makingstuffup - Tumblr blog

makingstuffup · 4 years

Text

The best tool to understand the seamless coexistence of:

Lesbians being shamed and punished for not liking men.

Bi women being shamed and punished for liking men.

Straight women being shamed and punished for being “incorrectly” heterosexual (being trans, being sex workers, being promiscuous, being polyam, etc)…

Is understanding that under patriarchal order, women aren’t really expected to desire men. We’re expected to desire to be desired by men.

When a woman is a lesbian, she is punished for her categorical, inherent refusal to men. This should be obvious. We’re seen as denying men a fundamental “right” they should be granted, which is why we’re often seen as cruel, hateful or mean by the mere crime of existing as lesbians. This is why it is insisted that we give men “a chance” in a level that it’s not asked of gay men to give women “a chance”. Women have no right to men, men have a right (and exclusive obligation to subjugate through romance and sex) to women, so while gay men are of course expected to desire women and punished for not desiring women, they aren’t seen as owing women anything the way lesbians are absolutely seen as owing ourselves to men. Seeing women as naturally, inevitably attracted to men is why too we can inform someone that we’re lesbians and receive the ridiculous answer of “if you keep saying you’re a lesbian men won’t date you”/“men don’t find it attractive when women say they’re lesbians”.

This is also why on average it’s so hard for lesbians to detect that we don’t like men in comparison to gay men detecting that they don’t like women. Men are taught to process their sexualities on the function of what and who THEY actively desire. Women are taught to process our sexualities on the function of who desires us and whether/how we comply or not. Lesbians in denial end up thinking of whether we do or don’t like men in terms of what level of intimacy or servitude we could tolerate with a man without wanting to jump off a cliff every second of it, rather than thinking of whether we WANT to be with men or not regardless of what we could in theory put up with. Attraction isn’t about tolerating or putting up, it’s about desires and wants, but for women it’s so hard to truly understand that fact, more so when we’re not straight.

Aside from this, being desired on itself can be nice even when it doesn’t come from someone we want, especially if we’re told our whole worth derives from being desired by men. It’s very hard for many lesbians to detect our unattraction to men because many of us do want to be desired by men not due to us desiring them too, but due to wanting that validation of our worth as women. This is often intensified for trans lesbians, who for obvious reasons can feel much more of a need to validate their worth as women by having men’s attraction to them place them as women enough. Lesbians who deviate in any other way from normative womanhood besides our lesbianism itself (lesbians of color, gnc lesbians, disabled lesbians, intersex lesbians, fat lesbians, the already mentioned trans lesbians, etc) have an even bigger problem with seeking validation from men being attracted to us than cis, thin, non-intersex, white, abled lesbians do in general, which is saying a lot.

When women are never taught to even consider active wants and are instead taught to focus on passive reception of men’s wants, just wondering if we like men or not is not on the table for us. It doesn’t so much as occur to most of us to practice asking ourselves that. When already realized lesbians dare to invite other women to practice a healthy exercise of questioning their assumed attraction to men (as opposed to questioning and policing bi and trans women’s attraction to men, which is a different story), no matter how polite we are about it or how much we highlight that if they end up coming to the conclusion that they do like men that’s okay, it’s seen as a predatory violent plot intended to force other women to become lesbians so we can take them away from men for ourselves, as if we were symbolically raping them, instead of it being seen as an act of reclamation of the sexualities of ALL women (not just lesbians) and healthy introspection.

In addition to that, lesbians, who’re “inferior” to men under the order of the patriarchy by virtue of being women/non-men, have the audacity not to just refuse men as I mentioned earlier, but to also exclusively desire women, which is a role that men, our “superiors”, are entitled to, not us. Who do we think we are? Do we think we’re equal to, let alone better than men? No wonder even other LGBT people see us as arrogant and delusional.

On the other hand, bi women disrupt the conception of women as only passive receptacles of men’s desire despite them liking men. When they love women and men simultaneously, their attraction to men goes from being seen as an inevitable natural circumstance of their womanhood in which they obediently or resignedly allow themselves to be had by men because there’s “no other option”, to being seen as these women actively desiring men for themselves to use for their own romantic and sexual satisfaction, which is the reverse of how it should be. In the eyes of the patriarchy, this makes them greedy, sluts and filthy.

