#Learning more about women’s oppression fucks me UP

[mommyhorror]

What else are women supposed to do except go insane? Like genuinely curious

[dykeulous]

1.) for the love of science, please, please stop using the theory of gendered socialization as some “gotcha” against all female people. stop trying to constitute that just because a person who happens to be female is only empathic because they’re female. stop making us all look bad, stop proving the dumbasses who say we’re trying to claim all women have some universal spiritual bond that connects them & that we’re using the theory to constitute & declare all women as inherently this and all men as inherently that, right. stop misunderstanding the theory. yes, socialization has impacts on how someone turns out as a person. yes, socialization does influence personality, and yes, the reason why women are more likely to be empathic is because of socialization, not because of some inherent biological magic; however, this doesn’t mean that having basic human decency & choosing not to be a piece of shit is somehow alien to male people. this doesn’t mean that women should throw away all their learned personality traits & tendencies. just because empathy is more forced & pushed onto women, doesn’t mean women need to get rid of that. instead, women should work on unlearning passiveness & unhealthy self-consciousness– female people should unlearn the process of female socialization that taught them to think low of themselves, that taught them to constantly feel like a burden, that taught them not to have any boundaries & to stay quiet and meek– empathy & human decency are not something to be thrown away. those are valuable & natural human traits.

2.) the trans movement is not inherently anti-feminist. the commodification, commercialization, and pinkwashing of it is. if we look very closely, trans people a lot of the time agree with the core elements of radical feminism; they just phrase their beliefs differently. there are gaps within ideologies, and both sides can be obtuse as fuck. both sides can be annoying & unwilling to learn. both sides can do legitimate harm in the real world. both sides need to learn from each other & stop vilifying & caricaturing the other as some pesty inherent danger that should be hidden from the rest of the world. gender critical women and trans rights activists need not always be “at odds”. we can, and we will, bridge the gap; no matter how many times annoying people like you fly around our ears like & whine. buzz all you want. there are people out there working on bridging the gap & are efficiently doing so. if you want to lock yourself up in an echo-chamber while also insisting trans people are doing that very same thing, then well done. have your hypocrisy cake and eat it 🤷🏻. me personally, i’ll keep having meaningful discussions with people who don’t necessarily share the same worldview as i do. nevertheless, radical feminism does wonders for trans people, and there are so many radical feminists out there insistent on proving that. if you’re going to sit back and whine about “men in dresses”, “those disgusting tranzes invading women’s spaces” and “moid xys fetishizing women”, while not doing anything whatsoever to improve the conditions of your local women– then don’t bother calling yourself a feminist of any sorts, yet alone a radical feminist. gncphobia does not look good on a person claiming to be pro-feminist. seriously.

3.) “no one is arguing that we should make trans-identified people’s lives worse” this is just, like, blatantly untrue. bans & limits on self-expression, bodily automony & self-determination, do in fact, harm trans people, a deeply vulnerable & targeted group in many societies. the same societies that tend to be extremely intolerant of trans people are also extremely intolerant of women. this is not a coincidence. it’s not a coincidence that the worst misogynists are also very often transphobic. it’s not a coincidence that conservatives, the people working to tangibly oppress trans people, are also anti-abortion, anti-divorce, pro-nuclear family, and anti-lgb. it’s almost like, hey– trans people are oppressed on the gender axis! and if you’re going to say that you said this in regards to radfems; you’d also be wrong. i will agree that tras often unrealistically portray radfems as fashies capable of systemically oppressing trans people, and that they very often create conspiracy theories on how “terfs are running the world” & “terfs control the governments”, exaggerating the “power” radfems may have– but this does not mean that there are no transphobic radfems. i’ve seen many deny dysphoria being a thing, many are unnecessarily & inhumanely cruel to dysphoric people & constantly try to purposely trigger someone’s dysphoria, many are exceptionally cruel to trans men (which is funny because they like to claim we are their “lost sisters” or whatever), many straight up mock surgeries & call people “mutilated” which extends to the hatred & bigotry against detrans folk. you cannot complain how trans people refuse to excommunicate genuinely awful people in their community if you yourself are going to ignore the genuinely awful people in your own community. you just cannot.

4.) “we are pro gender abolition and they are pro gender”– i mean, making a wild claim like this just proves you’ve locked yourself up in an echo-chamber. you sound exactly💯 how those tras who portray radfems as The Incarnation of Devil Himself sound like. you believe you know everything about a group & the group’s beliefs without conversating with anyone from said group. that’s exactly how many tras behave, making up wild claims & false caricatures of radfem beliefs, exaggerating them up to the point of nonsense. like, i’m sorry– but i’ll call bullshit on the “they are pro gender” stuff. i just cannot bring myself to believe that a group uniquely oppressed by gender is capable of meaningfully supporting the existence of it. sure, there are trans people who will vocally say they are against the abolition of gender because they personally feel it helps them because want to assimilate/it helps them express & understand themselves or whatever– but this doesn’t erase the reality of gender inherently repressing & oppressing trans individuals. certain, individual trans people can do & say wacky shit, they can hold horrible and stupid beliefs– but this does not reflect the universal reality of trans existence. trans people deviate from the gender binary. trans people do not fit into the system of gender, and as such, they can only benefit from the abolition of gender. gender hurts us in a very specific way, and we are going against the very existence of it, just by existing. this isn’t to say some trans people aren’t genuinely dumb & misogynistic/bio-essentialist/neurosexist/assimilationist/homophobic/awful/whatever– i’m simply saying that we as a group do not fit into the gender system– obviously, we still have to prove that we truly are against it, but we defy traditionalist way of thought merely by existing. of course, we still have to do actual work to be considered activists, and we aren’t immediately some punk blood-pumping political figures simply on the basis of not fitting in.

5.) any person who sends rape & death threats to anyone is despicable. the phenomenon of this specifically happening to radfems is real, but we cannot base our moral beliefs & opinions on an entire group off of this. oftentimes, it’s not even actual trans people sending the threats, it’s cis people [particularly cis men to be clear] who want to speak over us. calling out homophobia & misogyny in the trans community is a worthy endeavor & definitely, desperately needs to be done. being hateful and assuming all trans people are this disgusting caricature in your head, is not. again, we will bridge the gap, and there’s nothing you can do about it. activists of all kinds will come together & reshape the world from the roots of it. they will pull out all the toxicity & take down all the oppressive structures & institutions, stomp on them violently & mercilessly– they will rebuild the world from its’ roots, all over again.

[biohorror-human]

Trans people may or may not have popped off with the "block every radfem you see" idea because holy shit. You are all some of the most pessimistic and spiteful fuckers on earth. You all claim not to be bio-essentialist, and then turn around and say shit that is, at its core bio-essentialist. All of your ideas, in some way, revolve around hurting someone else. Want to destroy the gender binary? Certainly attacking trans people will help. Want to destroy child marriage? Tell people not to marry brown people, just, ever. Want to destroy the patriarchy? (This is the best one) Never organize, never protest, never coordinate, just sit around and cultivate a nightmarishly toxic environment and then have the GALL to ask "why are people so open about their disdain for radical feminism?"

Because all your ideas are rooted in hate. The last time I've had discussions this fucking bleak with people is when I got into an argument with an actual self-described Nazi. Btw, I know you radfems are super exclusionary and refuse to cooperate with any other social group, but maybe Nazis would be up your alley? Considering they also have an affinity for eugenics and wanting to eliminate general swathes of the population, I think you'd be great for each other.

I mean, just to list some of the bullshit you people constantly say which doesn't line up with any of the other shit you say: "trans and GNC people destroying the gender binary (which is good because we radfems don't like the gender binary) is actually BAD now because we were using that gender binary to call all men oppressors, and now we have to actually confront what specific societal issues enable someone to be an oppressor, instead of just saying that being a man makes you an oppressor (which is bio-essentialism, which we disagree with, unless you're amab, in which case then bio-essentialism is actually something we super-agree with)

And that's just one of the ones that I actually went into the effort of tracking down. In terms of shit that I've just seen on a whim: you say you hate bio-essentialism, but also people born male are naturally more oppressive. You say women should have the freedom to do whatever they want, unless that "want" is dating men, because even if they're happy in their relationship, they're actually secretly sad and lying. Because since when did feminists hold the belief that women could understand their own emotions? Pretty clothes are also bad, because men like to look at clothes. Nevermind what the woman behind those clothes thinks, you shouldn't be able to enjoy anything for any reason because a man might look at it and also enjoy it for a split fucking second.

You know what that last one makes me think of? How abusive husbands tell their wives that they can't wear revealing clothes because it will attract the gaze of other men. But history is obviously not your forte, because if it was you'd understand that the only way social movements like feminism prosper is if they cooperate with other social movements, a concept you could really stand to learn a thing or two about. Another cool historical fact is that segregation is, historically, frowned upon. But I still see you talking about how white women shouldn't date brown men, and how asian women shouldn't date white men.

You know, they actually made a haven for people like you. And no, this isn't going to lead to a "Nazi Germany" bait and switch. It was a place where women could only marry into their own race. Where police were around every corner. Where women actively ratted out people betraying that law. Where women were literally not allowed outside past a certain time. It was South Africa under fucking apartheid. You believe, on a fundamental level, the same shit that traditionalists (nazis) and conservatives believe in. You make yourselves miserable as a form of protest, but because your circles are so exclusive, the only people there to witness your misery are other radical feminists. You're creating a hyper-dense misery sphere that doesn't even take that pain out on the patriarchy, only on other women. You have absolutely, undoubtedly got to be the worst rebels in the history of rebellion. You're literally making the patriarchy's job easier by pre-misery-ifying women. You're streamlining the misery process. I've never seen another social movement do that.

