#these are the same people who are anti-gay marriage btw

[silvermoon424]

If you haven't heard, Steven Crowder is getting divorced. In his video on the matter, he strongly implies that if it were up to him he would force his wife to stay married to him but "the state of Texas allows one party to divorce the other for any reason" or whatever. He makes it clear that he disagrees with this position and is pretty anti-divorce in general.

Hasan did a video covering it and I and a lot of other people commented on how fucked up that is. I shit you not, there are a bunch of conservatives coming out of the woodwork to argue with us, saying shit like "but when you get married you make a lifelong promise" and "but what about the kids?" and "it's messed up to vow to stay with someone through thick and thin and then leave them when you're unhappy." I got into an argument with a few people, trying to explain how the "sanctity of marriage" does not override someone's ability to be free of a situation that creates undue suffering and distress, and they basically just kept falling back on "yeah but when you get married you pinky swear to stay together 4ever"

Idk why these guys are so salty, back in the days before divorce there was a good chance they would have died of a mysterious wasting illness after eating their wives' cooking.

[gutsfics]

can you give specific examples of what happened to help people understand what happened

this is non-extensive, just the ones i think are the most egregious of what shes done and said

i'm not sure how much of this is stuff she's deleted, as these are all from screenshots i already had on hand, but i would like to say that deleting a post doesn't necessarily mean you no longer agree with what was said in it, especially if you double down on what was said when you're called out for it. which she has done Plenty of times

and for the record, this is not something i enjoy doing. part of the reason this took me a few days to post is because this is stressing me the fuck out and ive been trying to spend as little brainpower on this as possible

First point: queerphobia in the form of homophobic jokes, sharing panphobic rhetoric, and talking for transgender people on a topic she (as far as i am aware) has no

the pelicansexual "joke" was told at the expense of Ethan and Tobias during the "Ethan Bisexuality Canonity" argument she & i got into in June (which btw i would like to apologize for starting that up, i was frustrated w pb's coddling of the cishet part of the fandom & i was having difficulty phrasing it bc of how upset i was w it. i did not mean to attack the fandom specifically but intent doesn't cover for outcome)

the pelicansexual joke was a since-deleted tag on one of her posts which went something along the lines of "my Ethan and Tobias are now pelicansexuals, which means they have to break up with [her characters] as they are not pelicans". i dont have a screenshot of this unfortunately, but i do have a screenshot of her response to an anon calling her out on it.

in case you don't understand why her "joke" was homophobic, before gay marriage was legalized in the US in 2015, a common anti-homosexuality talking point was "homosexuality being legalized is a slippery slope to bestiality being legalized". while it is good she deleted her "joke", its frankly worrying to me that when called out on it she doubled down on how she was joking when she said it, instead of listening and learning. her bisexuality and queer activism do not mean that she is incapable of saying and doing homophobic things.

the panphobic rhetoric & her talking for transgender people are, if i remember correctly, both part of the same incident wherein she reblogged something panphobic and then, when called out for it, said something that something that most trans people consider transphobic isn't actually transphobic at all

screenshot 1: bisexuality and pansexuality are two very similar sexualities, with the main difference between the two coming down to personal preference for what term you feel like best. while bisexuality does mean "sexual attraction to two or more genders", some people prefer a term that focuses on the "or more" part. neither sexuality excludes transgender people. pitting queer people against each other because theyre not the "right" kind of queer does nothing but damage the queer community as a whole

screenshot 2: agreeing to delete the post, but doubling down on what she said and refusing to listen to anon simply because they're anonymous

screenshot 3: the highlighted part is what we're focusing on here. "We don't consider cis gay men who only date the same to be anti-trans". hi, I'm a trans gay man. Yes We Fucking Do. i don't understand why she thinks she has the authority to speak on this. what "we" is she referring to here?

Second point: lack of respect or understanding of boundaries in fandom spaces, including both blocks and simply not wanting to interact with someone

i'll be honest, i'm a bit unsure if the above paragraph is the right way of describing what i mean, but she has a bit of a history of being.... openly weird about people who have blocked her for "no reason", and not only that has stated she thinks that not wanting to take place in an event run by someone you are uncomfortable with is childish

i believe the first one is about my friend Jay, who has her blocked for similar reasons that i do. while it is perfectly fine for her to assume whatever she wants about the reasoning for a block, her phrasing of "all i ever did was be supportive" in a public post about it allows her to victimize herself over a boundary being placed. speaking of Jay, Elsa has, knowing full well that she's been blocked by xim on the "peonyblossom" blog- which, again, is a boundary that has been placed- decided to message xim on the choicespride blog xe runs

the second one is specifically about a tumblr user who i do not know personally and do not wish to drag them into this as they have left the open heart fandom. she was sent an anon about this user blocking her which, yeah, is really weird and suspicious. but this isn't about that, this is about her response to learning she's been blocked. she refers to herself as this users "biggest fan" and says that it "isn't normal" to block your biggest fan. once again she is victimizing herself over a boundary someone else has placed, only this time she has done it in a post talking about a person with their username in it. when you have a blog as big as hers, people are bound to go after someone in the name of defending the person they feel was slighted

& here's her essentially calling people childish bc they might not want to interact with someone who causes them harm. iirc this was either about certain event blogs in the fandom not disclosing who's running them bc they know full well that some people might not be comfortable interacting with them (hiding ur identity will not help with that) or about people choosing not to participate because they know that the person running the event is someone they don't want to interact with. this ones just bizarre to me. no one has to interact with anyone ever, and calling them childish for it is, frankly, childish

Third point: her callout post for Jeremy and her non-apology

to get it out of the way: i'm friends with Jeremy. i'll try to keep this as unbiased as possible, but i am deeply deeply upset and frustrated with everything thats happened to rain. also, just so yall know, Jeremy gave me permission to talk about this. i'm not just dredging up old drama for drama's sake here.

first- the callout post

the thing that started this was a post to the playchoicesconfessions blog where an anonymous user said- and i'm copy/pasting it here- "Ethan said he and Tobias were like brothers. Weird how many people in the fandom want to get with their brothers.’" essentially, this anonymous user accused people who ship Ethias as being into irl incest which..... we will not be getting into all the ways thats problematic here.

(as an aside, Elsa did at some point reblog and then delete this post, but her commentary was focused squarely on "ship and let ship" which is a sentiment i agree with but she completely ignored the blatant homophobia in this post. here's a version someone reblogged from her in case you're curious as to what she said)

Jeremy reblogged this confession post and added "i genuinely hope this person and others who think like this eat a fucking bullet holy shit" specifically in reference to the anon insinuating incest. in turn, anons on rain's blog assumed rai was referring to people who don't ship Ethais and sent rain nasty messages, which rai would respond to and get more anons who saw the latest response and again assume rai was talking about not shipping a ship they ship and not the actual genuine fucking homophobia from the original confession post.

one of these anons sent screenshots of rain's posts to Elsa, without the context, and told her rai was talking about her. rai was not. not until the post where rai (rightfully, ihmo) called both Elsa and another blogger (this one who also got a similar ask about being blocked by the user i mentioned earlier but who decided to put it in the open heart tags instead of keep it on their blog the way Elsa did. that's the only props i'll give to her in regards of that- yes it was shitty she posted it in the first place but at least she didn't tag it) for complaining about and villainizing someone who blocked them.

tldr version is- Jeremy was venting about anons that were being homophobic to rain, another anon sent screenshots of those posts to Elsa without the context who who rai was talking about and said they were about her, and Elsa, without bothering to verify in any way, decided the best course of action would be to publicly call rai out, painting rain as a bully who has been targeting her specifically and once again victimizing herself. on her blog with a bunch of followers. many of whom also chose not to verify, and instead just heaped more hatred onto Jeremy's blog.

this went on until September, when they talked to each other at first with a third party go-between, and eventually person-to-person. Jeremy explained the context of the vent posts, Elsa explained that she was getting the screenshots with no context from an anon and admitted she should have verified them herself instead of going full nuclear, and they both agreed to apologize publicly

all good, end of story, right?

no.

while in Jeremy's post, rai took accountability for their side of what happened in this awful game of telephone and apologized for rains part in the whole thing. if you want to read it, here is a version of it.

Elsa, on the other hand.... well she apologized, but to be honest I'm not quite sure what for.

she says there's been misunderstandings on both parts led on by one or more anonymous sources (no arguments here), says she understands that the posts that were sent to her were not actually about her (okay good) and says that its a tough world and that she's deleted her posts.

okay.... but that doesn't specify what she did at all to need the apology. which was publicly call out Jeremy on her blog with.... well, i'm not sure how many followers she has, but i do know that she's got the most well known blog in the choices fandom. by publicly calling out Jeremy in the way that she did, she (whether intentional or not) set her followers out to attack rains blog. she did not apologize for this. asking people to stop sending hate to rains blog is not the same as taking accountability for sending those people to rains blog in the first place

so. yeah.

again, non-extensive list, but i dont wanna mention things she's done without having screenshots or links to show proof that she did it, and i dont feel like finding more of her bullshit bc this just. really fucking stressed me out.

also this isn't me saying "shes a terrible person forever and i hate her and nobody should like her ever" this is me saying "hey, shes done/said some hurtful things in the past and it sure would be cool if she acknowledged any of it" but i think coolsville sucks or whatever.

also also most importantly: its possible for queer people to say and do things that are queerphobic. being queer yourself does not give you a shield from people calling you out for that. neither does real life activism. its great that she's done real life activism! but pointing back to things you've done in the past, or for a different group of people than the one youre in does not exempt you from the harm youre causing today, to the people you're interacting with.

i dont have a proper ending to this

thanks for reading i guess

[lizardsfromspace]

A merry fuck you to

The pro-forced birth activists who spent decades bombing clinics & murdering doctors and then going "oh no, that's not what we meant at all ;)" handwringing about Jane's Revenge & how anti-abortion people :( are threatening vandalism :( this is so scary and dark :(

A media that seemingly forgot all pro-forced birth violence and joined them in handwringing about how some graffiti is A Sign Of How Divided We've Become. What's a Dr Tiller, the mean leftists put some graffiti on a wall

The centrists condemning the same by saying "um we won't 'take action', we'll win this AT THE BALLOT BOX!" Legit saw someone saying they may protest, but what matters is winning this at the polls

Those same people refusing to codify Roe into law in any time they had the votes to do so bc it was Too Divisive and it was Already Settled and not worth broaching (meanwhile, the right is already talking about trying to enact a federal ban, and the court is already discussing overturning the legality of gay marriage, contraceptive legality, and gay sex)

The justice who proposed that's wife supported a fascist coup to overthrow the government btw and I guess nothing's going to happen with her or him?

The lawyer-brained assholes trying to explain blatantly partisan decisions as some Austere Legal Doctrine, even when the actual legal doctrine is absurd nonsense like "if a right wasn't written down explicitly in the 1700s, it can't exist, no matter if the right entails things that didn't exist then

[the-feminist-philosopher]

You just doubled down on your argument that believing transgenderism is misogynistic automatically aligns you with conservatives.

I could give you a big list of horrible atrocities being committed by right wing men with access to guns, the mass shootings because of a lack of gun control, would that convince you that we need to disarm the proletariat? Does wanting an armed proletariat mean that you support right wing violence, because you agree with conservatives that people should have the right to own guns, even when those guns are being used to kill innocent children?

Maybe if feminists weren't being attacked by the misogynistic male left, and could actually have a voice in the left, desperate women with no resources trying to find support for our human rights wouldn't feel like the right wing is the lesser of two evils.

I mean, when trans activists are nailing dead rats to rape shelters, deplatforming feminists who speak out about misogyny, shutting down and controlling any conversations about women's rights to make sure that men are being centered, and witch hunting any lesbian who refuses to take penis, and sometimes even going so far as to rape and murder women, it's not like feminists are going to get any solidarity with so-called left wing movements, who prioritize males over women. Your movement is literally cannibalizing feminists and then wondering why these desperate women are going, "Hmmm, well left wing men want to get rid of all women's rights forever in one fell swoop by controlling the legal definition of woman, and conservatives want to chip away at my rights slowly over time one by one... I have no resources, who can help me?"

Idk, maybe let women speak about our oppression freely in left wing spaces, provide resources to feminists, allow women to have female only spaces and organize around our class consciousness rather than trying to maintain male control and male hegemony and male definitions of womanhood? And then women will come back to the left, where we used to be, until this trans movement (which btw has all the same goals of the Men's Rights Movement: destroy female class consciousness, destroy female only space, etc...) took over.

You just doubled down on your argument that believing transgenderism is misogynistic automatically aligns you with conservatives.

Because it does. The only people who believe this are on the right, often the far-right, of the political spectrum. You must not like to read?

So I am going to lay it out for you again (because copy-paste is easy for those who refuse to read):

Politically, TERFs have put their eggs in the same basket as people passing anti-abortion policies, people trying to pass girl's genital inspection policies for sports, people trying to ban LGB books, people who want to repeal the right to gay marriage, and people who believe that a woman's "place" is in the home- serving a husband and children all to score a political point against trans people.

Literal white supremacists and white supremacist organizations (See: Richard Spencer’s Radix) are trying to turn TERFs into “race realists.” And they're actually having a lot of success because 1.) the movement is chronically white, 2.) the movement is built a lot on social fears, and 3.) the movement often uses crime statistics as a recruitment and justification point. Literal white supremacists are using the TERF's social grievances and crime statistics to "enlighten" these supposed feminists about what they call the "race question." Over-policing and capitalistic deprivation of resources have devastated black and brown communities, making members of those communities the disproportionate victims of incarceration. Simply pointing out crime and incarceration stats without nuance, which TERFs like to do with their "trans women are all sexual predators" crime argument, has actually helped the bottom line of white supremacists.

They're also using the standard TERF's belief in the divine feminine-- the idea that natal women have a unique biology which should be protected and venerated-- to convince them that there are "masculine" and "feminine" energies and turn them onto the trad life. And they're tapping into the TERF's unaddressed "benevolent" sexism-- a type of sexism that positively rewards people assigned female at birth for observing their sex-assigned social prescriptions from presentation to roles to a cis identity, and which holds that women should be protected (by the [masculinist] state) and revered, most especially for their unique biology-- to convince them that "modern society" and "modern feminism" is diseased and the antithesis to their liberty. And it's working. It's working precisely because TERFs are so eager to separate people into "biological" castes so that men are men and women are women (and never the twain shall meet), define women as "the sex that can bear offspring or produce ova," and reify gendered associations, specifically the association that men are Aggressors and women are passive Recipients of said aggression. This ideology actually does quite a bit to uphold patriarchal ideas that define women as a discrete biological category and it also encourages a system whereby men act on behalf of and choose for women (the Aggressor v. Recipient social prescription does a lot to justify rape culture, or men acting aggressively on behalf of and choose for women).

^This is why notorious misogynists like Matt Walsh have shown open support for high-profile TERFs and have taken the "Adult Human Female" slogan and run with it. There's a reason these men on the "right" of the political spectrum can't stand the existence of trans people, but will voice support for TERFs and their ideology and use their language. The TERF ideology is sexist and they're sexists, so it follows.

Additionally, over the last several years, many rad fem leaders and organizations have come to ally with LGB &T hate groups and the Christian right because they, "know who real women are." It is these christian right groups like the FRC and ADF who are behind many of the anti-abortion, anti-women movements through the U.S. and Europe. They're also behind a lot of anti-trans policies and legislation.

You can read a bit about who is behind funding these policy initiatives, and how much money goes into these campaigns below:

European Parliamentary Forum

Southern Poverty Law Center on the ADF

Southern Poverty Law Center on the FRC

And you can read about the connection between these groups and trans-exclusionaries and radical feminists below:

Southern Poverty Law Center on the Far-Right Anti-Trans Laws

Southern Poverty Law Center on the Anti LGBT Campaigns

Political Research Associates on Partners with the Christian Right

An "Unlikely" Ally

The Women's Liberation Front (WoLF) even accepted a $15,000 donation from the religious freedom giant, the Alliance Defending Freedom. They've also co-authored anti-trans parenting guides with the Family Policy Alliance and the Heritage Foundation. They've held conferences and panels with Christian-right organizing groups too

We've also seen countless radical feminists appear on Tucker Carlson Tonight and the Ingraham Angle, two Fox hosts well-known for whipping up anti-immigrant, xenophobic sentiment in America's Christian Nationalist movement. Speakers included: Meg Kilgannon, Kara Dansky, Tammy Bruce, and Julia Beck.

The term "gender ideology" even has it's origins in conservative Christian circles. And don't even get me started on their use of "hygiene" to describe cis people and the fact they co-opted the idea that certain people (in this case, trans people) have "contaminating" genes. Plus, TERF complaints about the supposed existence of "cancel culture" and "woke culture" echo conservative and right-wing rhetoric.

would that convince you that we need to disarm the proletariat

Some of your favorite pseudo-feminist anti-trans leaders are billionaires and business owners who run sweatshops to bring you the pussy hats and "Adult Human Female" shirts and pins that say transitioning is conversion therapy and rape culture.

You don't give a shit about the proletariat. Otherwise, you'd care about impoverished and prostituted trans workers. If you cared about the proletariat, you'd care about the trans workers packing your Amazon shipments and making your Starbucks and building your smart phone and striking alongside other factory workers and subduing exactly those mass shooters you like to mention again and again. And if you cared about the proletariat, you'd listen to prostituted trans women on the sex industry.

The US has a white supremacy problem. And there's a reason many of it's terrorists mass attack bars and events full of trans people.

You don't give a single damn about the proletariat.

Maybe if feminists weren't being attacked by the misogynistic male left, and could actually have a voice in the left, desperate women with no resources trying to find support for our human rights wouldn't feel like the right wing is the lesser of two evils.

