#white cishet males ruin everything

[a-mess-of-a-nerd]

This is a rant that I’m not sure whether or not to post but I just need to get my thoughts out of my head.

Fandoms are so disgustingly toxic now! It is such a shame, especially as someone who has interacted with fan content since the early 2010s where people were having fun and just being creative and kind. Yes, there was flaws back then, I’m not saying there wasn’t, but ever since covid lockdowns in 2020, more and more toxicity is flooding fandom spaces. I have been through many fandoms but slowly they’ve all been ruined by toxicity. There are obvious ones like marvel fans being horrible to any non white cishet males, but then even in fandoms like the stardew valley fandom is toxic as they hate on anything that they don’t view as canon like shipping and crazy headcanons or even just not liking certain characters. I’m constantly losing my love for so many things because of how fandoms are now days. There’s no creativity, no etiquette, no kindness, no love. It’s so heart breaking to witness places that used to be full of kind and creative people turn into places full of gatekeeping, hatred and cruel people.

Not everyone in fandoms are toxic, I have met some kind and lovely people through fandoms, but I am generalising because there has been such an increase in toxicity that it feels 90% of people in fandoms are. People in fandoms now don’t know the etiquette that was so important to the spaces that were carved out. It’s as if the dude bro fan mindset has spread like a parasite. Fandoms used to be an escape to discuss and create based on mutual interests and not feel judged or made fun of for their interests, but now that escape is disintegrating and it’s hard to find fandom safe spaces anymore.

If you don’t like it scroll, you don’t need to start fights if you don’t agree or have a differing opinion. If you don’t like it, don’t interact. I try and uphold this when I interact and view fandom content, but it’s clear not many people do anymore. It’s just so upsetting to me to see places that I used to be excited to go and talk about headcanons and my favourite ships and any new content by fans or otherwise has now become a place I dread since no matter what fandom I always know there will be hate or arguments or plain old bullying.

If you write fanfics or create art and have received hate for no reason other than someone don’t like it, I am truly sorry, you are all so talented and brave, putting yourself out there is hard but you do it. Don’t let anyone make you feel bad for your work, keep writing fanfic for your crack!ship, keep drawing your favs cosplaying your other favs. Even if you don’t post things, your headcanons, opinions and ships are all valid. Keep enjoying fandoms despite how toxic they’ve become because your ships, headcanons, opinions are so valid and no matter how you want to interact with fandoms it’s okay, just don’t spread hate and everything will be okay.

Please, for the sake of fandoms, be kind, let everyone enjoy their experiences even if it’s different to your own, we are better than the hate, better than what we’ve become. Sending love to all you beautiful souls out their enjoying your fandom experiences 🩷

Tldr: please be kind fandom goers 🩷

[lilyvalerieorchard]

As much as I hate Lily Orchard, white favoritism is a thing in pretty much every fandom. One example I can think off the top of my head in the toh fandom, was back when Thanks to Them aired, and many people mocked Luz's scene in the classroom (despite being literally a display of suicidal ideation) while writing thinkpieces about Hunter's mental health and abuse, basically ignoring the Black main character's mental health issues to focus on the white boy (hopefully this doesn't come off as me hating Hunter, I like him a lot, it's just an example)

Speaking of season 3, there was quite a group of people who hated on Luz due to her mental health issues, calling her selfish and ungrateful while she was struggling with self-destructive behavior while, once again, Hunter didn't get as much backlash for his ""selfish"" behavior in For the Future, as people mostly understood he was struggling with his mental health and grief. It's a sadly common thing in fandoms to narrow Black characters down as one dimensional and "bad", while white characters get a pass and sympathy from fans

Another example of racism in the fandom, is whitewashed art of Black and brown-skinned characters, mainly Luz, and how many artists don't take this topic seriously - that was more common in the early fandom, though, thankfully becoming less frequent as time went one

There's some other examples: in 2021, there was a Skara/Edric comic that spiraled huge controversy on Twitter due to Odalia objectifying Skara and referring to her as an "it", which has very clear racist undertones. Also, art on Twitter of Luz saying she's gonna "ruin" Amity's bloodline by joining her family, also having clear racist undertones (There's likely more, but these two are the first ones to come to my mind, as they received tons of deserved backlash)

So yeah, once again, I dislike Lily Orchard, but denying racism in the fandom is just... wrong. It may be a minority of fans, especially nowadays, but it's there and it harms people of color in the fandom, who tend to get mass harassment for calling it out. I also hope this doesn't come off as rude, the post just brought back some memories of my personal experiences in the fandom, and I thought I should share

Oh my...I never knew it was that bad. The large majority of the fandom loves Luz but to hear some truly nasty people treat her and the other BIPOC characters like this is just wrong. Speaking as comic and video game fan: I know how most of the Batfam fandom will erase Cass, Duke and Steph all while propping up white/white-passing male characters like Dick, Jason, Tim and Damian (nothing against either of them); how Marvel comic fans will downplay characters like Kamala and Miles or slut-shame MJ; how lead female characters of color in games like Forspoken, Dustborn and Mirror's Edge are lambasted as "too angry", "too vulgar", "too snarky", "too unlikeable" by gamers AND critics alike while angsty white male leads in certain popular games are given free passes. I feel you, There is rampant cishet white male favouritism in ALL of nerd culture and I absolutely hate it. For the record, I have nothing against cishet white male characters in general, I just cannot stand double standards that force female and minority characters to jump through multiple flaming hoops to prove their "authenticity". I looked up the whitewashing "fanart" people were drawing of Luz, Gus, Willow, and-

Disgusting.

*To those so-called "fans"*

If you think Luz, Guz, Willow, Darius, Camilia and others would be better if they were white, if you so happen to be inbred, racist piece of crap.

Get the Hell out and NEVER set foot in this fandom (or any fandoms) EVER AGAIN. Dana didn't create a beautiful whimsical masterwork of animation just so you could hijack it for portraying your own twisted Hapsburg utopia. In fact, she hates everything filth like you stand for. So once again, get out and never come back.

*sighs* That felt good.

Just remember: Plasma Lily stands with marginalized voices.

[jackaxed]

So this is actually a really great video to watch about this subject, and I recommend it to everyone!

But the summation of F.D.'s theory is this: cishet men, especially white men, are told from birth that they are entitled to a certain lifestyle because they are straight and cisgender. Society raises them to believe that they are entitled to economic and social success, i.e. a good job, a good relationship/family, a good (maybe even powerful) reputation, and an overall good quality of life. When these men don't get to have this perfect life that they've been told their entire life that they are entitled to by virtue of being a law-abiding straight man (often because there are still economic or social barriers which affect them), they feel utterly betrayed by the system, which is what makes the violence and cynicism of the edgelord movie genre so alluring.

They discover a non-intersectional radicalism which makes them angry at the injustice of the system, but only for their own sakes. So they get into this messaging of "rebelling" and "tearing the system down" with the goal that they will replace the existing system with one which ACTUALLY makes good on its promises of cishet male entitlement, which is not actually meaningfully revolutionary or progressive-- it's just an expression of dissatisfaction with the fact that they aren't the primary (or topmost) beneficiaries of modern conservatism (often because they still struggle under capitalism regardless of their whiteness or maleness).

