#op why are you dehumanizing men | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

novoaa1writes · 1 year ago

Text

day 0

image source

pairing(s): softdark!natasha romanoff x gnc!reader, natasha romanoff & tony stark (platonic)

summary:

“I trust they were well-behaved?”

“You know they weren’t,” Stark disputed, letting out a derisive snort. “Honestly, I don’t know why you don’t let me fix that.”

Natasha shrugged. “Chemically-induced submission is all very well and good,” she mused, sounding vaguely preoccupied. You could still feel her gaze upon you, boring through your skull. “But I’d prefer to earn theirs.”

“Your funeral.”

Or: Natasha wants a pet. Lucky for her, she knows a guy who can help with that.

contains: non-con dynamics, pet play, dehumanization

[cross-posted on ao3]

word count: ~3,300

rating: mature

warnings: non-con dynamics, forced pet play, dehumanization, non-con bathing, referenced non-con body modification, referenced non-con medical experimentation/surgery, referenced physical and psychological abuse, discussions of administering post-op painkillers (morphine, oxycodone, anti-inflammatories, etc.)

notes: reader’s gender is not specified here, and as with every reader-insert i write, the reader is intended to be ethnically ambiguous! also, no use of y/n... i don't personally mind it much, but i understand it's typically preferred without

translation for russian terms in the end notes!

(previously named “build-a-pet”)

— —

Natasha had been on mission when she received the call.

Burner #1—professional access. A select handful of people had the means to call it. Phil, Clint, Nick, Maria. Pepper, too.

Burner #2—a separate, off-books agenda. Personal in nature. Accessible to none save for one individual.

It was the second of the two that rang to signal an incoming call.

Eyeing her target—Pavel Mikhailovich Novik, Bratyerstva head and prolific serial killer—intently through the tac scope, she brought the phone up to her ear and answered the call:

“Romanoff.”

“Gah! Always business with you, huh?” Tony Stark’s conversational—if not somewhat indignant—tone filtered through the speaker. “That’s no way to greet a friend.”

Were Natasha not otherwise occupied at the current moment, she might’ve scoffed. As it was: “A little busy, Shellhead,” she muttered, shifting her aim in time with Novik’s uneven stride as he made his way across a municipal street. “Why don’t we skip to the part where you tell me what you’ve got?”

“I’m doing just swell, thanks for asking.”

He was a short, stout man. Novik, that was. Flat-footed gait, the kind that had long since ruined the arches of his well-worn shoes. Broad shoulders; barrel-chested torso. Thick dark hair cut short on his scalp and, in the case of his square-shaped jaw, removed completely—but permitted to grow to damn near cat-whisker length everywhere else.

A wheat-link chain hung loose around his short neck; the chunky watch on his hairy wrist gleamed when it caught the light. Both solid gold.

He was dressed nicely enough in a red button-down that looked soft as satin, and charcoal black trousers with a matching blazer to boot.

Natasha had to bite back a disapproving hum as he strode into the establishment—a pub, no less—and hoisted himself up onto a barstool with little ceremony.

He was armed, of course, but only barely; a pistol in one inner coat pocket, a switchblade in the other. He also wasn’t entirely clueless, as evidenced by his company: a pair of stern-looking men who stood flanking him on either side, the material of their cheap polyester suits straining to contain their hulking figures, jackets bulging with poorly-concealed semi-automatic weapons. They watched the bartender like hawks as he set a clear bottle—Dębowa—and an empty glass in front of Novik before promptly scurrying away.

They turned their matching glowers away from their boss as he began to drink, surveying the small, dimly-lit pub with heavy-browed suspicion.

It was a clear message. A bit garish for Natasha’s tastes; but clear nonetheless.

As it was, she barely had to shift herself any further to catch him in her crosshairs through a series of high, rectangular windows lining the interior of the grimy pub.

All bark, no bite.

A far less jaded woman might have snorted.

A far less jaded woman Natasha was not.

“… Long story short, we’ve made some serious progress. I want to check in, though, if you could swing by for a quick visit. We’ve only got a short window before some of these alterations are irreversible. Plus, I figured you’d want to see them.”

Natasha bit the inside of her cheek until she tasted blood, her pulse thrumming wild and fast beneath her skin. “You figured right,” she managed to answer, her mouth dry. It was all she could do to keep Novik unharmed in her crosshairs, her finger from squeezing the trigger.

“So, when can we expect you?”

Natasha flit her gaze to the clock face fastened atop a tall, spindly spire on the nearest street corner, then back to Novik. “Give me six hours.”

— —

“Boss, three reports intercepted from secure, heavily-encrypted channels. All high-profile killings, all on European soil.”

Tony Stark, though intrigued, did not look up from the task at hand: himself perched adroitly along the rim of the tub, lathering your naked body in sweet-smelling soaps; you, slumped uncouthly in the cradle of the bath, glaring up at him with defiant eyes and murder in the tick of your jaw.

“Time window?” he questioned after a pause, lowering one sudsy hand to knead at your lower belly and grinning wolfishly when you couldn’t smother a quiet whine.

“Six days.”

“Locales?”

“Qormi, Malta; Kutaisi, Georgia; and Gomel, Belarus.”

Stark hummed in lieu of answer, a vaguely preoccupied look in his narrowed gaze. His large, calloused fingers didn’t cease their humiliating ministrations over your quivering belly, making you pant in an effort to hold back a low, guttural trill.

“In that order?”

“Yes, boss.”

You hated him. You fucking hated him.

“Walks like Natasha, quacks like Natasha…” he trailed off, giving your belly one last squeeze before withdrawing slightly to cup your other hip with his palm. “Probably Natasha.”

You’d only just begun regaining your strength following the latest procedure, though not nearly enough to do anything other than glare.

Stark slanted his gaze back over to you. If he was at all cowed by the force of your glower, he did well not to show it. “You’re adorable when you’re plotting my demise, y’know that?”

It took everything within you not to roll your eyes.

— —

“So, how was White Russia? Eat any draniki?” Stark questioned as he settled bodily into an armchair, gesturing for Natasha to seat herself on the settee across from him.

She did, her features calm and impassive. Her shrewd gaze flit to you once, but was quick to refocus. “Wouldn’t you like to know?”

“C’mon, give me something,” Stark carped, huffing petulantly. You couldn’t see his face from this angle, only the back of his head and a bit of bearded cheek, but you imagined he was probably pouting like a third grader. “For old times’ sake?”

“You’re incorrigible.”

“Guilty as charged,” Stark quipped. “Though, I suppose I can’t say the same for Novik. He didn’t even get a trial.”

Natasha’s placid expression did not falter. “Who?”

“You know what, I’m just gonna give you this one—”

“Generous.”

“—but only because we’ve achieved a mind-blowing amount of progress within the past couple weeks. Like, seriously: mind-blowing.”

You felt yourself shudder at the reminder. Progress, indeed.

“Oh?” Natasha queried lightly, brows raised. Once more, her gaze dipped to you… and stayed there.

You ducked your head and averted your eyes, cheeks aflame. You’d grown accustomed to being naked around Stark—mainly because you didn’t have a choice. But Natasha…

For the first time in years, you found yourself missing your long hair, the way you could cower behind it at a moment’s notice. Now, you were exposed. Vulnerable.

“I trust they were well-behaved?”

“You know they weren’t,” Stark disputed, letting out a derisive snort. “Honestly, I don’t know why you don’t let me fix that.”

