#the intersectionality of hate

[origami-butterfly]

I know people are angry about predstrogen's ban right now- as they should be. But I really wish more people were talking about Nex Benedict's murder.

They were my age. Not even out of school. And they were murdered. Not "passed away" or "left us" murdered.

And I am so, so angry that this still happens. People will say our world is more accepting and that we don't need to fight anymore, when clearly we do! And I don't want to stop fighting until the world is a safe place for trans kids and trans elders.

So don't forget them. Their name was Nex Benedict.

Edit- important things from the notes:

Nex was indigenous. This is an intersectional hate crime.

Nex used he/him with friends and they/them with family, so I think he used he/they with a preference for he/him.

His murder has been called a suicide. It is very clearly not a suicide.

His name was Nex Benedict

[aroaceleovaldez]

it was a thing for awhile in the fandom (and still is) to focus on one demographic a character is a part of while ignoring others like they can only exist one at a time (primarily being erasing disability traits or experiences the characters describe, usually by taking a trait meant to indicate one thing and claiming it can only indicate a separate thing and never anything else)

but the absolute biggest offender will always be when Rick and Mark Oshiro just fully did that in The Sun And The Star. like. oh okay. this is what we're doing now. and fully said it too. "Nico only likes Mythomagic to look at the hot men on the cards" ah yes of course it's definitely not because. he has adhd (and autism coding) and Mythomagic is his hyperfixation/special interest. nah that couldn't be it. Because of course Nico's only trait is "Gay" and that's the only thing that can inform his character Ever. How could i be so silly as to think otherwise? (sarcasm sarcasm)

anyways the fandom could really stand to learn about intersectionality that'd be great. rick too probably. also just remember disability exists in general and is kind of very central to the series and nearly every character. thanks.

[cosmic-vanity]

People will say "institutionalised misandry isn't an actual thing so you can't use the term transmisandry" and it's like. Okay then. Fair enough, I guess. You're completely missing the point of intersectionality but fine, fine.

Let's use transandrophobia instead. Because androphobia is a real thing that some people have. And then it's "no but you see calling something androphobia is victimising the men who committed the crimes to be afraid of in the first place, therefore you have to stop calling your struggles transandrophobia" and it's like. Hmmm. That's not true, but whatever.

So let's use antitransmasculinity! "But no, actually, because masculinity is a BAD thing that only EVIL people who want to HURT others perform!!!! So you can't use that word either!!! MASCULINITY IS ACID AND VINEGAR AND EVERYTHING SINISTER!!!!!!!!!!"

I'm starting to notice... a lot of you don't actually give a shit to what label we use... you just don't want transmascs talking about our experiences.

[theteaisaddictive]

radical feminism making a comeback (/derogatory) was not on my 2024 bingo card

[sameteeth]

in s3ep2, eleanor tells mrs. hudson she doesnt come from privilege, which mrs. hudson immediately denies. but i think its SOOO telling of eleanor's character! she sees herself as a woman in a world full of men, which she is, but she completely ignores the class and racial divides she obviously benefits from. she claims she has no privilege to mrs. hudson, who comes from no money and works as a chambermaid to woodes rodgers, leaving behind her beloved children to make sure eleanor has clean clothes and to empty her chamberpot. eleanor had power on nassau, power she wielded for her own benefit and to the severe detriment of others. obviously she experienced misogyny, but she was never forced into poverty, never forced into sex work, never forced into service of any kind, because her father was wealthy and she was born into a higher class. her experiences of misogyny and oppression are vastly different than mrs. hudson's. but for her to tell a chambermaid she experienced no privilege? it's laughably untrue. eleanor oversaw and directly profitted from the trade of hundreds if not thousands of slaves on nassau, was raised by "chattel property of the guthrie estate" mr. scott, who is never even given a name in his own tongue (on screen, at least), never showed kindness to anyone but those who put money in her pocket because she was born with that money and that trade empire already in the guthrie name. she had to fight to get it, and fight she did, but the fact that those things were so close to her reach just by virtue of the circumstances of her birth? that's privilege, whether or not she sees it that way

[butchez]

op deleting replies talking abt transmisogyny in transmasc spaces or pushback on the idea of "transand.rophobia" but not deleting the blatant terf reply calling trans women rapists .........something stinks!

[alyceinwonderland777]

Radfem math is: Calling every woman who disagrees with you a "libfem". Mind you, I'm not talking about actual libfem takes, but takes like "Misogyny is taught, not innate". This is from a personal experience. Some days ago a self-proclaimed radfem called me a "libfem" and a "male defender" because I said that men aren't born misogynistic and that misogyny is the product of external influences, just like any other form of systemic discrimination. I promise you, “Men and boys must take responsibility for their actions” and “Misogyny is taught, not innate” are two concepts that can and should coexist.

