#as feminity is inherently viewed as something to control

[hellaverseposting]

The amount of ppl who criticize Hazbin saying it’s stupid cuz no one in hell is innocent and Charlie’s plan is dumb. You sound like Christian fundamentalists: STOP IT!!!!!!

Anon you’ve actually vocalized something that I’ve been thinking about for a while now and it’s how tons of Hellaverse antis just… regard Christianity as being objectively correct. Even if they claim to be atheists they still treat the tenants of Christianity as being inherent to our existence and criticize Helluva Boss and Hazbin Hotel based on that assumption.

Like the people who constantly say “Valentino would be a better representation of Lust than Asmodeus because Val is a rapist!” are conceptualizing lust in the Christian sense, AKA believing the harmful idea that finding other people attractive is inherently predatory. It also reinforces the incorrect view that rape is about finding people attractive when it’s actually about power/control/sadism/entitlement. Which I thought was Feminism 101, but so called online “leftists” have been moving like evangelical right wingers for the past few years so I should really not be shocked at this development.

And like you said anon the hell thing is another huge Christian talking point. Even if everyone in hell was an evil bastard they don’t deserve eternal punishment. The idea of eternal punishment for temporary sins is insane and designed to scare people into converting to Christianity. If you believe someone should be punished forever for any reason then I suggest converting at your nearest Protestant church because you’d be a lot happier surrounded by people just as dogmatic as you.

I could go on because there’s so many examples. I’ll just end it here by saying stop calling yourself progressive if your view on Christianity is the same as my uber-religious meemaw who thinks saying “oh my god” is a one way ticket to meeting Satan himself.

[hopeforchanges]

Institutionalized Misogyny: Why Women Are "Difficult" (and Why Galadriel Deserves Grace)

Can I get something off my chest, friends?

First of all, much like Tolkien, I believe in the inherent good of all people. And I have met more kind, compassionate and assertive people than I have met the other group.

But. I have to say this either way.

Institutionalized misogyny thrives on control—especially controlling how women express themselves. Here’s the catch: when women defend themselves, they’re labeled “difficult.” You can be the calmest, most articulate person in the room, but if you dare challenge someone, you’re suddenly “too much.” Too loud, too angry, too aggressive, too bitchy and snarky and defensive. Because heaven forbid you don’t smile politely and instead dismiss someone’s dumbass opinion.

It’s systemic. When men disagree, they’re assertive. When women disagree, they’re trouble. And this double standard bleeds into how we view fictional women, too.

Galadriel’s unapologetically herself. She is unabashedly unashamed of who she is even though she fucks up sometimes. She lets pain, grief, and rage cloud her judgment and inadvertently coaxes Satan out of retirement.

And yes, she should face the consequences of those actions. But let’s be real: men in similar situations get treated like heroes on an “arc.” A guy screws up? It’s a redemption story. A woman screws up? She’s irredeemable. She’s the problem.

Galadriel isn’t perfect—and that’s the point. She’s grieving, angry, flawed, and still standing. And that makes people uncomfortable because women are expected to apologize for existing, let alone for messing up. When men fail, they’re given room to grow. When women fail, they’re told to go join Hillary Clinton in the woods and never show their faces again.

Yes, Galadriel should be held accountable. But treating her like she is the villain rather than a victim of her own humanity (or elf-ness, whatever) is the exact reason women are held to impossible standards. Let’s allow women the same grace we allow men when they screw up.

Let them be rude, let them be angry, let them feel. Women don’t have to be picture-perfect role models 24/7. They’re allowed to act human in the face of tragedy. Treat them with compassion, not contempt, for their flaws.

And by the way, this is not the fourth wave of feminism hatred post to grab pitchforks and crucify men. In fact, I am ashamed and heartbroken to even say this out loud, but it is mostly women (at least in my life) who I have seen (and both experienced) perpetuating misogyny and unnecessary competitiveness.

This is a post coming from a place of love, calling out a HUMAN, institutionalized behavior, not just male behavior, that hurts women and therefore hurts storytelling which I deeply care about.

Thank you for listening and keep being awesome.

[genderqueerdykes]

I only recently got my mental health under control so now I can work on myself rather than just focusing on getting through the day and wow. This blog has made me realize the absolute fucking damage radical feminism did to me.

I was younger, pinterest was my only social media, and it ended up being my only exposure to feminism posts from tumblr. But most of the screenshots that get uploaded to pinterest don't differentiate between feminism and radfeminism.

So I knew to avoid it when it was clearly tagged! But most of the time it was not so I fell right into the trap 😬 I'm a rather naive(?) person too and it was worse at that age. So. Very easy for the ideals to uh prey on me I suppose

I am still unworking the whole viewing cis men as inherently predatory and evil thing. Ugh. Just. Radical feminism is dangerous. Sorry rant over

hey thanks for taking the time to share your story i really appreciate it!

wow i never considered that type of environment would be on pinterest. it's something i've used sporadically here and there but i never got too deep into it. that's so unfortunate that rad feminism is so common on there and is not differentiated from actual feminism. it's okay though, you had no way of knowing better at the time. most people who start interacting with feminism find themselves listening to some rad fem beliefs because they're just so common. it's not your fault that they're putting that hate out there

but it's good that you've realized that it's not good for you to spread it. that's the only thing you have control over. it's not your fault you were taken advantage of. that stuff really is just predatory. it's here to take advantage of shy and insecure people. it's here to take advantage of people who are new to feminism. it's not your fault you got wrapped up in it. i wish you the best, i'm very proud of you for realizing this! that's a huge step in the road to recovery

[rdthoughtdaughter]

About this post : "What gets me is that there are so many women out there that have radfem takes, but they have no idea of it, because in the media there is this weird presentation of the radical feminism provided by the far left 🤓"

The thing is that being gender critical and sharing may be some other radfem views does not make a woman radfem. Radical feminism is a radical movement that requires sharing all or at least almost all radfem views and trying to call radfem everyone who agrees with 20% of it, but disagrees with 80% wouldn't really profit radical feminism, in fact, it would only create more arguments inside of it and would make it harder to reach the goals of radfem. Also would probably create a separation inside radical feminism which would only be worse.

