#Foster kid feminism

[ex-foster]

Girls from foster care may be overrepresented among sex trafficking victims due to vulnerabilities such as lack of stable support systems, history of abuse, and a desire for belonging. Grooming involves manipulative tactics to establish trust and control, making individuals more susceptible to exploitation.

Similarly, girls from foster care may be overrepresented in homeless statistics due to factors like aging out of the system without adequate support, experiencing abuse within foster care, and lacking family resources.

Referring to sex trafficking victims as "sex workers" is inappropriate, especially when underage, because it inaccurately implies a choice and ignores the coercion, force, or manipulation involved. Many victims, especially those with histories in the child welfare system, enter the sex industry involuntarily.

The term "sex work" can be deceptive as it implies a voluntary choice, while victims of sex trafficking often face circumstances beyond their control. Recognizing the coercion and exploitation involved is crucial to addressing the issue appropriately.

[amorhedera6]

i have so many thoughts about paulkins kids. there are many options, and lucky for us, we know that paulkins exist in every universe.

in one, when paul and emma aren’t yet dating but are “intimate” emma misses her period. she goes to a doctor and gets confirmation. she panics because she and paul aren’t serious yet, but she realizes how happy the idea of having a family with him makes her. they have a daughter, addison jane perkins-matthews, that everyone calls a.j. she has emma’s hair and paul’s blue eyes, and she loves to swim.

in another universe, they don’t have a kid until they’ve been married for a few years. it took them a while to get there, with emma wanting to take things slowly and paul waiting for her no matter what, but he takes her name and they become the perkins’. when they have their son, they name him matthew after paul’s family. he’s got paul’s lighter brown hair and his blue eyes, but he still manages to look more like emma. he was made for the kitchen, and loves loves loves cooking and baking.

there’s another universe where emma and paul have twins girls, elizabeth and olivia. the two could not be more polar opposites, with lizzie being less feminine, loving soccer and sports, and livvy being so extremely femining, wanting to be a fashion designer, but they are always there for each other. the two love each other and always manage to support each other’s passions.

in another universe, they have a family of five, brianna, christopher, and freddie. bri is an artist, always painting and drawing. christopher loves to dance, and to paul’s horror joins theatre in high school. paul learns to love performances when it’s his son, seeing the joy and determination in his face. freddie loves to read, will devour a book so quickly it’s actually a little frightening. paul and emma watch their kids fight across the dining table and smile fondly.

sometimes, they don’t have kids at all. emma’s commitment issues making her hesitate, or her issues with her own parents (which i am headcannoning). maybe paul, who only ever says “kids, someday, maybe” decides he only ever felt pressured into wanting kids. sometimes only one doesn’t want kids, sometimes both, but either way they always respect it.

sometimes they take too long. paul pines for years, emma doesn’t want to label it, and by the time they’re ready, they’re told emma can’t have kids.

there’s a universe where they keep a foster home, their house a revolving door for kids who need a place to stay. they look out for each and every one of them, giving them a place to feel safe and good people to look up to.

there’s a universe where they adopt a pair of siblings who lost their parents too young, the older maddison always having to look out for her little brother michael. maddie never had time to have a hobby, or a passion, but in their safe space she can admit to herself that she wants to be a filmmaker. mike adores his older sister, and loves to play the guitar.

in one universe, they adopt a toddler who was mistreated by his guardians. harry took a while to warm up to them because of this, but they helped him adjust and recuperate and grow from it all. he grew up to be a botanist, loving learning about biology from his figurative grandpa hidgens.

basically, i just want and need happy ending paulkins who have a happy domestic little life and shit.

[thestobingirlie]

interesting thoughts about steve re: the triangle and being the boy that helps nancy relax. i agree completely.

for me, as someone who was very much into stoncy and now leans more stancy (they are so cute holy shit), i have always been fascinated with the similarities and differences between steve and jonathan.

it is so clear to me, that jonathan could never truly take care of her in the way she needs, not on his own. not as a husband (in the future). nancy is very much the caretaker in that relationship, and natalia said so herself. i do love jonathan, and he is a strong caretaker for will and joyce obviously, but when it comes to nancy—he is unfortunately a burden to her in a way that steve will never ever be *or* even let himself be. jonathan has so much emotional baggage. its heartbreaking of course but its baggage that he makes no effort to tame or heal (besides smoking i guess), and i would argue he is absolutely selfish for fostering a committed relationship with nancy and expecting her to deal with that on top of her own issues. (i do get though that teenagers are selfish naturally.) but he knows he isn’t ready to support a girlfriend, he knows that. he also has to know how much heartbreak the inevitable end of his relationship will cost her, especially since she began her relationship with him in what was arguably the most depressed point in her life in the second season. jonathan, god bless him, is self-pitying but not proactive (see: following around your girlfriend with your tail between your legs like a wet sad dog wordlessly begging its owner for food) (but hes my wet sad dog). he is her perpetually passive accomplice and while that may be appealing to nancy when she’s in tunnel vision mode, even she is shown to be resentful of his inability to step up for her. he is malewife in the absolute worse way (i promise i love you jonathan).

