#and that women are making up being oppressed or in danger AND PEOPLE INCLUDING WOMEN LIKE MIQOJAK AGREED??? HELLO???

[max1461]

Everybody does the exact same stupid shit. That white nationalist anon I was getting a while ago would send me story after story of some random black guy or immigrant committing a violent crime against a white person. Well, yeah, people are violent, you're gonna find those if you go looking for them. And there's a lot of racial animosity in the world, so you'll even find racially charged ones if you go looking! No shit, Sherlock. We could play this game all day. You find me a news story of a black guy killing a white guy, I find you a news story of white guy killing a black guy. This does no one any good.

TERFs are identical. News story after news story of a trans woman raping somebody. Yeah, the world is an awful place and people rape each other. I can find you a news story of a cis woman raping a teenage boy and getting three months in jail. I can find you a news story of a cis mom killing her disabled kid cause they're too much work. But I don't want to. The world sucks shit, why gorge yourself on the tragedy?

Zionists come up with news story after news story of pro-Palestinian/BDS/whatever protestors being antisemitic. Yep. A lot of people out there hate Jews. And there has been a genuine rise in antisemitism since the Oct. 7th attack, and that's awful. There are no excuses for that. Do you know what else has happened since then? The Israeli military has slaughtered tens of thousands of Palestinians, including huge numbers of innocent civilians—men, women and children.

People are often terrible to each other. Welcome to Earth. If you go looking for bad actors in a big enough group, you are guaranteed to find them. How about this. What about all the black people who didn't kill a white little girl? What about the black little girls? What about their hopes and dreams? What about their chance at life? What about all the trans women who didn't rape anybody in a bathroom? What if they just want to go about their lives, without constant public scrutiny of what genitals they have (as a cis woman, can you empathize with that? Constant public scrutiny of what you're doing with your genitals?). What about the 30,000 Palestinians who have been killed, and the 70,000 who have been displaced from their homes?

Fear has made you a monster. Fear has driven you to demand slaughter and oppression of innocent people because they look like guilty people you read about on the news, and since they look the same to you, you feel fearful—how can you tell whether these are the innocent ones or the guilty ones? Best to oppress and slaughter them preemptively just to be safe. I am here to tell you that this twisted logic of self-defense does not hold. I do not care if you feel safe—I do not care if you are safe—if the cost of your safety is innocent life. The world is a risky place. I am not going to deny that. Horrible things could happen to any of us. If we go around preemptively attacking other over it, we do not make it a bit better. And, needless to say, danger comes from everywhere, from every group of human beings, and oppressing the people who make you nervous will not, in fact, deliver you from danger. It just makes you a monster.

[fuckyeahisawthat]

thank you so much for that excellent chani post. i've seen some annoying takes on twitter about how not making her totally devoted and subservient to paul makes her 'unlikeable' and i'm like. buddy. i think that speaks more to how you see women. than anything about her. this chani is very dynamic and interesting to me.

i'll be honest and say i've not read the books. this is me speaking from what i've seen of summaries, but i think giving her a real cause to fight for yet also genuinely loving paul gives her an interesting struggle, and also plays into how the portrayal of the fremen (seems to me to be) more diverse and nuanced. as in, the fremen themselves seem to have more of a push-and-pull to them. the clarification of how different fremen believe differently (the south being more fundamentalist) is a very important thing to include in a movie where you can run into the danger of saying that all adherents to a foreign, islam-adjacent (in coding) religion are all fundamentalists. that can (in less nuanced hands) be a pretty irresponsible thing. so showing that there's also more secular/pragmatic/less dogmatic sectors of the culture seems a pretty good counterweight.

so yeah. this is how i processed it as a movie-goer. and having chani represent that aspect (believing in people over prophecy, action over religion) and having stilgar as the humanized face of the southern peoples (showing that yknow, regardless of being fundamenist beliefs, theyre still PEOPLE with the capacity for love, friendship, honor) makes total logical sense. you're not just "telling" us that there's different aspects to fremen culture, you're SHOWING us by showing different characters who represent those aspects, without demonizing either or turning either into a one-note stereotype.

Thank you! I'm not someone who was a long-term fan of the books before the movie came out (I tried reading Dune as a teenager when I was reading a lot of classic sci-fi but found it too boring) but I did read Dune and Dune Messiah after the first movie came out, both because I wanted to know what happened next and because I wanted to have an opinion on how the movies worked as adaptations.

(book and movie spoilers below and also I basically ended up writing a whole essay in response to this)

My single biggest frustration with the book is that after they arrive at Sietch Tabr and Jessica drinks the Water of Life and becomes Reverend Mother...the book up and skips two years of the story and when we next see Paul he's already got Fremen followers who are ready to die for him and he's in an established relationship with Chani. Oh I was SO MAD when I got to this part. I was like FRANK. FRANK!!!! Did you seriously just skip two years of the most interesting part of your own story???

The thing is, even though I know that Frank Herbert's intention was to write a critique of the idea that oppressed people need an enlightened external (white) savior to liberate them...if you don't provide an alternate explanation for what's happening then you end up falling into some Orientalist tropes anyway. And because, in the book, we don't see the process of how your average background fedaykin comes to trust Paul as a military and political leader, there is nothing in the text to counter the idea that the Fremen are a bunch of unquestioning religious fanatics easily swayed to do violence by belief in a prophecy.

My second biggest frustration with the book is that we're given no reason at all why Chani would fall in love with Paul. While she has some memorable scenes, she doesn't have a lot to do as a character in the book, and she's missing from a whole chunk of the end...because she's in the south...because she and Paul have a baby, Leto II, who's then killed off-page when the sardaukar attack the south. (I'm honestly really glad they cut this from the film, because it never seemed to be given the narrative weight it deserved in the book.)

So you can imagine how happy I was when the Villeneuve movies figured out how to address both these frustrations by tying them together. The fedaykin don't just blindly accept Paul because of some prophecy. They come to trust him because he proves himself as a fighter, and because he starts out from a place of genuine solidarity and humility--which it is possible for him to do because he has no structural power over them at that point. And Chani falls in love with him for the same reason, in that heady environment of fighting side by side for a political cause, and maybe for the first time in a while starting to believe that you can win.

I think the Villeneuve movies improve a lot on what's in the book in terms of how the Fremen are portrayed...when we're with the fedaykin and/or Chani and Stilgar. There we see political debates and discussion and the fact that not all the Fremen think the same way. And we also see little humanizing moments of folks just hanging out, celebrating after a victory in battle and just shooting the shit and being friends.

I do wish the movie had extended this to more parts of Fremen society. If there's one thing I could have added, it would be seeing more of daily life in Sietch Tabr. It makes sense that when we're seeing things from Jessica's POV, she is more distant from and suspicious of the Fremen, seeing them as a force to be manipulated, but I wish we had even one or two scenes of people just being people in the sietch. It felt kind of weirdly empty and not particularly lived-in as a place, and I think they could've easily countered this, with scenes from Chani, Stilgar or Paul's POV, and that would have made it hit even harder when the sietch is attacked.

If there were two things I could have added, I wanted more exploration of the people of the south. Why are they more fundamentalist than the Fremen who live in the north? (We get one line about how "nothing can survive [in the south] without faith" but I wanted more than that.) While I think the movie did a fantastic job of humanizing and differentiating the Fremen we see around Paul, when we get to the south it does backslide a little into "undifferentiated mass of fanatics." Surely the people of the south also have some diversity of political views.

I think there are some interesting threads they could have pulled on in terms of how proximity to direct colonial violence shapes people's ideology. Sietch Tabr is one of the closest Fremen communities to Arrakeen, the seat of colonial control. They have probably had to mount some kind of armed resistance for generations just to keep from being wiped out. I can see that producing skepticism of the prophecy ("well I can't sit around waiting for a messiah but I do have this rocket launcher") as well as resentment at the idea of someone swooping in and taking credit for a struggle that you've put your life on the line for, and probably a lot of people you know have died for. There seem to be some generational differences, too, where young people of Chani's generation put less stock in the prophecy, while the true believers are mostly older. I can see faith in the prophecy coming out of despair--when you've been fighting for decades with no change, maybe you draw the conclusion that only an outside power coming to your aid will make a difference. While the people of the south are still under colonial rule, maybe being generally outside the reach of direct Harkonnen violence (the Harkonnens don't even know they're there) makes the concepts of both oppression and liberation feel more abstract and more receptive to being filled in with Bene Gesserit mysticism. It seems absurd to want more from a movie that's nearly three hours long already...but I wanted more of this.

Still, I do think they managed to improve on a lot of things that frustrated me or are simply dated about the book, while keeping the political thriller/war drama/epic tragedy elements that I think are the heart of the story, and in some cases drawing them out more clearly and effectively than the book did. The best kind of book-to-film adaptation imo is one that has a strong point of view in terms of what the story is About, on a large-scale thematic level, and is not afraid to change individual elements of canon in service of telling that story the most effective way possible in a cinematic medium. While there are always things I want more of, I feel like Denis Villeneuve really, really understood the assignment in terms of the overarching themes of the the story and he delivered so fucking well.

