#generations of oppression

[news4dzhozhar]

[stil-lindigo]

an ex-zionist jewish man recently went a bit viral on tiktok for sharing exactly how he sees zionism tie israel to the jewish identity and his personal experience with breaking away from it - I think it’s a really great watch.

He also made a follow up talking specifically about how he learned to humanise Palestinians, and a really integral part of it was his school, which would often bring in Palestinian speakers who’d share their perspective (here’s a link to it).

[anghraine]

It's always been intriguing to me that, even when Elizabeth hates Darcy and thinks he's genuinely a monstrous, predatory human being, she does not ever perceive him as sexually predatory. In fact, literally no one in the novel suggests or believes he is sexually dangerous at any point. There's not the slightest hint of that as a factor in the rumors surrounding him, even though eighteenth-century fiction writers very often linked masculine villainy to a possibility of sexual predation in the subtext or just text*. Austen herself does this over and over when it comes to the true villains of her novels.

Even as a supposed villain, though, Darcy is broadly understood to be predatory and callous towards men who are weaker than him in status, power, and personality—with no real hint of sexual threat about it at all (certainly none towards women). Darcy's "villainy" is overwhelmingly about abusing his socioeconomic power over other men, like Wickham and Bingley. This can have secondhand effects on women's lives, but as collateral damage. Nobody thinks he's targeting women.

In addition, Elizabeth's interpretations of Darcy in the first half of the book tend to involve associating him with relatively prestigious women by contrast to the men in his life (he's seen as extremely dissimilar from his male friends and, as a villain, from his father). So Elizabeth understands Darcy-as-villain not in terms of the popular, often very sexualized images of masculine villainy at the time, but in terms of rich women she personally despises like Caroline Bingley and Lady Catherine de Bourgh (and even Georgiana Darcy; Elizabeth assumes a lot about Georgiana in service of her hatred of Darcy before ever meeting her).

The only people in Elizabeth's own community who side with Darcy at this time are, interestingly, both women, and likely the highest-status unmarried women in her community: Charlotte Lucas and Jane Bennet. Both have some temperamental affinities with Darcy, and while it's not clear if he recognizes this, he quietly approves of them without even knowing they've been sticking up for him behind the scenes.

This concept of Darcy-as-villain is not just Elizabeth's, either. Darcy is never seen by anyone as a sexual threat no matter how "bad" he's supposed to be. No one is concerned about any danger he might pose to their daughters or sisters. Kitty is afraid of him, but because she's easily intimidated rather than any sense of actual peril. Even another man, Mr Bennet, seems genuinely surprised to discover late in the novel that Darcy experiences attraction to anything other than his own ego.

I was thinking about this because of how often the concept of Darcy as an anti-hero before Elizabeth "fixes him" seems caught up in a hypermasculine, sexually dangerous, bad boy image of him that even people who actively hate him in the novel never subscribe to or remotely imply. Wickham doesn't suggest anything of the kind, Elizabeth doesn't, the various gossips of Meryton don't, Mr Bennet and the Gardiners don't, nobody does. If anything, he's perceived as cold and sexless.

Wickham in particular defines Darcy's villainy in opposition to the patriarchal ideal his father represented. Wickham's version of their history works to link Darcy to Lady Anne, Lady Catherine (primarily), and Georgiana rather than any kind of masculine sexuality. This version of Darcy is a villain who colludes with unsympathetic high-status women to harm men of less power than themselves, but villain!Darcy poses no direct threat to women of any kind.

It's always seemed to me that there's a very strong tendency among fans and academics to frame Darcy as this ultra-gendered figure with some kind of sexual menace going on, textually or subtextually. He's so often understood entirely in terms of masculinity and sexual desire, with his flaws closely tied to both (whether those flaws are his real ones, exaggerated, or entirely manufactured). Yet that doesn't seem to be his vibe to other characters in the story. There's a level at which he does not register to other characters as highly masculine in his affiliations, highly sexual, or in general as at all unsafe** to be around, even when they think he's a monster. And I kind of feel like this makes the revelations of his actual decency all along and his full-on heroism later easier to accept in the end.

