#screw patriarchy

[samasmith23]

I always loved how this scene of Kate Bishop waking up after having a one-night stand with Noh-Varr (and not even knowing his name! Lol!) at the start of Kieron Gillen & Jamie McKelvie’s Young Avengers run actively subverts and gives toxic patriarchal concepts like the male gaze and slut-shaming a humungous middle finger!

“For a second, a part of me thinks, ‘I should be ashamed.’ I think that part of me is really stupid.”

The reviewer website “Bad Reputation” further analyzes how this scene instead supports a female gaze through Kate Bishop’s perspective, stating that not only is Kate’s smile in the fourth panel of the first page “the smile of someone who has just got laid and is pretty damned pleased with herself,” but that “the reader is supposed to see this scene through Kate’s eyes, and as she watches Noh-Varr dancing around in his [underwear] it acknowledges the existence of the female gaze, both through Kate’s interest in watching him, and the fanservice of the artwork.”

From Young Avengers (2013) #1 by Kieron Gillen & Jamie McKelvie.

[as-autistic-as-your-cat]

Just started watching Dickinson aaaaaand… oh boy! THE BEST SHOW EVER

[brasskingfisher]

FUCK THE PATRIARCHY!

Ok, I need to empty my brain of this. I've been seeing some discourse recently about misogyny and the patriarchy in regard to TERFs and radfems who seem to think that because AMAB people benefit from the patriarchy it's impossible for them to be directly harmed by it (if at all), or to genuinely oppose it. Well I've got news for you fucknuggets:

I'M A CISGENDER MAN WHO HAS SUFFERED BECAUSE OF THE PATRIARCHY!!

One perfect example is my mental health problems. Now I have depression and anxeity and got diagnosed in my mid twenties (though I'd begun to suspect I had some kind of problem much sooner). Now part of the reason I didn't get diagnosed sooner is because I was brought up with that traditional patriarchal idea that all men are inherntly stoic and can't/shouldn't show emotion and so I felt like asking for a psych referral because of my struggles was an overreaction. Now because I was never given space or opportunity to express or explore my emotions as a child I didn't have the vocabulary and understanding to talk to other people about my emotions and explain how I felt. The end result was that I had a tendency to bottle up and supress all my emotions up to the point I couldn't anymore and I either shut down and isolated myself or physically lashed out at myself or others. Now when that physical violence happened I almost invariably got criticised for not asking for help before that point despite not knowing how to and or being told I was weak/unmanly for needing/wanting that help.

It's also messed me up on terms of my sexuality. For context (and I've discussed before) I'm a bi/pan romantic asexual, but previously considered myself straight with a low sex drive (I just couldn't relate to this idea that regular sex was some kind of necessity, especially for men) since I wasn't interested in other men in that way and sex just never seemed particularly important. Because obviously you're either straight or gay. And obviously it's wrong to be gay or want to be with another man. It's only been recently as I've discovered asexuality and begun exploring queer spaces (and talking to other asexuals) that I've realised that my limited sexual experience is because I felt that I should want sex, or that providing sexual release for my partner was an important aspect of the relationship rather than I actually want to do the deed.

Now, this has left me with absolute metric fuckton of issues and problems which I'm still trying to unpack and deal with, and honestly, if future generations don't have to do this, I'd say that's for the better.

[valiantvillain]

I think I'm starting to realize that my problem with many "feminist" retellings of myth or history or sometimes feminist fiction, in general, is that they are written by authors who while valid in the frustrations, anger, and issues they bring up in their work are lacking in the nuances and complexities of feminist theory. And as such their approach to a feminist retelling/story becomes reductive and overly simplistic. Men are villains and women are victims. But the sad reality of patriarchy that many of these stories fail to grasp is that even good men perpetuate it as an inevitable result of being born and raised in a patriarchal society. We like to think that the venn diagram between loving someone and viewing them as property/less than human is just two separate circles. It's simple. It's easy to understand. It's black and white. You either see the women in your life as whole people and love them or they are possessions to be traded through marriage. But the unfortunate case is that through much of history and ancient myth, there was a great overlap.

And that's where it gets messy. It's the father refusing his daughter to marry for love and instead wed who he chooses because he's thinking about her future (and perhaps his own gains as a benefit). It's the brother making misogynist jokes with his friends but don't you dare talk about his sister like that or consider dating her because that's his relative. And there are many more examples. Men navigate a world in which love and possession have long been entangled to the point it's difficult to see where one ends and the other begins.

