#to justify & moralize violence against women

[maxdibert]

One thing is to interpret certain behaviors of the characters, and another is to invent their personalities. If the James you like is a completely different person from the canon, then you don't like James Potter. You like a character you've invented and named James, period. Because that is not James Potter. The James Potter in the books has a series of characteristics that are clear and well-marked. Even Rowling herself said he was a bully, and Harry himself is aware that he was a bully, which is why he feels deeply disappointed in his father. It doesn't matter if you want to interpret him differently, reality is reality. I’m totally in favor of creating OCs within different fictional universes and building new lore within those same worlds. It’s something many of you could do if you clearly don’t like or feel uncomfortable with the personalities of the canon characters, instead of completely inventing new ones that fit your moral value scale and at the same time allow you to project yourselves as the main characters, which is ultimately what you like about them, nothing more.

On the other hand, I’m really sorry, but you’re the one who made a post making humor about violence and abuse. I don’t care if it's a joke; it’s the same as joking about racism or rape—it's equally problematic and condemnable. Just because you think that humor is justified because it’s aimed at an image of something you utterly dislike and dehumanize it completely, it doesn’t make it any less terrible. As I told you, any random sexist could have made the same post making a joke about rape and then say, 'It’s just humor,' and then claim, 'Well, it’s my fanon interpretation of things,' and I don’t think anyone would find that ethical. Sometimes, in order to understand the seriousness or problematic nature of something, it’s necessary to swap a couple of concepts. Because yes, your post sounds like that, it reads like that, and that kind of humor is just as stale as that of a hentai-obsessed guy making 'irreverent humor.' There are comments saying 'bullying is bad, but there are exceptions,' and you laugh at them. Substitute bullying for racism, homophobia, or abuse against women, and you’ll see how messed up it sounds. Some of you have the level of double standards off the charts

snape stans will be like “but james bullied snape!”

like… yeah someone had to

[harpieisthecarpie]

idc what the actual plot of Heretic (2024) is, it's mormon missionary yuri to me

oh sister paxton, sister barnes, the women you are

[friendlyneighborhoodamara]

Can't sleep so I'm gonna talk about Akane Tendo's reputation among fans. It's no secret I'm an Akane fan, and I'm glad that the fandom seems to be kinder to her today than in the past. In light of this, I'd like to address some of the common arguments people make or used to make against her.

For reference, a significant chunk of the humor in Ranma 1/2 involves Ranma, often intentionally, pissing Akane off, to the point that she hits him really, really hard. This is a pretty common comedic trope in shonen anime prior to like...I wanna say the 2010s? (I never watched Naruto since it looked bad but I am pretty sure that's Sakura and Naruto's dynamic.) Anyways, while I joined the fandom recently, I have learned that when the show came over to America in the early 90s, Akane was SUPER controversial for treating Ranma like this, with her critics calling her a violent domestic abuser and misandrist, and her reputation has only really recovered recently.

Now, if the "girl character beats up boy character in fit of rage" trope is something that isn't your taste in comedy, then it's not your taste in comedy. However, it's important to keep in mind qualifiers for Akane's behavior. Akane at the start of the series has been harassed by boys at her school who want to beat her up and force her to date them, leading to her having a justifiably poor perception of men and boys. Her hating boys and seeing the worst in them is very different from a man hating women due to patriarchal expectations, and even then she treats boys who are nice to her like Ryoga well.

Honestly, the only area where her dislike of boys gets kinda like morally problematic in my view is if you interpret Ranma as a trans girl: while I joked in an earlier post that Akane is a TERF, one could argue that, albeit unintentionally, Akane's negative reaction to seeing Ranma naked in her bathtub (even if accidentally) and then calling him/her a pervert plays on transphobic rhetoric against letting trans women use the women's restrooms like we're supposed to. (Humorously, most of the people mad at Akane seem to be, ah...not exactly fond of trans!Ranma headcanons, but I digress.) If other trans girls or our allies don't find the slapstick funny for that reason, fair enough, but I don't feel bothered by it given how most of the time Ranma gets hit it's for being legitimately rude and again the violence is very unrealistic.

Admittedly, if Ranma 1/2 had a more serious tone and grounded level of violence, Akane hitting Ranma would be abusive. But in the series, martial artists can walk off stuff like being crushed by a boulder, so Akane beating Ranma up by kicking him/her 50 feet into the sky because she thought he/she was trying to feel her up is not so much like domestic abuse and more akin to a wife giving her husband a light dope slap. Remember, much of the violence in this series is basically just that of a Tom and Jerry cartoon, albeit with an early Dragon Ball aesthetic. Furthermore, Ranma - as much as I love him/her as a character - is usually the instigator, with the wiki even having a list of the cruel nicknames he/she gives her, so it's not as if her actions are unwarranted:

There is, per some people, a gendered component to this discussion, that if the genders were flipped, this wouldn't be funny since Ranma doesn't hit Akane. Now, firstly, if you're a man and a 35-year-old anime not having a boy beat up a girl enough is your worst experience with "sexism", well...get over it. Secondly, in terms of wider media, men commit violence against women that is framed for laughs all the time (ex.: Miroku in Inuyasha, another Rumiko Takahashi series, is a male character where his running gag involves him groping women, which is a more realistic form of violence than anything Akane dishes out), so the notion that it's only women who hurt men in media for laughs is untrue. Thirdly, the notion that hitting Ranma is viewed as okay because "he's a boy" is dubious since he does canonically turn into a girl and Akane hits Ranma regardless of gende, and despite his claims to the contrary he/she doesn't really hate being a girl as much as he/she claims. As a concession, I will note that especially in the past some writers can be reluctant to show slapstick against women, but this is more due to internalized misogyny and viewing women as weak and needing protection. Personally, even assuming that Akane was a boy and Ranma was wholly a girl, I'd have no problem with the slapstick since it's clearly goofy and unrealistic.

Anyways, I'd like to conclude by saying (1) I am glad that I joined the fandom at a time when Akane is being perceived more and more fairly as a flawed but generally pretty nice and hilarious character who has a good deal of pathos despite the clearly slapstick-y nature of the series, and (2) thanks for reading this long, very sincere post.

