#of young oppressed men and how their oppression can radicalize them

[hrrystylesbookclub]

as someone who loves to reread books, i feel like the hunger games has some of the best rereadability

i’ve read each of the trilogy each least 5 times each, and tbosas twice, and every time i pick up something new, sometimes about panem as a whole, sometimes it’s character insights, sometimes it’s connections to the real world.

ive said it before, but suzanne such a brilliant author, and she manages to give every character such depth that makes them ALL such compelling characters

i just think it’s incredible how she can write books that fall perfectly into a ya dystopian genre and also provides such profound commentary on society and government

[ramblings-of-a-detrans-woman]

Why I will never support the radical feminist movement, as a detransitioning woman.

note: this is not meant to be any sort of hit piece or slander, I respect every feminist, even ones I disagree with. This is just my reasoning for why I do not like the radfem movement.

For a bit of context, I’ve indentified as trans since I was 12. At 18, I’ve decided to live my life as a lesbian woman, and i’ve never been happier with that choice.

Now, being a young trans man, I interacted a lot with pro trans content online (of course I did), and so of course I’ve heard about radical feminism. A passionate branch of feminism that takes a unique approach to women’s rights- deconstructing gender entirely. It sounds wonderful in theory, because of course gender is oppressive, most notably of women. I would know, being one. Even when I was trans I had to worry about being out at night. I even got chased once, and a man attempted to lure me to his truck another time. It’s brutal. But radical feminists devote their activism to ending this in a straightforward, logical way.

So why do I, a woman who has experienced both misogyny and transphobia, not support that? I feel that this is a good question for both trans allies and radfems alike to to ask. Knowledge is power.

Well, I’ll be direct. Radfems are some of the most depraved people i’ve ever met. I know, that sounds like a lot, but there’s no other words I can use that don’t perfectly encapsulate my experience with radfems. It’s depravity.

For weeks, I was harassed by transphobic radfems. Radfems, who are insistent on their love and support for TIFs aka trans men. It’s strange then that they would be so cruel towards one, wouldn’t you say?

Detransition is hard enough. It’s difficult to tell family that you were wrong. It’s difficult to reconnect with my gender. Hell, i prefer the term detrans over cis just because i have such a disconnect from my gender. So why do I have to deal with transphobic radfems sending me gore and death threats?

Thankfully all of the accounts doing this seem to be deleted or repurposed. But it’s only a matter of time until a new account is made just to send me an ask telling me to kill myself or a message about how much of a loser i am.

It’s this reason alone why i’ll never be a radfem. They’re just sick people. They don’t want liberation for women, they just hate trans people. It’s not even thinly veiled, their accounts are fully based around how horrible trans women are.

The truth being, trans women aren’t bad people at all. It’s easy to think they are because the news and media cherry picks some of the worst ones, but every community and minority group has bad people in it. some of the sickest people you could imagine, really. yes, they can be trans. but does being trans make you a sick person? does it turn you into a predator? no, it doesn’t. it just means you’re trans. trans or not, it’s up to men to be mature and take accountability for their own actions that they consciously make. a cis man is as capable to walk into a women’s room as a trans woman is.

if radical feminists cared more about women and detrans women, i could consider getting along with them. but sadly, all these passionate and dedicated feminists care about is hating trans people with a fiery passion. and i’ve been a casualty. it’s very difficult for me to sympathize with radfems when they’ve upset me to the point that they have

let me make it clear that gore and death threats don’t upset me, i’m not easily offended. So it’s not the threats that make me angry. It’s just the principle. The fact that radfems are spending their time scrolling reddit for gore pictures to send to fellow women instead of supporting us makes me SICK. it’s heartbreaking to picture a woman, raped and beaten by her boyfriend, and a radfem standing in front of her, readily available to help, but choosing to yell at a passing detrans woman. It’s really sad.

hopefully those reading this can take my words into consideration and use it to improve yourselves or your community (if you’re a radfem). i love womanhood and being a woman and i would love to share that joy with my sisters, but i just can’t when these issues i’ve experienced are in the back of my mind. I want radical feminism to be a safe space, a place where sisters can go to talk to women, relate to women, cry with and support women. but so far, the only love and support i’ve received has been from the trans community. that speaks volumes.

i am going to post more about my experience with finding my womanhood again in the future, so if you’re a detrans woman yourself, trans ally or not, consider following me :) i’d love to build myself a little community

[kataraslove]

I just stumbled across your acc and I gotta say, I agree with alotta ur takes

Ur sooo well spoken and I really enjoy reading your thoughts and opinions

Katara is one of my favorite characters and it makes me really happy to see someone appreciate her and her writing

Ngl a lot of atla fans r lowkey braindead so ur acc is pretty refreshing

Thanks for posting!! 🩷

thank you! 🩷 your words are too kind. i appreciate it.

i did mention this before, but this blog stemmed kind of entirely out of spite. i was sick and tired of fandom on here telling me that there was only one way to interpret and enjoy my favourite character, dictating who i could or could not ship her with and how much of a stan that made me. it’s not an experience just unique to the atla fandom, of course. it’s becoming something more apparent nowadays especially, the ways in which multiple readings and interpretations of a character is heavily discouraged by fandom in favour of just one.

it’s baffling how, for so many years, there was a strict binaric interpretation of katara’s character, with 0 being non-canon and 1 being completely in favour of all things canon. either you had to vehemently agree with everything that bryke wrote for katara’s within atla and post-canon, to the point where i have seen people defend the lack of statues of her as “oh, she probably didn’t want one anyway,” (NO!!) or you had to have deep-rooted anger and rejection for all things that were done to her story, in the guise of katara deserving better.

katara does deserve better narratively, but NOT in the ways that the tumblr fandom thinks she should have. not in the ways that she should be ambassador to the fire nation, or become firelady (a racist depiction in fanon and nothing but a decorative title in canon) and live out the rest of her life by zuko’s side, serving and prioritizing zuko’s nation.

