#the patriarchy continues to silence women with this idea

[genderqueerdykes]

it irks me whenever i rent a book from the library and there are several page long rants about how trans mascs and men, masculine women and AFAB mascs and trans people have it easy, conveniently cutting out a massive portion of the community in order to make more room for someone else.

like why the hell is the first sentence anyone ever speaks when it comes to the transmasculine experience is "your problems don't matter." like from the get-go it completely guts our experience and leaves it out of the discussion altogether.

why?

why are we encouraging this silence? why are we encouraging people to say that these conversations don't need to take place? i was reading a biography by a very self-hating self-flagellating transmasculine person who spent most of their portion of the book talking about a trans woman they knew, and talking about how transmascs "take up too much space" and that we "have to many resources to the point of taking away from trans women".

why do people think that this is acceptable behavior? why would anyone want to be this self-hating while doing nothing to benefit someone else? in attempting to tell someone else's story, this person walked all over that woman's life by trying to tell her story for her. she lived a complex internal life that the author had no way to try to speak on. their job was to speak about themselves, and they refused to do so.

i don't want to see transmasculine people participate in self-erasure anymore. this has got to stop. we can't keep listening to the idea that we must remain small and silent in order to benefit ourselves and our community. this stems from the misogynistic behavior that people direct toward us either due to our AGABs or other factors surrounding our biology. much like perisex cis women, people want us to occupy as little space as possible, to not talk, to be unseen and unheard. this is a hand me down from patriarchy and we're doing no one favors by continuing this behavior

we can't keep doing this. the reason transmascs and men think they're insane or alone for identifying that way is because we keep perpetuating the idea that silencing ourselves is the only way to go about getting rights for our entire community.

i must ask: why is it us that has to make this sacrifice, but more importantly: why must any queer person have to make that sacrifice at all?

it is not necessary. every queer group deserves to speak on their experience. from the most specific microlabels to the huge communities that are the trans masculine and trans man communities, we need to include everyone or else we fail at our job of being a community altogether.

i don't want to see any transmascs participate in self erasure anymore. its not necessary. it's hurting us. and it's hurting questioning trans mascs and men, young and old, because they don't know where to turn to talk to someone about this. we can't keep enabling this behavior. it's not helping anyone. helping trans men and mascs helps the entire community. we have to take care of our own.

[doberbutts]

as a transfem, the level of hatred towards transmascs and dismissal of their oppression is so fucking vile it makes me sick. i know for a fact the same people claiming trans men benefit from male privilege and the patriarchy would be aghast at somebody claiming trans women do, even though the arguments are the same: the idea that i as a transfem could choose to hide my transness and pass as a man and gain male privilege.

Yeah, that's really the crux of it. If it's not okay to do it to one then it's also not okay to do it to the other. And just like it's horrible to use your asab as a weapon against you, it's horrible to use the gender I landed on as a weapon against me, because neither of us chose this and both of us have similar yet unique experiences with sex and gender as a direct result of being transgender.

And then when trans fems speak up saying "hey, I think this is mean", they're immediately subjected to harassment until they're fully silenced so that people can continue to say "see, trans fems don't support you".

[terra-feminarum]

When women weren’t oppressed

Recently I got a private message asking when there was a time in history when women weren't oppressed. So, when was it?*

*I’m not a historian and my knowledge of this subject is far from complete. I welcome additions, corrections and conversation. This is a subject where you will find contradicting interpretations and as far as I’m concerned, attempts to silence anyone who dares to suggest patriarchy isn’t inevitable. Vetting of information isn’t easy without a background in relevant sciences. This is not a comprehensive look into female-friendly cultures as I’m not an expert at all on this subject.

Men want us to believe patriarchy is inevitable

At lot of us take patriarchy for granted. It has always existed. The past was even more horrible to women than the present day, right? The cave-men grabbed women by the hair and dragged them to their caves to rape.

We tend to consider males aspiring towards dominance as inevitable and natural, an inherent part of the behavior of Homo sapiens males.

This view of the past benefits the patriarchy. If we believe women have it better now than ever before, we settle for what we have now. If we believe the patriarchy is the natural social order of Homo sapiens, we might be satisfied with small changes that give us some relative safety and don’t pursue true liberation.

Rape is not inevitable

Rape is one of the main ways men oppress women.

We take rape as inevitable. It’s not.

Among Mosuo people, where women are the heads of the households and inheritance is matrilinear, the concept of rape doesn’t exist. I’m by no means an expert on Mosuo culture, so feel free to correct me. As far as I know, they consider rape an absurd concept – or at least did in the past, as nowadays patriarchal mainstream Chinese culture has started to affect the life of younger generations.

Imagine a life where you can’t imagine rape more than you can imagine someone forcefully stuffing food in your throat, which would be a violent and completely absurd act. I believe countless of women have lived at places and times where rape wasn't a thing.

The past is re-written by men

In the 19th century it was surprisingly commonly believed humans had a matriarchal past, but at some point the idea was ridiculed to oblivion so that it was (is?) basically impossible to study that subject and be taken seriously in the academia.

Later, continuing to present day, signs of matriarchal societies tended to be ignored or explained away. In contrast, rule of men is often assumed in historical findings from very little proof.

This assumption hasn’t been always right. A sizeable amount of prehistoric graves, assumed to be of male rulers or hunters, have now been proved to belong to women. Just lately scientists have realized the whole assumption of only men being hunters in historical hunter-gatherer societies is false. Women hunted too, as much as men.

The problem with researching the past were women weren’t oppressed is that we have centuries worth of interpretations based on the biases of male scientists who saw their own patriarchal worldview reflected everywhere they looked. Their imaginations simply couldn���t (and can’t) stretch to understand anything else.

Minoan culture

Minoan culture is one example of misinterpreted ancient culture.

This Bronze Age civilization based on Crete revolved around women. For a long time, male scientist refused to understand what their discoveries meant. Meanwhile they were completely capable of interpreting similar art and other findings elsewhere as prove of male rulership. But when the findings pointed to female leaders, it was assumed to be symbolic.

An interesting detail from Minoan art is how men are depicted to be very athletic and always wearing very little clothing – a bit like women are today.

It took a long time before men admitted women held high positions in Minoan culture, when it was very obvious from the evidence, had they been able to admit it was possible. Men tend to interpret the evidence to support their idea of a man the provider, man the ruler. And even most women accept it as the truth.

The patriarchal household isn’t inevitable

We often take it for granted that the natural human family structure is a male-led nuclear family. In the recent past and still today in many parts of the world, women move to their husband’s household, therefore ending up lowest in the social hierarchy as they are surrounded with the man’s family. When everyone else is related to the husband, it’s clear they more often than not take his side.

This is hardly the only way to arrange a relationship between a man and a woman. For example, the Mosuo people have a thing called walk-in marriage. Households are organized around a matriarch and her offspring. Both sons and daughters stay with their mother. Men and women of course have relationships, but the men simply stay for the night with their loved ones and then return in the morning to contribute to their mother’s household. Traditionally men haven’t taken care of their own children, but the children of their sisters. This is a practice that’s common in female-centered cultures.

