#because their experiences are not universal to the women's experience (seen by default as white women's experience)

[orcelito]

Man I wish I had more time to thoroughly go thru this book before my meeting. So the book I had to read that was assigned by my professor is Half the Sky by Nicholas D Kristof and Sheryl WuDunn. Which is a frankly kind of grueling read, bc of how heavy its content is. Detailing the horrors that women have faced around the world in explicit detail. Definitely made me more aware of a lot of things though.

The 2nd book for this meeting, my choice of book, is Critical Race Feminism (2nd edition), a collection of essays organized by Adrian K. Wing that discusses various problems faced by women of color. I just finished reading the first essay and was genuinely invested in it, which makes me really wanna read the rest of it... but there are also 40 some essays in this, and I am NOT reading all of those in an hour. So I'm gonna have to cherry pick and skim a lot to get an overall impression prior to my appointment with my professor.

I do, however, own this book. I bought it at a used bookstore for this class, but it's still Mine. So I can come back to it and finish it on my own time, after all of this is done. I really would like to do so. I think it would be really enlightening.

[marzipanandminutiae]

i'd love to learn just how victorian rational dress reformists would react at contemporary feminine hairstyles!

...in a similar line of thought do we have any records about their opinions on the Practicality of little girls hair or even the 20's bob (if some lived to see it)?

I'm not sure!

One of their biggest beefs with hair in their own time was often with hairpieces: false buns, curls, bangs/fringes, etc. used to augment one's natural hair. I'm not sure if they felt it weighed the head down or the extra pins were uncomfortable or what, but they didn't like it. false hair still exists, but its popularity has vastly waned. so maybe they'd think we had solved some issues- though long hair worn loose all the time would probably be seen as Hampering to women's daily activity

You do see some advocacy for short hair as an easier and sometimes healthier (??) option, but more often I've seen artistic and/or Dress Reform-oriented women with short hair who said nothing about it. You also have men who are...clearly just into ladies with short hair writing long Ye Olde Thinkpieces about how great it is. I mean, no shame there, I guess- everyone has their Thing. And while short hair on women was unusual, the Victwardians didn't seem to regard it with the same massive distrust and hand-wringing as conservative commentators of the 1920s did. Perhaps because it was less widespread?

The idea that little girls not only could have short hair but should was fairly common throughout the 19th century, obviously with variations. Similar reasoning was in play to that you might expect nowadays: that it was easier to care for, and that an active child wouldn't be hindered by it. there was also an idea, similar to that which led some women's hair to be cut off during serious illness, that short hair kept the head cooler and prevented or lowered fevers. I've actually read an admonition to keep children's hair short for just that reason in a book from the 1830s- The Ladies' Medical Oracle, by Elizabeth Mott. obviously this wasn't universal- see also: the original Alice in Wonderland illustrations, although it's worth noting that the real Alice Liddell had a bob as a child

(yes, little girls were expected to be active to a degree- even more if you're reading a book by someone who has experience with Actual Human Children. some doctors fretted that the uterus would be damaged by too much physical activity, but it seems like in practice, parents' were...again, aware of how real children behave. Longfellow's 1860 poem The Children's Hour describes his daughters storming his office to shower him with affection, quite energetically, and it was a smash hit)

as for how they reacted to 1920s bobs...well, most of the adult adopters thereof had at least lived through part of the Long Hair As Default For Women Edwardian era, and their thoughts ranged greatly on the subject. In fact, essays by Irene Castle (believed to be the originator of the trend in her late 20s c. 1913 or 1914, long before it caught on properly) and Mary Pickford (a late adopter at age 36 c. 1928) on why they had vs. hadn't cut their hair are often paired together as a commentary on how the trend was seen, along with others. sometimes these essays are rather strange- one wonders why these women, who must have lived when adult women all wore their hair up every day, describe the alleged oppression of "long, trailing locks." I guess when what you like has some social unacceptability, you might be inclined to phrase things in black and white thus

Dress reformers of the 1920s were more concerned with the deleterious effects of high-heeled shoes and the general idea that young women were encouraged to be too frivolous- and too loose in their sexual morals, as represented by the "short skirts"- actually about calf-length -and low-backed evening gowns of the era. that sounds kind of weird today, in the era of sex positivity, but earlier dress reform had, with a few exceptions, disavowed ideas of sexual freedom as thoroughly as mainstream society did. and I kind of get it- the notion that they advocated "free love" was often used to discredit genuine women's rights groups. still they weren't totally immune to sexual mores of their time, and some likely genuinely believed what they were saying

and that's not even getting into the Coiffure a la Titus trend of the late 18th-early 19th century, which had advocates claiming it was the best thing ever and detractors insisting it would result in women catching colds all the time. it was ever thus

anyway that's a bit of a long-winded answer, but I hope it helps!

[princessbabygirlforever]

An older trans woman once told me that she sits to pee, which occasionally results in her peeing on herself, because that’s how hard she’s worked to block out the fact that she’s still retained her original organ all of these years. That’s what girls do: we deal in affect–feelings, vibes, emotions, moods—to counteract dissonance. If you feel like a girl, you are a girl. Serving cunt is the law of assumption. Pussy-stunting is a mindset. Delusion is a lifestyle. And dissociation is effortless, unselfconscious, easy.

After white men, only white women and girls are afforded an unstudied ease, a universalizing, pedestalizing canvas-like blankness free of aesthetic assumptions, charged with authority and unburdened by race and gender. The rest of us are seen as open wounds. I used to try to fight how I am perceived by feigning a sense of aloofness, insouciance and smallness. I did so by tucking my hair behind my ear, wistfully, longingly staring off into the distance, dissociating from my body to temporarily transport to a place where I could write like a white girl.

I would conjure the white girl vibe instantaneously when I’d listen to music, especially if the music I am listening to is really loud, almost dulling my other senses and causing me to feel what can only be described as the opposite of embodied: void-like. There, I could exist as an empty, diaphanous vessel unfilled by anything at all. There’s no burden of “identity” in the club or the bedroom or the hammam or the garden or online as the avatar of your choosing–anywhere deemed a feminine space worth inhabiting. Online, especially, is where anyone can lay down their burdens—the thick coating of class and race, geography and gender–and escape the indignities of womanhood, blackness, otherness. No fat…no trauma…no spiritual heaviness…no intensity…only purity. A blank canvas no one can ascribe assumptions and project onto. You’re the default player in the game. A babygirl.

As a terminally concerned girl teeming with big, electrical emotions, presenting myself as an open wound–where the id is steering the ship despite societal expectations and pressures to the contrary to flatten and suppress– has never quite appealed to me because I know it doesn’t appeal much to anyone else. I think of myself in relation to others, in a sort of triangulation with the world. I don’t want to be a spectacle, if I can help it, because I know I already am, that there is an audience baked into my experience, mercilessly ascribing the same assumptions to me that they would someone engaging with hallucinations on a city bus. On a city bus, to witness someone mumbling to themselves, smiling exuberantly, screaming, singing terribly or sobbing loudly in public, is to have a front row seat to an undesired excess, intensity and earnestness. That person has unconsciously chosen to present themselves, to the subtly disciplinary gaze of surveilling strangers, like a spectacle to be gawked at. They’ve interrupted the homogenizing edicts of polite society in a manner considered vulnerable, neurotic, unusual, boundaryless, histrionic, unrefined, unserious, grotesque, eccentric, amoral, out of control, shameless and cringe-worthy. Their vivid displays of animatedness, too gauche for “normal” sensibilities, so we’d rather tuck them away like an unsightly pile of rags on the floor, undermining them like we do our own id in the company of others.

This image is commonly associated with the mentally ill and the homeless, whom the public bodies and perceptions of are heavily policed and politicized. States of animatedness, of excess, are also racialized and gendered. Femininity and blackness, its sincerest expressions, deemed maximalist, evidence of effort, and therefore, failure. Too much.

To transcend our animatedness, we must turn our disciplining gaze to ourselves, self-effacing to make space for whiteness and maleness, totally erase ourselves. This palimpsestic quality is achieved through minimalist attire (no garish, colorful clothes re: avant basic), eliminating girlish and black vocal tics, adapting middlebrow tastes, writing in 3rd person, muting one’s melanated state with black and white photography, aspirational thinness so there is less of you, and an attitude that communicates aloofness so severe that you don’t even care about yourself.

These attempts at minimization, of disciplining your public animated body, will allow you to enjoy a certain remove from the wider world. You’ll be cured, no longer teeming with niggerishness and schlepping the mantle of womanhood into every room you walk into for the rest of your life. You’ll be the babygirl again, who you were before you ever knew that you occupy a subordinate role in society, and before you were privy to the myths and ideologies that have been created around your image and identity.

