#and also EXTREMELY cishet feminism

[genderkoolaid]

like if you saw the barbie movie & felt like it was putting into words feelings about womanhood you haven't seen represented, and that it's take on gender is something necessary and important. im glad it could do that for you but you like, DESPERATELY need to engage with feminism more because this movie did not say anything that hasn't been said a million times on feminism Facebook meme pages. and personally I think it was very well made & enjoyable & even had a very beautiful message on being human & what that means. and I don't think this movie could've been made without engaging with feminism because of Barbie's cultural impact. but this is not really a Feminist Movie (nor should it be expected to be!), as much as it is a movie where feminism is part of the plot.

just saw the barbie movie with my friend & really enjoyed it! however i already have seen some extremely Cis Straight Woman takes on it & its feminism lol

[cowboysmp3]

barbie was a good movie but it was a very cishet experience of feminism which is totally cool and has its place!!! but idk didn’t feel as like… revolutionary as i somewhat expected? it was fun tho

[eris-abomination]

Not to be patronizing, but I’m convinced some of y’all don’t know what radfems actually are. Every time I try to speak about how dangerous and reductive radical feminism is as an ideology, I get paragraphs upon paragraphs written trying to “errm actually” me and defending them, so let me clear things up.

Radical feminism’s core belief centers around a form of gender essentialism: that men are inherently violent oppressors and that the patriarchy is to blame for every problem that befalls women and fems. This is not to say that the patriarchy isn’t a major contributor to misogyny, but it completely excludes intersectionality from the equation and dovetails into TERFy rhetoric very easily.

In blaming every issue on the patriarchy alone, radical feminism erases the very real contributions of racism, homophobia, transphobia, ableism, etc from our struggles in society. Oppression and privilege are extremely complex and fed into by many biases and phobias upheld by our societal systems, not just the “boys vs girls” mentality that radfems emphasize. The main pitfall of this ideology is the way it places all men and all women on an equivalent level of privilege or oppression respectively, rather than the unfortunate reality: for example, a cishet man having inherent privilege and hypothetical oppressing power over a queer or trans man, or an abled woman having privilege over a disabled woman.

Radical feminism also tends to veer into a defeatist mindset: men are inherently oppressive and women are inherently at the bottom of the societal totem pole, so what’s the point of trying to dismantle these systems? The radfem “solution” is to ignore the nuances of intersectionality and create divisions between men and women as a “safety measure” which, as mentioned earlier, opens the door for TERF-like and tribalist ideologies to take root (bathroom bans, label politics, “gender traitor” rhetoric, and categorization of trans and nonbinary people into their AGABs). The “solution” of creating purely woman-only spaces fails to acknowledge that women can also be oppressive toward other women, but it’s still viewed through the lens of “the patriarchy can’t affect things here because we’re all on the same level of disadvantage”.

I don’t write all this to accuse all self-proclaimed radfems of being knowingly malicious or bigoted, but it seems that not many people fully understand the true implications and reductiveness of what radical feminism really is. If you managed to get through this whole post (congratulations!), I invite you to examine your own ideologies and the biases and faults behind them, and hopefully grow, change, and become a more nuanced and open-minded person from there.

Edit: I can and will delete your comments if you’re incapable of being civil (or scrolling away or blocking me like a normal goddamn person) 💕💕💕

[gayhenrycreel]

what the fuck is wrong with this community?

why is there a requirement of trans men being subs? combined with the demonization of surgery, this cuntboy fetish thing kinda hurts. i never see any appreciation for, like... any dicks on men. unless said man is skinny, but also muscular to the point that im concerned for his mental health.

there are two (2) types of gay men allowed in the queer community: hairy muscular masculine cis man, and objectified "trans man" who is always white, fem, has no body hair at all, and is treated as a woman in every way. also he has to have a misgendering kink. its a requirement.

this would be fine if there was ANYTHING ELSE ALLOWED.

even irl i don't know any masc queer people at all. i feel very alone. does the queer community hate masculinity? i dont want to go into a relationship if its expected that im fine with being a submissive woman. i dont want to have sex before phalloplasty.

i go into a queer space (any space, irl or online) and everyone is talking about makeup and offering me some and calling me "girl" and theres this idea that men are evil. theres nothing wrong with femininity but radical feminism is never okay. the last queer space i was in irl had this one person who made jokes about how men suck and EVERYONE AGREED WITH HER.

everytime they have an event people offer me makeup and I GET CALLED A GIRL AGAIN.

even worse, the fucking coordinator tried to convince me to preserve my fucking egg cells after i said i want my entire reproductive system removed and stomped on. then she called me "girl".

and i said i didnt like makeup but people just said "are you sure?" like i dont know what makes me suicidally dysphoric.

i cant go into a space for people like me without my gender expression being questioned.

its bizarre that a cishet doctor would listen to me more about my sexual autonomy than a fellow trans person who says i might change my mind about HAVING A WHOLE FUCKING PERSON GROWING INSIDE ME. i have panic attacks about that. i have nightmares. and then she said i should still consider having sex, and when i said i don't want to she told me ill "meet the right person one day". i have a medical condition that makes penetration EXTREMELY painful, and when i try other holes i cant fucking feel anything, and no i dont like being pressured into sex because, shockingly, im not interested in getting raped.

i wont even consider sex until i get every surgery i can get. i just want a relationship that never goes past cuddles. i wish people would consider that i want to be a cis man, especially after ive already said thats what i want.

the cis people in my life always respect my gender. a lot of trans people in my life call me "girl" and tell me shit like "youll get to a point mentally where you dont need surgery to be happy".

i actually had someone say that to me. i said that not having t and surgery makes me suicidal, and they just told me i dont need it. then they said surgery is not necessary, even though ive wanted it for longer than i knew it was an option.