“Your funeral.”

Natasha’s lips twitched, though she remained silent. Then, after a beat or two— “Your progress?” she prompted.

“Right, so, here’s the run-down…”

— —

You’d tuned out for the most part as Stark began his long-winded, vainglorious speech to Natasha about his—your—successes since last they’d spoken. Much as you understood it was likely prudent to listen in, acquire a little more knowledge on what exactly he’d done to you, you’d also been there long enough to know that it probably wouldn’t have made a difference anyhow.

Natasha would do with you as she pleased. Stark, too, provided Natasha was the one asking.

In the beginning, that intrigued you. Made you want to learn more about them and their dynamic; to understand why it was what it was. You didn’t get why Stark would run, jump, and heel for the likes of her—intimidation factor notwithstanding.

By this point, that intrigue had since dwindled, if not dissipated entirely. It was what it was; consequently, they were, too.

You were still angry and strong-willed and a far cry from broken, but you weren’t stupid, either. Just because they treated you like a chained-up dog didn’t mean you had to gnaw off your own limbs in a desperate bid to escape like one.

And, besides… it wasn’t often you got moments like these. Moments where you weren’t being poked and prodded and shot up with God knows what. You were collared, sure, your body riddled with all kinds of aches and pains, but none of it held a candle to the agony you’d known in days past.

Lost in your head though you were, months’ worth of training ensured you didn’t miss the moment Natasha called you over.

“Ко мне,” she spoke, pitching her voice just above appropriate speaking volume.

It was like someone lit a fire under your ass. The second you heard it, you shot up on all fours. Pain came fast on its heels, but you grit your teeth and bore it, swallowing down a cry as soreness shot through your hands—you flat-out refused to call them ‘paws’—like wildfire. Every heightened reflex stood on high alert. Your back, too, felt like it was on fire, spinal column alight with tenderness.

Still, it wasn’t nearly so bad as it’d been a week back, when you awoke in observation all bandaged up and so acutely in pain, you feared it might kill you. You also knew better than to dawdle. Clenching your jaw tight, you shuffled forth on sore palms and bruised knees. Your muscles burned.

You were grateful to feel the tip of your nose graze Natasha’s jean-clad knee, signaling a justifiable stopping point.

“Молодец,” she praised, her voice pitched an octave (or two) higher, and you felt like singing.

You even arched your poor, aching back in a shameless effort to attract… well, something, you supposed. Head pats, perhaps. An open-handed stroke down your spine, even.

Damn that animal, desire-seeking hindbrain.

Fortunately, Natasha seemed to understand. Her palm met the nape of your neck, slender fingers curling their way into the mess of hair at the back of your scalp—God, but that felt divine. A mounting hum in the back of your throat was all the warning you got before—

Fuck. Immediately, you clamped your mouth shut, and the sound—along with the pleasurable vibrations—stopped altogether.

Not again.

“Ah-ah-ah, puppy,” Natasha tutted, her free hand descending to squeeze your nose tight—effectively cutting off your air supply. And still, the other remained; combing through freshly-washed hair at the base of your skull, occasionally scritching your scalp with the tips of her blunt nails until the insides of your throat quivered and your jaw hurt from clenching it so hard. It was all you could do to keep from opening right back up and giving her a nice long purr. (Which, you’d deduced, was exactly what she wanted.) “None of that.”

She was using English now, you noticed.

And, just like that, the realization hit that she hadn’t been before.

Now, you could… you could hear her words and understand them, and from that understanding know their meaning. Before, it was like… like hearing the words and knowing what they were supposed to mean, then acting accordingly. You couldn’t take apart the syllables, the letters in your head, not like you could with English.

P-u-p-p-y. That spelled ‘puppy.’ When you tried to conjure the word she’d used to summon you over, there was just… nothing. A blank space. A short one, telling you you knew the approximate length of the word you were looking for, but… empty.

Your gaze darted to Stark, who just slouched back in his cushy armchair looking immeasurably pleased with himself. At any other time, the mere sight would’ve been enough to spark some measure of annoyance within you.

Now… Now, all you could feel was fear.

He didn’t do that, did he? He… he couldn’t’ve.

All the rest of it: the obedience, the meekness—that? That was conditioning, plain and simple. You weren’t exactly a PhD, but it didn’t take a genius to note down from the very start that some behaviors got you alone time in a small, dark room without food or water or sunlight for days on end, and others got you… well, not that. By a certain point, you would beg him to yell at you, choke you out, take you over his knee and spank your ass raw when you misbehaved; something, anything, so long as it wasn’t that. 2 times out of 10, he’d take you up on that. As for the other 8… well.

But this—implanting knowledge in your subconscious, tuning it to mimic compulsory behavioral urges, all while you remained none the wiser? That was a hell of a lot more complicated than reworking your spine, or tweaking sensory receptors, or even altering your vocal tract to make that obnoxious purr.

It was like he’d rewired your brain.

You didn’t even notice that you’d since relented: gasped out what little breath remained and began wheezing, all doubled-over, sucking in new breaths of air like a half-drowned cat. Though, you sure as hell noticed how that rattling, restless, vibrating sensation arose in your throat with every shuddering inhale; how, on every exhale came exactly what you’d feared—that pathetic, trilling purr. The one that warmed your body from head to toe while simultaneously making you wish you had never been fucking born.

God, but Natasha’s hands were like magic…

Your head still spun. Was it from the oxygen deprivation, or the realization that Stark had been inside your head? Probably both.

Terrified, dazed, and overwhelmingly confused, it took you some time to re-center; tuning back into Stark and Natasha’s conversation, if only to posture yourself accordingly. You could figure out the rest later, you reasoned.

“… The spinal alterations don’t inhibit their ability to stand upright, by any means, which is the exciting thing,” Stark was saying, damn near perched at the edge of his seat—almost vibrating with renewed vigor. Weirdo. “They just enhance their natural capacity to remain down on all fours and go about their day for extended periods of time: a day, a week… hell, indefinitely! Which, for humans, would be pretty much unthinkable. I mean, can you imagine?”

Without allowing a moment’s pause for Natasha to respond (which you’d come to understand was quite typical), Stark wasted no time in steamrolling on. “‘Course, the process of transplanting new bones was rather tricky, and we had to do a couple of them more than once. Dr. Cho estimates a week—at most—before they’ve healed enough to allow for more… strenuous physical activity.”

Natasha snorted. Her hand had long stilled its pleasant ministrations in favor of resting inert at the base of your skull, slender fingers curled loosely around your nape. You felt how they twitched and tightened their grip ever-so-slightly when Stark spoke of what he’d done to your spine. “Are they in pain?”

Funny. If you didn’t know any better, you might’ve thought she cared.

Stark raised a brow. “Ballpark?”

Natasha must’ve nodded, or dipped her chin in confirmation, because a beat later, Stark spoke again.

“Imagine you got ripped open, rearranged, then stitched back up,” he summed up. “Twice.”

Dimly, it registered within you to be struck by his forthrightness, though you did not dare mistake it for empathy.

Natasha was quiet for a beat. “Sounds about right,” she said eventually.

“It doesn’t have to be this bad,” Stark offered, though there was a curious shift in his intonation, this time; a knowing and almost resigned look in his eye that made you wonder if he and Natasha had had this conversation before.

The way Natasha’s hand twitched, blunt nails digging into the skin of your nape, was answer enough.

