#and ignoring the intersectionality of race and gender. because they look at it from a white perspective and think that's the standard

[schadenfreudich]

A post ends up being mildly popular and everytime someone likes or reblogs, I think "I have correct opinions" to myself.

[apas-95]

How do you not realize your Marxist ideology is false when it says shit like a trans black woman small business owner is oppressing her cis white man employees?

I don't think you're, like, genuinely asking, or are curious, here, but I'll answer anyways, for everyone else who might be confused on issues like this: it's intersectionality.

You could make this argument about essentialy any axis of oppression - 'how do you not realise your LGBT ideology is false when it says shit like a cishet black person is oppressing their white trans gay employees', or, conversely, 'how do you not realise your racial ideology is false when it says shit like a white trans gay person is oppressing their cishet black employees'.

The point here isn't to have a rock-paper-scissors, Pokémon type-effectiveness ranking of which axes of oppression 'outrank' which others, it's to understand that each axis of oppression is an entirely distinct social system that overlaps with the other. A black business owner suffers from the social system of antiblackness, and benefits from the social system of capitalism. The specific overlap of their blackness and their class character also gives them an entirely unique character with regards to their segment of society. If they are USAmerican, for example, in their specific case the state and progress of the national liberation movement in the US means that they make up the rear of the revolutionary movement, despite being themselves petit-bourgeois. These systems of oppression are qualitatively different, and cannot be simply, quantitatively, summed up against each other.

With this in mind, it should be understood that the Marxist understanding of class as the principal contradiction does not mean that class is the most important, overruling factor, and that other axes should be ignored. Class is considered the principal contradiction because it is the contradiction that all other axes of oppression, genuine in their own rights, grew out of. Antiblackness was created by the slave trade (not vice-versa), and the slave trade was created by the growing European bourgeoisie's need to extract surplus-value, in the collapse of the Feudal economy. In the example you gave, the petit-bourgeois business owner exploits the labour of her workers, and is supported in doing so by an entire legal, political, and philosophical system based on the expropriation of the proletariat. She is also herself repressed and exploited on the basis of race, gender, and transness. These do not cancel each other out. However, given the ultimate source of racial, patriarchal, and cissexist oppress is political-economic class, her ability to genuinely fight for her interests in those fields will be hamstrung by her class position - just as her ability to attain and maintain that class position in the first place is itself hamstrung by her oppression in other fields.

Ultimately, there are no simple rules that society can be flattened down by. Each and every instance and scenario must be investigated in its own right. The idea that people are driven to Marxism because it provides an easy or simplified way of looking at the world is (perhaps unfortunately!) wrong, it actually means a lot more work!

[jellyfemmedyke]

Sorry if this is a stupid question, but can you explain why radical feminism is harmful?/gen

I'm probably not great at explaining this but I'll do my best. Radical feminism, the theory came from second wave feminism, it basically states the the root of all oppression is misogyny.

it strips everyone of gender and states that we are oppressed on sex alone, that all males oppress and subjugate all females. It states there is an oppressor class (males) and an oppressed class (females ) always.

This ignores intersectionality- a critical concept that recognizes how individuals hold multiple identities and face unique challenges at the intersections of those identities, coined by Kimberle Crenshaw a black feminist

because they believe that misogyny is the root of all oppression, other forms of oppression end up being secondary, things like racism, fatphobia, homophobia- instead of being their own unique for of oppression that intersect with misogyny, they are born strictly out of misogyny. because they believe all males oppress all females, they believe that trans women are oppressors as well, which you start getting into trans exclusionary radical feminism, but I would argue that radical feminism itself is trans exclusionary because of how it makes everything out as a male vs female thing. It's a flawed theory that upholds white supremacy.

Then, we have things like transradical feminism, that takes this theory and says "No actually we are only oppressed for our gender" so that transmisogyny is actually the root of all oppression and that trans men oppress trans women. Both of these theories ignore the internationally of both sex and gender, along with race and all the other forms of oppression. that's pretty much the gist of it. There's probably some other stuff I'm missing but that's the rundown . Also intersectionality isn't just 1 opression plus another oppression = worse oppression the way people tend to misuse it.

It takes things like, for example, a white cis man, this man is at the intersection of white and cis man, and those things affect the way he interacts with the world. It's a fat cis white man, and how those intersections affect each other. I use those examples because people tend to ignore that intersectionality affects everyone, including cis white men. I'm also not the person to talk to about black feminism either, but Bell Hooks and Kimbrle Crenshaw are two people that you should look into if you want to read about that. Anyway, I hope this helps. also that's not a stupid question. I think it's a good one

[jascamille]

Blog Post - 10/3

Can we be known for our virtual presence?

Yes, being known for who you are on any type of social media is possible. When it comes to social media personas are created because of the choices made. The decisions we make through our profile reflect our morals and beliefs. As we know what we post on the internet will stay online forever, it's important to think before posting.

Can the internet be a "utopia"?

The internet cannot be a "utopia". A utopia is described to be a "picture-perfect" reality and especially the internet cannot be perfect. Whether or not people have fake or "real" profiles on social media it's still not reality. Kolko mentions that the longer someone is behind a fake persona their real self when soon rise to the surface. Seen from the Black Mirror episode the lady driving the truck explained how she started to lose her filter when the merit system failed her and her husband.

How can we prevent game creators from creating games like "Shadow Warrior"?

From what we learned about intersectionality, it's important to understand the different variables, to learn one, you must look at the others. Not knowing what intersectionality is, is not knowing different perspectives. As mentioned by Ow, the game makers of "Shadow Warrior" included a very similar event to the real-life event called "My Lai". The event of My Lai took place in Vietnam where hundreds of unarmed citizens were massacred by the U.S. during the Vietnam War. Ow states that the creators of "Shadow Warrior" are ignorant when it comes to using a historical event for the purposes of entertainment. To prevent problematic games such as "Shadow Warrior" again, game companies should make their teams more inclusive. Inclusivity gives perspective and varying experiences, also a great way to reach a broader audience.

What is a "cyborg"?

A cyborg is a combination of technology and an online persona. When reading "Race in Cyberspace" I didn't know there was a different meaning to cyborg, I first thought that a cyborg was like the one in television and movies, but it's a term used in the online world. Online personas of others see the gender of the cyborg before looking at the identity behind the screen. Many believe the term "cyborg" is inclusive, but it's the opposite, cyborg excludes women of color and the LGBTQ+ community, as it truly appeals to white women.

Sources:

Kolko, Beth. "Race in Cyberspace".

Ow, Jeffrey. "The Revenge of the Yellow-faced Terminator".

Ray, M. (2024, September 11). My Lai Massacre. Encyclopedia Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/event/My-Lai-Massacre

Brooker, C. (Writer & Director). (2016). Nosedive (Season 3, Episode 1) [TV series episode]. In C. Brooker & B. O’Donnell (Producers), Black Mirror. House of Tomorrow.

[lesslonelycanadian]

Alright, so this post is absolute Fuckwitty that shows a complete lack of understanding of feminism equality and how society places value on life, not to mention the way it completely ignores Intersectionality

first let's lay down What I mean When I say masculine and feminine it has nothing about to do with gender but rather the white supremacists roles That are used in colonialism And anytime, I use masculine and feminine in this Post I am referring specifically to that context

And when I say value , I am referring to the general societal capitalist colonialism value place on life because personally , I think the concept of placing value on life (and the concept of value by itself if i'm being entirely honest but we're not ready for that talk) l is complete horseshit

I will also not be touching race because that will make this post way too long and the full extent of intersectionality Will take up more time and energy than I have the bandwidth for and that i'm willing to give you. So, this will be isolated to white gender roles and classicism

Now, let's get into this list. What each bullet point is actually saying, and then my take down of what is actually going on

Women can earn value through surrendering their femininity and taking on a cosplay of masculinity there will be be push back and you must Prove that you are strong enough to participate in the performance of Masculinity If you don't wish to Or are simply not strong enough Stay in the house , this is equality

Literally the same as point one.Just the social exaggeration between corporate and manual labour and the resulting classism divide

These two points And starting point of feminism are using the pre established Structure Of Masculinity equaling value, and femininity Actively removing value., To say well if women are capable of performing the masculine, then they must be able to earn value Not that women are people or inherently worth value, but that they are capable of earning it That's not equality

Quite frankly, it gives off the energy of a teen girl saying she's never going to wear a skirt or the colour pink ever again because That's for Basic girls and she's not like them

It has nothing to do with respecting femininity and has more to do with separating the roles of masculine and feminine from gender and sex I'm being able to earn value through performing the masculine

Actually , you don't need to surrender the visual performance of femininity , as long as you are still Behaviorally performing masculinity The skirt is acceptable as long as you are willing to commit violence

Still using the same value assigning structure, but if you wish to continue in the cosmetic performance of femininity That will be considered a weakness , you must double down and hyper exaggerate on the behavioural performance of masculinity

You know what actually domestic labour does have some value And also Cosmetics are just that cosmetics Bright colors and sparkles are fun Customize that avatar

Now, this actually is a turning point It's still using the Assigning value model but the model is changing now to femininity being of some value It's the beginning of the acknowledgment that domestic labor is in fact labor, is important And necessary , it's still not considered as important Or of the same value as the masculine , but It is Beginning to be acknowledged

And as such , that cosmetic performance is not being condemned as a weaknesses That Has to be counteracted with even more intense performances of masculinity

White supremacy Reminding white women that It's ok if they're considered less Valuable, then white men.Because remember you'll always be more valuable any kind of poc Now go steal They're spirituality with no understanding and reform To fit the white supremacist colonial world We're renaiming hippies. This has been happening the entire time.

