#being a feminist actually Means something .

[boomstab-papa]

Oh absolutely, giving misogynists captive girlfriends/wives isn't going to fix anything. Being a little more misogynist to try to appease misogynists won't work.

But "giving any credence" is such an interesting phrase to use here, because it's so ambiguous and also accusatory. What does "giving credence" mean? Who has been doing it? What have they been advocating for? Who, for example, has been saying leftists should be more misogynist, and how?

I'm not alone in this confusion, either, there are several comments on the tweet who are equally perplexed.

The fact is that the left DOES NEED a better approach to people who are feeling lost, angry, and scared.

Alt-right "self-help" authors and programs are hugely popular. These predators target lost, scared, and angry people. They're cults, really. And no matter how much the left discusses things like "can we stop parroting bioessentialist bullshit because hey, men aren't destined to be misogynistic assholes"... these alt-right cultists don't ever even have to TALK TO a leftist to repeatedly hear "leftists hate you for being born white/male/rich/etc". I really can't get over how Rush Limbaugh popularized the term "feminiazi" and told an entire generation that feminists were angry man-haters when they literally are not. But that's exactly how the grift works!! I should know, I grew up in exactly this Rush Limbaugh kind of house!!

"Don't blame the hyper-wealthy for ruining the economy, blame women and foreigners for taking all the jobs! Don't blame the ruined economy when nobody wants to have kids anymore, blame the women! Don't blame patriarchy and all the misogyny it taught you when women avoid your misogynist ass, blame the women! Remember, the feminazis hate you!!"

So what to do?

On an interpersonal level, sometimes it can be really easy. This is a comment made to Innuendo Studios's video "How to Radicalize A Normie" on this exact topic (which I highly recommend watching).

"Hey, ex-alt-right member here. First, really like this series. I feel like you’re validating the radicalization that me and my male friends experienced. Putting it into words and showing us how we got tricked, exposing the magician and their tricks. Second, I vot out not through argument and discussion but actually through feelings. I was very edgy and would use the n-word in jokes all the time. My male friends would not call me out on it. But a female friend of mine said it made her uncomfortable and that she didn’t appreciate these jokes when we played fortnite together. That shook me to my core as I cared for my friend and that’s how my deradicaliztion started. Just wanted to add in this personal story, keep up the great work :)"

If this is someone you know, tell them their behavior is not cool.

THIS GOES DOUBLE FOR THE MEN READING THIS. Misogynists are more likely to listen to you than they are to listen to women!! If someone is being a shithead in your vicinity, consider: are you gonna let it slide? Or are you maybe, possibly, going to be the one thing that yanks them out of a hatespiral and prompts them to re-examine their hateful worldview? Tell them "hey not cool".

This might not work the first time. This might not work at all for some people. But if the situation is relatively safe, then it's worth trying.

And this does not mean that you personally are responsible for "centering men in your conversations" or "marginalized people putting in even more emotional labor" or "if a man is misogynist it's because you failed him" what the fuck ever like I've seen in this discourse. Come the fuck on.

It means you can probably try saying something to somebody you know. And if it doesn't work? You can say you tried.

On a policy level, we have more work to do. It shouldn't come as a surprise to any leftist that the current economic and political system in the USA exists to separate and exploit people. I think we all agree it really sucks to live in a system like this. Your average reactionary misogynist also thinks the system sucks, but as explained above, they've been trained to place the blame on some convenient scapegoats instead. Immigrants. Women. Queer people. Muslims. Anybody who's not white. Et cetera. "Government needs to get out of the way of smart people and then Elon Musk will build a utopia for The Faithful (which includes me) on Mars" or some shit.

These people need to hear that their anger is justified, but that their blame is misplaced. They need policies that will hold the responsible parties accountable. They need policies that won't leave them impoverished and isolated and exhausted after working a 40+ hour work week. They need to realize the system isn't sorting people into "the worthy rich" and "the unworthy poor", rather, that it's exploiting everyone except the wealth-owning class. They need to realize it's their politicians' biggest campaign donors that are doing this to them.

The Democratic Party needs to actually talk about this. I'll be dangerously pithy here: the Democratic Party needs to sound more like Bernie Fucking Sanders. Politicians need to oppose health insurance companies and get Medicare For All going. Politicians need to stop voting to give the military two fucking billion dollars every single day and fund free college and trade schools. Politicians need to tell business interests to fuck off and get a livable minimum wage AND a universal basic income passed, which will severely undercut employers' ability to exploit and isolate us.

And we need Citizens United repealed. Badly. I'm not trying to imply the problem is only with Republicans' campaign donors, because Democrats' biggest campaign donors are also often the same people exploiting us. But look at how Democrats did a tiny little bit of pro-union and anti-trust work these past 4 years and they screamed bloody fucking murder. If Democrats are relying on these people's money to get them elected, I think it's going to be really hard to get policies passed that will actually make USAmericans safer and happier (ie. address Republicans' economic fears that they keep blaming on various scapegoats).

Although with Republicans controlling the entire Federal government for the next two years minimum, this feels more distant than ever.

