#and the role one must take not to be a part of a social problem

[beartes22]

Oh? So u dont have enough misogyny if u only apply It to the women? So now you want to copy paste the misogyny in the queer? Go on then! Go on an apply the misogyny in every person on earth so tightly It unravels and reveals it's ugly core, it's clear truth, for kysogyny is nothing but a very obvious power play! Alas, but by then it would be far too late for u to notice! Too late to fix because u are infected too!!

common misconception! actually the only way to tell if someone is a top or a bottom is to know their preferences regarding penetrative sex ❤️

[itsmaferart]

Keep your hands off my woman!!

Leaving aside the most important part of the chapter, Yor must kiss her husband for world peace and the Twiyor nation to be happy.

I think it's a good message if we look deeper into how the stereotypical duality of women is portrayed to us, which I think is a message that can encompass anyone in general.

The most conventional romantic movies are usually about the man being - stereotypically - the strongest and the one who must protect the woman, who wins his sensitive heart and makes the hero bring out his sweetest feelings.

Becky being a little girl has in her heart the fantasy of a sweet romantic love just like the one in her novels and movies. But sometimes, people are not so conventional.

Both Anya and Yor, don't feel comfortable being pigeonholed into “girls waiting to be passively rescued”, because within themselves the love for the people around them is a drive to be strong, take action and save others.

I feel that one of Endo's best points, is her way of undertaking a concept of what femininity, or rather, “feminine energy”, represents. Feminine energy is a force that comes from feelings, it is fluctuating and unpredictable, sometimes like a gentle breeze and sometimes like a terrible hurricane.

Most of Endo's female characters are strong, independent women who do not need to be rescued. And they are very willing to put themselves in the face of danger to protect those they love. This is something we have seen, with characters like Yor, Sylvia, Martha, Fiona, and they have been able to save other men or take on subjects much larger and more muscular than them.

Even with girls like Anya who we know very well is a very brave girl and has been in the face of danger despite her age (maybe too much, our poor baby is only 4 to 5 years old, God), and has the strength to send a bully flying (and fall in love in the process) on the first day of school.

So …. if women are strong …. men are weak?

Absolutely not!

Everyone, regardless of gender, is strong. We know perfectly well that Twilight is someone capable of taking care of himself, is someone who is physically trained and has enormous intelligence. Even Yuri has survived so many dangers that we wonder how the hell he didn't die. Damian is a brave guy (when he doesn't see an insect lol).

The point is, even though women and men (or any gender in general) are strong. We all have our weaknesses, our sensitive sides.

You can do things on your own, but you don't have to do everything at once....

Clearly, although Yor is physically strong, she has problems with metal and verbal confrontations. Because her insecurities are so great that when they make her doubt herself and her own value, she tends to lose it and that is when Loid is there for her, not to take care of her because she is weak, but to remind her of her own value (because she doesn't seem to realize it herself) and to make her see that she is worthy of the understanding and love of others. In the same way that Yor reminds him that he too can be a little weak and take refuge in her.

Even if we feel weak and awkward, we can take initiative....

I think it is very important, the idea that Yor or anyone in general can have the “initiative” to seek on their own that “love” that you so desire.

Many times we feel that if we don't fit into the expected canon, or social archetype we are not worthy of love. (Feminine women who feel vulnerable and who depend on the guy to live are the ones who get love in the end). When nothing could be further from the truth….

Being weak and vulnerable is something totally natural and not exclusive to one gender or social role. We are all weak and strong at the core, and we need each other to complement each other and to be able to enjoy much more of our own love and the love we can give and receive from others.

Yor's desire to actively seek love (kissing her husband a lot) is not only a way to develop her bond with Loid, but a way to grow her self-esteem and challenge her insecurities. To stop seeing herself as a child in front of the world, but a woman who can get things because she wants them (and has her husband's consent, of course) (But, come on, we all know Loid needs kisses from Yor).

[donnapalude]

also flint and eleanor both grapple with shame but not like in the same way.

flint has clearly interiorised some homophobia but also in general he has a need to feel that he is a Good Person in life. like cosmologically Good on a supreme universal level. his moral principles are a key element around which he constructs his identity. so when he does something Bad he feels shame more than guilt because his whole self is threatened. eliminating the action from his self-concept is a necessity for survival (i have a previous post on this). if he cannot eliminate it and must/wants to accept it as part of his identity (eg his homosexuality) he needs to convince himself it's Good. when he wavers, also due to societal pressure, on the rightness of his assessment the shame trickles in.

eleanor does not feel ashamed when she does something bad. she also wants to feel like a good person but in a more mundane way where she just wants to know she is not erring from the socially acceptable level of goodness. in many ways she wants to be perceived/ wants to perceive herself to be good more than she actually wants to be good. while flint wants both things and that's why he has self-perception problems but he also develops actual moral principles. eleanor has barely any real moral principle and she definitely does not put any as the cornerstone of her identity. so when she does something "bad" she feels guilt more than shame. it does not actually threaten the fundamental basis of her being. it does threaten the positive self-image that she prefers to maintain however. eliminating the action from her self-concept is not a necessity for her but a matter of convenience. it's easier living that way.

so what eleanor is ashamed about has nothing to do with good and bad. eleanor is ashamed of being a woman. she does not have gender dysphoria and she is not at war with femininity. she is at war with the label and what that means for her social standing. she is ashamed that this accident of birth made her powerless. she hates herself without having anything to actually hate because her condition is not actually dependent on any particular characteristic she has -- i mean ok her vagina, but she does not hate that either, she does not hate her physical form just what role it puts her in. so the cornerstone of her identity becomes trying to overcome at all costs this disability she feels she has to basically be treated like a man (which is like what every feminist with an individualistic approach wants).

soooooo what happens when she meets rogers is about to become hilarious. because apparently she becomes a trad-wife which is like??? but i think it was actually super smart writing and perfectly in character. basically what i think happens is that rogers is more or less telling her he will grant her man status when they are alone and in the handling of nassau if she pretends to be a woman everywhere else. the cementification of her role as his wife happens through her literally pretending to be his voice when he is sick while actually he is not even awake and she is the one taking all the decisions and therefore acting formally as a woman but substantially as a man. and he allows that, he is not mad when he wakes up. so she says, ok :)))) the rest of the world treats me as a woman anyway, might as well carve out a place where i can be treated like a man and where my role as fellow man is sanctified by another man, because of course theirs is the only approval that matters.

of course she cannot see how this has not solved her conflict but just restricted her sphere of action so that she does not encounter it in the same way. and of course rogers's approval only holds until she goes against him, the actual man. but alas.

[zumicho]

home┊003┊005

004: softness vs. survival

© zumicho all rights reserved. do not repost, modify, steal, plagiarize, or translate my works on any platform.

