#in the ways that society expects them to both perform femininity and masculinity in incredibly damaging and misogynistic ways | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

thiswaycomessomethingwicked · 3 years ago

Note

so i am back on the grima train and i was reading through your posts (absolutely quality, for which i can only thank you !! 💓) and you mentioned in one about his use of magic that you have a Lot of Feelings about grima in relation to gender and plz i need to hear them!! (if you want to share? 👀)

LOTR: Grima & Gender

Oh man, so Grima and gender. My favourite topic. Other than Grima and magic - but they’re linked! So, that’s a bonus for us.

I want to thank you so much for asking this question. I have wanted to rant about this for Forever.

This became incredibly long, but the long and short of it is that Grima undermines social expectations of masculinity in Rohan through his disdain for martial achievements, his occupying a more private/passive role within the king’s household rather than the expected “masculine” public/active, his use of spells and potions being an “unmanly” and “cowardly” approach to problem solving, and his reliance on language and soft-power approaches to politics.

All of this works to position Grima within a more feminine role and character - at least within the context of Rohan’s hypermasculine performativity of manliness.

[It does allow us to read Grima as trans with greater ease in terms of fitting into the canon than the usual favourites, other than Eowyn. So, you know, do with that what you will. Eowyn and Grima both want to be queen. Let them be in charge! I’m going to get my ass bit for this.]

Grima’s gender performance needs to be quickly situated within the broader context of masculinity in Middle-Earth. Gondor’s ideal of masculinity is the gentler masculinity that everyone focuses on when they talk about men in middle earth being good models of what masculinity can look like. It’s a nurturing masculinity, it’s gentle, it’s healing-focused. Aragorn and others try and take the first off-ramp from violence or conflict whenever they can. There is no enjoyment in warfare or soldiering. It’s done because it’s necessary. Dick-swinging is limited to non-existent etc.

Rohan is different.

Faramir touches on this when he speaks to Frodo of how Boromir was more like the men of Rohan and how he thought that wasn’t a good thing as it meant he was seeking glory for glory’s sake, relishing war and soldiering as an occupation rather than an unfortunate necessity.

Of course, Faramir was also making (some very dubious) racial commentary, but race and gender are often bound up together (e.g. hyper-masculinization of black men and the feminization of East Asian men in the North America).

As R.W. Connell says, “masculinities are congurations of practice that are constructed, unfold, and change through time” — and, additionally, masculinity must be defined in opposition to femininity but, also, other masculinities.

For Rohan, there is a strong, militarized hyper-masculinity that threads through their culture. One of the reasons Theoden was seen as a failing king was his physical decline and inability to continue being a physically strong king. His aging emasculated him, more so when compared to Theodred and Eomer. (Something Theoden believed of himself and Grima capitalized on.)

For this, I’m going to speak of masculinity of the upper classes, since that’s what we see for Rohan. Masculinity, and how it’s to be performed, is contingent on social variables such as, but not limited to: age, appearance and size, bodily facility, care, economic class, ethnicity, fatherhood, relations to biological reproduction, leisure, martial and kinship status, occupation, sexuality etc. and as we never see lower class Rohirrim men it’s impossible to say what the “acceptable” and “expected” forms for a farmer or cooper would be.

Upper class men of Rohan are expected to be militarily capable - ready to ride and fight when called by their king or marshal. They are to be men of action over word, and when language is in play, it’s to be forthright and plain. No riddling. Marriage/Husband-ing is an expected part of manhood. Being strong minded, and capable of taking charge and making decisions is important. Fatherhood is also clearly prized, especially fatherhood that results in son(s).

(Theoden only having one child could be read as another “failure” in living up to Rohirrim ideals when compared to the older kings of his family who were far more prolific.)

The appearance of an “ideal” man is tall, fair, and handsome. Physically strong and capable in all ways (martially, sexually, fertile etc.).

Men should be able to demonstrate that they are capable of being in charge, taking control, defending and protecting families and homes. This slots in with more generalized expectations around bravery, honour and glory.

[Eomer: And that, in summation, is how you are to Be A Man.

Grima: Well that sounds utterly exhausting.]

So, with all of that in mind, let’s talk Grima.

First, let’s address the name and character construction as this is the least bound up in how he acts and its tension with Rohirrim ideals of Being a Man. It’s also interesting in that it can give a glimpse into Tolkien and the possible thoughts he had when constructing Grima.

Grima’s Name & Beowulf Stuff

Grima’s name is from old Icelandic Grimr, which is a name Odin takes during the Grimnismal saga.

Here are some lines from Odin in the saga:

I have called myself Grim,

I have called myself Wanderer,

Warrior and Helmet-Wearer,

[...]

Evildoer, Spellcaster,

Masked and Shadowed-Face,

Fool and Wise Man,

[...]

Rope-Rider and Hanged-God.

I have never been known

by just one name

since I first walked among men.

Not only is Grima’s name from Odin, more importantly, it’s the feminine version of that name. No man in the eddas or sagas goes by Grima. Only women. And most often they were seidr-workers or healers/magic practitioners of some kind.

"Other healers include Gríma from Fóstbræðra saga and Laxdæla saga and Heiðr from Biarmiland in Harald’s saga Hárfagra."

- “Hostile Magic in the Icelandic Sagas,” Hilda Ellis-Davidson

And

"There was a man called Kotkel, who had only recently arrived in Iceland. His wife was called Grima. Their sons were Hallbjorn Sleekstone-Eye and Stigandi. These people had come from the Hebrides. They were all extremely skilled in witchcraft and were great sorcerers."

- Laxdæla saga

This is most likely something Tolkien was aware of — I would be flabbergasted if he wasn’t. However, did he fully appreciate the implications in terms of gender and subversion of masculinity? Impossible to say, of course, but he certainly knew he was giving his male character a name that has only been used by women in historical texts.

It would be akin to naming your male character Henrietta instead of Henry. It’s a deliberate, explicit decision. And while I don’t think Tolkien expected most readers to track down the origin of Grima’s name, the --a ending, to most anglophone readers, signifies a feminine name, more often than not. At least, it rarely, if ever, signifies masculine.

So the name alone brings in, at a subconscious level to readers, feminine qualities.

Alongside this, Grima is loosely based on Unferth from Beowulf. The entrance of Gandalf et al into Meduseld directly mirrors Beowulf’s into Hrothgar’s hall (complete with Grima lounging at Theoden’s feet the same as Unferth at Hrothgar’s). Indeed, it was clearly Tolkien’s intention to make a call back to Beowulf with that scene. (He was being all “look how clever I am. Also these are Anglo-Saxons on horses. As a general fyi”).

Unferth is a fascinating character in his own right ,and there is much scholarly debate around his role within Hrothgar’s hall, as well as the text more broadly. While there isn’t enough time/space to get into Unferth, I will quickly note that he is another character who subverts his society’s ideas of manhood and masculinity — particularly with regards to expectations of heroism and bravery. Yet, at the same time, Unferth is noted for being very intelligent, cunning, good at riddling, and overall quick witted (also, a kin-slayer. Dude murdered his brothers for Reasons).

Unferth’s contrary behaviour that flies in the face of Anglo-Saxon norms and ideals of masculine bravery is clearly reflected in Grima. Particularly in Grima’s fear of battle and lack of interest in taking up his sword when called by his king.

This leaves us with a character who was given a woman’s name and who is loosely based on another character who is known for his inability to follow through on his society’s expectations for masculine behaviour.

Grima, from the first moment we meet him, clearly reads more feminine than masculine - this is amplified when he’s contrasted with the likes of Theoden and Eomer. And, not only is his aligned with traditional femininity more than other male characters, he is specifically aligned with the more negative tropes of femininity (i.e. lack of bravery, unreliable, dubious morals etc.).

That is a brief overview of the bones of Grima’s construction: name and inspiration. Now for actions and characterization within the text. This will be subdivided into comments on his use of magic and how that interfaces with Rohirrim masculinity then we’ll get into power and language.

Grima’s key point of power is his ability to weave words in so powerful a way he could convince Theoden of his own infirmity and weakness thereby securing control over the king. Alongside this, we know that he was using certain “potions and poison” to further weaken Theoden. Most likely to amp up the king’s physical weakness so it coincided with Grima’s mental magic games.

Magic for Anglo-Saxon and early medieval Scandinavians was heavily rooted in the power of the spoken word. Runes were probably used but the historical support of this is vague. Which is to say, we know they were used, we’re just not certain how and to what extent.

We do know that rune staves were a thing. They were most often used to send your landwights after opponents or wreck havoc on enemies from afar. To make one, a magic-worker would carve the prescribed runes onto a large stave and position it in the ground facing the direction of their enemy. On top of the stave was added the head of a horse. (Lots of horse sacrifice happened for early medieval Scandinavians, alongside some human sacrifice.)

But, the brunt of magic for Anglo-Saxons and early medieval Scandinavians was spoken word. Which makes sense as their society was, like Rohan’s, predominantly illiterate or, at least, para-literate (though, there has been some recent archeological evidence that is starting to call that into question, for what that’s worth).

In particular, Grima’s spellwork aligns most closely with seidr, a fact I’ve gone about ad nausea. And, again, something we can assume Tolkien was aware of, which means he was also aware of the gendered implications of a man practicing the craft.

The mainstay of seidrcraft is, but not limited to, the following:

making illusions,

causing madness and/or forgetfulness,

brewing of potions and poisons,

prophesying,

channeling the dead,

channeling gods,

removal of elf-shot, and

recovering lost portions of someone’s soul.

The first three bullets are things Grima does to Theoden. That kind of magic — the kind that fucks with your mind and your sense of self, the kind that is subtle and quiet and lurks beneath the surface so you don’t know it’s happening, that’s cunning — that kind of magic is what women do.

It was considered unmanly/effeminate for a man to partake in it as it undermined the hypermasculine militarized culture of the time. Winning a battle or a fight through spells and poison was cowardly.

Therefore, in Rohan where we have this hypermasculine culture that so prizes military glory and grandeur and martial might, Grima pursuing his goals through spellcraft and potions/poisons is Grima pursuing distinctly unmasculine, effeminate modes of action.

Indeed, within Rohan it could call into question the entirety of his masculinity. It would make him ragr (adj. unmanly) because his actions are the epitome of ergi (noun. unmanliness).

"In the Viking Age, homosexual men were treated with extreme disdain and a complex kind of moral horror, especially those who allowed themselves to be penetrated. Such a man was ragr, not only homosexual by inclination and action, but also inhabiting a state of being that extended to ethical and social qualities. This complex of concepts has been extensively studied, and in the words of its leading scholar, "the unmanly man is everything that a man should not be with regard to morals and character. He is effeminate and he is a coward, and consequently devoid of honour". [...] What we would call sexual orientation was, in the viking age, completely bound up with much wider and deeper codes of behaviour and dignity, extending way beyond physical and emotional preference." -Neil Price, Children of Ash and Elm: A History of the Vikings

Though Price references specifically homosexuality in this passage, a man could be considered ragr for more than just that — and one of the other ways was through practicing seidr.

