#And I choose not to date them because it is not a feminist act. I don't say I never will but I might as well not sleep with him

[researchgate]

Well, it kind of depends. Nothing is in a vacuum, and for a woman to date a man is a political statement of sorts, after all, as it says she'd center a man in her life and love a man, when men, as a whole, are the oppressor class and are generally bad people, and even if there are some gems, it's not enough. It is a political action and an act of self-preservation for women to not date men 🤷‍♀️

if you think your dating preferences should be a form of political action then truly you can't say shit about TRAs

[raven-at-the-writing-desk]

Do you have any crack headcannons like you did with Ace with hitting on Jamil?

I have one of Grim knowing how to use a toilet like a person would but not how to open doors. So during book 5. Guys would see Grim using the toilet, in the dark, in the middle of the night if they have to. They see two bright circles in the bathroom until they turn on the light.

[Referencing this post!]

👆 This scene from Puss in Boots 2 except it’s Grim and Yuu—

I have a lot of silly personal headcanons (probably way too many to contain in a post)! Off the top of my head:

A frequent topic among the first years is romance. It's mostly because Ace instigates (usually to brag about how much experience + game he has and how everyone else is a LOSER). Deuce and Epel are flustered, Jack tries to be mature and call out Ace's childish behavior + views, Sebek loudly compares what Ace says to the things he has read in his romance novels + advice from Lilia, and Ortho--shockingly--is the most level-headed and logical of the group. (He'll take one look at Ace's vital signs and declare the guy is actually lying about having rizz.)

(PREFACING THIS ONE WITH THE CONTEXT THAT I WAS SUFFERING REALLY BADLY FROM MONTHLY CRAMPS AND CAME UP WITH THIS TO COMFORT MYSELF) Due to their heightened senses, fae and/or beastmen are able to sense very subtle changes, such as shifts in weather (ie a storm is rolling in) and changes in the body. For example, local feminist king L*ona can somehow sense when "that time" of month is coming and will show up on some poor woman's doorstep a few days before it starts with a plastic bag of [feminine hygiene products], snacks, pain relief medicine, and a heating pad in it. He gives NO explanation, just unceremoniously tosses it on the floor before he turns around and peaces tf out.

Mostro Lounge staff are granted paid lunch breaks, but if they choose to eat from the lounge then they still need to pay for 50% of it. They once tried to unionize, but Azul sent in the twins to shut it down real fast.

Jade and Trey love really bad puns and dad jokes.

The Magic Carpet is Scarabia's unofficial mascot. The mobs generally like it and act like it's the dorm's collective pet dog. Sometimes they drop scraps of food for it from banquets/parties (... D-Does it eat? If so, how...?).

Crewel and Vil heard about the time the Ramshackle Ghosts designed and made Yuu + Grim Halloween costumes. They decided to work with the ghosts to make a fashion line using repurposed old fabrics for a charity fashion show. Proceeds went to an environmental conversation organization.

Lilia hates milk substitutes. He finds them offensive and it breaks his heart to see others ask for the "fake stuff". Insists that those are not "true milk", "It's just nut or grain water!! NUT OR GRAIN WATER!!"

Lilia goes on dating apps just to see who he can bag, then he kicks down the door to the Diasomnia lounge to brag that he’s “still got it”.

Malleus learned about swear words from Leona. (He asked Lilia what a “flying fuck” was because Leona said it in front of him 😭)

Crowley has a 20-step beauty routine. Also sings (terribly) while he engages in self care.

Fellow goes on dates just to scam women of their valuables and/or to leech off their resources for a little while. His ideal targets are lonely wealthy widows and/or lonely wives whose spouses are often busy with work or traveling. Usually ends with him getting smacked by the woman, chased off by an angry spouse, or him pathetically groveling for mercy at their feet.

[maxdibert]

Hey, I’ve been reading your posts, and while I appreciate your analysis of the characters, I don’t fully agree with your interpretation of Lily and the Marauders. It feels like you're projecting your personal experiences with privileged figures onto them, which leads to fundamentally misunderstanding them at their core. These characters are all human and layered, just like Snape, and reducing them to a single aspect is oversimplifying them.

I also feel like your view of Lily is influenced by your dislike of James. Marrying someone wealthy doesn’t automatically make her a “social climber.” Especially not when she is actually consistently acting on her morals and values throughout the few memories we see of her. You draw a parallel between Lily and Petunia and assume they have the same “agenda,” but you overlook their vastly different personalities that directly contradict the idea that they had the same goals.

Regarding James; while he certainly had flaws, he was also a decent person with strong values, beyond his arrogant school years and bullying of Snape. James and Lily were in the same house, and it's not far-fetched to assume that she saw a different side to him, one with qualities she admired, which is likely what drew her to him, even if his arrogance initially repulsed her.

Sorry but no. A big NO.

First of all, I analyze things based on how social issues are reflected in group dynamics. And yes, I use personal examples, but just as I’ve met rich people who are complete idiots, I’ve also met wealthy people who are absolutely lovely. That’s not the case with James or Sirius. Following a certain political ideology, no matter how positive or good it may be, doesn’t automatically make you a good person. For example, what’s the point of being anti-racist if, in your day-to-day life, you go to a restaurant and treat the staff poorly? Or what’s the use of proclaiming yourself a feminist if you then display behaviors that perpetuate gender hegemony? Sure, your vote will help implement certain institutional policies that benefit minorities, but that won’t mean much in day-to-day life if you’re incapable of deconstructing your biases, recognizing your privileges, and engaging in social self-criticism about them.

And that’s essentially what happens with James: he talks a big game, but when it comes down to it (and this is undeniable because it happens canonically in the books), on the very first day of school, he took an instant dislike to a boy who was much poorer, much more vulnerable, and lacked even a fraction of the resources he had—and he decided to torment him for seven years. This is indefensible. Minimizing the violence exerted from a position of privilege toward someone in a much weaker position, by appealing to some kind of moral high ground is a dirty tactic. It reeks of internalized classism and an astonishing lack of understanding about social dynamics and power inequities.

The fact that Lily’s morals and values aligned with ending up with a bully isn’t incompatible with her character. That bully was a social justice warrior (when it suited him), and the very causes he claimed to advocate for were those that benefited Lily. He represented a faction of the magical elite that defended people like Lily, so it’s consistent for her to choose someone whose ideology worked in her favor. But the fact that she constantly downplayed the violence the Marauders inflicted on other students, using the excuse that they didn’t use “dark magic,” reveals cognitive dissonance in her moral judgments. Violence in schools is violence, no matter where it comes from. You might find the bigoted, violent ones worse, but that doesn’t mean the others—no matter how good their ideas might be—aren’t also abusers.

Let’s be clear: no one with any sense would see a group of guys deliberately targeting others to the point of stripping someone in public and ever consider dating one of them. If Lily did (and if we accept Rowling’s own claim that she liked James before he “matured”), two conclusions emerge: either she was a complete dick, or James had something beyond his terrible personality that interested her. And in the early stages of a war where people like her were going to be a primary target of one side, it’s clear that “something” was security. And that doesn’t make her a bad person—it just makes her human. It’s human for a working-class teenager who’s suddenly thrust into a world where many people believe she doesn’t belong to feel attracted to the rich, socially powerful guy who’s willing to defend her rights and validate her as a member of that society.

