#it all is intertwined with white supremacy

[earthylight]

when people say “not all men,” it’s completely missing the point and feels like a slap in the face

[robotpussy]

the first step to liberation is understanding that all of our struggles are connected!

[makingqueerhistory]

Refusing Compulsory Sexuality: A Black Asexual Lens on Our Sex-Obsessed Culture

By Sherronda J. Brown

Everything you know about sex and asexuality is (probably) wrong.

The notion that everyone wants sex–and that we all have to have it–is false. It’s intertwined with our ideas about capitalism, race, gender, and queerness. And it impacts the most marginalized among us. For asexual folks, it means that ace and A-spec identity is often defined by a queerness that’s not queer enough, seen through a lens of perceived lack: lack of pleasure, connection, joy, maturity, and even humanity.

In this exploration of what it means to be Black and asexual in America today, Sherronda J. Brown offers new perspectives on asexuality. She takes an incisive look at how anti-Blackness, white supremacy, patriarchy, heteronormativity, and capitalism enact harm against asexual people, contextualizing acephobia within a racial framework in the first book of its kind. Brown advocates for the “A” in LGBTQIA+, affirming that to be asexual is to be queer–despite the gatekeeping and denial that often says otherwise.

With chapters on desire, f*ckability, utility, refusal, and possibilities, Refusing Compulsory Sexuality discusses topics of deep relevance to ace and a-spec communities. It centers the Black asexual experience–and demands visibility in a world that pathologizes and denies asexuality, denigrates queerness, and specifically sexualizes Black people.

A necessary and unapologetic reclamation, Refusing Compulsory Sexuality is smart, timely, and an essential read for asexuals, aromantics, queer readers, and anyone looking to better understand sexual politics in America.

[sepublic]

Another thing I’ve noticed about Wittebane fans is that they would really rather speculate on an unseen dynamic and how codependent it was, or on Belos having religious trauma or being a socially awkward child (despite this conflicting with him being a confident, silver-tongued politician) over like. Discussing Belos’ character as he actually is onscreen.

And onscreen Belos is about Christian colonialism, he IS the religious trauma. He’s the white saviorism, the racism, the genocide, the arrogant delusions of Puritans. These are actually onscreen, and darker and deeper than like, the Wittebanes being Cain and Abel or Saturn devouring his son because what are you actually discussing here that’s topical?

But fans don’t want to talk about that, they don’t want to talk about what makes Belos his own character and what makes his writing work. They want to make Belos and Caleb into a racist, less interesting version of the Nocedas, Clawthorne sisters, Collector, etc. And when Belos doesn’t measure up to these standards because he’s a square peg being put through a round hole, fans get angry at the writers. It’s alienating to those who want to discuss Belos, the actual Belos.

And I think it boils down to fans being discomforted by topics such as colonialism and genocide, and facing just how intertwined Belos is with depicting it on a large and personal scale; He isn’t even a metaphor at this rate, but a literal example of a Christian white man from a 1600s American colony. These subjects are not something fans can romanticize, so they focus on the dynamic with his brother, on being codependent or tortured or suffering from religious trauma, etc.

It’s very faux-deep, it’s pretentious in a Dark Academia way, Cannibalism as a metaphor for love. It reminds me of fans who claim to love Dark Fics and can handle dark topics, but then implode when you ask them to discuss critical race theory. They think they’re being subversive and even punk but it’s just white guys in the end. It thinks itself deeper just for being ‘darker’ but it’s not even that dark compared to other things, it’s just edgy. King and Steve’s conversation as a stand-in for Dana’s ruminations on God are genuinely deeper than every Cain-Abel Wittebane fic.

There’s a Vtuber who just did an Owl House marathon and while she didn’t pick up on a lot, the discussion on Belos by fans who are explaining it to her is so refreshing, because there’s no mention of Caleb! There’s no mention of Belos being repressed or feeling abandoned. It’s all about how he actually is onscreen and is presented and what he does onscreen. It’s about the delusions and evil of those who practice Puritan ideology. And the actions that have far more impact than killing his brother.

And it makes me think, this is another reason why we don’t see Caleb; Because the writers knew fans would use him as a distraction from the actual things they’re discussing and satirizing through Belos. They would use him as a distraction from the true motives, the banality of evil, as Belos does; And Belos himself doesn’t even do it that much, he’s upfront about how he thinks witches are inherently evil and need to be killed in the name of God so even he is avoiding factoring Caleb into the discussion! Alas, the writers underestimate just how far fandom will go when they get even a scent of a possible white guy.

Can we talk about the Wittebanes as they actually are instead of retreading other characters’ old ground? The tragedy of the Wittebanes isn’t about some lonely orphan just wanting to be accepted by his community, being unable to handle the thought of his brother leaving, and not knowing any better because that’s just how things were back then; It’s about seeing your kid brother embrace the alt-right pipeline because white supremacy makes him feel special, and no matter how many years you spend trying to change his mind, he eventually, finally turns on you too.

[peachesyeo]

Treasure - MATZ preview

THIS SERIES IS MATURE! MINORS DNI!

⊹ 0.6k words ⊹ alpha!seonghwa x beta!male!reader x packomega!hongjoong.

✧a/n: hello, darlings. so yeah, my second attempt at writing smut. sorry if it's x male reader, but there's just so less of them that i feel that i needed to contribute more. this story is inspired by @holybibly (oh i feel so nervous for tagging you ma'am, but i hope you know you inspired me through your work) and strawberry_luna on AO3 (i can't seem to find her tumblr account). this is only a small preview, it would be released on 14th April, a gift from me to all readers (:

tags are welcome, just reply under this post.

