#Happens to the best of us

[chal-jeete-hai]

The original post was never about dismissing women's struggles. It's undeniable that women have faced immense oppression, and their voices deserve to be heard and their challenges addressed. However, this post highlights a different concern: how the line between feminism and misandry is becoming increasingly blurred. Instead of focusing on meaningful solutions and addressing systemic issues, some have redirected their energy toward resentment and hatred of the opposite gender. Feminism was created to dismantle oppressive systems and uplift those harmed by them, not to perpetuate the same hostility it seeks to eradicate.

Let's dissect your tantrum piece by piece shall we?

"If you find it funny, then why did you write a long whiny essay about how women should be nicer to the men who abuse, rape, kill, and violently oppress us?"

Nowhere in the original post does it suggest that women should be "nicer" to abusers. That's your exaggerated misinterpretation. Calling out on weaponization of feminism isn't excusing abusers...it's how misandry undermines the movement's goals.

"No, we don't see this at all, you're just a garden variety misogynist who thinks women not tolerating or calling out men's behavior makes us "just as bad".

Sweetheart.. genuinely ...did you even read the post or just went through the tags and wrote whatever the fuck came in your mind? Critiquing the extremes of a movement DOES NOT make someone a misogynist.. it makes them critical of oversimplified narratives. Feminism doesn't need to become a platform for unchecked hatred...it's about equality, not competition over who can hate the most.

"No, actually, feminism was never for men."

You're absolutely right, it wasn't created for men. It was created to fight against system built by men to oppress women. But this is where your logic derails: feminism doesn't exist in a vacuum. The point isn't to reverse the oppression, but to dismantle it entirely. That includes addressing harmful

"Whiny MRA "misandry is just as bad as misogyny" ass shit."

Are you incapable of basic comprehension? No one said misandry and misogyny are the same. By pretending misandry isn't worth addressing, you're just excusing hate under the guise of righteousness.

"Let me guess, before you sat down and shat out this steaming pile of crap, you were busy lamenting how you can't enjoy Good Omens yaoi anymore."

Ah okay resorting to personal attacks and irrelevant insults...classic tactic when you've got no actual argument. Instead of addressing the points made you've decided to derail the conversation entirely. It's transparent and, frankly, pathetic.

"No woman is harmed by women rightfully hating men."

The keyword "rightfully" is doing a lot of heavy lifting here. Misandry doesn't harm just men...it alienates potential allies, reinforces toxic dynamics and undermines the fight for true equality

"Again, would you say this to Black/Asian/Latino/Native people about White people? No? Then stop saying it to women about men!"

Yes white supremacy exists, but history records the existence of people who understood their privilege and sought to dismantle it to make things better for those who were oppressed by that very system. A blanket generalisation that every white person is a racist bigot erases their contributions and shuns potential allies.. having a blanket generalisation for men in this case also does the same.

"Pretty words, except you're using them to defend women's violent oppressors."

*sigh* for the love of god criticizing misandry or calling for balanced equality IS NOT defending oppressors...it's advocating for a more effective feminist movement. Resorting to such extreme accusations shows you're simply unwilling to engage with the actual points being made.

It truly amuses me how, in the name of feminism, some have strayed toward misandry. Wasn’t feminism meant to empower women? To stand for equality, not superiority? Yet, today, we often see narratives that feel less like calls for justice and more like a reversal of the very prejudices feminism was born to dismantle.

Feminism was a movement born to provide women with the basic human rights they were deprived of, to challenge a society that made life a living hell, not just for women, but for men as well. It sought to create a world where opportunities and rights are determined not by gender, but by actual skills and merit. So, when did it become a weapon to belittle or demonize men?

Unfortunately, for some, the lines have blurred. The war against patriarchy has been replaced with disdain for men. Personal grievances have turned into sweeping generalizations, and the true essence of feminism; building bridges and breaking barriers seems to be forgotten. This misinterpretation is harming everyone.

