#and that any abuse bi women face is “a problem of our own making”

[tamathena]

If your reaction to bisexual women being frustrated about the way we are talked about and treated by some lesbians in the community is to bring up the rates at which bi women face IPV/DV and then blame us for it and say that "Bi women put themselves in those situations", you're legit a victim blaming piece of shit and I think you should get hit by a bus

[hellomynameisbisexual]

Through the years, the term ‘bisexuality’ has undergone a series of redefinitions, and for many bisexuals it holds a deeply personal meaning that has taken years for them to work out. Terms like pansexual and omni-sexual are often included under the umbrella of bisexuality and certainly carry similar aspects. Bisexuality doesn’t have to be limited to being attracted to both men and women, bi advocate and author Robyn Ochs defines bisexuality as “the potential to be attracted — romantically and/or sexually — to people of more than one sex and/or gender,” and includes those who fall on different parts of the gender spectrum.

New terms like bisexuality+ and bi+ have popped up to include the attraction of sexual identities beyond the L and G, including those who are gender queer, fluid, or trans, as well as cisgendered male and females. Bisexuality, simply, is a much more open term for anyone who isn’t attracted to just one gender.

It is a common myth that bisexuals are the least stigmatised of the LGBT+ community. That to be bisexual you can simply date a straight person to camouflage into the heteronormative landscape and thereby escape a lot of the problems associated with being LGBT+. According to GLAAD, bisexuals have higher rates of anxiety, depression, and other mood disorders compared to gays, lesbians and heterosexuals. The Office for National Statistics has found that bisexual woman are twice as likely as their straight counterparts to experience domestic abuse from a partner. While bisexual men are disproportionally affected by HIV and STIs, according to a study from the American Journal of Preventative Medicine – many have blamed biphobia and the stigma against bisexual men, as many bisexual men are too ashamed to seek out proper healthcare.

Further studies have found that 37.3 percent of bisexual adults have reported experiencing depression, compared to 17.2 percent of heterosexual adults. While according to the Pew Research Center, Only 28% of bi or pan people ever feel safe enough to come out to their friends and family. Human Rights Campaign have found that bisexual people face "minority stress," and are more likely to engage in self-harming behaviours and attempted suicide than gay, lesbian, or heterosexual adults. This correlates with a study in the Journal of Adolescent Health, which has found that bisexual and questioning females are at a higher risk of depression or suicide than any other sexual denomination.

“Identifying as bisexual often feels like you're stuck in limbo — not “gay” enough for some, and not “straight” enough for others.”

Many have argued these problems are exasperated because bisexuality is often ignored by the media, academics, and society at large. This is the crux of ‘bi-erasure’, which is defined by GLAAD as “a pervasive problem in which the existence or legitimacy of bisexuality (either in general or in regard to an individual) is questioned or denied outright.”

“Identifying as bisexual often feels like you're stuck in limbo — not “gay” enough for some, and not “straight” enough for others,” writes Kyli Rodriguez-Cayro for Bustle. “While bi people make up 52 percent of the LGBTQ community, they are sometimes excluded from the narrative at Pride festivals and LGBTQ celebrations because of biphobia and bi erasure. Bi erasure is a serious problem that isn't just promoted by straight people, but on occasion, by the non-bi queer community as well.”

“Bisexuals cop biphobia from all sides, from our own community and from straights."

Elizabeth Sutherland writes for SBS about her struggles with occupying both straight and queer spaces and feeling ostracized by both. “There is a privilege in passing as straight, but there is a cost, too. The knowledge that you’re only being treated well, or equally, because part of your self is concealed is a difficult burden to carry… Bisexuals are seen as predatory, promiscuous, untrustworthy, adulterous and confused. We’re vilified as fence-sitters, or just plain greedy. In my line of work I’m in contact with young people all day. It’s easier to reassure colleagues and parents that I’m respectable when I’m seen as a lesbian in a steady relationship. But if I try to describe myself as bisexual—well, for starters, it sounds more sexual.”

Rebecca Dominguez, president of Bisexual Alliance Victoria, explains that “bisexuals cop biphobia from all sides, from our own community and from straights... the reason it’s easier to identify as lesbian than bisexual is that lesbians don't get any homophobia from within the LGBTI communities.”

Unfortunately, the bisexual community oftentimes isn’t united enough to combat these struggles as effectively as the gay and lesbian communities have. Lewis, 26, explains to the Huffington Post: “bisexuals are often invisible from each other. The UK has no mainstream bisexual magazines for us to discuss our issues in. We have no apps to connect us. We have no venues to meet others like us and make friends. I’m one of the most profiled bisexual men in the country yet sadly I’ve never been in a room with even 10 other bisexual men my age. It’s a lonely sexuality, I have no one to talk to that understands some of the unique bi issues I face.

“Another thing that isn’t talked about is the attacks on our straight partners. My girlfriend and I have been together for 18 months, in that time I’d say she has received more abuse than me. People don’t think twice about telling her that I’m going to cheat on her, that she’ll never be enough for me, that’s she’s going to catch HIV. These people have never met me yet they feel it’s fine to cast doubt in my girlfriend’s mind. They’d be perfectly happy for my girlfriend to dump me because of my sexuality and what’s worse is they’d feel the world was back in balance.”

Rob, 41, puts it succinctly enough for the Huffington Post: “Bi-erasure may seem like a small problem but it is thought that bi-invisibility is one of the reasons that, according to several reports, bisexuals have higher rates of depression, anxiety, self-harm and suicide than straight, gay and lesbian people.”

The problems bisexuals face are too dangerous to continue being ignored by the LGBT+ community. If you dismiss a bisexual person as simply going through a phase, not being truthful, after attention, or just being promiscuous then you are part of the problem. Bisexuals make up most of our community and their plight is the same as ours. Standing together and acknowledging the disproportionate mental health issues and discrimination they face, as well as the biphobia within our own community will only strengthen us. Besides, with more young people identifying as queer than ever before, bi-erasure might rapidly become a thing of the past.

[bisolationist]

anon I agree vagueing that women who get abortions are "taking the easy way out" (among other things) is pretty gross but pls don't drag me into this w these people v_v precisely because they have literally no limits. I haven't forgotten how they reacted to the blackpills.

Only other thing I'll say is that yeah I agree, I don't think most of these people care about homophobia in any sense of principle when they are so sooo happy to at best ignore how bisexuals are treated in the face of homophobic abuse.

It seems to make a lot of these people actively mad if we ourselves don't like... treat our own abuse with dismissiveness and contempt. It almost feels like they want us to say "well me being raped wasn't a big deal I mean I'm bisexual so whatever it doesn't even BEGIN to compare to real homophobia", elsewise we're "playing the victim" or something. I don't know how else to explain the fact that even bringing up our abuse without mentioning anyone but the hets that did it gets us a barrage of angry comments. I've now seen literally dozens of cases of bisexuals receiving horrible homophobic harassment that sadistically centers on their sexual assault or other violence they've faced from heterosexuals. It's absolutely not lost on me on how every. single. time. it's INSTANTLY reframed into "well it's just people being mean! I tooootally don't agreee with that but it doesn't mean anything and it's not a problem and you're a shitty person for bringing up actually! The only problem here is that you dick worshipers have such a persecution complex, why don't you learn to take criticism?". Sorry but clearly sadistically making fun of our sexual assault, disownment, or other abuse isn't "criticism". It seems very clear you want us to say our oppression just doesn't matter as much as literally anyone else's. Another example. No one was arguing with that sespurongles essay about how bis "weaponize their trauma". I can't imagine anything more homophobic than saying victims that are speaking up are just doing it for clout/political gain, but since it was about bisexuals everyone was just like clap clap learn to think critically male worshipers.

God whatever. I have so much to say specifically on how our sexual assaults get treated as this totally non-issue, but what's the point. Literally no one cares and it'll just invite more people to give me "criticism".

[redwavefeminist]

I agree with most of this however there are some points that I would like to discuss with you if that's okay?

"under a class-based system, “woman” is a socioeconomic category: it is a complex & oppressive category that includes everyone who was born female, anyone who has altered themselves to the point of being seen as female by society (a demographic of dysphoric male people– medically transitioned trans women, stealth trans women), and intersex male people who have underwent female socialization. it is not biological reality that makes one a woman, it is the amalgamation of female socialization, capitalist exploitation, and fierce male chauvinism. transitioned & stealth trans men might seem to be the only demographic able to escape this category of “woman”, however, even though they may be granted several privileges; feminism still has their best interests at heart– since they have once belonged to the category of “woman”, experienced female socialization & a misogynistic childhood; they still have a place in feminist circles, and their place will not ever fade. they have their voice within feminist spaces, and they still can speak on numerous female-only problems that stealth, transitioned trans women cannot speak on."

So the category "woman" is created by the combination of female socialization + capitalist exploitation + male chauvinism.

I agree with that but I don't see why transitioned transwomen would therefore be included in that category considering they haven't gone through female socialization, but male socialization. Moreover, although transitioned transwomen are exploited in class society (if they belong to the working or middle classes), that capitalist exploitation is still different from the one female-born women have to face. OFAB women's capitalist exploitation has two sides: exploitation in the household (in the form of housework) and exploitation in the workplace (poorer wages, sexual harassment and assaults, poorer labor rights). I don't know if any studies have been conducted on a potential wage gap between transwomen and other demographics so I won't speak on that, but even if there is one, transitioned transwomen still aren't socialized to perform housework and I doubt they contribute as many hours to housework the same way OFAB women do. Then, when transwomen face sexual abuse in the workplace, it's not because they are women but because they are trans -- the root cause is transphobia, not misogyny.

In short, I don't see how transwomen would be included in the women category considering they aren't socialized female, their exploitation under capitalism is different from OFAB women's, and a lot of transitioned transwomen do take part in male chauvinism by being misogynistic to women. If anything, transitioned transwomen's relationship to socialization, capitalist exploitation and male chauvinism shows transwomen belong to the male category or, at best, make up their own 'transitioned transwomen' category.

The opposite goes for transitioned transmen. As you said, they were still socialized female and they still have to face sex-based oppression. So what privileges do they get by transitioning to men? This is an open and genuine question as I am not the most knowledgeable about transmen's issues.

"... gender is the material base of biological sex. this is not an implication that biological reality is unimportant or grounded in something unscientific– biological sex itself should carry no gendered connotations & no artificial attire; but that is unfortunately not the case, as gender is imposed on our bodies/our biological sex. we regard penises as man parts, and vaginas as woman parts– this is essentially gender being imposed on otherwise neutral human bodies. sex categorization and biological sex are two distinct concepts– biological sex is a clear canvas, whereas sex categorization is what allowed for gender to flourish as a superstructure. sex categorization is, in other words– the gendering of our biological features."

I don't quite understand this paragraph. You start by saying biological sex is based on gender, then you say no, it's actually sex categorization that is based on gender while biological sex is a clear distinction. So is biological sex a social construct or not? (Maybe I am just misunderstanding what you wrote, I'm ESL so some of it may escape me.)

I agree that sex categories are socially constructed however I disagree that sex categorization refers to seeing penises as men's parts and vaginas as women's parts. I think it goes beyond that. When Delphy (and Wittig -- but I haven't read Wittig in a while so I'm mostly talking about Delphy here haha) said gender creates sex categories, the way I understand it is that the ideology of gender (our cultural, religious, ideological perceptions of 'man' and 'woman') creates specific expectations on what the 'male sex' and the 'female sex' should look like and act like. So the 'female sex' is supposed to be composed of a functioning uterus (sterile women are treated as less female than fertile women) and breasts, while the 'male sex' is supposed to be composed of a functioning penis (the shape of which is said to prove how manly a man is). Sex categories also aren't restricted to genitalia: they are also about the hormones the body produces. So the 'female sex' is said to be prone to hysteria because the uterus is said to be a diseased organ, the 'female body' is said to produce emotional hormones while the 'male body' is said to produce rational hormones. That way, scientists are trying to naturalize women's oppression by 'proving' our bodies are just naturally inferior compared to men's.

Finally you say gender is the material base for sex categories. But how can gender be a material base when gender is an ideology and therefore idealist in nature? I think it'd be better to say that sex categories share the same material basis as gender does -- both sex categorization and gender are cultural/ideological notions created to naturalize women's oppression and they are both rooted in the same material basis (the economic/sexual exploitation of women in class society), even though gender predates sex categories and the ruling class relied on gender ideology to create sex categories. In other terms, sex categories are a manifestation of gender ideology but gender ideology itself isn't the material basis for sex categorization. The economic/sexual exploitation of women is.

So the way I understand it, the creation of the women-class takes place in four stages.

First, in the state of nature, where the relations of power of man over woman are non-existent, there are the anatomical differences (I wouldn't say biological sex; "bio sex" as a synthetic category encompassing genitalia + secondary sexual characteristics + sex hormones appears later, with the creation of sex categories) that separate men from women. These anatomical differences are a biological, scientific and observable phenomenon: distribution of fat, muscle and bone mass, exoskeleton, male or female genitals, lung capacity, pelvic tilt, weight and height. These anatomical differences are in themselves devoid of any social meaning.

With the accumulation of wealth at the time of the agricultural revolution, the dominating class weaponizes those anatomical differences to impose a division of labour in order to maximize profits. Since females are incapacitated: (a) when they menstruate, (b) when they are pregnant, (c) when they are carrying a child, (d) in the weeks following childbirth, all females are assigned the task of reproducing the species (bearing and raising children) and are relegated to the home while being required to perform the work also performed by men in the fields.