[nothorses]

I just realized something interesting about the way people treat AFAB transmascs and trans men. They aren't allowed to talk about the misogyny they experience for being afab because it's somehow misgendering themselves but people claiming they don't experience transandrophobia, but only experience ("misdirected") transmisogyny isn't misgendering them?!? Somehow?!? Now how the fuck does that make sense??? It's almost like people just want them to stop talking about their experiences with oppression entirely.

But that can't be the case, that would mean that they're bigoted and trans men are men and therefore can't be the victims of bigotry! (<- sarcasm)

Yeah, I think a lot of it comes back to a very basic aspect of transphobia that is often overlooked:

Trans people are whatever gender is most convenient in that particular situation.

Transmascs are men when it furthers the goal of shutting us up: men can't experience misogyny, men can't be oppressed, men can't be victims of bigotry.

Transmascs are women when it furthers the goal of excluding us from gay male spaces: these straight women are just gross fujoshis preying on gay men!

Transmascs are men when it furthers the goal of painting us as dangerous aggressors: testoserone makes you violent, testosterone makes you dangerous, men are unsafe to be around and should be excluded from women's spaces

Transmascs are women when it furthers the goal of excluding us from conversations about reproductive rights: we don't need to specify "people who get pregnant", because women need to be centered in this conversation. Transmascs (if they're included at all) should just accept that they're women for the sake of this conversation.

So yeah, of course transmascs are simultaneously men (can't experience misogyny), and women (experiencing misdirected misogyny/transmisogyny- nothing unique to transmasculinity), and both (not the real target, not really hurt by this).

The logic doesn't need to be sound, because this is already standard in the way we think and talk about trans people. Nobody questions it. 🤷‍♂️

[drdemonprince]

As a straight woman reader I feel very jealous of your sexual exploits because I don't feel like I could ever safely have those kinds of encounters with men. I had a lot of casual sex in my youth and unfortunately I've found that straight men tend to treat women's receptivity to casual sex as a green flag to treat us disposably and ignore boundaries (and that's just standard vanilla sex - I don't want to think about how some of the kinds of anonymous/blindfolded encounters you've talked about would go even though in a vacuum they sound fun as hell). And it's so dumb because they could all be having way more sex if they would just act right instead of letting misogyny horribly infect everything.

I also think it is important to point out that queer men have very deliberately created the spaces that allow us to have anonymous, kinky, sometimes risky sex with one another while looking out for one another, and that we had to do that due to structural homophobia and the AIDs crisis.

The fact that I can have wild, masked sex on a bed in the dark in a bathhouse with a blindfold on and condoms spread beside me is because I know am in a space where employees are monitoring the halls continually, prophylatics are freely provided, testing is freely provided on site, trans people are welcome explicitly by policy, an explicitly sexual atmosphere has been created, and a whole culture of norms and nonverbal signals have been established. This has taken a lot of money and decades of work to build and maintain.

Gay and bisexual men have had to build places to have sex with one another that are both private and secure, and that bring a large number of us together -- due to structural homophobia making it illegal for us to even have sex until the early 2000's. We have had to respond to the AIDs crisis and Monkeypox and numerous other sources of danger and violence within our communities by promoting harm reductionist sexual health policies and by learning to look after one another.

Straight people do not have such comraderie. Misogyny is absolutely a major factor -- but the privilege straight people have and the immense isolation that comes with it is a factor too. Queer people have had to pool our resources to create the spaces we need as an oppressed sexual minority.

Now, there are hardly ANY such hookup spaces for queer women because they do not have the money and resources and structural power that men, including many queer men, do, and because women's sexual agency is so absolutely neglected and penalized by our culture.

And I do think straight men unwittingly fuck up their chances of getting laid by being inept and/or predatory -- if they hadn't been so shitty as sexual partners I might not have ever transitioned! and I recommend transition to anyone who wants to have better sex with men and finds doing so appealing. But ultimately things are as they are due to structural issues.

[pokegyns]

some thoughts:

i think radical feminism is antithetical to transgender ideology. i think we should still treat trans people as people and not be disgusting towards them, but trans ideology is still inherently misogynistic and patriarchal. so i don’t understand “trans inclusive radical feminism”… what are we including? people who believe sex based oppression isn’t real? people who believe in “trans misogyny”? people who “identify” with gender roles that have oppressed women for centuries? people who medicalise gender nonconformity? people who believe homosexuality is bigoted?

these ideologies don’t belong in radical feminism simply because they are anti feminist. so therefore radical feminism is inherently trans exclusionary and i refuse to believe that’s a bad thing.

obviously detrans women and women experiencing sex or gender dysphoria who aren’t trans aren’t included as trans ideologists i’m talking about.

there is so much misinformation and stigma surrounding transness on radblr, and just lack of information. it can be confusing being on the outside looking in! as a detrans woman who's often assumed to be firmly against transition, instead of how i'm highly critical of it and want safety measures within the community to be put in place to prevent detransitions and unhealthy transitions and misplaced identification... i think it's very easy to forget that dysphoria is a mental disorder and trans rights are a mix of gnc rights and disability activism / mental health advocacy. and as most of us know, radblr has a HUGE problem with rampant ableist ignorance.

the trans community is split in two, with some sharing both sides.

there's the dysphoric side, where there needs to be discussions on how to manage a complex disorder and not shame people for trying out different healing treatments. i want to erase the stigma of people with disorders, dysphoria included, choosing treatments that at times carry risks. this can be pain medication with potential addiction, or transition treatments or psych meds that potentially come with side effects and just might not help you in the end. i also hate how neurodivergent/mh communities can turn toxic fast, but i still am glad people can share their experiences with others, find people's stories in battling a disorder and gain more mental stability. this includes dysphoric people for me. as a physically and mentally disabled woman, my dysphoric trans activism is also my disability activism. and my detrans side gives me a complex perspective, because for me, it turned out to be the wrong treatment. some people are anti-psych because meds fucked them up instead of helping them. i am psych critical, because meds saved my life.

i am all for them exploring their treatment options, physical transition included, as long as they're educated on the risks and prepared for potential reverse dysphoria. the tra community handles that in a SUPER inappropriate, unhealthy, and honestly dangerous way and they're shooting themselves in the foot bc they don't push for better healthcare, leading to more detransitioners, leading to more trans stigma.

now on the other side, the term trans (and nonbinary, since not all nonbinary ppl identify as trans) for some can simply be a label to find likeminded gnc people, enjoy a punk-adjacent subculture focused on breaking gender roles and pissing off the patriarchy, and simply enjoying crossdressing and using terms that makes them happy.

dysphoric people still exist, and dysphoria is debilitating. it's a complex issue. for some, dysphoria is more neurodivergent, and it just is stubbornly staying and so they look for more intensive treatments. for others, it's more like a mental illness, and the condition can be treatable and may come from gender roles. and even if a specific person had a root cause for their dysphoria that relates to the patriarchy, i still wouldn't judge them for transitioning if it seems like it's just not going away no matter how hard they try. just like how i'm wary of people going on hardcore, addictive pain meds, or try treatments that come with risks for their physical health, but i know it helps many people and i don't want the option off the table. they are suffering. i care deeply. i fucking hate reverse dysphoria, but i hate ableism even more. i hate the stigma of disorders and the shaming of mentally ill & neurodivergent people, people with mental disorders, including dysphoria as is listed in the DSM.

i know the trans community is confusing. frustrating. often immature. people who are mentally suffering are often not in the right mind to do realistic, down-to-earth activism, but god knows they try and like in neurodivergent activism spaces it can get unhinged in a unique kinda way. we can call out their sexism, their homophobia, their misogyny, without resorting to ableism and transphobia - aka, what imo is a mix of ableism and gncphobia.

dysphoric people deserve healthcare reform. tras keep fucking things up for homosexuals and female/afab people and just make fools of themselves. radfems, esp non-detrans bio women, are often out of touch when it comes to trans issues.

it's easy to resort to extremist views on these things. it can be easier to embrace black-and-white thinking. but it's not the way, trust me! there are grey areas. we need reform, not the destruction of transness being a concept at all, whether it be the gnc subculture or the dysphoric side of it. there are a fuckton of trans issues to tackle. it's okay to be frustrated, to feel hurt, to be worried, to think maybe transness shouldn't be recognized as anything and those people should just be poked out of it somehow. but you can't just force someone's brain to be neurotypical, or cis/non-trans, or take away labels that feel meaningful to some folks even if you find them silly. it's counterproductive. the trans community has a lot of flaws, but it's a puzzle that can be figured out! please hear out trans radfem & nuancefem voices on this as well <3

-mod pikachu ⚡

[clowncaraz]

Apparently we need a refresher...

This is an archive (not by me) for the "Hot Takes" from Baeddels. If anyone even regurgitates these beliefs, they are alongside one of the dangers to queer community (transphobia, exorsexism, anti-trans and queer legislation, misgendering, restrictive gender binaries, IGM, etc).

thank you to @/nothorses for these posts here ... https://www.tumblr.com/nothorses/704122852220223488?source=share and https://medium.com/@greyson.not.horses/when-b%C3%A6ddels-took-them-d75d9e1688d6

Baeddel Believers agree that:

- All manhood is oppressive.

