#like the man says I Actually Have A Real Issue With The Patriarchy | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

velvetvexations · 7 months ago

Note

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.

#transandrophobia

167 notes · View notes

verdantwyrm · 24 days ago

Note

I recently saw an anti-Curlya fanart on Twitter where the idea was that Curly would never prioritize Anya's well-being regardless of whether Jimmy was there or not. The funny thing is that afterwards the person put a disclaimer saying ""I have nothing against the ship or those who ship it, BUT....". It's funny to say that after getting a bunch of people together to talk in a passive-aggressive way about the ship, the people who like it and even about heterosexual relationships in general.

If you dislike and are bothered so much by a ship, why interact with their community? I blocked the artist but I wonder, why, dude?

Oh I'm pretty sure I saw that one too. It's a real issue especially with those people that are so completely 100% convinced that every single man is the exact same towards women or in general with casual misogyny. And it's even worse with Curly, when we see him immediately prioritise Anya once he learns about what happens, he doesn't bother her about the gun anymore and reassures her constantly that they're going to fix this together.

I think it's personally fine to not like men, a lesbian's standpoint is obvious "of course we don't like men" but unnecessarily hating them for no reason and being extremely dismissive or cruel towards isn't going fto fix the patriarchy or unrape women and at the end of the day its just extremely redundant.

You could say that Curly has moments of casual misogyny, I wouldn't, but you're allowed to say that he does. But I don't think he is an offender, nor a problem. So seeing people make him out to be just like Jimmy (or worse in some cases) is one hell of a character assassination.

People choose to interact purposefully with the things they don't like because they're inflammatory and hateful, and then going as far to say "I have nothing against the ship, but" is redundant and ridiculously fucking stupid. It's fine you don't like the ship! If you want to have a headcanon that Curly is a raging misogynistic creep, sure! whatever! Just keep it a million miles away from me and the actual canon of the story, please and thanks.

I'm not going to say that people are discriminatory or oppressive towards Heterosexual ships because thats just not true, but it starts getting a bit uncomfortable if you're one of the people that constantly complain and hate on Het ships and the people that actually ship them. That's just a really dick thing to do and makes you look like a child.

#mouthwashing #mouthwashing curly #mouthwashing anya #curlya #curlyanya #anon

84 notes · View notes

genderqueerdykes · 16 days ago

Note

Hello, I’m a transfemme aligned individual who very much is a man hater. (Didn’t really enjoy your statement saying trans individuals don’t harbor these sentiments :/) I still present as a man and look like a man “boy moding” much through my life. I don’t feel shame harboring these sentiments because I grew up in 2 conservative cultures from the Global South who always uphold male supremacy. I saw these normalizations growing up and my anti masculine hate stemmed from a lot of this. I also see how much of the world is extremely against femininity. I’m a very unapologetically feminine person in the small areas I have the freedom to engage with it.

However, I don’t see issues with antimasculism nor do I perceive there being any real male struggles in the world. Often times, they are brought up to shut down misogyny which doesn’t sit right with me. Not saying your post did this of course!

I do comprehend the need to lower anti masculine sentiment as I do realize it can be childish and provocative. However, I won’t blame any young feminist or annoyed woman for expressing themselves. These are normal reactions in a world that has mistreated us, not just feminine individuals but all gender diverse individuals. For me, this is like telling a young person of color to not be mad at white people. That’s kind of messed up. I can understand the potential to initiate dysphoria but I believe this is a much more nuanced discussion. Men and masculine leaning individuals have too much privilege in my views. They face no real world concerns on a high level. All of the problems are byproducts of the patriarchy and gender binaries forced on our world. It’s just such a nuanced discussion.

I’d really like to hear what you think about this. Not trying to be inflammatory at all, just wanting a discussion or some thoughts!

hello there, thanks for taking the time to send an ask and give your thoughts & feelings. i understand a lot of what you're saying from your point of view because you gave me a lot of perspective, which i appreciate. i'd like to try to point a few things out that may help to articulate another way to look at these sorts of things. i hope this will be somewhat informative, at the very least. not here to force you to change your mind, but rather just provide another perspective

i wanted to apologize and clarify something- it's not that i don't think that you're trans, i've actually been trying to make the opposite clear recently, so sorry if i was not being clear enough. i believe you when you say you're trans. you're the only person who can dictate that. you are trans because you say you're trans. what i've pointed out numerous times is that trans people can be transphobic, and that doesn't invalidate their transness. trans people can be transphobic is my point. i don't think you're not trans because you're a man hater. i just want to point out that there is transphobia, queerphobia, intersexism, and other issues at play with those lines of thinking

