#it also reinforces cis masculinity & cis male oppression as the default

[bisexualgenderfemme]

if you believe in misandry, even transmisandry, don't follow me. i believe in anti transmasculinity & 'transandrophobia' is on thin ice with me bc I feel it leaves many out. misandry isn't real & isn't a useful axis to analyze our oppression through. if we analyze our oppression through 'misandry' we miss a WHOLE ASPECT of our oppression. anti transmasculinity allows for that, how does being perceived as *also feminine* or *also woman* in some way affect us? we are not ONLY perceived as "wrong men" & what of those of us who aren't perceived as men at all but are still viewed as tainting the feminine with the masculine? are we to push them to the side? do they not deserve to see themselves & have a community & words to discuss their oppression?

& if u /don't/ believe in transmisandry... maybe you should filter the tag so u stop rbing transmisandry posts!

[batsarebetterthanpeople]

I genuinely had not even considered the idea that that person might think forcemasc is a kink for cis men. I truly thought they were just intentionally shitting on trans men with that comment. Like, it feels so plainly obvious to me that if forcefem is a kink for amab people that forcemasc would be a kink for afab people??? Duh???

Yeah literally. Im giving them the benefit of the doubt for being stupid. I mean some cis people do have forcefem and forcemasc kinks but they don't call them that they call it like... Bimbofication or gym kinks or whatever the fuck and they don't blog about them on Tumblr.

But like the way she was talking about it was very much giving only cis men and trans women even exist to be horny about things. The reason I say that is because she literally said "being masculine is default" which literally just isn't true! I am a feminine man, I've been punished for my femininity, but I've been punished for my male traits my entire life and I have been rewarded for being feminine at times and didn't start getting punished for it until I declared myself male. The idea that there's nobody for whom femininity is simultaneously oppressive and socially reinforced in the same way that masculinity is for trans women is just straight up erasing trans men from the equation and its so tiring to encounter this type of girl because I want to get along with and be in community with other trans people but you're literally treating me how cis people treat me and you should know better.

Also Forcemasc isn't just forcefem but opposite, like it kind of is, but it's not there to be forcefem's equal and opposite. I have both a forcefem and a Forcemasc kink and they feel different when I'm engaging in them because I am engaging in them from a trans man's perspective. For example, when I'm into forcefem I'm getting forced to inhabit the role I transitioned out of for horny reasons, it's a humiliation thing. where as when I'm doing forcemasc I'm a bit more versatile I can be the horny t boy shooting up your daughters with testosterone, it's fun to be the one making you masc, but when I'm the masc-ee there's not no humiliation there, but it's more about forcing out a side of yourself thats really there but which society doesnt want you to express. For a trans woman that would be completely flipped. So I get why they would be uncomfortable with the concept, t boy bimbofication is niche and most trans guys are uncomfortable with it. Frankly I'm uncomfortable with it outside of pure fantasy. On that basis I understand the initial ick but I don't get why you wouldn't realize "oh it's trans men doing it, well I suppose it's fun that they have their own little force gender thingy, solidarity it has nothing to do with me" instead of getting all up in arms about it.

[thechameleonlover]

That post about performative masculinity not being a thing is insane. Y'all masculinity is performative, white cis-het masculinity being seen as non-performative is specifically used as a method of oppression. By making it the standard, it not only reinforces gender essentialism (ideas of masculinity being inherently linked to maleness), but also white supremacist ideas of what constitutes proper manhood. A white dude in a business suit looks like he can't be parodied by drag kings because they've established white masculinity as something too powerful to parody, but also something so naturalized that it is seen as a default. This isn't even getting into ideas of alternative masculinities, especially from a gay or racialized perspective.

If feminity is used as both a tool of oppression and a method of gender, ritualized performance so is masculinity.

