#this was accepted behavior for women across centuries

[wonder-worker]

The most obvious means by which a queen might exercise influence at court was through her close contact with the king in much the same way as other nobles did, although the nature of such influence is impossible to judge because it does not leave records behind. That women would advise their husbands, even kings, was accepted and expected: Christine de Pizan maintained that the wise princess would urge her husband to discuss matters with his councillors, and encourage others to advise him. Jacobus de Cessolis, recognizing that queens would thereby be privy to important matters of state, advised that a queen's 'wysedom ought tappere in spekynge that is to wete that she be secrete and telle not such thynges as ought to be holden secrete'. Queens were of course not exempt from the traditional misogynistic fear of the power of women's words to lure men, as Eve had done, into sin and folly. The fourteenth-century author of The III Consideracions Right Necesserye to the Good Governaunce of a Prince warned

And how be it that a kinge or Prince shulde love his lady and wyf in maner as him self, yit it is nat expedient that he uttyr unto hir, and discloosc the sccrccs, grcctc conscillcs and greet thingcs that he hath doon for his estate and for his landc, nc that in such thing he be governed aftir hir at som tymc, but he shulde allc daycs reserve unto him self the lordship and souvereyntee, or ellys many perilles may betide.

But to be governed was not the same as to be advised and there was also a strong tradition and rich literature of women wisely advising their husbands at all levels of society. This included encouraging a husband to make peace with his subjects or to be more generous to the poor or the Church as well as the familiar motif of intercession in response to a particular plea.

— J.L. Laynesmith, The Last Medieval Queens: English Queenship 1445-1503

[asciendo]

Resurgence of the Founding Chapter 2

Summary: Eren Jaeger is resurrected centuries after the Rumbling, only to find the world still in turmoil, with Eldians oppressed and Marleyans in control. The Jaegerists ask for his help in protecting their people, but there’s a catch: Eren must be bethrothed and father an heir with the power to end the cycle of Titans once and for all.

content: eren jaeger x female reader

Warning: smut, violence, swearing

Tag list: @vlsquuu 

Chapters: Chapter 1/Chapter 3/ Chapter 4

Y/N watched from her window as the entire town gathered in awe of Eren Jaeger’s arrival. Their faces were lit with hope, desperation, and a kind of reverence that sent chills down her spine. From her vantage point, she could see the crowd parting as he walked through, his tall frame tense and his sharp eyes scanning his surroundings like a predator assessing its territory.

Of course, she wanted her people's suffering to end. She had heard the stories of his past, the devastation, the sacrifices, and the victories that had defined him. But as much as she respected what he represented, the reality of his return left a bitter taste in her mouth. She didn’t want to be part of this.

Her fingers curled against the windowsill as she thought about the position she’d been forced into. Being the daughter of high-ranking Eldians came with privileges, yes, but now, it felt like a curse. Her parents, ever loyal to the cause, had been ecstatic when her name was put forward as one of the potential brides.

“You could be the mother of the savior’s heir,” her mother had gushed, eyes bright with pride.

Y/N had protested, argued until her voice was hoarse, but it had fallen on deaf ears. “This is bigger than you,” her father had said, his tone leaving no room for debate. “Eren Jaeger’s return is a gift, a chance to end this suffering for good. If he chooses you, it will be an honor.”

Honor. She wanted to laugh at the word. What honor was there in being reduced to a pawn, a vessel for someone else’s plan?

Now, as she watched Eren stride into the mansion—his mansion, as Lucian had announced to the people earlier—she felt a knot of dread tighten in her stomach. Her parents had already made it clear that they expected her to be on her best behavior when the time came to meet him. To smile, to charm, to accept her role without complaint.

But deep down, Y/N hoped—prayed—that he wouldn’t choose her.

Let him pick someone else, she thought desperately, her heart pounding as the weight of the situation pressed down on her. Someone who wants this. Anyone but me.

Her gaze lingered on Eren as the doors closed behind him. He looked angry, burdened, as though he carried the weight of the world on his shoulders. And maybe he did.

She turned away from the window, her hands trembling. Tonight, she would be called to join the other candidates for an introduction. Her parents had already laid out the dress she was to wear, a modest yet elegant gown meant to highlight her standing.

She stared at it now, hanging on the edge of her wardrobe, and felt a wave of bitterness rise in her throat. She didn’t want this. She didn’t want him. And yet, she had no choice.

Taking a shaky breath, she whispered to herself, “Please… don’t choose me.”

The grand hall was suffocating, filled with the hum of low murmurs and the sharp clink of glasses. Chandeliers hung overhead, their golden light casting long, dramatic shadows across the polished marble floors. Y/N stood at the far end of the line of women, each dressed to perfection, their postures impeccable.

The others whispered among themselves, some sneaking glances at Eren, who stood at the center of the room, engaged in conversation with a council member. His broad shoulders were stiff, his jaw set, as though the mere act of standing there was an endurance test.

Y/N let out a small sigh, her eyes darting toward her parents. They were seated among the dignitaries, their expressions carefully neutral, but their eyes spoke volumes. Her mother gestured subtly with her hand, her meaning clear: Smile. Look your best.

Y/N’s jaw tightened. She wouldn’t.

She felt a twinge of defiance, a tiny ember of rebellion in a situation where she otherwise had no control. If they wanted her to put on a show, they would be disappointed. She straightened her posture but kept her expression neutral, bordering on indifferent.

The woman beside her—a petite blonde with a dazzling smile—leaned in and whispered, “You’re not even going to try?”

Y/N raised an eyebrow but didn’t respond.

The blonde smirked, her voice barely audible over the murmur of the room. “Suit yourself. Less competition for the rest of us.” She adjusted the lace trim on her gown, turning her attention back to Eren with a practiced flutter of her lashes.

Y/N turned her gaze to him as well, though without the same eagerness. He looked tired, detached, as if the grandeur and the attention meant nothing to him. For a moment, their eyes met, and Y/N felt a jolt, like a sudden gust of cold air. His gaze was piercing, assessing, but it flickered away just as quickly.

The room quieted as the council member cleared his throat and gestured for the women to step forward. One by one, they introduced themselves, curtseying and offering rehearsed words of admiration for Eren and the cause. The line moved forward, each woman more polished and practiced than the last.

When it was Y/N’s turn, she stepped forward with deliberate calm, her hands clasped loosely in front of her. Her parents’ eyes bore into her from across the room, willing her to dazzle.

But she didn’t bow, didn’t offer any rehearsed speech. Instead, she met Eren’s gaze directly, her voice steady.

“Y/N,” she said simply.

For a heartbeat, the room seemed to hold its breath. Her lack of pretense stood in stark contrast to the others, and she could feel the weight of her parents’ disappointment like a lead cloak.

Eren’s expression didn’t change, but his eyes lingered on her for a moment longer than they had with the others. He tilted his head slightly, as if intrigued, before giving the faintest nod.

“Thank you,” he said, his voice low and unyielding.

She stepped back into line, her heart pounding. She couldn’t tell if she had just ruined her chances or secured them. All she knew was that, for now, she had survived the moment.

As Eren entered the grand hall, the weight of expectation pressed heavily on his shoulders. The grandeur of the scene—the glittering chandeliers, the hushed yet excited crowd, and the line of women before him—only deepened his disdain for the moment.

Lucian guided him to a chair at the center of the hall. He sat stiffly, his jaw clenched as he surveyed the eager faces before him. He didn’t want this. He never did. But what was another sacrifice for the Eldians?

The women stood in a pristine line, each meticulously dressed, their faces painted with nervous smiles and practiced charm. Eren’s eyes skimmed over them, each one blending into the next. None of them mattered to him.

Until he saw her.

She stood near the end of the line, quieter than the rest, her demeanor more subdued. Her jet-black hair framed her face, and her almond-shaped eyes gazed forward, though they didn’t sparkle with the same desperation as the others’. She wasn’t trying to impress him; in fact, she seemed to want nothing more than to be elsewhere.

Eren’s heart stilled for a moment.

She reminded him of Mikasa.

The resemblance wasn’t exact, but it was enough to stir something deep inside him—a familiar ache that he hadn’t allowed himself to feel in years. Her presence brought Mikasa’s memory flooding back: her quiet strength, her steadfastness, her loyalty. He knew it wasn’t her. It couldn’t be. Mikasa was gone, and yet, standing before him, this woman felt like a fragment of her had returned.

When she stepped forward and spoke her name, “Y/N,” her voice broke through his thoughts. He blinked, grounding himself in the present, though his chest felt heavy.

The other women followed, reciting their names and prepared lines. Eren barely listened. His focus kept drifting back to her—the only one who seemed untouched by the frenzy around her. She wasn’t here to vie for him, and that only intrigued him more.

When the last name had been spoken, Lucian stepped forward, addressing the room. “Ladies, you stand here today not only for the honor of being chosen but for the future of Eldians. Whoever Eren Jaeger selects as his betrothed will share in the burden of ensuring our people’s salvation.”

Excited whispers filled the hall, anticipation radiating from the women. All except Y/N. Her expression darkened slightly, a flicker of unease passing over her features.

Eren remained motionless.

Lucian glanced at him, signaling that it was time, but Eren didn’t immediately rise. Instead, he leaned forward, his elbows on his knees, exhaling deeply. His mind was already made up.

Pushing himself to his feet, Eren stepped forward, his boots echoing sharply in the silent hall. He didn’t spare a glance at the others, his eyes fixed solely on Y/N.

Her own eyes widened, surprise evident in her face as he stopped in front of her.

“I’ll take Y/N as my betrothed,” Eren declared, his voice calm yet unwavering.

The room erupted in gasps and murmurs, the women exchanging stunned looks. Lucian’s eyebrows briefly lifted, but he quickly regained composure, nodding approvingly.

Y/N, however, stood frozen, her lips parting slightly as if to protest, though no words came.

Eren didn’t look away from her. He didn’t know why he’d chosen her—whether it was her resemblance to Mikasa, her quiet presence, or something else entirely. But at that moment, it didn’t matter. She was the one, and nothing would change that.

[haggishlyhagging]

It has taken me a surprisingly long time to appreciate the degree of misunderstanding within this magnet for fantasy, this image of a heroine with superpowers—as witches are portrayed in all dominant cultural productions going. Half a lifetime to understand that, before becoming a spark to the imagination or a badge of honor, the word "witch" had been the very worst seal of shame, the false charge which caused the torture and death of tens of thousands of women. The witch-hunts that took place in Europe, principally during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, occupy a strange place in the collective consciousness. Witch trials were based on wild accusations of night-time flights to reach sabbath meetings, of pacts and copulation with the Devil—which seem to have dragged witches with them into the sphere of the unreal, tearing them away from their genuine historical roots. To our eyes, when we come across her these days, the first known representation of a woman flying on a broomstick, in the margin of Martin Le Franc's manuscript Le Champion des dames (The Champion of Women, 1441-2), appears unserious, facetious even, as though she might have swooped straight out of a Tim Burton film or from the credits to Bewitched, or even been intended as a Halloween decoration. And yet, at the time the drawing was made—around 1440–she heralded centuries of suffering. On the invention of the witches sabbath, historian Guy Bechtel says: "This great ideological poem has been responsible for many murders." As for the sexual dimension of the torture the accused suffered, the truth of this seems to have been dissolved into Sadean imagery and the troubling emotions that provokes.

In 2016, Bruges' Sint-Janshospitaal museum devoted an exhibition to "Bruegel's Witches," the Flemish master being among the first painters to take up this theme. On one panel, he listed the names of dozens of the city's women who were burned as witches in the public square. "Many of Bruges' inhabitants still bear these surnames and, before visiting the exhibition, they had no idea they could have an ancestor accused of witchcraft," the museum's director commented in the documentary Dans le sillage des sorcières de Bruegel. This was said with a smile, as if the fact of finding in your family tree an innocent woman murdered on grounds of delusional allegations were a cute little anecdote for dinner-party gossip. And it begs the question: which other mass crime, even one long past, is it possible to speak of like this—with a smile?

By wiping out entire families, by inducing a reign of terror and by pitilessly repressing certain behaviors and practices that had come to be seen as unacceptable, the witch-hunts contributed to shaping the world we live in now. Had they not occurred, we would probably be living in very different societies. They tell us much about choices that were made, about paths that were preferred and those that were condemned. Yet we refuse to confront them directly. Even when we do accept the truth about this period of history, we go on finding ways to keep our distance from it. For example, we often make the mistake of considering the witch-hunts part of the Middle Ages, which is generally considered a regressive and obscurantist period, nothing to do with us now—yet the most extensive witch-hunts occurred during the Renaissance: they began around 1400 and had become a major phenomenon by 1560. Executions were still taking place at the end of the eighteenth century—for example, that of Anna Göldi, who was beheaded at Glarus, in Switzerland, in 1782. As Guy Bechtel writes, the witch "was a victim of the Moderns, not the Ancients."

Likewise, we tend to explain the persecutions as a religious fanaticism led by perverted inquisitors. Yet, the Inquisition, which was above all concerned with heretics, made very little attempt to discover witches; the vast majority of condemnations for witchcraft took place in the civil courts. The secular court judges revealed themselves to be "more cruel and more fanatical than Rome" when it came to witchcraft. Besides, this distinction is only moderately useful in a world where there was no belief system beyond the religious. Even among the few who spoke out against the persecutions such as the Dutch physician Johann Weyer, who, in 1563, condemned the "bloodbath of innocents"—none doubted the existence of the Devil. As for the Protestants, despite their reputation as the greater rationalists, they hunted down witches with the same ardour as the Catholics. The return to literalist readings of the Bible, championed by the Reformation, did not favor clemency—quite the contrary. In Geneva, under Calvin, thirty-five "witches" were executed in accordance with one line from the Book of Exodus: "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" (Exodus 22:18). The intolerant climate of the time, the bloody orgies of the religious wars—3,000 Protestants were killed in Paris on St. Bartholomew's Day, 1572–only boosted the cruelty of both camps toward witches.