Since healthy adult males are never incapacitated by menstruation or pregnancy, they are all assigned the duty of performing industrial and agricultural work and they are left with the duty to administer labour (ie, politics) while women are left outside of it.

We can therefore see that the economic exploitation of women in the fields and within the home appears with class society and that it is inseparable from the sexual exploitation of women within the home (rape of women to produce children, i.e. to reproduce the working class).

The economic and sexual exploitation of women in the sexual division of labor is the material basis of the oppression of women (patriarchy). This material basis is at the same time intrinsically linked to the male and female anatomical differences: it's because they weaponized those differences that the ruling class managed to create that division of labour (the economic/sexual exploitation of women) in the first place.

3. To legitimise the economic and sexual exploitation of women, a cultural, ideological and religious system is created intended to prove the inferiority of women: this ideological system is gender. Female and male children are socialized to conform to this ideological system, to support it and to perpetuate it: hence Simone de Beauvoir: "one is not born a woman, one becomes one" by the imposition of social norms from which one can in no way escape because this system is universal, it is maintained everywhere, all the time, by everyone, by force and under the threat of violence (domestic violence, femicide, rape).

Therefore no person born female can escape female socialization and no person born male can escape male socialization. Even after transitioning, people still retain the way they were socialized their entire life beforehand. A post-op transwoman isn't treated as a woman but as a man who stepped out of line and who must be socially punished. A post-op transman isn't treated as a man but as a woman who stepped out of line and who must be socially punished for it.

4. To naturalise gender as an ideology of the patriarchy, the category of sex is created: it is the canonization of a set of biological characteristics (secondary and primary sexual characteristics and, often, the brain and hormones) to "prove" the biological and natural inferiority of women and the superiority of men. It is the idea that a woman is supposed to have a fertile uterus and two breasts, that a sterile woman or one who has had a mastectomy would be "less of a woman" than others. It is the idea that a woman-brain has hysterical tendencies. It is the idea that a real virile man is not a eunuch and has prominent male genitalia. It is the idea, in some cultures, that a real woman must have undergone a clitoridectomy or that a real man must have been circumcised. Hence Christine Delphy: "gender creates sex": our social expectations inform the way we think the male sex or the female sex should look/act like. The creation of the category of sex is also the basis of intersexist oppression: we think that a "real" man or a "real" woman must have well-formed and visible genitalia, corresponding unambiguously to our expectations, and so we mutilate the bodies of intersex babies.

We therefore have a four-step articulation:

The state of nature: natural anatomical differences

Patriarchy: the economic and sexual exploitation of women in the division of labor

Gender: the cultural and religious ideology that legitimizes patriarchy

The sex category: the essentialization of gender as submissive feminine nature OR superior masculine nature

Which is pretty similar to what you said. I think the main difference is the way we see post-op trans people, how we understand socialization, and what "gender creates sex" means?

GENDER; apparatus designed to uphold sex-based oppression

What Is Gender?

the social category of woman was made by oppression and exploitation. through a dialectical materialist analysis, we can observe the numerous ways the system exploits & commodifies women.

while both proletarian women & men are suffering under our current system, we can see the clear differences between the types of oppression. that is because proletarian women are not only oppressed for their very reality of being working-class– but are also made to take care of the family, cook, clean, and reproduce, and on top of that; work outside the home, for smaller wages. under a class-based system, women are compelled to act, be, present a certain way, and are connected to the phenomenon of reproductive labor (explained above). women get paid less than their male counterparts, because although the “women must be housewives” stereotype might seem to be fading in western places (it is unattractive to capitalism), it is still present, and it will be present for as long as class is. housework is unpaid labor, and even though a lot of women now have the right to work outside the home, they are still paid less than their male counterparts. they are still compelled to roleplay the idea of a housewife when they return from their shifts, not getting paid for domestic labor, because it is undervalued. both the proletarian male & the proletarian female return home from work, tired from selling their labor & themselves. but unlike the proletarian female, the proletarian male now gets to rest for a bit. it is his time of leisure. the proletarian female does not have this opportunity. her work does not end here. her work continues. her labor & exploitation don’t ever stop, not even when she is in the home, a place that is supposed to be her safe space; and it is not, because it is her husband’s kingdom. the house is her husband’s kingdom, he is the king, and she is just a mere servant. she takes care of the household & of the children.

families produce commodity, and housework is a form of reproductive labor which women are compelled to execute. domestic labor makes sure children grow into people, people who will be part of the exploited class; people on who the burden of running the country while not owning the means of production will befall. in this way, we can see how capitalism depends on domestic & reproductive labor. women are an essential part of the proletarian class; and “woman” itself is a class– an oppressive cage that enslaves all people of the female sex, a cage that we must destruct if we want total liberation. under a class-based system, “woman” is a socioeconomic category: it is a complex & oppressive category that includes everyone who was born female, anyone who has altered themselves to the point of being seen as female by society (a demographic of dysphoric male people– medically transitioned trans women, stealth trans women), and intersex male people who have underwent female socialization. it is not biological reality that makes one a woman, it is the amalgamation of female socialization, capitalist exploitation, and fierce male chauvinism. transitioned & stealth trans men might seem to be the only demographic able to escape this category of “woman”, however, even though they may be granted several privileges; feminism still has their best interests at heart– since they have once belonged to the category of “woman”, experienced female socialization & a misogynistic childhood; they still have a place in feminist circles, and their place will not ever fade. they have their voice within feminist spaces, and they still can speak on numerous female-only problems that stealth, transitioned trans women cannot speak on.

as capitalism is using our women at workplaces & exploiting their abilities, the patriarchy is efficiently trimming, undercutting & ultimately burning their wings. both those systems are destroying their beautiful, spark-shaded eyes, which resemble some kind of lightning bolts, and sucking all the life out of them. female infants are born with strong, dark, stratified wings; wings that the patriarchy & capitalism, as best friends, promise to ruin & remove through aggressive female socialization and capitalistic standards of life. male infants are left with their strong wings: however, their wings are weakened through male socialization & although they’re given a childhood of leisure & freedom, their freedom isn’t unconditional. they must be the patriarchal capitalism’s strong soldier & behave like a perfect male model for patriarchal capitalism. their strong wings are used for the benefit of the socioeconomic structure, and their life is in hands of the most powerful ones, the males above them. our female & male comrades all across the world are being exploited for their abilities. the most oppressed male has one ability our system cherishes the most: the ability to oppress a lesser being than himself– his female counterpart. he has the ability to tear her apart, to destroy her, to set her already weak & utterly transparent wings aflame; to push the sharpest thorns against them, to cut them off in the most disturbing, most violent ways known to humankind. he has the ability to abase her existence and minimize her humanity. his wings get exploited by the system daily, and despite knowing oppression & understanding the harm it does to him & his male comrades, he still has a roaring desire to do that exact same thing to his female counterparts. he still has a desire to serve the system, be a class traitor, as he believes the system will spare him & raise him to the top. after all, it is better to have weakened wings, than not to have wings at all.

Capitalism and Gender

when discussing societal concerns pertaining to currency, we not only discuss socioeconomic disparities and inequalities but also the tactics that this system uses to ensure the greatest chance of survival for every human being. before discussing any further, we must first make clear how the capitalist system works. in summary, capitalism superseded the feudal era, when it was determined that a worker would be paid fairly based on the type of labor they performed. the capitalists’ role is to concentrate as much as humanely possible, and in this process, the capitalist relies on the servitude of workers– as he cannot climb on the top alone. he needs to exploit others’ labor in order to reach the top. this is how labor exploitation is born. because of this mechanism, an excessive amount of manufactured material is produced, of which less than half will actually be able to be obtained and used. this creates overproduction, and economic chaos every 7 years; which results in environmental crises, pollution, and more.

through class systems, the masculine & feminine gender are created. woman, the feminine gender, is in charge of staying at home to take care of children, satisfy the man’s needs & give him more children. man, the masculine gender, is in charge of the woman, the children, and he goes to work where his labor is exploited. through this, both genders are exploited– but the woman is exploited both by capitalism & another oppressive system– the patriarchy. both depend on gender existing as a division of the working class, and both benefit from female oppression. this sort of division included excessive performing. to be the perfect feminine gender, the woman had to take supplies: makeup, hair removal, meekness, nurturing elements, servitude, submission, cleaning supplies, maternity and more. the man, in order to be the perfect masculine gender, likewise had to take supplies: dominance, rationality, strength, lack of sensitivity, the ability of providing for his subordinates, and more. gender division created infighting between the working class; and capitalism relies on infighting. men enjoyed privileges over women, took advantage of them, exploited them & benefited from their pain. while men were also made to conform to an unhealthy and anti-nature standard; they exploited women, and reached the top from labor that wasn’t performed by them. although the patriarchy predates capitalism, capitalism was not the first class system to ever exist. that being said, capitalism and gender do not have the same material base– but that does not mean that capitalism didn’t significantly influence the development & evolvement of gender. gender expanded to fit varying cultures and eras throughout history– capitalism, colonialism & imperialism all help spread sex-based oppression, and thus all have major influence on gender as a hierarchical class system. gender constantly evolves, expands and develops; and capitalism as our current class-based system aids it in its development.

never forget that women always have worked. throughout history, women have always performed more physically exhausting, more dangerous labor. housework is not the only type of unpaid female labor, and the entirety of reproductive labor isn’t, either. being underpaid, or unpaid, used as a slave and as a servant does not equal exempt from productive labor. even while the housewife stereotype was prevailing, women still worked. women still performed both productive and reproductive labor.

The Origins of Gender

the transition from the hunter-gatherer way of living to settled agriculture during the neolithic revolution led to the development of surplus food and the formation of proto-urban settlements, and class. with the emergence of private property & the need to protect resources, hierarchies and inequalities began to form, including class divisions & the division of labor. these divisions led to the concentration of power, control & resources in the hands of the neolithic period’s privileged few, which contributed to the formation of oppression: including the oppression of female people.

the neolithic revolution brought many new inventions; some of them being wide hoes (helpful for cultivating the land to feed a smaller village), plows (helpful for cultivating the land to feed a bigger proto-urban settlement & early towns), shovels, sickles, artificial irrigation system, looms, ceramic & textile production (which demonstrated the neolithic human’s sedentary lifestyle), tournette wheels and archery wheels (improved mass production), plant cultivation and domesticating animals & agriculture that required selective selection– and, finally, it also brought the market, private property, class; and with that being invented, the neolithic revolution marked the beginning of female suffering & female subjugation. the claim that female subjugation is innate & biological can easily be disproved. why have we, throughout the most of our existence, lived in quite egalitarian communes? if female oppression is biological, innate, and natural– why have our female ancestors been hunting as much as our male ancestors?

this era helped us get where we are today. it brought much progress, and ensured an easier way of living (could be argued otherwise, examining the skeleton of a late hunter-gatherer human and the skeleton of an early neolithic human, we can see how we lost a few inches of height and how we only recovered that in the 20th century- or how the way of living clearly depended on your social status that was just “invented” in this era), but it also invented sex & class-based inequalities, and helped shape violent hierarchies. it is said that, during this era, women after death, had a smaller chance to be buried in a respectful & proper way than males did. unlike in our hunter-gatherer, semi-nomadic & nomadic lifestyle, where both the females and the males hunted and gathered the neolithic women started being restricted to child rearing, domestic labor & reproductive labor (the neolithic women had babies more frequently than the pre-neolithic women– approximately once every two years, unlike the pre-neolithic women, who had approximately once every four), while the neolithic men were doing the fieldwork. the neolithic woman became secondary. she became a second-class citizen; she wasn’t contributing food, and she had no control over it. she was subjugated, oppressed, and exploited.

at this point, the neolithic human achieved the ability of being their own food producer. the neolithic human tamed the sheep, and then other animals– and slowly started relying on agriculture, rather than on hunting and gathering. the neolithic human achieved a better quality of life than their nomadic & semi-nomadic hunter-gatherer ancestors; the neolithic human achieved the creation of something that is the root cause to our never-ending struggle: CLASS.

