#i have been mostly radicalised by my own experiences to be honest

[yuri-for-businesswomen]

hi do you have any book recommendations for a person trying to figure things out? I'm not against trans rights but the current trans movement has left me very unhappy with their willingness to ignore and or reinforce misogyny. on the other hand radical feminist groups these days focus all their energy and resources on hating trans people and leave nothing for fighting the human rights abuses that women face daily. well I guess I'd describe myself as a gender abolitionist. I'd still rather read a lot of feminist books on both ends of the spectrum before I formulate an opinion, so if there are any books that you think helped you form and understand your position as a radical feminist I would be very grateful for your help

i have mostly read chapters and im terrrrrible with authors but i have a bunch of masterlists saved under #save most are sorted by topic as well!

a good start would be gender trouble by judith butler - its queer theory but therefore essential to understand what modern queerism is based on even though in my opinion they have very much misinterpreted this work - kimberlé crenshaw (not radfem but intersectionality is key to any activism), bell hooks - aint i a woman or feminist theory, audre lorde are feminist essentials. andrea dworkin - right-wing women or pornography is radfem essential. for more recent work, caroline criado perez - invisible women and helen joyce - trans (which i havent read yet myself but i hear its good). sheila jeffreys is also a good radfem author.

[verohallinto]

please don't pay any attention to the "gold star lesbian" ask that that person sent. it's extremely lowbrow Reactionary Feminist rhetoric, that relies on the idea of purity as a virtue, and is designed to make you question your validity as a lesbian, a bisexual, and/or as a member of the LGBT community. the purpose is to make you feel like you have to conform to someone else's standards at your own expense. it also stinks of transphobia. The answer you gave was quite reasonable and it's always healthy to reflect on yourself 🙂 but the ask itself had bad intentions buried in it.

Thank you for taking the time to send me this <3. I did give serious thought to just not answering the original question as I don't think anyone's sexual history is anyone else's business, as long as it doesn't harm someone (like disclosing info about STIs).

I decided to answer the gold star question because I am secure in my identity, even though I have been re-evaluating myself recently, and while my blog is small I do want to set an example of being able to self reflect and consider my opinions from an outside perspective. Especially the self reflection, it's not always so clear cut, and sexuality is so complicated.

My gut reaction was to make light of the question, but a lot of young lgbt kids come across terms like 'gold star lesbian' and not understand them and use them to describe themselves and use them to ask about things they might not understand without thinking about it too much. A lot of LGBT terminology (I first came across the ⭐ term as a teenager and have continued to hear it used as a joke) has so many different interpretations these days and finding reliable information can be a challenge. The whole debate about using the word 'queer' is just one of the things that spring to mind.

So I wanted to give an honest answer without condemning the question, because I don't know who asked the gold star question or why they rly asked it. Let alone why they asked it from me, like my blog is tiny, I have zero influence, no other social media presence, and I mostly reblog shit. If it was to harass or bully me, then okay, hope they had their laughs, I rly don't care all that much if so, but. We've seen how easily it is to radicalise people who you think are allies, like JKR, so I want to try to do my part to be a calm adult in the conversation and not have an automatic negative response to someone asking a question, even when I don't agree with the sentiment.

I am not an educator, it is not my responsibility to educate others on anything. Nor am I qualified to do so. None of the feminist rhetorics are my area of expertise, nor is my knowledge of Lgbt representation in-depth enough. I am also not going to spend hours to look up things for Tumblr, so I can only give my opinions based on my limited knowledge and experience. I can't promise to give good answers, or to have reasonable opinions, or to always express myself well, but I will try.

So this was prolly a lot longer than you expected but insomnia is a bitch and I stopped making sense ages ago

[scripttorture]

(pt 1 of 2) So I've got a character (A) that gets snagged by this group of mercenaries/assassins in the hope of drawing out this other character (B) they've been trying to kill. B is telepathic, so the group is hoping that by torturing A he'll have to come and save her. It doesn't work, and A goes through about three days of torture (beatings, mostly) before she's rescued by another character, C.

