#its the internalised misogyny that makes you hate other women for liking things

[oswalish]

rahhhh random rant because i’m angry hater mood i HATE HATE HATE people who think miss goldberg did anything to marvin. saw someone go “set those sails is a villain song and people need to accept miss goldberg is a bad person” i’m screaming and crying and clawing at the walls you don’t fucking understand it you don’t understand the goddamn musical.

in trousers is at its core about misogyny, that is its core theme, which is shown by how marvin hurts the women in his life, specifically his wife, his sweetheart, and miss goldberg. it would conflict the themes and narrative if miss goldberg hurt marvin, as this would diminish what marvin does to the other women. marvin does come up with excuses for his actions/ tries to garner sympathy in the musical (im talking 1979 vers here, i’m not as well versed on the 1985) he is immediately hit with trina shutting him down with her telling us how his actions have hurt her more than they’ve hurt him.

another thing is that the women are mostly not themselves, but rather versions of themselves that exist in marvin’s head. this doesn’t apply to trina, as she is the only woman in the musical who tells her own story. for example, your lips and me and its reprise tell us very specifically events that are happening in her life and how she’s feeling, she also tells her about her past. she also addresses marvin directly in breakfast over sugar.

whereas his sweetheart and miss goldberg do not have songs like this. “my highschool sweetheart” doesn’t tell us anything about his sweetheart other than that she’s his sweetheart, she’s a person, and that she wants marvin to pay attention to her more. but there honestly isn’t much in the musical to confirm that she actually is a person at all, she insists her own existence but marvin never pays attention to her or even addresses her existence, in childhood or adulthood.

miss goldberg is interesting. she doesn’t play into marvin’s fantasy and feels like more of a real person than his sweetheart, having her own personality and opinions. she also sings i am wearing a hat where she seems to tell part of a story that could be her own, though it doesn’t really get more specific than “i’m wearing a hat, i am unloved”. she never quite seems to behave like a schoolteacher either, within the story she seems to be more of a narrator, likely due to her importance in marvin’s story. she is the biggest case of marvin insisting his heterosexually, while also forcing him to realise he is gay. she is not actually herself within the musical, the real miss goldberg is probably nothing like her. this is an internalised version of her than marvin came up with, though it’s more authentic feeling than his sweetheart since her role is to pull marvin out of his fantasies, since she’s probably the only way marvin can actually be honest with himself and recognise his actions.

many people bring up the lines “you might tell me you’re a victim, you might get what you deserve, but i won’t excuse, boy i cant excuse, a boy who’s lost his nerve” which i will admit. do not sound great, incredibly suspicious even. but taken in the context that miss goldberg is not actually saying this to marvin, and actually it’s a version of miss goldberg that marvin has made up to make himself “behave properly” it starts to make sense.

marvin victimises himself a LOT. he’s self aware enough to recognise when he does wrong but tends to refuse to believe that it’s truly his fault, and that he’s the victim somehow. this is pretty obvious in falsettos but it’s also true in in trousers. he sings a lot of songs trying to portray himself as the victim, facing a lot of opposition from the women. this is shown in How Marvin Eats His Breakfast where he is sure that he’s in the right and is the victim because he’s not getting what he wants, and the women in the song directly oppose him by describing all the insane things he’s doing and even insulting him. it’s also shown in The Nausea Before the Game, where he’s lamenting about how his life is so hard, and how trying to live up to societies expectations is nauseating (this is a very simplified analysis of the song, i do actually thing marvin’s feelings in this song are valid but that’s an entirely different conversation). the song transitions into his wife singing about how she met him, how he ghosted her for weeks but then came back. that part of the song is much more tragic than marvin’s, essentially telling the listener that while his feelings are valid, he also seriously hurt and damaged this woman, and that that cannot be forgotten. the musical never ever lets us believe that marvin is the victim, despite his insistence.

and then every pony, is what i think the first line of that quote is referring to. how marvin is convinced that he is the victim, he is telling *himself* that. and the part of himself who knows that isn’t true manifests as miss goldberg to tell him that no, no you aren’t. no matter what marvin says, he will never be the victim, he is the one hurting others.

“you might get what you deserve” is slightly more difficult. i can’t really tell if it’s positive or negative. it could either refer to how he got what he deserved by being in a loveless marriage, or how he got what he deserved by leaving his wife and kids (and bird) to leave with whizzer. personally i think it’s the second, going with how marvin is convinced that he’s the victim, he’s convinced him leaving his wife for whizzer is what he deserves after going through so much. he thinks he deserves something good for once. and like yay bro for breaking out of your forced heterosexuality but did you have to destroy your wife’s entire life in the process? when i say marvin isn’t a victim i do mean in the context of the musical, marvin is very much a victim of society and heteronormativity, but he is NOT a victim of any of the women in the musical, which he likes to pretend he is. it’s easier to blame them than himself.

“but i won’t excuse, boy i can’t excuse, a boy who’s lost his nerve.” much simpler to understand, the miss goldberg inside marvin’s head is very much the voice of outside influence, aka wider society, the one that expects him to conform. she can’t excuse him “loosing his nerve” by deciding to cheat on his wife with a man and run away with said nerve.

anyway i hope this yap session help y’all understand that marvin was never harmed by miss goldberg (nor do i think he did anything to her, other than probably be off putting and creepy like an average 14 year old is) i doubt anyone will see this but i loooooove talking about this stupid musical so ask questions please please please or else i’ll post 5 MILLION of these because i can’t stop thinking about this musical

[pepcono]

Accidentally got lost in the sauce while writing a reply and ended up with a shoddy essay. So I've polished it up a bit and packaged it in more proper essay format.

Special thanks to @\Undeaddream for always reminding me that sometimes the people you disagree with most are those you respect most.

Consider the "egg"

Consider the "cis men" who state things like "I really want to be a woman, but I'm not trans"

Consider those who wish they were trans so that they could escape the torture of their body but believe that it's something that happens to other people.

Consider those who are suffering, but are unable to accept the possibility they're trans.

In other words, the egg.

Some would believe that what harm is caused by classifying and naming this person is inexcusable, "it makes people uncomfortable," "it enforces gender norms," they argue.

Their thoughts dwell on those who believe themselves miscategorised, or those insulted by the insinuation that some of their characteristics could be seen as trans.

But do they stop and consider the egg?

Do they consider how people mobilise the position "you shouldn't tell someone they could be trans"?

The anti-egg position, although often coming from well meaning thought process, could very well do more harm than good.

Speaking anecdotally, I saw a yt comment thread where someone said: "Idk wtf is wrong with me. I really relate to this [a song about hating masculine features of ones body and wanting to be a girl] but I'm not a cis woman nor a trans woman, I am 100% sure I am not trans! Idk, am I just a freak or what?" Now maybe you dear reader see that and take them at their word, but I see someone who's in the same position as I was. Wanting desperately to be feminine, to escape my "male" puberty but due to internalised misogyny and transphobia is unable to admit why, unable to accept the solution.

Maybe what they need to hear is "it is ok to be a woman", "its ok to be trans", "you're not a freak for wanting this"

Maybe what they need to hear is "you don't need to suffer"

Some people did point this out in the replies, but each was met with similar statements of "you should insinuate they're a trans woman, that's rude" Maybe you, the reader, agree with that statement, maybe you're even right. But I know how I would've interpreted it. I would have seen it as a statement that I shouldn't consider the possibility, it would further cement the idea that "real trans people just know, because here's all these trans people sneering at that idea I could be trans"

But honestly, I'll be the first to admit "egg" is not the best term for this (But that's a whole other thing). But I instead bring this up to highlight that anti-egg discourse doesn't really stack up to the hype. It kinda reinforces that "just knowing" misconception.

In some people's haste to protect gnc men from the travesty of being compared to trans women (or worse, mistaken for trans women!), they don't stop to consider the egg.

But maybe you dear reader, don't see that, maybe you don't see your own denial and self hatred in "cis men", maybe you don't see someone reflecting internalised transphobia and misogyny that you yourself had to overcome.

And that's ok, not everyone has had the same experiences, some (probably) never even had dysphoria, a lucky few might have even never had to deal with internalised transphobia.

But bloody hell if you can't even acknowledge that not all eggs are even GNC in your post critiquing the term. You might want to reevaluate how complete your understanding is.

(also as an aside, egg can apply to "cis women" but the OP I was replying to didn't acknowledge it and as I repeatedly state, what's key "egg" is relating one's own experiences to them, something I do better with "cis men" eggs than "cis women" eggs)

[orkbutch]

sound like terf talking points ngl. just say you don’t think trans women are women and go :/

I'm assuming this ask is referring to this post, otherwise idk what it'd be about That post was made in response to me first noticing trans men talking about "transmisandry". An element of whats being called transmisandry is the exact experience I described in that post, and I was giving my opinion on that change in gender perception and how battling against that is pretty futile. As I said in the post, this wariness toward masculinity and cis men - I'm just going to call this 'Man Wariness' for short - is also something the vast majority of trans women have internalised. (I only say "vast majority" because I guess there could be The Exception? but really I just think All women have that wariness lmao.)

I became aware of this discussion because trans women that I follow on twitter have been pushing back on the misogyny and transmisogyny that's been expressed by the people championing the existence of transmisandry the hardest. I've been witnessing a lot of conversations trans women are having about the trans/misogyny they've experienced specifically from trans men. They (accurately imo) identify this as a threat to the integrity of feminism, particularly within transgender thought/politics, because misandry is not a real oppressive framework that exists. Pro-transmisandrists have been arguing that misandry is real and harms trans women as well, because The Man Wariness - non-men having learned to be guarded and fearful of masculinity & (what their brain associates subconsciously with) cis men - can also be directed at trans women, and results in transphobia toward those women.

