#or any marginalized group but this is in reference to me | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

hiiragi7 · 10 months

Text

Exercise: Exposing intersexism in yourself

Perisex (non-intersex) people please take time to work through this. I'd also appreciate if you reblogged, even if you don't have time to do the exercise.

When you think of an 'intersex body', what comes to mind?

-Do you think of a stereotypical "hermaphrodite"? (Ex. a penis + vagina, a penis + pair of breasts, a very feminine person with a beard)

Do you, or have you ever, used one of the following arguments;

-Intersex people are living proof that trans people exist/that gender/sex is not binary

-Intersex existing disproves everything TERFs/transphobes believe in

-Cis kids with hormone issues are allowed to take HRT or participate in sports, which is hypocritical against trans people

-Nobody is forcing kids into sex reassignment surgery or hormones, that isn't a thing that happens

-Any kind of argument which uses intersex people as a statistic, whether that is framing intersex people existing as either "common" or "rare"

Do you, or have you ever, said any of the following statements;

-Technically I'm biologically intersex now because I took HRT/had surgery, which makes me biologically nonbinary aka intersex

-I tell people that I am intersex/have a hormone condition to avoid discrimination

-I wish I was born as/could become intersex, it would help my dysphoria a lot

-Intersex people are so lucky because they're already biologically nonbinary, they don't even need to transition

-This animal was born with a mix of sex characteristics/without a sex/developed characteristics of the opposite sex over time, which means they're nonbinary/trans

When it comes to sex, do you;

-Believe that sex is binary

-Believe that all intersex people are infertile

-Believe that all intersex people produce both sperm and egg

-Fantasize about intersex bodies, or consume or create porn that displays either intersex bodies or exaggerated stereotypes of hermaphroditic bodies

-Ask invasive questions about what genitals or reproductive organs an intersex person has

-Treat AFAB/AMAB the same as "[non-medically-transitioned] perisex female/perisex male", such as saying "AFAB anatomy" when you really mean vulva, vagina, uterus, ovaries, breasts, and so on

-Believe that HRT/surgery makes you intersex

-Believe that intersex only covers certain types of variation in sex and not others (Ex. Counting ovotestes, CAIS, and CAH as intersex but not counting PCOS or Klinefelter's)

When it comes to creating (artwork, writing, videos, etc), do you;

-Wish to include an intersex character, but do little or no research on how to write/draw them

-Fail to consider how your work will affect real-life intersex people consuming your work

-Ask random intersex people to help you create an intersex character

-Wish to include an intersex character because you personally think intersex people are interesting, or because you are seeking to include as many marginalized identities as you can

-Create intersex characters because you personally find them sexy

-Refer to characters as "hermaphrodites"

-If you create pride artwork or sell pride artwork, if you include a large variety of other LGBT+ identities but do not include intersex, why is this?

When it comes to advocacy work, do you;

-Fail to bring up intersex issues in conversations which should directly involve them, such as the Kansas bathroom bill

-Attempt to push intersex people out of queer spaces by saying that they are not queer

-Fail to recognize or acknowledge how many anti-queer and anti-trans arguments are inherently also anti-intersex arguments

-Say that intersex people are just "collateral damage" or "just caught in the crossfire/targeted by mistake" when it comes to discussing discrimination

-Never think to bring intersex flags or pins or similar to pride even as an ally, contributing to pride being vastly void of intersex pride

-Never attempt to organize protests specifically for intersex rights, or never bring intersex issues up in LGBTQIA+ support groups or resource centers or online

-Never educate others on intersex issues or lift up intersex voices

-Believe that intersex people have more rights than other marginalized groups, or that they are not discriminated against for being intersex

-Believe that all intersex people who are discriminated against are only discriminated against because people believe that they are transgender

Now, not all of these will point towards you being intersexist; however, if you find yourself hitting several points listed here, you do likely have some internalized biases and intersexism to unpack.

#intersex #intersexism #lgbt #lgbtqia #queer #lgbtq #transgender #trans #nonbinary

2K notes · View notes

amerricanartwork · 4 days

Text

RW Headcanon: "Pebbsie Privilege"

Here’s a headcanon I’ve had in the works for a while, and now I finally want to share it! It's shorter than some of my others, but I hope you'll still find it amusing!

-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-

So firstly (and I plan to expand on this more later) I headcanon Five Pebbles is someone who cares a lot about his appearance, though not in a prissy or snooty sense and more in a “likes being the smartest and most sophisticated one in the room” sense. That means, more so than the average person, he generally doesn’t like being teased, ignored, belittled, condescended to, or otherwise disrespected, and very understandably so if you ask me! But it also means there exists a very special ability when it comes to interacting with Five Pebbles that almost no characters have.

It’s no more than the ability of someone to refer to Five Pebbles as “Pebbsie” while he’s in earshot without getting death-glares from him. Looks to the Moon, who first started using it, affectionately calls this ability “Pebbsie privilege”, and she ends up being one of the only characters who has it (besides Innocence, who in my portrayals eventually gets it too). Though even so, Pebbles originally got rather flustered when she called him that alone, much less in front of others, considering it's definitely a very cutesy nickname. In fact, poor Pebbles really didn’t like being called “Pebbsie” because one of his least favorite ways of being treated is like a child (which includes being thought of as "cute" in any way). This unfortunately happens to him a lot though since he’s part of the newest iterator generation and tends to have lots of uncommon ideas rarely taken seriously by the older models, and this treatment only amplified as he grew more stubborn and arrogant.

To elaborate on the origin, Moon developed the nickname pretty much on an impulse — quite a rare thing for her to act on actually — of wanting to hearken more to her role as “Big Sis Moon” and show love to her little brother. Soon after she started using it though Pebbles would pull her into private chats and urge her to drop it to save his dignity. Not wanting to hurt her brother in any way, it didn’t take long before she apologized and stopped using it, and basically got her "Pebbsie privilege" revoked. In the current time she secretly still likes calling him that in her mind, but knowing how much he dislikes it she always feels pretty guilty afterwards, despite them being no more than thoughts at that point. While not a major issue in-and-of itself, this situation was actually a small step in worsening a long-time fear Moon has, though that’s a headcanon for another day…

On a (marginally) more positive note however, after Moon’s collapse and the worsening of Five Pebbles’s rot, along with him generally reminiscing about the things he used to have (as part of yet more character headcanons I’ll elaborate on some other time), he actually began to grow fond of the nickname more and more. Yet he also couldn’t also shake the growing heartache the memories brang, as he came to see it as a reminder of his sister’s never-ending love for him and the better times he now regretted taking for granted and trying so hard to escape. While I headcanon he handles it differently in Downpour’s canon, in the worm-off-the-string AU story I’ve got so far, Moon slowly regaining her “Pebbsie privilege” and Pebbles appreciating it and no longer taking it so seriously (though he still forbids its usage in public) could serve as a small, yet sweet indicator of character growth for both of them.

-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-

Aaaand another RW headcanon done! I wanna mention, though, now that I’ve got more of an idea for the aforementioned AU I really want to start posting more of my headcanons for the Local Group, since the character interactions, histories, and ultimate character growth is perhaps one of the most important elements of that story so far. I’ve spent at least a couple weeks creating almost 40 pages worth of character notes, and while this particular one started out as just a little side-headcanon, I ended up tying it into all of that. Hopefully I can start sharing the main parts of these headcanons soon!

227 notes · View notes

willwood-lyrics · 7 months

Text

wednesday is not only the greatest betrayal in television history but the most maddeningly trite, disturbingly vapid, and internally confused ideological train wreck I've ever had the deeply sorrowful displeasure of allowing to pass through my corneas may god have mercy on burton or whoever else was responsible while someone slapped his brand name on it, and on all of us who are fated to live in a world where something so culturally, socially, politically, and artistically noxious as this Mary-sue-lead, transparently TikTok-targeted, phone-worshipping, vaguely bigoted, backfired virtue-signaling, fake leftist capitalist "my immortal"-esque fanfic earns a second season through what I can only be explained as manufactured consent. something must be done about Netflix's Wednesday. This thing is a condescending insult, especially to young people, the socially conscious, and members of marginalized and "outcast" groups who genuinely suffer from what this thing hollowly masturbates to while looking us dead in the eyes and saying "yeah, you like that, don't you?" It is a Gatling gun of random buzzwords and empty references to social issues, grotesquely and impotently disguised and screaming "I'm commentary!" before pissing its pants, squealing like a pig, and at its most coherent offering nothing more than to demonize mental illness and make any marginalized identity out to be a mayonnaise-stained Hot Topic hoodie through Wiseau-ian dialogue, inappropriate "grittiness" for its source material and Harry Potter setting, and incessant hackery. I am shitting. I am pissing. I am standing over a warm bubble bath cradling a toaster and sobbing, chanting g-d's secret name and praying that there is indeed a hell so I can be eternally punished for having given this moral abomination one fraction of a fraction of a cent also it's not a good Addams family adaptation anyway let me know your thoughts in the poll below

#will wood #will wood quotes #or?#community posts #will wood Wednesday rant

548 notes · View notes

genderkoolaid · 8 months

Note

Hi!

