#how they both engage with opposite gender roles

[fairydust-stuff]

I've heard some fans interpret the Touga x Saionji relationship through the lens of Saionji wanting to be Touga's princess. But I think it's the opposite Saionji pushes back against the idea of being Touga's princess.

He wants to be with Touga as an equals. Touga is the one who wants Saionji in the princess role much like Nanami. He causes and bandages his wounds. Saionji threw himself into competing with Touga because he learned through patriarchy the only equal relationship between guys was competitors. He thinks only a masculine gender role will be the only way they can play together.

Saionji;'s eternal friendship was a last desperate attempt to make them equals because Saionji is terrified of submitting to Touga. Because Touga is an abuser and having no agency is terrifying.

The ending has Saionji enter the bride role with clear goals and agency. He's scared and exhausted but its still his choice. Its a step towards positive growth. Saionji is occupying a feminine role on his own terms and on equal grounds with Touga. Which the ending suggests they find they actually prefer.

#revolutionary girl utena #kyouichi saionji #touga kiryuu #the Utena parallels make me nuts #their both not fans of how the prince/ princess relationship plays out while taking it out on/ using Anthy to fuel their egos #how they both engage with opposite gender roles #how they both say screw the system and fight for the person they love #who is an SA survivor who participates in their grooming #are both supportive of the system but are also its biggest threats

[racefortheironthrone]

Hello, I’ve a part asoiaf part medieval history question. So despite the strict gender roles, we know that women (at least noble women) can enjoy some “male” activities like horse riding and some kinds of hunting (Cat says Arya can have a hunting hawk). Are there any other “male” activities women can partake too without being judged about it, or even encouraged to do so (both in Westeros and real world)?

So as medievalists and historians of gender have pointed out, ASOIAF is far more restrictive for women than actual medieval Europe. I'm actually going to leave aside the situation of noblewoman for a second, because the vast majority of women were not nobles and their experience of gender would be radically different.

What counted as "male activities" for example would vary enormously by location (rural vs. urban) and thus occupation (farmer vs. artisan). Among the peasantry, while men tended to work in the fields and concentrated on cereal-crop production and women tended to do the manifold work of maintaining the home, the reality is that the irregular nature of agricultural labor meant that in times of high demand (especially spring sowing and autumn harvest) it was a matter of survival for every single member of the household to work in the fields. So women absolutely knew how to work a plow, and swing a scythe.

As for the urban worker, while there was also a high degree of gender segregation by occupation and guilds could often be quite misogynistic when it came to trying to masculinize trades (especially those involving higher rates of capital investment), it was also true that the entire household was expected to contribute their labor, so that wives, daughters, collateral female relatives, and female servants picked up the trade alongside their male counterpart. Moreover, as biased towards men as guilds could be, they were even more committed to the principle that guild businesses were family businesses, and so in situations where a master artisan had only daughters or died childless or died with underage heirs, it was absolutely routine for guilds to admit daughters and widows as guild members, indeed usually at the rank of master, all so that the business could remain in the same family. This is why medievalists can point to so many examples of women who worked in skilled trades, often at a high level.

That's what I think GRRM's portrait of medieval society is missing: an entire world of women in business, working elbow-to-elbow with men to make a living.

As for noblewomen, part of the difficulty is that a big part of being a noble was not doing stuff - not working for a living, chiefly - and instead engaging in leisure activities as much as possible. And women were very much a part of those activities (indeed, for many of them the point was to mingle with eligible people of the opposite gender), whether that's feasting, dancing, hunting, hawking, theater and other entertainments, fireworks, tourneys and jousts, etc.

However, women were also engaged in the main "occupations" of the nobility - estate management and politics - way more than GRRM really takes note of. To begin with, as even GRRM acknowledges to some extent, the lady of the house was expected to take an active role in running the house, which meant managing servants, keeping track of accounts payable and receivable, making sure the supplies arrive on time and in the right quality and quantity, keeping an eye on maintenance and repairs (with the help of servants, natch), etc.

Given that even the manor houses of the nobility were units of economic production, the lady of the house would also be responsible for oversight of how the house was doing with its pigs, goats, chickens and pigeons and geese, bees (because beeswax and honey were really important commodities), sheep, and so on, and what kind of figures they were pulling down at the mill and the weir, and so forth.

As medievalists have known for a long time, this list of duties got even longer whenever the lord of the house was away at war or on business, when the lady would be expected to pick up all his work too - which means making sure the rents and taxes get paid, deciding which fields to distribute manpower to and when, dealing with legal disputes in the manorial court, and so on. And if the war came home, the lady of the house was expected to lead the defense of the castle and there are many, many examples of noblewomen who had to organize sieges that lasted months and even years.

However, we also have to consider the impact of inheritance by birth and the inherent randomness of sex at birth - as much as they tried to avoid it, plenty of noble houses ended up with female heirs or in the hands of widows. Most of the time in most countries, women could and did inherit (or at the very least their male children and relatives could inherit through them) titles and fiefdoms, and while their husbands would often take on overlordship de jure uxoris, unmarried women and widows very much exercised their authority as the Lady or Baroness or Countess or whatever, and history is also full of women who were extremely influential in medieval politics and backed up their influence by any means necessary.

#history #medieval history #feudalism #history of gender #westerosi feudalism #westerosi gender roles #asoiaf #asoiaf meta #race for the iron throne #historical analysis

[sunshine-and-moonshine]

Dbd Surv General NSFW

Requested: Yes! [helloooo!! love your work!! since requests are open i think may i ask for some general headcanons about Dwight and Leon during sex? (favorite positions, if they're loud or quiet, etc, whatever you wanna throw in) :3 <3 (also not necessary but if you want to throw vittorio in here and give him some too that is totally 100% fine...... heh)]

Warnings: ✨spice✨, Dwight and Leon are subs, some feminine clothing (mentions of princessy clothes and high heels) but reader gender not specified,

Dwight

Favorite position: usually whatever position has you on top of him.

But if he has to pick one than you sitting on his lap, your arms cradling the back of head, holding him close to your chest as he gently rocks up into you.

For volume, he’s generally pretty average, leaning a bit towards the quiet side.

This is also partly because he’s usually got his face against your skin, trying to muffle his needy sounds

Some Kinks:

Light Dom/Sub

Dwight likes to be submissive but it’s not necessary for his sexual pleasure. That being said, it really gets him going when someone is willing to take the lead or tell him what to do.

Oral

Dwight LOVES oral. He’s more of a receiver than a giver, but he certainly doesn’t mind giving. His favorite oral position is probably the giver kneeling, with the receiver’s standing and leaning back on a wall.

Aesthetics

Dwight adores a solid aesthetic. Doesn’t exactly matter what the aesthetic is. Goth? Loves it. Princessy? Loves it. Even if it’s just a certain color aesthetic, he loves it. He does have a particular fondness for business aesthetics or other strong leader like roles though.

High 👏 Heels 👏

Put high heels on and watch this man’s brain B R E A K. Literally incapable of coherent thought. It’s like you hypnotized him. You could ask him to do anything in that moment and he’d do it. He’s absolutely helpless. If you wanted to torture him a bit, run the heel up his cock or down his chest. He will make such pretty noises if you do.

Leon (Dbd/Re2)

Favorite position: something intimate and close.

Missionary is nice but he prefers to be spooning you, both of you on your sides as he thrusts into you from behind.

For volume, Average leaning into the loud zone.

I mean, have you HEARD his Dbd whimpers? That’s just how he sounds in bed, maybe a bit quieter.

Some kinks:

Hair Pulling

Pull his pretty hair. Do it. He’s weak to it. His ultimate favorite thing is him kneeling before you and you using your grip on his hair to yank his head back. He will cum from this.

Edging

Leon is a whimpering writhing mess if you edge him, bordering on tears after only a few times. But despite how hard it is for him, his best orgasms happen while being edged.

PRAISE

Tell him how good he is for you. How well he’s doing. Tell him that he’s making you feel so good. He just becomes this little puppy, so eager to please.

Spanking

Leon likes to be spanked. Even if it’s just a few smacks to his ass or thighs in particular. He doesn’t like it too hard, but he’s really just willing to take whatever you want to give him.

Vittorio

Favorite position: Whatever has you both on somewhat equal ground

He likes holding you up against a wall, your legs around his waist, foreheads touching as he plows up into you.

For Volume, he’s around about average.

More of a grunter than a moaner, unlike Dwight and Leon.

Some kinks:

Body Worship

Vittorio strikes me as the type of person that can’t help but marvel at the beauty of human bodies, and especially at the body of someone he loves. He wants to worship you, treat you like the god he thinks you are.