This is just a rebranding of hippies and Is in fact not feminism and is simply co-oping The language and look and is in effect, and is part of a different conversation involving intersectionality And is in fact not an evolution of feminism and has been happening the entire time It's just another variation on radfem Which has never been actually been femininist And has always been a plant

The corporate job that was once deemed masculine is now considered feminine Fun and exciting Then when I get home, I'm going to have a random plate of nutritionally balanced foods that is not aesthetic or cooked because I don't want to And being a girl doesn't make me inherently good at cooking and because Of that assumption I will be calling it girl dinner for fun, Now look , I have the wealth And time to spend taking care of Physical appearance And health way more than necessary This is a privilege , and I would like to To flex it on you, I also have no need to perform physical labour if I don't want to Both because I don't need to perform masculinity to earn value and also because I have the privilege to pay For Others to perform said labour for me , And Because of my privilege, I also no longer feel the need to fight and prove that I am capable of certain things to retain said privilege My wealth retains that for me

Now, this unfortunately is still a value system, but now it places value on labour and proactivity or rather than gender ( Don't get me wrong The gender value disparity is definitely still at play.It's just no longer The primary driver) The prime driver of Isolated white "oppression" is now based off class instead , And the way to prove value is to flex wealth Usually through Exaggerated gendered performance

The food thing is separate, and it's first saying that one women are not inherently better at cooking and Two Cooking is valuable labor ( Also, the original girl dinner was 2?Thirds of a summer sausage cheese Crackers And a large handful of grapes and I think some Strawberries , it was a decent sized meal for 1 person that was fairly nutritionally balanced,not 2 almonds[ Straight up lying about shit does not strengthen your argument])

The 15 skin care shit is redirected back to the wealth thing it's just a way of flexing and proving one ones worth by saying.I have both both the time and the money to spend on this Therefore I am of more value It's classism

But skin care just by itself is hygiene and health.And shouldn't be deemed something inherently feminine.And it is more just taking care of yourself Something that Is open to men as well

I do wish to add a little bit more extra here onto the "girl blank" thing. That's happening. I did briefly address Girl Dinner , but there's also Girl math , [which is literally just cost analysis and long-term financial analysis] And if you immediately see girl dinner and girl math And girl logic As lesser or mocking, then you missed the point of it , which is A reforming and rebirth of bimbo feminism[ Love her]

Bimbo feminism is about throwing out the value system entirely and asks you the questions,

Why must a woman prove her value?

why does a woman have to prove herself intelligent to be deemed of value?

And why do you view unintelligence or beauty (or caring about \ working on / maintaining)as less valuable or even removing value?

Why are you subtracting and adding value to life Based on arbitrary metrics?

And why is there even being a value assigned to life at all?

So I guess I'll ask y'all

As someone in and around their 30’s it has been INSANE to see feminism in popular media descend through

Women can wear pants and play sports and that’s equality. Women don’t just belong inside the house. This woman has a career

This woman can be a mechanic just like a man could. She’s probably still a lesbian, though, which is basically the closest to a man a woman can *be*, and explains everything. But she’s still a person!

If a woman superhero CHOOSES to wear stilettos to fight crime, that’s girl power! This comic character written and designed by men wears a bikini and has a waist size of 12 inches because it makes her FEEL POWERFUL! Girls don’t HAVE to dress boyish to be strong! She can make you a sandwich AND be a feminist! Girl power!

What, are you saying women HAVE to do boy things to be taken seriously? Who are you to tell a woman what to do? Maybe some women NEED to get their hair and nails done twice a month to feel powerful! Maybe a lot of women WANT to be stay-at-home moms!

What I don’t think you understand is that women have an inherent feminine spirituality which guides them towards maternal and nurturing paths. Women need to honour their divine female aura to keep their. Their fuckin. Their chakras together or some shit. You should put quartz up your hooha and huff wheatgrass. Leaving manual labour and science and technology to men is natural and good for you spiritually

Uh she can’t do that, that’s a blue job, she’s a pink job girly. Food? Yeah, she’s having #girl dinner, which is a handful of almonds. Time for our 15 step skincare routine, which is empowering. Hashtag #girlboss. Ew no, touching dirt? She’s just a girl. You can’t expect a girl to do that. Haha #girl logic

[martibois]

Week 2 Blog Post: Complexity over Categories: Intersectionality and the Media 

This week’s readings challenged me to stop viewing personal identity as something that needs to be in neat categories. Kimberlé Crenshaw’s framework of intersectionality highlighted to me how Black women often fall through the cracks of both feminist and antiracist thoughts and just not because we were overlooked once, but because the systems put in place aren’t built to handle overlapping oppressions. Her point that intersectionality isn’t additive but combinatory, that made me realize that “race” and “gender” can’t be peeled apart individually accurately without missing the full picture. 

The Jane Gaines reading takes this ideology further by critiquing the feminist film theory for constantly centering whiteness even while it critiques patriarchy. Gaines argues that while feminist theory has been too busy fighting with the effects of the male gaze, it often ignores the racial element of the gaze entirely. Her analysis of Mahogany I feel like accurately describes how Black women, like the Tracy Chambers character, are only “seen” through white male desire, while Black men are often denied the power to look as well. It’s not just “Where are the women?” but “Which women will get to see or be seen?” 

After reading Jennifer DeClue’s essay on The Wire really made this theory come alive. The reading of Kima and Snoop showed us how Black queer women are frequently both represented and restricted in a sense. We see that Kima’s performed masculinity earns her respect at work but still fits into an easily acceptable and familiar role. Snoop, however, with her gender ambiguity and hypermasculinity, becomes jumbled, her sexuality seems like it’s almost completely erased. DeClue argues that The Wire both expands and exploits Black queer representation for its own “quality TV” aesthetic, using taboo ideologies to signal to us as the viewers, complexity. 

I didn’t get to watch Pariah, but from the brief research I’ve done, I gather that it can serve as a counterexample. A layered, deep human portrayal that have a Black queer identity. Crenshaw reminds us of that identity politics often flatten differences. Pariah, I think, pushes against that, like these readings makes us do. This week reminded me that true representation isn’t just about inclusion sometimes, it’s about being seen in totality. Intersectionality gives us the language to recognize that, and critiques media that still treats race, gender, and sexuality like they are separate issues. It’s not about more boxes to check off, it’s about asking and answering better questions. 

[puppyanalog]

Week 5: Digital Citizenship

So, the internet. We’re all on it, we all contribute to it, and yet, sometimes, it feels like it’s running us instead of the other way around. Being a digital citizen means more than just existing online. It’s about engaging thoughtfully, challenging misinformation, and using social media as a tool for empowerment rather than letting it manipulate us. Digital activism, intersectionality, and algorithmic power all shape our online experiences, and it’s time we take a closer look at how they work together.

What is digital citizenship?

At its core, digital citizenship is about how we act online and the impact of those actions. It involves:

Thinking critically (spotting fake news, questioning sources, avoiding echo chambers).

Engaging ethically (not spreading harmful content, calling out injustice, contributing positively).

Demanding better from platforms (understanding how they operate and holding them accountable).

