I’d like to break down my current feelings and gripes about the trans movement, both to inform my followers and maybe start a discussion.

The vast majority of trans people are relatively normal and are just trying to live their lives in peace.

Trans women are trans women. They are male, and by definition it is much more accurate to call them men than women, but I do believe they are something of a separate category. The same goes for trans men, in reverse.

Definitions like “a woman is anyone who identifies as a woman” and “a lesbian is a non-man who’s attracted to non-men” are ridiculous and frankly offensive. The word lesbian is taken. It means “female homosexual”. Literally nobody is stopping you from making your own term, so stop trying to forcibly redefine ours.

Male socialization and female socialization both exist and are important. Trans women were socialized male and trans men were socialized female.

The sheer amount of vitriol towards “terfs” and anyone else who questions anything is just…disgusting. It’s acceptable to send them graphic rape and death threats, doxx them, assault them at protests, and celebrate when they get sick or die. I don’t know how to explain that that’s not normal fucking behavior, especially since “terf” is thrown around very casually these days.

Biological women should be allowed to have spaces that don’t include any males, regardless of the purpose. Lesbian bars, female only gyms, female only domestic violence/rape shelters, and literally anything else are fine and should be allowed to exist without being vandalized or threatened with shutdowns.

The former point includes female only sports teams. Males are biologically very different from females and it should’ve be offensive to anyone to say so. Both sexes have advantages and disadvantages over the other, it just happens that many sports are designed in a way that makes it easier for males to succeed.

Abolishing female only categories in award ceremonies, scholarships, and the like in the name of inclusivity is stupid and completely forgets the reason they were established in the first place. Male bias exists and women will almost never be included because of it.

I’m not against transitioning because I believe in total bodily autonomy and find language like “mutilation” to be incredibly gross and callous. However, I think it’s bad and dangerous to be presented as the literal only treatment for dysphoria.

Children who express any form of questioning or gender nonconformity should not be immediately assumed to be trans. A little girl saying “I want to be a boy” may mean “I want the freedoms that boys have and this is the only way I know how to express it because I’m six”. For actual trans kids, puberty blockers are dangerous and minors should only be allowed to socially transition.

The entire idea of being non-binary is frankly silly to me. I believe it to mostly be a poor coping mechanism for sexist stereotypes. Again, do what you want, but don’t expect me to take you seriously.

The way a lot of information and discussions that don’t support the current trans narrative are censored or lied about online is really bad and honestly borderline cult-like. Very few people actually know what radfems believe because people are discouraged from reading anything straight from the source. The Cass Review was picked apart in bad faith and many of the articles that “sum it up” are just straight up full of false information. Detransitioners are swept under the rug and told to shut up and stop trying to ruin things when they try to talk about their experiences. The trans community needs to do better.

And most importantly:

I do not want trans people dead. I believe in my heart of hearts that the vast majority of actual radfems and gender criticals do not want trans people dead. Neither ideology is hateful or inherently against trans people.

(Y’all just hate being told “no”.)

(Also I probably forgot something, so feel free to ask or discuss idk)

Love reading books that give me a lot of mixed feelings about the characters. Don't like reading books that give me mixed feelings about the book itself.

Okay, review time!! If you are one of the oddballs who thinks you cant be critical of something you love I suggest you stop reading now before I ruffle your feathers. Iron flame, second in the empyrean series. I am gonna start with what I was not a fan of and then go into the shit I adored.

1) what in the actual fuck was the pacing of this book?? I can tell you what, it was non existent. There was none. Where I thought there was a lot of filler in the last book there was none in this one. We got snap shots of conversations and then *boom* more plot flew at you. The timeline of this book greatly suffered for it i think bc we end only a couple weeks, if that, after threshing, which happens sometimes in October. This book was actually so wild with times.

2) while it was a spectacular cliff hanger, xaden becoming venin pisses me off. Especially if Rebecca yarros isnt going to have him tell violet. Like if that small tid bit of a conversation we got wasnt him telling vi that he was venin then the entire romantic conflict of this book was rendered pointless and their going to be having the same fucking fight for the rest of the series and at rhat point I give up.

3) I understand that the revolution is trying to take down basgaith and make the world better or whatever the fuck but can someone actually formulate a real plan for me?? Because I feel like their mission is just, giving violet and xaden something to be pissed at each other about.

4) the entirety of cats character. I get that she was set up as a spin on the typical jealous ex. Like having her be bitter about xaden picking violet over her but OH WAIT it wasnt actually about the man it was about the crown, oohh not like other girls. Im a writer too I see the point. I dont care. I think it was trashy. If you wanted her to be a bitter spiteful ex then have her be a bitter spiteful ex, the whole crown thing was shallow.

OKAY haters your time is up now onto the shit that made my heart hurt with joy and sadness

1) xadens arc in this book. I really liked that he went from "transparency is never gonna happen" to losing his fucking mind over violet and giving her everything. I love feral men and he qualifies. I think his arc was really well done and i liked it.

2) I appericiate that violet stuck to her guns for this book. She wouldnt let xaden off without a fight and I loved that. She made him bow and scrape and I was eating it up. It was spectacular.

3) the throne room scene. Violet on the throne. "Im making a temporary point not a lasting vow of maschocism" xaden being feral.

4) that gets its own point actually, just xaden being completely feral this entire book healed a part of my soul.

5) andarna's little speech at the end where she was like "I waited for you violet" made me ugly cry. That was just so hopelessly good I loved it. Andarna in general heals my heart but that part was just *chefs kiss*

6) tarin being completely and utterly ready to eat people this entire book. Just, at every turn "I want lunch their pissing me off " was spectacular

7) every scene their squad was in. Rihannon, violet, sawyer and ridoc are my roman empire. Their bond is so amazing. The fact that they launched a rescue mission for violet. Rihannon being ready to kill xaden at every turn. Ridoc being so platonically and adorably in love with violet. Just- augh happy cries happy cries. I love it all. Their so special tbh.

8) I love xaden actually, just, the whole book every scene hes in lives in my brain.

9) I liked that we saw a small bit of violet being feral this book too. I hope that we get more of that in future books. I want more of violet losing her fucking mind. Hot, badass women covered in blood

10) Liam. Fucking Liam. When violet was kidnapped and Liam was there. Now, do I logically understand that he was a hallucination, yes, do i care?? No. He was a gift from Maleck I will be hearing no critiques on that. It was so fucking sweet and amazing. I love violet and Liam and Liam being dead so horribly breaks my heart. I loved Liam. Liams death lives rent free in my skull.

Heyo, let’s talk about my girl Meryl and why she’s so critical to the plot of Trigun Stampede and Vash in particular! (Well, that’s true for any Trigun, but Tristamp theories are rotting my brain atm.) Some spoilers for Tristamp and vague talk/references to the other series ahoy!

Meryl gets way too many accusations thrown at her for doing nothing/not enough in Tristamp. To the point that I started a rewatch to see if I was misremembering, but absolutely not! Those first three episodes alone, she’s critical to how things develop! She’s a foil to Vash, just like Wolfwood is!! She’s essential to his humanity!!!

But it took until I was watching ‘98 for the first time this weekend for it to crash into me like a freight train exactly what Meryl means, just like it took Trimax for the full weight of Wolfwood to click into place for me. Because she’s set up a lot like her older anime counterpart (though no one gets the same amount of character interaction—Tristamp, I adore you, but please slow down and let these poor folks breathe). She doesn’t understand Vash at first, she even goes so far as to call him a coward in a really low blow for what she easily recognizes as his bravery (and sometimes stupidity) later. And while they both (well, pretty much all the Trigun protags, let’s be honest) share their bullheadedness, I see a lot of people say she’s just like Vash... And I disagree, sorta.

