"Makeup is literally the best part of being a gi-" no. please leave my house.

i know it's a silly harhar joke and i find it funny too but characters like alex and buck not realizing they're bisexual for a long time isn't because they're stupid. it's not because they necessarily dislike being attracted to men. it's because of bisexual erasure within both heterosexual and queer space being rampant for a long time and is only starting to get better now. bisexuals make up around 60% of the lgbt+ community, (in the us) but look how long the wikipedia page for bisexual erasure is.

not only do more women/afab people identify as bisexual, but keep in mind that bisexual people overall are much less likely to identify as bisexual to others or be out than gay and lesbian people because part of the bisexual experience is feeling like you're not allowed to even sit at the table, so to speak. most bisexual+ men may have queer feelings and experiences, but they may not examine those things as much as a bisexual women might because biphobia and the patriarchy tie together in a way that is unique to bisexual men.

characters like alex and buck are so impactful because they're new. most bisexual representation in tv and film has been women until recently, and even that is still rare. a character like callie torres on grey's in 2009 — when i was 14! — helped me see myself as a bisexual, but men have not had characters like that until nearly ten years later. and it's not until i even read rwrb in 2020 that i saw any bisexual character not receive some degree of biphobia from their love interest.

representation is important because when we see someone experience what we experience it helps us name something we may not have fully understood about ourselves before and put a name to it because they're on that same journey on screen. alex and buck were always bi, they just didn't know they were allowed to be so. they're not stupid, they were failed by society and had to unlearn their own internalized biphobia and bisexual erasure because so many of us, even subconsciously, think we're not allowed to exist and/or to take up space in a community that we are literally in the acronym of. no one really talks about us except us.

you're not stupid if you didn't know you were bi the whole time, you're not stupid for not knowing when you were a teenager or in your twenties either.

(*i am genderfluid/nb but am mostly using m/f here for the sake of this specific conversation. bisexual nb people exist too.)

If men aren't the ones holding up the patriarchy then pray tell, who is? Oppression isn't some non corporeal force, it is created and regularly enforced by the oppressive class. It is the culmination of what a class of individuals think and do that create oppression. I think you should read even just the wikipedia article for Feminism and Patriarchy.

The answer is everyone who isn't actively fighting it. Not just men. Have you really never encountered women who enforce patriarchal gender roles on their families? What about all these female GOP politicians who regularly fight against women's rights?

You are correct, oppression isn't some non-corporeal force. But its not just the actions of individuals either. It is a system and a culture. It is maintained not just by those who actively defend it but also by those who act within it complacently. It's not some cult where people have to be forced to take action to maintain it, the patriarchy is a culture that we are all raised in. It implants itself in the minds of all people who exist within it through social rules and people, all people, will act on and pass on that culture if they do not actively fight to identify and remove it from themselves.

The patriarchy is often passive; meaning it doesn't have to be actively enforced by the conscious will of individuals to have effects on us. It is woven into our environments so deeply that everyone is conditioned to act on it and pass it on, even if we are not consciously aware that is what we're doing. Just like any other cultural element, the people who live within it tend to take it for granted as facts of reality. Ever heard of implicit bias? That is how systems like these maintain themselves.

There is not some active conspiracy among men to uphold and wield the patriarchy. Its not something they, or anyone else who hasn't challenged it in themselves, are consciously thinking about and controlling. It's just a culture that people are raised to think is the natural order of things. Yes, the oppressive class (in this case men) enforce oppression, but a very significant portion of that is done without any intention to oppress. It is, again, what people have been taught by the patriarchy is the natural order. Acting like all men, by virtue of being men, are in on some scheme to oppress women is disingenuous. Some may be (Andrew Tate, for example) but your average garden variety dude is not on some mission to maintain superiority.

Think what you want about me, but I can observe the world with my own two eyes and ears and see that most men are not out to get women. More often than not their harmful behaviors are done without any knowledge or understanding of the damage they can have (Obviously I'm not referring to things like abuse and rape, before you jump to extreme conclusions.). And they are never going to gain that understanding and start pulling the weeds of patriarchy from their minds if we do not allow them to process and discuss the way patriarchy plays out in their own lives.

So yeah, you're right. Men do uphold the patriarchy. It's not just men, but they do have the largest impact. But what I feel you get wrong is this framing that they always do so consciously, that it is an active thing that they are choosing and therefore must answer for. Most of the time it is implicit bias. And the only places those biases are challenged are feminist ones. Or at least ones with feminist influence. If we keep excluding them that fact will never change and they will never stop upholding the patriarchy. They do not hold it up because they're male, they hold it up because that's all they've been taught to do. They have been raised by a culture designed to perpetuate these ideas and pass them from generation to generation.

Idk why it's not obvious to more people, but maleness is not the cause of patriarchy. The ideology of patriarchy is. And ideology can be passed on by anyone, to anyone. If we just ignore this crucial source, nothing is going to change. We are going to fight a constant uphill battle if we just assume that men are changeably in favor of this ideology and give up on rooting it out. We need to root it out. That is probably the most important step we can take toward dismantling the patriarchy right now. And the most effective way to do that is to actually discuss the patriarchy with men and allow them to express and process their perspective and experience without being driven away for their thoughts. No, this doesn't mean just tolerate prejudice silently. What it does mean is to listen, consider, empathize, and start pulling the weeds of prejudice out by challenging biased statements in a way that doesn't make them go on the defensive.

Seriously, how do you propose we end the patriarchy? What's the plan here? Because to me the most obvious course of action is to free men and women alike from the captivity of this harmful ideology until there is no one left to uphold it. And we do that by assessing all effects of the patriarchy and discussing them, including the ways they effect men. In what way would it ever be bad to better understand the patriarchy? Because that's what happens when you allow men's experiences to be discussed.

Maybe you don't see it this way, but when I think of Feminism the goal is to free all of humanity from the grips of patriarchy, not to free women from men. The problem is the culture and ideology of patriarchy, not men for wielding it. Or at very least, that's the problem we should be focusing on if we want to make any progress. I don't see how we could ever stop men from perpetuating the patriarchy if we don't make them stop believing its lies and assumptions.

can you pls talk about rhaenys bc her conversation with alicent in ep9 INFURIATES me

Oop get ready for an unpopular opinion. I actually love that whole conversation and everything it illuminates about both Alicent and Rhaenys. It's such an effective and devastating commentary on the different reactions women have to the patriarchy. And I don't think it has to be read as Rhaenys antagonizing or looking down upon Alicent, in which case she definitely does come across as a hypocrite, given that she never once even attempts to disobey her husband no matter how strongly she disagrees with him.

But is that the only way to read Rhaenys's words here? No. And I'm not convinced she's trying to accuse Alicent of wrongdoing here, especially in light of the conversation Rhaenys had with Rhaenyra in episode 2. In that conversation, Rhaenyra very much seems to be reveling in the fact that she is an exception while Rhaenys is not. Rhaenys fails to rise to the bait, because she understands what Rhaenyra does not: There is no exception to misogyny, not even if you are the rightful heir to the throne. So it seems odd for Rhaenys to see right through Rhaenyra there, and yet to turn around and do the exact same thing to Alicent.

