#it's not that they were ever not biphobic and misogynistic it's just that they used to pretend they weren't

[laurelwinchester]

Is it just me or has the spn fandom gotten even worse over the past few months? There's an influx of people shipping Dean with (wait for it) John (puke) and a bunch of new J2 and Cockles tinhats and I feel like every post I read is delusional and talking about a show that didn't even exist.

i'm about to ruin your day but all of this is extremely normal for the spn fandom.

[anendtopursuit]

certain corners of the jayvik shipping community erasing jayce's love for mel and insisting it was never real is frustrating for various reasons

the first (and imo most concerning) is the casual disregarding of mel's character and relationship (a black woman as a primary love interest! something that is unfortunately not as common as it should be!), falling not only into the incredibly common misogynistic fandom tendency to dismiss/demonise women who "get in the way" of mlm ships, but also into the misogynoir of the "disposable black girl" trope - something i implore you to research and consider not only when interacting in fandom spaces but also when critiquing the show itself and its treatment of mel/sky. similar sort of issues come with people dismissing mel's affection for him as manipulation when she's arguably far less manipulative than viktor (gestures @ the whole "he was the person who set jayce on this path the entire time" bombshell), their relationship was always mutually beneficial, and we're shown her perspective multiple times without their relationship ever being portrayed as insincere. how is it not manipulative for jayce to use mel's influence to become a councillor and push heimerdinger out etc, but it's manipulative for mel to make suggestions about the usage of hextech? would you think the same way about these actions if it were viktor doing them?

second of all: insisting that jayce's love for his literal girlfriend must be fake because he's in love with a man feels so oddly strict and binary for such a queer fandom/ship. if paralleling viktor and mel's scenes leads you to interpret his relationship with viktor as romantic, then surely his relationship with mel must still be romantic too for that comparison to make sense? bisexual erasure is especially prevalent when it comes to men and male characters (due to biphobic and misogynistic beliefs about bisexuality being "a women's sexuality" caused by "female promiscuity" or some archaic bullshit like that). insisting that he can only love one and not the other, and then dismissing his affections for mel if you decide he loves viktor, also just reeks to me of the "pick a side" mentality and, again, is weirdly monogamous for such a queer fandom. i realise this may sound like a reach to some people since jayce isn't explicitly canonically bi, but i still think it's a good idea to be cautious about how you have these discussions and any implications they may have, especially if it impacts a real life community that already regularly faces erasure

tl;dr you can be a jayvik liker and also be normal about mel medarda and meljay. please for the love of god be normal about mel medarda and meljay.

[scoobydoodean]

The only issue I've ever had with DeanLisa is that it reads too much to me like the "I've met you only a handful of times and I wanna spend the rest of my life with you" ala Disney Princess + Prince trope, and I just can't stand that trope. That's just a personal preference though

But I've never had a problem with Lisa herself - I think she's really fucking cool actually, and that she really did care about Dean. I think they both were reaching for an ideal, a dream, and they found solace in each other, but the circumstances that led them together (the second/third/fourth) time were not conducive to a lasting relationship.

I think it's more biphobic to be super anti DeanLisa tbh? (as a concept, not saying you have to ship them). Bc it's denying that part of Dean, like people really wanna dive deep into Dean's queerness in the way he interacts with men, but it's incredibly biphobic to then deny a relationship he had with a woman that meant a lot to him. That relationship doesn't take away from his queerness, he's still bi even while he's with a woman. Sure, I can see the argument behind comp cishet relationships and how that's bi/homophobic, but I think in this situation it's more nuanced than that? There's so many factors that lead into Dean going to Lisa (mainly feeling completely abandoned by everyone..which...he more-or-less was, be it on purpose (Cas) or not (Sam)) after such incredible trauma, he's obviously going to go to someone who he can find comfort in, that he already knows, who cares for him and he cares for back...I don't think that's comp cishet

I guess I lived in my own little SPN bubble bc I had no idea people hated her so much until fairly recently, as I started seeing posts and stumbling upon old fics where she's written as a nasty bitch for NO good reason

I appreciate your thoughts on them, tbh bc I feel like I don't ever see people talk about them or it's in a very disparaging way

Yeah I agree with you. I have no problem with people just saying "I don't like it. It just isn't my thing. It's boring, it doesn't appeal to me, I do not vibe with it, I like another ship better, he should have gone to Cassie instead, I don't think the storyline ever should have been done because of x,y, z" etc. What is sooo weird to me is people who can't live with just saying they don't like it and have to make the fact that they don't like it some kind of moral issue and/or talk about it in a way that ends up just displaying their own (internalized or externalized) biphobia and misogyny (edit: and even ableism—because I have seen that one quite a bit too).

I have seen people say:

Lisa and Dean are both used up because they've had so much sex with other people and therefore the relationship is nothing more than an expression of their mutually low standards, where simultaneously neither of them are good enough for the other because they have had too much sex. (Which was then back tracked to Dean being the only one who is all used up from all the sex he has had, because we wouldn't want to be misogynists).

Dean and Lisa's relationship is conservative christian (as someone raised in a conservative christian home, I can assure you that is not the case).

Dean and Lisa is a heteronormative relationship and is therefore bad. That is... not only very debatable, but based on what? Why? What is so "heteronormative" about it? I'll pay someone $50 if they can tell me without being biphobic, homophobic, or misogynist, or basically line for line describing a post-canon or AU destiel fic they’ve recced before just replacing Lisa with Cas. (Having a home is heteronormative? Parenting a child? Living together? What is it? I can never get a straight (heh) answer.)

Dean/Lisa is biphobic. Again... why? Because Dean is with a woman? Do... do we know what bisexual means? Are we sure?? Because it sounds like—frankly—the queer community yet again being one of the more biphobic communities around, and saying bi people are only interesting and acceptable when they are in same sex romances, and otherwise they are heteronormative and bad and wrong and boring. Which is a great thing to make bi people on the internet (whether you count yourself among them or not) read. Like. I think the way we interpret many characters who are not explicitly and openly bisexual as bisexual has also in some sense poisoned people into treating bi-ness as like... an exciting accessory, instead of a sexuality. Which is again—not how bisexuality works, but is how people on Tumblr often seem to treat bisexuality when they act like it is an accessory being thrown on or taken off by a character. "Well Dean isn't wearing his bisexuality accessory right now since he's in a 'het' romance, so he is not shiny enough and I am not interested in him". It's just fucking weird and it makes me uncomfortable.

Also, I don't know why this comes as a shock to some people, but calling something "het" is not inherently an argument proving that thing is bad and wrong, and suggesting that it is is also fucking weird.

Edit: Another one I forgot—"Dean is messed up/'damaged' therefore Lisa should never have allowed him in her home". Because we think people with PTSD shouldn't be shown kindness by people who don't have PTSD, I guess, and people without PTSD should avoid people who have PTSD at all costs.

Like. It is no secret that I utterly despise Sam/Amelia. But you know what I don't do? I don't go around calling it heteronormative, or applying my weird conservative christian leftovers about sexual purity to the relationship, or saying Sam was too messed up in the head and a "normal" woman never should have allowed someone so "damaged" to be in her life, in order to shout from the roof tops how "problematic" it is for them to be together. I just say "I don't like it because Amelia is not an enjoyable character to me. I find her extremely awkward and uncomfortable and I don't like the way she talks to Sam and don't understand the romance."