────────────────────────

on the steps in front of the bakery, there’s a shared silence between you – he finishes the pastry you gave him. you enjoy his company.

it smells like dew and fresh bread.

“how much do you owe?”

“out of everything you could ask me, that’s what you choose?”

he licks jam off his thumb, and catches you getting distracted. “what else would I ask? for your number?” coy.

you look away. “I guess not.”

“why’d you leave without saying? I would’ve made you breakfast.”

“I wouldn’t have let you. plus I needed to get outside. my… ex, texted me. jeez. sorry. tmi.” you’re grimacing.

if he’s bothered, he doesn’t show it. “boyfriend?”

“of 3 years, yeah. douchebag ended it over text, told me not to spread the news because it would make him seem like a jerk.”

eye contact. whether or not it’s pity, you take the opportunity to admire. his eyelashes are long; if you squint enough you notice the speckles of green in his irises.

“ass”

“..what?” you snap out of it.

“he seems like an ass.”

you bite back a smile. “i… that’s one way to put it.”

“there’s no way I’m not paying you for that pastry, if you must know. if you keep giving freebies out, how are you gonna pay the debt you won’t disclose to me?” half-joking, you assume. why does he care so much about the money you lose?

“it’s a lot of money.” you think about telling him.

“didn’t ask that.”

“3 million yen.”

“…oh.”

“suna—“

“call me rin.”

“okay. rin,” you suck in a breath. “I’m perfectly fine with how I manage my finances now, thank you very much, and I sort of owe you.. for.. the other night.” you close your eyes, kicking yourself in your head. why’d you say it like that? made it sound like you did something else..

you’re about to apologize, but he laughs, “I was just trying to have a conversation with you, not become your accountant—“ you open your eyes.

he wanted to say

“you have the sun inside of you and it’s not just smiles. you have an internal being that shines so bright it’s taken my heart in one single night—a childlike spark I hope you’ll never lose. you’re a walking love letter that I will never open out of the fear that I’m falling for you harder than I’ve ever wanted to fall for anyone else. I hope you open that letter. learn to love yourself and heal from the things you don’t speak about. I hope you find someone who brings out the softness in you, not the survival. you deserve that and more.”

instead he said “—and no problem. you’re worth the trouble.”

but that was enough for you. enough for you to feel the same way about him. about each other, yet say nothing about it.

“I need your number if you wanna text. we’re heading back to tokyo today.” rin adds.

“okay. tell the miyas I’ll miss them.”

mentally, he replaces their names with his.

“I will.”

────────────────────────

author’s note: my musicals phase is making a comeback bc tell me why this took me 2 hours instead of the 20 minutes it shouldve took? (hamilton soundtrack start to end, half of the heathers soundtrack, i watched a bit of newsies & watched a cover of eurydice’s parts in hadestown BC ITS MY DREAM ROLE IM SUCH A THEATRE KID GOODBYE — or gretchen from mg)

ness ur truly my motivation to keep writing this smau even tho im slowly running out of inspo for the social media part of the smau 😭 send thoughts & prayers writers block is kicking me in the butt

i feel iffy about this one 😓😓

@phoenix-eclipses @thechaosoflonging @yuminako @nbcvs @tenjikusstuff4 @intergalacticrory @sonicsolos @yenonnoff @wyrcan @cnnmairoll @causenessus @reads-stuff-quietly @giocriedpower @applepi25 @gra-eae @lilchubbyyy @thvvluvr @toges-cough-syrup @steiins @girlkissersco @wolffmaiden @iluvaquaphor

[physalian]

Another 5 Character Types the World Needs More of (Part 3)

Part 1 Part 2

I did not expect these two posts to continue getting notes. So. Here’s some that didn’t make the cut and a few new ones.

1. Character who is immune to everyone else’s bullshit

This can either be funny or a breath of fresh air. I’m talking your drama cast of 15 all losing their minds over “he said/she said” and fixating on so many ridiculous and arbitrary problems… meanwhile Chuck over here is skinned with teflon and completely immune to tropes like manufactured miscommunication or drama, who’s juuust shy of being genre savvy to Get Shit Done like this is their second time around the block and they are not happy to be back.

The first one to pop into my head is Soundwave from TFP. He has no voice actor for 99% of the show and doesn’t have a face and is only the focus character for like, 2 episodes, but whenever he’s on screen you can just see “I’m surrounded by idiots” playing on repeat in his head. This con is brutally efficient, never messes up, and is never wrong and while everyone else is caught up on ladder-climbing and revenge quests, Soundwave is over here vibing and keeping the whole cause together.

2. The Femme Fatale, but a man

This is not sexy suave abusive asshole hero you’re supposed to root for, who’s a male power fantasy. This is literally the exact same trope, but a man. Meaning, he gets the same revealing uniform, the same “I’m letting you think you’re in charge but really I’m pulling all the strings”. Crucially, he’s straight, because most of them are gay-coded (because the man being in the submissive, ‘girly role’ is horrifying, he must be gay). This dude weaponizes toxic masculinity, making the villains extremely uncomfortable and throwing the villain’s own power fantasy back in their face.

This dude unabashedly flirts with his captors just to get in their heads, removes all concepts of personal space, and makes straight villains seriously question their sexuality. He has social engineering down to a science. I’m sure there’s one that exists, but every one I can think of is already queer-coded and that’s not good enough. So just. Black Widow. But a man.

3. Mary Sue/ Gary Stu who becomes the villain

Since these characters are the product of insecurity and lack of self-awareness… the example for this trope is Titan from Megamind. This character is absolutely the hero of their own story, practically perfect in every way. They think they’re the best at everything without trying, flawless in features and personality, and everybody loves them. And genuinely, they are just that good.

So good, that they live long enough to become the villain. Obviously people who write Mary Sues with full sincerity have no idea that anything’s wrong or problematic, but a genuine Mary Sue whose perfection is their greatest flaw without them even realizing it would be an interesting villain because I’m getting sick and tired of “sympathetic” villains who are really starting to feel like excuses for abusers to be abusive because they were smacked around as a kid.

4. Paragon who is wrong, but also right?

Apparently I’m in a Transformers mood today. There’s an episode where the Autobots’ medic/second in command does the whole “desperate scientist tests their invention on themselves with horrible results” trope and he gains the strength and speed he otherwise hasn’t had in like, eons, and starts kicking ass and taking names (and committing war crimes) to the point where his team is like “uh, buddy, slow down a bit, you’re starting to act like a Decepticon”.

The best part of that episode is where Ratchet (medic) completely unloads on Optimus about how he’s too soft, about how he’s had a million chances to end the war and murder Megatron (which is true) and yet Optimus lets the window pass again and again still hoping for Megatron’s redemption… while in the process, countless Autobots keep dying, collateral keeps happening, all because Optimus is stubborn and won’t just get it over with.