So I think that in episode 9 Rhaenys is commiserating with Alicent. Consider the actual words she says. Never once does she insult Alicent, or imply that she is evil for the things she's had to do. She simply says, "you toil still in service to men. Your father, your husband, your son." This doesn't have to be a judgment, since Rhaenys has spent her entire life doing the exact same thing. Remember, in this scene Rhaenys is trying to convince Alicent to free her. It's not unthinkable that she's trying to build common ground and incite Alicent's sympathy in order to get herself released. It's not unthinkable that she says this knowing the exact same thing applies to her, too, that she says this precisely because of it.

And consider the line "have you never imagined yourself on the Iron Throne" and how incredibly telling it is. Rhaenys isn't necessarily marveling at the fact that Alicent works within the limits of the patriarchy, because for all the above reasons Rhaenys herself very much does the same thing; she's marveling at the fact that Alicent is so brainwashed she doesn't even allow herself to privately dream of freedom. That she "desire[s] not to be free, but to make a window within the wall of [her] prison."

Because Rhaenys cannot stop imagining it, imagining herself on the Iron Throne. The indignity and cruelty and injustice of being denied her birthright haunts her every waking moment. Now, this anger does not give her the power to challenge what has been done to her. She conforms, and she submits, just like Alicent. But it makes her fucking furious, while Alicent will not even allow herself that. Rhaenys cannot be content with just a window, and she knows that deep down Alicent cannot be, either, but that doesn't mean Rhaenys thinks she's any less trapped within that prison. Rhaenys wants more than a window, and yet she knows that both her and Alicent will never be able to have anything more.

Rhaenys isn't marveling in how brainwashed Alicent is. She's sympathizing with it. Yes, she's frustrated and angry, but she displays enough awareness throughout the series to indicate that she'd understand Alicent isn't the target of her ire. She's venting, y'all, to the only other person who might understand her unique torment as a high-born woman whose power is still not enough to save her.

I know fandom loves to pit women against each other, especially in this case given the whole team divide within the HotD fandom. But in my mind, this is simply an excruciatingly honest and vulnerable conversation between two women who have spent their entire lives being trampled by the patriarchy, allowing it to happen because they have no other choice. They are the same in every way, and they are the same in their helplessness in the face of institutional misogyny. Alicent and Rhaenys are the same, save for how they privately feel about their circumstances: Whether they feel resignation, or rage.

And these negative feelings are levied not towards each other, because they both understand (unlike baby Rhaenyra in episode 2) that other women are not and have never been the enemy. Instead, these feelings are directed towards the men, towards the patriarchy, towards the system that has actually done this to them. Rhaenys is furious in this scene, but I think it's so much more interesting if you recognize that she is only ever furious at what the patriarchy has done to her, and that the only things she feels towards Alicent are camaraderie and pity.

HotD is a fascinating exploration of all of the different ways in which women try to respond or cope with the patriarchy. Alicent, a noble but relatively unpowerful girl, spends her entire life submitting to the more powerful men around her, telling herself she's alright with how things are. Rhaenys, one of the most powerful women alive, the rightful heir to the Throne and a dragonrider to boot, spends her entire life submitting to her more powerful, male family members, raging internally the whole way. Rhaenyra, arguably the most powerful woman alive, the rightful heir to the Throne and a dragonrider with the backing of all of the men in her family, fights and refuses to accept that things have to be this way. And yet all of them still suffer.

All of them still lose.

GRRM shows that no matter how much a woman conforms, and no matter how much a woman rebels, and no matter how much power a woman has within the system, the system will always win. No single person will ever best a centuries-instilled institution of oppression. This is also the reason why Daenerys succeeds, where these equally intelligent and talented women fail: Because she dismantles the system of power entirely. Because she breaks the wheel.

Moving The Goalposts: Infighting, Exorsexism, and Transandrophobia

I want to start this off not by getting directly into the meat of my theory, but instead by showing all of you a post that I came across today that illustrates exactly what I am talking about when I say that transandrophobes, and specifically TEHMs in this case, move the goalposts in a way that causes infighting within the trans(masc) community. This is a post by a pretty well-known TEHM whose blog I've been watching for a while.

What Jackson is doing here seems pretty obvious on the surface. He's making fun of nonbinary people who were AFAB because he perceives them as fakers and/or trenders. However, when you take a look at some of the other things that he believes, you realize that it just isn't that simple.

This is a post by one of Jackson's mutuals on here. If you don't know what some of these phrases mean, "trans heterosexual" refers to gay trans people (in this case, it's likely focusing on transmascs, but this rhetoric harms transfem lesbians too), and "trans homosexual" refers to straight trans people. What lavenderlad is trying to do is infantilize non-straight trans people, acting like we are complaining about nothing (maybe hysterical, even) for pointing out the oppression that we face from cishets and cis queers alike.

But it goes even deeper.

This right here is a very interesting post, specifically because lavenderlad seems to have changed his tune completely. As opposed to infantilizing us like in the previous post, he has now switched to transandrophobic conspiracy theories about how we are apparently some sort of dominant societal force despite being less than 2% of the population. My antisemitism radar is going off right now, too, because this sounds suspiciously like your average antisemite talking about Jews. He went very quickly from treating us like we're little girls who can't do anything to treating us like evil, scary men who are trying to invade his space.

He moved the goalposts because it was convenient for him at this moment to contribute to the oppression of gay trans men.

To elaborate, there's a specific type of transandrophobia seen in these circles that Jackson and lavenderlad are using. They are applying both maleness and femaleness to us. They infantilize us like we are women, and use our perceived femininity to justify gatekeeping us out of their spaces, while also using very common anti-gay male and generally anti-marginalized male stereotypes such as us being inherently aggressive, invaders, our bodies disgusting, etc. It's exorsexism, plain and simple.

And I feel like these posts show us how transandrophobes and transphobes in general can cause infighting within the trans community. A feminine nonbinary person might look at Jackson's first post and go "see! trans men have so much better than me!" but in fact, trans men, both binary and nonbinary, aren't actually treated any better. The grass is not greener. Trans men who try to conceal our birth sex and/or transness are considered liars, trying to invade spaces we don't belong, and more; but trans men and transmascs who do not try to pass, who don't try to conceal our transness, are accused of being "not really dysphoric."

Do not be fooled into thinking that transandrophobes would like you better if your gender expression was different. They don't want trans men to be displaying our transness, they don't want us to go stealth, and they don't want anything in between. They want us to be cis. Do not argue with your trans brothers about who society hates more; because society will see you as whatever will prove a transandrophobe's point. Address the root problems of patriarchy and transandrophobia instead of letting infighting eat us alive.

"What I really realized about some of my ideas of freedom is that they were like neoliberal fantasies. It's like, 'let me choose everything,' 'leave me alone all the time,' 'don't put any demands on me--only I will make demands.' It's a dark vision, and it really took me a long time to understand that the things that I'd been taught by the capitalist 80s to believe were unfreedom are freedom. Having people who mean something to you, who you have duties towards, is not unfreedom; it's freedom. It's actual existence...To be free of meaning is not freedom. Now my life is full of meanings, sometimes they're difficult, sometimes they're painful, but it's absolutely full. I don't think children are the only root to that kind of meaning, but I absolutely think you have to find something other than yourself to focus on.

...