And the fact that she and her sister had very different personalities doesn’t mean anything. Both grew up in a lower-middle-class neighborhood and received the same values from their parents. Just as Sirius shares many traits with his cousin Bellatrix and his own mother, Walburga, Lily shares many traits with her sister (which makes sense given the social context they grew up in). Ignoring this is to ignore how class dynamics and social expectations work, especially in certain European contexts of the 60s and 70s, where societies were still heavily influenced by classism rooted in deeply ingrained monarchical and aristocratic systems.

As for James, I’m sorry, but he didn’t just have “flaws.” James was a bully and an abuser who used his social and economic security—and that of his best friend, Sirius—to attack other people. And instead of targeting pure-blood Slytherins from wealthy, influential families, he conveniently chose a half-blood with no money or connections. That’s not arrogance; that’s violence. Even after promising Lily that he had changed, he continued doing the same thing behind her back.

I think I’ve provided enough arguments and evidence to support my stance, which is more than I can say for you. Your analysis is utterly superficial, and you still see James as a jokester rather than the abusive bully he was. Stripping someone naked in front of the entire school isn’t arrogance—it’s sexual abuse. Full stop.

[radfemfessing]

It's annoying when radfems (separationists) act like you can't be a radfem woman if you date a man specifically, or any other stuff like wearing makeup, or doing X action that's not feminist.

Don't get me wrong I love the idea of female seperationism and fully endorse it. But when women who choose the more seperationist route start saying that you can't be a radfem if you date men, especially to straight radfems, it feels really frustrating. Radical feminism is an ideology of so many ways to help and uplift women, why would you say a woman can't be that just because she wants to be loved? I definitely think there's a place in radical feminism for straight women's hopes and dreams of a man that actually is lovely, and that sharing standards and support when a man doesn't turn out like that is super important for helping a fellow woman get away from a bad or substandard man.

Also like. Shame is the least effective motivator? Idk about other radfems but when I remember being in bad relationships with men when I was a teenager then judgemental parents only made me feel like I had to hide how they were even further. The best thing we can do for women who are in abusive or just not great relationships with men is support them unconditionally even if we don't agree with their choices, so they know they always have a safe place to run to and to talk to.

🎧

[zvtara-was-never-canon]

i still can't get over how weird the comment of Katara didn't tell you she choose aang but if she did kataang is bad cause heterormortivey.. and she was forced into it blahblah rant was.. ..

Like katara ain't real.. they say she isn't real but then go and say if she was real.. and make a whole so-called pro women rant and act like she is a real women being abused and so many people agree with them which is even worse. cause.... why are they treating her like she's a real person? it doesn't make any sense .. its mindblowing how takes like that get any support cause the moment you act like a fictional kid is real you need to touch grass..

They really cannot pick a lane. First they insist that the writing supports Zutara by having Katara supposedly "choose" Zuko constantly and thus "forcing" her to be with Aang is sexist for "ignoring her choice", so naturally people point out "No, show is three seasons of Katara falling for Aang. Zuko was never even an option."

Then suddenly the argument becomes "Katara is not a real person, she has no free will!" to make her choice of being Aang's girlfriend invalid - so naturally people go "That makes Zutara equally void as the supposed 'feminist choice' since Katara has no free will, the only difference is Kataang is actually canon. There's no moral high-ground here."

Then they go on to talk about Katara like she's a real person who told them "I love Zuko actually, I was COERCED into picking Aang", and thus people call them either delusional or idiots that thinking a cartoon ship war is the same as freeing women from oppression.

Katara's choices only matter when they're convenient. Same for the fact that she's not real - that's why they call Kataang "sexist" because of the Ember Island kiss, even though Zutara only exists as a ship because of fics in which Zuko rapes Katara.

As usual, Katara is not at all relevant to them, be it as a character or person (well, "idea of a person" to be more accurate). She's just a prop they use to go "Aang bad and ugly, Zuko good and hot" which is why their laughable attempts at pretending to stan her fall completely flat. I could be blind and deaf and I'd still be able to tell they don't give a shit about her, they just a pretty face to give to the self-insert they use to date Zuko.

[insufferableprotagonistpoll]

Round 2

Propaganda why Elena Gilbert is insufferable:

"I wouldn't have such a problem with her if she didn't get others involved. Liking two people at once isn't a problem. Stringing them along is a problem. Constantly hanging around people that she knows is actively trying to kill her/want her dead or their relatives is so stupid like don't do that maybe. Having people stop what they are doing and dropping everything(especially if it's important) because she is in danger/trouble. Making people have to make tough decisions, sometimes affecting other people, and then not even offering up an apology about it(looking at you season 3)"

"The first 3 seasons made her so bad!! I understand the trauma but stringing along 2 brothers was ridiculous. Like, make up your mind and stop toying with their emotions. And then everything was about her! Every time she was in trouble, everything had to be put on hold to find her and help her and sometimes she wasn't even grateful about it and would end up in stupid situations again and again and again. Lowkey, she's the reason why Bonnie has been through the wringer, especially in the 3rd season. But as the seasons progressed, she did start to warm up my cold little heart"

"have you seen the show? she has little to no common sense, no standards, makes the most boring choices for every scenario, and isn't a good person. the show acts like she's a golden child when she's really just a boring child. dating adult men. who stalk her. and her biggest personality trait is saying "Stefan!" and "Damon!" when she experiences any emotion. idk man Nina Dobrev did NOT get the role for her acting skills (or lack thereof) that's for sure"

"Her biggest problem seems to be choosing between Nice Guy™️ and Bad Boy™️?? Meanwhile her best friend Bonnie is cleaning up everyone's shit. Elena is what happens when adults write teenagers without ever having interacted with a teenager."

Propaganda why Feyre Archeron is insufferable:

"She is Miss Perfect Special Never Does Anything Wrong. Rhys with her is like Gordon Ramsay with children, EXCEPT SHE'S A GROWN ADULT. I didn't hate her tooooo much in books 1-3 (she was barely tolerable), but in the novella, she becomes this housewife First Lady type character who is fine doing paperwork after stating previously that she wants to be doing something more "important", and living in a McMansion. THEN THE FIFTH BOOK STARTS WITH HER HAVING AN "INTERVENTION" FOR HER SISTER, WHICH IS BASICALLY FEYRE TELLING NESTA THAT SHE'S GRIEVING INCORRECTLY. Bitch, who are YOU to tell someone that THEIR grief is making YOUR life uncomfortable?? "Wah wah the social implications" you're the literal queen, no one cares that your sister is embarrassing you.

Imo, Feyre is also the result of a lot of internalized misogyny on the part of the author, bc she has two men in love with her and gets along very well with every other male character that's not "evil", but many of the female characters are antagonistic or unhelpful towards Feyre, seemingly apropos of nothing. It's giving "I'm not like OTHER girls". She also very clearly doesn't want children but then miraculously changes her mind bc apparently female characters can't be fulfilled without children. 🙄

Oh and btw Feyre also manages to get the powers of EVERY fairy court ruler at the end of the first book. I DO NOT use the term "mary sue" lightly, as that label has been used against feminist characters a lot, but Feyre exemplifies the Mary Sue trope."

"SHES SO ANNOYING AND SO SO STUPID AND BY THE END SHE JUST BECOMES A COMPLETE DOORMAT AND LETS RHYS WALK ALL OVER HER tbh im more mad at the author for butchering her but she's still annoying as all hell"

"Thinks she’s the victim of everything. Destroys an entire Court. Forces an intervention on her sister who is grieving differently than Feyre is."