𓋼𓍊 playlist: Mount Everest - Labrinth

⊂ content: not your traditional a/b/o dynamic, daddy/mommy kink, mommy!hwa supremacy, powerbottom!hongjoong, dom!seonghwa, sub!switch!reader (for this chapter). :̗̀➛ 𝐛𝐚𝐜𝐤 𝐭𝐨 𝐦𝐚𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐥𝐢𝐬𝐭? :̗̀➛ 𝐛𝐚𝐜𝐤 𝐭𝐨 𝐦𝐚𝐢𝐧 𝐩𝐚𝐠𝐞? :̗̀➛ 𝐣𝐨𝐢𝐧 𝐦𝐲 𝐭𝐚𝐠𝐥𝐢𝐬𝐭? (for all works)

Looking for the next part?

Being a beta means a lot of things.

In a pack, a beta serves as somewhat of a mediator. Their role is to ease tensions between alphas or to soothe nervous omegas. In terms of sexual dynamics, betas are there to assist alphas with their rut when no omegas are available, and to mate with pregnant omegas, as unlike alphas, they do not possess knots, therefore could safely grant an omega's sexual needs while pregnant.

A beta cannot impregnate someone, nor can they become pregnant. While some see this as a limitation, others relish in the fact. Slowly, betas became objects designed to satisfy an alpha or an omega's sexual pleasure, and soon, most betas have become pets.

Some betas took pride in becoming a pet. Some entered training school, ready to be spoiled by their future masters or mistresses. Some were forced to become one, picking up skills along the way as their masters or mistresses fucked them into submission.

The world is ran by alphas and omegas, after all.

Some betas were not so fortunate. Abusive alphas and omegas were common, reveling in their status at the top of the hierarchy while subjecting their beta pets to torture. Sadly, not all betas survived such treatment, while those who did continued to endure suffering.

The lucky ones were spoiled. Their loving owners would do anything in their power to satisfy them. Be it big, fat dildos with rare gems as decorations to plug up their nice, hungry holes, or thick, jeweled collars or leashes tied around their neck to show off their ownership.

That's what Hongjoong desired when he first saw the little beta curled up in the corner of the cage: the image of your neck wrapped in a pretty, diamond-studded collar to match his own favorite set of white, lacy lingerie drives him into a frenzy.

His.

"I want him, Hwa," he whispered to the elegant alpha beside him, his lips grazing against his earlobe. "I like him. Buy him for me." He nuzzled closer, burying his nose in the alpha's neck, inhaling the rich scent of champagne that enveloped him. Seonghwa stroked Hongjoong's head lovingly, intertwining their fingers and pressing a tender kiss against his hand. "Anything for my Luna," he replied softly, his gaze drifting toward you. The scent of roses, Hongjoong's scent, grew stronger, a subtle indicator of his contentment.

"Any bidders?" The auctioneer called out, as the flashlight fell upon you. You were dressed in a tight, black crop top and a short mini skirt that shows off your caged cock and plug. Your face and body was covered in shimmering dust, your slightly long hair falling messily on your thin shoulders. "Starting from ten-thousand-"

"A hundred-thousand." A deep voice echoed through the room, momentarily halting all conversation. From your cage on the main stage, you caught the gaze of the speaker seated on the second floor. He looked like an alpha, with slicked-back black hair and a confident smirk playing on his lips. Murmurs spread through the crowd as you began to recognize him.

Or more correctly, recognize the omega on his lap.

His fiery red hair peeked out from beneath a furry black beanie, adding a splash of color to his ensemble. Dressed in an expansive mink fur coat, he exuded an air of opulence. As he met your gaze, a possessive glint flickered in his eyes, sending a shiver down your spine.

Kim Hongjoong. The famous Pack Luna of one of the top packs in this city.

"A hundred-thousand!" The bidder's voice echoed, attempting to elicit further bids, but the room remained eerily silent. No one dared to challenge the offer. With a decisive nod, the auctioneer lifted the bidder's hammer, bringing it down with a resounding thud, signaling the close of the deal.

"Sold!"

➳ pernament taglist: @wonwooz1 @kwanienies @leyittara @lonewolfjinji @sousydive @joshuahongnumbers @devilzliaison @yeodeulz @enhacracy

[pokegyns]

Transmedicalism: The Sexism, Racism, and Classism of Transmeds

the theory of transmedicalism is undeniably intertwined with eurocentrism, white supremacy, colonial values, classism, and sexism.

1.) SEXISM

transmedicalists often propose the idea of “being born in the wrong body”– which has become the most widely accepted definition of transness. this is pseudoscience; no one can be “born in the wrong body”. this idea supports the neurosexist myth of the sex brain, “womb hormone imbalance”, “brain-body incongruence”, and general misinformed scientific misogyny. transmedicalism suggests medical intervention as the only solution to dysphoria & incongruence, which can be deeply harmful due to the unresearched nature of gender/sex dysphoria. the calls for the medicalizing of gender also fail to recognize the inherent intersexism this very idea is built on– unnecessary medical intervention on intersex infants is completely built on the medicalization of gender. of course, transness is medical & neurological– but it also undoubtedly is sociological, and transmeds fail to consider this fact. they fail to consider gender socialization, patriarchal values & environmental influence. their belief of having to involve medical intervention in every case of dysphoria fails to encompass the very fact that dysphoria can heal, and this uniquely disempowers & harms detrans people. with their assimilationist views, transmeds tend to revert back to cisnormative praxis. presenting medical transition & assimilation as the only path to trans happiness, they actively ignore the corrupt nature of the affirmative-only model, as well as the overly sexist practices presented to dysphoric individuals. the affirming-model, following transmedicalist thought, often attacks dysphoric people for not wanting to completely assimilate in the cispatriarchal society. assimilation is a direct attack on liberation. assimilation kills, assimilation is erasure, assimilation is the violence of invisibility. attacks on individuality & informed consent, as well as promising happiness to dysphoric people & claiming that medical transition is the only path available for them (& the fearmongering of, “if you don’t transition, you will die”) is the corrupt nature of transmedicalism. medical transition can be harmful, as much as it can be helpful. it is not the only cure to dysphoria, and sometimes it isn’t a cure, at all. the goal of trans liberation isn’t to assimilate into the strict gender binary, it is to destroy the gender binary.