The trans women disagreeing resent the framing of this as a 'misandry' issue because, of course, trans women are women. The people that hate trans women, even the ones that call them men to abuse them, don't actually see them as Men. In the eye of the transphobe, terf or GC, trans women are something else entirely, an inherently deviant third thing. Pushing back against "misandry", a supposed systemic oppressive hatred of manhood and men, does absolutely nothing to protect women from oppression. Trans women are oppressed, attacked, assaulted and abused mostly viciously and routinely by cis men. Labelling a description and discussion of Man Wariness as "TERF talking points" is just... deeply, deeply unhelpful imo. Man Wariness is just real. Thats just how a LOT of people operate in the world, trans women included. Obviously this learned wariness ends up impacting how many trans women are viewed and treated, and I understand being skeptical of me defending Man Wariness because of that. I was talking about it in the context of trans men/mascs' experiences specifically. Honestly... I don't really have helpful, thorough thoughts on how Man Wariness impacts trans women/fems and how that should be tackled. Its a bit of a wicked problem, I'm not trans fem and I haven't seen much discussion about this specifically. I assume because its a touchy subject thats kind of avoided. On the one hand, I believe deeply that trans women shouldn't need to perform/achieve a certain level of femininity in order to be safe, happy and acknowledged by society as women. On the other hand, Man Wariness is an uncontrollable response that is very deeply internalised, often directly connected to traumatic experiences, and I don't think its something that can be explored and addressed unless we can talk about it openly and frankly. Your response to this is very counter-productive imo. It just shuts down any possibility of a nuanced, open discussion. Maybe it'd be helpful if I was a terf, but I'm not lol. Which is obvious if you've known me or followed my work for any significant amount of time. Its the kind of response that shames someone for having Man Wariness, and feeling shame about an uncontrollable emotional response is toxic. Thats going to make that person feel they're irredeemably transphobic in some deeply embedded way that makes them reluctant to interact with trans women. And if theres anything that I think would break down someone's Man Wariness reaction to trans women, it would be having more familiarity with trans women because they'd pretty quickly internalise that trans women are not a threat and are women. OR of course that shame makes them feel rejected and alienated from trans friendly sphears, and they then turn toward TERF & GC sphears where they can be reassured their Man Wariness is fine, and are then vulnerable to being radicalised. But you know in my opinion no matter where that discussion went, no matter how immovable Man Wariness could be proven to be, that will NEVER invalidate that trans people have a right to safety, health, happiness and acceptance within society as the gender we know we are. That's actually just fact. These discussions are simply figuring out How that should come to be, and what our vision of a better, trans accepting society might look like.

[woeismyhoe]

I'm gonna preface this by saying I have no problem with representation. I love queer stories, especially when they're organic and natural. I'm bi, and I've had fulfilling relationships with women as well as men. Honestly, I would love a spin-off on Brimsley and Reynolds. It didn't feel.....forced. the characters were new and their story grew organically. Michaela? No. I'm trying to articulate how I feel without sounding like I hate the queer community because I genuinely don't. I appreciated Benedict's story line even if it was a little jarring. He's exploring, experimenting and that's fine. It still doesn't take away from his story. But the introduction of Michaela felt like a guy punch. It felt wrong. I've never particularly like gender swapping in stories based on an original IP, because it changes a lot of dynamics. It changes a lot of story lines. And yes, it's fiction, but I'm sorry I cannot get over it, especially when it's such a blatant case of pandering. It makes me feel as if I'm wrong to question this change and I've somehow internalised homophobia. If so, then why wouldn't I hate other queer characters or be similarly uncomfortable?

Okay I think I can make my argument clear with an example. If anyone has seen the movie Love Lies Bleeding, I think they'll get it. The sexual orientation of the characters didn't matter. It felt right. And it was not important to the story. It was just an established dynamic and we could enjoy the plot easily. It wouldn't have mattered if it was a heterosexual couple or a homosexual couple, the story is largely unchanged. If Michael becomes Michaela, here's the issues I see. Who inherits Kilmartin. We've already established an estate will go to the next male heir if the current owner dies. A major part of Michael's story was his guilt over his inheritance and his imposter syndrome. His story arc taking his place in parliament. It's all gone. I mean, I know the show isn't interested in the plots other than the main character pairing but this felt so wrong. If they wanted a lesbian lead, the just make another show with original characters why force this? I'm not looking forward to Francescas season at all. I'm sure a lot of people will like it and that's their prerogative but for me, personally, the only thing keeping the story moving forward is Benedict. Maybe Eloise. But I feel like the story of the show has lost its charm and has dug itself into a hole like Disney or marvel

I’m going to try to be respectful as possible. As a lesbian, it’s deeply concerning and infuriating to me how so many people including ppl from the community have internalized misogyny and homophobia to queer women. Just because you support and don’t have an issue with queer male stories doesn’t mean you can’t be homophobic to queer female stories. Just because you’re bi doesn’t mean you can’t be homophobic. Why do you think majority of mlm stories are consumed by women? Why are the stories written and targeted towards women instead of the couple’s own community?

There’s an issue going on right now where many fans are okay and THRILLED with Benedict being bi and sleeping with a man, yet complaining about Francesca and Michaela— both have revealed that they have a potential to turn into queer stories. But no one’s batting an eye to Sophie being erased for Benedict’s potential gay partner. People are more okay with a lesbian Eloise than Francesca, and maybe because Eloise fits the stereotype more than Francesca. Why????

Maybe you need to reflect on why you’re feeling this way since you’re clearly favoring queer male stories over queer female stories. Why is a straight male character���s arc more important than a sapphic character who can go through the same arc and even MORE? Why are you okay with Benedict but not with Francesca? Why does Brimsley and Reynolds feel natural but Francesca and Michael is forced and pandering? Why is making sapphic representation pandering unless it’s based on stereotypes, but not gay representation?

This is Bridgerton. They made POCs part of the elites, it’s not historically accurate, the medicine and technology isn’t historically accurate. I see no reason why they won’t change the law at some point for it to be possible for a woman to inherit titles and estates. Even if they don’t go into that direction, I’m pretty sure there’s a lot more story to explore for a sapphic character.

There’s so many variants of Michael in other stories and media, he’s not special. But Michaela?? How many stories are there even in the mainstream media where we get a happy WLW couple that doesn’t end in tragedy? Literally 0. There’s no happy ending anywhere in popular media because Bury Your Gays is the default fate of every queer female story that gets even slightly popular. You say make a new show with sapphic characters yet 90% of the time they get cancelled after the first season and this is something we’ve been dealing with for decades and trying to call out.

So again, why is a straight couple’s story more important to you than a WLW couple who can offer a more unique, nuanced portrayal of yearning, desire, betrayal to one’s self, crisis of faith, even loss of identity and room to show politics in the Bridgerton world like how they did with Queen Charlotte— and make a bigger impact on how the public perceives queer women?

You’re uncomfortable with a queer female character changing what you know and are familiar with in the books— that she can’t possibly compare to what a male character can offer. It’s ironic how awfully similar that sounds to homophobes who can’t accept the existence of queer women in society because god forbid a woman can do what a man can for a woman, or even do better.

Don’t watch it if you don’t want to. The rest of us will feel valued and seen and enjoy it together when the season comes out while you distance yourself further from the sapphic community.

TLDR; Queerness makes the story richer than any straightness will.

[alatabouleau]

I just kinda need to get this off my chest because I've kinda been falling down a rabbithole on the wrong side of the internet... So, it all started with me watching the BBC documentary about the Burning-Sun-case that was randomly recommended to me...

And it just makes me sooo mad! That Seungri, JJY and all the others have now all served their sentence already, they just continue as before, no lessons learned, and there are STILL people who support them!!!?? And I am so desolated because it shows how deep our impressions of patriarchy and internalised misogyny goes that we would let them off the hook that easily. Meanwhile, two women unalived themselves in relation to the crimes of these people. More still are scarred for live by their actions. And the worst of all? That this is nothing new. This has happened before almost all around the world and how often were women even denied to speak the truth?

Rammstein's investigation was just dropped.

Nicky from Backstreet Boys got out pretty unbothered.

And even if they are convicted, many people scream "death of the author" and continue in their ignorance.

And I do not know how to deal with that. I don't have the answer to solve this. But I do not want to stop being bothered by this. Because the moment we become numb because of how often this has already occurred, the more normal this will be.

And I never want to accept this horrendous violence against women as normal. This has to stop.

And in that same breath, I do NOT understand why people keep bringing up T.O.P.'s drug thing WHEN SEUNGRI WAS LITERALLY HIS FELLOW BAND MEMBER. How does this compare, even come remotely close? Yes, not everything that man did was healthy, but like... how does this concern you? FAMOUS. PEOPLE. DON'T. OWE. YOU. ANYTHING.

I haven't seen Squid game 2 in its entirety simply because that series is not my vibe, but from what I've seen from his performance, he did pretty alright imo. At least, not in a way that would justify the hate towards him. Also, I am so annoyed by the uncharitable interpretations of his actions that I've seen all around. So he left Big Bang. So he blocked G-Dragon on Instagram. What is it to you? After that whole sh*t show, how can you blame him? In Germany, we had a pretty famous a-capella-group called Wise Guys. After their 25 year-anniversary, suddenly (so it seemed) the group disbanded. Through this, two of the band members who always seemed the closest fell completely out of touch and as far as the public knows, are still not on speaking terms even after 8 years. I made the mistake of telling one of them as I met him at the Protestant church convention that I always loved Wise Guys and got a pretty cold response. Does that mean that everything the Wise Guys ever did was fake? No. Neither that either of those people are a-holes per se. We simply do not know what happened behind the curtains. And those were middle-aged men that hadn't HALF of the scandals and sh*t going on that BigBang had to deal with. Add to this mental health problems and different coping mechanisms and you got a fine molotov cocktail of relationship complications. I think why this discourse hits me so much is because I relate in two points to T.O.P.'s story as far as I know it(!)