“Were I their doctor, I’d be prescribing some serious pain meds,” Stark continued on dryly, making a show of tilting his head and gazing off into the distance as though he was deep in thought. “Morphine, oxycodone—“

“No.”

“—maybe a local anesthetic or two,” he mused, beginning to count them out on his fingers. “Anti-inflammatories. Anticonvulsants. Something for the anxiety, even—”

“I wanted a pet, not a vegetable.”

Stark’s lips twitched—though with exasperation or humor, you could not tell. “Do you realize how quickly even the most powerful anesthetics will metabolize through their system? They’re not human anymore, Red. At least, not entirely.”

Now, that piqued your interest.

“Neither am I.”

“It’s different for them. You know that. You got Erskine’s serum. Some unrefined bootleg variant, granted, but that man was nothing if not brilliant. Everything he touched, he turned to gold.” Stark spoke of him—this ‘Erskine’—as though he put the very stars in the sky. You wondered if he was truly brilliant, or just insane. You wondered if for Stark, there was any difference. “As for them… well.” He gestured vaguely towards you. “They got some anthropomorphic whack job’s bone marrow.”

You blinked. You got what now?

“He has a name, you know,” Natasha commented archly, the earlier indignation having dissipated from her tone.

“Point being—I’ve met the guy. He’s seriously unhinged.” He paused there, as if expecting Natasha to argue. When she didn’t, he steamrolled on: “I had F.R.I.D.A.Y. scavenge some digitized medical reports and psych evals from his time at the facility, along with anything else they could piece together after he escaped. Violently, I might add.”

“I won’t say he’s devoid of empathy, or a moral compass, because we both know that that’s not true,” Stark explained, then muttered under his breath: “Even if his senses of both concepts are seriously skewed.”

“Tony,” Natasha interjected, a note of warning in her voice.

“Just listen, alright? I’m getting there.” Stark huffed out a sigh, a thoughtful look in his eyes. “My point is that he wasn’t like that, at the start. He was no saint, to be sure, but he wasn’t like that. It wasn’t until they started a particularly ill-inspired series of ‘tests’—though I’d argue a better term would be ‘torture sessions’—to assess his healing capabilities that he really started losing his marbles.”

You head was beginning to spin. Your jaw ached from clenching it so hard. Who were they talking about?

“See, because his capabilities—extraordinary as they were—weren’t superhuman. They didn’t transcend healing itself, let alone make it any less painful to endure. In fact, I think they actually concluded that it was made more painful by his body’s ability to undertake those processes at such an expeditious rate.” Stark breathed out another heavy sigh, pinching the bridge of his nose as though he could feel a headache brewing.

He wasn’t the only one.

“He nearly went insane, Natasha. Joking aside, it almost beggars belief that he’s as high-functioning as he is,” Stark asserted, no longer pulling his punches. “I know you don’t want that for them.”

It was silent for a beat… Then two.

“Fine.”

Stark promptly quieted, renewed interest sparking itself alight in his gaze. “What was that now?”

“I said, ‘Fine.’”

A slow grin spread across his clean-shaven features.

“No opioids,” Natasha was quick to amend. “Nothing addictive. Just… anything that’ll help more than it’ll hurt.”

Silence for a beat. Then two.

Stark squinted at her. “You sure you and that bleeding heart of yours are up for this?”

Natasha’s grip around your nape tightened even further. “Shellhead,” she gritted out, her tone hard as weathered steel. Even the sound of it was enough to send chills down your spine.

Stark, in contrast, was not at all similarly affected. He simply tilted his head to one side and made a show of continuing to appraise her with shrewd, assessing eyes. Then, finally: “You should try yoga.”

— —

end notes: L O fucking L

also the anthropomorphic whack job they’re talking about is logan (wolverine) from x-men, in case you’re wondering

edit: i’ve since written a continuation of this, linked below!

translation of russian terms (with stresses bolded):

ко мне | ko mnye | “come”

молодец | molodyets | excellent, good

sources:

“organized crime in eastern europe” | to be so clear, i just made up “bratyerstva” from the term “братство” (bratstvo) which means “brotherhood” or “fraternity” in bulgarian, macedonian, russian, and serbo-croatian dialects. it is also the name of a ukrainian political party (ukrainian: братство, romanized: bratstvo), but it is not an actual belarusian word. it also bears some resemblance to братва, a slang term used to refer to criminal gangs in russia and other ex-ussr states. honestly, the closest you’d probably get to an actual word with this would be the polish “braterstwo” (brahterstvo) which also means “brotherhood” or “fraternity.” (however, in some informal contexts, the term “братерство” has been used in ukrainian dialects to convey synonymous meanings.) anyway, this is a brief snippet (~10 pages) from an academic article about organized crime in eastern europe, if the precedent behind all that intrigues you. i thought it was pretty informative!

white russia | another name for belarus, though there’s some controversy/nuance to that (and big surprise, it’s got everything to do with russia). this links to an article from euronews talking about... all of that

draniki | an immensely popular dish in belarus. they’re basically potato pancakes. several other european countries have close equivalents.

— —

next part: come, sit, stay

link to masterlist

#natasha romanoff x reader #natasha romanoff x gnc!reader #dark!natasha romanoff #softdark!natasha romanoff x reader #stuff i wrote

183 notes · View notes

womendeservehumanity · 7 days ago

Text

If this were your first day on earth and you were only able to scroll through these accounts, which exist in such plentiful amount. You’d really think “misandry” dominates online spaces and that it isn’t complete, inescapable misogyny. Accounts with hundreds of thousands and upwards to half a million followers dedicated to hating women such as women posting their ls, women being awful, women being honest, why women get ls, single moms posting their ls (all very real accounts on twitter). Subreddits with hundreds of thousands of members such as r/entitledbitch, r/whereareallthegoodmen, r/pussypassdenied, and the not that recently banned r/memegender. Tiktoks going viral everyday saying the most reprehensible things about women. You wouldn’t be able to keep track of them because that’s how pervasive they are. It’s such a common form of content for men. Same on Instagram. Or accounts on multiple platforms but mostly YouTube and TikTok it seems such as hoe math and Andrew Tate who teach men the true nature of women. That they’re evil disloyal whores and how you should act accordingly.

And I am not for one second believing that these people are somehow collectively unaware of that. They just know to perfectly frame every situation to where men are perpetual victims and women are evil feminiazis wanting to use their blood as sustenance. In a world where the average leftist woman has a kill all men mug and is going to feminist lectures that talks about how evil men are and not how actually feminism is for them too! In a world where misogyny is this complete non factor and is something men aren’t engaging with. And if they are it’s actually justifiable because it’s again due to these evil feminazis demonizing them. It’s not as though misogyny has existed since the beginning of time. As if men have hated women since the beginning of time. Nope. Even when men hate women. Even when they say the most reprehensible and dehumanizing things about them it’s still being explained through a lens where they’re the victims

Op in the first tweet subsequently went on to make a thread that was void of any actually meaning or conclusion because well these men really think they’re compelling when really it’s just poorly stringed along ideas and sentiments about how everything wrong in my life is not the fault of myself. Requiring no self responsibility or introspection. He then went on to parrot a very popular sentiment. That really, men are simple. And just want a woman’s touch and to be able to play their video games and watch their h3ntai. And that since the evil feminists and woke culture couldn’t let them have that they’ve devolved into reactionary woman hating fascists. Again, not at the fault of their own.