That's what we need to be taking seriously. If you don't give any credence to the fears and insecurities underlying the horrifying reactionary politics, you're not actually addressing anything. If you can't admit that capitalism fucks all of us over and makes all of us miserable and looking for a remedy, are you even a leftist?

[daisywords]

thinking about this post but also it's more than that. do you ever think about how stories starring men are allowed to be about humanity but stories starring women have to be about Womanhood

[quillkiller]

One thing i find so interesting about feminism today is it’s like you can’t even say women are victims anymore. you say women are abused by men and people scream their heads off about how men can be victims and suddenly without anyone realizing the narrative shifted and now women are not allowed to be the oppressed minority anymore bc everyone will try to explain it away. it’s all white women tears or rich women etc. so people act like you’re Insane for saying maybe we should look out for celebrity women lol

!!!!!!!! ive been saying

it’s so fucking depressing!!! it’s like the whole amber heard thing all over again. people see it trending on tiktok that now we’re all supposed to hate her so that’s what im gonna do Lol 😝😝 without even reading up on the case and forming YOUR OWN OPINION ???? like what are we DOING !!!!! and like especially with these people who came crawling back saying like wahhh i take it all back i was just following the hype / i support amber heard now 😞 IDGAF !!!!! like you actively joined a movement that literally bullied a victim to domestic abuse. all because you couldn’t take the time to read up on the whole thing and form your own opinion ?? yall were THAT ready bully and laugh and point your fingers at a woman .. yall are not seeing heaven .

and like people just. do that. and it’s the same thing with the chappel roan situation. people aren’t paying real attention to what she’s saying and then there’s a whole hive of people ganging up on her and people get on that shit without even forming their own opinion on the matter. YALL JUST HATE WOMEN !!! how do you guys not SEE THIS PATTERN !!! a woman (celebrity) is celebrated for a while until it reaches some sort of peak and then everyone is turning on her all at once ???? it happens ALWAYS??? and it is not fucking lost on me that both amber heard and chappel roan are queer women lmao. like yeah people hate on other female celebrities too but not to this fucking degree

[menlove]

as a card carrying terf I don’t think trans ppl are disgusting and neither does any radfem i’ve ever met, vast majority of us dgaf about trans people specifically; we want single-sex spaces to exist and btw trans people need those single-sex spaces too. trans women deserve to have spaces for Just trans women and cis women deserve spaces with Just cis women etc etc. i highly recommend doing some actual research into radical feminism instead of repeating the "theyre all conservatives who hate gnc people and find trans people disgustinf and want to kill them" that is simply not true lmao. you may be surprised a what you learn! sincerely a gnc lesbian and proud radfem

I have in fact done much research into radical feminism babe! trust me I have spent hours in yalls spaces! and you simply cannot speak for every single terf just as I can't speak for every trans person. you can't say "come on NO ONE IS SAYING-" just like I can't say that either. do you know every terf? have you seen every blog? have you been a trans person (particularly a trans woman) on the internet trying to just exist in peace? no? then you don't get to say "no terf is SAYING-" because yes, a lot of you are!

"no terf thinks trans people are disgusting" cool so when I was 19 and hadn't touched testosterone a day in my life and had she/they in my bio one of you coming into my ask going "I can tell by looking at you that you'll never be a woman lmfao" bc I'm latine w a shitton of body hair and non-eurocentric features, THAT was out of love for ✨women✨.

when yall (not you specifically but your group you associate with) get on twitter and pick apart the selfies women post telling them they're ugly and following it up by saying you KNOW they're "men" and it turns out 9/10 you've just harassed a cis woman who just doesn't meet eurocentric beauty standards, that's so totally cool and awesome and out of love for cis women and a want for separate spaces right?

when yall go into trans people's asks and tell us to kill ourselves, call us pedophiles, call us rapists, call us ugly... that shit just doesn't happen, right? and yes I'm Aware yall get death and rape threats too. you shouldn't, it's gross on both sides, but really it's not proving your point here.

it's fucking infuriating. you're infuriating. because radical feminism could be something worthwhile (and funnily enough I've met a lot of older ex radfem lesbians who have veered away from it bc of how fucking vitrolic yall are towards trans people). but instead, it is steeped and inseparable from the mire of hatred and disgust that you parrot. you don't give a single shit about women, whatever sex.

I'm an assigned female at birth lesbian who has only ever slept with other people with vaginas (consensually anyway). I can't tell you the amount of hate I've gotten from yall. just for being trans. even though I meet your definition of being a woman and being a lesbian. it doesn't matter because your hatred for people you deem as degenerate outweighs actually fucking advocating for feminism.