So, let me get this straight. The people stripping others of abortion rights, forcing children into genital inspections, who want to ban gay marriage, who are burning books, who want a Christo-fascist empire are the "lesser of two evils."

"[T]he progressive and conservative elements of Fascism [are] bound together: the 'progressive' cause... is but a means to a 'reactionary' end, the destruction of the parliamentary form of government. Women thus [have] key social and political roles to play in the battering ram fascism [takes] to liberal democracy."

They literally believe in creating a white-supremacist, christo-fascist nation and you think "Yah, these are the guys to side with. But only temporarily until we can destroy those libs!"

You'd rather choose white supremacy over advocating for trans people even though advocating for trans people in no way attacks women. And then had the audacity to suggest I am misguided in saying you're motivated by hatred:

You cannot claim to have a genuine desire to free women from oppression while thinking white supremacy is the lesser of two evils.

deplatforming feminists who speak out about misogyny, shutting down and controlling any conversations about women's rights to make sure that men are being centered, and witch hunting any lesbian who refuses to take penis, and sometimes even going so far as to rape and murder women,

Only people being deplatformed are misogynists and sexists.

Men are not being centered in any trans-positive discussion of human rights or misogyny or sexism. You're just a bigot who cannot see trans women for who they are.

"How one becomes a woman is not, I think, our job to police, even as everything about that process is worth inquiry and detailed understanding. Having been surrounded by born women who do not identify as women particularly, and reject feminism as having nothing to do with them, it has been inspiring to encounter transwomen who do identify as women, actively oppose violence against women including prostitution (in which those who engage have little choice), and are strong feminists. “Woman” can be, in part, a political identification. To be a woman, one does have to live women’s status. Transwomen are living it, and in my experience bring a valuable perspective on it as well." -Catharine Mackinnon

Trans women are women.

No one is hunting down lesbians who don't want to suck dick. This is an outrageous outrage-buzz point. No one is forcing this. This is not a thing. There is no observable pattern of behavior among all trans women that suggests lesbians are systematically pressured into taking dick. The trans community- the community, the whole- recognizes that it is okay to not want to have sex with someone. You can say no or yes to anyone you want and literally do not need to justify it.

(But, please, for the love of fuck, do come up to someone- even a trans person- and, unprompted, talk about how you don't want to have sex with them and think their genitalia is disgusting and thay are just *so* unattractive. That is sexual harassment. Rule of thumb: if you'd slap a man for saying it, don't repeat it to a trans woman.)

it's not like feminists are going to get any solidarity with so-called left wing movements, who prioritize males over women

And the right-wing prioritizes women? They find solidarity there? I'm sure they certainly don't prioritize traditional gender roles or anti-abortion, or marital rape (/sarcasm).

THESE are literally the people who are trying to deny you your rights in "one fell swoop." They are hardly the lesser of two evils. In the US, most of the most prominent anti-abortionists are being investigated for child sex trafficking. They want to murder all Jewish people and start a race war. They believe we should be ruled by biblical law; that we should put people to death for being gay, trans, or an adulterer. They literally support child-marriage. They're dismantling voting rights, dismantling Title IX, dismantling bodily autonomy rights, and dismantling non-discrimination laws and you think they're the "lesser of two evils?"

Your movement is literally cannibalizing feminists and then wondering why these desperate women are going, "Hmmm, well left wing men want to get rid of all women's rights forever in one fell swoop by controlling the legal definition of woman ...allow women to have female only spaces and organize around our class consciousness rather than trying to maintain male control and male hegemony and male definitions of womanhood

Okay, so, again, feminists- true feminists- reject the attempt define womanhood because it is inherently subjective. They understand that defining a woman and one experience of women ("womanhood") 1.) will leave a lot of women out, and 2.) is ultimately about power.

We can no longer ignore how biology, biological discourse, and the terms and words we use to refer to our material reality are structured by historic and current social and political views. A biological reality becomes cognitively significant through this discourse and these terms we use and concepts we engage with. So, defining “women” as “females” -- and thus emphasizing a label that is ascribed to all at birth along patriarchal standards of "correct" genitalia and "best" fertility -- is itself a political choice influenced by one’s socialization rather than one that can claim to neutrally reflect what the world is “really” and "materially" like.

The reliance upon one standard definition not just for the women's-experience, but also for the female-experience, is laughable, at best. And not just because definitions are inherently imprecise and inadequately encompass the entirety of our lived experienced and the material world. But also because the definitions of words are literally socially constructed. They were created and have since been defined and influenced by oppressive structures like the patriarchy and white supremacy and colonialism. This defining of our experiences is influenced by cissexism, intersexism, heterosexism, and sexism.

There isn't a single property that makes "womanhood" or "femaleness." And that's pretty widely accepted. There's no single thing that single-handedly makes for "womanhood." It's not like after a certain number or configuration of properties converging at a particular time, you get "womanhood." There should never be some one standard against which all bodies are compared or measured for the correct amount of "femaleness" or "womanhood."

So, when people want to create a standard measure for "femaleness" or "womanhood," we need to ask WHO gets to set these standards or properties of "femaleness" or "womanhood" and WHY they're the authority. In any claim about which measures or properties are adequately "woman-enough" are assumptions about power and authority. Who has the power and authority in our society to decide who is "woman-enough?"

The fact society defines "women" as ova producers and child bearers (i.e. the very definition of human female; the sex that has the ability or potential to bear offspring or produce eggs) or even as vagina havers and uterus havers (i.e. the insistence that, "only someone with a uterus or vagina is a woman") is a result of socialization in a male dominant society that has striven to define "woman" as a discrete biological class, female.

Even radical feminist Catharine MacKinnon (an actual radical feminist, and she supports trans women) understood that to be defined as female is to be an object. You do not get to consent to yourself; to your femaleness. It has been defined and ascribed to you and for you. Because male dominant society must see to it that female is a woman and "clearly" a woman, opposite that of "man." It must see to it that women are women and men are men and that the two ought be separate because this allows said society to prescribe certain bounds to each group.

Certain bounds of behavior. Certain bounds of public life. Certain bounds of private life. Certain bounds of presentation.

And this all helps foster the reification of gendered associations that decrease the perception of women as empowered agents and even human. These bounds of behavior assign to men the role of Aggressor and to women the role of passive Recipient, helping to reproduce sexual violence against women by decreasing their agency. These social prescriptions encourage men to act on behalf of women from making financial or relationship decisions, to deciding when and where and how a woman has sex, to the definition and social prescription of "female," and to the reproductive alienation of those assigned female.

Thus, "female" is far from a neutral scientific observation and "woman" is far from a scientific category.

“Any attempt to catalog the commonalities among women … has the inescapable result that there is some correct way to be a woman. This will inevitably encourage and legitimize certain experiences of gender and discourage and delegitimize others, subtly reinforcing and entrenching precisely those forces of socialization of which feminists claim to be critical.” -Carol Hay

And then women will come back to the left, where we used to be, until this trans movement (which btw has all the same goals of the Men's Rights Movement: destroy female class consciousness, destroy female only space, etc…) took over.

AKA... restrict trans people's bodily autonomy and existence for my own comfort because you don't have any actual ideas for how to advance a woman's life unless your work is tied to suppressing the rights of some other group. You don't want to liberate women, you want to throw trans women under the bus and use their backs as a stepping stone or ladder so your skirt doesn't get dragged through the mud.

You guys hate femininity, so have no solution to the arbitrary gendering of clothes and clothing standards beyond shaming women for wearing them as "not feminist enough." And then when they walk into a bathroom looking a little too "male" for your liking, they're harassed, forcing women into a double bind where they aren't feminist enough for you if they are feminine, but also aren't "female" enough for you if they are not feminine.

You don't want to do anything to attack the gender binary or the idea that if female->woman->feminine, if male->man->masculine. You simply don't. You don't want to challenge the idea that certain types of dress and behavior and standards *must* apply to people on the basis of the sex caste they were assigned into. I mean, the transphobe go-to insult for trans women is "men in dresses," which makes no sense as an insult unless you think that dressers are inherently lesser because society deemed them "feminine" and because you think men "shouldn't" wear dresses.

You don't want to tackle gender differentiation- of the idea that men are men and women are women and they fundamentally must be two separate and impermeable castes.

You don't want to tackle benevolent sexism and the deification of (certain) women (as long as they follow certain behaviors). You're group will claim that having a period is materially neutral in one breath and then in the next say that people should be celebrated for their fertility. Without any consideration for how the necessity of (white) female fertility is a patriarchal and white supremacist construct.

You're all unwilling to use epicenic language, like person-first language (person with the capacity for pregnancy), second-person language (if you can get pregnant...), or gender-neutral language (chair/chairperson, camera operator, parent, child, etc...).

You all literally do not want to abolish gender or the gender-sex binary. You don't want to create a society of gender-non/existent/neutral children. You all think that's indoctrinating them into "transness." All you want to do is legislate trans people out of existence. You want to make their identities non-existent. You don't want to abolish gender, you want to abolish the chance for permeable gender expression in favor of a gender that is acceptable to you.

You want to silence trans voices, not uplift women. You want to use trans bodies as your platform from which to preach and evangelize your ideal binary and the standard for which you believe all women should meet to qualify for "womanhood."

Modern feminism holds that social categories intersect at the individual level to reflect multiple interlocking systems of privilege and oppression at the social-structural level. Intersectionality is about overlapping systems of oppression and privilege, and how inequalities operate together and exacerbate each other.

The TERF's insistence that cis women (“females” as you’d put it) are a culturally subordinate caste while trans women are members of the oppressor caste entirely discounts the ways in which sex, gender, and cis/trans status intersect. “These intersections produce more complex, shifting, and context- dependent power relationships than are captured by [a simple, binary] M > F formula.” This M > F formula also leads to an over-emphasis of sex subordination in TERF circles to the point that many believe that the patriarchy is the most pivotal and consequential axis of oppression. Too many completely write-off or ignore the intersection of privileges and marginalizations, from racism to cissexism to homophobia to intersexism to classism.

This has led the rad fem movement to fail to address how these systems are reproduced within their organizations, which is why the movement remains chronically white and middle class and predominately straight. This also lead them to ignore the way women play a part in the reproduction of oppressive systems (and even the degradation of democracy), making it easy for anti-pluralistic ideologies which deny these oppressions to spread among TERF ranks.

This is also how we get reductive takes like, "It's empowering to deny a homeless man socks when you're a woman, because he's a man." And this take is all over TERF twitter, calling them "moids."

Trans women do not have systemic power over cis women. They do not have access to the patriarchal power structure and are unable to wield it in their favor. The patriarchy literally hates their existence. All the misogynistic men who rush to the defense of white women like JK are all well known for despising trans people. There isn't a single "MRA" who doesn't want trans people dead.

The fight for bodily autonomy and freedom to live and let live; to identify however one sees fit is hardly "cannibalizing" the left. Transphobes will not be accepted in feminist and liberation movements, period. That isn't cannibalizing our own, that's letting reductive and reactionary movements know they aren't invited and we will not tolerate them. You've made your bed with literal Nazis. We don't want you among our ranks. You are not a feminist. And now you feel put out because you have to sleep in the bed you made.

Amazing. Everything you just said is wrong.

The only reason that femininity (defined as: the attributes or characteristics of a woman) is considered "weak" is because the patriarchy has convinced you that women are "weak" and that anything feminine is inherently "lesser." Nothing about femininity is inherently about being weak or pretty or demure or delicate or graceful. Even "feminine," the adjective that oft refers to those traditional standards has more than one application. As a noun, it literally just refers to a gender or the female sex.

It's literally just the characteristics you use to define your own femaleness. There's nothing capitalist in self-identity and forging your own path of "womanhood."

But the patriarchy has convinced you that anything and everything the female sex does is "lesser;" that any attribute a woman characterizes herself with becomes "weaker."

"Online alt-right corners have demonized feminist paradigms in an incredibly effective way. They saw the disaffection women felt toward the idea of convenient incrementalism and how it failed to liberate women. So, they made feminism synonymous with stagnation.

They saw women's legitimate grievances against systemic violence and oppressive structures and how addressing them would challenge male-dominance in society. So, they used those grievances to convince some women that other women with less social capitol and power are a threat and the reason for their insecurity.

Suddenly, liberal feminism no longer referred to a paradigm; to a type of feminist theory that held that laws are the primary barrier to civil emancipation. It was a boogeyman. And its existence was a threat to women. So it must be destroyed.

Women have key social and political roles to play in the battering ram that fascism takes to liberal democracy. The white man needs the white women. He cannot hope to uphold white supremacy and the hierarchy of race and sex without her.

Convincing women that feminism is really just their oppression repackaged in pink sparkles was one of the smartest things the alt-right could have done. They've been convinced that feminism has become 'girlbossing' and denying your material reality and the exploitation of your labor and alienation from your reproductive functions and the destruction of happiness and family and community and inherently capitalist. It isn't your liberation. Its your prison; the place of eternal double-binds where you aren't "woman-enough" if you can't have kids but you aren't "feminist enough" if you chose to be a mother." X

[ohnobjyx]

I clicked on that link of xz supporting his friend and it looks like people were using that to say he's gay (not like b/jyx ppl I don't think but ppl who hate him) and then ppl saying no he's straight cause that's what his friend wrote, am I right?

Hi, anon! Sorry it took me soooo long to answer it. For those who have forgotten what anon is talking about, it was one of my reblogs (which I can’t seem to find rn), that included this link to XZ supporting a friend of his who had come out of the closet. 

Short answer: your interpretation of the article wasn’t that wrong, but I’m not sure if you’ve got the correct sequence of the story, so here it is my answer.

Disclaimer: fake fake fake, ofc.

For those who don’t know Chinese, let me explain a bit first. The OP from the link is asking: is XZ straight?

The most liked answer is talking about a reply gg left on a friend’s post in 2011, back when he was still a university student (but the screenshot is from after gg had debuted, so his username had the X-9 part).

A friend of gg had posted about his new bf, effectively coming out with it.Gg appeared in the comments section:

Gg: Aiyo!! please explain

Friend: buf, seeing you appearing so suddenly, I feel a death aura from you~

Gg: Haha... you didn’t tell me even though you got a partner, congratulations! hehe

Friend: Maybe I can bring him next time we hang out and introduce him to you, haha, thank cute xiao-jie’s congratulations~ I just didn’t dare to tell you~

Gg: You didn’t dare to tell me... why? haha

Friend: (blurred out text) ... straight, you aren’t gay~

Gg: (embarrased/sad face 囧).... aren’t we friends.... if we are, I’d congratulate you...

The text that accompanies the photo says: because XZ is straight, his gay friend didn’t dare to come out of the closet to him, and xz answered: we’re friends, I’d congratulate you.

There are more screenshots accompanying that one:

A classmate saying in 2013: more than 180 cm tall, knows how to wear fashionably, sings beautifully, can take good photos, no saving for me. What’s more important, he’s not gay

A reply to a post asking whether gg’d been outed: what! his direct classmate (gay) vouched for him and told me himself that he was straight!

It also includes a photoshopped post of gg using “gay slang”, that was later proved by fans that it was photoshop and that gg never posted those words.

So the photo and the other rumours were being spread by haters and antis, saying that gg was gay in a not-good way. Please remember that there is a difference between believing that someone must be lgbt, and a whole another thing to say that someone has an “abnormal sexual orientation”. The tone is important!

This is very complicated in an upsetting way. The “proof” attached by this user replying to whether gg is gay was trying to prove that gg is not gay, just supportive of lgbt, because they believe that being gay is bad. So, anon, you’ve encountered well-meaning fans trying to defend their idol from rumours they believe will damage their image (there’s no need to say that they’re probably solo fans, I think).

In summary:

A user asked “is XZ gay?”

The most liked reply (673 likes) says that he must be straight since his gay friends said he is. This user also clears up some rumours about gg using lgbt slang in a public post, which is definitely false.

I think this reply was probably written by a xfx (gg’s solo fans), though the post was quite homophobic. They probably had well-meaning intentions, like “I’m defending his name and his reputation!” but whether it was actually beneficial is very debatable.

Once again, I don’t think it would be good for them if bjyx started to say “they’re gay” publicly (the use of their names is prohibited in the supertopic for a reason!) but to deny it so vehemently isn’t exactly helpful for them in the long run, imo. This doesn’t apply in this case, obviously, because the writer felt that saying that gg was gay is an offense.

A little bonus (pure speculation!):

Please notice that I’ve highlighted that there was a part of the friend’s reply that was blurred out, precisely in the part in which the friend says “you seemed straight, you aren’t gay” part.

This conversation is very old and gg’s posts aren’t visible if they’re older than 6 months, so we can only rely on screenshots for these things. The name of his friend is blurred out for obvious reasons, but for some reason, a part of his friend reply is also blurred out.

Why is it blurred out? It may be completely unconsequential and unimportant, just a editing mistake, but I can’t help but think that if a part of the text was blurred out by solo fans, there might be something they don’t want others to see. What does it say? Maybe we’ll never find out. 

Bonus nº2:

Btw, gg has a very brave friend, who dared to come out when the things weren’t looking so good for those who dared to be different. Cheering for gg’s friend from here!

Bonus nº3:

A lot of the replies were affirming that he must be straight, since he had a girlfriend before, while he was studying at the university. And I’m like.... bisexuality? Discovering your sexuality after having a romantic partner? There are a couple options out there, but they are just... refusing to see them? I must admit that this is quite confusing, especially this phrase from one of the replies: “he had a girlfriend, he can’t be bisexual!”

Bonus nº4:

For those who might be disheartened by that xfx (and I feel very tired just by reading so much homophobia, since most of the replies had a very harsh tone), here I have the last sentence of a reply by another solo fan (at least they didn’t give the vibe of being a bxg, and they spent a long post talking about gg’s qualities), even though they said at first “he must be straight...”:

“... If there’s any possibility of you not being straight, I want you to not be afraid of letting us fans down, you have to chase bravely for your own happiness! I’ll be guarding you from here! As we agreed, protecting each other, feeling proud for each other!”

