#acknowledging male victims is NOT invalidating female victims | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

burningtheroots · 1 year

Text

JK Rowling is not a flawless feminist, but she does more good than those who attack her

I myself criticized JK Rowling because the Harry Potter book series is very male-centric and sometimes struggles to get certain messages across. I won’t elaborate further because, either way, her story and writing are still excellent and her success was well-deserved. And most of the people who now tear her apart wouldn’t do it if she hadn’t been "transphobic".

And I also know that JK Rowling isn’t a flawless feminist, but I want to ask you in return: WHO IS?

JK Rowling has expressed sympathy, respect and love for the trans community and only wants to ensure women‘s sex-based (!) rights and protections. Women are a socioeconomic and political class due to their biological reality, whereas gender is a social construct. It‘s not hateful or bigotry to discuss the experiences of being female.

She has received rape and death threats, repeatedly, got her achievements torn apart and is regularly encountered with misogynistic slurs. Trans rights activists (TRAs) want to silence and intimidate her by any means. And TRAs already do the same with women who don’t have access to the protections JK Rowling can afford — which she also acknowledged, and which is also why she doesn‘t back down.

If violence and misogyny are the "solution", then the "problem" is that what she says is true.

And regardless of what you think of the endless TRA vs. 'TERF' debate, what matters more is what JK Rowling has actually done for women & girls in real life.

✖️ While TRAs invalidate women‘s sex-based rights and oppression, and even forced the cancellation/postponing of the symposium backing Iranian and Afghan women because there was a woman present who has gender critical views (https://reduxx.info/france-violent-trans-activists-force-cancellation-of-symposium-supporting-afghan-and-iranian-women/) although Iranian and Afghan women have nothing to do with it and are in extreme danger and exposed to massive human rights violations, JK Rowling has advocated for Iranian & Afghan women and also donated thousands of dollars to support female lawyers and their families who face death in Afghanistan.

✖️ She lost her billionaire status long ago because she prioritized charities, including charities for women (which is something celebrities quite often overlook).

✖️ She founded a clinic for a neurological condition (M.S.) which is more common in women than men which her own mother died of, while most people don’t even acknowledge that female healthcare is constantly neglected.

✖️ She set up a charitable trust which has been supporting the funding of women‘s and children‘s causes since the year 2000, which is one of the most feminist things you can do.

✖️ Only a little while back she started a centre for female rape victims.

So, perhaps everyone should get off the high horse and focus on doing something meaningful instead of sending pointless violent messages.

35 notes · View notes

aaron-scissorhands · 2 years

Text

Let's talk about something. This blog centers heavily around Johnny Depp but also male victims as a whole. That does not mean that I am invalidating female victims and it does not mean that the overwhelming rates of sexual assault and harassment against women isn't an important conversation, it is. But I'm speaking on a different phenomenon that is completely valid in it's own right. Male victims are not an olive branch to female victims, the problems male victims and survivors face are worthy of individual acknowledgement and conversation. Putting the spotlight on something does not mean that you are calling something else disingenuous or less worthy. Thank you.

#justice for johnny depp #i stand with johnny depp #amber heard is a liar #johnny depp is a survivor #johnny depp is innocent #anti amber heard #amber heard is an abuser

95 notes · View notes

cruelsister-moved2 · 1 year

Note

hi im not reblogging ur post bc i like to keep my blog lighthearted but i wanna thank you for calling out bad behaviour in the community while still acknowledging that trans men can have experiences with misogyny and less power than cis men. i see so many posts lacking this kind of nuance (in either direction) and seeing your post was a breath of fresh air also youre so right

aw thank you i appreciate this<3 i think we get a ton of crossed wires because when trans men are held accountable for misogyny they feel like they're having their own understanding of misogyny invalidated and being told that they have to choose between being a man and being a good person. the thing is, you can understand misogyny just fine and still benefit from it. i posted a great article a while back about how men in gender studies and women's studies can demonstrate an extremely in-depth understanding of misogyny and yet still benefit from & even perpetuate it.

the point i was trying to make is that misogyny isn't just men saying bad things and it isn't just men being inexplicably evil in some way. it's a system we all live in, and marginalised people are also capable of upholding it for their own gain (or just passively benefiting from it without even knowing) even when it's not in their best interests in the grand scheme of things.

tbh i feel like where 99% of people go wrong is not understanding trans men as like, just another type of marginalised man? we KNOW that marginalised men's access to male privilege is conditional and situational and usually it means power over marginalised women in exchange for obedience to white heteropatriarchy. it feels like we r constantly being roped into a childish debate over whether trans men are essentially identical to white cishet men, or are they something which is shaped like a man but doesnt actually function like a man in society in any way.

and the thing is... a man isn't an essential thing. manhood is a jealously guarded institution of privilege. marginalised men often find themselves defending in the hopes of gaining access to it, and sometimes in some contexts they do. there aren't monolithic male and female experiences. black men can know what it's like to be afraid to walk down the street, disabled men can know what it's like to have your reproductive freedom restricted, gay men can know what it's like not to be seen as a man at all. i dont like the conversations where both sides are trying to sort people into static victim/perpetrator categories. so for one side, examples of victimhood prove they can't be perpetrators and for the other, examples of perpetration prove they can't be victims. i feel like the fact that certain trans men's response to these conversations is "well im not perceived as a man/don't access white male cishet privilege in xyz situation" shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what privilege even is. it's all very essentialist!!

#ask #anon #and the thing is the vast majority of the women in this conversation are gay/bi/trans #we're talking about like. how it relates to us #like i would encourage men in these conversations not to assume we're saying you dont experience oppression or something just because we #arent constantly mentioning it #like im often saying things abt how gay men relate to me as a lesbian where im like #taking homophobia as a shared baseline thats a given we dont need to address in this case. u know?#if it was a cishet woman she would need to make concessions to that point. but demanding the same from a l/b/t woman would be kind of ..#exactly the thing i was talking about like assuming we don't understand those experiences too etc etc #so i appreciate that u understood that was what i was putting down even though i wasnt really gentle abt how i said it bc i was pissed off #and in a hurry dfghdg

11 notes · View notes

monipoka · 3 years

Text

Addressing Content Warning Concerns

I am writing in response to points that were brought up concerning my recent post. If you haven’t read that post, you can find it here.

Be warned that this is a very long post (2.8k words). It deals with the topics of pedophilia and rape. Opinions expressed are my own; however, I do offer some resources for you to better educate yourself on this post’s content.

I will not provide a link to the user that responded as she had no ill intentions. Disclaimer if the said user reads this post, I write with peace and love at 4:00 A.M. There are a couple of places where I may sound aggressive or petty, but it is analytical and not meant to invalidate you or your opinions.

Red = user’s response with minimal changes (adjusted for grammar and clarification)

Black = my response

Part 1: Age Regression and Infantilization

To learn more about age regression, here are two lovely articles describing what age regression means medically and socially.

“Age regression [agere] is a form of coping meant to eliminate stress in potentially triggering situations. Agere is not a part of sexual play and never should be. I believe [Moni] is confusing agere for age play.”

This completely misses the mark. I understand that age regressors enter a younger psychological state often as a coping mechanism. There is nothing inherently wrong with age regression as therapy. My complaints are that people are FETISHIZING age regression. As stated in my post, age regressors enter the mindset of a child commonly called a “little space.” These individuals are to be treated like children as it helps them feel safe and loved.

In my experience on Tumblr, writers commonly misinterpret Daddy Dominant, Little Girl (DDLG) or Age Play (the larger, umbrella term) for age regression. For the purposes of explanation, I am going to be using DDLG and she/her pronouns. DDLG is a type of BDSM relationship where the dominant partner (male) takes on the role of a care-giver while the submissive partner (female) takes on the role of a child. This dynamic is pretend and intended for sexual interactions. Keyword here: pretend. While the submissive portrays childish behavior, she still has an adult mindset; therefore, she can give meaningful consent. Once writers describe the submissive slipping into “little space,” her mindset is corrupt as she has age regressed; therefore, she cannot give meaningful consent making the interaction non-consensual as she embodies a child.

“Infantilization is treating somebody as if they’re a child. For example, ‘babying’ someone is the best explanation for it. This, in my opinion, is not pedophilia because it’s not inherently sexual. If it IS sexual, I wouldn’t necessarily classify it as pedophilic, but it is questionable.”

Again, this misses the mark. In a non-sexual context, infantilization is completely okay. My complaints are that people are FETISHIZING the infantilization of characters. I used this term as an alternative language to age regression because I have encountered both on this site.

“Age Play, in my opinion, is pedophilic due to how the 'older’ of the partners is benefitting from it. So if [Moni] and I are thinking the same thing, but not really using the same terminology, then I agree.”

Age Play is a kink in the BDSM community between two consenting and level-headed adults.

Age Regression is characterized by regressing back to a younger headspace.

Sexualizing age regression is pedophilic because age regressors feel, act, and exhibit childlike qualities; they genuinely believe that they are a child.

If age play includes “little space,” then it is pedophilic because the submissive has age regressed.

“None of these is what I would consider illegal due to the fact that both parties are consenting adults. But age play definitely is pedophilic. But, obviously, if both people are adults, it can’t be considered illegal.”

I called pedophilia (and rape) illegal. In the eyes of the law, sexualizing age play--given that the individual is of age--is legal. This point used the transitive property of equality (Trans POE) to point out the hypocrisy in condemning pedophilia but supporting the fetishization of age regression. To clarify, it may not be illegal, but it is morally wrong.

“Infantilization and age regression aren’t inherently pedophilic because they revolve around the idea of a mindset and not physicality.”

This is contradictory to your previous point and only half true. Age regressors largely rely on physical objects (ie. clothes, stuffed animals, pacifiers) to feel safe. While the root of age regression involves a change in psyche, it is reflected in their appearance and environment.

Part 2: Dubious Consent and Non-consensual

To learn more about rape, here is a wonderful article on non-consensual sex.

“Secondly, I’m quite confused on what she [Moni] is saying regarding calling dubcon [dubious consent] and noncon [non-consentual] rape instead of dubcon and noncon.

They are rape, or at least some form of sexual assault, but I don’t think anyone’s trying to mask them from being as such.”

I whole-heartedly disagree. It is apparent by the staggering number of dubcon and noncon posts that people use these terms to try and justify writing rape because they consider it a “fetish.” The reason I am against these terms is that writers never specifically condemn them. Oftentimes, writers mix the content of the fic into their warning section. So, by writing ‘blowjob’ next to ‘dubcon’ it underscores the severity of the situation.

“Categorizing both of the two as 'rape’ could potentially end up being very damaging. Rape is a very triggering and harsh word for some people, which is why I believe a lot of people use non-consensual sex as a term to avoid potentially triggering people.”

Again, I believe that people use dubcon and noncon to try and justify their rape “fetish.” However, if using the term “rape” is triggering to some individuals and the terms “dubcon” and “noncon” are used as a substitution, why aren’t these writers coming out and explicitly saying that they do not support these types of interactions? Furthermore, why are they writing and sharing this content in the first place if they acknowledge it as rape?

“Also, I think it’s important to clarify whether the 'sexual assault’ in fiction is dubious or non-consensual. There’s a big difference between both parties being drunk in a fic (dubcon) and hard rape, and it’s important to distinguish the two in warning columns.”

Drunk people can’t consent. Both situations are rape. The “level” of rape that you refer to, being how consensual it is, is more damaging in my opinion. Because they were drunk, it means less than if they were sober. This perpetuates victim shaming. She was asking for it. She shouldn’t have drunk so much. Rape is rape. It is never okay. And one rape is never better than another.

“Dubcon is also very important to clarify in fics due to the fact that dubcon is only a fictional concept. It helps indicate the level of consent given in the fiction because someone could be not triggered by sex under intoxication but can be triggered by hard noncon.”

I’m going to use a quote I cited from this source because I feel that the writer describes dubcon more eloquently than I can: “What bothers me the most about this situation, and what I think you are partly getting at here, is when people say that their fic isn't "noncon" or they say it is "dubcon" or "noncon depending on your point of view." Come on! Have the guts to admit that what they're writing is rape. Dubious consent bothers me as a qualifier because if you aren't sure whether someone is consenting, you don't do it or it's rape. No excuses. So, I think that people should just bite the bullet and say, this is a rape fic.... If people want to write rape fic, go for it, and I will probably read it, but let's step up and acknowledge what it is we are writing. I take issue with these qualifiers because I think that it is far more insidious than out and out rape porn. At least when we say it is rape, then we can move on to the next step: saying it's wrong, just a fantasy, etc. But avoiding the label perpetuates the rape myths that have had such a damaging effect on victims and justice: did she enjoy it, she didn't really say no, she was a tease, they've done it before. None of those things matter, and when a person labels their fic, they need to stop pretending they do.”

