#even if we don't like acknowledging that

[lesser-vissir]

On the AFAB Transfem and the Nature of Transfeminization

While the title of this post is a little arrogant, admittedly, I do think that it is something that many transfeminists theorists have attempted to tackle, but one that just as many shy away from actually addressing.

This essay is largely inspired by @/oxymoronictransfem's writing regarding A/V Transfems. There is also some influence from Thalia Bhatt's writings, as well as The Sizhen System's essay on the gender ternary.

Before I get into the specifics of what I wanted to talk about, I did want to start by saying that, while I do not fully agree with Mera's A/V Transfem theory, it has convinced me to look deeper into what role birth assignment plays in transfeminization, and come to the conclusion that while her theory has some holes in it, ultimately the existence of A/V Transfems is undeniable. Rest of the essay under the cut. I expect it to be a long one.

I lied. Essay isn't starting yet. First, you gotta go read the other essays I linked if you want to understand what I'm talking about. If you don't read them its gonna make this confusing. Go read them then come back. Now we can start the essay.

Note: I am going to use the terms AFAB and AMAB during this essay, as unfortunately they are the best existing terminology to discuss these subjects. However, please note that when I use these terms I am not making a judgement on anything other than an individual having been assigned a social role as either a "Woman" or a "Man".

The biggest problem in creating a disambiguating definition of the transfeminized subject, is that there exists right now no good definition for the difference between transfeminization and gender non-comformity amongst women. It's what creates the arguments about how trans men, women of color, and other AFAB gender deviants as being transfeminized subjects.

Unfortunately, on the terms used to discuss these topics, those in favor of AFAB gender deviants being transfeminized subjects have legitimate reasons for believing that to be true. Based on the current commonly used definitions of transmisogyny, AFAB gender deviants are in fact victims of transmisogyny. In fact, I am willing to break from convention among transfeminists here in saying that the definition of transmisogyny as an intersection between transphobia and misogyny was a mistake from the beginning and has led to the vast majority of the problems we see on this site regarding things such as the TME/TMA dichotomy, the AFAB transfem question, and the transandrophobia debate.

The alternative however, the definition of the transfeminized subject used prior to Whipping Girl, is the resignation of trans women to being a third sex, which has its own problems in regards to each of those topics, as well as being inaccurate as to trans women's definitive social status as women. However, in the same way, transmisogyny can hardly be considered a separate axis of oppression from either misogyny or transphobia.

To correct this terminology problem, we need to correct a mistake that dates all the way back to second wave feminism. In The Second Sex, Simone De Beauvior made the groundbreaking assertion of sex and gender being social constructs. A part of this was to divorce Womanhood from its status as being the Other to Manhood, as well as to recognize that the oppression of women was not based in biology but in their disavowment and exclusion from active participation in society.

However, Simone De Beauvior made the mistake of idealism and did not properly analyze the dialectic between both Manhood and Womanhood, or the dialectic between Womanhood as a disenfranchisement from society and from women's reproductive functions and economic roles.

Let's start by tackling the first dialectic to understand first the relationship between Manhood and Womanhood. As Talia Bhatt mentioned in the essay I linked, women can be divided into two groups, Type I woman and Type II woman. I would argue, that the definition is somewhat incomplete as it does not define mechanisms for how a Type I woman become a Type II woman, and includes an assumption that certain types of women (ie. upperclass women) are Type I by default.

Instead, we must recognize that all women, by default, are Type II women. Then, upon further evaluation of what makes a woman a Type I woman, we see that the defining factor is that a man has chosen them, elevated them from Type II status. We can see this most clearly in the part of the essay describing Type I trans women. Type I womanhood is not a permanent marker, it is a transient experience based on the whims of the man who has elevated her.

Since we have established that Type II women are the default and Type I women are made, we can recontextualize femininity and the performance of womanhood under that lens. Women that perform femininity well, perform womanhood well, are most likely to be picked for elevation to Type I by various men. Women that fail that in various ways, by being ugly, by being fat, by being infertile, by being non-white, are more likely to stay as Type II women, or quickly lose Type I status when they fail in performing womanhood.