Truth be told, it is precisely because the witch-hunts speak to us of our own time that we have excellent reasons not to face up to them. Venturing down this path means confronting the most wretched aspects of humanity. The witch-hunts demonstrate, first, the stubborn tendency of all societies to find a scapegoat for their misfortunes and to lock themselves into a spiral of irrationality, cut off from all reasonable challenge, until the accumulation of hate-filled discourse and obsessional hostility justify a turn to physical violence, perceived as the legitimate defense of a beleaguered society. In Françoise d'Eaubonne's words, the witch-hunts demonstrate our capacity to “trigger a massacre by following the logic of a lunatic.” The demonization of women as witches had much in common with anti-Semitism. Terms such as witches "sabbath" and their "synagogue" were used; like Jews, witches were suspected of conspiring to destroy Christianity and both groups were depicted with hooked noses. In 1618, a court clerk, whiling away the longueurs of a witch trial in the Colmar region, drew the accused in the margin of his report: he showed her with a traditional Jewish hairstyle, "with pendants, trimmed with stars of David."

Often, far from being the work of an uncouth, poorly educated community, the choice of scapegoat came from on high, from the educated classes. The origin of the witch myth coincides closely with that—in 1454–of the printing press, which plays a crucial role in it. Bechtel describes a "media campaign" which "utilized all the period's information vectors": "books for those who could read, sermons for the rest; for all, great quantities of visual representations." The work of two inquisitors, Heinrich Kramer (or Henricus Institor) from Alsace and Jakob Sprenger from Basel, the Malleus Maleficarum was published in 1487 and has been compared to Hitler's Mein Kampf. Reprinted upward of fifteen times, it sold around 30,000 copies throughout Europe during the great witch-hunts. "Throughout this age of fire, in all the trials, the judges relied on it. They would ask the questions in the Malleus and the replies they heard came equally from the Malleus." Enough to put paid to our idealized visions of the first uses of the printing press! By giving credence to the notion of an imminent threat that demanded the application of exceptional measures, the Malleus Maleficarum sustained a collective delusion. Its success inspired other demonologists, who became a veritable gold mine for publishers. The authors of these contemporary books—such as the French philosopher Jean Bodin—whose writings read like the ravings of madmen, were in fact scholars and men of great reputation, Bechtel emphasizes: "What a contrast with the credulity and the brutality demonstrated by every one of them in their demonological reports."

-Mona Chollet, In Defense of Witches: The Legacy of the Witch Hunts and Why Women are Still on Trial

[fromtheseventhhell]

The girlboss mockery (irl and in fiction) of the past few years, the rise of trad-caths/tiktok tradwives, the way it’s become supposedly progressive to make “white women” a bogeyman, along with the rise of ironic post-left misogyny have combined to create an environment where openly hating women is permissible, not to mention whacking the label “empowering” on any old random regressive decision and suddenly it’s somehow great for women. You can get away with the most vile and repugnant misogyny as long as you preface it with “girlboss”.

Genuinely we're living through one of the worst "feminist" waves in history. The most vile, violent misogynistic takes become acceptable as long as someone prefaces them with [insert faux-feminist take]. "Girlboss" is just one of the many, many covers people use to disguise their misogyny. We get viral misogynistic posts across all social media platforms daily. People have been able to build entire social platforms from their misogyny. It feels like these last few years have been a steep slide back into the 18th century with some of the takes I see from people. And what's even worse is that a lot of it is coming from other women! The whole trend of "tradwives" on TikTok, like you mentioned, makes me feel crazy whenever I see it. They genuinely want women to be "back in the kitchen" and fully dependent on men, as though that hasn't historically been a circumstance to further abuse women. The support for abusive men and the shaming of women also seems to be at an all-time high.

And it's not just talk; women's rights have been directly impacted by this entire shift in the perception and treatment of women. Sorry, but this kind of behavior is never inconsequential no matter how seemingly small, and being misogynistic for any reason is harmful. It's alarming how comfortable people have become with it.

[easy-edible]

Being Gay is African: A Historical Perspective

The assertion that homosexuality is a Western concept is a myth largely propagated by colonial influences and the import of Christianity. Historically, African cultures have recognized and included various forms of same-sex relationships and identities, which have only been obscured by later colonial and religious narratives.

Contemporary Conflicts and Historical Evidence

During his visit to Africa in 2015, US President Barack Obama highlighted the legal discrimination against LGBT individuals. In Kenya, he emphasized the importance of treating all individuals equally, irrespective of their differences. Kenyan President Uhuru Kenyatta responded by asserting that Kenyan culture does not accept homosexuality. This sentiment is not unique and has been echoed by other African leaders such as Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe, Goodluck Jonathan of Nigeria, and Yoweri Museveni of Uganda. However, historical evidence contradicts these assertions.

Historical Examples of Homosexuality in Africa

Ancient and Pre-Colonial Evidence

Yoruba Language: The Yoruba language has a term, "adofuro," which describes someone who engages in anal sex. This term, which predates colonial influence, indicates an awareness of homosexual behavior.

Azande Warriors: In the 19th century, the Azande people of Sudan and the Democratic Republic of Congo practiced same-sex relationships where warriors would marry young men due to the scarcity of women. These relationships were socially accepted and included rituals and formal marriage customs​ (Face2Face Africa)​.

King Mwanga II of Buganda: King Mwanga II of Uganda openly engaged in homosexual relationships with his male servants before the advent of Christian missionaries who brought condemnation​ (JSTOR Daily)​.

Ancient Egypt: Paintings and records suggest that Nyankh-Khnum and Knum-Hotep, royal servants in ancient Egypt, may have had a homosexual relationship. These men were depicted in affectionate poses and shared a tomb, highlighting the acceptance of their relationship within their society​ (AfricaOTR)​.

Meru Community in Kenya: The Mugawe, religious leaders among the Meru, often dressed in women's clothes and married men. This role was not just accepted but integrated into the spiritual and social fabric of the community​ (AfricaOTR)​.

Anthropological Insights

Marc Epprecht, a historian, documents various forms of same-sex relationships across Africa that were ignored or misinterpreted by early Western anthropologists. These relationships ranged from love affairs to ritualistic practices. For example, among the Imbangala of Angola, same-sex relationships were part of ritual magic. Similarly, in South Africa, temporary "mine marriages" were formed among men working in mines during colonial times​ (JSTOR Daily)​.

The Influence of Christianity and Colonialism

The rise of fundamental Christianity, heavily influenced by American televangelists since the 1980s, has significantly shaped the contemporary African stance on homosexuality. Many Africans argue that homosexuality is against Biblical teachings, yet the Bible itself is not part of African historical culture. This adoption of a Western religious framework to argue against homosexuality demonstrates a significant cultural shift influenced by colonialism.

The Political Use of Homophobia

Populist homophobia has become a political tool in many African countries. Politicians gain votes by promoting anti-gay sentiments, creating an environment where hatred and violence against LGBT individuals are not only accepted but encouraged. This has led to severe consequences, such as corrective rapes in South Africa and oppressive laws across the continent.

Reclaiming African Heritage

To combat the dangerous narrative that homosexuality is un-African, it is crucial to retell and reclaim African history. African culture historically celebrated diversity and promoted acceptance, including various sexual orientations and gender identities. By acknowledging and teaching this true history, we can foster a more inclusive and equitable society.

Reaffirming our commitment to historical accuracy and cultural inclusivity is essential. True African heritage is one of acceptance and recognition of all its members, regardless of their sexuality.

[psychewritesbs]

Don't you think it's funny cause actual canon gay characters in BL manga/manhwa will say "I love you" but only the shounen bromance can spew out some of the most romantic shit akin to a 19th century poet writing a letter expressing his surpressed love for his lover 😭.....

ok but when you put it like that...

This is an interesting conversation to have because I am not sure it's so much about the demographics (shonen is more of a demographic than a literary genre although it does have certain characteristics that define it because of its intended demographic), as it is about writing skill and being able to show vs. tell.

Because, as a fujo who went through a thirsty fujo phase, I consumed a lot of bl. Like... A LOT. And I came out of that phase accepting the cold realization that I did not like most bl/yaoi because it is highly clichéd and relies on tropes entirely way too much.

Like I literally used to say "I read yaoi for the plot" because...

GIVE ME THE CHEMISTRY, GIVE ME THE DYNAMIC, GIVE ME THE DRAMAAAAAAAAA!!!!

To your point under the cut 😂 ...

Man, I just can't get over how well you put it.

Anyways, given how you framed your ask, so do you think it's a male perspective thing? I ask because I do recognize that sometimes the way male friendships are portrayed in animanga feels very intimate and very unique to Japanese media, although I could be wrong.

Because, if we're talking about the big battle shonen bl manga out there, jjk, naruto, bnha, hq, etc. are the big "offenders" and these are all male authors (well, we're not sure about hq). So I can see why you feel like these characters are able to express their perspective for each other in a way that you don't see in other manga.

Personally, I am a big fan of how CLAMP (who are all women and very possibly all queer) executes LGBTQ+ dynamics. An example found in a shonen manga that I particularly love is kurofai from Tsubasa Reservoir Chronicle.

And the thing about this pairing is that you never hear them say "I love you." Instead you are shown through their behavior towards one another and the subtext how much they have grown to care for each other.

In addition to the majority of CLAMP's m/m dynamics (across a variety of manga published for different demographics), another couple of examples of gays I love include Tomoko Yamashita's pairing in Sankaku Mado no Sotogawa wa Yoru (although I didn't care for the ending), Yoneda Kou's Saezuru Tori wa Habatakanai, and obvs Sayo Yamamoto and Mitsurou Kubo's Yuri on Ice. I haven't read/seen Banana Fish but I understand that's another bl fan fave classic that is good.

So there are some good dynamics out there outside of shonen lol, you just have to dig for them like a maniac... or so I've been told ehem.

But even as masterful as CLAMP is at executing soulmate dynamics, if you specifically take itafushi for example, Gege's ability to vest that bromance with so much beauty is just off the charts something else. As a woman I find the container of this dynamic to be deeply aspirational. There's this shared and unspoken understanding between the two characters, not to mention love that... idk.. it just has this... je ne sais quoi.

idk... I am curious about more #thoughts on this because there's a lot going on here in terms of self-insertion into male characters, equality in dynamics, just so much to unpack.

Please feel free to send all the #thoughts to whomever else reads this!

Thanks for reaching out anon!!!!

[femenaces]

interaction with *any* field that doesn't consider its roots and biases is going to lack nuance.

It is my experience that most modern college-level anthropology courses (I took them at two universities) extensively deconstruct and lay out all the ways that the "forefathers" and initial practices of the discipline were incredibly biased and frankly racist. Trying to discredit my opinion by just assuming I have never "considered the roots and biases" of the discipline I have a degree in, as if I just have a head full of unchallenged 19th century colonialist nonsense-- I find that patronizing, inaccurate, and insulting. I'll add, one major trend in anthropology these days is "insider anthropology," where a member of a culture conducts research and analysis on their own culture. I read many of these during my time in school. Also prevalent in modern social science and history is the increased valuing of oral history from the peoples themselves. In both of these, you can still see misogyny present in these cultures clear as day. It is not just the old white man with a safari hat projecting his own misogynistic culture into his ethnographies. Misogyny is a worldwide and seemingly timeless trait of nearly all human societies.

it's primarily socialisation that causes the differences

Most people are exposed to the concept of socialization in high school sociology classes these days. It's a very prevalent topic of discussion in my experience even outside of academic circles. Again, I have a degree in a social science. Are you really defining socialization for me as if I have never heard of it before and don't understand it? Ironic, because I don't think you're prepared to follow the concept of socialization to two of it's obvious (in my opinion) conclusions. One of which is pretty standard fare in radical feminist analysis but is not the point of this post, so cover your ears so you don't become corrupted and I'll make the text real small like a footnote: Trans women are socialized male and trans men are socialized female. Putting on new clothing, injecting hormones, or having surgeries in pursuit of looking like the opposite sex do not erase a lifetime of socialization. I know this first hand, and I think a lot of even transgender ideology supporters do too, deep down. All it takes is having ever had a decent amount of transgender friends. My trans man friends almost all experienced significant trauma at the hands of men in their childhoods, were considerate, meek, and polite to a fault. My trans women friends consistently disrespected and talked over the trans men in the group, frequently made "jokes" (about porn mostly) that would put any woman off, were loud without self-consciousness, tried to "relate" to women in the group by reciting tropes and stereotypes about women they now apparently fulfilled, and well... I could go on but I'll just say, observing how little these dynamics differed from just straight up cis male-female interactions really opened my eyes. To deny this would be to deny socialization has a huge impact on people. You wouldn't deny that, right? Since you just said yourself that "it's primarily socialization that causes" the behavior patterns of men and women?

The second logical conclusion is more controversial, but it's this— So females are socialized to be subservient, quiet, self-sacrificing, mild-mannered, complacent, accepting of mistreatment with limitless forgiveness, while men are socialized to be bold, proud, violent, etc... but this socialization pattern had to arise from somewhere. So I asked myself, who started this? if you follow socialization down, down, down in history to the very beginning, did it arise out of thin air? Was it the women? Neither of those make sense to me. When I follow the concept of socialization back to the logical conclusion, it's men all the way down, all across the world.

idk how any woman can come out of an anthropology degree without having grown a new third eye about male nature

[qqueenofhades]

Hi. I’m curious. What did you mean by “women who read fiction might get Bad Ideas!!!” has just reached its latest and stupidest form via tumblr purity culture.? I haven’t seen any of this but I’m new to tumblr.

Oh man. You really want to get me into trouble on, like, my first day back, don’t you?