then let’s think about nancy’s other dumbass malewife. steve is absolutely her caretaker, and let’s be real that is what she needs, whether or not she knows it (she does deep down). i dont mean that in a “nancy can’t take care of herself” way but in a “he wants her to have fun” way! he’s got to have a ton of shit haunting his dreams at night but like ken in barbie (lmao), does not let her see his pain. he is so selfless, always making sure he can be a light presence for her, a calm easy presence. jonathan doesn’t do that. jonathan doesn’t know how to take control of a “nancy wheeler is so deep into this truth journey she might get herself killed” situation—i see the (bad) “feminist” take often that steve holds her back and jonathan supports her but that is such watered down feminism. nancy is a badass but that doesn’t mean she doesn’t put herself into danger (she does.) and jonathan isn’t a feminist hero for supporting her dangerous endeavors (though ofc most of her endeavors save everyone’s ass).

any way: essay complete. i just really am falling deeper and deeper in love with stancy because i realize that nancy, as my favorite character, needs taking care of! like noooo one takes good care of her! let her bejeweled (taylor swift ref lmfao)!

i think what it comes down to for me, is that jonathan’s priority will always be will, and nancy deserves someone who will prioritise her.

jonathan’s gone through a lot of abuse, he’s been majorly parentified. he doesn’t put his own happiness first, and i think as a result, he doesn’t put nancy’s first. he thinks they’ll both be miserable and hate each other and their kids in the future, but he’s still with her. because that’s what you’re “supposed to do”. and i really, really don’t see him working through that anytime soon. especially not if he’s still in a relationship with nancy.

but steve. he makes her laugh! even in terrible times. we see this calming and happy effect that he has on her in s4. he tries. even if it wasn’t enough when nancy was deep in her grief. he was trying.

like you said, nancy deserves to be swept off her feet and romanced. for someone to want to take care of her. for someone to want a future together, instead of resent one.

i think it’s insane to say it’s anti-feminist to ever question a woman lmao. steve wants nancy to be safe, that means he doesn’t always like her plans. her plans often put herself and others in danger because she gets all in her head. i think she needs someone to stand up, and lay out what might be wrong with the plan. to go toe to toe with her.

(and the irony of people criticising steve for not immediately liking nancy’s plan in s4 when that plan did not work lmao. two people died. and neither of them was vecna.)

obviously all three of them are imperfect. they’re teenagers! they’ll fuck up and do harsh things. but what matters is that they care about each other. steve cares about nancy, so he laid out his feelings, and stepped back. jonathan cares about nancy, and he kept secrets, didn’t explain to her what he was feeling, and allowed this… resentment almost, to fester. he’s an avoider! it doesn’t mean he’s a terrible person, but it does mean he shouldn’t be in a relationship.

[hellyesbro]

also the tone of my posts suggest that I am very sex neg and kink neg but i promise u thats not true at all I think everyone (not including ppl who disenjoy sex) should be fucking like, as often and in as inventive ways as possible. Sex is fucking awesome and I think any healthy society would view sex as less of a boxed in concept and more of just various actions to foster pleasure and/or interpersonal intimacy until sex isnt really something we consider dirty or filthy and is understood to be one of the fundamental ways humans relate to eachother, alongside like, sleeping and eating. Like duh marxist feminism 101 family abolition means rejecting the heteropatriarchal norm that intimacy is something that ought only be shared within a nuclear family. "You only fuck your monogamous spouse, you only sleep next to them, you only share dinner with your spouse and kids regularly. You see your friends for fleeting moments outside of this and have no real connection. This is whats normal" LIKE THATS INSANE THATS INSANE THATS INSANE. WE THRIVE WHEN WE LIVE IN COMMUNITIES, WE WERE MEANT TO EAT SLEEP EAT SOCIALIZE AND BY EXTENSION, HAVE SEX IN COMMUNITIES. I have friends I will cuddle to sleep frequently that I will never sleep with, just like ive enjoyed sex with people that I will never cuddle to sleep. Hell I even occasionally go cruising at leather bars for christsake (the public gay groupsex thing not the boat thing) and I think its healthy for me to indulge in from time to time!!! I obviously think sex and kink are cool things!! But just like being mentally unwell can result in overeating and oversleeping it can also result in overfucking!! it can also manifest as overeating insomnia hyposexuality but i digress. BUT ANYWAYS IM PRO SUCKING AND FUCKING IM PRO LOTS OF KINKS BUT I AM GOING TO CALL OUT MALADAPTIVE BEHAVIOR WHEN I SEE IT

[officialromaniantranslatiuni]

happened to stumble upon a sociopath who thinks she invented ecology and neo-feminism and i need to vent a bit

coming from someone (yeah same old story) who had struggled with infertility for years and who is very set on adopting and has been since I was a teenager: someone being a horrible parent and birthing an army of children just to use them for financial benefits (children for whom others fought to keep them afloat and to be taken away by the system) doesn't have to automatically deny someone else's reproductive rights

"why pay money and struggle so much to have a biological baby when there are so many children in the system?"