[tessherongraystairs]

Here's a basic overview of my love life the past three years

L - shitty ex who accused me of assault after cheating on me and ghosting me for 8 months even tho 1) we never ever went beyond basic making out and 2) we were never alone. We were either in public or with a friend

T - shitty ex who left me for L, gaslit me all the time, said I was faking my mental illnesses to copy them, hit me, would threaten to commit death if I ever left them, and so so much more

Aliyah(german class girl) - said I was faking being autistic and supports jkr. Enough said.

Oliver(debate boy) - called me a slut for wearing a short skirt and high heels to a debate comp. Gotta love misogynistic trans guys😒

Brevvan(eng lit boy) - cheated on me before he moved to alaska with my now ex best friend

Jacob(ex rival) - biphobic and misogynistic asshole who told me that since I had feelings for him I couldn't possibly be gay anymore(despite him being a gay man(WHO HAD FEELINGS FOR ME BEFORE I REALIZED I WAS TRANS))

Dex(loml) - current partner, the best fr, childhood bestie

Lei(math class) - broke up with me because of commitment issues then got together with me and dex then ghosted us then lead us on for months and now we don't talk because I can't fucking do it anymore, but dex is still head over heels and can't move on

Sean(other debate boy) - WHERE DO I EVEN START UGH. I'll have to record what happened with him because omfg he's such an asshole and it was such a situation

Roze(fine asf trans girl that was also dating sean) - I MISS HER😭😭 she was so amazing but we broke up because she had feelings for someone else(a mutual guy friend) and I just saw her for the first time in three months yesterday bc her bf was uncomfortable with us hanging out before (he has trust issues cause of past exs so I'm not all that upset about it)

Hanna(current crush) - KAT SHES SO UGHHHHHH. we get along so well, we both read fanfic, we like the same shows and games and stuff, she actually likes hanging out with me and doing stuff, she listens to my bullshit 24/7 and holy fuck she's HAWT. I feel for her rn like how you feel about Sophie and men named Thomas

I laughed at the last line

all Ik is that u somehow fall for allll the red flags

dex seems cool and so does the latest one

damn

[piqued-curiosity]

What sort of "poking fun" are you defending? Because sure fine in the abstract, teehee stinky hets whatever who cares. But what I actually encounter is things saying bisexuals aren't oppressed, that any homophobia we encounter is accidental or misdirected, that we need to 'take responsibility' for being abused, that our rape and abuse from hets aren't really LGB issues, that hets accept and love us and we have no right to complain about degrading language or biphobic stereotypes, and of course all sorts of pornographic language. The only one I ever see criticized is misogynistic language and that's usually with something like "well you could use that language against het women and lesbians of course it's bad". Even mild "poking fun" like "go to church or a family gathering" like you said is pretty weird when a lot of have been abused by homophobic churches or family (and then of course we had to deal with people say we're playing the victim like your now infamous anon). So maybe you ought to clarify what sort of poking fun you mean because if you're trying to say all degrading language and denying of oppression is fine, that sucks. If you're just ignoring that happens that also sucks.

Yeah the specific post I was referring to wasn’t that deep. It was just a positivity post for M/F couples and people including myself were laughing at it. I think it was pretty damn clear that the poking fun was strictly about het couples, not anything else you’re mentioning which I’ve repeatedly said I stand with you on.

The go to church or a family gathering comment was strictly about having an opposite sex partner, not how churches and families treat bisexuals. Again, I thought that was clear…I’ll be honest and say I think you’re making a huge reach.

[newtrekcriticisms]

This is going to be a bit long, and I apologise for that.

I’m seeing lots of people saying they’re tired of people calling SNW Spock “straight”. Consequentially, I am tired of people acting like there is no valid criticism to be made about SNW Spock’s bizarre hypersexualised relationships with women. But let’s focus on the former complaint for a moment.

Mostly, I’m seeing the position that those who are unhappy with how Spock’s relationships with women are being depicted are being biphobic; the implication being that Spock has demonstrated attraction to both women and men, and that him liking women should not erase his attraction to men, and that Spock should be allowed to love whomever he loves. And that would be a very valid and important criticism, something which I myself would stand by. Except for the fact that nowhere in all of Star Trek has Spock actually been depicted as being attracted to men.

I realise that what I just said could be equally provoking to both sides of this ongoing debate, so let me make some things very clear. I need all of us to admit that we understand that Spock, in any iteration, was never actually gay. He has never actually been, at any point, canonically attracted to men. I know we believe that he is. I know Spock’s sexuality—not his orientation, but his relationship to romance and sex as whole—has been depicted rather vaguely since TOS, and I know we as LGBT people therefore feel, some of us very strongly, that he is even coded as gay. We’ve seen all the iconic moments: we all saw the Search for Spock and the one with the whales. And we should all understand that interpreting Spock’s relationship with Kirk through a romantic lens is a thoroughly valid reading of their relationship. But we also need to understand that mlm Spock is only true in our heads, in our stories and art. Yes, people have been exploring the relationship between Kirk and Spock in a romantic way since the 1960s, as was the dawn of fandom culture. No, that does not make it anymore real. To the writers of Star Trek, from the 60s to now, the iconic character of Spock is, has been, and always will be understood to be heterosexual. I need everyone to take a step back, be objective, and really recognise that. We can argue day and night about intentions and subtext and implications but when it comes down to it Spock is not actually an LGBT character. He just isn’t. Anyone who says otherwise is living in Cloud Cuckoo Land.

Understanding that, we can understand, then, that Spock has only ever been canonically depicted as being attracted to women. In TOS, these moments were sparse, light, one-off romance plots and usually came down to either Spock’s utter indifference or his duty to the Enterprise coming before personal relationships. In SNW, it is a whole new breed of animal. But my point is, there exists no logical grounds upon which to claim that Spock is canonically bisexual. He has only exhibited canonical attraction to women, and his attraction to men only exists in the popular conception of one specific group of Star Trek fans. The size and passion and hopes of this group is irrelevant. Spock is not canonically mlm. Spock is not canonically bisexual. A belief, no matter how strongly held, is not reality.

Therefore, objecting to valid criticisms of SNW Spock’s repeated ooc sexual and physical encounters with T’Pring and Chapel on the basis of biphobia is invalid. There is no actual bisexuality being erased here. I need people to understand that.

To be clear, I do think some people objecting to SNW Spock’s relationships with women are not doing so in good faith. I do believe that some of these people are objecting because they are misogynistic, or think Spock needs to be seen as a “gold star” gay, and are ultimately only objecting because they feel their “ship” is threatened by T’Pring or Chapel merely existing and playing out the scripts that were written for them. I have even seen this fearmongering extend to Uhura in some particularly vile instances of misogynoir. To these people, the “sanctity” of their gay ship is their only concern. I would like to state that I do not align myself with these people, and rather condemn them for their blatant fetishisation and intolerance. Those displaying this sort of behaviour are not allowed to use this post as a shield.

But I digress. My point is that someone taking issue with SNW Spock’s bizarre ooc hypersexual relationships with women on account of them being bizarre, ooc, and hypersexual is not biphobia. Calling SNW Spock “straight” is not biphobia, either. As we have established, Spock is not canonically bisexual. SNW Spock is, very much, being depicted as straight. And in a overwhelming, almost disturbing way.

Now if somewhere down the line Strange New Worlds decided to make Spock canonically attracted to men, i.e. bisexual, I need it to be understood that I would absolutely lose my mind. I cannot think of anything the show could do that would make me happier than that. And I have seen some poor souls who are excited for Kirk to appear in season 2, because they believe something resembling Spirk is going to happen. But in our second reality check for this essay, we need to understand that the chances of that happening—that is, the chances of Spock being depicted as LGBT in any way—is, put gently, extremely, extremely unlikely. Put harshly, it is never going to happen, ever.