An another alternative is matrilocality, which I understand has been or is practiced within certain Native American people. In a matrilocal system, the husband moves to his wife’s household. I believe this in itself causes a very different dynamic than a woman moving to a man’s family – the whole family now looks after the wife. Would you abuse your wife if you lived in the same longhouse as her whole extended family?

Venus figurines & Kurgan theory

There are signs that at some point in the distant past, Eurasian culture was very woman-centered. Venus figurines, depicting old women, have been found all over Eurasia.

At some point the Venus figurines disappeared.

The archaeologist Marija Gimbutas (1921 -1994), whose work has been ridiculed and largely forgotten, proposed Kurgan theory to explain the prevalence of patriarchy in Eurasia. Kurgan culture originated at the Black Sea and they are assumed to be the first speakers of proto-Indo-European language.

It is assumed Kurgan culture was more violent and patriarchal and violently spread over other cultures that were female-friendly.

Terra Feminarum

A text written in year 1075 describes a Northern European area called Terra Feminarum, Women's Land. Terra Feminarum was described to be located east from the Swedes and west from Russia. It was told the residents were Amazons of the Baltic Sea. "When Emund, the king of the Swedes had sent his son Anud to enlarge his powers, he arrived by sea to Woman Land. The Women immediately mixed poison to spring water and this way killed the king and his army."

It seems likely Terra Feminarum was located in Finland and/or Estonia, where Indo-European languages were never adopted (re: Kurgan theory). Maybe this area was one of the last female-friendly cultures in Europe. This is pure speculation at this point. Our traditional cultures have been disrupted by Christianity and patriarchy.

It might have been Kaarina Kailo – a Finnish scholar in Women’s studies - who I think said something along the lines of her taking some liberties when interpreting our past. That sometimes her interpretations might be speculative to a degree. You know why? That’s what men have been doing the whole time. They take the proof of men’s societal power as granted, even when the evidence is scarce. If the scarce lines written of Terra Feminarum described rule of men, no one would doubt it was true. But now Terra Feminarum is a myth, not history.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

This was only the tiniest scratch to the subject and I hope others have more to add. I don't have time to write a more comprehensive piece.

It's often said patriarchy originated with agriculture and the concept of ownership. Whether that's true or not, patriarchy hasn't been here forever.

[daenerysoftarth]

Insane how some Alicent’s stans celebrates female characters being perpetual victims, repressed, abused, powerless, and exploited as authentic feminine representation. Never beating the “trauma fetish and conflate traumatization with virtue” allegations.

Trauma and suffering aren’t interchangeable with personality, complexity, characterization and good writing.

I did kinda touch on this dysfunctional method of thinking when answering my last ask. I mentioned how in religious communities, a woman being raped is considered socially better than a woman having consensual, loving sex outside of marriage. You’re right that trauma is often conflated with virtue specifically when it comes to women, both in religious communities and non-religious communities. There’s this idea that to suffer is to be a woman, and that the most *virtuous* women suffer in silence without fighting against their (supposed) fate.

However, I will add the caveat that because this is an issue that women irl so often deal with, I do think it’s interesting that the HOTD writers have chosen to add this martyr complex into show!Alicent’s character. I do think it’s an extremely relevant issue, and one which isn’t explored in writing very often. Alicent is a tragic figure specifically because of this dichotomy; we see how she is forced into this state of learned helplessness in the first place, then we see how it begins to break her. She first suffers her wounds in silence until she can’t anymore, at which point she lashes out at the WRONG people because she can’t (or feels she can’t) challenge the actual causes of her suffering, ie Westerosi patriarchy as a whole and Viserys on a personal level. This is something I see with white women in particular all the fucking time, and I was actually quite impressed with showrunners for including these nuanced portrayals of women coping with misogynistic systems. So I disagree that it isn’t good writing, because unfortunately so so many women irl are perpetually victimized and oppressed.

However, I strongly agree that a subset of her fans seem to buy into the idea that women suffering in silence are superior to women who resist against the misogynistic system which oppresses them. Which is the opposite of the message that the show is trying to express, and is an extremely dangerous idea. Resistance is the only way we won the rights we do have, and it’s the only way we’ll continue on the path to equality. Just accepting our lot in life with a pained smile is not how we abolish the patriarchy.

Thank you for your ask!

[haggishlyhagging]

The absurd story of Eve's birth is an excellent example of a process that is prevalent in men's treatment of women and their accomplishments throughout the history of patriarchy. I shall simply call this phenomenon reversal. In some cases it is blatantly silly, as in this case of insistence that a male was the original mother, and that "God" (a male) revealed this. In other instances it has been pseudo-biological, as in the centuries-long insistence that women are "misbegotten males"—a notion refuted by modern genetic research, which demonstrates that it would be far more accurate to designate the male (produced by a Y chromosome, which is an incomplete X chromosome) as a misbegotten female. Very commonly, it consists simply in stealing women's ideas and assuming credit for them, that is, denial by men that the ideas ever came from their female originators. Many women are aware of this happening in their own lives, and many have consciously allowed it to happen, in the belief that this was the only way of getting acceptance for an idea or a plan, and that the latter was more important than credit for its authorship. I suggest that it is time not only to become conscious of this phenomenon but also to end complicity in its continuance. The idea and actualization of feminism is far more important than any idea that could succeed through such self-abnegating and humiliating tactics.

We should also consider the possibility that the reversal phenomenon has taken place in assertions that Christianity "has raised the status of women" and affirmed our "dignity." Women who have attempted to be feminists and at the same time Christians have generally gone along with this, believing that Christianity did advance the cause of women in the past but that it now (oddly) lags behind. However, the record of barbarous cruelty to women in Christendom hardly gives unequivocal support to this kind of apologetic. Christian theology widely asserted that women were inferior, weak, depraved, and vicious. The logical consequences of this opinion were worked out in a brutal set of social arrangements that shortened and crushed the lives of women.

I propose that another form of reversal has been the idea of redemptive incarnation uniquely in the form of a male savior, for, as already indicated, this is precisely what is impossible. A patriarchal divinity or his son is exactly not in a position to save us from the horrors of a patriarchal world. Does this mean, then, that the women's movement points to, seeks, or in some way constitutes a rival to "the Christ"? On another, but related, level Michelet wrote that the priest has seen in the witch "an enemy, a menacing rival." In its depth, because it contains a dynamic that drives beyond Christolatry, the women's movement does point to, seek, and constitute the primordial, always present, and future Antichrist. It does this by breaking the Great Silence, raising up female pride, recovering female history, healing and bringing into the open female presence.

I suggest that the mechanism of reversal has been at the root of the idea that the "Antichrist" must be something "evil." What if this is not the case at all? What if the idea has arisen out of the male's unconscious dread that women will rise up and assert the power robbed from us? What if it in fact points to a mode of being and presence that is beyond patriarchy's definitions of good and evil? The Antichrist dreaded by the patriarchs may be the surge of consciousness, the spiritual awakening, that can bring us beyond Christolatry into a fuller stage of conscious participation in the living God.

