#the actions of the oppressor will always be seen as more just than the actions of the oppressed

[cherrybomb107]

One more thing about the difference between Caitlyn’s actions and Jinx’s. As I’ve said before, comparing their actions is disingenuous imo, for the simple fact that Caitlyn is an oppressor, and Jinx is oppressed. That’s not to say that victims of systemic oppression are incapable of violence, just that the violence they are capable of is fundamentally different to that of their oppressor, and therefore cannot be compared. But the difference in reaction to Caitlyn’s actions vs the reaction to Jinx’s is what I wanna talk about.

Caitlyn is an authoritarian dictator. She gassed Zaunites, co-signed martial law, hit her partner, unlawfully arrested people, and almost killed a child just to get to Jinx. Yet large swathes of the fandom brush off or downplay these atrocities because of “grief”. Of course grief is a reason for doing things and acting out of character, but it does not excuse anything. Especially because, as not just a Piltie but a Kiramman, Caitlyn’s allowed to be much more destructive in her “grief”. She gets to take out her pain and anguish on an entire city, but other characters are not afforded that privilege? Why is that?

Jinx meanwhile makes all of her weapons by hand. She only kills enforcers, Firelights, Councilors, and goons who attack her. I’m not going to defend her actions here(as I’ve made many posts here explaining my thoughts and feelings on them). But I will say that it’s interesting that the violence Jinx is responsible for is enough to make her a “psycho” and a “terrorist” but if you point out how Caitlyn’s actions literally make her a dictator and how “grief” doesn’t excuse anything, you’ll be crucified by the fandom. Why? Because both in the show and in real life, the feelings of the privileged are legitimized, while the actions of the under privileged are demonized and pathologized.

It’s the same story with women and misogyny. Men are not “crazy” or “emotional” for perpetuating patriarchy and punishing women for the crime of existing. Men get to make “jokes” about how much they hate women. How they want to rape, kill, and harm them. Then they actually go out and do it! And this is not called the results of misogyny, oh no! It’s simply a “male loneliness epidemic”. Men have spent centuries subjugating women to horrible things I can’t even describe without tearing up. But they are still thought of as the more “logical” and “reasonable” gender. However, when women react to this institutional sexism, they get labeled instead of listened to. “Crazy”, “hysterical”, “delusional”, “emotional”, “hormonal”, “pmsing”, “doing too much” etc. Women don’t get to lash out and fight back against a system that sees them as subhuman. But men are allowed to set that system up and benefit from it.

Same thing with slavery. Slave owners were not “crazy”, “insane”, or “cruel” for not only owning human beings but mentally, physically, emotionally, financially, and sexually abusing and torturing my people. Yet enslaved people who would do anything to be free were labeled “drapetomanic”. Called crazy because they didn’t want to be enslaved. The oppressor’s feelings are always more valid and justified than the oppressed, no matter what they do.

The Black Panther Party were called “terrorists” for arming themselves both with guns and with books, and preparing to fight back against a system that didn’t see them as human beings. The government made multiple plans on how to disrupt their movement and destroy it from the inside out. Why is the US government not commonly called a terrorist organization? Why does a kid who steals candy from a store, or a mother who steals formula for her child get labeled a “criminal” or a “thief”, but the government is allowed to steal thousands of dollars from us, pump poison into our food, water, air, push propaganda at every turn, brutalize our people, and destroy our communities with no consequences?

Because the privileged are always justified both in their feelings and actions, no matter how heinous. That’s why the Black Panthers were “criminals” and “terrorists” while the government was just “trying to restore order”. That’s why men get to kidnap, rape, murder, beat, and oppress women but a woman making jokes about the male suicide rate is a “bitch” or a “feminazi”. That’s why Jinx is a “terrorist” and a “psycho” but Caitlyn is a “complex female character” who’s “grieving.

This also points to something else: individuality as yet another privilege. Despite overwhelming evidence that men commit majority of violent crimes, when women express hesitation about being around men, it gets brushed off as “not all men”. When Black people express wariness about cops it gets brushed off as “a few bad apples”. When in reality it is an issue with policing as an institution. Yet when a woman does something bad, it’s “These bitches can’t be trusted.” “All women are the same.” “All women want blah blah blah.” Women don’t get to be thought of as individuals. When one woman does something, it reflects on women as a whole. When a Black person does something, all Black people are “criminals” or “thugs.” We don’t get to be individuals.

Same thing with Caitlyn and Piltover as a whole. It’s “not all Pilties” and “we’re people, just like you” when the heat is on them. But when Caitlyn lost her mom, it was “those animals”. “I see how easy it is to hate them”. Councilor Salo referred to Zaunites as “demons”. And when Caitlyn asked Vi to be an enforcer, she said “We can show them that not everyone in Zaun supports Jinx.” Huh? What type of sense does that make? Caitlyn had been conducting her off the book’s investigation into the Undercity’s violence since season one, yet she still didn’t even know who was behind it all, or who Jinx was! Now, it’s “we have to show them that not everyone in Zaun supports Jinx”? Where would she even get the idea that people in Zaun would support Jinx in the first place?

She says this in the first episode of season two. Why would all of Zaun be responsible for Jinx’s actions? Why would all of Zaun be supporting Jinx at this point in time? See what I mean about individuality? When Pilties like Marcus cause harm, it’s “one bad apple”. Yet when Jinx justifiably tries to fight back against her oppressors, all of Zaun is put on the hook, whether they support her or not. It doesn’t matter. Just being a Zaunite means you support Jinx, and you need to be brought to “justice”. Whether you actually did anything wrong or not is irrelevant. By virtue of your identity you are guilty until proven innocent, while Pilties are innocent until proven guilty. And even then, they get a slap on the wrist when proven guilty.

Oppressed people will always be demonized and vilified in the court of public opinion in real life, and that absolutely affects how people consume fiction. Jinx’s actions are blown out of proportion (people think she’s killed dozens/hundreds of people when that’s simply not the case) while Caitlyn was “manipulated by Ambessa” and she “didn’t even do anything that bad”. One of these characters has the money, power, and institution backing her to make a city suffer. The other character has scraps at best. But only one of these characters will ever be thought of as a “monster”.

TL;DR The fandom’s reception to Caitlyn’s actions highlights a larger issue irl in that oppressors get let off the hook, while oppressed people get held to different, and sometimes even impossible standards

[navramanan]

still heartbroken but cannot move

[radfemsiren]

🤍A basic rundown of my beliefs as a radical feminist 🤍

(I don’t represent every radical feminist, but these are usually the standard opinions you’ll find of many radfems. Hate or disagree with them, that’s fine! But know the truth of who I am and what I stand for beforehand)

- there are 2 sexes, the male sex is oppressing the female sex

- femicide, rape, child sex abuse, hijab laws, female genital mutilation, domestic labor, trafficking, war crimes, revenge porn, prostitution… women and girls around the world are being exploited, tortured, and killed because of this oppression, and it must end.

- female oppression is sex based oppression, meaning a woman can’t just identify out of her oppression (for example hijab laws)

- sex is biological and an immutable truth, gender is a social construct

- gender should be done away with because gender roles are male supremacist and result in women and girls being stereotyped, dehumanized, barred from education, safety, bodily autonomy, etc.

- defining women with anything other than biology is misogynistic and relies on stereotypes

- the biological differences between men and women must be acknowledged in order to effectively end patriarchal oppression

- radical feminism is getting to the root of female oppression (radical -> root)

- misandry is not real and is just an extension of misogyny (for example, “men are told not to cry!” Yes because women are seen as inferior and any trait associated with us is seen as degrading/emasculating for men. This is why there is no female equivalent to emasculation.)