"She's the WORST. She's an asshole to her family but thinks she deserves to be worshipped by them because she hunts or whatever, feels entitled all the time, is ableist to her dad, is fantasy racist and turns from being racist to not being racist in a BLINK, is ridiculously overpowered and treated as oh-so-special by every single other character ... I hate her and I wish she would die. "

[itsallmadonnasfault]

Eighteen years ago, Madonna observed: “Once you pass 35, your age becomes part of the first sentence of anything written. It’s a form of limiting your options and almost putting you in your place. For women, naturally.” She was 47 when she said that and intent on challenging the cultural script that suggested women, especially female performers, had a use-by date.

“Why is that acceptable?” she asked the music writer Brian Hiatt nearly 10 years later, still battling critics who told her to dress her age, act her age — in short, pack it in and retreat from the spotlight because she was past her prime. “Women, generally, when they reach a certain age, have accepted that they’re not allowed to behave a certain way. But I don’t follow the rules.”

To the question “Is she still relevant?” her Celebration Tour, which concluded this month, is proof that she is. Madonna performed before the largest audience ever gathered to watch a female artist and mounted the single biggest free stand-alone concert in history: 1.6 million people turned Rio de Janeiro’s Copacabana Beach into a dance floor on May 4. According to Billboard, her six-month, 80-show tour grossed $225.4 million, making her the only woman in history to gross more than $100 million during six concert tours. (The only solo male in that category is Bruce Springsteen.)

But there’s so much more to her triumph than numbers. That a 65-year-old female pop star pulled off this tour and, despite our increasingly intolerant times, the performance was her most relentlessly and delightfully queer since 1990’s groundbreaking Blond Ambition Tour would be unimaginable, except that it was Madonna. The Celebration Tour proved that Madonna wasn’t afraid of drawing attention to her long career; she owned it proudly.

All of her past selves showed up, in role and in costume, to help celebrate the many ways she has evolved and the many ways she and her collaborators have explored and expressed gender throughout the years. It was a beautifully inclusive, encouraging spectacle. If history is a guide, the social and artistic ramifications of her performance will extend well beyond the numbers and long after her tour.

Madonna’s 1985 Virgin Tour, her debut, included only 40 shows in North America and grossed about $5 million. But its impact on young lives is immeasurable. The young women and girls in her audience were on the cusp of unleashing their sexual selves and embracing their independence, which is what made them so terrifying to a broader society intent on keeping them polite, passive and manageable.

Madonna’s message to her young audience was: Embrace your power, dream big and dare to be your own damned self. That message would resonate through a generation and across the globe, as aspiring Madonnas grew up to be politicians, lawyers, doctors, teachers, members of the armed forces, Third Wave feminists, Riot Grrrls and pop stars themselves.

Madonna was, in fact, the lead author of the female pop star playbook, and she continues to write the unexplored and perilous back end of it while artists like Olivia Rodrigo and Billie Eilish adapt the front end and more established stars like Beyoncé and Taylor Swift refine what’s possible in the middle. Madonna’s continuous career represents a universe of possibility for their own, despite the entertainment industry’s willingness to jettison midcareer women in favor of artists with younger faces and bodies.

But for women not named Madonna (or Beyoncé or Taylor Swift), growing older and maturing in public is much more fraught. Older men are considered wise, but older women are often ignored or discounted. Thanks to the intervention of the pharmaceutical industry, men are encouraged to have an active sex life into their 80s. The idea of older women having sex remains, for many, repellent.

Madonna has challenged our notions of what a woman should do and be on all those counts: She chooses to age as she sees fit, she says what she believes loudly and forcefully, and she is as proudly sexual as she was in 1985.

With her Celebration Tour, Madonna demonstrated night after night for six months that an older woman can exhibit power and strength — joyfully, generously and defiantly. Her glorious performance was perhaps even sweeter when we recall that hip and knee injuries disrupted her Madame X tour four years ago and a bacterial infection threatened not only the Celebration Tour but also Madonna’s life.

Forty years ago, Madonna showed audiences, particularly girls and women, that they could mute the killjoy chorus keeping them from self-realization. On the Celebration Tour, Madonna doubled down on this idea, encouraging fans to follow their hearts, minds and inner freaks by both being herself onstage and employing diverse and talented dancers to carry that message in their own convincing and resonant ways.

If this were the last tour of Madonna’s career — and we sincerely hope it is not — she would retire as the most influential female pop star of all time, a legitimate legend who wowed audiences, defied expectations and broke records. Having served more than 40 years in the public eye, she could take a holiday, take some time to celebrate. It would be, it would be so nice.

NY Times

[taylortruther]

What bothers me is that I don't know what is happening in their head. If you offer to pay and I let you and it's because you're being nice or you planned the date or you make more money or some combination of all of the above, then that's great. But what if I let you pay and now you're thinking "see she's not a real feminist she wants a traditional relationship too"?? Even if it's not in a sinister way and just a general misunderstanding of feminism it still makes me extremely uncomfortable.

I don't date tho so the only reason I worry about it is because my autism and anxiety like to pick random social rules and force me to worry about them 😌

that's why i think the idea of having a firm rule that men should pay, no matter the reason, is basically pointless, unless what you're after is a traditionally gendered relationship.

the way i see it is, hetero men KNOW they are expected to pay. even though most modern hetero women and men might say they don't mind if a woman pays, in practice, men are paying like 80-90% of the time on first dates according to some of these studies i'm seeing amongst college students (which, again, is a limited audience). it's an expectation. so if a man knows he is supposed to pay, it's not a great indicator of whether he's a feminist, or an incel, or neither, or whatever. you don't know why he's doing it, or what he thinks about it, unless you ask him and can trust his answer.

if anything, what it seems to be is an act of good faith: a man pays for your first date because he wants to show he is nice, plays by the rules, whatever. and at that point, on later dates, it's more common for women to pay 50-50 or the whole bill.

but on the flip side, it's such a deeply embedded norm in hetero dating, that it's meaninglessness as an indicator of compatibility is kind of comforting? i still don't encourage women to expect men to pay, just because if you're going to assign meaning to a specific action, choose a more meaningful one lol.

also, this depends on the dude's attitude if he "lets" the woman pay. i've heard stories of guys who just refuse to pay 100% and use it as a test, which i also think is... a major red flag, because playing games about that kind of gendered expectations feels manipulative.

[colorisbyshe]

I think part of the frustration with people being so uninformed by historical movements, especially 2nd wave feminism, is that they don’t get that political lesbianism as a movement was deeply lesbophobic too, and still realistically hurts lesbians today with the subconscious attitude that simply choosing not to date men or interact with men is what makes a lesbian. Which then is how you also get weirdos thinking lesbians should make space to give dating men a shot. And thinking lesbians, who are not attracted to men, are exactly the same as the rage bait terf folks harping about cutting men off from dating women.

Obviously this is. A facet of the larger problem with this ideology, but it’s frustrating how few people acknowledge how damaging it was for more than lesbian separatist reasons. Straight women (a significant amount of political lesbians) largely trying to take over lesbian spaces in the name of feminism was also deeply traumatic for the community too.

Absolutely, it was also a grossly biphobic movement AND.... misogynistic. Second wave feminism, separatist feminism, political lesbianism found a way to really attack all women on an ideological level, not even getting into how the entire era was also... deeply racist.

Political lesbianism was not for lesbians (especially when its leaders tried to define lesbian as just women who didn't date men, by choice or otherwise) or any other women attracted to women. It wasn't for anyone other than the most privileged of women and often led to just attacking more vulnerable, more marginalized women.

While the ideology is not identical, movements like 4B are not for the longterm benefit of most women. Or most marginalized people. (When you separate women as the only cause worth caring about, you leave out... every marginalized group. When you stop caring abut the rights of every marginalized group, you inevitably harm... the women of those groups.)