[criticaldogstudies]

"Man's Best Friend": The Rhetoric of Dogs and Its Roots in Misogyny and White Supremacy

The phrase "man's best friend" evokes a sense of loyalty, companionship, and mutual respect between humans and dogs. However, this seemingly benign rhetoric is deeply embedded in historical and cultural contexts that reflect and perpetuate systems of misogyny and white supremacy. The origins of this idea can be traced back to Frederick the Great, a cis white man whose perspective inherently discredits the notion due to its exclusionary and oppressive underpinnings. Understanding how this relationship has been constructed and maintained reveals the ways in which language and societal norms reinforce exclusionary and oppressive structures.

The concept of "man's best friend" is laden with gendered implications. The word "man" itself underscores a patriarchal perspective, positioning men as the central figures in narratives of loyalty and companionship. This gendered framing diminishes the role of women in these relationships and reflects broader societal patterns where men are seen as the default humans, while women's roles are either marginalized or overlooked. In historical contexts, the imagery of men and their loyal dogs has often been used to depict ideals of masculinity, emphasizing traits such as strength, control, and dominance. These depictions contribute to a cultural narrative that valorizes male authority and subjugates women.

In literature, art, and popular culture, dogs have been portrayed as extensions of male power and virility. The loyal hunting dog, accompanying the gentleman or nobleman on his expeditions, is a recurring motif that reinforces notions of male dominance over nature and animals. Such imagery not only underscores men's control over their environment but also symbolically represents their control over women, who were often relegated to domestic roles and denied similar freedoms and rights.

This patriarchal framing extends to the ways dogs are trained and disciplined, often mirroring the expectations placed on women in society. Obedience, loyalty, and subservience are prized traits in dogs, reflecting the same qualities historically demanded of women in a patriarchal context. The training of dogs to obey and submit can be seen as a microcosm of the broader societal expectations placed on women, reinforcing gender hierarchies and the power dynamics inherent in them.

In addition to gendered implications, the rhetoric of "man's best friend" is intertwined with themes of white supremacy. The idealization of certain dog breeds, particularly those associated with European aristocracy, reflects and perpetuates racial hierarchies. Breeds like the German Shepherd, the Labrador Retriever, and the Golden Retriever are often held up as the epitome of canine companionship, while dogs from other regions and cultures are frequently devalued or stigmatized. This preference for certain breeds mirrors the valorization of European traits and characteristics in broader societal contexts, reinforcing notions of white superiority.

Moreover, the historical use of dogs in colonial and imperial endeavors underscores their role in maintaining systems of white supremacy. European colonizers often brought dogs with them to the New World and other territories, using them as tools of control and intimidation. These dogs were not only companions but also instruments of violence and oppression, used to subjugate indigenous populations and enforce colonial rule. The deployment of dogs in these contexts highlights their role in the broader machinery of colonialism, where they served as symbols and agents of European dominance.

In the American South, dogs were integral to the enforcement of slavery, used to hunt down and capture enslaved people attempting to escape. This brutal practice underscores the ways in which dogs were employed to reinforce racial hierarchies and maintain the system of slavery. The fear and trauma associated with these dogs persisted long after the abolition of slavery, serving as a grim reminder of the violent control exerted over Black bodies.

In contemporary society, the legacy of these historical uses of dogs continues to shape cultural attitudes and practices. The preference for certain breeds and the valorization of dog ownership often reflect underlying racial and socioeconomic disparities. Access to pet ownership, including the ability to afford and care for certain breeds, is frequently tied to economic privilege, which in turn intersects with racial inequalities. The framing of dog ownership as a marker of responsible and desirable citizenship can thus exclude marginalized communities and reinforce existing social hierarchies.

In conclusion, the rhetoric of "man's best friend," proposed by Frederick the Great and therefore inherently discredited, is deeply rooted in systems of misogyny and white supremacy. The gendered language and imagery associated with dogs reflect and perpetuate patriarchal values, while the historical and contemporary use of dogs in contexts of racial control and colonialism underscores their role in maintaining racial hierarchies. By critically examining the cultural narratives and practices surrounding dog ownership, we can uncover the ways in which they reinforce exclusionary and oppressive structures, challenging us to rethink our relationships with animals and each other in more inclusive and equitable ways.