#when will white feminists learn this and apply it

[please-picturemeintheweeds]

And it’s coming over you like its all a big mistake

[doberbutts]

One of the things that really confuses me (I'm a cis woman of color) is this doubling down on the idea that Black men aren't oppressed because they're men, they're oppressed because they're Black, gay men aren't oppressed because they're men, they're oppressed because they're gay, trans men aren't oppressed because they're men, they're oppressed because they're trans, etc. It feels like people are being intentionally obtuse. You can't separate my identity as a POC from my identity as a woman. I am treated the way I'm treated because I'm a woman of color, those two things work together. That's where discussions of intersectionality originated. So to say you can separate a privileged identity from an oppressed one is just.... not how anything works?

I constantly see "masculinity isn't criminalized/demonized, Blackness, queerness, transness are" and it's like.... no, that's not how this happens. Marginalized men face specific oppression based on the intersection of their identities. It seems like lately people are willing to understand that for women but not willing to for men and I just don't know how we make any progress if radfem rhetoric has become so pervasive that people are refusing to see lived realities rather than some abstract hypothetical they've come up with.

Personally I think this is due to (white) people seeing and liking black theory that they personally agree with or that makes sense to be applied to their own lives, and then cut out all the parts that are inconvenient for them to have to reconcile. Much like how many, many, many black feminists who are cis women have said "hey, white feminists, stop it with the all men are rapists thing, it actively contributes to black men getting lynched for crimes they didn't commit because it gets weaponized unfairly against our brothers" and white feminists collectively forgot how to read and abandoned their listening skills while still praising other parts of black feminism that talk about domestic violence and sexual assault and oversexualization and reproductive rights and rightly taking black men to task for their continued complacency in this.

The phrase "intersectionality" originated in black feminist theory. I do not trust any white person to fully understand black feminism when they use it as a bludgeon to make the inconvenient bits be quiet. Much of what is on this blog is black feminism. It is inconvenient for white people to have to consider how their words and actions may harm people of color while still lifting themselves up.

As you have said, you cannot separate the "of color" from the "woman" parts of your identity. You are a woman of color. That changes how both sexism and racism works against you in a system that is both sexist and racist. I, in the same manner, cannot separate the "trans" from the "man"- if I were not a man, I would be a woman. I am AFAB, if I am a woman, I am not trans. There is no "you experience this because you are transgender, not because you are a man". In order to be a man, in my body, I have to be transgender*. Just like there is no "you experience this because you are black, not because you are a man". I am a black man. The black experience is inherently, often forcibly, gendered. I can tell you exactly how people treating me changed in a "before" and "after". I can tell you that yes, some of it absolutely stems from the "man" part, they treat me this way because I am a black man.

But people often misunderstand intersectionality to be, exclusively, axis of oppression. And so they say, well learn intersectionality, men aren't oppressed and thus it's not an axis of oppression to combine. But that ignores that some men are oppressed, marginalized men are oppressed and often with a very gendered slant. And it ignores that, like how you cannot separate the "woman" from the "of color", neither can you do that with men.

Men are not the default. They are slightly less than half the population, same as women.

*re: in order to be a man in my body I must be transgender; yes, I am intersex. However I have been out as transgender for 17 years, and discovered I am intersex 6 months ago. So for me, that is very much the case. For other intersex people who were assigned female at birth, that may not be the case. This is something that works on an individual level but cannot be broadbrushed as there are many different opinions among intersex people regarding our cisgender vs transgender status.

[mithliya]

it’s exhausting being among “radical” women who don’t even apply class analysis when it inconveniences them. “radfems” on here will all come together to say men don’t experience misandry & women hating men isn’t akin to systemic oppression, but then a huge portion of u will unironically argue heterophobia and racism against white people are legitimate things because oppressed groups aren’t nice enough when criticising your prejudices online 😐 like please stop pretending to be at all radical and go back to learn the basics of radical feminist thinking

[creature-wizard]

Do you think resistance to the idea that Judaism is a closed practice comes from the idea that a central tenet of Christianity is that Jews don’t understand their own culture and said culture actually belongs to everyone?

This absolutely plays into it a lot, along with the whole "Judaism is just Christianity without Jesus" belief. Christian conspiracy theorists just assume that whatever mystical secrets and spiritual truths Jews have uncovered also applies to them and their beliefs, so when they aren't claiming that Kabbalah is a dark magical practice, they'll claim that it actually supports Christianity and some not-too-distant end times date.

And of course, more broadly, Christians have been trying to assert that other people simply didn't understand their own cultures since very early on - see Acts and the story of Paul on Mars Hill. And then in the Middle Ages, perennialism was popular among Christians (so I have learned from ESOTERICA), and after tapering off in popularity during the Renaissance, was popularized again by the likes of Helena Blavatsky, and to a degree by Eduard Gerhard's Great Goddess hypothesis, which has (at least in certain circles) all contributed to this view that Lilith was this ancient goddess who was revered until she was demonized by the evil patriarchs. A number of radfem types assert that because Lilith was a goddess demonized by patriarchy (which of course, there's no evidence for), she's effectively open to all women as this sort of feminist icon, or even a manifestation of the dark divine feminine. And since radical feminism is a predominantly white movement, you have a lot of people who really do not like being told no.

[creepykuroneko]

Dear white people,

I am begging you to please learn the difference between sympathy, empathy, and how you do not need both to help other people.

I am saying this as a brown, genderqueer, autistic, person who has dealt with all different types of bigotry over my life time.

The best way I've ever seen sympathy and empathy explained in an oversimplified form is as follows:

Sympathy, "that sucks bro"

Empathy, "I feel you bro"

You do not need to feel bad for someone in order to help them. Simply recognizing they are in a bad situation and in need of help is more than enough.

I often see white people shit on brown and black communities for supposedly being more homophobic and transphobic than white communities are. Yet ask any queer person of color and they will tell you they would rather hang out with cishet people of their same race than hang out in the white LGBT+ community because of the racism they experience within the white queer spaces.

No I'm not a fan of Christianity and I think America would be better if people were less religious but I do recognize that in America black churches do more for the black community then other Institutes do. I have known more black queer people who were facing homelessness and were able to get help from their church versus any government lead organization or white focused queer spaces. Good luck explaining this to White LGBT+ people though. They refuse to acknowledge not only the problems within their own community, but how other communities outside of theirs take care of each other while yes still being problematic.