I'm not even going to argue with you on how useless single sex spaces actually are bc despite their best attempts there's always going to be problems (namely: fun fact cis women can be awful too AND how the fuck are you going to check and enforce this rule? what is your end goal?).

but what I AM going to say is no, sorry, that's NOT what a lot of you think. that's what YOU think. that's why YOU'RE a terf. but actually fucking look at the people around you. go on a trans person's blog or twitter who's receiving harassment and fucking try and tell me it's to promote "uwu safe spaces" like.... be fucking serious with me right now lmfao

you're not conservatives! but you are a bunch of fucking assholes who care more about harassing trans people than building a feminism that might actually have teeth. if you're using those teeth to attack a group more vulnerable than you, you're just an aggressor.

tldr you don't speak for all of them, go fuck yourself, etc

[magicisrealandsoismyally]

Have you ever met a trans woman? In real life? Because it feels like you view us the exact same as you view cis men. And I don't blame you for being afraid, you're operating off a lack of information. I'm not saying you're automatically wrong, but I definitely feel like your opinions would be different if you actually knew and made efforts to understand and hear more trans voices.

You have a lot of focus on AMAB and AFAB, but sex isn't a set in stone reality. Plenty of AMABs don't have penises, and plenty of AFABS do. Bottom surgery fully exists, and your argument doesn't consider people who have genuinely, medically modified their sex. Are we going to segregate based on assigned sex at birth? Because that would be transphobia, inherently equating people's sex at birth to what gendered spaces they're allowed within. Are we going to segregate based on current sex? Because now we're checking people's genitals and locking community behind the ability to afford sex reassignment surgeries. At the end of the day, the idea of segregation is flawed and fascist. The patriarchy and elite defines and separates us based on sex as a way to have us at each others throats instead of the real issues.

"any more than 0 women is unacceptable as a sacrifice to validate AMAB identity/feelings"

I need you to understand that this is a transphobic statement. I'm not saying you're a bad person or anything. Internalized transphobia is something everyone has, even me. It's our duty as people fighting for a better world to realize that kinda thing. It feels like your idea of being a trans ally is allowing trans men into feminist spaces, but as long as you exclude all trans women, you're still being a transphobe. Being a trans ally isn't just about being nice to trans people or letting some of them into your spaces, it's about accepting their gender identity. You're not a trans ally by treating trans men like cis women and trans women like cis men. You're still assigning social gender to sex at birth. I'm not telling you this to say you're bad, I'm saying this to help you realize that your argument is transphobic.

If we define our society through our fear of other groups based entirely off things that people do not choose, sex, gender, race, cultural group, etc., you are just reinventing fascism. You cannot be free if you still choose to wear the chains. You are not going to become free with the tools of your oppressor. The more you define the world with biological sex, the more the patriarchy wins. Because they also assign traits to people based on biological sex. That's how we ended up like this. Real change comes from destroying their tools, not taking them for ourselves.

Racism, ableism, and sexism are all older than capitalism yes, but they're all products of fear and hatred encouraged by elites to keep people in line, to stop people from uniting against them. Capitalism is another in a long line of power structures using hatred as a tool to stop us from actually uniting against those with power. Trans women are not your enemy. Segregating yourself from us is not going to help you overcome these power structures.

I mean this in the kindest way I can, you are letting fear define your politics. Just like every fascist's supporters have. You are letting fear of a group you do not understand or interact with, define how you treat them. Please, talk to some transfems, it will do you some good. You have an idea of us in your mind that doesn't reflect who we are in the slightest. We are not men. We never have been.

I'm not against creating specific safe spaces if that's necessary, but your entire argument is laced with subtle transmisogyny, and it tells me you're not coming at this from a healthy mindset. Have a great day, and I really hope you can see what I'm seeing upon reflection.

"OP is a terf" is a thought-terminating cliche meant to keep you from questioning the status quo and keep you afraid of being labeled a heretic should you come to your own conclusions about anything.

[sad-endings-suck]

Blue Eye Samurai: regarding Mizu’s “plot armour” or her “ridiculously over-powered” abilities.

“Mizu is way too overpowered, it doesn’t make sense.”

I feel like a lot of people don’t realize just how much the mind over matter mentality plays a roll in Mizu’s “abilities”. Mizu isn’t the best because she’s physically the strongest, or had the best training, or the most experience, or whatever. Mizu is the best because she has single-minded focus and immense tenacity that borders on psychotic due to how intensely dedicated to revenge she has been for almost all of her life. All the years she spent training, all the time she spends taking out enemies, she is being driven by single minded focus and iron willed determination that never wavers. She has been sharpening and honing not just her body, but her mind, for exactly this. She has dedicated her entire life to her quest for vengeance, and in her own words, there is no room in it for anything else.