BECAUSE

JUST BECAUSE

"it's selfish to go through 4 years (or more) of treatments with 0 painful results when you could have used that money to adopt a child"

that's not your fking problem!

marilu started this journey when she was 21-22 and the process of adopting a child is a nightmare here (tho I've heard that it got a bit better I the past years? Not 100% sure) and maybe her financial status would have helped, but the work/travelling thing and marital status... not much (again maybe things have changed but I do know someone who died of breast cancer before the adoption was finalised and her husband was no longer allowed to get the child)

an example: 2 girls (the eldest between 9-12 and the youngest 7-8) from my school were finally taken by a foster family from their mom because they were forced to beg and steal, they were malnourished, abused and the eldest had just been sold to a 28 year old man as a "wife" and all the efforts from the school regarding their protection and well-being were in vain (the clothes were destroyed by their mom because she needed them to look raggedy for begging, the house gifted by the mayor with furniture from the parents of classmates and everything else paid by the townhall was destroyed and turned into a brothel, etc)

anyway long story short - the woman had over 10 kids in total and she did this to ALL of them until they were old enough to say that they want to be taken away (only one baby was taken with the other siblings and I've met her before meeting the youngest siblings and mother and she's doing amazing - now she's about 16)

not once did anyone dare to disrespect or deny her reproductive rights and TRUST ME she is a vile woman and this goes far behind any trauma or upbringing

she was suggested means to stop making babies she despises and uses anyway but she denied and no one dared to force her to have her tubes tied or anything else

ALSO she has close family who are middle class and had kids in the same class as her kids (some even keep in contact with the 16 year old girl) and they didn't do anything for her or her children (technically, they have the money and everything to take in the girls but they refused because they were not their concern)

this fine apparently

but a 21 year old girl struggling with fertility issues for 4 years and deciding at 25 to give up for her own physical and mental wellbeing is a monstrosity

middle aged sabrina (the embodiment of uwu feminist uwu on threads who hates kids and doesn't want to adopt anyway) can judge and laugh at a young woman and call her one of the reasons why orphans become "delinquents" (thanks for assuming that orphans become delinquents by default)

fk this shit

you can judge marilu for being out of touch with reality or selfish or bratty or whatever

but her body and women's bodies in general are none of your business even if you are a woman yourself

[secretariatess]

"Feminism failed me because now I have to work a nine to five job and I'd rather be a stay at home wife."

Or maybe we've fostered toxic work cultures that have created a "grass is greener on the other side" situation, or maybe we push our children so fast and hard into a career path without slowing it down to ensure our kids know of all their options instead of diving headfirst into a path they might not care about and thus leading to resentment of their work, or maybe we're getting lazier and lazier generations who feel like they shouldn't have to put in a standard amount of work and being a stay at home wife sounds like a dodge of responsibility, an easier route . . . .

. . . and on top of that, maybe we've romanticized the 1950s and the "traditional household" that we've decided to ignore that the culture was forced in order to get women back into domestic labor after running America while the men were at war so that men could get their jobs back, and have forgotten the commonality of domestic abuse and how ads would brazenly joke about it while victims felt like they had to keep quiet in order to maintain the image of a happy family as well as the alarming rate at which women were taking "mommy's little helpers" to help them with their lifestyles, and we've disconnected the fact that the 50s was followed by the wildness of the 60s and 70s as well as feminist movement wave which maybe indicates that the 50s was not the happy little decade in which men and women were in their "correct gender roles" and trying to replicate that era could possibly be a big mistake . . . .

Maybe the issue we have with feminism gaining women the right to work wasn't that it got us the right to work, but rather that it played into the idea that men and their traits are the standard of being human, and in order for a woman to be successful she has to display those traits instead of taking traits of women and standing on those as women's strengths and arguing for how work can be better when women and men use their feminine and masculine traits together because we're both human, and masculine traits are not better than feminine ones, and vice versa.

Maybe the problem faced by those who actually want to work stay at home lives are not hindered by feminism, but rather a failing economy caused by a government for a multitude of reasons, and not because the government created feminism to get women working to tax them too.

Maybe the problem here isn't people going against gender roles, but rather a multitude of many other factors, and it's a lot simpler to fight and blame the other gender.

I have many criticisms of feminism, particularly modern feminism. But feminism in general won women many victories over the decades, and there are a lot of things we women can do now that our female ancestors would have died to have. History might not be as sexist as we remember it, but sometimes I think we forget how unkind it was to women. Wishing feminism didn't come about or make the advances it did might be a little ignorant of the problems it saw women face and sought to correct.