When the script is flipped though, when it's a white woman who is very blatantly bigoted and hateful, who suddenly finds herself and in dire need of help, suddenly white people are willing to put their politics aside to help people. I've noticed when women of colors speak up about how they do not feel bad for a former Trump supporter who is now living in her car suddenly every single white person is a feminist. You'll notice that often times the people who say they do not feel bad for said white woman never actually say she deserves her situation. Other people fill in the gaps that they believe are missing. Suddenly It's what about helping people? What if it was you? We need to lift each other up.

For those of you who lack reading comprehension I do NOT believe anybody should be homeless, starving, or without basic necessities.

I simply believe you do not have to feel bad for someone to help them.

People like to joke about how people who live in red States deserve what they get for living in a red state. What about the people who were born in that situation and do not have the means to leave? Not to mention the fact that it is a white centric colonizer point of view to have the mentality of " I'll just move away and gentrify some other neighborhood rather than fix the problems in my community".

I just find it awfully convenient that anytime it's a bigoted white woman who is in dire straits, suddenly everyone can put their politics aside to help her. When it is literally anybody else, it's crickets chirping in the room.

I have seen more men of color put themselves in a potentially dangerous situation to see if a white woman who is crying needs help then I have seen white women reach out to men of color and ask if they need help. So "why" is it that the group I see all around me be more compassionate towards other human beings gets scrutinized for supposedly not being more empathetic?

Everyone can help make the world a better place. Yes everyone deserves access to food, clean water, shelter, and medicine. Even awful people. It does not mean that you have to love thy neighbor though. I can recognize that this bitch means me harm and still believe she has every right to apply for food stamps. Because guess what? When one person falls through the cracks, the crack gets bigger and swallows us all up. It does not mean that I have to feel bad for her though. And quite frankly, asking people of color to feel bad for someone who actively means them harm is disgusting.

[yanderefairyangel]

I recommend you watch this video because honestly it sums up so many of my gripes with how female characters are written or perceived by fandom and why the girlboss type of character has started to get on everyone's nerves

That being said

At some point Op mentions "feminist" retellings, notably as wanting to give silenced women a voice which she doesn't dwell too much into (understandable considering the thesis) and seeing how a lot of what she says in general can apply to them anyway so I am recc another video that nailed it regarding greek myth retellings notably that dwell more into this question specifically

That being said something I noticed and that wasn't necessarily said outloud by both of these videos which kind of exasperate me when it comes to female protag in modern power fantasy is how they very often fall both in being just toxic masculinity masquerading as feminism because these traits are put into a female character and also the perfect victim at the same time

Allow me to take an example using the premise of a greek myth retelling, Galatea by Madelline Miller

For those who don't know the story, Pygmalion is a sculptor who felt disgusted by women upon learning of the Propoetides's behavior and decided to remain single. However he ends up making a statue of a woman so perfect he fell in love with it and eventually prayed to Aphrodite who made the statue into a human, the two married, had kids and lived happily ever after.

So Pygmalion was basically the first guy in history to ever have a waifu, and the tale is very similar in premise to Pinocchio (but not really tho it's a topic for another day)

However, you can sense there is something off putting about a man who believes all women are like the Propoetides and ends up falling for a woman perfectly fit for him because she isn't like these other women, in that aspect wanting to critically examines the misogynistic implications of the tale make sense

However, have you noticed what Miller does to achieve this end ? In the myth, the couple was perfectly happy, but in her retelling Miller turns Pygmalion into an abusive husband and Galatea into a woman yearning for independence and having to free her shackles from her husband.

Granted, when you see how Pygmalion behaves towards the women of Cyprus and that he isn't really challenged on that belief, you could think such behavior makes sense. However, this specific narrative choices results in Galatea still being portrayed as a victim that she wasn't in the myth. But not any type of victim, one that craves for agency now that she has been given live but who cannot attain it because of a man, so she has to find a way to get to her goal.

That would be an approach to challenge the myth however, it still relies on making Galatea the helpless victim and Pygmalion the abuser, perptuating the notion that women are victims who can't attain their goal of freedom because of the evil men in their lives, so this supposedly bold retelling is in reality cliched given this is this exact same schema every single YA retelling uses for absolutely any stories, but also doesn't really sound feminist since it's once again just perpetuating the idea women are nothing but victims

This retelling is also tagged as historical, maybe implying this is the condition of women back then, but when you combine this one to the many others novels using this exact same narrative theme, schema, structure etc it really makes you think that women were nothing but victims discontent of their own situation and it will always be the case if we don't take down the patriarchy and yadi yada. This ignore that the place of women in society, while undeniably in a position of lesser power compared to men, wasn't as black and white as these retellings might indicate it is. Furthemore, when you consider the fact these schema are so manufactured they get slapped unto every story ever, the whole point about taking down the patriarchy feels nothing more than a slogan made to gain not women's heart, but their wallet.

We have discussed that at lenght in classes I have at uni, but sometimes the abudance of these types of stories feels less like passion project and more like editiorial strategy because using the thematics of "women being oppressed by the patriarchy "is what gives you the most money since you sell wish fufillement to the prime demographic of people being affected by this problem, again this is what I complained about in my Rosaline posts, this is nothing but wish fufillement "feminism" which is very different from the real deal. It doesn't challenge the notion that women are weak, it has to put them into these positions to then show them as overcoming this weakness. Obviously, when you want to make a commentary on something that is unavoidable, but in the case of these retellings, when you first reflex is to do that to any female characters, doesn't that show you genuinely believe that women of these times were all oppressed and the only reason why any of them could revel on their role was because of AP ?