[plaidos]

Would u be open to a dm asking for advice on a complicated irl instance of transmisogyny? Long story short, I’m trying to navigate a strain on two friendships - one friend is friends with an afab nb who posted a harshly worded callout about a local white trans fem after she seems to have caused harm to them and other non-white (afab?) queers n women, the other friends are trans fem and casual friends with the girl who was called out. My trans fem friends see this situation as being built on overstated harm and the response as employing transmisogynist rhetoric, my other friend assures me there is a legitimate pattern of harm and believes the response to be justified because of that. I’m white and tme, and having a hard time wrapping my head around the pain caused in either direction - I don’t want to downplay harm / coercion especially when there seems to be a racial pattern at play, and I don’t want to dismiss transmisogyny or act like the power dynamic btwn tme / trans fem doesn’t also underly all this. I’m scared of losing friends but I know it’s a possibility - if I do, I want to do so because I came to a conclusion I can honestly stand by. Damn sorry that’s so long winded, it’s been eating at me - touchy subject so no need to respond but didn’t wanna dump something even lengthier in ur dm’s under some assumption u would be ok with it

i’m inclined to agree with your transfem friends — accusations of racism should be taken seriously, and the accusations might even be true, but a callout post is not “an accusation of racism” — it’s a callout post; it’s a public exile of trans women from online spaces with an acceptable excuse. it would not be acceptable to run another demographic off of this website & demand her friends cut her off due to subjective hearsay being treated as gospel whenever a trans woman can suffer. Transfeminists have talked at great length at how callout posts are a form of acceptable social violence towards trans women. Hell, from the way you’re describing her friends’ reactions it doesn’t even sound like they think this girl didn’t do anything wrong — an “overstatement of harm” absolutely fits the M.O. of TME folks unpersoning a trans woman.

My opinion of this is whatever this trans girl did, a callout post is a totally unacceptable way to platform those grievances, and it seems like it is intentionally being leveraged specifically to cut this girl off from her friends and community. I’d side against the person comfortable being judge jury and executioner of any trans woman who sleights them — even if this girl is the scummiest racist, this TME person is not the moral arbiter of who can share community with her

anyway, i guarantee you that there is another pattern at play with this TME person who thinks callout posts are an acceptable way to unperson one. I would be willing to bet money that they have made other similar callout posts about specifically other trans women. I mean, it practically always is, right? 😭

[euniexenoblade]

I think it's funny you continue to put all your shit in tags still, why are you afraid to speak with your whole chest? If you're so morally right, why aren't you upfront and proud of it?

Transandrophobia is an ideology made by crypto terfs meant to justify harassment and violence against trans women. That's why your community has people like nothorses who cites literal terfs in his writing, or people like crimsonender who cyberstalks trans women and makes posts about wanting to hunt and kill trans women, that's why constantly your community misgender trans women and goes full terfs CONSTANTLY talking about "actually sex based oppression is real and trans women are violent male faggots" there's a new "transandrophobia is real and feminism is fake!" Poster going full terf nearly daily. "I just post about how cool transmascs are!" Cool but that's not what transandrophobia is! Transandrophobia is the theft of feminist ideas and repurposed to kick trans women out. "No one talks about this thing that happens ONLY to trans men" except they do it's been in feminist theory for decades but y'all lie about it cuz it also happens to trans women and anything to erase our experiences and call us privileged males.

"I never said you being a feminist or woman is bad" that's what signaling me as a transandrophobe is "I didn't tell anyone to target you" THATS WHAT CALLING ME TRANSANDROPHOBIc DOES there is literally anonymous hatemail in my inbox that I got relatively close to you doing that, could be coincidence but I fucking doubt it.

"your every post is mocking transmascs 🙄" no it's not???? I write smut. Most of my blog is smut and pictures of anime maids. You don't know anything about me, you saw like one post on my blog about transmisogyny and decided I was some terrible misandrist or whatever.

And if transandrophobia actually mattered to you, you wouldn't have reblogged me. It shows how paper thin your morals are, you're spineless.

You're a transmisogynist. You could have reblogged the post without saying a god damn thing, but you didn't and now I'm getting harassment. You could have just kept scrolling and not been a little douchebag cryptoterf, but noooo the tranny is talking so you gotta make sure everyone knows shes a bad one not deserving of respect.

Without hrt, Christmas is just cismas.

[cpericardium]

So! I've gotten a host of messages and asks regarding recent disk horse and I wanted to address them as a collective.

I know I have anon asks off, I won't share your URLs, but I do want to thank you for asking and clarifying some of the frankly vile things people have been saying about me, my girlfriend, and friends. I value those of you who offered your words of support, and didn't jump to believe screenshots taken out of context and lies written with the utmost confidence and none of the facts. I am a little tired of having my morals questioned and my views conflated with every single person I associate with, but there it goes.

tumblr user cpericardium suspiciously silent on the subject of Gaza: does this mean you support ethnic cleansing???

My reticence when it comes to posting about topics like I/P is because:

-This is a fandom blog intended for lighter topics, except maybe the occasional vent about life stuff, which I usually hide under a cut. I don't have sideblogs. They seem tough to maintain and I don't post nearly enough to justify it. If I were to make one it would be for another fandom or maybe just the freakier bugs. I simply prefer my social media experience to be stress-free.

-Anti-slacktivism. It's a documented thing: posting about an issue makes you feel like you're doing something, you get that little shot of dopamine, so you don't actually go out and do something that effects meaningful change. I'm trying to do less of that. I'm good with the friends and people I follow who choose to post about it and this is a strictly personal belief, but when I engage in activism, it is offline or it is a donation. You're not going to hear about it.

But don't you reblog lgbt and women's rights posts?

Yeah, and that's usually when I want to save a post for one reason or another (e.g. to talk about with someone on discord later). The bottom line is that the main purpose of my blog is not to post political takes or to spread awareness of anything. It is just a collection of my interests (fan stuff, bugs) and hopefully a way to share those interests with like-minded people.

I will state my views clearly for the record: I support Palestine. The ongoing genocide is heartbreaking and so is the violence against protestors. Additionally, I am against antisemitism and the harassment of Jewish people in the name of supporting Palestine. This shouldn't even need to be said.

Is your girlfriend a Zionist?

No.

Does she support Zionists?

No.

Wasn't she in the military?

Yes, years ago.

But the military is evil?

It is. She's extremely hardcore anti-war and anti-military, does not believe the US should even have an army, and actively PMs strangers on reddit to try to convince them to not make the same mistake. If they're dead set anyway, she gives them detailed advice on how to survive. Because she actually cares about the human cost of war, not the social clout gained from shunning or sneering at people who make wrongheaded choices. I have seen her doing this, seen her seeking to understand their reasons for joining so she can systematically explain—from personal experience!—why they're not going to get any of that out of the army. It is a hell of a lot more effective than bitching them out or writing callout posts or starting whisper campaigns about them. She cannot delete those years of her life no matter how much she regrets them. There is only forward. I think we can all agree on that.

But what about all those things she said. "I regret nothing, I have no qualms, VA nipple money etc."