Gender Abolition

as gender functions as a superstructure– it is vital to understand what is the base, and what is the structure. as stated before, gender is produced by the division of (reproductive) labor. numerous pseudomarxists will go out of their way to constitute that the material base of gender is biological sex– which is a very simplistic & poor view of historical materialism. the contrary is actually true, gender is the material base of biological sex. this is not an implication that biological reality is unimportant or grounded in something unscientific– biological sex itself should carry no gendered connotations & no artificial attire; but that is unfortunately not the case, as gender is imposed on our bodies/our biological sex. we regard penises as man parts, and vaginas as woman parts– this is essentially gender being imposed on otherwise neutral human bodies. sex categorization and biological sex are two distinct concepts– biological sex is a clear canvas, whereas sex categorization is what allowed for gender to flourish as a superstructure. sex categorization is, in other words– the gendering of our biological features. it is only important under a patriarchal system, and feminist action can use sex categorization as a way to help push for female liberation (i.e demanding female-only spaces, etc.), while also understanding that it is not something that should carry special significance under a non-gendered world.

when speaking of gender abolition, it is important to say that our goal is to eradicate gender classes first & foremost– that is, our goal is to put an end to the patriarchy– to strip gender of being a power system. gender identity is a concept distinct from gender class, and different people will define the phenomenon of gender identity differently– but it would be nebulous to claim gender identity could persist and stay as a healthy part of a non-gendered society. it would eventually fade, and that would be proof of a successful abolition of gender. a person’s gender identity is superstructural– it stems from and is directly connected to other concepts; such as gender class, biological sex, sex categorization, neurological disorders (dysphoria, sex incongruency) etc. a person may “develop” a gender identity through interacting with reproductive labor in differing forms– by conforming to their assigned gender class, or by choosing to reject it– the latter being made up of people who either use gender identity as a mechanism to help alleviate their socially produced dysphoria, and/or neurological type sex dysphoria, as well as of people who use it as a tool to promote their seemingly punk subculture of attempt at rejecting the heteropatriarchy, and of (some) generally gender non-conforming people. the fall of gender identity as a concept will be the eventual byproduct of the fall of gender as a hierarchical system.

gender isn’t just used for oppressing people. it inherently oppresses people by existing. it is, in essence, sex-based oppression. the blue & pink boxes & the characteristics that fill them inherently oppress and repress people, by making certain appearances and certain personality types, skills, abilities & hobbies inherently female and inherently male. it’s not as simple as using these heavily restrictive & limiting standards and then assigning one group of people to be dominant, thus privileged; and the other group of people submissive, and thus oppressed. it’s never as simple, never as black and white as that. the problem not only lies in the fact that men are put above women, it lies in the fact that these unnatural categories even exist in the first place– for they are responsible for putting men above women. feminist theory goes against the bio-essentialism of the patriarchy, we believe that the construct of gender is not directed by “male” or “female” minds, however impacted by societal standards and gendered socialization. masculinity & femininity are not biologically fixated, nor ingrained in any male or female person, but they aren’t fixated on feelings or identity either; they aren’t harmless, as queer theorists claim they are: rather, they are the guns that the patriarchy has on us. gender ideologists & queer theorists have always understood that gender was a social construct. that was never the misunderstanding between radical feminists and queer theorists. both sides believe it is a social construct, and both sides can differentiate between gender & biological sex– however, queer theorists misunderstood what kind of social construct gender is. they believe gender is a socially constructed tool of self-expression. we cannot define gender as a socially constructed tool of self-expression, when it has been used for thousands of years for repressing self-expression, which is why radical feminists define it as a socially constructed tool of self-repression.

[rantingcrocodile]

Biphobic bisexuals are the worst. They act like them being bi means they are justified in their biphobia and can say any harmful things about other bisexuals

I'll always support my fellow bisexuals and I can't blame the bisexuals with internalised biphobia that don't know any better. There's a difference between ignorance and malice, after all.

The ones that I have a real problem with are the "pick mes." They actively help perpetuate biphobia because the ignorant monosexuals who are biphobic will look to them, see that they dismiss biphobia and then automatically label the likes of you and me as whiners who "want to be oppressed so bad."

Actually, I don't want to be oppressed. It would be much easier to live in the old ignorance that I had where I convinced myself that it was just my problem, that I was weak and needed to pull myself up by my bootstraps. That it was a me problem. When I learned that my experiences and feelings weren't unique, that studies showed that I and my experiences were common for bisexuals, that was devastating. It made me re-evaluate my feelings, traumas and experiences and understand that if we didn't live in a biphobic society, then I wouldn't have been through and felt those things, that I wouldn't have been traumatised the way that I'd been traumatised.

I might still have been sexually assaulted for being a woman, but I would never have been specifically groomed into "friendship" and targeted thanks to my bisexuality.

Any radical feminists or adjacents worth their salt criticise the mess that intersectionality has turned into. The original purpose was to understand that racism intersects with misogyny to better understand the oppression that black women face. There are specific, racial-based misogynistic stereotypes and abuses against black women. We know that. It spread to talk about how different WOC were targeted on their intersections of racism and misogyny. The same for lesbians, disabled women, mentally ill women, the list goes on.

Instead of that intersectionality being an important wake-up call so that women, in our class consciousness, can better understand and support each other and lift the voices of further-marginalised women in feminist spaces, it was very quickly turned into nothing more than a commodity, a currency to be used and weaponised and a tool of patriarchy to split women apart and turn woman against woman.

We recognise the obvious one: "Cis women (1) need to shut up and think of all the black (1) trans (2) women (3)!" Suddenly, women as a class don't matter because of intersectionality, because black men who call themselves women exist, and that's counted as 3 points of intersection against the 1 from women as a group. Intersectionality being abused has destroyed feminism.

Those patriarchal attitudes and beliefs are still strong even in radical feminist spaces. Fuck straight women, they're not lesbians so they're not as oppressed. Fuck white women, they're not WOC so they're not as oppressed. And so on.

Then you come to bisexuals. Instead of others in our space recognising that bisexuality is a discrete point that creates a unique intersection all on its own, it's dismissed as being "straight" or "gay." We're hated no matter what. It's the "in thing."

Bisexuals in this space are taught that we can't define our own sexuality and only lesbians can decide whether we're oppressed or not. In the patriarchal currency, lesbian voices matter the most in this space. It's an uncomfortable truth that others don't want to recognise, but that doesn't make it any less true. A bisexual can calmly point out biphobia, can offer resources and statistics, peer-reviewed studies, and yet when a lesbian biphobe ignores all of it and laughs at bisexuals and hates us, then that lesbian's voice is elevated and the bisexual's voice is erased with false, weaponised accusations of homophobia.

What should happen in this space is to uplift lesbian voices so they can speak out about their oppression so that others can be better allies to them. What happened was that because the patriarchy's insidious mutation of intersectionality has been swallowed, lesbian voices in this space override everything else to the point where most women in this space think that lesbians automatically know the most about patriarchy, feminism and literally everything else purely because they have "lesbian" as a label and not because there are individual amazing, intelligent lesbians who should be listened to because of their talents.

The "homophobia vs biphobia" debate only happens because of that mutated, mangled intersectionality, because the majority of women in this space believe the absolute nonsense that accepting that biphobia exists would somehow erase the importance or reality of homophobia, as though they can't exist at once.

This happens because, aside from a handful of smaller voices, the only lesbians that actually bother to mention bisexuals are the ones that hate bisexuals. If lesbians are the pinnacle of online radfem spaces and those lesbians don't care about bisexuals or try to be allies, then biphobia, therefore, must not exist or be a real problem at all.

A real part of me thinks that lesbians in this space refuse to accept biphobia because a core group of them refuse to accept that they can support oppression against anyone else, and that they're at the top of the "oppression pyramid." I think some are so wrapped up in the patriarchal abuse of intersectionality that they feel personally attacked when the truth is that they can be victims to support abuse against other women, like how different groups of POC can be racist towards each other, but aren't oppressing each other. The nuance is there but always lost.

The reason that I'm talking about all of this is to give a fuller kind of context to the discussion. Biphobic bisexuals are biphobic because of either ignorance or malice, but they're allowed to fester and harm the rest of the community because even though we're supposed to be in a space that supports all women and wants liberation for all women, biphobia isn't just accepted, it's encouraged. Like most online spaces, there's a cult of personality above a cult of fact, and the truth is that bisexuals who are desperate for some kind of community will come and join this space, see the "Tumblr-famous radfems" and want to suck up to them, and listen to every single word that comes out of their mouths like it's gospel because of that "celebrity." It's a hierarchy, and any denial of that is wilful ignorance to the plain-as-day truth around it.

So you have different kinds of biphobic bisexuals. One group has simply internalised the biphobia perpetuated in what's supposed to be a safe space where they think liberation is being promoted and fought for, internalised more of the belief that they don't matter and that biphobia isn't real and certainly isn't oppression, and because nobody amplifies the truth about biphobia or supports bisexuals, then the tiny blogs like myself and others are characterised poorly and dismissed as "wanting to be oppressed" and biphobia continues to thrive.

Another group knows the truth and both hide and deny it so they can stay "in" with the group of biphobes that they run with (or hope to run with, hoping to catch their attention and become mutuals and possibly even friends), maliciously throwing the rest of us under the bus. (Very recently, I tried to share the truth with a biphobic bisexual because I thought they were in the first group, but they went out of their way to delete my reply from their internalised-biphobia rant. That is a clear sign of maliciousness and deliberate hate towards the rest of the bisexual community to suck up to biphobes and put herself first out of selfishness.)

It's important to know all of this because biphobic bisexuals are much more damaging to the bisexual community than any straight, lesbian or gay biphobe, but at the same time, if we don't understand why so many biphobic bisexuals exist, then we can't fix the issue.

It's like all things. Every group that is oppressed has to organise their own communities to fight for their own struggle, but they also need allies to help amplify their voices.

If this space was simply silent about bisexuality and didn't engage in biphobia, doing nothing more but erasing bisexuality and bisexuals from the conversation, then it would be much easier.

The fact is, however, biphobia is encouraged, support for bisexuals non-existent, biphobic bisexuals are given small rewards and those of us who stand up against biphobia are kept silent.

On top of that, the very few "big name" radfem bisexual women with larger follower counts avoid discussions of biphobia altogether, because they know that as soon as they do that, they'll be faced with a barrage of abuse, they'll lose a bunch of followers and the rest of their words about everything else will be discarded because "lmao look at her she thinks biphobia exists!"

The bottom line here is that nobody can stop anyone from being biphobic. The only answer to this is for bisexuals, especially bisexuals with bigger blogs and further reaches, to have the courage to talk about biphobia and treat it as the real oppression that it actually is. We cannot rely on anyone else to care.

There is too much cowardice in the majority of bisexuals here and the culture in this space would change if more of us stood together to denounce biphobia. It takes one bisexual to talk about our oppression to spark another doing the same, then another and another. If no bisexual would accept biphobia, then others who don't comment on biphobia wouldn't be as willing to accept it. If the loudest biphobes were regularly challenged, then it would slowly make biphobia less and less accepted. If bisexuals banded together, we could actually make a change.

But that's all it is. Bisexual cowardice.

I'll always support my fellow bisexuals, but a spade is still a spade, and I'm not going to pretend that I'm not disgusted and disappointed in so many of their actions.

[nsfwitchy2]

Listen I know I already made a post about this on my last blog and it’s still circulating but like. This is legitimately the most baffling thing to me. Queer infighting is a fascinating study in

- How many people do not learn from their pasts and the past actions of others

- How easy it is to turn entire communities against each other at the drop of a hat

Everyone, EVERYONE, wants to think they’re not a bigot and they’re not capable of bigotry - until someone wants a label to describe their specific experience, or somebody wants to mix and match labels, or someone identifies with your label in a way you personally disagree with or don’t like. And then suddenly everyone’s capable of bigotry - but no no, it’s fine! It’s cool when YOURE doing it because you’re just defending your community against those nasty fakers/bad faith actors/people who don’t REALLY get what this identity is about!!!

I mean…. First y’all came for the bisexuals, demanding they pick a side.

Then the pansexuals because they had the audacity to not identify as bisexual, they felt their attraction wasn’t represented and wanted a different label! And you couldn’t just let them have that right?? I mean, you can’t just MAKE UP these labels that we made up!! 😤

Next we had the ace/aro discourse where you all told aroace people they’re not LGBT because “lack of attraction isn’t a sexuality”. I mean, fuck the fact that the LGBT community is for social outcasts who feel their attraction or gender presentation doesn’t fit the societal norms - your LACK of attraction that doesn’t fit societal norms can’t sit with us!!

Oh and who can forget the bi-lesbian discourse. What was that about again? Right, you couldn’t comprehend the idea that someone may want to identify their romantic and sexual attractions differently, or may identify as both a man and a woman. How dare those FREAKS not fit in with our strict rigid sexuality labels in the FREAK COMMUNITY? 😤😤

And then there was the time you guys just. Unironically started calling trans women pedophiles. Yknow, like the community as a whole doesn’t already have a history of being painted as pedophiles and sexual abusers by the media. Like in the 80s there wasn’t a surge of propaganda calling gay men pedophiles for the crime of…. Being gay. Yeah man if we do that again but this time with a different member of the community it’ll go g r e a t.

Next we had the trans men wanting their own word to discuss their own issues - you guys jumped down their throat about that too. I mean god FORBID the MEN want to talk about THEIR problems? What problems do MEN possibly have??? Yknow not counting the issues that come with being trans and the issues that come with being a man of color and the actual negative ways our society does affect men. Not counting any of that, of course.

And now. Now. You are all making me sit through AFAB transfem discourse - like this is any different??? Because what? Because AFAB women will never experience transmisogyny? Because that’s all being transfem is right - it’s the oppression you face and nothing else? Because AFAB women can’t also have a complicated relationship with their gender that makes them feel alienated by our society at large?

And I haven’t even touched on the kink at pride discourse or the lesboy discourse or the neopronoun discourse or the honest to god millions of other dumb fucking things you people make up to be upset about.

Fucking. I’m tired of this shit man - it all boils down to the exact same argument. How dare these FREAKS want to sit with US at the FREAK TABLE? Don’t they know that they don’t fit into OUR rigid definitions EITHER? They need to find their OWN community? 😤

Like…. We do this every year, and every year you guys sit me down and look me in the eyes and go, “No no!! It’s different this time!!” But it NEVER IS!!!

