#aggrieved entitlement

[profeminist]

Cartoon by https://www.instagram.com/vulgadrawings

AGGRIEVED ENTITLEMENT

looks like this:

[The single panel comic has a pink background. A white man with short brown hair wearing a white collared shirt and black pants is sitting on one end of a wide wooden bench. His arms are crossed and he is staring straight ahead, his legs splayed out to either side wider than his hips. To his right stands a woman with dark hair and brown skin wearing a green vest over a lilac long-sleeved shirt and black shirt. She is gesturing with one hand at the bench, smiling as she looks sideways at it.]

Woman: I THINK I DESERVE TO SIT ON THIS BENCH TOO!

[Below the first drawing, the woman is now sitting on the opposite end of the bench, her hands on her closed knees. She is looking sideways apprehensively at the man who has fallen onto the ground. His arms are flung out and he looks horrified.]

White man: OH MY GOD I'VE BEEN PUSHED OFF! THERE'S NO ROOM FOR ME ON [Underlined text.] MY [End underlined text.] BENCH ANYMORE!

See also: human conversation.

"Men perceived the discussion as being equal when women talked only 15% of the time, and the discussion as being dominated by women if they talked only 30% of the time."

[the1312daysofchristmas]

the reason men are getting more conservative is very simply that as a class, as a socioeconomic group, their power is being threatened by womens civil rights. its the same reason for the broad surge in right wing politics. its called a backlash and its also why most civil war monuments are from the era of the black civil rights movement and not actually from the civil war.

[rhaenin-time]

The changes the writers made to Alicent, Aemond, and Aegon have too many modern connotations and it disturbs me that so many people find those connotations "sympathetic."

[thisismyrocket]

cannot believe people are still putting those fucking posts on my dashboard in 2022. why the fuck do i have to see a 16 year old’s opinion on chronic life ruining mental illness? can you people fucking stop with that “i don’t care that it ruins your life, it makes me uncomfortable waaah” shit????

excellent idea, we can and should stop mentally ill people from hating themselves by shaming them for making people uncomfortable. if i see you in real life i’m going to make the most hateful self-deprecating joke i can possibly muster and you’ll fucking live, you worthless teenager.

i wonder how these people feel about personality disorders and schizo-spec conditions? i fucking wonder how these “neurodivergence activists”(read: autism and adhd activists) feel about people one rung lower on the ladder than them!

like its not as though i think i should be allowed to freak people out no consequence you idiots. im not claiming neurodivergent minor status. its just that if your reaction to me crumbling a little in front of you is this vindictive victim blaming exhausted anger, why the fuck should i make myself more presentable for the likes of you?

[liberalsarecool]

MAGA has an aggrieved entitlement addiction.

[spibbb]

venom is a love born from ugliness, monstrosity in a literal and moral sense. aggrieved entitlement borne from a lifetime of being hated for the crime of existing. their anger is a reclamation of power. their rage is nuclear destruction. they love revenge because it feels so fucking good to finally be the one doing the hurting. aren't you tired of being nice, don't you want to go apeshit.jpg

[hero-israel]

hi, fellow Jew here

what's antisemitic about the genocide claims? i've heard this a lot, and aside from being Horrific Misinformation, i don't... see why this is antisemitic? like it's bad and wrong but i don't know if it comes from Jew-hate if ykw i mean.

sorry, this could be a stupid question-

When it comes to Jewish institutions, all misinformation, false accusations, and conspiracy theories are inherently antisemitic. Charging Jews with "genocide" in these circumstances - when they are shooting back in a two-sided war, aimed at an armed group, taking steps to encourage and allow civilians to flee - requires a false accusation and a minimization / inversion of terms.