“but wouldn’t it be empowering if katara sat on the throne of her oppressors and got to dictate - “ no. it’s not. stop advocating for that type of ending for women from oppressed and marganized groups. stop acting like that is the ideal future that katara wanted this whole time, that ruling as part of a foreign monarchy that decimated your people and your culture is the ultimate threshold for liberation.

i’ve seen people who claim to take a doylist perspective for critique of atla (read: kataang)’s writing completely lose all comprehension when it comes to critically assessing post-canon zutara. by that i mean, if we continue with the writing direction that we saw for all of the female atla characters in the sequel series, a zutara endgame would position katara in a worse outcome than she got narratively. but you tell anyone that and it’s an instant “zuko would have given her 10 statues!!”

but most importantly, nothing has radicalized me more over this year than seeing the “katara deserves better (in the form of zuko)” crowd, the same crowd who is currently dreading any form of fixing or retcons from avatar studios in upcoming content, defend the hell out of natla katara’s writing. the very same people who were praising katara’s arc to the stars, stating that it was nearly complete until the two grown men decided to pair her up with aang and ruined all at the end.

well, what about the group of zutara shippers in the natla writer’s room who handed her everything in the narrative, who removed her flaws, her anger, her compassion, who stripped her down to everything except hope, all in the name so that she wouldn’t appear unlikable to audiences. i mean, that tremendously backfired for them, because now the young actress who plays katara is getting hate spewed at her for failing to portray katara interestingly, when the problem has always been the shit writing.

anyway, i appreciate this message! glad i could be of service and it’s nice that you’re a zuko fan who ships kataang! lots of people who love zuko do.

“a lot of atla fans are braindead” LMAO you can say that again!!!

[jingerpi]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[pokegyns]

my hot take is that on radblur a lot of conversations about how hard separatism is are immedietly labeled as lesbophobic one way or another. usually bc they mention how selfidentified separatist lesbians will tell straight women how easy not dating men or being celibate is. I'm not saying lesbians oppress straight women, nobody ever says that in those conversations, but it's obviously full of shit, celibate lesbians, who aren't doing it for safety reasons, are either uninterested in romance or didn't find their dream girl YET. this is nothing like refusing to date when you have the desire purely out of principle. while there are other aspects of separatism not dating men is obviously the bulk and I'm not surprised when straight women are salty bc this is literally "Luigi wins by doing nothing" of feminism. you wouldn't have dated these men anyway...

and this is on anon bc saying "lesbians do this thing" is considered lesbophobic even if lesbians actually consistently do this thing 😁

not all lesbians etc etc but you get what I mean

i honestly agree. i'm personally a very romance-driven creature, and i know 1000% that if i wasn't a lesbian, if i had either been bisexual and fallen in love with a dude or been straight, i would never have stopped myself from feeling that love and still done feminist activism within that relationship by holding him to a very high standard and maintaining strong feminist friendships, monitoring things in a smart, emotionally intelligent way, and taking all the happiness i can out of life while also being a badass activist.

some of the hardest working female activists had happy marriages to men! and still made a huge impact, at times bigger than some separatists who scoffed at them and wasted their time just talking shit about women all day. separatists do awesome work, work that often is really valuable especially for young girls who feel like they have to dedicate their lives to dating. but if a woman gets a huge amount of happiness from dating, and is willing to be firm in her feminist convictions and handle it in the way that some non-unhinged so-called "femcels" do it, then i'm all for it and i'll be happy to hear her gossip about her bf anytime the same way i get happy hearing about my lesbian friends' gfs. seeing women happy makes me happy, i just want them to have a really good safety net and to know what they're getting into, and i love seeing male-dating women and transmascs exchange tips on how to date bio men as safely as possible and juggle dating a man and being a feminist. saying that separatism is inherently The Most Feminist thing you can do erases work that ONLY women who date men can do; they still hold something that men desire, and they get to make the rules. they also at times end up being the mothers of the next male generation, and that too can be a very powerful position to hold, as controversially as that is to say on doomerist radblr, if only because it can lead to some level of harm reduction on female kids & their female teachers etc. instead of letting only conservative women bear future kids and populate the earth - because we know they will regardless - raising kids in a feminist household can prove to be very valuable. you ofc can't prevent them from being radicalized down the line, but you can still have a meaningful impact.

it's really weird to try to explain to normie leftist-ish women irl who aren't deep on radblr that saying "you can date men and have kids and be an awesome feminist regardless" or "i personally want to see humanity continue, i don't believe in ending it, i want feminist mothers raising the next gen" or even "i believe transfems face unique struggles" can lead to you being mocked, shunned, and get hate anons outta nowhere (though nowhere near the shit i've gotten in tra circles lmao). it's a really wacky culture we have going on in here, and ngl it makes me cringe. it's just so... unproductive.

i 1000% want separatism to be an option. i think it's a great side of radfeminism. but i personally want to tackle issues between male and female people by actually interacting with the male population meaningfully and figure out the issue of gncphobia ppl - including male ppl - face so that the gender boxes can be destroyed... and even that recently got me in trouble, despite me being a lesbian and obvs not dating men. chronically online spaces in general foster really extremist views that aren't helpful at all to any social movement. we can gather more separatists for the movement and let male-partnered feminists do activism their own way. obviously i've received lesbophobia from the other side as well, but i'm honestly sorry for the way that lesbians and het-attracted women generally uninterested in dating treat women who enjoy and benefit from dating emotionally. having a romantic partner is a huge part of my life, and i can never see myself give up on it. it would then be insanely hypocritical of me to expect it of someone else just bc we happen to have a different sexuality. even if a febfem ended up falling for a man and going through with it, that wouldn't be a betrayal either! female happiness is my #1 priority. and no, that isn't me being a hetero bootlicker or male apologist or whatever the fuck separatists have called me before in radfem spaces. i'm just being realistic. is our main goal as feminists to abolish the hetero dating scene? bc if so, we're gonna have next generations full of conservatively raised kids, including male kids, who will then be more likely to be sexist.

thankfully normie feminists irl, who aren't deep in either extremist tra or extremist radfem spaces, would be in total disbelief if you told them about this stuff. and they would just go back to their activism. and i think we should do the same. don't listen to those voices, do what's right for YOU in your heart. just maintain your convictions, don't let male ppl trample all over you, ditch them the very second they say anything antifeminist or shitty, and chase your happiness. your personal life does not need to define your feminist activism. you are still 100% welcome here, in this nuancefem corner of radblr!

-mod pikachu

[xxchromies]

i see where you are coming from, as a radfem, woth the topic of pregnancy. Thing is, even if the general consensus of radical feminism is that as of now pregnancy is a tool of oppression, singular individuals are still going to enjoy it as a part of their personal life. But also, a woman being *personally* invested in the idea of pregnancy, and against the idea of late abortion, should not mean that other women should stop discussing those topic however they want. Women can detest the idea of pregnancy (i do). Women should want to abort whenever they want (kid is still relying on her after all). This should be objective morality. Subjective morality is what you, personally, feel like doing - you can support a woman's right to abort after 4 months AND be unable to abort a 2 month proto-fetus yourself. You can support other women's disdain of pregnancy and still, personally, want to be a mother.

