#**edu

[aimmyarrowshigh]

AN ALLCAPS ABOUT GODDAMN ROMANTIC STORYTELLING (AKA ‘HOW WRITING WORKS’) AND TWO SHIPS GIRDED BY MISOGYNY, ONE WHICH IS ACTUALLY ROMANTIC AND ONE WHICH IS DECIDEDLY NOT, AND BOTH OF WHICH ACTUALLY HAVE SHIPS IN THEIR MOVIES WHICH IS JUST A FUN FACT.

[Non-allcaps version here.]

LISTEN, THOUGH, I’M LITERALLY THE PERSON WHOSE MOTHER MADE TO WRITE A 5-PAGE ESSAY ABOUT HOW JACK/ROSE WAS INHERENTLY ABUSIVE BECAUSE HE TAKES ADVANTAGE OF HER VULNERABILITY IN THE MIDST OF HER SUICIDE ATTEMPT AND USES EMOTIONAL MANIPULATION ABOUT HER FEAR OF CAL’S PHYSICAL ABUSE TO HELP HER SELF-ISOLATE FURTHER FROM HER MOTHER AND EVERYONE ELSE SHE’S EVER KNOWN IN ORDER TO GET HER TO CHOOSE HIM, AS THE CONDITION OF LETTING ME SEE TITANIC WHEN IT CAME OUT IN 1997, AND I FULLY ACKNOWLEDGE THAT IS 100% TRUE. JACK ABSOLUTELY PREYS ON ROSE’S VULNERABILITY, AND IN REAL LIFE, IF THAT WERE HAPPENING TO YOU OR YOUR FRIEND, YOU SHOULD GET OUT OF THAT SITUATION.

BUT JACK/ROSE IS ALSO ROMANTIC AS FUCK AND TITANIC IS MY FAVORITE GODDAMN MOVIE OF ALL GODDAMN TIME BECAUSE IT IS ROMANTIC AS FUCK EVEN THOUGH ALL THE ABOVE IS TRUE, BECAUSE LEO AND KATE HAVE CHEMISTRY AND THE CINEMATOGRAPHY AND DIRECTION AND EVERYTHING WORK TOGETHER TO CREATE THEIR DYNAMIC AS A ROMANCE, IN SPITE OF THE ABOVE, BECAUSE THE ABOVE IS AN UNINTENDED TRUTH THAT UNDERSCORES THE STORY BECAUSE JAMES CAMERON IS A MISOGYNIST DOUCHE AND CULTURE REPLICATES ABUSIVE PATTERNS IN MOST TRADITIONAL ROMANCE TROPES (THE FAKAKTA IDEA THAT “LOVE SAVES” BEING THE MOST COMMON, AND THE ONE CLEARLY REPLICATED, HERE). TITANIC WAS CREATED WITH THE INTENTION OF BEING ROMANTIC, DESPITE BEING SADDLED BY A LEGACY OF INHERENT MISOGYNY, AND EVERYTHING OVERT ABOUT JACK/ROSE’S SCENES TOGETHER WORK TO CONVEY THAT INTENTION OF ROMANCE. ULTIMATELY, ALTHOUGH FLAWED IN ITS EXECUTION, JACK/ROSE BOTH WANT THE SAME THING: ROSE’S FREEDOM AND HAPPINESS. (Side note, MOM, Jack even says to her that only she can save herself, and YES I KNOW THAT THE FACT THAT HE’S POSITIONED HERSELF AS HER ONLY ALLY AND CONFIDANTE DURING HER SUICIDAL IDEATIONS ON THE SHIP MAKES HIM SUSPECT IN SAYING THAT BUT GAH). ROMANCE, AS A STORY CONSTRUCT, IS PREDICATED ON TWO CHARACTERS WHO WANT THE SAME ENDGAME GOAL AND WHOSE JOURNEY TOGETHER TOWARDS THAT GOAL HELPS TO ANSWER THE OTHER CHARACTER’S “ESSENTIAL WOUND,” THE UNDERLYING WANT OR GOAL THAT DRIVES ALL OF THE CHARACTERIZATION OF THAT CHARACTER.