I have never mentioned any specific radical feminist talking points in that post - not gender criticism, not anything else. You already have something in your head, and I cannot control that, nor do I want to entertain that. Let’s talk about direct things that each mentioned.

In the phrase ‘radical feminism’, “radical” doesn’t dennotate extreme, it means core. I do agree that being radical feminist means sharing the views prescribed in the theory of radical feminism. I myself often critique some of the people that claim to be radical feminists, while having fundamental disagreements with this movement. No need to torture yourself to be ‘fit’ for some movement. It would be more convenient for everyone if a person finds something that inherently fits them and their views, instead of changing meanings.

Now, I do understand what you are talking about, it pretty similar to what I have talked about above. However, I need to reiterate something. My message in the post that you refer to wasn’t that there are a lot of radical feminists out there, just because they share some radical feminist inclinations. What I originally tried to convey, is that there are a lot of women who have positions/ attitude towards some core issues that are essentially befitting radical feminism. Just having some of the radical feminist attitudes or lines of thinking doesn’t make you a radical feminist. But it does constitute a potential for you to become one in the future. Which is a beautiful thing. We need more radical feminists, we need more fresh ideas, opinions - it will offer us place for growth, making us stronger.

However, as I mentioned in the original post, there is an evident stigma on the movement that is placed on the movement by most political parties. Left and right of course. Do not be mistaken, they both do not like women who are confident in what they are, what they can, and what they need to do. They create sensitive narratives, where radical feminists are painted as killers and terrorists, never mind that it’s men who are the major perpetrators of such crimes.

Hence, here we are. In a place and time where women are afraid of a mere possibility of being called a radical feminist. Because it ensues a witch hunt and persecution. Online or real one.

[lenorenevermore99]

First of all, thank you for responding to me and sharing your thoughts. Second, umm… this message isn’t mine. I was randomly scrolling through Tumblr when I came across someone’s chat post about unpopular Squid Game theories, and when I saw this, I kinda thought they were hating, lol. So I decided to send it to you to see if you think their opinion is logical or not.

Third, I’m actually someone who loves ship 457, but I’ve never shipped Gi-hun with anyone other than In-ho. Even back when season one was out and people were shipping him with Sang-woo, I always just saw them as friends. Same with Jung-bae—I feel like they deserved more. As for Gi-hun being treated like a toy for every ship, I really don’t like that. It’s like they’re undermining his character.

Now, why do I want In-ho to have a redemption arc, even though I know the chances are low? Because I think he’s had a really painful past. He’s a character you can’t fully see as a good person because of the games and how he killed Gi-hun’s friend, but at the same time, you can’t fully see him as evil either, because his past was even worse than Gi-hun’s. He’s such a complex character, and that’s why I love him.

And I think I might be the only person who imagines In-ho as a bottom. The reason is that, despite his controlling and dominant personality, his soul actually craves companionship and someone who can bring out the light in him and make him feel safe. That’s why I see him that way.

The problem with the fandom is that not only is 80% of it centered around top In-ho and bottom Gi-hun (which I don’t mind), but there’s no balance at all. I’d say maybe only 20% of people like bottom In-ho fanart, fics, or topics, and even then, nobody analyzes it the way they do with bottom Gi-hun.

For example, they’ll say stuff like, “Since the director used to love a gay movie, that means he’s a top In-ho and bottom Gi-hun truther,” or “Since 456 is closer to 222, and if you add the numbers together, they equal Gi-hun’s number, that means he’s the second ‘carrier’” (???). Or they’ll just turn Gi-hun into a sex toy for every male character. They even make him super feminine, and honestly, that makes me feel sick.

And then we even have haters for that 20% of bottom In-ho fans. They say it’s out of his character, but meanwhile, they write any kind of personality they want for top In-ho.

Thank you for clarifying, that makes more sense.

About Gi-hun being "used as a toy" for every ship, I don't agree with that view at all. I'm a Gi-hun harem truther, and the way I see it, it's not about him "being used as a toy" but more about giving him all the love and adoration he deserves.

Yeah, I agree with that. In-ho is interesting because he's complex, though personally I don't see how he could be redeemed, but I'll just have to wait around and see season 3 for that.

Like I've already said on this blog once, I don't care for top/bottom discourse at all. Being top or bottom has nothing to do with personality. Since I'm not a gay man, I don't think I'll ever fully understand how it works, but in fiction, we can make whichever character we want the top or bottom. It's unfortunate that the majority of the fandom doesn't agree with your preferred dynamic, but that's just how it is.

Honestly, anon, they way you say it makes you "sick" when people feminize Gi-hun ticks me the fuck off. I've seen other people say stuff like that, and it's honestly just misogyny, to be honest with you. It implies there's something inherently wrong with feminizing a male character, that feminization is somehow humiliating and demeaning. Mind you, Gi-hun is played by Lee Jung-jae, a man who's not afraid to wear skirts or pink or pearl necklaces. So yes, we're feminizing this character and we'll keep doing it because there's nothing wrong with it. Sorry it's not your cup of tea, but it's actually easy to avoid things you don't like in a fandom.

[banjo15]

Radical feminist ideology positions that men are inherently evil and should be controlled or exterminated by women. Trans exclusionary radical feminism (TERFism) holds this view combined with the belief that trans people do not exist, specifically that trans women are particularly evil men, and trans men are misguided women. TERFism is distinct from garden-variety transphobia in that it views women as superior to men, whereas the umbrella of transphobia can cover a vast number of kinds of ideologies, including TERFism, NAZIism, Social Conservatism, and certain schools of gender abolitionism.

The issue with radfem ideologies in general is that they are inherently oppressive. The only difference between radical feminism and misogyny is that misogyny has seen real-world use. All of the historical and current violence against women permitted by misogyny would not go away under radical feminism, it would instead be moved onto anyone counted as a man. The belief that any group of people should be punished for what they are is, in most people's eyes, morally reprehensible. Radfems by definition hold this sort of belief, and are therefore disliked for it.