And there is a reason why it is never going to happen, ever. The reason is homophobia. I’ve stated a few times before that Spock, even more so than Kirk, is the Star Trek franchise’s golden boy. He is the iconic character to end all iconic characters. There is absolutely no way in hell that the powers that be at Star Trek will ever allow Spock to be depicted as LGBT in any way, shape, or form. They would upset and alienate cishet viewers, which is important to them, and they could possibly lose money, which is even more important to them. In short, the powers that be at Star Trek will never allow Spock to be depicted as LGBT because they are homophobic. They don’t believe in gay Spock. They have no reason to. They don’t subscribe to the interpretation and it therefore doesn’t matter to them. I would venture to say that some if not most of them would react to the idea of gay Spock with confusion at best and disgust at worst. It’s important to recognise that outside of the Spirk circle, nobody knows, or let alone cares, about Spirk.

And, to be clear, “Spock” was only dragged back onto the silver screen in the first place to be paraded in front of the camera so that everyone would say, “Omg Spock!!!!” and thus attract masses of fans who otherwise might not have cared or bothered to watch some mediocre sci-fi show, but now will because, as I said, “Omg Spock!!!!” They chose him as a safe option to draw in viewers. They are not going to let him be gay.

And by god, if anything supports this claim, it is the very specific and intentional way in which Spock’s relationships with women are being depicted. I’ll reiterate that attraction to and sex with women does not in any way preclude Spock from also being attracted to men, but as we’ve established, they are not going to let him be attracted to men canonically. And as I’ve stated in previous posts, there are no good, inclusive intentions here with the way Spock’s relationship with T’Pring is being portrayed. SNW Spock’s heterosexuality—and yes, it is heterosexuality—is intimately portrayed, aggressively asserted, and dominates the character’s entire arc. Not one single character in the show deals with the topic or action of sex more than Spock. Not only that, but the writers went out of their way to deliberately and knowingly transgress established TOS canon specifically to bring T’Pring into the picture. Specifically so that they could depict her and Spock having sex and kissing and being in a very overt, central, and very sexual relationship. SNW Spock’s relationship with T’Pring is, in a word, purposeful. The writers are communicating something to us through the constant fucking. They are reminding us what Spock is. Spock is straight.

Again, these writers do not value or care about LGBT readings of Star Trek. They don’t care what Spock means to the LGBT community. They’re not even altogether concerned with keeping Spock in character for these recurring sexual and romantic escapades. To them, it doesn’t matter how out of character it is for Spock of all fucking people to be smashing puss every other night. The writers are demonstrably doing everything in their power to assert that Spock is a heterosexual. Not secretly bi, not secretly gay. Not questioning, not closeted. They are not leaving room for any interpretation here, and they are doing so deliberately. The whole thing reeks of desperation in a really weird way.

Of course, I have no evidence that can conclusively say that yes, the reason they’re making Spock have so much straight sex on screen is to dissuade people from seeing him as gay. This is just an opinion piece, not a peer-reviewed investigation, and I am just an armchair critic. But speaking from my armchair, I simply cannot come up with any other explanation for why, out of the blue and wildly out of character, Spock is being depicted in this way. I don’t know why Spock’s storylines would revolve around sex in the extremely obtrusive way that it does. I don’t know why this is what they decided to do with this legacy character, who previously had next to nothing to do with sex with the sole exception of Amok Time, which was a once every 7 years thing. As I’ve indicated, this is Spock we’re talking about. The iconic character to end all iconic characters. Star Trek’s golden boy. And this is what they decide to do with him? Of all the things they could have possibly done? It’s borderline inexplicable. What is presented in the paragraphs above is only my best attempt at an explanation. It’s one that I think makes sense, but only the writers of Strange New Worlds truly know what their intentions are with Spock.

In summary, Spock’s hypersexualised relationships with women on Strange New Worlds is a valid cause for criticism. It is not biphobic to be confused, disappointed, or upset about Spock’s depiction on SNW, as Spock is not and was never canonically mlm, and the writers very clearly would like us to remember that. Of course, I say fuck them. I’ll continue to enjoy Nimoy’s Spock as preserved in TOS, and I’ll continue interpreting him as gay because it’s what I personally believe. You too can continue to have whatever headcanons or theories you have about Spock’s sexuality, even on SNW, and what his future on that show might entail. You can even continue rooting for SNW Spirk in season 2 if you want (although I would ask you if you really think Ethan Peck and Paul Wesley can really give you anything half as heartfelt and touching as Spock and Jim’s interactions in the TOS movies, and if it’s really worth caring about, but that’s just me).

Ultimately Spock’s portrayal in SNW is divisive, and people are probably never going to agree whether his sexually charged plotlines are right or wrong, in character or out of character. But I hope we can at least understand after all these paragraphs that slinging accusations of biphobia against those attempting to address this issue is uncalled for. The issue lies not in the possibility that Spock could be bisexual rather than gay, but in the fact that the writers would clearly have us understand he is neither. That’s what I’m upset about.

[butchbarbieagainstterfs]

i used to be a terf for a few months when i was 16-17 and all i can say is it haunts me

i gravitated towards terf ideology because i was suffering with misogynistic and transphobic and sexual trauma and radfems enabled my toxic thinking. as a result i became anti sex worker, anti kink, political lesbian, and yeah transphobic and biphobic.

radfems on tumblr are in denial about how much the alt right loves today's radfem movements. when i realized what everyone was saying is true, that radfems are alt-right mouthpieces, is when i abandoned terfism.

i regret ever becoming a radfem because it made me hold distain for people for dumb reasons. i thought women who wore make up, who did sex work, who date men, who are trans, or who were women but realized they arent were personally upholding the patriarchy. at the time these things made sense to me but holy shit blaming women and trans people for why misogyny happens is literally victim blaming 101.

i dont really know what to do about this, me being a past terf. i fully understand why terfism is bullshit, why radical feminism (including "pro trans" radfeminism) itself is bullshit, but i cant get over that i gave trans people shit for being trans. its just me wishing over and over that i never gotten mixed up with those people.

Try not to beat yourself up over it too much. You’re not that person any more and the fact you feel bad about it shows you’re better than you were then. And you were just a kid too, it’s unfortunately quite common that they target and groom young teenagers :/

Thank you for sharing too, I really appreciate ex-terf voices tbh bc it so often gives us an insight into how truly fucked up terfs are even beyond what they say publicly.

[rantingcrocodile]

Tbh after finding your blog I was finally able to conceptualize why I was never comfortable talking to radblr as a bisexual women. Gay people aren't oppressors but the miserable and insecure ones out there really ENJOY tearing us down and silencing us just to make themselves feel better. We're easy targets from their POV bc we dont have a strong community to fall back on.

It's also so fucking funny how they try to pretend that bisexuals never existed before the 20th century bc bisexuals "have the option to be in a straight relationship, therefore they are incapable of ever falling in love with the same sex". Like sis? 😂 sexuality can't be turned off, it would be deranged to try and push the idea that every same sex interaction throughout history was done by lesbians and gay men. The reality is that we're never gonna know for certain whether or not those people were gay or bi bc straight people never gave a fuck to differentiate between us until very recently.