We see this with Odin, who learns how to do seidrcraft from Freyja, and is then mocked by Loki for how emasculating the practice is for Odin to undertake (as if Loki has any room to talk). Odin’s made himself effeminate, he’s made himself unmanly, he’s allowed himself to learn spells that could enable him to take a cowards way out of a situation, to be dishonourable etc.

Which is a neat tie-back to Grima’s name being one of Odin’s names, particularly when he is in disguise and using seidrcraft and wily ways to escape various unfortunate situations that he ends up in during the Grimnismal saga.

(As Odin says: I have been called Evildoer, Spellcaster, Masked and Shadowed-Face, Fool and Wise Man.)

It also mirrors him to Gandalf - another character who bears an Odinnic name. Gandalf very much represents the masculine, “acceptable” aspects of Odin. Grima embodies the darker, more dubious, and more effeminate, aspects of the god. As I’ve said in other posts, they are two sides of the Odin coin.

Though both are temperamental as fuck.

Alongside the spellcraft and potions, Grima’s performance of power does not align with Rohirrim traditions and ideals. He relies on his wits and his skill with language to navigate the world. Succinctly captured in the epithet bestowed upon him: Wormtongue. This is the modernization of Wyrmtunga, or, Dragon’s Tongue.

Wyrm can translate to worm, sure, and we see Saruman doing this on purpose when he refers to Grima as a worm, a creature that crawls in the dirt. But Wyrm, of course, is actually a form of dragon. And in Middle Earth, wyrm is used interchangeably with dragon (Smaug is called both wyrm and dragon), rather than denoting a specific species/categorization of dragon as it does in our world.

Grima’s approach to power is that of a gentle touch. He speaks softly, but doesn’t carry a large stick. He’s not Eomer or Theodred, who are much more traditionally martial, aggressive and forthright in their responses to a situation. Grima is clearly all about influencing those around him either through persuasion/use of words, or through spellcraft. He manipulates, he uses linguistic trickery.

Additionally, how he undertakes his role as advisor to the king places him more within the private world of Meduseld and the king’s household than the active, public world of marshals and thanes. And, of course, the private world of households was traditionally considered the woman’s domain while men were expected to occupy the public spaces of the world.

Of course, being involved in court politics is a public role as opposed to existing within a wholly private space (such as Eowyn. Who, in the books, takes a mostly private role until she is required to rule in her uncle’s stead while he and Eomer are off at war, and even then it is clearly considered a temporary situation and part of her duty as a woman). But the manner in which Grima occupies that public position is a more “feminine” one.

We can assume that if Eomer or Erkenbrand or Elfhelm occupied the role as advisor to Theoden, they would have a very different approach to the position. A much more aggressive, active and probably military-focused approach. Less carrot, more stick.

A quick note on his appearance in the film, aside from being entirely in black with black hair in a land full of blonds because he needed to be visually distinct as the Bad Guy. He is dressed in longer tunics and robes compared to Eomer and other Rohirrim men (aside from Theoden, but as soon as he is “healed” of his possession(?) he returns to the Proper Masculine shorter tunics than the Weak and Effeminate longer robes and tunics of before). Grima’s hair is longer than Eomer’s and Theoden’s, he wears only a dagger and not a sword, the furs and quilting of his clothes indicate wealth and status, of course, but also decadence and effeminacy.

All in all, Grima’s performance and actions undermine and subvert Rohirrim expectations of masculinity. If not outright transgressing gender norms. He uses spellcraft to achieve his ends which is cowardly and effeminate. When it’s not that, he relies on language and manipulation to ensure his position and rarely, if ever, willingly takes on an active, martial role that would be expected of a man who is in the king’s household and serves as an advisor and a quasi-second-in-command.

Here is a man, occupying a man’s role, but doing it like a woman. Subversive! Scandalous! Underappreciated by fandom!

Grima lives in a liminal, marginalized space that is at once gendered and ungendered but is absolutely Othered.

As for my note on Grima and being trans - absolutely a trans woman. Grima suffers from that thing of “I want to be you and sleep with you” re: Eowyn. That’s my hot take. (Similar to me and Alan Grant from Jurassic Park - I want to be him and sleep with him.)

But no, in all seriousness, a strong argument can absolutely be made for Grima being not-cis, however that might look for Grima. Grima and Eowyn are the two, within the trilogies, that have the strongest arguments to be made for not being cis.

(Grima is a bit of a foil for Eowyn, I think, while also being a foil for Gandalf.)

#grima wormtongue #lotr #Lord of the Rings #writing #lit #gender presentation #gender in LOTR #Rohan #masculinity #queer shit #history #anglo-saxon #viking

55 notes · View notes

cogcltrcorn · 1 year ago

Text

ok so basically: in general secondary gender is something relatively rare (like, maybe one third of the population has any sort of secondary gender characteristics, but betas still can detect scents and shit) and evident from birth. also, secondary gender is a hereditary trait, i. e. if the parents have secondary gender characteristics, the children are more likely to have them as well.

male alpha: the masculine ideal. are sought after sexual partners and are extremely privileged, there is an expectation of them to be good leaders, to perform well in business and work, you know the drill. look up alpha male lifestyle to get the drift. pack leaders. all that shit

female alpha: used to be highly stigmatized, now slightly less so. have behavioral attributes of alphas, are capable of carrying children, (although complecations are more frequent than with omega and beta women), in general are overlooked and ignored. the stereotype is that a strong alpha male can fuck the alpha out of an alpha woman and make her "normal".

female omega: the feminine ideal. fertile, incredibly sexualized, frequently abused (something that is ignored by the society because they are "cared for" by alphas and therefore there is "privilege" in that position).

male omega: considered a medical anomaly, a mistake of nature. usually medicated to hell and back. capable of carrying children, but, again, are prone to complications.

alpha men and omega women are in general more common than both alpha women and omega men. wich. contributed to the oppression.

the ideal patriarchal relationship is alpha man/omega woman. alpha m/alpha w couples are tolerated. alpha m/ alpha m relationships are seen as a failure to perform masculinity and a moral failure in general. basically any relationship omega m have that aren't with omega or beta women are seen as a deviancy (although an expected one). alpha women are again either expected to date alpha men or beta men, everything else is considered weird. although they are expected to be attracted to omegas, but this is seen as a somewhat cruel stereotype. when two female omegas are in a relationship the society does not understand nor acknowledge it.

for those of you freaks that Know that this is all actually about succession:

kenstewy are both alphas

roman is an omega and has been eating meds (with logans encouragement) for his entire life

before you ask: yes of course gerri is an alpha

shiv is an alpha and tom is a beta

rava is a beta (which is something logan has hounded kendall about endlessly bc if kendall was a REAL man he would have found a FERTILE OMEGA WIFE to give logan NORMAL GRANDKIDS)

for obvious reasons what I truly care about here is the alpha/alpha kenstewy of it all. are there better ways to highlight the interaction between the crushing expectations of masculinity, the privileges masculinity grants, and gay attraction? yes. however, I am deeply unwell.

anyway. at the crux of what is wrong with kendall is the fact that his pack leader (logan) wants to squash him like a bug. which is, if you can believe it, an unhealthy relationship model to have.

anyway this entire thing exists because I am a freak and kenstewy scent kink lives in my head rent free

no one:

fucking no one:

me, a normal and well adjusted person: okay but what if I made omegaverse that made sense (basically combined existing omegaverse bullshit with the alpha male shit people sincerely fucking believe to create an extremely weird commentary on the modern gender politics)

#finally. I have invented homophobic omegaverse.#please don't block me over this I promise you all I am normal and cool and can be trusted #succession #putting this into succession tag like a fucking mine #kenstewy

5 notes · View notes

alyazirr · 4 years ago

Text

So let me talk about the Dame Event story for a hot minute here

Another long one sorry,

In my last text wall rant that I was sleep deprived as hell writing I went over the events pretty much as a whole as well as just explaining that the event dissapointed me, now I’ve had some time to digest the story as a whole and really think on it I’d like to dive into the story and what really got under my skin.

Let me just preface this by saying clearly that we as the fandom were absolutely baited with this event, many players are members of the LGBT+ community and I myself identify as bi. This entire event and how it was handled in my opinion was not done well and has left many feeling like they used the premise as a quick cash grab from that part of the fandom – I absolutely believe this to be the case.

Now the story, the first issue I had was the reason the boys had to dress up as ‘dames’ to begin with. The idea that this queen we have never met have no reason to care about and wasn’t even given 3 lines of characterisation just shows up and demands that everyone dress like ladies because ‘down with all demon men’ is incredibly concerning to me. Diavolo the prince seemingly got out of her requests, he is after all royalty himself but I think a lot of the time we forget just how high ranking in society the brothers are. This ‘I hate all men’ attitude is incredibly childish and a toxic mindset that has literally set the feminist movement back for years. It’s equally concerning that I’ve seen fans take this ‘queen’ and raise her up as this absolute bad bitch who is awesome and death to all men when she is in fact just a bitch in my eyes.

The reason why they need to dress up aside Lucifer’s handling that they all have to ‘act like dames’ had me flashing back to visions of ‘ladies finishing schools’ and a stepford wife type situation. The way their personalities had to be obliterated in the process to fit Lucifer’s notion of ‘the perfect lady like behaviour’ is incredibly demeaning to me. As a fashion major I’ve read and researched my fair amount on the psychology of clothing and how it can both confine or embolden us. I hoped that the dames event would be handled better, Asmo is obviously our number one candidate to cross-dress and throw ‘gendered’ clothing out the window and I love him for it but I have to agree with Mammon’s wording that he ‘doesn’t mind dressing up but doesn’t like the performance with it’. The ‘perfect personality’ that had them all walking the same, eating the same and using the same etiquette stripped them of any individuality and just had me thinking back on how women were ‘expected’ to act in society and still are to a degree and it was pretty uncomfortable and I’m not surprised that by the end of it even Asmo who loves any excuse to steal the show and dress up was exhausted by all the ‘etiquette’ he was forced through by Lucifer to seemingly appease some queen.

There was no need for the etiquette, Satan is arguably one of the most refined brothers having many friends in high places, artists, directors and so on. He’s well connected and established and he clearly knows how to handle himself with dignity, asking him to abide by all these rules was overkill when he could’ve put on a dress and acted completely acceptably all by himself. Not that there were even many interactions with the brothers to begin with. Typically there is always a brief moment of affection with each brother but this event was just ‘Beel can’t walk in high heels, neither can Satan pick one to cheer on and screw the other one’. I hate how any interaction was boiled down to ‘praise’ or ‘you aren’t trying hard enough to act like this dignified lady’.