2.) RACISM

attempts at purposing the “immediate need” for medical intervention in cases of dysphoria are also intertwined with colonization & white supremacy. strict attempts of white trans people to “pass” uniquely harm trans people of color. trans people of color are disproportionately subjected to extreme rates of poverty & discrimination, and are therefore bared from the resources they might need for the furthering of their desired transition. the emphasis that transmedicalist ideals place on the importance of passing as cis, as well as the ways in which racist stereotypes have bred toxic masculinity in communities of color, has led to a disproportionate level of violence being targeted towards trans people of color. pressuring dysphoric people to take unhealthy measures at “passing” & “assimilating” otherwise “they aren’t truly dysphoric”, undoubtedly is rooted in the westernized & eurocentric view of trans healthcare.

3.) CLASSISM

transmedicalism is largely classist, through & through. grooming young dysphoric people, who oftentimes come from non-wealthy families, that the only way they can reach happiness is by medically transitioning, is a very well-known tactic of transmedicalism. transmedicalism fails to consider diverse economic situations, and by presenting medical transition as the only path to happiness of dysphoric people, transmeds breed a unique form of insecurity, self-doubt, and depression in the brains of dysphoric youth. they claim medical transition is the only way dysphoric people will ever be able to be happy, and as they make this claim, they simultaneously subject lower-class trans people to lifelong suffering. this is one of the many ways classism manifests as one big hole in transmedicalist thought. not everyone can afford to pass, and it is unfair to declare everyone who cannot pass as a “faker”. branding transition as the only “cure” to dysphoria, and then barring certain individuals from the said “cure”, tells us just how flawed transmedicalism is. capitalists love to profit from vulnerable people’s pain, and dysphoria is a neurological condition that, by branding such a commodifying solution as “the only cure”, can get capitalists thriving at the expense of deeply ill & vulnerable people. transmeds imply that dysphoric people immediately need fixing, otherwise they’re doomed to lifelong suffering & inevitable death. this is the fastest way of manipulating a marginalized group & thus providing & promising profit to consumerist industries & those on the top of the capitalist pyramid.

4.) CONCLUSION

transmedicalism is the most socially accepted idea of transness. it is one that supports assimilation, the patriarchy, racism & colonialism. it is one that is the most likeable to large corporations, conservatives, and the power thirsty capitalists. as such, we shouldn’t see it as a feminist idea of transness. i have seen far too many self-proclaimed radical feminists claim transmeds are “the best trans people” & “ones we should accept the most”. this is a blatantly incorrect & dangerous belief to hold. transmedicalism harms dysphoric people on a wide scale; it punishes deviation from the gender hierarchy, affirms medical transition as the only way to trans happiness, profits from dysphoric pain– and as such, is inherently anti-feminist. it is one thing to acknowledge that dysphoria can be neurological, and that dysphoria is a mental condition– but it is a completely distinct thing to pressure trans people to medically transition, to imply dysphoric people need “fixing”, and to push & betray our trans siblings to the large messy pit the capitalist industry of medical transition is. undoubtedly, medical transition can save lives– but it can also destroy them, and the industry needs immediate reform. a lot of transmedicalists declare themselves “pro-radfem”, which is probably why they’ve gained such sympathy from self-proclaimed radfems– but the two groups couldn’t be more separate from each other. radfems generally have more in common with the crowd that parades neopronouns & xenogenders– and although more than few radfems will find this nonsensical– we still have to admit that these people have no power in the gender hierarchy whatsoever, unlike transmedicalism– an idea that built its’ praxis & is turning into a huge corporation. dysphoric people are not an experiment, nor are we a public good & guinea pigs. our pain is not something that capitalist pigs should have access to commodifying. transmedicalism hurt me as an individual, as well– the effects kalvin garrah & the “truscum” community (i had quite a few toxic transmed exes) had on me as a vulnerable dysphoric teen were numerous. i hated myself, and i hate myself a little less ever since i distanced myself from the huge mess the “truscum” community is. feminism is helping me heal, and i get enraged every time i see transmedicalism be accepted as a radfem ideal. it is not, and it never will be.

– mod zoroark

[destroyingangelneveragod]

hi reminder that transmisogyny is also inherently tied to upholding/policing (thank you to my partner Ash on that wording) the standards of white supremacist/eurocentric feminity and that that inherently means transmisogyny is racist/colonial in nature! meaning that Matt is inherently reflecting and upholding white supremacy in how he runs this site...also think about who the other main groups are that gets removed/nuked from the site for no reason, Black and Indigenous folk with decolonial stances! It's all intertwined y'all, and none of it is divorced from each other.

[the1975attheirverybest]

Free Palestine + BLM movements

Touched on this briefly before, but apparently it’s a persistent issue in online spaces so I’ll say it more fully this time. To online advocates and activists, on both the black side and the Palestinian side. PLEASE DO NOT LOSE SIGHT OF THE GOAL. white supremacy thrives when we are pitted against each other. Our struggles are inherently intertwined. AND HAVE HISTORICALLY INTERSECTED. Below is a fact-checked and verified list of examples.

Malcolm X has written an essay on Zionism in which he rightly stated The ever-scheming European imperialists wisely placed Israel where she could geographically divide the Arab world, infiltrate and sow the seed of dissension among African leaders and also divide the Africans against the Asians.”