Maybe it's not our "biology" to follow traditional gender roles, and we must return to that.

Maybe there's something we keep hopping over that recognizes men and women as individual humans first, with different skills, strengths, ambitions, and goals.

[ridiculous-disaster]

Why did we need another season, I know it’s disappointing but please. We have like twenty heroes all at the same time. This should have been the end. Hawkmoth is dead, mayura is fine everyone is happy. All arks are basically finished. The yes Lilla would have been slightly disappointing but it would be better then dragging this further then it needed to. But no because greed I guess.

I am honestly worried that Chloe is coming back. Right now I can pretend that she was sent of to a boarding school like Zoe was and found people who care for her. What Andre did is so disgusting, he knew is was abusive and he did it anyway because “you can be terrible together”. Don’t get me wrong Chloe is a bad person and deserves punishment, but not this. Punishment is taking away her wealth, grounding her, or anything else a loving and/or sane parent does. This is not a good solution and even if Chloe becomes a better person she should not go back to Andre, this girl would do better in foster care. Saying that a child would do better in foster care is the worst statement to someone’s parenting. But Chloe is a child and foster care could allow her to see the type of family she needs.

I don’t want the terrible messages to continue on, enough damage has already been done to kids. From making stalking a sane thing to do. I am tired of the double standards, Marinette is excused by her trauma but Chloe isn’t? I am tired of this shows treatment of Adrien. He was a main character, not anymore, he wasn’t even relevant enough to be in the final fight. This isn’t “feminism” or “girl power” it’s just bad writing. And I am tired of people saying it isn’t. Feminism is about empowering women, not putting men down.

I’m tagging this as a spoiler as I don’t completely know the rules and it’s better safe then sorry.

[wizardyuri]

Re: not getting afabs using transfem as a label.

Do you think you need to understand why someone might identify like that in order to consider it a legitimate choice? Or could this be that labels, especially ones that are as new as transfem (first recorded use in the 80s) might mean different things to different people. In the same way that terfs struggle to define a woman in a way that is inclusive of all cis women and doesn’t include trans women, could it be narrow minded to think like that?

Well Yeah I'd kinda like to know what the point of it is, I don't identify as transfem because its like. an identity. Im transfem because I was assigned male at birth and transitioned to being a woman, its not like. an actual identity of mine. To me its like describing myself as lower class or a foster care kid. those are just like facts of myself. from my understanding transfem is transition with feminizing intentions and trans masc is tranitioning with masculinization intentions, purely descriptivist labels

I want to know why someone would identify with it if they weren't assigned male at birth simply because it feels very odd to identify that way. I might just be jumping at shadows but idk man I'm a trans woman, saying you identify as a transfem when your not assigned male at birth kinda of just feels like I'm being exoticized. I am a weird type of woman to you and not like. just a woman. I think it gets thrown around joined a lot so people forget but I am just a woman who happens to be trans, its just an adjective.

Which is why I'd like to kinda just know what the point of it is? idk feels super rude to just say its narrow-minded to ask why or what the point of something is

[moondove330]

lol i just rewatched Everyone Knows it's Bendy! from foster's home. it's the most disliked episode or something? an imaginary friend named bendy is left at foster's because he's a troublemaker and destroys things for no reason. who's to blame, the kid or bendy? well. Bendy. he gets the main cast in trouble the whooole ep and then gets a teeny tiny bit of comeuppance at the end. it sucks.

but what's funny is i don't even remember hating this one in particular. i think i hated the previous one more. it's paired with that ep when wilt just wants to watch a basketball game but cant because people keep nagging him to do stuff and our boy, OUR BELOVED BOY, he's so nice he can't say no and it gets him into Shenanigans.

oh no what if it was gonna be a full episode, bendy torturing our boy wilt, but then it was too mean and they split it up instead. i dunno maybe ptttthhh [the credits sequence has a bit where bendy writes wilt's name on the wall and oh no now wilt's gotta deal with that noooo] the problem with the bendy ep is theres no real story to it or any comeuppance. we dont know Why bendy acts like that. there's no satisfying buildup or payoff it just turns out oh he IS just a little shit and then bloo has to destroy the house for him to get caught and then the eps over Whooooo. also its immediately after an episode where a character we do like and care about is treated bad

the good news is this ep was so hated bendy never comes back as a character again. i think. it's been forever and internet feedback wasn't As instantaneous in 2004.

that thing when people torture their ocs i gueeeesss lol

i've read that lauren faust Really regrets writing that bendy episode and some other one from powerpuff girls about feminism. lol i baaaarely remember that one but i think it was fine? it taught me about the sacagawea and susan b anthony dollar coins! orrr i already knew about them and was thrilled to see them in the ep. one of the two. and it also taught me that extreme man-hating feminism is Stupid. I think. I hope so lmao

[ex-foster]

Former foster kid quote on the foster care to sex trafficking pipeline.