Clothing is an extension of our personalities it is part of who we are and how we are perceived. It is COMPLETELY valid for people to wear whatever they want, for women to dress more ‘masculine’ and men to dress more ‘feminine’ but there is nothing wrong with men dressing like the ‘societal men’ and women dressing as the ‘societal women’ if that is what empowers them and has them most at ease. Satan was clearly not comfortable in heels and Beel really struggled, clothing should be enjoyable not a trial to get past with pain and brute force. It is also incredibly important to point out that it is canon that Levi and Asmo do cross dress and therefore enjoy it it’s not like these boys aren’t down for it but it should be THEIR CHOICE and what makes THEM COMFORTABLE. Not the same old ‘Diavolo said so and god help you if you don’t’.

Honestly the whole putting them in dresses came across with a strong element of fetishization which I didn’t like, the mc only able to babble on about how beautiful they looked, stare or say the ‘wanted to see the boys as dames more’. In concept this event could have been EVERYTHING and in the end it was a let down that borders on uncomfortable. I don’t appreciate the undertone that if they want to wear a pretty dress then they HAVE to act like a dignified lady. As I touched on the choice should have been theirs, it should’ve been an empowering situation and not a constricting one. Lucifer actually had me holding my head in my hands in anger with how he was acting in this event and you don’t even end up with the very typical ‘romantic event ending’ with him. You just tell him he looks great and he totally brushes you off. Not even mentioning the fact that as soon as they arrive at the demon castle the ‘bomber’ has been stopped and the queen is suddenly ok with everyone just being themselves because ‘haha I don’t hate you demon men you can dress like men from next year 😊’. So as Levi said literally what was the point in all that work when they just defaulted to acting like themselves anyway. It would’ve been completely understandable if Lucifer had lectured them on behaving at the event, Mammon not trying to steal something, Beel not eating everything etc but wasn’t.

All I wanted was 2 crumbs of attention from Solomon in this event and despite the SSR card he basically may as well not even be there. Not to mention I was super excited to see what Mammon and Satan looked like but I guess I’ll have to draw that out myself. What was the point solmare, seriously what was the point.

I guess we confirmed that Mammon is literally the only one we can trust since he runs to your aid screw the queen which was the only moment I really enjoyed.

Basically this event has me feeling several kinds of fucked up and it’s clear to me that the devs are just pushing out events to sell cards and grab cash off the audience. I love this game I really do, I’ve played more otomes than I care to admit and this is honestly one of the best I’ve come across main story wise but if they keep pumping out there half assed events to grab cash off players then I’m sorry but it’s gonna turn the majority of players off. People will be willing to spend that £10 on your in game currency to support you when you put out a quality product you worked hard on, I’ve been playing this for a year now and I still love the boys and the half main story line I’ve got through. I’m sure I’m not alone in saying I would far rather wait much longer on events and enjoy a good fleshed out well written event instead of these lazy cash grabs that honestly have ended up really missing the mark and with the angel and now this event really rubbing me the wrong way.

#obey me shall we date #obey me #obey me event #obey me luficer #obey me mammon #obey me asmodeus #obey me leviathan #obey me satan #obey me beelzebub #obey me belphegor #rant #long post #this will be my last rant on this sorry I just have so many feelings about this

48 notes · View notes

secret-keeper18 · 5 years ago

Text

I’m Gay - Eugene Lee Yanga

An analysis by a bisexual asian dancer

In honor of pride month, Eugene Lee Yang has gifted us this beautiful work of cinematic and choreographic art. First off, congratulations to Eugene for officially coming out in this video. It was beautiful, it was bold, and most amazingly, it was so incredibly brave. Secondly, if you haven’t seen the video yet, PLEASE DO!!! Thirdly, the video is also in collaboration with the Trevor Project, a free suicide hotline for LGBTQ+ youth, so please please PLEASE if you can go support it.

Scene 1 - Family

Starting with the beginning of the video, the camera pans back showing Eugene and four others. The women are looking one way, the men are looking the other, and Eugene stares dead in the center.

These people are representative of a family, and later go on to represent the impact of gender roles and familial influence on Eugene’s life. In addition, the men are both wearing suits and the women wearing dresses and high heels (though not shown in this picture), fitting the societal gender norms for dressing. Eugene, however, is not only wearing red, which stands out in great contrast to the plain black of the family, but is wearing a flowy dress/robe.

The mother is seen on the right, putting on lipstick and crossing her legs, representing the traditionally feminine actions and role. Eugene, the brother, and the sister, imitate this behavior, as children often do. Then, the father is shown, legs spread, drinking alcohol, yelling, pounding his fist violently. The children also initate his behavior, as children have little concept of feminine vs. masculine roles until taught that way by society.

During this time, when children are impressionable and learn by copying behaviors, the parents separate the children by gender. The mother takes the daughter, and teaches her. They do the movement together, while the father and the brother do different choreography in the background. The women’s movement is lighter, more indirect, while the men’s are far more masculine. The men’s movements are direct and more grounded, crossing their arms and taking strong steps, almost as if they were marching. However, Eugene clearly prefers to follow his mother and sister’s movements, immediately joining in.

When he attempts to put on lipstick as his mother had, the father knocks it out of his hand and slaps him on the head. Most heartbreakingly, the brother watches, observes the consequences that comes with acting like their mother and sister instead of their father, and follows him. This is representative of how something like this is such a common practice, enforcing gender roles in a family by simply pairing actions such as following the traditionally feminine roles with punishment and reprimand. Finally, Eugene follows with their movement, transitioning into the next scene.

Scene 2 - Church

The first thing we see are two lines of people, marching together. Marching in such a way usually denotes military, uniform. It is clear the message here: stay in line, don’t make waves, be just like everyone else. Eugene follows, but begins to add his own spin to the movement until he finally is doing something completely different from what everyone else is doing. Everyone else continues dancing together, even covering their eyes at some point and blindly following each other to the pews while Eugene keeps his eyes and arms open. However, someone comes to him and physically fixes his movements, changing and shaping him until he is doing the same thing as everyone else. His movement up until here is free and strong, whereas when it is fixed to follow everyone else, changes the quality of the movement to be bound and the energy and power that he initially was putting in to become dulled. Their willful closing of the eyes is meant to represent closemindedness, and the setting of the church is a clear message of his experience. Religion was a toxic subject for him, its closemindedness and hatred and bigotry hurt him as he fought to break out of the uniform.

This is when something happens. The people are all wearing neutral colors, until suddenly, the man standing at the podium begins gesturing angrily, clearly yelling and spewing hatred. The man, and the side of the pews that begin getting riled up and yelling back in agreement, all suddenly are wearing white. However, the side where Eugene is sitting is wearing all black, and they are in agreement with the people in white. In fact, Eugene turns his head to look at the others, and their heads are bowed, their eyes lowered.

Scene 3 - Relationships

This is a clear timeskip from the family and church scenes, from childhood and teenager/young adult years. He turns and sees a woman dancing. The music here turns from strong and quick to softer, with a piano melody rather than electronic to convey a romantic tone. Eugene stands up and begins dancing with her. Their movement is smooth and free, their partnering work equal and balanced.

There is a genuine appreciation on Eugene’s end for her, something that does not change even when he turns again to find a man dancing. He is dancing just as beautifully and gracefully, and Eugene steps in to perform similar partnering movements with the same anount of ease. The woman joins in, and does her own movements traveling while Eugene and the man do the same choreography, differing from her own. In fact, this time, Eugene is the one being lifted, rather than the other way around.

When they finish the sequence, Eugene takes a moment to embrace the woman, before turning back to the man, and the woman departs, clearly still on amicable terms. I think what is beautiful here is the truly genuine attraction he had toward her, and it is evident in their flawless partner work and appreciative expressions when they look at each other one final time before Eugene turns back to the man. A truly “Thank You, Next” sort of a feeling. The seamless transition into him twirling the man and the man lowering him down on top of him was beautiful and such a powerful sight for me, seeing the joy in their faces before the scene once again is swept away into the next phase of Eugene’s life.

Scene 4 - Drag

Eugene has done a good few videos on drag and how important it is to him, and he can speak about the subject with far more authority than myself, so I’m going to keep this scene relatively short.

One of the clearest differences in this scene is he sheer amount of color in this. From the purposeful placement rainbows, it is clear that color was an incredibly important aspect to include in this video. The contrast from the black and white from the first two scenes is so evident. This and scene 3 is clearly the beginning of the parts of his life that began to literally bring color into his life.

He begins interacting with people, smiling widely and truly enjoying spending time with these people as he joins the crowd of bright and colorfully-clad individuals. Not one of them looks the same or even dances the same to another, an important distinction to the movement characteristic to the church scene.

Then, the camera focuses on someone approaching the group. Most obvious about him is his attire- white shirt and blue jeans, the same outfit from the hateful group in the church scene. This is the most transparent part of the video, as the man raises his hand in a gun symbol and the people around Eugene begin to fall.

It is a symbol of how hatred takes lives through both murder and suicide.

Eugene reaches out desperately, but hands reach up and literally drag him down. Once again, the people in white pull and beat him down, transitioning into the next scene.

Scene 5 - Finale

What I find most interesting about this is the total change in costuming and color from the previous scene. In this scene, he is stripped of his clothing, accessories, and make up. Anything that did not fit society’s expectation of remotely masculine is gone, leaving only a pair of misfiting jeans. It is after the crowd of those in white leaves, when the family from the first scene reappear. This time, the parents are in white, while the siblings are in black. It hurts, knowing that the parents, the people expected to love you unconditionally, are amongst those who hurt you. The siblings, who are dressed in black, take Eugene’s hand and help him stand again, pulling the parents away from hurting him anymore.

However, after he is beaten down, he once again rises, this time clad in royal blue, sharp make up, and slick backed hair. He strides toward the camera, determinedly persevering despite those pushing and shoving around him, trying to knock him down. The crowd is a mox of people in white and people in black, all trying to either hurt or aid him. The contrast between the gently touchss of the people in black and the angry shoves from the people in white is evident. Eugene makes it past the crowd, remaining steelfaced despite the anger and fighting going on behind him. The music builds and builds, swelling as he stands with his head held high and sway from the crowd. The camera pans in closer to his face as people continue to argur behind him.

The music cuts out, and the only audio accompanying the sight of Eugene’s expression is that of the angry crowd’s arguing and yelling. The scene ends with a close up of Eugene’s face, a mix of emotions as he attempts to steel his expression against the pain, trying to remain stoic despite the clamor in his ears and the hatred undoubtedly being strewn about just behind him. The resignation to his obligation, to remain strong even when there are those trying to pull him down, is clear in his eyes as he tightens his jaw and stares directly into the camera, purposely ignoring the chaos in the background.

Conclusion

This is truly an amazing work of art, from the choreography, to the music, to the costuming, to the story being told. Eugene’s ability to tell this story, his story, in such a manner is simply a work of creative genius. There is just so much emotion portrayed in a single scene, representative through dance and acting that gets his point across in such a clear yet artistic manner. His conveying of his struggles and triumphs was breathtaking.

A few extra notes worth appreciating that I couldn’t quite manage to slip in.

1. The casting of actual asians in a dance role. Honestly brought tears to my eyes.

2. The athleticism it takes to pull off some of this choreo, specifically in the third scene. The partnering work was just gorgeous and the choreography so beautifully told the story with absolutely zero need for words.