But here’s the kicker: the platforms we use aren’t neutral. They’re designed to keep us engaged, and that means what we see is carefully curated by algorithms. As Van Dijck et al. (2018) explain, platforms use mechanisms like datafication, commodification, and selection to shape our digital experiences. That means marginalized voices often get pushed aside, while the loudest, most controversial content gets amplified. This isn’t accidental—it’s how the system is built.

The Power (and Pitfalls) of Hashtag Publics

Social media has transformed activism. Hashtags like #BlackLivesMatter, #MeToo, and #FreePalestine aren’t just trending topics—they’re organizing tools that bring people together across borders and cultures. Hashtag publics create digital spaces where issues that mainstream media ignores can gain traction (Dobrin, 2020). But just because hashtags can spark change doesn’t mean they’re always safe from manipulation.

Misinformation thrives in viral spaces. The same tools that help movements grow also allow conspiracy theories and disinformation campaigns to spread rapidly.

Censorship and content moderation disproportionately silence marginalized voices. The Tumblr NSFW ban in 2018 wiped out entire LGBTQ+ communities overnight, showing how platform policies can erase important conversations.

Algorithmic bias affects visibility. Social media platforms are designed to boost certain narratives while suppressing others, reinforcing existing inequalities (Fazelpour & Danks, 2021)

So, what do we do? Understanding that platforms aren’t neutral is step one. Step two is actively questioning what we consume, supporting independent media, and amplifying voices that algorithms suppress.

Intersectionality in the Digital Age

Not everyone experiences the internet the same way. Intersectionality (Crenshaw, 1991) reminds us that our identities—race, gender, economic background—affect how we move through digital spaces. Some examples:

Black Lives Matter highlighted digital activism’s power but also exposed the risks of online surveillance and doxxing for Black activists.

Women and LGBTQ+ users face disproportionate harassment online, making “free speech” debates far more complicated than they seem.

The digital divide is real—not everyone has equal access to the internet or media literacy skills, which means participation isn’t as democratic as we like to think.

If we want the internet to be truly inclusive, we need to push for platform accountability, stronger digital rights, and more equitable online spaces.

Conclusion

Digital citizenship isn’t just about playing it safe online—it’s about actively shaping the internet into a better space. That means questioning power structures, engaging critically, and demanding transparency from the platforms that control so much of what we see. So, the next time you retweet, share, or engage in a digital movement, ask yourself: Are we using social media, or is it using us?

References

Crenshaw, K. (1991). On Intersectionality: Essential Writings. New Press.

Dobrin, D. (2020). The Hashtag in Digital Activism: a Cultural Revolution. Journal of Cultural Analysis and Social Change, 5(1). https://doi.org/10.20897/jcasc/8298

Fazelpour, S., & Danks, D. (2021). Algorithmic bias: Senses, sources, solutions. Philosophy Compass, 16(8). https://doi.org/10.1111/phc3.12760

Pangrazio, L., & Sefton-Green, J. (2021). Digital Rights, Digital Citizenship and Digital Literacy: What’s the Difference? Journal of New Approaches in Educational Research, 10(1), 15–27. https://doi.org/10.7821/naer.2021.1.616

Van Dijck, J., Poell, T., & De Waal, M. (2018). The platform society : public values in a connective world. Oxford University Press.

[janeindamembrane]

Final Assessment

Introduction:

Watchmen (2019), is a limited series from HBO which is a retelling/extension of the 1986 graphic novels of the same name. Starring Regina King as ‘Angela Abar’, the series features many vigilantes in a story that sets heroes amongst politics, morality, and corrupt and flawed power dynamics. The idea of the hero and its modern day playability is challenged by the thematic scope of the show and the flawed nature of the heroes at the center.

To sources:

Jacques Lacan, “The Mirror Stage as Formative of the Function of the I” centers around how people look towards images to recognize parts of themselves. There is the eventual realization that the self (the I) does not perfectly resemble the other, and thus an ego which attempts to reconcile the two is formed.

bell hooks, “Oppositional Gaze: Black Female Spectators” discusses how other audiences besides the dominant audience can derive pleasure and catharsis from media/representations. A focus is put on black female audiences because of their invisibility in media as well as their position within the intersection of not being a male and not being white. Oppositional gaze can provide interrogation or ego libido.

Audre Lorde, “Age, Race, Class, and Sex: Women Redefining Difference” is about the continual legitimization of systems of power even within opposition. It talks about how perceived differences have too long been manipulated to further drive apart and that the power that difference holds must be redefined.

Robert Stam and Ella Shohat, “Stereotype, Realism, and the Struggle over Representation” focuses on audiences interest in truth/realism and how images and the languages around them can come to define truth. If truth is defined by images, the creators of these images hold power over the depicted who bear the burden of the depictions. The article discusses the importance of participation/representation as a response to previously standing power dynamics. Common Hollywood stereotypes about races are mentioned and later stereotypes, what they reveal about society, and the issue of completely ignoring stereotypes is discussed.

Methodology:

First, I will discuss the similarities in the above sources, particularly pertaining to agreements surrounding power structures in media and the dominant (white, male) audience. Second I will discuss differences amongst the sources regarding how non dominant audiences view media and what role dominant media plays in creating an oppositional media/view and vice versa. The final section will look at two scenes one from Watchmen’s episode 6, “This Extraordinary Being”, and the other from episode 8, “A God Walked into Abar”. I will point out what I believe the authors would take away from the scenes.

Section One:

All of the authors talk about representation of images and how dissimilarity between the images one sees and their own reality can cause them to mend their own representation or image of themselves.

Lacan talks of the mirror phase: when the connection between the image of oneself and what is reflected back to them in the real world (the images of others) is perfectly in sync. This perfect reflection is eventually ruptured, whether it is simply maturity or the realization that one does not (such as through racial, class, or gender difference) resemble the others promoted within society. Lacan mentions that the reaction of forming the social I, the version of the I heavily informed by society and its views, is mediated by cultural norms. The other theorists would elaborate on that and say that these norms are power systems which continue to enforce themselves through the distortion of difference, particularly the weaponization of stereotype.

Additionally, these theorists (beyond Lacan) would agree that there is intersectionality within these power systems. The title of Lorde's works point these out: age, race, class, and sex. It is along these intersections that minorities will be unable to resonate fully with the representations created by those in dominant positions within the intersections. Lorde and hooks talk about the inner relation between the black woman and the white woman beyond just the relation of man and woman. The white woman may be the image of desire that the protagonist watches, but the black woman is ignored, belittled, or violated. Additionally, while the black male may not have the looking and representational privileges of the white male, they still have a higher position than black females.

The qualitative differences of these groups have been distorted to create a mythical difference, as Lorde calls it. Or they have been simplified to several characteristics which are then deemed negative enough to justify certain treatments. The representations of certain groups holds large weight because of how little representations there are are who these representations have been controlled by. The theorists agree that marginalized groups are forced to gain viewing pleasures in different ways because they do not see the 'mirror image' of themselves when it comes to the dominant images produced. When these images do actually resemble them, the distortion of differences and stereotyping can cause the audience to have difficult views of themselves and others.

Section Two:

The difference among the theorists is what the takeaway of the power dynamic in images should be. The oppositional gaze of bell hooks talks about the importance of continuously critiquing the dominant media in how it ignores or represents minorities. Shohat and Stan talk about the importance of representation not only in images (casting) but when it comes to who is creating. Since Lacan does not directly address the power dynamics of images beyond that of the ego being heavily informed by cultural norms, he does not adequately address what to do when those culture norms are unfortunately racist, sexist, and etc.

Lorde provides the most radical view that insists that certain forms of opposition only exist to uphold systems. For example, even by being critical of media and explaining it, it upholds the idea of certain marginalized group explaining themselves to the dominant group.

What the takeaway from the power dynamic is- should new images be formed or use same tools

Section Three: Is there Justice for The Hooded Justice?

[From left to right and clockwise] Will watches the Cyclops headquarters burn; He takes off his mask and confronts the brutal nature of the violence; His memories (through Angela's experience) flashback to him finding his wife (as a baby) during the Tusla Race Massacre.

The scene from Watchmen’s sixth episode, “This Extraordinary Being”, that I will be looking at occurs from _________. This is when Will Reeves burns down a warehouse belonging to Fred after killing the occupants individually inside. Before I get into what I believe would be the key takeaways from our authors about this scene, I want to to do a quick analysis of Will Reeves who is the vigilante The Hooded Justice. I think his character is pretty well encapsulated by a quote from later in the series:

People who wear masks are driven by trauma. They’re obsessed with justice because of some injustice they suffered, usually when they were kids. -Episode 8, “A God Walks into Abar”,

For Will Reeves, the Hooded Justice is literally a mask but also figuratively one that lets him escape being a black man while also protecting others. He is attempting to right the wrongs that he and others like him have undergone, but his way of doing this through hiding his blackness and embracing the violence of the original injustices eventually consume his character causing his wife and child to leave.

