#the thing about the patriarchy is that it’s staying power is intrinsic to the way it forces you to think about gender

[humormehorny]

And it so often does.

I feel like Anna Akana puts it best here:

was talking to my mom about the trend of (cis) (femme) women saying "i'm a feminist but men/butches/mascs should always pay for dinner" stuff and just. if i've said it once i'll say it a million times. feminism is not "being nice to women."

like if someone offers to pay for anything, you are not obligated to deny them For The Sake of Feminism. its a nice thing to do for a date or a partner. but for one, I think we should always be suspicious of treating things popular in patriarchal culture as something secretly feminism, especially when its related to how interactions between men and women should go. and two, putting yourself in a position as a marginalized gender, where you expect to be dependent on a cis man for financial support, is potentially dangerous. its good and healthy to establish financial independence. and three its just nice to have displays of equality and partnership in a relationship. idk man putting that kind of expectation on a partner simply for their gender/gender expression would make me feel gross and mean.

[patricide1885]

I remember seeing this music video a long time ago and feeling negatively about it because it portrays men being oppressed by an evil woman. Which I felt was reactionary and anti-feminist. Now my view is a little different and I'd like to talk about it a little.

I have more recently learned to view things with more nuance and be less inclined to see expressions of stuff like this in the context of a sort of false zero sum game and understand them as a valid expression of emotion without jumping further or viewing it as a political contradiction.

Basically the theme is that you have a bunch of poor guys who suffer in the mines all day (the 7 dwarves) in service to a massive gorgeous woman who they are obsessed with and who lives off their labor. She is abusive and callous to their suffering.

Obviously women don't actually have power in society over men, but they're also not 10 feet tall. I view this more as an emotional expression.

It is true that throughout history, men have been forced through capitalism to work hard at very unpleasant and often dangerous jobs. While women aren't forcing them to do this, for a huge chunk of men, women are their main motivation for working so hard. The traditional patriarchy demands that men be providers without complaining as that is what "men" do, and that's what men are supposed to offer women. Many men often feel very helpless, confused, don't understand what women are attracted to (also frankly, men are more likely to be visually attracted to more women than then the opposite ) and don't really know how to get women to actually want *them* rather than what they provide, meanwhile, their desire for women is huge and often overwhelming, as illustrated by Snow White being massive.

Women often are not empathetic to what men have to go through because they often see men as somehow intrinsically stronger and more resistant to suffering because society demands that men hide that. And there are many relationships out there where women are abusive to men and take advantage of them financially, even if it's less common than the opposite. So this represents a fear that a lot of men have. The reason why so many guys are into femdom and are (from the outside view) ridiculously defensive against "gold diggers". Some men have only had attention from women who were trying to take advantage of them that way because 1. Women rarely hit on men and 2. The guy might not have any other obvious positive traits that women would be attracted to. 3. Women who are looking for financial stability are often very loud about it and are more open to guys they wouldn't be interested in otherwise in order to get it. 4. Many men are attracted to women out of their league, who might only give them the time of day if they can provide for them financially. And so on. So it creates a fear.

I have seen guys play into this trap. To me it's a little ridiculous because I would never tolerate it, I'd be alone rather than have a woman be with me just because I can provide for her. I look down on women who are incompetent and try to stay in a traditional adult child role and refuse to develop competence. I have a strong view that men and women should be equal in a relationship, and I would not see a relationship where a woman wasn't into my personality and appearance as a valid one to begin with, whereas, there are men out there for whom nothing else has been experienced and nothing else is expected.

My deeper point here is that, for example, I will call women out for weaponizing the patriarchy against say, disabled men, black men, homeless men etc and a lot of the time people will get visibly uncomfortable that I'm doing that, and will confirm that "you do realize that men will use these things as an excuse to be misogynistic at times, right?" Obviously! Both are true! But when you bring these things up people automatically assume a zero sum game where some group is always bad and some group is always good (even if both groups are oppressed and oppressed by each other). There is no flexible dialogue that represents reality as a whole because it's too scary to analyze all aspects of things and people assume that if you say that something is a problem that women do to others you are against women.

Or if you are even just honestly exploring a phenomenon/emotion that isn't a reflection of who actually has power in society (ie. This music video), all ability to handle that without being afraid goes out the door for some people. Like it did for me when I first watched this music video.

I think this is a problem and we need to be stronger and find ways to trust each other more and interact with empathy and solidarity rather than lean into black and white thinking for safety and feel unsafe when asked to not interact with the world in a black or white way. I am tired of people villainizing and being afraid of the complexities of life and even just emotions being expressed, even if they aren't actually a statement of systemic power structures. Emotions can exist and be worth empathizing with on an individual level. Not everything is an offensive (as in, on offense) political statement of the broader society meant to punch down everyone else. Society isn't and shouldn't be a reductionist zero sum game.

I don't think I expressed myself well here, but I did my best.

If I took this attitude into therapy with male clients I would get nowhere, and I think without the ability to have nuance and feeling constantly threatened by deploying nuance and empathy one is just totally ineffective in general. It leads to a fearful, fragile and culty mindset that prevents other people from being able to connect with you with solidarity because they see that you view things as a zero sum game. We have to be able to view things as they are, on multiple planes and levels, and with self confidence that empathizing with someone else doesn't inherently undermine yourself.

[elainemorisi]

"But what’s the point of acknowledging this now, at a time when abortion rights are so imperiled? For one thing, it would seem hard to deny that the euphemistic, apologetic, placatory “pro-choice” strategy hasn’t worked out thus far. So, why not risk coming out for what we actually want, namely, abortion—a clearly documented public good? The pending Supreme Court leak thrusts us into a situation in which we have little left to lose...

It is a hard pill to swallow for a misogynist society, sentimentally attached to its ideology of patriarchal motherhood, but the truth is that gestators should get to decide which bodies to give form to. This choosing is our prerogative. A desire not to be pregnant is sufficient reason in and of itself to terminate a gestatee...

Women are human, and as such can never be as innocent as the unborn. But innocence (as we see every time a police victim is described as “no angel” by the press) is a fundamentally inhumane category in politics, deriving from the most punitive interpretations of Christianity...

Fetishizing newness and sentimentalizing helplessness, pro-lifers pit themselves ruthlessly against the overwhelming majority of human life-in-particular... Anti-abortionists routinely sacrifice the health and happiness of actual persons in defense of the forced survival of potential ones. It is high time we went on the offensive against their sickening, sacrificial version of vitalism."

[radicalcoffeeclub]

The further along I read The Great Cosmic Mother, the more I see trans women as a natural end result of patriarchy.

With the Industrial Revolution, and the rise of science as the dominant patriarchal religion (...) materialism becomes the dominant and manly ideology (...). But still, matter is viewed as dumb and inert; materialism does not glory in matter, but in the male's ability to manipulate it. "

(Sjöö&Mor 1987, p. 233)

To me, this echoes the male/TRA worldview where material reality is denied its significance, while at the same time human bodies are just a site for acting out social roles, often through extensive medical intervention. A male body can be made a woman's body through "the male's ability to manipulate it" with hormones and surgeries.

One of the strangest, and bitterest, facts of later male domination over women is that the major tools and industries of this domination were the inventions of women, and first given to the men by women. The ceramic, textile, and clothing industries, the medical and healing professions, farming and the food industry, animal domestication, writing and calendric science, numbers and chemistry, religious symbol and ritual - all women's creations - were taken over by men and then closed to women's entry, except under slave conditions. In the same way men took over women's menstruation and childbirth rites, and then kept women away from these rites under taboo of death.

(Sjöö&Mor 1987, p. 239)

In the same vein, males are now taking womanhood from women, and redefining actual women as cis women. We are not allowed our own spaces anymore, and if the trans women find out we still do have them, they will not hesitate to threaten us with violence, even death. Trans women are celebrated, while "cis women" all around the world are still relegated to a more or less slave-like position.

As Enki (male god in Sumerian myth) boasts, "Enki perfected greatly that which is woman's task." Men had indeed coopted all of women's craft and "improved" upon it - and, as Enki demonstrated, he's trying hard to do the same with childbirth and motherhood.

(Sjöö&Mor 1987, p. 245)

"Cis women are just jealous because trans women are better women than they are!" Sound familiar? Trans women are coopting womanhood itself and brazenly claiming to improve it - saying their surgical approximations of vaginas are better than women's actual vaginas, that trans women are more feminine and therefore more womanly... on and on. From Neolithic to modern times, man takes what is woman's, claims to own it, claims to do it better than women, and then banish women from it, in this case by redefining womanhood itself.

For most of the millennia of Christian (and Jewish) history, the biblical God Yahweh and his immaculately begotten son, Christ, have always and only been represented at the altar by a male. Quite often these males have worn skirts. And always, in all times, they have been the givers and upholders of dogmatic laws regarding women - laws telling women how to dress, how to move, how to behave, how to relate to our bodies, how to reproduce, when to reproduce, how to have sexual activities, when to have sexual activities, how to relate to our menstrual periods and our childbirths and our afterbirths, how to bow our heads, cover our hair, keep our eyes modestly averted; how, in general, to be pliant and submissive and unquestioning handmaidens in the holy back-halls, kitchens, and bedrooms of the Lord. Indeed, this strange urge of "holy men", of all patriarchal denominations, to stand there, wearing skirts, giving sermons to the world's genuine females on what it really means to be a woman... is a propensity that needs deep pondering.

(Sjöö&Mor 1987, p. 346-347)

Men in skirts telling women what it means to be a woman... sound familiar?

With this in mind, the phenomenon of trans women openly admitting they used to be nazis/traditionalists/incels/misogynistic neckbeards/conservatives/etc, i.e. steeped in extremely patriarchal ideologies, takes on a whole new significance. Intrinsic to patriarchal thought is that males can grab whatever belongs to women, claim it as his own, "improve" upon it, and banish women from what was theirs. This sets an obvious precedent for trans women, who are in a sense the culmination of this phenomenon, because they do this with womanhood itself. Then, as trans women, they do the same with feminism: going from fascist to liberal feminist the moment they realise they can twist the latter to their advantage - making feminism all about them, "improving" it again to suit their interests and bashing real feminism in the process to such an extent women stay far away from it lest they be labeled TERFs, to finally... kick women out of feminism altogether, make it into a useless all lives matter movement, and forbid women from speaking about our own, real, female experiences, under threat of violence.

Ideologically, patriarchy has gone full circle. Now, if only patriarchal industrialists and capitalists render the earth uninhabitable, the quest of patriarchy will be complete. Total dominion over women and life itself.

To end this on a less grim note: if there's one thing I've learned, it's that the flame of women's power can never be put out completely. It's always right under the surface, waiting to be rekindled. Women's resistance and sisterhood is invaluable, and by being a woman radically, by being a roots feminist, you make a change, and you matter.

