#like the man says I Actually Have A Real Issue With The Patriarchy

[small-quiet-room]

my workplace is like we will hire highly analytical, detail-oriented, quiet researchers with a certain ingrained skepticism and then feed them a constant diet of corporate nonsense and once per year turn them into Hosts Of A Giant Event for a week and absolutely nothing about this can possibly go wrong and they will never be upset with their leadership, followed by a sort of permanent surprised pikachu face

[therevengeoffrankenstein]

😒

[velvetvexations]

Can confirm I've been on here for years now and before Gamer Gate and then the rebirth of Terfism happened the widely accepted feminist talking point was that men suffer under the patriarchy and how we need to talk about that because one of the fastest ways to get cis men on our side was to show them we were already on their side!

I remeber posts with hundreds of thousands of notes talking about how men are assumed to be worse caregivers than women to the point that in custody battles even if the mother is beyond a shadow of a doubt the worst abusive mess ever and the dad is the embodiment of a perfect parent the kids will end up with the mom. It doesn't even matter if the dad says he wants the kids and the mom says she doesn't, the women still gets assumed to be the better caretaker!! This is misogyny effecting men!!

And I know MRAs are terrible but I remember a video going around talking about their recruitment points, like how more men die doing dangerous jobs and the draft or men getting no help when they've been abused by women and being assumed to be violent predators even when they haven't done anything and like yeah, they 100% came to the wrong conclusions about what causes the problems and what the solutions are bcs it's easier to act like women are the problem, but those problems as they were introduced in the early 2010s were actual problems feminism is trying to address, and if these men could see that we are fighting the same fights and join US we'd be stronger. There was a prominent internet feminist who got full on red pilled just by listening to men tell her about their real actual problems, and the time they pulled the rug out on blaming women it was too late, she was convinced, because yeah women aren't the real problem at the root of men's issues they do HAVE ISSUES. The trick is that they just need to tackle the patriarchy, not women. I also saw stuff that legit talked about how to recruit men by pointing out how badly the patriarchy "serves" them!! (GamerGate quickly ruined any and all salient points that existed in the MRA movement bcs the internet is a feedback loop and anger is easy/fun sadly but yeah I feel like it's weird to act like they were always wrong no matter what when they at least did point out real problems.)

And like RBG partially made her name in the courts defending a CIS MAN on the basis that he was being discriminated in a way a CIS WOMAN would not have been, and the ruling allowed for insane amounts of progress for women. A man not being allowed a tax credit to hire a nurse for his bedridden mother is one of the first things that challenged discrimination on the basis of sex in America. But sure men ONLY gain benefits from the patriarchy. It NEVER hurts them too!! And helping them won't benefit us!!! Making them our allies is silly they should all shut up 🙄

Hell back in the 2010s I still remember seeing trans men talk about how horrible and alienating it was for all of their female friends and family to suddenly start acting like they were a threat, and not just pointing out the inherent transphobia, the guy went on to talk about that they finally get why cis men are the way they are, they suffer from systemic emotional neglect. And yeah that obviously does not mean women owe them emotional avaliablity and sex, but maybe the patriarchy telling men to be big tuff guys who never hug or cry or like anything even a little girly HURTS THEM and is a direct cause of a LOT of the problems we're dealing with rn!!! There was a whole study about how widows tend to live a lot longer after their husbands because they have friends and family to lean on and weren't taught to suppress their emotions, meanwhile widowers tend to die VERY quickly after their wives because they no longer have someone who it's okay for them to be open and emotional around, and not having someone you can do that with KILLS PEOPLE. People were saying again, this does not mean women HAVE to take on all their problems, but maybe that we need to stop assuming men don't need emotional support and teach our sons to not be afraid of being ulnerable, honest people because systemic emotional neglect IS BAD FOR YOU ACTUALLY.

These were ACTUAL conversations that swept this damn site. This was the direction feminism was going in. We were on the cusp of a beautiful age of 4th wave feminism with the knowledge that the patriarchy seves no one well and free the nipple and no gender segregated bathrooms and sports, and now just pointing out that we need to maybe understand the ways men struggle under the patriarchy if we've ever going to have them join and help us build a better world gets my inbox flooded with both terfs and so called progressive feminists calling me a gender traitor for being willing to admit men arent the source of all the world's ills and WE NEED THEM ON OUR FUCKING SIDE. I used to proudly call myself a 4th wave feminist back when people still claimed to be of the 3rd, and now idk what I even am. A bell hooks and leslie finberg feminist I guess, since they actually seemed to get it.

Yeesh. Anyway sorry that got heated. This has just ruined my brain. I do not understand where tf we went wrong, bcs hell back in the day we also pointed out how TERFs were wrong to want men and people they perceive as men and those "tainted" by men put to death for existing so they could build their stupid white supremacist wombyn utopia. We KNEW hating men just for being men was wrong and regressive and hurt maringalized men and did NOTHONG to push feminism forward. We talked about the issues that men face and how to raise our sons to be better. But idk I guess Gamer Gate and the Incel movement took off right as TREFs figured out the whole ace and truscum discourse thing wasn't working and they just needed to doctor their arguments against men better and radical feminism took off and this entire site regressed 1000 years and thinks trans men of all people are just as bad as cis men and trans women have a monopoly on an entire axis of oppression like?????

And I'm not putting the blame squarely on anyone aside from the radfems who started this shit but it does NOT surprise me that we are seeing a massive resurgence of biphobic, transmedicalism, and aphobia since half the queer discourse I see these days is anti-transandrophpbia assholes just word for word repeating the kind of blatant aphobia and truscumery that would have gotten you suplexed off the face of the earth in the 2010s with the identities swapped. Just word for word monosexist aphobic shit. Legit is giving me flashbacks, it's insane.

I have never in my life been more disappointed in my community of queer feminists. This is masks all over again. Like is this how kids who grew up evangelical feel when they realized actually the adults didn't mean literally love all your neighbors silly just the Correct ones?? I feel like I'm in the twilight zone. What the hell happened to us.

Thank you for writing all this anon, you put enough work in it I'm gonna toss it in the tags, I think it deserves to be seen. <3

The problem with MRAs was never that they believed men had problems too, but that they used certain things - like their disadvantage in custody hearings, for instance - as a cudgel in a malicious crusade against a target they hated anyway for not fucking them. Now with as quick as people are to say things like "what, are you saying androphobia exists too?????" it feels as though we've completely forgotten the actual reason we ever hated MRAs to begin with.

It's the same with the dating article where the most basic possible interactions between two adults mutually seeking a hook-up were taken to be pick-up artistry.

[fernlessbastard]

You guys aren't ready for the conversation of how Quackity sincerely loves bottoming

I'm not at all saying he wants to always bottom, I'd say he still prefers topping most of the time, but whenever he's down to get something up his ass, he's DOWN to get something up his ass, if you know what I mean

(the switching applies to position only, tho. I sincerely can't see him genuinely enjoying subbing, and neither can I see Wilbur actually domming unless they're both being influenced by years of internalised homophobia and patriarchy and all that bullshit, but even then it's just cringe and they're just both pretending it's not cause it's easier that way (and the sex itself isn't like, actively bad, not to mention that it provides some degree of an emotional connection which they both desperately crave), plus it's still basically vanilla just with a little bit of dirty talk - that's how i see them in Pogtopia (with Q bottoming - if you want another huge post on their Pogtopia dynamic let me know cause I have so many thoughts on it and how their traumas affected them and their relationship and how complicated it all was))

That being said, man's 10000% intensely fucking traumatised

(tw personal hc and following the logical path from canon implications idfk)(also exaggeration) like, if he were ACTIVELY evil and had ZERO (even personal) moral code, then the amount of anger he feels towards Schlatt for taking away the enjoyment of it is probably enough to ignore all ethics and torture Dream so utterly unimaginably he ends up violating entirety of the Geneva convention, and then having 50 new ones written specifically to condemn his actions, just to break every single one of those as well on the way, just so that Dream gives him the revival book so that he can re-kill Schlatt with his own hands

Also he absolutely re-traumatised himself with Karl and Sapnap cause he was for sure like "I shouldn't be having an intense panic attack right now, I'm going to push all my energy into pretending that everything's ok and that I don't want to cry and scream and rip my skin off. I'm just being silly and dramatic anyway ha ha" which just resulted in them unknowingly hurting him all over again. I take no criticism. Q's got MASSIVE communication issues when it comes to validating his feelings and Karl and Sapnap are "everything's fine"-ing way too much on the daily. And whole Quackity should work on his issues, it IS a partner's job to at least try to check up on the other(s) (and vice versa), and Karl and Sapnap clearly always preferred to ignore any hints that something might be wrong as a general life rule. The relationship was immaturely focused on "fun and good vibes" from the very start, so any bad topic obviously felt out of place. It started off with lack of communication and it died cause of it too.