Angry sex

For as much of a pacifist as Vittorio is, he loathes to admit that arguing with his partner is something that gets him going easily. Not to mention that Vittorio is naturally more attracted to people who are stubborn or more engaged with their anger. (A case of opposites attract)

Piercings

To be more specific, he loves nipple piercings. The first time he ever saw them, his brain just shut down completely. Over time he learned that he enjoyed other piercings as well, such as lip piercings (he loves the feel of the metal when he kisses you)

Light Masochism-ish

Vittorio loves the feeling of pain when your nails scrape down his back, breaking skin. Or when you bite a little too hard and he starts to bleed. Things of that nature just get him going.

#dbd #dead by daylight #dwight fairfield #dwight fairfield x reader #leon s. kennedy #leon s. kennedy x reader #Leon Kennedy #leon kennedy x reader #vittorio toscano #Vittorio Toscano x reader #resident evil

[kneelingshadowsalome]

ahh~ i’m so glad you liked my little essay~!! i have a knack for analyzing and interpreting stuff, i just think it’s so fun. plus i needed a way to vent out my thoughts and feelings on the little hyper-fixation i’ve developed from your story, my brain just went into overdrive because of how unique it is so i couldn’t resist.

anyway, thank you, seriously thank you for enjoying it, and i’m super happy to say that i have come up with few a headcanons of my own. these are mainly könig headcanons, so they’re more of my interpretations and analysis on him. let me know what you think~! i hope you have a wonderful read, and please keep doing you, you are a wonderful writer, and incredibly talented!!

okay, so first:

despite könig’s openness and acceptance to engels interest in his weaponry, i highly doubt that he would actually allow her to indulge in using any of them. i would even consider that he wouldn’t even teach her how to use one, especially his guns. sure, he’s gifted her knifes but notice that they’re quite feminine and dainty even, könig does try to engage with engel and her interests but emasculates them in a way that should suit her, a cute little knife is practically harmless compared to the massive destruction of his guns. the furthest he would go to showing her anything is how to hold it, but he still wouldn’t want her to hold it herself, and he won’t even shoot it in front of her considering that would damage her hearing, and he can’t bring himself to do that to his baby.

with that, i do think könig is careful and cautious with his engel. i feel like he tries to filter through the good and the bad for her. yes, we’ve been given instances in which the exact opposite has happened, i.e. him stabbing her boss right in front of her, but that was acted purely on impulse. i think after that, he tries his best, and i mean he really tries to shield her from that ever again unless absolutely needed. however, if she were to ask for that twisted ruthless side of him again, because she has the tendency to be twisted herself, then i’m sure he would have to lay down some ground rules, and although hesitant, in the end, he would do anything for her. but despite that, he does not allow angel to consume things that he perceives to be negative for both him and her, and what i mean by that is that he doesn’t allow her to consume any material that could be triggering for him or anything that could alter her behavior that would negatively effect both of them. so, stuff like world news, social media, anything that could give her a sense of empowerment, he doesn’t allow her to have her own phone, she’s constantly monitored, and she’s never alone once she leaves home because könig has to always check in on her. könig absolutely does not want her to be influenced by anything, it’s another reason why she doesn’t have friends, and knowing she isn’t influenced by anything other than him helps keep him from being paranoid, anxious, and violent.

now, back to könig being a raging misogynist at times, he would definitely believe in the value of gender roles, and i mean nothing is more important to him than the normalcy and complacency of the ideal of gendered roles and relationships. also, i hate to admit it, but he just can’t see his woman doing or portraying anything too masculine, it’s a turn off for him, he prefers if she were to just stay at home and do “womanly things” and be a woman, whatever that entails. i think he would even encourage engel to quit the job that she has now, he probably never liked the fact that she worked in such a masculine environment, working such a dirty job in the first place. the only times when he’ll allow engel to even be remotely dominant is during sex, and it’s only if she wants to be, but even through sex he still has the upper hand and has this, ‘this is only happening because i’m allowing it to happen’ mentality. plus it’s a nice thing to let go, relax, and allow her to take control for a little bit, but he would always remind her, both sexually and domestically, where her place is.

könig is completely shameless when it comes to his physicality. he knows what he’s capable of and he knows engel loves his body, so he uses that to his advantage to show off and impress her more. so that means, more unnecessary bouts of strengths used in front of engel, more commitment to his workouts, wearing less clothes around her (he honestly prefers to be casually nude more than he likes to admit, i also think it’s a kink for him to see her so flustered from it too), and insane sex positions. i think he would really enjoy fucking/eating her out standing up, just anything that involves comfortably lifting her up and possibly manhandling her, in a safe way at least.

also, könig is the most expressive when it comes to his sexuality. again, he has little shame, but it’s only because there’s something so special in sex that allows him to let go and just do what he wants in such an intimate environment, and it’s because of engel that it only amps up way more. so, with that being said, the guy is incredibly kinky and experimental. like i said, he likes casual nudity, but only done on his part, he doesn’t really like engel flaunting her body the way he flaunts his and prefers for her to stay modest, it’s really because of the innocent aspect that she tends to play that gets him going because of it. i also see him thriving in animalistic, predator/prey type of sex, especially if it’s outdoors. every time they’re out hiking, camping, or just happen to be in a large remote wooded area, expect some wild sex happening between these two. he just really enjoys pushing his limits and boundaries through sex for the purposes of showcasing the emotions he is unable to communicate normally, which is why he often has an intense sexual drive, but he also enjoys letting go once in a while, being taken cared of, and feeling loved by engel. könig really bonds well when he has this outlet where his emotions, something he constantly suppresses, can be catered, and very often is his emotions expressed dominantly, whether as a hard dom or soft one, it’s mainly about control and acceptance for him.

something könig would slightly be ashamed of though, is receiving open comfort and affection. his upbringing is super fucked and his lack of affection and love as a child definitely shaped himself as a very undeserving man of any of that, although he craves it immensely. so, as contradictory as it is, while he loves giving devotion and intimacy for selfish reasons, he does have trouble accepting genuine love and warmth for himself. it’s something that takes time for him to recognize that he needs and accepts, especially with the right person. so, yes, he’s very hesitant of these instances, but by god, does engel make it so much easier for him. it’s no wonder he’s so indulgent with her and why he’s constantly pushing her limits, it is not because he’s consciously choosing to do the most insane shit but rather, he doesn’t realize it and it’s inappropriateness. i think if engel were to teach him how to properly love and care more respectfully and appropriately, you know something he wasn’t taught as a child, i think he would be a bit more mentally stable in his behavior. however, i do not think she will, it’s because of his dangerous behavior that drew her in the first place and his toxic, overwhelming personality that solidified her place in their relationship, so there’s no way she’s getting rid of könig’s obsessive, possessive, dominant traits that practically has made him into a sex god, but she will suggest therapy from time to time if he continues to exhibit insecure-like behaviors and especially when he’s going through ptsd episodes. i’m pretty sure he has both ptsd and c-ptsd, and to top that off, personality disorders, and mood disorders, soooo…

last but not least, and this one is purely self-indulgent on my end, he is a serial spender for his engel. dude makes an absurd amount of money for what does, and has no reason to use it… until engel walked into the picture. even since then, könig will buy anything for engel and help her splurge to keep her happy, comfortable, and away from society. this man will get her all the material items that she wants, clothes, a big new house, lots of land, entertainment, all the foods that she wants. want a dog and/or cat? sure! he’ll even supply her with weed if she’s that type of girl, but anything to keep her sane and occupied, he is willing to buy, just nothing too illegal, and definitely no vacation spots, dude is way too paranoid to travel and is not willing to risk it.

IM AM SO SORRY THAT THIS WAS SO LONG 😭😭

These were just pure gold, *chef’s kiss* exquisite!! Every single sentence is perfection. So well thought out, and so well put! I don't even have the words to express how incredible this is (and I call myself a writer lol). Seriously, thank you again!! 💖

Also I want to participate (teacher teacher lemme participate please) by adding a few things:

The first one I wholly agree with, but I also believe König might have a little teeny tiny kink for watching how his innocent Engel brushes her fingertips down the barrel of his huge shotgun or holds one of his biggest knives in her *cute* little hands... The contrast between a woman’s softness and a massive, cold, brutal weapon drives this man crazy.

To indulge in his dark fantasies, he might allow Engel to come to the range with him once or twice. I imagine König getting off on showing a “fragile woman” how to handle and shoot a rifle 🙄 He thinks it’s both horrifying and drugging to see how her smaller body tries to absorb the recoil from his guns. Soon enough he’s like “Ok that’s enough” but not before he has enjoyed that peculiar scene a while longer.

And the fourth oh god. Gave me butterflies. He's shameless. I just know that König sleeps naked. Guy associates nighttime with masturbation – and nowadays, sex with his Engel – so off with his clothes, and off with hers, too. König also gives me semi-somno vibes: he would try to wake Engel up with his dick if he can't sleep. (Give me attention and love and provide me with a distraction from my anxiety! Now...!)

