whether you're pro- or anti-jedi, i'm sure we can all agree that had george lucas been a slightly better filmmaker, there would be less discussion as to what is really valid and what is just a misinterpretation of evidence.

i think we should always take predominant sexes and races for psychiatric disabilities into question.

are men really more likely to be antisocial or narcissistic, or are women just overlooked because ASPD/NPD are seen as too "aggressive" for them?

are women really more likely to be borderline or histrionic, or are they just seen as so "hysterical" that they have to be feminine?

are black people more likely to have schizophrenia or ODD, or are labels of "psychosis" and "defiance" simply used to further dismiss, oppress, and imprison BIPOC?

are white people more likely to have autism and ADHD, or are doctors just more willing to accept that white children are disabled and not just "bad?"

oppressive biases are everywhere in psychiatry. never take psychiatric demographics at face value.

DC adaptation's obsession with retaining the smurfette principle is frankly absurd. Like with the batfamily it's so often Bruce, Alfred, a solid selection of (ex)robins and like one woman. She's probably babsgirl. She probably has a weird shoehorned romance with one of the batguys. She probably isn't even a librarian.

Steph who?? Cass never heard of her?? Helena? Kate? Guess we don't need them because we have the one token girl.

Hi! So I tried not to say anything about some anti makeup posts I saw on your blog but I need to say this. I think you're very wise and I agree it's very important for us to love ourselves as we are. But some people like myself doesn't care about 'empowering' of makeup or whatever but we just have fun with it and we just love it. I say we because I know there is a lot of people like me. Yeah, we are feeding capitalism or whatever, but world is beautiful and it's also terrible so people trying make themselves feel good, have fun, ect. I see a lot of people who don't wear makeup and i'm happy for them! I didn't wear makeup until i turned 20 i think and felt good.

One thing I wanted to add is in response of post about feminine girls. I think everything needs balance and sometimes people tend to overreact in their opinion and divide everything in black and white. Personally I never cared how women around me looked and what they were wearing. But I would like to have same treatment, and not to feel silly for wearing pink or feminine clothes.

Sorry, I don't know English very well so maybe I can't translate my idea entirely. What I'm trying to say i think everyone should do what they like and leave each other in peace.

Sorry for this essay, just wanted to share my point of view.

Hi, anon! I'm sorry for the delay in getting to this, but I appreciate you writing this (and your English was fine, don't worry)

I think the main argument of those posts (and my own feelings about this) is not about makeup on its own, or even judgement about who does and doesn't choose to wear it--what they are criticizing is a particular part of the society we live in which puts a huge emphasis on women's beauty and appearance in order to fulfill an idea of what a woman "should" be, and the role that makeup plays in that as a result. Because whether we like it or not, whether we believe in them or not, whether we feel pressured by them or not, these expectations do exist. How we personally respond to them does not change that.

I personally don't have an issue with makeup or the concept of it (in almost every culture on earth, humans have been using makeup of some kind for literally thousands of years)--but what I do have a problem with is when we treat makeup, or other traditionally "feminine" forms of expression as neutral things when they are not. A comb or a hair tie is neutral--it's just a thing. Lipstick and eyeliner are also just things, but only when they exist by themselves--and in reality they don't exist by themselves: they exist in a world where we value women on their physical appearance before we value them for anything else--lipstick and eyeliner exist to emphasise parts of your appearance, to make you look a certain way--and in a society where we put so much importance on women looking a certain way, they aren't just ordinary things you toy around with for fun. You can have fun with them, but it doesn't change their role. They can't be treated as exceptions from the world they are used in.

I think sometimes people assume that being anti-makeup is the same as being anti-women-who-wear-makeup, which misses the point (and also suggests a very dangerous idea which I think, sometimes, is why people respond so angrily to these criticisms: because if we believe that being anti-makeup = being anti-women, then therefore makeup = womanhood, and this is simply not true). Whether you wear these things just for fun and to enjoy yourself isn't what is being talked about because these criticisms are not about you on a personal level: they are about looking at a society that is as image-obsessed as ours, and asking why makeup has the role that it has when 1) it is almost exclusively aimed at women--women who, as a group, have been historically marginalised, and whose value, historically, has almost always been measured in terms of their beauty before anything else and 2) the makeup that is emphasized, the trends and styles that come and go, are often not so much about self-expression (if they were, people would be freely wearing all sorts of wild colours and styles: when we talk about "makeup culture" it's not the same kind of makeup used in the goth, punk, or alt scenes for example where makeup plays a very different role) but almost always about achieving or aspiring towards a type of beauty that is valued or expected: to make you look younger, to make your eyes brighter or larger, to make your lips bigger or sexier, your cheekbones more prominent etc--again, on their own, these things may not be a big deal, but they exist in a world where having these looks means you are valued in a certain way as a woman. And when this exists in our kind of world, where the power dynamics we have automatically mean women's perceived power is through beauty, and where we insist so much on women being a particular kind of beautiful (and this starts in childhood) we have to ask and investigate WHY that is--why this type of beauty and not another? why (almost only) women? who benefits from this? who suffers as a result?