She’s just like Rem. Just look at that last episode.

The two women don’t have the same belief systems, they have wildly different paths, and they come into Vash’s life in incredibly different ways. Meryl may keep Vash in check sometimes, but she’s not a mother figure imo. But they still play a similar role.

After over a century of traveling alone, we see (especially in other versions of Trigun) that Vash is often used and abandoned. Even when he makes genuine friends, they let him drift in and out of their life—and to their credit, he’s good at that! He can’t handle any more pain, so he slips away before the hurt catches up. But not Meryl! She ain’t gonna let that happen!!! At first, yeah, she follows him because of her job, but it never takes her long to go from frustrated and fed up to growing fond of Vash. And I especially love the career shift in Tristamp allowing her a complete out, to walk away and abandon Vash when things get rough, and no one would blame her for it.

But she stays. Because she sees that he’s good and worthy of the love that he denies himself. She sees this vile, hopeless world that they live in through his eyes, and sees the beauty in it too. She’s the first person to have faith in Vash not just as a savior, but as a person—unlike anyone has since Rem.

When all hope is gone, when Vash has lost his way, when he stumbles and falls, Meryl—who starts off doubting him!—is the one there to pick him up and remind him that he’s loved, that his love for humanity isn’t for nothing. Throughout the entire series, she has faith in him. She chooses Vash even when he won’t choose himself. She’s tired and done living in this selfish world of awful people, and she becomes the anchor that ties Vash down to what’s good in humanity. She’s just as critical as Wolfwood in taking a distant, disheartened, and broken Vash and reconnecting him to a world that cast him aside. And we’ve already gotten so much of that in Tristamp. It’s most obvious in the ending, but it’s built up so beautifully imo. She’s not as flashy as our fighters YET, but she’s absolutely essential to Vash, and I will die on this hill. I can’t wait to see her come crashing back into the picture with Milly next season.

Do you think the WWBM Interacial movement has now got to a critical point where momentum has starting to challenge even the majority of White Women now as far as there choices for relationship ? May we as White Males even lose this group of females to African Men more then we keep ourselves ?

The short answer is definitely yes.

Because of my own personal experiences and also just looking at major social trends, it's pretty obvious that IR relationships (in general, but specifically white girls and black guys) are much more common now than they were 10, 30, and 30 years ago. 

I think there are lots of reasons for this and I’m obviously not an expert (I work in finance, not cultural psychology), but lets just look at the obvious trends:

Girls today are more empowered in general, and especially regarding sexuality and romance. I mention this a lot on this blog, there are less things hold girls back than there used to be. Movies and TV and culture in general are so much more accepting that people can love who they want to love, and that applies especially to society being more accepting of girls expressing their sexuality. I grew up in a time when dating black guys was an obvious but implied no-no, and it's just not the same today. (Note this is NOT true everywhere. Sadly there are racists and homophobes still, but they will probably be holdouts until they die.)

Black men are idolized for their physicality and masculinity by society more and more every day. Sports, music, advertising media, movies, social media and TV shows - you name it, black guys are constantly the icon of masculinity, status and power. This is really true for their masculinity, where we regularly fetishize the sexual prowess of black men in every day culture with phrases like “once you go black you never go back.” 

Porn is free and everywhere. Also something that wasn’t the case when I was growing up, but now you just pick up any cell phone and in a few seconds be privately and anonymously staring at an amazing black man and his huge black cock (or whatever your fantasy is).

Also in the last few years, social justice and institutional racism has become a hot topic, I think a lot of women recognize that the same old white male patriarchy that has been suppressing women since the beginning of time has also been responsible for suppressing Black people. This puts white women and black men on the same side on a pretty deep level, where they see each other in the same existential struggle for happiness against the common enemy that is old white guys.

Another interesting thing that I've read reports about is more and more young white guys who are essentially "staying single" forever, sometimes due to porn addiction. They make a sexual connection with porn that is easy and judgment free, which is the opposite of the real-world dating situation where they deal with complex social dynamics and competition (including trying to compete against more masculine black men who are constantly in movies and music).

So if that's a growing tend... then young women find themselves more free in choosing partners, society idolizing black guys, exposed to IR sex and porn, and more culturally aligned with black guys… and young white guys basically removing themselves from the dating pool.

As for me personally, I have always thought think black guy / white girl couples are the most beautiful -- there's a special passion and primal attraction that goes deep down that you just don't see with other couples.

So yes, I think black guy and white girl couples are definitely more and more popular. I don’t think we’ll ever get to a point where all white men are unwanted forever (sorry white boys who message me, desperate to live in such a world), but I do think increasingly empowered girls and wider acceptance of female sexuality will naturally trend to more black guys and white girls together - which is all beautiful to me :)

so i’ve always been annoyed by the belief that “sam and dean are toxically co-dependent, especially dean!” like it just baffles me once i remember all the times they’ve been apart without one of them being dead (and actually including post swan song to an extent), but i’ve never been able to properly articulate why i think dean at least isn’t really co-dependent on sam. like there’s a difference between being (co)dependent on somebody and dean’s parentification right? thanks!

I'll preface this by saying I am not a medical professional nor have I studied academic literature on codependency in great detail. That said, "codependency" is usually just a buzzword used colloquially to describe people who are obsessed with each other anyway. I address the colloquial use and how Sam is much more unhinged here. I'm guessing the colloquial use is really more what you mean, but if you're looking for something different or a little more specific than that, I can probably write or point you to some other things I've written if you give me something more specific to go on.

That said, there is something about the way fandom talks about "codependency" between Sam and Dean that bothers me, and I think by reading around about codependency today after I got this ask, and finding out that this term is controversial among mental health professionals as well... I finally figured out why.

I think to a lot of people, "codependent" has become synonymous with words like "needy" and "suffocating". However, the WebMD type articles I started with, suggest that the partner of the codependent party is the one whose needs seem to constantly overshadow and outweigh the needs of the codependent partner in the relationship. While the codependent partner can exhibit negative behaviors, the primary problem of the codependent party is that in being a caretaker, they can lose all sense of their identity and boundaries, and don't know who they are outside of being a caretaker for others. However, this is a more modern take on the term. Because these articles I started with mentioned academic controversy, I then found a few academic papers to skim, and this proved to be even more helpful in understanding why I... don't like this term very much.

First, the historical origins of it are... off-putting. The term "codependency" first emerged in academic literature in the 1940s to describe wives with alcoholic husbands who behave as "enablers" [1, 2]. I probably don't have to point out how different things were for women back then, and how rampantly sexist that context makes this first wave of literature sound, but it's discussed extensively in this article. Second, there is more stigma associated with the term partly because Alcoholics Anonymous (shocking /s) latched onto it starting in the 60s and 70s:

The influence of the AA culture in shaping the concept of codependency as an illness offered the idea that people who were close to the substance user were themselves suffering from an illness (O’Briean and Gaborit 1992). These people were viewed as enablers and coalcoholics (Cotton 1979). [ 1 ]

I... think I am probably not the only one who finds that utterly rancid to read (some academics writing on the subject certainly seem to):

According to Gus Napier, a noted family therapist, it is "ridiculous" to label codependency as a disease, because it is a culturally conditioned response of an overfunctioning person in relationship with an underfunctioning person (Meacham, 1990-1991). [2]

Some researchers who have pushed the term "codependency" as a diagnosis have actually suggested that literally anyone who is living with someone with an addiction should be called co-dependent by definition, regardless of any behavior they may exhibit, which tells you a lot about the lack of consensus and how meaningless the term can be [2]. The term (especially within the disease model where codependency itself is a from of addiction) has been criticized by many researchers for the misogyny through which the term originated, for unproductive negative labeling and pathologizing of people (especially women) dealing with incredibly difficult situations with their loved ones, for victim-blaming people (especially women stuck in abusive relationships) for the actions of their partners, for tangentially—negative stereotyping about people with serious addictions, and for conflating addiction with interpersonal problems, and in the extreme case—for suggesting separation from ones family is the solution to addiction and supporting someone with an addiction somehow always enables them [1, 2].

