Before I came out as trans, I was blamed for every problem women faced simply for existing, afterwards, I continue to be blamed for every problem women face simply by existing… only now it’s not just by TERFs, it’s also by the actual people creating problems for women.
One unfortunate aspect is that the existence of TERFs allows people to larp as feminists to justify bigotry. There are many who aren’t radical feminists by any definition (I think even Dworkin would see transition as an attack on sex based oppression), but being a TERF lets you cosplay a leftist ideology while reposting stonetoss comics and Daily Mail articles.
The “larping” is that there are some genuine radical feminist critiques that worry that people transition to align with gender roles. Rhetoric online, which is often shitposting by transgender people, creates ecosystems where only TERFs talk to other TERFs, seeing posts which do seem to boil down to “clothes = gender” and this leads to a false understanding that people transition because of gender roles.
It was a complicated discussion that was happening before 2010 - see arguments over MichFest. But, in the 2010s, trans people started becoming the target du jour, and a combination of weirdos from the sex negative wing of feminism that were delighted to have people start paying attention to them and 4chan /pol/ saboteurs/alt righters delighted that they could dig up feminist critiques (eg, primarily Daly(? too drunk to Google)‘s The Transexual Empire and lesbian feminist essays from the 70’s (lesbian feminism is not lesbian feminists - lesbian feminism understands sexuality as a choice/about male separatism and thus has never been popular with actual lesbians)) and get “SJWs” to team up with them against a minority group…
So that makes all feminists bad? I would argue that JK may have actually been a somewhat good person right up until she stopped being a feminist and started being transphobic.
I’ve seen the acronym “FART” - “feminism appropriating regressive(?) transphobe”
What did JK do that was feminist? Nothing about the Harry Potter series is feminist by any means. Think about how Hermoine’s entirely justified activism is a joke. Think about how Hermoine is hastily paired off with a guy who treats her like shit throughout the series. (Cool, she becomes the Ministry of Magic as a consolation prize - that took as much thought and effort as making Dumbledore gay after the fact.)
JK even chose to go by her initials to falsely appear male (clearly aping JRR Tolkien) because she didn’t think a female author would sell. A teenage boy protagonist, who treats the female characters in his life as non-persons. (Why does he date Cho Chang?)
Compare to an actual feminist author like Ursula LeGuin, whose works think about gender and sex (both the verb and the noun) in interesting critical ways.
As far as activism - I think she fundraises for dv shelters. Good, but I think she also harassed a shelter in Scotland into shutting down for accepting trans women. I don’t consider that feminist.
You are really gonna blame Rowling for strategically marketing herself in a male dominated society? I get what you’re saying, but I’m not sure she should entirely shoulder the blame for that. It’s extremely common for authors to use their initials and surname.
I agree with your assessment of the series’ content though.
By itself, it would mean nothing. But so much of the Rowling story is the kind of “having your cake and eating it too” - sorta how Harry gets to be a poor beleaguered orphan while simultaneously being ridiculously wealthy. Recognizing the way that female authors are often marginalized, strategically marketing oneself, and then doing nothing to really criticize or change the system once one gets on top.
And now you blame feminists? It’s kinda astounding that your life experiences haven’t taught you what nonsense stereotypes and generalisations are.
…I guess it is kinda in theme with the comic though. Assuming that all trans people would get that would be just as generalising, and very apparently wrong.
Friend I grew up watching various PSAs that showed boys as dumb and corrupt while talking all this “GIRL POWER! A WOMAN CAN DO ANYHTING A MAN CAN DO BECAUSE MEN ARE STUPID!” crap, how do you think that makes a boy feel? Especially when he doesn’t even want to be a boy to begin with!?!
Man, I’m sorry that you’re literally sharing a childhood traumatizing experience, and ppl can’t even empathize and are even attacking you. Proof that if you don’t tow the party line, it doesn’t matter what your background is.
If it’s all about only the message approved, then they aren’t really what they claim to be.
Proof that if you don’t tow the party line, it doesn’t matter what your background is.