[secretgardengleaner]

“Work, now? Never, never. I’m on strike.” — Arthur Rimbaud Depersonalization and alienation from our deepest desires is implanted during childhood via school, church, movies, and TV, and soon reaches the point where an individual’s desire is not only a net of contradictions, but also a commodity like all the others. “True life” always seems to be just a bit beyond what a weekly paycheck and credit card can afford, and is thus indefinitely postponed. And each postponement contributes to the reproduction of a social system that practically everyone who is not a multimillionaire or a masochist has come to loathe. That is the problem facing us all: How to break the pattern of work — of week-to-week slavery, that habit of habits, that addiction of addictions; how to detach ourselves from the grip of Self-Defeating Illusions For Sale, Inc., a.k.a, the corporate consumer State. Especially ingrained is that pattern of working for someone else: making someone else’s “goods”, producing the wealth that someone else enjoys, thinking someone else’s thoughts (sometimes actually believing them one’s own), and even dreaming someone else’s dreams — in short, living someone else’s life, for one’s own life, and one’s own dream of life, have long since been lost in the shuffle. The systematic suppression of a person’s real desires — and that is largely what work consists of — is exacerbated by capitalism’s incessant manipulation of artificial desires, “as advertised.” This gives daily life the character of mass neurosis, with increasingly frequent psychotic episodes. To relieve the all-embracing boredom of daily life, society offers an endless array of distractions and stupefactions, most of them “available at a store near you”. The trouble is, these distractions and stupefactions, legal or illegal, soon become part of the boredom, for they satisfy no authentic desire. When the news reports horrible crimes committed by children or teenagers trying to be satanists, or superheroes, or terrorists, or just “bad guys”, we can be sure that these kids lived lives of intolerable dullness, that they were so isolated from their own desires and from the larger society that they didn’t even know how or where to look for something different, or how to rebel in such a way that it might actually make a difference. Instead, they picked up some trashy notions from bible school, Hollywood and TV which promised a few minutes of meaningless “excitement” followed by lots of publicity — also meaningless. Each time something like this happens we hear cries to “monitor” films more closely, and to ban “violence” on TV. Rarely, however, does anyone criticize the Bible or the Christian churches, despite the fact that Christianity — by far the bloodiest of the “world’s great religions” — is far more to be blamed. Similarly, one rarely hears criticism of the armed forces — a gang of professional killers whose influence on children cannot be anything other than baleful. And even less often does one encounter criticism of another intrinsically violent institution: the nuclear family. Indeed, at this late date in human history, this relic of patriarchy is still held up as some sort of ideal. Replacing the extended family as we know it today is an invention of the nineteenth century. Constructed by white bourgeois Europeans to meet the needs of expanding industrialization, it reflects capitalism’s model of the “chain of command”. It continues the sanction of male supremacy as a time-honored tradition dating back to a mandate of God, no less. In the nuclear family, he works at a job, and she works in the home (and increasingly also at a job). As for the children, they are the family’s private property, and remain so for years after they reach biological maturity. Children too learn to work, or at least how to suffer boredom. From the earliest age they are taught to obey orders. School and church teach them the necessity of going to and staying at a particular place for a prolonged period, even when they would rather be anywhere else. All the classic parental admonitions — “Sit still!”, “Do what I tell you!”, “Don’t talk back!”, “Stop behaving like a bunch of wild Indians!” — are part of the education of the well-behaved, uncomplaining wage-slave... The world today is confronted by greater, more earth-shaking, more life-threatening problems than ever before: wars all over, massive pollution, global warming, the return of slavery, white supremacy, oppression of women, ecological disaster, neocolonialism, state terrorism, the prison industry, genocide, cancer, AIDS, the traffic death-toll, xenophobia, pesticides, genetic engineering — the list goes on and on. Ceaselessly bombarded by news reports and sound bites of one catastrophe after another, most people have no idea what to do, and lapse into paralysis. On the ideological front, this widespread passivity, itself a major social problem, is maintained by Andre Breton called miserabilism, the cynical rationalization of misery, suffering and corruption — the dominant ideology of Power in our time. Every hour, moreover, countless billions are spent on propaganda, advertising and other mystifications to sustain the delusion that the crisis-strewn society we live in today is the best and only one possible. What is most important to grasp is that work is at the center of all these problems. It is work that keeps the whole miserabilist system going. Without work, the death-dealing juggernaut that proclaims itself the “free market” would grind to a halt. “Free market” means freedom for Capital, and unfreedom for those who work. Until the problem of work is solved — that is, until work is abolished — all other problems will not only remain, but will keep getting worse...In a world too busy to live, work itself has become toxic, a form of “digging your own grave”. Renewed scarcities and engineered economic crises notwithstanding, society today has the capacity to reduce work to a tiny fraction of what it is now, while continuing to meet all human needs. It is obvious that if people really want paradise on Earth, they can have it — practically overnight. Of course, they will have to overcome the immense and multinational “false consciousness” industry, which works very hard to make sure that very few working people know what they really want... Work kills the spirit, damages the body, insults the mind, keeps everyone confused and demoralized, distracts its victims from all the things that really matter in life...Our struggle calls for labor organizers of a new kind...To bring about the meltdown of miserabilism, we need awakeners of latent desires, fomentors of marvelous humour, stimulators of ardent dreams, provokers of the deepest possible yearning for a life of poetic adventure.

Penelope Rosemont, The Psychopathology of Work in Surrealist Experiences: 1001 Dawns, 221 Midnights

[dragonofyang]

The Heroine with a Thousand Faces

As the youngest member of #TeamPurpleLion, not only have I learned a lot in just the four months we’ve been working together, but I’ve explained a lot of what I’ve learned to others. Sometimes it’s about the history of Defender of the Universe and Beast King GoLion that @crystal-rebellion researched, sometimes it’s referencing @felixazrael‘s musical knowhow or @leakinghate‘s animation knowledge, and most recently, it’s leaning on @voltronisruiningmylife‘s expertise in how to break down and identify writing to provide corrections to those who see something in a show or article not working but can’t tell why. One big thing I learned since starting this crazy ride with my team is a massive hole in my college education on writing, which Felix filled in for me since we hit the ground running. Sure in my fantasy literature class we discussed Aesop and The Hobbit, and what the phrase “The Hero’s Journey” means and why it’s the monomyth, but there was one thing that my dear professor never taught us, although I’m sure she will in the future. Compared to Joseph Campbell’s heroic journey, this other monomyth is much younger.

What is it, you may ask?

Simply put, it’s a heroine’s journey.

[Image description: Princess Allura with her hair up and wearing her flightsuit from season 1 “The Rise of Voltron” backlit by white light.]

Let’s go on an adventure together.

To understand the heroine’s journey, I want to give you all a rundown on what exactly the hero’s journey is first. While it was never neatly labeled as “The Hero’s Journey” until Campbell, studies on common themes and plot points began back in the 1870’s. As time moved forward, Campbell published his 17 steps to the monomyth in 1949 (The Hero with a Thousand Faces) and as we move toward the present his monomyth is eventually dubbed as “the hero’s journey”. I won’t overload you with the dates and stuff I needed to study since that’s a) not the point of this piece and b) Campbell’s monomyth is actually secondary to the main one in Voltron: Legendary Defender. That said, it’s the backbone of a lot of literature both old and new, and while not every story follows these 17 steps outlined by Campbell or approaches them in the same order, you’ll find everything from the story of Christ to Lord of the Rings somewhere in these steps. It’s just that a lot of times the steps of the hero’s journey aren’t ever really explained, so you as a reader/viewer/consumer will see them and will have a gut instinct as to what’s supposed to happen, and when it happens you feel great! The story followed a formula that satisfies its audience! But it also makes a story that doesn’t follow a formula feel fundamentally wrong, from just a mild discomfort like putting on a shirt and buttoning it slightly off, all the way to triggering strong emotional responses including panic attacks or tears. Stories are designed to bring forth emotions from their audience, but what good is a tragedy without a lesson to learn? How can we enjoy an empty marriage when the couple has no chemistry?

So with this piece, I hope to illuminate just what the steps of the heroine’s journey are, contrast them against the hero’s journey, where VLD fits into all of this, and through that demonstrate why they are not interchangeable even though they share similar names.

Part I: Of Heroes and Heroines

In The Hero With a Thousand Faces, Joseph Campbell outlines seventeen steps, which are laid out in this diagram by Reg Harris:

[Image description: diagram of The Hero’s Journey using a circular diagram shape separating out the seventeen steps into eight categories, divided into the Known World and the Unknown World.]

In Maureen Murdock’s The Heroine’s Journey, she writes the heroine’s journey as follows:

[Image description: The Heroine’s Journey depicting a cyclical diagram of the narrative, featuring 10 distinct steps that loop back to the beginning at the top.]

The Heroine’s Journey is fundamentally cyclical in nature, and while the diagram above shows the Hero’s Journey as a circle as well, it ultimately has finite start and end points. One of the key differences between these is that the Hero’s Journey explores internal character in an external adventure and the hero achieves a (theoretically) lasting peace once their journey is finished. Conversely, the heroine must constantly evaluate themselves in the bigoted environment that tries to disenfranchise them.

As a note, while I use gendered terms such as “hero” and “heroine”, I use them as gender-neutral placeholders to label which monomyth I’m speaking about at present. Women can undertake a hero’s journey, and men can undertake a heroine’s journey, particularly when you examine them in an intersectional lens.

A heroine’s journey, at its heart, is an examination and acceptance of the self in an unaccepting environment, and its cyclical nature stems from the fact that whenever a heroine moves into a new environment, they have to make that journey over and over. They can be a queer man of color, a white stay-at-home mom, a disabled nonbinary person, whatever the case, the constant need to re-evaluate their place in the world is what marks the heroine’s journey as separate from the hero’s journey.

But while it’s cyclical in nature, we should start at the beginning nonetheless.

[Image description: Alfor (right) holding Allura (left) in the Castle of Lions. She says, “We can’t give up hope!” and he replies, “I’m sorry, daughter.”]

In The Heroine’s Journey, the story begins when an event causes the heroine to separate from the feminine. A significant event spurs them to reject the prescribed role of the patriarchy, which in the case of a woman could be a mother, a damsel in distress, a wife, etc. The heroine is put into a box and chafes against its edges because it cuts them off from their ability to reach for the masculine, the power and privilege it affords. This marks a stark difference from how our archetypal hero lives and begins their own adventure. The hero lives a fairly mundane life for the brief time we see them before the first element comes into play: the Call to Adventure. This is generally an external force spurring the hero to action, as opposed to the internal force of the heroine.

The hero then will Refuse the Call and will be introduced to the Mentor they will come to rely upon, whereas the heroine typically immediately begins on a journey to become more powerful/masculine, generally through rejecting femininity. Princess Allura does not inherently reject her own femininity. She rejects the helplessness of being forced into cryostasis after her people have been destroyed and embarks on embracing her masculinity by finishing the war her father and Zarkon started 10,000 years ago. The heroine Identifies with the Masculine and Gathers Allies, which we see Allura do in the pilot of season 1 of VLD. She awakens to find a team of five men and her male adviser Coran, her allies in the coming intergalactic war, and she takes up the metaphorical lion herself as the pilot to the Castle of Lions, changing into her armor--pink, to honor the fallen--for the fight against Sendak as he tries to claim the Lions of Voltron for Emperor Zarkon. Her choice of pink, particularly pale pink, is reminiscent of the breast cancer awareness ribbon, baby pink, it is an intrinsically female color that she dons to assume the role of her father, King Alfor. The narrative is reminding the audience that Princess Allura--the first nonwhite Allura, no less--is just as much a princess as her previous white and blonde iterations are warriors.

After choosing their allies and undertaking this quest of gaining power (not to be confused with empowerment, our heroine is still operating within the confines of the patriarchy here), our heroine undergoes trials and faces enemies that try to persuade them back into the box, into what’s known and fundamentally safe and silencing. The words may be kind, be delivered kindly, but ultimately they can be boiled down to a single message: “go back to where you belong.” For the hero this is a point of no return as an external journey. The hero can choose to go home and leave saving the world to someone else, or they can choose to face the trials that bar them from their prize. But the heroine? They can’t. There is nobody who can save the heroine’s world because for them because their world is what they are trying to escape, and often they are the prize for a hero. It’s up to them to save themselves, and at this point in time, adopting the masculine and the power of the father figure is the way to go. And it works. Princess Allura, again while she does not get discouraged by the men around her to remain an idle princess, because this is the 21st goddamn century, her conflict arises from inexperience. King Alfor supports her drive to finish the war and take decisive action, to finish what he started. The Paladins challenge her authority as a sovereign in the beginning because even if she’s a princess by birth, she has no planet and they’re not of her planet or species anyway, and until they themselves undergo trials in the first few episodes do they appreciate that Allura is still critical as a person, despite her lack of sovereign weight.