When I meet a lot of other lady writers, I know, when we first had children we spent our whole time talking about how we were somehow trapped or imprisoned, but that's the most superficial idea of what a relation with other people is like. Now I consider all my relations--my friends, my dog, my husband, my family--as things that liberate me from myself. They are absolute freedom to me, and without them I would just be completely lost. A dog can do this for you, a cat can do this for you, going down to the larder and volunteering can do this for you. You just need to be among other people at some point, because otherwise it's hard to find in yourself (or for me anyway) a reason to go on.

...

It's a question of what does that freedom involve. I notice with the 'children thing' is that, at least in my own case, you spend so long battling to try and retain your own space. Then, when you look at what you've battled for, it isn't very much. These children are about to grow and disappear so quickly that you're going to get what you want sooner than you can imagine. All of these things are so out of sync with our capitalist discourse which is about 'you do you,' 'get what you want.' When it comes into conflict with this other thing, I guess we have in our heads, 'Am I become some kind of Victorian or old-fashioned person who is domesticated and a traditional woman.' We fight against that as if there's no liberating version of being connected to other people. That is the triumph of capitalism: it convinces you that it's just you and the shops, it's just you and the phone, and that's all that there is. Where there is an older vision of solidarity between people, within families, between children, between men and men, women and women, men and women--a community that is freeing. It's not a trap. It's like the only thing that brings joy.

...

I also think that's one of the tricks of the patriarchy: it makes you feel that all the traditional, supposedly feminine arts are humiliating. But why are they humiliating? In my house, it was the other way around. My dad was the cook. My dad was the cleaner. My mom was working a lot. My dad did a lot of those things. They're not humiliating when a man does them, apparently--[Interviewer Annie Macmanus: They're noble.]--He's been dead a long time, and sometimes, I can think of a meal he used to cook me, and it will bring me to tears. It was an art. And it was nourishing. And it was beautiful. And I'm so grateful. It was an act of love. I can't cook like that. My children will never have those memories of me. But, it's not nothing. It's the art of living. If it was a supposedly traditionally male art, you'd be getting awards for it...So I really resent the idea that these things are humiliating, even when I am picking up pants off the stairs, I think, 'I'm doing something for somebody else.' There is something noble in that, I hope.

Of course, the frustration is real. I think men suffer it just as much as women. I think to the credit of many contemporary men, they are doing absolutely the same amount of work...So the frustration is no longer purely female, which might be one of the triumphs of feminism. It's now something that lots of people have to experience, men and women. It's not that it's not real, but I have come to realize that [the frustration]'s not entirely debilitating. When it comes to art making, frustration can be really useful. Not being able to write, having your hands tied for part of every day, when I get down to my desk, I can't wait. Whereas when I was twenty-seven, I do remember embarrassingly moping around saying, 'Oh, I've got writer's block,' 'Oh, I've got ennui.' That to me now is like a comic thing, a ridiculous person who can't be taken seriously."

Zadie Smith, interviewed on Changes with Annie Macmanus

Hey about your post on the Barbie movie. Totally open to you still disagreeing and hearing why but as someone who saw the movie I just wanted to give perspective.

Obviously the consequences in Barbieland are just cute and funny but ultimately bad but I'm having a hard time seeing how comparing smallpox blankets (a tool of imperialism used to kill people) to infecting a place with patriarchy (another system of oppression that also kills people in real life) is a harmful metaphor.

I agree in a lot of ways the movie completely fails to actually address things like race and class to solely focus on sexism and it has been heavily criticized for being libfem. However, is it not analogous to compare two systems of oppression that obviously work differently but are both very bad?

I appreciate you reading my ask and hearing me out. I look forward to understanding your perspective better.

Thank you for being respectful.

So firstly, as you said the movie has been widely criticized for not touching on racism or classism- which is honestly something I expected. It's The Barbie Movie, after all. I wasn't expecting a particularly in depth exploration of that kind of intersectional feminism. No... Barbie's "intersectionality" lies in its optics. There is a trans Barbie, disabled Barbie, and various woc Barbies. Which begs the question- in a movie that wishes to show case its inclusivity and celebrate that inclusivity via the diversity of it's Barbies...in a movie that wishes to suggest "intersectionality" through the diversity of its Barbies...who then is missing in this film?

There were no Native Barbies.

Honestly, that's not unusual for me as a Native. I didn't expect to see Native Barbie. I don't expect to see Natives in much of anything that doesn't take place in "the old west" or some kind of historical drama (that is, if it isn't being written and/or made by Ndns). Up until recently, people didn't even question why we hardly got to play indigenous roles in films (Johnny Depp as Tonto comes to mind).

Which is why it's so sad that the only representation we get in a film that is trying to tout its "inclusivity" is a throw-away line that references our suffering and the genocide we endured...and are still feeling the effects of to this day.

Tragedy is not one for one. Oppression is not one for one either. I don't agree that small pox was a "tool" of imperialism. Small pox, once colonizers realized they could weaponize it, was a failed "means to an end". It was just genocide. Plain and simple. Also, "patriarchy" is a broad concept that affects multiple people differently (going back to intersectionality) whereas Native genocide only affects Natives. Including the imposition of western, white patriarchy on both Native women and men. If one is going to make comparisons, they need to be prepared to take responsibility for ALL of what that comparison implies.

Let's not forget though, this wasn't just a "comparison". This was a part of a joke. Granted the joke didn't center around smallpox, but it was still placed within an exchange of dialog in which, yes, they are discussing patriarchy, but still funny-silly-goofy things are happening. For one thing, even if you could make the argument that there is an analogy to be made, there is a time and place for things- and it certainly isn't in a comedy centering around two white actors.

There isnt an analogy to be made though. The truth is, this "joke" is apart of a long problematic history of white women (like Greta Gerwig) using the history of minorities as a means to compare their own oppression to atrocities that they were also historically complicit in. White men were not the only one who stood to gain from Native Genocide. It's also a way for white feminists to wiggle their way out of discussions of their own privelege and take accountability for a system that they benefit from.

I would like to posit a question here, if I may... Would you have felt comfortable with a reference about the Holocaust in the Barbie movie? Would you have felt comfortable with a reference about Jim Crow in the Barbie movie? Particularly refenced via a line that had no bearing to the plot or any real attatchment to a character's world view or identity? That could have gone unmissed from the final product as a whole? If the thought made you pause or cringe, that's understandable. That's how it should be.

Personally, I feel Greta Gerwig felt she could make this comparison because Natives are not always treated as a living group of people suffering under colonialism, racism, and patriarchy- it's for the same reasons we are only seen in movies set in the "old west"- we are often thought of as something from the past. As though we are already gone. This makes it so Ndns have to work especially hard for our voices to be heard sometimes, because the genocide we experienced wasn't just about exterminating us but convincing people we had already been exterminated.

For all these reasons, Native voices should be elevated, Native actors should be hired, and Native History should be respected.