Essentially, the writer is reiterating what I explained in my previous comment that rape is rape. Another statement that I found describes how damaging fiction can be in real life. While most readers understand that what occurred didn’t really happen, there are real-life consequences attributed to it: “...However, not everyone in fandom uses those terms in those ways. And I think that's a problem that we need to fix. Because, especially when situations that exist in real life and that would be called rape in real life are labeled "dubcon," I think it does real harm to us all.....We currently live in a culture where not fighting back - because, for example, the rapist has threatened to kill you, or someone else, or your pet, if you don't go along with it - will very often get a rape case overturned in court. Where judges and juries and god knows the popular media will pick out and analyze every detail of a person's life to determine whether they were asking for it, whether they secretly wanted it, whether they could have conceivably fought back more than they did, why they didn't scream, why they didn't report the blackmail that was used to control them, whether or not their "consent" might've been implicitly given by winks or nods or secret handshakes or a general miasma of sexual invitation. In other words, we live in a world in which rape culture, a thing we all unwittingly participate in at one time or another, works very very hard to label things dubcon when they're really noncon.”

“Most people 'romanticizing’ non-consensual sex are victims who are trying to gain some sort of control over their trauma, so they have every right to do so. If a victim of rape should have the ability to choose whether or not they want to read/write a noncon fic and if they don’t want to use the word rape because it makes them uncomfortable, they don’t have to and shouldn’t be forced to.

As a victim of rape and sexual assault, I find peace in having the control and ability to write about my trauma. It's a way for me to gain back control that I lost and the word rape does make me uncomfortable, it makes many victims uncomfortable, and if I prefer not to use that word then I should not have to if people know synonymous terms.”

Romanticize: deal with or describe in an idealized or unrealistic fashion; make (something) seem better or more appealing than it really is.

If you are writing/reading smut, you are trying to get off. If you are writing/reading dubcon/noncon smut, you are getting off to rape. Instead of writing/reading about how heinous rape is and how disgusting rape culture is, you write/read fics romanticizing rape since as a reader you enjoy the content to some extent: it is with your favorite character, it takes place in a cool universe, it got you horny, you felt good after reading it. Romanticizing rape is damaging to society as it subconsciously makes rape appealing. I doubt that is the intention, but you can’t deny that these underlying connections exist.

There is a difference between writing to cope and writing to entertain. My intention has never been to victim shame. But writing non-consensual sex between anime characters and a reader-insert is a form of entertainment. Remember the purposes of writing we learned about in elementary school? Yeah, I have a hard time believing that this is therapeutic. Journal therapy uses reflective writing to work through trauma and mental health issues. In sexual assault cases specifically, victims often write about their experience and/or letters to their perpetrator(s). However, if this is your way to cope, that’s fine. But writing rape fics is not the same as sharing rape fics.

“People know the severity of noncon and dubcon, which is what I think [Moni] is missing. No one is trying to not make noncon rape because it is rape. People know that it is. Most people just chose to say 'noncon’ to avoid unnecessarily triggering others.”

Do they? I think to my previous comments in this section, people use these terms to downplay the seriousness of rape.

“And there are far more 'consensual’ fics out there than noncon/dubcon fics, so I don’t exactly understand what [Moni] means by 'romanticize’ or 'normalize it.’”

Two comments up I describe what romanticization is and how it is being done in the community. I’m going to ignore the number part of this statement because I feel that there is no relevance; If there is a platform for rape fics and people are engaging with them, numbers don’t matter relative to another type of fic. I call that authors romanticize consensual sex because it is oftentimes not explicitly stated, and I think it should be. The character(s) and reader are in a relationship and sex is a byproduct of that (I do not consider this dubcon). Personally, I have found very few fics where explicit consent is written in. People sometimes think that asking for consent interrupts the flow and ruins a moment. Works of fiction have an impact on real life, and writing/reading about consent serves to reinforce healthy practices.

“Going off of that, I don’t understand what [Moni] means by 'fairly young’ audiences. I'm hoping that most 18+ consumers are, you know, eighteen or older (obviously that's not the case in all situations), and eighteen is a legal adult. Most people over the age of eighteen are very aware of what these terms mean, and they know right from wrong. So, there should be no need to clarify what 'noncon’ is for them.”

My point is that this community is relatively young. I have not encountered many writers or readers who are over the age of 25 (if you are, kudos). At this age, you lack experience. Many of these readers have never had sex or been in a relationship before. While you might know the difference between rape and consensual sex on paper, some of these things are more subtle--especially in person. You referenced drunk sex as something that you’d classify as dubcon although intoxicated individuals can’t consent. I recently read a fic where the reader was drunk and picked up at the bar by a character. He asked the reader if they consented to sex and they agreed. This is still rape as you cannot consent while intoxicated since alcohol impairs judgment. Regardless of enjoyment, which the reader experienced, this is still sexual assault. Can you see the confusion by labeling that dubcon? What is a young adult to think when they’ve been manipulated into sex but told they consented? It’s confusing, so these terms should be clarified.

Part 3: Fiction

To learn more about how fiction affects reality, here is this interesting TED-Ed animation that summarizes fiction’s impact. Also, I read this article that cites more examples.

“Also, our writing shouldn’t have to equate 'good practices,’ because a healthy-minded individual knows how to separate fiction and reality. Give people the freedom to write about whatever they want, whether it’s in private or not, that's what fiction is for.”

You claim that you don’t want to use the word rape to trigger people, so you acknowledge that not all readers are health-minded as they could be suffering from trauma or mental illness. Likewise, some individuals can’t discern fiction from reality.

More importantly, there is a connection between fiction and reality.

“Finally, I don't think we should be so open with connecting real-life issues with fictional ones. No one is going to become a rapist or want to be raped because they read fiction on it unless they’re truly a rapist or have been raped. Equating fictional works to real-life problems is a little insulting, whether [Moni] intended it to be or not.”

Watch the video and read the article. Fiction directly impacts culture and society. It may be insulting, but it’s factual.

“Because in the end, in rape fiction, no one actually got raped. In pedophilic fiction (I don’t support it don’t get me wrong), no one was actually a victim of pedophilia. Because they’re all fictional.”

That doesn’t make it okay. Again, my problem is that writers ROMANTICIZE these topics which reflect poorly on society.

“If someone is concerned about pedophilia and rape fiction, I believe it would be best to work towards real-life solutions to those real-life problems compared to criticizing fiction authors.”

If you’re concerned about pedophilia and rape FICTION, I’d hope you’d criticize FICTION authors. Honestly, this seems to be a diversion tactic to avoid accountability.

Part 4: “No Offense, but You’re Wrong About Everything”

“Overall, I think [Moni] had good intentions, but it was poorly worded.

You pose a counter argument to each of my points and make it sound like I did not educate myself beforehand. You then deflect to talking about rape and pedophilia in real-world context to downplay the severity of pedophilia and rape in fiction.

I sound petty here, and I do not mean for my words to hurt. I wish that there was some communication beforehand since it seems that there was confusion. If my original post was unclear, I hope my comments help.

Conclusion

This is for everyone:

Please check out the resources I provided and do your own research to understand the situation before forming your own opinion.

No hate to the writer of the response. I just wish you would have reached out directly for clarification before taking my words out of context and assuming their meaning.

73 notes · View notes

darrowsrising · 3 years

Note

People that hate on Virginia are probably the same people that the only good female main characters are the ones that “are different from the other girls”, that slut-shame other girls and lack self confidence until the male character tells them they’re beautiful and strong and I think this is embarrassing. Virginia is an inspiring powerful badass it’s sad she isn’t getting all the appreciation she deserves

You are right and you should say it!

The people who hate on Virginia are the same people who say Victra 'is a bitch, but it was endearing only when she was on Darrow's side'. A female character can't simply be a human being to them, with the good, the bad and the in between. No, she has to fit into the 2D mold they prefer.

I am not saying people should stan Virginia or die, I understand that some people are quite neutral or completely indifferent to her, but when the reasoning can be summed up basically with 'I don't like her, because she's a bitch', 'she's weak', 'she's not important' and every other iteration of these, then that's a you problem, not a Virginia problem.

Pierce Brown writes compelling and extremely interesting female characters. When people criticise them for not fitting the usual sexist steorotypes, when they criticise facts - like Virginia's power - it's annoying and frustrating, because they invalidate them completely. Sometimes, they distort the truth so much, I wonder what books did they read. Nothing is good enough for them, these girls can never win.

This attitude has its reverse too - some stans are just so full of bullshit over their male faves that they instantly react with bias towards female characters when you try to point out flaws or mistakes. Some Sevro stans are incapable of accepting that Sevro was wrong about going back to Luna and after you show them actual arguments as to why he was wrong, they chuck it up to Victra, because she called him back and 'it was her idea' and that is trying to pass the blame and reducing Sevro to this doormat, for the sake of victimizing him and making Victra into 'the bitch'. Some Cassius stans victimize him to kingdom come, because Virginia 'made him so unhappy'. I get that her behaviour towards him wasn't the best, but going from 'she's such a bitch' to 'she could divorce Darrow and marry Cassius' and then to 'when Darrow dies, Cassius could raise Pax to be honourable and be the father Pax never had and be there for Virginia too' screams mysogyny to me, because she's reduced to an accessory that it's either wicked or good depending on how available she is to Cassius.

I get that people love Sevro and Cassius and they wish them every good thing there is (I do too), but there is a difference between that and demonizing everyone else for their sake, especially the women.

Now, this is not a trend, fortunately, but it's still frustrating. I actually prefer to talk about the unsavoury stuff in the fandom too. It's better to acknowledge and address this kind of behavior, than to pretend it'a not a thing, just because it's not a popular thing (yet).

Thank you for the ask! 💖🐺

Howl on!

#virginia au augustus #mustang #sovereign #lionheart #victra au barca #victra au julii #sevro au barca #ares #goblin #cassius au bellona #morning knight #red rising #golden son #morning star #iron gold #dark age

28 notes · View notes

sleepingsilvergrinninggold · 3 years

Text

I am curious about the experience of other male sexual abuse victims.

I have made this account primarily because I am very ashamed of what happened to me and feel very alone so I want a place to express myself while in a very dark place. My experience in finding support for what happened to me has been overwhelmingly negative. I initially thought that I would find acceptance, visibility and support in left and feminist spaces but this has been unfortunately not the case. I find that I am often invalidated or even asked to apologize for my (female) abuser. I only see male victimization talked about in invalidating token ways in these spaces and don’t know where else to turn. I have tried the MRA red pilled communities but it’s apparent to me that most of them only claim to care about male victimization in the context of complaining about feminism and dismissing female victims. To make things even more frustrating the only times I see male victimization mentioned in said feminist spaces is to talk about said MRAs. It sucks and has gotten to the point that I can’t talk about what happened to me without being expected to acknowledge and denounce the MRA’s. while there is certainly a time and place for this it shouldn't be expected for victims of trauma and abuse to do this while sharing their stories. It’s especially frustrating because I am far from the first guy who has expressed how many feminist spaces dismiss and even deride them but nobody is listening. Its clear to me that feminist spaces are not for male victims even though they often pretend to be. My intention with this post isn't to say that feminism is bad or anything like that but simply share my experience with being a male victim of sexual abuse in these spaces. Im curious about other men on here who have experienced anything similar and where they have been able to find places to feel less worthless and invisible because I feel at the end of my rope

#rape #abuse #malevictim #male victims #femenism #sexualassualt #mental illness

9 notes · View notes

whitegirlrevert · 3 years

Text

Are reverts adequately supported by other muslims?

Recently, a sister reached out to me and asked whether reverts receive adequate support from other muslims. No. No, we don’t. I am a member of a muslim women’s convert group on Facebook and we often have discussions about how reverts are treated in the ummah.

Here are a few of the characterizations:

The unicorn

I’m going to speak about my personal experience as a white revert. There aren’t many countries with significant white Muslim populations (although they do exist) which adds to the rarity factor.

We are seen as the ultra-pious ones. Bonus points if you have blue eyes. It becomes a fetishization in Muslim communities to be white and Muslim. After every Eid prayer I get a couple marriage proposals from men who know nothing about me other than how I look. The fetishization of white male reverts is also prominent (see ft note) but, in contrast to their female counterparts, this can actually make it harder for them to find a spouse.

Tourage, Mahdi, Performing belief and reviving Islam: Prominent (white male) converts in Muslim revival conventions, 2012, vol 1:2 at 207-226 Intellect Ltd.

