#and it's mostly women so there's no mansplaining or manspreading or know it alls or idk | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

askovertherainbowblog · 5 years

Text

Why Bi+ Isn’t Half-Gay and Why It Matters

For a while I jokingly called myself half-gay. First of all, it really doesn’t matter to me if someone wants to call themselves half-gay. Who knows, maybe I will use that term again one day. The goal of this post is more so to use this term to dive into the psyche of myself a few years ago and why, even though I was attracted to, sexually active with, and romantically involved with women, I considered myself more of an ally than an LGBTQ+ person.

The problem with the idea behind my use of the term half-gay, for what I now call bi+*, is really fundamental. There is nothing gay about being bi+. Wait, what?

Gay has evolved as a catch-all phrase for same-sex activities. “Gay rights” is a catch-all phrase for the rights of all sexual orientations that aren’t heterosexual. “Gay Straight Alliances” are used to describe clubs in schools that support students who aren’t heterosexual and their allies. Many lesbians I know use the term “gay” and “lesbian” interchangeably to describe their sexualities. I also freely use the term “gay” for my own inclinations or attractions when I’m feeling very attracted to women.

The problem with this for people who aren’t monosexual** is that their experiences are interpreted as a combination of heterosexuality and homosexuality. A half-gay, half-straight, so to speak. This ignores anything that makes the non-monosexual different from the gay and the straight. Solidarity has been a gift for many communities. You have probably experienced the feeling of “wait, you have experienced this too?!” when you learned about someone else who shares a similar experience. It can make you feel less alone, less ashamed, and more likely to speak up. Terms like mansplaining or manspreading have become commonplace because they describe the experience of many people –experiences that may have been hard to put a finger on before. Although they are criticized for being such minor issues in a sea of human-rights travesties, if you have heard these terms this speaks to the power of a large group of people having a shared experience and being able to communicate about it. Naming experiences is an incredibly powerful tool. So, back to the half-gay term. Well, isn’t a bi+ just half-gay? A friend of mine used the wonderful analogy of the werewolf. The werewolf is not a human, and she is not a wolf. The werewolf does not cease to be a werewolf regardless of which manifestation she has shape-shifted into. The werewolf is always a werewolf. So whether the bi+ is single, in a same-sex relationship or in an other-sex relationship – they don’t stop being bi+.

Here are a sampling of things that bi+ people experience that is unique to being bi+: not half-gay or half-straight. I have found myself in a conversation more than once where the people I’m talking to define their sexualities by the genders they’re not attracted to. For queer folks this can be a way to signal queerness. A lesbian might make a comment about not being into men, or a gay man will clarify that he isn’t into women. Depending on the circumstance it can be a way of signal to “your people” belonging and to potential love interests that you’re “batting for their team.” Heterosexual folks do the same thing. They will often establish their sexualities with anything from passive comments to more aggressive homophobic comments. For example, “he’s an attractive man, but I’m not saying I’m attracted to him, I’m not gay.” It’s an expression of our sexualities by showing the gender we are not attracted to. This is a bi+ unique experience. I simply can’t relate to not being attracted to someone based on their gender. I can’t signal to the queer folks that I belong by saying I’m not into men. I don’t have the gender-based distaste response I see in many monosexuals.

A potentially unique bi+ experience is my attraction to ambiguous gender expression. The more ambiguous the more likely I am to find them immediately attractive. There is something glorious about seeing someone, checking them out, and being like “wow you are HOT!” and not actually being sure where they fit on the gender spectrum. This could possibly be a shared bi+ experience.

Another unique aspect of being bi+ is that bi+ people mostly date people who don’t share our sexual orientation. Straight people will by definition date straight people, and lesbians/gays will by definition date lesbians/gays.*** Bi+ people can date straight people, lesbians/gays, and other bi+ people. There are much fewer bi+ people than monosexual people in the dating pool, so statistically speaking it’s not as likely for bi+ people to date bi+ people. This means even in a world of misunderstandings about sexuality, many monosexuals can trust they have a shared experience with their partners, this isn’t the same for bi+ people. This can be rewarding, because respectfully sharing differences is always an enriching experience, or it can be difficult as you navigate misconceptions or assumptions. Which brings me to my next point.