The sixth: yes, I don’t see things getting any "better" as in them suddenly calming the fuck down and learning healthy ways to live and love. They are too enamored with their dark side and as you said, I don't know if Engel would be that fascinated with König if he suddenly developed a conscience and healthy ways to cope with his trauma(s). Their escapades resemble a shared psychosis sometimes, but with time and patience this couple will perhaps find true love and relief together – something bigger and better, a way out of the spiral. They learn to dance on the knife’s edge, so to say. They might even start to behave 🩷

And the last one: YES he would spoil her to bits! One of the reasons for this is that König feels guilty. He doesn't know how to show love and devotion through emotional intimacy so he will try to show it through spending money on her. So yes to all of this.

I see Engel wishing for a pet to keep her company while he's away on longer missions. And König is so thick-skulled he wouldn't even bother to ask what type of pet she wants or if she has allergies, he just shows up with a cat one day like: "Hier. I brought this to you. Do you like my gift? I will bring you a different pet if you don't like this one. 🤨"

(And omg the image of Engel smoking a fat one or using a cute little bong on their porch, perhaps chilling out with that cat and giggling when König comes home... ^^)

Thank you so much for bringing these to us! Tbh I never wanted this essay to end 🩷😭 You're amazing I hope you know that!!

#answered #könig headcanons #yandere könig #toxic könig #i loved this #best essay ever #university levels of headcanon #toxic könig institute #❤️❤️❤️

[elipheleh]

Paris Is Burning

Continuing my series of learning about things referenced in the book, I'm looking at things Alex references when he talks about engaging with queer history. These are all tagged #a series of learning about things that are referenced in the book, if you want to block the tag.

Please note the following topics are metioned: murder, AIDS - and death due to complications, sexual violence, sex work, racism, queerphobia.

Paris is Burning is a documentary film, released in 1990, that focuses on the 1980s ball culture of Harlem (New York) and the communities of gay & transgender African-American &Latino people involved in that culture. It offers an exploration of race, class, gender, and sexuality in the US at that point in time. The AIDS crisis was growing in severity, and impacted many of the people involved with the documentary. Many of them have since died due to AIDS complications - including Angie Xtravaganza (age 28), Dorian Corey (age 56), and Willi Ninja (age 45).

Documentarian Jennie Livingston interviewed key figures in the ball world, and the film features monologues from many of which addresses their understanding of gender roles, subcultures of both the ball world and the queer world, as well as sharing their own life stories. It also provides an introduction to slang terms used within the subculture, such as house, mother, shade & reading. Interspersed with this is footage of colourful ballroom performances. The documentary also looks at how AIDS, racism, poverty, violence, and homophobia impacts their lives. Some of those involved became sex workers to support themselves, at great risk to their safety - one member is found strangled to death, seemingly by a client. The 'Houses' of the ball culture provide safety and security to those disowned by queerphobic parents, as well as those largely ostracised by mainstream society.

The documentary did have some criticisms - notably for reinforcing stereotypes, having a white filmmaker, and for not properly providing compensation - but it has remained important as a depiction of ball culture, the most prominent display until Drag Race began to popularise the concept to a wider audience.

-----

Ball culture - also known as the Ballroom Scene/Community, Ballroom Culture or just Ballroom - takes its origins from a series of drag balls, including those organised by William Dorsey Swann (the first person known to self-describe as a drag queen) in Washington DC, during the late 1800s. These drag balls were masquerade themed and took place to defy laws which banned people from wearing clothes of the opposite gender. Many early attendees were formerly enslaved men, and the events were held in secret. While balls were integrated during a time of racial segregation, non-white performers regularly experienced racism from the white judges and performers. This prompted Black and Latino performers to create their own spaces within the subculture, and the modern culture grew out from Harlem in the late 1960s, spreading to other major cities soon after.

The structural and cultural issues facing the community in 1980s New York - including poverty, racism, homophobia, as well as sexual violence and AIDS - didn't stop Ballroom from thriving, acting not only as an escape from real life but also offering those involved a support system that was not often present in other areas of their lives. The culture included a system of 'Houses' - headed by an elder queer person (although often not much older than those in the family), either a 'mother' (mostly gay men or trans women) or a 'father' (mostly gay men or trans men) - which would become a surrogate family for young queer Black and Latino youth who were estranged from family, homeless, and/or struggling to get by. House members would often take on the surname of their house parent, and the houses would compete together in balls - often with a specific style identifiable as belonging to that group.

Drag ball culture works to resist the dominant cultural norms people experience from wider society. The performers create a space to challenge gender roles and heteronormativity through subversive outfits, slang, and actions. It gives them a space to feel supported and to work through their abuse they experienced as members of minority groups.

The balls not only provide a community, but also provide spaces for education. Aware of the prevelence of AIDS and the lack of support, in 1990 the Gay Men's Health Crisis (GMHC) launched the Latex Ball to distribute health information to those involved in ball culture. Offering free HIV testing and prevention materials, it attracts thousands of people from around the world and is still active to this day.

-----

The importance of Paris is Burning continues to grow as the years pass. It was a rare film that focused on the lives of queer people of colour, whose charisma and humanity shines through in their witty to-camera interviews and their fierce routines and performances.[source]

Sources: Wikipedia - Paris is Burning Guardian - Burning down the house: why the debate over Paris is Burning rages on Vanity Fair (archived) - Paris Is Burning Is Back—And So Is Its Baggage Janus films - Paris is Burning Wikipedia - Ball Culture Rolling Stone - Striking a ‘Pose’: A Brief History of Ball Culture All Gay Long - A Brief History of Modern Ballroom Culture Shondaland - The Psychological and Political Power of Ball Culture

Additional Reading: Paris is Burning, 1990

#elio's #elio's meta #a series of learning about things that are referenced in the book #long post #alt text added #rwrb #red white and royal blue

[pokeblader3]

You know that post that’s like “someone can call you ‘bitch’/’fag’ in a way that makes you feel so loved and affirmed, but no slur will hold as much malice as someone with homophobic beliefs saying ‘those people’ in a certain way (often polite and technically correct manner)? That’s how it feels reading how some of the posts on here use “Men”, often before spouting something with subtle underlying transmisogynstic/misandrist (or even outright patriarchal), not blinking twice while saying some shit to queer/trans men/men of color.

It’s not that I disagree with most of their points, I’ve been horribly traumatized and abused my many men and all marginalized men regularly deal with shitty men, both in and out of their community, and have a number of thoughts on the Patriarchy and all the fucked up, insidious ways it gets to you and creates the horrible parts of our society and culture that create traumas and abuse. I regularly spend a lot of day standing up to shitty men for being shitty using all the male-passing privilege I can muster (I still pass pretty well as a ‘cishet’ man). But the way a lot of these posts are phrased often feels... manipulative. Men and women are people, and the number one thing transitioning and being friends with more people opposite my assigned gender has taught me is that human behavior and emotions get ascribed to ‘femininity’ and ‘masculinity’ when they’re just normal emotions we all have. Violence and aggression and cruelty aren’t “masculine”, wisdom and compassion and empathy aren’t “feminine”, even if these things are associated with them because of gender roles and how the Patriarchy has shaped the society around us.

And the fact that people regularly face opposition or get run out of queer groups for being ‘cishet men’ by afab people and (usually cis) women who don’t want to engage with any of our queerness or the fact that we’re feminine (honestly often due to still lingering trauma which makes them distrustful of other people who remind them of their abusers and a lack of actual good mascs in their life who, I get it, I was afraid of men and masculinity for a long time too and had a friend group of mostly women, but it wasn’t healthy and my world is much better for trying to reach out and be close with some who seemed to be kindhearted and genuine, and eventually not be so afraid of other normal people you see on the street)... I’ve probably been discouraged to express myself and my femininity (you know, anti-patriarchal things for a man to do) by women and femmes just as much as I have by men (not mascs, they Get It, and trans men often are adamantly against this behavior but get drowned out or bullied into staying quiet). And it’s so much worse if you’re a masc/enby/transfemme of color, who are demonized for existing and held to impossible beauty standards even by those in the community who are supposed to be ‘on their side’ (and who still hold them to being on their own side). And it’s not like I haven’t been groomed, sexually abused, manipulated, and physically/emotionally abused by women throughout my life, either.

The people who run my state are trying to make crossdressing a sex crime. I cannot go out dressed femininely without risking being queer bashed or made an example of. This is not abnormal in this country, and if you live in a world where men are encouraged to express gender nonconformity and femininity and androgyny is accepted, I hate to burst your bubble but you live in a socially progressive part of this country, and the rest of us get at best bullied relentlessly for any ‘femininity’ from all sides around us.