- all current religions are patriarchal and made by men to exploit and control women

- access to abortion is a human right and should never be threatened, women are the creators of life and deserve to gatekeep it, as well as exercise full autonomy over our own bodies

- Using sexist gender roles to define yourself is giving these misogynistic stereotypes power (wearing makeup or dresses doesn’t make anyone less or more of a woman, this is misogyny)

- the beauty industry is patriarchal and exploits women, our bodies and our money

- sex work is not work, it’s always exploitation (consent can not be bought)

- the porn industry is patriarchal and relies on trafficking, coercion, and rape to function. It also conditions its watchers to be aroused by violence against women, and results in more real life consequences for women and girls

- women’s spaces and institutions must be protected. Women’s safety is more important than catering to male feelings

- marriage is a patriarchal institution made to exploit the domestic labor of women for her entire life

- BDSM/kink are patriarchal and only center the pleasure and well being of men.

- hookup culture is patriarchal and the risk to reward is not worth it for women to engage in it

- gender ideology is patriarchal and is a direct hindrance to female liberation (we can’t define ourselves or our oppressors, we can’t create spaces away from our oppressors, we can’t create laws and policy based on these definitions, people who are gender non conforming are pressured to alter their bodies to conform to a rigid standard and become lifelong medical patients, etc)

- choice feminism and liberal feminism caters to conforming to patriarchal standards and institutions, and refuses to examine why women make choices under patriarchy

- women of color face oppression on the axis of our sex and race, men of color only face oppression on the axis of their race

- non white patriarchal institutions must be criticized: a mullah is just as dangerous to the liberation of women as a pastor is

- women should decenter the men in their lives just as men have done with women. That means prioritizing us! Engaging in women’s media, art, stories, fostering female communities and support networks, uplifting and empowering their sisters around the world

- being a radical feminist means consistently taking radical action, big or small, we all can do it! Go support a female artist, go donate menstrual products to a shelter, go tell off a man when you see him making a woman uncomfortable. We all can make a difference!

…My feminism focuses on criticism of Islam and middle eastern patriarchy, but there are radfems with many focuses/passions… some in eco feminism, some on uplifting Romani women, black women, neurodivergent women, women with disabilities, prostituted women… some are passionate about women’s sports, women’s art, women’s writing, women’s history, lesbian and bisexual women’s stories… everyone has their passion on here, so before you come to attack, just check out my blog and click around at the different profiles on this corner of the internet…. maybe we might not be the terrible witches you thought us to be. Or maybe we are, but witches are awesome so who cares lol

[elspethdekarios]

I have thoughts about Anders

So I just finished Dragon Age: Awakening (I’ve played through all 3 main games, went back to do the DLC) and I have so many thoughts about how different Anders is pre- and post-Justice sharing his body. I think part of this is the voice actor change in DA2, but his personality seems so different, too. Awakening Anders is sarcastic, always cracking jokes, mostly light-hearted even after everything he’s been through. DA2 Anders has moments like this, but he’s much more intense and brooding. Awakening Anders has a few lines about wanting to settle down with a pretty girl or have a plump wife waiting for him at home, but DA2 Anders is PINING. And with the time skip, it’s a slow burn. Awakening Anders doesn’t strike me as the slow burn type—he’s very flirty and even a little raunchy at times. But Anders in DA2 doesn’t really act like that. He’s got a tortured, romantic soul. He’s much more serious. And maybe it’s just because he’s grown up a little bit, but now that I’ve met Justice as a character before he and Anders become one, I wonder how much of that change is Anders maturing vs. Justice’s personality coming through.

I know this game has been out forever and I’m probably not saying anything new, but Anders is so fascinating to me. More rambling and dialogue analysis under the cut:

The very first thing that struck me as different about Anders in Awakening (other than his general personality) was his response to Wynne telling the Warden Commander that the Libertarians in the Circle want to pull away from the Chantry, and Anders says that it’s a recipe for disaster. SIR! WHO ARE YOU?

Awakening Anders also doesn’t seem particularly interested in justice for mages or revenge for how he and other mages have been treated. He wants his freedom, and I’m sure he wants freedom for other mages too, but he’s not exactly radical like he is in DA2. In fact, it’s Justice who seems to inspire Anders to, well, seek justice. I’m emphasizing some of this dialogue to analyze it below:

Justice: I understand that you struggle against your oppression, mage. Anders: I avoid my oppression. That's not quite the same thing, is it? Justice: Why do you not strike a blow against your oppressors? Ensure they can do this to no one else? Anders: Because it sounds difficult? Justice: Apathy is a weakness. Anders: So is death. I'm just saying.

Justice: I believe you have a responsibility to your fellow mages. Anders: That bit of self-righteousness is directed at me? Justice: You have seen oppression and are now free. You must act to free those who remain oppressed. Anders: Or I could mind my business, in case the Chantry comes knocking. Justice: But this is not right. You have an obligation. Anders: Yes, well... welcome to the world, spirit.

Now, look at this conversation between Anders and Isabela in DA2:

Anders: I don't know how you live the way you do, blithely ignoring the consequences of your actions. Isabela: This is about the Qunari thing, isn't it? I'm not ignoring it. I just recognize that it happened years ago. Isabela: There's this fantastic thing called "moving on." You should try it sometime. Anders: Has it occurred to you that Kirkwall is only just recovering from the Qunari attack? Isabela: And you want me to... what? Flog myself daily? Isabela: Has it occurred to you that maybe there's no justice in the world? Other than that voice you keep in your head.

Isabela sounds more like Awakening Anders than Anders himself does in this conversation. Justice accuses Awakening Anders of ignoring the oppression of other mages like DA2 Anders accuses Isabela of ignoring the consequences of her actions (for the record, I don’t think either of these assumptions are 100% true, but I digress). In Awakening, Anders is cynical when Justice tells him he has an obligation. What can he change? He has to worry about his own survival as an apostate before risking his life even more to save others. Hence the line “welcome to the world, spirit.” Anders is pragmatic, even a little pessimistic, where Justice is idealistic.

But then, the conversation with Isabela! Like Justice tried to convince Anders of his obligation to other mages, Anders now is trying to convince Isabela to take responsibility for her actions. She’s ignoring the unrest that was caused by her stealing the Qunari tome instead of doing something to help—just like Awakening Anders is ignoring his oppressor. 

When Anders and Justice merge, Anders starts to see the bigger picture, the oppression that reaches far beyond himself. From the short story Anders:

I always knew I wouldn't submit. I could never be what they wanted from me -- compliant, obedient, guilty. But before Justice, I was alone. I never thought beyond my own escape: Where would I hide? How long before they found me? Now, even that thought repulses me. Why should so many others live with what I will not? Why must the Circle of Magi stand? Just because it always has, just because those who read Andraste's words twisted them to mean that mages must be prisoners? Why has there never been a revolution? �� They will all die. Every templar, every holy sister who stands in the way of our freedom will die in agony and their deaths will be our fuel. We will have justice. We will have vengeance. And suddenly I'm alone, standing in a burning forest, with the bodies of templars and wardens at my feet. So many, and I didn't even know they were there. Didn't even know I had killed them, but the evidence is all around me. Not the aftermath of a battle as I've known it, but a bloody abattoir of rent limbs and torn and eaten flesh. This is not justice. This is not the spirit who was my friend, my self. What has he become? What have I become? We must get out of here. There is no place for me in the Grey Wardens now. Is there a place for me anywhere?