I, too, left a toxic environment for myself a little over a year ago. I left my church. I still struggle with this because this used to be such a HUGE part of my identity. Also, my family still belongs to it. That's exactly why, on some days I cannot STAND it when people still call me newapostolic. Yes sometimes, I still do that myself but I would probably make a harder cut if I could. So I understand perfectly if he wants no longer be associated with the name BigBang after leaving the K-Pop-industry. On the other hand, I had a friend who went to the same church. A best friend. Ride-or-die. And we had a comeplete fall-out. Not because we did not care for each other anymore, not because we hated each other. But because we both had so many similar issues and our coping mechanisms started to make us hurt each other.

Deeply.

And even to this day, I cannot really talk to her anymore. Because our friendship reminds me of that time that felt so horrendously bad for me.

Because of these two things, I understand the need for a hard-cut oh-so-well. And I would wish for T.O.P. to get it. Is that interpretation the absolute truth of what happened? No. Because no one of us outside knows it. I just wanted to show that there are interpretations where you don't have to make anyone involved The Bad Guy(tm). I wish Choi Seunghyun all the best.

And those mentioned in the first part of this post... having to grasp and live with the whole amount of pain they caused others.

[femmikoto]

pokes inbox

hi do you have girlmeep ideas... i wanna try drawing girlmeep and your brain has magical things according to what i've seen from your posts :0

runs

[CRACKS KNUCKLES] ohhh do i have girlmeep thoughts. these will be a little scattered between deeper character insight and aesthetic stuff so forgive the rapid chopping and changing

• FIRSTLY i think certain elements of 09s story are made stronger by a female interpretation of the character. anyone whos lived as a woman at some point in their life knows how much society hates women and how its expected that they make themselves "smaller" and more paletable so theyre not labelled as annoying or rejected by the world at large

• i think mikotos emotional repression and meticulous social maintenance line up incredibly well with this, particularly the suppression of "ugly" emotions so others dont think less of him

• in a female interpretation john (jane?) can also be read slightly differently as a manifestation of the concept of female rage- anger and social rebellion against the pressure and everday injustices against women that people are shamed for (typically by men) if they so much as acknowledge them in any capacity

• i think she would mostly dress the same as canon (showing very little skin, preferring baggy clothing but styling it a little differently, sticking to casual street fashion etc) but instead of ONLY having trousers she also switches it up with shorts or skirts from time to time (always paired with tights or high stockings depending on the length). i dont think she would wear dresses very often outside of formal events like weddings, funerals etc

• shirts stay the same though i think shes only wearing t-shirts or button-ups. again always things that dont show much skin, if any

• i dont think girlmeep would be immune to perpetuating internalised misogyny in the way a lot of girls tend to do with each other- looking at women who are more brash and unrepentant in their self-empowerment and going "so rude, i could never be like that" or "just put up with it like the rest of us..." rather than allowing herself to consider how freeing it must be to stop caring about what men think

• im not gonna pull a hideo kojima on why i draw her with huge boobs 85% of the reason why is just that im a lesbian who loves huge boobs. HOWEVER. the remaining 15% is because anyone with boobs will attest that the larger they are the more total strangers feel like they can comment on them and objectify you for them and i think this would shape her "if i endure it, ill stop being irritated and get used to it eventually" mindset

• i prefer girlmeep with mikotos canon haircut but i think theres a case for her having both long and short hair. long hair is more traditionally feminine but i think mikotos style and trend-conscious nature makes the canon cut possible. however trying to figure out how to accurately place her blond tips without her ceasing to look like mikoto can be a pain in the ass with the longer hair so i say reject realism and just do whatever you think looks best if you end up drawing her (I REALLY REALLY HOPE YOU DO I EXIST FOR GIRLMEEP ART DROPS)

[thrawns-babygirl]

Y'all i need to just talk about the barbie movie for a bit. No spoilers but very long winded post under the cut because I'm reeling from this movie.

So like, I never played with barbie, I thought barbies were lame, I hated the "girl" aisle whenever I went out toy shopping with my mum. And to give credit to my mum, she let me play with whatever I wanted.

But like, that hatred of the colour pink expanded as I got older, and the internalised misogyny only became more ingrained and rancid as I grew up. I dont even remember how old I was when I was told I'm "not like other girls" as a compliment.

Growing up as a girl is hard. It sucks. And I totally rejected everything about being a girl for the longest time. I didn't even wear a skirt until I was like 15 or 16. I hated being a girl. I didn't interact with other girls, to this day, I still don't know how to form lasting friendships with women, I never learned how. I surrounded myself with boys and did things that I thought would distance myself from being a girl.

I never learned how to put on make-up, I never had a group of girl friends I could rely on, I did everything I could to cover up how insecure I was that I wasn't being a girl right.

And now, to watch this movie, to see something that was so unashamed about being pink and feminine and talk about the power that women have it just... it broke me. I remembered how I spent my youth trying to forget I was a girl, trying to not be like the "other" girls. I regret my days spent trying to reject my femininity, more than anything. I wish I could turn back time and just be a girl.

Because there is nothing wrong with being a girl, the "other girls" don't exist. Its this awful stereotype perpetuated by shitty archaic ideals that we are working so hard to dismantle. I just wish I could have spent my time as a child and a teenager accepting that there is nothing wrong with being a girl.

I was always a tomboy, always and I always will be. But I'm still a girl. And I'm proud of it.

The only thing that I wish this movie did would be explore the concept of "not like the other girls" and help dismantle it. Because you are like the other girls, and that's such a beautiful and wonderful thing.

[away-ward]

I love one of your latest asks about will being weak because it's so true!!! Anon, im with you on this! Weak men and MMCs are truly a fucking disease!!!

Ok i feel like this other topic has been discussed here but maybe not, i dont remember, but its about how will always reminds emmy and himself that emmy didnt fit in with his friends, as if theres something wrong with her for not fitting into a label and box that they have for everyone else (as if these characters themselves did not spend their whole fucking books and lives fighting against people labelling them and putting them in a box, but hey everyone in DN are fucking hypocrites, we knew this already), while at the same time will himself had never made much effort to fit into emmy's life or get to know her lifestyle, to be her friend or get to know her deeper outside of what he wanted. It still doesnt make sense because i believe if will wa smore respectful and kind towards his approach with emmy, we couldve gotten a friends to best friends to lovers arc!!!! Maybe we can even get some betrayal and separation to justify will's anger, like think about it. The missed opportunity!!!

I also think there's something wrong and weird with the way will went about this "emmy not fitting in" because from the way ke kept on saying it made me believe that the horsemen were some wonderful group of people to fit in with or something, but in reality, it's just a group of super privileged MMCs and FMCs with ugly ass characters, personalities, lifestyles, with varying degree of misogyny. My first thought was, "now why the fuck would you shame a women for not fitting in with a bunch of nasty people, with nasty moral, and nasty personalities, as if EMMY was the weird guy, and not the other way around". Like theres something wrong with the way the whole crew went about it. And thats why i also believe that alex's attack of emmy in the train wasnt just out of worry for aydin's safety and jealousy for whatever bullshit manipulation of aydin made she think about aydin x emmy, but also because alex probably had at a certain point put emmy on a different pedestal than other women she met in life, be it because of will or because of the way he saw other men treat emmy as compared to alex. So when alex found out that blackchurch emmy wasnt so different than her lifestyle, i think alex trying to fight emmy in the train and later on demanding for her underwear back from emmy was not just out of petty fight, but it was to prove to everyone the things alex said to em in blackchurch "i knew you could do this too". Implying that emmy was just like the crew in thunder bay, even if emmy might never admit it out loud. Alex probably had misinterpreted emmy as being judging towards her life to just because everyone else does, and emmy never said much of anything. We dont even know how much alex knew about her. Now, on the other side though, we knew from emmy's pov that emmy never had a problem with what she wanted or even the horsemen or alex, the only problem is she thought she couldnt have them, but how was the rest supposed to know this right? And so this might also be one of the cause of misunderstanding between alex and emmy. To show that emmy was not so above everyone else, that she wa sjust "like us", and mistaking that emmy looked down on them for this particular lifestyle like aydin did to alex. Because aydin had shamed alex in many ways for her lifestyle, out of his own resentment and shortcoming, so i feel like this could also be where alex was coming from. HOWEVER, I hate alex even more for this though because alex couldve just asked emmy where she came from (theyre "friends"!!!), but alex made assumptions about emmy, humiliate her in front of everyone, and tried to put emmy down just to look good in front of the rest, and that all happened because of internalised misogyny. Literally, there wa sno excuse for this because we never saw emmy did the same, nit even with her female bullies at school. One of your alex's anon asks in the past was right, alex shouldve had this same energy (or even worse) with aydin and call him out and beat him up instead for treating her like a dirtbag, but why hurt emmy? No explanation here, it's internalised misogyny, lmao! I hate this repeated misogynistic plotline from pd so much! Why cant they let these women be pillars for each other and build amazing healthy female relationship instead of always cretaing female rivalries? Idk, the more that i think about alex's character, the ickier she gets, and i hate it because pd framed her to her to be this "pure good morally right person viking", and im like, where? And on the same note, wasnt emmy the same? But why was she framed differently?You all are right, even alex was guilty by association, just by being around the horsemen nd their wives + crew. Unfortunately, alex, just like the rest, was a delusional bitch, no wonder she said something about emmy's presence as being grounding. Someone needs to pop their thunder bay bubble asap!