Why Isn't Oliver A Girl? A Saltburn Analysis

shoutout to @aquickstart for this brilliant question that led to me writing this in my notes app at 7 in the morning and simply does not deserve to be relegated to DMs. hope you all enjoy our brainrot!

~~~~

i think it depends on this. which aspect of olivers desire for felix is most offensive to modern normie sensibilities? the homosexual one, or the selfcestuous one? i...say its the former. i think its seen as normal to want, if not allowed to actually achieve, (particularly given british bloodline classism), for a white man to want to be a different, more powerful white man. to want to ascend his social position for power.

but if oliver was a woman, it would be the inverse. her romantic desire would be seen as normal, (if still unsettling, because of its sexually predatory nature. because people are not used to thinking of women as interested in or capable of sexual violence, much less seeing it onscreen.) but her desire to BE him would be the uncomfortable part, bc women are not supoosed to want power in a man way, theyre supposed to want it in a woman way. theyre supposed to work within the system as a damsel to white men. white women, particularly those who are not opporessed in any other way, are the First Lady to white supremacy. they are not supposed to want to fully replace men at the top of the food chain, they are supposed to utilize their position as subordinate to further their entitlement to second in command status; because being subordinant grants them the plausible deniability of victimhood. just as felixs appearance of ultimate generosity absolves him of guilt for his privilege, so does white womens appearance of ultimate victimhood absolve them of theirs.

except....thats actually common. look at terfs. look at White Feminism and how it seeks to merely replace men rather than dismantle the system entirely. so while on some level it would still be upsetting to cis men to see a story that seemingly openly condones misandrist social climb, i think they would dismiss it as simply reverse sexism. and people would misinterpret it as that, as being a poor attempt at feminism that accidentally shows its ass by glorfiying girlboss feminism.

but. thats the (unreliable) narrative girloliver tells us.

because girl olivers desire for felix would not be one of heterosexual romantic interest. it would be one of cannibalistic gender envy. girl oliver could not exist, because she would be a trans man.

and THAT. would make people WAY too uncomfortable. it would put way too much scrutiny on the very few trans men in the public eye. it would not be safe. the reason we are able to take saltburn in good faith, is because the narrative of gay male desire as predatory is no longer the only depiction of it. i think it would break peoples minds seeing transmaculinity as predatory rather than transfemininity, and not in a good way. i dont think cis men would even conciously pick up on it, much less feel threatened by it. i think theyd be far more uncomfortable with the idea of women, cis women, being sexually predatory.

but cis women in the audiences would lose their shit. because they see transmasculinity not as predatory, but as cowardly. as a betrayal of sisterhood, a joining of the enemy and a defecting of that mutual suffering under patriarchy that white cis women cling to because it grants them that immunity when they enact their own bigotry. because womanhood is something you are supoosed to love and hate in equal measure. so to want to denounce it, to be dysphoric and find more joy in being masculine, is offensive because it bursts that bubble, it shows this narrative of universal sisterhood for the cult that it is. wanting to leave means you are excommunicated. just as a trans woman wanting to be accepted into that sisterhood, bursts the bubble because it acknowledges that theres more to womanhood than hating it.

but....heres the thing. this is what would make girliver (heh) saltburn brilliant. it would force people to reconsile with the fact that out of the two. out of transmasculinity, and girlboss feminism. one of them is much more uncomfortable to us, much more of a threat to patriarchy rather than a contribution to it. and its not the one we pretend it is. desoite the supposed accepted narrative that misandrist social climb is the most hated thing...its actually a fundamental part of how white patriatchy functions. the REAL thing people consider transgressive, is the notion that you would want to be a man not for power but for the joy of it. to separate maleness from power. because you are not allowed to feel that. either as a trans or even it seems to me a cis man.

one of my first thoughts when i went to answer this was that... canon oliver and felix as metaphors speak of...white male emptiness. of the way consumerism, both in the capitalistic material gain sense, and in the primal cannibalistic sexual consumptiom and discarding of your conquests - is the only avenue through which men are allowed to signal a personality. they do not get to experience true self love outside of who they  provide for or who serves them. self love and appreication of ones own beauty outside of sexual usefulness are considered feminine. so is appreciation of beauty as a whole outside of sexual appeal. it is considered gay (in feminine therefore transgressive therefore infectious and predatory way) to appreciate a nuce fruity drink. or a sunset. or to put effort into ones own appearance, outside of the exclusive purposes of either getting pussy, or living up to the male power fantasy. to love masculinity for masculinities sake. not in a romantic way but in a self love way, is a deeply transgressive act. that NO ONE talks about. but it is everywhere. so for girl oliver to ugly cry while flicking the bean like its an actual dick on top of a grave, only to retroactively claim her obsession with felix was just a good for her girlboss narrative...that would rip the common narrative like a wet paper bag.

it would also totally reframe the sex scenes with venetia and farleigh. with venetia it would be a case of...on the one hand the taboo of predatory lesbianism. but on the other, the girlbossification of..... katy perry style straight women sexual experimentation. particularly with transmascs, bc it gives them the plausible deniability that its not actually gay. so thered be a lot of debate there who is really taking advantage of who there. especially because nonpenetrative particularly lesbian sex isnt seen as real sex therefore its not seen as a form of assault. and with farleigh itd be a case of girlbossifying sexual conquest over men. pegging. tho i doubt girl oliver would pack a strap. maybe shed finger him idfk. but itd definitely be some sort of like, sexual dominance as empowering until you think about the racial dynamic and realize its actually buckbreaking.

so ultimately i think it would be BRILLIANT. but it would also be a fundamentally different story, which people simply are not ready to hear. idk enough about emerald fennell to judge whether or not she would be able to even think of this, let alone portray it faithfully, given she is a white wealthy cis woma, but especially after barbie, i am IFFY about white wealthy cis womens attempts at feminism. particularly when it comes to gender transgression and portrayal of transmasculinity of any kind. fucking sasha in barbie is the only one who dislikes hot pink feminism, shes not even a proper tomboy, and shes effectively forcefemmed

Here's hoping thus doesn't disappear into the void.

What are your thoughts on how MXTX essentially fetishizes M/M relationship in MDZS as well as glorifies rape in its portrayal of Wangxian's relationship?

I've seen takes on how their sexual relationship is unhealthy but I feel like I'm missing a puzzle piece here?

You know, anon, I doubt this is in good faith given what I just posted. And you also harassed me with two other similarly worded anons. But fine, I'l answer.

Let me reiterate, this argument is bullshit as well as infantilizing adult queers. As if those of us that had lived within the actual space when we weren't allowed to breath the words gay or lesbian in a serious space. Because well minded people aren't gay, it's shameful. Further more, gay people even having SEX and KINKS while out, was debased. The only good queers were the ones that were celibate and their sex lives are none existent, because it was shameful to say you were interested in sex.

How dare a work explore a man's self-understanding. How dare Wei Wuxian be ignorant of gay relationships in a predominantly heterosexual world. How dare a gay man, in a heavily misogynistic world realize this, play into this, and be compulsive heterosexual for his own safety.