(dont worry gaylord and twobruhsinahottub im not talking about you)

[upside-down-uni]

Undfortunately Lessons in Chemistry combines historical literature with "women's struggles"/feminism, boring cishet romance and a type of pseudobiographical sweeping narration over her whole life. which are all things i tend to find mildly to extremely annoying in a book and i dont think I can read the almost 500p long german translation. Also why does the translation feel like its patronizing me, why is the narrative voice so fucking annoying.

[angelsaxis]

makeup is a gender role thats doing more harm than good because the only reason/way it exists in our society is to force women of all kinds to cover "blemishes" and "flaws" that are RARELY if ever criticized on men (and if they are, its never for gendered reasons. dark spots never make a man less masculine, but they make women less feminine). women of all kinds are expected to fit a certain ideal of femininity that a lot of us, especially those of us who are trans or women of color or fat, will likely never achieve.

as much personal freedom can be gained from being able to wear makeup that finally matches your skin tone or foundation that isn't super harmful to your skin, its fucked that we live in a society that, again, puts this expectation of conformity on women. in its most extreme form we literally have women contouring their faces into the exact same high cheek bone/slim nose/full mouth look thats connected with peak (white) femininity and that zombiefies the features of Black women with it. there are women of color slimming their noses and that is meant to make them look more attractive. be serious.

the makeup industry is run by cishet white men. i understand that wearing makeup for a lot of women is an act of survival and a means of avoiding violence. i understand that. i understand that. nobody should say i don't. but the solution should then be making society less violent and less a threat to women who don't conform, not trying to convince more people that makeup is a net good.

the body positivity movement once it hit the mainstream had its flaws but at least the underlying message was great. now i see a lot of people who claim to be feminists do the bare minimum in praising the bodies of women who don't fit the beauty standard; praises like "cunt" and "queen" are still heavily reserved for the skinny, the curvy (not in a plus sized way), the able bodied, the cis. the flawless, the hairless. never for the disabled, the hairy, the trans women regardless of if they have a bulge or not.

we've got razor companies capitalising on the body positivity movement by leaning 100% into choice feminism with ads like "women have body hair (shave it)! women have dark hair, pubic hair, thick leg hair, and there's nothing wrong with this (shave it). Women come in all shapes and sizes (buy the razor)". I recently saw an add that implied the facial razor used to get rid of fine, dark hairs on a woman of color would help the world see the "real her" (or "you", rather).

(a lot of these ads are becoming more racially diverse without the core message changing. again, i understand that there are some women who literally have to shave for survival. its society thats fucked, not them)

more and more people on here are seeing feminism slide backwards; i am. I have no idea why, if there even is one reason and not a series of factors contributing to the dilution of feminist language on this site in particular and on social media in general and real life, also in general. a lot of the concepts are still here (consent, the general understanding of toxic masculinity, etc). but theres also resistance to naming patriarchy and to explicitly saying men are the primary beneficiaries of patriarchal violence.

[moved-to-shijieswife]

this fandoms casual misogyny, often, parading around as feminism pisses me off so much. when u guys turn all the female characters in mdzs into token girl bosses - when all of them were such fleshed out, interesting characters, meant to affirm the oppression in mdzs.

yzy was a horrible person, and no amount of making her into a badass woman, so called feminist, can change that. being mean ≠ being a strong woman. u can have a backbone without being a horrible bitch (example, shijie) she quite literally berates jyl her entire life, for bearing the sin of being a daughter, and a weak cultivator. she only slapped wlj and didnt cut wwxs hand off, because she was annoyed that wlj had 'risen above her station'. and u guys treat that classist moment, one that shows yu ziyuans morals completely, as a badass moment !

to make jyl 'strong', u make her mean, or taking up the sword path. being physically strong is not a strict guideline to being a strong woman. shijie did not pick up the sword path, because she was sickly and a weak cultivator - she physically could not do it. shijie was still strong, in the way she was kind and gentle, and the way she still had a backbone and stood up for her didi, with what limited power she had.

u guys also, amazingly, never make nie huiasang, also a weak cultivator, pick up the sabre. because you recognise his strength lies elsewhere.

and then theres just the blatant, casual misogyny. where u guys just give the female characters in ur fics any role, without any thought, while giving the male characters extremely thought out, well suited roles. theres too many fics where the women are just used as props - how many fics, with mianmian appearing as the 'object' in the way of wangxians relationship, are there ? if were lucky, well get a flat, token girlboss characterisation form her.

and dont get me started on the ships u put these poor girls through. jyl and lxc ??? why ?? just cuz their didis are married ??? jyl would not want to be around such a spineless hypocritical coward, who has so much power, and would stil stan dby and do nothing. when she, extremely oppressed throughout her entire life, stood up for what was right.

wq and jc ?? even tho cql tried to shoehorn in a romance between the woman who had a debt owed to her by the man, which the man didnt only not repay, but also led a siege against her family that he knew were innocent, there was not an iota of chemistry between them. it just seems so slimy, and just outright nonsensical when u consider their two personalities - jc is literally what u picture when u hear right iwng cishet man who doesnt wash his own ass, and u think wq ?? wq woulve been into that ???