That's also actually why I will always firmly stand by the fact that Wilbur (during las Nevadas era) is the only person with whom he could ever heal, btw (yes, including Charlie as a hypothetical romantic interest). Cause Schlatt's abusive, Karl and Sapnap "deserve better" in his eyes (so he pretends to be fine until shit hits the fan and everything falls apart)(that also applies to his hypothetical relationship with Charlie). But with Wilbur there's enough distance to feel safe and call out his bullshit without retaliation in form of abuse, and on the other hand he doesn't care to pretend to be perfect - hell, he probably purposefully shoves his issues onto the guy cause he's like "you think you're so strong and stubborn you can handle me??? You think???? Think again." (Wilbur does the same btw). They're purposefully trying to push each other away, destroy the "relationship", show each other just how fucked up they are. They're psycho-competitive. Even being the first one to be "too much" and get abandoned turns into a competition.

But it backfires. They bond. They're real with each other. They're stubborn, they're determined enough to stay just long enough to see each other's walls crack. And once they do, the feelings are quick to spill. They're each other's only people to be GENUINELY themselves with - no masks, no manipulation, no bullshit. Just themselves. And that's the first, CRUCIAL step to developing a healthy relationship (or at least healthier than all their other relationships).

So with Wilbur he probably only tries to bottom either once he ACTUALLY begins to feel like he could maybe try to reclaim it, or even if he tries it in a self-destructive way, (considering their history+patriarchy and shit) Wilbur'd know and care enough to realise Q's just trying to hurt himself. And as shitty as Wilbur can be sometimes, he's not a bad person - he'd stop Q if things'd go too far, or give him (at least a temporary) safe space to safely go through a breakdown without hurting himself like that. He wouldn't take advantage of such a low moment, and he would know enough to recognise it's a low moment in the first place.

Anyway once they figure all that out and Quackity's genuinely comfortable with it again, it's for sure not uncommon for him to enjoy some nice aggressive pounding, all the while having one hand in Wilbur's hair, pulling it to hold him close, and the other hand on Wilbur's neck, lightly choking him as they're intensely making out

All that to say Q's a massive sadist but he's also a huge massochist and he'll absolutely have Wilbur on a nice leash and call him a pathetic, desperate, horny dog or something like that as the man's (purposefully) sloppily thrusting in and out of him, causing the most "carnage" he can (Wilbur will be double fisting Quackity and Quackity will be just looking at him unfazed like "your hands are small" (they're not)/hj)

Oh btw to clarify [TW ok more direct talk of SA so please be careful and take care of yourselves]- yes, I'm absolutely saying Q got repeatedly SA'd by Schlatt throughout their relationship. The guy was canonically generally verbally and physically abusive, AND basically the whole point of his character is that he's like, the epitome of everything wrong with society. Add to that the sexual comments which were constantly used to demean, insult, and objectify Q, as well as Quackity's intense, palpitable discomfort which noticeably grows each time the topic comes up when they meet after Schlatt's death during Las Nevdas era, it's a pretty safe bet to assume Schlatt didn't stop at "just" verbal and physical violence. Sexual violence is almost a guarantee when you consider all that context - it's hardly even "reading between the lines". And you can't tell me that in our society that views being penetrated during sex as something negative, especially for men, while viewing penetrating someone as an act of "conquering" and "winning" and all that a character who's supposed to embody as many of this world's faults as possible wouldn't shove his dick where it's not wanted, even just purely to prove he can despite lack of consent.

[heterophobicdyke]

How do you deal with all the homophobia in radical feminism? I can't stand radblr anymore because of the constant lesbian hatred, all the "classic" radfem writers were polilezzes, and even when I try to meet up with feminists irl they are all bihet homophobes. I want to help other lesbians, but every radfem space I check out is just FULL of homophobia. Is there anywhere else for real lesbians to go?

I hate it too. Like I am a radical feminist because I believe in re-ordering society to eliminate male supremacy. That’s why I care less about microanalysing small behaviours like nail polish and dildos, and care more about brainstorming how to overthrow men - I find the navel gazing self-analysis/consciousness among radical feminists a product of our socialisation. It’s not “feminine” to want to rip society down and start again, so we’re expected to internalise - microanalyse how we, personally, are contributing to patriarchy, rather than taking an active role in warring with men who are the root of the issue.

I’m also a radical homosexual rights activist because I believe in re-ordering society to eliminate heterosexual supremacy. So it’s tough being in radical feminist spaces because they aren’t as radical about ending other forms of oppression - and it conflicts sometimes! For example, we should all be anti-gender because it not only affects women but homosexuals. Gender is misogynistic but it’s also homophobic. However, many radical feminists see gender as a solely misogynistic thing, they see homosexual people with a gender identity as the enemy when they’re equally as victim to gender as women with eating disorders are to beauty standards. Heterosexual women are given the most empathy under radical feminism and it’s almost gendery in how it evolved - lesbians are seen as more predatory all because they’re attracted to women… therefore we’re “like men.” To be a perfect female victim to patriarchy you must desire men and have them betray that desire by abusing you once you’re in love. And don’t you dare suggest these women not enter relationships with men at all! Because then you’re victim-blaming as a stranger to the cause, someone who just Doesn’t Understand. While there’s an argument for lack of agency in specific dire situations, like a woman resorting to prostitution to pay off debt or a drug habit, or a woman in a severely abusive relationship to a man not being able to leave, I think radical feminism must get to a stage where we admit we will never overthrow patriarchy while OSA women choose their male partners over the feminist revolution. They’re not compatible. That’s why many turn to liberal feminism and believe they can self-empower while in these close ties to men. As if these men aren’t oppressors living in your home and influencing your daily lives.

Meanwhile, the radical feminist sex wars (ongoing) involved “political lesbians”—some not even attracted to women at all—telling Actual Lesbians that in fact THEY are part of the problem because sexual desire towards women is a Man Thing that can only ever be objectifying unless you’re having sex in “equal ways,” laying side by side and microanalysing any sexual act for “manliness.” I’m kink-critical, don’t get me wrong, I don’t think people should be emulating rape or kidnapping or racism or pedophilia in the bedroom. But they went as far as to say strap on or sexy talk or whatever was all off limits if you considered yourself a feminist. But women who are not in an abusive situation marrying whole men? Poor babies.

I think radical feminism ate itself when it became about women checking themselves for “manliness” rather than distancing from Actual Males. Lesbians will always lose that because homophobia suggests any form of sexual desire for women is a man thing. Like throughout the sex wars and beyond, women in relationships with males were seen to be permanent victims unable to possibly live a female-centred life unless they got to appropriate the term lesbian, and be Better Lesbians than Actual Lesbians. We know that not all women are inescapably and powerlessly with men, and can’t leave, especially when you consider the radfem polls showing most are middle class with a university education. Where the attention went, and goes, instead, was towards women policing their own behaviour for evidence of “maleness.” Which is gender! Butches, especially butch/femme relationships, and any lesbian with a sexual appetite, were/are critiqued more than discussing how women can distance from actual males! As if masculine/feminine relationships and penetration are heterosexual, male things, and a woman exhibiting those things are worse than women who refuse to leave men who exhibit those things (because she’s so vulnerable and victimised!). In fact, women who are deemed “manly” for such things are seen as a bigger betrayer than men themselves because they see it as coming from inside the house. They can delude themselves into thinking they’re using men for sex and romance but are still fighting some feminist fight internally, yet actual lesbians with no dependence on men whatsoever are somehow class traitors for *spins wheel* not being feminine enough in how they have or want sex? Make it make sense!