I (24 nb) am having a serious issue with girls my age being quite misandric and using radfem rhetoric in their speech.

The issue is I understand their fear and mistrust of men in patriarchy and with many of them having horror stories to share about bad heterosexual relationships. But i am deeply uncomfortable with misandry and i don't know how to effectively point out that no it's not good feminism to hate on men.

Do you have any resources you could recommend me to build a good argument? I want to be prepared for this kind of discussion because it keeps happening more and more frequently.

I know it's not the main topic you cover on your blog but as it is closely related to transandrophobia I was hoping you (or your followers) could still give me some advice.

I wish you a wonderful day

My advice would be to start with talking about the negative impact of misandry on women first (although don't use the word misandry, at least at first). Starting off with "it hurts men" in any regard will likely not go over well, but if you first bring up the issue in relation to a group they already really care about, they'll be more likely to listen. Also, I would reaffirm that having trauma or bad associations with men isn't the problem, they aren't obligated to associate with men in ways that make them uncomfortable or exhausted, and that they have a right to feel their emotions, be angry, be annoyed, etc. Affirm that your concern is with how their actions and attitudes could be causing real harm to others, and that anger being valid does not mean you don't need to take responsibility for how you choose to act.

Some potential talking points:

When women are perceived as manly or masculine, they tend to get viewed with the worst traits of masculinity: butches and trans women are seen as aggressive, violent predators who prey on sweet, feminine straight/cis women. The patriarchy doesn't just hurt women through their femininity, but through their (real or perceived masculinity as well.

Even inside queer spaces, butches are expected to fulfill toxic masculinity: they are expected to be sexually dominant tops, not be emotionally or physically "weak," not do feminine things, etc. Butches can get ridiculed by others, even partners, for not fulfilling these things. Things like balding and small penises, that are traditionally seen as failures of masculinity in the patriarchy, are also made fun of in queer spaces; it seems like queer spaces have issues with how they deal with (real or perceived) masculinity.

When spaces make jokes about hating men, put a lot of emphasis on gatekeeping men, etc., it makes it a lot harder for trans women and nonbinary people assigned male feel safe. Some trans women & genderqueers might not realize their gender because they are kept out of spaces that could've helped them realize because of how queer & feminist spaces act regarding men. Butch trans women and genderqueers often face heightened scrutiny because of their masculinity, from both inside and outside their communities. (Also, send them this article.)

^ As a result of all of that, maybe we need to be more careful with how we think and talk about masculinity. It seems like we are reusing a lot of negative patriarchal stereotypes about men & masculinity in ways which hurt marginalized people the most.

From there, you can bring up marginalized men: you can talk about how trans men, multigender/nonbinary men, men of color, Jewish men, fat men, disabled men, etc. are negatively affected by negative patriarchal stereotypes about men & masculinity- I emphasis that because its how I would go about referring to "misandry" or "antimasculism" without actually using a word. Since misandry (and anything that sounds similar) is such a trigger word for many, its important to set the foundation that there is a big difference between the MRA concept of misandry, and the transunitist concept of misandry. Transunitist misandry focuses on how sexism & genderism* is used to target marginalized groups (specifically trans* people). Transunitist misandry does not say that misogyny doesn't exist, or that men are oppressed in the exact same way women are; its saying that the patriarchy (as a part of kyriarchy) uses gender and sex to harm not just marginalized women, but marginalized men too.

My goal with this would be to introduce and try to convince them of the idea that Misandry Is Harmful Maybe, and then once they realize how its harmful, bring up the idea that this kind of stuff needs to be named. Once they generally agree with these ideas, I think it will be much easier to help them understand why misandry is bad even beyond marginalized men: because the patriarchy relies on harmful ideas and expectations for men, even as (dominant/non-marginalized) men have a different place and more rewards; because liberationist feminism must be concerned with universal liberation, and that means it must be concerned with everyone's wellbeing and liberation; because we cannot disnantle the master's house with the master's tools, and letting any patriarchal thinking in poisons the well of your feminist praxis; because it just makes you a meaner and shittier person. In my experience people who think in the ways you described are resistant (not necessarily for bad reasons) to any kind of criticism towards sexism/genderism towards men, so my tactic would be starting with areas (like women) that they are concerned with not hurting and show how misandry hurts that group. Connecting the harm of this way of thinking to something they care about is going to make them more open to seeing it as an issue in general.

*I use "sexism" to describe the system of oppression based on physical sex, and "genderism" to describe the system of oppression based on gender identity/presentation/roles.

#m.#ask box

422 notes · View notes

doberbutts · 1 year

Text

I mean this is a pretty hot take but I think until y'all can sit down and actually provide examples of what you mean by "privilege" instead of using the word as a means of referring to the nebulous idea that some people have it better and its Their Fault, there will continue to be absolutely braindead takes about who holds what privilege and how it conflicts with actual first-hand experience.

That's why, when I ask what male privilege I was apparently either born with or received immediately upon coming out, I get crickets.

When we talk about male privilege, we talk about getting paid more. We talk about getting hired more, and into higher-paying jobs more. We talk about being able to vote and drive and have credit cards and bank accounts. We talk about reproductive freedom and body autonomy. We talk about rape statistics, domestic violence, and other forms of violent crime. We talk about immigration and citizenship status and human trafficking. We talk about power dynamics in relationships. We talk about society's expectations for gender roles.

There's two big problems with this:

Unless a trans man is completely binary, fully stealth, and has burned every trace of his past, almost none of this is accessible to him. Trans men don't get paid more unless their gender marker is M, there's no mention of ever being anything but cisgender, and they're completely stealth. They don't get hired more, unless these things are true. Many lived lives being discouraged from chasing higher paying jobs such as STEM fields due to being seen as girls, so they're not going into these jobs more either. Similarly with voting- when I registered to vote I was non-passing, with my legal name and gender marker. To the voting office, I was a woman. To my credit card company, who has never seen my face, I'm *still* a woman, despite passing most of the time. To my bank account, which I've had since I was 8, I've never not been a woman. When I took my driver's test, I was treated as a woman.

When I asked for a hysterectomy at 20, I was told not until I was over 30, had a minimum of two children, or had a husband to sign off on it. Just like a woman. When I whacked my head as a kid and was rushed to the doctor, the doctor specifically said if I was a boy he wouldn't have bothered stitching but a girl can't have scars on her face *while he was stitching my forehead back together*. I had to fight to be allowed to cut my long hair. I had to fight to be allowed to take care of it by myself.

I have needed to leave relationships when I realized I was with a man that would hurt me for his gain. I've been assaulted by my peers for being a black woman or a black girl in a space that I was not wanted.

I was raised with the expectation that I would be a mother to a large family with a husband that kept me pregnant and likely staying at home like a typical tradwife. I was punished, physically, mentally, emotionally, socially for rejecting that life. I lost literally all my social group from before I came out. I lost a good chunk of family members too, and the ones I have left are... trying, but not perfect.

And:

Other marginalized men are also often denied access to these things either. White men might be paid more, but white women make more than men of any other race. White men might be hired more, but "Rachel" is more likely to get a call back than "Rafael". White men are more likely to be in a STEM position, but tell me when the last time you saw a Native doctor. It may have been *legal* for racially marginalized men to vote, but those who did not speak English had no ability to do so until 45 years *after* white women had the right to vote (and technically it took another 10 years for translations to actually be provided). Banks and credit companies and driver's tests and mortgage brokers and more are *known* to discriminate, between barely-legal remnants of redlining to outright illegal discrimination because they know they can get away with it.

Black and Native children are taken from their birth families and placed into foster care and adoptive homes daily due to state-sponsered genocide. It's more than just the mother that's affected by this. Black men are largely targeted by stop-and-frisk policing policies that exist to do nothing except harass and assault them for just existing in a place, and are an extreme body violation.

New studies show that men experience rape and domestic violence at roughly the equivilant rate as women, but reporting is obscenely low due to social pressures and rigid gendering of victim vs abuser policies. The demographic with the highest rate of murder victims is black men.

Single, childless adult men are not allowed to immigrate to multiple countries, including the US, on refugee status. Men of marginalized races- largely latine and asian- are trafficked by largescale construction companies and then deported or abandoned when no longer needed.

Disabled men are killed or abandoned regularly by their able-bodied partners who got tired of dealing with them.

I know more than one man who feels trapped into a place where he cannot, ever, show any emotion besides horny, hungry, or angry as a direct result of strict gender roles being pushed on him. I know more than one man who has tried to take his own life because of it.

I know more than one man who has succeeded.

And I gotta be honest the further I get in transition and the more I pass the more I think that being a man... also kinda sucks. Like it sucked when I was a woman. Doesn't really feel like it sucks less as a man. Seems to me like society treats both of these pretty poorly and I was told the grass was way greener on this side and it's, uh, not. Not really. Not when you start making cis male friends and start realizing that a lot of these guys had a lot of the same experiences you grew up being told was part of a woman's life.

And I'm not saying that these guys don't have interactions where life is better for them because they're men. Of course they do. That's patriarchy for you. But I do think it's difficult to have a "male privilege" argument when people try to argue on a 1-to-1 basis and it just straight up doesn't work like that.