The argument of "not all women" wear makeup for empowerment misses the point of these criticism, because it is focusing on a person's individual choices in a way that suggests our choices can define the world we live in, and they can't. We are deeply social animals. Therefore, how we appear to each other and to ourselves is a socially influenced phenomenon. This applies for race, for sexuality, and for gender. How women are perceived at large, in different social structures, is a social phenomenon influenced by the societies we exist in and the values of those societies. These criticisms are about the society we make those choices in and how that can affect us. For you, makeup may be something fun and enjoyable and that's fine. I'm not saying that's untrue or that people don't feel this way or that you are wrong for feeling this way. It's also not saying that you are brain-washed or oppressing yourself for it. But it doesn't change the world we live in. Someone feeling perfectly happy to go out with makeup or without makeup, and feeling no pressure to do either, is great--but it doesn't mean there aren't a lot of women who do feel pressured into wearing it, and that pressure is a social one. It doesn't change the inequality that exists between how women's physical appearances are judged compared to men's. It doesn't change the fact that almost every childhood story most kids hear (that aren't about animals) have a "beautiful princess" (and very little else is said about her except that she is beautiful) and a "brave" knight/prince/king/whichever: the princess (or maiden or whatever young woman) is defined by how she looks; the male in the story by how he acts.

It also doesn't change the fact that so many young girls grow up hearing the women around them criticize various parts of their bodies and that they carry this into their lives. It doesn't change the fact that we expect (in Western countries at least) for women to have criticisms about their appearance and they are "stuck-up" or "full of themselves" if they don't. It doesn't change the fact that magazines photos, red carpet photos, films, tv shows etc., feature actresses who are beautiful in a way that is absolutely above and beyond exceptional (and who either have had work done cosmetically, or are wealthy enough to be able to afford to look the way they do through top-class makeup artists, personal trainers etc) but who we think are within the "normal" range of beauty because faces like theirs are all that we see--how many famous actors / entertainers can you name who look like they could be someone's random uncle, or "just some guy" (writing this, I can think of 5). Now how many actresses, equally famous, can you think of that are the same? Very, very, very few.

The point of those posts, and why I feel so strongly about this, is that we have a deeply skewed view of beauty when it comes to women, because, as a society, we place so much on how they look in such a way that it is not, and was never meant to be, achievable: therefore anything that contributes to how women look, that markets itself in the way that the makeup industry does in this day and age, needs to be questioned and looked at in relation to that. No one is saying don't wear eyeliner or blush--what they are trying to say is that we need to be aware of the kind of world eyeliner and blush exists in, what their particular functions as eyeliner and blush do in the world that they exist in, that we exist in, and how this does impact the view we have on makeup as a result. Your personal enjoyment may be true to you and others, but this doesn't change the role of female beauty in the world because, again, our personal choices don't define the world in this way. Often, it's the other way around. And we cannot deny this fact because, while it may not affect you negatively, it does affect others.

I absolutely agree with you because I don't care how other women around me choose to dress or express themselves, either--that's their freedom to wear what they want and enjoy themselves and I want them to have that freedom. But my view is not the world's view, and it's certainly not the view of a lot of other people, either. I don't care if another woman loves pink and wearing skirts and dresses--but, like makeup, pink, skirts, and dresses, are not neutral things either. They're tied to a particular image of 'femininity' which means they are tied to a particular way of "being a woman" in this world. I'm not saying, at all, that it's wrong to wear these things. But I'm saying we can't treat them as though these are choices as simple as choosing what kind of socks to wear, because they aren't. They are choices that have baggage. If a woman is seen as being silly, childish, or treated unequally because she enjoys cute tops and ribbons and sundresses, that's not because we are demonizing her choices, or because being anti-makeup is being anti-woman (again, it is absolutely not): it's because we as a society demonize women for any choice. That isn't because of anti-makeup stances--that's because of sexism.