Masculinity and femininity are simply what we associate with men and women. The problem isn’t really masculinity and femininity, it’s that they’re forcefully applied and naturalised to the sexes. Harmful beauty expectations like youthfulness and thinness are a subset of femininity designed entirely to make women small and childlike. In the same way “toxic masculinity” is the sort of masculinity designed to give men more power over women through naturalising aggression among men. But there are plenty of good/neutral things associated with men, therefore “masculinity,” that women can and do possess, such as short hair, desiring to penetrate, being good with money and wanting to protect/defend their partner. And some women (and men!) exhibit what we’d consider good/neutral “femininity”: nurturing, preferring being penetrated, in touch with their emotions, animal-lovers. These two types of women, as lesbians, being in a “butch/femme” relationship is not emulating heterosexuality because there is no male involved. But “political lesbians” and other radfem homophobes believe(d) they were/are the higher form of lesbian (despite being attracted to men) because they don’t engage in feminist-neutral forms of lesbian culture and history.

This distraction from the real issue—women living lives that focus on men including their partners—goes on. I think radical feminists misuse the victim label to apply to things they don’t want to change or address. OSA women “can’t help” focusing their life on men, so do we forfeit the revolution for it?

But I’ve come to terms with being a radical feminist regardless of those who have deluded themselves into thinking they can end patriarchy holding hands with a man, and all the homophobia that comes along with protecting that CHOICE. Because I rest easy knowing the barebones foundation of radical feminism—eliminating male supremacy—is what I believe and live my life doing, along with likeminded lesbians, febfems and celibates. I’m not going to stop identifying as a radical feminist because of fakers, in the same way I’m not going to stop identifying as a radical homosexual rights activist despite the TRAs thinking they, also, can reclaim the system and simply rework it in “self-empowerment.” Both homosexual TRAs and deluded "radical feminists" belong to the oppressed classes I want to be empowered, and that's where the solidarity ends. I don't have to bite my tongue to hold their hand in the path towards overthrowing heteropatriarchy. I won't be guilted into playing nice.

That’s how I deal with it.

[eris-abomination]

Not to be patronizing, but I’m convinced some of y’all don’t know what radfems actually are. Every time I try to speak about how dangerous and reductive radical feminism is as an ideology, I get paragraphs upon paragraphs written trying to “errm actually” me and defending them, so let me clear things up.

Radical feminism’s core belief centers around a form of gender essentialism: that men are inherently violent oppressors and that the patriarchy is to blame for every problem that befalls women and fems. This is not to say that the patriarchy isn’t a major contributor to misogyny, but it completely excludes intersectionality from the equation and dovetails into TERFy rhetoric very easily.

In blaming every issue on the patriarchy alone, radical feminism erases the very real contributions of racism, homophobia, transphobia, ableism, etc from our struggles in society. Oppression and privilege are extremely complex and fed into by many biases and phobias upheld by our societal systems, not just the “boys vs girls” mentality that radfems emphasize. The main pitfall of this ideology is the way it places all men and all women on an equivalent level of privilege or oppression respectively, rather than the unfortunate reality: for example, a cishet man having inherent privilege and hypothetical oppressing power over a queer or trans man, or an abled woman having privilege over a disabled woman.

Radical feminism also tends to veer into a defeatist mindset: men are inherently oppressive and women are inherently at the bottom of the societal totem pole, so what’s the point of trying to dismantle these systems? The radfem “solution” is to ignore the nuances of intersectionality and create divisions between men and women as a “safety measure” which, as mentioned earlier, opens the door for TERF-like and tribalist ideologies to take root (bathroom bans, label politics, “gender traitor” rhetoric, and categorization of trans and nonbinary people into their AGABs). The “solution” of creating purely woman-only spaces fails to acknowledge that women can also be oppressive toward other women, but it’s still viewed through the lens of “the patriarchy can’t affect things here because we’re all on the same level of disadvantage”.

I don’t write all this to accuse all self-proclaimed radfems of being knowingly malicious or bigoted, but it seems that not many people fully understand the true implications and reductiveness of what radical feminism really is. If you managed to get through this whole post (congratulations!), I invite you to examine your own ideologies and the biases and faults behind them, and hopefully grow, change, and become a more nuanced and open-minded person from there.

Edit: I can and will delete your comments if you’re incapable of being civil (or scrolling away or blocking me like a normal goddamn person) 💕💕💕

[hummingbird-hunter]

As a trans man I hate hate hate with burning passion people who use trans men as a 'gotcha!' on the topics of feminism or just women talking about their experiences in general

"Ugh, men never listen-" "Oh so you hate MEN?? WELL what about TRANS men?? Do you hate trans men too???"

"One of the problems of patriarchy is that men are raised to-" "WELL what about TRANS men?? They weren't raised like cis men!!!"

You've probably seen some screenshots of maybe someone be like "men are opressors including trans men" which is obviously wrong and stupid and completely erases trans men's lives before transitioning, or trans men who don't transition, or how in the eyes of society we're not actually the same as cis men; but that's not the point I want to make. My point is that those statements are directly answers to the aforementioned question, and it's a fucking question with no answer. "So you think trans men are the same as cis men?" And if they say yes then they believe that trans men are privileged, and if they say no they believe trans men aren't men. "Have you stopped beating your wife already?" ass question.

And some of you are probably thinking now "well they shouldn't be mean to men in the first place, that's terfy!" No it's not. I mean, yeah, if it goes full gender essentialism it can be, but by definition it's not. Guess what, misogyny is still a very real issue, and people are allowed to talk about it! And no, I don't think that if someone wants to talk about men as a privileged group they need to clarify they're talking specifically about Cisgender Cissexual Perisex XY Chromosome Binary Male Man because that's fucking stupid. They know what they mean. You know what they mean. You're just being obtuse on purpose.

And yes of course there need to be conversations specifically including trans men in feminism, such as reproductive care for transmasculine people, and not mentioning us in those conversations is harmful. But simply talking about "men", or misogyny or patriarchy is not actually excluding trans men! It is not harmful to us! (But what about terfs, you cry, to which I say this is not about them and you are being obtuse on purpose again)

The point is, misogyny is a thing. And by screaming WhatAboutTransMen every time it gets brought up, or when a woman god forbid dares to talk or complain about her experiences with men, you are not helping us. By silencing conversations about feminism you are actively harming us because Misogyny Also Affects Us Genius.

[additiva]

Y'all. Having a (different) interesting comment exchange on the last chap of Frechheit. Much more pleasant this time, the most respect and kindness to this lovely commenter.

Would be interested to hear other people's perspectives on this -- on your experience of reading these themes in the fic.

Of course what I try to write and what you guys read are not always the same thing.

Feel free to scroll past, but alternatively, lemme know what you think/what your experience was/is this makes sense. Can comment or DM or anonymously ask, or comment anon on the thread on AO3 if you prefer.

I've put it below the cut.

Here's the lovely comment from OP:

I appreciate your willingness to hear me out on this! I can’t speak for all readers of course, but this is where I am coming from:

When SA was first introduced in the fic, I didn’t think anything of it beyond, “I see how this trope fits this vibe”. As you said here, we have a young pretty desirable Charles who’s made himself such a hot commodity and doesn’t want to rock the boat. It makes perfect sense to me narratively as a fic trope, and lends itself to various hurt/comfort scenarios. I thought it was successful as a plot point.

