#especially if i'm reblogging from a side blog

[lizardlicks]

i can not "this tbh" hard enough. Remember when Emma Watson gave a speech about bringing men into feminism because dismantling the patriarchy benefits everyone?? Remember that was in 2014??? Remember that it was actually working and actively recruiting men away from the manosphere, chan boards and subreddits with the promise that if they hated the game and it made them miserable, men didn't have to play it either?

You can thank a rad fem for the full 180 on that. And no, I'm not exaggerating, most of the movement leaders have gone on record saying that they actively worked to reframe their gender divisive ideology to make it more hip and cool sounding, then methodically went after the younger generation of queers who hadn't yet establised ties or absorbed any of the history-- specifically young wlw-- in the new and fast growing online communities on Twitter and Tumblr.

Radical Feminism is a hold over from the feminism of the 60's through the 80's. While the feminists of that day made massive strides for equality in the work place, it left behind vulnerable populations and didn't make very strong in-roads to cross collaboration, inclusivity, and diversity. It was already considered too ridgid and out of date by the 90's third wave feminist movement, and by the 2010's with the expansion of queer rights and queer visibility in online spaces, while still being at least mostly protected by anonymity, we were making huge in roads towards the idea that feminism was for everyone, and the ultimate antidote to patriarchal power structures. Conversation focused mostly on addressing those structures, how to undermine and dismantle them, how to empower the men in our lives to do that, and to support them in breaking away from it. It's where the idea of toxic masculinity came from: not that being male is toxic, but that there are ways of performing masculinity that are toxic, ways that are healthy and foster community and growth in their lives, and that men could still be manly men without the extra baggage attached. That our spouses, brothers and cousins could do it better than their father's did. That they could get therapy, have have help, and pass something better onto their sons.

I have a lot of cis male friends who I would have described as chest thumping manly men types back in the day, who sat down and had thoughtful conversations, who came out the other side staunchly feminist, far more aware and intentional, and brought that into their friend groups and work places.

If you want to know what happened? We stopped having that conversation. The rad fems were successful, they got into the heads of young fem queers and convinced them to put a wedge into their lives with men.

They even got into the heads of the transfems they hate! Do you know how many fresh hatched eggs I see to this day spouting anti-male propaganda that was originally handed down from TERFs? (Ladies, they're not going to welcome you into the non-existed Secret Inner Magical Sanctum of Womanhood no matter how loudly you scream about men sucking. They don't even do it for most cis women.)

And meanwhile the pewdiepies and Andrew Tates of the world never stopped talking to the men. Who did you think they were going to listen to after getting shut out and shut down?

And if you don't believe me, this blog has existed for over a decade. You can go back into the archive and view posts from 2012. Reblogged a LOT of feminist posts back then because there WERE a lot! Whole reams of queer and feminist theory were being drafted in real time between the people it affected most. You can see the shift especially in 2016 onwards in less and less as we quit being able to have those conversations without a rad fem jumping in and either shifting the narrative or distracting everyone with nonsense and sometimes vile accusations to shut it down completely.

This was calculated and intentional because a handful of people where very pissy that they weren't leading the direction of the conversation in the new online era anymore.

Genuinely, what happened to “feminism is for everyone”?

That’s the feminism I grew up with: encouraging people to recognize that fighting sexism and restrictive gender roles helps folks of every gender. We’d push back on the idea that feminists hate men, pointing to inclusive feminist literature and how many men are feminists.

Now, there are so many people insisting that the solution to patriarchy is to openly hate and ostracize men no matter what. Why? What is the benefit? It’s certainly not effective in fighting oppressive structures to exclude half the population from your cause on the basis of immutable traits. It may feel cathartic to say horrible things about men and try to punish them for your frustrations with patriarchy. But the only actual effect I see is the increasing right-wing radicalization of young men, who are being told that the left hates them for the way they were born and presented with an abundance of proof that it’s true.

Why are we going back to treating men and women as different species? It doesn’t fix things to say “well women are the good gender and men are the bad one” this time. If you sincerely want to dismantle sexism, you’re going to have to unpack and let go of all sex and gender essentialism—even that which considers women inherently pure and men inherently immoral.

