#just to pursue liberal women

[cyarskj1899]

to answer the question: no😏

Is that whiny white bot crying, because she won’t date a man who voted for a raping, pedophile, criminal? A nice guy wouldn’t vote for a man like that! He has no morals!

MAGA men sure are emotional! What are they so angry about? They got what they wanted. So why are they all in our mentions being so angry?

[rottenlittlefink]

Socializing with neurotypicals is like trying to cut the right color chord but you’re colorblind. And you’re also a fucking horse. And no matter which wire you cut, the bomb will still explode.

Edit cus I published this post too early: Possibly triggering rant in tags oops lol it’s my personal blog ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[taliabhattwrites]

I’m sorry if you’ve answered this, or if it should be obvious, but you does your substack say trans/rad/fem? What is trans radical feminism? How does it differ from just radical feminism?

Yep! It says Trans/Rad/Fem, as does the title of my book.

The short version is that your average online hate speech aficionado who calls themselves a TE"RF" is no more well-versed in actual radical feminist literature than the billionaire writer. The most feminist literature they've read is likely wizard kidlit, and maybe the most hateful bits of 'Transsexual Empire' or a bit of Sheila Jeffreys if you're lucky.

Meanwhile, the radical feminist tradition was one that itself emerged as a materialist, inclusive, and more working-class counterpoint to the First Wave's doddering Friedanism. People don't recall much of the first wave, but it engendered such ironclad feminist arguments as "lesbians are not oppressed by patriarchy because they do not marry and are not confined to the domestic sphere", or "mothers and fathers are equally responsible for women doing to the bulk of childcare, because mothers are so reluctant to let go."

Truly, it's a miracle there were any subsequent waves at all.

Adrienne Rich's essay on Compulsory Heterosexuality can be viewed as something of a turning point, a collation of a more materialist framework (since I don't believe Rich necessarily originated all the points she raised). She, rather gently and with more patience than I have ever demonstrated, addressed the arguments of the heterosexual feminists and highlighted the coercive nature of patriarchy and of heterosexuality itself, which could be considered a social regime, a model that attempts to subsume all women into domestic servitude and sexual labor for men.

(A quick aside--if you've ever encountered any arguments on this site along the lines of "CompHet is only for lesbians", do note that the original text involves Rich, a lesbian, laying out the argument to hetfeminists that all women, even straight women, are subjected to a mandatory heterosexual existence, and are punished for trying to live outside of it, as by pursuing economic independence or choosing to be childless.)

For me personally, given the rather dismal state of Indian feminism, which is dominated by affluent liberals and ignores the more radical prolefem and dalit feminist elements attempting to come to the fore, it was refreshing to finally behold a piece of feminist literature that identifies and names forced marriage as an aspect of patriarchy, one that a significant chunk of women all over the world, both within Western territories and without, live with. So much mainstream feminism in the 2000s and beyond was located in the interpersonal, the foregrounding of choices women "should" make, ignoring that for the vast majority of us, patriarchy either denies us any choice at all, or presents us with false ones, harshly punishing us for some choices while presenting them as "free".

(Liberal ideologies and systems, bound up as they are in a veneration of contracts between equal parties, account very poorly for contracts between parties on unequal footing, where one is at a significant material disadvantage and cannot truly make a "free" choice.)

Besides, it is neither true that modern feminism entirely discarded the second wave--look at "gender is a social construct" and "heteronormativity" for now-banal feminist concepts steeped in radfem origins--nor is it true that the "third wave", such as it was, was entirely aa step forward in inclusivity, trans-acceptance, class consciousness, or even racial justice. One need only look at the state of modern feminist discourses to see how well the latest "waves" have managed to argue the case for trans liberation, and my current most well-known essay is a deep dive into the Orientalist, transmisogynistic origins of "third genders", an idea the queer academy has uncritically absorbed and even championed.

I am under no misapprehensions that second-wave feminists would be my pals. A lot of them were white, for one thing. It is, however, a tradition that is both more diverse than the prevailing image of white, middle-class lesbian academics would have you believe, and one that has more than a few useful things to say, especially to a transfeminist.

I don't think we are best served by erecting a cordon sanitaire around the second wave and refusing to engage with it critically. I've read Transsexual Empire, for fuck's sake, and doing so revealed to me just how paper-thin this reactionary movement has always been. That book is as farcical and easily disproved as Hilary Cass' recent bilious screed, but both were elevated to legislative and political relevancy not due to their veracity, but because institutions simply need any literature to provide a veneer of legitimacy to their transphobia. That the texts exist at all is enough.

I have, in short, made my life's work engaging with scholarship that has historically ignored us, vilified us, or instrumentalized us, and that is as true for second-wave feminists as it is for cultural anthropologists. I just believe that Monique Wittig and Adrienne Rich made valuable contributions to feminist thought, and even as we remember all that their missteps, we should not erase what they did right.

On a personal note, I can think of no better revenge than taking the abandoned threads of the radical feminist tradition and finally fulfilling its aborted potential, as a transfeminist. The trans question tore the movement apart because of a subset of zealots who couldn't and wouldn't see us as sisters in the feminist struggle.

I am going to finish what they started, and make the conclusions that they couldn't. We're good at cleaning up other people's messes, after all.