I think the only thing you guys actually accomplished was making men who cared or were curious about your movement equally miserable. You know what I got when I tried to join the radfem discussion? When I made the MISTAKE of trying to learn about your cause to better support it? I got fucking berated. you people finally had a man WILLINGLY come up to you to internalize your ideas. And you know what you chose to say to me? When I had a question, you mocked my voice. You compared me to an ogre, or a giant. You said women SHOULD be scared of me because of the way I was born. You said I was a natural-born rapist. You spoke about how my androgens made me develop into a beast- made me resent my own body, on top of how I already dissociated with it. You demonized any thought of sexuality, shot down any idea of body-positivity. And even then, even after all that I thought it may have been positive. I thought maybe it made me stronger, that maybe I was more like you because I was able to see the flaws in my own biology. Nah. You just wanted me to be miserable, like you. I was your willing punching bag for all of your anger and resentment. You're the femme-fascist matriarchs of self loathing. The only boiling bucket of crabs who not just drags the crabs trying to escape back in, but actively coaxes new crabs to join. You want a revenge story in a world where revenge only leads to more suffering. Your definition of equal is only met when every man is twice as miserable as you. That's not a world anyone, man or woman or anything else deserves to live in.

I have a bunch more shit to say but even thinking about you miserable fucks is starting to rub off on me. Fuck the patriarchy. Trans pride rules.

[watcherintheweyr]

Can they make a post with their opinion on young alicent please? (English is not my first language, I hope I used the pronouns correctly. If not, I apologize)

Hello! I’m sorry this took me so long, I had written out this entire response and somehow tumblr fucking ate it.

So for starters, you didn’t quite get the pronoun use right, but that’s totally fine and I really appreciate you trying! Pronouns and the english language are a bitch to learn. So when someone’s pronouns are ‘they/them’ those pronouns only replace gendered pronouns- (he/his/he’s/she/her/hers/she’s). Non gendered pronouns (you/your/you’re/yours) are entirely fine. So this would’ve been ‘Can you make a post with your opinion on young Alicent?’. If you were then to talk about me, it’d be ‘I asked watcherintheweyr to make a post about their opinion on young Alicent’ or ‘Watcherintheweyr made a post explaining their thoughts on young Alicent because I asked them.’

Don’t feel bad pls- the English language is a total bitch, and genuinely you put more effort into trying to get it right than a lot of native english speakers who I interact with. And I really do appreciate it.

anyways, on to your question!

So while I have a lot of sympathy for young Alicent in a lot of ways- I don’t like her, and I never did. For starters, I absolutely despise that the show isolated Rhaenyra and made Alicent her only friend and companion, which was untrue in the books and also makes no sense for how royalty works. Rhaenyra, as the only princess, would’ve have a sizeable ‘household’ of young ladies around her age. Those girls would’ve been essentially her helpers and her companions- she would’ve been in lessons alongside them, and they would’ve worked together in matters of court, politics, and events. Canonically she had a gaggle of young girls she was very close to- to the point that when (SPOILERS) Rhaenyra is murdered by Aegon, her ‘youngest and gentlest’ lady, Elinda Massey, purportedly gouges out her eyes from the trauma and horror.

Also, I despise that Laena Velaryon’s story and importance in Rhaenyra’s life was sacrificed for Alicent Hightower- including their deeply hinted romantic connection.

Anyways, moving on. Alicent Hightower.

Ultimately, I think that Alicent is a tragic example of what happens when you buy into oppressive regimes- further and enable them because you think you’ll be rewarded for sacrificing others to those regimes, and realize far too late that you won’t. She has 100% bought into the Faith of the Seven and Otto and Westeros’ sexism, and she serves that system in the hope that she’ll be rewarded for it, for playing by the rules and sabotaging the power and autonomy of other women- especially Rhaenyra. And all the seeds and groundwork are THERE from episode one if you pay attention. Alicent is a self-righteous hypocrite and not nearly as intelligent as she thinks she is- and she is also a victim of Otto, Viserys, and the patriarchy. I also think she was never a good friend to Rhaenyra- and that she never really knew Rhaenyra.

(This post is going to be VERY long, so buckle up)

In episode one, we see very quickly that Alicent doesn’t understand Rhaenyra well, if at all. She makes the comment that Rhaenyra is ‘disagreeable’ when she’s worried- and is promptly baffled that Rhaenyra’s worry is not her position or about being ‘overshadowed’ for a son- that Rhaenyra genuinely hopes her father will get the son he’s wanted for her entire life, and that her only true worry is her mother. Emma D’Arcy and Milly Alcock both press that Rhaenyra is fully aware that due to her gender that she isn’t ‘enough’ for her parents or the realm, that she’s seen as lacking or deficient. Alicent doesn’t seem at all aware of this. Furthermore, Alicent’s question is… Odd. At this point in the story, Rhaenyra is only ‘a’ princess. She isn’t the heir- Daemon is. The only ‘overshadowing’ that could occur is Viserys’ already fleeting and inconsistent ‘love’ becoming even less present. And Rhaenyra is already expecting this; but Alicent presses more of Rhaenyra’s ‘position’.

Now bear in mind- in the past 10 years, 14 year old Rhaenyra has had to watch her father insist on and continually risk her mother’s life and health, and she’s had to mourn 5 siblings- some born, others not. So Rhaenyra being ‘disagreeable’ when she’s worried makes sense. But when she doesn’t budge on not wanting to talk about/prioritize her ‘position’, Alicent gets huffy and makes to leave. She then appears to be entirely stunned when Rhaenyra verbatim recites the current passage of history that they are learning from their Septa. This piece of information is given to us to set up and establish Rhaenyra’s clever mind and interest in learning- of the 5 episodes we have of Young!Rhaenyra, she is shown to be actively listening to and learning from her superiors in just about all of them, reading and learning from books in 3 of them, and utilizing courtly intrigue, manners, and speak in 3 of them to shut down opponents or disrespect. And yet Alicent is entirely taken aback by Rhaenyra doing this; which again lends itself to the idea that she doesn’t actually know Rhaenyra very well. In the script, at the end of the episode, it’s also expressed that Alicent doesn’t seem to understand Rhaenyra being stressed/worried about her investiture as heir- in her eyes, Rhaenyra now has everything anyone could want. Meanwhile, Rhaenyra has now been revealed the truth of why Aegon conquered the seven kingdoms- and has now been entrusted with learning to rule and govern the kingdoms, and to nurture and protect the legacy meant to fulfill this prophecy- and she is shown to be very aware of and affected by the weight of this.

Alicent, meanwhile, has become a pawn in her father’s bid for power, and a victim to his ambitions, and to Viserys’ sexism and passivity.

In episode 2, Alicent has been seeing Viserys in secret for six months- and notably, it’s 6 months into their meetings that Viserys expresses that he wishes for her not to tell Rhaenyra, as he doesn’t think she would ‘understand’. We see that she is harming herself and Otto doesn’t appear to care about it in any way more meaningful than why she would do so when she’s the most beautiful girl at court- a thing to be envied and admired. We also in this episode see how fully she has bought into the realm and the Faith’s sexism. When Rhaenyra comes to Alicent about her fears of the plots of the lords to marry her father off again now that his period of mourning is coming to an end, and as such they would be plotting to supplant her. She is struggling, because it’s shown that she is trying to act as heir, to learn and participate- because she WANTS this, wants to be heir, wants to do it and do it well- but Otto undermines and humiliates her, and Viserys simply lets it happen- practically enables it. She expresses her fears of these plots and her frustrations and desire to be the heir, to be more and grasp for more than she would’ve ever been allowed as ‘Viserys’ little girl’.

And Alicent’s response is to dismiss Rhaenyra’s fears- to tell her friend and the named heir to the throne that it ‘isnt their place to question the plots of kings and men’. Because Alicent does not believe women can or should hold genuine power- like she says in episode 9, women are meant to ‘gently guide those who [rule]’. And she does this while she is actively a part of one of those very plots that Rhaenyra fears. Now, bear in mind; I am fully aware that Alicent is a victim to her father’s ambitions, and Viserys’ complicity. It’s not Alicent’s fault what these men do to her. And it’s understandable why Alicent wouldn’t want to tell Rhaenyra, in a lot of ways.

That doesn’t change that both Alicent AND Viserys broke Rhaenyra’s trust and hurt her- and she is shown later to be trying to create distance from them- because they have both shown that Rhaenyra cannot trust them. Viserys because he’s self-serving and blind, and Alicent because her ultimate loyalty and obeisance will always be to her father, not Rhaenyra. And Rhaenyra is keenly aware of this after the reveal, even though it is never made clear to Rhaenyra that Alicent wasn’t seeing Viserys in secret of her own volition. That doesn’t change that for six months, since the *night* of Aemma’s funeral, Alicent was seeing Viserys in secret, whilst dismissing Rhaenyra’s fears of that exact sort of plot to her face. That doesn’t change the fact that Rhaenyra has every right to feel hurt, feel betrayed, and not want anything to do with Alicent- or Viserys, beyond what she cannot avoid.

On a note that’s entirely personal, while I know that Alicent was attempting to share something important to her with Rhaenyra in an attempt to help her feel better, to me, Alicent having Rhaenyra partake of her faith felt… strange. Rhaenyra, who named the dragon she shared a cradle with after a goddess of Old Valyria and who has no idea how to pray in a Sept to the Seven, clearly either is not religious or follows Valyrian faiths- and considering her Valyrian marriage to Daemon, it’s likely the latter. Personally- I would not want a friend of mine to try and have me participate in their religion, and I wouldn’t push them to participate in mine either. For me, that was just uncomfortable; but again that’s a purely personal issue.

In episode 3, we see these traits of Alicent’s repeat, as well as her inability to introspect or consider someone else’s feelings. Immediately in the Godswood she uses her ‘weight’ as queen to disregard Rhaenyra attempting create space and distance between them. And while yes it was on command from the King- the way Alicent does it is almost… Smug. She then attempts to tell Rhaenyra that ‘things need not be this way’- as Rhaenyra, upset, goes to change and ready herself for the hunt, despite the fact that this is the last place she wishes to be. Alicent is upset at the loss of her friend, and likely lonely- but she disregards Rhaenyra’s feelings entirely. This is further compounded by the scene in the carriage.

