Untitled

[anotherevilenby]

Hello! I'm anotherevilenby, formerly known as thatevilenby or thatrwbyenby.

For clarity for any mutuals from those previous accounts who find this one, I was not deleted or banned by staff. I deleted my previous account myself because of a lot of triggering stuff coming up on my feeds. I'm back now but I can't guarantee I'll be at the same level of activity I used to be and will mostly be using this account to view posts and occasionally share my fanfic.

As before this is an 18+ account that may post content that viewers may find disturbing or distasteful. Viewer discretion is advised, and minors will be blocked on sight.

[queer-as-city-folk]

Even in a post-capitalist, post-consumerist world, you still need to produce goods, as a result of this, you need factories because it is more effective to have a few people making a lot of clothes in a factory than every woman being forced to sit down and spin wool all day.

[queer-as-city-folk]

The issue with factories is poor wages, unsafe working conditions and environmental impact, all of which can be fixed through things like regulatory bodies and unions, the issue is not the fact that goods are no longer all made at home

[illyadolatry]

just like. for the crowd.

here's the sexual content guidelines saying nudity is ok

here's the bit from the termination email telling you you can make a new account as long as it doesn't break the same rule

here's the guidelines for what counts as explicit (not mature, aka grounds for content deletion)

here's the section telling us that you will always be able to respond to content getting flagged as explicit (lie)

here's the section where it says you will be notified when your accunt gets terminated, and that the appeals are reviewed by humans (both lies)

and by the way, posting a single thing against ToS isn't supposed to be grounds for deletion,

[anotherevilenby]

You know I have made a few critiques of tme/tma on here before, some quite in depth about discussing the nature of whether "exemption" is even something that can exist what with how bigots don't care about the identity of the targets of their violence, only whether or not their violence can be reframed to be socially acceptable.

But honestly, even with all that, nothing makes me more viscerally uncomfortable with it than the fact that for the hundreds of times I've seen "TME" thrown around, it has never once been used to refer to a cishet man.

The closest it has ever gotten is when someone will say "uh it actually includes cishet men" when people (usually non-binary people) are criticizing it for enforcing a binary based on asab.

But I never see it be used for cishet men in any other context.

[anotherevilenby]

Which is also funny because I'd argue cishet men are probably the only demographic where you actually can make a very strong argument for them all being TME.

But no it's basically only used for cis women, trans men and mascs, non-binary people, and drag queens.

[anotherevilenby]

You know I have made a few critiques of tme/tma on here before, some quite in depth about discussing the nature of whether "exemption" is even something that can exist what with how bigots don't care about the identity of the targets of their violence, only whether or not their violence can be reframed to be socially acceptable.

But honestly, even with all that, nothing makes me more viscerally uncomfortable with it than the fact that for the hundreds of times I've seen "TME" thrown around, it has never once been used to refer to a cishet man.

The closest it has ever gotten is when someone will say "uh it actually includes cishet men" when people (usually non-binary people) are criticizing it for enforcing a binary based on asab.

But I never see it be used for cishet men in any other context.

[redstonedust]

by default i dont understand people with boobs who argue against freeing the nipple and think top nudity is shameful. but ESPECIALLY i dont understand it when you live somewhere where temperatures can exceed like 80F. youre telling me you havent ever wished it was socially acceptable to walk downtown with your tits out when its hot outside. youre just okay with having to wear shirts in all weather and this doesnt bother you. i simply do not believe you............

[anotherevilenby]

Your political theory has to be grounded in material analysis and evidence, and provide practical solutions to the political problems it is trying to address, otherwise it is simply useless intellectual masturbation.

[anotherevilenby]

This also goes for applying old theory to the present day, or applying theory addressing one specific context to another one. You have to demonstrate why it is still relevant, and why the solutions are still practical (and have not been superceded by better solutions), or else, again, it is useless intellectual masturbation.

[anotherevilenby]

Your political theory has to be grounded in material analysis and evidence, and provide practical solutions to the political problems it is trying to address, otherwise it is simply useless intellectual masturbation.

[cipheramnesia]

The Joseph Campbell monomyth is so wrong-headed and damaging to storytelling, anyway here's why all killing in horror films only ever represents violent male sexual penetration.

[cipheramnesia]

I watched a pretty cool Jungian analysis of Us, but unfortunately it was at the end of an attempt to apply the same to the slasher subgenre, which works pretty well for some (Halloween) and not so well for others (Scream) and runs into some issues insofar as Us isn't a slasher, so it doesn't quite dovetail with the rest.

Us by itself is pretty interesting for analysis, because it took Jordan Peele in a direction that critics and filmgoers seemed unprepared for, but also could be described as less meticulous than Get Out. There were some legitimate shortcomings, but more of the criticism seemed to stem from misunderstanding that Us was entirely different - it's meant to be more emotional and evocative, and trying to look at it as something with more story driven, mechanical elements isn't the right lens. Presently it occupies a weird position as a "lesser" movie, which is underrated despite the valid critiques, and has been getting a rightfully deserved reassessment, particularly after Nope pushed in yet another direction - basically refusing to let himself be pigeonholed.