[catras-breakup-song]

i’m not gonna lie… i’m lost here. is this supposed to be an 4nt1/cr1t1c4l post? if so, i genuinely don’t understand the point being made.

is it that playful banter is a bad thing? is it that being too hands-on violates unspoken boundaries? the message is so unclear to my autistic ass…

oh, wait, OP provided tags:

so aside from the fact that they are absolutely not sisters by default, least of all canonically (even if you do interpret them that way somehow), nor was it ever intended by nate stevenson, i’m still having trouble figuring out how this is problematic.

in which ways is lighthearted touch totally contradictory to passionate kissing/caressing? why can’t partners who are dating do both, especially in different cultural environments such as the horde where intimacy is discouraged and friendly sparring with familiar peers is a safe expression? if it’s so different, what are we as the audience supposed to interpret from their style of physical affection by the final season? side note, but aren’t we supposed to consider the latest version of anything in general as the most accurate?

now i have a question lol, did you take this moment literally at her word, and all the other times she repeated it?

also, my friend just pointed out that this is the classic homophobic talking point of "they seem to just be very good friends! they were roommates!" lmao. i've never agreed with accusing anyone who cr1t1c1z3s catradora of lesbophobia, which i'm not doing necessarily, because that's simply not how it works, however i found this funny and partially true so i'm keeping it in.

the lip bite was included unintentionally 👀

anyway, as i’ve discussed on this blog before, i’m very arospec and it’s inseparably intwined with my identity itself; i also project that onto catra. something we often bring up in that community, is romance-favorability (as its own spectrum of range all the way to blatant repulsion btw) — which is a personal preference that’s defined as exactly as it sounds like and occasionally revolves around fictional depiction as separate from one's own reality — and arguably more importantly, amatonormativity — which is an arbitrary set of rules for romantic expectations set up by an alloromantic society. this is typically thought of as common denial of the idea that someone could actually want to separate themself from needing a life partner in marriage, but can very much be applied to an annoying list of what draws the line between romantic & platonic relationships. that line is very individualistic and is to be decided on such a level only, and it doesn’t even get into what queerplatonic means, a concept saved for another day!

my point is, the OP seems to be trying to claim that catradora objectively cannot be read as romantic because their dynamic growing up & early-on in the story doesn’t perfectly meet socially-constructed standards of what that should look like. i say we need to eradicate those standards altogether! it’s up to catradora to decide what they are, if anything specific at all, not us as the audience — assuming they could’ve had the words at their disposal to knowingly describe it. going back to my earlier paragraph above about how limited they were in the fright zone, i’ll borrow a quote from a comment i made on one of my recent reblogged posts (which is a great meta on how their mutual desire was uh... definitely not platonic):

"Catra and Adora’s desire for one another is shown in a variety of ways, mostly indirect. There are a lot of glances - until season 5, not the kind of open leering at one another that we’d seen between other characters. Mostly it’s fairly playful - wiggled or cocked eyebrows, glances at each other while smirking, that kind of thing, or really intense and somewhat angry glares when they’re fighting."

it's really bothering me that i can't recall where i read this from before, but someone analyzed before how, growing up, catra & adora didn't have a good sense of how to label their relationship with accurate terminology despite being subconsciously aware that they, whether they knew the other reciprocated or not, loved each other "like that." unfortunately, they couldn't further explore it because such love & affection was seen as a punishable weakness in the horde, so they resorted to the only safe option they seemed to have, which was subtle body language and play-fighting as [testudoaubrei-blog] described above.

also, since this screenshot is included in that post... i would be amused to read an explanation of how THIS LOOK from catra is "platonic with a capital P", because i'm not even sure if it's up for debate to be quite honest with you:

ESPECIALLY with the "i always have!" line (which 4nt1s like to doubt, but i don't care, it's official!):

[knifegremliin]

btw if you see me reblog but not like your art, it's probably because i don't want to contribute to the likes being higher than the reblog