Since the original stream of literature related to addiction, codependency has rebranded and expanded into literature on family experiences with abuse and mental and physical illness. Which is where we get articles like this one I already linked. The codependent party is still a caretaker in these settings, caring for the needs of a loved one who is ill. Still, "codependency" is not an official medical diagnosis (i.e. not in the DSM-5). It's a term that has been used in academic literature by mental health professionals, when trying to describe a range of behaviors within dysfunctional families. These researchers do not agree on the term's meaning or on whether it even is or should be a diagnosis. Many are interested in it only from an interpersonal or personality perspective, which is also where we should stick.

Taking all of this into account though, I think the very first thing we have to ask ourselves is what exactly we get out of using the term "co-dependency" to describe Sam and/or Dean when the term doesn't even really have an agreed-upon meaning. Is the intention to write interesting character analysis, or is the intention to glorify or criticize using a term that has historically stigmatized understandable human reactions to troubled family situations? I think the goal has perhaps too often been the latter.

That said, I've already been referencing it, but I think this article does a good job of summarizing much of the literature, and then actually focusing on people who do choose, of their own accord, to identify with the term "codependent" because it is helpful for them in understanding their own lived experience and their patterns within relationships. I don't think there's anything wrong with wanting to explore this as it relates to Sam and Dean with the right motivations. If you read the accounts of the respondents who choose to identify with the term, you'll see shades of Sam and Dean I think (I have written something pretty close to the chameleon-self about season 1 Dean, and I can apply that one to Sam too through his attempts to fit in at Stanford). When it comes to my experience with these characters however, I just don't find that I personally see any value in analyzing Sam and Dean through the word "codependent" given it's lack of agreed-upon meaning professionally and colloquially.

It seems to me that the term itself leads to more confusing conversations instead of less confusing ones because of the lack of clear definition, and the potential for negative stereotyping instead of actual edifying analysis is extremely off-putting to me. It just doesn't do anything for me personally. The issues to which it relates I think are interesting (especially parentification which is a term I do find useful), and I think criticisms leveled against the term are also useful to read in understanding ones own struggles with how fandom tends to frame Dean as a caretaker who they believe is actually somehow responsible for everyone else's decisions. But I think that perhaps I prefer words and concepts that are better defined than the muddiness of the term "codependent".

Lastly: Even if I'm not a particular fan of the term, the fact is that the actual show uses the term twice—in season 5 (shoutout to butch--dean's transcript search engine). Once in 5.11 "Sam, Interrupted" (to Dean):

DR. FULLER Well, to be frank, uh, the relationship that you have with your brother seems dangerously codependent. I think a little time apart will do you both good.

First, this dude doesn't really know what's going on and thinks Sam and Dean are having delusions. However, in season 5, Sam's experience with demon blood is repeatedly paralleled with drug or alcohol addiction, and Sam is someone for whom Dean has been made to feel responsible for most of his life. This episode addresses Dean's overly burdensome responsibilities in other ways and it's also come up in the past in 1.12, 2.09, 2.10, and 4.05. I prefer to discuss this theme with much more specific terms. In this case, I would say Dean has an "overactive sense of responsibility to others", originating first with his childhood experiences with parentification. Sam also has a tendency to try and make Dean shoulder responsibility for his decisions when they backfire, and does so multiple times related to the demon blood (4.04, 4.21, 5.05). Cas and Zachariah also both blame Dean for Sam breaking the last seal because he didn't stop him in time (5.01, 5.02) and Bobby criticizes how Dean responds to Sam's addiction (4.22).

And then again in 5.18 "Point of No Return", specifically when Zachariah (my favorite manipulative angel) tries to get Adam to be on his side by basically calling Sam and Dean creepy incestuous weirdos:

ZACHARIAH So you know you can’t trust them, right? You know Sam and Dean Winchester are psychotically, irrationally, erotically codependent on each other, right?

This one honestly to me is just Zachariah doing Zachariah things. I'll reach these episodes on my rewatch fairly soon though, so we'll see if I end up talking about it more then.

Bacon, I., McKay, E., Reynolds, F. et al. The Lived Experience of Codependency: an Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis. Int J Ment Health Addiction 18, 754–771 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11469-018-9983-8

Anderson, S. C. (1994). A Critical Analysis of the Concept of Codependency. Social Work, 39(6), 677–685. http://www.jstor.org/stable/23717128

as one of the foremost psychoanalysis posters on my dash i was wondering if you've heard this account of freud's early career: while treating women for hysteria he found that most of them were assaulted by male family members as children & developed psychological problems as a result (seduction theory?). but his writings on it were unpopular (especially among the wealthy men whose daughters he was treating), so he came up with the oedipus & electra complex as an alternate explanation that let his clients off the hook, instead saying that something just went wrong internally (lundy bancroft called it the beginning of victim-blaming in psychology).

as someone who knows more than i about this field, do you know if there's any accuracy to this story? it seems to imply psychosexual development theory exists to cover up traumatic events, which puts a shaky foundation under any later theories drawing from it, and people often dismiss all of freud & psychoanalysis because of it...

yes its true about the history seduction theory but im not entirely sure if it is as directly correlated to the oedipus complex as it often is thought by critics of freud, and i dont think it invalidates the principles of psychoanalysis as a whole. his correspondence with some other doctors in the 1890s are directly related to seduction theory and you can see that the issue of seduction theory concerned him a lot and he was reluctant to dismiss it but was very influenced by society at the time.

another complicating factor is that much of freuds work was preserved by his daughter anna freud, who was for the most part a conservative force in psychoanalysis both in her own practice and in how she presented his work. a lot of his letters and writings are omitted and edited because of her, including things that show his own ambivalence about certain ideas and how his relationships with other doctors and psychiatrists influenced him to take certain positions.

this article goes into it a bit and you can see the ways that anna freud has influenced our knowledge of freud and a little bit about this period of his studies. i think another thing people really miss when they talk about freud is that so much modern medicine we currently use today came from this time period as well and just as much of the "hard sciences" also came from some things that seem pretty ridiculous and unscientific to us today, and many just outright wrong, but only psychoanalysis is given so much skepticism and criticism.