[theflashjaygarrick]

People have spent so much time fleshing out random background male characters and so for feminism I am going to give one of DC's under appreciated female characters this treatment . I am absolutely fascinated by Joan Garrick as a character. DC is not. But who am I to let that stop me.

So what are some things we know about Joan Garrick (née Williams). One is that she met Jay Garrick when they were both students at college. More potential context was given by Millar and Morrison in the iconic Jay focused Flash (vol 2) #134. Here we learn that at the present time she is teaching microbiology and based on the fact that in my experience a specific microbiology subject is more common in university and she's heading in for specific classes not the school day I can infer she is a lecturer/professor. These few facts paint a picture of an awesome and boundary breaking woman in her own right.

We can assume she was in college in the 1930s. This makes sense. After all the 30s was the first generation where (almost entirely white and middle class) women attended colleges in greater numbers and with more social acceptance then before. They became symbols of newfound female independence and education. But at the same time they faced a lot of obstacles , particularly in co-ed institutions like Midwestern University. She still had to navigate her way through a very male dominated institution that did not take her seriously if they wanted her to be there at all. Along with the change in female education came cultural backlash both within and outside the academy. Misogynistic (and racist) detractors viewed female higher education as frivolous, unsuitable for women's 'fragile physiology' and even saw it as the 'suicide' of the middle-class white American family. Yeah these people were the fucking worst. Anyway, being a female student at a university in that era meant dealing with and overcoming all kinds of bullshit from exclusion to outright harassment (even more than it does now).

And then there is the fact that she apparently studied biology (or microbiology more specially) in a time where most women pursued degrees in teaching or nursing (if they planned to use it vocationally) or liberal arts (if they did not). Women were actively discouraged from taking science courses and Joan would have been trying to enter an even more hostile boys club whilst fighting against even greater social pressure. But despite it all she seemingly did succeed and presumably help break barriers for women in science which is awesome.

And we can see this refusal to back down in her personality. Joan's kindness is matched by her tenacity and her 'do first, ask for permission later' personality, which whether forged through her experiences in academic or before-hand helped her persevere overcome the many obstacles she would have faced. She's an absolute badass.

Now this is not strictly relevant but she also knew Jay was the flash the whole time which is really sweet. I personally like to think she figured it out because he kept asking her really specific questions about human metabolism and the like (biology seemingly is Jay's scientific blindspot) and she put two and two together. Also he just innately trusts her with his secret which is cute considering how much secret identity drama silver age couples went through.

[rholsof-film]

Krittika the Wild Woman

Aries: 26°40' to 30°00' - Taurus: 0°00' to 10°00'

Krittika refuses to be tamed but enjoys the game of the hunt.

When I first delved into Krittika Nakshatra, much of the information I found seemed overly negative. While it’s important to approach new insights with discernment, it’s equally crucial to peel back the layers and explore deeper truths. Many sources label Krittika natives as "homewreckers" or "husband stealers," citing their association with the knife, a symbol of separation. Scandals and infidelity are often linked to this nakshatra. However, scandals and mistakes are universal—no one is immune to human flaws. So, let’s set the record straight: Krittika's reputation doesn’t define its full potential or how it manifests.

Krittika’s mythology ties back to Kartikeya, the warrior god, who was raised by six Krittikas. This association gives rise to their perceived "affair-like" energy, but it also highlights their untamable and magnetic qualities. Women of Krittika Nakshatra are often highly sought after, critical thinkers, and fiercely independent. Blessed by the Sun, they radiate beauty, vitality, and magnetism, often maintaining a youthful appearance well into maturity. These women don’t rush into relationships; they are selective, choosing partners they hold in high regard, often marrying later in life or not at all. Their independence makes them unwilling to submit to anyone who doesn’t align with their high standards.

The fiery nature of Krittika, symbolized by the element of fire, underscores their untamable spirit. Fire cannot be controlled—it transforms, destroys, and purifies with purpose. Krittika natives act with intention, refusing to compromise their inner drive. Their focus and self-assuredness inspire those around them, especially women, whom they often nurture and uplift. When they speak, their words command attention, reflecting their natural leadership and authority.

Krittika’s dark feminine energy is rooted in its destructive and transformative qualities. As the first solar nakshatra, it carries a fascination with shadow work and the psyche, embodying the alchemical process of transformation—moving from darkness to light. This process involves spiritual death and rebirth, aligning with themes of liberation and being unapologetically themselves. Their journey mirrors the Lilithian archetype, using destruction as a means of creating space for new beginnings. This aura of untamed liberation often intimidates others, while simultaneously drawing them in.

Known as seductresses and huntresses, Krittika natives love the pursuit and the "game of the hunt," but remain untamable themselves. Dominant in relationships, they can struggle to find partners who match their energy or submit to their commanding presence. Saturn-dominated personalities often complement their solar dominance, creating a dynamic where the Sun woman leads. Their regal and radiant quality, a gift of the Sun, makes them naturally alluring.

Ultimately, Krittika natives are embodiments of transformative power. They pursue goals with precision, inspire others through their unapologetic authenticity, and embrace their untamable, radiant essence.

