#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/ Chapter 5

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.

[rebelliousstories]

Kiss

ValenFics

Relationship: Cooper “The Ghoul” Howard x Reader

Fandom: Fallout

Request: No

Warnings: Fluff, Mention of Untoward Behavior Against Women, Violence, and Drinking

Word Count: 859

Main Masterlist: Here

Fallout Masterlist: Here

Summary: A ghoul and a normie walk into a bar…

Consider Donating: Here

The arid conditions of their home were miserable at best. Adding the lack of hospitality because everyone was out for only themselves, well, people were less than friendly. Traveling with a partner was unusual, especially when one was a ghoul. An infamous ghoul, at that.

But traveling into the next town with two pouches full of caps from their previous bounty, the duo decided to stop in to have a drink. It would be dark soon, but that did not bother wither one of them. Instead, they just quietly strolled into town as the sun was setting, and found the inn.

“Fancy a drink, cowpoke? My treat.” She offered the man, who tipped his hat towards her.

“I guess that’ll be alright.” The Ghoul replied, following her inside. The bar was a lively area this time of night as everyone wanted to come in for a drink. For a normal human, no one bats an eye. But for a ghoul, especially one of the most feared, everyone is stopping to stare at him.

“We’ll take a room for the night, and start us off with a bottle.” Cooper’s partner tossed a few caps on the counter, as they both sat down. He was still focused on the surrounding stares of contempt or indifference at his own being, and the confused ones towards her.

“You can stay.” The gruff barkeep grumbled. “You need to go, Ghoul.”

“He stays.” She barked out, shoving the caps over. “The bottle?”

When the man across the counter did not move, she began taking the caps away. “Fine. If you can’t give us what we need, we’ll take our caps somewhere else.”

“No!” In a flash, a larger hand covered her own, and tightly. Glaring up at him, she was just about to draw her gun from her side, when she heard a soft click come from her left.

“Now, that ain’t no way to treat a woman. Hand off unless you wanna wear a stump.” Cooper growled in that thick accent of his.

Snarling, the barkeep did just that. But he did make sure to snap at him. “We don’t welcome ghouls in here. Not in the bar, not in the rooms. Get lost. But you can stay, pretty thing.”

“He can’t stay?” She asked, in a tone that was laced thick with faux innocence. “You’ll accept my caps, but not allow my partner to stay? Tell me how that makes sense.”

“Just the rules, miss. But if you need a partner, my room is just above the shop.” Even though he tried to come across as smooth, she just felt her skin crawl. The yellowed- teeth, rancid smell, and dirty skin just added to her disgust. Yanking her hand from underneath, the woman leveled the barkeep with a deadly expression.

“I don’t need another partner.” She drawled.

In an instant, before anyone else realized what had happened, she had engaged The Ghoul in an intense lip lock. No one was more surprised by this than the man who she was actively kissing. Spending so long without the gentle touch of another, Cooper was unsure of what to do for the moment. But muscle memory kicked in, and after two centuries, he returned a kiss.

The lack of a nose made it a little weird, but not unwelcome. Textured lips met ones that were a lot smoother in an effortless dance. Cooper never truly realized just how touch starved he was before now, and he was sure to take his time to enjoy it. Far too soon, she pulled away, leaving the both of them breathless; and the rest of the bar, speechless.

“Now, I’m gonna take my caps,” as soon as she said it, so she did it. “And we gonna take our business elsewhere. If you don’t care to take my caps, then there’s no reason to stay. Come on, baby.”

Depositing the caps back into her pouch, she grabbed the gloved hand of her partner and went out into the night again. Once the air hit their skin, the pair let out equal sighs of relief. But soon, Cooper took back over to drag her into an alley nearby.

“The hell was that?” He barked the second they were out of view. Between the warm light of the street lamps around them, and the full moon ahead, there was enough light that he could see her clearly.