Bi+ people unfortunately also have the unique experience of being misunderstood or “othered” by both straights and gay/lesbians. This is one of the shared experiences us werewolves have. These are a sampling of experiences that make the bi+ experience distinct from just being “half-gay.”

The second problem with calling the bi+ person “half-gay” is the implication that the other part of the bi+ person is “half-straight”. This might seem like an innocent enough implication. Bi+ people are in different-gendered relationships all the time, right? The problem with using the heterosexual experience to explain the bi+ experience is, first of all, that bi+ people are not straight. It is generally understood in the queer community that the assumption of heterosexuality is problematic. Queer folks, particularly folks who do not necessarily set of people’s “gay-dar” will have a hard time being seen for who they are and especially seen as queer by other queer people. This is a common discussion point for femme lesbians who are not necessarily read as queer. If this assumption is problematic for lesbians and gays, then it is more than fair to ask that bi+ people are extended the same curtesy.

Secondly, bi+ people are often accused of “straight privilege.” Now, I am very happy to admit the areas of life in which I have privilege. My first post outlines some of the many ways I move through the world in a position of privilege. However, although bi+ identities experience different types of discrimination than homosexual identities, they do not experience straight privilege. This is because bi+ aren’t straight. Wait, what?

Here I would like to follow in the footsteps of a bi+ advocate I respect, Shiri Eisner, and point out the importance of the difference between privilege and passing. A comparison would be useful here. Transgender people often discuss the topic of passing. Passing generally refers to being perceived as a woman, if you’re MTF****, or man, if you’re FTM. The difficulty with passing is that once you are not seen as having the identity you have, i.e. in this case you aren’t seen as being transgendered, there are other risks. Maybe you have a new healthcare provider and they don’t give you all the information you need. Maybe you meet someone at a bar and really hit it off, but now you have to find a way to disclose your identity without knowing what kind of reaction you might receive in return. Maybe you’re in a conversation with other people who see you as “one of them,” and they start speaking poorly of sexual or gender minorities. Maybe you feel scared to speak up, scared to “out yourself.”

Acceptance can feel superficial when you don’t know how someone will actually react if they “find you out.” Of course I am not transgendered, so I can only speculate on the challenges of passing as it relates to gender. But I hope you can gather that passing is obviously not the same as privilege. Having male-privilege and being a trans who passes as male are two vastly different things. Certainly, the trans person who passes will have a different experience than the trans person who doesn’t pass, but again these are not questions of privilege. Similarly, bi+ people may have people assume they are straight, but this is not the same as having straight privilege. Because bi+ people are not straight. The statistics speak for themselves. In many studies, bi+ people fare the worst out of straights, gays and lesbians on many measures of mental health, addictions, and harassment.***** How is it that bi+ people are experiencing straight privilege if they are faring worse than straights, and also worse than gays and lesbians, on many measures related to physical and mental health?

So if bi+ people aren’t “half-gay” and they aren’t “half-straight,” what are they? Well, I’m glad you asked! We are bi+! We are similar: we also love people and want to find acceptance in community. But we are different: we aren’t straight or lesbian/gay, and our experiences are unique. So, call yourself what you like, maybe you’re feeling particularly gay today. But also know that regardless of how straight or gay you feel, you aren’t any less bi+.

Love,

Dorothy

xxoo

*I decided to use the term bi+ because although I use the term bisexual for myself, I want to include other non-monosexual identities. I do not mean to say that other non-monosexual identities are somehow under the umbrella (or below) the bisexual label. I think of it more like a cluster and I’m using “bi” as the primary label because that’s how I identify. Labels are hard, bear with me, and certainly let me know if you have a better idea!