Anyway, the way that this is related is that one big factor of potential radicalization IS divorce, because these men see divorce as one of the ultimate betrayals of this dream. The fact that they actually need to put in work to maintain their status as a husband or father, and that a woman can just leave them (and probably take the kids) if they fail to do that work runs directly counter to the lifelong assurances that they are fundamentally entitled to that lifestyle (and those markers of success).

So while there may be real hurt behind losing his kids or his wife (regardless of how good he actually was to them), the divorced man's real sore spot is that he has lost the lifestyle he felt he was entitled to, so of course he gravitates towards communities which reassure him that he IS entitled to that lifestyle, and it's the hysterical baby-killing feminists and sissy liberal scum who are ruining everything. He retreats into heavily misogynistic and violent traditionalism/conservatism because it helps him maintain that sense of entitlement, and conservatism plays into his entitlement in order to keep him loyal. And that's how divorced men end up in ISIS or the Proud Boys or whatever.

(And then you add the entitlement of "the American Dream" on top of the entitlement of the straight man's dream, and that's why you see USAmerican men lose their minds over it at an accelerated rate.)

Divorce seems to radicalize american men in a way that needs to be studied

[polskasroka]

I've seen a couple of posts mentioning the "discourse" on twitter (on which I don't have an account bc I value my time and I'm too impulsive to let myself waste time on there), so I'll use my time here, adding my thoughts abt it

As I've seen, ppl on twitter are bitching abt too many fluff fics and not enough evil satanistic takes on the Papas, the Clergy etc

Ppl on tumblr are bitching abt there being too few fluff fics

Let me grab the ao3 data

There's scraps when it comes to evil Papas 0-3

When I choose the tag "Fluff", ao3 shows me this:

which makes me wonder how come that ppl start complaining abt there being a shortage of fluff ghost fics

To sum up: ppl on tumblr complain abt there being too few fluff fics, ppl on twitter complain abt too little evilness in the fics, which makes both sides complain basically abt the same thing, which makes them the same, essentially

2. Ghost is not a universe like a game or a book to be clinging on to when it comes to the lore and canonical stuff

Basically, there's actually not that many things that are pre-established that should be followed. And! even if there's sth pre-established in a universe, ppl on the net change it anyhow, and even not on the net!

Example? The Witcher Netflix. They had pre-established everything. They've turned it all upside down. They've ruined a book universe that is literally a heritage of my country. I hate them for that.

So if ghost fanfic writers were to follow strictly pre-established stuff, we'd get the people behind the masks, not the actual characters.

3. That leads me to a thought that what I've mentioned above is an extremity, yes. But making characters super evil, no matter what they do to be evil, is as much of an extremity as babygirlfying them and making cinnamon rolls out of them.

4. Ghost fanfiction is a FICTION. It's a fiction with a little pre-established bg that should be followed no matter what. That's why we get all the content that wouldn't be possible if anyone from the band said, "my character is x and y and z." This is not how it works here. Let ppl create what they want.

5. For some, fluff is comforting. For others, reading/writing abt any kinds of evil is comforting. That doesn't make those ppl support any kind of hate towards anyone. Just as Dostoevsky wasn't a m*rderer. And Nabokov wasn't a p*do.

6. Last but not least. What I see this particular discourse and the problems in some other fandoms is this:

when a character is turned evil and r*pist w/o a context in a fanfiction, it's bad when a character is turned into anything or anyone but a neurotypical cishet white male w/o a context in a fanfiction, it's fine

So basically, use filters on ao3. Don't look at what you don't wanna see. If you want a specific kind of content, look for it, create it yourself or ask someone to create it for you. I'll keep writing my evil Copia fics, you'll keep writing your fluff Copia fics. And it's fine <3

If you don't agree w my points, it's also fine. Free speech, everyone.

[chuckdraug]

“Don’t complain, it’s just a game”

This is a translation - and at some extent rewording - of a post on my Spanish blog that I finally decided to post here as well.

WARNING: Before you start reading the actual post, please follow the links down here since these posts where the ones that made me write mine, and because context is important:

«What We Talk About, When We Don't Talk About Natives», by Dia Lacina (English)

«Resulta que Horizon Zero Dawn también es ofensivo», by Juan Tejerina (Spanish), though Google-translated here

Hope you are ready now.

--- 

Yes, this very post here comes from an opinion article published on the Games Tribune Magazine web (I'll just name GTM as the platform where it was posted in due respect to their ethical code, despite this being their vicedirector's opinion) as a reply to an article regarding cultural appropriation and native Americans on fiction due to the PS4's latest hit, "Horizon Zero Dawn".

I didn't want to talk about this. In fact, for some days... well, no, hours I didn't say a thing on Twitter aside from replying to some people. But everyone has a limit to their patience, and so I hit mines and wanted to come to my egocentric Internet corner and say what I want to say.

I'm not going to talk about cultural appropriation nor about colonialism nor about how "HZD" borrows from native Amercians, celtics, vikings, ainus or whatever. I haven't played the game and I'm an ignorant on those topics, so I better not say a thing about it. I want to talk of what I know, of something I could be blamed for in the past - and maybe at times in the present day -, and that is clear on the GTM post: whenever someone complains, critics or just expresses themselves regarding a social topic on fiction and/or real life we just say they overreact.

There's one big trouble when we just tell people they overreact whenever they have something to say in those matters, or if their opinion just differs from ours. We say they get offended so easily.

So in this particular case, Dia Lacina points out her problems about topics she knows about on a game that's actually getting a pretty good reception and its protagonist, Aloy, is seen as a good example of female protagonist. A huge step, specially when you see a lot of women talking about their experience with Aloy, what they feel with her. Representation matters, as they always say.

But... No work is perfect, and the fact we advance in some social topics doesn't mean everything is done, as there's a lot to do yet. Lacina's post not only talks about the problems she sees on "HZD" when it comes to racial and cultural matters, but on how native Americans are often portrayed on fictional works. This doesn't mean Aloy being an empowered female protagonist is of no avail, it only points out that even if we get things right in some parts, others still need more work, there's a big picture and we have only retouched a speck on it.

What happens then? Tejerina's reply is nothing but a new evidence of what we usually do: we label these critics, complains and even just opinions and points of view as suspicious, as exaggerated, as weird and out of place. The general feeling I get from his words is the classic white cishet male speech of everyone else is overreacting, that they whine with no reason and are complaining and taking the fun away. You know, their usual speech of deeming others as haters, as Social Justice Warriors (SJWs) or as supporters of a politically correct dictatorship.

But am I going to sum his text up as just "you complain about everything"? Sure not, but that point is still there and I'm not going to ignore it. Though truly, it goes beyond that.

It goes beyond when he compares Lacina's post with the reaction of the Spanish media with the "katana murderer" case many years ago, and how they related the murderer to "Final Fantasy VIII" and its main character, Squall Lionheart, to the point of claiming that such murderer got his looks from Squall - he was just a regular Spanish guy, not some Squall impersonator.

To make it clear, Tejerina is comparing Lacina's point of view to that of media wanting first pages and their minutes of fame around a murder. Yes, he's doing that: he's comparing the vultures of the Spanish media to a native American's point of view regarding a videogame.

Yes, we can go this low.

