#i do get if the term misogyny is uncomfortable! but it is not misandry because transphobes are not oppressing you for being a man.

[mothranting]

hate how this hellsite talks about women lately. to be honest.

[magicalgirlmindcrank]

Implying everyone that isn't a binary trans woman faces the same sort of "general" transphobia as each other is the type of logic that gets trans kids (and adults!) killed. Have the day you deserve.

is this nonbinary person who uses they and it pronouns and only identifies as female in part, a binary transwoman? Like this information is in our bio.

Onto the actual subject matter - You are huffing paint, and refusing to engage with what we are saying. Let's try to make this simple:

If I pour a drink in a square glass or a round one it takes a different shape but it does not become something else. If I add a second drink the mix however, it's a new thing worth description. Misandry isn't a social force and using a synonym doesn't make it apparate. Reinventing MRA talking points doesn't become woke because you are trans. Transmisogyny is describing something greater than just transphobia, not a subset of it. Transmisogyny is about the intersection of misogyny and transphobia and how that affects transwomen. Trans men sometimes catch our strays, as do many others, we've seen a high profile case of this this week. When I say 'transandrophobia' doesn't exist, I do not mean there aren't struggles unique to the FTM transition, I mean it literally doesn't exist in the capacity transmisogyny does. Using it as a term comes off extremely 'I am uncomfortable when not about me' as a result.

Anyways, hope this helps~<3

[ccatskies]

this is my take on the initial episodes of queen of tears: so, um. hyunwoo’s reaction to haein dying. a lot of people were immediately put off by it and dropped the drama, calling him an asshole. i wouldn’t say the reaction wasn’t a little uncomfortable to watch as a viewer, but that’s only the case if you’ve never put yourself in the shoes of someone suffering immensely from a dysfunctional relationship.

the lack of overt affection was destroying him because his wife is so closed off and would rather care for him in a way that is impossible to be acknowledged by him, she humiliated him in front of his employees and he had to respond w “yes, ma’am” despite not agreeing w her bc she’s his boss, she didn’t stand up for him vocally when her family was berating him to no end, plus the family made him do their household chores against his will. he had to walk on eggshells around them, especially his wife.

it was so bad that there were multiple scenes where his hands were clenched together, trembling. he went to therapy and got strong anxiety meds prescribed in return. this abysmal marriage was crippling him emotionally and mentally (it’s safe to say haein put him through emotional abuse, even if she didn’t intend to affect him that way)

his initial plan was to divorce haein because he couldn’t take it any longer, even if it meant his multimillionaire father-in-law was going to stab him in the back (figure of speech). in fact, he preferred being stabbed over having to face the vengeance of the hong family.

the “window fantasy” isn’t fictional. there are multiple women, unwillingly dependent on their narcissistic husbands (not only bc they can’t go anywhere since their working opportunities have been sabotaged but also bc a bad rep will follow them if they leave or don’t yield to their husbands; tldr: there are consequences to leaving), that have wanted to be widowed at some point bc they couldn’t bear the trauma of the marriage. growing up in a south asian society, i know a thing or two about being stuck in traumatic marriages and the only way being out is if your partner somehow dies.

no one would invalidate an abuse victim if they wanted their abuser to die. so, are these women any different just bc they agreed to the marriage when their partner swore to carry out their commitment? only to find out none of their needs are being met and they’re stuck? are they not being abused?

so, people, to an extent, DO justify it when women want their toxic husbands to die because of terrible life situations.

now, back to QoT. i saw someone on twitter say that if the roles were reversed i.e if haein was the one who was wishing for hyunwoo to die, they’d be okay with it bc “yess go get revenge on your toxic husband and free yourself girl” bc misogyny is a systematic thing. it’s not easy to escape abusive husbands in our society especially when they hold power over their partner.

so, for the opposite to happen i.e the husband wanting his wife to die just looks “bad.”

however, queen of tears is a show where it is blatantly obvious that the gender roles are reversed. something that even my younger brother pointed out seamlessly. the hong “queens” family think they’re progressive for making their sons-in-law do their chores for them (something they did not sign up for). this is how many daughters-in-law are treated in modern society. the only reason “misandry” feels more real in the show, in terms of the hong family, is bc the women of this family certainly hold more power over the sons-in-law because of CLASS. haein is a multimillionaire’s daughter while hyunwoo is a villager’s son. they could easily take revenge on his family in irreparable ways. class distinction exists, power exists, abuse exists.

with all that in mind, hyunwoo might as well have been going through the “widow fantasy” where if he left his wife willingly, he’d have to suffer and if he chose to stay, he’d still need to suffer. the only way out was haein not being in his life anymore without him having to do anything.

it sounds cruel but it’s obvious he was pushed to the edge. he wanted to escape the trauma and it should also be noted that by then, he was completely out of love with haein (he told his therapist that he despised his wife the most). how much can you sympathize w someone you can’t even look at without feeling small?

so, in that period, he must’ve went through an overwhelming amount of emotions while he was on survival mode, not allowing him to think straight, or even consider what he had w haein in the past bc much of that was long gone. furthermore, i don’t think he would’ve been that obsessed w the will revision if yanggi didn’t motivate him to think that way, with the intentions of getting compensation for their poor excuse of a marriage.

so yeah, i wouldn’t say he was being a good husband to her initially. but rather, he was being selfish… by looking out for himself for once. he’s always had to clean up the hong family’s mess, looking after their reputation, never getting peace of his own.

then again, it takes two to tango and the marriage failed bc of both hyunwoo and haein’s lack of efforts. but i would say it was more complicated for hyunwoo bc haein always kept him guessing (and she was indecisive as well; the wedding anniversary issue) and he’s grown up in a pretty communicative family, so not taking his partner’s words at face value isn’t something he’s used to. he felt the most unloved.

so, personally, it was hard for me to sympathize with haein until a few more episodes into the show (this is coming from someone who relates to haein a lot, kind of opened up room for a lot of self reflection). she was a bad wife to the point her partner wanted to die. can’t say if the feeling was mutual on her part. haein herself admitted that she was a terrible partner, understanding why he did what he did, despite it being heartbreaking.

another thing i’ve noticed people say is that hyunwoo was pretending to be the good guy and hiding behind his “kind” actions but you could tell his actions became more genuine and he started to catch feelings again, albeit he was in denial at the beginning. when the divorce agreement papers leaked, he told her the honest truth without coming up w excuses, acknowledging that this whole ordeal hurt haein more than it hurt him. he didn’t take advantage of her memory loss (the rain scene w the cat “aeong”) to cut himself some slack and to make sure haein wouldn’t immediately be plotting against him.

he wasn’t hiding behind his actions or claiming to be a good guy. he was owning up.

he started to care, felt guilty (hotel scene in germany) and realized why and how their relationship failed, worked towards making it better. i think he would’ve been honest and told haein abt the divorce himself anyway but learning about it from her mother kind of broke the trust haein had on him.

anyway, i never thought i’d be on tumblr defending a man who was happy at the news of his wife dying but here we are.