Despite the fact that she and Alicent are not friends, nor truly even speaking, Rhaenyra, who watched her mother struggle and suffer pregnancies, and lose multiple babes and her life, expresses concern that Alicent is traveling in her condition. In an incredibly clumsy attempt to soothe her concerns, Alicent makes the comment that ‘Aegon came quickly and without fuss.’ Again; i understand that this was a very clumsy attempt to ease Rhaenyra’s worry, however everyone in that carriage sees how poorly the comment lands, and Alicent makes no attempt at apology. ‘Aegon came quickly and without fuss’ is.. very insensitive to say to the girl that lost her mother to the childbed, and especially when you are quite literally sitting in that mother’s place- when you’ve replaced her because her last child killed her and died alongside her. If she had made any attempt at apology (the way Rhaenyra did when she saw a comment she made while expressing her frustrations hurt Alicent in e.4), that would be one thing; but she doesn’t.

Rhaenyra is heir- and canonically the only duty she has balked at is marriage. She is currently desperately holding on to being ‘the heir’ with everything she has- because it is all she has, the only thing that doesn’t make her replaceable with the new family that Viserys is building with Alicent- and as such it’s understandable that she doesn’t wish to go to Aegon’s second Name-day celebration, as she is keenly aware of the thing Viserys is blind to and that Alicent is passive to; the realm considers a 2 year old boy child more valuable and more worthy than the 17 year old princess who has actively been learning to be and acting as heir for three years at this point. Alicent’s uncle, Hobart Hightower, welcomes them by crying out ‘All Hail Aegon the Conqueror-Babe, second of his name!’ and neither Viserys nor Alicent does anything. Hobart is not corrected, nor taken to task, and the crown is rabidly enamored with the two year old child all because his genitalia makes him more ‘valuable’ than Rhaenyra. By calling Aegon ‘second of his name’ Hobart is saying the quiet part out loud- the realm all expects and wants for Aegon to be heir, for Rhaenyra to be set aside. Alicent is the queen- but she doesn’t care enough to correct her uncle, either because she does already think her son should be heir or because she doesn’t think it’s a woman’s place to correct a man.

Later in this same episode, she gives an incredibly half-hearted defense of Rhaenyra when Otto begins to speak literal treason- but she does bend to his will yet again, and goes to Viserys with the intent of pushing Aegon’s claim. She is aware in *episode 3* that her father is conspiring against Rhaenyra’s ascension, and she never says a word of it to Viserys or Rhaenyra, because she is Otto’s creature first, and because she agrees- Rhaenyra is a woman, and thus cannot and should not rule.

Episode 4 and 5 really bring Alicent’s hypocrisy and self-centeredness to a head and set the stage for the cruel abuser that she becomes. She is the story of a victim-turned abuser, in the end.

It starts out more positively, with Alicent and Rhaenyra attempting to rekindle their friendship, and discussing Rhaenyra’s tour. Alicent expresses an almost childish lack of understanding of the truth of Rhaenyra’s courtship tour- calling it romantic, seeing it as something dreamlike. Rhaenyra exposes the cold truth of it- after we had earlier seen that none of the options she’s offered (that we see) are actually suitable. She uses courtly manners and speak to have Lord Dondarrion essentially take himself out of the running, by getting him to speak of his age and simply agreeing with him- and is then presented with a literal child. She is fully aware that every man ‘courting’ her doesn’t love her, doesn’t want HER. They want her valyrian blood. They want their children to be dragonriders. They want proximity to the throne and power. Rhaenyra has to choose a consort; and the consequences if she chooses wrong are disastrous. She could choose a man who turns her into what Viserys did to Alicent and Aemma, she could choose a man who utilizes Westerosi patriarchal views and values and turns her into a puppet queen so that he has the actual power, or she could choose a man who is, ultimately, weak- and thus would not be able to support her claim, would not be able to support or defend her when she ascends. She expresses these frustrations- but when she sees one of her comments hurts Alicent, she immediately holds her hand and squeezes in an attempt at comfort and apology.

Alicent expresses that she has found that she has few friends, lately; and this comment is.. Interesting, in what it says of Alicent. That even at the height of female power in the realm, she cannot inspire loyalty or affection in those around her, that the only prospect she has for a friend is her childhood companion. Rhaenyra expresses a hope to grow closer again as well; but well.

Immediately we shift to the scene in the Godswood where Alicent confronts Rhaenyra with her father’s accusations. She comes into the confrontation immediately condescending and judgemental, looking down on Rhaenyra’s rebellious and adventurous nature, as well as her ‘queer Targaryen customs’, and the ‘crimes’ of which she is accused. Because remember; at this point, Alicent has bought entirely into the way the realm and the Faith views women; women who follow the rules, subservient and obedient, never reaching for more, sacrificing and doing their duty, are good, should be rewarded. Anything else is morally deficient, wrong, lesser. Given this and how she approaches the conversation; it is entirely understandable that Rhaenyra doesn’t trust Alicent, and relies on misdirection and her mother’s memory as well as their former closeness to protect herself, because through this entire conversation, it is obvious that if she knew the truth, Alicent *would not protect Rhaenyra.*

Now remember, Alicent speaks with Viserys in ‘defense’ of Rhaenyra- and she knows FULLY well that Viserys doesn’t believe that nothing happened, that Rhaenyra is restless, chaotic, and willful, and that she would have done as she pleases. (Made worse by Viserys bemoaning that Rhaenyra is ‘just a girl’ when 5 years ago he married Alicent and has had 2 children by her at this point and will have 2 more- plus he has been pushing and pressuring for Rhaenyra to marry for at least 3 of those years.)

Later, when Otto is dismissed, Alicent states what we all know to be true; he got himself into this position, because he kept pushing for Aegon to be made heir, to the point of committing treason and spying on the princess, salivating for a moment where she misbehaves that he can use against her. Here we see Alicent begin to believe the seeds Otto has been planting; that Rhaenyra would kill her siblings to secure her ascension. (Remember, the whole reason of the juxtaposition between the boar and the white stag in episode.3 is to directly contradict this. Rhaenyra attacks and kills the boar only because it harmed her and her knight. Killing the white stag would have helped her- it would have made the lords of Westeros see her as chosen, especially since she caught and killed it the day AFTER Aegon’s name day, and it revealed itself to HER [symbolizing that yes, Rhaenyra is the rightful heir and the RIGHT heir]. Killing it would have given her legitimacy beyond legitimacy and silenced MANY of the tongues that are conspiring against her. However she shows it mercy- despite the fact that its’ death would have served her) Despite having once ‘loved’ Rhaenyra, and ‘known’ her, somehow these lies make sense to Alicent and she believes them. (Furthermore, she somehow is shocked in ep.9 that the reverse is true- that to secure Aegon’s ascension, the easiest and most acceptable route to all the men around her who wield the true power, is to kill Rhaenyra and all of her children).

When later Larys mentions the delivery of a tea to Rhaenyra’s chambers on orders of the king (despite, again, her KNOWING that Viserys doesn’t believe nothing happened) she decides to look further into the matter; even though clearly Viserys wishes it dead and buried, left behind in the dust of her father’s departure of the capitol.

In ep.5, when Alicent discovers that Criston Cole slept with Rhaenyra, it all comes to a head. Despite the fact that Rhaenyra didn’t ‘lie’ (she did not sleep with Daemon), in this moment, Rhaenyra has solidified herself in Alicent’s mind as morally deficient, as less, and it infuriates her. The fact that Rhaenyra has taken charge of ehr body and autonomy in a way that Alicent would never have dared infuriates her; because a part of her had always accepted and even wished for what she assumed would be the order of things. That Rhaenyra would ‘sacrifice and do her duty’ and lay down to suffer the whims and wills of the men around them at Alicent’s side. That they would be united in that suffering. That they would be defanged and declawed the way the Faith extolls women must be, to ‘gently guide’ the men in power alongside them. (Ironic considering how later Alicent utterly fails in ‘guiding’ every man in power around her.)

Alicent has followed every rule and every tradition, does her duty no matter the discomfort, and the fact that Rhaenyra is daring to grasp for more, for power of her own, for happiness and autonomy, and isn’t being punished for it infuriates her. Infuriates her to the point that only Rhaenyra’s trasngression matters. To her, it doesn’t matter that Criston Cole broke his vows and slept with the princess because he valued desire over duty (as explicitly stated by Fabien and by ep.4’s directors)- he is a man. Only Rhaenyra must be punished. It doesn’t matter to her that Rhaenyra has bowed to her father’s will and that the choice of who she will be marry has been taken away from her so that he can use her to fix the political wounds he has caused; from this point forward, nothing Rhaenyra ever does will be enough for Alicent. Supplying heirs to the throne and Driftmark? Not enough- especially since Rhaenyra doesn’t assault her gay husband to do so. Acting as heir and putting forth wise, responsible suggestions in politics and problem-solving in the small council? Absolutely not, especially since in Alicent’s mind Rhaenyra has no business ruling over the men in the Small Council. Ruling from the heir’s seat of Dragonstone in preparation for the throne? Not enough. Offering apology when the poison that Alicent has been feeding her children about Rhaenyra and her children causes a fight between the children where her son is injured after throwing around death threats and claimed a dragon without the King’s leave (which IS established to be necessary in Jaehaerys’ reign) Not enough- she must have Lucerys’ eye as well. From this point on, *nothing Rhaenyra can or will do will ever be enough.*

And the irony is that her own hypocrisy never takes herself into account. She uses a dress to declare war at a wedding; insulting the Velaryons and her stepdaughter, and she faces no consequences for doing so, nothing for the disrespect- but only Rhaenyra ‘never’ faces consequences, right? Criston Cole murders a knight of the kingdoms and strikes the future king-consort to the Kingdoms- and Alicent protects him from every consequence, brings him into her own household as her own sworn knight.