Again, not all radfems but somehow always a radfem.

[sophieinwonderland]

hey coming from a traumagenic system that’s genuinely trying not to attack you or anything could you please not like go in anti endo tags and such

and like I know some of us are doing the same thing but I personally believe that this is just a cycle and

sorry it just really triggers some people to see endos in safe places, and I know you probably feel the same thing, and I get where you’re coming from but fire can’t really work against fire

sorry if I worded this weird I can’t explain things well I just REALLY hope you understand what I’m trying to say (and that I’d really appreciate it if you didn’t act hostile towards me when you answer this ask)

I appreciate you being polite and I hope this doesn't come off as too aggressive, but...

When did we collectively decide that hate was entitled to a safe space? That someone should be allowed to say whatever they want about a marginalized community, but if you call them out for what they've done then you're the bad guy for breaking their boundaries?

When did we decide that the boundaries of people spreading hate are more important than the damage that hate will do?

Would we do this for other communities and people?

If people called themselves "anti-transgender," would you be saying they should get their own safe space that trans people should respect? Anti-gay? Anti-Asian? Anti-black? Anti-Jew? Anti-autistic? Anti-DID? Anti-fat people?

In any of these cases, would we prioritize the boundaries of the people spreading hate over the communities they're spreading hate against?

And if not, why should we for anti-endos???

Why should I see people who are actively spreading hate against me for my very existence, and be expected to simply shrug my shoulders and decide that I should prioritize their boundaries while they spread rhetoric and disinformation that is intended to harm me and the people I care about?

I believe that in an ideal world, there should be no spaces where hate speech should be accepted nor allowed to propagate unchallenged.

[canichangemyblogname]

I think a lot of you on here wildly misunderstand intersectionality. Because it accounts for the fact that men are not oppressed for being men *and* the fact that man-ness is and has been inaccessible to black, brown, indigenous, disabled, and queer men. Man-ness is narrowly defined to exclude the most, but that does not negate that men are not oppressed for being men. One may, however, be oppressed for not fitting into that narrow definition of manhood.

Intersectionality accounts for the fact that white women are oft second best in a racialized sex-caste system. It accounts for the fact that they, too, oversaw the plantation and garnered wealth on the backs of enslaved men and women. It accounts for the fact that white women were the homemakers of the land they or their people helped steal and the mothers of children meant to supplant the indigenous population of the area. And it accounts for the fact that denying black men and gay men and disabled men access to manhood was a way to also strip them of personhood. Because humans have a gender; animals only have a sex.

It accounts for the fact that M > F is not the sole or predominant dynamic in the world, but is only one dynamic. It accounts for the fact that a woman (often white) can hold all the cards and the sociopolitical power in a relationship (dynamic) when the other half of that dynamic experiences specific marginalizations. It accounts for the fact that blackness and transness affect a man’s relationship with manhood and the sex caste system.

And it accounts for the fact that while men may be oppressed, they are not oppressed *for* being men.

[greenevergreens]

Rotten—Radical Feminists

What being a radical feminist SHOULD mean:

Caring about ALL women, trans women, disabled women, women who are stay at home or 'traditional' wives, women who are sex workers, women who are staunchly modest and are waiting till marriage to have sex. Supporting women who are more sexually liberated and have frequent one-night stands. Standing up for women who want to have lots of kids and women who are childfree. Supporting women that want an abortion and women who'd rather die than get an abortion, even when the baby isn't likely to survive either way. Women who are part of a polyamorous, polygamous, or polyandrous relationship. Women who are kinky and women who are vanilla.

It should also mean understanding how sexist societal rules and ideals harm everyone, and while yes feminism isn't & shouldn't ever be a male centric movement. It's focus on gender equality is and should include discussions on how inequality and bioessentialism effects and harms everyone. As well as how to reach true gender equality we can't just fight for women's rights, freedoms and respect, we must also fight to dismantle harmful systems that enable & encourage men to demonize women and femininity.

And again, to fight AGAINST bioessentialism, both to avoid victim blaming and avoid a new version of 'boys will be boys', as such letting men get away with being violent and sexist. Because if men are inherently evil and violent by birth, it's unreasonable (or even cruel) to expect him to be anything other than evil and violent. It's then also only ever ALWAYS a woman's fault for being the victim of a violent crime when a man in the perpetrator.

After all, if someone (woman) wanted to live with/around polar bears (men), and got attacked, you wouldn't be surprised. If anything, you'd tell them that they shouldn't be mad at or hateful towards the polar bear, since it's only doing as you'd expect a polar bear (one of a rare group of animals that are known to actively hunt, kill and eat people). That they should have/did know that this would happen and did it to themselves.

Bioessentialism is BAD!! Men aren't inherently violent, evil or predatory, and women aren't inherently pure, peaceful and kind.