I'm not even going to claim to be an expert on any of these movements: I have done readings on those I am speaking about but haven't done extremely deep dies into them but part of why I haven't is because... the flaws ae on the surface level. You don't really have to get into the nitty gritty or nuance of these movements to realize that they are fundamentally flawed.

To have a movement that effectively says "Women's oppression is literally stored in the balls (ie the sex with men, which are presumed to be people with balls)" is... inherently stupid. You aren't more or less oppressed when you have sex with or date men. Men aren't getting their power from sex or romance with women. You aren't really harming or criticizing rape culture.

Likewise with political lesbianism, being perpetually single or fucking women doesn't free you from misogyny's impact or even necessarily empower you against it. "Act the right way towards men or you deserve what you get from them" isn't feminism. It is victim blaming, though.

These movements just sort of become... prescriptivist in the same way the systems they're supposedly rebelling against. "Act this way or you're the enemy." "Do this or you deserve what you get."

"Our gender MUST act this way" only ever hurts your gender.

Which is the flaw of most radical feminist movements. They exist to take power from men and then lord that same power over more vulnerable and/or more "deviant" women. Or any other more vulnerable group (like white radfems using white supremacy in tandem with their radical feminism).

There's nothing wrong with being a lesbian. There's nothing wrong with being bisexual or straight and choosing to not date or have sex with men. For whatever reason.

Turning that into political movement where you then try to dictate the right/wrong ways to have sex, date as some sort of moral code... that's where you are just recreating the harms you're supposedly against.

Like... on the most obvious level, these movements are extremely stupid and there's no other way to frame that. They’re not just morally bad, they make no fucking sense. Even if you don't understand the bioessentialism, the way certain identities are stripped of meaning or politicized even when they're innate, or whatever...

just on its face... how the fuck are women liberated by new terms dictating what sex and love they're allowed to have, what reproductive choices they're allowed to make? implying by having sex with someone gives them power is inherently and obviously harmful

we need to be so fucking real

[mithliya]

I really don’t understand this recent drama. If the goal is to enact radical change, why would you decide to alienate 90% of women? I’m tired of this idea that the only way to be an activist is to be an extremist. This is not encouraging women to band together, and quite frankly, it’s extremely short sighted to act like 90% of women are class traitors for pursuing romantic relationships while you’re still engaging in them yourself. What you’re doing might create a feminist utopia in some niche commune somewhere, but if it’s society itself that we want to enact change on, this is only going to push women away. Please get offline.

i don’t think separatism is extremism, bc to me extremism is something violent and oppressive. but to begin with radical feminism is more “extreme” than average feminism. you can be an activist without being a radical feminist so i don’t think anyone is saying you have to be an “extremist” (pretty insulting to call separatists extremists btw) to be an activist.

btw 90% of women aren’t engaging in relationships and you’re highly overestimating the statistics here. studies show more & more women are choosing to be single. these women aren’t “extremists”, they’re making a rational decision based on their experiences with men.

it’s pretty insane to think that “radfems” on here treat dating men as a bigger necessity than the everyday woman does.

that said, i’m very sorry for you that you’re attracted to your oppressor. i’m so sorry that i’m not attracted to men as well, since that seems to make you angry. i know it must be quite unfair for you. i also found it unfair that i had to grow up facing lesbophobia & othering & alienation for being a lesbian, and that i couldn’t date the way OSA women could in my country because of my sexuality. it’s unfair, i know, but don’t worry, there’s an upside for you! YOU can go offline and date and sleep with men as much as you want. when lesbians go offline, we still have to face lesbophobia in the world, the same way we have to face lesbophobia in this space.

you’ll be ok. the tiny percentage of women promoting separatism won’t kill you.

[hjellacott]

They say genitalia isn't important when choosing to date someone. As a bisexual woman, I consider biological sex to be essential for me to decide whether to date or not, even if it's not about having sex. Here's a list of things I consider when dating a man or a woman, that to me are entirely biologically sex-based:

IF MALE

Is he sensitive? Because if he isn't, not interested.

Is he physically strong? I need to know I could defend myself if I needed to.

How's his voice? I get PTSD triggered from very loud, strong male voices, so it's got to be something that sounds gentle.

How's his temper? No way I'd date a man with a strong temperament.

Is he protective or over protective? Because I'll take a bit from a man, but there's a limit.

Is he going to treat me like property?

Is he a sensible man, that'll make the right decisions? Because many men aren't, they get too cocky.

Am I comfortable talking about sensitive topics with him? Does he have enough empathy and compassion, or will he laugh?

Do I feel safe with him?

Can I hold intellectual debates with him without causing an argument?

Is there a chance he'll get physical in an argument, even a slim one?

Is he a feminist?

Does he love his mother/sisters/other females in his family?

Is he kind to gay men?

Is he an attention seeker?

Is he too happy with being sexually admired by other women, that he'll be constantly seeking that even if we're together?

Is he the jealous kind? Will he try to end my friendships with other men?

Will he demand my consent for sexual things, and respect that it is my body, my choice?

Would he be a good father? (because if you're having sex, accidents might happen).

Is he good with animals?

Does he like poetry?

How does he feel about guns?

What would he do if he had a homosexual child?

Is he good with children, while also respecting their space?

Would anyone feel safe around him?

How does he respond to witnessing violence and possible harassment?

What kind of friend is he?

Will he be respectful if I reject kinky sex? Will he respect my sexual decisions in general?

Is he honest?

Is he mature and responsible?

Does he have a job he's committed to?

Is he the kind of guy his friends/relatives trust for babysitting or pet sitting?

Is he a good carer?

Is he academic? Does he enjoy reading novels?

Will he sit playing videogames all the time?

Will he put sports above spending time with me, my family or my friends?

Will he be kind towards me and my period, or act like it's something disgusting he ought to stay away from?

Will he be patronising and mansplaining?

IF FEMALE

Is she emotionally grounded? Is she emotionally dependent?

Is she too fucked up by past relationships?

Can she be reasonable in a fight, or will she bring up every past relationship?

Will she move too fast, or respect my pace?

Is she woke?

Does she have personal aspirations, passions, and goals she's committed to?

Does she have good self esteem?

Does she take care of her own health, even if it means not being too thin?

Does she rely on make up at all times? Because I want to see a woman's real face and fall in love with it.

Will she judge my style, or the kind of woman I am, or will she support me and appreciate our differences?

Is she excessively sappy?

Does she think violence is OK if it comes from a woman? Because no thanks.

Is she strong and independent, like a cat?

Can we live like two ships moving side by side, without trying to overpower the other?

Being bisexual and actually getting to gain romantic and sexual experience with both men and women is quite enriching, because it actually gives one great knowledge about what makes someone who they are, and how deeply someone's biological sex can influence them, whether they realise or not. It goes well beyond breasts and penises, biological sex is in every part of you, your sensitivities, your physicality, your can-do attitude, your confidence, so on. Depending on your biological sex you face brutally different challenges in life, which shape you into different kinds of people. That is what I'm trying to show.

I want you to see that whether one dates a man or a woman, you have different concerns and things to think about. Mine are these, yours might be something else. Notice I haven't put things like religion or race, because they don't depend on sex, I am always going to worry about someone's attitude towards those no matter who they are. What is important is to see how experiences with men and women differ, even if you don't know what's under their trousers.