This brings us to an interesting insight regarding womanhood and its relation to manhood. To do that, we must first recognize the castes that exist within manhood. It is quite obvious that for men, there are distinct heirarchies created along the lines of non-gender based axis of oppression. Black men are less valuable than white men, disabled men less valuable than abled men, ect. However, they are all still men. As such, all of them have the power to elevate a Type II woman to a Type I woman. However, the status of a Type I woman is tied to the status of a the man that has elevated them to that status. As such, a woman who is more capable of performing womanhood is less likely to settle for a lower caste man. And conversely, lower caste men will always aspire to be able to be with a woman that men of a higher caste are willing to elevate.

This explains many of the phenomena we see surrounding gendered heirarchies, and heirarchies among men. For example, this explains why marginalized men are so reluctant to date women who share their marginalization (ie. fat men being distainful of fat women, and black men being distainful of black women), because they see them as the women they are "allowed" to elevate, but want to be able to obtain a higher status woman. It also explains phenomena we see such as men dating women that are underperforming womanhood, with the goal of "fixing" her into a higher performing woman as a way of getting around the problem of women that are high performing not wanting to date them.

Moving on from that, we need to address the second dialectic. We can see from the above, that Manhood is defined relative to Womanhood by their ability to elevate women from Type II to Type I status, however, it does not address why these categories exist in the first place. Which brings us back to the initial idealist mistake of the second wave feminists. We should never have wholly rejected that the social construct of womanhood is based in the material reality of reproductive labor.

The conception of gender as a social construct was rooted in a need to regulate reproductive labor. Certain humans, at certain times, are capable of reproductive labor. Gender was invented as a way to easily identify those individuals, and regulate ownership of that capability by the individuals who are not capable of that. Although the social roles and expectations of gender are divorced from biological determinism, the material reality of reproductive labor produced those social roles and expectations which then reinforced the material reality.

In that regard, its time to bring up genitalia. Although many transfeminists and queer feminists avoid talking about genitalia due to the dysphoria it can cause among participants, it would be remiss to dismiss genitalia as being a non-factor in the social construction of gender or in its role in defining the transfeminized subject. The very basis of gender is fundamentally tied to genitalia as a shorthand for whether an individual will grow up to have the capacity for reproductive labor. Ignoring that because it is uncomfortable does us no favors. For all intents and purposes, at its core, society views Men as walking penises and Women as walking vaginas. However, these are merely symbols reflecting an underlying reality of reproductive labor.

In that line, ignoring the social roles and expectations of Womanhood and Manhood, let us set the definitions of Woman and Man to be the following. A Woman is an individual capable of reproductive labor, and a Man is an individual capable of harnessing reproductive labor. These definitions are simplistic, but fundamentally, they serve as the basis for Womanhood and Manhood as a set of social roles and expectations. Womanhood is an idealization of the reproductive vessel while Manhood is the idealization of exploiting said vessel. As such, although the definitions of Man and Woman leave no room for the infertile, the social constructs of Manhood and Womanhood are able to accomodate that. It is here that we can finally start defining transphobia, transmisogy, the transfeminized subject, and even the transmasculinzed subject.

Let us start by understanding transphobia and the differences it lays out when targeting Men and Women. Before we dive in, let me say that I do believe that cis people are affected by transphobia, but that they are not transfeminized/transmasculinzed subjects. For Women, there is a lot of wiggle room for gender deviance, that is to say, deviance from Womanhood, as it merely reduces their chances of becoming a Type I woman. As such, when a Woman is experiencing transphobia it is usually in the form of increased violence that a Type II woman receives. For Men, there is less direct violence from society in the same way as Type II women, but deviance from Manhood results in demotion among the caste heirarchy of men. Thus, reducing the quality of the women available to them. Other men enforce this as a way to decrease competitors for high performing women.

What then, separates the transfeminized and transmasculinzed subjects from mere transphobia? To answer that, we must look back to our definitions of Man and Woman, and, unfortunately be a little crude for a moment. Put in simple terms, a transfeminized subject is a woman with a penis, and a transmasculinzed subject is a man with a vagina. We can see this through every social lens of these topics, and while it is a transphobic stereotype that is not wholly true, it is the way most of cis society view the topic. We however, will dig a little deeper, because as mentioned, the penis and vagina are merely shorthand symbols for other things. Taking the definitions a step further, a transfeminized subject is a woman who is capable of harnessing reproductive labor, and a transmasculinzed subject is a man capable of reproductive labor.