this is not to defend it, freud was absolutely incorrect in many cases and, contrary to popular views of him, very aware of the limits of his knowledge and the inaccuracies inherent in pioneering any new type of medicine. this especially he emphasizes- that any new science is bound to make errors and be imprecise. freud constantly was reformulating his ideas and made many revisions to psychosexual theory throughout his life, not to mention by all the psychoanalysts who came after him. historically, its not surprising that freud and the other pioneering psychoanalysts, most of them austrian and german jews already occupying an uneasy position, were led to revise some of their more radical discoveries that appeared to threaten turn of the century european society. psychoanalysis was considered extremely shocking and obscene at the time for even venturing to say that sexuality had such a presence in peoples lives, and that people were not moved entirely by reason and rationality (as this was the era of the enlightenment and a lot of optimism about science) so sure its disappointing but not surprising that freud retracted some of his more controversial views. and likely he would not have been as successful if he did not retract them, unfortunately. similarly with some of his writings on bisexuality that seem to point to the idea that there is no natural drive towards heterosexuality and there is no natural form sexuality takes.

the oedipus complex came more from other studies and freuds own self analysis than from seduction theory (to my knowledge at least) freud actually applied the oedipus complex only to young boys initially and has some stuff (that in my opinion holds up fairly well today and is compatible with ideas of construction of sexual and gendered difference we have now) about how young girls only come to the position of seeing the father as a love object after they realize through societal and family norms they are not meant to want the mother and 'unwillingly' (this is how freud and other early psychoanalysts describe it) are forced to identify with the mother and desire the father. freud rejected the idea of a parallel electra complex for women broke with jung over this, among other things.

im very much against this idea of freud as the founder of modern misogyny or the "beginning of victim blaming in psychology." this is a myopic historiography that ignores how radical freuds approach was in comparison with psychology and medical science at the time. most physicians at the time believed that patients hysteric or neurotic symptoms were either signs of a physical organic disease or that they were consciously faking them and in control of them. (why is freud the father of victim blaming and not these doctors?) common treatment would mainly be locking them up to be studied or dubious 19th century surgeries and medical treatments. freud was one of the first to ever propose that hysteric and neurotic patients were not purposefully consciously deciding to do this but unconsciously reacting to something that happened to them, that symptoms represented a patient history that may be unknown or unarticulated to them but could be brought out by associations etc. thus that no symptoms are random or meaningless, all have some psychic significance, and it can be uncovered through analysis. this is the most crucial discovery of psychoanalysis, and although i think it was wrongly applied to seduction theory, he shows it time and again in many of his other clinical studies and interpretation of dreams, and it does not invalidate the whole of psychoanalysis

I remember this one time when Meghan said in her interview/podcast (or someone said this in her behalf) that Meghan was bullied relentlessly in school because everyone thought she was perfect, and I laughed my ass off at how off kilter someone's self assessment can be. Ifnwo deed then how she and why she was saying this. And now I think that was major projection because at some point she may done some reflection on why she has so many problems with Catherine of all people.

I think this photogate scandal explains that theory - that someone can be bullied because of their perfect image. A lot of other celebs are able to shake off major scandals of they have a perfect public image. For example, if someone came and said a horrible thing about Meryl Streep most people would simply ignore it. But it's because there is a huge PR machinery behind a celeb,and a huge celeb is a huge money making opportunity for those directly linked to them. So everyone from the agent to the associated brand goes into salvage mode.

When it comes to Catherine though, because her position she does not and cannot rely on a project created narrative. she is not an celeb, or a performer, she is a famous person. And even though she has been in the public eye for nearly 20 years, her role wasn't even constitutionally relevant till 8th Sept 2022, the day she became Princess of Wales. And even now, it is because of the constitutionally relevant role that her husband has.

This uniqueness of her position, the subltle nuance of that, is hard for the layman to grasp. Especially an American audience that culturally is very celeb and money centric. I say this because I do believe that controversial opinions and the wildfire of speculations about her are majorly coming from American commentators. American social media creators who rely on 40/20 sec clips on tiktok and insta have found that "where is Kate" is the biggest most lucrative click bait right now, and everybody and their grandma now has an opinion on it.

We live in a world of Charlene, Dubai princesses, Thai prinesses, North Korean dictators daughters/sisters/wife but we don't touch that with a 100 ft pole. Because it's uncomfortable. Because we know that noone is going to do anything to look into that.

But Catherine and husband's relationship is a free for all, all day buffet. Because she made herself available and catered to public's sensibilities. And when she drew a boundary she wouldn't budge. So everyone's sentiments get hurt now. The same people who gossip about her now would happily call her a step Ford wife and a clothes horse but ohh and ahh over her coat dresses and shiny hair and lovely shoes.

Noone stops for a second to think that maybe this woman is feeling unwell, is recovering from a surgery, has a serious medical issue and would like to recover at home without having to put on makeup and fake small talk with strangers.

We cry about feminism and equality and women's rights, but only applaud women who exhibit overt ambition. If a woman wants to stay at home, and is able to afford that, it's problematic. We want a woman to value self love and self care but if she prioritizes her health and care above public opinion she is dragged through the mud. Her health, her looks, her morals, her husband's morals, integrity, family values, privacy, her children's health, children's right to privacy....everything is open to discussion. And it's ok.

It's shameful and appalling that not ONE journalist, not one person with power, not one paper, publication or news Network has publicly spoken out in her favour and called out the bullying. This is not a Photoshop issue. It's just disguised as one. This gleeful gossiping about her "disappearance" is a gross violation of her rights.

Everything you've said is spot on. It is 100% American busybodies driving the criticism, controversy, and scandal. We/they don't understand what it's like to have someone who is above celebrity because our culture sees celebrity fame as the objective end-goal, so we demand for everyone to fit into our model of celebrity.

And while I have to give Meghan the benefit of the doubt and agree that she may have been bullied at school, I don't think it was for being perfect. That's Kate's story. All Meghan has done, since 2016, is portray Kate's life story as hers.

idk if you've seen the new jessie gender vid about "transandrophobia" but it's not... awesome. youre a fellow trans dude i trust very much on this topic, so I figured i'd send it your way. https://youtu.be/oYTSxuVtR7c

it would be nice to have a succinct debunking of transandrophobia to be able to show people. ive read the autolenaphilia post, but maybe it would be cool to have something more up to date?

P.S.

congrats on the new book!

God, oof, yeah. Jessie Gender seems like a very sweet person, and she's been very open about being very sensitive to criticism and the dogpiling that she frequently experiences as a trans woman on the platform, and I don't think she should be giving so much credence to the trans men who are in her mentions complaining about trans mens' concerns being under-represented. I wish she had less of a reflexive fawn response and had the ability to tell some of her audience when she disagreed with them, because I think that's caused her a lot of stress in the past and continues to.

I really think the debunking of transandrophobia is as simple as this: androphobia isn't a thing. Misandry isn't a thing. Men are not hated or systematically excluded for being men. It's impossible for there to be an "intersection" between transphobia and misandry because misandry does not exist.

Anything that gets called transandrophobia is very transparently either transphobia, or some other prejudice such as racism or ableism, which touches the lives of many cis men as well. Trans men are not excluded from representation -- many of us have gotten massive book deals and acting roles and positions in academia in particular, and we don't get depicted as serial killers and sexual predators when we are represented the way trans women commonly are and have been for decades.

Trans women don't dominate trans spaces, and it's obvious fucking sexism to claim that they are. Trans women don't get all the resources, they just put more effort in general into creating community spaces, because women tend to do more emotional and social labor. (See also: fat men complaining that all the fat positivity spaces are made by women! MRA's complaining women didn't make a feminism just for them and men's concerns! make your own, dudes!) Trans men are men and that means most critiques of sexism are completely, obviously applicable to how they regard women, especially trans women.