Men, under patriarchy, are not meant to be objects of desire by anyone, they’re mean to be the ONLY desirers (of women exclusively, as to not turn other men into objects of desire). That’s why a bi woman’s attraction to men is seen as perverse no matter how normative of a woman she is outside of her bisexuality. Bi women’s attraction to men is seen as deliberate in contrast to cis straight women’s supposedly passive, receptive, inevitable attraction to men, and that cannot be, in the eyes of the patriarchy. Their mere existence (as well as lesbian existence) exposes that heterosexuality isn’t the natural condition of womanhood, that women do have desires of their own that may or may not include men, and when they do include men, they’re seen as having the gall to “reduce” men to objects of desire for their own gratification.

What’s more, not only do bi women have the audacity of making men objects of their “inferior” female desire, but they put them on equal footing as women as objects of their desire, which is worthy of patriarchal outrage. Women are supposed to be inferior to men. How dare they put that into question by desiring both in any capacity? How dare they still recognize and claim their love for women when they love men too, “even” when they’re monogamously with a man, when a man should be beyond “enough” as they��re always the “superior” choice, by affirming their bisexuality regardless of who they’re with?

When it comes to straight women it should be even easier to spot that the patriarchal obligation of women isn’t for us to desire men, but to be desired by them and having no desires of our own, because straight women, even the most normative ones, are heavily policed in how they practice their heterosexuality.

A straight woman is promiscuous? Much like bi women (regardless of each bi woman’s actual sexual behavior), their attraction to men is now seen as deliberate and active too, instead of as passive complying reception of men’s desires. She is a slut. She’s polyam? She’s a GIANT slut whose desire for men is so degenerate, active and deliberate, that she can’t be content with just one. She’s no longer in competition against other women for men’s attention, men are in competition for hers and they can be “replaced” much more easily if she’s not satisfied with them, which isn’t women’s place within the patriarchy.

She’s a sex worker? Not only is she a slut, she has the double audacity of materially exploiting men’s desire for her own gain (triple the outrage for lesbian, bi women and trans women who’re sex workers), when love and sex between men and women is supposed to be an act of submission to men that should only materially benefit men. Sex workers DARE to have their sexual labor compensated, monetarily, no less, when all of women’s labor to men is supposed to be an unpaid granted; from domestic labor, to sexual and romantic labor.

She’s trans? Besides betraying the manhood she was assigned, being living proof that traditional gender can be challenged, and turning someone who “should” be a man (herself) into an object of desire too, she is turning men into objects of desire as well, desire for the “wrongest” type of woman (herself) at that, and luring men who would otherwise be perfectly straight outside of “proper” heterosexuality. Similar indignations of blurring the lines of “proper” heterosexuality are evoked when it comes to cis women who happen to be intersex, it gets more complicated for trans women who’re intersex too.

This is all without analyzing how these things intersect with race, with an emphasis on antiblackness/misogynoir, colonialism/the exploitation of Indigenous women, the simultaneous hypersexualization and desexualization of all woc, and so, so much more. Then there’s (dis)ability, whether we’re psychiatrized or not, class, etc.

This is why it can be perfectly true and coherent within a singular gendered system to shame and brutalize women for not liking men and for liking men, if liking men isn’t done in the very narrow particular way women are expected to do so; by being cisgender, exclusively devoted to men, prioritizing men’s desires with no compensation over their own desires (which shouldn’t exist to begin with), etc.

This is why although all women are allowed to prioritize our particular experiences (as lesbians, as trans, as bi, as disabled, as woc, and so on), we cannot disregard the experiences of women different from us, including when we’re more marginalized than them, but much more so when they’re marginalized in ways we’re not (be us privileged over them, or just equally disadvantaged but in different ways, such as it happens between lesbians and bi women).

Our understanding of our own oppression will always be incomplete if we don’t pay attention to other women’s oppression, and that way, we end up perpetuating theirs, then our own by extension. It’s lazy self-sabotaging, on top of being cruel.

6K notes · View notes

makingstuffup · 4 years

Text

We are never going to get anywhere if we don’t recognize that there’s simultaneous often contradictory stereotypes that influence and affect marginalized people and how often those contradictory stereotypes represent a “regressive” versus obstensively “progressive” view. This doesn’t mean that the progressive stereotype is actually progressive and in fact it’s just as damaging, but rather exists because of the regressive stereotype becayse these tropes feed and play off each other.

“Regressive”: trans men must be masculine to be seen as men

“Progressive”: smol soft trans boy

“Regressive”: black women are the root of society’s ills

“Progressive”: black women will save us from society’s ills

“Regressive”: your disability must never been seen

“Progressive”: your disability is an inspiration to all

27 notes · View notes

makingstuffup · 4 years

Note

most of online discourse is ppl just ignoring lived material realities. they have all their neat little boxes and their logical theories but uh . Real life is messy + complicated and it doesn't work according to linear theories. it's a bit like physics u start w/ simple linear forces + vaccum but u can't use that in reality bc in reality there's stuff like friction + air resistance + air particles + u need to develop more accurate theories in which u account for more forces etc. ppl dont do that

Never heard that analogy, but it’s pretty good, I think. Added bonus of physics being cool.