Transphobia is more broad. It is not in itself an ideology, it is a description of a single behaviour that can be mixed into other ideologies. Transphobia holds that transgender people are in some way bad. Depending on the particular flavor of transphobia, the reason changes. Some reasons include: perceived sexual deviancy, perceived danger, lack of understanding, etcetera. There are forms of transphobia that are more malicious than others, but all forms are unified by the belief that trans people do not or should not exist. Trans people and their allies generally dislike people who hold transphobic views, for the same reason that you might dislike someone who stood on street corners advocating for your removal from society.

TERFism is an ideology that combines the violent and oppressive core of radical feminism with transphobia. TERFs generally believe that trans people should be killed, detransitioned, or oppressed. TERFs pose a genuine tangible danger to trans people's lives.

Terfs and radfems can be perfectly nice people when they are not engaging with trans folk or men, respectively. It's the same thing that lets men who are cruel to women seem perfectly nice when talking with other men. But if that man is condescending and sexist to women, women probably won't like him no matter how polite he is to his guy friends. To use a more fantastical example, axe-murderer Alex kills everyone wearing a red shirt, people in red shirts will hate him no matter how nice he is to people wearing blue.

Ideologies are classifications of thought and action. Only actions are harmful, thoughts are inherently neutral. If someone visibly holds an ideology, they must have taken action. To be a terf, a person needs to choose over and over to act in a way that is dangerous to trans people. Trans people dislike terfs because terfs have, by definition, chosen to hate trans people. One such action is association. If you hang around terfs, and you do not criticize them when they take TERFist actions, you are aligning yourself, at least a little, with their ideology.

I genuinely do not think that this is your intention. From your blog you seem like a perfectly lovely human being. I only write this because you are in a very good position to help trans people. If you are friends with terfs, you have the power to tell them that they're being mean. They probably value your opinion, and if you say something as simple as "that isn't very nice" when they say or do something transphobic, it is extremely powerful. If there are any trans people in your life (and I guarantee that there are whether you know it or not), they will appreciate it.

tldr: ideology requires action, terfism and radical feminism are defined by harmful action, people who take harmful actions are generally disliked by the people they harm.

Have a good life, I hope you see a cool plant today :)

-A very tired trans woman

Thanks

[magicalhideoutengineer]

Alien Covenant, The Agency, Inherent Vice, Fantastic Beasts. Throughout your career, you’ve played characters who are fighting for control and respect in a world that doesn’t really want to give you that…

“Well, I’ve only played women. I’m always looking for roles that are complex enough that I can suspend my disbelief though. I need to be able to fall into the fantasy and it’s often those characters that are frustrated, fighting against something or experiencing tension that do it for me.”

It seems like everyone involved in the Fantastic Beasts films has a different take on whether the series will ever get finished – what’s yours?

“The last two films probably won’t get made, but that’s only based on a gut feeling. I know nothing and I’d probably be one of the last to know if something was happening because with films of that size, people aren’t calling up the performers to keep them updated. Do contracts expire? I’ve never thought about that before, but they probably do at some point, right? At the moment we are bound to them but I think that ship has sailed.”

Did it ever feel like a risk to share your views on feminism and trans rights at a time where people like J.K. Rowling were preaching the opposite?

“I didn’t think of it as a risk at all. And if it had, I would have done it anyway.”

Some people have suggested that’s why Tina’s role was cut down in the third Fantastic Beasts film…

“With these huge films, you never know why anything happens. We are just so divorced from the leadership.”

A lot of Harry Potter fans feel conflicted about watching the films or reading the books now. Where do you stand on that?

“Fantastic Beasts was such a big break for me. Those films changed my life and I learned a lot from working on something of that scale. There’s so much that I’m grateful for and I want to be really clear about that. I do think about the fans a lot though. Harry Potter is a beautiful trans allegory and what a pity for young people [not to feel comfortable] engaging with that.

“There are those questions around the tension of two different things – can you be grateful and critical? Yes, of course you can. Life is brief and rife with pain and suffering, so if something brings you joy… That’s the closest I’ve got to an answer but it’s never felt truly satisfying. I really do love those fans though and the actors I worked with are friends for life. That was the real gift of the experience.”

[xfulcrumx]

Overall I love s3. Romancing Mister Bridgerton was my favorite in the series and they did the story justice. I think they learned a lesson in s2 about fiddling with the main plot points too much. It’s for this reason that I’m not too mad at how Cressida’s story ultimately ended. Her main plot points are straight out of the book.

Many are angry at the villianization of her. Though that’s how our protagonists view her, as an audience member I felt the show runners did a good job depicting her as a desperate girl doing desperate things to have some control over her life. It doesn’t end happily for her, which for a character we had grown to love is disappointing, but not all stories need a happy ending. She comes so close to finding acceptance and support only for it to be ripped out from under her and for her to go back to the messages she’s been receiving since childhood and determining she can only rely on herself. Cressida’s story can be tragic without it being bad writing.

What I cannot wrap my head around is Eloise’s abandonment of her after she claims to be Whistledown. I understand that she likely felt she had to play along so as to not reveal she knew who the true Whistledown was….but I truly cannot think of a reason why Eloise’s opinion on her would change so radically upon her claiming to be Whistledown. Maybe because she stole the spotlight at the engagement party but??? Probably not considering she still didn’t really like Pen at that point.

Someone else pointed out that for someone claiming to be feminist and wanting to empower women to have control over their own lives, Eloise is quite out of character to not recognize Cressida’s claim for what it is, an attempt at control and to save herself from a wretched fate.

Given her general self-centeredness and her definition of ‘feminism’ being rejecting femininity as something inherently less than and thinking herself as someone not like other girls, it’s not overly surprising to me that she would overlook this rationale. I just cannot comprehend how she could be offended by Cressida claiming to be Whistledown.

If Eloise had initially shown support and Cressida/Mrs. Cowper had still published such things about the Bridgertons, that would make far more sense. But then of course the narrative tension required for Penelope to publish would not be there.