[askgothamshitty]

sorry if this ask is kind of loaded but I feel like I'm not radical enough, I know this is going to sound silly and maybe like bait but this has really been stressing me out 😅I'll see takes from TIRFs online who'll say stuff like "if I had a child and they were a boy I couldn't love them" or referring to men as "moids", or saying women with boyfriends/husbands can't be radfem, and I just don't see how that line of thinking is anything but reactionary, even if it's supposedly trans-inclusive? typing that out I feel like makes me sound like a bootlicker for men but I'm literally a man-hating lesbian..but then I see other people agreeing who I respect and I feel kind of crazy for disagreeing and I'm like...am I wrong for thinking this is reactionary, am I just defending men? but I can't understand how categorizing a group of people as inherently evil does not fall into biological essentialist rhetoric.

also counter-productively, as a lesbian, I feel like this just ends up hurting us instead of men, like men aren't going to care if they're predatory but a lot of what is said can be applied to us (for ex: the claim that all penetrative sex is abuse, although to my knowledge this isn't something that has actually been written in any feminist theory and is a misinterpretation of criticisms of cishet sex? I have only seen people online say this anyway) and I just get extra worried that I'm a predator...maybe I just think too much about what random strangers on the internet say idk lmfao😵‍💫

I’ve come across those types, too, and while I sympathize with their hatred of male violence and patriarchal culture, I do think the sentiments they share are ultimately reactionary. Even if they don’t outright say that “males” are born with some “evil gene”, their thinking leads them to the same place - that men are doomed to become oppressors and that relations between men/women can never be revolutionized. This line of thinking, in my opinion, is still functionally biodeterminist, and thus ends up being transmisogynistic. We can see that in the way they often argue that this damning process of “male socialization” also affects trans women since they were AMAB.

I would not say these people represent radical feminism as a whole, though. Most second wave thinkers did not come to the conclusions that we need to, say, ban straight women from feminism or abandon male children. Although they took the prevalence and influence of patriarchy seriously, they still had hope and believed feminism could ultimately change the misogynistic relations and ideologies that make men, men. And if these online radfems are saying things like, “all penetrative sex is rape”, then they’re indicating that they are simply ignorant of radical feminism, since Dworkin explicitly said this was not the conclusion to draw from her work.

As I said, I sympathize with the core feelings these women are dealing with, but their extreme nihilism and lack of faith in the revolutionizing power of feminism makes them ultimately disagreeable. Add in the fact that they adopt 4Chan slang (and sometimes berate male-attracted women with misogynistic language and slurs), and they can be very off-putting and offensive. So you’re definitely not wrong for (or alone in) feeling the way you do.

[thirstforsalt]

the good omens meta post

this is not going to be very nice, and it will contain all the spoilers

I am a Good Omens book fan. Moreover, I am a Good Omens fandom fan, a fanfiction reader and writer since before the show ever came out. Also, I love Michael Sheen and David Tennant so much that I watched all three series of "Staged."

So when I say I found the show disappointing, I don't just mean as an adaptation, but as a piece of media that has to stand on its own feet. I know, for any viewer who wasn't invested in the Aziraphale/Crowley beats of the first season, it was basically unwatchable. I know because I tried to get a lot of non-shippers to watch, and the only people who could enjoy it at all cared about the love story at its heart. That's okay. It's nice when things are made for us.

The thing I love about shipping culture, and fan culture, is that it's a corner of the internet where soft-hearted people with big feelings and the desire to indulge in those feelings can be together in community. It's a place where we can intellectualize those feelings, or simply scream together. I've been in fandoms for more than two decades, oh my god. It's one of the only places I feel wholly seen, and totally accepted. (I mean, I've been a victim of online bullying, but who hasn't?) I deeply love my fellow fans. We are so creative, so sensitive, so observant. I really love us: what we make. What we do. How we speak. How we interact with media and transform it into something greater than the sum of its parts.

That's how I feel about Good Omens fandom. I think the works this fandom makes-- the art, the fic, the everything-- are overall of a higher quality than the book and the show. And that's okay. Some fandoms are like that. Not everything is eternal art, perfected to the highest aspiration of the medium. It's still valid. It still counts. It still carries a lot of meaning, for me personally and I know for you, if you're reading this.