I mean, aren’t you people fucking tired??? I’m tired!!! I am tired of watching YALL go ape shit - don’t you just wanna be NICE!?

It’s JUNE! It’s PRIDE MONTH and yesterday I got to watch a trans woman post an opinion on a gender label that another trans woman didn’t agree with, so she publicly started bitching on her post and invalidating those people. And then less than an hour later I found a post by a different, completely separate trans woman, this time about kink - with notes FULL of people just SHITTING on the second trans woman from earlier because of HER kinks. And like… what is this accomplishing??? Who is this helping???? Anybody???? It’s pride month, a time when we should all be celebrating the fact that we’ve even gotten this far - but your heads are all so far up your own asses you’d rather cannibalize your own community online. I mean fuck man congrats, the actual bigots don’t even have to do anything anymore - you’re doing their jobs for them.

Happy fucking pride month I guess. I’m sure if you keep publicly tearing down your brothers and sisters, it’ll fill the void in your soul eventually.

Surely this time it’ll be different.

I think queer infighting is genuinely the best example ever of that phrase, “the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results”

[talenlee]

Welcome to ERFs

Have you enconutered the term ‘TERF’ and left wondering: Wait, what’s that?

There are some people, TERFs mostly, who think that TERF is a slur. It’s not; slurs are terms used to direct social power against a marginalised group. If you shout TERF at someone on the street, they’re not going to assume someone else is going to attack them because of being so painted. If they are, they’re incredibly paranoid, because TERFs are typically very privileged people who are afraid of being criticised by trans people.

It may sound like I am overdoing it, but I really am not. The typical TERF discourse is an attempt to weaponise outrage at the idea of women facing disagreement from, pretty consistently, other women. But what is a TERF? And what about those other -ERF terms I’ve heard?

So, content warning: TERF stuff! And SWERF stuff! And BLERF stuff! What’s a BLERF? Well, after the fold.

The -ERF grouping of letters stands for -Exclusionary Radical Feminist. To further break that down, let’s work backwards.

Feminist means someone who aligns themselves, politically, with the position of feminism – that is, that there has been a system of power in our society that has directly imposed on women, and, once further examined, many, many groups, and the removal of these power systems will be to the benefit of everyone.

Radical means that there is a direct advocation of change. That is, it’s not enough to vote for these things, or to hope things get better on their own, or just do the things the best way you can in your own life. Radical change is advocated for, in the change of systems and removal of power structures. This is important, a radical feminist is someone who both recognises and wants to change structural power systems in our society that marginalise women.

Exclusionary and here’s the place where the problem starts. Because I’m down for radical feminism. It’s this word, where the term suddenly takes on a term. This is the letter that signals that this person has a radical feminist position but there is someone excluded from it.

So there are a couple of -ERFs, and they’re defined by who they exclude from their feminism. The most notable and commonly known are TERFs, Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminists. This position is that yes, feminism is one thing and it’s very good and we need to dismanle all the systems in place that make gender enforcement unfair and that marginalise women, but we also need to make sure that any progress doesn’t benefit trans women. This is obviously shitty as hell, but it also works against itself. Suddenly, there are all these projects that have to be scaled back or done more carefully and more unhelpfully just because ‘well, what if a trans woman benefited as much as a cis woman?’

It sucks!

SWERFs are SEX WORKER Exclusionary Radical Feminists. That is, they think that anything to do with sex workers is somehow outside of feminism. This leads to some weird ideas like the notion that sex workers performing sex work are ‘doing men’s work for them,’ or ‘oppressing themselves,’ which sounds like an interesting academic conversation to have but it’s not an academic conversation, it’s a conversation which involves telling women doing work that they like and they are willing to do that the problems aren’t abusive labor practices or people refusing to pay them, their problem is that they’re only doing this for bad reasons.

Swerfs also tend to have to ignore a lot of things like the presence of nonbinary people, or, uh male-on-male gay porn. That’s pretty weird!

And my newest favourite is BLERFs. That is Bi Lesbian Exclusionary Radical Feminists. The conversation about ‘bi lesbians’ is one of those ones that should kind of not reach beyond the boundaries of ‘oh, that’s a bit silly.’

The idea is that some lesbians describe themselves as bi lesbians. Some other presumably non-bi lesbians, or, conspicuously, non-lesbians, object to this, usually framed as it being somehow harmful to the idea of lesbians to allow it to include lesbians who are bi.

This is, at its core, a disagreement over a word that could be regarded as a sort of clerical disagreement in a style guide, but that would require BLERFs to have an ounce of chill. Instead, BLERFs, as other ERFs, believe in radical, transformative, change-based feminism that extends to all of humanity, except lesbians who describe themselves as ‘bi lesbians.’ And the result is a kind of public discourse where people who rail at the idea of ‘bi lesbians’ say things that kind of give away why they are so annoyed by the idea of ‘bi lesbian.’ It inevitably starts to be about definitional arguments and brings in a wing of toxic conversation about things like ‘gold star lesbians.’

It’s important to remember that -ERFs aren’t just your run of the mill anti-sex worker or transphobic dickheads. -ERFs are still people who are wedded, in their own mind to the project of radical feminism – that is, feminism that sees the world as in need of change. Conservatives aren’t TERFs, they’re just assholes.

Part of why I think recognising -ERFs is that it’s important to have a way to recognise the people that you think might be on your side, but aren’t on the side of the other people on your side. If your aunt is pretty progressive on some things but isn’t okay with trans people, that indicates she’s already drawing lines about who the project of feminism shouldn’t be allowed to include – and that is a problem.

[nothorses]

In a response to that one transmasc mlm who was talking about struggling with also being into women— you’re definitely not alone. I’m only into women and am also transmasc and I struggle to feel “””queer enough.””” And it gets confusing because I’ll use straight as the best label to describe me but... it just misses a lot of stuff I’ve had to go through for being attracted to women. I didn’t grow up being allowed to be attracted to women and honestly my family will always and only refer to (1/)

to any gf I bring around as my “friend.” So of course I don’t relate to cis straight men about sexuality, but also I’m not gay or bi or pan. But the default of the community is that ‘LGBT is the opposite of straight,’ which really means cis straight people but everyone says straight. And then (cis) straight people obviously don’t make space for trans people. So I don’t feel like I fit in either with (cis) straight people or other queer people. Saying I’m straight feels not queer enough. (2/)

I think that for the most part we as a society just normatively assume cisgenderness whenever we discuss or think of sexuality- so the best way I’ve been able to understand my experiences and identity is that for me being straight is a queer thing to be. I wasn’t raised to be a guy or to be into girls- and was actively discouraged from both- but I am anyways. (3/3) 

Hell yeah. Straight trans people are absolutely queer enough, regardless of orientation, and there is genuinely no way for any trans person to be thought of as “straight” the way cis/straight society defines straightness; especially as a social class vs. just an orientation.

One great point I’ve seen (forever ago on twitter, or I’d link it) is that transhets are actually the exact group of people that a lot of mainstream transphobia is directly targeted at.

The entire concept of a “trap” is a trans woman who “tricks” straight men into “sleeping with a man”, and a ton of violence against trans women happens because straight men feel “tricked” when they discover the women they are attracted to are not, in fact, cisgender. They believe trans women are “just gay men” who only transition to “prey on straight men”.

The erasure of trans men in history is almost entirely because trans men are presumed to be lesbians, who “lived as men to escape homophobia”. The ways we’re targeted by cis lesbians support this, too; that trans men are just “lost lesbians” that cis lesbians need to save from ourselves, abuse into detransition, and force us to “accept ourselves as lesbians”.

Obviously transhets are not the only group that transphobia is targeted at. Trans lesbians are seen as “straight men who want to prey on lesbians” and on gay trans men are seen as “straight girl fujoshis who fetishize gay men”, and in general, we aren’t ever seen as really being gay or straight the way cis people are.

Bi/pan/m-spec trans people sort of get the worst of both worlds, and a-spec trans people have their own host of problems, too. There’s no way to escape oppression for our orientations as trans people.

You really nailed it here:

“We as a society just normatively assume cisgenderness whenever we discuss or think of sexuality”

The concept of straightness as a social class, one that comes with all kinds of privileges and inclusion in the mainstream of society, was never intended for trans people.

Not that queerness is defined by suffering, either. You’d still be “queer enough” if you faced no discrimination for your orientation at all.

[gingerfoxunicorn]

How CW Tried to Erase The Greatest Love Story Ever Told and Why That Matters

I have been struggling to put into words these past days why the Supernatural clusterfuck finale hit me like a ton of bricks.

The sense of mourning and loss was to be expected, when having to say good-bye to a series that has been running for 15 seasons and that I have been personally invested in for the past seven years, a series that became my comfort show as I was clawing my way out of depression and has remained a lifeline for me, along with the found family of fandom.

What I couldn’t have seen coming was the tangled mess of disbelief, heartache, anger, and betrayal that engulfed me, like black goo, as I was forcing myself to watch the last installment in the series. To say it was abysmally bad would be an understatement – at least 12 seasons of character growth were snuffed out in one fell swoop. We were served the cosmic joke of seeing Dean, a complex, multi-layered character we love dearly reduced to a cardboard figure and killed in the most absurd way, for shock value, minutes after having been pied in the face in an inane gag. On the surface, Sam may seem to have fared better, but he too is reduced to a shell, bound to a blurry wife, rushing through life in a frankly ludicrous montage to be reunited with his dead brother. This is the life, am I right?

Finally, Castiel, the character I relate to on a deep personal level, a character whose innate goodness and penchant for self-sacrifice shines through his every gesture, was all but erased from a story he was central to, relegated to an afterthought. Which would be an outrage in itself, but is the more so considering his last appearance on the show was the heartrendingly beautiful moment he confesses his love to Dean, speaking his truth just as he sacrifices himself for Dean, AGAIN. So this character who has been used and abused his whole life, but always strives to give more, who has just come out as queer, is sucked into The Empty, never to be seen on the show. He is only mentioned in passing in the finale, no one really mourns for him, and the confession is never mentioned again. We are basically gaslit into wondering if that ever happened.

Dean is killed neatly so he never gets to speak his own truth and acknowledge his feelings for Cas, in this world or the next. This is not just a “bury your gays”, this is a “salt and burn your gays”, lest they explore their gayness in the afterlife. I cannot speak as to how traumatic this must have been for queer fans, especially after that confession and when all the signs seemed to point to Destiel as endgame.

It definitely felt soul-crushing to me, as someone personally invested in these characters and in their relationship. The gravitational pull between Cas and Dean is inextricably bound with their growth as characters, they bring out the best in each other and they find comfort in each other. And it goes deeper than that – their faith in each other repeatedly brings them back from the edge. After the confession, Dean, who has known nothing but violence, who spent 40 years in hell, literally, dares to see himself through Cas’s eyes. For a fleeting luminous moment, it looks as if he may finally be free from self-doubt, free to make his own choices. But he never gets to do that, because TPTB decided that a bi character, whom many abuse survivors identified with, doesn’t deserve to be saved. Instead, he is kept bound for eternity in a co-dependent relationship with his brother. As for Cas, he may as well have been left in The Empty, which incidentally is a bleak nothingness filled with self-doubt, so a mental landscape which is familiar to people struggling with depression or other mental health problems.

Let me reiterate that: two characters that many of us identified with, who were revealed or coded as queer, battling the inner demons of depression and self-doubt as much as they fought monsters, whose slow burn journey towards each other held a promise of healing both for them and for us, are silenced and, in Cas’s case, all but erased because “no-homo”.

CW callously tore out the "profound bond" between Cas and Dean from the final episodes, not caring that for many of us it was the true, beating heart of the story, that we saw our own struggles reflected in theirs, leaving us feeling reeling and shell-shocked, while denying us any hope of finding closure.

This act of violence tore at the entire tapestry of the show. The strong women characters that were an integral part of Sam and Dean’s found family were erased from the story as well. The only woman figure in the final episode is a blurry figure, supposedly Sam’s wife, while Eileen, set up as his endgame partner  throughout the season, is erased from the story as well. The finale basically betrays the show’s guiding message that “Family don’t end with blood”.

More and more compelling evidence emerges that there may be original footage showing Dean reciprocate and possibly a full-on yes-homo reunion was shot (or definitely part of the original script). However, this was censored by the network before releasing the final episodes. It seems increasingly likely that the main reason for this outrage was corporate greed. In other words, the cast, the writers and the fans were fucked over because the greedy assbutts at CW were more interested in catering to a particular demographic than giving these characters the ending they deserved.

Can we acknowledge how fucked up it is that, after all this time, it’s still the straight white men that call the shots and have no qualms about silencing artists and queer characters, without caring they are basically telling queer people and other viewers invested in the characters’ struggle that we don’t matter?

We may feel soul-crushed and powerless right not, but there’s one thing we CAN do. We can speak up about what happened, we can speak up on behalf of the characters and artists CW basically gagged and silenced, and on behalf of all the vulnerable people, queer viewers in particular, hurt by this outrage. We can make some noise and call CW’s bullshit. What are they gonna do, silence all of us?

[bisolationist]

@menalez I understand your argument against. All I can say is that for the most part I've had a very different experience with the word within bi and LGB orgs, so I agree our argument will go nowhere. I think we've already discussed that I definitely agree about monosexual/monosexism, I am staunchly against that concept because there's no coherence in lumping LG + Het people together. Whereas biphobia I think concisely can point towards prejudice and discrimination towards bisexual people, I don't see the value of monosexual, it can pretty much only be used in homophobic ways.

