#and that misogynistic ideology can be used to appeal to men even when they are marginalized themselves

[lockedtombbrainworms]

Oh no a big long politics post that's only tangentially related to what I'm here to post about!

The realisation that there are actually terfs in the locked tomb fandom, who know the books well enough to have actually engaged in some level of analysis of them as texts, is fucking terrifying to me. I should've realised they'd be here, they're everywhere now, but like, it really sucks. Lemme explain... Ten years ago, when I was a recently-out trans woman, I was a lot less afraid of terfs in fandom spaces because they were just another kind of weird internet bigot, like the homophobes and the misogynist nerd bros. They could be a threat, sure, but they were the sort of threat you had a much better chance of avoiding. Now their movement has gained the sort of political traction where they're actually impacting policy and having a tangible negative effect on trans people offline and in the wider online world, the idea of having them in a social space with me fills me with actual fucking dread. I'm no stranger to fighting these fuckers, I've counter-protested them with my friends and my comrades, met them in the street when they came to my town and said "not here or anywhere, not now or ever". I'm not coming from the perspective of someone who thinks terfs are these incomprehensible eldritch horrors that will rend me asunder without me being able to do anything about it. I'm just pissed off because I don't like having to watch out for terfs in my fucking downtime when I'm on tumblr reading about my fucking blorbos and their gay little adventures with swords and necromancy.

Drive that shit out. Stand together and don't let your friends slide down the rabbit hole. The terf ideology is melding with the far right and it's not just trans people they've got their sights on. They're after all of us, and they try to pick people off and radicalise them against the rest of us, because if we're divided we don't stand together against them and they can run right over us.

I've been seeing this shit for ten years and it isn't always the cartoonishly obvious fuckery like "hey, the trans movement is making my daughter think she's a boy, how disgusting".

It starts with trying to demonise queers for anything - for the way we dress, the way we act, the way we talk, the way we fuck, the way we love. It works its way in through feminism, by saying "how dare these gay men make a mockery of womanhood through drag and then expose our children to such misogyny", or "how can you support women selling their bodies in the sex industry by suggesting sex workers should organise and work together to keep themselves safe".

They try coming in through leftist ideology like "how dare these transsexuals complain about being misgendered at work or raise money for something as bourgeois as cosmetic surgery when there are real working-class people who can't even pay their rent". They try and launder their ideas through appeals to reactionary tendency like "aren't polyamorous people just a bit... weird? Look at all these horror stories you hear of people turning a polycule into a miniature cult, surely that can't be good!". They appeal to your inner prude, "kink is weird and violent and how can people consent to that? Hey, don't you think these queers might be a bit dangerous? Look what they get off to!".

All that shit is leading you astray. Stop caring so much what other people do. Stop inventing convoluted justifications for pouncing on your fellow queers by playing 5D chess to come up with a way to explain that actually, a man dyeing his hair pink is doing misogynist violence and therefore you have to write 10,000 words online about him. Get out there. Find the people near you who are making the world a better place, who are running food banks and soup kitchens and homeless shelters and clothes exchanges and support groups and whatever else is out there and GET INVOLVED. If you can't physically go out there, see what logistical support those organisations need that you can do from home. Fuck, knit hats to keep people warm. Just do something.

It'll feel weird. You'll see some shit that'll absolutely smash your beliefs about how everyone outside of your little bubble is evil. Some 75 year old boomer will say the most radical shit you've ever heard about solidarity between oppressed people. The crustiest middle-aged cishet punk dude you'll ever meet will go on a drunken rant about how cool his trans friends are and how he wishes he could help them more. You'll think you're a lesbian and then suddenly you'll kiss this dude you met at a punk show that your buddies from the food bank took you to, because you liked the look in his eyes when the band played a song about queer joy and resistance and tearing down borders. Weird shit will happen to you and it'll be great.

This was about the locked tomb fandom at first I promise. It's turned into the post I always end up making on every social media platform I end up on, which is "I'm getting too Online because of this platform and I'm not gonna be around as much, you should try that maybe"

[katyspersonal]

because blorbos are for the girlies and waifus are for smelly men... or something like that idk

i just dont really like how some people convinced themselves their way of enjoying characters is better than that of others

i'd even go as far as to say some of thrm are just as shallow in their treatment of the charas they claim to treat better but thats another story

Hmmm... Very good take, anon. You nailed it. Poor Maria is basically a mascot of more shallow and toxic type of fans - they will think that "unlike us filthy misogynists" they AAAAACTUAAAAALY respect her... only to completely ignore her nuances as a complicated and tragic character and simplify her to angry, rude, badass woman that enjoys killing and being a bitch to all men but girlies are good. Like, okay, if all you can say about the character is how much she loves women and murder, and all you can draw for her is her smooching Adeline with a lesbian flag background - sorry, but this is ALSO pretty simple. This is ALSO one-dimensional, same as some gamer bros drooling about how much of a 'waifu' she is and not being able to draw anything of her besides horny fanart with her clothes being skin-tight so we all can see her boobies and oddly thin waist or something.

And yes, when you figure that the ONLY rebuttal they can use against the accusation of being simple AS WELL with their vision is 'well but [demographics] is not oppressed and horny gamers from reddit are worse just because they're cis het men lmaoooo 😭😭😭' - you also figure the problem. That they make it about ideology and some sort of activism, revealing that they do not care about "respecting the complexity of the character". They are very much okay with character being simplified and not explored past like 1 trait (2 if they are feeling REALLY generous)... but only as long as the way to simplify the character itself matches THEIR tastes. Reducing character's entire personality to masculinity and sexuality good!!! Reducing character's entire personality to being a potentially good gf/wife and sexual appeal bad!!!

No, you are not "respecting the character". You are doing feminism activism in front of my salad the fandom, which is a place for ALL types of fans to go to, and ALL takes to be shared. The only requirement to be part of the fandom is to be a fan of the source material - in it's entirety or a part of it!

_________________

At the end of the day, there is nothing criminal in simplifying the characters. I am not a fan of one-dimensional takes myself - I like to deep dive and analyse the characters, I like seeing every single corner of their life and personality and purpose in overall lore! I like complexity and various aspects of the characters shown, not only one side of them! I can be bitter in my own autistic way, but it is about preference, there is no point to be made about who is "right" and who is "wrong" in how they treat fictional characters. They are not real and do exist for our entertainment and happiness FIRST of all - whatever makes the person happy. Just like how I get sorta bitter when people draw Malenia with huge honkers and thin build - but I will also be bitter if Micolash is prettyfied (I mean the ingame status quo, he could have looked prettier when he was healthier). But do I also think artists are allowed to invest their time and effort in what they personally enjoy, without hassling over "respecting canon"? Of course!

The sentiments can coexist. They SHOULD coexist, in fact. Not having an opinion and preference and equally liking everything is probably not a good sign... unless you are a fan of a character so rarely acknowledged that you do love anything at ALL about them, ahahahah. Someone's way of enjoying the character is not "better" only by the virtue of being more representative or canon-accurate - objectively. It comes down to preference. What I love about us Mico simps a lot, actually, is that those of us that prefer canon Micolash in all his ugly, hideous, sickly glory is that we do not make it out to be some loud political statement, accusing artists of "lookism" or "ableism" or literally... anything you could pull out of the fact that a dude that looks like a corpse got a makeover fsdhfsdh Get creative! Maria fans can get creative with seeing "misogyny" and "dyke-hating" in the places where it doesn't exist! So, let's also use our imagination.... NOT!!!

We just pout and say 'you are not REAL fan' as a joke. It is always. just. a joke. The more avid fans of iconic female Soulsborne characters should learn from us to own up for their subjective preferences instead of starting weird ideological fight over whatever lady they claimed THIS time.

[aro-with-bad-aim]

currently trying to revise for an exam on othello and there is a lot of simularities between roderigo and iago and the whole "alpha/ sigma male" attitudes. Roderigo can be interpreted as a guy with a lot of unrequited love ("I confess it is my shame to be so fond, but it is not my virtue to amend it" 1.3), and hes not feeling great about it ("I will incontinentally drown myself" 1.3). However, in comes Iago, with seemingly all the solutions to his problems. He gives roderigo a scapegoat (cassio and othello) and manipulates roderigo into hating anyone who gets in his (iago's) way ("by heaven, I rather would have been his hangsman" 1.1). Its very similar to the way alpha male influencers work: they prey on the vulnerable and lonely, give them a 'solution' to their problems and make them hate whichever person or group of people to benefit the influencer (usually women, immigrants, etc).

Iago constantly pushes a similar misogynistic sentiments to what modern 'alpha male influencers' push. He tells emelia and desdemona that women "rise to play and go to bed to work" (2.1) and says that the perfect womens role is "to sucke fools and chronicle small beer" (2.1), meaning be a mother and a housewife. He also treats his wife awfully, calling her "a good wench" (3.3) when she does what he asks, and defaulting to calling her "foolish wife" (3.3). even emelia comments on it, telling desdemona that "they (men, husbands, etc) eat us hungrily, and when they are full, they belch us" (3.4), showing how iago uses his wife without a second thought. Iago also puts forward racist ideas as well with how he refers to othello, often using dehumanising language when referring to him, such as "a black ram is tupping your white ewe" (1.1). In a similar way, modern 'alpha male influencers' push this kind of hateful retoric, manipulating their audiences to replicate it.

Theres also the emphasis on money. Iago tells roderigo to "put money in thy purse" to appeal to desdamona. he tells him to send her "jewels" through him (which he just keeps). Its the idea that money and surface level things are what keep relationships going; that all women value is money and an attractive appearance; the backbone of the finance bros and the 'lookmaxxers' (i hate that ive had to use that word). Iago also pushes this idea, telling roderigo that "it cannot be that desdamona should long continue her love to the moor" (1.3) and that "she must change for youth; when she is sated with his body, she will find the error of her choice" (1.3), interlacing every statement with "put money in thy purse". its almost overwhelming, the constant pushing of 'alpha male' ideology, the repetition of "put money in thy purse". It leaves no room to think, it offers a straightforward explanation and solution and moves so fast that you dont have time to question it, too caught up in the surface level façade of logic in their logical fallacies (think of people like ben shapiro). Iago cant comprehend that desdamona and othellos marriage is equal and based on love, seeing it as equally shallow as his own. as a modern day viewer there are obvious criticisms/ questions about the age gap between desdemona and othello, however the ethical implications of their relationship arent really what iago was referring to.

and whats the gain from all this (besides pushing their own hateful values)?. "That thou, Iago, who hast my purse/ as if the strings were thine" (roderigo 1.1). Money. Alpha male influencers prey on the vulnerabilities of men to profit off them. It seems like theyve all got a shitty course or a shitty book or a shitty podcast you have to shell out thousands to access, all for a small taste of what 'enlightenment' is. Self actualisation coming at the price of your monthly paycheque. And when youre lonely and desperate, youll take anything. This persons given you a reason for your problems, theyve told you how great you are ("I never found a man that knew how to love himself" 1.3) and is now offering you a step by step guide to be better? why wouldnt you buy it? "O murderous slave! O villain [stabs RODERIGO]" (iago, 5.1). As soon as roderigo is no longer useful, hes thrown away, backstabbed (literally). and its the same with people now who fall victim to those "alpha male" ideologies. they spend so much money on these courses and pretty much ruin their lives in the process. I mean, who willingly chooses to be around an andrew tate stan other than other andrew tate stans? obviously the courses and books and podcasts dont work and youre left feeling lonelier than before, with nothing left but an echochamber for a community, a connection built on repeated slogans and hate. the influencers dont care that the methods their pushing dont work, theyve worked in their benefit, people are talking about them and thats all that matters.