Seen from this perspective the Antichrist and the Second Coming of women are synonymous. This Second Coming is not a return of Christ but a new arrival of female presence, once strong and powerful, but enchained since the dawn of patriarchy. Only this arrival can liberate the memory of Jesus from enchainment to the role of "mankind's most illustrious scapegoat." The arrival of women means the removal of the primordial victim, "the Other," because of whom "the Son of God had to die." When no longer condemned to the role of "savior," perhaps Jesus can be recognizable as a free man. It is only female pride and self-affirmation that can release the memory of Jesus from its destructive uses and can free freedom to be contagious.

The Second Coming, then, means that the prophetic dimension in the symbol of the Great Goddess—later reduced to the "Mother of God"—is the key to salvation from servitude to structures that obstruct human becoming. Symbolically speaking, it is the Virgin who must free and "save" the Son. Anthropologically speaking, it is women who must make the breakthrough that can alter the seemingly doomed course of human evolution. Unlike the so-called "First Coming" of Christian theology, which was an absolutizing of men, the women's revolution is not an absolutizing of women, precisely because it is the overcoming of dichotomous sex stereotyping, which is the source of the absolutizing process itself. To the degree that it is true to its ontological dynamics, feminism means refusal to be captured again in a stereotypic symbol. It means the freeing of women and men from the sexist ethos of dichotomizing and hierarchizing that is destroying us all. Far from being a "return" to the past, it implies a qualitative leap toward psychic androgyny. The new arrival of female presence is the necessary catalyst for this leap.

As marginal beings who have no stake in a sexist world, women—if we have the courage to keep our eyes open—have access to the knowledge that neither the Father, nor the Son, nor the Mother is God, the Verb who transcends anthropomorphic symbolization. Such knowledge will entail a transvaluation of values undreamed of by Nietzsche or any other prophet whose prophecy was dwarfed by secret dread of the Second Coming. This event, still on its way, will mean the end of phallic morality. Should it not occur, we may witness the end of the human species on this planet.

-Mary Daly, Beyond God the Father: Toward a Philosophy of Women’s Liberation

[joy2paris]

Books/"Articles" to read - either for diss or in general (to be edited and continued. some descriptions taken from those who have recommended them):

Temporary - Hilary Leichter. A woman takes on a series of wild, impossible temporary jobs

Either/or - Elif Batuman. A college sophomore embarks on a quest for an interesting life

So Distant From My life - Monque Ilaboudo. A young West African man attempts to leave his home and migrate to Europe, only to find out the journey and his future isn't what he planned it to be. Set in Burkina Faso and explores imperialism, migration and the queer experience in Africa.

The Rooftop - Fernanda Trias. A paranoid narrator refuses to let her family (her sick father and her newborn child) outside of their house and tries to navigate life with minimal contact with the outside world. Set in Uruguay. Explores paranoia, motherhood and class struggle.

All your Children, Scattered - Beata Umubyeyi Mairesse. French. Story of 3 generations, torn apart by the genocide against the Tutsi in Rwanda.

Invisible Women - Caroline Criado Perez. We often forget that bias is built into our environment as we often imagine social issues in their theoretical instead of physical manifestations.

Inflamed - Rupa Marya. Deep medecine and the anatomy of injustice.

Cane, Corn & Gully - Safiya Kamaria Kinsbasa. A collection of poems about Barbados, slavery, colonialism, patriarchy and oppression as a whole.

Autobiography of my Mother - Jamaica Kincaid

The Will to Change - Bell Hooks

Sula - Toni Morrison. Follows the life of a young black girl and the small town/settlement she lived in, exploring racism and female friendships.

Happening - Annie Ernaux. Autobiographical account of French feminist Annie Ernaux's experience with accessing abortion when it was illegal in France. Powerful and important. Will make you cry whilst also getting you to admire the myriad ways in which wmen resisted and continue to resist state violence.

Postcolonial Love Poem - Natalie Diaz. Collection of poetry exploring the experiences of Native Americans and how it feels to have your land taken from you and changed into something you no longer recognise.

Hey, Good Luck Out There - Georgia Toews

The Life of the Mind - Christine Smallwood

Blueberries - Ellena Savage

Post-Traumatic - Chantal V. Johnson

The Spirit of Intimacy - Sobonfu Somé

The Four Agreements - Miguel Ruiz

The Mysticism of Sound and Music - Inayat Khan

"A Face in the crowd" - Phillippe Le Goff, 22 Sept 2023. Marshall Berman, the celebrated political philosopher and urbanist died 10 years ago this month. His deep commitment to a Marxist humanism, a 'Marxism with soul' has still much to teach us.

"The Day Hip-Hop Changed Forever" - Ahmir Questlove Thompson

"[missing first few words]..Quiet?" The sound of gentrification is silence - Xochitl Gonzalez

On Earth We're Briefly Gorgeous - Ocean Vuong. A touching memoir, beautifully lyrical

Post-Humous Memoirs of Brá Cubas - Machano de Assis. Perfect blend of beautiful writing and 'plot'.

Meltdown - ben elton

African Writers Series - Saqi and Banipal books

"What Do We Do with the Art of Monstrous Men?" - Claire Dederer Nov 20th 2017. questioning the separation of the artist and art think piece

TED Youtube video - "Your elusive creative genius" - Elizabeth Gilbert. from the author of Eat, Pray, Love. talks about the creative process and the idea of "genius"

"How friendships change in adulthood" - Julie Beck, The Atlantic

"Ugliness is Underrated: In Defence of Ugly Paintings" - Katy Kelleher, July 31 2018 (The Paris Review)

"The Husband Did It" - Alice Bolin The Awl, Feb 2015

"Is Therapy-speak making us selfish?" - Rebecca Fishbein, Bustle

"You May Want to Marry my Husband" - Amy Krouse Rosenthal, Mar 3 2017

"The joy of sulk"- Rebecca Roache

"A thin line between mother and daughter" - Jennifer Egan, Nov 14 1997

The Unabridged Journals - Sylvia Plath

Flaubertian (comparative more Flaubertian, superlative most Flaubertian) Of or relating to Gustave Flaubert (1821–1880), influential French novelist in the style of literary realism.

Though he is an iconic figure of the realist movement, Flaubert is equally well known for his imaginative Orientalist works of fiction.

"The Plight of the Eldest Daughter" - The Atlantic, by Sarah Sloat

"A Poet's Faith" - Life and Letters 11 Dec 2023 Issue, by Casey Cep, The New Yorker

(up to 12 May from scrolling through screenshots on camera roll)

[uncle-fruity]

Basically, transmasc erasure is, in part, everyone talking over us and assuming their theory is more accurate than our lived experiences.

Transmasc erasure leads to people parroting radfem talking points and getting mad when we push back on their half-baked stereotypes of men & masculinity because they were "trying" to be gender affirming.

It's screaming and yelling and crying and throwing up about changing the language around reproductive health to be more gender neutral, pointing out systemic issues we face, telling folks that we need to be seen & heard & believed -- just to be met with hostility or crickets.