*So just because people note that Krittika is known for taking other’s partners, they are also known to be cheated on themselves. Let’s look at the entire scale. An being cheated on is not something anyone can control. However, just because you see a negative note of your nakshatra does not mean it will manifest that way for you. Krittika is a powerful nakshatra and everything should be taken with a grain of salt.*

*Also this is NOT the only nak with this reputation, Pushya is right next door with this rep!*

(All woman used have Krittika placements)

[spiderfreedom]

It's interesting how the same misogynistic trope can reappear, independently, in different countries. I'm reading "Scream from the shadows: the women's liberation movement in Japan" and this section about the connotations of the word 'woman' is interesting:

In the Japanese context, the semantic distinctions between the terms fujin, josei, and onna, which are all translated as “women” and/or “woman,” must be given careful attention, as they often signal political differences. Ribu [women's lib] activists deliberately chose and reappropriated onna, a term for woman that can be used in a pejorative manner with sexual or lower-class connotations. As noted by Kano Masanao, the term onna approximated a discriminatory word (sabetsu go). It signified the raw and total being that had to be liberated. According to linguistics scholar Orie Endo, its strong sexual implications made it a term that could “be substituted for many sexually related terms, such as mistress or prostitute,” and this was considered disrespectful, taboo, even “dirty.”

As a kid, I never liked the word 'woman' because it often sounded sexual to me, and I hated the way it was used. "My vices are alcohol, cigarettes, and women" - treating 'women' as equivalent as objects. "Love going to Colombia and seeing all the beautiful women" - treating 'women' as sightseeing objects. "You've known her since she was a girl, now watch her become a woman" - being a 'woman' is to be a passive sex object that is (often against her will) penetrated.

I used to think this was my personal issue with the word, but I've since learned other women also felt the same way about the word. And apparently in Japan, the word we foreigners are taught is the default word for woman (we learn woman = onna and man = otoko) is also subject to being sexualized, objectified, and degraded. What the Japanese 'ribu' activists did was to reclaim the word onna to mean a woman who was a subject, who was free to pursue sexual pleasure for herself and not for men. In other words, the degradation of the word for 'woman' isn't just something that happens in English, but in other languages and cultures. In this case, it does not appear to be a result of Western colonization, either.

If you haven't read much feminist work outside your home country (or about the West), I strongly recommend doing so. The more you learn about feminists in other countries, the more you realize that the form sexism takes is eerily universal.

[succulentsiren]

The Lilith Archetype

Learn to Embody the Lilith Archetype

The Lilith Archetype represents a liberated woman who isn't afraid to cut ties with toxicity, speak her mind or make bold decisions.

She is the Dark Goddess of defiance and strength, refusing to bow down or neglect her needs to please anyone else’s.

In romance, she is a delicious thrill. There are many who pursue her to conquer her, but she can’t be tamed, and that forbidden quality is her most seductive one.

Even if people with this archetype don't seek attention, they always seem to attract it. Their aura and personality are just too magnetic to ignore.

Examples in Media: Rihanna, Megan Fox and Doja Cat.

The Lilith Archetype is represented by the tarot cards, the Queen of Wands and the Devil.

If this is your archetype, you are empowered from within' and refuse to follow any other commands but your own.

Many call it the 'left hand path' which is a path of freedom and self-knowledge. Like Lilith, you prefer to be separated from dogma and patriarchy. You would rather raise hell than comply with unsatisfying rules that oppose your values. You refuse to dumb yourself down or shrink yourself for anyone and your rebellious nature is inspiring, especially to other women. Like the Queen B, you are a natural leader and can easily gain a cult like following because of how much people respect your strong will. You will always stand up against injustice and aim to win.

Take the Quiz Here

The Dark Feminine Archetypes

[drdemonprince]

A thread of unmarried women who say they were never "picked" by men for marriage or children just popped up on my Substack feed. I think everyone can probably intuit my view on that entire framing of things -- if you fully internalize the patriarchal message that you must be selected for what you want out of life rather than being capable of pursuing it, you've been pretty thoroughly fucked out of ever getting it -- but this response in particular stood out to me. "I won't put up with a man's ambivalence [about marrying and having kids with me] nor his existing kids."

I don't mean to bag on straight women for how they make sense of a dating market in which most men are moving politically rightward and women are expected to both be fully economically and socially independent and yet also capable of fulfilling all patriarchal ideals. it's just, man, the hyper-individualism and adversarial approach to romance that as been sold to them as their liberation has just really put them in a completely unwinnable spot.

[anamericangirl]

On the topic of people talking about there being no benefits to premarital sex: I have to agree.

Literally the only reason I've ever wanted to lose my virginity is "to see what it feels like" and "to have experienced it"

That's not fair at all to women. My desire to have sex is literally just for personal experience? That's fucked up! There's no romantic interest, there's no desire to procreate, there's just "I wanna see what it feels like" on the same level as "I haven't tried that pizza topping before, I wanna try it"

So that's why I stopped pursuing it. I'll have sex when I have a girlfriend I love and have a connection to. Until then, I don't care.

I told all this to a liberal friend of mine who I'll call Botty for anonymity sake, and her reply was, "You're trying really hard to sound like you're philosophical but you're really just making excuses for why you're a virgin at 35" and she laughed.

To which I replied "Botty you have AIDS."

She yelled at me to leave and her boyfriend was just cracking up

I just left. Haven't been back to their house in a few months.

That's so crazy. People act like being a virgin at 35 is pathetic because we've had this notion ingrained into our culture that if you're an adult you should be regularly having sex, which is absolutely insane. Really, being a virgin should be completely normal and expected because in an ideal world the only people who wouldn't be virgins are people who are married.

