#they aren’t being oppressed by an unfair system

[kickasscentral]

Just wanted to put this out there, calling mages a minority is like looking at straight white men and calling them a minority group just sayin

[chickenleafs-world]

Rewatching the original animated X-men series in preparation for 97, so of course I’ve also been seeing a lot of X-men posts. And, as always, I have strong opinions on what people on the internet say. Most of the time those opinions are “how did these people read/watch X-men growing up and not get that they’re the villains” because people are being bigots and are upset that their favorite heroes aren’t. But sometimes I’m stuck being frustratingly close to agreeing and my strong opinions are much harder to voice. In part because you don’t want to walk into the Discourse Landmine, but also in part because there’s so much to go over on the take.

Case in point: the “Magneto is right, Xavier is wrong” take, where my main problem with people is more the lack of nuance than the base take. And I know most of the people saying it are also doing it in part as a joke and get the nuance is there, but it still irks me.

Let’s be clear, in general, Magneto is not right, but he isn’t wrong either. Xavier isn’t wrong, but he isn’t right either. Obviously it’s partly dependent on whoever is writing at the moment, but also depending on which individual take of Magneto’s or Xavier’s you’re talking about. Yes, sometimes Xavier is frustratingly, harmfully liberal. Yes, sometimes Erik is doing the best possible for mutant well being. But there’s a lot of wiggle room with individual portrayals, and I think Xavier deserves justice for it. I’m not saying Magneto is just a villain, Stan Lee himself didn’t see him as such, but depending on the writers he can certainly be wrong.

Xavier is wrong when he focuses just on mutants with “useful” powers or conventionally attractive and human looks. He’s wrong when he puts the safety of bigots over the safety of the mutants they’re oppressing. He’s wrong when his only way of helping mutants is through the system. He’s wrong when he’s sending the X-men out to fight mutants more than bigots. He’s wrong when he hides he’s a mutant to avoid the stigma, even when the reveal would help solidarity and public trust. He’s wrong a lot.

But Xavier is right when he focuses on teaching mutants to love themselves and teaches them to control their powers and use them for good. He’s right when he says mutants and non-mutants can live in harmony. He’s right when he send the X-men out to destroy government/private property that’s being used to hurt mutants. He’s right when he takes out all his students, “attractive” or not, to speak up for mutant rights. He’s right when he sends the X-men to break innocent mutants out of prison/jail/unlawful containment. He’s right when he opens his institute to all mutants, so they have a safe place to go to. He’s right when he gives X-men choice and training for hard experiences, be it the choice to hide their powers or be open with them, to break out of jail/avoid arrest, or wait and go through an unfair trial for the sake of mutant visibility and legal precedent. He’s right when he finds places like the institute around the world. He’s right when he himself is on good terms with Magneto and works with him when it’s necessary for mutant good.

Don’t get me wrong, a lot of writers put Professor X as a filthy liberal. It sucks. Focuses on performative acts, letting fascists take ground for the sake of “civility,” and putting minorities at risk for the sake of optics, those are all bad. But sometimes liberal acts can be tools in the tool box. Voting isn’t gonna solve shit, but it can make it go downhill slower. Putting gay people in media isn’t going to end homophobia, but it will normalize gay people. Testifying before Congress for mutant rights might not be the flashiest or most effective way to get mutants’ rights, but it is a way to advance public opinion and slow anti-mutant laws. Just that isn’t good enough to beat the liberal accusations, but combined with the actions of some incarnations it genuinely changes their context. We can’t ignore all the times that Xavier has actively sent the X-men out to break laws and destroy government property for the sake of mutant well being. As much as we joke about the X-men being liberals, they usually aren’t afraid to break laws, break property, and raise hell for the sake of their people. And don’t forget that lot’s of “peaceful” acts of protest still cause disruption and still make a difference, even when it seems liberal on the surface, and can be organized by genuinely leftist people. Lots of Professor X’s portrayals could be genuinely leftist.

Likewise, Magneto is right a lot. He’s right when he says mutants shouldn’t be forced to stay in places where they’re being violently persecuted. He’s right when he advocates mutants fight back when bigots attack instead of just taking it. He’s right when he takes in mutants despite how palatable or useful they are. He’s right to actively fight fascists rising to exterminate his people. He’s right when he gives no fucks about the law when it comes to protecting minorities. He’s right when he creates a safe haven for mutants.

But boy, Magneto is also wrong a lot. He’s wrong when he says mutants and non-mutants can’t live together. He’s wrong when he says non-mutants are inferior. He’s wrong when he gets upset at mutants for wanting to live in harmony with humans. He’s wrong when he invalidates mutants who are upset with where being a mutant has gotten them, without helping them through the complicated feelings it brings. He’s wrong when he frames the X-men, a fellow mutant group, for his crimes. He’s wrong when he says mutants should exterminate non-mutants. He’s wrong when he thinks a mutant ethnostate is the end-all-be-all of mutant rights.

Erik is the kind of antagonist you get. He’s right on a lot of things. He has a lot of emotional appeal. As a (let’s be honest, gay) Jewish holocaust survivor, you know he’s coming from experience with his tactics. He genuinely doesn’t hate Xavier in most incarnations. But that doesn’t mean that in the incarnations where he literally calls for genocide, he should be let off the hook. Violence and resistance are important to most leftists movements, or even just mildly progressive ones. Be it a civil war to end US slavery, the riots at Stonewall, slave rebellions, or any number of revolutionary wars, sometimes active violence is necessary to stop the passive violence that minorities go through while oppressed. At the same time, it’s a fundamentally leftist ideal to believe in rehabilitation and the importance of people changing. And it’s also important to remember that genocide is bad no matter who’s doing it. Letting the genocidal versions of Magneto off the hook because it was “for mutants” is the same logic that lets Israel get away with how it treats Palestine.

I know that’s a lot of rambling to say something a lot of people already know, but as much as I love the “magneto was right” memes and the posts making fun of liberal X-men, I don’t want the genuinely leftists parts of the X-men to go unappreciated, nor the genuinely harmful parts of Magneto’s ideology excused.

[jonsnowunemploymentera]

The thing about Bran's intended importance (supposedly kingship of all no less) is it falls flat as far as this due to the lack of hinting of... what that even is supposed to "do" in the grand scheme of things? The show's version of some totalitarian regime with 24/7 surveillance from the magical King is fucked up, and it's hard to understand what else would make Bran special otherwise.

The only people interested in the idea (and only as surface level) are big Stark only Stans who just see it as "Starks get everything because" and that's as deep as it gets.

The idea of who would have leadership to rebuild the world is too much built on stanning as a whole. The only ones with an actual leg to stand on are fans of Daenerys simply because her entire arc is trying at different things to restructure an oppressive elite based governing only to at this point end up with the realisation that their class simply cannot exist in a society without seeking to opress so they have to go. That's also what we see in Westeros, so both monarchy AND lordship power must be evaporated. So there's that.

But Martin isn't even angling for that as far as it seems (which would mean even Targaryens and Daenerys relinquishing power by the end and all, even if it would be the system she is currently trying to develop to be applied), but angles for a 'King'. One whose power is magic, which makes one think it is what would make him King, hence angling for the show end which is frightening as a form of government. And in the 'political' sense he's a nice kid who means well for others, but that's it. It's just the whole having a nice lord now and then without guarantee for the next.

So while it might be little page time and some unfairness for Bran, outside of people just stanning "Stark supremacy" in vague terms, it's hard to think of why and in what direction people would 'root' for Bran in the specific intended importance of role he's apparently meant to have.

Whew, you sent a big one. So I’ll try to break it up and answer in parts.

The thing about Bran's intended importance (supposedly kingship of all no less) is it falls flat as far as this due to the lack of hinting of.

I disagree. I think GRRM has been hinting at Bran being a return to the past - more specifically, a greenseer king. And even before that, Bran’s royal status has been front and center the whole time. It’s just ignored.

We as a fandom get so caught up with the magic part of Bran’s storyline (though we can’t be blamed really!) but forget that Bran’s book chapters often place his magical arc right along his identity and status as a lost prince. I’m gonna make a bit of a generalization here and say that the majority of Bran’s chapters since Robb’s ascension mention his status as the current heir to the Northern crown. He is the Prince of Winterfell. But not only that, he is the prince of the woods and the hills and the greens (we see this language being used for Bran once he begins his greenseer training). This princehood is actually extended to Bran’s direwolf, Summer. Bran’s princehood extending to Summer is quite poignant too, since the direwolf is directly named to be an opposition to winter, and Bran’s mythological parallels rule as summer kings.

Bran’s magical arc doesn’t remove him from his royal heritage. It only reinforces it. Again, think of how he becomes a prince of the natural world in an almost literal sense. And also the motifs used for his royal status: e.g., when Jojen and Meera Reed swear fealty to him, as their royal prince, through ice and fire (in addition to other natural elements).

The show took the route of placing Bran squarely in the magical arc, forgetting that first and foremost, he is an exiled prince. After Robb died, Bran became an exiled king. The main point here is that Bran is royal! He always has been, always will be. Heck, his very name literally means “Prince”.