Notice, for example, how I think of far more things and have far more concerns when it comes to dating men than I do with women. Notice how my concerns with men are more about my safety and well-being, and stereotypes that are associated to men for a reason (and that I've noticed continuously when it has come to relationships with men), while the things I worry about with women, based on past experience, are more related to their emotional and mental stability, and how well can we be two women with our own lives who don't try to become each other.

Biological sex matters, even if you're not having sex. Because it's the essence of you. It's your DNA. It's you, just like bulls and cows are brutally different, so are men and women, genitalia aside.

[rotationalsymmetry]

Yeah I really want to lean in on this a bit, because one of the weird things about tumblr, culturally, is there isn't a lot of feminism on here that isn't radfem stuff. Violence against women (including white women) is a feminist issue and is a big deal, and it is worth being concerned about.

But, as queeranarchism says, true crime dramas misidentify where most of the danger is, and they sure as fuck misidentify where safety is. True crime shows present the narrative that cops = safety. Cops have huge rates of domestic violence. Cops regularly commit murder and get away with it. If you happen to want to protest anything or go on strike, or want or need to do things that happen to be illegal (like, idk, crossing a border), or happen to be part of a group that's seen as innately "criminal" regardless of how law-abiding you personally are, cops are dangerous.

Nor do cops do much for the vast majority of actual illegal acts. Are the cops going to help you if your boss is committing wage theft? Are the fucking cops going to help you if your landlord was legally obligated to fix your leaky roof and clean up the black mold six months ago and still hasn't? Are the cops going to do anything to protect you from medical malpractice or embezzlement or the scam texts that I get every day? Of course not. That's not what they do.

And this thing keeps happening where of course everyone hates rape and child abuse, and yet quite a lot of people have this really odd idea that most of that stuff is committed by scary dark-skinned others and gun violence is caused by mentally ill people and basically, that the real bad stuff ultimately comes from identifiably "bad people". But rapists are the dad at the potluck who tells the corny jokes and ...this idea that there's "safe" people like your friends and community members and "dangerous" people like that homeless guy who talks to himself or outsiders or, idk, people who are too into Dungeons and Dragons or whatever. It's just not true. The dangerous people are people you already know.

This stuff doesn't look how people think it does. Rape is mostly committed, not with physical force, but with intoxicants. It's usually committed by someone the victim knows, a friend or acquaintance or date or spouse. CSA is usually committed by someone the child knows well, often after spending a long time building a close relationship (that's what grooming actually means, more or less, not mentioning the existence of sex or queer people.) These things are bad and horrifying and they fuck people's lives up -- and there's things that can be done about them! Just talking about what rape really is and isn't is huge! Bystander intervention! Hotlines! Giving people who are being abused a place to go! Having good social support/mutual aid so that people don't have to choose between staying in known abusive situations or going without things they need! In particular making sure the most vulnerable people have resources and support! But cops aren't it.

Cops are ...you know how sometimes a place will have a pest problem and rather than going "hey, we've fucked up the ecosystem, maybe we should try some ecological restoration or listen to what the people who lived here before us think we should do" or something, they just go and bring in a different invasive species, and then you have two problems, the initial problem species and the one that was supposed to handle it? That's what cops are. They're pouring water on a grease fire.

Violence against women, and other forms of violence, are a huge problem. Cops make that problem worse, not better. (And fuck, in particular I really don't see how anyone can go "patriarchy is the root of all oppression, what can we do to mitigate it, I know we can give a bunch of guys guns and legal permission to use violence, that will definitely not make things worse.)

true crime is becoming to girls what ww2 is to boys

[sleepymarmot]

TÁR (2022)

[Watched on February 18th. Beware, this post is 4k words long.]

Glad I was watching this at home and alone. I don’t think I’ve ever done so much googling during a movie. The experience felt like reading a heavy novel that needed footnotes but lacked them. A note taken during the first half hour: “Was the script written by musicians? I feel like I’m watching a documentary”. Wikipedia says that the writer/director has a background in music, and a conductor served as a consultant; the work really shows — I don’t have the expertise to tell if it’s realistic or not, but at least the illusion of realism is strong.

The interview and the master class felt painfully immersive. I was genuinely intimidated by Lydia’s presence as the teacher from hell. That poor kid was just waiting for this to be over and then leave and never return… I was surprised to see him (them?) snap and actually walk out, good for them! Also was surprised that Lydia didn’t make the obvious comeback about the student’s antifeminist usage of the word “bitch”. And to address the actual content of the debate: I think Lydia’s argument about reducing people to their demographic was backwards. Marginalized people already get judged in this way; giving the straight white men who formed the canon the same treatment instead of accepting them as the default is an intentional reversal. Sure, the student fails to present their opinion in a rhetorically strong way, because they didn’t come here for a political dispute and because they’re currently being bullied by an extremely powerful person, but said powerful person then presents an even weaker point as a counterargument!

“Finally, a film with the appropriate amount of Discourse,” I thought during this scene! And it’s not the only one where Lydia’s opinions on these matters are contrasted with others’ — notably, with the younger and more progressive Francesca and Olga. Relatedly, the fact that Lydia doesn’t recognize the date of the International Women’s Day was hilarious to me both as a feminist and as a Russian (it’s a public holiday over here, even if completely depoliticized in quite a misogynistic way). Overall the film felt like a very honest and good-faith look at a person who rejects solidarity/class consciousness (as opposed to a certain Best Picture winner, I have to add). I wonder, to what extent did Lydia think she was behaving in a normal and okay way, until the consequences caught up with her? The film maintains a balance between artful ambiguity of the protagonist’s intentions and commitment to following her around and showing her subjective world. I thought it was even more successful in creating another balance: neither whitewashing Lydia’s behavior nor making her overly hate-inducing in a satirical way, but letting the viewers see her up close, in different contexts, both as how she chooses to present herself for the public and how she acts in private, and leaving the viewer the space to empathize with her or judge her as they see fit.

Even if the pacing was noticeably slow for my awful attention span, and the combination of that pacing with the difficult content led to many breaks in the viewing, in a lot of ways the film was more aligned with my taste than much of what I’ve seen recently. I mean, even the density of the script isn’t exactly a downside; I enjoy looking things up while reading, so doing the same while watching a movie isn’t inherently bad, just unusual. I liked the realistic, psychological style of writing, directing, and acting. Making almost all music diegetic worked well. The sets and costumes were beautiful and expressed the setting’s aesthetic and personality of the characters inhabiting them just as well as they should. I wasn’t as in love with the cinematography as some seem to be, but there’s a lot to praise there too.

I was slightly unprepared for the secondhand embarrassment. The Elgar concerto announcement was excruciating to watch, I had to take a break. Same with the big recording at the end, to a lesser extent. I’d seen a gif of Lydia attacking someone on stage and I was worried she’d have a breakdown while performing; thankfully, what actually happened was less embarrassing.

Somewhere near the middle of the movie I wrote down “So far this film’s only flaw is how much effort it takes to watch it”. Further into the second half, I did find something to be dissatisfied with. I was confused by the hauntings; at first I assumed Lydia was just hallucinating, but as they became more and more real I couldn’t understand whether Lydia was getting worse or the film genuinely took a supernatural turn. Krista’s ghost sitting in the background when Lydia wakes up at night was a “when you see it you’ll shit bricks” moment. I understand that making the viewer question reality is the intention of these scenes, but that didn’t seem to have a proper resolution. Same with Olga disappearing into the mysterious building; I almost wondered if she was a ghost too. Was she conspiring with Francesca the entire time in order to take Lydia down? Was that supposed to be ambiguous or am I just stupid?