Together, she and her team move through the obstacles and the war against Zarkon together, while simultaneously trying to build a coalition of allies to aid in the fight. In fact, much of the plot of VLD takes place during this stage of the heroine’s journey, and it’s here where we as the audience follow Allura as she meets her animus in the form of a Shadow figure: the cunning Prince Lotor. He takes on the role of the challenger to force Allura to better herself, and as Allura rises to the occasion each time, he is textually impressed by her battle skill, then by her intellect. The most iconic moment of Lotor as a Shadow (aka: the half of herself that Allura doesn’t want to accept yet), is when he baits Voltron into battle, then pilots his cruiser through the volatile environment of Thayserix. He expresses disappointment at Voltron’s ability in battle, but when Allura in Blue rises to meet the challenge he lays out, he praises her, even if he textually does not realize who is in Blue at the time.

[Image description: Prince Lotor in profile, a pleased expression on his face, and the subtitles read “Someone’s learning.”]

As a brief aside: the animus comes from Jung and is often paired with an anima, or masculine and feminine energies. The key takeaway is that these energies are complementary to each other and exist in a balance. While they typically are portrayed in a more heterosexual context, like everything else in this meta, the terms are used in a gender-neutral context when not applied directly to Allura’s storyline. While Lotor could be likened to either Meeting the Goddess or (Wo)Man as Temptress in the hero’s journey, a key difference between the heroine’s journey animus and either of these feminized roles is that the Goddess and Temptress are two separate figures--generally women to male heroes--and are generally not equal to the hero physically or mentally. The animus, however, is intrinsically the perfect match to the anima of the heroine, being their complement and their intellectual and physical equal. Lotor is not meant to be seen as the woman on Indiana Jones’ arm, he’s meant to be a force in his own right, challenging Allura to better herself and raise the standards for them both. It’s fitting that this occurs in an episode full of fog and a dangerous abyss, because the traditional hero descends into a metaphorical (or literal) one to encounter these flattened versions of feminine energy.

The trials continue for Allura through the seasons, and she makes many allies and continues to face their enemies head-on, and once Prince Lotor, now Emperor, cements his place as one of Allura’s allies he shifts from the Shadow figure challenging her to the animus in full, being encouraging and supportive as they work together as allies to find Oriande, a mythical place that should yield them the secrets of unlimited Quintessence. While Lotor challenges Allura in a traditionally masculine way (physical trials, battle, strategy), he also encourages her in a decidedly feminine way through Altean history and mythology, as Altea is very feminine-coded compared to the Galra Empire, which through Zarkon represents a familiar and violent strain of masculinity that seeks to crush Allura and force the universe to fit his will through abusive language and physical violence and genocide. Allura taking up the battle in Alfor’s place is simply her continuing the cycle and seeing power in masculine terms, rather than breaking the cycle.

Now here is where the diagrams diverge even further. Until this point, the journeys followed fairly similar trajectories. After the trials and battles of the heroine’s journey, they experience the boon of the journey, which the hero does not achieve until they face further trials and temptations. As such, we will continue to follow the heroine’s journey model and I’ll explain the significance of the flip.

Part II: Not the Place to Arrive

One of the significant things about the heroine’s journey is that when a woman undertakes it, it’s empowering and her becoming her most unified self. Campbell once reportedly said to Murdock, “Women don’t need to make the journey. In the whole mythological journey, the woman is there. All she has to do is realize that she’s the place that people are trying to get to.” In the hero’s journey, often a woman’s place is as the prize, rarely is she her own agent. As I stated previously, the hero and heroine journeys do not have to ascribe to gendered protagonists, however the reality is that the hero’s journey is very patriarchal in nature since it was formulated primarily through the study of male heroes and does not take into account the constant reassessment heroines must face. For heroes, they simply must survive going from point A to point B. Heroines are always subjected to reevaluation within their environment and the people around them, so their journey never really ends.

All this is to say that the hero receives their boon at the end of their story and that’s the end of it. They get a happily ever after and can return to normal life and spread their bounty to those in need or dearest to them.

The heroines?

They get their boon at the middle of the story.

And there’s still more to come for our heroine as they build toward the climax (pun intended).

Princess Allura receives the boon of Oriande’s secrets with Lotor by her side, which in pretty much every literature class would become a discussion on the ways this represents sex, or the the ways Allura is interacting with the world in terms of gender, particularly how they discover Oriande after having an emotional reaction in Haggar’s lab and activating the Altean compass stone. In the heroine’s journey, this boon is often of the same significance as the hero’s boon/reward at the end of their journey, but for the heroine it’s false. It’s fleeting. It’s not meant to last. This is the turning point for our heroine because while yes, our heroine achieved the goal of the adventure, they did so by consciously or unconsciously shunning the feminine. In Allura’s case, she’s still taking after her father, trying to follow in his--and to an extent Zarkon’s--footsteps by mastering the unlimited Quintessence.

And true to form, before season 6 is out, our heroine seems to be betrayed by her animus, returning him to the status of Shadow figure as he challenges her to unleash the power within one final time. Princess Allura thinks Lotor lied to her and has been harvesting Alteans for their Quintessence when Keith and his mother Krolia discover a living Altean in the Quantum Abyss, and with the budding on-screen romance between Allura and Lotor, this betrayal cuts our heroine deep. To her, he not only lied about there being no more Alteans left, but he actively continued the genocide his father began 10,000 years ago. That’s not an easy thing to get over. So Lotor assembles Sincline, which bears a visual resemblance to a wingless dragon--the last metaphorical dragon she faces before moving into the next step of the heroine’s journey--and with Allura in Voltron the two battle it out in a tragic action-packed scene that leads to Voltron overloading Lotor with Quintessence and leaving him in the Rift.

With the dragon defeated and the boon lost, the heroine has to sacrifice not only her animus, but the last vestiges of her home to try and undo what following the masculine has done: close not only the original Rift, but all the fractures in reality caused by their battle.

And what does a girl who has already lost her planet, people, and lover have left to lose?

[Image description: The five Lions of Voltron flying away from the massive Rift, the Castle of Lions flying straight toward the center of it.]

The heroine following the footsteps of the masculine always comes at a major cost to them. In Allura’s case, she has to sacrifice her castle in order to make right the harm done to the literal universe. In this case, she mirrors Zarkon in his destruction of the universe, but rather than directly harming billions of lives on uncounted planets, she creates a literal hole in the universe because of her blindness to the consequences of the actions of herself and those around her.

And much like her father sending away the Lions, she must send away her castle in the hopes of saving the universe from greater destruction.

Part III: Transcending the Rift

From the gain and loss of the boon, things look dire for the heroine at this stage in the journey. In Allura’s case, she is without people, without planet, without castle, and as she learns at the beginning of season 8, her found family has families of their own--other than Coran, that is. Our heroine continues to lose pieces of the things and people surrounding her at the beginning of the story: which Murdock refers to as awakening feelings of spiritual aridity or death. She is losing her place in the universe even faster than before, when she stood on the shoulders of her father, and she must move forward. Allura passed the point of no return all the way back in season 1 episode 1. As the heroine, she broke free of the safe mold she knew for the past 10,000 years, and every episode since her awakening she has had to try to forge forward on the path she knew: that of her father. Now, though, her father’s methods have failed her, just as they failed him, leaving her with no option but to keep moving forward and to approach her journey from another angle.

[Image description: from left to right, Veronica, Allura, Romelle, and Pidge (mostly off-screen) in a clothing swap shop as Allura speaks. Caption reads, “I could give you a royal decree of service from the Crown Princess of Alte…”]

Allura not only must deal with the loss of her place in the universe, but she must also deal with the fact that by leaving Lotor in the Rift, she abandons half of herself as well. Physically she is a whole person, but if we look at her role as an anima and what her fears and strengths are, destroying her animus throws her self-knowledge out of alignment. She’s careening away from the safe path of her father, but she must now rediscover the strengths within herself without succumbing to her weaknesses and do so by stepping out of her father’s shadow.

Season 8 is rife with emotional buildup and no payoff. We as the audience don’t know what happened to Lotor for the whole of season 7 and we see Allura struggling to deal with all her losses, we travel to Earth and meet the MFE pilots, a plucky bunch who probably were meant to lay groundwork for a new Vehicle Voltron, and we see that Haggar/Honerva is the final big bad of the whole show, ready to vindicate the son she lost to the Rift, but also 10,000 years ago when he was born and she became the Witch we love to hate. So when we join Allura and the gang on Earth with Luca in the infirmary, and Allura’s final trials begin…

Or they should have.

[Image description: Lance and Allura kissing in rainbow lighting where they are artificially-colored in red, then pink, then blue from top to bottom in front of a fading background of warm yellow at the top to gray at the bottom.]

Instead, we are treated to the final acts of a hero’s journey, but still following our heroine through the steps.

Our heroine wears down to the persistence of Lance, who in a heroic journey would receive a fair princess as his boon, and Allura is trying to find a place to belong. In seasons prior to this, Lance acts like a goofy everyday guy, very much a typical character in many present-day stories that allows the audience to see themselves in him. He fantasizes about wooing the princess, calls himself a ladies’ man, tries to be funny, he’s a pretty typical character that a male audience is more likely to sympathize with, and as such the fantasy is pairing up with the prettiest, smartest, etc. girl in the story. The woman as a boon, the Goddess, and the Temptress are never on equal footing with the male hero, and even in the case of female heroes, the meeting with a god(dess) means that the female hero is worthy of being a consort rather than the equal that a heroine is to the anima/animus. In fact, Campbell reportedly told Murdock, “Women don’t need to make the journey. In the whole mythological journey, the woman is there. All she has to do is realize that she’s the place that people are trying to get to.” In the hero’s journey, if the hero is male and heterosexual, the women will always be the prize, the virginal ideal, or the sexualized damnation, and in all of them, the woman is meant to be receptive to the man (and doesn’t THAT sound like some familiar rhetoric). Never is the woman an agent in the hero’s journey when it fulfills a male fantasy. And it is this very same box that spurs a heroine to begin their heroine’s journey: this breakdown of people to individual parts as determined by a patriarchal society.

While Lance is a hero in his own right, in Allura’s heroine journey, he acts as an ogre that comes dressed as a male ally all the way back in season 1. He’s a Subverted Nice Guy in that he’s constantly trying to woo Allura, but ultimately he’s still reinforcing the same patriarchy that not only plagues Allura in this iteration, but also in previous iterations of the Voltron franchise. The Nice Guy doesn’t challenge the heroine like the animus, but rather encourages them to stay in place or to fit a predetermined mold once more.

Look familiar?

[Image description: Lance’s fantasy, with him standing triumphant over Zarkon as the team cheers him on, Allura kneeling at his right side and looking up at him, while a flag with his face waves on his left.]

Many of the silly shots in the series have been foreshadowing, whether in the most direct sense or in the promise of subverting what’s portrayed. In the case of this screenshot, by the time Lance gets the girl, Zarkon is killed (by Lotor), Allura has already had an intimate relationship (with Lotor), and the team collectively became heroes and allies of Lotor before the end of season 6 happened. Lance, textually, is not Allura’s equal as an animus, and while he doesn’t quite view her as his equal--especially in earlier seasons--he can only textually become her equal when she is at her lowest point, and he’s still affixed to the idea that she’s a prize, going so far as to say that “winning prizes is my specialty” in “Clear Day”. Really, it’s a messy relationship dynamic that tries to show the audience why, as they stand in the canon material, they don’t work. Not only is Allura still not his equal, but his fantasy comes about at the hands of others, or with the help of others, and he comes second. He plays a role, but he is not the singular hero he once fantasized about being. Textually this subversion is teaching him a lesson about becoming his best self and acknowledging that he doesn’t have to be the hero, the payoff of which should have come in season 8 as Allura completes her heroine’s journey to become her most unified and realized self. It’s meant to be his apotheosis, the new perspective and enlightenment brought to the hero after facing all the trials of the journey as a part of the final reward.