I say all of this to contextualize why I felt season two was so genuinely mean-spirited. It felt cruel. I am a major fan of fan service, and I love being a fan who gets serviced. But this fan service reminded me of the book "How To Date Men When You Hate Men," in that it might well have been subtitled "How To Service Fans When You Hate Your Fans." It pointedly retconned moments from season one where people had written the most fill-in fics, e.g. having?????? them go???????? to a nightclub?????? AFTER A BLITZ BOMBING?! You know what people in London did after a Blitz bombing?! They hid in their homes or shelters with the blackout curtains on the windows until daybreak! I couldn't help but feel the zombie Nazis plot (what was that?!) was being used to make sure there was no room for the formerly ambiguous night after Aziraphale fell in love. After season one, fic writers had imagined hundreds of little sexy rendezvous after the Blitz bombing scene, but no more. Now, they can't be canon. In fact, nothing set in the past 6,000 years can be canon, now. So much of this season felt engineered to poison the sweet little ambiguities of season one, and you will never convince me it wasn't intentional.

I think it's important to say what we all know: fan activities like fanfiction and fanart are extremely femme-coded behaviors. Regardless of your personal gender identity, fanfic writers are majority female, and the other activities fans perform (making fanart, cosplaying) tend to be gendered (in the media and by outsiders) as somehow female. It's important that we acknowledge this even if it isn't true-- it's similar to the ways that careers like teaching and nursing are feminized, regardless of who actually teaches and nurses. This is also extremely important to acknowledge because women are PAINFULLY underrepresented behind the scenes of television.

Fewer women than men actually get to make the art that eventually inspires fandom. There were no female writers on Good Omens. There were no female directors. The cishet male creators, by which I mean to include both writers and the director (of Sherlock infamy, by the way), have no cinematic or narrative vocabulary for the androphilic gaze. [That's the gaze that sexualizes and objectifies men, a term on loan to me from a non-binary academic friend. It's the gaze we use when we write m/m slash. This is a larger discussion, but the reason you have predominantly femme writers and consumers of m/m erotica is in part because it is a break from the male gaze-- there is no man objectifying a woman in these stories. You might have a queer identity, too, and that might be part of it, but the fact is that one of the appealing functions of m/m erotica is the absence of a woman being objectified. We, the readers, get to do the objectifying-- in complete and utter contrast to most media. It also bears reiterating that regardless of your gender identity and sexual orientation, you exist in a world where Western media is constantly feeding you film and television from the POV of the male gaze. That is why m/m erotica especially, and to some degree f/f erotica, is transgressive, by the way. It's also transgressive to just find more than one man hot, because we're not supposed to.] Anyway, creators like the men who made Good Omens might really think they speak our language, but it will always be a second language to them, and a lot of nuance gets lost. In my opinion, that's why the kiss scene was so devastating. It was joyless.

I know people will say (and have said) that it was joyless and passionless in service of the angst, but fanfic readers know: having even a second of passion followed by the angst makes the pain that much sweeter. It would have made the conflict, and the cliffhanger, even harsher. The writers and director behind that scene do not understand what every fanfiction writer with a vibrator knows. They fundamentally do not understand us. It breaks my heart to say it, because I don't think it has to be true across the board, but I felt it so strongly with Good Omens, season two. I felt so strongly that they were trying to speak our language without having the humility to speak with us, to understand us. They understand us only as viewers and as consumers. They don't understand us as collaborators, because they don't think they have to collaborate with us. But fans are, in a very real sense, collaborators-- collaborators in making meaning, and collaborators in making other people money. Understanding that symbiosis is what transformative works are about. This season felt like it was intended to remind us that these characters are not ours. We are welcome to play in our own sandbox, but we are not a part of theirs. And if the show had bothered to hire any femme creatives, there may have been someone above the line to bridge the gap between what they thought they were doing and what we took from it.

I also can't help feeling that we're being held emotionally hostage to get the ransom money of a third season. IMO, the second season was genuinely bad television. Like, sincerely appalling storytelling. I'm talking about everything before the kiss, too. (I can't even discuss the kiss right now.) The so-called "mystery" of Gabriel's memory was nonsensical. We had no reason to care and the "clues" we followed were incoherent until the finale. It wasn't a fun mystery we could follow, and let's be honest, we were all just there for the Aziraphale/Crowley moments. Even those moments were wasted, imo.

What was the purpose of the magic show and the miracle blocker? Was it just for all the sexual double-entendres of giving and receiving and shooting guns? Because, I mean, I love a good dirty joke, but what was its utility in the structure of the season? What did we learn? Did anyone change? Did anyone go on a journey? It failed at every screenwriting 101 lesson I've ever been taught.

Why even have Crowley and Aziraphale setting up the lesbians if the lesbians aren't going to be set up? Why have a monologue about how you can't force two people together just because you want them to be together? That whole storyline felt like subtext (and not particularly subtle subtext) of the author stubbornly wresting narrative control from fans.

And it was FILLED with squandered opportunities. One of my favorite moments was Crowley referencing humans in the rain confessing their love a la Richard Curtis movies. Wow! What a beautiful set-up for his confession later in the-- wait, you're not even going to use that perfect set-up? OK, but you're going to do a set-up, right? Oh, you're not? You're just going to have the lesbians tell Crowley that he and Aziraphale have "never REALLY talked" and think that's a set-up? Girl, I guess!