We know Ratchet is right, because throughout the next season, Optimus is a bit more… shall we say, ruthless, in trying to legitimately end the war, Megatron’s redemption be damned. But that episode ends with Ratchet nearly dying when trying to kill Megatron himself, and understanding that the Autobots are Autobots for a reason, because they’re “good,” and sinking to the enemy’s level won’t be a good foundation for a peaceful post-war survival of their species. Point being, sometimes being a Paragon is an incredibly selfish virtue.

5. Parents who know what’s up

So, while I am a firm supporter in the dead parent cliché because parents are super inconvenient sometimes, when it’s not that kind of story and the parents are a big part of the plot… while also being idiots (like Disney and Nickelodeon sitcoms circa 2008), just to make the kids sound smarter, it’s just been done to death. Everything you could think of, your parents probably did when they were your age so having competent parents in the plot as a well-meaning obstacle that continues to surprise the hero is pretty rare in stuff like YA. Usually it’s “I must lie to them to keep them safe” meanwhile Sally Jackson is over here murdering her husband with Medusa’s severed head.

They don’t have to join the hero team, but parents painted as bumbling idiots is a disservice to the mischievous teenagers they used to be. Or just the parent who really does know the kid better than they do, like when kids anxiously come out and the parent is like “honey I knew since you were 3 let’s go get ice cream”. I didn't watch Glee but that one dad who was like "son all you wanted was a pair of sensible shoes, I knew." So yeah. Smart parents. More please.

[hero-israel]

Can i just say I am so sick and tired of people claiming genocide. I mean with saying Israel is committing genocide on Palestinians right now. Every time I see it I want to scream. This is one of the numerous reasons why the pro palestine movement sucks. They can't just say something is bad, focus on real grievances. Instead they have to exaggerate and claim everything is the worst possible version. They can't just say "palestinian civilians are suffering," or even "excessive civilian deaths." No. they have to claim genocide.

it’s disgusting. they are appropriating terms and watering them down in the process. genocide is a very real horrific problem that is ACTUALLY happening to people right now... and they have to claim that term for their situation because why? to paint israel/israelis as the ultimate evil? to claim this issue is the worst ever and insist everyone else drop everything and only care about this? to add more emphasis on their lies and propaganda of israel being a colonial empire practicing apartheid? intentional flipping because they know Jews have been victim to genocide (we see this more explicitly when they compare Israel in this war to nazis)?

Maybe part of it is that if israel is responsible for genocide, then there’s no need to acknowledge how HAMAS and their actions play a significant role in palestinian suffering? (It can't be that hamas steals aid for civilians, no it must be 100% israel’s fault and only theirs! Also joe Biden I guess! /sarcasm)

No matter what, it’s a cynical ploy and absolutely disgusting.

In some ways it reminds me of how people online have taken terms like “trigger,” “gaslight,” and more, and completely twisted and watered down their meaning, turned it all into a joke ... except obviously much worse, here.

what really grinds me up is seeing how many people are buying into this. especially gen z. I am so done with my generation honestly. im ashamed to be associated with these people. part of me doesn't get it. im not jewish. and i try my best not to be antisemitic, educate myself. it does take work, but also it’s NOT THAT HARD to just NOT post completely unverified stuff, NOT absorb your news from social media, NOT give accusations of genocide without doing any research, bothering to learn about historical context, actually understanding what experts say and explanations why it is not genocide? And most of all actually LISTEN to jewish people when they talk about their own history and heritage?

Im not saying this to say im so great, in fact it's the opposite: what im doing is nothing special and amazing. it's really BASIC. yet SO MANY PEOPLE fail this??? what the fuck????

I understand people cannot educate themselves on literally very single topic. But then if they are ignorant, then they should just SHUT UP and not weigh on something they didn't take the work to understand. That is not hard!!!! NOT casually throwing around accusations of genocide should be the bare minimum and yet here we are.

All of the above. I am sorry you are dealing with this from so many among your cohort, and deeply appreciate your commitment as a non-Jew to resisting the new Christ-killer / stab-in-the-back mythology. It will continue to be difficult. For decades - for CENTURIES - all the wealthiest and most educated people in societies worldwide "knew" the Jews were guilty of these terrible things.

Derek Chauvin was convicted of the second- and third-degree murder of George Floyd. There were people at that time who were upset he hadn't been nailed for first-degree murder - he was obviously guilty! Look what a horrible thing he did! Get him for everything! But there actually really are different standards of evidence for different crimes and if prosecutors had tried to go for that one they would have lost.

I don't doubt for an instant that the IDF has committed multiple war crimes during this entirely preventable, entirely pointless cataclysm. But people are racing past the crimes that are clearly visible and could be supported by evidence because they want - need - HOPE for the very worst one to be true. It is a moral obscenity. And you can tell how much they are enjoying themselves, how fine it feels to be able to invoke genocide against Jews and Uno-reverse that nagging Holocaust card, by how quickly they revert to petty Internet slang to silence counter-arguments: "lol WELL ACTUALLLYYY, so you're JUST ASKING QUESTIONS rite, nice SEALIONING." It is meant to be an inherently, automatically truthful claim, one that the Jew has no right to deny.

The Disputations of our time.

And as we did in the past... we must answer, because not-answering will not help.

[remnantsofthepast-if]

What exactly you didn't like in new da, if you don't mind asking? <3

Oof, where to start? There're quite a lot of things, not gonna lie, but most of them are spoilers so I'm going to stick to the non spoilery ones.

Let me begin by saying that I do like the game despite its clear flaws, and I understand that it must have been a tricky development with covid happening in between and a lot of important people who worked on previous games leaving. As a (somewhat of a) developer myself, I sympathise with that, but as a consumer I have to judge the end result I bought, and after waiting for a decade I just expected something more than what we got.

Putting my opinion under the cut because I get passionate about it. Hope you have time to spare, lol!

For starters, this game gets rid of the Keep and only has three choices to import. While most of the things in the Keep are not really important (especially since the game takes place in the north), that's already a bad start and rises serious concerns, mainly with the returning characters.

It also butchers half of the already existing lore, and contradicts another bunch of events that happened in previous games, like the Well of Sorrows. Harding talks about how the Inquisitor went to the altar of Mythal (which only happens if the Inquisitor drank from the Well), but then, during a conversation between Taash and Emmrich, they talk about how Morrigan turned into a dragon during the events of DAI (which only happens of she drank from the Well)

The pacing of the first half of the game is excruciatingly slow. There are a lot of parts that are there only to lengthen the game unnecessarily, and it can get very boring very fast.