Like a princess, your girlhood and daughterhood had a sense of prestige, making the fact of your consanguinity almost secondary, except as a matter of differentiation from the masses of non-princesses. There wasn’t yet a force larger than life requiring self-minimization as a necessary boon. You were presumed to be a pure, guileless blank canvas of a girl. You didn’t have to arm yourself with knowledge of that—or any truth—to feel a claim to safety and purity because the fact of it was informed by your singularity.

The babygirl, elegantly inert and slow, never had to run outside of the context of a freewheeling and uninterrupted playtime. She was never embarrassed into velocity. She never had to be strong or work hard. She’s never had to learn to self-preserve because her existence hadn’t called for that skill set. Self-preservation is the ministry of wounded girls. The babygirl has never been wounded.

The babygirl is light, buoyant with a feeling she belongs right where she is. She’s preternaturally interested and keenly aware, with an insatiable attention and curiosity for entertainment, her commodities, the objects in her bedroom. She prefers living in a rapt state, the romantic eye of her mind transporting her from her present surroundings and the inherent ennui of girlhood into her imagination.

The babygirl’s emotions don’t give the appearance of an overflowing volcano of lava curdling into evidence of effort and maintenance and failure and toxicity, clumps for other people to step over, ignore, forget, apply a disciplining gaze to. She is like the waves in the ocean crashing freely into each other, free to express the gamut of her emotions, whether sad, irritable, annoyed or enraged, without it sweeping up the rest of her image and identity until there’s nothing left of her but her feelings, in the unforgiving, cynical eyes of the strangers she will meet in the world who will, inevitably, only see animatedness.

What makes me a babygirl–and what unifies me with all the other babygirls online who’re so hotly debated and contested and disbelieved–is our sensitivity and an unrelenting over-identification with objects and other people. Babygirls are committed to the aesthetic reading and viewing of still images, films and the internet, which informs a girly canon of derealization ephemera not intended to be over-identified with: antiheroines, dreams, the moon, theory, book spines, social outcasts, fonts, hysterical and ribald women, “invalid” women who live in their beds, dolls, numbers, voids, the color pink, avatars on social media, God.

All that is ostensibly facile and self-explanatory, for the babygirl, is gleaned through persistent observation. The babygirl fills emptiness with a divine estuary from which an embodied and pillow-soft love audaciously converges with nature’s brutal architecture—pulsating alive with blood and flesh.

Being a babygirl is like the infinitude of the world contained in a pop song or the gaze of someone staring down the barrel of a gun; it stretches on and on forever. Anyone, then, who sees through people like they are vacant homes waiting to be occupied by her, who thinks they know others with the cultic conviction of a true believer, who is wildly and wholeheartedly alert, is a babygirl.

And I am Princess Babygirl.

I am novelty combined with appropriation like collage art, music sampling and recipes. My palimpsest quality is not an encryption of the self; but rather, an illuminating synthesis of my embodied experience. I have been the host to various narratives, epistemes, connections and dreams that I’ve neither fully abandoned nor refined. I’ve imprinted my affects and vibes forever–going on and on like the perfect pop song on repeat–so I can never be erased. Princess Babygirl is who I was before all of the sublimated tensions, marketplace competitions, traumas, vulnerabilities, anxieties, mimetic rivalries, delusions, dreams and violence of womanhood happened to me.

As Carl Jung foretold in his writings on the Age of Aquarius, human consciousness is moving toward a more feminine-centric paradigm. I want to represent the metamodern conditions of this moment in a blend of identity-critical autotheory and audiovisual stimuli exploring affects, aesthetics, taste, psychology, consumerism, the performance of womanhood and modern femininity.

[jimberoschwezer]

Nobody is saying that our experiences are identical. We even recognize that the various AMAB transfeminities can differ enourmously from each other, so that’s clearly not our point.

What is actually being argued is that you cannot deny the existence of a whole transfem group just because its experiences tend to deviate from transfeminine stereotypes. Transfemininity is shaped by all sorts of social divisions—race, class, sexuality, ability, etc, that doesn’t make these various intersectional transfemininities any less transfem. Disabled black transfemininity has its own unique intersectional vulnerabilities too, but does that mean it isn’t transfemininity ? No, of course not, the same goes for afab transfemininity!

Debatable as there isn’t an universal AMAB or AFAB transfeminine experience. But even if that were the case, so what? What I’ve previously stated still applies: the fact that one type of transfemininity is markedly different from another (eg AFAB transfemininity and AMAB transfemininity) doesn't make it any less valid as transfemininity. Once you understand this, the inclusion of AFAB transfeminality as a type of transfeminality might not seem so unreasonable to your transmisogynist mind.

I won’t engage with the rest of the post as I’ve addressed it countless times here, and because it's based on a misunderstanding of transmisogyny aimed at amab transfems (they are seen as both failed women and failed men when it suits a transphobic society, not just the latter). The post still operates under the transphobic assumption that AMAB (white, able-bodied, etc.) transfemininity is the default reference from which we should evaluate and validate other types of transfemininities. A little tiring.

Anyway, it's the same story: straw men, ignorance, unexamined beliefs, pretends to be intersectional while having an anti-intersectional/universalist approach to transfemininity.

[neechees]

On your take about the the white woman collage. Definitely tru you can tell they’re all made by ww, but I also think it’s indicative of how rarely women of color get to take on those roles, how rarely they get aestheticized misery from their own bad decisions. There’s rarely enough agency presented in ennui of women of color for them to take on those Amy Dunn roles. And ultimately it’s all part of the same misogynistic characterization of either denying a character the agency to respond with blunt numbness or presenting the idea that that blunt numbness in itself and, not the choice to react that way. I hope that made sense.

I think a lot of it is also woc not taking on roles at all because of course the lack of roles made for them, and even when they exist, theyre not given as much dimensionality as White Women. White women love the "unhinged" female, (white) characters because White women both historically and in contemporary times are seen as the height & standard for femininity, which also means they're seen as pure, delicate, sweet, forgiving, sensitive, and so on. The unginhed, crying White woman I think is a combination of white women & them always being seen as the victim of their situation, in addition to the "unhinged" part (which might be represented by anger, violence, so on) also trying to break the mold or Visage of the perpetually sweet white woman. White woman love this kind of thing because of how often white women are seen as the former. And I also think this is why there's so many cases of it with White Women, & why WW love it so much, because woc are already seen as more scary, angry, hysterical, vengeful, violent, and so on. I think some ppl think it's "more revolutionary" with White women because that's how they see woc already, in a one dimensional lens & demonized.

But I don't really see to many of these representations really trying to say anything about race (except maybe something like Midsommar, or even I think Amy Dunne, but a lot of White Women misunderstand those characters), & it's usually kinda framed or feels like a "White women's experiences are universal/the default" kind of way. You're so right about aesthetisized misery and I think that can actually be dangerous, and it's how we get scenes like Beth Harmon very conveniently "sexily" dancing half naked & smoking a cigarette for the audience to show her depression, or people making "female rage" edits showing cis White women screaming with a Mitsky song playing over it. I do wish we'd see more woc in roles where they get to be multidimensional & with a full set of emotions that theyre allowed to feel, and yet not hyperdemonized for it.

It really reminds me of this great video essay about it, that below

[ausetkmt]

An exodus of Black women in academia hurts the workforce

The burden that Black people, particularly women, in academia carry is rarely recognized by the outside world.

But just weeks into 2024, it’s made national news. First, it was the resignation of former Harvard President Claudine Gay after a prolonged public campaign of harassment that culminated with plagiarism allegations. Now it’s the suicide of Lincoln University’s vice president of student affairs, Antoinette “Bonnie” Candia-Bailey, who alleged she was “intentionally harassed and bullied” by Lincoln University President John B. Moseley after disclosing her mental health struggles.

To be sure, Gay created some of her own problems with her legalistic congressional testimony on antisemitism, which was roundly critiqued. The plagiarism allegations, which she’s addressed, also hurt her. But we would be remiss if we discounted the extent to which racist and sexist undertones, rooted in antagonism of what her appointment represented, played a role.

The public experiences of Gay and Candia-Bailey have compelled other Black Americans in higher education to share their own stories. Take a scroll through social media, and you’ll see Ph.D. candidates and graduates sharing stories of feeling depressed, being passed up for tenure, and leaving programs because they were mistreated.

It’s no wonder why only about 6% of all faculty in colleges and universities are Black (it gets lower as you go up the ladder). And it’s no wonder the number hasn’t moved much since the early 1980s, when it was 4.2%. Black faculty navigate the typical academic hurdles and many invisible yet consequential ones, such as managing implicit and explicit messages about their belonging and bearing a disproportionate responsibility for supporting students of color. Add unprecedented levels of public scrutiny to the already high invisible costs of leadership, and as Zaire Z. Dinzey-Flores notes, “This is how Black women leaders do not survive.”