So Lacina posted her criticism on the Internet. She made it public, she wanted to show it. Oh geez! She's expressing herself and you come here and accuse her of looking for her five minutes of fame.

Oh, but it doesn't end here. But first, some context.

Recently in Spain, the Catholic organization "Hazte Oír" sponsored a bus where you could clearly read "Boys have penises, girls have vulvas" in a "deal with it" tone, claiming it was biological evidence even though biologists everywhere called that bullshit. "Hazte Oír" is a bunch of people who repeatedly show how sexist, homophobic, transphobic and many-other-things they are.

Well, what does it have to with these posts? At the end of his, Tejerina pointed out that what Lacina wrote isn't important, and so isn't any social opinion on matters like sexism or transphobia.

He considers this kind of opinions responsible for dividing the gaming community to the point we look at each other as enemies - say what?! really?! That and the fact those opinions don’t focus on “the real enemy” he points out: the right-wing bastards who are ruining our lives, and the religious indoctrination many of us have gone through since we were toddlers.

So in Tejerina's opinion, you talking about sexism or cultural appropriation isn't that important compared to ditching Trump, Rajoy and the Catholic Church. Because you can't talk about both things, you either complain on one or another. So yes, the feeling you get with the final paragraphs of his text is that you wanting to be treated as the human being you are isn’t as valuable as talking about other problems.

It's clear, right? We, the white cishet males - though some would argue about me being white because I'm a Spaniard - have no problems at all, and every time a woman, a PoC or LGBT person gives their point of view, we feel uneasy, to say the least. We, the privileged ones, look down at them and ditch them for making us feel uncomfortable, how dare they do that?!

And when we feel uncomfortable, uneasy, instead of listening to them, on analyzing ourselves and the world we live in, we say that they are whiners and haters complaining on everything. We call them SJWs, we call them feminazis, we call them lots of names. We say they only want some Internet fame. We tell them to shut up.

And if you had a bad experience with a feminist or PoC or whatever, you quickly label all of them as people you cannot reason with, but the very moment we are called for something due to the injustice in the current status quo, we are eager to yell NOT ALL MEN. 

Don't you see it? We say they whine, when we are the ones actually whining. And why? Because for us, it's easier and makes us comfortable.

It's easier if we claim we live in a politically correct dictatorship instead of looking at yourself and seeing what's wrong with you. Why? We are Always Right™, how can we be wrong?! 

 It's easier when you say "it's only a game" without thinking on why someone else feels uneasy. We can separate facts from fiction, but those works of fiction can be analyzed, specially when looking at real life. They have their context.

(I'd like to point out here that Tejerina himself told me that with that paragraph I was actually supporting his views because "if we kept thinking of what might upset someone, if we over-analyzed everything, we wouldn't create anything"... it's true that we won't please everyone, it's impossible, but it is his - and many others’ - way to get the focus on something else so he - and anyone else - won’t feel guilty. If we show our works, people can give their opinions on them, and that includes any social views. And that kind of feedback is actually important, not just for our works, but for us as social people.)

It's easier if we think that these people want to take the fun away from us, even though they claim that you can enjoy something despite its problems - it's OK while you acknowledge those problems. We say that they hate our hobbies instead of listening to them and looking at these problems and thinking why they are... well, problems.

It's easier if we say "I'm not like that, don't you dare blame me for that" because the fact that our society isn’t fair is proof enough of how right they are. We might think we are the "nice guys", but no one is a saint, you know the current situation benefits you and you only, and you don't want to share it. Also, these changes won't be immediate, they need a lot of time, yet we complain at the slightest evidence.

I'm sure you've heard and read this from people who are way smarter than I am. Still, I wanted to say it as well.

Because I'm tired of this shit.

Because minorities and the oppressed express themselves - freedom of speech, remember? -, yet instead of listening to them we try to shut them up, we want to turn their opinions and criticism into babycries. We tell them they criticize everything - "you see sexism everywhere!" is the first claim that comes to my mind.

We, the privileged, don't wanna accept their points of view, because by doing so we will see how wrong we are, how society made us this way, how it has spoiled us in believing we are special snowflakes that should step on those who are different from us, calling them weak and despicable and not fit to live like us.

This is hatred mixed with fear to them. We fear that we are wrong, that we aren't the kings of the hill anymore, that we aren't those nice guys and snowflakes society told us we were. There is no perfect being since we ALL are humans.

We are scared of reality and of being stupid, so instead of listening and reviewing our very acts and behavior... we protect our egos, our pride, and we ditch those who are different, we blame them for our insecurity, we hate them. And in the process, we demonstrate that we are stupid. And full of hate.

It's frightening. It's embarrassing. It's horrible.

It isn't just about fiction. It is about the reality we live in. It is about us hating on those who aren't like us, on stripping them of their humanity, because it is easier if you treat a woman/PoC/LGBT as less than human beings. Who cares how others feel if I can feel OK with myself? Who cares if the only way to be in harmony is by making other people feel miserable and inferior to me?

No one wants to be told that they're doing wrong. But surprise! We will fail a lot of times - and I'm pretty sure this post of mine is full of mistakes. Even if it upsets us, wake up and smell the ashes: perfection does not exist. No one says this is easy.

We, the privileged, instead of whining, should sit down, listen to other people and learn from them. And even shut up, because we think we are the protagonists, but no, at best we are support characters in this fight.

But what if you don't wanna do it? You're free to choose your destiny. Just deal with the consequences of your choice, no option is free of them. I can go and support these people and I know there will be other people out there saying that I've been brainwashed or that I'm a white knight or whatever. I know and I have to deal with that.

And I’m glad of my choice.

Truly, if it weren't for the whole Gamergate shitstorm, I'd be one of those people who would never, ever, get to think of what they are doing and how it affects others. I would be one of those saying that "it's just a game". I'm happy I'm not one of them. At least, most of the time.

[a-queer-seminarian]

we are taught to interpret Esau’s trading of his birthright for a bowl of stew as impulsiveness, even (in Christian language) as a ‘weakness of the flesh.’ He chooses instant gratification over the farther off but far more valuable thing, and thus proves himself unworthy of his firstborn status and all it entails -- Abraham’s wealth and social power, but also Abraham’s relationship with God.

i don’t believe that.

Esau gave in to Jacob’s demand because he knew that Jacob would never have the means to compel Esau to make good on his word.

Jacob was physically weaker. Jacob was set to inherit the tiniest fragment of the wealth and resources that Esau would inherit. how on earth would Jacob ever wrest the birthright and the blessing he was owed from Esau?

Esau’s ‘crime’ here is less impulsiveness, and more a trust in the status quo. his world of patriarchy and primogeniture promised him his inheritance, whether he was a good man or bad, an honest man or a liar. he could tell his younger brother whatever Jacob wanted to hear, but down the road he could trust that their father would bestow the blessing on Esau anyway.

his reliance on the status quo is what allows Esau to hand over his birthright so easily -- because he knows that merely saying it’s Jacob’s now does not make it so.

Esau’s great failing is that he assumes that his culture’s will is God’s will.

the problem for Esau is that God does not play by human rules.

____________

in the Book of Genesis and throughout the rest of scripture, we see God working within the bounds of cultural assumptions and norms, rolling with the binary systems that human societies construct -- right up to the point where Xe doesn’t.

