#and that was WITH a system that recognized what happened to me as abuse

[brownwomanisland]

Like clockwork, I'll see some notable members of the "radfem" movement or really just the "against AGP" movement from the global west and I'll go searching their tweets and they don't actually give a fuck about Palestinian women, Congolese women, Sudanese women.

Yeah, no wonder you have so little allies. You're too busy blaming people for their death. Their liberation of women actually just ends at the borders of their country lmao. That's why I would quicker follow nameless anonymous rad fems who mention women around the world when they can vs the ones with their names and faces on it because they only care about their little paradise not turning into something they hate.

Funny how women and girls everywhere want that. And if you bring up their silence or they're gonna say you're in support of grooming gangs or something like that. Because if you're against war mongering, you must be in favour of ... smaller scale war mongering?

Why cannot I be against genocide and also religious backed grooming gangs? Can I not be against torture against a dispossesed people (which are almost always women and children because they bare the brunt of war) and the trans nonsense of taking up women's spaces? Can I be against religious persecution and also the right for people to practice their religion humanely?

It's then when you realize we do not see the source the same. They do not see the problem of male behavior, male violence, male depravity. They do not see it as that because for them, Islam is the worst thing. And pornography. And I agree.

I also think all religion gives a backing for terrible men to abuse women under a system of respectability that so many people have not recognized. They are so caught up in what faith is their biggest enemy they're inadvertently running cover for terrible men in the faith they see as respectable. How many women and girls go unseen by them?

I wish they would stop calling themselves terfs and just call themselves TE. I don't see what's so radical feminist about knowing your sisters are dying somewhere but not caring because they happened to be indoctrinated into the wrong religion.

Sorry if you don't want to hear me talk about the blindness of our movement. We can't be against male violence everywhere and then go some exclusions may apply™️.

It's the same principle where I find women who push and enlist girls for Only Fans extremely dislikeable and yet the moment they say they want out, I will support their posts. The same way I find phallic obsessed lesbians (calling your girlfriend "boyfriend" lesbian, gagging on strap tweets, obsession with "top" double mastectomy surgeries) gross but I will help them call out an injustice that has occurred. The same way I find the bloodthirstyness of Zionist women appalling and yet I will never believe that she deserves to be raped.

We're either in this together or we're not.

[lureithleon]

I cannot take this anymore:

stolas not telling octavia about the abuse is actually the right decision, according to child psychology and child welfare ministries

[rin-and-jade]

Types of Amnesia

Diagram created by me

General criteria for amnesia:

Memory loss

Confusion

Inability to recognize familiar figures/places

Difficulty recalling names or places

Not remembering where you went

Worser ability to remember things that had happened Post on how to handle these kinds of amnesia: click here!

Generalized Amnesia Where a person completely forgets everything about themself and have no recollection of what, where, and who they spoke to. This can describe a blackout switch and may still recognize who they are.

Localized Amnesia Where a person is unable to recall a specific/series of event from the whole, which creates an incomplete picture of the situation. For example, remembering childhood but not the abuse.

Selective Amnesia Where a person only lost some and retain the rest, forgetting parts yet not all of them. This can describe greyouts as it grasps some information/sensory yet not enough to tell what exactly happened. One example is playing the phone and unable to recall what occured, only to jump its memory right to being at bed.

Emotional Amnesia Where a person has an intact memory and it's details on what had happened, but do not remember what the event feels like (e.g. was scared, happy, etc.). One description is that you're watching something that didn't happen to you, because you don't feel like being in the scene itself.

Continuous Amnesia Where a person fails to retain full parts of the event/day, for a set period of time (can vary from minutes to days) and create an accumulative, small bits of selective amnesias, continuously, leaving many gaps in a chronological timeline. This usually happens in times or stress, or abuse.

Fragmented Amnesia Where a person has an unrelated, and/or disjointed memories that does not go with the timeline's order, creating confusion and difficult to grasp the cohesive picture of what truly happened. Emotional amnesia may be present in this type. Bonus for systems:

Amnesia barriers Where a person fronting is not able to recall other alter's memories, which is a form of retrograde amnesia and compartmentalization. Because the fronter will only retain any information before switching out with the next one, the rest experiences anterograde amnesia as it cannot form and remember those memories, unless being coconcious or cofronting (even though, this is not always guaranteed).

Take notes that amnesia can still happen outside system things due to comorbidities like anxiety disorders or depression, this does mean systems are bound to experience more amnesia compared to non-systems folks out there.

Do you have any discussions about this? Or would like to describe your own way of seeing these different types of amnesia? Or have more to add? Feel free to tell them here!

- j

[secretmellowblog]

One of my pet peeve misinterpretations of Les Mis— which I see in both adaptations, analysis, and fandom— is that “the criminal Justice system’s mistreatment of Valjean was wrong because Valjean was innocent. He was not like other criminals, he was a special exception, a good person who was arrested by mistake.”

The implication is that if Jean Valjean were not innocent, if he were a “real criminal,” the abuse and persecution would have been justified.

One example of this is in the 1935 American Les Mis adaptation. The judge who sentences Valjean proudly says that he is “guilty until proven innocent”— implying that the reason he was arrested was because 19th century France was savage and uncivilized in a way that the very wonderful fair equal society of 1935 America was not, and that Valjean would never have been declared guilty in a country with a proper court system. (Never mind that people are still given inhumanly long sentences for petty crimes even in 2024 America.)

Essentially, rather than analyze the way Les Mis criticizes the cruelty/inhumanity of prison,…..the novel gets framed as a simple story of mistaken identity. Jean Valjean is framed as a good person who is “falsely accused” of being a criminal, when in reality he never actually did a crime, or he “expiated” it, and should be considered wholly innocent ……Unlike Those Other Dirty Criminals Who Deserve What They Get.

This really stands out to me because of one of the things that separates Jean Valjean from Thenardier/Javert is is his unwillingness to betray other people from his class in order to save himself. He refuses to say “I’m not like other criminals” and to claim that he is a unique exception. He is tempted to do it— ex, when he briefly tries to convince himself that his life is worth more than Champmathieu’s, and that his life of theft and poverty isn’t as valuable as his own— but he recognizes how cruel and wrong the idea is. He is an ordinary John Doe that happened to be given a life changing act of grace and mercy; he’s not an innocent angel who was sent to the galleys by mistake.

As a character, Jean Valjean is marked by his refusal to declare himself the “deserving poor” and the others as “undeserving” criminals, so it’s strange that take rears its head so often.

[warblogs17282]

I'm busy thinking about the fact that we can see how a lot of the conflict between Stolas and Octavia has roots in the unhealthy family dynamics brought on in Stolas' childhood.

Mainly inspired from a quote I heard from someone reacting to the episode, that being something along the lines of "Fucked up parents create fucked up children.", and tbh, I can kinda see that with Stolas and Octavia.

Also, let's get one other thing out of the way as well, the family dynamic Stolas and Octavia had before Blitz came into his life was never healthy at all.

The line 'You have always been the only good thing in my life!' hits really hard for a few reasons, with one of them being because it shows that before Blitz came into his life, Octavia was practically Stolas' whole life. Which naturally is not healthy for either of them, while your child is a very significant and important part of your life, they should still not be literally your entire life.