Thank you if you've been vocal against people using that sort of language against bisexuals. But I think the point is more that, beyond your own personal response, all the things anon mentioned go generally unremarked at best, or bisexuals are actively treated as being homophobic for responding to it. It's great that some people like you recognize what we face as homophobia but most people do not. This is literally what started this discussion as that imdb person received tons of praise for saying we only experience 'misdirected' homophobia and nothing else. I do think that viewpoint does lead to a lot of people to view abuses against us as lesser or incidental, and basically politically irrelevant. I think that's the viewpoint that leads to people saying that bisexuals speaking up about homophobia they've suffered are trying to 'play the victim' or are being 'whiny', just like she did (again to virtually no criticism). I think its thus itself kind of homophobic in that it is often used to dismiss homophobic abuse, but again the 'misdirected homophobia' thing is extremely popular and even people that disagree don't really treat it as a problem... so like... what gives?

There's been a million castration jokes about me that fly around on radblr and people making fun of my CSA and not once has anyone called it 'homophobic', not even in the same thread that caused this conversation. I'm talking my own personal experience because I can definitely confirm that, but I've also never seen anyone respond with "That's homophobic" when bi women I know are harassed in similar ways. I've seen people joke that hets that abuse use are "the real allies". So like if it's full-stop homophobia (and I do think it often is) why does no one react to it like it is? Why is homophobia against bisexuals so downplayed and belittled? Why are bisexuals and especially bi women constantly told that when they're raped or abused in some way it's a "lesser" form of homophobia and they should just shut up and get over it? I feel like it's hard to answer that without saying prejudice and stereotypes against bi people which is all biphobia is to me. So tldr. I understand your frustration with how some people use the word biphobia, I don't deny some people use it in homophobic ways. I don't deny bisexual people can be homophobic in general. But I hope you can understand anon's frustration - and mine, and many other bi people's - on how the "biphobia is fake, but bisexuals don't suffer REAL homophobia" dichotomy that a lot of people openly espouse works to silence victims of homophobic abuse and is almost never challenged as being homophobic on that count. It often even feels to us that we ourselves are discouraged from taking "homophobia against bi people" seriously, either on the primary level (direct incidents) or the secondary level (how people react to it), or else we're accused of homophobia ourselves for thinking abuses against us matter at all. So even if we just said "prejudice and stereotypes against bi people" all the time to avoid the word biphobia specifically I just don't think most people would be any more receptive to that.

no response from menalez on your post I see. these people that insist it's "just" homophobia never get angry about discrimination against bi people. they don't get angry when people like that imdb quisling downplay and mock your abuse. they don't get angry when people say bisexuals aren't oppressed. they dont get angry when ppl call us dick riders or harass us or treat our abuse like a joke. they may disagree but its a mild thing for them, way more respectable than being some whiny bi rape victim. they dont get angry at the ppol that call us dick worshipers and say we're inventing our abuse to weaponize it. they dont treat it at all with the same anger or urgency they treat other homophobia then they tell us there's no difference. they just don't think our abuse matter and us stupid bisexual rape meat need to shut up and let them handle it.

she probably just didn't see it I think her blog probably gets a million notifications. idk her exact stance so I'm not gonna say anything about her specifically. she can clarify if she wants, but tbh was my response was food for thought for other bisexuals mainly, not her specifically.

Anyway. Like I said in my response I understand being annoyed by how some people use the term biphobia, but I do find how dismissive ppl are about understanding bisexual experiences really frustrating. We are told all the time that bisexuals do not have the same experiences as homosexuals (very very true), but if we say that bisexuals also have some unique experiences that deserve analysis and discussion suddenly lots of people have a meltdown? ridiculous. The message seems to be that if we're assaulted or abused, our voices and POV have nothing to offer about the nature of homophobia and in fact the right thing to do is to shut up so that the "Real" targets of homophobia can drive the narrative. Which yeah I just inherently disagree with that and see it as dismissive against bisexual victims. Biphobia plays a part in both the initial incidents and how people respond to it. It's not evil of us to notice.

And overall anon I agree a lot of people treat it exactly like that or I wouldn't get half the anons I get. And what's worse, I do actually think a lot of the examples that these people ignore ARE legit horrible instances of homophobia. Like how is being mocking and dismissive about SSA people being assaulted or abused by heterosexuals for their sexuality not homophobia in and of itself? Yet for some reason (cough) nobody recognizes it as that, if anything in many corners it somehow "proves" devotion against homophobia to minimize and mock such things if it happened to a bisexual. Nobody seems to think it's much of a problem certainly.

So yeah, overall agree with your frustration anon. but tbh I'd rather start with bisexuals who treat others like that too because it's them that share the burden to our community.

[queerbutstillhere]

Hi how are you? Yo remember that Jercy fluff piece with them realizing they’re gay for each other and both going ‘oh’. If you are up to it please make a part 2 it was so cute and I want them to like confess or something I stg you are such a good writer and your stuff is so cute thankssssa ❤️❤️🥰🥰

HI! Thanks for Asking!!! I’ve been wanting to write a part two to this for a while!!!! Click the link just below for part one!

Part One!

It had been two weeks since their sleep over.

Neither one had addressed anything, but the sad pining from across the dining pavilion and the mildly sexual sparing fights and the constant flirting was driving their friends insane.

(So insane that they had literally made a bet on when the two were going to get together. Nico and Annabeth said it wouldn't be until the last day of summer camp, while Will and Grover insisted it'd be within the first few weeks.)

The truth of the matter was neither one of them had any idea how to handle this. 

Sure they had both been in relationships, but that was with girls, plus what if the other one didn't feel the same? Coming out to themselves had been a whole thing on its own, let alone coming out to their friends. Percy had told Annabeth first, and she just smiled and ruffled his hair. Meanwhile Jason nearly had a breakdown, bursting in on Will and Nico(who had been trying to have a nice evening in) and just ranted to them for nearly twenty minutes. They had heard so much about how hot Percy was in those twenty minutes. Nico had responded bluntly with "then go fucking kiss him, you dumbass".

"But what if he hates me after!" Jason had cried, truly distraught.

"He's not going to, trust us, Jason," Will had assured him.

Jason had promptly ignored their advice and returned to wallowing in self misery and hopeless pining. If only he had known it wasn't hopeless.

Percy, on the other hand, was accepting this rather gracefully. He wasn't terribly surprised he was bisexual, or pansexual, whatever. He'd spent enough time in Camp Jupiter, working out with hot Romans to have begun to realize that he wasn't just attracted to women. The problem was that he was hardcore crushing on his best friend. The boyscout, Jason Grace. Who was probably straight.

Why was his life a constant wheel of disappointment?

So, with the two idiots hopelessly in love and hopelessly dancing around each other, their friends abandoned the bet and decided to start playing matchmaker. Their rules were simple, however. They would not outright tell one that the other was crushing, because it was Percy and Jason's job to come out to the other. Even if it was so painful to watch.

There were so many times when they had arranged a group hangout, and then everyone else bailed fairly early, in the hopes that they would get talking and confess. But alas. It had yet to happen, and they were nearing mid July.

The turning point came when a group of them were hanging out around a campfire, late at night, and Percy, having forgotten that he hadn't told everyone, just spoke without thinking.

"I'm thinking about coming out to my mom."

There was a brief pause of silence before Will spoke.

"Yeah? How do you think she'll react?"

"Dunno, I think she'll be okay?" Percy said, glancing up from his intense staring into the fire, and then looking over at Jason.

Jason's blue eyes were the size of the full moon behind him, his mouth hanging open.

"What?" Percy asked with a laugh, and then it hit him.

Jason didn't know.

"Oh," he said softly. "Yeah I'm . . . Bi or something."

"O-oh," Jason squeaked out, voice cracking uncharacteristically. "Cool."

Nico suddenly burst out in laughter, immediately getting yelled at by Will and Katie Gardner. Percy frowned at them, before glancing at Jason, nervousness filling him. What was Jason thinking? He was chill with Nico and Will, surely he'd be okay with Percy being Bi?

Surely.

Jason was freaking out. Very silently. He did know how to keep his chill. But he was struggling. Because his brain was a screaming mess of "oh my gods he's bi. Oh my gods I might actually have a chance with him. Oh my gods-". Listen, he's just a chaotic, messy disaster bisexual, he doesn't know how to do these things.

It took nearly two days for him to bring it up, and even then it was just to Nico at breakfast.

"How long have you guys known he was bi?" Jason asked softly.

Today Nico was sitting with him. Will had pulled a late night at the infirmary and was still asleep, so Nico had no reason to sit with the Apollo cabin. The big three kids usually sat together, but Percy had gone home for the weekend, so it was just Jason and Nico sitting at what would have been the Cabin 1 table, but had just become the joint table.

"For like, weeks."

"Why didn't you tell me!"

Nico shrugged, pushing around his eggs on his plate. "Wasn't my place? You remember when Eros outed me?"

"Oh, right. Shit. . . "

Another shrug from the younger teen. They sat in silence.

"Are you gonna tell him?"

"What!" Jason asked, glancing up at Nico, who was now done with his eggs.

"Percy? Are you gonna tell him you're not straight?"

"I dunno. I dunno what I am."

Nico frowned, reaching to steal Jason's bacon. Jason didn't complain.

"What do you mean."

"It's like…. It's hard to explain. Like." Jason sighed, turning to face Nico. "Katie is really pretty, right?"

Nico turned to look at their friend, shrugging lightly. "Yeah."

"But I'm not like… attracted to her, or really, any woman? And when I realized I thought, oh, maybe I'm gay, but like. Malcom is really handsome. And I'm not attracted to him either."

Nico's gaze swung to the co-counselor of the Athena cabin. Then he looked back to Jason, frowning lightly.

"So then I was thinking, maybe I'm ace?" Jason continued, rambling now, more than anything. "But bro, Percy is hot as hell, and I'm incredibly attracted to him. So I'm just confused."

Nico was silent, staring down at the table.

"Demisexual?" He said randomly.

"What? What's that?"

"It just. . . Demisexual's don't really experience sexual attraction unless they have a strong emotional bond with someone. It's kinda what you just described to me."

Jason stared at him with wide eyes."Holy shit."

Nico smirked slightly, collecting his dishes and standing. "I gotta go get Will, but feel free to come chat during lunch."

"Yeah," Jason murmured, staring at the table and Nico walked away.

Mind blown.

By the time Percy got back Monday, Jason was mostly through his crisis. He had spent most of his free time Sunday researching sexualities and mostly demisexual. He felt that Nico had been right. 

Percy came jogging over after his return Monday afternoon. Jason was in the middle of sparring with a kid from the Ares cabin when Percy called him over.

"Hold on," Jason told his opponent as he stepped back. 

He still fought with the Roman style, and it drove the Greeks insane, Percy most especially.

"Yeah, sure," the younger camper said with an amused smirk.

Jason turned away and walked over to Percy. He was wearing an orange t-shirt and what looked like boardshorts, as well as sandals, and a couple bracelets that ran up his forearms. He was grinning, sunglasses pushing his messy black hair up.

"Hey, boy scout," Percy hummed, hands in his pockets.

"Hey, Percy, how was your weekend?" Jason asked, throwing an arm around Percy's shoulders and leaning on him.

Percy groaned dramatically, tilting his head away. "You're gross!" He exclaimed, yet slipped his arm around Jason's stomach, turning and leading him away from the other kids who were sparing in the small arena.

Jason couldn't ignore the flutter in his stomach as Percy's strong arm pulled him in tight against his side.

"My weekend was great. Estelle was so stoked to see me, we went to the park all day Saturday while mom and Paul went out grocery shopping."

"That's great!" Jason exclaimed, thinking faintly that he couldn't wait to see Thalia.

"Yup, and I talked to mom and Paul. . ."

Percy had stopped walking but hadn't let go of Jason yet, swaying them back and forth lightly.

"What about?" Jason asked, eyebrows furrowing as he tried to remember.

Percy looked down at him, looking amused.

"What?" Jason asked with a slight laugh, head tilted to be able to look at Percy comfortably.

"I was coming out to them this weekend?"

Oh gods Jason was an idiot.

"Fuck, I forgot!”

Percy laughed, eyes crinkling slightly. Jason's heart fluttered as his friend grinned down at him.

"Did you have a busy weekend?"

"Uh, a little? Nico and I hung out most of Saturday, Sunday I was in charge of activities."

"Oh yeah? It's good that you and Nico are so close," Percy hummed out.

"Yeah. He's a good kid. Wiser than his age."

"That's for sure."

They looked up at each other in silence for a bit, neither speaking, they were incredibly close, Jason could probably just lean in and kiss him…

Two things happened at once. First, Jason watched Percy's eyes flicker down to his lips, as he licked his own and started to lean in. And then they both heard the explosion from across camp.

"Oh shit," Percy exclaimed, pulling away. 

Annoyed shouting could be heard.

"Harley," they both said at once, then laughed.

"I got it," Percy said, pulling away. "See you 'round!"

Jason watched him jog away and just then processed that Percy had been about to kiss him.

Thursday night at campfire was the next time they were actually anything close to alone. They were sitting together, off to one side, munching on their smores and listening to campfire songs.