I understand you want a handy authoritative text to point to here, but it already exists in the form of writing that trans women have done about the sexism they face: Whipping Girl for example being one of the most essential texts on the subject. We shouldn't need an authoritative man to say that sexism against women exists and that men need to work on our entitlement. I also think it's important that we not thoroughly argue with transandrophobia nonsense, but that we shut it down quickly and confidently as the obvious sexist bullshit that it is. This shit should get a dude laughed out of the room for being a shitty, misogynistic piss baby.

1. I can't speak for other cultures that were represented in this show (I'm so sorry if your representation was ruined too), but since I'm a South Asian and specifically an Indian and Hindu. I think I have some credibility. Ok, so this may depend on the interpretations of Hinduism that you've grown up with if you're a Hindu reading this. Well, growing up, I was always taught that Chakras were so important. I learned that the GODS could not accomplish something unless they access all their Chakras (again, this is the interpretation I grew up with it might not be the same for you). So the fact that watching Aang just be able to live life without accessing all of his charkas properly was a big slap to the face. Let me just say this right now. If you were representing a culture, especially the culture that you base the entire show on you either do it correctly or you don't do it at all. Don't make it half-baked because that's just disrespecting the people who follow that religion. And you're emphasizing how insignificant their religious values are (mind you Hinduism is one of the oldest religions in the world). What little representation we had was also ruined.

2. I also want to talk about another point since I'm here. I think I've made it very clear that I'm a woman of color. Even though me and Katara Are not the same ethnicity. She was my representation through skin color. And it's so interesting. How even though I knew that she was not my ethnicity, I still grasped onto her as a representation. Now this is not a PSA for studios to say "Hey, let's have a person that is brown, and everyone will be okay with it because they will have a person of the same skin to relate to." No this is me criticizing the lack of diversity in the show. The fact that you can base an entire show on a culture but not be able to handle a main character from that culture. And also I think the reason why I like Zuko and Katara ( I've made this point before) But the amount of respect that they have. As a woman of color, I have not exactly received respect from other men whether that be because of my gender or my skin color. So seeing a woman of color be respected regardless it's just so refreshing to me.

3. Also I want people to be mindful that a lot of people who ship this ship. Are women of color and/or part of the LGBTQIA2S+ community. However, I'm going to talk specifically about women of color since I'm straight. A lot of us have come from countries that have been colonized and still face the repercussions of colonization to this day, so what I'm trying to say is. When woc ship this duo they know what they're doing and they're not doing anything wrong. It's disrespectful to insult them for being racist and misogynistic when in reality a lot of these women face misogyny and racism in their own lives. They understand why they ship this ship. They understand it very well because they able to see and understand what is truly going on.

4. If you have a problem with this post and want to potentially hunt me down. I'm only saying this because I've seen other women of color be harassed for liking Zutara. I need you to remember that I'm a teenager. I'm a kid. I don't think you want to beef with a kid. And no, it does not matter that I'm 18. You shouldn't be harassing anyone over a ship. In fact, accusing shippers of being racist but then being racist to that poc/woc shipper is insane. It kind of shows that those people are not on a moral high horse.

5. I'm a kid......don't even think about it.

Hi, I’m glad you’re bringing this topic up without it feeling like you’re going to be rude—in fact you’re being kind about it.

I do wish she’d speak up on a lot of topics. I live in the south, but am not a “typical southerner”. I’m a queer liberal. I would’ve loved for her to say something about the reproductive rights that were taken away from my state the very week she played multiple shows here, but she didn’t. Or to have voter registration available at the venue.

But back to Palestine, which is an absolute genocide. I’ve been torn wondering if I’m simply wanting her to speak up on it because it’s what I believe is right—or do I think it would effect change? I don’t know the answer to that, but you seem better versed than I am, and I guess I’m hoping this is a safe space to ask that. What would we hope comes from Taylor speaking out about this? I am trying to think critically about this, so I hope you won’t see this as me disagreeing. I really do wish she would. I just don’t if what we’re asking of her would end up being performative for the public, or would it effect real change to save lives in Palestine?

Hi anon, firstly, I’m so sorry to hear that your reproductive rights were stripped from you and your fellow citizens. If there’s anything I can do to help – whether that be signing a petition or donating to women in need – please let me know.

Secondly, I do want to make sure this is a safe space for swifties (especially those of us who are minorities and often feel overlooked in the fandom) to express their thoughts because its important that we use our critical thinking skills as opposed to following someone blindly and without question (we’re not sheep, after all).  

To answer your questions, “What would we hope comes from Taylor speaking out about this?” and “would it effect real change to save lives in Palestine?” there are 2 main points worth discussing.

Firstly, the most obvious point is that Taylor herself believes in activism and has stated that "I need to be on the right side of history". For reference, please see her Miss Americana documentary, her Rolling Stone interview on discussing white privilege as well as a bunch of other times she has made her stance clear (Tweets about Trump, interviews in her Lover era, her speech during Pride Month etc.).

Unfortunately, because she no longer participates in activism and hasn’t for a long time now during the peak of her career, it’s fair to criticise her previous activism during her Lover era as performative or selective.

It begs the question, “Does she no longer care about standing up for what is right?”

Secondly, to answer your question: yes, speaking out and doing the right thing matters and makes a difference. And there are three reasons for this:

The principle: to be on the right side of history

Safety of the oppressed (recently, Swifties have been caught committing hate crimes against minorities and doxing Palestinians)

It makes a difference (e.g. donations feed the hungry and poor, awareness leads to better voting outcomes which in turn leads to better policy decisions).

I’ve already spoken about the first point.

The second point is especially relevant following recent events where Swifties have harmed minorities (see below). In this case, it’s important for an influential leader of a powerful fandom to make their stance clear on a genocide so that innocent people don’t get harmed.

And the third point is that activism matters because it creates a real impact. For example, The Weeknd recently donated millions of dollars to families in Gaza which means people who are starving and are victims of genocide can at least be fed. Because Taylor is a billionaire, she has the capacity to spare a few dollars to feed those who are starving like her celebrity peers – Gigi Hadid, The Weeknd, Dua Lipa etc.

This is especially important for Taylor because the IDF and the State of Israel use her and her music in their PR strategies (see their post about her bodyguard on the social media account of Israel). This is similar to when Trump and the Republicans actively used her in their PR strategies and spoke about how much they liked her and so she became a darling of the extreme Right. That was until she came out and said she was against white supremacy and showed public support for the Dems.

Finally, as @placeinthisworld so eloquently put it, “friendly reminder you can love taylor swift but still be critical about her silence about politics and current events because tbh it’s pretty obvious where her values lie now”.  Here are other Swiftie’s who are more articulate than me:

Anyway, I hope this answers the question of why her fans (including me) are disappointed in her decision to remain deathly silent on genocide.

post/734733274896809984/do-you-ever-worry-your-own-writing-might-come-off that makes sense. i was asking because i'm afraid of accidentally writing misogyny myself and i kind of admire what you do

Hmm... I wish I had better advice to give you on this front, but honestly, the only thing I can tell you is to consider the perspective of your female characters.

Women are people. They have thoughts and feelings of their own, so like... just let them have their own arcs. A lot of the worst misogyny in WC comes from the way that the writers just don't care about their girls (or, in the case of tall shadow, actually get undermined and forced to rewrite entire chapters), so they're not curious about their lives, or WHY they feel the way they do or what they want, or any direction for their character arcs.