In The Soul of the Stranger: Reading God and Torah from a Transgender Perspective, Jewish scholar Joy Ladin focuses on the elements of gender inherent to the system of primogeniture that places the firstborn Esau over the secondborn Jacob in every way. To her, biblical maleness comes in different “flavors” -- the roles expected of a firstborn son are different from those assigned to non-firstborn sons. She says,

“Jacob and Esau are both male and are born almost simultaneously, but they are assigned at birth to very different gender roles. Because Esau emerges from the womb first, he is considered the firstborn, heir not only to Isaac’s worldly possessions but also to the relationship with God that Isaac inherited from his father, Abraham. Though Jacob is born holding onto his brother’s heel, he is considered the second-born, expected to accept the authority of his older brother, who, after their father’s death, will be the head of the family. Like the gender binary, this law of inheritance, called ‘primogeniture,’ creates a lifelong, life-determining binary division between males who are and those who aren’t firstborn sons. And like the gender binary, primogeniture turns biology, in this case birth order, into destiny. The way male children are raised, the roles they are assigned, and the futures toward which they are steered are determined by whether they are or aren’t firstborn sons.” (p. 36)

Esau has grown up understanding that his inheritance is his destiny. It’s what he’s been born for, what he’s been raised for, what he is entitled to. Why would he believe that he would ever have to make good on his silly promise to Jacob to hand over that destiny? It’s set in stone, inviolable.

at least it is in the eyes of men. but not to God.

“If God were committed to the gender binary idea that people are unchangeably defined by the gender roles we are assigned at birth, then either Esau would have been destined to inherit Isaac’s relationship with God, or Jacob would have been born first. But as God reveals to Rebekah before the twins are born, God intends for the younger brother to usurp the elder, prenatally linking God’s blessing to trans experience. (Ladin, pp. 37-38)

in the ancient past and in the present day, countless roles get assigned to us as soon as -- or even before -- we exist the womb. biology is presumed destiny in so many ways: our gender, our race, the class and geopolitical location and family into which we are born, supposedly map out what our personalities will be, how our lives will go. and certainly these things do shape us, both by nature and nurture -- generational traumas come packed into our very cells, while our environment and how others treat us based on our assigned roles impact how we perceive ourselves and the world around us.

but even so, even so, biology is not destiny. especially not if God has any say in the matter.

for God is the great binary breaker, no respecter of persons or prejudices, unbeholden to the status quo. indeed, God almost seems to delight in upending our assumptions about who is blessed. secondborn sons and eunuchs, women and disabled persons, impoverished persons and disenfranchised peoples -- these are the ones whom God selects, again and again, to be recipients and agents of divine blessing. “blessed are the poor;” “the last shall be first.”

Esau assumes that biology, his status assigned based on birth order, is destiny. he does not fear his younger brother, who is rendered powerless by their culture to claim what he is promised in a moment of hunger. and probably this is safer for Jacob -- because when Esau does finally realize, too late, that Jacob is a real threat, Esau becomes murderously angry.

when Isaac is duped into giving Jacob his blessing after all, Jacob cannot stick around to claim the wealth and status that comes with it -- he must flee, or die under Esau’s hand.

i wonder if some of the violence we see in our time, and across every time and place, stems from the same kind of rage and fear that Esau experiences:

the rage of the ones who are raised to believe the world belongs to them, that they are entitled to certain blessings and privileges, only for the truth to pounce on them unexpectedly -- the shocking truth that biology is not destiny, that they are not inherently superior, that what they thought would be theirs without question might could be snatched from them after all.

the divine right to rule. manifest destiny. the ‘white man’s burden.’

white men who assume they are entitled to white women, so that the mere thought of a Black man winning a woman’s heart is enough to incite them to brutality.

white women who understand that the police are their personal body guards, to call down upon the bodies of Black adults and even Black children on a whim -- and are indignant in the rare circumstance that they are told otherwise.

men and white people who expect the best jobs and properties to go to them, so that anyone else advancing over them seems an appalling injustice.

cis women who perceive trans women as “invading their spaces;” cishet couples who think LGBTQ/queer couples ruin “the sanctity of marriage;” persons who are accustomed to being accommodated without even realizing it sneering at “safe spaces” and trigger warnings....

and on and on.

Esau had every reason to assume that his biology determined his destiny -- that he could make an impulsive promise, make a big mistake, and everything would still turn out in his favor. he was born into a world that told him so every day -- even that God sanctioned these human assumptions and systems. But God does not.

“God’s disruptions of gender in these stories make it clear that even the gender roles that matter most to human beings are not sacred to God. ...God in the Torah uses gender, but is not bound by it. On the one hand, God depends on gender to transmit the covenant across time and space, so that even after hundreds of generations, Jews will still see themselves as children of Abraham. On the other hand, God disrupts gender as a way of making God’s power and presence known. ...In these stories, faithfulness to gender has little to do with faithfulness to God. In fact, God counts on the fact that people are not bound by gender roles. The covenant with Abraham is founded on Abraham, Sarah, and Jacob’s embrace of trans experience: their willingness to live outside the gender roles they were born to and become the kinds of people they are not supposed to be.” (Ladin, pp. 57-58)

Faithfulness to human constructs has little to do with faithfulness to God. God blesses us when we can imagine beyond the narrative we are assigned -- as Jacob does in this story where he demands a birthright the world does not intend for him....and as Esau eventually does.

In Genesis 33, Esau catches up to Jacob after decades apart -- and Jacob expects violence. He sends gifts of livestock to Esau and conceals his most cherished family at the back of his huge household. But to his bewilderment, Esau is no longer murderously angry at having “lost” what he grew up assuming he was entitled to -- he rushes to his brother, throws his arms around Jacob’s neck, and weeps.

Esau was raised believing that he would own everything, and his brother nothing -- that Jacob would be one of many members of Esau’s household, subservient to him. But now, he does not even feel entitled to the livestock that Jacob offers him: “I already have plenty, my brother. Keep what’s yours.”

Jacob is relieved by this unexpected reconciliation, exclaiming to Esau that “Seeing your face is like seeing God’s face, since you’ve accepted me so warmly!” He never expected Esau to accept what Jacob has known all along -- that biology is not destiny; that neither of them are bound to human constructs like birthright; that they can live a different way than the way prescribed to them, one in which both of them thrive.

___________

now, this story is by no means perfect. Jacob was able to imagine bigger for himself, to escape the destiny assigned to him -- but he does not imagine big enough. he does not use his new station to liberate others.

he becomes a patriarch -- assimilates into patriarchy and the power to own other human beings, to rule over every member of his household, rather than challenging the whole system that once oppressed him. i am reminded of trans persons, persons of color, women, who once they manage to acquire power for themselves never use it to help their fellow marginalized persons up. they land positions of power and use that power to oppress others as they were once oppressed, rather than using it to try to forge a new, better system for all.

Jacob the second-born becomes Jacob the patriarch. his household will be fraught with all the woes that come with this system that stifles all within it. his wives will hate each other and battle each other for what little power they can grasp. his sons will do the same, subjecting the younger Joseph to violence when, like Jacob, this little sibling dares to dream of being something greater than what his society assigns him.

what if Jacob could have imagined bigger? what if he had used his one fragment of shining clarity about how patriarchy and primogeniture stifled his true self to empower others, not only himself?

what if we could imagine bigger? what new and beautiful world could we build?