Ultimately they bungled the bag on that one. What I saw was two girls with so much going on in their own lives that they could not be bothered to care about what was going on in their friend’s. Not a falling out. So Eloise’s 180 was startling and seemingly out of left field. I understand how the story required Eloise and Cressida to cease being friends, but they needed to do a better job of making that believable. Either by having a more convincing deterioration of their friendship prior, or one line from Eloise explaining how she felt.

[rametarin]

Angry about something

Please, please, please, let movements be horrible on their own without saying, "The're the [previous thing] of [subject]"

We don't say the Nazis were the modern Napoleonic Imperialists. We don't say the Napoleonic Imperialists were their day's Golden Horde of Genghis Khan. We don't say Muslim pirates and abductors from Tripoli cruising Europe for slaves and conquests were "totally Trans Atlantic Slave Trading it." Muslims were abducting Europeans for slave applications for centuries before Europeans did it for

And when people talk about modern day Intersectional Feminists, capital P Progressives and oldschool TERF-flavor feminists get nasty in accordance with their values all over a pasttime, a hobby, or a group of people that enjoys something and tells them they're doing it wrong thanks to a VERY unreliably narrated assessment of what they are and why they are, they tend to treat their behavior as if it's the same stock mindset of previous experience related to Christian puritainism and religious evangelism.

Don't fucking do this. Their values are not the same. They come from a different place, and you doing this helps them do something they SPECIFICALLY like to do. First, muck around acting like assholes in self-righteous quests to control how people interpret reality and see things, and when called out for it, have their own controlled mea culpa where they apologize because, "that's just the old Christian White Supremacist in me, the feminism part of me isn't like that and can't be like that because feminism is just good and can't be bad. I'm sowwy. :C"

No. Fucking no. Do NOT fucking allow that to happen. Feminism is not a simple act of seeing women as equal, it's an entire dogmatic baggage that necessitates Class Struggle Theory, the willful adoption of the idea the only thing that matters in sexual politics is that "Women Are Oppressed (TM)" even when circumstances and culture are entirely equal and even handed with them, and that society owes them something to compensate for this inherent oppression- at the expense of men. And that Society is the third wheel in their relationship, automatically there to redistribute from the man.

Feminism bills itself as simply a phenomenon of 'equality'... for women.. but it is no more this than Christianity is synonymous with The Good(tm). It certainly is a shitty way to see the world, but it is not the definition of seeing the world. It boils down to making some very very intensely specific logical leaps and shortcuts out of convenience and then dogmatically insisting these values are immutable and unquestionable.

From that position, we come to the other little black box in the equation. The idea that something that exists in culture that represents an icon or concept, oppresses and exploits that icon, object or group, and that it is specifically wrong to objectify that, but only if it's a woman, a group that is "oppressed." (it's however perfectly justifiable to objectify an 'oppressor.' See how that works.) Right before they say some apologetics like, "It's not MY fault cisheterosexual Judeo-Christian Patriarchy is sexually binary! Maybe if you agreed in more options we wouldn't be having this conversation!"

And it's because of this shitty point of view, they argue that even having big booby fictional characters that are female, boobily boobing down the stairs for the appreciation of the audience, they jump to the next facet of their belief system. Male Gaze Theory.

Built off their idea that Classes Struggle (tm) and Women Are the Obligate Oppressed Class(tm), and that any reference or participation by women is inherently an act of an oppressed political group in bondage to and beholden to their oppressive captors, AND that works of fiction and literature are part of culture, these facets of culture give groups their marching orders, programming and ideas on what they are, mean and even their existence. They believe, uncompromisingly, that your very perception and understanding of reality is built solely upon what books written by the state have to say about what is real and what isn't. That if society writes books about a murderer and don't go out of their way to omnipotently, omnipresently dictate with no ambiguity that, "Murder is bad, ackshully," that you endorse a society where murder happens. And, no joke, this is how they imagine murder, theft and antisocial behavior happening. Because it exists in that cultural bubble like evil waves of energy, just going unneutralized to warp the minds of unprepared people who haven't been told what is right and wrong by society, making them rapists, murderers and exploiters of those weaker than them (and they only care when the person exploits someone weaker than them.)

So they see sexy drawn women as depictions of an oppressed minority being reveled over by a slavemaster class, exploiting their image and the idea of that group for profit (which they also despise) and believe the women should also be profitting off their "exploitation" in fiction, and some sort of state council should exist that oversees the expression or interpretation of women in fiction, or else abolish the work from existing for not fitting their moral and social view of how literature and culture are "allowed" to see women. Seeing this very dour, extreme interpretation about how all men depicting women is exploitation, and by default society is meant for a male, oppressor perspective, is called, "Male Gaze Theory."

At no point in this equation did their greviance or conceptual principles cross over with Puritainism or Christians. They are their own totalitarian beasts, and like the Nazis are not Napoleonics are not The Mongol Horde, FUCKING TELL IT LIKE IT IS AND ACCEPT RADICAL FEMINISM IS JUST LIKE THIS.

You can somehow see one radical conservative and condemn the entire conservative or right-wing party as inherently racist, white supremacist and homophobic, but you can't acknowledge that radical feminism has more Ls to its name and more bad ideas and more bad values than rejecting the idea that trans men and women aren't men and women. All their ideological supremacism, all their logical leaps, all of their antagonistic marching into any fandom and demanding the fandom most conform to their ideas of what is mentally, emotionally an socially healthy, are their own. They are not Puritans, they're fucking radical feminists. Do not use the bad behavior of past groups as an ablative shield when you fucking mean what you mean.

"Well complaining about feminism makes me sound like some kind of CHUD..."

That's a you problem. In the past, complaining about the Church when it was synonymous with power would've made you a "pagan" or an "unbeliever." And before the T in LGBT got traction, it was just "anti-feminist" for a biological man to argue with a woman, giving them infinite instant Ls, even if they did identify as a woman. It starts somewhere.

Call it like it is and just realize radical feminism is rotten from the top windows of the attic to the foundations.