First of all, ow, my heart. But the point is: before he becomes part of Anders, Justice doesn’t feel a personal connection to mages’ freedom—he only cares because of the injustice. But once he and Anders become one, the source of injustice that Anders cares about the most, that he has deep resentment for, that has caused him great harm, becomes Justice’s cause. We know that Justice can sense/feel memories of the body he inhabits because he remembers some of Kristoff’s past, or at least feels connections to certain objects or people even if he can’t explain it. Kristoff was dead, though, so those memories were only fragments. I imagine that with Anders, he can experience those memories more clearly, including, of course, the injustice he and others have suffered at the hands of the templars. Justice is able to integrate into Anders fully, whereas with Kristoff, the body was an empty vessel with remnants of the past soul that was within it. 

Now, let’s talk about where Anders ends and Justice begins, something that even Anders himself is unsure of. Here are some DA2 banters about the division (or lack thereof) between the two of them:

(Outside The Hanged Man, Act 3) Anders: Justice doesn't let me get drunk anymore. I kind of miss it.

(in Legacy DLC) Anders: I've tried to forget about this side of myself. Justice is... so strong. Sometimes the Wardens seem insignificant. But seeing that poor bastard brings it all back. The Darkspawn taint. The call of the archdemon. It's inside me, as much a part of me as Justice.

Anders: Justice once asked me why I didn't do more for other mages. I told him it was too much work. Anders: But I couldn't go back after that. Couldn't stop thinking about it. Anders: Sometimes, I miss being that selfish.

Varric: So, the knight-commander... Boiling in oil? That one never gets old. Anders: This is past time for joking. Varric: I'm helping you indulge in elaborate revenge fantasies. I think it's good for you. Anders: Meredith will die. Do not doubt that. Varric: Go away, Justice. Can Anders come out and play? Anders: [Justice voice] Stop. Varric: You are no fun anymore.

(if Anders was taken to the Fade) Anders: I have tried to avoid the Fade since Justice. It's disturbing when he takes over.

The above dialogues imply that Anders and Justice are two separate entities in one body. The one from Legacy is tricky, since he compares it to the taint, but he still refers to Justice as separate from himself, which is why I included it. And that’s not even touching on the fact that Justice has a different voice than Anders. But these:

Aveline: So you're two people, Anders and... Justice? Anders: That's not strictly accurate. Aveline: But you are of two minds. Anders: Many people are.

Isabela: Hello? Is Anders there? Can I speak to Anders? Anders: You can stop yelling. It's always me. Isabela: Oh, good. I didn't want to talk to that other guy. You know, the stick-in-the-mud. Anders: He can still hear you. Justice and I are one. Anders: Anyway, you wanted to talk to me? Isabela: Not really. I just wanted to make sure it was you.

(If Hawke convinces Anders to give up his plan) Vengeance: Leave! This does not concern you! Hawke: This is Anders's decision, not yours! Vengeance: I am Anders! You have given into sloth. You would stand by while mages are abducted and tortured. Go. Anders has no need of you.

There’s not a clear answer either way. And I didn’t expect to find one. I think a lot of this back and forth is Anders trying to understand who he is now that Justice is part of him. He clearly still feels like he has some level of agency and individuality apart from Justice, but he struggles with it. This feels very anticlimactic, but I guess that’s just the nature of it all.

If you read this far, wow thanks. Now to not leave off on a sad note, here are some DA2 banters that feel very Awakening Anders to me - please enjoy <3

Anders: I keep thinking I know you from somewhere... Isabela: You're Fereldan, right? Ever spend time at the Pearl? Anders: That's it! Anders: You used to really like that girl with the griffon tattoos, right? What was her name? Isabela: The Lay Warden? Anders: That's right! I think you were there the night I— Isabela: Oh! Were you the runaway mage who could do that electricity thing? That was nice... Hawke: Please stop talking. Now. (Or if Varric is in the party) Varric: I don't think I need to know this about either of you.

Anders: So, I never expected to be palling around with the captain of the guard. Aveline: We're not "pals." Anders: We're not? What about that time we painted each other's toenails? Aveline: Do you want something? Anders: Love, life, and liberty. What more does a man need?

Anders: Nice day to be planning a trip into the Deep Roads, don't you think? Anders: The Blight, the dampness, the festering darkness filled with tainted rats... Carver: Shut up. Anders: You've got a real chip on your shoulder, you know? Carver: I've got a big blade on my shoulder, magey. Anders: Right. Wonder what you're compensating for.

Fenris: Is there something you want, Anders? Anders: You really don't have the temperament for a slave. Fenris: Is that a compliment or an insult? Anders: I'm just wondering how your master didn't kill you. Fenris: How have the templars not killed you? Anders: I'm charming.

Anders: Is that supposed to be Andraste's face on your crotch? Sebastian: What? Anders: That... belt buckle thing. Is that Andraste? Sebastian: My father had this armor commissioned when I took my vows as a brother. Anders: I'm just not sure I'd want the Maker seeing me shove His bride's head between my legs every morning.

(All dialogue found on the Dragon Age fandom wiki.)

[cloudxgears]

I like to think that the way Jinx reacts to seeing Vi in the enforcer uniform is less about what happened to their parents and more about how her Vi never would have done that and realising the Vi she understood and who was familiar and safe and recognisable to her is gone for good. Because obviously no one in the Undercity likes enforcers or their topside oppressors, but Jinx is never once shown with the same vehement hatred of enforcers that young Vi had.

I think this is just about Vi. It's about Jinx's disappointment towards the big sister she spent her life looking up to, and her shock that Vi's life experiences were that bad that they've led her to lose any character and principles she used to have.

I really don't think Jinx ever cared as much about gaining freedom for Zaun and revenge on Piltover as young-Vi and Silco did. Jinx' world was always quite insular. She focused on her special interest and developing her talent, making bombs and weapons, to enable her survival, improve her self-esteem and to try to help the ones she loves. Everything she did was about proving she could survive after coming from nothing and being the kicked puppy, and to prove herself to the ones she admires.

The whole point of the teaparty scene was about deciding who to trust and who to choose and if it had happened differently she would have gone off with Vi and done what it took to make Vi keep loving her and if that meant not using the bomb she wouldn't have done it.

She isn't exactly driven by revenge like pre-teaparty Vi and post-Cassandra Cait, or by wanting dignity and wider respect like Silco and young-Vi. She's driven by loyalty and her desire to be valued and seen by those she loves, and she has no one left to be loyal to, Silco is dead and her Vi isn't there anymore, so she's dead inside.

Having her own daughter to care for (and probably losing her) is what will make her want to become a symbol and put the fire in her to truly want revenge for the first time.

But that moment in the smog seeing Vi in uniform below her is the moment the teaparty and watching Jinx use the bomb on the council building was for Vi. It's Jinx' first moment realising Vi isn't safe for her anymore and has become a total stranger. That's when she's confronted by understanding that she'll never get her Vi back again and she doesn't have the history or connection to this new woman anymore to be able to understand her. It's the first time realising the memory of the Vi she has loved and hated and held on to all this time has been extinguished by this imposter.

And she naturally has a total panic attack at the loss.