In essence; young Alicent is a victim of the Faith, the Patriarchy and the men around her; but all of the seeds for the abuser that she becomes are there. She’s a hypocrite, blind to anything that doesn’t fit the narrative she wishes for, and to a degree, very narcissistic, and not as clever or as powerful as she thinks she is.

Mind you her being self-serving or self-absorbed isn’t some unforgivable crime; but in juxtaposition to how Rhaenyra expresses concern and care for her at multiple points, it just sits very poorly, for me.

Moving on;

Alicent, when younger is… Deeply interesting, deeply flawed, and incredibly tragic. Her younger self sets the stage for how her story ends; (SPOILERS) with her outliving all her children and grandchildren, all of them dead for her grudges and ambition, with her mad and alone.

She’s also, in some ways, very clever; she’s observant, knowing much of the court gossip, even potentially dangerous secrets in e.1 (speaking of that one Lady’s ‘swollen belly’ aka suspected pregnancy). She’s very duty-oriented, though mostly because she wants to be rewarded for how dutiful she is. She’s subservient to the men around her due to how Otto uses her, and short-sighted. I don’t think she’s a particularly kind individual, but I think she did have the POTENTIAL to be kind. She’s a little boy-obsessed- she was confirmed to have had a crush on Daemon and on Criston, plus how she viewed the courtship tour as ‘romantic’, but she’s also so obsessed with Rhaenyra that it blinds her to the truth both of herself and of Rhaenyra- obsessed with an image of Rhaenyra that isn’t actually the truth. She takes solace in her Faith, it seems, more than anything else, and she struggles to connect to people around her in meaningful ways. She has moments of deep insight- such as how she told Rhaenyra that any effort in hers and Viserys’ relationship would have to come from Rhaenyra, as Viserys, a man, is useless to ‘the language of girls’. She doesn’t like risks (no interest in flying with Rhaenyra) or adrenaline, and likely pursues only more ‘feminine’ pursuits- canonically we know Rhaenyra loves to ride horses and to fly Syrax, to hawk and hunt, loves fashion- even in the book I’d say Rhaenyra is a ‘fashionable’ tomboy in a lot of ways. But we don’t really know.. ANY hobbies of Alicent’s. We don’t know her passions, we don’t know her interests outside of the Faith and the ambitions of her family.

We don’t know her relationships with her children or motherhood- though we know she’s jealous of what a good mother Rhaenyra is.

Honestly it’s a shame. S1 really needed to be 20 eps- 10 with the younger versions of Alicent and Rhaenyra, and 10 with the older. It would’ve let us KNOW the characters more and get far more invested in their fates.

Anyways this… is a novel. But I hope I answered your question alright lmao. I think Alicent as a character is very interesting- but good lord I don’t like her, and yeah I didn’t like her younger version either.

[drdemonprince]

As a straight woman reader I feel very jealous of your sexual exploits because I don't feel like I could ever safely have those kinds of encounters with men. I had a lot of casual sex in my youth and unfortunately I've found that straight men tend to treat women's receptivity to casual sex as a green flag to treat us disposably and ignore boundaries (and that's just standard vanilla sex - I don't want to think about how some of the kinds of anonymous/blindfolded encounters you've talked about would go even though in a vacuum they sound fun as hell). And it's so dumb because they could all be having way more sex if they would just act right instead of letting misogyny horribly infect everything.

I also think it is important to point out that queer men have very deliberately created the spaces that allow us to have anonymous, kinky, sometimes risky sex with one another while looking out for one another, and that we had to do that due to structural homophobia and the AIDs crisis.

The fact that I can have wild, masked sex on a bed in the dark in a bathhouse with a blindfold on and condoms spread beside me is because I know am in a space where employees are monitoring the halls continually, prophylatics are freely provided, testing is freely provided on site, trans people are welcome explicitly by policy, an explicitly sexual atmosphere has been created, and a whole culture of norms and nonverbal signals have been established. This has taken a lot of money and decades of work to build and maintain.

Gay and bisexual men have had to build places to have sex with one another that are both private and secure, and that bring a large number of us together -- due to structural homophobia making it illegal for us to even have sex until the early 2000's. We have had to respond to the AIDs crisis and Monkeypox and numerous other sources of danger and violence within our communities by promoting harm reductionist sexual health policies and by learning to look after one another.

Straight people do not have such comraderie. Misogyny is absolutely a major factor -- but the privilege straight people have and the immense isolation that comes with it is a factor too. Queer people have had to pool our resources to create the spaces we need as an oppressed sexual minority.

Now, there are hardly ANY such hookup spaces for queer women because they do not have the money and resources and structural power that men, including many queer men, do, and because women's sexual agency is so absolutely neglected and penalized by our culture.

And I do think straight men unwittingly fuck up their chances of getting laid by being inept and/or predatory -- if they hadn't been so shitty as sexual partners I might not have ever transitioned! and I recommend transition to anyone who wants to have better sex with men and finds doing so appealing. But ultimately things are as they are due to structural issues.

[anonymouswarriorhumanist]

We Need to Talk About RC and South Asian Representation in its Stories

Hey beautiful people, this is going to be a long post yet a very important one. From a Desi (A South Asian) to my fellow Desis and non-Desis (who especially need to hear me out).

I know the popularity of Romance Club as an interactive game. And being a South Asian makes me wanna pick literally any story that represents us. So, I went into RC's stories promising South Asian representation: Kali: Call of Darkness and Kali: Flames of Samsara. Apart from the poor research done on Indian culture which is too niche and trivial to be understood by everyone (relating to Indian languages and North-South differences), there is yet another aspect of Indian society that the game not only completely misrepresents but even whitewashes and this is very harmful to people, especially those with no knowledge of Indian culture, picking up the game to learn smth and that is: CASTE.

While playing the game, I am sure many of u may have come across such terms as 'Brahmin' or 'Kshatriya', 'Vaishya', or even 'Shudra'. And I am sure many of u may even have a rudimentary understanding of the same. This is the caste/ varna (Sanskrit term) that has plagued Indian society for thousands of years. And these terms basically divide desis even today. I especially want non-South Asians to understand that these terms carry a history of violence and discrimation. This was the chaturvarna or the 4 varna/caste sys wherein groups were ranked on their superiority to each other.

1.Brahmin-Priestly class

2.Kshatriya-Soldiers/ warriors/kings

3.Vaishya-merchants and traders

4.Shudras-Servants/slaves, (the lowest rung on the caste ladder and the most miserable)

Do keep in mind that this is not some class sys similar to feudal Europe or France, but this is CASTE which is very diff from what a non-South Asian may imagine. Notions of purity and pollution guide the caste sys (which may not influence class). A Shudra person was considered impure and hence an 'untouchable' and their mere shadows were considered polluting on the other 3 castes, so much so that they were ghettoized. In South Asia, servile work is generally considered 'polluting' and a complex history of multiple factors relegated this strict division of labourers, In simple lang, a Brahmin priest's son could only be a priest (which was a divine occupation and revered) and a Shudra's son could only do work considered appropriate of his caste which usually translated to things such as manual scavenging (still in India) and servile work considered 'polluting' from which they had no respite. This system was horrible towards Shudras in general as their labour was appropriated by the upper castes for their own gain very similar to how African slave labourers worked at white plantations if I hv to draw a rough comparison. Shudras/Dalits (the term 'Dalit' means broken/oppressed and was given by a Dalit leader and Indian legend Dr. Ambedkar to help uplift this community in Indian society) are subject to not only physical but structural violence. They were barred entry in schools, wells, tanks, roads and literally everywhere since their presence of 'polluting'. Now I have 2 more points:

In RC, I know everyone loves the male leads, and rightly so. But u need to understand that Ratan Vaish and Amrit Doobay won't give a fuck if a Dalit person died in front of them no matter how caring they might be. Since Brahmins were the priestly class, they hegemonized control over Hindu deities and mythology and only they could 'talk' to Gods (according to them ofc and their superiority complex). Amala is a Basu (a Bengali Brahmin surname) and hence both Doobay (again Brahmin) and Vaish (def upper-caste surname) r after her. If Amala was a Dalit, Amrit would hv raped and even killed her (Dalit women and the sexual violence enacted upon them by upper-caste men....again to draw a comparison similar to black women being raped by white men during slavery and jim crow eras: Google Hathras Rape case) and Ratan would have ignored her. ( Notice how Amrit was having an affair with that temple lady. She is most likely a Shudra as most Shudra women were forced into sexual slavery in temples by Brahmins like Amrit. Therefore, he treats her like an object and throws her away once Amala i.e. a woman of his caste falls in love with him. A Dalit woman's body is disposable and objectified here. Look at the complete whitewahing of power dynamics in that sexual encounter with Amrit and the temple dancer).We all need to understand that a similar fate would hv befallen Deviya Sharma (again a Brahmin woman) as even she would have been raped and ignored by other Brahmins and upper caste men in the story such as Ram/or Kamal etc. Arhat is likely a Shudra and Deviya will never bat an eyelash at him since his only job is to be in service to her tiger which Deviya probably treats with more respect than she does Arhat. My point is RC is mass producing these stories for the hyper-privileged White people of India i.e. the upper castes and that is Brahmins and Kshatriyas and Vaishyas. Dalits have rarely been entertained in representation much less in India than in abroad. But that is not what I am pissed abt. What I am pissed abt is that an American sitting in their home will check this story and see terms such as Brahmin or Kshatriya thrown abt without understanding them and then even internalize the harmful notions about these terms and caste in general in both stories abt a bunch of upper-castes freaking out over some goddess ritual.

