#victim culture

[myfandomrealitea]

https://www.tumblr.com/myfandomrealitea/754159647278202880/im-proship-leaning-but-when-other-proshippers-say?source=share

I don't trust "documented evidence" as well, unless it's like in an official website or whatever. it's the mfing internet and people can edit or create fake messages or fake victims. hell, even with the new ai thingy they can create fake videos and pics. who gets to say these are real or not? I am saying this as a victim of fake callout posts who never got believed.

Modern cancel culture and the ability to just throw accusations around and be believed blindly have honestly ruined actual internet safety, accountability and being able to protect yourself and others from both false accusations and real dangerous people.

Its why I take issue with statements like "believe victims no matter what" and "support accusations until they're proven fake."

People have gone to jail for forty years and been proven innocent.

People have been murdered and their accusers have come forward to reveal they made the accusations up.

People have killed themselves over false accusations.

False accusations and blind witch hunting can ruin a person's life for literal decades.

It has absolutely nothing to do with proship vs antiship culture, even though the latter culture is in part what has exacerbated my stance. It has everything to do with the fact that practically weekly there's new news headlines about people milking a dead celebrity's estate with easily disproven claims, or bitter teenagers faking screenshots and falling over themselves to get internet sympathy because their boyfriend broke up with them.

I will always give victims a certain amount of benefit of doubt, but what I won't do is blindly launch a brigade against someone based on claims with no proof or flimsy proof with more holes in it than a festival tent.

[the-garbanzo-annex-jr]

by Melanie Phillips

Jews — grotesquely designated in “victim culture” as an oppressor class — are the most victimised people on earth. Jew-hatred through the centuries has led to the persecution, attack and murder of millions. Today it continues at epidemic levels which are out of control throughout the west as well as in the Islamic world. 

Antisemites deny this victimisation. They claim that the Jews invent it, “playing the victim card” to conceal their assumed misdeeds and exploitation of others. They believe that Jews use the claim of antisemitism to enable them to “get away with it”. And what exactly do they believe Jews thus “get away with”? Why, that the Jews are a powerful and sinister cabal with global power which they use to further their own interests and harm others — in other words, all the antisemitic canards about the Jews that are a vicious lie but which antisemites believe to be true. 

Such people also resent any evidence of antisemitism because they want to hate the Jews without being prevented from doing so by social opprobrium. They cannot tolerate the truth about Jewish victimisation because that would reveal themselves to be the disgusting people they are. They want to be able to hate the Jews while continuing to drape themselves in the mantle of moral virtue.

Proponents of “victim culture” have a further problem with the victimisation of the Jews. Using their own “victim” status as a social and cultural weapon, they can’t tolerate the fact that the Jews never play the victim card. 

Despite the ever-ending persecution the Jews have suffered, they have always picked themselves up and sought to transcend their pain and distress by making the best out of their lives and the lives of others. 

The only reparations they sought after the Holocaust were to secure the return of what was rightfully theirs and had been stolen from them. They have never demanded that the Catholic church, the British ruling class or the continent of Europe pay reparations for the centuries of persecution they inflicted upon the Jews. They have never assumed that the appalling way the world has treated them means that the world owes them a living. 

They just got on with building positive and productive lives. From the ashes of the Holocaust, they created the spectacularly thriving, life-affirming State of Israel. And in the war that has followed the barbaric atrocities of last year’s October 7 pogrom in Israel, where a terrible toll has been taken of the best and bravest who are still steadily falling in battle, a grieving and traumatised people under constant attack is continuing to display astounding levels of heroism, steadfastness and resilience.

Despite the fact that they have been so badly victimised, Jews choose never to “be” victims, never to live or behave as victims. Stating this fact drives antisemites mad. “But they play the victim card all the time!” they scream. To them, Jew-hatred is a self-serving fiction. They can’t acknowledge the moral necessity of identifying its unique and all-too-real characteristics. They can’t recognise the difference between truth and lies. They can’t stand Jewish resilience. All that matters is maintaining their own warped and malevolent narrative about a world they choose not to understand. And that, of course, is why such people hate the Jews, who show these haters up for what they truly are.  