The dialogues are... okay-ish, I guess? It's very obvious that they wanted to be socially correct. Way too much, in fact. They seemed so focused on being inoffensive that there’s little real conflict between characters or in the plot. There's a part where two characters apparently argue? Except that there's no real argument. I only knew because the game told me, otherwise I wouldn't have noticed because again, nothing really happened. And they were completely fine with one another after one conversation two minutes later.

All the companions feel rather dull to me, and some are incredibly annoying. For example, there was a series of quests regarding Solas that I enjoyed at lot, and the companions would get together to comment on it. It was a serious and very interesting subject, but then one of the characters would jump out of the blue to (try to) make some witty remark that only managed to take me out of the story.

Plus, the childish dialogue most of them have (all of them, really) doesn't help at all. Another problem of being socially correct in a game that's supposed to be dark. Most of the time, conversations with them feel more like talking to teenagers than adults.

And don't even get me started on how awful Taash's character is... And no, the problem is not their gender identity, but how it was handled. This ask I got about Albert/Lavina describes perfectly my problem with Taash.

Also, and this only happens with the spanish translation, why the fuck did they translate Harding's name? Why is the text calling her Encaje instead of Lace!? God, that pissed me off so much I ended up changing the text to english, lmao!

Lastly, what they did to some of the returning characters... Poor Isabela, smh. Thank goodness Morrigan doesn't have that big of a role, and that there's zero mention of the Warden and Hawke.

---

It's not as bad as I read in early reviews (thankfully!), and I'm still having fun with it. But I expected to get so invested that I'd end up making several runs like in previous games. Now I'm only playing once and probably forget about it for a long while. Hopefully when (if) I replay it I won't ditch it like I ditched my second run of MEA.

Anyway, TLDR: Mediocre at best. Good individual game, but pretty bad sequel. The only good thing this game does as a sequel is give those Inquisitors who romanced Solas a happy ending. That's pretty much it.

The name "Dragon Age" weights heavily on it. Probably the reason why I'm judging it so harshly.

Thanks for the ask, btw! That was entertaining xD Shame on me for spending more time writing this than a chapter of my story, lol!

[eroticcannibal]

So who actually supports home education?

Idiots whose only experience of alternative forms of education is reddit posts made by survivors of the worst cases and cult documentaries may think its all "the guvment gonna take my guns and microchip me" types but what is the reality?

There of course will always be an amount of weirdoes, but these are not representative.

A huge proportion of those who home educate do it because of an understanding of child development and education methods. Unfortunately how schools educate does not match up with the science on how kids learn best. Many know this from experience as a large amount of home educaters are *teachers*. When you know better, you do better, and home education allows you to follow the science.

A significant amount have to withdraw their children from school due to the schools failing. This is not ideological, this is survival. Neurodivergent kids, kids with complex medical needs, and increasingly in the past few years, kids with or who's family members have immune disorders. A child cannot learn if their needs are not being met. Schools often resist meeting these needs for ideological or financial reasons, and LAs can be uncooperative for financial reasons.

Due to either dissatisfaction with schools generally on ideological grounds or as a result of rising high control environments in schools, parents may opt out due to beliefs. Some of these may be more right wing beliefs, but a lot, especially more recently, are due to more leftist beliefs. Many, even those of centrist and right wing beliefs, have always taken issue with the role of schools, be it a vague "they don't care about my kid, they only care about creating a worker" or actually naming the problem (capitalism). Schools will always reflect the government, which is a concern for many as a government becomes more facist. Many kids right now are being pulled due to the increasing anti-trans sentiment, either out of fear of what their child will learn or simply because their child is trans and not safe.

Curriculum can also be a reason people prefer home ed. A school curriculum must somewhat support all students, as well as the social and ideological goals of the government. A home ed curriculum caters entirely to the child.

Minority groups may often end up in home education due to other ingredients and lack of access. Travelling families may prefer to educate their children themselves rather than deal with changing schools. There are also many cases where attempts to address social issues due to perceived or actual extremism in religious communities further pushes these religious families away from the wider community.

Many people truly believe in the value of community, and see schools as robbing their children of the chance to truly be a part of their communities. Real world learning is incredibly popular and quite obviously not isolationist in nature.

Some lifestyles simply do not support schooling. Families who move a lot for work, children working in creative fields etc

And there are schools refusers. All kids deserve an education, even those who won't go to school. Kids are being driven to drug use and suicide by school environments. They are being bullied, physically assaulted and sexually abused. Parents in these situations just want their children to be safe.

The reasons people home educate are numerous and complex, and usually very good. The bad ones are not many. They just make better stories, so you hear about them more.

[creature-wizard]

The problem is, she says that across all cultures misogyny is part of the unconscious collective, I tried to tell her that the 15 cultures she knows aren't the majority, but she didn't listen. Also she says that the unconscious collective is shared by all human beings, like just one big clump of consciousness. I'm not too familiar with Jung's work but that sounds very far fetched

Okay so I'm gonna preface this with a "transphobes fuck off" because I know one of them is gonna find this post sooner or later.

So, I'd say that whatever form of collective unconscious exists is shared by social networks, in which memetic drift is a very real factor. The only thing you can really count on to be universal is stuff that's informed by universal human experience (for example, "water is wet").

Misogyny unfortunately exists in many places for many reasons, one of which being being the universal human capacity of devaluing, caricaturing, and objectifying people whose existences and experiences we don't fully understand. This is one of those problems that can be exacerbated by certain labor expectations, and it's easy to pigeonhole the people who are theoretically capable of bearing children (most of whom are women) into roles associated with childbearing and childrearing. Add in the fact that what's intrinsic nature vs. social construct is often far from intuitive, and you get people thinking that if somebody can theoretically bear children, then doing so is their "natural" role in society, and deviating from it is weird and wrong.

This of course is very very basic and there's zillions of other factors in play, too. Which brings us to another thing - misogyny exists in many places, but it doesn't always take the same form, because it's building off of different experiences and different worldviews. For example, within modern western capitalism, where people are explicitly or implicitly taught that life is all about maximizing those profits, misogyny can take the form of assuming that people theoretically capable of bearing children all subconsciously want to maximize the amount of children they can have. From here, people who are critically out of touch with actual human minds and hearts begin interpreting all kinds of behaviors as existing to maximize the amount of children born, and suddenly it's "oh my god, she's showing her ankles, she must want to fuck me and bear my spawn... but she will leave me as soon as she sees a Better Mate who can provide her with More Money To Optimally Raise Her Spawn and also Better Spawn In The Future."

(Now just to be clear, capitalism gives people mindworms in the other direction, too, with assumptions that anyone who can theoretically impregnate other people wants to cause as many pregnancies as possible. "Trans women are actually men trying to sneak into women's spaces to sexually assault them!" is ultimately an extension of this thinking. If you want to see a real example of a movement started by men who legitimately want to cause as many pregnancies as possible, go look at the Quiverfull movement.)