**Monosexuality refers to when you are attracted to only one gender: so heterosexual or homosexual.

***With the exception of dating a bi+ person of course.

****MTF refers to male-to-female, and FTM refers to female-to-male transgendered people.

*****For example, check out the Bi-invisibility Report: Impacts and Recommendations by the San Francisco Human Rights Commission

#dorothy #LGBTQIA #LGBT #QUEER THEORY #QUEER IDENTITY #BISEXUAL #BI #BISEXUALITY #BISEXUAL COMMUNITY #QUEER #halfgay

6 notes · View notes

howtousepublictransport · 6 years

Text

Manspreading: Modern Day Civil Rights Issue or A Mountain Out Of A Mole Hill?

Manspreading has been the subject of much debate on news sites and social media, with widely divergent views on its prevalence and whether it is actually a problem. This post aims to explain what manspreading is, whether it exists, why it exists, and whether it is appropriate to approach this as a gendered issue.

Hoo boy. Manspreading. If there is one public transport etiquette issue of the modern day, then this is it. If you are aware of the term manspreading, then it is likely that you already have a strong opinion about it: either that it is an example men denying public spaces to women and making them feel unwelcome, or that it is an over-exaggerated issue in the age of social media and of feminist critics looking for issues where they don’t exist. There can be no middle ground or compromise in this debate. If there were or could be, then it would not be the important and serious topic of discussion that I am making it seem.

For those not familiar with the term however, let us begin with a brief explanation. Manspreading was a word that came into popular use in late-2014 and early-2015, though it had been used in some circles online earlier than this. It was hotly debated in the media during this time, and then it disappeared like most topical news trends. Yet in its wake we were left with a new word to describe a phenomenon that, it was argued, had existed for a long time. The Oxford Dictionary, officially including the word in 2015, defines manspreading as “the practice whereby a man, especially one travelling on public transport, adopts a sitting position with his legs wide apart, in such a way as to encroach on an adjacent seat or seats.” An example of this is provided below.

It is an offshoot of other words such as mansplain that have been added to the English language by modern feminists to describe certain behaviours. The gendering of these behaviours is deliberate and is used to identify behaviours that men engage in and women are subjected to. More specifically, feminist critics discussing these behaviours argue that they result from the privilege that men are granted over women in society and it is often used, whether consciously or unconsciously, by men to assert dominance over women in public and social settings. It is important to note that feminist critics do not argue that these behaviours have any basis in the biological differences between men and women, but rather that they are the result of social learning which teaches boys and men to assert dominance in public and social settings, and for women not to do so.

Men learn that society is permissive of etiquette breaches committed in the name of asserting dominance, to the point that even when these breaches violate the basic respect and dignity owed to a woman as a human being, then this must be acceptable as consequences rarely follow from such actions. Feminist critics argue that as this behaviour is socially learned, then it can be changed through education and improving the lot of women in society generally.

It is also fair to point out that most people use the term in playful jest, as a gentle though not insincere mocking of male bravado. This post however approaches the topic only with the utmost solemnity and serious contemplation. No playfulness is permitted when considering proper etiquette.

The rise in discussion about this topic in late-2014 coincided with an article by Sheila Anne Feeney published in amNewYork, a free publication for commuters in New York. The article discussed manspreading as an issue of etiquette, with part of the point made in the article being that men would often take up two or even three seats when engaging in this behaviour and would be oblivious to the social cues from other commuters to make room available. Not only was this behaviour rude, but it was also an inefficient use of public space. Shortly following this article, the New York City Metropolitan Transit Authority ran a campaign called “Courtesy Counts” providing etiquette guidelines for common scenarios on public transport, with accompanying posters. One of these was a poster of a man sitting with legs splayed wide and the caption “Dude… Stop The Spread, Please.” This campaign is what brought broader attention and media coverage to the issue of manspreading. Yet with this attention came the inevitable backlash, like a very opinionated rainbow after a thunderstorm.