Turtle Tail as an example. She'll often just end up feeling whatever Gray Wing's plot demands. She's gotta leave when Storm dumps him to make him feel lonely. She shows up again to love him in the next book. Lets her best friend Bumble get dragged back to Tom the Wifebeater, but is sad enough about her death to be "unreasonably angry" with Clear Sky, and then calms down and accept Gray Wing is right all along.

And then she dies, so he can have his very own fridge wife.

In this way, Turtle Tail's just being used to tell Gray Wing's story. They're not interested in why she would turn on Bumble, or god forbid any lingering negative feelings for how she didn't help her, or even resentment towards Clear Sky for killing her or Gray Wing for jumping to his defense. She isn't really going through her own character arc.

She does have personality traits of her own, don't misunderstand my criticism, but as a character she revolves around Gray Wing.

So, zoom out every now and then, and just ask yourself; "Whose story is being told by what I wrote? Do my female characters have goals, wants, and agency, or are they just supporting men? How do their choices impact the narrative?"

But that's already kinda assuming that you already have characters like Turtle Tail who DO have personalities and potential of their own. Here's some super simple and practical advice that helped me;

Tally the genders in your cast. How many are boys, how many are girls, how many are others?

And take stock of how many of those characters are just in the supporting cast, and compare that to the amount you have in the main cast.

If you have a significant imbalance, ESPECIALLY in the main cast, fire the Woman Beam.

It's a really simple trick to just write a male character, and then change its gender while keeping it the same. I promise women are really not fundamentally different from men lmao. You can consider how your in-universe gender roles affect them later, if you'd like, but when you're just starting to wean yourself off a "boy bias" this trick works like a charm.

Also you're not allowed to change the body type of any girl you Woman Beam because I said so. PLEASE allow your girls to have muscles, or be fat, or be old, or have lots of scars. Do NOT do what a cowardly Triple A studio does, where the women all have the same cute or sexy face and curvy body while they're standing next to dwarves, robots, and a gorilla.

Or this shit,

If you do this I will GET you. If you're ever possessed by the dark urge, you will see my face appear in the clouds like Mufasa himself to guide you away from the path of evil.

Anyway, you get better at just making characters girls to begin with as time goes on and you practice it. It's really not as big of a deal as your brain might think it is.

Take a legitimate interest in female characters and try not to disproportionately hit them with parental/romance plots as opposed to the male cast, and you'll be fine. Don't think of them as "SPECIAL WOMEN CHARACTERS" just make a character and then let her be a girl, occasionally checking your tally and doing some critical thinking about their use in the story.

(Also remember I'm not a professional or anything, I'm just trying to give advice)

I know about the origins of the Bechdel Test, but I do think it's inaccurate to say it's not meant as a criticism of movies that don't do that. I think that when people stop thinking in binary terms of "is this feminist?" or "is this anti-feminist?" and instead look at things more holistically, that you can recognize both that a character like Mako Mori is great, a step in the right direction for female characters in action movies and especially WOC, go forth and stan her and write all the fanfic you want.... but yeah, it is also a valid criticism of the movie (and many others like it) that she doesn't talk to or have relationships with any other woman in the film.

I think one thing to help people realize just HOW much of women's lives are being left out of media representation when we never talk to other named women about something other than a man in movies, is to just think about your own life. I talk to my mom every day, and if we are not talking about my stepdad or my brother-in-law (and I don't think we've ever had a conversation that wasn't at least IN PART not about them or another man), then it passes the test. I'm a professor and when I talk to a female student about her homework or project (which is, again, something that happens pretty much every day I teach), that's passing the test. If I order food from a female cashier and she has a name tag, that's passing the Bechdel Test! It's literally just constant for the vast majority of women on the planet, and that's what's being left out of our stories.

Like, I like the takes I've seen about how part of the joke in Dykes to Watch Out For is that this is *particularly* alienating to lesbians - as a lesbian myself I agree - but I also think it should be frustrating to straight and bi and ace women as well, because like unless you are like exclusively interacting with your husband or male relatives every single day + you work in a workplace where you are literally the only woman, you are almost certainly passing the test constantly. That's a pretty big part of women's lives that Hollywood is leaving out!

But I think it's important to view it as just one piece of the discussion about feminism and women's representation in film, not the final judge on if a film is feminist or not. Which it wasn't intended to be - as you said, it was mostly a joke on the extreme maleness of 80s action movies. Honestly, I do not miss those days on Tumblr where people were obsessed with declaring certain movies/TV shows/other fandoms they liked as "feminist" or "anti-feminist" and the really bizarre granular discussions people would have between two works that BOTH had a long way to go in terms of representing women. I remember people in the Fullmetal Alchemist fandom would use this to argue about if the original anime or Brotherhood/the manga was better - when both have some fantastic female supporting characters, but are ultimately male-centered stories where even a lot of those women's lives and stories are centered around their male love interests and family members. It's better than a lot of shounen, but if that's your bar for feminism - either version - you have a long way to go (and need to watch WAY more anime because there's sooooo much of it that is female-centric). I also remember people coming up with other tests that were blatantly silly: like I thought the Mako Mori test about "if a woman has a motivation/story that isn't centered on a man" was fair because it did point out a legitimate criticism, but there was that ridiculous "Tauriel Test" where it was "a woman who is good at her job." And it was entirely about someone just disliking that movie critics and feminist commentators alike were down on the Hobbit movie trilogy, which a) were bad movies, sorry you have bad taste, b) are absolutely not where you should focus your attention if you're so concerned about women's representation in film, Tolkein has always been a sausage fest! And her big thing was being mad that people thought Judi Dench's M in Skyfall was a better female character, and so she arbitrarily decided she was "bad at her job" and Tauriel was "good at her job" even though that's completely subjective and can be challenged in both cases.... but also, once again, why are you looking to the fucking JAMES BOND franchise for movie feminism! There's nothing like comparing the relative "feminism levels" of JAMES BOND and LOTR to make it obvious that this is 100% about validating your subjective taste preferences by giving it a "progressive" excuse, not actually about feminism and not actually caring about women's representation beyond how it makes you look good. And yet SO many people took that transparently stupid post seriously. I'd see professional articles mention the Tauriel Test as "one of the new tests" like there was anything serious about it.

And then on the flip side, over-reliance on the Bechdel Test alone led to some clueless conclusions especially in anime fandom, given that anime has an abundance of shows that exclusively feature female characters in school clubs being cute, where those characters are nonetheless two-dimensional archetypes designed for the male gaze. Someone like fandomsandfeminism did a presentation at an anime con that called one of those types of shows "feminist" and some Japanese user eviscerated it, but that just led to the equally shallow fandom analysis of "everything a Japanese person says about anime is automatically more valid" and "any Westerner who wants to criticize anime on feminist/progressive grounds is culturally appropriating and ultimately coming from a place of ignorance, even if they literally have a degree in Asian studies."

Wow, this turned into a rant about the history of bad "feminist media criticism" on this website. Sorry about that, I think I had a point in here somewhere. I guess that the Bechdel Test is indeed a joke and those origins should be understood, but also, I don't think it's wrong to say that it identifies a real problem and one that people could probably take MORE seriously than they do - but as just one part of the conversation, not the Feminism Litmus Test, and certainly not as a dick-measuring contest about whose fandom gets them more progressive brownie points.

--

I think as long as we grasp that the joke is "The bar is so far under the ground that we might as well go home and eat popcorn there", it's fine.

The real issue with the test is that people started thinking a pass was meaningful.