One to take advantage of

There are countless stories of religious leaders taking advantage of reverts, particularly female ones. This is both grotesque and unacceptable. What’s even more disgusting is that we as a community prefer to unconditionally support these “religious leaders” rather than believe the victims. This is aggravated by the low support that reverts receive from other Muslims. Imagine finally working up the courage to out a religious leader only to be shut down because the alleged perpetrator is part of the establishment. The amount of support for these men – using Islamic themes to give them the benefit of the doubt – is truly discouraging. Islam teaches us to stand with the oppressed not the oppressor.

What does being a woman or being a white woman have to do with her experience of sexual assault being invalidated. Does this mirror existing cultural stereotypes of white woman = slut? How can we pretend that this doesn’t have a negative impact on our later treatment in these conservative circles? This is not to say that women of color don’t experience sexual assault, they certainly do.

Religious leaders hold all the religious knowledge and these sisters feel compelled to stick close to them to gain this knowledge. We need to provide safe spaces for reverts as well as sources for sisters to seek knowledge themselves.

We don’t know anything about Islam

I’ll keep this short. There is a huge difference between communicating information and haram policing. The line between them, however, is not clear.

This becomes especially problematic when you follow a particular madhaab or were taught Islamic practice through culture. Why? Because there may be perfectly legitimate alternative views and interpretations on the issue.

This makes it both confusing for new Muslims and alienates those who disagree with your practice but are made to feel that if they don’t follow your tradition, that they aren’t being a good muslim.

Instead, consider informing them about your view by clarifying that it is from your perception.

No reply to our salaams

A common theme running in discussions with other reverts is that whenever we say our salaams to Muslims we don’t get a reply. It’s like saying hello in a respectful, acknowledging way. Do we not deserve that from you?

Normally, when I bring this up people tell me not to worry and remind me that it is a Muslim’s duty to reply and some version of getting the passerby’s potential blessing in addition to mine. I don’t care. This doesn’t make us feel better.

Some people have hypothesized that these Muslims who don’t reply are simply in shock at hearing a white person say salaam (particularly if, like me, they don’t wear hijab). Others say that they weren’t sure if they misheard me. Regardless of the reasoning, I think the fact that most reverts don’t get a reply is troubling. EVEN if we weren’t Muslim why wouldn’t you reply…? If a non-Muslim is saying salaam to you then they are obviously trying hard to communicate their respect to you. Why would you respond by ignoring this?

One sister from the revert group mentioned that men make excuses about not saying salaam back because they are trying to avoid zina…Ugh. First of all, not supported by hadith. Second, surely you can keep it in your pants for long enough to say the equivalent of hello back. Or are muslim men inherently more fragile than other men? I think not. You can also say salaam back while lowering your gaze. It’s really not that difficult.

Non-Muslims treat us better than other Muslims

I plan to have a full post on this at some point in the future. This is a bit difficult to explain as I have only recently recognized this irony. Basically, the way I figured this out is that prior to telling a non-muslim about my religious orientation I would preface it by saying, “this is going to be really weird but…” The thing is, they never looked shocked or surprised when I told them. Contrast this to my experience with muslims, and it usually takes them a few minutes and multiple questions to confirm that yes, I am in fact muslim. And you could say it’s the lack of scarf thing, but honestly if non-muslims can accept that there are muslims who don’t wear hijab than so can you.

It’s really ironic considering that prior to conversion every muslim is all like welcoming and whatnot and then when you convert you almost feel like you need to prove that you are muslim.

I am going to give an example of something that happened to me while I was shopping in a muslim area of Singapore.

I stopped at a shop and asked about this smaller prayer rugs. I told the shop keeper that I am looking for a smaller rug to put my forehead and face on during salah when I am at the masjid for a long time. Literally no idea.

Next store over, I asked this shop keeper about a prayer rug. He, in his sales pitch endeavors said “you can give it to your friend, you can use it yourself”. So I’m thinking, great, this is off to a good start. I continue asking about this rug and am repeatedly using the word salah. He then says, “do you know any muslims?” I replied, “yes, myself”. Then (note the pattern) he says, “you are muslim?!” with a shocked expression.

To summarize, here are some things Muslims could be doing better to support us.

Say your salaams back to us.

Believe us when we tell you that a community religious leader has assaulted us.

Stop forcing your particular madhab down our throat.

Don’t assume we know less than you about Islam.

Don’t assume that we are going to whip on a hijab, now or at any point. Focus instead on teaching us how to pray and what to do at a mosque.

Do not tell us that you are making duah for our family to become muslim. I’m not sure how people think this is a great thing, but I personally find it incredibly offensive.

Don’t be mad if we can’t attend Islamic events. Sometimes we are busy, and sometimes we are just dealing with a bit of trauama from negative experiences from the muslim community. We appreciate the invite regardless.

Positive things Muslims do.

Invite us for iftar, Eid, other Islamic events.

Encourage us by being supportive regardless of whether we share the same views as you islamicly.

Empathize with our challenges.

Motivate us by sending us duahs or ayat.

Make duah for us and our families to have ease.

Instead of saying “In Islam X is forbidden”, try: “most people agree that in Islam X is forbidden”. An excellent example of how this may play out is where a Muslim has an assumption that all reverts will follow the Sunni school and that only the Sunni school is legitimate. This isn’t a Sunni/Shi’a debate, but the very fact that there are conflicting opinions indicates that diversity of opinions exists.

#islam #muslim #revert #convert #muslimah #reflections

2 notes · View notes

zukoshotleafjuice · 4 years

Note

The funniest thing about june teasing katara and zuko about being a couple is that she just sees a pretty girl and an attractive guy, both looking almost the same age which immediately makes her go "you two must be a couple" and it just reminds me of zvtara shippers, you know what i mean? I'm convinced one of the reasons a lot of ppl ship them is bc of their looks. katara being the female protagonist and also a pretty, smart and powerful girl & zuko, despite not being the male protagonist, being the most attractive guy in the gaang. Boom, a "bomb ass ship". It is worth to recall that "people ship zutara bc they projected onto katara and had a crush on zuko". And if they say they don't ship them for that reason, then it's bc they read too much between the lines in every interaction they have. So, back to june, she didn't even care if they had chemistry or if they were friends or anything, she just straight up teased them about being a couple lmao. Because in all honesty zvtara can be an appealing ship in anyone's eyes but THAT'S IT, it doesn't go further than that. I can be testimony of that😅Before even watching the show i was like june, one day i saw a zk fanart and was like "wow aren't those zuko and katara from atla? They look so good, she's gorgeous and he's hot" i already knew kataang was endgame and that mai was zuko's love interest but seeing zuko and katara together was pleasing to my eyes. However once i watched the show for the first time (2 months ago i think) i realized there was really no romantic chemistry between them, nothing, literally nothing, i mean, i wasn't even waiting for the zvtara content in the show that made ppl ship them so much, i was actually very neutral about ships, i couldn't care less about them, but i still realized nothing was happenig between them and that it was obvious since book 1 ep 1 that kataang was endgame. Zuko and katara were two teenagers from opposite sides of a war that tried to kill each other multiple times and when zuko changed sides they developed a completely platonic relationship. As i said, people either ship them because it's an appealing and aesthetically pleasing ship (water/fire, enemies to lovers, opposites attract, the common red & blue ship) or they just love reading too much between the lines, OR BOTH, because they were so thirsty about it they ended up convincing themselves there was romantic tension between them, that they liked each other and that zvtara was scrapped when it was never planned in the first place. Not to mention the reasons why they claim zvtara should've been endgame are based only on symbolism and things they have in common that are just so ??? Random. e.g. (i saw these on a post on facebook and the comment section was hilarious, it was full of ppl being sarcastic about it & making fun of it) saying they should've been canon bc:

1. "They both lost their mothers at a young age" (?)

2. "katara was good but had rage in her heart and zuko was bad but had good in his heart so it was like yin and yang, and that was the main purpose/topic of the show" (?)

3. "they both had alter egos (painted lady and blue spirit)" (???) this one sounds like saying maiko was canon bc zuko worked in a tea shop and mai worked in a flower shop😂

4. "Zuko was the only one who supported katara in taking revenge on her mom's assassin" (?) if you ask me, that just proves zuko is not right for katara, he led her to do something she was gonna regret later (not trying to hate on zuko, i love him, and since i love him i acknowledge his flaws. I understand why he thought it was the best thing to do, he's an impulsive and resentful boy (he would've done the same if it was his mom) and he noticed how thirsty katara was for revenge, ofc he wanted to help her + he wanted her to accept him and thought it was the right thing to do in order to gain her trust, but it wasn't) unlike zuko, aang tried to make katara come to her senses and do the thing that was best for her: forgive and let go, and it was basically what she did at the end. She didn't do what zuko expected her to do. She did what aang expected her to do. She didn't forgive her mom's assassin, but she forgave zuko, and she didn't do THAT thing she (and aang) knew would regret later. Aang knew katara and what was the best thing for her to do.

5. and the most ridiculous one, "they both saved each other's lives in the final agni kai"(???????) and the funniest part is that it was followed by "WHAT MORE PROOFS DO YOU WANT???". Honestly wtf did ppl expect? Did they expect zuko to stand there and watch katara die? Did they expect katara to just stand there and watch zuko lay on the floor & die? And this has been said a million times and i am going to join and say it once again: zuko would've done that for ANYONE from the gaang, he would've done the same for toph, sokka, suki and aang. Because he learned to care about them. As for katara, she would've done that for anyone too wtf she healed aang once too and even brought him back to life. (I wouldn't be surprised if zk shippers used that as a parallel for romantic zvtara proof bc they're just like that💀)

There were more "reasons" but they're just so stupid and taken out of context like "they care for each other" & "katara was the one who encouraged him to talk to his uncle" like yeah that's what friends do. Basically all zvtara shippers do is REACH.

Also, i just can't see it happening. I like the enemies to lovers trope, maybe if the writers really intended to make it canon, i would have been down for the ship, it would've been interesting to see how it developed, but,, they didn't, and later i came to the realization that if it would've really happened, it would've been so... weird. Time to bring up the "colonized and colonizer ship" and how some ppl feel uncomfortable about it. Besides the fact that a relationship between zuko and katara wouldn't have worked (they're incompatible af, katara is a girl with a strong character and zuko is a guy with anger issues that takes everything personal, they'd be at each other's throats 99% of the time) it's just weird to think that katara would choose to marry a man from the fire nation, the nation that caused a big war that traumatized her, the nation that took her mother away from her. Imagine katara ruling along with zuko a nation she despised for years. Fire lady katara doesn't sit right with me, and i'm sure it doesn't sit right with a lot of ppl as well. I don't see katara doing that, and yes, i know she forgave zuko, but still, she would've never done that 🤦🏽‍♀️ i think it would've been so OOC tbh.

Another thing i laugh my ass off at is when they say "zuko should've chosen katara instead of mai" as if they were ever in a relationship for zuko to say "ok imma choose katara i wanna be with her". As if katara was EVER an option for him. They never showed interest in each other, what's not clicking?????? And zuko only had eyes for mai, not to mention that despite zuko and mai had a rough relationship, no girl would've dealed with zuko's bs better than mai. Can you imagine katara dealing with zuko blowing up over everything? Because i can't. Also people saying things like "zuko deserves someone who is always there for him and listens to him" (and ofc they're talking about katara) like, ok, you hate that katara is aang's "therapist" but you want her to be zuko's therapist. Logic? Where? And I do remember mai being a supportive gf and trying to cheer him up multiple times. Did they watch the same show as me?

Zvtarians try to play the victims about how they were "robbed" bc some voice actors shipped them and from what i've read people who worked for the show suggested to go for zk, but that's stupid, it doesn't count as "they planned it but scrapped it, we were robbed". The only word that counts are the creators' voice and they have stated they were always rooting for kataang, so no, you were not robbed.

People are just so in love with the idea of zuko and katara together they really convinced themselves it was likely to happen. Honestly zvtara it's a fine ship as fanon but ppl ruined it for me and what i hate the most is when they ship it and hate on aang and mai at the same time and make them look SO bad to invalidate kataang and maiko. Saying aang is abusive and mai is toxic is complete ✨bullshit✨ and lastly, it's ridiculous when they say the creators were cowards for not making it canon. They're cowards for not fulfilling your greatest childhood wish? Something they never planned? It is THEIR show. If you hate sm how things turned out then quit atla once and for all and go find another show that you know is gonna give you what you expect,,, it's tiring that they've been crying about it for 15 yrs , like, i joined the fandom recently but i can imagine how tired old atla fans must be of this.