#queer masculinity #queer femininity #transmisandry #transmisogyny #intersectional feminism #tw csa mention #my posts

[meatcinema]

Rear Window: Gaze and Power

I find myself preoccupied by the nature of the screen and our function in relation to it. It's strange isn't it? There's an intimacy between film and viewer that is at once familiar and distant. We play our role of watching the film and in doing so, we give the film purpose. Films are meant to be watched and we watch them. But there's also the distance, the separation of the audience, faces pressed against the screen as to panes of glass, only ever observers and never participants. There is a power imbalance that is constantly swaying between us and the screen, which makes which vulnerable, which makes which naked and seen? Which gives and which takes? And for this reason I find myself constantly returning to films that draw attention to our relationship with the screen.

Rear Window is one of those films. For those unfamiliar, the film centers around a photographer, homebound by a broken leg, passing the time by spying on his neighbors through their windows until one evening he becomes convinced he has witnessed a murder. Hitchcock's run of films starring Jimmy Stewart tend to be some of his most manipulative. I find them as well to be some of his most gender-y work, often subverting gender roles both narratively and through his structure of the films. Rear Window, in my opinion, is a stunning example of the meta nature of cinema, particularly in regards to how gender plays into our role as the audience. There is coding to the camera, to where it points, how it looks, and thus, how we interpret the information we're being given.

(Spoilers below)

Within Rear Window, we are privy to a distinct sense of voyeurism that is layered within its approach. Hitchcock uses the film to point to the ways in which the audience participates as  movie-goers in a gaze that is simultaneously active and passive. Throughout the film, it is most notable that the many women that Jeff watches through his window are framed in a way that subverts the male gaze. However, through the use of montage, Hitchcock critiques the male gaze through which Jeff operates. Throughout the narrative and dialogue, Hitchcock is able to allude to the viciousness of the gaze, particularly regarding the way women are presented on screen. In this way, Rear Window at once presents a strong opposition to the male gaze, while also creating a filmic experience in which the audience is forced to engage in and react to the various types of voyeurism presented, calling into question our own culpability as viewers.

Within Rear Window, we take Jeff’s perspective as he watches out the window. The camera position is consistent—at a distance. Any perceived objectification of the women Jeff monitors is due to the audience’s moral judgment of his reactions, not through the camera itself. The camera resists dismemberment, choosing to display characters like Miss Torso and Miss Lonelyhearts from the feet or knees up. The camera does not ogle at their bodies and their various parts—a thigh, lips, a breast, a stomach—but rather displays their complete bodies at a distance, allowing for the image to resist the typical male gaze in which women’s fragmented bodies are displayed as spectacle for men’s pleasure. We, like Jeff, are seeing them through a lens, and the distance placed between us and the women in the windows is enough to neutralize the gaze, to frame them in a non-sexual manner. However, the audience must discover how their gaze operates within this distance, causing us to question our own perception of the women we watch. Hitchcock asks us how we perceive Miss Torso as she dances or undresses when she believes no one else is watching—is this a sexual act or an innocent one? We determine the perversity of our own gaze, and we, like Jeff, are asked to question our own morality within the simple act of looking.

Although the camera itself resists dismemberment, the connection between dismemberment and women’s bodies under the gaze becomes apparent through dialogue and plot points. Throughout the film, there is an emphasis on the idea of women as body parts, both metaphorically and literally dismembered. Mrs. Thorwald’s body parts are carried out of her apartment in pieces, as well as buried in the garden. The affectionate name “Miss Torso” conjures a grisly image of a body without limbs. John Falwell notes “Jeff, in gazing at Miss Torso, is disturbed not by erotic thoughts but by violent ones […] Hitchcock draws a parallel, as he would often in his films, between sex and dismemberment, as if to suggest that sexual impulses are not far removed from violent ones” (Falwell, Torturing Women and Mocking Men: Hitchcock’s Rear Window, pg. 102). By alluding to dismemberment while also commenting on the perversity of Jeff’s gaze, Hitchcock demonstrates a strong defiance of the male gaze. The gaze itself becomes simultaneously sexual and violent within the context of the film, while the camera demonstrates great restraint in presenting the women in the windows through a non-sexual/non-violent lens.

Jeff’s stagnancy throughout the film is also quite notable in critiquing several aspects of the way our gaze operates within the film. Hitchcock comments on his use of montage, “Now if you took away the centerpiece of film and substituted—we’ll say—a shot of the girl Miss Torso in a bikini, instead of being a benevolent gentleman he’s now a dirty old man. And you’ve only changed one piece of film, you haven’t changed his look or his reaction” (Hitchcock, Rear Window, pg. 40). As an audience, our reaction to what we’re being shown often hinges on the way we perceive Jeff’s reaction. At times, Miss Torso’s dancing in her apartment becomes a pleasurable experience; however, it is our reaction to Jeff’s that determines how we look at both Miss Torso and Jeff. By placing the morality of the action onto the viewer, we become active participants within the film space, contrasting the passivity of Jeff’s singular unmoving position throughout the film. His inactivity becomes a kind of layered commentary on the type of voyeurism presented within the film. Falwell comments on Jeff’s alter identity across the way as both he and Thorwald sit silently in the dark (Falwell, Torturing Women and Mocking Men: Hitchcock’s Rear Window, pg. 97), and indeed the audience takes place in this commentary as well. Aren’t we also sitting silently in the dark, watching, waiting? In this way, both these men become our identities, our mirror doubles within the film space. Their voyeurism and its implications towards the women on screen become our voyeurism as well. While the women within the film—particularly Lisa and Stella—are able to navigate space in a way that Jeff cannot, we, too, are stuck in our seats, placing our hope within the active characters, the moveable characters: notably, the women characters.  

With Rear Window, Hitchcock creates a heavily nuanced depiction of the filmgoer’s power within film. We sit, we watch, we gaze, and often, we are not aware of the power (or the lack thereof) we have within the screen world. He simultaneously makes us aware of the power held within our ability to look, and what our looking can do regarding the onscreen space and also makes us aware of how powerless our passivity as viewers makes us. By doing so, he creates a film in which women are not objectified by the camera, adeptly defying and critiquing the male gaze. Within the film, he gives power to the female characters—he makes them mobile, while rendering us immobile, and he makes them able, calling attention to our utter inability to sway the action onscreen. We become Jeff and the coded maleness of our gaze is rendered weak, even when the viciousness of the gaze becomes apparent through dialogue. The women of this film are at the forefront, and Hitchcock forces the audience to question their place within the filmic experience.

In the past few years I seem to keep finding my way back to Rear Window. During the pandemic, it was a film that came to feel relevant in how my gaze in began to operate in the real world. Trapped inside, staring out, always staring out. Beyond the glass, there were windows, snippets of other people's lives, lives that seemingly continued even while mine felt as though it were gradually grinding to a stop. And even in my relationship to film, the screen became another window, another place to watch a life I once knew slip away, to be somehow incapable of saving it. The film is perhaps one of Hitchcock's most prescient exercises in the nature of our relationship to cinema. We watch a film, and so often we don't think about the power that's held by the audience, or the power that's stripped away.

#rear window #alfred hitchcock #1954 #film analysis #meatcinema

[colognedecigarette]

ey mates. i found this post from a terf talking about their commonly used abbreviations and terms. i'll copy-paste it here, unedited (except the formatting for easier read), so yous know better what to look out for + how they think/justify the use of these terms. i'll put an archive link later in case the read more link breaks. also, this post is full of anti-trans and anti-nonbinary bullshit so ... just be aware of that.

post source is gendercriticalthinking. am not making a whole blocklist bc ... would you believe me if i say that i tried but gave up after the first, like, dozen names bc it got too depressing? lmfao. (feel free to click on the link and peruse the notes yourself though. whenever you can take it.)

archive link.

* TIM and TIF stand for "Trans-Identified Male" and "Trans-Identified Female". Basically, TIMs are what others usually call "trans woman", and same for TIFs and "trans man" (although these terms also cover non-binary-identified and neo-gender-identified people as well).

TIM/TIF are used instead to more accurately reflect the reality of the people in question without sidelining their beliefs/identities: we understand you identify as trans, but calling males "women" and females "men", even if there's a "trans" in front, does not accurately convey reality, and we oppose that.

* OSA and SSA stand for "Opposite-Sex Attracted" and "Same-Sex Attracted". Therefore, the label OSA people covers straight and bisexual people, while SSA covers gay and bisexual people. Basically, SSA women/men are what others usually call "wlw/mlm".

Because people who believe in gender identity and use "mlm/wlw" consider some males to be women and some females to be men, the "men" and "women" in "mlm/wlw" do not accurately convey the reality (similar to the above) of the sex and sexualities of the people in question, as a male who is OSA but identifies as trans would be considered by some to be a "wlw". However, OSA and SSA place the emphasis back onto the sex and sexuality of the people in question, which is, again, a more accurate description of reality when talking about people and their sexualities.