That leads to my next point. DN series turned me off for a different reason: all these grown adult men and women always be doing the most vile things to others (almost always undeservingly) and they wont own up to it. Interesting how their moral judgment is very relative, because as long as they're not micah's terrorist father or gabriel or evans or trevor level of nasty, they're consider and label THEMSELVES as good? Delusional privileged people behaviour! Cowards! They be saying things like "own it, before it owns you" but then go out if their way to try to justify their bad deeds as if we readers are stupid or something. They look like cowards to me honestly, because pd couldve used this to make it about morally grey or black villains who dgaf about anyone and living their life to the fullest, doing ACTUAL crimes, not just petty ones and own them (even rowan in The Fine Print was more a piece of shit than Michael when it comes to business ethics, and he's in a romcom bro, so embarrassing!), but pd made their characters to be the worst of the cowards and losers. I think one of your damon hate asks even mentioned about their unsatisfaction towards damon's character where he was unskilled and incompetent, even in his own crime, because everything he did, he was never active, always had someone's help to make it happen, but readers ate it up, acting as if he was this super competent guy doing everything or smth like that. Which i agree 100%, because not even damon who got special treatment by pd was someone amazing due of his own lacking that went unnoticed just because he was "seen" as hot to some. Just like that anon, maybe im just like them where i hate incompetent and unskilled men, and i would never love to read stories about these kind of MMCs or date irl men like them, so maybe thats why i noticed this even more than the rest. Being conventionally attractive and having that as your main attributes doesnt do it for me especially for a long term/ lasting relationship and admiration, they have to have somethimg going on in theirpersonal and professional lives for them to be interesting to me, and i noticed, this was what dark romance genre was always lacking.

I believe that dark romance is a hard subgenre to write, because not only it is already hard to write non-dark romance, now you have another layer of darker elements that you gotta add to make your stories work. I've never read one DarkRom book that i truly love because of this. My favourites were always non-darkrom because darkrom always felt lackluster and incomplete, i always felt like they lack substance, so as much as i might like their themes explored, writing style. or characters, or plot, or settings, i can never give them a full 5 stars, because theyre not enough for me. Let me know if you notice this too, or if you find your expectations for darkrom having a lot /not much difference than non-darkrom. Idk if others feel like this too, but these were what took my enjoyment from this series. The DN series was shallow and cheap for these reasons among many others, especially the "there was not much concrete substance" part, because even the substance was not grounding enough to me. I just need more i guess, idk. In fact, i wish it was more unhinged, because if theres one thing about pd that i like, its their writing style. They can really write great spooky or suspense-building stories, i gotta give them that. Not many non-horror or thriller authors ive read so far that could write spooky scenes or danger-consuming scenes like pd, and i was disspointed that they did not capitalise more on this. Ngl, if pd wrote thrille ror horror one day, i might even pre-order it, because one of the best thrillerxsuspense opening from a non-thriller books was Credence by them. The first few chapters were kinda eery in a reality-grounding way when you read books by famous horror thriller writers, the same goes with hideaway. Ngl, nightfall's opening was more goofy to me than it was scary, im so sorry pd 😭🤣

Anon, im with you on this! Weak men and MMCs are truly a fucking disease!!!

You guys are so funny. I feel like a middle man for your conversations. Like I’m playing telephone or something. I think I’m gonna have to go back and start labeling the Anon messages with numbers or something so you can reference each other.

Let me know if this is okay with all of you or if you have a problem.

I’m going to let you know before we get into it, that I’m in a mood as I’m typing this. I’m not sure what’s caused it, but I’m feeling a bit more sarcastic than usual and feeling less like editing myself. So this is going to be a long one and I hope you read the sarcasm for what it is. Remember, bold is not for emphasis but for ease of skimming and reading.

will always reminds emmy and himself that emmy didnt fit in with his friends

I would be surprised if there was a topic we haven’t touched on by this point. I have thought about this so I also can’t remember if I’ve talked about or just ranted to myself. Either way, I don’t think it’s the first time the issue has been raised. I know that I have discussed how Will’s privileged blinded him, and how his attitude about his privilege probably didn’t seem all that bad to him because of his peers. They were all in the same boat.

I mean yacht.

And I think I’ve mentioned that even without the abuse, Emmy still would have had a hard time fitting because of her lack of privilege. So I don’t think for either of them being aware of this reality is a bad thing. What irritated me the most about this situation was Will pursuing Emory so heavily, only to remind her that she’s replaceable anytime she didn’t do what he wanted. My reaction in that situation would have been “then replaceable me.” Similar to Em’s. It was such backwards thinking. Like he could somehow trick her into wanting him by reminding her that he was desirable to others. Reverse psychology at its worst, truly.

But I think that’s probably what I liked about Will more than the others. He actually had realistic path to grow?

I don’t know. Sometime when people talk about characters, it seems like they want the characters to have already reached their full potential and all their mistakes be because of external issues. And I'm not accusing you of that, but it's a trend I've seen. This always sticks out to me because I love when characters mess up and change, as long as that growth makes sense. Whether it's for the better or worse, it should make some sort of sense. People aren’t always great. Sometimes people suck. Just genuinely suck. And then, as they have life experiences, they can grow into a better person.

For me, Will takes this course. He sucked, because he wasn’t even aware of how badly he was messing up. Sure, his intentions with Emmy were sincere, but even if he did become aware of the abuse while they were in school, I have no doubt that his immaturity would have messed it up even more. Either way, he could have then had experiences that formed him into the person we see towards the end. Someone who can admit their mistakes, and forfeit what they want if it would make the people they care for happier. We never got to see a fully developed Will, but that doesn’t mean it wasn’t the direction he was going in.

And this opposes his friends. Michael and Kai didn’t undergo such a changed. They sort of stayed the same throughout their story. They just got what they wanted in the end and it made them happier. Yay. Damon did undergo a significant change, but as it’s been pointed out, the way it happened and how quickly was sort of unbelievable. Will has the most believable story line in terms of development. He still sucked. But sucked slightly less at the end, and I could easily see how he got to that point.

But that’s just me. I get where you’re coming from.

if will wa smore respectful and kind towards his approach with emmy, we couldve gotten a friends to best friends to lovers arc!!!! Maybe we can even get some betrayal and separation to justify will's anger, like think about it. The missed opportunity!!!

True, but like I said, I feel that Will thought he was being respectful and kind, because he was blind to the reality of how Emmy would interpret his attentions. He’d never experienced that level of rejection before, and because he didn’t know about the abuse, he couldn’t see a reason for it. Wasn’t he being nice by doing her homework? Wasn’t he being nice by listening to her when she complained that they were ruining her pool time? Wasn’t he being nice by giving her a ride home? Sure, she put up a fight, but she secretly liked it because he saw her reaction in the science lab. He’s giving her a way to act on those thoughts without forcing her to embarrass herself by admitting she wants it.

Isn’t. He. So. NICE???

And as the reader, we’re like no. You’re literally ruining her life! AND disrespecting her, because she told you no.

Friends-to-lovers isn’t my usual go-to. But I also don’t like second-chance romance, which all of DN basically is sooo…. Plus, I did read a whole book just to delude myself into getting a friends-to-lovers willemmy, so safe to stay I might have really enjoyed that. It would have been a nice break from the usual with this series.

it made me believe that the horsemen were some wonderful group of people to fit in with or something

I mean. It seems to me that most wealthy, privileged people think everyone wants to be like them. And, if we’re talking about their time in high school, then that way of thinking is probably even more prevalent. These are people who don’t really experience life outside of their wealth, so it’s normal to them. And if you don’t have what’s normal, wouldn’t you want it? Aren’t these life’s necessities? And they wouldn’t see each other as bad people, so for Emmy to point out their flaws and go “you guys are horrible people”, doesn’t make sense to them. Because

They’re good people. They’re not out there ruining other people’s lives. They’re just having fun. They’re not like Anderson or their parents or Martin, after all. Those are the really bad people. Why couldn’t Emmy tell the difference?

Obviously, it’s because she’s a judgmental hag who never wanted to see them clearly to begin with because it would ruin her superiority complex.

That’s seems to be his reasoning, at least.

because alex probably had at a certain point put emmy on a different pedestal than other women she met in life, be it because of will or because of the way he saw other men treat emmy as compared to alex.

Oh, Alex...

I can see Alex having some sort of complex about Emmy, but more than anything I felt she was curious when she approached Em at the cove, wanting to confirm what she thought she knew. Alex confused me when she put the thought into Emmy’s head that she could be competition.

I mean, I get that Emmy still wanted Will, but more than that, she wanted Will to be happy (because she’s a good person!). So even if Will found happiness with Alex, Emmy wouldn’t see her as competition because she’d basically already taken herself out of the running. But are we supposed to see Emmy being jealous of Alex because Alex is who he wants now? And Alex pushes this idea for what? To play with Em? To get her reaction? To encourage her that she still had a foot in the race to Will’s heart? To try and be her friend? It never made sense to me.

I don’t think I’ll truly ever be sure of Alex’s motive for attacking Em, and that’s because Alex takes ownership of her actions. She made choices, she wasn’t a ""victim"". Okay. If you’re not a victim of circumstance, like Em, and you both achieved your goals doing what you thought was best for yourselves, then what are you jealous over, Alex?

Unless… the taking ownership of her decisions is all pretense and posturing? Convincing herself that she’s just as good as Em, except that Em made decisions she was proud of; she worked to get her degree, she actually sacrificed what she wanted to save herself and her grandmother, she’s still strong without anyone holding her up. You can’t convince me Alex doesn’t see Emmy standing alone, defiant against the Horsemen and Aydin, and wonder if she could do the same? I don’t know. I mean, the characters in this series aren’t consistent and I’ve said that Alex was meant to be perfect always, so it’s hard to really figure out what was going on.