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

Melanie Phillips: Why Israel must win | The Brendan O'Neill Show

Melanie Phillips: Dead Israelis disturb the narrative. They upset the narrative. By which I mean that it's not just a view, it's become a kind of-- not even just a cause, it's a kind of article of faith among the progressive West that Israel was created by the Jews through Western guilt over the Holocaust, being parachuted in to a country called Palestine and uprooting the indigenous people of Palestine who've been there since time immemorial and taking over and booting them out and then oppressing the rest who remain. And who wish to expand their territory as a result.

Every single part of that is untrue. It's a lie. It's a falsehood, okay. But that is the narrative. The narrative is of oppressive Israelis and oppressed Palestinians. And therefore, because in our victim cultural world, if you are a victim and you are oppressed, you are given a moral free pass for anything that you do. Anything that you do that's bad, cannot be-- you cannot be morally responsible for it. It must be the result of what's been done to you.

So, Palestinian terrorism has been regarded as, okay we don't-- we don't approve of it, we can't bear violence but nevertheless it's resistance, it's understandable given the despair that they are in.

And conversely, anything the Israelis do as the oppressors cannot ever-- they cannot ever be victims. They cannot ever be victims; they can only be oppressors.

Suddenly one has, suddenly, people with this mindset have been faced with the appalling visual proof that the people and the cause they've supported resulted in acts of barbarism, of a kind that nobody ever thought they would see again after the Holocaust. And it's been perpetrated by people that they have broadly supported and a certainly a cause they have absolutely supported. And suddenly the cause turns into something which is genocide.

But they've been accusing Israel of genocide, which is amazing considering the population of Gaza and the Palestinian territories has increased by what, three times, four times since 1948 when Israel was created? That's some genocide. But put that to one side.

So, it's to serve the narrative and they can't have that. Now, why can't they have that? Why can't they say, okay it's a bit embarrassing to have to admit that the cause I've pinned my idealism on for the last 30 years is actually fake, but nevertheless, I have to agree, um, uh you know, uh, right.

Now, why can't they say that? And my view having been part of that way of thinking for a long time and certainly having had all my friends and colleagues as part of that way of thinking for a long time, and studied them up close, my view is that they can never say this to themselves because it's not simply a question of saying they're wrong, their belief system is based on the fact that every single thing they believe encompasses and embodies moral virtue.

They believe in the betterment of society, they believe in creating a better world, they believe in standing up for the oppressed against the oppressor, they believe in justice against Injustice, they believe in in all these wonderful things. And consequently, anybody who stands up and says anything against them, against any of these wonderful things is not only wrong but evil and has to be stamped out as basically an enemy of humanity. Now, we see this in our domestic politics, victim culture and all of that, over a range of domestic issues.

But it is absolutely part of their moral personality. What they dread more than anything else, the worst thing in the world that could happen to them, is to take a position which in their minds would make them a right-winger and therefore evil, or evil and therefore a right-winger, because all evil comes from the right and all right wingers are evil.

And consequently, faced with this situation that they saw on October the 7th unfolding in front of our horrified gaze, they are faced with the challenge in which they say to themselves, you know am I supposed to junk what I've believed? That will make me an evil right-winger. And that's so terrible to them because they think that will disintegrate their entire moral personality.

So, they're going to find a way of dealing with this. So, we hear, for example, on the one hand the silence. The silence from so-called "feminists" who have told the entire male population of the world they are intrinsically evil because they're all intrinsically potential rapists and therefore, you know, "the patriarchy" and all the rest of it you know.

Untold numbers of men are unable to have proper relationships with women because of that. All those feminists are silent. Well not perhaps all, perhaps some have come out. Silent when faced with the appalling rapes of women in that October the 7th atrocity. And the way they deal with it is by saying saying, I don't believe it. I don't believe it. Regardless of what we've all seen and heard.

So, there's those people who are silent. And then there are people who try to invert it. They say, well, I mean it was terrible, yes and of course I abhor these brutal things, but nevertheless, but, but, but...

As soon as you hear the "but," you know. The cause, the cause. And when you say to them, as I have done over decades, what are you talking about, the cause? What cause of despair? You're talking about the fact they don't have a Palestine state? They have been offered a Palestine state over and over again from the 1930s onwards. The last offer consisted of approximately 95% plus of the territory they were demanding, and their reaction has always been to refuse and to start murdering Jews again.

And when you say that to them, they say, no, no that's not true, that's not true, and they bring up a whole load of chaff, verbal chaff. In other words, their reaction is, it's not true, it's not true, I'm not believing what I'm seeing in front of my eyes even.