Another reply I liked:

“What age is it, is important whether he’s gay? In Taiwan same sex marriage has even been legalized, must our thinking remain so stubborn and traditional? Don’t fans like him because he’s a role model, a talented person? As long as he remains in this industry and keeps his heart, isn’t it enough? And I’d like to add another thing, must love be limited by gender? Whether he’s straight isn’t important, for me, as long as there are aspects I like of him, I’ll enjoy him”

And this:

Whether he is or not doesn’t matter, as long as he’s happy

[bitegore]

Also, like, for the record every time i say "liberals" i mean a very particular strawman. If you're a liberal but I've allowed you on my blog you're probably not one of the empty-words "love is love! btw i think unemployment benefits need to be cut" tackle-problems-at-their-surface-and-make-no-meaningful-change, "the party i like has said something is now their platform so i'm going to pretend that's what i've always wanted" types.

IRL I run (or at least ran, before 2020) into quite a lot of people who genuinely have no backbone, no ideals, and no hopes for the future. They clearly do not think about politics terribly hard, and let their emotions and nothing but their emotions guide them. The same kind of people who are nominally anti-racism and anti-homophobia and anti-transphobia but oppose almost every policy put in place to materially combat the results of those biases (healthcare, wage, housing, and education gaps, largely) in place of empty pushes and hollow words to the same tune of "stop bullying" campaigns in the early 2000s. The kind of people who think that "love won" with marriage equality and now homophobia is dead, who think that the only kind of transphobia that exists is violent hate crimes, and who don't see racism because they're "colorblind" or who only see racism when black folks hold their hand and walk them through it every single time. Generally they're part and parcel to every kind of -ism on the planet, but especially ableism; and even more generally, they consider themselves advocates for people of color and The Gay Community while refusing to ever acknowledge that they have perpetuated racism and homophobia while attempting to be this advocate for poc and the lgbtq community. (Usually they're like "yeah i was homophobic but i got better!" when it's pointed out that they're unintentionally making shit comments in the present).

At the end of the day, the only defining factor about these particular self-proclaimed liberals is that they stump for the Democratic party and will always support anything it's doing, including drone strikes and foreign meddling, even when it comes into conflict with what they claim to believe. Materially they do nothing but support tax cuts and go "yasss!!! real change!" when a senator notices that black people exist.

This is my strawman. Like I said, if you consider yourself to be a liberal, but you're here, I probably am not talking about you. If this all feels like it's hitting kind of close to home, though... uh...

well, I want to say "stop" but really the correct answer is probably "try harder" actually. Sit down and figure out your values. And then figure out which of your values have gotten tangled up in racism and sexism and homophobia and ableism and so on and so forth and decide if that is in line with your values. and then once you've sorted your shit out act in accordance with those values. and suddenly you will no longer be anything like my strawman.

cool? cool

[laufire]

Supernatural s3

It’s so unfair that the season that has Ruby AND Bela is so short :(((. I was done with it waaaay too quickly, and now I’m speed running through s4 xD (which, like the first time around, is Strong Mixed Feelings territory).

-My girl Ruby!!!! I was so happy to have her back, I kept grinning like a loon every time she was on screen. It’s quite interesting watching the 1.0 and 2.0 versions so close to each other, instead of as they air. I have... Thoughts, on whether Ruby as a double agent was something planned or that they decided as they went, but that’s for the s4 post. s3!Ruby really doesn’t come across as one (“I don’t believe in the devil” oh I wish sometimes xD, I love my nonbelievers), imo, but the beauty of such a device is that you can rationalize anything she does as devious if you want to xD

And it goes without saying that I love her interactions with Sam. THIS SHIP ISTG. I love how immediately ~attuned to her he is lol, his present and instinctive concern for her even if he tries to mask his interest as “practical”. And all the repeated times Sam’s conflicted between her and Dean -like when he deviates Dean shot (wasting one of the Colt’s bullets lmfao) or during the argument about the virgin sacrifice xD. And the “that’s my boy”/ “little fallen angel on your shoulder” quotes!!! Ruby 1.0 deserved to be railed by Sam too, smh.

My favourite episode of hers is “Jus in Bello” (which would be my fave of the season just by virtue of having both Bela and Ruby in the same episode lol. Not interacting, of course, the world as we know it wouldn’t have survived). I just love that she gets that final moment of I TOLD YOU SO to the brothers xD. I really like how she expands on the demonic lore of the show- I love, LOVE the detail about how all demons used to be humans, how they’re souls corrupted in hell. And that in her past life she was a witch (there was this really good fic in Spanish fandom about it... I need to hunt it down).

BTW, though I think her interactions with Dean in that episode are interesting, it really hammers home how much I hate him sometimes xD. Can you stop saying misogynistic slurs for TWO GODDAMN MINUTES, DEAN (and as we know from as early as this season, only HE can have demon/monster friends!! What a fucking hypocrite xD). I freaking love the moment in the finale when she viciously yells him about how she wishes she could see him in hell lmao (and how it foreshadows that when she shows sympathy later, it’s actually Lilith in disguise lmfao). I hate Dean gets the last word in their dynamic, tbqh. Until the s15 cameo, at least xDD

One thing that’s been bothering me xD: the French fries. Demons are vulnerable to salt, like other spirits, right? (and hey, look what a nice piece of foreshadowing that was). How does that translate to food lol. Because Ruby adores French fries, and they obviously contain salt. It’s like spicy food for humans? Or like pineapple? Inquiring minds etc. xD

-I still cannot believe Bela Talbot was only on the show for six episodes lmao. Her presence still lingers in the watchers’ heads so much?? Which is understandable because she’s Lead Girl Material if there was ever any lol. The care with which they styled her even?? You don’t do that for just any character lmao (I mean, just look at most of SPN’s female characters for comparison xD).

Her ship with Dean could’ve really been something, too -even if I hate Dean in it, I can’t deny it packs a punch, narrative-wise. I mean, the Batcat undertones alone!! The fake married undercover shenanigans!! And I think it’s really interesting that she’s such a blind spot for him; Dean’s unusually intuitive about people, but with Bela he takes everything at face value and she can fool him like no other (while, OTOH, is Sam who questions her facade and wants to see more). If he hadn’t been such an idiot (and such an asshole) he could’ve had a really powerful ship. Sucks to be him lol.

Anyway. Man, I love her. So much. I love how Gordon’s threats to kill her don’t work on her, and I love that the show basically said “Bela killing her abusive parents is good, actually” (I’m so tired of forgiveness narratives, you guys. This entire show is founded on revenge, so let me get my revenge fantasies in peace!!) xDD. And I love, LOVE that she withheld that truth from Dean, that she decided he wasn’t worth it. OTOH, you know, fuck the fans that got her written out, definitely; but on the other, I do love how her story ended (and that it was a clear "fuck you" to shitty fans). Doesn’t stop me for wanting to read and re-read (and maybe write!) even more “Bela escapes hell” fix-its, but still.

Also, very important question: what happened to her cat?? It’s the cat alright?? I’m going to headcanon that she left them with that cougar friend of hers lol.

-So. THE DEAL. Okay. Oof. I love this storyline, a lot. A loooot. I love the conflict it creates between the brothers (as long as there’s still conflict and Sam hasn’t yet started taking everything lying down I can enjoy that part of their narrative lol). I love Dean’s initial forced giddiness about “making the most out of his last year” and I love the moment Dean decides he does want to try to live because it makes the last few episodes all the most desperate and cruel (and hey, I’ve heard he only went to hell because the season was cut short due to a writers’ strike... if that’s true that’s so funny lmao).

My absolutely favourite part however? That you can FEEL Dean’s unvoiced resentment towards Sam. For Dean having to die for him, even if Sam never asked him to. He lashes out to Sam repeatedly through the season, but it really came to ahead in the dreamspace episode, where Dean confronts another version of himself that talks about how Sam was “dotted on” (the revisionism asldfkaf). This show is absolutely ruthless when it comes to showing you its characters’ ugly, unfair reactions to things and it’s my favourite thing evah.

Speaking of the dreamspace episode, OMFG. I loved both brothers there. Dean’s hallucination, seeing himself as a demon? And how he let out his anger about John?? Beautiful, truly (regarding John, I also loved their different reactions when it looked like his spirit had contacted them: Dean jumping on it and Sam detached skepticism). But my favourite part has to be when Sam uses the villain’s abusive father against him. Like. Damn. That was cold-blooded o.0

The second-to-last episode, when Sam tracked down that Frankenstein doctor to try and make Dean immortal was ABSOLUTELY HORRIFYING OMG. I loved that. I love that Sam wanted to use it for both them. It was some scary shit. I also love the scene where the crossroads demon questions whether Sam really wants to break the deal, I’m gathering it’s going to be nice foreshadowing later on in the show lol.

Anyway. I also found Dean’s death scene more impactful than Sam’s. Partially because of the horror of it, but mostly because I think at this type of scenes, Padalecki is better. Sam’s grief felt more real, Dean’s got me out of the scene (it’s the voice, I think. Sometimes Ackles’ voice takes me out of scenes, it sounds... forced).

I also really enjoyed how the time loop episode wrapped around this subplot. It managed to be both heartbreaking and mind-numbly hilarious lmfao. Like?? All the deaths?? Were so pathetic?? I tip my hat to Ackles because I don’t think most actors could carry plots like this half as well lmfao.

Sidenote, it’s always a trip to see The Trickster God knowing that fucker is Gabriel. Archangel “hey Mary do you accept God knocking you up” Gabriel. Which I guess isn’t exactly a thing in this show?? Since according to the wikia SPN Jesus was “just a man” (and let me tell you, I’m tickled pink by the fact that out of ALL mythological figures, specifically all CHRISTIAN mythological figures, the show decided to go “nah” on Jesus Christ. I mean, I guess he’d take away from Dean’s, Sam’s and Castiel’s resurrection narratives, but still. It’s so funny!!).

-Gordon Walker remains a superbly acted and fascinating character with extra racist nonsense alsdkfjasdf. But I can’t deny I loved seeing him as a vampire. He was terrifying. And I’m definitely shipping him with Kubrick, ouch xD

-The Ghostfacers episode is... something. As in, incredibly exploitative and homophobic and with an egregious case of BYG (and the first where I’d say it’s incontestable to claim the trope was used. s1 and s2 are muddy territory given the circumstances, IMO, but this one is 300% BYG), but so successfully manipulative my heart hurt for Corbett and Corbett x Ed still. Fuck them for that ngl. I do still enjoy how anti-Winchesters they all are though xD

-3x01 introduces the one nice marriage of hunters so far, between a black couple. The man dies in a gross, horrifying way within the episode ofc (because he was Mean to the the brothers duh). She makes it out alive, and since she doesn’t reappear in the show she gets to live. So for now black women have a sliiiiiightly better track record in SPN than track guys there: they get to appear in a few more episodes and be more fleshed out (Victor, Gordon), but as long as they’re only in one episode they get to live!! (Cassie, Tamara).

-Rufus and Bobby are exes, right? Right?? Probably still married in some state? You know that post about how when gay marriage was legalized across the USA there were a lot of issues because some couples had split and never bothered to divorce, since it was only legal in one place? That post was made for them. Pity Rufus is a black man, and as such has a limited number of allowed appearances before he’s killed off ¬¬

-I would’ve enjoyed Dean’s moments with Lisa and Ben more (it’s just so RIGHT that in this moment he’d want Ben to be his) if my knowledge of future spoilers didn’t perpetually have me in a state of “pls keep this guy away from kids” lol.

-They had Harmony’s actress (BTVS) and they made her a vampire!! The show’s hard on for the Buffyverse is a bit of a hit and miss but I can’t say I don’t relate xDD.

-I know Jensen Ackles can sing (in fact thanks to youtube I know a few of the actors can... is there a musical episode. Does this show have its own OMWF. I need to know). So why. WHY. Does he sound like that during “Dead or Alive”??? I actually like the scene but he sounds so off-key lmao.

-BTW, I found out that apparently Katie Cassidy and Lauren Cohan originally auditioned for each other’s roles añslkdfjasf. I can’t picture it. Ruby 1.0 is Ruby 1.0 and Bela is Bela xD. Although I’ve seen each playing roles that could meld with the other, just. Nope. Good choice on the casting there lol.

[scotiaeire]

WHY I’M NOT A MODERN FEMINIST.

NO, IT’S NOT JUST BECAUSE I’M AN AULD FART.

HERE’S THE THING (FOR ME)...I DON’T *WANT* A WORLD OF EMASCULATED, FEMINISED MEN.

BEFORE I GET JUMPED ON, YES, I’M WELL AWARE THAT MEN ABUSE, RAPE, MURDER AND DEGRADE WOMEN ALL OVER THE GLOBE. I MYSELF WAS IN AN ABUSIVE MARRIAGE WHICH INCLUDED ALL OF THE ABOVE EXCEPT, OBVIOUSLY, MURDER...I GOT OUT OF IT, LUCKILY. NOT EVERY WOMAN DOES. I’VE ALSO BEEN SEXUALLY ABUSED BY A WOMAN. IT WAS EVERY BIT AS BAD AS BEING ABUSED BY A MAN.

I BEGAN WORKING (OFFICIALLY) IN THE SEVENTIES. EVEN THOUGH IT WAS AN OFFICE JOB, WOMEN HAD “DRESS CODES” WHICH INCLUDED SKIRTS, HIGH HEELS, MAKEUP, ETC. HATED IT. BUT WHEN I TOOK THE JOB I WAS TOLD BEFOREHAND “YOU CANNOT JOIN OR FORM A UNION WHILST WORKING HERE” SO I TOOK IT.

MY BOSS, AN EX ARMY MAJOR (IT WAS A CHARITY I WORKED FOR, ROYAL PATRONAGED) HAD A HABIT OF CHASING YOUNG SECRETARIES ROUND THE TABLES AND TRYING TO PINCH OUR BACKSIDES. WE HATED IT BUT SAT AT COFFEE BREAK AND LAUGHED AT HIM. WE’D BIGGER WORRIES IN LIFE.

LIKE, MEN DOING THE SAME JOB AS US BEING PAID MORE. AND OF COURSE, WITHOUT THE BACKING OF A UNION (SEE WHAT THEY DID THERE? HUH?) WE COULDN’T DO A THING ABOUT IT, UNLESS WE WANTED TO LOOK FOR ANOTHER JOB.

WHILST I WILL ALWAYS, ALWAYS AGREE NO MAN SHOULD LAY HIS HANDS ON A WOMAN IN ANGER OR WHEN IT’S UNWANTED, BY THE SAME TOKEN, I FEEL IT’S GOING TOO FAR NOW. MEN HAVE NO ROLE MODELS TO *BE* MEN AND NO, WE’RE NOT ALL THE SAME. MEN AND WOMEN *ARE* DIFFERENT. I’M NOT TALKING QUEER POLITICS HERE BTW. MY DAUGHTER IS TRANSGENDER AND I’M MORE AWARE THAN EVER OF HOW PEOPLE VIEW THEMSELVES AND PRESENT THEMSELVES TO THE WORLD.

I’M TALKING STRAIGHT MEN AND WOMEN. THAT PHRASE ALONE WILL NO DOUBT GET ME FLAK. *SHRUG*

I’M NOT ALONE IN NOT WANTING A WORLD IN WHICH MEN ARE LEFT ADRIFT IN A WORLD THAT, LET’S BE HONEST, FOR THE MOST PART, SEEMS TO HATE THEM AND BLAME THEM FOR EVERYTHING.

BUT YOU KNOW WHAT? THERE ARE FEMALE POLITICIANS I HAVE MET WHO, IN THEIR UNCARING GREED AND AGENDAS, PUT MEN TO SHAME.

THERE ARE FEMALE DOCTORS I HAVE MET WHO, IN THEIR ATTITUDE TO OTHER WOMEN, SHOULD BE STRUCK OFF, BUT WON’T BE.

THERE ARE WOMEN I KNOW WHO AREN’T FIT TO RAISE THEIR CHILDREN, WHO THEN GO ON TO BECOME WILD, LOST AND END UP IN JAIL, WHILST THE DADS, DENIED THE CHANCE, WOULD CLEARLY HAVE DONE A GRAND JOB OF BEING FATHERS.

MANY MEN ARE NOW AFRAID TO SO MUCH AS LOOK IN THE DIRECTION OF A WOMAN IN CASE THEY’RE ACCUSED OF ABUSE. THEY DON’T KNOW HOW TO APPROACH A WOMAN IF THEY LIKE HER AND WANT TO GET TO KNOW HER. I’VE SEEN IT FIRST HAND. A CLIQUE OF GIRLS AT A COFFEE TABLE, DROOLING OVER HANDSOME GUYS IN THE CAFE THEN, WHEN ONE APPROACHES TO SAY HI, THEY DELIGHTED IN TELLING HIM WHERE TO GO. WITH AS MUCH RUDENESS AND CRASSNESS AS THE NINETIES “LADETTES” I REMEMBER SO WELL.

THE OBJECT OF FEMINISM IN THE BEGINNING WAS SIMPLE...EQUAL RIGHTS FOR BOTH MEN AND WOMEN. IN VOTING, IN THE WORKPLACE, IN LIFE.

NOW IT’S SLIDING TO EXTREMISM AND THE KIND OF MILITARY FEMINISM THAT DOES WOMEN NO FAVOURS.

AN EXAMPLE? ON A POLITICAL LEVEL, THE SCOTTISH GOVERNMENT. NICOLA STURGEON’S AT FIRST ADMIRABLE GOAL TO MAKE SCOTGOV A GENDER EQUAL TABLE, WHICH IS NOW WOMAN-HEAVY AND INVOLVED THE DITCHING OF MEN WHO HAD SPENT THEIR ENTIRE LIVES WORKING FOR THE SNP, WHO KNEW THEIR JOBS AND DID THEM WELL, DUMPED FOR YOUNG WOMEN WITH ZERO EXPERIENCE AND NO CONNECTION WITH WHAT THE SNP ONCE STOOD FOR. THAT.