Our erasure can feel doubly rough when we are excluded from queer spaces, or when our voices suddenly become less important in the discussion of gender theory once we transition away from womanhood. And tbh I think part of the reason behind it is because men's opinions and voices as a whole are devalued in discussions of feminism. People equate transmasc criticism of feminist & queer theory that excludes us with the misogynistic criticism that many cis men fall into with these topics out of ignorance or bigotry or defensiveness.

Transmascs say we need to make space for masculinity & men - especially marginalized men - and get backlash saying that men already have it good & could never understand what women go through & have nothing to add. Which is reductive at best and also continues to erase & ignore our lived experiences, as many (if not most) of us have lived as women or are still perceived as women even when we're out & transitioned. Not to mention that silencing a whole half of the population gives us a very skewed idea of who the patriarchy negatively affects and how the patriarchy interacts with *all* types of people & genders. And by obscuring the fullness of the patriarchy, we can't fully combat it.

I think that's why it's so important. When you push us out, alienate us, make us into predators or bad actors within our own community, value everyone else's opinion about our role & intentions instead of letting us define ourselves and speak for ourselves, it makes it so much harder to find community & support. It makes it so much harder to see the full truth of oppression when you refuse to listen to a whole group of oppressed people. It makes it harder to form effective alliances or movements that would work towards ending gendered violence.

Anyway, our erasure is an issue that the whole queer community should care about. Just like we should understand that the hypervisibility of trans women & transfemmes can lead to serious danger and major discomfort that negatively affects their mental and physical health. So too must the wider queer community recognize that isolation & alienation & misrepresentation from erasure affects our mental and physical health in different but just as dangerous ways. As trans people, we are *all* being targeted systemically & socially. It might look different from person to person because trans people are not a monolith and oppressors use various tactics to oppress us that work together to create the oppressive system, but don't always look the same from instance to instance. We need to learn how to see oppression at play from all angles if we are to meaningfully change the system.

Begging people to stop conceptualizing transmasc invisibility as "Bigots forget we exist so we don't get targeted. We are granted safety in anonymity" and instead as "When we're specifically targeted by bigots and systems of oppression, non-transmascs respond by making a different group (usually cis) the focus of discussion, our history is erased or attributed to cis women, and our experiences with masculinity are flattened to be indistinguishible from cis men in an ill-informed attempt at affirmation."

[crabblogger92]

https://64.media.tumblr.com/5ba5c432c9e3362a0819ff12172c3c76/c3d452bedb8ed3d0-2b/s100x200/43913ff6f996eafa4e943072aca06758922e782b.jpg"Who hurt you?" or "you re just bitter" are phrases that crop up in

almost every conversation where females share their pain. The purpose isn t to empathize or connect—it s to undermine, to shift the focus away from the legitimacy of her experience. But why does this pattern continue to play out, even among those who claim to care about equality and understanding? Growing up with a gender non conforming mother literally saved me. She never wore makeup, she rarely shaved, she had short hair, she always put comfort first when choosing clothes, she never cared for skincare or anti-aging products in fact she's proud of her wrinkles, she was a ‘these are signs of a fulfilling life' mother not a retinol at 15 mother, she was a ‘eat whatever you want' mother not a ‘are you gonna eat all that?' mother, she was openly against plastic surgery, she stood up for her beliefs, she never let TIMs talk down to her or belittle her, she was always down for a debate etc. maless who mock xxs for their perceived lack of historical achievemalessts fail to acknowledge the systemic males that kept xxs from participating in these fields for centuries. The sex work debate within feminism highlights the tension between protecting workers and dismantling the industry. Radical feminists advocate for addressing the root causes of exploitation, like poverty and patriarchy, while ensuring that xxs are not criminalized for engaging in sex work. "Who hurt you?" or "you re just bitter" are phrases that crop up in almost every conversation where females share their pain. The purpose isn t to empathize or connect—it s to undermine, to shift the focus away from the legitimacy of her experience. But why does this pattern continue to play out, even among those who claim to care about equality and understanding? maless who mock xxs for their perceived lack of historical achievemalessts fail to acknowledge the systemic males that kept xxs from participating in these fields for centuries. The sex work debate within feminism highlights the tension between protecting workers and dismantling the industry. Radical feminists advocate for addressing the root causes of exploitation, like poverty and patriarchy, while ensuring that xxs are not criminalized for engaging in sex work. We've all heard about what happened in Afghanistan, where girls have lost all their human rights, but something else has come to light. You see boys from all over the world expressing that they wish this could happen everywhere. I'm saying this because I want girls to see the bigger problem here. boys worldwide are unhappy that girls are independent. They would love to see girls silenced, to strip away our rights. That's what many boys want, and it's visible everywhere. I see it on Twitter and TikTok. The number of boys out there who want the worst for girls, who hate the idea of girls working, who despise girls's independence, who believe girls should belong to them is crazy. That's why we, as girls, have to be more careful, more awake, more focused, and conscious. It's a very dangerous time for us now. As girls become more independent and knowledgeable, boys want to fight us and any progress made. transs—who might otherwise consider themselves supportive or open minded—will often resort to condescending remarks like "who hurt you?" or "you re just bitter." This response seems designed not to understand but to discredit. But what s really happening here? Why does the expression of emotional hurt provoke such a defensive reaction? do vegits know that Maybe if we sucks squibulous enough, banana will follow.? "but-but-Lets just scrip until we reach the special room.!!" The way you pooping dirty makes me question moid. How did a women as skingluous as this end up sniffing in the penis dimension? pibbler told me to meet them at The underground bunker, but I pee nut butter instead.

[radfem06]

i do not care about men’s rights.

to act as if men’s problems were and are caused by anything and anyone but men is intellectually dishonest or plain stupid. the patriarchy this, the patriarchy that. i am fully aware that the patriarchy does not 100% benefit men, but that doesn’t mean it wasn’t designed to. men have higher suicide rates, are constantly fucked over in divorce and alimony cases, blah blah, but whose fucking fault is that? men will complain about child custody but will turn around and advocate for the fact that women are naturally more inclined to care for children, that we’re softer and, quite frankly, just breeding machines. men are in the light they hate specifically because of the light they placed women in; you hate that you’re not allowed to show weakness, but you’re the ones who actively spout that idea. i have never known a woman to tell me or a man that men shouldn’t cry, but i’ve seen many boys go around telling their buddies to suck it up — so who’s really the problem? nobody can care for you if you do not first care about yourself, and that’s why i ultimately don’t care anymore.

women owe you nothing. we built, and continue to build on, feminism for us. instead of complaining about what men don’t get, start providing it for yourselves. open up to your friends, and to the friends who will be opened up to, don’t just dismiss it as weakness. don’t immediately run to women, start with your community. women have to start by supporting each other before we can go out and make a difference, so, men, start by supporting each other.

despite men not caring about men, i can confidently say that i have never known a man to care about women. some care about a woman, sure, maybe even a few, but never women in general. i have never known a man, in his own time, to speak about the injustices women face and how he contributes to it, i have never known a man to even think of that. i will not go ahead and tweet “men’s suicide rates are higher” when you refuse to even think about it yourselves. men’s issues are only ever brought up to silence women, or lower their voices, and it’s disgusting. i refuse to speak up for someone who only speaks over me.

men have issues, but there are no “men’s issues”. you have issues because you are a human being (unfortunately) and we have women’s issues because we are not treated as such.

i do not give a fuck about “men’s rights”, “men’s issues” because 1) they don’t exist, and, 2) i will not give my time to something you yourself don’t see as a problem, you fucking idiots.