The definitions for the transfeminized and transmasculinzed subjects is on a layer higher than that of Man or Woman, playing off of the social construct of Womanhood and Manhood as the basis for their existence. Crucial to these definitions is that it is someone with the wrong "biology" who performs the social roles and expectations of the "wrong" gender. However, as with Man and Woman being the material basis for the social roles and expectations of Manhood and Womanhood, so too are the definitions for the transfeminized and transmasculinzed subjects a material basis for the social roles and expectations of Transfeminity and Transmasculinity.

We can now reject the notion that transfemininity is based in a rejection of Manhood and a failure to attain Womanhood as is commonly argued, because we can recognize that the transfeminized subject is a distinct subcategory of Womanhood despite being a subcategory of Men. As such, we are now able to begin divorcing the definition of the transfeminized subject from AGAB and the perceived necessity of the transfeminized subject to be a subcategory of Men. We can thus see that Transfemininity is a set of social roles and expectations that heavily mirror and draw on those from Womanhood, but built into all of these assumptions are both that the transfeminized subject is not capable of reproductive labor, and that they are instead capable of harnessing reproductive labor.

Under this framework, we can see why Transfemininity is so reviled. To men, the transfeminized subject is both an aberration of Womanhood, and a threat to their monopoly on harnessing reproductive labor, a threat to the very material basis of gender and as a whole, that threatens to remove the very constraints of reproductive labor that gender was invented for. It is part of why the autogynophile was so feared compared to the homosexual transexual. Part of why even now on Tumblr trans lesbians are the focus of most of the transmisogynistic vitriol on this site. We can therefore define transmisogyny as the revilement of Transfemininity.

Now is a good time to begin to construct a definition for what constitutes someone who is TME vs TMA. To begin, Transfemininity is a subset of Womanhood, and as such, one must participate in Womanhood to be TMA. This is the first requirement. Secondly, based on the definition of the transfeminized subject, and the penis being the symbol for being able to harness reproductive labor, having a penis while performing Womanhood makes one TMA, however, the reverse is not true. Despite being the symbol for being capable of reproductive labor being a vagina, having one does not make one TME automatically. The determiner there, is whether the individual with a vagina in question is capable of reproductive labor. If they are, and can readily prove that using something such as birth assignment, they are TME. If the individual claims to have previously had a penis and can prove it using birth assignment, they are TMA. This leaves one last question, is someone that participates in womanhood, has a vagina, and does not claim to have previously had a penis but is infertile TMA?

To answer this question, lets first look into the transmasculinzed subject. Transmasculinity is far less reviled than Transfemininity, largely because it does not pose the same inherent threat to the material basis of gender. For men, being infertile does not reduce their status as men, nor remove their power to elevate a Type I woman to a Type II woman, and the transmasculinzed subject is also granted this power, though, following the usual heirarchy, the type of women they are granted access to are largely transfeminized subjects. That said, there is still revilement of Transmasculinity as it attacks the institute of Womanhood by giving Type II women an option other than performance of womanhood to escape their status. We can call this transandrophobia since it is the running term. Lets now construct definitions of TME and TMA for transandrophobia, referred to as TME* and TMA*.

As with the transmisogyny version, the first requirment for being TMA* is to participate in Manhood. The second requirement is to be capable of reproductive labor, often shorthanded by the symbol of the vagina. We do not however, have the same dilemma in defining TME* as with TME. If you have a penis, regardless of fertility status, you are TME* unless you claim to have previously had a vagina and can prove it with something like birth assignment. This leaves open the very obvious conclusion that if a transmasculinzed subject obtains a penis and does not reveal that he previously had a vagina, his status as TMA* is revoked. I believe this to be a reasonable analysis of the dynamic and accurately describes the concept of going stealth.

Circling back to the definitions of TME and TMA, can a transfeminized subject that has gotten a vagina also revoke her status of being TMA despite being incapable of reproductive labor, like a transmasculinzed subject can of being TMA*? I believe the answer to be yes. As such, the complete definition for someone TMA is: someone that performs womanhood, is incapable of reproductive labor, and either has a penis, or advertises the fact that she has had one at some point.

This lets us finally return to the question of whether someone AFAB can be TMA. Based on our definition, so long as the individual is capable of reproductive labor (ie. getting pregnant) they are not TMA. Further, if they have a vagina and advertise that they have always had a vagina, they are not TMA. However, if they claim to have previously had a penis, or currently have a penis, then they are in fact TMA.