3. Eugene has not really kept his sexuality a secret before, but recognizing the importance of “coming out” especially at this time of year and through such a creative medium is truly commendable. No matter how many times you come out, it’s scary, especially at such a large scale.

4. Eugene has always been known as the stoic one of the Try Guys, so for him to be putting himself and his art (as they are essentially one and he same) out there in such a vulnerable manner is amazing, and I don’t think a lot of us are as brave as this.

5. On a devastatingly personal note, this video meant so much to me. Growing up, there was no lgbtq+ representation in media, much less non-white, Asian lgbtq+ representation. The medium in which this is portrayed is so close to my heart, too, as I’d spent four years in a dance program where I would analyze dance shows and videos such as this one. It was terrifyingly easy to relate to, but one I so desperately hope many others find light in as well.

Please share the video and encourage others to donate to the Trevor Project! I wrote this in the few hours after the video came out so there are undoubtedly things I’ve missed, so please feel free to add your own interpretations or things you’ve noticed/what this video meant to you.

Thank you, Eugene, and Happy Pride Month❤️🧡💛💚💙💜

#try guys #eugene lee yang #pride month #lgbtq

1K notes · View notes

bloodfcst-a · 4 years ago

Text

the last few mornings i’ve had hanging out with @sailorrmood have been absolutely incredible for my self-esteem and energy. thank you always for being ready to hang out to dismantle sexism, ableism, racism, and all the other shenanigans we see on the internet in the name of virtue signaling and performance activism.

i’m attempting to return to tumblr, but one of the things that really grinds my gears is the pseudo-authenticity and one-time performance activism via a reblog of a semi-relatable post. i say semi because while there are good intentions in many of these posts, people often just click like or reblog without considering the lack of intersectionality that was in the main post, or figure “i did my part” and expect everyone else to move on without recognizing that the situation lies beyond your simple text post. just because you moved on from knowing people are being unfairly incarcerated and dying at the hands of actual criminals weaponized by the ‘ justice system ’ doesn’t mean i have, or will.

today i really read someone with their whole chest say “i just learned about racism this week. wow. i’m white and i should do something about things.” and i can’t even imagine what it’s like to live in a world with so much privilege that you can really go 20+ years of living without recognizing the world around you and without noticing inequality or injustice. caucasity is a hell of a thing. meanwhile i’m an afab nb black & native so truly there’s never a time i’m not reminded of all the privileges i don’t have. i get so annoyed seeing people on tumblr say something completely ignorant and then use an excuse.

just two days ago i saw someone say “it’s sexist to ship clerith and not cloti, i’d know, i’m a womanist.” << which is not womanism, this is truly white feminism at its peak. i’ve also seen “this is my opinion and to critique me and my opinion is transphobic because i’m trans and you’re missing my good intentions.” this is both fragility and performativity to overrule an actual discussion, claiming bc of some label they know to be a haute keyword that their opinion is right. if you were truly an ally, you’d be willing to accept that your opinion is lacking the inclusivity you claim to hold. for womanism was birthed from the lack of intersectionality and critical thinking, for those outspoken or overruled or considered inferior by radical “feminists.”

( if someone were truly womanist, for example, both aerith and tifa would both be validated as women, because they both have worth inherently because they were born, and it cannot be invalidated based on a perceived gender role that they may or may not fall into. they inherently have the right to comfortable in the position that suits them best and that they have chosen of their own accord. to consider aerith inferior because she is ‘feminine’ or tifa inferior because she is ‘masculine’ or any other adjectives which could stereotypically fall into either of those categories is an explicit rejection of the acceptance ‘feminism’ claims to advocate for. )

and being trans is a valid identity but it is not a suitable response if you use that as a way to silence others or invalidate any other person’s experiences.

i recognize june is considered pride month, but it’s also juneteenth... ironic, given that this month is supposed to be celebrating the proclamation the emanicaption of slavery to the remainder of those who were still held in captivity six months after the declaration had been legally issued... and yet here we are, 150+ years after the fact and still fighting for the right to live under the same oppressors by a system created to capture the slaves freed by the emancipation proclamation.... but y’all aren’t ready to see the big picture. but you need to be. black people have been. and that’s why they’re fighting for their lives now.

we all still have plenty of work to do, myself included, with dismantling biases taught to us by society and the social spheres we interact in. there should never be a time where you think “ah, i’ve learned enough about this subject” or “i’ve heard enough stories.” even when something is presented to you, you should possess critical thinking skills and learn to take nothing at face-value. raise questions to everything you see, especially presented by the media, and prepare to be made uncomfortable if your assumptions are wrong ( because more than likely, they will be ). who is the person mentioning the subject? what other opinions do they have? are there people presenting counter-arguments? how does their identity influence the way they interact with the information mentioned? to who is their audience? for what purpose are they interacting with said audience? if that seems like too much work... congratulations! you’re quite privileged to acknowledge the inconvenience of having to look at someone’s words and think more than 0.5 seconds about it. and if that’s hard for you to do with one post, imagine someone having to do that with literally every interaction for their entire lives. that’s the reality of black people, and other people of color, and any person that has a label that has defined them as “other.” remember, too, that these labels do not exist independently of one another, that they stack, and that a person can easily have multiple privileges, or on the flip side, things to be persecuted over, multiple injustices to face.

is it hard? yes. scary? certainly. but you should bravely face it head-on, as i am and my ancestors have before me. for those of you who claim to herald truth and freedom and the equality of all humans, who recognize there is no place in a just world for superiority and supremacy, you should invoke your strength as well. use it in times where you may need to be corrected for your decisions. do not hide behind one of your identities to prevent yourself from doing the hard work of re-evaluating yourselves and the information you share. if you’re to claim you’re an ally of anyone, that first and foremost means to listen to other’s stories and to provide them the platform to be heard, to not erase their voices when they are the most affected by it. learn about new perspectives and then dare to journey into a new world with those ideals you claim to hold together.

i have the honor of leading anti-racism workshops this week at my job, but you don’t have to be an anti-oppression coordinator to do this important work. you just need to actually put some real effort into what you’re saying, thinking, believing. remember to be inclusive. remember to listen. and remember to love. and if you can’t do that, you can certainly unfollow me so i can get you the hell off my dash lmaooo. thank you mutual checker!!

so in conclusion... just do better, y’all. i’m tired of seeing fake woke folks. everyone can learn to be a better ally to each other. and most importantly... CLICK THE LINK BELOW.

https://blacklivesmatters.carrd.co/

kay thanks!!!

#♝ mun.

14 notes · View notes

cardentist · 5 years ago

Text

I’ve been chewing on trans discourse here on tumblr for around 8 years now. it’s been a very slow process of learning how to put a words to feelings that I couldn’t understand or that I didn’t know were there how I interactive with and consume this discourse has fundamentally changed over the years, in part because the consumption of that content has fundamentally changed me in that same time

I don’t have eyes on the entire internet, and certainly I don’t have eyes on the trans community as a whole, as it is or as it’s always been, so my perspective is inherently limited. that said, there are some trends that I’ve noticed in the parts that I Have seen, and I think I’m finally putting words to one of them now I will say now though that as a trans man this is reflecting on trans men, because I’m currently speaking on my experiences as a trans man. I’m certain that some of what I’m about to say can apply to other trans people, but I’m speaking from a place where I don’t need to speculate. it’s not my place to speak for trans women or nonbinary people or multi-gender people, but I would more than welcome anyone from those groups to speak up here likewise I’m a white man, no matter how much effort I or any other white person puts into listening to and understanding poc experiences we will never be able to speak from a place of truly Knowing. I greatly encourage poc trans men and poc trans people in general to spread their voices and experiences here if they’d like.

but I think people view trans men as the platonic ideal of what trans men “”“should be””” rather than who they are. when people speak about trans men as a group in a generalization they speak about them as if they’re fully transitioned, fully socialized, fully male presenting in aesthetics, and in a sense totally indistinguishable from cis men. of course people know that fully transitioned trans men don’t just spring out of the ground, but even so they speak as though this is what all trans men Want to become and as if that want or even just the eventuality of Becoming itself inherently erases all that came before

and this has, Several different branching consequences. I mean, speaking realistically there’s potentially as much diversity in how these ideas mingle within our community as there are People in said community, but both my perspective and my time are limited. so to keep this at least somewhat digestible I’m going to be speaking on this from the perspective of masculinity being treated as the inherent ideal that trans men are expected to not only strive for but be measured against and from the perspective of trans men being stripped of their lives as previous or Currently feminine people to be painted as outside of femininity itself and outside of the reach of misogyny.

it would be foolish to suggest or even imply that the enforcement of hyper-masculinity as a standard for trans men has nothing to do with misogyny, internalized or otherwise, or the hyper-masculinity of society at large. however, I think tumblr culture has found a way to re-brand this toxicity, as tumblr does, and specifically peddle it in discourse and activist spaces.

particularly you see this in the backlash against gnc trans men, trans men who can’t or don’t want to bind, and of course in the backlash against trans men without dysphoria. not all of these are inherently tied to the idea of masculinity, but even so you see it in the way that the general groups of people talk about and depict trans men that they feel don’t perform masculinity correctly.

caricatures of “real” vs “fake” trans people, a line that superficially is only supposed to be drawn at having or not having dysphoria, consistently depict “”fake”” trans people, those with dysphoria, as aggressively feminine, as curvy, as not binding, as wearing make up and heels, and more often than not as hyper sexual in a way that specifically speaks to how women are coerced into presenting for men.

the message is clear, trans men who don’t replicate masculinity purely enough aren’t real trans men, Especially if they do so by choice. to present outside of the platonic ideal of what a trans man should be is to forfeit your place as a trans man I shouldn’t have to explain why this is harmful, I shouldn’t and yet I do.

the enforcement of masculinity or femininity is inherently violent. if your presentation isn’t a choice then it is a limitation, a confinement. if a trans man looks inside of himself and sees that there are parts of femininity that he likes, not because he was expected or forced to like it but because it’s something that he enjoys, then it’s no one’s place to tell him that he shouldn’t engage with it. forcing someone to lose a part of themselves just so they have the Right to be respected as a human being is a violent act.

and outside of that, there are people who just aren’t where they want to be yet and who may never be. someone may be pre t because they’re young, because they’re poor, because they’re not safe where they are, or because they medically cannot be. there are people who are forced out of presenting masculinely or outright forced into performing femininely don’t need to have their features plastered on a meme painting them as “fake trans.” they don’t need to be told that who they are isn’t good enough for the cis Or the trans community. and they sure as shit don’t need scumbags here on tumblr dot com coming directly to them to harass them.

whether through necessity, situation, or genuine want there are always going to be feminine trans men. reinventing and rebranding toxic masculinity to try to cut other trans people out of their community won’t make you feel better and it won’t make the transphobia trans people face go away

stepping away from denying trans men the choice of feminine presentation, we have the denial of femininity as a whole in relation to trans men.