If one thing is for sure, I think Alex has succeed in being one of the most controversial characters in the series, and it’s not even about her career as a sex worker. Does that count as progress???

So when alex found out that blackchurch emmy wasnt so different than her lifestyle,

I’m not sure what you meant with this thought. To me, they have different lifestyles, so if you could clarify what you mean?

We dont even know how much alex knew about her.

That’s true, I guess. We know she could easily recognize Emmy on sight, and that she knew from Will that Emmy was “sassy” or something, indicating that Will probably talked about her. I HC that he talked about her more than once. I don’t see him getting into all that in one go. She probably knows about the gazebo and why he went to prison. But how much of their relationship, specifics about Em? No idea. But what’s irritating is that Alex believes in her ability to read people so much, she thinks she’s got Emmy all figured out, when it’s very clear that she doesn’t.

And so this might also be one of the cause of misunderstanding between alex and emmy. To show that emmy was not so above everyone else, that she wa sjust "like us", and mistaking that emmy looked down on them for this particular lifestyle like aydin did to alex.

You’re saying that Alex’s attack was to prove to Emmy that she wasn’t better than them, that they weren’t better than her, but they were all cut from the same cloth? Or that Alex believed that Emmy thought she was better than them because she didn’t frequently go around breaking the laws and giving into all her impulses? And Alex wanted to prove to her like “see, you have the same impulses. You can act on them here, with us, and it’ll all be okay. We’ll catch you.”

I can understand that. If that was the case, it was a weird way to go about it. Very confrontational. But I doubt Emmy was in any state to trust any of them, so maybe backing her into a corner for her to push herself out of was the only way to get there. I think the first one is what you meant; that Alex thought Emmy thought she was better and wanted to bring her to their level because she was feeling judged, but I think the second one is closer to what PD thought they were doing. Because Alex is all knowing and always right. She knows what everyone needs.

alex even more for this though because alex couldve just asked emmy where she came from (theyre "friends"!!!), but alex made assumptions

But Alex asking questions would mean that Alex isn’t all knowing and isn’t always right and doesn’t knows what everyone needs before they know they need it. How can Alex be perfect if Alex has to ask questions?????

Why cant they let these women be pillars for each other and build amazing healthy female relationship instead of always cretaing female rivalries?

That would have been nice to see. I usually don’t get mad at Alex for not attacking Aydin. If Alex was running scared from her feelings towards Aydin, not ready to sort them out, and she was overly concerned for Will, then Emmy becomes an easy target because she knows she can’t ruin her relationship with Emmy.

Note: I don’t understand how they have that close a bond after one night of drinking together. I’m just saying what the narrative told us. And as the narrative as reminded us multiple times, Alex is… apparently some sort of addictive substance that people experience once and can’t get enough of??? I have no other reasoning for the other character’s reactions to her.

Either way, it would have been nice if Alex used her powers for good to build up the friendships in the group instead of trying to get laid literally all the time.

To be clear, I do feel this is an error in storytelling. I can’t blame it all on Alex when PD is one who created her and forced those decisions on her, for reasons that I don’t understand. It feels like PD really did prioritize empowering women through freedom of sexual expression, but at the cost of writing actual friendships on the page? It was choice, and not one I can appreciate fully. Especially when I love seeing friendships play out so much. But I’m sure it’s found it audience somewhere and for that, good for them.

all these grown adult men and women always be doing the most vile things to others (almost always undeservingly) and they wont own up to it.

I’m laughing because I don’t know if it was the past storyline or because of their maturity levels, but I always forgot these characters were in their mid-twenties. Like, I don’t care what the timeline says, these characters are between 17-21 in every book and being told Will was 26 in NF was like a slap in the face. I was disgusted with him.

pd couldve used this to make it about morally grey or black villains who dgaf about anyone and living their life to the fullest, doing ACTUAL crimes, not just petty ones and own them

Yeah. Every time they were gearing up for a “big” thing, I kept expecting something… you know… big to happen. But it was all mundane, teenage antics (see point above).

I believe that dark romance is a hard subgenre to write, because not only it is already hard to write non-dark romance, now you have another layer of darker elements that you gotta add to make your stories work. I've never read one DarkRom book that i truly love because of this.

This is a good point. I don’t usually read a ton of dark romance. DN was a weird phase for me. If I do, I like the “dark” characters to be intelligent at least, not just mean. Even then, I know I’m getting into some nonsense, ridiculous plot so I usual turn off my critical thinking skills. Because of that, I never remember the books I’ve read that are considered “dark romance”. If you bring one up, I can remember if I’ve opened it or not, but characters names and events have been erased.

And your comments before that are probably why Dark Rom is meant for adults who already know that seeking out these types of people in real life is a horrible idea? Still, I know some readers who aren’t ready for this material for various reasons, be it age or past experiences they haven’t dealt with or something else, will get ahold of books like this and think that the abuse and drama that happens in these “love stories” are what true romances are made out of. Frustrating, but also none of my business. Just be happy that you know yourself well enough that these tactics wouldn’t work on you.

However, I don’t think I’ve ever attempted a dark romance. I’ve attempted to write stuff that has a darker edge than my usual, but never that dark. I’m not a thriller or horror writer, so… But I think the goal would be to bring in an equal balance of each genre, and then push them to the foreground at different parts of the story to blend them together. I’m not sure how I would do it, and I probably won’t ever try, really.

The DN series was shallow and cheap for these reasons among many others, especially the "there was not much concrete substance" part, because even the substance was not grounding enough to me.

Interestingly enough, DN to me is like a carnival as opposed to a theme park. A theme park is a whole thing. A day excursion. A planned event.

At a carnival, the rides are short, they’re not really scary, you’re never really worried, yet they’re still fun. Maybe even a little boring to some. But one ride is never enough. And it’s not the only the rides, it’s the whole environment. It’s the candy and games, and the lights and sounds, it’s the people. One night to escape from the usual. It’s what you make it. It pops up for a time and then leaves, because it was never meant to stick around. It still provided a good time.

I’ve said before this series was never meant to be torn apart and analyzed to this degree. And I know there are a hundred other series that have the exact same tropes and similar plotlines? So are we so mad that this series was so bad compared to them, or are we mad that this series could have been better? Why are we still here talking about it when so many others have faded as soon as we closed the cover?

As you said, there are some things PD does very well in their writing. So maybe we are just upset that DN had so much promise and failed to deliver?

[queerstudiesnatural]

yes obviously twilight is ~problematic~ too. its depiction of the quileute tribe is racist, meyer's insistence on the drop-dead gorgeous vampires needing to have white skin is racist, and both jacob and edward fall in love with children. i'm not saying any of these are good messages, and in all honesty yes the racist part is irredeemable (the only saving grace is maybe the popularity of twilight bringing attention to largely ignored and abused indigenous communities, although it seems not to be the right kind of attention).

but vampires aren't real. the concept of imprinting isn't real. edward and jacob don't teach readers that falling in love with children is good because those situations are entirely unrealistic and fictional. robert pattinson isn't actually 104, no one is going to look at him and go oh yeah i'm gonna date century old men. it's fine. it's a vampire fantasy. and bella being weaker than edward and him feeling like he needs to protect her isn't due to her being a girl and him being a boy, it's due to her being human. when she becomes a vampire she's actually stronger than him and he's very happy to know and accept that.

overall, i think the "bad" messages in twilight are a lot easier to spot and therefore avoid.

harry potter however is a lot more sneaky about its misogyny and racism. there's so much going on that you barely notice it. and when you do it's framed as good and/or normal. hermione and ginny are not like other girls and make fun of whiny clingy glittery girly girls like lavender or fleur. girly girls are cringe. cho is crying about her dead boyfriend again?? how embarrassing. get over it already. dudley is mean but more importantly he's fat and that's why we hate him. the school is based in scotland but somehow there's only one scottish student, one irish student, no welsh students, and everyone else is english. ron says that house elves like being enslaved and since he's the one who's known the magical world all his life, harry (and therefore the reader) believes him. hermione doesn't know what she's talking about and is in fact hurting the elves by trying to free them. being free from slavery leads to bitterness and alcoholism. these elves just don't know what to do with their lives if they're not being slaves. goblins are actually a primitive and inferior race and it must be true because bill weasley says it.

characters in harry potter are always saying and doing things that are extremely harmful and downright mean and/or bigoted but it's all framed positively because it's the main characters doing it. the good guys can be bullies, as a treat. snape was a creep for pursuing lily against her wishes - duh, he was poor and his hair was greasy. but james potter was a stud for pursuing lily against her wishes because he was rich and handsome. these things are all internalised by the reader, especially if you grew up and read the books in the 2000s when we weren't as quick to dissect the underlying social messages in media. i internalised all of that myself. it took me years to deconstruct my internalised misogyny and cultural biases, and i'm not saying harry potter is responsible for all of them, but as someone who was obsessed with the series for years, it did influence my worldview a lot.

and i'll end it on this: jkr's transphobia didn't come out of nowhere and is deeply rooted in misogyny. she is deeply attached to the gender binary and to the idea that femininity is weakness and superficial, and that men and women are fundamentally at war against each other. people with penises must want to hurt poor defenceless women, and therefore any ~man pretending to be a woman~ is a spy seeking to infiltrate enemy lines to gain access to women and hurt them more easily. her paranoia stems from her conviction that women are weaker and that your assigned gender is your faction, in competition and battle against the other faction.

i'm gonna say it i genuinely believe that harry potter taught way more harmful messages to girls and young people than twilight ever did, and i'm being 100% serious like this is something i've thought about at length and have also experienced firsthand

[akinari-kashihara]

The fact ppl want to make reading their Secret Little Club for people who are Not Like Other Girls

