#and the gender essentialism.

[inkskinned]

okay is she being actually immature or is it just a woman over 30 expressing a human experience you find to be immature.

like yeah. at certain ages... let shit go. im not defending the real immature shit. im not defending the karen you're picturing. i worked in retail i hate those people too. (once somebody got mad at me because she didn't like how our winter window decor was a snowman smoking a pipe. i wish i was joking).

but men at 57 will write books about how 17 year old girls are soooo sexy. they will invent worlds where women have to be naked for "armor reasons." they will write songs that treat women as objects. people rush to defend them. meanwhile a woman at 35 will be like "heartbreak is hard, actually" or "i feel betrayed by a friend" or "i am struggling with something emotionally." immediately people will say stuff like this woman is 35 by the way. by the way this woman is SO OLD to be experiencing this. BY THE WAY.

im 31, almost 32. the other day a poet was blasted online because at her "big age", she had written a poem about feeling unloved. top comment was "this woman is 29 by the way." this woman is too old to still be useful, by the way. she has to behave better . maybe if she was a good wife and mother she could stop existing loudly, and the story could continue on without her. this woman has served her purpose, by the way. she's so cringe, by the way. at 29 - so old! - she still hasn't figured out that her existence should be one of shame.

[prokopetz]

Me: *opens Tumblr dashboard*

Tumblr dash: It's misogynistic not to acknowledge that women are more susceptible to propaganda because our brains have more goo.

Me: *closes Tumblr dashboard*

[fatliberation]

I’m tired of hearing from my cisgender female friends that relationships without men are virtuous.

male relationships are rich, beautiful, and human. a man’s true love is just as sacred and powerful as any other. masculinity is not damnation. queer men, if you’ve ever been told you are “one of the good ones” because you aren’t cisgender and/or straight, that’s not true. you are not good because you are queer. you are good because you are you.

[marshmellowtea]

i desperately need people to realize there's a difference between "women need to coddle (cis) men's feelings even when they're being misogynistic uwu" and "we shouldn't tolerate misogyny but actively keeping men separate from women and treating them like they're inherently dangerous to women is only going to worsen the problem (and also this mindset causes IMMEASURABLE harm to nonbinary, trans, and intersex people, who are already incredibly at risk right now)" and i need people to realize that NOW

[venice-1987]

Welcome to transmasculinity. You got two options, what'll it be.

1) Genderessentialism (men are inherently designed to play a stoic, strong role, so you gotta push down your emotions and accept that you'll get no support from a conservative society)

Or

2) Genderessentialism (men are inherently predatory, evil, callous monsters, so you gotta push down your emotions when we generalize you to be a horrible person with too much privilege and you gotta accept that you will get no support from a liberal society)

[ablueberryblogs]

I don't know what trans man need to hear this but you're allowed to be angry. It doesn't make you evil. You are allowed to experience all possible emotions without apology and still be a good man.

*this is about trans men specifically, do not derail. You are free to make your own post*

[anghraine]

It's always been intriguing to me that, even when Elizabeth hates Darcy and thinks he's genuinely a monstrous, predatory human being, she does not ever perceive him as sexually predatory. In fact, literally no one in the novel suggests or believes he is sexually dangerous at any point. There's not the slightest hint of that as a factor in the rumors surrounding him, even though eighteenth-century fiction writers very often linked masculine villainy to a possibility of sexual predation in the subtext or just text*. Austen herself does this over and over when it comes to the true villains of her novels.

Even as a supposed villain, though, Darcy is broadly understood to be predatory and callous towards men who are weaker than him in status, power, and personality—with no real hint of sexual threat about it at all (certainly none towards women). Darcy's "villainy" is overwhelmingly about abusing his socioeconomic power over other men, like Wickham and Bingley. This can have secondhand effects on women's lives, but as collateral damage. Nobody thinks he's targeting women.

In addition, Elizabeth's interpretations of Darcy in the first half of the book tend to involve associating him with relatively prestigious women by contrast to the men in his life (he's seen as extremely dissimilar from his male friends and, as a villain, from his father). So Elizabeth understands Darcy-as-villain not in terms of the popular, often very sexualized images of masculine villainy at the time, but in terms of rich women she personally despises like Caroline Bingley and Lady Catherine de Bourgh (and even Georgiana Darcy; Elizabeth assumes a lot about Georgiana in service of her hatred of Darcy before ever meeting her).