* TRA stands for "Trans Rights Activist." However, this is mostly used to mean "people who agree with/support gender/trans identities/neogenders/etc" rather than "people who are engaging in actual activism for those beliefs." The term gendie is essentially used the same way (although it has more of a connotation of "trans/nb/neo-gender-identified people" rather tham "people who support gender identity but may not necessarily identify as trans/nb themselves") and it has been used frequently more recently, although I and others feel like it's a bit juvenile and derisive.

* Gender ideology refers to the beliefs above, e.g. the validity of gender/trans/non-binary/etc. identities. This is usually used to refer to the beliefs about gender that are exclusive to liberals: that you can change gender/sex, that gender/sex are not binary, that everyone has a gender identity, that misgendering someone or pointing out their "biological" (a redundant word) sex is at best highly offensive and at worst a hate crime, etc. Whereas, gender or gender roles/stereotypes are usually used to refer to the more historical/"classical" concept of gender which lines up with conservatives' beliefs: you know, the whole "women like pink and should wear makeup and are naturally submissive, but men like blue and should be muscular and are naturally dominant" crap.

Although they seem different, they're actually one and the same, or at the very least the liberal/new gender ideology is firmly founded in classic sexism. Both conservatives and liberals believe wholeheartedly in gender: that it applies to everyone without exception ("all women must be feminine and all men must be masculine", and in gender ideology's case add on "feminine women and masculine men are cis while gnc people are trans, you must be either cis or trans" aka you must either enjoy your gender role or want to transition because you dislike it), that it must be rigidly enforced and supported to maintain order and understanding ("A girl who likes boy things?!? That's an affront to nature and must be corrected, girls should like girly things!!!" or "A girl who likes boy things?!? That's clearly a sign she he must be trans, because boys like boyish things!!!"), that it's genetic/inherently true rather than something that is imposed upon people due to misogyny ("Women are submissive to men because God made them that way to be men's servants" and "Everyone has a gender identity, it's something you were born with in your brain, and how you feel about your body [which you can change] and your gender [which you cannot change] determines if you're cis or trans. You must be one or the other."), etc.

* GNC stands for "Gender Non-Conforming", aka what technically applies to most people on Earth, to the dismay of the gender fandom. It's usually used, however, to refer to people who are very noticeably/starkly/deliberately GNC in almost every way and proud of it, such as butch women.

* Gender critical (oftenshortened to "GC" ) is an adjective that most-accurately describes how people like me view gender/gender roles: they suck. Get rid of them. We are, you could say, "critical" of the concept of "gender". Not all gender critical people are radical feminists, but because rejection of the misogynistic concept of gender is a defining belief of GC people, we are nearly always some variety of feminist.

This means we don't really fit in with either of the two most-common/vocal "sides" of the trans debate: conservatives who see a male person in a dress and makeup go "This is disgusting! Stop wearing that right now! You're a man, so dress like one!", liberals who see the same guy go "This is so gender! I'm sure you're a trans woman because of how you present yourself! You're dressing like a woman, so that's who you are!", and gender critical people who see him go "This is awesome, keep being you! It's wonderful that you enjoy being a GNC man! What you enjoy or wear does not define who you are, and who you are does not define what you should enjoy or wear!"… or at least we would more often if the previous two groups didn't end up causing most GNC people to either be closeted/repressed, or believe they must be trans and therefore not a GNC man/woman but instead a gender-confirming trans woman/trans man (or some type of enby, same difference: "you don't obey the gender stereotypes belonging to your sex so you must not be that sex/gender" instead of "gender stereotypes are stupid, and your sex is your sex").

* TWAW is short for "Trans Women Are Women," a common chant and circular-logic-nonanswer from gender ideologists, the popularity of which in stark contrast to the lack of saying "trans men are men" (something only ever said after first saying TWAW, never on its own) surely has nothing to do with the coincidental fact that the beloved, supported, face-of-the-movement group are males and the forgotten, neglected, secondary-to-men group are females.

* While these are of course words used commonly by everyone, I think it would be helpful to lay out the gender-critical definitions of gender and sex here: "gender" is short for "gender roles/stereotypes" (see "gender ideology" above) whereas "sex" is used to refer to the biological realities (chromosomes, gametes, hormones, secondary characteristics, etc.) of being female or male.

Basically:

- Conservatives believe gender and sex are the same thing (or at least use the words interchangeably, as well as believe your gender should match your sex) and therefore believe "female = woman = feminine" and "male = man =masculine".

- Liberals believe gender and "biological" sex are different things (yet often confusingly use the words interchangeably or subconsciously believe they are the same [as seen in their frequent slips of the tongue when talked to] but claim to believe they are different because they want to be good allies) and therefore use "woman" and "man" to describe gender (because they believe "woman = feminine" and "man = masculine") while using "female" and "male" to describe sex (but again they often and confusingly use male/female as synonyms of man/woman, and again likely because they want to be good allies and believe anything that might contradict TWAW is horrific and transphobic).

- Gender critical people believe gender is an archaic, misogynistic system that is long overdue for being tossed out while sex is an accurate, scientific term (therefore making "biological/birth sex" redundant, it's like saying "meat-eating carnivore") to describe the reality of being a human. Women are adult female humans and men are adult male humans. "Feminine" and "masculine" are outdated, arbitrary, sexist concepts and should not be associated with anything: not clothes, not behaviors, and especially not one's sex. Your sex is just biology. It should never determine your behavior and lifestyle: neither to say your sex and behavior/lifestyle must match with gender, nor that if they don't match then your sex/gender must change to make them match.

#radfem dogwhistle #radfem terminology #psa #anti-trans cw #anti-nonbinary cw

[thesherrinfordfacility]

LWA: I'm circling back to the problem of trying to somehow identify Crowley's Angel-identity from extant Biblical precedents, and some posts from yesterday about novels that have inspired or will inspire aspects of S1 and S2--TALE OF TWO CITIES, PRIDE AND PREJUDICE, and THE CROW ROAD--have accidentally highlighted what's bothering me about this (even though I fell into it myself!).

There are so many ways that novelists, filmmakers, etc. can rework their literary antecedents, and assuming that we can go back to the Biblical (or Miltonic, Dantean, etc.) source to decode what Gaiman is doing rests on assumptions about how Gaiman--and Pratchett and Finnemore--are engaging with other texts. That /is/ something you can do with, for example, Akira Kurosawa's Shakespeare films (THRONE OF BLOOD/MACBETH, THE BAD SLEEP WELL/HAMLET, RAN/KING LEAR), where the films are extensively in conversation with Shakespeare, fundamentally share Shakespeare's plots, inhabit the same tragic mode, and have characters who can be mapped directly onto Shakespeare's. And yet the films /aren't/ Shakespeare, but Shakespeare reinterpreted through Japanese cinematic and theatrical genres (jidaigeki, Noh), cultural and historical referents, and twentieth-century preoccupations. They often signal differences through inversion--the gender-flipped characters in RAN, the silent protagonist in THE BAD SLEEP WELL--and they experiment by pulling threads. How would we reinterpret KING LEAR if Lear had a backstory? What happens if you pull a major character out of HAMLET?

But this is not how GOOD OMENS--the novel, S1, or S2--works with its own antecedents. Instead, it invokes antecedents to fracture them and then shoot off in its own directions; they appear in the text or series to establish expectations that are then abruptly undercut. You can't do an extended reading of GO's "conversation" with THE OMEN, because it isn't having one (in S1, the major points of contact are done with in ep1). Instead, we have THE OMEN banging up against the JUST WILLIAM series, THE SCREWTAPE LETTERS, John Le Carre, the Bible...The genres and modes deliberately don't shake hands. Characters may or may not be parallels, but they are at best partly so and the analogies soon break down. In the series, yes, A TALE OF TWO CITIES inspires the appearance-swap at the end of S1, but it is so wildly different that it doesn't help the reader interpret what GO is doing. (Among other things, Sydney Carton /actually/ dies--obviously!--and Charles Darnay doesn't, meaning that it's a true self-sacrifice; Carton's underlying motivations are different; Darnay is upset by the proposal and effectively forced into it by being knocked unconscious; etc.) It's less a conversation and more a starting-point for play.