[honestmrdual]

i was given some gotham related questions by amazing @mydumbassenergy and now i am gonna give my absolutely honest opinion about these topics. what’s the most overrated thing of the show? why? oh boy, here we go. the most overrated thing is writers’s obsession with putting gordon in centre of everything. i don’t know what’s worse: them trolling us with such an interesting plots of other characters which end up related to gordon and gordon only because they hate their fans or them genuinely thinking that that is a genius writing. i don’t know if they are just this lazy to write more than one main character or it’s the desire to project their attractive cishet white male power fantasy (”i am so special by doing and saying nothing, i am an awful piece of shit who’s desirable by absolutely everyone”) on gordon. you know what i am talking about  -  Jim Gordon Is A Hero! He’s Ruined My Life! He’s The Only One Who Can Save Gotham! But Deep Down He’s A Monster! And Etc, Etc, Etc. the hillarious part is that sometimes these headlines given by the same characters at the same time! one half of characters want to fuck him, other half want to kill him, and some of them want both of these things at the same time, because, you know, he so Special, so Complicated, so Fucking Deep, EXCEPT HE ISN’T.

expect writers do not give us anything to think that he’s character deeper than “i am the hero this city needs” trope, or deeper than any other character. expect i don’t feel any sympathy towards him because out of “just sometimes annoying” writers somehow made him such an asshole that since s4 starts airing i genuinely want him to die already. expect mackenzie not even trying to act, because there’s no need for him to show any emotions on gordon’s face, because writers gonna put “i know that you feel [x]” or “i know that you are thinking about [x]” in other characters’s mouths. expect since s1 most of the time gordon is not doing anything to actually push the story forward, but writers trying to convince us that he is. expect writers trying to disguise his hypocrisy as a “he’s can’t decide if he wants to be good or evil. ugh, he’s so deep” topic. i literally do not understand what the fuck his motives are! is it “i’m gonna made this city better by obeying the law”? or “by breaking it”? or “by being a cop AND breaking the law”? or “fuck the city, i need lee”? or “fuck the city, but i am gonna verbally and mentally abuse harvey when he’s saying the same thing”? and the thing is, i genuinely do not care. because he’s not just a badly written character, not just an asshole. he’s a badly written character, who’s also an asshole, WHO’S ALSO STEALS A FUCKING 90% OF A SCREENTIME and ruins other character’s plotlines by his presence and, in the end, ruined half of the show! and that’s why i don’t care about his deep inner world, i just want him to be gone. fuck gordon and fuck writers’s obsession with him. most shameful guilty pleasure of the show? funny, but this one is actually a hard one, because i genuinely don’t know? the way most people out and in fandom treat this show (you know, “it just a silly batman show” or “every plotline is so stupid lol they are all on crack”) make gotham itself kinda a guilty pleasure (tho despite all my hatred towards it i don’t think is true). i personally don’t have in this show things that are so bad that it’s kinda a crack joy to like them. but i do have a character that sometimes i feel so bad for liking him. if you know me for a 0.2 sec, you know that i am in love with barnes, and if you know this fandom for a 1.3 sec, you know how it treats him. badly. “haha he’s face so funny” and “barnes is angry again what’s new lolololol” and “he’s so unattractive amirite ladies”  -  it’s an opinion of 90% of people in this place. the worst thing is that even writers think that way. and this treatment makes barnes a guilty pleasure of mine, except i don’t feel any pleasure and sometimes i just want to leave this fandom for good for making me feel this ill. do you think it was necessary to kill characters like fish mooney and carmine falcone? with fish, i will go for yes. at least first time, it was a logical end of her plotline. of course there was a few other decent options and reasons for her staying alive, but i don’t feel like her death was pulled out of nowhere. with second time i can’t say the same. brinning back fish from the dead only for her to appear in 6 episodes, have some superpowers that were taken away from her anyway, say some motivational speech to penguin and die again  -  it just silly and stupid. i am not saying i didn’t enjoy her presence in s2/s3, it just i wish it was done much better. with falcone, i don’t even know. at one hand, i don’t feel toward him anything, he’s neutral to me and i don’t think him dying is a terrible move. at the other hand, i do have a feeling that it was made just because writers want us to hate sofia (part of the fandom wants her dead after the 4x11, so nice move, i guess). again, him retiring in the end of s1 was a logical move, bringing him back only to kill  -  feels unnecessary. brutally honest gotham question rulette

[androgynousblackbox]

Also,In what universe are platonic male friendships are rare on tv? Everywhere I look I seek bromance on tv, ESPECIALLY between two cishet white dudes. As a matter of fact they get FAR more focus than m/f or even f/f friendships.

“But, but, if they are close male friendship then those meanie ugly fujoshi take them as gay and that is so sad, that is why we can’t have nice things” PERSON. HUMAN. SHUT THE FFFFFFFUCK UP. Like honestly, if your maximum concern is that SOMEONE, SOMEWHERE, is reading into that perfect bromance without a B, then I almost wish I had such a carefree life like that, but not really because what the fuck is wrong with you. OP was already bad, but the people going “this is actually good, good post, it’s so awful that people have to make everything gay, can you believe how awful those people are, putting gay feelings between our favorite male friends, that is so bad”? I don’t know them, but I felt so dissapointed anyway. Like I usually try to give people the benefit of the doubt, but come on, you are not making it easy for me. An easy way to discover dogwhistles? Just change the genders and see if is still sounds like a good post. If it sounds weird that people would think shipping m/f together sometimes ruins m/f friendships in mainstream media, then why the heck is different when we are talking specifically about m/m. And. AND. If you are a writer who gets upset at queer hcs, like on that original post, to the point you have to immediately to shut it down, because god forbid anyone taint your good straight characters, then I will find that character, I am going to dye their hair pink and give them genderqueer goth partnerS, and there will be nothing any god, angel or demon is going to be able to do to stop me.

[blastmeintospace]

This is a sweet post and I don’t wanna derail the positivity but I just gotta say I saw another post like this just yesterday on Twitter that got bombarded with responses from people saying “no, humans ARE bad” and honestly, hating all of humanity on the basis that ‘humans are terrible and ruin everything’ is a special kind of stupid.

very tiny example, a post I saw once mentioning how humans are gonna die out one day and only animals will remain on earth and someone responded to the post with simply “good”. and other dumb stuff like that.

Honestly it’s basically being woke but on steroids.

Hating white people, males and cishets? Woke af.