OK so I have a lot of thoughts about this and firstly,,,anon I appreciate the dedication that it took for you to write this, and I agree with many of your points. However, the attitude I have on this blog towards Avatar ships is far more neutral than what you’re saying.

Ultimately, romance is not and never was the focus of Avatar. Romantic development was always secondary or tertiary plot, and the entire show was far more focused on platonic relationship development. My attitude towards shippers on here - including Zutara shippers - is that people can ship what they want, as long as they’re respectful of each other and of the other characters that “interfere” with their ship. End of the day, shipping is irrelevant to the core of the show.

People shipping something because they find it aesthetically appealing is honestly,,,fine. Personally, I think it’s reductionist, but I don’t care if you do because everyone has the right to enjoy media however they want to.

That being said, we absolutely should call out racist or problematic tropes that we see, including ‘fire lady katara”. I also agree that it’s upsetting when people bash other characters in order to further their ship, as much of the bashing is also pretty racist and/or misogynistic. Calling that out, however, is separate from calling out every single person who happens to enjoy certain ships.

“She didn't do what zuko expected her to do. She did what aang expected her to do. She didn't forgive her mom's assassin, but she forgave zuko, and she didn't do THAT thing she (and aang) knew would regret later. Aang knew katara and what was the best thing for her to do.”

I understand where you’re coming from, but I honestly disagree with this take. Both Aang and Zuko were approaching the situations from their own life experiences, but Katara didn’t do what either of the boys wanted. She chose her own path, by both sparing Yon Rha’s life but also refusing to forgive him. The episode is about Katara and her personal trauma and its focus should not be on her relationships with either Zuko or Aang.

When I make posts such as this, it’s less about hating Z*tara and more about how this fandom focuses all its attention on romance and shipping, to the point where if you acknowledge a relationship’s importance it’s assumed you pair the two romantically. I don’t read Zuko and Katara’s relationship as romantic (for reasons that it would take too long to explain here), but their relationship development is extremely important, the two of them share tons of parallels and the final Agni Kai marks the culmination of both of their character arcs. Yes, Zuko would have taken the lightning for any of the characters, but it’s thematically important that it was Katara. None of this inherently means it’s romantic, but refusing to acknowledge the significance of the relationship between them is equally reductionist.

This isn’t an attack on you, anon, and you’re 100% allowed to have negative feelings about a ship. But at the end of the day, it’s not worth getting this worked up over. If I were you I’d focus more on creating/consuming content for a ship you like than bashing ships you don’t!

#kind of nervous about posting this but oh well #atla #avatar the last airbender #shipping #zuko #katara #aang #asks

12 notes · View notes

chibimyumi · 4 years

Text

Sexism against men

【Reponse to this post】

Dear @nunted,

✬Hello, first of all, men have to suffer getting their suffering under sexism denied :)))

✬ When a man is being sexually harassed or bullied in general, he gets victim-blamed by being shamed for his lack of masculinity, and cannot expect compassion from others.

✬ Especially in the 19th century, men were sent into the most dangerous jobs (the sewers, the mines, the battlefields etc.), and this exposure to danger was glorified as ‘manly duty’.

✬ Men were sent into death or a return with PTSD, and have to be happy about “being a hero of the country!!!”

✬ Men’s emotions were and are still being denied. Men are not allowed outlet for their grief, fears, and what not. Men have to either swallow these pains, or be swallowed. The only outlet men were really allowed was anger.

✬ Young boys were already being told that they cannot cry when they’re hurt, because “boys don’t cry”.

✬ Men were denied the chance of actually raising their children and form meaningful bonds with them, because “it’s a WOMAN’S JOBBBB”.

✬ A man’s value is defined by his productivity in a job that society chose FOR HIM. Anyone who did not live up to those arbitrary social expectations is made out to be a ‘lesser man’.

✬ The phrase “be a man” or “man up” is just a way of saying: “if you don’t live up to social expectations, YOUR identity is invalid.”

✬ Men are shamed for physically under-performing. “Can’t you lift that? You’re a man, right?”

✬ Boys who bully or misbehave are not sufficiently corrected, because “boys will be boys,”, and so boys have a greater risk of becoming socially loathed adults (from assholes to outright criminals).

✬ Men are made to bear the full financial burden of a family, and when he cannot he is seen as incompetent.

✬ Men are being pitted against each other in a futile battle of being acknowledged as ‘the alpha male’, of who is worthier of getting X, Y, or Z (often women), resulting in a longstanding tradition of masculine competition. (e.g. dick comparing is not something just done for fun; it reflects a very unhealthy psychology of lack of self-esteem.)

✬ A man’s success in ‘getting the girl’ is made into a measure standard of his value as human. Men who were not interested in ‘getting the girl’ for whatever reason were therefore considered less valid.

✬ Men are assumed to be ‘less refined’, which is glorified as ‘appropriately masculine’. But men were first denied the opportunity to hone such ‘refined skills’, and miss out on options that might otherwise have become their hobby or passion.

ET CETERA

I could go on, but I really hope that by this point you got the point.

I find it very ironic that you should respond in this way to a post where I never mentioned whether men did or did not suffer, on top of having explained why it is foolish to play Oppression Olympics.

Before anyone is going to respond with: “yeah but women......” I will say it again; we should NOT be playing Oppression Olympics.

“People want to appear clever by nominating the victim-champion, but perhaps it is best to ‘actually’ be clever, and lend our ears and compassion to multiple people’s pains.” (quote from earlier post)

I hope more people will learn to compute a higher number than one (1) group of victims.

Sexism is a systematic oppression mechanism that hurts literally everyone for different reasons in different ways. For the greatest part of history, women and/or ““lesser men”” have been made to suffer to accentuate the artificial superiority of men. Men meanwhile, have been made to suffer in a race based on unrealistic standards.

People would naturally find out that the expectations society prescribed for them is not right, and so sexism - or ‘gender roles’ - has been reinforced through centuries in the shape of a punishment-and-reward system. In this system EVERYONE is being punished and rewarded based on qualities that were arbitrarily decided by society.

Please do NOT continue this Oppression Olympics, because by doing so we are falling right back into this formula of: “pushing down others so one can artificially stand on top”.

I case you or anyone else is wondering why I posted this ⇊ picture and called this sexist, please allow me to explain.

The psychology behind narratives wherein a woman bullies a man, and that being played as humorous, is that it revolves around the (subconscious) sexist assumption that:

1. a woman can’t be a threat, so we don’t need to take her seriously. She is very infantilised and considered funny in the same way many find a baby looking murderous funny.

2. a man who is being bullied is inferiour, and should therefore also not be taken seriously. A man who is unsuccessful in deflecting harm or too “gentle/weak” to fight back is considered the clown - funny.

The moment we turn this formula around where we see Nino (♂Nina) bullying the female Phantomhive staff, he would automatically be called out for being a sexist, ‘a man who ignores and shit-talks women’.

If it were Elliot (♂Lizzie) who saw Ciella (♀Ciel) on top of Siegfried (♂Sieglinde), and immediately launched into a spin-attack for Ciella’s head, he’d automatically be considered a territorial dick.

The atmosphere would change quite dramatically. Why? Because we ARE taught to consider men a threat.

I could go on forever about the mechanisms of sexism and how everyone is a loser, but I don’t want to find the upper limit of Tumblr’s wordcount, or give them reason to introduce one.

I trust this has been enough to inform you a bit, but if you still wish to argue you are very welcome. But I advise you to consider your arguments or claims for a little longer before presenting them to me.

My Ask box has already been temporarily closed for a bit because it is a bit flooded now. But you contacted me through comment, so I trust you also know how to contact me again if need be.

#Kuroshitsuji #Black Butler #Sexism #oppression olympics #Sexism is for everyone #EVERYONE is a loser

183 notes · View notes

thefudge · 4 years

Note

Just out of curiosity, did you read JK's essay? I don't support everything in it but many parts resonated with me. Not to mention the horrific online abuse hurled at her, especially the countless, countless "choke on my dick" phrases thrown at her which are so violently misogynistic, it left me with a deep seated feeling of not only discomfort but fear as well. Idk I guess I just felt safe sending this because your blog seems more open to discussion from the other side instead of instant cancel.

i’m glad you think so about this blog and i hope that remains the case.

i didn’t have a chance to read JK’s essay until today (my previous ask about her was written before that) but here are some very, very imperfect thoughts on it:

the essay confirmed my previous take that she has inoculated herself against certain outside arguments but it’s also made me wonder about JK’s understanding of gender and sex. She is very attached to “natal women” and calling all people who menstruate “women” because of “common experiences”, despite the fact that her beloved de Beauvoir, whom she quotes in the essay extensively, acknowledged that “woman” is a social construct. JK herself at one point complains about having to comply with the rules of femininity while growing up and how it made her want to stop being female, so what is the truth? She argues that young girls shouldn’t be thinking about transitioning just because they are made to hate their femaleness but that’s!!! exactly what!!! pushing the term “woman” as sacrosanct does to girls!!! most of what JK felt in her childhood was the kind of misogyny which connects women strictly to their uterus. it made being male a better alternative precisely because of the gate-keeping of penis/vagina. a young girl who acted like a tomboy, for instance, would be criticized for trying to deny her sex, because deep down her biology still made her a “woman”. both sex and gender cannot be divorced from socio-cultural realities, because we act with our bodies and embody what we act. so, if we expand what it means to be a “man” and a “woman”, we liberate, not confine. JK wants young people to feel free to be whoever they want to be, but they must be called “women” when discussing menstruation or else (i won’t even go into the obvious addition that many cis and trans women exist who cannot or no longer menstruate).

Now, she does bring up some fair points about cancel culture and freedom of expression that I will level with, but the problem is that the nuancing she is trying to achieve also serves as weirdly specific dog-whistling. So let me address that:

(warning: spoilers for the Cormoran Strike series)

Right off the bat, we have this explanation added in her intro:

“On one level, my interest in this issue has been professional, because I’m writing a crime series, set in the present day, and my fictional female detective is of an age to be interested in, and affected by, these issues herself (...)”

and already, i’m asking questions. how is Robin Ellacott, one of the protagonists of the Strike series, “affected" by these issues, personally? she’s “of an age” to...what? be gender critical? there’s not a lot of that in the novels (unless you count Robin being tall and knowing how to drive well being framed as anti-girly...). How does crime relate to it? How is she connected to this really?

the real connection JK wants us to see because she’ll reveal it later in the essay is that Robin was r*ped in college. she’s a sexual assault survivor, which must make her critically engaged with the fate of trans women because....because underneath JK’s empty statement about her female detective....is the correlation that men “disguised” as trans women can perpetrate the same sort of horrific abuse. she keeps making this correlation throughout the essay.

Here she talks about various people who’ve reached out to her:

They’re worried about the dangers to young people, gay people and about the erosion of women’s and girl’s rights. Above all, they’re worried about a climate of fear that serves nobody – least of all trans youth – well.

And again here:

“So I want trans women to be safe. At the same time, I do not want to make natal girls and women less safe. When you throw open the doors of bathrooms and changing rooms to any man who believes or feels he’s a woman – and, as I’ve said, gender confirmation certificates may now be granted without any need for surgery or hormones – then you open the door to any and all men who wish to come inside. That is the simple truth.”

This one is my favorite because it’s so twisted (here she’s listing her charity work):

“The second reason is that I’m an ex-teacher and the founder of a children’s charity, which gives me an interest in both education and safeguarding. Like many others, I have deep concerns about the effect the trans rights movement is having on both.”

“safeguarding”

hmmmm

What JK wants to spell out with these “common sense” arguments is that she fears that trans women are predatory, and the most convincing argument she can bring, ultimately, is that she herself has been the victim of sexual abuse and therefore, that potential fear never goes away. That’s a very dangerous leap to make. The climate of “fear” she mentions is also connected to cancel culture, of course. She fears women won’t be able to express their opinions online without receiving various amounts of vitriol. But you see how she has merged all three issues together? So that if you agree with one, you must agree with the others. Because yes, cancel culture often goes too far, and yes it is a real issue, but to say that the trans community shutting her down foments the same atmosphere of “fear” as boogie trans women hurting children in bathrooms and her being abused by her cis husband… that’s a veeery slippery slope. Instead of sticking to “freedom of speech” and whatnot, she keeps correlating these issues that should not be correlated (some of them being false issues, as well).

Is there too much opprobrium around discussions of trans identity? Yes. Are there worthy discussions to be had about young women, homophobia and gender dysphoria? Absolutely. Can being trans become a fashionable trend/identity among kids, like the bygone goth and emo labels? Sure, but these discussions shouldn’t be had at the expense of trans people who have to constantly prove that they “mean” it. Because by stringing up all these issues together, JK is saying “the kids don’t know any better, and the adults are faking it”. Yes, cancel culture is impeding dialogue, yes, we shouldn’t shy away from discussing young teens’ identity problems, but if you pile up all of these things in a giant “trans women are the problem and they might be predatory too” milkshake, you won’t get anywhere.