People also seem to be making a lot of assumptions about what kind of training and how much training Mizu has or has not had. As the audience, we’ve only been shown bits and pieces of Mizu’s past, which includes her experience learning martial arts. Asking shit like “how is she so good with a sword if she’s only self taught?” is like asking “how can she read and write if Master Eiji is blind?”. The answer is that Mizu has obviously learnt these things from more than one source, but documenting her entire education in detail doesn’t exactly serve a purpose to the narrative. We are explicitly shown in one of Mizu’s flashbacks that she’s been practicing with a wooden sparring sword since she was very young. It’s actually her child self that we see in that brief particular flashback. Not her teen/tween self, her child self. She’s also following the movements and instructions of an older man that is clearly a skilled samurai or warrior of some kind based on context (which y’all love to ignore). Besides, who else would want/need a sword from a master sword-maker besides an expert swordsman? How many skilled fighters from all over Japan have come to Master Eiji’s forge hoping for a blade, and wait with nothing better to do but train while their blade is being made? How many of them have divulged information about certain fighting styles (like Shindo-Ryu, which Mizu was familiar with despite never having been to the dojo before). Or practiced around her and with her? We are clearly shown through Mizu’s flashbacks that receiving training from a visiting client has not been unusual for her throughout her apprenticeship with Master Eiji, and her little spar with Blood Soaked Chiaki was no one time event. Yet Mizu is never given the benefit of the doubt by the audience, despite context clues indicating that she should be.

“Taigen has way more training in an actual dojo, so why is Mizu better?”

Whereas Taigen, while he was determined to become more than just a fisherman’s son and was driven to rise through the ranks of the Dojo and become a skilled samurai, did not have that same desire or determination to hone every part of himself to be the most deadly weapon he could possibly be, like Mizu did. Taigen believes in the samurai code of honor and upholds it in his own way (preventing him from learning how to “fight dirty” so to speak) and he also had a life outside of his training (he had a social life, he drank, he partied, he snuck around a lot to see Akemi presumably, etc). In fact, we actually never see Taigen practice, train, learn, hone his skills, or anything (to my recollection) throughout the whole season, until he’s bested by Mizu in combat. I’m assuming Taigen had to work quite hard for several years to become as good as he is, but I get the sense that ever since he has been regarded as a prodigy he has allowed himself to get cocky and maybe a bit too comfortable. He has always been the best and always thought himself to be the best, so he never needed to give 150% effort when he fought. In fact, as he got older and more practiced, and it became more and more apparent how much better he was than everyone else, he probably stopped giving his 110% and allowed himself to get a bit comfortable putting in 100% effort, and then eventually 80% effort (which is part of the reason why I think he’s so pissed he lost to Mizu in their first fight, because he knows he could have done better: been less cocky, been more tactical, more driven, etc).

We also never see Taigen meditate or mentally or physically prepare himself the way we do with Mizu. Mizu will pray before a major upcoming battle, not because she’s religious, but because she’s mentally, emotionally, and spiritually preparing herself. We even see Mizu submerge herself in very cold ocean water (during the winter mind you) as a ritual/practice of sorts that serves to center herself and prepare mentally and physically for what’s ahead when she feels herself getting “too emotional” or too stressed or unfocused or even just slightly off kilter. Mizu sacrifices every part of her life, so that she can be the deadliest version of herself possible. She has no social life. She has no friends, or significant others (Mikio aside). She has no other activities to participate in, because she’s been completely alienated and thus being anything but the best is not an option in her mind because she has no options. She tried married life. She had the best possible life that she could have had as a biracial woman in Edo era Japan. She did as she was told by her “mother”. She showed her true self to Mikio, just as he desired. Yet the blood and vengeance still caught up with her. She has no other options anymore. Pursuing revenge is the only thing she knows how to do, because every other avenue in life has been cut off from her. So she has to be single-mindedly focused on her vengeance, which means being as skilled and as dangerous as she can possibly be. She has no hobbies or jobs or responsibilities beyond sword-making (which allows her to become as familiar with the blade as possible) and training herself. If she has extra time, she uses it to practice, to train, to improve, to simply maintain peak performance. Such as when she was hacking through those trees in episode 2. Afterwards, we see Taigen attempt to replicate her training (by cutting down trees with his sword). Though even then, it was more about curiosity and trying to suss out Mizu so he could gauge her skill level, then it was about actually honing his own abilities (until episode 3 when he practices with Chiaki’s broken blade). Which does count as training in its own way (assessing your enemy), but my point still stands. Taigen does not have the same unwavering focus and force of will that Mizu does (partially because he does not actually want to kill Mizu, as we do see Taigen go cold blooded with focus when he kills Heiji Shindo, but those are whole other discussions).

“Mizu just has ridiculous plot armour, that’s the real reason she survives every encounter.”

I feel like people that think Mizu has ridiculous plot armour are just not at all familiar with the Samurai or Western/Cowboy sub-genres at all, or even action as an overarching genre on its own. I don’t believe I have ever engaged in a single piece of action media in which the protagonist didn’t have “plot armour” in some way. Basically half of all male protagonists from any and all modern western action movies ever, have been way too over-powered and been able to take a ridiculous amount of damage that should have killed them multiple times over. These action heroes (who in western media are almost always cis-het white men) have ridiculous plot armour in the most classic sense. Yet no one complains when it’s a white man. Only when it’s a queer-coded biracial woman of colour. Shocking.