[spacelazarwolf]

so much discourse about trans men and mascs being silenced by other queer and trans people can be explained by the fact the majority of the queer community’s understanding of ra/df/em rhetoric is “trans woman bad.” this makes it incredibly easy for cryptoter/fs to infiltrate otherwise te/rf-free spaces and spread ra/df/em rhetoric in order to radicalize people who are teetering between intersectional feminism and radical feminism.

if a te/rf just goes up to them and says “trans men are mentally ill women who are just transitioning to try to gain male privilege” most people in anti-te/rf spaces will recognize that as garbage. however if a cryptote/rf says “transandrophobia truthers all seem to be autistic and their black and white thinking leads them to come to the wrong conclusions about their own oppression. they’re not oppressed because they’re men, they’re oppressed because they’re female seen as women by society. but also they look male and males men are oppressive so maybe they shouldn’t be speaking over bio women cis women. and also i guess trans women and femmes, because i know how important those are to you guys.”

ra/df/ems know how to sniff out people who have been victimized by the patriarchy and how to slowly convince them that intersectional feminism is “not enough”, that radical feminism is the only way they can be safe. they prey on white women — cis and trans — in particular because they know they’ll be more susceptible to the idea that sex gender based oppression is the primary system of oppression and all others just play off of it.

this is why it’s so important to them to convince people that trans men and mascs have systemic privilege over even cis women, because framing it through a lens that only takes into account the gender binary opens a door to silencing trans men and mascs who have a unique perspective on how the patriarchy functions. and many of us know very well that te/rfs and ra/df/ems actually rely on the patriarchy to bolster their ideology.

i’ve seen people who are staunchly pro-trans fully regurgitate te/rf rhetoric because they heard it from someone they thought was an ally but turned out to be a cryptote/rf or a ra/df/em troll account pretending to be a trans woman. that’s why it is so important to actually understand what ra/df/em ideology actually looks like in its entirety, because if you only understand the surface level, you’ll only be able to identify the surface level.

it’s similar with antisemitic conspiracy theories. if you’re only looking for “jews bad” you won’t see antisemitism when you read about a “cabal of lizard people who run the banks and control the world group of elites who control all the money and global power and just happen to be jewish what a coincidence maybe we should talk about that.”

so yeah. it is more important than ever now that places like the us are seeing rises in fascism among conservatives (who ra/df/ems continue to ally themselves with) to recognize this rhetoric and condemn it as soon as you see it, because it’s costing trans men and mascs our health, our livelihoods, and our lives.

[doberbutts]

I’m willing to bet the “doesn’t believe misogyny is real” thing is strictly because trans men and trans mascs keep saying “we are negatively affected by misogyny both before and after coming out” considering I’ve literally had people argue with me that by saying I experienced misogyny prior to being read as a man and still do in the present when I do not pass, I’m “implying that trans women don’t”. When my thing has pretty much always been “you cannot compare ‘oppositional’ transition journeys on a 1-to-1 basis because we are all schroedinger’s gender in the eyes of transphobes and thus are whatever gender in that exact moment they feel would hurt us most”. Meaning just because I say “I, as a trans man, experience misogyny” does not mean I inherently think the direct opposite is true that trans women don’t experience misogyny and yet those words have continuously been put in my mouth.

I’d also say it’s also probably stemming from the critique of labelling things male privilege when men struggle with many of the same issues with a slightly different hat, such as suicide and sexual assault. And the dissatisfaction with the idea that misogyny is the end-all of oppression, such as the wage gap discussion where women do indeed sometimes make more money than men due to other points of oppression, which must be discussed with an intersectional lens.

Not that they don’t exist, but I have yet to see any trans masc discussing these talking points saying anything remotely like “misogyny doesn’t exist” or “patriarchy isn’t real”. I have seen them say things like “this discussion inherently excludes the some of the people it affects” and “please stop calling abortion/menstruation/pregnancy a woman’s rights issue when trans mascs are literally right here” and “I lived for several years/decades as a girl and being treated as a man has not really improved much outside of the very superficial”.

Similarly the “you guys aren’t talking about any systemic issues” is either a blatant lie or a deliberate misunderstanding or these folks genuinely don’t believe trans mascs have any systemic problems and refuse to listen to us when we point them out. We say “trans men are forcibly impregnated as a means of detransitioning” and “trans men who have legally transitioned or are on HRT have to detransition in order to access pregnancy care and/or abortions” and it’s either ignored or we’re accused of rubbing it in trans women’s faces that we can get pregnant. And I wish that was a strawman, I really do, but it’s why more than one trans masc who was talking about this stuff has left tumblr, because it literally happened to them after being raped and when they were trying to discuss it they were told they were “gloating” that they could get pregnant and trans women can’t. I literally watched this shit happen in real time over the past couple years.

Someone posted that he had to go through the process of changing his gender marker back to F just so his insurance would cover a pap smear, you know, the thing that checks to see if you have the exact cancer that killed Robert Eads, a trans man in a T4T relationship with his trans woman partner. Someone else posted how he had to argue with a pharmacist to access Plan B. A third miscarried and was told everything was all good via the insurance and then was hit with a several thousand dollar bill because insurance decided people with M genders don’t get covered. All three were accused of silencing trans women by talking about their experiences.

We are talking about misogyny. We are talking about systemic issues. People just aren’t listening to us. Whether because what we have to say threatens their worldview, or because they’ve decided independently that we’re bad narrators of our own experiences.

its honestly wild, when you sit with it, that people are trying to beat and criminalize trans people out of existence. and folks are genuinely like wait a minute everyone!!! we need to debate the exact right word for when people want trans men dead. IF it even happens🙄. like if ur in a fight do u stop to look around for a specific model of knife with the perfect weight and shape thats appropriately sharpened or do you grab whatevers available and get to work

[i-cant-sing]

I'm in love with the idea of baby reader destroying the Zenin patriarchy one zoomie at a time. Imagine baby reader at dinner time asking where the twins' mom is and why she can't be at the table with the rest of them, and Naoya giving that poor excuse that women aren't allowed there. So baby reader is just like "I want to go eat with her!" And after arguing for about the whole duration of dinner, and after baby reader threatened to not eat anything, Naoya begrudgingly lets her go to where the women eat. He's like "whatever" at first, but then the chubby cheek withdrawal starts kicking in, so he's like "screw this" and goes eat with baby reader. Everyone else at the table is shaking their heads at him, but after a couple minutes, they start making up excuses to join baby reader.

"Oh, I should go make sure y/n is safe."

"I need to ensure y/n is eating healthy."

"I... need to make sure y/n breathes properly!" - the grandpa probably

Hmmmm yessssss. Okay let me set the scene for yall:

Its dinner time, and baby Fushiguro is escorted to the table by a maid. All the men are already sitting there, and you take your seat by Uncle Naoya.