Of course, some times, those things will not perfectly align with all contemporary radical feminist thoughts, but this is something you should simply accept: you are going to have opinions, and are going to make actions, which reasonate with you but aren't intrinsecally radically feminist. No one is forcing you to lose your identity to radical feminism or viceversa.

I don’t know where people are getting the idea that all women should want to be mothers and if they don’t they’re horrible awful people and they’re just denying their true animalistic nature.

My main point was you shouldn’t use radical feminism as an excuse to say vile and dehumanizing things about mothers/pregnant women. Additionally, having children is a natural thing inherent to all animals and its men and their treatment of women that fucks it up. Also you’re free to not want to be pregnant. I don’t even want to be pregnant myself! Like it’s some tough shit, I’m not denying that. But it’s unique to the female body. And I don’t particularly love people demonizing the female body. Or normalizing the hatred of certain parts of the female body, calling them “disgusting”. How is that any different than the young women who feel shame and disgust about their periods or breasts? You could argue that having periods and breasts is inevitable while being pregnant isn’t, but it is something only females can do. And I don’t see why this viewpoint would be in conflict with radical feminism at all. I would like to think female liberation wouldn’t involve demonizing something that’s natural and is associated with the female body.

Also I don’t really agree that women being able to abort whenever they want should be objective morality.

[askgothamshitty]

https://x.com/nantrean/status/1885152066642866485?t=QRvxeXRwbx2ozZfoXldmSw&s=19

This is such a funny reaction to what the guy said because I (a black queer woman who barely aligns with traditional femininity) agreed with him and had a very similar experience. I watched those very same sjw feminist get owned crap and yes, seeing them hate on black people was the thing that pulled me back into reality. It's not something that i am proud of, but it is something I went through.

Race discourse is very prevalent, I live in a former slave colony. From young I was heavily informed and sensitized to racism and I was far more able to recognize racism than I was misogyny even though I experienced both.

The issue is not that men are inherently evil, it's that misogyny is not a very discussed thing. The historical oppression of women is very hush hush. The conversations around racism is very different than those around misogyny.

I was on the internet during the liberal buzzfeed feminist era. I was young, struggling to fit in and, in general, just had a time with my gender and identity. I live in a predominantly Christian conservative country, so not a lot to challenge my understanding of misogyny and gender based oppression. The things these right wing pipeline people were saying about women were things I already heard and believed growing up.

I was also radicalized into a lot of queerphobia and transphobia. And that unfortunately remained unchallenged for years because I was (and still am lmao) very in denial, and only recently I was able to find community in that regard.

But the gag is, it was also my blackness and time in the redpill pipeline that pulled from the radical feminist to TERF pipeline just about 2 or 3 years ago. Because when I saw statements like the one I shared and all the fear mongering about colored men, the way they spoke about woc and the oppression they experienced, knowing how racist that shit was made me take a step back. And seeing that same language being weaponised against queer men and transwomen really made it clear to me what was going on.

I'm not defending the man (because I don't know him), but I will say, yes, remembering that you are black can save you from going down many dangerous pipelines. Obviously my experience is anecdotal but idk

(Also i do agree with the general sentiment the post is shared regarding moc and their relationship with red pill content but I know a terf when I see one lmao)

Wow this was really insightful! You should write more about your personal experiences with and perspectives on this stuff. Or just use my inbox anytime.

Isn’t the racism in the TERF community so nasty… it’s noooo different than regular alt-right stuff. They hide it because they know it kills their progressive veneer.

[dailyanarchistposts]

The prism of social hierarchy

Amidst these broad historical shifts, the last decades of struggle have also seen a critique of social hierarchy becoming increasingly influential, particularly within anarchist circles. Writers like Murray Bookchin described hierarchies as including any social relation that allows one individual or group to wield power over another. In his words:

By hierarchy, I mean the cultural, traditional and psychological systems of obedience and command, not merely the economic and political systems to which the terms class and State most appropriately refer. Accordingly, hierarchy and domination could easily continue to exist in a “classless” or “Stateless” society. (The Ecology of Freedom, 1982)

What Bookchin offers here is a lens for understanding society that explicitly exceeds Marxist and anarchist orthodoxies, especially the class reductionism. This isn’t a matter of doing away with the struggle against the state and capital, given that both institutions are as hierarchical as any. Rather, the point is to recognise that additional hierarchies – those based, for example, on relations of race, gender, sexuality, age, ability, and species – cannot be entirely contained within the narrow categories either of economic exploitation or political coercion. Various hierarchies existed before the advent of both class and the state, be it the hierarchy of men over women, the old over the young, or humans over other animals. And they will continue to exist in the future, too, even within ostensibly radical circles, unless we make a concerted effort to undermine them in the now. What we need is a broader focus for our resistance, one that includes a deep concern for the old targets without being limited by them. A social critique based on hierarchy offers this distinctly horizontal outlook, combining an appreciation of the holism of domination with the refusal to single out any one of its axes as primary.

This is no call to do away with class analysis altogether. The broad, materially focused analyses of theorists like Marx remain useful for explaining how economic factors motivated much of the development of oppressive relations. Nor can we forget that, were it not for the invention of the state, the normalisation of these relations to such a staggering extent would have been impossible. But we need to appreciate these insights without going overboard, mistakenly taking either class or the state to be the crux of social domination. Treating any single form of oppression as primary (almost always the one we just happen to feel closest to) is all too often a cheap excuse for sidelining the others. And this problem isn’t somehow abstract or peripheral, either, but denotes one of the main reasons many resistance movements seem incapable of relating to broader sections of society nowadays. Only by granting equal consideration to all oppressions can the struggle begin to maximise its inclusivity, accommodating those people – in fact, the vast majority of people – whose experiences and wellbeing have already been marginalised everywhere else.