------------

*The incompetently awful villain(?) in Sanditon, for instance, imagines himself another Lovelace (a reference to the famous rapist-villain of Samuel Richardson's Clarissa). Evelina's sheltered education and lack of protectors makes her vulnerable to sexual exploitation in Frances Burney's Evelina, though she ultimately manages to avoid it. There's frequently an element of sexual predation in Gothic novels even of very different kinds (e.g. Ann Radcliffe's The Mysteries of Udolpho and Matthew Lewis's The Monk both lean into this, in their wildly dissimilar styles). William Godwin's novel Caleb Williams, a book mostly about the destructive evils of class hierarchies and landowning classes specifically, depicts the mutual obsession of the genteel villain Falkland and working class hero Caleb in notoriously homoerotic terms (Godwin himself added a preface in 1832 saying, "Falkland was my Bluebeard, who had perpetrated atrocious crimes ... Caleb Williams was the wife"). This list could go on for a very long time.

**Darcy is also not usually perceived by other characters as a particularly sexual, highly masculine person in a safe way, either, even once his true character is known. Elizabeth emphasizes the resilience of Darcy's love for her more than the passionate intensity they both evidently feel; in the later book, she does sometimes makes assumptions about his true feelings or intentions based on his gender, but these assumptions are pretty much invariably shown to be wrong. In general the cast is completely oblivious to the attraction he does feel; even Charlotte, who wonders about something in that quarter, ends up doubting her own suspicions and wonders if he's just very absent-minded.

The novel emphasizes that he is physically attractive, but it goes to pains to distinguish this from Wickham's sex appeal or the charisma of a Bingley or Fitzwilliam. Mr Bennet (as mentioned above) seems to have assumed Darcy is functionally asexual, insofar as he has a concept of that. Most of the fandom-beloved moments in which Darcy is framed as highly sexual, or where he himself is sexualized for the audience, are very significantly changed in adaptation or just invented altogether for the adaptations they appear in. Darcy watching Elizabeth after his bath in the 1995 is invented for that version, him snapping at Elizabeth in their debates out of UST is a persistent change from his smiling banter with her in the book, the fencing to purge his feelings is invented, the pond swim/wet shirt is invented. In the 2005 P&P, the instant reaction to Elizabeth is invented, the hand flex of repressed passion is invented, the Netherfield Ball dance as anything but an exercise in mutual frustration is invented, the near-kiss after the proposal in invented, etc. And in those as well, he's never presented as sexually predatory, not even as a "villain."

[gingerswagfreckles]

It's become extremely obvious over the past 15 months that the only reason much of the Western world ever basically agreed that the Holocaust was bad and was willing to teach about it is because for a brief period of time, Jews and gentiles in most of Europe + America had a common enemy in the Nazis. But this acknowledgement of Nazi antisemitism was only ever the same kind of acknowledgement of antisemitism that we get right now, where people are only willing to acknowledge the antisemitism of the people they already had a completely separate reason to dislike or fear. Antisemitism in this worldview is just a tool, a secondary accusation one can lodge at someone who is already for different reasons an enemy. It is never acknowledged as a form of bigotry in and of itself, that exists on its own and not as a follow up to another "more serious" form of oppression or bigotry against gentiles.

Obviously any Holocaust education we do get in Europe and the US has very much been the result efforts by Jews and our allies in a practical sense, but it is undeniable that there was a brief 70 or so year period where the white Western consciousness found it valuable (or at least politically convenient) to recognize antisemitism as wrong and the Holocaust as horrific. As true, original-brand Nazism fades, though, we see opposition to antisemitism and the Holocaust becoming less and less valuable to the white Western identity, as actual threat of Nazi occupation fades to historical memory. Newer, rebranded neo-Nazis and leftist Hamas supporters pose little to no threat to white Western gentiles. And thus, we see now not only a growing acceptance of antisemitism, but also a growing hostility towards the idea that we should study or condemn the Holocaust as anything particularly terrible. The Holocaust no longer represents a way for gentiles to additionally condemn an ideology that also threatened them, that also killed their families, that also resulted in their own countries and communities being occupied or destroyed by foreign fascist governments. It no longer represents to them an ideology that is in any way a threat to their own safety or way of life.