SO IN JACK/ROSE’S CASE, WE KNOW THAT BOTH JACK AND ROSE WANT ROSE TO FIND FREEDOM AND HAPPINESS, THEY BOTH WANT TO FIND A WAY OF LIFE OUTSIDE OF THE CONSTRAINTS OF EDWARDIAN SOCIAL STRATA, AND THEY BOTH WANT TO SURVIVE. ROSE’S ESSENTIAL WOUND, WHAT DRIVES EVERY ASPECT OF HER CHARACTERIZATION, IS THAT SHE WANTS TO BE SEEN AND ACKNOWLEDGED AS AN INDIVIDUAL HUMAN PERSON, NOT JUST A “SOCIETY WOMAN” WHOSE TRAITS DON’T EXIST AND WHOSE ONLY ROLE IN LIFE IS TO BE AN ACCESSORY PROCLAIMING THE WEALTH OF A MAN. JACK’S ESSENTIAL WOUND IS THAT HE WANTS TO BE SEEN AS WORTHY, AS IN A PERSON WITH WORTH IN THIS WORLD, IN A WORLD THAT IS DESIGNED FROM THE GROUND UP TO VIEW PEOPLE IN HIS SOCIAL CLASS AS LITERALLY WORTHLESS. IN SPITE OF THE FLAW IN CAMERON’S EXECUTION OF THEIR INITIAL INTRODUCTION AND HOW THAT COLORS THE SCHEMA OF THEIR RELATIONSHIP IN THE CONTEXT OF RAPE CULTURE, JACK/ROSE ARE A QUINTESSENTIAL ROMANCE BECAUSE EVERY ACTION THEY TAKE BOTH TOGETHER AND SEPARATELY IN CANON (ON-SCREEN, IN TITANIC’S CASE) AFFIRM EACH OTHER’S INDIVIDUAL ESSENTIAL WOUNDS AND COOPERATIVELY REACH THEIR SURFACE-LEVEL GOALS.

THAT JACK DIES IS WHAT MAKES TITANIC A ROMANTIC TRAGEDY, BUT IT DOES NOT NEGATE THAT ALL OF THEIR ACTIONS ARE BASED IN MOVING TOWARDS THE SAME GOALS BOTH IN-WORLD AND OUT-WORLD OF THE STORY. THE ACTUAL STORYTELLING BEATS OF TITANIC CREATE ENOUGH CONFIRMATION OF ROMANCE AS THE DYNAMIC BETWEEN THESE TWO CHARACTERS THAT EVEN CAMERON’S DUNDERHEADED INHERENT MISOGYNY DOESN’T PRECLUDE JACK/ROSE FROM READING AS ROMANTIC. SO EVEN I, AN AVOWED ANTI(TM), AM LIKE, “YEAH I ACKNOWLEDGE THIS SHIT’S PROBLEMATIC BUT SIGN ME THE FUCK UP IT’S HOT AND I LOVE IT.”

SO IT’S NOT LIKE ~*ANTIS*~ CAN’T BE NUANCED ABOUT THIS KIND OF THING? IT’S JUST LITERALLY THAT REYLO IS NOT ROMANTIC.

NOTHING ABOUT KYLO REN+REY WAS CONCEIVED, OR FILMED, OR WRITTEN, TO INDICATE ROMANCE. THE ONLY INTERPRETATION OF THEIR SCENES -- INCLUDING, YES, THE LEAKED NEW ONE -- THAT COULD ALLOW FOR ROMANCE IS A FLAWED VIEWING PREDICATED ON A MUCH MORE VIOLENT FORM OF MISOGYNY THAN WHAT GIRDERS JACK/ROSE. TO SEE REYLO AS ROMANTIC REQUIRES 1) THAT REY NOT BE CONSIDERED HER OWN CHARACTER/PERSON, BUT AN EXTENSION OF KYLO REN [in the context of in-world viewing, ie seeing the story from the inside as though it were real]; 2) THAT REY NOT BE CONSIDERED TO HAVE HER OWN STORY, BUT TO EXIST ONLY AS SET DRESSING IN KYLO’S STORY [in the context of out-world viewing, ie seeing the story as a piece of media], 3] ABSOLUTELY PRIVILEGING THE WANTS/GOALS/PHYSICAL INTEGRITY/VALUES/ETC. OF KYLO REN ABOVE REY’S WANTS, GOALS, PHYSICAL INTEGRITY, VALUES, AND LITERAL SAFETY. FROM JUMP, KYLO IS PRESENTED AS THE ANTAGONIST TO REY’S STORY -- AND YES, OF COURSE THE INVERSE IS ALSO TRUE, BECAUSE THAT IS THE NATURE OF PROTAGONIST-ANTAGONIST RELATIONSHIPS, BUT KYLO IS NOT AND NEVER WAS THE PROTAGONIST, SO IT ONLY FUCKING MATTERS IN ONE DIRECTION. REY’S.