But anyway, the points mostly being the whole thing about trying to define the Slasher subgenre into a specific metaphorical position doesn't work terribly, and she brought up one of those lame "slashers are all male coded penis stabber" books. Which is like, it's a fair cop that many slasher films are unambiguously misogynistic fantasies of violent sex, but it sells a lot of analysis short. It's like the same as theorists who won't position the creature in Alien as representing anything other than sexual assault. It's there but it's not everything.

[cipheramnesia]

Like, as if the Campbell monomyth wasn't a huge millstone on the neck of filmmakers already, it also represents a wider problem which is a this constant need for a general idea or theory to be universally applicable and representative. But no, most large scale ideas about art or psychology or society or such are only applicable within a limited scope. Lots of excellent ideas have been ruined by trying to use them as universal rather than situational, even though it would be super simple to say something like, "a lot of western writers use this interesting recurring story structure" or "these ideas about the self from Jung make an interesting way to approach some specific individual horror movies" or whatever.

[anotherevilenby]

What people often neglect about fiction's relationship to reality is that yes, fiction does affect reality, however, fiction fundamentally exists in a social context which precedes it. Fiction alone cannot fundamentally reshape the cultural context which precedes it, it can only reflect, reify, or critique it (and it will likely do all three to a greater or lesser extent), it cannot change it. Take video game violence as an example. Video game violence fundamentally exists in a social context wherein violence is already normalized and glamorized not only in media, but also in our ideologies. There are few ideologies which have not either normalized or glamorized violence to a certain extent. But this is not a product of these ideologies or of violent media. Rather this perspective on violence is a reflection of the material realities of violence in class and state society. Violence is an essential component of how all ruling classes have maintained power, it is also an essential component of how all oppressed classes have historically emancipated themselves. Thus violence is normalized due to the preexisting material conditions of class struggle. Violence being normalized and glamorized in culture is a consequence of the fact that all classes have historically used violence to obtain or retain power. Violence in video games cannot make people violent, if people are violent it is because they are already primed to be violent by preexisting social and material conditions. All violence in video games can do is reflect this violence, reify it, and critique it.

The paradox of course is, how does one depict something without necessarily reifying it to some extent? And further, the question which should follow this is "does a depiction reifying something to a certain extent necessarily mean it is bad or reactionary?"

[anotherevilenby]

One weird take I've seen being floated around in anti-spaces regarding depictions of incest in kink and fiction is that incest was or even currently is somehow a tool of white supremacy. Which, okay, setting aside whatever your feelings are about depictions of incest in kink and fiction for a minute, this is just blatantly wrong. Like, this is historical misinformation. When exactly in history white supremacy began to emerge is disputed, but the general consensus is that modern racism began to emerge in the 16th century with the genocide against the indigenous peoples of the Americas and the establishment of the African slave trade. However, by this point in time, there had already been a strong prohibition against incest in Catholic Canon law for over a thousand years. This itself was something the Catholic Church inherited from Roman Civil law as well as Mosaic law, the former of which prohibited marriages within four degrees of consanguinity (meaning that any two people more closely related than first cousins were prohibited from marrying). In fact, for several centuries between the early 9th and early 13th centuries, the Catholic Church went so far as to prohibit marriages within seven degrees of consanguinity (any two people more closely related than second cousins once removed). For context most modern countries only prohibit marriages or sexual relations within three degrees of consanguinity. There are only six countries today which prohibit within six degrees of consanguinity. Given this fact, it is simply wrong to claim that incest was a tool of white supremacy, given that the time in which white supremacy emerged still saw comparable prohibitions on incest to today if not stronger prohibitions. So, where does this claim come from? Well it likely stems from certain real historical facts being wrongly conflated.