this is something that I’ve noticed for a very long time, far longer than that the resurgence of trumeds and far longer than I myself have identified as a trans man, and it honestly played a role in creating the self doubt that delayed my own growth and understanding of myself.

at it’s worst, from what I’ve seen, this is a rebranding and refocusing of the transmisogynistic “predatory man” trope that views men as invaders of women’s spaces, as leeches vying for resources and spaces that they don’t deserve. and certainly I don’t doubt that this came from the influence of terfs in feminist spaces, even people who understand that terfs are wrong are still influenced by their talking points and ideas, particularly those presented without being Overt. laden with “concern for the safety of women” and who gleefully take advantage of genuine and deserved outrage of toxic masculinity to insist that all men are inherently violent and evil and deserve to be hurt, and if internally you two happen to disagree with who exactly counts as male then only one of you knows it. and another one of those ideas has been portraying trans men as misogynistic women betraying their sex because they’re desperate for a slice of male privilege they can rub in the face of other women

bucking this influence, even in progressive spaces, in with people who really do know better, is a process. because the language is everywhere, terfs and people influenced by them are constantly evolving, constantly finding new ways to make their ideas palatable. and people consume their ideas may still integrate them into their own worldview even as they fundamentally disagree with terfs as an ideology. even people who are making an active effort to improve this regard will take time doing so, will miss the ways it’s influenced them subconsciously.

a few years back I’d see this manifest itself more overtly. such as posts promoting solidarity between cis and trans women that Also just so happened to go on a tangent about trans men being Male Invaders in women’s spaces such as women’s homeless and crises centers.

it’s typically less severe nowadays, though that in itself is both a sign of progress and problematic to making progress. on some level the lessening of the severity is a sign of growing awareness of terfs and, if not informed understanding of what makes them awful at least a surface level awareness of that fact. however, intentionally softening your ideals to make it more palatable is on vogue with extremists nowadays. a skinhead with a swastika tattoo isn’t going to get as far as someone “concerned about the safety of our borders” in a crisp suit, but ultimately they believe and want the same thing

this is obviously an incredibly complex and active issue, and I’d be Incredibly ridiculous and just outright dishonest to suggest that trans men are the only target here, but for the sake of this post and my sanity I will be focusing on generally one specific issue from the perspective that I have to offer. again, I highly encourage further conversation on this topic if you have it.

generally speaking, this can be boiled down to “trans men are men, men are privilege, privilege is bad” none of these ideas are inherently malicious, but together they’re the cursed lovechild of the radical feminist idea of trans women being violent, selfish, aggressors and the idea that trans people genuinely are the gender they identify as. it’s a bucking of terf beliefs because they’re wrong about who is and is not a man, not because their beliefs themselves are wrong.

in service of this, trans men are stripped of their femininity and seemingly stripped of their past as being treated as women. they are the platonic ideal of what trans men are supposed to be, indistinguishable from cis men even if they’re still acknowledged as being “not as bad as” cis men

this is problematic and in some situations violent even if it is true, but we have to remember that it isn’t. even under the assumption that every single trans man in the world holds the goal of becoming indistinguishable from cis men and will eventually achieve that, every single trans man has been affected by misogyny. they have been raised with the expectation that they will identify as women. they have lived their lives up until a certain point being treated exclusively as a woman. and indeed there will always be people who see them as women

even for a trans man who fully and completely embraces their masculinity, healthily or otherwise, being forcibly parted with any part of their femininity is being asked to forget or ignore their own lived experiences

trans men who can live up to the “platonic ideal” of what trans men are supposed to be are the minority, but every single trans man has been treated as a woman

and again, for many people they live actively as trans men without transitioning, whether that be temporary or for their entire lives.

you can argue that trans men experience misogyny separately from their identity, as many people do, that it’s “misdirected misogyny” which while to a degree that may be true that can only matter so much when what you’re asking people to do is separate who they are from their lived experiences

I didn’t identify as a trans man when I was assaulted, but I am a trans man I was assaulted and those two things have both shaped who I am and my feelings on one inherently impacts my feelings on the other. it may have been “misdirected” but they’re inescapably connected in my life. because I’m not a conversation, or a statistic, or a compilation of discourses vaguely shambling in the shape of a man, I’m a person

and even still, there are people who know I am a trans man, who even make an effort to respect that, who are still misogynistic towards me. and even more still who are misogynistic towards me Because I’m a trans man

trans men have a better ability to pass in some cases yes and trans men are generally less well known, but the ability to hide is not itself a privilege, it’s fear. it’s repressing a part of yourself knowing that if you slip up in front of the wrong person at the wrong time that could mean the end. it could mean violence, it could mean discrimination, it could mean death

trans men are denied this fact, sometimes incidentally sometimes intentionally they’re denied language specific language to express this because Trans Men Are Men, And Men Aren’t Oppressed For Being Men.

ultimately, trans men and trans women both face an intersection of transphobia and misogyny, with our oppression being Different but Intertwined denying or ignoring one means limiting our understanding of the other and vice versa

there are trans men who hurt trans women and there are trans women who hurt trans men but we as a community need solidarity not just because it’s mutually beneficial but because our experiences are closer than some want to make them out to be

taking radfem rhetoric and pointing it somewhere else will never be the answer, and it’s Certainly not going to help keep transwomen safe

#anti trumed #transphobia #discourse #trans discourse #trans men #long post #I don't know man #this all just happened

14 notes · View notes

cooltapes · 6 years ago

Text

Can I ask your opinion as a bigender person (I’m cis)? What do you think of non-fetishy genderbends? I love seeing fanart that’s a different take on a character, whether simply a different hairstyle or a redesign of their costume or a straight-up AU, and when it isn’t for fetishy purposes some of the genderbend stuff is pretty creative in that direction. But is it something I shouldn’t support?

I’ve reposted this from your ask just in case you didn’t want to be published, but I wanted to ask other people and also talk about it because it’s a topic I’ve been thinking on a while.

I also personally love to look at genderbends from a design perspective, because character design is really interesting to me and I see it (when it's done well) as an analysis of the conscious choices people make when gendering their characters and how society perceives certain traits to me masculine/feminine, a tool to make yourself more aware of your own biases about gender and the concept of a gender binary. Like, these things shouldn’t impact on the way we perceive a character’s personality, but they do, and those are biases worth scrutinising. Our individual and collective understanding of gender plays a HUGE part when designing both a character's visuals and personality and to suggest otherwise is to just ignore the source of many gendered problems in fiction. Sailor Neptune is a good case study. As a cis woman, she performs hyper femininity within the lens of being a lesbian in an out relationship. If she were “genderbent” (I’ll get to that term in a second) to a cis man in a gay relationship, what would convey the closest impression to her original design? An effeminate cis gay man, with the same mannerisms and style as canon Michiru, or a cis gay man performing hyper masculinity? The former may be related to the original character more but I would argue that from a design perspective the latter is actually the closer equivalent after dissecting the societal expectations Michiru is both fulfilling and subverting, even though both “genderbent” Michirus would seem COMPLETELY different to canon Michiru. But why? What implications on personality and character agency does it have for a character to perform/subvert certain behaviours when the only thing you change is their assigned gender? Is a cis man who makes the same choices as canon Michiru in his presentation expressing fundamentally different personality traits than a cis woman? Why do/don’t we perceive it that way? In short, with what we know of Michiru’s canon personality, if she had been assigned male at birth instead, would she have made the same choices for herself? What is more fitting with her personality? And why and what do we project onto her when we consider this? This is the kind of analysis I run through when I think about “genderbending” characters... But.

I’d argue that most “genderbends” aren’t done well, or done with this analysis in mind, they’re very much just a surface-level embrace of the gender binary and gendered roles/designs. “Genderbends” are one of those things I enjoy playing with myself but probably wouldn’t trust coming from other people unless I already knew where they were working from. A lot of “genderbent” art I see is interesting for me to analyse not because it’s good but because it’s a window into how the artist - and anyone identifying with it - has internalised and expresses gender. I think the very subtle ones - the ones that just barely change a character’s silhouette or facial structure to the point where they “pass” now as a different gender - are both the most fascinating to observe but also the ones that leave the worst taste in my mouth if I don’t know where the artist is coming from and what they’re trying to demonstrate. It is interesting to see just how flimsy our definition of gender is but at the same time so rigid once you are seen to cross that line. And of course, as you said for some a “genderbend” is just an excuse to create more fanservice, which I would argue is incredibly interesting to dissect for how it fits the consensus of acceptable heterosexuality (I cannot stop thinking about the One Piece figures that turn cis male characters into big tiddy anime girls for straight male fans jack off to and how many layers of heteronormativity this is buried under) but again, not a GOOD thing. An anthropological thing. That doesn’t mean that I really want those “genderbends” to exist.

Alright, now to the term “genderbend”. I think the best thing you could do, and what I do on the rare occasions where I share what I make, is to tag them as “cisswaps” instead because it acknowledges that you are working within a cisnormative, binary structure, and if you’re aware of that framing then it at least implies you don’t agree with it. There’s a post roaming around out there that suggests all “genderbends” are trans adjacent and I don’t think that’s accurate or ... good, even. As I said I don’t think cisswaps or “genderbends” are necessarily good things and to suggest an artist adhering rigidly to a binary gender system and couching everything within cissexism is somehow creating a trans narrative is a bad take IMO even if I understand why some trans people would want to perceive it that way. I think gender headcanons are completely different from cisswaps and I love and support them. I don’t know if there’s a specific tag for those, though. If anyone knows of any I’d love to hear them, but I’m afraid they’d just get gunked up with bad content anyway.

This was a long post and the final message I want you to take away is that I cannot tell you if this is something you should support or not because I’m just one person with one very specific experience wrt gender. Some people will tell you cisswaps/“genderbends” are fine and lovely and that all this is overanalysis and there will be others who will tell you they have no merit whatsoever and you should never ever engage with them, even to dissect them.

Personally I think so long as you have a nuanced understanding and approach to gender, you don’t personally ascribe to a binary/cissexism, and, as a cis person, you find and listen to trans experiences, do whatever. That’s more important than whether you reblog someone navel-gazing about hypothetical gender roles in fictional AUs. Tagging stuff like this with “cisswap” is a good place to start, and most importantly it also provides trans people with a tag to block if they don’t want to see this content. And if a trans follower tries to approach you that something you do reblog was hurtful, be open to it.

TL;DR: For me personally cisswaps/”genderbends” are “interesting” but that doesn’t mean "good” and I am very hesitant to actually interact with other people’s because they can be and generally are binarist/cisnormative, but the concept is not inherently bad.

I would love to hear from any of my other trans followers here for their experiences and opinions.

#okay to reblog

12 notes · View notes

ianthe-is-a-bitch-and-i-love-her · 2 years ago

Text

@swordrogue

Respectfully, it comes off as incredibly condescending to come onto my post that says, "I've read Thing 1 but can't find any of Thing 2" and be like, "Have you considered that Thing 1 is just better, actually?"