And then some gay people have the absolute gall to tell us what is and what isn't biphobic. Like seriously, what the actual FUCK do these clowns get out trying to police us? Some of yall need to mind your own business lmao. They also use homophobic bi people as an excuse to degrade bisexuals and silence us. Radblr really is a cesspool of shitty women pretending to be feminists, but I'm glad I was able to find a bisexual radfem that doesn't cowtail to their bullshit. Wish you all the luck in the world bestie ❤.

I couldn't say that any better myself, seriously.

The one difference that they refuse to acknowledge is that while we're equally oppressed by straight people, they have spaces where they can vent about straight people and get applauded for it, while bisexuals are never allowed to talk about our oppression ever.

They obsess with hating us, but we can't even convince our own community to even only care about the worst examples of biphobic oppression, never mind discuss biphobic oppression in general, so how can we liberate ourselves when even in spaces that are supposed to understand oppression, we're not allowed to speak?

The worst of it is that we always have to apologise for the homophobic bisexuals, but they never apologise for the biphobic monosexuals. And I say monosexuals, because straight biphobes are coddled by lesbians. Straight people! Literally the group that oppress them!

So not only do you have insecure lesbians attacking us to be both biphobic and misogynistic because they feel more "comfortable" abusing us instead of holding straight men accountable, you have self-hating bisexuals who suck up to them because they've been trained to see any issues surrounding bisexuality as "unimportant" where their only purpose is to exist as tokens to silence the rest of us and virtue-signal and support biphobia, and even worse than all of that is the straight women who then get so comfortable that they sidle up to lesbians, pretending to be their allies to vent all of their hatred for everyone who isn't straight towards bisexuals, making sure simply to not be outwardly homophobic because they know that homophobia is the thing that calls them out.

The biggest irony in this space is the obsession with sex. They're such fauxminists that they believe that internalised misogyny ends with the technical ability to not hate and be traumatised by PIV sex, which ends up making them believe that sexuality and acting on sexuality is a sign of moral purity, when it blatantly isn't.

The inability to understand that bisexuality is an actual sexuality ends up making them both idiots and hypocrites, coddling straight oppressors as an excuse to hate us. Their biphobia always ends up ironically swinging right back around to homophobia, like the idea that bisexuals can "choose" who to fall in love with (oh, so lesbians can just "choose" not to fall in love with another woman and avoid homophobia, then?) or that it's fine for bisexuals to deny and hide our sexuality (oh, so lesbians can just stay closeted and then not be oppressed at all, then?) or that the only real oppression by straight people is down to who you partner and have sex with (oh, so lesbians aren't ever oppressed for being individual lesbians, and only are oppressed when they get girlfriends?) etc that is nothing but victim-blaming and a denial of the most obvious reality.

But then we talk about this, and the answer is, "Bisexuals talk over everyone all the time and make everything about themselves!" when they show, every single day, that whenever a bisexual talks on their own blog about their own issues, not bothering anyone else, even that's too much for them to handle and they have to shut it down because they're so used to any discussion of sexuality-based oppression being about them, and they get right into their egotistical, me-me-me feelings that if they can't relate entirely to what a bisexual is saying, then it's somehow "oppressive," but at the same time, they constantly tell us that we can't relate to them and we still have to shut up.

Reading through Anything That Moves, published 30 years ago, shows the exact same issues that we're having right now, well before there was an excuse of saying, "Oh, the bisexuals are behind all the TRA homophobia!" (right until they see blatant biphobia from TRAs and then still can't help but ignore the biphobia to make it all about themselves.)

Nobody cares about us but ourselves. Our actual allies are very few and far between. I have plenty of monosexual followers who do absolutely nothing to support us. Barely a like, hardly ever a reblog, compared to the straights who will run to talk about how terrible homophobia is, but stay silent about biphobia to then support being biphobic for another sweet taste of enjoying their oppressor status right out in the open, where no one is calling them out for it.

What use are they?

Bisexuals are expected to prioritise lesbians, because if we ever have the audacity to simply focus on our own issues and raise our own group's consciousness, that's attacked and vilified as evil and homophobic. Imagine that: doing nothing homophobic at all, but speaking about ourselves and caring about our group first is an automatic sign of bigotry. Which other oppressed minority group is hated to that extent, who also isn't allowed to define our own oppression and is called "abusive" or "manipulative" for standing up and creating and enforcing our own boundaries?

This space is full of nothing but misogynistic hypocrites who have migrated from TRA spaces to use the label "feminist" like that makes them superior to others, who love being misogynistic to the "right" group of women, who fail the first understanding of misogyny to blame bisexual women for the evils that men do, who use lesbians and homosexuality as a shield to hide behind their bigotry, who fetishise lesbians to a creepy, disgusting extent, who fake understanding what oppression is to pretend to be smart and then obsessively talk over an oppressed group, who are more than happy to defend straight oppressors, who are more than happy to defend male oppressors, who are more than happy to absolve rape-promoting TIMs to abuse innocent women instead, who lie about what homophobic TIMs and TIFs want and deny straight-out fetishistic homophobia for no other purpose but to attack bisexual women, who deify Dworkin but make sure not to touch her bisexuality, who claim to hate how women's history is erased by men and then rush to erase bisexual women's history, who hate the silencing of women but who love silencing bisexual women, and I could go on.

There is so much misogyny towards "handmaidens," women who are simply brainwashed by patriarchy and female socialisation, women who really do think that they're doing the right thing even though they end up harming themselves and other women, attacked and abused and laughed at for something that we all know is down to how women are abused with misogyny from the moment that her parents know they're going to have a little girl, but the truth is that the only "handmaidens" I see are the bisexual women who have been exposed to the truth about biphobia, who have seen the statistics when it comes to biphobia, who have witnessed biphobia, who know and understand what oppression in general is and know what bisexuality is and then still decide, with all that knowledge, that they would rather join in with that biphobia, minimise biphobia and virtue-signal for biphobes that they're #NotLikeOtherBisexuals to selfishly try and protect themselves on that thinnest of ice while deliberately throwing the rest of us under the bus.

I have tried being gentle. I've tried being reasonable. I've tried sharing science. I've tried sharing personal experience. I've tried everything, and none of it works, so why should I or any other bisexual be trapped by tone-policing biphobes that will do everything to attempt to enforce our silence? No. Not happening. Not putting up with that anymore.

I have been so naive and wanted to convince myself that the majority of biphobia was down to little more than accidental ignorance. I still think that there are biphobes who are and promote biphobia because they're ignorant, and if they want to learn more or have reasonable, good faith conversations, then I will absolutely support them in that because that helps bisexuals in general. But no, most of it isn't accidental ignorance. Most of it is deliberate, malicious biphobia down to nothing more than very real, very deliberate and chosen hatred of us.

At this point, as far as I am concerned, allies are either allies supporting us as bisexuals openly, who stand with us to help us face the ire of biphobes, or they are useless to me and as bad as the biphobes that they are silent against. They don't have to fear and risk internalising that biphobic hatred, but that's too much for them? Fuck that. This is our lives we're talking about, and they're too scared to stand up to a biphobe? A straight person too scared to say anything against a straight biphobe online? A lesbian too scared to say anything against a lesbian biphobe online? When bisexuals are always standing against homophobic bisexuals?

Who needs that cowardice? Who needs that spinelessness? Because I certainly don't.

I pity the bisexuals with such internalised biphobia that they choose to be the actual "handmaidens," but the truth is that in this space, they're the only bisexuals with voices who are "listened to," and that's only because they're useful tools to attack the rest of us with. They can either grow some spine, join with us and learn to break that internalised biphobia, or they can shut their mouths entirely and let bisexuals with self-respect and boundaries do the talking.

That's where I am right now.