And well, Stolas being like that makes sense, you can see roots of that within Stolas' isolated childhood and upbringing, the only person Stolas had as a friend was Blitz when he was a child, and even then, they didn't see each other again for the next 25 years, leaving Stolas with basically no one else, no other friends to talk to, etc.

And you can see that manifest itself into the family dynamics between Stolas and Octavia, because Stolas has no social life at all outside of the family, and his family, which as a result, leads to Octavia being practically Stolas' whole world, as shown by that line he said.

The line is also quite interesting as well, because in one side, we have Octavia being practically Stolas' whole world, but I also believe the vice versa of that line is true as well.

Which I suppose is the segway into the section of what happens when an imp comes along and absolutely shatters that unhealthy family dynamic.

Something the show has made clear is that a lot of Octavia's life has also revolved around Stolas, which makes sense, but the issue here is that I'm pretty sure that almost all of Octavia's life revolved around Stolas or the family in some way, as I'm pretty sure that this also leads us to a conclusion that Octavia has no support system at all, no actual friends, etc. Which is something that we recognize is quite similar to Stolas, as he also had no support system, no friends, etc, until he met Blitz at that fateful party.

Especially if we consider the fact that Stella is both a neglectful and abusive parent, so it's not like Octavia had the support of both parents here, Octavia only had the support and attention of Stolas her entire upbringing and childhood.

You all remember the "so that girl could live a normal life" comment Stolas made in s2 e1? I believe that this family dynamic is exactly what Stolas was referring to when he said that, Stolas also believed that the family dynamic at play was a normal and healthy thing for the child, when it was anything but.

Which brings us into the events after Blitz came into Stolas' life, when that the family dynamics Stolas was referring to with that 'normal life' comment were completely shattered.

The family dynamics bring up something interesting to me about Octavia, I feel like her upbringing and childhood is also part of the reason as to why she feels like Stolas has abandoned and replaced her with Blitz, why she struggles to understand the fact that Stolas can care for and love Blitz a lot, while also caring for and loving her a lot as well.

Obviously there's more to the situation to it than just this, there's other things like Stolas failing to properly explain the situation and other things that Octavia really should've known, to give an example. But at the same time, I still can't help but think that all of this has roots in the unhealthy family dynamics between them that got shattered when Blitz entered Stolas' life.

And well, it was Octavia's lack of knowledge about the situation that led to her coming to the conclusions she did, such as the conclusions she came to when she found the happy pills, for example.

Octavia's song also makes something else clear, that she used to think that him and Stella had a happy marriage until Blitz arrived in his life, and we know that the reason Octavia used to think that is because of Stolas hiding the abuse he suffered to give Octavia a 'normal life', which as I've stated before, this 'normal life' also included the unhealthy family dynamics between them, the same one where Stolas' entire life revolved around Octavia and the family, and vice versa for Octavia.

Which is the main reason why I believe that the unhealthy family dynamics is a part of the reason of why Octavia said and did what she did this episode, because Blitz actually started the transition into healthier family dynamics, with those being Stolas finally getting the courage to get the divorce, and Stolas having someone in his life outside of the family, no longer having Octavia and Stolas' family quite literally be all that there is to his life.

But here's the thing, because of Octavia's unintentionally lonely upbringing with the unhealthy family dynamics she doesn't know the full situation of, I don't think she recognizes that it is not healthy for the parent or the child for their entire world to be centered around their child plus the family, and vice versa. Plus for the same reasons and a bit more, I don't think she properly recognizes that Stolas can love and care for both Blitz and Octavia a lot at the same time.

As I have stated before, we point to multiple other reasons as to why Octavia behaved, said and believes in what she did, such as her feeling abandoned and replaced by Blitz, and I definitely agree with you all on that Stolas is nowhere near entirely innocent in this whole situation for multiple reasons, but at the same time, I still believe that at least part of this reason why has something to do with Octavia's upbringing, and the unhealthy family dynamics associated with said upbringing, which has roots in Stolas' extremely isolated and lonely upbringing.

Just to be clear, I am not blaming Octavia for anything here, and I am also not hating on Stolas for choosing to be happy with Blitz as well, while I have stated multiple times that Stolas did indeed fuck-up on multiple occasions, I am still not choosing a side here regarding the whole situation. I will not accept any Stolas or Octavia slander, as I have stated multiple times by now.

[somethingpersonarelated]

On simplifying Akechi

My brain was ridden with these ideas people have about Akechi that piss me off a little. Mostly ones that say he is "just crazy" or "just hates Joker." There's countless metaposts countering these arguments (and they are absolutely wonderful) but I often wonder WHY simplifying Akechi down is so appealing, even to people who are fans of his character. I can't say I've never been immune to simplifications of his character either, and I feel like that's important to admit. I don't even think it's necessarily a bad thing, but I was wondering about that why question.

TW: Discussions of mental health and child abuse

Source: A high schooler's holiday from the P5 Comic Anthology (read it here!)

I do think it's hard for all of the little things Akechi's character builds upon to be conveyed through a single playthrough. If you go in blind or don't finish his confidant, you may only get that surface level exploration of his character. Base Akechi is flashy and still gets the point across that it needs to: he's a foil to Joker and the PTs. However, by missing out on his social links and special events, you miss cultural, relationship, and personal context.

Many words have been said about the translation, particularly in the engine room, being faulty in areas. But some people still don't understand that Akechi's plan isn't to kill Shido, even when the text makes that clear. There's also this scene with Shido, which reads more as an exposition dump in a long section of the game most players will either tune out or skip. Not everything you see will always stick in your head, and Persona is a LONG game. I feel like it's easy to forget people just... forget canon sometimes. It's easier to put these details aside and say Akechi isn't affected by the system he's raised in. But the reality is, you miss what Lavenza says about Akechi's role, you miss that one exposition scene, and you miss the confidant: you believe Akechi had much more autonomy than was actually true. In conversations I've had with people IRL about Persona, 2/3 either skipped or did not finish Akechi's confidant. It isn't improbable, playtimes can range from 100-300 hours, most playthroughs take weeks. People will forget things. It isn't a maybe, it WILL happen.

When the game feeds you so much information, it's also easier to take what the characters say at face value. Doing this with Akechi will bite your ass. Those words in Rank 8 are directly expanded upon in No More What Ifs, the engine room, and 2/2. Maruki and Morgana confirm Akechi doesn't hate Joker, but you never hear Akechi say it himself. To me the game beats you over the head with this information (as the game has a tendency to do for certain situations), but I've also been in the rabbit hole for over a year now.

There's also this idea that recognizing that Akechi was set up by Yaldabaoth, his upbringing, and Shido means that all the venom is taken away from his actions. That isn't true, and Akechi holds to that in third semester. He doesn't give himself any grace for the situation he landed in, wanting to take accountability for it when it is undone without his consent. Akechi is by no means a perfect victim, and he doesn't believe that either. Recognizing that he had no choice, it was either homelessness and neglect or the plan he conjured himself only brings to light the tragedy of his situation, not whether his actions were morally incorrect. He wanted his father to be in his life, and he wanted his father to suffer. He wanted to have someone like Ren in his life, and he couldn't have someone like Ren because his plan would be jeopardized. It's a series of choices, some of which are forced upon him, some of which he chooses himself. That is an important distinction to make.