Isn't even surprising and is just how it's always been

[witchqueenvisenya]

I like alicent in the same way I like cersei. they are both evil horrible women who only care about getting what they want and fuck who they maim or kill in the process. I find characters like that compelling. they both have trauma but their trauma twisted them into cruel people. I like characters like that. I dont make excuses for them or pretend theyre poor innocent victims. only slightly unhinged woman i don't like is sansa, I find her quite bland and dull, both in books and the TV show.

let me start out by saying that i have a strong love/hate relationship with cersei, but that its mostly on the love side. the way that i love her is exactly as you said; she does horrible things, is a horrible person in general and doesn't really care for acting otherwise. she knows she has the power, and she is unafraid to wield it, and what the idiots at hbo and (most)alicent stans will never get is that that is very appealing. women hardly get to be unashamedly powerful. the moment they do, they are labelled. (the other day i saw some aemond fan crying about how they didn't include him calling rhaenyra an "old whore" on the show.) many of these antis of powerful female characters are women themselves. their internalised misogyny makes them so threatened that they end up falling into vicious attitudes of hatred for any female character that happens to have agency and who makes mistakes.

while reading cersei, you can find many moments where you sympathize with her, even identify with her, because as someone was saying, she is not a feminist character by any stretch, but her story is definitely one with feminist themes. but at the end of the day, you are not supposed to see her acts and handwave them away because she has trauma. book!alicent herself takes the initiative at almost every turn of the war. she is the foremost voice we hear advocating for the greens. she is also an abhorrent misogynist who abused a child under her care and spread vile rumours about her, and effectively isolated her at a stage in her life where she was very vulnerable, for the sole reason that said child was a girl who would one day be queen, as opposed to her son. because of course her precious andal customs and her faith decree that a woman cannot sit the iron throne. precedent is against rhaenyra, but alicent chooses to go against direct law, the king's word, because she is that bull-headed and ambitious.

show!alicent is made to marry someone she wouldn't have chosen for herself (on the show) and she suffers a passionless marriage. instead of recognizing that rhaenyra herself is being made to marry, she chooses instead to hate her for the crumbs of sexual freedom she can carve out for herself. she is fixated on the fact that rhaenyra lied to her, disregarding that she did so to save her reputation from her obsessed father who had set spies upon her. this is literally all it takes for alicent to waltz into rhaenyra's wedding with her petty green dress.

it sounds like a fucking high school spat between frenemies. which is exactly what the sansa/alicent brigade thinks asoiaf is. everyone loves sansa the queen bee because she can charm people (spoilers, she cannot), because she can sing and recall the sigils of houses (what an amazing achievement, give the girl a medal), and daenerys the slut must be eliminated because how dare she assert her rights to her throne established by her family like that's practically unthinkable. alicent just happens to be the sansa placeholder in hotd, because as a very blunt green stan said targ antis watch hotd and love the greens because they are obviously as anti targaryen dynasty as you can get and they lead to the downfall of the house eventually. look at them being honest for once. where is your nuance, neutrals?

[deadguy6667]

Trauma headcanons for russia

Tw for CSA and SH and other stuff

This is mostly kinda projecting, more like pattern recognition in his behaviour so don't take it to heart too much.

-I think in early childhood his bosses used rape as a form of punishment after the beatings felt normal. After a while getting hit felt like another part of daily life, he wanted to avoid it obviously but it didn't instill the fear or make him submit as much as rape.

-since rape is so deeply traumatic, being violated in such a personal way broke down who he was at a fundamental level, he felt like his body wasn't his and he was an object, a tool for his masters so he got in line and blindly followed whatever they wanted. Over time it became natural to submit, and he lost sight of any sense of self.

-his sisters also added to this trauma. Ukraine didn't have good boundaries with her siblings and did things that would be weird on their own, but worse after what russia was experiencing. She made provocative claims and wanted to be close with russia, wanting to bathe with him and inspect how he was growing and such. Also giving comments about how to be a man, how men should lust after women and telling him which women would make good wives based on their skills and body. Russia hated it and didn't want anything to do with anything remotely intimate or relationships, also he was still a child and Ukraine didn't take that into account.

-Belarus developed her 'way' with russia after seeing how Ukraine treated him. Because she internalised the misogyny aimed at russia she saw him as the only deserving spouse. Though she isn't always weird with him, at least russia can fight her off because she's younger. The relationships with his siblings left him feeling isolated and having nobody to talk to, nobody would really care about what was happening to him.

-he wears loose fitting clothes and a lot of them because he doesn't want anyone to see his body, or want it. He also developed bulimia to punish himself, and to self harm. That's why his cheeks are so round its the inflammation, it quickly developed into an addiction as all eating disorders do, sometimes because of the calorie deflect he gets so hungry that he takes food from other countries. Then regrets it later with deep shame.

-when they were really financially struggling, russia took to prostitution after some things Ukraine had said, and also because he felt like his body wasn't his, it was just a tool to be used. Though he couldn't keep it up for long after one of his clients attacked him. He was too scared to go back to it.

-he got his neck scar because of one deadly suicide attempt in his early teens, he has realised that countries regenerate differently, so if he poisoned himself while he bled to death his body couldn't fix both because the healing contradicts itself. He used an old type of opioid medication, a lot of alcohol because hey why go out sad when you can be too fucked to feel anything. And he slit his throat. He only lived because Ukraine found him in his room. Its also how she started to get overly emotional about him, she knows how fragile but fucked up he really is.

-he also self harmed before that, and after. Though in current times, because everybody's so used to him being anal about wearing a scarf, he stopped cutting and scratching his arms and just cuts over the scar so there's no possibility of anyone seeing he does it at his big age. He's very ashamed of it and thinks if anyone found out they'd make fun of him (for most of this really)

-in adult life and late teens he's developed a heroin addiction. Sometimes people mistake him for being drunk when he's just dazed from shooting up. He also does crack or coke when he gets his hands on it. Rarely smokes a joint, only when he knows he'll be alone and when he's in the mood to be slightly sober. Also he drinks all the time, but because it doesn't hit as good anymore he's turned to drugs.

-during soviet his bosses brought back the rape punishment, which finally sent him full on crazy. He was scared his bosses would use that punishment for his subordinates, outing his past and also traumatising them. He begged his boss to let him punish them instead, and that any mistake they made would be his fault, and he would punish them accordingly. He was already desensitised to beatings, but when his subordinates made big mistakes he got desperate angry and terrified that his boss would step in, so he went too far and also took out his anger on them for what they were going to make him go through. He can't really grasp how beatings were that bad, but he knew what rape would do to them. He chose the lesser evil, but it was still evil, and everyone hated him for it.

-the addiction, trauma, shame, and the front he was putting up the whole time finally broke him in the late 80s. He became a bit duller even when putting up his strong happy front. He became more snappy and nonchalant, leading everyone to find out he was weak at the moment and they could finally make their move. Everyone left and at first it was a relief, he wasn't having to act all the time, but he realised how much he missed even pretending to be normal, and have friends. He was alone again.

-Now days he's just tired and cranky. He just needs a rest, but even the drugs don't work anymore. Everything is getting too much and he can hardly clean his house. Both his sisters are getting sick of it because of how he financially implicates them. Blame by association, so they want to distance themselves so they can heal and grow too. Though Belarus is still trying to get him out of it, checking up on him now and again. He knows they need to go but also he's upset. Is he that bad? Are they just gonna let the world kill him off? After all he's done for them? It was inevitable, really.

Yea this is my take on his character, as I said it's based off of personal experience and how I relate to some of his characteristics. Thought I should just put my 2 cents in, he's such a complex character with a lot of nuance and history, I don't think this completely explains him but it's just a thought.

[tyrannuspitch]

Jumping off @kidrat​ ’s recent post on JKR, British transphobia, and transphobia against transmasculine people, after getting a bit carried away and too long to add as a comment:

A major, relatively undiscussed event in JKR’s descent into full terfery was this tweet:

[image id: a screenshot of a tweet from JK Rowling reading: “’People who menstruate.’ I’m sure there used to be a word for those people. Someone help me out. Wumben? Wimpund? Woomud?”

Rowling attaches a link to an article titled: “Opinion: Creating a more equal post-COVID-19 world for people who menstruate” /end id]

This can seem like a pretty mundane TERF talking point, just quibbling over language for the sake of it, but I think it’s worth discussing, especially in combination with the idea that cis women like JKR see transmasculine transition as a threat to their womanhood. (Recite it with horror: ”If I were young now, I might’ve transitioned...”)

A lot of people, pro- or anti-transphobe, will make this discussion about whether the term “woman” should include trans women or not, and how cis women are hostile to the inclusion of trans women. And that’s absolutely true. But the actual language cis women target is very frequently being changed for the benefit of trans men, not trans women, and most of them know this.

Cis people are used to having their identities constantly reaffirmed and grounded in their bodies. A lot of cis women, specifically, understand their social and physical identities as women as being defined by pain: misogynistic oppression is equated to the pains of menstruation or childbirth, and both are seen as the domain of cis women. They’re something cis women can bond over and build a “sisterhood” around, and the more socially aware among them can recognise that cis women’s pain being taken less seriously by medicine is not unrelated to their oppression. However, in the absence of any trans perspectives, these conversations can also easily become very territorial and very bioessentialist.

Therefore... for many cis women, seeing “female bodies” described in gender neutral language feels like stripping their pain of its meaning, and they can become very defensive and angry.

And the consequences for transmasculine people can be extremely dangerous.

Not only do transmasculine people have an equal right to cis women to define our bodies as our own... Using inclusive language in healthcare is about more than just emotional validation.