A good gay can't like roleplay non-consent, because that's buying into the patriarchy of men. Kink, is bad, because we're told to be ashamed of being sexually explorative with like minded gays, because it's "bad". Because we're not mature enough to actually understand what's for our own good. Like Wei Wuxian, we can't be individualistic. BDSM or in that scope of sexual exploration is dirty and bad for our health actually. Because I am uncomfortable, with a sexual kink, that is a common part of actual sexual marriage play, it's bad. If you are both willing to explore that kink, it's still bad, because you are now buying into the stereotypes of what's expected of us. Having a dirty dream about a school day turned to sex, is actually non-consensual now, because there isn't a script to follow like we've been told by other well-meaning queers who have told us what sex is ACTUALLY like. Reminds you of all that porn exploitation we're supposed to achieve a level of prowess to, but also, condemn that because we're actually better than that heterosexual sex we are forced to see casually in media. We're more enlightened! If I'm supposed to not be an individualistic gay, I have to worry about what others think of my sexuality that is meant to be private! I can't explore it comfortably with a significant other, because good god, what will the public think if they knew what I did in my marriage?

How dare a woman, write for men, in our world were cisgender heterosexual men are already the expectation of achievement, and be so non-traditional, obviously, this is just fetishized and glorification. We are not allowed to explore deeper sex consensually ever, because what would people think about me if I enjoy that?

Does anyone else think that the criticism against the Barbie movie comes off as extremely tone deaf? The movie has an extremely animated, almost cartoonish tone and despite having a precise message regarding women empowerment, it was also clear to me that you aren't supposed to take everything in the film literally. Lots of people have been calling the film anti-male but I don't think that's true. It's just very pro-female. I didn't come out of the film feeling as though the film was suggesting that the world should be a matriarchy. To me it was clear that the patriarchy vs matriarchy thing was done in pure jest. To me the main message of the film was to tell girls not to be embarrassed of their femininity and that being girly, fun, and barbie-like doesn't have to prevent you from being someone who is ambitious and powerful. What makes barbie land magical isn't that it's a matriarchy, it's the fact that women can be goofy and fun and feminine yet still be taken seriously. A lot of people have been calling America Ferrera's monologue cringe and woke but it fit the tone of the film perfectly. Her monologue isn't supposed to address the nuances and complexities of all the problems modern women face, it's supposed to be uplifting, heartfelt yet easy to understand. I think the main problem here was that people won't allow this film to be what it is- a fun movie targeted towards women who grew up loving Barbie. This movie isn't trying to change the world. It exists so that people who love Barbie can sit back for two hours and laugh as Barbie experiences the same things the rest of us do. I get that there are some jokes made about the patriarchy but how is that really any different from men cracking jokes about their wives and girlfriends being crazy. Men have been calling feminists butthurt snowflakes who can't take a joke for years but look what happens when the tables are turned. I personally really enjoyed the movie and I'm tired of people looking for excuses to tear it apart. I understand that people are allowed to criticize movies but I wish the criticisms were within reason and not made simply with the intention of having to hate on something targeted towards women.

Personal experiences with Gender Roles as an AFAB Transmasc

I know not everyone's big on describing yourself with your assigned gender, but for me, it is a pretty significant part of myself and my upbringing specifically. And that's kinda what this post is about.

Growing up as a nonbinary transmasc, there weren't a lot of opportunities for me to have strong feelings about my gender, whether that'd be dysphoria or euphoria.

Presenting masculine-ish as a girl is pretty easy. It's socially very acceptable. We even have a word for it. Tomboy. If there's a non-derogatory version for feminine-presenting boys, I'm not aware of it. I wasn't a full butch tomboy, I kept my hair long and happily wore dresses to special occasions. I also wasn't exposed to particularly strong gender roles. My godfather wore his hair long. My mom being a single mom meant she had to fill the dad role too. My grandparents were equal to each other, even if my grandma was the housewife and my grandpa was the breadwinner - roles that they mostly wrapped up by the time I came around. My gender expression was never about gender, really. It was about convenience. Pants are comfier and allow free movement. Make-up just takes up time in the morning. Flat sneakers are comfier than anything with heels. I wore quite an amount of pink, not by explicit choice, but because they were convenient hand-me-downs. Wearing a pink sweater was more convenient than having to go shopping. Once I got older, I cut my hair short. Also for convenience, of course. (Spoiler: That one wasn't for convenience.) So I didn't really have an opportunity for an "aha" moment when expressing masculinity for the first time. It was just always kinda happening. And it wasn't particularly special. It wasn't like presenting more feminine bothered me, either. No "aha" moments from that side.

I think it's a little more difficult for transmascs to experience and especially identify gender dysphoria. Because growing up female, you're taught over and over that what makes you female is awful, inconvenient, and shameful. Boobs are heavy, painfully sensitive, they get in the way, and give you back problems. Wearing a bra hurts. Not wearing a bra hurts. Bras are expensive, too, but don't you dare show them in public. They're only acceptable in public when they're on poster advertisement models, looking seductively for some reason. When it comes to boobs, no one actually likes having them, but a lot of people enjoy looking at them. There's thousands of jokes about dicks or dick related masturbation. Middle schoolers draw dicks everywhere. It's the height of comedy. You ever see a vulva drawn somewhere? Know a joke or even a euphemism for masturbation involving a vulva/vagina? No, that's taboo. Periods are awful. There are so, so many things I could say here about menstruation, social stigma, pain, and so on. I'm not going to. You've heard it all before, countless times. Of course you hate your period. No one likes their period. There's another whole section I could write about women's role in society as caregivers, about emotional labor, everyday sexism, but you've heard all that as well and the post is long enough already.

Of course you hate being a woman. Being a woman is miserable.

And within this atmosphere, within this external and internalized misogyny, within this misery, how do you differentiate? How do you tell apart dysphoria and the pain of womanhood you've been told is normal? A lot of terfs use this a talking point. They like to claim that trans men are just women who couldn't cope with the misery of the patriarchy. This post isn't about debunking that, but I'd like to briefly go on record and say that they're full of shit. Trans Men are Men. Trans Women are Women.

As someone who hasn't experienced a lot of gender dysphoria or euphoria, this does leave me with the occasional wave of doubt. Are these really trans feelings? Do I just hate being a woman, the way every woman does?

Then I remember that gender is an entirely fake concept and I can do whatever the fuck I want.

Okay this is a take that has been seriously annoying me in fandom, the take being that top and bottom are "hetronormative". Especially in the m/m part of fandom.

In the simplest terms possible, a man fucking a man is not hetronormative. And no, top and bottom as labels aren't hetronormative. These labels were created by us for us and have a rich history within the queer community.

In every single culture queer people have found a way to signal to other queer people that they're a) down to fuck and b) their sexual preferences. Off the top of my head we've got the handkerchief code as the most prominent example. Another is in gay bar lingo gay men wore an anklet on their right to signal that they were bottoms and a bracelet on their left to signal that they're a top.

If you, personally, don't prefer to use these labels, that's fine. But don't undermine and dismiss the labels we as a community made to express our sexual preferences. Once again, a man fucking a man isn't hetronormative.

What is hetronormative is imposing straightness onto aspects of gay sex. It's enforcing a straight lens onto our sexuality, which results in recreating the emasculation of bottoms and the "so, who wears the pants?".

And beyond that, this is dangerous because it's straight up radfem rehetoric, you know the "radical feminism" in the TERF acronym. Because if we're saying that "top and bottom are hetronormative" and thus people abiding by it or labelling themselves as such are hetronormative, then a gay man fucking his trans boyfriend with a vagina is definitely hetronormative. This loops back into transphobia, and very easily too.

This also applies to the "dom and sub are hetronormative". A man ordering his tied up boyfriend down on his knees and fucking him isn't hetronormative. There's nothing less hetronormative than kinky gay sex.

Terms that emerged in communities practicing "non-normative" sexuality cannot be hetronormative.