Unlike identity politics, however, what keeps the critique of hierarchy from trailing off into reformism is that it nonetheless locates all oppressions within a single power structure. Only this time it’s hierarchy, not class, that frames the discussion as such. You can explain patriarchy, for example, not only as a specific form of oppression, but also as something that arises from a set of relations that includes gender whilst vastly exceeding it. Because there’s something inherent in patriarchy that permeates all other instances of oppression, and that thing is its core structure – specifically, its hierarchical structure. Patriarchy can be summarised simply as gender hierarchy; white supremacy, meanwhile, is a specific kind of racial hierarchy; the state is the hierarchy of government over the general population; capitalism is the hierarchy of the ruling class over the working class; and so on. It’s impossible to imagine an instance of oppression that isn’t grounded in exactly this kind of setup, namely, an institution that grants one section of society arbitrary control over another. Which is to say that all oppressions, no matter how diverse, presuppose the very same asymmetrical power relations, each of them subordinating the needs of one group to the whims of another. Everything from homelessness, to pollution, to transgender suicides can thus be revealed not as isolated issues, but instead as flowing from a common source. What we’re dealing with, basically, is a single problem: social hierarchy is a hydra with many heads, but only one body.

Some might approach this description with caution, as if it were just another attempt to reduce all oppressions to one. But the critique of hierarchy isn’t reductionist in the Marxian sense: rather than singling out any one form of oppression as more fundamental than the others, it merely emphasises the structure they all assume. This kind of bigger-picture thinking hardly means failing to realise what’s unique to every liberation struggle, as if to subsume them into some amorphous whole; the point is only to emphasise particularities without getting bogged down in them. That means combining an intimate knowledge of different oppressions with a broader understanding of those features they all hold in common, including the very real pain, exclusion, and destruction of potential each entails. In other words, every form of oppression, aside from being a problem in itself, must also serve as a gateway for entering the clash with social hierarchy as a whole.

It can be easy to feel overwhelmed by the sheer breadth of issues we’re facing – that is, if we’re going to approach them one by one. But this isn’t the only option open to us. Framing the discussion in terms of hierarchy (already common sense for many) offers that broad, revolutionary perspective we’ve lost sight of, locating all oppressions within a single power structure. Yet it does so in a way that refuses to prioritise any particular aspects of that structure, thereby balancing the key virtues of class struggle and identity politics.

Revolutionary struggle in the 21st century calls out to a new horizon. It’s time to strive beyond mere economic destinations such as socialism or communism, just as the absence of formal political institutions like the state will never be enough. Rather, what matters here is bringing about anarchy – the absence of mastery of any kind – in the fullest sense of the word. The anarchist project must thereby be distinguished from the antiquated goals of Marxists, as well as the Left more generally: the point is to dismantle oppression in all possible forms, and it means taking the maxim seriously, too, instead of cashing it out as just another empty slogan. Be wary, comrades. Who knows what adventures could result from such an audacious proposal?

[basedkikuenjoyer]

A Tale of Two Hannya: Art Imitates Life

These are always kind of a trickier beast to write because by design the comparison casts a more negative light on a popular character. But they tend to be well received. Living near the path of peak totality for the big US eclipse, had me wanting to finish this one sitting in my drafts because well...we have both sun & moon themes as well as a dynamic of "upstaging" each other. Which is kinda cool. I really do think, when taken together, Kiku & Yamato give you one of the most interesting dynamics in this massive series despite the two faces almost never appearing together.

Let's step back a little though. Why? Why would our author structure so much of Luffy's story in Wano through the top two new faces for the arc? Almost splitting Luffy's story in half with mirror opposites; humble and helpful followed by flashy yet flawed. Pitting organic bonding against the spotlight. A very straightforward and earnest trans woman foiled by a deliberately inconsistent and ambiguous character falling somewhere you'd call transmasculine. Our Crane Wife and our Dragon's King's Daughter, forget the plot of One Piece for a moment...what's the reflection of our world they mirror?

As gross as it is to compare oneself to Doflamingo, I promise I'm going somewhere with this. And, to be fair I can think of a few specific people who'd make that type of comparison about me. I like to think I use my powers for good, but anyone with them would say that. Touched on it a little with the Otohime side story but over the 2010s I had my little strings in just about every corner of LGBT activism throughout a region that's now a solid gay haven in a conservative state. For the first half of that decade, it was thrust upon me because people saw how solid a representative a young, cute, well-spoken lady would be at diffusing old stereotypes. An MA in Political Science helped too.

Because it's currently Ramadan still, I'd like to share one story I feel was a high watermark and how it rippled in a way that is gonna shape my outlook here. When I noticed there was a shift. One I felt trepidation about aspects of initially and today feel vindicated seeing how Gen Z views their elders. It was Ramadan a fair few years ago now, while part of a board for something I got to know a local Muslim leader and his wife. They were used to inviting other community leaders to join them for Iftar, the fast-breaking meal. They wanted to show their young progressive members they were listening and respectfully invite someone trans, remember these are often very sex-segregated places. Even if there were some livid hardliners most of the women really liked me and you could tell it meant a lot to some of the older teen girls who really wanted to square more progressive beliefs with their faith.

Late 2010s, so if I told you there was backlash in queer circles guess who. More or less entirely people who'd fit that college radfem to transmasc mold. "I'd have gone to the women's side in solidarity and liberated those oppressed women being soo radical." "Don't you think what Rhea did was you know, kinda problematic? If I have to explain to you how it's low-key cultural appropriation I don't even..." "They only picked her because she acts like a little Barbie doll." Yes, that last one is peak feminism. They can call me wicked if they want; at least I was called to serve while they were all just rabble-rousers who decided they were the only morally pure enough ones to be local leaders. That's what this was all about, politics.

If you ask me personally about the current state of trans movements? It kinda comes down to that. Most Milennials, trans women, men, & even nonbinary folk, tend to use the community as a temporary safe haven but acceptance has come far enough it tends to stay temporary. Gender is but one aspect of our identity, the hugbox and group chats about pronouns only really feel like they're giving you something for so long. The holdout? In my experience that tends to be trans men or transmasc enbies who took a half-step before coming out in the relative privilege of radical feminist spaces offering a little space within. I don't have a whole lot of animosity towards these guys...it just feels like sometimes it becomes all of our problem when that radfem space pumped you full of a distorted vision of "male privilege" and you feel jilted you didn't get that by waking up one day and saying you are now man.

Was Eiichiro Oda going for all that? Fuck no. I was a longtime leader of a local movement, he's a cis author on the outside looking in. Better way these two make sense is more an author being aware enough (Japan had a similar trajectory over the last decade) these two serve well as standins for the extremes of what a teen today sees about this transgender community. Okama type caricatures just don't work anymore. Transmasc nearing 30 who feels like they don't even know what they want? Playing word games that feel like you never stopped and thought how they'd sound to other people? Chasing an idealized version of masculinity? It's not exactly an uncommon sentiment. It's a side-effect of finally getting that long sought visibility...scrutiny goes hand in hand.