If you say something like "X% of 2020s movies can't even manage this weaksauce level of women existing", that's a meaningful statistic. Even if you got a couple of data points wrong, you're not factually wrong enough for it to matter because X is going to be some massive, massive percentage, and the overall trend is so clear.

But a pass is nothing to celebrate, and that's where we went wrong.

Like you say, litigating which of two big franchises that barely do anything with women wins on tumblr points is idiocy.

I think people are so unaware of what media that genuinely centers women even looks like that it's hard for them to even begin having a discussion.

I personally have been a massive fujoshi type from adolescence, and media that centers female characters isn't actually what I typically want. (Though media that is by and for women and that doesn't give a fuck what men think of this is.) I am also not much of a fan of slice of life in general...

But when I was coming out and figuring my shit out, being able to go buy collections of Dykes to Watch Out For was incredibly valuable to me.

Ditto the other lesbian comic books that were just sitting there in the bookstore. I'm sure if I went back and reread them all now, I could find things to nitpick or ways they were more for lesbians and less for me as a bi girl, but the really distinctive thing they did was let me exist in a world where media isn't all 80s sausagefest action movies where women are not people.

In fact, they were a world where men don't matter terribly much—not because they're dramatically rejecting men in some facile and reactionary way but because... who cares? They just had other priorities... and this was normal.

It feels like people who've never taken a vacation from really mainstream media just have no concept of what it would feel like to exist in some other space.

And I think that's a pity even if, like me, they later choose to go read mostly BL later instead of focusing on female characters or they genuinely love trash 80s action movies despite everything wrong with them. It's not just sexist media that's the issue: it's that feeling like the fish can't see the water it's swimming in.

ok um i am going to vent on something as someone with an outside perspective and people are going to be normal about that right. okay lol. im sick of hearing about taylor swift <3 as compared to a few years ago even she is like... suffocating. and i feel like we never advance this conversation because on one hand we have people who swing into full misogyny when talking about her, and on the other we have people who won't admit that she blatantly uses feminism to deflect from her problematic behaviors, or at least they won't like, do anything about it, and in this way she sort of ends up misleading a lot of young girls into like. girlboss liberal white feminism. im not saying shes a supervillain for it but you can't deny the ramifications of what she does and doesn't speak up about, just given the absolutely massive platform she has. she is the biggest pop star in the world

for the record, i don't expect taylor to be like. a normal person. she was very famous from a very young age and people aren't normal about teen/adolescent stars, especially when they're girls and women. she had her personal drama aired out in front of the world, had so much misogynistic dialogue surrounding her, from demeaning her success to interrogating her dating life (and never holding the pedos who preyed on her at a young age to any sort of standard!) and for many years people weren't very critical of that. it was normalized to be trashing this young girl's name and saying vile shit about her to like the entire nation and i dont blame her for being like, a little off after that. and yeah i also don’t think we should look to celebrities as our end all be all of activism and opinions on sociopolitical issues

but we've gone full swing into like. she is so famous and so big that her actions can be harmful and she does these things anyway because she doesn't expect her fanbase to hold her accountable, lest they be acting like the very sexists who tried to ruin her career. at least i imagine that's what the thought process is like, at least at some level, but at this point it's just like. this woman makes so much money. so much money it's ridiculous. idk how y'all fathomed paying so much for concert tickets but like i'll give props that they at least seemed to have some insane production/theatrics... so like alright. there's that.

but she is reselling the same songs. sometimes that don't sound that good. and making more money off that. yes yes to 'officially own them' and whatever. and releasing vault tracks and other versions of albums with different songs on them. but never all the same bc u need to collect them all. and the thing is some of them are like kinda bad. but you listen to them anyway because we live in a time of overconsumption/consumerism in late capitalism and it's like trendy and fun to be able to tell what song of hers is playing in the first millisecond. sorry or just your personal attachment to her. and don't say it's embarrassing to be a taylor swift fan these days she's like. so huge. and some of you equate embarrassment with having to hear criticism toward her. which might not be as common if swifties idk stepped it up and actually expected something from her?

which i guess is getting me to my main point here. can you imagine like. what would happen if taylor swift actually said anything about palestine? or anything of value in the world right now? no one's asking her to be a fucking scholar on it but genuinely sorry there’s like a genocide. several. the most documented real time genocide of our time i don’t care if it makes you upset that people expect something from her. she is time's person of the year. she has everyone from young girls to lesbians to gay men to bored football wives to dads to well fucking etc you get the point tuned in. she has dabbled in so many different spaces done so many collaborations aligned herself with so many entities who can keep up? if she, as massive as she is right now, posted something as simple as 'free palestine' or called for a ceasefire, can you imagine what would happen? i can’t help but think about it when day in and day out my feed is filled with screaming people being pulled from rubble or having their limbs amputated.

but she won't, because, quite frankly, what does she have to gain from it? she’s teaming up with the nfl right now to make some more money, she's gotta have at least like 4 new albums recorded in the last two years and at least um what three more that you're expecting? and she doesn't even have to like? write new music really? (edit: oh boy!) why the fuck would she be doing anything with her time other than poisoning the planet with jet fuel to visit her pr boyfriend?

taylor swift is never gonna be punk or what the hell ever beyond like a white liberal-at-best moderate woman. but if any of you could talk to each other and talk about, like, organizing in ways that it would be impossible for her to continue to ignore these situations, and just keep playing her tour FILM (how could i forget) in israel and etc, like if you could flood her socials or do a mass movement (and it would be massive given the sheer amount of peoples' top artists she's in) of not listening/buying/interacting with her stuff, until her agents and whatever had to make some sort of statement? like that's the only chance we've got with her

i'm not saying don’t be her fan, or listen to her music, or have an attachment, etc, but she's been around enough vile, anti-feminist, racist things this past year that y'all DO need to hold her accountable. like way more than you do. or it's going to be like really difficult to. tolerate it. haha. like you SHOULD be vocally and loudly disapproving of her actions when it causes a lot of damage overall. speaking up about her insane climate irresponsibility when we're having the hottest years on record is not the same as the people who felt the need to like pick apart her dating life on the news. but can we talk about how she's officially like. circled back and now is purposefully making news about her dating life? for her personal gain and that of the fucking nfl? lol. in a way it is funny for her to ‘take that power back’ in a way, of her image, and i think that’s how some people might view it, but like on the other hand she obviously is gaining a lot from this. you know. a lot of actual money. she is going to profit off this image of her being misunderstood etc for as long as u guys allow it and well i just think that has run its course. yk

continuing into 2024 (edit: and now with the release of a new album!) i don't want to see swifties automatically exonerating themselves from difficult conversations because like they feel like their fave has faced enough unwarranted criticism. or bc other people should also be criticized. much of it is warranted! and you guys need to grow up and be able to talk about it and stop painting taylor swift's face as like the Pinnacle of feminism. she doesn't and shouldn't have to be, and she isn't, and she should in fact be held accountable when she does really fucking shitty things on account of they're shitty! i don't care that she's a woman! it's like that meme of oh yay a woman democrat sent these missiles. oh yay a woman is massively damaging the planet and proudly dated a violent misogynistic racist, and faced minimum criticism for these things over and over because your only comeback is ‘well what about’ if a man did the same thing, etc, you refuse to just look at the situation we do have. yes we should. we should do that we should hold men accountable but you can also like not accept awful fucking behavior from your faves when you have a chance. do you think that’s helping feminism genuinely. use your voice use your power (your money) to like. do something for once. i cannot keep living in the taylor swift echo chamber.

