#villification of women

[thelandswemadeofpaper]

Lydia the Bard - Don't Cry for your Daughters Eve (Official Animatic Mus...

Lydia the Bard, I love this woman

Can't take off 'Fall Little Wendy Bird Fall' off my head

@eve-made-the-right-choice after begin a follower for so long and loving your tumblr name since ever, I kinda had to tag you

[marcos--budt]

Made it 11 feminist posts, as a treat✨✨

[rottentiger-art]

This part is so special to me, the visual representation of the wife using the LW pamphlet as a shield from her abusive husband.

The husband is fuming, but she does not appear confident instead of fearful for what he might do. In a time where you're meant to let your husband do whatever he pleases with you, I can't imagine how important it must've been for her to not only have someone on her side, but that someone being one of the most relevant voices of the ton.

Before this shot she also sided with the maid, publically shaming the mistress that fired her for an unfair reason. And it will help, because the ton cares too much about LW's opinion, that's why the Queen told Eloise that she had no idea the power she held. The husband and the mistress being shamed publically by LW will force them to behave due to the social pressure.

Penelope is always being villanized for being Lady Whistledown and spreading gossip, so much so that people forget she has and still uses LW as a way to help others, not only the Bridgerton, not only through words but personally, like when she pressed for the paper boys to get paid their due. She did more for the working class and for other women that anyone on that job

The parallel of both colums too were amazing on showing this. Cressida and her mother thought the column would require nothing but scandalous gossips, but Pen's is more than that, she can be vicious but she has never been unnecessarily cruel and slandering. Like she said, she only writes the truth.

TL;DR: I do not vibe with the villification of both Penelope and Lady Whistledown, not when she has used for good so many times

[hadesoftheladies]

absolutely heartbreaking how straight and bi women are demeaned and humiliated for having sex with men. how the love and trust and vulnerability of a woman is somehow laughable bc it comes from a woman. "dick rider" "cocksucker" "slut" and more. just such hate and villification for the only women who think men are worth sharing that kind of intimacy.

it makes it even more bleak when said women keep insisting on the love and loyalty of men. and all i see is maybe one guy speaking out against any of it. most of them don't care. how is that love? how is that loyalty or friendship? that their proximity to us makes them even more entitled and wicked?

i wish women would stop apologizing for men and just start protecting and choosing themselves. instead of defending the honour of men who couldn't give two shits what women think or how they feel unless they still had access to them. men really aren't worth poop at the bottom of a shoe

[netflixonyourcouch]

The Caitlin Clark vs. Angel Reese narrative has dominated public discourse. I'm here to provide my take on it, which I'll tell you right now, is going to be very surface level...

Because there's not much to dig into here. The villification of Angel Reese in the media is nothing short of racist.

Now, let's start with a disclaimer that applies to a lot of people and that I'm ashamed to say applies to me as well: I am a Women's Basketball casual. If anything, that should be at the forefront of this conversation. And this isn't pandering. This is simply to say that the most egregious thing about this is the comments from the peanut gallery who haven't even paid attention to women's basketball until this very moment.

Now let's get into it. Caitlin Clark is the white star player from the Iowa women's basketball team, who previously taunted the Louisville team with a gesture that meant that they other team "can't see her" (i.e. match her level of expertise on the court). Indeed, Caitlin Clark had a historic 41 point triple double during this playoff run and is just an elite talent.

But Caitlin could not will Iowa to victory over the LSU women's basketball team, led by their star player Angel Reese, who is black. When Angel saw victory in her hands, she decided to return the favor with the "can't see me" taunt as well as pointing to her ring finger, a gesture meaning she was about to receive the championship ring.

Again, no one who cared about women's sports up until this moment, came out of the WOODWORK to decry Angel Reese as "classless." I hate this fucking word. "Classless" might as well be the n-word for white people. They wield it like a weapon. They choose not to focus on LSU being the better team, they are diminishing Angel's leadership on the court, and instead reducing this entire moment to the gestures she made on the court. It's so wack.