Pretty much all of this has been explained elsewhere by people much smarter than me, so this isn’t necessarily going to say anything new, but I’ll do my best to synthesize and summarize it. As ever, it comes with the caveat that it is my personal interpretation, and is not intended as the be-all, end-all. You’ll definitely run across it if you spend any time on Tumblr (or social media in general, including Twitter, and any other fandom-related spaces). This will get long.

In short: in the nineteenth century, when Gothic/romantic literature became popular and women were increasingly able to read these kinds of novels for fun, there was an attendant moral panic over whether they, with their weak female brains, would be able to distinguish fiction from reality, and that they might start making immoral or inappropriate choices in their real life as a result. Obviously, there was a huge sexist and misogynistic component to this, and it would be nice to write it off entirely as just hysterical Victorian pearl-clutching, but that feeds into the “lol people in the past were all much stupider than we are today” kind of historical fallacy that I often and vigorously shut down. (Honestly, I’m not sure how anyone can ever write the “omg medieval people believed such weird things about medicine!” nonsense again after what we’ve gone through with COVID, but that is a whole other rant.) The thinking ran that women shouldn’t read novels for fear of corrupting their impressionable brains, or if they had to read novels at all, they should only be the Right Ones: i.e., those that came with a side of heavy-handed and explicit moralizing so that they wouldn’t be tempted to transgress. Of course, books trying to hammer their readers over the head with their Moral Point aren’t often much fun to read, and that’s not the point of fiction anyway. Or at least, it shouldn’t be.

Fast-forward to today, and the entire generation of young, otherwise well-meaning people who have come to believe that being a moral person involves only consuming the “right” kind of fictional content, and being outrageously mean to strangers on the internet who do not agree with that choice. There are a lot of factors contributing to this. First, the advent of social media and being subject to the judgment of people across the world at all times has made it imperative that you demonstrate the “right” opinions to fit in with your peer-group, and on fandom websites, that often falls into a twisted, hyper-critical, so-called “progressivism” that diligently knows all the social justice buzzwords, but has trouble applying them in nuance, context, and complicated real life. To some extent, this obviously is not a bad thing. People need to be critical of the media they engage with, to know what narratives the creator(s) are promoting, the tropes they are using, the conclusions that they are supporting, and to be able to recognize and push back against genuinely harmful content when it is produced – and this distinction is critical – by professional mainstream creators. Amateur, individual fan content is another kettle of fish. There is a difference between critiquing a professional creator (though social media has also made it incredibly easy to atrociously abuse them) and attacking your fellow fan and peer, who is on the exact same footing as you as a consumer of that content.

Obviously, again, this doesn’t mean that you can’t call out people who are engaging in actually toxic or abusive behavior, fans or otherwise. But certain segments of Tumblr culture have drained both those words (along with “gaslighting”) of almost all critical meaning, until they’re applied indiscriminately to “any fictional content that I don’t like, don’t agree with, or which doesn’t seem to model healthy behavior in real life” and “anyone who likes or engages with this content.” Somewhere along the line, a reactionary mindset has been formed in which the only fictional narratives or relationships are those which would be “acceptable” in real life, to which I say…. what? If I only wanted real life, I would watch the news and only read non-fiction. Once again, the underlying fear, even if it’s framed in different terms, is that the people (often women) enjoying this content can’t be trusted to tell the difference between fiction and reality, and if they like “problematic” fictional content, they will proceed to seek it out in their real life and personal relationships. And this is just… not true.

As I said above, critical media studies and thoughtful consumption of entertainment are both great things! There have been some great metas written on, say, the Marvel Cinematic Universe and how it is increasingly relying on villains who have outwardly admirable motives (see: the Flag Smashers in The Falcon and the Winter Soldier) who are then stigmatized by their anti-social, violent behavior and attacks on innocent people, which is bad even as the heroes also rely on violence to achieve their ends. This is a clever way to acknowledge social anxieties – to say that people who identify with the Flag Smashers are right, to an extent, but then the instant they cross the line into violence, they’re upsetting the status quo and need to be put down by the heroes. I watched TFATWS and obviously enjoyed it. I have gone on a Marvel re-watching binge recently as well. I like the MCU! I like the characters and the madcap sci-fi adventures! But I can also recognize it as a flawed piece of media that I don’t have to accept whole-cloth, and to be able to criticize some of the ancillary messages that come with it. It doesn’t have to be black and white.

When it comes to shipping, moreover, the toxic culture of “my ship is better than your ship because it’s Better in Real Life” ™ is both well-known and in my opinion, exhausting and pointless. As also noted, the whole point of fiction is that it allows us to create and experience realities that we don’t always want in real life. I certainly enjoy plenty of things in fiction that I would definitely not want in reality: apocalyptic space operas, violent adventures, and yes, garbage men. A large number of my ships over the years have been labeled “unhealthy” for one reason or another, presumably because they don’t adhere to the stereotype of the coffee-shop AU where there’s no tension and nobody ever makes mistakes or is allowed to have serious flaws. And I’m not even bagging on coffee-shop AUs! Some people want to remove characters from a violent situation and give them that fluff and release from the nonstop trauma that TV writers merrily inflict on them without ever thinking about the consequences. Fanfiction often focuses on the psychology and healing of characters who have been through too much, and since that’s something we can all relate to right now, it’s a very powerful exercise. As a transformative and interpretive tool, fanfic is pretty awesome.

The problem, again, comes when people think that fic/fandom can only be used in this way, and that going the other direction, and exploring darker or complicated or messy dynamics and relationships, is morally bad. As has been said before: shipping is not activism. You don’t get brownie points for only having “healthy” ships (and just my personal opinion as a queer person, these often tend to be heterosexual white ships engaging in notably heteronormative behavior) and only supporting behavior in fiction that you think is acceptable in real life. As we’ve said, there is a systematic problem in identifying what that is. Ironically, for people worried about Women Getting Ideas by confusing fiction and reality, they’re doing the same thing, and treating fiction like reality. Fiction is fiction. Nobody actually dies. Nobody actually gets hurt. These people are not real. We need to normalize the idea of characters as figments of a creator’s imagination, not actual people with their own agency. They exist as they are written, and by the choice of people whose motives can be scrutinized and questioned, but they themselves are not real. Nor do characters reflect the author’s personal views. Period.

This feeds into the fact that the internet, and fandom culture, is not intended as a “safe space” in the sense that no questionable or triggering content can ever be posted. Archive of Our Own, with its reams of scrupulous tagging and requests for you to explicitly click and confirm that you are of age to see M or E-rated content, is a constant target of the purity cultists for hosting fictional material that they see as “immoral.” But it repeatedly, unmistakably, directly asks you for your consent to see this material, and if you then act unfairly victimized, well… that’s on you. You agreed to look at this, and there are very few cases where you didn’t know what it entailed. Fandom involves adults creating contents for adults, and while teenagers and younger people can and do participate, they need to understand this fact, rather than expecting everything to be a PG Disney movie.

When I do write my “dark” ships with garbage men, moreover, they always involve a lot of the man being an idiot, being bluntly called out for an idiot, and learning healthier patterns of behavior, which is one of the fundamental patterns of romance novels. But they also involve an element of the woman realizing that societal standards are, in fact, bullshit, and she can go feral every so often, as a treat. But even if I wrote them another way, that would still be okay! There are plenty of ships and dynamics that I don’t care for and don’t express in my fic and fandom writing, but that doesn’t mean I seek out the people who do like them and reprimand them for it. I know plenty of people who use fiction, including dark fiction, in a cathartic way to process real-life trauma, and that’s exactly the role – one of them, at least – that fiction needs to be able to fulfill. It would be terribly boring and limited if we were only ever allowed to write about Real Life and nothing else. It needs to be complicated, dark, escapist, unreal, twisted, and whatever else. This means absolutely zilch about what the consumers of this fiction believe, act, or do in their real lives.

Once more, I do note the misogyny underlying this. Nobody, after all, seems to care what kind of books or fictional narratives men read, and there’s no reflection on whether this is teaching them unhealthy patterns of behavior, or whether it predicts how they’ll act in real life. (There was some of that with the “do video games cause mass shootings?”, but it was a straw man to distract from the actual issues of toxic masculinity and gun culture.) Certain kinds of fiction, especially historical fiction, romance novels, and fanfic, are intensely gendered and viewed as being “women’s fiction” and therefore hyper-criticized, while nobody’s asking if all the macho-man potboiler military-intrigue tough-guy stereotypical “men’s fiction” is teaching them bad things. So the panic about whether your average woman on the internet is reading dark fanfic with an Unhealthy Ship (zomgz) is, in my opinion, misguided at best, and actively destructive at worst.

[hellomynameisbisexual]

In the book A History of Bisexuality, Steven Angelides raises an important question: How can we construct the history of an identity which, until recently and even now, is thought to not exist? As with any history of social movements and identities, it’s first important to understand that learning history can also inadvertently be a practice of erasure. This means that “documented” or more dominant experiences are usually the only ones included in the historical narrative. This is especially so in the case of bisexuality, as its existence as a category and label has been protested socially since the word first entered the historical record and even now faces denial of its existence. We know bisexuality and other identities in the Bi+ spectrum are inherent to the human experience, so it existed well before it was captured in the historical record. That is, bisexuality as an experience, identity, or concept didn’t begin at any one point in time. Nonetheless, it is useful and important to understand key milestones in modern Bi+ experiences.

Just as sometimes happens today, historical figures who had feelings or relationships outside of strict heterosexual confines were historically regarded as gay even though they may have been, or identified as, Bi+. This is due to the assumption that binaries are the only alternative (meaning, someone either is or is not). If we look across cultures, bisexuality has been commonplace — from ancient Greece to the Han Dynasty in China.

In the west, bisexuality as a word was first printed in 1982 in a translated book called Psychopathia Sexualis by Charles Gilbert Chaddock. As the book title hints, bisexuality was mainly being documented as a form of deviant sexual behavior. In his exploration of psychology, even Sigmund Freud wrote: “A man's heterosexuality will not put up with any homosexuality, and vice versa” — meaning that one can either be straight or gay, and nothing else. This helps to illustrate how deeply rooted bisexual denial has been in society. And yet, still we see traces of bisexuality captured throughout time, up until the adoption of Bi+ as a title for plural identity.

1920s and 40s: “Bisexual Chic”

The 20th century witnessed the beginnings of Bi+ identities in popular culture — albeit very marginally. Poet Edna St. Vincent Millay and singers Ma Rainey and Bessie Smith were among the earliest widely known people to be openly bisexual in the United States. One of the issues historians and queer scholars face when revisiting the Bi+ presence of the past is that we want to avoid making assumptions about people’s identities when we interpret history, because we don’t want to speak for them and misconstrue their lives. For example, the 1920s hosted an era of social experimentation, and the phrase “bisexual chic” emerged in reference to women’s desire to explore their sexuality with other women. While we may categorize this as bisexual behavior, what we must keep in mind is the strict patriarchal and homophobic structures of society at the time. Perhaps these women would themselves identify as lesbian, pansexual, or another title on the spectrum of sexuality — but since there was little social space to do so (as they may have felt immense pressure to marry and participate in a heterosexual lifestyle), they may be miscategorized as possibly bisexual. Therefore, despite the presence of what some would consider “bisexual behavior,” we cannot ever fully know how someone identified or if they had access to language that expressed their feelings, or the social support to explore themselves. Although not outwardly mentioned because of censorship, the film A Florida Enchantment featured bisexual characters (albeit with very offensive content). Bisexuality can also be found in a few literature references in the 1920s, mainly in the work of Virginia Woolf's Orlando: A Biography and Mrs Dalloway.

Ideas of sexual plurality (or the acceptance of more than one sexual identity in society) in mainstream America were largely introduced academically by the groundbreaking work of biologist and sexologist Alfred Kinsey in 1940, through his exploration of diverse sexual practices of men. His 1948 book Sexual Behavior in the Human Male introduced the realities of non-heteronormative (or not strictly straight) practices and relationships being had across the country with great numbers.

1960s and 70s: Queer Activism and Growing Research

Ideas of bisexuality as a distinct self-proclaimed identity, however, didn’t begin to reach mainstream awareness in the United States until the 1960s, alongside queer activism and the growing gay rights movement. Stephen Donaldson (Donny the Punk) and Brenda Howard (who later went on to found the New York Area Bisexual Network) became the most well known bisexual activists at that time. The San Francisco chapter of the Sexual Freedom League included bisexuality as a label when activists like Margo Rila, Frank Esposito, and Maggi Rubenstein began to push for their inclusion. Bi+ folks were undoubtably present at the Stonewall Riot and the first Pride March — as Brenda Howard, the mother of Pride, identified as bisexual.

More Bi+ exposure took place in the 1970s due to the cultural impact of the sexual revolution of the 1960s, both in the media and in the social work of activism. This was also impacted by a wave of celebrities who came out as bisexual, such as Lou Reed, and in movies with Bi+ undertones like The Rocky Horror Picture Show. The Bi+ community began to find each other and start creating alliances and collective actions for visibility. Newsletters like The Bisexual Expression and The Bi Monthly emerged, and spaces for bisexual services, counseling, and awareness began to be carved out — mainly in New York and San Francisco. New popular literature also began to hit the market, such as View from Another Closet: Exploring Bisexuality in Women by Janet Mode, The Twyborn Affair by Patrick White, and The Bisexual Option: A Concept of One-Hundred Percent Intimacy by Dr. Fritz Klein.

In 1974, Newsweek printed a special edition on growing curiosities of Bi+ identities, writing: “There is a new vibration to spring this year. While the birds and the bees are striking up their vernal hum, so are the boys and the boys and the girls and the girls. Bisexuality is in bloom.” Even famous anthropologist Margaret Mead petitioned for bisexuality to be seen as the human norm in the domain of sexuality — as sexology, or the scientific study of sexuality, began to be more flexible to encompass identities outside the gay/straight binary. This was echoed in Charlotte Wolf’s book Bisexuality (1977), which published interviews with 150 self-identified bisexual men and women and concluded that bisexuality was likely much more common than society had ever previously realized.