Because, like you mention, the only "benefit" to sex outside of marriage is it satisfies a momentary desire and gives you an experience you just want to "try."

Sex is an incredibly intimate thing that creates physical and emotional bonds and the expectation that people should be having it regularly and treating it casually and implying that adult virgins are losers is wild. Just shows that people do not value sex or treat it with the respect it deserves.

Charlie Chaplin summed it up beautifully with "your naked body should only belong to those who fall in love with your naked soul" and that is definitely not an idea encouraged by the world we live in.

But good for you for sticking to your guns. That's an incredibly ironic attempt at a burn from someone who is a living example of one the problems with not waiting until marriage.

[mariacallous]

When we walked into school on the morning of 6 November, we exchanged quick glances with the other girls in our social circle – looks filled with uncertainty and dread about the future. Because we are applying to colleges all around the country and about to leave our homes in the Hudson Valley, political issues suddenly have begun to feel a lot more personal.

Access to abortion and contraception, protection of the environment, and the growing hate and violence toward marginalized groups all have the potential to greatly impact our lives. We had only brief conversations about why Trump’s victory felt so defeating, but our shared disappointment stuck with us as we walked to our first period classes.

But as we sat down at our desks, we noticed a very different attitude among our male peers. Subtle high-fives were exchanged and remarks about the impending success of the next four years were whispered around. It didn’t make much sense. We live in a mostly liberal town in the Hudson Valley where Harris-Walz signs were posted outside of most of our friends’ houses. This is not to say that families with dissenting opinions don’t live in our town. But the boys that were the most vocal in their enthusiasm about the election results have progressive parents just like ours.

As these startling observations made us look back on the last couple of years, we started to realize that maybe this wasn’t as unexpected as we thought. An increased interest in pursuing the ideal masculine appearance by going to the gym and the creation of new male-dominated social activities like the infamous exclusive poker nights had seemed innocent and had been easy to write off as typical boyhood behavior.

But now all that seemed as if it was just the beginning of a new wave of male conservatism that was infiltrating our school. Obsession with achieving a more muscular body through excessive exercise and intense dieting fueled by ridiculous social media campaigns fell far outside the realm of healthy self-care. And the desire to socialize only with other boys stood in stark contrast to the co-ed activities we were accustomed to since childhood.

It hadn’t taken long for this focus on machismo to creep into these boys’ mindsets and conversations. Seemingly harmless disrespectful comments with witty undertones toward girls became commonplace, and feelings of traditional male dominance started to sneak back into our friend groups. Upon reflection, we both recall speaking about stereotypically masculine interests or topics and then hearing snickering exchanges between the boys in the room followed by targeted belittling retorts disguised as trivial jokes. It genuinely felt as though they viewed us as unintelligent or even inferior. During science lab our male lab partners read the directions aloud to us, and we had to remind them that we could actually read.

What we saw now was that all this was the result of an obsession – perhaps somewhat subconscious – with preserving an idea of traditional masculinity that both Biden and Harris threatened, in different ways. As an older, frail individual, Biden was an easy target for Trump’s aggression. While Trump’s comments seemed like an attack on Biden’s age and mental competence, they also incorporated indirect attacks on his masculinity that influenced this impressionable demographic of young men. And when contrasted with Trump’s pumping fist after the assassination attempt in July, Biden was appearing weaker and weaker while Trump was solidifying his representation of traditional male heroism.

Similarly, when Kamala Harris replaced Biden as Trump’s opponent, his goal of making his adversary seem “weak” was much more straightforward, exacerbated further by Harris’s prioritization of women’s rights in her campaign. Still, because our town is considered such a progressive bubble, we never thought the tone of the election was connected to the changes we were observing in our male peers. But Trump’s calculated direct focus on young boys was strong enough to win them over.

While these are just observations within our own high school, we believe that this is happening across the country. Young, well-off white boys from liberal families are being tempted by conservatism simply to protect an archaic idea of masculinity that guarantees them inherent power. It is not as if they are against abortion, or care much about the economy or immigration, or even feel remotely attracted to the rest of conservative dogma. But clearly, a shift back toward traditional gender roles is resonating with them now as progression toward female empowerment threatens their already delicate self esteem.

So how do we address this, going forward? How do we ensure that young boys practice critical thinking instead of falling victim to Trump’s rhetoric with its focus on recommitting to gender stereotypes that we believed had finally been eradicated?

Parents, we urge you to be aware of this growing phenomenon and teach your children about the dangers of calculated political movements designed to further one politician’s agenda. Until we do so, it is likely this pattern will continue. Boys in our school as young as eight are beginning to exhibit these same misogynistic tendencies that we never remember noticing when we were their age. And the most dangerous aspect of this is how little it’s talked about in mainstream media and how easily it has been overlooked in progressive communities. In fact this is an epidemic that will continue to spread rapidly until we start talking about it.

So look closely because these boys will be among the voters responsible for deciding our future elections.

[africanization101]

Ok time for an embarrassing admission, a few years ago I used to be right wing and I’d impotently lash out at mass immigration and at the increasing amount of IR couples I saw online and out in public. I forget how exactly I came across your blog but I think it was through one of your captions (the captions are fantastic btw please do more if you get inspired). The seed had been planted and once I started reading your blog something just clicked, slowly at first then all at once.