Angel Reese has since came out and said she doesn't care what people think. And I love that. Certainly a new rivalry has been formed, and Caitlin isn't going to forget this massive L. But if she wants to dish it out, she better be able to take it. Again, that's not a deep observation, it's very surface level, but I have to point it out.

Now, Critics will say, "But Caitlin didn't follow anyone down the court. Angel followed Caitlin around the court" guess what? I don't care. The only thing you're doing when you said that is ACKNOWLEDGING THAT CAITLIN STILL TAUNTED. And maybe Caitlin needed that slice of humble pie. She didn't need to taunt at all just like Angel didn't need to taunt at all. Caitlin taunted and she was on the receiving end of the taunt. Don't tell me "Caitlin's taunt was just 4.1 seconds while Angel taunted for a whole 10!" because I don't give a fuck.

All you haters, kiss Angel's ring and stay mad.

[hawkzeyes]

That mention of the OG Deathstroke Judas Contract arc........it was a dark time ™ to be a comic fan(according to my uncle who read that entire thing in real time). Anyone that can actively sit down and romantically pair a man in his mid to late 50s with a literal 15 year old child, then have the audacity to act like it was warranted because "it was to showcase her true villainy" .........electric chair.

I could write a short essay explaining how the slut-shaming and villification of Terra as a character could be viewed as a microcosm of how young women, girls and AFAB individuals are treated in society(especially those who are viewed through a hypersexualized lens), but I'm not trying to clog up your blog or ruin the vibes.

I could not imagine having to GROW up and LIVE through that storyline. I can just never look at it again but he is haunted by it forever 😭 RIP to your Uncle

No no PLEASE because I agree. The amount of people I have seen justify because of “the time” and or demonize Terra… I’m always thrown through a loop like??? (Not everyone obviously but enough to be concerning)

That little girl is a child???

A VICTIM???

[djuvlipen]

this romani man is so embarrassing

JK Rowling never said anything about Roma, none of her works share anti-Romani sentiment, no anti-Romani stereotype whatsoever, but ofc any opportunity to demonize a woman is a good one

This same guy made a tiktok months ago in which he supported Johnny Depp too, so I find it even more distasteful of him to demonize JKR, an actual victim of domestic violence and sexual assault

Also, none of his tiktoks, dedicated to romani issues, have ever discussed Romani women's rights. He never made any video to address Romani women's reproductive rights being taken away from us, Romani women being discriminated in hospitals, Romani women being pimped into sexual slavery, etc. And of course, acknowledging that Romani men are the first perpetrator of violence against Romani women (check the IPV and DV rates of Romani women, it's in my pinned post) will not make the cause look good i guess. By participating in the villification of (white) female survivors like Amber Heard and JKR, male romani activists are proving that they don't care about women's issues, including those that impact the majority of romani women

They are not our allies

[helladopecuddlefish]

Feminists have been calling out for years the pernicious rise of misogyny in women and the villification of femeninity and yall just like "no this guy must be a mra." crazy. But yall just arent feminists fr.

you guys have turned into unironic men's rights activists have you noticed that

[wholewiazrd]

why people on tumblr think that some twitter threads that did something with a concept of "trans men experienced mysogyny and it was so identitiy building that now they feel sad people think theyre only men who experience transphobia"

i find it honestly disingenious, because types like that use their "id-building mysogyny" to somehow argue for there existing female and male socialization and thus leading to villification of trans women who, to people that actually go outside, quite clearly expericence more "identity buliding mysogyny".

the intersection of mysogyny and tranphobia for trans men is just transphobia. when my uncle told me i couldnt be an md bc women are not good doctors and i should be a dentist he was transphobic to me, not mysgonynistic. why are we using absolute denominators when the social situations are so clearly contextual.

it deeply saddens me that trans men dont see the implications their arguments for their own "gender trauma" have on trans women.