It gives you more understanding of Vi's internal feelings about Jinx. Vi doesn't show her reactions in the same big way Jinx does. She had to be Powder's parental figure as a kid and she desired to follow in Vander's footsteps and become a leader one day, so she had to constantly maintain a positive and strong front and suppress anything else. She always made sure whenever Powder looked up at her to project, 'Everything is going to be fine, because I will make it so, don't worry :)' because she was a great big sister.

And then she was locked in prison for 7+ years where she couldn't afford to show weakness or have obvious breakdowns. Also I like how her coping mechanism is shown by her general attitude to be optimism, and even in somewhere as desolate as Stillwater it's easy to imagine her against all odds fighting to maintain a can-do attitude and having a mantra of 'It will be fine and I'll get out of this one day because I have to', and that mindset takes a lot of suppressing too.

So she implodes rather than explodes in a way that's difficult for an observer to notice or understand. Which is why her S2 actions so far look so wack to most people.

The moment in the smog and the panic attack after is the first time Jinx is having the same big realisation Vi had to her during Season 1, realising that is not her safety or the big sister she can look up to anymore. It's losing a part of herself that Jinx admits at the end of S1 has kept her alive all these years.

[biblioflyer]

Being right doesn’t mean you get to kill everyone else.

I’ve seen some griping that the writers of X-Men ‘97 “did Magneto dirty” by first showing how human / mutant coexistence was a delusion only to have Magnus go full genocidal tyrant. I think this, like the exchange between Rogue and Captain America has nuances that aren’t being appreciated, but I’ll grant the point that the demographic disparity and the destructive capabilities of the setting ensure that it doesn’t take broad support by non-mutants to enact a pogrom. Even before the revelation of Bastion, the idea of an attempt to kill as many mutants in one place as physically possible and ruin the illusion of safety wasn’t that far fetched: with or without the support and sanction of major world governments.

That Magneto would respond to the Genosha massacre with disproportionate force, and let’s call it what it is: killing humanity including quite a lot of mutants, is not the writers turning on Magneto. It’s who Magneto is in the animated series and at the moment in comic lore it’s based on. Who Magneto is is a mutant supremacist. Separation from Sapiens was never just about safety. Magneto wanted to build a parallel culture. Not for the sake of creating a culture and the beauty of creative endeavors but because of mutant chauvinism.

Because the setting is what it is, Charles the assimilationist is doomed. If the rubric for success is mutant safety and equality across the board, then it’s simply unachievable because tiny cabals of madmen can cobble together salvaged alien tech, secrets from the future, and knock off Stark tech to unleash horror that is obscenely difficult to prevent and doesn’t require widespread societal consent.

Charles chooses not to blame the people just trying to live day to day for the actions of hate filled mad scientists and lynchers.

Magneto blames the masses for not recognizing and stopping the threat in their midst, sees their inaction as complicity, and even if they are blameless then they are camouflage within which existential threats to mutants conceal themselves and if Magneto has to burn down the whole village or planet to deny genocidal schemers their cover, that’s what he’ll do. He’ll kill as many non-mutants as it takes to feel safe because he did not value their lives prior to Genosha, did not feel they valued mutant lives, and he has always viewed mutant lives as more valuable. Genosha ratcheted that up to genocidal rage.

Revolutionary, terrorist, oppressed, and oppressor are not static categories. Real life figures and fictional characters can slide between them very easily because monsters can make valid points and victims can do monstrous things. A correct observation about society doesn’t justify the monster’s darkest desires and suffering doesn’t make evil deeds justified.

That’s the point. That’s always been the point of X-Men. It’s not cops and robbers, bigots vs good people, it’s the struggle of everyone not to judge everyone else by the worst thing a member of the other group has ever done. Magneto and Bastion are the faces of giving in to rage and fear. Succumbing to the easy moral certainty of collective punishment and of the rationalizations provided by their respective supremacies. They always were. Even when they were making sense. Especially when they were making sense.

Epilogue: (Tolerance is Extinction pt 3 spoilers)

It’s never too late though to step off the path of the tyrant. Better early but late is better than never.

[my-traumacore-sideblog]

feeling rly unsafe 2day, but it's specifically bc of being a trans guy, i keep seeing stuff from cis women abt how men r always the worst and how men hav a duty 2 make their lives revolve around women or else we're sexist, how apparently men need 2 all b willing 2 lay down their lives 4 any woman or else we're just as bad as the creeps who make ppl feel unsafe 2 go out at night and yes i said people not just women but they only want 2 acknowledge it when it's a cis woman that's the victim

i did not fucking sign up for this

i did not fucking sign up 2 sacrifice my life either literally or thru dedicating my life only 2 others just because the pronoun "he" fits me better than the pronoun "she"

i should not hav 2 worry that im an inherently bad person because of being a gay trans man

i should not hav 2 worry abt being perceived as a threat bc of being a queer man of colour

i've honestly started to hav thoughts abt de-transitioning not bc being a guy in the way i am doesn't fit me but rather out of fear of the scrutiny every action of mine will b placed under

i was sexually abused as a child but i guess that doesn't matter anymore because im a man now, boys don't cry they punch ig, apparently since im a man now it means im destined 2 become that which hurt me

all i want is to be a man, in a nonbinary way yes but still a man (demi-guy), i want to love men who love me back, i want to live a quiet life surrounded by love and happiness, i want to live a gentle life

but no.... because im a man now then apparently it must make me predatory in some way

i can't de-transition... i know i wouldn't survive emotionally... so i stick with it, with allowing myself to be a demi-guy.... but it hurts knowing that me being free is perceived as dangerous, that im seen as inherently a threat to women

edit: so a terf started clowning this post, just 2 make this shit clear, this is not a fucking debate blog this is a me posting abt my feelings blog, i would've thought the url "my-traumacore-sideblog" would've made that clear

also no racism and sexism is not the same thing

yes women face oppression at the hands of men and should be allowed to talk about it but men also face oppression at the hands of women and should be allowed to talk abt it, 4 men who r not in a minority group this is usually in terms of legal stuff (how r*pe is legally categorised, custody disputes ect) but this is even more of an issue and more every day when it comes to men in marginalised communities, yk like me, yk like what i was venting abt in my fucking post i should b allowed 2 talk abt my own oppression 2 and acting like me venting abt my own oppression in a post tagged as a vent post on my vent blog makes me the same as my white oppressors is not only terf shit but also racist and it shows a lack of political literacy, a woman has just as much capacity 4 violence as a man but a queer man of colour is seen as inherently violent and a white woman is inherently seen as always being a victim but ur ok w/ these white women using that power of perceived vulnerability 2 call 4 violence against queer men and men of colour and especially queer men of colour just say u want cis women klansmen and leave im not backing down from talking abt my own oppression bc of white woman tears

anyways person who clowed is now blocked so don't bother trying 2 respond 2 my edit

[linktotheheart]

I've been thinking of two of my biggest fandom loves, Legend of Zelda and The Locked Tomb.

I've seen so many takes that paint Hylia as evil, cruel, an oppressor who rejects the personhood of her chosen champion and steals away Zelda's chance at a life like a parasite creeping in to fill the shell of the girl who was always meant to be a vessel.

I've seen plenty of takes exactly counter to that, which insist that Hylia is kind, that Hylia is a person too and doing her best to love and be loved and save the world and the people she cares so much about and preserve their personhood.

I've also seen a few (though to my taste, not enough) takes on Hylia's ambitions, desires, and reasoning simply being alien to that of Hylians due to her goddesshood. On a human scale, she is amoral, because she operates on the scale of wars and worlds.