And I know a lot of what I'm saying ties back to the theory of intersectionality, that this can't flatten nuance like this is directly tied to the fact that a white woman, a native woman, an asian woman, a black man, a latino man, and an arabic man, are all going to have WILDLY different experiences that you can't just "well you're [gender] so you don't experience [harm]" about because it's blatantly untrue. Especially if you continue to add marginalizations, like immigration status, religion, sexuality, transition, language, and more.

484 notes · View notes

am-i-the-asshole-official · 2 months

Note

aita for “not being able to keep issues in servers separate”

🌻🌷🌹🥀 (to find later)

this all happened a couple months ago now in mid november-ish so i’m sending this late, but i didn’t want to while the situation was ongoing. for the record me and everyone affected have collectively since left both servers mentioned. so. wee

i (23mtf) do a long of long form roleplay, specifically in public oc-based discord servers. these are servers where people will create a setting and then people can join and insert their ocs into the world, and they’re tons of fun! this is a hobby ive had for years now. it’s really important to me as it’s my main creative outlet and i know a good number of people in the community. i’ll often join servers and recognize at least a handful of people there already

around may last year, i joined a new server and things were great, for a while, but then not long after i joined someone new did, i’ll call her X (34nb) for this. when she first joined the interactions we had were fine, but - and i’m still really not sure why this is, i’m not trying to absolve myself if i did do something but i have no idea what i did to warrant this shift even to this day - a few weeks later she just got… extremely passive aggressive and contrary with me, over silly things. most of it was “in character” but it really stuck out to me. i’d have a character say something marginally unconventional and she’d always, without fail, have one of her characters come in to scold them, even if her characters hadn’t been part of the conversation prior. her characters constantly talked down to or insulted mine. she was always talking ooc about how strange her characters found mine. when i tried to get involved in overarching plots, she would often push me out of them, or insist that my characters were only getting in the way, or would insert her characters to do things i’d stated to the group i wanted mine to do, so i didn’t end up able to do anything. it seemed targeted to me because the main character she was doing this with was known to be very kind to everyone else, but for some reason never had anything nice to say about mine. i know none of this is outright bullying but it wore on me greatly. i tried to confront her on this multiple times to tell her it was making me uncomfortable and to please knock it off, and i tried to get the server mods involved when that failed, but the behavior never really stopped and eventually i was content to just… not interact with her

but then a while later i noticed her treating someone else the same way. i reached out to him about it, and he told me that she had done basically everything she’d done to me to him, and he wasn’t the only one. after snooping around a little more i realized that a lot of people in the server had had this problem with her, totaling 7 of us. 7 of us in the group at the time. some people had dropped characters or outright left the group because of her, so 7 isn’t even everyone because it doesn’t include people she’d already driven out that i couldn’t contact. for reference, this server only had roughly 30 people. even if the number of total members was bigger, 7+ still feels like a lot

i tried to take this to the mods of the server again, but (and this is where i’m unsure if i misstepped) i thought it would be right to bring it up to the mods of a separate, larger server that all of us were in together as well. this server had closed to 50-60 members. in my head, if this person has harassed over half a dozen people like this it’d be silly to assume its only a problem in one group, and even if it wasn’t a problem in this larger server it would be better to make them aware of it so they could keep an eye out

the mods in both servers weren’t happy with me, through. even when all 7 people tried to give testimony, both teams claimed there wasn’t enough evidence to support harassment and that they’d talk to her about it, but this didn’t warrant any further action. keep in mind again i’d already had to go to the mods about this same person before, so they weren’t unaware that this happened to me and they had tried talking to her already. then they told me that it was inappropriate of me to bring this up in a server that wasn’t necessarily involved, and that the 7 of us were ganging up against her and bullying her. and i, especially, had been unfairly targeting her

this confused me greatly! i will admit, it’s likely i’ve been snippier with X than i intended. thats on me, i struggle with tone and i have trouble masking my frustration, but i have never once gone out of my way to make her feel bad. she has a generalized anxiety disorder or some such, and before i realized how many people had this issue with her i had been avoiding her for months. i have no idea what i could have said to her that was taken as bullying, because i haven’t been talking to her, period. when i see her in channels i just mute the channel until it’s passed, ive seriously done everything i could to minimize contact because i figured it was a personal issue. i asked both the mods and her directly, in dms, for examples or screenshots of what i said or did so i could adjust my behavior, and i never got shown any. i still as of typing this don’t know what i did to warrant that being said

the mods said they would give her a warning, but they gave me a warning as well, that if i continued like this i would be booted from both servers. they insisted to me again that i’d been clearly bullying her (did not provide examples) and i never should have brought it up to the other server and gotten them involved. i admit i think they might be right on that last point, but i am iffy. i had (honestly still have) justifiable reason to think X is an unsafe person to be around. she pushes people out of the community and cries and gets meek if she’s ever confronted on it in a way that’s distinctly guilt trippy and makes it hard to communicate. i have previously tried to resolve my issues with her in private and she was never receptive nor did she ever accept accountability, or change her actions. if her target calls her out she just starts doing it to someone else. it’s not like her being in a different server suddenly means she’s a different person. if someone like that is in your server, even if you don’t have “proof” that it’s happened in your group, wouldn’t you want to know about it? they kept insisting it had nothing to do with them and it was wrong of me to get them involved. i kind of think this is a cowardly policy to have, that you won’t act on or acknowledge harassment from your members unless it happens right in front of you and is blindingly obvious, but i don’t know

to be clear, i think X is an asshole, so that’s not what i��m asking about. anxiety disorder or not, she is frankly too old and has done this too many times for me to believe it’s unintentional. even if it is unintentional, she’s still hurting people and makes no effort to change. but i’m wondering if i’m an asshole for bringing it into another server. should i have just kept it in the first group?

What are these acronyms?

#aita #am i the asshole

78 notes · View notes

lets-try-some-writing · 5 months

Note

reading all your amazing OP and BB HCs of Bee growing up, now makes me wonder if Bee ever went through a rebellious teen phase in smaller ways [Love your writing, keep it up always dear]

He absolutely did have a rebellious phase and Optimus laughs and laments it.

━━━━━━ ⊙ ❖ ⊙ ━━━━━━━━━━━━ ⊙ ❖ ⊙

Being at war does not change the fact that sparklings grow up. Bumblebee was raised during war, all he knew was wartime code and contract. Despite that, wartime habit did not stop the inevitable for all young mecha beginning to edge into adulthood. Bumblebee couldn't remain a sparkling forever, and eventually, he reached his rebellious phase.

Bumblebee began to have a bit of an attitude. Being at war made it so that his attitude wasn't anything too terrible, but he took to treating those above him in rank more flippantly. No one particularly minded considering Autobot high command all but raised him, but it was odd nonetheless. Bee marching in and using base glyphs to refer to individuals was new, and it did leave Ultra Magnus disappointed beyond words, but it was nothing to be concerned about. Optimus found it more than a little amusing to be called "Sire" outright. Bumblebee stopped doing that once he was old enough to comprehend that they were at war. So he genuinely found it to be a nice callback to better days even if the others in the room weren't the most fond of being called "Uncle", "Grandpa", or most notoriously, "Old cogger".

Then Bumblebee moved onto talking back. It took most of high command by surprise considering Bee had always been very obedient and soft spoken when he was young. However when Optimus came back from the battlefield and went to visit his ward, Bumblebee was lounging around and more bitter than not when asked to go on watch. The first time he snapped back at Optimus, the Prime was shocked enough that all he did was kneel down and ask what was wrong. Not even Bumblebee really knew. Ratchet however didn't take any slag. The moment Bumblebee called him an old bag of bolts, Bee found himself with cleanup duty for the next stellar cycle. Prowl similarly did not put up with being called "Robo-cop" and promptly landed Bee a position mopping the hall for a few deca-cycles.

The rebelliousness only amped up when Bumblebee went out with a few other younger bots on patrol and came back with engravings all over him, absolutely none of which were appropriate for the army. Evidently he went into neutral territory with his group and decided it would be a great idea to get engravings done for fun. The other younglings weren't much better off looking. Bumblebee and his companions were greeted by a power washer and very disappointed looked from most of high command. To his credit, Bumblebee did not attempt getting engravings from strangers again. His blacking was marked in smudged colors and plating deep grooves that took almost a vorn to fully fade. Ironhide mocked him for his decision on the daily. Sometimes mockery is just the best way to get a point across.

There was a singular time when Bumblebee decided to act like an adult and steal some high grade to try. He'd seen the elder bots indulging occasionally and wanted to know what all the fuss was about. It didn't help that at the time, Bumblebee was still bitter over the whole engraving incident. As such, he felt only a marginal degree of guilt when he took a bottle from Ratchet's personal stash and smuggled it away to his hab. But of course, not having ever been involved with high grade before, Bumblebee didn't know when to stop. He was found sloshed beyond words the next cycle, and no one could even be mad at him. Ratchet laughed until he fell over and Optimus did his best to not let his strangled laughter reach his ward as he moved to drag Bumblebee out. Bee was not at all happy to be put on messenger duty while drunk. But it was his punishment and all of high command laughed themselves half to death watching him stumble along with piles of datapads. Bee was angry about the whole thing for a while, but he got over it fairly quickly once a few stories of the other's first attempts at drinking were shared with him.