tl;dr: iago is the elizabethan equivilant to andrew tate. stay safe out there, lonely men, hate wont fill that hole in your heart, go start hobbies and find community through whimsy and shared joy

[thehellnoelle]

Reading and listening to trans men/transmascs speak about their experiences with transphobia and misogyny has made me realize a few things about how different kinds of trans people experience their bigotry

Trans woman and transfems seem to generally experience bigotry from outside the queer/trans community. We are targeted and excluded mostly externally by cisgender people who seek to make us look like invaders into woman's spaces and evil predators. We are treated both as taboo sexual objects and dangerous sexual deviants because transphobes only see us as women when they can either get their rocks off by us or sink their hate into our existence. While there has been some discourse about trans women within the queer community (usually by people who spout LGB nonsense, people who participate in trans history erasure, or neoliberal/conservative pick-mes who try to appeal to our oppressors), by and large trans women and transfems are generally accepted within the queer and trans community

Trans men and transmascs seem to generally experience bigotry from inside the community. Some radical feminists believe that trans men are inherently evil and dangerous and should be excluded from communities that not only have they likely been a part of, but have also likely helped build (see my post about transmasc lesbians). While trans men and transmascs can be invalidated in their masculinity by cis people, they generally do not pay much attention towards hating trans men/transmascs because their misogyny sees them as poor victims of "harmful gender ideology," and it's much more vindictive to pursue hating on someone you think is a dangerous predator seeking to encroach on and harm cis women (ie trans women/transfems). This has the side effect of generally erasing conversations about transmasculinity from queer discourse, since transfems and trans women are generally more in the spotlight from bigotry

That's not to say one kind of oppression is worse/more tolerable than another. Misogyny and transphobia are things that by and large, every trans person experiences, because every person under the trans umbrella, by virtue of existing, challenges misogynist worldview. Since trans people exist and are valid, that alone proves there can be no inherent difference between genders/biological sexes. And as such, we are all targets of misogyny, albeit in different ways. No one should play oppression Olympics when it comes to transphobia and misogyny because we all suffer under the systems of oppression

Are trans people capable of projecting these misogynist viewpoints? Sure, just as much as they are capable of projecting other kinds of bigotry. That doesn't make it okay and they should definitely unlearn that harmful rhetoric, but also that doesn't reflect on the community as a whole because we are not and never have been a monolith. Infighting gets us nowhere, especially in the face of the current state of the world

How do we fix it? I don't know, beyond some simple platitudes like "be who you want forever" and "get more woke now." I won't speak for all trans people and I especially won't speak above or for trans men and transmascs. All I will say is that the first step to dismantling systems of oppression is to listen to the oppressed people and believe their experiences. Only then can we build a community that can survive and even thrive in the face of extinction

One of the more interesting side effects of talking about the validity of trans men/transmasc/he/him lesbians is that now my feed is full of posts tagged with #transandrophobia

It's not a tag for me personally, but as long as it's on my feed, I suppose I'll educate myself on the systemic issues facing your part of the community. So thank you trans men and transmascs for being visible and speaking about your experiences

[wizardpink]

Something that has been on my mind is the way that this website is full of people who want to oppose TERFs more than they want to defend trans people and we are never gonna succeed by applying this method.

So many people have taken the stance that all TERFs are wrong about every belief they hold, that anything they say is one slippery slope into Nazism, and that is a fundamental misunderstanding of why TERFs are able to draw people to their side and how it is they operate.

TERFs are dangerous because they will tell you 99 truths to make you believe one lie.

TERFs appeal to potential converts by holding a LOT of the same beliefs and convictions that most of us who fall on the political left and who support social justice movements do.

So when a stealth TERF says something like "makeup bloggers, shady self-care gurus, and tiktok influencers getting plastic surgery who all appeal to one white western beauty standard isn't good for impressionable teens to be consuming constantly," and your response is to reactionarily oppose what they're saying because they're a TERF ala "fuck off, makeup rules and plastic surgery is great," you've fallen for their trap.

Because they've said something relatively sane sounding, and you've made yourself look like the unhinged one with shitty politics. And the person who hasn't been exposed to these TERF talking points and stealth missions, who also feels like maybe being bombarded by shallow looks-obsessed media isn't good for young girls' self-image, has one of two choices: believe what they see right in front of them, or take your word for it that OP is the secret villain and somehow you, who appear to hold the same values as a Fox News host, are right.

Like, some of the takes I have seen people on tumblr promote JUST to oppose a radfem are literally like something straight out of a Republican dude-bro's MAGA reddit channel. Telling women concerned about sexual assault and rape they're being sexist against men. That ANY discussion about patriarchy is transphobic and should be shut down. That all concerns about sexualizing women without their consent, or the role of violence in the porn industry, are just prudish anti-sex propaganda.

We are losing ground by ignoring what WE stand for in favor of only paying attention to what radfems stand for and opposing it. This is the exact tactic we mock Republicans and Democrats for doing, running a campaign based solely on what your opponent is doing wrong without offering any solutions or positions on issues. "TERF bad!" is not an ideology! "Trans people are human beings who deserve the same rights as their cisgender peers," is an ideology.

One thing I love to see is someone finding a good post by a radfem and refusing to engage with it, and potentially spreading OP's blog to more people, and instead making a whole new post with the same point that ISN'T going to potentially lead people down the radfem pipeline. Hell you can even leave a link to the new post in the replies of the original. I know saying "OP is right about this topic but they're a radfem so block them" probably doesn't feel as good as just leaving "die radfem scum" but when the topic is "women should be able to walk alone at night without being afraid" are you really doing a service to our cause by looking like you disagree with that? TERFs WANT to spread the message that trans people and their allies hate cis women and are a danger to them. Don't do their work for them...

It fucking SUCKS playing their game. It feels like being baited into a no-win situation. But making yourself look like a traditional misogynist isn't an L you have to take. There are other approaches.

[sakebytheriver]

Okay.

So to be completely candid and honest with you all, I don't really care too much about this particular twitter drama going on about the left and disaffected white men and boys and how better to appeal to them, I think it's petty and kind of dumb and most of the people weighing in on it are the same that attacked that person for cooking for their neighbors, because ultimately this issue is about being neighborly and about how capitalism has separated all of us, including white men, from our sense of community and building good relationships/allyships with the people around us, but you know what, here it is, my two cents

The system is set up in such a way that falling into this alt-right stuff is the default for all human beings, when we talk about how there is systematic racism and patriarchal constructs ingrained into our societal structure we mean that they are so embedded that they have basically become the systems themselves, resisting them is out of the norm, resisting them is supposed to be hard, it takes even people they directly oppress years to dismantle the racist and misogynistic beliefs they've subconsciously absorbed into their own minds and biases, so for white men who seemingly reep all the benefits going against these systems is especially difficult and these alt-right pipelines target them when they're young and they're brains are still squishy and moldable, it's hard to break away from something you learned to believe as a kid, but it's not impossible and anything that can be done to pull them back is something we should do. That's what diversity of tactics is supposed to mean, for the time being we have to work within these systems and so yeah that means pretty much the only way these kids will get deradicalized is by some dumbfuck leftist streamer, I'm real sorry, but the revolution is not going to come to dismantle these systems in the blink of an eye and fix everything, the leftist movement in America and in the world in general is still so small, there's basically no mainstream leftist news channels, but Fox News is considered one of the most reputable sources of information while actively employing scare tactics, openly lying, and even encouraging genocidal ideologies straight into the brains of over half the population of the entire country, the enemy is so much bigger than us, guys, at this point we dont even have one foot to stand on, we have to engage in guerilla warfare here, our methods are not their methods, we do not want to exterminate or punish, we want to rehabilitate and unify

The fact of the matter is the way these systems are set up is meant to look glamorous to white men in particular while they subjugate everyone else, but at the same time they are absolutely debilitating to those same white men and we need to be able to reach those white men/boys and show them how their lives would be better without them and at the same time talk about the way these systems compounded with the late stage capitalism we are living under means that they're lives suck even more, because corporations are taking away all sense of community and ramping up the division between all groups of the working class to make it easier to exploit them, hence the disaffection, and look, let's be real with ourselves here, when one side is telling you that you're the cream of the crop and it's everyone else who is the problem while the other is seemingly blaming you for every problem it's not exactly a surprise that some dumb fuck teenagers fall down an edgy alt-right youtube rabbit hole and grow up into even worse men.

These systems are the way almost everyone has lived for centuries the dismantling of them is going to be hard and it can't be done without unity, to steal someone else's words who was a much better speaker than I am,

"We're going to fight racism not with racism, but we're going to fight with solidarity. We say we're not going to fight capitalism with black capitalism, but we're going to fight it with socialism." ~Fred Hampton

We must appeal to every person in the world on the left, a better world must involve everyone, and that includes white men, I'm gonna be real I don't really care to police any leftist in the way they talk about white men as a force for oppression, but I do think sometimes talking directly to them in particular is good too, we need to talk to every single group of people on this god's green earth directly and show them the ways escaping from the systemic oppression inflicted by racism and patriarchy and dismantling capitalism will be a net good for every single human being, including white men, that the feelings of disaffectedness these white men and teenage boys in particular are feeling is coming from these systems and their lives would be better without them, not by becoming a pawn in service of them

It is so easy to reduce white men/boys to The Enemy, but they're not, part of leftist ideology is dismantling the prison/justice system's emphasis on punishment which often boarders on cruel and unusual and has been proven to only make the problem worse and cause more reoffenders rather than letting people reintegrate into society to lead healthy productive lives (of course we need to talk about how to reinvest in our underfunded communities and social service programs to combat the prison system problem but that's a different post), we cannot state to want to build a united and kinder world where we focus on rehabilitative justice while turning our noses up on a group of people who need just that kind of rehabilitation

Are white men's issues the biggest issues the left should be focusing on?

God no.