[shame-kink]

not to reference a fucking joss whedon production but pmmm’s relationship to misogyny is a bit like a pie.

if you look at it, superficially, its all about watching little girls suffer right? its a bad faith deconstruction (slash subversive offshoot slash whateverelse term. you may go by) of anime popularly aimed at girls, which fails to actually modify its critique with that audience in mind (and in fact maintaining a lot of the flaws in the genre that are worthy of criticism in light of such!).

oh, but look! it not only maintains a focus on core positivity in spite of the horrors its setting provides but in demonstrating a system in which the institutional demonization (literal) of women is the chief antagonist it actually does a lot of GOOD for women in terms of narrative. ESPECIALLY compared with its copycats! its men are barely characters and even its women at their worst are seen as anti-villains or victims!

okay or homura who in overthrowing the current order is displayed as a scantly clad villainess, but that still could be more her- okay the underdressedness of it is questionable but her “evil” demeanor could be self-villification, that IS in character, , oh but the pure goody goodness of madoka is frequently (and sexualizedly) tied to her purity… the infrequence of significant men in the series, while on one hand still featuring them at their pretty bad, grants them the significant judicial boon of anonymity to the audience…. oh and the officially licensed merchandise is like 70% our underage protagonists in bikinis or whateverthefuck (ok obviously exaggerating but even an extant minority of merch sexualizing the girls shoots the supposed feminism in the ass)

Thus, a thin but ontologically necessary “crust” of misogyny over a work that when given deeper but non-comprehensive or inarguable thought has some good things to say. also something something urobuchi

[the-c41n-instinct]

Not to get too TikTok-y on here because I know y'all and your superiority complexes hate those who find enjoyment in things you don't like

but this whole "Man vs Bear" "debate" is so stupid to me. (For context, it's the RHETORICAL question: Would you feel safer alone in the woods with a male stranger or a bear.)

Because it's not a debate. There's no right or wrong answer. Hell, there's not even technically an answer. It's a rhetorical question that was meant to show unaware men just how bad the situation involving sa and such issues is, that a woman would rather see a wild animal that she knows could kill her than a member of her own species.

But men on tiktok are upset and calling "sexism" and "villification" because women are trying to bring awareness to a very serious issue. These men are choosing to ignore the systemic issue that allowed this kind of mass trauma in favor of hating women.

(TW under the cut, some of the not so nice things I've been told as someone who said bear)

I've been told (as someone who said bear) that they hope I get assaulted, that I'm a sexist, that I hate men, that a bear would ki|| me (and one person said it would assault my barely alive body) and they wonder why we say bear.

[valiantdust]

LMAO there's no way people actually think that 'girls with masculine energy' and 'tomboys' get treated better by men? Like surely they realise how stupidly WRONG that is?

First off, what you think of as a tomboy is not a tomboy, it's the blueprint default girl with slightly baggier trousers and slightly less makeup. Second, if you think most men (most PEOPLE) have anything but sheer loathing and hatred for masculine women, you've buried your head in the sand.

Men who hate women hate us all. Masculine women are far less protected from that hate because those kinds of men aren't on best behaviour trying to fuck us. So they don't even bother pretending to be decent people.

Feminity isn't an oppressed class and masculinity isn't an oppressive one, it's the context of the person with those characteristics that feeds into their experience of oppression.

(this post was inspired by a foolish tumblr post and even more foolish tiktok)

[philosophicalconservatism]

Certain parties on the Left are inventing new political concepts to undermine the pure ideal of free speech. One of the latest of these is "Stochastic Terrorism". If any one speaks in a manner that the Left deems as insensitive toward some particular group of people (for example, by saying with respect to people with gender dysphoria, that men cannot become women and that women cannot become men) they become an accessory to any violence that is perpetrated against that group in the future.

And so I take it that the harsh villification of the the pro-life movement in the wake of the Dobbs ruling by the Supreme Court which was followed by the firebombing and vandalism of crisis pregnancy centers (as well as the attempted murder of a Supreme Court justice) was also an instance of "Stochastic Terrorism."

[effervescent-emmett]

have,,,,, have you read the books babe?

Dress as if today is the day you’ll be turned into a vampire. Cut your hair, get that piercing, sit for that five hour tattoo session, because you’ll be the same forever.