Audre Lorde’s writing focuses on feminism and the subcategory of racist feminism and other intersections within feminism. I do believe she would, however, find connections between her writings’ philosophies on difference, oppression, and liberation with the ways that Will Reeve’s enacts Justice. Lorde strongly asserts that “the master’s tools will never dismantle the master’s house” (110); true redemption is knowledge and community, yet acts of redemption which seek to further alienate or (in Will’s case) enact the violence he previously suffered. He strangles one of the guys in the building in a way that resembles his lynching. He later hypnotizes Judd Crawford to hang himself. He is using the exact playbook- the ‘tools’- of his oppressors. Watchmen forces the audience and Will to confront the question of whether this is justice. Yes, the ones attacked our villainous and racist, but Will has (as seen through his later confrontation with his wife and child) let his anger consume him and become an opposition yet a mirror to his oppressors. When he burns down the cyclops headquarters, he uses the mask of Hooded Justice- the mask of liberation- to enact his rage. When he watches the building burn down, he is forced to confront the similarity of the situation to the Tulsa Massacre. During this scene, he takes off his mask and watches not as a vigilante but as a man confronting that he is capable of the same violence done to him.

There is the continuous symbolism of the mask. On the practical level it is so Will can escape identification. But on top of the physical mask there is also the mask of painting the skin around his eyes white- so that the Hooded Justice is mistaken as a white man. This is effective since the show within a show parody, American Hero Story, portrays the Hooded Justice as white. June (his wife) advises him to do so since “If you're going to stay a hero, then the townsfolk are going to need to think that one of their own is under [your hood]” ().

This touches upon the idea of the mirror image, as this extra mask is all about how he is perceived by others. June talks of being “one of their own”, and how that is the only way for the Hooded Justice to be a hero. While Lacan doesn’t touch upon the ideas of audiences with power (as Shohat and Stam do), June and Will are concerned about the Hooded Justice’s reputation with the white audience as it is this audience who controls potentially violent backlash against Will. When white audiences think the Hooded Justice is white, they see not only themselves in him but an idealized version which insinuates power within themselves to stand up to wrongs when those wrongs do not confront their own privilege such as the saving of the white couple after Reeves survives the lynching. Laura Mulvey refers to this as the pleasure of ego libido (715). If this audience were to know the Hooded Justice is black and that he is particularly acting against injustices against the black community by white people in positions of power (such as the police force), the mirror stage (the perfect reflection) would be broken. Since they are the dominant audience, this would not result in ego defense. The white audience does not alter their own social Is (the ego) to better fit with the ideals of the Hooded Justice, as that would require them to still look up to him. The “cultural intervention” of a world steeped in racist power dynamics defines what the white audience’s relation to the black man and the othering competition he provides (Lacan, 79). Instead, he would be villainized and persecuted, through the distortion of difference (the mythical difference()), and he would be fit into the stereotype of the violent black man. Unfortunately because of the Hooded Justice’s visibility, this stereotype would gain weight; the public image of one black man being violent would, due to the limited representation of black men, come to dominant beliefs by the white audience about the nature of all black men (Shohat and Stam, 183).

Will Reeves own relation to his blackness is complicated. It could be argued that he himself is attempting to uphold a mirror stage or ego libido- he wants to be like the cowboys he grew up watching on screen (in the end montage during Crawford’s hanging snippets from Bass Reeve’s movie are shown). The Bass Reeves character is the inspiration behind Will Reeves joining the police force, and when Will realizes that he corruptness of the force he creates his own type of Lone Ranger. He is not allowed to this ego libido as he is reminded of how little power he has in his black body. His white coworkers lynch him simply because they can. He attempts to become white through the Hooded Justice, and while at first logistically necessary, he eventually depends on it. The only way he can be a hero, and fulfill his need to become like the heroes he watched on screen, is to be the white presenting Hooded Justice. He is attempting to present the Hooded Justice as the mirror image of white ‘heroes’. The same ones that a la Birth of a Nation are the exact perpetrators of the racist and white supremicist myths that subject Will to his treatment.

[from left to right] Will Reeves assuming power through the police uniform and through enacting a form of violence (strangling) that is very intimate and resembles the lynching he suffered.

He has become the emulation of the tools of the master to the point where he denies positive representation of ego libido for his son. He wears the costumes of systems of oppression- whether it is the mask of the Hooded Justice or his police uniform- and when he gives up on changing these systems he uses his masks to commit the same retaliatory violence. By becoming the Hooded Justice and joining the force, he provides opposition which provides interrogation of the systems. Yet by embracing the whiteness of the Hooded Justice and stooping to the same violence enacted to him, he adds to the system- perhaps experiencing some ego libido by being somewhat accepted (contingently) into some forms of white power. The show does not allow this to be a win, as shown by his facial expressions in the aftermath, the allusion to the Tulsa Massacre, and the loss of his family. Additionally, his fight against Cyclops does not stop the struggle that his granddaughter faces. When tools of oppression are used in opposition, perhaps time/history are endless.

bell hooks talks of intersectionality and how black men can still hold power within the patriarchy and white women can still hold the privilege of being white. Will Reeves, despite his own restrictions, is able to access certain privileges. His being in the police force is contrasted by the image of Angela (through the Nostalgia memories) who faces other restrictions due to being black and a woman. His access to the Hooded Justice gives him a semblance more of access to the white male patriarchal structure- which he uses to get temporary revenge rather than elevate those around of (in terms of intersectionality) below him within this system.

This is seen in his interaction, following the burning of the Cyclops headquarters, with his son and wife, June. His son looks up to him (because of the limited representation of black men having systematic power), but Will realizes with horror that the path of the Hooded Justice is not something he should want for his son. The costume represents hiding true identity and anger rather than true justice. His anger at his son can be interpreted as anger at himself and his failure to become 'Bass Reeves' and his further contribution to the lack of justice in the law (as a vigilante).

The larger question that the series poses is the morality of the situation, and the chicken and the egg debate (mentioned in the next episode I will be analyzing) over history and its injustices. Will Reeves may be using the tool of his oppressors, but whether there were other tools available to him (the community and understanding that Lorde touts) is debatable. Reeves violence is reaction to injustice, but will be weaponized to further stereotype racial difference so that further generations will continue to suffer the same injustices and stigmas.

Section Three and One Half: A God in a Black Body

Not addressed by Dr Manhattan but seen by people around him (also meta because of the influence on audiences).

Throwaway line about appropriation but otherwise no dialogue

It’s quite an interesting form you’ve decided to take. It’s not the 80’s anymore, Jon. This kind of appropriation is considered quite problematic now. - Adrien Veidt, Episode 8,

People around him perceive or may put weight on it but ultimately the difference of body distorted (Lorde), (

Choice of making Jon a Jewish man

Difference of Lorde perspective Shohat

Comfortability within this body and also previous non showing of manhattan (not confined)

Opposite of being praised

Ending potentially could be seen as retaliation

[genderkoolaid]

“The white woman had just claimed that all women were bound together by their common plight under patriarchy, but the black woman disagreed. She asked: ‘When you wake up in the morning and look in the mirror, what do you see?’ The white woman replied that she saw a woman in the mirror. ‘That’s precisely the issue’, said the other, ‘I see a black woman’. She then went on to explain how her ethnicity was part of her everyday consciousness, whereas, for white women, their colour was invisible because they were (and still are) privileged in that respect. Kimmel was profoundly struck by this exchange because he realised that when he looked at himself in the mirror, not only had he failed to see his whiteness, but he had also failed to see his gender. What confronted him was just the image of a person – an ordinary human being.” (quoted from Men and Masculinity: the basics by Nigel Edley)

So thinking about this quote, because this is very important when talking about intersectionality.

Dominant identities are seen as transparent. They aren't seen as material things in the same way marginalization is. We other people by their marginalization and therefore make their marginalization noticeable, while ignoring our dominance because we are not forced to acknowledge it (until we are). We see things like black womanhood as intersectional, but not white womanhood, because white womanhood has long been seen as the default, and black womahood as a deviation from the immaterial norm.