It's a Tale of Two Hannya because it's weaving in the story of one community experiencing a Tale of Two Movements. Two movements that are at times diametrically opposed (foes). That's where the upstaging or "eclipse" aspect comes in. The way beats for one influence the other even without trying. Why Yamato's the one trying to find a place and Kiku's already dealing with average pressures of being a woman. Regardless of how you feel about that personally, you have to at least acknowledge this is the general impression teens today seem to have. Hypothetically, you could get the same effect between a more clear-cut trans man and someone kinda like Kamatari.

Ultimately, Wano is about who we are vs the roles we play. We see other places where themes of just saying you fill a role doesn't mean you are. I've said Yamato's a gentle critique of the extreme "you are what you say your are" side of trans movements. I understand why people would want to see things that way, but gender is a social phenomenon. For the record, I do think it low-key radiates dude energy to not care about shit like cannonballing tits out into the main bath, no one should have to act a certain way and all that. But it's a good pair for demonstrating where we're at in general. The emotions they evoke out of readers are a good reflection of where young men are kinda at on all this trans stuff. And both are still portrayed as cool, friendly people. But I do see where it's coming from when Oda shifts that classic immaturity element from Kiku more to Yamato.

[strawberry-dykery-blog]

I Reserve My Right To Be Complex

Before reading this post, I recommend you read My Gender is Dyke [1] by Alexandria Jaurez. I will reference it frequently throughout this post, and credit entirely as the work that made me feel like I was able to question my gender identity. I first read it when I was sixteen: questioning my gender but feeling a strong attachment to my identity as a lesbian. This article allowed me to accept that there are no rules when it comes to identity. It allowed me to feel seen. To know that there were other lesbians who did not feel like a woman.

Disclaimer: this post will not debate the existence of non-binary lesbians, and will not tolerate any discourse on their validity in the comments. There is already to much discourse and invalidation in identity politics. Plus, they have to be real, there is one writing this!

So, What is a non-binary lesbian? Non-binary is an identity that falls outside of the typical male and female gender binary. Whilst it is common for non-binary people to use They/Them pronouns, there are many other pronouns people outside of the binary use. Non-binary is a rejection of the gender binary, and so is not as simple of being thought of as a third gender.

Lesbian is typically understood to refer to women who are exclusively attracted to other women. So how can a someone who explicitly identity as not a woman claim this identity? An alternative definition of using the term "non-man" has been suggested, however faces criticism [2] for centring female attraction around men.

These definitions give us a broad understanding of the term non-binary lesbian: someone who relates to the experience/identity of being a lesbian, whilst falling outside the gender binary.

In my Gender is Dyke, Juarez makes the claim that "many non-binary lesbians are non-binary because of their lesbianism". This claim many initially seem somewhat contradictory, particularly as gender and sexuality are often thought as operating in different spheres, and having little baring on each other. To refute this claim, I will make reference explicitly to the work of Monique Wittig [3], however there are many more radical feminist theorists who share this viewpoint.

Wittig claims that not only women are subject to oppression, but that the very concept of what it means to be a woman is created by her subordinate status to men. Her existence is defined purely in relation to a man: she is a daughter, a bride, a mother. She is never her own person. Girls are taught from a young age to romanticise marriage and reproduction. Wittig placed lesbianism as existing outside the bounds of what it means to be a woman. By rejecting heterosexuality, lesbians abandon their societal decided role. She is no longer defined in relation to a man, and no longer fits into the understanding of what it means to be a woman. She is something else, something outside of conceptualised gender binary.

Furthermore, Wittig herself defines lesbianism as something far more than a sexuality, she acknowledges lesbianism as an exploration outside the bounds of what it means to be masculine and feminine [4]. It is therefore understandable that many lesbians no longer feel connected with being a woman, and place themselves outside the gender binary.  Wittig, just like Jaurez, recognises and validates the relationship between lesbianism and feeling estranged from binary gender roles and identity. I disagree with Wittig's claim that all lesbians feel like this, and that all lesbians intrinsically fall outside the gender binary. There are many trans and cisgender lesbians who feel secure in identifying as a woman. Likewise, labels and identity are not universal, and this of course does not explain every non-binary lesbian's lived experiences. It does however do a good job and explaining mine.

Finally, I want to highlight another genderqueer lesbian, Leslie Feinberg. Zie was a self described "anti-racist white, working-class, secular Jewish, transgender, lesbian, female, revolutionary communist" [5], and a prominent activist in the New York LGBT community. Zie is most known for hir autobiographical novel Stone Butch Blues [6]. This book, and Feinberg's work as a while, contributed heavily to understanding the intersect between lesbianism and gender identity. It is a somewhat difficult read, both stylistically and content wise, and does feature heavy and potentially distressing subject matter. However, I believe it is an essential read for understanding critical lesbian and gender identity studies. A free PDF is available on hir website, as well as other works and further information on Leslie and hir activism.

Leslie Feinberg and life long partner Minnie Bruce Pratt: The Miriam and Ira D. Wallach Division of Art, Prints and Photography (1993) "Minnie Bruce Platt and Leslie Feinberg. Jersey City, NJ" [Photograph] New York Public Library Digital Collections. Available at LINK

Without meaning to devalue the experiences of present-day gender-queer lesbians, I have found a large amount of reassurance and comfort in exploring the historical basis of my identity through older theory and literature. Genderqueer lesbians exist. They have existed before me and will continue to exist after me.

I strongly recommend you read this interview between Leslie Feinberg and Kevin Horwitz from 1993 [7]. In this dialogue, Leslie shares hir experiences of growing up and grappling with hir gender identity. Some of the language may be outdated and certain concepts may differ from current understandings of transitioning and medical transitioning, however the insights into hir experiences remain valuable nonetheless.

Issue #23 of FTM International published in May 1993

“You're more than just neither, honey. There's other ways to be than either-or. It's not so simple. Otherwise there wouldn't be so many people who don't fit.” ― Leslie Feinberg, Stone Butch Blues, P.218

[justgracehere]

Blog Post 11/14

In what ways do appearance standards exclude women of color?