[catgirl-kaiju]

i'm saying this as a trans man and someone who has watched this infighting that seems to be brewing for a long while so don't think i want to continue it further by dragging you in the mud of it all especially after seeing that you already get targeted by terfs i for one don't even follow genderkoolaid and have a lot of bad takes but i know that their good ones do circulate in my circles for things like databases for trans man hate crimes and what have you things that are invaluable to trans people to have as support in the community the baggage behind a lot of these words that get thrown around like "transandrophobia" just leave a bad taste in my mouth and i feel like if they will have any validity in academia and social justice all the theory will get ironed out in the next few years and so i just don't see any use defending THE WORD let alone THE SLUR THAT MANY USE but i think that it needs to be understood that the word """"transandrophobia"""" is not a organized school of thought with everyone attached to some discord group that has secret infighting targets and takes pot shots at trans women all i ever see is people using the word, talking about WHY THE SLUR IS A SLUR, and wanting to talk about problems trans men face without always having to use the word "misandry" because it is deeply upsetting that in so many ways we are born women, we live as women, and will never escape womanhood i feel like not being able to escape the things people perceive you as and the assumptions and fears (especially the fears people think are justified when they are very much not) are a universal trans experience and so it really hurts to just see people spot a basic word like "transandrophobia" being used in a post and deem an entire group of people bigots i see trans mascs and intersex people do the same for "tme/tma" where they just totally avoid anyone who uses these terms its tearing the community apart and making it harder to remember how much we have in common and bigots want us to be alone and defenseless like that... sorry that this was long winded, i'm sure you've heard all of this before i just felt i needed to vent because its really not about the blog its about the general way people navigate in fighting genderkoolaid is not someone i'm really willing to defend, let alone the other blogs that get tossed around that have been in heavy water so i hope i've made that clear here at the very least

hey i don't really follow what you're saying here. i'm not sure what slur the slur you're referring to is, and i'm very unclear what your point is abt transandrophobia. i'm also confused abt which intersex people u are referring to that don't like the terms tme/tma. i'm intersex and use those terms, and i've seen other intersex folks actually prefer those terms for discussions about transmisogyny because of how it shifts the focus away from very binary way that sex is talked about in the AGAB model.

this is, in general, confusing and makes me uncomfortable in ways i can't really articulate atm. i think chief among them is a kind of "but, what about me" vibe i'm getting from this at a time i am being more vocal than ever abt how transmisogyny affects me and other tma folks.

although i'm not sure what your stance on the term "transandrophobia" and the ideas behind it are, i can say that very much disapprove of it for reasons others have articulated so much better than i could. i think issues that uniquely affect trans masc folks are worth talking about, but i think the framing of conflating those issues with the way transmisogyny functions is just the wrong way to go about it. much like how "misandry" is not really a helpful way to talk abt the ways that cis men are affected by patriarchal systems, as those issues are not equivalent to the way misogyny functions. very telling that before the term "transandrophobia" was used, the same ideas were being described with the term "transmisandry"

[bubbelpop2]

Making my own post because someone disagreed with me and blocked me (which is fine)

I'm an intersex, autistic, queer leftist commie that was determined female at birth. (I hate that term but it's what I was labeled as) And I feel too afraid of women and men to show my pain in public sometimes. I feel compelled to perform masculinity in a certain way in front of people who believe men shouldn't cry or have problems that they can't solve. I have internal misandry.

And I've also experienced misandry from terfs, and from conservative clowns. I believe that men's issues under the patriarchy need to be taken seriously. I think we need to listen to men. We need to listen to trans men, cis men, intersex men, we need to listen to male leaning nonbinaries, other nonbinaries, and we need to listen to trans women who are considered men by transphobes and conservative clowns. We need to listen to trans women who grew up being so negatively affected by the patriarchy and so emotionally damaged by it, in so many ways.

And we deserve terminology for It. Misandry. Trans-Misogyny. Trans-androphobia. Men's rights. Trans rights. Women's rights. Feminism.

All of these terms have been used by stupid people for stupid things. Including feminism being used by terfs. Feminism needs to include trans women, and trans men, and cis men, and people of all genders. It should be about equality. The fact that it's called feminism doesn't mean that it's not about equality. I'm clearly not an uneducated conservative Christian 4chan loser just because I believe the term "misandry" has a real place. Misandry is a real thing. It hurts men. And it hurts me, and I'm a man. I deserve the ability to talk about the ways the patriarchy hurts me without others thinking I'm complaining about women getting treated equally. Because I'm not. My use of the term isn't about women. Anybody of any gender is capable of misandry, and perpetuating the issues of toxic masculinity under patriarchy.

I need to be able to talk about my experiences that hurt me. And so do other men of all kinds. And also people who aren't men who have experienced misandry. It's not about complaining that women get special treatment for their emotions. It's not about complaining that women are sensitive. It's about talking about how most men are expected by everyone, including themselves, to keep their mental health issues In-between them and their gun. They're not taught to articulate feelings. Literal actual children, four year olds that are crying, are punished for expressing upset emotions because they're boys. They're punished in school, by their peers and their teachers, for having upset or sad or angry emotions. They're not taught to breathe and cope and seek help for regulation.

These are real, actual, genuine issues that I try to help other men unravel and heal from. And I deserve to be able to talk about it in a way that's not just "toxic masculinity" because that implies that this phenomena is only perpetuated by toxic men. Which simply isn't true. Even the healthiest neurotypical mother is capable of it. She's capable of punishing a boy, a child, for crying. She's capable of demeaning him for having emotional issues. Capable of downplaying him, telling him to "just deal with it", and she's also very very capable of ignoring her husband's boundaries. Ignoring his comfort. Ignoring his emotional needs, and reducing his emotional needs down to sex and food and television. Which is disgusting.

I deserve to be able to use the term misandry without people thinking I'm a fourchan loser incel that hates women. I don't. I have a fear of them, because I've been abused by them. Both at home, in school, and at work. I've been made extremely uncomfortable by them, too. By this one girl my age who was really pushy when she was flirting with me, and made me feel unsafe enough that I needed to say "I have a girlfriend" (i did not)

[doritoprincess]

ngl i get that it’s a bit of a touchy subject for a lot of trans women on here but at the same time i cant help but feel a bit uncomfortable with how quickly we seem to shut down transmascs trying to come up with terms for their own feelings of oppression because we seem to have a knee-jerk negative reaction to certain terms

[autolenaphilia]

Misandry is not real

Apparently some of the transmisandry/androphobia people have evolved into believing in just plain old misandry now.

Which is such an absurd concept, because we live in a patriarchy. Misandry is the idea that men are oppressed for being men. And the problem with that is that they are not. Not that men can't be oppressed, but they are oppressed for other reasons.

For fuck's sake. I realize not everyone has had my experiences of listening to men talk while they believe i'm one of them while actually listening with critical distance and being secretly horrified. But come on.

cw for discussions of rape, because i have to explain some things.

The father joking about shooting his daughter's boyfriends is a jokey expression of ownership over his daughter. It's the old misogynist idea that daughters are the property of their fathers until they get married and become property of their husbands. And fathers are still often a bit uncomfortable with their daughters exercising autonomy in who they choose to date and marry. The dad wants her to only marry a man he approves of. And that sentiment is expressed in a joke.

And like men are worried over other men being predatory and raping "their" women, but it's again an expression of ownership over women. Misogynist men view women as a resource men compete over. And are offended by rape only when it's committed by other men and they view it as essentially theft. Like until the 1960s rape was defined legally as only happening outside of marriage (and these laws took decades to change, these legal reforms just started in the 60s). Husbands could force sex from their wives as much as they want. The worry was solely about men raping women who belonged to other men. Due to white supremacy, this is often expressed in fears of black men raping white women, who are seen as belonging to white men.