- Gender can be a choice.

- One’s gender has ethical consequences.

- Being a man is ethically bad, including transition to manhood.

- Being a woman is ethically good, including transition to womanhood.

- Trans men male privilege.

- Trans men have it easy regarding passing, go “stealth”, and benefit from male privilege due to AGAB.

- Trans men are misogynistic and transmisogynistic, and must be held accountable.

"...the term “Baeddel” itself is likely more applicable- if not exclusively applicable- to intersex people, rather than trans women. Making their reclamation of it as a “transmisogynistic slur”"

Let's Talk About Bæddels: A Comprehensive Retrospective. Intersex People, paragraph one.

Many baeddels will excuse this intersexisms, some using their intersexness as an excuse.

when you see a baeddel in YOUR COMMUNITY, you stand the fuck up and say something. I want to hear your voice. YOU shouldn't sit down and shut up, I want to hear you scream. This is not fearmongering, this is talking about a form of radical feminism and lesbian separatism that have been active since the 2010s and still present, with spotted activity, in 2024.

[thediaryofarevolutionist]

Today in history, our teacher asked us how long people have known freedom as a concept. According to him, this was a new concept because people had not had freedom for a long time. They still lived in imperial empires, absolutist states and dictatorships. People don't even know what freedom means because they have lived under oppression for so long. He also said that this is the reason why democracies fail or are always overthrown. I think people have been oppressed for so long (women especially) that they still don't know freedom. We now, people from the new century and modern times, still don't know it. Otherwise we wouldn't fall for right-wing propaganda and stand in our own way with political opinions. Racist political parties wouldn't be on the rise either if people weren't easily manipulated and controlled. Dictators know exactly how to manipulate people and they usually come up with religion because they know that desperate people always break first.

Freedom is such a strange concept because everyone's definition of it is different. For many, religion is freedom under a religious state, for others the opposite. Then there are those who are enemies of the state and want to abolish the entire state, because for them anarchism means true freedom. Who is wrong now? In my opinion, we are being held back from the absolute freedom that we could achieve as a society. Because without a state, violence against women would be even higher than it already is. In true anarchism, everyone could do what they want and that is exactly what could harm women the most. Because if there is no state and no laws, women are not protected from male violence, even less than they are now. That's why it makes no sense to talk about forms of government and freedom, because we only know politics from the male perspective and this perspective doesn't see women. In the perspective of men, women exist only as an extension of themselves but not as autonomous beings, so no thought is given to what they need and how they live in different forms of government and what dangers they are or could be exposed to, because men behave ignorantly in this area. Everything we know about politics now only comes from the male perspective, so I have a big problem dealing with these forms of government because they don't include women.

We all know that when it comes to violence, men are in the majority of perpetrators.

[everything-is-crab]

My favorite thing (/s) about Pro Israel folks and the people focusing so much on the recent Hamas attack is how great they're at spreading blatant lies.

You see them post something about what Hamas or Palestinians did to Israelis and through fact checking it's revealed it's the other way round 😂

People linking wikipedia, bbc....and other Western media links.....as their "sources"

Like wow, I didn't know you guys were this dense. Even some of the people I respected on here seem to be affected immensely by propaganda. US and other Western countries have not only supported but also funded Israel's apartheid regime and even now it's doing the same.

I was brainwashed by radfems too with their "rape is never okay". Many radfems sure do know how to manipulate you using your class consciousness as women to be blind to other oppressive systems or distort facts.

There's no proof any of the kidnapped women being raped. And yet most radfems are speaking about nothing but that. They aren't even speaking about the constant suffering and rape of Palestinian women by IDF (including many Israeli women as perpetrators).

I remember that I started reading more about this issue in 2021 when some IDF attack killed many Palestinians in a mosque. Don't remember the details well. It's been a while. And I wasn't on Tumblr then but I do remember that mainstream media did not give a shit about it. And now suddenly the anti terrorism sentiment of Pro Israel countries and even people who supposedly support Palestinians has chosen to rise again.

Very convenient timing for you.

One thing I will tell you is to remember that the conditions colonizers force on the colonized make it hard for the colonized to rely on any ideal form of resistance. Hamas is not the only group for Palestinian resistance. There are others but this is the large one today. Before there used to be better secular ones but they were all squashed cause Israel created Hamas. And there have been peaceful protests and everything. Israel killed the people who protested and the soldiers laughed when they were done. Where was this global outrage then?

Sm of relying for information on media leaning towards Israel and yet so many of you are missing this fact out. This is what colonizers always do. Read history of as many colonized countries you can. And you will find out that colonizers, while they were generally against opposition of the colonized's liberation, funded the anti-leftist, anti-communist/nationalist or religious extremists or/and the ruling class of the colonized society in their national liberation movement.

They help in squashing other more dangerous (from a colonizer's pov) national liberation movements. Nothing better than reducing your enemies to extremists. The British did that in my country too. Talked a lot about how horrible our society is but politically and economically supported the ruling class that created and perpetrated those issues. And some European women and children died in some isolated protests or riots as well during colonial era. But obviously it was nothing compared to the number of people that died on my side than the colonizers'.

So don't be surprised when people see Hamas as a necessary means or don't entirely oppose as part of Palestinian liberation. No sane person actually "supports" Hamas. But it is what is. It's Israel's own creation. Palestinians are left with no options. You're linking ngos supported or created by Israelis and other dumb shit as "an alternative". But colonization can't be won over through ngos lmao. Heck, ngos can't even actually make a lot of changes in human rights in areas that aren't war torn cause of corruption. You expect it to work for Gaza? Please

If Israel or anyone wants Hamas to stop then they should simply give up their brutal settler colonialism and not oppose any leftist org or movement formed by the Palestinians even after ending apartheid and everything. There's no other alternative except this. And if you haven't learnt your lesson yet, then don't support any "intervention" by USA or some other genocidal country.

Ik for a fact you people wouldn't support my country's decolonization if you lived back then. Cause the national liberation movement in my country was dominated by religious, anti communist and ruling class as well. And I, as a female bisexual from an oppressed caste will never ideologically support the people who led national liberation in my country. And yet ik they were necessary in the path to independence cause the British let only them have any power in the country. The two opinions can co exist.

You guys are so focused on opposing the ideology of Hamas and how they're bad for Palestinians themselves, you are forgetting Hamas is legally recognized as terrorists by many powerful Western/west-allied countries around the world and are actively funding and supporting Israel's genocide against Palestinians.

It's funny how the same people unconditionally support Ukraine in the war, including Ukraine itself. Even though US, UK, France and other countries are supporting Nazis in the Ukrainian military to fight against Russia.....

And I am not "supporting" Hamas or killing of cilivians....but I am just analyzing the history and politics behind this issue that is hugely ignored.

Radfems are reblogging that dumb addition by female-malice about an unbacked conspiracy theory about Iran,completely removing any accountability or responsibility of the states of "Israel". There's a conspiracy theory that Israel planned this attack as well. And yet I haven't see any pro Palestine leftist spread that theory presenting it as a fact rather than a speculation. Genuinely you guys are just racist and don't want to hold Israel actually accountable apart from a little side remark.

Everytime I see such false claims, misinformation, unproven conspiracy theories I check what sources the person has to provide or which sources are reporting that. And it's some damn Western news outlet every time. Every fricking time.

Ignoring what Israel PM is doing to the civilians in Gaza right now.....in favor of getting into online discourse about "so it's okay to kill/rape innocent people?" Plain evil

You do realize most of the world is revolting against that now? That powerful international forces are incentivizing this attack to commit further atrocities against civilians in Gaza? It's not a time to debate whether the attack was okay or not, it's time to speak about how the Israeli PM and rest of the world is choosing to respond to it.

I was going to write a respectfully worded post about this. But I won't. Cause I am not some extraordinary independent journalist or anything. I am not even in majoring in any social science or history subject. But it wasn't that hard for me to get around the misinformation from msm. And I am from a country that is and has been pro Israel and very great at spreading propaganda through msm.

I saw one radfem say in response to question of Palestinian women's suffering that "how are we supposed to know what's happening to them? I am not seeing any posts on my dash about it". Good to know your dumbass relies on Tumblr posts for misinformation.

I have been incredibly busy so not made any posts about this issue. But I think that's what I am going to keep reblogging and posting about for a while now. So don't hesitate to filter tags or click the unfollow button if this irritated you. Cause there's more to come.

[remusinfurs]

[emphasis mine]

“The decolonization narrative has dehumanized Israelis to the extent that otherwise rational people excuse, deny, or support barbarity. It holds that Israel is an “imperialist-colonialist” force, that Israelis are “settler-colonialists,” and that Palestinians have a right to eliminate their oppressors. (On October 7, we all learned what that meant.) It casts Israelis as “white” or “white-adjacent” and Palestinians as “people of color.”