When trans men look in the mirror, we see a trans man. It's not like we see a nebulous trans person and don't see our maleness. They are intertwined; I see a trans man (amongst other things), not just a person. My manhood cannot be invisible or negligible for me, it has to be a part of my everyday consciousness.

Transness changes gender. Transness intersects with gender and changes how it is treated. It changes how womanhood is perceived, and the intersection of transness and womanhood and it's unique oppression is transmisogyny.

We cannot ignore the intersection of transness and manhood. To do so would be to do the same thing Michael Kimmel found himself doing in that quote: making manhood invisible.

Except here, manhood is being viewed as privileged because people refuse to see the intersection. They see it as manhood + transness, two separate things. People view it as "you are privileged for being a man but oppressed for being trans," which is not intersectionality. That treats transness and manhood as two things which do not interact with each other. Even more, it views "manhood" as being defined by cis manhood, as if trans men are simply cis men with some amorphous "transness" applied (and therefore possess some level cis male privilege, which is only weakened by being trans).

Transness impacts gender. Transness impacts manhood. It changes how manhood is perceived and treated. Transness turns manhood deviant. There is an intersection between transness and manhood, and there is a unique oppression experienced by those at that intersection.

When we deny that manhood and transness can interact and that transness changes manhood, we are denying intersectionality on this specific point for no other reason than we see manhood as transparent and immaterial.

When we see dominant manhood as transparent, it's a benefit to dominant manhood because it goes unquestioned. When we view marginalized manhood as transparent and ignore it's intersection with gender, it is a detriment because we ignore so many interactions between the patriarchy and transness, race, ability, colonialism and prevent the people at those intersections from having a voice to describe those experiences.

[kingjasnah]

for the unpopular opinions: i know i'm sending this to you, isha kingjasnah, but i feel that jasnah's character, while it had the potential to be really interesting, is now approaching #girlboss status. like some of the moments that could have been handled with more nuance (especially by acknowledging the class aspect) like the kharbranth alleyway scene, her feminist letter, her role in the conversation about what to do about the heralds and the singers in OB (the one where kaladin keeps getting shut down 😒), as well as her sword through the throat moment in row ended up way too exaggerated and Strong Female Character™. like especially in alethkar, where we see class / caste and race (referring to the singers here) as such a powerful system of oppression, the feminist intent falls flat because it ignores the class aspects so blatantly. like there is zero intersectionality here.

tl;dr jasnah's character suffers both solely in (a) the understanding of gender by using very Strong Female Character™ moments, and in (b) an understanding of intersectionality and the ways she has privilege as an important aspect of her identity.

this is SO funny cause i just sent an identical ask to ella @bridgefourisgayrights so u get two takes for the price of one <333

anyway yea she was my fave character in book one and even now i think the way we are revealed more and more about her experiences in a really sinister way is chilling in a cool way......the kharbranth scene where shallan is like holy shit what happened to you. the mentions of her """""illness"""""" as a child in ob. whatever the fuck amaram was implying before she ruined his whole career. like CHARACTER wise she's still so shrimpteresting like i go crazy when i think about her relationship with her father (prologue era) and with renarin but ur ABSOLUTELY right whenever the narrative shifts from being not about who she is and more about her place in the story im like...........who tf is she. what is she doing.

jasnah is such a weird case cause she understands class politics more than any other lighteyes in the series and it seems like she prides herself on objectivity, that's why that scene with kaladin could've been actually interesting if it meant shifting her knowledge and expertise from the theoretical to the practical...that's an interesting lens to look through if we actually got a chance to think of it that way. and she goes from that to the emancipation scene in row which was equally theoretical and shallow. #girlboss. i don't think she's anywhere near one dimensional but it feels like the further we go on the more those dimensions seem 2 conform to a very white feminist angle

ty mira ive been thinking about this a lot.....i am still isha kingjasnah 😔 and she still makes me crazy but it is unfortunate that her character has suffered under said kingship

[starfieldcanvas]

"your struggle and my struggle are connected, we are part of the same larger fight" is solidarity. intersectionality is different. it doesn't just mean a positive message about "struggles intersecting", even if that's what it sounds like (and even if you have heard smart and compassionate people use it that way repeatedly.)

the term was coined in an essay by kimberlé crenshaw about the way both the women's rights movement and the civil rights movement (and specifically the legal edifice set up to defend the rights of women and black people in U.S. courts) frequently seemed to forget black women existed, or, when their existence was acknowledged, they were expected to choose only one part of themselves to identify with and fight for.

this pressure to separate out into one identity or the other was not problematic merely because it made the two associated movements less effective. it was a problem because it ignored the discrimination black women faced specifically for being black women. (Crenshaw cites a case of a company that couldn't be sued for either gender or race discrimination for never hiring black women, since they DID hire white women and black men.) crenshaw asserts that marginalization is not additive—that is, being a black woman does not translate to "black problems plus woman problems." rather, an "intersectional experience" refers to the experience of discrimination that is specific to the point where multiple marginalizations intersect, and which may actually be quite different from what is seen as "generic" discrimination against either category on its own.

a simple example would be the way that post-war USA patriarchy is famous for pressuring women to stay at home with the children...but that wasn't actually how they treated BLACK women at all. Black women were looked down on for having children, looked down on even more for staying home with them, and were very much expected to work outside the home constantly. so if you tried to explain their specific situation as "black problems plus woman problems" you'd be badly wrong!

crenshaw's essay was a critique of how discrimination law was written and adjudicated. it was also a critique of social movements that claimed to speak for all within a marginalized category when really they were ignoring the unique situations of many multiply-marginalized people within that category.

it eventually became a term people used to remind those in a given movement to stop being bigoted toward their own members, reinforcing the idea that no movement's goals should be driven solely by the most socially dominant within the marginalized group. "hey feminists stop being racist and start caring more about race issues, lots of women aren't white." "hey queer people stop being classist and start caring more about economic issues, lots of queer people are poor." "hey labor stop being sexist and start caring more about pink-collar jobs, lots of exploited workers are women." and so on.

and from there it got turned into a generic "remember to take other identities into account" mantra, which itself got reworked into a dozen reasonable variations on "remember that other marginalized groups are your allies."

but if you want to know the original meaning, OP's summary is pretty spot on.

I'm taking the word "intersectionality" away from internet discourse and putting it on the shelf until people learn that the meaning is "the sum of your identity can not be split into pieces and sorted neatly into easy-to-understand boxes because each piece influences the rest" and not "these people are The Most Oppressed"

[fortheloveofqueer]

Intersectionality in Queer Media

Hi all, my name is Cora and I’m fully new to Tumblr, but let’s skip the pleasantries and get right to it :)

As someone who has identified as queer as long as I have labelled my sexuality, I have always liked seeing queer people who are like me in popular media. While I do love reading queer theory and find that texts and essays that are a part of throrough queer analysis, media in the form of TV, movies, podcasts, etc. is much easier to consume. It is less dense and typically more likely to reach a broader audience than dense essay collections that typically would have to be searched for deliberately in order to be seen. While some media that depicts queer people does so in a tokenistic way in attempts to seem inclusive, there is also a lot of media that actually depicts accurate representation of queer people and doesn’t ignore a queer character’s intersectional identities. 

One show I love and I feel actually is inclusive and attempts to bring about discourse on why ignoring that intersectionality is harmful is Shameless. Shameless not only features a plethora of queer characters, it does so in a way that also acknowledges their race, gender, class, and disability or mental illnesses that all need to be seen in order to truly understand who the characters are. 

Don’t get me wrong, I love the show as just a consumer of the media as well (#Gallavich ftw) but I think it’s an amazing piece to look at for a show that is in its roots a comedy/drama. 

One thing that has always stood out to me in Shameless is the way it takes its main family of characters from the South Side of Chicago and consistently depicts the disparities between the Gallaghers as a poor family and other characters like Jimmy/Steve and his family who come from wealth. Particularly, in the queer interactions between these to families is between Ian and Jimmy/Steve’s dad, Ned. The two spark a sexual relationship through encounters in a gay club, but there is a huge difference looking into the way these to characters handle their own sexuality. Ian, coming from a poor family, is confident in his gayness; his family knows his sexuality, he’s completely open to them about other gay relationships he has had, and he doesn’t hide the fact that he works in a gay club. Ned, on the other hand, is married to a woman, has had multiple children with her, and only expresses his sexuality in secret. The disparities between the twos class backgrounds lead into why they are expressing themselves the way they do; Ian has always had to be close to his family, they went through a lot together from being separated into foster care/group homes or having to all find ways to make money in order to have food and a roof over their heads, the Gallagher family is a tight knit group. Oppositely, Ned is completely closeted. He and his family are well off and have the means to keep their personal lives separate, and have not had to form the same reliances on one another in times of despair like the Gallagher family. These differences highlight how people are able to hide their sexualities if they have the means to create a facade of a straight-lifestyle. We see Ian getting bullied through school for being gay, while nobody even knows Ned is gay because he has a wife and only expresses his sexuality when he feels like he can/ when he wants to. 