Hating humanity as a whole? PEAK WOKENESS. “Gimme all the brownie points!”

but yeah, nah humanity is amazing for the most part.

i don’t think humans are inherently bad i just don’t. once i posted about how i can’t ever get poached eggs right and someone took time out of their day to send me tips on how to make them. they used their finite time on this planet to teach me how to poach an egg with no motivation other than helping a stranger have a better breakfast and if that isn’t proof humanity is worth saving i don’t know what is

[softgrungeprophet]

i don’t plan on harping on about this because i’m tired and this whole plot makes me feel gross and reminds me why i feel unwelcome in mainstream comics but like

it’s interesting (not in a good way) that the current Venom run Donny Cates is writing has so far only featured women as literal plot devices who either don’t exist or are dead and have been retroactively rewritten into a place of violation and that’s just supposed to be No Big Deal

It’s not great

and it sucks that like.... Venom alone has some great female characters who would benefit from their own solo mini-series, and then--the Venom comics in which Andi Benton saw the most care and growth as a character, and comics like Silk and the Kate Bishop Hawkeye solo all get canceled. (at least we have Ms Marvel)

But this Venom comic where women are basically just objects to further the plot and offer redemption arcs that--as eabevella pointed out--cannot even be forgiven by the affected character due to her being dead--this is THE best seller? it rubs me the wrong way. why is it that the comics about (or at least including) women that approach them as people get canceled and the ones where women are objects and targets of violence and erasure are the ones that get to sell a million billion copies and are heaped with praise and the author is some flawless perfect wonderful god? stupid.

I am fucking DREADING the moment this man gets his hands on a character like Andi or, god forbid, Jubulile, who are both young women of color and therefore so much more likely to be mistreated by the author whose only approach to women is death, non-existence, or sexual assault.

And DO NOT tell me “oh it’s not sexual assault” no. it fucking is. nonconsensual pregnancy is a form of sexual assault.

I don’t care whether it was “shown” or not, my issue is not that; my issue is that it’s being retroactively presented as really not that big of a deal and something worthy of forgiveness even though this kind of thing happens in real life (not exactly the same for obvious reasons) and literally ruins people’s lives. (and still irl the news focuses always on how sorry these boys are, who ruined these girls’ lives, how they just made a mistake... ha ha ha) AND in fact Anne DID die, her life WAS ruined, so like?

This isn’t even particularly personal for me! But it still makes me feel gross. Anne dying way back when for Eddie’s manpain was bad enough. This makes it worse. An apology to fall on dead ears, regret, blah blah, that’s not... really.... that doesn’t really make it okay.

(ON TOP OF years’ worth of emotional and mental manipulation and mind control (ALSO retconned in) also being part of this potential “redemption arc”?)

Anyway, we’ve had redemption arcs, actual redemption arcs and character growth. But apparently those don’t matter. All that matters is that Cates fabricates his own unforgivable history of manipulation and abuse that is somehow supposed to be worthy of redemption.

I don’t like this Eddie, I don’t like this symbiote. They are bad people. I don’t want their happy ending because their happy ending necessitates the suffering and sacrifice of everyone else.

And not to be an asshole, but I’m an asshole, so I’m gonna add in that they’re not the only characters in this comic I don’t like.

I don’t like Dylan because he’s a symbol of everything I hate about this run, of replacing Mary despite making no more sense than her, of the skewed plot and dropped twists and insensitive approach to literally every topic this man takes on.

It’s a comic steeped in white male privilege and the complete lack of being affected by any of the topics it “addresses” (though it doesn’t actually address any of them, just throws them onto the page)

(not that mainstream comics being overrun by privileged cishet white men is new and I don’t know what I expected lmao)

And you know what Don. Yeah, you’re right, not everything has to be canon and I’m definitely not accepting any aspect of this run--not even the first six issues--into my interpretation of canon, but that doesn’t change the fact that this comic is going to have some effect on the following comics, so--what am I supposed to do? Just stop reading Venom comics until someone steps in and retcons the retcons or makes a new timeline? Is that your answer?

Don’t like; don’t read? Like fanfiction, which is well-tagged and thoroughly warned for, and has no effect on the comics’ continuity?

I’ll stick to Toxin with a Vengeance and Carnage 2016 and Space Knight and Lethal Protector but I am allowed to be annoyed that things like this are just fun plot twists and not handled with even the remotest amount of care or thoughtfulness, that they’re supposed to just be something characters can move on from no problem (amidst all the dropped plot threads and constant soliloquizing)

I’m all for tackling serious subjects in comics and all other media but lmfao

I guess I’ll go back to previous comics and stay there in my little nook which is simultaneously belittled and expected to be the place i stay, ignoring this as much as I can (even though it’ll most likely be inescapable)

now i’m gonna go back into making my own backstory for a side character from SM/DP and probably read some more Daredevil

[barzombi-shitpost]

So I just finished playing Vampyr...

This game is fucking good.

I was expecting a good game, and I walk away from what is probably my favorite game of all times, or at least a strong contender (Senua’s Sacrifice is probably there too).

The problems with the game do exist, however. Drops of framerate, some dialogue choices not that clear on consequences, not-that-good motion capture, some awkward moments (you can accuse someone of poisoning another person, and they’ll continue to talk to you like nothing happened !), and a sometimes clunky battle system.

But aside from that, I loved EVERYTHING. The question of which NPC to eat or spare, and the consequences of your choices, are the best mecanic of the game ! Because to get more XP out of an NPC, you need to know them, their little secrets, who cares for them, etc... so most of the time, you look at an NPC, worth sometimes thousands of XP, and think “Nah... I can’t eat them, who will take care of their grandma ?”, and you think about that PRECISELY because you have to know them before eating them for the sacrifice to be worth it !

It’s fucking genius.

Aside from that, good quality of dialog if you like melancolic gothic horror (and lucky me, I do !), and every single NPC is unique and has their little story and features. There isn’t a single one of them who has nothing to say, even though some of them are not as well-written and important as others.

Good diversity, also, even though, again, it could have been even better.

There’s something like 40-ish male characters, and 20-ish female characters, with something like ten of them being PoC. 

I know for a lot of people it’s not enough, but for a game about gothic themes and vampires, I was (sadly) expecting an almost all-white cast (*cough* The Order 1886 *cough*), and some women, but not much.

The LGBT community is... well almost not there, alas (at least officialy), but there IS an openly gay couple, and for a game set in 1918, that’s something, at least.

The main story is good, but I honestly prefered the interactions with the NPC and the sidequests. Some of them are extremely sad, others are hilarious.

The big boss battles are... untertaining, but clearly the game shines more in its quiet, intimate moments and in the narration. Don’t go in there thinking it’s gonna be Bloodborne all over again.

Oof. There, finished. I might add some other things later, but I’d like to talk a bit about big fat SPOILERS, now. Just one thing, about a debate on the main character love interest.

SPOILERS  SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS

Honestly, I don’t get WHY people are so mad about lady Ashbury and Jonathan Reid. Really.

I mean, yes, it IS a heterosexual relationship. Yes, it IS an indivisible part of the story. But, seriously, it’s not enough to ruin a game, as I have seen some proclaim.

The same thing more or less happens in Life is Strange AND Life is Strange : Before the Storm (althought they aren’t cishet relationships, I’ll give you that), and it doesn’t ruin the game : it tells a story.

But in these three games, the love story in here to reinforce the theme : highschool life and discovery of life in the titles of Life is Strange, and gothic, “noble” and almost Arthurian themes and relationships in Vampyre.

Would I had prefered to have the choice ? Yes. But considering the very end of the game, or at least the one I had, it fits the theme so perfectly that to change it would be stupid, in my opinion.

I also see people saying Jonathan has more alchemy with McCullum, that we encounter exactly FOUR TIMES in the game (and twice less than 10 seconds), than with Lady Ashbury, who is here from almost the very beginning. 

I disagree.