Be very careful people in what u accept and what u don't bcoz even if it is a game, many non-Desi people may not have the relevant positionality (and that is completely fine!) to understand how the insidious caste sys is being shown and represented by RC. It is being glorified even (ik in the earlier chapters of KCD where Brahmins r shown as saviors of society and keeping Indian society stable when in reality they have done nothing but dehumanize and alienate Dalits for generations) and downplayed and even whitewashed as some trivial division. If RC wanted to publish a story about upper-caste people then pls go ahead but don't you dare whitewash it and glorify the caste sys. When impressionable audiences see all this, it is in their best interest to know the ugly truth about Indian society and not some cheap exotisation of the same. BE BETTER, especially for the Dalits who have suffered so much in South Asia. I am also attaching some material as I would greatly appreciate it if more people knew about the horrors of the caste system and how it plagues Desi society even today.

Discrimination (all types) r shitty and needs to kicked in the balls. Many times, it is subtle and while we may not know much, it is our responsibility to know more and try our best to stop it in whatever way we can.

Thank you for staying and take care y'all.

[noturlondonboy]

Headcanons for genderqueer Kate coming out to Yelena?

I feel like queerness in general is still a bit of a learning curve for Yelena considering her oppressive upbringing (but that’s my headcanon! All good if you don’t see it that way)

No you are so correct my friend let’s see what I can cook

WALL OF TEXT GO

-we could start on her coming out as gay first honestly. She’s not exactly nervous about it but she’s already crushing on Yelena and doesn’t really know how to go about it

-plus the internalized homophobia is strong and horrible. Yelena knows about Gay People, yea, but she’s convinced herself that nobody she knows personally is queer and there’s no excuse for her to be attracted to women

-Kate decides to just casually drop it into a conversation by mentioning a past girlfriend or a woman she thinks is really pretty (cough cough Florence Pugh)

-Yelena is just giving her A Look and asks is Kate is attracted to women, and her tone isn’t exactly very nice because she’s freaking the fuck out on the inside

-Kate gets all quiet and nods and gets ready to be rejected in some form or another but Yelena is completely silent and just leaves

-she goes to Natasha immediately and kinda just has a meltdown because she realizes that yes, she is massively into Kate and yes, it feels awful and wonderful at the same time and she’s terrified and wants to run away

-Natasha says the right things but is also just kinda like “…you know that I’m dating Wanda/Maria/Peggy (choose your favorite) right?”

-she eventually decides that she needs to see Kate and apologize for how she left and heads back to her apartment

-Kate meanwhile is NOT having a good time. Miss girl is kinda just crying on the couch with her dog because she’s just like me actually

-Yelena knocks on the door for the first time in her life because she feels bad. She calls out for Kate when she doesn’t respond, but still the door doesn’t open for her and she knows she doesn’t have the right to pick the lock like usual

-she apologizes through the door and explains why she reacted the way she did and that she doesn’t think Kate is disgusting and maybe lets it slip that she’s kinda into her

-which of course prompts Kate to open the door immediately

-Yelena can see that she’s been crying and nearly bursts into tears herself “oh malen’kiy yastreb… I’m so sorry”

-unclear who moved first but suddenly they’re kissing and obviously it’s the fucking best cuz duh

-they’re dating for a whileeee before Kate starts to explore her gender. (Pretty similar to it went in some of the other posts I’ve made) but it makes her panic a little when she realizes that she should probably talk to Yelena about it

-Yelena knows something is up but doesn’t want to push it

-Kate is trying to work up the courage to just blurt it out but accidentally goes “would you still love me if I was a worm” and Yelena just goes of course stupid because Kate asks her that like three times a week

-except when she looks over at her Kate is on the verge of tears and looks so distressed and disconnected and something is clearly actually wrong

-Yelena asks if she’s ok and Kate just shakes her head and starts crying and Yelena is kind of expecting the worst because yes, Kate gets upset about things, yes Kate has cried before and struggled and had a hard time but this is clearly different

-“I don’t think I’m a girl, Lena”

-Yelena does NOT know how to respond to that but she can see that Kate is kinda goin through it so she just nods and says ok and they cuddle

-she takes the night to think about it, and meanwhile Kate is just panicking and stressing and trying not to cry herself to sleep but it also feels so good to have finally just voiced it

-they talk in the morning, and Yelena apologizes for not really saying anything but assures Kate she still loves her and doesn’t want anything about their relationship to change

-she’s never given gender much thought in the first place and she’s gotten so much more comfortable with stuff that’s lgbtq related and honestly if Kate needs something to be different in order to be comfortable Yelena will make it happen

-Yelena would explode buildings and dismantle governments for Kate Bishop ok

[eddiegettingshot]

not to be a hypocrite as im typing this but I don't think I've ever seen this much discourse about 50s of throwaway television in my life. and maybe Im wrong but isn't the whole issue people have with that scene the fact that buck was opening up and tommy made it into a sex joke. and not the joke itself. or even if you think buck turned the conversation sexual, the issue is that they could have used that moment to develop their dynamic emotionally. and instead it was mostly just a throwaway moment. and I suppose I could understand that sort of discourse if this was a show or storyline written and made by queer men for queer men but 911 is ... not that. or even if they had put an amount of care into writing bucktommy's dynamic where Im supposed to interpret the things they say as significant for their development separately and together where a joke like that might be something meaningful to the characters/relationship then I could understand why people would be so defensive about it. but its not like them having daddy kink is going to affect the story at all. so. (also not that one tag like if buck and tommy were lesbians and queer men were weighing in on lesbian dynamics then the queer women would be pissed. like yeah ... men have been opressing women since forever... so if male fans of the show were making lesbian relationships about themselves it would be a problem. especially because lesbians are generally underrepresented in media anyways which is why a lot of queer women end up enjoying mlm ships more often that probably the other way around)

yes lol all of this. it’s so funny because “i didn’t like the scene” is not an opinion you can make sweeping claims about the root of but they are literally using the age-old tactic of “women just don’t get it” as an excuse to not consider anything outside of their bubble and they don’t even realize that this is literally like. 1950s level “women are hysterical” misogyny. and like ive been saying, this all just demonstrates a severe lack of understanding of how the world works. like arguably these opinions are pretty clear evidence of why its fucking stupid to suggest that you should Listen and Learn from someone just because they’re of a certain identity, but doubly so considering they are literally saying that we should Listen and Learn to queer men when they say women shouldn’t speak. ABOUT TWO WHITE CIS MEN ON TV WHO ARE NOT REAL AND WERE WRITTEN BY WOMEN. you could not fucking pay me money to shut up about a tv show just because a man told me i’m oppressing them (as a lesbian) if i don’t because thankfully i actually know stuff. it would be comical if people weren’t letting this slide and also like, cosigning it. but honestly the best part is the idea that queer men would give a flying fuck about a lesbian relationship anyway lmfao

[princessefemmelesbian]

Transandrophobia truthers are so damn racist and white oh my fucking god y'all actually piss me the fuck off every time you tokenize Black and brown men for your stupid as fuck "mra but make it trans-inclusive" ideology created by a creepy guy with a corrective rape fetish(something I'll never let up on for as long as I live, btw). If I ever see another one of y'all say "Black and brown men face discrimination because they're seen as overly masculine and that's why masculinity in men is oppressed in this society" I will literally kill myself. Stop using Black and brown men as brownie points for your bullshit arguments about misandry being real when you don't have the slightest idea how racialized oppression works. White boys are so annoying and dumb istfg.

@punkeropercyjackson @punknicodiangelo @pinkpinkstarlet

[daenerysstormreborn]

Also something that drives me fucking wild is seeing people refer to Dany and Arya’s roles as patriarchal or wish-fulfillment for men. Just yesterday I saw the phrase “patriarchal power fantasy” used. I need everyone to sit down and think about what “patriarchy” means.

For the purpose of this post, and any other post I make, please know that when I say “masculine” I am referring to stereotypes associated with the male sex and when I say “feminine” I am referring to stereotypes associated with the female sex. Masculine =/= male and feminine =/= female.

Patriarchy does not refer to masculinity. It does not mean that masculine people are in power (I wouldn’t go as far as to call Dany or Arya masculine, but bear with me). Patriarchy refers to systems where MEN are the sex caste in power. Men. Not masculine people. Under a patriarchal system, women are oppressed regardless of whether or not they conform to femininity, although the less a woman conforms, the more she is punished for it. Dany and Arya’s arcs are inherently ANTI patriarchal on the simple basis that they are female and they defy what is expected of women in Westeros. They can never represent male power fantasies because they are not men. Referring to their arcs as male power fantasies is telling on yourself. You are revealing that your view of women and what we want and fantasize about is narrow. Why would you assume that only men would desire to travel across the sea and learn the ways of a secret society of assassins? Why would you assume that only men would want to wield the power of dragons and amass loyal supporters?

You are part of the problem by assuming that the desire for power is a male trait. Yes, we stereotypically associate that with men. That stereotype, and what we consider masculine and feminine as a whole, almost exclusively exist to uphold the patriarchy. Women are expected to be peaceful pacifists, complacent, quiet, because that keeps us under the boot of the male caste. Consider why so many “strong” female characters are less feminine. Is it because people feel the need to make them more like men in order to be “strong?” I say no. At least, not most of the time. If this is what you think, you’ve got the order mixed up. Skirts, dresses, and heels are impractical for fighting and limit movement a lot. Thus, it wouldn’t make sense for a competent female fighter to be wearing them. These things have been forced upon women BECAUSE they are impractical. A woman who keeps her hair short and wears no makeup and wears pants and no heels is not trying to emulate men. She is shedding femininity because femininity is impractical and time consuming. Consider WHY so many traits associated with power, leadership, and combat are considered masculine. It’s the enforcement of the patriarchy. Female characters who chase down these things and embody these qualities and do not conform to femininity are not basically men. They are women who are rejecting the system. This is antithetical to the patriarchy and to male power fantasies.

In summary: a female character who has an arc typically associated with male characters can never be a male power fantasy BECAUSE she is female.

Obligatory note that women who do conform are not lesser and their stories are not less important—they just do not challenge the patriarchy.

[velvetvexations]

Over on bluesky there's a circle of trans femmes who like, abjectly refuse to accept material reality.

