#men are the oppresser

[dykeferatu]

it’s telling when people see discussions of transmisogyny as “oppression olympics” instead of like, just factual statements about reality

[poolboyservice]

"terfs like trans men!" "trans men don't have to worry about terfs!"

Oh I'm sorry wasn't there a big thing throughout 2020-2022 where everyone was all like "little girls are mutilating their bodies!", "what happened to our lesbians!?", "scared women are pretending to be men.", and so on? Wasn't there a literal book that talked about trans men, talking about them as if they were innocent girls who were lied to and thus were destroying themselves because of it, saying how we needed to 'save them from the hypnotization!"? Weren't there numerous bloggers/youtubers who made commentary videos in reaction to Elliot Page coming out, and proceeded to rant and rave how we are losing such beautiful women and lesbians to the "transgender agena"? What about the time where it was trending to fakeclaim trans people, whom most of the targets of this were trans men? How about when people called trans men 'dykes' because "well they're not actual men, they're just confused lesbians!"?

Do I need to add more, or do you guys understand?

[xmimikyuusx]

"Transandrophobia isn't real because that implies trans women oppress trans men" it doesn't, but do you think this way because you think transmisogyny means trans men oppress trans women?

"Transandrophobia is reactionary to transmisogyny and is just a way to make trans men feel special and more important" it isn't, but do you think that way because you think Transmisogyny is more "special and important" than other forms of oppression?

"Androphobia and misandry aren't real, so transandrophobia can't be" because you're basing your viewpoint on transmisogyny, and misogyny is the ultimate victimhood for you, right? Because we can't have a conversation separate from transmisogyny, because transmisogyny is the worst form of victimization, and everything stems from misogyny, especially transmisogyny. If you're not talking about misogyny, you might as well shut up.

And we can't have issues that aren't shared with cis people, because otherwise we aren't "really" men and women. Because white cishet people are the ones we should be looking to when we "prove" our identity through our suffering, right?

To be a woman, you have to suffer. To be a man, you can never suffer. You can never just be. You have guilt and shame and violence and self sacrifice to be doing if you dare to transition into power.

Because if you, a trans man, don't have male privilege, that must mean that trans women do, because we all live in opposite to eachother, even though the framework of male privilege is something made by and for cis people. If trans women are suffering, that must mean that you aren't.

You can't talk about your own life or struggles or else you're indirectly talking about trans women, and cis men, and cis women, and everyone else except you.

(And fuck non-binary and intersex people and whatever they have going on with their identities that shits just not important to our oppositional viewpoint, right? We can make them fit in this box based off of their genitals, anyway. Dont bring racism into this either, you're just being misogynistic if you do.)

[bisexualfagdyke]

The term "TMRA" used negatively/derogatorily in regards to trans men talking abt their oppression is wild to me. Being a trans men's rights activist is bad....why, exactly? Trans men literally lack fucking rights? HELLO?

[fleapit]

can we pleasee please please stop fucking fearmongering and blaming trans men for the predstrogen situation. please god. posts about "trans men teaming up with terfs to get trans women banned!" with zero sources all over my dash. blaming "transandrophobia truthers" for all the transmisogyny. have you all lost your fucking minds?? what the fuck happened to t4t??? what the fuck happened to trans solidarity??? why is "transfem separatism" even a subject worth entertaining????

anyone who says other trans people are the enemy is a fucking fed. jesus christ

[transmechanicus]

I know some people have unfathomable beef with the term but i really don’t see the issue with transmascs describing their specific experiences with societal mistreatment and persecution as “transandrophobia”, like i think it’s good to be able to discuss specific experiences and articulate the problems you’re facing actually.

[anghraine]

It's always been intriguing to me that, even when Elizabeth hates Darcy and thinks he's genuinely a monstrous, predatory human being, she does not ever perceive him as sexually predatory. In fact, literally no one in the novel suggests or believes he is sexually dangerous at any point. There's not the slightest hint of that as a factor in the rumors surrounding him, even though eighteenth-century fiction writers very often linked masculine villainy to a possibility of sexual predation in the subtext or just text*. Austen herself does this over and over when it comes to the true villains of her novels.