David Schraub:

"For thousands of years, for much of the world, part of the cultural patrimony enjoyed by all non-Jews—spiritual and secular, Church and Mosque, enlightenment and romantic, European and Middle Eastern—was the unquestionable right to stand superior over Jews. It was that right which the Holocaust took away, or at least called into question: the unthinking faith of knowing you were the more enlightened one, the spiritually purer one, the more rational one, the dispenser of morality rather than the object of it. To be sure, some people were better positioned to enjoy this right than others. And some people arrived onto the scene late in the game, only to discover that part of the bounty they were promised may no longer be on the table. Of course they’re aggrieved! The European immigrant who never owned a slave but was at least promised racial superiority is quite resentful when the wages of Whiteness stop being what they once were. Similarly, persons who lived far from the centers of Christian or Muslim power where Jewish subordination was forged are nonetheless well aware of what was supposed to be included in modernity’s gift basket. They recognize what they’ve “lost” as acutely as anyone else.

“The Germans,” the old saying goes, “will never forgive the Jews for Auschwitz.” And not just the Germans. Many people deeply resent the Jews for what Auschwitz took away from them—the easy knowledge that their vantage point was elevated over and superior to that of the Jews, the entitlement to be able to talk about Jews without having to listen to Jews. The desire to neuter the Holocaust is a desire to return to that old state of affairs. And so it shouldn’t surprise anyone that Jews exhibit a special ferocity over the meaning of “genocide.” As noted above, the controversy of this MBL language has in large part played out in terms of whether it is even proper for Jews to register an objection. Are we valid contributors to the conversation? Are we equal players in this struggle? This is no coincidence. When people charge the Jewish state with genocide, part of what they are doing—with varying degrees of explicitness—is telling Jews “this concept which obliged us to listen to you no longer can underwrite that duty.” And in that brave old world, they can return to the baseline that had existed for thousands of years—where it was unthinkable, outrageous, blasphemous, for a Jew to have the temerity to contest a non-Jewish articulation of Jewish experience."

[musclesandhammering]

All of this. Her stans (and Wanda herself) always try to defend her by bringing up how she was dealt such a shit hand, but like….. bestie, name me one marvel hero who wasn’t dealt a shit hand lmao.

Post contains Multiverse of Madness spoilers

Just to make something clear:

If you love Wanda as a villian, then I understand. I love Black Jack Randall from the Outlander books because of how his twisted mind determines his actions.

What I don't understand are the people saying that Wanda is fundamentally innocent despite what she has done. She has made bad choices, knowing perfectly well those choices will hurt people.

That's not a hero.

Heroes can make bad decisions, but they always do thier best to rectify it. Tony Stark and Natasha Romanoff's entire charcter-arcs were based on that. Peter Parker sacrificed the world's memories of him. Even Loki redeemed himself in the end in his own way.

Wanda on the other hand, tends to need her arm twisted before she makes things better. She only turned against Ultron when she realised she was going to die too. It took Agatha showing her the pain she was putting the poor people of Westview through before Wanda let them go.

It was only when Wanda witnessed her "children" being terrified of her that she stopped her mass murdering tirade.

There's a common theme of her doing the right thing only after the bad actions stop being convenient for her. Yeah, the Darkhold corrupted her, but no one was putting a gun to her head to take the book and read it, were they?

I agree that Wanda had a terrible start to life and sacrificing Vision was a horrible ordeal. However...Thor lost everything too...did he start hurting people to deal with his grief? Many characters have had shit cards dealt for them and yet they don't take it out on others.

Grief does not justify violence. If literally any other character lashed out, they would be condemned. Wanda doesn't get a free pass.

[princeescaluswords]

The sense of aggrieved entitlement some Ste rek Shippers have is just beyond my comprehension. Derek breaks into Stiles's house in Wolf's Bane (1x08), pushes him up against the wall, threatens him with "If you say one word --" and then later on bounces Stiles's head off the Jeep's steering wheel.

Two episodes later, Stiles tries to convince Scott to let the Argents handle Derek with "Are you starting to see a pattern of violent behavior here?"