[gatheringbones]

[“Norwegian academics Cecilie Høigård and Liv Finstad write that the sex worker’s vagina is ‘a garbage can for hordes of anonymous men’s ejaculations’. We once witnessed a sex worker in an online feminist discussion being asked:

What is the condition of your rectum and the fibrous wall between your rectum and your vagina? Any issues of prolapse? Incontinence? Lack of control? You may discover that things start falling down/out when you’re a little older. Are you able to achieve orgasm? Do you have nightmares?

Such interrogation and commentary feels far from sisterly. It doesn’t comfort or uplift sex workers to know that our being likened to toilets, loaves of bread, meat, dogs or robots is all part of a project apparently more important than our dignity. Feminist women describe us as ‘things’ for which one can purchase a ‘single-use license to penetrate’. They gleefully reference the ‘jizz’ we’ve presumably encountered and our ‘orifices’ and tell us to stick to ‘sucking and fucking’ and leave feminist policy discussions to ‘those of us who read the facts’.

Sex workers are associated with sex, and to be associated with sex is to be dismissible. As Jo Doezema writes, within anti-prostitution feminism

the echo … of the pornographic is notable. The prostitute not only lacks … she is lack. What [these] feminists most want of sex workers is that they close their holes – shut their mouths, cross their legs – to prevent the taking in and spilling out of substances and words they find noxious.

Sometimes feminists’ jibes are subtler than calling us ‘holes’, and these responses have much in common with the ways Victorians disciplined prostitutes into ‘appropriate’ modes of femininity and sexual continence. Contemptuous articles link sex workers with ‘trivial’, feminine-coded practices such as fashion, shopping, and selfies, or mock sex workers’ discussions of ‘empowerment’. In an article expressing her feminist objections to the sex trade, one journalist writes that young women who ‘dress like slags’ in ‘tiny skirts’ deserve not to be taken seriously. Rejecting a woman because of her appearance is simple misogyny, based on the idea that women who embody a particular kind of femininity are stupid, shallow or somehow inferior. The focus on feminine frivolities draws on pre-twentieth-century depictions of the prostitute as deviant and degraded in her rampant femininity, obsessed with luxury goods and sex. Through this lens, it’s easy for non-prostitute feminists to portray sex workers as having no political literacy at all. (Indeed, it is likely that a reviewer of this book will report that we claimed the sex industry to be empowering – and a conduit, presumably, to shoe shopping.)

Sex, in these discussions, is positioned as something intrinsically too special to be sold – something intimate reserved for meaningful relationships. Implicit in this view is the sense that sex is a volatile substance for women and must be controlled or legitimised by an emotional connection. One young feminist, for example, writes disapprovingly that sex work is increasingly acceptable to other young feminists because of ‘hookup culture’, adding, ‘It’s old-fashioned these days – almost prudish, perhaps – to believe that sex is somehow … inherently linked to your emotions or necessarily intimate.’ Yet for many people, sex can indeed be recreational, casual, or in some way ‘meaningless’. The meaning and purpose of sex varies wildly for different people in different contexts or at different times in their lives. The sense that sex is intrinsically, always special rebounds on women, who are disproportionately seen as losing something when they have sex that is ‘too casual’.* It is no coincidence that men who sell sex are not the focus of the same kinds of anxieties – men are seen as able to have casual, meaningless, or transactional sex with much less risk to their ‘essential selves’.

In the UK, women ‘rescued from brothels’ are still sent to live with nuns. The ultimate fallen women are sent to ‘restore their dignity’ among the ultimate chaste women. Women ‘diverted’ from the sex trade in the twenty-first century are overwhelmingly taught traditionally ‘feminine’ forms of employment – especially garment manufacture, but also baking, candle-making, and jewellery-making. Motifs of purity are common in the jewellery produced by such projects.”]

molly smith, juno mac, from revolting prostitutes: the fight for sex workers’ rights, 2018

[choisowon]

2LL3 Group Activity #3 Resubmit

Written by Sahar Zainab, Dian Choi

The Orientalism and Power: When Will We Stop Stereotyping People? (BBC Ideas, 2019) The video reflects Critical Race Theory (CRT) by showing how racism is embedded in systems of power. CRT argues that racism is rooted in social, political, and legal structures, while Edward Said’s concept of Orientalism explains how the West distorts images of the East to justify its dominance. The video describes Orientalism as a form of "knowledge" produced by those in power, such as governments, religious leaders, and the media, to portray the East as inferior, exotic, or threatening. This supports Critical Race Theory's claim that dominant groups control narratives to maintain superiority. 

In the video “Judith Butler: Your Behaviour Creates Your Gender,” Butler argues that gender is not something we are inherently born with, but rather something continuously produced through our actions, behaviours, and interactions with societal norms. She distinguishes between gender being "performed," like playing a role, and "performative," meaning that repeated behaviours create the illusion of a stable gender identity. This idea aligns with sociological theories that view identity as socially constructed rather than biologically determined. Butler emphasizes how institutions such as psychiatry, along with informal practices like bullying, work to enforce gender norms and marginalize those who do not conform. At the same time, she stresses that gender is also a space for agency—individuals can resist and challenge these norms. Ultimately, Butler presents gender as a dynamic and ongoing process shaped by culture, power, and personal expression, rather than a fixed or innate truth.

Both Orientalism and gender inequality have been considered ongoing social problems. While many solutions have been proposed for these issues, they target different forms of discrimination. As discussed earlier, Orientalism has contributed to racial discrimination, particularly against Asian and Middle Eastern backgrounds. On the other hand, gender inequality is still affecting individuals across all societies. These two concepts have led to issues rooted in systematic bias, however, they contribute in distinctive ways and require different strategies for solutions.

The concepts of Orientalism and Gender performance illustrate different types of societal confinement based on discrimination. In the case of Orientalism, the concept is based on stereotypes of people from the East. It focuses on how 'superior' the people of the West are in comparison to the people of the East. 

A few examples include: The feminization of East Asian men - In the West, white men who are traditionally masculine are treated with more respect. By feminizing East Asian men and treating their femininity as inferior, White men can assert their 'superiority'. The masculinization of South Asian women - In the West, white women who are traditionally feminine are considered the standard that other groups of women should assimilate to. By masculinizing South Asian women and treating their masculinity as undesirable, White women can continue to stay close to the top of the Western social ladder. These comparisons confine the large and diverse groups of the East into stereotypes.