The only people in Elizabeth's own community who side with Darcy at this time are, interestingly, both women, and likely the highest-status unmarried women in her community: Charlotte Lucas and Jane Bennet. Both have some temperamental affinities with Darcy, and while it's not clear if he recognizes this, he quietly approves of them without even knowing they've been sticking up for him behind the scenes.

This concept of Darcy-as-villain is not just Elizabeth's, either. Darcy is never seen by anyone as a sexual threat no matter how "bad" he's supposed to be. No one is concerned about any danger he might pose to their daughters or sisters. Kitty is afraid of him, but because she's easily intimidated rather than any sense of actual peril. Even another man, Mr Bennet, seems genuinely surprised to discover late in the novel that Darcy experiences attraction to anything other than his own ego.

I was thinking about this because of how often the concept of Darcy as an anti-hero before Elizabeth "fixes him" seems caught up in a hypermasculine, sexually dangerous, bad boy image of him that even people who actively hate him in the novel never subscribe to or remotely imply. Wickham doesn't suggest anything of the kind, Elizabeth doesn't, the various gossips of Meryton don't, Mr Bennet and the Gardiners don't, nobody does. If anything, he's perceived as cold and sexless.

Wickham in particular defines Darcy's villainy in opposition to the patriarchal ideal his father represented. Wickham's version of their history works to link Darcy to Lady Anne, Lady Catherine (primarily), and Georgiana rather than any kind of masculine sexuality. This version of Darcy is a villain who colludes with unsympathetic high-status women to harm men of less power than themselves, but villain!Darcy poses no direct threat to women of any kind.

It's always seemed to me that there's a very strong tendency among fans and academics to frame Darcy as this ultra-gendered figure with some kind of sexual menace going on, textually or subtextually. He's so often understood entirely in terms of masculinity and sexual desire, with his flaws closely tied to both (whether those flaws are his real ones, exaggerated, or entirely manufactured). Yet that doesn't seem to be his vibe to other characters in the story. There's a level at which he does not register to other characters as highly masculine in his affiliations, highly sexual, or in general as at all unsafe** to be around, even when they think he's a monster. And I kind of feel like this makes the revelations of his actual decency all along and his full-on heroism later easier to accept in the end.

------------

*The incompetently awful villain(?) in Sanditon, for instance, imagines himself another Lovelace (a reference to the famous rapist-villain of Samuel Richardson's Clarissa). Evelina's sheltered education and lack of protectors makes her vulnerable to sexual exploitation in Frances Burney's Evelina, though she ultimately manages to avoid it. There's frequently an element of sexual predation in Gothic novels even of very different kinds (e.g. Ann Radcliffe's The Mysteries of Udolpho and Matthew Lewis's The Monk both lean into this, in their wildly dissimilar styles). William Godwin's novel Caleb Williams, a book mostly about the destructive evils of class hierarchies and landowning classes specifically, depicts the mutual obsession of the genteel villain Falkland and working class hero Caleb in notoriously homoerotic terms (Godwin himself added a preface in 1832 saying, "Falkland was my Bluebeard, who had perpetrated atrocious crimes ... Caleb Williams was the wife"). This list could go on for a very long time.

**Darcy is also not usually perceived by other characters as a particularly sexual, highly masculine person in a safe way, either, even once his true character is known. Elizabeth emphasizes the resilience of Darcy's love for her more than the passionate intensity they both evidently feel; in the later book, she does sometimes makes assumptions about his true feelings or intentions based on his gender, but these assumptions are pretty much invariably shown to be wrong. In general the cast is completely oblivious to the attraction he does feel; even Charlotte, who wonders about something in that quarter, ends up doubting her own suspicions and wonders if he's just very absent-minded.

The novel emphasizes that he is physically attractive, but it goes to pains to distinguish this from Wickham's sex appeal or the charisma of a Bingley or Fitzwilliam. Mr Bennet (as mentioned above) seems to have assumed Darcy is functionally asexual, insofar as he has a concept of that. Most of the fandom-beloved moments in which Darcy is framed as highly sexual, or where he himself is sexualized for the audience, are very significantly changed in adaptation or just invented altogether for the adaptations they appear in. Darcy watching Elizabeth after his bath in the 1995 is invented for that version, him snapping at Elizabeth in their debates out of UST is a persistent change from his smiling banter with her in the book, the fencing to purge his feelings is invented, the pond swim/wet shirt is invented. In the 2005 P&P, the instant reaction to Elizabeth is invented, the hand flex of repressed passion is invented, the Netherfield Ball dance as anything but an exercise in mutual frustration is invented, the near-kiss after the proposal in invented, etc. And in those as well, he's never presented as sexually predatory, not even as a "villain."