I don't think on the basis of writing, Good Omens season two earned a third season. I would be very surprised if it got one. And if it doesn't get one, that's frankly justified! No one is going to watch this show who isn't there for Aziraphale/Crowley, which-- again-- are my people. But we are simply not enough, and a good show knows that it has to engage both shippers and casual viewers. My guess is that they don't get a third season, because no one but us hardcore fans will watch that trainwreck again and again, and then Ne*l Ga*man and the actors will do some kind of staged reading of a third season-ish script for charity or something to tie up the loose ends. I'm old-fashioned in that I think you should use the money and time and resources you've been given to tell a story, not just set up a story. I feel like fans are being held emotionally hostage to push Amazon to pay the proverbial ransom of a third season (and it is a ransom, it does line pockets that are not yours or mine). I feel like Ga*man made that explicit in some of his Tumblr posts!

Which is not to say the show might not have been more successful if indeed it had been the pure fan service everyone is saying it is. But also, it wasn't pure fan service. This was not an exercise in giving the people what they want. It was an exercise in asserting narrative control, which to me is the opposite of what fans want, need, and deserve.

[dabistits]

a self-identified proshipper reblogged this post from me in agreement, to which i just wanna hold up a mirror and say: uh, “the overflowing amount of weird fan art” op is referring to is also... made by you all.

this lack of self-awareness makes me want to verbalize something that i’ve alluded to before, but never really fleshed out, which is that this whole “proship” thing is a redux of early 2010s gamergate talking points, just with the misogyny excised (supposedly). all other arguments have already been done to death by misogynist pop culture bros who feared the encroaching wave of feminism and “political correctness,” including the talking points about how female characters in skimpy clothing is “just fiction,” it’s not actually hurting anyone in real life, how video games are just “for fun” and “not meant to be taken seriously,” oh and also the excessive rape and violence against women are just there for the sake of “realism.”

there’s some kind of cognitive dissonance that “proshippers” will make the same arguments while reblogging posts about the misogyny of pop culture media and its fanbase, blissfully oblivious to the fact that they are not exempt from producing an “overflowing amount of weird fanart.” i’ve been thinking for awhile now that this cognitive dissonance is resolved for them through bioessentialism, in terms of gender but also whiteness. some, maybe even many, “proshippers,” as a part of a heavily self-identified “afab” population participating in transformative fandom, view themselves as essentially different from fanboys, and their engagement with any creepy shit (including making weird fanart of schoolboys) as also essentially different from any creepy shit done by fanboys (making weird fanart of schoolgirls).

large swathes of transformative fandom still fundamentally conceive of internet fandom as being split between “amabs” and “afabs.” no matter how much lip service is given to the idea of trans acceptance, i’ve found that many fandom people (regardless of how they identify) are extremely quick to unite around “afab” terminology, discuss “afab experiences” and cite the flawed premise of “female socialization,” in addition to praising fandom for being “a safe space for women to explore their sexuality” (wherein the women are presumed to be at least white and cis). (this is why i’m choosing to use “afab” as the umbrella term here.) i also feel, with anecdotal evidence in support, that tma people tend to be viewed with suspicion and heavily scrutinized, as are poc who openly discuss racism in transformative fandom. none of this is unique to fandom or even “proshippers” tbh, these are symptoms of transmisogyny and whiteness in general, but it certainly concocts into some pretty noxious takes without a single iota of self-awareness.

it boils down to this belief that “afab” desire is inherently exempt from problematization, that it is somehow inherently unimplicated in oppressive forces while cis mens’ desires are. it’s rightly understood that the cishet man who draws panty shots and weird balloon tits is off-putting and degrading for people who are just trying to appreciate female characters. however, “proshippers” are utterly unable to apply this principle to themselves, even when the object of their desire is marginalized through race, transness, age, etc. this inability to recognize one’s own complicity in oppression is endemic in white “afabs,” who imagine their desires and fears to be pure and sacrosanct—even while proclaiming to rep darkness and degeneracy, they stop short of treating that material as something actually “dark,” as in something that’s sensitive and worth treating delicately regardless of the personal desire to clumsily make it sexy or sensationalist. such a thing would entail recognizing their own potential to do harm, to be oppressors, and even outside of fandom that’s never been something they’ve been interested in doing.

[wazzuppy]

I saw your post about how people treat the phrase "white feminist" and yeah, I totally agree. There is this really weird trend to fully ignore misogyny even in leftist circles and belittle women who try to talk about how they're oppressed. Even if a woman is white she's still gonna be systemically oppressed because that's just how misogyny works. I find it pretty disgusting on this website where most discussions about misogyny are hijacked by people literally going "man hating is so bad and you shouldn't point this out". It's cool people defend trans people but 1. criticizing men as a social class isn't "bioessentialism" or whatever, it's genuinely just talking about the oppressor class and 2. why do you see trans women as men??????? like why is this argument always brought up anyway? i get TERFs would say it that way but when the target is so obviously not a TERF it's so odd. I've lost mutuals on here for just saying the words patriarchy and that MRAs are bad. It's baffling. I hate this progressive language coded misogyny in leftist spaces with all my heart. Women should be allowed to be afraid and angry when they're so obviously oppressed in every part of their lives. Sorry for the big rant

no need to apologize, i pretty much completely agree.

i think there is a very weird attitude around men's rights in general. like, it often feels as if they're trying the take the fact that they're men and have an inherent advantage to GAIN their rights out of the equation.