There's also this idea that Akechi is 'just crazy,' or never suffered from abuse or events that affected him long term. That he doesn't suffer from unspecified mental health conditions or trauma, and chose everything with a clear mind. When someone brings up this argument, it's usually in response to people talking about his life experiences. That somehow, the existence of trauma or a condition is an excuse for whatever he did. There's a double standard here: Akechi is someone who suffers from a condition that makes him 'plain crazy', simplifying his entire motivation and role in the story, while also removing him from the context of his mother, Shido, and his experience with the foster system. Actually interacting with these facets of his character brings to light the challenging things the story asks you to think about when it comes to Akechi: Is he a victim? Is he like the Phantom Thieves? What about his situation informed his choices? Interacting with this requires effort and an actual acknowledgement about what it means to be someone that suffers from trauma. Calling him 'plain crazy' not only is in disservice of textual analysis, but more importantly incorrect (and frankly, it falls straight into ableist tropes about mental health).

Sometimes internet debates/discourse lead to simplification, even just random headcanons may lead to simplification. That isn't always bad. There are many ways to say what I said here in fewer words. I, unfortunately, am not skilled enough to do that. But some of these simplifications lead to entirely incorrect judgements about a character, or even about mental health issues. When that happens, I wish people would learn to reflect about what that means when they interact with a piece of media. Or even with other people.

tldr: people should learn to say they just don't like things instead of coming up with excuses that make no sense. basically

[drac-kool-aid]

Seward's bone deep desire to run away from the asylum is not exactly surprising. There have been a lot of really good meta posts about how the return of Van Helsing into his life is the turning point where we see the caring and good side of him and how we can interpret his life as a student in Amersterdam as one of freedom and happiness. How he is part of the tragedy of manners, how strict social expectations allow Dracula to persist, and how they only exacerbate the unhappiness of the characters.

And I think the tragedy of Seward is that, really, he should not be the head of an asylum. It's a job that brings him no joy, and he's BAD at it. We can all recognize that if your first reaction to going back to work is "What if I just leave it all." That isn't a healthy work environment.

Now, in the modern day, the ability to pick and choose a work environment, even to leave one that is damaging your mental health, is a privilege. (IT SHOULDNT BE, but it is). And, although it is definitely reaching crisis levels in modern times, major changes in your career have almost always been difficult (unless you are really rich, or a particular brand of academic in the 17th-18th century, or both).

Seward can't just leave and become a surgeon. To give up the lofty position of "Head of an Asylum" would be unthinkable in the 1890s, especially for a reason like "Being here is basically turning me into the Joker." Like, how would Seward explain that in polite society? Would they accept that reasoning? Would they create salacious gossip if they didn't? Can Seward leave his position without losing a great amount of social capital?

Probably not.

His rise to head of an asylum, as many have pointed out, was meteoric, to say the least. It has afforded him status and respect and also left him deeply, deeply fucked up. And he can't leave!

I think his desperate attempts to quantify Renfield's behaviors into a new mental illness are telling in this regard. Maybe he is too used to having to meet some sort of expectation, and now he thinks this is the logical next step (It's NOT, but I digress). The feeling of having to keep performing above expectations, grasping at straws to do so, and subsequently burning oneself out (as well as others around you) and engaging in unethical practices? Idk. It sounds like something that would happen today. (tbh there are probably a ton of Sewards out there today, as there are still systemic problems within the mental health system that allow for the dehumanizing and abuse of patients).

It doesn't excuse his behavior. Nothing he does to Renfield is excusable, but I think it does explain some of the *why*. He isn't just cruel for cruelty's sake.

So, tldr I guess: I think reading Seward as someone who got stuck on a career path that he realized was unfufilling and that he ends up hating. Social conventions restrict him from just quitting without and a (socially acceptable) good reason to do so, and a lifetime of being regarded as one of the smartest people in the room means he can not allow himself to fail. Unfortunately, this also means he can not admit when his actions or his ideas are wrong when it comes to his job.

(But he can show that uncertainty FOR Lucy, and TO Arthur and Van Helsing, which speaks his trust and love for them)

[dronebiscuitbat]

Oil is Thicker Then Blood (Part 2)

Uzi felt herself being dragged out of sleep mode. Something she wanted to cling to heavily, she was warm, safe, happy, she moved closer to the heat source, mumbling a "no” as it seemed to try and move away.

Then it stopped, before enveloping her again, followed by a deep, strong rumble that did nothing but make her more comfortable.

“Uzi, come on, if you're dad walks in on this he's going to have a system crash.” A voice spoke to her, she recognized it, she smiled.

“Let him… he sucks.” She mumbled, and another rumble went through her. A pressure on her back, guiding her, and lingering for just a moment.

“Come on. At least let me go drink something before I overheat.” At that she felt herself get pulled completely out of sleep mode, her eyes flashed back to her visor with a groggy grumble.

“N?” She questioned, not quite awake. Why was he here again? And why was she so warm?

“Yeah? Are you going to let me get up?” He had a laugh tucked in his words. Uzi opened her eyes, only to look directly into a honeyed visor.

Her mouth went dry, memories of the sleepover invading her head, the movie, him overheating, his sleek armored body-

Ack, No! What the hell? Drones didn't even have anything to look at!

Oh but it was worse, she was on top of him, his arms wrapped around her waist and his tail wrapped around her leg, her chest pressed against his, feeling his core hum underneath her.

Oh… Oh no…

Her face exploded in blush. Every ounce of her body suddenly becoming ice. She scrambled off him, throwing herself off the bed with “ohgreatrobojesus” tumbling out of her mouth right before she hit the floor with a thud.

N was immediately next to her, checking to see if she was okay.

“You good? I'm so sorry! I didn't think I would scare you awake!” His hand was on her shoulder, already apologizing for something that wasn't his fault. Stupid crush, stupid cute golden drone boy, dammit.

“Bite me! I'm fine, you didn't. I just, wasn't expecting- whatever.” All her shields came up at once, trying to grip for something familiar despite how soft she felt. N thankfully only laughed, stepping back and stretching his tail.

“Good! I was worried I spooked you. You know you're really cuddly in your sleep?”

Oh Robo-god, how… how did he still not know? After everything that had happened in just this one night, how had he not figured her out by now? Did he know? Was he just pretending he didn't? Or was he actually that dense?

“Oh… uh sorry.” She apologized, turning to him after doing her best to conceal her fluster, only for N to look horrified.

“I didn’t mean to imply it was bad! It's really nice you can relax like that with me! It let's me know I'm being a good freind!”

He was… actually that dense. And Uzi had never been happier about having a crush on an idiot.

He's not an idiot, he's just dense, there's a difference.

“Still, s-sorry for keeping you pinned down.” She offered. Still feeling the need to apologize for using N's body like a personal heating pad without asking, even if he looked like he hadn't minded in the slightest.

“It's okay! I could still breathe, nothing like being pinned to a wall!”

Man sometimes the shit that came out of his mouth was concerning. It wasn't often, but sometimes he would reference how he was mistreated by J, V tended to just ignore him, which annoyed her, but at least she wasn't physically abusive.

She was glad she'd vaporized the bitch. Twice.