-=-

What being a radical feminist has become to mean:

Being anti woman, especially any woman that doesn't strictly adhere to what YOU personally believe a woman should look, or act like. Being anti sex worker at the MAJOR detriment to both women who choose to be sex workers, AND women that are victims of sex trafficking (women have been arrested & jailed, yes JAILED for being a VICTIM of sex trafficking). Only focusing on western feminine ideals, ignoring (at best) or outright shaming and degrading any idea of womanhood and femininity that doesn't line up with said western ideals. Transphobic as all hell, which ALWAYS ends up hurting cis women as well (though you should care about transphobia even if cis women were never impacted by it). Victim blames CONSTANTLY. Makes excuses for men & their behavior “if we had less aggressive/violent porn men wouldn't be sexually violent towards women/wouldn't see women as sex objects” (wrong, sexist men are going to be sexist & are going to objectify women regardless of the porn they have access to, it's not the porn that makes a man sexist, it's the community, society, and people around him that contribute to (but not entirely cause) a man to be sexist).

-=-

Also, if you're a radfem, just block me, you and I both know we aren't going to change the other's mind.

This post isn't for you [radfems], it's a vent about how a term that should be a good thing, has been taken over by women who hate women, pretending that THEIR special hate for women is somehow pro-woman.

You radfems aren't going to convince me that trans women aren't women, or that men are inherently evil or bad. And I know I'm not going to be able to convince you that trans women are women, and that gender doesn't have any inherent role in if a person is good or bad. Nor will I be able to convince you that men & women are a hell of a lot more similar than you'd like to accept.

So just save yourself some time, and block me, I won't be responding to any of your comments anyway. So go find something else to do, read a book, watch some TV, go take a walk or whatever, I don't care.

[romicat]

Sophie thinks it's adorable how innocent Kamala can be.

[transmandrake]

Hmmm... Want to write my thoughts somewhere more coherent and formal... But for now a thought bubbling is that theres a general impression I get that people think that oppression and discrimination are like. Fixed, natural states.

That dynamics like misogyny are. Like some sort of good vs evil fight where it will always exist so you need to fight against it forever against the Other Side.

Like, we've made great strides against homophobia. Right? It's generally okay to be gay as long as you aren't too fruity or wierd. That's, nice for gay people who aren't too fruity or wierd.

It becomes more and more distasteful and unhelpful to pull the whole 'ugh, the straights' sense of humor and solidarity when straight people are. Just sort of Whatever about gay people 80% of the time.

Like I haven't seen that sentiment in a while. It's juvenile, parroting an old phrase to seem like you fit in, when you haven't experienced the discrimination that those phrases were backed by.

For me, this is where man-hating is at. It's also in an odd limbo where some people are still terribly affected by misogyny and patriarchy and are venting a frustration with reductive, community-signalling turns of phrase to affirm your common eperience.

But it just isn't as common an experience. The slope is starting to lower. I've met plenty of people whose whole schtick is man-hating when their experience with misogyny is entirely just... men being cunts.

Now. To be clear. Being a cunt. Can be just as harmful. But this is how it goes.

Oppresion is carried out and enforced systemically. You don't have to be a cunt to be an oppressor.

Being a cunt is often a response to *losing* systemic pressure over the oppressed group. You can lie back and relax when the system does what you want. When that system stops working, you need to do the work yourself.

I don't like men! I don't. 90% of them are huge cunts. But that is often because they are *losing*. That 10% grows. Even if that 10% is just indifference. If being a cunt is too much work for too little return.

The dynamic is changing. And so, the response, and tactics must too.

As more and more of the system is dismantled (and of course, this discussion is not relevant if the system is still in full operation for you.) you cannot treat an oppressive group or institution as absolute.

'Fuck all men' is not okay if being a man is no longer participation in an oppressive system. It is an identity that correlates with, not causes, unbelievable levels of cunt behaviour.

If you insist upon this sort of behaviour, then you are actively against *social* equality. These sorts of phrases are *systemic* rallying cries. Without a system, you are just rallying for hatred. You are a cunt.

To be clear, this is still systemic. Of course. But things are and have and will change. I do not automatically assume people who talk like this are cunts. But. It becomes less and less understandable and reasonable. It fosters an us vs them mentality outside of a dynamic of oppressed and oppressor.

It brings the system into your soul. And even when the external system is dismantled, you will still be under it.

[sillylilsinner]

Love thy neighbor they said, while looking down on anyone poorer then themselves, while selling their soul to corporations and capitalists who will never uphold the interests of the working class, while casting out or shunning anyone that isn’t rich, able bodied, cisgender, heterosexual, and white, while plugging their ears and closing their eyes to anyone who dare contradict their very shallow and self righteous view point.

