Zero

This freak, the alternate from my recent Home Sweet Home au fic!

Are you a little annoyed with all the Serena joy comparisons when it comes to literally just about any woman in the trump administration? The latest one, is Ivanka, again... I mean, I don’t blame people for making that connection really, it’s all justified. Life imitating art, or vise versa, but as a Serena stan, it doesn’t make me feel great. I wonder what Yvonne thinks of all this.

I’m gonna be real, anon... I don’t pay any attention to THT discourse anymore. So many bad/uninformed/misogynistic/flat out ignorant opinions. I literally couldn’t care less what anybody says anymore about Serena--unless it’s Yvonne tbh lol. I used to care and argue, and occasionally there were fascinating and accurate criticisms and analysis, but by and large, it’s pointless and irritating -- especially within THT social media fandom itself. (Holy misogyny, Batman!) I got so sick and tired of it all so now I just don’t bother. I unfollowed all THT things on insta, never go on FB/twitter anyway, and never go into the tags here on tumblr. Everytime I do, I find 5 more people to block. So, I just... don’t. I’m here to have fun in fandom not argue ceaselessly in circles with people who are either incapable of understanding or refusing to listen to anything but their own narrow ideology/concepts.

While obviously there are comparisons to be made between her character and those of various conservative women throughout history (cos she was inspired by actual women who existed), I think people who just compare her to every single alt-right female pundit or rich white christian conservative woman... It’s just tiresome. Because it’s too reactionary and too simplistic. Not every white neocon woman is Serena Joy. Not to mention, we don’t actually know the full extent on Serena’s politics beyond the “traditionalist feminism” stance of “housewives are best!”. She has expressed in canon the disbelief she has about the system, and it was clear those were not her intentions. (Her complete lack of foresight/blind faith in men of power is an obvious problem if she didn’t want Gilead. Just the same as, for example, Shlafly. Idiots. And traitors, yes.) But to say she’s the same as Ivanka, who afaik has never espoused that all women should stay at home and be nothing but wives and mothers, is just so off the mark. Does Ivanka believe Serena’s most central tenet? Who knows. (Or maybe she does. Quite frankly, I’ve refused to engage with melodramatic mass media-fuelled American pseudo-politics for a year now cos it was too much trash.)

I think the thing about being a Serena fan, and the core thing to cope with, is that Serena’s ideology is explicitly anti-feminist (if not downright fascist). On just about every level, most likely, in the same tone deaf way many tradfems have and always have been. She harms other women, and herself, with her politics and beliefs (and actions), even under teh guise of protecting them. Serena is a villain, (dark) anti-villain, grey villain, or dark anti-hero, depending on your position. And stanning a character on the “villain” spectrum, requires us to feel bad lol. Unless you’re a villain yourself. I mean, when I see women in reality that echo my fictional character’s bad ways/thoughts, it’s difficult cos irl I have no such soft spot. (I do think there’s something to be said with trying to understand why such women exist, and how to shift those toxic ideologies, and where the root of all this internalised misogyny/rabid upkeep of the patriarchy comes from.) But generally? I’m not interested in Le Pen, Schlafly, Phelps-Roper, Weidel, Thatcher, Meloni, Bryant, Coulter, Morgan, or Lahren, etc. as people. I find their politics and ideology severely hypocritical and/or downright disgusting. I don’t have the same sympathies for them because they’re real--but I do recognise the larger social/political/psychological forces at work that create this sort of scenario and these sorts of zealots and woman-hating women. Serena Joy is fictional and dramatised, and it’s a totally different thing than actual real people causing harm. And it’s not as if Serena is painted as a good person, idol, or anything other than an occasionally mildly-sympathetic villain. But her being fictional, we can ascribe a lot more space for her to be more complex/change.  As for what Yvonne thinks, I mean, she probably doesn’t give a shit lol. Let’s be honest, she’s a privileged Hollywood actress playing a character. She gets her paycheque and gets to do her job no matter what. While she is probably the biggest Serena fan as a character, I don’t think she would really concern herself about random people saying random things about her fictional role. I doubt she would even see those opinions. Actors are really not as plugged into politics and nuance as the general public seems to believe. Every single one of them in Hollywood with any sort of legit success lives in a bubble of privilege and ego, even the ones that seem the most down to earth on their Instas and interviews. Meh. I would suspect that Yvonne doesn’t know, and even if she did, she doesn’t care. Hell, she’d probably agree lol. It’s not exactly wrong. She knows she’s playing a shitty, difficult, unlikable character, heh. I just think for us, this is the cost of finding villains in fiction interesting/hot/etc. When you face the reality of people like them who actually exist, it isn’t pleasant lol. Cos ya hate ‘em in real life, but like the fictional versions, so it’s a contradiction and there isn’t really any solution to that! We just gotta live with the fact we stan a character that is in direct opposition to our personal, real life beliefs--and if she were real, we would dislike immensely. That’s just what fiction does. You just gotta keep it separate. When someone says Ivanka is Serena Joy, whether or not that is even accurate, I mean... as long as you don’t start going, “Well, they’re right, now I stan Ivanka!”... Loads of people are fans of villains, and as long as your fictional interests don’t morph into joining some alt-right anti-feminist group, I think you’ll be just fine. You can be a fan of evil/bad characters and not be a scumbag in real life and it doesn’t have to reflect you as a person at all. :)