But one thing I haven't seen is: what if it's multiple of those? What if she loves her champion and princess so deeply she hurts them in the cruelest of ways? What if she is imperfect? What if she is abusive but not evil and a victim but not good? What if she's all of the above, and is simply so powerful that the way her actions translate to the tiny lives of people are tidal waves that are tiny in her wide ocean but devastation to the tiny island chains scattered throughout?

What if her actions are necessary and inexcusable? What if she destroys Link and Zelda every time she is trying to save them, her hands too big for the tiny fragile pieces of their heart? What if she is the most flexible narrative force, meant to represent courage, wisdom, power, and love?

What if The Legend of Zelda is just as much a story about the horrors of love as The Locked Tomb is? What if the horrors and wonders are just two sides of the same coin that is love? What if Hylia is kind and cruel and all the messy human things and an unfathomable deity? What if she is more than one thing? What if she is many things?

I dunno. Maybe it's just my adoration for the many different, often contradictory lenses through which the fandom views her. Maybe it's the way each iteration of LoZ paints her in a different light. In Skyward Sword, practically a main character, driving the narrative and being herself swept up in it. In Breath of the Wild and Tears of the Kingdom, nearly absent beyond her fingerprints left on the hearts of Link and Zelda and her faint voice granting her hero back his strength. In still other games, fainter but still present like a slowly beating heart beneath the skin of Hyrule and realms beyond.

I love every interpretation of her. I love takes that pull from classical mythology to make her flawed and as petty and cruel as humans can be. I love takes that pull from the idea of a perfectly good deity that is a paragon of virtue. I love takes that stem from religious trauma that find her more cruel than Demise and more culpable for the destruction of their war.

I love takes in which she destroys Link and Zelda. I love takes in which she saves them. I love takes in which she and Zelda are one and the same, in ways that either maintain their separate personhood or synthesize it into an entirely new being (plurality, hello!). I love takes in which she and her champions control the strings of fate, and ones where they are helplessly entangled and imprisoned by them. I love takes in which she devours and takes in which she is subsumed.

Why should it only ever be one or the other? Why can't it be both? What's mutual exclusivity to an omnipotent goddess? Alternatively, how could she not be many things when she is a deity too helpless to save anyone herself?

Idk. Just, the horrors of love and how they don't erase or negate the wonders of it. How the two build on one another to make each greater. How pain and pleasure are just two kinds of ecstasy, and it's all just stimulation of nerve fibers. How Legend of Zelda is, above all, a mythos being retold throughout the ages in different worlds, and how therefore, it necessitates it's characters being many things.

Y'know?

[semusepsu]

We know through painful experience that freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed. Frankly, I have yet to engage in a direct action campaign that was "well timed" in the view of those who have not suffered unduly from the disease of segregation. For years now I have heard the word "Wait!" It rings in the ear of every Negro with piercing familiarity. This "Wait" has almost always meant "Never." We must come to see, with one of our distinguished jurists, that "justice too long delayed is justice denied." We have waited for more than 340 years for our constitutional and God given rights. The nations of Asia and Africa are moving with jetlike speed toward gaining political independence, but we still creep at horse and buggy pace toward gaining a cup of coffee at a lunch counter. Perhaps it is easy for those who have never felt the stinging darts of segregation to say, "Wait." But when you have seen vicious mobs lynch your mothers and fathers at will and drown your sisters and brothers at whim; when you have seen hate filled policemen curse, kick and even kill your black brothers and sisters; when you see the vast majority of your twenty million Negro brothers smothering in an airtight cage of poverty in the midst of an affluent society; when you suddenly find your tongue twisted and your speech stammering as you seek to explain to your six year old daughter why she can't go to the public amusement park that has just been advertised on television, and see tears welling up in her eyes when she is told that Funtown is closed to colored children, and see ominous clouds of inferiority beginning to form in her little mental sky, and see her beginning to distort her personality by developing an unconscious bitterness toward white people; when you have to concoct an answer for a five year old son who is asking: "Daddy, why do white people treat colored people so mean?"; when you take a cross county drive and find it necessary to sleep night after night in the uncomfortable corners of your automobile because no motel will accept you; when you are humiliated day in and day out by nagging signs reading "white" and "colored"; when your first name becomes "nigger," your middle name becomes "boy" (however old you are) and your last name becomes "John," and your wife and mother are never given the respected title "Mrs."; when you are harried by day and haunted by night by the fact that you are a Negro, living constantly at tiptoe stance, never quite knowing what to expect next, and are plagued with inner fears and outer resentments; when you are forever fighting a degenerating sense of "nobodiness"--then you will understand why we find it difficult to wait. There comes a time when the cup of endurance runs over, and men are no longer willing to be plunged into the abyss of despair. I hope, sirs, you can understand our legitimate and unavoidable impatience.

--Martin Luther King, Jr., Letter From a Birmingham Jail

[highfantasy-soul]

People saying that those who think The Stranger has a point are dumb women who only can think with their sex drives just make me want to make a shit ton of thirst content defending him just out of spite.

Like, my actual view is that he's a super interesting character and we haven't seen enough of his philosophy/reasoning/full actions enough for me to have come to a decision about whether one might call him 'justified' or not. I think it's very purposeful that we HAVEN'T been given all that info about him, we've just been left to sit with our preconceived notions about what he MIGHT believe and I'm more than willing to ride this train to the end to see what the narrative is going for.

But just to spite what feels like super misogynistic takes about dumb women just forgiving a guy (for fighting back against an oppressor?) because he's hot, and we're just dumb dumb dummies who are so stupid and can't think critically about media at all, we just see pretty man and go googly eyes and ignore (imagined) sins of the character that apparently only the smarty smarts can see, I do kinda want to just go whole hog on "The Stranger has done nothing wrong, will do nothing wrong, and I'm going to woobify the shit out of him".

Even the comments trying to keep in the misogynistic takes' good graces by saying 'Look, we know he's evil! We're just having goof-ums!!' are a bit annoying because....it's again not showing a lot of openness to storytelling that doesn't follow the 'norms' or the 'tropes' you expect to see.

Genuinely, (as of episode 6), I don't think we've been shown enough about The Stranger to be able to decide if he's a justified dissenter of the Jedi Order or if he's against the order for more nefarious reasons - and I think that was purposeful on the part of the writers! Maybe he is a sith who wants to subjugate the galaxy!! Maybe!! But maybe he's not! The point is, we don't know yet and just because he wears black and is a bad ass who killed your faves doesn't mean you know everything there is to know about the character! Might I point you in the direction of Cassian Andor and Luthen as examples of ppl who kill not-always-evil ppl but we don't label them evil or fascists!

But red lightsaber always means evil, right? That's good media literacy, right?!?!