Allura, fighting with this sudden loss of herself, must now also help spearhead the war against Honerva, the archetypal Bad Mother, in an alchemist-versus-alchemist battle for not only Lotor’s physical soul but for Allura’s metaphorical one as well. This is a new fight, the gauntlet thrown by someone other than her animus, and after all his tests, she must still rise to the challenge with the same energy, but she must do so with new knowledge now that she knows she cannot rely solely on her father.

But what’s the next step for a heroine trapped in the arid desert of the unknown self and with the weight of the world pressing onto them?

They must descend to the underworld and begin the transformation from the masculine methods to unleash the femininity that’s been locked away this whole time.

And who do we have to escort Allura to the metaphorical underworld as she falls asleep?

[Image description: A close-up of Lotor’s face in deep shadows as he stares head-on at the “camera”.]

Her Animus, acting as a Shadow once more.

His entrance is littered with sex. Not literally, but metaphorically. He greets Allura while she’s in bed, the camera does a gratuitous slow pan over his body in a way that many cameras exclusively afford to women, the presence of a blooming flower with an erect stamen, the lighting of the preview--altered in the final season itself--is purple even, a romantic and spiritual color. You know the joke in college English classes about how everything is sex except sex? That’s this scene in a nutshell. He’s always been drawn and behaved in a way designed to appeal to the female gaze (an essay in itself), but this scene really takes the cake.

[Image description: Lotor as viewed in profile from a low angle in a Garrison room, looking down at a juniberry flower in a pot.]

And it’s this scene where we see Lotor give Allura the first critical piece of information for how she can stop Honerva/Haggar, but also reminding her that some people do not change. While Allura must change to achieve her realization, he reminds her that Haggar is still the same witch, and that her pain of losing Lotor becoming public does not excuse the fact that she has not expressed remorse or tried to change herself, let alone her hand in not only his downfall but in the brainwashing of the Alteans. She is an antagonist so focused on the wrongs done to her that she justifies the wrongs she does to others with them. Allura, however, expressed remorse and wanted to save Lotor as soon as she realized what was going on, which further cements the ways in which their fates could have been the same or switched had they made slightly different choices. Honerva is 10,000 years too late. Like Lotor mirrors his father and in “Shadows” is shown to be more empathetic, Allura mirrors Honerva and both prove throughout the show to have stronger moral compasses than their predecessors. They are the Emperor and Alchemist, and while fate decrees they must take up the mantle left behind, their free will dictates that they should not blindly follow their footsteps if they truly wish to make a lasting change. Narratively, they must forge a new path if they are to bring the universe to peace again.

[Image description: A close-up shot of the juniberry flower with Allura visible in the background, but blurred. The subtitle reads Lotor’s line, “The witch may change her name, but she will always be a witch.”]

Lotor tempts Allura to take the entity into herself, and when she reaches out to connect with it, she is taken further into the dreamscape and finds herself back on Altea and greeted by her mother. This marks the beginning of the reconnection with the feminine, but while Allura has always so desperately missed her family and Altea, she finds herself in a precarious position. Suddenly, she is in the very same mech suit that Luca was found in, and to save Altea from the Galra fleet overhead, she makes the decision to use the planet’s Quintessence. However, in the process of destroying the Galra fleet, destroys Altea as well. As her world crumbles, her mother congratulates her for a job well done. This presumably mirrors the dropped plot about the Altean Colony and the decisions Lotor would have been faced with, and after “Shadows” would lend both Allura and the audience a greater appreciation for the position he was in before he died.

And when she finally wakes?

[Image description: Allura sitting up in the Garrison bunk, looking at the mice, the juniberry dry and wilted in the foreground, blurry. The subtitle reads, “It was only a dream.”]

Our oh so sexual symbol is wilted, and Allura wakes up alone.

With the visual deflowering and this new revelation about the kinds of decisions those before her have had to make, Allura can begin reconnecting with the feminine in earnest without falling into the old placements she may have been subjected to at the beginning of the story. This would have continued further with Allura reconnecting with her animus in the missing episode @leakinghate titles “The Descent”, especially fitting as she continues her descent to her feminine roots as a heroine and to reconnect with her lost animus. Reconnecting and reconciling with him--and with the side of herself he represents--is critical to her achieving unity within herself and being able to face Honerva head-on.

Once the heroine has descended to the underworld, begun the reconnection to the feminine, and returned with new knowledge on their relationship to their emotional side and the aspects overshadowed by the masculine, they are ready to begin healing the mother/daughter split. This in essence is the heroine returning to the old knowledge she has cast aside when following the path of the masculine/father, but approaching it with a new understanding and perspective. Think of it as understanding why your parents enforced rules like “don’t run into traffic”. As a kid, the danger may not be obvious, but as an adult you’re able to look at the same situation, see over obstacles younger you might not have, and realize “oh shit, that’s a car”. That said, the heroine does not allow themselves to get put back into the same or even a different pre-prescribed role because they now have a greater understanding of the situation at hand.

In Allura’s case, this means revisiting the plan on how to take down Honerva, and realizing that she must pursue the course laid out by her trip to the underworld to not only save the universe, but awaken Lotor from being a robeast. Part of the conflict against this plan comes from the team, who see the entity she took within herself as dangerous. While that’s true, stopping the plan also prevents Allura from growing in strength to be able to fight Honerva. The power flowing within her that Lotor referred to back in season 6 is at her fingertips, and like his visit in “Clear Day” reminded her, she need only take it. During both parts of the “Knights of Light” episodes, Allura is confronted with shades of Honerva’s memories as they dive deeper, and it’s here that we as the audience and the cast are meant to learn what truly became of Lotor after he was imprisoned in the Rift, and it’s meant to be utterly jarring to everyone. Instead, with how the scenes were edited together during the post-production alterations, Hate aptly points out in “Seek Truth in Darkness” that Honerva promising vengeance and seeing Lotor’s corpse has next to no impact. Or rather, it does to the audience--a melted corpse isn’t exactly Y-7 appropriate--but the characters don’t really react to this revelation at all.

That said, it’s more than likely that Allura genuinely believes Lotor to be dead (as opposed to a sleeping prince), which would explain her aggressive reaction to seeing pre-Rift Zarkon, and we don’t see his reaction to learning what he did to his son, either. This would be a prime location for Zarkon to experience and express remorse for what his actions have done to his son, subverting the toxic masculinity narrative his character had been representing prior.

At the end of “Knights of Light Part 2”, Hate mentions that Allura would need to make another trip to the underworld to commune with Lotor and realize that no, he’s not dead, but also that she not only must defeat Honerva, she must do so in order to save Lotor and free everyone of the cycle of violence that began 10,000 years ago. This is the final descent she makes before she can heal the wounded masculine, both in herself, and Lotor directly.

[Image description: Allura in profile inside the cockpit of Blue Lion, unconscious. Her window displays measurement increments and stars in red-tones, while Allura herself is lit in blue tones.]

After the end of this episode, however, Hate mentions that much of what was there is butchered in the post-production editing, so I will be extrapolating based on the content we have in the season as well as utilizing her analysis of the story as it should have been.

When Allura wakes up from falling unconscious, this is when we should see her proposing to save her animus, and it should come with a discussion with Lance about how they don’t click romantically. That said, in the version on Netflix, we see their relationship continue, however much of their shared body language doesn’t necessarily even match up with an awkward couple. Lance seems sullen and possessive, and while he might still be sullen in Allura’s original heroine’s journey, he would have had this moment of growth in which he learns to let go of Allura. She’s his fantasy, and not only is that unfair to Allura, it’s also unfair to him, and he doesn’t need to be the hero or the guy that gets the girl. He can be himself, silly, sharpshooting, video game-playing Lance. A genuinely nice dude, which completes the subversion of the Nice Guy trope his character embodied for so long.

“Uncharted Regions” is a hot mess of an episode in terms of narrative flow and consistency, but this would have marked the beginning of the alchemist vs. alchemist fight for not only Lotor’s soul, but the universe. Honerva uses the Sincline mech and her new mech to start tearing holes through realities, and once Allura jumps into the fray, that moves the audience into the next missing episode proposed by Hate: “Storming the Pyramid”. This would be where Honerva uses Allura to revive Lotor because she did not receive the life-givers’ blessing, and Allura would do it, literally healing the wounded masculine, but also falling right into Honerva’s trap in the process. This would almost certainly be a highly-controversial thing among Allura’s allies, but like Allura remaining on the path she knew, it’s easier to accept Lotor as pure evil who got what he deserved, when at no point is there a definite case against him. In fact, “Shadows” is designed to render him as a sympathetic character, and seeing his melted corpse is even more horrifying after seeing him as a baby and child. But that’s the way it is when a heroine breaks the mold. The heroine defines their own role, and as part of that, it gives them the ability to help others break theirs. The heroine experiences true empowerment by divorcing themselves from the power structures that defined them before, and doing so with the greater knowledge of their internal masculinity and femininity. Allura revisiting the war of her father with the lifegivers’ knowledge to compound her intrinsic alchemical abilities is the moment when she achieves union within herself, and it manifests physically as reviving Lotor, her animus.

It’s after this point that we see the Purple Lion and Purple Paladin manifest, our namesake.

In “Day 47”, Kolivan references the team sizes the Blades of Marmora use. He references four and five as the usual sizes, but six occasionally happening, but what he says next is particularly interesting.

[Image description: Kolivan being filmed for an interview, saying, “Seven seems rare, but… it could happen.”]

The Voltron team had four Paladins briefly after Shiro disappeared and before Allura took up the mantle, but the full team always has five. After Shiro returned for good, their team became six Paladins.

Now, with the healed animus Lotor on their side, they could have the rare seven-person configuration that Hate discusses at length in “Seek Truth in Darkness”.

With the anima and animus aligned together at last with no secrets, they can unify externally the same way Allura unified internally, and battle against Honerva properly. Now, Team V, Lotor, and the entire universe can face Honerva head-on and stand a chance at winning.

We also should get the emotional payoff for Lotor as an abuse victim in his own arc, closing up this nice little loose end that hurts way more than it did before season 8 dropped.

[Image description: An up-close shot of Lotor glaring into the “camera” in green lighting and saying to Haggar, “maybe I will take pity on you when the time comes.”]

And it’s worth mentioning that while the final battle is exciting and action-packed, the final surrender of Honerva comes quietly, in the rift of all realities. The characters of Team V are able to deliver their character-based arc lessons, it’s a somber moment of learning as Allura, using once more the blessing of the lifegivers, enlightens Honerva to her memories and what she’s done, but also restoring her sense of self the way Allura was. This is the final healing of the mother/daughter split, and it’s significant that Honerva’s abuse victim not be her healer. Not only does Lotor (as far as we know) lack the ability, but it’s never the victim’s job to heal their abuser, just as it’s not the obligation of the oppressed to appease their oppressor. Honerva can finally move on and begin atoning for what she did by setting the ghosts of the Paladins of old in her mind free, but that still begs the question of what our heroine and her animus must do to finish the job.

This is where Lotor would get his second chance, in the most literal sense of the term, where he faces a similar trial to the one in Oriande back in season 6 and the burning question for a man so concerned with survival and cunning.

Is there something he would give up the life he has known and fought so hard to keep for?