This is why we see such a massive rise in Holocaust denial among Gen Z, and, even more broadly than overt Holocaust denial, the rejection of the idea that the Holocaust should be particularly studied or condemned. More and more, we see people "questioning" the "propaganda" of The Jews Crying Victim All The Time, we see young people wondering why they are so cruelly forced to acknowledge on very rare occasion the suffering that the Jewish people went through in their own homes and towns. Often this is framed not only as intellectual bravery but moral bravery, as if this new generation rejecting Holocaust education is somehow fighting back against the unfair valuing of Jewish tragedy above gentile tragedy. What they don't understand, of course, and what many Jews up until now didn't understand either, is that no one ever valued the Holocaust because it WAS a uniquely horrific event in history, because it WAS the first and only industrialized genocide that gassed millions to death on a scale we can only pray the world will never see again, because it WAS only 70 years ago and is still a living part of the history of many Western countries. No. The Holocaust was only ever given the acknowledgement it was because it represented, at one time, an ideological threat that also included gentiles, though less overtly than it targeted Jews.

That ideological threat against Jews has not gone anywhere, and is in fact is seeing a new glory day dawning with the rise of fascism worldwide and the normalization/glorification of antisemitism on the left. But this new form of antisemitic hatred, be it neo-Nazism or support for Hamas, does not represent a threat to white Western gentiles, their way of life, or the integrity of their governments. And so we as we see the decoupling of the Holocaust from something that also incidentally threatens gentiles, we see standing against the Holocaust and antisemitism as a symbol of white Western identity disappearing as fast as it came.

[stoat-party]

[the-agent-of-blight]

also, i really find it interesting how people can genuinely go about saying "Well this group isn't attacked for their identity so they can't be queer " while then turning around and. attacking said group. for their identity. and exemplifying classic __-phobic tropes. It's really dumb. You are being the thing that you claim does not exist

[curly-cottage-girl]

I’m sorry but my Mother Mary, Terror of Demons, Queen of Heaven, Star of the Sea, was not “REDUCED to motherhood” by God

[glitter-soda]

Sometimes I wonder what it would be like if we lived in a world where misogyny was universally recognized as a serious type of oppression

[poisontheglamrockband]

gamers, i’m only on episode three of season two but i feel like cait’s “i keep telling myself you’re different. but you’re not” is very snowbaird in the sense that cait doesn’t see people from the undercity as people (obviously)

cait’s convinced herself that vi has become more piltover than undercity, and perhaps that was reaffirmed by vi surrendering to the idea that powder died years ago; because if vi can be convinced that even her little sister is nothing more than “the enemy” then surely vi can plaster that label onto any and every OTHER undercity citizen out there

i guess the comparison comes from the fact that cait and coryo (and jayce) are all so comfortable with ignoring their partners’ culture / how that culture affects their individual perspectives / etc. because they’re not LIKE them; which also leads to so much objectification because i believe (almost, because of jayce) all of them use their partners as tools to benefit themselves / their ego

[crazysodomite]

its insane how you literally can't talk about the oppression caucasians face (what was the last time you read about the genocide or imperialist aggression caucasian people went through? actually?) without an american/westerner piping up with "umm... lol... you think White people are oppressed? lol"

Isn't it crazy how people use caucasian to make fun of white people while literally Completely erasing the struggles of a racialized group? Isn't it crazy how no one cares and people keep doing it without batting an eye? And isn't it crazy when you try to look up something about caucasians you get stupid ass articles about "are white people opressed or not? are white people entitled? are white people this or that?"

[pocketsizedquasar-3]

didn’t want to rb this post directly partially bc i see/get the overall point and partially bc i don’t want ppl to be a dick to me if i say shit (n i def do not intend any ire/ill will to op; i am just adding my thoughts)

but anyway. while i again do see the point of the post (not all queer ppl are harmed the same way/amount by the govt & more specifically by the recent Executive Orders), i also with respect think that the assumption that they are only specifically about targeting trans women or protecting cis women from trans women is just untrue (smthn some ppl in the notes are also claiming).

the eo’s have language that is explicitly targeting / inciting violence towards trans women & this is undeniable. everything that mentions “protecting women from men” and keeping “males” out of “women’s spaces” is very deliberately about targeting and harming trans women. there is an entire section of one of the EO’s dedicated specifically to removing “males” (trans women) from women’s prisons, and this is horrific and violent. transfems also suffer from the effects of hypervisbility, making them very easy targets for enforcement of these laws and the language within them. all of that is true.