Firstly, they aren't rare because society only really holds back girls from cool adventures, although I can see how you'd think that. They're rare because of what kind if experiences our society thinks of as valuable or exciting. Stuff that's seen as masculine is also seen as cool and exciting, while stuff that's seen as feminine is seen as, well, "girly". Emasculating. Embarrassing or shameful or at the very least humorous for boys to engage with. Even when people aren't considering trans narratives, a lot of them can understand a woman disguising herself to gain access to the masculine sphere. After all, that's where all the cool exciting stuff is, right? There's a good story there! And what is she even giving up, really? Sewing? Vanity? Emotional vulnerability weakness? And it's that same attitude that makes people completely unable to imagine a similar narrative from the other direction. Why would a man ever want to pretend to be a woman? They'd be giving up everything and getting nothing worth having, nothing exciting. Where's the story in that?

Books about women acting as men exist because they're seen as empowering, and books about men acting as women rarely exist because they're seen as degrading. And explicitly trans narratives are even rarer for reasons that I hope are obvious.

But even if that wasn't the case, I could not disagree more with your idea that female-to-male narratives, trans or otherwise, suit trans women better than the opposite. You can say pithy shit like, "it's about a woman being forced to disguise herself as a man" all you want, but the reality is that the lived experiences of a stealth trans man and a closeted trans woman could not be more different. Both might be driven to some extent by fear and comfort, but a trans man is driven to take active measures to continually conceal "feminine" features, while a trans woman is pushed to passively accept their masculine ones. One is driven by the choice to act, the other by a sense of crushing inability to act. They are not the same.

I want to read a story about a trans woman actively embracing femininity in the same way that a trans man actively embracing masculinity. I want to read about her desperately perfecting her feminine performance, from her physical features to her learned behaviors. I want to see her learning how to navigate feminine spaces and questioning her place in them. I want to see her grapple with who she really is and who she wants to be, see her reconcile the two different sets of expectations she's lived with into the person she wants to be.

And that's a story that's miles away from a woman pretending to be a man to accomplish a specific goal before going back to living as a woman.

I've read a few books recently about afab characters disguising themselves as men so as to participate in parts of society where women are forbidden and, in the process, discovered some significant Gender Feelings. Growing up, I read quite a few books that were like that also, minus the explicitly trans narrative. But I've never read or heard of a single book that uses this format with an amab character, with or without a trans narrative, which is frankly unfair. I don't have time to write every book that I want to read!

#this isn't as coherent as id like it to be but hopefully the gist comes across

178 notes · View notes

thelegendofclarke · 7 years ago

Note

Sorry to bring up The Discourse again but how do you feel about the fact people don't acknowledge that while Sansa's traditional femininity is rewarded in-universe, it is a mark against her on a meta level? Many people decry Sansa as "weak" or "boring" or "stupid" due to her "girly-girl" status and her more traditionally feminine storyline, she is consistently in the bottom of character polls because people have been programmed to devalue or even hate "girly-girls".

Hey Anon!

You’re totally fine :) I really don’t mind discussing or even debating this topic tbh. It’s the condescension, vitriol, and being called an unfeminist asshole ect. ect. that I’m not particularly a fan of haha.

You’re getting into a few different points here and I’m going to attempt to talk about them in a semi -organized, coherent manner. So bear with me… Your first point of “while Sansa’s traditional femininity is rewarded in-universe” touches on one of the (floppity trillion) things that kind of ~grinds my gears~ about how this topic is discussed.

Its a pretty significant misstatement and misconception to say that any woman is “rewarded in a patriarchy,” especially an incredibly oppressive patriarchy like Westeros. No woman is ever rewarded in a patriarchy. Not being punished is not a reward. Not being mocked or ostracized is not a reward. Being praised for conforming to an arbitrary set of standards aggressively imposed on you by society is not a reward. Not being beaten or otherwise abused is not a reward. Having basic human rights and freedoms is not a reward. Being treated with basic human decency and respect is not a reward. And tbh, thinking that these things are “rewards” is one of the things that allows a patriarchy to function in this manner in the first place.

It’s one of the most effective tactics of oppressive societies: they shrink the size of your world and the scope of your permissible behavior, punishing you when you cross an invisible line that is perpetually moving, until you are basically stuck on a tiny patch of grass like a dog unwilling to cross an electric fence. So then, when they finally open the gd gate to take you for a walk, you’re supposed to feel grateful and say “thankyouthankyouthankyou” and pee yourself with excitement. And you do; even when you’re owned, even when you’re property. even when you’re still firmly on their leash, they can somehow make it feel like freedom.

Margaret Atwood has some very good (and creepily accurate/applicable) quotes in The Handmaid’s Tale that really get to the heart of the problem with the idea that freedom in the most basic sense is a “reward”…

“A rat in a maze is free to go anywhere, as long as it stays inside the maze.”

“There is more than one kind of freedom,“… “Freedom to and freedom from. In the days of anarchy, it was freedom to. Now you are being given freedom from. Don’t underrate it.”

And also about the fallacy that women in an oppressive patriarchy are granted any kind of real agency:

“I compose myself. My self is a thing I must now compose, as one composes a speech. What I must present is a made thing, not something born.”

“I have failed once again to fulfill the expectations of others, which have become my own.”

“That was one of the things they do. They force you to kill, within yourself.”

A system of perpetually limited freedom, agency, and self determination doesn’t allow for rewards really, at least not for the oppressed demographics. Everyone is a victim of whatever group is in power (i.e. men in a patriarchy). So then you have to start getting into the area of debating who is a “better victim” or “more of a victim,” and those conversations are alwaysss yikesy. I don’t think there is any fair or objective or comfortable way to answer a question like “whose pain, abuse, and/or oppression is most important?” People like to point out that there is always the option not to engage in patriarchal standards, but the consequences for this can be severe. So then that begs the question, is there really an option? And are we willing to blame people for choosing what ever the “not abuse” option is. Its the concept that’s at the heart of coercion: taking away someone’s choices until they come to believe that the only choice left that isn’t ~terrible~ is the thing that they want.

I can ~kind of~ see where people are coming from when they make the argument that Sansa and women like her are “rewarded in universe.” Sansa does receive a lot of praise in the narrative from other characters for being good at traditionally feminine skills. Definitely far more by a large margin than characters like Brienne and Arya, who don’t comply with prescribed gender roles. The skills Sansa has are more socially acceptable in universe of course; they are much more valuable in terms of cultural currency, and make her much more marketable in a society where women are essentially chattel to be sold or traded. But as I have kind of talked about before, comparing the treatment different types of women are subjected to in a patriarchal society and how it affects them just isn’t that cut and dry. Traditionally feminine women are supposed to be the most “rewarded” group of women, while women who do not act “how a woman should” are meant to be the most disadvantaged or disenfranchised group. But when you really examine the POV’s of women like Cersei and Sansa vs. women like Brienne and Arya, you can see if affects them mentally in very different ways.

Cersei, who outwardly seems to be the epitome of a Good Westerosi Woman in her appearance and her actions, and has the ultimate “reward” (being the Freaking Queen), seems to have the most veraciously negative mentality about her gender and her role in society.

Cersei sniffed. “I should have been born a man. I would have no need of any of you then. None of this would have been allowed to happen. How could Jaime let himself be captured by that boy? And Father, I trusted in him, fool that I am, but where is he now that he’s wanted? What is he doing?”— ACoK

“We were so much alike, I could never understand why they treated us so differently. Jaime learned to fight with sword and lance and mace, while I was taught to smile and sing and please. He was heir to Casterly Rock, while I was to be sold to some stranger like a horse, to be ridden whenever my new owner liked, beaten whenever he liked, and cast aside in time for a younger filly. Jaime’s lot was to be glory and power, while mine was birth and moonblood.”— ACoK

“If the gods had given her the strength they gave Jaime and that swaggering oaf Robert, she could have made her own escape. Oh, for a sword and the skill to wield it. She had a warrior’s heart, but the gods in their blind malice had given her the feeble body of a woman.”— ADwD

Cersei learned how to perpetuate and perform femininity in a socially acceptable way, despite her constant frustration and contempt for its constraints. But it has left her in a state of basically complete self loathing; she is bitter and angry and just so incredibly unhappy.

Brienne on the other hand, couldn’t look or act less like Cersei. She is one of the most “masculine” female characters in appearance and stereotypical behavior. and yes, Brienne does have insecurities from the criticisms and mockery she receives.

Lady Stark had been kind to her, but most women were just as cruel as men. She could not have said which she found most hurtful, the pretty girls with their waspish tongues and brittle laughter or the cold-eyed ladies who hid their disdain behind a mask of courtesy. — ACoK

There is not question she is judged and degraded and treated atrociously. BUT, she doesn’t seem to suffer from the same resentment, self loathing and all consuming anger that Cersei does. She wants to be a knight, but she never tries to pass as a man nor wishes she had been born male. Yes, she recognizes and resents the limitations placed on her because of her gender, but she also actually expresses respect for women as well:

“No, but you have courage. Not a battle courage perhaps but… I don’t know… a kind of woman’s courage.”— ACoK

“[L]adies die in childbed. No one sings songs about them.” — ACoK

So that kind of shows how even The Best Women aren’t really “rewarded” in a system like Westeros’s. There is nothing rewarding about being pigeon holed and forced into a teeny tiny box. There is nothing rewarding about constantly being at the mercy of rigid expectations based on conformity and stereotypes and prescribed gender roles. And there is definitely nothing rewarding about being taught to hate yourself based on your gender.

Which also relates to your next point about how Sansa’s brand traditional femininity can be a mark against her on a meta level; and how she, and other characters like her, get called “weak” or “boring” or “stupid” due to their “girly-girl” status… This is essentially one of the reasons why people argue that the rise of the Warrior Woman Character can, at times (NOT ALWAYS), be sort of a double edged sword.

On the one hand it has been amazing for feminism. Its breaking the mold, its fighting the idea that there is only one way to be a Good Woman, its showing that there is no wrong way to be a woman. These types of characters show that sword fighting can be just as feminine as sewing. In fact these characters represent the idea that there really is no such thing as the distinction between “feminine activities” and “masculine activities.” Things do not have a gender. Activities do not have a gender. They can’t actually be male or female. They are actually neutral; their existence or practice doesn’t exclusively depend solely on one gender or the other. There is no difference between sword fighting and dancing; they are both just physical activities people can take part in. There is no difference between pants and dresses; they are both just clothes, pieces of material we use to cover our bodies. The only reason we think of them as masculine or feminine, the only reason we consider them to be gender coded AT ALL, is because we are taught to do so. And the Warrior Woman character defies these stereotypes.

But these types of characters can also be ~warped~ to help perpetuate patriarchal norms just as much as classically feminine characters can, because the fucking patriarchy ruins everything. (Seriously though, it is the reason we can’t have nice things.) That’s one of the hallmarks of a patriarchy, it appropriates something that is supposed to be empowering for disenfranchised or exploited groups and ~twists it~ to their own benefit. The Handmaids Tale has another great example of this with The Republic of Gilead’s perversion of the bible verse Matthew 5:5, “blessed are the meek.” Instead of citing the entire phrase, as the narrator Offred points out, “they never mention the part where ‘the meek will inherit the earth’.” The quotation of scripture is manipulated to support the idea that the Handmaid’s should be submissive, that it is their duty to acquiesce to their subservient role in society.