and for the record. i like enjoyed taylor like back when i was a young girl and she had a few songs on the radio, and i honestly even had a moment where i used guys' opinions on her as a first step to navigate who i felt safe around in a very hypermasculine sexist college space. because yes. some people do need feminism 101 and some people's genuinely misogynistic rage will be demonstrated in their hatred of taylor and her success. but at some point we gotta move on from that. if some people will look at the most powerful woman in the world, who has enough money to stay away from them and an extremely massive loyal fanbase watching and supporting her every move - if some men take out their hatred on her, a powerful white woman, how do you think they view and treat women who are not white, thin, "conventionally"/eurocentrically attractive, or accessible to cis/het audiences?

anyway i hope that i can bring a conversation to the swiftieverse cause i honestly believe u guys could have comparable impact to like. bts stans. maybe. if you put your minds together for a good cause. and we don’t have to do the oppression olympics or whataboutisms or WHATEVER for forever. can we please move the conversation forward does anyone else feel insane with like where we’re at

on that note, i really do think now is the perfect moment for you to disrupt shit with your voices and demand better from her. it might not save the world, but it could make a huge difference in changing peoples' minds

okay um. thanks 👍

tldr i can’t do another year of swiftie discourse i just can’t please if there is a god out there help us

Watched some guys' response video to your big steven universe to see if he would have some counter arguments whole time he kept making bad faith arguments, false equivalence and kept saying that you are running on alt-right grifting hate campaign and kept arguing semantics. How many people do you think your new steven universe video is going to piss off.

Yeah I've heard of that one. Haven't seen it myself, but the comments it provoked on the SU video told me it was a lot of braindead mudslinging. The kind of garbage I've been hearing for years, but now in video form so SU stans can just paste a link and go "video now!"

Dude's made three other identical videos in quick succession.

Honestly I have no idea what effect that new one will have. The main angry response to the last one was "DID YOU CALL BECKY A NAZI?!" but this one doesn't have anything that misquotable. It's all a lot of more complicated structural and foundational critique, which tends to fly over the heads of SU stans.

This is just what Steven Universe discourse has been for the last five years. Its fanbase likes to claim I destroyed people's media literacy because I made them hate one bad show in particular, but the fandom has done a very good job elevating me to a position much higher than I deserve because this video has been living rent-free in their heads for a long time. They've wanted a big "debunking" video no matter how dishonest or disingenuous it was for a while, something that would do their thinking for them. It didn't have to be good, it just had to be something they could link on Twitter to "ratio" someone.

Steven Universe's fandom set itself up for failure by just demonizing anyone who thought critically about the show. I'm not new in this regard. People were critical of the show for years. Bismuth was hammered by fans of colour, especially black women, for an extremely racist premise and they were abused and harassed off multiple platforms. People complained that Sugar's claims of being really invested in gay rep wasn't actually showing results, and those people were harassed off multiple platforms. More often than not, with shouts of "IT'S A KIDS' SHOW!"

The fanbase always had that hypocritical view of the show. It was this deep and profound show that had a very mature theme and outlook on life UNTIL you criticized it and then you may as well have been complaining about modern Spongebob. It's Avatar at all times, until someone criticizes it. Actually did see someone going "imagine if people got this worked up over Peppa Pig."

There's no two ways about it. Steven Universe has a fanbase that is simultaneously abusive as all hell, and have not a single brain cell to share between them. And you kinda have to be. Anyone who liked the show and thought critically about it was immediately harassed off any platform.

This video got super popular and meant I live rent free in the heads of every single person who still likes this show, and I STILL didn't get anything close to as bad as what they were giving black women who didn't like Bismuth. The end result was that the only people left were white gays whose only claim to not being bigoted pieces of shit was "being gay and liking Steven Universe."

And that's why there is never going to be "Steven Universe is Genius and Here's Why." To make that video you have to like Steven Universe, and you also need enough media literacy to really analyze it and those two aspects are in direct opposition to one another. There are episodes of Steven Universe I love and think are genuinely brilliant storytelling, but any praise of those episodes will inevitably lead to wondering why the rest of the show wasn't like that.

Trying to argue that this show is genius is like trying to convince people that The Room is Citizen Kane.

I didn't see anything from somerton until about a month ago when he popped up in my recs and I ended up binging his content for about 2 days, but something kept being off and I noticed some of the lies/ignorance, and there was something really dismissive and weird about how he talked about aspecs and women in particular... I stopped watching him cause I watched one of you guys' podcast and realized I also just felt like crap after his videos.

I did end up getting his rwrb video in my recs when it came out cause of the binge and I just remember leaving a comment about the way he talked about aces in it. It was especially upsetting seeing people in the comments who were simply happy he mentioned aspecs at all. He replied to me just saying his cowriter was ace. I don't reply to youtube comments but I just remember wanting to point out that same co-writer he was using as a shield said aces don't face discrimination or conversion therapy, and in that video wrote that aces have to have sex to find out they don't like it. Being something doesn't make you instantly know everything about it, as somerton himself demonstrates with his ignorant comments about gay history.

I'm not really one of his victims since I avoided him as soon as I found him, but I feel bad for all the people he tricked and/or guilted into believing him. I hope some other creators make videos exposing the weird way he manipulated the queer community, cause I think a lot of young folks could use a breakdown of it.

Anyways I just wanted to finish by saying I love you guys' work and learning from you. You helped me understand why certain phrases make me upset, and that and watching your podcast back to back with his videos helped me figure out what I didn't like about Somerton, so you helped protect me from him and not convince myself I was just being Weird as I often do when I get Bad Vibes from someone.

Thank you so much for reaching out <3

It's so fascinating that you stopped watching Somerton after finding us. We've tried to keep things as professional as possible these last 2 years by only citing directly harmful things he's done to us and direct members of our community, and even then it was sparingly and as kind as possible.

When we first spoke with him about including Asexual representation in his future Telos endeavors, he assured us that not only was there already an Ace in the writers' room, but that two real, fully-fleshed out Ace characters were already being written. This was encouraging! After all, we had no way of knowing if he was the kind of cis gay man who loathes Aces or doesn't view us as queer. Since this didn't seem to be the case and rep is important, we supported him. We now deeply regret not doing our research on him first.

Even before his video "The Queer Erasure of Asexuality", we started watching a few of his YouTube videos for the first time and some of the subtext was NOT kind to our community. Subtle things that we'd see get repeated by his fans over and over again, like how queer art is bad these days because all the "artists" and the "exciting queers" who "really lived" died in the AIDS crisis. Or the implication that the Interview with the Vampire reboot was *more queer* because the vampires actually had gay sex on screen, despite this being a complete departure from the source material and neglecting the fact that Anne Rice's vampires have always been undeniably queer *and also* sexless. In fact, we didn't say his name, but we did mention some vague "bad takes" we saw about the series in our podcast episodes 75 & 76 The Triumphs and Failures of AMC’s Interview with the Vampire Part 1 and Part 2...At least some of those came from James.

We did not see his rwrb video, because we had long given up on him by that point, but it is not at all surprising to hear that he had bad takes and also hid behind Nick once again to shield himself from any criticism. It was very much his MO, and yet we're also certain we've heard him chastise straight women for using the "I have a gay friend" defense.

It is so good to hear that our podcast has been helpful to you. There are FAR too many Aces who are willing to let bad behavior or ill-informed takes slide just because someone with a decent following noticed us. We deserve so much better.