This ideology, powerful in the academy but long overdue for serious challenge, is a toxic, historically nonsensical mix of Marxist theory, Soviet propaganda, and traditional anti-Semitism from the Middle Ages and the 19th century. But its current engine is the new identity analysis, which sees history through a concept of race that derives from the American experience. The argument is that it is almost impossible for the “oppressed” to be themselves racist, just as it is impossible for an “oppressor” to be the subject of racism. Jews therefore cannot suffer racism, because they are regarded as “white” and “privileged”; although they cannot be victims, they can and do exploit other, less privileged people, in the West through the sins of “exploitative capitalism” and in the Middle East through “colonialism.”

This leftist analysis, with its hierarchy of oppressed identities—and intimidating jargon, a clue to its lack of factual rigor—has in many parts of the academy and media replaced traditional universalist leftist values, including internationalist standards of decency and respect for human life and the safety of innocent civilians. When this clumsy analysis collides with the realities of the Middle East, it loses all touch with historical facts.

Indeed, it requires an astonishing leap of ahistorical delusion to disregard the record of anti-Jewish racism over the two millennia since the fall of the Judean Temple in 70 C.E. After all, the October 7 massacre ranks with the medieval mass killings of Jews in Christian and Islamic societies, the Khmelnytsky massacres of 1640s Ukraine, Russian pogroms from 1881 to 1920—and the Holocaust. Even the Holocaust is now sometimes misconstrued—as the actor Whoopi Goldberg notoriously did—as being “not about race,” an approach as ignorant as it is repulsive.

Contrary to the decolonizing narrative, Gaza is not technically occupied by Israel—not in the usual sense of soldiers on the ground. Israel evacuated the Strip in 2005, removing its settlements. In 2007, Hamas seized power, killing its Fatah rivals in a short civil war. Hamas set up a one-party state that crushes Palestinian opposition within its territory, bans same-sex relationships, represses women, and openly espouses the killing of all Jews.

Very strange company for leftists.

Of course, some protesters chanting “from the river to the sea” may have no idea what they’re calling for; they are ignorant and believe that they are simply endorsing “freedom.”

[…]

I should also say that Israeli rule of the Occupied Territories of the West Bank is different and, to my mind, unacceptable, unsustainable, and unjust. Settlers under the disgraceful Netanyahu government have harassed and persecuted Palestinians in the West Bank: 146 Palestinians in the West Bank and East Jerusalem were killed in 2022 and at least 153 in 2023 before the Hamas attack, and more than 90 since. Again: This is appalling and unacceptable, but not genocide. The Palestinians in the West Bank have endured a harsh, unjust, and oppressive occupation since 1967.

Although there is a strong instinct to make this a Holocaust-mirroring “genocide,” it is not: The Palestinians suffer from many things, including military occupation; settler intimidation and violence; corrupt Palestinian political leadership; callous neglect by their brethren in more than 20 Arab states; the rejection by Yasser Arafat, the late Palestinian leader, of compromise plans that would have seen the creation of an independent Palestinian state; and so on. None of this constitutes genocide, or anything like genocide. The Israeli goal in Gaza—for practical reasons, among others—is to minimize the number of Palestinian civilians killed. Hamas and like-minded organizations have made it abundantly clear over the years that maximizing the number of Palestinian casualties is in their strategic interest. (Put aside all of this and consider: The world Jewish population is still smaller than it was in 1939, because of the damage done by the Nazis. The Palestinian population has grown, and continues to grow, at a substantial and healthy rate. Demographic shrinkage is one obvious marker of genocide. In total, roughly 120,000 Arabs and Jews have been killed in the conflict over Palestine and Israel since 1860. By contrast, at least 500,000 people, mainly civilians, have been killed in the Syrian civil war since it began in 2011.)

If the ideology of decolonization, taught in our universities as a theory of history and shouted in our streets as self-evidently righteous, badly misconstrues the present reality, does it reflect the history of Israel as it claims to do? It does not. Indeed, it does not accurately describe either the foundation of Israel or the tragedy of the Palestinians.

According to the decolonizers, Israel is and always has been an illegitimate freak-state because it was fostered by the British empire and because some of its founders were European-born Jews.

In this narrative, Israel is tainted by imperial Britain’s broken promise to deliver Arab independence, and its kept promise to support a “national home for the Jewish people,” in the language of the 1917 Balfour Declaration. But the supposed promise to Arabs was in fact an ambiguous 1915 agreement with Sharif Hussein of Mecca, who wanted his Hashemite family to rule the entire region. In part, he did not receive this new empire because his family had much less regional support than he claimed. Nonetheless, ultimately Britain delivered three kingdoms—Iraq, Jordan, and Hejaz—to the family.

The imperial powers—Britain and France—made all sorts of promises to different peoples, and then put their own interests first. Those promises to the Jews and the Arabs during World War I were typical. Afterward, similar promises were made to the Kurds, the Armenians, and others, none of which came to fruition. But the central narrative that Britain betrayed the Arab promise and backed the Jewish one is incomplete. In the 1930s, Britain turned against Zionism, and from 1937 to 1939 moved toward an Arab state with no Jewish one at all. It was an armed Jewish revolt, from 1945 to 1948 against imperial Britain, that delivered the state.

Israel exists thanks to this revolt, and to international law and cooperation, something leftists once believed in. The idea of a Jewish “homeland” was proposed in three declarations by Britain (signed by Balfour), France, and the United States, then promulgated in a July 1922 resolution by the League of Nations that created the British “mandates” over Palestine and Iraq that matched French “mandates” over Syria and Lebanon. In 1947, the United Nations devised the partition of the British mandate of Palestine into two states, Arab and Jewish.

[…]

The concept of “partition” is, in the decolonization narrative, regarded as a wicked imperial trick. But it was entirely normal in the creation of 20th-century nation-states, which were typically fashioned out of fallen empires. And sadly, the creation of nation-states was frequently marked by population swaps, huge refugee migrations, ethnic violence, and full-scale wars. Think of the Greco-Turkish war of 1921–22 or the partition of India in 1947. In this sense, Israel-Palestine was typical.

At the heart of decolonization ideology is the categorization of all Israelis, historic and present, as “colonists.” This is simply wrong. Most Israelis are descended from people who migrated to the Holy Land from 1881 to 1949. They were not completely new to the region. The Jewish people ruled Judean kingdoms and prayed in the Jerusalem Temple for a thousand years, then were ever present there in smaller numbers for the next 2,000 years. In other words, Jews are indigenous in the Holy Land, and if one believes in the return of exiled people to their homeland, then the return of the Jews is exactly that. Even those who deny this history or regard it as irrelevant to modern times must acknowledge that Israel is now the home and only home of 9 million Israelis who have lived there for four, five, six generations.

Most migrants to, say, the United Kingdom or the United States are regarded as British or American within a lifetime. Politics in both countries is filled with prominent leaders—Suella Braverman and David Lammy, Kamala Harris and Nikki Haley—whose parents or grandparents migrated from India, West Africa, or South America. No one would describe them as “settlers.” Yet Israeli families resident in Israel for a century are designated as “settler-colonists” ripe for murder and mutilation. And contrary to Hamas apologists, the ethnicity of perpetrators or victims never justifies atrocities. They would be atrocious anywhere, committed by anyone with any history. It is dismaying that it is often self-declared “anti-racists” who are now advocating exactly this murder by ethnicity.

[…]

The open world of liberal democracies—or the West, as it used to be called—is today polarized by paralyzed politics, petty but vicious cultural feuds about identity and gender, and guilt about historical successes and sins, a guilt that is bizarrely atoned for by showing sympathy for, even attraction to, enemies of our democratic values. In this scenario, Western democracies are always bad actors, hypocritical and neo-imperialist, while foreign autocracies or terror sects such as Hamas are enemies of imperialism and therefore sincere forces for good. In this topsy-turvy scenario, Israel is a living metaphor and penance for the sins of the West. The result is the intense scrutiny of Israel and the way it is judged, using standards rarely attained by any nation at war, including the United States.

But the decolonizing narrative is much worse than a study in double standards; it dehumanizes an entire nation and excuses, even celebrates, the murder of innocent civilians. As these past two weeks have shown, decolonization is now the authorized version of history in many of our schools and supposedly humanitarian institutions, and among artists and intellectuals. It is presented as history, but it is actually a caricature, zombie history with its arsenal of jargon—the sign of a coercive ideology, as Foucault argued—and its authoritarian narrative of villains and victims. And it only stands up in a landscape in which much of the real history is suppressed and in which all Western democracies are bad-faith actors. Although it lacks the sophistication of Marxist dialectic, its self-righteous moral certainty imposes a moral framework on a complex, intractable situation, which some may find consoling. Whenever you read a book or an article and it uses the phrase “settler-colonialist,” you are dealing with ideological polemic, not history.

[…]

The Israel-Palestine conflict is desperately difficult to solve, and decolonization rhetoric makes even less likely the negotiated compromise that is the only way out.