As businesses reconsider their commitment to diversity and look to colleges and universities as partners to develop and recruit diverse talent, these troubling trends jeopardize their aims.

Not only does seeing Black leaders on campuses affirm that Black students belong and are a source of inspiration for what they can aspire to. But for White and non-Black students of color, it helps counter the default belief that leadership can only be synonymous with whiteness. This is a subtle impression, of course, but an important one. College plays an outsize role in educating and mentoring the next generations of the workforce and shapes their workplace expectations.

And since many US students have never had a Black teacher — much less a principal — throughout elementary and high school, encountering them as leaders in higher education is an opportunity to challenge unconscious biases with exposure. Yet our paucity of Black leaders at present inhibits this aim, and we risk a new generation of leaders witnessing this moment and sitting leadership out.

We must figure out how to attract and keep Black leaders in academia. A good place to start is acknowledging that the adage, Black people work twice as hard to be recognized half as much, is not from a bygone era. Sexism, for Black women, and racism have kept that expectation alive and, unfortunately, well. If you need proof, I’d start by considering how many reports you’ve seen in recent years that still include “the first Black woman to…”

But recognizing the uneven playing field without actively working to level it is, to borrow loosely from biblical scripture, faith without works. After organizations shed a race- and gender-blind approach to a gender- and race-specific reality, they must be prepared to offer support and guidance to ensure the success of the candidates they recruit.

When it comes to bringing Black women into predominantly and traditionally White male spaces, this means anticipating challenges that may stem from the change and not treating biased attacks as an opportunity for them to demonstrate that they can do their job.

If not, in addition to Gay and Candia-Bailey, we’ll have more stories like Lesley Lokko, who called her decision to step down as dean of the Bernard and Anne Spitzer School of Architecture at City College of New York “a profound act of self-preservation.”

In a public resignation letter, Lokko, who came from teaching in South Africa, wrote, “The lack of respect and empathy for Black people, especially Black women, caught me off guard, although it’s by no means unique to Spitzer.”

She left after only 10 months in 2020. Candia-Bailey’s passing was eight months into her role. Gay stepped down as Harvard’s president after six months — the shortest tenure in the university’s history.

But simply focusing on those who did not thrive in their roles would miss another crisis surrounding Black women’s leadership. Last year, JoAnne A. Epps of Temple University and Orinthia T. Montague of Volunteer State Community College died while in their roles. While their devastating deaths weren’t officially linked to the stress of their jobs, the untimeliness of their passing sparked conversations about the high cost of success.

If we want to turn the tide, we can no longer stand by and watch Black women suffer in silence — at the cost of their own well-being. We must acknowledge the load they bear and provide meaningful support to manage it. If we do not, an exodus of Black leaders is coming, and that will shape the lives of students — and, by default, our future workforce.

[bumblee-stumblee]

I've been following radfem ideology tumblrs for a while and it's taking me everything not to make another blog just so I can join in, and that grey person is really making it hard not to.

When they use the 'as a white woman and based on my own experience, sex-based oppression doesn't exist/ isn't a huge problem because white privilege trumps all' they've failed to recognise one key thing. Social class. It's more likely that they haven't experienced as great an oppression as others because they come from a well off background on top of being white.

But we'll go off the assumption that all white women are from well-off backgrounds for the purpose of grey🙄's argument. Even with this in mind, they will still face oppression that is sex based.

There's a whole book on the data gap we have for women (Invisible Women). In medicine the male body is the default and women are often prescribed the wrong thing for their body. I personally suffer from an autoimmune disease which is more likely to affect women (took 5 years of having debilitating periods where doctors just told me it was normal to have to wear 2 night pads all the time, be on two sets of pain medication, blood clotters, and female house mates asking me if they needed to call an ambulance several times because I looked that ill before I was finally taken seriously and they found out my thyroid was completely shot). Whenever I look up a disease that says, not much is known about this disease/there is no known cure and we can only manage it, I scroll down and 90% of the time it'll say mainly affects women and or people of colour. This also applies to the menopause which affects 50% of the population, ie women 50+. They say the treatment we have for this is good enough yet 25% of women (UK) have had to retire early because they suffered so much with symptoms and received no support. Then you've got female police with ill fitting stab vests because they only come in men's sizes. Look at those horrific stories coming out about female fire fighters - no idea why they were being harassed by male colleagues, must have been because they had small feet or something. Women are 47% more likely to get injured in car accidents because once again male is the default test dummy. The whole book said it best. Male is the default and when you actually try to speak from a female perspective it's treated like an ideology, because male is seen as universal and everyone just accepts it.

Another good book - why women are blamed for everything: exploring victim blaming of women subjected to violence and trauma. A good quote from this book:

"... the way we talk about victim blaming, sexual violence and abuse of women will shape the way we respond to it (individually and collectively). If our language minimises it, we will minimise it. If our language trivialises it, we will trivialise it. If our language constructs it as a hyperbolic issue that feminists moan about, we will treat it as a hyperbolic issue feminists moan about." By saying 'as a white woman I don't feel oppressed by my sex because being white means I have nothing to complain about,' they're making it so that the women who are oppressed based on their sex aren't taken seriously and that's a big problem. White women are still looked over and talked down to by male colleagues, are still raped and abused. Just because they haven't personally experienced this doesn't mean it doesn't happen (once again I think their experience probably includes their class privilege as well as their race). Look at Yeonmi Park (North Korean defector). She told the story of how she was robbed in NY, and when she tried to call the police, bystanders shouted abuse at her because the person who robbed her was a black man and her calling the police made her racist.

Then we have the book the authority gap: why women are still taken less seriously than men, and what we can do about it. From the blurb alone:

"The Authority Gap provides a startling perspective on the unseen bias at work in our everyday lives, to reveal the scale of the gap that still persists between men and women. Would you believe that US Supreme Court Justices are interrupted four times more often than male ones... 96% of the time by men? Or that British parents, when asked to estimate their child's IQ will place their son at 115 and their daughter at 107?" Also from the blurb:

A woman is 30% less likely to be called for a job interview than an identically qualified man.

Male students consistently rate other male students as cleverer than better performing female ones.

Men are 4x more likely to read a book by a male author than a female one. Females are an even gender split.

The odds of recommending a woman rather than a man for a job is 38% lower if the job requires serious intelligence.

But no, sex based oppression doesn't exist. Or maybe the issue is, grey is so used to the world being this way they don't see what the problem is? Maybe because the issues above haven't affected them in their tiny insignificant patch of the world. I don't know. Just because you've got it better than someone else doesn't mean you have to put up with it. You don't tell a victim of a one time sa that they've got nothing to complain about because some girls experience it every day. This isn't the victim Olympics, both are bad. Both shouldn't happen. They are not 'lucky' that it only happened to them once. It shouldn't have happened at all.

Yes, exactly this.

[not-available-for-comment]

Just going to circle this excellent addition back around to the connection to radfem TERFs in op’s posts. A lot of radfem and proto-radfem rhetoric that I see posits this “universal” female experience that trans women are supposedly inherently excluded from (and that trans men are misguidedly trying to escape). This is obviously bullshit in some superficial ways—even just normal variation in family dynamics can give two women from similar class and cultural backgrounds different experiences. And there’s a strain of radfem rhetoric—usually aimed at trans men—that tries to claim that all women secretly hate being women or feel indifferent towards their gender but bioessentialism traps everyone in their AGAB and it’s best to just accept that. Which is uhhhhh NOT true and makes me very 👀 about the gender feelings of the people who try to claim it is.

But I really feel most radfem rhetoric falls apart instantly when the lens of race or class is applied. As OP says, an awful lot of radfem rhetoric is just “angel in the home” benevolent misogyny reskinned for a slightly different audience. But, as @mountaindwellingcreature points out, almost all of the supposedly “universal”, “essential” female experiences and traits posited by this strain of thought have NEVER been applied to women of color and Black women especially. And working class women of any race are frequently left out as well, as are many disabled women. Not only do women in these groups but especially women of color experience a totally different type of misogyny in their day-to-day lives, but their experiences of their gender in general are shaped by the fact that the basic assumptions of the people around them will be radically different.

In non-radical white feminism this is a reality that is only just beginning to be very hesitantly and haltingly addressed. Black women of all classes have been writing for some time about just how much of their reality remains unacknowledged by feminist rhetoric and activism, and that’s why it’s important to integrate Black voices like bell hooks, Audre Lorde, and Mikki Kendall into any formal study of feminism. (For a very accessible discussion of the ways that feminism could help everyone more by incorporating the concerns of poor and working class Black women, see Kendall’s book Hood Feminism.) In previous generations, many Black women subscribed to a more Black-inclusive strain of women’s empowerment called womanism, largely because the main feminist movement was so intensely dismissive of their concerns.