Even as a supposed villain, though, Darcy is broadly understood to be predatory and callous towards men who are weaker than him in status, power, and personality—with no real hint of sexual threat about it at all (certainly none towards women). Darcy's "villainy" is overwhelmingly about abusing his socioeconomic power over other men, like Wickham and Bingley. This can have secondhand effects on women's lives, but as collateral damage. Nobody thinks he's targeting women.

In addition, Elizabeth's interpretations of Darcy in the first half of the book tend to involve associating him with relatively prestigious women by contrast to the men in his life (he's seen as extremely dissimilar from his male friends and, as a villain, from his father). So Elizabeth understands Darcy-as-villain not in terms of the popular, often very sexualized images of masculine villainy at the time, but in terms of rich women she personally despises like Caroline Bingley and Lady Catherine de Bourgh (and even Georgiana Darcy; Elizabeth assumes a lot about Georgiana in service of her hatred of Darcy before ever meeting her).

The only people in Elizabeth's own community who side with Darcy at this time are, interestingly, both women, and likely the highest-status unmarried women in her community: Charlotte Lucas and Jane Bennet. Both have some temperamental affinities with Darcy, and while it's not clear if he recognizes this, he quietly approves of them without even knowing they've been sticking up for him behind the scenes.

This concept of Darcy-as-villain is not just Elizabeth's, either. Darcy is never seen by anyone as a sexual threat no matter how "bad" he's supposed to be. No one is concerned about any danger he might pose to their daughters or sisters. Kitty is afraid of him, but because she's easily intimidated rather than any sense of actual peril. Even another man, Mr Bennet, seems genuinely surprised to discover late in the novel that Darcy experiences attraction to anything other than his own ego.

I was thinking about this because of how often the concept of Darcy as an anti-hero before Elizabeth "fixes him" seems caught up in a hypermasculine, sexually dangerous, bad boy image of him that even people who actively hate him in the novel never subscribe to or remotely imply. Wickham doesn't suggest anything of the kind, Elizabeth doesn't, the various gossips of Meryton don't, Mr Bennet and the Gardiners don't, nobody does. If anything, he's perceived as cold and sexless.

Wickham in particular defines Darcy's villainy in opposition to the patriarchal ideal his father represented. Wickham's version of their history works to link Darcy to Lady Anne, Lady Catherine (primarily), and Georgiana rather than any kind of masculine sexuality. This version of Darcy is a villain who colludes with unsympathetic high-status women to harm men of less power than themselves, but villain!Darcy poses no direct threat to women of any kind.

It's always seemed to me that there's a very strong tendency among fans and academics to frame Darcy as this ultra-gendered figure with some kind of sexual menace going on, textually or subtextually. He's so often understood entirely in terms of masculinity and sexual desire, with his flaws closely tied to both (whether those flaws are his real ones, exaggerated, or entirely manufactured). Yet that doesn't seem to be his vibe to other characters in the story. There's a level at which he does not register to other characters as highly masculine in his affiliations, highly sexual, or in general as at all unsafe** to be around, even when they think he's a monster. And I kind of feel like this makes the revelations of his actual decency all along and his full-on heroism later easier to accept in the end.

------------

*The incompetently awful villain(?) in Sanditon, for instance, imagines himself another Lovelace (a reference to the famous rapist-villain of Samuel Richardson's Clarissa). Evelina's sheltered education and lack of protectors makes her vulnerable to sexual exploitation in Frances Burney's Evelina, though she ultimately manages to avoid it. There's frequently an element of sexual predation in Gothic novels even of very different kinds (e.g. Ann Radcliffe's The Mysteries of Udolpho and Matthew Lewis's The Monk both lean into this, in their wildly dissimilar styles). William Godwin's novel Caleb Williams, a book mostly about the destructive evils of class hierarchies and landowning classes specifically, depicts the mutual obsession of the genteel villain Falkland and working class hero Caleb in notoriously homoerotic terms (Godwin himself added a preface in 1832 saying, "Falkland was my Bluebeard, who had perpetrated atrocious crimes ... Caleb Williams was the wife"). This list could go on for a very long time.

