#obv this isn't a call for people to use these terms on folks who say they aren't comfortable with them | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

nothorses · 1 year

Text

this isn't @ anyone or any particular post, but. I do find myself questioning whether it's useful to distinguish "anti-masculism" from like... misogyny and patriarchy.

maybe it's just me, but narrowing the definition of "misogyny" to just describe contempt for women, specifically, has never felt super accurate to me; the overall system of oppression being described here isn't just about a dislike of women, it's a functioning system (patriarchy) relying on, and as a product of, systemitized misogyny. It's misogyny in a dominant role of power.

And that system (as it currently exists) also requires that gender roles are strictly followed and fulfilled, including by men. It requires no deviance; no queerness and no transness. It requires that women be babymakers and caretakers and sexual gratifiers, and it requires that men be protectors and dominant breadwinners, and seek out sex. (Among other things)

I think it's helpful to expand our understanding of misogyny to include the aspects of it that necessarily impact men; it's not just the toxic masculinity that hurts others, but the system that rewards and punishes conformity to misogynistic gender roles.

"Anti-masculism" feels like it's trying to describe an aspect of this; the way this system views masculinity as brutal and violent and monstrous, especially in relation to men of color, and as a corrupting force- particularly when in contact with (whoever patriarchy views as) women.

And these things exist, and happen, but (obv) so does a mirrored phenomena for femininity; are we calling that "misogyny", to the exclusion of attitudes toward masculinity? Because I don't think it's accurate- and tbh I think it's actively counterproductive- to define that by gendered expression rather than perceived gender.

I honestly think it does more to say that these are all a part of misogyny, and to identify contempt for certain expressions of masculinity as being inherently, necessarily intertwined with other parts of misogyny. Patriarchy relies on all of these things to function, and we need to get folks to understand that challenging these attitudes toward masculinity is, in fact, a crucial part of the fight against patriarchy.

I don't think it works to say "misogyny" is an umbrella term that enconpasses all of this, and that "anti-masculism" just falls under it, either; just practically speaking, I don't think it's helpful to differentiate this particular thing as separate from similar attitudes toward femininity. It's super easy to separate the word from that context (esp without a counterpart for femininity), and while I hate having to factor in optics, I do think there's a parallel here to "transmisandry" in the possible interpretation of the word to mean that men are oppressed/misogyny doesn't exist. Even if we know that's not the intent.

And I don't think it accounts for differences between how either of these manifest for cis vs. trans people, gender-conforming vs. GNC people, straight vs. queer people, white people vs. people of color, etc.; how and why it shows up is gonna be wildly different based on whether you're being presumed more masculine or feminine because of your race, size, or disability status, or whether you're being punished for not conforming to gender expectations one way or another- which will also look different for trans people who present more in line with what's expected of their AGAB vs. their actual gender.

Also- I'm saying this here because I'm open to discussion. I feel like I've read enough about it by this point to have an opinion, but I could absolutely be lacking some crucial info, insight, or perspective, and I want folks to engage with this as a mutual conversation.

613 notes · View notes

hiveswap · 7 months

Note

Ok sorry to do this again despite admitting I don't know shit the first time (I'm the "isn't it both" anon) but I had some more thoughts.

So, even tho being ex eastern bloc is defo relevant for certain analyses of current situations, I don't think it should play too hard into tryna determine whether a country you aren't from can be considered eastern Europe (tho i think it's valid to bring into it if it's about your own country probably? I am not a politically versed person) and one of the reasons I say this is that my mum is from Saxony which was part of the GDR.

The family had been preparing to leave for years and eventually did so a few months before reunification (kinda hilarious tbh) and I myself grew up in (former) western germany (tho i was born years after reuni anyway) so I never lived in the GDR or even in any former GDR states myself but my mother has always shared a lot of stories but that's besides the point.

And like... nobody is calling the ex GDR states (let alone germany as a whole) eastern Europe. There's even ppl who consider us western Europe (I think we're pretty firmly central but tbh western vs central as a distinction isn't as important (bc I do know central vs eastern carries a lot more weight n stuff) so I don't really care) despite part of our country having been eastern bloc. So when people (specifically non ex eastern bloc folks, you're obviously fine) use it as an argument it feels hypocritical.

And obviously ex GDR states had the support of other german states so it was much easier for them to recover but imo the modern day economics are way closer to helping determine whether a country is eastern Europe? Not geographically obvs but in my mind (feel free to correct me) eastern european is kinda like asian in that it shouldn't be an important distinction going by geography but in terms of politics and dynamics and stuff it very much is and it matters.