Because nothing is ever their fault. Or the result of their character, decisions, etc. This man literally said “all for reasons outside of our control” after talking about how males are complete and utter losers with no identity or future. How is it that women are the ones seen as the victimizing, self absorbed gender when this slop has almost 50k likes because it resonates with so many of them? Being vapid, inept, and resentful failures contributing nothing to society.

#radblr #radical feminist safe #radical feminism #radfem #men hate you #i hate men #moid moment #moids #misogyny #radical feminists do touch

6 notes · View notes

transvarmint · 11 months ago

Text

Responding via screenshot because OP turned off reblogs. They didn't delete the post though so I feel it's fair game to respond to.

The subject / object analysis of systemic oppression is a fundamentally dehumanizing and inaccurate framework.

OP's analogy likens marginalized people to unthinking, non-autonomous objects that only passively recieve oppression. That is quite frankly both deeply harmful and also ignores the ways in which we interact with systems of oppression.

Marginalized people are active participants in the societies that we live in. We do not just recieve oppression, we react and respond to it, it affects the way we interact with the world. And we know this because people take action in response to their oppression. If marginalized people were simply objects acted upon by subjects, then it would be impossible for us to ever counteract and rise up against our oppression.

We also know this because the fact that people absolutely do participate in the systems that harm them. This is an essential function of oppressive systems. The marginalized person, who has been indoctrinated and traumatized, often goes on to perpetuate that ideology against other members of that group. This is where lateral aggression comes from, and why we have terms such as internalized bias.

The subject / object interaction also falls apart the moment you consider intersectionality. If a woman is an object in her oppression, then she could never be a subject that acts upon another. But we know this isn't true, because white women participate in the oppression of Black men, for example.

OP's analysis speaks to a very grim worldview in which people who face oppression are inherently less autonomous than those who oppress them. Not just that their autonomy is taken away from them, but rather that they are by their very nature, less able to act upon the world than the other group.

After all, a tree is inherently a stationary being, that cannot speak up or fight back against the logger. The same cannot be said of human beings.

And OP's conclusion + tags reveal what this is all about. OP jumps through hoops and dehumanize marginalized people just so that they can deny that trans men face a targeted form of oppression. Men are always violent actors, and women are always passive objects, so it cannot be possible that a man could ever be marginalized the basis of his manhood.

Not only must OP boil down the Patriarchy to a simplistic binary framework, they also must ignore any nuance in the interactions between intersecting systems. Racism, homophobia, transphobia, ableism, etc, all interact with patriarchal systems in such a way that results in an individual's manhood being targeted. The Patriarchy does not evenly reward all forms of manhood. It only benefits those who assimilate and strictly adhere to the norm.

But none of that matters to OP. Men act and women are acted upon. All oppression goes in a perfect linear direction. Everything is black and white, obviously.

#transandrophobia #transmisandry #antitransmasculinity

28 notes · View notes

knuckle · 2 years ago

Note

Thank you for your addition to that post where OP tries to separate Tate's misogyny from his trafficking I honestly thought I was overreacting and just not getting what the OP was trying to say. Like doesn't this man encourage the exploitation and dehumanization of women to his adoring fans? How is his running off to exploit women in other countries not connected to his violent misogyny? It feels like he is practicing what he preaches. There are incels and misogynists who do real harm to women, not just spout off about it online. These men can and do encourage each other to act. I apologize for the rant, I was just blown away.

You're welcome and thanks for the message. I don't think the OP necessarily meant anything harmful but it really was mind boggling to see "this guy took his misogynistic rhetoric and worldview to its horrific, evil, yet logical conclusion. why are we mad about his words?" As if they're separate from his actions

#Andrew Tate #anonymous

146 notes · View notes

manie-sans-delire-x · 11 months ago

Text

------

This post wasnt anything to do with gender or sex, it was about mental health, so Im not commenting directly on it.

But see...this is why its so important to say "woman". You really dont see anything wrong with saying "men and AFAB"? We dont even get an identity anymore, we dont even get to exist anymore. It is dehumanizing. "Men and other." "Men and not men." "Men and the second sex." "Men and not people." At least be consistent and say "AMAB and AFAB". But this person didnt, and even if it wasnt intentionally malicious, which I dont think it was, the fact that they subconsciously said that shows the mentality, the psyche behind it, sort of like a Freudian slip. Words matter. It programs your brain. Its not meaningless or an accident that they still said man instead of AMAB, but not woman. Men still get to be men, they are still seen as men. Erasing women will make it easier to dehumanize us. Make us sound more like an animal or subspecies than half the human population.

The OP probably didnt even notice that they were doing that, because it'll become normal to you. This is dangerous. This is erasing women more and more, and we're already on the fringes of social caring as it is, and studies have shown that misogyny and violence against women is actually increasing, not decreasing.

If theres no women, theres no womens issues. Theres no vocabulary to address it. Then all the femicide, misogynistic cultural and religious practices, domestic violence/relationship abuse, sex trafficking and prostitution, issues in porn, medical misogyny, child marriage, etc etc etc have no common theme. The blatent, critical trend of the victims sexes and the perps sexes are erased and ignored.

We are already silenced and gaslit all the time, told that its "just as bad for men/goes both ways" although anyone studied in crime or history knows thats is objectively, outrageously untrue. Told to shut up. That we're liars. Having the narrative twisted around and saying that men are actually the oppressed victims, that everything is the opposite, that women have it easier in life and victimize men. How much easier will it be for them to do this if the staggeringly disproportionate rates of crime are ignored, sex is erased from the equation? To claim that actually vicimization and perpetration are on equal rates because "we're all just people". We already see statistical rates of female violence being superficially inflated by males who are being counted as female, giving an inaccurate depiction. This will affect peoples views, beliefs, laws and policies, and scientific teachings and understandings.

Erasing women as a word and social group is dangerous, and it is intentional. Misogynists are thrilled. If women dont exist as a group, feminists cannot organize, people cannot talk about women specific issues. Female oppressors want to make it difficult as possible. Invalidate, confuse, deflect and distract the conversation and impede womens rights progress as much as possible. This is just a new tool theyve discovered. This is the new "All men are created equal"- claiming that women are included in "men" yet then denying them (and non-white people) rights in the same breath.

#op #gender critical #womens rights #womens history #female oppression #afab #convos #discussion

19 notes · View notes

papirouge · 6 months ago

Note

https://www.tumblr.com/researchgate/751723182896054272/funny-how-you-talk-shit-about-al-jazeera-but-then

Example of terfs supporting Israel with the argument of “well Gaza banned abortion” HUH. Also the tags are disgusting “people complain when Jewish people do this but not when Muslims do this” Trump literally banned Muslim immigration, do terfs think Muslims are privileged?

What a weird and ironic connection with terfs and conservatives

Thank you anon but I lowkey resent you bc the ask in the link legit made me lose braincells 💀

"birth control is illegal in Gaza, as is homosexuality"

Saying that "birth control is illegal" is retarded if you don't define what kind of birth control you're talking about. Choosing celibacy or refraining from sex to not get pregnant ARE forms of birth control. Are Palestinian women legally forced to marry/have sex, @/old school butch?? ...oh my bad, you're probably one of those racist uneducated idiots who think of Arab women and immediately thinks they are all forcibly married at 9 y.o.

Also from what leap does she assume not accessing to birth control = female not "owning" their body? This pattern of thinking is a general consensus among radfem and I never understood it. Those women cannot conceptualize women *not* needing fertility control medication to "own" their body.