With a smirk on her face, she tilted her head up at him. “He didn’t want to take my money because I travel with a ghoul. I just wanted to show him that you were with me.”

Cooper huffed out a laugh as he shook his head. Without a word, he threw one hand to her waist, the other to the back of her head, and yanked her closer. For the second time that night, they were engaged in a wonderful kiss. It was a wonderful turn of events, but something that they could not stop even if they wanted to. Stood underneath the lights shining around them, The Ghoul and his human partner knew that their relationship was changing, and for the better.

[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.

[newfoodblogerxxx]

Marriage, commonly spelled "marriage," seems to be a typographical error for "marriage." Marriage is a legally and socially sanctioned union between individuals, typically characterized by mutual rights and obligations. It is a universal institution with variations in practices, rituals, and legal implications across different cultures and societies.

Key Aspects of Marriage:

Legal Contract: Marriage often involves a legal contract that grants specific rights and responsibilities to the partners, such as inheritance rights, tax benefits, and parental responsibilities.

Social Institution: It is a fundamental social institution that forms the basis of family structures. It provides a framework for the upbringing of children and the regulation of sexual behavior.

Cultural Significance: Marriage ceremonies and traditions vary widely across cultures. These can include religious rituals, symbolic gestures, and communal celebrations.

Types of Marriage:

Monogamy: Union between two individuals.

Polygamy: Union involving more than two partners, which can be further divided into polygyny (one man with multiple women) and polyandry (one woman with multiple men).

Same-Sex Marriage: Union between individuals of the same sex, recognized in many countries.

Purposes:

Companionship: Emotional and social support.

Procreation: Raising children within a stable environment.

Economic Stability: Combining resources for financial security.

Social Status: In some cultures, marriage confers social respectability and status.

Challenges: Marriage can face challenges such as communication issues, financial stress, infidelity, and differing life goals. Counseling and mutual effort are often required to maintain a healthy relationship.

Legal Dissolution: Divorce is the legal process of ending a marriage, which involves the division of assets, custody arrangements for children, and sometimes alimony.

Historical Context:

Marriage has evolved over centuries. In ancient times, it was often a means of forming alliances between families or tribes. Over time, the concept of marriage for love gained prominence, especially in Western cultures.

Modern Trends:

Cohabitation: Many couples choose to live together without formal marriage.

Delayed Marriage: People are marrying later in life, often after achieving educational and career goals.

Diverse Forms: Increasing acceptance of diverse forms of marriage, including same-sex unions and interracial marriages.

Marriage remains a significant institution, though its forms and functions continue to evolve with societal changes.....Learn More

[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!!!!

[newfoodblogxxxxxxx]

Marriage, commonly spelled "marriage," seems to be a typographical error for "marriage." Marriage is a legally and socially sanctioned union between individuals, typically characterized by mutual rights and obligations. It is a universal institution with variations in practices, rituals, and legal implications across different cultures and societies.

Key Aspects of Marriage:

Legal Contract: Marriage often involves a legal contract that grants specific rights and responsibilities to the partners, such as inheritance rights, tax benefits, and parental responsibilities.

Social Institution: It is a fundamental social institution that forms the basis of family structures. It provides a framework for the upbringing of children and the regulation of sexual behavior.

Cultural Significance: Marriage ceremonies and traditions vary widely across cultures. These can include religious rituals, symbolic gestures, and communal celebrations.

Types of Marriage:

Monogamy: Union between two individuals.

Polygamy: Union involving more than two partners, which can be further divided into polygyny (one man with multiple women) and polyandry (one woman with multiple men).

Same-Sex Marriage: Union between individuals of the same sex, recognized in many countries.

Purposes:

Companionship: Emotional and social support.

Procreation: Raising children within a stable environment.

Economic Stability: Combining resources for financial security.

Social Status: In some cultures, marriage confers social respectability and status.