[pro-birth]

I’m always intrigued by the liberal feminist tactic of just…ignoring women when it suits them.

So I’m reading “The Bonobo Sisterhood” by a Harvard lawyer and professor who specializes and has worked in the activism field. Cool! The book is about how patriarchal violence relies on male-to-male partnerships that promise not to intrude on the other’s sexual coercion, so we should mimic the bonobos who have strong female alliances that fight against males that act up. Also cool! I was especially drawn in by her phrase “the patriarchy is not inevitable.” Anyone who acknowledges a widespread problem while still offering a solution (instead of being a straight up nihilist) will always catch my attention, so I figured: why not! Let’s give this book a read.

I don’t regret reading it, but it’s always frustrating to start a book that interests you that ends up showing it’s movement’s underlying bias.

Example 1 - claims that women (cis or trans) do not riot (or are socially conditioned to not riot)

But guess who DOES riot?

Radical feminists!

And trans women!

Guess what the author is?

A liberal TRA feminist!

So in her call to bring up a sister hood even if we don’t like certain women…she ignores the existence of one branch of feminism she dislikes (radfems) and overlooks the violent tendencies of another branch of “sisters” (Autogynephilics harming other women, trans women in LGBT riots, the drag queens who attacked that one shooter at their club [note: i love them, they're cool], etc).

Example 2 - She cites Castle Doctrines as proof that past laws that give men the rights to their wives and homes as their own castles and subjects to rule over have poured over into gun rights laws that give people the right to kill intruders on their property. Her only explanation of this is that one dude shot his ex through the window when a cop came to pick up her kids. Something that would never stand in court as self defense.

And yet...while calling guns phallic and a part of the patriarchal violence culture, she excludes cis women, wlw, and trans women who have regularly used guns as a form of self defense.

Because she's -- you guessed it -- a biased liberal feminist.

I may not finish this book. Because I already care about and foster a sisterhood that looks out for other women, and it has no room for people who erase women like me.

[horizon-verizon]

I despise the fact that they made Rhaenyra Viserys's cupbearer before she became his official heir. And that she served the other council members.

This is more than a matter of "it wasn't in the book", where Rhaenyra became Viserys' cupbearer when she was 8 and while before Aemma died and she became heir:

At eight, the princess was placed into service as a cupbearer…but for her own father, the king. At table, at tourney, and at court, King Viserys thereafter was seldom seen without his daughter by his side.

("A Question of Succession")

And of course we see both book!her and show!her sit at the council more after she's heir and Viserys marries Alicent. But we don't see Viserys really let her down easy or encourage her right her as much as he could (considering he named her heir!) when they hear of Daemon getting the egg. Second episode, where Rhaenyra speaks of using her, Rhaenys, or Laenor -- most likely Rhaenys or her -- to meet with Daemon and take back the egg. And the too-loud silence that followed

So Rhaenyra serving the council members doesn't even make any cultural/contextual sense!

To be someone's cupbearer is to serve them. It was an honorable thing to do, but looking back princesses and princes don't serve anyone except the ruler/their other parent (the royal consort) except in special circumstances. And only their king/ruling father's/Queen/ruling mother could ever put them in a position of becoming a cupbearer for anyone.

If a princess would ever be told to serve random ass men (even noble) in her ruling parent's council or elsewise, it would be some form of punishment (if told by the ruler, and even then that parent must be big mad to do that, or not like their kid very much, and canonically Viserys always adored Rhaneyra...as the quote above suggests), it is because (like Daeron) she is told to be a fostered child of another lord for an alliance (and this mostly happened to boys, not girls ), OR she is a hostage, implying a dangerous situation where the parent is being held in check.

Of course, I think that the line blurs when we're talking children being sent away for safety and them serving their hosts, but I also believe that is still a special circumstance as the context is still war/danger and making sure to maintain that bond with said host while under their roof AND if it is made clear that such services/actions would be performed, so as to not invite degradation for the royal.

So with all of that in mind...why does this girl stand around like a servant serving these people, and not just her ruling father? Why does Viserys compel her to do this and not even perform that adoration I mention above, even when he was just as concerned with having a male heir as he was in the book?

Because the writers wanted to readapt and transform this story into one where

Rhaenyra is in a more strange, lower, maybe even debased position

the father is even more dismissive of his daughter

to illustrate that element of male emotional degradation against their own female relatives. Problem is that they also set up a new sort of relationship than what was told, even in the show. Rhaenyra feels much more like an afterthought than she was, too much so. And Rhaenyra became more '90s Punk-Rocky sort of rebellious (rhaenyragendereuphoria' post), this sort of confrontation much more like the anachronistic, consumerist-twisted, appropriated mainstream product of the origins of "girl power" (Black hip hop vernacular).

So we purposefully thinned and reduced this father-daughter bond for the sake of making Rhaenyra his pseudo-lackey passed about for lower-ranked men, and for no deeper reason at all but to create a "mood" of shame or abasement.