I assume she's actually talking about medicalized form of birth control, which then reveals in their mind contraception pills/device = birth control = full body autonomy. They admit entirely relying on some medication to own their body. That's VERY ironic because it shows they're not that different from trans identified people (they hate so much) who rely on hormones to be their true self ™️. Apparently women need hormone control medicine to "own" their body 🙃

And same goes with the "homosexuality is illegal" thing. Homosexuality being "legal" doesn't mean gays being safe and vice versa. Palestinians been fighting for DECADES against colonization, deportation and oppression and this sheltered (white?) woman be really like "but what about gay people??? 🥺" ....She's dumber than a door knob.

"bred in captivity to supply martyr for the revolution" this whole sentence reeks fake concern with a sprinkle of whitefem saviorism. Let's make something clear : women like that butch don't care about those women. She's literally projecting some disgusting breeding fantasy scenario from the words of one (1) moid to brush Palestinian women like broodmares deprived from any sense of self to push her dehumanizing agenda against Palestinians.

It would never occur to that white butch that those non white women may actually wanted those big families. Noooo, they are just poor victims of that evil Islamist patriarchy forcing them to pop up the next generation of martyrs!! Also note the typical whitefem eugenicist urge to freak out at the thought of women having 6 children...that would inevitably end up becoming terrorists.... that's why birth control is sooo important to stop them from existing. But yeaaaaah those radfem are totally NOT edging on white supremacy and that's just some stupid TRA conspiracy LMAO

That's why I know OP is White : the whitefem saviorism (homonationalist version) is POPPING out there. Nothing like paternalistic white women distressed at seeing women oversea having lots of children... GOD FORBID non White women have children and reproduce... WITH (SAVAGE NON WHITE) MEN??!!

"this suffering was known and accepted by their leaders" which "leaders"? The Hamas ? That hasn't been voted for for like 10-15 years ? Can't wait ppl start advocate to collectively punish USAmerican voting in war criminals Bush & Obama a few years ago.

What "suffering" is she even talking about?? Who's the actual cause of it, BUTCH?? I ain't no Hamas supporter but the Hamas 1/is not a feminist movement 2/whole point of existence is to defend and free their land. Whining about them not doing enough for women(??) is silly. Someone tell that dummy there won't be Palestinian women to defend if there's no more Palestine..

TL;DR : That butch is the average white woman hiding behind feminist to dismiss entire system of oppression (such as Zionism) that override genders. regardless they're gay, radfem, butch, etc. White feminists are NOT to be trusted when it comes to defend WOC. They will inevitably side with White supremacy and are the dumbest people ever when it comes to geopolitics and womanhood worldwide beside their sheltered western bubble. They should keep seething against TRA to pretend being subversive, and let actual women with a brain talk.

bonus the most stupid tags I seen in a while :

"no one say shit when middle east women suffer" *ME WHEN I LIE*

MIDDLE EAST WOMEN ARE LITERALLY TOKENIZED 24/7 BY WHITE PEOPLE AND FEMINISTS LIKE YOU WITH THE ONLY PURPOSE OF DEMONIZING ARABS AND ISLAM.

"when it's Israeli women their suffering is either denied of justied"

PLEASE TELL FOR WHOM THE #METOOUNLESSYOUREAJEW HASHTAG WAS MADE FOR?? QUICKLY. WHICH ONE BETWEEN PALESTINIAN OR ISRAELI WOMEN HAVE THEIR SEXUAL ABUSE LITERALLY INVISIBILIZED AND DON'T HAVE THE PRIVILEGE OF HAVING A HASHTAG DEDICATED TO IT??

*when Arab do this it doesn't matter"

STOP LYING. THE MISTREATMENT OF WOMEN IN THE MIDDLE EAST HAS TO BE THE MOST COVERED ASPECT OF MISOGYNY WORLDWIDE. OTHERWISE HOW WOULD YOU IMMEDIATELY PULL OUT THE "HONOR KILLING" "STONING" ETC. GOTCHA WHENEVER WE TALK ABOUT MAYYYBE NOT GENOCIDING ARABS??? SHUT UUUUUUUUM

Those women made me lose 35% of my braincells BYE AND GOODNIGHT

#old-school-butch #zionism #radfem #white feminism #whitefem be whitefeming #answered #Palestine #homonationalism

3 notes · View notes

coolwali · 2 years ago

Text

A Defence of Snyder's Batman

Hello Everyone. A while back, I saw this post describing why Pattinsons' Batman was the only Batman film that understood who Batman was as a character and why Snyder's Batman failed to:

There's also the common quote from OSP that says: "if you can't picture your batman comforting a small child then you've just written the punisher in a silly hat."

I will not comment on Pattinson's Batman here but I do feel the Tumblr OP missed the point of Snyder's Batman.

Here's Jay Oliva, director of many DC Animated movies and storyboarder on BvS explaining Snyder's Batman:

Basically, while a lot of people did point out "Hey, This Batman is messed up for using guns and killing people" they missed that the point was that Batman was in the wrong here and his arc for him to realize that.

Is it not reasonable for a Batman story to ask "What if Batman started to falter and how far would he then go before he realizes he's become the monster he's supposed to be stopping"? In BvS, Batman has been banging his head against the brick wall of crime for twenty years, had his closest allies either brutally murdered or turned against him, and seen no change whatsoever. That’s enough to make any man break, even Batman. It’s right there in the script when Alfred says “That's how it starts. The fever, the rage, the feeling of powerlessness that turns good men cruel”. After so many stories of Batman basically being perfect, it's nice to have one that shows his demons in full force.

In BVS, we see a Batman that has fallen from grace and essentially become the villain he's supposed to be stopping. Alfred points this out to Bruce with his "New rules, sir?" line.

Superman's role in the story is to be that wake-up call for Batman. Throughout BvS, While Batman has been killing people and using guns, he has been rationalizing excuses. Usually justifying it as "collateral" (technically it would be 2nd degree murder since it wasn't pre-planned but still somewhat intentional). With Superman, that would be Batman's first proper 1st degree murder. Batman intends to full on kill Supes and has planned it all out. There's no excuse or justification Bruce can give. So Bruce initially dehumanizes Supes. He sees him as an alien and monster rather than a person.

That's where the Martha scene comes in. When Supes says "Save Martha". Bruce is initially even angrier, shouting "WHY DID YOU SAY THAT NAME!?" because he thinks it's another trick or hallucination like the ones he's been having. It's not until Lois, a human, comes in and tells Batman it's Supes' Human mother, does Bruce finally confront the truth. We even see a flashback to the murder of the Waynes where Bruce sees himself in Joe Chill's Shoes and Clark in his. This humanizes Clark in Bruce's eyes. Making Bruce realize he was about to 1st degree murder a person.

And Bruce's belief in Supes is strengthened when Supes sacrifices himself. Bruce now fully realizes the full extent of how wrong he was and begins his journey to become more like his animated self (The whole "I failed him in death. I won't fail him in life" thing).

I think that's a good arc for Batman and one we haven't really seen too often.

Oh, and for all the OSP fans out there:

As for Superman, I might make a pt 2 defending him in more detail but the short version is that everything people commonly complain about with him (e.g, the Kents, him killing, his personality), it's all accurate to the comics Birthright and Earth 1 which are the inspiration for this Superman.