All of this leads to my point: Radfem ideology doesn’t even remotely make sense for most cis women. It requires a model of femininity that has only ever been applied to white middle class able bodied cis women in the West. I have seen people on this very website try to universalize their experiences of girlhood or womanhood to vast unifying archetypes and while I’m happy they’re enjoying their gender that does not work on any kind of activist of political level. The only way to carry actual for real women’s empowerment feminism forward into the future is to expand our definition of womanhood or else. And yeah, I include trans women in that but I also include Black women. I include working class women. I include Latino women and Asian women. I include women who don’t even live in Europe or North America. I include women who do but have precarious immigration status. I include women who can’t be caregivers because they need to be taken care of. I include women who are always considered default caregivers even when they SHOULD be the ones being taken care of. I include all queer women who don’t happen to fit the narrow definition of “acceptable” queerness allowed in radfem ideology. Radical feminism is an ideological dead end because its definition of womanhood is a bankrupt and weak-willed concession to a version of feminism that was incomplete and self-defeating when it was established, and one that many brilliant women have been systematically working to dismantle for decades.

The way to “save feminism”, if that’s the sort of thing that keeps you up at night, is to make it big enough to apply to and uplift many kinds of women, not by locking it down to the kind of humorless weirdo who breaks out the calipers on every woman they meet to ensure they meet a country club’s definition of womanhood.

We need to bring back the term “benevolent sexism” into widespread use for real. It’s a major mechanism in how bioessentialist Girlboss Radfems can be turned into bioessentialist conservative Tradwives.

[theconstitutionisgayculture]

(1/2) Speaking as a staunch Conservative, Conservatism absolutely has an inclusivity problem. Their PR mostly presents the "ideal" American family as white and Christian. You can definitely be non-Christian, non-white, and still love America and support small government. Why can't they promote black families? Or a Jewish or Muslim conservative? The also need to stop disparaging unwed, childless women who haven't been fortunate enough to find their person yet.

(2/2) Judgmental shit like that is what turns people off from right-wing circles. You know who doesn't tell women they've "hit their wall" by age 26? Left-wing feminists. You know who doesn't assume Christianity is the default religion for a person? Leftists. I know being non-white/non-Christian/unwed/childless isn't mutually exclusive from Conservatism, but right-wingers really need to show it better.

What the hell are you talking about? There are hundreds on non-white conservative/right wing voices out there. Candace Owens, Colion Noir, Eric July, Tim Scott, Marco Rubio, etc. There are dozens of non-white Republicans running for office nationwide in just over a week, at least. Republicans have been running Spanish language ads in majority Latino neighborhoods this year. The last 7 years has seen historic shifts of minorities leaving the Democrat party for the Republicans. Donald Trump is the only president this century that enacted meaningful prison reform, and he had several initiatives aimed at helping black families and black owned businesses. I could go on for practically forever just about the last ten years alone.

What you're talking about isn't an "inclusivity" problem. The right is much more inclusive than the left. What you want is to be pandered to. Sorry, but if that's what you want, the left is right over there. You can get all the soft-bigotry of low expectations and shallow attempts at representation you want, all while they take your vote and ignore you the other 364 days of the year.

As for why the American religious right mentions Christianity so much, it's because most Americans are some form of Christian.

The biggest group outside of Christianity are atheists, not Jews or Muslims. Which is why you've seen a softening of the hardline religious arguments on the right in the last 15 years. Even the pro-life arguments from very religious people have started to include secular and science based arguments against abortion, instead of just religious ones. But even when religion is mentioned, it's mentioned broadly. Faith in God is mentioned more than faith in Jesus. Aside from Mormons who tend to speak "as Mormons" or "to Mormons", you don't have right wing politicians speaking only to Protestants or Baptists or Lutherans or Catholics. They speak of God, and of having faith in God, and in needing to return to God, if they speak of religion at all. Those are all broad ideals. A Muslim has faith in God the same as a Christian. That they call that God Allah means little. The bigger differences are the beliefs and practices of their religion, what kind of God God is, who his prophets are, what doctrine is the official divine word and what's heresy or blasphemy, etc. But faith in God? That's universal to every Abrahamic religion.

As for disparaging unwed, childless women, outside of some trad circles, no one does that seriously. What people on the right tend to do is disparage women who sleep around. They don't like OnlyFans and many of them don't support porn and promote abstinence. For a "staunch conservative", you don't seem to have much experience with modern conservatism as a whole.

[antiterf]

I started thinking about how I'm more and more okay with talking about things like menstruation, abortion, and things specific to my reproductive system as an inherent part of my trans manhood. (Yes, that it what I'm going to call it).

And I thought to myself how I didn't see myself or any other trans men as inherently less as men for it. Even though it's something we definitely do not have in common with cis men, and whenever the topics are talked about it's hugely if not entirely focused around (cis) womanhood. Cis in parathenses because people like to act like cis womanhood is universal womanhood and default womanhood.

Part of me thinking about it was related back to the whole transandrophobia debate (seeing someone comparing it to white womanhood along with being compared to terfs, I'll get to the terf one later). It also relates back to how difficult it is to talk about how society will inherently treat trans men as a group like how they treat women, seen as harmless, confused, tricked, pitiful, or not seen at all. That obviously doesn't mean that trans men are women, it means that larger society still basis stereotypes on us related to our birth sex. How we are treated does not define who we are, even if we take those experiences and incorporate them into our identity and being.

With being compared to terfs, I could see where the person was coming from- hold on and hear me out. Ever since the transandrophobia thing started gaining, I immediately thought of terfs saying "oh? So you realize that you are A Woman? That the trans community doesn't actually care about you?" And general talking points that are ultimately there to make you feel like trans people don't care about you. People talking about transandrophobia typically bring up how trans men and trans mascs bringing up their experiences of oppression and trying to describe them is what makes people pissed off.

Basically, terfs will take transandrophobia being talked about as "proof" that the "tifs" are "peaking" and shit. We have a thing where "if the terf agrees with you, you're wrong" but can still agree that we delete terf posts after finding out they're a terf because that means the post now has a different meaning. It should be understood that just because a terf agrees with something, it doesn't mean they're perceiving it the same way the op is. So I understand, I fucking saw it coming for crying out loud, but I still don't think they're comparable. The ones speaking about these issues are trans men who see the issues as an inherent part of being a trans man, not as part of being a woman.

I thought how trans men are trans men, before I remembered one feminist saying "trans women are trans women" when asked if they were women and felt the immediate need to clarify with myself. Trans men are still men, but we have our own experiences to manhood that are explicitly different from cis men. The same way being a disabled man makes me experience manhood pretty differently than abled men. My lack of enjoying sports and being unable to do more physical chores relates to how disability impacts how my manhood is seen for instance. The lack of power, trouble with money and jobs, the inherent fact that I will need help all interferes with what my manhood "should" be.

That doesn't make me less of a man though. Just because I do not fit into the majority does not mean I don't fit into the general term "man" or "men." Feeling shame for not being able to shovel the driveway as the only man in my house isn't expected in the majority of men. Neither is feeling incredibly nervous about going to a gynecologist because of how I'll possibly be treated. My experience of my gender being different doesn't take away from it. Being a trans man matters in that way, not in a way where I'm "not really a man."

[olderthannetfic]

I wanted to ask you about radical feminism (TERF-ism & TIRF-ism). Radical feminism never seemed to be *necessarily* some of the really bad things that people on this blog say it is. For instance, everything roach-works says it is in an earlier post. There are at least some people I've read who are part of the movement of radical feminism (whether or not they would self-identify as that) and who really don't espouse any of the views in roach-works comments. (1/2) Thinking of the list of points

--

From nothorses - the people I’ve read (e.g. Iris Marion Young) *do* espouse many of these, but not so in a way that has to lead to these more extreme views that roach-works mentioned. One may not agree with them but they don’t seem so bad to me? Are they? Am I a terrible person? It disturbs me to hear something with the word 'feminism' in it denigrated so harshly, and it always seems to me like the views get mixed up with the worst half of the people who believe in them. (2/2)

(Appendix...) I feel there's a lot of truth in SOME of the views that nothorses correctly ascribes (i. m. o.) to radical feminists, in particular: "Women are all miserable with their bodies, cursed with the pressure to reproduce and have sex with men. ... miserable with their genders, forced as they are to ensure the overwhelming and constant suffering that is patriarchy." Is it just that the "all" makes the views too strong? Or is there, for critics, a more fundamental problem I'm missing?