April 17, 2025

References

Big Think. (2011, June 6). Judith Butler: Your behavior creates your gender | Big Think YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bo7o2LYATDc

BBC Ideas. (2019, April 30). Orientalism and power: When will we stop stereotyping people? | A-Z of ISMs Episode 15 - BBC Ideas [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZST6qnRR1mY

[dresshistorynerd]

I have a theory for why they are Like This. At their core, TERFs are conservatives. Believing biological essentialism is a conservative view, it reinforces and justifies the patriarchy. They may say and truly think they are fighting against the patriarchy, but they are not since they just accept the justifying logic of patriarchy, they just take different conclusions from it. They accept that men and women are fundamentally and irreversibly different, that the differences we observe are caused by immutable biological essences, but they just come to the conclusion that it's the men who are ontologically evil. So when they say they are fighting patriarchy, they can't target the actual foundations, the societal structures of it, because fundamentally they think those are not societal structures but immutable essences of humanity.

What is left if symbolic liberation, attacking the symbols of oppression instead of oppression itself. That's why they are so focused on dress weather we're talking about revealing sexy fashion or corsets or hijab, because they see them as symbols of oppression. They cannot accept that these symbols are not oppression in itself. No clothing is ever inherently oppressive. The gendered expectations, which are forced upon people are oppressive, and often that involves expectations of dress, but it's not the dress that's oppressive, it's the systems which control the dress.

I think that's why they are so focused on claiming historical fashion as inherently oppressive. Otherwise they would have to admit that there is something deeper there, something more complex than "men forced upon women an inherently limiting and harmful form of dress because men are simply violent and dominating by nature and women are simply passive victims by nature". They would also have to face that just changing how women dress won't liberate us from the patriarchy, but changing societal systems is hard and slow and requires you to unpack a lot more than just gender essentialism.

But of course this is not really feminism or liberation, it's just whitewashing.

there is actually a large radfem population who get mad if you imply women’s fashion throughout history wasn’t specifically designed to torture and maim women. like, not just corsets. if a fashion historian talks about the functionality of removable pockets and underskirts, they’ll get really angry. idk why, truly. women throughout history were doing jobs and living lives, they needed clothes that could be functional. even if the upper crust was competing to see who could strangle their waist, everybody else had to have clothes comfortable enough to move in. and the widespread corset maiming is a myth too.

[the-feminist-philosopher]

Trans exclusionary activism is founded upon a sex-essentialist ideology where the definition of ‘woman’ is reducible to any number of essential biological attributes or characteristics like chromosomes, fecundity, gametes, or bone morphology, where the presence or absence of these essential attributes defines a woman's material condition. This leads to a system whereby trans men are oppressed as women in society while trans women are not. This provides a stark contrast to the feminism they claim to be the ideological descendants of: radical feminism.

Essentialism is the view that objects have a set of attributes that are necessary to their identity. Like needing oogenesis to have "femaleness." Bio determinism is the belief that human behavior is directly controlled by an individual's genes. Like assuming that the idea there are two discrete and fundamentally different sexes (men go to Jupiter, women go to Venus kind of shit) that are separate and evident is biological.

Sex-essentialist rhetoric is predicated on "authenticity" morality where there exists a discrete sexed woman who is "authentic" and a "synthetic," "interloping" one that is not. ALL trans people are morally constructed by this rhetoric as opposite cis people. They're grotesque, unnatural, and a danger to everyone around them and even themselves according to trans-exclusionary rhetoric. Under their ideology, they are opposite the cissexual body, making them violence and mutilation as opposed to "holistic" and all-natural (no "plastic"). The mere existence of trans bodies is seen- by cis people- as a violation of an "authentic" body, sexuality, identity and spirit. They're "interlopers;" wolves in sheep's clothing. Under this rhetoric, all trans bodies are "smelly," "disgusting," and "decaying." They're a caricature! They're a mutilation; a monstrosity! All because the trans-exclusionary believes they are "unnatural" and diametrically opposed to the "natural" cissexual body.

However, for the original radical feminist philosophers ‘woman’ was "not a sexed class constructed with reference to an essential or reductive attribute. Rather, ‘woman’ was defined by material conditions within culture." I think a disconnect between this belief and the modern rad-fem ideology comes from what is meant by "material." For the modern rad fem, material refers to a sex caste constructed by an essential attribute; constructed by something corporeal: gametes. The modern rad-fem's philosophical monism has led to a misunderstanding of what was meant by "material reality." But, for feminists like Wittig and Dworkin, the move to “root feminism in an inherent biological, psychological, or reified ontology” would be to endorse the very essentialism upon which the patriarchy was built.

Today's trans-exclusionary rejects all, or most of, this. It rejects the feminist idea that sex is something also ascribed to us; that one becomes a woman. And in insisting on defining "woman" as a discrete biological caste; that woman is formed "biologically," it also rejects the feminist idea that there are no fundamentally separate biological classifications for humans. Rejecting that consequentially also rejects the feminist idea that "woman" is formed socially and politically. And by insisting on defining "woman" as a discrete biological caste, they contribute to the patriarchal system of gender/sex differentiation. So, while the modern trans exclusionary has spent decades promoting the ideological position that a woman is defined by her "nature,” the trans feminist has joined the intersectional feminist, the decolonial feminist, and early radical feminists in “questioning systems predicated upon discrete, natural, and unconstructed body binaries.”

In short, trans-exclusionary ideologies fail to pay tribute to decades of feminist, trans and queer philosophical work debating how to define 'woman' and fails to acknowledge how these works position trans women in relation to the concept.