What I found really jarring was the jump from that to the plotline being used as a jump-off point for a broader conversation about systemic abuse in F1. As you said in that same post, F1 does have issues with abuse of power, but I struggle to see it as a solid parallel because… drivers aren’t the victims. (I think there are criticisms to be made about the commodification of athletes’ bodies in sports, but sexual assault is not a systemic issues from which male F1 drivers suffer). Being blunt, they’re more likely to be the entitled rich men making people around them uncomfortable rather than the other way around. (This isn’t about Charles or Max specifically; I mean it in a systemic way) Obviously RPF fic is all about picking and choosing which part of the sport we want to engage with, but I found the bait-and-switch from what was essentially a whumpy trope (which lives firmly in the ‘fictional’ real of my mind) to “Okay let’s get more #real about this” really jarring. I remember I had to walk it off, and it wasn’t because the fic included SA. It was because the story framework shifted, and a fictional SA plot point suddenly became in dialogue with real life sexual assault. It jolted me out of the story, and I didn’t comment on that chapter because I didn’t know what to say; even after the chapter settled with me, I felt (and still do) not wholly at ease that real-life systemic abuse that is so rooted in misogyny (regardless of sexual orientation, patriarchy means that the people overwhelmingly most likely to suffer when abuse of power turns sexual are women) was used to reinforce what’s essentially a fictional plot point. I hope it’s not overstepping of me to say this in particular, because I understand that plot point is a way you as the author chose to work through your feelings wrt that particular situation. I think I would have been less affected by a fic that had framed itself from the start as less nuanced and a ‘breezier’ read, but so many things in Frec are very well-reasoned and ask the reader to engage with the story on a deeper level, and to immerse themselves in the world of the fic. So my experience was like… I started reading the fic and I gladly suspended my disbelief going down the plotline where shady F1 sponsors systematically preying on pretty drivers is an actual societal issue; this is fiction and it’s extremely well written, why not. And then I felt like I was suddenly bait-and-switched with “real life misogynistic abuse is being introduced as a way to reinforce this plot point from which a RL straight man who’s being fictionalized as queer now suffers”, and it shattered the barrier between RPF and RL, badly. It made me expect much different things from the story and its characters. It’s suddenly turning the RPF version of a prominent fic character into his real-life abusive counterpart, and it’s making the character I was previously rooting for inherently complicit. And it’s making the kind of demographic who, irl, are more likely to be the guys holding up the structures of systemic abuse into the victims. After that, the Horner side of the plotline was kinda dropped until the very end, which makes total sense from a storytelling point of view, but it means that readers never actually get closure from the role that fic!Max now plays in it.

I really hope this doesn’t feel like a takedown of your story, because I enjoyed the fic a lot before that, and I can enjoy some parts of it after. But since I brought up this whole thing to begin with because you’ve said that some chapters got a weaker response, I will say: as a reader, I wouldn’t balk at a darkfic about poor Charles being victimized by evil sponsors and burning Ferrari to the ground after, if it introduced itself as a darker, whumpy fic from the start, and was straightforward about the nature of the work. There IS an audience for those fics and I don’t think you should worry about lack of response. It’s just that I (speaking for myself but I doubt I’m the only one) would struggle to connect with a story if it started drawing explicit parallels between a dark plot point and anything IRL, because it would yank me back to the real world hard, and shift my mind back into a mode where I am far more critical about the way said abuse is framed and discussed.

(If relevant, I also DO enjoy fics that are upfront in addressing the inherent dark nature of F1 more realistically, but once again I prefer it when they are upfront about it from the start, and skirt closer to what’s more plausible. For example: a fic reckoning with abuse of powers in F1 where the drivers are shown more explicitly to be part of the problem — this one comes to mind; or a Rule 63 fic where the Charles going through years of brushes with SA was a woman. I understand if you personally don’t want to go there, most fics choose not to, but I think if a fictionalized story chooses to engage with those specific RL issues, that can only be done effectively by being upfront about the reality that those issues exist within the context of a patriarchal society.)

This is probably a mess of a comment and if it feels unnecessarily harsh please feel free to delete and never address it if you’d rather. I hope this won’t demotivate you as a writer and that the thousands of (deserved) praise comments on this fic can keep your spirit high. But I hope these thoughts can have some value for you as a writer going forward and that’s why I am sharing them

And this is what I've replied:

(ignore the formatting tags sorry)

<p>Ooh okay this is interesting. I want to try to phrase this right. It'll be a 2 parter. Tell me what you think after reading. </p>

<p>So yes. You're right. I'm a she/her, so I'm very well aware of the horrors of misogyny. Patriarchy is a huge part of this issue in real life, and it's tied deeply into misogyny. And that's true of the real life Christian Horner Situation too.</p>

<p>In my writing, things have obviously come across to you as using the real life situation to reinforce a fictional plot point, and although it does function that way, that wasn't my intention.</p>

<p>Frechheit is fiction. That's absolutely true. But it's based in an extrapolation of truth, at all stages, even if it's not obvious at every stage. It was never about putting the names of random people onto a completely unrelated situation. It's an abstracted exploration of real life themes in F1 and in the real drivers' public lives. I don't pretend to know them or know their private lives, but it's a reflection of the versions of themselves they present, and an exploration of that in a variety of ways.</p>

<p>I can understand why it would be jarring and frustrating to feel like misogyny as an issue is being ignored just to further a plot point, torture a character, and create shock value.<br />

Obviously there is an element of shock value, but to me, it's actually the reverse. Charles in this is a proxy-female character. In the absence of a prominent female character (sorry, Frech does not pass the Bechdel test, I know. I'm ashamed), Charles serves as a proxy. He's afflicted by many of the key features that I consider as underpinning patriarchal oppression.<br />

He's someone for whom beauty and appearance hold a lot of weight. He's someone whose career and success depend on being likeable, so much so that his talent is consistently underestimated. His successes are often attributed to luck, rather than skill. He suffers the victim narrative, and the press constantly overlook his intelligence and agency. That's why no one can fathom him as a manipulative figure, except Max.</p>

<p>He encounters benevolent sexism, in that he suffers with others trying to protect him, rather than respecting his decisions and agency.</p>

<p>Sexually, he's also positioned in a more feminine-coded role, which causes Max to also struggle to conceptualise Charles as the full, complex human being he is. Max has to learn to stop infantilising him, even when he's already deeply emotionally attached. He already loves him, but he has to learn to respect him.</p>

<p>Charles obviously weaponises his feminine traits, but he's been forced to do so, to succeed.</p>

<p>One purpose of having Charles in this role is that, throughout the story, he's gradually positioned to represent the vulnerable people Max has previously disregarded - in this case, the woman at Red Bull.</p>

<p>Max is never going to experience misogyny. Charles is also never going to have the full experience of it, but he experiences some elements in this fic.<br />

But in this case, because he's male, I simplified the language of it to: abuses of power, which is a wider societal issue that, to me, encompass misogyny and other forms of bigotry (e.g. homophobia, which they also face briefly).<br />

One purpose of having Charles experience this is to bring it closer to Max, who has no opportunity to be directly affected by it, as a (gay) man with wealth and power.<br />

It's actually to demonstrate to Max that he, and the people he cares about are all vulnerable to harm from the systemic problems in the sport, that he specifically has ignored opportunities to improve. Even when he's thinking about how Charles is talented enough to have made it without all this, then thinks about his dad's influence, he's realising that he would also have been vulnerable to these things, if he'd not had the advantages his dad's history brought. Talent isn't enough.</p>

<p>Previously, to this Max, and to the rest of them, it was a far removed issue. He wasn't personally or emotionally affected by it. It was, as Charles says, a distraction from the important thing - the driving. He didn't have any concept of the scale of the harm to the individual people involved, because he had to cultural access to the experiences of women in that position.</p>

<p>The purpose of having Charles experience this, was to bring it closer to Max, and force him to question his own past perspectives and behaviour.<br />

As Charles says: what's the difference this time? Would it be fine if he was a woman? Or if he wasn't a driver? Or if he wasn't with Max?</p>

<p>And because Max cares so deeply for Charles, his answer to those questions is no. There's no circumstances under which Charles, or anyone, should ever have to be faced with any of these issues. There's no world in which these issues should be allowed to continue to exist, and be facilitated by the system.<br />

And that forces him to reconsider his previous perspective as a bystander.</p>

<p>The whole fic, Max is wrestling with realising that the world is a lot more complicated than he realised. And for all of his faults, Charles knows that much better than he does. But Max is trying to learn - at first to defeat Charles, and then to help him, and THEN because it's the right thing to do.</p>

<p>It's intentional that Christian is a positive character the rest of the time. In THAT chapter, he hugs Max and reinforces his unconditional support for him. It's intentional, because Max is our narrator, and these things aren't black and white. No one is all good or all bad. That's true in real life too.<br />