"Hey, do you wanna get out of here?"

Jason looked over at Percy, realizing suddenly that Percy was looking at him and not the campfire.

"What?"

"Come on, we're counselor's aren't we? Let's abuse our powers," Percy told him, standing and offering his hand to Jason.

Jason put his clean hand(his other one had marshmallow on it) in Percy's and let himself be pulled up. Percy snagged a bag of marshmallows and led Jason towards the lake.

"Why'd you get the marshmallows?" Jason asked with a laugh as he sat on the dock.

"The nymphs like them."

Percy ripped open the bag and pulled a few out. He held his hand out and a few nymphs popped out of the water, snatching them and then disappearing.

"Huh. . . " Jason said softly, staring at the ripples in the water. Percy kicked off his shoes and then sat next to Jason, dangling his feet into the lake. 

They sat in silence for a while, shoulders just barely brushing, Percy occasionally giving the nymphs more marshmallows, occasionally eating one himself.

"Hey, Percy."

"Yeah?"

"I think. . . " Jason stopped, clearing his throat. He was staring at the water, watching the way it rippled around Percy's ankles. "I think I'm demisexual."

Percy was silent for a bit, then looked over. "Okay. . . Could you explain that to me?"

Jason smiled slightly as they made eye contact, he carefully explained it to Percy, who listened silently, absorbing this information, his feet kicking through the water as he thought.

"Thank you for telling me, Jason," Percy said softly, putting his hand on Jason's thigh. "And I support you completely."

"Thanks," Jason said softly, smiling at Percy.

Percy grinned back, offering him a marshmallow then looking back over the lake. Silence stretched over them, they could faintly hear the campfire songs drifting over.

"Percy?" Jason said softly, trying to get his attention.

"Yeah?"

Percy looked over at him, and Jason leaned in, quickly kissing him. Percy made a slightly surprised noise but was instantly pressing back into him. Jason pulled away first, just far enough that he could look at Percy in the pale moonlight. Percy swallowed, licking his lips before leaning in and kissing Jason again, hand resting on his leg.

"Wow," Jason breathed out.

Percy started laughing, falling back to lay on the dock.

"Hey!" Jason protested, hitting his friend's stomach. 

"I'm sorry! But we kiss and what you have to say is 'neat'?!"

"Shut up! I didn't think you actually liked me back!!!"

Percy just laughed and shook his head, looking up at him.

"Jason, you were literally my gay awakening."

Jason felt his eyes go wide. "Oh-"

Percy grinned at him. "You remember that weekend you spent the night at my house?"

Jason nodded.

"That's when I realized I was attracted to guys, and specifically you."

"Oh. . . " Jason said, yet again.

Percy nudged his hip. "And here I was worrying you did like me like that."

Jason made a noise that can only be typed as 'ajdjshdhs', shaking his head rapidly. "No. You're- you're the first person I've actually felt this way towards in. . . Well a long time."

"Really? Not even Piper?"

Jason shook his head. "That was a weird situation . . ."

Percy shrugged. "Yeah, you're right."

He sat up and turned to face Jason, crossing his legs. Then he laughed again, shaking his head.

“Wow.” He whispered, mocking Jason.

"Shut up!" Jason yelled, lunging and shoving the still laughing Percy off the dock. 

Send me a prompt!

[ninasfireescape]

The ‘Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker’ review no one asked for

I wanted to enjoy it. I really did.

I was one of the people who didn’t dislike The Last Jedi. Sure, I didn’t love it. When I watched it, I thought it was too long and had made certain characters choices I wasn’t too happy with, but overall it was enjoyable and left me feeling satisfied. It was not as good as The Force Awakens however and hearing JJ Abrams was returning, I thought he might be able to restore the final episode to its former glory.

That indeed seemed like the case for the first hour. The gang were back together, it was quick-paced, I had an emotional investment in what was going on (and it seemed like they were taking the Finnrey route I wanted them too). I couldn’t exactly follow every plot specific but does that really matter in Star Wars when it’s so exciting? The bit on Star Killer base was genuinely inspired, I was laughing away at once again what terrible shots the stormtroopers were and at Hux being the spy. Every scene with Lando in was gold.

It was just after they got to the water planet that things started to go wrong. I’m not sure quite what it was exactly that made it so disappointing from this point onwards. Perhaps the gang splitting up or the rather horrifically done Leia death scene. I know they didn’t really have much choice with what footage they had but having watched each member of the original trio died, this death was devoid of emotion and predictable. And she died to make Kylo Ren hesitate for one moment. What a waste!

Then the pointless force ghosts! Seeing Luke was nice but it felt like he was just there to add clunky explanation since the plot made so little sense at this point. And when Han appeared, I actually laughed. It was so inconsistent with the tone of the film and he appeared all while Kylo Ren was standing in the middle of a stormy sea that he could fall into at any moment, right in the most climactic section of the film, just to have a conversation with the son who killed him! It was the most outrageous example of a fan service cameo that just didn’t assimilate with the rest of the film.

I don’t actually have a problem with Rey Palpatine. If anything, I thought it was really cool she was a Palpatine. I really didn’t want her to be a Skywalker because I felt it would be predictable and repetitive. Her being a Palpatine also sends the message to young viewers that blood relations don’t make a family which I think is very important for children to hear. Honestly, the only problem I have with it is that it means some poor lady had sex with Palpatine. I agree that it was a ridiculous retcon of The Last Jedi but then I didn’t like the reveal about her parents in TLJ anyway because of how it was executed. Another thing that bothers me about it is the utter lack of information we get about Villanelle Rey’s mother. Already we don’t know much about her father other than that he’s Palpatine’s son but with her mother, we get nothing. With Rey having wondered about who her parents were for so long, surely it would make sense for her to want to know more about her mother and maybe even take her surname in place of ‘Palpatine’. I also firmly believe Rey’s mother should have been played by Hayley Atwell because she looks so much like Daisy Ridley. And while Jodie Comer is an amazing actress, I think 1. She deserves a bigger role in the Star Wars franchise and 2. Her casting as Rey’s mother exemplifies Hollywood’s fear of casting older actresses as mothers. A twenty six year old as a mother!?

About Zurii, I always appreciate new female characters in Star Wars and I thought she had a great design. However, it is blatantly clear what her purpose in the film was. It was to stop people calling Poe gay, inserting a female character for one scene (she barely spoke in her other scenes so I’m not counting those) with no backstory of her own, just to prove he is attracted to women. Well, first of all, he can be bi, secondly, that’s not going to stop people shipping Finnpoe at all. I didn’t clock until afterwards when I saw people talking about it online, but it was super problematic to make Poe a former drug dealer. Sure, the only Latino character in this trilogy. Also, it in general complicates the little we know about Poe’s backstory so far.

With Rose, all our worst fears were confirmed. She just wasn’t there. She appeared in a couple of scenes and had some lines but you’d think she was no more than another miscellaneous rebel, no more significant a role than Billie Lourd’s character. Did they really give into the white fanboy pressure? How could they erase Rose when she was such a good character? She was tough and fought strongly for her beliefs, but she was also compassionate, sensitive. Now, I never particularly shipped Finn and Rose in TLJ. I thought it seemed a bit of a rushed romance and Finn didn’t seem that invested in the kiss they shared. However, you can’t just pretend they didn’t kiss in the last film. They interacted a few times but there was no sense of any bond between them. Where there relationship stood was unclear. Were they now a couple or had they had an offscreen conversation where they decided they were better off as friends? Who knows?

And now onto the worst part of the film: Kylo Ren and more specifically that kiss. Gross. Okay, to be clear, I wasn’t entirely opposed to a redemption arc for Kylo Ren. Sure, it would be predictable, but it’s not like Kylo Ren’s crimes are any worse than those of Darth Vader and he was still capable of redemption. I liked Kylo Ren as a villain. He perfectly depicted that type of whiny, entitled white man who we see so commonly in real life, but again, he could have achieved some redemption if it were implemented correctly. What we got in the film was not this. He was still committing genocide at the start and carried out one good deed which was saving the woman he had a crush on. For this one good act, he was entirely forgiven and somehow all of the genocide wasn’t his fault. And he got rewarded with the woman! If anything, I’d call that act selfish since he only wanted to save the woman he liked. Adam Driver did the best he could with it but everything about it was awful. And it was out of character for Rey to kiss him and forgive him. She stabbed him little more than half an hour earlier! At the end of the last film, she slammed a door in his face. It makes no sense to me how she could suddenly be so invested in him becoming a better person. There’s also the fact that wasn’t included in the films that Rey and Kylo Ren are related (aunt and nephew to be exact). I wasn’t aware this was Game of Thrones! And according to Wookiepedia, Rey was 18 at the start of the films and is now 20 whereas Kylo Ren is now 30. A ten year age different would be fine if Rey were older but at this point, the age gap is uncomfortable and very borderline.

If they’re going to make the claim that it wasn’t actually Kylo Ren who was doing the evil deeds but some dark force corrupting him, they should have explained how the mechanism works. At least in the prequels, we got some sense of Anakin slowly being corrupted. To me, it reads like in some horror films when the abusive characters are found to have been possessed by demons or something. It trivializes abuse which is something very real, acting instead as if no abusers can actually be responsible for their actions and it is the cause of some supernatural force instead. I suppose the kiss doesn’t have to mean anything. After all, Leia and Luke kissed in the original trilogy and Finn and Rose kissed and apparently that meant nothing.

I firmly believe the series intended a Finn and Rey romance. Lest we forget The Force Awakens, Finn awkwardly asking Rey if she had a boyfriend. That was clear coding for him having a crush on her. In that film, the two developed such a strong bond, and they have so much more chemistry than Rey and Kylo Ren ever had. All the scenes with Rey and Finn (and Poe) were full of light and emotion. The scene at the end where the three of them hugged was honestly the high point of the film. Now, when I left the cinema, what was plaguing my mind the most was that throughout the film, Finn had a secret he wanted to tell Rey. It was first suggested when they thought they were going to die in the quicksand. “Wait, Rey, I never told you!” It had to be that he loved her. What else could it be? Supposedly, it was that he was force sensitive. I don’t believe that for one second. If he needed to tell her that, why couldn’t Poe be included? And why did he never get the chance to tell her? It was a build-up I got invested in with no payoff. It must have been that he loved her. So, if that was the case, that leaves us with two options. Either there was a Finnrey subplot that got cut but they forgot to cut these scenes out (or simply couldn’t be bothered to), or they thought it would be funny to have the black supposed male lead chasing after the white female lead who didn’t love him back because she was instead in love with the genocidal white villain. I ship Finnrey so much and find the second option so horrific but I wouldn’t put it past the writers. Finn played such a significant role in the first half of the film, as he should since he’s meant to be the male lead in the series, but after that, he was dangerously underutilized. At least the ending where no one ends up with each other is compliant with my headcanon that Rey, Finn and Poe (and I don’t mind Rose being in the mix too) all end up married to each other and adopt a bunch of porgs.

And lastly, the lesbian scene. Pathetic. We don’t know the character names and I can’t even find out who the actresses were that played them. Okay, they kissed which is a pretty big deal (even though kisses apparently mean nothing in Star Wars) and it’s certainly a step forward from the Avengers: Endgame ‘’’’representation’’’’, but it’s still rather useless considering the big deal JJ Abrams made about how there would be representation.

[alwaysbewoke]

alwaysbewoke

dickslapthestate:

ranting-rose:

ittybittykittykisses:

ranting-rose:

vgcgraveyard:

caitallolovesyou:

friendly-neighborhood-patriarch:

lazyhat:

I was pretty skeptical about the figures, since they contradict what I usually hear on the media, so I did a little research. Here’s what I found:  (Sorry this is so US centric)  (I’ll also try to stay close to primary sources as possible)

(http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss6308a1.htm?s_cid=ss6308a1_e)

- the 12 months before taking the survey, an estimated 4.0% of women experienced some form of physical violence by an intimate partner -an estimated 14.2% of women experienced some form of psychological aggression in the 12 months preceding the survey. -*4,774,000 women have been victims of physical violence by intimate partner in the 12 months preceding the survey -*17,091,000 women have been victims of psychological aggression by intimate partner in the 12 months preceding the survey

- the 12 months before taking the survey, an estimated 4.8% of men experienced some form of physical violence by an intimate partner -an estimated 18.0% of men experienced some form of psychological aggression in the 12 months preceding the survey. -*5,452,000 men have been victims of physical violence by intimate partner in the 12 months preceding the survey -*20,471,000 men have been victims of psychological aggression by intimate partner in the 12 months preceding the survey

*Table 6

By the data presented by the Center for Disease Control, out of the estimate of 10,226,000 yearly victims of intimate partner violence, 53.3% of victims where male and 46.6% were female. As for psychological aggression, out of the estimate of 37,562,000 yearly victims, 54.4% were male and 45.5% were female. These statistics would support the claim made in the bottom left.

Now I couldn’t find a primary source for the 70% of DV is initiated by women, but here’s the facts that I found, which may have been interpreted by the people who made this poster:

(http://www.huffingtonpost.com/glenn-sacks/researcher-says-womens-in_b_222746.html) -Women who were in a battered women’s shelter, 67% of the women reported severe violence toward their partner in the past year.

This can be interpreted as “67% of violent couples with IPV is mutual”. But then again, primary sources and full data would be helpful to back up this claim.