While this definition may seem crude and reductive, I think it is far more distinctive and disambiguating than other definitions, I believe it is important not to use vague definitions for transfeminized subjects such as failure to engage in Womanhood, or even more reductive things like "being too masculine while being a woman", and does not rely solely on birth assignment like with the traditional current definition most transfeminists use.

Crude tl;dr - If you can get pregnant you are TME, if you are a woman who has or has had a penis you are TMA.

[beaft]

it is legit bizarre to me how hard video game creators and film directors and showrunners try to pretend that fat people don't exist. can you think of the last time you saw a fat person in a lead role? god forbid a fat woman? i can walk down the street or go into a shop or restaurant and see fat people everywhere but then i switch on the tv and suddenly it's like a glimpse into an alternate universe where no one has a bmi over 24. insidious and weird

[liquidstar]

Yes, Greece still exists, we didn't all die 2000 years ago. Yes, people speak Greek. You people are so fucking stupid for real. So many of you claim to love ancient shit but can't even acknowledge the actual living culture of the people whose mythology and classics you romanticize. You keep leaving annoying comments about how you just forget Greek people still exist, thinking you're being quirky because you love ancient stuff soooo much that you forgot about the people it came from. You think about it so little you don't even realize that an actual Greek person has to read this shit, making it clear how little you actually care about the culture beyond the romanticized (and westernized) mythology. Don't claim you love Greece, don't use our mythology anymore if you can't acknowledge that we're still around without making it about how little you think about us. It's mind boggling that you'd think a Greek person would read this and think you're anything but obnoxious. Explode.

[posi-pan]

for anyone who has ever seen someone claim pansexual was coined on social media by teenagers in the early 2000s, the 2010s, and even in the past few years, and believed it or wondered if it’s true, or known it’s not true and been annoyed by the misinformation, this article is for you!

after listing out all of the claims i’ve seen, i succinctly debunk them by laying out a brief overview of pansexual’s history dating back to the 1960s, both as a term generally indicating universal appeal/inclusion and a term indicating sexual freedom/attraction to all genders. i include a look at pansexual’s use specifically within queer spaces, with a focus on bisexual spaces, as well.

i also touch briefly on omnisexual and polysexual existing in similar contexts to pansexual dating back to the 1960s. and finally, i discuss a little bit about how when, where, and by whom a label is created doesn’t determine the validity or usefulness of it, because these claims come with the implication that new labels, labels created by kids, and labels originating on social media aren’t legit forms of queer expression and identification.

happy pan week! 🥰💗💛💙

[autisticandroids]

FAMINE: That's one deep, dark nothing you've got there, Dean.

[youtube with closed captions]

dean and his father. dean and his family. dean and how bad it is.

(via @closetoyou1970)

[calculatedklown]

It's completely baffling that Gortash is the only one of the chosen three with whom we don't get to have any dialogue regarding the information we uncover about him.??

Spoiler warning maybe lol

Like with Orin, we can mention her upbringing or the fact that she's a child of incest. Try to convince her that she's just been abused her whole life? Like obviously this changes nothing in the end. But it still matters that its mentioned.

Ketheric, we also can try and convince him to change his ways. Mention his wife, his religion, Isabelle. Literally mention everything we find out to try and convince him to turn a new leaf. Which also doesn't change any outcome. But I appreciate that its there.

But GORTASH??? We get absolutely NOTHING, it's absurd! It's baffling that we can't even touch on his backstory—like finding his parents,(possibly killing them depending on what you do) being sold to Raphael as a child, or the fact that he was scammed at one point. All the intriguing details we uncover about him lead to nowhere, and it's so annoying 😩

Like this isn't even just because I enjoy him as a character. It just seems like such a missed opportunity to find out more about him currently as a person!

The dialogue we encounter while trying to convince Ketheric and Orin reveals a profound insight into their true characters. Their reactions are telling and provide a unique perspective on who they are as individuals!

Ketheric fully recognizes the person he has become. He understands that he is a lost cause, fully acknowledging the wrongs he has committed and the irreparable damage he has caused. He accepts his fate without hesitation. Despite your words.

Orin lashes out in denial, and becomes completely manic (more so than her usual self). Completely baffled and distraught.