Well, yeah? What’s the alternative? “If we like your background it doesn’t really matter what positions you hold - trans people should be allowed generalise a bit and trash feminism, as a treat”?!
I’m queer myself. I will hold you responsible for your words, no matter your background. Especially when it comes to feminism. And that obviously includes women of all backgrounds. If anything I expect more solidarity from them, not less.
The alternative is not what youre thinking likely. The alternative is something more nuanced than this-or-that thinking. Something where everyone that’s not bigoted is recognized and considered. Not just a single group.
The alternative is not what youre thinking likely. The alternative is something more nuanced than this-or-that thinking. Something where everyone that’s not bigoted is recognized and considered. Not just a single group.
But working against feminism is bigoted. I feel sorry if someone acts destructively because they had a horrible childhood - nevertheless, acting destructively in itself shouldn’t be tolerated.
I mean who actually benefits from ruining the reputation of feminism? Probably the very people who hurt Queen HawlSera as a child. We’re not doing kids like her any favors by allowing that.
It’s not working against feminism to ask that everyone be considered to the same standard. There’s a world where that is possible. Is it easy? No. But nothing great is ever easy.
Now you’ve lost me - should we all be held to the same standard or should OP be exempt from the general rules of decency because of their background?
Because if we’re talking about the standard of “unfair generalisations are unfair, don’t do it” (which is what I’ve been talking about, don’t know about you) then Queen HawlSera clearly failed to meet it.
All this comic does is emphasise how stupid it would be to lump all feminists together. If you deny this you are doing exactly the same thing as those you’re complaining about.
They never stated “all feminists,” they said as a movement, feminism has had a lot of messaging that is anti men which was somewhat mainstream in the movement (commercials being played of girl smart boy dumb). I don’t know how common it is but it has absolutely been a noticeable part of feminism intentionally or not.
I don’t think those commercials are made by people who identify as “feminists” though, or are really trying to convey a feminist message.
Conversations about advertising I’ve had in feminist spaces see that as almost parentification. (Huge, under discussed issue with eldest daughters especially) Boys get to be children, girls are expected to be hyper competent.
A big issue is also that everyone in the broader conversation about feminism is operating under their own private definition of what feminism is. That’s why we have people who consider themselves “feminists” for “protecting women’s bathrooms” while also platforming Nazis, or people who consider crass commercial pandering to be representative of an ideology.
The conversation is in stasis, because “feminism” to some is the blue haired woman shouting at a protest, or pussy hats, or female supremacy, or 4B, or libfem, or radfem, or influenced by queer theory (or lesbians who can’t stand the term “queer.”) It’s a family of ideologies, not a single one - but people are often argue against one specific ideology (or even trollish misrepresentations) when arguing against “feminism” in general.
mm I mean it’s hard to pin down specifics but that whole decade, most shows had the guy being an unbelievable idiot causing problems while the girls solved the problems, movies were the same, commercials were probably the last to follow. Maybe not exactly feminism, but the goal was to show women are as competent and sometimes moreso than men, which is a big tenant of feminism, even if it was done super poorly.
I’m not defending their use of feminism, but it seems like common media and messaging for basically two decades definitely did have quite a bit of “anti men pro woman” feeling. Regardless of the actual intent or “real” values of feminism, what many people received was “feminism believes men are stupid/hateful.” I don’t think it’s a coincidence so many people think that’s what feminism is. Likely just a failure of messaging, but I think that’s where their definition is coming from.
Those commercials are a direct result of the patriarchy. You only think they’re a result of feminism because, in this case, they paint women in a better light — but only so that they can eventually become mothers to their husbands. Patriarchy doesn’t only affect women, it affects us all.
I mean that’s hard to say? This seems like it’s just a result of people overcompensating and not realizing they don’t have to say “boy dumb” in order to say “girl equal.” It seems people agree this is what they heard from mainstream feminist messaging, regardless of whether it was “real” feminism or not
Before I came out as trans, I was blamed for every problem women faced simply for existing, afterwards, I continue to be blamed for every problem women face simply by existing… only now it’s not just by TERFs, it’s also by the actual people creating problems for women.