So as a result, instead of defying gender coded distinctions, these types of females can be applauded as the “superior” type of female character because they are skilled in areas that are “traditionally masculine.” A woman who is good at sword fighting is “more badass” than a woman who is good at sewing, because being able to sword fight is a more valuable skill than being able to sew. And of course it is, its a traditionally masculine skill; the Bro-er the Better. Then all the big time, toxic patriarchal shit rears its ugly asshole head with the concept that anything feminine or “girly” is bad and that anything masculine or “manly” is good. That femininity is weakness and stupidity while masculinity is superiority and strength; that masculinity is preferential while femininity is, at best, acceptable.

This type of thinking makes the Warrior Woman Character, who is good at combat and sword fighting, stronger and more admirable, and a superior role role model, and just all around Better than the Girly Girl Character who likes sewing and dancing. It takes beautiful, strong, dynamic female characters of both varieties and polarizes them in a really annoying and unnecessary way. It makes a plot/arc/storyline where a female character learns to fight or some other traditionally masculine skill an “upgrade” and a hero story, while a plot/arc/storyline where a female character does something more traditionally feminine is a “down grade” or a ~chick flick~ and not to be taken as seriously. It makes female characters who have many different skills (both traditionally feminine and masculine) into Mary Sue’s and says “she must be bad at something! she must have glaring flaws and obvious weaknesses!” or else she “isn’t believable, isn’t relatable, and isn’t at all lovable.”

It dictates that characters like Sansa Stark must be weak and stupid, because they are skilled at sewing and not sword fighting and they have to rely on intuition and their intellect instead of fighting and their physicality to protect themselves.

And I mean, honestly… It 👏 Is 👏 So 👏 STUPID! 👏

#hope this answers your question anon!#alys answers #asoiaf for ts #got for ts #sansa stark #cersei lannister #brienne of tarth #god one day i WILL learn how to write a concise answer #apparently i juST HAVE A LOT OF FEELINGS!#fuck the patriarchy #now i need a nap #sexism tw #long post #anonymous #alys meta

236 notes · View notes

nofomoartworld · 8 years ago

Text

DIS Magazine: Dining with Reba Maybury

html,body{ background-image:url(http://ift.tt/2rlpe1R); background-size:cover; background-position:center; background-attachment: fixed; }

Dining with Reba Maybury

Deconstructing power through fetish

Will Sheldon

Ada O’Higgins: I heard the person who you were loosely inspired by for Dining with Humpty Dumpty was angry at your depiction of him and was threatening to sue, and sent you a death threat while you were here in NY for your reading at Bridget Donahue.

Reba Maybury: All fiction is usually based on the author’s experience, and every experience is skewed by each person’s lens, so there’s this very fundamental argument of literature and writing which I suppose I’m currently having to deal with. I have fictionalised every discerning element of the various personalities that I’ve based this character on so there isn’t much that they can do.

AO: There’s nothing unethical or wrong about what you did; especially given the nature of your Sub/Dom relationship, you’d think they would have more of a sense of humor about your depiction of them.

RM: Absolutely, and I think one of the reasons I wrote about one of these people in particular is because they actually showed themselves to be a terrible person. The person he first presented himself as ended up being an illusion. He said he was a female supremacist, but it turns out he was more of a men’s rights activist. He’s a character that, for me, exemplifies a lot of stereotypes about white, cis, straight, corporate masculinity. I fictionalized his character and used it to explore issues that I see in our society. The character has a humiliation fetish and what could be more humiliating than having your fetish written about by your domme?

AO: Speaking of the discrepancy between his daily views and his fetish, I was thinking about how common that is: fetishes that go against one’s own views. Like women with a rape fetish, or people who want to be racially abused for their ethnicity, for example.

RM: The most common, extreme desire that I’ve encountered on fetish sites is South-Asian men looking to meet white women who will dominate them. When I talk to them, they want me to be their ‘white supremacist goddess’. When I refuse and tell them my mother’s actually Pakistani, they get completely thrown off and embarrassed, but then weirdly turned on by me being mixed. The world of fetishes is endless… Sex is ultimately the closest we can come to true escapism isn’t it?

AO: Most people can relate to having a fetish or sexual inclination that doesn’t align with their views. Erotica is one of the few places where it’s possible to safely explore otherwise social taboos and consensually perform otherwise unethical or illegal behavior.

RM: That’s where the often very real stereotype of the submissive feminist comes from, some of us are sick of fighting every day for our rights, so in bed we want to let go of control and be dominated. It makes sense. That’s also why a lot of these men want to be submissive, because they’re taught not to be in daily life. But the problem with the character of Humpty is that his fetish is a lifestyle fetish. He wants it to take over his life, he wants it to completely control him. He doesn’t ever want to switch off.

AO: Within the realm of sexuality there is arguably nothing wrong with these fetishes. It’s a way for people to release these feelings. Why is it different with Humpty, what is unacceptable about his lifestyle fetish?

RM: I don’t think his fetish is unacceptable, but more simply that it possesses uncomfortable social juxtapositions. He proved himself to be very judgmental and right wing, but he was trying to metamorphose himself into an obese person, a characteristic that’s unfortunately most often associated with poverty. It’s also entangled with sloth, laziness, and greed. The feeding fetish was complicated because in his case, he needs a woman to do it, he can’t feed himself. So he’s reducing these very visceral stereotypes into a fetish: he’s greedy, he’s lazy, he needs feeding, he wants his stomach stroked–he needs a woman to do that for him. It’s a fetish of absolute pure indulgence that only he can get pleasure out of. And obviously his problem is that he cannot find a woman who he can enjoy this lifestyle with. When we think of the feeding fetish, we think of men feeding women, which in a way is overtly sexist, because it’s about making a woman lose her self-esteem and literally not be able to move, so that she’s completely dependent on a man who controls her. But why would a woman ever want to make a man that fat? That’s why Humpty is so depressed, he really just wants to find a girlfriend who will make him incredibly obese, but that’s not really attractive to women. Healthy people want partners who are independent. There is also the issue over how overweight women and men are treated with intrinsic difference over their physicalities, which is something that doesn’t bother or affect Humpty. Considering that Humpty declares that he is a ‘female supremacist’ against his out and proud political values as a Tory, it would be grotesque for Mistress Rebecca to take him seriously.

AO: There are so many examples of impossible or extremely difficult fetishes to fulfill, like cuckolding. In some cases, could it be that people seek complex scenarios that are difficult to achieve because they like longing for something unattainable? People become obsessed with an unattainable scenario, and, as in your book, you begin to wonder if they really do want it after all. What if they were just using this obsession to fill a void?

…this is a book about power more than men. Trying to understand how we deconstruct power. When I say men I mostly mean men in power.

RM: Obsession cures boredom, and there is a lot to be bored about if you accept our neoliberal reality. I feel like Humpty’s fixation to get fat is just an unconscious rebellion from the utter banality of his faux creative, corporate and ultra comfortable life. Some men feel like they can have whatever they want. They can just pay for it. He thought ‘oh I can pay a dominatrix and get whatever I want’. Whereas how many women have the confidence to fulfill their fetish in this fashion?

AO: And he did get what he wanted, in a way, didn’t he?

RM: Well, he couldn’t put the weight on… [laughs]

AO: That’s so funny. You mentioned that in his fetish scenario the pleasure was all for him, and I was wondering, do you think a dominatrix in a paid Sub/Dom relationship should have pleasure?

RM: Being a domme, or any kind of sexual interaction, is pleasurable when it’s engaging, and you respect each other, and there’s a thirst. And that can occur, intellectually as well as physically, with or without payment. Mistress Rebecca does get pleasure from Humpty, but it’s a purely anthropological one; ultimately she feels like she’s being put on a maternal pedestal, which isn’t sexy.

The likelihood that anyone who is reading this has a male boss, or even if they don’t have a male boss, that their boss’s boss is a man, is very high.

AO: The narrator talks about her disgust and repulsion for Humpty a lot, and it becomes clear that her performance of repugnance to fulfill Humpty’s humiliation fetish coincides with actual real revulsion on the part of Mistress Rebecca. So the role of the submissive can be humiliating not only within the parameters of the performed erotic scene, but outside of it in that the sub’s desires are shameful. But the position of the dom can be equally humiliating: the dom is getting off on performing power over someone else. So both parties are revealing their weaknesses, their insecurities.

RM: The sub has all of the power and that is the conflating irony of the whole scenario.

AO: True! In the book the situation is ambiguous because the narrator describes their power over Humpty, but Humpty is the one paying the narrator, and the story revolves around enacting his particular fetish.

Will Sheldon

RM: What I wanted to get at is that being a dominatrix is performance. This idea of power as a domme is rehearsed, you know what these men want to hear, and when you first meet them you work out how they treat you, what the language is, and you figure out what they are turned on by, and you have some phrases in the back of your head to begin the initial conversations and see what they are into. But ultimately that performance has to end. Often the dominatrix doesn’t talk about their own experience besides being this totem of mystery and steely perfection. You expect a dominatrix to have this inflated ego because she is so adored, but the submissive adores the performance of a woman and not the tangible nuances of her personality. I believe in the absolute honesty of the female experience and that includes the unveiling of the different emotional layers of the sex worker. Stereotypes exist to be destroyed.

AO: I really enjoyed how Mistress Rebecca reveal her own vulnerability and disillusionment with men, separately from her experience with Humpty.

RM: That was really important, to counter the image of the dominatrix as always strong and powerful. Women are always needed to perform different characters. We think of dominatrixes as these flamboyant, empowered women, almost creations of a gay male gaze. The experiences I had while writing this book had me confused about my own romantic experiences and how I felt as a woman who enjoys intimacy with men. And also how men have viewed me, being a dominatrix, lecturer and model. How being a ‘strong, successful woman’ can be isolating, and how as the feminine – you can’t really win. Just because someone is a dominatrix doesn’t mean she doesn’t get heartbroken and humiliated. Being a dominatrix is a performance, but what we have when the performance ends is what truly matters.

AO: How do you navigate your own feminist values and your work as a domme? Do you question whether it can be an entirely feminist act, given that the men in these relationships are the ones with financial power who dictate the parameters of your encounters?

RM: Men have all the money in anything you do. That’s my conclusion. The likelihood that anyone who is reading this has a male boss, or even if they don’t have a male boss, that their boss’s boss is a man, is very high. Money and power is still controlled by men, whether you’re a waitress and a man is not tipping you properly or a professor being patronized by a male student, there are so many examples of the gendered aspect of economics. And it’s all coming from the same thing.

AO: Women’s bodies are constantly dissected and women are ridiculed for their looks, and men aren’t, or it doesn’t matter if they are. Look at any man in power. It gets them more respect to be unattractive, because it puts the focus on their abilities rather than their appearance.