Well you have to understand that while of generally upright character, she is a bit of a scamp. She believes she fundamentally should not have to explain herself to randos who do not know her, who have never, not once, interacted with her, who are clearly digging for dirt and will twist anything she says no matter how banal. People see what they want to see and they look for evidence to reinforce their preconceptions; they'll go so far as to make alts to join servers, cherry-pick screencaps, crop them, and conveniently fill in the rest of the narrative for curious onlookers. So she decided to exaggerate and amplify and twirl her mustache like a supervillain. Give them a show, as it were.

To be clear, I'm not sold on this strat because it makes her look cartoonishly evil to people who can't understand sarcasm and hyperbole. But her friends and I are aware of her actual beliefs from actually talking with her for more than one (1) second instead of immediately believing two mysteriously cropped screencaps from a thirdhand source, and also aware that she did not in fact do those things people imagine she did. And isn't that what matters? Real-life harm? Do you even care?

Re: screenshots/so-called proof from shakertwelve & lakesbian's "callouts"

Girlfriend addresses them here. I will also note they have spread lies about me and other people before.

[girlactionfigure]

Know Thine enemy

I am not a Jew and I’m not a citizen of Israel. I haven’t even visited Israel. I don’t trace my religion back to a holy site in Jerusalem and I don’t have a problem with Arabs or Muslims or Christians. I’ve read about Abraham, Moses, David and Solomon; the Umayyads, the Abbasids and the Ottomans; I know about the British, the Balfour declaration, Ben Gurion and Golda Meir. I know a bit about the Six-Day War and the Intifada. I might not have any personal stake in the Holy Land, but humanity certainly does - and I’m a human being.

The women, men, children, elderly people and soldiers who were kidnapped, tortured, raped, humiliated and murdered on Saturday by Hamas in sovereign Israel were human beings too.

Those who did it to them are not.

Imagine what kind of rational and ethical gymnastics you have to do to justify the cold-blooded murder of teenagers at a music festival; or watching a child, perhaps 5 years old, being prodded with a stick and made to cry for his mother in Hebrew while children of a similar age laugh and mock him? We don’t know that child’s fate and for all we know what followed may have been much worse. It’s depraved. To even enter a conversation about these disgraceful facts with a rehearsed retort about territory or Gaza being an “open-air prison” reeks of moral bankruptcy.

If you wail and scream about your land, dignity, rights, oppression and poverty but are willing to murder, rape, kidnap, torture or humiliate children; then I don’t have to listen to your reasons. When the video footage, photographs and stories of Saturday’s carnage come not from "Israeli propaganda” but from the Hamas terrorists themselves, then how am I to read anything else into it but that you want credit for these atrocities? You want me to know you did it. You want me to know you are proud of it. You want me to see you for who you are. Well, I do.

So, if you swarmed the Israeli Embassy in London, waving Palestinian flags and calling for genocide; if you went down to Times Square to celebrate a victory for decolonisation against “apartheid Israel”; if you sang along to “gas the Jews” chants at the Sydney Opera House or hung a “one settler, one bullet” Palestinian flag over Grayston bridge in Johannesburg then you’re telling me who you are. Well, I see you - and you’re my enemy.

I’m one of those people who believe civilisation is a real thing, and I’ve resisted the poison of moral relativists in the humanities departments of universities across the west who think that being nuanced about the idea of civilisation versus barbarism is a signal of intellectual prowess or critical self-reflection. Upon even a cursory investigation of these people or their positions, you will find every sign of pedestrian intelligence and self-absorbed navel-gazing, combined with a fetishisation of victimhood and always concomitant humourlessness. They too, are my enemies.

It is always interesting to note that only western liberal democracies tolerate and give succour to the most heinous arguments and positions in public protests. You couldn’t picket on the side of quite laudable things like education for girls in Taliban Afghanistan, gay rights in Syria, or against the death penalty in Saudi Arabia. The Ayatollahs of Iran wouldn’t allow women to protest the hijab there under threats of violence. But London, New York, Sydney and even Johannesburg will embrace marches where people actively call for genocide. This is not how allies behave.

Perhaps when the dust has settled we can examine the insidious links between Anglo-American leftism and antisemitism, between Europe never reckoning with what happened in the holocaust and their growing Muslim populations, and between ignorant regimes like mine in South Africa and their determination to stand alongside the worst human-rights abusers in the Middle East.

For now, it’s no big mystery that this has nothing to do with the existence of the State of Israel and everything to do with Jew-hatred - that great, festering wound in the side of humanity from which all prejudice flows. It has been there for thousands of years and every time we think it has healed, some monstrous collective claws it open again.

Hamas aren’t hiding the ball. Their leader, Ismail Haniyeh, safely skulking in Qatar, made this clear. He celebrated dead Jews, not territory won, nor Gazan lives saved.

I’m afraid there are only two sides in a war - your allies and your enemies. On September 11th, 2001, I knew whose side I was on. I feel the same today.

Gareth

Gareth Cliff

[matan4il]

Ive long believed that this recent extremist hatred of “colonists” was more about the perceived value of the people being colonized than about the actual harm to human life that colonization causes. (And I do not think of Israelis as colonizers, btw) The past hours have proven this to me. It’s not about whether they think Israel is truly guilty of colonization; it’s that Israelis would dare go against a group they have decided has fundamentally different and more valuable level of humanity. The same exact people who claim they’d support indigenous Americans taking back the land hate Jews for doing exactly that. And my God, the amount of people who spend most of their time discussing sexism and violence against women now saying that the innocent women being killed and kidnapped en masse is “the price to pay” is making my blood boil. I feel like I’ve witnessed so many people just toss all decency and morality out the window just so they can pat themselves on the back for being “anti-colonialists”. Anti-semetism has so rotted peoples brains. I’m praying for you and for every life caught up in this atrocity.

Hi Nonnie! Thank you for the ask.

Let me just say you're of course right that Israeli Jews are not colonizers of the Jewish ancestral homeland. But I haven't been touching this point, because the truth is... even if they were, would it justify such barbarity? Or do we as human beings believe in the sanctity of life, and understand that violence, rape, torture, mutilation and cold blooded murder, let alone mass murder, should NEVER be accepted as the solution to any problem?

Did people take the Nazis, those who committed the worst crimes in human history, and tried to use them to justify the massacre of all Germans, or to de-legitimize the very existence of a German state?

I actually sadly don't think the world does value the lives of Palestinians. I'm friends with so many. Mainly, as a gay woman, I have gay Palestinian friends. I have friends whose families found out they're gay, threatened to kill them, they applied for refugee status in so many western countries, but none would take them. I'm aware that Palestinians are being discriminated against BY LAW in so many places (for example in Lebanon, where Palestinians are barred from no less than 39 professions). If this were about their well being, then pro-Palestinian activists and demonstrations would be speaking up about the mistreatment of Palestinians everywhere! But they don't. If they can't blame the Jewish state for a perceived wrong, they don't care what happens to Palestinians.