You mentioned that you want to be treated the same as anyone else for wearing feminine clothes--but the fear that you wouldn't be isn't because of the discussions critiquing makeup and other traditionally "feminine" things--it's because we live in a society where women are constantly defined by how they appear on the outside, and no amount of our personal choices will make this untrue. Whether you are a girly-girl or a tomboy, you'll always be judged. And, in reality, when women follow certain beauty standards they do get treated better--but this doesn't mean much in a society where the standards are so high you can never reach them, and where the basic regard for women is so low to begin with (not to mention the hypocrisy that exists within those standards). This is what all those criticisms towards makeup and "empowerment" are about: it's about interrogating a society that is built on this kind of logic and asking why we should insist on leaving it as it is when it does so much damage. It's saying that that if we want everyone to truly feel free in how they choose to present themselves we have to go deeper than just defining freedom by these choices on their own, and look at the environment those choices are made in. And that involves some deeply uncomfortable but necessary conversations.

Also, and I think this important to remember, views on makeup and the social place of makeup will also depend on culture and where you are, and the beauty expectations you grew up with. And when it comes to the internet, and given American dominance online, a lot of these posts criticizing makeup and the way makeup is being used to sell an idea that wearing it is "empowering" to the woman (which is basically saying: you are MORE of a woman when you wear it; you are stronger and more powerful because, in our society, beauty is portrayed as a form of power: it tells you, you can battle the inequality women face by embracing the role beauty plays in our lives but it doesn't tell you this emphasis on beauty is part of that inequality), are based on the way makeup is portrayed in mostly English-speaking Western countries. My views are shaped by what I grew up seeing, and while a full face of makeup (concealer, primer, foundation, mascara, highlighter, contour, blush, brow tint, brow gel etc) may not be daily practice or even embraced in a place like France or maybe other places in mainland Europe (but that doesn't mean they don't have their own expectations of feminine beauty), they are daily practice in places like the US and Britain, and this is what most of those posts and criticisms are responding to.

We can argue as much as we want about makeup, but when you grow up in a society where women feel the need to put on makeup before going to the gym there is something seriously wrong. Embracing makeup and enjoying makeup is one thing, but it cannot be a neutral thing when so much of it is about looking like you're not wearing makeup at all, or when we assume a woman is better qualified for a job or more professional when she wears it. It cannot be a neutral thing when a singer like Alicia Keys goes makeup-free for a red carpet event and it causes a stir online because people think she looks sick (what she looks like is normal--I would argue above normal--but wearing makeup to cover up "flaws" is so normal now that we genuinely don't know what normal skin is supposed to look like because the beauty of these celebrities is part of their appeal: they are something to aspire to). It is absolutely very normal for me, where I am, to see young girls with fake lashes and filled in brows: it's not every girl I pass, but it is enough. I'm not saying they are miserable, or brain-washed, or should be judged. I can believe that for them it's something enjoyable--but how am I supposed to see something like that and not be aware of the kind of celebrities and makeup tutorials that are everywhere on TikTok and YouTube, and that they are seeing everyday? How am I not supposed to have doubts when people tell me "it's their choice!" when the choices being offered are so limited and focused on one thing?

I never wore makeup as a teenager and I still don't, but a lot of that is because I grew up surrounded by people who just didn't. Makeup was never portrayed as anything bad or forbidden (and I don't see it like that either)--it was just this thing that, for me growing up, was never made to be a necessity not even for special occasions. I saw airbrushed photos and magazines all around me, for sure, and I definitely felt the beauty pressure and the body pressure (for example, I definitely felt my confidence would be better if I wore concealer to deal with my uneven skintone, and I felt this for years). But I also know that, growing up, I saw both sides. No makeup was the default I saw at home, while makeup was the default I saw outside. And that does play a part, not just in the choices you make, but in the choices that you feel you are allowed to make. No makeup was an option for me because it was what I saw everyday, even with my own insecurities; but if you do not see that as an option around you (and I know for most girls my age, where I grew up, it probably wasn't) then how can we fully argue that the decision you make is a real choice?