But that doesn't mean it isn't one of the problems that should be on the list, just because it's not high priority doesn't mean we ignore it completely, the world exists in shades of grey, no issue is ever as black and white as you think it is, allow nuance into your life or we will never reach the perfect leftist utopia you so desparately say you want

[d3nt4l-d4m4g3]

Consider: The effeminists

Effeminist—(historical) A member of a male homosexual movement opposing prejudices against effeminate behaviour.  —Wikipedia

The next quote is from Jeanne Cordova’s When We Were Outlaws. She was a major figure in the lesbian feminist movement and created the most prominent lesbian newspaper of the time, The Lesbian Tide. This part of her autobiography is set when the lesbians employeed at the gay center (who created some of the first health care programs for women alcoholics, btw)  are shoved out of power. Most of the gay male employees at the GCSC were fine with what was clearly manipulative and misogynistic bullshit that would disempower an entire neighborhood of poor, lower-class women. However, one group of men stood by the lesbians:

“In recent weeks a handful of the gay male employees [at the Gay Community Services Center] had begun to support us, calling themselves “effeminists,” a term used by radical left wing of the gay movement. Effeminists glorified in the name “gay faeries” and understood that the straight world mocked them because they as (f-slur)  identified with women. They championed feminist principles like lesbian equality in the gay movement. They were usually feminine, rather than butch gay men, and they became our natural allies.” (Cordova 97-98)

The Effeminists’ 1973 Manifesto is below, transcribed from this archive:

The Effeminist Manifesto (1973) Steven Dansky, John Knoebel, Kenneth Pitchford

We, the undersigned Effeminists of Double-F hereby invite all like-minded men to join with us in making our declaration of independence from Gay Liberation and all other Male-Ideologies by unalterably asserting our stand of revolutionary commitment to the following Thirteen Principles that form the quintessential substance of our politics:

       On the oppression of women. 1. SEXISM. All women are oppressed by all men, including ourselves. This systematic oppression is called sexism. 2. MALE SUPREMACY. Sexism itself is the product of male supremacy, which produces all other forms of oppression that patriarchal societies exhibit: racism, classism, ageism, economic exploitation, ecological imbalance. 3. GYNARCHISM. Only that revolution which strikes at the root of all oppression can end any and all of its forms. That is why we are gynarchists; that is, we are among those who believe that women will seize power from the patriarchy and, thereby, totally change life on this planet as we know it. 4. WOMEN’S LEADERSHIP. Exactly how women will go about seizing power is no business of ours, being men. But as effeminate men oppressed by masculinist standards, we ourselves have a stake in the destruction of the patriarchy, and thus we must struggle with the dilemma of being partisans – as effeminists – of a revolution opposed to us – as men. To conceal our partisanship and remain inactive for fear of women’s leadership or to tamper with questions which women will decide would be no less despicable. Therefore, we have a duty to take sides, to struggle to change ourselves, to act.

       On the oppression of effeminate men. 5. MASCULINISM. Faggots and all effeminate men are oppressed by the patriarchy’s systematic enforcement of masculinist standards, whether these standards are expressed as physical, mental, emotional, or sexual stereotypes of what is desirable in a man. 6. EFFEMINISM. Our purpose is to urge all such men as ourselves (whether celibate, homosexual, or heterosexual) to become traitors to the class of men by uniting in a movement of Revolutionary Effeminism so that collectively we can struggle to change ourselves from non-masculinists into anti-masculinists and begin attacking those aspects of the patriarchal system that most directly oppress us. 7. PREVIOUS MALE-IDEOLOGIES. Three previous attempts by men to create a politics of fighting oppression have failed because of their incomplete analysis: the Male Left, Male Liberation, and Gay Liberation. These and other formations, such as sexual libertarianism and the counter-culture, are all tactics for preserving power in men’s hands by pretending to struggle for change. We specifically reject a hands by pretending to struggle for change. We specifically reject a carry-over from one or more of these earlier ideologies – the damaging combination of ultra-egalitarianism, anti-leadership, anti-technology, and downward mobility. All are based on a politics of guilt and a hypocritical attitude towards power which prevents us from developing skills urgently needed in our struggle and which confuses the competence needed for revolutionary work with the careerism of those who seek personal accommodation within the patriarchal system. 8. COLLABORATORS AND CAMP FOLLOWERS. Even we effeminate men are given an option by the patriarchy: to become collaborators in the task of keeping women in their place. Faggots, especially, are offered a subculture by the patriarchy which is designed to keep us oppressed and also increase the oppression of women. This subculture includes a combination of anti-women mimicry and self-mockery known as camp which, to its trivializing effect, would deny us any chance of awakening to our own suffering, the expression of which can be recognized as revolutionary sanity by the oppressed. 9.SADO-MASCULINITY: ROLE PLAYING AND OBJECTIFICATION. The Male Principle, as exhibited in the last ten thousand years, is chiefly characterized by an appetite for objectification, role-playing, and sadism. First, the masculine preference for thinking as opposed to feeling encourages men to regard other people as things, and to use them accordingly. Second, inflicting pain upon people and animals has come to be deemed a mark of manhood, thereby explaining the well-known proclivity for rape and torture. Finally, a lust for power-dominance is rewarded in the playing out of that ultimate role, The Man, whose rapacity is amply displayed in witch-hunts, lynchings, pogroms, and episodes of genocide, not to mention the day-to-day (often life-long) subservience that he exacts from those closest to him. Masculine bias, thus, appears in our behavior whenever we act out the following categories, regardless of which element in each pair we are most drawn to at any moment: subject/object; dominant/submissive; master/slave; butch/femme. All of these false dichotomies are inherently sexist, since they express the desire to be masculine or to possess the masculine in someone else. The racism of white faggots often reveals the same set of polarities, regardless of whether they choose to act out the dominant or submissive role with black or third-world men. In all cases, only by rejecting the very terms of these categories can we become effeminists. This means explicitly rejecting, as well, the objectification of people based on such things as age; body; build; color; size or shape of facial features, eyes, hair, genitals; ethnicity or race; physical and mental handicap; life-style; sex. We must therefore strive to detect and expose every embodiment of The Male Principle, no matter how and where it may be enshrined and glorified, including those arenas of faggot objectification (baths, bars, docks, parks) where power-dominance, as it operates in the selecting of roles and objects, is known as “cruising.” 10. MASOCH-EONISM. Among those aspects of our oppression which The Man has foisted upon us, two male heterosexual perversions, in particular, are popularly thought of as being “acceptable” behavior for effeminate men: eonism (that is, male transvestitism) and masochism. Just as sadism and masculinism, by merging into one identity, tend to become indistinguishable one from the other, so masochism and eonism are born of an identical impulse to mock subservience in men, as a way to project intense anti-women feelings and also to pressure women into conformity by providing those degrading stereotypes most appealing to the sado-masculinist. Certainly, sado-masoch-eonism is in all its forms the very anti-thesis of effeminism. Both the masochist and the eonist are particularly an insult to women since they overtly parody female oppression and pose as object lessons in servility. 11. LIFE-STYLE: APPEARANCE AND REALITY. We must learn to discover and value The Female Principle in men as something inherent, beyond roles or superficial decoration, and thus beyond definition by any one particular life-style (such as the recent androgeny fad, transsexuality, or other purely personal solutions). Therefore, we do not automatically support or condemn faggots or effeminists who live alone, who live together in couples, who live together in all-male collectives, who live with women, or who live in any other way – since all these modes of living in and of themselves can be sexist but also can conceivably come to function as bases for anti-sexist struggle. Even as we learn to affirm in ourselves the cooperative impulse and to admire in each other what is tender and gentle, what is aesthetic, considerate, affectionate, lyrical, sweet, we should not confuse our own time with that post-revolutionary world when our effeminist natures will be free to express themselves openly without fear or punishment or danger of oppressing others. Above all, we must remember that it is not merely a change of appearance that we seek, but a change in reality. 12. TACTICS. We mean to support, defend and promote effeminism in all men everywhere by any means except those inherently male supremacist or those in conflict with the goals of feminists intent on seizing power. We hope to find militant ways for fighting our oppression that will meet these requirements. Obviously, we do not seek the legalization of faggotry, quotas, or civil-rights for faggots or other measures designed to reform the patriarchy. Practically, we see three phases of activity: naming our enemies to start with, next confronting them, and ultimately divesting them of their power. This means both the Cock Rocker and the Drag Rocker among counter-cultist heroes, both the Radical Therapist and the Faggot-Torturer among effemiphobic psychiatrists, both the creators of beefcake pornography and of eonistic travesties. It also means all branches of the patriarchy that institutionalize the persecution of faggots (schools, church, army, prison, asylum, old-age home). But whatever the immediate target, we would be wise to prepare for all forms of sabotage and rebellion which women might ask of us, since it is not as pacifists that we can expect to serve in the emerging world-wide anti-gender revolution. We must also constantly ask ourselves and each other for a greater measure of risk and commitment than we may have dreamt was possible yesterday. Above all, our joining in this struggle must discover in us a new respect for women, a new ability to love each other as effeminists, both of which have previously been denied us by our misogyny and effemiphobia, so that our bonding until now has been the traditional male solidarity that is always inimical to the interests of women and pernicious of our own sense of effeminist self-hood. 13. DRUDGERY AND CHILDCARE: RE-DEFINING GENDER. Our first and most important step, however, must be to take upon ourselves at least our own share of the day-to-day life-sustaining drudgery that is usually consigned to women alone. To be useful in this way can release women to do other work of their choosing and can also begin to re-define gender for the next generation. Of paramount concern here, we ask to be included in the time-consuming work of raising and caring for children, as a duty, right and privilege.

Attested to this twenty-seventh day of Teves and first day of January, in the year of our falthering Judeo-Christian Patriarchy, 5733 and 1973, by Steven Dansky, John Knoebel, and Kenneth Pitchford.

[ouyangzizhensdad]

The discourse abt female characters in Mxtx's novels reminds me of the issue a few have when poc make films abt their issues in west and there are only a few white characters. Some even argue if they're living in a white country they should have more white characters. So if someone feels like reading a novel with alot of strong female characters they should read w/w, a few popular chinese are translated too. I hope ppl look for them and not blame a m/m writer for focusing on men in ancient china

I have to say that I think the two examples are not exactly equivalent. Contrary to white people in the West, which to this day still form the majority of the cast of most movies and tv series, there is a pattern of having women characters under-represented in media. The reaction of white people to seeing narratives that do not include them or only include them as side characters is to a perceived “loss”: these white people are so used to having all stories be about them that they see the apparition of more stories that are not about them as taking something away from them, when in reality it’s just about evening out the playing field and finally allowing these stories to be told. It’s a tantrum, not an appeal to have their stories given an equal share of attention. It’s about holding onto the power and privileges of white supremacy. 

I do sympathise with the desire to see a more equal and nuanced and complex representation of women across media, because I want that too. We can look at individual pieces of fiction and consider how many female characters there are in it, and how they are represented. But to accuse someone of being a sexist/misogynist purely based on the fact that their novel includes 1) more male characters 2) many female characters die, without considering the context and the portrayal of female characters, is missing the forest for the trees. While, yes, individual pieces of fiction can depict women in a manner that is flagrantly sexist, when we are talking about the issue of the underrepresentation of women in narratives (and how they seem more disposable than male characters), we’re talking about patterns and trends. Not a single piece of media is at fault, and not a single author can be blamed for it. Because the goal is not to say that stories with more male characters or even only male characters cannot and should not exist, but to grapple with the status quo where these stories are the norm, are the default. And justifying an odd level of vitriol against a female author for the crime of not writing “enough��� female characters in one of her novels as ‘feminism’ is not activism: it’s using a movement and an ideology to disguise your hate into something seemingly more morally just.