The status quo in healthcare is already non-inclusive. When seeking medical help, trans people can expect to be misgendered and to have to explain how our bodies work to the doctors. We risk harassment, pressure to detransition, pressure to sterilise ourselves, or just being outright turned away. And the conversation around pregnancy and abortion in particular is heaving with cisnormativity - both feminist and anti-feminist cis women constantly talk about pregnancy as a quintessentially female experience which men could never understand.

Using gender-neutral language is the most basic step possible to try and make transmasculine people safer in healthcare, by removing the idea that these are “women’s spaces”, that men needing these services is impossible, and that safety depends on ideas like “we’re all women here”. Not institutionally subjecting us to misgendering and removing the excuse to outright deny us treatment is, again, one of the most basic steps that can be taken. It doesn’t mean we’re allowed comfort, dignity or full autonomy, just that one major threat is being addressed. The backlash against this from cis women is defending their poorly developed senses of self... at the cost of most basic dignity and safety for transmasculine people.

Ironically, though transphobic cis women feel like decoupling “women’s experiences” from womanhood is decoupling them from gendered oppression, transmasculine people experience even more marginalisation than cis women. Our rates of suicide and assault are even higher. Our health is even less researched than cis women’s. Our bodies are even more strictly controlled. Cis women wanting to define our bodies on their terms is a significant part of that. They hold the things we need hostage as “women’s rights”, “women’s health”, “women’s discussions” and “support for violence against women”, and demand we (re-)closet ourselves or lose all of their solidarity.

Fundamentally, the problem is that transphobic cis women are possessive over their experiences and anyone who shares them. Because of their binary understanding of gender, they’re uncomfortable with another group sharing many of their experiences but defining themselves differently. They’re uncomfortable with transmasculine people identifying “with the enemy” instead of “with their sisters”, and they’re even more uncomfortable with the idea that there are men in the world who they oppress, and not the other way around. “Oppression is for women; you can’t call yourself a man and still claim women’s experiences. Pregnancy is for women; if you want to be a man so badly why haven’t already you done something about having a woman’s body? How dare you abandon the sisterhood while inhabiting one of our bodies?”

Which brings me back to the TERF line about how “If I were young now, I might have transitioned.”

I’m not saying Rowling doesn’t actually feel any personal connection to that narrative - but it is a standard line, and it’s standard for a reason. Transphobic cis women really believe that there is nothing trans men go through that cis women don’t. They equate our dysphoria to internalised misogyny, eating disorders, sexual abuse or other things they see as “female trauma”. They equate our desire to transition to a desire to escape. They want to “help us accept ourselves” and “save us” from threats to their sense of identity. The fact is, this is all projection. They refuse to consider that we really have a different internal experience from them.

There’s also a marked tendency among less overtly transphobic cis women, even self-proclaimed trans allies, to make transphobia towards trans men about cis women.

Violence against trans men is chronically misreported and redefined as “violence against women”. In activist spaces, we’re frequently told that any trauma we have with misogyny is “misdirected” and therefore “not really about us”. If we were women, we would’ve been “experiencing misogyny”, but men can’t do that, so we should shut up and stop “talking over women”. (Despite the surface difference of whether they claim to affirm our gender, this is extremely similar to how TERFs tell us that everything we experience is “just misogyny”, but that transmasculine identity is a delusion that strips us of the ability to understand gender or the right to talk about it.)

I have personally witnessed an actual N*zi writing an article about how trans men are “destroying the white race” by transitioning and therefore becoming unfit to carry children, and because the N*zi had misgendered trans men in his article, every response I saw to it was about “men controlling women’s bodies”.

All a transphobe has to do is misgender us, and the conversation about our own oppression is once again about someone else.

Transphobes will misgender us as a form of violence, and cis feminist “allies” will perpetuate our misgendering for rhetorical convenience. Yes, there is room to analyse how trans men are treated by people who see us as women - but applying a simple “men oppressing women” dynamic that erases our maleness while refusing to even name transphobia or cissexism is not that. Trans men’s oppression is not identical to cis women’s, and forcing us to articulate it in ways that would include cis women in it means we cannot discuss the differences.

It may seem like I’ve strayed a long way from the original topic, and I kind of have, but the central reason for all of these things is the same:

Trans men challenge cis women’s self-concept. We force them to actually consider what manhood and womanhood are and to re-analyse their relationship to oppression, beyond a simple binary patriarchy. 

TERFs will tell you themselves that the acknowledgement of trans people, including trans men, is an “existential threat” that is “erasing womanhood” - not just our own, but cis women’s too. They hate the idea that biology doesn’t determine gender, and that gender does not have a strict binary relationship to oppression. They’re resentful of the idea that they could just “become men”, threatened by the assertion that doing so is not an escape, and completely indignant at the idea that their cis womanhood could give them any kind of power. They are, fundamentally, desperate not to have to face the questions we force them to consider, so they erase us, deflect from us, and talk over us at every opportunity.

Trans men are constantly redefined against our wills for the benefit of cis womanhood.

TL;DR:

Cis women find transmasculine identity threatening, because we share experiences that they see as foundational to their womanhood

The fact that transphobes target inclusive language in healthcare specifically is not a mistake - They do not want us to be able to transition safely

Cis women are uncomfortable acknowledging transphobia, so they make discussion of trans men’s oppression about “womanhood” instead

This can manifest as fully denying that trans men experience our own oppression, or as pretending trans men’s experiences are identical to cis women’s in every way

[radkindoffeminist]

Hi! I know you’re not a stand-in for all gc people and don’t expect you to speak on behalf of all of us but I’ve been wondering for months now what the stance is on tifs— in my experience, I’ve tried to engage with other terfs on this allied basis against all males, but I’ve personally never really taken issue with women/females who want to transition or change pronouns, which is typically where I find a division. Obviously I think they/thems are annoying and egregious most of the time, but I’ve found it really perturbing how much vitriol I’ve seen towards tifs from some terfs, I’ve seen some calling them stupid or deranged or brainwashed, things of that nature. Have you seen this pattern? How do you feel about it? My best personal/irl (and most effective) activism has always been talking to tifs actually, and getting them to see how the trans women in their lives treat them, how they perpetuate violence (particularly as tifs are often subjected to more tw attention and fetishism, and often effectively groomed into submission under the guise of “T4T”). But I love women and I feel like tifs in whatever form shouldn’t be hated or criticized this much (yes I recognize I’m calling them women even if they would not, irl I do my best to respect how they want to be referred to as and treated). Anyway, food for thought. Hope you’re having a good Sunday!

So my view is heavily shaped by the TIFs I have been good friends with for a long while and many encounters I’ve had online. As you said, I’m not a stand-in for all GC and my views are on the more sympathetic end as things go. I’m mostly in the same boat as you and have found that TIFs can generally be split into three categories.

Internalised misogyny/Internalised homophobia/Trauma: These three categories overlap heavily so it’s impossible to split them apart. Internalised misogyny/homophobia and/or trauma has led these women to identify as NB or trans in order to become ‘trans and straight’ or to escape the restrictions that they feel as women. The sad thing is that this probably makes up most TIFs and they will never analyse where some of these feelings are coming from because the hate for their bodies and womanhood is validated by the trans community as proof of them being trans. These women are struggling and often dress more androgynously because they think that gets them further away from ‘being a woman’. I have so much sympathy for these women, even if many of them still tow the trans party line and are assholes sometimes. They’re still struggling nonetheless.

Trendy Q*eer Girl(TM): Can cross other with either of the other categories, but also distinct enough to give it its own category. The trans q*eer girl is basically just the ‘I’m not like other girls’ but instead of doing it to impress the boys, does it to impress other q*eer people because they see being q*eer as a cool trend that they want in on. Often straight and if not straight then identifies as bisexual or pansexual but has (almost) exclusively been with men. Uses things like ‘loves iced coffee and energy drinks’ as proof of their q*eer status because obviously you can only like things like that if you’re q*eer, right? Annoying as fuck but sometimes does have trauma and internalised misogyny behind it so I have some sympathy, but not a lot for the people who treat our identities as little more than a trend.

Fetishiser: Rarer but certainly becoming more common and incredibly toxic. The fetishisers are typically trans men who date (or want to date) gay men and love yaoi (or whatever it’s called) and from that have developed an obsession over gay men to the point of convincing themselves that they themselves are actually gay men. It is creepy and weird and this group, even though they can struggle and have issues which led to this, deserve to be called out to no end. These are the people who are helping to normalise ‘genital preference’ and not being allowed to reject someone just because they’re trans, but focus more of their energy on gay men than lesbians. They are deeply homophobic.

As I said, I have an incredible amount of sympathy for many TIFs who are obviously struggling and it’s sad to see other radfems attack them so harshly and so often. They should definitely be called out on their toxic, homophobic, and misogynistic views, but that doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t recognise that so many of these women are just struggling and doing their best to cope with their issues. Baselessly attacking them because people want to group together all trans people as being the problem when that’s not the issue does absolutely nothing for our cause and, if anything, continues to drive women away from radical feminism.

Why does so much of our sympathy go out of the window when people disagree with us? When did we stop fighting for the rights and protections of all women and decide that actually only the women in the fight with us need help and protection?

[womenfrommars]

Okay here’s my hot take in regards to how radical feminists on Tumblr speak about female biology. We hear all the time from women who resent their own reproductive organs because they exist for, well, reproduction. Then they are consoled by other radical feminists that the uterus is also a structural organ and that is also plays a part in the regulation of hormones. That’s nice and all, but it doesn’t negate the reproductive purposes of the female reproduction system. The uterus is also (not solely, but also) where women make babies. Crazy, I know.