And there’s other things about Bran’s storyline that aren’t very clear with the show’s depiction; I’m mentioning it here since people’s aversion to king Bran is mainly the show’s fault. Bran is a retelling of various Arthurian myths. You might have seen various meta on his similarities with the Fisher King, for example. I’ve written before about how Bran is also very similar to T.H White’s Wart from The Sword in the Stone (sorry, can’t find the meta link). Because the show removed the royal elements from Bran’s story, viewers weren’t able to catch that he is intended to follow the King Arthur trajectory, albeit with various twists.

When I first joined the fandom, the consensus among Bran fans was that he would be King in the North (a big theory at that time was that Westeros would split back into its pre-Targaryen markups). The idea was that there are way too many hints about Bran’s princehood, especially in relation to the North, so the only endgame that made sense was for him to rule it. And Bran does have a mini ruling arc in Winterfell in ACOK, which was good ammo for this theory.

So Bran’s relation to kingship has always been there. For years in fact; I joined this fandom over a decade ago. It’s just that no one expected his kingship would extend to all of Westeros. And I think that will be GRRM’s task, tying in why Bran will take not just the North, but the south as well. However, I have the inkling that Bran the Builder’s legend ties into this (and we know that he had a legacy all over Westeros).

what that even is supposed to "do" in the grand scheme of things?

Blame the show runners for this. They do not at all understand Bran’s importance to the narrative. And I don’t think a majority of readers understand it either. I mentioned Bran the Builder above. Well, he’s a legend that crops up sometime around the Long Night. Now we have a new war with the Others coming up, and little Bran Stark is Bran the Builder come again. Plus Bran has parallels with the last hero, who is credited with ending the Long Night. We still have two books to see how things shake out but given that Bran is following the trajectory of perhaps two of the most important legends from the War for the Dawn - one who ended it and one who rebuilt Westeros after - it’s easy to tell why he is important “in the grand scheme of things”. But we still need TWOW and ADOS to see how it all plays out. Remember, we only have a published 5 books, and Act II is barely finished!

The show's version of some totalitarian regime with 24/7 surveillance from the magical King is fucked up, and it's hard to understand what else would make Bran special otherwise.

I 100% agree that Show Bran’s ascension comes with some very problematic undertones, in addition to being totally stupid. But again, blame the showrunners for not understanding greenseeing and Bran’s relation to it. Greenseeing is, as I understand it, nature magic. It’s not just that Bran gains the ability to see through ravens and trees, but he can speak to nature as well. He can even shape it (ref Hammer of the Waters). This is going to be really important when Westeros is decimated in the War for the Dawn, and needs to be rebuilt. That’s why Bran being the prince of the “woods and the hills” and being the reincarnation (so to speak) of Bran the Builder is so important. He can rebuild Westeros. This is a very unique skill set that literally no one else has because once Bloodraven croaks, Bran inherits the mantle of the Last Greenseer.

The only people interested in the idea (and only as surface level) are big Stark only Stans who just see it as "Starks get everything because" and that's as deep as it gets.

I’ll join you in being annoyed with that particular brand of Stark fan (we all know who they are). But I just want to remind you that so many of us Bran stans (in fact the vast majority of us) do not fall within that group. Bran stans who advocate for Bran’s kingship do so because we have noted his Arthurian parallels, in addition to noting his arc as a prince in hiding/exile. None of us book fans even remotely believe in him being an all seeing autocrat, nor do we want him to be. It’s a certain type of Stark fan (again, we know who they are), who likes the idea of King Bran because they also believe in an independent North. I think an independent North (with a separate six kingdoms) as endgame is a rather ridiculous idea, and I haven’t got around to detailing why in my blog. But as far as I’m concerned if Bran is to be king, he will be king of everything.

The idea of who would have leadership to rebuild the world is too much built on stanning as a whole.

Super agree! I think the POV structure exacerbates this issue. So a majority of “who will be king”, “who deserves to be king” is solely dependent on who the reader likes best (i.e., who has the biggest fandom) and not who is most narratively suited for the role. Ironically, Bran is hurt but this because he has a pretty small fandom; by far the smallest out of the Stark POVs. So he does not benefit much from solo stanning. Again, the typical Bran stan does not believe in Starkception. If readers chose to theorize the endgame king based on who is most narratively/thematically suited for the role, wouldn’t the boy whose animal familiar is named to be the opposite of winter and likened to a prince of nature be among the most popular options?

The only ones with an actual leg to stand on are fans of Daenerys simply because her entire arc is trying at different things to restructure an oppressive elite based governing only to at this point end up with the realisation that their class simply cannot exist in a society without seeking to opress so they have to go.

Agree with Dany, but I think you’re also forgetting about a young lord commander whose entire rulership arc was about being a revolutionary in a rotten and backward system…

P.S: Jon stans can be really annoying too (I would know, I am one), but they’re not wrong when they say that he actually is the one character with the most foreshadowing for “endgame king”; he is literally King Arthur through and through, so 🤷🏽‍♀️

That's also what we see in Westeros, so both monarchy AND lordship power must be evaporated. So there's that.

It’ll be interesting to see how Martin’s critiques on feudal structures plays into the endgame leaders. Especially when we begin to factor in the thematic relevance of stories like Brienne’s and Arya’s among the smallfolk, as well as the upcoming war with the Others and how the feudal structure might do more harm than good.

I tend to have a more optimistic outlook tbh. Winter means death, and I think that will also ring true for a lot of the problematic elements in Westeros’ political and social structure. And let’s not forget that we have a bunch of civil upheavals coming up with Aegon and Daenerys both invading Westeros. I think a lot of these petty lords will die either in battle or during the long winter that’s sure to follow, so what’s left when all is said and done is having our heroes (Bran and Dany and Jon etc.) pick up the pieces. I tend to believe that a massive shake up is in the works such that while it might have been impossible for a crippled boy to rise to kingship in the AGOT era, it just might be the one remedy in ADOS.

But Martin isn't even angling for that as far as it seems (which would mean even Targaryens and Daenerys relinquishing power by the end and all, even if it would be the system she is currently trying to develop to be applied), but angles for a 'King'. One whose power is magic, which makes one think it is what would make him King, hence angling for the show end which is frightening as a form of government. And in the 'political' sense he's a nice kid who means well for others, but that's it.

This is another thing that I blame the show for: people thinking Bran can only be an all seeing tyrant. I’ve already touched on this above but again, Bran’s greenseeing magic is so much more. It’s about nature…healing….Summer! I’ve been meaning to write at length about why the resetting of the seasons will fall to Bran, and why that means healing for Westeros as a whole, but I’ll abbreviate my thoughts for now.

Let’s once again consider Bran as a Fisher King, whose very life is tied to the healing of the land. Now, I think Martin is going for a rather “fairy tale” or fantastical resolution to ASOIAF; an ending closer to Tolkien and Arthurian myth. Bran’s magic, as healing magic, is then meant to be a positive. He sets the world back to rights, as a Fisher King would. He quite literally drives the darkness (winter) away, and GRRM has stated multiple times that the Others are the true threat.

In my write up about Bran’s similarities to Wart, I mentioned that Bran’s ascension could end up being similar to Aragorn’s in LOTR (and we know that Tolkien has heavily influenced Martin). Aragorn became king not because of his swordsmanship or his politics or even his royal claim, but because he had hands of healing. And people said that there was a king who returned to them because he healed them. Healing and kingship is really not a novel thing, and they’re tied to medieval understanding of rulership. So it’s not hard to see why Bran’s magical ability to bring back summer, so to speak, can be taken as a positive of him being a rightful king.

It's just the whole having a nice lord now and then without guarantee for the next.

I get what you mean, but tbh this would be a problem with Jon, Dany, etc. Monarchy and inheritance are unpredictable. We can only hope that the king/lord trains his heir well so that prosperity follows with the exchange of power.

So while it might be little page time and some unfairness for Bran, outside of people just stanning "Stark supremacy" in vague terms, it's hard to think of why and in what direction people would 'root' for Bran in the specific intended importance of role he's apparently meant to have.

Hopefully it’s been quite clear in my reply why Bran as king is so thematically rich. He’s connected to summer, has greenseeing magic which is connected to nature and potentially the healing of nature, and he is already royal. Him being a “nice kid” is just the cherry on top.

[boysborntodie]

do you think ponyboy stayed gold?

This is such a good question, thank you for asking, like I think about this all the time.

Short answer, yes.

Long answer;

Nature’s First Green is Gold: Ponyboy at the start

In the context of the poem, it ‘to be gold’ is to be pure and uncorrupted as all things are in the beginning. Yet life and time leaves changes and leaves marks on all things. Pony starts off the poem as pure and untainted, gold like the sun. Even the first line gives a subtle reference about this:

Cherry sums Pony (at the start) up best here;

It’s not fair to say Pony has gone through suffering at this point because he very much has. His parents have died, he’s often in danger because of the Socs, he has problems with Darry, he sees the suffering of his friends and knows he can’t do anything about him and the injustice of it hurts him. And he’s 14 which is rough enough without dealing with all that.