REY’S SUPERFICIAL GOALS IN TFA ARE TO SURVIVE, TO DELIVER BB-8 TO THE RESISTANCE, AND TO RETURN TO JAKKU. HER “ESSENTIAL WOUND” GOAL IS TO GET CONFIRMATION THAT SHE MATTERS. KYLO IS PRESENTED FROM JUMP TO BE AN OBSTACLE TO EVERY. ONE. OF. THOSE. GOALS. AND HE NEVER DEVIATES FROM BEING AN OBSTACLE TO HER ACHIEVING THOSE GOALS. IN TLJ, HER SUPERFICIAL GOALS -- AS FAR AS WE KNOW NOW, AND LIKE, IT’S A STAR WAR, SO, IT’S NOT THAT DEEP -- ARE TO SURVIVE, TO DELIVER LUKE TO THE RESISTANCE, AND TO RETURN TO FINN. HER “ESSENTIAL WOUND” REMAINS THE SAME BECAUSE, NEWSFLASH, IT’S ESSENTIAL AND FOR THE SWST TO HAVE ANY SEMBLANCE OF COGENT STORYTELLING, IT MUST REMAIN THE SAME FOR THE ENTIRE TRILOGY: REY WANTS CONFIRMATION THAT SHE MATTERS. GIVEN THE LEAKS WE’VE GOTTEN? KYLO. STILL. WORKS. IN. OVERT. OPPOSITION. TO. HER. EVERY. FUCKING. GODDAMN. ASS. GOAL. HE IS STILL. HER ANTAGONIST.

BY THE NATURE OF HOW PROTAGONIST-ANTAGONIST RELATIONSHIPS WORK, THEY CANNOT BE ROMANTIC, BECAUSE THEY CANNOT -- CAN’T, CAN NOT, ARE NOT ABLE -- TO BE PREDICATED ON ACHIEVING THE SAME ENDGAME GOAL. BECAUSE THE ROLE OF AN ANTAGONIST IS TO OPPOSE THE PROTAGONIST’S JOURNEY TOWARDS ALL OF THEIR GOALS, BOTH SURFACE AND “ESSENTIAL WOUND” AFFIRMATION, THE PROTAGONIST AND ANTAGONIST INHERENTLY, NECESSARILY, AUTOMATICALLY, CANNOT HELP EACH OTHER IN A ROMANTIC CONTEXT TO ACHIEVE THOSE GOALS IN ANY OF THEIR STORY BEATS.

AND THEY FUCKING DON’T.

NOT ONE FUCKING BEAT OF TFA CAN BE BROKEN DOWN IN ANY RATIONAL, ACTUAL, NORMAL, LEGITIMATE WAY, TO SUGGEST THAT KYLO DOES ANYTHING OTHER THAN OPPOSE REY’S GOALS.

HE PHYSICALLY HARMS HER. HE EMOTIONALLY/MENTALLY HARMS HER. IN THE FOREST ON TAKODANA, IN THE FOREST ON STARKILLER, IN THE CHAIR ON THE FINALIZER, KYLO REN ACTIVELY WORKS TO OPPOSE REY’S GOAL OF SURVIVAL. HE IS NOT HOLDING BACK DURING THEIR FIGHT IN THE SNOW, YOU NUTBARS. NOR IS HE MERCIFUL AND TENDER WHEN HE VIOLENTLY AND PAINFULLY PENETRATES HER BODY FOR HIS OWN GAIN DESPITE HER PROTESTS AND TEARS. FUCK YOU.