Challenges: Marriage can face challenges such as communication issues, financial stress, infidelity, and differing life goals. Counseling and mutual effort are often required to maintain a healthy relationship.

Legal Dissolution: Divorce is the legal process of ending a marriage, which involves the division of assets, custody arrangements for children, and sometimes alimony.

Historical Context:

Marriage has evolved over centuries. In ancient times, it was often a means of forming alliances between families or tribes. Over time, the concept of marriage for love gained prominence, especially in Western cultures.

Modern Trends:

Cohabitation: Many couples choose to live together without formal marriage.

Delayed Marriage: People are marrying later in life, often after achieving educational and career goals.

Diverse Forms: Increasing acceptance of diverse forms of marriage, including same-sex unions and interracial marriages.

Marriage remains a significant institution, though its forms and functions continue to evolve with societal changes.....Learn More

[newfoodbloggi]

Marriage, commonly spelled "marriage," seems to be a typographical error for "marriage." Marriage is a legally and socially sanctioned union between individuals, typically characterized by mutual rights and obligations. It is a universal institution with variations in practices, rituals, and legal implications across different cultures and societies.

Key Aspects of Marriage:

Legal Contract: Marriage often involves a legal contract that grants specific rights and responsibilities to the partners, such as inheritance rights, tax benefits, and parental responsibilities.

Social Institution: It is a fundamental social institution that forms the basis of family structures. It provides a framework for the upbringing of children and the regulation of sexual behavior.

Cultural Significance: Marriage ceremonies and traditions vary widely across cultures. These can include religious rituals, symbolic gestures, and communal celebrations.

Types of Marriage:

Monogamy: Union between two individuals.

Polygamy: Union involving more than two partners, which can be further divided into polygyny (one man with multiple women) and polyandry (one woman with multiple men).

Same-Sex Marriage: Union between individuals of the same sex, recognized in many countries.

Purposes:

Companionship: Emotional and social support.

Procreation: Raising children within a stable environment.

Economic Stability: Combining resources for financial security.

Social Status: In some cultures, marriage confers social respectability and status.

Challenges: Marriage can face challenges such as communication issues, financial stress, infidelity, and differing life goals. Counseling and mutual effort are often required to maintain a healthy relationship.

Legal Dissolution: Divorce is the legal process of ending a marriage, which involves the division of assets, custody arrangements for children, and sometimes alimony.

Historical Context:

Marriage has evolved over centuries. In ancient times, it was often a means of forming alliances between families or tribes. Over time, the concept of marriage for love gained prominence, especially in Western cultures.

Modern Trends:

Cohabitation: Many couples choose to live together without formal marriage.

Delayed Marriage: People are marrying later in life, often after achieving educational and career goals.

Diverse Forms: Increasing acceptance of diverse forms of marriage, including same-sex unions and interracial marriages.

Marriage remains a significant institution, though its forms and functions continue to evolve with societal changes.....Learn More

[newfoodblogertren]

Marriage, commonly spelled "marriage," seems to be a typographical error for "marriage." Marriage is a legally and socially sanctioned union between individuals, typically characterized by mutual rights and obligations. It is a universal institution with variations in practices, rituals, and legal implications across different cultures and societies.

Key Aspects of Marriage:

Legal Contract: Marriage often involves a legal contract that grants specific rights and responsibilities to the partners, such as inheritance rights, tax benefits, and parental responsibilities.

Social Institution: It is a fundamental social institution that forms the basis of family structures. It provides a framework for the upbringing of children and the regulation of sexual behavior.

Cultural Significance: Marriage ceremonies and traditions vary widely across cultures. These can include religious rituals, symbolic gestures, and communal celebrations.

Types of Marriage:

Monogamy: Union between two individuals.

Polygamy: Union involving more than two partners, which can be further divided into polygyny (one man with multiple women) and polyandry (one woman with multiple men).

Same-Sex Marriage: Union between individuals of the same sex, recognized in many countries.