[luesmainblog]

I think there's definitely something to be said about the culture between white women especially for enhancing this kind of paranoia. I was never afraid to leave my house until i started down the radfem rabbit hole, and i'm very, VERY glad i was pulled out of it before i hit the deeper stuff. discussions of statistics are good, important even, but they can leave one assigning malice in places where it doesn't belong. It's important to talk about WHY the numbers say what they do, and how likely they actually are, and how numbers can be adjusted to project a message. discussions of self defense and home defense are good, especially for victims who can't currently get out of bad situations, but they can also be given as tools to fuel your paranoia when the entire POINT of them is to make you feel safer in the world.

safety measures for a night out on the town are good to have, and frankly more boys should be taught the really basic shit like "tell a friend where you're going" and "keep a hand over your drink". it reflects a certain level of sexism that we don't HAVE these conversations with them, and the reasoning for that is complicated, because "it just doesn't happen to them" is Technically accurate; it doesn't happen to US most of the time, either. but "they're just not talking about it when it does" is also heartwrenchingly true. This video and others like it ALSO perpetuate a kind of sexism, following the same assumptions. Why does she feel safe only when her husband is there? Because we're taught from a very young age to view men as Protectors. That violence is acceptable if it happens to them, that they not only should but WILL step up in the face of danger, and that this is the most normal and reasoned way to deal with it. We're also taught that women - particularly, white women - are valuable in and of themselves; that bad actors want to find us while we're vulnerable and Take or Ruin what value we have. Having a man around is supposed to protect you in this sense because only a fool would try to steal you while the owner is right fucking there. And while it's posed as a silly comment, Rob DenBeykler is right. while certain branches of feminism will perpetuate this kind of thinking, a lot of republican thought is BUILT on the idea that only The Man Of The House can serve as any true protection, and that bad actors are the higher priority to worry about than more common issues like fire safety hazards. the idea of Community is inherently opposed to many of the beliefs they perpetuate to keep control, so of course they want you paranoid as your potential community grows larger. that's all the more people that could hurt you. wealthier people are also more likely to follow republican belief, for a number of complicated political and psychological reasons, and the closer you are to Dragon Wealth the more it's actually likely to see a break-in, which fuels this paranoia further. look, some of these measures can be legitimately good in certain contexts. even the whistle; a popular self-defense item in japan, where getting Grabbed is an honest concern for young girls, is a noise alarm to hang off your bag. the whistle serves a similar purpose; it's a loud noise that immediately draws attention to you and the area you're in. but here, it is literally security theatre to ease her anxiety; it would not actually do any good for THIS situation. to be frank, i really hope posting this video leads her to see comments and seek therapy, because this is a ridiculous level of fear to have when you're alone in a house for a short while. And breaking down where that fear even comes from is a long, complicated path that requires you to question a lot of the things you've accepted as truth.

if you relate to the woman in the video, i URGE you, please seek help. you don't have to be afraid every time you're alone. measures to help yourself feel safer are good in the short term, but in the long term, you really should address that fear. don't treat it as a normal thing you just have to deal with until they come home; the more you learn, the more you'll be even more scared of being alone, because you'll be adding on the ACTUAL reasons isolation isn't great.

[nestable]

Feminism in ACOTAR

(This is a bit long so bare with me)

As a politics student and general member of the public who's curious about feminist themes, I've read a lot of feminist writings which have informed my opinion in saying that none of the acotar books can be described as feminist.

I've noticed that the big motivator behind describing the books as feminist is feyres appointment of High lady. Though that may be pivotal in prythian history, we cant ignore the fact that it is still a fairly patriachal society. Having a few women in places of power like mor, amren, feyre etc. Is not enough because women don't grow up on an island and are also influenced by patriachal views or mindsets. In short, just because someone is a woman and is in a position of power, doesnt mean that they will cater to the needs of women or are feminist. Women, especially white women(this is important because sjms writes white feminism) have often gotten into positions of power and actually ignored women and done the same that their male predecessors have done and often threw other women under the bus in order to retain their tokenism status. And the main flaw of white feminism which is the reason why it coined the term 'white feminism' is that it doesnt encompass all the intersectionalities that women reside in and only focus on a western model of what it means to be a woman and anything outside of that is backward and 'barbaric. We see this in the judgement and disregarding of POC's experiences and outlooks on life because they are different to theirs. There are more than enough examples of the white women in the series judging the illyrians which are seen by the fandom as POC's and how they maliciously drag their customs through the mud. Instead of getting these views from illyrian women themselves, we get them from white women who arent connected to that culture whatsoever and who have nothing to say except judgement and critique instead of actually helping.

We see this with the white characters views of illyrian cultures and their conclusion of the condition of women without even having a single conversation with illyrian women. Illyrian women in this set up have no agency and no voice and that leaves the women of the IC to speak for them which is counterproductive. This is wrong in that many western cultures have misinterpreted different cultures and ignored the women in those societies as being disenfranchised and have used this as an excuse to invade and colonize under the guise of liberating women when in actual fact they dont care about the women at all, and are only concerned in reaping the benefits of that culture and keeping them under their control. An example of this is rhys ignoring the treatment of illyrian women but reaping the benefit of having illyrians fight in his wars.

Feyre as high lady

It's unfair to judge feyres actions as high lady as yet because we've barely seen her act, but from the little that we know, she follows Rhys' every action and decision without question. And rhys hasn't done anything for the improvement of women's position socially or economically at all (we all know the state of the illyrian camps) in all the 500 yrs he's been high lord. Apart from Rhys, the inner circle has 2 women in the highest leadership positions and even they havent done anything and have even ignored the plight of women under their jurisdiction, (mor with Hewn city) I dont even think amren cares about anything besides her jewels tbh. So it's fair to assume that feyre will follow in those very footsteps. She already has biased and low views on the illyrians and people who reside in hewn city to the point where she participates in the 'pimp and whore' act that she puts on t deal with them. And we've never seen her speak to illyrian women so to her their voices and autonomy dont matter.

Male feminism in the IC

The only male who can be seen as being feminist in the series is Cassian because aside from simply declaring that wing clipping is illegal, he actually does the ground work to ensure it doesn't happen by offering the women to train with him. Though this is a weak cure for the issues the women face in Illyria, it's a start and far more work than anything the other characters have done in the name of women empowerment.

Another so called feminist figure in the series is rhysand. Why he's described as such defeats me, but I'll go through some points to prove that hes nothing of the sort.