I want to know how Gortash would react if you brought up his parents or his childhood! It's a possibility he wouldn't be grateful if you slayed his parents; in fact, he would likely view any sympathy as a weakness and respond with anger or dismissiveness. Plus, we’ll never find out his true response to Durge after you say, “I always liked you.”

“Is that what you-”

I don't understand these missed opportunities with him?? Like I get keeping some ambiguity to an extent. Its why we will never get a clear answer into him and durges relationship…..BUT I WOULD LIKE A CRUMB OF HIM PLEASE!! I DONT EVEN NEED A KISSY SCENE! I JUST WANT ANY INSIGHT INTO HIS OWN OPINION ON HIS PAST IF ITS MENTIONED!

If you read all of this rambling…..please tell me what YOU think his possible response would be to any of these scenarios lmao please

[shakingparadigm]

what is the theory that ivan manipulated the event where till and mizi met the wagyein?

It's not a theory, actually! It's confirmed that Ivan orchestrated the whole event. The true reason as to why however is still unknown. The information provides more context to this scene, though:

During the earlier times of ALNST the most rational explanation for this scene was that Till ran after a flower crown (presumably Mizi's) and Ivan followed him in out of curiosity. Now we know that Ivan was conveniently just standing there because he was waiting.

Side note, I find it heartbreaking (and maybe a little funny, sorry) that Till most likely didn't notice Ivan in this scene. That's just like him, isn't it. Always too busy running after Mizi while Ivan trails behind, an ever-present shadow.

I'm not sure how Ivan manipulated the circumstances for both of them to end up there, but it is confirmed that everything was intentional. What strikes me most is how they describe this particular scene:

I can't copy down what they said word-for-word (Patreon info), but they described Ivan watching "creepily" as Till and Mizi are faced with danger. We know that Ivan was familiar with the Cerberus wagyein beforehand, enough to touch its teeth and even to rest himself inside its maw. To Ivan, the wagyein is not dangerous, but to Till and Mizi, it could be. Ivan prepared the wagyein, led them there, and watched "creepily" from afar as Till fell on his knees, seemingly injured.

The closest I can get to making sense of Ivan's "scheme" is that he wanted to see how other children would react in a dangerous situation. Ivan's always been an observer, after all, and he's learned to survive by copying the more "normal" behaviors of his peers. This situation occured when Ivan was still young and had not yet developed his more charming mask, so perhaps he staged this encounter to study a situational response, to learn and mimic the emotion of fear. And what better subjects for the experiment than two of the most expressive and reactive humans of their batch? It helps that he was already fixated on Till beforehand, too. I think Ivan became irreversibly obssessed after this incident, especially since it's framed as a turning point in Ivan's life, comparing Till to the stars.

This is just my attempt at an interpretation, though. It could very well be for another reason. He most likely chose Till and Mizi specifically for personal reasons, not just for reaction. I'm still not sure on the purpose behind the whole thing.

The team wanted to capture Ivan's "dark emotions" through the shot of his stalking, which could relate to his more sinister intentions. His gaze can be read in a few different ways, though. Curiosity, interest, fear, etc. Maybe that's why they decided to redraw the shot in ROUND 6.

I think this better sells the feeling they were trying to convey.

[maerhiya]

in regards to the constant dismissal of his aroace identity, i hate it when alastor 'fans' say and use the excuse: "he's fictional, he won't get offended."

like, you're right, but it can and will offend us.

when you see yourself being represented on screen, of course you'd feel enthusiastic about it — representation allows individuals to see themselves reflected in the media they consume, validating their identities and experiences. but when so many people take that representation and decide to disregard and discard it, it is so fucking frustrating. we finally have another character to be part of the tiny amount of representation we have, but then people don't even care about how much it means to us? like yeah, alastor won't get offended because he's not real, but it frustrates and annoys us. do you realize that it's also technically invalidating the aroace community? that you're invalidating our feelings? imagine feeling like you're finally being seen because your orientation is finally being represented in media, and people just decide to blatantly ignore, discard, and invalidate it.

media has such a powerful influence on real life, representation being a prevalent factor of it. there are numerous posts that dictate how people went to watch a movie/show or read a book just because a character depicts their identity in it — obviously, being represented is an incredibly uplifting and validating experience.

which is why seeing an aroace character in a popular show is so meaningful to us because we live in a world where romance and sex are literally everywhere and prioritized above all else. (and it's pretty obvious that alastor's on the repulsed end of the spectrum, but even if he wasn't, at least make an effort to acknowledge his sexuality instead of continuing to portray him as allo; aroace folks can be in relationships but it's not going to be the same thing with allos' experiences.)

any and every representation matters, but why does that seem to stop at people under the aroace spectrum? like y'all can't even let us appreciate the scraps of representation we have. we barely have any, so are we really that dramatic for being upset at how people easily disregard and dismiss our identities that are being depicted on screen just like that? is it truly wrong of us to want to defend and maintain the little representation we have?