And again this is such dangerous rehetoric because it's radfem rehetoric. Radfem rehetoric isn't just transphobia or being "gender critical", it's being sex negative and "kink critical" through the lens of a bioessentialist ideology. And all of these are harmful. In the context of what was said above...

If you consider top and bottom to be hetronormative and therefore "insulting" to the gay community because.... bottom = woman and top = man, congratulations you're being hetronormative via imposing straightness onto gay sex and as if that wasn't enough you're also being misogynistic by regurgitating radfem rehetoric which says that sex for women is always degrading (hence gay bottom = woman / emasculating & degrading) because of the patriarchy. Which ultimately infantalises women and takes away their autonomy by implying that they can't consent or participate in sex as anything but a passive party being "subjugated." Because... patriarchy... as if radfem rehetoric doesn't enforce the patriarchy by doing so.

And the same goes with kink, "dom and sub" being "hetronormative" is resultant of radfem rehetoric which is extremely anti - BDSM, believing it to be abuse and recreating "sex-based oppression" to which women can never truly consent. Hence hetronormative as in recreating the patriarchy.

This is harmful ideology because it's ultimately transphobic, homophobic, misogynistic and sets back queer and womens's sexual liberation.

hey i really really appreciate your posts abt purity culture, desire and objectification and your perspective as an ex-evangelical!! having been born and raised a jew myself i've always been aware of how bullshit all of that stuff is, but not really able to articulate it as specifically as you seem able to, and i find your eloquence really impressive. with that known, i actually have a specific thing that's been bothering me, and i think it's an evangelical purity culture based thing, and hinges on that distinction you made in a post abt a week ago abt how to a lot of people "objectification" = "looking with lust" = "basically adultery"-- okay here goes:

on gay tiktok, there is currently a trend of women (or some nb ppl) who are attracted to women commenting on thirst-traps posted by women the memetic phrase "i am no better than a man".

now this really rubs me the wrong way for a lot of reasons (mainly: contextually this is almost always on videos that are INTENDED to be sexy so why is it weird to find this woman, who filmed and edited this video to be sexy, sexy?? AND what the hell do you mean abt gender by saying this???? women can't desire people?? men can only desire in predatory ways???), and it's weird in that specific way where i'm like. i smell weird cultural christian values embedded in this. but i can't quite articulate the way it all fits together.

this may be way out of line for me to bother you in your inbox like this, but i was hoping to get your take? your ability to explain this stuff clearly and with context i never knew existed is really valuable and while i have seen people responding on tumblr to say "uhhh don't say this", they haven't really articulated what's driving people to say such a specific thing, so much that it becomes a meme.

if u feel this isn't something you want to speak on, that's totally fine! and i just want to say thank you again for your thoughtful posts.

also i feel very weird abt dropping this veritable essay in your inbox so sorry!!

No worries! I love to talk, and I already have opinions on that particular meme 😆.

You've definitely gotten the gist of it, yeah. It's a bunch of unexamined sexist ideas about sex and desire repackaged in the sort of fun memey "it's not that deep, chill out" shell that absolutely thrives on social media. Some of it's Christian, some of it is the radfem repackaging of Christian ideas.

Basically, the version of Sexual Objectification championed by radfem writers like Dworkin was adapted from Immanuel Kant, a Christian philosopher/theologian, so it's not just cultural Christianity, it's also a direct intellectual connection. They just changed the idea from "all people, when overtaken by lust, cease to see people as people and can see them only as means to achieve their sinful sexual gratification. This cannot be avoided, but can be balanced out by keeping sex within a marriage that is otherwise built on commitment and respect," to "Men, when overtaken by lust, cease to see women as people and can see them only as a means to achieve their sinful sexual gratification (due to their patriarchal training to harm and dominate). This cannot be avoided, especially not by marriage, which is one of the main ways the Patriarchy codifies the subjugation of women to men."

Basically, Radfems and Christians get along because Radfems feel the same way about masculine sexuality that Christian men feel about their own sexuality. As for women...both Radfems and more modern Christians are pretty sure that women don't Do Lust in the same way men do. Like, women see people as ends in and of themselves, as fellow Subjects. Men see women as objects. As means to an end, that end being their own sexual gratification.

A few decades later and after a fair bit of social media iteration, we get to this weird point.

What they're basically saying is, "god damn. I swiped onto this thirst trap and I didn't even think about your personality or your accomplishments or anything. I literally just saw big jiggly titties and that's all I can think about. I am sexually attracted to you, and yet it isn't reflective of your soul or a deep connection between us or anything, despite the fact that I'm a woman and I'm supposed to be above just liking your body and that turning me on. Huh. This is what I have heard people describe men's sexuality as being like. You are so sexy that you are causing me to act as badly as men do."

See also: the way tiktok has redefined "the male gaze" and "the female gaze" to just mean "stuff men vs. women respectively like to look at" with most explicitly sexualized visual media being assigned to the former. Women are supposed to like things subtler than that.

Like, saying "I am no better than a man" could be a push to re-examine whether maybe a celibate 18th century theologian/philosopher is a bad foundation for your understanding of sexual desire. I would like to think that for some of these women it probably is sparking self reflection, going "huh, yeah, I guess we all do this."

But as a meme, honestly, even as it claims to lower ones own status I think it still maintains a claim of moral superiority? Like, "yeah, I'm being a horndog, but I am self aware about it. I can tell that I'm being horny on main right now, and it's something that has been conditionally activated by this very sexy thirst trap. Men are like this all the time and they don't even know."

I, obviously, don't like that. I don't like people saying "I'm acting like a man" when they mean "I'm perving on you", I don't like ranking a lack of desire as being better than desire, I don't like ranking genders or better or worse than another. I don't think it's causing problems as much as it's reflecting problems that have been there for a long time, but hey, it stinks.

I'm almost done reading The Handmaid's Tale, and I don't like it. I've never read it before, I know it's a classic, and I was intrigued enough to keep reading.

But.... God, where do I start? Ranty jumble below the cut.

Especially after Roe V. Wade got overturned, a lot of people were like "Ooooh, it's just like Handmaid's Tale!"

I Googled if Atwood is transphobic, and got mixed results.

Within the interview I read, she said she doesn't predict the future, she just reads a lot of history, which put a lot of the book into context....

I think, as someone who does not know a lot of history and isn't interested in history, a lot of the events in THT seemed to be just:

[Atwood in 1985 voice] "Ooooh, what if slavery [against Black people] in the U.S. happened to white women?"

The no-reading rule. Only used for their bodies. Punished by mutilating their hands and feet. Public lynchings, to put it bluntly. De-gendered (?) for 'running away.' All dressing the same. Not allowed to use their own names. Being sent to 'the Colony.' Being traded among men if they misbehaved.

There are probably many more examples I'm forgetting.

But what really got it for me was the mention of the "Underground FemaleRoad." Really?? You're going to basically name-drop the historical way that enslaved people could actually escape and give them and their allies no credit for any of it???

I know, I know, practically the definition of cultural appropriation is "a white person does something that POC have been doing for a while and doesn't credit them/takes it as their own invention", but like, seriously?!

She wrote this whole book about "oh no what if Bad Things happened to White women 😢😢😢" and didn't mention anything about like, slavery or colonization or imperialism or anything like this that's happened to people of color in history, let alone the US Slave Trade.

Uhhhhh what else....

A lot of the ways the book talked about sexuality and purity culture and Christianity felt very like.... a mix of dramatic irony, regular irony, and almost post-ironic?