[a-court-of-moonlight-and-ire]

Oh yeah, this is definitely an extension of that culture war bullshit

I mean, Rhysand being progressive is very much a tell-dont show thing on SJM's part. Hes made Feyres High Lady of the Night which is supposed to be different from her just being Lady (like she was in the spring court) and is supposed to show how much more progressive he is than all the other High Lords, but then she ends up the exact same things as any other Lady (birthing an heir, being Rhys' armcandy at public appearances etc)

Or with illyria, hes banned wing-clipping but it doesnt seem like he's actually properly enforcing it, it seems like the camplords who do it just kinda get scolded a little but no further consequences to disinsentivise them from doing it (like maybe having their wings clipped themselves, or even just getting killed to set an example for the other camplords). And its not because he thinks enforcing it would require excessive cruelty or because he thinks theres some good inside these guys he can appeal to, because he was fine slaughtering all the illyrians who were with him UTM and because he seems to think theyre just inherently evil

Then theres the fact that women in illyria are allowed to train to fight, but only for an hour after their 'chores' are done, and thats seemingly the only move Rhysand has made towards giving them rights equal to men. And its an incredibly bad move too because we hear from one of the camplords that women who are seen training are declared unmmariable, which is a good insentive to keep them from actually doing it. But even without that, the idea behind it seems to be that it'll empower these women by giving them the option of 'fighting back' against their abusers, but women in a society this misogynistic cant just do stuff like that without massive consequences that, once again, disinsentivise them from actually doing that.

It also willfully ignores the fact that illyria's current setup, where every able-bodied male is essentially forcibly drafted from the age of 9 to become a soldier and theyre all constantly training to fight even when there arent any wars being fought, is incredibly fucked up and the best thing to do would be to make it so that no one has to live like that, not forcing all the females to do it as well

And Velaris definitely seems like the best place to live but it has its own ethical issues even beyond the fact that Rhysand is essentially using the rest of his court as a big meatshield factory for the sake of protecting a single city. Because its meant to be secret, no one except for the ic (and their guests) is allowed to come in or out, and the only people who are allowed come in are the traumatized priestesses that stay in the House of Wind, but you just cant leave. And its like, what if you wanted to travel? What if youre one of those priestesses and you had family members outside of the city that you wanted to see again? You just cant do thlse things. And obviously those things are nothing compared to the shit that everyone outside of Velaris has to endure but it still sucks that they have no choice in the matter

And the stuff with the CoN is just. Atleast with Illyria theres some attempt at fixing things and some implication that Rhysand believes that maybe not all of them are inherently evil, but with the CoN its just "yeah no, these people are born evil and they will stay evil forever, Mor (who just happens to be related to Rhys) the only possible good person there" which is a line of thought thats incredibly conservative. dare I say its even a little fascist

And like, it would make sense for Rhysand to think this way and to have this kind of ideology considering the society that he grew up in, but according to meta-narrative of these books, hes not supposed to be a guy with beliefs that are typical for his incredibly conservative culture, hes not even supposed to be a guy whos progressive by the standards of his culture, but that we as the audience would consider conservative by our own standards, hes supposed to be progressive by our own contemporary real world standards, but SJM just completely at writing him as such, either because shes incompetent or because her views of what being progressive means are just backwards like that

ohhhhhhhhhmy god I just saw someone say "ugh, cant believe all those rhys stans who voted democrat have the audacity to be upset about trump when they wouldve probably voted for him if he was hot" and I just. grips you firmly by the shoulders. You understand that fiction does not equal reality right. And you understand that you very likely cannot acertain anything about a stranger online just based on their taste in fiction or their takes on certain book. And thats not to say that their tastes or opinions on fiction are completely meaningless and that they cant tell you anything about them, but those things are rarely obvious because what people enjoy in fiction and what people enjoy in real life dont perfectly match up a lot of the time. Most women who like to read about being the husband of a sexy rapey vaguely-pedophilic rich fae tyrant and justify his actions online would not justify his actions if he were a person who existed in the real world and that they knew. The reason they defend and justify Rhysand's actions so vehemently is 1) because they dont like the thing they enjoy being attacked or criticised and 2) because theres no real stakes because HE is not real and defending him has no effect on the real world and does literally nothing exceot maybe make random strangers on the internet be judgemental towards you

[lastsonlost]

So I was half-right.

Instead of misogyny it's Nazis because of course it is.

If you spend a lot of time in certain Extremely Online corners of the internet ecosystem, you’ve likely stumbled onto #NoNutNovember, or just #NNN for short. An annual challenge encouraging men to refrain from masturbating (or even, for many, having any sex) for the month, No Nut November was initially created as a parody of internet-borne phenomena such as the Ice Bucket Challenge or Movember, skewering the silliness of viral internet challenges along with the more extreme claims made by proponents of NoFap, an anti-porn subreddit with half a million members. (According to one of the moderators of the NoNutNovember subreddit, /u/yeeval, the subreddit has no connection to NoFap, though the two are often conflated.)

For most participants, the challenge is essentially an excuse to shitpost, as well as tweet memes skewering some of the more exaggerated purported benefits of abstaining from masturbation. But there are many who take it seriously, with at least 52,000 people as of this writing diligently documenting their day-by-day progress (and setbacks) on the subreddit r/NoNutNovember. Per /u/yeeval, “I’d say 90% of the posts are from people actively participating and also there’s the occasional fallen member who stays on the subreddit for the community and laughs.”

On its surface, No Nut November is a fairly innocuous challenge: while it may seem silly to abstain from masturbation for virtually no reason, some of the memes are pretty funny, and a month of abstinence (whether it be from sex or masturbation) certainly isn’t going to kill anyone. u/yeeval says the goal isn’t to demonize porn or masturbation per se, but to prompt men to examine their own masturbation habits and whether or not they’re healthy. “In my opinion, most originally participate in NNN for the meme aspect of the challenge but as the days go on people begin to see how big their porn or masturbation dependency is,” he says.

"Neither of those things are bad or immoral in themselves but just like any outlet can become excessive in times of depression and loneliness.” Yet it would be naive to ignore that there’s significant overlap between the general anti-porn ideology behind NoFap — and, to a degree, No Nut November — and that of the far right, which has increasingly coopted the movement. (NoFap’s website states that, with the exception of a small number of users who may abstain for religious or moral reasons, they do not have an anti-masturbation stance.)

Because the challenge is  associated with abstaining from porn, some people associated with the movement have taken the extra step of harassing adult performers on social media, giving it an additional layer of troubling implications. “In the past [No Nut November] has always been like, ‘Oh, look at this ridiculous thing some people are participating in,'” says adult performer and director Casey Calvert. “This year, people [in the industry] are talking about, ‘Oh, actually this is connected to the far right and maybe we shouldn’t just be saying hahaha, No Nut November.'”

A new meme brings these implications into sharp relief. Coomer is a reference to a meme of an unkempt, skeezy-looking bearded man in a white tank top with vaguely Semitic features, accompanied by descriptive text like “doesn’t even know anything about politics,” “extremely aesthetic right arm (huge muscle),” and “has never heard of NoFap"

It’s been circulating on 4chan for the past year, but Alex Hawkins, the vice president of the porn tube site xHamster, says he started seeing it in the replies on his company’s Twitter feed back in September, when presidential candidate Andrew Yang tweeted about limiting access to pornography. At first, “we didn’t really know what it meant and thought it was funny,” he tells Rolling Stone. Then, in late October, the coomer resurfaced thanks to a Twitter campaign led by a user named TeapotLad, in which users vowed to change their avatars to the coomer should they fail No Nut November. PewDiePie shouted out the campaign in a recent YouTube video, as did far-right YouTuber Paul Joseph Watson, who is perhaps best known for being one of the many extremist figures, including Milo Yiannopolous and Alex Jones, to be banned from Facebook. “No Nut November and the Coomer meme represent a deeper meaning,” he said in a tweet. “Porn is evil. It literally re-wires your brain and causes erectile dysfunction. Take the pledge. Don’t be a Coomer.”

The term has also been used in the context of “OK coomer,” a play on the “OK boomer” meme, in response to tweets critical of No Nut November or masturbation abstinence in general. “It’s positioned as this epic battle between the weak beta masturbators and the strong, alpha NoFappers,” says Hawkins.

Like most memes, “coomer” carries with it more than a tinge of irony, and it’s not always easy to determine whether it’s being used flippantly or to actually deride men who masturbate. But the implication is clear: masturbating is an urge that should be resisted at all costs. David Ley, PhD, a clinical psychologist and sex therapist who studies pornography and mental health, saw the meme after he tweeted his criticism of No Nut November, referring to it as “a creepy little smorgasbord of insecurity-driven hate with anti-Semitism, misogyny, and homophobia all rolled up in one,” he tells Rolling Stone. (Ley has partnered with the cam website Stripchat to do AMAs about sexual health, and plans to appear in one debunking some of the myths associated with No Nut November.)

The idea that there are significant health benefits from abstaining from masturbation is partially based on the (primarily internet-propagated) theory that semen retention is linked to an increase in testosterone and male virility, an idea that has been widely debunked. For the most part, however, the idea that masturbation is somehow feminizing is “rooted in extremely antiquated ideas of masculinity,” many of which are also promoted by far-right groups, says Ley. The Proud Boys, for instance, a far-right extremist group known for its propensity toward violence, has long advocated for its members to abstain from masturbation on the grounds that it boosts testosterone and makes them more appealing to women; indeed, founder Gavin McInnes gave a shoutout to NoFap in a 2015 article for the far-right publication Taki’s Magazine. (The organizers of NoFap have strongly refuted any connection to the Proud Boys.)

An even more extremist version of this far-right anti-masturbation philosophy has been promoted by David Duke, the former head of the Ku Klux Klan, who has propagated the conspiracy theory that Jews dominate the porn industry and use pornography as a way to control white men. On far-right threads on the encrypted messaging app Telegram, this sentiment is fairly widespread. “Jews not only control most of the pornography industry, they also rely on the goyim to maintain a routine of ejaculation in order to stay docile and non-violent,” one comment reads. Another shared a viral Pornhub tweet poking fun at viewers who’d failed No Nut November, writing, “the Jew mocks you as they poison the minds of millions.” (Pornhub is owned by the Canadian company MindGeek, the CEO of which, Feras Antoon, does not appear to be Jewish, even though there are numerous 4chan /pol/ threads speculating as such.)

This anti -Semitism is also often accompanied by healthy doses of homophobia and racism as well: on these threads, you’ll frequently see users deriding men who masturbate to heterosexual porn, on the grounds that being aroused by another man’s penis makes you gay (even if said penis is depicted going into a vagina). And because mainstream porn often features white women paired with black men, there’s also a virulently racist element to much of this discourse, such as the suggestion that interracial porn is intended to steer white women away from procreating with white men and toward men of color.

The irony of this strain of the anti-masturbation movement is that, while it’s ostensibly intended to fight the larger porn industry’s attempts to brainwash and emasculate white men, anti-masturbation ideology has historically been used as a tool by fascist figures to gain social control. Cultural stigma associated with masturbation, combined with the fact that pretty much everyone masturbates, invariably leads to a lot of men “developing a lot of internal shame,” says Ley. “And that makes them open to manipulation and social control.” As an example, he cited the National Socialist Party in 1930s Germany, which strongly discouraged Hitler Youth members from engaging in masturbation. Because anti-porn and anti-masturbation movements tend to be comprised of young heterosexual males, they could potentially be viewed by some on the far right as ideal recruitment grounds. The fact that something like No Nut November appears to be a joke on its face “appears to serve as this interesting front door recruiting kind of strategy to bring folks into this deeper, much more insidious and shaming movement,” says Ley.