So yeah, misogyny is a very real problem in many different places, but to act like it's all a monolith is both incorrect and unhelpful. Misogyny has to be understood in the context of each culture it appears in, not just lumped together as if it's all some singular mass. Jung's collective unconscious is really just a terrible framework for this.

[literatureaesthetic]

the second sex ; simone de beauvoir | part one

‘the second sex’ is a treatise on female autonomy. widely regarded as the blueprint for the second wave of feminism, this 900-page body of theory remains one of the most influential texts for women all over the globe. its impact is infinite, and beauvoir’s theory is masterfully cogent. 

there’s a lot in here to reflect on and absorb. i’ve been tackling this absolute brick of a book by consuming 10 pages a day and allowing myself to really ruminate and sit with what beauvoir is putting out there. taking this book in small increments was definitely the way to go

simone de beauvoir begins by grappling with the question, ‘what is a woman?’ - an impossible question. woman is an ideal. a social reality and confinement the man constructs that pitches women in opposition to him as “the other”. womanhood is the condition in which a woman finds herself confirming a regulated hierarchy. however, beauvoir begins by answering this question through the biological. woman is a ‘womb, an ovary’. man reduces women to nature; they are mothers and reproductive catalysts. like the spider, she castrates and cannibalises; she consumes and eats men. beauvoir deconstructs the biological and the ways in which man has attributed inferiority to the natural biological difference between sexes.

biology, however, is not the foundation for womanhood. although it informs feminine existence, it isn’t the basis of gendered alterity and power disparity. beauvoir acknowledges biological subjugation while simultaneously stating that it is not reason enough for why women are the Other.

the question of ‘what is a woman?’ morphs into ‘what has humanity made of the human female?’ we must examine woman as a complete body, not in parts.

the concept of woman is examined from various schools of thought. from psychoanalysis - which is quickly proven insufficient due to freud’s misogynistic and male-oriented examination of sexual development, which is then generalised to women - to historical materialism and the role that economic value plays in female existence. beauvoir discusses engels - though classism is deeply connected to the disparity between sexes, it is not the origin of patriarchal oppression. female subordination pre-exists class divides. where the proletariat desires to erase class divisions, women do not want to be erased. we simply want to be registered in all forms. although the abolition of private property and class divisions is desirable, it will not ensure female liberation. and so, engels and marxism fail women.

this leads to a deconstruction of human history and the ways in which women were sacrificed on man’s journey for fulfilment and nourishment. as man went to hunt and build tools, women were frequently resigned to motherhood. as man conquer the world, women are left to watch from the sidelines. by dominating nature, man triumphs over woman. women become possessions like land. he is order and accomplishment; she is mystery and chaos.

as the socio-political landscape alters, the female condition continues to deteriorate. women face extreme abuse within the workforce, all for minuscule pay (and gender wage gaps DO still exist). this worsens with religion. simone de beauvoir delves into an array of theological beliefs - christianity, islam, and judaism being central focuses - and highlights the ways that each religion fails women. she also accounts for various cultural practises across the globe (from india to the mediterranean). this is very much a body of text that registers various different cultures and the nuances of each, respectively. i wish it reflected more on the nuances of non-white women’s existence within the western world, however. 

i’ll end today’s overview with the most impactful line from this section for me - ‘women’s entire history has been written by men’. the problem of women has always been the problem of men. ‘it is not women’s inferiority that has determined their historical insignificance: it is their historical insignificance that has doomed them to inferiority’.

with man lies the onus for female suffering.

[starrsualideas]

What if people believe that God will save them, but in reality, He won't, and humanity must take responsibility for saving itself? Could it be that we're egotistical in assuming He cares specifically about us when there are countless other planets in the universe?

Humanity’s Illusion of Divine Rescue: A Call for Self-Reliance in a Vast Universe

The belief in a higher power, particularly one that intervenes in human affairs, has been a central tenet in many religious and philosophical traditions throughout history. People have often turned to God in times of need, placing their faith in the idea that divine intervention will save them from the struggles and challenges of life. However, what if this belief is misguided? What if, in the grand scale of the universe, Earth is just one of countless planets, and humanity's assumption that God cares specifically about us is nothing more than an expression of our own ego? This essay explores the possibility that God might not intervene to save humanity and that humans must take full responsibility for their own salvation. By examining themes of human responsibility, the ego of anthropocentrism, the philosophical implications of divine distance, and the need for humility in the face of a vast universe, we can better understand the role of self-reliance in the human experience.

Human Responsibility Over Divine Intervention

The idea that humans must save themselves is deeply connected to the concept of personal and collective responsibility. Throughout history, many religious traditions have emphasized the need for humans to work in partnership with God to bring about salvation or to create a better world. However, in many cases, this partnership has been interpreted as humans relying on divine intervention to solve their problems. This belief can be comforting, as it allows individuals to feel that a higher power is watching over them and will ultimately make things right.

However, the concept of divine intervention is challenged by the reality that humans often face struggles and challenges without any apparent divine assistance. Wars, natural disasters, pandemics, and social injustices persist despite prayers and pleas for divine rescue. This suggests that humans cannot depend on God to solve their problems and must instead take full responsibility for their own actions and the consequences they bring about. Rather than waiting for a higher power to intervene, humans must work together to address the pressing issues of the world, such as climate change, inequality, and global conflicts.

This shift from reliance on divine intervention to human responsibility emphasizes the importance of agency. If humans are to save themselves, they must be active participants in shaping their own future. This requires individuals and communities to take responsibility for their decisions, actions, and the impact they have on the world around them. The notion that humans must save themselves challenges the passive mindset that often accompanies religious faith and calls for a proactive approach to solving the world’s problems.

The Ego and the Anthropocentric View of the Universe

At the heart of this issue is the human ego and the tendency to view the world—and the universe—through an anthropocentric lens. Anthropocentrism is the belief that humans are the most important entity in the universe and that everything, including God, revolves around us. This perspective has shaped much of human thought and culture for millennia, leading people to assume that Earth and humanity are at the center of God’s plan.

However, as our understanding of the universe expands, this assumption becomes increasingly difficult to justify. The discovery of countless other planets, stars, and galaxies has shown that Earth is just one small part of a vast, possibly infinite, universe. In this context, it seems egotistical to assume that God would focus all of His attention on one planet or one species. The idea that Earth is the center of divine concern is not only self-centered but also diminishes the vastness and complexity of the universe that God, if He exists, may care for.

By recognizing the possibility that Earth is just one of many planets, humans are forced to confront their own insignificance in the grand scheme of things. This realization can be humbling, as it challenges the long-held belief that humanity is special or chosen. Instead of assuming that God will save us because we are important, we must acknowledge that we are just one part of a much larger cosmic puzzle. This shift in perspective encourages humility and a broader, more inclusive understanding of the universe.