17 notes · View notes

makingstuffup · 4 years

Note

“we’ve been using gay as an id from the beginning” lol that is literally incorrect. i don’t know what that anon is talking about but “gay” was definitely used in a derogatory way to refer to anyone who might not be straight. it was later RECLAIMED by the community.

Well do you have a source of it being an insult before gay people started using it for themselves? Because I have sources suggesting otherwise, especially considering that, unlike the neutral to negative connotations of the word “queer,” “gay” (from the old English “gai”) has meant “joyous” and “happy” for centuries.

Towards the end of the 1600s, the word became linked with prostitution, where a “gay boy” was a male prostitute who took male clients. This still wouldn’t necessarily count as usage as an insult towards modern-definition gay men —many male prostitutes are straight. “Gay” also still meant “joyous,” “happy,” and “carefree” as the centuries went on, as revealed by terms like “gay bachelor,” referring to a middle-aged, unmarried man. The 1934 film The Gay Divorcee was about a straight couple.

The Dictionary of American Slang (1960) reports that actual gay people used “gay” among themselves since the 20s, but the first explicit recorded use in this way that I could find is from 1950. Alfred A. Gross, a self-identified gay man, wrote in an issue of Sir magazine:

I have yet to meet a happy homosexual. They have a way of describing themselves as gay but the term is a misnomer. Those who are habitues of the bars frequented by others of the kind, are about the saddest people I’ve ever seen.

Any negative connotations developed around the word “gay” most likely came from medieval descriptions of prostitution and sex in general. Further, “gay” was still not yet the common word to refer to gay men, who chose the term “gay” for themselves without any push from heterosexuals. From the 60s onward, “gay” mainly reverted to its original meaning of “carefree” and “happy.” It also began to refer to gay people on a wider scale, until it eventually became the primary definition after gay activists rejected the term “homosexual.”

Its use as an insult connected to gayness started in the late 70s, and by the 80s and 90s, phrases like “that’s so gay” in negative contexts became common and remain in use today.

Again, if you have proof that it’s been used as an insult prior to the 50s, I’d love to see it. From what I know, though, “gay” was a self-chosen label that gained unfavorable implications due to its association with gay people, not the other way around.

135 notes · View notes

makingstuffup · 4 years

Text

We have gathered every issue of Anything That Moves as PDFs and are working on transcribing them into plain text for accessibility and easy spreading and quoting! Check out our carrd here for links to all the files.

24K notes · View notes

makingstuffup · 4 years

Text

I think a common misconception is that lesbian, gay, bisexual are "neat little boxes" that a lot of people don't fit into but that's not the case. Each label encapsulates a lot of different experiences and approaches to attraction. A lesbian that doesn't want sex is still a lesbian, a bi person who struggles to tell the difference between platonic, romantic and sexual feelings which differs or doesn't differ according to gender can still be bi. A gay man who isn't all that interested in dating is still gay. These are not limiting labels and not every person who uses an lgb label feels exactly the same about attraction.

22K notes · View notes

makingstuffup · 4 years

Text

every time i say something mean about aces, someone inevitably cites something about ace history that’s pre-Zoe O’Reilly’s 1997 work “My Life as an Amoeba” and literaly all of it is SWERFs (the spinster movement), Radfems (that picture of the girl listing identities like lesbian separatist, bisexual, asexual), or fucking Alfred Kinsey, the dude who excused and defended pedophiles. I hope you know political lesbians go under the radfem umbrella, so that’s part of my demonic ace sources list.

The one non-demonic source of asexuality pre-1997 is a piece about trans liberation, a cut out article removed from context, that talks about how trans liberation must include all trans people—gay, straight, bisexual, or asexual. Which doesn’t say asexuals were LGBT if they weren’t L G B or T but rather that no trans people should be left out of trans liberation. No one argues all straight people are LGBT despite it being listed there.