“Oil stash is in the mini-fridge, help yourself.” He immediately whipped towards it, burying his face into the space beneath her desk.

“Tanks!” His muffled voice cheered, pulling out an oil can with a straw. Chugging the container like it was water. Oil running down his cheek and threatening to drip from his chin.

Honestly, Uzi wouldn't ever admit it, and felt weird admitting it even to herself. But watching him display his more… murdery side always excited her, like he was dangerous to be around and she was cool and edgy for being able to tame the beast inside him.

The only problem with that fantasy is that N was probably the safest being in a hundred miles to be around. And the beast inside was an overly excited dog.

Still, she could sometimes pretend.

He finished, wiping his mouth before training his gaze on her, she felt her neck prickle, damn he looked predatory sometimes-

“When's the last time you topped up?” He asked, realizing that he'd drunk from her personal stash and hadn't noticed any other container.

“Yesterday. Don't worry, I haven't been ignoring it… it kinda won't let me…” She thought back to the first time she'd drunk the stuff without being, for lack of a better word, Possesed.

She was curled up in a ball, sitting in the pod. Looking reproachfully at the cannister of oil N had put in front of her. The same N sitting across from her, trying to hype her up.

“You need this, if you don't have it you'll go on a rampage again. And I know you don't want that.”

“It's still from a worker drone. It's still blood, I… I don't want it. Please don't make me.” She'd been in hysterics, only a week after she'd killed half her classmates did she start hungering for more. Temperature slowly ticking up.

“Uzi, I won't let you burn yourself up.” N had replied, looking steely, he moved slightly closer, picking up the canister and holding it out to her.

She took it with a shaky hand, she hadn't recovered from loosing control, waking up terrified, or waking up drooling, or both. She didn't want to hurt anyone else, she couldn't, she didn't think her conscious could handle it.

So she tipped it into her mouth, and the oil slithered down her throat.

She felt both relief and disgust hit her at once, making her immediately want to vomit. She would have, had N not grabbed the container and forced it to stay in place.

“Don't vomit, I know you want to. I did at fist too, drink slowly, stop thinking about where it comes from.” He had a hand on her back, the other slowly tipping more in her mouth.

She hated it, she **loved** it, it was sweet and warm and rich, like the best mixture of coolant she'd ever tasted. Tears pricked on the corners of her visor. Fuck, was this what she was now? She really was a freak.

A monster.

“Thats it… it's okay. Don't cry Uzi, it's okay.” N's voice was soft, and he was rubbing circles into her back to relax her. Slowly she did, taking the container from his hand and holding it herself, draining the liquid from it.

She finished it, visor blurry from the tears, N wiped what was left from her mouth with his thumb, looking at her with a soft smile.

“Are you okay?” He asked, and the worker drone blinked back at him for a moment before Uzi launched herself into his chest, choked sobs escaping her, her arms wrapping around his neck, gripping his shoulders so tight that if it was any other drone it would hurt.

N wasn't a monster, he was the nicest person Uzi had ever met and then some. But he still needed oil, and he'd killed for it, countless times, but it still wasn't okay was it? That she craved it, that the desire was there just under the surface?

“Yeah… that's what I figured.” He said sadly, holding her tightly as she sobbed uncontrollably into him, his arms went around her, holding her close, then his tail, and then they were shielded by his wings, as if they were cocconed in thier own little world.

“You're not a monster, it's not your fault.” N said into her hair, almost reading her mind, sobs turned into hiccups and whimpers, feeling the warmth of his core humming underneath her.

“W-why does it h-have to be me?!” She said in a warbled, watery yell, pressing herself against him further, she felt him stiffen, then relax, a hand petting her hair.

“You're so strong, you're so brave, and smart, if it was anyone else they'd already be dead.” He complimented her, her beanie slid off as he ran his fingers through her hair. She sniffed, despite her current state she felt a blush creep up her visor.

“B-bite me, you don't actually mean that.”

“Yes I do. Would I ever lie to you?”

She was pulled out of the memory by N's hand on her shoulder, head cocked the side as if he expected something from her.

Had she been ignoring him?

“Oh! Sorry, did you say something? I kinda zoned out…”

“I just asked if you needed me to get more oil for you, I don't want you going without.” He repeated, not looking annoyed at her in the slightest, which honestly kinda made her feel worse.

“Nah, I can get some from the nursery.” She brushed him off, walking to her door and leaning against it for a moment, looking back at him.

“It's not dusk yet, and I'd feel weird just leaving you in my room… wanna come with? I don't think you've seen the nursery before.” If she was being even more honest with herself, she just wanted him put of her room so he wouldn't snoop. He… didn't need to find her dair-journal, it was a journal.

Not that she thought N would intentionally voilate her privacy, but just the thought of him stumbling upon her stupid sappy fanfiction about him- no shut up made her want to never give him the chance.

“Oh! Babies?” He hummed, grabbing his overcoat and hat from where they hung on the side of her bed.

“There might be a couple. People have started to have them more after you and V stopped… you know.”

N smiled, beginning to pull off his shirt before he saw Uzi standing there and paused, sheepishly motioning for her to turn around.

She did, facing the door as she heard N fumble with his clothes, and a muttered “Oh Biscuits” under his breath.

“Problem?” She hummed, trying not to think about how broad his should- freaking stop brain why.

“No! Er well yes, but I got it!” She heard more shuffling, then the distinct sound of N's claws unsheathing. Then more sounds of N getting increasingly frustrated.

She turned around to find N struggling with his belt, mostly because his tail was caught in it, and he was trying desperately not to stick himself while trying to use his claws as a crowbar, lifting up the belt so he could pull his tail free.

“How did you manage that?!” She laughed as N looked dejected, returning his claws back to his normal hands and awkwardly wringing them.

“I haven't ever taken the coat off before.” He mumbled, and Uzi just giggled, coming up to him and grabbing the wire of his tail, and slowly unweaving it from the fabric of his belt.

This was what he meant by sweet, Uzi didn't make fun of him when he made mistakes, at least not seriously, and he felt less dumb and less scared when he did make one. She'd often just explain what he got wrong or- like now, just help him out.

“Least I can put mine away, this looks like it can be a nuisance sometimes.” She pointed out, seemingly almost done with her task.

“Sometimes, and the vial is really sensitive too, I think it's to make sure we don't break it…” as he mentioned it, Uzi's palm grazed the nanite vial in question, sending a brief but powerful bolt of input up his tail, making him wince.

“Sorry… said that a second too late.” She said, also looking like she winced with him. But he just smiled.

“S'okies, it wasn't on purpose, you're also trying fix my screw up, so can't complain.” He gave her a thumbs up as he was finally able to pull his tail free.

“You can still complain. Also it wasn't a screw up, just a… wardrobe malfunction.” At that they both laughed, Uzi looking down at herself in her light yellow shirt.

“Right, my turn. Then nursery.”