1980s and 90s: Moving to the Mainstream

The 1980s hosted more conversations about bisexuality in mainstream American culture, including a moral panic during the AIDS epidemic in which bisexual men were frequently blamed for the spread of AIDS. New solidarity networks like The Boston Bisexual Women’s Network, the Bay Area Bisexual Network, the Bisexual Resource Center (BRC), and BiPol, the first bisexual political organization. In 1984, BiPol held the first bisexual rights rally, outside the Democratic National Convention, while the First East Coast Conference on Bisexuality also took place with 150 people in attendance.

Although visibility was growing, feelings of bisexual exclusion also became more prominent. The article "The Bisexual Movement: Are We Visible Yet?" by Lani Ka'ahumanu appeared in the official Civil Disobedience Handbook for the Second National March on Washington for Lesbian and Gay Rights. This article was the first about bisexuals and the emerging bisexual movement to be published in a national lesbian or gay publication. Shortly after, the first national bisexual organization, The North American Bisexual Network, was founded.

The 1990s kicked off bisexual awareness by declaring September 23rd Bisexual Pride Day. For the next decade, American mainstream culture saw an increase in Bi+ characters, books, and celebrities, as well as the creation of more Bi+ specific organizations across the country. The first bisexual kiss on television took place in 1991 on an episode of L.A Law, in which bisexual lawyer C.J. (Amanda Donohoe) kisses her female colleague colleague Abby Perkins (Michele Greene). A few years later, the character Nancy Bartlett (played by Sandra Bernhard) began to normalize bisexuality on the critically acclaimed show Roseanne, and even included an on-screen kiss.

As a response to growing curiosity and a lack of attention on bisexuality as a distinct identity, Ron Fox began the first large-scale research study on bisexuality in 1993, and the Klein grid expanded on the Kinsey scale to showcase more spaces and subjectivities in between strictly gay or straight. Alongside growing acceptance, bisexual people were wanting a symbol to unite themselves. The Bisexual Pride flag was first set to fly proudly in 1998 after being designed by Michael Page.

2000s: Growing Awareness

The 2000s showcased an explosion in Bi+ characters, media, and important measures in awareness and rights. By the turn of the century, the American Psychological Association (APA)'s "Guidelines on psychotherapy with lesbian, gay and bisexual clients" officially de-pathologized homosexuality and bisexuality, stating they are not a mental illness as previously regarded. Bisexuality began to be included in sexuality studies departments at universities, and more positive media began to focus on bisexual characters. In a groundbreaking report in 2011, the San Francisco's Human Rights Commission found that the biggest majority within the LGBTQ community were the Bi+ community. In fact, the Bi+ community accounts for more than half of those who now identify as LGBTQ. In recent times, access to terms such as pansexual, omnisexual, fluid and others have emerged to give more nuance to Bi+ experiences.

Despite this, bisexuality is still considered an invisible majority. As Miranda Rosenblum notes, “The bisexual+ movement has a long, complex, and often hidden history. As a whole, the history of LGBTQ people is rarely taught comprehensively in schools, addressed in the media, or easily accessible within popular culture. For bisexual+ individuals, it's worse. The ubiquity of bisexual+ erasure seeps into history too; prominent bisexual+ individuals of the past are rarely remembered as bisexual+ (recalled as gay or lesbian instead) and the contributions of bisexuals+ to the broader LGBTQ movement are overlooked. Retelling a history that is inclusive of bisexual+ people is an important way to affirm the validity and importance of the bisexual+ experience.”

In awareness, GLAAD now hosts an annual #BiWeek campaign, and there is a growing understanding of bisexuality as its own unique identity.

[estradiol-dyke]

https://twitter.com/CateSpice/status/1217248504654905345

Transcript:

Can we talk about the origins doxxing in the context of trans people and TERFs for a minute? Because it originated with the TERFs, as far back as the 70s. Historically any passing trans woman holding down any kind of ‘respectable’ job could be outed and lose everything.

Once we hit the online era, from the late 90’s onwards, transphobes turned to the internet to doxx trans women.

They’d post our identities to websites dedicated to shitting on trans people, or on public forums, & people would contact our employers to out us as trans and get fired.

Cathy Brennan ran such a site, and her and her cronies were well known for contacting schools, employers, doctors and therapists of trans men and women, trying to get them expelled, fired, or denied medical treatment.

They tried it with me more than once. I’m still listed.

As trans people have gained more acceptance, this behavior has receded, since it no longer works as well. I’m out as trans at work; they can’t threaten me with that now.

But being a transphobe has become LESS acceptable, and many workplaces no longer tolerate bigotry.

The irony isn’t lost on me that TERFs are complaining about being outed as bigots to their employers.

Knowing the history, I’m embarrassed on their behalf; because the idea came from them originally - from a dangerous behavior they’ve engaged in for half a century.

But the consequences for them are minor. We historically lost everything, then had to move across the country and start from scratch, because we can’t stop being trans.

These transphobes though? They make a choice to engage in bigoted behavior, knowing the consequences.

It reminds me of the Stefan Molyneux video, where he complains his reputation is fucked because one google search will out him as a fucking alt-right bigot.

IMAGINE THAT, YOUR ACTIONS HAVE CONSEQUENCES!

WHO FUCKING KNEW?

This really speaks volumes about the sheer PRIVILEGE of these people; that they think they have a RIGHT to be indescribably bigoted towards other human beings, without consequences. Well bad news; if you’re a crappy human being, other human beings will hate you. Tough shit, mate.

[deldeldel90]

Point blank period, misandry, as a concept, doesn't' exist. At least, it does not exist as a competitor or even as someone who sits across the table to Misogyny. For there to be misandry, there has to be the hatred, and, subsequently, the dehumanization of men. This hatred has to be so strong that it is universally accepted as truth—as misogyny was, then and now, with laws against their bodies, their minds, and their dignity. This hatred is not by one individual saying she doesn’t like men.  A female abuser does not mean men are suddenly the oppressed class. 

And, note, for this post, I use the terms “oppressed” and “oppressor” in some parts. This is not saying that every single man hates women, that the hypothetical he abuses women, or that he even carries these views. This is a dormant trait; men, as a whole, have the ability to become a misogynist on a whim — they have the ability to assert hatred and for that hatred to stick. For them to become politicians, doctors, scientists, teachers, etc, and for them to use what power they hold against women. Like Elliot Rodger, they have the ability to go shoot up a sorority, if they so pleased, because of their hatred of women. This hatred is not because of the “effects of feminism”, or men being ignored by it — it is because of misogyny. It is because they have been deluded by the idea, and this is an idea that has been cultivated for centuries, that women not only belong to men, but they exist for them. That any woman having a life outside of a man, any man, is taking away from him purposefully, spitefully. Women cannot have rights, because that would take away from mens’ rights to own women. 

And similarly, when I say “men” and “women” in this text, I mean that in terms of grouping, a social group, if you will. It is impersonal, collective, and a generalization of an average population. I do not believe men are the spawns of the Devil and whatnot — certainly not like how Eve is named the one tempted by the Devil, as says the biggest religions on this earth, only to be banished from Eden because of her disobedience, damning herself and her husband; how women only experience the pain and bleeding of menstruation and childbirth because of Eve’s disobedience. 

As a whole, women do not hate men like men hate women. This behavior is not biological. This is, my firm opinion would say, because of their forced subservience in history. Because of the traits that have been passed down for generations of “be kind, be gentle, be forgiving and understanding,” until the traits of prey have become femininity and “what a woman should be”. It is not in a man’s biology to be born hateful. “Men bad woman good” only really works if I — or really, anyone else — implied all men are born bad, that all men commit misogyny because they find being evil to women the best thing ever. (Which, some do, must I admit, but most men are normal... It just so happens that the normal is tainted with societal Misogyny.)

“Men bad woman good” does not apply to reports on things that happen. At large, the majority of rapists are men. At large, there is a rape mentality amongst men. At large, women are mistreated because they are women, and they have not done a single thing to deserve it all throughout history. 

Men are not born evil and misogyny is an act of grooming. It is an act of brainwashing. It is an act of social conditioning to believe you are better than another, inherently more logical and reasonable, birthed to be the superior. 

Nowadays, this mindset has become less common among parents, so, instead of getting it from home, the social conditioning is formed by content about the inferiority of women, secretive content shared as inside knowledge about how manipulative they are, how sneaky, how “women hate each other because women know women.” 

The woman is made into wanting to be the victim. She wants to ruin the life of the man that raped her. She wants child support for herself to spite him, not because she has to raise a child primarily on her own since women have to take up the un-fun parts of child raising. She is feminist only because she wants to hurt men, not because she cares about her own rights.

A woman’s agency is taken away wholly by misogyny and any emotion she feels becomes one that is defined by what it means to a man. The “Man Or Bear” argument is taken by misogynistic men as women wanting to be raped by the bear, as women being portrayed as too stupid to live because, obviously, they must have thought the besr was friendly, as women merely being overdramatic and even cruel. 

Misandry cannot exist, because everything that is misandry eventually circles back into being Misogyny. 

I would argue that instead of misandry, male rape victims suffer because of misogyny. It’s the mentality of “Oh, well, she’s a girl. Girls are weak; girls cannot inflict damage on a man, girls cannot do something as serious as hurt a man. She could not have done anything he had not wanted, because he, as the man, is capable of every way of stopping her, due to her female weakness.”

Although some of this has changed in recent years, as it goes: Men who are told not to cry are given these instructions because it’s deemed as “feminine”, like a girl would -- and men who do "feminine" things are diminished because that's a girl's things and, because it's a girl's thing, is seen as innately weak and embarrassing. On the contrary, women -- women who conform to just enough "girlishness", mind you -- who have more "masculine" interests are uplifted solely because they have gained perceived "value" from partaking in habits defined by men; seen as interesting, as complex, as more different and unique, because of their new humanization from being both "feminine" enough to classify as a worthy woman and "masculine" enough to be given humanity.

Also the argument of “Well, that’s a nice man. That’s a good man.”, and, “Well, do you hate your brother? Do you hate your father?” is both pointless and meaningless, an argument meant to gather a reaction. It's used against feminists all the time; the idea that because there are Good Men, every complaint against the systemic and cultural abuse of women has become a whispered, scandalous topic to tread around.

“Not All Men” is to be faced with: “But What About Most Women?” 

I would argue that society is dominated—not by population, but by power—by men. Misogyny is something that is taught to men, shown to them, on the internet and in the street, normalized and even celebrated as a passage of manhood. It is not inherited. A person is not born hating anybody. 

There is the fact that if every single man on this planet suddenly came to the revelation that women were people; a fair majority of the abuse, the discrimination, the laws against controlling their own bodies or singing in public, the violence against women — it would stop. Same as if any other of the oppressor parties decided the oppressed were actually people. 

“Is it your friendly neighbor John's fault that we make shorts shorter for women? Is it your dear uncle Teddy's fault that some men are jerks?” I feel like this is important to add, but please note that in the original text I stated the shorts were shorter for girls. Seven year old girls, as in, not women. As in, children. Children who deserve comfortable clothes above all else, clothes that are not made to service pedophiles, clothes that are not made to reveal herself and, instead, be functional and fun and everything a child should have.

It’s not “some men are jerks”. It’s “nearly 99% percent of rapists are men; 91% of women are the rape victims”. It’s “1 in 4 women have been abused in their lifetime”. It’s about how half the population of this planet earth is still trying desperately to be seen as a human being instead of a future wife, a virgin, a porn category, a second fiddle to men. There is an issue desperately needing acknowledgement of misogyny in male circles, in male spaces, and sometimes not even that. Women are in danger of getting their faces splashed with acid because they said no to a marriage proposal. Women are in danger of being raped and murdered, because they are women. Women are in danger are dying during birth, of being killed by her husband or boyfriend, of being subjected to an honor killing because she did something her family didn't like. 

Women are in danger and, like most “men's rights activists” do, this fact gets overshadowed by “Not All Men!” and “Women are so privileged” and “The evil cat-having feminists said something mean :(“ 

In Germany, this year, a woman was given a harsher sentence for defamation than a gang rapist was. Only one of those rapists served time. (Maja R, if you wish to look her up.) 

An Olympic medalist was burned alive by her ex-boyfriend.

Women are getting their rights slowly, painfully, stripped away in multiple countries.

In all honesty, there are so many bigger issues than “Misandry”, which is, primarily, used to discount Misogyny.

Sometimes, equality is giving the oppressed a voice that can now, ever, be taken away, just as the oppressor has always had their voice. Sometimes, equality is allowing them to speak without being interrupted, without claiming that they must hate all members of the oppressor group, without censoring their speech. Sometimes, equality is allowing the oppressed group to become the priority.

Sometimes, equality is listening. 

The development of true equality is not an easy one. The happy ones of the oppressed group, the ones who find no problem in the system that have benefited them, do not enjoy any semblance of power going to women. Some men believe that there is a limit to how many rights a woman should have. 

Women and young girls, who they have sorted and categorized into stereotypes, based on weight, and race, and “body count”, all which determine their worth and see if they're worthy of the promise of “Protection.” 

(To which, this protection is a threat above all else. If you don't behave, I will watch gleefully while you are raped/murdered/etc. But that's another topic for a different day.) 