As with most discussions of feminism on the Internet, critics expressed a firm, but respectful, rebuttal on the topic of manspreading, presenting well-reasoned counterpoints and arguments supported by evidence and peer-reviewed references. Haha. But jokes aside, not all debate on the topic was vitriolic and there were some fair points made. Few argued that it was not something that occurred, as in an age where everyone has a camera in their pocket at all times, there existed ample photographic evidence to show that manspreading did occur. But those critical of the concept, who acknowledged that it did occur, took issue more with the gendering of this behaviour and the argument by feminists that patriarchy was the root cause of the problem.

Writer Cathy Young viewed discussion of manspreading as a “life-imitates-satire” of modern feminism that is obsessed with “petty grievances, gleeful male-bashing, [and] egregious double standards” and is “preoccupied with male misbehaviour, no matter how trivial.” The first point made by Young is that proper etiquette is not a gendered issue, women are just as capable as men of engaging in rude and selfish behaviour on public transport. A common, comparable example given by critics is that of women placing their bags on available seats instead of on their laps, between their legs, or in overhead storage where available. The second point made by Young is, essentially, what’s the big deal? To the extent that it does exist and is a gendered problem, why focus on manspreading, a minor social inconvenience, and make it the battlefield for modern feminism instead of more pertinent issues, such as equal pay or domestic violence? More on this point later.

(Even beloved Hollywood actor Tom Hanks is not above manspreading from time to time)

Biological explanations for manspreading were also provided by critics. The first argument trotted out was that manspreading was necessary in order to properly and comfortably accommodate for testicles. This however is not seriously taken up as an argument as there is no science backing this up and the argument appears mostly to be put forward as a half-mocking, half-machoism way of saying, “my testicles are tremendously large and you should be impressed by this.” Indeed, one explanation for why men engage in manspreading is that it is some kind of primitive genital display ritual, indicating to women that yes, in fact they do have reproductive organs. This is, of course, an important message to communicate to the general female population of the peak hour train, in case it is something that may not have occurred to them.

An article published by Vice in July 2017 partially defended the practice of manspreading by reference to gender differences in pelvic bone structure. Lou Schuler, the author of this article, interviewed Stu McGill, professor emeritus of spine biomechanics at the University of Waterloo, about the author’s own back pain. Schuler described the science of when he would sit with his knees together as follows:

“The round ball at the top of the femur will pinch against the outside edge of the acetabulum (the hip socket), straining the labrum that lines the socket. To get into that position, I have to activate the adductor muscles on my inner thighs. That automatically triggers resistance from the abductor muscles on my outer thighs, creating tension that can reach all the way up into the lower back. The second I release the contraction, my thighs spring apart, leaving a gap of about 15 inches from the center of each kneecap, more than three-quarters of the distance to a proper manspread.”

He contrasts this with the biology of a woman as follows:

“Women, on the other hand, have a wider pelvis and thighbones that more naturally angle in toward the body's midline, rather than away from it. Sitting with the knees close together is a stress-free position most of the time, although that changes during pregnancy, when the weight of the belly pushes the knees out.”

It would be an unfair representation of the author’s argument to say that he presented this as a justification for manspreading, as he states clearly later that none of this “justifies guys being assholes on public transportation, where we all have to put up with a little discomfort to coexist.” Rather the point that Schuler makes is that there is likely a biological, rather than a social, explanation for manspreading.

But the science on this is not robust. Caroline VanSickle, in a response article to Schuler published by Medium, makes the point that “biology is not quite so simple as ‘have this skeleton = do this behaviour” and that research has consistently shown that “repeated behaviours… train muscles and remodel bone to accommodate those behaviours.” In other words, VanSickle argues that biological determinism is a poor explanation for behaviour in humans, as behaviours are learned and the body is capable of adapting to accommodate these behaviours. The most obvious example in humans of this is walking upright, a behaviour that is completely unnatural in primates and that we are not born knowing, but rather learn from teaching and in imitation of others. VanSickle also makes the excellent point that hey, you can actually sit with your legs together, it’s not physically impossible, dude.