Of course, it goes without saying that not everyone who participates in No Nut November or NoFap is a white supremacist or religious fundamentalist, and that the founders of these groups explicitly reject any suggestions of overlap between the two communities. u/yeeval says he has seen no hint of any anti-Semitic or misogynistic commentary on the subreddit, chalking any suggestions of Jewish porn conspiracy theories to “someone trying to make a bad / overtly offensive joke.” “NoNutNovember isn’t a political movement. We are not anti-porn. We are not anti-woman. We are not anti-masturbation or anti-sex,” he says. “In its most simple form NoNutNovember just a fun internet challenge that has grown in popularity due to many memes that circulate the internet…However, I also think that the reason that it has become so widespread is that it has given many the opportunity to look within themselves and realize that they might be relying on masturbation and porn for comfort.”

The  coomer meme is also, at least inherently, apolitical, says Alice Vaughn, host of Two Girls One Mic, a podcast about porn tropes. “The concept surrounding ‘Coomer’ is neither right nor left politically. The urge to shame those with higher sex drives is nothing new, and is a subject many are uncomfortable with, especially adolescents (which is predominately 4Chan’s user base),” she says. But the rise of “coomer,” with its distinctly conservative implications about male sexuality, would seem to refute that the anti-masturbation movement is totally innocent or entirely intended in jest. The fact that it’s often used in the context of “OK coomer,” a play on a meme intended to skewer boomers’ criticism of Gen Z, also indicates that this is primarily a youth-driven phenomenon. When you consider how younger generations have typically adopted a more healthy, progressive view of sexuality than previous ones, this doesn’t make a lot of intuitive sense — but it actually tracks with current data, which indicates that younger generations are having less sex, Ley says.

Usually, this phenomenon is attributed to male millennials and zoomers (members of Gen Z) spending more time watching porn, and to an extent this may be true; when it comes to determining the effects of pornography viewing on male sex lives, research is somewhat mixed. But it’s also just as likely that sociocultural factors like economic unrest and fear-mongering abstinence-only education have also played a role in these declining sexual activity rates. “We’ve spent decades telling these young kids be afraid of sex, and that only hereto monogamous sex is OK and moral,” says Ley. “Now all of a sudden they are really conflicted about sex and their own sexuality.”

That said, there’s also an awful lot of men who are not participating in No Nut November in earnest, and many more who aren’t participating at all. In an email to Rolling Stone, Pornhub vice president Corey Price said that traffic is virtually unaffected by No Nut November, and few of the adult performers Rolling Stone spoke with said that they hadn’t seen their engagement go down considerably during the month either. Considering that annual Pornhub traffic numbers are in the tens of billions, if there is indeed a wider porn conspiracy to sap men of their virility, that conspiracy appears to be working pretty well. But for those who are participating in the challenge, and may have stumbled along the way, Calvert has a comforting message: “I personally think No Nut November is very silly,” she says. “Not masturbating for a month does not make you a better man or a stronger man.”

............

Let me see if I got this straight.

Porn is evil

And not fapping makes you a racist homophobic Nazi

Did I... Did I fucking miss something?

[hamliet]

chat anon

This is BSD Chat Anon. I admit that as an Asian-American inundated by western media, I haven’t had much exposure to eastern literary mediums. That being said, I’m uncomfortable with people elevating Eastern takes on redemption while ignoring the ways in which the idea of redemption has been whitewashed and used to deny ongoing racism against marginalized ethnic communities, including mine.               

People can change. Take Mark Wahlberg, who committed hate crimes against two Vietnamese men and three black children and became a millionaire. Who supposedly regrets what he did, but then applies for a pardon for his convictions. Who never acknowledged his own racial motives. Meanwhile, people insist racism against black people ended with the Civil Rights movement. That Asians are an untouched model minority.                                  

(3) While you assert that a comfortable black and white morality is a defense mechanism that enables people to claim a moral high ground, I argue that redemption narratives are similarly self-serving. I also feel inclined to tell you that I distrust redemption stories produced by a country that continues to deny responsibility for war crimes committed against Taiwan, Korea, and China (and instead incite trade wars).                                                                                       

(4) That’s not to say Japanese people are bad (I mostly blame their government, media, and military). Rather, we should always be critical of any culture’s narratives, including our own and foreign ones we admire. That being said, Horikoshi did insert an insensitive war crime reference in MHA, and though he removed it after backlash, this incident should be a reminder that authors from any country are flawed.                                                                                        

(5) In my last box, I want to share how my heritage has influenced my perception of a person/character’s “redeemability.” I admit that I haven’t watched the entire Star Wars series, but Kylo Ren so closely resembling a military dictator discourages me, the granddaughter of survivors of Japanese imperialism, from ever supporting his redemption. Perhaps that makes me a “purist,” but it’s not for the Anglophone reasons you speak of.                             

(6) I was not expecting to stay up long enough to add more thoughts: Obviously I can’t speak for others, but I think you should also consider the ways in which history and current events condition people to believe that perpetrators, even war criminals and those serving life sentences, will find ways to hurt people again (oftentimes aided and abetted by the negligence, self-interest, and stupidity of racist, misogynist government, judges, police).    

(7) Honestly, one case is too many. I do not believe giving a person a second chance is worth risking someone else’s life and well-being. Removing an offender from this world is a matter of ensuring physical security and peace of mind. To deny that would be unjust.          

I do think it’s important to address ways in which other cultures have been shaped by and shape their narratives; I wasn’t speaking to them and certainly did not mean to imply their media is “better” inherently, and I’m sorry I wasn’t clearer. I was speaking to the culture I’m most familiar with and expressing what appeals to me about stories outside of our cultural norm, not implying that these stories are somehow inherently morally superior, and again, I’m sorry for not specifying this.

I also think this is an oversimplification of what I was saying, though I also think what I was saying could also very much seem oversimplified because it’s a tumblr post, not a moral philosophy treatise. The question was specifically regarding BNHA fans around those two characters, so I was attempting to analyze within that context. The reality is that we each bring unique experiences and pains to life and that’s why nuance and empathy are kind of the keys.

When you say you don’t support redemption, what are you meaning? Because I was certainly not saying each and every person has to write or enjoy consuming such a story; it’s fine to be like yeah not for me. I personally dislike Endeavor’s redemption in BNHA and have said I get why Jewish people would not like SnK because of its allusions to the Holocaust (which I do think are a poor and insensitive decision). However, were you saying it is morally wrong/insensitive to write or consume such stories? Because that’s the mindset I was addressing. Competing needs are a thing. No one person has to enjoy stories in the exact same way.

The point is that we need more stories. We need stories to address all kinds of human needs from all kinds of backgrounds. I’ve brought this up before, but I do have an issue with how most of western redemption stories are white men; I want to see more women, nonbinary people, and people of color in those roles, but that doesn’t mean I hate having a white man get redemption; it means I hate that it’s only those characters. A story that meets my needs may well trigger others, and vice versa. The world isn’t perfect and stories are going to reflect that (and there’s a difference between saying this and saying “go ahead and don’t care about triggering others!” You should care).

As for your final point, I think ppl are entitled to feel what they feel and can’t be told their feelings are wrong; for example I would never tell a mother who lost a child that the killer of her child should be inherently given a second chance and she should believe he deserves one because that is not empathy. Practice and ideology are not inherently parallels and every situation and human are different. Nuance and empathy are important to all aspects of life but certainly the practice of fiction and real life justice are markedly different. I suspect you are the same person who sent me moral philosophy questions over the summer, so my answer is the same (if you’re not, you can likely find those!). I’m not going to say I think it’s morally okay to deny second chances because I don’t think it is (we’ll have to agree to disagree); at the same time, I also agree that you cannot put people at risk and to do so isn’t justice at all. I also don’t agree that “removing” someone from the world itself (just say killing; you’re discussing a human) is going to protect someone else when there are other options to remove their ability to hurt someone. Are these fundamental opposite beliefs or is there a way to hold them in a paradox?

Those aren’t questions with easy answers. We certainly aren’t going to answer them in a Tumblr post, and I’m not looking to have an in-depth moral conversation right now, sorry!

[discyours]

I really don't mean to be offensive so if I am please call me out. My question is do you think some trans men being anti feminist could have something to do with their desire to pass as male? As someone who grew up female it surprises me that some trans men repeat MRA's talking points. Sometimes it feels like they think it's what it takes to be (seen as) a real man.

You’re not being offensive at all. I’ll be honest that I’ve seen numerous radfems use the existence of these trans men to write FTMs off altogether (or to accuse me of “acting male” for no goddamn reason just to shut down my argument) and that that makes this a slightly touchy subject for me, but that doesn’t mean there’s no truth to it and that it doesn’t deserve to be addressed. 

I don’t think it’s as conscious as a lot of people are making it out to be. There’s definitely such a thing as being misogynistic and shitting on feminism just to show that you’re “one of the guys” - a lot of women I know went through that phase at some point, I did before I came out as trans and I don’t see why that wouldn’t apply to trans men too. But for trans men it definitely goes beyond just that. 

When you’re dysphoric it’s very easy to subconsciously become angry at anything that even remotely triggers it. For trans men, feminism can be one of those things. Every even remotely logical feminist analysis is going to make it very very hard to deny that trans men are, in at least some ways, the same as cis women. And it’s not just being grouped in together that’s painful; the existence of feminism shows all the bad parts of being female. If you already hate being female to begin with you absolutely don’t want to be reminded that it makes you vulnerable. 

Most MRAs couldn’t be further from “trans inclusive”, but at least their ideology believes that women are anything but vulnerable, and actually hold a lot of power in society. When you’re a trans man who’s highly dysphoric about being thought of as vulnerable, that can be quite appealing. 

I’m not gonna act like anti feminist trans men are incapable of thinking for themselves though. Society absolutely affects the way that you act and social dysphoria can strengthen that, but that doesn’t mean that none of them have good reasons (to them) for being anti feminists that can’t just be explained away with blanket social analysis.

[fatehbaz]

Intro to the Neoreactionary Movement, including Dugin’s Traditionalism and Nick Land’s Dark Enlightenment (for non-weirdos and non-fascists)

Engaged in some discussion today that included Nick Land and his transhumanist movement, the “Dark Enlightenment.”

Just wanted to provide some sources to learn about the Neoreactionary movement. I think these articles/essays are accessible enough for people just learning about this quasi-fascist movement, but still thorough enough to be really informative.