The problem is that this shift toward misandry isn’t just theoretical; it’s real. Social media has become a breeding ground for narratives where men are demonized for simply existing, as if their gender is the cause of all societal problems. While critiquing the harmful aspects of patriarchy, some have taken it to an extreme, implying that men are inherently oppressive, that their actions are always rooted in misogyny, regardless of context. This is not just counterproductive; it’s dangerous. The idea that all men are privileged, that they cannot experience hardship, is a gross oversimplification. Yes, patriarchy has historically benefited men in certain ways, but it has also shackled them; forcing them into rigid gender roles, stifling emotional expression, and limiting their freedom in ways that many fail to acknowledge.

women have faced and continue to face systemic challenges. But the solution isn’t to tip the scales in the opposite direction; it’s to balance them. Feminism isn’t about proving one gender is better than the other; it’s about dismantling systems that have oppressed women while ensuring fairness for all. Feminism, at its core, should be a call to break free from these restrictive molds, not to create new ones. Men, like women, suffer from a system that enforces damaging stereotypes and limits human potential. A true feminist society would uplift everyone, regardless of gender, recognizing the commonalities in our struggles while celebrating the differences that make each of us unique.

How can we achieve inclusion if we exclude half of the population from the conversation?

[landedinpayne]

love how not a single person thought the pink sparkles crystal and niko saw were from anything other than homosexuality because falling in love at first sight with the girl that you live with is just about the most on the nose sapphic experience in existence

[gree3art]

godstiel my beloved <3

[ggardengirl]

first lesbian situationship ended so bad you have to give yourself a DIY lobotomy

[leggalese]

Alas, poor Yorick, he forgor 💀.

[thoughts-ofawriter]

this WIP is going fine, why do you ask? I’m just at the stage where I feel like I’m going ever so slightly insane

[uriswhumpchamber]

Whumpee looking at the camera, mouthing "you hear this guy?" in the middle of one of Whumper's rants.

[steelheart-redux]

2-9

FIRST | PREVIOUS | NEXT

[evilkaeya]

"Speak english please" you are Japanese

[pangur-and-grim]

I didn't have my glasses on and I thought there was a huge picture of Pangur in the kfc but it was just these tiles on the wall :(

classic mistake

[rawdough]

Plot twist that you saw coming 9 seasons ago: He's Gay, Actually

Poor Tiffin didn't even see it comin' until it was too late.

Tiffin Cookie belongs to @sugar-seals

[hawkinsincorrect]

Robin: Got called gay in Family Video the other day.

Steve: What happened?

Robin: Got called gay in Family Video.

Steve: Yeah, but why?

Robin: I was being gay.

Steve: In Family Video?

Robin: Yeah, it was in Family Video.

[scalytunster]

Young Blaise and Manfred designs!

bonus :D

[applejuucee]

Eye see you

[im-ok-i-swear]

Average conversation between me and any one of my friends

[eyestrain-addict]

I just realized why lestat marked Tom, like the big stupid idiot I am

(I know everyone else probably already figured this out, but this is MY blog and I get to post whatever deranged thought crosses my pea brained mind.)

When I watched that scene in episode 5 where they're at the bar talking to Tom, I was confused as to why exactly. Why does Lestat mark Tom? If he's marked to kill, why does he wait almost 2 decades later? Well I realized, as all realizations come, in the shower.

Lestat has been planning on killing Tom the whole time.

(Warning before you click read more, this post is a lot longer than I first intended holy fuck)

Well not the whole time. Just right when Louis realized that Anderson and Fenwick had screwed him over. Maybe even longer if he knew it was a trick ("ridiculous of you to mix human and vampire business it always ends poorly"). Notice how he's upset with louis when he kills the guy who's microaggressive with him, cus lestat wasn't there (even if he was there I have my doubts Lestat would understand microaggressions, but he would have definitely killed him for touching Louis.) But tells Louis he's proud of him for killing Alderman. I think this has to be because he witnessed the disrespect first hand. He didn't give a fuck about the money, what he DID care about was that those two disrespected not only him, but Louis.

Even with Lestats little understanding of race relations of the time in America, he did understand hierarchys. He's from 1700s France for God's sake. It's no coincidence wanted to be king of mardi gras. Lestat came to New Orleans and saw himself as the king, even if no one knew it. And he wanted Louis to be his queen. Honestly I could make an entire other post about how Lestat almost literally saw himself as if he was a King and Louis his beloved Queen, which is why he thought it was okay for him to sleep with other women (mistresses and playthings of the king should mean nothing compared to the queen in lestats eyes) but that's getting off topic. I only bring that up because I'm trying to paint a picture of how I think Lestat sees disrespect done to Louis. To him that goes beyond disrespect or rudeness, it's irreverence.