A topic for another day but I’d like to mention is the way Shameless also opens up for a discussion regarding race and class in its latter seasons with the way Liam, as a black person, is raised by a completely white family and only begins to learn about black culture when he begins going to a wealthy school and talking to the one other black person he has grown up around, V. The show is not afraid of having the “tough conversations'' and has had a platform to bring about useful discourse through its airtime and beyond.

[stuhde]

After taking some time off to cry, understand, and speak with myself. I decided to write something out expressing my thoughts and feelings about everything going on in this country. It’s long, powerful, and provactive but I need to get my voice out. Like, comment, share, have discussions with me when i finish my social media cleanse, but I will not stand silent in times of injustice. 

After seeing and reading the murder of George Floyd at the hands of the police, I was quick to delete all my social media apps and hide away from the “uwu Black lives matter posts,” the underserving claps white celebrities get from doing the bare minimum, and just witnessing the continuous realities of injustice that take place in this country.

As a first-generation Sudanese American, I was nothing but confused and lost in the midst of a growing movement, particularly George Floyd’s murder hitting home the most because the police who were arresting Floyd was responding to a call from an Arab American-owned store. With intersecting identities of being black, Muslim, and Arab, witnessing the anti-blackness rhetoric spew from my religious and ethnic communities clash with my racial identity stirred tension and fear in what it means to be a black Arab Muslim in this country and what my place is in the Black Lives Matter Movement. I often found myself asking, “what is my duty to the black community?”, “Am I too Arab to be black, or am I too black to be Arab?” And “what is my privilege in identifying as Arab and a non-hijabi Muslim?” Black Arabs like me often experience issues with invisible intersectionality, people often forcing us to “take sides” or strongly reside with one of our identities when it sees fit (refer to how people responded to the Ahmed Mohamed clock incident).

But I have come to the conclusion that my blackness is comprised of being a woman, Muslim, and Arab - not separately and that’s what makes this unique. Black Arabs are often finding themselves at the struggle of fighting against racial injustice because of our skin color and against the xenophobic and Islamaphobic rhetorics that have only increased since the beginning of the Trump campaign. However, you all have a duty not to ignore the experiences of black Muslim immigrants in this country, like Yassin Mohammed - he was murdered by police in Georgia earlier this month. Say his name and remember him.

Yassin like me is a Sudanese American - black, Arab, and Muslim but he wasn’t reported or written as such. The media called him a “Muslim man” and yet, our Muslim community remained silent. Why? Because it only brings to light the deep and historical roots of racism that are instilled in our community and we need to address it. Muslim and Arab Americans have a duty to stand with our black brothers and sisters in times of injustice. They were there for us in supporting Palestinian liberation and with us against the Muslim ban - now it is our turn. Listen to Black Americans and Black civil rights groups about their unique experiences and learn how we can best support our collective struggle against injustice. You have a duty to educate yourself and tackle anti-blackness in our community. As quoted in Surah An-Nisa [4:135], “be persistently standing firm in justice, even if it be against yourselves or parents and relatives” - support your local CAIR organization and others like the Arab American Action Network and the Muslim Anti-Racism Collaborative, who are all standing with the Black Lives Matter movement and doing their best to bring all our communities together to end all forms of racism, discrimination, and injustice.

For my fellow Sudanese, this is our fight too. While we must recognize the centuries-long of cruelty and pain the African-American community has endured since forcefully coming to this country and understanding that their pain is different from ours, we share the same skin and we will go through the same thing they are going through. I can tell you personally, from even the youngest age that I have always been afraid of the police. Why? Because I witnessed the disproportionate amount of cruelty and violence with which people who look like me are treated with.

While our older Sudanese community members will try hard to erase our blackness simply because we have drops of Arab blood, at a tragic reality we have all experienced and witnessed discrimination and racism at the hands of law enforcement. This is hard because we have a complicated relationship with race on the fault line of racial consciousness because our country is on the border between Arab and black Africa. However it is, we are BLACK and we need to have conversations about race in our community. We as Sudanese people are not doing enough to eradicate racism and prejudice that exists in our community as well as our Muslim, Arab, and general US society. The next phase in the revolution is to recognize that these issues exist in our Muslim community, come together with black Americans and African-Americans, and create change to take down these systemic institutions that were never designed to protect black and brown folk.

I will continue to do my social media cleanse, but I welcome those who wish to discuss what my views and opinions are more with me - should you agree or disagree. People who care will know how to reach me. In this time, I am reading, learning, and liberating myself to make a change and I can only ask you to do the same. There are so much power and knowledge invested in books:

How to be an Anti-Racist by Dr. Ibram X. Kendi

Stamped: Racism, Antiracism, and You by Dr. by Ibram X Kendi and Jason Reynolds

Why I'm No Longer Talking to White People About Race by Reni Eddo-Lodge

Between the World and Me by Ta-Nehisi Coates

Freedom Is a Constant Struggle: Ferguson, Palestine, and the Foundations of a Movement by Angela Y. Davis (HIGHLY recommend to my Muslim and/or Arab folk)

The Autobiography of Malcolm X by Alex Haley and Malcolm X

The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness Michelle Alexander

A People's History of the United States by Howard Zinn

The Fire Next Time by James Baldwin

In Search of Our Mothers' Gardens by Alice Walker

Just Mercy: A Story of Justice and Redemption by Bryan Stevenson

Resources for my black Muslims, courtesy of my University’s Muslim Student Association:

The Muslim Anti-Racist Collaborative - deconstructing anti-Blackness within the Muslim community Believers Bail Out - re-imagining the prison and police systems through Islamic perspectives Sapelo Square - an online forum that places Black Muslims at the center: Reconstructed Magazine - a creative magazine and conversation space led by Black, Shia, and queer Muslims The Black American Muslim - space for Black American Muslims to share testimonials and resources on faith, history, and power Justice For Muslims Collective - an organization reimagining a world where radical inclusion leads to collective liberation for Muslim communities and beyond Kayla Renée Wheeler, Ph.D. - Islamic Studies Professor who created the BlackIslam syllabus Amina Wadud, Ph.D. - African-American scholar on gender and race in Islam. Learn more about her through her interviews here Su’ad Abdul Khabeer, Ph.D. - Scholar-Artist-Activist & Author of Muslim Cool Islamophobia is Racist Syllabus - resources to understand empire, anti-Muslim racism, and ideology

For my black friends, I hope you are well and I hope you are safe. I am with you all the way through in our fight for liberation and human rights. Take care of yourself first before anyone else and if you need a minute or more before protesting and educating those around you, take your time, you need it. All the love x

[drake-the-incubus]

What’s Bad for You is Good for Me

Or otherwise called, conflicting needs in representation. Which is most certainly a thing.

Sometimes we have specific needs ton representation that isn’t met due to certain circumstances. Recently I posted something about how Lazy Eyes are portrayed as inherently ableist, despite the fact I grew up with it being incredibly disabling and being treated poorly for having one, and in a discussion with other people, have been told they feel the same way.

Today, I saw a post about how someone being transphobic, complained about how trans characters gave him dysphoria. While he was incredibly transphobic about him, I realized that there’s intersectionality on representation no one really talks about.

We don’t talk about how it’s weird to define representation as good and bad depending on how stereotyped it looks. We just sort of do it.

Like, for example, a flamboyantly gay, gender-nonconforming man who is very open about his sexuality and might even be sexual. This is considered a horrible stereotype. I... I've known gay men like that who genuinely enjoyed the nice representation of those characters.

I think the issue is the difference between how it's played off, and why it's being done. And I'll use a few examples.

Power Puff Girls has the Devil who suspiciously borders on a transmisogynistic and homophobic stereotype, being a villain. The femininity that the character displays is part of the villainous routine, and there's not much to the character outside of this. When the character feels like it, he drops his femininity to become masculine and aggressive. Top it off with being the devil, it's pretty bad. This is bad representation, if not for the villain part, then for the fact that there's no substance to it at all.