The Female Sociopath

Do they exist? It's an interesting question. Having spent a portion of my life a prisoner to one, I'm certain that they do. Here's the thing, however: They're like unicorns, they're very rare. Now, considering my life's experiences, that might seem like a peculiar thing to say, so I'll explain.

Until I ended up on the Internet, I had very confused opinions of women. I'm sure that the Alt-Right thinkers out there will believe me a doe-eyed child who came to the Internet in this "Age of the SJW" only to be brainwashed by their ilk. Not so, as an autistic introvert, all I had to do to challenge my own perceptions was be presented with information which clearly disproved them. It's one of the joys of being introverted, I suppose.

The other thing to mention about that is that the Alt-Right and right-wingers in general were late to the party when it comes to the Internet, this is why I view the right as extraverted and ethically challenged, because the early days of the Internet were mostly staffed by introverted left wingers. I remember when those on the hateful right were a loud minority.

I remember how they had to band up around the Something Awful community in its early days to try and seem to have more numbers than they actually did by making organised strikes against people. Something Awful basically being the Alt-Right of its time, but with a mere smidgeon of the numbers we see the onerous Alt-Right having today.

What I learned in those early days is that most women are actually okay. Sociopathy doesn't affect them nearly as much, on average. This is why most "SJWs" are women, it's why areas like ShitRedditSays is ran and posted on almost exclusively by women. And it's why the Alt-Right are becoming increasingly more violent -- they're straight, white men who'll never get laid due to their toxic, dangerous attitudes.

So much for alpha males, right? You'd think women could actually think for themselves, or something.

I don't really understand why this is, is the issue. It just seems like the more you embody toxic masculinity, maleness, and the right to power as a male, the more sociopathic you'll be. For example, the least sociopathic men I've met are either very feminine (gay twinks) or overly sensitive, chubby men (gay bears). They're an anti-state of toxic masculinity, the absolute inverse of it.

Conversely, this is why very gay men aren't so fond of straight gays. As the straight gays still embody toxic masculinity too much and that causes problems in the gay community.

So why are straight gays toxic? Why aren't women for the most part? Why aren't the very feminine/sensitive kinds of gay men? I think the next most important thing to examine is this: What kind of woman tends to be a sociopath? One with a killer instinct, in my experience, every sociopathic woman I've encountered (as few as they've been in number) have been -- quite bizarrely -- poster-children for toxic masculinity, despite their gender.