The most recent example was the "cissexual" incident. A girl says that we need to start differentiating between trans people who medically transition and those who don't, and that those who don't are "cissexual transgenders"

While I personally believe the girl that started all this was acting in good faith initially, but she likewise refused to accept the words of a literal historian telling her why we left those terms in the past where they belong and the harm they brought (because it creates a hierarchy of trans people) and start blocking people whenever the lightest pushback hit.

So of course this turned into every uninvolved trans femme going "Stop making up a tranny to be mad at when we're trying to describe our material reality and listen to what we say" and "Its transmisognynistic to block trans women" when everyone decides to just start blocking problem starters because nonbinary people apparently aren't allowed to be upset at the use of "cissexual" and intersex people aren't allowed to be upset about it, and anyone who complains is just a dirty theyfab who is the reason why transphobes are taking away HRT.

When like.... the same women who are saying this shit are constantly firing off with some manner of dumb ass take that they shot off because they're shut-ins who only engage with political theory they learned off sixth hand from another woman who probably didn't even read the books they're talking about in the first place.

I'm not going to pretend that a lot of trans women/femmes getting blocked by non-trans women/femmes somehow has nothing to do with transmisognyny but, when every other week a girl fires off with some shit like

"Aces don't experience oppression and if you said that you got raped for it you're lying for attention"

or

"Writing bisexual characters in a het romance is conversion therapy and is not in any way considered queer art, especially if they don't fuck on-screen."

Then you're going to find yourself blocked by a lot of people for your dogshit takes! It has nothing to do with being a "mean tranny"!

I didn't think it was humanly possible for me to hate transradfems more and now I know "cissexual" is a thing and I just. I just hate them all so much. I hate them. God how I hate them with my whole entire heart.

[mareastrorum]

and 8.? Very related, might be the same thing.

1. the character everyone gets wrong

It's hard for me to gauge how many people actually hold a particular fandom opinion about a specific character. A lot of the C2 characters fit here, as do some C3 people, so I'll go for one that isn't discussed as often.

I think a lot of people get Caduceus wrong because his arc was fairly subtle in the stream. He went from a passive believer in the Wildmother to a cleric acting upon the world in her name. In the beginning, he was always looking for signs and waiting for someone to tell him what to do. He liked that.

But in a world like Exandria, Caduceus needed to become someone who would make decisions and choose a path, and he did. He was the first one to learn about Cognouza. He insisted on learning more about it. In every discussion, he insisted every time that it was aberrant, wrong, and had to be stopped. Early Caduceus never would have done that, but by the time the Nein got to the end game, he was ready for it.

8. common fandom opinion that everyone is wrong about

I'm going to be honest, I almost went with a tamer answer, but this is the "choose violence" ask game, and it’s Indigenous People’s Day, so here's the answer that's going to invoke carnage.

The Nine Eyes of Lucien was a terrible book. It sucked for many reasons, but the key one that has soured more as time goes by is that Brevyn Oakbender is a white savior.

First: what is a white savior? A white savior is a trope in western media where a white character saves a minority character (or a group) from the plight of being naturally inferior. It’s been around for a few hundred years now, and it gained prevalence in the U.S. in the slave trade era. A more well known historical example is the poem The White Man’s Burden, which was one of many works justifying colonization because white supremacists reasoned that was how indigenous peoples could be included in the modern, proper, Christian culture of whites. For those who don't want to click links, here's the first stanza of the poem:

Take up the White Man's burden— Send forth the best ye breed— Go bind your sons to exile To serve your captives' need; To wait in heavy harness On fluttered folk and wild— Your new-caught, sullen peoples, Half devil and half child.

Man, that sure would be on the nose for tieflings, wouldn’t it?

More recent works involving the white savior trope tend to focus on middle-class white characters (especially women) acting charitably towards minorities (especially Black characters) as a way to highlight how good white people are for fixing the problems minorities face. Most importantly, there is little, if any, criticism aimed at white characters or the systems of oppression that benefit them and which caused the problems in the first place. Instead, those social ills are typically reframed as failures by individuals, who are also conveniently minority characters. It's just that the "it's because they're not white" part isn't said aloud much these days.

Not every white character in a story about minority characters is a white savior. The purpose is what matters. Characters are narrative devices to tell a story, so why is this white character in the story? What do they add to the plot, characterization, and themes? If the white character is constantly portrayed as superior and benevolent towards the inferior minority characters, and the plot progression is directly tied to the decisions, actions, and roles of the white character, then that is a white savior story. A lot of stories about white people standing up to racism, bigotry, and systemic oppression tend to fuck this up because the creators choose to make the white character the hero. White savior stories are about how great white people are, not about the minorities they deign to help. It is not something an author does accidentally. It takes effort to structure a story that way.

In all honesty, this trope tends to fly under the radar because most audiences just aren’t examining things critically or from a critical race theory perspective. I wasn’t even sure that had been what I’d read until I read through TNEOL a second time the following week. I first noticed this because each time I read a derivative work of any kind (even licensed ones or adaptations like novelizations), I am extremely critical of new characters. Why did the author add someone new? What does this character add that could not be achieved with pre-existing characters? There is always a reason for it, and it’s not always bad, but that reason informs my opinion of the work overall.

In the case of Brevyn Oakbender, the only unique trait she added that could not have been achieved with a pre-existing character is that she is blonde, blue-eyed, light-skinned—white. Literally everything else about her personality, behaviors, roles, and actions could have been achieved with any of the other Tombtakers because almost all of their facets were unknown in canon.

If Brevyn was only supposed to be a self-insert, it really wouldn’t be that big of a deal. Representation is generally a good business decision in media, especially when the target audience matches with that background, and—let’s be real—white people are more likely to buy books featuring white people. While I won’t presume to map Lucien onto any particular minority group, a tiefling with purple skin and red eyes is definitely not an analogue for a white character, and neither is Cree, a black-furred tabaxi. While Tyffial, Zoran, and Otis are arguably white (lighter skin tones, specifically), they are also “other” enough (elf, goliath, halfling) that it wouldn’t give some white audience members that same feeling of having a main character who they can reflect themselves onto. But, wait: why not use Jurrell? The only thing set in stone about Jurrell was the name and that they had died after Lucien (which wouldn’t be too hard to set up as a tragedy appropriate for the book). But Jurrell isn’t a very white name is it? Enter an Aryan girl with a clearly white first and last name. If that was all there was to it, I’d have chalked that up to PRH setting expectations to achieve sales and not thought all that much of it. That level of incidental white race emphasis is just business in the U.S.

Except that in TNEOL, Brevyn is also responsible for every positive development in Lucien’s life and is the catalyst for the plot moving forward. Lucien only causes problems and Brevyn solves them, right up until she dies for him.

Lucien’s canon backstory isn’t touched upon in the stream except for the most recent 2 years. The stream only covers that (1) he grew up in Shadycreek Run, (2) people were unkind to him because he is a tiefling, (3) he somehow joined the Claret Orders and became a ghostslayer, (4) he led the Tombtakers away from the Orders, which had become “clouded”, (5) the Tombtakers were active for about 5 years before Lucien died, (6) they did illegal acquisitions, bodyguarding, and thieving, as well as expeditions into Molaesmyr, (7) Vess DeRogna hired them to escort her to Eiselcross and the ruins of Aeor, (8) during that expedition, Lucien kept a book that Vess felt was rightfully hers, (9) after agreeing to a trade for the book, Vess DeRogna killed Lucien during a ritual to travel to Cognouza, (10) Lucien’s soul was shattered and eventually reconstituted once Molly died, and (11) he is the Nonagon chosen by the Somnovem. Everything else was implication at best or unknown.

As a prelude: It’s not reasonable to constantly attribute all plot developments to the protagonist. Overdoing it can come off as very “Mary Sue” because the protagonist would somehow be the only person in the world that can make change happen. It’s also a little strange for a character not to want to settle into some type of normalcy. Even in a TTRPG story, there has to be some goal, and it might be as simple as securing a “wander the world and do quests for money” type of life. Plot stagnation is about whether the story is moving forward, not whether the characters have something to do with their time. Thus, external forces must be a catalyst for changes in at least a few situations to avoid both Sue-ishness and plot stagnation. Among many options, new characters are often introduced to move the story along when an existing character otherwise would not take action. They might be a quest giver, a new ally/rival/enemy, or a new party member. Thus, it is perfectly reasonable to expect some plot developments to be attributable to characters other than Lucien even though he is the protagonist in the book, and it’s totally reasonable for a new character to come in and handle some of that.

So here are the plot changes caused by Brevyn:

She heals Lucien from a potentially lethal injury, and he falls in love with her at first sight;

Brevyn's mother provides Lucien with room and board (which had not been offered previously), thereby side-stepping all survival issues caused by being a poor, homeless orphan in Shadycreek Run;

Lucien and Cree join the Claret Orders based on Brevyn’s recommendation;

Lucien, Cree, Otis, and Brevyn leave the Claret Orders to work for the Cerberus Assembly (specifically, Vess DeRogna) because of a referral extended by Elias de Corvo specifically to Brevyn;

Tyffial, Jurrell, and Zoran—who had been squatting in Brevyn’s mom’s home—teamed up with the group to steal Brevyn’s mom’s bones from a crypt, and that incident is the reason they came together and are named the “Tombtakers”;

Lucien doesn’t lose the Somnovem’s book during a cave in, resulting in him becoming the Nonagon.

For a story where Lucien is supposed to be the protagonist, that’s an incredible number of key plot advancements that were directly caused by a supporting character. The same supporting character. The sole white character. That's also not getting into the little details like she's the reason that Lucien uses twin black scimitars, that he wears shirts to show off cleavage, that he likes butterfli— wait, I said I wasn't going to get into those details. Moving on.

Why weren't any of those plot developments a result of actions or choices by Lucien or any of the other Tombtakers? I’ll briefly examine each of those, because these choices matter. They weren’t made in a vacuum, but Roux insisted in her interview that she had broad leeway to do with the story as she pleased. She made conscious decisions about what the story would be. So what does that tell us compared to the alternatives she could have chosen?