& also, it’s very untrue that these eo’s aren’t designed to harm other trans ppl and intersex ppl. i’m not even talking generally “oh these orders are about transphobia and so will harm all trans ppl”; there is specific language in them that is violent specifically towards intersex and transmasc ppl (in addition to the language that directly violently targets transfems) (none of which (transfem, transmasc, intersex) are mutually exclusive categories!).

the multiple eo’s concerning trans folks are rife with defining sex strictly as an immutable binary — the “immutable biological reality of sex” —“protecting sex-based distinctions,” (both quotes from the “defending women from gender ideology…” executive order) and deliberately codifying the erasure of any and all acknowledgment of sex outside of male/female is intentional, specific violence towards intersex people. this is deliberate targeting intersex people for violence and oppression (just as other parts of the same EO are deliberately targeting transfems).

there is also the entire EO for “protecting children from chemical and surgical mutilation”, which obviously is directed largely at any gender-affirming trans healthcare as a whole, but also very specifically names protecting against “female genital mutilation” — directly targeting transmascs, and ‘protecting’ cis women and girls from transmascs.

transmascs are very much also viewed as a threat to cis women and cis girls, painted as “corrupting,” “stealing,” and “mutilating” poor innocent young cis girls (or poor innocent cis lesbians, depending on the person wielding this rhetoric). transphobic rhetoric and anti trans laws are rife with this belief, deriding the “mutilation” of their idea of the “pure ideal female body,” the “hacking off healthy tissue” (re: top surgery), “testosterone poisoning” of girls, and the idea that trans men want to turn all young girls trans, want to turn all young lesbians trans — “i was a tomboy and if i were a kid today i would’ve been turned trans! they would’ve made me transition!” (this is also part of the driver of the incredibly high SA rates among transmasc ppl)

this EO is simply a codification of that view of transmascs as a threat to cis womanhood. this EO targets all trans people’s right to our own bodies and bodily autonomy, and this language specifically directly targets transmasc’s rights to their own bodies.

i do think it’s important to discuss that not all queer people are immediately impacted the same way by trump’s bigotry. i also think it’s incredibly disingenuous to ignore the parts of these laws which are deliberately targeting specific subsets of the trans and intersex community (including ignoring the parts that explicitly are about transfems!). all trans and intersex people are intentionally, directly, and explicitly targeted by the government’s bigotry and violence in different ways; none of it is incidental or unintentional. they are “protecting” cis women, or, the white supremacist status quo, from trans & intersex people — most especially nonwhite trans and intersex ppl.

anyway. those are my thoughts.

[hellothepixel]

I want to be able to discuss transmisogyny, both to be able to defend myself against it and to help other transfems suffering from it. But if the person talking about it goes out of their way to frame trans men as inherently more privileged than women, or dismiss transandrophobia, then- i have to be weary.

How can I trust that you're being accurate about the bigotry you experience, when you are being dismissive of the bigotry fellow trans people experience?

Truth is that transmasc people suffer a unique blend of transphobia, one that insists they are women and then enacts misogyny upon them based on that assertion. This is transandrophobia. Why shouldn't transmasc people be able to use this label to correctly identify their struggles, as we transfem people use transmisogyny to correctly identify ours?

[calcified-fluorited]

imagine if, for once, the "cycle of violence" wasn't about how the oppressed side has to forgive and forget, or that killing a mass murderer in self defense makes you just as bad, and maybe was instead about something that's actually proportional, like fuckin.. idk. romeo and juliet I guess?

[derpymidnight]

shitty alignment chart i did

[gender-critical-analytical]

the way some of you clearly think bisexuals don't experience actual attraction and feelings for people, but rather decide ahead of time if they want a man or a woman this time and then just go and pick whoever comes into their line of sight next is so obvious and definitely makes me think you all don't need to speak on things you don't know about

[ganondoodle]

"(that one arcane writer guy) drew inspiration from the US two party system and how they fail to communicate with each other"

what what what, yes of course thats totally comparable, you know, piltover, the rich powerful oppressor class living in paradise and zaun, the poor and exploited, that are literally made to live underground in poisoned air and water and waste created by the maschinery that makes piltover rich, rats in their garbage, that have no power anywhere and the second they resist get run over by enforcers of the rich and powerful

they just have a communication problem uwu, which is why putting 3 zaunites into the uniforms of their opressors and have them fight and die for a stupid otherworldy threat together makes them understand each other, which is why getting rid of any counceler that even mildly cared about zaun, reinstate that system, and giving a single seat to sevika instead makes sense, and look, the rich upper class powerful lesbian that turned into a dictator for a time gets to keep her power and the poor zaunite lesbian that lost everything get to be together!! we did it! we solved politics!