I've seen some much nicer, saner people self-describe as radical feminists and object strenuously to how I see radfems... However, all of them still kept talking about porn in terms that only make sense if you're talking about the evils of the mainstream industry, and moreso the mainstream industry of the 1970s (which is when a lot of this rhetoric comes from). And yet this attitude gets over-applied to porn in general, regardless of medium, working conditions, or level of economic necessity involved in its creation.

The attitudes I think are pretty much universal in this ideology, and universally shitty, come out when they're confronted with fsub content by and for women.

Yeah, yeah, "mommy porn". I'm not saying Fifty Shades of Grey is well written or not kind of embarrassing, but when people start bleating about how confused womenfolk will get bad ideas from it, you should be suspicious, whether they're radfems or fundies.

"The hot billionaire falls in love with me for no reason and does all the work to make sex hot while I lie there like a dead fish" is a common fantasy. It really doesn't say anything about the woman in question, nor does it make the patriarchy stronger.

The big one to look for from nothorses list is #5:

Sex, in particular, is more often exploitative than not. Only some kinds of sex are not exploitative. Many kinds of sex that we think are consensual, or that people say are consensual, are either rape or proto-rape.

This is saying "BDSM is rape", which is something that most radfems do think once you scratch the surface. Rape roleplay is also rape and furthering the patriarchy.

Even if they make some small allowance for informed adults doing BDSM in some strict environment with specific rules, show them 50SoG and women's right to choose goes out the window. Sure, the relationship in the book looks pretty unhealthy, at least at the beginning, but the thing being criticized is readers' right to choose.

Even the radfems who support butchness and don't think butch women are gender traitors will usually be assholes over trashy wank material like 50SoG.

And once you open the door to "your libido is political", you've started down a very dark road that leads to a bunch of naturally kinky tumblr teens sitting in their bedrooms, staring at their computer screens, and wondering if they're a future rapist because they like a/b/o or sex pollen or something.

--

I get where you're coming from. Maybe you're in a context where most women are pretty miserable. But I'm not. I was raised by a mother who thought diets were stupid and telling your daughter what you think of her body is active child abuse.

Being a victim of abuse, including "you're too fat" type abuse, is neither inherent nor unique to women. Sure, women tend to be under the microscope, but so are lots of people.

As an upper middle class anglo white woman in the US and moreover as a woman who looks fairly conventionally femme even with my very hairy legs (much to my annoyance), I honestly don't experience that much policing. I already, through no fault and certainly no merit of my own, conform reasonably well to the "neutral" standard of white womanhood. My male equivalent would be the most unmarked in the US, but I'm only a little marked.

What this gender-obsessed analysis misses is that it's not about womanhood: it's about failing to be the "neutral" default. Poor people fail. Black people fail. Asian people fail. Disabled people fail. At least in the US. In Japan, third generation Korean-Japanese fail. Burakumin fail despite being ethnically Japanese due to having been a separate caste for centuries.

"Intersectionality" on social media tends to get used as miserypoker: the speaker with the most listed oppressions wins the argument and you should signal boost them or you're a bad person.

In actuality, what intersectionality means is recognizing that gender and sex may sometimes just not be very important in a given person's life if they experience enough privilege or if, conversely, they have such a profound lack of privilege elsewhere that this other identity overshadows gender in terms of their lived experience.

Radfem ideology says I must prioritize Woman out of my many identities. But, in reality, I feel more kinship with bisexual men than with lesbian women. I feel more kinship with kinky straight people than with bisexuals who want AO3 and pride parades to be nothing but g-rated hand holding.

--

I get that it's upsetting for people to be railing against something called "feminism", but that's like saying that disliking the Jews for Jesus makes you antisemitic. The whole point is that a lot of people feel that radical feminism is pretty anti-woman in many of its core values.

I don't think you're a bad person. I do think that some of the underpinnings of radfem ideology lead directly to sensitive people who are concerned about such things wondering if they are.

[lightshiningforth]

I feel that The Office is a better show to HAVE watched than to watch. Because, honestly? Watching it is straight up painful most of the time. The humor often depends on punching down. White, straight people are seen as the default in The Office. When Michael reacts offensively to someone who is "other" from that (Oscar, Kelly, Stanley), the humor is in an "oh, you can't say that!" scandalous sort of way. I.e., the audience is meant to laugh and sympathize with the embarrassment of the "good" white/straight characters who know better. Everyone reacts with weak cringing to the racism, the homophobia, the sexism, that really should be met with abject horror and sympathy to the marginalized. Frequently, Michael goes too far: 

Sexually harassing (and assaulting!) Oscar after he finds out that the latter is gay (as OP mentions)

Lots of sexual comments about the women in the office 

Lots of racist caricatures during the board meetings  

Lots of racist comments to workers of color, both in the office and the warehouse (while we're at it, the whole dynamic between the office and the warehouse workers often made me super uncomfortable)  

We're supposed to laugh at Michael for this, not with him. But laughing at all suggests that these things aren't that serious, and they are. Real people experience harassment in the workplace all the time, and real perpetrators are forgiven in the "oh, Michael" sort of way that Michael often is. He means well overall, so never mind, the show suggests. Even when HR very reasonably steps in, it comes across as more of an optics thing than anything else. Plus, Michael isn't always the one in the wrong, and when other characters step out of line, it's often critiqued even less in-universe: 

Everyone makes fun of Kevin, and Kevin falls smack-dab into the fat and dumb stereotype.

Lots of Dwight's made-up cultural background includes sexism and racism. At one point his cousin Mose dresses up in blackface and we're supposed to laugh at how wrong that is, which in my opinion is going too far.  

Jim, an overall nice person, can be condescending to the warehouse workers, musing aloud about how their job can't be that hard. Similarly, Pam accuses a Mexican warehouse worker of defacing her mural and mixes up different Black workers. And we're supposed to feel bad for her, in and "whoops, she was accidentally racist, that's so bad, ha ha" kind of way. Yikes. Both Jim and Pam have very "nice white person" energy where they'd never do what Michael does but still regularly commit microaggressions. And the show problematically frames that so we're meant to sympathize with them when they blunder, rather than with the people who would be hurt by that.  

What sucks is that they don't have to do that. The show demonstrates over the course of its run that it CAN produce effective humor that doesn't depend on bigotry. Take the famous fire drill scene, with the chaos of every character reacting in their own bonkers way. Pam and Jim trying to do the responsible thing and call 911/break out of the office. Oscar climbing into the ceiling. Angela revealing and then throwing her secret office cat. Dwight STARTING the fire for the sake of "fire safety." There's so much humor in the chaos and the character dynamics, and it's not about everyone reacting to Michael being an asshole.

It's even possible for them to use Michael's buffoonery effectively in ways that don't involve bigotry. He doesn't understand what a pyramid scheme is. He makes everyone celebrate his birthday. He burns his foot on a grill because he likes breakfast bacon in bed. Even hitting Meredith with his car is funny, because it's slapstick comedy and no part of it depends on forgiving very real and very harmful racism, sexism, and homophobia.

And then there's the part of the show that's not necessarily humorous, but enjoyable - the relationships among the characters. Jim and Pam falling in love. Jim and Dwight's semi-antagonistic friendship. Angela and Oscar's eventual surprising but heartfelt friendship. Hell, even Dwight and Angela falling in love - they're weird, unpleasant people who make each other very happy.

Circling back to the statement I made at the beginning of this long-winded post, The Office is better to HAVE seen than to see. If you've seen it already, you can enjoy the good bits. If you're watching it for the first time, there's a lot of crap to wade through.

God, I am genuinely struggling to watch The Office. I love sitcoms, I love the memes spawned from that series, so I thought I would easily love this show but MY GOD is Michael Scott the most obnoxious, frustrating and hateable character I've seen since Ross Geller.

It's such a pity because I actually started to care about Pam and Jim's story, they have genuine chemistry and I want to see how they will finally get together but I cannot stomach another second with that snivelling, annoying bug masquerading as a human man and yet the story expects me to care about him and laugh at his antics.

The beginning was so rough I just quit, but the last few weeks I gave it another chance and also because I had nothing better to do, so I mostly let it run in the background while I was doing other stuff.

But Season 3, Episode 1 broke me. I can't anymore. I was rooting for Oscar when he finally snapped and yelled at Michael for his disgusting, homophobic behavior. Like, finally some real and true accountability and consequences for Michael's truly vomit-inducing behavior? Is a marginalized character FINALLY allowed to yell at him and tell that man-child no?

BUT THEN. THE SILENCE AND THE LINGERING CAMERA WHICH MADE IT CLEAR THAT I, THE WATCHER, AM EXPECTED TO FEEL BAD FOR MICHAEL? OSCAR FUCKING APOLOGIZING TO HIM?