So suddenly Max is forced to recognise that just because someone is good to him, doesn't mean they're without faults. It forces him to recognise that his comfort, and the comfort of people he loves, are contributing to the harm other people are suffering under the system they live in. And the only reason he can have that realisation is because his emotional attachment to Charles is strong enough to force him to do that work. Only his love for Charles is enough to force him to scrutinized himself and his own loved ones.</p>

<p>He recognises that if he'd taken steps to protect others in the past, he'd have protected Charles, too. But he didn't, because he didn't feel its proximity to him.</p>

<p>And I think that's a major issue for many people. Any issue is easy to ignore, when you're not immediately affected by it.</p>

<p>So in this case, Max comes to understand how he failed that woman at Red Bull, BECAUSE Charles uses himself as a symbol of vulnerable people.<br />

The point is that it's always been a problem, but it had to come so close to Max for him to see it and recognise it as such.<br />

He wasn't a bad person, he was just ignorant. Like a lot of people.</p>

<p>And actually, Charles is also sort of complicit in the system, even as a victim. He accepts the harm he's experiencing as an unfortunate but necessary sacrifice to reach his ultimate goal, and in doing so, he also sacrifices a potential opportunity to help those even more marginalised than him. Again, it's only when he recognises obvious evidence that it's affecting other people he loves, that he accepts that he needs to be a part of changing the system, rather than trying to thrive within it.</p>

<p>The Horner plot point is then dropped, because Max has to spend time reconciling it in his head.<br />

And yes, it's narratively convenient to say that Charles wants to focus on the championship, as he always wanted to, and so that's what they do. And also I wanted to story to end on a relatively lighter note and have them return to their old dynamic in some way, stronger for having come through these difficulties together.</p>

<p>I know it's an unpleasant shock, to suddenly have negative things unveiled about characters you'd been liking or rooting for, but that was also intentional. Because again, no one is all good or all bad. Frech does, for the most part, present a rosy view of most characters, to soften the blow of a lot of the themes.</p>

<p>But throughout the fic, Max is having his worldview broken down. He's recognising that nothing is simple. None of his relationships are simple, the world he lives in is not simple, and he himself is also not simple. He's also not a pure protagonist. He has to wrestle with his own failures. He has to wrestle with the depth of Charles' manipulations, whilst still loving him.</p>

<p>And you're right that the drivers etc irl are more likely to be part of the problem. Max represents that in this story. Again, as someone we've come to love, but who needs to recognise his failures and do better.</p>

<p>It's not impossible to me that young drivers could genuinely suffer these harms - I DO think they'd hide it. It's obviously more common with female athletes, but it's not limited to female athletes. It's exacerbated by misogyny, but to me, the overarching issue is abuse of power, not limited by gender. When a system allows people to take advantage, they will.</p>

<p>The aim isn't to minimise the role of misogyny, and the oppression feminine-presenting people experience. The purpose was so introduce it in a slightly subtler way and position this very familiar, much loved character (who were already attached to) as a representative of all victims of the system. THEN to reveal him as a representative of that, when Max (and we) are already so invested that the emotional labour of empathizing with that woman and other potential victims, is unavoidable.</p>

<p>One other thing of importance is that I didn't want to belabour the Christian Horner Situation too much, because we don't know the full, nuanced truth of it and I don't want to sensationalize it or misrepresent it. So the description of it remains vague, in that it's a situation Charles identifies with, regardless of the details.</p>

<p>I wasn't really trying to use SA as just a whumpy plot point in this fic, which is why Charles doesn't go through worse, although obviously it also serves that purpose. No disrespect to that, people can explore themes however they want. But I was trying to explore it in a broader, more nuanced, considered way that's more about the system that facilitates it.</p>

I think fanfic is valuable to look at the real world in a slightly more oblique way. Yes I could've written an exploration of sexual harrassment with a rule-63, but in some ways that would be overly stereotyped, to me. In some ways, that would reinforce it as a female issue. And yes, it disproportionately affects women. But it's not an issue with women. It's an issue with men. It's an issue with predators.

The purpose of it in this fic is to broaden the relevance and impact of it, and make characters face the irl issues in different ways.

It's just one of the elements of the fic, so it's not going to be a perfect, complete exploration of it. It's not even REALLY the main theme, to me. It's just part of Charles' story that I tried to treat in a deliberate way.

I know a lot of people like fic to signpost exactly what's inside, and broadcast it from the start.

That's never going to be me.

I'm presenting a reality as a character is experiencing it, which is why I write in the way I do. It's intentional. There's foreshadowing, but the characters don't know what's coming, and neither do the readers. It's meant to feel more immediate. It's meant to be immersive and intense.

And maybe I suceed, maybe I don't.

I fully understand why you'd have felt uncomfortable, when these themes have come across to you in that way. That's very reasonable.

Ultimately though, I did write it in an intentional way, which I hope I've explained here. Maybe it didn't come across in that way, the first thing I've ever written was Straight-ish, less than 12 months ago, so I'm still learning.

Maybe it will come across that way on a re-read once the details come together, or maybe it won't.

I'd be interested to hear if anyone else had any thoughts on this. Whether my intentions came across, or whether lots of people also had the experience of reading it that you had.

[writing-for-life]

“Tales in the Sand” in Context of “The Doll’s House”

About Patriarchy, the Madness of Pure Dream and Nada & Morpheus as mirrors of each other

Over the past week, we had interesting community discussions about “Nada’s dream” on both a more direct and a more metaphorical/allegorical level (join us if you’d like to read/discuss).

But one of the most important functions of “Tales in the Sand” is its place in the overall narrative. You can look at it as a “story within a story” on several different levels—self-contained or as part of a whole.

One thing that can be looked at in a pretty self-contained way is “Tales in the Sand” as the opener of “The Doll’s House”—it explicitly belongs to this arc, even if it is somewhat of a transition issue.

Some of you might be familiar with Henrik Ibsen’s play “A Doll’s House”, and I can’t help but think about the common themes, especially with regard to Nada, but also parts of the overall Doll’s House arc:

A woman who is smart and extremely capable, but unfulfilled and caught up in a patriarchal system. I won’t summarise the whole story here, but Ibsen’s protagonist Nora secretly borrowed money (to help her husband recover from illness no less)—during a time when women weren’t allowed to engage in financial affairs. When the whole thing falls apart, she even thinks of killing herself. The reaction of her husband, which is belittling and patronising [he “forgives” her and has the gall to say that act of forgiveness reminds him of how much he loves her, because she is a “helpless child” and dependent on him] ultimately makes her leave him, despite knowing what this means: They have children, and while the play ends here, it was highly unlikely for a woman during that time to get custody. So we can only have a guess of what will become of her. In a way, she didn’t kill herself, yet committed societal suicide and might probably face a very difficult life from here onwards…

And while we have a real doll’s house in the actual story of the Sandman’s “The Doll’s House”, and that holds its own meaning (we are currently discussing this in the community as well), I cannot help but think about Ibsen’s play about:

A woman standing up for what she believes in at great cost to herself. Which: Ouch, because that sentiment as such is almost verbatim echoed in Dream Hunters.

Now that’s the self-contained parallel in “Tales in the Sand”—women who are capable still get caught up in patriarchal systems and beliefs (it is expected of Nada to “find a man”—why, one could ask? Because: the patriarchy…)

Let’s move on to Nada and Morpheus as mirrors…

Nada is an almost exact mirror of Morpheus: Lonely, caught up in her “function”, burdened by rules and responsibilities. And more importantly: She is as unwilling to let go of them as he. They arrive at a stalemate, which is made very clear in Season of Mists: She isn’t willing to lay down who she is for him, he won’t lay down his function for her. They are made of the same material, so to speak.

There is also a really interesting parallel when we look at Nada’s dream on a more conceptual level: What kind of dreams have the power to ultimately destroy you (and your people)? Nada is explicitly described as a good and benevolent leader, and while I have my personal theory what her dream was (you can find it here), this is open to interpretation and will forever stay a head-canon.