In fact, you could argue that every main character in every fictional story ever told has plot armour to a certain degree, because having an entire narrative revolve around one character is inherently “unrealistic” and therefore the main character has plot armour, yes? No? Yeah, that’s what I thought. Oh, and on the topic of the samurai genre specifically (and many martial arts based action media) there are certain genre specific tropes that are nearly integral to the genre. One of the most prominent being the samurai/ronin/warrior/martial arts master that is “ridiculously over powered”. It’s literally part of the genre. In fact, the western/cowboy genre is quite similar to the classic samurai genre. Now, how many westerns have you watched in which Clint Eastwood or John Wayne shoot 5+ guys with one pistol before any of the guys they shoot even get a shot off? A lot I bet. Is that not the definition of “over-powered” and “unrealistic”? Or is it just a genre trope, or even perhaps, a genre staple? No one thinks Arthur Morgan (Red Dead Redemption 2) is over-powered. No one thinks that Joel (The Last of Us) is over-powered. In fact, when the TLOU show came out, people actually complained that Joel, the fifty-something year old man that has been living in a post apocalyptic wasteland for 20 years, was not badass or strong enough (he kills dozens of humans and super zombies and he’s legally a senior). So, who is the “judge” of what is and is not realistic in action media that borders on sci-fi/fantasy based on how “over-powered” the protagonists “realistically” are?

“It’s just weird that Mizu is so powerful when other characters within the story are not. It makes Mizu such a Mary Sue.”

Okay… so, with all that in mind, let’s circle back to where I started when referring to Mizu as someone driven by unwavering determination, and how that affects her “abilities”. That facet of her personality and motivation is nothing new when it comes to the action genre, especially for protagonists of revenge storylines. Think of Kill Bill or John Wick. Why does John or the Bride keep going and keep winning even when they are constantly getting injured and always fighting. Is it because they are simply that much better than everyone else? Yes and no. No, because they are not superheroes (technically), but also yes. Because their single minded determination and need for revenge drives them to push that much harder than anyone else on their skill level. They are the best, but they win against everyone else that is also “the best” because they want it more. They need it more. Mind over matter. They are willing to endure what others are not through sheer will and pure cold rage. Mizu, Beatrice Kiddo, John Wick, and so many more similar protagonists in action-revenge narratives don’t keep winning and keep getting back up no matter how inured they get because they are just “that much stronger and more talented than everyone else”. Yes, they are extremely skilled and would probably be one of the strongest and most deadly combatants/killers in their respective universes regardless… but their refined skill and raw talent and power are not the only reason they win. Their unwavering force of will, extreme determination, ice cold fury, and single-minded focus on revenge is what drive them to be that much tougher. Their tenacity is their superpower. They want to win more than their opponent does. They need to win, because this is their one and only goal in life as of now. Mizu (Blue Eye Samurai) Beatrice (Kill Bill), John (John Wick), they all share a philosophy in life when it comes to their revenge, which basically boils down to “Either I kill you, or I die trying. There is no middle ground, there is no negotiating, no other choice, no path of least resistance, no other goal or motivation. You will die, because I ain’t fucking dying until you do.”

Mizu doesn’t have plot armour and she’s not over-powered. She is an archetypical protagonist of the action-revenge narrative and the samurai/western genre as well. She arguably even has better reason to be completing the feats that she does than John Wick or The Bride, because the medium of Blue Eye Samurai is animation and not live action, and the genre borders on magical realism far more than Kill Bill or John Wick. Now, how many anime protagonists (probably almost all male) can you think of that are “ridiculously over-powered” especially compared to any live action counterparts, but no one complains about it? Why does no one complain about it (aside from misogyny)? Because the medium of animation inherently has different “rules”, expectations, and set standards for suspension of disbelief, than the medium of live action film or television. For example, is it ridiculous and unrealistic when you’re watching a Looney Tunes cartoon and Bugs Bunny’s legs pinwheel in super-speed for 3 seconds straight before he starts running, or when he runs off a ledge and gravity just lets him hang there for a sec so he can look straight at the camera before he falls? No, it’s not “unrealistic” or emersion breaking, not even a little, but why? Is it because any of those things seem even remotely probable or “realistic”? Of course not! It’s perfectly acceptable because the medium, genre, target audience, atmosphere, art/animation style, narrative choice, storytelling style, and more, have all established that Bugs Bunny defying physics is normal in Looney Tunes, and therefore not a “plot-hole” or “unrealistic”. In fact, if Bugs Bunny or Tom and Jerry didn’t defy physics in ridiculous ways all the time, then it feels far stranger and off-beat than if they did. Same goes for pretty much all action anime. If the characters in those stories were strictly limited to what is 100% humanly possible in real life, most of those animes wouldn’t even have storylines anymore. They’d be turned into completely different content that may be unrecognizable from the original source material. Or wouldn’t even have any material anymore because all the characters would be dead after their first fight scene. So why is Blue Eye Samurai being held to a different standard?

Now, do y’all get it yet?

[listen-to-the-inner-walrus]

Sometimes I see posts on this site and I'm like oh okay, you guys don't actually believe in redemption and don't understand how it works at all. Cool. Okay.