Wonderful. Really feeling the feminism here.

[cleopatrachampagne]

About your thread on gun safety regulations: It's always so scary to see how even the smallest, tiniest little baby suggestion to improve things somewhat triggers such an aggressive response from US American gun nuts. There's millions if not billions of us on earth who've never even touched a gun and certainly don't need 300 bullets in our homes. We thankfully don't even have to think about firearms outside of the context of the US.

But every once in a while I'll see an American go "no actually if I'm not allowed to have 100 laying around my home and a garage full of ammo, I will certainly perish", as they send their kids to school on active shooter drill day.

I've got nothing but respect for people like your grandmother. I'm sure it's scary, having to deal with unhinged, antisocial maniacs who you know for sure are stockpiling guns and ammo at home. She sounds like a badass.

thank you so much for this. i sent a screenshot to my gram over text if you don’t mind that! gun violence isn’t the only thing she’s spent a lifetime fighting against — she’s followed in the footsteps of her parents (soldiers and journalists who were investigated by mccarthy for sticking by their morals) and dedicated herself to trying to stand up for what’s right and leave the world in better shape than she found it — but her work for feminism (burning bras and protesting banks for the right to have her own account rather than one co-signed by her father or husband and more), against antisemitism and the parents in an area heavy on skinheads recently managing to ban the holocaust from school curriculum, her work in conservation especially in the colombia plateau and henry’s fork, caring for a sanctuary farm in her retirement, battling for unions and workers rights, picketing corporations trying to pollute the columbia river, advocating for lgbt people even in the 1980’s and the aids crisis, the kids with special needs she and my grandfather fostered, her time as a special ed teacher, and her years spent with the pdx police force working to lower police brutality, improve responses to mental health crises, advocate for women and weed out the bigots have been almost overshadowed by her work towards gun control in recent years. she spends so much time on it i think because of the level of opposition and she even had to stop posting on facebook about it after receiving mailed threats from local gun nuts and skinheads but she still is a member of multiple activist groups and dedicates time to helping with campaigns and speaking out against it.

i feel so ashamed of how other countries must see america largely due to the fact that we send children to school in bulletproof backpacks but keep allowing the gun nuts and nra run the nation and keep us from doing anything to lessen the harm. mass shootings don’t happen elsewhere the way they do here and it’s embarrassing.

my grandmother grew up in a warzone, she saw people killed in front of her, she had my mom as a baby in her arms as they fled a bombing once, and two of her six siblings were held hostage by a drug cartel and tortured, but i believe her when she says the united states right now is in worse shape than spain under francisco franco or cartel-dominated cities in mexico when it comes to violence and shootings.

i know a lot of our legislation is absurd and unhelpful and performative but that’s because of the people who have been manipulated by western films and the nra pushing back against anything helpful. no one needs more than a basic, single shot hunting rifle and a small amount of ammunition. people put their children at risk, themselves at risk and others at risk by so irresponsibly owning guns and ammo. there are plenty of other forms of self defense that aren’t more likely to kill you than the assailant.

too many people seem to believe that if they have guns and a stockpile of ammo they could take on the government (which is laughable), invading forces or whatever other perverse fantasy they seem to have. in reality, having a gun makes you more likely to commit suicide, for a child to get shot, for a domestic conflict to end in death and so on. i don’t trust any government — believe me — but we have a government for the purpose of keeping our society safe and stable and it’s a display of utter narcissism and overconfidence to believe that your “right” to own a gun is worth more than someone else’s right to live.

not to mention that the frequent argument is that gun control won’t stop criminals from getting guns but the same exact people helped overturn roe v. wade to ban abortion under the assumption that it will stop abortions. absolute hypocrisy.

i not only appreciate the breath of fresh air from my favorite mutual and the compliment to my grandmother (she is a badass: she’s a wilderness survivalist, cowgirl and political powerhouse with a backbone of steel) but also the perspective from someone outside of the united states because i think it’s super weird that so many people here are convinced they’ll die without a rocket launcher and basement full of ammo — or that their 2k hours of fortnite have prepared them to fight an organized armed force — while the rest of the world is doing perfectly fine with reasonable gun control.

thank you, my sweet cheese, my rotten soldier, my good time boi 💝💝💝

[aclosetfan]

Omg I’m so glad you acknowledge how Buttercup, despite being all “eww kisses and other mushy stuff” still actually does that herself, like kissing that one dirty boy along with her sisters (this episode is lowkey kinda gross) and she gave that old guy in Make Zen to Me episode a small peck on the cheek, simple and super innocent things. It’s sweet.

Yes I agree with everything you said there, its a pity that she’s treated so one note most of the time, the way I see it she’s either too hyper masculine or she ended up being way too feminine (usually when she’s in a hetero ship) there needs to be a nice balance. I think a lot of people are too afraid to make her soft in doing so will make her less tomboy or something, it felt like so many are knee deep in that archetype for her in fear of making her remotely girlie. The other Girls too but its sort of the opposite for them.