HE IMPEDES HER PROGRESS TOWARDS THE RESISTANCE WITH BB-8. ONCE SHE’S ON STARKILLER? SHE HAS NO WAY OF KNOWING WHETHER BB-8 MADE IT TO THE RESISTANCE. FINN’S GONE, AS FAR AS SHE KNOWS. UNTIL REY REACHES D’QAR AT THE END, AS FAR AS SHE IS AWARE, KYLO REN SUCCESSFULLY THWARTED HER GOAL TO BRING BB-8, AND THE MAP, TO THE RESISTANCE.

HE DOES ACTUALLY SUCCEED IN OPPOSING HER GOAL TO RETURN TO JAKKU: NOT ONLY DOES HIS EXISTENCE ULTIMATELY CREATE THE SITUATION THAT LED HER TO HAVE TO FLEE IN THE FIRST PLACE (IF LUKE WEREN’T IN HIDING, THERE’D BE NO MAP/IF KYLO HAD NOT LED THE MASSACRE AT TUANUL AND ABDUCTED POE, BB-8 WOULDN’T BE ON JAKKU WITH THE MAP) BUT HE DOES SUCCEED IN CREATING CIRCUMSTANCES THAT HAVE, EVEN AS FAR AS TLJ AS FAR AS WE KNOW, PREVENT REY FROM RETURNING TO JAKKU. HE HAS DEFEATED HER ON THIS ONE OF REY’S GOALS.

OF COURSE, REY ONLY WANTS TO RETURN TO JAKKU BECAUSE OF ANOTHER OF HER GOALS, HER ESSENTIAL WOUND: REY WANTS TO KNOW THAT SHE MATTERS. AND IN TFA, REY’S PATH TO THAT UNDERSTANDING, AS FAR AS SHE CAN CONCEPTUALIZE IT, IS TO BE FOUND AND WANTED BY HER FAMILY. KYLO CANNOT HELP HER WITH THAT, AND, IF YOU WANT TO GET TECHNICAL ABOUT THE TORTURE SCENE, WHICH Y’ALL NEVER DO BECAUSE YOU DON’T WANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT IT’S A GODDAMN RAPE METAPHOR AND TORTURE SCENE IN THE FIRST FUCKING PLACE, KYLO DOES ACTUALLY OPPOSE THIS GOAL IN THE MOMENTARY MENTION OF IT IN THEIR STORY BEATS TOGETHER: HE TAUNTS HER WITH HER OWN LONELINESS. SHE DOES NOT MATTER. SHE IS ALONE. IN TLJ -- WELL, I’VE TRIED NOT TO SPOIL PEOPLE SO FAR, SO I WON’T HERE, BUT SUFFICE TO SAY: HE DOESN’T EXACTLY GIVE REY ANY POSITIVE AFFIRMATION ON HER ESSENTIAL WOUND. “HE HATES HER, THIS GARBAGE-PICKER,” AFTER ALL.

BY THE NATURE OF THE ACTUAL STORY THAT WAS ACTUALLY HAPPENING ON THE ACTUAL SCREEN DURING THE ACTUAL MOVIE OF STAR WARS THE FORCE AWAKENS, AND AGAIN IN THE ACTUAL MOVIE OF STAR WARS THE LAST JEDI, IT IS LITERALLY NOT POSSIBLE, OR PLAUSIBLE, OR DEFENSIBLE IMO, TO SEE REYLO AS ROMANTIC. IT’S NOT. IT’S JUST LITERALLY NOT. IT IS LITERALLY, NOT A MISUSE OF LITERALITY, NOT ROMANTIC.

IF YOU’RE ALL TRYING TO SAY “WE KNOW IT’S NOT ROMANTIC, PER SE, BUT WE THINK THAT TORTURE-PORN AND SAD WHITE BOYS ARE SEXY ENOUGH THAT I DON’T REALLY CARE ABOUT REY AND JUST WANT KYLO TO GET SOME HOT WET HOLES AND REY IS THERE, SO, LIKE, THAT’S SEXY TO ME,” THEN JUST SAY THAT. BUT IT’S NOT FUCKING ROMANTIC.