Derek hit kids. He hit kids a lot. And when he wasn't hitting kids, he had other kids hit kids. It may have all turned out okay in the end, but responding to accusations that he was abusive -- I don't use that term, I use 'bully' -- with the idea that 'Scott stans' are exaggerating is just .... unbelievable.

I've said it before, I'll say it again: I love Derek Hale's redemption arc, but to have a redemption arc, you had to have done something wrong in the first place. Using threats and physical force against Stiles and Scott is something he did wrong, and the show didn't pretend that it wasn't. Stiles didn't like Derek for a long time, and Scott didn't trust him, and Derek's resorting to violence as a first response is part of that.

Pretending that it was otherwise doesn't do your ship any favors.

[hyenagurl]

Hi, your TME post was some time ago but I have the opportunity to talk about how narcissistic they can be. What privilege they are talking about in the first place? It pisses me off and makes me sad for the girls who believes these kind of stuff and ends gaslighted. This is not the first time I have seen someone like them have their account exclusive to shit on biological females. They are literally incels but with extra steps.

honestly, even they dont have an answer. it operates the same as mens rights activism: aggrieved entitlement towards what they think women, or in this case, AFAB nonbinary people and trans men have access to that they dont, or some sort of oppression they experience that is supposed to be something AFABs dont. ive seen these terms thrown around a lot but i never see any real examples, and thats because its a reactionary movement. its not a real school of thought with actual principles, this is just a very angry reaction to womens rights; that is, this is just another, albeit more cleverly disguised reincarnation of antifeminism, once again mutated to adapt to whatever flavour of feminism is popular right now, ie, liberal-feminist gender ideology. ie, just men whining, as they have since the conception of feminism in the late 60s.

[femsolid]

“Women’s conduct vis- à- vis men is taken unduly personally (by them and on their behalf, moreover). So women’s indifference becomes aversion; ignorance becomes ignoring; testimony becomes tattling; and asking becomes extortion.  Misogyny is narcissistic and delusional by its very nature. It transforms impersonal disappointments into embittered resentment— or a sense of “aggrieved entitlement,” to use sociologist Michael Kimmel’s term for it. And misogyny can also transform an agent’s relationships with women entirely unknown to him into intimate ones, imaginatively.

Women are often treated as interchangeable and representative of a certain type of woman. Because of this, women can be singled out and treated as representative targets, then standing in imaginatively for a large swathe of others. In many ways, this seems to be misogyny’s characteristic sentiment. It is punitive, resentful, and personal, but not particular. And the psychological targets of such attitudes may little resemble the actual victims. They are often instead directed toward a crude composite image of a woman pasted over the face of a real one. And since one woman can often serve as a stand-in or representative for a whole host of others in the misogynist imagination, almost any woman will be vulnerable to some form of misogynist hostility from some source or other.

If someone roughly like you will do as a scapegoat or a target, then you join the class of those subject to an atypical kind of crime: an act of retaliation taken against you by a total stranger, yet who hunted you down, specifically. It is not irrational to find this unsettling.”

- Down Girl: The logic of misogyny by Kate Manne

[laniusbignaturals]

I need young Edward and Joshua

“Young” is a loose word and I’m gonna make it everyone’s problem. TW for canon typical weirdness about women.

Since most of the drama in Caesar’s life happened when he was a small child, thinking about him as a youth requires more focus on that stage of his life. He was born in a semi-rural part of the ncr (think upper middle class southern “rednecks”) so he had access to pre-war clothing and homemade mimicry of it for most of his life. His mom, like any godfearing country girl, knew a bunch of weird ways to make money on the side, and one of them was selling her blonde hair to local artisans, of which there were many in the Boneyard. When Edward was a little boy, she would allow his delicate, filmy yellow hair to grow during California’s cold season and shave it all off in the spring so she could sell it. His birthday was also in the spring, so part of these caps usually went to new toys and clothes for him. (This trope is often used to communicate great misery and desperation, but Miss Sallow had been doing this all her life and saw it as more of a game, so. Don’t feel too bad for them.) The hair selling carried on until Edward was in the third grade, when he became just aware enough of gendered aesthetics to get pissy about it.