Also been thinking a lot about how Craig’ll handle them, I’m also curious if he’s responsible for their season 5+6 interpretations, I like to believe he was, cause they manage to be their own characters despite having very minimum appearances. I think they’re very outdated outdated characters, if Craig is interested in bringing them back I can imagine them definitely getting less or not so chauvinistic and misogynistic, but idk, how do you feel about that btw? or should they stay misogynistic cause they’re just little boys, I agree with them staying as villains, I’d like to have all the villains stay villains as well, maybe an open ending like PPGRules would be nice. Idk i’m so anxious now lol I trust whatever Craig is cooking up, his recent show Kid Cosmic was pretty good.

Craig was on and off involved with seasons 5&6 but for the most part was working on Fosters! I don’t think he was really too involved when the boys made a reappearance unfortunately but they’re still his characters and he’s a good storyteller so if he brought them back, I can only imagine he does them justice!

In regard to the rrb’s misogyny, I think it’s only fair to tell you I actually don’t like any of the boys’ episodes a whole lot. My only favorite is Custody Battle, where the girls are hardly present.

In truth, im not the biggest fan of gender wars, and that’s how the creators used the boys’ characters. Even when I was a child watching the show, my mom told me how much I didn’t like the rrb 😂😂 something about “stupid boys”

Which idk maybe I’m being to critical here, especially given the content, but that reaction from a child isn’t great, especially for a show that’s all about love and acceptance. I think it’s over done, cliché, and so very much the opposite of what feminism (equity and respect among genders) should teach people.

I understand why the boys were made the way they were, but I definitely think as time has continued on, the way people view sex and gender has greatly evolved, so I would hope that if they bring the boys back they leave behind the weird “haha boy drool girls rule, our femininity has saved the day.” I’m big on “girl power” but I don’t like it at the expense of putting down the other genders. That’s not feminism to me. I don’t fuck with that terf bullshit

In the Boys are Back in Town, I feel the creators deviated from “femininity saves the day” because kisses no longer destroyed the boys (which weird how in all the episodes with cooties, the day is always saved by three little girls kissing something, but…….moving on) . However, the day was saved by demasculinizing them and sort of making fun of them for crying, and not to say they weren’t shitty kids in that episode, but I’m also like, maybe that shouldn’t have been how the lesson of that episode was taught???? We shouldn’t make little boys feel bad for being rough, and depict little girls pulling one over them to properly chastise the behavior. Children shouldn’t have to regulate other children.

HOWEVER I think that the boys could still be coded as “women haters” in the new show, and I’d be fine with that because there some boys are like that irl and we shouldn’t shy away from that discussion. I just don’t want the problem solved by the creators going “and the day was saved because boys fucking suck.”

Like make that make sense. It’s a very late 90s early 2000s cliché so it fits the time period of the show, but I like to believe we’ve grown as a society.

Overall, I think it really really depends on their purposes in the new show, if they’re even in it. If they’re suppose to be shitty people/bad guys, I’d want them to be shitty people/bad guys, and that could include them being misogynistic. If they’re going to be redeemed, I want the shittiness of their characters to ease up. In any case, I what I DONT want is simple solutions to complex discussions, but it’s a kids show so I’m not expecting much haha 🤷‍♀️

[papirouge]

I don’t really belong to a denomination so I haven’t really ever gotten kicked out of a church or youth group before.

I was asked to leave a pro life group though. In was in person, way before covid. Very small group. We didn’t really have a prescience online. It felt more like a Bible group meeting up at someone’s house without the bible. I argued that women who either choose or were forced to go through a c section birth are still mothers after a young girl who isn’t a mother and never was one argued that they weren’t because childbirth pain makes you one. She went pretty far. Adopting your kids doesn’t make you one. Fostering kids doesn’t make you one. She said how women even dying in childbirth should die because it’s an honorable death. I sort of snapped since I lost a few members to childbirth complications in the past. I cussed her out so the group did ask me to leave. I was happy though that literally every one else called that girl out for being stupid and cruel. Even her own sister called her a dumbass out loud. And then she had to start crying and play victim. Last I heard, the group fell apart. I guess I triggered her because that young girl kept being bothered by me even after I left. I was actually asked to return but I wasn’t interested. That girl is young, I’ll pray for her, because throughout the time I’ve seen her, she just seemed lost and easily sucked into things she sees online. She was into crypto for a bit. Then e girl aesthetics. Then cottagecore. Then 1 week she tried to convert to Islam. A few weeks later, it was crystals and reiki and tarot cards. A while ago I remember she was like rad fem? I guess when I was there at the end, she was listening to male centric content that’s violent towards women. It explained the cruelty in what she said. But i believe also that she just tried to repeat what she read and heard from others online to me thinking I’ll somehow be convinced that she’s right. I’m not super close with her sister but I do follow her on instagram. Her sisters latest thing is anti capitalist liberal bimbo core. Bless her heart… she needs prayers, good lord.