And this time, the answer is yes.

Allura.

It was always Allura.

While Honerva is able to stop the rift from expanding by, well, not expanding it herself, she lacks the ability to properly close it the way that it was closed the first time. It takes one final adventure, one final unification by the anima and animus, by the heroine and her Shadow, and one final goodbye. Allura and Lotor, born of an age long past, become the lifegivers eternal through staying behind to close the rift.

The lionhearted goddess of life and her stalwart champion of survival.

[Image description: The final scene after the credits, where an Allura-shaped nebula is nestled up against a smudged, darker nebula with a sea of stars among them, and the five Lions of Voltron flying toward the nebulae.]

Sources

Dos Santos, Joaquim and Montgomery, Lauren. Voltron: Legendary Defender. Netflix. 2016-2018.

LeakingHate. “Seek Truth in Darkness”. VLD Visuals Detective and Imperial ApologistTM. 2 Mar. 2019. https://leakinghate.tumblr.com/post/183160042843/seek-truth-in-darkness

“Maureen Murdock’s Heroine’s Journey Arc”. The Heroine Journeys Project. https://heroinejourneys.com/heroines-journey/

Murdock, Maureen. The Heroine’s Journey. 1990.

University of Kansas. “Science Fiction Writers Workshop: Joseph Campbell’s Hero’s Journey”. KU Guinn Center for the Study of Science Fiction. http://www.sfcenter.ku.edu/Workshop-stuff/Joseph-Campbell-Hero-Journey.htm

[kababage95]

Apophatic Feminism

As with my last “essay” (not sure it should be called that but as I can’t think of a better word it’s what we are going with), I am not an expert on anything written below. I have not studied sociology or gender studies or anything on feminism. The below is my opinion and I am always open to discussing anything written below (with one exception that is pointed out at the time).

There is a philosophical theory (Apophatic Theology) that the only way to truly describe god is through describing what he is not, so perhaps I will try applying this idea to feminism. There are a number of things that feminism does not mean, and once people understand what it isn’t, perhaps then they will be willing to admit to themselves and the world that they are in fact a feminist.

Feminism is not the hatred of men. Gender stereotypes are, in reality, against the nature of feminism. Given this, the notion of “men suck” falls squarely into the category of anti-feminist. Indeed, when you really get into it, feminism tries to challenge the ideas that men are emotionless, aggressive and impulsive. What feminism does realise it that men have privilege. It accepts that this privilege can be used for good or for bad depending on the person, but that privilege is undeniable. When people, whoever they are, use privilege to assert power over other people, its part of a democratic society that we are allowed to call those people out on it, and that’s what feminism seeks to do. At its heart feminism is a social justice movement. This means that it absolutely should place the welfare of those that are most harmed above the ego of any who would benefit from the privilege that it seeks to remove. Note however that this clearly isn’t about how men are, or how they should be. It is a fact of the world that men have more power than women. It is this imbalance that feminism seeks to change; not because it wants to hurt men, but because it aims to free people from expectations and stereotypes that are harmful to everybody.

Coming off of the first point, whilst feminism is not the hatred of men, it is also not the belief that women are superior. There are a lot of people out there that see feminism as a celebration of womanhood; it isn’t. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying that womanhood shouldn’t be celebrated, but let’s make it clear that they are not the same thing. In reality, feminism seeks to challenge the very idea of womanhood. Femininity is a construct of society, and in reality, whilst societal norms confer some benefits to being a woman, they are few and far between and it is for this reason that feminism seeks to challenge the idea of womanhood. Yes, it is considered more socially acceptable for women to be open with their emotions (another notion that feminism seeks to tear down), but is this really suitable recompense for disadvantages such as higher risk of sexual and domestic violence or for being economically disadvantaged? For being denied basic human rights in certain parts of the world and the many other negative side effects of being born with two X chromosomes instead of one X and one Y? Clearly the answer here is no, categorically not. Being a feminist isn’t about saying that being female is better than being male, it’s about wanting to be able to say that being a woman, or any other non-binary gender is as good as being a man and having it be true. At the moment, it simply isn’t.

Moving away from men for a second (feminism isn’t all about men?! Shocking I know), it should be clear that feminism isn’t the idea that dresses and the colour pink are bad. Feminism is not anti-feminine. You have to hand it to the patriarchy, managing to convince people that feminism is both a hatred of men, and the hatred of things associated with women was a stroke of genius. By doing so, you eliminate the vast majority of those that would otherwise support the movement. Feminists don’t hate the colour pink or wearing dresses (my best friend is the best proponent of feminism that I know and she wears more dresses than anything else). Far from the idea that those things are bad, feminism is the idea that those things shouldn’t be inherently associated with women at all. It’s about being able to understand that certain things have actually been devalued by being classed as feminine; how unusual is it to see things, and even people, being mocked for being feminine? Being a feminist means acknowledging that there is absolutely no valid reason at all for anything to have any gender associated with it and that more than that, gender doesn’t confer value. More than anything else feminism is about choice. If a woman wants to wear a pink dress and be a stay-at-home mum, that doesn’t mean she isn’t a feminist or make her less of a feminist. Equally, a woman who wears a suit and devotes her life to her career is no more or less a feminist.

Building on this idea, and I cant believe I have to make this point, being gay isn’t a bad thing. Let’s get this cleared up right now. Firstly, being LGBTQ is not, in any way, a negative thing. There is no link whatsoever between sexual orientation and being a feminist. More and more I see anti-feminists telling those that identify as a feminist that they are gay, with gay being meant as an insult. Feminist women being called lesbians because feminists must hate men. Feminist men being called gay because its “girly” to be a feminist. This is the one part of this “essay” that I am not willing to have a discussion over. Using any form of sexual orientation as an insult is not acceptable in any situation. Ever. The end. You absolutely can be gay and be a feminist and it is true that being gay may influence a person’s feminism, it’s called intersectionality, look it up. But the two things are not intrinsically linked. Just one final time for those that are struggling, “gay” is NOT okay to use as an insult and “feminist” is not a dirty word. I urge all of you to call out anybody that you hear using gay as an insult, it is not okay. It is despicable behaviour that should be called out at any opportunity.

“Feminists do nothing except complain”. Yeah okay buddy, go crawl back under whatever rock you just crawled out from. There are two things here, firstly, the idea that someone complaining must be feminist, have you seen any of the world ever? The human race took complaining and turned it into a skill that most everybody everywhere has mastered. I really wish that everybody who complained was a feminist, the battle would be over, the entire world would be feminists and gender equality would be achieved tomorrow. Clearly, that’s not the case. Secondly, the idea that the only thing that feminists do in the world is complain is clearly BS. Feminism gives people hope, it makes people laugh and cry and it inspires people. Without feminism women wouldn’t be able to vote, there would be none of the advances in the work place and it would still be acceptable for a husband to force his wife to have sex with him (something that wasn’t illegal in all 50 US states until 1993 and which will be covered in more detail in a separate essay). Feminism has achieved so many things in the last 100 years, it still has a way to go before its aims are fully realised, but its pretty clear that feminism is not only about complaining.

The final thing I want to point out that feminism is not is that it is not the aim of feminism to turn humanity into an identical whole. It is not unusual for feminists to be accused of trying to make humanity one great big homogeny by removing gender roles and for sure, if you are only willing to view diversity as things being male or female then feminism is going to challenge that. But is that really what diversity is? Two groups? To me, diversity is about having an infinite number of groups, of which each individual belongs to any number of. Instead of having men and women, male and female, masculine and feminine, diversity is about recognising that its stupid to try force fit 7 billion (and growing) people into one of two groups. If you were born a man that wants to masculine then that is absolutely fine, nobody is trying to take that away from you. If the stereotypes of the gender you were assigned at birth fits you like a glove then lucky you, and more power to you. But the truth is that for the vast majority of people, those stereotypes leave something to be desired. Feminism is saying that people shouldn’t feel pressured to feel or act in a particular way because the patriarchy deems, from the day you are born, that you should act in a way that conforms to their ideals. What seems to amaze certain people in society is that, when people act in a way that they are being who they truly are, and not in a way that society tells them they must act, the world goes on spinning and doesn’t implode. More than that, when people don’t feel the pressure to behave how others say they must, when people behave how they want to, the world doesn’t divide itself neatly into only two categories, and that’s okay!

So if that’s 6 things that feminism isn’t, then what do I think feminism is? To me, feminism is so many things, but more than anything else, its about choice. Yes it is the political, social and economical equality of the genders but its about choice. It’s about the freedom to choose to not wear make-up or to wear make-up no matter who you are. It’s about it being okay to aspire to be a full time mum or dad. It’s about everybody, everywhere being free to choose who they want to be, without the fear of being judged because “that’s not ladylike” or “that’s girly”. Yawn. Get over yourself. We aren’t born knowing that little girls play with dolls and little boys play with trucks and blocks. My partner of almost 6 years is an Early Years teacher, she works with babies from 6 months up to two years 5 days a week, and let me assure you that there are plenty of little boys who enjoy playing with the dolls and at that age, its generally the little girls who are better at building with the blocks. They don’t know about gender norms until society influences them and, given that, I am forced to conclude that far from trying to implement a new societal norm on society, what feminism is actually trying to do is to revert society back into the way that society would naturally be without 6 millennia worth of misogyny.

That concludes another essay! As before, I fully accept that some of you may not have read all of this as it is really rather long, if you read any of it, I hope you have taken something away from it! For those of you that are curious, I am a white, 22 year old male who currently lives in London and has never lived outside the UK, I had a number of DMs from people asking for that information after the last post so thought I would get ahead of it this time!

[teachanarchy]

Like any "ism," feminism is rich with jargon, which can lead deeply personal conversations to turn unnecessarily dense. And while some terms are entrenched, others are contemporary additions to an evolving lexicon. To help you break through, here are definitions for everything from "feminism" and "misogyny" to "bropropriated" and "feminazi."

The basics

Feminism: Belief in and desire for equality between the sexes. As Merriam-Webster noted last month: "the belief that men and women should have equal rights and opportunities." It encompasses social, political and economic equality. Of course, a lot of people tweak the definition to make it their own. Feminist activist bell hooks calls it "a movement to end sexism, sexist exploitation, and oppression."

Patriarchy: A hierarchical-structured society in which men hold more power.

Sexism: The idea that women are inferior to men.

Misogyny: Hatred of women.

Misandry: Hatred of men.

A little deeper

Hostile sexism: The one most people think about. Openly insulting, objectifying and degrading women.

Benevolent sexism: Less obvious. Kind of seems like a compliment, even though it's rooted in men's feelings of superiority. It's when men say women are worthy of their protection (off the sinking boat first) or that they're more nurturing than men (therefore should raise children). It's restrictive.

Internalized sexism: When the belief in women's inferiority becomes part of one's own worldview and self-concept.

Misogynoir: Misogyny directed toward black women.

LGBTQ: The acronym for “lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer.” Some people also use the Q to stand for "questioning," meaning people who are figuring out their sexual or gender identity. You may also see LGBTQIA. I stands for intersex and A for asexual (sometimes also "allies").

Cisgender: A term used to describe a person whose gender identity aligns with the sex assigned to them at birth.

Transgender: A person whose gender identity differs from the cultural expectations of the sex they were assigned at birth.

Gender fluidity: Not identifying with a single, fixed gender.

Women of color: Women who aren't white.

Title IX: Protects people from discrimination based on sex in education programs or activities that receive federal financial assistance.

Victim-blaming: When the victim of a crime or harmful act is held fully or partially responsible for it. If you hear someone questioning what a victim could have done to prevent a crime, that's victim-blaming, and it makes it harder for people to come forward and report abuse. Groups working to eradicate abuse and sexual assault are clear: No woman is guilty for violence committed by a man.