The fact of the matter is asexuality meant wildly different things before the early 2000s when AVEN came into existence, where there was an entire debate about asexuality should mean (and it was then decided it could mean whatever people want). And that since the early 2000s, the ONLY sources for ace activism and movements is AVEN... the antisemitic, homophobic, racist, bigoted cesspool. So your entire ace history is just “bigoted shit pre-2000” and “bigoted shit, likely lifted from tumblr, post-2000”

not to mention there is no actual... activism attached to any of this to cite. just opinion pieces cause all the ace community seems to do is opine and whine. there’s no tangible activism tied to ending rape culture. just about being considered “queer enough” or adding to “anti-sexual” rhetoric

has ANYONE seen ace work that wasn’t just based in saying “we’re just like the gays I swear” or uncomfortable jokes at the expense of people who have sex (which ironically enough includes large swaths of the ace community)

291 notes · View notes

makingstuffup · 4 years

Text

“We chose the term “asexual” to describe ourselves because both “celibate” and “anti-sexual” have connotations we wished to avoid: the first implies that one has sacrificed sexuality for some higher good, the second that sexuality is degrading or somehow inherently bad. “Asexual”, as we use it, does not mean “without sex” but “relating sexually to no one”. This does not, of course, exclude masturbation but implies that if one has sexual feelings they do not require another person for their expression. Asexuality is, simply, self-contained sexuality.”

— The Asexual Manifesto, Lisa Orlando and Barbara Getz, 1972

175K notes · View notes

makingstuffup · 4 years

Text

LGBT labels are broad and often confusing because they are meant to bring people together so that we can fight our oppression together

nitpicking and microlabeling every aspect of your sexuality and attraction is literally achieving the opposite - instead of bringing us together so that we can collectively analyse and fight the system, we are over-analysing ourselves and distancing ourselves from broad alliances because of semantics

it’s literally a collective vs individualist approach and i can tell you that only one of them is actually going to help us change the world

3K notes · View notes

makingstuffup · 4 years

Text

one of the major problems with the "everyone is valid! pick whatever label feels best!" mentality is that it literally prioritises feelings of misinformed people over facts, history and material reality

3K notes · View notes

makingstuffup · 4 years

Text

The idea that a nonbinary transsexual bisexual who dates and loves regardless of gender can actually be the oppressor of cisgender pansexuals is the ultimate in 21st century discourse.

246 notes · View notes

makingstuffup · 4 years

Text

i fucking hate to make an ace discourse post in 20 fucking 20 but it really needs to be said and i KNOW this is gonna come off as a smarmy “i told you so post”

but i’ve been on twitter recently and there is a fucking DELUGE of people promoting the idea of “bisexual lesbians” (never bisexual gay men but like… that’s a tangential dialogue for another time). this idea that you can be bisexual and a lesbian at the same time is a direct product of the split attraction model.

this is the EXACT shit i was talking about when I said rhetoric from ace community is not compatible, at all, with the LGBT community.

sexualizing the -sexual suffix so “bisexual” SOLELY means “SEXUALLY attracted to the opposite gender” so someone can be bisexual and “homoromantic” is ACTIVELY harmful to lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals. it sexualizes bisexuals without consent and COMPLETELY redefines what gayness is so it can include attraction to the “opposite” gender.

and this is just one example of how ace inclusion–not just the inclusion of cisgender, straight aces but also the prioritization of ace ideals–hurts the LGBT community. the rhetoric that you can have sex with people you aren’t attracted to to “make it work” romantically is conversion therapy rhetoric. Ace inclusion makes it seem like the LGBT community is about our relationships to sex when that just isn’t true. Ace inclusion means “desexualizing” LGBT spaces so as not to upset asexuals. All this shit AND MORE is happening in real time and I’ve watched it get worse and worse, hand in hand with the commercialization of LGBT pride and the liberalization of LGBT activism.

ace rhetoric is eroding LGBT identities. the idea of the “bisexual lesbian” and other mogai microidentities where you parse every single aspect of your identity into a different label is actively harming vulnerable LGBT people.

and, no, this isn’t me saying “even LGBT aces have to go,” but this is me saying that putting ace identities at the forefront of ANY LGBT discussions leaves a lot of space for harm for LGBT people. and that any fucking ace rhetoric besides “it’s okay to not feel sexual attraction or want to have sex” comes at the expense of LGBT identity.

genuinely, the concept of “bisexual lesbian” is a direct product of the ace community and it has caused lesbians and bisexual women irreparable harm. and aces should be ashamed of this because this is what they have been defending for years.

this is the EXACT shit we said would come out of the split attraction model and now we have TEENAGERS telling strangers and adults “i’m sexually attracted to [x genders] but only romantically into [y]” and y’all think this is okay. even if it weren’t fucking INSANE to say lesbians can be attracted to men or that bisexuals can be half gay or half straight, you’d STILL be out of fuckng line having KIDS center identities around SOLELY sexual attraction.

i’m ripshit pissed

7K notes · View notes