And you can see this in how narratives of rape are still focused on the "stranger danger". The weirdo in a ski mask hiding in the bushes. Despite rape being way more often committed by boyfriends and husbands. The weirdo hiding in the bushes is a way of externalizing the problem of rape upon men coded autistic or mentally ill, which is ableism not misandry.

And the threat is not seen as exclusively coming from other men. Cis lesbians are still seen as women, and a part of lesbophobia is them being accused of being sexual predators against other women. That's not misandry. The fear over sapphic trans women raping cis women is just a particularly virulent form of that. It's particularly bad because sapphic trans women live at the intersection of misogyny, transphobia and lesbophobia.

Masculinity is full of fears about women being threatened by rape. But this is not a concern about men having sex with women without consent in general. If a man are seen as the rightful owner of a woman he can rape her as much as he wants. So it's not about misandry about men as a group. It's about other men violating that ownership, and the men who are bad in these narratives are viewed as such because of things like race.

These other negative stereotypes that men supposedly believe about themselves, queer people like me and the transmasc writing the post i quoted might view them as solely negative. And we do that for good reason. But I don't think that's how the men who internalize these ideas about masculinity sees them. Instead they are viewed as positives.

Their anger and aggression is righteous, men need it to defend family and nation against aggressors. The "stupidity" is seen in anti-intellectual terms as a clear focus on the facts and common sense as opposed to ivory tower academic theorizing that have lost contact with reality (such as gender studies and queer theory). Conservative Masculine men often have a fascistoid contempt for weakness (i wish harald ofstad was translated to english), so having little empathy for suffering is seen as good. Empathizing with women, trans people or immigrants is seen as making you vulnerable to manipulation from them. The narrative of the trans woman asking to be seen as a woman and be let into women's bathrooms to commit rape is a good example of this kind of anti-empathy narrative. There is similar rhetoric about immigrants.

And the thing about how men should either die in war or work hard to provide for their family. These things are seen as positive by mainstream society, men are glorified as heroes for doing them. And such work is glorified in a way that women's work is not. Like i'm a leftist and thus critical both of militarism and capitalist ideology about work, but those are the problem, not some mythical misandry.

Outside of some feminist spaces, (cis) men being masculine is seen as a good thing. And those deemed men by society are punished for not fulfilling them. Feminists see those same stereotypes as being bad. Masculinity does limit men, but it also is an expression of power in a patriarchy. It gives them a license to do horrible things towards women. Not just women of course, masculinity also legitimatizes violence against non-binary people, and even other men as masculinity plays a huge part in homophobia but also racism.

(gods, considering the rhetoric i've seen sometimes, I, a proud trans woman, will probably be accused of being a terf for writing this, which is basic feminist analysis. LIke people have no idea of what radfem ideology actually means, and confuse like basic feminist analysis with radfem appropriation of that analysis. Like the actual problems with radfem ideology like bioessentialism, transmisogyny and swerfery seem to not be part of some people's terf spotting radar. )

Speaking of transmisogyny, this is what made me really angry with this post, because it's personal.

I don't know how to put this gently, but saying that transmisogyny is actually due to hatred of men is actually really transmisogynistic. This is not the only post on the interwebs that do this, not by far, but it's galling everytime.

This is not even the worst of it, because at least it partially attributes our oppression to misogyny.

But this kind of rhetoric is still misgendering trans women. It defines us in the discussion of our oppression through the misgendering rhetoric of transmisogynists. It claims to oppose transmisogyny as it furthers it, gives weight to its rhetoric.

It takes transmisogynist claims at face value. Like the basic claim of terf rhetoric is that "We are just concerned about men hurting women, and trans women are men, so they have to kept from female spaces." And these posts just accepts the idea that this kind of thing is aimed at men, except its clearly not, because men aren't hurt by this in the slightest, trans women are. Men aren't seen as infiltrating women's spaces to rape them, trans women are. Men aren't excluded from public spaces by things like bathrooms bans, trans women are.

When you can't go to the bathroom safely, you are efffectively excluded or at least strongly limited from going out in public.

The problem is that it imagines transmisogyny as solely consisting of iinterpersonal interactions and hateful rhetoric instead of a system of structural oppression that turns transfems into a discriminated and oppressed underclass in all patriarchal societies.

And transfems is an underclass that don't have their own oppression in common with cis men, as this "transmisogyny is actually misandry" ideaimplies, but in fact are oppressed by them.

It's basically a claim that doesn't believe trans women are women, but gender non-conforming men. It's basically saying If trans women don't pass as cis, and are therefore misgendered as men, that means we are oppressed as men. It thus furthers the inherent transmisogyny in that misgendering. It ignores our womanhood to discuss our being oppressed as men. It's absurd since cis men aren't at all oppressed like we are.

Again, men can be oppressed, but they aren't oppressed for being men and trans women definitely aren't oppressed for being men. A meaningful solidarity in fighting oppression between some trans women and some men can be grounded in other forms of oppression that affect members of both groups like racism or ableism or transphobia, but there is no single oppression of misandry that unites them.

Cis men are just not treated like trans women are. Misgendering us as men is not giving us the male privilege they have. That kind of misgendering rhetoric is a way to hurt us with words instead of some honest description of the the violence that is being enacted upon us.

I'm not saying that gender non-conforming men (and homophobia against gay men is strongly related to that) aren't oppressed. But they are not oppressed for being men, they are oppressed for their gender non-conformity. And the hatred and disgust against men for being feminine is strongly related to misogyny, because being feminine or womanlike is seen as bad or lesser.

That's because misogyny is a fundamental part of how a patriarchal society operates. Misandry is not real.

[cipheramnesia]

Transmisogyny and Language

The term "transmisogyny exempt/affected" (aka TME/A) is something I keep thinking about. The original purpose, so it seems to me, was to try and find a way to be more broadly discuss bigotry affecting more complicated genders than just trans man or trans woman, and distinguishing transmisogyny as distinct from misogyny.

(As a sidebar there's transmisandry as distinct from misandry, but I don't see much discussion of it. I have a sneaking suspicion it’s part of a broader problem which could be called "the invisible oppression of the trans masculine" - ie, how often anti-trans sentiments experienced by trans men get overshadowed, ignored, etc. Which is a kinda super complicated topic and if any trans masculine folx wanna do a post about it I'll be happy to give it a boost.)

I usually think about TME over TMA more because I guess part of me sorta sees myself as TME these days. Like, technically I know that's not true, but I don't get misgendered for the most part, except sometimes on the phone. None of the people I know as friends treat me differently, strangers just treat me like any other woman, for better and worse. I know that mostly anyone using TME/A wouldn't say that I'm TME, but I feel like I'm not included in TMA.

So... that's weird.

On top of that, any time I see it used, there's this, let's say, "uncomfortable" vibe of "let's see up your skirt so we can tell you're really TMA." Sorta how radfems will claim either that they can just tell if someone is trans, or they have a right to know what genitals someone has. I like broad and inclusive terms because it helps express issues which affect a broader population. But my individual experience with TME/A is seeing it used to exclude people - spaces for TMA only, TME DNI, etc etc.