im genuinely very sorry for how painful things are for you. i understand how overwhelming patriarchy is when you're transfeminine, it's like a heavy mantle that never leaves. it's always there waiting to make you miserable. i appreciate you speaking up about your genuine struggles and how patriarchy and transmisogyny affect you. you have a very real experience that doesn't deserve to be talked over, either. you deserve a platform to speak, because you are a real transfemme person and you have real experiences

i am sorry for how awful society is to you and your trans siblings. i know it's hard to want to look past that pain to forgive people who have hurt you or could potentially hurt you. like, it can be a monumental struggle. and maybe it's not something that can be done alone. i can't expect you to get over the hurt patriarchy has caused you overnight. you don't have to rush through coping and accept people who have genuinely hurt you. hating individual and groups of men who have hurt you is a legitimately valid thing to do, make no mistake. you're allowed to hate individuals that you've interacted with for treating you like dirt

what i can do, as a man, is extend a listening ear and a hand and say hey. i'm glad you're telling me about this. that means this is affecting many, many more trans people than just you, and that's a massive issue. we can't let this keep happening. let's work together to help men understand the ways in which they hurt other people so we can hold them accountable once and for all and put an end to how they treat you, and everyone else.

However, I don’t see issues with antimasculism nor do I perceive there being any real male struggles in the world.

i understand why you feel that way, from your perspective. just a few things i'd like to point out to think about is that gay, queer, trans, nonbinary, genderfluid, genderqueer, interesex and other men struggle under patriarchy in just about every culture, so there are some male struggles, especially when it comes to disabled men who cannot work enough to support themselves, for example. men who are not masculine and cannot work enough are treated like garbage no matter what culture we're a part of. there are likely indigenous men suffering as we speak where you're from. mentally ill men are treated like trash and allowed to be homeless for no good reason. homeless men rarely have resources specifically for men, it's usually for homeless women in particular trans men almost universally never benefit from patriarchy, even when they pass. they are not instantly seen as cishet men. even if you live in a place where people of color are the majority of your population, for example, there are still other men who are minorities that suffer, as minorities are not always racial

Men and masculine leaning individuals have too much privilege in my views.

it's highly situational, for sure. for example, butch lesbian women do not get any extra privilege at all, in fact, butch women are treated horribly, especially when they're transfemme butch women. butch women face very high rates of physical and sexual assault. as do trans men and mascs, genderqueer people, nonbinary people, and intersex people. masculine men who are disabled generally don't have a lot of privilege, either. some men people are viewed as "less" masculine because of racial traits due to racism, same for black and dark skinned men being seen as "more" masculine due to racism. this can affect men very negatively, as very masculine black men are always seen as a danger and a threat in the United States and many other English speaking predominately white countries, which is not a good thing. it leads to black men being thrown in jail just because of racial discrimination. masc trans men can pass successfully sometimes, but not always, and are often outed as trans or "butches/dykes" when people find out they're trans. really, it's only a select few masculine people and men who benefit.

i see why you think and feel the way you do. i know you have suffered a lot, and i know you're in pain. i never want you to feel like i'm invalidating you and your pain. i think the hatred you feel is legitimate, i think it's just being targeted at the wrong people, presently. what has hurt you is patriarchy, not manhood or men. if we single out specific men and hold them accountable for their actions, it actually sets the tone for helping us improve how men view other people and themselves. this is the key to setting us all free is holding individual men accountable. when we say that they're wholesale trash subhumans who will continue to do this, it becomes a self fulfilling prophecy.

we have to resist, not give in! if we continue to give in like this, it will never change. right now, we are acting as if defeated.

i'm sure many, many times in your life, you've been told that you're just an evil predator for being a transfemme. why would you be okay with doing this to someone else? that pain is unimagineable. you don't deserve that, not at all. so why are you comfortable doing it to people who haven't hurt you?

there are transfeminine individuals who are also men, so it might not be wise to say that no men struggle ever, because transfeminine people and trans women can be bigender, genderfluid, multigender, have cultural gender identities like being Two-Spirit and so on. there are trans women who identify as gay men as well, and other kinds of men. they're still trans women, so it's important to hear them out and understand that they struggle too. also profiling strangers can affect other stealth transfemmes like yourself, you may run across another transfemme in stealth who's trying really hard to pass for safety and accidentally misgender them without ever realizing

gender diversity includes all kinds of people including transmascs, trans men, bigender men, genderfluid men, genderqueer men, nonbinary men, intersex men, gnc men, and so on! there are a lot of ways to be gender diverse and men and mascs are included in that. butch applies to more than just cis women

this also hurts transfemmes who are questioning and in the process of coming out. some transfemmes and trans women still identify as cis men right now, for a variety of reasons. some just stopped identifying as cis men recently. it's very uninviting to someone who's still questioning themselves if we profess that it's okay to be men... because some transfemmes are still men. we need to let questioning people take their time

we are not asking you or anyone else to forgive patriarchy or toxic masculinity, quite the opposite! we do not want these things, either. we do not want you to have to drop what you're doing and prioritize toxic men who have genuinely harmed you and others. we want to abolish toxic masculinity and patriarchy. we want to undo the harm they cause. what we are trying to do is educate men and let them know this is not the way it has to be. that it literally doesn't have to be like this. we can change this if we work together. if we never truly challenge patriarchy at its source- those who actually genuinely benefit from and uphold it- we can never bring it down. we have to challenge those men on this. we have to tell them it's wrong. we have to be willing to engage with those men in conversation in a civil fashion so they can interpret information, instead of react with fear or anger.