Studies on the social signalling and psychological effect of expansive poses, such as manspreading, do support the idea that they convey assertiveness and dominance to other people, but only for men. A study by Tanya Vacharklksemsuk, for example, published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences in March 2016, showed that photos of men in expansive, “spread” poses were considered more attractive than photos where they were in a closed posture, such as with their arms crossed. While this was also true for women, the effect was far less significant for them, suggesting that for the most part only men receive any significant social benefit by expressing dominant body language. As suggested above, this supports a theory that manspreading is a way of expressing to others that you are a virile male who is capable of fathering many strong children.

David Givens, an anthropologist at the Center for Nonverbal studies interviewed by Feeney, argues that humans are uncomfortable being in close proximity with strangers, which may prompt them to engage in “guarding behaviour”, such as spreading their legs wide, to both claim more space for themselves but also to communicate to others not to violate their territory. While the findings from studies such as these are always open to interpretation and the methodology is at times questionable, nevertheless it is safe to say that humans do communicate messages capable of being understood by others through body language, even if it is not always a deliberate choice to do so.

(Comic from The New Yorker, 9 January 2015)

What is to be made of all of this? Is this a thing? While it is hard to get concrete data on the prevalence of manspreading, in one poll which asked female respondents if they had been affected by manspreading, 37% of respondents said they had, 38% said they had not, and 20% did not answer. Perhaps surprisingly, in that same poll 67% of male respondents said that they had caught themselves manspreading. The comments given suggest that, rather than something they felt shameful about, it was actually a point of pride for these men to have engaged in this behaviour and that it had everything to do with their genitals and expressing their masculinity. To quote one poet-philosopher who responded, “That shit gotta breathe.” Nevertheless, while establishing that it exists and the behaviour is recognisable by a large proportion of the population, this poll does not necessarily support a view that manspreading is the most pressing civil rights issue of our modern time.

But that said, the biological explanations for manspreading are not particularly convincing either. Setting aside the science, as a general rule of thumb, if someone says that behaviour you are engaging in is rude and your defense begins by talking about how, actually, scientists have shown that in fact women have wider pelvises and thigh bones than men, you are probably on the wrong side of the debate. This is not to dismiss entirely however the position that it is more comfortable to sit with your legs splayed apart, whether you are a man or a woman. But it is to say that this is learned behaviour that you can consciously choose not to engage in, and to also acknowledge that by choosing to engage in this behaviour you are sending a message to other people with your body language, whether that message is the one you intend to send or not.

There remains unanswered the question of whether it is appropriate to make this an issue about gender, and if any of the above sounds like a capitulation or concession to the manspreaders of this world, let me clearly state here that, in this writer’s view, it is entirely appropriate to view manspreading through a feminist lens. For some, the use of the word ‘manspreading’ is an attack on the very concept of being a man and male identity, and that it attempts to present all women as victims and all men as perpetrators. It is true that women can and do engage in rude and selfish behaviour on public transport, including taking up more space than it is fair for one person to do, whether this is in equal proportion to men or not. Yet when it comes to proper etiquette, it is never a defence for one’s poor behaviour to state that other people are engaging in similar or worse behaviour. That road leads only to one place: pure and absolute anarchy.

More than this however, it is fair to point out that public spaces such as trains and buses are gendered spaces, because the experience that women and men have with these spaces is different. For women, riding on public transport can bring them into uncomfortably close contact with strange men who may be much physically larger, stronger, and more intimidating than they are. And the concerns that women may have in entering these spaces with such men are not unfounded. Public transport is sadly too often the scene where a woman has been harassed, groped, assaulted, or worse, by an unknown person who was able to get away with their crime due to the confusion of having so many people packed into a small space or because he has made the person feel too embarrassed and ashamed to draw public attention to the offence. While this is a topic I would like to explore more thoroughly in a future post, suffice it to say for now that women around the world feel a lack of personal security on public transport because of these problems, and it can even effect whether they choose to use public transport or not.