Jonathan and McCullum DO have alchemy, it’s true. As adversaries, not really as love interests. The battle against McCullum (the Boss battle, I mean) is very interesting, because YOU are the usual antagonist, and the fact that you can spare the lad, after telling him that you want the same thing, and aren’t really that different... Well it was fucking good, and an excellent use of the trope in reverse.

But I’d rather have a hundred stories of Victorian slow burn with Lady Ashbury than to basically rape a man who wants to kill me to make him a vampire.

Because that’s option number two, after the Boss battle, and I’ve seen people ship these two together because of that. And it honestly makes me uneasy.

I precise that this man is, for what I know, the ONLY NPC you can turn that would undertake the transformation unwillingly, where you have to force-feed him your blood.

So think what you will of Lady Ashbury, but please don’t give me this excuse as a “better couple”.

At least Doctor Swansea would have taken the blood with pleasure ^^

[oathkeptroxas]

Hi girl! Have you received acephobic hate,or is it "just" shit happening on Tumblr in general? 😒

Hey!

I haven’t received any on tumblr directly. I tend to be cautious with who I follow, and tend to unfollow people who post things that are upsetting and hateful. Up until this point I’ve managed to avoid online drama, because in general I simply reblog a couple of informative or positive ace posts and that’s it.

I’m not out in real life. So no one knows that I identify as ace (or bi, but that’s a newer thing for me that i’m still figuring out), even so people who have known me personally have noticed my lack of interest in pursuring people and my lack of participation in sex-centric conversations.

I was at the pub with a group of friends once and my friend Charlotte was talking about how difficult it has been for her to find a girlfriend and asked if I knew anyone I could set her up with, she’s a really fun, confident and forward person who’s comfortable with herself and she made a quip about wondering if she’d ever lose her virginity, which then spiralled into a sex topic within our group. And my cousin had recently come out as gay and was becoming a lot more comfortable sharing his sexual experiences within the group so the conversation was something that everyone was engaged in and it was really animated and positive, one of the straight girls in the group had previously tried anal so her and my cousin and another gay male friend were jokingly “swapping notes”, just being drunk friends mostly and joking around.

I listened intently but I didn’t want to participate personally because it’s not something that I’m comfortable with. I’m sex-indifferent. So i am not averse to sex and have had sexual encounters in the past. But sometimes it just gets a little too much and makes me uncomfortable and i’m not open to sharing my personal life like that.

So when they noticed my lack of participation Charlotte asked if I was okay and like….before I could respond my cousin just jumped in “Jodie doesn’t need sex like the rest of us.” And then pretty much continued speaking like I wasn’t even there and said it in such a way that it made me feel fucking worthless, like I was defective and less than they were and I wasn’t worth participating in their conversations. It literally ruined my mood for the whole night. And he didn’t even know I identify as ace.

My sister is nasty. She was a bully in school, she’s a proud self-proclaimed “bitch” and she fights dirty. She says things she KNOWS will hurt you, just to get a reaction. The word fat was literally banned from our house when we were kids because she’d call me it so often. Despite the fact I’m one size above national British average and me and my sister now SHARE clothes. She used that against me because she knew it fucked me up. To be honest, most of my self harm and self hatred probably stems from that, nothing triggers me like the word fat does.

And once she was bragging about how much sex she’s had and how her tampon fell out ‘cause she’s so lose? And 1) she’s my little sister I do not wanna know. 2) the vagina is a muscle that contracts back after childbirth, self-lubricates and loosens when aroused, and tampons come in different sizes and women have different set vaginas? Sex has very very little to do with it.

So, anyway, i just suggested that maybe the wrong size tampon had been brought (she came on abruptly in public and ran to a store toilet whilst my mum bought her tampons - and my mum has poor eyesight and can’t read without glasses and its very likely she picked up the first she could find without trying to read the box).

Anyway, after making that suggestion my sister got like? Irrationally pissed? As if I was like? Calling her a liar or whatever? And started screaming about how “JUST BECAUSE NO ONE WANTS YOU! YOU’LL UNDERSTAND ONE DAY IF SOMEONE ACTUALLY WANTS YOU” and basically implied/assumed that my seeming lack of relationship/seeking out sexual encounters was because people didnt want me and i’m fat and undesirable, basically. My sister regularly makes fun of people who are celibate. We watch shows where people have abstained for personal or religious or political reasons and my sister scoffs and belittles and acts like these people are lesser. There’s no way I can tell her I’m ace.

Everytime I go to a house party people want to play Never Have I Ever, which literally makes me so uncomfortable I can’t breathe. And they all try to pressure me into it anyway and I often end up drinking alone in another room so they can play. Luckily, over the last year my friend Jack (who usually hosts the parties) has been dating this great guy James. And James doesn’t like the game either, he’s just a bit more private than the others and doesn’t know Jack’s friends well enough for them to know those things about him, and he thinks the game’s a little tacky. So me and him just go for a smoke and gossip while they play.

But i feel like i’m suffocating under this all the time. Looking for “plausible”/socially acceptable reasons for not wanting/thinking the way my friends do.

I can’t pursue the guy I like who’s interested in me because I overheard him drunkenly telling his friend how he hasn’t had sex in 3 years and I’ve been panicking ever since because I don’t know if that’s something I can give him and I fear I’m not desirable without it - or worse case scenario, he tries to force himself on me to “prove” that I just “haven’t met the right person/had the right experience yet”.

I just feel like I’m choking on this thing all the time because I know if I told anyone they’d never take my word for it, they’d assume something happened to “make me this way”. They’d say I was a “late bloomer”. And my homophobic parents and possibly some of my friends wouldn’t believe I’m ace but would think i’m just gay and in denial. And i know a lot of gay people have previously identified as ace because they were dealing with internalized homophobia and maybe it was easier to accept they felt no attraction than it was to realize they felt the “wrong” kind by society’s standards. But that’s not the fault of ace people. It’s the fault of a toxic society that hates everything that isn’t the cis straight white default that it has the rest of us turning on each other. It’s also common for gay people to initially identify as bi because they’re dealing with internalized homophobia and think bi is easier because they can retain the illusion that they still also feel the “right” kind of attraction. But bisexuals arent to blame for that anymore than ace/aros are.

And i hate that people say they support aces as long as theyre not cishet and it’s like???? I’m bi so i’m not het but what those people are basically saying is “i accept part of your identity”……that’s not supporting me. That’s just gonna fuck up my mental/emtional state even further. And if someone is aro/ace its literally impossible for them to be het? If they experience no romantic or sexual attraction then they feel none of those things for the “opposite” sex, and cannot be het. So calling them that is insulting and invalidating their identity.

And i don’t understand the whole “we accept and welcome actual cis and straight identifying allies who wish to support our cause but aces can choke”? I get that allies are important because closeted lgbt youth can attend events under the guise of “ally” BUT ally and closeted are not synonymous, because if they became so it wouldnt be a cover at all.

[mick66d]

Homepage

Get started

Go to the profile of Christopher Seaton

Christopher Seaton

Attorney. Mediator. See http://mediationisdead.com

Dec 10, 2017

Enough with the #MeToo Bullshit

I’ve kept silent over the scalp fest that is the #MeToo debacle for a good bit of time. One reason is I get my perspective will largely be ignored by a good swath of people who will say “Oh, look at the cishet white male shitlord” and move on. We’re in a society where your patents of oppression* matter more than rational thought.