I want to come back to this quote:

The second reason is that I’m an ex-teacher and the founder of a children’s charity, which gives me an interest in both education and safeguarding. Like many others, I have deep concerns about the effect the trans rights movement is having on both.

Beyond the (in my opinion) not very tasteful enumeration of things she’s done to help, JK’s mention of “education” there is veeery interesting. On the one hand, she probably feels that schools will try to censor “free speech”, but on the other hand, I bet she’s also concerned schools will not do enough censoring, so that impressionable kids become pressured into adopting a trans identity. You see how it flips on a dime? What does she ultimately want children to learn about this? Does she want them to be kept in the dark completely? Does she want them to be allowed to critique or invalidate trans identities without being censored? On this second point, things get complicated. Schools and institutions will naturally censor free speech. Kids are there to learn how to express that free speech; they will be told “hey, don’t say that to your colleague, it’s not very kind” or “you need to structure your argument appropriately instead of just saying “I don’t like it””. Is there room for criticism in how schools operate that benevolent censorship? Obviously. Hell, Foucault & co. have been talking about this for decades. So what does this argument about education ultimately mean? What are we protecting the kids from? Imo, it goes back to that covert argument about sexual violence.

Since I’m a teacher too, I’ll talk about my own experience: I brought some texts to my undergrad class about the trans experience with the goal of 1) building empathy, because literature is the grand unifier of experience and 2) showing different literary perspectives which i also included within literary theory. ultimately, the trans experience is about being human. we were learning about being human, nothing more, nothing less. if younger kids end up treating it as a fad it means that a) they need more, not less education, b) parents and schools should work together to make them understand that being trans is not the same as being “emo”, for instance. this partially resembles the trend of white kids adopting black culture just because it’s cool, but not actually engaging with the black experience. who do you sanction for this? black people? because in this analogy, the trans community should be responsible for children not benefiting from education and parental support.

oh, I know what JK is saying. the trans community is responsible for shutting down conversations about this. it’s part of the general climate of tiptoeing around trans issues. yes, here I can agree with her that Twitter discourse either helps build sympathy or loathing for the “cancelled” person instead of seriously grappling with what that person has done. it’s the nature of Twitter and I hate it, but to go from that to saying women and young girls are in danger from other “fake” women really undermines her own argument. There are normal pitfalls as we try to incrementally do some good in this world. Cancel culture and the deplatforming and ruining of lives of certain individuals will not promote the cause and is certainly to be frowned upon, but JK will be absolutely fine. there are hashtags right now like “istandwithJK” and there’s a slew of people who support her. the misogyny she faces is deplorable, but we shouldn’t conflate valid criticism with trollish vulgarities. I don’t want to minimize the dangers of online culture; I know people have lost jobs and livelihood, but that is a discussion to be had under different parameters, admitting the responsibility of both parties (for example, maya forstater realizing that maybe saying some hurtful things about public figures and proudly talking about the “delusion” of transwomen will come back to bite her in the ass) and the fact that under capitalism, your job is always at the whim of appearances and simulacrums. essentially, you are the job. this is a state of things that deserves a larger discussion not on the back of the trans community. should we live in a world where you are allowed to say anything, free of consequences? some of us do, because we can say whatever we want in our head, in our room, in our house (other ppl aren’t so lucky), but the trouble starts in the public sphere. even if we wanted to build a public sphere where everything goes, we’d be at each other’s throats in five seconds anyway because we’re human. the most we can do is educate and correct where we can. “facts don’t care about your feelings” discourse is often not informed by facts at all and forgets the vital importance of feelings.

anyway, that’s my incomplete take. still lots to think about and debate. ultimately, i think any fair points JK brought up were tainted by other bad-faith arguments and i wish she’d use this time to self-reflect because this isn’t a topic that should be breezed past in 3k words. nor should young trans ppl be called “adorable” (facepalm). i myself have many questions and constantly grapple with all of this, but since she’s a writer (and for better or worse, i still like her books), she is in a perfect position to investigate the matter with kindness and stop giving ultimatums. and i hope this post fosters discussion and doesn’t shut anyone down.

( forgot to mention that other nifty subplot in the Strike series about these really unlikable kids who are transabled and experience BID ( Body integrity dysphoria) and want to have a disability. Strike is super-offended by them since he’s genuinely disabled and we as readers are meant to think they’re real pieces of shit, and while transableism is suuuuper complicated and my thoughts on it vary wildly, i do think those BID kids also stand in for other folks in her mind..again, food for thought.)

#jk rowling #j.k. rowling #tw transphobia #replies #tw r*pe

31 notes · View notes

princesskokichi · 4 years

Note

HAPPY NON-BINARY DAY MIYA!! I LOVE YOU SO MUCH!! YOUR VALID!! AHAHAHAAHAH 🥺🥺🥺💕 - Kiibo SIMp 😭💖

aaaaaa !!! thank you so so so much !!! i love you just as much and thank you for being such a sweetheart !!!

~ storytime with miya ~

[ warning : personal story, mentions of ab*se, h*r*ssment, family issues ]

i struggled a lot while trying to figure out who i am. while most kids my age were starting to get partners and going on dates, and i didn’t want to ever. i thought that having a partner meant that i had to be someone’s girlfriend - i had to have sex with someone. i didn’t want either. i didn’t want to be called “ girlfriend “ and i didn’t want to have sex. i was constantly told that my lack of clinging to my gender or sexuality was because of the abuse and trauma i endured during my childhood. that’s what people labeled me as. a scarred girl with too much trauma.

i simply didn’t care about anything that most people cared about, because it had no meaning to me. i would do things that would be considered lewd or nasty to other people, like sitting with my legs spread out while wearing a dress or not caring if i wore a bra or if my shirt was showing too much cleavage. i didn’t care. i still don’t care, really, but i’ve learned what’s considered to be socially acceptable, but sometimes i still get pissed off because my brother can go without a shirt around home and i can’t not wear pants even though my underwear covers everything.

my body is just a human body, i don’t really think of any part of me being “ sexual “ or “ nonsexual. “ it wasn’t made for sex, it was made to help me continue living every day.

while a lot of people who experience childhood trauma similar to what i went through go on to be hypersexual or extremely uncomfortable about sexual situations, i didn’t. i felt,, empty when talking about things such as sexuality or gender. i experienced having crushes, and i know i’m romantically attracted to all genders but. i’ve never experienced actual “ lust “ or wanting to be sexual with anyone. sometimes i thought i did, but every time i thought about it deeper, it turned out that i was just missing being intimate with someone. sex has no meaning to me other than being intimate with the other partner and having children. in the future, i think the only reason i would engage in sex is for children only. it holds no meaning to me, although i like to joke about it. i like to say i would fuck aizawa sensei senseless, but in real life i wouldn’t.

every time i would get into a situation that looked like it was heading that way, i would clam up. i wouldn’t get fearful or nervous, i just felt out of place. i felt like i didn’t want to be there, that eating pizza and watching netflix was better that what i was doing at that moment. so any time i would have a partner, i would turn them down if things got too heated. i lost a lot of good people that way. likewise, i myself wouldn’t realize i was being lewd with them. i would take off my shirt while chilling with them because i thought it was hot. it wasn’t me going to initiate sex, i was just trying to get comfortable. but i never learned how to convey that to anyone. even still, i don’t think i could if someone asked me to explain my lack of sexual interest.

i didn’t see my body as something sexual, and i would forget that other’s did. my body was just,, my body. that was it.

i felt odd about not caring about sexuality or gender. i wore what i want, and i didn’t care what anyone called me. but for some reason, i had a problem with my deadname. i hated it. i still hate it. so it never made sense to me that i would care about such an arbitrary thing when things that have other people so caught up and that everyone around me seemed to care about. i loved who i loved, and i dressed how i wanted. to be honest, i still wonder what prompted me to be so different from other normal trauma victims, but i doubt i’ll ever know the answer to that. life is fickle like that.

but because i never felt any ties to my personal gender, i felt,, out of the loop on some things. i liked wearing dresses but i didn’t feel like a girl. i wore make up but didn’t feel feminine. my body grew as i got older and i grew into this mature female form, but i never felt like a / girl /.

likewise, i never felt like a boy. i liked to rough-house and fight around with the boys but never felt like i was one. i liked to cut my hair short and dress like a guy but i never felt like i was one. for the longest time i thought i was experiencing dysphoria about my body, so i believed i was trans for a little while. i thought it was weird that i was trans but still liked to dress and act like a girl at some points. i didn’t know what was going on.

however, i still didn’t care about what pronouns people used for me, although i found that most trans are adamant for their pronouns because it’s the only thing that links them to their gender other than their name. i didn’t care what people called me. i was the mom-friend in my irl friend group, but the big-brother to my online group chat. even though my name - miya - is feminine in connotation, i never felt / female / but never felt / male / either.

i knew that nonbinary existed, but i think i was in denial. i think it was some internalized cissexism ( i think that’s the word. please correct me if i’m wrong ) because it didn’t make sense to me that that could be a thing when it seemed like everyone else was so hooked on gender and sexuality. i began to believe that being ace and nonbinary was taboo of sorts. i thought that i was built wrong. that everyone had sexual attraction, and everyone felt connected to a gender. i was so wrong back then.

a little while after i realized i wasn’t trans, i got a bit of hate for slandering the name of transpeople. a few people online were calling me fake and invalid, that i wsa / wrong / and they basically voiced every fear that i had held in for so long. i was lost after that. i didn’t know who i was, or where i was going. i was young and dumb, even though it was only a little while ago.

it was a slow process coming to acknowledge that i was nonbinary, more specifically, that i was completely ambiguous. there’s a difference in nonbinary - which is not conforming to either gender - and ambiguous - which is having no gender at all. ambiguous is a subset of the umbrella term nonbinary. at first i changed my pronouns on twitter from she/her to she/they, and much later i added she/they/he to that list. but i opted to never specify my gender. it was easier that way. no one seemed to really care that i had no gender, they just wanted to know what to refer to me as.

later on down the line, i used the word nonbinary for the first time. and it felt,, refreshing. i think that i was finally coming to realize who i was. i used the term nonbinary to describe me for a long time, thinking that that word fit me. and it does - it’s my umbrella term. but my specific gender is amibiguous, a word i just started using very recently.

and having recognized my gender has been a load off of my shoulders. i get to be who i am. if people think i’m female, good for them. if they think i’m male, yay. if they think i’m trans, or anything in any other spectrum, i’m happy for them. i don’t mind what anyone calls me. my gender is perceived differently by everyone. and i like that a lot for some reason, although i know many people probably would not like it. it suits me. i’m happy.

my body is still very feminine, but it doesn’t bother me as much as it used to. if i could, i would definitely try to lose weight and potentially go through breast reduction surgery, but i’m not too bent up about it if i never get to do that. my body doesn’t equal my gender. how i present - which is typically masculine, but sometimes i wear feminine clothes - isn’t my gender. my gender,, well, to be frank, i don’t have one. i’m me. i’m nonbinary. i’m,, ambiguous. i leave it up to the other people around me and their imaginations. i spend my days trying to make myself happy with what i wear and what i look like, not conforming to society’s rules of gender.

it took a long time, and frankly sometimes i still have a problem with self doubt and internalized problems. one day i hope to get over that. but i know inside my heart who i am. i’m just a human. i’m a person who’s trying to live my life the best way i can. whether my views were formed because of my trauma or whatever, i don’t really care. i’m happy with who i am. i have friends who call me “ sis “ and “ bro “ in the same sentence. i’ve got a friend who calls me their momma, and a friend who refers to me as their big brother. and i like it like that. i realize it’s not for everyone, but i’m happy with it.

to those who need their gender to feel complete, i commemorate you. you are wonderful, valid individuals who will make it where you want to be in the world. to those who feel similar to me and feel disconnected with gender and / or sexuality as a whole, i’m telling you that you are not alone. you’re not built wrong, and you are not made this way because of trauma. you deserve to be happy with who you are as a person in your own way. just because some people need their gender, doesn’t mean you do. you don’t need to put any labels on yourself. you can just simply exist, because you’ve lived this long so you must be doing a pretty good job at it.

23 notes · View notes

ogwrites · 3 years

Text

The Law of Provocation

The law of provocation, as defined in the case of R v Duffy (1949), is some act, or series of acts, or words spoken, that causes in the ordinarily reasonable individual and the accused, a sudden and temporary loss of self-control, rendering the accused so subject to passion as to make him or her for the moment, not master of his or her mind.