Like, eastern europeans, at least within Europe, dunno how true it is elsewhere, are kinda oppressed? Like, if I meet a western european (esp an english person) they're prolly not gonna be xenophobic to me when I tell them where I'm from but if I was like Belarusian or something, they might. And then there's the economic stuff and also like social progression.

I've heard a lot about eg LGBT rights in Hungary and stuff like that and no shade or anything ofc, especially to the LGBT ppl living there such as (i think?) yourself and the other Hungarians I follow, but it does feel a lot less progressive.

Things aren't perfect here either or anything but they're getting better, we've had marriage equality for same sex couples (not (all) nb or intersex ppl tho) for over half a decade, forced trans sterilisation was declared unconstitutional 12 years ago and we're finally getting that self-determination bill put into place next year and then I can get that d. D stands for diverse in this case, it's our third legal gender (tho we also have "none", none gender can't get married)

Meanwhile transitioning in Hungary was outlawed three years ago and there's plenty of other countries where it's still a struggle and all in all it just feels kinda... distinct? Like how scandinavian (or nordic in general) countries feel like they're on a different economic and societal level from us(excl), the latter especially in regards to sexism, education and incarceration but also other stuff.

Obvs there's always so many factors but it's always felt to me like they were, forgive me for simplifying, the "higher" tier of europeans in at least those areas compared to my life in central Europe. Grass is always greener somewhere I guess. But I'm gonna get back on track.

So even tho geographically it's hard to argue that Hungary isn't central Europe, I think it might be politically. And it's not the only country that feels like this to me, like eg Romania is geographically southeast but politically I personally view it as firmly eastern tho obvs I'm no authority.

Anyway, sorry this got so long lmao I have not been awake for long yet and my brain's a little squished lol. Hope this wasn't a completely useless read, sorry if it was. Keep on keeping on 👍

Oh hi i got scared for a sec when i saw that i got a whole block of text. I'm not really up to politics talk rn, but what you're saying makes a lot of sense to me!! Though i havent seen anyone consider romania central before, i've always thought of the border between us as the edge of central europe. Probably because of the timezone difference ngl

#asks #ask

3 notes · View notes

nothorses · 10 months

Note

As someone who doesn’t fall within the LGBT part of the acronym I’m still more uncomfortable with queer as the umbrella because it feels like the last progressively acceptable way to be exclusionary. Obvs plenty of folks still judge whether ppl are gay/trans enough. But doing that is at least explicitly not acceptable in the spaces I wanna be in. Whereas it’s accepted and sometimes encouraged to criticize or even exclude ppl for not being queer enough (in theory a political call, in practice a judgement on identity and presentation). I do still use queer to signal correctly, but it does not sit well for that reason. Wish there was a third option w/no political history, but I know we’d just do this to whatever new term we came up with too

I mean, I think "I know we’d just do this to whatever new term we came up with too" kind of hits the nail on the head here.

This isn't something that happens because of the word, it's something that happens because of the people. The word itself is not inherently exclusive; in fact, it's explicitly all-inclusive. It's for anyone who falls outside of the relevant societal expectations, by definition, and there is no list or any further defining or qualifying that needs to be done.

The issue with "LGBT", and any variation thereof, is that it's a list. It starts with the letters people consider most important to start with (hence, "GL" becoming "LG"). Even if it didn't, it requires that we name every single kind of person who's welcome, individually, which inevitably leaves people out- or tells them that they aren't welcome on the terms of their more "niche" identities, but rather only if they happen to have a more visible and accepted one alongside it. (See: "straight asexuals aren't LGBT")

People can still act exclusionary regardless of word choice, but if the words they're using do not themselves reinforce or encourage that way of thinking and behaving, it's kind of ridiculous to pin the blame for that on the words. People are going to do that with any word we use- at some point we have to decide whether the fight should be in finding a new word each time they do it, or in getting them to stop behaving that way in the first place.

Also... I'm sorry you've experienced this, and I think it needs to be addressed. But speaking personally, that experience isn't universal. When folks have gatekept who "counts", in my personal experience, they've overwhelmingly been using "LGBT" (or just "LGB"). If they use "queer" at all, it's interchangeable with that and other terms. Again, not to say that your experience doesn't matter- it does- but so do other people's.

You don't need to use "queer" for yourself if you don't want to. You also don't need to use "LGBT" or any variation. But we're not talking about personal identification, either; this is about which word is most practically useful and effective in achieving our goals of maximum inclusivity and clarity.

#queer #I know what you mean by people doing the 'not queer enough' thing. like. I really do.#I dont want to sound dismissive here

97 notes · View notes