But he’s ‘not dirty’ (dirty having a double meaning here). He hasn’t been ‘tainted or corrupted’ by life yet, instead having played a passive role throughout all these events. He’s gold. But of course, nothing gold can stay.

Nothing Gold Can Stay: Ponyboy throughout the novel

The Outsiders is a coming-of-age story. It’s the story about Pony transitioning from a boy to a man. It’s about identity and belonging (the song ‘Great Expectations’ from the musical following this theme). It’s about figuring out who you are and where you fit in, which Pony especially struggles with because he’s a greaser and greasers get the short end of the stick in life. It’s about a boy is even an outsider among outsiders (as @obliqueletterkennyreference pointed out to me during one of our conversations), because he can’t fit into the standards that have been places upon greasers (he’s both heavily embedded in greaser culture yet not greaser enough. It’s about Pony realising that the status quo hurts young kids and turns them into byproducts of a system that dooms them to either perpetuate the system or succumb to it.

Throughout the novel, Johnny and Dally symbolise the two paths Pony can take; to ‘stay gold’ or ‘get tough’. And it is only after they both die is Pony forced to choose between them both.

It really seems that Pony decides that it’s better to get tough. You can’t stay soft and good, because it means you’re keeping yourself open to hurt. It means you end up like Johnny, dying too young. The world is unfair and kills off those who are good and keeps those who aren’t alive. Thus, there must be no point to being good.

And yet, Ponyboy picks up the glass so it won’t hurt anyone. He decides that the only reason someone should ever use violence is in self-defence and that Johnny is right to reject violence. He becomes more understanding towards others like Randy, Bob and Darry.

And when he reads Johnny’s letter, he realises how prevalent the issue of this systemic abuse, violence and oppression is and how it hurts all those involved and that it cannot be left as it is (i kinda talk about this here). Not only does he reject this but he takes an active role, different from all the other characters who recognise these issues yet accept them as a part of life and never challenge it, by writing the Outsiders.

And thus he decides to

Holding onto the Hardest Hue: Will Ponyboy Stay Gold?

‘Staying Gold’ basically means for Pony to stay soft and true to himself, to not close himself from the world’s good just to steer clear of its bad and harm, to always choose to do good and be kind. To continue loving the world and appreciating its good and beauty.

The poem itself states: ‘(nature’s first green is) the hardest hue to hold’. And I think that inplies that staying gold will not be easily for Pony. Being gold is no longer his inherent nature; it’s a choice he has to make. It won’t be easy to stay gold. We see Pony internalise that ‘being tough keeps you from getting hurt’ and Dally isn’t entirely wrong.

But as Soda says, ending up like Dally is no way to be. To constantly be fighting and to harden yourself from any good. You can argue it’s not even possible because even though Dally says he doesn’t let anything affect him or care for anyone, he loved Johnny and Johnny’s death was what drove him into aggravating the police and killing him.

I think there may be a lot of back and forth for Pony. Growing and regressing and failing and getting up to try again and persisting. And he has the potential to get worse, to become tough and hardened. But it’s thematically important for Ponyboy to choose against it and staying gold, no matter how hard it can get.

And I’d say that this passage does imply that Pony will eventually get away from their town, the way Johnny, Dally and many others don’t.

[mywitchyblog]

I really need to rant rq cause this is just getting on my nerves but

I’m sick and tired of BIPOC acting like someone is evil just because they’re white. Calling them things like “Colonizer”, and stereotyping them all as bad or hating BIPOC.

Yes, there have been some very evil white people in the past, but saying that everyone who is white is evil is generalizing.

So just because someone’s ancestors were fucked up people, now someone else has to suffer for it? Instead of blaming it on the people who were actually bad?

BIPOC have literally been through this stuff before. They’ve been stereotyped as “evil” or “aggressive” because of their skin color, and now it’s happening to white people too?

Yes, BIPOC have every right to be wary of white people, but to generalize them just because of their skin color? That’s seriously ridiculous.

idk, it just gets on my nerves that people assume that someone is racist just because they’re white. It’s annoying honestly.

I completely get where you’re coming from, and it’s true that generalizations based on race can feel frustrating and unfair. At the same time, I think it’s worth exploring why some BIPOC individuals might feel this deep-seated mistrust or wariness toward white people. It’s more than just a social or cultural reaction; there are scientific explanations that help shed light on this, and understanding them might bring us closer to mutual empathy and respect.

Research has shown that trauma can actually be inherited across generations, a phenomenon known as intergenerational trauma or epigenetic inheritance. This isn’t just about stories or memories being passed down, but actual changes in genetic expression that affect how people react to the world. For example, descendants of Holocaust survivors have been found to exhibit higher levels of stress and anxiety, even though they themselves never lived through those traumatic events. This happens because trauma can leave biological imprints on DNA that impact fear responses and emotional processing.

For many BIPOC communities, there’s a collective history of colonization, slavery, and systemic racism, which are deeply traumatic experiences. These experiences aren’t confined to history books—they’ve left their mark on the DNA of descendants. This inherited trauma may manifest as a kind of instinctual mistrust or heightened fear response toward white people. So, when BIPOC individuals express discomfort or fear, it might not be a conscious bias or prejudice, but rather a response deeply ingrained in their biology as a means of survival.

Some experts even suggest that this response can function similarly to a phobia, where the fear is intense and visceral, often occurring without conscious thought. It’s an instinctive reaction that helped protect previous generations, and now it’s being passed on, whether or not it feels rational in today’s context. Inherited fear like this isn’t necessarily about hatred or anger—it’s about survival instincts that have been etched into a community’s collective memory through generations of trauma.

This perspective doesn’t excuse generalizing or treating all white people as inherently bad. Generalizing is problematic because it doesn’t recognize individuals for who they are today. But by understanding that there might be a deep-seated biological basis for these reactions, we can start to see that this isn’t just about unfair assumptions or stereotypes. Instead, it’s a response that has roots in real, historical suffering.

In terms of the science behind it, intergenerational trauma shows how traumatic experiences can alter gene expression without changing the DNA sequence itself. These are known as epigenetic changes—markers that affect how genes are expressed. In the case of BIPOC communities, the legacy of slavery, colonization, and ongoing systemic oppression has likely led to biological adaptations. These adaptations can influence emotional responses, so fear or mistrust toward white people can be amplified, even if a particular individual hasn’t personally experienced overt racism. It’s a biological imprint passed down through generations.

To sum it up, while it’s true that generalizations aren’t fair, there is a deeper reason why some BIPOC individuals may harbor mistrust toward white people, and that reason is rooted in inherited trauma. This isn’t about blaming individuals today for the actions of their ancestors, but rather about understanding that this mistrust has been shaped by real, deeply painful histories. Recognizing this can help us approach these conversations with more empathy and understanding on both sides. When we acknowledge the impact of intergenerational trauma, we can work toward healing together, rather than falling into cycles of judgment or misunderstanding.

[trans-androgyne]

This is the anon you asked to hear what tme meant to me. I also dislike the idea that trans women and femmes are the only people with a meaningful relationship to transmisogyny but I also don't think it is unfair to say that there are people who don't experience it and have nothing to say on the subject. I've never experienced transmisogyny, and I don't have a lot to add to the conversation. I don't mind clarifying my relationship to it. "Exempt" is a strong word if taken literally, but to me, it is just the sentiment that it doesn't personally affect me in any noticeable or harmful way, which is fair and accurate. If people are venting about real experiences with tmes being prejudiced and ignorant, then I can't take offence because it is true that people who experience less transmisogyny are more likely to not understand it or contribute to the problem.

At the same time, I do understand why other trans and intersex people do feel like they have shared experiences with trans women and femmes or have things to add to the discussion. I don't think it is fair to shut people down on identity alone. For instance, I once saw someone use a fictional example of an intersex woman being harassed by a store owner because he had mistaken her for a trans woman. Their conclusion was that the incident was intersexist because the woman was intersex, not trans. I take issue with this because it interrogates the victim's identity rather than questioning the motives and biases on the aggressor. To understand what happened, you would need to understand both intersexism and transmisogyny as well as how both forms of oppression have roots in oppositional sexism.

As for whether this fictional person or real intersex people would be tma is, in my opinion, up for them to decide, probably based on a lot of factors I don't know such as how frequently things like this happen or if there are other overlapping experiences. So long as the conversation is happening in good faith, people should be able to determine their own relationship to transmisogyny.

Still, trans women and femmes should be leading the conversation; they should be able to push back on people misrepresentating the nature of transmisogyny in good faith without being ignored or accused of being aggressive.

Again, i won't deny that there are problems with the way some people use these words (I think you are right about there needing to be less of a binary) but a lot of trans women and femmes find these terms helpful for now. The language might need to evolve, but I don't think it is completely broken.

A lot of problems with the tme/tma binary would be solved by letting people opt into whichever they felt fit their life better instead of the current situation of assuming others’ relationship to transmisogyny based on their identities. I worry that the tma label would still be a gatekept club considering how people treat it currently, but it’s possible that could change.