One unfortunate aspect is that the existence of TERFs allows people to larp as feminists to justify bigotry. There are many who aren’t radical feminists by any definition (I think even Dworkin would see transition as an attack on sex based oppression), but being a TERF lets you cosplay a leftist ideology while reposting stonetoss comics and Daily Mail articles.
“One unfortunate aspect of the alt-right movement is that it allows people to larp as libertarians to justify bigotry.”
If this statement doesn’t change how you see what you’re writing, I don’t know what will.
The “larping” is that there are some genuine radical feminist critiques that worry that people transition to align with gender roles. Rhetoric online, which is often shitposting by transgender people, creates ecosystems where only TERFs talk to other TERFs, seeing posts which do seem to boil down to “clothes = gender” and this leads to a false understanding that people transition because of gender roles.
It was a complicated discussion that was happening before 2010 - see arguments over MichFest. But, in the 2010s, trans people started becoming the target du jour, and a combination of weirdos from the sex negative wing of feminism that were delighted to have people start paying attention to them and 4chan /pol/ saboteurs/alt righters delighted that they could dig up feminist critiques (eg, primarily Daly(? too drunk to Google)‘s The Transexual Empire and lesbian feminist essays from the 70’s (lesbian feminism is not lesbian feminists - lesbian feminism understands sexuality as a choice/about male separatism and thus has never been popular with actual lesbians)) and get “SJWs” to team up with them against a minority group…
JK was a feminist once…
So that makes all feminists bad? I would argue that JK may have actually been a somewhat good person right up until she stopped being a feminist and started being transphobic.
I’ve seen the acronym “FART” - “feminism appropriating regressive(?) transphobe”
What did JK do that was feminist? Nothing about the Harry Potter series is feminist by any means. Think about how Hermoine’s entirely justified activism is a joke. Think about how Hermoine is hastily paired off with a guy who treats her like shit throughout the series. (Cool, she becomes the Ministry of Magic as a consolation prize - that took as much thought and effort as making Dumbledore gay after the fact.)
JK even chose to go by her initials to falsely appear male (clearly aping JRR Tolkien) because she didn’t think a female author would sell. A teenage boy protagonist, who treats the female characters in his life as non-persons. (Why does he date Cho Chang?)
Compare to an actual feminist author like Ursula LeGuin, whose works think about gender and sex (both the verb and the noun) in interesting critical ways.
As far as activism - I think she fundraises for dv shelters. Good, but I think she also harassed a shelter in Scotland into shutting down for accepting trans women. I don’t consider that feminist.
You are really gonna blame Rowling for strategically marketing herself in a male dominated society? I get what you’re saying, but I’m not sure she should entirely shoulder the blame for that. It’s extremely common for authors to use their initials and surname.
I agree with your assessment of the series’ content though.
By itself, it would mean nothing. But so much of the Rowling story is the kind of “having your cake and eating it too” - sorta how Harry gets to be a poor beleaguered orphan while simultaneously being ridiculously wealthy. Recognizing the way that female authors are often marginalized, strategically marketing oneself, and then doing nothing to really criticize or change the system once one gets on top.
And now you blame feminists? It’s kinda astounding that your life experiences haven’t taught you what nonsense stereotypes and generalisations are.
…I guess it is kinda in theme with the comic though. Assuming that all trans people would get that would be just as generalising, and very apparently wrong.
Friend I grew up watching various PSAs that showed boys as dumb and corrupt while talking all this “GIRL POWER! A WOMAN CAN DO ANYHTING A MAN CAN DO BECAUSE MEN ARE STUPID!” crap, how do you think that makes a boy feel? Especially when he doesn’t even want to be a boy to begin with!?!
Man, I’m sorry that you’re literally sharing a childhood traumatizing experience, and ppl can’t even empathize and are even attacking you. Proof that if you don’t tow the party line, it doesn’t matter what your background is.