#batman #superman #dceu positivity #dc comcis

3 notes · View notes

hadesoftheladies · 5 months ago

Text

wow. you really have no idea what radfems believe, do you? you just spouted radfem rhetoric op.

this is something i have struggled to explain to radfems - they are not doing the work of feminism, but rather the patriarchy. by asserting that women and men must be (on some secret level) oppositional and in conflict, they also assume that being a woman is akin to being another species. but bigotry does not stem from observational truths or clarity - that is what makes it bigotry. there was nothing in my childhood that made me fundamentally different from my brother. we are treated differently nonetheless. to assert there is some biological drive that enforces my gender role is to assert that women have a gendered role. men do not see women as equal to them not because of biological reality - but instead because the core tenant of the patriarchy is that women aren't full, realized people.

we assert that men exploit women based on sex. we assert that male people oppress female people and they do it via sex. I agree with you about bigotry. there is nothing about being female that makes me inferior. but it is my femaleness that is exploited and abused systemically (reproductive abuses, rape, domestic violence, etc.) racism is bigotry, but black people are still targeted by white racists because they’re recognized as black. misogyny is bigotry, but women are still targeted by men because they’re recognized as female. why do you people claim to love feminism and then act so obtuse about the nature of women’s oppression or what feminists say? you wouldn’t do this for any other movement so I can only conclude you don’t actually care about the plight of women. especially since you are not willing to examine the mechanics of their oppression. little girls in the global south are not getting raped, killed and sold because they go by she/her pronouns. that is a white liberalist fantasy steeped in patriarchal gender philosophy. most trafficked persons in prostitution and surrogacy are women and girls. almost all buyers are men. most wealth is held by men. most violence committed in the history of the world and in the modern age is LARGELY done by men.

blaming the divide that men caused by systemically and historically abusing countless women and children, by the dehumanization and de-classification of women to lower statuses in societies globally; blaming all that on feminists has to be the most misogynistic male thing I’ve ever heard. do you blame BLM protests and resistance to police brutality on black people too? like it’s such a typical anti feminist move to say that feminists calling out overwhelmingly documented human rights abuses done by the male class are the cause for those abuses somehow. it’s always her fault for getting beat in the face and raped, huh?

men use their maleness to oppress women. every feminist worth their salt acknowledges this. women aren’t getting killed, enslaved and abused by bogeymen on the basis of how they identify or whether or not they wear dresses or put on makeup or present femininely. they are targeted because they are female. patriarchy is a deliberate system that takes willing men to survive. like fucking pretend to be intellectually honest about this shit at LEAST.

the thing about some men is that they want you to remember, at all times, that you are underneath them. that with one word or look or "joke", you will stay beneath them. that even "exceptions" to the rule are not true exceptions - the commonly cited statistic that one in eight men believe they could win against serena williams.

women's gymnastics is often not seen as real gymnastics. whatever the fuck non-euclidian horrors rhythmic gymnasts are capable of, it's often tamped down as being not a sport. some of the most dominant athletes in the world are women. nobody watches women's soccer. despite years of dancing and being built like a fucking brick, men always assume they're faster and stronger than i am. you wouldn't like what happens when they are incorrect. once while drunk at a guy's house i won a held-plank challenge by a solid minute. the party was over after that - he became exceedingly violent.

what i mean is that you can be perfect, and they still think you're ... lacking, somehow. i hope you understand i'm trying to express a neutral statement when i say: taylor swift was the possibly the most patriarchy-palatable, straight-down-the-line woman we could churn out. she is white, conventionally attractive, usually pretty mild in personality. say what you will about her (and you should, she's a billionaire, she can handle it), but a few things seem to be true about her: 1. she can write a damn catchy song, and 2. the eras tour truly was a massive commercial success and was also genuinely an impressive feat of human athleticism and performance.

i don't know if she deserves the title of "woman of the year," i'm not debating that in this post. what i am saying is that she was named Woman of The Year, and then an untalented man got onstage at the golden globes and made fun of her for attending her boyfriend's football games. what i am saying is that this woman altered local economies - and her dating life is still being made into a "harmless" punchline. the camera panned, greedy, over to her downing a full glass of champagne. congratulations taylor! you are woman of the year! but you are a woman. even her.

fuck, man. write better material.

a guy gets onstage at a college graduation and despite the fact like half the crowd is made up of women, he spends a significant proportion of it warning these people - who spent possibly hundreds of thousands of dollars on their education - that they were lied to. that the "real" meaning of femininity is motherhood. that they shouldn't rest on the laurels of that education-they-paid-for but instead throw it away to kneel at a man's heel. imagine that. sweating in your godawful polyester gown (that you also had to pay for!), fresh out of 4 years of pushing yourself ever-harder: and some guy you've never met - who knows nothing about you - he reminds you this "win" is a pyrrhic one at best. you really shouldn't consider yourself that extraordinary. you're still a woman, even after years of study.

god forbid you are not a pretty woman, but if you are pretty, you must be dumb. god forbid you are not ablebodied or white or cis or straight or good at swallowing. you must be beneath a man, or else they are not a man. the equation for masculinity seems to just be: that which is not a woman or womanly (god forbid). anything "feminine" is thereby anathema. to engage in "feminine" things such as therapy, getting a hug from a friend, or crying - it is giving up ones manhood. therefore women need to be put in their place to ensure that masculinity is protected.

we are told from a very young age to excuse misbehavior as a single man's choice - not all men. it is not all men, just that one guy. all women are gold-digging bitches who belong in the kitchen - but if a man is mean, bigoted, or violent to you, it's just that particular guy, and that means nothing about men-as-a-whole. it is only one guy who got mad when you gently rejected him. it is only one guy who warns her this trophy is heavy, are you sure you can hold it? it is only one guy who smashes her face into the cake. it is only one guy talking into a mic about hating our bodily autonomy.

i have just found that they often wait until the moment we actually seem to be upstaging them. you sit in a meeting where you're presenting your own findings and he says get me a coffee? or you run to the end of the marathon and are about to finish first and he pushes your kids out in front of you. you win the chess game and they make some comment akin to well, you're ugly away. we can be the billionaire and get the dream life and finally fucking do it and yet! still! they have this strange, visceral urge to say well actually, if you think you're so great -

it's not one just one guy. it's one in eight.

#radblr #now you can block me and say a radfem violently attacked you to your echo chamber of wypipo #as a black radfem im so fucking done

5K notes · View notes

papirouge · 1 year ago

Note

Honestly people’s hatred need to be directed to the rich “muslims” sitting in their mansions in western countries or in places like Saudi and Qatar and Iran that FUND Hamas. Muslims like them couldn’t care any less for the lives in palestine. They don’t care for it and couldn’t care if everyone in palestine is wiped out. I bet you anything that they’re laughing at the videos and celebrating. This is a false religion that promises reward for raping, enslaving and murdering. It directly goes against God’d word.

I refuse the have any "hate" for anyone because as a Christian, satan is the actual Enemy, but tbh, any single person calling for an escalation of this conflict (either defending the Hamas or "IsrAel hAs tHe rIghT tO dEfEnd tHemsElveD 🤪" folks) are as much reckless and ultimately damage the safety of Palestinians. At least rich Muslims stay quiet and aren't calling for the murder of anyone.

Westerners warmongering from their cozy homes that's not under the threat of being nuked overnight are despicable.

It's pretty obvious the Hamas expected a disproportionate response of Israel to amplify the martyrdom (human sacrifice) of Palestinians and leverage a support from the Muslim world.

Another thing that's despicable is how people are somehow trying to "rank" war crimes to act like either side was better/less worse.