As seen here and here. Palestinians in Gaza and The West Bank have protested for black people against police brutality in the US, including during the George Floyd protests.

VERY IMPORTANT: the IDF trains American police forces to treat black folks with the same cruelty that they treat Palestinians.

So, this is why I always say “context matters.” If all you’ve ever known is TikTok activism, if you haven’t looked into the history and understood the way that systemic oppression operates, then it’s of course easy to get sucked into taking sides. WE ARE ON THE SAME SIDE. Stop fighting. The enemy is racism. White supremacy.

if one or ten or 1526272 black people shitting on you as an Arab makes you less supportive of their rights, or likewise if one or ten or 15627282 Palestinians using anti black rhetoric makes you suddenly feel that they don’t deserve human rights, then with all due respect you were never with the cause to begin with.

[giritina]

Yes it is important to try not to perpetuate anti-semitism in the fight for Palestinian liberation because if you accept bigotry as a valid cost for social justice, you will fall for the next genocide. We have seen people believe women's oppression makes them incapable of harm be convinced that trans people are a valid target. We have seen queer people's oppression used as a tool of white supremacy. Many of us have probably sat with someone who abused us and heard "how could you accuse an abuse victim of this." At this very moment, we are seeing people who are calling on Jewish trauma and oppression as proof that they could not possibly be committing a genocide. Bad faith actors and powerful people AND everyday citizens with the best intent who have swallowed what they said are all letting genocide happen and using the language of justice to erase it.

Seeing how those people came to believe what they believe, how trauma is intertwined, is not both-sides-ing. The ethics of the occupation are not complicated, it is wrong. But you will become a useful idiot if you use that to justify anti-semitism, or the deaths of civilians, or the absolute exile of immigrants. If you refuse to believe trauma and bigotry inform government, politics, tragedy, what will you do after Palestine is liberated and does not become an immediate leftist utopia? Will you attest to the rights of the civilians to their lives and their homeland if the government becomes right-wing, authoritarian, anti-human?

As an example, look at Ukraine. You do not have to go far to find communist bloggers on here who support, in some way, the Russian invasion. Russia has a long history of imperialism. The war in Ukraine is part of its imperial project. However, Ukraine's government is not communist. The government that Ukrainians voted in is capitalist, centrist. This has proven more important to many communists than actually supporting the right of Ukrainian people to their homeland and to their freedom. They point to nazi sects or capitalist government officials and tell you look. Here. This is why imperialism is the better of two evils. This is why you should forget human rights. These people made the wrong choice. Therefore, they lose the privilege of justice.

Will you be able to believe that a traumatized people who are sucked in by harmful rhetoric still deserve your empathy? Or will you allow yourself to fall into anti-arab, Islamophobic, anti-palestinian rhetoric because it is necessary for some other conflicts simple moral framework? Already, it seems many people deny Hamas has committed war crimes, because they can't believe that a people of whom one political faction does harm might still deserve their human rights. If it becomes inconvenient to deny those crimes or if future crimes occur, will your support for Palestinians dissipate? Who will be the necessary sacrifice for your next movement?

[dailyanarchistposts]

A concept is a brick. It can be used to build a courthouse of reason. Or it can be thrown through the window.

—Brian Massumi[8]

Personally, I want to be nurturing life when I go down in struggle. I want nurturing life to BE my struggle.

—Zainab Amadahy[9]

Resistance and joy are everywhere

Anyone who has been transformed through a struggle can attest to its power to open up more capacities for resistance, creativity, action, and vision. This sense of collective power—the sense that things are different, that we are different, that a more capable “we” is forming that didn’t exist before—is what we mean by joyful transformation. Joyful transformation entails a new conception of militancy, which is already emerging in many movements today. To be militant about joy means being attuned to situations or relationships, and learning how to participate in and support the transformation, rather than directing or controlling it.

Everywhere, people are recovering, sustaining, and reinventing worlds that are more intense and alive than the form of life offered up by Empire. The web of control that exploits and administers life—ranging from the most brutal forms of domination to the subtlest inculcation of anxiety and isolation—is what we call Empire. It includes the interlocking systems of settler colonialism, white supremacy, the state, capitalism, ableism, ageism, and heteropatriarchy. Using one word to encapsulate all of this is risky because it can end up turning Empire into a static thing, when in fact it is a complex set of processes. These processes separate people from their power, their creativity, and their ability to connect with each other and their worlds.

We say worlds, in the plural, because part of Empire’s power is to bring us all into the same world, with one morality, one history, and one direction, and to convert differences into hierarchical, violent divisions. As other worlds emerge through resistance and transformation, they reveal more of the violence of Empire. Insurrections and revolts on the street reveal that the police are an armed gang and that “keeping the peace” is war by other means. Pushing back against sexualized violence reveals the ways that rape culture continues to structure daily life. Indigenous resurgence reveals the persistent concreteness of settler colonial occupation and the charade of apologizing for genocide and dispossession as if they were only part of the past. Holding assemblies where people can formulate problems together, make decisions collectively, and care for one another reveals the profound alienation and individualism of life under Empire. Trying to raise kids (or even share space with them) without controlling them reveals the ways that ageism and schooling stifle young people and segregate generations. Struggles against anti-Black racism and white supremacy reveal the continuities between slavery, apartheid, and mass incarceration, in which slave catchers have evolved into police and plantations have shaped prisons. The movements of migrants reveal the interconnected violence of borders, imperialism, and citizenship. And the constant resistance to capitalism, even when fleeting, reveals the subordination, humiliation, and exploitation required by capital. As these struggles connect and resonate, Empire’s precarity is being revealed everywhere, even if it continues to be pervasive and devastating.