1. He created a library for sexual assault survivors.

Though this is a nice effort, it can't be described as feminism because he doesnt extend the same courtesy to the other women in his territory and is only concerned with women in Velaris. Supporting women who worship you isnt feminism isnt feminism either and we know that the entirety of Velaris see the IC as blameless gods. Based on mors history, its obvious that the women in hewn city are suffering just as much if not more but hes forsaken them to live under mors parents/abusers rule. And creating a safe house for sexual assault survivors isnt as much feminism as it is human decency. Especially considering how much money hes got.

2. Banning illyrian wing clipping

Wing clipping is still a pandemic in the illyrian camps meaning that he didnt put enough provisions to ensure that it stops. Passing a law and ensuring that it is followed are two different things and rhys clearly dowsnt know the distinction. An additional point regarding illyrian women is that it was mentioned in acofas that they were joining the men in rebelling, and if that doesnt say anything about their feelings with him being high lord and how he doesnt cater to them, then I dont know what does. This also speaks to the point of the assumption that women of color dont have agency in their own societies. He said something like the men 'manipulated' the women into joining their rebellion, which insinuates that they can't think for themselves and are completely voiceless and this is a factor of whit feminism, the belief that WOC colour cant speak for themselves and are meek and susetable to being controlled or manipulated. It is a huge possibility that the women can't really express their opinions because they are suppressed by their men, however we dont see rhys interacting with any women and getting their opinion on things. He assumes that they are forced into everything and though we havent gotten the book yet I'm gonna say this is false. The reason being if rhys was such a good high lord and cared for women's issues, why would the women side with their 'abusive' men instead of their so called benevolent high lord?

3. Rhys appointed women in his IC

First of all, appointing women based on merit and qualifications is feminism, not appointing family members and you underaged bride just because 'you love her'. Though mor and amren may be qualified, and that's a massive 'maybe', they haven't done anything to improve the lives of women. Like their high lord they are complacent and Hewn city and illyria are more than enough to prove this. What rhys has essentially done is nepotism and corruption and no one can convince me otherwise.

Going further on the inner circle women, rhys was willing to sacrifice these very women to achieve his goal and this is self serving and anti feminist. The first being abusing feyre UTM and then using her as bait for the attor, then later making a deal with eris even though he knows his history with mor. If anyone believes that these actions are remotely feminist or excusable, then feminism is not for you and need help because its abusive and patriachal.

In conclusion rhys isnt feminist, mor isnt feminist, amren isnt feminist, feyre isnt feminist, azriel isnt even in the conversation and cassian is the only one scratching the surface. Also, white feminism is an exclusive and limited way to portray and execute feminism, women getting leadership positions based on their proximity to men just advances the false notion that women can only succeed if they 'sleep' their way to the top and just because a woman is in a leadership space, thag doesnt make that state of affairs inherently feminist because women are also carriers of patriarchy.

I tried to sum up my points but for more on white feminism, feminist intersectionalites and how being female doesnt make a person feminist, I advice you read Bell Hooks' writings because she touches on these topics in far better ways than I can.

[seeminglyseph]

I'm gonna say it. There are more reasons for lesbians and trans women to have solidarity than there are for them to be at odds. Like. We're both meant to feel like predators in women's spaces for circumstances we can't control bc straight women see us as inherently perverse for no reason. Tbh guys let's all just chill u know? Idk I just thought I of all people would appreciate the take

I definitely do, I think, I grew into my identity as an adult through the lesbian community. Just the same as my butch sisters I heard straight girls whisper about how they'd rather run naked through the boy's locker than know there was a lesbian in the girl's. I think gnc women know the trauma of forced feminization almost all afab people face as a product of a lot of 'right way to be a girl' situations (how hard do we have to fight with stylists to get short hair? how often do women get assumed to not care or be reckless or slovenly just because they present masculinely? It is traumatizing for everyone trying to be forced into a mold, it's just a different kind of traumatizing when you also happen to be a man.) It just seems like being 'allowed' to be masculine is such a freedom. But the reverse is true for trans women, and part of it is acknowledging the way we raise cis boys is fucked up and deeply damaging, same with women. (and baby boys are still victims, no baby boy has power that he uses to abuse, baby boys are just as vulnerable as baby girls to manipulation, judgement and pressure to fit a certain mold.) So it means admitting there's something traumatic about growing up amab, and that someone will want what I found traumatizing. but really it's the same problem we're all facing. Society has an idea of who we are supposed to be and punishes us for not being it. I've known cis straight allo people who just dress non-conforming talk about how much pressure they are under just existing outside the mold, and I think we keep blaming our own for why people treat us like shit, but it's not our own.

So I feel like instead of arguing how much everyone's experiences differ it would be so important to embrace the things we all know. Trans women and lesbians are often both considered doing femininity "wrong" because it's not the tradwife goals no one actually meets. I feel like ~*somehow*~ ~*very mysteriously*~ the rhetoric that trans women were the reason lesbians face oppression, or that they should narrow the view of femininity again so as to look mainstream and back to the weird tradwife trend but with other women started rising. The term "Lesbian Utopia" floats around and smooshes lesbian relationships into a certain kind of box.

Honestly I think TERFs damage themselves plenty as well, narrowing down the correct presentation of womanhood to a different oppressive standard doesn't fix anything, and honestly most butch lesbians I know are just as victimized by this radicalized idea of the 'acceptable' lesbian. Much as they argue that we're transing their butches, so much radfem ideology identifies butch women as dangerous due to their closeness to masculinity. The idea that either femininity or masculinity is inherently bad or good is flawed to the core, because identity and gender expression is so personal two people could feel the same things and identify different and be completely correct about their own feelings. There are dangerous men and there are dangerous women and there are dangerous nonbinary people. But it isn't because of gender, or sexuality, it's down to the person. People make decisions to do bad things, and all they stand for is themselves. (though identifying as a terf is seemingly drawing your identity from a place of hatred and defines femininity as both ultimate purity and the highest form of suffering. Very catholic. Not a fan. develop some identifying features that don't revolve around hating other people it's weird.)