you'll never hit your mark if you keep aiming for the wrong target

i hope these are couple things to think about, if you'd like to ask any more questions or let me know about anything else feel free to do so, i may not have all the answers for everything and i don't intend to tell you how to think, but i hope these make sense and are at least somewhat informative in some way even if you don't see eye to eye with me. take care of yourself for now

edit: as others have pointed out, masculine queer individuals may no longer feel safe around you if you state this openly, and there are many masculine queer people who haven't hurt you, so it's not a good idea to make other people feel unsafe. i know you feel unsafe, but making others feel unsafe isn't the answer in this situation

#asks #feedback #man hating #antimasculism #antimasculinity

63 notes · View notes

fernlessbastard · 7 months ago

Text

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.

#tbf i think it's low-key the human condition to enjoy penetration #like obviously there'll always be people who don't enjoy it for whatever reason (and that's perfectly valid)#but i think the majority of people enjoy/would enjoy it (looking at you cishet men with internalised misogyny/homophobia)#like literally going by the most common and normative anatomy of both afab and amab bodies most all of us have the parts to enjoy it #this may or may not be what you'll read in my gay people fanfiction #quackbur headcanons #anyway #tntduo #dsmp #tnt duo #quackbur #quackity #dream smp #tntblr #c!wilbur #c!wilbur soot #revivedbur #revivebur #las Nevadas #dsmp wilbur #fernless rants #fern rambles #ferns spicy art #anyway gonna get to art soon enough (?) I'm really sorry to all asks in my inbox I'm oniy finishing up a pretty hectic irl period

49 notes · View notes

grilde1chesse · 3 months ago

Text

idk abt u guys but i feel like the argument that transandrophobia isn't real is borderline so stupid. the words existence isn't to imply that androphobia/misandry is an actual issue at all or somehow deserve more attention than womens experiences, or thatmen are somehow not privileged. its refering to trans men's experiences with being shamed for "choosing" to be men. its saying the demonetization of our identities is harmful, that trans men are not misogynists for being men, that trans men should not have to apologize for their identity.

i will admit, transandrophobia is definitely misleading, and implies its a similar form of gendered oppression to cis men, (in the same way transmisogyny and misogyny are similar oppression wise), which it's not. being a trans man doesnt exclude or save you from misogyny, nobody is saying trans men and transmascs cannot weaponize misogyny. please stop believing radfems who claim men can only exist in opposition to women.

think about it this way: cis men are not oppressed, they are incredibly privileged, these are well known facts, yet transwomen are demonized for "being men" or "pretending" to be a woman. trans women are oppressed and shamed for being "predatory" and fitting other male stereotypes. in this situation, she is being oppressed because society views her as a man, and therefore easily targetable as a threat. this is a mindset put forward by transphobic politicians, radfems & terfs in order to oppress and harm trans women.

you see where im going here? a similar tactic is used on trans men, where again men are momentarily viewed as evil and violent. this is projected onto trans men in order to justify hatred towards them. cis men are not oppressed, trans men are however. this tactic is used to discourage transmascs & men from starting t, putting forward stereotypes and rumors that t will somehow turn you into a perverted violent asshole, or queer communities isolating transmascs when they embrace their masculinity.

its taking societies hatred towards patriarchy and projecting it onto vulnerable minorities. this form of oppression is less similar to any prejudice put forward towards cis men in order to stay safe, and rather violent stereotypes made about trans women.

i could get side tracked and talk about how womenhood is used in a similarly weaponized manner, one that (because women are oppressed and misogyny is an issue) also affects cis women. like how trans women are discouraged from starting e in fear of "becoming weak" and other misogynistic stereotypes, and how trans men are told they'll never be "real men" because they'll always be a "weak little girl". i could also compare that to my previous examples with men being deemed violent and dangerous in order to harm trans people, and mention how those stereotypes do not harm cis men, because for so long being violent has been deemed desirable and masculine, and that cis men do not experience oppression.