Uhhh, what else. Edward committed family annihilation on a duck and its nest when he was eight (duck broth and pickled eggs, yum.) His mom got really mad at him when he was fourteen after she found an illustration of the Roman Charity exemplum in one of his books, so he started keeping secrets young. He got great grades in some subjects and horrible ones in others. He was less violent with girls than with boys, but still really cruel and possessive and fuckboy coded. “Girls” meaning “female kids,” cus he also moved out for a while after choking his mama out when he was a teen. That was one of those highly unhealthy, highly inappropriate relationships that crop up among suburban aristocracy, fostered between an entitled & anxious single parent in a new community and their aggrieved, privileged, closeted kid.

When he was little, he had trouble sleeping, but when he got older he liked to see how long he could go without it, like a morbidly masochistic game. He’d only stop when he started seeing things. His subconscious is not kind to him, lol.

Once he reached maturity, Edward became adept at developing fixations on women without ever actually knowing them. The only girls he ever “loved” were the ones he could set up to be reliably dishonest with him, through intimidation, manipulation or stalking. Edward treated dating like hunting. He knew it was an important part of entering manhood, but he didn’t know how to relate to women who weren’t older & sexually neutral to him, a blank spot in his perceived intelligence that made him extremely anxious.

As for Joshua, he grew up with a large extended family who oversaw his social life and education. He was taught to look on Non-Canaanites (including other Mormons from different communities) as duplicitous and dangerous, and the pressure to defer to the authority of local elders led to Joshua being adultified and taken advantage of in all sorts of ways. As a young boy, he was singled out as small and weak until he discovered firearms. He latched onto the technical aspect right away, and was just as happy to benefit from being talented in a masculinity ritual. He’s a homebody, fond of crafting and reading to other people, and he always had an interest in stories of violent religious martyrdom. Ironic, I know.

I used to use Frank O’Hara as a fancast for Edward, but the smoothness of his features and his pointy oval chin bring Joshua to mind.

Joshua also came from a one-man-several-wives family, which both decreased his level of safety at home as a result of all the distant relatives in the house and encouraged him to distrust outsiders due to the social oddity of the family lifestyle. Real rock and hard place situation, yeah? Perhaps because of this, Joshua is prone to protracted periods of anxiety paralysis, wherein he boils with fear and rage but does nothing. He’s very used to having no choices, or at least not good ones. He coughs a lot and he knows a lot of weird herbal remedies for it. He makes good coffee and strong tea. He can sleep basically anywhere, even sitting up. (Growing up attending church will do that to you.)

As he got older, Joshua learned to relate to girls in a way that mimicked his male relatives’ polygamy. Romance, or what he considers romance, is actually one area where Joshua lets go of his xenophobia - in his mind, marrying a woman more or less makes her a part of him, so he doesn’t get hung up on identity. He was never very sexually active due to all his Body Issues, from sickness to gendered discomfort to minor injuries to the eventual skinlessness. Nonetheless, during his Legion days, he’d marry women in private (largely superficial) ceremonies, and store them in houses throughout their territory afterwards, cohabiting with whichever one was the closest as Caesar’s retinue moved around. Some of them helped spread the myth of the Burned Man after his fall from grace.

[weiszklee]

I wonder what the point of complaints like this is. Like, are you interested in hearing honest accounts of why people feel repelled by progressive spaces or not? I think you should be.

Also, in the comments the OP and other people were complaining about this post as a prime example, and ... yeah that is not worded super well I guess, but how can you just dismiss it as not worth taking seriously?