not to say i don't think men should have rights or that every single man is more privileged than the average cishet white woman. that's not true. but privilege exists even in marginalized groups because hierarchy still exists, and advantage and disadvantage often affect the same person. like, even a gay man has a leg up over a het woman because they are a man. and likewise, a het woman has an advantage over a gay man because theyre het. things arent as simple as "this group is always more oppressed than this one no matter what." its more fluid than that.

not to mention... a lot of the issues that do affect men (as in the hyper masculine, "feelings are gay" bullshit) are ones that were started and continue to be perpetuated by other men. like yeah, it fucking sucks and it should be fixed, but you get why the victims aren't the ones who should be doing the work, right? we can help and we can offer sympathy, but ultimately that's something THEY need to get over for any real progress to be made.

i also think there's something kind of gross about how a lot of feminist discussions are taken as "you just hate trans men!" automatically, without even knowing the genders of the people having the discussion. trans people should ABSOLUTELY be taken into account and defended, and its completely true that many, many feminists are transphobic. but the assumption that radical feminism (and i mean actual feminism, not "radfems" because thats just a different flavor of wanting patriarchy) = hating trans people feels very icky to me. you can be feminist without being transphobic, and you can be transphobic without being feminist.

leftist language, in general, needs some kind of adjustment or just for people to better understand what certain terms are actually supposed to mean. because lots of people just slap the word "terf" onto someone who is either not feminist or not transphobic.

for example: j.k rowling is undeniably transphobic. she regurgitates lots of terf rhetoric, but the problem with calling her a terf is that... she's not a feminist. like at all. she has an obvious hatred of women and has an extremely conservative mindset of what women should be. that's why all of the mothers in harry potters are good, and all of the unmarried/women without kids are bad. that's why hermione's personality is just a list of misogynist stereotypes.

this issue is especially gross when you remember how dogshit trans feminists are treated, masc or fem. trans people will talk about how men have personally hurt them and how that affected their views, and then a dozen cis queer people will come in like "noooo hating men is bad!!" and assume theyre cis.

i have more to say, but honestly, im tired and a lil sick so i'll leave it there for now. but theres a lot i think that needs to be discussed with how leftist language has evolved, and how feminism is sometimes treated like a scapegoat when it comes to who should be blamed for transphobia. i dont know of any of this made sense but yeah.

[pinnedangel]

you can call me angel, i am a switch vers. this is approximately one half hard kink blog, one half place to put down long rambling tangents for the sake of making people read them. i do not content tag posts that are not my own, except for cnc-related posts explicitly mentioning rape, which are tagged #rapekink. check below the cut for a general content list and some of my personal boundaries/blockable offenses. i am single and not actively looking. i do very much enjoy flirtation or sexting, but am autistic with a low social threshold, so i may not always do well with long conversations. deleted mutuals are always welcome to send me a dm or ask about whether i have any posts they're trying to recover, i am happy to go through the archives of this blog in order to help people get their posts back! this is my main blog, but not my main account, so there will sometimes be gaps in content when i'm not logged in here, but for now i've been logged in for a couple months which is why the non-kink content has started to bleed through. my personal tag is #saintly thoughts.

as an advertisement and warning, on this blog you may see posts about:

-consensual nonconsent, including content that directly refers to rape

-dubious consent, including intoxication and somnophilia

-corruption, mindbreaking, manipulation, gaslighting, and abusive dynamics

-fearplay, including kidnapping/captivity, gratuitous bodily harm, and threats of death. may also include snuff, but generally i'm more into the threat of being killed than the actual idea of it

-gender play, in the sense of non-detransition related forced feminization and masculinization

-primal, predator/prey, and petplay

-monsterfucking, oviposition, egg pregnancy and laying

-size difference and object insertion

-fauxcest, heirophilia, dollification, hypnosis, overstimulation and edging, exhibitionism, impact play, knifeplay, general bdsm dynamics, and more.

i try to keep this post updated with at least my most regular topics, but this is not an exhaustive list.

soft limits:

gore, necrophilia, age regression, boot licking/humping, violence that involves losing teeth, scarification/tattooing, parental fauxcest, direct snuff, gunplay

these are things you might see posts about occasionally but i’d prefer not to be engaged with on. if i’m reblogging posts that include them, it’s either enjoyment from a nonsexual or very abstracted perspective, something i’ve reblogged because it includes other elements i do enjoy, or something that i am just starting to explore interest in but haven’t figured out how i enjoy it.

hard limits/filtered tags:

pregnancy/birth, lactation, hucow, piss, scat, vomit, abdl, armpits, detransition, misgendering, feeding/feederism, beastiality, feet, needles/piercing, amputation, castration, extreme body modification

i’m not going to block you if you follow me and post about any of my hard limits. i follow plenty of people who post about some of them but post about other stuff i like, that’s why i have the tags filtered. i just might not follow you back if that’s your main focus. i pass no judgements on kinks as long as they’re between consenting parties and you’re not trying to put your kink content on the posts of people who don’t want it there.

if i block you, it's most likely because i looked at your blog upon you following me and could not determine your age or even if you were a real person. i also tend to block cishet people, as i would rather they not interact with my personal content.

if you see me tagging posts with #🎥 that’s simply a way of keeping track of things that not only do i enjoy from a personal standpoint, but also that make me think of the dynamic between two of my characters. sometimes the kink posts i write are about those two as well. it's mostly a dynamic centered around nonconsent, manipulation, and general emotionally (sometimes physically!) unsafe kink practices, which are things i've been exploring quite a bit lately. you can ask about them if you'd like, otherwise i probably won't directly say much about them on this blog.