IN ORDINARY LIFE? MEN AFRAID TO APPROACH WOMEN SO THAT “DATING” IS REPLACED BY WHATEVER THE LATEST TECH IS THESE DAYS...ZOOM? I DON’T KNOW, SORRY, I DON’T KEEP UP WITH TECHNOLOGY. BUT GODS FORBID A MAN SHOULD ACTUALLY WALK UP TO A WOMAN, ADMIT HE FINDS HER ATTRACTIVE AND WOULD LIKE TO GET TO KNOW HER.

THEY’RE RELUCTANT TO DO SO BECAUSE EXPERIENCE HAS THEM REMEMBERING THE TIME THE WOMAN TURNED AND YELLED AT HIM TO “BACK OFF OUT OF MY SPACE!” OR SIMILAR..

NOBODY WANTS A WORLD IN WHICH WOMEN OR CHILDREN ARE ABUSED IN ANY WAY. OR MEN. BECAUSE YES, IT HAPPENS TO THEM TOO.

THERE’S A HAPPY MEDIUM AND WE’VE YET TO FIND IT. AND WE HAVEN’T.

MEN AREN’T ALLOWED TO FEEL “MASCULINE” YET, THAT’S EXACTLY WHAT THEY ARE. AND NO, “MASCULINE” DOES *NOT* EQUATE TO “CAVEMAN DRAGS WOMAN BY HAIR BACK TO CAVE” OR INDEED, TO ABUSE.

BUT IN AS MUCH AS WOMAN ARE ENCOURAGED TO FEEL COMFORTABLE IN *BEING* WOMEN, AND ENJOY OUR FEMININITY SHOULDN’T WE BE ENCOURAGING MEN LIKEWISE INSTEAD OF MAKING THEM FEEL CONSTANTLY, AS IF THERE’S SOMETHING WRONG WITH THEM?

UNTIL THAT HAPPY MEDIUM IS FOUND, UNTIL THERE’S *TRUE* EQUALITY FOR WOMEN *AND* MEN, THEN AS FAR AS FEMINISM GOES, I’LL STICK WITH HOW I FELT ABOUT IT BACK IN THE SEVENTIES WHEN I WORKED IN AN OFFICE IN A THANKLESS JOB WITH MUCH LESS PAY THAN MY MALE COUNTERPART.

“EQUAL PAY FOR WOMEN”.

FOR THE REST, IT SEEMS TO ME, AS WITH RACIAL AGITATION RIGHT NOW, THERE IS ALSO GENDER AGITATION. AND NO, IT’S NOT A CRIME TO TALK ABOUT STRAIGHT MEN AND WOMEN. IT DOESN’T MAKE ME ANTI LBGQTI (WITH A TRANS GAY DAUGHTER I’VE STOOD BEHIND ALL HER LIFE, I’M UNLIKELY TO BE SO, DON’T YOU THINK?)

SO IN AS MUCH AS I DON’T WANT A WORLD WHERE MEN STILL OWN WOMEN (AND I COULD NAME THE COUNTRIES WHERE THIS IS PREVELANT BUT WON’T, THAT’S A WHOLE OTHER DISCUSSION) AND WHERE DUE TO THE LOCKDOWNS, DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMAN AND CHILDREN INCREASED TO AN HORRENDOUS DEGREE, I ALSO DON’T WANT A WORLD OF COWED, FRIGHTENED, CASTRATED MEN WHO PAY LIP SERVICE TO WOMEN FOR FEAR OF THE BACKLASH IF THEY DON’T.

IT SEEMS TO ME THAT WOMEN ARE IN DANGER OF TURNING THEMSELVES INTO THE VERY CREATURES THEY HATE AND DESPISE.

I’M OLD ENOUGH TO REMEMBER WHAT IT USED TO BE LIKE, AND TO KNOW THAT NO, IT SHOULDN’T BE LIKE THAT EITHER.

BUT I’M HERE AND NOW TOO, AND I SEE WHERE THIS IS GOING. AND WHEN STRAIGHT WOMEN ARE BEMOANING ABOUT HOW THEY CAN’T GET THAT GUY THEY LIKE TO APPROACH THEM, OR THEY’RE LYING ABOUT HOW THEY’RE PERFECTLY HAPPY TO SPEND THEIR ENTIRE LIVES ALONE (I KNOW MANY ARE, BUT MANY MORE ACTUALLY *WANT* A RELATIONSHIP. THAT IS NOTHING TO BE ASHAMED OF) THEN MAYBE WOMEN NEED TO LOOK AT HOW FAR THEY’RE PUSHING MEN AWAY FROM THEM, IN TRUTH, INSTEAD OF WORKING WITH MEN TO FIND THAT COMMON GROUND AND HAPPY MEDIUM.

BECAUSE I PROMISE YOU, NOT EVERY MAN ON THE PLANET IS A WANNABE RAPIST/WIFEBEATER/CHILDABUSER, AND MANY ACTUALLY STILL DO WANT THAT OLD FASHIONED THING...A WOMAN AND FAMILY, HOME AND HEARTH, AND THE PEACE TO BE LEFT TO LIVE AND LET LIVE.

PLEASE FEEL FREE TO UNFOLLOW ME. I’M FINE WITH DISCUSSION BUT WON’T GET INTO NAME CALLING OR ARGUMENTS, THANKS. :)

[premakalidasi]

In defense of spiritual  eclecticism, syncretism, innovation, human spiritual evolution, multiculturalism, even the dread “Neo-.”

This is going to be long, because just like my rant from the other day, this involves many, many things that have been boiling inside of me for months and months. And seeing as nobody seems to be addressing them thoroughly, and there being far too much mud-flinging and superiority and kneejerky extremism on all sides, people only seeing one side of the issue, I can’t keep it in any longer. Bear in mind this comes from someone with three decades-long lived experience with *both* “the East” and “the West,” both Western Paganism and Tantric/Bhakta “Hinduism,” from someone who’s female (yes, this makes a big difference, as you’ll find out), someone who’s lived in various European countries (some of them whiter than white, some of them very multicultural) for far too long, and someone who’s an extreme nondualist Goddess-devotee. (Yes, paradoxes abound. Such is Nature.) But let us begin.

It’s about this whole culture of who has the right to do what, and how-- while it’s understandable that people have their traumas and their personal prides and traditions and whatnot--it’s still deeply flawed. 

It’s about the fact that the more this ridiculous anti-innovation, anti-evolution culture in spirituality bullies people into "traditional" practices, the more falsely or poisonously "authentic" stuff people will come up with to claim legitimacy. And the more the “authentic” thing is associated with dogmatism and conservativism, the more conservative that tradition will get.

If "neo-" is used as a swearword, a badge of shame, the more dishonest and the more delusional people will get about their own "traditions." The more the fallacy of "authenticity" (there’s no such thing; it’s all subjective) is thrown around, the more people will chase after and cling to initiations--claiming, of course, that they were initiated by a master in the Himalayas or a grandmother passed on an ancient lineage, etc. The more they are told that Modernity and Innovation and Western Progressiveness is Bad, the more they will seek out authority figures in the name of Tradition, authority figures of all colours of the rainbow. In Islam, you get anything from loopy and shallow Sufis to fanatical terrorist preachers; in Hinduism you get anything from far-right nationalist groups like Hindutva to cash-making cosmopolitan gurus; in Paganism you’ll get reconstructionist Pagan groups run by Neo-Nazis all over the place because the most liberal yet intelligent, the most eclectic Wiccan-type hippies (the nicest and wisest “spiritual” people I’ve known in the West, BTW, comparable to the most chilled-out and brainy nondual/universalist folks in other religions) are shamed underground. 

Teachers, teachers! Everybody wants teachers because you have to be a part of a ~lineage!~ And the lineages will, magically, pop up to meet the demand (sorry, I mean “emerge from thousands of years of hiding”). The teachers will include “self-realised,” selfish, repressive masters who will proceed to suffocate everything "stubborn" in the disciple who could've experienced something incredibly insightful if allowed to do things her own way, could've brought something new and beautiful to the world--but she’s more valuable to the guru as a kitchen maid in his ashram because that’s her ~dharma~. The ancient way, you know. Chop veggies and repeat your mantra, it’s great meditation (and free labour for the organisation). Or, on the other hand, you get the sorts of teachers who have had a legitimate, 100% real, lineage-bound empowerment from those Zen masters who’ll initiate anyone for laughs, and who’ll allow the student anything and everything, freedom to the point where the poor buggers will actually not get any guidance whatsoever (they’re there only to stroke the teacher’s narcissism). However, these teachers will happily charge you 750 euros for a weekend intensive and all you end up doing is a most basic level chakra meditation and an “secret initiation rite” copypasted from a text the teacher found somewhere on the Internet. 

So much for your hallowed initiations and traditions; people have always abused them and always will, and there are always people who will not even be able to access “legitimate” teachers and lineages, due to being born into the wrong country/caste/sex/you name it, so are they to just sit there quietly and wait for a new lifetime; better luck next time? Bullshit. They’re the ones who can speak from a point of view that’s outside the tradition exactly because they’ve been excluded, and bring fresh blood to it, or *gasp* start a whole new tradition on their own. And this is *vital*--so many of the world’s greatest religious movements have sprung exactly from the voices of the dispossessed; those who didn’t speak Sanskrit or Latin and who were barred entry to places of worship because they were, shock, horror, fertile. You will, and should, always have people who bring something new to the table, for they are the life and soul of the ever-evolving experience of human beings on this planet--and these are the dread newbies you bash!

Spirituality, religion, beliefs, traditions, holy books--they have always evolved and continue to evolve, because evolution is Nature's law. In trying to stop innovation, you are trying to stop Life itself; from plants growing, from genes mutating, from species evolving, from human beings becoming more conscious and enlightened.

There always have been and always will be inventors, innovators, self-initiated adepts, solitary practitioners, cultures that pick and mix from one another in perfectly happy non-abusive exchange and you can't do shit about that because it happens, just like Nature happens. All the great spiritual figures were innovators, all of them--we wouldn’t have known about them if they just shut up and knew their place. Moses revolutionised Hebrew belief; Jesus revolutionised Judaism; Mohammad revolutionised Arabian religion. Gautama looked at all of the world’s bullshit and laughed his arse off. We wouldn’t have had two of the biggest female Hindu gurus of the past century had they waited for someone to initiate them. 

Had they done the right thing and followed stridharma, been the good little wives Hinduism expects all women to be, millions would never have known their grace, the grace of God as Mother.

Think of what brought you here: to what you're thinking and doing today, and just how many innovations and borrowings and syncretisms created it. *Whatever* it is that you are now thinking and doing springs from an innovation that was made somewhere down the line--several innovations and modifications, in fact. The clothes and accessories you wear, the tools you use, the food you eat, the language you use *all* contain elements from several different times, traditions, cultures, individual insights, inventions. Because someone thought “no, that old way of doing the thing sucks; here’s a better way of doing it.”

Now, I absolutely do not dismiss the power of a tradition or mean to say teachers or holy books are useless. They help--but in the end, that's what they are, *help.* They’re walking sticks, visual aids, audio descriptions for the stumbling, clumsy soul. They provide frameworks, structures, language, guidance to understand what’s going on; they’re passing on a cumulative stream of learning and experience. They’re there to help you grow, sometimes by pruning, but that’s where the benefit ends. But when they become ends in and of themselves, tradition for the sake of tradition, when they begin to destroy human beings' capacity for something new, begin to stagnate by sticking to outdated rules simply because they're ~traditional and therefore better~, when they operate only to limit the uses of human power by rigid hierarchies (in which only a couple of people have access to God), they stop from helping the individual and the human race to evolve. How many potential mahatmas have these structures suffocated, how many mystic poets? When they turn to crushing, erasing of the spirit instead of cultivating it, into blocking access to divinity unless you have thing Y or X (read: happened to be born in the wrong country/culture/ethnic group/sex), they turn lethal. These things do not make humans better; they do not make the world a better place, to put it mildly.

And the more you apply this old vs. new rubbish, the more you fall into the trap of dualism. And in dualism, you will always be a loser, even if you think you’ve reversed the positions of the oppressor and the oppressed. This happens on social media every day, and it’s ridiculous how people can’t see it’s just the same thing, only reversed, and the fighting and the pain will never end. If you fall into the trap of group X versus group Y, culture Z versus A, you are yourself perpetuating the divisions that screwed you over in the first place: the exact same thinking that devalues you if you are a woman, not white, gay, of the wrong caste, et cetera. Bitching and moaning about white people, straight people, men, posh people, whoever you think is the oppressor today, and practicing cultural isolationism, superiority and separatism does not do a thing for you; it's starting a new war. In this war, for any group who clings to a victim identity, a martyr identity, there will never be an escape from victimhood. 

No, really, think about it. 

If you choose to base your entire life, your entire way of thinking, solely in opposition to whoever you think is oppressing you (in effect, letting yourself be defined by the enemy), the pain will never end. There will never be a day on which it is again ok to tell a woman she's beautiful without it being objectification, to have heterosexual sex without it being normative, to have an interracial marriage without it being slavery, to learn a language without it being exploitation, to read another religion’s holy book without it being an act of stealing, to be happy with your body without it being sinful, to lose yourself in the beauty of a work of art from the other side of the world without it being an act of subjugating and tearing that country apart. If it's assumed that heterosexual desire is always objectification and abuse, the pain will never end. If having breasts means that they will always and forever be a target of abuse and belittling assumptions about you, and if it’s accepted as fact that only hiding breasts or not having them at all makes you worthy of respect, the pain will never end. If it's always assumed even the most respectful of cultural interactions, the very act of empathising with someone from another culture and trying to understand them, feeling love and affection for something that’s outside the small world you were born into is somehow colonialism and appropriation and exploitation, the pain will never end.

It’s exactly because you, yes, you, disgruntled person on social media, go on and on about Muslims or straight white guys always being villains, that you are leaving them no choice to be anything else. They’ll believe this, take pride in this, base their lives on opposition to you in turn and the pain, the violence, the sheer bloody idiocy will. Never. End.

The most annoying, most frustrating thing is that yes, you do have to give people a chance. Sorry. 

I've had elements of my culture irrevocably associated with only person-less, heartless sex; I've been hypersexualised and feared because I am what I am. I have been told time and time again I don't belong in the country I feel is my home because I wasn’t born in it; I do not feel at home in the country of my ethnic origin because of its crushing, dehumanising culture of suffocating, belittling and abusing all who live in it. If I play with language in a poetic way, it’s seen as a mistake, a typo, a grammatical error because I’m seen as The Foreigner. I am far too much of the East for most white people and they only associate that with barbarism and abuse; yet I'm too fair-skinned to be given the benefit of the doubt when it comes to the "authenticity" of my spirituality and my work--ironically, on the same community where native Bengali charlatans advertise their hotlines for solving astrological problems, using a picture of Kali to sell their mumbo-jumbo, the very same picture these guys would object to on a Western tote bag (because no white person carrying it could ever know more about the deity than the charlatan). 

I'm speaking from the side that's never fucking fit in anywhere simply because the artificial rules for who's ~valid~ are a huge load of shit.

And I don't want others to experience that. I don’t want others to be judged simply because of where they were born and what they have access to; I don’t want other people’s agency to be questioned by people who don’t know anything about what led them to choose their own values. You know what I think when I see a young Greek-American woman talking about her having found the Divine through the Marvel Loki because she could relate to him better than any of the rapists on Olympus? (Those guys the militant male reconstructionists say are the only ~proper~ gods to revere?) “You have budding knowledge and a great amount of passion in you,” I think, “and your ability to recognise your own fannish love and enthusiasm as a great reservoir of love and of power, despite everyone belittling it and shaming it, shows great strength and insight.” She’s got it. She’s pragmatic. She’s felt alienated from so many places, but now, having turned within, having cast off shame, she has found something that works for her, and does so beautifully. Despite all the shame heaped upon her, she stands strong and knows that whatever works, works and that nobody has the right to tell her that her own experience is somehow wrong. 

It’s easy to be a traditionalist if the tradition values you; it’s easy if it’s been built for you in the first place. It’s no problem at all. However, if you’re not an upper-class male, it’s an altogether different story. Women, queers, mentally ill people, poor and dispossessed people, people from those groups whose native religions have been destroyed by the dominant religions, *have* no religion left to speak of. They *have* to create something new. They *have* to excavate whatever little there is left and to build a practice that suits their needs from scratch. This is exactly what drove the Bhakti movement, what drove nondualist Sufis, what drove certain Protestant denominations, until they, too, became stagnant and overly obsessed with rules, becoming exactly that which their founders had fought against. But if you don’t know what it’s like to be in one of those groups, in the West in particular, where there is absolutely *no* spiritual niche for so many things and where a mahatma experiencing divine visions would be thrown into a madhouse--then you have to listen. 

Which brings me to my next point, something I’ve seen incredibly hateful posts about recently on this site--and since I’ve got a foot in both sides of the argument, I feel like someone needs to say something to clarify even the basics. Let me explain what it’s like in the West.

First of all, my global friends: Westerners aren’t all stupid, and if they belong to the group that calls itself Pagan in particular, they do a *lot* of reading. Pagans are the most well-read people I know; often they are lifelong Renaissance people with massive bookshelves. They may fumble around, and quote from books that don’t know everything, but slagging them off for that is like beating up a baby of 14 months for pronouncing a word wrong. They have a thirst for knowledge, and they are capable of respect. Trust that. They don’t swallow everything without chewing it; they chew quite a fair bit--almost too much, really. So this whole idea of Westerners all being dumb and thinking yonis and lingams are naughty and not understanding anything, and only being obsessed with sex does not gel at all with the Western yogis and Pagans I know. The Western yogis, if anything, are often very puritanical to prove their chops, observing more fasts and more rigorous vegetarianism and meditative practices than some Hindu men I know. 