Purposes:

Companionship: Emotional and social support.

Procreation: Raising children within a stable environment.

Economic Stability: Combining resources for financial security.

Social Status: In some cultures, marriage confers social respectability and status.

Challenges: Marriage can face challenges such as communication issues, financial stress, infidelity, and differing life goals. Counseling and mutual effort are often required to maintain a healthy relationship.

Legal Dissolution: Divorce is the legal process of ending a marriage, which involves the division of assets, custody arrangements for children, and sometimes alimony.

Historical Context:

Marriage has evolved over centuries. In ancient times, it was often a means of forming alliances between families or tribes. Over time, the concept of marriage for love gained prominence, especially in Western cultures.

Modern Trends:

Cohabitation: Many couples choose to live together without formal marriage.

Delayed Marriage: People are marrying later in life, often after achieving educational and career goals.

Diverse Forms: Increasing acceptance of diverse forms of marriage, including same-sex unions and interracial marriages.

Marriage remains a significant institution, though its forms and functions continue to evolve with societal changes.....Learn More

[a-rose-tinted-life]

A Rose-Tinted Life

Episode Nine: The Benefits of Cinematic Inspiration

Hello, my darlings! Welcome back and thank you for reading “A Rose-Tinted Life”!

Today’s exploration delves into a marvelous invention that emerged in the mid-1890s — the advent of cinema. For the past century and a half, movies have graced the world with their presence, captivating audiences and providing a much-needed respite from the monotony of everyday life. With their unparalleled ability to transport, inspire, and educate viewers, movies have become a wellspring of motivation and a catalyst for personal growth and development.

Movies have served as a beacon of inspiration and philosophical guidance for personal development. By portraying characters who overcome daunting obstacles and achieve their objectives, movies ignite a spark within viewers, encouraging them to pursue their own ambitions and believe in their potential. Additionally, movie characters often act as role models, embodying certain values and behaviors that can pave the way for personal growth and triumph. By mirroring these virtuous traits, individuals can embark on a path toward fulfillment and success.

Movies have a remarkable ability to delve into the intricacies of human relationships and emotions, providing audiences with profound insights. Through their narrative and cinematography, movies offer a mirror for self-reflection, encouraging viewers to reflect on their own personal growth and development. By observing the complex emotional landscapes portrayed on the silver screen, viewers are prompted to delve deeper into their own emotions and relationships, fostering a greater understanding of themselves and the world around them.

Movies often provide profound insights into human nature, illuminating aspects such as the universal human desire for connection and belonging. “The Breakfast Club” serves as an exemplary illustration of this phenomenon, delving into the lives of five diverse high school students who, despite their surface-level differences, ultimately discover the power of friendship and camaraderie. Through its poignant storytelling and relatable characters, “The Breakfast Club” not only entertains but also imparts valuable lessons about the importance of understanding and embracing our innate human need for connection, acceptance, and belonging.

Some movies showcase the admirable quality of human resilience in overcoming adversity. A classic example of this is “Rocky,” wherein the main character, Rocky Balboa, triumphs against the odds through sheer grit and unwavering determination. In a mere two hours, the film illustrates the profound notion that human resilience allows us to rise above even the most formidable challenges, instilling in us a sense of hope and empowerment.

Movies have long served as a mirror to human values and behaviors, and “The Pursuit of Happyness” is a poignant example. Through its portrayal of the main character’s journey, the film highlights the essential role of honesty and integrity in shaping our lives and relationships. The protagonist’s unwavering commitment to his principles, even in the face of adversity, serves as a potent reminder of the value of standing by one’s convictions, no matter the cost.

Movies often serve as a fountain of inspiration and motivation across various facets of life. Whether it be career goals, romantic relationships, or personal aspirations, films can provide a wealth of guidance and wisdom. It’s not uncommon for individuals to find themselves drawing inspiration from movie characters and narratives as they grapple with the standards they set for different aspects of their existence. From the classic tale of Rocky’s triumph over adversity to the poignant portrayal of love in “The Notebook,” cinema holds the power to inform and inspire our standards in all areas of life.