Fast forward a little and I’ve seen too much Black beauty to turn my back on it now, I’m in awe at it everyday and pissed my narrow mindedness stopped me from exploring this earlier. Why would I care about who white women are having these new and exciting relationships with when I could be experiencing this feeling too! It has become clear to me I overwhelmingly prefer Black women. I can’t stop thinking about them and I just wanna have a big and beautiful family and live a wholesome life spoiling her constantly when the one of my dreams comes around (here’s hoping).

Now not only do I not feel worry for the future I am excited for it! I’m genuinely so much happier, less stressed and a nicer person to be around in general :)

Sorry for the long post but I just felt like saying this and wanted to thank you! However small or large it may be I think your blog is having a positive impact.

Thank you for that introspective message. I started this blog many years ago for the very same reason that apparently got you all upset, but from a different point of view: "the increasing amount of IR couples I saw online and out in public". Anyone who has consciously lived in western Europe or northern America during that time must've noticed it. I found it charming and inspiring. But it didn't escape my notice that there was much resentment and fear involved in other folks' reactions, and the interracial erotica blogs you would see online heavily featured that sentiment: themes of conquest, subjugation. As if it was an act of masochism to love Black.

The reality, as I saw it, was much more exciting: suddenly people were seemingly liberated to pursue their true attraction, their true love. What would've been impossible or at least enormously difficult due to entrenched racism not that long ago, was now open and possible. Maybe the speed of the change was shocking to some people? Alright. But that's no reason to be depressed or angry. How could you be depressed or angry about a new and marvelous kind of beauty?

Anyway, I'm happy to hear that you are now past your young male anger phase and can appreciate things for what they are. Just remember to treat the Black ladies that inspire you with dignity, respect and the appropriate amount of flattery when it's called for. Be a good match. And remember: mixtinction is not the sad fate that your less fortunate peers perceive it as. It's the future, and it's beautiful.

[transmutationisms]

serious question but do you personally believe there is a way to approach psychiatry in a way that uplifts and upholds patient autonomy and wellness or is the entire trade essentially fucked haha. Btw this is an ask coming from a 3rd year med student—with a background of severe mental illness—who is considering a residency in psychiatry after receiving life-saving care in high school pertaining to said conditions. (I have peers who have been involuntarily hospitalized and treated horribly in psych wards, with approaches i patently disagree with, but was lucky not to experience. I don’t like modern american medicine’s approach to mental illness; “throw pills” at it to “make it go away” ie. a problem of overprescribing, inadequate and non-holistic approach to mental health, and i feel a lot of that can be attributed to the capitalistic framework. I also def agree with you that so much of what can be considered normal human responses to traumatic events/normal human suffering can be unnecessarily pathologized—a great example being the whole “chemical imbalances in the brain is the ONLY reason why im like this” argument that ive unfortunately fallen hard for when i was younger and am still currently dismantling within myself…and like dont even get me started on this field’s history of demonizing POC, women, LGBT, etc). Like i deeply love my psych rotations so far, and i utterly feel in my gut that this is the manner in which i would like to help people—a lot of whom are just like me—but im wondering if there is a way to reconcile these aspects in a way that one can feel morally okay participating within such an imperfect system, in ur opinion… ngghhhhhh i just want to be a good doctor to my patients…

(ps i love all ur writing and analysis on succession!! big fan mwah <333)

i don't mean to sound unduly pissy at you, specifically, but i do have to say: every single time i've talked about antipsych or broader criticism of medicine on this website, i immediately get a wave of responses like this, from doctors/nurses/psychs/students of the above, asking me to, like, reassure them that they're not doing something immoral or un-communist or whatever by having or pursuing these jobs. and it's honestly frustrating. why is it that these conversations get re-framed around this particular line of inquiry and medical ego-soothing? why is it that when i say "the medical encounter is not structured to protect patient autonomy or well-being," so many people hear something more along the lines of "doctors are mean and i wish they were nicer"? why is it that it's impossible to discuss the philosophical and structural violence of academic and clinical medicine without it becoming a referendum on the individual morality of doctors?

i'm choosing to read you in good faith because i think it's possible to re-re-frame this line of questioning to demonstrate to you the sorts of critiques and inquiries i find more interesting and more conducive to patient autonomy and liberation. so, let me pick apart a few lines of this ask.

"is the entire trade essentially fucked?"

if you're thinking of trying to 'reform' the project of medical psychology within existing infrastructures and institutions, then yeah, it's fucked. if you're still assuming that affective distress can only be 'treated' within this medical apparatus (despite, again, no psychiatric dx satisfying any pathologist's understanding of a 'disease' ie an aberration from 'normal' physiological functioning) then you're not challenging the things that actually make psychiatry violent. you're simply fantasising about making the violence nicer.

"I don’t like modern american medicine’s approach to mental illness; “throw pills” at it to “make it go away” ie. a problem of overprescribing, inadequate and non-holistic approach to mental health, and i feel a lot of that can be attributed to the capitalistic framework."

i hate when i talk about psychotropic drugs being marketed to patients using lies like the chemical imbalance myth, and then pushed on patients—including through outright force—by psychiatrists, and the discussion gets re-framed as one about 'overprescribing'. my problem is not with people taking drugs. i am, in fact, so pro-drugs that i think even the ones administered in a clinical setting sometimes have value. my issue is with, again, the provision of misleading or outright false information, the use of force and coercion to put patients on such drugs in order to force social conformity and employability, and the general model of medicine and medical psychology that assumes patients ought to be passive recipients of medical enlightenment rather than active participants in their own treatment who are given the agency to decide when and how to engage with any form of curative or meliorative intervention.