IT’S ALSO NOT SEXY; JJ ABRAMS HIMSELF CONFIRMED THE TORTURE SCENE IS A RAPE METAPHOR, BUT WHATEVER.

[aimmyarrowshigh]

just saw some Bad Discourse that was trying to be helpful/informed, but was actually super ignorant and harmful, so:

no, the allies/us did not decline to acknowledge the holocaust during wwii “because jews were white.” they declined to acknowledge the holocaust during wwii -- and many STILL, literally to this day as in today as in this actual day today decline to acknowledge the holocaust -- because jews are jews.

trying to educate people about american antisemitism while separating jewish identity from jews is not helping. the OP’s heart was in the right place, which is why I’m not replying to their post, but seriously... americans did not see the jewish victims of the nazis as white. they did not perceive whiteness and use that as their reasoning why not to intervene. they saw jews and chose not to intervene. most americans, if aware of the holocaust at all, did not disagree with it.

literally, today as in this actual specific day, is enough reminder that you really can’t say that americans have ever seen jews as human beings worthy of help.

but also, just like, historically speaking, jews in america did not start to be considered white-passing until the mid/late ‘80s (if YET, in most places in the us, tbh? like how many people on this site even know any jews in their real lives bc??? i doubt some of you have ever met a jewish person in your lives???). the conditional whiteness of jews was a weapon of white goyim to further encourage de facto segregation of the suburbs, which is literally a whole field of study and is not the point of this post -- other than to say “goyim decided, and still decide on a jew-by-jew basis, who gets to be seen as white, and usually it’s decided that a jew can be white when their inclusion in a community/structure/institution can be used to hurt a black person/community/institution.”  1930s/1940s americans? did not see jews as white because jews were specifically NOT white. they were, as today’s crowd in charlottesville still believes, The Ultimate Other.

wwii america was absolutely not like, “oh, these white people can handle themselves and if it were a marginalized community we’d help.” they were like, “those dirty k*kes can burn.”

it had nothing to do with “whiteness” and everything, everything, to do with jewishness.

[aimmyarrowshigh]

Hi! I was just wondering if there's a reason why modern day American feminists seem focused on issues related to people living in the 3rd world and to people living in the 1st, but rarely mention anything concerning the 2nd world (ex Soviet block)? I've even seen many US feminists using the Hammer-and-sickle symbol to represent freedom from capitalism in the US, while being ignorant of the oppressiveness it means to all in the 2nd world (or choosing to ignore it). What's your take on this, V? :)

This… is a very involved question for 6:15AM. Which I mention simply to disclaim: I am not an expert, I absolutely AM American and middle-class and was educated in a very white/American/middle-class educational system, and I am not doing research before answering this, so it’s entirely opinion and entirely biased opinions. I’m absolutely open to, and want to, have the opinion challenged!

My instinct is to say that it’s because American society is so partisan and binary that it’s difficult for Americans, as a whole, to understand theories or issues that have more than two sides, so there… really is no exposure to the idea that a nation can be something besides First-World Oppressive Power and Third-World Oppressed Victim. The propaganda of the last 50+ years depicting the entire ex-Soviet block as either the tiger-owning-diamond-wearing-Russian-oligarch-out-for-the-destruction-of-America or the dirty-faced-starving-street-urchin-who-wants-an-American-takeover absolutely reinforces that idea, which is a dichotomy on its own: Us or Them, America or Nothing. There really isn’t a nuanced understanding of the countries of the former USSR like, AS separate countries, in most of the US. 

I also feel like America is still so desperately afraid of communism and socialism, and so absolutely run by despotic capitalists (um, now more than ever, or even more transparently than in the last 100 years?), that the only understanding that most Americans have of “not capitalism” is “like the USSR.” So I think any American, feminist or otherwise, who starts to critique capitalism as part of their learning process, starts from a place of looking at the Soviet as a model. And because of the aforementioned issues with Americans being bad at anything other than didactic, binary thinking, it ends up being “If capitalism = bad, then Soviet = good.” And, unfortunately, because of the lack of nuance in our understanding of the world, that’s where that thinking ends. I don’t think it’s intentionally malicious, but I think that it’s borne of being intentionally miseducated.