Philosophical Implications of Divine Distance

The idea that God might not save humanity raises important philosophical questions about the nature of divine care and involvement in the world. Traditionally, many religious believers have viewed God as a personal, caring being who is intimately involved in human affairs. This belief is rooted in the idea that God created humans in His image and cares deeply about their well-being.

However, what if God’s care is not as personal as we have imagined? What if, instead of being focused on the affairs of one planet or species, God’s concern spans the entire universe? This perspective aligns with the deistic view of God, which suggests that God created the universe but does not intervene in its day-to-day workings. In this scenario, God might be more like a distant creator who set the universe in motion and allows it to unfold according to natural laws.

This concept of divine distance challenges the traditional belief in a personal God who intervenes in human affairs. It raises the possibility that humans must navigate their own challenges and find their own solutions without expecting divine rescue. Rather than viewing this as a loss of faith, it can be seen as an opportunity for humans to exercise their free will and take full responsibility for their actions. In this view, God’s role is not to save us but to give us the tools and the autonomy to save ourselves.

Human Self-Reliance and the Need for Humility

If humanity cannot rely on divine intervention, then self-reliance becomes essential. Self-reliance is not only about individual empowerment but also about collective responsibility. As a species, humans must work together to address global challenges and create a sustainable future. This requires a shift in mindset from waiting for divine salvation to actively participating in the betterment of the world.

At the same time, the recognition of humanity’s place in the universe calls for humility. The vastness of the cosmos and the likelihood of other planets, life forms, and civilizations remind us that we are not the center of existence. This humility can be a powerful motivator for taking responsibility for our planet and each other, recognizing that we are part of something much larger than ourselves.

Humility also encourages a more ethical approach to human life. If we are not the center of divine attention, then we must focus on how we treat each other and the world around us. The notion that humans must save themselves reinforces the need for ethical behavior, empathy, and cooperation. It challenges the ego-driven belief that we are special or chosen and instead promotes a sense of shared responsibility for the well-being of all.

Conclusion: Embracing Human Responsibility in a Vast Universe

The idea that God might not save humanity and that we must save ourselves offers a profound shift in perspective. It challenges long-held beliefs about divine intervention and human importance in the universe, calling for greater self-reliance, humility, and ethical responsibility. By recognizing that we are just one of countless planets in a vast universe, we can move beyond the ego-driven assumption that God’s focus is solely on us. Instead, we must embrace our role as stewards of our own destiny, working together to address the challenges of our world. In doing so, we become the agents of our own salvation, shaping a future that reflects our collective responsibility and potential.

[succulentsiren]

how can I embody ginger from ginger snaps (if you've seen it). she's an absolute icon and a huge inspiration for me but bc I'm so used to being sweet and nice and people pleasing it doesn’t feel natural

Change takes time. When you're shaping yourself into a new character, you'll have to take it one step at a time.

Think of actors. They don't just jump into their roles, at least not at first. It takes them several months, sometimes even years, to learn their roles and embody their characters. Each day they practice and deeply study their characters, so that when the time comes to act it out, it will feel like a natural part of them is being expressed.

Even Marilyn Monroe, the most famous Siren, was said to spend hours in preparation before appearing on set, in order to get into character and become 'The Marilyn Monroe' that everyone adored.

Tips to embody your dream character.

1. Learn about your new character.

What are their habits? How do they respond and act in social situations? What are they known for? What do they stand for? What's their style? What hobbies do they partake in? What role do they play in social situations?

Ask yourself questions like these and answer them to help form your new personality.

2. Practice in front of the mirror everyday for at least 10 minutes.

Prepare your speech, vocal tones, language, non verbal cues like eye contact and body language, your camera poses, your walk, your style, your flirting skills and more.

In order to not feel like an imposter, you must keep in touch with your authenticity. Don't treat your transformation as a complete change of character or identity but instead, treat it like you’re adopting new traits to compliment your existing character.

When you’re in the mirror, imitate some of the lines and mannerisms from your favorite character in Ginger Snaps, but twist it to feel natural for you. If you're naturally shy and cute, don't suppress that side completely. Learn to balance it with your newfound spicy snd assertive side. (Research her style, if you like it, and incorporate it into your wardrobe).

Now you can see why this takes time and practice. It can take weeks, months or even years for habits to stick. Stay discipled until your ideal character becomes a part of you.

3. Use what you’ve learned in the real world. Start with strangers who don't know anything about you. It may be easier to express your new side to those who know little about you, than it is with people who already know you. With family and friends start slow. It may take them longer to accept your change but if you keep a touch of your authenticity, this should be no big problem.

[avelera]

10. Worst part of fanon(sorry if this has been asked before)

I think there’s a general trend in fanon where all the sharp edges and unique features of the character get scrubbed off in the sort of general jostling of characters bouncing between people’s various headcanons and personal lived experience and art styles.

That's one reason I try to keep an eye out on things Hob (or Dream) does that I wouldn’t, because for me therein lies what I find most interesting about the character. I think, for example, that it's natural for a normal person to imagine immortality and losing everyone they love periodically and the stresses of constantly reinventing yourself and be horrified! To feel the tragedy of that preemptively and imagine that an immortal existence would be filled with sorrow. Indeed, that is exactly what Dream thinks when he accepts the wager with Death in the first place.

Except Hob constantly surprises him. Hob as a character is specifically the anti-standard immortal. He doesn't feel those sorrows, or at least he doesn't wallow in them, yet he doesn't detach either, he still feels deeply about those he lost. He still goes out there and dates and marries regularly in the comic, he doesn't shy away from those experiences, and it never dims his fervor to live. That's really hard to imagine! That's what makes him so interesting! He doesn't do what we would expect.

(Even more controversial takes under the cut)

There is also a tendency to make the characters more... in line with the values and worldview of a good portion of the fandom, which is often young (under ~40, but 20-something is a more common median), usually but not exclusively female-presenting, politically progressive, tolerant (or at least aspirationally so), heavily engaged with stories and media and things like mythology (especially in the Sandman fandom), openly queer, concerned with social justice, and in general concerned with trying to be a nice person.

This personality profile is often where I see Hob and Dream's characterization drifting over time. And by the way, this is not unique to Sandman, it's pretty much par for the course in every fandom and it's totally natural that writers would drift towards their own lived experience when depicting characters.

For my own part though, I prefer writing characters who aren't me. I'm bored by me. I live me every day. I want to write characters who do things that I wouldn't do.