Not everyone, obviously. Many accept the info as handed to them and they think they're being pro-Palestinian, when really they're just being fed, and then end up passing on, anti-Israel propaganda.

So, sadly I think this is a new form of antisemitism, expressed by singling out the Jewish state. It isn't the push for human rights it pretends to be, or the movement would care about the human rights of Palestinians in places like Lebanon and Jordan, too.

I think a good way to sum up what's wrong with people justifying the massacre that we experienced here is found in this image:

Thank you, I really appreciate the care and the prayers! Sending you endless hugs and love! xoxox

(for all of my updates and ask replies regarding Israel, click here)

[nothorses]

yeah, it is. transmisogyny paints transfems, as a group, as inherently violent and sexually predatory. taboo kinks and fetishes are just one of many things that people will use to "justify" this line of thought, usually for the purposes of enacting violence of one kind or another. it's fucked up and harmful, and it's a central pattern in transmisogyny.

There are also a ton of intersecting experiences that I think are important to understanding why this happens. Namely, white cis women have historically accused black men of rape as a way of getting white cis men to exact violence against them on their behalf. This kind of thing also happens more frequently to trans women of color and non-passing trans women, who are viewed as further from the white supremacist ideal of femininity, and therefore less "safe".

I have also personally experienced this kind of treatment, even without ever discussing, naming, or alluding to any kinks or sexual interests I have on this blog- though to a much, much lesser extent than the trans man of color I was being targeted for defending, who had his kink sideblog dug up and used as fodder for a callout post. The very explicit reason for the callout was that he engaged in kinks that the author deemed taboo and morally wrong, and extrapolated that his morals must be in line with those taboo kinks, despite abundant evidence to the contrary on his main blog. I have, for the last four years, received asks, DMs, and had posts circulated accusing me of bigotry and general evilness on account of taboo kinks I have never expressed any interest in... because I said it was wrong to extrapolate the morality of this trans person of color from the kinks he engages in.

I don't think any of these things happen due to transmisogyny, personally; I think the overlap is in some shared, very basic strategies of oppression that manifest in similar beliefs and experiences. Transmisogyny is a unique system of oppression, and the way transfems experience this particular phenomena- along with the reasoning behind it, on the part of the people who participate in it- is unique. None of these similar experiences negate or devalue what transfems experience due to transmisogyny, and misogyny & transfems' proximity to womanhood is a big part of that.

I'm curious why you think these things happen to these other groups, though. How do these experiences fit into your understanding of racism and transphobia?

question i pose for transandro truthers: Its understood generally that cis women &/ afab people due to their material circumstances tend to have tabboo fetishes/kinks such as rape fantasies But Also that this suggests no impact on actual ideology or beliefs/desire to be violated (noone wants it; if you misconstrue it as such then You have some misogyny to work thru). Why is it then that the presence of such tabboo fetishes/kinks in trans women (whose material circumstances are even more dire than cis women) is taken so much less charitably? hint: Its transmisogyny.....

[mallloryrowinski]

The Powerful Temptress Lie

(I've just posted this as a reblog too - sorry if it came across your dash twice!)

The Seductress stereotype has always made my blood boil. Powerful women throughout history have been reduced to this idea of a semi-mythological, semi-evil figure (like Cleopatra) who supposedly used their bodies to manipulate men into doing things they would never have otherwise done. But this idea is not just a lie—it’s an insidious tool of patriarchy that reinforces women’s subordination and strips them of their humanity and agency.

The concept of the "Powerful Seductress" frames women’s power as inherently illegitimate, as if a woman could only achieve influence by deceiving men, who are presented as the true arbiters of strength, intellect, and leadership. Cleopatra, for example, is often reduced to her romantic relationships with Julius Caesar and Mark Antony, her political acumen dismissed as secondary to her supposed "seductive wiles." This not only diminishes her extraordinary intellect and skill as a ruler but reinforces the notion that men must have been under some unnatural spell to treat her as an equal.

Yet even in the myth of the Seductress, the power dynamic is glaringly one-sided. The seduction is never for the woman’s direct benefit; it’s always framed as her “pleasing” a man in order to gain access to resources, protection, or survival. A seductress does not control a man—she exists within the confines of his desires, granted "power" only so long as she maintains his attention. Once the game is over, the mask of her so-called dominance falls away, and the man reasserts his authority, often by brute force. In reality, women cast in these roles are rarely the architects of their own destinies; they are pawns in a system that weaponizes their own bodies against them.

This is why the Seductress trope is not just dehumanizing but actively dangerous. It perpetuates the belief that women have innate, manipulative sexual power over men, which in turn justifies male violence and entitlement. If women are seen as wielding this mythical power, then men can frame their violence as a necessary act of reclaiming control. It’s no coincidence that men who commit acts of violence against women often accuse their victims of being “temptresses” or “asking for it.” The trope provides a moral justification for oppression: if women can control men with their sexuality, then patriarchy is framed as a righteous act of containing this imagined threat.

Even in modern contexts, we see this dynamic playing out. Women are conditioned to derive their value from their ability to conform to beauty standards and attract male attention, but this is not empowerment. The moment a woman steps outside the bounds of desirability or asserts agency beyond pleasing men, her so-called power is stripped away. The “sexy woman” celebrated in media is only empowered because she is sanctioned by the patriarchal system as acceptable, much like a court jester is “allowed” to mock the king.

This is why the role of the Seductress ends the moment a man decides it does. History is filled with examples of women who wielded sexual or relational power within their limited means, only to be crushed when men no longer found them useful. Anne Boleyn, for instance, was courted by Henry VIII and rose to become Queen of England through their relationship. But as soon as she fell out of favor, she was executed on charges of adultery—her “seduction” reframed as treasonous manipulation. The message is clear: women can have power, but only the kind men allow them to have—and only for as long as it serves their interests.

The seduction myth also glosses over the reality of coercion and violence. In countless historical and modern examples, women didn’t "seduce" their way into proximity to power—they were forced into relationships with men who held more resources, influence, and physical strength. The suggestion that women like Cleopatra or Anne Boleyn were "powerful seductresses" ignores the oppressive structures that shaped their circumstances and assumes a level of agency they never fully possessed.

Finally, it’s crucial to dismantle the idea that female sexuality is inherently dangerous or more potent than male sexuality. This belief perpetuates shame, scrutiny, and control over women’s bodies while simultaneously excusing men’s actions as unavoidable responses to temptation. The myth of the Seductress is just another way patriarchy teaches women that their bodies are both their only source of value and a source of blame for their own oppression.