Misogyny is rooted in culture and system; it is men (and, yes, women who have come to believe in their gender’s—and, in some cases, their own—inferiority) who perpetrate this cycle. It is brothers who catcall, who sexually assault, who demean and degrade. It is fathers who agree to child marriages for their daughters, it is fathers who prioritize and worship male children for the sake of being male, it is fathers . It is the men who do not speak when they know their brother/friend/acquaintance is a rapist, who find pleasure in misogynistic jokes and media, the men who enjoy making videos humiliating (“humbling”) women, especially women they find confident within themselves. It is the men who stay silent when misogyny is present; because it's his friends, because it's the men who go “well, what was she wearing?” Or, “She could be lying — you know how women are.” Or, “Don't you think she has too much proof? Who records someone abusing her? Who records the aftermath of abuse?” Or, “There's not enough proof. She's making it up for attention, money, sympathy. If she was really abused, she would have recorded her injuries. She would have posted pictures.” Or, “But she wanted it, have you seen her, she must have wanted it, she's a slut.” Or, the ultimate, “We don't know his side,” even after mountains of evidence against him, even when we have no reason to doubt her story — even if the story is fictional — because the metaphorical Him is always the decider in what is right or wrong. 

As I hope you will see, this is a lot of men. 

It's not a genocide against the Good Men That The Evil, Bitter, Single Feminists Are Rallying Against. It's not a matriarchy. It's “women are people and they deserve to have their voices listened to.” it's “women should not have to sugarcoat their very real oppression because of men's feelings.” It's “women do not have the power to oppress men, because, at this point in time, women are still fighting (to keep, to gain) for any sort of power.”

It's not "men can't get raped/abused". It's "women get raped/abused at a disproportionately large rate for a reason". It's not "oh my GOD we should hate every single man ever!" It's, "there is a problem with culture and society and politics, one that has been primarily made by the men in that same society, and misogyny has become normal amongst men, especially young men and boys, who are a part of our future".

Feminism is about the rights of women. Feminists can and should fight for the rights of women. Feminism is needed, and shouldn't be demonized as this man-hating beast, because half of our population on this planet is suffering because of what they were born as.

Misogyny is silent, misogyny is loud, misogyny kills and rapes and abuses. It is hatred that marks itself as benevolent at times, seen as kind to the inferior woman, but it is still hatred, for one cannot love someone one does not see as human and who one oppresses. 

Misogyny exists violently and “Misandry”, in the basic, bland definition of prejudice against men, will never be as harmful/bad/dangerous as Misogyny is. 

TLDR: Equality starts with giving the oppressed class actual equality: and no, that equality does not take away from men’s rights, unless you mean the right they have to overpower, overwhelm, and overanalyze the conversations, the standings, and the lives of women. 

I hope that helps. Stream Feminazi by Fea. 

going under a youtube video of a girl and seeing women defend men the way the majority of men,. especially on the Internet, do not defend women hurts my soul.

Notice how whenever there's perceived "misandry", it's all women defending men, and men defending men (and usually hating on women while they're at it), but whenever there's misogyny present, the comment section is filled with (still) men defending men.. and women defending women.

heartbreaking is when there's women defending the misogyny.

[flightlessnightingale]

On Lesbianism

I’ll state it at the top here, because many have not understood my stance. The purpose of this essay is not to say that Lesbian cannot mean “Female homosexual.” Rather, my objective is to show that Lesbian means more than that single definition suggests. Female Homosexuals are lesbians, unless they personally do not want to use that label. Now, on with the show: Lesbianism is not about gatekeeping, and I don’t want to have to keep convincing people that the movement popularized by someone who wrote a book full of lies and hate speech then immediately worked with Ronald Reagan is a bad movement. In the early ’70s, groups of what would now be called “gender critical” feminists threatened violence against many trans women who dared exist in women’s and lesbian spaces. For example, trans woman Beth Elliott, who was at the 1973 West Coast Lesbian Feminist Conference to perform with her lesbian band, was ridiculed onstage and had her existence protested. In 1979, radical feminist Janice Raymond, a professor at the University of Massachusetts, wrote the defining work of the TERF movement, “Transsexual Empire: The Making of the Shemale,” in which she argued that “transsexualism” should be “morally mandating it out of existence”—mainly by restricting access to transition care (a political position shared by the Trump administration). Soon after she wrote another paper, published for the government-funded, National Center for Healthcare Technology — and the Reagan administration cut off Medicare and private health insurance coverage for transition-related care.

Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminism is a fundamentally unsustainable ideology. Lesbianism is a fundamentally sustainable existence.

There used to be a lesbian bar or queer bar or gay bar in practically every small town — sometimes one of each. After surviving constant police raids, these queer spaces began closing even Before the AIDS epidemic. Because TERFs would take them over, kick out transfems and their friends. Suddenly, there weren’t enough local patrons to keep the bars open, because the majority had been kicked out. With America’s lack of public transportation, not enough people were coming from out of town either.

TERFs, even beyond that, were a fundamental part of the state apparatus that let AIDS kill millions.

For those who don’t know, Lesbian, from the time of Sappho of Lesbos to the about 1970′s, referred to someone who rejects the patriarchal hierarchy. It was not only a sexuality, but almost akin to a gender spectrum.

That changed in the 1970′s when TERFs co-opted 2nd Wave feminism, working with Ronald fucking Reagan to ban insurance for trans healthcare.

TERFs took over the narrative, the bars, the movement, and changed Lesbian from the most revolutionary and integral queer communal identity of 2 fucking THOUSAND years, from “Someone who rejects the patriarchal hierarchy” to “A woman with a vagina who’s sexually attracted to other women with vaginas”

How does this fit into the bi lesbian debate? As I said, Lesbian is more of a Gender Spectrum than anything else, it was used much in the same way that we use queer or genderqueer today.

And it’s intersectional too.

See, if you were to try to ascribe a rigid, biological, or localized model of an identity across multiple cultures, it will fail. It will exclude people who should not be excluded. ESPECIALLY Intersex people. That’s why “Two Spirit” isn’t something rigid- it is an umbrella term for the identities within over a dozen different cultures. In the next two sections, I have excerpts on Two-Spirit and Butch identity, to give a better idea of the linguistics of queer culture: This section on Two-Spirit comes from wikipedia, as it has the most links to further sources, I have linked all sources directly, though you can also access them from the Wikipedia page’s bibliography: Two-Spirit is a pan-Indian, umbrella term used by some Indigenous North Americans to describe Native people who fulfill a traditional ceremonial and social role that does not correlate to the western binary. [1] [2] [3] Created at the 1990 Indigenous lesbian and gay international gathering in Winnipeg, it was "specifically chosen to distinguish and distance Native American/First Nations people from non-Native peoples." [4] Criticism of Two-Spirit arises from 2 major points, 1. That it can exasperate the erasure of the traditional terms and identities of specific cultures.           a. Notice how this parallels criticisms of Gay being used as the umbrella           term for queer culture in general. 2. That it implies adherence to the Western binary; that Natives believe these individuals are "both male and female" [4]          a. Again, you’ll notice that this parallels my criticisms of the TERF definition of Lesbian, that tying LGBT+ identities to a rigid western gender binary does a disservice to LGBT+ people,—especially across cultures. “Two Spirit" wasn’t intended to be interchangeable with "LGBT Native American" or "Gay Indian"; [2] nor was it meant to replace traditional terms in Indigenous languages.  Rather, it was created to serve as a pan-Indian unifier. [1] [2] [4] —The term and identity of two-spirit "does not make sense" unless it is contextualized within a Native American or First Nations framework and traditional cultural understanding. [3] [10] [11] The ceremonial roles intended to be under the modern umbrella of two-spirit can vary widely, even among the Indigenous people who accept the English-language term. No one Native American/First Nations' culture's gender or sexuality categories apply to all, or even a majority of, these cultures. [4] [8] Butch: At the turn of the 20th century, the word “butch” meant “tough kid” or referred to a men’s haircut. It surfaced as a term used among women who identified as lesbians in the 1940s, but historians and scholars have struggled to identify exactly how or when it entered the queer lexicon. However it happened, "Butch” has come to mean a “lesbian of masculine appearance or behavior.” (I have heard that, though the words originate from French, Femme & Butch came into Lesbian culture from Latina lesbian culture, and if I find a good source for that I will share. If I had to guess, there may be some wonderful history to find of it in New Orleans—or somewhere similar.) Before “butch” became a term used by lesbians, there were other terms in the 1920s that described masculinity among queer women. According to the historian Lillian Faderman,“bull dagger” and “bull dyke” came out of the Black lesbian subculture of Harlem, where there were “mama” and “papa” relationships that looked like butch-femme partnerships. Performer Gladys Bentley epitomized this style with her men’s hats, ties and jackets. Women in same-sex relationships at this time didn’t yet use the word “lesbian” to describe themselves. Prison slang introduced the terms “daddy,” “husband,” and “top sargeant” into the working class lesbian subculture of the 1930s.  This lesbian history happened alongside Trans history, and often intersected, just as the Harlem renaissance had music at the forefront of black and lesbian (and trans!) culture, so too can trans musicians, actresses, and more be found all across history, and all across the US. Some of the earliest known trans musicians are Billy Tipton and Willmer “Little Ax” Broadnax—Both transmasculine musicians who hold an important place in not just queer history, but music history.

Lesbian isn’t rigid & biological, it’s social and personal, built up of community and self-determination.

And it has been for millennia.

So when people say that nonbinary lesbians aren’t lesbian, or asexual lesboromantics aren’t lesbian, or bisexual lesbians aren’t lesbian, it’s not if those things are technically true within the framework — It’s that those statements are working off a fundamentally claustrophobic, regressive, reductionist, Incorrect definition You’ll notice that whilst I have been able to give citations for TERFs, for Butch, and especially for Two-Spirit, there is little to say for Lesbianism. The chief reason for this is that lesbian history has been quite effectively erased-but it is not forgotten, and the anthropological work to recover what was lost is still ongoing. One of the primary issues is that so many who know or remember the history have so much trauma connected to "Lesbian” that they feel unable to reclaim it. Despite this trauma, just like the anthropological work, reclamation is ongoing.

Since Sappho, lesbian was someone who rejects the patriarchal hierarchy. For centuries, esbian wasn’t just a sexuality, it was intersectional community, kin to a gender spectrum, like today’s “queer”. When TERFs co-opted 2nd Wave feminism, they redefined Lesbian to “woman w/ a vag attracted to other women w/ vags”. So when you say “bi lesbians aren’t lesbian” it’s not whether that’s true within the framework, it’s that you’re working off a claustrophobic, regressive, and reductionist definition.

I want Feminism, Queerness, Lesbianism, to be fucking sustainable.

I wanna see happy trans and lesbian and queer kids in a green and blue fucking world some day.

I want them to be able to grow old in a world we made good.

[uncommon-etc]

This was going to be called ‘a useful guide to writing LGBT+ characters in historic fiction’ but...

This now applies to everything over 30 years old, because of the drastic changes we’ve collectively gone through, and all of the progress that’s been made.

It’s awesome that there’s a renewed interest by writers of all stripes in filling the gaping void in literature where more queer fiction should be, but as someone who has encountered a huge amount of misconceptions and over-simplifications myself in researching how to accurately depict queer characters outside of a contemporary setting, I thought I’d put together three top-tips for other aspiring writers.

1. Dates of decriminalization are only half the story 

Here’s a map of decriminalization by country. Seems like exactly the kind of useful tool you might use to inform your writing, right?

Such maps should be taken with a pinch of salt, because they don’t show when anti-sodomy laws were introduced to those countries in the first place.

For instance, this map would imply that decriminalization was a fairly recent development in India, when the reality is that India didn’t have any laws against it until it was colonized by the British, and while the country doesn’t officially permit same-sex marriage, records of same-sex Hindu weddings go back centuries. Marriages between people from different castes were actually treated as more scandalous than same-sex relations between people in higher castes, and those who fall into the ‘third category’ (which includes trans, nonbinary and intersex people alongside effeminate gay men and butch gay women) were often given special status in pre-partition India. 

Colonizers usually failed to keep accurate records of the relationships and marriage practices they observed among those they colonized, except to remark on how barbaric and backwards they thought certain acts were, but there are always exceptions. Despite the high legal penalties for homosexual acts in the gulf states and across much of the Arab world, T. E. Lawrence kept detailed diaries during his travels in the middle east in the early 1900s in which he mentions witnessing not only sexual acts, but blatant gestures of romantic affection between the young Arab men he fought alongside. So, please don’t fall into the trap of thinking ‘my story features an Arab character, I need to make them very homophobic/uncomfortable around same-sex relationships.’

Polyamory and its role in Pacific Islander communities is frequently erased from history by those who sought to portray it exclusively - if at all - as one guy lucking out by having multiple wives. The reality is far more complex, with  Marquesas Islanders practicing Polyandry as well as Polygamy (i.e. women could have more than one husband.) Pre-contact indigenous Hawai’ians were probably one of the most sex-positive societies on earth, and while it’s important never to over-sexualise any minority group; ‘Sex between uncommitted individuals, paired individuals having lovers, liaisons, polyandry, polygyny, homosexual patterns of behavior, and such were all accepted practices (Malo, 1951, p. 74)’ 

Even in after Christianity spread to Europe and the Roman and Greek attitude to same-sex relations (which is a whole other essay I’m afraid) were drastically altered, certain practices are often overlooked...

In Sweden, in the early to mid 1800s, it became fashionable among the upper-classes for young unmarried people to take a same-sex partner, as a way to practice marriage without the risk of getting anyone pregnant. It’s part of the reason Hans Christian Andersen, (yes, the one who wrote the fairytales) got away with basically being openly bisexual. If he was seen kissing another man, people simply reasoned that he was being ‘childish’.

There’s a long-held joke in Finland about all Swedish men being gay, but it’s rooted in the fact that when Finnish women were sent to Sweden to learn domestic arts, attend high-society events, and eventually find a husband, they wrote home about how weird they thought it was that their new husband already had a ‘husband’, for practice.