So I’m paraphrasing the text of a Tungle dot com blog-post I made back in June. Here ya go:

I think I have some fun recommendations for (1) introductions to the two branches of the Neoreactionary movement; (2) New Atheism’s fusion with the movement; and (3) the degree to which Neoreactionaries are gaining influence in popular culture. 1 – Introduction to the two branches of the Neoreactioanry movement: Sources for exploring the Neoreactioanry (NRx) movement would depend on which “half” of the movement you are interested in, since NRx is split into two distinct ideologies: (1) the Dark Enlightenment, and (2) the Traditionalists. Both branches of NRx are united in how they both openly hate modernity; are passionately Counter-Enlightnement; irrationalist; want to disband democracy; explicitly abhor multiculturalism; want to reverse egalitarianism; are Social Darwinists and biological determinists; and value meritocracy and hierarchy. Both movements also subscribe to a sort of nihilistic mysticism based influenced by object-oriented ontology, which began as a left-ish or post-left-ish thing in the 90′s before being co-opted when Nick Land defected from the group of theorists to become the founder and leader of the Dark Enlightenment. Nick Land is probably the single most important individual to learn about when studying the NRx; he is definitely the thought-leader of NRx, and his writing has certainly been the most influential in attracting new recruits. He’s like an honest-to-god apocalypse-cultist and cyberpunk villain; however, that description would genuinely flatter him, because he’s pretty self-aware of his role, he loves cyberpunk as a genre, and much of his writing makes use of cyberpunk tropes. So, the current alliance-of-convenience between the Dark Enlightenment’s techno-commercialist transhumanists and Traditionalism’s tribalistic, ethnonationalist neopagans is because both groups genuinely want to facilitate the acceleration of neoliberal decay to provoke an apocalyptic collapse of global economic order. Following such a collapse, Dark Enlightenment people hope to establish a global technocracy ruled by “high-IQ” Silicon Valley-type tech geniuses to implement unfettered commercialism; whereas Traditionalists would establish tribal ethnostates under the ultimate leadership of a Russia-type military defender of its status quo. One good and thorough introductions to the quasi-mystical ideology of the NRx, and the alliance-of-convenience relationship between both branches of NRx, is a 2017 article in Salvage -- Harrison Fluss and Landon Frim, Salvage magazine, December 2017, “Behemoth and Leviathan: The Fascist Bestiary of the Alt-Right”: http://salvage.zone/in-print/behemoth-and-leviathan-the-fascist-bestiary-of-the-alt-right/   A quick summary of the distinctions between the two branches of NRx: (1) Traditionalists – value Orthodoxy, especially religious; kind of isolationist and primitivist; love ethnonationalism; races are inherently different; want to escape modernity by reverting to the past with pre-Enlightenment values; describe themselves philosophically as Arctogaians; think of themselves as earth-bound and tribalistic; believe civilization decays and collapses naturally; idealize modern Russia as a model; includes many occultists, neopagans, and mystical fascists in the vein of Julius Evola (2) The Dark Enlightenment / techo-commercialists – value secular hierarchy; want to escape modernity and Enlightenment by propelling into a technocratic future; believe the masses should be left to starve and only the smartest should hold power (to be fair, they propose giving “the plebs” a universal basic income to keep them satiated and prevent revolt); think of themselves as contemporary pirates, like corporate raiders; idealize modern Chinese authoritarian capitalism as a model Thought-leader of Traditionalists: Aleksandr Dugin Thought-leaders of the Dark Enlightenment: Nick Land, Mencius Moldbug A quick note about the relationship between Silicon Valley and the Dark Enlightenment: Peter Thiel is the notorious co-founder of Paypal, the founder of Palantir, a close friend of Trump, the guy who personally paid for the lawsuit that took-down Gawker, and a close friend of Nick Land. Thiel’s Palantir literally tracks online movements and behavior of everyone it comes into contact with, creating behavior profiles of pretty much anyone online. Thiel is open about his desire to have authoritarian capitalist governments use similar technology to enforce social order in times of upheaval.  He’s a good example of what the Dark Enlightenment envisions for the future: technocratic micro-states and wholly unregulated corporate control. This isn’t an un-fair characterization; they are open about these desires.

Another quick note about Land: these Dark Enlightenment folk, Land included, basically argue that the primary focus of humanity ought to be on achieving the Singularity as fast as possible. Therefore, to that end, all resources should be put toward achieving technological progress towards the Singularity, even if that means that millions of people starve or go homeless. The argument is that the sooner we achieve the Singularity, the faster all those starving masses can be given a Universal Basic Income once full-automation of labor occurs during the Singularity. This ties-into Land’s obsession with the authoritarian capitalism of modern China. After all, look at Shanghai, Guangzhou, and Chongqing -- three cities that were effectively rice-farming villages twenty-five years ago, but now have over 10 million people a-piece, covered in high-tech industry development and beautiful skyscrapers, and all 3 cities are in the Top 15 biggest and most populous cities on Earth -- all in a few years! Of course, millions were displaced, starved, and worked to death to make it happen. Land basically sees that kind of technological progress as the model the whole world should follow. And he’s a nihilist, so there’s no convincing him and his followers that all people “deserve” food and shelter. Nope. Instead, if you don’t contribute to the labor, and if your high-IQ-mind isn’t designing tech or whatever ... then you don’t matter.

2 – New Atheist fusion with NRx: During Gamergate, it seems that (1) New Atheists merged with (2) the Manosphere, (3) the ethnonationalist Traditionalists, and (4) the Dark Enlightenment transhumanists to form a more clearly-defined core of what we now collectively call “the Neoreactionary Movement.” So, by taking a look at how formerly moderate internet communities gradually coalesced into a powerful, ambitious movement, we can identify some of the core values and concerns of the Neoreactionary movement generally, using New Atheists as a case study in radicalization. A brief but accessible description of how this coalescing happened is nicely explored in Alex Dibranco’s “Mobilizing Misogyny” (2017), which traces the gradual fusion of internet atheists with pick-up-artist communities and Traditionalists until the alt-right emerged. Ani Dibranco, 2017, “Mobilizing Misogyny” – http://www.politicalresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/PE_Winter2017_DiBranco.pdf   DiBranco does a good job recounting how the internet, even in the 90′s, had always been a cesspool of misognyny and a hub of radicalization for misogynists. She recounts how the early internet pick-up-artist (PUA) culture and Men’s Rights Activists (MRAs) slowly evolved and gradually became mainstream. Meanwhile, on a different trajectory, the already-radical racial-identitarians and neofascist communities began to deliberately recruit and radicalize moderate, “average” misogynists by appealing to their frustration with empowered women. This proved an effective recruiting tactic.DiBranco demonstrates how formerly moderate “skeptics” and “rationalists” were deliberately targeted by more-radical racist communities; they lured New Atheists into their fold by appealing first to misogynist language and masculine posturing of Gamergate, before ultimately persuading them with additional racist rhetoric. Another fine discussion of this coalescing is this more-informal but still-thorough 2017 Salon (I KNOW, I KNOW...) article -- Phil Torres, Salon, 2017, “From the Enlightenment to the Dark Ages: How ‘new atheism’ slid into the alt-right”: https://www.salon.com/2017/07/29/from-the-enlightenment-to-the-dark-ages-how-new-atheism-slid-into-the-alt-right/   It is specifically the Dark Enlightenment branch of NRx which has attracted the New Atheists. The Dark Enlightenment branch is attractive to New Atheists because the movement is secular, nihilistic, led by Silicon Valley tech-bros, and believes in unregulated commercialism and governance by those with the highest IQ - qualities shared by the “skeptic” community. 3 – To what extent does NRx influence popular culture? How serious is this movement? Should we be worried?

I’d say we should be worried. The Dark Enlightenment part of the NRx movement seems especially worrisome, because it is very appealing to young, internet-savvy men and makes its argument from a point of pragmatism I think it’s important to note that the NRx movement is the truer, grander ideological force behind the relatively cruder alt-right and Trumpism. The Dark Enlightenment in particular, through the sardonic, self-aware, and tech-savvy writing of Nick Land, has attracted the most young men to the movement. I think two of the very best introductions to the cultural appeal, and ideology of the Dark Enlightenment are these. Yuk Hui, e-flux, 2017, “On the Unhappy Consciousness of Neoreactionaries”:  https://www.e-flux.com/journal/81/125815/on-the-unhappy-consciousness-of-neoreactionaries/   Park MacDougald, The Awl, 2015, “The Darkness Before the Right”    https://www.theawl.com/2015/09/the-darkness-before-the-right/   A good measure of how NRx is quickly becoming a formidable cultural force would be to observe how the Intellectual Dark Web (IDW) led by Jordan Peterson has lately been legitimizing in mainstream media over the past year. The IDW is the “moderate, safe, respectable” public face of the Western world’s drift toward the right-wing. People like Peterson ostensibly appear more moderate than people like Land, but the IDW creates a pipeline that attracts more moderate white men and radicalizes them towards Dark Enlightenment-type thinking. I think that this following article is a great exploration of the cultural power of the Intellectual Dark Web. Brent Cooper, Medium, 2018, “Enlightening the Intellectual Dark Web: Calling Out the Public Discourse for Lack of Criticality” https://medium.com/the-abs-tract-organization/enlightening-the-intellectual-dark-web-41f3a1e81b3e 

(I also think this aforementioned article is the most thorough dismantling of Jordan Peterson I have ever seen! Very cathartic! I don’t know if the author is, like, kind of a neoliberal, but he debates Jordan Peterson very well, so... Oh, and this article’s really long.)

--

So, anyway. Just wanted to share for anyone interested.

[nebris]

The Rage of the Incels

Incels aren’t really looking for sex. They’re looking for absolute male supremacy.

Lately I have been thinking about one of the first things that I ever wrote for the Internet: a series of interviews with adult virgins, published by the Hairpin. I knew my first subject personally, and, after I interviewed her, I put out an open call. To my surprise, messages came rolling in. Some of the people I talked to were virgins by choice. Some were not, sometimes for complicated, overlapping reasons: disability, trauma, issues related to appearance, temperament, chance. “Embarrassed doesn’t even cover it,” a thirty-two-year-old woman who chose the pseudonym Bette told me. “Not having erotic capital, not being part of the sexual marketplace . . . that’s a serious thing in our world! I mean, practically everyone has sex, so what’s wrong with me?” A twenty-six-year-old man who was on the autism spectrum and had been molested as a child wondered, “If I get naked with someone, am I going to take to it like a duck to water, or am I going to start crying and lock myself in the bathroom?” He hoped to meet someone who saw life clearly, who was gentle and independent. “Sometimes I think, why would a woman like that ever want me?” he said. But he had worked hard, he told me, to start thinking of himself as a person who was capable of a relationship—a person who was worthy of, and could accept, love.

It is a horrible thing to feel unwanted—invisible, inadequate, ineligible for the things that any person might hope for. It is also entirely possible to process a difficult social position with generosity and grace. None of the people I interviewed believed that they were owed the sex that they wished to have. In America, to be poor, or black, or fat, or trans, or Native, or old, or disabled, or undocumented, among other things, is usually to have become acquainted with unwantedness. Structural power is the best protection against it: a rich straight white man, no matter how unpleasant, will always receive enthusiastic handshakes and good treatment at banking institutions; he will find ways to get laid.

These days, in this country, sex has become a hyper-efficient and deregulated marketplace, and, like any hyper-efficient and deregulated marketplace, it often makes people feel very bad. Our newest sex technologies, such as Tinder and Grindr, are built to carefully match people by looks above all else. Sexual value continues to accrue to abled over disabled, cis over trans, thin over fat, tall over short, white over nonwhite, rich over poor. There is an absurd mismatch in the way that straight men and women are taught to respond to these circumstances. Women are socialized from childhood to blame themselves if they feel undesirable, to believe that they will be unacceptable unless they spend time and money and mental effort being pretty and amenable and appealing to men. Conventional femininity teaches women to be good partners to men as a basic moral requirement: a woman should provide her man a support system, and be an ideal accessory for him, and it is her job to convince him, and the world, that she is good.

Men, like women, blame women if they feel undesirable. And, as women gain the economic and cultural power that allows them to be choosy about their partners, men have generated ideas about self-improvement that are sometimes inextricable from violent rage.

Several distinct cultural changes have created a situation in which many men who hate women do not have the access to women’s bodies that they would have had in an earlier era. The sexual revolution urged women to seek liberation. The self-esteem movement taught women that they were valuable beyond what convention might dictate. The rise of mainstream feminism gave women certainty and company in these convictions. And the Internet-enabled efficiency of today’s sexual marketplace allowed people to find potential sexual partners with a minimum of barriers and restraints. Most American women now grow up understanding that they can and should choose who they want to have sex with.