[m4rs-ex3]

from "your dad" -> "who do you think sent runaan to kill dad"

[lunarin64art]

That feeling when he can't stand to see you that way, no matter what you do, no matter what you say😩😭💔

[welcometogrouchland]

I'm going to be so real I do not understand tim & steph shippers who feel that Steph dating Tim again would save her character. You can make an argument that giving Tim a more compelling love interest would be beneficial for him! And you can at least make an argument that the fujo mischaracterization of Steph would stop. However she'd still, inevitably, be treated as a prop character/extension for someone more popular 😭 it also wouldn't make her appear in more books! Tim doesn't have many frequent appearances at the moment either! You can just say you like the couple and want them back together without acting like you have some kind of moral stance

[chaosxcrushed]

There's a certain CCCC summary video that we really, really like. We think it is a great video for people if they want to grasp the story more clearly, if they're confused, or if they're listening to the album for the first time.

That video being Chonny Jash and the Weight of the Mind on Youtube by W3tBl@nk3t. We think they cover it really well.

However, I'm sharing this for a different reason; they say few certain things that really struck with us until now, that I'd like to share with the fandom. Sometimes, we see people really just.. Miss the point of CCCC entirely, and I'd like to shine a light on what was said here. If you'd like to hear this for yourself on video, the timestamp is 35:57-36:45.

“..I bet we all could relate to that, they are the prime example of the side of you that suffers and the side of you that hates yourself for suffering:

The side of you that just wants to slow down and feel everything even to the unhealthy extent of not being able to do anything else(1), but also the side of you that so desperately wants you to get over it(2).

Sure, laying in bed all day every day to rot isn't healthy, but neither is boiling things down and invalidating your own emotions. Both are paths to inevitable disaster, and that's what Chonny is doing here. Keep in mind that the idea behind this album is being whole, and that means neither of these sides are entirely in the right or the wrong; this album is about inner compromise and acceptance(3).”

1.) The side of you that suffers; Heart. He is representative of Whole's emotions, he holds them. Your emotions can go haywire, especially when one's mentally ill and has no way of their feelings being validated. An emotional person like Heart suffers under the weight of crushing, devastating feelings. He wants to feel things out, have time to just process everything, even if it takes them days or weeks to get over it. It's not healthy, but feeling is what he does, and he wants to help because he knows he has importance. Solely focusing on just your emotions isn't the best thing to do, however.

2.) The side of you that so desperately wants you to get over it; Mind. Many people have been there, have wanted themselves to stop wallowing in their own emotions and just do something else, even to the point where you think feeling things out is unnecessary. This is also unhealthy, but not intentionally. Like Heart, Mind just wants to help, everything he does is in best interest. This is what he thinks will get them to move on the quickest; to leave behind emotions and focus on anything BUT that. Also not the best thing to do.

3.) This album is about inner compromise and acceptance; About being whole. Neither of Heart and Mind are right nor wrong. They have their own ways of doing things, of what they think will help their whole self out the most, but both are unhealthy despite the good intentions. They fight over who's wrong or right, when they shouldn't even be doing so in the first place. It's your thoughts against your emotions, basically; your feelings contradict your thoughts, and it leads to an inner war of sorts. This won't make things better, which is why you can't have Mind over Heart or vice versa; you'll need both of them. In the album, they are only able to be whole when they get along. They harmonize, they 'combine', they see eye to eye with each other and work together instead of fighting over and over. Inner compromise is achieved with this, and acceptance can lead them away from any disaster that there's to come.

What we're trying to say is that mental health is a large thing tackled within CCCC, and yet we see a lot of people who overlook it; thus, end up missing the point of the whole album. We see a lot of people believe Mind's perspective a little too much and treat Heart quite harshly, or the other way where people demonize Mind and say that Heart is perfect, when it's not really that in the slightest.