Oscar yelling that he doesn't want to touch Michael and then later is forced to anyway because oh no, the cishet white man's feelings were hurt :( he didn't mean to be homophobic but the mean gay is now yelling at him :(

There are about 4 minutes left to the episode but nope, I'm out. My patience is stretched so thin I am feeling the urge to punch someone.

I will continue to enjoy The Office memes but the show itself is just too unwatchable for me because of that one character.

[nicollekidman]

dude ...I used to hope Taylor swift was bi / a fellow lesbian out of optimism lol, because i admire her work and when seen through the lens of a closeted woman all the secrecy metaphors make a lot of sense.... it would be so fascinating and heartbreaking if it were true! but I’m getting too old for conspiracies . I dunno. What keeps you believing?

okay so! i’m gonna preface this with a few things: it’s gonna be long bc i haven’t talked about taylor in a long time and i’m having Feelings and Thoughts, and my journey with miss swift is necessarily very personal and i won’t pretend otherwise! 

firstly: i don’t think i need to “keep” being convinced. for me it’s not an ongoing search for evidence - i believe that her songs speak for themselves and all the personal clues that might or might not be reaches are just icing on the cake. 

i grew up in a country music-listening household and loved tim mcgraw when it came out as a single when i was in middle school! i was pretty much hooked on her songwriting for then on, and her albums always seemed to come out at pivotal points of my life. “we are never ever getting back together” was the soundtrack to my move to university in 2012 and 1989 coincided with my junior year which was revelatory in that it was the time when i was really coming to terms with being gay. my journey with taylor dovetails super closely with my own personal journey, in ways that i think are familiar to a lot of people. as a young girl i latched onto her storytelling and her confessional voice and then as i began to realize i was experiencing attraction to women, i found a lot of comfort and understanding in her lyrics. this happened for me really late in life compared to some people! i was 21/22 when i first identified as bi, and it wasn’t until later i began to think it was possible i was a lesbian. my experience with unlearning compulsory heterosexuality, examining my own emotional interior life, and thinking about why it took me over 20 years to even consider i could possibly love women made me look at taylor in a new light. 

i think everything i need is in her music. that’s where taylor is at her most uninhibited and truthful. i think when you look at the themes/relationships she’s been writing about since she was a teen, you can see that as long as you’re willing to suspend the presupposition that everyone is straight until proven otherwise, she writes in a way that resonates with gay women for a reason!! as a younger artist she relied on a lot of fairy tale imagery, perspective shifts, and idealized stories of love. especially when she talks about those songs.... (and she still does this), she’s always connecting them to movies, to books, to things outside of her own experience. and when she is clearly talking about herself, she takes second-person pov or otherwise spins narratives that are full of yearning and a hope for a perfect fairytale in the future. i think that mode of almost.... daydreaming about an idealized version of a love story hits close to home for us! and then her later albums are MUCH louder, with themes (as people have pointed out over and over again) that just don’t hold much weight if you view them through the lense of a very famous wealthy woman writing about equally well-to-do white men. when i hear songs about forbidden love, itching to hold the hand of your beloved in public, crying over seeing heroes die alone, spinning a portrait of a life in the future where she can share her home and her love with all her friends.... when she writes so acutely of pain and agony associated with living in a fishbowl and enduring long periods of being undercover and secretive with only stolen moments of peace/beauty.... EVERYTHING i need to believe she’s not straight is in her songwriting, which i view through the personal lense of being a gay woman myself. 

everything else... the masterposts and the powerpoints and the “clues”... those are helpful in terms of opening your eyes to the concept of PR relationships and recognizing that just because you’re fed something by a celebrity doesn’t mean it’s real, but it’s not the base of my feelings about taylor. i will say though, i originally was convinced that taylor was a lesbian because of swiftgron, what we know about the two of them publicly without any reaching was enough for me to recontexualize lyrics i thought i knew the story behind, and to start thinking about her whole body of work differently. i will say also that i was never one to follow along with taylor’s personal life until this point, i had a passing awarness of the men she was supposed to have dated but i didn’t give it much thought. however, i saw swiftgron stuff right as i was recognizing i was gay myself, so it opened my eyes and almost... gave me permission to understand that het is not the default!! then of course i’ve been active since 1989 and watced kaylor unfold in real time. it is still my belief that during the glass closeting era, they were obvious because the kaylor rumors benefited both of them and laid the groundwork for a coming out that was derailed by kissgate. everything afterwards..... well... 

i am not a fan of thinking of this as a “conspiracy” i think that that idea is perpetuated by homophobes that think that everyone is straight and assuming otherwise is somehow an insult or a gross invasion of privacy. i think the vast majority of people who think taylor is gay are doing what all swifties do, which is analyze her music with a layer of projection and personal identification. however i do think that taylor encouraged the speculation for a while, and fully intended to leverage existing kaylor fans into a solid base when she came out (which i do think was planned post-yntcd but was shelved). i think there is PLENTY to look at in her public image and personal posts/behavior that would lead to a person who is willing to look at things objectively to come to the conclusion that she wasn’t straight. she has absolute control over her image and there were too many public outings and “coincidences” to be an accident. 

HOWEVER i think that people who run blogs or talk about her gayness based on obscure clues and overanalyzing every micro-movement are missing the point and often too dedicated to their own placement as “Big Blogs” or receivers of “intel”, in a way that is mostly embarassing and myopic. i have always always been of the general opinion that we will never know every detail of taylor’s relationships, nor are we entitled to that information. she is a breathing, thinking, complicated woman with a HUGE public life and an equally huge private life that belongs to her alone. 

building a public platform based on smoke signals and secret messages and inside sources has never been something i’m at all interested in, and is largely unnecessary. her story is all right there in the lyrics of her songs, and the things she shares with us publicly. i do think there have been hints/clues in the past and they’re very fun to analyze (which she encouraged!!), but much of the digging/reaching is unnecessary! we will never know for sure until she comes out herself, but i believe that her whole body of work and her messaging speaks for itself. the only thing keeping people from more widely accepting this is truly the assumption that being heterosexual is a default, and you have to Prove otherwise with a preponderance of evidence. i readily admit all of this is influenced by my experiences and emotions as a gay woman, but everyone projects onto taylor swift. 

i’m fully convinced based on her music + her past public relationships with women like dianna and karlie + her intentional hints that she is a lesbian. however i am not interested in inventing “evidence” because she’s not on trial! and i’m happy to wait for her to come out, which i absolutely think was planned for lover era and then abandoned for various reasons!! 

[serpentstole]

Luciferian Challenge: Day 12+13 (And 22)

A few of these prompts ended up being very similar in theme, so I’ve combined them into a bit of a long reply.

Dogma is something we throw about…that we reject it. Where do you think we may fall short as Luciferians/Satanists when it comes to dogma? Do you think dogma has a certain value?

I don’t think dogma has any value really, no, as I don’t like the idea of rules or ideas that cannot be questioned on principle. Even as a child, I took issue with blind obedience. My mother once called me downstairs, and I asked why, and my father got angry and said that I shouldn’t bother to ask why and just do it, and that even if one of them told me to jump out of a window they probably had a good reason for it.

That memory is seared into my brain and still irks me.

I do think rules themselves can be important, but when we speak of rejecting dogma it’s typically in the sense of it being some authoritative status quo that cannot be discussed or challenged. I think my example above is a good example of that, as petty as it may seem: that parents should be obeyed without question and with the assumption they have our best interests at heart.

I do not believe there’s room for that sort of attitude in an empathetic and respectful society, even towards children. Respecting their natural curiosity and teaching them about bodily autonomy is something I think can only be a net good. The only thing growing up in a strict household taught me, where there was little room for negotiation or challenging of the way things were, was how to be a decent liar.

It harmed me in far more ways than it helped instill any positive values, and while I would not want to belittle the experiences of anyone in a similar boat, I consider myself one of the lucky ones. There are some families where a dogmatic stance, whether based in politics or religion, can lead to the alienation or outright abandonment of LGBT youth, of young women who wish control over their own bodies, of those with views that differ from their parents’, or any other black sheep.

I feel like this question and my thoughts on it really go hand in hand with the next one, so I’m going to actually combine them into one post and make up the difference later.

Do you think it’s dogma or silly to say what Luciferianism/Satanism is not?

I do not think it’s dogmatic to say what Luciferianism or Satanism is or isn’t. The reason I’ve kept both labels in these two prompts, when I’ve removed them in every other post, is because I spent a lot of time in a mixed Luciferian and Satanist community during the beginning of my religious journey. Despite our differences, especially in the case of Atheist Satanism versus Theistic Luciferianism, I saw a great deal of overlap in a lot of the values/ideals, inspirations, and talking points. 