Yes means yes: A paradigm shift in the way we look at rape, moving beyond "no means no" toward the idea that consent must be explicit.

Male gaze: A way of looking at the world through a masculine lens that views women as sexual objects.

Privilege: The idea that some people in society are advantaged over others.

On the Internet

Bropropriating: Stealing an idea from a woman and putting it into the world as your own.

Manterrupting: When a man interrupts a woman, especially excessively. Examples: During the 2009 MTV Video Music Awards when Kanye West grabbed the mic from Taylor Swift, who had just won an award and was trying her best to accept it, to let everyone know "Imma let you finish, but Beyoncé had one of the best videos of all time.” Or, during September's presidential debate when Donald Trump interrupted Hillary Clinton 22 times in the first 26 minutes. Or when Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell interrupted Elizabeth Warren’s recitation of Coretta Scott King’s 1986 letter against Jeff Sessions, but allowed Bernie Sanders to read it the next day.

Mansplain (verb) mansplainy (adjective): When a man explains something to a woman in a condescending way when he either 1) doesn't know anything about it or 2) knows far less than the woman he is talking to. Sorry, if you already knew that.

Manspreading: When men take up excess space by sitting with their legs far apart. This is such an actual thing that in 2014 New York's Metropolitan Transportation Authority launched a campaign to get guys to close their legs to make more room on the subway.

Feminazi: A derogatory term for a radical feminist.

Woke: Rooted in black activist culture, it means you're educated and aware, especially about injustice. Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Ca., has told young people to "stay woke." If you're thinking about it in the context of women's rights, look at the #SayHerName campaign, which works to raise awareness for black women who are victims of police brutality.

Types of feminism

Intersectional feminism: If feminism is advocating for women's rights and equality between the sexes, intersectional feminism is the understanding of how women's overlapping identities — including race, class, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation and disability status — impact the way they experience oppression and discrimination.

Transfeminism: Defined as "a movement by and for trans women who view their liberation to be intrinsically linked to the liberation of all women and beyond." It's a form of feminism that includes all self-identified women, regardless of assigned sex, and challenges cisgender privilege. A central tenet is that individuals have the right to define who they are.

Women of color feminism: A form of feminism that seeks to clarify and combat the unique struggles women of color face. It's a feminism that struggles against intersecting forms of oppression.

Empowerment feminism: Beyoncé's Formation comes on at the club, and you and your friends hit the dance floor hard. Empowerment feminism puts the emphasis on "feeling," though some feminists would argue feeling amazing is not a great gauge of how society is actually supporting your self-expression and flourishing. Sheryl Sandberg's perpetually controversial Lean In, which focuses on how women can make changes to achieve greater success in the workplace, is another example of empowerment feminism.

Commodity feminism: A variety of feminism that co-opts the movement's ideals for profit. Ivanka Trump has been accused of peddling this brand of feminism, using her #WomenWhoWork campaign to sell her eponymous lifestyle brand.

Equity feminism (conservative feminism): Christina Hoff Sommers, a resident scholar at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, is a champion of what she calls "equity feminism." In her view, "equity feminism" is focused on legal equality between men and women, while "gender feminism" focuses on disempowering women by portraying them as perpetual victims of the patriarchy. In the words of President Trump's advisor Kellyanne Conway: “I look at myself as a product of my choices, not a victim of my circumstances, and that’s really to me what conservative feminism, if you will, is all about.”

Waves of feminism

*Some feminist scholars are moving away from "waves" since it can give the appearance that feminists aren't always actively fighting inequality. But if you see them, here's generally what they're referring to:

First wave feminism: Kicked off with the 1848 Seneca Falls Convention to discuss the "social, civil, and religious condition of woman" and continued into the early twentieth century. It culminated in 1920 with the passage of the 19th amendment — giving women the right to vote.

Second wave feminism: Began in the 1960s and bloomed in the 1970s with a push for greater equality. Think Gloria Steinem, Dorothy Pitman Hughes, Betty Friedan. It was marked by huge gains for women in legal and structural equality.

CLOSE

   Feminist activist Gloria Steinem explains what keeps her up at night in today's political climate.    USA TODAY

Third-wave feminism: Beginning in the 1990s, it looked to make feminism more inclusive, intersectional and to allow women to define what being a feminist means to them personally. Also, Buffy.

[radthursdays]

#RadThursdays Roundup 04/19/2018

Illustration of a Native American woman creating fabric on a loom. The fabric flows towards the right, where a white woman in expensive clothing and a turquoise necklace has wrapped the fabric around herself and is taking selfies, engulfed in a miasma of social media “likes”. Source.

Privacy

‘No Company Is So Important Its Existence Justifies Setting Up a Police State’: A conversation with legendary programmer Richard Stallman on the real meaning of “privacy rights” and why he only ever uses cash.

Facebook Doesn't Need To Listen Through Your Microphone To Serve You Creepy Ads: "Facebook doesn’t listen to users through their phone microphones because it doesn’t have to. Facebook actually uses even more invasive, invisible surveillance and analysis methods, which give it enough information about you to produce uncanny advertisements all the same."

Today's Horoscope: Your Info Will Be Exposed: "Your horoscope app just needs your email, birthdate, location, and… Wait a minute."

Cops Around the Country Can Now Unlock iPhones, Records Show: "GrayKey can unlock an iPhone in around two hours, or three days or longer for 6 digit passcodes." Action Item: Set messages to disappearing in Signal and other messaging apps that you use. Make sure that you have at least a 6 digit passcode set (alphanumeric codes are even stronger), that you don't allow Touch ID to unlock your device (since cops can force you to unlock your phone using your fingerprint), and that you have Find My iPhone enabled (so you can remote erase your device as necessary).

Lauren, the best possible AI assistant: “New apps and autonomous systems, acting on our behalf, are progressively meant to control or manage non-trivial aspects of our lives [...] These devices define a grey zone, a frontier of privacy invasion which we grant without really knowing the limits, but eager to experience the touted services. [...] Lauren McCarthy tests human limits in her artworks, usually with a good dose of irony. In “Lauren” she’s acting as the most sophisticated AI-equipped assistant installing camera and controlling devices in a person’s house. She’s then the living proof of our absurd will of delegating as much as possible. How far it could go?”

Comics by Olivia Huynh grouped under the title, “Ways to Improve the Miss Universe Pageant”. The first — “suit option” — shows two pageant contestants admiring a third contestant wearing a fancy suit. The second — “talent diversity (engineering)” — shows a pageant contestant programming in front of two huge computer monitors on stage, with code projected onto a screen as the judges and audience look on. The third — “more difficult questions” — shows an interviewer asking a pageant contestant “what is ‘art’” while the contestant stresses to think of an answer. The fourth — "swimsuit AND swimming competition" — shows two pageant contestants looking on nervously at a third who seems much better prepared for a swimming competition, since they're wearing a racing swimsuit with a swim cap and swim goggles rather than a bikini. Source.

Technology and Infrastructure

The New Octopus: "This is the paradox of technological power in a networked age. Where a decade or two ago, these technologies may have seemed intrinsically decentralizing, they have in fact enabled new forms of concentrated power and control through transmission, gateways, and scoring. These forms of power, furthermore, often operate in the background, opaque and hidden from view. This makes them harder to challenge and contest."

A Socialist Silicon Valley: "How do we decommodify and democratize tech? In the case of the internet’s physical infrastructure — the 'pipes' — the answer is clear: public ownership. Many communities are already experimenting with municipal broadband: in fact, the city-owned ISP in Chattanooga, Tennessee is the most popular in the country. Public ISPs can supply better service at lower cost than private telecoms like Comcast. They can also enable communities to decide how the infrastructure is run."

The 'Half-Life 2' of Infrastructure Video Games Is Out, And It's Weird: ‘You are [...] an engineer tasked with saving the infrastructure of a once-profitable, now badly degraded Baltic mining city. Oskari Samiola, who’s 23 and lives in Finland, earlier told CityLab the inspiration for making this game was watching a “documentary about the U.S.A.’s at-the-collapsing-point infrastructure” and “generally after hearing news about spoiled tap water and seeing roads in poor condition.” He seems to have stuck with the decision not to include violence, having the player instead search for technical documents, photograph safety issues like wall cracks, and unveil the deep-rooted schemes and corrupt operators behind the city’s looming downfall.’

Issues

Perpetuating the Cycle of Poverty: "But you can’t starve people out of cyclical poverty, and in any case, SNAP cuts aren’t designed to reduce poverty at all. They’re designed to sustain a fiction: that all you need to do to eliminate hunger in America is make people look for work."

A System in Denial: "This book leaves us with the disquieting notion that guns—whether the slow and inaccurate weapons of the eighteenth century or today’s models—do more than alternately cloak or expose human inclination towards violence. They also shape it—not just at the individual level, as we are accustomed to debating, but at the societal, even civilizational or global, level as well. 'As we make objects, they make us.'"

A house in Groningen, Netherlands. Large triangular supports have been attached to the outside of the house to keep it from collapsing. “The province of Groningen in The Netherlands has the largest gas field in Europe. Since the early days of extraction in 1959, the field has produced billions of cubic meters of the natural resource. The exploitation is a lucrative business but, because the extraction process is causing earthquakes, it is also ruining the lives of the local residents. Many of the houses in the area have been so badly damaged by the man-induced earthquakes that they are uninhabitable.” Source.

Activism

#MeToo Campaign Explodes Across Chinese Internet: "In particular, sexual harassment policies have been slow to catch on in China. Although the Chinese government has touted gender equality going back to the Mao period, actually existing social conditions make it clear that patriarchy remains deeply entrenched in China. The concept of sexual harassment has been slow to be introduced into law, the term sexual harassment only being introduced into law in 2005 but remaining vague in terms of definition after China’s first sexual harassment case was dismissed in 2001."

The Queer Activists Working to Reverse America's Opioid Crisis: "Harm reduction is the principle that people should not be judged or criminalized for behaviors like sex or drug use, but empowered with tools to stay as healthy and safe as possible while engaging in them. With strong roots in the needle-exchange programs that began in the 1980s and 90s to prevent the spread of HIV, harm reduction believes in meeting people where they are, rather than enforcing abstinence or complete behavior change."

On Taxes: "The total cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will eventually be between $4 and $6 trillion. In 2017, 44 percent of federal income tax revenue went toward current military spending and debts from past wars. I knew that the amount of money I owed would not quite prevent the production of even a single $110,000 Hellfire missile, the combustible commonly used in drone attacks, but for a time it felt possible that the significance of my actions would be augmented by a larger movement for change. As that potential remained dormant, the stinging irrelevance of my tax refusal felt increasingly painful."

Direct Action Item

How does your environment affect you and those around you? In what ways do the social relations that surround us oppress and coerce? What can you do to change it?

If there’s something you’d like to see in next week’s #RT, please send us a message.

In solidarity!

What is direct action? Direct action means doing things yourself instead of petitioning authorities or relying on external institutions. It means taking matters into your own hands and not waiting to be empowered, because you are already powerful. A “direct action item” is a way to put your beliefs into practice every week.