'holistic' medicine and psychiatry do not solve this problem! they are not a paradigm shift because they continue to locate expertise and epistemological authority with the credentialed physician, and to position patients as too sick, stupid, or helpless to do anything but receive and comply with the medical interventions. there are certainly psychotropic drugs that are demonstrably more harmful than others (antipsychotics, for example), and some that are demonstrably prescribed to patients who do not benefit from them and are even harmed by them. conversely, there are certainly forms of intervention besides pharmaceuticals that people may find helpful. but my general critique here is aimed less at haggling over specific methods of intervention, and more at the ideological and philosophical tenets of medicine that cause any interventions to be imposed by force or coercion on patients, then framed as being 'for their own good'. were suffering people given the information and autonomy to actually choose whether and how to engage in any kind of intervention, some might still choose drugs! my position here is not one of moralising drugs, but making the act of taking them one that is freely chosen and available as an option without relying on physician determination of a patient's interests over their own assessment of their needs and wants.

"so much of what can be considered normal human responses to traumatic events/normal human suffering can be unnecessarily pathologized"

true, but don't misunderstand me as saying that drugs or any other form of intervention should be forcibly withheld from those who do want them and are made fully aware of what risks and harms seeking them could entail. again, this would still be an authoritarian model; my critique is aimed at increasing patient autonomy, not at creating equally authoritarian and empowered doctors who just have slightly different treatment philosophies.

"dont even get me started on this field’s history of demonizing POC, women, LGBT, etc"

ok, framing this as "demonisation" tells me that you're not understanding that, again, this is a systemic and structural critique. it is certainly true that a great many doctors currently are, and have historically have been, outright racist, trans/misogynist, ableist, and so on. framing this as a problem of a well-intentioned discipline being corrupted by some assholes is getting it backwards. medicine attracts prejudiced people, not to mention strengthens and promotes these prejudices in its entire training and practice infrastructures, because of its underlying philosophical orientation toward enforcing 'normality' as defined by 18th-century statistics and 19th-century human sciences that explicitly place white, cis, able-bodied european men as the normal ideal that everyone else is inferior to or failing to live up to. doctors who really nicely tell you that you're too fat are still using bmi charts that come from the statistical anthropometry of adolphe quételet and the flawed actuarial calculations of metlife insurance. doctors who really nicely deny you access to transition surgery are still operating under a paradigm that gives the practitioner authority over expressions and embodiments of gender. the issue isn't 'demonisation', it's that medicine and psychiatry explicitly attempt to render judgments about who and what is 'normal' and therefore socially 'healthy', and enforce those standards on patients. this is not a promotion of patient well-being, but of social conformity.

"i deeply love my psych rotations so far, and i utterly feel in my gut that this is the manner in which i would like to help people"

let me ask you a few questions. you say that you like your psych rotations... but how do your patients feel about them? is their autonomy protected? are they in treatment by free choice, and free to leave any time they wish? are they treated as human beings with full self-determination? if you witnessed a situation in which a patient was coerced or forced into a certain treatment, or in which you were not sure whether they were consenting with full knowledge or freedom, would you feel empowered to intervene? or would doing so threaten your career by exposing you to anger and retaliation from your higher-ups? what higher-ups will you be exposed to as a resident, and then as a practicing physician? could you practice in a way that committed fully, 100%, to patient autonomy if you were working at someone else's practice, or in a hospital or clinic? could you, according to current medical guidelines, even if you had your own practice?

when you say "this is the manner in which i would like to help people", what do you mean by "this"? can you define your philosophy of treatment, and the relationship and power dynamic you want to have with any future patients? is it one in which you hold authority over them and see yourself as determining what's in their 'best interests', even over their own expressed wishes? have you connected with patient advocates, psych survivors (other than your friends), and radical psychiatrists and anti-psychiatrists who may espouse heterodox treatment philosophies that you could consider? do you think such philosophies are sufficient for protecting patient autonomy and well-being, or are they still models that position the physician's judgment and authority over that of the patient?

"im wondering if there is a way to reconcile these aspects in a way that one can feel morally okay participating within such an imperfect system"

and here is the crux of the problem with this entire ask. you are wondering how to sleep at night, if you are participating in a career you find morally distasteful. where, though, do your patients enter into that equation? do you worry about how they sleep at night, after having interacted with a system of social violence that may very well have traumatised them under the guise of providing help? why does your own guilty conscience worry you more than violations of your patients' bodies, minds, and basic self-determination?

i can't tell you whether your career path is morally acceptable to you. i don't think this type of guilt or self-flagellation is fruitful and i don't think it helps protect patients. i don't, frankly, have a handy roadmap sitting around for creating a new system of medicine and health care that rests on patient autonomy. affective distress is real, and is not something we should have to bear alone or with the risk of having violence inflicted upon us. what you need to ask yourself is: how does the medical model and establishment serve people experiencing such distress? how does it perpetuate violence against them? and how do you see yourself countering, or perpetuating, such violence as someone operating within this discipline? what would it mean to be a 'good' actor within a violent system, if you do indeed believe that such a thing is ontologically possible?