So while when a man sees another man sitting down on the train with his legs spread wide, making it difficult for others to sit near him, he may tut to himself and shake his head, or may confidently sit himself down and force the manspreader to accommodate him, for a woman this scenario may play out differently in her head. She may worry about what the reaction of this man might be if she tries to sit down or if she politely asks him to make room. Is this man only committing the faux pas of being a little oblivious, or is he sending a deliberate message? Will he be apologetic, or will he hurl abuse at me? And if he does, will anyone in the carriage help me, or will they ignore my plight and blame me for causing a scene? And maybe I am to blame for this man’s reaction, do I have any right to impose myself in such a way?

(St Petersburg law student, Anna Dovgalyuk, pouring diluted bleach into the lap of a manspreader on the Metro)

It may seem a stretch to make the connection between manspreading and sexual assault, and indeed I do not say that they are in any way comparable actions. I would agree that most instances where manspreading occurs, it is likely because the man in question is a bit tired, is not paying attention to the social cues of fellow commuters, and may not even be aware that he is engaging in this behaviour. Just because someone is manspreading does not mean that they are therefore a bad person, it might just be that they are having a bad day. Yet the point has hopefully been demonstrated that men and women experience public transport in different ways to each other, and for that reason it is important to consider gender dynamics as part of any discussion on etiquette when using public transport.

And finally, should you engage in manspreading if you are a man? No. Come on, did you really need to read this whole post to find out the answer to that question? I mean, I understand that you want to be comfortable, we all do, but a little common sense should tell you that while this may be socially acceptable:

This is not:

Know the difference, and always be mindful of the needs of your fellow commuters.

Bibliography:

Oxford Dictionaries, Manspreading: how new York City’s MTA popularised a word without actually saying it, (4 September 2015) https://blog.oxforddictionaries.com/2015/09/04/manspreading-term-popularized-by-mta/

Sheila Anne Feeney, amNewYork, “Man spread” a widening blight on public transport, say riders, (6 October 2014) https://www.amny.com/transit/man-spread-a-widening-blight-on-public-transportation-say-riders-1.9473786

Metropolitan Transit Authority (New York), Courtesy Counts, http://web.mta.info/nyct/service/CourtesyCounts.htm

Jenny Yuen, Toronto Sun, Anti-‘manspreading’ campaign called sexist, (29 December 2014), https://torontosun.com/2014/12/29/anti-manspreading-campaign-called-sexist/wcm/b30005af-ecde-4210-9f89-5fabdd1ca5c1

Cathy Young, Newsday, ‘Manspreading’? But women hog subway space, too, (5 January 2015), https://www.newsday.com/opinion/columnists/cathy-young/manspreading-but-women-hog-subway-space-too-cathy-young-1.9776186

Lou Schuler, VICE, There’s a reason some men take up so much space when they sit: In defense of manspreading, (25 July 2017), https://www.vice.com/en_au/article/gybejb/theres-a-reason-some-men-take-up-so-much-space-when-they-sit

Caroline VanSickle, Medium, The false biology of manspreading [Updated], (10 August 2017), https://medium.com/@cvans/the-false-biology-of-manspreading-f789abd709f5

Olga Khazan, The Atlantic, PNAS study finds expansive postures are more attractive, (29 Mar 2016), https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2016/03/is-manspreading-sexy/475728/

Logan Bailey, The Black Sheep Online, Manspreading: Fact or Fiction?, (4 February 2015), https://theblacksheeponline.com/campus-life/manspreading-fact-or-fiction

Laura Paddison, Huffington Post, Women around the world are harassed and abused on public transportation, (20 October 2017), https://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/entry/women-public-transportation-harassment_us_59e88cfee4b0d0e4fe6d8202?ec_carp=423793409249566034

Marco Silva, BBC, Anna Dovgalyuk: Why do people think her ‘manspreading’ video is a Kremlin hoax?, (20 October 2018), https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-45828060

#public transport #etiquette #manspreading

0 notes

someonetotaketheedgeoff-blog · 6 years

Text

2.10.2018 - Journal (Feminism)

(Written on 26.06.2018)

For me procrastination is completely interlocked with addiction. I’m addicted to putting shit off. Why?