The Offences Against the Person Act (Jamaica) s. 6, tells us that where a jury can find that a person charged with murder was provoked to lose his self-control, it must be determined whether the provocation in question was enough to cause a reasonable man to retaliate as he did, taking into account the kind of effect the things done or said might have on a reasonable man.

Provocation, as a defense to manslaughter, was instituted as a concession and recognition of human infirmity and imperfection, and an acknowledgement that due to the frailty of man, it is not possible for him to always stand upright, as we are told in Jersey v Holley (2005). In this case, the deceased, Holley’s girlfriend, expressed to him that she had been with another man. After this, Holley, with his axe, intended to leave, when his girlfriend began taunting him that he didn't have the guts to hurt her (as she took him leaving with his axe as a threat toward her). In response, Holley struck his girlfriend with the axe multiple times, killing her.

In a modern context, the law of provocation has come under much scrutiny. We are told in Holley that it is meant to acknowledge human frailty, but it has been accused over the years of recognizing primarily male frailty, that the law of provocation is sexist, and that lastly, it is inherently homophobic.

The Law of Provocation as Rooted in Sexism:

The law of provocation came about to deal with struggles that emerged as a result of perceived threats to a man's honor or masculinity, which might cause him to explode in anger and retaliate violently. Additionally, it was also mostly included in cases of men responding violently to cases of female infidelity, seeking provocation as a defence.

The law of provocation could be viewed as that which is sexist based on how it had, in its outset, treated cases of domestic violence against women. It has also received backlash of this kind regarding the particular state of mind that is required from an abused woman before the law could be made available to her as a defence.

In the case of Duffy, the appellant had attacked and killed her husband with a hammer and a hatchet while he was sleeping. Her husband had subjected her to violence throughout her marriage. In the case of R v Ahluwalia (1992), the appellant set her husband on fire, from which he died after six days. The marriage between them was arranged, and the husband was often violent, abusive and threatening toward her. Additionally, he was having an affair. In R v Thornton (1992), the appellant stabbed her husband in the stomach and killed him. He was often verbally abusive toward her, and he had threatened that he would kill her. In R v Humphreys (1995), the appellant stabbed her partner to death. He was often violent towards her and lived off of her earnings. She often cut herself as a means of self-harm, and her partner used knowledge of this to further abuse her with taunts about her inability to properly kill herself.

This list of cases, when dissected for their various holdings and resulting legal concepts, have seen to take after what might only be described as an evolution. It also, based on these same resulting concepts, have shown the changes in the way that the courts have gone about providing adequate protections for women.

In Ahluwalia (which followed the reasoning of the court in the case of Duffy), the appellant's actions could not, in the eyes of the court, be deemed as that which resulted from provocation, and it was held that where one has a delayed reaction to the provocation, it implies premeditation, and that the appellant's actions were more likely to be deemed as deliberate, therefore provocation is easier to be disproved. This case treated provocation as a one-off situation that must be responded to with force as it occurs and goes ahead to make any fears of the woman equal to premeditation or revenge. Some might even say that this ties into the stereotype that women are known to be 'scheming', and that the courts would not see it fit to reward this 'female characteristic'.

The case of Thornton added that where provocative acts and retaliation to them were concerned, provocative acts that occurred over the course of a domestic relationship that failed to incite a sudden and temporary loss of control could not amount to a provocation in law, due to the absence of a 'last straw', or a last provocative act that breaks the woman down and causes her to lose her control and respond violently. This kind of reasoning, while it can be viewed as a tiny step forward, faltered in that it almost invalidates the cumulative trauma of the abused woman, and causes one to think about whether the situation she reacted to was in and of itself 'big enough' to warrant such a reaction. It dismisses the backdrop or context of abuse and oppression that has resulted in the response of the woman.

The above evolution of cases regarding women and the law of provocation was deemed as sexist because of the gaps between what the law required and the actual protections the women needed, based on their situations. Furthermore, where the courts hold firm to the law’s requirement that the loss of control be sudden, and by disregarding the role of the fear an abused woman might face before she retaliates to her abuser, and yet making it so 'easy' for men to rely on this law for retaliating to slightly more trivial provocations, the law of provocation is deemed as sexist.

This feeds into the view that the law of provocation was made for, and catered to, the problems, whims and uncontrollable anger that might be characteristic of men—thus making it sexist and a source of inequality, undermining the pursuit of justice and fairness.

Then came the case of Humphreys, which recognized what is referred to as the 'battered wife syndrome', a psychological condition that might emerge when a person experiences abuse (especially prolonged abuse) at the hands of someone they are intimate with. During the time this case came about, there had been more moves away from sexism regarding the provocation law—and an emergence of thinking that fear along with anger were applicable to the doctrine of provocation, which opened up the defense for more women to be able to use. The case of Humphreys also recognized the possible effects of an accumulation of provocative acts on the victim of these acts.

And while the above list of cases shows a progression in the thinking of the courts towards abuse, taking strides to dismantle the inherent sexism that laid in the law of provocation from its outset, this progression from Duffy to Humphreys has taken a total of forty-seven years. When put against the comparative ease with which the courts have allowed men, for more trivial issues (as previously expressed) to use the doctrine of provocation, it is a great injustice.

Regarding the doctrine of provocation, though, the injustices don't stop there.

The Law of Provocation as Rooted in Homophobia

It was expressed previously that the law of provocation was implemented as an acknowledgement of human frailty. But should this human frailty extend to situations resulting in violence, homophobia and hatred towards persons that experience same sex attraction?

It was also previously established that the law of provocation came about in a time when it was required to navigate disputes that arose due to men feeling as though their honour or masculinity was being threatened. Where heterosexual men feel as though a homosexual is making a sexual advance towards them, and where the he retaliates violently, the law seemingly gives the him a pass, licensing his rage and validating his hatred. It insinuates that a homosexual advance is an insult to the heterosexual man, warranting him to feel angry and provoked. It is not considered that the violent reactions of these men come as a result of homophobia and heteronormative expectations, as opposed to as a result of genuine provocation or anger.

The law has been quicker to recognize why a man who has been pursued by a homosexual might kill, as opposed to why a woman who has endured violence for years at the hands of her husband might retaliate violently toward him. In this comparison lies a clear injustice, and some might go as far to say a clear bias towards the whims of heterosexual men and what they deem to be repugnant.

This is because, as it is explained in The Constitutionality of the "Homosexual Advance Defence" in the Commonwealth Caribbean, written by Se-Shauna Wheatle, the provocation law was designed to protect the honor and virtue of the heterosexual male (as opposed to the general interests of all), and thus views a same-sex advance toward him as a violation of that honor.

It is to be further noted that in a number of Caribbean Commonwealth jurisdictions, it is a crime to be a homosexual, as evidenced in the Offences Against the Person Act of Jamaica, s. 76. The law of provocation caters to the "ordinary" or "reasonable" man who seeks to protect himself and his family from all kinds of crime and deviance. To this effect, it was expressed in the case of Marcano v The State (2002) that an "attempt to commit sodomy on the person of another" is an "atrocious crime", and therefore justifies the killing of the "attacker".

Therefore, where a man kills another because he has provoked him by threatening to diminish his honor through some crime, like raping his wife or daughter for instance, the law views a homosexual advance as being on equal footing with crimes such as these. Herein lies the crux of the matter, and why the provocation law may be deemed inherently homophobic.

To make a general conclusion, although provocation was instituted as a recognition of human frailty and imperfection, it has been accused over the years of primarily recognizing male frailty. The provocation law was viewed as sexist for this reason, and also because of the flawed way in which it treated women that retaliated against abuse from their intimate partners and because of the gaps between what the law requires and what these women might need to be protected. The provocation law made it easier for a man to use the defense (for less more trivial issues at times) than it did for a woman, because it catered primarily to the problems, whims and uncontrollable anger of these men. However there have been changes in the way that the courts have gone about providing adequate protections for women in recent years, with the result that the provocation is more ‘open’ now, for the use of women. On another note, the provocation law has made significantly less strides regarding its inherent homophobia. The human frailty that the law recognizes seemingly extends to situations resulting in violence, homophobia and hatred towards persons that experience same sex attraction. The law gives the man who kills another for making a homosexual advance towards him a pass and licenses his rage. The provocation law, in this way, not only primarily caters to the whims of men, but to the whims of heterosexual men in particular, and what is deemed by them to be repugnant.

#writing #on-law

1 note · View note

uncloseted · 4 years

Note

what are your thoughts on the Ansel Elgort scandal and the whole "believe women" movement in general, i just somehow feel iffy about labeling someone as a rapist or as cancelled when the only evidence is someone on twitter saying that it happened but i also feel like women deserve to be heard and be believed

Anonymous said to effys-closet: Jesus christ. I'm reading about what happened with Ansel Elgort and the woman who accused him of sexual assault. She was 17 and he was 20, in a place where it was COMPLETELY legal for him to have sex with her. It sounds like she had a regrettable experience, and he may have been unkind, and not paid attention to her discomfort which SUCKS but this shit pisses me off! This is not rape. Whiny stories like this invalidate women who have actually been raped. I've been raped. Grow the fuck up.

I had no idea about any of this until I started getting messages about it, so I’ve been reading articles trying to understand what happened and what the different sides of the story are. This is my current position, but it’s subject to change when/if we get more information about the situation.

I want to say a couple things about rape allegations before I dig into the Ansel Elgort situation in particular:

First and foremost, rape allegations are complicated.

Unlike other crimes, there usually aren’t eyewitnesses, and sometimes there’s no physical evidence, so it can become a he said/she said situation very quickly.

It’s also a situation that’s fraught with power dynamics, especially in issues of celebrity/underage fan sexual relationships, where the party with less power may feel like they’re not “allowed” to say no.

Due to the way men and women are taught about sex differently, there are also situations in which one party can think of the encounter as a normal sexual experience, while the other views it as a violation or assault. Many women don’t realize they were assaulted until later in their life, when they learn more about what does and doesn’t constitute consent.

Many women are scared to speak up about assaults because they don’t think they’ll be believed or they’re worried about their reputation (and women do have a lot to lose by speaking out, particularly against a powerful, white, male celebrity).

So there are a lot of factors at play when trying to understand what happened in a given situation and whether or not it constitutes assault, and all of those things contribute to why a woman’s account of what happened should be weighted more heavily than the man’s (although I disagree that we should always, without question, believe the accuser).

It should also be said that sexual assault is a spectrum, and does not always constitute rape; sometimes, it’s a lesser charge of sexual violence. “Sexual assault” covers everything from fondling/unwanted sexual touching to penetration of the victim’s body. The United States Department of Justice defines sexual assault as "any type of sexual contact or behavior that occurs without the explicit consent of the recipient.” From what I’ve seen, Gabby (the accuser in the Ansel situation) is alleging sexual assault, not rape specifically.

Finally, it’s important to remember that in American courts, people are innocent until proven guilty, and I think that’s the same approach we should take when participating in the court of public opinion. We should absolutely take into account that there are extraneous factors that mean that the testimony of men and women (and accuser/accused) are not evenly weighted in situations like this. But we should also be careful before we assign a “guilty” verdict and cancel someone for the rest of all time.

So. There are a few things that make me feel weird about the Ansel Elgort situation. The first is that this girl was allegedly a minor who had just turned 17 a few days after they began “talking” on Twitter (that’s iffy regardless of whether or not she was over the legal age of consent, which isn’t really the issue here anyway- the issue is whether he assaulted her or not). She was a fan of his, and he took her virginity. Even beyond the power dynamic that exists because he’s a celebrity who she was a fan of and she’s not a celebrity at all, there’s a power imbalance there. He’s experienced, nearly four years older than her, and she was not experienced at all.

Gabby alleges that she was “sobbing in pain”, and that he didn’t stop, which, regardless of its legality, speaks poorly about Ansel’s character. A crying woman is never enjoying the experience (except in very specific, controlled, consensual BDSM experiences), and that should be clear from her tears.

For any normal person, tears indicate discomfort. A normal person would take that as a cue to stop what they’re doing, regardless of if what they’re doing is a conversation they’re having or a TV show they’re watching or sex they’re having. Instead, Gabby alleges that Ansel said, “we need to break you in” instead of stopping. She also alleges that, “he made me think this is how sex was supposed to be. I WAS SO YOUNG AND HE KNEW THAT.” Again, power imbalance. Regardless of if it was a “legal” relationship, she was inexperienced and he took advantage of that for his own pleasure. Gabby is also allegedly 5′2, while Ansel is 6′3. Even if she wanted to fight him, she likely couldn’t have. Many victims of sexual assault say they didn’t fight or protest for fear of their safety.