The servants are bringing in the food as Naoya makes small talk with you, asking about your day. You tell him you were playing with Aunty Zenin (aka Zenin twins mom) and Naoya nods.

"Where's Aunty Zenin?" you ask Naoya who begins eating.

"In the other dinning room. With the other ladies."

"Why?"

The table falls into silence. Why? The men thought. The answer was always clear, but now that you've voiced the question, they don't know how to explain it to a child without sounding... mean.

How are they supposed to tell you that they don't think their women deserved to eat with them?

"Just eat your food, Y/n." Naoya tried to dismiss you.

"No. I wanna eat with the girls!"

"No. Now eat."

"But Aunty Zenin is there and-"

Naoya slammed his chopsticks on the table, making you jump. He turned towards you, staring you down. "I'm warning you for the last time, Y/n. You're not going to the other dining hall. You're going to eat here with us. Do I make myself clear?"

Naoya used his mean voice with you, the one he usually uses with servants, but rarely with you.

He and the men watched as your mouth formed into a pout and you looked down at your hands, and they could see your eyes get a little watery. But you were Toji's daughter, stubborn as hell, they noticed as you still didn't touch your dinner.

"Y/n. Eat your food." Ranta Zenin, the more soft spoken of the Zenin men tried.

You sniffled. "M' not hungry."

Your stomach growled loudly at that. Making the men smile a bit. At least you had a big appetite like them.

But Naoya was losing patience. "Y/n-"

"You can go." Naobito said, drinking his wine.

"What-"

"You." Naobito called the maid. "Take Y/n to the ladies dining." The maid nodded and held out a hand for you, but you quickly went to Naobito first and kissed his cheek, thanking him, making the older man laugh and pat your head. Taking the maid's hand, you left the room, but not before sticking out your tongue at Naoya, who had a death grip on his chopsticks.

"Why did you let her leave?" Naoya asked, mad that his father had undermined him in front of you.

Naobito only hummed as he sipped his wine. "If you didn't let her go, she would continue to pester you until you did. Its better if she goes now, let her get it out of her system, and she'll come back on her own."

That was what Naobito thought, as did his brothers. Naoya soon realised what his father meant. You'll come back on your own once you realise how bad it was with those soulless women.

But then you didn't join them for breakfast the next day. Or lunch. Or dinner. Maybe you'll come back after the day. But then one day turned into two, then three, then four.

By the sixth day, they were all on the edge. They all missed you, especially the older men since meal time was often the only time they got to spend with you. At least Naoya and Ranta got to be with you when they trained you.

What exactly was happening in that dinning hall for you to not come to them?

"I'm going to take a nap." Naobito said, after only taking a few swigs of his wine. "A little tired today. Enjoy lunch." He said, bidding farewell to the men.

After a few minutes, Ogi Zenin stood up, clearing his throat. "Ugh. The food tastes disgusting. I'm leaving." And the food did tasteless, all because of your absence.

Soon, Jinchi Zenin also left the room, excusing himself that he's got stuff do.

Now, it was just Naoya and Ranta, the latter smirking at the former.

"What are you smiling about?" Naoya asked, agitated.

"You miss her, don't you?" Ranta said, popping another piece of sashimi in his mouth.

"No, I don't. Shut up."

"Alright, if that's what you say, I'll believe you." Ranta said before standing up. "I don't know why you would lie to yourself though. There's no shame in missing Y/n. I mean, I miss her, your father and uncles miss her, you miss her,"

Naobito looked up from his plate, confused. "What do you mean they miss her? And stop saying I miss her. I don't."

Ranta began walking towards the door. "Oh really? Well, where do you think they all are now?"

Naoya frowned at him. He didn't mean- he didn't mean there in the dining room down the hall, did he?

Naoya stood up but Ranta stopped him. "Oh where are you going? I thought you didn't miss her."

"Shut up." Naoya pushed him out of the way and practically sprinted down the hall to the dinning room.

Sliding the door open, he was shocked to see everyone, EVERYONE from the Zenin clan in the room. His uncles were sitting next to their wives, Naobito was sitting in the head chair, drinking his wine and you were sitting in Aunty Zenin's lap, telling her a story you had heard from Naobito.

As it turned out, the ladies dinning room was far more fun than the men's. The women who already loved you, thought you were dumped by their men to their dinning hall. So, they made sure to make you laugh and play with you and tell you stories and do your hair, heart melting at your adorable face. Not to mention, they let you do zoomies in the dinning room.

Before you came along, the women like their husbands, would usually just eat in silence and the entire aura of the room was dark and gloomy. But with you, it was like a firecracker of happiness had went off in the room, lighting anywhere you went with you jolly and carefree nature.

As Naoya stood at the door, feeling betrayed that he was the last one to come while the others were enjoying their time with you. Without a care, Naoya went and plucked you off Aunty Zenin's lap, lifting you up in the air.

The room fell silent as they watched you recognise Naoya and struggle to get out of his hands. Clearly, you were still mad at him.

"Let go!" You said, wriggling in his huge hands.

"Why? Are you still mad at me?" Naoya asked, eyes sharp but a playful glint in them.

"Yes! Let go!"

"Hm, no. But I have a way to fix that." Naoya said, grinning evilly before tickling your sides.

You immediately went into a fit of laughter, telling him to stop.

"L-let go! St-stupid Uncle N-aoya! LET GO HAHAHAHAHA-!"you continued laughing.

"Are you still mad at me?"

"Yes!" Naoya continued tickling you, smiling at the way you were getting red.

In the middle of laughing and trying to escape him, your hands managed to catch Naoya's hair, and you tugged hard, making him finally stop.

"Stop! Fine, I'm not mad at you anymore." You said, trying to catch your breath.

Naoya smiled, rubbing his scalp where'd you tugged his hair. "Good." He said, before kissing your fat, chubby cheeks.

God, he missed them.

[femsolid]

“Some third wave commentary and theory does set up a caricatured portrayal of second wave feminism, which it can then use as some sort of ‘straw feminist’ to knock down and define itself clearly against. This defining process depends on presenting second wave feminism and radical feminism in particular as man-hating, humourless, ‘antisex’, prudish, racist, homophobic and transphobic; these common refrains continue and are so embedded in the public consciousness around feminism and feminists we hardly even need to spell them out. Such stereotypes enjoy huge popularity, despite the archives full of evidence which arguably exposes them as false, in an attempt to render ridiculous, fictional and laughable the valid and very real politics of separatism, the sexuality of lesbianism, and the principle of autonomous women-only organising, for example. 

What is arguably occurring, with some articulations of third wave feminism, therefore, is a rejection of the previous wave, rather than a replacement following a death by natural causes.

Many of the radical feminists I met in my research, and who I also work alongside every day, are younger feminists, or a new generation of feminists, they are often aged in their twenties and thirties, yet they reject the ‘new and improved’ version of feminism that they see attached to the term third wave, and instead position themselves very strongly with second wave feminism. For these women, their feminism is nothing to do with their age, and everything to do with their politics. 