Because they cannot ever tolerate this idea that their moral personality was based on a monstrous inversion of morality.

[cosmicjoke]

Everybody these days is so ready to be offended, to the point in which nobody is willing to entertain the possibility that someone being offensive might just be an innocent and unintended mistake on their part, rather than a deliberately malicious act or expression.

And really, I think that readiness to be offended is a product of wanting to be, because being a victim in today’s world actually wins you social status, wins you attention from your peers, and also serves as an excuse for one’s own bad behavior. You’re allowed greater leeway, given a wider berth and more of a pass for being shitty if you can convince everyone you’re a victim. You’re regarded as special, or of more worth, more deserving of acknowledgement and sympathy if you can claim to be a victim. Today’s culture has turned being a victim into a coveted social status, rather than what it really is, which is a tragedy.

Real victims rarely, if ever, want to talk about their victimhood, or their experiences of being victimized. It’s often a source of shame for them, undeserved as those feelings are. It’s traumatizing and painful. It’s humiliating and embarrassing.

This treatment of victimhood as some sort of sought after status or desirable rank, as some kind of special designation that can win you the admiration and praise of your peers, is incredibly damaging to real victims. It continually undermines their own experiences and trauma, to see others appropriating it for their use, as a means of bolstering their social standing, as a way to gain some reward.

Has any, true victim ever felt rewarded for being a victim? Have they ever bragged about being a victim? Have they ever felt the rush of greater acceptance and praise from their peers for being victimized? Have they ever felt a thrill at identifying themselves as a victim or as part of a marginalized group?

If you feel any of those things when talking about how much of a victim you are, maybe you need to step back and reassess your claims, and think about the ways in which you’re not only undercutting the experiences of real victims by using the status to bolster your own social standing, but also the ways in which you’re re-traumatizing real victims by treating the idea of victimhood like it’s some sort of contest to see who’s the most deserving of sympathy and adulation.

Maybe next time you take offense at something, before jumping down the throat of the person who’s offended you and accusing them of doing it on purpose, ask yourself if you’re really offended, or if you just want to be, because then you can claim to be a victim and win all the excellent prizes that being a victim in todays culture brings.

[kharmii]

What do babies do? They cwyyyyyy.......! Humans are born helpless.....so we should stay helpless our whole lives?! I get it. -So let's be emotionally-stunted man-babies who have to ask for help our whole lives. I get the point of this, but there was no need for the dig against conservatives.

Here's a better analogy. Left wing culture has normalized bad decision making to the point that a disproportionate majority of citizens of any given country find themselves unnecessarily stuck on islands when common sense...acting a little bit less stupid....would have kept them off the island.

If you bring up that better decision making will prevent the bad thing from happening, -and how social norms have preventing people from being stuck on islands in the past, (and that's why we have social norms, GAWD!) the idiots who get stuck on islands over and over again are like, fuck capitalism! I have the right to get stuck on islands as much as I want! Stop oppressing me! -Never mind that other people are tasked with having to waste their time going out and rescuing the got-damned moron off the island -AGAIN- *sigh* Then we import foreigners who are supposed to come help work so more people can get rescued from islands, and they too fckn get stuck over and over....and our taxes are raised so rescue parties can help them as well.

That is why secular progressivism will only create death and misery anywhere it is tried, and it's stupid to call oneself 'fiscally conservative; socially liberal' because without social conservatism, we will never ever ever ever EVER have fiscal conservatism because the government will be forced to create ever more safety nets to rescue dipshits off islands.

TL;DR: Make better decisions so you don't end up in a position where you have to ask for help. It's not hard.

[violetsandshrikes]

this poor woman ended up in hospital because she ate cayenne + cinnamon coated orange (unpeeled) because there’s a health and wellness influencer with millions of views who recommends it for digestion - she burned her oesophagus

i always saw a few really good other additions of similar things on the comments

please be so, so careful taking advice from these people online, as many of them are not formally trained or educated, brand ambassadors, deep in pseudoscientific rabbit holes and unfortunately, there are many out there who struggle with disordered eating habits

(not mentioned here but another one worth noting: i have personally known people who have burned their oesophagus with viral apple cider vinegar shots and drinks. don’t do that. a burned oesophagus is not fun)

[political-confetti]

if yall go into the inboxes of random jewish folks and ask for their opinions on the palestine/israel conflict just because they’re jewish, fuck you. genuinely, fuck you. stop doing that. you aren’t supporting palestinians by harassing random jewish folks on the internet, you’re just being an antisemitic asshole. y’all are doing the exact same thing as assholes who would go up to random muslim folks after 9/11 and ask them their thoughts on the taliban. it’s fucking gross. if you actually care about victims of the war, donate to charities or funds. share posts and information about the situation. don’t fucking harass jewish people.