That said, I can also understand how Ansel might not have interpreted the interaction as an assault. I know that sound strange, so bear with me here... many American men are socialized with weird and problematic views of sex. This problematic socialization includes things like, “women like it rough/like to be pushed around”, “no means no, but no response means yes,” “a girl’s first time is supposed to be painful, you just need to keep going,” and “if they said yes once, that consent extends to anything I want to do”. ALL OF THOSE VIEWS ARE, OF COURSE, UNEQUIVOCALLY WRONG. But if you’re a man that’s been socialized that way, it starts to make sense how you could think a girl who’s experiencing an uncomfortable first time might “want it” since she’s not telling you to stop.

Meanwhile, girls get socialized to believe things like, “your first time is supposed to hurt,” and “if you stop having sex with a guy, they’ll get blue balls, which makes you a bitch,” or “if you don’t want to have sex with someone you’re dating, you’re a frigid bitch and they’ll cheat on you with someone else.” AGAIN, ALL OF THOSE VIEWS ARE, OF COURSE, UNEQUIVOCALLY WRONG. But in that context, it makes sense why someone might feel powerless to say no, or like sex is supposed to be painful and they should just put up with it.

Look, I’m not going to say I know what happened between them that day, because ultimately, nobody will ever know except for the two of them. Maybe Gabby was an enthusiastic participant in this interaction and she’s trying to destroy Ansel’s career because he ghosted her (which in itself does not exactly look good for a guy who claims he cared about her feelings).

But to me, the situation seems to likely be a case of sexual assault, where Ansel Elgort leveraged his fame to enter into a sexual relationship with an unexperienced, young fan of his who felt like she couldn’t say no. Ansel may not see it that way (and from the statement he released, it seems like he doesn’t), but he does acknowledge he and Gabby had a sexual relationship in the time period Gabby alleges.

So what do we think is really more likely- that a young, powerless girl chose to baselessly accuse her powerful, celebrity ex sexual partner of assault, risking her public image in the process, or that said powerful, celebrity ex-partner assumed that she was okay with what was happening, because he’s a celebrity who people rarely say no to and because he was raised in an environment that taught him not to care about female consent?

Ansel Elgort isn’t Harvey Weinstein or Bill Cosby. But sexual assault is not binary like that, and the demands that purity culture puts on celebrities to be either “pure” or “cancelled” doesn’t leave a lot of room for those nuances. Just because it wasn’t an incidence of him drugging someone and assaulting their unconscious body doesn’t mean that it wasn’t wrong or that this girl wasn’t traumatized by what happened. And just because someone didn’t intend to sexually assault someone else doesn’t mean they didn’t.

I also think a lot of women have experienced what this girl has gone through and don’t view it as assault, so I also understand how acknowledging this incident as assault may make people uncomfortable about their own experiences. That said, “being unkind” and “having a regrettable experience” and “he kept going and didn’t pay attention to my discomfort” are assault. Per the letter of the law and otherwise. Just because they’re not cases of forced penetration doesn’t mean they’re not assault, it doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be punished, and it doesn’t mean that you “shouldn’t” be emotionally impacted by them.

I hope this all comes off as fair and balanced. I try really hard to not pass judgement on situations I’m not part of, and I try to take into account all the different factors that impact a given situation. I don’t want anyone to feel like I’m invalidating their own experiences with sexual assault or, on the flip side, that I’m jumping on the kangaroo court of public opinion. Like I said at the beginning, maybe more information will come out that will change my mind, but for now, this is where I’m sitting on the issue.

#Anonymous #effys-closet #effys closet

11 notes · View notes

basketballandtextbooks · 4 years

Text

disaster take

i saw this discourse on other blogs and come to the realization that most people probably won’t agree with me but... here’s my two cents:

wendy and kyle are very similar characters, not identical, but the character writing in south park is usually quite shallow (for any character in the cast) and normally any depth that can actually be found in any one character is entirely coincidental or accidental on the part of the observer. For example, in a previous post I mentioned that Kyle probably learned to dance after the events of the rain forest episode, and we know he must have because of highschool musical. This creates and interesting nugget of character depth that fits with his overall character but the connection is most likely entirely accidental. Did the writers think that deeply about Kyle’s character, or did they just forget the throwaway joke they kin-assigned Kyle for one episodes purposes?

for me these gaps between writers intent and interpretation are entertaining and it’s very fun for me to play detective, putting together the whole characters through the lens of ‘death of the author’ and figuring out how the characters behave based on not only their behavior in any one individual episode, but how the inconsistent and shallow character writing makes an overall character-arc (no character is more fascinating in this fashion than Eric Cartman, who has the most cohesive and entirely accidental character arc that spans from episode one and showcases a fascinating and horribly flawed individual)

All of this stated, the similarities in how Kyle and Wendy are written may not be intentional, but the fact is that given the same exact situation they respond similarly and to varying degrees. A good example of this is when they are jealous or their ego is bruised, they both have a tendency to have excessive if not murderous reactions (teacher into the sun, nuke canada, burn down the school, bully your friends)

I don’t think anyone can really make a good faith argument denying that they have strong similarities. There are of course differences, during the smurfs Wendy showed a much cooler head than Kyle would in the same circumstance. They do not need to be identical to share strong similar characteristics

Now for how fandom has perceived Wendy.

There is good reason that some individuals feel that the fan-reaction towards her isn’t entirely based on her writing being inherently ‘worse’ than Kyle’s. It also isn’t true that everyone who loves Kyle and hates Wendy is sexist or suffering from a case of internal misogyny.

That said, Wendy is held to a higher standard than Kyle is. Or more accurately, she is held to account for her actions in canon and Kyle is not. A primary example that I’ve heard multiple times in explaining why she’s a ‘bad’ character or a ‘bad’ person is that she broke Stan’s heart by dumping him. Some accuse her of cheating on him (with either Gregory or Token, pick your poison).

We can dismiss the cheating accusations immediately, there isn’t even a sliver of evidence she ever cheated. The times where she pursued other love interests they were either broken up or not together.

But the underlying message that hurting Stan makes her a bad character and not holding Kyle to that same account when Kyle, as early as the super best friends episode and as terribly as the assburgers episode, has a pattern of hurting Stan and in worse ways.

Wendy dumped him, that’s awful, but she’s allowed to have different feelings for other people and she’s allowed to end a relationship with a boy who constantly vomited on her. But the fan perception of this is “what a bitch” while the reaction to the style friend breakups is “oooh the angst”

This is only one of the ways we can see her being held to a different standard than Kyle. Not every fan is guilty of this, but enough people share this sentiment that is entirely justified for people to point out what appears to be underlying misogyny in how the characters are treated.

There are arguments based more on her writing than her actions, I have heard the ‘she’s always right and that’s not realistic’ on at least four different occasions now. But not only is this factually untrue if you’ve actually watched the show, it ignores the many times Kyle has also been right for seemingly no other reason than the writers convenience. Making him the moral center of the episode or a center of a joke. I find the ‘she’s too perfect’ to be a bad faith argument because the research behind it is shoddy and even when the person behind it acknowledges cases where she was wrong (killing her teacher, bullying, petty grudges to name a few) it’s always hand-waved away as ‘oh, okay, that once, but other than anything that disagrees with me, she’s too perfect. This is a very clear case of confirmation bias. Any evidence that backs the argument that she’s too perfect is guarded and anything that refutes it is discarded.

There will be some fans that hate her and love Kyle for completely unrelated reasons to holding her to a different standard, sexism, or internalized misogyny. But it is a fact that a significant amount of the fandom holds her to a completely different standard and a very possible reason for that is either her gender or how she disrupts their precious ships.

I would make the argument that she has a far stronger and more engaging characterization than Clyde using the same standards I set above where I judge characters based on the totality of their appearances rather than on individual episode. A even removing that framework and basing solely on episodes that focus on them individually, she has a stronger character. And yet I have never once heard or seen anyone making the argument that they dislike Clyde because his character is too flat. This is another case where she, and the majority of the female cast, is held to a different standard. I’ve never seen anyone say ‘it’s hard to write Gregory because he has very little character and the writers only created a flat stereotype’. But I see that sort of perspective all the time for female characters that have more screen-time and development than Gregory ever had.

I love all the characters above and I find their characterizations and lack thereof to be a fascinating puzzle that I spend my free-time putting together.

But female characters in South Park do suffer from what I would consider a form of internalized misogyny. Most fans don’t do this on purpose (thus internalized) but the society we’ve been raised in has a tendency to put men and women on different scales.

This isn’t a scale that’s fair to either sex. The unconscious mentality that “its okay if he has no personality because he’s a guy” does men a disservice too. If you do fall under the category of someone who judges the female characters more than the male ones, I’m not trying to say you’re a bad person or even that you’ve done a bad thing. I want you to reconsider your opinion. Take a moment to actually think about it. I know I’ve been guilty of holding men and women to different standards. In both real life and fiction, I expect less from men. I look down on them in an unhealthy fashion that if I don’t address, could lead to ending up in harmful situations or harming someone else.

fiction is a lens that we can use to better understand reality. I am an advocate that you can treat fictional characters in any way you like and it doesn’t fucking matter. You want to kill Wendy because you think she’s an annoying bitch? Go for it. It doesn’t matter. Wendy is not real.

I don’t want you to change your fandom behaviors, I want you to reexamine them and ask yourself how deeply the disparity in how you view men and women goes. If you use fiction as an outlet for misogynistic or even misandrist feelings, I think that’s valid, but I want you to know that you’re doing it.

If you hold men and women to different standards, whether in fiction, real life, or both, I want you to be aware of it.

Now the elephant in the room.

Damien is one of the most popular characters in South Park and he has one episode focusing on his character. His personality is frequently discarded because in canon, he’s an uppity little git who is both petty and weak. He wants to be liked, is affected by bullying, and cries to his daddy about it.

In fandom he is frequently portrayed as a cool and collected impervious person who, yes, has a temper but instead of how petulant and bratty he appeared in canon, fandom portrays this as ‘badass’.

To put it simply, fandom has a tendency to ignore canon entirely in the name of what’s ‘hot’. They want the prince of hell to be sexy and dangerous, so he is just that.

The majority of popular fanon characterizations fit these same molds. They want Butters to be cute and sweet, so every character flaw he’s ever had is hand-waved away.

How does this relate to my topic?

Fans of the female characters are not impervious to this. Heidi Turner is an extremely flawed and vicious individual who would stoop to any low to protect her damaged pride. She is also a victim in a toxic relationship that put her through a horrible experience. And so the fandom either acknowledges one half, how cruel she can be, or the other, how pure a victim she was someone protect her. And neither combine her to a whole character. A person who was in a bad situation, had a lot of positive traits, bad things happened to her, and she didn’t bad things in return. Her penitent for cruelty in some earlier episodes when she was still a bg character is completely hand-waved away by both camps.

She’s an interesting character and she’s dumbed down for the pleasure of the audience, isn’t this the same treatment the men receive and thus invalidates my entire thesis that they’re held to a different standard?

For starters, the idea that an argument is entirely invalid because of one exception is in itself a fallacy, but to avoid acknowledging her existence would be confirmation bias. She is an anomaly, a female character given the same treatment as the male characters. Is it because she’s deeper or better written than the other female characters? I would argue no, critically watching her episodes she has tons of the same troped behavior that the fans love to despise in the rest of the female cast. Although unlike the other characters (both male and female), where I must do an in-depth watch of the series over the course of 20+ seasons in order to create a whole understanding of them, the majority of her arc happens over the course of two seasons.

An easily digestible amount of content. No one needs to put together the puzzle pieces to understand her like you do with the majority of the cast, it’s all there.

Except it isn’t, and this is why I mentioned her behavior in earlier seasons is discarded. The way people frame her is solely from the seasons where she’s a primary character, ignoring the clear characterization we got from her in earlier seasons that do help to create a more whole understanding of her personality and character.

That all said, there are still portions of the fandom who hate her purely because she blocks their kyman or style or insert-gay-ship-here. There are fans who hate her not because of her flawed personality or even that they find her character flat, but purely because they want to see ‘two hot boys kiss get the gross girl out’. Which is a pretty common mistreatment of Wendy as well.

Now, male characters are on occasion given this treatment but nowhere near as often. While creek shippers and crenny shippers might fight until their last breath, neither group seems to actually hate Kenny or Tweek. But in the ship wars of a ‘het ship’ vs a ‘gay ship’, the female character is frequently trashed by the gay side.

I could go into an aside about the troubling fetishization of gay men that borders on outright homophobia at times, but this has been surprisingly alot.