"Galatea couldn't have been happy with Pygmalion because of the implications of the text" is nothing but ONE interpretation of the story, but it isn't inherently the most feminist, especially when we end up having yet another character turned into a damsel in distress that has to escape her now turned antagonist love interest

There could have been plenty of other ways to tackle these issues for instance giving Pygmalion the character arc he didn't had in the story by having him being challenged by Galatea's behavior of not being the perfect women he imagined but still comming to terms with that, not viewing people as an object and that's how they achieved the happy marriage they had in the myth for instance

Or on the contrary, having Galatea perform as the perfect wife Pygmalion expects of her but as time passes, he comes to question it and the two's relationship enables Galatea to find her own way to express herself as an individual, breaking through her shackles as a woman who used to be a statue thanks to her husband, allowing him also to grow in the process and thereby explaning how they achieved the happy marriage they had in the myth

They are many ways to achieve this without having to assume that Galatea must be in reality unhappy behind the scene and that her only way to achieve happiness is by being independant which in turns put her husband into the position of abuser, antagonist, so women good and men bad all over again which results in inauthentic talking points

That's by no mean saying doing itself is bad, it's within the context of turning a woman who wasn't a victim of any injusitices in the story into one for the sake of parroting the same point all over again, it creates manifactured heroines who aren't allowed to have any other struggle in their lives than the fear of a controlling husband and while I get that this is the type of anxiety many women will face, this schema of needing the woman to be victim of something is genuinely tiring, especially when they are supposed to be both victims and also "not like your other girls" type of girls who are strong, independant, strong headed etc.

Again, a good example could be Blood of Hercules, a book who most probably embodies every issue within the genre. Alexis (our genderbend Hercules) is portrayed as being a victim of parental abuse from her foster parents, but even after her mother dies and her father gets arrested, her suffering isn't over. She gets into Spartian academy and she is being constantly belittled, insulted, hated, humiliated etc by every character, most notably her 4 love interests such as Achilles, Not Patroclus, Charon and a dude named Augustus. They are even violent towards her, unhealthly obsessed with her to the point they send her body parts of the people who are too close to her and get in a frenzy of jealousy whenever she mentions her own foster brother's name. So basically, we have the typical dark romance fantasy of toxic love interest pursuing a regular girl, but despite her conditions, Alexis is also portrayed as supposedly a girl boss because she has a sassy companion snake, she say stuff like "free the nipples" or rather think it, she throws a bit of nagging in her own thoughts and she also has a quirck of liking math so much she is in the math fandom. She is also insanly beautiful but no one will admit it because they all hate her but they are all also obsessed with her

To put it simply this character is an absolute paradox mixing many elements of YA tropes that don't necessarily work well together. For instance, having a girl boss character in a dark romance/non-con/stalker is going to create dissonance because these are two fantasies that are not meant to work on a single work : the latter is based on the fantasy that someone has in wanting to engage freely in their desire but framing it in a specific way so that the reader doesn't have to feel guilty of wanting to engage in these "dirty" thoughts and desires, while the former is about feeling powerful, pure power. One is about being in a position of vulnerability for the time being and enjoy an experience under the guise of role playing, the other is about feeling powerful, strong in ways that society might or might not approve of you. These two position do not work, while one single individual might fantasize about both, a fictional work has to have some limits in order to work and seem consistent. As a result, Alexis ends up feeling like a cheap "feminist girlboss" character because while she supposedly says things that would indicated that she is "strong" the story constantly puts her in situation where she is "weak" because she is in the position of a victim in order to fufill the fantasy aspects of the dark romance.

It's also worth noting that in this book, Alexis is quite young, she is the youngest of the main important characters. This age factor is important to consider regarding this type of literature. On one side it comes from the self inserting elements where the readership is given a female character that has about the same age as the readership. On the other side, it's basically what Tale Foundry describes when talking about the "perfect victim". The perfect victim is young, beautiful, she never does anything wrong because she is the victim.

Take Medea by Rosie Hewlet, in it Medea is turned into an innocent girl who had dreams of escaping her abusive life, manifesting into Jason who manipulates her into doing terrible things, but most importantly, she is young. Like she is like 17 at the begining of the story ? Medea in the myth wasn't that young, she had been married with Jason for 10 years so she was middle aged when Jason turns to Glauce. Medea isn't only put into a victim position which would somehow justify her actions towards her brother and father, she is also deprived of any agnecy and free will because she was being manipulated by Jason instead of accepting to serve a weaker man because of her love and committing the worst because of it, something that you know... made her actually complex. The myth never denied that what Jason did was bad, be it Euripides's adaptations or the other versions, it's in fact acknowledged by all, everyone agreed she was a victim, but sometimes victims rages and can do awful things. The concept of Medea as a character is interesting because she is both a victim but also a criminal, and challenges the idea that vicitms have to be pure to be victims, even someone who does heinous things can have our pity, and this is a lot more challenging for the reader to feel bad for a character who did bad things but is still in a position where you feel bad for them than a character who did nothing wrong at all and is being mistreated over it. I would by no means call Medea a feminist character. After all, she kills another woman and her own two children to get back at her husband instead of killing him, something that happens a lot in mythology (Philomela and Procne, for instance don't take revenge on Tereus directly, instead they have to kill a child, Itys, and serve him as a meal to his father, and by the end of the myth they still have to escape HIS furry, not the other way around. I think it has to do with how greek myth are influenced by the gender norms where a woman even if she is a goddess like Hera, can never directly take it on the man who wronged her, instead she has to hurt him in indirect way).

But taking a female character and removing her agency for the sake of making her crave agency is a strange way to achieve it, and further fits the mold of "women can be nothing but victims", where they have to be put in a position of weakness no matter what, in this include making them younger.

The same thing can be said about Ava Reidd's Lady Macbeth. In the play, she was an unconventional villain whose motivations weren't tied to jealousy unlike Medea, but ambition, like her husbands. She is the one who pushes him to accept his destiny and even force it. But in this retellings, Lady Macbeth has no agnency at all because the tale becomes about overthrowing the partriarchy... again... with Macbeth being the one ordering Roscille to use her power to help him attain his ambitions while Roscille has none or rather, she had your typical girlboss forced in a victim position amibitions, you know ? Like Galatea... and also, she had a little trip to the jouvencia cure and is now a teenager because of course, the victim HAS to be young and beautiful etc.

Other example, Phaedra by Laura Shepperson. How does one retell the story of a woman who fall in love with her step-son from a feminist angle you might ask ? Well, in this version, Phaedra is turned into a young girl whose victimized because of her family being cursed by Poseidon, married unwillingly to much older Theseus and assaulted by Hippolytus. Yep, the lie of the source myth where Phaedra falsely accuses him of having assaulted her because he rejected her advances is now not a lie at all, meaning that the victim of the original story is now the perpretator. What does it say if not "women can never do anything wrong, they are naught but innocent victim of the evil men around them ?"