[puc-puggy]

THANK YOU, SERANO

[x]

trans people are not the oppressor. neither trans men nor trans women. trans men do not become oppressors because they're men and trans women are not oppressors because they were assigned male at birth.

[shamebats]

[donutdrawsthings]

When I went into Classic Who, I didn't expect to meet the silliest Billy there ever was.

[emotional-moss]

”bi girls stop bringing your boyfriends to gay clubs” “just saw a man in a lesbian club” “keep seeing straight girls in lesbian groups” “why was there a man in the womens support group” how did you know they were men. oh it’s because they looked like men! that’s a completely valid reason and totally not indicative of any transphobic opinions! quick question how do you feel about butches and transmascs and trans women who don’t pass

[degenderates]

“women love inherently different from men...oh but btw trans women are still women and included in this!!:)))” you are still boxing people into 2 distinct immutable categories

[walks-the-ages]

stealing the post so it's actually fully accessible without the op screaming at people for daring to include image descriptions in reblogs

[ID: A screenshot from Spongebob of a blue fish looking over his shoulder with a concerned expression, overlaid with text that reads: "Wait you guys actually agree with radfeminism and just think its misderected by terfs towards transfems? I thought we all knew its reductive binarist horseshit, why are you swapping bioessentialism for gender essentialism" End ID]

[gayboygaming]

Gender essentialism is still cringe if it is directed against cis people btw. Ive basically had someone say to me that cis people are biologically incapable of understanding less normalized gender identities because "their brains work differently". If anyone has this opinion please come forward now so i can block you thank you. The reason cis people dont understand gender in the same way trans people do is because trans people are naturally more exposed to the discussion about gender because we have to think about it a lot. Cis people, who have never doubted their identity, obviously dont think about it as much, if at all.

Cis people arent inherently more stupid than us, or less capable of talking about gender on a biological level. What would that even look like???

[cardentist]

people fixate on bi-lesbians as being problematic despite bi-gay men existing (as well as any and every combination of sexuality and romantic attraction you can think of) because terfs and radfems deliberately don't want bi women to associate with lesbians and are deeply invested with framing attraction to men As Bad. a sentiment which has invaded queer culture inside and out, intentionally And incidentally.

people fixate on straight cis aromantic men when straight cis aromantic women exist because framing aromantic people as inherently predatory and dangerous by the simple nature of existing is easier to do when you intentionally force the association with predatory dangerous behavior displayed by (and associated with) misogynistic men.

people are still bigoted against bi-gay men and woman aromatics (and any flavor of trans within these groups), but pay attention to the way these conversations are Framed and it's clear the way gender essentialism is being used as a tool to control the narrative.

radfems' gender essentialism says you're supposed to think men are inherently scary, inherently take advantage of women, so Naturally (it is assumed) a man who is sexually attracted to women but not romantically attracted them Must Inherently be predatory and scary. and now you're being asked to take that feeling of unease you've been manipulated into feeling and associate it with the entirety of a sexuality.

bi-lesbians are threatening to radfems because they want to draw inherent lines between these two groups. insist that attraction to and with a man is inherently dirty and dangerous. the same reason why "gold star lesbian" is a radfem concept. if it turns out that the lines between sexualities, between identity as a whole, is blurrier than they want it to be then that Must be framed as inherently dangerous.

if a single Kind of a marginalized group is being singled out to convince you that this group is dangerous or that they don't belong It's For A Reason. they're trying to manipulate you based on Biases (their biases and the ones they hope you have). the reaction to this isn't to abandon the type of person they're convinced are the worst of these groups, it's in solidarity.

aromantics who are men aren't any different from aromantics who are women, bi-lesbians deserve to live in peace just as much as bi-gay men. don't let people control the narrative Either by cutting down vast array of experiences that exist within any given identity, Or by convincing you that particular kinds of people within your communities are lesser than.

[biracy]

In general quite fascinating how "boys who liked bionicle are girls now" is called "gender essentialism" by like Radqueer Terfs DNI posters but "the thread of Girlhood Uterus Vulva Trauma connects all (cis) butches and trans men, so that's why I can reblog photos of trans men to my men dni blog in my #dyke tag" isn't. Lmao