And so when I see feminist retellings that reduce everything to the latter, in which none of the twisted nuances are really addressed, I feel it's incomplete. It's too easy. By making the men monsters we make it too easy for men in real life to divorce themselves from the part they play in upholding patriarchy because well, obviously they're not a raging rapist like that guy. Plus it also feels like we're doing an injustice to female readers by reducing it to such a simplistic portrayal because the misogynist is not always that easy to spot at first glance.

Patriarchy is insidious by virtue of how it normalizes the objectification and subjugation of women. They're not limiting the autonomy of the women in their lives, they're just looking out for them because they can't be trusted to make decisions in their best interest. And so, even men who believe they see women as people and certainly love the women in their lives don't see themselves as oppressors but rather protectors. Their version of patriarchy, in their eyes at least, is benevolent.

So while it might feel cathartic to have our female protagonists start kicking ass and taking names, which it most certainly does, I really would like to see the more complex aspects of living in patriarchy explored. The struggle of knowing your father loves and will console you when you cry but doesn't see you as a fully realized person. To live among male family members who genuinely think they know what's best for you (whatever what's best for you even means), even gently explain why it's their job to protect you, even from yourself. And the aching knowledge of knowing that even as they love you, your lot in life is to be a possession, a wife, a mother. The sad reality is that not every misogynist is a mustache-twirling villain for whom you can hold no sympathy and to ignore that is to give them an excuse to say "not me, I'm a good guy".

[smiletime2]

I'm on the verge of starting the Syndicate irl I swear to God FUCK THIS GOVERNMENT

[whotfishazel]

Yayyy

[gameofthronedd]

not to be controversial or anything... but it's not very feminist girlboss of the fandom to stan one woman so intensely and then viciously tear into another.

pls be better feminist girlbosses, we can't let the patriarchy divide us yall (and these are fictional characters, it's not that deep istg)

[brasskingfisher]

Even more terrible radfem takes:

So, I ended up going through my blocked list (for reasons) and amongst all the FARTs and TERF adjacent radfems I've ended up blocking I kept seeing objections to porn, and a mentality of porn=prostitution, and because obviously prostitution=exploitation, we need to ban porn. And I'm just like really? You don't see how that logic is oppressing women? Not to mention infantilisaing men? How you expect to get people on board with your "objectives" if you're directly insulting half of the population and denying the other autonomy?

[toasterbunnicula]

is it just me or do straight men (especially conservative men) have higher expectations for men than people who are actually into men (straight/bi+ women, gay/bi+ men, etc.)

[glittering-snowfall]

You love Ginger Fitzgerald because you think she's a girlboss.

I love Ginger Fitzgerald because she's a pathetic and compellingly mean-spirited social outcast who wants to fuck her sister – because she’s a metaphorical rape victim (taking into account the lycanthrope attack was deliberately filmed to reflect a rape) who becomes the monster that destroyed her, enacting similar violence upon a loved one, emulating the patriarchy while nominally lashing out at it – because her actions are a result of her trauma, the result of her circumstances: the incest born of the isolation that comes from bullying and the inward-coiling of a life among dead-end streets, a life already unlived because the suburbs suffocate, fostering an unhealthy closeness because eyes that look are not eyes that see, and the perpetuation of untroubled suburban normalcy means she can blur boundaries in plain sight – but, even then, she is not one-dimensionally evil because she’s a teenager struggling with a life that she cannot escape, that the attack proves to her is inescapable – is she a deeply repressed lesbian? that might be my read, but she doesn’t have the tools to find herself in a healthy way, and she doesn’t live long enough to be able to come into her own, her “coming-into-her-own” is just the death-spiral of a body she never asked to be in, mutilated by circumstances she never asked to suffer, the mutilations staying and shifting even as the wounds heal over rapidly in the bright light of denial – her transformation lending itself to so many different trans readings, transmasc Ginger, transfem Ginger, nonbinary Ginger, in any case, puberty is hell, confines of cul-de-sacs, dead ends made flesh, the sisters' death project an effort to make those dead ends into flesh, turn their flesh into art and art into defiance… but your own body screws you, screws you, screws you, circling back to violation, violation done unto her and done by her to others – and yet the film has compassion for her until she breathes her last breath, even as she breathes her last breath and bleeds and Brigitte has had her cinematic arc of declaring, “I’m not dying in this room with you!”; even after that, Brigitte still stays with her, still loves her, and there was love in Ginger in spite of everything that went wrong, and those words “everything that went wrong” are not meant to elide the abuse and that word “love” is not meant to absolve it, but the love is still there – even as it hardens into use, everything corrupted by control, taught by time that you are trapped and the only triumph is trapping others – she’s still a girl who may not be a girl begging violently not to be alone – and she’s not alone in the end, even as Brigitte has come into her own in a way Ginger could not (or tried to come into her own, the coming year bringing ghosts for Brigitte that are Ginger’s making and Brigitte’s own mind’s) even as B has fulfilled her cinematic arc of becoming her own without Ginger, she still holds Ginger close in death, B still loves her even as she realizes she cannot survive with her, the film’s music still mourns her, the film still mourns her – because, whatever she was, she did not deserve to be eaten alive from the inside out, strangled in her own skin – and I love her because I pity her as I pity Brigitte, both of them victims, I pity her because Ginger is as much a victim as she is a victimizer, and I am not using her victimhood to disregard the fact she is a victimizer – but I love her because I connect with her body betraying her, with the denial as things get worse and worse until all that is left is explosion (I connect with Brigitte too, more deeply, in fact – Brigitte at war with her own body the way I am at war with my own body – but I cannot pretend I don’t connect with Ginger and her denial, her collapse in denial that these changes were wrong, because I lived that several years of my life – and I cannot pretend I don’t connect with Ginger just because I have a more ‘palatable’ option in Brigitte), I love her because she’s a child who never got the chance to grow up.