Since its founding in 1987, Hamas has used the murder of civilians to spoil any chance of a two-state solution. In 1993, its suicide bombings of Israeli civilians were designed to destroy the two-state Olso Accords that recognized Israel and Palestine. This month, the Hamas terrorists unleashed their slaughter in part to undermine a peace with Saudi Arabia that would have improved Palestinian politics and standard of life, and reinvigorated Hamas’s sclerotic rival, the Palestinian Authority. In part, they served Iran to prevent the empowering of Saudi Arabia, and their atrocities were of course a spectacular trap to provoke Israeli overreaction. They are most probably getting their wish, but to do this they are cynically exploiting innocent Palestinian people as a sacrifice to political means, a second crime against civilians. In the same way, the decolonization ideology, with its denial of Israel’s right to exist and its people’s right to live safely, makes a Palestinian state less likely if not impossible.

The problem in our countries is easier to fix: Civic society and the shocked majority should now assert themselves. The radical follies of students should not alarm us overmuch; students are always thrilled by revolutionary extremes. But the indecent celebrations in London, Paris, and New York City, and the clear reluctance among leaders at major universities to condemn the killings, have exposed the cost of neglecting this issue and letting “decolonisation” colonize our academy.”

Simon Sebag Montefiore is the author of Jerusalem: The Biography and most recently The World: A Family History of Humanity.

[velvetvexations]

@v-of-cups here.

Something is disturbingly wrong with all of you.

Yes, cis women can harm trans people. Now, how does it make them more dangerous and more enthusiastic than cis men?

You bring up Nex Benedict. How many more transmasculine people were and are abused by their cis boyfriends because they were afraid of being gay or because they didn't want to lose someone they could fuck?

Cis women with internalised misogyny bully AFAB people who are not feminine. Yes, that's something that I saw. Why are you lying that cis men are not worse in this regard? They absolutely are.

Yes, JKR is a cis woman. Except she is not the most dangerous transphobe - it's all fash men like Jordan Peterson or Bronze Age Pervert or Putin who propagate complete destruction of trans people people and even GNC people for the sake of preservation of CVLTVRE and who want to completely ban all outlets for transitioning. TERFs do pose danger, but they are not the ones who cause deaths and dispossession - it's all cis men.

This whole discourse makes me think that a lot of you have tons of internalised misogyny that makes you think that cis women being mean-spirited is the same thing as cis men being actively genocidal

I'm not even going to bother because literally I could just copy and paste what's been said on the other post or the flood of asks I've had on the subject, although the internalized misogyny bit is fucked since it's mostly been AFAB trans people engaging in this discussion. I'll say though, it's made me feel a lot better about my own feelings of apprehension with cis women, which I thought were probably irrational but once again my non-transfem followers have helped me navigate my own relationship to transphobic oppression.

if you interact with this, please don't include details of hate crimes or laws being passed, as those trigger me and I'd like to have it rebloggable for people who want to add on while keeping an eye on the notes. <3

[badaziraphaletakes]

In which some poor innocent unsuspecting reader submitted an ask and I respond by throwing an entire textbook at them

Like seriously i won’t even be upset if no one reads this PhD dissertation, like actually what is wrong with me omg

The ask:

I want to start by saying I love this account and really appreciate the rebuttals I see here to some of the messed up stuff the fandom’s spit out over the past few years. That being said, the most recent post about “the creepiest take you’ve ever seen,” was one I disagreed with strongly. It’s entirely normal to enjoy watching media where characters have breakdowns. It is not a desire to see a person breakdown. It is a desire to watch a good story.

(Edit: Just realized I somehow omitted to include the full text of the ask here. I apologize for the error! Will fix it soon. -Mod X)

My response:

Hi and thank you for your kind words! (Also idk why there is this huge gap in the text here, sorry haha!) If it were a necessary part of the story, or a part of the story that made sense, I would agree. But it’s not necessary (esp not at this point in the story) and therefore wouldn’t be “good”, if we are defining good art as being emotional truthful, which I imagine is a pretty uncontroversial definition.

Side note: We already saw him have this exact shattering breakdown in Uz. So that renders most of what I am about to say (and arguably some of what you have said) somewhat moot. But I’m going to continue anyway because some of the points brought up here touch on issues that I think bear re-visiting often.

It’s cathartic, it’s engaging, and it helps people who’ve been through the same thing see themselves reflected. For example, I like watching someone on tv hit rock bottom with their addiction because I’ve been through that, and seeing them finally realize they have to work on recovery and actually do it is motivating and empowering.

I’m so sorry you’ve been through that. I haven’t (although I am estranged from an entire side of my family due to alcoholism and meth addiction, which is a whole fun thing), so I can’t comment on this too much.

But addiction is not the same as an ab*sive relationship. (I do have knowledge of those, both from life experience and from my previous job in ab*se research. I edited a newsletter about family violence research for several years.) Seeing a person suffering from addiction realize they want to work on recovery, and realize that the substance they are addicted to is messing up their life, can make sense. Especially if they're in a place where they're able to work on it and have the opportunity to try to change.

But seeing an ab*se survivor “realize they need to get away from their ab*ser because they’re evil and have a breakdown about it” doesn’t make sense, because being trapped in an absive situation is not about “motivation” or what they think about the abser or even, really, about "empowerment". (Side note that word is thrown a lot to delude women into thinking our capitalist system is working for us rather than oppressing us. But I digress.) It boils down to the fact that they are in danger if they leave. The situation is not within their control.

(This next part is not directed at you, but at the general readership, in case this is helpful discussion for anyone: A lot of addictions aren’t within people's control at all either. It depends very much on the drug we’re talking about, the health of the individual, the quantity and duration of the addiction, whether the person has access to the healthcare they need to be cured, and whether there’s a way for them to get free from the broader societal dysfunctions that led to them being trapped in this situation in the first place.)

Also, with addiction, people can absolutely get past that without losing their sense of self and their identity. If they go through that kind of crisis in the process of healing from addiction, I would argue that something is very wrong. (Not with them, but with the society around them). In a best-case scenario, a person suffering from addiction would have access to the kind of mental and physical healthcare and support system that lets you get free from that without a shattering breakdown or loss of sense of self.

Besides, not everyone who has an addiction has toxic beliefs about themselves or their own identity or other people, etc etc. (Babies who are born addicted come to mind, if we want to talk about the most extreme example.) So I find the idea that addiction is down to toxic beliefs about one's self very suspect. I would argue that 95% of the time, addiction happens because your life sucks. The mental health community is starting to have this conversation about depression and anxiety - Cognitive Behavioral Therapy to work on one's "limiting beliefs" and "destructive thought patterns" can only do so much to help you feel better when your whole life is shit anyway. And it can actually make it WORSE if the victim is made to believe that their depression is the fault of their "Faulty thoughts" rather than a reasonable reaction to a shitty situation. Not necessarily saying we should throw CBT out the window altogether, but I am saying that mental healthcare will be a LOT more effective when it learns to truly take the broader societal context into account. I suspect, I hope, we'll soon be having a simialr conversation around addiction.)

And that’s doubly the case for ab*se survivors. They’re not stuck in that situation because there’s something wrong with them that they need to fix. They’re stuck in that situation because there’s something wrong with the ab*ser.

Regardless of the victim’s personal worth as an individual, regardless of whether they’re a good person or what-have-you, they don’t deserve to be ab*sed.

(I'm just waiting to hear about how some therapist tells a victim to work on their "limiting belief" that they need to stay with their ab*ser in order not to be killed, and/or tells them that fearing their ab*ser will kill them is a "cognitive distortion", and tells them to stand up to their ab*ser and/or leave, and then the ab*ser kills them. But I digress.)

And the loss of self when separating from a toxic system that’s defined your whole life is a real thing some people go through. It’s not bad consider that Aziraphale could also go through that, or to want to see that experience reflected.

I want to be very clear that I don’t have the smallest objection to people wanting to see that in a show. But a. that’s not what the person was saying, and b. they were also saying it’s necessary. IT’S NOT. I can’t emphasize this enough.

Loss of self is the worst-case scenario for how something like that goes. Nothing good comes from that. That is a side effect of ab*se (because the ab*ser’s the one who says that “Everything you are is bound up in me and you’re nothing with me"), not an integral part of the process of getting away.

Trauma is not necessary for character growth.

The way these things should go is that the person is able to gradually and mindfully work through the beliefs that are poisoning them with the help of a therapist, trusted friends, etc.

I know what I’m talking about. I worked in trauma research for over seven years. Please trust me on this one.

And again, Aziraphale can’t “separate” from them anyway. There’s nowhere he can go where they won’t find him. So his beliefs are irrelevant to his situation. And if the show implies that his beliefs “need to change” as part of the earth being set free from heaven-hell’s tyranny, or that he “needs to change” in order to be free, I will be writing a strongly-worded letter to the creators.

But more importantly, *they didn’t just say giddy.* They also said apprehensive. Perhaps they’re apprehensive because they know it could be painful to watch. Or because they don’t want to see it handled poorly.

“Giddily apprehensive” sounds an awful lot like “excited” to me. I admit it is ambiguous, though, so I’ll give you that one. I maintain that the OP expressed themselves with an exceptional lack of grace, however. And fwiw, they’d be FAR from the first person to want to see Aziraphale suffer because they are mad at him. I think I have good reason to believe that's what they're getting at here, given how many people in the poster's orbit say the same kinds of things and how many other things I've seen the OP say that are along those lines. I acknowledge I should have made that clearer in my original post.