[paperlunamoth]

Is anyone else just entirely enraged by how blatantly sexist 99% of anime is? Like, some of the best stories I've ever come across, the most beautiful visuals I've ever seen in storytelling, the most brilliant examples of raw creativity I've ever encountered, have come from anime. There are some anime that will forever be near and dear to my heart, because they are just so well made and impactful as stories and works of art.

But darn near every anime is RIDDLED with a dozen different sexist tropes and constant examples of blatant sexism. The women are generally significantly less competent and significantly more annoying than the men. Every female character who isn't an old woman is sexualized, even minors are sexualized, just in a "cutesy" way. You got 14yo girls with tits large enough to cause serious medical problems. There's regular fanservice (which unsurprisingly rarely services hetero women), panty shots, butt shots, girls practically thrusting their boobs into people's face. Sexual assault is regularly played for laughs and treated as perfectly acceptable behavior as long as the victim gets to smack her assailant and look annoyed afterwards, which has the added bonus of diminishing the impact of sexual violence by equating its severity with that of physical violence. Access to women's bodies is used to motivate male characters, and it's treated as though it is perfectly healthy for a man to pursue such access in the absence of genuine interest on the woman's part, or for a woman to be comfortable objectifying herself and using access to her body as currency. Sometimes women are portrayed as using access to their bodies to "coerce" men, as though women's bodies are something that men need, and women wanting something from men first in order to access them is a form of bullying or humiliation akin to making a starving person dance for their supper. I could go on. There are probably a lot of other things I missed because this is just an off the cuff rant and not meant to be comprehensive.

Point is, I hate this shit. I hate how just being aware of and caring about the issue of misogyny renders it damn near impossible to enjoy otherwise enjoyable things, and I hate that otherwise enjoyable things are sexist in the first place. And you never hear anybody talk about this, either, which is just the rage-cherry on top. Whenever an anime is being critiqued or reviewed or just generally discussed, all but the most egregiously sexist series being talked about by the most militantly liberal people will be spared even a passing, casual mention of how sexist they are. A character who seems vaguely racist or homophobic? Of course people will mention that (as they should). But constant sexism baked into the very bones of the series? Not worth bringing up, apparently.

[ardously]

For people who haven't read Gaiman's books...yeah. Neverwhere has an obvious author self insert (something something boring whinging white male who women inexplicably find incredibly attractive) who finds a magical injured teenage girl (she's fourteen) and it's such uncomfortably realistic grooming that I didn't even notice it until I read it again as an adult. Just. Oh yeah they're in a relationship by the end lol.

Sidebar he writes a female warrior in this same book and is constantly describing her "delicious caramel skin" or whatever and describes her breasts in her DEATH SCENE. His writing is so utterly masturbatory that I feel secondhand embarrassment that anyone would want this sort of thing published.

In American Gods, he has an entire digression from the plot to detail how the main character's cheating whore wife died in a car accident bc she was giving her affair partner a blow job. The MC is all coolly detached and only slightly sad about the death the narrative implies she deserved. This is shown as some kind of "grace" on his part btw.

That's not the worst part! The worst part is definitely the sexually aggressive teenaged native american girl (oh, sorry, "20sish", since calling her "barely legal" would be too obvious) who keeps throwing herself all over the adult male protag (he's 32) for no reason. Ofc the epilogue implies the protag is stalking her and giving her flowers to pursue a relationship...how sweet. I could mention how basically every other female character is just fodder for sexual violence and shock value, but honestly, it's the background radiation of all of his work. A deep-seated, cynical amusement that women pretend to be anything more than sex toys and whores, which ofc the author espouses again and again is a woman's true nature. He is a liberal misogynist through and through.

This, of course, doesn't even touch upon the homophobia, but I've seen that discussed far more often than the truly vile misogyny openly on display whenever Gaiman picks up a pen.

[qqueenofhades]

I feel like, if Democrats want to win in places that AREN'T deep blue, if they want swing states and rural areas, they NEED to shut up about social issues. Don't talk about abortion or birth control or women's rights. Don't talk about police brutality and racism and immigration, legal or not. Don't talk about transphobia or homophobia. They should talk SOLELY about economic policy and solid legislation and sneak in protections for marginalized groups once elected.

Imma be real with you chief, since you came to my inbox and you presumably want my opinion: that is an absolutely terrible idea. Here's why:

First and most importantly, this is confusing "Democrats/progressives need to learn how to explain their policies in terms that are acceptable to the American mushy middle" with "they shouldn't talk about those policies at all." It's not that we can't pursue left-wing economic or social policies, it's that we should stop f'n calling them "socialist," which does nothing and causes a lot of harm among the people who instantly tune out or turn hostile the instant they hear that word and are unreachable afterward. If we CAN put them in terms that the American public likes, i.e. freedom, justice, opportunity, we should do that.

So... black people don't exist in America? LGBTQ people don't exist in America? Immigrants/racial minorities don't exist in America? Women (HALF THE ENTIRE POPULATION) don't exist in America? Especially when those are all core constituencies of the Democratic Party and vote for it precisely because it has openly expressed support for their issues and protection for their basic personal rights and civil liberties, especially as the right wing gets ever more reactionary, fascist, and crazy? You really think we should just throw up our hands and totally cede the public debate on these issues to the fascists, and act like any pushback or critique is the aberrant position??? Really???