In reality, women’s power has always been in spite of these constraints, not because of them. When women achieve greatness, it is often through extraordinary resilience and ingenuity in navigating systems designed to keep them powerless—not through some imagined supernatural ability to “control men.” Recognizing this is essential to breaking down the false narratives that perpetuate gender hierarchies and keep us blind to the true mechanisms of power.

[stargirlfeyre]

You can tell the type of person someone is based on how they react to Lucien’s friendship with Tamlin.

There are typically two reactions people have when realizing that their friends are morally fucked up individuals.

They either A: Cut all ties with them because friendships are not worth losing your standards and morals over.

Or they B: Defend that friend simply because they are friends. They know that their actions are wrong and they know that what they’re doing isn’t acceptable. Yet they still stick beside him/her because of that bond. It’s a “yeah you’re hurting people but you’re someone I care about so I’m not really going to hold you accountable for it” mindset. It’s a coward’s mindset.

Given how much Lucien’s fans defend his actions, which one do you think they’ve adopted?

There is something so sinister about justifying Lucien’s enabling of an abuser simply because that abuse has known him and has done more for him than the person being abused. If you stand by your friend whilst they commit literal crimes against women then I mean this whole heartedly, you are just as bad as them. Having this sense of blind loyalty towards someone to the point that you put your bond above morals makes you a terrible person.

I don’t care how long Lucien has known Tamlin. I don’t care how Tamlin has saved or helped him. Once he saw Tamlin start to physically hurt Feyre he should have known that his actions had gone too far. Once he saw Tamlin almost murder her he should have known that his actions had gone too far. Once he saw Tamlin walk away whilst Feyre had a panic attack and begged him to let her out of the house he should have known that his actions had gone too far. But he didn’t. He had a first hand account to all of these instances and yet Lucien still holds out hope that he will one day reunite with Tamlin and they will run off into fields of flowers together holding hands.

And his fandoms doesn’t see a problem with it because to them, it makes sense that Lucien would have this undying loyalty towards Tamlin despite everything he has done. Because the amount of time you have know someone trumps all else.

Let me put it this way.

If you have a friend who you have known for a long time that raped someone, would you still stick beside them? Would you defend them against all else simply because of your preconceived bond with them? Would you forgo all semblance of deceny, morals, humanity, and self-respect for them?

I am being so serious when I say I genuinely fear for the people in your lives if you think turning a blind eye to domestic violence is justifiable if the aggressor is someone you know.

[euph0synee]

honestly, it's so funny to me when someone tells me "don't use such hateful language Krishna wouldn't like it and u will be no better than these people"

like girl i never said i was a good person myself lol and i don't care if it makes me same as them but if i see a mf making r4pe jokes, defending violence against women and men, s3xually assaulting someone and talking smack about my lover Krishna, i will tell them to k/ll themselves, i will break their jaws and stab them if i need to and i will use the nastiest of the nasty disturbing as fuck nightmare fuel language to scare them away if i have to.

Would Krishna like it? probably not. Will that make me stop? no. I am sorry but i am ready to take a tour of hell for this if i need to. Heck, I'll even ask Krishna to take me there idc. I be like "arre aap hi le chlo yarr", but i will not stop because what the fuck u mean Krishna will accept me if i let someone get assaulted right in front of my eyes? no tf he wouldn't. He'd be disappointed damn. He'd rather gladly accept a murderer who killed a r4pist than a coward who wanted to follow fake kindness and dharma and sat there watching someone get assaulted.

Yeah i do feel bad after I'm done being a hater and a bad person. When i go to sleep i feel bad for all the bad words i said the whole day and the worst wishes i threw at those mfs cause i know at the end even i will get results of this Karma of mine but then i just go back to sleep and forget about it all the next day lol. I could care less about being a kind hearted soft spike sweet sugary pop person. it is out of syllabus for me especially in this economy. everywhere i see nowadays all i see is monsters and only monsters who think dark jokes are jokes about r4ping women and children, beating women and children, murdering women and children. all i see is monsters who believe it is very sigma alpha beta gama of them to call women bitches and degrade them every possible way. all i see is monsters who believe it's okay to throw hands at men since that's justifiable and monsters who make fun of men who got assaulted because god forbid a man did not enjoy someone putting their hands on his body without his consent.

I mean if we're all becoming monsters then at least I'll be a monster with some morals lol.

But anyways i wrote this whole post just to tell u my fellow haters that don't feel bad for being a hater because those people deserve the hatred. someone tells u to stop saying stuff like "ur God wouldn't like u talking like that" tell them to shut up and mind their OWN business cause MY GOD is MY BUSINESS and him liking or disliking my attitude is also MY BUSINESS. As long as I'm not hating people for literally no reason he don't care.

[mariacallous]

Even as a growing number of foreign governments commit to protecting the rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and intersex (LGBTQI+) people, others are actively marshaling their resources against them. From the Hungarian government’s legal and political attacks on LGBTQI+ people to Iraqi legislation that punishes those who “promote homosexuality” and increases criminal penalties and fines for same-sex relations, the negative trends are significant and concerning.

In many places, politicians blame LGBTQI+ people for a wide array of societal ills to boost their popularity at home and their geopolitical interests abroad, distracting from the real economic, social, and political challenges their countries face. In Georgia, for example, the ruling party may have used anti-LGBTQI+ rhetoric to manipulate the political landscape ahead of elections. Meanwhile, in Lebanon, a country long considered relatively welcoming for LGBTQI+ people in the Middle East, one activist described a political leader’s rhetoric as “the manufacturing of a moral panic in order to justify a crackdown, and to deviate public attention away from their unpopular policies.”

Although human rights are seen by some as a lower-priority foreign-policy issue for the United States than so-called hard security threats, the failure to protect them abroad can have significant negative consequences for U.S. interests. Now more than ever, the United States needs to push back against foreign-government repression of LGBTQI+ rights while also doing this work at home. As U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken put it recently, this matters “not just because we have a moral imperative to do so,” but because doing so “helps strengthen democracy, bolster national security, and promote global health and economic development.”

Across a range of issues, it’s clear that anti-LGBTQI+ policies and rhetoric can cause significant damage to many of the United States’ top foreign-policy priorities.

To start, efforts to repress LGBTQI+ rights are often a canary in the coal mine for more severe persecution to come. A 2022 report found, for example: “From Nazi Germany to genocide in Darfur to the breakup of former Yugoslavia, the imposition of ‘moral’ codes that directly assault sexual and gender identities and freedoms came before widespread state-led physical violence and atrocity crimes.”