Professor Lee makes reference to U.S. army regulations around physical appearance, which forbid hairstyles commonly worn by women of color, claiming that doing so maintains consistency and professionalism in the appearance of troops. Similar standards also exist in schools and workplaces, demonstrating how appearance standards do not accept or oftentimes even consider black female bodies. Appearance standards often hinder women of color because they are tailored to white women, making it more difficult for women of color to achieve the same appearance - an example of this being straightened hair. Professor Lee describes the idea that these standards push women of color to conform to white ideals, perpetuating the narrative that black bodies need to be “fixed”. Because they are formed around white standards and do not seek the input of women of color, regulations around appearance view the natural black body as unprofessional and distracting, with many black hairstyles being viewed as radical, anti-american, and indicative of criminality.

What do advertisers’ attitudes toward people of color reveal about the relationship of the U.S.'s financial system to minorities?

According to Professor Lee, many advertisers see an opportunity for financial gain in the demand for black hair care and styling. Steve McLaine also addresses the idea that there is potential for profit in an increase in internet use by minority groups. Both of these ideas represent the larger concept that repressive societal systems and America’s capitalist economy reinforce each other. Due to oppressive white standards which place restrictions on black hairstyles in professional spaces, there is an opportunity for advertisers to capitalize on the demand for black hair styling methods. The socioeconomic divide which exists between different racial groups means that providing minority groups with wider internet access could result in a large boost in profit for advertisers on online community sites. This displays how there is a capitalist attitude among privileged members of American society which drives them to take advantage of systemic divisions.

Can ethnic online communities claim responsibility for empowerment, or are users the driving force behind the formation of online communities?

Ethnic online communities provide a platform for users to develop meaningful connections. EOCs provide the means for members of minority communities to express themselves and relate to other users, but this does not mean they can claim responsibility for the development of these communities. If there was no appeal to EOCs, users could just as easily seek out alternative means of communication. Users are the driving force behind the development and empowerment of online communities.

What are the negative effects of misconstruing the concept of “online community”?

Jay Hathaway describes how the online campaign “Gamergate” was a misogynistic movement parading as a protest against biased gaming journalism. Hathaway explains how the individuals behind Gamergate, mostly young white men, were made aware of their privilege for the first time when presented with the idea that mainstream gaming lacked representation of women and minorities. These individuals strongly opposed this idea, because it challenged the comfortable concept that games were made exclusively for a white male audience. Gamergate was developed as a white male movement, with its members viewing themselves as an online community. In spite of the unifying connotations of community, Gamergate consisted of privileged individuals which formed a movement around the common goal of reinforcing oppression. This demonstrates how the concept of community can be misconstrued as exclusively an organized group, rather than a group which creates meaningful connections as a progressive force for the sharing of ideas.

Lee, Latoya A. “Virtual Homeplace: (Re)Constructing the Body through Social Media”.

McLaine, Steven. “Ethnic Online Communities Between Profit and  Purpose”.

Hathaway, Jay. “What Is Gamergate, and Why? An Explainer for Non-Geeks”.

[sandgraab]

why are men the one demographic that isn’t responsible for themselves btw? all the (CORRECT BTW) reckoning about white women who voted for trump needing to answer for themselves, yet every discussion about the men I’ve seen has been, “what can we do to win over these poor, disaffected, young men?” discussion about how the left has abandoned men because … women are mean sometimes I guess… and how can we fix this, what can the evil bitches do to appease these lonely guys who just need love :( why don’t THEY ever have to accept responsibility for turning to fascism because they can’t get laid and have no friends? why don’t men ever accept responsibility for making the world a hostile place to OTHER MEN who express emotions outside of anger? why is it that when a rape victim says she hates men, and men see that and decide to become fascists, the problem lies with the woman who hates her oppressors, and not the men that were so easily radicalized? explain to me why it is the responsibility of women to be nicer to men and not mens responsibility to stop letting fascism make them feel better about themselves. grown ass adult men should be able to differentiate and CHOOSE between right and wrong even if “right” means that sometimes people are “mean” to you. men ARE capable of empathy, they are capable of choosing to do good even if sometimes a woman might not like them, and usually the men that do these things are men who understand and exist under oppressive systems already. they understand that sometimes people have feelings about you based on certain things you can’t change and that’s fine because why should that prevent you from helping other people? why would a good man care if a rape victim wouldn’t interact with him? a good man would already know those feelings are bigger than any one individual, and a good man would care about trying to ensure no other person has to feel that way, rather than coming to the conclusion that the only solution is to make more victims.

[rametarin]

If I could speak Japanese...

I'd pretty much apologize for the whirlwind of westerner fandom bullshit they're currently being subjected to. I saw a post recently of confused Japanese at some western nonsense, and they're right to be confused and outraged about it.

The Japanese social culture is nearly virgin waters for the sort of invasive, parasitic people that have hijacked it with absurd discourse. We in the west have dealt with their nonsense for a long, long time, and it has failed to translate over to them exactly the sort of sinister insanity we're dealing with. So it's kind of like having a family psychopath escape their containment and menace your foreign friend, who has no idea what is happening or what the problem is of that freak.

It's embarrassing, actually, and the worst would be if more Japanese started actually listening to their insanity and trying to conform to it instead of resisting it. Because I know what's going to happen. I can already see a few native Japanese trying to get with that program and start impressing it on their countrymen, the way they do over here.

When you don't know what's happening and why they're doing it or how they operate, it's easy to be blindsided by their insanity and go, "Is it everybody else, or just me?" Because these people currently bandwagoning on fandom are good at doing that. Making you question your own reality as they interact with this weird alternative version of it that isn't true, but they're demanding you conform to.

Such stupid bullshit as accusing Japanese artists of "whitewashing" Nessa of Pokemon and calling them white supremacists for not making her blacker. Erasing darker skinned Asians and going, "These characters are definitely black, so represent them as African people," and then making a fuss over people not doing what they want.

When I was a young man, things were different... In fact, for a brief while, they were so much worse. It was en vogue at the time and pop culture radical feminist discourse for female peers to hate "boys comic books" like cape comics and see them not just as immature and juvenile, but also hateful towards women for the skimpy outfits. Saying that western comics were boys fantasy (derogatory) and maintaining these beliefs about western society that were simply bigoted. That western society wasn't just majority white (Europe, the United States) but that it was inherently white supremacist and male chauvinist, and anything and everything that socially stemmed from that, in their eyes, was inescapably white supremacist and misogynist. Even benign things. Even something as simple as a comic book.