But there is much to be said for losing our grip on reality when we become too caught up in our dreams, whatever they may be and however benevolent—the script to “The Doll’s House” contains these lines when describing Dream’s throne room:

The windows actually lead onto the madness of pure dream, which is at the true centre of the dreamworld…

These lines don’t appear anywhere in the comics, but they are narrated almost verbatim in the Audible, so we can absolutely consider them canon.

And they apply to both Nada and Morpheus to certain degrees—they are both lonely, caught in the ivory tower of their respective existences. One gets caught up in a dream until it destroys her and her civilisation, the other is pure d/Dream (this also says a lot about Morpheus btw, because we all know how desperately he has to keep the proverbial lid on everything so it doesn’t consume him).

And then there is this, down to standing on a rock/spire (did I ever say I always wondered about the actual mechanics of Morpheus’ death? Because Death usually is NOT the one who kills you; but I digress):

They both make the ultimate sacrifice because they can’t be other than they are.

And then this:

Even the parallels of Nada being reborn as a boy (meh though, sorry, but maybe that’s for another time) and not remembering anymore, and yet clearly doing so on some subconscious level (she/he is at his funeral after all, and while all of us are, she/he is briefly seen with his lovers).

That’s like Daniel!Dream not being Morpheus and also not truly being Daniel Hall anymore, but echoes of both remain.

And don’t even get me started on hope. I wrote about this so many times, you can find all related metas here…

So I guess this is one thing about Nada and her dream that couldn’t be made clearer if we tried:

While all the other angles, be they a more direct or conceptual reading, make sense, the most important, and probably also obvious one, is that Nada’s dream is also Dream’s. And that’s something we also get in the TV show in other contexts:

NG stated it explicitly in his intro/script to The Doll’s House—the whole arc is about how the Endless relate to humans. And “the truth of mankind” is also Dream’s, whether he admits to it or not. How could it not be—he holds our subconscious.

Nada and Morpheus are direct mirrors of each other. And the whole of “Tales in the Sand” is just one ginormous bit of foreshadowing, whether NG was already aware of it at the time or not…

[jingerpi]

Its honestly very concerning how popular ContraPoints video on "Transtrenders" was. I want to make a post discecting it briefly because I feel the video does a disservice to young trans folk looking to learn, instead leaving them feeling unjustified in their indentitiy under the guise of some radical acceptance One of the main issues with the video as a whole is how natalie breaks down existing understandings of trans medicine as a tool to try and unseat transmedicalist talking points, and show how being trans is about personal experience and "feelings". While its important to critique transmedicalists, what she does here is undermine what many people see as the best justification for trans existence without replacing it with anything. She does this in my opinion, because she honestly doesn't have anything to replace it with, and doesn't understand the real basis for gender in the world. Saying this is all well and good, I can critique anyone for not giving good basis for thing but its no help if i don't give anything of substance to back it up either, so heres a brief explanation of why transphobia is a problem, based in actual socio-political analysis.

Patriarchy is an economic structure which has been built up across centuries of accumulated surplus value which was passed down through the eldest son of the ruling class. this is a vast over simplification, but functionally this means there are systems in place in society which privilege men, give them access to more wealth, better positions, and control over non-men. Patriarchy has grown and changed over time and held different shapes depending on the society, we no longer have eldest sons inheriting royal rule (in most places), but we continue to have men as the group with the most economic and social agency in our societies. This privilege that Patriarchs have is constituted not of some magical benefits bestowed upon them from an abstract "system" but are instead taken directly from those who are not men. More specifically, men and Patriarchs take labor and resources from those whom patriarchy considers "non-men". Reproductive labor goes unpaid, women are under privileged in political society, we often don't get choices over our bodies. This isn't merely a coincidence, but serves specifically to give men power and confer more benefits onto them. Because of this, there must be systems in place to manage who is let into the patriarchy, who can be a Patriarch.

The most universal way of doing this is by deciding whether or not someone is a man and conferring onto them certain benefits as long as they uphold this structure, and ostracizing them if they are not. They do this ostracization because if this structure is not upheld artificially through oppression of women and bullying of nonconforming men to keep the categories of man and woman or even man and non-man distinct, the privilege given to the in-group starts to fade. In the same way that "White" is an artificial construct created and upheld to facilitate racism like slavery, imperialism, housing discrimination, and unpaid labor, so too is "manhood" and "womanhood". These constructs appear to be based in existing biology, so they often go without question, but race is also based on such "biology" and that does not mean its a founded construct. The basis for both "race" and "gender" break down once you look at higher level understandings of these concepts. Not all people with xy chromosomes are men, not all people of African decent have black skin, etc etc... I could go on about the "exceptions" for quite some time but you likely know many of them already. These are categories created fundamentally to give one specific category an economic advantage and justify their oppression of those who are outside of said category. The reason we need to respect trans-ness isn't because there is something inherently justified about being transgender, nor because we just have to be really nice to everyone and treat their feelings as absolute truths. Its because the systems which confine us and define gender so rigidly exist purely to oppress and extract value from others. These borders are deeply unjustified and we need to tear them away. We do not need to justify existing outside of the borders, but instead challenge the borders in the first place. Contrapoints fails to meaningfully do this Natalie focuses almost entirely on the arguments surrounding justifications for transness and gives little thought to the justifications for patriarchy. It is treated as a default, always existing, status quo that is unquestionable. It makes me wonder how aware of it she really is, she seems to get stuck in justifying her own existence. the "Transtrenders" video focuses on a discussion between several characters where the primary issue at hand is how to justify being trans, should it be done through medicial, scientific frameworks? or should it be done from a kind and accepting view of others? She makes arguments against the former for being flawed and the latter for being unfounded, but she never actually replaces it with any critique of society, instead saying: "Okay, so what am I supposed to tell Jackie Jackson then? What am I supposed to tell the TERFs? That I'm a woman because reasons?"

"No, not even because reasons. Just because you are."

"So it's what, a leap of faith? Oh great. I'm sure that's gonna convince all the rational skeptics. Justine, it makes us sound completely delusional."

"Well Tiffany, delusion is what separates us from the animals." Which is an extremely unhelpful answer to give after tearing down what is to many, a key aspect in their reasoning for why they are justified in their identities, and while it is partially correct that trying to use one of the specific theories she outlined earlier to justify trans existence is an exercise in futility, she can't seemingly offer any alternative than some kind of "because I said so" when there ARE very good reasons to be in favor of trans acceptance, and historical reasons for our existence. In failing to do so she misleads perhaps an entire generation of trans people into thinking theres no real justification for their existence

The justification comes from understanding that the premise is false, that the forces which try to bind people to a specific societal gender role are themselves the issue.

She tries to point out that we dont need to justify transgender existence because the frameworks which hold us to cisgender existence are the real problem, but without ever talking about these cisgender standards in an actually meaningful way, instead talking abstactly about societies "expectations" or whatnot, where she should could be attacking the real economic forces of patriarchy. She should be tearing down patriarchy first and then using that to liberate trans existence but instead she tears down trans existence without touching patriarchy or any of the coercion or exploitation that arise from it. I consider this a great tragedy, and a prime example of her failures as an educator.

[misterbitches]

I have mixed feelings about the episode!

If I hadn’t have gone online I would have been more of a blank slate. It’s good to know my criticisms are affirmed by others but it doesn’t mean this show is weak because even with the faults this episode was still entertaining at the very least. I feel crazy! Like some of my issues with the social commentary so far are dealt with—not remediated per se but addressed—or tended to.

The whole marriage thing isn’t a bad scenario typical of a BL imo because it makes sense. Patriarchy has everything to do with the hoarding of wealth. You have to make sure a woman has limited options for offspring to preserve a familial/blood line. Marriage is a business practice (it isn’t final or static but marriage and love are not interchangeable and “love” is a very specific goal that is hard to meet particularly if you are poor) and even if Rosé doesn’t want it, that’s how you secure capital…via legacy and literal financial bonds (presented as familial).