The targeting of LGBTQI+ people can also be a precursor to, or occur alongside, abuses against other vulnerable populations. The Taliban-promoted sexual assault of and life-threatening attacks on LGBTQI+ people, for example, have occurred concurrently with brutal restrictions on women’s and girls’ participation in education, work, and other aspects of public life. Likewise, vicious torture of gay men in the Russian Republic of Chechnya has taken place against a wider backdrop of long-term human rights abuses by Chechen authorities.

Erosion of LGBTQI+ human rights can also signal and exacerbate the breakdown of democratic norms and institutions, including restrictions on independent media and judicial review, serving as a bellwether for the state of civil society more generally. Russia’s recent detention and prosecution of LGBTQI+ people have paralleled its crackdown on independent journalists, human rights defenders, and civil society.

Countries in which the human rights of LGBTQI+ people are less respected also frequently have greater levels of corruption, partly because discriminatory legal regimes create barriers to reporting wrongdoing by corrupt officials, making LGBTQI+ people an easy target for extortion. Corruption, in turn, compounds other pressing problems: It degrades the business environment, drives migration, and impedes responses to public health crises and climate change. States with endemic corruption are also more vulnerable to terrorist networks, transnational organized crime, gang-related criminal actors, and human traffickers. This is, in part, because threats to transparent and accountable governance are among the root causes of radicalization, and restrictions on LGBTQI+ and other civil society organizations reduce the capacity of those groups to mitigate the conditions conducive to violent extremism, terrorism and other criminal activity.

Not only are anti-LGBTQI+ policies a drag on economic growth, but they are also detrimental to public health. Punitive laws fan the flames of stigma and discrimination, in turn making vulnerable communities reluctant to seek life-saving and public health-protecting services. Across 10 countries in Sub-Saharan Africa, for example, HIV prevalence in countries that criminalize homosexuality is five times higher among men who have sex with men than in countries without those laws.

Taken together, the failure to protect LGBTQI+ people’s human rights can create disastrous effects for U.S. interests. State-sponsored discrimination and violence undercut the United States’ tremendous investments in international anti-corruption efforts, counter-terrorism programs, economic development, and public health. And, as the COVID-19 pandemic made clear, a disease threat anywhere can quickly become a disease threat everywhere. The same can be said for terrorism, corruption, and economic instability. When governments target LGBTQI+ people, they also increase the chances that the symptoms and consequences of this repression will spread in their communities and across borders.

Given the stakes, it is crucial that the United States uses the tools and powers it has to promote accountability for human rights abuses and mitigate their harms to U.S. citizens and businesses.

In this respect, the recent heightened repression by the Ugandan government is illustrative. In May 2023, Uganda signed into law the Anti-Homosexuality Act (AHA), which mandated the death penalty for certain “serial” offenses and a 20-year prison sentence for the mere “promotion” of homosexuality. Although the legislation was decried by human rights advocates, it was lauded by some of Uganda’s geopolitical partners as evidence of shared interests. Shortly after the legislation was passed, the late Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi visited Uganda and made the unfortunately common—and demonstrably inaccurate—claim that homosexuality is a Western import. He also identified opposition to Western support for LGBTQI+ people as “another area of cooperation for Iran and Uganda.” In similar fashion, an editorial on the pro-Kremlin Tsargrad website summarized the law as “a geopolitical victory [for Russia], which they see as the direct result of years of their hard, methodical work [on a] global anti-LGBTQ hate campaign.”

The AHA was the final, egregious straw amid an ongoing decline in respect for human rights, including of LGBTQI+ people, and democratic backsliding in Uganda, and the United States’ response was swift and comprehensive. Underscoring the link between the violation of the human rights of LGBTQI+ people and broader harms to American interests, U.S. President Joe Biden described the law as part of an “alarming trend of human rights abuses and corruption.” The United States issued a business advisory; updated the U.S. Travel Advisory and Country Information Page for Uganda; expanded existing visa restrictions to include those repressing vulnerable populations, such as human rights advocates, LGBTQI+ people, and environmental defenders; supported the World Bank’s decision to pause Uganda’s access to new funds; and imposed sanctions on the Commissioner General of the Uganda Prisons Service for widespread violations of human rights, including credible reports of physical abuse of political opposition and LGBTQI+ people. President Biden also determined that Uganda did not meet the eligibility requirements of the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA), “on the basis of gross violations of internationally recognized human rights.”

Although the law remains in place, these actions and international attention have had effect: Uganda’s government has not conducted widespread roundups of or ordered death sentences against LGBTQI+ people. But violence, abuse, and evictions have increased in the country, and arrests of LGBTQI+ people have persisted and likely risen under an earlier, colonial-era law that criminalizes same-sex conduct.

As the situation in Uganda demonstrates, the United States has options to respond to foreign governments that fail to uphold their human rights obligations. These measures can be unilateral, as is the case for issuing travel advisories or removing trade preferences, or multilateral, which could involve working with the United Nations, the World Bank, or other multilateral institutions. They can also be affirmative, as opposed to punitive—for instance, expanding humanitarian and development assistance for human rights defenders and mobilizing private sector capital to support businesses that operate consistent with international non-discrimination standards.

As with all diplomatic efforts to address wrongdoing, the choice among these options will vary depending on circumstances, such as whether a government is launching a new campaign against LGBTQI+ people or has an older but little-enforced criminal law on its books. Inevitably, the importance of raising human rights concerns will be weighed against other U.S. priorities, and human rights will not always prevail. However, increasingly, LGBTQI+ issues are being integrated into bilateral relationships, even when doing so is not easy and when quiet diplomacy is the only option. In all circumstances, consultation with LGBTQI+ civil society must be prioritized in weighing the benefits and risks of action to ensure that efforts do not contribute to backlash or negative repercussions for LGBTQI+ people on the frontlines of global human rights movements.

In a recent State Department convening on LGBTQI+ rights in U.S. foreign policy, Secretary Blinken made our commitment clear, telling civil society leaders: “Our promise is this: We will be with you every step of the way. We’ll persevere with you. We’ll listen to you. We’ll learn from you. We’ll help resource and support your fight. And we’ll bring our strength together with yours so that finally together we can build a world where all people are genuinely free—free to be who they are, free to love who they love.”

Although this work may have been in the spotlight during Pride month, it requires our focus year-round. Indeed, our national security depends on it.

[darklinaforever]

I would like to come back to this comment in particular, because here she is talking about Aemond in response to this post :

But she also spent a lot of her comments shitting on Daemon and recalling the OCC strangling Daemon scene, even when my posts did not address this subject at all :

Not to mention her last one, or she does it again here :

In response to the post I made where I talked about her here :

So basically she's saying that I can't mentally process a girl liking a disabled man, and that's that unbelievably creepy...