As for the car crash that’s Kripal--I have literally not met a single person who thinks Kripal is anything except a complete fucking nutter and an embarrassment, BTW. So the whole idea many, many Indians seem to have of Westerners being like him... er? No? He’s laughed at. Headdesked about. The Westerner who’s Done The Research is going to be the *first* one to slag off sex manual “Tantra” (pick up any academic book on the topic in the last 20 years and you’ll find a section doing that) and is going to be far more likely to have a really good and balanced idea of what lingams and yonis are, far less repressed than some Hindus, actually--at least the sorts who deny there’s any sexual connotations to it at all. The Western yogis I know are perfectly capable of understanding the abstract nature of the lingam in the yoni, and don’t titter like the schoolgirls some Hindu writers present them as. They’ll be the first to shrug and say “it’s just the life force; there’s nothing to be ashamed about it.” Whereas it’s Indian writers in Wikipedia who are furiously censoring anything they might find unsavoury, destroying parts of their own heritage by erasing passages about, say, animal sacrifice in the Vedas, blaming it all on the Westerners. It’s a massive mess.

But back to my experiences with the Westerners. I don’t think a lot of Hindus who slag off Western Neo-Pagans, belittling it and thinking it little more than roleplay, understand at all where these people are coming from, because they’ve been born into a world where you can--at least to some extent--choose your own personal deity and where the amount and variety of religious imagery and practice is enormously rich. They’ve been born into a world where the Divine can have faces, shapes, stories with variety and colour and detail, all these things that, I’d argue, the human mind naturally leans towards. Not so in the West. Westerners, and to a certain extent the children of immigrants, have been born into a world where all that multitudinous, rich expression, all those different ways of seeing the Divine have been crushed, wiped out by Christianity, and only abstractions have been allowed. 

The word “Pagan” there is something that’s been used as a slur, and that’s something that Hindus carry deep scars from thanks to Muslim and Christian rhetoric and all kinds of oppression and conversion attempts. But in the West, it’s used to denote anything pre-Christian, anything where the face of the Divine is not (ultimately) an abstraction. In Protestantism, people are constantly told that the Catholic saints and all the paraphernalia around them are pagan remnants (and they are), and are told that that’s wrong and that’s not allowed.  

When the Westerners choose the word “Pagan,” they are siding with the indigenous religions in that they refuse the Christian missionaries’ view of Christianity being better. Let that sink in. They aren’t belittling non-Christian practices, like their entire culture does. They’re abandoning their own culture in favour of the side they see you’re on, the side they see as healthier, even if they’ve been told that this side is backwards and primitive.

In the West, in Protestant countries in particular, people are  religiously *starved.* It’s all blanched, dead, abstracted. They’re starved of the full depth of  human religious expression, starved of religious imagery, are (for the most part) starved of ecstatic practices like singing and dancing; they are starved of truly colourful festivals. They may have been brought up with no religion at all, or perhaps something that’s only observed during weddings, funerals, at the birth of a baby. Children have rituals, even animals have rituals, yet Protestantism has tried to strip them from humanity. Protestants have precious few rituals, dance, music; the further up Northern Europe you go, even the buildings are ugly and bare--mere boxes. Have you ever been to a Scandinavian Lutheran service? It’s probably going to be in a big, abstract, blocky building, clean white walls with hard angles, with no ornament even on the cross, and there’s maybe one candle burning if it’s an advent day. Ornament is sin; ornament is crime. So whenever these people catch glimpses of a past that was more colourful and had shape and form instead of mere abstractions--perhaps a folk dance, a ring of standing stones, a note in a magazine article saying a celebration has a pre-Christian origin, allowing them a peek into the incredible rich mythologies of the past, a lightbulb goes off on the tops of their heads and they recognise its *naturalness.* This is why so many Pagans say, whispering at the edge of a misty lake with a garland in their hands to offer to the deities, “it’s what I’ve always felt anyway; I’ve returned home.” 

And what do the Westerners, the Pagan sorts in particular, see in Hinduism? They see that these traditions that they’ve themselves rediscovered have never died out in India! Oh, wow! They still do this bit! And that bit! They see that there’s still a part of the world in which God can still be seen as a woman, as with having an elephant head, in which God can move through human beings, and it’s *natural* to them, it makes sense, and they weep bitterly at these images having been taken from them. That’s all. They’re not out to rob temples: actually, they’re acting against *everything* their Christian, racist masters have told them to do; they’re *sinning* by saying “this makes sense” of a culture that’s been deemed barbarian, backward. In short, they’re practicing the exact opposite of the belittling kind of “orientalism” they’re being accused of. They’re respecting, even preferring that which their culture has told them is primitive. 

So, to expand the view of these so-called cultural bandits that are Westerners studying cultures not their own: they aren’t out to rob anyone. They’re marvelling, feeling a deep ache in their guts because they’ve recognised something inherently real and true, something deeply human. They might be reading about Hinduism to learn what it was like in their own country before Christianity; finding parallels with, say, Roman religion. It doesn’t mean that they will necessarily be drawn to Hindu deities; they simply want to read more. They want to experience different ways of looking at the world--it can be an expression of empathy.

And have you any idea how difficult this is for women in particular to process, when they know for a fact that women receive even worse treatement outside the West? They are told, literally, that if they even so much as touch an “Eastern” culture they must be accepting the burning of widows, genital mutilation and veiling. How in the absolute fuck is that any kind of subjugating of a “foreign” culture, when you yourself, by even going there, would be victimised by it, literally groped and raped by it, the way Western women devotees are on a daily basis? Saïd completely fails to see that side of Western interest in the East, himself blinded by his own male perspective, just like the Orientalists he so loathes--he only sees women as objects of desire instead of independent thinkers with agency, not even pausing to think what might lead a Western woman to revere one of the few forms of the Goddess still worshipped in this world. When a Western woman goes Eastwards, she is seen to enslave herself. It takes guts for her to even peek inside. Let alone travel on her own, leaving her culture behind, to a temple where the Goddess’s gift of giving life to the world is celebrated in the form of her yoni, torn by the irony of the groping, violent fools trying to grab hers when they’re supposed to be revering a female deity.

The most natural of human impulses, of seeing the Divine power in many forms and shapes, is so deeply penalised and repressed that for a Westerner brought up Protestant, it’s a radical departure to declare herself a Pagan.  

Yes, you heard me right. These people face discrimination from relatives, from countries that refuse to give a legally sanctioned status to any religion without a holy book (which is what a lot of indigenous religions, nature religions don’t have). They choose this path (whatever deities/traditions they end up associating with) out of a deep conviction in their hearts, based on deep knowledge they’ve gathered over the years--and they lose jobs, lose custody, get beaten up by fundamentalist Christians over it. It’s a serious, radical departure that means severing many ties; if one refuses Communion in Protestant churches, one will not be able to be married in a church, one might not be able to name one’s kids after non-Christian names because the state won’t allow “heathen” names. They will have relatives who will no longer talk to them, neighbours who treat them with hostility and may smoke them out of the area you live in. They will have great difficulty in accessing basic services, down to how they will be treated in the hospital to arranging for their burials. In the whitest of the white, small European countries, it means being harassed on public transport if you’re wearing a suspicious symbol or something non-Western; it means having a glass pint thrown at your head by a drunken Pentecostal at a rock festival (I saw this happen). A Western yogi was  evicted by a fundamentalist Christian landlord for having a statue of Nataraja on his mantlepiece (which he’d garlanded and worshipped accordingly, BTW). Does that not change your idea of these people blithely ripping something off without a care, just having fun with these images, at all? 

It’s not fucking roleplay. It’s not just a little bit of hippie or hipster dipping into something that’s cool--if someone’s truly chosen that path, especially if they are over 30, they are serious about it. There are idiots everywhere, of course; on Tumblr in particular, it seems that the dumbest people of *any* group are the loudest and the most visible, especially because the place is so full of poorly educated and entitled American kids (like they can help it).

But that doesn’t mean there aren’t plenty of intelligent Western people out there. You know why they’re quoting from those books that you scoff at? It’s because they’re doing their research. They quote from all these books because they *read.* They *study*. They are under tremendous, tremendous pressure from the Internet, especially from all the above militant guilt-tripping and hate speech against innovation and cultural interaction and Neo-anything to Do Their Research. They probably know more than most average people do, in any culture. I’ve met Western Hare Krishnas who can recite long Sanskrit stotras with better pronunciation than your average, lazy Brahmin priest whom the pious family grandmother has to correct. There’s no such thing as automatically being good at something when you’re born into a particular group or culture, just like a gay man isn’t necessarily good at designing clothes. 

And this is before I even get into non-dualist Hindu gurus who welcome Westerners. They’re welcomed with open arms, quite literally in Amritanandamayi’s case, listen to all these universalist sermons preaching how humanity should not be divided by race, religion, caste, etc. (post-Vivekananda Advaita Vedanta versions of Hinduism, of course), and then get a rude awakening when they get slapped in the face by all these people who tell them that their devotions, their studies are a ripoff. So they bathe in the nectar of these spiritual insights, feel loved and go and do good work, and then some git on the Internet comes and kicks them in the face, saying they don’t know shit. And when they ask the gurus or the swamis about what they should do about accusations of cultural appropriation, the renunciates are so busy with their own work (making the world a better place) that they will just shrug and say “just block them.” Yeah, block an entire movement of hate spewed at them when they’re trying their best to be decent people and evolve, and to serve the world. (*Marriage problems*Jyotish*Black Magic*Love Marriage*Call 666-666-99 NOW*)

Not at all a schizophrenic situation, oh no. Constant tugging between conservativism and liberalism; people who don’t do their research blaming other people for not doing their research (even if they have). And vice versa; 14-year-olds on this website thinking they know all about cultural differences and how to solve them, because doing a chakra meditation, given to you personally by a Hindu guru who endorses it for the whole world is actually wrong if you’re white, and we should all just lock ourselves up in tiny little boxes and never interact.

So. This was a rant on two topics, really. But they are intertwined. On one side, you’ve got people obsessed with traditionalism, obsessed with the idea of only certain people having the right to do certain things, and on another, an endless ocean of nonduality, of a commitment towards humanity and evolution reaching out across all borders. I know which side I choose, and let me tell you, it’s not easy when you don’t want to be a sanctimonious tosspot but don’t want to be an extremist either. The Internet fuels extremism of all kinds; it throws the worst examples of the group you think is your enemy at you (and the agitators  underline them, using this to serve their own purposes). If I were at complete peace and abiding in the Self, I wouldn’t be writing rants. I wouldn’t be an angry woman yelling at the screen when someone’s completely misinformed and a hypocrite. 

What it boils down to--my anger included--is that people keep telling each other that they don’t trust them. And people don’t trust themselves. Hence the blind faith in traditions, gurus, social justice movements to the point where they override all reason. We are supposed to think that everyone on that other side is an idiot, because it’s easier that way. It’s so much easier to reduce someone to a degenerate Westerner or a primitive Hindu, or a backwards Pagan (or a shrieky SJW, for that matter). And people behaving in an extreme, reactionary manner give reality to these stereotypes, these reductionist ideas. Above all, we are told that we shouldn’t trust our intuitions, that we shouldn’t trust our learning, that we shouldn’t trust our knowledge and sense of right and wrong--that we need an adult to guide us. And to an extent, that’s right--you need help sometimes, when you’re too young to know how to wipe your own arse--but you have to grow up sometime and move on. You have to start your own path, and it’s going to be different from your friend’s even if you’re in the same congregation--you don’t like me telling you this, but we *are* all individuals and there’s no such thing as an absolute, perfect example of a Lutheran or a Bhakta or an Asatru or whoever because those are all propaganda. That’s dualism again--the concept of there being a right way of doing something and the wrong way of doing something, and that’s how wars start. 

Whether on the Internet or outside of it, dualism is what starts wars. Not giving people a chance starts wars. Not trusting that spiritual innovation to be perfectly sound and good for a person or a group of persons is what starts schisms, more wars--all of this because people simply can’t stand being different from one another. It’s a bizarre form of extreme empathy, actually--feeling a horrible dissonance when someone is different from you, and a lot of religious people have the kinds of neurological structures that support that. They feel physical pain when someone Does It Wrong, simply because their pleasure at doing something right--which you or I can never imagine--is *so* intense. But the truth remains that the only way we can get along on this planet is to put up with each other, respect each other (sounds so bland, dunnit?), respect difference, plurality because it’s essential to evolution, and to give people the benefit of the doubt. The most radical thing to say is “maybe that person I don’t like is doing it right after all”--try *that* for a headfuck, a zen koan! 

But without that, there’s nothing. The West needs to respect the East and not think it's all stuck-up and to see the people and things they can relate to (there are thousands); the East needs to stop being stuck-up and pretending there are no Westerners who respect the East (there are thousands). Traditionalists need to stop being so bloody crushing and oppressive and smug; super-liberals need to stop being so bloody lazy and smug as well and have a look at the good things those traditionalists have done. 

You need to give that respect if you wish to be respected in turn. You need to take that deep breath when one of those idiot kids goes off on one again. You need to give others that space and not *assume*, but watch. The people you find most grating may very well teach you more than the people who think you’re just splendid and fabulous.

Evolution is Nature’s Law. 

Evolution is Nature’s Law.

Evolution is Nature’s Law.

And you may not like it, I may not like it, but it happens--Life will find a way. 

[heartsoftruth]

In regard of your JB’s post. I’m always confused when I see someone supporting him. He was charged of assault for beating his driver. He was arrested for DUI while drag racing.He was charged for throwing eggs on his neighbor’s house. He spitted on his fans. He was traveling with an illegal monkey, which was confiscated in Germany. He urinated in a mob bucket of a restaurant. When people start defending him saying that now he’s changed, he’s a new man that found god I have to laugh. The church he supports by making millions of dollars in donation is basically a cult. It’s a known homophobic church targeted to young people and celebrities, with hipster pastors that try to hide their conservative beliefs behind their cute little songs. They are against gay marriage and abortion among other things. Their founder has multiple accusation of sexual abuse. And btw it’s the same church that Chris Pratt is devoted to and one of the reason he’s being criticized these week. So yes let’s not forget what kind of persone this guy was/is.

Im not saying Justin didn’t have a period in his life where he was bat shit crazy. He thought he was gods gift to the world and that’s how he acted. I’ve seen him go up from a cute floppy haired boy to clearly someone who was using all kinds of drugs, had weird ass people surrounding him and spiral downwards FAST.

The thing is however that even before that - with the cleanest image ever - the ‘One Time/Baby’ era people were shitting on him to an insane extend. It was already before that that he had to endure a lot of hate.

Of course you can say he did it to himself and that’s what comes with this life blabla. But so many of these child stars spiral out of control during puberty. I don’t think you can ever prepare someone for that kind of life.

And of course that kind of misary sells. Look at how Britney spiraled and 28373 paparazzis were on her ass. That’s why i like the line in lonely: “Everybody saw me sick and it felt like no one gave a shit.”

I meannn. In all honesty I don’t follow the church stuff he’s with too much. I know it’s cult like and that we have one here but that’s kinda it. But I believe too, but that’s doesn’t mean I’m anti gay, anti abortion or something. I - I can only speak for myself - but take a few things I like etc. Not as strict as I maybe “should” and yeah...

[my-arya-underfoot]

Debunking the Sansa-Lyanna Parallels

For whatever reason, the Lyanna = Sansa interpretation has been getting increasingly popular in the fandom. There’s this growing theory that Sansa and Arya are both equally like Lyanna and represent the different sides of her. In the extreme, there’s arguments Sansa is actually more like Lyanna than Arya.

“Arya and Sansa represent two faces of Lyanna.” “Denying one is actually denying Lyanna’s story in complete.” “Sansa’s romantic soul and Arya’s wild nature.”

Which, honestly drives me crazy – because you have to twist all three women out of character to justify the parallels.

There are way too many Lyanna/Arya parallels to explain here. If anyone wants a summary here are some good ones. But tbh, it’s not even something you need meta for – the books are incredibly explicit about the parallels, from their personalities (“wilful”), Stark-ness (wolf blooded), skills/interests (sword fighting and riding) and appearance (Northern beauties). Ned, Harwin and Bran all compare them outright.

Meanwhile, here’s the one explicit Lyanna/Sansa comparison: “He could still hear Sansa pleading, as Lyanna had pleaded once.” – Ned, AGoT.

Btw, this is not an anti-Sansa meta. Sansa has multiple parallels to other characters and inherits traits from many family members. (Ned, Catelyn, Jon, Sandor, Dany, Lysa, Cersei, Littlefinger, Brienne etc.) And there’s obviously overlap in characters she and Arya share connections with. But Lyanna Stark is not one of them. This is a debunking of the general Lyanna = Sansa evidence (book based).

Sansa/Joffrey = Lyanna/Rhaegar 

1. Sansa was blinded by love for Joffrey, Lyanna was blinded by love for Rhaegar

A. Don’t know how anyone missed this but – we don’t know the full Lyanna/Rhaegar story. The whole point of the event is how murky it is. We can't assume it was as simple as Lyanna being blinded by "love" Rhaegar and losing all common sense like Sansa did around Joffrey. That’s one of many interpretations. It could have been about the prophecy, closer to a straight kidnapping, Rhaegar being the one blinded by love, Lyanna running away by herself initially. Using the most unreliable story in the entire series as a basis for this theory is headscratching.