They aren’t giving this advice (if one could call it that) to a human. They’re saying they’re excited to see a character breakdown. Character arcs like that are common and enticing for good reason.

I have yet to see a reason why I should believe that the things people say about Aziraphale are different than the things they say about people in real life.

I would point you to a couple lines down where you say yourself that we respond to characters the same way we respond to real people.

Personal growth ≠ character growth.

But what makes a good character is that they act like real people.

As an audience, character growth (even negative) is engaging.

Yes, absolutely. But we can absolutely do character growth in a way that does not spread harmful mindsets or misinformation about what ab*se and recovery from ab*se looks like. In fact, I would argue that character growth can’t happen if the writer doesn’t write the characters to behave in a way that is realistic to real life.

Characters follow the same rules, though. We respond to characters the same way we respond to real people. The same general rules of personal development and so forth apply.

The idea that “Aziraphale realizes his ab*sers are terrible” is something he needs to do for his “personal development” is highly objectionable. He doesn’t need to grow in this area. He just needs his ab*sers to leave him alone. Side note: We should give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he already does think they’re terrible and only stays with them because he is terrified. Even if this hadn’t been strongly and frequently hinted at in every episode going all the way back to S1E1 - almost every scene, in fact - we should still give him the benefit of the doubt.

Also, even if we say, for the sake of argument, that Aziraphale was a terrible, awful, horrible person - I know you’re not saying that, to be clear - even then, he still wouldn’t “need to realize his ab*sers are terrible” or “have a complete breakdown” or “lose himself” in order to grow. That's not how growth works. The best growth happens when people are at peace and safe and loved. Not frightened and confused and alone. He never chose them in the first place, he never wanted to be on their side. If he were left alone, he would just spend the rest of eternity reading his books and eating Eccles cakes and snuggling with his former-demon. That’s who he really is. There’s nothing about him as a person that needs to change. I agree a story where a person loses their sense of self after escaping from an ab*sive system would be interesting to watch, but I maintain that it does not make sense for the context of this particular story. And, such a story would NEED to make clear that the person wasn’t bad or wrong for deriving some part of their sense of self from the ab*ser and that they shouldn’t have had to have a catastrophic breakdown in order to develop their own sense of self. No one should have to go through that.

It’s not the same thing as asking for personal growth from a real human being.

Good characters do not operate according to different emotional and psychological rules than we do, though. If they didn't, we wouldn’t have millions of people sobbing about how real Aziraphale and Crowley feel to them. We would be the biggest dodos in the world if we were reacting this way to paper dolls 😄

Comparing the desire to see a character go through a dramatic storyline like that (and to come out of it strong and shining) to fundamentalist rhetoric is… just total bullshit.

You said this blog has been a good place for you and I want it to continue to be that way for you. So I want to give you a chance to revisit this part and see if you can say something more constructive. Because I've gotta admit, this really made me upset and I can't let it go without saying something. It’s not cool to call someone’s commentary “bullsh*t” like this.

I heard the line “we must die to ourselves” many, many times from the high-control religion of my childhood. It is a classic cult line. Hence why so many cults have "burial and rebirth" rituals, make people change their names, etc.

I am not just making up a comparison. This is a real phenomenon. Controlling ab*sers are the ones who’ve given us this idea that “death of the self” is character growth. It’s not. Character growth happens in spite of those excruciating emotional crises, not because of them.

Growing as a person is supposed to feel good overall. Not always easy, but on the whole, it should be a positive experience.

Also - Again, they said he “needs” to do it.

And they didn’t say anything about Aziraphale “coming out strong and shining”. You added that in. I think it's wonderful that you want to see that for him (so do I) but that’s not what this person was saying

If they'd said that, I wouldn't object to it at all. But they didn't. That part was left out. Which I think may be very telling in itself.

There are a myriad of reasons someone could have that desire, including having gone through something similar themselves.

Having gone through something similar doesn’t necessarily mean it makes sense for another character. It also doesn’t mean it’s necessary. And having been through something that went a certain way does NOT mean that it happening that way makes sense for someone else.

Deconstruction from a religious upbringing is different from leaving an ab*sive relationship

Aziraphale doesn’t have religious trauma. (I’m not going to talk much about religious trauma and deconstruction here, because it’s outside the scope of this blog, largely because - as attested by no less an authority than Neil Himself - Good Omens is not about religion. But I’ll say a little bit.)

Heaven and hell are not a “religion” in his world - they’re real. His fear of hell (and of heaven) is absolutely, one hundred percent, completely legitimate and appropriate, and NOT something he should be “reasoned” out of. Saying otherwise gives “your ab*ser isn’t actually that evil and scary”. But regardless, in either scenario, that kind of traumatic personal crisis is not a necessary part of the healing process. My heart aches for all the people whose deconstruction process was emotionally shattering. But what makes it ache even more is how for so many of them, the takeaway is somehow that that kind of crisis is necessary - rather than "dear god, i hope no one else ever has to go through that kind of hideous experience to get away from their shitty religion", which surely is what the takeaway should be (assuming there even is a lesson to be learned at all from an experience like that, which is doubtful) - and they go on to demand it of other survivors and gatekeep against people who haven't gone through the exact same thing they did in the process of getting away.

How, HOW did we get to a point where so many people’s deconstruction is a fucked-up, scarring experience that we think it’s inevitable for deconstruction to be that way????? I grieve.

I know the idea of killing one’s old self is inherently wrong to many people.

It’s not about whether it’s *wrong*. If that's valid for someone and they get where they need to be - you do you. It’s about the fact that it’s painful and it’s unnecessary to the process of growth.

Furthermore, it is the kind of thing ab*sers WANT to see happen to their victims when they leave. They want victims to think that they have to have that kind of crisis if they want to leave them. Because then they’re less likely to leave. When we encourage that kind of thinking, we are playing directly into their hands.

What should happen is that the victim should be given the opportunity to realize that all along there was much more to them than their ab*ser.

I don’t personally desire to watch Aziraphale do that, especially because there are so many wonderful aspects of the Angel he’s been since the beginning

Agreed.

But fwiw, this is giving a faint whiff of perfect victim syndrome. Even if he were an asshole, he still deserves to just have his ab*sers leave him alone, not to have some kind of shattering, soul-crushing emotional breakdown. They will always, always be worse than him.

but it’s not wrong to want to see that. People do go through it, and their stories are incredibly compelling.

I don’t disagree. For me it’s rather about the place this is coming from. OP was saying it’s necessary. There’s a difference between wanting to see a show address this issue overall because it’s interesting, and demanding that a specific character go through it because you think it’s necessary, or that their process of leaving and healing won't be legitimate (or whatever word we wanna use) if it doesn't happen.

And, as you said, it doesn’t make sense for Aziraphale. If the character is an asshole, I’d be able to see it a little more (although again, I still very much question the entire idea in the first place) But he's not an asshole. I find anyone’s thinking it “makes sense” for him to be highly questionable.

I know Aziraphale is much more than a character to many people

Speaking as a (very, very, very slightly, lol) professional writer and actor - every character should be “more than a character”, if they’re well-written. They should feel real if the writer and/or actor has done their job well. I like NG's line that "If you write someone who is utterly and completely themselves, you get people coming up to you and going 'Oh my God, you wrote my life!'

a desire to watch him go through a psychological breakdown is not some poorly concealed desire to watch real people go through that.

It may or may not be. I agree that it isn't always.

In this person’s case, though, I very much did get concerning vibes. Poorly concealed. (As an ab*se survivor, you start to know the vibe of victim-blamers after awhile.)

Regardless, though, the way we respond to characters is the way we respond to people in real life. Story is a primary vehicle through which people learn how to interact with one another and their environment. If it wasn’t, discussing media along these lines would be pointless, and I'd just spend all my time talking about how good David Tennant looks in those tight pants 😁 Or, probably, I would take up a different hobby altogether.

I wouldn’t have wasted my time starting this blog if the things people say about this story and especially about Aziraphale didn’t have real-world applications (not to mention making a lot of ab*se survivors feel very unsafe in the fandom - before we turned off anonymous asks, I got an average of two messages a day from ab*se survivors and other oppressed people telling them how this blog has made them feel so much safer in the fandom) - and if their views about the characters didn’t mirror the kinds of things they’d say about people in real life. (All the anti-Aziraphale autiphobic takes come to mind.) I flatter myself I have enough judgment that those takes wouldn't have troubled me so deeply if they weren't reflective of real-world societal problems and indicative of problematic attitudes in the people who write them.

In this case, the wording is identical to the kinds of problematic things people say about real-life victims/survivors. Yes, the person may not actually consciously want (or want at all) to see real-life ab*se victims/survivors suffer. But I absolutely, one hundred per cent guarantee you that anyone saying this has some major problematic biases/assumptions that are contributing to how ab*se survivors are maligned, degraded, and oppressed in our society. (I never want to see Disabled people suffer, but if I say ableist things, I’m contributing to it whether I mean to or not. I may not want to see women suffer, I am a woman, well more or less anyway lol, and I've identified as a feminist my entire adult life, but nevertheless there have certainly been times in the past when I've said sexist things. It's something all of us will always have to be vigilant against in ourselves. I suspect at this point I'm preaching to the choir, because you do not strike me at all as a bigoted or ignorant person, but I figured I'd re-iterate all that again anyway, because screaming it through a megaphone as often as possible is what this blog is for lol. :)

And what’s worse, they are spreading that rhetoric. I’ll be damned if I’ll let it go by without saying something.