[dykedvonte]

You ever just see a Mouthwashing take that makes you want to bang your head into a wall? I literally just saw someone claim Curly couldn't have been emotionally abused by Jimmy before the crash because he was in a higher position of power than Jimmy.

-Shrimp Anon

The mouthwashing fandom has shown me that people genuinely do believe that certain types of abuse are not as detrimental as other types especially when they deem those immune/resistant, ergo, believing one is objectively worse no matter how it affects the person nor the intersections of power, history and dynamics at play.

Get ready cause this is a yap session:

Cause like it's heavily implied that Curly and Jimmy's friendship was toxic and abusive, pointedly in the direction of how Jimmy uses Curly's belief/comfort in him. Curly wasn't forced to enable Jimmy but he was emotional and mentally on edge around him in almost every scene in some way. Mental and emotional abuse are not contingent on what positions you have at work. Yeah, he's Jimmy's boss but he was Jimmy's friend first and it's like getting into Psych discussion to talk about how social power tends to overshadow any perceived organizational power in the human mind. People are concerned about their jobs ofc but they tend to hang onto and put more value/investment into their personal relationships, hence why there tends to be laws and restrictions around mixing the two.

I always see the sentiments that "Curly is a grown ass man", "Curly is bigger than Jimmy", "Curly is Jimmy's boss", "He just needed a backbone" as criticisms of Curly and while I do agree that on the surface level all of these to be true and viable ways Curly could've taken more control of the situation, I often look at the parallels of Anya and Curly as victims of Jimmy pre/post crash.

The way Jimmy talks to Anya post crash is how he talked to Curly in the pre-crash segments. It's hard to pin-point mainly because we know he hates and wants nothing to do with Anya compared to his contrary but similarly handled obsessions with Curly. It's a weird sort of "honey-moon" effect of abuse Jimmy does in terms of emotional and mental victimization. He is always horrid to Anya, always talking down or questioning her abilities and thoughts in a situation, this of course includes the harassment and assault. However, he has a moment of attempted gentleness/conditioning when he question her about the mouthwash when she's contemplating drinking it at the table. The key difference is he has no personal investment in Jimmy outside wanting nothing to do with him, meaning there is no sort of romanticized version of him that he can condition her off of. He knows this, hence, why he always reverts to trying to make her to scared to oppose him.

This sort of give and take of "kindness" doesn't work on her because she knows he is just doing it to take more from her than whatever he could possibly give but it reflects even the "softer" scenes between him and Curly where he always rewords or rephrases Curly's sentiments and concerns to sound more shallow. He is feigning a deeper understanding by reworking Curly's emotions into something bad and needing to be hidden. Everything is laced with envy and resentment, an outburst just around the corner, I mean he even slams the table in the birthday party scene, a tactic in emotional manipulation to set the victim on edge and cloud their ability to respond. Even if Curly knows Jimmy won't get physical in that moment, the physical actions is intended to make him back down in the confrontation in case it does. This is something that is just not person specific. It ingrains itself into how you interact with the world and life and it shows in major and minor ways with Curly.

Post-crash, the abusive nature is more in tandem to the physical victimization Anya went through and the stripping of voice and autonomy we see take place. Like the parasite in HFIM, Jimmy speaks for Curly most of the time and puts words in his mouth, similarly to how he takes Anya's plans as his own. He very commonly, with the both of them mind you, supplements the worst aspects of himself into them; pettiness, selfishness, lack of understanding... And tries to cover himself with their best qualities; kindness, planning, initiative, etc...

These parallel are just to say that positional power has little to do with if a person can be abused and how it can even be flipped to further the abuse. There is no doubt that Curly could've picked up on Jimmy's envy of his position hence another reason he never confronted him as a Captain but as a friend as doing so would immediately put Jimmy in a space to be confrontational/combative.