Bumblebee was not as rebellious as anyone expected, and so a rather large number of the mecha involved with Autobot high command were waiting for the other shoe to drop. When it did, they were both prepared and panicked. Bumblebee, in his infinite wisdom, thought it would be a great idea to try and backtalk. He had a rather bitter argument with Optimus over being asked to do his job as a soldier. The argument resulted in Optimus actually getting mad at him for the first time and giving him a punishment that Bumblebee didn't expect to hurt so much.

"Bumblebee, I have asked you to go do your patrol three times now. I will not be asking again."

"I didn't ask to be brought into the army! Why should I have to go out and fight?!"

"Because you are an Autobot. You consume fuel that is provided, you recharge in a berth that is secured by us, and your education has been given by fellow Autobots. It is not much to ask for you to stand guard for a few groons."

"That's a bunch of slag! I could have raised myself! I never NEEDED YOU!"

"Bumblebee-"

"If you had just left me where you found me, I would have joined the neutrals and never been part of this stupid war that YOU WON'T END ALREADY BECAUSE OF YOUR RIDICULOUS EMPATHY TOWARD MEGATRON!"

"Enough. You are done."

"Wait, I didn't mean that-"

"What is done is done. If you do not believe you need a Caretaker, then so be it. For the next stellar cycle, you are not my ward. I am your superior officer and you will treat me as such."

"Sire, I'm sorry-"

"You will refer to me as your Commander starting now. I expect you to follow orders soldier."

Optimus left with a sour expression that none in high command had seen him bear since he became Prime. Bumblebee for his part went to Ratchet and cried. The medic was consoling in his own gruff way, but all of high command could do nothing as Optimus kept his distance, trying to make his point. The punishment ended early when Ratchet and Jazz cornered Optimus and gestured over to his crying ward and pointed out that his punishment was a bit extreme and reeked of functionalism.

Things were a little tense afterwards, but everything worked out in the end. Bumblebee got over his rebellious phase once the war amped up and he lost his voice. Part of high command missed his little quips after the loss of his voice, but in the end, it was likely for the best that his desire to act out of line came to a close suddenly. In the army there is no room for disobedience.

#transformers #maccadam #transformers prime #optimus prime #ratchet #bumblebee #the life of bumblebee #yes this is a tag now #I refuse to elaborate right now #but lets just say I am working on a thing.#father son relationship

111 notes · View notes

lunaescribe · 2 years

Text

An Interracial Reading of Ed & Stede

After writing about how the racial dynamics of Ed's character in the show affect his choices, it got me thinking about the interracial romance dynamics set up between Ed and Stede. (This is a little more Stede focused than Ed since I already wrote about Ed at length)

Unlike some shows OFMD recognizes systems of privilege and oppression in its world. Colonialism, racism, and homophobia all exist-but no marginalized person in the show is forced to have an arch revolving only around these oppressive forces. The sea within the show, is especially used as a metaphor-and transgressive space where some of these oppressive forces lessen in power, or are more easily resisted. (I.E. Calico Jack's comment "Anything goes at sea" in reference to homosexuality). The show has deliberately set up piracy to be an anarchistic, and rebellious force to traditional society's colonialism and heteronormativity-which is a key element to how Ed and Stede come together.

Stede clearly comes from a place of white, male, and wealthy privilege. It lends itself to a lot of arrogance that he charges into situations with, and a very valid reason much of the crew and other characters are frustrated with him. He isn't afraid to invade spaces which often belong to marginalized people, the poor, POC, and women (Like Spanish Jackie's).

He underestimates piracy is often a forced profession (as told to him by Olu in episode 1) to those in the most marginalized positions. He can be dismissive of the crew's frustrations or worries often (fails to notice when they are in danger like Lucius going missing)-and doesn't often comprehend how racial violence works. When the English Officers are making microaggressive comments against his crew in episode 1 he does appear uncomfortable, but also fails to entirely understand the weight of those insults to his crew or stand up against them (even if it would've been dangerous). The indigenous group are right to be wary of him in episode 2 and address his internalized bias and racist reaction when he assumes they are cannibals which ate the hostages. He is a self-focused white man, even if he is capable of emotional intelligence and empathy with others.

Rightfully so, the Revenge crew has plenty of reasons to want to mutiny and kill him-as a privileged outsider who's impulsive decisions, and invasion of space for the marginalized, is going to put all their lives in danger (as he does in episode 3 on the Spanish Ship).

Despite his very expected of-the-time-period (And unfortunately still persist in modern times) ignorance, privilege, and microaggressions Stede still appears to be an outlier of the elite white men of his society. Unlike the English, or French aristocrats he does not showcase any overt prejudice to members of his crew-and even seeks out their advise and council (when his own excitement hasn't gotten him to make an impulsive decision). In fact by coming to sea-Stede surrenders a degree of his privilege, since it is the pirates like Spanish Jackie, Blackbeard, Calico Jack, and even Izzy who through experience and physical force have earned the most power and respect on the high seas. Being a white, wealthy, man doesn't carry the same immediate access to power as it does in Barbados-and Stede is seemingly willing to make to make that sacrifice to learn along the way. While part of this must be a-credited to the excellent writing on the show more focused on creating a modern, inclusive, experience-credit must also be given to the writing for showcasing historical subtext which demonstrates why Stede would have more progressive viewpoints.

Throughout history, there are multiple instances where marginalized groups end up bonding together-because they're all pushed to the outskirts of society. It makes sense a lot of the most staunch abolitionists of the 19th century (amongst white people-since there were plenty of POC who did the majority of the work) were women. Enduring discrimination is painful, but can have the affect of building empathy-which seems to have been one of the effects in Stede's case. Episode 1 establishes what a menace Stede is to his more marginalized crew-but it also importantly showcases how intensely marginalized Stede was in his own society. Stede experienced abuse in his own house AND from his own peers due to his overt lack of traditional colonial masculinity.

We're told he cries easily and picks flowers (Stede confirms he did), which make him the ire of the more traditionally masculine boys in his school, and provokes their physical and mental abuse. Stede's queerness has ostracized him from his society and some elements of his privilege ever since he was a boy.

While his marriage does not continue his overt abuse-it's a further situation of Stede trying to exist in a colonial role that is just miserable for him as a queer man. What's interesting to how Stede responds to his marginalization though-is he chooses to walk away from the abusive heteronormative, colonial, society-rather than become embittered (and lashing out-which he does do once he tries to return in episode 10) trying to exist in it. It's part of the reason he feels a kinship to the other pirates (even if it isn't alway reciprocated or over-assumed on his part), and finds life more comfortable amongst others who have also been outcasted from colonial traditional society. He finally has a space he can be openly queer (Not in the immediately seducing men sense-but in ignoring the demands of traditional masculinity sense)-because it is a transgressive space in and of itself. I would argue one of the most important pieces of Stede's arch in the show-is realizing resisting the colonial, violent society he was told is normal-is not something to feel guilty about-but needed for justice and happiness.

As much as Stede questions what he's done or who he is becoming upon killing Nigel, when he actually pauses to consider his death-he finds he doesn't feel guilty at all about it. He recognizes what an abusive and horrible colonial force Nigel was. What he really feels guilty over is the harm he could've caused to leaving his family vulnerable without him-or I would argue-the overall guilt he feels each time he transgresses against the traditional societal role he was told he should respect. It's here, he begins to let go of his privilege that was apart of that abusive colonial system, which also abused him.

Enter Ed. After hearing stories of his success and adventures, and freedom of anarchy Stede is instantly starstuck by the idea of Blackbeard before even meeting him. Ed is equally intrigued by Stede before they meet-someone who doesn't seem to be overwhelmed by his reputation-and also an apparent 'gentleman' at sea-a persona difficult to exist in a hyper-violent power structure of pirates. I would argue Ed's initial interest in Stede is split between that intrigue-and as we learn at the end of episode 4-his plan to kill him and steal his wealth & assets. And why wouldn't he? As far as he knows Stede is just another wealthy white man who would put him down the moment he gets a chance.

That is until Stede wakes up. As others have pointed out, immediately, without even knowing he is a Captain Stede treats Ed with respect as though they are equals. Ed is clearly perplexed by that, and it extends his fascination toward Stede even though he is still heavily invested in his long-con. However it's when Ed shows interest in the untraditionally hyper-masculine fabric-and Stede responds not only with equal adoration, but invites Ed into his secret cabinet of more, his perception of Stede begins to shift. Stede is not the same as the previous condescending white aristocrats Ed has come across previously who would've never invited him to touch their things-none the less wear them in the next scene. Their clothes swapping also gives us the visual cue of the equal playing ground Ed and Stede meet at on the sea. Stede still carrying some of the power of his wealth and whiteness, and Ed carrying the power earned from being Blackbeard for years, and the biracial influence able to earn loyalty from pirates of different identities across the board. Not at all how it would have been if they met in Barbados.