In my mind there are far too many tragic same-sex love stories set in Europe around this time, won’t someone please write a charming rom-com about two guys who get away with it despite being increasingly more overtly gay because of weird customs like this?

I use the term ‘anti-sodomy law’ rather than ‘anti-gay law’ to keep things historically accurate, because the vast majority of European law in relation to homosexual acts never applied to women (something that was beautifully portrayed in the most recent season of Gentleman Jack), so if your character is a lesbian, her single biggest fear, from a legal standpoint, would be either being diagnosed with hysteria, or losing custody of any children she has from a previous relationship. There are no records of women being put to death on the grounds of having same-sex relations unless it was tied up in accusation of witchcraft. 

2. But in case you think the past was actually a rosier place to be gay than its usually portrayed...

So there was this one scene we all loved in the first season of Torchwood:

Basically, Jack and Tosh travel back in time to a tea-dance during WWII, where Jack meets the man whose identity he assumed when he left the time-agency. Even though he knows the other Jack will die the next day, the two of them have a connection, and they end up dancing together, in front of the other shocked guests, before the rift re-opens, returning Jack and Tosh to the present day.

The thing is, it would never actually happen.

It pains me to say it, but overt declarations of queer love in that era were few and far between, and when they occurred, they were severely punished. Many gay men with convictions for ‘public indecency’ in the 30s, 40s and 50s never did anything indecent, they were dobbed in by neighbours, colleagues, and jealous ex-lovers.

In fact, if you were a man of means, with a preference for other men in Britain before the outbreak of WWII (and before the nazis started raiding gay-bars) your safest route to not being arrested was to travel to Berlin, where hookups between men were generally ignored by the authorities amidst all the other chaos that plagued the Weimar republic.

If you want to write dramatic PDA moments between queer characters in pre-decriminalization times, be my guest, but don’t make them inconsequential, don’t cheapen the memories of those who were brave enough to risk arrest and literal torture through chemical castration by implying it’s not a big deal.

Quiet, subtle moments of affection can be just as effective, and far more believable. In order to write well-rounded, smart-thinking characters, it’s vital that you make them assess and contextualize their own relationships, and find ways around the obstacles of their times, rather than acting like it doesn’t matter.

A lack of appreciation for subtlety is part of the reason so many people missed the relationship between Captain Klenzendorf and Fred Finkel in Jojo Rabbit being intentionally queer-coded. Think about it, you’re two dudes who clearly have something going on, but you’re constantly surrounded by nazis, what are you going to do, french-kiss? Their constant close-proximity to each other, coupled with the little physical touches, and the moment one of them almost feeds the other one an iced-bun, make it pretty clear they’re more than just friends and colleagues. 

My hero Tove Jansson and her life-partner Tulikki had a secret passageway in the attic between their two studios in Helsinki, so that they could visit each other late in the evening without arousing any suspicion, but during their summers, they lived on an otherwise uninhabited island out in the gulf of Finland, where they were free to do as they liked.

If you want your characters to be free to be openly and unreservedly affectionate towards each other, take them out of society for a little bit and put them somewhere beautiful where there’s no-one else around. It’s part of the reason rural scenes in films like God’s Own Country, and Brokeback Mountain are so effective, they remind modern audiences that the relationship is not the problem, other people’s attitudes are.

3. Get your terminology right, even if it’s going to irk a modern audience

No-one would have called themselves, or anyone else ‘gay’ pre-1950s, unless they meant happy. No-one would have had access to the latest dictionary of acceptable terms and monikers for different LGBT+ identities. In an official context, gay men were separated into ‘inverts’ and ‘perverts’ (non-practicing and practicing homosexuals, though the invert label was generally only applied to those who sought help to ‘cure’ themselves, so it was pretty subjective). Pre-1950s terms in English were mostly innuendos (’he’s a friend of dorothy’s’, ‘he reads walt whitman’ and ‘he wears sensible shoes’ were all popular, alongside more well known ones like ‘he swings the other way’ or ‘he bats for the other team’). 

The term Bisexual was first coined (in the English speaking world) in 1859, but it wasn’t originally used to refer to those who experienced sexual attraction to men and women. Instead, the anatomist Robert Bentley Todd used it to describe those with primary or secondary sex characteristics that contradicted their assigned gender, and who would go on to be labelled hermaphrodites before we had much understanding of intersex people.

Please, I’m begging you, don’t write a novel about a magnificently bisexual Victorian dandy who goes around calling himself bisexual, not only is it not historically accurate, he’s going to get some funny looks and a possible ban from his local ‘gentleman’s club’. There’s a reason Lazlo Cravensworth in What we do in the Shadows, despite being one of the most bisexual characters ever written, never actually uses the word. You don’t need to, ‘show, don’t tell’ as the saying goes. 

Though the term ‘asexual’ is older than most people think (as is pansexual) it isn’t realistic to assume characters without access to the internet or the complete works of Alfred Kinsey will know or understand any of the terms we use for mspec identities today. If they acknowledged attraction to more than one gender, (or in some cases lack of attraction entirely) they would have been more likely to use ‘queer’ as a catchall, because the line between acceptable and deviant was squarely drawn over the perceived gender of the person you were said to be having relations with.

I see plenty of discourse regarding Arthur Conan Doyle’s work claiming Holmes and Watson have a queer-platonic partnership, I don’t disagree, but they would never have called it that.

One of my perpetually unfinished WIPs features an asexual character, and much as I desperately wanted, for my own sanity as a representation-starved ace, to have him say the word right from his introduction, it wouldn’t have been realistic, or contextually appropriate in the late 90s, so I had him discover the term twenty years later, as I did with most of my other LGBT+ characters.

This doesn’t mean a character thinking ‘I feel so broken and ostracized from everyone else, what’s wrong with me?’ it may just mean that although they know exactly who they are, what they want, and what they are or aren’t into, they don’t know there’s a word for it yet. H.P. Lovecraft remains a controversial figure in fiction, mainly down to the overt racism of some of his horror-stories, but his relationship history is interesting in that he married, but never had kids, then eventually separated from his wife who by all accounts he wasn’t very interested in. Because the word ‘asexual’ wasn’t ever used in biographies written in his life-time, I remember one introduction to his works describing his sexuality as ‘lazy’ which I found hilarious.

If you want to write non-binary characters, but are understandably aware of the fact that having someone state their pronouns in an interaction with another character wasn’t the done thing until very recently, here are several tips that could work in your favour:

- give that character a nationality/language background which uses gender-neutral pronouns as standard. If your character is Finnish for instance, and someone tries to say ‘he’ or ‘she’ they can correct them by saying ‘your language is so ridiculously gendered, I don’t like it, I’m sticking with ‘han’ for now’ (there are no gendered pronouns in Finnish, ‘han’ applies to men and women)

- take your cue from the way Jim is written in ofmd, A+, 10/10 splendid portrayal of an nb character in 1717. It feels natural and organic to their character development, without seeming forced or shoe-horned in as a ticked-box for representation.  

- give them a title that they worked to earn and are quite rightly proud of, the first few times they’ve corrected someone using the wrong pronouns by swapping in that title, the other character (and by extension the audience) will get the message.

- since the first use of singular ‘they’ in the English language dates back to the 12th century there’s nothing to stop you using it, but it would work better and be more believable on a character whose gender presentation is deliberately unclear or androgynous. For trans people prior to modern developments in gender-reassigment pronouns would have been chosen, like everything else, to pass as well as possible, because passing could be a matter of life and death.

None of this is designed to stop you writing joyful, blatantly queer love stories about all of the different ways, throughout history, that humans have formed relationships and experienced attraction. I have no desire to rain on anyone’s parade. As stated, we’re more likely to be written out of history entirely than we are to be written badly, but if, like me, you care about historic details and want to write the best, most believable story you can, please do you research.

[entity9silvergen]

I recently asked reddit for some LGBT history from countries other than the US. Here’s what I got:

Germany

The Weimar Republic was surprisingly accepting of "alternative lifestyles."

During the Weimar Republic, Germany had a pretty active LGBTQ scene, with some major films and songs being produced, despite it still being illegal at the time. However, there was also a push to decriminalize homosexual behavior which sadly wasn't passed as the Nazis came to power.

This was based of two factors: after WW1 the authoritarian culture of Prussia sorta received a long overdue pushback. People were kinda sick of it, especially since these losers led them into a seemingly pointless war to begin with. Second: A LOT of men died in WW1 - and the army did not exactly prefer LGBT people. So with a lot of regular folks dead, the percentages of the total populace was sorta shifted. This also pushed the women's rights movements at the time for a similar reason.

Magnus Hirschfeld was helping trans people transition, crossdressers get crossdressing 'licenses', and generally advocating for and helping the LGBT community in the early 1900s in Germany. Nazis ended up raiding and burning down his research institute.

Hirschfeld was a gay polyamorous man. He was one of the first advocates for trans and gay rights but his work was destroyed by the Nazis.

The institute he headed even did the first modern gender affirming surgeries. The institute was destroyed and many people who were there (including the first known person to undergo complete MtF surgery) were killed by the nazis and the place was little more than bombed out ruins at the end of the war.

More information on the institute

Pre Nazi interwar Germany (Weimar Republic)  was pretty open when it came to not only sexuality, but also gender identity. The Nazis put a stop to that & tried to destroy any & all research into either, but, for a brief moment, it was there.

Russia

Pretty sure all Russian LGBT history was erased before we even had a written language, but Russia almost got gay marriage legalized in the first soviet constitution (didn’t happen bc Stalin)

The early soviet period (pre-Stalin) is sometimes called “the first sexual revolution” as opposed to America’s “sexual Revolution” of the 60’s. Broad women’s suffrage, female employment and education, parental leave, advancement of GSM rights & decriminalization of abortion. This unfortunately did not stand the test of time & reactionary sentiment.

Additional Source

UK/ Britain/ England 

The lead singer of Judas Priest is gay. The commenter’s father thought it was kinda funny because it didn’t match with his biker aesthetic, but the commenter doesn’t think he considered how much leather he wears on a daily basis

Hell bent for Leather was a track off Killing Machine. It was written by lead guitarist Glenn Tipton (who is straight), but it's fun to find alternative meanings in Priest songs. A second commenter likes to pretend a lot of the lyrics Halford sings are gayer than they actually are.

A couple people mentioned how uncomfortable it was seeing Ru Paul interact with British drag queens because he barely knows anything about British culture.

Ru Paul got angry that a British drag queen hasn’t seen the Golden Girls because “it’s gay culture” and then not five minutes later someone had to explain to him who Alan Turing was.

Alan Turing, who was an incredibly noteworthy figure (He made the Enigma codebreaker machine, which broke the code that was used by Nazis during the war and basically sped up the war by a significant margin. He also set the foundations for artificial intelligence, one achievement he was named for: the Turing Test), was homosexual and prosecuted multiple times because of it

Shakespeare was probably bisexual (some of his sonnets had homoerotic subtext/were sent to a younger man). Plus, Hamlet is gay as fuck. 

Sonnet 46 was very gay. Here’s a link!

King James 1st was corrupt and used his position to promote his gay lover to higher positions than he should've gotten. 

The 13 year old king James 6th of Scotland and 1st of England fell in love with a 37 year old catholic Franco Scottish man. The king gave the older man so much free shit that other lords started getting salty and his lover ended up converting to Presbyterianism out of loyalty to his young lover. He also fell in love with a man who ''was noted for his handsome appearance as well as his limited intelligence.'' 

Clearly James was into himbos, and women too.

He had a secret tunnel connecting his bedroom to George Villiers’s bedroom.

His relationship with Villiers was basically common knowledge and a source of much amusement and mockery. He also once said that his relationship with Villiers was equivalent to the relationship that Christ had with John the Baptist

Much more recently, there's obviously JKR and the banning of puberty blockers and Margaret Thatcher opposing LGBTQ+ rights by passing a law meaning you couldn't 'promote homosexuality'. 

Prince Philip was a racist twat (and probably a huge homophobe knowing him).

Gay marriage only became legal in 2014.

The Wolfenden Report was published in 1957, and it recommended the decriminalization of homosexual acts between consenting adults. It was a huge topic of public debate, and ultimately led to the Sexual Offences act of 1967, which legalized sexual acts between consenting men aged 21 or over in England and Wales (sexual acts between women were never explicitly criminalized). Scotland decriminalized sex between men in 1980, and Northern Ireland in 1982. 

For a totally batshit real-life bit of gay history, check out the show A Very English Scandal. It's about a politician, Jeremy Thorpe, who put a hit out on his former lover who was threatening to go public with the fact they had had a relationship. 

Austria

Gay marriage was legalized in Austria about 3 years ago. The worst thing is that it'd have staid illegal if the Supreme Court wouldn't have jumped in and declare it to be unconstitutional.

Austria did have something called "partnership" which was where gay couples could officially register with the state as couples but not receive any of the benefits of married het people

They still have super backwards Transphobic laws requiring for example "real life experience" to get even diagnosed. Basically you're forced to be and live as feminine/masc as possible and a doctor them judges if you're femme or masc enough. It's torture

Australia had widespread, over 60% approval of gay marriage for well over a decade before the government legalized it. The governments were actually going against the people for a very long time by denying it.

Taiwan/ Hong Kong/ Mainland China

When Taiwan recently legalized gay marriage, their official statement was something along the lines that they were casting off Western-imposed values and returning to their own traditional values and the entire western lgbt community ridiculed them in a "if that's what you need to tell yourself" sort of way but it's actually the truth. 

Prior to western colonization, the Imperial Chinese attitude toward sexuality was not dissimilar to Greco-Roman attitudes in that a man must marry a woman to beget legitimate heirs but whatever else he does on the side is his own business. It wasn't until Victorian colonizers came along and imposed homophobic attitudes on China that China started treating gays like abominations. In Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Mainland China, as indeed most of the world, homophobia is a western value imposed by colonizers.