There is no doubt that we live in a world of intertwined horrors. Borders tighten around bodies as capital flows ever more freely; corporations suck lakes dry to sell bottled water; debt proliferates as a tool of control and dispossession; governments and corporations attack Indigenous lands and bodies while announcing state-controlled recognition and reconciliation initiatives; surveillance is increasingly ubiquitous; addiction, depression and anxiety proliferate along with new drugs to keep bodies working; gentrification tears apart neighborhoods to make way for glassy condos; people remain tethered to jobs they hate; the whole world is becoming toxic; bombs are dropped by drones controlled by soldiers at a distant computer console; a coded discourse of criminality constructs Black bodies as threats, targeting them with murder and imprisonment; climatic and ecological catastrophes intensify as world leaders debate emissions targets; more of us depend on food and gadgets made half a world away under brutal conditions; we are encouraged to spend more time touching our screens than the people we love; it is easier for many of us to envision the end of the world than the end of capitalism.[10]

We suspect that anyone reading this already knows and feels this horror in one way or another. When we say that struggles reveal the violence of Empire, it’s not that everyone was unaware of it before. However, upwellings of resistance and insurrection make this knowing palpable in ways that compel responses. In this sense, it is not that people first figure out how oppression works, then are able to organize or resist. Rather it is resistance, struggle, and lived transformation that make it possible to feel collective power and carve out new paths.

[cambriancrew]

I think it's important to note that most, maybe even all, specific level bigotry is intertwined with general level bigotry. Transphobia is intertwined with queerphobia. Endophobia is intertwined with ableism, sanism, and pluralphobia. Specific types of racism are intertwined with xenophobia and white supremacy.

Just because there's an overarching form of bigotry that influences those specific types of bigotry, doesn't mean those specific types aren't real or important.

[ciderjacks]

Will be saying this till I die that CREOLE DOES NOT MEAN BLACK/MIXED/NATIVE AND CAJUN DOES NOT MEAN YT ‼️‼️ Cajuns are a subset of Louisiana Creole (so all Cajuns are Creoles, not all Creoles are Cajuns. For the sake of this post though if I say “creoles” I mean non-Cajun Creoles) and the only difference between them is that Cajuns were typically dirt poor and lived in the bayou, while Creoles were typically wealthier and lived in the city and urban areas. There are black Cajuns, biracial Cajuns, and iirc nearly half of all Cajuns are native. There are also white Creoles. Cajun isn’t just “Creole but white” it’s a whole culture and community involving a lot of different ethnicities, and is very intertwined with southern indigenous cultures because of the proximity of the communities. The racial divide between Cajuns vs Creoles was caused by the sudden influx of white supremacy when Louisiana became U.S. territory- prior to that, black Creoles were legally considered white, and had all the privileges and power as a white person. (This is not to say it was some race-blind utopia, slavery was absolutely still a thing and in fact some wealthy Creoles owned slaves. Colorism was also a thing among Creoles. Your proximity to whiteness was largely dependant on your wealth and status.)

When the Louisiana purchase happened, American racism was then introduced to Creole and Cajun communities, and it tore through them really terribly. Subsequently, bc of a lot of shit, black/mixed people were categorized as Creoles, and so white people were categorized as Cajuns.

(This didn’t really stop the hatred of Cajuns and Cajun communities from white americans however, a mix of Cajuns being largely native and Cajuns being poor people who lived in the Bayou made them unpopular among “polite” white american society. Though it was harder to enforce any oppressive hate against them because the Cajuns were extremely isolated in the Bayou, tight knit, and had a reputation for being “dangerous” towards those who tried to come for them.)

[burningtheroots]

Okay, this might be controversial, but …

We all know and see how feminism — mainstream feminism — began to more and more include and revolve around men, although feminism is supposed to be specifically for women‘s rights.

I could say a lot about how mainstream "feminism" has become just another men‘s rights movement in disguise, BUT that‘s not the point of this post.

What came to my mind long ago is that every other social justice movement centers men, too. Now I‘m not saying that men can‘t be oppressed based on ethnicity, sexuality, class, nationality, disability etc., and they certainly are part of movements about these issues. (not comparable to FEMinism, of course, since men are NOT oppressed on the basis of their sex — even intersectional feminism is only for WOMEN as they face unique oppression for being female, and oppressive systems are the result of male supremacy)

However, the more I observe what‘s going on, the more I notice that men are the center of these movements although it affects women just as much, and even more because misogyny and racism, homophobia etc. intertwine.

So, we got an LGBTQIAwhatever+ movement which is more concerned with male sexuality and male feelings than women‘s voices and safety. Not only in terms of the gender debate and the fact that women get dehumanized (e.g. "menstruators", "birthing people", "bonus hole") and that their sex-based reality gets erased, but also when it comes to how LGBTQIAwhatever+ rights are framed. For example, "kink" has been heavily pushed forward by and centered around the men, even during the beginning of the movement, although lesbian and bisexual women have always been critical of it, yet it‘s now the public image we get associated with as well. Women are hoping for solidarity with the men, but the men somehow still don‘t bother to work on their misogyny. It‘s inarguable that while the women and men share the oppression through homophobia — and don’t get me wrong, I think that all LGB people should fight against homophobia together — the women are still oppressed by the men due to misogyny.