In the past few years, a subset of straight men calling themselves “incels” have constructed a violent political ideology around the injustice of young, beautiful women refusing to have sex with them. These men often subscribe to notions of white supremacy. They are, by their own judgment, mostly unattractive and socially inept. (They frequently call themselves “subhuman.”) They’re also diabolically misogynistic. “Society has become a place for worship of females and it’s so fucking wrong, they’re not Gods they are just a fucking cum-dumpster,” a typical rant on an incel message board reads. The idea that this misogyny is the real root of their failures with women does not appear to have occurred to them.

The incel ideology has already inspired the murders of at least sixteen people. Elliot Rodger, in 2014, in Isla Vista, California, killed six and injured fourteen in an attempt to instigate a “War on Women” for “depriving me of sex.” (He then killed himself.) Alek Minassian killed ten people and injured sixteen, in Toronto, last month; prior to doing so, he wrote, on Facebook, “The Incel Rebellion has already begun!” You might also include Christopher Harper-Mercer, who killed nine people, in 2015, and left behind a manifesto that praised Rodger and  lamented his own virginity.

The label that Minassian and others have adopted has entered the mainstream, and it is now being widely misinterpreted. Incel stands for “involuntarily celibate,” but there are many people who would like to have sex and do not. (The term was coined by a queer Canadian woman, in the nineties.) Incels aren’t really looking for sex; they’re looking for absolute male supremacy. Sex, defined to them as dominion over female bodies, is just their preferred sort of proof.

If what incels wanted was sex, they might, for instance, value sex workers and wish to legalize sex work. But incels, being violent misogynists, often express extreme disgust at the idea of “whores.” Incels tend to direct hatred at things they think they desire; they are obsessed with female beauty but despise makeup as a form of fraud. Incel culture advises men to “looksmaxx” or “statusmaxx”—to improve their appearance, to make more money—in a way that presumes that women are not potential partners or worthy objects of possible affection but inconveniently sentient bodies that must be claimed through cold strategy. (They assume that men who treat women more respectfully are “white-knighting,” putting on a mockable façade of chivalry.) When these tactics fail, as they are bound to do, the rage intensifies. Incels dream of beheading the sluts who wear short shorts but don’t want to be groped by strangers; they draw up elaborate scenarios in which women are auctioned off at age eighteen to the highest bidder; they call Elliot Rodger their Lord and Savior and feminists the female K.K.K. “Women are the ultimate cause of our suffering,” one poster on incels.me wrote recently. “They are the ones who have UNJUSTLY made our lives a living hell… We need to focus more on our hatred of women. Hatred is power.”

On a recent ninety-degree day in New York City, I went for a walk and thought about how my life would look through incel eyes. I’m twenty-nine, so I’m a little old and used up: incels fetishize teen-agers and virgins (they use the abbreviation “JBs,” for jailbait), and they describe women who have sought pleasure in their sex lives as “whores” riding a “cock carousel.” I’m a feminist, which is disgusting to them. (“It is obvious that women are inferior, that is why men have always been in control of women.”) I was wearing a crop top and shorts, the sort of outfit that they believe causes men to rape women. (“Now watch as the level of rapes mysteriously rise up.”) In the elaborate incel taxonomy of participants in the sexual marketplace, I am a Becky, devoting my attentions to a Chad. I’m probably a “roastie,” too—another term they use for women with sexual experience, denoting labia that have turned into roast beef  from overuse.

Earlier this month, Ross Douthat, in a column for the Times, wrote that society would soon enough “address the unhappiness of incels, be they angry and dangerous or simply depressed or despairing.” The column was ostensibly about the idea of sexual redistribution: if power is distributed unequally in society, and sex tends to follow those lines of power, how and what could we change to create a more equal world? Douthat noted a recent blog post by the economist Robin Hanson, who suggested, after Minassian’s mass murder, that the incel plight was legitimate, and that redistributing sex could be as worthy a cause as redistributing wealth. (The quality of Hanson’s thought here may be suggested by his need to clarify, in an addendum, “Rape and slavery are far from the only possible levers!”) Douthat drew a straight line between Hanson’s piece and one by Amia Srinivasan, in the London Review of Books. Srinivasan began with Elliot Rodger, then explored the tension between a sexual ideology built on free choice and personal preference and the forms of oppression that manifest in these preferences. The question, she wrote, “is how to dwell in the ambivalent place where we acknowledge that no one is obligated to desire anyone else, that no one has a right to be desired, but also that who is desired and who isn’t is a political question.”

Srinivasan’s rigorous essay and Hanson’s flippantly dehumanizing thought experiment had little in common. And incels, in any case, are not actually interested in sexual redistribution; they don’t want sex to be distributed to anyone other than themselves. They don’t care about the sexual marginalization of trans people, or women who fall outside the boundaries of conventional attractiveness. (“Nothing with a pussy can be incel, ever. Someone will be desperate enough to fuck it . . . Men are lining up to fuck pigs, hippos, and ogres.”) What incels want is extremely limited and specific: they want unattractive, uncouth, and unpleasant misogynists to be able to have sex on demand with young, beautiful women. They believe that this is a natural right.

It is men, not women, who have shaped the contours of the incel predicament. It is male power, not female power, that has chained all of human society to the idea that women are decorative sexual objects, and that male worth is measured by how good-looking a woman they acquire. Women—and, specifically, feminists—are the architects of the body-positivity movement, the ones who have pushed for an expansive redefinition of what we consider attractive. “Feminism, far from being Rodger’s enemy,” Srinivasan wrote, “may well be the primary force resisting the very system that made him feel—as a short, clumsy, effeminate, interracial boy—inadequate.” Women, and L.G.B.T.Q. people, are the activists trying to make sex work legal and safe, to establish alternative arrangements of power and exchange in the sexual market.

We can’t redistribute women’s bodies as if they are a natural resource; they are the bodies we live in. We can redistribute the value we apportion to one another—something that the incels demand from others but refuse to do themselves. I still think about Bette telling me, in 2013, how being lonely can make your brain feel like it’s under attack. Over the past week, I have read the incel boards looking for, and occasionally finding, proof of humanity, amid detailed fantasies of rape and murder and musings about what it would be like to assault one’s sister out of desperation. In spite of everything, women are still more willing to look for humanity in the incels than they are in us.

Jia Tolentino is a staff writer at The New Yorker. https://www.newyorker.com/culture/cultural-comment/the-rage-of-the-incels

[pip-personalispolitical]

GROUPIE LOVE.

I am a self-proclaimed witch, part-time poet and groupie. I say that with a meta affectation; the pretension lies in my self-awareness as opposed to my actions. For those of you that know me, you probably know I enjoy sleeping with musicians. Musicians to me are - without fail - the most interesting people I sleep with  and nine times out of ten are really good in bed. They tend to think outside of the monogamous, penetrative box of heterosexual sex. And while interesting isn't always a good thing, sleeping with musicians gives me an experience I otherwise would never have access to. It’s an insight into a world just out of reach.

In this essay I explore the concept of a groupie and what is given to both parties in an exchange that is ultimately one based on sexuality and erotic capitol. I will examine what I think groupies really do, sociologically, personally and sexually. I also address that this particular definition of being a groupie is one of sleeping with musicians, rather than being a dedicated fan of one. This follows the definition outlined by Pamela Des Barres (the worlds most famous groupie) who states that a groupie is someone who is simply “with the group” or “with the band.”

What we do.

From the perspective of a female groupie to that of a male band, I believe that groupies have historically provided performers with validation. This validation comes in the reaffirmation of their heterosexuality, masculinity and success. If they're not playing for the women, who are they playing for? The men in a homosocial context, or a homosexual one? They deflect the objectified performers’ anxieties of being under  another male gaze - groupies deflect emasculation (Crawford: 2014: 50). Thereby, they validate the performers sexuality and masculinity by existing within a context where they are desired and viewed as a sign of success. Why else would we turn up to your shows if we didn’t think you were talented and beautiful?

That being said, this validation lies within the grounds of heteronormativity and the heterosexual matrix (Butler:  2007: 4, 8). It is therefore assumptive and reductive to those outside of this sphere. The majority of the music industry is a tiresome ground of patriarchy and misogyny, so those who aim to strike bargains with it must do so within those means provided; while I believe this isn’t a bargain with patriarchy due to the context, it is a bargain nonetheless. This exchange is a confirmation of masculinity and femininity within the heterosexual matrix - a bargain well struck.

The Erotic Capital.

This exchange employs the erotic capital, as defined by Catherine Hakim wherein attractive women use their looks and sex appeal to their advantage for financial, political or personal gain; it is a “fourth asset very different from economic, social, and cultural capitol”  that is rising in social importance and gives women an advantage where they otherwise may not have had it (2010: 512). While this is not exclusive to the phenomenon of groupies, it is an important concept I believe is employed in modern ideology of the groupie. As Hakim explains it may have more significance with regards to the entertainment industry and requires a set of social skills based on initial talent and ability (2010: 512). That is to say, groupies already possess or acquire a level of charisma or appeal that makes them desirable to musicians.

Breaking monogamy, sexual assertion and self-awareness.

While groupies provide confirmation within rock ’n’ roll and heterosexuality, they also break the institution of monogamy: groupies exist as a sexually assertive and liberated woman that follows strands of the second wave of feminism (Crawford: 2014: 50).  Being a groupie, then, aligns with the movement of sex positivity. Again, with reference to Hakim, the moral ideologies of society tend to discourage women from “exploiting their erotic capital” (2010: 499). The groupie does not shy away from this, the groupie disregards such stigmas in favour of attaining the poet/god/rockstar.

On this note, Crawford argues that groupies take the phallus worship that lies within the heart of rock ’n’ roll (which could be extended to most genres of music, I think) to it’s logical conclusion by sleeping with the artists (2014: 49-50). As Courtney Love (I know, she’s problematic but she has a point here) once said “we invented rock n’ roll to sexualise men.” What is the height of this sexualisation other than sleeping with them?

“Such savviness provokes hostility,” Crawford notes, “women aren’t supposed to plan for and pursue sexual activity” - more to the point they’re not supposed to know how to do it either (2014: 49-50). As a groupie you play to or adhere to the mood of the music, you dress to be a part of the scene to add to your desirability. It is unsettling for musicians to think that a woman can be so cunning - yet so desired and necessary to their personal masculinity, and, by extension, the reputation of the band.

This brings me to my next point, that some groupies possess a level of self-awareness in regards to their actions, both personally and socially; to be labelled as such is to know your power as well as to be aware of the potential downsides. There is power in the namer; when reclaiming the term - akin to the word slut - acknowledges the connotations of the trope. It demonstrates passion, ambition and desire to occupy a pragmatic standpoint within a situation that is ultimately boiled down to one of a sexual exchange. If both parties enjoy the exchange where both have something to offer, it can be beneficial in terms of personal gain and satisfaction. This, it could be argued, is where the concept of the erotic capitol is epitomised.