Similarly, S2 invokes and plays with PRIDE AND PREJUDICE, but it /isn't/ PRIDE AND PREJUDICE. (This time, PRIDE & PREJUDICE bangs up against Richard Curtis films, the cozy mystery genre, the Hollywood Biblical epic...) If anything, Aziraphale's ball serves as a metafictional warning to /not/ try to force an interpretation of events through P&P's lens. (It's also a bad misreading on Aziraphale's part, since Jane and Bingley fall for each other at the ball, but the protagonists exit it disliking each other!) Aziraphale and Crowley absolutely occupy aspects of Darcy's and Lizzie's roles, including the "both right/both wrong" problem and the relationship meddling (which is the opposite of Darcy's strategy with Bingley), but the series is far more invested in miscommunication as a problem than the novel is. The plots don't track and character parallels break down pretty quickly. It's impossible to maintain a good analogical "fit" between Heaven vs. Hell and wealthy vs. relatively-impoverished gentry (among other things, pursuing the analogy would leave us with Crowley eventually deciding to return to Heaven, which, no). Aziraphale and Crowley are nowhere near the same emotional space that Darcy and Lizzie are during the proposal scene, and while Darcy has not adequately communicated his intentions to Lizzie in the lead-up to his first proposal, the problem /during/ the proposal is that he's being a jerk and she has every right to be aggravated with him, not that they're mutually misunderstanding each other. The stakes, narrative contexts, and mental hang-ups are different. Etc. Presumably Gaiman will invoke and then disrupt THE CROW ROAD in the same way.

So, again, with the Bible. We can't use the Bible to predict anything that will happen in the GO universe because we have no way of knowing what GO will declare to be /wrong/ about the Biblical record. In S1, we discover that it's a Principality guarding the Eastern Gate, and that there's a minor matter of a missing sword; we also find out that the Flood is local and that Crowley felt that Jesus just needed a bit of a vacation break. (If you've read the novel, you also know that Aziraphale is dismissive of Revelation, thanks to John's addiction to shrooms.) In S2, we have the Job minisode, and it would take a really, really long time to break down just how far that minisode departs from the Book of Job (and this ask is already long enough!). The point, as Crowley might say, is that we approach the series with expectations set by the Bible, but then we discover that the series never takes the Biblical narrative as set. It's unpredictable (as Crowley also says).

evening (morning technically, currently at 0050hrs and will probably be done around 0300) LWA, hope you're good!!!✨

this is obviously far more eloquent, nuanced, and empirically evidenced than i could have ever put it, but im going to view this as going some way to being validation for the thought processes on a couple of theories/speculations that have been floating around in the wake of s2. meant kindly, i think the allegorical element of GO can sometimes misconstrued, and fans can sometimes get so caught up in what they believe is the only true inspiration for the story, and miss that it is a work of fiction. it is literally made-up. it stands to reason therefore, and has been demonstrated time and time again, as having been inspired at its core from lots of different places.

there is representation of so many things in GO, and it's truly one of the aspects that i love most about it. it is not representative of any one set rhetoric. specifically about your example of who crowley was before the fall; this caused so much underlying discourse that i fully appreciated and considered perfectly valid. crowley was described by neil as a jewish-coded character insomuch that he asked questions (tbh by extension from that the whole story could be described similarly?), and then, as ive since learned, a lot of the angelic names mentioned are hebrew in origin. since having a plethora of asks flood me contradicting that crowley cannot or should not have been an angel of christian origin, or otherwise, ive educated myself more. but im not going to go back on what i myself have speculated on because it is a story, and it can take inspiration, and rework that inspiration in kind, from anywhere. that, i think, sometimes gets missed. ive usually speculated and analysed based on where the narrative, to my mind, has been heading, taking cues from what we've seen so far, and then researched off the back of it what might fit or would support it - not the other way around.

religious representation is important. speaking personally- being someone non-religious and raised largely secular (as said many times) i will never fully understand what it means to have that representation portrayed in popular media... because how on earth could i begin to? but i would like to say i understand emotion and how people think, and i can understand why representation is important to people. that is valid, in every respect. but GO is not a reworked version of any one biblical text, as you said. inspirations not shaking hands, but flitting around each other in a dance. it pokes holes at, reimagines, and validates as well as invalidates elements of multiple religious texts and teachings (one of my favourite and imo funniest book lines was the mushrooms recollection, was gutted it didn't make the show in full!)

again, this is part of why i love it - because whilst these different allegories provide the backdrop to the story, it is not the story. the reason why the story is so important to me is because it is an examination of the human condition through the eyes of beings that are not human. the story could be told from the pov of a human-form pot plant and reach the same kind of conclusions, but the religious inspiration gives the story more consistent context, dichotomy and insight, more depth and philosophy. and it's much more entertaining. but yes - let the narrative be inspired by anything; bits and pieces from this, pinches and dashes from that... it creates a story that is so arguably unique that way, frames its own questions and problems, and remains to true to being a work of fiction - set to inspire and challenge in kind on to other present and future works - and so on and on the cog turns - isn't that the point?

GO is not the only religious-inspired work that ive loved for these reasons; favourite book (no offence to anyone by daring to type this sentence as a GO blog; it's sentimental to me) is andrew davidson's the gargoyle. it very scrupulously follows, at times, elements of dante's divine comedy and makes overt references to it given its a key part of the story, but it's manifestly allegorical too. but the best part of the story is how it interprets religion's often tumultuous relationship with mental health, love being flawed and discriminatory, and the concept of salvation. again, religious imagery and inspiration as the backdrop, human condition being the narrative.

i haven't really remarked on any else that you've mentioned, LWA, which is par for the course with me, so going to speedrun slightly.

P&P: when i watched s2 i must admit i was almost surprised that this work had so much weight, because i felt it had more relation to other austen works (emma and persuasion particularly) but then i remembered that was the Whole Point

Kurosawa: will admit that i haven't seen these but based on what im assuming is your recommendation i will duly add to the watchlist (seen Kagemusha, but that's it for my foray into his works!)

Le Carré: ah, im so glad you said this! when ive been thinking idly about the corruption in heaven and the risk in looking back on it with the metaphorical rose-tinted glasses, this is the same feeling as when i read his work - bits from TTSS, and constant gardener, but TLGW especially in my mind... not sure if you were referring to these works in particular and in this context, but huge fan of Le Carré and happy to see it mentioned!!!

richard curtis: i... yeah. this was a revelation for me. enough said.

ultimately im so excited about the unpredictable; i love speculating, and whilst it's fun to have gotten something right (s2 was not a good track record for me, the only things i got that were even a smidgeon near the truth were half-arsed shitposts and if that doesn't humble a girl, nothing will), i want to be taken aback by where the narrative has gone, the dilemmas that have been raised, dialogue and exposition choices... i want to be wrong, because that's infinitely more fun!

(0220 - not bad)✨

#good omens #this was a wild ride #not a shitpost but its good omens babyyyy #the legend of the longwinded anon✨ #ask #and now i sleep: goodnight world #i cant fathom why LWA keeps coming back but im not gonna complain #i take so long to answer these bc i write a bit #reread what LWA has said #ponder the universe for ten minutes #then carry on typing #rinse and repeat

[vague-humanoid]

Far-right extremism is not only on the rise in both the UK and Australia; it is rapidly becoming a primary security threat for both countries. Studies suggest that gender identity and gender ideology are connected to extremism and terrorism – including far-right extremism – and that prevention strategies should consider the gendered dimensions of radicalisation, recruitment, and participation in extremist groups. Yet limited research has been devoted to critically examining the transnational spread of extremism across online channels and offline sites and the degree to which this transmission intertwines with gender ideology, misogyny, and violent beliefs.

Comparing the current threat of far-right extremism in the UK and Australia, this project seeks to examine the role of online channels in promoting gender ideology and misogyny across transnational networks on three levels:

misogynistic views and hostile/sexist beliefs held and espoused at the individual level

in-group dynamics, with particular focus on how women and men are positioned within the group itself and their roles

the general far-right concepts that frame both supporter beliefs and roles, offering them a ‘sense of meaning’ that shapes how they participate in the movement.

Using a mixed-methods approach, the project analysed language in far-right online forums used by both UK and Australia far-right actors in relation to concepts of gender ideology and identity, as well as examining these gendered dynamics in offline fora.

While limited evidence of direct exchanges between members of the groups and channels in the two respective countries was found in the research, the project nonetheless reveals overt similarities in the gendered narratives – including gendered threat narratives – that were promoted in the discourse in both countries. Even though some outgroups differ in the UK and Australia contexts, many of the gendered threat narratives were the same. What this suggests is that gendered narratives present an effective mode of transmission even absent of direct engagement between individuals from these two environments, and that misogyny presents a unifying element across different local contexts. For example, while demonised out-groups vary (depending on the ethnic groups that are strongly represented in the migration profiles of each country), the portrayal of the LGBTQ+ community as a sexualised threat as well as the opposition to feminism and race-mixing were the same in both countries. Furthermore, another shared element across both the UK and Australian contexts was that offline sites and activities can further reinforce gendered narratives and hostile purported online amongst the far-right, and that concepts of masculinity were overtly reinforced in these spaces.

This has significant implications for existing P/CVE policy and strategy, given that gendered narratives espoused online by far-right communities in both the UK and Australia have offline spill overs. The impact of the online/offline intersection of communication throughout language can be used to promote and legitimise violence and misogynist narratives. Therefore, it is essential that these gender dynamics are considered in risk assessment, preventative and rehabilitative work, as they can play a key role in the transmission of extremism. 