The meet cute over a trap bomb was why Lucien was interested in Brevyn in the first place, and their romance was barely touched in the book other than some flirting and brief references to how Lucien felt about her. The result is that it felt like part of a checklist, which is disappointing given how much set up was done to explain why Lucien got a bomb to the face and Cree didn’t. We also know Cree as the cleric of the Tombtakers, but Brevyn is the one that heals Lucien. We could hand wave that away as Cree not yet developing those abilities, but there’s also the simple fact that blood hunters don’t have healing abilities. So not only does Brevyn have skills that the reader expected from a different character, she is also an exceptional character with abilities not available to others like her. And sure, Lucien could have fallen in love at first sight in some other way, but this set up emphasizes his carelessness and helplessness, and it establishes Brevyn's unique level of charity, empathy, beauty, and skills right off the bat.

Next, we address the fact that Brevyn and her family gave Lucien a modicum of stability. How Lucien survived as a destitute orphan on the streets of Shadycreek Run could have made for an interesting backdrop to a lot of character development, especially the negative aspects of his personality. The only real reasons not to use that to frame Lucien’s character development at that time are (a) word budget within the novel, and (b) what themes can be explored in that circumstance. By introducing a white family to house Lucien, the situation becomes “good-hearted white people extend a hand of charity to a murderous, reckless colored boy” instead of “destitute boy struggles to survive after escaping abuse and is refused aid because of racism.” Neither makes Lucien look good, per se, but one definitely makes white characters look good, and it saves on word count. It also conveniently lets Roux minimize the issue of racism in Lucien’s background.

Given that the Claret Orders is a secretive group, it makes sense that the most common way that anyone would be recruited is a chance encounter with an existing member. There is no LinkedIn or job board recruiting people to undergo a secret ritual and learn to fight monsters. Conveniently, Brevyn is already a member and was visiting her mother at the exact time that Lucien showed up with a hole in his face, and somehow, she came to the conclusion that referring him and Cree to join the Orders was a good idea. We don’t know why she thought that because the book didn’t elaborate. Another option could have been another character meets all three of them and recruits them together. Any of the other Tombtakers could have been used for that purpose, and it would even start the thread about how they fostered that connection into their eventual mercenary group. However, that might have required some exposition or side plot, and then Brevyn wouldn’t have been elevated over Lucien or Cree by age, experience, and competency.

Once at the Claret Orders, there had to be a reason that Lucien and the Tombtakers-to-be chose to leave. In the stream, Cree had said that Lucien led them away and alluded to some sort of disagreement between the group and the Orders, but that was done away with. Instead, Lucien languished at the Orders and had no plan for his future, then left once Brevyn received a job recommendation from Elias de Corvo, and she asked Lucien to come along. Why pass up the other Tombtakers for this? Why couldn’t it have been a job that turned into a new path? This retcon is particularly disappointing because Lucien’s acquisition of skill and experience as a blood hunter would have been a good point to seed character development, both for a coming of age timeline and in this early arc of the novel. However, this was another opportunity to cement how charitable and respected Brevyn is, and that was more important to Roux than any of the other threads to be explored in that section of the book. After all, Brevyn was recommended by the most famous blood hunter in Exandria to work for the most powerful group of mages in the empire, and most importantly, none of the other Tombtakers were—especially not Lucien. The white girl is superior yet again.

The Tombtakers’ group name is a pretty obvious reference to grave robbing, and the fact that Lucien was pleased to refer to the group as that in the stream suggests that he liked the name. It came off as tongue-in-cheek and demonstrated a lack of shame from each of the members. The origin could have been an inside joke, a petty rebellion against the need for a mercenary group to have names, or any number of reasons. However, the origin Roux chose is that the group formed by stealing bones from the Jagentoths, not because they actually rob graves as a profession, nor because of anything to do with pillaging the heritage of elves in Molaesmyr. After all, that would be villainous, and Brevyn—a white person—is a member, so the Tombtakers needed to be neutral or good, not evil. Thus it’s a kind-hearted mission to put a white woman’s remains to rest and help the grief-stricken white protagonist side character. Because the key part of white savior stories is that the white savior is good, and that cannot be maligned by a negative reference to grave robbing.

The problem with adding a new Tombtaker is that the character also needs to disappear before canon events and there needs to be a reason that no one refers to that person by name in the stream. Thus, it was obvious from the start that Brevyn would either leave the group on poor terms or die. The former would require more plot and word count, so it’s no surprise that we got the latter. Lucien discovered the Somnovem’s book in the ruins of Aeor, but subsequently the group had to flee a cave in. While running, Lucien (a dexterity-based ghostslayer, which is a subclass with the signature ability to literally move through solid matter—like a ghost) tripped, then Brevyn grabbed him and dragged him along (because we need to know that she is not only stronger than him, but she is also more agile and faster), and he dropped the book. Once they got to an apparently safe location, she ran back, grabbed the book, and was crushed by the cave in. Even Brevyn’s death was orchestrated to emphasize her martyrdom and consideration of Lucien, who inexplicably failed at the exact things he should excel at. Out of all the ways Brevyn could have died, Roux chose to have her die in a way that makes her look good and Lucien look incompetent. It couldn’t just be that he discovered the book that would doom him; his interest in the book had to get a white character killed before he ever opened it, which conveniently doubles as a justification for the Tombtakers resorting to villainy. Now there’s no need to explain why such a positive influence in Lucien’s life had not prevented any of the canon events. Instead, it implies that things wouldn’t have gone so badly if the white character had still been around to guide everyone else.

Of course, later, both Molly and Cree attempt to invoke Brevyn's memory to dissuade Lucien from his path as the Nonagon, because obviously there's no other positive role models in his life. In fact, they also argue that if he would just mourn her properly, that would help him realize he's on the wrong path—positing that even his decision to try to take over the world is also because of Brevyn. Specifically, the lack of Brevyn and Lucien's inability to cope without her. Finally, even his decision to stop the fight at the very end is also tied to her memory. The white girl isn't even there for any of that, and Roux made absolutely sure that we knew that every positive choice Lucien made or could have made was because of Brevyn.

There isn't a single decision that Brevyn made in TNEOL that was wrong unless we conclude that her decisions to help/save Lucien were wrong. Wow. Wait a minute. In fact, that's objectively correct. If Brevyn had just let Lucien die or not given him a helping hand at any point in the story, the whole plot with Lucien as the Nonagon never would have happened, and the world would have been saved by his sheer incompetence. Let me rephrase that: the only wrong decisions the white character made were to help the non-white protagonist.

WOW.

So, hey, if you are an aspiring writer who happens to be white, and you plan on writing a story about characters that aren't white, maybe don't insert a white savior. Just don’t do it. That'd be great if you could avoid being that blatantly racist. I would truly appreciate it. If you manage that, then congratulations, you have already managed to write a better story than New York Times best-selling author Madeleine Roux’s The Nine Eyes of Lucien, because at least you aren’t resorting to white supremacist tropes to appeal to a primarily white audience in the 2020s.

In closing, the common fandom opinion that TNEOL was a good story is wrong. TNEOL sucked, Roux is either racist or happy to use racist tropes for money, and I feel bad for the CR team that this is what they got for taking a chance on a villain novel.

Happy Indigenous People’s Day. :D

Choose violence ask game.

[blackswallowtailbutterfly]

Was she or was she not born with a vulva?

That's all I care about. Whether a condition she has should or should not disqualify a certain woman from a certain sport is a different conversation.

But if she was born with a vagina, I don't care if she has a Y chromosome ffs. She's a woman. Before the discovery of chromosomes, women and girls were identified by vulvas. Does material reality matter when it comes to womanhood and oppression, or does it fucking not?

You can't see chromosomes. You can see genitals. No, not at all the time, and yes, we can tell by secondary and tertiary sex characteristics the vast majority of the time. But not all the time. Some people genuinely look androgynous or even like the opposite sex. It's rare, but it happens.

Some women have gotten by in history by posing as men. I, a fertile female, have been mistaken for male when I've let my upper lip hair grow! If we looked back through history and exhumed the bodies of women who posed as men, say, Dr James Barry, and found that she had XY chromosomes, does it make her less of a woman in history trying to practice medicine in a time when women weren't allowed to? Whose accomplishments were discredited when they gave her an autopsy and found her to be female (because she had a vulva)? Is it really just misdirected misogyny if a baby is born with the very female organ that men try to control, if it turns out she's actually a male who didn't develop properly in the womb?

Personally, no, I don't think so. Those are my sisters. They are not whole ass men developing a fantasy of what being women is and playing at being women and invading our spaces and taking up our resources. They are not even like David Reimer who was born as an intact male, had his genitals destroyed, had to use a colostomy bag, and whose parents attempted to raise as a girl. They were born and treated as girls.

Tell me, if you heard right now about a woman from 200 years ago who posed as a man to get an education, fight in war, etc. and never had any children, you wouldn't be happy to learn about her, you wouldn't see her as an icon. But it's entirely possible the reason she didn't have children and was able to pass as a man is because she was technically male with a DSD! So is that suddenly not a woman's accomplishment? How is that different from transing historical figures? Shrodinger's female accomplishments until a chromosome test?

An XX female with an SRY gene activated will develop as an infertile male. Is he one of us because of his fucking chromosomes? With a whole ass penis?

Like, come the fuck on. A lot of people here lately seem to really want to be the "TERF" stereotype. Literally seeing people arguing that being born with a vulva doesn't count because of neovulvas! Are you fucking kidding me?!? What happened to the vagina and clitoris being organs whereas neovulvas are an open wound that doesn't and can't function as more than a hole? Suddenly it's similar enough that only chromosomes count? Come off it!

Again, I'm not talking about whether a woman with XY chromosomes should be playing in certain sports. I don't know enough to have a fully formed opinion on that.