B. Lyanna is presented as perceptive and realistic about men, not idealistic. From actual quotes: Lyanna “Robert will never keep to one bed.” Lyanna “love is sweet dearest Ned, but it cannot change a man’s nature”?? That girl was blinded by infatuation for Rhaegar? Blinded in the way Sansa you-literally-tried-to-kill-my-sister-in-front-of-me -but-I-repressed-it-to-keep-my-fairytale-alive, was by Joffrey? Doesn’t line up.

C. A far better comparison to Sansa/Joffrey is Lyanna/Robert. Both Sansa and Lyanna were faced with marrying a young, handsome noble who was friends with the family and would give them status and a comfortable life. Sansa was overjoyed and Lyanna was unhappy. Both were faced with unpleasant truths about their betrothed: Joffrey was a monster and Robert was unfaithful. Sansa, the romantic rewrote events, idealized Joffrey and convinced herself he was wonderful and she loved him. Lyanna was clear-eyed, cynical and stated the facts. Completely opposite reactions.

D. Fun fact. What character saw Joffrey for what he was, is good at reading people's true character and isn't blinded by looks or status? Arya.

2: Both Sansa and Lyanna fell in love/had romances with Princes

We’ll put aside the question marks over R/L. Let’s say it’s a straight love story. It’s still starkly different from Joffrey and Sansa.

A. Sansa/Joffrey was an arranged marriage – Rhaegar/Lyanna was a forbidden affair. For most of the time Sansa was “in love” with him, Sansa’s relationship with Joffrey was fulfilling expectations of what she should be doing. Only at the eleventh hour did Joffrey become "forbidden.” Meanwhile, Lyanna and Rhaegar fell in love while they were both betrothed/married. It was always a rebellion against acceptable behaviour. Again, Lyanna/Robert is a much better parallel to understand the characters.

B. Even if R/L was a love story…then the argument is Rhaegar did love Lyanna and it was mutual. Sansa and Joffrey wasn’t mutual because he certainly never loved her.

C. Apart from being Princes I’m still waiting on similarities between Joffrey and Rhaegar. Aerys? Sure.

3: Lyanna and Sansa both betrayed their families for love/infatuation and started a war

A. We still don’t know what went down between Rhaegar and Lyanna. Certainly, not enough to parallel Lyanna running off with him to Sansa betraying Ned to Cersei.

B. Again, Sansa’s “betrayal” of her family was to uphold her arranged marriage. Lyanna’s “betrayal” was to turn her back on society and arranged match, and vanish for months with a married man. Vastly different circumstances.

C. Sansa going to Cersei was notably out of character for "eager to please since she was 3" Sansa vs. "wilful, wild" Lyanna and Arya. In the same book (chapter?) Sansa even compares her disobedience to feeling "almost as wicked as Arya."

D. The causes of both wars were complex and Sansa at least played a pretty minor role in hers. Her actions in contributing to the War of the Five Kings aren’t given nearly the same weight as Lyanna’s disappearance.

4: Sansa is more likely to run away for love than Arya

A. Um. No. Sansa is repeatedly characterised as dutiful and living by society's standards. Her causing the scandal of the century by running off with a married guy/someone unsuitable? No way. Not if she was in Lyanna's situation with a comfortable future before her. We see Sansa persuade herself her situation/match is fine –  rather than flee from it – with Joffrey.

B. You know who is known for running off? Arya. In her first chapter, she runs away from being a lady, she runs off after the Trident incident, she fantasies about running home while in KL, she’s literally on the run for ACoK-ASoS, she runs from Harrenhal, the Brotherhood, Westeros itself. If one of the Stark girls has a *screw all this, I’m outta here* attitude, it’s Arya. And a teenage Arya running away from an arranged marriage? 100% plausible.

C. Also, falling for someone unsuitable? How about that infamously wilful younger Stark daughter? Arya falling in love with someone forbidden - *cough* bastard blacksmith *cough* -  would be totally in character.

5: Both Lyanna and Sansa were held prisoner in the South during war

A. This parallel undermines the previous basis for Lyanna being a romantic. (I.e. The argument that she wasn’t a prisoner but went willingly with Rhaegar).

B. Let’s say Lyanna was kidnapped – still starkly different from Sansa. Sansa was held as a political pawn and on show. Lyanna was kidnapped for unknown, possibly personal reasons and hidden away from society. Sansa has more parallels with Elia’s role in the war than Lyanna’s.

C. If we start making a list of every character who is held prisoner during wars – Jaime, Tyrion, Ned, oh look Arya! – we’ll be here forever. Very weak parallel.

Lyanna and Sansa are romantics – Arya is a realist/cynic

To reiterate, everything we see of Lyanna’s reaction to Robert indicates she’s a practical realistic, not a romantic. But let’s break down the evidence.

1: Lyanna cried over Rhaegar’s song so she’s sentimental like Sansa not Arya (“The dragon prince sang a song so sad it made the wolf maid sniffle…”)

A. Yes, Sansa's more sentimental and loves songs. But interpreting the scene as a Lyanna/Sansa parallel, blatantly discounts the rest of the sentence: “…but when her pup brother teased her [Lyanna] for crying she poured wine over his head.” NEVER in a million years would Sansa do that. Not at a public Southern tourney and feast. Man though, you know a Stark girl who would do that? Who is far more wild and playful with her brothers? Arya. The Sansa parallel lasts Iess than a sentence before we’re back to Lyanna/Arya.

B. The fact Benjen bothered to tease Lyanna at all suggests it was out of character for her. I can't see the Stark boys teasing Sansa for crying, as it's the kind of thing she'd be likely to do all the time and wouldn't be ashamed of it. No point in teasing her. Teasing gutsy, sighing-over-songs-is-stupid Arya for crying though? Sure.

C. "Sang a song SO sad it made the wolf maid sniffle." The point is the song was exceptional in being able to make Lyanna cry. It’s “man, that’s unusual” not “oh, typical Lyanna sniffling away”. That comment is more about the Lyanna/Rhaegar relationship, not Lyanna’s allegedly sentimental personality.

D. Arya likes songs and Arya cries. That’s not exclusive to Sansa and Lyanna. This great meta goes into more detail both about the significance of songs for all characters in Asoiaf and how emotional Arya can be. But enough to say, Arya may not love songs as much as Sansa does, but she likes them and has favourites – Nymeria, Wenda the White Fawn etc. For all we know Rhaegar was singing a Nymeria/Wenda fanfic. And Arya cries a lot throughout the books, right from her first chapter over messing up her needlework.

2: Sansa and Lyanna both loved flowers. Lyanna was crowned Queen of Love and Beauty at the tourney at Harranhal = Sansa was given a rose by Loras at the Hand’s tourney.

A. News to me that “flowers” are a motif exclusive to Sansa’s character. Not only are flowers sprinkled all over the series, they’re more present in Arya’s story. In Sansa’s first chapter, Arya brings Ned purple flowers (Ned who brings Lyanna's statue flowers) and is excitedly discovering new plants while Sansa is sitting in her carriage. Not to mention the heck ton of nature imagery in Arya’s chapters. This is a weak link.

B. Lyanna gets a crown from a prince who spurns his wife? Sansa gets a rose from an implied gay guy? Much love. Much romance. Much parallels. If GRRM wanted that parallel, he’d have actually crowned Sansa QoLaB. There are hundreds of tourneys in the series, both of them attending doesn’t mean anything.

C. This is the same tourney where Lyanna first beat up a bunch of squires and may have gone on to dress up a knight and compete in the joust. Go ahead anyone who wants to argue that’s a Sansa not Arya move.

3: Arya has no interest in romance, Sansa and Lyanna do. Arya thinks love is stupid and Sansa is silly for liking it

A. Still very little evidence of Lyanna being some diehard romantic.

B. We cannot compare a 9/10yo Arya to a 15/16yo Lyanna. That’s skipping Arya’s entire puberty a.k.a when girls start to explore romance, love and sex. You can't take a few lines from a child as a blanket statement of Arya's views for love forever. It’s also comparing a Lyanna who grew up in a secure environment until she hit her teens vs. Arya who was thrust into a warzone as a child. Sorry Arya isn’t thinking about romance while starving on the run.  

C. Arya’s dismissal of romance is entwined with her own insecurities about failing as a lady, her ‘ugliness’ and being inferior to her sister. It’s a defence mechanism for something she worries she can never have. Also, she rejects Sansa’s versions of idealised love and conventional expectations of romance – not love full stop. Lyanna didn’t seem sold on the conventional marriage set up either.

D. Despite her age and circumstances, Arya still manages to have a ship tease with Gendry – a relationship more genuine and straightforwardly romantic than anything Sansa’s had. (Not discounting her complex dynamics with Sandor, Joffrey, Willas, Harry and Tyrion).

E. For the record, in the same conversation Arya told Ned Dayne "love is stupid" that people like to cite, she was mortally offended by the suggestion that her father loved anyone else ever other than her mother.

Sansa represents Lyanna’s “beautiful and feminine side” and Arya her “wildness and rebellion”

These aspects are not exclusionary and there's no indication Lyanna had these two opposing sides. In the same conversation that Ned tells Arya that she's like Lyanna, he refers to Sansa and Arya as "different as the sun and moon." (Not “two sides of the same coin” as is commonly quoted - that’s about the Targs).

So really. "Arya, you're the opposite of your sister! And almost exactly like Lyanna!" = "Sansa is like Lyanna". But let’s go through.

1: Lyanna and Sansa the beauties  

A. Arya is beautiful as well. For more detail go here – she’s growing into her looks. She doesn’t think she’s beautiful but other characters are commenting on it. Trying to imply Arya is “too ugly” to parallel Lyanna, so Sansa has to fill that part is gross on multiple levels.

B. Arya is explicitly describe as looking like Lyanna. By Ned. Lyanna’s brother and Arya’s father. If Arya isn’t beautiful, then Lyanna isn’t either.

C. Lyanna wasn’t a conventional Southern beauty. She was a “wild” beauty, Northern looking and even boyish. None of which matches with Sansa’s appearance – but all of which tallies with Arya.

2: People saw Lyanna and Sansa’s beauty but not “the iron underneath”

A. Ned's comment about Robert not seeing Lyanna's iron seemed far more about Robert’s blindness than Lyanna hiding her iron. The conversation was about Robert’s version of Lyanna, not how Lyanna herself behaved.

B. Nothing suggests Lyanna “hid” her iron. She publicly tipped wine over Benjen, she beat up the squires in the open. There's little indication she hid her strength under courtesy and ladylike behaviour like Sansa did.

3: Lyanna and Sansa were feminine

This may be the argument that raises my hackles the most. For a start this bizarre use of ‘feminine’ gets thrown around without defining what it means. So, just what.

A. Let’s assume ‘feminine’ refers to Westerosi ideal of the perfect lady that Sansa embodies: Girly, concerned with appearances, gracious, a submissive wife etc. Then…everything tells us Lyanna was the opposite to that. She was off wanting to carry swords, squabbling with her brothers, resisting marriage proposals and possibly entering jousts. None of that is traditionally “feminine.”

B. If we take a wider view of feminine as women owning their gender, femininity and role as a woman – Arya isn’t a genderless blob. Her being disguised as a boy and Faceless Men training is about how desperately she clings to her true identity…including her gender. She constantly corrects people about being a girl, takes on a caring and even maternal role (Weasel) and has female heroes.

C. Suggesting Arya is less “female” than Sansa – and thus unworthy of paralleling Lyanna – because she has traditionally boyish interests and fails the Westerosi ideal is pretty appalling tbh.

Random Parallels

1: Lyanna and Sansa were betrothed to a Baratheon

A. Not sure how anyone missed this – it was kinda a major plot point way back – but Joffrey wasn’t a Baratheon. He didn’t act or look like a Baratheon. He was a Lannister through and through.

B. You know who did have a major connection to a Baratheon? You know a Stark girl, Robert’s son legitimately fell for? Oh whoops, Arya. While Robert and Gendry are very different and the Arya/Gendry relationship is more genuine than Robert’s infatuation with Lyanna, it’s a more concrete parallel than Sansa/Joffrey.

C. Don’t know how many times I can say this, but the Joffrey/Sansa vs. Robert/Lyanna parallels highlight Sansa and Lyanna’s differences not their similarities.

2: Lyanna and Sansa Defend the Weak (Howland Reed and Dontas)

A. Yes, Sansa does defend Dontas, that was a great moment. But "defending the weak" is a recurring theme for Arya, while it’s a one off for Sansa. Arya has Mycah, Weasel, going back for Gendry, saving the Northernmen, hanging out with the defenders-of-the-helpless Brotherhood without Banners, saving Sam in Braavos, "they should have killed the masters not the slaves" etc. Arya's story is entwined with defending/befriending the oppressed and downtrodden. Sansa's is not.

B. Arya and Lyanna had much more similar approaches to defending Mycah/Howland scenes in physically beating off the attacker. Sansa's approach differed in using diplomacy and flattery. And "saved someone once" is a pretty loose thematic parallel.

3: Lyanna rejected Robert = Sansa rejected Tyrion

A. Sansa was horrified at marrying a dwarf old enough to be her father after she'd been a prisoner of his abusive family for months. Lyanna didn't want to marry a young, handsome lord who was a good match and arranged by her family.

B. Sansa resisted Tyrion yes, but she didn't reject him and she didn't run away. She endured. Again, going with the Lyanna-went-willingly-with-Rhaegar/ran away version of events – Lyanna rebelled in a much more blatant way.

C. Sansa/Joffrey is a much better parallel to Lyanna/Robert, than Sansa/Tyrion. How Sansa reacted to that situation – an ideal, arranged match – is an accurate point to compare her character to Lyanna. (Man, people really hate these Sansa/Joffrey vs. Lyanna/Robert parallels).

This Ended Up Very Long and I’m Sorry

Ultimately, the problem with framing Sansa as an equal half of Lyanna is you have to mischaracterize all three characters to get there –  Claiming Sansa is more likely to rebel, that Arya has no soft side and Lyanna was a blind romantic. Until we get more book details on the Rhaegar/Lyanna relationship, the main argument falls apart.

If we're talking parallels, it's less that "Sansa was one half of Lyanna" and more "Sansa was the inverse of Lyanna." One was dutiful and one rebelled, one went for her arranged marriage, one rejected it. Which makes sense as Sansa is a foil to Arya…a character who, as the books made clear from the start, does parallel Lyanna.

There are plenty of characters who connect to both Arya and Sansa. Ned and Catelyn reflect different aspects of their daughters. Brienne has two sides that reflect the two of them – both a romantic idealistic and unconventional woman. Let’s talk about those parallels instead.

[phoenixfire-thewizardgoddess]

when the government forces you, a known gay, to work for an organisation that would prefer you not exist...

- -- - --

[TEXT] “SAME SEX PLEBISITE In coming weeks all registered voters will be receiving a form to vote on “legalizing same sex marriages”

From what has happened in other countries, and the history of what has eventuated on the other moral issues you can be assured this will not stop there.

Once this is in other restriction will follow that will make it difficult for Christians, in particular, to have a voice, and laws that will continue to destroy the, already fragile, family unit.

Marriage was instigated by god. Man has no authority to change that institution. The Bible clearly states that marriage is between two people - a man and woman and into that union children are born and nurtured. 

Whilst we do not, and must not, discriminate against the person this act is in direct violation of what god planned. 

We will be voting “NO” on this plebiscite and we encourage you to vote “NO” as well.”

- -- - --

Soooooooooooooooooooo we’re not going to talk about the fact that most of the bible has Dude + multiple wives + concubines + random encounters with women they then shame as whores...?

Or the time two daughters were ‘duty-bound’ to have children with their father?

Or that, technically, the lord almighty impregnated a young woman without her consent, thereby placing her in severe danger of being killed for infidelity?

Or the actual issues plaguing families in modern society (eg domestic violence), and the intolerance of children who are born ‘different’, and are therefore treated poorly or kicked out resulting in a series of other issues (e.g. homelessness, substance abuse, dv, criminal activities, etc.)?

Or the fact that, no matter your religion or beliefs you are bound to follow the legislation and societal conduct laws (including anti-discrimination ones) whilst you live in that country?

Or a thousand other things.

- - - 

Have you read the bible? 

You used to have to sacrifice two goddamn doves to god everytime you had a period or had sex, I mean, c’mon. 

It starts with an omnipotent being watching a stupid naked dude frolicking with animals, then a talking snake gets involved, some casual fratricide, a massive flood that takes out 99% of the world’s population but repopulates with two of each animal (but only noah’s family made it so... well)...

A casual family trip to egypt goes awry and it resolves thanks to a burning bush + casual mass infanticide (seriously, all those children, but the bible specifically states that ‘god hardened the pharaoh’s heart’, so what the FUCK was the ulterior motive behind killing all those children???), then another guy who won’t stop for directions gets everyone lost for 40 years and one of his sons gets fucking banished for accidentally walking in and seeing his dad drunk and naked af on the floor (seriously), the same dude who came down the mountain with stone tablets and some bad news about foreskins...

There were the two sisters who slept with their dad to ‘save the family line’, and that one guy who does NOT get a fucking ‘#1 Dad’ cup bc he tried to sacrifice the kid (worst April Fool’s trick ever god, wtf), and the Job situation (just fucking kill everyone he loves and shit on the dude to prove how foolishly devoted he is to you, gold star asshole)?

Uh, what about the bloke who gets vored by that whale that one time?

The lord failing to even ask consent before impregnating a woman, in a time where not being virginal before marriage was a death sentence? Or the fact that he-upstairs could lead three wise dudes across the world to see the baby, but not y’know, book them a place in an inn or something so Mary has to pop out the chosen one in a stall... totally unhygienic, and a dick move. Or have them go somewhere else, so a mad king won’t flat out commit another mass infanticide trying to catch out a baby who might usurp him...