(pt 2 of 2) C and A are from different races that are mortal enemies, but C saves A because torture is something he wouldn't wish on his worst enemy. Granted, he does the bare minimum to save her, but could that sort of thing be enough to shake A's firmly held beliefs about C's whole race? Secondly, how do I patch things up between A and B? I've got a lot of people being unreasonable, especially in the short term, but I'm not sure how reconciliation should go, since A is mad and B is ashamed.

Whenit comes to strongly held beliefs I don’t think there are many firmanswers.

Evidencealone generally doesn’tshake our beliefs and we have a marked tendency to pick and choosethe evidence we cite, emphasising and giving more weight to thingsthat support what we believe. We do this even when we’re aware ofthis effect. It seems to be a universally human trait.

Butevidence coupled with emotional appeals canchange people’s minds. People can also gradually change over time.

Thekey word here is ‘can’. It is possible.That doesn’t mean it happens every time.

Thingslike de-radicalisation programs domake a measurable difference in the broad sense. But they don’treach everyone they interact with.

Andthe things which trigger a change of heart are not always fastacting. They can be things that gnaw at a person over a course ofyears, gradually prompting them to shift their stance.

Essentiallyyou could choose to take this either way. You could have A’s viewof C’s people changing, either abruptly or gradually. But you couldalso have A write the incident off as an exception to the rule orotherwise dismiss it. Either response can happen in real life.

Let’sstep back from the success rates of organisations like After Hate fora moment and address this as writers.

Ifyou wantA to have a massive change of heart then however quick the change itcan’t feel like it comes out of nowhere. The readers have tounderstand the process A goes through emotionally.

Whichmeans the reason behind this has to be more than C’s actions: itneeds to be the feelings and thoughts those actions prompt in A.Otherwise the change is going to come across emotionally flat.

ShowA struggling with these thoughts and feelings, swinging betweendoubting what they were taught and what they experienced. Don’t betempted to make this change easy and don’t be afraid to show Afalling back on old, toxic patterns occasionally.

Movingon from these sorts of hateful idea isn’t easy. It means aconcerted choice every day to address your own toxicity and dedicateyourself to being a better person.

Thatsort of introspection, judgement and emotional work is always inprogress. People often slide back a little even if they’re makingprogress over all. That isn’t unusual.

AndI honestly think that this change will read better if it involvessome internal struggle. The best way to present that will vary withhow you write. If it’s from A’s point of view you can show it asis. You might be able to work it in to conversation with C.

Youmight find having B pick up on it works as well, because that thengives you a way to tie these separate sub-plots together. It mightwell be easier for A and B to argue about how A feels about C/C’speople then it is for them to address their problems with each other.

Whichleads us to A and B’s relationship.

HonestlyI think this is something you should be tailoring to the charactersbecause the ‘right’ answer is going to vary with the individualsinvolved. It might be helpful to unpack some ‘logical knowledge’vs ‘emotional assumptions’ on the part of both characters though.

Let’sstart with A.

NowA probably knowsthat rescuing her wasn’t just a question of skill or bravery. Arescue mission is a difficult and risky prospect, highly likely tofail and extremely rare in reality.

She’dknow that B would find it difficult to rescue A. If B doesn’t havean organisation backing them up then a rescue would have been almostimpossible to pull off successfully.

She’dknow that a rescue attempt could result in B being captured andtortured too. She’d know that an unsuccessful rescue attempt couldeasily lead to A herself being killed.

AdditionallyA would also be aware that torture was warping her perception of theworld. A would probably not always be awareof where She was being held or many of the details of herimprisonment.

Ifall B has to go on for a rescue mission is A’s thoughts then A mustknow that B would have had trouble finding her.

Awould also know that the more B connected with A’s mind the moreimpaired B would be. Because B would also be experiencing thedisorientation, confusion and delirium the pain of torture causes.This sort of confused thinking would leak through and create animpairment even if B couldn’t experience A’s pain.

Bwould also know, logically, all the reasons they couldn’tpractically have rescued A.