[cool-and-caustic]

A lot of ppl are trying to talk about how they deal with transphobia or homophobia or racism as trans mascs/men and they’re doing a terrible job. Basically showing everyone you skipped the feminism 101 course bc you guys just sound like cishet incels rn. Always completely missing the point and somehow trying to make this about how men are oppressed when it literally is not about you being men it’s about everything else.

Also talking about your issues is one thing. You’re allowed to be upset about bigotry. But the fact that you are you using this shit as an excuse to say something that’s ultimately extremely transmisogynistic makes it obvious that’s all this was ever about.

[ryegarden]

ID: a reply from @perfectlyripeclementine that reads "Please say more about dandelions being transgender??" End ID

Great question!!!! I'm literally going to write my dissertation on this topic (transbotanism, as well as transangelicism and transentomology).

Dandelions are trans in a few ways.

They're pretty hardy. You can rip up as many as you want and they'll pop up over and over again. The garden in front of my flat gets mown pretty frequently in the summer, and dandelions are always shooting back up within the week. No amount of hypervigilance, weed killer, trimming, pulling, and tearing up of them will ever stop them growing through cracks in the pavement. They're not going anywhere - you can kill one, you can kill a few, but they -- we -- can't be eradicated. Am I talking about dandelions or trans people now?

Dandelions are also, despite their wider reputation as a nasty rotten weed, extremely beneficial to ecosystems. They have deep taproots that pull nutrients up and fertilize dead soil, and those same roots, being widespread and sturdy, disturb and loosen hard-packed earth (the kind you find on golf courses) and reduce soil erosion. As well as their benefits to the earth, they also have medicinal value - they're a natural diuretic, and every part of the plant is edible and absurdly rich in vitamins.

If rigid, binary notions of gender are a neatly trimmed lawn, trans people are the dandelions bursting through the earth - our liberation aids and works alongside that of others (intersectionality forever!!). The deconstruction of society's notion of binary gender also furthers feminism (deconstruction of misogynistic gender roles), wider queer activism (intrinsically linked in more ways than I can explain), and anti-racism (aids in deconstruction of white colonialist binary gender ideology) - freedom of gender expression is vital to all of us. The full and total liberation of trans people, yes, liberates trans people, and it would also let cishet men wear earrings without being called fruity, you know?

The same parallels exist in people who keep trimmed lawns and transphobes - this desperate cling to Order and Uniformity and Ridigness that will inevitably be fruitless. Constant enforcement of a level of uniformity and monotony that is ultimately harmful, and doesn't even look very nice. A comfort to the rest of us that, once they stop caring, or die, we can thrive.

Also, on a visual level, dandelions go through a very intense... transition. From bright yellow flower to fluffy white seed blossoms. And if you step on them, it spreads them further. Seems pretty trans to me!!

be like the dandelion!! unkillable! joyous!! inherently transsexual in ways others cannot fully understand!

on my redbubble!

[trudemaethien]

Dear Codex Flash Exchange Creator,

I’m always open to treats and I look forward to the possibility of receiving podfic and fanart just as much as written fanfic. I’ll enjoy whatever you make for me!

<><>

General DNWs:

non-critical portrayal of cults, authoritarianism, paternalism, patriarchy, misogyny, sexism, racism or transphobia; american cultural christianity; whitewashing; domestic abuse; unresolved child abuse/neglect; child death; miscarriage (abortion is fine); drug addiction (drug use is fine); therapy-speak; fixed-everything fluff; perfect little angel children; uwu/woobification, whump, sickfic, or terminal illness; highschool/college/university AUs; genderswap/rule 63, fem!reader, Y/N, /You, reader-insert, or self-insert, harry potter AU

Kink DNWs:

wax play, cold temperature play/ice, scat, emetophilia (non-kinky vomit is okay as long as it’s not graphic), Traditional Omegaverse (nontraditional is fine), 24/7 BDSM or sexual slavery, any other type of slavery, findom/paypig, cishet, prepubescent underage, mommy/milfs, ageplay (which is not the same as age gap; that’s fine), diapers, infantilization, exotification, castration, ultra-submissive character, force-feminization, detransition, nonconsensual body modification, parasites, necrophilia

Omegaverse straddles the line between Do and Do Not Want. If you’re writing it for me, it should be very nontraditional, with the trope being used to subvert binary (trinary?) gender norms rather than support them. (omegas should not be portrayed as stereotypically female-coded, alphas not as stereotypically male-coded, betas shouldn’t be boring/sexless) Make it funky, weird, even queer!

DNWs (SW specific):

Mandalorian culture without nuance; Jedi culture without nuance; all clones automatically being Mandalorian and/or knowing mando’a; clones being taller/bigger than their actor(s) or any form of the word beef or similar to describe physique; codywan (not even alluded to or hinted at past or future); non-humans with human-standard anatomy/genitalia

DNW Characters: Satine Kryze, Bo-Katan Kryze, Qui-Gon Jinn, Obi-Wan Kenobi, Yoda, Jar Jar Binks, any characters originating in the Sequel Trilogy. Unless portraying a requested ship containing one or more of these characters, I do not want them even as brief cameos.