They said, "Comic books are an OLD BOYS CLUB that don't hire women writers or put women in charge of the business, they just exploit the image of women for profit and sell misogynistic characterization to reinforce anti-woman sentiments among boys." And they were wrong, of course. But the reality was, I couldn't even read She-Hulk around female peers my age between age 8 and 12, because it was enough to get angry lectures from them about how just reading the comic proved I was mentally immature (because they were too "polite" to use a term like retarded) and thought poorly of women.

They had been coached and tutored into believing such hideous things that made any western comic book into a toxic mess in their eyes, just seeing cigar smoking, woman hating, scotch drinking old white men in the business and just seeing every body reading comics as a miniature version of that.

We'd ask them what it would take for comic books to be okay, in their eyes. We were so much as told they'd only read stories written, drawn by and from companies owned by women. Because, they believed, women doing things inherently makes them better. And a man doing things inherently makes it oppressive and anti-woman.

And then an amazing thing happened.

Japanese media started hitting US shores. It was largely bootlegged and pirated with a few outlets from companies that were trying to stake their claim and establish themselves as distributors for Eastern products as comics and cartoons, but it was a secret fandom regardless. And among them, were Japanese standards and stories and subject matter, which hadn't been henpecked and nagged into the ground and buried under endless amount of discourse, the way the west had.

Radical Feminism tried to attack Japanese media getting popular in the west. And oh, it had a lot of material to find contemptuous, and then do a little bee-like dance to signal to the sycophantic radical feminist girl proteges why everything in Japanese cartoons was harmful to girls and women........ but.................

The girls didn't listen. They enjoyed the material too much for their programming by radical feminism to be heard.

Radical feminism tried to remind them how horrible the depictions were to images of femininity.

The girls argued back that these stories from Japan fit the criteria they looked for. 1.) MANY Mangaka were female sexed. 2.) Women are and have always been involved in the Japanese comics and cartoon industry. 3.) On top of all that, they were/are Japanese. You know, one of those "oppressed minority groups" in their ideological view. A person that isn't white, and is therefore someone oppressed by white people (and capitalism) internationally.

The last point in the late 80s/early 90s was incredibly important, as it was a value of theirs as progressives that white people were not allowed to criticize or judge non-western/white majority societies or hold them to the same standards of what was sexist or discriminatory towards women as the west did. Because it was popular for western feminists to have different standards. They'd go on a rant about how horrible western men and western society was to women, and then praise what would be blatant and brazenly, objectively patriarchal culture and standards overseas because the people there were not white and clearly it was not our place to judge them. They argued judging Asian, Middle Eastern or African cultures would be imperialistic and white supremacist, so it was kept off the table.

So, Japanese media existed in this magnificent bubble at the time, impervious to western radical feminism and their academic bubble where they tried to make it popular to fabricate how every industry they didn't have control of the public relations for was bigoted and prejudiced in some way, shape or form. It could be everything that western media was no longer allowed to be. The girls could be feminine to the point of neotonous caricature and female anime fans could consume it up like iridescent, candy coated drugs without feeling some sort of guilt for consuming, "white supremacist mind control" or whatever. We could enjoy things together again without being judged as callous woman hating barbarians. We could have fun again.

That's partially what made it so popular. It was immune to the scrutiny of western feminism and out of their hands to criticize without getting people to turn against it.

If you speak Japanese, you have my permission to translate this as best as you are able and share it. I am a westerner from the United States, and I don't trust translation programs to properly convey my meaning. Having to learn how to deal with these people and their conspiratorial bullshit from scratch is never an easy task, and someone unfamiliar with their shame and peer-manipulative tactics is liable to get hurt, if not by others, than themselves.

[askgothamshitty]

I also do want to ask if you have any recommendations like books or videos or even mediations or yoga for healing about childhood rape and sexual violence incest. This happened to me when I was extremely young and it completely destroyed trust with men (I always been so icky and small being around them) and it caused me to feel so sexually insecure meaning I feel so disgusting whenever I feel horny or sexual pleasure. I feel guilty whenever I want to masturbate or something along those lines and I feel triggered seeing sexual content in media especially if the sex is depicted in the typical violent ways of women being sexual objects for male consumption. I’m now in therapy, and I find joy in affirmations, yoga, sewing and knitting but no matter what I do I just can’t get over the disgusting feeling about sex and the topic of it. I guess what I’m asking is how do I reclaim that autonomy back from myself and enjoy it for my own pleasure and safety. (You don’t have to answer this if this makes you uncomfortable and I’m sorry if I crossed any boundaries or lines with you)

I’m so sorry you experienced that. Childhood sexual violence is truly one of the most horrific injustices. What you’re experiencing as a result is definitely not unheard of; many survivors share complicated feelings about sex, to say the least.

Here are some books on the topic:

The Courage to Heal: A Guide for Women Survivors of Child Sexual Abuse by Bass and Davis

This is a very popular book considered a classic on the topic.

Healing From the Trauma of Child Sexual Abuse: The Journey for Women by Duncan

This is also of the self-help genre, and although these can be useful, they tend to avoid political analyses of CSA/incest as systemic oppression. Here are a few books written specifically by feminists:

Radical Feminist Therapy by Burstow

This talks about a variety of psychological issues that women face and contextualizes it within patriarchy. There is a specific chapter on female survivors of CSA and what a radical feminism-informed therapy could look like for them.

The Secret Trauma: Incest in the Lives of Women and Girls by Russell

Russell is a feminist and this book presents her findings from her research into the prevalence of CSA among women.

Understanding the Effects of Child Sexual Abuse: Feminist Revolutions in Theory, Research and Practice by Warner

Another politically-informed overview of the issue, with discussion of approaches in therapy.

——

I hope you find these to be helpful! And there’s no need to apologize, this blog is a safe space :)

[if-i-had-a-voice-i-would-sing]

Since my 7th show I’ve had brainworms about potential future Punchdrunk shows based off Greek myth & literature (there’s SO much to work with!!) and here’s an idea that I jotted down and now can’t get out of my head:

The Burnt City is based off Agamemnon and Hecuba, what if their next show was based off Medea and The Bacchae?

One show about female grief & women sacrificed for men, and the next about female madness & mothers killing their sons

- parallel scenes of Medea murdering her sons (who’d have to be aged up somewhat into adults, due to the nature of most punchdrunk productions) and Agave murdering Pentheus.