Which is actually what the problem with representation usually is. It's two-dimensional, and it's villanizing. The character is not only that way because it makes them more villainous, but it also helps make us look horrifying to the viewers.

What changes when you include Lil Nas X's recent release, MONTERO (Call me by your name)? It's a form of self-expression and it's inherently fighting back against the need to sanitize oneself for an oppressing class. It's fighting back against the idea that in order to exist, we need to be pure. To be accepted into heaven we atone for being gay. It's a rejection of Modern Religion and society's base treatment of us.

And it's necessary. We can't have the soft, loving, sanitized rep. It can suit plenty of us. Being accepted into heaven- in spite of our flaw of being gay? I've been told that before- isn't what everyone wants. In order to have reached acceptance, we must not readily display the "bad" part of ourselves.

If a straight woman was to want for a dude, it's highly more accepted than if a man were to do it. Regardless of the man's input?

I can't go to a conversation, openly as a trans man, and discuss my attraction to men as a man, and not get shut down, "because it's weird" but I do have to sit there and hear talk about anime boobs. Sometimes for hours. Because you know, that's acceptable in society, me liking men as a dude isn't.

And the thing is, neither is bad. A gay man being openly sexual and open about his sexuality in media, so long as it's not his defining trait and he's not demonized for it in the media- aka villainizing a gay man who is flamboyantly gay and gnc is very common- it's good.

A gay man who is soft, caring and understanding for his partner, emotionally mature and shies away from his sexuality is also good. It's not representation I need, but for younger audiences it is.

A gay man who is selective in his men vs a man who isn't. We need both.

Representation makes us feel human. Like we're not horrible for existing, and one set is never going to be enough.

For example. I'm a very androgynous trans man. I wear dresses and makeup.

I enjoy the feminine trans characters because they can exist and so can I. I also enjoy the masculine trans characters.

I hate the written trans experience and I absolutely cannot stand fanfiction regarding trans man, regardless of which it is.

It's dysphoria-inducing. Why? Because it focuses on the aspect of being trans rather than the aspect of existing as a man, and those aspects tend to center around dysphoria or being AFAB. Either way, the experience is uncomfortable for me to interact with and can really bother me.

That form of representation isn't for me. I live the trans experience. I don't need it in my media. I want a person who lives the average life and happens to be trans. Where being trans isn't the center of the story.

Other people need it the exact opposite, and if being trans isn't integral it bothers them. They feel like being trans is on a higher level of their identity and their rep needs to reflect that.

In fact, I talked to another trans friend of mine, who said that the kind of stories that focus on the body being AFAB was reaffirming to them and it helped them along. They loved content like that. Where as I couldn't bear it, it caused me issues and I saw it personally as harmful.

The thing about rep isn't actually the stereotypes, most of the time. IE a feminine trans man character isn't bad rep, so long as he's an actual human being.

I also think the person making it and the intent behind the character are important.

Example 1: A cis woman who makes a trans woman villain the epitome of masculinity who is pretending to be a woman, and is defeated by a woman, is just bad rep.

Why? Because a) it targets and puts down another minority to uplift women. b) it intentionally tries to erase trans women from being women. c) it reinforces the stereotype that trans women are just men trying to pretend to be women and are inherently violent. d) it demonized masculine trans women who may have been denied- or do not want- to medically transition.

Example 2: Created by someone who is LGBT+ with input from a trans man. A trans man is flamboyantly gay, talks about how much he loves men quite a lot, and is known for being fairly feminine. He enjoys hobbies such as boating and fishing, and his story is about connecting with his community and accepting himself as a person without needing to give a part of himself up.

Is example 2 real? I hope it is, I'd enjoy that. But this is good rep. Yes, it plays on stereotypes, but this is a person. Their story is about their identity and they have traits outside of the stereotype. For a flamboyantly gay trans man, this would be perfect. If you challenged toxic masculinity in the movie and addressed how trans men feel the need to overperform into toxic masculinity for acceptance and how it ruins our connections with our emotions, it would be pretty great.

Example 3: Created based on a real person. A character who is clearly autistic, and struggles with communication, who acts childish and clearly has a prominent lazy eye. This character struggles with tasks but gets them right. This is done with input and the person's input

Bad Rep?

If you said yes you'd be wrong. A character based on a real human being can't be bad representation. Because a) they're human, and b) there's a nuance to people that needs to be addressed.

Human beings will never be a monolith and having a monolith idea of representation to show oppressors what we're like ignores the fact of human diversity.

I can only speak for myself. This means the topic of race and how to handle racial issues in media vs the sanitization of the culture people of colour have, is not one I can speak on, and I wish I could have input on it.

I'll add if I'm not cohesive enough, it's usually because of Autism and possible Comorbid ADHD fighting each other.

If someone better at the topic can handle this, feel free to reblog and add on, I'll reblog additions and reply to any concerns made.

[janeindamembrane]

Introduction

In Audre Lorde’s and Judith Butlerwritings, the topic of gender and sexuality expanded to discuss how the system of patriarchy can repeat and legitimize itself even through its opposition due to the performance of constructed norms.

Question One

It is easily acknowledged that we all live within the system of oppression or (white male heterosexual patriarchy). It can also be acknowledged that all feminist theory is limited by the world that females live in, which is subjugation. This is by alluded to by Laura Mulvey (who talks of the challenge to feminists "caught within the language of patriarchy")[1] and affirmed by both Audre Lorde and Judith Butler. Lorde refers to this system as the “Master’s house”[2] and Butler talks of how “heterosexual privilege” attempts to naturalize itself as the “original and the norm”[3]. It is because the marginalized live in the masters house and has been taught to think of the masters privilege as natural that they have only been taught the “masters tools”. One of the main tools is the misnaming and distortion of difference since the profit economy “needs outsiders as surplus people” so that the non-outsiders can be empowered[4]. This tool of viewing human difference as “human deviance” creates an issue where someone who has been marginalized is still distorting their relationship to others who have been marginalized in different categories of identity. A white woman may see her oppression as a woman in relation to the white man and diagnose gender as the main system of oppression[5]. What she doesn’t see because she is so focused on her difference from the master is that on the other side of her are those oppressed due to age, class, sexuality, and/or race. The master’s house exploits difference and enables certain people to enjoy some privileges of the master through a certain degree of identification with the white male heterosexual who has been established as the norm. When they are able to recognize their difference and oppression they still continue to do so in a way that normalizes and centers the ‘master’ through its misunderstanding or ignoring of the other oppressed[6].

It is not possible to use the tools of oppressive systems to free all from oppression, since these tools have within them “old blueprints of expectation and response [that are part of] old structures of oppression [which] must be alter[ed] at the same time as we alter the living conditions with are a result of those old structures”[7]. Lorde particularly addresses the feminist movement and its inconsideration of black women which ultimately harms its goal by threatening joint power. Through the intersectionality of a white woman’s identity, they can acknowledge their oppression as women but still maintain privilege through their whiteness and their ability to somewhat blend into the white man’s world. The women’s movement thus is not true to the experience of the black woman, something that bell hooks also lamented on. Movements, Lorde argues, that the feminist movement needs to include other differences into what it means to be oppressed as a woman; “[women’s] future survival is predicated upon our ability to relate within equality. As women, we must root out internalized patterns of oppression… recognize differences among women who are our equals, neither inferior nor superior, and devise ways to use each other’s difference to enrich our visions and our joint struggles.”[8] Looking not to the oppressor, but to each other can help reestablish definitions of power.

[1] Laura Mulvey, "Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema", in Film Theory and Criticism, ed. by Leo Braudy (New York: Oxford University Press, 2009), 712.

[2] Audre Lorde, "The Master's Tools Will Never Dismantle the Master's House", in Sister Outsider (California: The Crossing Press, 1984), 112.

[3] Judith Butler, "Gender is Burning: Questions of Appropriation and Subversion", in Feminist Film Theory, ed. by Sue Thornman (New York: New York University Press, 1999), 339.

[4] Lorde, "Master's House", 115.

[5] Lorde, "Master's House", 116.

[6] Lorde, "Age, Race, Class, and Sex: Women Redefining Difference", in Sister Outsider, 122.

[7] Lorde, "Redefining Difference", 123.

[8] Lorde, "Redefining Difference", 122.