I think outlining those ideals and values is important to just… having a label. Words mean things. Religious affiliations and ideas mean things. Even saying you belong to or adhere to a school of thought typically has some manner of definition or parameters. While Luciferianism and Satanism can be incredibly diverse when it comes to the details of one’s ethics and morals, practices, views of the divinity or lack there of, and other suck points, there’s a good deal that does unite us that’s reflected in the archetypal figures our religions are named after. I also believe that certain aspects of what is seen as the Standard Luciferian should be weighed more or less heavily. For example, I don’t see my irritation with hostility towards Christianity as something that makes me less of a Luciferian.

However, I want to combine these two prompts with one more to round out my view of this topic. 

What do you disagree with Luciferians/Satanists most?

In the goddamn dogma they cling to and perpetuate while claiming to be adversarial to or enlightened above such ideas. It’s become almost a meaningless buzzword. It barely still looks like a real word to me anymore. This is honestly where my post goes completely off the rails into a mini essay, so it’s under the cut.

The idea that all “Abrahamic” religions should be treated as inherently harmful and oppressive is a bad take. 

That Christianity, Judaism, and Islam should even be lumped together when discussing such issues betrays a shallow understanding of these religions that’s been regurgitated from one person to another, typically through a culturally Christian lens.

The idea that “only LaVeyan Satanism should be called Satanism because nothing else that calls itself Satanism is actually Satanism” is exhausting, and I will fist fight Anton myself in hell.

The principles of Might Makes Right and Social Darwanism that some Satanists perpetuate is dumb and bad and wrong, sorry, that’s the only rebuttal I’m dignifying that school of thought with. Once again, I will be fist fighting Anton in hell.

And that’s to say nothing of the Satanists and Luciferians out there that regurgitate the same racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, and other assorted bigotries that they’ll condemn religions like Christanity for while perpetuating it with a coat of black paint. Because I have absolutely seen this first hand, both as an observer and as the target of it.

Like... I can’t speak on Islam at all, because I have very very limited experience with it from both a research and real life experience point of view, and thus I’m not comfortable making any claims. On the other hand, I do know that to list all the ways that Judaism is not a dogmatic religion would deserve its own post written by someone far more knowledgeable than me, and it somehow still gets lumped into the Problematic n’ Dogmatic category of AbRaHaMiC ReLiGiOnS. For that reason, in the case of Islam, I can’t help but wonder if the assumption that it’s also dogmatic comes from the harmful assumption that it’s a religion that’s strict to the point of harshness that a lot of people have.

Even in the case of Christianity, which I would argue (as someone who I’d say was raised within the church) is hands down the most seemingly dogmatic of the three (particularly in North America), this is just not universally true. If it was, there probably wouldn’t be so many branches and denominations, many of which cannot stand each other and think the rest are misguided at best and heretical at worst. This is something that’s even brought up in the Satanic Bible; I’ve read the miserable thing. Have you ever seen someone say “Christians and Catholics”? That’s a pretty loaded example of how much disagreement exists within the religion when an entire core branch of it is considered tangentially related.

Not to mention, I was raised Lutheran. That came about because a German Catholic got incredibly steamed at his own religion so he made a more boring different version of it. While the existence of dogma has led to these schisms, historically speaking, the end result has been a religion so varied that it’s hard to say what is and isn’t treated as inarguable law. If you don’t believe me, try talking to a Protestant pastor about the Seven Deadly Sins and see how far you get. I tried during confirmation class and got shut down immediately... but on the flip side, my church was pretty accepting of LGBT folks, which I think some people would claim Christianity is dogmatically against by default.

Is there dogmatic thinking within specific churches or branches or communities? Absolutely, I wouldn’t argue that. I think it can arise in any community, religious or not, but that some religious communities seem to be particularly vulnerable to it. But the harm those specific cases could do should be where our focus goes, not the condemnation of these religions or the concept of religion as a whole, which I touched on in a previous prompt. 

I’m not some glorious enlightened mind. I would not want to give the impression that I think I hold in my hands the One True Way to do Luciferianism, or that I think the majority of this religious community are uncritical edgelords. This is, after all, my answer to the thing I take issue with the most, not my thoughts on Luciferianism or Satanism as a whole. I just don’t think it should be a particularly hot take that Religious Discrimination Is Bad Actually, or that maybe you can be rebellious and adversarial and hedonistic and enlightened while still genuinely giving a shit about people. Because otherwise what’s the point?

If we are hostile and rebellious with no actual end goal, no greater cause or purpose, we are simply being contrarian for the sake of it. If we blame the idea of organized religion instead of those who manipulate and abuse faith and scripture for selfish and malicious ends, we’ve missed the point, as I said in the aforementioned previous post. Not all of us have the ability to become an activist, obviously, and I would not ask you to. But I think as those who would claim to reject dogmatic thinking and strive to embody either the ideals of enlightenment or the adversary would do well to be ever questioning their preconceptions of the world around them, of other religions, and of less obvious unjust structures of power.

I don’t know why a community that believes in illumination and free thinking sees the world in such black and white ways.

While I will always strive for a greater understanding of the world, and I hold the concept of enlightenment very dear to my heart, I think it’s something that one spends a lifetime working towards. Alongside my favourite quotes from Paradise Lost, I hold the Socratic Paradox of “I know that I know nothing” as a personal motto, and I wish more people who I share this label with would do the same.

[bisexualgarrus]

could you explain why the "all men are bad" mentality is bad? idk bc I see poc saying they hate white people and gay ppl saying they hate straight people and trans ppl saying they hate cis ppl and everyone thinks it's fine but when women say they hate men lots of people have an issue. im not really informed in this tho and most of the explanations ive seen are just ppl babying men bc "it's not their fault they were born men" so id really appreciate any input you have!!

well for starters i don't really think we should be comparing misogyny to other forms of oppression because the way women experience misogyny is always tied to their race, sexuality, social status, nationatily, religion, and many more factors. misogyny is such a broad concept i don't really think you can reduce it to just one simple word, because although society as a whole is misogynistic, misogyny itself is not a universal and unique experience among women. it looks really different depending on the context. but well that's just something i wanted to clarify before explaining the other point.

now the problem with the "men are trash" mentality. i don't think it's always a problem that women complain about men. after all we do experience misogyny and it's okay to want to speak out about it. but at one point we need to draw the line and be careful with what and how we speak about these issues because they can backfire on other minorities. saying or even implying that all men are abusive by default leads to:

victim-blaming women, whether they're straight, bi, or even lesbian, that are being abused by their partners because "well if they didn't want to be abused they shouldn't have dated a man!"

contributes to racial stereotypes that portray men of color, especially dark skinned men, as aggressive and abusive.

can backfire on trans women because a big part of terf ideology is trying to convince other women that biological men are "the enemy"

can be harmful towards gay men and even straight up homophobic, since they're trying to accept and celebrate their sexuality only to be told 24/7 that men are gross and they shouldn't like them

so basically. it's not bad for women to complain and speak out about misogyny, but this mob mentality that men are inherently Bad is not the way.

if anyone wants to add or correct anything please do so with respect.

[hello--mrs]

Steven Universe Podcast: Battle of Heart and Mind

I don’t usually do this but I said I would for the server, so here we are. 

This episode included Rebecca Sugar, Kat Morris, Joe Johnston, Matt Burnett, Ben Levin, and Ian Jones-Quartey. 

·     The episode starts with the rainbow worm in Steven’s dream, who is voiced by Deedee. This is the last homage to the princess references in the arc. The worm is from the Kyanite colony and was brought to Homeworld by Pink, which Blue allowed, but then Pink released all worms in the ballroom. Rebecca mentions this links with Pink’s desire to be free by releasing animals from their colonies. 

·   This specific princess reference was to Jasmine (in Aladdin) opening the cage and allowing the birds to fly free. It was also a reference to Pink’s love of animals and wanting to set them free, which isn’t out of character for Steven either. 

·   For Diamond Days, they picked the most common princess tropes for Steven’s time on Homeworld and made this experience alienating for him. 

·   Rebecca states that the Diamonds are meant to exist as a body- the inspiration for the ship. Pink is the Id, Blue and Yellow are the Ego, and White is the Super Ego. This is represented in Change Your Mind where the collective mind experiences embarrassment when the Id demands they enjoy something. 

·   Kat admits that they came up with the new outfits by continuously emailing each other with ideas. Rebecca said they considered everything but there were some concepts that they really wanted, for example, Rainbow 2.0 would have a scarf and a jacket. It was important either way that the fusions would notably have Steven’s clothes and the gems. However, the fusions would hint at the new forms and Pearl didn’t end up having a scarf, but she did have the jacket. Later, McKenzie asked if the jacket was a throwback to Bad Pearl and Rebecca confirmed that it represented her independence. 