Hope this makes sense and cleared some things up.

With love and respect,

Mod X.

[ambelle]

I’ve talked vaguely about white liberals treatment of BW both in real life and in fandom spaces but I feel I should expand on that.

A while back a BW wrote an article about how BM are the white people of the black community. White people were offended and baffled and BM protested. The thing is it's very much true. BM, along with BW are oppressed under a system stacked against us (along with many other demographics), but because BW are women we are also oppressed by BM.

White liberals have the privilege to not have grown up in the hood like I did. So they can claim a world without cops wouldn't turn into open season on BW at the hands of BM. They can say gangs, drive-bys, and drug dealers aren't dangerous and BM shouldn't be prevented from doing it. But when I was little I couldn't use the playgrounds because drug dealers used them as a place to deal and recruit little boys. I couldn't go to the local skating rink because gangs would go there to fight and shoot it up. I had to play in the street with my friends because the MEN in the community were ruining spaces meant for children. Erasing safety in general actually. Not the white president, the men in the community. I can say systematic racism and the BM who did a random drive-by on my house and raped little girls were both oppressing me. Both are true.

But it's not true to the white liberals who have a complete blind spot when it comes to BW because they don't acknowledge we are women. They see us as strong unwavering aggressive machines. We make good allies but they don't need to help us because we are invincible duh. It's the "bw saved the day" shit after every election followed by them going right back to ignoring us the next day.

It's them ignoring all the crazy stats about violence against BW to whitesplain to us how abolishing the police is a great idea. The men harming us will simply stop if they know we don't even have someone we may call for help. Let's abolish the police because they harm BM and BM never do anything they should be arrested for including my rapist. He was simply a victim of white supremacy and I should have hugged him after like the strong mammy I was born to be. No need to talk about black femicide.

Basically, white liberals care about BM (because it's trendy not because they give a shit see ANTIFA), BW care about BM, BM care about BM, and no one gives a shit about BW. That's the reality

But white libs in fandoms are racist in a different way. They like to adopt the struggles of demographics that are oppressed in real life and apply it to white characters. It's why characters like Silco and Jinx are so appealing to them.

(both trying to kill Zaunites here BTW)

Make no mistake If Silco were black fans would be holding them accountable same with Jinx. But they are white and they are (were) oppressed. That's literally a white liberal dream. They get to ignore the fact that Silco and Jinx are rich and they got rich by oppressing poor people and forcing children into child labor.

(that Zaunite teen boy died not that anyone cares. )

They get to weaponize classism to excuse the violence and murder they commit against other poor people. Who cares how many orphans he creates or how many poor children he tries to murder.

Mind you not only was Silco rich off the backs of poor people and the labor of kids, he used the enforcers to help him not only oppress his own people but also frame Ekko (ironically a BM) and the Firelights for crimes he and Jinx were committing.

Jinx who killed multiple Zaunites on purpose and tried to kill Ekko later on. Jinx who is rich and has no motive for the violence she commits. Jinx who is working for the man she KNOWS killed her father figure and tried to kill her siblings. Jinx who never once takes responsibility for any of the choices she makes. But she's white. It's why the fandom supports her hetero ship with Ekko (who they headcanon as being her emotional crutch). They only care about heteronormativity when there is a black woman they want to erase. No other straight pairing gets called "disgusting", "forced", "shoehorned", "a betrayal", or "immoral". Mel is forceful and aggressive. She's a seductress who manipulates Jayce into her bed and into doing her evil deeds.

(He's clearly not into her at all)

He should be kissing Vik's ass and worshipping the ground he walks on. Speaking of Viktor ...him using tech for his own gains, secretly merging his DNA with the core, getting addicted to shimmer, killing a fellow Zaunite and converting up her death + stealing her notes is something no one will discuss.

Because he's white , was once poor, and is "gay-coded". He's thus entitled to murdering a brown woman and entitled to Jayce's body. They weaponize LGBTQ+ rep in order to justify their racism much like the left does in real life.

Mel who shows no ill will towards Viktor is accused of being ableist and classist because she gave him a look when he was arguing with her. Mel who explains why she wants defensive weapons and has several scenes reiterating her motive is accused of wanting war and genocide.

Mel who has exchanged flirty looks with Jayce every episode before she kisses him is accused of raping him. Mel who isn't at all a part of the Vander/Silco/Jinx shenanigans in ep 1 is blamed for the death of Jinx's family because she "controls the council" (even though they often vote against her and Heimerdinger gets a pass despite being there when the cities were founded). Because she's black and rich. Thus they can weaponize poverty in order to villainize BW.

They shout over the people who are actually oppressed. Over the people who know what it's like to have drug dealers and gangs make your life hell while the government does the same on a less personal scale.

This is what white liberals do. It's not new. I won't even get into the weird ass envy/hatred/lust thing they have for bw. The dehumanizing and hypersexualizing shit they do is a whole other essay.

[libracorpvs]

this whole discourse is ridiculous to me because people keep acting like those of us who are critical of the radblr emphasis on opposing male partnership are only doing this because we care about our jakeys or nigels or whatever, but that's not what is happening at all. (let's put aside the usual points of discussion, like the misogynistic terms often used to refer to OSA women; many of the women critical of this emphasis are not male partnered or are celibate, me included; the circular debate over whether separatism is effective, etc.) i actually agree that partnering with men can be dangerous or detrimental. however, the argument was never over the merits or faults of male partnership, but has rather always been that being staunchly against het partnership is not an inherently feminist praxis or critique, and that radblr often — quite annoyingly — places undue emphasis on this aspect, often to the detriment of other political discourses. radical feminism, by definition, aims to examine and critique patriarchal structures in society. heterosexual partnership as it currently stands is used to promote male domination and so can be used to oppress women. but so does every single other institution. i’ll grant that marriage and partnership are particularly potent methods of subjugating women, but the entire point is to criticise and reform the structures ‘at the root’, not police individual choices. ‘the personal is political’ was intended as a statement to open up the nuclear family and its power structures up to feminist critique. it was not intended to mean that every single part of an individual’s personal life is political praxis. it is not an inherently feminist or anti- feminist action to partner with a man. as things stand now, refusing to partner with men or otherwise can be an effective personal choice (for one’s own safety or autonomy) but it alters nothing structurally. i also think that this emphasis on the OSA discourse is not effective — not that radblr is political praxis, but this discourse doesn’t make for interesting discussions anyhow. you can personally make the decision to never partner with men, but don't pretend that this is a requirement to be a feminist*, radical or otherwise, or that it is the most effective feminist choice a person can make, even if the practice is culturally linked to several branches of feminism. you can hate on men all you want and complain about women liking their nigels too much, but if you prioritise that over criticising power structures and female solidarity and advancing women into positions of power i get the feeling you just want to pat yourself on the back for being a Good Feminist since you don’t Like Men, but don’t actually care about advancing the CauseTM

*unless you’re referring solely to (70s) lesbian feminism which focused its structural criticism primarily on heterosexual partnership. which is why there are many of us who are arguing that much of radblr is polilez in all but name lmao

it's like you took the thoughts rights out of my head - the argument i've been trying to make is indeed that being against women partnering with men doesn't have much to with radical feminism (and that not extending this to other men is inconsistent), and that personal choices don't alter existing institutions that prop up patriarchy. you've articulated it so much better than i've been able to! please imagine me kissing you gently on the forehead 😘

[mj-theskywitch]

Hi! I am new to the term "transandrophobia" and I've been trying to understand it, do you have any good sources for learning more about it? From what I've gleaned so far it just sounds like "trans men experience a unique kind of bigotry" which makes me insanely confused as to why people I follow and generally agree with are arguing against it so passionately. Am I missing something or is this just another case of terf brain rot leaking into really weird places?

hi! thank you for asking, im happy to try and explain. you're correct, transandrophobia is just a term to describe the unique forms of oppression transmasculine people face. some examples are discrimination when trying to access reproductive care, forced detransitioning by pregnancy, the myriad of ways transmasc poc are treated differently (hi thats me), just to name a few.

to my understanding there's a lot of pushback because people believe anyone that identifies as a man or masculine can't experience bigotry because of being a man, because all men benefit from the patriarchy. i find this to be vastly oversimplified, in fact i would say that the majority of men don't benefit from the patriarchy 100% of the time. ask any men of color, or disabled men, or trans men. there are unique experiences we have that are inextricably linked to maleness, and people don't like to acknowledge that.

i think another part of it, and i might be swinging a bat at a hornets nest with this one, but people perceive women, including trans women, as being the Most Oppressed group, so when transmascs try to talk about our specific struggles (not even saying they're inherently worse, just speaking about them in general) people think we're saying that *we* have it the worst and no one else is as oppressed as us, which is total bullshit. it isn't a contest, no one is claiming one is worse than the other, we just want to be able to talk about our unique struggles that are more specific than general transphobia.

i also think a large part of the issue is that for some reason lots of people believe the transphobia transmascs experience is inherently easier than what transfemmes face, which again is bullshit. there's plenty of statistics about how prevalent violence against us is, it just often flies under the radar because the victims are misgendered posthumously. there's been a recent conversation about how transmascs aren't the main targets of terfs and are basically just collateral which. i don't have the time or energy to fully explain why thats a ridiculous and lowkey actually dangerous belief.

anyways, this ended up being a bit long so i hope i was able to answer your question. @genderkoolaid has a lot of resources in hir transandrophobia tag that can also help!