RM: I teach politics in fashion programs at a London University, and I spend a lot of time fixated on the nuances of the dressed body. I’m hyper-aware of how women are constantly being watched and that’s a theme of the book, who’s watching and who’s being seen. While I was writing I would try to internalize how men in public would react to me or my friends, on the tube, in a bar, walking down the street and so on. Interactions that, as women, we often to block out because if we acknowledged every stare we get on a daily basis we would feel crazy. Very Catherine Deneuve in Repulsion. With Humpty I wanted to explain how women feel when they’re being watched. So I did this by describing the mundane nuances of how long his sideburns are, or how thin his lips are or how horrible his leather jacket is. There are parts of the book where I describe him looking at Mistress Rebecca, but the point is to turn the whole thing on it’s head. When women look in their closet and think ‘Oh god I have nothing to wear’, they’re not saying they have nothing to wear, they’re asking themselves ‘what type of woman am I going to be today, what type of woman am I going to be treated as today?’ Men don’t have to worry about that, they can wear the same jeans and shirt every day, but a woman has to ask herself ‘Am I going to look strict, sexy, or girly today?’ and ‘When I go to work today, is this person going to judge me if my skirt is above my knee?’ In the book I want to analyze the intricacies and the aesthetics of how men dress themselves-not all men-I’m talking about this universal man who wears jeans with a fade on the thighs and an ugly leather jacket or blazer. There are so many articles in magazines about what type of eyebrows women should have. But why is no one talking about the length of a man’s sideburns? How often do men think about their sideburns, and how often do women think about their eyebrows? Time is gendered.

AO: I would never judge a woman for having a humiliation fetish, or a gay person who gets off on being treated in a homophobic way. But I do think twice when a man has a fetish that’s misogynistic at its core. How should we navigate this question, is it rig htto have this double standard? Are all fetishes created equally?

RM: All sexuality is acceptable if it’s consensual and respectful, and that’s what it comes down to. The reason Humpty’s fetish is deconstructed is because it’s actually really harmful. It operates under the facade of loving women and wanting to empower them, but actually he reveals that he thinks it’s ‘so difficult to be a white man right now’. And because of that he’s a terrible human being. He initially insulted me, then all people of color and all women with that statement. That leads me to wonder if there’s anything more repugnant than using a political view as a fantasy and not abiding by that view in one’s life. Like you say, we all have mad fantasies. But there’s a need for responsibility and maturity. I feel like I’m at school talking to kids about sex now. [laughs] If sex is ruthlessly selfish like Humpty’s was, then it’s obviously dangerous.

AO: Why so? How would you explain this to Humpty, who seems baffled by the possibility that his fetish is problematic.

Will Sheldon

RM: Of course fetish is private but within the book’s context Humpty’s aim was to be constantly catered by the emotional labour of a woman for his pleasure. It shows a deep lack of respect or care for other people. I based Humpty’s character on this universal male stereotype. I met one of the people who inspired Humpty’s character, in January 2016 (pre-Brexit and pre-Trump) and began writing this shortly afterwards. When Trump won I realized that I had been writing a portrait of the type of man who did actually vote for Trump without realizing it. On the outside he might look a bit liberal, he might wear Converse, he might listen to Radiohead or Talking Heads, but actually he is harboring this deep-seated, silent resentment against women and racial diversity. I was spending time with this man, and writing this book loosely based on his character. It’s about this person who on the outside looks liberal enough, and may behave in modest ways in public. but inside has deeply terrifying views. That’s why we had Brexit and you have Trump. It’s shocking to liberals, but those feelings are shockingly real and exist within the most unchallenged of the Western population. Mundanity is political and Mistress Rebecca is desperate for Humpty to really feel something real.

AO: There’s a frustration in the book about how to face this person who is so different her, in terms of values and thought-processes. It’s courageous, but also idealistic, that she tries to change his views. How do you think people should confront peers or public figures with values based in prejudice and disrespect? It’s quite a sensitive thing to do, that can veer into it’s own form of condescension.

RM: It’s a very difficult thing to do, and I think you have to be as positive as you can, and not jump to conclusions when you meet people. If you go around thinking every white man you meet is going to degrade women, for example, you’re going to have a nervous breakdown. And that’s not even the case, and I’ve tried to convey with the book as well. Mistress Rebecca loves men, but, like everyone she has also had some shit experiences. And the book is about her frustration, feeling isolated by this patriarchal system. She wants to have beautiful experiences with men, but unfortunately she’s not having them. In terms of confronting people, I see my American friends all fighting with one another over the smallest bigoted nuances rather than looking at the bigger picture. I understand how emotional the rise of the contemporary far right is, it’s a time of high stress and we all want someone to blame – but accusing your art school educated friend of minute appropriation isn’t going to alter the minds of fascists into compassion. For me, this is a book about power more than men. Trying to understand how we deconstruct power. When I say men I mostly mean men in power. We have to work out what those are, as well. I don’t want to be judgemental, I want to be open and strike up conversation with people. I think conversation is the most important thing, physical conversation. As the narrator says in the book, the only way you can create a decent political opinion is to talk to as many people as you can, from as many different backgrounds, and then figure out what matters. And that’s why one should try and converse with rich cis white men, not just point fingers at them.

AO: There’s so much liberal hate and anger, especially here in the U.S, towards conervatives who elected President Trump. Anger is an important vehicle for change, but it’s hard to gage how far anger will get you.

RM: With Humpty, you could think ‘Oh God it’s ridiculous he feels victimized for being a white man.’ But obviously he does feel like that. And it’s infuriating, because he’s so blind, but if someone’s been born into never having to really prove themselves, because of their race, the gender they identify with, and their social class, if they start to feel that things are not being given to them as easily, they are going to react. And this is one of the reasons why Trump won and Brexit happened. People thought they had this birthright to privilege and saw it changing and got scared, and it’s happened in this very insidious way. No one knew this was happening because we live in a society where we accept men not expressing themselves and so many men seem so normalized in their identical behaviors and aesthetics, but these feelings of victimization have been bubbling under the surface over the last decade. Anyone can go into the voting booth without actually having to have any discussions about how they were going to vote. The anonymous but ever present white man’s power should never be taken for granted. This is expressed with Humpty: he works in a superficially creative corporate job, he likes Patti Smith and Blondie, but he also secretly thinks Black people are stealing his jobs.

AO: I don’t know if Humpty was very humanized in the book [both laugh] but it was interesting to spend any time with him at all.

RM: Humpty is a caricature, a symbol. In the book, Mistress Rebecca asks why there isn’t a fetish for a kind person who is just themselves. The problem is, when men want to be babied and wear diapers, for example, that’s also a fetish for a woman being put into the stereotype of the mother. So we can either be cold, hard bitches––the strict, disciplinarian mother–– or doting, babying mothers. So we’re rarely just a person.

AO: But men have that as well, sadly, the pressure to be a Dad for example.

RM: Look after the family, pay for dinner – paying for everything! There are terrible complexities for a lot of men, men who don’t want to fit into male stereotypes. There’s a line in the book that says ‘vulnerability is beautiful in it’s ungendered beauty’, and that’s something I really believe in. We should all enjoy being vulnerable, and if men started being more vulnerable we would have many less problems.

AO: As bell hooks discusses in her book on Men and Love, and how men need to be allowed to be more emotional in order to free themselves from the constraints of patriarchy.

RM: It’s absolutely true, and I’ve written about that quite a bit, when I discuss Mistress Rebecca being emotional with men, and being rejected, and how she’s been attracted to these subversive characters and it’s because she’s been sold this idea of the rock star or noise musician who exerts themselves on stage and therefore must be this emotional, tactile and sensitive person with a passion for progression. But actually a lot of these men are not that way, they are actually quite politically stagnant. It’s this false sense of security that one can have when dealing with creative men, where they have this explosion of emotion but the rest of the time are cut off, self interested and cold.

AO: Did you enjoy putting the book together?

RM: I loved it maybe even more so because I never thought I would write a book. It took me about a year, but I felt like now was the right time for it to come out. The book has morphed into this character that is partly to blame for the current political situation we are in. Regardless of the fetish or feminist aspects of the book, I feel that this book has unconsciously explored a person who exemplifies the mess we’re in now.

AO: What do you think the future is for this man, and for these men? What is their place? As a white person I question the place of my voice in cultural discourse. Similarly what is the place for men?

RM: I have this conversation with a lot of Americans. Britain is horrifically colonial in it’s violent history, but everything in America is even more extreme but more open to progressive conversation because it’s apartheid means you don’t have a choice but to talk. I hate the idea, when I speak with my white female friends, that they think they shouldn’t do anything. I think anything that you do is valid, as long as it brings in accepting and compassionate ideas to other people. Your voice is important as long as you think it’s going to empower other people (without patronising them), because there are a lot of people out there who have huge platforms and are only thinking of themselves – more than ever now with social media.

AO: Did you feel like Humpty actually learned something or changed following your exchange? He said he did, but do you think he really did?

RM: No, not at all. I think it made him angry and made him feel like he had the right to be more prone to his views.

Will Sheldon

AO: In the book the narrator wonders why fetishes so often center around abusing people and unequal power dynamics. Since you practice being a dom, why do subs seek someone who is emotionally detached do you think?

RM: People want to be able to project all their shit onto someone else – that is animalistic. Being a sex worker is like being a caregiver. It’s emotional support, like therapy. Some people get a massage, some people want to be cuddled. Some people get tied up and some people want good head.

AO: Did you encounter the fact that people who work with sexuality are less respected than others? Especially women.

RM: People think sex is just pulp fiction, sensational, and that you’re just trying to grab attention and expand your ego and claim that you’re sexy. Whereas for me my interest in sex comes from knowing how deeply rooted it is in gender dynamics. Male sexuality is such a huge drive behind the patriarchy, that if I can explore those issues, maybe we can deconstruct a lot of other things too. I also realized lots of women have terrible sex, and we can only change that when we understand the sexual content men are consuming, how they see women. Sex is a political issue. And I’m not a hippy. I am very British. I don’t believe in star signs. I’m a very sensual person but not spiritual. I’m trying to approach sex from a sociological perspective. It’s bullshit when people don’t take sex seriously. It clearly still comes from this draconian obsession with sex being shameful.Queen Victoria died over a century ago but puritanism is still so embedded into us and we’ve got to learn how to throw it off.

AO: Men, because they have less shame and allowed to explore their sexuality, within the narrow path of patriarchal masculinity that is set out for them, can asses what their desires and fetishes and sexual triggers are, and then they can seek them. But women, not as much.

RM: Womens sex drives are just as high as men’s. We’ve just been repressed into not being able to explore them. We’ve had to suppress our ability to feel sexual pleasure because we associate sex with danger and shame, and seeking sex is dangerous for a woman, where it only is fractionally for a man.

Dining with Humpty Dumpty is available for purchase at Claire de Rouen in Europe and Shoot The Lobster in New York.

from DIS Magazine http://ift.tt/2rlP6uI via IFTTT

#IFTTT #DIS Magazine

2 notes · View notes