For the purposes of this conversation I am tme. My problem isn’t complaining about specific real “tmes” being transmisogynistic, but complaining about them as a group often in situations not even related to transmisogyny. Tme people are seen to oppress tma people and therefore any attack on them is seen as justified. People have told us to kill ourselves and “die faster” and said we’re the worst kind of trans people and more—from examples I’ve seen go unchallenged. This is a broader problem with people thinking they can “punch up” at their oppressors in any cruel way they want no matter what, like KAM. If the tme label continues to be used, it cannot be used as a synonym for “malicious transmisogynist” without contributing to the divide among the community.

I don’t want to strip language from transfems. I am uncomfortable with the way these terms are currently being used. I hope their use is able to evolve and ideally drop aspects that aren’t useful while broadening everyone’s understandings of transmisogyny as a system.

[otabekisautistic]

genuine question regarding your anti man-hating post i’ve seen floating around, what is your feeling on black people saying they hate white people? would you feel the same that this is not ok and is unfair to white people? or gay people saying they hate straight people? or do you feel that men as a class are not oppressors or we don’t live in a patriarchal society or that patriarchy is not an oppressive structure?

white people being told they don’t belong in black spaces is not the same as men being told they don’t belong in queer and feminist spaces, seeing as (fully) white people aren’t black and don’t need access to black support networks but men do need access to queer and feminist communities/community support, and can very much belong to those groups. black people excluding white people because they don’t like them does not do material damage to white people, but men being exlcluded from communities on the basis of radfems hating them does materially damage marginalized men. also gay people saying they hate straight people is harmful to straight queer people who may belong to extremely marginalized groups (ie trans woman). i never said the patriarchy doesn’t exist, but it’s a systemic problem, not an individual one. the systemic valuing of cis men above cis women is what keeps you oppressed, not some normal guy from your local lgbt organization. genuinely i believe it’s wrong to hate anyone simply for how they were born. hating oppression is not the same as hating random people who are just existing. allies are important and pushing away our most powerful ones (aka our most PRIVILEGED ones, as the cis white straight men are the allies that have the most sociopolitical power) is a stupid move. also any and all gender essentialism is radfem ideology

[campgender]

Please say more about being anti psychiatry? Is it about the white hegemony of therapists or what

ngl i scrolled for a bit trying to figure out if something i posted here prompted this bc usually my antipsych posts go on my disability sideblog (& here’s a link to my tag for that!) & i have concluded it’s either in response to my carrd or a ted lasso post i made a few days ago lol. either way i’m glad you’re here! i’ll try to give a rundown that isn’t entirely repetitive of other posts & reblogs linked above.

i don’t think it’s particularly helpful or accurate to say what a certain movement or political position is/isn’t because there are, in fact, many anti-psychiatries, all with their own perspectives about various points of tension, but i think these are the closest to general tenets:

anti-psychiatry = working toward the full dismantling of the system of psychiatry & its consequence of psychiatrization. recognizing psychiatry as a normalizing force & an oppressive institution. that work can be internal – “killing the psychiatrist in your head” – or more explicit activism.

full radical bodily autonomy for all. (this is often interrelated with harm reduction, as pertaining to drugs – prescribed & not – as well as self-injury, etc.) as also follows: the immediate & permanent end of forced institutionalization & forced medication, & the provision of thorough informed consent for all interventions.

destigmatization of mental illness, psychiatrized disabilities, Madness, & whatever else you’d like to call it; the right to be Mad.

material resources dedicated to supporting Mad people to live the lives we want.

so i would articulate anti-psychiatry as being less about the whiteness of therapists & more about therapy’s role in upholding whiteness, in a manner that can be simplified as two threads of the same rope, entwined & re-entwining:

psychiatric diagnosis as racialized violence. particularly “oppositional defiant disorder” or ODD, but also pretty much any “disorder,” especially “personality disorders” & diagnoses related to paranoia (as the adage goes, it’s not paranoia if they really are out to get you) medicalizes & thereby stigmatizes the state of being Black. entire schools of therapeutic thought (looking at you, CBT) are dedicated to convincing people they are not being targeted for unfair treatment by the people around them. it’s a one-two punch: we’ve invented a system that makes you Black & oppresses you on that basis, and then we punish you for recognizing it. these tools are then leveraged against other marginalized groups as the system sees fit.

ableism against those who “really are crazy.” theorists have dedicated their lives to explaining this better than me, but while there are forms of ableism that predate capitalism & modern concepts of race, in the present day ableism is a punishment for a real or perceived failure to uphold & reproduce racial capitalism. you aren’t productive; you aren’t making the imperialist state more money; you aren’t creating & then raising white babies in a nuclear family who will then produce more profit & more white babies, & so on.

a particular concern in the past few years is the increasing shift from policing by cops to policing by social workers and/or “trained mental health professionals”; the relative harms of prisons versus psychiatric hospitals can be debated, but ultimately both are forms of institutionalization which deny people autonomy & access to community, as well as often have long-term negative effects on things like employment (& therefore housing), parental custody, voting, etc.

i hope this answered your question! feel free to send a follow-up if you would like. in addition to my disability blog i recommend checking out @librarycards @bioethicists @bananapeppers @psychiatricsurvivorpositivity

[strawbellyx3]

Hi, I’m a girl and I love apothecary diaries and many aspects tick what I like. But unfortunately I find a very huge obstacle in my way, which is why this is a huge rant with lots of words. The obstacle being the setting women in. Does it get better in the novels and manga? I find myself more relaxed when the subjects aren’t in the setting including forced sex workers, hostage concubines, the constant reminder that women are beyond powerless and how it’s all in a rom-com setting as well. Iam able to watch typically triggering stuff without being triggered when the story very clearly indicates we see it as a bad thing. Like law and order SVU, the handmaiden tale and so on. But in this story it’s like a slice-of-life mixed with a setting we’re all women are limited awful fates by the system.

I’ve even seen redditors say they love how even though misogyny is so rampart in the world building, it’s accepted by the characters and there aren’t any man-hating women there. Like they all accept their place as women in that society without rebellion and move on with their jokes and story. Some even saying they loved how maomao put the biggest blame on her mother when that origin situation with her dad occurred, that they hold women accountable in a setting that gives and I quote “awful bunch of sandwiches to choose from”

It’s really upsetting to me because while I could tell the complex female characters were written by a woman before knowing who the author was, I’m overthinking her going about this things.

It’s goes female character A is a woman in one the multiple bad situations they are forced to be put up with > she is attractive and voluptuous or/ and smiling and appropriately submissive to the situation (doesn’t dare to object it, or tries to finess it in a way appropriate for the system)> a mini monalog from Maomao/or the character herself about this is it to navigate this life as a woman there > a light-hearted joke the next minute and so on (I’ve seen the theme with princess fuyo, maomaos mother, the emperors fav consort and so on) it almost works to normalize it and I feel like male viewers find it comforting in that sense. a lot of the male fanbase mentions this being the favorite part of the story, the repressive regime that women have to navigate without making them uncomfortabl.

To the extent where some confidently say this shows target audience is men. That’s it’s set in an unfair world for women but they are sort of submissive about it and it has the fanservice to keep them intrigued

Do you see what I’m getting at? I’m not saying why aren’t the female characters miserable 24/7. The difference between this piece of media compared to others that have female characters in this setting is that it almost works to normalize it, while the others have a clear indicator that it is wrong, it clearly displays the darkness and unsettling environment the women are facing, it’s why a lot of men don’t venture into those pieces of media, because it makes them uncomfortable. While TAD is the total opposite, it has all the same elements of the oppressed women setting, but the oppressed women never dare display a hint of resentment towards men, They can never show a strong resentment to the system. They are appropriately over-proportioned female characters submissive to the system and the submissively try to navigate the system while smiling and acceptance and a hint of fanservice.

I am ranting because I’ve seen multiple blogs say how the shows is for the girls and true maomao is one the utter best female characters ever written, but the setting dims anytime she shines a light :(

I agree with what you're saying and no it doesn't really get better in a general sense. It's just a series that doesn't focus on that (even though it could totally do that because of this setting), it's more being historically accurate to how hard it was to be a woman at the time. It's also a seinen, so targeted towards men so I'm not really surprised.

I think people say it's for the girlies because of how it reflects modern problems in itself and well – Maomao. She's a strong woman who doesn't need a man and is an independent capable woman. When it comes to great worldbuilding, TAD isn't exactly my go-to choice because the series is pretty narrow in what it wants to tell; mystery stories. There's of course inconvenient things shown like women not being allowed to be doctors (and the characters finding a solutions to bypass it) but the characters aren't driven by feminist motivations. The narrative just lets us see and digest the oppression and wrongdoings ourselves (Like the 9 years old getting r*ped, which is intentionally framed as bad, no question) or Ah-Duo who always feeling trapped by the Emperor who can't let her go because of his one sided love.

I'm a bit 50/50 on it, I don't hate that it doesn't focus on feminist messages but I also wonder how it would be if it did it a tad bit more.