From there, relieved to find someone who has an appreciation for the same untraditionally masculine interest they share-the pair open up further. Sharing their mutual exasperation with the role they've been forced into by society, due to their marginalization.

By the end of the episode-bonding on their mutual eccentricities they've developed in response to learning to cope and make life interesting for themselves-Ed is already beginning to doubt his plan. It's obvious on his face when he turns from Izzy after sharing his plan to murder Stede. This long-con of playing hyper-violent, hyper-masculine, to survive has become draining.

The following episode we get an instance of Ed learning high class manners from Stede for said con, when a French Officer racially insults him referring to him as "Donkey". While Stede recognizes Ed is upset-he does not seem to understand entirely why it's so deeply harmful to him. Clearly having an old wound reopened Ed is especially eager to go to the fancy French aristocrat party to prove to himself, and perhaps even Stede, he can be more than those insults. That he could even pull off the con if he suceeds.

Initially, Ed is proud he's somehow outdid Stede at the party, a white man in his own element, by being more 'liked' at the party. Stede however, knowing society well, is most likely familiar enough to be wary of the overt or passive aggressive racism that exists in these spaces. He warns Ed they can be fickle. We know first-hand he's been mistreated for his own version of masculinity, so he's more aware of what discrimination looks like in this setting, as opposed to the previous microaggressions he underestimated from the officers He's not at all surprised when Ed leaves the party distraught-and his desire to get revenge on the French aristocrats is an extremely huge shift for him and Ed.

While the comedy of the scene is overt-many have pointed out Stede is shockingly unfazed with the obvious destruction and clearly loss of life on the French ship. It's burning behind them as people jump into the sea and Stede smiles proudly. It's a massive change from Stede's panicked response to 'accidentally' killing Nigel. He's quite content-proud of himself! Just like Nigel, the aristocrats represent and showcase colonial violence, their deaths are all played for comedy and without sorrow (unlike Karl or Lucius) because the show is so anti-colonialist-and has no sympathy for those who represent it. While Stede struggles to feel righteous anger for himself in terms of responding to Nigel's oppressive force-he is plenty able to on Ed's behalf.

For Ed, this act completely changes how he sees Stede. In this scene, Stede has not only demonstrated he is willing to be rough and fight back when needed (not just a simple tender rich man), but he willing to betray his own class and race for Ed. "Cut loose" is a significant line-cut loose as in-have fun, be unhinged, but also cut ties from his own people. It's only BECAUSE Stede does this we can even have the moonlight "you wear fine things well" scene. Ed no longer sees Stede as a rich target he won't feel bad taking out-he sees someone who cares about his feelings and willing to resist the forces colonialism with him and more importantly FOR him.

"You wear fine things well" is an unwitting seduction on Stede's part-because to Ed it is reassuring him-he is just as fine, worthy, and precious as he hoped to be as a boy. Stede is showcasing he does not view Ed in the stereotypes of his race at all, which have marked many of Ed's interactions at sea for the majority of his life. By the end of this episode Ed is infatuated with Stede: they're similar in their eccentricities, Stede empathizes with his plights, and he's enchanted by his courage to defy convention. Not that he'll ever lay his heart bare to tell Stede at this point. Especially when he sees Stede doesn't go in for a kiss like he does. He's never had this kind of equal and relatable relationship with another person-and most likely never assumed it would be with a white man.

So he starts flirting.

Many have pointed out the "Stab me" scene is clearly Ed's attempt to flirt-to get Stede physically close to him, it's also demonstration of how in a hyper-masucline setting so much bonding is done via violence. We can imagine this may have been how the sexuality went between Calico Jack and Ed. But Stede's version of masculinity, romance, etc, is so different from this high seas violent courtships-the attempt goes over his head. That's why Ed is agonized with the push to kill him by Izzy in episode 6. He does his best to convince himself, like Izzy says, Stede is a pet, a passing infatuation/lust, but the reminder of his childhood trauma from the 'fuckery' is too much to bear. Stede is not like his Father, or other white men he's killed, he's Stede, he listens, he's already protected and defended Ed once-and joined Ed in his absurd behavior stepping outside of all masculine expectation with him, so he's willing to open up and tell Stede what happened-especially since Stede seeks him out after his panic attack.

Obviously this is an extremely intimate scene on its own, but the fact Stede is someone Ed can fall apart in front of, cry, express his distain for the tenants of his own power, brings Ed even closer to him. This kind of emotional showcase would've had the opposite effect with any other men Ed knew as Blackbeard. But unlike Jack, or Izzy, Stede makes so much space and empathy to comfort Ed's emotions. It's not often a man of color's vulnerable emotions are put on screen as a central important plot point to be given weight and tender time to.

It's worth noting how Ed being the seducee and attempting to anxiously win back Stede's affections is a departure from historically racist depictions of interracial romances on screen. Quite often in the past we saw the POC member of a pairing containing a white person, was often characterized as being more animalistic, rough, or aggressively sexual. While Ed is clearly more traditionally masculine and hardy as pirate-he's given the role of the infatuated one-the one pining tenderly (plus we see Stede commit more violence on screen than we do Ed!). Ed's given a beautifully rich emotional score of being romanced, in a setting on the sea where the pair have equal footing of privilege. They're pair of equals bonding over their odd (to everyone else) behavior.

While Ed refers to himself as a Kraken, a mythical monster-that imagery is part of the racialized violence he'd endured all his life. The fact in that scene Stede does not reinforce that imagry but instead tells Ed he's his 'friend' is so monumental for Ed. As someone who has been on a journey of learning violence is at times unavoidable to survive against oppressive forces, Stede answers Ed's murder plan with empathy and relief. It completly undercuts the racist idea that either one of them is more 'naturally violent' with Ed in tears over the fact he no longer wants to commit murders to survive. Ed's humanity and tender emotions are put at the forefront of the show multiple times-asking the audience not to stereotype him in a caricature-even if other white characters are willing to. (Which is why fan depictions that lean into making him a literal monster are regressive at least, and racist at worst)

Episode 7 and 8 really showcase how Ed has no idea what to expect of Stede. He spends most of episode 7 feeling rejected and far too vulnerable (after that bathtub confession), since Stede has not openly returned his flirtations (And perhaps rightfully wary from his previous experiences with white men) and it is only when Lucius spells out to Ed that the entire expedition is meant to be a gift to Ed from Stede, he relaxes. Once he knows Stede is somehow returning his affections, he reconsiders his plan of running away and agrees to co-captain with him.

When Calico Jack shows up in episode 8 he throws a wrench in everything-but also provides us interesting backstory for Ed and his relationships with white men. He tells Stede "You two have a lot in common", which can seem like a humorous throw away line since Jack and Stede couldn't be more different in their presentation of masculinity. I would argue what Ed sees and is referring to-is that Jack and Stede are two white men who seem extremely uninterested in prescribed colonial masculinity and that is what stands out to Ed. That isn't to say Jack's version of toxic, violent, frat-boy, immature, masculinity is healthy-but Ed can recognize they are both outliers from proper navy officers. (Ed's perspective is demonstrated in episode 9, when he tells Chauncey "you all look alike", a joke yes, but also how much these proper colonial white men blend together for Ed.)

Stede has made enough of an impression on Ed though-and shown him such a space of alternative masculinity-he is willing to sacrifice EVERYTHING for him by getting back on the ship instead of rowing away with Jack. Once again the English officers attempt to re-affirm their structure of colonization on the sea-such as when Chauncey tells Ed "He's from my world not yours" in regards to having the right to execute Stede. Ed however returns the previous gesture of Stede's- betraying his legacy as a pirate by taking "An Act of Grace".

Piracy is once more a metaphor for colonial resistance since Chauncey attempts to argue Stede isn't a 'real pirate' and therefore can not have an "Act of Grace". But once again we see Stede's chaotic, more tender version of masculinity shine through, as his 'piracy' is proven from his simple abduction and nourishment of a plant-not any amount of bloodshed. Chauncey throws a fit, as it is another example of piracy and masculinity not playing by traditional colonial rules.

Despite being thrown back into a colonial setting at the reform school-Ed and Stede are now in position where both have been entirely stripped of their power. It is what lets them kiss on the beach without the imbalanced power dynamics of colonial society-and just themselves. It's truly touching moment because it's the pair of them wanting each other, even without all their fineries or power attached-which is why they're in the same outfit. It's a really remarkable way of doing an interracial relationship in media-Ed and Stede's power dynamics are communicated via their outfits throughout the show.

When Stede chooses to return to his family-it's only after he receives a scolding, for betraying the colonial role he was given (A Father, obeying naval officers, etc) he chooses to leave Ed feeling such immense guilt for straying from his designated role and privilege (plus the idea his tender form of masculinity as emasculated Blackbeard). There's even an element of white privilege Stede is able to return his comfortable life immediately, rather than being tracked down by the English for abandoning his post. But once home, the show demonstrates so well-and Stede can finally acutely see-he never belonged in this abusive colonial system. And the people who manage to find happiness within it-only do so by deviating (Mary having her affair, widows riding themselves of toxic husbands, etc) from that abusive system's demand. Stede leaves Barbados, free of guilt from Chauncey's death, and walking away from the abusive system this time recognizing it is the right thing to do. Most significantly, Stede relinquishes one of the sources of his colonial privilege-wealth.