We also have a Black Lives Matter movement, which has thankfully raised a lot of awareness since it started and is an integral part of social justice. However, the phenomenon remains the same: Men are centered, whereas the women have to mostly fend for themselves. I‘m not comparing case X to case Z or something like that, but the outrage when a black woman gets violated and faces misogynoir is very little compared to cases of while man on black man violence. I‘m not saying "pay less attention to victims who are black men!", I‘m saying "pay more attention to victims who are black women!" (same goes for racism and hate crimes against other ethnicities). And I‘m not glossing over the fact that there are MANY amazing black women who raise their voices and do meaningful activism, I‘m just saying that they don’t receive the same platform as their male counterparts, face misogyny (including heavy sexualization) from both black and white men and often feel the need to give up some space for the men, as apparently women can‘t talk about the female experience exclusively in the society we live in without getting scrutinized.

Then we got the Disability Rights Movement, which is somehow less popular but still as important. While most of the rights and affirmations are for both men and women alike, the men are still seen as a priority, both compared to other disabled women and in some cases also non-disabled women. Many disabled women have spoken about how disabled men still sexualize them and subject them to their misogyny, and we even got to the point where disabled men are supposed to be given access to rape prostitutes (yes, prostitution is paid rape even when you‘re disabled) whilst disabled women barely have the right to same-sex intimate care and are also more likely to get medically mistreated.

I could go on about how poor/homeless women are belittled and forced into prostitution and therefore overlooked compared to poor/homeless men (the notion that there are more poor/homeless men than women and hence men have it worse is false as the poor/homeless women end up as sex trafficking victims, especially during war times, or at least get coerced into enduring paid rape), how the "body positivity" movement has become another men‘s sexual fantasy, how discussions about religious indoctrination and extremism usually revolve around the boys and men who get dragged into becoming violent fanatics whilst the girls and women are expected to have empathy for their abusers, how men assert their male privilege shamelessly and regardless of all these aspects above …

But in the end, what becomes clear, is that men enthusiastically use the tools of patriarchy even when fighting against other forms of social injustice, and we as women deserve so much better than this — and this is also why we need to unite ourselves and prioritize one another.

[prototypeluv]

yap session 01: gender and yt supremacy

Something's been plaguing my mind lately- the idea of my gender. What I'm perceived as- I know a lot of my peers just play me off as a 'woman'. Which in SOME ways, I agree with. For example: my experience growing up as a black fem will forever change my perspective. Black women are one of the most hated demographics, even without the queerness I associate myself with. The world is ridiculously antiblack, and it sounds insane, but I unfortunately don't see that mindset changing anytime soon.

A lot of the black genderqueer folk I meet are fem presenting like me. Whenever we get to why, it always comes to this: it's easier to navigate life as a hyperfeminine person in the black community. Blk women are already masculinized to a certain degree, our natural bodies being called provocative. The features of our faces are picked on because they don't adhere to a white standard. Black athletes in women's divisions often are forced into being drug tested because of endless accusations of performance enhancers. We're disrespected on the sole basis of being black and feminine, add queerness to the equation and it makes things ten times more difficult.

My features are soft, and my body is shapely- I cannot pull off the androgyny that I desire to attain. There's never black androgynous rep, just pale and predominantly white folks. It's ruined my self-image in some ways. I look in the mirror and curse the lips given to me by my mother. My high cheekbones and small face do nothing but feminize me. I can wear the most 'masculine' outfit (whatever that is) and still be seen as just a woman. The complexity of my gender isn't acknowledged due to my features. I turn to hyper-femininity because it gives me one extreme when I can't pull both. I do my makeup, wear skirts and crop tops, embrace the natural curves of my body...because it's all I can do.

I don't want to be seen as just a woman. Yes, I consider myself a black woman, but that's because my experiences are intertwined with my gender identity. The experience of growing up as a black woman carries with you. It's always in the back of my mind when I'm in public. I can't be too loud; I can't be upset, or I'll be a walking stereotype. My solidarity lies with black women, it forever will- especially considering that the faces of androgyny are nothing like me. Name a black genderqueer icon that doesn't have money- that doesn't have access to the fashion, makeup, and wigs that we working-class queer folk don't. You can't. All of our ideas surrounding androgyny are just combined aspects of a white supremacist beauty standard. A pretty face (slender nose, long eyelashes, sharp jaw, smaller lips) and a 'masculine' body (muscle, thin, tall, shorter torso and longer legs). Realistically I will never attain this form because I *can't*.

I want to be confusing; I want to be a pretty boy- handsome and gorgeous at the same time. I want to change outfits and be properly gendered despite what I wear. I want to fit that standard, as much as I hate admitting it.

[cat-in-a-mech-suit]

Hey I know that my blog looks fake because it’s 10 seconds old but i promise this isn’t bait, I am a trans woman and new to radical feminism thru trying to interrogate my feminism bc of recent irl developments (big fight with a radfem close friend who is also trans) and that’s why my account looks sus

I’m wondering what you mean by trans radical feminism & how you think it’s in your recent post? Like I dunno maybe im super naive bc I am only recently online again but to me a radfem critique has been really valuable in understanding my position as a woman & I don’t see it as transmisogynistic , but maybe my understanding is based on a different interpretation of it. Id appreciate your time and consideration in this 🖤🖤✨

Sure. I also recommend you read my posts and other peoples posts on this. I understand how reading some radical feminist theory or ideas could be helpful in understanding how patriarchy and gender works in our society, and I think a very critical reading of radical feminism can be valuable in certain ways. But the fundamental issue with radical feminism is that it can never truly escape essentialism, whether that’s bioessentialism or gender essentialism (they are one and the same really). It is also lacking in intersectionality because the reason it is called radical feminism is because of the belief that patriarchy is the “root” of all oppression. This reflects that classic “radfem” ideology was only meant to serve one group of women: white cis women. In reality, all oppressions are inseparable and intertwined. We cannot divorce patriarchy from capitalism, white supremacy, antisemetism, ableism, and all other oppressions that exist. Patriarchy didn’t develop in isolation: it is a product of how various human societies has been specifically working for about 10,000 years, which is only a small fraction of human history. There is nothing in nature that predisposes beings to patriarchy or heterosexuality. It is invented, and this is important, in tandem with all other oppressive systems in human society. Not in isolation.