[brettdoesdiscourse]

I just read ur reblog for the “why is 18 the age where we’re considered adults?” Anon asked. And I’m currently 9teen there’s a lot of woes young adults face. But for some reason a lot of people’s answers to the challenges young adults face struggling to meet the threshold of maturity throughout history is to claim we aren’t responsible enough. Then the powers that be decide to make it harder for us to make our own decisions. limiting the autonomy of people considered younger. people in the past and in the modern era still consider the act of criminalizing common youthful actives in the common age of that time period to somehow be the most logical step to trying to cure a societal ill which doesn’t make sense to me.

But I do think it is unfair that legally a 56 and 46 year are not treated much differently by laws. like giving someone a ten year sentence could have unforeseeable consequences if they die at 60. I honestly don’t think I like that nature of law & order in general and i more want to meet people where they’re at. However I do find it disturbing that u can go to “adult” prison at the age of 8teen. Because even tho yes I do consider people over 8teen year olds capable of making many decisions in their lives. I personally know I’ve waited a long time to have my perspective finally taken seriously by older adults. It still seems nerve racking we put people into that environment at such a age.

When 8teen year olds to 25 year olds are still dealing with the possibility to adopt new experiences. When 8teen to 25 year old potentially are lacking a lot knowledge from experiences to come. And are still very much dealing with developmental changes (social and physical). Not many political systems take that into account. Especially since all people 18-25 don’t have much experiences to bounce off of expect for their teenage and childhood years. When someone gets kicked out at 8teen it’s not like they can just go to foster care (to my knowledge) . Honestly it’s kinda the same with foster care having ditched a lot kids once they turn 8teen.

There is societal pressure for everyone at every age but to a degree that’s kinda the problem too. Is there anything wrong with acknowledging the difference and treating someone who’s 8teen with the understanding that they’re 8teen differently. Like if someone felt they where groomed into sex work at 8teen I would want society to treat that situation somewhat differently than someone being groomed at age 27.

Not because of some abstract value system to each individual’s experiences. I still want both events to be addressed but there’s clearly a difference there and those two victims should be handled differently with regard to (and by acknowledging) their age rather than are they just an adult or child. And I think it is a factor that should be looked at more and evaluated better in our society. Cuz I’m not sure humans completely understand how to best account or how everyone’s different exist effects their maturity levels and how they chose to approach an experience. And I think as we learn we should adapt if want to possibly achieve a better quality of life.

I hope I’m making sense i hate how the law treats people when they meet their abstract rigid definition of adulthood. it’s oppressive and cruel. It’s also very unthinking to everyone differences in life in my opinion. Am I making any sense or do I sound crazy?

Also I’m not out here trying to make it so that 8teen year olds can’t vote or get banned from watching porn btw. But a majority of my issues are very much with how we are restricting younger people legally. And the unequal effects that has on their life. I’m currently 9teen and I’m willing to bet My brain probably looks different from 8teen even tho I don’t exactly know how.

Idk if I really explained my POV well at all but I value your perspective and wanted to know if my outlook sounds reasonable to u or not? I also think more people need to have theses conversations with themselves and asks questions like these. I think we should all examine the way of life and status quo.



Okay, so I have a lot to add about a lot of this.

But a brief overview

I think it's very hard to talk about age reform when it's not really age or age related laws that are the issue. The issue is systematic and is in every aspect that we need to fix first.

With issues of adult prisons and prison sentences, it's all perpetuated by the prison industrial complex.

The entirety of age laws being what they are is caused by the military industrial complex.

Foster care issues are caused (in large part) by the way the government treats often poor people and people of color.

None of these issues are actually age-related, but rather, parts of bigger issues that seem to fall unfairly on younger people. (Younger people absolutely are targeted by governments a lot too, don't get me wrong.)

It's just important to keep in mind none of these issues tend to stem from the adult vs child argument. They all form from systematic issues that are already in place.

Also I agree with the concept of "not adult vs child" is very hard to argue this in a way that doesn't open it up to a bigger conversation. Maturity is different for every person at every age.

An 18 year old can be a world more mature than a person who is 45. But how do we determine this? How do we apply this to laws without it opening the door for abuse? Again, linking it all back to systematic issues.

People in the past and in the modern era still consider the act of criminalizing common youthful actives in the common age of that time period to somehow be the most logical step to trying to cure a societal ill which doesn’t make sense to me.

I completely hear you. Unfortunately, this is a belief system engrained into society. They thrive off this age divide being between the young and the old. Financially, it's beneficial to sell the idea that old people are bad. And law wise, it's beneficial to sell the idea that young people are bad.

Financial gain from young people

When we're young, old people are authoritarians and they just don't get it. Teachers, parents, the law, the government, the old man down the street who always seems to be cranky. "Old" is synonymous with boring and uncool. Old people are out of touch, they're sad and they don't have fun. And of course, you would never be like that. You're going to be the exception when you get old. You and your friends will always like the cool things and have fun and never be out of touch.

This point of view is completely understandable, the idea that you will never be like that, but it misses the reason why there's that divide. People of different ages enjoy different things. People of different ages want different things. People of different ages can handle different things. It's all part of aging and one isn't inherently uncool. They're just very different. But when you're younger, it can be hard to believe one day you'll be the person who seems out of touch. But you recognize aging is an inevitable process.

So, how do you stop the process of aging without being able to actually stop it?

Well, as you get a bit older, you start having society pushing the idea that aging is Bad on you a lot harder. Being old looks bad, being old feels bad, old people don't get it and you can tell someone's old by the way they look. Wrinkles? Bad. Age spots? Bad. Old people are ugly and that's bad. So you should look young and beautiful because that's good.

So you funnel money into creams and lotions and fancy skin lights, you pay to have your hair dyed when you start going grey, you invest in the pharmaceutical and other beauty industries.

(Note: This exists on a lot of levels, much like every other societal problem does. It also exists because of the beauty industry and body standards in general.)

But at the same time, the government doesn't really want young people to be in control of anything. So that's where the next part comes in.

The benefits of laws against young people

Since the dawn of man, who has been most of the revolutionaries? When you think of societal reform, who do you most often imagine leading the pack? What do all these pictures seem to have in common?

Young people are scary for the government. Young people tend to bring radical change and that's the exact opposite of what they want.

So, the government sells the idea that young people are irrational and exactly what's wrong with this country. Young people are basically still kids and so they should be disregarded.

That's why you get the take of "young people are ruining this country and everything they do is bad" from older people. This is why you get concepts of "legally an adult but technically a child."

(This is also contributed to by left-leaning people who are anti trans, anti kink, anti porn, etc. They also fuel into the idea that "yeah teenagers technically count as adults, but they're still kids so they shouldn't have access to these things.")

This is part of why I so strongly hate the argument of "18 year olds shouldn't be pressured to vote" or "18 is too early to vote, you're practically still a child."

You are trusted with a car at the age of 16. You can literally buy a machine capable of killing you and everyone else on the road. You're trusted with making responsible choices with that, but you can't make choices for your own vote?

But the car issue stems from capitalism. You can work at 16 and you often need a car to commute. So, of course, the government wants workers to be able to work. It's also easy to underpay and exploit underage workers.

And people forget 18 year olds didn't use to be able to vote. We gained that right after we got tired of the country exploiting us. We could be sent to war at 18, but we couldn't vote. So, instead of having to give up exploiting and killing teenagers, the government decided "yeah I guess you guys can vote now."

Is there anything wrong with acknowledging the difference and treating someone who’s 8teen with the understanding that they’re 8teen differently. Like if someone felt they where groomed into sex work at 8teen I would want society to treat that situation somewhat differently than someone being groomed at age 27.

In the case of sexual exploitation, I think both should be handled with the exact same level of care and compassion. Because at least to me, a victim is a victim no matter their age. And there's no way to account for if one was more vulnerable than the other.

I think the issue with this is, again, everyone is different at every age.

For instance, is an 18 year old with a good support system and a good view of the world inherently more vulnerable (due to age) than a 27 year old with no support system and an upbringing where they ended up with an altered view of the world? (So for instance, the 18 year old was taught about sexual exploitation and how to be safe whereas the 27 year old in this context never had that.)

I also think it's important to be careful about the ways we treat victims differently based on perceived differences.

For example, do you think we should treat afab victims of sexual abuse differently than amab victims of sexual abuse? Because there are a lot of mental and emotional differences between people socialized as men versus people socialized as women. Especially in regards to sex and how they view it. This is, of course, caused by societal issues and treating them differently, but it is still a prevalent issue.

So. In short, yes you make sense. But the age conversation is a much bigger (systematic) issue than we really give it credit for.

[yinyangofnevermore]

Sorry if these asks are to frequent

Racism is a lot more complicated then just “people don’t like the Faunus” like marrow said in volume 7 it’s a deeply embedded systemic issue, as an example o highly doubt Jacques could be convinced the Faunus “aren’t that bad” because he directly profits from those systems of oppression. And the majority of humans ignore it because they also benefit.

Dismantling those systems is a difficult process that requires some level of direct action, it takes a lot more then just convincing humans to like you with some speech.