Like, especially with the prayers— you could tell that the Aunts did mean it sincerely, but I couldn't tell how much Offred herself did (or would have) actually disagreed with the Biblical teachings if they hadn't been used to like..... oppress her into subservience or whatever.

(Like when she talked about how her mom was pro-choice and how she, as a teenager, was 'humiliated' by how her mom would like, go to pro-abortion protests and be proud of people's right to choose. My personal reading of it was that, had they not been in this new overdramatic apocalypse, Offred would still feel like that and not be pro-choice at all.)

I think I need to cite my sources on all that; like, most of the time, with how THT talked about [patriarchy, reproductive rights, 'women's' bodies, abortion, Bible verses, the paranoia of getting caught doing something wrong, etc.] I couldn't tell if the narrator was saying something ironically, or if it was meant to be taken ironically, or if it was supposed to be post-ironic, and we all— including the narrator— were supposed to understand that it had started ironically and had now evolved past that to mean something totally opposite its original meaning....

(Though honestly, I don't think the book or Atwood is smart enough to be as post-ironic as you'd think for most of it.)

The fucking. "Pen Is Envy." I wanted to scream. 'Aunt Lydia told us that. They were right. I see the pen and do feel envy" are you serious right now? Really?! Really. It's all so fucking absurd. To take Freud's words, who was well known as a pseudoscientist, and use it as a 'male privilege' analogy in the sense where it's logical??? Get real.

The Marthas were mentioned briefly as having brown skin, and I assumed, given the almost no context of any of it, that they're women of color who are like, housemaid slaves and aren't seen as good for anything else?

I don't remember any mentions about what happened to the men of color, anywhere.

Overall? I hated the book. I spent most of it waiting for it to get interesting, or even to feel like Offred gave any fucks about like, courage or anything meaningful (beyond surviving a room without a light fixture or whatever the fuck). I didn't like her as a character, I didn't think she was a useful narrator, I think there were whole swatches of things that were left out and unexplained, and the book doesn't make sense. Full stop. It doesn't make sense. I felt a sense of unease while reading.

Overall I interpreted the book to be very...... pro-gender- and biological essentialism and white supremacy and eugenics in a "white people can be the only people" kind of way, and I think Atwood's perspective is NOT well-clarified enough to be strongly against any of that in a way that is meaningful, let alone action-oriented.

How would you say gwen and miles bring out the worst in each other?

alright like. i'm talking about them in general, but idk if you mean spiderverse gwiles or comics gwiles. i'll do both.

spiderverse gwiles: read this.

one addition: gwen sees miles as a replacement for her peter parker.

gwen: that's why she develops feelings for him. that's why she's protective of him. she hates herself for not being able to save and date her peter, so she's forcing herself to repeat the past with miles. and if she gets together with him, that just means she'll keep punishing herself forever when she should be moving on completely.

miles: let me get this straight: the trilogy of movies all about how miles should get to be his own person with his own story instead of being forced to imitate peter parker... are gonna end with him ending up with a girl who only wants him because he reminds her of peter parker? okay. i see. so he isn't going to be his own person in the end.

now. for comics gwiles. and really, gwiles in general:

first, to clarify: out-of-universe vs in-universe.

out-of-universe (as in, the real life shit motivating the writers pulling the characters' strings), this relationship exists because bendis has a Type of romance he prefers and he wanted to shove all of peter's leftovers onto miles instead of giving him something new. it was picked up for itsv because at the time miles didn't have many love interests to choose from and the white guys writing his story probably preferred gwen because she's who'd they want for themselves. it'll be revived and pushed because marvel editorial wants to cash in on spiderverse synergy.

in-universe (as in, the plot- and character- developments that have to be created to make this shit make sense within the world of the story), you'd have to justify it with stuff like...

on gwen's end,

gwen leaving her world forever turns her into a selfish coward. how can you honestly brand gwen as a brave superhero if she abandons her loved ones and her community, packs up and runs someplace easier when the going gets tough? how can she be a good spider-person if she abandons her responsibility to protect earth-65 to go make out with a boy?

gwen losing her girl's girl cred. miles is already in a relationship with tiana toomes. if gwen starts pursuing him while he has a girlfriend... i mean. what kind of pick me bullshit is that. and beyond that, if gwen starts centering her boyfriend instead of her relationships with other women... yuck.

the age gap problem. no matter how you spin it, there's just something uniquely pathetic about a 20something simping over a high schooler, and that's what the writers will do to her. she'll either get together with him even though he's underage, or she'll sit on the sidelines, waiting for him to be legal. regardless, gwen's going to act weirdly immature for her age to ~fix the gap~-- which will just make it creepier. at worst, it's gross. at best, it's humiliating, especially since...

gwen's closeting herself. the last and only time gwen considered a relationship with miles, it reeked of 'queer girl tries closeting herself to be accepted.' in the eight years since, gwen's creatives have tripled down on her queercoding and her lack of attraction to miles. gwen resuming that relationship with him will only reek of her backsliding into comphet. even more humiliating.

gwen is giving up on being her own person, and is settling into the patriachy. so much of gwen's story is defined by her fight to keep her agency and define herself apart from the men who want to control her. if gwen gets with miles, she'll always be secondary to him. so her entering a relationship with him means she gave up. the (hetero)patriarchy beat her into submission. the cycle continues. the cynicism is exhausting.

a relationship between miles and gwen turns gwen's story from an inspirational one about a queer female hero who fights to keep her agency from a world that wants her dead for refusing to be what it wants her to be into a tragedy about a girl who gives up on being independent and settles for centering her life around being the passive girlfriend of an important guy she's pretending to be attracted to instead. it's embarrassing, insulting and deeply sad to watch her be reduced to that.

.... it's worse for miles. and i don't mean 'miles has it worse.' i mean 'miles becomes a worse person.'

to be clear: gwiles isn't a relationship between equals. oou, miles is the more popular character among his writers and the fanbase, and his brand benefits from getting gwen as a trophy girlfriend. gwen's does not. all gwiles does is take gwen's world, supporting cast, personality and story away from her, and saddle her with a role that doesn't make her happy and violates the entire point of her character. miles will be a shittier person, and yeah his stories will keep needing gwen to pop up in them so he can show his trophy to the audience, but he'll still have his own stories, he'll still have his supporting cast, he'll still be the second-biggest spider-man. gwen gets to be his girlfriend, and then his wife, and then his babymaker, and you know each time the role evolves she'll shrink because men can't write wives or mothers worth shit, and they'll start favoring the gwiles offspring as soon as they can. gwen will always have it worse.

so in-universe, miles is more powerful than gwen. she might be older than him, but she can't stand up to him in any meaningful way. she can't beat him in a fight. she can't outsmart him. all their spider-friends will always take his side. the multiverse itself likes him better and is canonically trying to take her away from earth-65 to pressure her into a relationship with him. she will always, always be second to him for as long as the relationship lasts and it'll only get worse the longer they're together.

and in order to make the relationship last, miles would have to be written into the kind of guy who at best, has such a superficial interest in his girlfriend that he doesn't notice that the playing field is so uneven, or at worst, does know and is taking advantage of that power dynamic--- and regardless, he doesn't care that it's affecting her negatively because it benefits him.

you know. That Kind Of Guy.

what does that mean?

miles chasing after gwen signals that he's regressing in his sense of individuality. after years of progress in becoming his own character with his own unique supporting cast (including love interest) miles... is going back to chasing peter parker's leftovers? okay. i see.