[dream-sans-mogai]

This will probably get looks from performative and ultimately harmful non-transfems despite my being transfem but-

Some y'alls only interaction with feminist history and theories, radical feminism regardless of its intersectionality and really any feminism deeper and louder and meaner than blatant choice feminism like the barbie movie and whatever TF taylor swift thinks shes got going on is through your occasional and short interactions with terfs and it shows. You call vagina art terfy and it fucking isnt. Its feminist art. Your brainrot is making you a fucking mra. The fact y'all think talking about the man vs bear situation is about/started/ran by terfs (and encouraged some really questionable other transfems shitting on it despite it clearly just being about women's safety and yes all men, not transphobia.), everything from questioning wether certain groups belong in our community to thinking a word is a slur or having a lesbian icon (I have sources don't test me) or not to not liking a certain band has been called "terf rhetoric". I'm all for us Transmascs talking about how terfs affect us cause they absolutely do and their harm to the transmasc community can not be understated but like.... Y'all are not allowed to call Jack shit terf rhetoric anymore. Like nothing. You don't know what it means, you litterally call transmedicalism and sysmedicalism terf rhetoric. Do you mean exclusionist? Say exclusionist. Terfs are not the end all be all hate group. They have a very specific complex mindset that affects so many people in specific ways. Someone hating Neopronouns is not fucking terf rhetoric. It's nbphobia. Holy fuck. Learn what words mean.

(intersectional trans radfems exist, radical feminism isn't terfs and swerfs and historical radfems would laugh in their faces for their idiocy)

[brazenautomaton]

You're ignoring the vast, vast, vast majority of gay people telling you that "kink-critical" is bullshit. You're ignoring queer history by trying to decouple kink and gayness. And you're so blind and credulous you think that "they say it will be used to prosecute men who use the 'rough sex' defense" means that it is a good idea to protect women and anyone who disagrees must not care about women.

They say it will be used to prosecute men who use the "rough sex" defense. It will not. They are lying. They have always been lying every single time the UK has used this law that lets them persecute kinky gay men under the pretense of protecting people. This law is already the standard in the UK. "Consent cannot justify bodily harm!" is already the law. The observed reality was that this law was used to persecute gay men.

The only citation the article you linked gives for someone who used the "rough sex defense" was someone who had that defense thrown out. I looked it up! The advocacy group that was pushing for this law identified 60 cases of people attempting the "rough sex defense" between 2020 and 1972. In 48 years, 60 people have even tried this defense. It says the defense "resulted in a lesser charge, lighter sentence, acquittal, or the case not being pursued" in 45% of cases, or 27.

That "defense resulted in" can't actually be true, because those statistics are not recorded! What this means is, of the 60 people who ever have attempted this defense over 48 years, 27 of them got something other than the legal maximum. Everyone who claimed that defense and then pled down to manslaughter is counted in that number. Everyone who claimed that defense and then had the case thrown out or not pursued due to lack of evidence, including people who had rough sex with someone who then died some time later for some other reason and were falsely accused of causing the death, is in that number.

Saying that this law is meant to protect women and anyone who dislikes it doesn't care about women is even stupider and more credulous than people who defend repressive laws in the name of anti-terrorism. Terrorists have killed a LOT more people than people claiming the "rough sex defense," and there are more terrorists in the UK than there are people who tried this defense.

As a feminist, you think law enforcement hates women and does not care about the well-being of women, don't you? Isn't it way, way more likely even under your own worldview that this law will not protect women, and is therefore for something else, namely persecuting gay men? Fuck, for that matter, as a feminist you believe that men are never convicted of rape and the justice system refuses to hold men accountable for rape! The fact that of the 60 people who tried this defense, 33 of them got the maximum sentence means that it works way, way less than what you think every other defense against rape charges do! A 55% percent chance of the maximum sentence and a 45% chance of literally anything else is so much higher than what you think the conviction rate for rape is, you should be encouraging this defense so more men will be convicted and given the maximum sentence!

[musical-chick-13]

Genuinely I cannot take the phrase "de-centering men" seriously anymore.

[makedamnsvre]

\

[dykesynthezoid]

Was v lucky to get to see a screening of a new documentary about casteism and brahmanical patriarchy in India but also I’m supposed to be discussing it in class later and if I’m being honest the fact that the last ten minutes of the film were basically one big advertisement for Hindus to convert to Buddhism means I’m like hmm well I do have some stuff I could say about this but I don’t want to overreach

[skipthisvoid]

Alrighty I am going to do my best to explain my thoughts on this-

What Arcane often does is take something that real-life that society is bigoted against and then show the humanity in those same people. This is a type of counter-narrative. This is when the story "presents a different perspective or interpretation of events that directly contradicts your existing beliefs, forcing you to re-evaluate your understanding of a situation or topic."

"They aim to disrupt established stories or viewpoints that might be considered biased or oppressive by offering alternative interpretations. Fields like critical race theory, feminist studies, and postcolonial studies frequently utilize counter-narratives to highlight marginalized perspectives."

(A key example is drug addicts, being set up in the first few episodes to align with the disgust society has for them, only later to twist your perspective around and make you feel like you were wrong. You end up feeling sympathy for them, which brings the watcher to have to rework their worldview for the rest of the show.)