[sadkachow]

sometimes i wish i wasn’t transmasc.

i love being me, but it just gets so exhausting. 

i’m not in an environment where i’m able to be entirely open about it, and it makes every moment when i’m with anyone i’m not out to exhausting. i feel like i’m putting on a show, pretending to be someone i’m not.

and then (and this is the main point of this post) sometimes it feels like the queer community hates people like me. not always, but certainly enough. enough to make me feel isolated, even in online spaces where i can be myself, because no one wants me to be me. the amount of shit i see by other queer people (even other trans men!) about how my manness somehow means i don’t experience oppression (which assumes every trans masc or man can or wants to pass—and even then, they must also be quiet about their transness), that trans mascs and men aren’t allowed to have the language to speak about their oppression, that we’re oppressing other trans people (by merit of being men, i guess???), that we’re evil disgusting monsters. 

the fear-mongering around t, the idea that it makes you bad and dangerous, the idea that certain effects of t are inherently disgusting and bad.

the way that we’re either seen as “evil vicious wicked men” or “poor dumb stupid girls- i mean boys- i mean girls”.

we’re hated because we’re failed women. 

we’re hated because we’re men.

no trans man or masc has ever experienced oppression based on their identity—and don’t you dare go look up the reported rates of violence, harassment, and s/a that we receive, don’t you dare look at how high they are! 

trans men aren’t allowed to see our transness and our manhood as connected in any way, they must be separated (“we have to protect queerness from disgusting masculinity”—which is also harmful to anyone who is comfortable or even enjoys experiencing and embracing their masculinity). 

gay trans men like me are introducing on the gay community.

straight trans men are either preying on innocent women, or they’re “better” than cis men, because they(“‘re not really men”) know what women want and are like and can thus serve women better!

trans men who still identify with lesbianism for whatever reason are either treated as women or treated (once again) as evil invaders out to harm women.

not to mention the trans mascs and men who identify with any other label than those three—no matter what, our identities and labels get twisted around to be used against us, to the point where sometimes it feels like maybe it’d be better if we didn’t identify as anything at all (except maybe that’d get turned against us too).

we get attacked for trying to have more neutral language (i.e. “pregant people” instead of “pregnant women”, “menstrual hygiene” instead of “feminine hygiene”, etc). we get attacked for having our own language (the way every single term used to describe transmasc oppression has been dissected and degraded until it’s become clear that maybe it’s not the word itself but simply the fact that we are using it).

we get told how much men are awful and horrible either as if we arent “really” men (“kill all men. but not you, you’re one of the ‘good ones’ (aka: i don’t see you as a man)”), or because we’re just as bad and need to be separated and killed and harassed and hated (“kill all men, including trans men. you can’t be mad, you’re asking for it by (existing as yourself) being a man!” “trans men really are the men of the lgbtqia+ community” (this is also a form of malgendering—gendering someone correctly for the sake of harming or attacking them (aka with malicious intent))).

i see so much help and resources for other queer people, but hardly any for trans mascs/men. i’ve seen support that parades itself as “for trans people”, and then it turns out it’s for all trans people except trans men. (this isn’t an exaggeration, by the way. i’ve seen multiple respurces that say that they’re for the support of all trans people, and then if you actually read into it, they’re for the support of trans women and nonbinary people only—which is completely fine that those support groups exist! but then don’t label it as “for all trans people” if it’s not for all trans people. that’s exclusionary, and can also present nonbinary identities as “women-lite”—and also often leaves no space for trans women and nonbinary people who present in a more masculine way or who also identify with manhood/as men to some degree, or for nonbinary people who dont identify with womanhood/as women at all.)

violence against trans men is so often erased because we’re misgendered even in death. we’re forcefully detransitioned. we’re s/a-ed and abused at extremely high rates.

we’re pitiful misled girls or failed women or wicked evil men or pick me’s or vile abusers. 

we’re evil and we cannot be hurt or oppressed because we’re men, as if that is not a point of view that is based on bioessentialism/gender essentialism, racism, intersexism, and extremely harmful (especially to marginalised men in general—trans or not). 

no identity is uniquely capable or incapable of harm—anyone can harm anyone, regardless of who they are.

and yet, and yet, and yet, it’s alright because we asked for it by simply being us.

sometimes it just feels so isolating to be a trans boy, because everywhere i look, there’s people hating me for existing.

im just so tired of it.

(clarification: i know not all of the queer community holds this stance. i’ve seen and/or met wonderful queer people of all identities who have been understanding and accepting. i’m also not trying to say that the things mentioned in this are only driven forward by the community—plenty of people who aren’t in it do this stuff as well. what i mean is just that it feels as if this sort of talk—particularly radfem rhetoric—has been incredibly pervasive lately, at least from what i’ve experienced. i feel like a lot of people forget it’s not just the “trans exclusionary” part of TERFs that is bad, but the radical feminism as well. radical feminism isn’t good. it’s incredibly bioessentialist, racist, intersexist, and harmful in so many other ways by its nature. but it still stands so clearly in so many places. this is also by no means a comphrensive list on the treatment of trans mascs/men. i’m not infallible. there’s certainly other things that have happened that i’ve either forgotten or am not aware of—and if anyone wants to add on, feel free!)

[vintage-bentley]

"Other crime rates do not show a specific class that is particularly in danger." Where are you getting that information? Your gut feeling? Because when I look up who gets assaulted in bathrooms unusually often, "trans identified" adolescents are a class that is particularly in danger of sexual assault in bathrooms, particularly if they are 'sex restricted.' https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31061223/ "The 12-month prevalence of sexual assault was 26.5% among transgender boys, 27.0% among nonbinary youth assigned female at birth, 18.5% among transgender girls, and 17.6% among nonbinary youth assigned male at birth. Youth whose restroom and locker room use was restricted were more likely to experience sexual assault compared with those without restrictions, with risk ratios of 1.26 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.02-1.52) in transgender boys, 1.42 (95% CI: 1.10-1.78) in nonbinary youth assigned female at birth, and 2.49 (95% CI: 1.11-4.28) in transgender girls. Restrictions were not associated with sexual assault among nonbinary youth assigned male at birth.

Conclusions: Pediatricians should be aware that sexual assault is highly prevalent in transgender and nonbinary youth and that restrictive school restroom and locker room policies may be associated with risk." I can't imagine why, though. What happened to their privilege? Why can't those strong 'trans identified males' just knock the other boys out? They're built for violence and there's no misogyny aimed at them, so they should be fine! "There's homophobia aimed at them, when we fix that, this will be fixed." And your efforts towards making that happen are truly inspiring. "Doesn't matter, just because you're at extra risk doesn't mean we should be!" But we're at risk *from you.* Do you get that? Do you get how black men who get lynched for 'raping white women' are, in fact, victims of white women? Do you get how "I am your natural victim and you are my natural predator" is in fact a dangerous narrative even when there are shreds of truth - because they inevitably ignore the larger picture?

I agree that trans identifying people, just like any people who don’t conform to what is expected of their sex, are at risk of targeted violence. But the solution is not to look at another oppressed group (women) and say “hey, you know those protections you fought so hard for? You’re going to have to give them up to help this other group that includes male people who frequently talk about how much they hate you”.

If there is a problem with violence against trans identifying people in sexed spaces, then I will once again argue in favour of mixed-sex spaces becoming more common, in addition to single sex spaces.

Also, I don’t understand why the trans community was so focused on saying “you need to accept the opposite sex into your spaces” instead of tackling the clear problem here: people not accepting members of their own sex who are different. Men need to learn to accept trans identified males as their fellow men. Women need to learn to accept trans identified females as their fellow women. And until that happens, unisex spaces can be advocated for to keep everybody safe.

And another thing I don’t understand: you say that you’re at risk from “us” (I’m assuming that means people who don’t identify as trans). So why do you want so badly to be in our spaces? Trans identified males say that “terfs” are their biggest threat. Yet they want to be in women’s spaces with us. Why is that? Every other oppressed group has worked hard to create spaces away from their oppressors.

Two things can be true at once: trans identifying people face violence in sexed spaces, but the solution is not to force women to give up our own protections. There needs to be a compromise that is made, instead of expecting women to bend over backwards and obey the trans community’s every demand.

Black men being lynched due to accusations of rape from white women was not because of feminists understanding that men are our oppressors, it was due to racism. Stop using that as a talking point to shut women up when we acknowledge that men as a class, regardless of race, have been and still are responsible for persecution and violence against women.