transandrophobia isn't saying trans men aren't in any way more privileged than trans women. we are. it isn't saying cis men are oppressed. they aren't. its simply stating that our gender is treated like something dangerous, and like an opposition to womenhood. its talking out about the problems with a system that cannot support men and women without demonizing one, about how the concept of manhood being an opposition to women is a harmful stereotype used against trans individuals, rather than cis men. please stop listening to radfems. we're all on the same side, we're all fighting for the same rights. stay alive and take care of each other.

take my little guy i made 4 pride last year. he wants friends

#trans man #trans men #trans #trans pride #transgender #transfem #transmasc #trans women #trans woman #trans rights #trans male #transmisandry #transmisogny #.txt

27 notes · View notes

writing-for-life · 3 months ago

Text

“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…

#the sandman #sandman #dream of the endless #morpheus #lord morpheus #nada sandman #nada #the sandman comics #the sandman netflix #kai'ckul #henrik ibsen #a doll's house #the doll’s house #sandman meta #the sandman analysis #the sandman meta #sandman bookclub #sandman spoilers #queue

19 notes · View notes

hummingbird-hunter · 3 months ago

Text

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.

#feminism #misogyny #transgender

19 notes · View notes

therevengeoffrankenstein · 2 years ago

Text

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.

#myevilposts #transphobia tw #but i'll get paid more. right? sure. i have that going for me i guess.#that's not worth nothing. i know i'm entitled slightly for being a man. sure. but like there is a specific #brand of transphobia that targets me. that will always call me a woman until i say hey i get oppressed for being seen #as a woman and having the genitals that i have and then it's all But Uh Um You're A Man. Men Aren't Oppressed.#sure sweetie. but i am a trans man. important difference.#and then it's all Oh So You Don't Actually See Yourself As A REAL Man. You're Such A Fake! and it's like sighs. sighs so loudly.#i get treated differently than other men because i am trans.#also people saying misandry isn't real like toxic masculinity doesn't exist and isn't a widespread systemic societal issue.#like yes! smash the patriarchy! but you don't need to be prejudiced about men to do that.#bc it's a systemic issue you all know this right men as a whole are not inherently evil the patriarchy is a systemic societal issue right.

6 notes · View notes

additiva · 4 months ago

Text

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)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

And that forces him to reconsider his previous perspective as a bystander.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

#frechheitfic

22 notes · View notes

b0ytemper · 22 days ago

Text

watching heartcatch precure and feeling conflicted because itsuki is really endearing, but i can’t stop feeling sour that any time mainstreamish media does a gender identity narrative it’s always about a girl embracing femininity. like wow it’s okay for a girl to be girly? how groundbreaking.

like, for sure, the pressure on girls and women to reject hyperfemininity in order to be taken seriously under patriarchy is a real issue. i’m sure there were girls who felt seen by itsuki and that’s great. but i can’t help but also think of all the little girls out there who wish they could be more masculine without getting shunned for it, or the ones who don’t want to be girls at all, seeing a girl who looks like their ideal self shaking off their masculinity like it’s a burden and joining all the other normal feminine little girls in frilly dresses and perfume land. it’s never allowed to be about girl who WANTS to be more masculine, it’s never about a character realizing they’re trans, it’s never a man being encouraged to embrace his inner femininity.

and they have to come up with this crazy convoluted reason that barely makes sense for her to actually end up in that situation. like what ten year old watching this show is going to see itsuki struggling with gender expression because she feels pressured to disguise herself as a boy by her mysterious rich family to cover for her sicky femboy older brother and think that’s relatable or map that onto their own feelings and experiences at all

like i’m not expecting this japanese children’s cartoon to cater to me, white american 25 year old man, but it’s not just precure, it’s everywhere, so i’m bitching about precure because that’s what i’m watching right now. it honestly would have made more sense than the weird convoluted rich secret gender swap thing to just fully commit to what they seem to be trying to say with her character and made her a boy who’s either just longing to embrace his feminine interests, or straight up a closeted trans girl who comes out when she becomes a magical girl. i’m gonna watch the rest of the season pretending itsuki is a trans girl for my sanity

#precure #pretty cure #heartcatch #heartcatch precure #heartcatch pretty cure #myoudouin itsuki #cure sunshine #in general though i’m super impressed with this show’s character writing so far #nice depth while still being easily understandable to the target audience #and really endearing to boot #the only weak link in the main cast besides the mascots is cure moonlight #but i’m only on episode 15 and i trust they’ll expand on her more later #really liked the bit where she hung out in the background of the momo episode that was clever and cheeky

18 notes · View notes

velvetvexations · 5 months ago

Note

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

#so angry for so many reasons #transandro phobia #trans radical feminism #discourse

64 notes · View notes

jingerpi · 10 months ago

Text

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.

#long #self post #was writing about this to someone in discord and decided to make a version for tumblr #discourse i guess?#contrapoints

39 notes · View notes