[bi-and-nb]

If you date a bi woman and you expect her to simply never talk about men ever again, never talk about past relationships that maybe were with men (just in passing even), and expect her to be a lesbian for the duration of your relationship for all intents and purposes, just leave us alone.

No more takes about how you would never date a bi woman because relationships with men are “””inherently damaging””” and you see us as tainted. No more blatantly biphobic rants fueled by bad past relationships. No more trying to justify your biphobia by pretending that you’re trying to liberate bisexual women from comphet/“”centering”” men in favor of the much more inherently safer and purer relationships with “”””non-men””””.

Just leave us alone. Work out your biphobia by yourself. Work out your insecurities over bisexual women’s literal fucking orientations BY YOURSELVES. If you don’t understand how calling ANY woman essentially a hodgepodge of every experience she’s had with a man is misogynistic, and if you don’t understand that needing bisexual women to suppress their identities or pretend that their pasts don’t exist for your ego is biphobic as all fuck and borderline abusive, WE DON’T WANT YOU.

You can stop trying to shift the baggage of your insecurities and biphobia on to bi women, just don’t date us or talk about us. It’s not every bisexual woman’s problem to unpack that for you because you have worms in your brain.

[hello-nichya-here]

“Women are delicate, precious angels that can do no wrong (except the ones that disagree with me), and men are ALL violent/predators waiting for their chance to strike”

you literally have no clue what radical feminism is. that anon who took some kind of plot written by some author is not indicative of what all radfems believe. it’s actually peak liberal to believe that one person represents an entire movement and every single person succumbs to the same believes with not a shred of nuance.

It's funny how you criticize me for "thinking one person represents an entire movement" (aka noticing how J.K. Rowling's bullshit is the exact same type of bullshit radfems PROUDLY spew on a daily basis) yet you just did the same to liberals AND labeled me as one without any evidence.

It's also funny how you used "liberal" as an insult, like literally any alt-right fucker would do. But I guess it makes sense that you'd do so, since Radfems and TERFs have a tendency of marrying misogynistic men because, deep down, you're as sexist as they are, believing that being born a male makes a person unable to control themselves (instead of abusers CHOOSING to do the awful shit they do) and that being born a female instantly makes you "pure and harmless" (until you're not, and you "get yourself abused" and "take others down with you")

I unfortunately know a lot about radical "feminism", because you guys are like a plague, spreading fast and ruining everything. You're all "radical", but not in the sense of "bravely saying what no one has the courage to say/was smart enough to realize" like you think, but in the "We're gonna take a social/political movement and take it to such extremes that our version of it becomes completely unsalvageable". There's no "nuance" with you guys for the same reason that there is no "nuance" with nazis - one of the core ideals of your group is to see the world in black and white terms, with an Us VS Them mentality. Once again, that makes sense since your "sisters", aka TERFs, base A TON of their beliefs in shit the nazis made up (for instance, their "How to spot a trans woman" guide is essentially a copy of the nazis "How to spot a jew" guide).

Radical feminism is second-wave feminism without any of it's few good points. They noticed that things that were perceived as "girl things" were automatically assumed to be bad due to misogyny, and instead of going "that's absolutely unfair bullshit that should not be tolerated" they went and created "I'm not like other girls, I don't do X, I do Y". They noticed that the porn industry could be predatory and exploitative, and decided that the women who fell victim to it were bad women and that no woman had ever enjoyed doing sex work. They noticed that women that were seen as slutty or that had "strange" tastes (liking BDSM for exemple) were treated badly, and instead of being outraged at the double-standard and sex-shaming, they decided to join conservatives on the slut-shaming.

And you guys decided to make that shit even worse by making it biphobic, acephobic, transphobic AND RACIST - don't think I don't see how radfems and TERFs treat any woman of color that dares to disagree with them and doesn't encourage them to keep enjoying their saviour complex.

Radical feminism does absolutely nothing to help women in any way. All it does is throw other people into the fire.

[janetsnakehole02]

I keep seeing a bunch of BULLSHIT on my dash so I just wanna give my unsolicited Loki show opinions bc it’s my blog and I can have as many of those as I like you can leave if you want this rant is pretty much just self-indulgent because in the words of Nicholas Miller people are the worst

As a psych student - STOP COMPARING LOKI AND SYLVIE’S TRAUMA. They’re both valid, the show trying to pass off Sylvie as someone who’s been through “more” is such a damaging mindset. I wish the show had consulted actual mental health professionals before writing this show, but again that implies that the writers were actually aware of the kind of topics they were dealing with and I’m not gonna give them that much credit. Watching people say “Sylvie had it much worse than Loki, at least he had a lush life” or “Sylvie’s backstory is not as sad as Loki’s” is killing me and I hope for all things sacred that those of you that are spewing this bullshit don’t become therapists. Ever.

Also as a psych student - who the fuck do you think you are, diagnosing Loki with narcissistic personality disorder? That is an actual disorder that is so much more complex than just “being obsessed with oneself.” That is such a dangerous idea to put out there, and for the general audience who doesn’t know much about Loki and doesn’t bother to look deep and observe his actual character. If the writers tell them Loki is a narcissist, they will believe that Loki is a narcissist. If I had a dollar for every comment I see that says “it’s so in-character for Loki to fall in love with himself, he’s a narcissist” I would be able to buy out Disney. The worst part is that Michael Waldron actually believes that Loki is truly this narcissistic. I guess he wasn’t joking when he said he didn’t watch any of the movies Loki was in, or he did and he just ignored Loki’s suicide attempt at the end of Thor 1 because he’s just that insensitive to Loki’s trauma. This is the same man who says Loki uses his trauma as an excuse to be selfish. The reason he’s a shitty writer is because he is a shitty person who has no issue gaslighting someone for their trauma and someone like him should not be in charge of writing a character like Loki. Loki is not a narcissist. Unfortunately no one hates themselves more than Loki does. And if you think he is? Don’t become a therapist. Fucking ever.

As a bi woman - people saying they don’t like Sylvie or s*lki isn’t being misogynistic or biphobic respectively. I already ranted about the latter here but with the former, personally I am indifferent towards Sylvie and I don’t hate her but I understand that the sole purpose of her character was rooted in Michael Waldron’s own misogyny, he said as much himself that he wrote Sylvie as female so Loki could fall in love with her. The only person I blame for this shitshow is him, everyone stop directing your anger at each other and focus on the main problem - this cis white male writer who needs to get off his fucking high horse.

I don’t hate s*lki because I ship lokius - at first I used to be neutral on the latter but I dislike it a lot more now because it’s very obvious that Mobius has psychologically tortured Loki more than once in this show. If you don’t think episodes 1 and 4 were psychological torture and it was just Mobius being JEALOUS or being a therapist to Loki - again, for the love of god, never become a therapist EVER. Both he and Sylvie have treated Loki as though he’s inferior and they don’t respect nor trust him, neither of them deserve him and they both seem like terrible foundations for a romantic relationship. That’s not to say they’re bad people, they’re just morally gray characters, but you gotta stop excusing them for the bad shit they did. You can like them and also hold them accountable it’s not impossible to do both. And as for s*lki I have spent way too much of my energy both on tumblr and irl trying to explain how fluidphobic and uncomfortable it is so I’m not gonna bore you or myself with that again. This isn’t about “ship wars,” it’s about Loki being treated like he’s worth nothing.