- Parallel scenes where the crimes of the women are exposed to the men in their lives (the reveal to Jason vs the reveal to Cadmus)

- Influence of Hecate vs influence of Dionysus, lots of fun contrast & similarity to be played around with here

- Reoccurring theme of women’s freedom from oppression being in the rejection of the role of ‘mother’

- Both plays are very centred around the patriarchal fear of women banding together - both choruses are female peers, as opposed to the judgemental old men of Mycenae in Agamemnon. They are people who can be confided in and relied upon by our female leads. A linked theme again of female solidarity, community organisation & radical action against the oppressor.

- Two cities again - Corinth and Thebes ; could divide them by the forest, in which bloody rites for chthonic gods take place

- Could choose to continue the Hades & Persephone lore by having them present - if tbc is her welcome home, could this be her goodbye gift? Imagine having proper Persephone/Hecate interactions. Imagine!

- The murder of Pentheus could very well be the classic punchdrunk rave scene, a lot like the blinding of Polymestor with a touch of the witches’ prophecy in Sleep No More

- Dionysus as a presence would allow for some really fun & creative setpieces - a club? A bar? A rave in the woods? All of the above? We all know how good punchdrunk’s bartender characters are!

- Because of the heavily gendered nature of the texts, the forest as a midground for gender binaries too would be so cool. In the cities there are binary rules and gender roles to be played, but in the forest gender boundaries blur and become unimportant. See: Pentheus’ crossdressing, Dionysus’ androgyny

Not really an idea or note, but I can imagine the loop for Glauce being really heartbreaking, a lot like Iphigenia’s. A young girl excited for her wedding to a famous hero, only to be horribly murdered to serve the goal of another. She was innocent in all of this, but Medea casts her aside all the same, as Clytemnestra does Cassandra. Also imagine how creative they could get with Glauce’s (and Creon’s) death! Melting & then catching on fire doesn’t seem in any way possible, but that frees up room to choreograph around the feel of the text instead, with a lot more freedom of interpretation.

Imagine being able to just follow the Maenads in the woods for a full loop. I can’t even begin to think of all the wild shit they could get up to - think of the choreography!! The ritual! The blood!!

Punchdrunk historically have portrayed complex women well - look at Clytemnestra and Lady Macbeth. These women are morally dubious and they get their hands dirty (very literally), but there is also so much compassion to the way they are shown in their more vulnerable moments, they are human and flawed yet still worthy of our attention and care. This is an approach I would really love to see for Medea, who I think is such a difficult character to get right in terms of not shying away from her more reprehensible actions, whilst still understanding her pain and turmoil.

Agave is given a lot less to do in the source material, but the great thing about the immersive format is that it allows for each character to become their own fully fleshed out person. Maids and oracles, waitresses and witches, they all get their own story *within* the greater narrative. This also goes for Cadmus and Creon, the father figures, who I think could both be really fascinating to flesh out, and of course Aegeus, whose only primary in the source is being childless and wanting to be a father. The contrast of the would-be parent vs the actual reality of parenthood.

Potential for a sick ass finale with the women of Corinth and the women of Thebes coming together in combined ritual power, the workings of Hecate and of Dionysus side by side, contrasting and connecting…

I am heavily biased because these are my two favourite Greek tragedies, and my favourite plays in general, and I would love nothing more than to see my favourite theatre company tackle them next!

[voidandcold]

You're young, so I'm going to say this as nicely and clearly as I can: "radical feminism" is just white supremacist patriachy in a pink hat.

There is no "war on women", there is just white cis men in positions of power that have managed to convince white cis women in positions of (slightly less) power that all their problems come from trans people, not the cis men, and that the solution is to make it so that no trans people are visibly existing anywhere in public.

But, spoiler alert, there have always been trans people, and there always will be. The Nazis tried to erase all traces of our existence in the Thirties (that's what the infamous book burning was about), but we are still here. And it should give you pause to realise that you are literally aligned with the literal goddamn Nazis of Nazi Germany in "the trans question". And also with the current fascist dictatorship in Russia. Is this really where you want to be? If not, why would you think they're right about this but not anything else?

You're never going to live in a world without men or masc-aligned people, so to think that every single one of them is a predator just waiting for a chance to pounce is going to cause you a massive amount of self inflicted mental harm. Likewise, to think that no woman or fem-aligned person is capable of causing you harm is going to leave you super vulnerable to the ones that do.

I'm not expecting you to answer this, I'm just hoping that you think about it.

If radical feminism is just white supremacy in disguise, how come most radfems seem to be POC? A considerable portion of them not even living in white countries?

If it's "white cis men" causing all the problems for women, how come women are oppressed globally? You think women killed by morality police have white men to blame? Honey, no. It's all men. It's a male problem.

I do not think that trans people are responsible for the patriarchy. I just think it's a super regressive way of thinking, and I post about it a lot because here on Tumblr, trans activism is the norm. It makes me feel that much more like I need to speak my mind.

For example- I think of trans activists like I think of tradwives. Sure, they aren't responsible for sexism, but they aren't exactly helpful in women as a whole breaking those chains. Woman is not a feeling, and someone born and raised as a male can't know how it feels to be a woman. When a male identifies as a woman, what he's identifying with is whatever caricature of womanhood he has in his head. We don't need transition. What we need is to normalize gender nonconformity.

On top of that, many trans activists are holding the acceptance of homosexuals back. Insisting that it's a "genital preference" and that gay men can never attracted to females, or that a lesbian is a "woman loving woman" and lesbians who don't try penis are "fetishists" it's the same homophobia conservatives have been throwing at us for years under a new coat of "progressive" paint. Before -if you were a woman who didn't like cock- you were a dirty sinner. Now you're a bigoted genital fetishist. It's all the same.

Trans activists are aligned with Nazis in that regard, isn't that right? The reasoning and the execution are different among all three groups. Surely you can see that? No radfem want trans people dead. We just want all these gender roles to stop. We want the repackaged homophobia to end.

It really isn't cool to call everyone who disagrees with you a nazi, by the way. It really downplays what a nazi is.

I'm not going to dignify the "not all men" portion of this with a response. Look at some violent crime statistics or something.

And no, of course I don't think women won't hurt me. Nor do I think all women are good people. I don't think I've ever said anything to make you think that?

I'm sorry for taking so long to reply to this, and I'm sorry for keeping it so short. But I don't want to repeat myself over and over and over again to everyone who says these things to me. I HAVE thought about it. That's why I'm here.