This is not a hate post towards people's interpretations of CCCC or how they view characters, I'm just saying that people can tend to overlook what's in the very narrative, and we see a concerning amount of people do such.

Anyways. Stream CCCC and put your Hearts and Minds in the get along shirt. Have a nice day.

[menlove]

the way current liberal feminism leaves gnc women (& adjacent) in the dust is actually so maddening it makes me want to light things places people etc on fire

[sergle]

what I was talking abt earlier. we have fully looped back around and away from feminism, societally, whereas before it was very Feminism 101 to acknowledge that many parts of existing as a woman in a misogynistic society are painful and upsetting. not that being a woman is Inherently Negative in a bubble. but that living on this earth, in the conditions we're living in, is hostile to women. and that gender is a performance. that many of the Staples Of Femininity as accepted by society are things that you have to create and perform and mold artificially and aren't inherent, that COMPLAINING about day to day difficulties of existing as a woman is something that you're allowed to do. acknowledging these basic, again, feminism 101 things, that something tied to womanhood is more time consuming or more expensive or more dangerous Because Of The Problems. does not CREATE the problems. that when women complain about having to perform femininity, they are not, in fact, oppressing themselves. the call does not come from inside the fucking house. saying that you HAVE suffered does not fucking equate that you believe you SHOULD have suffered.

like I could talk about this for hours. how braindead and one-dimensional the Takes are getting. "being a woman is looking in the mirror and going fuck yeah i'm a woman" damn. I guess any negative experiences you have by living in a misogynistic world... are your fault if you are anything but positive? "you don't actually want liberation" we've fully gone back to telling feminists "you WANT to be oppressed" when anything negative about our society is pointed out. it's not real until I say it out loud, I guess, and then I'm actually the one who caused it. if anybody expresses any unhappiness with how they're treated or the status quo or the language and culture surrounding womanhood and femininity. they've created it, right that second. they invented it just now. it wasn't a problem before somebody complained, right? also trans women aren't braindead zombies who just follow the flow of whatever cis women around them say. I am pretty fucking sure they are very much aware of pain, and are MORE than aware of the swirling torrent of misogyny and standards of femininity than anybody else. actually. and I am pretty sure someone complaining on tumblr that being a woman means always putting on a performance is going to make someone change their mind about transitioning. also "performing femininity" as a necessity to being treated well as a woman is not fucking NEWS to your Local Trans Woman. I AM PRETTY SURE SHE GETS THE CONCEPT. using trans women as a scapegoat for this braindead perspective on gender politics is spineless, meritless, and pathetic.

[celtrist]

SLIGHT SPOILERS AHEAD BUT NOTHING TOO OBVIOUS (I would've waited a week but this one is pretty vague spoiler wise so...): I feel like most people might think she was being unfairly harsh in part due to her being a teenager and not understanding things. But I also think that's partially not giving her enough credit. I personally think she's very right in her actions, if not a bit melodramatic. I've said it before, and I'll say it again: It is very clear Stolas LOVES Octavia, but his loving and caring about her does not make him a good father. As viewers, we haven't been given any reason that Octavia should forgive Stolas. She seems kind of absent in his life and we've seen him prioritize things like Blitz over her (they make it a point several times in the show with the Asmodeus song and Lulu Land). They've kind of kept alluding to how Stolas does, in action, love Blitz more and doesn't pay enough attention to Octavia. And the show doesn't put a lot of effort into showing him trying to be better in this. He SAYS he is, but actions speak louder than words (and in a show, it's 9/10 times better to show it, not tell it). There hasn't been a moment in the show that shows Stolas putting in effort to mend his relationship with Octavia when we know it's important to him. And granted, yes, they have only so much time and episodes. But by the same token, there are episodes they could've not done (cherubs and Fizzaroli episodes) that could've put focus on Octavia and Stolas' relationship. Stolas' and Octavia's relationship feels more important than the day in the life of Fizz (and I like Fizz and his forgiving Blitz adds to that story, but we didn't need to see his life with Mammon).

If they want to keep hammering in the issues between Octavia and Stolas, then they also need to show the two mending (or bonding) on screen for it to feel fair for Octavia to forgive and trust him. We can't just say "off-screen stuff" as a resolution when this relationship is consistently shown to be rough and needs work. It's like if a show kept showing a couple being terrible for each other, but they keep mentioning stuff they did off-screen that tells us the relationship is good. That's not good writing! And while I have plenty of critiques for Helluva's and Hazbin's writing, I don't feel like they'd try to pull the "they solved it off-screen" thing. I don't think they'd be SLOW about it, but I think they'd at least show us on-screen stuff with it.