I find it a thorny, delicate, complicated issue. It's good to be able to find ways to organize unique experiences of different groups, but my growing concern is that it also serves as a way to exclude trans voices from the conversation. Being trans is a complicated thing, with an array of experiences for everyone running over a whole length of transition.Wherever a trans person is at, they should have an opportunity to lend a meaningful voice, if they want.

There is not a definite conclusion to how I feel, personally, on use of TME/A in the community. Working things out as I write about it brings some of the flaws more into focus. But then again, is there any articulation of the queer experience that is without flaws? For the time I'll just keep tabs on usage, context, and steer clear. Whatever else, I honestly feel like a discussion in terms of TME/A means I'm not supposed to be in the conversation. Which as a tran woman I find a little strange.

[transmasc-culture-is]

misandry isn't a thing??? what??? transphobia against transmascs and trans men is a thing but that isn't misandry or "transmisandry". transmisogyny isn't just transphobia against trans women it's the intersection of misogyny and transphobia which specifically affects trans women and transfems as well as some others who experience both misogyny and transphobia in conjunction. trans men also experience the negative affects of misogyny both from things like not passing or toxic masculinity etc. but again that's. not misandry. im saying this as a transmasc because other transmascs doing this harms transfems and is a misunderstanding of the term transmisogyny. i get that maybe that anon felt uncomfortable with some sort of transphobia or misogyny related issues and that's valid and understandable but perpetuating this "misandry" thing is a disservice to transfems and just wrong. being trans doesn't excuse transmascs from perpetuating transphobia or misogyny or both.

hey anon!

i believe transmisandry/transandrophobia (whichever term you prefer, i'm not really familiar with the discourse on this term enough to have a solid opinion nor do i want this to be a discourse blog) is, in fact, a thing. there is discourse on whether cis misandry exists and while i've recently been doing research on it, i don't want to drop a hot statement and regret it later. i also want this to be a safe, discourse-free space.

i agree that transmisogyny is the intersection of transphobia and misogyny. i am confused, though, as to why the bigotry that specifically impacts transfems is called transmisogyny, yet transmascs can't have a term for the specific type of bigotry we face because of the intersection of our identity because it harms transfems? i'm not sure how it does, so feel free to elaborate.

i also agree that transmascs often face misogyny, but i'm not sure why that means transmisandry/transandrophobia doesn't exist and why using these terms to describe the specific kind of discrimination transmasculine people face harms transfeminine people.

i also agree that being trans doesn't excuse people perpetuating transphobia and/or misogyny. this is an important point. i think it's also key to remember this isn't a competition between transfem and transmasc people to be the most oppressed. this post seems to sum up transfem vs transmasc discourse and how it's harmful.

[a-woman-apart]

Separating the Boys from the Men

Yes, that title is click bait, and if you keep reading, you’ve been warned. I’ve got a lot to get off my chest, and it’s going to involve defending masculinity, femininity, and our right to BEHAVE LIKE CHILDREN FOR THE REST OF OUR LIVES because in many ways, we already do. 

Let’s get straight to the point. As Millennials, regardless of our age, financial status, or level of “success” (air quotes 100% intentional) we have been accused of being lazy, entitled, and way too enthusiastic about avocado toast. At the same time, we have been described as having enough power to decimate the napkin industry, the diamond industry, and the concept of traditional marriage. We have been accused of a collective “Peter Pan” syndrome, because we “refuse” to cut off papa’s apron strings and get off the proverbial mama’s teats. 

Wonderful to know. 

Let’s unpack the “lazy” bit. Supposedly, this is tied to the fact that we have access to higher education, we [often, not always] have parents who financially support or house us well into adulthood. 

So now, my question is, Gen X (the entitled ones, ironically) and Salty Boomers, YOU DIDN’T? 

What do you call that “inheritance” you received? What do you call that education your parents paid for that was less than 1/3 what we have to pay? For Boomers, how do you explain the lavish weddings, cheap [and apparently nuke proof] home appliances, and “nights out on the town” that you were able to afford by working at whatever passed for a McDonald’s back in the day? Working on a farm, at a grocery store, or in retail used to ACTUALLY provide a livable wage; for us, those are a “side hustle” and we still have to get a “big boy job” that usually requires an education that can put us over $100,000 in debt by age 30. 

Hate to say it, but if you hadn’t made most of your income “during the War” or in  the absolute economic boom that followed it, you wouldn’t survive 24 hours in our shoes before having an emotional collapse.  

Despite the disastrous living conditions of the U.S. in the 21st Century, not much has changed in how men define their level of “manliness.” 

Financial gains (stocks, bonds, portfolio, bank account) 

Bro “gains” (a.k.a. “gym gains”, how “Gaston” they are, including whether they want to go for the Adonis, Apollo, or Brawny boi look, or just how far they can throw something or how “boyish” they look if strength isn’t an option and they suffer from femme-levels of body dysmorphia) 

Body count (since we’re in a time of peace and not literally war, this is LITERALLY a modern term describing how many people you’ve slept with, and I have never heard an adult man, regardless of sexual orientation, who isn’t a little concerned about putting those notches in the bed post, and if not that, VERY concerned about his bedroom performance: it’s quality vs. quantity) 

Kill death Ratio (I know this is a video game term now, but did you know that before video games, men in England used to regularly get on horseback, get a bunch of hounds together, and chase down tiny foxes and rabbits? FOR FUN?!?!? Did you know, that before modern sports ((including Esports)), men used to just fight to the death, regularly, even if an official war wasn’t going on? It was known as “dueling”, and in less socially developed societies, men still behave like this. So the next time you complain about “male rage” and how heartless it is to make live chickens fight, note that even though we’ve quelled male anger and hostility on some level, you will NEVER be able to take away man’s urge to destroy. Boys and men will always like knocking things over, building things from the rubble, and ruling shit. It’s what they do-- and we women can and do, too, but we have a LOT more risk-aversion and self-preservation, which is a blessing and a curse for our species-- but we just need to make sure humanity as a whole stays...chill)

So what, say ye, has changed about how WOMEN define themselves now vs. in the past. I would say that very little has changed, but the level of internalized misogyny, insecurity, and good-old fashioned denial has SKYROCKETED. 

Let’s look at some terms of how the majority of women value themselves. 

Financial Security (few women will admit to “wanting to be rich”, because that sounds kind of “Trump”, but plenty will talk about having minimum income requirements for their partner(s), wanting to retire at a young age so they can “travel the world”, wanting to eliminate their debts, etc. It’s different language but essentially it translates to: I want to work so hard or marry into so much wealth that I never want to worry about money after age 35. #Hustle) 

Looks (it doesn’t matter if you want a Kardashian butt, you’re in the body positivity movement, or you just want to “dress like a bawse” women are just as obsessed with clothes, image, and body weight/shape/size as they ever were, it is just that now that we’ve “slain the patriarchy” we have more fashion options than ever before, because “boy clothes” are just as “in” as femme ones)

Ability to attract a partner (some women, like me, “chase”, but thanks to biology, most women, regardless of sexual orientation, seem to enjoy being pursued more than being Artemis-style hunters. This is evidenced by the fact that when the feminist owner of Bumble changed the rules of the dating website to where women had to start conversations with men rather than vice versa ((a move that had ostensibly zero effect on lesbian matching)) 72% of women that she later surveyed stated that they liked it better when men were approaching them rather than the other way around. I am sure Bumble’s female CEO was shook ((as was I)), especially because she made the change to empower women, and apparently 72% of women didn’t want the power because it meant they now had the power to face rejection, and it made them uncomfortable. Big yikes. So much for #EndPatriarchy and #ChivalryisDead ?)