I think the disdain some people have when they talk about the heavily implied if not implicitly stated emotional/mental abuse Curly experienced being Jimmy's friend is when treating it as an excuse to why he didn't do more. I can understand that completely because it is not an excuse to why he didn't do more but is a very real reason people in his position in these scenarios can experience whether in the context of a work or social environment. However, I also think the way people talk about it really does demonstrate a bigger problem when talking about abuse when somehow who is/was abused is either part of the issue or enabled it.

Harkening back to the sentiments about Curly's inaction regarding Jimmy, I think the exact phrases I used/have seen show how there is an inherent belief that it is easier to overpower the effects of emotional/mental abuse that go in tandem with the perception of Curly as someone who should be able to. There is not an age you suddenly stop being susceptible to abuse nor a set point or low where you realize how it has affected you. You don't suddenly know to stand up or put a face on to face your abuser nor admit that you inadvertently enabled them to subjugate someone else to the same treatment. Maybe it's my psych brain but their is this growing belief that direct action is somehow easy or always the best method with the game shows you instances where it is not always the case. In real life that rings true too. He should have done more, but it's not impossible to see why he struggled to find a way or didn't even if it makes us mad.

It's not easy to suddenly gain a "back-bone". You don't immediately want to resort to aggression, especially if it mirrors the type you were a victim to. You don't want to believe you allowed yourself to be treated this bad, let it get that bad or allowed something bad to happen to someone else. It is easy to be in denial, to retreat to your thoughts or make excuses to avoid the painful truth. It's frustrating but in a way we know is relatable. It why we both hate and love Curly for it. We know we'd be better, we think we'd be better, we like to think we wouldn't falter in the same ways but it's always easier to say that from the outside looking in. It's easy to see what he was doing wrong because we are seeing it, not him, but the game really does make you picture what you would do if this was your raw reality and it's why this debate about Curly seems so never ending/contradictory. We can all say what we'd do but bottom line is that's much different when you're in the moment with all the emotions and human feelings attached.

I personally think Mouthwashing tackles the themes of rape culture, enabling, toxic masculinity, types of abuse and patriarchy in ways that are meant to deconstruct the typical straightforward views we mostly have of these concepts and how little subtilities of them are just as, if not more, detrimental than the overt/obvious parts. The game deals with the idea of little details and bigger picture in a way to show that sometimes the bigger picture is not the issue but the little details that make it up. It's why I have a personal dislike of depictions of Jimmy as the typical horrible person who would of course do something like this because the game is about noticing the little warning signs, the foreshadowing and foresight.

It's why I dislike the typical discussion of "bro code" and "boys will be boys" for the game because the game makes a point to avoid the standard depictions of such. It is about the type of men who still enable despite not condoning, agreeing or even perpetuating harmful beliefs because they can't see the little details or the ways it seeps into their everyday. The severity is not obvious to them as it was not obvious to Curly, Swansea or even Daisuke the way it was to a woman like Anya. There are little details about Jimmy that should ring alarms but if you are too naive like Daisuke, too distant like Swansea or too conditioned like Curly, they are just off markers.

There is 100% more constructive/concise ways to say "Curly was a victim of Jimmy's abuse on an emotional and mental aspect that clouded his judgements and perceptions in the scenario" while also critiquing on the side of "Curly still had a responsibility to protect Anya as a crew mate and Captain that he failed to do due to biases and stigma's he failed to surpass" without the weird condemnation people give him about should've knowing better than to let himself be manipulated by a person he considered a close, if not family/best-friend and had his own reasons to trust initially. Also stop being weird about victims of abuse in general with this fandom, like sorry not everyone has a like social epiphany the moment someone's nasty to them. People are treating it like you immediately know when you are in a toxic relationship immediately or comprehend when a person is actively dangerous and either it's your fault for not knowing how to leave/cut them off or you deserve it. Like the hypocrisy of people believing how certain fans treat the story reflect their irl views but not their own is crazy.

End statement is: I honestly don't even know man, I've been writing this too long and just like no man on that ship was perfect or really helped Anya when it mattered and I feel like pitting them against each other in discussion on who did the least or most or how it was justified sucks cause in the end Anya always did the most and best thing for herself.

[pro-birth]

Forcing the term "sex worker" into the conversation has been the stupidest fucking thing people could have done. I had to watch a charity ad about a """sex worker""" who lives in a fucking train station and is forced to give "paid sex" to men and boys who threaten her or her baby with knives but she's a """"SEX WORKER???""""