Next ->

[drdemonprince]

Your advice to the letter-writer whose friend is a former abuser is interesting to me! I largely agree with the specifics, but I'd have added advice to be careful with how the former abuser treats the letter-writer. I might also advise them to be careful whenever the former abuser describes conflicts, as they might be likelier than average to use a woe-is-me framework. I would recommend caution with anything the abuser suggests they do that might cause them discomfort or humiliation, even if it sounds righteous in theory. I realize this is not very fair of me. The former abuser shouldn't have to live with increased carefulness and suspicion from their friends. Maybe it's not a real friendship if you're always wary about your friend potentially turning on you. But purely pragmatically... a lot of former abusers do abuse again, even if they had changed, sincerely, for a while. And "my friend who knows my history and stands with me, even losing some other friends in the process" is a prime target for Abuse II: Abuse Comes Back But In A New Enlightened Way. Deciding to have solidarity with a former abuser is a very moral thing to do, but it's also a trait some abusers are great at warping for their own benefit. Again, I know I'm being unfair, but I keep seeing this happen. Sometimes the friend gets sucked into a narrative where they eventually blame the former victim and become increasingly protective. Other time they say very clear-eyed things but ultimately still end up physically or sexually or emotionally mistreated.

I guess my question is, you say you believe the abuser fundamentally changed, so what does that look like to you? Are you able to fully relax around people who've abused in the past? Abuse is the result of circumstances, but it's also a sort of skill; how do you trust people to never use that skill again?

Great things to be aware of, honestly, thanks anon for the nuanced and careful view.

I like your framing of abuse as a skillset rather than a type of person -- and it's a skill that a whole variety of people wield, including sometimes those who are identified by most not as abusers, but as crusaders for justice or even supposedly for victims' rights. Having been abused and having also learned to be a canny social manipulator, I do see abuse as a skill that gets taught in dysfunctional groups and family systems, and which we can all potentially fall back on when we're backed into a corner.

Knowing how to recognize the skills of abuse being utilized (and maybe even more importantly, how you feel when a person leverages certain tactics against you) is really important for self-preservation in general. Being friends with someone who has a known abuse history that they are explicit & contrite about, in some ways, puts you in a safer position than if you were interceding with a more covert abuser who uses such tactics under a banner of benevolence. But it's also true that many people who come to be known as abusers were initially known as charming, and right thinking, and moral -- and it's very possible for someone who has done abuse to present themselves as such but not mean it. We can't ever really know the full depths of someone else's heart and mind, nor do we have to -- we can look to their actions and the skills they use, particularly when they are frustrated or feeling attacked.

[deadpoetmagda]

The way everyone now took up in arms blaming women and girls for the elections results and young men turning into the far right truly made something click in me, literally everyone and their grandpa is blaming women, even groups who hate each others are now bonding together like besties just to blame women, so excuse me for ranting on tumblr.com, this is gonna be long :)

What's been happening lately really opened my eyes to how hypocritical everyone is, what's everyone only ever good at is pointing their fingers at women and throwing the blame at us, misogyny and violence against women in all its shapes and forms since the dawn of time till these days didn't cause women to go out on the streets and murder men in masses, yet apparently misandry is real and some comments online made by the evil feminists were enough to radicalize young men and turn them into far right incels and are to blame for the elections in the US, women are always to blame for everything, I'm not surprised with this coming from men but to see women spewing this dumb bullshit too is so disheartening, to me you're no different than the conservatives who blame women for men's "loneliness epidemic" instead of encouraging them to start treating us better, teenage boys and men are shouting "your body our choice" at little girls and young women yet all you fuckers can take from that is that these girls and women are somehow to blame for it!!! A 19 yo girl typing I HATE MEN on her silly little Facebook page or reddit discord after years of nothing but stories of rape and misogyny in the news and in her neighborhood and her school and her home and literally fucking everywhere is to blame for men and boys being radicalized actually, meanwhile the internet is filled with men sharing rape videos and their violent fantasies about us and then they go out in real life shouting and smirking at us admitting how badly they want to strip us of our rights!!

Teenage boys are watching violent porn, men gang rape teenage girls, women and girls get trafficked, raped, beaten, murdered on the daily around the globe, it's statistically proven that husbands mistreat and abuse their wives on such a high scale even in first world countries, not to mention the daily misogyny and sexsism we face, men don't even need to get "radicalized", the majority of men out their don't want us to reach them and be "nicer" to them like you preach, they simply want power over us and to misuse that power, and women and girls who recognize this and see it clearly in the world we live in right now and the thousands of years of recorded history we have and not even to mention personal experiences are the ones to blame... for being aware of it and acknowledging it and demanding change!!!! How fucking dumb are you, or maybe you're just a pretentious hypocrite :)

No one's ever blamed these boys and men for me and other women to end up having radical feminism views, nah they're too busy calling us demented and mentally ill and lecturing us about how to treat men better lest we fail them and blaming us for everything wrong with the world!

Ever since I got introduced to radical feminism and found myself agreeing with some of its ideas and arguments I was always still critical and sometimes even wary of it and never really called myself one, but now if I get totally sucked into it and get "radicalized" myself it's actually all your fault, how about that? Congratulations, centuries of men raping us and creating endless systems to oppress us in unimaginable ways didn't radicalize me, you and your hypocrisy did that instead :)

Honestly fuck all of you dumb shitheads, you can't gaslight us into cuddling men while they keep beating us bloody, I've had enough!

[sysmedsaresexist]

Today we're once again reminded of the levels of cruelty people are capable of.

I missed most of the drama with the bait accounts, but I want to offer some positivity and solace to those affected.

Many of you actually cared about the fake child behind the screen. You wanted to help, you sent kindness and support, and I watched many of you worry in private on discord-- everyone was very realistic about the claims. Obviously they were probably wrong, but goddamn, they needed help.

Don't be embarrassed or ashamed that you fell for it.

You are a good person, who sees good in the world.

You aren't gullible or easily manipulated.

You are still capable of trust, and you should be so proud of yourself for manging to hold on to that trait after everything you've been through.

Don't let this do further damage to you. Don't be angry with yourself, don't lose that faith in the good of humanity.

Don't let sick people trick you into thinking the world is full of only horrible people. Don't let yourself become more skeptical, because that's what they want.

Continue to believe survivors

In Canada, we have a saying.

"Better that someone abuse the system, than for someone who needs it to not have access."

Stay with me, I'm going somewhere with this.

When we talk about Universal Healthcare with Americans, this topic comes up a lot. "But people will abuse the system."

Yes, but more people actually need and use the system appropriately. You can't allow bad people to harm everyone. Everyone loses in that case.

As proof:

We pay less in taxes than Americans, and still get free Healthcare. I take home more money than you, and still get more out of it. The myth that our waitlists are months long is fake and orchestrated by American insurance companies.

Consider, for a second, how your background plays into your beliefs and skepticism regarding these topics. Maybe I was just raised to be more trusting, I don't know.

But I certainly don't think the mindset is harmful.

You can read interviews on the isstd website with clinicians that were working during the satanic panic. One interview stood out to me in particular.

Imagine for a second that you have a patient sitting in front of you. They tell you that they have dreams about being abused by a satanic cult. They give you details of these dreams and you talk through them together. For now, you're focused on how these dreams affect them. Are they losing sleep? Is their daily life affected? Anxiety? They begin to tell you about their paranoia, and how people they recognize are in the dreams.

You probe a bit deeper.

They wonder aloud if maybe it happened in real life.

How do you respond? Really think about how your response will come across.

This was the satanic panic.