“Hidden Figures” stands as a powerful example, recounting the untold story of brilliant African-American women who defied racial and gender barriers to make significant contributions to NASA’s space program. This film not only entertains but also inspires, showcasing the resilience and determination of these trailblazing individuals who triumphed over adversity to achieve success in their chosen careers.

“The Notebook” and “You’ve Got Mail” are exemplary films that delve into the intricate and touching realm of romantic relationships. By presenting characters navigating the ups and downs of love, these films offer a window into what it means to forge deep, meaningful connections. Whether it’s the epic love story of Noah and Allie in “The Notebook” or the charming online romance of Kathleen Kelly and Joe Fox in “You’ve Got Mail,” these movies not only captivate audiences but also inspire viewers to seek out and nurture heartfelt relationships in their own lives.

Movies like “The Theory of Everything” and A Beautiful Mind” show us people doing admirably courageous, empathetic, and resilient things. By watching these characters, we learn and get inspired — making the characters role models. By considering what they do and how they act, we reflect on our behaviors and try to be the best version of ourselves.

Movies not only provide entertainment; they also serve as a springboard for creativity and personal expression. Movie characters, from their outfits to their attitudes, can have a profound influence on our sense of style and self-presentation. Iconic looks such as Audrey Hepburn’s little black dress in “Breakfast at Tiffany’s” or the rebellious punk-rock aesthetic in “The Craft” have served as sources of inspiration for fashion trends and interior design. These films remind us of the power of personal aesthetics and how it can shape how others perceive us.

Movies provide abundant inspiration for home decor and visual aesthetics through their imaginative sets, interiors, and locales. From cozy apartments in “Friends” to elegant mansions in “The Great Gatsby,” films set the stage for unique and inspiring home designs that viewers can replicate, such as lighting, color palettes, and composition.

My dears, while finding inspiration through movies can be a wonderful and uplifting experience, it is crucial to approach it with caution and mindfulness. By embracing the uplifting messages and positive aspects of films, we can enrich our lives and inspire personal growth. However, it is equally important to remember that movies are works of fiction and do not always reflect reality. As we seek inspiration for life, we must ensure that we distinguish between the realms of imagination and reality, so that we might find balance and wisdom in all our endeavors.

While movies may provide uplifting messages, they often show an idealized version of life and relationships, not always reflecting reality. Over-reliance on these portrayals could lead to unrealistic expectations and disappointment in real life. Therefore, it’s important to approach movie inspirations with an understanding of their limitations and a dose of realism.

Dear readers, while movies can offer valuable insights and provoke thoughts, it is important to remember that they are works of fiction and not always accurate representations of reality. Some movies may depict relationships or behaviors that are unhealthy or toxic, and if you find such aspects mirroring your own life, it is crucial to seek professional help immediately. A trained therapist or counselor can provide the necessary support and guidance to help you navigate any challenging or negative aspects of your life. As you embark on your personal development journey, it is important to approach movies and real-life situations with caution and mindfulness, and always prioritize your emotional and mental well-being.

To my dear readers, while movies can offer insights and motivation for personal growth, it is essential to approach them with caution. Although movies can spark creativity and teach us about human nature and the complexities of life, it is crucial to remember not to adopt unrealistic expectations or toxic behaviors portrayed in them. Instead, let their positive aspects, such as bravery, compassion, and resilience, guide you towards personal empowerment, love, and a meaningful life. May your journey be filled with hope, transformation, and the enchanting power of cinema as you navigate through your personal growth.

Until next time, my darlings…

Thank you so much for reading! Make sure to show your support and get updates by following my Instagram and X

Instagram: @arosetintedlife2024

X: @Arosetintedlife

[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.