Phaedra is given a personality "worthy of a victim", she is made younger to look like the perfect victim and is again put into a position of victimhood she didn't had in the story. I can't even excuse the desire to talk about "justice" and the topic of SA, because it wasn't what the story was about and that there are PLENTY of myths that would have been BETTER to handle this topic, like Lucrere or Philomena. Phaedra on the other hand ? It turns Hippolytus, the victim of Phaedra's incestuous love and later of her lies, into an abuser. Yes, I am aware his dedication to Artemis and disdain of love reeks of sexism, but again : a victim doesn't have to be perfect to deserve that label and calling Phaedra "one of the most maligned figures of mythology and offers a stunning story of how truth bends under the weight of patriarchy" shows the lack of self awareness when it's precisely because Theseus believes her he ends up killing his son. Claiming that somehow the idea that Phaedra lied was a lie is just perptuating the idea that women can do no wrong and that they are always the victim.

This is also true of Fair Rosaline which has to give Rosaline, a character we know nothing about, the young age of 15/16 to then make her fall prey to a now 30 yeard old Romeo to make the point that Romeo was bad for Juliet, a character infantilized in this take to make her a damsel in distress.

I can quote many more example, notably Miller's Circe where the goddess like sorceress is turned into a victim as well to explain why she is "evil" and not try to find any other explanation for what she does because I can assure you that sometimes we like witches that act on whims (Beato for instance)

Webtoons as well follow this trend, I don't wanna bring back Go Away Romeo although this desire for female character to be seen as both victims and girlboss, two contradictory ideas, in order to present a "strong female character" but as a result they produce flat character that feel inhuman

My point here is that if we keep making a certain type of stories, especially when regarding a corpus that is very diverse we are going to end up with the same stories over and over. None of these characters feels unique, they feel so interchangeable. And again, I can't stress it enough so many of these tropes are just sexism all over again but painted with a cover of "feminisit" paint to make it sound like it's indeed progressive

I wouldn't be so critical of them if the readership didn't just eat it all up, but we need to be critical about these types of retellings, especially since we are so critical of the work of the past

[solarpunkpresentspodcast]

Links Roundup

Here are some recent links from the interwebs that Ariel has been chewing over.

Rethinking Masculinity: Teaching Men How to Love and Be Loved

I have the softest soft spot for this sort of content, I’m not going to lie. As a girl who was taught to fear men (not just from being raised in Toronto during the height of the Stranger-Danger zeitgeist, or having my primary bullies throughout my life being boys, or having to be a teenager in the grossly regressive early 2000s, or attending youth group during the rise of Evangelical-style purity culture in my denomination), I kind of love the idea of not having to run through an internal safety checklist each time I meet or interact with a man and decide whether or not it’s worth the risk to engage. This is warped thinking! But it’s what I was taught to do to survive, and old habits are hard to shake, but knowing that there are men out there who are actively rethinking masculinity in an inherently feminist, decolonial way gives me hope that can change, and that future generations of little girls won’t have to dodge quite so much structural shittiness, and that future generations of little boys will feel much more comfortable with who they are.

Degrowth as a Concept and Practice: Introduction

I admit I’m actually not really knowledgeable about degrowth - like, sure, I know it’s a philosophy/proposed economic policy/theoretical concept / thing, and I like to think it’s pretty obvious in its aims from its very moniker, but I’ve never actually sat down and read up on the details of degrowth and what it would entail. Or talked to anyone knowledgeable about it, for that matter. So this article series is very nice as a primer.

Degrowth advocates argue that we need to transform our everyday practices to respect and work with the fragile, limited, yet bountiful Earth on which we rely to exist.

Sounds pretty solarpunk to me. But just because something sounds good doesn’t mean it’s actually good, so this series really helps dig into the details, especially if you’re not a policy wonk (and are more of a yes-okay-there-is-a-forest-but-let’s-pay-attention-to-the-tree-species person) like me. I think, however, that a lot of smaller projects that solarpunks are working on (such as makerspaces, community resiliency, and local production of goods/food) fits pretty well under the umbrella concept of “degrowth” even if that label hasn’t been applied to them.

The Animal Feed Industry’s Impact on the Planet

This is a fascinating article on the ramifications of the land-use needed for “making animals the caloric middlemen” in the human food chain. This is an aspect of meat-eating that I’m a little embarrassed to admit didn’t actually occur to me until university (when I learned about it from fellow students). City girl, what can I say? We all have blind spots.

Which is why I like that this article exists, because while I think it’s easy, knowing what I do now, to roll my eyes and go “pfft, coulda told you that for a nickel,” there are people out there, many of them I’m very sure, who probably haven’t encountered this as a concept before. CW, though, for the middle bit of the article. This isn’t a happy topic.

Population can’t be ignored. It has to be part of the policy solution to our world’s problems

I was ready to tear this article apart just on principle, as I am so used to encountering this type of thinking in the green movement as a signal for eco-fascism. “There are too many people” translates, in most cases, to “there are too many poor brown people”. This is repugnant ideology as it lays the groundwork for racism at least, if not outright violent massacres. However, this article is written by an Australian professor who makes it very clear that in so-called developed (aka white settler) nations, there is simply an amount of people that puts undue pressure on the natural environment, and our ability to feed ourselves. I wish there was more discussion of this in general, to combat the insidious eco-fascist narrative that overpopulation is an issue because of “those people over there”. That’s really not it at all.

Paradigm Shift: Part 4 - What Might a Sustainable Lifestyle Look Like?

This is part four of a series talking about living sustainably - and this particular article uses the author’s life as an example. I sort of love this kind of media - even though since she lives in the Pacific NorthWest in America, a lot of what she talks about is really not applicable to me - because it helps me to develop my imaginative tools. When faced with an issue in my life where a necessity clashes with a solarpunk value of mine (eg, getting around on my own vs not buying into automobility), I’m better able to think of alternatives (carsharing, transiting, using an electric or non- bike, etc) because I have a “rolodex” of examples in my imagination that I can shuffle through.

Plus it’s very hopeful and inspiring to read these sorts of stories. Yes, “carbon footprint” is a problematic concept and etc but there’s something to be said for carefully considering your lifestyle and deciding to do the difficult things in order to be a better neighbour to the flora and fauna around you. Which is nice.