[i-am-very-very-tired]

Alia E. Dastagir, USA TODAY Corrections and clarifications: A previous version of this story included a definition of "women of color" that has since been updated. Like any "ism," feminism is rich with jargon, which can lead deeply personal conversations to turn unnecessarily dense. While some terms are entrenched, others are contemporary additions to an evolving lexicon. To help you break through, here are definitions for everything from "feminism" and "misogyny" to "bropropriated" and "feminazi." The Basics Feminism: Belief in and desire for equality between the sexes. As Merriam-Webster noted last month: "the belief that men and women should have equal rights and opportunities." It encompasses social, political and economic equality. Of course, a lot of people tweak the definition to make it their own. Feminist activist bell hooks calls it "a movement to end sexism, sexist exploitation, and oppression." Patriarchy: A hierarchical-structured society in which men hold more power. Sexism: The idea that women are inferior to men. Misogyny: Hatred of women. Misandry: Hatred of men. A Little Deeper Hostile sexism: The one most people think about. Openly insulting, objectifying and degrading women. Benevolent sexism: Less obvious. Kind of seems like a compliment, even though it's rooted in men's feelings of superiority. It's when men say women are worthy of their protection (off the sinking boat first) or that they're more nurturing than men (therefore should raise children). It's restrictive. Internalized sexism: When the belief in women's inferiority becomes part of one's own worldview and self-concept. Misogynoir: Misogyny directed toward black women. LGBTQ: The acronym for “lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer.” Some people also use the Q to stand for "questioning," meaning people who are figuring out their sexual or gender identity. You may also see LGBTQIA. I stands for intersex and A for asexual/aromantic/agender. Cisgender: A term used to describe a person whose gender identity aligns with the sex assigned to them at birth. Transgender: A person whose gender identity differs from the cultural expectations of the sex they were assigned at birth. Transphobia: Prejudice toward trans people. Transmisogyny: A blend of transphobia and misogyny, which manifests as discrimination against "trans women and trans and gender non-conforming people on the feminine end of the gender spectrum." TERF: The acronym for "trans exclusionary radical feminists," referring to feminists who are transphobic. SWERF: Stands for "sex worker exclusionary radical feminists," referring to feminists who say prostitution oppresses women. Gender fluidity: Not identifying with a single, fixed gender. Non-binary: An umbrella term for people who don't identify as female/male or woman/man. Women of color: A political term to unite women from marginalized communities of color who have experienced oppression. It could include women of African, Asian, Latin or Native American descent. Title IX: Protects people from discrimination based on sex in education programs or activities that receive federal financial assistance. Victim-blaming: When the victim of a crime or harmful act is held fully or partially responsible for it. If you hear someone questioning what a victim could have done to prevent a crime, that's victim-blaming, and it makes it harder for people to come forward and report abuse. Groups working to eradicate abuse and sexual assault are clear: No woman is guilty for violence committed by a man. Trigger: Something that forces you to relive a trauma. Trigger warning: A statement that someone is about to experience challenging material that could potentially be disturbing (graphic, racially-insensitive, sexually explicit, etc.). The practice is controversial on college campuses. Yes means yes: A paradigm shift in the way we look at rape, moving beyond "no means no" toward the idea that consent must be explicit. Male gaze: A way of looking at the world through a masculine lens that views women as sexual objects. Privilege: The idea that some people in society are advantaged over others. Sex positive: An attitude that views sexual expression and sexual pleasure, if it's healthy and consensual, as a good thing. On The Internet Bropropriating: Stealing an idea from a woman and putting it into the world as your own. Mansplain (verb) mansplainy (adjective): When a man explains something to a woman in a condescending way when he either 1) doesn't know anything about it or 2) knows far less than the woman he is talking to. Sorry, if you already knew that. Manterrupting: When a man interrupts a woman, especially excessively. Examples: During the 2009 MTV Video Music Awards when Kanye West grabbed the mic from Taylor Swift, who had just won an award and was trying her best to accept it, to let everyone know "Imma let you finish, but Beyoncé had one of the best videos of all time.” Or, during September's presidential debate when Donald Trump interrupted Hillary Clinton 22 times in the first 26 minutes. Or when Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell interrupted Elizabeth Warren’s recitation of Coretta Scott King’s 1986 letter against Jeff Sessions, but allowed Bernie Sanders to read it the next day. Manspreading: When men take up excess space by sitting with their legs far apart. This is such an actual thing that in 2014 New York's Metropolitan Transportation Authority launched a campaign to get guys to close their legs to make more room on the subway. Woke: Rooted in black activist culture, it means you're educated and aware, especially about injustice. Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Ca., has told young people to "stay woke." If you're thinking about it in the context of women's rights, look at the #SayHerName campaign, which works to raise awareness for black women who are victims of police brutality. Woke misogynist: Nona Willis Aronowitz paints an all-too-familiar picture of the guy who acts like he's all about gender equality, but then turns around and demeans, degrades and harasses women. His misogyny may not always be overt, but it's there. He's a feminist poser. Emosogynist: Zach Braff in Garden State, according to Jezebel. He's emotional, full of angst and seems like a feminist, but what he really wants is a real-life manic pixie dream girl to manipulate and eventually discard after he finds himself. Whimpster: Lloyd Dobler in Say Anything... A white, wimpy, emo guy who uses his male insecurity to prey on women who want to nurture. Feminazi: A derogatory term for a radical feminist. Types Of Feminism Intersectional feminism: If feminism is advocating for women's rights and equality between the sexes, intersectional feminism is the understanding of how women's overlapping identities — including race, class, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation and disability status — impact the way they experience oppression and discrimination. Transfeminism: Defined as "a movement by and for trans women who view their liberation to be intrinsically linked to the liberation of all women and beyond." It's a form of feminism that includes all self-identified women, regardless of assigned sex, and challenges cisgender privilege. A central tenet is that individuals have the right to define who they are. Women of color feminism: A form of feminism that seeks to clarify and combat the unique struggles women of color face. It's a feminism that struggles against intersecting forms of oppression. Womanism: A social and ecological change perspective that emerged out of Africana women’s culture and women of color around the world. Empowerment feminism: Beyoncé's Formation comes on at the club, and you and your friends hit the dance floor hard. Empowerment feminism puts the emphasis on "feeling," though some feminists would argue feeling amazing is not a great gauge of how society is actually supporting your self-expression and flourishing. Sheryl Sandberg's perpetually controversial Lean In, which focuses on how women can make changes to achieve greater success in the workplace, is another example of empowerment feminism. Commodity feminism: A variety of feminism that co-opts the movement's ideals for profit. Ivanka Trump has been accused of peddling this brand of feminism, using her #WomenWhoWork campaign to sell her eponymous lifestyle brand. Equity feminism (conservative feminism): Christina Hoff Sommers, a resident scholar at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, is a champion of what she calls "equity feminism." In her view, "equity feminism" is focused on legal equality between men and women, while "gender feminism" focuses on disempowering women by portraying them as perpetual victims of the patriarchy. In the words of President Trump's advisor Kellyanne Conway: “I look at myself as a product of my choices, not a victim of my circumstances, and that’s really to me what conservative feminism, if you will, is all about.” Waves Of Feminism *Some feminist scholars are moving away from "waves" since it can give the appearance that feminists aren't always actively fighting inequality. But if you see them, here's generally what they're referring to: First wave feminism: Kicked off with the 1848 Seneca Falls Convention to discuss the "social, civil, and religious condition of woman" and continued into the early twentieth century. It culminated in 1920 with the passage of the 19th amendment, which gave women the right to vote, though some states made it difficult for women of color to exercise this right until well into the 1960s. Second wave feminism: Began in the 1960s and bloomed in the 1970s with a push for greater equality. Think Gloria Steinem, Dorothy Pitman Hughes, Betty Friedan. It was marked by huge gains for women in legal and structural equality. Third-wave feminism: Beginning in the 1990s, it looked to make feminism more inclusive, intersectional and to allow women to define what being a feminist means to them personally. Also, Buffy. Feeling "woke" and "empowered"? Find more at women.usatoday.com

[kershmaru-blog]

What is Feminism? An outside male perspective

First I think I need to acknowledge that feminism means vastly different things to different people. There are quite incompatible, warring factions within the movement, and what I dub amateur feminism or feminism of the masses, is another story altogether. I am talking about the feminism of the vast majority of self-described feminists who never came in direct contact with professional gender studies or feminist theory and wish for nothing but equality.

What I think all feminists have in common is the perspective that our world is male-dominated, that there is a relative lack of positive female role models even within the west - which is true if your viewpoint is that you need your role models to share such superficial criteria as sex, sexuality, and gender with yourself - and that our society values males more than it does females.

 I should introduce myself. I go by Kershmaru, which is an old Gamertag I came up with. It consists of a nonsensical first syllable and an ending for Japanese first names. So I am Japanophile. Sue me.

I do value my privacy and privacy rights in general (you don’t have to fear that I expose private conversations between us, or even write about them in an anonymous format without your express permission), but that is not the reason I go by a pseudonym. I may or may not announce my real name after some time. There is a reason for my anonymity: Part of my philosophy is that the source shouldn’t matter and that every post, every argument, and every article should be able to stand on their own, on their own merit.

I am 27, single, male, white, an atheist and from Austria, for those of you who care about such things. Personally, I think that my writing tells you more about myself than those more or less random metrics. In fact, I think the only thing I mentioned which tells you anything worth knowing about my worldview is that I am an atheist.

 Why write about feminism at all? Firstly, because there is a growing divide between feminists and social justice advocates on one side and anti-feminists and anti-SJWs on the other.  There is very little civilized dialogue between the two sides, and in all honesty, I believe such dialogue would be enriching for both sides.

Secondly, despite its vast influence over politics and media, some strains of feminism seem to have developed an “us vs. the world” mentality. I think those people would benefit from an outside perspective. The aim of this blog isn’t to explain your own ideology to you; it is only a subjective viewpoint and an outside perspective.

 I am neither a feminist nor an anti, despite the fact that I am sure I will be accused of being both, if nothing else because of the forums I plan to post this on (minds.com and tumbler).

 I am an advocate for equality as far as it is reasonable.

Some of you might have read this far only to stop after reading about reasonable inequality. For those who didn’t, hear me out: There are currently disparities in rights that are unfair but without an alternative.

The most striking of these rights is the right to bodily autonomy and reproductive rights. (I am well aware that in some states in America, the religious right fights against the right to choose, and I am squarely on board with the feminists on this one. Women need to remain the sole decision makers regarding their own bodies)

To clarify my views on abortion, I regard it as a necessary evil. There are cases in which it entirely is a medical necessity (i.e., Pregnancy within the fallopian tubes, which cannot be brought to term and if unchecked will cause massive internal bleeding and the death of the mother), but for a variety of reasons - I can go more into detail if you want me to - I also am in favor of all other cases except late-term abortion. There needs to be some time for a prospective mother to decide what she wants to do, and she shouldn’t have to make rash decisions. But there should be a time limit after which the rights of the fetus are protected. Such a limit is necessarily arbitrary, but as I said before, a necessity to give the mother time to think. Would I be in favor of fewer abortions? Absolutely. But the way we can arrive there is only by providing easy access to contraceptives, not through clumsy attempts at social engineering through abstinence-only education. It would also help if there were more resources for nascent mothers, like easy access to childcare, legally protected maternity leave (which of course makes women less attractive on the job market) and easy access to adoption services.

 My personal views aside, the status quo in wide parts of the western world is that women have the unilateral power to make decisions on whether or not they will become parents, even after the fact. Men cannot legally interfere with this decision.

If the woman decides thusly, the men become fathers, with all the legally binding obligations that entail. (An exception is a policy in Sweden of which I am not sure whether it has been implemented which would allow men to opt out of paternity, but only by relinquishing all legal rights. That is not equal to the female power to chose; in my opinion a useless policy)

If the woman doesn’t want to be a parent, the man also never gets the chance to.

 This situation is intrinsically unfair. But the alternative, making women into incubators against their will is so dystopian that I will not even consider advocating for it. (on a side note, if artificial wombs were already available, I would likely be in favor of protecting the fetus and bringing it to term in such a device if one of the parents - in this case, the father - wishes it, at least if the conception was consensual in the first place. But because such devices don’t yet exist and will likely have to navigate a maze of “ethical” obstacles, this point though interesting is mute)

There you have it: A right, in favor of women no less, which is intrinsically unfair and unequal but needs to stay this way.