There’s also a lot to be said about how America really doesn’t get the difference between communism and socialism, and a lot to be said about – IMO – the way that a LOT of fauxke white goyishe American feminists turning to badly-translated Soviet-esque hardcore anticapitalism as a smokescreen for their reliance on white privilege. Like… ::tries to figure out how to words the feeling::

I feel like a lot of the American feminists that I know who put a strong emphasis on “communism” as would be illustrated by the hammer-and-sickle, Soviet-era, catchphrases-on-merch-that-they-don’t-understand-are-literally-part-of-capitalism-because-they’re-marketing-their-ideology-with-money-to-people-with-money, are doing so because they don’t want to be critical of the existing American social system. They want to be able to place the blame on something other than white supremacy, neo-conservative American-Christian puritanism, xenophobia, etc., so that they can continue to uphold the parts of American culture that serve them while claiming radicalism. It’s very like, it’s very “choice feminism” to me? Very “my eyeliner is sharp enough to slay the patriarchy! I’m not going to question that idea at all because I don’t want to,” feminism. I guess I’m saying that I don’t think most American feminists who would view communism uncritically view ANYTHING all that critically, and are, thus, shitty feminists.

But that said: it’s also an immediately recognizable “FUCK YOU AMERICA” to throw up Soviet symbols, so I understand doing it on that level and not considering that it’s also saying “hey, fuck you, victims of Soviet Russian oppression,” too. I think it’s a very like… youthful(?) stage of social justice questioning where you’ve realized that something is shitty about America at its core but you don’t know what to do about it yet so you just yell whatever you can to make it clear that you’re mad.

I understand this answer makes no sense.

[aimmyarrowshigh]

here’s the thing about media analysis:

even if somehow in the bowels of terrible-choice hell reylo becomes canon, it doesn’t make “anti” readings of tfa wrong. it makes star wars that much more misogynistic, racist, traditionalist, and conservative.

that’s it. thinking rey and kylo ren have a deeply antagonistic relationship with deliberate callbacks to real-world rape culture will still be a valid reading of the canon bc those markers are still in the canon.

“antis” aren’t trying to ~prove their predictions for TLJ/IX the way shippers are – bc when reylo doesn’t become canon, “proof blogs” can be wrong, but even if it does, analysis of the ways it is a disgusting manifestation of rape culture and the permissiveness given to adult white men to live as perpetual children with no accountability will still be valid. i hope star wars doesn’t play into those things, but obviously the vast majority of American media does. as an “anti,” I’m generally not saying “this won’t happen bc…” I’m saying “this shouldn’t happen bc… and if it does, here’s what to consider when it comes to Rey having agency and latitude as a female protagonist.”

even if reylo somehow happens, even if somehow your force bond turns out to be canon and not fanon, it will ALWAYS be a valid reading of her torture scene to see it as a metaphor for rape. (and so is Poe’s, whom you always discount. kind of like male victims in the real world. huh.)

[aimmyarrowshigh]

I certainly struggle with the question of "where is my line?" At what point do I say, "your personal values are too far from mine for me to continue supporting you"? I believe very strongly in voting with my $, and also recognize that in a capitalist society like mine, there's no purity or surety to be had! I was also a philosophy major so it's possible I'm overthinking this.

No, TOOOOOOOOTALLY same. And I feel like for me, a lot of it depends on stuff that I can’t even pinpoint, but might be things like “the nostalgia factor” or “how depressed was I when this piece of media made me feel better” or whatever. Like, there are things that I think are just absolutely unforgivable no matter what – like, I’m sns but Woody Allen and Luc Besson [lookin’ atchu, Valerian… sigh] and Polanski and shit should not only NOT have careers but should be retroactively removed from the records of all the awards they won, like, 0.0% of people should be able to look past raping children – but I think, in general, that part of what annoys people so much about “tumblr culture” is that there IS no such thing as ideological purity. It’s ALWAYS an individual state of constant questioning. And I think, like, even as I go through my own old blog posts from the last six years while I tidy the tags… trying to define your own base values and weigh those questions and going REALLY OVERBOARD TRYING TO BE PERFECT is a necessary part of the process.