All I do is scroll on my phone and smoke. Occasionally I make shit and get a few important things done but then I go back into melt back into a procrastinatory coma,

almost not existing and/or having no control over anything I do. It’s terrifying really. I’m afraid of my own lack of self control.

I’m afraid of not living the fullest life I can. Due to being afraid of living the fullest life I can live (not knowing or knowing the full extent of your potential is a terribly conflicting idea. You’ll never find out what it is and you’ll only figure it out by trying. You continue wandering down your own personal dark cave of potential potential, crossing your fingers so hard they contort and almost snap as you pray that the cave doesn’t end. Many people reach some point in there lives where they just decide to set up camp in the dark somewhere and call it a day. They watch as others walk past. As they get older and more bitter they’ll spit and screech at the passers by - ‘Yeah don’t worry about going any further mate, there’s nothing there, I’m sure of it. Nothing but blackness ahead… Spoiler alert you never figure out who you are, it’s a myth, it’s a load of bullshit, come sit by the fire and drink with me… and I’ll tell you stories about myself that I wish were true but have been so beaten down by fear I can’t remember what’s real any more anyway’).

It’s pretty ironic. I’m attached to my life and not at the same time. There’s a group of contradicting voices within me. Which I believe is what the idea of nihilism does to the mind. Nothing means anything and everything means something.

After watching Nanette and the recent death of Eurydice all I think about is how cooked the world is. How cooked it is for women and people that aren’t white, straight and male. Yet I’m on top of the food chain and still struggle to be ‘happy’.

No one wants to hear that though. Of course they don’t want to hear it. It’s irrelevant. When there’s an imbalance you don’t want any focus on anything other than what’s creating the imbalance. You don’t want some straight white guy, that grew up with nice supporting intelligent parent’s with money that fostered any fucking thing I wanted to do saying they struggle to be happy.

This disclaimer’s important. It’s never been my point to try and receive sympathy or claim that my problems are on par with anyone else’s problems. I’m simply regurgitating my experiences (i.e having a massive whine on the internet).

It is worth noting though that even at the top it (can) still suck. But that’s not what oppressed people are concerned about. They’re concerned because of the insane crime of being oppressed and treated as if they’re not human.

I don’t really know why that’s my knee jerk quip to the current situation. It’s probably a very selfish one. Probably a defensive one. To basically be like - ‘Well… just so you know ladies, it’s still horrible up here at the top… so you know… no rush’. Which’s a horrible thought that came from brain, but I don’t want to be a bad person, so I’m sharing it with you.

It’s difficult because it’s true and that’s confusing. But it’s a waste of time because it’s not helping equality if I take up hours of days writing think pieces about how minorities haven’t been so unlucky as to be equal so that they can enjoy the fruits of nihilism to it’s full extend and various other irritating philosophical conundrums. The fact that life’s a struggle even when you’re on the top is something to talk about later, not now.

(I’m sharing this thought process because I’m ashamed of it. I want everything to be good and kind and equal and I want people to have the best lives they possibly could)

Perhaps it required the anger and insanity of all the shades of feminism to get the world to listen. And you know, if for the price of people (males) at least beginning to talk about things was due to 17 ridiculous BuzzFeed videos about the dangers of man-spreading! Then you know that’s OK.

The problem is there are many aspects and pockets of internet feminism that’re kind of crazy, kind of nit-picking and overly extreme. Things such as mansplaining’s problematic because it can be sexist in itself if you’re a women being talking to by a guy about something and you just assume they’re talking down to you because of your gender, unless that information is revealed at some point (or if after further investigation and several miracles that particular guy admits he was talking down). It’s specifying and dangerously locking down aspects of being a cunt and assigning that behaviour to a gender.