For example, I find Hob more interesting to write when he's not a mythology buff like I am. I don't think Hob is overly concerned with social justice until 1789 and even then, I don't think he became a crusader on the behalf of human social advancement. I find it more interesting if he's been a businessman through the ages more often than he was a soldier or anything more artistically inclined, because we see evidence of it on the page and because it's not what I would have done and I like to explore the mindset that leads to that choice.

And along these lines with regards to Dream, there's a personal...eh, to call it problem or even a squick would be too strong a word. "Difference of opinion" shall we say of a trend I've seen lately, which is Dream's gender fluidity and even the prevalence of him taking the more feminine role lately (thankfully, Hob and Dream seem for the most part balanced in which of them the fandom decides to depict in a more stereotypically feminine way from one creator to the next, even if I personally prefer to keep them both as masculine as is possible for my lived experience, it's not like Bagginshield where it was a 90/10 split on Bilbo being the one always feminized). I think this too arises out of the large percentage of queer writers in this space and it makes perfect sense to me.

However, personally, I see Dream as male. Which is funny considering I think I wrote one of the earlier "Fem" Dream fics with "Come live with me" but I vociferously stick to male pronouns for Dream in that fic even when he must present as female. Presenting as female is a source of difficulty for Dream in that story, he is not comfortable with it and would not do it if not for the requirements of the wager.

That said, in my fic Dream frequently presents with female sexual characteristics, like having breasts or a vagina or stereotypically "feminine" facial features. That's because, in my opinion, those things have nothing to do with whether Dream is male. I don't switch to female pronouns even when Dream is presenting as female, except when it is needed for the ruse, because having a cock or a pussy should have nothing to do with being male.

Dream is apathetic towards sexual organs, in my mind, but he has chosen to identify as male. (Edit: and just to be clear, I'm not saying gender as in "Gender is a choice" I'm saying this more along the lines of "right to self knowledge" which - Dream has determined himself to be male, therefore he is, and that deserves to be acknowledged and accepted without argument because it is his decision and his existence and no one else's) I think there's been a move in Sandman fanon towards saying that because the Endless should see gender as beneath them because they're eldritch, all-powerful beings, that they do. I actually find that much less interesting because it's so expected. I find it much more interesting that theoretically genderless beings choose to define their gender or lack of gender. If in our society someone can choose not to have gender define them, I think it is equally relevant to allow technically genderless beings choose the opposite, and I find it much more interesting if Dream chooses to be male and that, therefore, he is male.

Even in the scene in Overture when we meet all the different aspects of Dream, we have something like a 99-to-1 ratio of male-presenting (as far as we can tell) to female presenting Dream's in that milieu. And I find that intriguing. On the one hand, we could take that to mean that internally Dream is very male, but only has a 1% portion of him that defines herself as female. But I would go so far as to take it a step further and say if I was writing that version of fem Dream from Overture, I'd still have him use male pronouns, because appearing as female or having a stereotypically female appearance has nothing to do, in his mind, with who he is at his core. The Dreaming might be genderless, but I find it much more interesting and thematically relevant in Dream's struggle to find or resist his own personhood within his function if he has a strong sense of his own gender that is immutable across whatever form he takes, which is at odds with his function as the Dreaming not having a gender. It lends to the idea that Dream isn't just a function if he has a gender he has chosen. It lends to the theme of his independent personhood, which I find more interesting to explore.

And that's not necessarily a thing fanon gets "wrong" by the way, except insofar as I would point out that on the page, in the show and the comic, Dream isn't fluid. Of the Endless, only Desire is fluid in their presentation, the others present as male or female in contrast with Desire's identity. It's an intriguing fanon to say that all the Endless are fluid but it's not canon, it's not on the page, and for my own part, since I don't identify as male, I find it much more interesting to write Dream's experience as male, even when he has, for example, sexual organs I find more familiar.

[bredforloyalty]

okay what i meant when i said that even the copious amounts of blood didn't satiate me in particular is that the dead wife/nemesis thing was never something i was eager to see explored, just because i think it's something a lot of male characters get? to go through? the ooh i'm so tortured someone took something from me and now i can't help but turn into a monster while i'm on this quest for revenge and being smothered by grief ough i might kill them even or others in gruesome ways and then realize i'm still just as empty

because, i think men often feel the role they must take on as a man or as a father (especially the latter) is a burden, a huge one, where they aren't allowed to sit back or let go or forgive to their own and everyone else's detriment.. and i understand why there is demand for the same type of stories or story elements or arcs, and why they work, and this same overall theme can be present in a story where it's dealt with in an interesting way or where there's love and care involved in the writing process and the characters don't feel like "man pain machine #48" and "generic sensitive character who will cradle mr. man pain's bloody face in their hands (when we want to end this arc and show how good and lovable he actually is)"....

idk i'm just saying it's not even a specific problem i have with male characters that avenge their families or seem like they're defined by anger or by a traumatic event, i do think it can be written lazily and that we've seen it so many times it's a bit worn-out now, but i wouldn't be quick to generalize. it's just that, since we've seen this before (and that's partly why they poked a bit of fun at themselves when in rickmurai jack, rick's dead wife backstory was revealed).. to me it's one of the least interesting aspects of rick? and yet it's clearly important to the writers and they felt they had to tackle this part of his character, really emphasize his unfinished business, or treat it like something that must have a conclusion

for me though, rick's brand of fucked up and evil wasn't compelling because something deeply fucked up happened to him and there's a lot to deal with there and that's cool, it was more compelling to me (iirc) Before knowing much about his past. tbh. i recognized him already, he felt real, his worst side was familiar because a man doesn't need a whole event to become controlling and cruel when dealing with his family... social norms and umm systems sort of already operate within the framework of the patriarchy, i think it's built into our collective ideas of society, concepts of gender and family and the rules those come with.. i liked that about rick, that why he was an asshole wasn't detailed, there was no easy explanation for the way that he was, he just was. and every time they chose to drive home that rick's defined by losing his original family to his own alternate self and that he was still chasing this one guy, it was like, well i thought there were so many other components as well to why he turned out to be who he is. i liked it more when it was mundane, because that's what i see around me, that abuse is rather mundane. and i'm much more interested in the harm he's directly inflicted on his current family and how his past might affect his current life, what might haunt him. so i guess i never wanted prime to be taken care of, each week i find myself thinking that i just want it to be rick and morty and their messed up little relationship up close and personal again

[eirinstiva]

Law of attraction

Halloa! I was waiting impatiently for a new letter from Bertie Wooster!

I stared at him. That flower in his buttonhole.⁠ ⁠… That dazed look.⁠ ⁠… Yes, he had all the symptoms; and yet the thing seemed incredible. 

Me: Doctor Wooster, what's the diagnostic? Bertie: He got "romantic love" again, but I can't believe he tied the knot!