<><>

Do Want:

Gay guys, queer everything, non-traditional roles ie service top/power bottom, submissive top/dominant bottom, one or both partners switching.

Clones, in my opinion, would not unilaterally speak or understand mando’a, but I do love it, and other language(s). I’m absolutely a nerd for mando’a and cultural/language barriers.

NSFW Tropes I like: negotiations for kink or polyamory, first times, porn with feelings, casual sex/QPR, competence kink, praise kink, humiliation kink, breeding kink, watersports, somnophilia, xenophilia, getting caught/walked in on, DP, chastity devices, orgasm denial/edging, overstim, eating out, biting, switching, non-exclusive polyamory: threesomes or moresomes, gangbangs, rough sex, tender sex, awkward sex, dirty talk, but not just dirty talk—also normal talking and laughing during sex, topping from the bottom, friends and lovers.

I’ll read (and write) pretty much any kink that’s not on my DNW list, up to and including edgeplay, extreme xenophilia/monsterfucking, and any consent level from enthusiastic to dubious to none, including consensual non-consent. Bring on the DDDNE content, and please feel free to ask if there’s anything in my DNWs needing clarification.

Story Tropes and AUs I like: angst with a happy ending, found family, have a little murder as a treat, there was only one bed, pining (one-sided or mutual), awkward seduction, men crying/showing emotions, getting together, miscommunication, nonverbal communication, unreliable narrator, dystopia, psychological horror, hopeful ending, canon-typical dehumanization, milwank (portrayals of PTSD and other combat-related disabilities very welcome), Canon Divergence, Nontraditional Omegaverse, Soulmates/Soulbonds, Pacific Rim, Mer/Pirate/Historical fantasy, Time Loop/Time Travel.

Podfic details:

I really like when there’s a little bit of different voices for different characters, and hearing if they laugh or make other nonverbal sounds in conversation, although I’m sorry to say I can’t always hear subtle sound effects, unless they stand out.

Art details:

DNW: flashing/strobe effects, tarot cards or symbolism, christian symbolism, wildly disproportionate/chibi-like characters, or completely non-representational art, disney style. (and this isn’t a strict dnw but I tend not to be a fan of pastels)

Things I like: any skill level, painterly style, vibrant colors, dramatic lighting, irregular perspectives, funky color palettes, or muted with one standout color
fun facial expressions, costume detail, environmental storytelling, dialogue and words written in the picture (bonus if it’s written in aurebesh or mando’a—not mando’a script tho, I cannot read that 😅), scientific illustrations, anatomical diagrams, fight scenes, very specific knowledge from the creator’s expertise, Characters shown in canon settings as well as AU
Gender Non-Conforming/Queer interpretations
Characters as (space) pirates, bounty hunters, and soldiers/warriors/fighters, especially if it’s not their canon role; characters swapping clothes/gear with each other.
(Mainly for OCs) Within the range of typical human coloration, I tend to prefer darker skin, eyes, and hair, as well as wavy/curly/kinky hair rather than straight (also dyed and/or greying: yes please!); for non-humans, the more colorful the better. Fangs, claws, talons, horns, spikes... anything considered "monstrous" and/or "animalistic" is very welcome.
(<-AU versions?), Fat versions of characters, show the rolls! :D plus stretch marks and scars, disabled characters and accessibility devices
Feel free to go as explicit as you like, genitalia showing, fluids, etc. however much you’re comfortable with.

This is in no way a comprehensive list of things I like; go wild and have fun!

Thanks so much for creating something for me 😊

[pinkcasket]

now that I'm on the topic I do actually have to whine. it drives me up a damn wall how liberal feminism (and queer/lgbtq theory/spaces) reinforce femininity and masculinity as roles while claiming to upend them.

and I do understand where it comes from in many ways- I'm a trans masc person who wears extremely femme clothing! one of the biggest reasons I've yet to go on T is that it'll make wearing clothing I love much, much harder. I'm fully aware that gnc men are treated poorly. I've also experienced enough shit myself to know that hyperfem women do get bullshit, and the dynamics of gender expression are more complex than "conforming" and "nonconforming"

it's also true that many things traditionally associated with women are derided and seen as unimportant within society. but none of this leads into femmephobia being a useful concept!

it's all much, much simpler imo: the oppression of women is upheld using a strict set of gender roles, and those roles are encoded within "femininity" and "masculinity". they aren't natural categories, and they aren't neutral. the existence of these categories alone is the backbone of cishet patriarchy (& others, but were not discussing that here)

divorcing those categories from gender isn't enough, and will never be enough. you have to stop categorizing them entirely. and like, I get that were a long way from that overall! I get that you can't get people to "femininity and masculinity are bad concepts" without first convincing them that anyone can be feminine and vice versa

but my issue is that liberals don't just say that it's too soon. they flat out never think about it! feminine ideals are Good and masculine ones are Bad. esp the emotional ones. god. there's nothing a liberal feminist hates more than a "facts not feelings" commie in pink