You begin to notice if you watch scenes with them together. Because while I wouldn't say lestat is good at controlling his anger, he's definitely great at concealing it until it erupts (props to Sam Reid have to be given here) lestat is always on the verge of fury when talking to Tom. It starts as a distaste then as he begins to fall more in love with Louis and become more protective of him, his anger builds. Claudia was wrong about one thing, it was no petty slight that was the reason Lestat killed Tom first, it was a loooonng time coming.

I could list every detail I think supports this but I'm sure you get the gist by now. My main point is really the layer of complexity this adds to not only the story, the characters, but also lestat and louis' relationship. Consider it for a second, Lestat saw all his violence as justified, everything he did one can see it through the lense of him punishing the disrespectful (take a shot every time I say disrespect in this post jesus christ). "I bring death to those deserving" indeed. Lestat has a god complex out the wazoo, and every attack, torture, and death he caused was righteous to him and thus enjoyable. Louis on the other hand didn't see himself so highly. He may seem confident but if you look through the cracks it's apparent Louis's self worth in near nonexistent and he's horribly insecure. I think lestat thought when Louis was made a vampire he would see himself as Lestat saw himself, and as Lestat saw Louis. But again, another post for another time.

Despite Louis' insecurities (or perhaps because of them) louis revels in the violence lestat commits for his sake. That's probably why louis is so quick to forgive lestat about the priests. For a brief moment Lestat truly said the truth to Louis and Louis could forgive him because of it. As lestat says, he doesn't kill the priests to intimidate Louis, nor does he do it just because he enjoys it. He does it because he sees them as humiliating Louis, charlatans that don't deserve Louis' sorrow. Louis didn't want the priest's to die, but he could understand why lestat killed them, simply because for once in his goddamn life lestat told the truth, and louis loved that truth. That truth being that lestat killed and mutilated and committed such horrors not just because he liked it, but because he did it out of a fucked up sense of protection. Him killing the priests was essentially a knight killing a dragon to earn the princess' hand in marriage.

The worst part is that Lestat doesn't even realize it. Not fully anyway. Let's be honest with ourselves, lestat doesn't understand Louis. Obviously there's the race, background, culture differences that lestat doesn't understand nor seems inclined to try, but there are better posts about that made by smarter people than moi. I'm mostly talking about lestat doesn't understand louis' mind itself (louis' mind in a vacuum I suppose you could say) he understands Louis' desire for violence sure, but he doesn't understand the core of that want. Honestly I'm on the fence of if he ever understood that Louis loved it when lestat was protective in the first place. I guess it can be dumbed down to Louis wants Lestat to kill to protect Louis and to protect the family (and anyone who deeply disrepects them), lestat perhaps understood a little at one point, but since he sees everyone as a threat and everything is a slight to him, he has no trouble and qualms with delighting in the torture of people Louis views as innocent. Louis' heart is a bit dark, but ultimately human, so he's disgusted by lestats violence towards the undeserving. Lestat can no longer read Louis' mind and even if he could, Louis doesn't quite understand the difference himself (that's why he tries to hunt for criminals briefly) so the cracks of miscommunication starts to form, and neither of them even realize there is miscommunication.

Therein lies the importance of Tom Anderson for season 1. Not much of a character, more of a plot device in human skin. Claudia can see that Lestat hates him, but doesn't understand why, nor does she care to get to the depths of that. (*Mr house voice* understandable) I think it's notable that Louis rarely brought him up, he didn't understand the depths of lestats love. Nor did he know about Lestats 3 decade long grudge, all because Tom disrespected Louis.

Now I'm not excusing Lestat's actions, I just think it's interesting how this one throwaway character reveals a whole level of complexity to the relationship between him and Louis, and better sheds light on not only Lestats personal philosophy but louis' as well. Even Claudia to a degree.

Anyway, uh. End of essay. Bye.