We are not the same.

[allpplareequal]

TERFs are so bizarre, how did you get feminism so wrong that you ended up hating minorities more than you love women?

Edit: You all know damn well I meant trans people and non white folks when I said "minorities"

Why don't you tighten them screws holding your thickass skull in place and learn yourself some reading comprehension before you interpret "stop making feminism about only cis white women" as "I just love the patriarchy" yet again.

[a-s-fischer]

One of the things I hear a lot from Gentile witches and neo-pagans who want to work with Lilith or claim to work with Lilith, is that she is actually a Mesopotamian goddess, usually either Ishtar/Inanna or Erishkigal, and that it was the Jews, with their horrible patriarchy juice, who slandered her and cast her down, and so the Jews do not deserve to say what happens to her and it isn't antisemitism to work with her, or to completely ignore what the Jews say about what she is in a Jewish context.

Lilith is not Ishtar or Erishkigal. However, there is a Mesopotamian figure that is pretty stinking analogous to Lilith, and is probably her folkloric ancestor, by which I mean the idea of Lilith probably comes from this Mesopotamian figure. In fact, Lilith almost certainly is either a Jewish version of this figure, or, they are both descended from the same Near Eastern and Mediterranean basin folkloric figure. That figure is Lamashtu.

Lamashtu is, much like Lilith, the supernatural embodiment of maternal and infant mortality, a figure of power and terror, who functions as a way to embody and cope with the profound dangers that are pregnancy, childbirth, and infancy without effective medical care. the Mesopotamians never worshiped Lamashtu, but they did seek to appease her, including making symbolic gifts to her, to keep her from visiting them, and killing them or their children.

An interesting side note is that there is also a Mesopotamian figure who specifically opposes Lamashtu and functions as the protector of pregnant women and infants, and that figure is Pazuzu, a wind spirit, who ruled over other wind spirits, including ones called the Iilu in the Akkadian language. Akkadian is a Semitic language, related to Hebrew, and this word is probably a cognate of Lilith, but the Iilu probably have no relationship to the figure of Lilith except her name. You might know Pazuzu as the demon featured in the movie, The Exorcist, and ironic fate for a mythological protector of women and children.

Anyway, if you'll remember, I implied above that the Lamashtu/Lilith figure, was present in various guises throughout the Mediterranean basin and the Near East, so there are of course figures analogous to both of them throughout the region, such as Lamia of Greece, and the Strix of Rome.

So if you really really want to work with a figure who functions as the supernatural embodiment of maternal and infant mortality, Lamashtu, Lamia, or the strix would all be excellent options that don't come from an extant closed religious practice. All the baby killing, none of the antisemitism and cultural appropriation.

While all three figures are almost certainly descended from the same folkloric root, they're all subtly different, because as stories and characters travel, they change. as such, they all have particular good points about them as figures of veneration.

Lanashtu is the OG bad bitch, who commanded fear, respect, and offerings, like a mythological mafiosa, collecting protection money.

Lamia has attached to her the story that she was one of Zeus's dubiously willing lovers, who was screwed over first by Zeus, the embodiment of patriarchical rule, then by a jealous Hera, the embodiment of patriarchal marriage, so if what attracted you to Lilith was the story from the Alphabet of Ben Sira, about a victim of the patriarchy getting her own back through violent vengeance, Lamia might be the girl for you. With her however, the emphasis is less on her murder of children, then on her seducing and eating men, though she does also get strongly associated with killing children, especially boys.