[queering-ecology]

Mitákuye Oyás’iŋ. Tapestry Institute. https://tapestryinstitute.org/mitakuye-oyasin/. Referencing Sicungu Lakota Elder Albert White Hat.

Their website defines itself thusly: Tapestry Institute weaves Indigenous Knowledge to life through activities and publications that use Indigenous ways of knowing, learning about, and responding to the natural world. The particular post I am referencing is about the Lakota phrase ‘Mitakuye Oyasin’ (also spelled as Mitákuye Oyás’iŋ, mitákuye oyásʾį). “The Lakota phrase Mitákuye Oyás’iŋ describes Reality by addressing it as “All My Relations.” All humans, all animals, all plants, all the waters, the soil, the stones, the mountains, the grasslands, the winds, the clouds and storms, the sun and moon, stars and planets are our relations and are relations to one another. We are connected to each other in multiple and vital ways. When one is in pain, all are harmed. When there is justice for one, there is more justice for all.” 

This quote is important as it confirms the idea that ‘Mitakyue Oyasin’ is more than merely a meaningful phrase, but is a way of describing Reality. It also helps describe the sheer scope of what the words mean. What is also important to recognize is the belief in pain and justice also being interconnected as this can be connected to feminist ideas expressed within much queer ecology. But, the post also emphasizes that even though ‘All our Relations’ is the most common translation of the words, “the phrase actually bears within it rich layers of additional meaning that cannot be easily translated into English. It’s important to point this out because words and ideas, stories and rituals, are bound together into a single reality that must be respected, not misappropriated”. 

Finally, the video interview with Albert White Hat adds even more complexity: the wisdom in these words are not “merely a collection of historical ideas or words” but “ a system of powerful knowledge applicable to the lives and struggles of people right now”. This ultimately supports my thesis; that indigenous worldviews (in this case, Mitakuye Oyasin) can be in symbiosis/symbiopoesis with queer ecology--the concept is a tool (a much more besides) that can be applied to the struggle we face in healing our planet.

-- Symbiosis is any type of a close and long-term biological interaction between two biological organisms of different species

-- ‘Symbiopoesis’ or “how organisms can be intimately involved in each other’s development” (squid and light emitting bacteria, bees and pollination, acacia trees and ants, wasps and figs). (Rahder)

[hogskin00]

SASHA!! THE DAUGHTER!!! i feel like she played such a big role with just her words alone. like my brother and i were talking about this post watch. when she says stuff like "oh barbies a n@zi" or "white savior" i dont think its because she actually believes/d it, i think its because shes just a bad feminist. and thats okay, we're all not perfect feminist, especially when we're as young as her.

but i feel like her character was written with saying all of that because theyre sorta like "buzzwords" online. (not saying its okay that they're buzzwords or that i personally believe that, but just saying what i see around, yknow?) j think it just shows how when we throw around really important words willy-nilly, than young kids trying to learn and grow into activists for causes they genuinely believe in start saying things they dont mean out of just pure ignorance. obviously at the end, sasha is better, but its a growth thing, yknow?

i just feel like she highlights how when kids see all of these terms online they try and apply them and end up hurting their movements rather than helping, just because they genuinely dont know any better. this is all coming from a "kid" btw. ive done it myself but hey man education is key!!!

[inmyhorrorsera]

S5E7 "Hybrid Creatures" thoughts

That's it. Those are my thoughts.

.

.

.

Kinda...

I'm kinda used to the writers putting Nadja in situations and see what it sticks, but (un)holy shit its so obvious that they don't know what to do with her character. What we do in the shadows learn how to write women challenge.

I don't know if the Guide even appeared. My stream stopped a couple times and I have to refresh so maybe I missed her (if not see previous point because it also applies to her).

LOVED Nadja's kitty hair buns, love to see that at least the hair and costume department still cares about her.

The line about burning the school made me roll my eyes, not only because that story doesn't make sense with what we learned about her childhood, but also because I can FEEL when tv shows throw lines with the specific expectations of them being gifed, become memes, etc.

I know it's stupid to discuss about the ethics of Laszlo's experiments on the dick and balls show but in this episode I was all 😬😬😬 about it. Like, I don't give a shit if it was done with comedy purposes, animal experimentation is one of the subjects I will never find remotely funny or make jokes with, specially if we start thinking... How much consent Guillermo gave for Laszlo to straight up play with his DNA in this way? He has nothing to say about it except for a confused frown or looking panicky at the sight of the creatures?? More important, if Nandor did this exact same thing the past season and created the hybrids with a Djinn wish or whatever, how would the fandom have reacted??? (spoiler: waaay more angered than when everybody's fave Laszlo does it).

The work of puppetry and digital effects was good as always, nothing bad to say about the team behind the cameras that puts all their hard work and craft on this, sadly, mid storyline.

Despite how little I care about mAd ScIenTiSt Lazslo plot, the moment when Guillermo believes he won't help him anymore was truly heartbreaking just by looking at his face. You can see he really has all his hopes in Laszlo finding a 'cure'.

I wish the whole thing about Guillermo being incapable of killing the hybrids hit me harder (as if we didn't saw him luring innocent teenagers so they can get killed in the literal pilot).

Sorry but that lady character didn't work for me and the "Helen the Magic Johnson" joke was unfunny and kinda old :/ i wonder if half of the wwdits fandom even got the reference (also lmao shameless product placement, you can tell they needed the money to pay for the cgi used on the creatures).

Colin was like his season 1 self. I bet the wwdits reddit ate up that shit.

See also: Laszlo calling Guillermo 'Gizmo' again. Hated it.

Colin becoming the stereotypical 'cool' white liberal teacher was hilarious specially when he said the cliché "history is written by the oppressors" line because that's where the parody becomes too obvious. This is the guy whose dna results on s1 were "100% white" after all. AND YET some people here are still celebrating and repeating it as this 'so true bestie 😔✊' moment without realizing the show's laughing at you, not with you. But hey, this is the we don't get satire even if it bites on our ass site. Imagine fans celebrating when Kendall Succession shouted "fuck the patriarchy!" in front of the paparazzi for being a #feminist. That's how wooosh the moment went over some of y'alls heads.

Nandor and Colin at the museum felt a little tackled on, but at least Nandor annoyance at his personal items being displayed was fun.

And Colin being friendly (dare I say…sweet?) with him at the end again gave me a happy smile. I'll never guessed this season was all about the Colin and Nandor (Condor??) era but I'm all for it.