I am very aware of this exchange, I have what you want and I know that even if you don’t choose to have sex with me, I am a form of validation that is crucial. I add credibility to their band simply by turning up. Perhaps, this sentiment is epitomised in Lana Del Rey’s song Groupie Love. She coo’s “every time that you look up, I know what you’re thinking of, you want my groupie love,” and she’s right. Groupies want to be desired and they are. The question is, does being a groupie in a modern context require a self-awareness and political connotations of these actions to make them effective in their result, or can the liberal morals of the 60’s still be applicable in a modern context?

Misogyny, power dynamics and exploitation.

One of the main issues is that groupies, to directly quote Crawford, give the musician a means to “connect with a male audience through the objectification and denigration of women,” (2014: 50). The position of a groupie is one amidst a field of misogyny: the groupie sits on a thin fence of second wave, choice feminism. You can play up to these images or utilise them, bargain with patriarchal tropes and power structures, but ultimately do these choices not just further patriarchal and misogynistic tropes within institutions?

Moreover, from my positionality (that of a white, cis-gender, able-bodied female) it serves my purpose and my purpose only; I am running in a playground that stinks of choice feminism and out-dated liberal morals reminiscent of the 60s sexual revolution.

Additionally, I believe that due to the fact that groupies are also caught up in a web of sexual liberation, repression and the long standing virgin/whore dichotomy we are easy targets to be labelled as “too obsessive” or “insane”, we are easily dismissed as objects, tropes, not as human beings. Further manipulation or attempt to disband this adds to such a label and your power is all at once lost to the trope.

Perhaps in a modern context, personal gain requires more rigid and well-analysed political intention - however, that is not to say it cannot be a mutually satisfying interaction. Using my education and personal feelings towards sexuality, I feel as though its more of an exchange - I have no doubt that is due to my positionality. Being a groupie lies in a strange river of dynamics on an interpersonal level and a larger, structural level.

The power dynamics of a musician to that of a groupie are, to say the least, troubling: exploitation is likely, particularly with younger or more naive fans. Lori Maddix is a prime example of this, being one of the most desired within the “baby groupies”; she was only thirteen when she became involved with musicians. This is nothing less than statutory rape despite the fact that Maddix gave consent (Tolentino: 2016). The problematic history of groupies and their rockstar lovers can’t be ignored. I can't defend these actions, nor should I. I’m trying to argue for choice feminism and sexual liberation; the fault lies with the men in rock ’n’ roll who abuse their power. Moreover, sexuality in girlhood isn’t anything to be ashamed of and should be explored - they just happened to explore it with rockstars.

Returning to my main point, in regards to second wave feminism and sexual liberation: to what extent is the exchange about liberation or empowerment? Is this not simply an exchange or a play on the erotic capitol? Can this not simply be a consensual, mutual hook up based on sexuality and satisfaction? Furthermore, empowerment  and liberation are two highly subjective concepts (as I've previously stated in other essays) what is empowering or liberating to one woman may not be to another.

Conclusion.

It is clear that female sexuality is still widely policed and politicised, widely held accountable and impaled on a fence of second wave feminism - it seems we can never win. That being said the groupie validates masculinities and femininities, they offer a break from monogamy and disregard any morals implemented on sexuality; the groupie is a savvy, sex positive, self-aware agent.

Additionally, in analysing the phenomenon historically it’s problematic elements weigh heavy on its positive potential. I feel that we are, however, utilising feminist discourses and sexual liberation to some gain, be it personal, political or economical. And even if groupies aren’t, isn't it still an expression of sexuality that shouldn't be policed? In the earlier concept the positionality of a groupie allowed for the sexuality of girlhood to experience liberation and exploration.

Being a groupie also holds greater potential to gain a foothold into a notoriously misogynistic industry. Given the interaction stays within the laws and age of legal consent, the erotic capital - if acknowledged by the groupie or not - is still at play and in that sense it is effective.

Not to sound like Penny Lane but I’m here for the music, man. I’m here to gain insight into a creative world just outside of my reach, I want to see how you do it, what inspires you. The fact that you have access to members’ only clubs and D-minor celebrities is a bonus.

I revel in the debauchery and hedonism of rock ’n’ roll; I enjoy seeing and being seen, I enjoy the connection to another creative individual - particularly in a way I’ve never been or haven't had the means to be. Mostly, I enjoy knowing that I have something they want, I enjoy knowing that I am desired - particularly by rockstars.

References. 

Butler, Judith (2007): “Subjects of Sex/Gender/Desire“. In: Gender Trouble. Feminism and the Subversion of Identity. New York: Routledge. pp. 4, 8.   Crawford, Anwen (2014). Hole's Live Through This . London: Bloomsbury . 49, 50. Hakim, Catherine . (2010). Erotic Capitol . European Sociological Review. 26 (5), pp. 512. Kandiyoti, D. (1988). Bargaining with Patriarchy. Gender and Society. 2 (3). 
 Nina De Koning. (2017). VHS1'S LETS SPEND THE NIGHT TOGETHER. [Online Video]. 20 May 2013. Available from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SnViqstGsYs&t=311s. [Accessed: 4 October 2017]. Tolentino, Jia. (2016). What Should We Say About David Bowie and Lori Maddox?. Available: https://jezebel.com/what-should-we-say-about-david-bowie-and-lori-maddox-1754533894. Last accessed 2/10/2017.

[writsgrimmyblog]

I’ve been thinking a lot about Harry related discourse lately, including some suggestions that the way his statements get scrutinised is unbalanced in comparison to the way the other 1D boys are treated when it comes to song lyrics, statements they make in interviews and the general bar we set for them.

I get that it’s annoying that Harry appears to meet more political challenges in relation to the stuff he puts out there, but I’m going to put a positive flip side to that observation. I think Harry attracts particular scrutiny because he’s been more vocal and nuanced about issues which have a social justice lean, such as women’s rights and LGBT activism and that he’s even thinking about this stuff is a very good thing. I know that’s one of the reasons why, as a solo artist, he’s held particular appeal for me and I’ve been so excited to hear more from him as an individual. I think the reason he attracts more extensive critique is because he has consciously positioned himself as someone who gives thought to these issues, as someone who cares about, as he puts it himself, fundamental equality. He comes across in his marketing as someone who thinks about things like gender, women’s rights and LGBT identity and that’s a very, very inspiring thing to see in a 20-something popstar who could frankly choose to be a ‘rich kid of instagram’ and enjoy wealth and privilege without giving a fuck about anything or anyone.

If I’m right in my read of Harry, then surely there’s no harm in engaging with thoughtful critique about why this idea of ‘good girls’ allowed to meet mum and women wearing short skirts play into a narrative which isn’t particularly empowering? I come at this from the perspective of someone who LOVES the album and has had SOTT on repeat pretty much from the get go. This isn’t bashing, or character assassination. I actually think nuanced discussion about portrayal of women in pop culture (and entirely removing ship related motivations and emotions from the debate) very much get to the heart of the things Harry himself has gone on record to advocate for. The powerful voice of the young, female consumer. The resistance against buying into narratives we’re fed blindly, the empowering way we can interrogate and engage with things we see going on in the world around us.

I get the sense Harry WANTS to empower his fanbase and he wants to be a vocal supporter of women’s equality. However, Harry is a dude. A lot of micro-aggressions we experience are so insidious and systemic we don’t even notice them ourselves until we start piecing together all of those moments that begin to paint a pretty unhappy picture of binary constructions of gender and the deep, insidious inequality in supposedly ‘equal’ post-feminist societies. This gender imbalance is something he will never have experienced first-hand. That's why I’m behind elements of thoughtful analysis from articles like the Pitchfork piece and why I feel uncomfortable with critique of certain lyrics being read simply as buzz kill or, worse, condemnation of someone I actually have an enormous amount of time for.

Societal problems do not rest on the shoulders of Harry Styles and perhaps some will say it’s unfair to scrutinise what he’s doing in the manner I’m suggesting, but part of me can’t help but think he’d welcome it. There’s a difference between piling on and labelling someone a misogynist and using aggressive language to make a point and just making an observation about things not sitting quite right. I’m going to say the ‘good girl’ thing bugs me because it’s a puritanical kind of narrative which advocates for women being something respectable in the public sphere and a little bit freaky in the bedroom. To not question any of this at all particularly jars with me in a culture which is so ready dogpile female stars for bullshit co-opting of neoliberal feminist ideology, for being ‘too political’ (Queen B, Little Mix daring to comment on Syria) or the endless scrutiny and recrimination of stars like Miley Cyrus who had to grow up and find herself in the public eye or Katy Perry for her not sure quite where she’s coming from stance on LGBT related issues.

The thing is, I like the fact people question Harry’s lyric choices, because they should. It happens to female stars all the time. Interrogating every single word of the songs or the ship driven discussions of lyrics, although diversionary, are not what I’m talking about here. I do think that thoughtful critique can work alongside absolutely loving and supporting someone. I want it to be okay to acknowledge not everything a person I stan does is unequivocally cool. It doesn’t mean we have to start throwing slurs around and hating on someone.

One of the reasons I’m so here for Harry is because of the way he’s engaged with various issues which mean a great deal to me. Without bashing the other boys, he’s distinguished himself on social justice related issues through his own actions. The gender neutral pronouns. The unflinching support of the fangirl. The eagerness to challenge the idea that he somehow has to distance himself from a boyband past or the notion that there’s anything remotely shameful about that musical legacy. Precisely because Harry himself appears to be someone who wants to be an advocate, an ally, a person who positions himself as a supporter on these matters is the very reason why I think engaging with the content he produces in a critical way shouldn’t be such a problem. The fantastic stuff his sister does must be influential to his own approach, and Gemma does not hold back any punches with the issues she writes and blogs about with such eloquence.

My thoughts on this have been prompted predominantly by a handful of lyrics in a couple of songs on Harry’s album which jar with me. I think Harry’s focused a lot more on the way he deals with his frankly fairly crazy life than he has on the perspective of the women in his songs and for me, that comes across. I don’t think we have to beat him over the head with a big stick and call him a terrible person because of that, but I also don’t think we have to feel forced to celebrate the way women are written in all of the songs. Harry is going to grow and change musically and I hope he’ll pick up one of the more persistently negative points about his solo material, which tend to hone in on somewhat trite depictions of the sexually charged woman versus the ‘good girl.’

If you’re still reading (sorry, omg it got so long) I agonized over whether or not to post this. I have been thinking really carefully about how to frame my thoughts, because when it comes down to it, Harry is, I believe, a very good egg. A positive ally. Someone who has a voice which resonates and one I hope he uses more and more, because he’s incredibly influential and has real potential to go far in the music industry.

I think the fact we interrogate Harry more than the other 1D boys is perhaps has more to do with the fact he consciously wants to support exactly this kind of thinking. He has said so himself. That’s not hammering him and calling him names, it’s just a debate, a discussion, a way of processing feelings in a fandom space which is largely female centric but driven by the music, lyrics, interviews and narratives put out there by men. Although I’ve been lurking in the fandom for years, I’m relatively new to speaking out here and I have a small number of followers who I would hate to lose by not putting forward an unequivocally positive perspective. However, I also hate the feeling of not being able to say anything at all and I wanted to set out my stall.

I firmly believe that we can be critical without being damning, supportive without wilfully ignoring anything that might feel problematic. I also think the fact we hold Harry to a particularly high standard is not a bad thing. It’s a very, very good thing. It’s a testament to the fact he’s been pretty much saying the right things to date, and long may that continue.