And the strix is particularly interesting, because the word comes down to us in the modern Italian word for witch, striga. Indeed, one of the theories as to where the witch figure came from in Early Medieval, and then Early Modern Christianity, was as the strix demon made human. This might explain the close association between Early Modern Witchcraft and infant mortality, including Italian stories of witches causing infants to die seemingly natural deaths, so that they could dig them up and eat them after their funerals, something that ties these human supposed witches very closely to demonic folkloric antecedents. If you are looking for a figure of unfairly maligned female power, the strix and her close association with later human witches, might be the one for you.

All three of these figures, much like Lilith herself, are reflections, both of the power women wielded even within patriarchal societies, over the process of pregnancy, birth, and childrearing, and also the powers of death and loss that everyone was subject to. There is something powerful, transgressive, and even healthy in acknowledging the fears and dangers presented by this death and loss,and for some people, that might take the form in venerating the underlying powers. If this is something that would be spiritually meaning for you, and you wish to work with such a figure, and you are not Jewish, please respect the fact that Lilith is part of a closed religious practice, and remember that Lilith has sisters, in other parts of the Mediterranean basin and the Near East, who are not from extant closed cultures, and who might serve your needs better anyway.

[siryouarebeingmocked]

>. "Feminists will fix the patriarchy feminism is for men"

Imagine being so out of touch that you think MRAs talk about "the Patriarchy", instead of mocking and criticizing the sexist idea that a society run by men must automatically be biased in men's favor.

When those same ruling men often conscript countless men and send them to fight, kill, and die.

Also, imagine not realizing that a) plenty of women care about how society screws over men, and b) even feminists talk about this stuff. After decades of ignoring it.

Same with the idiot in the notes who think men claim to be "oppressed", when that's essentially progressive speak.

And they don't realize that men also criticize other men when they seem to have screwed men over. MRAs regularly talk about how society is failing men, not just women.

And the idiot who doesn't realize lots of women care about men, and women like radfems are the minority.

[zhoras-bitch]

Princess Aerin Valleros

Someone has probably already done this before, but I saw @livelaughlovecassie's post about f!Aerin, and I was like. I have to.

And as I was making it, I grew more and more invested in the idea, because f!Aerin would be such problematic girlboss. Like, she was screwed over by the patriarchy, but she didn't give up and took matters into her own hands. I have no choice but to stan.

To further illustrate my vision:

[spreta-invidia]

It’s been a week and I haven’t stopped being disappointed about House Darry.

But that detail is just the thing my brain picked out to focus on as a fulcrum around which I could think out my big issues with HotD S2 (or rather post S1.08).

Why is the plot so different? Literally diametrically opposed from the book? I know adaptations have to make changes. And I actually LOVE the idea of Daemon being haunted at Harrenhal, even though it is, again, exactly the opposite. That phrasing in FAB (no weird things are reported as happening to Daemon while he was in the haunted castle) is mouthwatering for a writer, right? It doesn’t say it didn’t happen. So okay, work with that. What does a haunting look like, in the context of the Daemyra conflicts of the show and the stated events in the book? Daemon rallying lords, looting this castle for its wealth, haunted at night with dreams and visions of Rhaenyra, Laena, and maybe Viserys, while the Riverlords bicker amongst themselves. Maybe Lord Vance (of Wayfarer’s Rest, obvs) is unsure of a woman’s leadership while Lord Piper gets his badass line about still having his sword. Maybe Lord Darry gets in a fight with Lady Mallister because she objects to Jaehaerys’ death and he’s in camp “a son for a son”. And Daemon is trying to piece them into an army while he’s falling apart. Maybe the culmination of this is him telling Elmo Tully to kill his father and take his place, and then realizing he’s thinking about Viserys and damn does he hate and love his brother all at once (thus making the juxtaposition of Daemon’s lines in S2.03 and S2.04 mean something for his character.) This all accomplishes the same things (Daemon haunted and forced to learn lessons, Riverlords chaotic, creepy Alys, etc) with similar scenes as in the show and similar numbers of actors, without making huge changes from the source material.

So why all these changes? I mean, I don’t know the end of the season (though I’ve read some speculation and possible leaks ofc), but at some point, don’t we have to start wondering, to quote David Benioff of all people, “What the hell is this plot?” What does it show that they’ve twisted the book story to accommodate their narrative of Daemon’s complete failure at the expense of his wife and queen and their kids? (Personally I think it shows their bias and judgements.)

Or, being generous, what does it show that they’ve twisted Daemon’s book storyline to accommodate him learning about his flaws at the expense of his wife and kids? I actually think it’s hugely important to show the results of the toxicity of the patriarchy on men, but I’m not sure it’s helpful if that’s at the expense of the storylines of the women around them.