Finally, the ending just lost me (with the exception of the “massage parlor” scene, which was great). Throughout the film I kept wanting for Lydia’s downfall to begin already, but when it did, it felt rushed. I didn’t like or understand the thinking behind the montage of Lydia in Asia. There’s some commentary to be made about how intensely European most of the film is, and the jarring orientalism of the final ten minutes. A film so meticulous about referencing various names and trivia of Western high culture doesn’t bother to even name the entire Asian country where its ending takes place, and I’ve seen viewers argue whether it’s Thailand or the Philippines because of contradictory evidence.

I can see many people praise the closing scene, but I don’t understand the intent behind it. Is Lydia miserable, confined by the material and setting that are unworthy of her talent, with the predetermined tempo dictated to her through the headphones, seething with resentment for the vulgar music as someone conservative and elitist enough to bash even Cage and Þorvaldsdóttir? Or is she relearning to enjoy the essence of her job without the trappings of wealth and high status — “good music (…) bare as a potting shed”, as she said at the beginning of the film — and treating a video game soundtrack and a kid orchestra as seriously as she did Mahler and the most prestigious orchestra in the world? Blanchett says “those readings coexist”, but in my opinion these meanings are mutually exclusive, and neither was communicated clearly.

More about the master class

There was something about the way camera moved and refocused in the master class scene that I took note of, but I didn’t realize that was all filmed in one shot until someone pointed it out. Rewatched, and was amazed. Very clever to present that as raw unedited material that will later be cut and edited in bad faith. (Not my observation, but I can’t remember where I saw it.)

Context for Max’s words, from the Bach page on Wikipedia: “Later the same year, their first child, Catharina Dorothea, was born, and Maria Barbara's elder, unmarried sister joined them. (…) Three sons were also born in Weimar (…). Johann Sebastian and Maria Barbara had three more children, who however did not live to their first birthday, including twins born in 1713. (…) On 7 July 1720, while Bach was away in Carlsbad with Prince Leopold, Bach's wife suddenly died. The following year, he met Anna Magdalena Wilcke, a young, highly gifted soprano 16 years his junior, who performed at the court in Köthen; they married on 3 December 1721. Together they had 13 children, six of whom survived into adulthood”.

A celebrated genius in a relationship with a much younger female musician — sounds familiar? Is it any surprise that Lydia is so determined to separate the art from the artist in this case? Max didn’t even say that they’d never played Bach (they’re a violinist…), that they refuse to study Bach or that Bach should not be admired, simply that they personally prefer to focus on other composers — but a rejection even on that small of a scale was enough to set Lydia off. See which of them is easily offended and insecure in this scene? Not the nervous Twitter generation kid! Whether she is aware of it or not, what Lydia hears is “Lydia Tár’s misogynistic life makes it kind of impossible for me to take her music seriously,” and she wants to prevent this phrase from ever being heard outside of her repressed guilty conscience.

It’s also remarkable how much more personally Lydia takes an accusation of misogyny directed at Bach than a misogynistic slur directed at herself. She relates to a man who can be seen as exploitative towards women more than she identifies as a woman. Being accused of misogyny hits closer to home than being the target of it.

Also note how Max’s initial point was “I don’t like this composer because of what he did”, and Lydia’s Intellectual Comeback was “Aha! But you like another composer despite what he said! I am very smart”. Because making a single racist statement is toootally the same as having your wife give birth every year 13 times in a row…

By the way, the number of people online who are like “wait, what does fathering 20 children have to do with structural oppression of women?” is staggering. Hey, quick question, where do you think children come from??

Following up on the previous point: it’s interesting that the writer built the argument around Bach and a very specific feminist criticism against him that apparently sounds absurd to a significant portion of the audience, instead of picking a widely controversial composer like Wagner.

For context, I’m saying all this as someone who enjoyed playing Bach as a teen on an amateur level, enjoys listening to Bach occasionally now, and has not heard of this detail of his biography until today. As you might guess, I find Max’s position very relatable — because even though I’ve never had or encountered this conversation about Bach, I sure did about Tolstoy! Except this specific Bach debate manages to be more absurd than the usual squabbles on the topic of problematic classics. It’s like a literature professor saying “Why did you choose this contemporary female poet as the subject of your essay/thesis? I think her work sucks. Why didn’t you pick Tolstoy instead? Oh you think he was a huge misogynist, and prefer to focus on the work of many other writers who aren’t? Well you’re a woke SJW snowflake!!!”

I think what many people miss about this scene, and other scenes in fiction that portray verbalized ideological disagreements, is that in many cases, the arguments are not presented in pure platonic form, but are voiced by characters who have their own personal reasons to think and talk like they do. Max’s argument is reductive not because their position is inherently shallow, but because of the situation in which they are forced to make it. Lydia’s argument is not what the viewer is supposed to agree with, or what the writer thinks, or even what the character thinks; she is confident and eloquent not because she is right, but because of who she is and what the power dynamic in the room is.

So much of what Lydia says during the scene is deeply hypocritical. “They will also have been handled rating sheets, the purpose of which is to rate you. Now, what kind of criteria would you hope that they would use to do this?” — yeah, what kind of criteria do we see Lydia use to select her performers? “You gotta sublimate yourself, your ego and, yes, your identity” — we know the enormity of her ego, and how carefully constructed her identity is. The scene is brilliant, but it also loses most of its meaning without the context of the entire film. I’ve seen a few posts with isolated screenshots of Lydia’s punchy quotes from this scene, and it feels like witnessing the birth of a new cinephile red flag.

There’s also a very different, Doylist aspect to this debate. Lydia starts praising Bach as a positive example after bashing not a musical strawman, not a fragment written for this movie to represent “bad music” — but a real work of another real composer, Anna Þorvaldsdóttir, a 2013 piece that was presumably used with the composer’s blessing. The composer chosen for the film’s score, Hildur Guðnadóttir, is also a young woman from Iceland, and the styles of these two composers are closer to each other than to the classics Lydia promotes; this alone should be evidence enough that the director isn’t trying to disparage Þorvaldsdóttir’s work. An interview with Guðnadóttir provides a comfortingly decisive Word of God: “It has to be absolutely clear that none of us—myself, Todd, Cate—agree with Lydia’s opinion!” In her interpretation, the scene “represents Lydia trying to fight the side of her that she wants to be more connected to”.

Lydia’s own composition work is much more modern than her conservative rhetoric would make you expect. The same interview explains that the dissonance was intentional: “One of the main points that Todd and I discussed is that there’s a real disconnect between the music she is writing and what she conducts. We see in the beginning that she had previously explored music from other cultures. We felt [earlier in her life, before the film takes place] she was much more curious and adventurous than the roles she ends up taking, and then she starts manipulating and fooling herself, and other people. She creates this fake persona to become this magnificent conductor, and she’s very strong and powerful, but we felt like that was not who she really was, in her heart of hearts. One of the main problems for her is this disconnect, and that’s where she starts being more aggressive and disconnected from basic humanity.” The final line of the interview, where Guðnadóttir rejects the hierarchy of music that puts video game soundtracks on the bottom, is also relevant to the ending’s interpretation.

Short notes, mostly about specific scenes

The first time I heard of this movie’s existence, I saw a picture of Cate Blanchett and thought “women must go wild for her in this role”. It was only much later that I learned that the character actually was a lesbian. Is Blanchett starting to get typecast now? I’m all for it…

Took me like a week to find a moment when I had enough free hours in a row to dedicate to this and also felt relatively confident to bet on staying sharp and awake enough during them to appreciate it. (For context, after viewing I couldn’t stop thinking about the film for approximately 24 hours straight, not counting sleep.) I’m glad I did, watching this when sleepy and unable to fully pay attention would be a nightmare. It might have been an easier experience if it were split into multiple episodes, but the structure and everything else are entirely cinematic and not at all TV-like.

