to ‘match’ their gender identity to the ‘appropriate’ sex.

Destined for it?

Feminism’s first wave, popularly associated with the suffragists of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, bought into gender essentialism in a big way. This wasn’t entirely their fault, for several reasons. They were heavily influenced by the dichotomous Victorian concept of ‘separate spheres’ for men and women — men in the world, women in the home — even if they tried to reject it in some limited ways. ‘HOUSEKEEPERS need the ballot to regulate the sanitary conditions under which they and their families must live… MOTHERS need the ballot to regulate the moral conditions under which their children must be brought up’, said the New York Woman Suffrage Association in 1915. The suffrage movement was more broadly linked to things like the temperance movement, and the temperance movement used essentialist ideas about women and their caring, empathetic natures in order to influence politics and get alcohol banned. (Alcohol was a huge issue for women mainly because they had so few other legal rights, and so drunk husbands could beat and rape them with no real recourse. We know now, unfortunately, that alcohol is not the thing doing the raping and beating.)

I have nothing to dispute here, but I will just point out that the history of the construction of public toilet facilities specifically for women is a fascinating part of the opening up of the public sphere to the female sex class.

Another reason for the first wave’s reliance on essentialism is that reliable contraception had yet to be invented. If you are not familiar with feminist theory, the cause and effect may seem quite tenuous here, but it is difficult for anyone to conceive of non-gendered, unfettered humanity if you are forced into a brood mare situation from young adulthood. As a result of these factors, among others, the first wave had painted itself into a theoretical corner with its essentialism. Buying into dichotomist ideas about gender used by patriarchy since time immemorial meant accepting hard limits. It meant accepting inferiority and never being able to achieve true equity.

I don’t agree that first wave feminists “relied” on gender essentialism. The realities of their sex (as you point out with reference to the lack of contraception) and the gender roles they enacted were simply all they knew. They weren’t using gender essentialism. It was the framework in which they existed and in fighting for a place in political life they were only beginning to peel the layers off their oppression.

With few exceptions, the second wave of feminist theory questioned and rejected gender essentialism. One of the important aspects of why the second wave was different from the first wave of feminist theory is that by this stage reliable contraception had being invented, accepted, and come into wide use. People were, for the first time, able to divorce their existence from sexual reproduction. Linda Cisler, in 1969: ‘different reproductive roles are the basic dichotomy in humankind, and have been used to rationalize all the other, ascribed differences between men and women and to justify all the oppression women have suffered.’ Feminists argued that social influence was the primary reason we assumed women were such-a-way and men were such-a-way; that men had written nearly all the history and psychology to that date; that patriarchy created hegemonic propaganda based on binary essentialist ideas. Second-wave writers were exhilarated by the newfound theoretical power to refute their inferiority, and you can feel it emanating from their engaged, emphatic, often uproarious writings.

In this paragraph, you see the beginnings of the gender critical movement. We as a movement identify far more with second wave feminism than with the convoluted nonsense that has followed. Cisler’s quote neatly encapsulates our true position on sex and gender. This is gender critical theory.

The second wave did, of course, get many things wrong. It tried to use its new powers of analysis to make ‘womanness’ many different things, theorising that women were a ‘class’, or ignoring voices that dealt with racism. Many of its ideas weren’t nuanced. Being associated with their bodies for their whole lives, and exploited within those bodies, gave some feminists from this era problematic ideas about sex and sexuality. There was also a subculture of hippy mysticism that associated the female reproductive organs with purity or power.

It is bizarre and, I cynically think, intentional that this idea of gender critical feminists as only white keeps getting rolled out. Believe it or not, when founder of race critical theory, Kimberlé Crenshaw, coined the term ‘intersectionality’, she used it to analyse the intersections of sex, race, and class, and this analysis is a core part of gender critical theory. This piece by Dr Holly Lawford-Smith explains really well what intersectionality really is and what it isn’t. We understand the ways race and class make us different while analysing how as a female class our lived experiences are unique from our male counterparts.

Call me a hippy, but I love celebrating the wonder of the female body. The world we live in is a jumble of phallic one-up-manship. The male is everywhere; our architecture, art, cultures, everything! Phalluses everywhere! I love that second wave feminists decided to do a bit of collective self love. As females we are pitted against our own body from day dot and I fail to see what is wrong with celebrating its power. To be honest, it is a bit of fun too. Having shared iconography that represents shared realities is a wonderful part of bonding as a community of any kind.