Playing house (this is probably going to get me some unfollows, but I’ll take my chances. Women, regardless of sexual orientation, often seem to be REALLY into having babies or just “playing house.” There’s also men like this, too, “Family men” as they’re aptly called, men in love with fatherhood ((or just being called “daddy”, and that will never not be weird)). So many women who never want to pop out a baby describe being taken by an OVERWHELMING urge to fuck during their “fertile window” ((or is that just me?)) and seeing every baby alive as the cutest human being ever once we pass the tender age of 25. The biological clock is REAL, and I learned the hard way that being bisexual and having immense fear of pregnancy and childbirth didn’t spare me from the awful truth of my biology. 

I really don’t want to keep making references to modern video games, but they seem to serve the dual purpose of being deeply satisfying and helping us to quell “problematic” urges, including that one to dominate and destroy the world. For a lot of women gamers, though, our choices ((on a broad scale, every #girlgamer is different)) deviate from men’s in some interesting ways. 

#1: We still love The Sims Franchise way more than guys do 

Not only do we love it, but while a lot of men (again, #notallmen) tend to build elaborate neighborhoods to extensively mod and destroy them in terrifying ways, I still see women gamers taking obscene amounts of time to design homes, raise happy little families, and cause TERRIFYING blood feuds by having Sims marry Sims from rival families ((I guess we’re more Shakespeare than we thought, eh ladies?))

#2: We make up most of mobile gaming

Most male gamers think mobile games “aren’t real” and I tend to agree, but a mobile game is invaluable for when I, a woman, have time to kill between the 3 jobs I hypothetically have and I and don’t want to whip out something like a Nintendo 2DS that is both unwieldly and attracts the eyes of every impoverished, thieving human being in a .5 mile radius. #RiskAversion. These games are often low-quality, mindless, and insanely easy, but that is WHY WE LIKE THEM. Our entire life is a job. #Hustle

#3 We also love farming sims and RPGs

While we-- and most male Millennials-- beg god to not have to birth calves, milk cows, or labor in the tomato fields under the hot sun, most of us have no objection to having our virtual avatars perform the same back-breaking tasks to the tune of cheerful chiptune music. Also, even though men definitely enjoy them, too, I have never met a woman gamer who didn’t enjoy a nice RPG; why do you think we’re such avid readers of fantasy/romance YA? 

We want to be transported to a different world, and if you won’t take us there, we’re happy to go there virtually ((because we probably can’t afford travel; we’re still millennials)). 

Ability to murder people who threaten our young or our partner(s) (Okay this one is a bit more complicated, but I’m just going to tell you a bit about female animals. DON’T MESS WITH THEIR BABIES IF YOU WANT TO LIVE. Human females, are, in that regard, just as savage, if not more so, than our male counterparts. 

I’ve never heard of any woman ((outside of prison, maybe)) who killed another woman for “looking at her weird” or saying “your mama” too many times. I’ve heard plenty of women threaten literal murder because another woman ((or man, we’re #progressive)) came too close to her romantic/sexual partner, or another human being threatened harm on our kids or our “squad.” 

I don’t know where the meme truly originated from, but “Don’t talk to me or my son ever again” is SUCH a Mom thing to say. So much misandry is wrapped up in the idea that men are predators, and that is true, but not in the excessively sexually deviant ways you think ((that’s only sometimes true)). They just like hunting things, including people, but if you give them a toy to play with ((I MEAN ACTUAL TOY OMG)) they seem alright. Let them go play with their cars, Xbox, [insert whatever] or something. They’re men, okay, they’re easily distracted/impressed/occupied. 

Women, on the other hand, have seemed to be having an EXTREME amount of trouble curbing that baby-making urge, or the Excessive Nurturing Urge, that one that makes you ask your grown husband if he’s remembered to pack lunch for work or if he remembered to pack money for his playdate with his bros, because he’s gonna need money at Six Flags and you aren’t going to bring it to him because he should’ve remembered, you reminded him 30093390 times. 

THAT’S NOT HIS FAULT. HE HAS MANAGED BY SOME MIRACLE TO STAY ALIVE FOR 33 YEARS. THAT’S YOU, SWEETIE. STOP BEING SUCH A MOM. GO BE A NURSE, DOCTOR, OR SOCIAL WORKER OR SOMETHING OMG. 

In summary...

What separates the “men from the boys” or the “women from the girls” isn’t the era that we were born in to, our economic status, or whether we’ve been able to “conquer” our biology. That’s definitely not possible yet, chiefly because transhumanism involves a lengthy, ethics-guided process, and even if we all turn into cyborgs, the goal is to become BETTER humans, not LESS humane. Societal advancements have done more in terms of making us healthier, less destructive citizens of planet earth than raw technology ever can and ever will. Rapid technological advancement, when not combined with respect for morality, ethical standards of living for humans and all other life forms, almost always leads to human slavery, widespread abuse of animals, sex trafficking, and environmental destruction, because the “rules of supply and demand”, when not governed by strong international trade laws, dictate that consumers should be supplied with whatever they demand, because the suppliers can profit, and their right to profit should be defended at any cost. 

So, in summary, I believe that “adulting” involves giving up on entitlement. What separates a truly childish human being-- regardless of their actual age-- from someone who is, in essence, “adulting” is experience, and how much those experiences serve to broaden that person’s perspective. It is an extremely childish, self-centered view, to think that you “deserve” anything for being “a good person” or, in the case of many a “woman child” or “man child” in media and in real life, just being “not so bad.” 

Grown-ups are able and willing to do something that is known as “delaying gratification” which is the simple ability to delay a temporary pleasure for a long-term gain. Grown-ups are also able to perform true “cost-benefit analyses” to determine if a course of action, business deal, or even relationship is worth their time and effort. Finally, grown-ups are able and willing and able to make an informed choice and stick to it; in essence, we don’t try to “have our cake and eat it too” we understand that once we’ve eaten that cake, the cake is gone, but we also realize that if we are willing to work hard and make sacrifices, we can earn the ingredients to make ourselves another cake to eat, even if we might need a lot of help from other adults in getting those ingredients (we call this teamwork and cooperation). 

Children, on the other hand (in literal and metaphorical terms), are very impatient. They get angry when things don’t go their way, and instead of taking the steps needed to improve their situation, they storm off and return home. It doesn’t matter if their home is with their parents, with their 3 roommates, or with their husband or wife, these people throw tantrums, refuse to communicate/cooperate, and stew in their displeasure until someone feels sorry for them and fixes their problem for them. They lack the ability to work through daily life problems and refuse to take any responsibility for how their actions or inaction contributed to their dilemma. 

There is one difference with an actual human child or teen, though, is that they have an excuse. Their brains are still developing, and they haven’t had the chance to live through these situations yet; these are new challenges to them. Even if they do have a “bad attitude”, with help from peers and patients, principled adult mentors and teachers, these cantankerous kids can grow into well-adjusted, able adults. The high levels of neuroplasticity in their brains actually make it so that it is easier for them to accept large amounts of sensory data and to learn from processing and practicing using it.