But the one that is most interesting is:(http://psychnews.psychiatryonline.org/newsArticle.aspx?articleid=111137)(Another report analysis from the CDC)

-23.9% of relationships are violent -50.3% of IPV is non-reciprocal and 49.7% is reciprocal (Reciprocal IPV= Mutual violence) -70.7% of non-reciprocal IPV is initiated by women. 

So summing up the numbers, it’s not that 70% of all DV is initiated by women, its that 70% of non-reciprocal DV is initiated by women. To go further would say that 49.7% of DV is mutual, 36.2% of DV is initiated by women, and 14.5% of DV is initiated by men

Male victims of domestic violence are real. They are hurting. And they often don’t get the attention and compassion they so urgently deserve and need.

Have a heart. Open your mind, and give a care.

Hm. These numbers are all so different to anything I’ve seen before. I’m reblogging and liking this both for my own reference and to spread these numbers to others. I’m definitely gonna look into this and see if I can find more sources and more information.

Mother fuckers can we all just say let’s not be dicks to our fucking love ones already?

Tagging this for my speech project that I need the sources for

Here are 221 studies on IPV / DV for y’all.

You are a life saver.

That list is good, but outdated.  I e-mailed the researcher who compiled that list a couple weeks ago and he gave me three different documents.  I uploaded them to this dropbox folder. You can go there and download them.

The list of studies is now up to 343 scholarly investigations (270 empirical studies and 73 reviews). Not only did he send me that list, but he also sent me two meta-studies (also in the dropbox folder).  One is on male/female perpetration rates and the other is on male/female victimization rates. 

There is also “Rates of Bi-directional versus Uni-directional Intimate Partner Violence Across Samples, Sexual Orientations, and Race/Ethnicities: A Comprehensive Review“.  It’s a mouthful to be sure. Basically this study took the data from 48 other empirical studies, collated the data, placed it online for public viewing, submitted it for peer review, and was found to be accurate. 

It’s findings basically wind down to this:

84% of relationships are non-violent

58% of relationships that are violent, both partners abuse the other.

28% of violent relationships only the woman is violent

14% of violent relationships only the man is violent.

This is featured Partner Abuse State of Knowledge Project website and is part of a much larger DV research project.  You can read the summarized findings here or take a gander at the full 61-page review.  This is a compilation of the research of Erin Pizzey, Murray Strauss, Don Dutton, and many others who are challenging the feminist model of patriarchal dominance. They also have some videos that are very informative as well.

Murray Strauss also compiled: Thirty Years of Denying the Evidence on Gender Symmetry in Partner Violence: Implications for Prevention and Treatment.  A report detailing the existence of over 200 studies showing gender symmetry in victimization rates. Studies that show symmetry going as far back as 1975.  He also examines the methods feminist researchers have used to suppress the evidence from public discourse, hence the title “Thirty Years of Denying the Evidence”.

Two other excellent and brief videos on the topic come from the MenAreGood YouTube channel:

Male Victims of Domestic Violence - The Hidden Story

Bias Against Men and Boys in Mental Health Research

I really need to write up a solo reference post for domestic violence data…

so what do we have here? what i’ve been saying forever. women as initiators of domestic violence is one of the biggest, closely guarded secret around. we literally had female FEMINIST researchers hiding evidence. FEMINISTS!! but i’m the bad guy for stating that feminism is filled with man hatred. what would you say of men of who information about abuse women and thus allowed the abuse to continue? YOU FUCKING KNOW EXACTLY WHAT YOU’D SAY!! am i surprised by the research? no fucking way. we don’t teach women in society to not hit men. we only teach men to not hit women. for little boys on up we are shamed if we even defend ourselves if little girls hit us BUT NOT ONE TIME HAVE I EVER HEARD OR SEEN ANY PARENT TEACHING THEIR LITTLE OR DAUGHTER THAT THEY SHOULD NOT HIT MEN!! we always make excuses for it. “she was emotional” “he said…” “he did…” “he had it coming…” and more. this research is fantastic but let’s be honest, this post isn’t going to get many reblogs at all because most of y'all are married to the idea that women are angels and men are devils. women have no agency and are always victims of men. that only men hit and women never hit. only men can be abusers and women can never be abusers. no amount of research is going to change your minds. men have done some evil shit but i so sick and tired of this narrative that women are just innocent, perfect deities. IF SHE HITS YOU ONCE, LEAVE HER ASS QUICK!!! IF SHE DID IT ONCE, SHE’LL FUCKING DO IT AGAIN!! GUARANTEED. and one more thing, FUCK FEMINISM. hiding empirical data but standing on your high horse preaching gender equality?! fuck feminism. so fucking glad i ceased to be a fucking feminist years ago. eye wide fucking open now.

sinjia

Thank you @alwaysbewoke !!! And did you know that there are feminists on here sending hate mail just because you don’t agree with them? It’s fucking sad, but I’m so happy that you said this. It lets me know that I’m not the only one realizing the shady bullshit that they preach but never practice themselves.

alwaysbewoke

i’ve only known one feminist who was on the right side of this issue and she was so because she works in the domestic violence field as a counselor. she told me she sees it all the time. men get hit, have things thrown at them, women come at them with knives, scratches on their faces and everything and yet we never talk about it. never. the only people who we pounce on for dv are men. we never ever talk about women. never ever. and if you do, you get shouted down. fuck all that.

this is why many men when they hear “feminism” they think “ok that means i get to hit back now.” because we’re tired of the bullshit. we’re tired of women getting away with hitting because society AND FEMINISM tells them it’s fine. it’s okay. they’re allowed. feminism PROTECTS FEMALE ABUSERS ALL DAY!! my goodness. to hide evidence as a researcher is akin to a crime. the ripple affect of that shit is fucking insane. however let them tell it, it’s a problem with men that we think feminism has a man hatred problem. yea the problem is with us because feminism is perfect. feminism ain’t never do no shit, no wrong ever. srsly fuck feminism. fuck it to the depths of hell.

this is why i tell people, dealing with only ONE half of a problem will only allow the problem to continue to exist. it doesn’t change shit. if anything it makes things worse.

racist, sexist feminism. fuck off. i spit on feminism every fucking chance i get. first they fuck over black women (and black men) and then they fuck over men with this type of bullshit. i refuse to align myself with that fuckery. i can help black women much better without it. i don’t need to be a part of something that hates me both as a man and as a black person to help sistas get equal pay and shit. fuckouttahere.

that’s why i call out all these people still posting pics and riding for solange knowles. imagine if i was posting pics and niceties for ray rice. but when women do some violent bullshit, we stay given them a pass smfh. 

[bootymacaroni]

Colorism: Anti-blackness in the Black Community

Racism is something that there is no hiding it still very prominent in the world today. Black folx and POC do not face the same burdens as our ancestors, but there seems to be this notion among Black Americans that we must be black before anything else. We must carry the burdens of our past on our backs even if we are not still facing the same burdens as those that fought for use to have the life and privileges that we have now.  

We all know that know that racism is real, alive and sadly apart of our “American Culture”, but what no one seems to want to talk about or admit to being a real thing is that anti-blackness and racism in the Black Community. 

Colorism or shadeism is a real problem, not only here in America, but also in Latin America, East & Southeast Asia, the Caribbean, and Africa. 

Outside of the US, colorism is seen more from a class perspective than White Supremacy, White skin was seen as superior due to the ruling classes at the time having lighter complexions. Peasants developed tans from working outside, and because of this, having light skin meant you were able to receive employment opportunities, while their darker counterparts did not.

In order to even begin fighting against colorism, we need to first define it, it’s origins and its history. 

For starters, colorism has been around since as early as 1619, but back then it was more commonly referred to as colorphobia or “Negreophobia”. It wasn’t until Alice Walker,  an American novelist, short story writer, poet, and social activist best known for her publication for the novel “The Color Purple”, was credited for being the first to use the word colorism. Walker defined colorism as, the prejudicial or preferential treatment of the same race of people based solely on their skin tone. 

There is no denying that colorism originates as lighter skin tones being more favorable than darker skin tones. Colorsim began because during slavery times, light skinned slaves had the privilege of working doing domestic tasks, while dark skinned slaves worked in the fields. Light skinned children were not acknowledged as the offspring their slave owners, which still lead to them being treated better than darker skinned slaves. This meant that light skin was considered to be an asset in the Black Community. 

In the 19th and 20th centuries, the “Paper Bag Test” was introduced in order to see if you were going to be permitted into special social clubs for those considered to be “free slaves”. A paper bag was placed up to your skin and if you were the same color of the paper bag or lighter you were granted access to the spaces and were considered for hire. If you were darker, you were not granted access and looked over for hire. 

Colorism also stemmed from the fact that black slaves were not allowed to be educated. This lead to black individuals believing that having an education was “anti-black”. Many believed that “schools and blacks don’t go together”. Many black kids were teased and mocked for “acting white” because they were viewed as thinking they were better than their peers. Kids were sought out and asked to spell words or answer math questions and if they answered correctly they were beaten up. Gifted black students had to choose between peer acceptance or intellectual achievements. Most chose acceptance. This is why many believed that kids didn’t do well in school. 

Along with all of this, the black community struggles with internalized racism. Internalized racism or internalized oppression is a conscious or unconscious acceptance of racial hierarchy in which whites are constantly ranked above POC. This can be shown by having beliefs in racist stereotypes, adaptations of white cultural standards, and thinking that supports the status quo ( denying that racism exists ). 

Because of this internalized racism, black women, more commonly dark skinned black women, are seen as incapable of processing information, thinking or succeeding independently, are unintelligent, undesirable or beautiful, need to be dominated or “tamed”, and are constantly talked down upon and insulted, and because of this white skin became greatly desired. 

White skin was so coveted that skin lighten creams are some of the best selling products in the US, Asia, and many other Nations. 

None of this is a secret when it comes to the history of dark skinned black women, but still more knowledge, understanding, compassion and acknowledgment are needed around these subjects and they pertain to dark skinned black women and the racism and colorsim they have faced for decades and still continue to have to deal with today. 

With that being said, there is another aspect of colorism we still need to face because too many in the black community either think it is not a thing, or do not wish to believe it is a real problem and that is the black eraser of light skinned blacks. 

Creoles in Louisiana were told “You’re too white to be black and you’re too black to be white”. We are all aware that racial features play power roles in who gets ahead in the world and who does not. These factors determine who gets hired, who gets convicted and who get elected. We still can not separate these very painful stereotypes of colorism from misogyny, mostly because of the fundamental fact that light skinned blacks heritage in the US stems from the practice of sexual slavery, sexual abuse, and sexual exploitation in American Slavery. Because so many slave owners were having offspring that were still considered slaves, rules such as the One Drop Rule were put into place. The One Drop Rule stated that if even one of distant relative was black, you were black, or at the very least “definitely not white”. 

There seems to be this notion that a light skinned black is somehow not black, but at the same time they are not white? So what are they? I have been told many times that I have to refer to myself as mixed, I’m not allowed to identify as black, but that I have to refer to myself as bi-racial. Yes, I am bi-racial, meaning i am 2 races, black and white, I am both, and at the same time neither. When it comes to mixed black individuals they are looked down on by those that, don’t suffer the same plight as, but understand the harsh situation because they suffer their in the own way. There seems to be this century long pissing contest to see who will win the most oppressed Olympics and its disheartening to see that after all theses years we as a community can not word to dismantle this internalized racism. 

Dark skinned black folx and light skinned black folx do not suffer in the same ways, but they should acknowledge the suffering of each other. The more we a divided among ourselves the harder it is going to be for us to actual heal, and grow. We as a whole need to work together to dismantle colorism before it destroys us. 

The following are ways that we can work to dismantle colorism:

1. SELF: Do you show preference? Do you assign hierarchy to skin tone?

Work on your own self hate

Be mindful of your reactions

Take pride in people that look like you

Mourn how you have been treated

Acknowledge your privilege

2. Family, Infant & Colorist Language

Do not make comments on your infants hair texture. Refrain from comments like “I hope their hair isn’t nappy” or “I hope you get your moms straight hair”

Do not make comments about your infants nose. A large nose is seen as “too African”. There have been studies that have shown mothers pinching the bridge of their babies nose in order to make it smaller.

It is a well ingrained belief that the ears, knuckles and knees are the areas that are strong indicators of how dark your child will turn out. “I hope he doesn’t get too dark“

3. Family & Colorist Language:

We can actively check the members of our family for their use of colorist language. “My sister is beautiful the way she is. Saying she is pretty for a dark skinned girl is hurtful”, “Kinky hair is great hair. Texture is normal. White/Latin/Asian parents, do not lose your composure when doing your child’s hair. Watch some tutorials if you are struggling. Speak up and protect even if you are scared you will meet resistance. 

4. Men. Black men have no idea how painful it is to men and women when they scan a room and make it obvious that their choices are based on colorism. 

Acknowledge your privilege in this area. Men carry the bulk of the power in maintaining colorism inside the community. No matter how many times the womanists may clap back, most black women who want a black man as a lover/life partner/husband, seek to be considered desirable to the men in their culture. The rejection by men because of the womans’ hue is most painful. While it is not fair that colorism was handed down to men, a contribution towards dismantling it will go a long way - for generations to come.  Avoidance of a woman for the concern of how the children will come out is akin to eugenics.