Bonus history: there is an actual saying in Arabic that was in widespread use across the Middle East and North Africa for thousands of years from classical antiquity until European colonization. The saying goes "Women are for babies, [young men] are for fun."

The commenter specifies that this means “college-aged twinks,” not children

Another commenter speculates about when homophobia arose in China and how. They also add that in Rome, bottoms were stigmatized. 

There’s a story of Emperor Ai of the Han dynasty & him cutting off his sleeve for his boyfriend

There is also a god worshipped in Taiwan, the Rabbit God Tu'er Shen, whose domain is managing love and sex between same-sex attracted people. He is meant to be the incarnation of a soldier from the 17th century, who fell in love with an imperial inspector and spied on him bathing, and was tortured and killed by that official because he was offended by the spying. A villager from the soldier's hometown dreamed that Tu'er Shen appeared to him and said that because his crime had been love, he had been appointed to manage the affairs of gay people. The villagers erected a secret temple to the soldier, and people have been praying to him ever since.

South Africa

South Africa became the first nation in the world to explicitly prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation in its constitution. It was also first country in Africa to legalize same sex marriage in 2006. What really set them back for so long was apartheid.

There is some speculation that that Shaka Zulu was gay since he never took any wives

South Africa's post Apartheid constitution was the first in the world to outlaw discrimination based on sexual orientation in 1996.

South Africa was also the 5th country in the world and only country in Africa to legalize same sex marriage in 2005.

Even before that the Constitutional Court ruled that sexual orientation was not relevant when deciding child custody in 2002.

Transgender folks have been allowed to change their sex in the population registry since 2003.

Conversion therapy is not illegal yet and public opinion still needs some work.

Spain

In Spain gay marriage was legalized in 2005, now they are considered one of de gay-friendliest countries in the world. The commenter is a lesbian and has never been closeted or directly experienced discrimination for being a lesbian.

In July 2005, Spain became the third country in the world to explicitly legalize gay marriage, after a thirty-year struggle following the fall of Franco's dictatorship, during which most activism was carried clandestinely (as it was illegal).

From 2007 onwards, Spanish [binary] trans people can legally correct the name and sex fields of their IDs and currently, there's a push for a law that would allow for legal recognition of non-binary Spaniards.

Despite the dictatorship in the 60s, there were cinemas that specialized in gay meet ups. Trans women also had ways to get passports so they could go to the US for surgery.

Ireland

In Northern Ireland, same sex marriage only became legal in 2020 and the leader of the most popular party is homophobic transphobic racist and sexist af. In fact, the majority of the party are but some of the quotes from the biggest party leader are depressing.

Same-sex marriage was only legalized in Ireland in 2015. Homosexuality was decriminalized in 1993. 

When Ireland legalized same sex marriage by popular vote in 2015, it was still something you got horribly bullied for in schools if you were out. Queer people got an apology from the Taoiseach in 2018, for the suffering and discrimination we faced from the State prior to the legalization of homosexuality.

In the case of trans rights, in 2015 the Gender Recognition Act was signed into law. It allows legal gender changes without the requirement of medical intervention or assessment by the state as long as you are over the age of 18. 

Ireland has fines and jail time for anyone found guilty of attempting conversation therapy. 

Ireland has seen a lot of progress in LGBT rights in the last 6 years but even up to the 2000s, citizens left their family members and friends to rot for being LGBT+. It still happens all over the country, especially in circles that are still fanatically Catholic. As the Catholic Church has lost the iron grip on the country, people have become more accepting of the LGBT+.

India

The Kamasutra(ancient text on sexuality etc.) has an entire chapter dedicated to homosexuality

The Arthashastra, a 2nd century BCE Indian treatise on statecraft, mentions a wide variety of sexual practices which, whether performed with a man or a woman, were sought to be punished with the lowest grade of fine. While homosexual intercourse was not sanctioned, it was treated as a very minor offence, and several kinds of heterosexual intercourse were punished more severely.

Sex between non-virgin women incurred a small fine, while homosexual intercourse between men could be made up for merely with a bath with one's clothes on, and a penance of "eating the five products of the cow and keeping a one-night fast"

Milk, curd (cheese), ghi (clarified butter), urine, and dung are the five products of a cow

The commenter adds that this is not a terrible punishment.

The Mughal Empire mandated a common set of punishments for homosexuality, which could include 50 lashes for a slave, 100 for a free infidel, or death by stoning for a Muslim

On 6 September 2018 the Supreme Court of India invalidated part of Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code making homosexuality legal in India

Prior to the British colonization of India homosexuality was not all that looked down upon when compared to what happened when the British took over and instituted anti gay laws.

The Hijra (literally means third gender) were seen as normal and have been accepted since long before Christ, as evidenced by the Karma Sutra. The British took videos of them to take back to demonstrate how the Desi were “barbaric”.

Bonsia

In Bosnia, there was a one pride parade that ended with religious extremists ruining it and the police not doing anything. It was supposed to be 5 maybe 3 days long but ended in like 1 or 2.

The Danish astronomer Tycho Brahe mapped out the entire night sky with only his eyes. It laid the foundations of many later scientists, such as Isaac Newton. He was a very rich nobleman, so much so that he owned 1% of Denmark's money. He had a pet dwarf that apparently could see the future, which sounds pretty gay. He was also part of the Elefant Ordning, which consisted of rich and strong Danish men.

Philippines 

Despite many attempts to legalize same-sex marriage, the Philippines still didn't budge. Being gay in itself is legal, but same-sex marriage still isn't.

Philippines ,the most Catholic Country in Southeast Asia, has held the largest Pride Parade in Southeast Asia.

Serbia

Serbia didn't have history from about 16th century to 1800's when the 1st revolt happened and failed till 1813's... Then yet another in 1830's for semi independence from Turks, and full in 1836

During the last lingering Ottoman rule over autonomous Serbia, Serbia was one of the very first few countries to have legal mostly everything... it then got removed with like 3 constitution changes and then it didn't move forward for a looong time

Switzerland

Would you have thought that small, conservative Switzerland was a center of the international gay community during the mid-20th century? The magazine "Der Kreis"- the circle - was the only queer magazine in the world that kept publishing during WWII. It was edited in Zurich and distributed internationally, which often meant illegal smuggling, even into nazi Germany. The magazine's annual ball was attended by hundreds of gay men from all over Europe each year. The whole thing was kept strictly secret from the public, though it was known and tolerated by the police.

The Kreis club disbanded in 1967, as repressions grew heavier after a number of murders in the scene had caught the public's attention. By then, other European and American groups took its place, publishing their own magazines.

They made a movie about it.

More info about Der Kreis

As of today, Switzerland doesn't allow gay marriage. A country-wide referendum will be held this fall on gay marriage.

The commenter speculates that gay marriage will be legalized.

A few people expressed surprise that Switerland is socially conservative and several people explained that women’s right to vote was only place in the 70s.

There’s a movie about it

Turkey

A Muslim Persian (born in modern day Turkey) philosopher/mysticist named Mewlana who is known for his sayings on acceptance and love for one another was gay! He had exchanged letters with his instructor Shams and wrote homoerotic poems to him! In Turkey this is ignored by many due to the country's stance on homosexuality

More information

Norway

The commenter’s hometown and the neighboring town arranged their first pride parade/event in 2017, which is a big deal for a small place and one of the local priests went livid and went straight to the newspaper and social media to condemn it. A local rapper wrote a short and to the point article in the newspaper calling him out for all kinds of things which was a great read. Then to top it off, the priest arranged for a "Jesus Parade" in protest to be held the day before the pride parade. Only like five people walked in it, not including the priest of course because he happened to be on vacation in Spain that week. The pride parade itself was a success though! It's become an annual event. Covid has put some breaks on it though, but they're making a documentary this year about the pride celebrations.

Hungary

Hungary has no same sex marriage or transition rights

Police are unkind to protestors

During “commie times,” being queer was illegal so queer people went to the gulag

Belgium

Same sex marriage was legalized in Belgium in 2003 (right after the NL who were the first in the world). The commenter says that same-sex marriage has always felt possible and she is confused about other countries’ actions.

Poland

Polish president on public assembly: 'LGBT is not people, this is ideology'.

Denmark

WHO took their sweet time declassifying being transgender as a mental illness, so Denmark got sick of waiting and became the first country to stop classifying it as an illness.

Australia

In Australia same-sex marriage wasn't legal until 2017.

Portugal

Portugal is know for having one of the most (if not THE most) peaceful revolutions in history back in the 60's, with only 4 deaths total.

Canada

Operation Soap.

Mexico

To learn more, watch Dance of the 41 on Netflix.

Netherlands

NL was one of the first countries to legalize gay marriage in 2001

Sweden

In Sweden they used to classify Homosexuality as a disease during the 20th century so in protest people would call in too gay to work.

New Zealand

When same sex marriage was legalized, the parliament broke into song.

The song

Other

Homosexuality is illegal in 73 countries, some by death or life in prison.

Only one country in Asia has legalized same-sex marriage: Taiwan

FNAF is older than same-sex marriage in the US

Condor Operation

I think this is some important stuff so please reblog so more people can see! And, if you would like to add to or correct anything here, feel free to do so!

[dwellordream]

“The ideal relationship that young women in the postwar decade were hoping for was what historians have dubbed "companionate marriage." The term is usually used to describe a marital ideal that incorporates characteristics such as companionship, mutual affection, and respect between spouses. In the early twentieth century, this was certainly not a new notion. According to some historians, the idea that marriage should be based at least in part upon affection and mutuality has been a feature of Western beliefs ever since the Reformation. Yet in the early decades of the twentieth century the significance ascribed to emotional ties between spouses grew to unprecedented heights. 

Simultaneously, new ideas about the role of sexuality in marriage came to replace older ones, and popular understandings of what constituted proper behavior for husbands and wives began to shift. In that sense, the era witnessed the emergence of a new marital ideal, and among its key advocates was the generation of women who came of age in the 1910s and 1920s. At the core of these young women's marital ideals were trust, sharing, and companionship. Much like generations before them, they envisioned the ideal marriage as a partnership, but in contrast to their mothers and grandmothers they rejected gender difference and gender complementarity as the basis for this partnership. 

While they expected husbands and wives to fulfill gender-specific roles and responsibilities within marriage, they defined the ideal relationship as one of equal and fundamentally similar partners who shared a deep emotional intimacy. As one young woman noted six months before her wedding in 1920, "I would . . . only want to marry a man who sees me as his beloved, his companion and friend, a participant and advisor in all that life brings." 

Using similar language, another young woman expressed the same hopes for her marriage. "The thought of sitting with my dearest friend in our own home, enjoying each other's company, quietly pondering the events of the day—that is one of the things I look so much forward to," she confided in a letter to her sister a few months before her wedding in 1924. "I will want to hear everything that is on his mind. [I will want to be] his friend, his assistant, his fellow conspirator on our journey through life."

Further differentiating their beliefs from nineteenth-century notions of an ideal marriage was the emphasis young women placed on physical intimacy. If their parents' generation had shied away from displays of physical affection, young women denned the ideal relationship as one characterized by emotional expressiveness, romance, and affection. In the words of one "happily married young wife," "tenderness and caresses— those are the things that sustain a marriage." Never, she counseled other women, should they "be stingy with or embarrassed by your love."

By the 1920s, new sexual ideologies had also filtered into young women's consciousness. By then, references to Freudian psychology and the writing of European sexologists were common even in popular magazines, and Danish sex reformers had already for years insisted on the importance of sexual enjoyment for both spouses in marriage. Not surprisingly, young women therefore incorporated pleasurable sexual relations as a key component in their marital ideal. As one young wife argued in 1920, "Marital relations, the complete giving of oneself to the other" ought to be the foundation for "a deep and beautiful shared life."

According to another young woman, marital success depended on "physical passion, a deep, mutual longing toward complete intimacy and abandonment of oneself to the other." "If this [passion] is not present," she continued, "it is not advisable to enter into marriage since [sexual relations] otherwise easily will make the woman feel degraded, the man disappointed, and daily life together will start crumbling." By the late 1920s, the notion that sexual passion was essential to marital success had become so widely accepted that when the Copenhagen newspaper B.T. in 1930 invited its readers to submit their answers to the question "What makes a marriage happy?" the winning essay emphasized exactly this aspect. 

"It is important that the two [spouses] are erotically compatible," the prize winners "A. L. and wife" noted. "Otherwise," they added, "their happiness will collapse sooner or later." Understandably, the generation of women who had insisted on being pals with men before marriage also carried this ideal with them after their weddings. In contrast to older patterns of separate, gender-segregated work and leisure activities for husbands and wives, they conceived of the ideal marriage as one in which spouses led deeply intertwined lives, sharing not only bed and board but also free time, hobbies, and interests. 

"A husband and a wife should share with each other every aspect of their life . . . and in a good marriage they will naturally want to do so," "Mrs. Marie" declared in 1925. Other women agreed, arguing that a "good marriage is built on true friendship. Shared interests allow a husband and a wife to continue to be good friends. .. . It is therefore of vital importance for a marriage that spouses have good interests in common." In the course of the postwar decade, then, young women, bent on freer, more exciting lives than those of their mothers, came to conceive of the ideal marriage as an intimate, egalitarian, sexually pleasurable partnership between like-minded individuals sharing, and enjoying, their lives to the greatest extent possible. 

If women who came of age in the postwar decade were particularly enthusiastic in their embrace of this marital ideal, the ideal itself did not necessarily derive from within their circles. In the 1910 and 1920s popular writers, journalists, psychologists, sexologists, advice columnists, and marriage counselors across the Western world promoted this vision of an ideal marriage. In their eyes, the norms and values that had shaped nineteenth-century marriages had simply become obsolete. Not only did asceticism and self-control seem increasingly old-fashioned in an emerging consumer culture, but patriarchal authority also seemed to violate new, more modern sensibilities. 