Pro Palestine/hamas acting like because Palestianians suffering made acceptable to kill & abduct israelis

and

Pro israel acting like they had a moral ground because they didn't "decapitated babies" (this sensational rumor has yet to be proven true btw)

exhibit :

People will literally say :"I don't see a problem [cutting water & food supply to CIVILIANS]"...and still think they have moral superiority.... That's how dehumanization works : you find "good reasons" to strip people from their basic human rights. Also I always wanna to ask those people where they even draw the line to start dehumanizing people : when babies are killed? women raped? do they realize those are inherent to wars, and therefore them supporting a war makes them accomplice to those crimes??

But the thing is : there's no good answer. Killing or brutalizing ANYONE of ANY AGE/RACE/GENDER is already a moral failure.

Everytime I see people being like "oh look the Hamas raped and dragged a naked woman behind a car" I'm like: "would it be better if it was man? or if she wasn't naked?" Again : WHERE do they draw the line to start clutching their pearls at a specific murder? do these people think war is just a vibe? that because this stuff isn't shown on a camera, it doesn't happen? (yeah bc like in the screenshot, ppl genuinely think that Tsahal didn't do the same thing/war crimes somehow because it wasn't caught on tape...). Maybe they should think about it because supporting war and murder. There's no justified murder for God - a lot of so called "Christians" should understand that.

That's why I'm so SICK of radfem inserting themselves in the discourse to make it about themselves (again). There's a post floating around with a whitefem stating that Palestinians or Isralis women talking about their struggle is not White feminism, and while I totally agree with her statement, I couldn't help but roll my eyes at the usual gaslighting lf "it's WHITE MEN who accuse white women of white feminism!!!" when they don't lol. Many WOC addressed white women gaslighting and aggression and tried to explain that it wasn't misogyny but out of a legit frustration against White women racism, but White women NEVER took them into account and kept focusing on whatever crap WHITE MEN did (look how MAD White women were at the Karen meme, and how they obsessively tried to paint it as a (white) male psy-op when MANY woc entertained this meme). Which is very interesting considering how divested radfem pretend belng from male approval... It's extremely telling how White women will ultimately value White men opinions/perspective more than those WOC. I like how they really be telling on themselves while thinking they're sooo much smarter than anyone else lol

I'll NEVER forget when whitefem call Middle eastern/Arabs radfem calling out the mistreatment of Palestianians women at the border "salafists". It got so bad that one of them slid into my DM-me, a Christian lol- to thank me for defending them because those White women couldn't help but belittle them for being Muslims... But yeah, according to that whitefem it's the fault lf white men WOC have a distrust for their activism 🙃

#answered

2 notes · View notes

ladymorghul · 2 years ago

Note

I truly believe they don’t want us to empathize with Alicent (even though there are plenty of people who do because she was groomed her whole life, her body controlled by men for power and heirs by her father and husband) and by not showing us a birth scene is one of their ways of doing that.

Coming from someone who has given birth it can be an extremely powerful/emotional/beautiful thing. But to watch a child give birth? I can’t even imagine the trauma and pain. Labor is hard on a fully grown woman let alone someone who isn’t even done growing.

They want to make us think Alicent is an irrational, crazy woman, someone who is weak. Protecting your children? Yeah, that’s considered crazy if it’s Alicent. But by giving Rhaenyra a birth scene they have portrayed her as a powerful and wonderful mother, protecting her children is justified because we actually saw her become a mother.

100% this op! very, very well said!

it’s also hypocritical because in many people’s minds alicent can be a victim of grooming and abuse only if she acts in ways that nyra’s stans agree with, only if she doesn’t exibit signs of her trauma, only if she carries her pain as just something “sad but beautiful”.

alicent can be a teenage mom, but only if she's a good mom (whatever that means in this context) and only if she raises perfect children (because nyra, who’s totally in the same situation, did!!!) and also, it’s always on her how the children behave and never about viserys.

not just that, but nyra can fight for her children to the very end, even when she’s being unfair to someone else, but alicent has no right to. she has to fight for nyra and she has to not have self interest or put herself or her children first.

the fandom has been dehumanizing alicent from day one and to this day i’m arguing with people on twitter who say things like “yes, she was 15, but she knew right from wrong, why did she fuck nyra’s dad when nyra’s mom’s body was still warm?” and i’m not even kidding or exaggerating. and it’s not one instance either.

i also think they were ignorant to how people will percieve alicent (misogynist, oppressor, seductress, power hungry, manipulative, etc.) and didn’t properly work on (because unfortunately you have to) spoon feeding the audience that yes, in fact, alicent is in a horrible position from day one.

#asks #alicent hightower

101 notes · View notes

kouhaiofcolor · 3 years ago

Text

Time to have another important conversation at the expense of yall comfort:

Stop saying "Black Women" when you v specifically & exclusively mean women who are half black & ethnically ambiguous looking — bc a lot of ppl (entirely too many) love to equate this w being pro black, woke, feminist, inclusive or extensively ab fully Black women when it's not & hardly ever is. It's colorist, ironically misogynoir, & again, entirely too many casually stand for it to deflect around being real ab how they perceive/associate Blackness lest it's genetically watered down in women.

This op isnt to ostracize, isolate or attack biracially half black women, but it is frustrating & a little mind boggling how ppl just flat out associate or identify just anybody w Blackness now, esp feminine Blackness, w increasing normalcy — & still consciously exclude & forget ab monoracially Black Women in the same breath or on the same subject matter. It can be especially offensive regarding how black women are the trendsetters & prototypes in so many feminine spaces & aesthetic circles that non black & half black women alike copy, yet they're never ever considered or sourced properly. Even worse, no race of women in the world suffer the kind of oppression fully Black Women deal w just existing. Light skinned nor biracial women deal w anything like that in any regular capacity — so why do yall insist on making them out to be entirely representative of Black Women?

If you can't credit, support or acknowledge Black Women in their natural, dark & brown skinned, purest ethnic & cultural forms when you bring them up, then you are not talking ab Black Women. You are talking ab Biracial Women. And that's fine. The two groups are not the same tho; esp considering there's often a antiblack/colorist/texturist/featurist template to what alotta yall feel Black Women have to look like for you to speak positively or inclusively ab them at all fr, ijs.

When yall speak specifically ab light skinned and/or mixed women, yall are absolute ab the type of women you mean based on phenotypes often in contingency w biracially, & dsbw are totally omitted — yet when yall say "Black Women", suddenly definition is extensive & a pedestal for women who are half Black to represent Black Girls period. At the same time, when yall dog & defeminize/dehumanize Black Women, yall don't ever mean the same white-passing or ambiguous looking biracial women yall comfortably simplify as "Black" — which is mighty interesting bc, just as well, Biracial Women don't even take offense to or speak out against misogynoir geared specifically toward fully Black Women, either, in spite of "being (perceived as)" or identifying as Black.

Colorist & antiblack. Yall really gotta work on this w/o getting so defensive ab it & making it out to be racist, too. Like it or not, this is gatekeeping, & its v necessary since literally everyone claims being black now like the culture's a costume, or takes full credit for black aesthetics to be edgy or whatever. Being half Black & fully Black are not the same things. These are false, trendy equivalences & a lot of yall can't be real ab how consciously yall participate in the erasure of Black Women being able to represent themselves. Like let's be frfr ab this, cus it's still antiblack & racist as hell. Yall don't even do the same thing regarding dark skinned black men & light skinned men. Stop doing this to Black Women.