**Darcy is also not usually perceived by other characters as a particularly sexual, highly masculine person in a safe way, either, even once his true character is known. Elizabeth emphasizes the resilience of Darcy's love for her more than the passionate intensity they both evidently feel; in the later book, she does sometimes makes assumptions about his true feelings or intentions based on his gender, but these assumptions are pretty much invariably shown to be wrong. In general the cast is completely oblivious to the attraction he does feel; even Charlotte, who wonders about something in that quarter, ends up doubting her own suspicions and wonders if he's just very absent-minded.

The novel emphasizes that he is physically attractive, but it goes to pains to distinguish this from Wickham's sex appeal or the charisma of a Bingley or Fitzwilliam. Mr Bennet (as mentioned above) seems to have assumed Darcy is functionally asexual, insofar as he has a concept of that. Most of the fandom-beloved moments in which Darcy is framed as highly sexual, or where he himself is sexualized for the audience, are very significantly changed in adaptation or just invented altogether for the adaptations they appear in. Darcy watching Elizabeth after his bath in the 1995 is invented for that version, him snapping at Elizabeth in their debates out of UST is a persistent change from his smiling banter with her in the book, the fencing to purge his feelings is invented, the pond swim/wet shirt is invented. In the 2005 P&P, the instant reaction to Elizabeth is invented, the hand flex of repressed passion is invented, the Netherfield Ball dance as anything but an exercise in mutual frustration is invented, the near-kiss after the proposal in invented, etc. And in those as well, he's never presented as sexually predatory, not even as a "villain."

[misandresther]

Young women's dating pool is really pathetic when you realise it's full of:

Porn addicts

"Sensitive" males whom you have to perform constantly so as not to hurt their feelings.

Narcisstic Gym Bros

Sociopaths

Emotional manipulators

"Woke" men who treat women as if we're trash.

[heliotrope-heathen]

transmascs im sorry about the world

[pjharvey]

basically every way in which patriarchy “harms men” they still actively and enthusiastically submit to because ultimately the material benefits they get from patriarchy and from conforming to expectations placed on men are far far greater than the handful of small drawbacks

[resdayn]

its wild to think that like 95% of transmasc discourse would go away if you all just listened to us talk about our own experiences. yes some of us lived happily as women for years and years before realizing we were trans men. some of us always knew we were men and changed our self-perceptions accordingly even if society thought of us as women. etc etc, the list goes on. but nah, most of this discourse is yall assuming trans men and mascs are a certain way without ever taking the time to listen to us.

[bisexualfagdyke]

people actually sit here and believe that the whole point of gender is "man oppresses woman" and apply that to conversations about trans men. As if we exist as trans men just to oppress women bcuz ... apparently that's why gender exists. Great heavens.

I think they hate the idea that trans men are actually not oppressors, and are in fact oppressed, because its challenges their view of gender when all they know is "men exist as a class to oppress women" (which is... so radfem. And probably why all the "trans inclusive" radfems hate trans men)

[dykedvonte]

You ever just see a Mouthwashing take that makes you want to bang your head into a wall? I literally just saw someone claim Curly couldn't have been emotionally abused by Jimmy before the crash because he was in a higher position of power than Jimmy.

-Shrimp Anon

The mouthwashing fandom has shown me that people genuinely do believe that certain types of abuse are not as detrimental as other types especially when they deem those immune/resistant, ergo, believing one is objectively worse no matter how it affects the person nor the intersections of power, history and dynamics at play.

Get ready cause this is a yap session:

Cause like it's heavily implied that Curly and Jimmy's friendship was toxic and abusive, pointedly in the direction of how Jimmy uses Curly's belief/comfort in him. Curly wasn't forced to enable Jimmy but he was emotional and mentally on edge around him in almost every scene in some way. Mental and emotional abuse are not contingent on what positions you have at work. Yeah, he's Jimmy's boss but he was Jimmy's friend first and it's like getting into Psych discussion to talk about how social power tends to overshadow any perceived organizational power in the human mind. People are concerned about their jobs ofc but they tend to hang onto and put more value/investment into their personal relationships, hence why there tends to be laws and restrictions around mixing the two.

I always see the sentiments that "Curly is a grown ass man", "Curly is bigger than Jimmy", "Curly is Jimmy's boss", "He just needed a backbone" as criticisms of Curly and while I do agree that on the surface level all of these to be true and viable ways Curly could've taken more control of the situation, I often look at the parallels of Anya and Curly as victims of Jimmy pre/post crash.