The ISSTD didn't find their patients themselves. Doctors from across the world referred their patients to the ISSTD's treatment program in Chicago. The doctors at the ISSTD trusted the referring doctors, who had already done the majority of work and background gathering (meaning the ISSTD met these clients long after they had made their claims, rather than "implanting" those memories themselves). Police were involved trying to sort through all the information to find real culprits. Everyone was terrified. No one knew what was happening or who to trust or believe. It looked real.

In the back of every doctor's mind was the question, "What if they're telling the truth?"

Many doctors didn't believe their clients, but telling them that to their face would be bad practice.

This large scale hysteria was something no one was prepared for. They were flying by the seat of their pants, hoping for the best and that an answer would fall from the sky.

Yes, many of the claims were fake. Whether they were consciously made up, or stand-in pseudomemories for real abuse (a well-documented thing), and the rare cases mixed in that were genuine-- doctors tried to take their clients' claims at face value.

Imagine you tell your doctor about your abuse and they say, "that sounds a bit extreme, I don't think that's possible."

Programmed DID existed before the panic, it exists to this day. Just because you can't find the research doesn't mean it isn't there.

By claiming something specific isn't real, you also discredit the abuse leading up to it.

Let me put it another way, who cares if programmed DID is possible? Organized and ritual abuse is real. Trafficking, CSA films, war crimes, conversion groups, churches. DID is real.

Grey Faction and TST want you to stay in the mindset that it's more important to weed out fakers and malingerers than to trust people in the hopes you help just one person in a real way. They want you to be skeptical of everyone and everything in order to maintain their public image, because if you look too hard, you'll see the terrible things they have done.

GF has a bad habit of being like, "The TST doesn't take part in LARGE SCALE MURDER AND CANNIBALISM, that's not even real, it was debunked during the panic," as if to say anything less severe isn't worthy of note and also must not be real. It's surprisingly effective, and by connecting more absurd ideas with RAMCOA and the ISSTD, they manage to discredit huge swathes of the field.

Some people like to think they took the red pill, and that they've ascended to a higher level of intelligence with a new, better ability to look at things impartially, when they're really just assholes falling for bullshit. They hurt real survivors and still think they're in the right.

It's vile behavior done for cheap kicks and internet brownie points. Even 4chan types wouldn't go that far or be that pathetic.

Who else could look someone in the face and say, "I don't believe you."

They want you to think they're better than you, but which is better?

Outward and vocal skepticism and dismissal, or quiet, thoughtful reflection with the longterm goal of helping this person find their truth?

Some of you would make much better doctors than others.

The bad people aren't the ones "faking" or lying. Those people at mentally ill and still deserving of help.

The bad people are the ones who want to dismiss every claim because one person once lied about it.

Don't lose your faith. Don't let this set you back. We need more people like you.

I'm proud of you for caring about people.

What happened will further stigmatize survivors, it did real damage to people. You're not alone.

Don't let them win, you did the right things.

Stay safe, everyone.

We survived this kind of discourse once on a much larger scale. We'll do it again.

[system-positivity]

Your posts should be for everyone! Because even if endos don’t recognize that they have trauma, if they relate to systemhood experiences they’re plural, everyone in the community deserves to have access to the content.

If they relate to my posts, great! If they support endogenics or are endogenic themselves, I don't want them interacting with my posts or my blog.

This will not change. It will never change. It is a hard set boundary that I intend to keep. If people continue to break it they will be blocked.

No one is entitled to posts I make in my free time for the express purpose of spreading positivity to those who need it. If they happen to fall on my very minimal Do Not Interact, my posts are not for them. Even if they relate, they can find the content elsewhere.

I do not want people who support endos or endos interacting with my posts and blogs. i do not have a good history with either community due to the fact i was quite literally groomed into supporting endos.

I was actively abused and manipulated my multiple endos and supporters. It took me years of therapy to even acknowledge that fact and how it has (and does) affect me.

I have active trauma relating to endos and their supporters - leave this trauma victim the fuck alone already. Respect people when they state a boundary.

If you wish for a space for endos and supporters, make your own blog and advertise it. It's that simple. If you don't like what I post, talk to me about it (unless you want me to change my boundaries) or block me. It is that simple and costs fuck all.

PRO ENDOS & ENDOGENIC "SYSTEMS" DNI - THIS POST IS NOT FOR YOU!

[marriso1]

i would like to make this very clear, as much as i love snape i do NOT support his actions and behavior as a teacher. bullying students isn’t okay, and it isn’t justified. just because you have a bad childhood doesn’t mean you get to take it out on others. before you step in and say i don’t know what i’m talking about i can assure you i do. People deal with trauma differently, and even so that’s true it’s still not justified to bully children. Everyone he was raised by as a child did worse than bully people and he never got a good support system so it makes sense why he turned out that way, so i’m not suprised why he did. i firmly believe that if he had found a good support system or some better friends he would’ve been able to grow into a better person. He has done a ton of good, and had a lot of atonement for things and that’s a big part of why i like him. But again, he’s done some bad aswell and just because he’s my favorite character doesn’t mean i don’t recognize that.

it is okay to like morally grey characters.

In fact i like snape the most BECAUSE of the fact he’s a morally grey character. Not because he bullies children, but because he has faults and he has worked on some of them and ultimately became a better person because of that. he’s a realistic example of someone who’s dealt with trauma and what could happen, and i love that. he’s a comfort/parental character to me but that doesn’t mean i’m gonna ignore his faults.

EVERYONE has faults, and even though you shouldn’t overlook them it doesn’t mean that person doesnt deserve a better life or people to support them. (Except for abusers and such obviously)

[nothorses]

About that "a trans man committing a mass shooting proves trans people really are the gender they identify as" post: women have committed mass shootings too? Okay it's a lot less statistically frequent, but it happens (as the song "I Don't Like Mondays" demonstrates). It reminds me of the time TERFs on Reddit assumed the woman who shot up the YouTube HQ in 2018 was trans, and then when she turned out to be cis, someone immediately speculated she was getting justified revenge on an abusive BF who worked there (though that comment got downvoted and may have been a troll)

I took this opportunity to look more into statistics around mass shooter demographics, and interestingly, there are a lot of myths tied up in this issue.

This article looks into a few studies and databases to investigate the "90% of all mass shooters are white men" myth, and finds that in actuality, "It really depends on what type of mass shooting you’re talking about. Several of the highest-profile mass shootings in recent memory [...] were committed by white males, such as the 2017 Las Vegas attack by Stephen Paddock. But much beyond that, the stereotype breaks down; Muslim man Omar Mateen killed forty-nine people at a Florida nightclub in 2016 on behalf of a terrorism group; white male Adam Lanza killed twenty-seven people in 2012 at an elementary school, though Asian student Seung-Hui Cho killed thirty-two people on the Virginia Tech campus in 2007. And so on."

This article fact-checks the gender-specific claims as well, in the context of trans people, and finds that there have been more claims that shooters are trans than can be reasonably substantiated, and that even this number is overshadowed by the number of cis women who have committed mass shootings.

I bring this up because I think the first article in particular brings a lot of much-needed nuance into the issue:

"The whites-are-overrepresented-among-mass-shooters meme does serve a useful purpose in that it helps displace another myth about mass shootings: that they’re most often perpetrated by angry immigrants from travel-banned countries, and that nothing is more dangerous to America that the scourge of Islamic terrorism. … These are worthy ends, but we shouldn’t have to build another myth to reach them.”