If I wanted to wear a cute skirt outside, for example, and decided to shave my legs--that isn't a real choice. And it cannot ever be a real choice, no matter how much I say "this is for me" or "I prefer it like this" because going out in public with hairy legs and going out in public with shaved legs will cause two completely different reactions. How can I separate what I think is "my choice" from a choice I make because I want to avoid the negative looks and comments? And how can I argue that choosing to shave is a freely made choice when the alternative has such negativity? If you feel pressured into choosing one thing over another, that's not a choice. Does this make sense?

This is how I feel about makeup most of the time, and what I want more than anything else is for us to be able to have a conversation about why we make the choices we do beyond saying "it makes me feel good" and ending the conversation there. Again, I'm not saying people need to stop wearing makeup or stop finding enjoyment in wearing it, but I think we tend to get so focused on our own feelings about this and forget that there is a bigger picture and this picture is a deeply unequal one. That is what this conversation is about. I hope this explains some things, anon, and if I misinterpreted anything please feel free to message me again. x

Response to #393: Yes TOS has its sexist moments; I'm not gonna pretend it doesn't. Nor am I going pretend Gene Roddenberry was some saint after the way he treated Grace Lee Whitney. But I don't think it should be remade. Instead it should be kept as a reminder to future Trek writers how they can improve on writing from the sixties. Also, shows after TOS had their racist and sexist moments too despite being more "progressive." Should they be also be remade? Rick Berman and Brannon Braga have a bad reputation in the fandom for how they treated their actresses like Marina Sirtis, Terry Farrell, Jeri Ryan, Jolene Blalock, etc. At least TOS sexualized both women AND men whereas subsequent shows sans Lower Decks were way more focused on sexualizing the women.

posting this as a response to a previous confession.

feeling rly unsafe 2day, but it's specifically bc of being a trans guy, i keep seeing stuff from cis women abt how men r always the worst and how men hav a duty 2 make their lives revolve around women or else we're sexist, how apparently men need 2 all b willing 2 lay down their lives 4 any woman or else we're just as bad as the creeps who make ppl feel unsafe 2 go out at night and yes i said people not just women but they only want 2 acknowledge it when it's a cis woman that's the victim

i did not fucking sign up for this

i did not fucking sign up 2 sacrifice my life either literally or thru dedicating my life only 2 others just because the pronoun "he" fits me better than the pronoun "she"

i should not hav 2 worry that im an inherently bad person because of being a gay trans man

i should not hav 2 worry abt being perceived as a threat bc of being a queer man of colour

i've honestly started to hav thoughts abt de-transitioning not bc being a guy in the way i am doesn't fit me but rather out of fear of the scrutiny every action of mine will b placed under

i was sexually abused as a child but i guess that doesn't matter anymore because im a man now, boys don't cry they punch ig, apparently since im a man now it means im destined 2 become that which hurt me

all i want is to be a man, in a nonbinary way yes but still a man (demi-guy), i want to love men who love me back, i want to live a quiet life surrounded by love and happiness, i want to live a gentle life

but no.... because im a man now then apparently it must make me predatory in some way

i can't de-transition... i know i wouldn't survive emotionally... so i stick with it, with allowing myself to be a demi-guy.... but it hurts knowing that me being free is perceived as dangerous, that im seen as inherently a threat to women

edit: so a terf started clowning this post, just 2 make this shit clear, this is not a fucking debate blog this is a me posting abt my feelings blog, i would've thought the url "my-traumacore-sideblog" would've made that clear

also no racism and sexism is not the same thing

yes women face oppression at the hands of men and should be allowed to talk about it but men also face oppression at the hands of women and should be allowed to talk abt it, 4 men who r not in a minority group this is usually in terms of legal stuff (how r*pe is legally categorised, custody disputes ect) but this is even more of an issue and more every day when it comes to men in marginalised communities, yk like me, yk like what i was venting abt in my fucking post i should b allowed 2 talk abt my own oppression 2 and acting like me venting abt my own oppression in a post tagged as a vent post on my vent blog makes me the same as my white oppressors is not only terf shit but also racist and it shows a lack of political literacy, a woman has just as much capacity 4 violence as a man but a queer man of colour is seen as inherently violent and a white woman is inherently seen as always being a victim but ur ok w/ these white women using that power of perceived vulnerability 2 call 4 violence against queer men and men of colour and especially queer men of colour just say u want cis women klansmen and leave im not backing down from talking abt my own oppression bc of white woman tears

anyways person who clowed is now blocked so don't bother trying 2 respond 2 my edit