·   One of Garnet’s new designs included transparent glasses and Peridot’s glasses in the shape of a star. Kat came up with the idea for the shredded shorts and star pockets for Amethyst. 

·   All of the new outfits represent how the gems have changed and learned from Steven. 

·   Rebecca mentioned that Pearl has been ‘playing the field’ and ‘exploring who she is’, which started in Last One Out of Beach City.

·   Lapis has gold accents on her new outfit to match the real-life gem stone. Kat said that Rebecca really wanted the sandals for Lapis and it makes for comfortable cosplay. 

·   Joe said that he enjoyed a lot of Garnet’s new designs. Most ideas were based off superheroes and had a more ‘knightly’ aspect. 

·   They confirmed that they tried Peridot’s new design with star hair but it was too much. Rebecca said that the glasses already change her silhouette and expose her gem more. 

·   Peridot also has boots this time. Before, she had socks because she used to wear limb enhancers. 

·  Mary Poppins and Bert were the inspiration for Rainbow 2.0. These concepts were made by Joe around 2-3 years ago. Sunstone was a newer concept. 

·  Rebecca said that all Garnet fusions can break the fourth wall, but with Steven, it would break it to give advice to children. The suction cups are also a combination of Steven’s shield and Garnet’s gauntlets. When creating Sunstone, Rebecca wanted her to look like a toy that you could stick in the back window of a car with suction cups. 

·  Alistair James auditioned for Rainbow 2.0 by doing an impression of his grandmother with a British accent. Rebecca said that Shoniqua was perfect and she knew immediately that she wanted her for Sunstone. She sounded exactly like how Miki Brewster pitched her. 

·  For Obsidian, they’d had her concept from the very beginning since she was shown as the temple. It was a hidden in sight visual that would eventually pay off. 

·  Obsidian’s sword is in the ocean, which is a part of the temple. It’s first seen in Bubble Buddies and seen again in Ocean Gem when the ocean is cleared. The sword design changed over time to ensure that all the Crystal Gem’s weapons could fit into the design. 

·  The earliest inspiration for White Diamond is traced back to the beginning of the show. She was inspired by the film ‘A Story of Menstruation’, which was made in 1946. It was a film by Disney played in schools to teach children what to expect in menstruation, and the narrator’s voice was a kindly older woman. Rebecca said that she found the designs really interesting and cute. 

·  From the film, the inspiration came from a scene where a woman cried into her arms but in the reflection of her mirror, she straightens up and starts smiling before going out dancing. The narrator says: “Don’t forget that people are around you and you’ll have to be more pleasant if you want people to like you”. The scene passes by and it ignores that fact that the woman was crying earlier, because she’s now seen being ‘correct’. This is the voice and the feeling that she went for with White Diamond and Homeworld. 

·  Homeworld is inspired by Busby Berkeley, and White is inspired by Hedy Lamarr in Ziegfeld Girl and Nell Brinkley drawings, all within an era where women were seen as beautiful pieces of furniture. Rebecca states: Women are like lamps, smiling and there, part of the scenery. It all originates from the idea that people thought it was lovely and seen as an escape from reality. 

·  Those early inspirations were also used for the wall gems- the idea that people are in the background as if turned to stone and function solely as architecture. These faces we see in the architecture are gems and that’s their function. 

·  White has always been associated as a mother, especially in terms of her storyline with Steven in this arc, and how gems are viewed as her children. This arc wanted to begin to explore her relationship with them. 

·  Rebecca says that White’s way of thinking is that she is everyone and everyone is her. She considers herself the default white light that passes through other gems, so when she sees gems absorb other colours from that light, she considers it a variation of her but lesser. In that way, she has no identity at all because she considers herself just light. She feels that people can be turned into her because they are all the same. 

·  Rebecca also stated that White is wrong about how she views the world and herself. It’s an antithesis to Rose’s journey- expression and repression. She lives in a delusion that everything is fine but it isn’t. 

·  Matt and Ben said that the whole episode was balanced by ensuring that every single character got their moment. It was an accumulation of ideas from over the years that they tried to fit into one episode, such as Amethyst greeting Jasper after she was uncorrupted. They felt they did everything they wanted to do before they left. 

·  All past episodes, especially for Diamond Days, were made to build up to the scene with White and Steven where she pulled out his gem. Mirror Gem is the first time they introduce the concept that a sentient gem can be trapped inside an object and that object is Steven. They’ve been planting hints that Pink may be trapped inside him ever since. 

·  From the beginning, they’ve wanted there to be doubt that Steven was his own person and have the audience question if Pink/Rose could still be alive. Even when the gem was pulled out, they still wanted the viewer to doubt if he was Steven. They planted enough hints that the viewer would think it could go either way. 

·  Between the crew, the hottest debates were about the storyline between Steven and Rose/Pink, about who Steven would be if they were separated. One of the most recent arguments was about Steven’s gem self and the fact he was devoid of any feeling, that there was none at all. That emotion came from Steven. 

·  Rebecca had planned the split perspective scene since the start of development and storyboarded it early in the process. It’s still from Steven’s point of view. Ian noted that if the show wasn’t completely from his perspective, it wouldn’t work. The split perspective was to also represent how torn and disoriented Steven was in that moment. 

·  Pink Steven is him as a default. If you take away his personality and emotion, he is empty. He’s been separated from his humanity and all that’s left is power. There have been nods to this in the past by showing how his power is greater because of his humanity and his capacity to love. 

·  Ian said that Rebecca has always had the idea of the final confrontation being about Steven’s relationship with his powers and that connection showing who he really is. Steven wants that human side of him, even if it slows him down, because it’s what makes him who he is.  

·  The scene of Steven returning to himself was originally written for episode 10. It was going to be a part of Giant Woman where they establish fusion. 

·  Rebecca confirms that James Baxter animated the scene where Steven reunites with Pink Steven. She met him by doing a drawing for his daughter’s birthday. 

·  The fusion sequence with the two Stevens was the ultimate princess trope- a rotating dancing scene specifically boarded by James Baxter. He completed the whole sequence himself apart from the inking. 

·  Ian mentioned that he wanted the uncorrupted gems scene for a long time. He said they always knew the arc would come back to the corrupted gems as that was the original conflict of the series, but now they finally get to see it through. 

·  On top of that, Ian went through every single episode that had a corrupted gem and designed their healed versions, while Rebecca added some of the quartz designs. He mentioned that the longer they were in their ‘monster’ form, the more they will look like that form, even when they’re healed. That’s why several of the healed gems look more like their original designs.

·  Rebecca added that Ian helped with the fusion designs and their sequence, as that was a wishlist moment for him. He wanted Steven to fuse with all the gems in a row. 

·  Ian said that he had been most excited about Rainbow 2.0 and that Colin Howard had done most of the groundwork already. 

·  Rainbow is they/them and he/him, and Sunstone is they/them and she/her. 

·  Rainbow 2.0 is mixed with Pearl’s properness and Steven’s penchant for making jokes. Rainbow 2.0 loves to make puns and is a throwback to Steven’s puns in the earlier series. In the episode, Ian also came up with the idea that RQ 2.0 could ride their umbrella and have a rainbow shoot out of the end- a reference to Pearl being able to shoot lasers out of her spear. 

·  With Sunstone and Rainbow 2.0, they wanted to be able to show common traits in Sardonyx. The break in the fourth wall comes from Garnet, but loving to hear themselves talk comes from Pearl. Steven enables the both of them to embrace their silly sides. 

·  The ship foot falling on them was a slight reference to Monty Python but also a reference to the giant foot mentioned in Arcade Mania. 

·  Rebecca stated that the song Change Your Mind was not written for the show, but a personal song she wrote while fighting for the wedding arc. She was hesitant at first to include it. 

·  Change Your Mind isn’t for the end of the Steven Universe franchise but for this arc, Ian mentions. He adds that even though it was written for the process of including the wedding, it perfectly captures the theme of the show. As a coming of age story, Rebecca notes that this is something that had to happen for Steven to start making decisions for himself. 

·  Rebecca also admits it has been hard to write for Steven because he always puts others before himself. It’s always about what others want and what he thinks they want. However, he finally comes to a realisation in this arc that he doesn’t have to be anyone else other than himself or pamper to other’s expectations. 

·  Ian states that this arc was incredibly important for Steven’s development, in terms of who he is, who he thinks he is, and who others believe him to be. Moving forward, everything will be different from Steven’s perspective. There’s going to be more but it will have changed, because Steven has changed. 

If I’ve missed anything out, let me know. Hope you guys enjoy!