Biggest Mild laugh of the night: Nandor mannequin having male and female lovers on the display, the dude is wearing Calvin Kleins!

I can't say much about Guillermo leaving the hybrids at the senior home because it's a overused ending for wwdits at this point. Seriously, when this show doesn't know how to end an episode they always do the same shit: Leave the characters that are a problem in a different place. It happened with: Topher at the zombie sweatshop, Jim the vampire as the volleyball coach in Tucson, familiar Benji in a different city/state (forgot where), The Baron and the Sire in the countryside, Derek working at Sean's MLM, Freddie!Marwa in the Uk. They have done this ending 👏🏼lots 👏🏼 of 👏🏼 times👏🏼already!!

Having a wank?! The setup and payoff for this joke really worked.

Next episode seems interesting.

Anyway, I am once again asking for the Djinn...

[fourdiagnosesinatrenchcoat]

Do you have some queer book recommendations, then? Regarding the recent post?

OH BOY DO I!

I'm a professional bookseller and try to get paid for my opinions but let's be honest, when someone asks for queer book recs you are going to struggle to shut me up two hours later

Amateur by Thomas Page McBee

This transcendent memoir chronicles the author's experience training to fight in a charity boxing match as an absolute novice--and by extension his exploration of masculinity as a transgender man. Beautiful writing about what it means to be a man in 21st-century America.

Bingo Love by Tee Franklin et al

Bingo Love made me cry on an Amtrak train. It's a wonderful romance about two women who fall in love as teenagers, but are separated by their families, only to come into each other's lives again when they are grandmothers.

The Rules do Not Apply by Ariel Levy

Ariel Levy's blistering memoir is a beautiful piece of writing that centers around a time of her life that can only be described as devastating. Perhaps it is her journalistic training that keeps this story from feeling sentimental. I loved every word.

The Manor House Governess:A Novel by C A Castle

This is a modern queer take on Jane Eyre (which was never really my thing -- Heathcliff rules, Rochester drools) in which a gender queer young person takes a job as essentially a governess for the daughter of a wealthy British landholder. The household is full of mystery, including the girl's brooding older brother who our hero is undeniably drawn to.

Written on the Body by Jeanette Winterson

I've read this book so many times.

The reader never learns the gender of the narrator of this love story--which would feel like a gimmick in the hands of a lesser writer. Winterson uses the premise to explore the nature of love and self.

The Magic Fish (A Graphic Novel) by Trung Le Nguyen

This is a gorgeous coming of age story, full of art nouveau-esque illustration, fairy tales, immigrant longing and struggles, and young queer hearts just pulsing with life.

You Should See Me in a Crown by Leah Johnson

**read this one when you need the same feeling as you got from Red White and Royal Blue but with a little less sex**

This book charmed my pants off. Liz is a wonderful, memorable heroine, with a lot of obstacles in her way, but that doesn't stop her from finding her path forward. I laughed, I cried, I didn't want it to end.

Check, Please! Book 1 by Ngozi Ukazu

**read this when you need the same feeling you got from Heartstopper but with a little more sex**

You don't HAVE to love ice hockey to be totally charmed by Eric "Bitty" Bittle, the newest member of Samwell University's men's hockey team, and by Jack Zimmerman, the team's moody, stern, and totally gorgeous captain. Along with Book 2, presented here are Bitty's 4 years as a college hockey player, and the lessons he learns about life--and himself--in that time.

Outlawed by Anna North

A gender-bent, feminist, alternate universe Butch Cassidy & the Sundance Kid retelling, set in a world where the fledgling United States was decimated by a flu epidemic in the early 1800s. The remaining colonizer population is dedicated wholeheartedly to fertility and childbearing, so women (like Ada, our heroine) who cannot bear healthy babies are sent off to convents at best, or tried as witches at worst. She teams up with the Hole-in-the-Wall Gang, and her adventures begin.

The Space Between Worlds by Micaiah Johnson

High-brow science fiction that takes on issues of class (& related issues of race), corporate power, and personal identity.

Freshwater by Akwaeke Emezi

A novel like none I've ever read before. Emezi drew from their own experiences for this narrative about self and power and sex, integrated with Nigerian folklore.

Mortal Follies: A Novel by Alexis Hall

A lesbian Regency romance narrated by Puck from A Midsummer Night's Dream? Yes please! A sexy, fun, fantastical tale that's kicked off with the protagonist falling under a curse that promises ever increasing scandal and danger.

The Jasmine Throne by Tasha Suri

A lush, thrilling sapphic fantasy set in an Indian inspired world full of dangerous magic and even more dangerous politics.

Mrs. S by K Patrick

Mrs S is gorgeous and casually devastating, a sexy slow burn obsessive forbidden queer love story. Every note is exactly right.

I'm stopping there cuz it's late and I've had a day but this is just pulling a fraction of the titles on my staff picks list.

[my-chemical-rot]

Not something I’d really want to get into on this blog too much but the whole “the left has Failed Men and that’s why men lean conservative! We need to center men more in leftist discourse!” argument is so stupid to me, for one because we already center cis men as the default state of being and we’ve been doing that for centuries on basically every side of the political spectrum (read literally any feminist theory ever oh my fucking god), and two because. it’s just wrong. The idea that men are more conservative simply because The Left^tm is mean to them is almost completely backwards. Conservatism is about protecting the status quo & leftism/progressivism is *generally* about Improving upon the status quo; and in a patriarchal system, that status quo tends to serve men as a class. When it comes to like feminism & gender liberation, obviously men have no inherent interest in improving upon a status quo that implicitly serves them so they’re either going to be uniformed/undecided or conservative. They don’t care about making the world better or learning how to if it’s already working so well for them. Being nice to them on the Left won’t convince the average man under capitalism that maybe he shouldn’t be paid more than his female coworkers or whatever. It’s not because the left & evil feminists or whatever are too mean & radical… literally no matter how liberal we are & no matter how nice we are & how much we restrain ourself & how much we try to “dial down” feminism & how much we try to “re-center” men that won’t fix anything because the problem isn’t with the Left. And obviously this is about men as a demographic and as a class & not like Every Single Individual Man Ever. I know intersectionality is a thing (and hypothetically this could be applied to basically any other axis of privilege/oppression. White people as a group are generally more conservative, cis and straight people, able bodied people, etc etc. are all served by the status quo. If you told anti-racist activists that the Left needs to be nicer to white people to make white people less conservative you’d be called an idiot) and I know there are men who are leftists & men who believe in feminism & everything. The point is that re-centering men is so obviously not the solution & so obviously a reactionary co-opt that basically just blames feminism for something caused by patriarchy.