The way Jimmy talks to Anya post crash is how he talked to Curly in the pre-crash segments. It's hard to pin-point mainly because we know he hates and wants nothing to do with Anya compared to his contrary but similarly handled obsessions with Curly. It's a weird sort of "honey-moon" effect of abuse Jimmy does in terms of emotional and mental victimization. He is always horrid to Anya, always talking down or questioning her abilities and thoughts in a situation, this of course includes the harassment and assault. However, he has a moment of attempted gentleness/conditioning when he question her about the mouthwash when she's contemplating drinking it at the table. The key difference is he has no personal investment in Jimmy outside wanting nothing to do with him, meaning there is no sort of romanticized version of him that he can condition her off of. He knows this, hence, why he always reverts to trying to make her to scared to oppose him.

This sort of give and take of "kindness" doesn't work on her because she knows he is just doing it to take more from her than whatever he could possibly give but it reflects even the "softer" scenes between him and Curly where he always rewords or rephrases Curly's sentiments and concerns to sound more shallow. He is feigning a deeper understanding by reworking Curly's emotions into something bad and needing to be hidden. Everything is laced with envy and resentment, an outburst just around the corner, I mean he even slams the table in the birthday party scene, a tactic in emotional manipulation to set the victim on edge and cloud their ability to respond. Even if Curly knows Jimmy won't get physical in that moment, the physical actions is intended to make him back down in the confrontation in case it does. This is something that is just not person specific. It ingrains itself into how you interact with the world and life and it shows in major and minor ways with Curly.

Post-crash, the abusive nature is more in tandem to the physical victimization Anya went through and the stripping of voice and autonomy we see take place. Like the parasite in HFIM, Jimmy speaks for Curly most of the time and puts words in his mouth, similarly to how he takes Anya's plans as his own. He very commonly, with the both of them mind you, supplements the worst aspects of himself into them; pettiness, selfishness, lack of understanding... And tries to cover himself with their best qualities; kindness, planning, initiative, etc...

These parallel are just to say that positional power has little to do with if a person can be abused and how it can even be flipped to further the abuse. There is no doubt that Curly could've picked up on Jimmy's envy of his position hence another reason he never confronted him as a Captain but as a friend as doing so would immediately put Jimmy in a space to be confrontational/combative.

I think the disdain some people have when they talk about the heavily implied if not implicitly stated emotional/mental abuse Curly experienced being Jimmy's friend is when treating it as an excuse to why he didn't do more. I can understand that completely because it is not an excuse to why he didn't do more but is a very real reason people in his position in these scenarios can experience whether in the context of a work or social environment. However, I also think the way people talk about it really does demonstrate a bigger problem when talking about abuse when somehow who is/was abused is either part of the issue or enabled it.

Harkening back to the sentiments about Curly's inaction regarding Jimmy, I think the exact phrases I used/have seen show how there is an inherent belief that it is easier to overpower the effects of emotional/mental abuse that go in tandem with the perception of Curly as someone who should be able to. There is not an age you suddenly stop being susceptible to abuse nor a set point or low where you realize how it has affected you. You don't suddenly know to stand up or put a face on to face your abuser nor admit that you inadvertently enabled them to subjugate someone else to the same treatment. Maybe it's my psych brain but their is this growing belief that direct action is somehow easy or always the best method with the game shows you instances where it is not always the case. In real life that rings true too. He should have done more, but it's not impossible to see why he struggled to find a way or didn't even if it makes us mad.

It's not easy to suddenly gain a "back-bone". You don't immediately want to resort to aggression, especially if it mirrors the type you were a victim to. You don't want to believe you allowed yourself to be treated this bad, let it get that bad or allowed something bad to happen to someone else. It is easy to be in denial, to retreat to your thoughts or make excuses to avoid the painful truth. It's frustrating but in a way we know is relatable. It why we both hate and love Curly for it. We know we'd be better, we think we'd be better, we like to think we wouldn't falter in the same ways but it's always easier to say that from the outside looking in. It's easy to see what he was doing wrong because we are seeing it, not him, but the game really does make you picture what you would do if this was your raw reality and it's why this debate about Curly seems so never ending/contradictory. We can all say what we'd do but bottom line is that's much different when you're in the moment with all the emotions and human feelings attached.