The Undercity in routinely proven to be a place that has incredibly brilliant people, families just trying to get by, etc. but they just haven't been given the same opportunities as topside, so they turn to less desirable means of making a living. Within the series we are often given small pieces of daily life within the Undercity, especially the domestic moments, to make a connection that they are also just people.

Okay onto the brothel- The "goblin" in question is named Babette. We are given our initial "narrative" that she is gross, either because she is a sex worker, she is not a typical human, she is old, or all three. What happens later in the show is that it is revealed not only is Babette the mother of the house and is incredibly important to protecting those who work under her, she also knows the main character's father figure and looks up to him. It is implied there is mutual respect (an implication because at this point in the story, said father figure is dead and can not verbally confirm) between these two important people for the Undercity.

Once inside the brothel, it is shown to be like any other place of business. The workers are professional, the place is maintained well with all sorts of different options for people to pick from, (regardless of gender preference) and if clients treat workers inappropriately, they are thrown out. (Like during the scene in question.) So the first time we see this location, the narrative tells us "oh-ew gross we know that sex work is dirty and bad and the neighborhood is poor so these people are bad and gross" but later we have the counter-narrative of "actually this is a well respected and important part of the Undercity's economy, and the workers here are treated (and paid) well for the service they are providing."

SO when we come back to the original scene, we now align morally with the trans woman and Babette, and also think its funny that this man has gotten kicked out of a well respected establishment. He must have done something without realizing they take the rules seriously, and he won't be allowed back. Sucks since this place is the best in town!

Side note for the "look of disgust" coming from Claggor, the 'main' character mentioned above. Claggor is 14-16 years old. He isn't so much as disgusted as he is just shocked! He also is a very very shy and soft spoken boy. Being in the Undercity, and with Babette being friend's with his adoptive father, he knows what sex-work is. He is shy of it, he knows he is a minor. It is dark and not well lit, Babette might not be able to see him well so she smiles at him anyway. OR, since later in the show we find out she knows his father well, she is intentionally fucking with him knowing he is shy and is gonna be all weird about it. Either way, I wouldn't say he is reacting in disgust. He is just an awkward teen being awkward.

I am torn on the depiction of the transwoman. On one hand, I see how the art they used can be considered a bad stereotype. BUT I do also know someone who is doing the best they can with the body they currently have, and this is what she looks like! And thats also perfectly okay and fine! She exists, thats what she looks like at this point in her life, and she hasn't decided if she is going to make any further changes. (If she wants to speak more on this she can- I personally don't wanna go to deep into it on her behalf.) I think it is working as the same counter-narrative. We are shown this masculine woman who works in the sex industry, and feel the initial reaction society wants us to. Then later, we find out, oh shit, these workers are important and well respected! She is doing a good job for her current situation in the Undercity!

I feel like I am running out of things to say in this very moment but I DO want to also take a second to say we see a different portrayal of mtf transition later in the series. Her name is Lest. The difference here is that Lest is top-side, where there are a lot more opportunities and money. This is apparent in her ability to transition to what society considers "passing", as well as her clothing. She is also voiced by a trans woman! (Eve Lindley)

Blehg I just kinda wanted to spill some of my thoughts over this show since I adore its use of literary devices, ESPECIALLY the counter narrative. I hope this kinda made sense and didn't sound rude at all.

i just did something i promised myself i'd never do and intentionally watched a scene from Arcane, to see just how bad the transmisogynist joke in the first episode is -- and people are absolutely 100% playing it down.

the characters are walking through a dark, seedy part of a city, and reacting in fear to a bunch of scary, dangerous & unsettling things, like a monster scuttling in a cage & vendors selling huge knives, before panning to these two women standing outside a brothel.

the small gremlin lady makes a pass at one of the cast, who immediately reacts in visible fear and disgust and runs away. then, a drunk man wearing no pants is kicked out of the brothel, being told that he has to pay. the woman on the left responds (with a deep, masculine voice) "look at that" and reacts in disgust to him. the crux of the joke here is "haha it's rich that this gross tranny thinks this drunk man is gross, because SHE and her little gremlin friend are gross! lol!".

it is a transmisogynistic joke on the level of the ugly step-sister in Shrek. i shouldn't have to explain this. holy shit.

[thespacebetweenworlds]

A protest against Wattpad's new Content Guidelines

Recently, Wattpad has changed the Content Guidelines on sexual content, declaring that the age of consent is now 18. "Any sexual content between characters must abide by this age of consent and not be in violation of Canadian Law."

This is embarrassing for Wattpad. This is disrespectful to Wattpad users. This is a capitalist company conforming to conservative politics.

Wattpad is and has always been home to teenage writers. When I first learned of Wattpad at age 13, this orange app was everything to me. Wattpad is home to teenage writers and readers all around the world, with its many languages Wattpad is unique, and that is something to be proud of. Wattpad has given a creative voice to a generation and inspired young people to write and with multi media challenge our perceptions of the written word and literature. That is not nothing.