I think this simple acknowledgement is different from the belief that we as women exist to serve men. That’s a huge leap. Men and women only exist for each other, reproductively speaking, since we cannot produce asexually. This is the whole point of being a species that reproduces the way we do. There are evolutionary advantages to this. It increases variety in the gene pool, so the species as a whole is more likely to survive environmental changes and what not. It also lowers the presence of certain diseases. If a plant has a certain genetic disease, and reproduces asexually, then all its offspring will have the same disease. In humans, genetic diseases are typically caused by recessive genes, so you are less likely to pass it on to your children, making the population overall healthier.

A lot of radical feminists on here don’t share this outlook, though. They see themselves as existing for men rather than simply in relation to them. But men don’t see it this way about themselves. Women on here resent female characteristics like menstruation, breasts, wider hips and even having reproductive organs, because they see those things as existing for men. Men, on the other hand, are proud of their sex characteristics. ‘’Having balls’’ figuratively speaking means you have nerve. Men also have beards and see it as a sign of reaching manhood. If a man can’t grow a beard well, it might negatively affect his self-esteem. Men also have dick measuring contests to the point where even the phrase ‘’dick measuring contest’’ is used as a joke.

Men are not going around resenting their penis growth. ‘’Oh no, now I am just a walking dildo for women :(’’. Think about a man who says ‘’I hate my balls, they’re just sperm banks for women’’. Or maybe ‘’I hate my beard, it only exists to attract women’’. Men don’t think like this. But women on here hate their breasts because they see them as existing for male sexual pleasure. Women on here have a hatred towards their own sex and reproductive parts. And it’s not because acknowledging sexual reproduction as a function of the human body is inherently degrading. It’s because you have internalised misogyny. You can acknowledge that women have reproductive parts (just like men do) without hating yourself for it. You can acknowledge that women have sex characteristics that men like without hating yourself for it. You can acknowledge all of this without even wanting to be with a man sexually and/or without having a wish for children. Seriously. The fact the uterus also has other functions is a cope. It doesn’t negate its reproductive function and that’s fine, because the reproductive function is also just a normal function

[rantingcrocodile]

Biphobic bisexuals are the worst. They act like them being bi means they are justified in their biphobia and can say any harmful things about other bisexuals

I'll always support my fellow bisexuals and I can't blame the bisexuals with internalised biphobia that don't know any better. There's a difference between ignorance and malice, after all.

The ones that I have a real problem with are the "pick mes." They actively help perpetuate biphobia because the ignorant monosexuals who are biphobic will look to them, see that they dismiss biphobia and then automatically label the likes of you and me as whiners who "want to be oppressed so bad."

Actually, I don't want to be oppressed. It would be much easier to live in the old ignorance that I had where I convinced myself that it was just my problem, that I was weak and needed to pull myself up by my bootstraps. That it was a me problem. When I learned that my experiences and feelings weren't unique, that studies showed that I and my experiences were common for bisexuals, that was devastating. It made me re-evaluate my feelings, traumas and experiences and understand that if we didn't live in a biphobic society, then I wouldn't have been through and felt those things, that I wouldn't have been traumatised the way that I'd been traumatised.

I might still have been sexually assaulted for being a woman, but I would never have been specifically groomed into "friendship" and targeted thanks to my bisexuality.

Any radical feminists or adjacents worth their salt criticise the mess that intersectionality has turned into. The original purpose was to understand that racism intersects with misogyny to better understand the oppression that black women face. There are specific, racial-based misogynistic stereotypes and abuses against black women. We know that. It spread to talk about how different WOC were targeted on their intersections of racism and misogyny. The same for lesbians, disabled women, mentally ill women, the list goes on.

Instead of that intersectionality being an important wake-up call so that women, in our class consciousness, can better understand and support each other and lift the voices of further-marginalised women in feminist spaces, it was very quickly turned into nothing more than a commodity, a currency to be used and weaponised and a tool of patriarchy to split women apart and turn woman against woman.

We recognise the obvious one: "Cis women (1) need to shut up and think of all the black (1) trans (2) women (3)!" Suddenly, women as a class don't matter because of intersectionality, because black men who call themselves women exist, and that's counted as 3 points of intersection against the 1 from women as a group. Intersectionality being abused has destroyed feminism.

Those patriarchal attitudes and beliefs are still strong even in radical feminist spaces. Fuck straight women, they're not lesbians so they're not as oppressed. Fuck white women, they're not WOC so they're not as oppressed. And so on.

Then you come to bisexuals. Instead of others in our space recognising that bisexuality is a discrete point that creates a unique intersection all on its own, it's dismissed as being "straight" or "gay." We're hated no matter what. It's the "in thing."

Bisexuals in this space are taught that we can't define our own sexuality and only lesbians can decide whether we're oppressed or not. In the patriarchal currency, lesbian voices matter the most in this space. It's an uncomfortable truth that others don't want to recognise, but that doesn't make it any less true. A bisexual can calmly point out biphobia, can offer resources and statistics, peer-reviewed studies, and yet when a lesbian biphobe ignores all of it and laughs at bisexuals and hates us, then that lesbian's voice is elevated and the bisexual's voice is erased with false, weaponised accusations of homophobia.

What should happen in this space is to uplift lesbian voices so they can speak out about their oppression so that others can be better allies to them. What happened was that because the patriarchy's insidious mutation of intersectionality has been swallowed, lesbian voices in this space override everything else to the point where most women in this space think that lesbians automatically know the most about patriarchy, feminism and literally everything else purely because they have "lesbian" as a label and not because there are individual amazing, intelligent lesbians who should be listened to because of their talents.

The "homophobia vs biphobia" debate only happens because of that mutated, mangled intersectionality, because the majority of women in this space believe the absolute nonsense that accepting that biphobia exists would somehow erase the importance or reality of homophobia, as though they can't exist at once.

This happens because, aside from a handful of smaller voices, the only lesbians that actually bother to mention bisexuals are the ones that hate bisexuals. If lesbians are the pinnacle of online radfem spaces and those lesbians don't care about bisexuals or try to be allies, then biphobia, therefore, must not exist or be a real problem at all.

A real part of me thinks that lesbians in this space refuse to accept biphobia because a core group of them refuse to accept that they can support oppression against anyone else, and that they're at the top of the "oppression pyramid." I think some are so wrapped up in the patriarchal abuse of intersectionality that they feel personally attacked when the truth is that they can be victims to support abuse against other women, like how different groups of POC can be racist towards each other, but aren't oppressing each other. The nuance is there but always lost.

The reason that I'm talking about all of this is to give a fuller kind of context to the discussion. Biphobic bisexuals are biphobic because of either ignorance or malice, but they're allowed to fester and harm the rest of the community because even though we're supposed to be in a space that supports all women and wants liberation for all women, biphobia isn't just accepted, it's encouraged. Like most online spaces, there's a cult of personality above a cult of fact, and the truth is that bisexuals who are desperate for some kind of community will come and join this space, see the "Tumblr-famous radfems" and want to suck up to them, and listen to every single word that comes out of their mouths like it's gospel because of that "celebrity." It's a hierarchy, and any denial of that is wilful ignorance to the plain-as-day truth around it.

So you have different kinds of biphobic bisexuals. One group has simply internalised the biphobia perpetuated in what's supposed to be a safe space where they think liberation is being promoted and fought for, internalised more of the belief that they don't matter and that biphobia isn't real and certainly isn't oppression, and because nobody amplifies the truth about biphobia or supports bisexuals, then the tiny blogs like myself and others are characterised poorly and dismissed as "wanting to be oppressed" and biphobia continues to thrive.

Another group knows the truth and both hide and deny it so they can stay "in" with the group of biphobes that they run with (or hope to run with, hoping to catch their attention and become mutuals and possibly even friends), maliciously throwing the rest of us under the bus. (Very recently, I tried to share the truth with a biphobic bisexual because I thought they were in the first group, but they went out of their way to delete my reply from their internalised-biphobia rant. That is a clear sign of maliciousness and deliberate hate towards the rest of the bisexual community to suck up to biphobes and put herself first out of selfishness.)

It's important to know all of this because biphobic bisexuals are much more damaging to the bisexual community than any straight, lesbian or gay biphobe, but at the same time, if we don't understand why so many biphobic bisexuals exist, then we can't fix the issue.

It's like all things. Every group that is oppressed has to organise their own communities to fight for their own struggle, but they also need allies to help amplify their voices.

If this space was simply silent about bisexuality and didn't engage in biphobia, doing nothing more but erasing bisexuality and bisexuals from the conversation, then it would be much easier.

The fact is, however, biphobia is encouraged, support for bisexuals non-existent, biphobic bisexuals are given small rewards and those of us who stand up against biphobia are kept silent.

On top of that, the very few "big name" radfem bisexual women with larger follower counts avoid discussions of biphobia altogether, because they know that as soon as they do that, they'll be faced with a barrage of abuse, they'll lose a bunch of followers and the rest of their words about everything else will be discarded because "lmao look at her she thinks biphobia exists!"

The bottom line here is that nobody can stop anyone from being biphobic. The only answer to this is for bisexuals, especially bisexuals with bigger blogs and further reaches, to have the courage to talk about biphobia and treat it as the real oppression that it actually is. We cannot rely on anyone else to care.

There is too much cowardice in the majority of bisexuals here and the culture in this space would change if more of us stood together to denounce biphobia. It takes one bisexual to talk about our oppression to spark another doing the same, then another and another. If no bisexual would accept biphobia, then others who don't comment on biphobia wouldn't be as willing to accept it. If the loudest biphobes were regularly challenged, then it would slowly make biphobia less and less accepted. If bisexuals banded together, we could actually make a change.

But that's all it is. Bisexual cowardice.

I'll always support my fellow bisexuals, but a spade is still a spade, and I'm not going to pretend that I'm not disgusted and disappointed in so many of their actions.