BITCH SHE IS A VICTIM OF RAPE! SHUT THE FUCK UP! I DON'T CARE WHAT FUCKING SOB STORY YOU CLAIM TO HAVE ABOUT """WORKERS""" NEEDING DIGNITY, YOU TOOK THAT DIGNITY AWAY THE MOMENT YOU TURNED FINANCIALLY COERCED RAPE INTO A FUCKING JOB! ONLYFANS AND PORN ISN'T EMPOWERING BECAUSE THE ONES DETERMINING YOUR WORTH ARE HOLDING THE PURSE STRINGS!!!!

RAPISTS ARE NOT CUSTOMERS, PIMPS ARE NOT EMPLOYERS, AND "SEX WORKERS" ARE NOT EMPLOYEES. RAPE/FINANCIALLY COERCED SEX IS NOT A SERVICE AND THE BODIES OF VICTIMS ARE NOT PRODUCTS YOU CAN PAY FOR, EVER. SHUT THE FUCK UP ABOUT """SEX WORK"""!!!!

[sleeplessv0id]

sometimes the distractions fail, and I am forced to confront the fact that I am still as sick as I've always been.

[quasi-normalcy]

There's this weird line that a show could walk in the 1990s, where on the one hand, it was tacky and objectifying and made by horny, kind of misogynistic guys, but on the other hand it was legitimately good queer representation and honestly a lot of people's introduction to feminism.

I feel like you couldn't get away with making Xena or Buffy in this day and age.

[vmpirevnom]

I’m so fucking mad.

“She should have taken it to court!” You know how many abuse victims don’t take their case to court because of emotional trauma? Besides, Melanie has money and that makes it difficult. Timothy was already harassed for speaking out. A court case would add to it.

Caring more about someone who doesn’t know you exist rather than the fucking victim is insane. “But I love Melanie so much! She’s my comfort person! 🥺” shut the hell up. If she wasn’t a celebrity you’d be defending the victim, I just know it.

[c1trvswurld]

STOP babying and objectifying Daisuke

STOP making anya a perpetual forever doting victim

STOP making swansea this hotheaded gaurd dog

STOP babying and objectifying and being ableist to curly and removing autonomy

STOP ignoring the complex themes of jimmys character just to mischaracterize and to dunk on your idea of him and, therefore, ignoring the themes of the story

Stop ignoring the complexities of their characters please and thank you

[aronarchy]

Why we don’t like it when children hit us back

To all the children who have ever been told to “respect” someone that hated them.

March 21, 2023

Even those of us that are disturbed by the thought of how widespread corporal punishment still is in all ranks of society are uncomfortable at the idea of a child defending themself using violence against their oppressors and abusers. A child who hits back proves that the adults “were right all along,” that their violence was justified. Even as they would cheer an adult victim for defending themself fiercely.

Even those “child rights advocates” imagine the right child victim as one who takes it without ever stopping to love “its” owners. Tear-stained and afraid, the child is too innocent to be hit in a guilt-free manner. No one likes to imagine the Brat as Victim—the child who does, according to adultist logic, deserve being hit, because they follow their desires, because they walk the world with their head high, because they talk back, because they are loud, because they are unapologetically here, and resistant to being cast in the role of guest of a world that is just not made for them.

If we are against corporal punishment, the brat is our gotcha, the proof that it is actually not that much of an injustice. The brat unsettles us, so much that the “bad seed” is a stock character in horror, a genre that is much permeated by the adult gaze (defined as “the way children are viewed, represented and portrayed by adults; and finally society’s conception of children and the way this is perpetuated within institutions, and inherent in all interactions with children”), where the adult fear for the subversion of the structures that keep children under control is very much represented.

It might be very well true that the Brat has something unnatural and sinister about them in this world, as they are at constant war with everything that has ever been created, since everything that has been created has been built with the purpose of subjugating them. This is why it feels unnatural to watch a child hitting back instead of cowering. We feel like it’s not right. We feel like history is staring back at us, and all the horror we felt at any rebel and wayward child who has ever lived, we are feeling right now for that reject of the construct of “childhood innocence.” The child who hits back is at such clash with our construction of childhood because we defined violence in all of its forms as the province of the adult, especially the adult in authority.