I’m glad other viewers are addressing the fan and her handbag, I thought I was missing something because this one night stand was never brought up again. Also relieved to see other people confirm that I understood Lydia’s line about Sebastian living on the same floor as another man correctly; that line also seemed to hang in the air.

Appreciate the ability to pause and read Lydia’s Wikipedia article. Nitpick: the film names are not italicized and none of the links have been visited :p

From the script: “Tár’s eyes, satisfied with her mimicry, suddenly fill with concern. She turns and looks back into the suite, as if sensing someone or something. But there’s nothing there.” I completely misunderstood this scene then, I thought it was about the bouquet having been quietly delivered (presumably from Krista) and Lydia being startled by its sudden appearance. But turns out it’s the first of the eerie unreality scenes.

Another confirmation from the script: “There is an underlying tension between [Lydia and Francesca]. The tension of people who have at times slept together, but no longer do.”

Having watched Phantom Thread only three weeks ago, I took note of the discourse about the famous artist and his wife Alma. Was Mahler the reference all along? I’d only seen Hitchcock mentioned…

I totally missed that Lydia stole Sharon’s medication. Took me a while to find the line that confirmed it.

“I’m Petra’s father”… How dare she be this hot while threatening a small child lmao

On a more serious note, as someone pointed out, “If you tell any grown-up what I just said, they won’t believe you” is likely something Lydia also said to Krista (and possibly others). Ouch.

At one point I realized that Blanchett was playing the piano by herself, and went to google if she learned it for the film. In the very next scene, I went to google the same thing about her the first violin’s actress, but for the opposite reason. I know little about the piano so Blanchett’s work seemed impressively natural to me, but wasn’t the violinist gripping the bow a bit too tensely for a pro?

I know they had to make the contrast between the two cellists during the audition obvious, but how does the first one even have a job at such a prestigious orchestra? That was terrible lmao

How ironic that after everything Lydia did to deserve and set up her own downfall, it happened in no small part due to a total fabrication that misrepresented her to the world.

Lydia’s intense expression and disheveled hair in the scene where he attacks the replacement conductor reminded me of Beethoven’s famous portrait. I wonder if that was the intent, especially considering her mention of “old Ludwig” in the master class scene.

How many mirror reflection shots are in this movie? Grateful for the opportunity to see Blanchett’s acting from two angles at once.

I’ve seen one or two people compare the film to Tell-Tale Heart. This film really does have gothic horror elements! The word “haunted” even appears on screen during the opening shot.

The neighbor subplot is such an artistic combination of everything Lydia fears and wants to avoid. She’s glamorous, she’s tidy, she’s germophobic, she’s hyper-intellectual, she’s afraid of being left behind, she’s afraid of death, she’s drawn to young and vibrant people. And the life that is the opposite of what she wants has been next door all along, becoming more and more visible to her, like an omen of the impending destruction of her lifestyle.

There’s a similar clash between Lydia’s intellectual, refined façade and the crude exploitation mirroring the side she refuses to acknowledge in herself in the “massage parlor” scene, and this one is not a continuous haunting but a singular shock strong enough to get through her wall of denial. I have to give credit to the discussion post on Reddit (there are several subthreads, this one is probably the cleanest) for breaking it down: there’s so much symbolism packed into a single shot there I didn’t pick up on all of it by myself from one viewing. To sum up: Lydia is shot with her back to the camera from the same angle as she was at work, standing with a hand raised like a conductor over a group of women seated like an orchestra, and the woman who looks up at Lydia is sitting in Olga’s place and bearing the same number as the symphony that Lydia was conducting throughout the film. It’s obvious in retrospect if you look at the shots side by side, but I found the scene striking even before noticing the woman’s position or number.

The list of music in the closing titles includes Partita for 8 Voices, one of the few pieces of contemporary music that I actually happen to have listened to, but I don’t remember it in the film. Seems like it was only used for promotion?

About backstory and identity

- Todd Field revealed in an interview that Lydia never even met Bernstein. That’s wild. How did she successfully fake being his student throughout her entire career?! It also changes her character in a huge way: either she is aware the entire time that her career is based on a lie, or she’s far more disconnected from reality than it seemed.

- In retrospect, it’s also strange that a celebrity accused of sexual misconduct would be invited to lead a youth orchestra. This characterizes her Asian employers as either ignorant or negligent — and I don’t know which option is worse, that it was one of the many ways in which the film decides to present the country as inferior, or that the writer wasn’t thinking about the motivations behind this plot point at all.

- There’s a blink-and-you-miss-it detail on the Wikipedia page we see on screen that is very relevant to the conception of Lydia’s stage name. We know she renamed herself from Linda Tarr to Lydia Tár; I’ve seen many people point out that the last name isn’t real and she added the accent mark to make herself seem fancier and European. But the Wikipedia page shows the name and background of her father: “Zoltán Tarr, an Hungarian immigrant to the US”. It’s a detail that the perfectionist Lydia leaves in on purpose. So it seems that the accent mark is a tribute to her late father and their family’s European roots. Lydia constructs a new European identity, just like she creates a new benchmark for what a person of her demographics can achieve. At the same time, that identity bears the mark of her European heritage, which she reclaims by basically re-immigrating into Europe; she claims it as her birthright, which seems relevant to her conservative, assimilationist worldview.

It also seems important that her original last name, Tarr, is on Wikipedia, but the original first name, Linda, isn’t. The inconsistency breaks immersion a bit, like the Bernstein lie, but also adds something to Lydia’s characterization. She doesn’t mind the name of her late Hungarian father being known to the public; in fact, it’s important to her image. Zoltán Tarr was European, presumably forced to flee his country — a dramatic, romantic backstory; Linda was an ordinary American girl, which is something she’d rather forget.

- Lydia is committed to proving that she belongs in the boys’ club and that being a woman shouldn’t stop one from becoming an abusive male genius. It’s easy to imagine a version of this story where young Linda has changed name not to Lydia but to Leo and rejected the identity of a woman altogether.

- I can see the criticism about the “predatory lesbian” stereotype. That could have been addressed on screen, actually, since the film already deals with identity politics. (Though that wouldn’t fix the issue of basing the biography of the main character on a real person and then making her an abuser — that seems irreparably insulting no matter what!)

- So thrilled to live in a time where the epic tales of a hubristic, charismatic genius’s downfall and mental unraveling can be about very well-dressed and attractive women. Have you ever wished for something like Lawrence of Arabia to be about a lesbian musician? I guess many actual lesbian musicians haven’t, considering the criticism that I feel no right to dismiss; but I have no personal stakes here, and I guess I solve this film’s dilemma in favor of the art — my own viewing pleasure over someone else’s representation.

Links

The script, via Variety

Hildur Guðnadóttir on Soundtracking Tàr and Sexism in Classical Music

How Composer Hildur Guðnadóttir’s TÁR Soundtrack Unlocks the Film’s Eerie Mysteries

That Last Scene in ‘Tár’ Doesn’t Mean What You Think It Means — an article by Somtow Sucharitkul, the conductor of the Thai youth orchestra seen in the film

The Lesbian Allure And Colonial Unconscious Of Todd Field’s Tár — an essay in a feminist journal

What “Tár” Knows About the Artist as Abuser — a “cultural comment” in The New Yorker

Un-Tár-nished — a review by conductor and composer Leonard Slatkin

How to Disappear Completely: A Lesbian Musician Watches Tár — a review

[aizenat]

Idek wtf I’m seeing on my dash rn but imma say this as a lesbian: as well intended as you may be, you’re not going to get anywhere trying to convince straight women not to date or have sex with men. And feminism isn’t even about that.