An “adult child” is someone who, more often than not, has been coddled instead of challenged. These people have often faced no significant hardships in life. There is a reason why, even after we have recognized the immense downsides of authoritarian parenting and have demonstrated psychological harms of corporal punishment for kids, we still call “bad kids” and “irresponsible adults” spoiled. 

Authoritarianism produces rigid, scared people who often struggle with critical thinking and self-esteem or end up being authoritarian parents themselves, but that last one is actually one of the less likely options. Children of authoritarian parents often develop Borderline Personality Disorder or become defiant against authority (shocker). Overly permissive or overly neglectful parenting, though, are parental styles most associated with producing narcissists, who often become authoritarian parents, because when their kids challenge them, they completely lack the patience or emotional capacity to deal with it and resort to “because I said so”, stonewalling and/or physical abuse as forms of “character-building.” 

The reason why overly permissive parents spoil their kids is because kids actually do need discipline and guidance, and so these kinds of parents produce kids who are outwardly capable and confident but completely lack any of the life skills to justify it, and when they ask their parents for advice they are just met with a bunch of hippie mumbo jumbo or told to just avoid the conflict rather than resolve it. These kids grow into adults who are still sad little kids inside, because they never grew up, but now they’re sad little kids who are articulate and well-spoken and now can-- and often have no choice-- but to con their way through adult life because they’ve maxed out Charisma and they have almost no points in Strength, Intelligence, Wisdom, or Dexterity.

The only parenting style worse than Authoritarian and Neglectful/Permissive is Mixed, in which a child grows up in a COMPLETELY unpredictable environment where the rules of the game change from day to day, and parents either give their children no attention at all, or they practically lock them up and throw away the key. Being raised like this is associated with the worse outcomes for the child throughout life. 

So, why am I now talking about parenting styles? Because, for all that we love to trash Boomers and large swaths of Gen X on this page, we can’t forget where they came from, so we cannot allow them to forget WHO THEY MADE. It isn’t an accident that even though we live in the times of incredible economic hardship, WE are the generation (and Gen Z, to some extent) that got hooked on reality TV, video games, and social media in incredibly unhealthy ways. A lot of us 30+ millennials are growing out of it, and a lot of us have realized that it is an invaluable (and damn near unavoidable) way of marketing our products and talents. We’re often self-employed because that’s our only option in most cases. 

The issue with Gen Z (who, while we called “Zoomers” now just all themselves “Doomers” and I think we should be a bit concerned about that) is that unlike us, they have no memory of “Before the Internet.” We remember dial up, we remember before that when you played outside untl the sun went down. They don’t have the privilege of being linked to that history. 

Now, we have to be the Bigger Person. It’s our time to be Grown-Ups. Gen Z feels really fucking lost right now, and hearing us whine about our parents probably makes them pretty pissed off, when some of us older millennials are the parents, aunts/uncles, and older siblings to Gen Z kids. Even if we can’t be mentors, we have to lead by example, because we have a responsibility to these kids. A lot of them aren’t stupid, they see exactly what’s happening and they feel incredibly hopeless about it. Greta Thunberg is still 16 years old. She shouldn’t be out there doing that; I mean seriously, climate change is accelerating, but it isn’t even as bad as Al Gore said, it’s still reversible, but the fact that SHE FELT SHE HAD TO makes us shitty people. ALL OF US. 

So you know, we all need to stop being hypocrites. We need to stop being entitled. We need to stop thinking this is about us. It isn’t. Not even close. We’re not important, even if our videos go viral or if we’re swimming in cash next to hot models by a huge swimming pool. America’s fucked up. I hate to sound Republican, but it’s because of our values. We suck at valuing what’s important, and if we don’t change that soon, it’s really going to suck to live in America. 

It already does.  

[princessgemma12]

A Little HP Discussion

@vaguely-existing

Hello! I’m the anon from @/queer-distasters HP discussion. I wanted to respond to your statements/questions without clogging up Nico’s notifs and making him uncomfortable. For clarity and transparency, as I simply want to discuss this and not argue with you (or anyone else), I’ll copy&paste your reblog below the cut and go from there.

Also anon, bear in mind that The British Bitch isn't just transphobic. She's racist toward indigenous peoples of all places, Asians, Jews, and probably more but those all come to mind JUST FROM HER HELLA POPULAR BOOKS. She has set back ALL queer people's rights, ESPECIALLY in the UK which is a clusterfuck when it comes to queer and especially trans rights and general respect. She is fatphobic. She is misogynistic. She is also a misandrist (yes she's very obviously both)

To boil it down, any hateful or divisive stance she comes across, she seems to immediately absorb into her personality.

So here's my question for anon and anyone else who supports(...shit what's her name again?):

Do you really think interacting with her or anything she has written isn't subconsciously filling you with prejudice? And if you don't, maybe practice introspection

So, firstly, I’m very aware of her issues. The books themselves are full of misogynistic and misandrist under-toning, stereotypes and themes, there’s the frikking Dumbledoof Gay situation (don’t even get me started /hj ), the goblins, the house elves and the SPEW gag. That’s just within the main series itself (and a few tweets, of course), if I’m not mistaken.

Those, of course, are only a handful of the many, many issues, as you’re clearly aware (props on being so educated on the matter, btw /gen.)

Now, to make it very, very clear: I do not support J.K.R. I don’t like her, I like what she’s chosen to do with her platform, I don’t like all the bullshit she put in the Harry Potter series (misogyny, misandry, racism, fatphobia, etc.) or the bullshit she pushes. I don’t buy merch anymore--the last thing I bought was some chocolate a year or so ago--and I don’t even stream the movies. The new game is abhorrent and blatantly racist, and I will shout that from the rooftops if I have to. JKR, to put it plainly, is a shit human being. She is.

I do not support her or anything she stands for--I am a nonbinary bi-abrosexual woman and a feminist. I am exactly the kind of person JKR says doesn’t exist, exactly the kind of person JKR would argue doesn’t deserve to feel safe or respected (also: fuck you, Forstater). From one not-cis person to another (I don’t want to assume what broad terms you’re comfortable with here): I get it. I hate her. I wish she wasn’t the author of one of my childhood self’s favorite franchises and I wish I could support her in good faith, I do, because I loved that series, still love a lot of parts of it, but the fact of the matter is she doesn’t deserve it and what the hell kind of person would I be if I consciously supported someone who hates my very fucking existence?

(Note: I do not mean the aggression toward you.)

But, with that out of the way: Your question. It caught me off guard because on the one hand, you have a point, but on the other not quite.

Firstly, I’d like to state very plainly that I practice introspection regularly. I’m an author and I try to stay up to date on politics, so I’m always confronting things I didn’t know were issues one way or another (emotionally, politically, personally, globally, take your pick), and figuring out where I stand in regards to those issues. I was raised in a fairly standard household, with fairly standard gender roles. Thankfully, I got into the “feminist scene” so to speak fairly early on, so I got a sort of headstart on unlearning things. There are certain prejudices regarding gender especially that I’m still working on kicking out, I’ll admit that. I gained those prejudices in the first place due to the environment I was raised in and the media I was exposed to. Some of that was the Harry Potter movies, yes, some of it was Disney movies and some of it was my own family. I recognize these things and I’m actively unlearning them.