[trans-advice]

Hi! This gets a little heavy, which I hope is okay.

I'm a young adult, trans, and living in a red state. I don't have the means to pack up and move elsewhere. I'm old enough that I technically could have come out or taken steps to transition by now. I just haven't.

I'm the type of person who thinks about it for days if a cashier gives me a weird look. I need everyone to like me so much. The "authentic" me and the people-pleasing conformist are fighting. And the conformist is winning. (I'm getting a good grace in gender conformance, something that is both normal to want and possible to achieve, lol.) I don't feel mentally healthy about it.

Keeping in mind that I'm surrounded by Republicans, it doesn't even feel maladaptive. It just feels normal except for the part where I'm never happy. I'm not brave, and any plan I make for my future has to reckon with that.

I don't know. Can someone please tell me there's hope for me?

Yes there's hope.

Personally, I think you're probably doing well on the "don't debate fascists/transphobes" PSA's from 2016, so take comfort in that. If you are not out, then maybe it will be easier to leave people, or at least move out to somewhere else. Granted, rent is high, but still, housing discrimination. If you can't move away then basically try to be away from the republicans you're surrounded by as much as possible.

Coming out was originally meant for new people within lgbtqia+ spaces, like bars & parties. Then from those spaces it got repurposed by people who already had ties to other lgbtqia+ such as communities, friends, or college campus version of GSA's (called lgbtqa which combined the lgbtq acronym with the soffa acronym). Point being, if you are surrounded by transphobes, and you don't have community ties yet with say t4t spaces or lgbtqia+ spaces, then do not come out. It take groups of people to oppress & it takes groups of people to undo that oppression. It would be wiser to figure out how to move from place to place, whether across state lines or not, in order to gain more access to affirming spaces, than it would be to come out like right now.

I'm not sure how what the range of bravery, but basically when people were like "don't debate fascists" online in 2016ish, that also means don't debate transphobes today. Avoid talking to them as much as possible. I would consider just travelling around until you get some plans for how to move away.

The thing is I don't think you're wrong to be thinking about people who give you weird looks, if anything I think channeling it into some action plans might be needed. I would pay attention to your physical vulernabilities & the layout of places so you can have an escape plan. In your example maybe remember who the cashier was & where you were at in order to decide whether you try going somewhere else. (Although scary to learn about, look up "fatal funnels" & "containment", they are easier to spot.)

If you can protect the pages from hostile eyes, then if you want it analog, then maybe a note book where you dedicate 1 page to an index of zipcodes & then you write encounters on pages with those zipcodes, maybe using google maps or something to find the zipcode. Lowkey I'm thinking of Loewen's Historical Database of Sundown Towns. (Because 'erf in english is white [supremacist] feminist in spanish.)

Likewise look into places where you can get away from Republicans would be a good idea. Like where are spaces where you can be alone that are relatively safe & that you can leave safely as needed? The mentality I'm talking here is the kind where you lay your head at a fast food restaurant table while waiting for your food & then getting up. Or where do people sneak out to take a smoke break. Whether you use this for rest, or for something trans affirming, is up to you. The point is to get yourself to spot opportunities for some refuge for some things. Basically this also applies to trying to so self-care so that you have less problems later.

Good Luck, Peace & Love,

Eve

[mulletwrites]

I want to be really clear with where I’m at because I need to explain it, as I’ve been having panic attacks all afternoon realising we are closing in on you starting another semester, which means you aren’t coming to me. I honestly thought signs you were there factored in the fact that I said I’m not coming to jack shit ever again but clearly you don’t care about what I’ve said.

And you’re the only one who understands the situation. Therapists and people in my life think I’m a delusional predator. That’s what happens when the “love of your life” chooses her job over being honest enough for you to have any tangible evidence that what you’re saying is true.

I’m a feminist. I’m all for women having careers and prioritising them. I’m not some man sitting back jealous their partner is doing what she loves because I think she belongs in the kitchen serving me sandwiches. Both you and I know that.

But you made the choice to form a connection with me while teaching me. It was not one sided. And it was not wrong. We didn’t have sex - I do think that would have been wrong while you were teaching me. We did what was appropriate with the power politics at play. But you’ve decided to lie in order to avoid the consequences. By lying, you’ve destroyed me.

If you were so adamant on your job being THIS important to you - to the point of the lies and borderline gaslighting that’s happened in order to keep it - then why did you jeopardise it in the first place? I assumed the person I knew would only pursue a student if it was a love of your life, soulmate sort of thing. Someone worth risking it all for. Someone that, if forced to harm them the way I have been harmed because the job asked for it, she’d simply say no. I thought you were what you write about. Maybe I’m just naive. But if even you refuse to choose love and honesty over image and reputation then I might as well kill myself. I thought you proved everyone was different than I suspected.

We all tell white lies, especially to people in power. Especially if nobody we love gets hurt. I’m not stupid. Of course I lie when I have to. But my morals and values don’t align with throwing the one I love under the bus. Making them the casualty in order to keep my job. In fact, I went to the most powerful person in the department and told them I want to be in a relationship with you after they had already accused me of harassment. I put everything on the line. Absolutely everything. Yes I fucked someone at the end of 2018 because I was heartbroken you didn’t keep your word about contacting after you’d finished marking. That was my mistake. Sure. I owned up to it.

Maybe I’m wrong - because there has been so many inconsistencies that fuck knows what’s actually happened - but I do know that you haven’t even walked off stage to give me a conversation, to tell me what the fuck is going on. To give me the chance to lie to the powers that be with you, if it came to that. No. While you all sleep at night with your reputation, jobs and image in tact, I’ve been hung out to dry. I cannot explain to you how damaged I have been. It’s not just that I love you that it made me feel this way. It’s that you and the rest do have the power in the situation. You write about activism and power politics. It’s your focus and you’ve said it yourself. But, from what I can see, you haven’t applied any of the lessons you’ve learned while studying that stuff to your own actions. I don’t find that attractive.