Man, this girl is so stupid it's almost comical🫠

You should've asked her that since most women go through delivery with epidural anesthesia lowering the pain of childbirth, does it mean they didn't 'totally' give birth? 🤔

I heard so many drama about pro life group. It's like a nest intellectually sheltered young girls who will spout the most bizarre statements about basic biological facts. Yeah, she mingling with scrotes might explains her asinine takes. She should've asked them since men don't have pain during childbirth, does it mean none of them are father? 🤔

I always said that women shouldn't seek after men opinion when it came to issues exclusive to women. Especially biological sex. In another ask I was talking about a girl who was formerly a radical feminist who was now more like tradfem/conservative and she was doing a podcast with a meninist and who was like spouting the most basic gotcha about feminism à la "female solidarity doesn't exist, and when they do it only revolves around their biology" GEEZZZ I WONDER WHY JEAN-FRANÇOIS 🙃 This exchange was so low quality and underwhelming...it wouldn't be so annoying if both of them didn't act like they were really doing something but no actually this discourse already happened in 2013 during the SJW+libfem vs meninism fight uuuuugh French contrarian YouTubers are always so stupidly late to the party.....🫠 like that girl is pretty lost and I hope she'll grasp that leaving feminist and becoming trad doesn't mean eating up the koolaid of basic men "trad" who -while they don't have to agree with feminism- will never have to self awareness to grasp the dimension of femalehood beside a male centric perspective.

Anyway your friend might be like this girl, she's lost and eventually she'll come around. Especially if she's young. I'm glad I've never bothered to slap onto myself whatever trendy label (feminist, tradfem, conservative, contrarian, etc) bc I feel like it messes people up whenever they get challenged in theif fundamental belief system.

[clowngames]

There are a few different suggestions ranging from interpersonal to systemic, and much like birth control none of them are 100% effective but they increase their effectiveness if you use more than one.

Make sure your kid has positive role models of all genders. Preferably several of each. This does require an amount of people having opportunities to and comfort with interacting with children for extended periods of time.

If a kid is gonna get radicalized into misogyny it helps if they can go "but wait... my aunt Meg isn't like how these people describe women, and actually my uncle Byron is visibly happy and healthy without needing to act like how these people say men should be." This is without these role models even necessarily needing to verbally intervene.

2. Make sure your kid regularly interacts with peers their age of all genders, especially pre-puberty.

Being able to talk to someone of the opposite gender without being weird about it is a skill that takes practice under the patriarchy. If your son is completely isolated from girls when he enters puberty then his main exposure to them will be through porn. And if he can't interact with girls outside of a sexual context without walking away feeling like he did it wrong, that puts him in a state where he's vulnerable to these online misogynists.

3. Don't just foster kindness; foster introspection.

The manosphere is at its core reactionary. It's emotions-driven rather than reasons-driven, which is maybe why the rhetoric of men being more logical than women slowed down in the past 20 years. You can certainly try to make sure your kid's emotional needs are met and that they have the ability to meet them themselves as they become more self-sufficient, but also make sure they have the tools to regulate and reflect on the occasion that they don't.

The fact is, the manosphere is nothing but a grift meant to pull in angry people and keep them angry to keep them watching and spending money. It won't solve their problems and it will make them bitter people. Lots of people notice this happening and get out early, but they have to either see it destroy someone else or recognize that it's destroying themselves in real-time. That's hard to do when you're in it, but it's easier if you have practice with introspection.

4. Include men's issues in feminist activism.

These boys are told by the manosphere that feminists want to make men's lives worse, and feminists corroborate this narrative when they say that the patriarchy benefits men and that it needs to be destroyed.

I have always advocated for the notion that the patriarchy benefits a select small group of men while ignoring the rest and actively oppressing women. The average working class man is just as likely to benefit from the abolition of the patriarchy as a woman is. A lot of female feminists scoff at this but I've personally used this rhetoric to break a few men out of their pipeline before it was too late.

It's critically important that men see feminism as a viable solution to their problems because for the most part right now their only option is MRA.

5. Something about walkable cities

Part of the reason boys are falling so hard into hyper-misogny after generations of increased progressivism is because actual social isolation is at an all time high. Solving the problem of social isolation is its own can of worms but the reintroduction of 3rd spaces, making sure teens and adults can physically meet up regularly, and so on would go a long way.

Generally, the higher proportion of socialization is done in a physical location, especially in a public space, rather than in private and online, the better. That's not to say online friendships are bad by any means, but there's a phenomenon of participating in discord groups and forums as an alternative to having friends that is destroying people of all genders, and men in particular are being radicalized through this process.

6. Destroy the patriarchy.

Easier said than done, but it would definitely work.