The man spreading thing is also very over the top and overly dramatic. And you know what, bloody unnecessary! Very nit picking and strange! It’s such a strange and small thing to get all angry about, why would someone care so much about someone sitting on the train with slightly spread legs? It’s just crazy feminazis. I just don’t understand! I mean why would women be so nit picky about such a minor thing? It’s not as if there’s an inherent under-hum of neck hair prickling fear within all women all the time, 24 hours day, for their whole lives that a man might kill or rape them! No… that’d be ridiculous.

I’m explaining this stuff in a cheeky manner to hopefully gain your attention.

I believe that on a surface level that things such as ‘mansplaining’ and ‘manspreading’ are strangely specific and they’re issues that completely isolated are irrelevant. But they come from a place, a fucked up darker place (that shit doesn’t just come out of fucking no where).

I believe shit like ‘mansplaining’ and ‘manspreading’ are partly responsible for why ‘feminism’ (at least on the internet) is a complete fuckfest. And why some people (mostly males again) believe the word to mean - ‘We hate men, we want to be the top dogs, I wish to be on a throne while men in gimp suits scurry around my feet offering a silver cup of their tears’.

I believe it’s because people, men and women, see something specific, something like ‘mansplaining’ or ‘manspreading’ and that is all they see. Maybe they’re young, they haven’t experienced much and haven’t begun to explore and research. And unfortunately the small window of opportunity in their minds gets filled with that and they shit and they shut off completely. And as we all know Pablo Honey wasn’t a very good album.

They see that and go ‘oh well that ridiculous, they’re winging about me spreading my legs on a train… wow ridiculous’.

And all the women are like - ‘Well yeah mate… Because you rape us and you kill us…’.

But at that point it is too late. The guys already making Feminist’s Get Destroyed Comp 7 on YouTube.

Talking to a friend she told me she ‘hates men collectively, not individually’. Laying in bed later that evening flicking that thought around like a Rubix cube made out of penis’s I flipped it on it’s head and imagined I said the sentence - ‘I hate women collectively, not individually’. Aha! I thought. That will just not do, that’s fucking sexist! That’s a load of horseshit. After I calmed down and my non-opposable thumbs were sore after pounding them on the glass of my enclosure I looked across at my cave paintings, at all the boobs I’d drawn, and various other blog posts and thought you know what? Having a brief flick through of history (and especially current times) women are totally without any argument allowed to collective ‘hate’ men if they want too… in fact I’d be confused if they didn’t.

All of this reminded me of something the great black comic Patrice O’neal once said about race and his animosity towards white people. Which is truly ironic because he had many extremely polarising views on women and gender. However I think it applies well.

He begins talking about Hitler and the Nazis.

‘…Hitler and his crew… after the war it was against the law… you can’t even have the moustache no more…. you can’t even rock that… you just don’t rock it… that nigger is the devil, OK… that moustache is the devil! Hitler then the devil…

So what that enables you to do is move on…. it enables you to move on… meaning I don’t have to hate every German. I don’t have to be bogged down. After the holocaust being a fucking Nazi was criminal… to this day. Like they find out you used to be a Nazi you get fucked over. You can’t even apologise, oh no I only put a couple in the ovens… no no no… you’re done, you’re fucked… which is great for the spirit of being Jewish! We went though this, we know exactly what happened, we know exactly how many people it happened too and we know exactly who did it! So it enables you to have a chapter in a book…

When I start off with white people I say look… white is the only thing we got from slavery.

We have a finish date… questionable start date… questionable amount of people that died, questionable affect on our minds… when we were free they was like bye nigger nice talking to you, OK, you’ve been living this way for 400 years, now we expect you to live wonderfully now and what we did to you was not criminal and the only thing left is your skin so you have the skin colour of the enemy… so… every white person is Hitler’s moustache… really… to my gut all white skin is that… on some level’.

I wonder if you can easily see the comparison I’m trying to draw by referencing this. Basically men are the Hitler’s moustache to women… on some level.

0 notes