You can see it with some women in British politics as well. Take a look at both Margaret Thatcher and Theresa May, both of whom are butch, masculine women who've got quite the killer instinct, they're both exceedingly male and that's why they were able to survive in an arena that's dominated by sociopaths (politics).

In politics, like business, you need to have a cut-throat killer instinct to survive.

And that cut-throat killer instinct is at the very root of toxic masculinity, of the 'alpha male' mindset that a rare few women also possess. I think it's testosterone, basically.

I think testosterone is what's caused the perception of a hunter-gatherer divide. That some had a killer instinct. I don't believe that this divide is a male<>female one at all, I think it's more simply that it's dependent on your testosterone levels. The higher your testosterone, the greater your propensity for anger, the greater your taste for violence violence, and the more  likely to have a raging boiler running under the hood, so to speak.

It results in a killer instinct. An ability to really hurt people, even fuck them up for your own benefit without feeling remorse. That is what we call sociopathy.

And that testosterone coupled with the prejudice-promoting oxytocin of the extraverted brain, resulted in a charismatic figure who's able to manipulate people and destroy their lives for their own benefit? Yeah.

Testosterone is simply less of a feature of women. I've seen it in post-menopause women who don't keep their testosterone levels under control and this is what's lead me to this theory, I watched someone I knew develop more and more of a killer instinct as their testosterone levels grew. The more they refused to take their hormone medication, the more sociopathic they became as testosterone flooded their system.

Estrogen seems to be the natural counter for this.

Which is interesting, because chubby men -- who can be known for their sensitivity -- are prone to higher estrogen and lower testosterone levels. This isn't Universally true, mind you. You can have chubby men who'll have high testosterone regardless due to lifestyle choices, or genetic make-up. In 7 cases out of 10, though, it'll lead to higher estrogen and higher emotional sensitivity.

I'd say gay twinks also have lower levels of estrogen. They just don't have a killer instinct, they can be very submissive -- or, at their 'worst,' passive-aggressive -- despite being slight. So I think there's a hormonal imbalance there, too. Similarly, I know that my testosterone count is quite low, and I do have levels of estrogen going on there as well.

This is why I see the extraverted, masculine person as the most dangerous beast. A lack of introspection, a lack of empathy, a lack of guilt, and lots of testosterone and oxytocin resulting in a killer instinct tied to prejudice. That's ugly. And like I keep pointing out, you can have extraverted, masculine women, too. Like Margaret Thatcher and Theresa May, who basically look like they're so pumped with testosterone they can barely think.

Those women, however, are rare. Compared to the cavalcade of men who have that killer instinct, and thus, that sociopathy. This is why the female sociopath is such a rare beast, versus the male sociopath who tends to be very commonplace. In my personal opinion, having a lack of that killer instinct is actually a good thing.

It's funny, really. Most gay men (not straight gays, mind you) just aren't attracted to straight men at all. In fact, I know that a lot of them can be biromantic, whilst homosexual. They're much more emotionally in tune with women than they are with straight guys, which is why those kinds of gay men can get out really well with lesbian women. This is usually a good coupling, after all. A lack of physical attraction along with a strong, emotional bond.

My partner, whom I've spent the last 5-6 years of my life with, is a lesbian. I'm gay. We have a very strange relationship. We're physically attracted to our own gender, but we're both biromantic.

We both appreciate the other gender's gay people.

Except not straight gays. Sorry, straight gays. You can be almost as bad as the testosterone pumped, cut-throat, killer instinct-fuelled, sociopathic straight men. This is why gays tend to innately choose to not be like that. It's okay, though. I mean, plenty of non-straight gays have experienced prejudice at the hands of straight gays, since apparently we're ruining gay for the masses by standing out and... actually being gay??? So my quite jaded view of straight gays is built on a backbone of mutual distaste.

So there you have it. That's why most women tend to err on the side of being an "SJW," that's why most of the posters on ShitRedditSays are women, and that's why the Alt-Right will never, ever get laid.

Not that those genes need passing on, right? Less Nazis in the world is never a bad thing.