I do seriously hate the word "entitlement" also, it's just too vague to actually be useful on its own. People can feel entitled to all manner of different things, and that should be treated differently accordingly. I think you are allowed to feel entitled to basic decency and to feel aggrieved when you don't get it. And sure, if this aggrievement then sends you into the arms of the alt-right, maybe that is mostly on you. But this does not mean that we can just trample on people's feelings because it's their responsibility to not become reactionary in response. That's not how this works.

And yeah most won't get reactionary in response, but they will instead get entirely turned away from progressive politics and be lost as potential allies. We really can't afford that. You can't build a movement out of only those willing to stomach getting randomly berated and insulted because some member of an oppressed group happened to need to "vent".

[friendlymathematician]

since @myriadmidnightmusings blocked me for pointing out that he's a misogynist, i'll answer here:

you're not a feminist. case in point: the post i responded to, and this message.

boys are attracted to people like andrew tate because they're suffering from aggrieved entitlement and misogyny. women being nicer will not fix them. here's a suggestion: if you're concerned about boys, talk to them instead of spending your time policing women's words.

the rise in right wing youth is a problem, for everyone, but blaming it on women not being nicer when talking about rape makes you a misogynist: see point 1. the causes are many and varied, but misogyny is generally considered a key factor. and women being nice has never once stopped males from being vile misogynists, so i suggest looking for solutions beyond policing how women and girls write about rape if you are genuinely concerned.

see point 3; rising right-wing sentiments, misogyny, and violence against women are intrinsically linked. and blaming any of them on women not being nicer is, again, misogyny.

[commonsensecommentary]

“The whining of adolescents is far less forgivable when those entitled and insufferable children age into perpetually aggrieved adulthood.”

(From my blog archive)

[from-the-coffee-shop-in-edoras]

And what about Theodred and Eadlin who aren't in a relationship yet, but are interested in each other? (Sort of like Rosie Cotton and Sam Gamgee.) Theoretically, she's not Theodred's girlfriend yet. So, what would he do if someone was hitting on her?

In my fics, Théodred did a pretty effective job of sweeping her off her feet from the start (she kissed him at the end of their first meeting!). But if we say that things took a bit longer and there was a significant period where they were interested in each other but not together — I still think his first instinct when seeing another guy on the scene isn’t for anger or confrontation, which are never his go-to emotions. He would clock it right away, of course, because he’s observant overall and he’s going to be even more so where a lady he’s interested in is involved. But if he found himself feeling a little threatened by another man’s competing interest, I think he’d choose to focus his efforts on showing Eadlin why she should pick him rather than getting into it with the other guy or trying to get rid of the source of competition.

That means he’d double down on all of his own best traits — he’s kind, he’s interesting, he’s a good listener — and try to wow her in his own right. He’d be around as often as he could, he’d bring the most thoughtful gifts, he’d tell her things he wouldn’t usually share with others, he’d show genuine and deep interest in her life and her thoughts and feelings, he’d try to give her opportunities for things she wanted (always wished to see the Glittering Caves? Théodred can make that happen for you!). And of course he would try to be his most devastatingly handsome and suave in the process — extra care and attention to making sure his hair looks just right and his beard is always neatly trimmed and his clothes are flattering without being showy. In short, he’d just try to give her every reason to pick him by making himself the best possible choice and leaving the other guy in the dust. And when you’re the hot, rich, kind son of the king, that’s probably not so hard to do!

An actual confrontation is his last resort, and he’s not going there even if a woman picked someone else over him. He can accept defeat — he knows he’s not entitled to anyone’s affection — even if his feelings are hurt and he feels privately aggrieved. So he’s not going to square up with a guy at the tavern or wherever unless that’s necessary to protect Eadlin’s immediate interests (vs his own) — like, say, this other guy is hitting on Eadlin and she is clearly not into it and the guy is absolutely not getting the hint or backing down. Confrontation is his *last* choice but he’s not above choosing it when necessary and all other options have been exhausted!