Secondly: no, I’m very very certain that reading the Harry Potter books aren’t filling me with prejudice. I started reading them as a nonbinary raging feminist and, 6.5 books later, I’m still a nonbinary raging feminist. I’ve actually learned more since I started reading them because I’ve been searching online for other people’s opinions on the issues in the books and within the HP fandom, and I’ve been able to use the books as reference for examples of “shitty takes” within fiction (just put HP right next to all the other ones /hj ). I’m actually working on a video essay series on all the issues with Harry Potter--both the bigotry and political issues and the writing issues--and its fandom. I’m not one to be easily influenced by media and I’m very conscious of my thought processes and patterns. I know that goblins are often used as an anti-semetic metaphor for Jewish people and that traditional uses of goblin tropes can be hurtful (often are hurtful). But I didn’t know that until after I started reading HP because I started getting involved in what fans/non-fans had to say about it. I never made the connection of goblins=Jews (which, of course, isn’t actually true, but stereotypes and racism) until I entered the conversation about it. My point being: consuming media that has a lot of issues can actually be more beneficial than completely avoiding it (for some people, not everyone, of course! Don’t read something you know might actually hurt you and please don’t give your money to shitty people if you can help).

Now, of course, I am an adult. I have pretty well developed critical thinking skills, so I know how to traverse difficult situations and topics (usually... there are some things that I don’t know how to talk about, yet, but I’ll get there). I went into the HP books aware of (most of) their issues and on the lookout for them. When I was a child, I was in no such frame of mind, nor did I have the mental capacity that I do now. It probably would have been different if I’d read HP as a child--I probably would have absorbed more because I was young and in awe of, what I thought was, an amazing story and an Amazing Author (which... HP set a precedent for children’s coming of age fantasy, but it wasn’t... it’s not made of gold in any sense is what I’m saying but you know that already).

Alright, I think I’ve covered everything for now! :D Again, I do not intend to seem aggressive toward you or anyone who is... would “anti-HP” be the term? I don’t want to seem aggressive, and I apologize if I came off that way. I also don’t intend to start some sort of flame-war or something. I only want to have a nuanced discussion with an educated individual. /gen.

(oh, and the OG thread.)

[magicians-apprentice]

From the article:

=======================

I managed to miss a good chunk of the feel-good hash-tag du’jour “#metoo”, where women are encouraged to share their stories of victimization in order to illustrate their victimhood status.

Okay, let’s make one thing very clear before I go into why all this makes me uncomfortable.

Sexual assault is bad.

That I even need to clarify this illustrates just how fucked up the public discussion on the abuse of women (which I would consider a superset of sexual assault rather than identical) has become. And that I need to clarify this illustrates just how fucked up the public discourse on generally abusive behavior (which again, I would consider a superset of misogyny rather than identical) has become.

It’s almost as if we’ve forgotten what it means to act with manners, treating each other with respect. We’ve forgotten what it means to seek the seven virtues for ourselves and hold them in our hearts as we interact with others: to practice chastity and temperance as we interact with strangers, to act with charity and patience, to show diligence, kindness and humility.

In some quarters, we have deliberately forgotten these virtues–dismissing them as something only religious zealots do. After all, these seven virtues (literally “a habitual and firm disposition to do good”) are a Christian teaching–and as we all know, in these modern post-religious times, anything religious is bad and deserving of being dumped as trash.

And once you dump religion (and its teachings on what it means to be a better person), what is left to govern our interactions with each other?

Politics?

I mean, it’s not like leaving it in the hands of individuals works very well, especially when there is a power disparity.

But I’m not very comfortable with the #metoo thing, for two reasons.

First, we’ve had this conversation before.

We’ve done the whole “women, by show of hands, how many of you have been sexually assaulted?” Like #YesAllWomen, #WhenIWas, #ShePersisted, etc.

And have they helped do anything to actually reduce the instances of sexual assault? Have they done a damned thing other than to devolve into a pointless exercise of victimization reaffirmation?

I mean, shouldn’t we use a different strategy?

#MeToo named the victims. Now, let’s list the perpetrators

It’s true that telling our stories can help – it can help victims not feel quite so alone and make others understand the breadth and depth of the problem. But the truth is that nothing will really change in a lasting way until the social consequences for men are too great for them to risk hurting us.

Why have a list of victims when a list of perpetrators could be so much more useful?

But I suspect part of the problem with the newfound approach of women standing up to abusers, perhaps by getting the police involved, is related to my second reason why all this makes me uncomfortable.

Second, we can’t seem to agree on what sort of “abuse” qualifies one for the #MeToo campaign. And in the process it’s slowly devolving away from talking about physical assault, through loutish behavior, and ending at outright misandry.

Take, for example, this article which seems to conflate sexual assault, abusive behavior and loutish behavior–that is, behavior that is obnoxious but not necessarily abusive: #MeToo. To me there is a sharp distinction between “predator” and “creep”, between “sexist remark”, “rape jokes” and “rape”–yet the article uses them as interchangeable terms.

It’s not to say any of these behaviors are acceptable. But when we live in a world where a suggestive conversation is considered under the same umbrella as a violent rape, when some guy who was told “no” asks for a date a second time is considered under the same umbrella as Harvey Weinstein–haven’t we devolved the later by lumping them under the same umbrella as the former?

Don’t we do a disservice to rape victims by equating their violent rapes with the discomfort of being in the same room as two men share an inappropriate joke?

Can you imagine someone going in a hospital room where a woman, half beaten to death after her rape, lies in recovery and telling her “sister, I know exactly how you feel; once someone called me a ‘bitch'”?

I mean, it’s gotten so bad that the #MeToo campaign has spawned another campaign–from men: #HowIWillChange, which presumes men are guilty of sexual “abuse” until proven innocent.

Again, it’s not to dismiss loutish behavior. Remember my premise above: we have forgotten the seven virtues–and an inappropriate joke in the workplace is a violation of the principle of temperance, of voluntary self-restraint in the face of others.

But the Left, many of whom have latched onto the latest fad of claiming #MeToo (and worse, #HowIWillChange), want nothing to do with this religious mumbo-jumbo, having declared it obsolete.

So what is left? Unprincipled handwringing hasn’t worked; just look at the countless other hashtags going back decades which have done nothing to resolve issues of misogyny in the workplace. Neither has the misandrous attempts at forcing men to confess their sins (but without a framework for “sin” other than deconstructed feminism), which often turn into victim blaming when men point out that, in some instances, they’ve been on the receiving end of inappropriate behavior by women.

(Hell, I’ve been on the receiving end of workplace sexually inappropriate behavior; first, by an overly flirtatious woman when I was working at JBL who wanted to show me her boob job in private, second, by an overly flirtatious QA woman at Symantec at a Christmas Party who suggested we go find a room somewhere to have sex. When I pointed out I was married, she said “me too”; it gave us something in common.)

And it’s why, by the way, we won’t change tactics and provide a list of perpetrators: because doing something like that could backfire. Yes, Harvey Weinstein deeply deserved to be outed decades ago. But the poor sap who asks you out on a date at an inappropriate time: would including his name on a master list of “male predators” really solve anything?

Personally I believe the problem is that in our modern day and age we’ve been systematically dismantling all the cultural frameworks of what it means to be a better person.

The Left has engaged in a systematic war on religion–and while the bad parts of religion (such as tribalism and elitism) certainly deserve to be attacked, the aspects which teach “original sin” (that is, when we are all born we are all blank slates unknowing of what it means to be a good person) and how to be a better person (that is, how one can improve oneself morally and ethically) certainly did not deserve to be tossed in the trash heap.