(mass infanticide seems to be one hell of a main theme in the bible, including the moses-basket and moses-plague-on-firstborns thing) someone really hated babies

What about all the animal sacrifices that continuously happen throughout the bible itself? A lot of people claim animals don’t have souls or go to heaven, so like... then what the FUCK was the point of killing them to ‘send to the lord’?  Sounds more like ‘priests want to have meat for dinner but too lazy to raise animals themselves’ tbh...

The period thing ‘being unclean in the eyes of the lord’, and the sex thing, like bruh... the bible’s full of begatting, how many goddamn doves did you kill?

What about the samson thing, where the dudebro’s muscles were as thick as his mind, bc he seriously did not work out that everytime his main babe asked ‘how do i kill you?’ in a cute pouty way, and he lied to her, she’d immediately try it... not the sharpest potato in the bunch... Also the whole ‘gone blind, knock over a building, kill forty people with an ass’ schtick...

The jesus disaster could have been summarised as ‘deadbeat dad sends son to mother and step-father, then nominates child to pay debts with mortal loansharks’... seriously, bad parenting... he’s lucky there wasn’t goddamn Demigodly protective services back then. at least the son rebelled by joining a roving gang of radical BC hippies and flipping tables, having dinner together, doing a little smooching bc bromance, you know, that teenager/young adult stuff.

but seriously, dude, crucifiction falls under physical abuse and neglect, people...

lo and beholdeth, jack-in-the-box jesus hit reset and returneth, to raise some hell...eth. 

the city full of swingers and drinkers? a chick turning into a condiment for looking at it? that was like a dungeons and dragons plot twist...

and a bunch of other ridiculous stories, including revelations which is seriously someone’s fever dream written down i mean c’mon... 

Anyone out there who is taking the thing literally, hasn’t been forced to read the fucking thing back and forwards multiple times. It’s a terrible fanfic, would not leave kudos bc the characterisation is terrible and this jesus oc is one heck of a mary sue... with a bit of strong concrit, it could work out, though. 

- -- - --

Welp. Know that I have rubbed my gay little hands over all your merchandise and will continue to do so. Your move jesus fandom. 

- -- - --

Also it’s “Plebiscite”, btw. You got it right 1 out of 2 occasions, mate.

[elsa-of-arrendelle]

If Destiel shippers are allowed to post why they ship Destiel, I am allowed to say why I don’t.

I’ll point out that, yes, I’m religious. I’m a Christian of the LDS church and I believe that marriage and sexual relations should be between a man and a woman. But that’s not the big reason I don’t ship Destiel (Heck, I think Cecil and Carlos are *neat* and freaking adorable). 

I don’t ship Destiel because of what it cancels from the characters, the healthiness of the proposed relationship, and the effect it’s had on the fandom over the years.

Destiel is a ship that began as a fanon ship and still is. The biggest promotion is fans on tumblr, the lip-service and stories are written by fans, the scenes are either drawn by or edited from available sources by fans. The writers clearly have no intent of making it canon and the actors (mainly Jensen cause he’s tired of the constant peppering) have said that Destiel does not exist in the show.

The character-destroying reasons I don’t ship Destiel:

There is a canonically straight man who watches soap operas, cleans, cooks, has worn pink satin panties, drinks flavored water, listens to kids, show empathy, cries, is unafraid to show affection to his male friends and family, mother-hens his friends and family, and listens to his own moral code. It bashes so many stereotypes it makes me want to cry of happiness. Turning Dean Bi changes “breaking useless gender roles and stereotypes” to “Oh, well yeah, he’s gay so that makes sense now.” and degrades how revolutionary his character already is against mainstream media.

There’s also an angel who doesn’t care about sexuality more than a person’s actions (a slap to Westboro Baptists) with no personal reasons for it other than his conscience. He is sweet and kind but can also be awe-inspiring and ruthless against his enemies. Has immense power but tries to use it to help people, even in small acts of service which takes down the idea that abilities are only useful if they’re out beating up bad guys over doing what you can no matter how small.

And I refuse to ignore Sam because he is not going to be demoted to a cheerleader for Destiel. Sam is kind, passionate, and endures immense hardships and is just as valid as Dean or Cas. He is his own powerhouse and while I’m certain that he supports his brother being happy and healthy in any relationship that Dean might choose, he shouldn’t be ignored or downsized as a character to make way for a new romance plot which will inevitably happen because guys, this is tv land. It always happens.

Meg. Megstiel was actually canon. Yet, during the same time that people were still trying to make it Destiel. Meg was literally making out with Cas and it was not one-sided. I have seen more romance - proper, healthy romance, mind you - and positive character development between these two than between Dean and Cas. Castiel would compliment her poetically and she had her pet-name for him and would fuss over him and cared for him when Dean didn’t because the Winchesters had their own problems to deal with.

^^^ Related to this but Destiel shippers have actually stolen a lot from Megstiel which is just messed up. The Pizza Man was based on Megstiel. The idea of having a “unicorn” is from Megstiel. Could you please use your own cliche’s in your fanfics and headcanons??? You can’t think of any that you have on your own?? That’s messed up. If you can’t write a story without stealing a competing ship’s motifs to pass as your own, you probably shouldn’t be writing and should be researching your own dang ship instead.

Dean and Castiel’s relationship would be toxic, in case you didn’t notice. It very nearly is right now. Cas is not and never will be Dean’s top priority. He’s still a priority for sure, but he’s not Sam. A healthy relationship has either each other on equal standing whether their first priority is each other or God. Goals, real-time emotions, or anything else too changeable are easily toppled. The reason Dean and Lisa worked out for a year was because Sam was not an option for Dean to prioritize anymore but the second he came back, the relationship started (sadly) to fall apart and Dean lost that stability. Unless Sam is also Cas’ #1 priority, their relationship is going to capsize faster than the Titanic without interference from Balthazar.

Not to mention, when Dean is stressed about losing Sam/failing the world/problems, he dishes out on Castiel. Cas is a strange character in that he is so old and has so much knowledge but he’s simultaneously like a child for the first several seasons because he’s missing so much social development. Two emotionally unbalanced factors in a relationship either balance each other out perfectly or they go up like a nuclear reactor. Sometimes it’s immediate and other times it builds up, but Dean and Cas initially clash and still clash on many major decisions. They don’t balance each other, they make the other alarmed by their unpredictability and recklessness.

Dean does care about Cas, but he’s not used to him or expressing concern to anyone beyond Sam, John, and Bobby. He’s bad at expressing negative feelings in an okay way. I’m not going to be the anti-shipper who paints Dean as some kind of abusive monster cause I love Dean and they twist him out of context too, but Dean has said some hurtful things and failed on the supportive front for Cas several times because Cas is not his main priority. Similarly, Cas has shown no interest in becoming a human, he enjoys human interaction and helping humans. He’s not some Ariel out to be ‘part of our world’ and S12 had him taking up Joshua on the deal to allow him back into Heaven. They have their own goals and those goals do not align in a way that gives room for a relationship. In short, their relationship will hurt each other, not support each other.

The fact that other characters refer to them as a couple is obsolete. If anyone has ever referred to you and someone else you know as an item, you understand that other people’s feelings on your emotions do not create a relationship, your individual feelings do. So that is not ‘proof’.

Something I want to point out to the fandom:

These are like the 3 most aggresively sexualized moments that the fandom has to work with when it comes to hardcore shipping over fluff. Usually these images are followed by fics of making out passionately after these moments. Fans have turned these moments into ‘magical’ events that scream UST and drama.

But I need you to understand something so listen up.

In each of these moments... DEAN IS FREAKING TERRIFIED. 

#1 +2. Castiel warning Dean to show him respect... because he brought Dean out of Hell and could throw him back in and Dean at this point is most definitely not close to coping with the trauma of those 40 years. He’s threatening him with his biggest trigger right here.

How Romantic. Sparks are flying, guys.

#3. Castiel is literally beating up Dean in an alleyway while yelling at him that he’s being selfish and weak and ignoring Cas’ sacrifices. By the end of this, Dean believes that Cas is just going to kill him.    Awwwwww...

#4. The angels have just been exposed at villians and Dean has yelled at Cas to make a decision. Several hours later, Cas appears and slams Dean into the wall and Dean is completely lost and alarmed by this and is unaware of what side Cas has chosen until after a moment of waiting for something to happen.

All of these moments have Dean afraid and/or believing that he is probably going to die. STOP TRYING TO TURN FEAR INTO AROUSAL. That is some serious rape-culture logic and it is messed up. It’s not “kinky”, it’s not “sexy”, it’s fear. If you can’t tell the difference, go see a psychologist.

Okay. Moving past that, the fandom has a lot of issues to deal with when it comes to context and character intent. Most of the scenes ‘supporting’ Destiel are regular pictures taken at a moment with 0 context provided. Others are gifs where something else is actually going on but it looks flirty when there aren’t words so it goes. Most shippers will also confess to not being very big Destiel shippers before they got into the fanfic because it changes their perspective and makes them look for a notice things that aren’t meant to be that way. I read some Bela/Dean stories and found myself shipping them for a while when I used to be die-hard Lisa or Jo.

Also worth mentioning: The argument of Cas being a “multi-dimensional wavelength of celestial intent and therefore isn’t really gay so there’s not a problem” is a double-edged sword with the fact that Castiel has never been with anyone not female (or even human btw it was a reaper and almost Hannah and Meg), but you’re also backspacing over the idea that if it was canon it would be a gay ship so... there goes the side opting for LGBTQA representation...what is your goal with that?

I don’t ship it because I’m tired of great characters being simplified, of great relationships being ignored, of made-up images and quotes being spread as though they were true, of looking up Supernatural and being hit by a wave of Destiel headcanons, of people insulting my favorite actors for both refusing to approve of the relationship and for trying not to shut down the relationship, of the level of tin-hatting required to insist that a character is bi because of the color shirt that they wear, and for people tagging every post - no matter how unrelated - as “Destiel”, I’m sick of it all. 

Spamming is the biggest reasons for Anti-Destiel blogs. Tagging everything with your ship name makes anyone who doesn’t ship it want to scream and hate you. This is not how you gain support.

I’m personally just very sick of feeling like I’m not really a part of this fandom because I don’t ship Destiel. But a lot of fans don’t. A lot of fans aren’t on tumblr, they don’t read your fanfic, they don’t consider Cas and Dean to be a couple, they just watch and like the show. That’s kinda what being a fan is. Making everything on Supernatural about Destiel is how you lose support for the show and the fandom.

Shipping despite this is fine. You want to, go for it. It won’t change the show that I enjoy, but please remember that not everyone will ship what you ship and spamming them or harassing them is pointless and rude.

[ask-lightning-n-dusk-blog]

Unsure about doing this... here goes

I have announced on this blog before that I am an MRA, well yes, that does mean at times I will pause to talk about issues relevant to that. That being said, here is a warning that the following will contain mature subject matter. Only read if you can handle adult discussions.

This is my own experiences with sexual harassment.

 Over the last several months something has been called to my attention, an aggressive series of social justice movements seeking to divide people based solely on born traits or otherwise superficial identifications. One of the most dangerous trends I’ve seen is the concept of trying to say who can and cannot suffer in certain ways, for instance saying only women, transsexuals or other sexual “minority” groups can experience sexual harassment or at least their suffering is more important because they are “marginalized”. To be clear, if you are the victim of genuine harassment, rape, sexual or violent assault, murder, discrimination-anything like that- your suffering is real and understand there is no circumstance that makes it less important. We should not be governing ourselves by who we can forget, the children starving in Russia do not need our help more than those starving in the US. Each person has to decide who they will help for themselves, but do not mistaken such choices for evaluations of who is or is not important. The suffering of a white man is no less important than the suffering of a black woman. When you help someone, you really do need to be mature and realize your choice should not be based on who is or is not important, but rather what your heart leads you to do.

So here goes, my sexual harassment experiences, yes plural… they all kinda blur together over the course of a five year period. You see, about ten years ago now, I joined the army. I was told me being a virgin would be a problem, but I never understood to what degree until I entered. Outside the army some people would ask questions and maybe be a little rude trying to guess the size of my penis, but never anything I couldn’t handle… it was just seriously awkward is all. (There were a few times when the teasing got out of hand to the point of me running and crying from bullies who thought it was funny to constantly badger me about sexual concepts and positions when I was in the sixth grade for some reason, but my parents eventually homeschooled me so that stopped all together.)

(A warning, anyone even thinking of finding out who was in my units and going after them let me be clear- you try and I find out, I will ruin you. Those guys could be mean, but a damn lot of them would have willingly laid down their lives for me so screw the hell off. Maybe that’s why I sometimes hesitate to bring this up, because I know some jerk will always try to say something nasty about soldiers using this as evidence. This is not something against the army. The army has problems and this centers on one of them, but the people in there can be good people. Reform it by all means, but don’t try to hurt the people in it.)

The army was a different story though. One of the major issues with sexual harassment in the army is the frequent imposition of not being allowed to leave certain areas coupled with group punishment. This means if someone thinks it’s funny to constantly ask questions about your genitals you cannot demand he or she leave, nor can you leave yourself. Demanding they knock it off and trying to get them in trouble usually causes just as much trouble for you, if not more. If a woman, knowing you’re a virgin, begins to insist that you are therefore a pedophile, and you rightfully snap at her, you are punished right along with her and the rest of your unit. The idea is that this should create cohesion by making the unit suffer together. What it really does is silence victims because other members of the unit see it as easier to silence them, than address a trouble maker. This means, like me, many people in the army and similar services are subject to nigh and sometimes actual daily sexual harassment or other forms of harassment (people with mental handicaps have it far worse generally BTW) with little to nothing they can do about it.

It’s hard to say what was the worst of it either. Maybe it was AIT where I was constantly told I needed to compare my penis size to other men, which of course I never did nor did they want me to do, I was just an easy target because I was a virgin and they could use the “curiosity” excuse to get away from being called the dreaded “gay”. (Ironically this was a problem word even among those who were staunchly anti-homophobia.) Maybe when I turned people down to visit bars with them and constantly had to defend myself against accusations that I was either hiding the fact that I was a pedophile or fantasized about rape. Maybe it was because at times I subjected others to the same treatment because it was the only way I was ever able to be relieved from it myself (not excusing that, I never should have given in, but I did). Maybe it was experiencing the same harassment from women as men, when feminists and most of society had always taught me this was a “gendered” issue. Maybe it was my loss of innocence regarding women entirely when I slowly found out that women treated each other and other men exactly the same and only men could ever be expected to get in real trouble and only if they were harassing women. Maybe the worst was when a homosexual man grabbed me in public, rubbed his genitals on me and when I threw him off me, I was shouted down by him and my peers for “homophobia”. Maybe it was the constant need to explain to even the more rational people that no, there is no connection between penis size and virginity, nor worse yet, pedophilia, rape, serial killers or other forms of violent crime- why would there fucking be, how did that line of questioning even make sense to them anyway?!!-. Guess they thought they were “just making sure”.

Go ahead folks, tell me, which is the worst sounding of all that? Some of it was near daily, some weekly, some of it got better over time, some got worse and to tell the truth it was all so frequent it all blurred together. (To be fair the gay guy was a one time experience, though as you can imagine it stuck out.) It was worst when I first went in and didn’t know it was coming. Over time I did learn to redirect conversations and how to make people just as uncomfortable discussing my sexuality as I was. (A favorite trick of mine was to question the insecurities that must obviously be present in someone so afraid of virgins.) Maybe the worst of it was knowing no one else really had it much better and no one who wanted a solution had any idea what it would be.

I suppose I should address something that happened as a result of all this. If I were to trace the origin of this, it probably was experiences like this- but I suppose it’s possible I’m just self-diagnosing-. For whatever reason, I have lost all interest in being sexually active, even in a marriage relationship. I suppose that makes me part of a legit minority group officially recognized by a social justice group- a-sexuals… no. I refuse to play that game. You can care about me because I was human and hurt, I will not let you pretend I’m “one of you” so you can continue to neglect concern about my brothers. (Make no mistake, all men are your brothers and all women your sisters.) To LGBT, I remember how you guys acted years ago before you started adding letters. Virgins, by choice or by biology were pariahs to you guys. I have no problem with gay or trans people themselves, but advocacy groups associated with them... I was your enemy ten years ago because I didn’t want to have sex before marriage, and five years ago because I said I wasn’t interested in having sex. Now suddenly you speak for me because you wanted to add a vowel to your dumb acronym? No, you don’t get that privilege. I’m not a-sexual, I’m a virgin. It was mostly people on the political left even in the army who attacked me for my sexual choices. The left gave me the label “virgin” and refused to let me forget it, now I won’t let them forget it. I’m taking that label to my grave.

If anyone feels the desire to apologize to me who didn’t do anything to me, don’t you dare. That’s nothing more than virtue signaling. The only reason to apologize for something you personally were never involved in, is to be seen by others as being sorry, it’s profanity in my book. I hold no grudge against random gay people because one molested me, nor do I hate the sexually active because so many people of that persuasion couldn’t leave me the freak alone. If you feel sorry for me, just say that, but know that I’m fine and moving on, but don’t you dare try to legitimately apologize for something someone else did.

Do I feel like a victim? Objectively myself and many others at the time were, but now, not really. It was years ago and there’s no reason for me to demand anything now, just recognition that my problems were real and therefore, the problems of other men are too. I’m not demanding justice, nor apologies, I’m just asking people to finally realize equality means equality. My suffering is the same as yours, whether I’m part of your group or not. I guess that’s another reason I refuse to identify as an a-sexual, I refuse to give the social justice movement that kind of an out. No, I’m not an a-sexual that you can now pretend to care about when before you thought I was scum of the earth because I was a white male virgin. You either care about me as a human being regardless of my identity or you can get lost.

               So yea, that’s my story and my feelings. Do with them what you will.