I don’t care if I’m not physically attractive to people. I don’t even care if my personality is viewed as too difficult to be in a relationship with. I don’t profess to be easy. But what I do really care about is my morals and values. I regret what I did with that woman in 2018, but I have grace with myself because of the situation I was in. No conversation. Nothing adding up. No follow through with what I thought was a promise. Like I’ve said many times before, it’s like being left in an antique shop with the lights off and being blamed for breaking expensive items as I try to escape.

If everything is what it seems, then I wouldn’t have done what you’ve done. We don’t have to be the same. I wouldn’t be attracted to my twin. I like duality. But where it’s necessary that we agree is on the big important stuff. Honesty, if it means lies would compromise those we love. Putting the ones we love above inanimate things. That sort of stuff. Part of me thinks you believe this is all for me, but if I’m expected to rock up to anything then that’s only for you.

It doesn’t make you or I better or worse than each other for differing on that. I have nothing to my name. A lot would say I’m unsuccessful and I’d care if I gave a shit about that. But I’m happy with myself, even if doing what felt natural to me has left me a shell of who I was before.

Where I get angry is that you didn’t just make the choice, your job, and cut me out. That’s fine! It’s your life! But, instead, you strung me along. On one hand, you acted like we were nothing - or nothing deep enough to call it a connection beyond the classroom - but you’ve been communicating to me and watching what I write here ever since. I don’t care if you felt forced to hurt me, you didn’t need to stay there. I understand the importance of career, but I can’t be with someone who’d choose that over my wellbeing. They can always end things. It was your choice and, if you’re expecting me to attend something, you’re attempting to evade all professional consequences. The consequences of my pain did not matter to you. Not according to your string of choices and behaviours.

I can only presume you still have secret demands you’re waiting for me to receive from the Heavens or some shit, in order for this narrative to play out exactly how you need it to in order to avoid being the woman who fell in love with her student. Which you did. Because we were both adults and I saw you less than a few hours a week. Who the fuck cares? I deal with people’s judgements all the time, it doesn’t force me to become what they won’t judge. You will always be judged, regardless. People get over shock quicker than you’d expect.

God, this feels like queer theory all over again. What reality is is important, not what you’d LIKE it to be. I learned very young that honesty is the best course of action, because I lied and it made me a horrible person who I hated. When you chose to be dishonest, even if it was demanded of you from your coworkers, you did so at the expense of me. That’s what I can’t get past. The only way for me to move past that is for you to prove it’s otherwise. That’s why I refuse to follow you around. And don’t get it twisted - I can move on.

That’s why it’s essential to me that if we pursue anything, it’ll be honest. Not everyone has to know the full story, but I won’t be expected to lie and stage a “run-in” where you can pretend it’s the first time you’ve looked at me in a more-than-friends way. The reason I hold on - the reason I am attracted to you and love you - is because I’m holding on to what we had, that existed beyond our roles, in 2018. So if I’m brand new, if we’re brand new - with the new experiences I’ve had since 2018 - then I wouldn’t pursue you without 2018. I didn’t pursue you for what you looked like, which is beautiful but never what I factor in. I fell in love with who I thought you were. If I was to forget what we had then we have nothing at all. If anything we’re in the red. Am I supposed to just see you, not know anything about your values or beliefs and not be able to resist? What a shallow, superficial concept of attraction.

And I hate universities now. So why would I ever show up? I’ll tell em all to go get fucked, the lying bastards.

That’s why your only option to be with me is to come to me. I’ve grovelled enough. You’re free to end it.

[penguicorns-are-cool]

About the glinda critics let me tell you that the term white feminism is truly i insulting, you are gaslighting and micking white woman. Why out feminism doesn't matter ?? Or is something to gaslight???

Second, i can like a character and think that the actions so many people are offended by weren't that bad at all you know???

Before I even get to talking about Glinda lets talk about what white feminism is because it is for sure not a dismissal of white feminists

White feminism is a term which is used to describe expressions of feminism which are perceived as focusing on white women while failing to address the existence of distinct forms of oppression faced by ethnic minority women and women lacking other privileges. (wikipedia)

So basically, any form of feminism that is not intersectional. White feminism doesn't mean that the act in question is not at all good. A lot of white feminism does do some good at least for white women. But, it fails to acknowledge that women with other marginalizations will experience sexism in a very different way and if you don't take that into account you will fail to help, and potentially risk hurting, a whole lot of people.

White feminism =/= feminism that doesn't matter, it means non-intersectional feminism

and honestly, I don't think this is the best way to describe Glinda. I'm sure it applies to her, but there aren't many examples of this specifically in the Wicked story. I think performative activism is way more applicable. I was very confused by this ask at first because I really haven't been posting a lot of Glinda critique but I scrolled through my blog and found a post that I reblogged where the original post said white feminism.

Glinda is definitely a preformative activist though. It's kind of her main character trait. She does things like offer to de-greenify Elphaba with skills that she doesn't have, and tell Boq to ask out Nessa because she's in a chair, and changes her name in honor of Dr. Dillamond. She knows what to say to seem like she's doing good when in reality everything that she does is super surface level and much moreso for the sake of popularity than helping others.

That is the big difference between Elphaba and Glinda. They are both similar in the sense that they're both young women who are learning sorcery and plan to have big political careers, but Glinda's motive is popularity while Elphaba's is making Oz more just.

And you're right, you're allowed to like Glinda despite all that. You're even allowed to think her actions aren't that bad.

Glinda is a very sympathetic character, and she's really not even the antagonist of the story, that role fits the Wizard or Madam Morrible much better.

but also, other people are allowed to critique Glinda, they're allowed to say everything she did was pure evil and they hate her

That doesn't mean you're wrong, that just means you have differing opinions about the acts and morals of a fictional character

[actualadvocacybruh]

I walk up to you and say

“You are garbage unworthy of life because you were born as an (insert general group here) therefore all evil enacted upon you is justified”

Now this is plainly a terrible idea for an activist trying to change things for the better

This applies to “leftists” who constantly attack random white people for existing and pretending it’s somehow gonna change things

Also applies to “feminists” who do it to men and then demand men listen to them when they talk about the patriarchy

It doesn’t work, stop doing it and start learning some actual talking points that can reach individuals who are more than likely already not liking the current situation and just needs that little push into actual activism