What are we saying when we talk about these kinds of incidents this way?

What I find interesting is that in a lot of these conversations around crime, we recognize that crime is often the result of poverty. Indeed, this study finds that the number of mass shootings increases in countries that experience an increase of income inequality.

We can also often recognize that these numbers are skewed because they rely on media coverage, arrests, and criminal charges; all of which are influenced by societal bias. The first article on mass shootings notes that, "mass shootings with white victims tend to get more attention, both from journalists and those on social media, than those with victims who are people of color. This is a well-known pattern and explains why the public is quicker to react to a missing young blonde girl than a missing young black girl."

Are white mass shooters covered more because their targets- being overwhelmingly people and institutions they have ties to- are also usually white?

If "white men are overrepresented as mass shooters" means white men are particularly dangerous and must be feared, what does this imply about other demographics overrepresented in certain crime statistics? What does it mean when we find this isn't true- is there suddenly just is not an issue of white cis male violence? I would certainly disagree.

And I think this gleeful claim that "trans men are proving their gender" by committing acts of violence- again, far more rare than cis women doing the same- only plays into these issues.

Is crime the result of entitlement and privileged anger, or is it the result of a broken system failing its citizens? Are cis men committing acts of extreme violence because they are all- regardless of race- whiny pissbabies who take joy in hurting others, or is this the result of a system that teaches men they can only express emotion through anger and violence? That human connection is not for them, and that needing things makes them unworthy of manhood, love, or even life?

I'm not saying we need to coddle and woobify mass shooters. I'm asking: is this an issue we fix by fearing and hating and wishing death on whole demographics of people based on how represented they are in criminal statistics, or can we make systemic and cultural changes that meaningfully prevent this from happening in the first place?

Do we condemn groups as Bad because some of them have done violence, or do we examine the causes and work toward meaningful solutions?

Obviously, trans men and trans people in general are not in any way "overrepresented" as perpetrators in mass shooting statistics. But I think the people reveling in any new trans male shooter are making it very clear that they don't care about solving problems; they're just interested in looking for reasons to hate, fear, and condemn this specific group of people they already dislike.

[brazenautomaton]

Cannot reblog original post but: taboo "feminism"?

Less laconically it looks like you and your interlocutors are talking about different things. They understand "feminism" as the movement that is pushing for/has made strides towards at least formally and legally treating women the same as men (which seems straightforwardly laudable and needn't be zero sum) whereas when you talk about feminism yours is...a new concept for me, which I'd like to understand better.

okay, to do that, I need to "taboo" a different word, and before I do THAT, I need to remind you of something important: useful information is information that lets us make accurate predictions.

Okay so. "Sexism" is the word we need to do first. Let's say simply that "sexism" is whatever means or mechanism or system in the world that results in an observed difference between outcomes between men and women. There are different theories as to what causes this observed difference, and two are relevant:

Misogyny Theory is the idea that "sexism" is a unidirectional oppression created by men, to inflict on women, out of hatred of women. Misogyny is a desire to harm women for being women. Power is a thing held by men and denied to women. Misogyny theory says sexism is, intentionally or unintentionally, made to benefit men at the expense of women, against the will of women. Gender history is defined by men hating women and seeking to harm women, who were not powerful enough to make it stop.

Gender Bias Theory is the idea that "sexism" is a system of biases and perceptions that are participated in by both men and women whose aim is to maximize women's safety at the cost of their agency and maximize men's agency at the cost of their safety. Gender bias casts women as precious and incapable victims and men as threatening and disposable agents. Men and women both participate in and reinforce this bias and gender history is defined by punishing people who don't fit into this model and rewarding people who do.

These are not equally valid competing theories. Misogyny theory is wrong, because the predictions it makes about women's safety are very important and do not match reality at all. Misogyny theory predicts that women would be less safe than men, that they would have more crimes committed against them and the criminal justice system would be harsher towards them, that their victimization would be more acceptable and that the law would refuse to recognize their victimization. All of these things are the opposite of what happens. There is no category of crime that happens more often to women than men; rape and domestic abuse, the crimes that misogyny theory claims are the defining experience of women and are particular to the experience of women, are 50/50 and every other bad thing a human being can do to another human happens way more to men than to women. Crimes against women are more likely to be prosecuted than against men, more likely to result in conviction, and the sentences are greater; the same for male criminals vs female criminals. Misogyny theory is incorrect.

Not only does gender bias theory accurately predict outcomes (it predicts that sexism would result in women being protected heavily and denied opportunities to succeed or excel), gender bias theory perfectly predicts the existence of misogyny theory. Biases are not precision instruments. They are directions to err toward, they are inaccuracies in people's perceptions that overall bend people's beliefs in a certain way. The way you have a bias that ensures women are safe and non-agentic, is when people are extremely concerned with the well-being of women and extremely callous to the well-being of men. Someone who had powdered up gender bias and snorted it like a line of coke would be unable to see anything other than "women are not safe enough, men are imperiling women, men have to do more to keep women safe." That's the only belief gender bias allows, because if you ever concluded "women are safe," you wouldn't be doing things to make women safer.

This is why misogyny theory is sexism. It has the unexamined perceptions of gender bias and is by majority concerned with enforcing the central belief of gender bias: women are victimized by the power of men, men are threatening to women, men have it better than women, men must do more to enlist their agency to protect women. Every single example of historical sexism fits this pattern: women have to be kept safe, and to do this, women are treated as children who cannot be responsible for their own safety. If they were responsible for their own safety, then not enough people would be looking out for them. Women need men's supervision because if they make their own decisions they might make the wrong ones. Women can't dress provocatively because men are so dangerous and threatening it might provoke one to attack her. Rape is a uniquely harmful and destructive crime to women, because women are so non-agentic that they can't do meaningful things and the only thing they bring to the table is their sexual purity; a woman who has had that sexual purity taken has been effectively ruined, she obviously has no agency so she can't recover from it, and so we can't let that happen to her, and she should know to be very afraid of it all the time.

The Movement is a large and powerful group of people who claim to be the only way to fight sexism. They are misogyny theorists. The history of the Movement is the history of misogyny theory. The actions taken by the Movement are actions taken in line with misogyny theory. The power held by the Movement is power held by misogyny theorists. The theoretical structures and intellectual viewpoints of the Movement are those of misogyny theory. Within a rounding error, all of them are misogyny theorists, and the ones who aren't, are decried and excommunicated from the Movement when it is discovered they aren't misogyny theorists.

Some members of the Movement have a ravening hatred of men and seek to harm men more than anything in the world. Other members of the Movement are genuinely seeking to end sexism and are "for real equality." The relative proportions of each do not matter, because misogyny theory is incorrect. People who believe in misogyny theory believe in a worldview that despises men, sees men as threatening and hateful, views men as uniquely responsible for harm, and puts all responsibility to fix things on the shoulders of men. A misogyny theorist's view of how to be charitable to men is to believe "it is not your fault you are brainwashed to hate women, you did not choose to be complicit in a system that hates and imperils women, and you imperil women only because you have not been taught not to imperil women. But you need to recognize that you hate women and it is your responsibility to make the world stop hating women, you have to do work to stop being so threatening to women."