[undereveningstars]

Moon in Leo: Strength vs The World

The Moon in Leo is separating from a trine with Jupiter and applying to an opposition with Venus as I write. In a few hours, she will enter a sextile with Mars, before beginning the long and arduous journey towards an opposition with Saturn that will perfect tomorrow night.

I think most astrologers would agree that the Moon separating from one benefic and applying to the other is a pretty fun, cozy time. In my morning meditation I imagined her preparing for whatever lies in store during the Saturn opposition by doing things that nurtured her soul and uplifted her spirit. Perhaps the sextile with Mars would be her training montage before heading out on her Saturnian mission. I could immediately see a parallel with my own morning of meditation and cat cuddles—getting myself into a relaxed, focused headspace before the mountain of chores and responsibilities I would have to take on over the next couple of days. The Moon often speaks to us about our daily tasks. But when I drew The World card from my Tarot deck, I knew the Moon had a more far-reaching message for me.

The World is the card of Saturn, who is acutely aware of what kind of world we live in and how it might limit us. The dancing lady on The World card made me think of Saturn as a goddess, and the Goddess Saturn reminded me of how limited the expression of female divinity is in astrology. Only two of the seven classical planets are traditionally associated with goddesses, and both are given the significations of motherhood, caregiving, and birth. As profound and important as those roles are, shouldn’t the “feminine” planets have a little more range? I think the Moon in Leo, a sign that represents sovereignty over one’s own destiny, might want to resist the limitations imposed on her by tradition.

I started to feel like the Moon and Saturn were speaking to my own experience of gender dysphoria, to the struggle of transitioning in a world that tries to cage me within its strict definition of what I am allowed to do and be. And I am one of the lucky ones—like the Moon gathering strength from Venus and Jupiter, I am fortunate to have access to gender-affirming care, to live in a country where my legal rights are protected (law and justice being Jupiter’s domain, of course!). All the same, it is trivially easy for companies to deny people work or fire us for being trans, for our families to reject us, for social safety nets to fall apart beneath us. The daily task of resisting limiting cultural messages and facing down an endless barricade of transphobic slights in every public or corporate space we enter is exhausting. I am profoundly blessed, but I need to count on every one of those blessings to keep fighting the opposition I face at every turn.

If you’re looking for a way to engage with this transit of the Moon you might meditate on your relationship to The World. Are there times when you feel as though powers much larger than yourself dictate who you get to be? Who or what in your life supports your right to define yourself on your own terms? If you’re a Tarot person, pull The World and Strength out of your favourite deck and consider the story they might be telling you. Was there a time in your life when you felt like it was you against The World, when you showed Strength in the face of adversity? And if you’re looking for something a little lighter to do, I recommend watching Pixar’s Brave—the conflict between the traditional Queen Elinor and her headstrong daughter Princess Merida is a great example of how Saturn opposing the Moon in Leo can look, and how the tension between them can be resolved.

May the Moon in Leo be a guiding light on your quest for self-sovereignty, and may Saturn in Aquarius grant you the strength to resist when it feels as though the whole world stands against you.

#astrology #moon in leo #saturn #leo #aquarius #queer astrology

[rivetgoth]

I think part of what makes trans liberation a tricky convo for so many people is that there is a point where you have to acknowledge the fact that trans rights are going to overlap with butch cis lesbians, with cis male crossdressers, with GNC people who may or may not call themselves cis, with cis gay people, that the line between GNC cis woman and trans man actually is blurry when discussions of our rights are involved, as is effeminate cis man and trans woman, but so is effeminate cis man and trans man, and GNC cis woman and trans woman, and I don’t mean this in the “transphobia effects cis people too!” way where trans people are displaced as the main targets & instead priority is given to people experiencing splash damage (ie. when a masc cis woman is mistaken for a trans woman and then suddenly “trans allies” are taking transmisogyny seriously), I mean that, realistically, at what point does someone’s transness become proveable or tangible enough that we can be distinctly separated from cisgender counterparts when it comes to human rights and our autonomy on a legal level? There is a reason that transsexual and transgender and transvestite and drag king/queen and butch and crossdresser are all terms that can have overlap even when it doesn’t quite make sense. There is no autonomy or freedom if we suggest that the key to trans liberation is to give humanity only to transgender people who circle back around to perfectly conforming to gender but on the opposite playing field this time and leaving everyone slightly to the left of gender conformity to rot. But navigating this is a complete mess because from the outside there are MANY groups just jumping on the chance to nod sagely and agree that trans women are just crossdressing men, or trans men are actually just repressed tomboys, and one wrong word and it could very easily veer in that direction, and from within the community I think a lot of people resist this because they don’t WANT to be grouped with lesbians, or butch women, or crossdressers, or risk being degendered or misgendered for the same reasons I just mentioned. But what I’m saying isn’t “trans men are the same as butch cis women” or “trans women are the same as cis crossdressers,” it’s that these are not solidly separate groups that can be divided up cleanly, where one can earn civil rights and autonomy while the other does not. Trans men being afforded respect without GNC or butch womanhood being afforded respect is a facade because ultimately that respect is surface level and built upon respectability politics, the moment he is perceived as an individual assigned female at birth subverting that assignment he is back to square one. Transmisogyny won’t be stopped if trans women fitting a very narrow single definition of transfemininity earn some basic level of respect but anybody too far from that, any person assigned male at birth who engages with femininity or womanhood but just to the left of the binary transitioned passing trans woman, is still left to fall through the cracks. What you’re saying is that there is still a gender and sex binary that can and/or should exist, and trans rights are dependent on how well individuals can adhere to it “despite” their transness. Which both sucks and is just not a functional way to achieve true equal rights.

Obviously this leads to TERFs showing their asses all the time, when they make sweeping generalizations about womanhood that exclude large groups of cisgender women/anyone assigned female and when they & conservatives try to push laws that are just entirely regressive regarding gender roles that ultimately harm any GNC person regardless of trans status or lack thereof. It’s also why trans people are included within the LGBT acronym to begin with, because “queerness” or same sex attraction or non heteronormative identities or whatever you want to call it is inherently non-gender conforming by mainstream western Christian societal standards, and trans people are in some ways the furthest end of this nonconformity. This is why the result of the LGB vs the T being viewed as two separate distinct categories is transphobic LGBs acting -surprised pikachu face- when transphobic lawmakers time and time again turn on them next. “Gay people are fine but trans people aren’t” is never going to be a worldview that works in practice in the long-run, right from the get-go you’ve admitted that the moment somebody crosses the line you’ve created for what acceptable deviation from gender is that they are no longer deserving of human rights, and there is never an actual easy cut-off to that. Trans women BAD, but cross dressing men are okay? What if he lives full-time as a woman? What if he takes hormones? Cis women can be butch but they can’t call themselves men? So then what are you implying, that gender nonconformity is okay up until you use the wrong words, up until you undergo consensual body modification, as long as you go home at the end of the day and take it all off and look at your naked body and can happily say “Yep, I sure am glad that I’m a cis person even though I like to pretend?” Come on. At what point, then, is it “too gender nonconforming” to be a woman who dates other women, a man who has sex with other men, a person who chooses not to exist in a nuclear family unit? Remember awhile ago when someone did that article on how classic texts on conversion therapy consistently focused on curing gender nonconformity, with “same sex attraction” being one of many examples of the types of the “nonconformity” being treated?