Another reason I’ve kept quiet is the people who’ve screamed the loudest simply couldn’t be bothered to know better. It’s far easier for those in the media, politics, or the corporate world to put feelings before actual rational thought.

Now things have taken a different turn and the virus has infested the legal profession. People who should know better, who swore an oath to uphold the law, are jumping on the bandwagon of “OMG Someone Did Something BURN THE HERETIC!”

This must end now. Speaking from the legal perspective, the #MeToo movement is wrongheaded, completely dishonest, and has backfired in ways its woke disciples couldn’t have expected. Here’s why it must end now.

It lumps every act into the now nefarious “Sexual Impropriety.”

When the #MeToo bandwagon started, “sexual impropriety” or “sexual misconduct” were the linguistic kill shots** ending careers. These weren’t specific terms, though. They described everything from rape to inadvertently putting a hand on someone’s bare back.

In the legal world, words mean things. Law has specific definitions for various sexual offenses. If those definitions are abandoned for a grouped term of “sexual misconduct,” then we abandon the law entirely.

The better course of action is to take a deep breath, ask “What specifically happened?” and then apply the appropriate response. If someone stands accused of rape, then the matter should be handled by the legal system.

On the other hand, if someone touched you and you froze up because it was unwelcome, then it’s perfectly fine for you to share your story and people to express their empathy. Then you move on.

Let’s unpack the offenses from the “sexual misconduct” umbrella so we can respond in the best fashion possible.

2. #MeToo doesn’t have due process for the accused.

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense. — Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

One of the worst aspects of the #MeToo virus is that there is no recourse for the accused. Once someone comes forward with an accusation, the Court of Public Opinion deems the accused guilty without as much as a second thought.

This sort of bullshit is why we have a system set in place in arguably the greatest governing document created by man. It allows for people to make an accusation, for the accused’s fate to be decided impartially, and for the two to face each other in court.

“But it’s so difficult for these women to come forward and be believed!” you shriek. Yes, even over the internet, I can hear your complaints. If it’s so difficult, why is the avalanche of complaints so large? Why are these terrified women Time’s “Person of the Year?”

It is intellectually dishonest and completely out of touch with reality to suggest women cannot come forward on their own accord and raise a complaint against someone. Furthermore, suggesting the act is “difficult” for women is an insult to the entire gender. It claims women can’t be brave enough or possess their own ability to speak out if someone wrongs them.

3. The “Everyone Knew About It” Complication Is Pervasive

When Harvey Weinstein’s misdeeds first surfaced, people called it the “worst kept secret in Hollywood.” Kevin Spacey’s actions are no different. The “Everyone Knew About It Complication” even goes as far as Capitol Hill.

I call this the “Everyone Knew About It Complication” because it’s an extension of the #MeToo virus that complicates a story even further. Just as an actual virus can suddenly evolve into a new strain, once the “Everyone Knew About It Complication” comes up it infects the allegations even more.

Now the revelations are more damning. It suggests a pervasive, regular pattern of behavior. The complication means that people either turned their heads or actively covered it up.

If “everyone knew” about someone’s bad behavior, why did it take so long for someone to come forward? Why did no one point this out sooner? If someone covered up or turned a blind eye to horrendous sexual impropriety, what were their motivations?

Once the “everyone knew” morphs the allegations against the accused, it casts a worse light on everyone involved.

4. People Are Okay With Innocent Lives Being Ruined Over #MeToo

Emily Lindin, founder of the “UnSlut” project and occasional columnist for Teen Vogue, made her view on #MeToo perfectly clear last month in a twitstorm. She’s fine with it being used as a weapon against innocent men.

“Sorry. If some innocent men’s reputations have to take a hit in the process of undoing the patriarchy, that is a price I am absolutely willing to pay.” — Emily Lindin, November 21, 2017

What started as a means for people to share their stories of sexual abuse in and out of the workplace is now a weapon to rob blameless men of their livelihoods. And the numbers show people are perfectly fine with this.

If you take a look at the above quoted twit (you’ll have to use this link since Lindin’s twits are now protected) you’ll see it got 49 likes and 63 retweets. Simple math shows there’s arguably 112 people out there who share Lindin’s view.

This is terrifying. If this view is publicly held by that number of people, how many are quietly nodding their heads at Lindin’s viewpoint? The #MeToo movement is now a dual front: let “victims” tell their stories and destroy the lives of the innocent in the process.

If it gets rid of that damned “toxic masculinity,” so what?

5. It Didn’t Work Before, And It’s Not Going To Work This Time.

Social media rendered the attention span and memory of the public to that of a gnat’s, which is why people are forgetting this happened on college campuses a few years ago and didn’t work.

Here’s a couple of names for you that might have faded from memory. Emma Sulkowicz. “Jackie” from UVA. Two women who accused men of rape, and both turned out to have fabricated the accusations.

Sulkowicz couldn’t take it when the police and her university’s Title IX kangaroo court wouldn’t punish her target, so she started carrying around her dorm room mattress in an attempt to publicly humiliate the accused all over campus. Her fabrication earned her an invitation to the State of the Union address. Columbia University would eventually settle with the young man Sulkowicz tried to destroy, but not before he became a campus pariah.

“Jackie” from UVA was the subject of a Rolling Stone article that was deemed the “worst journalistic failure” of that year. Jackie made up so many details of her alleged rape that Rolling Stone had to pay damages to a UVA dean named in the story after a defamation suit.

Last Month, Daily Beast editor Erin Ryan had a shocking moment of clarity over the #MeToo movement. If one accusation turned up false, it could destroy the entire avalanche in one fell swoop.

That’s why Weinstein fallout could go up in smoke in a second. Because enough people believe that women are all liars, that one liar will fuck it up for all of us. — Erin Ryan (emphasis mine)

To quote noted legal scholar James E. Cornette, “Well, wouldn’t you know who won the pony.”

At the heart of #MeToo is the recycled statement “No matter what, you must listen and believe.” This was the rallying cry for Sulkowicz and Jackie, and fell apart once Jackie’s story was found to have more holes in it than Swiss cheese.

It still kept up after Jackie’s story imploded. Zerlina Maxwell wrote an op-ed in the fallout for the Washington Post that was originally titled “No matter what Jackie said, we should always believe rape claims.” That title changed in spectacularly quick fashion to “we should generally believe rape claims,” but the point is the same. Listen and believe or you’re a rape apologist.

#MeToo is the “Listen and Believe” for the “tl;dr” generation. When the stories are questioned, and start to fall apart, #MeToo will suffer the same fate as “Listen and Believe.”

While many people have come forward with stories of horrendous behavior, and the allegedly guilty suitably punished, the #MeToo hysteria has reached epidemic proportions. When the next allegations surface, do yourself a favor.

Instead of immediately calling for someone’s head, take a deep breath. Ask questions. Wait a day to see if the story changes. And don’t lose your ever loving mind over it.

We’re better than this.

*Credit for this term goes to David Smalley of “Dogma Debate”

**Term coined by Dilbert creator and trained hypnotist Scott Adams

[softly-speaking-valkyrie]

Cishet White Males are cancelled, you ruin fucking everything for anyone who isn’t. Literally everything.