I personally think Mouthwashing tackles the themes of rape culture, enabling, toxic masculinity, types of abuse and patriarchy in ways that are meant to deconstruct the typical straightforward views we mostly have of these concepts and how little subtilities of them are just as, if not more, detrimental than the overt/obvious parts. The game deals with the idea of little details and bigger picture in a way to show that sometimes the bigger picture is not the issue but the little details that make it up. It's why I have a personal dislike of depictions of Jimmy as the typical horrible person who would of course do something like this because the game is about noticing the little warning signs, the foreshadowing and foresight.

It's why I dislike the typical discussion of "bro code" and "boys will be boys" for the game because the game makes a point to avoid the standard depictions of such. It is about the type of men who still enable despite not condoning, agreeing or even perpetuating harmful beliefs because they can't see the little details or the ways it seeps into their everyday. The severity is not obvious to them as it was not obvious to Curly, Swansea or even Daisuke the way it was to a woman like Anya. There are little details about Jimmy that should ring alarms but if you are too naive like Daisuke, too distant like Swansea or too conditioned like Curly, they are just off markers.

There is 100% more constructive/concise ways to say "Curly was a victim of Jimmy's abuse on an emotional and mental aspect that clouded his judgements and perceptions in the scenario" while also critiquing on the side of "Curly still had a responsibility to protect Anya as a crew mate and Captain that he failed to do due to biases and stigma's he failed to surpass" without the weird condemnation people give him about should've knowing better than to let himself be manipulated by a person he considered a close, if not family/best-friend and had his own reasons to trust initially. Also stop being weird about victims of abuse in general with this fandom, like sorry not everyone has a like social epiphany the moment someone's nasty to them. People are treating it like you immediately know when you are in a toxic relationship immediately or comprehend when a person is actively dangerous and either it's your fault for not knowing how to leave/cut them off or you deserve it. Like the hypocrisy of people believing how certain fans treat the story reflect their irl views but not their own is crazy.

End statement is: I honestly don't even know man, I've been writing this too long and just like no man on that ship was perfect or really helped Anya when it mattered and I feel like pitting them against each other in discussion on who did the least or most or how it was justified sucks cause in the end Anya always did the most and best thing for herself.

[mallloryrowinski]

I just wanna know how some of you call yourselves feminists while preaching Catholicism in the same breath. Are you aware that you literally can’t get divorced in Vatican City? Is that okay with you because “marriage is God’s law” or whatever, so women shouldn’t have any rights?

You can’t claim to fight for women’s liberation while defending an institution that has spent centuries oppressing us. The Catholic Church has institutionalized male dominance—banning female clergy, opposing abortion, contraception, and even divorce. These policies directly strip women of autonomy.

If you're picking and choosing what’s convenient while ignoring the harm, that’s not feminism—it’s just cognitive dissonance

[gorgynei]

barbie is not an "anti man" movie at all. it's so obvious to me that the kens were written like idiots not to call all men idiots (well... maybe a little) but instead to show how easy it is for someone to get taken advantage of. it's important to remember that while the barbies and kens are played by and written as adults, they function in the real world and overarching narrative as adolescents that don't know very much about the world.

reading ken as a young boy, he's initially nice to the girls around him (if insecure, lonely, and feeling pretty disrespected) but as soon as he steps into the real world, he sees all these men who feel very secure in their masculinity and self-assured, and he wants that for himself. he falls into the trap of the patriarchy much like a lot of young boys in real life fall into extremist right wing ideologies. but ken's insecurity never really goes away, it just gets covered with faux fur and headbands and country music. it's why he cries and admits to barbie that leading was hard. he never really wanted to hurt the barbies at all, he just wanted to feel confident and accepted by everyone, but especially barbie.

ken was never the problem by himself. he wasn't made into the world hating women. he was manipulated and turned into a misogynist by society.

[faithisland]

now that transmascs are the fun exclusionist target I get to see every twenty posts something like "disgusting how trans men come on here and act like women oppress men, misandry isn't real! what a victim complex, men amiright" knowing full well what OP actually means is that is that they have an unnuanced understanding of feminism and oppression and believe that the identity "man" somehow completely overrides oppression and never adds to it.

but I have no way to know if Trusted Mutual believes that or just didn't understand the dogwhistles ...