The gradual decline of separate spheres and experiments with cross-gender camaraderie had made emotional distance between spouses inappropriate. And in the light of new knowledge about the human mind and the human body, the kind of sexual repression that supposedly characterized nineteenth- century marriages had become outdated. In the twentieth century, such behaviors no longer had their place, and like the Scandinavian legislators who passed the marriage reform bills, they believed it necessary that marriages be reformed if the institution was to survive. Up against older norms, they therefore championed intimacy, romance, and camaraderie as the true foundations for a happy marriage, and young women adopted many of their ideas from these sources.

Surely, some young men must have been as interested as their female peers in this new marital ideal, but if that were the case, it was not something to which its many advocates paid much attention. Instead, the vast majority of the experts who played such a crucial role in the conceptualization of the new ideal seemed to rely almost entirely on women to carry out their vision. With few exceptions, they directed their counsel toward wives—not husbands or even couples—implicitly delegating to women the responsibility for translating the new ideal into reality. In part, this reflected conventional expectations of women as patrons and regulators of emotional life. As one advice columnist explained, "It is, after all, a good wife who holds the key to family happiness."

But by focusing their attention on women, marriage reformers also acknowledged that wives had a particular interest in promoting change. While companionate marriage was supposed to promote greater satisfaction for both spouses, they were keenly aware that women had more at stake in this issue. As one marriage counselor astutely noted, "Because the husband will have to give up some of the privileges he has previously had in the home, he can in most cases not be expected to lead the effort." In many ways, young women and professional experts therefore depended upon each other in their efforts to reform marriage. 

Throughout the postwar decade, young women eagerly read their tracts and listened to their recommendations, and the woman who wrote to an advice columnist, "I have asked my husband to read your answers," was certainly not the only one who sought to take advantage of professional expertise. Experts, on the other hand, quickly realized that even husbands who professed an interest in freer, more egalitarian relationships did not necessarily feel the same urgency about realizing these ideals as the women they married, and wisely enough, they therefore turned their attention toward female audiences, commending them for their willingness to take on what one journalist solemnly called "this great new labor of love."

But despite such occasional praise, marriage reformers tended to be more critical than supportive of the women who shared their ideals. Having delegated to them the responsibility for creating new marital relationships, they quickly proceeded to translate that responsibility into a duty and obligation, and when marriages failed, they typically placed the blame on wives. As one marriage counselor lectured young brides, "A husband's love . . . is a fragile flower that must be tended by gentle hands. If all women owned such gentle hands, marriage would not be such an unstable enterprise."

Because of their alleged responsibility in this area, women were, for example, more and more frequently made to bear the brunt of criticism when husbands lost interest in their wives. As one 1923 headline in a women's magazine asked, "Whose Is the Fault? Doesn't the Reason for the Many Divorces Often Lie in Women's Lack of Ability to Renew Themselves?" Over and over again, experts identified wives' carelessness with their looks as a key source of marital problems. Describing the near demise of one marriage, one magazine columnist typically noted that "during her engagement [the wife was] always dressed up, and her hair was always waved and carefully set." 

After the wedding she "slackened off" and began to appear "at the breakfast table with greasy cold cream on her face, curlers in her hair and wearing slippers," inevitably alienating her husband's affections. Only because she mended her ways, insisted the writer, did the marriage survive. As a result, marriage manuals often included beauty advice, and beauty experts often presented themselves as substitute marriage counselors. In addition, women were repeatedly reminded to retain their appeal as partners in conversation. This entailed, experts argued, a general open mindedness and at least some knowledge of events outside the domestic sphere. 

"A woman might possess plenty of admirable qualities," one magazine cautioned, "but if she cannot talk about anything besides her household, if she does not read anything, and if she does not know anything beyond the grind of everyday life, then no intelligent man will be able to stand her in the long run."" When one young wife somewhat indignantly asked an advice columnist whether "a husband has the right to be disgruntled just because his wife is mostly preoccupied with housework," she should therefore have expected the lecture she was about to receive. 

"Your husband is right," the editor of the column answered her. Today, a wife's duty extends far beyond cooking, baking, and washing. Like her husband, she ought to be interested in all forms of cultural enrichment available to her. She should not just be a washboard, a broomstick, and a wooden ladle. It is her responsibility to be her husband's intellectual match, and she should be interested in those cultural aspects that give life depth and nourishment and provide material for conversations that move beyond ordinary everyday nonsense. .. . In the end, it is the latter that creates the foundation for good fellowship—for marriage itself.

Obviously, married women were not encouraged to expand their minds because of the gratification they might find in this, but because of the pleasure it would bring their husbands. In the blunt words of one columnist, "[A] wife should be interested in the world outside the home if she wants her husband to be interested in her." Simultaneously, wives were encouraged to tone down their own problems and concerns. Specifically, they should never talk about housekeeping. "Meet him with a bright smile and a loving welcome," one marriage counselor suggested. "Do not immediately launch into a detailed description of all your worries and calamities." 

Adding to this general advice, another writer explained that "when a husband goes out frequently, it is because he is bored to death of listening to an endless monologue about the butcher and the baker and the grocer and the high prices on everything and about the children who always fight etc. in one never-ending gray monotony. No men like to listen to all that. . . . The wise wife therefore keeps her worries and troubles to herself." Obviously, if wives were to engage their husbands in the kind of intimate conversation they were longing for it would be on terms set by men. Only if they adopted interests and issues deriving from men's world and experiences could they with some justification expect their cooperation. 

Popular magazines, marriage manuals, and advice columns soon added yet another requirement to the list of criteria for being an attractive wife. From the mid-1920s, they began to bring up the issue of marital sexuality, reminding women of the importance of being active and interested sexual partners for their husbands. In itself, this emphasis on sexual pleasure in marriage was not entirely new. Since the beginning of the twentieth century, sexuality had generally been presented as a positive feature of marriage for both spouses. What was remarkable about the postwar discourse on marital sexuality was the change in tone. 

Prior to the 1920s, marriage and sex manuals had been aimed at men, typically giving them advice about how best to initiate young wives into marital sexuality without alienating their affection or crushing their desires. In the course of the 1920s, advice givers shifted their focus from men to women, admonishing wives not to neglect their sexual duties. From the mid-1920s, women were repeatedly reminded of their obligation to retain their spouses' erotic interest or suffer the consequences. If a husband fell in love with another woman, "saving his affection and politeness for her and taking his bad temper out on his wife," it was, one expert warned, most likely "because [the wife] no longer dresses up to please him."

A modern wife should, others claimed, "also be a mistress" and "at all times seek to captivate her husband." "Never be cold, indifferent or unwilling to give yourself to your husband if you want to preserve his love," one advice columnist warned. "It will alienate [him] and only bring unhappiness into your home." By the end of the decade, wives were not only expected to engage in marital sexuality with pleasure, but had in fact been accorded the responsibility for maintaining an erotic atmosphere within the home and providing sexual fulfillment for their husbands. In the course of the 1920s, experts of all kinds thus heaped a dizzying array of new duties and responsibilities on married women.”

- Birgitte Soland, “From Pragmatic Unions to Romantic Partnerships?” in Becoming Modern: Young Women and the Reconstruction of Womanhood in the 1920s

[starr-fall-knight-rise]

Humans are Space Orcs, “I Have Seen.”

Wrote something easy and more similar to my original stories today. I hope you like it. 

I have been thinking about taking a couple days off from writing these stories, since I have been working non stop on this and the book for over a year now, so I am considering taking a break for about a week so I don’t burn out. I haven’t decided yet, so we shall see, but I hope you all have a great day.

I have a job no one knows about.

I don’t think anyone would be surprised if they heard about my job. I don’t even think they would care all that much.

None of this explains why my work station is in the basement of a nondescript government bunker on a death planet…. A!36. I can’t explain why I need three codes to get into my office, or why I go through five locked doors, or why I am not allowed to tell anyone what I do on pain of termination and imprisonment. 

You would assume, perhaps that I am a spy, and involved in some covert cloak and dagger espionage against other species and nations: you would be wrong.

You might assume I am a weapons developer, but you would also be wrong.

Perhaps you think I spend my time wire-tapping on important calls between species and recording important information.

None of this is really the case.

In fact, what I do is quite safe and relatively simple, plenty of other non-humans are doing it of their own accord and plenty more humans do it on a regular basis. What I do is not illegal, it is not espionage, it wouldn’t even phase you.

If that is the case.

Why do so many of my coworkers go missing?

Why are there absent desks every few months?

Why can I not make any lasting friends?

Management always give excuses to those of us who are left.

They left for mental health reasons.

THey moved on to a different job.

They are moving up in the company.

They had to be let go.

All things generic and all things that wouldn’t generally raise suspicion… unless they happen so frequently as us.

You may be wondering at this point, what it is I do for a job.

Perhaps, you think, it is very boring and unfulfilling that I would go insane from sheer boredom.

No, I actually find my job quite interesting.

Perhaps you think my job forces me to watch very disturbing and violent things…. And I suppose that could be close to the truth, though no one forces us to watch the videos if we don’t want, and no one makes us read the material if we cannot handle it. In fact, there are those of us who specialize in that sort of thing.

I do.

I am a specialist in historical xenopsychology.

I study human history.

When I say that I study human history, I do not mean as in a passing fancy. I do not simply read their school children’s textbooks and accept everything I see as truth, no, every day , I come into work and it is my job, to learn about everything that has ever happened in human history, to the best of my ability.

It is my job to know the good, the bad, the ugly, and the monstrous.

I work from day to night, cataloguing and filling my brain with all the information I can before recording it as a lecture on aura drives, which are then stored away for future use in a deep backup system under the surface of this planet.

I have followed human history since the beginning of time.

And I have marveled at it.

Much of my research is flawed, I know. Human history has always been biased, history being shaped and molded by the winners of conflict. Much of what else I know stems primarily from scholarly work humans have done on their own species, looking back the centuries and making assumptions about what they were doing.

While this is a good insite -- humans trying to explain the behavior of other humans-- it isn’t necessarily correct.

For this reason, it is my job to study every piece of information that comes across my desk.

Due to a government agreement between the galactic assembly and the United Nations of Earth, I was given access to the rebuilt library of Alexandria and all of its electronic files which include photos and information on the original documents that they keep in sealed vaults below the library.

I have read every account of human history, and every second hand interpretation of human history that I could possibly find in my time working here.

I have read Darwin and his early theory regarding evolution. I have examined his evidence, which include images and diagrams of the human body spanning centuries. My determinations were made just the same as the rest of them. Humanity was a tree-living species that found its evolutionary niche through walking and the use of opposable thumbs.

This ability to walk, in tandem with the use of hands eventually gave rise to the slow swelling of the brain in comparison to other animals. Human evolved primitive tools, and even more primitive religions, societies and rules.

They developed art early on, painting on the walls of their caves, in the darkness of night surrounded by their fires.

I have read about their befriending of animals in that same darkness. Man’s slow molding of the wolf into the dog - a species designed specifically for the needs of man.

I have attempted to read every account of every atrocity ever inflicted on humanity.

I have read of wars, and battles, Marathon, Thermopylae, Kadesh, D-day, Vietnam, Korea, Russo-Japanese, World wars I, II, III,  and IV and the Panasian War. 

I have witnessed in images and first hand accounts the chilling discoveries of natural disasters gone back thousands of years. Pompeii, Mt. St Helens, Katrina, Tsunamis, earthquakes, the fire of london, 1887 yellow river flood, the 3130 California earthquake, and Haiti earthquakes. 

And I have studied and witnessed every atrocity man has ever committed on its own people. The Mongol hordes, the crusades, Mayan and Aztec sacrifices, The Armenian genocide, the Holocaust, mustard gas, 9/11, slavery in the America, the Trail of Tears, The Bataan Death March, the Berlin wall, Civil war, the French revolution, Nanjing, Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

I tore a hole in humanity and looked inside to see your rot. 

I study the maggots that crawl under your skin.

Don’t confuse me with someone who fears you, or is even disgusted by you. You have committed thousands of horrors, yes this is true. But humanity is not a polished gem, it is an uncut stone marred by dirt and debris, but beautiful in a way that can hardly be explained.

You scrub away the rot only to find more underneath, yet you continue to scrub, in a futile attempt to better yourselves.

It is a beautiful thing if not in vain.

I do not judge you for your crimes because I have also seen your achievements. I watched you survive  the dark ages, I learned your philosophy from the greek world which brought the beauty of democracy and equity in later forms. I watched the enlightenment of the Renaissance, and have seen your beautiful artwork from each period of time. 

I have witnessed your great nations and empires rise and fall, Assyria, Byzantine, Rome, Britain, Egypt, Mongole, Aztek, Soviet Union, The chinese Dynasties and the Communist parties. The United States, and the Asian Co-Prosperity Collective

I have seen your bravery and your loss.

I have learned about the good that walks your earth.

Humans who stood up to tyrants.

I have even examined your stories of creation, of deities who molded humans from clay or dust, watched your world come into form in seven days, or ride on the backs of giant animals. I have seen the gods gift you with fire and learned the teaching of your martyrs over the centuries. Men and women slain and stoned or pulled away by spirits. I have learned of crucifixion, death and rebirth as well as reincarnation and a return to the very fabric of the universe itself.

I see everything.

I see everything. I see it all in my dreams laid out before me like a tapestry following each woven thread through the ages. I thought if I looked back, I could know as much as I possibly could. If I dug deep enough, I would be able to see your secrets.

And I have discovered you.

I see you hiding in there.

I know what you are.

Come out, come out.

And I won’t stop until it is all over and your cities crumbled into dust and bone.

…

…

I am being called into my manager’s office. Perhaps I too am ready to go up in the company.

...

I will be back soon…

Deus