Toxic positivity fans need to stop saying that the people that don’t like the show are being hateful. WE’RE NOT. We’re entitled to our own opinion and when we have genuine criticism to provide, we’re being shamed for not being grateful. What exactly do I have to be grateful for? Why should I feel grateful that a show about my favorite character in the MCU was written by people that don’t like him and have had no issue making that public? Why should I be grateful when his genderfluidity was confirmed but then they went backwards and made it so a “female variant” was the most shockingly revolutionary thing to happen? Why should I be grateful when I thought I was gonna get to watch a show about LOKI but what I got instead was six hours of Loki following people (first Mobius, then Sylvie) around as they attempted to accomplish their own missions? I was incredibly incredibly underwhelmed and if you don’t feel that way then great fine but don’t write off critiques of the show as narrow minded or pessimistic. We have our reasons, the most common one for everyone being that WE LOVE THIS CHARACTER and know that he deserves nothing but the best, which is not what he has gotten from this show.

Love or hate the show but acknowledge that it fucked up with representation. Their one Asian character - disappeared for no reason after two episodes. Two black women - given authoritarian roles and BARELY acknowledged in promotions (along with Boastful Loki). He Who Remains - the best and only good part of the finale but not enough to make up for the way the POC characters were ignored before. Nothing wrong with POC playing villains because villains are still just as interesting for actors to play (my actor sister’s words) but it’s a constant pattern in this show for the white hero-coded characters to fight the black villain-coded characters. Mobius fighting Ravonna, Sylvie killing He Who Remains, Loki fighting B-15, it’s insane.

This isn’t an opinion just me here to say thank you if you actually read this far and also to tell you to go watch Shang-Chi in theaters if it’s safe for you and if you wanna see a Marvel project that treats all their characters with respect and actually has an amazing plot with great representation then this is the one besties I honestly cannot think of anything I disliked about it

[dreamylyfe-x]

hello there. i'm sure this has been talked about before, but upon rewatching some of shameless, i can't believe how homophobic it can be. like making ian- who's been sure since middle school that he's a gay man- be so weak minded as to let caleb's bisexual (cheating justification) comments lead him to go down on a girl, even tho he knows he wouldn't like it? that was so contrived and for a cheap gag. or in s8 when he went down on a woman again?! (and whoring himself out no less). bad writing!

Gah. Top five least favourite Shameless stories, ever. 

I’m not sure I’d call it homophobic because it’s almost giving it too much credit when I just want to call it stupid. Like, so, so stupid. Also maybe desperate? Sometimes you wonder what the actor thought when he got the script and I do wonder -- as Cam always says something along the lines of “out of stories for Ian” when he talks about why he left the show if this isn't one of the moments where he was like... “I think we’re maybe running out of stories for Ian.” 

I suppose... So a brief queer history of television (and I have been snarked at -- I think -- for going into history before, but what do you think you’re purchasing at this store? This is what this store has in stock.) -- This used to happen all the damn time. They didn’t really have gay men on TV as anything but punchlines, and when they finally started to have them as a character the audience was asked to invest in -- on shows like Soap and Dynasty -- they would be gay for a season or two and then drift into bisexuality. Which was annoying and ridiculous, so TV stopped doing it. Which led, actually, to the opposite happening -- a straight character who had a same sex relationship might then be expected never to be in a het relationship again. Willow Rosenberg has entered the chat. 

(I’m getting off topic. I do find Shameless pretty baffling on the subject of bisexuality, but I find most TV pretty baffling on the subject of bisexuality. So.) 

Anyway. One reason I don’t like that moment is that it feels like the show rockets back to the 80s for some reason I do not understand. 

Here is another reason I hate this story: They already DID it. In the pilot. Lip needs to verify Ian’s homosexuality, like the fucking scientist he is, so Ian consents to a blow job he has no interest in. In the same season he fully puts Mandy’s hand on his crotch to demonstrate his lack of interest. Ian is -- particularly post-Mickey -- a little easily led by his boyfriends, but why he would think that he needs to test out bisexuality is beyond me. Ian is so gay he veers into biphobia. Probably because he hates people trying to convince him he hasn’t tried enough vagina yet. 

The number three reason I don’t like that story is that it feels misogynistic to me, too. I mean, the biphobia bugs me, but that’s because a character I like is being biphobic while dealing with being cheated on. I don’t think the show wants me to agree with Ian. But, as a woman, I just don’t enjoy the “I have PTSD” part of that story, because like... I GET it. He isn’t into women. I do not need the long played-for-laughs scene where he's literally traumatized by it. (Though. I have to admit, I'm always bugged by someone finding someone else’s body disgusting. Like, I’m not into the joke that it’s gross to confront an old woman having sex either. Terry, who is an abusive rapist, having sex? Yes. I’m grossed out. But not because of how he looks or what age he is. Revulsion non-ideals having sex as a joke isn’t my jam.) 

Hmmm. I guess I’m not sure what “phobia” I’d tag that with so I’ll return to my original position: It’s mostly stupid. Caleb sucks. I think they were going for humour, but I am all frowny-face, crossed-arms about it. 

Hey, look! I don’t ALWAYS defend the show! 😉

[whattheheehaw]

Hi can I vent to you, feel free to ignore this if you want but Have you noticed how there are a lot of zkka shippers who are all for s0kka and/or zuk0 being bi until it comes to them being with women? Deadass I feel some people only make s0kka bi just so he can be with z0k0 but just...ignore his attraction to women. Not to mention the utter hypocrisy zkka shippers have with ztara ,It's the biphobia and misogyny for me

Yeah, I’ve definitely noticed the biphobia and the misogyny in the newer Zukka shippers. 

A lot of people don’t know this, but when I was new to the A:TLA fandom, I used to spend some time lurking in the Zukka tag, liking posts here and there. I thought the ship was cute (still do) and I liked the content that was in the tag. I loved seeing bi Zuko and bi Sokka headcanons and I loved the fact that Zukka shippers called them bicons. However, some of the same people that claimed Zukka was “bi rights” didn’t share that same energy when Zuko and/or Sokka were paired with women. I started to see more takes that claimed Maiko and Sukka were both results of compulsory heterosexuality, and not a reflection of the boys’ bisexuality. 

Why can’t Zuko and Sokka love and date women? If they’re bi, that means that they’re attracted to both men and women. Using comphet as a reason why a certain ship doesn’t work out, especially when you headcanon the character(s) in that ship to be bi, just reeks of biphobia. Sokka and Zuko were both shown to initiate and enjoy kissing and hugging their girlfriends. They were even implied to have sex with their girlfriends. So why, for the love of God, is this part of their lives described as “compulsory heterosexuality”? I would say that if you’re just going to label Zuko’s and Sokka’s het relationships as “comphet”, just go ahead and headcanon them as gay, however, that would also completely disregard their romantic feelings for their girlfriends in those het relationships. Either way, the treatment of het relationships by the Zukka fandom makes me uncomfortable.

This was the first major red flag I ever received from the Zukka fandom and their perception of bisexuals in heterosexual relationships. And I feel like this mentality is also a reflection of what many people believe about bisexuals as well.

The next red flag I got from the Zukka fandom was a post which contained a “Zuko would fight anyone that called him straight or bi” headcanon. Like, no? Just, please God no. That headcanon itself is biphobia wrapped up in a pretty little bow, and the fact that that post got so many reblogs and likes left a very bad taste in my mouth. Zuko would never attack someone for getting his sexuality wrong? And I don’t even understand why being mistaken as bi or straight is necessarily a bad thing? I mean, if someone made an honest mistake and got my sexuality wrong, I would just politely correct them about it. And I honestly don’t think that sexuality is a huge part of either Zuko’s or Sokka’s personalities if I’m being honest, so I don’t understand why either of them would get offended to the point of attacking someone over it. 