It's a complete commitment to change, the world of piracy, and Ed. It's Stede finally recognizing violence against colonial forces (such as killing the Badminton twins) is needed, because they are so oppressive and violent in and of themself. It's Stede recognizing walking away from colonial forces (the heteronormativity of his previous life) is needed for happiness and freedom-and that includes sacrificing the comfort of wealth. Stede returns to the sea without the pomp and flash of his former privilege, ready to commit to a life of rebellion with Ed, against that world. It makes sense coming from this place of privilege, and choose to let it go (rather than having it revoked) Stede finds himself in a 'happy' ending at the end of Season 1.

Ed however, is ending the season feeling the brunt of colonial violence. Stede leaving him (which we can perceive is how he sees the interaction, since if he imagined Stede dead he probably wouldn't of thrown out all his things) is an example of Stede behaving how Ed feared an upper class white man would see him as. Disposable, which is what drove his anxiety in episode 8 to leave with Jack "You would always see what I am". Ed has been trying to avoid being hurt this entire relationship with Stede and he failed. Izzy's threat, another example of white violence, pushes Ed over the edge to make him shut down completely to protect himself all this white violence. It's a violent change for Ed because not only did he believe someone saw him past all the stereotypes he'd been pushed into in his life-he also must be furious at himself he dared to think Stede could be better than his previous interactions with white men.

Ed has every right to be furious and feel deeply betrayed. I would even argue he has every right to attack Izzy after Izzy spent so much time threatening him and berating his new-found more tender masculinity. It's worth noting if you watch Ivan and Fang in episode 6 they remark how nice it is to see Ed so 'open and available' and when Ed is singing in episode 10, Fang watches on with a tender sympathetic expression. The other men of color understood how monumental it was for Ed to have a chance to be seen as more than just a vehicle of violence. Unlike some people I don't think 'utterly heartbroken in a robe singing sad songs Ed' is 'true' Ed entirely. I think he still has plenty of chaos and anger against colonialism in him-but surviving via violence and constantly bearing his teeth has grown draining for him, and he would prefer to be softer and more expressive if he has the choice.

Stede completed his arch resisting colonialism-so I wouldn't be surprised if we DO get season 2 from Ed's POV. Stede's ignorance is part of the reason he did not pause to consider as much as he thought leaving Ed would help him-would also wound him. Stede returned to his privilege and power, and while it finally helped him see the light-it caused an immense amount of harm to Ed-and did not consider how deep his feelings were at all. It would be likely in a show that has done so well to set up a stage that an interracial relationship can flourish challenging previous structures of power, and putting two wildly different men on the same power level-it now shifts to the man who's at the crisis and crossroads of his identity like Stede was at the start of season 1. It's my hope season 2 would conclude with the pair of them standing firmly in their identities, knowing they can exist outside of the role colonialism attempted to press them into.

#ofmd #our flag means death #edward teach #stede bonnet #blackbonnet #ofmd meta #poc of ofmd #shit this is LONG #I'm sorry but this show is brilliantly written i had to scream #also #stop making Ed into a literal monster #PLEASE #this is very stede focused since I already wrote at length on Ed #my writing

2K notes · View notes

cutelilbow · 1 year

Text

wednesday is not only the greatest betrayal in television history but the most maddeningly trite, disturbingly vapid, and internally confused ideological train wreck I've ever had the deeply sorrowful displeasure of allowing to pass through my corneas may god have mercy on burton or whoever else was responsible while someone slapped his brand name on it, and on all of us who are fated to live in a world where something so culturally, socially, politically, and artistically noxious as this Mary-sue-lead, transparently TikTok-targeted, phone-worshipping, vaguely bigoted, backfired virtue-signaling, fake leftist capitalist "my immortal"-esque fanfic earns a second season through what I can only be explained as manufactured consent. something must be done about Netflix's Wednesday. This thing is a condescending insult, especially to young people, the socially conscious, and members of marginalized and """outcast""" groups (LiKe GoThS & ppL who CAN cONTroL BEEEEES) who genuinely suffer from what this thing hollowly masturbates to while looking us dead in the eyes and saying "yeah, you like that, don't you?" It is a Gatling gun of random buzzwords and empty references to social issues, grotesquely and impotently disguised and screaming "I'm commentary!" before pissing its pants, squealing like a pig, and at its most coherent offering nothing more than to demonize mental illness and make any marginalized identity out to be a mayonnaise-stained Hot Topic hoodie through Wiseau-ian dialogue, inappropriate "grittiness" for its source material and Harry Potter setting, and incessant hackery. I am shitting. I am pissing. I am standing over a warm bubble bath cradling a toaster and sobbing, chanting g-d's secret name and praying that there is indeed a hell so I can be eternally punished for having given this moral abomination one fraction of a fraction of a cent also it's not a good Addams family adaptation

#will wood #elliott.txt

240 notes · View notes

quote-tournament · 1 year

Text

First round, fourteenth fight

Quote number 27 :

"I believe in a universe that doesn't care, and people who do"

-Angus, Night in the Woods

Quote number 28 :

wednesday is not only the greatest betrayal in television history but the most maddeningly trite, disturbingly vapid, and internally confused ideological train wreck I've ever had the deeply sorrowful displeasure of allowing to pass through my corneas may god have mercy on burton or whoever else was responsible while someone slapped his brand name on it, and on all of us who are fated to live in a world where something so culturally, socially, politically, and artistically noxious as this Mary-sue-lead, transparently TikTok-targeted, phone-worshipping, vaguely bigoted, backfired virtue-signaling, fake leftist capitalist "my immortal"-esque fanfic earns a second season through what I can only be explained as manufactured consent. something must be done about Netflix's Wednesday. This thing is a condescending insult, especially to young people, the socially conscious, and members of marginalized and """outcast""" groups (LiKe GoThS & ppL who CAN cONTroL BEEEEES) who genuinely suffer from what this thing hollowly masturbates to while looking us dead in the eyes and saying "yeah, you like that, don't you?" It is a Gatling gun of random buzzwords and empty references to social issues, grotesquely and impotently disguised and screaming "I'm commentary!" before pissing its pants, squealing like a pig, and at its most coherent offering nothing more than to demonize mental illness and make any marginalized identity out to be a mayonnaise-stained Hot Topic hoodie through Wiseau-ian dialogue, inappropriate "grittiness" for its source material and Harry Potter setting, and incessant hackery. I am shitting. I am pissing. I am standing over a warm bubble bath cradling a toaster and sobbing, chanting g-d's secret name and praying that there is indeed a hell so I can be eternally punished for having given this moral abomination one fraction of a fraction of a cent also it's not a good Addams family adaptation anyway let me know your thoughts in the poll below

-Will Wood, a YT Community Post

#this is the first round of the quotes #polls #quotes #angus #night in the woods #will wood #youtube community

183 notes · View notes

dissociativediscourse · 8 months

Text

Understanding the difference between systemic oppression and social stigma: Why endogenic systems aren't oppressed for being plural, and why that doesn't mean that their struggles are unimportant

Time for the newest syscourse topic, one that I’ve actually been thinking about quite a bit lately. I had a conversation with my very pro-endo friend about it a while back, and it caused me to realize that the entire issue is really that we don’t understand the distinction between oppression and social stigma, and why exactly endogenic plurals are stigmatized, but not oppressed. And why this doesn’t mean that struggles that they do face are “invalid” (boy, do I hate that whole concept. I hate the whole valid thing. It doesn’t do anything any justice.)

To start off with, it's important to clarify each of these terms. Oppression refers to the systematic mistreatment, subjugation, and denial of rights by those in power against a specific group. On the other hand, social stigma involves societal disapproval or mistreatment directed at individuals who possess certain characteristics or identities. While the two concepts may intersect, they are not synonymous.

Endogenic plurals, despite facing challenges in the form of social stigma, do not experience systemic oppression in the same way as historically marginalized groups. The comparison I drew in my conversation with the previously mentioned friend was to communities like furries and therians, who similarly encounter varying degrees of societal rejection. While they may be subjected to ridicule, bullying, or social ostracization, these experiences are not the same as being actively oppressed by institutions and systemic structures.

I would also like to highlight that the challenges endogenic plurals face are largely only present within the Western context. Outside of that, they not only ‘would be’ but are very easily accepted, sometimes for religious/spiritual reasons. I had someone from the Middle East (not going to specify which country because I don’t know if anyone knows who this is and would prefer to not dox them lol) describe to me that they once thought that they were endogenic – they were open to their family and community about this, and were very widely accepted for it. It was seen as creative, and a beautiful thing! But once they discovered that they had formed their system through trauma, and that they had DID, it became different. Suddenly it was something to be shunned – this is largely because it isn’t the system that’s the issue. It isn’t the concept of plurality that is an issue, by and large, it’s the trauma. It’s the fact that this is a disabling condition. It’s the fact that when you have DID, you have a rare mental illness. It’s the fact that you are experiencing trauma responses that are unpalatable to those who don’t understand them.