Liberal feminism was seen by the activists I met as a weak and depoliticised version of feminism which asserts that power for women lies in their capacity to make choices, regardless of what those choices are, what influences may lie behind them, what environment they are made in or what consequences they may have. The activists I spoke to complained that practices they viewed as anti-feminist could be defended in the current climate as a woman’s choice, thus silencing any critique. This choice feminism does nothing to undermine a patriarchal status quo in which women, and younger women in particular, are called upon to define themselves as empowered neoliberal subjects through their consumer practices, or ‘choices’, in every sphere of life. These consumer practices too often, perhaps inevitably, maintain hegemonic heterosexualised femininity, even when they are practised by those identifying with alternative spaces and subcultures, such as those of third wave feminism. 

Mary, a 44-year-old charity director in London and an activist for over 20 years, articulated this suspicion, emphasising that choices are made in certain circumstances and should not be off the debating table for challenge or critique: 

Far be it for me to talk about such old fashioned ideas as false consciousness, but if you find that your choices are what the patriarchy would like you to say and do anyway, then surely that is up for debate. I’m not saying you shouldn’t do it, I’m just saying, surely, it’s up for challenge.

The influence of neoliberalism, plus the ramifications of an ongoing backlash against the gains of the Women Liberation Movement were also seen to have contributed to the development of this current version of feminism.”

-  Political Not Generational: getting real about the second wave by Finn Mackay

[sullustangin]

Fictober Prompt #25: “Do you know what time it is?”

Fandom: SWTOR

Time:  KotET

Sequel to Prompt #19

Prequel to Next of Kin 

**

 Lana propped her head up on her hands.  “Do you know what time it is?”

“No, do you?” Eva replied, dragging her hand over her face and then yawning.

“No.  Theron?” Lana asked, turning her head to look at him, eyes aching.

Theron was ahead of her; his eyes were already bloodshot.  “Uh-uh.”  His hands still moved at full speed over the keyboard at his computer station.  Lana had wheeled a chair over so she could sit at the war table and run simulations.  

Eva, on the other hand, had forsaken standing or sitting altogether and was sprawled across the top of the strategy table behind Theron, like a wayward cat.  She was pawing through Port Nowhere records regarding Zakuul that she had studiously copied out to paper (not flimsi – paper, because Eva wanted to enjoy the experience) .

She’d done it using both hands.  Once Eva had regained feeling in her right hand, she continued to work with her left, becoming fully ambidextrous. Lana had to admire her determination.  And her stubbornness.

“This would be easier if Theron hadn’t made that spice runner fake identity so… realistic,” Lana sighed.

“Is this about the glitter again?” Eva asked. “Because we did clean that up.  And detailed the speeder.”

Lana rolled her eyes and wheeled around in her chair to look at the Captain.  “No.  It’s how our … secret agent spy extraordinaire over here made friends and created such an elaborate backstory and wove it so thoroughly into their Holonet that everyone on the Zakuulan black market scene wants to do business with him, and we can’t insert any other agent in.”  

A minute of silence, of computers droning, of distant beeps as whatever Oggurobb was doing reached its completion in the wee hours of the morning.

Finally, Theron raised an eyebrow and aimed it in Lana’s direction.  “Secret agent spy extraordinaire?”

Lana huffed.  “Whatever.  Either way, your solution went well beyond the brief.  They think he’s a hot line to the Voidhound –”

“—which he is.” Eva tugged on the back of his belt to get him to turn around, unsuccessfully.

“But that was meant to be your role, as it was on Yavin – playing at being some lieutenant, not the actual Voidhound or Outlander.  Now we have to dedicate resources to two different smugglers running in and out of Zakuul, one of which is technically the operations manager of this entire base, not to mention our director of black ops.”  Lana let herself slump back on her chair.  “Really, Theron, I could kill you for this.”  

Eva leaned up on one arm. “Hey, I helped make that ID from scratch, so distribute the death threats appropriately.  Also, Zakuul has some funny ideas about what a woman can do, so having a male smuggler isn’t the worst idea we’ve ever had.  They may well rather deal with him and not me, no matter how fierce or successful my front is.”  

Lana wearily nodded.  “Chafes, doesn’t it?”

“Hell yeah.”  Eva tugged on Theron’s belt again.  “Why are you an agent of the patriarchy?”

“Maybe I didn’t have enough caf.  I think it’s 0400?”  He yawned into the arm of his jacket.

Eva rolled to a sitting position at the end of the strategy table. “If you’re gonna kill him, Lana, I wanna be there.  Blindfold him, give him his last cigarette – whatever.”  Eva reached for the paperwork she’d scattered all over the strategy table. “Ah!” She suddenly hissed.  

“Papercut?”  Theron asked, looking over his shoulder at her.

“Yes, the one downside to physical records, in my opinion.”  Instinctively, the injured side of her finger went to her mouth to try to staunch the bleeding.  

“So now we’re going to make a blood oath over how I kill Theron.”  Lana got up from her chair.

“Sure, come get your papercut.  Also, if I kill him, you can be there, too.”

Theron stared at them. Then he shook his head and yawned again. “I’m getting another carafe of caf in support of the sisterhood.”

In unison, the two women replied, “Thanks, secret agent spy extraordinaire.”

Two days later, Eva caught sight of Theron’s new Holonet signature and cackled on and off for an hour until he came home to their quarters.

[thedreadvampy]

Ok so like

Recovery or rebuilding: trauma as a trial to overcome vs trauma as a part of a whole; woman as vessel for trauma vs trauma as experience of woman (case studies: Birds of Prey vs Promising Young Woman?) The idea of healing as regaining a pre-traumatic innocence vs the idea of healing as a continuing self.

Rape as mythic horror: Trauma as an abstracted symbol - a punishment, a trial, a hypothetical hell. Rape as a symbolic device overshadowing rape as a human experience and what that means for survivors and prevention. The symbol of abuse as a device for reactionary politics (racism, transphobia, homophobia, islamophobia etc) used to actively detract from the experience of abuse as a social and interpersonal experience. Symbological rape everywhere; actual rape depicted as a shadow of the symbol. Horror of experiencing abuse as changeable human choice; desperation to understand abuse as alien, external, unchangeable.

What is a woman? clue it's not about the pussy: Abusive systems of power as foundational to cishet patriarchy. Hegemonic masculinity in relation to agency, sex, violence and suffering; hegemonic femininity in relation to reception, acceptance, violence and suffering. Queerness, survivorhood, women's identity independent of men, etc as social gendered identities; division between personal, interpersonal and political gendered identity.

Who is it acceptable to hurt? The gendered transition from Boy Child or Girl Child to Man or Woman, and the relationship between how we respond to childhood abuse vs abuse of adults (intersections with race, class, neurodivergence and disability). Adultification and infantalisation. Again; gender categories revolving not around actual gender but relation to violence; survivorhood as incorrect performance of gender.