 But enough distractions. Time to get to the meat of it. Feminism.

To some a necessary struggle against oppressive structures, to others a totalitarian system based on religious dogma aiming to police, form, and control every aspect of culture, politics and interpersonal relationships.

Firstly, I agree that there are inequalities in men and women, even within the western world.

I also believe that there are differences between men and women based in biology. Are these differences reinforced by cultural norms and traditional gender roles? I think they are.

As you can see, I neither fully subscribe to an entirely biologic-deterministic nor to a socially constructed worldview. Both lack - to me as a layman regarding gender studies - merit (I also will avoid using overly technical or predefined language in this blog due to the emotional baggage and presuppositions associated with such terms. Here, where I was forced to use it nevertheless is the best place to inform you of my rationale for this decision).

What are these differences? Most of them, like muscle strength, are irrelevant regarding the modern work environment. The obvious exception here are positions that demand high fitness and muscle strength, like construction, firefighting or some military jobs. I am of the opinion that such positions should absolutely be open to women who pass the requirements, though I will admit that men aiming for these posts hold an unfair biological and physiological advantage. Two mutually dependent differences aren’t irrelevant: Risk aversion and resource management (meant are personal resources like stress)

Men are less risk-averse than women (as can be seen in factors such as gender differences in gambling behavior https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4736715/ )

This primes them for high risk, high reward positions which are highly valued by our society (politicians, CEOs)

To clarify, I don’t believe that women aren’t qualified for these positions. Quite the opposite, I think those who make it there in a meritocratic system are qualified. I also find them to be outliers.

Can the frequency of such outliers be increased by shifting cultural norms and by nurture? I believe it can be. But should it at all costs? I am not a father, and I may well never be. But the way I would raise my children, regardless of gender, would be to try to instill in them the same primal curiosity, the same drive to see the beauty in our universe I feel, and to reinforce in them whatever interests they have. I wouldn’t project my insecurities and wishes on them.

The other thing I mentioned, resource management, is in favor of women. Women manage their own stress better, this meta-study on burnout suggests http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0001879110000771 and have a higher life expectancy.

There are fields in which women are yet underrepresented which cannot be explained by the two metrics of risk aversion and resource management, for example, science and engineering. This may be partially due to biologic differences, but I do believe we will see more women drift to these professions organically over time. After all, curiosity isn’t a male trait. At least I didn’t see any evidence for it.

I believe in a meritocratic and free system. It may take some time until the gender balance approaches the distribution of genders as dictated by biology, but I don’t see the problem in that. In most circles, no one doubts that women can be as capable as men in a given position, and that, rather than gender parity, is to me the sign of achieved equality.

 Which brings me to my main gripe with feminism. Regardless of their exact strain of feminism, a lot of feminists believe in particular policy implementations that go against meritocracy, such as diversity quotas.

 The belief that those measures are necessary is founded partially in what presents itself to me as a persecution complex: That the world is still in the fangs of patriarchy. There is an interesting philosophical debate to be had on the topic who or rather what is in control of our world and society, but that goes beyond the scope of this blog. I may write an article on it on minds.

 I am not saying sexism is dead, or that unconscious bias doesn’t exist. What I am saying is that bias isn’t the sole explanation for societal ills and injustices. Consider this if you will: A biased opinion against people with the descriptor d. A person with d may be discriminated against by d-cist people and learn that this bias exists. They will now be conditioned to look out for this prejudice, and it will color their perception of reality. If they encounter repeated injustice, perceived or real, they are more likely to attribute it to d and d-cist opinions.

This in itself can pose a problem, if they set out to cure d-cist attitudes. An overreach can antagonize and prejudice people who didn’t hold d-cist positions to start with. Overestimating the scope of a problem or applying the wrong solution can be as destructive as doing nothing at all. It can not only promote d-cist attitudes in reaction to the overreach but can lead to its own set of social problems and injustices. For example, if you insist on thinking in these categories, a person with d might be promoted due to a diversity quota over a socio-economically disadvantaged person without d, who might even have better qualifications and a more significant need for the position.

The belief that d-cist attitudes are rampant in society at large can also lead D’s to self-segregate and take on a hostile attitude towards people outside their community or society at large. This can lead to other problems, like shifting attitudes towards D’s, actual d-cism and mutual hostility.

D can, in this context stand for any arbitrary attribute, from gender, sex, sexuality, race to wearing glasses. (if you think that the last example is ludicrous or ridiculous, remember that Pol Pot’s Khmer Rouge murdered people wearing eyeglasses on the suspicion that they were intellectuals. Say what you want about the treatment of women in history and today, but I cannot think of an ideology or system, extant or extinct that promoted female genocide.)

 Herein, as alluded to before, lies my biggest problem with feminism (And the biggest problem of many others): Both its dogmatic, overly simplistic assertions about the nature of our world, and the political solution widely championed by feminists.

 It needs to be said that I respect everybody's right to an opinion. We all would like the world to be different in subtle ways. Some of these problems and complaints seem petty to outsiders (manspreading), but if you feel like there is a problem, you absolutely have a right to speak out. Issues come into play when you try to control culture or media because then you infringe upon others right of expression. I am well aware most feminists, particularly but not exclusively the aforementioned amateur feminists only want perceived equality in specific circumstances that are near and dear to them, such as political representation, positive role models, unbiased education. Again, nothing wrong about that. But most of the proposals I have seen to bring such changes in short time are flawed. And the used rhetoric can be downright abusive. What possible use have “teach boys not to rape” seminars and workshops? Literally everybody knows rape is an unforgivable crime and one of the most damaging, traumatic events to the victims. There is nothing to learn here. The only ones who could learn from such a seminar are those who would never rape in the first place. What right do you have to indoctrinate children to look at each other and themselves as sexual deviants, these barely restrained predatory monsters? But I digress. Do you know that some definitions of rape only encompass penetration, but not forcefull envelopment? That is right, according to some definitions - which have been used for studies and statistics - , if a woman forces herself onto a man that isn’t rape. Not to mention that the current culture makes it very hard for male victims to speak out, especially against female perpetrators. Feminists may interject here that they are addressing these cultural norms, but the truth is that male advocacy or men’s rights is a derogatory term often named in a breath with pick up artists or similar lowlifes. Disparate incarceration and suicide rates, as well as a gendered and biased justice system, are a joke to some feminists. Worse yet, if the issue is brought up some see it as a twisted form of justice, recompense for millennia of oppression.

 There is no doubt that women were denied their fair shake by society. Heck, they still are outside the western world. But there can also be no doubt that things are different now. Claiming otherwise is delusional. We may not yet be a society reflecting the real interests and qualifications of the individuals therein, but the main ingredient missing, in my opinion, is time. Time for genuine bigots to be retired from their place of power. Time for girls to speak out about their “boyish” hobbies and interests and potentially make them into a career. But it is also necessary to acknowledge the progress we already made and to think more critically about complaints concerning sexism or other forms of bigotry in the western world.

 I really don’t know exactly how to structure the following because every subpoint would be deserving of its own blog post, and they may get them, in time. In The meantime, here is a more or less unstructured rant about some common feminist complaints about western society. It is by no means a full list, and I would caution you against using what I have written to extrapolate my stance on other issues. Making assumptions without sufficient information is a profoundly human trait; albeit one we need to work hard to overcome. Feel free to disagree and tell me why it is you disagree. I am more than willing to change my position if you present me with a good argument.

 What about sexualized media? First off, I know that this is an unfair argument because a good part of feminists see female sexuality as liberating and liberated. Personally, I have no problem with any form of sexuality or sexual imagery for the purpose of advertising or marketing. To put it in plain English: Sex sells. Using sexuality in marketing isn’t oppressive or objectifying, it is a good business practice. I agree that it can become ridiculous at times, especially if there is absolutely no connection to the good or service being advertised. It is a cheap tactic to draw eyes, but an effective one.

What about the male gaze in movies? I would argue that the same is true here. And I would also say that not only men sexualize women. Humans, in general, are very good at sexualizing each other, regardless of their sexuality. Envy and critique replace lust as the motivating factor, but women also look at legs and breasts and men at abs.

What about the elephant in the room: the pay gap? It would be more honest to speak about a earnings gap. It is true, men and woman earn disparate incomes, but they also work in different professions. If you compare apples to oranges, of course, there will be a disparity. If you compare people within comparable positions, the earnings gap shrinks. If you control for hours worked, qualifications and other factors it shrinks again. It doesn’t disappear altogether, but that is where the risky behavior and assertiveness comes into play. Women can and should be more self-aware and aware what they are worth, and ask for financial recompense. That is what men do.

(It should be mentioned that there is a gap in payment amongst male and female CEOs, which of course cannot be ascribed to divergent qualifications. But the pay amongst CEOs, in general, is highly variable and depends on the worth of the company. Once a woman is in charge of Amazon, Microsoft or a comparable Company we will see this gap shrink)

On a side note, there are legal protections against pay discrimination in many countries in the western world, including the US. Of course, legal protection doesn’t mean that it cannot happen. Despite my above explanations, I do not doubt that there still is gender-based discrimination in isolated cases. If you think you are being discriminated against, be very careful. You might well have a case, but if you try to litigate and the court doesn’t find in your favor, you might well be out of a job. That being said, you have a right to take up your legal arms and fight in court. As somebody opposed to discrimination, I wish you the best. Nobody should suffer any form of discrimination, least of all due to a trait of their person they have absolutely no control over.

The lion’s share of the earnings gap is due to individual choice. Men work more dangerous and dirtier jobs than women and are compensated for that. You want parity amongst CEOs? What about equality amongst miners or sewer workers? Some careers are simply higher paid than others. A lot of male-dominated fields fall into that category. If a woman wants to enter these fields and she has all the necessary qualifications, she is free to do so, and I would encourage her. As I would encourage everybody to pursue the career they want.

Should some of the traditional female professions be better compensated? Well, talking about dangerous jobs, I think that teachers should be paid much more but also be held to a higher standard.

What about cyberbullying? Well according to the data, http://soc101group2.providence.wikispaces.net/Gender+Distinctions+in+Cyber+Bullying women are more likely to be the perpetrators. That, of course, may change over time and depends on whether or not you count gossip as “bullying.” Also all studies I could find depended on self-reporting, so take them with a grain of salt since that is amongst the least reliable study designs. It should also be said that one amongst the most recent studies I could find (from 2016, conducted amongst US highschoolers), on statista.com showed contrary trends. It might just be that the interviewed girls didn’t count gossiping as cyberbullying; and I am not certain gossip should count. I welcome your thoughts on the matter.

What about “bossy?” When a man is a boss, he isn’t considered “bossy.” Neither is a female boss. The male equivalent to “bossy” isn’t “boss” it is “dick” speaking of which…

What about sexualized slurs you might ask? What about them? How often have you called somebody a dick or a prick and not even thought of it as a sexual slur? This does of course not mean that sexual slurs should be societally acceptable. My point is that those against women already aren’t, while those against men clearly are. Here we come to another aspect of my philosophy, this time concerning free speech: everybody should be allowed a chance to speak freely and out themselves as an ass, the right to free speech doesn’t mean freedom from social condemnation.

 I cannot possibly go into detail on all I touched on without writing a veritable book. This is as good as any a place to take a break. I will be back next week with some thoughts on the Weinstein scandal and rape culture. In the meantime, as alluded to before, I am here to talk. Comment with your thoughts, questions, and of course, criticism. I will do my best to explain myself and my positions. Tell me where you disagree and agree with me and if need be, enlighten me if I made some factual errors or overly simplifying generalizations.