That’s far from the only story I’ve heard of that type, and I’ve particularly seen a LOT of Asian systems speaking about acceptance of endogenic plurality vs. rejection of DID in their cultures. This is a very West-centric argument, and also goes to show how narrow of a perspective many of the current larger syscoursers pushing endo oppression as a concept have on the subject of oppression.

You may say, “But, there’s a potential for systemic oppression and violence against endogenic plurals! We just don’t have enough data, because they’re not “out” yet.” My friend said this! I appreciated the point, because it allowed me to highlight my above argument about endogenic plurality outside of the west and also the fact that historical patterns of systemic oppression and the reasoning for such and the examination of parallels with other marginalized groups and their histories with oppression reveal that such concerns are really just… Not warranted. Genuinely, the struggles that endogenic plurals face are much closer to that of the furry community, or that of the therian community. These groups also have to deal with with societal misunderstandings and negative perceptions. Just as with endogenic plurals, the issues they face stem from a lack of understanding rather than a deliberate effort to oppress. If either of those groups were to be open about their identities, they’d face similar struggles – and they do. It’s not exactly the wisest thing to talk to your boss about being a furry or a therian, and it’s liable to get you some hate/bullying/mistreatment directed towards you at some point. It’s stigma.

While endogenic plurals may experience interpersonal mistreatment and possibly even limited job opportunities due to being open about their identities, these challenges are primarily driven by social stigma and negative perceptions. It's worth noting that any systemic violence or marginalization they encounter often stems from an intersection with already marginalized groups, such as the queer or neurodiverse communities. Sure, many endogenic plurals are queer or otherwise neurodiverse, but that intersection and further the violence directed towards it can’t exist without the existence of those other identities. A cishet, white, NT and otherwise non-marginalized endogenic plural isn’t oppressed. A trans, ND, POC who is an endogenic plural is, but not because of their plurality, though it does create a different (and notable) intersection with a few of these aspects.

It's really important to recognize that conflating social stigma with systemic oppression oversimplifies the experiences of truly systemically oppressed groups, while at the same time not even doing any justice to the issues endogenic plurals themselves DO face. If we can just… Understand that these are two very separate issues, the distinct challenges that endogenic plurals DO face can be more accurately and effectively addressed and advocated for. If we can just ACKNOWLEDGE this, that’s already contributing to a broader, more informed discourse that fosters so much more inclusivity and empathy than what we’ve got right now.

#syscourse #plurality #syscourse unaligned #? i guess that would be the right tag #oppression

65 notes · View notes

shiraglassman · 9 months

Note

Hey, I know this is kind of a dumb question, but I came across a TikTok about a month ago suggesting that dragons (the western, fire breathing, princess snatching, treasure hoarding ones) were rooted in antisemitic in the same way something like goblins are. I couldn’t tell if it was a joke or not, and it kind of sent me into a tailspin, since I’ve always loved dragons (I read the WoF series ONCE and wouldn’t shut up about it for 3 years), and I was worried that I would have to drop them entirely for fear of offending someone. I can definitely see the similarities between common antisemitic tropes and dragon tropes, but I’ve always heard that the origins of the western dragon were that it was just a scalier of the devil and not meant to represent any marginalized community. However, I am not Jewish in any way, and I’m aware it’s not my place to dictate what is and isn’t harmful, so I was curious as to what you thought. (Sorry about how long this is TuT)

I held on to this ask for a few weeks to try to make sure my response made sense, so here goes. Disclaimer that I'm just one Jewish woman who loves dragons, and I claim no expertise or position of authority. I can't guarantee that someone won't look at your special interests and judge you unfairly. I also can't guarantee that you'll be hyperaware enough and careful enough to catch dogwhistles if they're subtle, compared with ordinary fictional dragons. What I can guarantee is that your average Jewish person is not going to assume you are more unsafe to be around than other unknown gentiles just because you like dragons, but fandom spaces and Tumblr spaces sometimes represent a skewed or specific cross-section of the population and may react differently. I can't make any of those calls. I don't want to tell you to start tuning out marginalized people when we speak about our issues including bad representation, but I also don't think "every Western dragon" is a problem the same way the entire perception of Halloween witches is, for example. For "some reason" (antisemitism) we've decided that big hooked noses are a thing you strap to your face to fake being a witch, or the way witches look in clip art. This is an issue because it takes a simple, neutral feature that some of us have and exaggerates it to the point of looking nonhuman. "Ha ha," says the trope. "Wouldn't it be funny if this trait that these Others have was so different and so jarring in appearance that they looked as different as they truly are, from us, the In Group?"

If the same group of folks who had anxiety about us coexisting alongside them created the witch aesthetic as created the Western dragon lore, and indeed much of old-fashioned European fantasy, it's easy to see how their feelings about us an other marginalized groups (disabled people etc.) creep into the stories. HOWEVER, it's also incredibly easy for dragons to not be us. Or have anything to do with us. If you're nervous when writing your own stories that someone is going to mistake your greedy characters for Jewish-coded, try to establish that real (human or otherwise) Jewish characters coexist with the greedy dragon or whatever to show that you're not using the dragon as a subconscious Jewish reference. But if you're talking about just "can I continue to buy dragon merch from creators who draw cute art", the only thing I can tell you is that there's an intense diversity of opinion among the Jewish people and even though I'm saying it's fine and probably most people at my temple would say it's fine, I can't account for strangers on apps I don't even have. Personally, I think you're safe as long as you avoid dragon things that evoke the trope directly. And many MANY dragons don't even evoke the trope these days, because so many millennials and younger grew up adoring dragons so we launched media where dragons are good. And don't even always hoard wealth. Much of modern dragon media seems to ignore the greedy and/or hoarding tropes entirely or have replaced greed as a motivator for the collections with "this dragon has a special interest", which is cute and doesn't evoke antisemitic tropes at all. You'll probably be able to make good judgments about what does the trope and what doesn't, but for some additional help here is a post Meir and I did on @writingwithcolor, which is where we'd prefer these questions be directed (yes, I know we're closed currently but we're reopening soon.) P.S. If this was sent to my personal specifically to avoid the WWC ask box being closed, please don't — that's an amount of volunteer work I simply can't take on. But I also know that it's possible and likely that you didn't know about WWC at all, so now you do — feel free to peruse our vast archives of past posts. @im-tired1124

#jumblr #jewish #dragons #antisemitism #tropes #dog whistles #im-tired1124

75 notes · View notes

matan4il · 4 months

Text

To the Nonnie who (we really need to find you a better nickname) asked me about the Druze and the Bedouins in Israel, you're very welcome, and likewise, I appreciate your kind words! :)

I still think Israel should strive to include our closest brethren in law as much as we can

We actually refer to Arabs as our cousins. ;) I think the Druze in particular, as well as the Israeli Arabs and the Bedouins who are not hostile to Israel, who do not support terrorism and violence against Jews, are in fact generally seen as closer than that. And I already said in my first reply to you, that I absolutely think that Israel, like all countries, should constantly strive to make life as good and inclusive for its minorities as possible. So on that point, we def agree, Nonnie. To me, it's also clear that Israel must remain the Jewish nation state, while to you it isn't (you say you're undecided what the answer is, to me there's not even a question), and I'll admit, I'm not sure why. Being a Jewish state, doesn't mean Israel is solely a Jewish state (meaning, it is NOT a state for Jews only), but we've already covered that. You want it not to be solely Jewish on a national level as well, not just that of citizen rights, or who gets to be one. You still haven't provided me with an explanation of why you think Jews are the only ones not deserving of a nation state? Historically, many bigger and more powerful unions, have disintegrated into smaller nation states, because no one group wanted to feel controlled by, or dependent on the good will of another. Why is that acceptable for the former Yugoslavia's Serbs, Bosnians and Croats, Slovenians, Macedonians and Montenegrins (as one example), but not for Jews?

And why do you think anyone will thank the Jews for throwing our right to self determination away? The Druze, for example, have been forced to do exactly this. Under the French Mandate in Syria and Lebanon, they were given self rule from 1921 to 1936. Then, as part of establishing the independent Syria, the Druze State was taken away from them, and it was forcibly integrated into Syria, while they were still allowed some autonomy. By 1944, that was canceled, too. And what has happened to them since? Syria doesn't even recognize them as a distinct ethno-religious, let alone one that deserve protection or rights. In Syria's official demographics, the Druze are registered as Muslims (in fact, the only country in the Middle East that recognizes the Druze as a distinct group, is Israel). And according to at least one Druze researcher, the Civil war in Syria has made the Druze realize that their very existence there is in danger. And this is despite the fact that the biggest Druze population in the world lives in Syria, and that since the rise of the Allawi minority to power through a military coup, at the expense of the Suni Muslim majority, minorities in Syria were treated better than in most of the Middle East (while the majority was oppressed, leading to the war).

Groups without any power, without self protection, marginalized and vulnerable, have NOT been historically treated well. I don't really know many examples to the contrary, if at all. We, as Jews, should know that better than anyone. I know that you know this, but I want to emphasize it. NO ONE will thank the Jews if we throw away our right to self rule away, and NO ONE will protect us, if we choose to make ourselves once more weak and defenceless. It's just not how human nature works.