However, although feminists with uteruses or vaginas wanted to know more about them — because that knowledge had been systematically hidden or controlled by ‘men of science’ — they rejected being defined by their bodies. Binary gender essentialism was, in sum, not the primary theoretical view of second-wave feminists. In fact, second-wave theory laid much of the groundwork for our current, welcome conception of a society-wide removal of a restrictive gender binary. Karen Sacks wrote in 1970: ‘For women to merely fight men would be to miss the point. The point is to change the social order …. Perhaps for the first time in human history we are faced with the possibility of a pan-human, non-exploitative society.’ By 1986 Judith Butler had taken the ideas of Simone de Beauvoir’s The Second Sex to their logical conclusion: ‘it is no longer possible to attribute the values or social functions of women to biological necessity … it becomes unclear whether being a given sex has any necessary consequence for becoming a given gender.’

Women still don’t know enough about our bodies. Research and funding for male bodies and medicine far outstrips that for females. Simply compare the money and care that has gone into developing erectile dysfunction medication to the relative void of information on the debilitating condition endometriosis which affects approximately 10% of women. The true form of the clitoris and all its glory were not known until shamefully recently either. We have every right to be obsessed with learning about our bodies; there is so much yet to learn.

Judith Butler has a lot to answer for. Her post-modern, deconstructive anarchism is at the heart of the worst parts of gender identity ideology. Please tell me you aren’t going to quote Foucault. However, that particular quote is one of her more benign. She is right that as women we should not be valued primarily on our biological ability to bear life. Our lives need not be dictated by breeding, however, that does not erase our bodies. It does not erase the fact that society still treats us in certain ways because of their perception of our ability to become pregnant. We are still oppressed in many ways because we belong to the sex class of female.

TERFs ultimately tie rights to body parts. Their approach seems to be that, because women were originally oppressed to some extent because of their bodies, their rights should be forever tied to qualities within those bodies, when in fact the precise opposite is true. Their reactionary ideology, with its obsession with binary gender essentialism, is actively harmful to all genders. TERFs aren’t even calling back to the second wave — they’re calling back to the first wave. Their ideas are over one hundred years old, and they aren’t good ones.

This is a bizarre conclusion to draw. But I’m glad I got to the end without having to read a Michel Foucault quote so, thank you. I have a question for you, Danielle. A genuine one.

If not because of our bodies, our sex, why were and are women oppressed?

It is our bodies which have always differentiated us from men. It is the fact, as you say, that before contraception we spent our lives pregnant and in the home. It is our bodies and our potential to become mothers that sees us valued less in the workforce (as well as gendered sex stereotypes). It is because we are female that we are overwhelmingly the victims of sexual violence, but rarely the perpetrators. It is because we are female that in some parts of the world little girls have their genitals mutilated, are married off to men, and deprived of education. I am terribly and genuinely confused as to what you think sexism, female oppression, and male violence are, if not based around our respective realities as members of our sex classes. What is feminism for if not to liberate the female sex class?

This does not mean that any of this oppression is our destiny. However, we simply must know what we are fighting for and against if we are to effect change. Sex is WHY we are oppressed. Gender is HOW we are oppressed.

I really hope you read some of this at least. I’m not telling you how to think, I’m telling you how we think. You have seriously misunderstood our position on things that seem to form the basis for why you hate us. It is your choice if you wish to still paint a picture of us as the antithesis of decency, but I wanted to make sure you’re at least hating us for positions we actually hold.

My Twitter DMs are always open for respectful, confidential conversation. I welcome questions and hope that maybe some of you who are afraid to be seen engaging in taboo subjects with blacklisted people will feel comfortable to reach out privately.

We need to talk to avoid further misunderstandings.

#ani o'brien #gender critical #radical feminism #radfem #gendercritical

10 notes · View notes

mediaeval-muse · 5 years

Text

Book Review... Hafsah Faizal, “We Hunt the Flame”

Rating: 3/5 stars

Reviewer Comments: I don’t remember what initially made me interested in this book, just that I kept seeing it mentioned online and that I saw some pretty cool fanart, so I decided to give it a go. Overall, I found it to be a fun adventure story with a lot of interesting worldbuilding. There were complicated politics, a quest for magic, strong friendships, and other things I really enjoy seeing in a fantasy novel. Additionally, the writing was pretty good - better than a lot of debut YA novels I’ve seen that rely on telling over showing. The book did, however, use some tropes that I personally dislike, as well as some meandering storytelling once the two POVs converged. In sum, if you are looking for fantasy novels that aren’t based on a vague idea of “medieval Europe,” I would recommend giving this book a try, but be warned that it does make use of certain character tropes and a somewhat rushed plot.