“Bertie,” said Bingo, “I’ll be frank with you. The little woman rather put it up to me, if you know what I mean. I told her how my uncle felt about it, and she said that we must part unless I loved her enough to brave the old boy’s wrath and marry her right away. So I had no alternative. I bought a buttonhole and went to it.”

Fellow Little woman, I don't know your name but you have my admiration. You are the only one that got so far to marry Bingo Little. I have the impression that you're more dangerous than Claude and Eustace.

I had only seen the bride before in her waitress kit, and I was rather expecting that on her wedding day she would have launched out into something fairly zippy in the way of upholstery. The first gleam of hope I had felt since the start of this black business came to me when I saw that, instead of being all velvet and scent and flowery hat, she was dressed in dashed good taste. Quiet. Nothing loud. So far as looks went, she might have stepped straight out of Berkeley Square.

She has a nice style. Is this the Wooster seal of approval? Well, I guess it is because he agains talk to Bingo's uncle and plays the role of Rosie M. Banks.

Nothing could go wrong, right?

“Well, it didn’t come in useful when we got into the room. It was lying on the table, and after we had started to chat a bit and everything was going along nicely the little woman spotted it. ‘Oh, have you read this, Lord Bittlesham?’ she said. ‘Three times already,’ said my uncle. ‘I’m so glad,’ said the little woman. ‘Why, are you also an admirer of Rosie M. Banks?’ asked the old boy, beaming. ‘I am Rosie M. Banks!’ said the little woman.”

That explains everything!!! Only a woman with the genius to write so many romantic stories that cross social classes could conquer Bingo so fast! To think that Bingo lying to his uncle in "Jeeves in the Springtime" snowballed until he married Ms Banks.

Bingo manifested this marriage!

But now Jeeves has to solve this. How did he?

“Oh, that’s all right!” he said. “I forgot to tell you about that. Meant to write, but kept putting it off. He thinks you’re a looney.” “He⁠—what!” “Yes. That was Jeeves’s idea, you know. It’s solved the whole problem splendidly. He suggested that I should tell my uncle that I had acted in perfectly good faith in introducing you to him as Rosie M. Banks; that I had repeatedly had it from your own lips that you were, and that I didn’t see any reason why you shouldn’t be. The idea being that you were subject to hallucinations and generally potty. And then we got hold of Sir Roderick Glossop⁠—you remember, the old boy whose kid you pushed into the lake that day down at Ditteredge Hall⁠—and he rallied round with his story of how he had come to lunch with you and found your bedroom full up with cats and fish, and how you had pinched his hat while you were driving past his car in a taxi, and all that, you know. It just rounded the whole thing off nicely. I always say, and I always shall say, that you’ve only got to stand on Jeeves, and fate can’t touch you.”

So in some way Lord Rainsby, Claude and Eustace are part of Bertie disgrace. All those little details connected by the great mind of Jeeves. Even professor Moriarty would applaude this! Jeeves sacrificed Bertie for Mr. and Mrs. Little so I wish happiness to the couple <3

Well, this is not my first hiatus. Take your time to recover yourself from the damage to your image, dear Bertie. I will miss you, old chap!

[yugotrash]

Why do you think homophobia is systematically unsolvable?

this would take a lot more space but i'll try to be brief. i'll begin by acknowledging that here i primarily have my own country in the capitalist (semi-)periphery and male homosexuals in mind, since i don't believe in a sex-neutral homophobia (lesbophobia is enmeshed with misogyny much more than anti-homosexual sentiment).

"Solving" homophobia, that is the elimination of negative societal attitudes towards homosexuals, would require constant and consistent political action in changing the attitude of the vast majority of people in a given society. Such action would require homosexuals as some kind of collective political subject. However, homosexuals are structurally incapable of organising in a way that is required by such a bottom up campaign. This is due to several reasons:

Homosexuals are dispersed randomly across space, race, class, age and sex, to the degree that their common sexual orientation cannot bridge. Solidarity along some of these other lines will invariably carry more weight.

Homosexuals are a tiny minority of the population. This minority has no capability to disrupt society (cannot withhold labour or reproductive function, for example), and society would continue to exist smoothly if they were all to vanish. They also cannot engage in separatism both because of aforementioned dispersal and inability to reproduce their own community.

Homosexuals' half-hidden existence, in which they must explicitly "come out" to people around them to be recognised as such and experience direct pushback means that, for reasons of safety and convenience, an even tinier part of an already tiny minority can "afford" to be openly homosexual at all times - this is deadly to any attempt to recruit for a grassroots cause.

Homosexuals are severely limited in their ability to develop the kind of consciousness that has shaped mass liberation movements. They are deeply invested in woman-hating modes of thought and behaviour, queer or otherwise, and enough frank analysis would lead to them realising that they are not the protagonists of their own liberation, as homophobia is a byproduct of the rigid system of sex roles, which women are the only ones capable of abolishing.

The problem of consciousness continues if you factor in rampant mental illness, social alienation and an ever-present conviction, whether articulated positively or not, that the homosexual is so far removed in his experience from anyone else in the world that basically no real alliances with other social groups are possible, and such a small minority without such an alliance is permanently impotent.

The nigh-total domination of genderism and queer politics among the homosexuals has ensured that large numbers of that miniscule number that can "afford" political action is deeply invested in essentially homophobic politics. In Western societies, this kind of new homophobia is fast becoming not only the gay orthodoxy, but the orthodoxy of general political discourse as well.

Due to political developments since the 1960s and the domination of Western institutions globally since the 1990s, homosexuals are largely incapable or unwilling to articulate their own positions outside the dominant liberal orthodoxy - western governments and NGOs fund and maintain loyal proxies in the rest of the world who largely hold monopolies on homosexual-related topics in public discourse in their respective countries. By virtue of their resources and protections, these proxies effectively position themselves as representatives of (among others) sexual minorities both to the government/public and to their country's homosexuals as well, regardless of how little they actually represent their interests. There is virtually no prospect of breaking this stranglehold by committed groups of dissenting homosexuals due to factors listed above.

Although I consider homophobia to be mostly derivative of sex roles and failure to adhere to them, I'm increasingly convinced there is also an irrational, organic or non-learned element, a kind of visceral revulsion the heterosexuals feel towards homosexuals that may be impossible to ever get rid of.

All in all, my conclusion is that you have to look truth in the face and realize that if you're a gay man, nothing short of a radical feminist revolution will really remove the problems you face as a homosexual, and that in the meantime all you can do is lend your support to feminists, find local and small-scale ways to soothe those aspects of homophobia that hit you hardest with support of your immediate community, make gay friends you can actually relate to and look around for more productive standpoints you can occupy towards society other than your sexual orientation. Kill the desire to center your entire experience around being gay, as you'll eventually run into a lot of dead-ends otherwise.