Likewise, we're not gonna go for the "absolutely everyone in a red state/area is an unrepentant bigot who can only be mobilized if we discreetly tuck away our social liberalism." We're gonna talk about gerrymandering. We're going to talk about voter repression laws. We're gonna talk about how Ken Paxton, the Texas AG so wildly, insanely corrupt that he finally managed to get impeached by fellow Texas Republicans, boasted that if he didn't stop Texas counties from mailing out ballots to all registered voters, Biden would have won Texas. We're not going to act like there are Sensible Americans in Deep Blue Areas and everyone else is f'n David Duke of the KKK who needs to be appeased in hopes we can meekly trick them into supporting us. We're just not.

We're not gonna act like abortion or LGBTQ rights are shameful, unpopular, or minoritized views that have to be hidden or treated as secondary, especially when we're pummeling the Republicans, even and especially in deep red areas, precisely because of those things. Ordinary people in Tennessee, Florida, Texas, and all the other usual suspects are coming out to protest against drag bans and bathroom laws, not "superior" blue-area liberals. Republicans are backtracking on the abortion issue as fast as they can because it is so incredibly politically toxic and is costing them local/state/other competitive elections like crazy. 60% of the country supports abortion rights and 70%+ supports LGBTQ rights. The fascists are a minority and that is why they are so loud and so terrible: because they're shit-scared and they see the demographics coming to end them. We are not, again, acting like they're the majority or it's too shameful to speak about anything related to anything that's not the economy, especially since:

It won't work anyway! If people were actually, genuinely motivated by appeals to improved economic circumstances, they would already vote for Democrats! But they don't, because white supremacy and white grievance is too important for them! Even if the Democrats did try to rebrand themselves as solely focused on economic issues (which, for all the reasons stated above, would be insane), the people who don't vote for them now still wouldn't vote for them then! They will still vote for the Republicans, because a) they've been fed for decades on the myth of REPUBLICANS ARE BETTER FOR THE ECONOMY and b) they know that Republicans will punish non-white people, while Democrats won't. If they did try to "sneak in" protections for marginalized groups even once, and since that's, again, what they've built their entire party on, that would be it. It's the racism. It is always the racism.

Basically, this is the exact kind of mega-reductive "the only war is the class war"/"economic oppression is the only oppression" analysis that is so popular among Online Leftists and attempts to just erase racism, sexism, homophobia, misogyny, xenophobia, and all the other complex reasons why people vote, experience oppression, want the government to represent their interests, affiliate with a political party, or prioritize their particular identity/civic participation, because it's inconvenient for something something the purity of their Marxist theory. Besides, this is not even to mention that the Democrats' existing supporters would abandon them in droves, which would gut any remote increase in the number of voters that they could even (wildly unrealistically) hope to gain for doing it. You might as well be the f'n No Labels party, which is trying this exact kind of BS in hopes of peeling off just enough of the ideologically wavering Biden voters to hand the election to Trump. So. Yeah. No.

[bitimdrake]

Thoughts on Jack Drake's death in Identity Crisis? I personally dislike it because it's a fridging (and somehow only the third worst death in that book behind "why did she have a FLAMETHROWER tho" and "that's not how Firestorm works you're confusing him with Human Bomb"), and it took away what made Tim stand out in making him an orphan like the other Robins. I'm not a Batfam expert so I haven't read a ton of the surrounding stories but it feels like there was more they could have done with Jack.

I would not personally call it fridging because I think we've gotten waaaay too liberal with that term, particularly when removed from the original context of misogyny (*unless perhaps we are applying it to other bigotry, which I do think is worthwhile), and because "side character dies to push forward a main character's story" is...not a bad thing. That's a perfectly valid story telling trope that can be used well or poorly.

THAT SAID. I do think there was more to do with Jack that could have been really interesting!

He'd just found out Tim was Robin, and imo there was sooo much that could have be mined from that. It could have been a really interesting and major shakeup in Tim's story, without entirely changing the fundamentals of his character. I'm so interested in the theoretical arc of Tim and his long time hot-and-cold distant dad trying to figure this relationship out now that Jack finally, for the first time, is both (a) interested in actively pursuing a relationship with his son (he's been on and off since shortly after Tim became Robin) and (b) actually able to get to know his son (which has been impossible from Tim's side since he became Robin and starting keeping so much of his life secret). Jack decided to be supportive, but their relationship is messy! Their history is complicated! And he still has understandably mixed feelings about his son fighting crime! How do they figure this out??

(Unrelated, I still think about this one fic where Jack comes back to life circa Brucequest and realizes his archeological skills can help. The future story it implied. The gentle question of can Tim and Jack repair their relationship. It compels me.)

I'm of two minds about Jack dying at all. On the hand, I do agree it took away a lot that made Tim unique as a Robin and lumped him more in with the others. On the other hand, there has been some nice stuff as a result of him being adopted into Bruce's family. And, e.g., I don't think stuff like his relationship with Damian would be remotely the same if Tim still had his own father.

Also like. the theoretical fandom shift from this would be fascinating. The best known batfam characters who are not Wayne family are largely women at this point, which means fandom is extra inclined to ignore them. But if one of the core bat boys was not part of the literal family, would that actually shift the whole fandom focus away from Force This Into A Nuclear Family Mold? Would we see an entire thematic shift? Or would people just be trying to contrive reasons why Tim's very much living father didn't count....