If it’s all about only the message approved, then they aren’t really what they claim to be.
Well, yeah? What’s the alternative? “If we like your background it doesn’t really matter what positions you hold - trans people should be allowed generalise a bit and trash feminism, as a treat”?!
I’m queer myself. I will hold you responsible for your words, no matter your background. Especially when it comes to feminism. And that obviously includes women of all backgrounds. If anything I expect more solidarity from them, not less.
The alternative is not what youre thinking likely. The alternative is something more nuanced than this-or-that thinking. Something where everyone that’s not bigoted is recognized and considered. Not just a single group.
But working against feminism is bigoted. I feel sorry if someone acts destructively because they had a horrible childhood - nevertheless, acting destructively in itself shouldn’t be tolerated.
I mean who actually benefits from ruining the reputation of feminism? Probably the very people who hurt Queen HawlSera as a child. We’re not doing kids like her any favors by allowing that.
It’s not working against feminism to ask that everyone be considered to the same standard. There’s a world where that is possible. Is it easy? No. But nothing great is ever easy.
Now you’ve lost me - should we all be held to the same standard or should OP be exempt from the general rules of decency because of their background?
Because if we’re talking about the standard of “unfair generalisations are unfair, don’t do it” (which is what I’ve been talking about, don’t know about you) then Queen HawlSera clearly failed to meet it.
And what does that have to do with feminism?
All this comic does is emphasise how stupid it would be to lump all feminists together. If you deny this you are doing exactly the same thing as those you’re complaining about.
Feminism made the “Yes, All Men!” argument
All feminists?
Because if we had a mandatory global meeting I sure as hell missed my invitation.
They never stated “all feminists,” they said as a movement, feminism has had a lot of messaging that is anti men which was somewhat mainstream in the movement (commercials being played of girl smart boy dumb). I don’t know how common it is but it has absolutely been a noticeable part of feminism intentionally or not.
I don’t think those commercials are made by people who identify as “feminists” though, or are really trying to convey a feminist message.
Conversations about advertising I’ve had in feminist spaces see that as almost parentification. (Huge, under discussed issue with eldest daughters especially) Boys get to be children, girls are expected to be hyper competent.
A big issue is also that everyone in the broader conversation about feminism is operating under their own private definition of what feminism is. That’s why we have people who consider themselves “feminists” for “protecting women’s bathrooms” while also platforming Nazis, or people who consider crass commercial pandering to be representative of an ideology.
The conversation is in stasis, because “feminism” to some is the blue haired woman shouting at a protest, or pussy hats, or female supremacy, or 4B, or libfem, or radfem, or influenced by queer theory (or lesbians who can’t stand the term “queer.”) It’s a family of ideologies, not a single one - but people are often argue against one specific ideology (or even trollish misrepresentations) when arguing against “feminism” in general.
mm I mean it’s hard to pin down specifics but that whole decade, most shows had the guy being an unbelievable idiot causing problems while the girls solved the problems, movies were the same, commercials were probably the last to follow. Maybe not exactly feminism, but the goal was to show women are as competent and sometimes moreso than men, which is a big tenant of feminism, even if it was done super poorly.
I’m not defending their use of feminism, but it seems like common media and messaging for basically two decades definitely did have quite a bit of “anti men pro woman” feeling. Regardless of the actual intent or “real” values of feminism, what many people received was “feminism believes men are stupid/hateful.” I don’t think it’s a coincidence so many people think that’s what feminism is. Likely just a failure of messaging, but I think that’s where their definition is coming from.
Those commercials are a direct result of the patriarchy. You only think they’re a result of feminism because, in this case, they paint women in a better light — but only so that they can eventually become mothers to their husbands. Patriarchy doesn’t only affect women, it affects us all.
I mean that’s hard to say? This seems like it’s just a result of people overcompensating and not realizing they don’t have to say “boy dumb” in order to say “girl equal.” It seems people agree this is what they heard from mainstream feminist messaging, regardless of whether it was “real” feminism or not
Scientific evidence that g*mer brainrot transcends gender though.