Question Two

Cultural, societal, and media representations support gender performativity by naturalizing and idealizing the norms constructed by the systems of oppression. Judith Light uses the concept of drag to point out the phantasmic (arbitrary) nature of attributes to heterosexual gender norms. Drag contests, such as the ones seen in the film Light consistently refers to, Paris is Burning, are often judged on the idea of realness- who can blend in the best with whatever category is judged whether it be trying to “out woman the women[1]” or portray themselves as businessmen. Despite the inherently defiant nature of drag to the system, “there is also a kind of reiteration of norms which cannot be called subversive”[2]. Parodying norms does not displace them, but rather affirms their realness or the “phantasmic promise of rescue from poverty, homophobia and racism”[3] if only one can pass as the norm. In drag, realness is the goal meaning that these constructive norms are not being read (taken down) but rather desired. In short, media representations are all gender performances whether it is what is typically accepted or in opposition. Defiant performances against the norm reveal the performative nature of norms, but also sometimes uphold the norm as the norm thrives on repetition. The performances that cosplay norms or try to claim power associated with identities they do not have are building a fragile identity propped upon the prim ordinance of norms and the current structure[4]. In Lorde’s view, this is using the tools (the norms) of the master’s house (the structure that prioritizes certain identities through identification with the norms). Yet, through this imitation that attempts to produce the “naturalized effect”, the performance of gender is called out; “it exposes the norms that regulate realness as themselves phantasmicly instituted and sustained”[5]. The supposed norms that differentiate gender or sexuality are the distortions of difference that Lorde refers to. Differences are symbolic and symbols are arbitrary. Thus, adherence to these norms (heterosexuality) is itself a performance; “all gender is like drag… ‘imitation is at the heart of the heterosexual project and its gender binarisms”[6].

[1] Butler, 344.

[2] Butler, 338.

[3] Butler, 342.

[4] Butler, 343, 344.

[5] Butler, 342.

[6] Butler, 338.

Conclusion:

Audre Lorde and Judith Butler helped develop a more nuanced view of feminism and the oppositional gaze developed by Laura Mulvey and bell hooks. There is the consistent presence of the tools of the patriarchy through the performance of norms (whether in support or opposition) and the division between the oppressed through distortion/misrecognition of difference. Both authors stress the need to not accept the norms that define our current living conditions, and the need to not refer to what is known to remedy what is

Reading Notes 8: Lorde to Butler

In our continued discussions, Audre Lorde’s “The Master’s Tools Will Never Dismantle the Master’s House” and “Age, Race, Class, and Sex: Women Redefining Difference,” and Judith Butler’s Gender is Burning: Questions of Appropriation and Subversion” provide further introspection into systems and definitions of gender and sexuality.

How do power and privilege impact the relations people have with each other and with institutions, and how can we acknowledge, examine, and remedy oppression and marginalization using oppressive and marginalized systems?

How do cultural, societal, and media representations support gender performativity and in so doing complicate gender norms, and in what ways is heterosexuality a performance?

@theuncannyprofessoro

[this-artist-is-screaming]

04/02/21 New Feminist Perspectives and the Emergence of Intersectional Critique

Adrian Piper - The mythic being 1973/74

- First wave feminism looked at the Suffragettes in the late 19th century 

- Feminist critique in the 70s, mid 20th century, second wave feminism

This is a feminist mytholodgy 

Feminists which first emerged were white, middle class, American. This came to an end in the 70s. African American, Latina, First Nation people and minorities ec were all excluded before the 70s. It was a very heterosexual narrative. 

Feminist aesthetics don't refer to a particular aesthetic or style but question assumptions in art and as an aesthetic we’re looking at stereotyping the defined between men, women and gender. 

Feminists argue that despite seeing being neutral or inclusive the way people think about art and a static influence by sex roles eg. men and women. 

Feminist aesthetics:

A tool for analysing how art is understood using gender issues. 

Audrey Lord was an incredibly influential writer. She delivered a conference paper, very angrily. at a feminist conference. She delivered this paper called ‘The Masters Tool will never dismantle the pastors house’ - this changed the way that feminism looked at itself. 

“If white American feminist theory does not deal with the fact that women will clean your house and look after 10 of your children while you attend a conference of feminist theory are poor people and women of colour. What is the theory behind racist feminism.”

Lord was the only other woman of colour speaking at this conference. Both women were invited as an afterthought. 

Unless we address and embrace the diversity between us and see us as a strength, then it will undermine any of the change, changes that we’re trying to make in society. 

“To read this program is to assume that lesbian and black women have nothing to say about the existentialism, about the erotic, about women culture, womens silence, they’ve got nothing to say in developing feminist theory or heterosexuality or power”.

Historical Narrative Recap

Two ways women have been depicted in art:

Botticelli - Judiths return to Bethulia

- Chopped of the 10th invading Palestine generals head

- got him drunk, seduced him, hacked his head off

- picture shows Judith returning to Jerusalem with the head

- No viscosity, there's no blood, no brains dripping everywhere, the maids    just carrying the head along, not a care in the world.

- Judith herself has a very ‘idealised’ Botticelli style face, no emotions, she doesn't look upset or stressed or angry, she's just walking back with a clean silver sword. 

-does not look very realistic, she’s meant to have just murdered this man!

Gentileschi - Judiths slaying Holofernes 1614-20

- Has been raped, not a lot of contact

- very different depiction of women

- these women are strong and powerful

- it is very contrasting from the Botticelli painting, its more realistic and really looks like the man is in agony

Hannah Hoch

Hoch was known for her political collage and photomontage work. She appropriates her images from mass media, by doing this she is critiquing the government in Germany. She was deeply inspired by early collage artists such as Picasso. She preferred to talk in metaphors rather than direct confrontation. She is recognised as a pioneering feminist artist

‘The beautiful gir’l - 1920 looks at the visual reaction to advertising and the ideas of beauty. She takes clippings from car parts, takes female figures from magazines and she makes a juxtaposition of the role of women in a modernising society. She wanted to emphasize this problematic phenomena between the reality of the experience of real women in Germany, and the rise of national socialism. 

Yoko Ono

Her performance interactive piece from the 60s saw Ono sat on a stage, fully dressed with a pair of scissors next to her, she invites the audience to come and cut a piece of fabric from what she was wearing. People started very gently, by cutting only a tiny section of clothes and then as people got more and more involved in this process they started to get more and more aggressive. She was incredibly passive, she sat their, submissively. People started to cut away at her underwear, she does nothing as part of the performance but security guards stop the audience from cutting before she is fully naked. 

Investigating what changes, what makes people who would generally credit themselves as behaving well, what makes them submit to these very predatory and aggressive people who would cut away very intimate garments.

Marina Abramovic

In her performance piece titled ‘Rhythm Zone’  Abramovic is stood in front of a table with different implements on it. She invited members of the audience to use these implements to cause an interaction between herself and the instance of the objects on the table eg. feathers, pens, knives  (someone cut her jugular) also a loaded gun where someone began to pick it up but security would step in. 

Abramovic had been stripped, we have someone here who is vulnerable and defenceless - she cannot defend herself 

- this is a process of transformation of the audience

- The role of Women as submissive and they’re expecting violence accepting these things happening to them - and unable to respond. 

Judy Chicago - The dinner party 1974-79

A collaborative piece, organised by Judy Chicago, it is seen as a seminal piece in feminist art. The narrative of the piece showcases her inviting women who throughout history have been renowned or made a difference. Women such as Mary Woolstonecroft and Mary Shelley. In the centre of the piece are other woman's  names.

Intersectionality 

Is a concept often used in critical theories to describe the ways in which oppressive institutes ( racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, ableism, xenophobia, classism etc.) are interconnected and cannot be examined separately from each other. Your not telling the whole story if your not including all oppressed institutions. You are as guilty as I am guilty of leaving people out of the narratives history.

It suggests that we cannot separate the effects of race, class and gender.

‘Personal is political’ Carol Hanisch 1969 **look more at this**

This term was founded by Hanisch in 1969

- it means that political and personal issues affect each other. 

- The experiences of women is in the grounding of feminism is both personal and political

- You bring your own experiences to feminism because it is a political movement

Multi Racial Feminism - Becky Thomson

“This feminism ( second wave ) is white led, marginalises the activism and world views of women of colour, focuses mainly on the United State, and treats sexism as the ultimate oppression. Hegemonic feminism de - emphasizes or ignores a class or race analysis, generally see’s equality with men as the goal of feminism and has an individual rights based, rather than a justice based vision for social change 

Hegemonic: Who has the overwhelming power.