[mewpre]

I do agree that we have historically made steps towards equality in regards to rights for certain groups, but things are still greatly inequitable and will continue to be if things do not change. Malcolm X has this great quote: “If you stick a knife in my back nine inches and pull it out six inches, there's no progress. If you pull it all the way out that's not progress. Progress is healing the wound that the blow made. And they haven't even pulled the knife out much less heal the wound.” To talk about, say, the current race relations in the United States, the abolishment of slavery and the push of the Civil Rights Movement is pulling the knife out some of the way, but the continued negative effects of redlining, the police brutality and the lack of accountability due to qualified immunity, the school-to-prison pipeline that keeps modern-day slavery alive, all of these still disproportionately affect black people and other marginalized groups. The knife is still not all the way out so healing cannot begin to occur. The systems that were originally designed to keep black people and other people of color down have yet to be dismantled. If you look at what LGBTQ+ and womens’ rights movements are fighting for, you’ll also see past “progress” as well as current issues that still need to be addressed.

Even if we step outside of movements based on identity, the COVID pandemic has shown how workers’ rights have not kept pace with the current status quo; sure in the US we now have child labor laws and such (as a result of very violent protests and strikes in the early 1900s, btw) but it’s clearly still not enough for people to not have to sacrifice their health for a paycheck during a global health crisis. Drastic action is almost always needed to enact change on a wider scale, especially when it involves opposing people in power who benefit from things staying the same.

I, too, know plenty of straight cis white men who are great people and supportive allies. And they understand that if someone shouts slurs at them, it is not a reflection of who they are as individuals, but the result of untrue judgements against a group of people who look like them. Untrue judgements that, sure, may hurt their feelings, but don’t affect their job prospects, their safety in their community, their media representation in the same ways or to the same degree that stereotypes and discrimination against PoC, women, and the queer community affect those groups. And the anti-straight cis white male sentiments are usually made as a result of people feeling frustrated and powerless, while slurs against other groups are usually said from a place of power to put down and dehumanize others. Stereotyping and namecalling in general is bad, but I hope you understand that the stereotypes against straight cis white men aren’t exactly coming from the same place nor does it have the same effect. Plus, the people doing the namecalling and bullying often aren’t the ones actually putting in the work to fight for justice, organizing and protesting, raising money and passing legislation, so it is a little disingenuous to point out the namecalling as the “wrong” way to go about enacting change when the activists aren’t the ones doing it or supporting it.

I think the long arc of history bends towards justice, and that one day we’ll have equality between groups, but we are far from that ideal future right now. As our society progresses to become better, we’ll uncover more things that might be acceptable now but will no longer be in the future, fight to change things for the better, and continue so on and so forth. In my lifetime, we went from “gay” being used as a casual slur to same-sex marriage being legally recognized. Nowadays, people outside the black community are talking about police brutality as a systemic issue. The #MeToo Movement brought forward the issue of sexual harassment and assault against women that were previously brushed under the rug. The Great Resignation is giving workers more power to demand better working conditions and compensation. Change is happening and need to continue happening in order for everyone’s life to be more equitable in the future.

Trigger warnings: ranting/hot takes?

Okay I know I should ignore this, and like, why should I say anything on it?

Well it’s pissing me off

I’m noticing a lot of biased stuff.

Why can’t we all be equal? LGBTQ+, Straight, Black, White, Women, Men.. why aren’t we all equal?

It’s all like “black lives matter!” “Girl power!” And “LGBTQ Rights” what about everyone? Agreed we should acknowledge everyone’s struggles and make it known those oppressed by society isn’t okay. This is just a contradiction though, so many times I’ve see a white person stereotyped, a guy being stereotyped as the bad person or the one who invalidates others. I’ve even seen some religions attacked.

Why? Why can’t we all be equal and fight for everyone’s rights? Why can we learn to help each other and support each other? Be open to something new even?

This is a genuine question, why?

I want to have a discussion with you, I want to understand your reason, am I in the wrong? What is either of us misinterpreting?

[anonymoustalks]

The thing is society dosen't really care for men and even many me don't seem to care for men, it's like both men and women never care about men's problems

(6-20-20) You both like Feminism.

You: hiyo

Stranger: Hi

You: what's on your mind?

Stranger: Many things.

You: mhm, anything that you want to talk about?

Stranger: Yours?

You: religion

You: my last conversation was about religion

Stranger: The feminist cult religion?

You: nope, I was on the religion tag

Stranger: Okay.

Stranger: I'm so not religious lol

You: is there a word for anti-feminist?

You: I'm not religious either

Stranger: There is, it is anti-feminist.

Stranger: That's it lol

You: it's a dull word

Stranger: Or anti-feminism.

You: so you are anti-feminism?

Stranger: I don't know but i don't support feminism and i hate most feminiets, the majority of feminists are scum and extremists.

You: mhm I support feminism

Stranger: Well good for you at least you know what you want.

You: mhm and you don't know what you want?

Stranger: I do but i cannot get it.

You: oh what exactly do you want?

Stranger: I want a boyfriend. I am gay.

You: ahh gl with that

Stranger: Gl?

You: good luck

You: where are you from?

Stranger: So do you fund feminists groups?

Stranger: America

You: mhm I donated once to the HRC

You: which supports both lgbt and feminism

Stranger: What's hrc?

You: human rights campaign

Stranger: Ohh

You: I donated 20 dollars to them and then they didn't stop calling me

Stranger: You donated to help what?

Stranger: Why didnt they stop calling you?

You: well if you donate once you're listed as a potential donor

You: so then they keep calling you hoping you'll donate again

Stranger: Yikes!

Stranger: So what did you do?

You: I think it's kind of common

You: I just said I wasn't going to donate

Stranger: What do they use your money for?

You: it's like your typical phone canvasing

You: colleges and univesities do that too

Stranger: I see.

You: they're an advocacy and lobbying group

You: so I think you'd probably dislike them

Stranger: What do they advocate for?

Stranger: It's okay, we're just having a convo.

You: oh that lobby for the passage of pro-lgbt bills in congress

You: *they lobby

Stranger: Are you from america?

You: yes

You: like big industries like guns and pharma all have lobbies in congress -- which means they spend millions to convince politicians to vote a certain way

You: for like other things, the money that goes to lobbying comes from ordinary ppl

Stranger: What's your opinion on metoo and the believeallwomen hashtag?

You: mhmm

Stranger: I mean woudn't you say metoo is toxic?

You: yeah I would say there are circumstances that it is kinda toxic

You: but I think it's important to speak out if you get sexually harrassed

You: there's a long history in the us of women staying silent

Stranger: I do and i would to but that does not justify accusing someone of rape when they did not do it.

Stranger: 2 wrongs don't make a right.

You: mhm, what percentage of people #metoo-ing do you think are lying?

Stranger: I'm saying we shoudn't believe all women cause the stats say 2% to 10% of women lie about rape.

Stranger: I can't even imagine how many more men might have been falsely imori

Stranger: Imprisoned for something they never did.

You: sure, although I think it's good that these 90-98% of women who aren't lying are speaking up now

You: a majority of rape cases are dismissed

You: overwhelming majority

Stranger: I'm not saying they shoudn't cause they should but we need solid evidence before accusing someone of being a rapist

You: sure

You: although I think everyone should have the right to speak their story

Stranger: If anyone tries to rape me of course i would speak up in a heartbeat.

You: I think some companies may overreact in some circumstances to firing someone who get's #metoo'd

You: but I think people should be able to speak up and say it happened

Stranger: Because of false accusations men have killed themeselves and entered years in prison.

You: I mean the imprisonment thing I think that's just not true

You: so few accusations ever lead to prison time

You: I think you could say many men have lost their jobs

Stranger: Are you sure?

You: yup, I'm sure

Stranger: There is news on it.

Stranger: Men have told their stories.

Stranger: Search on youtube

You: yeah, but if they're convicted by a trial and jury, that legitimately means there was like evidence

You: like a dna test or sperm or things like that

You: us courts do not convict without evidence

Stranger: I dont know about that i mean people always see to believe women even without evidence

You: mhm, but the legal system hasn't changed in the US at all

You: I think more ppl are concerned about their employers believe claims and getting fired from their jobs

Stranger: I heard stories where men spent many years for a rape they did not do

You: yes, but you can't get convicted unless there is some evidence that convinces the jury

You: sometimes there can be bad evidence though

You: but it's the same thing of ppl going to prison for murder they didn't commit

You: a rape charge is very serious in the US, and you can't get convicted without serious evidence

Stranger: The jury can just call anything evidence whether it is real or not.

You: mhm idk, it can be sometimes hard to argue dna tests and stuff like that

Stranger: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://m.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3DO5yrFOX5vh0&ved=2ahUKEwjuhr7l15HqAhWs63MBHVavCq8Qo7QBMAN6BAgCEAE&usg=AOvVaw2Nj1O1PtJHVUDh-T9RW6Bq

Stranger: Maybe you should watch this video, of you want to that is.

You: but again, a lot of ppl support abolishing the death penalty, because there are times when the justice system convicts the wrong ppl

You: but this isn't a problem seen just in rape cases in general

You: it happens with murder convictions and other crimes

You: rape doesn't get special treatment in us courts

Stranger: But why are there so many men in prison for a rape they did not commit then?

You: mhm..... idk, you will have to look up statistics for that

Stranger: Okau

Stranger: Okay

Stranger: Are you like a liberal btw?

You: yup

Stranger: A hillary supporter?

You: lol hillary isn't running

Stranger: I know but you voted for her?

You: versus trump lol?

You: of course

Stranger: Is it true that all feminists believe men have it much easier than women?

Stranger: I just don't see how anyone could think that.

You: well I don't really think that's the case

You: I think each gender has its problems

Stranger: I sometimes feel ny life would be easier if i was a woman.

You: mhm how so?

Stranger: Well i feel like i woudn't be told to man up

You: right

Stranger: People would be more concerned about my mental help

Stranger: I think people woudn't be so hard on me

You: mhm I think it's bad that you had to go through all those things

Stranger: I always felt like the female gender is the privileged gender.

You: idk I think for me it's hard to say one gender is more "privileged" than the other

You: but for me, I think about women who can't get a promotion because her boss thinks she will get pregnant

Stranger: You're entitled to your opinion, i am not trying to change your mind. Just sharing my views.

You: mhm totally

You: you are too

You: so I think there are challenges in different areas

You: and I think society should work together to improve issues experienced by both genders

Stranger: The thing is society dosen't really care for men and even many me don't seem to care for men, it's like both men and women never care about men's problems

Stranger: The suicide rate of men is so high and that upsets me everyday.

You: I think society should care for men, and we should change culture so that society does

Stranger: People still believe me cannot get raped.

You: a lot of ppl tell me that feminists want to "emasculate" men when we say that we should encourage it so that it's more acceptable for men to talk about their feelings

You: and express feelings and talk about their emotions

Stranger: If a woman rapes a man then people think it's not possible and that pisses me off.

You: yeah rape can happen to anybody

You: you were raped? :c

Stranger: No but i am worried about the men who did get raped.

You: mhm

Stranger: I just want to prevent men from getting raped.

You: rape is bad, and I think it's important to look at what we can do to improve it

Stranger: Men are usually less likely to speak up if they are being raped or sexually assaulted.

You: right

You: I think men should speak up

You: or I think we should make the culture acceptable for that

Stranger: I want them to but society also needs to advocate for them.

You: mhm, yup

You: sexual violence hurts everybody involved

Stranger: I know.

You: but yeah, if it's important to you, have you thought about getting involved?

Stranger: I dont know how to

Stranger: Maybe i should join the mens rights

You: well there are rape crisis hotlines for women, maybe you can find one for men?

You: or start one for men?

Stranger: How much would that even cost?

You: most of them are run by volunteers

You: it's basically a phone number

You: and you organize a group of ppl to pick up the phone

Stranger: What is the phone number?

You: I think it depends on the area you're from

Stranger: Oh okay maybe i will try to find out

You: the trevorproject is the lgbt suicide hotline

You: https://www.thetrevorproject.org/

You: you can get trained to volunteer for them and answer the phone

Stranger: So anyways are you married?

You: nope

Stranger: Oh okay

Stranger: How old are you?

You: 26 you?

Stranger: I probably will never get married..

Stranger: 23

You: mhm why not?

Stranger: Well i am gay so i dont think i can get married lol

You: are in the US?

You: it's legal in a bunch of states now

You: supreme court also ruled on anti-discrimination too

Stranger: Not that marriage in essential anyways especially if we consider.how many people get divorced after marriage.

You: mhm if you don't want to get married I can understand that oo

Stranger: I mean marriage was always between a man and a woman so i don't know if.it is really marriage.

You: are you from a conservative state?

Stranger: I mean are there any religions who have same sex marriage?

You: idk, I'm not religious, so for me marriage is a secular union

Stranger: I am not either but marriage was created by religious people.

Stranger: Even though i am not religious i believe in a spiritual world, don't laugh lol

You: no it's fine, I understand

Stranger: Do you believe in the supernatural?

You: I think in a lot of the non-religious countries, or atheist countries, marriage still happens. Maybe the meaning has changed

You: not really

Stranger: Oh okay. So you believe in science only? I believe in both science and the supernatural

You: mhm I guess you could say I lean more towards science

You: maybe I believe in a soul, idk

Stranger: Ok

Stranger: Oh ya do you want to talk about abortion?

You: sure haha ^^

You: do you have strong feelings?

Stranger: Like what strong feelings?

You: some people have very strong opinions about abortion

Stranger: Ya i kinda do

Stranger: Why?

You: pro-life?

You: no just curious, mine are less strong

Stranger: Well i don't join groups so no but i don't like killing a fetus either

You: mhm

You: is there a particular point in pregnancy that you think abortion should be illegal?

Stranger: A fetus is still the child of that mother and father.

Stranger: I think abortion always be illegal unless maybe there are a few exceptions like if the mother will ide

Stranger: *die*

You: have you ever heard of plan b?

You: the birth control pill?

Stranger: No i have not

You: it's the day after pill

You: technically you can think of that as a kind of abortion too

You: since you're aborting the day after

You: sex

Stranger: I dont know about those birth control thingies

Stranger: I dont have a lot of knowledge on many things

You: oh

Stranger: Lol

You: it takes a long time for the fetus to form

You: many states have laws on what point it should be illegal to abort

You: because early on it's like microscopic

Stranger: I really need someone to teach me things i want to learn

Stranger: I think if the sperm meets the ovum and becomes one then isn't that already a life?

You: it depends on how you see it essentially

Stranger: Do you support abortion?

You: yup, up to a limit

Stranger: If i was a woman i would never abort my baby.

You: mhm I don't think I would abort either

You: but I think it's important to have a right to choose to extent

You: having a baby is a life-changing event

Stranger: I believe abortion is murder, even in the early stages i would never abort my baby.

You: mhm

You: I was talking about weeks because at certain weeks the fetus is at a different size

You: like by week 6 it's like the size of a grain of rice

Stranger: I know it is a life changing event but murder is never the answer

Stranger: So you are counting the value of your child by it's size? :(

Stranger: I a

You: mhm well, I think there's a certain point when the fetus develops a heart or a brain

You: and takes its first heartbeat

You: I think for me, before it has developed to that point

You: I mean, in a way, every sperm cell has the potential to become a baby

You: and same with every egg in menstruation

You: so for me internally, I guess we all have a point when we consider life to have started

Stranger: But i dont think sperm is the same thing as a embryo or fetus

You: mhm but the day after fertilization, it's basically just an egg with extra dna

You: from the sperm

Stranger: Are we all a sperm and a ovum according to science?

Stranger: I am curious.

You: mhm in a sense, yeah

You: there's no brain

You: so it's not thinking

Stranger: So you and i are sperms and ovums?

You: well I mean, we've grown a lot

You: I think it's unethical to kill a fetus with a beating heart and brain

Stranger: That's weird cause i never felt like a sperm and ovum

You: because I think at a certain point life has started

You: and I believe the baby has started to feel things

You: lol you wouldn't remember being a zygote (the sperm+ovum)

Stranger: What stage at birth do you think the soul enters the body.

You: mhm somewhere in between heartbeating and having a brain I think

Stranger: I know but it is hard to imagine i was ever a sperm and ovum.

You: yeah but we all started that way

Stranger: What if it was even before that? Then it would be murder :(

Stranger: But it is so weird to think of it

You: I mean, like when ppl have sex there's millions of sperm

You: if it was a different one that fertilized the egg

You: in a sense you could be someone else

You: or when a guy masturbates, those are all potential babies

Stranger: Ya but without the ovum there is no baby

Stranger: And without the sperm there is also no baby

Stranger: So we are 2 parts merged into one? That is creepy

You: lol is it?

You: I guess it's just nature

Stranger: So i am 2 beings in 1?

You: mhm you are you

You: you know another weird thing?

You: so our skin is constantly dying

Stranger: What?

You: like we shed

You: dead skin

Stranger: Ya i know that

You: how long do you think it takes before all of our skin is replaced?

Stranger: Maybe a few years?

You: yeah idk

You: sometimes I think its weird that our body now is totally different from our body a couple years ago

You: like not even the same cells

Stranger: But then why do i still have my scars?

Stranger: Why didn't my scars go away?

You: scars are like dead tissue

You: so when your skin grows, it grows around them

Stranger: Oh. Well that upsetting that they wont go away anytime soon

Stranger: I just thought since scars that arent so deep should go away since they are on the surface of my skin

You: mhm yeah idk

You: how did you get them?

Stranger: I got scratched my sharp things i guesd?

You: oh

Stranger: But some of them are not really that deep at all

Stranger: Yet the marks are still on my fingers

You: mhm

Stranger: What is mhm?

You: oh, it's just a sound of agreeing

Stranger: Are you planing to get married?

You: maybe

You: I think I will probably get going

You: it was nice talking to you

Stranger: Ok

You: bye, I wish for the best

Stranger: Where will you be going?

You: hm? maybe clean a little

Stranger: Ok bye

You: bye

You have disconnected.