I guess my point is that any which way you fandom, try to at least understand that sexism is real and be aware when you might be perpetuating messages that can appear unbalanced. And maybe, ask yourself why you do that.

#meta #and this is when everyone unfollows #sometimes when you're being perceived as problematic #it's because there's a problem

9 notes · View notes

zenithzephyrs · 4 years

Text

storytime

I hope writing this will be therapeutic. Rambling may help against this occassional stifling feeling. It may be a satisfying outlet. Sometimes I wish people connected knew or cared to know my side, but over the years I have been too afraid of the embarassment from attracting attention to the matter. It is a taboo topic after all. Well, for years I have tried not to acknowledge that I am a victim of abuse. Not the physical kind but certainly mental and emotional. Everyone goes through bad relationships and breakups, that's how I rationalized what I went through. The fact it still has an impact even three plus years after it ended signifies that it is important. I shouldn’t undermine myself. This is the first time I’m writing about this relationship. I am aware as the teller that bias is inevitable. However I believe in the importance of presenting the situation as honestly as I can. Perceived bias would only serve to invalidate. I implore you evaluate any biases you may carry as well entering this story.

It all began in sophomore year of undergraduate. At the time almost everyone in my friend group was taking dreadful organic chemistry. As was necessary, we all spent a lot of time with each other in class, study groups, and office hours, so expectedly we grew closer. I didn’t know her well initially but I became attracted to a girl in the friend group. Certainly her looks played a part but I also liked the polished manner she conducted herself with. She always kept herself somewhat distanced in the group which made her mysterious and made me want to know her better. During the months of this crush, I worked to get closer and we did. I decided to tell her I liked her after having dinner with her. To which she rejected. With dissapointment I accepted her decision. Later that night we were all in the student center, studying. I was at a separate table and she asked to speak with me outside. I went and we talked more about “us” and I used this opportunity to make another case for myself. Finally she said “okay I’ll give it a try”. The visceral reaction I had still haunts me to this day. It was intense. It was my gut firing to me “this is wrong”. I wonder where it came from but I really wished I followed my gut that night.

This relationship was over two years long so I’ll have to generalize. The relationship started off extremely rocky as she didn’t take me seriously in the beginning, need I remind you she was giving me a try. For another reason she was also a year older and expressed that because of her culture, having a man who is older was preferable. I felt more like a plaything and I was shamefully insecure. I didn’t believe she actually cared about me. Hearing about guys she actually had crushes on made me envious of what they received so easily. In particular I leaned there was a guy she liked who bore the same name as me and was also one year younger despite her insistence age was a factor with me. Moreover there were guys who liked her despite knowing she was in a relationship with me and one guy that was actually infatuated with her. Soon I learned he was even telling her “I love you” but she still texted, called, and met up with him while dating me those early months. I had entered the relationship wanting to respect her space. That was the first time I felt compelled to put my foot down and made her cut out that guy. Once the precedence was set, my insecurity lead to cut ties with any other guy who was perceivably a threat. There were others who were legitimately flirting with her. And others that in retrospect were not necessary to cut out. I am at fault for making her do that. Its unhealthy and it’s not something I would do now. It continued because it was mutual. From the beginning she made me cut out female friends unless she trusted them personally. Early on, neither of us believed in each other. About two months in I learned the only reason she agreed to date me that night was to get closer to the friends who were closest to me. She didn’t really care about me at first as I suspected, however now she was “about the relationship”. Learning I was being used obviously led my trust to suffer but I kept with it.

After years of reflecting, I know without a doubt what she wanted the most was control. I had to play servant or exactly whatever she wanted me to be regardless of how that made me feel. If I ever made changes to myself of my own volition, she would get angry. Her anger was expressed by treating me coldly and indifferently. This was highly effective as I really wanted the relationship to work and it hurt me. The changes I am talking about include things like if I get a new cologne without confiding with her. If I tried to lose weight. Once we were with a group of friends at a dance so I started dancing but she expressed disgust and shot me down; I never did that again. Whenever I deviated too much from her expectations, she’d take issue. Thus she was highly unsupportive and made sure my confidence was low enough so she could have her way. Low confidence has always been a problem of mine.

Medical school began in the first year of the relationship and rapidly I matured. I realized if I wanted to make this work in the long-term, I had to trust her. I was successful in actually no longer caring if her friends were male. I believed she had the sense that if she was leading a guy on she would do the right thing. Jealousy was always a problem in previous relationships so this was a huge accomplishment for me and I was proud of it. I thought, I’ll give her trust and the time for her to come around. Of course it was never applied to me. Despite acknowledging she had a jealousy issue that she “wanted to fix”, the difference is I actually worked and did it. It got to the point where I was scared to make any female friends that first year of medical school and guilt was trained into me. There was even a close long-time mutual friend who lost her mother that year, and did not have many friends besides me. I wanted to support her but my ex took issue with that. I even had to do a few meetings secretly because I believed I should be there. Ultimately my ex proposed it was either her or cut ties with that friend. This was the essence of why I wanted to become a doctor, to help people. I am ashamed I chose the latter.

Here comes my stubborn hopefulness. If anything bias would work against me because throughout the relationship I always blamed myself. I believed her and valued her thoughts more than anyone elses. I believed she was too good for me as she made sure I was aware. Therefore every criticism I took to heart. For instance, early on she criticized my wardrobe so I began binge shopping, spending maybe even a thousand dollars to feel like I was good enough for her. Those early days of cutting out the guys that wanted to be with her, made me feel like cutting out my long-time female friends was justified. Of course it was certainly not. But I foolishly believed it would help her like me. I wanted her to focus on me. I did not want to feel insignificant next to her any longer. I wonder why she had to treat me with such disregard.

I’ve said alot but it was the fights that brought hell on earth. She admitted later, to the benefit of my closure, that she purposely picked frequent fights with me. It went like this. I would do something hardly worth anything more than a quick reprimand. For example, crack a slightly insensitive joke. Respond to a text not “loving” enough. Anything she could find as ammunition she would instantly target and drag it out. She’d get angry and criticize me until I began reacting negatively. I would be incredulous because for me the reasons were never nearly as important as not damaging the relationship with the fights. The moment I responded negatively, she would clam up and give me the cold treatment for hours or even days. Again I was so vulnerable to that old feeling of indifference. This move would infuriate me to no end. Repeated cycles of this would push me to my wits end, leading to explosive, never physical, but verbal fights to get a reaction out of her. Once she pushes me to that point, she’s set. She can use it against me to get off easy while I blame myself afterwards for exploding. Her truth is that she was never ever at fault, exemplifed by the single digit times she has ever apologized to me in a 2+ year relationship. Whether she actually believed she was faultless, I do not know. I’m not sure which one would be worse. Many of the comments made by me in those high anger states were derogatory and really mean. I am responsible for that and I hate what I was at that point in life.

Despite this I worked in vain to keep the peace. These fights were happening multiple times every week, for over a year. Almost always provoked by her, with no exaggeration. The toll this takes on a person mentally is really hard to describe, and made me a colder person I had to recover from. I begged her every fight, “please stop getting angry over the little things”, “It is messing me up, let’s work to keep the peace in the relationship”. She’d verbally acknowledge my side, quickly follow always with the incessant word “but”, and state her case and demands. I need to emphasize that the very next week she’d again target some other small issue, expertly apply cold treatment until I exploded, apologize to her for both things, and begged her to stop picking fights. Repeat. For this reason I never started fights with her because my priority was keeping as much peace as there could be. Clearly it can be seen how this behavior enacts control. She knew exactly what would make me tick and she exercised this ability loosely and irrespective of how I was feeling as a medical student. Never would she adjust to me or care if I was happy. I was like a servant. I worked hard in medical school just to make time for her.

If she ever needed something more potent for control than picking fights with me, it would be breaking up with me. They’d always come unannounced if her stress peaked. Immediately she’d give up. I guess the relationship never meant anything to her in those moments. I, the dumb sucker, would fight to get her back. If she agreed it came with new terms and conditions. This happened 8 or 9 times in the relationship, always in this fashion. In retrospect I was far weaker than I am now and in addition to no control in this relationship, I barely had any over myself. My life was dominated worshipping this girl. My only request was to “please stop attacking me”. No one knew what was going on because a requirement of hers was to never talk about our problems with others, especially not those we mutually knew. I was alone in this. Of course I know why the abuse remaining hidden was so important to her.

I went on a medical trip end of first year of medical school with study abroad. I had lost a lot of friends by that point. There I found people who were so incredibly supportive and made me feel valued. It built my confidence back up. Listening to the opinions of these new friends gave me the realization that this situation would never get better. I reflected on how there were many times that she would get mad if I was cheerful and in a better mood than her. This is a glaring red flag as it means my happiness had no place in the relationship. On that trip, I was enjoying myself while she wasn’t so she threatened to break up with me. I asked her to forgive me. Two days later during a call, she picked another fight. I had it this time. With the support of my trip buddies, a rediscovery of who I was as a person, and a flight away from her, I, for the first time, truly stood up for myself and ended it. After that we didn’t talk for about 4-5 months.

One of my biggest regrets is reconnecting with her. This moment is actually silly and depressingly absurd. I have a headphone that can make calls with a button. One day I accidentally pressed the wrong edge of a button and it activated FB messenger voice call, and for some unknown damn reason it was calling her. I hung up in quite literally a second hoping she didn’t get any notification. Soon after she texted me asking “you called’? That really unsettled me. I thought she had moved on, why was she still so attentive to me? Isn’t a break-up what she wanted for so long? I waited a few weeks but gave in and reached out to her. I could have not done that. It was a mix of returning back to medical school, losing that social support, and being stressed and lonely. She was very much for meeting up again. During that meeting hopeful me was in full force. Hoping she learned her lesson we could give it another try. It was because in retrospect I did love her. The good times were nice, but the bad times were just so frequent it overshadowed anything positive. During that meeting she said she would do things differently. A quick damper came after we expressed a desire to restart that I found out she was hooking up with one of the male friends I trusted her to hang out with during first year of medical school. I never dug for any information. We had been broken up so it was fine. But it brought up negative thoughts about how she may have been taking advantage of my trust during the relationship since I never asked for details. Who knows. It’s fine to expect sexual activity when single, but it doesn’t have to mean trust can’t be damaged. She also didn’t want to cut ties with him if we started dating again. So at this point I sobered up and I said this wouldn’t work and decided we should not try to salvage this. Then for the first time, she chased me.

She kept apologizing and trying to get me back. It may have been my well trained low ego, but that really touched me. I kept persistent but eventually her promises were so great, that finally I agreed, hopeful for a new start to a better relationship. Once that happened it was all over. The day it happened, she switched to “well I’m going to do all this for you, what are you going to do for me?” She went back to criticizing, and cold treatment in only a few days. She then broke up with me out of the blue and completely cut ties with me in under a week.

It was all over so fast, I was so angry and so confused. I soon realized this was revenge for breaking up with her, an act she had utilized on me so many times without a thought. Once she had control back, she made the move of ending things on her terms. I had learned during those months after I broke up with her, she felt depressed and couldn’t sleep. I do not believe it's because she cared about me but that I got the better of her. In the end, I don’t think she ever loved me as compared to the control and what she invested in the relationship. She had the completely random opportunity to end things with her the victor and she was successful. I hope you can sleep well with yourself now.

That is one aspect. What affects me more frequently nowadays is my sadness towards the lost friend group, the trust of other friends I’ve sacrificed, and the thought of friends I was prevented to ever make. After the breakup the friend group sided with her. One of the members is my ex's best friend so of course would support her no matter what the truth was. Even a year after the breakup, I knew this friend was still saying malicious comments about me to people I knew. My ex is lucky. I was a goner. The guy side deferred to the ladies running the group and essentially all let me go. This is despite the great irony that I knew she hated many of the current group members, at least while we were dating. Yet she is celebrated and I am excluded. It feels incredibly unfair to go through all this and have no one from the group even nod in the direction of my side. If they knew, would anything change? Or am I just a nuisance? They’re probably all fine without me so I should stay away. The point has been made as to why I would want to maintain friends like that anyways. Fair point. I do really care about connections with people, sometimes too much. Anyways, these thoughts are probably why for years I barely told my story. Well for my own sake, this is my story.

PS. I am now in an amazing, healthy relationship with a girl who treats me the right way. She is so good to me that at first I was like, isn't this relationship going too smoothly? Being in a healthy relationship has really helped me reflect on the wrong delusions with the aforementioned. I now know I am capable and deserve to be in a loving relationship. She makes me happy and I am in a much better place. Hope would not exist without her.

#abuse

1 note · View note