Rosé isn’t a good person. As much as Save is a bitch and Hope is…whatever he is (and agree with the user that said they should have kissed there!) the show is telling us over and over that THESE PEOPLE ARE POOR GUYS. THEY HAVE NO MONEY. I don’t know if the audience understands what that means fully. That means that Tattoo’s actions are not the same as Arun’s or even Joke’s; Jack’s poor decisions aren’t the same as Joke’s; Save is being absolutely insane and fucking ridiculous and wow I hate him but even his decision is not the same. You see how much hospital bills are, not having insurance, INSURANCE LITERALLY BEING TIED TO YOUR JOB AND THE NUCLEAR FAMILY. Things these people do not have, nor should not have to have, and the pains you go through to do everything right so the state says and you still get fucked.

That’s why the whole ~dOn’T sTEaL~ would piss me the fuck off! Jenny’s character makes complete sense! I know this is an easy way for us to express this idea of never being able to “get out” but poverty isn’t actually a cycle. Poverty is man made, it is not real. A cycle suggest something inevitable where an underclass would always have to exist, some sociogenetic defect that you just can’t beat and the cure (money) is just too hard to find (as in made up but never freely given). What makes that cycle relevant? Capitalism. This term has bred such reification i swear. It makes it seem like this is something they can GET OUT OF and BREAK on their own volition (with no direct action against the capitalist class/elites like you know…robbing them)

To be wealthy is to inhibit a class position, a social category, in which your livelihood depends on the subjugation of others. It’s obvious that Boss has limited money—and that dwindles—he relies on his boss. He is a manager, an inbetween, a boss but not The Boss. He is a cop essentially (cops have more autonomy tbh) to literally protect private property and collect and give to his bosses. They’re also all landlords and deserve to die.

Anyway there is no cycle as a real tangible thing one can take control of. There are people who choose their comfort and life over others and exploit to maintain, retain, and gain. ANY type of wealth hoarding is immoral. Richness is immoral.

Every single one of these people who suffer are in this position because of rich people. The monopoly was literal and exaggerated metaphor but rich people HATE and i mean HATE they LOATHE they resent disdain the poor. They hate you. They hate me and I’m not even poor! It is not a (referent-less) cycle! These are deliberate choices being made by others to make sure ppl stay poor—women, children queer ppl, darker ppl, the disabled…

If we focused less on the actions of those who have had to work in service of the pillagers and more on the pillagers and why the FUCK these people do this and get to do it, maybe Jack’s choices would make sense. Yes they are frustrating but I don’t necessarily think this is bad writing considering that Jack’s life could be made a living hell if he “got another job” which…ok but where? Who will hire him? How quickly will he make that money? With what skills when he has one very good one that could be used AND this money could be made immediately?

Are these particular choices stupid or do they exist in a broader story that is unfolding? Obviously this is a tv show beyond bl bc this episode was like completely story related and I enjoyed that. There was def some stuff where i was like wow this seems a bit rushed and it does seem like filler but it also technically isn’t…? If I’m thinking beyond what I would like to see with romance. If I think of it as more of s general show that is openly queer but that’s just the life of the show…then was this an outlier or does it fit? Even if it doesn’t I still get to understand more of what they think abt the world…? Idk i liked this episode i go back and forth! But it was a good way to spend my hour.

Also rose’s plan is fucking disgusting neoliberal drivel and insulting lmao when joke threw that all i could think of was bush and that shoe

[therevengeoffrankenstein]

i literally hate when people act like transandrophobia isn't real despite the fact that i am constantly excommunicated from online spaces talking about misogyny/transmisogyny because i am a trans man. despite that the reason that those things do effect me is because i am a trans man. and i am never included in discussions about pregnancy/abortion and u.ter.ine/vag.in.al health despite both of those literally being things i have to think about and deal with because i have a u.ter.us and a vag.ina. despite the fact that i do not pass (and might never pass) and have had to and will probably always have to deal with people misgendering me and seeing me as a woman and being misogynistic to me because of it. and people being chill with me for a while but then automatically seeing me as predatory the second they find out i'm a man. and people seeing me as inherently inferior and physically weaker than cis men.

transphobes will always see me as a woman until they can oppress me about being a man. they will only properly gender me when they can use it against me. to call me weak and predatory and irrelevant and 'entitled.' but sure. i'm not oppressed because i'm a man.

[velvetvexations]

I feel like a lot of the trans women saying that masculinity/manhood is always rewarded in everyone because patriarchy often forget that the opposite is true, actually, for people who are seen as women/put in the "woman" category.

Because yes, trans women are usually forced into manhood and "rewarded" for being men, and punished for being women. But that's not because manhood is universally rewarded in everyone, but because partriarchy sees having been born with a penis as "man".

It also sees being born with a vagina as "woman", and every deviation from that is *also* punished.

Yes, people who are seen as women/girls may have more freedom in expression of gender (depending on where they are from. I hate when ppl act like people afab everywhere can just dress like men without punishment. There are so many countries with laws on what "women" (and those treated as women because of their agab) can wear, and if anyone believes for one second that breaking these laws is REWARDED in any way, they're so fucking deep in their own head and need to talk to someone from these countries) but that freedom was fought for by feminists! Feminists have fought to be simply just allowed to wear pants. It's ridiculous to look at how it is now (in the western world) and make conclusions on that without looking at *why* it is that way now and how it was before.

And people are usually expected to grow out of their tomboy-"phase" by the time they reach their late teens, or early twenties at latest, and become a feminine woman, wife, and mother. If you don't do that, your masculinity gets punished.

And the masculinity of people afab is also only (begrudgingly) accepted (in SOME places in the world) as long as they're still visible as women or girls and their masculinity is hot and serves cishet men. As soon as they step "too far" out of these roles (by being non-binary or men, or being "ugly", fat, or anything that would make them "undesirable"), their masculinity gets punished. Horribly.

It's really infuriating when (trans)radfem trans women try to act like their experiences are universal and whenever someone says something that disagrees with them, they must be lying or "delusional" (yay, ableism! so progressive /s) for thinking that they were, in fact, punished for their masculinity or manhood...

Sorry for unloading this on you, didn't know where else to put it. And thank you so much for listening.

I think a major issue here is that no matter how much we try to reason things out and work through why they act the way they do, radical feminism, trans or cis, ultimately comes down, at some point, to a deliberate decision to prioritize egocentrism and their own desires over seeing other people as real, actual people - not even other transfems, who they just sexualize and try to control, or call a TERF if they can't. And it's hard to reason with that.

Like, they have to know on some level that they hyperinflate trans women in particular being "socially murdered"* to use as social capital and terrorize younger** transfems into isolating themselves. Maybe a very long time ago for some of them it came from the distress they felt from the legitimately immense danger transfems face in a variety of contexts, but they've shot far beyond that now and just don't really care. They've built a cage of unreality around themselves that makes me feel like I'm talking to aliens.

Like the other day, I was talking to one who insisted that the tee-em-ees will not show up for me. Like, I said they did, and she said they won't, and I was like, but they DO! They have! Always! I've seen it with my own eyes, directly for me specifically! But it was just "who hurt you," "let yourself be angry," "don't settle for just scraps," "they won't treat you better if you throw yourself at their feet," "social murder," and it's like WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? ARE YOU HAVING A STROKE? WAS THIS A DREAM YOU HAD?

And what about the deliberately cruel fuckery, the constant derision of the most petty things like forcemasc? What the fuck do they get out of wrongly asserting that women are never punished for masculinity and never have a problem with being viewed as masculine, like why are they doing that, what is their goal? Because it seems like it's literally just "mock and invalidate the sexual interests of others and deem it an inferior copy of our thing."

What do they get out of misgendering cis and trans men for forcefem funsies and telling them to suck it up? They don't really believe that their forcefem joke is the only thing that might make an egg crack. That's extremely obviously a lie. They're doing it because they want to, because it's their kink, because they don't care about the feelings of other people, and they can use transmisogyny as a convenient defense when people ask them to moderate literally any of their behavior for the comfort of everyone else to literally any extent while demanding everyone else shut up and defer to them on every single topic in every single situation.

And this stuff with D20 and Ophiuchus and the transmasc character being treated better? A lie. Just fully making it up. Inventing it. Fabricating it. For attention.

I've never had one acknowledge it when I've tried to explain that I first learned about all of this from transmasc friends bringing it to me so they could defer to my opinion.