It’s true we haven’t seen any official human/Faunus relationships, except technically a mention of velvets parents, but so far I doubt it will play a major plot role

In fact, I doubt one can realistically “unite all, of humanity” in the amount of time the show has left, quite frankly I think the gods demands of ozpin are vague and unfair as is,

A story where Blake and yang convince the huma and Faunus refuges to “get along”would honestly feel kinda insulting. This isn’t a problem that can be solved by people “just being nicer to each other”, honestly being the “bridge between humans and Faunus” to me implies the issue is some self existing chasm, and not a cage human society has purposefully put the Faunus in.

All good points. But, with respect, that's not the central conflict of the show. It is most definitely a very important aspect that I hope they address further and that they learned stuff in the past from. It's also possible they took a step back from it cuz they realized they weren't equipped to write such a story and do it WELL so they want to figure it out and get it RIGHT. But, obviously, Salem and all of that is the central plot. Of course that's what's going to take most of the screen time, along with things directly affecting Team RWBY themselves at whatever moment it is in time. Like the shit in the Ever After rn and their personal fallout from what happened in Atlas.

Also, they don't necessarily have to "unite all of humanity." People are gonna people. And all that, that entails. They just have to either somehow stop Salem or make her understand. "So long as this world turns, you shall walk its face. You must learn the importance of life and death. Only then may you rest." Pretty sure THAT is the key. She latched onto that first part and may have skipped over the second.

Again though, this is all just speculation at this point. The simple truth is that we have NO IDEA how the story will go. Only CRWBY does at this point. If there's one thing I've learned while watching this show for so many years, it's that I'm actually very bad at predicting shit for it. Normally I'm great at that. But not with this show. Doesn't stop me from trying though 😂

Regardless, I still think Yang would be involved with the efforts of Blake, the Belladonnas and the White Fang. She would have anyways, I feel like. But especially now that they're together. We may not get to directly see it in the show but..... yeah.

[aronarchy]

@iris-sunflower I’ll respond to your reblog of my post here, since my OP was already very long and I don’t want its notes to be cluttered:

1) Children and everyone having a right to public, accessible education is such an important value for me. Is youthlib against the idea of funding public schools?

I’m not The Single Valid Youthlib Representative(tm). There are many different youth liberationists who don’t necessarily agree with each other on every single point. I can only give my own opinion, which I believe is the most accurate interpretation of the principle of youth liberation: Of course I agree, and I acknowledge that public schools are currently underfunded and should have more financial support. Gatekeeping from education is oppressive.

It would put all minors at a disadvantage, and we should be improving children’s education so they have a fairer prospect for their future. Being literate, understanding math especially finance, etc.

I agree it’s a problem that so many children are unable to access any education in the first place. But I would caution against taking the “less educated = less successful” at face value. The issue isn’t that being less educated automatically, inherently means one will become disadvantaged, but that capitalism creates these disadvantages for uneducated people. It’s unfair that people who haven’t had a chance to go to/remain in school are also gatekept from jobs, resources, and respect later in life. Resolving the issue (re classism and adultism) involves making it possible for children to be able to go to school instead of being unable to access it, but it also means fighting for justice for children & adults who didn’t get to go, instead of just leaving them behind in the dust now that it’s too late or whatever. It’s sad that if someone can’t understand the (overcomplicated, very bullshit, should-not-be-existing-in-the-first-place) financial system capitalism has forced onto us, then they’ll be disadvantaged in life.

And, some children/minors/adults just can’t understand math or finance or learn literacy well in the first place, regardless of how good their teachers/educational materials/settings are. It is unfair to expect that they should, or treat them as lesser, or refuse to accommodate them. Everyone, regardless of capability, should be able to expect a good future for themself, and to have the resources to live securely.

And, formal schools (both public and private) are extremely adultist and violent to children. Does that mean homeschooling is the solution? No, because family homes are also extremely adultist and violent to children. I’m frustrated at a lot of the discourse I’ve seen, where survivors of violence from schools or violence from the home have tried to discuss our traumas, only to be dismissed and told that we should just suck it up and deal with the flaws of the institution because the alternative would be “worse.” Many people have experienced immense abuse and trauma from both schools and our families. I want to think of solutions beyond just trying to pick the lesser of two evils.

(Official) schools (in their current form, at least) aren’t particularly good at teaching in the first place. They don’t teach how to really understand the concepts of “math” so much as rote memorization and computation, for example. The way subjects are taught in schools focuses more on trying to train them into good capitalist workers, not help them develop life skills for themselves or learn things they actually want to and choose to learn themselves. Meanwhile a lot of potential educational materials (paywalled academic texts, informative books in general, politically unpopular info/arguments like honest analyses about abuse dynamics/what to do in more difficult situations, niche things they don’t really care about because they’re not profitable) and sources of education (i.e. people, places from the outside) are withheld from children because of the formalized schooling system which narrows what and how they can learn, and meanwhile tries to force students to learn whatever they don’t want and don’t need to learn, and is especially hell for disabled children/minors being forced to attend and being overloaded with work when they can’t handle that, plus all the higher likelihood of bullying and abuse from authority figures they can’t escape from.

So I believe youth liberationists, and leftists in general, should be focused on both improving access to education and ensuring that people who had not been able to access education or just genuinely don’t want to or cannot are not being punished for being uneducated either. Right to learn things doesn’t mean also being okay with forcing children to learn things (which is also a major problem right now). And grassroots education outside of formal schooling hooked up to the state/capitalist systems / the nuclear family home should also be a priority. Though it would help, “reform & improve public schools” is still not a solution to the fundamental problem of enforcing a divide between “learning” and “the rest of life” / “place to learn” and “anywhere else” / monopolizing good (or as good as possible) education in the hands of authorities.

We should be making schools better for children not losing their right to an education.

(I prefer to frame children’s rights discussions as something which centers their input and their efforts; should not just be a thing “we” pass down onto “them” on their behalf instead of them being directly involved in the process.)

(Note that nowhere in the entire article I reposted was there any claim that children should “lose their right to an education.”)

2) Does losing parental rights make parental abuse obsolete as a legal protection? Confused here.

That’s not what “right” means. A right you have is something you can do, not something you have to do. “Parental rights over their children” doesn’t mean parents are being made to care for or be nonabusive to their children; “parental rights” are the mechanisms which allow parents to abuse their children because their children are viewed as their property, or to force invasive medical procedures onto/withhold needed medical care from their children because they’re viewed as having a right to make their children’s decisions for them regardless of what the children themselves feel, or to decide what their child’s future must look like because of their “right to control” them. “Parental rights” means that outsiders are barred from housing an abused/neglected child because only the parents may choose where “their” children live.

On the other hand, parental obligations (or responsibilities, or duties) are a rather different concept. For example, every person has an obligation (or responsibility) to not abuse or otherwise violate other sentient beings. Everyone also has an obligation to not hoard essential resources they won’t use themselves while others are in desperate need but can’t access them—for example, (IMO) very rich people with control over their finances are obligated to redistribute their wealth downwards ASAP, and are committing ethical violations when they do not. As for obligations specific to parents: if they have children under their care who cannot leave/acquire that care elsewhere, they have a responsibility to feed, clothe, house, and otherwise provide for their children wrt essential resources to the best of their physical and financial capability.

Parents should face consequences for abusing children, which unfortunately will happen sometimes regardless of efforts to prevent crime. Some parents are just cruel.

I like to think of this question a bit differently. The issue here is that right now, if a parent has cruel beliefs/intentions, then abuse will happen, because they have near-unchallenged power to enact their will for cruelty. Consequences for abuse which has happened are important, of course, but I’m also interested in preventing abuse from happening in the first place, instead of just keeping up the system where kids have to roll the dice and if they land on a cruel parent then that’s just what they get and having a good parents just depends on their luck. I want to work towards a world where regardless of an ideological bigot/authoritarian’s personal desire for cruelty, they will be unable to act out the abuse they want, because they no longer have the power to do so unresisted. This is also why general social justice organizing (if it’s good) doesn’t focus primarily on reforming bigots, getting them to change their beliefs/intentions, but on reclaiming power and autonomy so that despite what the bigots might still believe, they can no longer make those beliefs matter to us as easily.

Leftists and anarchists in general are often told that we are too utopian and need to understand that “violence will always happen no matter how much you make social changes.” I dislike this framing; first of all, I’m not a doomer, and I do not want to say there certainly will always be violence, because I don’t think it is possible to guess that with 100% accuracy, and I like to leave room for a little hope in the world; second of all, it’s not really a relevant objection, because we’re not about gambling on the possibility of there being no abuse, but about taking steps to reduce abuse as much as we can and make it as hard as possible for abuse to happen.

But if parents aren’t “legally responsible,” are they not also going to be found liable for abusing their children?