The adult has an explicit sanction by the state to do violence to the child, while the child has both a social and legal prohibition to even think of defending themself with their fists. Legislation such as “parent-child tort immunity” makes this clear. The adult’s designed place is as the one who hits, and has a right and even an encouragement to do so, the one who acts, as the person. The child’s designed place is as the one who gets hit, and has an obligation to accept that, as the one who suffers acts, as the object. When a child forcibly breaks out of their place, they are reversing the supposed “natural order” in a radical way.

This is why, for the youth liberationist, there should be nothing more beautiful to witness that the child who snaps. We have an unique horror for parricide, and a terrible indifference at the 450 children murdered every year by their parents in just the USA, without even mentioning all the indirect suicides caused by parental abuse. As a Psychology Today article about so-called “parricide” puts it:

Unlike adults who kill their parents, teenagers become parricide offenders when conditions in the home are intolerable but their alternatives are limited. Unlike adults, kids cannot simply leave. The law has made it a crime for young people to run away. Juveniles who commit parricide usually do consider running away, but many do not know any place where they can seek refuge. Those who do run are generally picked up and returned home, or go back on their own: Surviving on the streets is hardly a realistic alternative for youths with meager financial resources, limited education, and few skills.

By far, the severely abused child is the most frequently encountered type of offender. According to Paul Mones, a Los Angeles attorney who specializes in defending adolescent parricide offenders, more than 90 percent have been abused by their parents. In-depth portraits of such youths have frequently shown that they killed because they could no longer tolerate conditions at home. These children were psychologically abused by one or both parents and often suffered physical, sexual, and verbal abuse as well—and witnessed it given to others in the household. They did not typically have histories of severe mental illness or of serious and extensive delinquent behavior. They were not criminally sophisticated. For them, the killings represented an act of desperation—the only way out of a family situation they could no longer endure.

- Heide, Why Kids Kill Parents, 1992.

Despite these being the most frequent conditions of “parricide,” it still brings unique disgust to think about it for most people. The sympathy extended to murdering parents is never extended even to the most desperate child, who chose to kill to not be killed. They chose to stop enduring silently, and that was their greatest crime; that is the crime of the child who hits back. Hell, children aren’t even supposed to talk back. They are not supposed to be anything but grateful for the miserable pieces of space that adults carve out in a world hostile to children for them to live following adult rules. It isn’t rare for children to notice the adult monopoly on violence and force when they interact with figures like teachers, and the way they use words like “respect.” In fact, this social dynamic has been noticed quite often:

Sometimes people use “respect” to mean “treating someone like a person” and sometimes they use “respect” to mean “treating someone like an authority” and sometimes people who are used to being treated like an authority say “if you won’t respect me I won’t respect you” and they mean “if you won’t treat me like an authority I won’t treat you like a person” and they think they’re being fair but they aren’t, and it’s not okay.

(https://soycrates.tumblr.com/post/115633137923/stimmyabby-sometimes-people-use-respect-to-mean)

But it has received almost no condemnation in the public eye. No voices have raised to contrast the adult monopoly on violence towards child bodies and child minds. No voices have raised to praise the child who hits back. Because they do deserve praise. Because the child who sets their foot down and says this belongs to me, even when it’s something like their own body that they are claiming, is committing one of the most serious crimes against adult society, who wants them dispossessed.

Sources:

“The Adult Gaze: a tool of control and oppression,” https://livingwithoutschool.com/2021/07/29/the-adult-gaze-a-tool-of-control-and-oppression

“Filicide,” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filicide

[moonturtlephilosophy]

I think one of the biggest drivers in the "transandrophobia discourse" is that the women/transfems who are currently going after transmascs, belive that men have some inherent qualities. The flavor changes depending on who is talking, but it's always one of them: bioessencialism, genderessencialism, sexessencialism, ect.

Newsflash: feminism includes everyone and strives to free ALL from these societal systems. As soon as you exclude literally anyone, you're not a feminits anymore. Even if that group is cis, white, hetero, able-bodied, upperclass men. They are not opressed by this system, but they sure are affected! And need to be included in femminist discussion. Both about their struggles with patriarchy and capitalism AND about preventative measures for rape, SA, sexism, ect. (How they cause harm through perpetuation of harmfull systems. That they did not put in place. Literally just please give men a space to deconstruct these systems for themselves. They are not gonna 100% see themselves in theory made by women and thats ok. That doesn't make them automatically evil.)

[mirouvrse]

proship culture is being a victim who's weird