[taikk0]

i dont think anon was referring to sps simple style, sp is a pretty controversial show. from what i've seen, it seems pretty bigoted? i could be wrong. sorry if this ask is rude, i don't mean to be rude, but yeah i think that's what anon meant

Oh no, not rude at all!! Sorry you have to apologize my response to that anon was a lot more srs than I intended I just wanted to get my point across, I'm all for open discussions :] to answer the bigoted question, I wouldn't entirely say no. but I can say that South Park was not made to make fun of minorities and spread harmful messages. The show presents bigoted behavior from the antagonists who are too stupid to realize they're wrong, it's up to you as the audience to realize that what they are the antagonists and that their actions should not be justified and supported. And even then, there are characters who outwardly speak out and work to fight against said bigots in the episodes they're in. However, the show also relies on shock humor. And this is a criticism on the fans part, but they really gotta stop saying "why are you surprised? It's South Park" as if being surprised over something gross or offensive wasn't the point in the first place. The ridiculous shit in the show isn't supposed to be normalized!! It's supposed to be absolutely ridiculous to the audience and catch them off guard!! You're not supposed to get used to it!! You're not supposed to like it, but you're not supposed to read too deep in it either, breaking down why it's wrong and why you found it shocking and why this is SUPER PROBLEMATIC!! Isn't the point. You just gotta acknowledge that "oh that's fucked up I cant believe they did that, that is so wrong" and just sit in shock for a bit and move on. Like, you can't tear the show apart for one joke when its purpose was for you to realize it's supposed to be ridiculous and wrong at the same time, and the show itself being aware of that fact. A lot of the offensive material circulating around on why South Park is bad lacks context. Cartman and Butters dressing up as chinese stereotypes? They are at a normal Chinese restaurant, harassing a Chinese family because they're idiots who believe that china will overthrow the world, they are asked to leave. Ike in a relationship with his teacher? Ike is a victim of a grooming that is not taken seriously by the police because the predator was a woman, portraying how male victims situations are overlooked in real life, the teacher dies in the end. Randy saying the N-word on live television? He is ridiculed and seen as a total asshole, he gets called "N-word guy" by the people around him and retaliates by making it illegal to call him that name, a satirical role reversal portraying the hypocrisy and sensitivity of white people (oppressors) where they make the "slur" against them illegal but not the slurs against the people they have oppressed for years.

But even after all this, I can see that there are other examples that I can't, and I am not willing to justify. At the end of the day, we all have to acknowledge that South Park was made by two cishet white men. (this was why I said I can't entirely say no) Their opinions will not always be right, and I'm sick of fans trying to justify some of their episodes and jokes just because they like South Park, South Park is not one of those shows you want to ride or die on. I personally have a few jokes and episodes I dislike and will absolutely never watch again, but that is not my main focus. Discrimination is not my draw, and I don't think that's the show's either. Now we're going out to discussion territory and more of personal opinion. I personally enjoy South Park because I feel very drawn to the characters and I find their character driven adventures and antics to be really entertaining. I don't care much for the social commentary. Not that I completely ignore it, it's just something I acknowledge is important in some episode's narratives, but not something I pay too close attention to.

I don't think I watch South Park for the intended reasons, and I don't think most of the fans over here on Tumblr do either. I can admit that I enjoy a version of South Park that isn't technically South Park entirely. I enjoy South Park for what it isn't, and that is a situational comedy with four little guys getting into all sorts of trouble <3

And the funny thing about this whole post is that I used to be a South Park hater.

I thought it was just a bigoted show where the only jokes it had were slurs and children saying fuck, right before I actually gave it a chance and was surprised to find out that it was more than I thought it was, and that I actually somehow enjoyed it.

It's kinda crazy to me that I'm technically defending SOUTH PARK of all things right now.

But uh yeah, I like South Park, it wasn't as bad as I thought it was, and I ended up hyperfixating on it. I'm not here to change anyone's mind and make them watch South Park because "it's ACTUALLY spotless and politically correct all the time, you're just sensitive ☝🤓" People are right to label South Park as controversial, and people are right to be offended by it when it's making fun of something it doesn't understand or without the proper nuance, and people are allowed to discuss and criticize the show for it. With all that said, The show is not emblematic of its own fans, and some of its own fans need to stop looking up to it like it's the bible.

Matt and Trey can be wrong, and even fans like me who enjoy it aren't too dumb and ignorant to recognize and rightfully not be in support of certain aspects of it when a line is being crossed.

This whole thing was supposed to end right after I attached the photo of the characters, but then I just decided to write more and so I puked this extra fluff out, sorry about that lol

[piqued-curiosity]

I’m in awe at how eloquently and succinctly you answered all those asks that eagleflightdraw clown kept sending you! It’s crazy how tif’s fight so hard to convince themselves that they’re men to the point where they end up bootlicking their own oppressors. I feel bad for her at a certain extent, but it seems that she’s so caught up in wanting to be a man that she’s completely lost sight of what the goal of feminism is. I think the saddest part of all is that this girl is sending you ask after ask defending men, but those same men wouldn’t piss on her if she was on fire. You NEVER see men defend women the way women (libfems mainly) defend men and it’s actually baffling that they don’t see that. Anyway, I loved all of your responses! Keep it up! 🩷

Thank you, that means a lot! 💕

I’m glad she was respectful, but she displayed such a typical misunderstanding of feminism and how sex-based oppression works. I say typical, because I see the same attitude in many TIFs. From what I’ve seen, it looks like what’s happening is a disconnect between their ideology and reality that they have to desperately explain away. They know feminism benefits them, because they know they’re affected by things like abortion and contraception restriction (I’m using that example a lot because this same conversation came up a lot last year when the US overruled Roe V Wade, so it’s an easy example). But they also want to believe they’re men, so they have to make the claim that “feminism is for everyone, including men” to make themselves feel like the reason they are benefited by feminism isn’t because they’re female, but because they’re men and feminism is for men too.

The easier solution would be for them to go back to how the trans movement started, which was acknowledging the difference between sex and identity. That way, they could put aside their personal identity for the sake of feminist action and understand that in this fight, they’re in it as female people, not as “men”. But modern trans people are incredibly selfish and entitled, which is why we see the conversation shifting to “here’s how we accommodate trans identities!” Anytime we try to speak on an important feminist subject. Again with the Roe V Wade situation, the trans community was more concerned with how to use gender inclusive language than how to actually solve the problem.

In short, it’s a result of members of the trans community being so wrapped up in their personal identity that they expect everyone else to revolve everything around said identity. And that they try to bend everything around them to fit their identity (“feminism is for men too, because I’m a man who’s pregnant and needs proper care!”), instead of understanding that their gender identity is not the most important thing at all times.

It reminds me a lot of how it feels to speak to religious people, who have a very hard time seeing outside their worldview. The way that TRAs are so quick to scoff at the mere idea of saying “trans women are men, trans men are women”, reminds me of how quick religious people are to scoff at somebody saying “I don’t believe in god”. And the follow-up is always an astonished “so what do you believe, if not my belief?”, as if they can’t even comprehend the idea of somebody not operating within their own ideology.

And like you said, it’s sad to see women go out of their way to defend men when we all know that men would never think to do the same for them. I was thinking that the whole time I was reading her asks…seeing her bring up problems men face (that were off-topic and not related to misogynistic sex-based oppression and feminism, as well as often being problems caused by men themselves), and thinking to myself “wow, men are never so quick to talk about problems women face, and when they are, other men assume they’re just doing it to get feminists to date and/or sleep with them”.

I don’t really blame her though, because like I said, thinking like this about feminism is really the only way to logically uphold her false identity. If she accepts that feminism is for/about women and that women experience sex-based oppression, she’d be forced to see that she herself falls under the category of woman. And that would just be the worst thing in the world.