"the world has come to an end-" the world has come to pedophilia, racism, colourism, transphobia, homophobia, feminicide, ableism, wars, genocide, child suicide, grooming, incest etc and the thing your most worried about is if a guy wears nail polish

POC women in media: demonized or ignored

POC men in media: straight up fetishized

Not an anti thing but I have a question. If I am fine to reading ☠️🕊️ fiction such as the ones including incest, underage, non-con, violence and torture and etc. but I hate and cannot accept fictions that have racial slurs, purposely written for spread racism or sexism ideology, or are full of far-rightist propaganda and such, can I still call myself a pro-fiction?

First off, this sounds and feels like bait, but I will still answer in good faith.

Who decides what is purposely written to spread hateful ideology? Who has the right to decide what fiction exists? How do we know the authors' intent unless they say it themselves? What's racist when things that are considered racist in America aren't in other countries or vice-versa? None of these questions have straight answers, really, so you can hate it as much as you want, and you don't have to accept it, but that doesn't mean it won't exist.

Writing will always, to some extent, reflect the world we live in. The only way to minimize hateful fiction is to minimize hateful attitudes and behaviors in real life. Not on tumblr, not on Twitter, not on Instagram, and not on AO3.

No matter what you need to recognize that you are the only person who can control your online experience, you need to block things you don't like, and that's all there is to it. So long as you understand that and the fact that harrasment is never okay, you can be a proshipper. Everyone has shit they don't like its how you act in response that defines you.

It kinda is always so striking to me that ppl dont really talk about how the portrayals of the gerudo in both botw and totk really Sucks, Actually cuz its kinda like. Very blatantly fetishistic and such a male fantasy of a tribe of Hot Dark Skinned Women wearing armor bikinis. Its strange how ppl either dive into the misogyny of it or close their eyes. Like it sucks guys!

I like the characters n the area but it i cringe so much with how all gerudo women are All About finding a man and when my sister was playing totk she met that group of incels in the oasis who are trying to lie and infiltrate gerudo town to see how women and i like. Recoiled

I know we don't know how Olrox and Mizrak's relationship is going to go yet but it is not at all comparable to Hector and Lenore.

Olrox claimed not to care if Mizark died and then went on to save his life. Lenore manipulated and raped Hector.

These are not at all alike. I am genuinely concerned that people say they are.

Is it just me or are there like, never any depictions of people having panic attacks that aren’t white women? Like there are references to or the start of panic attacks for other people, but I could probably count on one hand the characters who aren’t white women who’ve had full-blown panic attacks on screen, and they’re all white men.

#468

"The writers/producers had the opportunity to correct the sexism/racism of TOS with AOS. They didn't do shit about it. AOS!Kirk is the worse with women and even spied on Nyota, like WTF. Well they manage to write a romance for Nyota with Spock, in TOS time, they couldn't do it because racism. So far, it's the only positive stuff about the movies."

it's especially pivotal that those kind of stories exist now in the current climate because we do need more stories that handle difficult subjects with intensity and depth they deserve for people to actually gain literacy skills, develop critical thinking and oppose injustices happening in the real world

Christianity does not equal homophobia does not equal racism does not equal transphobia does not equal ableism does not equal sexism does not equal hatred of any kind

The choice that some Christians make to be hateful should not represent the religon and certainly should not represent God

The Wasp Factory is starting to kind of piss me off. i seriously love the story and brand of horror it presents, but the racist and sexist remarks the main character occasionally makes just puts a sour taste in my mouth. i understand Frank is supposed to be a psychopath and a fundamentally horrible human being, but it honestly just gets irritating. he can murder his little cousins and spend all day burning rabbits to death without throwing in how much he thinks women are stupid and weak. it feels entirely unneeded. also, the fact that there is not a single female character present in the book so far just furthers my belief that Frank being sexist is less of an intentional, mean-spirited character trait and more of just the authors bias. im going to finish the book because the plot greatly intrigues and i need to see how it ends( and I've already bought the book so i don't want to waste it) but its unfortunately getting really annoying and a little hard to look past those things.

i recommended The Wasp Factory if you truly want to challenge yourself when it comes to reading books that are hard to read- as in the content can become so gross and unbearable. i do enjoy making myself uncomfortable when it comes to reading, so that's the only upside to this i guess.