But the thing is, teenagers write stories about teenagers. Teenagers write sexual content that includes teenagers. Teenagers have sex in real life with other teenagers. To declare any of that illegal only has negative consequences.

Wattpad declares they want to create a safe space. They want to protect the community. If they really wanted to do that, then they wouldn't have these restrictions on WRITTEN, FICTIONAL sexual content.

Things that would make this a safer space and create and protect our community of global writers: - quality sex education - quality sex education in all languages used on Wattpad

NOW we are in a situation where WRITTEN FICTIONAL depiction of sex between fictional characters under 18 is not allowed. "Illegal sex acts" aren't allowed either. Should we thank Wattpad for clarifying that they mean "according to Canadian law"? Or should we wait with the thanking until they change it to local laws, or LGBT+ stories will be illegal as well?

[rotzaprachim]

minx is interesting. It’s interesting and it’s interested in things in a way that I find a lot of current media about feminism not to be. There’s an active interest into poking into some of the uncomfortable areas without simple conclusions when it comes to how feminism should relate to sex and the market/capitalism.

also really appreciate the unapologetic 70’s ness and the use of 70’s events, catchwords, buzz etc in a way that doesn’t always feel tee hee

[quillkiller]

i'd love to hear more about why u didn't like barbie if it's not a problem for u

it’s not a problem! i do want to preface by saying tho that i did actually love seeing it and especially in the theatres with my dyke best friend!! and we had the time of our lives.

i wrote a very long and messy film review about barbies take on feminism and the patriarchy, i could post that if you’d be interested? :)

it also just. rubs me so in the wrong way seeing ryan gosling being peoples favorite thing to come out of the barbie movie. it just proves to me, imo, that barbies message went completely unheard. i absolutely loved his performence too but like. did we watch the same film? do we really think it’s funny that ken got bored of ruling a pareiarchy bc it didn’t include horses? is that actually funny or is it just unbelievably insensitive and out of touch? because i personally think the latter.

my main thing tho is basiaclly just that i had expected the film to do something literally anything new. to say something we don’t already know. i could name several films with the same feminist take and i just genuinely thought it would do one single radical thing. and it didn’t, in my opinion, and it left me very disappointed. i can’t name one single (new) thing the barbie film did for women/feminism if i’m being completely honest. it wrapped itself up in a neat little package towards the end saying ’everyone matters!’ w a cute little bow on top. men (because kens are still men) didn’t have to apologize and ryan goslings ken is everyones favorite part. from a movie about patriarchy and the sidelining of women. it just doesn’t sit right with me at all.

the kens are literally my enemies like what they did was unforgivable? they were men brainwashing and taking advantage of women and they didn’t even have to apologize and now we’re all obsessed with ’kenergy’? they should’ve at the very least be held responsible, but no they got an apology instead. while the barbies literally didn’t get a single one. is kenergy rly something we want? was he really keanough?????? i swear if i ever meet a man saying he’s a ken / is kenough i will kill him and then myself

some people may think i’m overreacting or that i’m a buzzkill but this is is genuinely how i feel about it. i see women say ’this is a film for all women!’ but i didn’t feel that once? i didn’t feel included once in the narrative and im definitely not being represented by barbie. it brought me back to when i was in the closet and i felt alien to everyone around me. i felt strange and ugly and wrong. this was a film for heterosexual women, imo.

in my defense, i am a film student film with a bachelor’s degree in film science, so i do feel confident in my own reading of the film. i am also well read on feminist theory and have been educating myself for years (and still do). it’s two things i’m very passionate about and literally you couldn’t spend even half an hour with my friend group, all dykes, before it turns into political/feminist discussions hahahah. i trust my judgment in how i feel about the film, but i’m not trying to change anyone else’s mind and im definitely not saying it wasn’t a good film. i’m absolutely not automatically right because of this. this is simply my reading of the film.

however, i find it very difficult not to engage with media, especially film, critically as someone who studies film and intends to make it my career. and i tend to engage critically from a gender perspective based on feminist theory because i honestly just can’t help it. a huge part of me didn’t want to engage with barbie critically because i had the time of my life watching it. i had so so so so much fun. but sadly, here we are

i had a similar experience when, in film history class, we started every single morning watching silent films. i fucking love silent films but let me tell you, the people who made silent films don’t love me or care for women. every morning i had to prepare myself to watch a woman get murdered by a man. a reminder of how women have been treated in cinema. a reminder that a woman isn’t a person, she’s a plot device for the male protagonist. the men in my class never noticed, whereas me and my uni friends (all girls) felt rather affected by it every single viewing. film theory hits different depending on who’s watching the film

that’s why i wanted barbie do just something new. it’s a film literally based on feminism and patriarchy and it still ended with a woman apologizing to a man. she still had to fight him off trying to make advances. she still had to do the emotional labour for another man.

it was just tiring. i wouldn’t have this opinion if it hadn’t made it so clear that the literal plot is patriarchy and feminism. that’s why i feel so let down