Bwould be in the unfortunate position of having a second-handexperience of A’s trauma throughout. The threat of torture is veryreal here. It’s immediate. B’s fear of that is legitimate andshouldn’t be dismissed.

Butthat logic doesn’t trump the emotional side of all this.

Andthe emotional side is that B probably feels like they let A down. Aprobably feel betrayed and hurt and abandoned. They bothprobably feel isolated from each other and like it’s harder totalk.

Neitherof these sets of feelings are logical or rational. But there’s anextent to which that doesn’t matter.

Ithink the best way to address it is directly. Which doesn’t providean easy resolution.

Thething is- most torture victims don’texpect to be rescued. They are not in a position to…. think there’sany possibility of rescue. A’s position here is unusual and thatcomes in part from her being privileged enough to know powerfulpeople. Contact with other survivors might help A realise this andprocess a little of how she feels emotionally. It might help heremotionally accept that the expectations she had of B wereunreasonable.

Havingthem talk about it, the reasons why A expected something and thereasons B couldn’t provide it is an important first step. But thisisn’t something that’s going to resolve overnight. Oneconversation, even if they do listen and understand each other, isn’tgoing to resolve everything.

OnA’s side it’s a case of rebuilding trust. I think that’s ofteneasier to write because we see so many examples of it in literature:trust lost and rebuilt. It’s something that’s best built upslowly over time with a lot of actions on B’s part rather than withsome kind of ‘Big Damn Heroes’ moment.

Agood starting point would probably be helping A with her recovery.Consistent help with the little things she’s struggling with (whichinitially may include eating, getting dressed and moving about) wouldgo a long way.

Shemight not forgive B quickly or at all. She may stop relying on B toprotect her. But care is important too. It’s possible to trustsomeone with some things, some aspects of life and not others.

Partof this depends on how deep you want their reconciliation to go. It’sperfectly possible for them to completely rebuild their relationshipso it’s just as strong as before, but it would take more work thenrebuilding something shallower.

Ithink in some ways B’s side of this emotional problem is harder. Acan meet other torture or trauma survivors and learn that theexpectation of rescue is a fantasy out of most people’s reach. Shecan gradually come to trust B again if they both communicate honestlyand B takes the time to try and care for her, to try and build thatfriendship back.

ButI get the impression B has lost their trust in themselves and that’sa lot harder to regain.

Angerruns out of steam eventually. And sick angry people still need to eator help getting out of bed.

Shamecan eat at someone for the rest of their life.  

Myhonest instinct is that if these were real people they’d both needtherapy. A lot of therapy.  And while that’s not something that wecan work in to every setting emotional support definitely is.

Bis going to have to forgive themselves for what happened. A big partof that means accepting their own powerlessness in this situation,which is a terrifying thing. It create a sort of emotional push-pulleffect, forgiving themselves means accepting something incrediblyfrightening so it’s easier to avoid those feelings and hold on toarrogance.

Itcan sometimes be easier to tell ourselves we’re cowards or badpeople then it is to accept our own limits.

EarningA’s trust again may not necessarily combat these feelings, B mightcontinue to feel unworthy of that trust.

Thereare a lot of ways to write a set up like this convincingly and well.I think you’ll get the best results by trying to tie thecharacters’ progress to both the overall story and the charactersas individuals.

They’reprobably going to go mess up a few times. They’re probably going toheal at different rates and be ready for different things atdifferent times. Try to be aware of how other things that arehappening in the narrative might effect the characters emotionally.Because the other things going on in their lives could be useful toprompt this kind of emotional growth.

WhenI’m trying to reconcile characters I often try to think about whatthe root of the problem is. It’s often not what the characters areexpressing or consciously aware of as the ‘problem’.

Inthis case I’d guess that it’s ideas of safety and security on A’spart and ideas of duty and bravery on B’s. Those ideas are thingsall of us can understand but the ways they’re expressed areparticular to your characters.

Ihope that helps. :)

Availableon Wordpress.

Disclaimer