#sorry this is super rambly I’m just thinking out loud

[lapisdex]

IC NSFW QUESTIONNAIRE.

intended for writers in the rp community eighteen and over. feel free to repost. BONUS: discover more about a ship’s sexual compatibility at mojoupgrade ! :)

[ OO1 > introduction. ]

name? Zhongli (nickname Rex) age? ~6000 Teyvat, Unknown beyond gender? genderfluid male dominate presenting orientation? pansexual, demisexual

[ OO2 > basic. ]

YES! kinks? teasing, breeding, cockwarming, dirty talk, multiple orgasms, orgasm denial (on partners), clothed sex, oral sex ect.  EH! kinks? switching (depends on the partner) NO! kinks? dub-con, non-con, DDlg, etc. preferred positions? missionary, doggystle, riding, against wall, over desk dominant, submissive, both? dominant, you gotta earn the bottom rights promiscuous or subdued? subdued when not in relationship lights on or lights off? likes seeing partners in pleasure outspoken or reserved / shy? he’s reserved in his noises engaging, he’s mostly loud with dirty talk traditional or experimental? a mix fast or slow? likes it both quickies or all-nighters? both but if you let him and keep up he can go for a solid day rough or soft? tends to lean more towards soft unless he has partners who like it rough romantic or dirty? he can do both really well partially clothed or nude? you’ll slowly peel back all those layers, when he wants to be fully nude with you then you’ve earned his ever lasting love and trust

[ OO3 > in depth. ]

what’s their “type”? i guess he likes people who compliment him, not necessarily his opposite more so they go good with his strength and weaknesses where they just mesh really well together, like two puzzle pieces finally locking how do they view sex? when he’s in the dominate role its about control, and being given that trust to control a person’s pleasure. when he’s submissive its giving up that control to someone he finally trusts who won’t take advantage of him how often do they have sex? he had a long dry spell after he lost his first mate so it doesn’t matter. When he has a partner then he’s a little insatiable  do they kinkshame? its just to tease, he’s been knocked down a few pegs discovering things about himself so he can’t judge anymore preferences? 8/10 times prefers to dom favorite toys / extras? he can make things with geo constructs, js do they enjoy porn? no have they ever been in porn? No  are they physically flexible? yes, he’s still pretty limber for his age ever exchanged sex for something? no when did they lose their virginity? he remembers and it was pretty embarrassing, good luck getting that story from him how long can they go without sex? mentioned before he went centuries without sex so he’s good thoughts on foreplay? sometimes thats all he wants out of the engage, having throughly teased and pleased a partner is just -chef’s kiss- how often do they masturbate? what he makes do with if partner is gone for some time are they vocal (words) during sex? its hit or miss do they like to keep music on? no sex on the first date? nope, will have to earn the sex card a sexual secret they’ve never shared? ask him about his first time, just ask uwu

#🔶 ( Headcanons ) 🔶 ;; Unchanging as Stone #//god this took forever

[professionalfacebookhacker]

Facebook Hacker to Monitor Boyfriend's Social Media Account

Use a Facebook hacker to discreetly monitor your boyfriend's social media activity for peace of mind.

👉Related: Hire Professional Facebook Hackers

In today's digital age, where social media plays a significant role in our daily lives, issues of trust and privacy in relationships have become increasingly complex. With the rise of Facebook hacking tools and software, some individuals may feel tempted to monitor their partner's social media accounts, such as their boyfriend's, to gain insight into their activities and interactions. However, such actions raise ethical concerns and can have detrimental effects on the relationship.

🔴 Why Facebook hacking is necessary

Facebook hacking refers to the unauthorized access of someone's Facebook account without their consent. While hacking tools and software may promise to provide access to private messages, photos, and other personal information, engaging in such activities raises serious ethical and legal concerns.

Facebook hacking is not necessary and is strongly discouraged due to ethical and legal reasons. Hacking into someone's Facebook account without their consent violates their privacy and trust. Trust is a fundamental aspect of any strong relationship, and resorting to hacking undermines this trust. Additionally, hacking into someone's Facebook account is illegal in many jurisdictions and can lead to severe legal consequences.

Ultimately, hacking into someone's Facebook account is not necessary and can have damaging consequences for both the relationship and the individuals involved. It is far better to foster trust and communication through ethical means rather than resorting to actions that violate privacy and trust.

🔴 Signs of cheating on boyfriend's social media accounts

📕 Increased Secrecy: Your boyfriend becomes unusually secretive about his social media activities, such as quickly closing tabs or turning away when you're nearby.

📕 Excessive Online Time: He spends an excessive amount of time on social media, particularly late at night or during times when he used to spend quality time with you.

📕 Hidden Messages: You notice hidden or deleted messages on his social media accounts, indicating he may be hiding conversations with someone else.

📕 Defensiveness: He becomes defensive or evasive when you ask about his online interactions or question certain posts or messages.

📕 New Connections: He adds or interacts frequently with new or unknown individuals on social media, especially those of the opposite gender, without a valid explanation.

📕 Inconsistencies: There are inconsistencies between his online behavior and what he tells you, such as checking in at places he hasn't mentioned or liking posts that contradict his stated interests.

📕 Change in Posting Habits: He suddenly changes his posting habits, such as posting less frequently or sharing fewer details about his life, which could indicate he's trying to hide something from you.

🟢 Communication and Trust

Open communication is the cornerstone of any healthy relationship. Instead of resorting to secretive methods like hacking, partners should communicate openly about their concerns and insecurities. Building trust through transparency and honesty fosters a stronger and more resilient relationship in the long run.

🟢 Alternative Solutions

Rather than resorting to Facebook hacking, couples should seek healthier ways to address trust issues. This may involve having open and honest conversations, attending couples counseling, or seeking professional help. Building trust takes time and effort, but it is essential for the long-term success of the relationship.

🟢 The Role of Social Media in Relationships

Social media can either enhance or undermine a relationship, depending on how it is used. While platforms like Facebook allow us to connect with others and share our lives, they can also create feelings of jealousy, insecurity, and mistrust. It is essential for couples to discuss their boundaries and expectations regarding social media use to avoid misunderstandings and conflicts.

💠 Final Touch

While the temptation to monitor a boyfriend's social media account may arise, it is essential to consider the ethical and moral implications of such actions. Trust, communication, and respect are the foundation of a healthy relationship, and violating these principles can have severe consequences. Instead of resorting to secretive methods like hacking, couples should focus on building trust through open communication and mutual respect.

#facebook hackers #facebookhack #cybersecurity #hackers #hacker #hackerslistco #hackerslist #us hackers #whitehat #social media hackers #hacking #social media

[birdzflycom]

Do American robins migrate?

american robins bird migration

Spring singer or snow sentinel?

The best known of the songbirds is the American robin, also known as the bird of North America. It is usually more common in winter. Now the question is: do robin birds migrate? The answer is yes and no. We usually say robins are winter birds but they are able to adapt to warm as well. But that doesn't mean they are immune to winter weather.

Winter Strategy

The opposite of Hummingbird is a native of far Durant. They are concentrated in the south most of the time. They usually react during winter in two ways. Robins can also tolerate very cold weather. Many are moving south. The northern Canada robin vacates many wintering flocks of birds as far south as Texas and Florida. Birds that come and go are not used to hot weather. They have a similar body structure and add warm, downy feathers to their plumage. As food decreases in warmer weather, they begin to search for food supplies due to the scarcity of insects and insects. Food is usually the main motivation of such birds. Declining insect or invertebrate numbers aren't a problem for everyone - and a good number tend to be in the north, which is another way robin birds respond to winter. They took observations in southern Canadian provinces and US state locations in January. They are seen occupying several important places. By changing the diet they usually turn to vitamin-rich invertebrates and winter fruits including juniper, holly, crabapple and hawthorn. During summer and spring robin birds aggressively defend their territory and raise their young. During the winter season they become nomadic and engage in intense quest to regain their beloved cold weather. Robins speed up in the weather, too. They can confirm their position in case of heavy snowfall. Robin bird also roams around stealing jays in winter and these jays which may number hundreds or thousands. In summer and spring, the birds form opposite territorial pairs.

Flocking offers important benefits:

A group of them have large eyes that can quickly spot any predator. They are one of the most adept at discovering food. Finally, robins usually make little noise in winter. They all live together. As spring arrives, they begin to sing and produce mating hormones. They usually maintain a flexible presence. For some changes and and dramatically reduces the profile of robins or their populations, making them common and leading some people to assume their absence. So how do robins decide whether to stay or leave for the winter? This is not precisely answered but gender may play a role. Male birds are more likely than females, usually in northern areas. It clearly provides territorial advantages that allow men to be preemptively inserted into chiefdoms everywhere.   Spring actually causes northern flocks of robins to disperse and resume their invertebrate diet. such as picking and eating earthworms and other vertebrates from the soil. At the same time the robins with migraines return from the southern region. Males usually arrive two to three weeks earlier than females. Males on both sides sing very loudly as they begin to defend territory. The result?

when american robins are everywhere?

People think robins are everywhere now.

Save the Robin Like other birds, the robin seems to have greatly benefited the development of birding and agriculture. Population is increasing which is a threat to any adaptation Yajna tribes are vulnerable to many of the same factors. Moreover, pesticide poisoning poses an important threat to their conservation. Because the American robin roams lawns and other open spaces that are often poisoned areas and eats. Although DDT has been banned in the United States, it is known as a toxic chemical. Examples include neonicotinoids, chlorpyrifos and glyphosate (used in the well-known herbicide Roundup) still in use. Insecticides kill earthworms, which are a major part of the bird's diet. Because American robins mostly forage and feed on the ground, they pose a major threat to feral cats. Moreover, the cars, towers and various electrical things and the current modern age of cars and networks are making their lives more difficult. Various organizations have adopted this policy and are coming forward to help protect them from the dangers. It is better to save them to protect them in the society. Because many birds that are beneficial to society are leaving us and disappearing due to various reasons. Various ornithological organizations are working for birds. Read the full article

#americanrobin #robin #winterrobin