5. Church If possible, ask the pastor if you can read these solutions to the congregation. 

6. Young Children

Control the TV to the best of your ability for your younger children so that they don’t internalize colorist messages. Small children are impacted by pictures more than words. Images on TV permeate so powerfully tot he point that black children continue to view a white person’s image as superior to that of a black person’s image. 

7. Children

Teach boys not to assign girls value based on color hierarchy. Girls are more like to be on the receiving end of being permanently placed on colorist base hierarchy. 

Teach girls not to make fun of dark skinned boys. We cannot afford anymore Tommy Sotomayors. We owe it to the next generation. 

Teach boys and girls about colorism and how to not use colorist language. 

8. Rich Black Hollywood/Alanta

They have the power and money to produce films and cast any way they wish. Let them know that there is no need to pander and beg for casting and EGAT awards. Produce and lead. Issa Rae has already demonstrated that content is king, no matter the medium

9. Employment

Employment law is indeed on the side of stamping out colorism. It can’t be denied that lawsuits are correcting colorism in the workplace. Nothing can put cooperate America in its place more than a lawsuit. It’s well known that companies actually have to abide by protected class laws and protect black people from discrimination experienced in the workplace not only from white people but also from black people. 

“In short, radical protest through calling out the perpetrators of colorism is necessary. We may lose some friendships but it will be worth it for subsequent generations to not being raised with self-revulsion and to heal. We need to do this in order to better our communities and ourselves.” - Suzanne Forbes-Vierling

[polyamorouspixie]

"don't be so judgemental!"

I often see a debate of whether or not Unicorn Hunters should be criticised, and the defence of them usually goes like this: "there are different ways to be poly, just because they want something different to you doesn't mean you should judge them"

As anyone who has read any of my blog posts knows, criticising Unicorn Hunters is part of my daily routine. I think, not just as a poly person but as moral human, that it is important to accept relationships that are different to your own but only when those relationships are healthy for all involved partners. I don't respect a relationship in which one partner hits the other to end an argument; I don't support teachers dating their students; I will stand up and criticise when someone uses threats of self harm to control their partner.

I criticise Unicorn Hunting because it's so common, and also:

-it's almost guaranteed to go wrong. Whether it be long frustrating periods of failure at online dating, absolutely ruining a friendship, or a falling out so large it destroys the original couple as well, UH just about never ends in the happy domestic bliss the couple seek. Don't learn the hard way when there's resources out there to help you avoid it.

-it makes us poly people look bad. UHs love interacting with monogamous people; a large number of them seek only mono bi women, and then those women start to think that poly = boundary overstepping predator. I'm sick of being told I'm a creep just for being poly because the only poly people they've met have thoroughly creeped them out.

-UHs seek out women who have minimal or no experience with non-monogamy, often younger than themselves, and then put those women into a situation where they have less power constantly--they're outnumbered, the UHs invite the U into their home and can kick her out again, the U has to hide her entire relationship from everyone. Chances are the original couple have a pact that if the U threatens their relationship, or she gets feelings for someone outside the triad, they'll just dump her. The Unicorn is so vulnerable for emotional abuse, intentional or not, that I would always advise her to run as fast as her glittery hooves can carry her. In a triad that came from a couple, couple privilege doesn't have to be a problem, but UHs refuse to acknowledge it and that's where the problem is.

-UHs are so naïve to polyamory. And that's okay, we were all new once. But when I was new, I sought out resources from people who had been doing this for a long time. If you go around deciding you know everything three minutes after you discovered the idea, you're going to make mistakes--and people are going to want to help you avoid that.

The short answer is, the criticism of Unicorn Hunting is so intense because those of us with experience want to protect the new-to-poly couples, the women they target, and our reputation outside of our community from serious, long lasting harm. It's not about being judgy, it's about seeing someone about to get hit in the face and telling them to duck.

[cracked-egg-placeholder-blog]

a currently untitled fic that may or may not officially be posted

It was a soft night. Warm, slightly humid, but not uncomfortably so. A faint breeze rustled the branches of a nearby tree, adding to the chorus of chirping crickets and the muffled sounds of the city.

Catherine of Aragon watched as a few stray leaves were caught and swept up gracefully by the wind. She absentmindedly picked at the peeling paint adorning the bench she was sitting on. Soft rays of sunlight still clung to the horizon, creating streaks of orange and pink. It made her think back to her past life, of standing on a stone balcony and viewing the night skies. They had been clearer back then.

She was interrupted from her thoughts by a brief commotion inside, voices filled with exasperation and annoyance drifting through the closed door. She sighed and leaned her head back, relaxing her neck, just as the front door burst open and a flustered Anne Boleyn stepped out. She took a step and then, after noticing Catherine sitting there, paused, an air of curiosity about her.

“Hey...what are you doing out here?” Anne said, cocking her head to the side.

“Just enjoying the fresh air.” Catherine said lightly, tilting her head back up to look at the other woman, “You?” Anne lifted a black garbage bag.

“Trash duty.” She said dolefully, before staring daggers at the door. “It was supposed to be Anna’s turn, but she’s currently washing the dishes so Jane made me do it.” Catherine snorted but didn’t respond. Anne fidgeted awkwardly for a moment, but after realizing the conversation was over, she quickly hoisted the large garbage bag up again and marched dutifully towards the bins lined up by the alleyway just left of their property.

Catherine tilted her head back again, closing her eyes this time and enjoying the calmness that washed over her. When the sound of Anne’s footsteps grew closer again, Catherine opened her eyes and turned her head to follow the other woman’s path back up to the porch. Anne didn’t make eye contact. As she reached a hand forward towards the door handle, an unprovoked thought sprung to Catherine’s mind.

“Why don’t you talk about her?” She asked evenly. Anne paused, her hand hovering over the doorknob. She hesitantly looked over at Catherine.

“Sorry?”

“Why don’t you talk about her?” Catherine repeated, rolling her eyes. “About Elizabeth?” Anne stiffened slightly at the name, eyebrows knitting together.

“I...I’m confused.” Anne’s voice wavered slightly. Catherine huffed, rolling her eyes once more.

“For fuck’s sake, Anne, can you be anymore thick-headed?” Catherine griped, “I mean, why do you never talk about your daughter? I talk about Mary all the time, and even Cath and Jane talk about their kids, despite barely knowing them. Why do you never talk about Elizabeth? She’s like, one of the most influential women in history, that seems like the exact kind of thing you would brag about. So why not?” Anne opened her mouth, then closed it again, then opened it, then sighed.

“I…” She started, but quickly backtracked, closing her mouth again, and looking away from Catherine. Catherine’s eyebrows shot up to her hairline.

“What’s the matter?” She snipped, “Cat got your tongue?” Anne bristled at this, turning back to Catherine, her eyes flashing.

“Why do you care?” Anne snapped back, “It doesn’t affect you, does it?” Catherine sucked in a sharp breath, slightly taken aback by Anne’s sudden outburst. Then she shrugged nonchalantly.

“I dunno,” She sniffed. “I guess it’s just always bothered me. You talk about yourself all the time.” Catherine snorted, “Actually, you talk in general all the time. Why don’t you talk about her?” Anne’s jaw flexed. Catherine could hear her breathe in deeply through her nose from all the way across the porch. After a moment of hesitation, Catherine sighed and patted the open spot beside her on the bench. Anne’s jaw clenched tighter. Then she rolled her eyes (an exceedingly common occurrence between the two of them, it seemed) and reluctantly trudged over to the bench, plopping down dramatically next to Catherine.

She didn’t speak for a while. It wasn’t until Catherine opened her mouth to make some comment on her silence that Anne finally spoke.

“I feel bad.”

“What?” Catherine was so startled by Anne’s answer she almost laughed. Anne sighed, then leaned back, clasping her hands in her lap.

“I feel bad.” She repeated. “I feel bad because I got to spend at least a few years with her before…” She trailed off, making a slicing motion over her throat. “Jane and Cath didn’t get that chance. I…” She hesitated. “Every time I mentioned something Lizzie did when she was a child...I don’t know...Jane always gets this faraway look in her eyes and gets really quiet, and Cath leaves the room. I just feel bad that I got to experience something they didn’t.” Anne shrugged uncomfortably. Catherine’s eyebrows knitted together slightly. She thought about all the times she had gushed about Mary, without even noticing Jane’s or Cath’s reactions.

“Yeah but, that doesn’t mean you can’t talk about her?” Catherine frowned.

“Well yeah, but that’s not the only thing.” Anne laughed humorlessly, rubbing her face with her hands. “Because then I feel bad about you.” Catherine stiffened, confused.

“Why?”

“Because…” Anne bit her lip, avoiding Catherine’s gaze. “Well, because...you know…” Anne fidgeted in her seat. “I’m proud of Lizzie. So fucking proud. Like, she did so much, and no matter how much history tried to dismiss her as a bastard child or witch’s daughter,” Anne paused slightly, her face souring at her own words. “She still managed to become one of the most influential queens in history. She did so much good. And at the end of the day, she got out of it with a good legacy. I feel bad because…” She hesitantly looked up at Catherine, then back down at the ground, “because history wasn’t as kind to Mary. She’s remembered for...well, you know...” Anne gestured vaguely, shifting uncomfortably in her seat. “Bloody Mary.” She finished lamely. Catherine sucked in another sharp breath, eyes flashing dangerously, a fire burning in her chest as she opened her mouth to respond.

“Jesus, what is your problem?” She spat back, cheeks flushed with anger. “Do you ever think before you say anything?” Anne shrunk back, before huffing angrily.

“What? You wanted to know? Now you know. Next time maybe you’ll keep your nose out of other people’s business!”

“Well sorry that I cared enough to ask! Remind me to let you wallow in self-pity next time!” Catherine yelled, and Anne sat back, lips drawn up in a strange sort of scowl.

“Don’t pretend like you care,” Anne said darkly. “Don’t fucking pretend like you care. You have hated me since the beginning, just for EXISTING. So don’t fucking pretend like you care.” Tears of anger and frustration were welling up in her eyes. Catherine stopped at that. Then blinked. Then opened her mouth to respond. Then blinked again.

“I…I do care, Anne.” Catherine felt her expression soften. Anne swiped angrily at the tears forming. “Maybe not...then. But I do now.”

“Yeah well,” Anne laughed bitterly, “It’s not like it matters.” Catherine felt the anger rise up inside her again, but she forced herself to respond evenly.

“In my defence, you were kind of shitty back then.” Anne snorted.

“Wow,” She rolled her eyes. “Thanks.” Catherine raised her eyebrows.

“I’m not going to give you a free pass just because it was five centuries ago. As much as I disliked Henry towards the end of our marriage, he was still my husband.” Catherine couldn’t help but let her voice slip towards a slightly accusatory tone, “You convinced him to get a divorce, married him, and sent me to a nunnery.” She snorted. “You wore yellow to my funeral.” Anne was quiet for a while. She had turned her head towards the street, her neck twisting just so, so that Catherine could catch a glimpse of the thick, red scar encircling Anne’s neck.

“I didn’t want to marry him,” Anne said finally, in a quiet voice.

“You...didn’t?” Catherine cocked her head to the side. Anne turned back to her.

“Nope.” She shook her head. “I mean, sure. What noblewoman doesn’t humour the idea of marrying true royalty? But c’mon, he was like a decade older than me.” She snorted. “I can recognize a creep when I see one.” Catherine stiffened at that.

“You know, he wasn’t so bad.” She murmured, almost to herself. It was Anne’s turn to stiffen up.

“Actually, yeah, he was.” Anne looked at her sharply. “He emotionally abused all of us. He was a shitty husband, a shitty king, and a shitty person.” Catherine rolled her eyes for the hundredth time.

“Goddammit Anne, do you ever shut up?” Anne flinched slightly.

“Sorry.” Her apology actually seemed genuine, so Catherine dropped it.

“I meant like before we married. And even a few years after. He was...classically charming.” Catherine smiled slightly at the memories. “I think that was before he realized his true power as king, and the...liberties it gave him.” Anne snorted.

“Cool backstory. Still a prick.” She paused, then looked Catherine directly in the eyes. “And anyway, I didn’t convince him to do any of that shit. Also...for the record?”

“Hm?”

“The whole...wearing yellow to your funeral? It wasn’t intentional.” Anne said sheepishly. Catherine tilted her head in confusion.

“What do you mean?”

“Yellow is the colour of mourning in Spain, yeah?”

“Yes.” Catherine’s eyes widened slightly. “Did you…?”

“Yeah. Henry, of course, thought it was out of spite, and went along with it. But it wasn’t my intent to spite you.” Anne shrugged. “I wanted to pay respects as honestly as possible. I guess that was just the only way I knew how.” Catherine looked out to the street, leaning back on the bench.

“Huh.” She grinned after a while. “Well damn.” Anne grinned back. Then, after a moment of silence, she slowly got up.

“I’m going to go back inside. Care to join?” Anne offered her a hand. Catherine stared at it for a moment, the smiled slightly but shook her head.

“No, I think I’m going to wait out here a bit longer.” She said firmly, although not unkindly. Anne nodded, retracting her hand and moving towards the door. “Oh, and Anne?” Anne paused, looking back at her.

“Yes?”

“Don’t tell anyone the truth about wearing yellow to my funeral.” She winked, resting her chin in her hand. “It’s funnier that way.” Anne smiled widely.

“Okay.”