For example, it is likely that the fact of inbreeding among European nobility, combined with the fact that European nobility sought to marry exclusively within nobility, is a factor in shaping this belief. It is true that European nobles frequently engaged in inbreeding. However, that does not mean they were engaging in incest. The reason for inbreeding among European royalty was primarily due to a limited gene pool making it so that people who were otherwise not close kin, were closely related genetically. Of course, this is not to say incestuous marriages did not occur, but rather that they were not the primary cause for inbreeding in European royalty. Further, this practice was not exclusive to European nobility, we find frequent examples of this in nobility around the world, and throughout history. This practice was also not created to enforce racism, but rather to enforce classism, and predated modern racism, again, by over a thousand years. This is not to say this classism did not ever become intertwined with racism, or that European nobles have never refused to marry non-European nobles due to racism. But rather that this practice was neither conceived of, nor perpetuated, specifically to enforce white supremacy. The same is true for non-European nobility who have engaged in similar practices. Maintaining "purity" in the noble family, regardless of time period or location, was always primarily about class. Wait so how is this relevant to discussions of depictions of incest in kink and fiction? Well, it isn't really. My overarching point here isn't actually anything to do with depictions of incest in kink and fiction. My point here is to hopefully correct historical misinformation that is being pushed in the discourse around depictions of incest in kink and fiction. My only real goal here is to challenge a specific and particular bad argument because of the ramifications it has both for the discourse itself, as well as people's understanding of the history of White Supremacy and European Nobility. I don't want to take sides in the discourse, and this shouldn't be read as me saying "There is no room to criticize depictions of incest in kink and fiction." This should instead be read as me trying to facilitate a better, more historically informed basis for discussing this topic. Because the last thing this world needs is more misinformation.

[anotherevilenby]

I think all of tumblr needs to get less weird about problematic kinks and fiction in both directions.

Yes, kinks and fiction can be problematic, them being fictional does not mean they cannot reflect or reify real harmful belief systems or behaviours.

No, that does not mean that everyone engaging in that kind of fiction themselves holds those harmful beliefs or engages in those harmful behavioirs, nor are they inherently seeking to perpetuate them.

Yes, there are ways to engage in this kind of fiction that is nuanced and does not uncritically perpetuate underlying harmful ideas.

No, there is no consistent or clear line on what those nuanced depictions actually look like in practice.

Yes, this kind of fiction can influence people's beliefs and behaviours.

No, it does not magically make people do or believe things they would never have done or believed otherwise, it can only reinforce already existing beliefs and behaviours.

Yes, some people are going to dislike the kind of fiction you engage in and will not want to associate with you because of it.

No, that does not mean they are bad people for that.

Yes, some spaces allow for this kind of fiction, even if you dislike it and are made uncomfortable because of it.

No, that does not mean those spaces have to cater to your personal distaste with that kind of fiction.

Yes, harassing people over fiction and accusing them of causing real world harm because of it is bad.

No, that does not mean criticism of this kind of fiction is inherently harassment.

Everybody get more nuanced now.

[anotherevilenby]

People really do need to understand that "afab only housing" has never actually meant "we accept afab trans people."

It is a dogwhistle which allows transphobes to openly discriminate against trans people without being subjected to the same kind of public scrutiny they would face for explicitly discriminating against all trans people.

Out trans men and transmascs, especially those who have been on T for years, are regularly denied access to these places.

Get your heads out of your asses.

[natalieironside]

I think a lot of y'all tried to become materialists so hard that it caused some kind of integer overflow and now you're just doing idealism again but with communism words in it

[manuciruja]

awww the like button turns into a rainbow when you press it! that's so cute...hey staff what's with all the trans women you keep nuking?

[manuciruja]

i think we should be ridiculing them more for this. you don't get to try and go all "queer website" when your staff likes to go on nuking sprees targeting the trans fem users

[smadsel]

would be remiss not to mention that the rainbow notably straight up just removed the trans flag colors from it. like they’re gone. it’s the progress flag minus the trans flag colors.

[smadsel]

that’s not the whole flag, now is it

[manuciruja]

hey staff what the fuck

[anotherevilenby]

I do think if you talk about gender abolition you have to talk about sex abolition too.

[anotherevilenby]

I do think it's an interesting case of how transandrophobia and exorsexism operate along similar lines that trans men are not allowed to have complicated relationships to lesbianism "because they're men/because they're not women" but non-binary people in relationships with women are regularly labeled as sapphic without their input (or in the case of fictional characters, without regard for other possible interpretations). Both of these instances are fundamentally the erasure of trans people's right to self-identify, both of them are done to police sapphic spaces for the benefit of others. The difference lies in the method, the trans man lesbian is forced out of their community, while the non-binary person is forced to have their identities be made more palatable for the benefit of a community they may not even feel they belong to.

[cock-holliday]

I'd add that another portion of nonbinary population in relationships with women are considered straight without their input and barred from lesbian labels and spaces on a different but also overlapping situation with trans men.

A post ranting about "bearded girlboys" "taking over" went on a long tangent that clearly demonstrated they were talking about transmascs and assumed anyone who used this label or could be dumped into the label was transmasc nonbinary, as if the rest of us didn't exist or didn't operate under those same metrics.

There is definitely a substantial portion of nonbinary people assumed to have proximity to womanhood whether they do or not, but then those of us who are assumed to overlap with men are forgotten about entirely--while being treated like the trans men who are "too close" to maleness.

We are unfortunately seeing a lot of transphobic behavior meant to hit trans men that hits a wide spectrum of nonbinary people, and while it would be disturbing enough to warrant support for trans men, it should also be seen as a WILDLY large overlap in our shared experiences.