miles is starting to reprioritize courting a white audience. miles and gwen are in assimilation narratives. miles has only recently begun doubling down on seeking black mentors and allies (specifically black women), and is finally starting to focus on his community instead of pleasing the entire city. if miles gets with gwen, all that progress goes down the drain and he's right back to seeking approval from white people instead of his own community.

miles's romantic priorities are getting shallow again. miles puts gwen on a pedestal. he's mostly into her because he thinks she's hot and that being with her makes him seem impressive. there is no deeper connection. in recent years he's grown out of this kind of behavior thanks to his relationship with tiana toomes. so if miles moves from tiana to gwen (especially if he leaves tiana for gwen)... look, you can't spin it any other way: if miles leaves a multi-year relationship with a black girl who's his equal and calls him on his shit for an infatuation with a white girl he barely knows, only wants as a trophy, and who can't stand up to him, he's regressing into a shallow, immature guy who sees women as objects. like, oh, okay, so you do want that. gross.

miles not helping gwen get her world back turns him into an opportunistic asshole. logically, if miles morales, who lost his own home world, found out that gwen couldn't go back to hers-- and unlike him, none of the people she loves are with her here and she is completely alone-- he should respond with "that's fucked up, i'll help you get home." but in order for them to stay together, he would have to respond with "that's fucked up... wanna make out about it?" --- so, he'd become the kind of guy who'd use a girl's vulnerability and isolation to reel her into a relationship with him. gross!

the homophobia problem. given gwen's overwhelming queercoding and how gwiles is subtextually linked to the concept of gwen closeting herself for acceptance, if they stay together, miles would become That Kind Of Guy who pressures his queer girlfriend into staying in the closet and playing out a heterosexual relationship arrangement she's fundamentally uncomfortable with so he can be with her. gross.

not to mention earth-8. gwen doesn't want kids. miles does. on earth-8, they have children. and earth-8 gwen is supposedly a future version of gwen-65. do the math: something had to happen to get gwen to agree to stay pregnant, and it probably wasn't good. given that miles is the one who wants the family, has more power in the relationship, and is a shittier person because of said relationship, it was probably miles who wore her down until she agreed. yep. That Kind Of Guy.

miles morales, whose character is meant to open the door for different marginalized characters getting their own narratives that represent and center them and their experiences... would become complicit in the destruction of gwen's. if not an outright participant. and he'd be turning into this hypocrite for the great, noble reason of "i want to force the girl i like to stay with me."

how can you honestly brand miles as a hero if he does this shit to a girl he claims to care about?

a relationship between miles and gwen turns miles's story from an inspirational one about an afrolatino boy who finds his confidence and comes into his own by embracing his community into... another tragedy. but because he keeps his agency, he plays a different role in it: the more he's with her, the worse he feels about himself and the more he turns to her for validation she can't give him, which leads him to do shittier and shittier things to her to keep her around. the cycle continues. he's not the victim. he's the bad guy.

not to be overdramatic, but... look, if gwen's story is about struggling to keep her autonomy in the face of heteropatriarchy-- which is being taken from her for miles's gain-- and miles is written into the kind of person who perpetuates those systems to keep her with him (which is the only way they'd stay together), then that means miles is the villain of gwen's story.

at this point, given that she's about to lose her world (and we all know spiderverse synergy aka gwiles is why) and especially if gwiles gets any further... miles is the antagonist. he's the force in the way of gwen achieving the goal of her story. she has to sneak around him, escape him, defeat him, or persuade him to get out of the way (= to refuse to be with her and help her get her world back) if she's going to get a happy ending. and we know the story's rigged for her to lose.

(and that all their friends are going to be written to cheer this awful relationship on. peter parker is going to pressure another gwen stacy into a demeaning tragic narrative so he truly learned nothing. all the spider-women are going to become the kind of women who do nothing as one of their own is treated badly by a guy in their friend group. spider-punk is going to be written into That Kind Of Leftist Guy who talks a big game about equality and revolution but does nothing to help the women in his life when they're being mistreated by his bros. it ruins everybody.)

there's even a fucked-up symmetry to it: gwen's story starts with peter-65 and ends with miles, and in the end the only fundamental difference between them is that this time, the Nice Guy the audience is predisposed to root for succeeds at swallowing gwen whole, and we're expected to cheer when he does it because the story is on his side.

i mean. it's a compelling tragedy. in another circumstance i'd eat that shit up.

but their stories aren't supposed to be tragedies. gwen and miles are supposed to break out of the systems rigged against them instead of giving in and reinforcing them. they're supposed to be heroes and their stories are meant to inspire little kids. if they get together it all falls apart, yet it'll be framed like something good, romantic and happy. they both deserve a lot better than this.

so i'd rather we just... not.

Hello, I’m a trans man, so I can offer my perspective on some of this bullshittery that’s happening. The hyperfeminization/infantilization is something I see a lot with m/m ships, and 99% of the time it’s to the person in the submissive role and it’s especially prevalent when that submissive partner is smaller/less built than their counterpart. I personally absolutely HATE when people do this especially because I get treated that way. I get treated like a soft uwu boy and like I’m a lot younger than I am A LOT. It’s frustrating as all hell considering I am a grown ass man who thinks the word wiener is the height of comedy. I am firmly in your corner for disliking fics that have those kinds of tropes in them, they piss me off SO MUCH. Also, I really don’t see what the big issue was for you saying that you saw a lot of it and didn’t like it/like the ship. It’s not like you’re telling people they can’t like it, you’re just offering an observation of what you’ve seen and personal reasons you don’t like it, end of story. I for one appreciate your writing and the way you’ve avoided some of those tropes a lot of fics fall into. I hope everyone burns out their 5 seconds of pissyness and you have a good night/afternoon/morning

response below the cut!

haha thank you for helping to reassure me about this. i genuinely think a ton of people are misinterpreting what i'm trying to say, and based on that interpretation i do really understand why they're upset. they think i'm saying it is inherently wrong and bad to write lucerys to be intersex, an omega, a bottom, etc. and i would be angry at anyone who tried to make that claim, bc it is a transphobic claim to make. but that's not what i'm saying! i mean, my own bf is trans for god's sake, and you don't see me hounding him about being problematic because he has a vagina.

these things by themselves aren't problematic at all, and i've never said that they are. the phenomenon i'm actually addressing is when this is taken to the extreme. when luke isn't JUST an omega or a bottom, but is ALSO made into this soft uwu virgin damsel in distress spineless caricature of of character, one that takes underage elliot grihault's youthful appearance and fetishizes it. as if being a bottom/omega means he has to be all of these other things.

i love reading about male characters who are feminine. i mean, plenty of these tropes are present in stormbreak. but having feminine traits shouldn't mean that your agency, your strength, and your intelligence is sacrificed. like, these things can and should coexist. like you said, trans men should be free to embrace being trans or being feminine without worrying that they'll be dehumanized, fetishized, or infantilized.

and finally, i'm not even saying people have to stop consuming the content, even the parts i think are highly problematic! i'm not saying they need to publicly declare anything! (though i do firmly believe in authors having disclaimers, as i have my own disclaimers on all my fics for the problematic content within, including stormbreak.) i just would like them do some personal reflection to make sure they understand what they're consuming and then continue about their business as usual. it's a bit weird to me that so many people were like "guess i'll die" rather than be like "oh yeah lol it's a bit based on patriarchy, i'll keep that in mind to make sure i don't internalize it as i keep consuming it."