Also, it’s quite concerning that a decent portion of the Zukka fandom consists of members of the LGBTQ+ community and come up with these biphobic headcanons, but that’s a discussion for another time.

Another thing that I observed about the Zukka fandom was their complete disrespect towards the female characters in A:TLA, namely Katara. A notable member of the Zukka fandom came up with the headcanon that “Katara is homophobic” as a “joke”. And I just don’t think that’s funny. That’s like if I shipped Katara and Azula and called either Zuko or Sokka homophobic. Nobody would be laughing, and I would get canceled. 

Katara is one of the most supporting and accepting characters in the show. Sure, she was hostile at first to Zuko but that was only because his betrayal of her trust created a personal grudge between them. And even though some people use the “Katara is a homophobe” headcanon as a joke, it doesn’t help anyone. Society should progress past the point of viewing homophobia as funny if it truly wants to become anti homophobic and more accepting and supportive of the LGBTQ+ community. 

Also, I would be remiss if I didn’t mention that a portion of the Zukka fandom has this headcanon so that Katara won’t be able to interfere in Zuko and Sokka’s relationship. Since Zutara was—is—the most popular Zuko ship for over 10 years, I guess some Zukka shippers felt like they needed to make up some reason for why Zutara wouldn’t work out, or even be close as friends.

In addition, I think that when the Zukka fandom gets criticized and called out on this misogynistic behavior, they like to cling to Suki and call her their favorite character and an icon, etc. to prove that they don’t hate women. Some Zukka shippers even started adding Suki to their ship, creating Zukki. However, since Zukki is usually a by-product of Zukka, this ship almost always ends up being Zukka and Suki instead of Zuko, Sokka, and Suki in an equal and balanced relationship. And while there isn’t anything wrong with stanning Suki and calling her your fave (I mean, who wouldn’t?) I do find it a strange choice considering that she doesn’t have much characterization within the show. Perhaps it’s because people can take Suki’s character and mold it into whatever they want? I don’t know.

But anyways, this ask is getting long and if you want to read more of my thoughts about misogyny in the Zukka fandom (i.e. the homophobic!Katara headcanon and the swapping of Sokka for Katara in some Zukka content), you can read this post here.

[butch-the-bear]

help i saw some bisexual women expressing how they think lesbians who prefer to date only lesbians are biphobic bigots and i’m just like. is it wrong to desire solidarity with your partner after feeling alienated for your lack of attraction to men your whole life? as well as this i’ve noticed that bisexual women talk about loving women and wanting a girlfriend so badly, but they don’t ever pursue women (like i’m not making this up it’s common for them to talk about how they don’t flirt with women because they don’t know how to/it’s easier to stick with men). so i feel when lesbians do actually pursue bi women it feels like nothing is reciprocated. so its natural for lesbians to prefer lesbians specifically is it not ? i feel weird saying that in gay spaces though just because of the quickness in which i’d be called biphobic 😭

It is not bigoted at all! It's completely reasonable and in my opinion completely natural especially for what you outlined. I am the same way. Of course you want a significant other who you can relate to and feel solidarity with; that is already so difficult to find as a lesbian. I completely believe you when it comes to your past encounters and have had similar experiences. It may be because straight women are dabbling in 'bisexuality' because of the hypersexualization of women without any actual attraction, but a lot of bi women just don't take us seriously. I have bisexual female friends who are genuine about their interest in and pursuing of women so I'm not disregarding or diminishing them, but unfortunately a lot of bisexuals have this kind of cavalier attitude towards dating women (likely from internalized homophobia) and it is really frustrating. All of my previous girlfriends have been bisexual and I know not all bisexual women are this way, but having to sit through long discussions of heterosexual sex is unpalatable and an extreme turnoff... it's one thing if they were confiding about a traumatic experience, but no, they just loved going on about their previous sexcapades with men 💀 i hear enough of that as it is. Unsurprising those women went on to date only men. And considering the fact a lot of bisexuals are homophobic on some level... One of my exes told me very butch lesbians disgusted her and she didn't understand why we wouldn't just transition, and "why date a butch lesbian when men exist".. go date a man then! (turns out she actually had a boyfriend the whole we were dating. big surprise there)

Unfortunately a lot of gay spaces are dominated by bisexuals so this kind of rhetoric runs rampant. There is definitely a misogynistic sentiment some lesbians carry about bisexual women being "tarnished" by sexual interaction with men, and in that case I completely agree that it's offensive, but that is not your reasoning and regardless any sexual boundary you have is yours to keep and defend. Never let anyone guilt trip or manipulate you outside of your comfort zone, whatever it may be. Whoever you desire as a sexual partner is your business only.

[haechanitboy]

We definitely can’t blame ourselves for being attracted to them, nor are all of them bad. They choose to ignore problems though. And I think many women think that if men aren’t being traditionally misogynistic, that they’re not bad. But it’s so much deeper than that. So so much. Also I don’t see many of them defending women or going on strikes for women’s rights even the “good” ones so I am not going to waste my breath defending them ever. The energy is never the same. Women disliking men isn’t a tumblr fad. There’s real life things that happen to us. I mean no disrespect. Why defend the 20% of good ones? They wouldn’t do the same I’m sorry. Again no disrespect. I didn’t like your tone. This is serious.

maybe i should spell this out very very clearly for you.

you, anon, are coming at me, commenting on an issue you have about a post i rbed that is not even remotely about what you’re talking about. i am a woman. you make several valid points in this message. i do not trust most, if any, men that i encounter. you don’t get a fucking special little cookie for being wary of men. that is not the issue.

what is the problem, anon, is the school of thought that it is a Bad Thing to be attracted to men (which is what that post was actually about, anon).

that means there’s something wrong with gay men (which is homophobic). that means there’s something wrong with bisexual people (biphobic). that means there’s something wrong with straight women (which is just fucked up). that means there’s something inherently wrong with all people designated male at birth (which is transphobic, because you can’t just say “well trans women are exempt”).

it is also very fucking weird to say something like “unfortunately, i like men.” if it’s so unfortunate…just stop. oh? what’s that? they can’t stop? it’s not a choice people make? we don’t choose our sexuality? shaming people for their attraction to a gender is fucked up and weird.

if you were looking for a little intellectual discourse, this is not and will never be the blog to go to for it. i refuse to do it. if you want to complain about how much you hate men, you can go search the radfem tags or something, idk. this is not the place 🥰

[enthusiasticmusicalquotes]

QUESTION OF THE DAY #6: Send me your most unpopular theatre opinion. Something that might make someone want to fight you. Please don’t be offensive (racist, misogynistic, etc.), but other than that…go as hard as you want. Spill all the tea.

MY ANSWERS: 1) The Pretty Woman score fucking slaps idek, 2) Come From Away (or even Bandstand...) should’ve won the 2017 Best Musical Tony, 3) I prefer the West End Heathers cast album to Off Broadway, 4) Shows shouldn’t sweep the Tonys just because they’re Best Musical worthy...shows that aren’t too critically acclaimed but have really impressive elements should get recognition too.

SUMMARY: Out of 37 responses: 5 were about Dear Evan Hansen, 3 were about Hamilton specifically, 2 were about: Rent, ALW, Wicked, In The Heights, Be More Chill, etc. etc....if your favorite musical is one of these and you get easily offended i wouldn’t read these.