This is wrong. This is not an accurate assessment of the world. Anyone who believed this about any other group of people would be correctly described as a hateful bigot even if, to them, they are the only ones who see their opponents as humans with potential to act like humans. There are total racists who feel like they're the only ones who recognize black people have the potential to NOT be rapists and murderers, and it is progressivism that says they all are innately criminals so we have to all pretend not to notice. This perception is more accurate than misogyny theory and we correctly decry it as a racist perception we shouldn't respect.

The Movement is synonymous with belief in misogyny theory, and belief in misogyny theory is belief in sexist perceptions. It is turbo-sexism. If you believe in misogyny theory you are wrong. When the Movement acts in accordance with misogyny theory to make the world a better place, they fuck up, because they're trying to abolish sexism while demanding people believe the things sexism believes as hard as they can. The Movement is obsessed with women's safety when all of the problems sexism gives them come from obsession with women's safety. When the Movement identifies any problem women face, it cannot address it in a non-sexist way and cannot gain anything for women without punishing men. The Movement can make shelters for battered women, but only because domestic abuse was not a gendered problem and it can only do so by ensuring battered men are erased and left without support. It can't see the world any other way. Women are victims and men are victimizers, women have to be protected from victimization. The Movement can support reproductive rights, but only because support or opposition to abortion is not a gendered issue (as many women are against abortion as men), and it can only do so while doing everything in their power to make sure men have no reproductive rights. Because they can't conceive of a situation where men need them when it isn't for the purpose of victimizing women. Men have to use their agency to make the world comfortable for women, it is hateful to women to let them escape this!

The Movement will always be filled with people who virulently hate men, because its conception of men is hateful and the way it is nice to men is thinking "it's not your fault you have these despicable attributes, having these despicable attributes also hurts you, I am sorry that sexism made you so threatening and cruel to women." The Movement can't kick people out for hating men, because the Movement thinks that there is a correct amount of hatred for men. The Movement can't kick people out for hating men too much, just regard them with pity and say they take a good idea too far. The Movement can and does kick people out for not hating men enough, because not hating men means allowing men to be threatening to women.

The Movement claims to be synonymous with the concept of fighting sexism, but it is not. It is misogyny theory, which is wrong.

If we take the word "feminism" as meaning "misogyny theory" and "feminist" as "misogyny theorist," we can accurately predict outcomes. If we ask for a feminist perspective we know we will get a perspective from misogyny theory. If we know that feminists are doing something, we know they are doing something in line with misogyny theory. If we know someone tries to call themselves a feminist but is ostracized by the feminist movement at large, that person is not a misogyny theorist. If someone who is a feminist in good standing claims that the virulent man-haters "aren't real feminists," that they only can see the man-haters are wrong in that they hate men too much for being in a system that makes them evil and threatening, and without the ability to reject that entire worldview they will be making excuses for and be bad at resisting the man-haters. If someone is going to research the ideas of feminism, we know they are going to be reading things written from the viewpoint of misogyny theory. When feminists do or believe something, we know it's going to be wrong and we know how it's going to be wrong and we know why it's going to be wrong.

If we take the word "feminism" as "any form of opposition to and desire to end sexism," then we can't make accurate predictions. We have to pretend we don't know a feminist is a misogyny theorist yet when they turn out to be every single time. We are given the obligation to assign power and credence to a floating signifier, the word "feminism," as if it did not mean "misogyny theory" and then make the shocked pikachu face when every single time the power we give them is used to advance misogyny theory. We have to pretend there is a war inside of feminism and not notice that no there isn't, one "side" has absolute definitive control of everything and the other "side" has no access whatsoever to the institutional or social power of the thing that is named "feminism." We have to run at the football every single time even though we know that Lucy is going to pull it back every single time, because there's so many different feminisms and we're not allowed to see they are all wrong in the same way.

Saying we have the obligation to call ourselves "feminists" and support "feminism" because it could mean "any worldview that seeks equality" and not "misogyny theory" is like saying everyone should call themselves "pro-life" and support "pro-life" movement because they don't think murder is a good thing in general and don't have to be against abortion. That's not what it means, that's never been what it meant, and pretending otherwise only benefits people you are opposed to.

[agenderfrenchfry]

I’m very glad that we, as a community, are taking a step back and evaluating how we interact with each other and the thoughts we put out into the world. I’d wanted to speak up about the inherent toxicity this fandom can exude at times myself, but to be honest? I was scared. I still am typing this out! But I trust myself and the people around me, and view this as an important discussion we need to have. My experience in the ibvs fandom has been shared in bits and pieces before, but never fully mapped out. That’s what I’m going to try to do now. (This might seem random at first, but trust me, it’s on topic.)

⚠️Tw for abusive relationships and grooming!⚠️

When I was 13 years old, I was released into the absolute Wild West that is the internet. By all accounts, I was a responsible kid in the eyes of my parents, so I was given little to no monitoring when it came to the content I consumed. Shortly thereafter, I was introduced to someone who would come to define - and end - the rest of my childhood.

Feli, or RainbowWreck on Tumblr, was a system with alters that ranged from far younger than me to far, far older. We met when I sent a response to one of their vent posts, and quickly bonded over a D&D au of IBVS. When tumblr messaging grew inconvenient, we moved to Discord, where we conversed nearly every day. At this point, I was ecstatic. Yes, one friend halfway around the world may have seemed minuscule in the grand scheme of things to others, but I was a severely lonely, chronically anxious autistic kid in middle school of all places. I had no other friends, I was at the stage of my life where connecting with family was getting harder, and overall Feli just seemed like a godsend. Looking back, I can see now that this really made me a perfect target.

I don’t know when things started growing sinister. Do you ever? Slowly, they started pushing. Ignoring my boundaries and testing me to see just how far out of my comfort zone I could be prodded. This often ended up in a horrible panic attack on my end, but I was terrified of the alternative. When angered, they would grow cold, despondent, and threatening. At the same time, they convinced me that my family was evil; that they were the only safe person in my life. They never lay a finger on me, but the amount of control they held over my younger self was terrifying. At the time, I would have done anything for them.

Over time, I became more used to volunteering information about myself, like my name, face, and where I lived. (Hey kids? DON’T DO THIS) I had an especially close relationship with one alter named Wolfie of about 17, who began to dub me his son. I was still only 13. Eventually, it reached the point where they started openly talking about kink and sexual content around me, and I accepted it. This was someone I thought I was safe around. Someone who called himself my father. I was still only 13.

I got out by sheer luck, and what they’ve done still haunts me to this day. Trust me, I’m only just beginning to unravel all the shit they pulled, and this is only a brief summary.

What I’m trying to say is, when people say that nsfw content of minors hurts “someone”, you don’t fully understand that “someone” is real until it happens to a person you’re close with - or, god forbid, you yourself. But trust me, it does. If I had been less desensitized to pornographic imagery at a young age, I probably would have recognized what was happening to me sooner. Maybe I’d be a completely different, healthier person. But that version of me doesn’t get to exist.

So if you happen to be scrolling on tumblr one day and stumble across content like a drawing of minors playing strip monopoly or a fic where the Jovel twins do hanky panky, please, say something. You could really make a difference in the life of a kid who was like me.