I’m thinking about a certain Reddit post I read a few months ago. A woman was raising an infant with her (boyfriend? husband? not exactly sure which it was). She hadn’t wanted the child, and he had. She was slowly realizing that she just couldn’t bring herself to love the kid, and the childcare work was annoying and frustrating and exhausting her. Her bf/husband really liked the kid and was enthusiastic about taking care of them and nurturing them. A lot of commenters on that thread told her that she should leave them, because she’s not suited to be a parent for the child, as they grow up they’ll be able to tell that she’s just faking her emotions and actually dislikes them/doesn’t love them, so she should halt the toxic dynamic as early as possible. That stuck with me a lot—it would’ve been so helpful to a lot of kids if it was normalized for parents who don’t like a kid to be able to give them to better-suited, more loving caretakers who do want to have a kid, because many parents are just incompatible, just aren’t fit to parent, personality-wise or otherwise. Expanding the options for everyone to have healthy relationships and get the love and nurturing they need does not mean that neglectful parents of children stuck in their abusive household are not culpable for their harms (i.e. specifically withholding resources when they were needed). And, in general, abuse is wrong when done by anybody to anyone, legal parent or not. This doesn’t change that. And, I don’t really care about the legal system much in the first place because even with laws forbidding extended kinship networks they still don’t actually do a lot about parental neglect or abuse. I’m interested in more concrete questions like “how do we help neglected children acquire the resources/care they’ve been deprived of” or “how do we get abuse victims out; how do we minimize unwanted relationships and maximize wanted relationships; which cultural norms do we need to change to facilitate this.”

3) How would we ensure that children, particularly very young, are being well cared for - diapers, feedings, etc? Currently parents are completely abandoned by the social systems in place. I actually think a reformed/socialist service like cps (unsure of a better word) should be freely provided to all parents. Social workers or volunteers can make sure a child isn’t being ISOLATED which is the biggest factor for abuse. Neighbors may not even know abusive parents have a child and that’s terrifying.

Agreed, though I’d like to point out that this isn’t just something that can only be done by a specially appointed or paid professional group; this is something anyone can do, and especially people already close by. Like, checking up on your friends if it seems like something abusive is going on. Being that person for them if they’re stuck in an abusive home. Normalizing being more attentive to children near you socially, paying more attention to people around you in general, and lending a hand, and creating more interconnected communities which make it harder to isolate someone. It’s kind of hard to imagine given our current atomized hellscape but there are & have been societies in which families weren’t just sorted into single-unit disconnected households, and it was a lot easier to notice if something was off/hold each other accountable; also people fighting for this right now—whether children/minors using the Internet to finally befriend outsiders when they never could before, or having electronic devices they hide from their abusers, or meeting/talking to a friend in secret; or the teachers, healthcare workers, classmates, anyone else seeing them and opening the pathway for questions, help where there were no other options before, etc. & preventing isolation and exploitation wholesale means targeting the root of the problem (the nuclear family’s isolation, thru various political/economic forces)—which is exactly what the article was talking about.

[immrbrightsideeee]

you’re right about christians not deserving to be oppressed, but those people saying that aren’t being serious, they’re making jokes about a globally powerful religion that has had massive effects, both good and bad. it’s no big deal considering even if they actually wanted to oppress christians (they don’t) they wouldn’t be able to wield any real power to do that

While it sucks that they wouldn't be able to fairly fight for what they believe in I'm glad they can't oppress, I just wish my religion would get a grip and stop oppressing people (and leave religion out of law, it's unfair and weird to make everyone follow the same belief system).

Also thank you for pointing out they were joking, this may sound dumb but I actually thought they were serious (I have trouble interpretating tones online), so thank you

[reign-life]

"The epidemic of sexual violence that male people commit against female people" Trans people are actually more likely to experience sexual assault and abuse. What genitals a woman has doesn't matter nearly as much when simply being a woman(or a gnc man in some cases) will get you harassed. And in some cases, being a woman with a dick will make you more likely to be raped or sexually harassed

And this isn't even mentioning how some people have actually been raped or harassed by cis women

"using their penises" again, cis women can rape and harass people. But even if that wasn't the case, a lot of sexual related harassment don't even involve dicks? Rape is by far the more serious crime, but plenty of people have been sexually harassed or assaulted with mere words and hands respectively

"no, people’s caution around penises is the problem" Yes op is saying that, but not within the context your words are implying? "that’s why trans women are abhorrent to... male chauvinists... both groups have... strong feelings about what a penis *represents*, and find the conceptual and actual presence of a woman with a penis to be simultaneously vile and nonsensical because they’ve loaded so much symbolic baggage onto both women and penises."(cutting out parts to get to the point) already implies this isn't "trauma bad, cis women complain too much", this is "society(including cis men) has a problem"

Even if we ignore the context of the entire post, "power, dominance, sexual agency" aren't bad characteristics, yet these Powerful Things are associated with one the most vulnerable body parts. Wouldn't you, as an obvious feminist, agree that all this power and importance being given to a mere body part is unfair and sexist? A woman with a penis(don't give me the biology spiel, I'm not here for that) is seen as bad to some groups because such a Strong Powerful Body Part belonging to a woman doesn't make sense to them. And in some cases it's "they can't have penises, penises are violent and evil, which are obviously the opposite of women", which is kinda infantilizing, makes cis women out to be Oh So Special, and arguably downplays the violence women can inflict on other women or in general

"It’s never “stop terrorizing and committing hate crimes against the female population and forcing them to constantly be on guard,”" see paragraph 1 and the links contained there

"it’s never “we need to restructure law enforcement and the justice system so that rapists face harsh penalties and there are quick and effective interventions when males demonstrate sexual aggression toward women.”" Again, making the post about a topic that wasn't supposed to be the case. As op is a trans woman, I'm sure they feel the same way you do. Law enforcement and the justice system treat women(cis or trans) horribly, especially when it comes to sexual violence. Men get away with a lot of shit and it's unfair, society is unfair

But the post isn't about sexual violence or the police being shitheads. It's about dicks in all contexts(even a mere "bulge in a swimsuit or simply knowing that there’s a dick somewhere in the same bathroom as you") being seen as powerful, evil, violent

"It's just “women need to stop having feelings about their own assault and oppression, they’re making penis people feel like their penises aren’t neutral :( “" 1. Again, paragraph 1's links would shock you 2. this is a woman(again, idc about your transphobia) having feelings about their own oppression, albeit focused on the tamer side of transphobia and sexism

3. Dicks are neutral. Hands are used to commit the most amount of crimes. Knives are used to be violent and hurt people. Many people have trauma surrounding knives. But cutting a fruit isn't violent, shaking someone's hand isn't violent, and no one freaks out about knives or hands being inherently not neutral. A dick is a chunk of flesh and muscle, it is inherently morally neutral. It can be used to hurt, but it can also just exist

You can be uncomfortable with penises. You can be scared of them. You can have trauma surrounding them. Anyone who argues otherwise is a prick at best and a bigot at worst. But that doesn't make a chunk of flesh more evil, and your trauma and discomfort surrounding dicks just existing is something you need to deal with in your own time. You are putting words in op's mouth and seeing a meaning that isn't there. The original post doesn't address everything about penises and their connection to society or violence, because it wasn't meant to

Trans women will never be free until people stop having strong emotions about penises. Like we, as a society, have got to stop caring about dicks! Dicks have to stop symbolizing maleness, obviously, but they also have to stop symbolizing power, dominance, sexual agency and aggression, violence, and even sex itself. Like trans women can’t be free if the very conceptual presence of a penis represents an intrusion(!) of unwanted(!) sexuality(!) in public life. Like that’s why trans women are abhorrent to both male chauvinists and radical feminists, because both groups have extremely strong feelings about what a penis *represents*, and find the conceptual and actual presence of a woman with a penis to be simultaneously vile and nonsensical because they’ve loaded so much symbolic baggage onto both women and penises.

Anyway dicks are totally neutral body parts and seeing a dick, or a bulge in a swimsuit, or simply knowing that there’s a dick somewhere in the same bathroom as you isn’t harmful or violent

[ablednt]

This rarely gets posted about but since someone has to do it

Shoutout to the systems who aren’t palatable to singlets and singlet conceptions of existence.

Shoutout to people with intratrauma and especially intratrauma that doesn’t make sense to people or is something incredibly graphic/gritty

Shoutout to systems where members can get hurt and/or die, where things aren’t always okay, where the inworld is very similar to the real one and consequences are similar

Shoutout to large systems who have so many members that most of the people in their body are complete strangers to them, who cannot just immediately trust someone just because they share a brain

Shoutout to systems where exotrauma is super severe and causes current trauma and ptsd symptoms

Shoutout to plurals who do not fit solely into the categories of “parts of a whole and at odds with each other” or “we’re all friends and everything’s chill”

Shoutout to system members who have been abused within their systems, who were promised a safe space now that they’re in a system only to have that right denied

Shoutout to fictives who don’t consider their exomemories a past life or a delusion, to headmates who can travel between their exolives and their in-system lives, to polyplurals/fragments who have political drama and or must find oppression within their systems, to syskids who don’t act like “normal” children due to trauma

And anyone else who has to deal with so much more than just being plural but who cannot be open about it because these things are mocked severely as if most of them aren’t already unfair enough to experience.