Classical radical feminism is indistinguishable from TERFism because it posits not only that misogyny based on “biological sex” is the root of all oppression, but that sex and gender are immutable, binary traits. I just ask how anyone can take that ideology and make it trans inclusive without changing it completely. There is nothing radical feminism that doesn’t reproduce white cis feminism even if the people calling themselves radfems aren’t those things. Liberation from patriarchy can only be achieved with all trans people.

Classical TERF radical feminism says that trans women are dangerous men invading women’s spaces, and trans men are gender traitors/lost lesbians with internalized misogyny, and nonbinary people don’t exist. The only difference in “TIRFism” or “inclusive” radical feminism, is repeating all the same arguments as the classical radical feminist, but then supposedly “including” trans women as women. The transandrophobia and exorsexism remains, and so does the transmisogyny - it is just more veiled. But make no mistake, “trans inclusive radical feminists” still only accept trans women who can be neatly slotted into classical, gender essentialist ideas of what womanhood is. Multigender people, who identify as both men and women? Bisexual people? Radical feminists do not like them..

I suggest intersectional feminism, which acknowledges patriarchy as connected with all other struggles and rejects gender essentialism.

[horizon-verizon]

There's a very particular kind of exhaustion I feel when I see how the black family dynamic was and is handled on the show. I'm chewing on this to figure out how to say it and be coherent, but I think it bothers me that Balla and Rhaena are perceived as Velaryon and I don't like that it bothers me.

Normally, I would love to not eliminate the mother, her family and her lineage in history, it would seem great to me if they used her more than as "the woman who gave birth to them."Given how close and intertwined the Velaryon and Targaryen families are (especially the children) that the double heritage is recognized is logical and expected.

Here's the thing: it's not that Baela and Rhaena are recognized as Velaryon, it's that they are completely erased as Targaryens by erasing their relationship with Rhaenyra and Daemon.Now Baela is a dragon rider like her mother and Rhaena is resentful of not having grown up with her grandmother.

All the relationships that the girls are interested in are with their maternal family and all the grandchildren that Rhaenys is interested in are Laena's daughters.There is an intentional cut, a separation, that isolates these three women from their Targaryen side,all under a narrative in which they were violated and robbed of their true birthright.

This is where the part comes where I feel bitter and that is that these opinions do not seem to be based on a feminist reading (in fact some come directly from people who hate Rhaenyra and they simply use these other women to criticize her) but it comes from a racist reading. I have the terrible, uncomfortable feeling that Baela and Rhaena perceive themselves as more Velaryon and linked to the Velaryon side and everything they have *must* relate to the Velaryon because they *look* like Velaryon.

From here I have rewritten what I wanted to say several times because I wanted to express myself well and explain myself but I ended up rambling because how as someone who comes from a mixed family many of these readings reek of light segregation because the place of Baela and Rhaena and the expulsion of Rhaenyra's children from that is based on their physical appearance to keep them divided.

I have the terrible, uncomfortable feeling that Baela and Rhaena perceive themselves as more Velaryon and linked to the Velaryon side and everything they have *must* relate to the Velaryon because they *look* like Velaryon.

Maybe. It's hard to tell right now. I think it's generous to expect these white writers to really capture this experience of some mixed peoples as it actually is. I'm not sure if the "twins" feel that in the show either. The writers don't have the tools to realize that experience, the point of reference, the consultation, nor the direct experience so its surface level. And in part bc they don't even have grasp for how "race" relations work in Westeros as there is little reference for mixed families, so they hang back and lightly use their own reference for race relations.

I think it's more:

them perceiving that-- in lieu of this separation of Black women from their Blackness [below]--that they rebound to using the girls' Blackness to mark them as "too" different from the Targs to really be a part of them, which shapes how the characters move and navigate around each other

to appeal/in shared belief to some Targ antis who scream "the Targs are colonizers!" And to those PoC/black people who say the same of the Targs, it reads as complimentary because Blackness gets separated from "Targness" without losing the "cool" stuff entirely.

Because, even as white supremacy seeks to make race overpower ethnicity or heritage entirely, it also will use objectifying interpretations of ethnicity to define its own categories of "race" and which people "deserve" what. Precisely bc it separates and isolates!

Here's the thing: it's not that Baela and Rhaena are recognized as Velaryon, it's that they are completely erased as Targaryens by erasing their relationship with Rhaenyra and Daemon. Now Baela is a dragon rider like her mother and Rhaena is resentful of not having grown up with her grandmother. All the relationships that the girls are interested in are with their maternal family and all the grandchildren that Rhaenys is interested in are Laena's daughters. There is an intentional cut, a separation, that isolates these three women from their Targaryen side, all under a narrative in which they were violated and robbed of their true birthright.

NOTE: this is all in the case that they do make Rhaena the emotionally and socially isolated girl that some people predict she will be based on Phoebe Campbell's words. And rant incoming.

It becomes so much more real when you think of how they wriggle in Helaena as the Queen, Jace's or otherwise, excusing it as "Baela 'deserves' her own seat to rule as ahead of sorts"...but then Baela as Queen Consort is still not like most other Queen Consorts, bc she comes directly from Daemon Targaryen and has the would be dragonriding Velaryon lineage (w/the Lucerys-Rhaena marriage) doubly supporting Jacaerys! And she's raised to be a much more active participant in politics, more assertive, more conscious, more self-possessed than Helaena (not to Helaena's fault, bc that's on how Ott/Alicent/not-Viserys raised her). Rhaena is more assertive than Helaena, don't let the social coding of the color pink and high femmeness fool you! Also, what would Rhaena be doing with Baela as the Lady of Driftmark? No lands of a prominent house to oversee, or less of chance than she had before, if she didn't marry Luke? And how they try to argue Jaehaera's death made no sense when it makes all the sense in the world. Or that it was too horrible for a child and that GRRM just had biases against the greens or was somehow just an abusive man who endorses child death and murder....when that has been the point of the entire Dance, which they likely also deny, too and round and round we go.