NOTE: I agree with some of these, I highly disagree with others. I do not endorse any of the things that were said, I am simply sharing them with you all. These were what was sent to me. I’m going to number them so if you want to complain about or agree with one you can send me an ask with the number you’re referring to. 

1. howmuchchildrens said: unpopular opinion: i really liked the 2012 version of les mis. i liked russel crowe as javert.

2. Anonymous said: Unpopular opinion: Bootlegs harm to local theatre communities, though I do not believe anyone intends for that to be the case. While it's possible to bootleg responsibly (and I might even say it's beneficial to do so), those who may not know the intricacies of theatrical copyright law or who haven't heard the horror stories from a theatre that's been hit with legal action DUE to a bootleg may record or watch a show irresponsibly, which can greatly harm other routes of theatre accessibility.

3. Anonymous said: Andrew Lloyd Webber musicals are mostly terrible. He only got and stayed popular because a lot of other musical creators and taste makers died in the AIDS epidemic

4. Anonymous said: Almost all musicals using the songs of one artist are cash grabs with no plot or point.

5. Anonymous said: If your musical only has 1 woman OR the women only get sad/romantic songs you need to do something else with your life.

6. nerdshrimp said: Unpopular opinion: Next To Normal does a better job of portraying the effects of mental illness than Dear Evan Hansen does. N2N also doesn't romanticise mental illness & excuse shitty behavior like DEH tries to

7. Anonymous said: Hadestown is a lesser show on Broadway. I fell in love with the live album, and I was so excited for it to come to Broadway. I was so disappointed to see the changes they made. Orpheus and Eurydice's relationship is less interesting and more generic. The changed lyrics are often sloppy and not as good as the original. They fucking wrecked Epic III. Also, no hate to R/ee/ve, but he's just not a good enough singer to convince me that he could soften the heart of Hades. His high notes are awful.

8. Anonymous said: opinion: we are the tigers deserves a broadway run or at least a proshot

9. bimystique said: e/c is NOT A GOOD FUCKING SHIP. the ENTIRE PLOT OF PHANTOM OF THE OPERA is christine trying to escape erik's abuse. WHAT FUCKING PART OF THAT IS ROMANTIC TO YOU PEOPLE.

10. Anonymous said: unpopular theatre opinion(s): Dear Evan Hansen is Very Bad for its handling of mental illness, Hamilton is overrated and praised too much, and high school/college musical theatre programs can be just as good as Broadway. (also, musical movies would be better if they hired broadway actors, but that's not an unpopular opinion)

11. Anonymous said: I don’t like Lin Manuel Miranda and Hamilton is overrated

12. Anonymous said: I don’t like dear Evan Hansen..... at all. I think it’s kind of boring and really overhyped.

13. Anonymous said: unpopular opinion: in the heights is far better than Hamilton. both are good but ith hits different yknow

14. Anonymous said: The bring it on and legally blonde musicals are BAD! The movies are 100 times better

15. Anonymous said: unpopular opinion? wicked is the epitome of white feminism. it's preached as super great for representation but we literally got the first black glinda in 2019?!?!?!? and before that woc could only play elphaba who's villainized and deemed evil by the whole city

16. Anonymous said: Not so much an opinion as a reaction, but of all Lin's works (ITH, Bring it On, 21 Chump Street, Hamilton), 21 Chump Street gets the biggest emotional reaction of all the cast recordings. The second Justin is like "I don't want your money" (And then later on with the "...what the heck did you.... dooooo", I am a complete goner. Worse than Abuela Claudia and Philip Hamilton's deaths combined

17. Anonymous said: Whenever Je.ssie Mu.eller hits certain notes, she sounds like Tommy Pickles from Rugrats.

18. Anonymous said: aotd6: not everyone knows what im talking about, but the cats 2016 broadway revival choreography was WAYYYY better than the original. the original had a lot of creepy uncomfortable moments and the new one looks way cleaner and up to date

19. Anonymous said: raoul is better than the phantom in every conceivable way

20. Anonymous said: I hate Anastasia so much. it's such a boring show and the music is uninteresting. I wanted to like it so bad but GOD is it boring.

21. Anonymous said: In the Heights.... Overrated.

22. Anonymous said: I do not know if this is an unpopular opinion or not, but here is my opinion: Musicals that are entirely or nearly entirely songs (Hamilton, Hadestown, In The Heights, etc) are the most valid bc I can understand the plot without using wikipedia (I'm looking at you, Jagged Little Pill, I love you but what is your plot????)

23. Anonymous said: I'd rather have a bad film adaptation than no film adaptation

24. Anonymous said: Rent sucks and while it was a stepping stone for more ""controversial"" topics to appear on Broadway it's actually biphobic and features several generally terrible people doing generally terrible things and doesn't actually address the real crisis at all; it's all performative wokeness. The only real good it did was cast a bunch of "nobodies" for the time and make theater somewhat more accessible.

25. stardust-and-seas said: Dear Evan Hansen doesn't properly address mental health despite being about mental health and resolves nobodies character arcs satisfactorily. It's another show that reaches its hands around the throats of marginalized teenagers saying "look I'm relatable!!" The songs taken out of context are significantly more powerful than when placed in the context of the show, which gives us exactly zero evidence of Evan's work to improve and also never resolves Evan's u healthy goals in the first place.

26. stardust-and-seas said: Be More Chill is a raging dumpster fire and the only decent song from it, Michael in the Bathroom, reads as a whiny rich white boy whose potential social anxiety and depression is left ambiguous, which is exactly what it is. When taken out of context it better exemplifies the othering that happens to marginalized groups but lets be real here: bullying/cliques don't happen to "just anyone"; it's the marginalized groups that are othered and abandoned for not being "normal"

27. stardust-and-seas said: There's a difference between shows that don't take themselves seriously because they're meant to be fun and light and shows that pretend not to take themselves too seriously but want to be taken seriously by the audience and the latter always ends up mediocre at best

28. redueka said: i think that dear evan hansen handles every issue it presents badly. i also think that beetlejuice was badly directed

29. Anonymous said: Well I don’t EVER condone cheating, I’m team Jamie in the last five years. He tried so hard to make their relationship and life good, and Cathy gave him nothing in return

30. youcanlolyoucansayohwell said: The answer of the day- I don't get the BMC hype. I'm out of the age bracket it's meant for that might it be. I enjoy it but I don't think it's the greatest thing in the world like some theatre fans do.

31. Anonymous said: i like the rent 2005 recording better than the obcr

32. Anonymous said: unpopular opinion ? : the music of wicked just like isn’t that good. like it’s good but it’s not like, Good, yknow. it’s pretty standard it doesn’t stand out to me. kinda boring

33. Anonymous said: mari.ah r.ose fa.ith is not a good regina george. everything she says sounds monotonous and while i understand she's trying to play off the ""whatever"" teenager (she does this a lot with her teenage characters), 90% of the time she sounds and looks like she doesn't want to be there; her voice is great but most songs feel unnatural and forced and she changes them too much. she's just not selling regina to me as a believable character (this is all from a technical point of view)

34. Anonymous said: Unpopular Opinion: as much as i like musicals based on movies (like waitress), i think not every movie needs to be a musical.

35. Anonymous said: Unpopular opinion (?) the emojiland musical Kinda Slaps

36. Anonymous said: as one of my high school tech theatre teachers once said: "Andrew Lloyd Webber is overrated"

37. Anonymous said: sorry to whoever likes it but Seussical is an absolutely nonsense crackpot plot disguised with okay-to-good music, like I don't even know where to start. I was in the show and didn't even know there was an entire secondary plot line featuring sending children to war until we were halfway through rehearsals