286 notes · View notes

kiefbowl · 2 years ago

Note

Kief, one of my libfem mutuals reblogged a post criticizing radfems who have been saying that American women should stop having sex with men in light of roe being overturned. it said that these radfems sound like conservatives who say that 'if you don't want a baby, don't have sex,' and I honestly completely agree with the anti-radfem OP despite being one myself. Its completely unhelpful & misogynistic to put the onus on women here for so many reasons. Why do so many rfs latch onto this pov?

you sent this a few days ago and I sat on it because I wanted to give it a good think. I don't think I've been very public about my opinions on a sex strike, so I wonder why you assumed I would be in agreement with you completely...but also I am finding it difficult to agree with how some women are handling this subject online. So, I'll dive in, I'm sure I will piss off people left and right and up and down, but so be it.

The idea of a sex strike is, imo, useful (more on that in a bit), but I hate the language. I hate the women are calling it a sex "strike." Some may think this is pedantic, but words also matter. A strike implies sex as some sort of labor, and that the labor will then continue once our demands are met. Surely we as women want to distance ourselves from this imagery? Men are conditioned to believe that sex is a woman's labor, and that he is owed it. I suppose one could argue "sex strike" speaks to a man's idea of sex and therefore is useful in that regard to get the meaning across, but I think that ground isn't worth losing. Sex is not labor, it's not a product, it's not owed to anyone, and the fact that we discuss sex like this wrt to women is proof of our dehumanization.

So what do I think is useful? I think it's useful to empower women to consider their sexual relationships as something they can attempt to safeguard in order to protect themselves, prioritize themselves, and to assume sex with men comes with risks. Celibacy is an amazing political idea, very powerful, very woman centered and actively does not benefit men, in fact it harms their position as the group that controls reproduction. I know some people have trouble understanding that someone, for example me, can understand the significance and power of a political idea without actually living it, because I'm not celibate. I do have a bf, and we do have sex. There are no other details I'm going to give regarding our sexual relationship, but I won't lie about this. Even so, I deeply encourage my straight and bi followers to deeply consider the significance political celibacy can be for your life as a woman, to be that utterly in control of your sexuality when it's assumed you are a resource for men to use.

Even so, it's not easy, and it's understandable why it's not easy. If there are women who say it is easy because it's easy for them, all I can say is that I'm happy it can be an unambiguous choice for them. Many women have fraught lives, it's easy to come online and say one thing and find it very difficult to live through for reasons that will not be obvious to an outside observer. I don't think it proves any lack of character or political motivation to see women struggle with their own sexual agency in a world that is actively demanding sex from them and harming them when they provide it. Feminism is not just political activism, that's one component, but it's also a framework to understand our position in our society. It provide a context to understand the lives we live.

What has angered me is how flippantly women have thrown around the hypothetical "abused woman" to say well of course not them. Who is this silent, obviously marked, hidden abused woman who knows she is abused and therefore exempt from political actions? When women express fear that their relationships will turn abusive if they "with-hold" sex, is she not demonstrating the reality of female sexuality? "Of course not abused women, we mean the un-abused women should not have sex" who are in these clearly delineated groups? How does one woman know she's in one group and not the other? All I'm saying is a little more care is needed when discussing the reality of women who are partnered with men.

50 notes · View notes

teaveetamer · 2 years ago

Note

The things about anyone who sides with Edelgard is fine actually (tm) interesting and I agree I remember seeing a Twitter post about what a bad character Monica was and the reply was "She actually has a lot of depth and plot relevance because she’s a lesbian. Hope that helps" That doesn't make her a better character? These are the same people who dislike the other simp characters right? They even said it's an insult to compare her to Faye. Why because it's Edelgard she simps for?

God “she’s a lesbian so she must be a good character” gives me the same vibes as “this story is deep because a girl got sexually assaulted” vibes (ETA: See the edit below for further explanation on this one). Like for some people that’s where the whole depth begins and ends. It’s mere existence within the narrative is somehow enough, no need to justify its existence with actually good writing or sensitive handling or meaningful integration into the narrative.

She is fundamentally exactly 0% different from the Faye archetype. Her simping for a girl over a guy does not make her somehow deeper than that. And why should it? Being a lesbian isn’t some deep or profound experience in itself. It’s literally basic biographical information about who you like to kiss/bang. The interesting parts are how it informs your world view and the person it makes you. Which, and I cannot stress this enough, is given exactly zero focus in Monica’s story. So no, it does not make her interesting or better than the other Fayes.

ETA, since it might be unclear why I'm making this comparison in the OP:

It’s the same principle to me: predominately straight, predominantly cisgendered, predominantly men co-opting the experiences of women/queer people under the false impression that it creates narrative depth, while refusing to understand or portray those narratives in a way that is meaningful or relatable to the people they presume to be representing.

I suppose I could have used something different, but SA was simply on my brain because I watch quite a lot of horror games (happy October!), and sexual assault is a very common theme in the genre. It’s frequently treated as a writing crutch, the “easy button” to portray a horrific experience (since naturally all decent people are horrified by it) but it doesn’t say anything. It’s there to create shock value rather than to be a meaningful exploration of women’s experiences with sexual violence or the culture that helps perpetuate it, and thus its use in story or in argument winds up coming off as cheap. The women who experience it in these games are often portrayed as if that is the ONLY thing about their experience that matters, and you are often given no further detail beyond their name (sometimes not even that) and the fact that they were assaulted. It’s incredibly uncomfortable and dehumanizing to hear the meta-message: “The important thing about this character is the fact that they’ve been assaulted. Nothing else, just that. When you are assaulted, there is nothing meaningful about you aside from your experience with assault and thus we feel no need to engage with your experience further.” Not to mention it can have very sexist undertones, but that can be a story for another post.

(Note that I am not saying all portrayal of SA in media is like this. But you can usually tell when a writer is attempting to approach a subject with sensitivity and grace and when a writer is leaning on it as an emergency writing crutch. I’m also not implying that only women experience SA, however in the horror genre this type of writing is disproportionately applied to female characters and is often very gendered).

Similarly, being queer is frequently treated as a meaningful character trait in itself with no need to explore further or engage meaningfully with the experiences of queer people. It can come off as tokenism and dehumanizing to be told the meta-message: “The important thing about this character is the fact that they’re queer. Nothing else, just that. When you are queer, there is nothing meaningful about you aside from who you love and/or who you bang and thus we feel no need to engage with your experience further.” I shouldn’t have to say this, but queer people are complete human beings with a depth of experience and being reduced down to our sexuality, by people who frequently do not look like us I might add, is certainly something. Heterosexual people are never treated as if their experience starts and ends with their sexuality, and I simply believe we deserve the same respect. And being queer should not be treated as a shield against character criticism. Being queer does not make you better or worse than anyone else.

[This part in response to someone claiming that the statement in question in the anon was a joke]

And I’m sorry, but I can’t know whether someone is joking when they say stuff like “being a lesbian gives you depth” on the internet. I don’t know if they’re gay, straight, man, woman, enby, cis, trans, or anything else. It’s not as if every person who says that kind of thing is joking. So I’m approaching it with a serious tone, because even if this particular person is joking and is the kind of person who understands the queer experience, this is still a mentality that is often found in media representation of queer folk and it does warrant discussion from that perspective.

#edelgard discourse #tw: SA

14 notes · View notes