Maybe Rhaenyra is going to ride into Harrenhal in episode 8 with Syrax and the Riverlords will fall to their knees when she gives them an epic speech. I don’t know. Her arc this season seems to be learning about not being passive and indecisive (traits she had either grown past or did not have until S1.08 and her reconciliation with Alicent), so I do think it’s likely her arc will culminate in taking control of her Riverlands or northern army. But I think it’s important to note that in FAB, the Riverlords didn’t rise for Rhaenyra’s husband. Daemon was like, “hey, wanna go to war for our queen?” and they overwhelmingly said YES, not because of a male figurehead but because of oaths and memories of a princess. (Though I’m sure the presence of a dragon-riding prince helped.) You can still have conflict within that “yes”, but it’s important that the support was THERE. That’s important to Rhaenyra’s arc. I would argue it’s key to it, but they’ve largely voided it in the show.

At a certain point, having Daemon constantly screw up and having everyone HATE him does two things: makes Daemon look incompetent and frankly idiotic and makes him a wholly unsuitable consort, and it makes the story of the Blacks hugely about him. Rhaenyra’s on thin ice with her council in large part because of Daemon. The Riverlands are chaotic and not rallying largely because of Daemon. Rhaena’s feelings of inferiority over not being able to claim a dragon are largely because of Daemon. Etc.

I get the idea that Daemon has to work out all his feelings about Rhaenyra being more powerful than him out in order to rise to the occasion. I don’t think that’s a terrible character idea. Some of the stuff the show did with him was very interesting early on, but I’m also expected to believe that his character is the exact same person he was in episode one, and that all Rhaenyra has learned is how to be a carbon copy of her father, vis a vis her dealings with Daemon, when fifteen year old Rhaenyra knew better? (I know the stress of Viserys’ death was an earth shattering moment for them, and they came apart then while book!Daemyra didn’t, but I can’t believe neither of these characters changed or grew at ALL, especially after their unity in S1.08.)

I also think this largely spoils the end of their arc. Daemon is going to die in maybe ten episodes? They’ve spent five episodes having him work through this phase of going against his queen, and I’m sure it’s going to continue til S2.07. Only his ultimate act, his climactic moment, is… going against his queen. I get the right reason vs wrong reason thing (also I truly believe Daemon never turned against Rhaenyra even as he disobeyed her, but that’s beside the point). If Daemon weren’t dying in maybe ten episodes, I might think this was compelling. I love that thing Emma said about them being too proud to be vulnerable to one another and I think it would have been very powerful in season three after the war had cracked their foundations.

Ultimately who knows what the show is going to do? They’ve literally reversed so much of the stuff from the book, maybe Daemon will survive Gods Eye and become the Three-Eyed Raven and also the Shrouded Lord. Maybe the battle will have nothing to do with Rhaenyra’s letter or Daemon’s choices. But if they follow the book storyline…?

Their conflict is too late to be formative and too early to be climactic. It’s just there. It’s just Daemon being a chaotic liability and Rhaenyra being Viserys 2.0. And the biggest issue: if they solve these problems, it will be just in time for the same thing to happen again. (Again, unless Daemon is the Shrouded Lord or something.)

And really, couldn’t they have just let House Darry love the Targaryens? Asking for a friend. (That friend is Lord Darry.)

[astrangergivingthestrangewelcome]

I don't know who needed to hear this today but this is your reminder that Polonius 👏 From 👏 Hamlet 👏 Is 👏 Not 👏 An 👏 Idiot. Is he a genius? No. Does he think he's way smarter than he actually is? Yes. Does he love to run on at the mouth? Yes. But if you actually listen to what he's saying, listen to his speech to Laertes, especially, especially listen to his speech to Reynaldo, he's dumb like the fox. He's getting older now, but I think he was very good at gathering information for most of his life. And his actions reflect this. His telling Ophelia to dump Hamlet... It's patriarchy, obviously, and he's coming at it from a place of selfishness, his reputation, but the observation itself never seemed ridiculous to me. Like if I were Ophelia's friend I would also be telling her "you know he can't marry you right? You know he's gonna have to marry a princess? You know if he gets you pregnant you're totally fucking screwed right? Are you being careful? Do you promise you're being careful?" He's also... on Hamlet's trail you know? "Though this be madness; there's method in it." I think it's a better story if Polonius isn't a bumbling idiot but instead is a competent but aging advisor. It adds a layer of threat to story if Hamlet isn't running laps around a total idiot, but deftly staying ahead of a smart man who is sniffing him out.