Because without striving to make ourselves better–without the constant individual pursuit towards personal knowledge, self-discovery and self-improvement–what is left? People as cogs in a political machine? Piling up money and political connections? Claiming “#metoo” so you can feel good about your victimhood status and your position on the victimization totem pole?

By the way, the drive to understand what it means to be a better person is not exclusive to Christianity. All major religions address this problem, to help those find “salvation” of a sort. Islam teaches Zakaat, the responsibility we have to help others, including the poor, the destitute and travelers in need. Judaism teaches the mitzvahs, commandments which require avoidance of certain bad behaviors and the performance of certain good deeds. Buddhism provides tools to its followers designed to help find samadhi, oneness. All the major world religions have something to say about how to be a better person, from literal commandments to spiritual practices.

Even the seven virtues of Christianity have their roots in earlier pre-Christian teachings.

Do away with all this teaching–do away with the ancient question of what it means to become a better person–and what is left?

Certainly Karl Marx had nothing to say about justice or morality. Marx’s work, off of which progressive liberalism owes a hat tip to, was only descriptive of historic evolution and economic issues. He had nothing to say about the *morality* of capitalism or communism. Later writers certainly interpret his works this way–and clearly liberals, when talking about unjust wealth inequality, are making a moral proclamation. But all these moral proclamations are being made absent a consistent moral framework of any kind.

And without such a framework, all that is left is politics: we make moral proclamations not because we have any moral principles, but as a political tool to gin up outrage in order to force political change.

That’s what the #metoo campaign really is: a political attempt to gin up outrage to force political change.

But politics cannot affect morality when political believers do not believe in morality.

All politics can do is rearrange the deck chairs: to give more political power to one group, to take political power away from another group. And worse: politics can only provide the illusion of morality–which is why Harvey Weinstein was able to thrive so long. Because as a major donor to the Democratic Party he had the perfect fig leaf, in the form of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, to pursue his own sexually abusive appetites amongst the glitterati of Hollywood, all of whom knew for decades what sort of a predatory asshole Mr. Weinstein was.

Ultimately political attempts to fix morality without any sort of moral framework–which is where the Left currently sits–cannot work. Because there is no “there” there that can be fixed.

Which is why in the end, the “#metoo” campaign will join earlier attempts in the trash heap of history, having done nothing in the end beyond ginning up some outrage about how horrible men are.

You want my “#HowIWillChange”?

Here it is.

To better understand the idea of Original Sin.

To better understand the principles of the Seven Heavenly Virtues and to faithfully attempt to better represent these virtues when interacting with others or when working on my own meditations.

And to demand the cardinal virtue of Justice (that is, righteousness and fairness) in part, by pointing out the hypocrisy in the world around me. A practice which is exemplified in a very small way by this blog post.

And if you don’t see how the seven heavenly virtues leads to an eschewing of misandry and misogyny, to a demand for workplaces free of sexual abuse and sexual favoritism, to a call for women to stand up for themselves rather than to meekly hide in the face of injustice only later to share sad little stories about being offended by jokes told by loutish men who have been raised in a modern culture which teaches us to “feel good” about ourselves and to know no personal limits from that awful old-fashioned religious bullshit–then you are part of the problem.

=====================

[emehlem]

don’t worry, i’m not taking this personally (and thank you for adding that)

i see what you are saying for sure. i just also think that the negative reaction to “misandry” is not simply about semantics but is more of an opposition to its actual definition and application.

the word is not perfectly valid because, as you said, its definition is a social construct that doesn’t exist, but my addition is that it’s also used to oppress others that suffer from misogyny. the word itself is oppressive.

no, we do not deserve to be consistently conflated with cis men and treated as predators in order for our gender to be taken seriously, and i get the irony that the term that’s being used to describe our specific experiences is having that same thing done to it, but at the same time you can’t erase the connotations of a word that is currently being used to oppress people.

this is not tone policing, it’s a response that originated from oppression and its effects, and from me specifically it’s an attempt at help.

i understand that there is a difference between misandry and what you’re referring to as transmisandry, but when you’re speaking to an audience that already thinks of us as being the exact same as cis men because we share the same gender, using this term will only confirm that more for them.

beyond that, it’s also straight up uncomfortable for me to have that term applied to me. i don’t want anything i go through to be referred to as misandry. and i know other trans masculine people feel the same.

if you want people to listen to you “in good faith” then don’t start out with throwing around a word that’s been used to take away their human rights.

do i have another word? no, but tumblr is full of people more creative than me. so i would try to find one.

On Transmisandry

When people say ‘transmisandry doesn’t exist because misandry doesn’t exist’. they are fixating on the semantics instead of on our need for a specific word to describe issues that affect only us. Transphobia doesn’t cover it any more than ‘misogyny’ covers transmisogyny.

Trans men do not experience misandry. They experience something different which can be called transmisandry , which is not at all the same thing as being hated for being men, and is not the same as what trans women experience so it’s not interchangeable with transphobia .

You can use another word but I really need to protest against the arguments that put misandry as defined by cis men as a criteria for what trans men experience.

Here are just some of the things that trans men experience due to society’s hostility that we need our own specific language and space for:

being assumed to have the same male privilege as cis men

being assumed to WANT this privilege at the cost of women; i.e. treated like predators

being denied shared experiences with women because we are not women

being accused of invading women’s spaces

fearing cis men even though we are also men

not being respected by cis men

struggling with feeling inferior to cis men, to trans women, and to cis women

misdirected lesbophobia and the issues it causes

our bodies being affected by birth control issues

risking misgendering in ways specific to trans men (for example not being able to pee standing up)

struggling to define our gender while rejecting the toxic social constructs of it

being hated for being women (!! we are perceived as women by so many)

struggling with the influence of cis men on our behaviour

the safety of feminine spaces vs the desire not to encroach on them

making women uncomfortable

supporting feminism while rejecting things typically seen as feminine

for example, not being able to take part in destigmatising periods because of dysphoria and provoking misgendering

the guilt of rejecting femininity

the guilt of embracing masculinity

the guilt of hating our female-coded bodies in a world that hates women’s bodies already

underrepresentation in media of trans men specifically

fatphobia and body policing in a trans male context

and finally, I’m sorry, but this kind of dismissive attitude and erasure of our need to have our own words simultaneous with a complete support for trans women to have theirs, based on…well…the fact that we’re men. That’s exactly transmisandry- we’re trans people whose struggles are brushed aside because we’re men. :/

And yeah, trans women experience some of the above too- but in a different context that only they can truly understand, and that’s why they have ‘transmisogyny’ as a word to describe it. 

We need our own space and our own language just like they do. It’s not just for our benefit (which should be reason enough!), but also to avoid bringing male-focused conversations into spaces where they can make women (cis and trans) uncomfortable or distract from their specific issues. I don’t wanna pull emotional manipulations here but I do need to say this: it hurts a LOT having to constantly argue that I and others like me do actually struggle in a very specific way, especially in groups that are already ostensibly trans-friendly, and to have validation of my experience hanging on semantics. The concept of our struggle is always thrown out along with the word, as if they were one and the same. (this is a slightly edited version of a reblog I once made to a post on the topic)