***Full review under the cut. MILD SPOILERS in Dislikes #2 and #4.***

Summary: Zafira is the Hunter, disguising herself as a man when she braves the cursed forest of the Arz to feed her people. Nasir is the Prince of Death, assassinating those foolish enough to defy his autocratic father, the king. If Zafira was exposed as a girl, all of her achievements would be rejected; if Nasir displayed his compassion, his father would punish him in the most brutal of ways. Both are legends in the kingdom of Arawiya—but neither wants to be. War is brewing, and the Arz sweeps closer with each passing day, engulfing the land in shadow. When Zafira embarks on a quest to uncover a lost artifact that can restore magic to her suffering world and stop the Arz, Nasir is sent by the king on a similar mission: retrieve the artifact and kill the Hunter. But an ancient evil stirs as their journey unfolds—and the prize they seek may pose a threat greater than either can imagine.

Genre: Young adult fantasy

Things I Liked

Prose: Faizal put a lot of work into making her prose rich and descriptive without being overly poetic. It made for an enjoyable reading experience, especially for a reader such as myself, who has a low tolerance for books that tell rather than show. There were a few phrases that were repeated - “seeing red,” for example, or Nasir thinking he is a monster. But overall, they didn’t distract too much, since the rest of the prose was well-crafted.

Feminism: There’s a brilliant part in the first few chapters of the book where Zafira’s friend asks her if she could do more for women by not hiding her gender, and I thought this question posed an interesting dilemma. There are other moments, too, when feminist statements poke through without being heavy-handed. Part of Zafira’s motivation (though not the prime motivation) for her quest is to prove that a woman can be a hero.

Worldbuilding: I found the worldbuilding of this novel very engaging, mostly because Faisal doesn’t just carve up a territory into factions and oppress them with a tyrannical ruler. Instead, she gives the world a feeling of interconnectedness through shared history and trade, along with lore that characters all know (yet react differently to, depending on where a character is from).

Side Characters: I found the side characters immensely likable, and I wish they had been featured more or their connections with others had been more central. I’m a sucker for found families, so Kifah’s tenderness towards Zafira, Benyamin’s kindness, and Altair’s humor were all things I enjoyed.

Things I Didn’t Like

Character Archetypes: I’m personally a little bit tired of male characters like Nasir who are broody and violent. At first, he seemed to have no other interests or personality traits other than killing and being grumpy about it. His self-hatred is a bit much, and he growls a lot, which is strange to read. Likewise, Zafira is kind of a Katniss figure - a huntress who isn’t as pretty as the people around her, and though she doesn’t outright despise feminine things, there were enough moments where I was concerned that I wouldn’t like her in the long run. She views emotions as a hindrance, and tends to be just as broody as Nasir. I much prefer moments when she’s connecting with people.

Pacing/Structure: I really enjoyed the pacing of part 1 of this book, before the quest begins, but once everyone started venturing forth, things seemed to move a little too quickly, or happen a little too suddenly for my taste. The book description makes it seem like Arz is going to be a major factor, but there is a witch that allows them to cross without issue (in fact, they don’t even describe the crossing - they just arrive at their destination. This isn’t much of a spoiler, since it happens early in the book). As a result, Zafira’s defining characteristic - the person who can navigate the Arz - is suddenly not important anymore. Action happens seemingly at random, which can be ok sometimes, but I found that it prevented the plot from building suspense. I would have much preferred if the characters had learned things about the region or their history as the story unfolded, rather than knowing what was happening from the get-go. Emotional or important moments also weren’t given room to breathe, so they felt rushed and character motivations felt odd as a result. Similarly, there seems to be a lack of focus once the quest starts, as if the narrative doesn’t know who to follow or what characters to see the world from. It was a bit disorientating for me.

Silver Witch: Speaking of the witch, I didn’t find her character compelling. She’s mostly there to create suspense, but ended up making me more frustrated than anything. Her abilities also kind of render Zafira’s useless, and I would have preferred this story without the witch, which would have let the characters figure stuff out on their own. I only really liked her as an architect of bringing people from different caliphates together - maybe if done with the intent of unifying the regions, I could have gotten more behind her character, but the sense of unity wasn’t super strong, so I had a hard time liking the witch.

Romance: I do not, for the life of me, understand romances where someone falls for their best friend’s murderer (even if it turns out that it was a misunderstanding or not really their fault in the end). I just don’t get it. Nasir and Zafira seem to be attracted to each other instantly, and because both of them were emotionally stunted, their romance felt forced.

Recommendations: I would recommend this book if you’re interested in

non-European fantasy, Arabic/Middle Eastern fantasy

quests, magical forests, restoration of magic