Like, yeah, a lot of the so-called “Tumblr 13-year-old social justice Discoursers” are annoying, but that’s because they’re a) trying to figure out who they are and b) therefore, trying to define their own balance and values and lines. Let them be annoying for a few years. They’ll figure themselves out. It’s unfair to expect them to know what they consider unethical or unforgivable when they also don’t know yet what and who they are and how things will affect them. Give the kids a break (except on shit like doxxing bc that is another thing that’s Never Okay.)

There are always going to be varying degrees that people feel about others’ wrongs, because human nature is to feel more strongly towards issues that affect you and people like you, even when you can and do empathetically reach out to other marginalized groups. But like, a pretty clear example that happens ALL THE TIME is gay white men putting the well-being of gay white men above the well-being of ANY women or ANY people of color, even gay MoC, or ANY other intersections of the queer community (especially trans people). They don’t understand why women can, and do, still accuse gay men of misogyny, because isn’t it more important that gay white men are finally being given an equal platform to straight white men? Or whatever. (Also, white feminism – being unable to separate the well-being of upper/middle-class white women with the exploitation of WoC and/or trans women and/or queer women and/or women in third-world nations. Or vegans’ privileging of animal rights above the rights of marginalized third-world workers! There are a ZILLION examples of people who CANNOT QUITE COMPREHEND how their ABSOLUTE CORE VALUE literally doesn’t factor at all into someone else’s decisions, even if they agree on a lot of other values.) 

A small and silly fandom example to illustrate because it isn’t Charged like actual issues: a core issue in Star Wars fandom is that Reylos seem to think that the important thing to consider wrt Kylo Ren is “he might be coded as mentally ill, and that is super important to me and I want him to get a happy ending.” Anti-Reylos consider the most important thing wrt Kylo Ren is “he is definitely coded as a rapist, and it’s super important to me that he is punished for that, preferably with death because in movies you should get absolute justice against the villains esp when that so rarely happens in real life.” It’s two completely different value systems butting up against each other and there is no bridging that without someone putting their own values behind them just to get along with another blogger over lasers in space. 

(I just also feel like when you cross over to the point of demanding that one marginalized group give up their right to voice against oppression against them in favor of propping up the voices of their oppressors, that’s something to self-investigate. Black women do not owe white women a platform to harm the Black community in the name of more power to white people, EVEN when those white women are also queer or disabled or poor or whatever. Jewish people do not owe goyim a wider platform to spread antisemitic blood libel, EVEN when those goyim are also queer or women or otherwise marginalized [which is the inherent SHARP SCHISM wrt the Chicago D*ke March discourse, etc, because there is no clear-cut answer as to whether Jews are white or not {or, thanks, CNN, whether Jews are PEOPLE or not…} or the connnnstant issues with antisemitism in extremely poor and/or rural areas]. Queer people DO NOT OWE HOMOPHOBES A PLATFORM TO PREACH HOMOPHOBIA, EVEN WHEN THEY’RE AUTISTIC LIKE ADAM YOUNG OR WHATEVER. Etc.)???????????????????

Anyway, this is very rambling and it’s super early in the morning and I 100% know that I’m saying things wrong and in ways that are problematic. Because I am a person. You are 100% free to decide that I’m past your lines and my shittiness outweighs anything I could contribute and to hate me. 

[aimmyarrowshigh]

what is reality: “I’m an adult with multiple advanced degrees and award-winning papers on pop culture media analyses focusing on women’s experiences and sexual violence. Here’s an interpretation of a SF/F scene that exploits sexual violence through the lens of that analytical framework and my personal experience as a rape survivor.”

what you hear: “I WANNA HURT U FOR NO REASON N MAKE UR WOOBIE LUV LOOK BAD JUST CUZ I WANNA SHIP SOMETHIN ELSE”

[aimmyarrowshigh]

If you think “pro-life feminism” exists, unfollow me.

I’m genuinely 100% serious.

You are not a feminist. You hate women. And you are doing nothing to protect, preserve, or value life.