[sylvielauffeydottir]

Hello, it is I, your friendly neighborhood historian. I am ready to lose followers for this post, but I have two masters degrees in history and one of my focuses has been middle eastern area studies. Furthermore, I’ve been tired of watching the world be reduced to pithy little infographics, and I believe there is no point to my education if I don’t put it to good use. Finally, I am ethnically Asheknazi Jewish. This does not color my opinion in this post — I am in support of either a one or two state solution for Israel and Palestine, depending on the factors determined by the Palestinian Authority, and the Israeli Government does not speak for me. I hate Netanyahu. A lot. With that said, my family was slaughtered at Auschwitz-Birkenau. I have stood in front of that memorial wall at the Holocaust memorial in DC for my great uncle Simon and my great uncle Louis and cried as I lit a candle. Louis was a rabbi, and he preached mitzvot and tolerance. He died anyway. 

There’s a great many things I want to say about what is happening in the Middle East right now, but let’s start with some facts. 

In early May, there were talks of a coalition government that might have put together (among other parties, the Knesset is absolutely gigantic and usually has about 11-13 political parties at once) the Yesh Atid, a center-left party, and the United Arab List, a Palestinian party. For the first time, Palestinians would have been members of the Israeli government in their own right. And what happened, all of the sudden? A war broke out. A war that, amazingly, seemed to shield Benjamin Netanyahu from criminal prosecution, despite the fact that he has been under investigation for corruption for some time now and the only thing that is stopping a real investigation is the fact that he is Prime Minister.

Funny how that happened. 

There’s a second thing people ought to know, and it is about Hamas. I’ve found it really disturbing to see people defending Hamas on a world stage because, whether or not people want to believe it, Hamas is a terrorist organization. I’m sorry, but it is. Those are the facts. I’m not being a right wing extremist or even a Republican or whatever else or want to lob at me here. I’m a liberal historian with some facts. They are a terrorist organization, and they don’t care if their people die. 

Here’s what you need to know: 

There are two governments for the occupied Palestinian territories in the West Bank and Gaza. In April 2021, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas postponed planned elections. He said it was because of a dispute amid Israeli-annexed East Jerusalum. He is 85 years old, and his Fatah Party is losing power to Hamas. Everyone knows that. Palestinians know that. 

Here’s the thing about Hamas: they might be terrorists, but aren’t idiots. They understand that they have a frustrated population filled with people who have been brutalized by their neighbors. And they also understand that Israel has something called the iron dome defense system, which means that if you throw a rocket at it, it probably won’t kill anyone (though there have been people in Israel who died, including Holocaust survivors). Israel will, however, retaliate, and when they do, they will kill Palestinian civilians. On a world stage, this looks horrible. The death toll, because Palestinians don’t have the same defense system, is always skewed. Should the Israeli government do that? No. It’s morally repugnant. It’s wrong. It’s unfair. It’s hurting people without the capability to defend themselves. But is Hamas counting on them to for the propaganda? Yeah. Absolutely. They’re literally willing to kill their other people for it.

You know why this works for Hamas? They know that Israel will respond anyway, despite the moral concerns. And if you’re curious why, you can read some books on the matter (Six Days of War by Michael Oren; The Yom Kippur War by Abraham Rabinovich; Rise and Kill First by Ronen Bergmen; Antisemitism by Deborah Lipstadt; and Israel: A Concise History of a Nation Reborn by Daniel Gordis). The TL;DR, if you aren’t interested in homework, is that Israel believes they have no choice but to defend themselves against what they consider ‘hostile powers.’ And it’s almost entirely to do with the Holocaust. It’s a little David v Goliath. It is, dare I say, complicated.

I’m barely scratching the surface here. 

(We won’t get into this in this post, though if you want to DM me for details, it might be worth knowing that Iran funds Hamas and basically supplies them with all of their weapons, and part of the reason the United States has been so reluctant to engage with this conflict is that Iran is currently in Vienna trying to restore its nuclear deal with western powers. The USA cannot afford to piss off Iran right now, and therefore cannot afford to aggravative Hamas and also needs to rely on Israel to destroy Irani nuclear facilities if the deal goes south. So, you know, there is that).

There are some people who will tell you that criticism of the Israel government is antisemitic. They are almost entirely members of the right wing, evangelical community, and they don’t speak for the Jewish community. The majority of Jewish people and Jewish Americans in particular are criticizing the Israeli government right now. The majority of Jewish people in the diaspora and in Israel support Palestinian rights and are speaking out about it. And actually, when they talk about it, they are putting themselves in great danger to do so. Because it really isn’t safe to be visibly Jewish right now. People may not want to listen to Jews when they speak about antisemitism or may want to believe that antisemitism ‘isn’t real’ because ‘the Holocaust is over’ but that is absolutely untrue. In 2019, antisemitic hate crimes in the United States reached a high we have never seen before. I remember that, because I was living in London, and I was super scared for my family at the time. Since then, that number has increased by nearly 400% in the last ten days. If you don’t believe me, have some articles about it (one, two, three, four, and five, to name a few). 

I live in New York City, where a man was beaten in Time Square while attending a Free Palestine rally and wearing a kippah. I’m sorry, but being visibly Jewish near a pro-Palestine rally? That was enough to have a bunch of people just start beating on him? I made a previous post detailing how there are Jews being attacked all over the world, and there is a very good timeline of recent hate crimes against Jews that you can find right here. These are Jews, by the way, who have nothing to do with Israel or Palestine. They are Americans or Europeans or Canadians who are living their lives. In some cases, they are at pro-Palestine rallies and they are trying to help, but they just look visibly Jewish.  God Forbid we are the wrong ethnicity for your rally, even if we agree.

This is really serious. There are people calling for the death of all Jews. There are people calling for another Holocaust. 

There are 14 million Jews in the world. 14 million. Of 7.6 billion. And you think it isn’t a problem the way people treat us?

Anyway (aside from, you know, compassion), why does this matter? This matters because stuff like this deters Jews who want to be part of the pro-Palestine movement because they are literally scared for their safety. I said this before, and I will say it again: Zionism was, historically speaking, a very unpopular opinion. It was only widespread antisemitic violence (you know, the Holocaust) that made Jews believe there was a necessity for a Jewish state. Honestly, it wasn’t until the Pittsburgh synagogue shooting that I supported it the abstract idea too.

I grew up in New York City, I am a liberal Jew, and I believe in the rights of marginalized and oppressed people to self-determine worldwide. Growing up, I also fit the profile of what many scholars describe as the self hating Jew, because I believed that, in order to justify myself in American liberal society, I had to hate Israel, and I had to be anti-Zionist by default, even if I didn’t always understand what ‘Zionism’ meant in abstract. Well, I am 27 years old now with two masters degrees in history, and here is what Zionism means to me: I hate the Israeli government. They do not speak for me. But I am not anti-Zionist. I believe in the necessity for a Jewish state — a state where all Jews are welcome, regardless of their background, regardless of their nationality. 

There needs to be a place where Jews, an ethnic minority who are unwelcome in nearly every state in the world, have a place where they are free from persecution — a place where they feel protected. And I don’t think there is anything wrong with that place being the place where Jews are ethnically indigenous to. Because believe it or not, whether it is inconvenient, Jews are indigenous to the land of Israel. I’ve addressed this in this post.

With that said, that doesn’t mean you can kick the Palestinian people out. They are also indigenous to that land, which is addressed in the same post, if you don’t trust me. 

What is incredible to me is that Zionism is defined, by the Oxford English Dixtionary, as “A movement [that called originally for] the reestablishment of a Jewish nationhood in Palestine, and [since 1948] the development of the State of Israel.” Whether we agree with this or not, there were early disagreements about the location of a ‘Jewish state,’ and some, like Maurice de Hirsch, believed it ought to be located in South America, for example. Others believed it should be located in Africa. The point is that the original plans for the Jewish state were about safety. The plan changed because Jews wanted to return to their homeland, the largest project of decolonization and indigenous reclamation ever to be undertaken by an indigenous group. Whether you want to hear that or not, it is true. Read a book or two. Then you might know what I mean.

When people say this is a complicated issue, they aren’t being facetious. They aren’t trying to obfuscate the point. They often aren’t even trying to defend the Israeli government, because I certainly am not — I think they are abhorrent. But there is no future in the Middle East if the Israelis and Palestinians don’t form a state that has an equal right of return and recognizes both of their indigenousness, and that will never happen if people can’t stop throwing vitriolic rhetoric around.  Is the Israeli Government bad? Yes. Are Israeli citizens bad? Largely, no. They want to defend their families, and they want to defend their people. This is basically the same as the fact that Palestinian people aren’t bad, though Hamas often is. And for the love of god, stop defending terrorist organizations. Just stop. They kill their own people for their own power and for their own benefit. 

And yes, one more time, the Israeli government is so, so, so wrong. But god, think about your words, and think about how you are enabling Nazis. The rhetoric the left is using is hurting Jews. I am afraid to leave my house. I’m afraid to identify as Jewish on tumblr. I’m afraid for my family, afraid for my friends. People I know are afraid for me. 

It’s 2021. I am not my great uncle. I cried for him, but I shouldn’t have to die like him. 

Words have consequences. Language has consequences. And genuinely, I do not think everyone is a bad person, so think about what you are putting into the world, because you’d be surprised how often you are doing a Nazi a favor or two. 

Is that really what you want? To do a Nazi a favor or two? I don’t think that you do. I hope you don’t, at least.

That’s all. You know, five thousand words later. But uh, think a little. Please.