From your last ask, it sounds like your environment is very radical, and likely anti-Zionist? And I commend you for not being as extreme, as well as for being able to carry on a respectful dialogue. I think that's maybe the biggest counter to hatred, the ability to communicate respectfully even with people we disagree with. So I don't take it lightly, that you disagree with me, but we can still have a nice conversation. But I think you can and should pose some of these questions to the people around you, who you implied are radical. Do they recognize the Zionist nature of Judaism, and the unbreakable bond of Jews to their ancestral homeland in Israel, that Judaism sanctifies? Do they recognize that before the Jewish state, and the self rule and self defence it provides us with, Jews were horribly abused in the Middle East? Do they understand how Israel continues to save Jews since its inception, both by giving them refuge in Israel, and by protecting them in the countries around the world where Jews live? Do they understand and care, that dismantling Israel as a Jewish state, takes that protection away from Jews worldwide, at a time when antisemitic narratives about us are at their strongest since WWII? And why do they think it's okay for Jews to be the only ones deprived of the right to have a nation state in their ancestral land? Hopefully, you can have a respectful dialogue with these people about these questions. But even if not, I think it's vital to ask them, because Jews have suffered too much, for too long, and there's too few of us left, to risk the safety of those of us still left on this earth, by just being optimistic, or going on a sanitized version of the past (in which nothing was ever wrong between Jews and Arabs in Israel before the advent of 19th century Zionism), and not truly confronting the real facts, history, and rights regarding Jews, and the consequences of depriving us of a nation state.

I'm glad my posts and opinions helped you reflect on and form your own. And I'm happy to share whatever knowledge I have, or why my conclusions and beliefs are what they are... I would be happy to meet for a coffee, and to kvetch together if you come to Jerusalem, and you're absolutely welcome in my inbox! Have a great day and week, and I hope you really enjoyed your Hanukkah! ^u^

(for all of my updates and ask replies regarding Israel, click here)

#israel #antisemitism #israeli #israel news #israel under attack #israel under fire #israelunderattack #terrorism #anti terrorism #hamas #antisemitic #antisemites #jews #jew #judaism #jumblr #frumblr #jewish

27 notes · View notes

genderkoolaid · 2 years

Text

Transandrophobia: A F.A.Q

!! Please see this updated version !!

If you find this FAQ useful and/or you want to help me out, you can donate to me here.

What is transandrophobia?

It is transphobia that targets transmasculinity. Some people also refer to it as transmisandry or anti-transmasculinity.

What are some examples of transandrophobia?

Laws blocking medical transition or puberty blockers, which come from fearmongering about "young girls ruining their bodies to become men"

The idea that AFAB trans people only transition to escape misogyny and gain male privilege

The idea that transmascs are "betraying" womanhood by transitioning, and that it would be more feminist of them to "stay women"

The erasure of transmasculine voices, history, and culture, to the point that many people do not know that transmasculine people exist, or think that transmasculine people do not face violence because they don't hear about it

Being refused important medical exams and treatment because they are only for women (such as pap smears) for transmasculine people who are legally male.

Testosterone being a protected substance which people can be fined or arrested for having without permission from a doctor.

Also see my examples of transandrophobia tag for more, and my experiences with transandrophobia tag for people's real-life accounts, and the Archive of Violence Against Transmasculine People.

Androphobia doesn't exist, though, so how can transphobia intersect with it?

The term "transandrophobia" was made to emphasize the targeting of transmasculinity, not to represent an intersection between transphobia and androphobia; the same goes for "transmisandry". Transunity theory considers misandry to be one of the "three arms of transphobia", along with misogyny and misandrogyny. All forms of transphobia view trans people as having the negative traits of masculinity/manhood and femininity/womanhood, as well as the negative trait of being unable to fit into either binary option (androgyny). This is also why transunitism uses "transmisogyny" to mean transphobia targeting transfemininity and not just as the intersection of transphobia and misogyny it was originally coined as. Alongside exorsexism/ceterophobia/nonbinaryphobia, the use of these three terms to express transphobia targeted towards different groups allows us to discuss the way different groups of trans people are perceived and treated. To quote this article, "Misandry [...] can never reliably be prevented from collapsing into transphobia." Negative traits associated with masculinity (aggression, hypersexuality, dirtiness, being a danger to vulnerable/innocent women, etc.) are used as justification to attack all kinds of trans people based on trans people as a class's unique relationship with gender, as well as intersex people's. These negative traits are also frequently used as justification for the oppression of marginalized men, who are seen as both an opponent of dominant masculinity and a threat to dominant femininity. Cis men do not need to be systematically oppressed in the same way as cis women in order for misandry/androphobia/antimasculism to be an aspect of transphobia and play a role in other forms of oppression.

Does transandrophobia mean transfems oppress transmascs?

No, not at all. Trans people cannot oppress each other for being trans; none of us have the systematic power to do that. Transfems can be transandrophobic, but that is lateral aggression. Transfems do not have any social power over transmascs. Transandrophobia is built and propagated by cis people and they are the ones who have power over us. Anyone who argues that transfems are uniquely/especially transandrophobic, that they have class privilege over transmascs, or that transmascs should separate from the wider trans community are either not arguing in good faith, or are transmisogynistic and should not be listened to.

I've heard some really bad things about the coiner of the word transandrophobia.

Firstly, the accusations at Saint were a part of a smear campaign that heavily distorted the facts to make him seem like an awful person. He also coined "transandrophobia" as an alternative to a pre-existing term, "transmisandry" - he did not create the idea nor did he start the discussion on it, merely the term now most widely used. See this explanation by doberbutts, a black trans man. But regardless of how you feel about Saint, he gets no material benefit from the use of his word. He gets no money from transandrophobia being used, it does not "support" him in any way. The word was coined in good faith to give transmascs a word to describe our experiences with specific forms of transphobia. See the "genetic" and "guilt by association" fallacies.

Why is it important to have this word?

Why is it important to have the word transmisogyny, or exorsexism/nbphobia? Those could also be grouped under "general transphobia", but it's vital that we don't because we need to understand where certain ideas come from. Bathroom bills don't just come from a general hatred of trans people - fearmongering about transfems being sexual predators is what causes them. Ignoring the transmisogyny rooted in these bathroom bills obscures the true motivation behind them. "There are only two genders" is transphobic, but it isn't based in a hatred for binary trans people - it's aimed at nonbinary people specifically. Fears about the destruction of gender come largely from nonbinary existence. Laws against transitioning do not come from fears about trans women, they come from the idea of young girls "corrupting themselves" by cutting their hair, taking testosterone, and getting affirmative surgery. By being able to point out where exactly certain transphobic ideas come from, we can better fight transphobia as a whole; that's the idea behind transunitism.

Additionally, discussing transandrophobia has helped many people (myself included) become more comfortable identifying as transmasc/trans men. Transandrophobic and antimasculist ideas are unfortunately very frequent even in queer spaces, leading many people to avoid identifying as transmasc. Speaking out about transandrophobia helps people realize that the problem exists, and heal from the damage it has caused.

This is meant to be a primer for people who dont know much about transandrophobia, to clear up common misconceptions and introduce some ideas. Please do more research into transandrophobia and the nuances of it when you can.

Further Resources:

""Transandrophobia" Primer" by nothorses

"As a transfem, what's your insight on the way transmascs are treated when talking about their experiences?" by cipheramnesia

"This is just your regular free-of-charge reminder that when people argue that transandrophobia does not exist, or that its not important enough to talk about, they are explicitly saying they don't care about sexual assault victims or victims of suicide (among other things)" by nothorses

"Transandrophobia Posts Masterpost- 2022" by transgentlemanluke

Pinned post with links to discussions about transandrophobia, baeddelism, and other issues by nothorses

"What is transandophobia actually?" by transmasc-pirate, with additions by doberbutts and psychoticallytrans

"Transandrophobic Fundamentals and the Intersections of Trans Masc Marginalization" by none-gender-left-man

"Hello, I apologise if you've already received questions like this, but can you explain why you would say that transmisandry/androphobia is distinct from misogyny?" by transfaguette

"I Am A Transwoman. I Am In The Closet. I Am Not Coming Out." by Jennifer Coates — not transandrophobia related, but a very valuable read.

This conversation between doberbutts and folly-of-alexandria on how transandrophobia differs from general transphobia and why it's important, which lists some further examples of how transandrophobia manifests in life.

Transandrophobia Explained carrd, by myself

Transmisogyny is not the intersection of transphobia and misogyny by luckyladylily

This post on misogyny, misandry, and transandrophobia by thorne1345

"tumblr can make fun of Blizzard’s Oppression Calculator all they want, that’s exactly how people act with discourse poisoned queer discussions" by cardentist

Invisible Men: FTMs and Homelessness in Toronto by the FTM Safer Shelter Project Research Team

On Hating Men (And Becoming One) by Noah Zazanis, an analysis of transmasculinity in feminism & Marxist feminst "unity theory"

#transandrophobia #m.#examples of transandrophobia #antimasculism #experiences with transandrophobia

2K notes · View notes