It's the way people are insisting on calling them men that's pissing me off. You do not know enough to do that. If they were born with malformed penises, fine! Have at it! But we have no evidence of that. All we know is that they *probably* have XY chromosomes. That says nothing about whether they have Swyer Syndrome, CAIS, or another XY DSD I'm not aware of where the babies are born with female genitalia.

Just, enough. If you want to talk about whether the tiny percentage of women with XY chromosomes have automatic advantages (I think they likely do, but again I don't know) over non-DSD females, talk about that. You can do that without calling women with DSDs men.

[manns-cape]

v interesting that all the people who are most mad about me being okay with jokingly referring to myself as someone's "resident muslim friend" are people who, at first impression, i highly suspect of misconstruing their personal history in order to fit with a group (for reasons that are just like, fact based, whatever)

like... you don't have to misconstrue your personal history. you can literally just be honest with people about who you are. i don't have to fucking lie about being jewish or pretend to be jewish, to support jewish people in my life against antisemitism. you don't have to lie about who you are to want to learn more about how to better support anyone in your life who has a different cultural experience than you. *it is healthy* to be in a community that's not homogenous.

like, i'm a russian person of kabardian ancestory who's nominally muslim, based in central and eastern europe. there is no real world where i would ever be enveloped in a community of congolese people. i've been privileged to work with a troupe of actors from the DCR though, and i still talk sometimes with one of them. when stuff comes up with russia-- i'm the one he asks. when stuff comes up with the DCR-- i ask him. neither of us are ~humiliated~ by the experience of cultural exchange.

idk i feel like a lot of people want to catfish online that they have exclusive, perfect insider knowledge to *all the communities and all the oppression and all the culture*, just so they never have to "degrade" themselves by just listening to other people.

it's not ~offensive to me and so degrading to me~ that i'm the only muslim that a lot of jewish people in my life know-- esp because of our environment (myself working in theatre-- it's not exactly a job that muslims encourage women to enter). it's normal for people in my life to not know a ton of muslims. and it's good that jewish people in my life are okay having difficult conversations with me. in 0 way does it debase me and i really resent a bunch of catholics and christians sending me weird messages with terrorist gifs in response and insinuating that *talking to people in your life who have an experience that you don't know about* is in any way diminishing to you.

even just on a smaller level than social issues-- i don't get how people can not understand the concept that we all have unique things that differentiate us and will make us local experts.

like i'm sorry, but you have to be in an *incredibly* homogenous, fucking boring community if you're no one's token "something." i can't imagine how basic of a life experience people are having otherwise. (or, alternatively, how hard they are pretending online to know All The Experiences)

even like, maybe you're the only person in your group who knows about crocheting. is it INHERENTLY HUMILIATING for people in your friend group to ask you about crocheting, because you're the person they know who's an expert on crocheting? jfc, it's not.

[eatmangoesnekkid]

On Covid and the next thing coming 🪶🕊️🪽🪞🫀

I generally don't post about things like this on my blog but I also feel that it's important to name and square up on the monster and the future monsters to come. I am overjoyed that this kind of information is finally coming out about the vaccine. If you have some intuitive awareness, you, like me, probably felt that there was something not right about it. Personally there was no way on earth I was going to inject this vaccine toxin into my body even when people were trying to make unvaccinated people feel ashamed about our decisions, called us "selfish," and accused us of not looking out for vulnerable people. My goodness! We definitely need more Priestess women in the world and it's one thing I'm looking forward to about my online school and high-gated online temple space. People are going to have to remember how to trust those who can 'see' in the dark so that we can teach them how to access their seer qualities too or give them some deeper intelligence that will help them to make a more thoughtful decision. People whose mind have been trained on how to think and process information like in the medical, academic/higher education, social justice, corporate, leadership/managerial, or political system will especially need support, alongside any other people who have worked for long hours and haven’t had the time, resources, space, or ease to open up their minds to different ways of thinking and sensing beyond the programming and conditioning. In other words, those who have lived a lot of their life and lifetimes being busy, in their heads or behind computers, will especially need support.

There are many cases of people who died right after being vaccinated or developed neurological disorders when they were perfectly healthy before. It's fucked up how many well-meaning people were trying to force people like me to get vaccinated against our better judgment on how to care for our bodies and the bodies of our love ones. When this kind of evil happen again, or something similar that may not be related to a vaccine but something else, we do not need to separate and point fingers at each other like children but to come together as divine humans. People have learn to trust those of us who have deeper intuitive gifts, and not merely blindly hand their trust over to the government and do whatever they tell them to do to their body. Because most things on the news have an agenda that doesn't support the health and wellness of any of us. And whatever narrative the government and status quo culture is pushing is usually not healthiest option. Education on how to build up the quality and frequency of the immune system is the Priestess path.

If you want to elevate in your female tissues, whatever the government says begin to question it and in most cases, do the opposite. What I hope people take away from experience is the need to wake up and become more aware of the slick manipulation that is coming down the pipeline in the future. If you are still listening to everything in the news and not listening to your own mystical female body, you will never be sovereign and autonomous enough to find real solutions outside the oppressive inhumane structures we have been taught to perceive are on our side.

Never forget that they are more likely than not NOT advocating for your wellbeing and the wellbeing of your loved ones. *The only exception to this would be an elderly or immune-compromised person in your family who really feels that they need to be vaccinated. Some people need to be vaccinated and that vaccination will be helpful to their wellbeing. Do not fight against what is living in a person‘s mind i.e. reality because it will be what they need to be well/better and more relaxed and calm, although you may feel differently about your own body.

I know we won’t see the totality of the effects of this vaccine for years to come, but what’s also true is that everyone is different and some won’t be adversely effected at all. If you were vaccinated, do not feel shame or guilt. Unchecked or unresolved frequencies of shame or guilt comprises the wellbeing of the body. Instead talk to your body. Ask/decree it to break up and dissolve the vaccine out of your nervous system and tissues. People often say you won't receive if you don't “ask.” I find the opposite is true. Asking can leak away a helluva lot of energy…like people who beg when they pray. I find that when I say NO to nearly everything, and make a clear decree on what I expect to happen, blessings come POURING and LEAKING IN because the universe that within us all finally realizes that I will neither be played with; nor am I playing.

Sweating and opening up the body’s detoxification pathways in other ways can also help. Many people are mentally unwell for many different reasons and their state of mind informs why they ‘see’ and the choices they make. A parasite cleanse will greatly help to open up your mind to trigger more mental clarity and access your God energy, intuitive qualities. Build heaven on earth around you—this is the purpose of true beauty. If you can not build it, begin to imagine it. Attract a lover and/or friend you can experience an amplified heaven on earth energy with. Source money and resources in ways that amplify your heaven. If you can’t, imagine what it would be like to do so. -India Ame'ye, AUthor

ETA: While I didn’t personally need any confirmation, Mama Delores affirmed my words. Consciously speaking to different parts of my body everyday is part of my spiritual practice. My most spoken to parts are my breasts which I imagine is the reason I feel so much love effortlessly around being alive at this time. 🥰🫀❤️

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by David Hacker (@iamgoldsoul)

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Universe | Law of Attraction (@universe.guidance)

[redditreceipts]

I've been a very staunch supporter of trans ppl for years. I have learned to swallow my discomfort around some of the things said in those circles. When they said it was transphobic for lesbians to not like dick, I bit my tongue. I told myself, "this is just the loud minority" and to be fair I do think that is the minority but still ... as a lesbian I wasn't even able to talk about people who argued that because "it never happens. No one says that. That sounds like a transphobic lie." And I hate the constant assertions that gender is real, innate, and that everyone feels it. I can't describe my own experiences with growing up as a woman without someone telling me that maybe I'm nonbinary ... no thanks I tried that for a while. I respect everyone's gender, or I want to, but apparently doing that also requires me to put that oppressive structure onto myself and act like it's liberating.

The final snapping point for me was a trans woman telling me that I'm privileged for being a cis woman because I've never experienced dysphoria ... except I have. I grew up with intense thoughts about my body and hating my vagina and breasts. It was never that bad but I would often imagine mutilating. I'm in a better place now but I still feel some discomfort over my body sometimes. And when I expressed this to her, she asked me if I was really cis or was still questioning ...

They act like misogyny doesn't exist or something. I just ... I disagree with a lot of radical feminists beliefs or at least I think I do. But for years I have felt like radfems were the only ones even talking about misogyny anymore so idk

Anyway what I wanted to say is that I really like your posts and perspectives and thanks for this blog. I want to learn more and question more and your blog has become a helpful resource to help me start thinking critically about some things

Hey :) thanks for writing to me and sorry for the late answer. 

And yeah, you are totally right. I have also spent such a long time justifying gender ideology because I really wanted it to be right. I’ve excused so much weird behaviour with weird mental gymnastics because I didn’t want to accept that I had been wrong for such a long time. 

The entire “that never happens” thing - and then you show them an occasion where it happened, and they say “well, it doesn’t happen that much”. And yeah, people have suggested me being non-binary as well. I mean, by strict gender definitions I am non-binary because I don’t identify as a woman lmao. Just as the ��you’re uncomfortable in your body?? what about fucking cutting it up??!!!!” thing. 

And for disagreeing with feminist beliefs, the thing is that being a feminist is not a package deal. You are not being some sort of heretic if you disagree with certain things, and I know that I am most probably wrong on a lot of stuff myself. If I wasn’t, I would be the first person who is always right in human history. And yes, even in feminist spaces, there is sometimes some sort of imperative to follow every single belief or you are not a “real feminist”. But being a feminist is not an identity, it is an action. It is an action towards yourself, in the workplace, in interaction with other women and men, in your consumption, in your voting, in how you support women in your personal life and how you do political action. So yeah, I would say that it is less important whether you follow every rule of the radical feminist catechism and more important to support women in your life (which includes yourself). At least, that’s my opinion. 

So if you want to learn more, you can look into literally anything Julie Bindel says on Youtube, I really like her perspective. And cool that you’re here!