[voidpumpkin]

You always have interesting opinions, and apologies in advance if this is too specific of a question, but, in your perspective, what do you think is a children's movie that had a moral/message that you disagree(d) with or think was poorly executed? Not something people say all the time like Beauty and the Beast and kidnapping and whatever, but like, I've seen people argue on the message/theme of Ratatouille (cannot recall what this argument is for the life of me), but just as an example.

nah, you touched upon something I've been hoping people would ask. I unfortunately don't have one for kids movies, all the ones that come to mind work, or work whilst being flawed, or do in fact work it's just that the popular analyses' are dumb

so I'm replacing 'movie' with 'tv show' and talking about steven universe as its the only thing I can think of that fits your question

It's messages of non-violence, communication and forgiveness are undermined by the setting. By using war and colonialism as the framing device all of its messaging takes upon weird implications and falling into tired tropes of sympathesing for colonisers. The diamonds have done a LOT of shit than is too one to one to real world atrocties that people directly affected by it saw the implications of forgiving them and took umbrage, also the sheer amount bad stuff they've done and the lack of time and effort put into their redemption also results in people just not liking or believing it. Not helped by the fact that the story gives more time to the colonisers than their victims

(the missed opportunity that was trying to slowly heal and learn about the corrupted gems will always make me angry)

Then there's pink diamond, the revelation of rose is pink ruins any and all sympathy you have as the diamonds go from 'women who tragically lost their daughter' to 'women dealing with the consequences of their own actions because their daughter fled their mistreatment and opposed their colonialism'

there's also the fact the final arc is rushed beyond belief meaning any and all nuance is squandered, and if one replies 'they didn't have time, the show was cancelled', my response is, 'if they didn't have time to make a good story then they shouldn't have at all.'

It's messaging about nonviolence has always had weird implications due to the episode that started it, bismuth, has Steven telling a black coded women that killing oppressors to end their oppression makes her as bad as them. This reasoning is never dealt with again and looms over all future messaging.

also in a post trump world the pre trump conceived story of 'reaching to redeem/change your bigoted relatives' has aged extremely poorly.

tl;dr i can't think of a bad message in a movie but I can in a show. Steven universe, it's high stakes setting and post war/colonial backdrop creates weird/bigoted implications for its messages

[jewishbarbies]

Hi! I’m sorry to bother you, but I found your posts by accident and I just have a few thoughts as a fellow Jew (I’m mixed but my matrilineal Jewishness is Jewish Arab/Arab Jewish). This is aimed at the gentiles in your asks, but white USAmericans need to realize that they’ll always be inherently more privileged than Jewish people. Point blank. There’s no real discussion to have in regards to that. And there’s a LOT of commentary and jokes being made from USAmericans (mostly white) that is framing themselves as the victims or centers of this ethnic cleansing and apartheid. They are WHITE. I’m not a fan of them appropriating a lot of the humor or commentaries the actual oppressed and ethnically cleansed peoples are making, because when white gentiles do it it is ABSOLUTELY punching down and antisemitic. Westerners in general need to realize they have systemic power behind their words and actions that inherently disadvantage Jews. I’ve been very vocal about people derailing pro-Palestinian posts, and I’m going to be JUST as vocal about people derailing Jewish people venting about people using Israel as an excuse to voice their already preexisting antisemitic views. My Jewish identity is both Arab and Jewish. They don’t care about Arabs either. The same mayo gentiles beating their chest falsely accusing Jewish people venting, like yourself, of being a Zionist or genocide apologist are the same ones who before this past month was openly anti-Arab around me. So it’s like 🤷🏻‍♂️

White gentiles are not the oppressed in this dynamic, they are the oppressors and they need to start remembering that.

Jewish people halfway across the world shouldn’t be having to constantly condemn Israel in order to be allowed to vent about western antisemitism. Plus, goyim don’t even hide their antisemitism when even I, an anti-Zionist Jew, have been accused of being a Zionist when I’ve called out random white people using antisemitic tropes or imageries. If you want my honest blunt take, white gentiles are frothing at the mouth hoping that Jews, Arab, and Muslims just wipe each other out while they sit back and watch from their ivory towers in the US eating popcorn and scrolling through tiktok. I’ve been very critical of the white supremacy when it’s derailing Palestinian posts (even when done by my fellow Jewish people), and I’m also very critical of the white supremacy when it’s derailing your (or any) posts about antisemitism. I’m not trying to explicitly state the anon is a white supremacist (though I have some concerns), but … I was very annoyed by their implications you’re a closeted Zionist, just because you’re Jewish and venting about the Nazi shit that’s been on the Nazi app, formerly known as Twitter. You’re not derailing posts about the genocide or ethnic cleansing. You’re not even “both siding” genocide, either. You’re just a random Jewish person venting about the western world getting off to the idea of a bunch of Jews dying. A lot of people on here and Twitter aren’t even saying Israelis anymore they’re bluntly saying Jews. And as another Jewish person yourself, I know you’ve seen that vernacular shift first hand, especially judging from your vents.

I’ve had white people on this hellsite defend calling Jewish people they don’t like reptile people because “well Israel is calling Arabs animals” and I had to go “uh excuse you you are WHITE and I’m being dehumanized by both sides so thanks for that.”

It’s inherently antisemitic to police Jewish people being afraid of the rising antisemitism in the west and it’s also disingenuous to erase white gentiles’ and white countries’ involvement in this issue. It doesn’t miss me people are underplaying what white goyim have done and are still doing to contribute to the apartheid and genocide. All of this you’re vent vagueing about is the same exact stuff anti-Zionist Jews have also been complaining about for literal decades.

I’m sorry I ranted for too long, but I wanted to show solidarity with you. I’m sure there’s a lot you and I don’t see eye to eye on (2 Jews, 3 opinions), but at the end of the day I have your back because I know exactly what you’re talking about. No one is going to be antisemitic to you and get away with it 😤😤😤

I am so sorry people are wearing their iron crosses in your asks and Twitter feeds. And I’m sorry for wasting your time with all of this, I just felt you needed another Jew in your corner

thank you so much for taking the time to send this, I really do appreciate it. 🧡

I agree with everything you said here. it’s tiring seeing goyim think they can be apart of jewish conversations and are owed a seat at that table just because they believe all jews are white and therefore all white people are apart of the same group. I don’t expect them to truly understand everything bc how could they while not being jewish themselves, but the basic respect they give to other minorities is all I’m asking and I don’t think that’s unreasonable.

[maslows-pyramid-scheme]

black-pill lesbians: *organize months-long harassment campaigns to flood the inboxes of bisexuals and taunt them about their rape and calling them vile names*

piqued-curiosity: we need to have compassion for these women, I will always empathize with them no matter what they say, you have to understand they're angry about bisexual homophobia. and it doesn't matter what lesbians say to bihets anyway actually you're the bigot here for making such a big deal out of this.

lesbian: im so lonely because bisexuals are self-victimizers that don't understand their stupid rape and abuse aren't real oppression its so homophobic how they think they're real people

piqued: well you have to understand lesbians are really lonely so of course we're moved to just ignore rape apologia, I don't understand why you're demonizing me for no reason

lesbian: bi women are identical to TIMs, they're no more similar to us than het men, they're nothing but dick worshipers, their supposed abuse is just a ploy to weaponize against lesbians

piqued: well maybe I would have used different language, but ugh stop getting hung up on her calling you dick worshipers and belittling your rape and abuse and comparing you to het men. She's NOT a misogynist she's very insightful and you male worshipers need to listen to her.

bisexual: bisexuals shouldn't feel ashamed about having OSA, it's just a natural part of bisexuality.

piqued: what homophobic bullshit is this this makes me so angry this shows you people don't have any real issues

and this woman is supposedly the gold standard? soooo kind just because she pays lip service to the idea that most obviously crass behavior against bisexuals is bad (but then she says ok maybe its bad but it doesn't affect anything so who cares)? she's had excuses for them at every turn, but the most inoffensive words of bisexual positivity is proof bisexuals aren't really oppressed?

sorry this is so petty and random but no one takes anything against bisexuals seriously its all so clearly a game to them where they have to come out looking good but also put bisexuals in their place.