And then saying that those who don’t look down on others, those who try to shop mostly in their local communities or try to lower their waste output, those who try and hear all people’s stories especially from people who aren’t rich, able bodied, cisgender, heterosexual, or white, those who refuse to shun away people who are oppressed simply for being in those communities, those who put their differences aside and try have a discussion with someone even if they disagree on some points, saying that those people are the unreasonable ones, the people who would fight and protest for your rights and freedoms even if you won’t, those people who, despite your political differences, would stand up for you in court and defend your words if you were a victim or survivor and nobody cared to believe you or hear your words, those people who would put themselves between you and the man with a gun, those people who would talk to and deescalate the gun man so nobody gets hurt, those people who are constantly trying to progress and improve themselves and their moral compass, those people are somehow what’s wrong with society? those people are something to be ashamed of? People who just want the best outcome for everyone, people who want to give you the right to choose what you want for your future. People who want you to succeed in life so they give you every opportunity, people who try to educate and inform you to the best degree that they possibly can, with the most recent factual information available, people who want to make healthcare accessible to all walks of life without having anyone having to worry if they can pay it off, people who want you to feel at peace and comfortable in your own body, these are the people we should cut out of society?

When did we get to this idea that somehow having empathy and compassion, sensitivity and respect, showing gratitude to the less fortunate and giving people not just equality, but most importantly equity, is negative? When did we as a species become so dependent on hating, and more specifically, hating those who we deam “different” “abnormal” “weird” or “cringe”?

[wuornosreincarnate]

I feel sick.

Some of the things happening at far right "protests" in the UK:

Setting fire to hotels housing asylum seekers WHILE THEY'RE INSIDE and blocking exits, acid attacks on Hijabis, defacing Muslim gravestones and using parts of them as projectiles, ripping off hijabs, doing Nazi salutes, using Swastikas and Triskele's (white supremecist symbol), setting vehicles alight, machete mobs, graffiti-ing racist slogans and 'get out of England', smashing in windows of cars and houses, stabbing people of ethic minorities, attacking and beating people of ethic minorities, raiding shops, police attacked and soldiers stabbed etc.

This is what happens when you take a severely uneducated population, subject them to 14 years of austerity, the lowest living standard on record, and combine this with far right misinformation and propaganda (surrounding the Southport femicide) and the constant scapegoating of minorities by politicians promoted by the media. This is the result you get.

It's disheartening to see these disgusting incidents being labeled as mere "far-right protests" by the media, while peaceful pro-Palestinian demonstrations are often referred to as "hate marches" or "riots" when none of the above is taking place. The stark contrast in the way these events are reported really highlights the bias and double standards that exist in our society.

If you are from an ethnic minority group, please take necessary precautions to stay safe. Hijabi women, your hijab is a visual identifier for these individuals, and an invitation to harm you. While ultimately common sense, it is crucial to be aware of your surroundings and to exercise caution when in public spaces. Stay safe.

What have we come to.

Attend anti-fascist marches, give your support to people affected, help clean up and donate to fundraisers/gofundmes/charities if you can!

[soldierandawar]

hey, so, did ya'll know that the dems appealing to the white centrists has actually worked before and actually does work in most cases? did ya'll know that a lot of people who voted actually thought Kamala was too liberal? that majority of folks think she's an extreme radical? did ya'll know that? i feel like ya'll don't know that.

democrats always get heat for not appealing to the far left (rightfully so, IMO), and they will never and have never had as perfect messaging as they did with President Obama in 2008. but the far left is not and never will be a reliable base. every time they lose an office, they move even further right because...well. that's what's winning. but even in that, the Kamala Harris and Tim Walz combo is the most progressive ticket we've had since i've been able to vote, and maybe in my lifetime (though i don't have enough knowledge to make that case.). but the majority of the country lives in the center. they're more likely to catch those white centrists than they are the average leftist, no matter their campaign.

what's interesting, and I feel like most people are skipping over this, is that donald trump is winning the electoral votes and the popular vote. let that sink in for a second. do you know the last time a republican won the popular vote? in fact, he picked up voters that he lost in 2020, and why do you think that is?

i'm not saying that the democrats are perfect. you won't see or hear me praising them, ever. i've got my own beef with the party and its representatives, and there are about a thousand things they could've done better. that said, this is a big-picture situation, not a small one. Kamala Harris didn't lose just because of her stance (or non-stance) on Palestine. she didn't just lose because she didn't appeal to far left voters. she didn't just lose because of strategy. there was a national far-right swing. things are not the same as they were in 2008. people have been emboldened again. bigotry is loud and proud again. anti-trans and lgbtq bills are everywhere. they're taking important history out of schools. even if she made all the right moves and said all the right things, the race still would've been up in the air because Kamala Harris stands for everything that even the most "progressive" people don't want.

[misespinas]

When I see plastic surgery like this, I don't feel disgust for the women. I feel disgust for the society that convinced them their noses are not beautiful