While I still remind you that I myself like a lot of villains and gray characters, and that I made a huge post talking about this subject of the people loving villains :

But this person himself comes to my posts and comments on his hatred for Daemon saying that I think it's excusable to hurt his wife when I never said that and the posts didn't concern the choking OCC scene at all which I don't condone, also, what is wrong with us people who think Aemond is no match for Daemon in combat, remember he strangled his wife (literally, what's the connection again ?) !

So basically...

You accuse me of doing what you do in fact.

You can't mentally process a girl liking a disabled man, and that's that unbelievably creepy that you have the nerve to come and criticize me for this while bombarding my posts of comments essentially blaming me and others of loving Daemon, a male character who did things who are not morally correct.

Up to the point of telling me to stop following her around... when once again it was she who came under my posts to demonstrate immature behavior.

When I say that the antis are never coherent...

[andreal831]

Klaus and Rebekah -- Abuse

I often call Klaus out for his treatment of his siblings. Just like I call out the majority of the characters for their behavior. However, Klaus stans get very offended when I do this, even though they are the ones who say they love how evil he is. I often get accused of being biased and 'hating' Klaus. I promise you, I don't. I do not care enough about any fictional character to hate them. I may not like them or they aren't my favorite characters, but I clearly still tolerate them enough to watch the show. It's also funny because I don't talk about my least favorite characters specifically because I don't like them. Therefore, the fact that I spend time talking about Klaus means I like him to an extent. I like aspects of his character and was disappointed in his lack of development.

Too many people want to erase his abuse towards Rebekah or, even worse, justify it. As someone with a degree in Psychology and who works every day with victims of abuse, I wanted to break this down for the fandom.

First, I cannot stand it when Klaus stans want to pretend Klaus's actions are justified. Abuse is never justified. Mikael's treatment of Klaus was not okay even if Mikael thought he was creating a strong warrior. And Klaus' treatment of Rebekah is not okay even if he thinks he knows best.

Second, being abused and having trauma does not justify or relieve responsibility from someone if they then become an abuser themselves. It does happen, unfortunately, but they need to be held responsible as abusers.

Third, there are different types of abuse. One is not more damaging than another, they are all terrible and cause long-lasting trauma.

Psychical Abuse

"Involves the use of physical violence, or threats of it, to maintain power over an individual. Because of this, survivors are afraid and uncertain when more abuse will occur. This often reinforces the regular use of other, more subtle, types of abuse."

Physical abuse is the one that is talked about the most because it is so easy to see. Klaus has been physically abusing Rebekah for about 900 years. He does it so frequently that she often flinches away from him. She never knows what to expect from him, if he is going to be a loving brother or revert back to her abuser. This creates its own trauma as she loves the caring side of her brother but is terrified of what he can turn into. It's part of the reason they have such a codependent bond. She still sees the brother she loves and wants to save him.

The first moment of physical abuse that we see is after the Hunters dagger their family and Klaus slaughters them all. Klaus grabs her roughly and screams in her face. This is after Rekekah wakes up covered in blood and sees the man she loves dead. She is clearly terrified of Klaus in this scene. People will try to justify this and say Klaus was "in the right" since Rebekah shouldn't have trusted the Hunter. But, I'll refer you back to my first point, we do not blame victims for their abuse, we do not justify abusers in their actions. Rebekah did not plot against her family. She made a mistake in trusting someone, a mistake that everyone in that family has made. Hell, Klaus is sleeping with Genevive while she is actively trying to murder his child. He sleeps with Aurora while she kidnaps Rebekah and throws her into the ocean. But Rebekah was in love with the Hunter. Even after what he did, she still buried him in peace. Klaus was not in love with the women he allowed close to him and hurt his family. He does not have a moral high ground. And even if he did, again, we do not justify abuse.

This event starts a cycle of abuse. Klaus holds onto the weapons, even though, at this time he is not any stronger than his siblings and they cannot be used against him. He doesn't do it to protect them but to threaten them. Anytime they disagree with him, he threatens to take years away from them, to strip them of their bodily autonomy. They are so scared of those daggers that they won't even stand against Klaus for each other.

We don't see much of their lives, but in every era after this, we see Klaus physically abusing Rebekah. He is constantly waving the daggers around and using them against her. This is physical abuse. He is stripping her bodily autonomy away from her and taking years of her life away from her. We don't know how many times this happens but we know she lost 14 years of her life in the span of 200 years, so I can only imagine how much of her life she truly missed out on.

In the 1800s, he threatens her away from Marcel and when she doesn't obey him, he daggers her and costs her 52 years of her life. In 1920, he daggers her for wanting to be with Stefan, taking 90 years of her life away. In Season 4 TVD, he daggers her for months because she doesn't want to help him make his hybrids.

He has no problem choking her and breaking her neck after he left her to be abused and tortured by vampire hunters. He compels Marcel to kill her witch body if she disobeys him. Not to mention the sanitorium episode where she is running, scared for her life from her brother. He constantly threatens her with bodily harm if she goes against him.

Emotional Abuse

"Includes non-physical behaviors that are meant to control, isolate, or frighten someone. These behaviors are often more subtle and hard to identify but are just as serious as other types of abuse."

Even as a human Klaus is condescending to Rebekah, telling her she cannot play with knives because she is a girl, despite the fact that Rebekah is the only one of his siblings who has ever been brave enough to stand up to Mikael. I know it is the times, but as a reminder, Viking women often wielded swords.

Klaus emotionally manipulates Rebekah from early on. He continues to gaslight her and make her emotionally dependent on him. He even jokes about his abuse to her and their siblings, often make jokes about daggering them and finding a place to store them if they disagree.

The first time is right after they are turned when Klaus tells Rebekah their father killed their mother. This is a lie. He killed Esther and he knows it. He tells Rebekah that so she won't leave him. Even if it comes from a place of fear, this is emotional manipulation. He does not allow Rebekah to make an informed decision. Their entire vow is based on this lie.

Klaus is very good at framing himself as the victim and making his siblings feel guilty, even when he has done the same or worse. He refers to himself as their "bastard-brother" often and talks about them abandoning him, which is just a lie. Rebekah and Elijah never once abandoned him for 900 years. Elijah only left to lead Mikael away and the only time we see Rebekah leave is when she is daggered. Yes, Rebekah begins to act in reaction to Klaus' abuse, but it takes about 700 years of being abused before she even does this. Also, you can't use Rebekah calling Mikael as an explanation since he didn't find out about that until 2012/2013.