This is all beside the fact that the Velaryons would have to refer to Daemon and prob Viserys before they could totally leave the seat to one of the girls bc....these girls are TARGARYENS! It is their surname, the house they are a part of bc last time I checked, no King or great event changed this custom or affected it in any way!!! Not like with how Jacaerys' name would change to "Targaryen" after his ascension in the agreement Viserys (the king) makes w/Corlys, and that was for ONLY those claimants/descendants b/t both their houses whom they share, not everyone else in the realm! With Rhaena, in the show, they poise the Velaryons as sort of possible refuge from her neglectful and disappointed father Daemon and the loneliness of her other's absence emphasized by Rhaenyra's presence (and the lack of Rhaenyra-Laena which poses Rhaenyra as much more a stranger "imposing" on Rhaena's life). Part of the whole "men are naturally violent" agenda for any sense of power.

People have reasoned that Rhaenys is "isolated" from the Targs because it is her own grandfather and cousin who dispossess her children's/her right to the throne after years of her pride to be a part of this family. Rhaenys already passed over in the final deliberations in the G.C. of 101--however, it's pretty clear that she was enthusiastically on Rhaenyra's side, the woman that HotD turned resentful towards. One of the women Rhaenys risked her life for. (@pessimisticpigeonsworld has a great post abt women being isolated from each other & female friendships stereotypes HERE).

If the show really has gone down the route Phoebe Campbell is describing with Rhaena, then the show is creating a storyline for the women of the black (except Rhaenyra) where to be a Targaryen is itself to impossible to be while being female. While there is some truth when we think about the progression of assimilation into Andal patriarchy, it simply goes against what is suggested in canon for this set of Targs. Daemon is not like Jaehaerys or Aenys or Maegor...the guy fully dies to remove the biggest threat to his wife's and their kids' safety AND claims. Saera and Viserra, for the most part, do not seem to have grown the sort of knowledge that the dragon twins have and without the trauma [again, the twins had "it" before any of their family dies]. And I already mentioned Rhaenys' devotion to Rhaenyra that comes easier witht he fact that even before in the GC, Rhaenys had been passed over in the first review and it is actually her son Laenor who was passed over for her "side" to be completely blocked. For Rhaenyra to become queen is to still "stick it" to Jaehaerys and all those lords who voted against her and her children!

Even still, Alysanne, Rhaena, Daenerys Stormborn, Daena, Elaena, etc. are all women who have take great pride in being Targaryens! There are so many citations of their words AND actions about it: Daena naming her son after the Prince Daemon and sleepig with Aegon IV instead of bound by Baelor her brother; Rhaena saying she is the Visenya to Alysanne's Rhaenys (implying maybe Jaehaerys is Aegon); Daenerys and her brothers! They never (or very rarely) thought it undermined their femininity or womanhood, and vice versa. They made new meaning of it or tried to. And they all do fight for their agency, & sometimes they obtain and keep some that wouldn't be there if they hadn't fought for it! This must mean something! Do not Black women have to fight for getting still less than their white counterparts in work spaces (Fannita at TikTok and all those stitiches)?!

Black women, on the whole, do not eschew their Blackness--or really they can't, but many wouldn't even if they could--to reaffirm their womanhood. It's actually twofold: anti-Targness AND the continuation of the systematic attempts to separate Black women from her Black heritage or make these things contradictory so that a black woman can never be truly "real", onto herself as her own agent, or have something to springboard and keep developing a sense of self and values from that may oppose white supremacist sensibilities towards "divide and conquer". And I'm not talking about black men, I'm just talking about Black women in a white supremacist world that seeks to make an object designed to go nowhere, do nothing, etc. Because if you cut off a person's heritage....how can they move the world around them? Another reason why PoC women love Daenerys Stormborn, who makes meaning of her ancestors without totally denying their wrongs and evils for altruistic ends. She found strength in herself, but the way towards that was to review her "past" which not not childhood only but the cultural context of which she was taken from. Idk how to say this, but while it can be part of a healing process to just abandon everything and start somewhere new, that is not what the show is doing bc you can hardly call the Velaryons "new" or free bc we still have Corlys' sexism and insistence on a male heir AND the Velaryons--if we believe Phoebe--are still rejecting Rhaena, so this paradigm is still not safe for her either and that whole idea falls apart to what it really is about!

Oh, and just bc "blackness" doesn't quite exist in the same way for Westerosi as for real Westerners, doesn't mean that real Westerners with a background in living with in a white supremacist world with viewers who live in a white-supremacist world are not looking at these girls as Black AND are not consciously and subconsciously making writing and characterization choices that are inspired by racism.

Also, the Targaryen girls/dragon "twins" becoming more "Velaryon" girls instead of their more popular (lets bfr) and awe-inspiring heritage of magical dragonriders. The Targs are just more in the center of the narrative, and many nonBlack people--most of the most vocal ones white or self-hating black and nonBlack PoC--do not see Black people as fully human or someone they can self-insert or see a perspective through. Or "relate" to.

So you're not wrong, anon, for racism motivating fans & the writers to see it this way. I see it, too. Honestly, danylanzhou of Twitter might be better able to answer the part about heritage and isolation and Dany's arc than me, but I hope this somehow helps?