I think it's unfair to lesbians to take the actions of the and attribute them to the majority; lesbians and bisexual women (and gay and bisexual men) are the only people who will ever understand what it's like to have a 'different' sexuality in our heterosexist society.* I personally believe that this similarity far outweighs any of our real or perceived differences.

But I know the soul-crushing, hateful behaviour you're talking about. I've seen how 'black-pilled' lesbians treat bisexual activists on here - how they mock and harass bisexual rape victims, how they speak about us using degrading, sexualised, or biphobic language, how they belittle our experiences with discrimination ('it's just homophobia and misogyny' - that's from Piqued, if I'm not mistaken), how they shamelessly reframe bisexual mistreatment to attack gendies/misogynists/men ('Amber Heard is a victim of misdirected lesbophobia'), how they involve themselves in our business while simultaneously complaining about bisexuals involving themselves in lesbian affairs. I've also seen how their followers and the followers of their followers just... look the other way.

But it doesn't matter, does it? To black-pilled lesbians, an imperfect lesbian is only ever a well-meaning victim, and an imperfect bisexual is only ever a bad faith abuser/oppressor/handmaiden/what-have-you.

Anon, I'm so sorry if you've been on the receiving end of the black-pilled bullshit (and it's defo not petty and random - there's so goddamn much of it!). You're absolutely right - and feel free to reach out and vent anonymously/in my dms/to me on discord whenever you want.

[uncle-fruity]

I actually think y'all need to fix the way you talk about cis men too. I don't think we will ever be able to support marginalized men if we can't support the emotions of all men in general. If we can't see that men have a place in progressive spaces and opinions that are not just valid but valuable to our cause, then we will never be on the path to true equality.

And, like, that isn't to say that you should ignore or misrepresent oppressive systems or that we shouldn't point out how cis het rich white able-bodied men benefit from being cis het rich white able-bodied men. That isn't to say that when a man is disrespecting you or trying to downplay your struggles or trying to leverage his privileges & power over you that you shouldn't call him out and fight back. That isn't to say that we need to make *more* space for men than we do other people in our communities or that men should be allowed to talk over people -- being part of the discussion doesn't mean they are the only people at the table who matter. But it does matter that they're at the table in general and that they aren't treated like an enemy or an enemy-in-waiting by default.

But I do think it's a mistake to be mean or cruel to just any random cis man because you THINK he should be able to take it. As if an individual's hurt feelings is going to change the men who actually hurt you. As if all men need to be punished for what other men do. Generalizing about all men is always going to backfire on the most vulnerable among them.

I just don't see how it benefits anyone to write cis men off entirely. I understand feelings of trauma, of bitterness, of anger towards the system that values rich white men more than anyone else; I have those feelings too. But unless you're specifically railing against the men who created these conditions & uphold them, you're really just firing at people who "look" like the enemy with no critical thought or compassion.

I have seen the ways y'all talk about & generalize men. I have seen the things y'all insist are jokes or "not that serious" or whatever. It's not cute and it's not funny and it's not helping most of the time. I've seen some of the best male allies I have ever had in my life sink into deep depression and guilt spirals because of the way they're treated by certain "progressive" groups -- men who are the least threatening people I've ever met who feel like they need to police their every action and supress every complex/"negative" emotion to make sure everyone else is comfortable, to make sure no one saw them as a predator. I have seen men straight up just take domestic abuse from their partners because they think they "can't" be abused as men or that they're obligated to put their partner's needs over theirs, or even that they deserve emotional abuse because they want to be good men who listen to the women in their lives & get taken advantage of for attempting to radically do so.

These guys are not your enemies, but they are getting hit in the crossfire. Just like queer men get hit in the crossfire. Just like black men. Just like disabled men. Just like poor men. And, to be honest, a lot of y'all can't really tell the difference between a man and an oppressor to begin with. If you think there is no difference, or that all men are oppressors and all nonmen are victims, then I'm sorry to say you don't understand oppression as well as you need to to get a handle on how to fight it. Truth is, men suffer a lot under patriarchy. And, truth is, a LOT of men have been trying to talk about it in good faith, but most of y'all have no interest in hearing & learning about it because you perceive your own pain as more painful and you believe that all men deserve the pain they get for the actions of the loudest & meanest among them. And some of you think it's on men to fix their "own" problems without seeing how plenty of nonmen also perpetuate patriarchal ideology & won't take any personal responsibility. Not to mention that regardless of whose fault it is (I'd argue that we're all complicit to some degree), men need help and we need to help them. We do actually need to care about their feelings. It will make our whole community and our whole movement stronger.

And I gotta say that it makes all the arguments that are foundational to feminism sound hollow and cheap and hypocritical when you don't extend the same Basic Respect that all people deserve to men. I think it perpetuates the divide between men and everyone else. It worsens their isolation. It reinforces the idea that men need to be logical and emotionless. It's like everyone agrees that men need to engage with their emotions and consider their role in the patriarchy and then turning around and bullying them the moment their emotions aren't the "right ones." And yeah... I just don't think that men deserve extra nastiness or that they shouldn't feel bad when people make fun of them because "if they're offended then they're obviously misogynists"... can the rest of y'all not hear how manipulative and abusive that sounds?

I notice sometimes in queer and feminist spaces the idea of "this group is generally given more leniency and privileges in wider society; it's okay for us to be critical or even a little nasty to them because anywhere else they'd be praised". and that's understandable, i think. when you have real issues with men and how men act, it's ok to express that and to mock mens behavior. cis men who are generally praised and celebrated in society should be able to take some mean jokes or criticisms and accept they're not always going to be lauded.

but since queer and feminist spaces are generally more accepting of trans people and the wider society is not, this is also projected on to trans men. "trans men are men" was an affirming statement to our validity, but that was interpreted as "since trans men are men, and men are celebrated by society, I get to be a little nasty to them because the rest of society worships men. they can take it."

but the rest of society doesn't have that same level of trans acceptance. they don't see trans men as men, they see trans men as mentally ill, broken, mutilated women. so it's absolutely aggravating when we turn to queer and feminist spaces for solidarity, we face the same reactive nastiness cis men get and are told "come on, trans men are men. you are celebrated in society. you can take it." and when we look at the rest of society there's no celebration. there's only more nastiness and cruelty. so how can we "take it" when we have no community that accepts us and treats us without mockery? we don't have the shelter of acceptance that cis men have in the status quo, and sometimes we can't find a small umbrella of acceptance in queer communities either.

to be honest, I think a lot of people view trans men as a safe punching bag to vent their frustrations with men. you can mistreat a trans man and he's probably not going to fight you back since he's already so beat down. you can feel like you put a man in his place, you can feel like you're resisting the patriarchy. but all you did was act cruel to a marginalized person. and you know if you treated a cis man like that you might be putting yourself in danger, cos he might not take it lying down and he might not care as much about your wellbeing!

trans men are men, but trans men are not cis men. cis men are lauded and celebrated in society as long as they conform to the gender roles that were placed on them at birth. and this privilege is extremely conditional and not equally spread between men of different sexualities, races, ethnicities, ability, age, etc; trans men and intersex men are thrown to the side completely. I understand needing to vent about men. trans men do it too. but a persistent attitude of resentment and cruelty towards all men, including trans men, is not activism. all you do is push marginalized men out of the only communities they belong