[sevicia]

HI DANTE!! i wanted to hear ur thoguhts on just lgbt ppl and horror as a bi guy

but also have u seen incantation!!

i HAVE seen incantation my sister showed it to me she said it made her paranoid... I really liked it!!! I enjoy that sort of movie that has the same vibe as noroi... ! I esp liked the use of that one symbol yknow the one? i like that kinda stuff.

with lgbt people and horror, i feel like theres a LOT to say and im not the right guy to say it cause i am NOT very eloquent (or thoughtful for that matter...) but!

I think that theres literally the link ever with trans people and creatures that transform or that change in some form or the other which is pretty obvious like duh, BUT i also find a lot of comfort in Frankenstein's monster (who i dont like calling a monster but yknow), cause it goes through so much shit just trying to be with other people, trying to be loved and trying to show that it is not as heinous as it seems... i feel that way a lot about my trans body, like i have a massive BEWARE symbol stuck to my chest! i feel very connected to it, and when i read the book i was almost in tears TBH

Also theres SOMETHING there about wlw & the sexualization, demonization and villification of their attraction... Like the typical scene where women are shown together just to be like "hah! look how DEVILISH and FUCKED UP they are!". But im not the right person to talk about this cause i have no clue on the subject, i just KNOW theres something wrong w the way wlw are handled in horror (the movie High Tension being a prime example iirc)

And i feel like (and this is also obvious but lemme have my moment ok) we dont see the same being done to mlm cause our attraction IS villified, but not sexualized. Theres the fact of misogyny of course (as in, sexualizing women, objectifying them, using them to sell), but theres also something about mlm being hidden away and hidden somehow... This is not me saying one faces "more" or "worse" oppression than the other cause we all have our struggles, but theyre obviously different u know?

I think theres also something inherently gay about horror... or at least some types of horror. Something something about being hidden, being shunned, being made into something to fear... Then again i really am not the type of guy who gives much thought to, like, anything, so it's hard for me to talk about stuff like this cause i HAVE feelings about things i just dont know how to make them make sense and put them in a way that others might understand. or in a way that makes sense at all for that matter...!

[no-name-district]

I don’t like posting about things I hate, but I’ll make an exception for ACOTAR because this book series embodies everything I hate about a lot of YA and NA fantasy. Beyond the technical issues the book has (writing style, plot, etc.) and issues with the themes presented (i understand the appeal of dark fiction, but I take issue with portraying SA as romantic or trivial in a YA book. Indulge in your fantasy, but please make it clear that it is a fantasy, not something good or desirable if your target audience is legally children), the worldbuilding (or lack thereof) is what infuriates me the most. So here’s an abridged list of things that pissed me off!

LACK OF RESERACH

I will clarify that the scope of the worldbuilding really affects the amount of research the author should dedicate to researching and then building the setting. If the protagonist spends the entire story in a singular room, then the author only really needs to think about that room! SJM chose to write a trilogy set in two different courts that are deeply involved in the politics of an entire continent. Assuming that she was inspired by “medieval Europe” (I put that in quotations because the Middle Ages lasted roughly 10 centuries so the term “medieval” specifies jack shit), we should’ve seen that inspiration in the clothing (stays and later corsets don’t really pop up on the historical record until the 16th century, the century after the end of the Middle Ages so no, your court ladies shouldn't be tight-laced), in the architecture (gothic architecture starts in the 12th century, Romanesque a century or two before that, and late Roman architecture is still in use during the beginning of the Middle Ages so Europe has a lot more than thatch-roof huts), in the food (nitpicky but potatoes and other staple crops won’t be introduced to Europe until the 16th century so no, your average medieval commoner is most definitely not eating mashed potatoes and gruel) etc. etc. That’s not even including the innerworkings of medieval courts, social structures under feudalism and manorialism, trade and other economic relations, music, dance, etc. etc.!!! “But it’s a fantasy!!!”, you say. I agree, which is why you need