The reason liberal feminism is so popular is because it doesn’t require women to change their way of life or beliefs overly. Which isn’t a good thing, as there are behaviors and such women would benefit from criticizing and abstaining from. There’s a huge difference between telling women to not get expensive plastic surgeries or spend hours doing makeup versus telling them to give up on love and romance and having a family one day.

Decentering men for straight women is going to look different than it will on a lesbian or even bi woman who chooses not to date men. And it’s not going to look like cutting men out from their lives entirely. And no feminist movement is going to get anywhere helpful for women if that is something you’re looking to encourage.

The refusal to see that and figure out how to reach those women and teach them how to de center men without ruling out the possibility of love and romance will kill any chance of women considering more effective feminist ideologies that will actually improve women’s lives. Het women wanting love are not your enemies.

Also that said, het women, learn how to articulate what I just did without the crocodile tears acting like people are breaking into your room and personally burning and killing any man you want to fuck/date. The hyperbole is tedious. Stop using arguments based entirely in pathos, and add some logos to it.

[rf-times]

Feminists need to talk about love more, as bell hooks does. Because Anti-feminists ARE talking about love, women(straight/bi) need to be told they can have love without the oppression and controlling power dynamic. Sometimes it's not what feminists are saying. It's what they AREN'T saying.

Real love, based on mutual trust, respect, care and affection is beautiful, important and meaningful. It uplifts and inspires and connects us. Love, as sold and conditioned to us under patriarchy is a completely different story. Men do not and are not expected to love women the way women are expected to love men and many of the aspects that women are expected to show and feel love in are far more akin to co dependence strategies for survival. Society and anti-feminists lie to women about this at every stage, they tell us that to be degraded is to be loved, that our vision should be what men think of us, that kind men will protect us from cruel men and so we need to make ourselves amenable to kind men, that enduring suffering from men makes you a loveable and worthy person, that to have boundaries makes you unloveable. These are all myths that benefit men and I do not believe that men are simply too hard headed and closed off emotionally to understand that they're missing out on the real thing, the way men continue to act every day proves that if given the chance they will always choose exploitation over love.

For heterosexual love based on safety, trust and respect to exist, men have to stop exploiting us, i.e. women have to be in the position where they do not have to be with men and where men do not have the opportunity to exploit women. Women need to understand that patriarchal love is a lie and that loving men won't change them or make them love us. I see places like FDS which will describe dating rather like psychological torture but then go on to mock women who don't want to partake as being defeatist and never offer explanations as to why it would be worth it or how both patriarchy and enough high value men for every high value women can both exist.

[feral-radfem]

If you see lesbians, or any radfem bc its not juat lesbian suggesting this, telling you " males are the biggest dangers to women in the world and inviting one into your home and into your intimate space puts you an increase Danger that you can avoid to maximize your safety" and you hear "don't have sex or if he abuses you it's your fault" you're just being defensive because we are suggesting you do something you don't want to do. It's not a cute look.

Much like all other forms of separatism, this is completely voluntary. I don't know why y'all always act like someone's literally forcing you to do this when really what it seems you're worried about is it not being counted against you as a "bad feminist point". Trying to find 10 different "ism"s it can be but really it's that you don't want your political reputation to be changed for shit you don't want to do. This is just cringy, No matter how much respect I have for you lol.

It's not like any of us are putting a gun to any of y'all's head and telling you you cannot date men we're just telling you that completely possible to be happy and not be in a relationship with a man, you may even be happier. Which is a pretty basic feminist thought process. That women are whole without a romantic partner.

If you can't even handle the, honestly basic radfem suggestion that you avoid putting the biggest threat to your life in your home and see it as everyone telling you to suppress your sexuality that is stupid. You can still read your heterosexual romance books, have your little fantasy romance movies that don't reflect reality, jack off to Jensin Ackles if you want to, and scream from the rooftops how hot you think all men are we're just asking for you to ask yourself if the risk of bringing them home is worth the probability of their violence. For most of you, why would it be because from what y'all say the sex is usually mediocre or bad and they make poor life partners who don't contribute to the home or kids. But even that being said you can still sleep with them.

Because once again, even though we have to say this every fucking time, no one is forcing you to live by any of the radical feminist Praxis we preach. You can simply fucking leave at any point. You can choose to just ignore those parts. But instead you're going to sit here and whine about heterophobia like it's a legitimate threat to your well-being and happiness. Like anyone actually has the power to make you give up on men and be celibate on tumblr.com. Spoiler alert: no one does and no one cares about you personally that much to try. You're just mad that people suggested something to you that you don't like and don't want to seem like a "bad feminist" or judged over it. Your ego is bruised, not your precious heterosexual sexuality.

This is just stupid and I was going to ignore it but once again separatism has been brought up and we're now encroaching into borderline homophobic ranges. What we're saying minimize your risk because your partner is a threat to you, now some of you are telling us that that is the complete same thing as being attacked by homophobic strangers for having a partner. These things are fundamentally different.

The motivation is different and the amount of risk you're exposed to is different. I could be completely in the closet in public and still have a same-sex partner and it doesn't increase my risk of violence. My partner isn't the risk. Also it's completely inaccurate to pretend that we can escape homophobia by not dating people, even though that's not what anyone was telling you about misogyny, it's gross. No one is saying not dating men will completely get rid of male violence in your life we are all talking about minimizing risk and how inviting them in your home prevents you from having a safe place to run to. I can stay in my home to avoid most homophobes outside of it. I couldn't do that if I invited them to live with me. Despite that tho, I have been single for years and still have experienced homophobia that threaten my job and safety because I don't need another person to be recognized as gay. Because the threat comes from outside forces perceiving me as a homosexual the threat doesn't go away or become legitimately mitigated by not having a partner. You are just being homophobic when you're making this comparison because it's not a comparison that is genuinely equal and explanatory, it seems like you're lashing out and trying to hurt lesbians for daring to make the suggestion to you in the first place. It's a false equivalency.

However, if there was one specific group of women putting lesbians in the ground at an alarming rate like men are doing to het women, I would suggest that lesbians stay away from that demographic of women too. Male violence however isn't unbeknownst to us, it's only when y'all feel defensive and personally criticize the act like heterophobia is real and that we're criticizing you as a het woman rather than men for their male violence, simply because we suggest you try your best to mitigate the harm they can do to you. We suggest y'all separate yourself from men for your own safety because we care about you, while also staying away from men ourselves. Because we understand that men lie about who they are and they're good intentions until they feel like they can trap you and then they abuse you, whether as your friend or your romantic partner. That this is a pattern that we have researched and studied and as feminists should be able to recognize without you acting like we are saying that y'all deserve to be abused. Because that's not what we are saying.

We are just giving you the tools and the encouragement for you to feel like you can go against the patriarchical teachings that you have to have a man to live a fulfilling life. Which I feel I must remind you is one of the most basic feminist actions you can do. Just simply encouraging other women to go against patriarchal teachings and help provide them the tools and support to do so. Like that is one of our main goals as radical feminist, because it builds female solidarity and feminist consciousness. So, if that's insulting to you then you're a big fucking baby and I doubt emotionally prepared for actual political activism. This was embarrassing for y'all. Or at least it should have been.