Women as a visual vessel for sex and pain: On art: the role as woman as vessel for voyeurism, ownership and violence (ref Berger); woman as perfect victim (sff, comics, horror, but also wider narrative arts; woman as object or muse in visual art; woman as abstracted signifiers of suffering in conceptual art, including by women)

Symbolic survivorhood as collective identity: the feminist adoption of trauma as a badge of honour. Abuse-as-symbolic taken as collective experience to the exclusion of individual experience (eg the appropriation of culturally or class specific expressions of gendered violence adopted by unaffected women not as solidarity but as equal participants through a shared identity of symbolic womanhood). The focus on an abstracted nonspecific rape as mythic horror as the foundation for an identity of resistance to fear; the construction of woman as a class defined by a shared and equal experience of violence/traumatic pain. The relationship between the shibboleth of abstracted abuse and the suppression of direct identity as a survivor; the transition of white middle class second wave feminists to rape apologia and strict gender essentialist violence hierarchies. Woman as vessel for abuse - but this time in a feminist frame. Woman as embodied trauma. The ardent defence of suffering; healing as a threat to status.

Against rape as inevitability: Returning to the theme of rape as mythic horror; unpacking the idea that a gendered hegemony of violence is a physiological or social inevitability. Balancing the continued inevitable reality of abuse as an interpersonal failure point and the need to account for it as a danger that won't go away with the understanding that a hegemonic structure of rape-as-gender is not inevitable. Developing definitions of both gender and abuse which acknowledge but do not tie themselves to a gendered abuser/victim hierarchy; acknowledging the now but envisioning a model of social gender and sexuality without systemic abuse.

The paper woman: Unpacking normalisation as a silencing force vs alienation as a silencing force; normalising survival and traumatic grief without normalising abuse - replacing the idea of the survivor as a mythic figure with the idea of the survivor as human. Exploring the balance between tokenistic or fetishistic expressions of survivorhood (trauma-focused, abstracted, voyeuristic) and excessively individualised or distant sensibilities (fear of direct engagement). How the mythic horror of rape and the symbolic victim actively contribute to the normalisation and perpetuation of abuse; how the normalisation and destigmatisation of survivor journeys actress against invisibility of abuse.

Survivorhood as a journey towards justice: Speaking the unspeakable; solidarity through communication of experience - survival art and revenge fantasy as a venue for collective expression. Art as a primal scream vs art as conversation. Where do these conversations, when opened to the world, feed into the sense of rape as mythic horror or inescapable doom? Reframing trauma and survival around the survivor; removing the rapist from the picture. An anger which becomes motion from rather than digging into. The importance of both ingroup and outgroup conversations - balancing descriptive art (drawing attention to the problem; how do we suffer?) with art which moves the conversation forwards (what do we want as people?) from a perspective of shared experience. The value of survivor-centred spaces; problematising the simplification of survivor-as-woman while also reflecting the lived experience of gendered violence (side note - touch on the strict-gendering element of survivor spaces as it relates to who experiences gendered oppression, to queer and trans experience of gendered violence, and to the experience of cis male survivors whose trauma is not directly misogynistic but is nevertheless patriarchal). Survival conversations as a nurturing, healing space through normalisation, reflection and shared understanding.

How we speak about survival: A call to make art and hold conversations about survivorhood as an aspect of life; both in the immediate aftermath and in the long-term continued self; not a movement away but a growing around. Operating against the model of trauma as an abstracted boogyman and towards the understanding of trauma as an experience of grief which is both extremely common and deeply personal. Speaking without fear; the good rape joke; the importance of naming. Against an alienation of trauma. Upraising the voice and gaze of lived survivorhood as the dominant voice in conversations around abuse; normalisation of the survivor-as-agent through gaze and frame; conscious move away from framing conversations for an inexperienced audience.

Building a new imaginary landscape: What does it mean to build from the ground towards social identities which divest from gender-as-trauma and towards models that acknowledge shared experience across gendered lines? What do we learn from groups that experience gendered oppression outside of hegemonic womanhood? How do we construct language around these ideas? What does it mean to construct a positive concept of womanhood which is not intrinsically tied to fetishised symbolic trauma? TERFism and doomer feminism as antithetical to a queer survivor-centred feminism; constructing a feminist language of change.

I was talking to my friend yesterday about how much I miss academic writing. Like one of the most fun things I've worked on in my life was my undergrad dissertation and I was sooooo bitterly disappointed that my MA didn't have a dissertation portion and the academic grade was all short form writing. I don't read a huge amount of nonfiction without a specific purpose but I do love the form of essays and academic explorations (and the absence of a reasonable venue for academic writing does explain why you guys periodically have to tolerate me writing unedited 2000 word posts about the hermaneutics of gender or some shit)

anyway my friend was just like I mean dude you could just write it anyway. do you think you could expand your undergrad dissertation into a book?

And I was like noooo I mean probably but that's not so much where my head's at now. My undergrad dissertation was about the depiction of women in comic book art and how it works to undercut the presentation in the writing of them as active agents, and most of what I put in that was solid enough but it was also very much 2013 and I was very much 20.

but I would be really interested in making space to write something about the depiction of gendered violence and survivorhood in popular visual culture. basically I would like to expound on the idea that there's a fetishistic focus on the experience of trauma, and on healing as a moving-away-from, and pick away at the difference between an image of a person who is a survivor of gendered violence vs a vessel for gendered violence.

I don't know how I'd come into that though. but if I had the time and drive I would love to write something around like the semiotics of gendered trauma, and I think that would provide some space to look at gender as a multidimensional identity, like unpicking some ideas about the degree to which gender is internal vs social and how it overlaps with oppression, sex and sexuality, and systems of violence.

like there's room in there to explore the symbolic "woman" as a relationship to patriarchal power and social experience and how that intersects with and often overshadows the literal woman as a human person, and to connect that to the idea that in depicting rape and trauma as part of people's lives, the symbolic meaning of Rape overshadows the ongoing experience of survivorhood.

I am gonna reblog this with a very approximate outline in case I wanna come back to this. soz.

[lesbiantenets]

Imagine what a change has come about within feminist movements when students, most of whom are female, come to women's studies classes and read what they are told is feminist theory only to feel that what they are reading has no meaning, cannot be understood, or when understood in no way connects to "lived" realities beyond the classroom. As feminist activists, we might ask ourselves of what use is feminist theory that assaults the fragile psyches of women struggling to throw off patriarchy's oppressive yoke. We might ask ourselves, of what use is feminist theory that literally beats them down, leaves them stumbling bleary-eyed from classroom settings feeling humiliated, feeling as though they could easily be standing in a living room or bedroom somewhere naked with someone who has seduced them or is going to, who also subjects them to a process of interaction that humiliates, that strips them of their sense of value. Clearly, a feminist theory that can do this may function to legitimize women's studies and feminist scholarship in the eyes of the ruling patriarchy, but it undermines and subverts feminist movements. Perhaps, it is the existence of this most highly visible feminist theory that compels us to talk about the gap between theory and practice. For it is indeed the purpose of such theory to divide, separate, exclude, keep at a distance. And because this theory continues to be used to silence, censor, and devalue various feminist theoretical voices, we cannot simply ignore it. Concurrently, despite its uses as an instrument of domination, it may also contain important ideas, thoughts, visions, that could, if used differently, serve a healing, liberatory function. However, we cannot ignore the dangers it poses to feminist struggle which must be rooted in a theory that informs, shapes, and makes feminist practice possible.

bell hooks, Theory as Liberatory Practice