They're determined to stay like this. It sucks.

*truly a phrase that makes me livid to even think about now, they reduce it to about the same level of seriousness as forcefem jokes, every single time it's so thoughtlessly hollow and self-obsessed but you could guess that from it being a fair description of every thought they externalize

**let me make this clear, I'm referring to young adults, I am not accusing anyone of being predatory towards minors nor am I saying the motivations are necessarily sexual anyway, although clearly transradfems don't care about the effect their hyperbole will have on the mental health of minors exposed to it and trained from a young age to never trust anyone, so underage transfems are very much a concern here, but not in the sense that they're being directly and personally abused in any way

[sharkgirldick]

Out of curiosity, exactly which patriarchal privileges do trans men get? Cuz I'm pretty sure privilege comes from the way others perceive you and trans men still are not perceived as "real men" even - or especially - in a patriarchal society, unless it's convenient for them to be demonized.

Privilege isn't something someone can just *get*. It's not some magical thing that's granted to you. People either have it or they don't.

Saying trans men have privilege because we live in a patriarchal society is so asinine. Did they have privilege before they came out? Or after? Or does the privilege start when they pass? And then, wouldn't that be more like passing privilege? As in, they're treated better because they're perceived as cis, not because they're perceived as a man?

ALL transgenderism is hated under patriarchy, and you could just as easily argue that a trans woman benefits from it because they were raised being perceived as a boy. But that would be fucking stupid and no one in their right mind would say that and actually mean it - I know I don't.

So how about instead of "making points" or taking grand stances about trans men vs trans women and which one is more oppressed or more privileged or blah blah blah blah blah, just acknowledge that being trans sucks for everyone in different ways, that our oppressors want all of us dead, and that black trans people have it worse than you and I do.

Perception is only one part of privilege. Ultimately, it stems from having an unequal society. In a society where men are more valued than women (or any other sex/gender) like ours, men have male privilege.

You can, in fact, gain and lose some forms of privilege. Being able bodied, for example, is itself a privileged position in society that one can lose through disease or injury.

If we, as trans people, make the statement one's gender isn't determined by sex (itself a flawed idea), then in the transition from female to male you take on the social status that is male, both the good and the bad. That isn't a personal value call. I have no issues with trans men, and I would never make the claim that trans men don't have their own unique problems. Like you said, it would be fucking stupid to try to claim that.

As I stated before, having multiple axes of oppression doesn't cancel out privilege and having privilege doesn't automatically make your life better. Being transgender is a lower status in our society that directly conflicts with being a man in trans men's case.

[athena5898]

I probably shouldn't do this with the nature of my blog at this point, but I want to take a moment and rant a bit about gender shit.

I am genderfluid. I will never completely pass. I am technically a trans masc cause while I identify as both a man and a woman and both and neither at various times, all the time. I have a vagina, I have tits and i'm moving towards a more masculine build until I don't want to, and I have no idea when that will stop.

Yall…we have got to change how we talk about gender. Our struggles and our issues.

You need to actually talk to trans masculine people and stop fucking assuming what they go through. Please i'm fucking begging you. How the hell are you queer and just talking over us and around us and never including us?

I see so many weird assumptions about gender and oppression in regards to being a masculine woman and it never includes intersectionality.

I just heard a transwomen in a video say "If you are a woman it's almost seen as admirable if you act like a man and are seen as a man"

I'm going to talk about how fucking bad and wrong that is. How honestly gross it is to assume something like that.

Like, I get it, it comes from trauma and I don't hate the person for saying it, just…wish they didn't. It comes from this idea that "well me being AMAB and being a woman is seen as a bad thing, therefor the opposite must be good and celebrated"

it is not seen as good

It is not celebrated.

People get confused about what it means to be a masculine child and Girl Boss TM. Honestly, to explain how Girl Boss TM is actually just another form of subservient feminity wrapped up in an aesthetic of power and influence would be its own novel of a post, so I won't get into it here.

First. There are white women that are just at fault for upholding the patriarchy as men. Period. End of story. The idea that women are inherently victims and weak and can never do anything (including oppression) is patriarchy shit.

it was not men who held me down to force makeup on me. That was teenage girls. (This was after they chased me down)

it was not men I locked myself in a bathroom to get away from cause they were threatening to do my hair when I explicitly said I didn't want to. That was a woman.

I was not seen as desirable. I was not praised. I was not a woman or a man. I was a thing. A creature. A child at best. Because it's okay to be a tomboy as long as you grow out of it.

I am still seen this way even in the queer community.

I was bullied and picked on constantly. Going to school felt like going into battle every day.

Also, the "being seen as one of the guys" thing is a myth. They don't actually see you as a man or a guy. You're this weird third thing at times and a woman when you have an opinion that goes against the group. You are still a "woman" but just not a fuckable one. They don't take your opinions seriously and they'll slap that woman card on you real fast if you raise a fuss about bad behavior.

I'd love to say I was strong throughout but there was a period where I caved a little. I shaved my arm hair cause I got made fun of by this one kid on the bus in front of everyone. (Btw I have dark coarse hair and a little stubble facial hair even as a teen) I wore "girl" clothing a little bit. Women cut shirts, jeans etc. I always felt gross and wrong. People would tell me I looked cute but I felt terrible. I got depressed. I never could get my hair short enough cause some asshole would go "oh it's so nice long" "You don't want to cut it too short! you'll look like a boy!"

I just, I don't know where this privilege is that I'm supposed to have? I have fought every step of the way to be who I am now. I have had to grow and accept me outside of praise or love of anyone else and just rely on self…well not love but acceptance. Like I am privileged but it certainly isn't because i'm trans. (I'm white, I have a house cause I was able to get government assistance cause of said whiteness etc)

Even as I've come out as trans, I get overlooked a lot compared to others. There is this air that like, idk Like i'm not really trans or something?

Why is it okay for transwomen to talk about what I've been through? Why is this seen as okay? If I tried to talk about transwomen experiences I would rightfully be called out for that shit. Why is this okay? It…hurts a lot honestly.

Like…why is it okay to treat other trans people this way? I'd never dreamed to say "Oh being a man is better than being a woman" or "Feminity is always celebrated" even though yeah that last bit kinda feels that way sometimes, but I know that's not true and it's just the pain talking.

I'm just kinda tired of this oppression Olympic crap. As trans people shouldn't it be understood that intersectionality exists and while transition might be easy for some people, by the large it's a hell of an experience and it takes a lot of bravery to go down that path?

Cause like i'm making this post to share my experience cause apparently some of us need to yell more about these things. But like being trans is fucking hard. I'm sorry but without the analysis of intersectionality on a personal scale this whole "this group is more oppressed than the other" is fucking shit and honestly psyop level in it's stupidity.

Trans people are abused. Trans people are being targeted. Terf logic is fucking shit and upholds the patriarchy (also it's a cult) Patriarchy is centered around white colonist ideology.

GNC is not respected and is subjected to abuse

These things are true. and about as broad of a brush we can paint and still not get a full picture.

just…idk can we just stop diminishing trans oppression???

[lemonhemlock]

I hate how people say Alicent “seduces” Visery’s who is grieving. Like for starters Visery’s is an older man, an adult, therefore if he was to go along with her “seduction” he’s the one that would be held accountable normally but because it’s Alicent and TB supporters really df with her then it’s obviously her taking advantage of him grieving. Also TB seems to also forget that Alicent lost her mother recently before the show starts, we know this because Daemon says “Your lady wife passed recently, did she not?” Or smth like that, I don’t think anyone who recently lost their mother would have the emotional stability to “Seduce” someone let alone an older man who is the father of your best friend. Another thing people say is that she did this because she wanted her blood on the throne but they all, yet again, ignore the fact the Alicent stood up for Rhaenyra position as heir for years and even got her fathers position taken from him because she believed in Rhaenyra that much.

yeah, it's the classic victim blaming of girls/women and the refusal to lay any blame at the feet of a man that's inherent in the patriarchy

alicent is not the only character on whom you'll find this noxious misogynistic attitude projected and unfortunately it's prevalent in real life, where the crux of the issue is, thus affecting flesh-and-blood actual humans