I would also like to point out, Klaus is celebrated for killing his abuser but Rebekah is condemned for 'trying' to kill hers. I also hold that she didn't actually want him dead, she acted in pain and instantly regretted it. He is also the one who abandons her multiple times, even leaving her in Mystic Falls after she has been daggered for 90 years.

Klaus has no compassion for Rebekah's feelings. He is constantly belittling her for loving or caring for others. He would often make comments, especially in front of others, about her being stupid or naive. Like making fun of her love for Alexander in front of Stefan or making fun of her in front of Marcel. This is a very common way for abusers to control their victims. If the victim feels small and insignificant, they do not feel brave enough to leave. He constantly makes her feel like she is nothing, that she has nothing so she has no choice but to stay with him.

He lets her think he is dead for days, despite what he knows it will do to her. When he reveals himself, he leaves her in the hands of self-declared vampire hunters and makes no move to rescue her even later.

And then Klaus' moment of 'growth' is when he doesn't kill her in the cemetery in Season 1, but "sets her free." Again, this is a way for him to exercise his control over her life. He is exiling her but frames it in a way that he is the good guy. He has complete control over her life still. She is not allowed to return to see Marcel, Hayley, Elijah, or anyone. She only is able to return when Klaus needs her.

Sexual Abuse

"Sexual abuse is when a partner controls the physical and sexual intimacy in a relationship. This often involves acting in a way that is non-consensual and forced."

I think we can all admit, Klaus and Rebekah have a very strange relationship. He is very possessive of her and it often comes across as a toxic boyfriend.

For some reason, Rebekah has to ask her brothers' permission to turn her boyfriend, Emil, into a vampire. Further showing her lack of autonomy. Klaus laughs at her and shames her for her love life. He then takes it a step further and throws Emil off the balcony, proving to Rebekah once again that she is not allowed to have anyone in her life outside of him. He even does it with his siblings when he sees Rebekah and Elijah acting too close, he attempts to victimize himself, pretending they are excluding him because he is their half-brother, rather than for the real reason that he has hurt them once again.

The next romantic interest for Rebekah is Marcel. I'm not going to get into the problems there, but we do need to acknowledge the grooming that occurred. But that is not why Klaus is opposed to the relationship. He doesn't want Rebekah to pursue Marcel because he views them as being his. He doesn't want them to have anything in their life outside of him. When she disobeys, he punishes her. He doesn't punish Marcel even though Marcel was the one who pursued her. He only punishes her. Not only does he dagger her, but he barters her life for Marcel's desire to become a vampire. He does this specifically to drive an even deeper wedge between Rebekah and Marcel, so that when he undaggers her after 52 years, she will not seek a relationship with Marcel.

Klaus then wants props for later "giving permission" for Marcel and Rebekah to have a relationship. It is completely sick that he thinks he is allowed to regulate his sister's love life.

Rebekah next forms an attachment with Stefan. She actually meets Stefan first, but because Klaus is jealous, he is constantly throwing fits in the 20s and wants to separate the two. When it is time to run, he doesn't give Stefan the chance to come with them. He compels Stefan to forget about them, despite it being Rebekah's boyfriend. Rebekah decides she wants to stay with him and he daggers her for 90 years for this 'betrayal.' In fact, he only releases her when he plans to use her against Stefan. When he is done with her, he abandons her in Mystic Falls to go create his own family of hybrids.

And if you think this is okay because Rebekah is 'breaking their vow,' I want you to really think about that. Rebekah is 900 years old and not allowed to essentially move out and start her own life because her older brother never learned to make his own friends/romantic partners.

I also think we need to evaluate the vow. While Klaus may have kept to the words of it, he did not keep to the meaning of it. "Always and forever" was meant to show their loyalty and love for each other. Not that they were not allowed to have their own lives. Klaus broke his vow by keeping them in a box and robbing years of their lives. That is not an act of love but an act of abuse.

When they are back in New Orleans, he is constantly using her past with Marcel against her. He blames her for the issues with Marcel even though he was the one who introduced Marcel to the family and supposedly raised him. It is just another way to emotionally manipulate her as well as control her romantic life.

And then at the end of The Originals, the only glimpse of remorse we see is that he tells Caroline to get the cure for Rebekah. He doesn't apologize for the thousand years of abuse he inflicted on her and acts like this one act (which he has very little to do with) will make up for the rest of it. Someone recently pointed out the timing of it. Klaus didn't want her to take the cure before, but now that he is dying, he is fine with it. Since the show did very little to show growth in his relationship with Rebekah, it's not out of the realm of possibility that he has it in his head that Rebekah will be able to join him in the afterlife sooner if she takes the cure.

All of this to say, Klaus spent 900 years abusing his sister. Yes, she began to react against him, but that doesn't make it okay for him to continue to abuse her. It is fine to like Klaus' character, but it is not fine to justify abuse. People suffer this type of abuse every day and justifying it on social media allows this abuse to continue to be justified in real life. Don't be so blinded by a fictional character as to hurt real-life victims.

[girlactionfigure]

There are several groups of people you’ll see on the internet today. 

1- A group with total moral clarity. They know that murder, rape, and kidnapping of any innocent person is wrong, always. The fact that Hamas did this to women, babies, and the elderly just sharpens this group’s clarity that this is a war between good and evil. 

2- A group of naive, generally ignorant people who know little about the conflict and base their opinions on the fake news they see on BBC, CNBC, and the rest of the antisemitic media. These people are 9/10 times, anti Israel. 

3- A group that draws an equal sign between Hamas and the IDF, as if there are two sides here. These people are morally bankrupt and will be remembered as such. 

4- A group that supports the Palestinian narrative that justifies what Hamas did by lying and spreading falsehoods like occupation and innocent targeting of Gazans. These people are downright supporting murder and should be punished accordingly. Their day will come. 

5- A group that uses this war to justify their deep hatred of Jews. People like Roger Waters, the squad, and many others. Let them join all the other enemies of the Jewish people throughout history starting from ancient Egypt, all the way to Ancient Greek, Romans, Nazis, and all the rest. 

6- A group with violent protestors and actual criminals who incite and carry out violence against Jews. They should be jailed and the key thrown away forever. Amen. 

7- A group of actual terrorists, generally radical Islamic terrorists, with the occasional participation of neo-Nazis. If ever there was a justification for the death penalty…

I think that pretty much covers it. Did I miss anyone?

In a normal world, these groups wouldn't focus on this war if not for their obsession with Jews. More people die in car accidents and crime on US streets than in this war. It's a sick fixation. When Israel was falsely blamed for bombing a hospital with 500 casualties, it dominated headlines. Now that the truth is out, it's no longer newsworthy.

This isn't a war between Jews and Arabs or Israelis and Palestinians. It's a battle of good versus evil, So choose your side wisely.

hilzfuld