While I do think Stolas was in a difficult situation, you can't deny he's not a very good father (he wasn't even aware of her interests until the Lulu Land episode). Like, he can love her all he wants, but if he's not there for her, he's not there. And we haven't been given many reasons for him NOT to be there for her. You can't really name a lot of things Stolas has done in recent times for her that we've been allowed to see. The only part of their relationship we've seen is that they do care for each other but it needs work. I think it's obvious she's gonna forgive Stolas, just in part because he does genuinely want to do better by her and they DID have a good relationship when she was younger. And I think that's a good route to go with it (especially if they make a parallel of Octavia forgiving and trusting Stolas while Barbie chooses to keep hating Blitz).

I feel like people can be a bit lenient on Stolas because he's depressed and was in a loveless forced marriage with a woman while being gay, but I don't think that's fair for a character like Octavia then to have her feelings brushed off. Like there's certainly wiggle room to be sure, but it shouldn't mean we should ignore his actions and forgive him for everything he does. Stolas did do wrong and it makes me happy to see that there are consequences to his actions (good or bad). We've seen him keep flirting with Blitz over spending time with his daughter. These are things we DO see on screen. I do think Octavia was harsh, it's not like I don't (like with her reaction to the pills), but we as viewers haven't been given much reason for Octavia to forgive Stolas so easily. We haven't seen them have a good relationship really. Hell, we haven't even been shown them having a BAD relationship really. But the times we do get, it often shows the rough, bad side of it. Yes, she's 17 so her emotions are a bit wild and everything, and while I don't think she fully understands all the complexities, I also don't think she's a baby. Like... she's not an idiot. Teenagers have the capability to understand some of these things, she's not 5. Octavia wasn't JUST upset about the pills, she's upset because the man who said would always be there for her kept leaving for the imp he had an affair with. She's upset because he keeps being dishonest with her. Stolas has done far more for Blitz than we have seen him do for Octavia. I think the pills and that he's never told her about them was just the final straw of everything.

I don't think it's fair to say "Octavia doesn't know better" when she's 17. The show has hammered in the point that his actions have not = how he feels for Octavia very well. That, or just neglected to show any good bonding moments between them or anything that didn't involve Octavia having to forgive Stolas (as any Octavia episode had Stolas ignoring her and then saying sorry. Which would maybe be fine if they showed more to their relationship outside of that).

Rambled more than I thought I would for the series I have way less interest in, haha. But I don't really care for the "Stolas did nothing wrong" attitude I see some people have when Stolas has done things wrong. He was in an unfortunate situation to be sure, but he can still do wrong things (by all accounts, him cheating on Stella was wrong on a moral level). I LIKE Stolas' character too btw, and I like how messy he is. But I feel like a lot of people are gonna brush off Octavia's view as "she doesn't know any better" or just that she was being unfair about everything when I don't think that's fair to her. She was harsh, yes. I think the pill thing she doesn't understand entirely, but she's 17 not stupid. And there's more than just the pills that Octavia has reason to be mad about concerning her father that I think people don't wanna acknowledge. Maybe I'm talking nonsense though? I don't know, I really haven't been convinced about some of Stolas' actions, even if again his situation was messy/complicated.

[wonder-worker]

Thinking about Elizabeth Woodville as a gothic heroine is making me go insane. She entered the story by overturning existing social structures, provoking both ire and fascination. She married into a dynasty doomed to eat itself alive. She was repeatedly associated with the supernatural, both in terms of love and death. Her life was shaped entirely by uncanny repetitions - two marriages, two widowhoods, two depositions, two flights to sanctuary, two ultimate reclamations - all paralleling and ricocheting off each other. Her plight after 1483 exposed the true rot at the heart of the monarchy - the trappings of royalty pulled away to reveal nothing, a never-ending cycle of betrayal and war, the price of power being the (literal) blood of children. She lived past the end of her family name, she lived past the end of her myth. She ended her life in a deeply anomalous position, half-in and half-out of royal society. She was both a haunting tragedy and the ultimate survivor who was finally free.