INTERNAL CHOHERENCE

If the author isn’t striving for historical accuracy or historical proximity, they need to establish how things work in the world they created. A lot of the political and social relationships and ACOTAR are based on a vague form of speciesism (High Fae are literally just semi-immortal humans with magic and pointy ears, please explain their conflict especially since it’s a huge part of the worldbuilding) and some nebulous magic system (if Mother chooses the High Lord, isn’t it possible that she could choose anyone? Why is power concentrated in the hands of a few families that have been ruling for centuries? Why hasn’t Mother chosen a woman to be High Lady? What even is the criteria for being chosen High Lord? Is it the most powerful in the Court, the most powerful in the bloodline, or are there other factors at play? How do people know that Mother has chosen the next High Lord? What if a group doesn’t believe in Mother? Do they still accept the High Lord?) Book 1 Feyre didn’t need to understand the inner workings of Prythian, but after she becomes Fae these questions should have been clarified. If our protagonist aspires to be a ruler, shouldn’t she learn how the society she intends to rule works? Hell, if she intends to rule shouldn't she -- along with the audience -- learn about what ruling a Fae Court entails? She throws a fit when she realized that being a Lady involves dressing up and throwing parties which leads me to my next point

THE VILLIFICATION OF FEMININITY AND THE ERASURE OF WOMEN

Here’s the thing, “throwing parties” throughout history have been linked to diplomacy, reification of status, and occasionally religious orthodoxy. The IC literally use a party (plus Nesta) to establish diplomacy with Eris!!! Feyre throwing parties as Lady of Spring wouldn’t have been meaningless busy work; it would’ve been vital connection building and diplomacy! (Not to mention, these would’ve lasted a week at minimum and would’ve implicated the coordination of the entire estate which is Not Easy) Not to mention, parties in this series have been linked to important traditions and morale building. So no Feyre “dressing up and throwing parties” isn’t Tamlin demeaning you, it’s the High Lord giving his politically inexperienced wife an important role within his Court. Other people have articulated it better, but SJM has a habit of vilifying traditionally feminine work. Yes, Feyre’s hunting helped her family in the first book, but who was cleaning the hut? Who was fetching the water? Who mended the clothes? Who cooked the food? Those jobs are equally important to running a household, but why are they seen as inferior, as unworthy? [A little controversial, but this trope is what I refer to as “so woke it comes back full circle into bigotry” because the underlying assumption is that traditionally feminine work -- cooking, cleaning, child-rearing, etc. -- has no value, which is a deeply patriarchal idea] Beyond the negative depiction of feminine work, SJM also ignores all the ways women have historically engaged with masculine work. We have obvious examples of women who have taken masculine positions as warriors and tacticians (Joanna of Flanders, comes to mind), scholars (Sor Juana Ines de la Cruz), and powerful rulers (Isabela de Castilla was a co-ruler for example). Beyond entering traditionally masculine spheres, women coexisted with men as artisans and merchants. Women offered ground support during times of siege (bringing water and food, tending to the wounded, etc.). Women existed!!! They did things!!! Even in skirts and stays!!! 

IMY ISSUES WITH ILLRYIA

 Ignoring the history of the actual Illryians, in ACOTAR they are a tribal people and are known for their military prowess. Historical examples of similar people’s include the Mongols, the Huns, and the Scythians (another name SJM  included but did no research on). Interestingly, all three cultures mentioned were fairly egalitarian in comparison to their more sedentary neighbors (Mongol women served as chiefs per historical accounts and some sources hold that young Scythian women and a caste of warrior-women fought alongside the men). Even more structured warrior states like Sparta trained women in rudimentary combat and left women in charge of political affairs during times of war. Why then are the Illryians equally sexist as the more sedentary parts of the Night Court when there are an abundance of historical peoples that allowed and encouraged women to fight? What do the Illryians gain in maiming their women? Doesn’t it leave their settlements vulnerable to attacks when the men are away fighting? Wouldn't it make more sense for fEmINist kINg Rhysand to have been raised by a female warrior who raised him with egalitarian ideas? Again, where is the logic? Where is the understanding of how your world is supposed to work? Beyond villanizing a canonically POC culture (although SJM actually writing them as POC is debatable) what does the intense sexism in Illryia do for the plot? For the characters? Especially when the rest of the world SJM wrote is exactly the same in terms of sexism!!!