halomancer-2:

froody:

froody:

“the term mpreg is inherently transphobic because pregnancy is gender neutral” I hate to tell you this but in the pregnancy fetish fanfiction community they also use the term fpreg

there are -pregs you wouldn’t even dream of

katy-l-wood:

This did not go where I expected from the first tweet and now I am laughing so hard I am crying.

suriel:

this reply in the comments tho

anexperimentallife:

fluoresensitive:

fluoresensitive:

fluoresensitive:

I think most people want to Fix Lesbians

Even people in the LGBT community think we’re broken and weird. Like. Hm.

Repackaging regular degular misogyny and lesphobia as activism is so. Anyways, dykes for ignoring men entirely and forgetting they exist.

that-house:

that-house:

I had to mentally send myself a reaction image the other day. I ran up the stairs on all fours, said to myself “i’m such a locationpilled scampercel” and then perfectly envisioned this image

please i’ve already hurt so much

eldritchhbagel:

eldritchhbagel:

eldritchhbagel:

You’re not a bad person for wasting food because you forgot to eat it or left it out or didn’t have the time/energy/executive function to prepare it or didn’t have an appetite or whatever. Unlearn the guilt your parents taught you.

Yes if it’s an option offer your unused food to someone else who can benefit from it, but you’re not responsible for the whole world and forcing yourself to eat something won’t save someone else from hunger.

cock-holliday:

cock-holliday:

I think a lot of this shit would get cleared up if people recognized man/woman, masc/femme as not opposites but factors in gendered oppression.

Like…oppression is a combination of what you are, how you are seen, and whether you conform.

For example, cis gay men who are targets of homophobia are, of course, targets of homophobia, but a lot of homophobia is rooted in misogynistic patriarchy also. Men are not “supposed” to be feminine and feminine equals female and therefore is less than. But then the question is, so are men rewarded for being masculine? Not always. And sometimes they are severely punished for it. Men of color sure are. Especially Black men. Fat men sometimes are.

So if we look at homophobia directed at women, queer women are targets of homophobia, can be specifically lesbophobia, biphobia—more specific forms. Women are seen as less than for their femininity, for their femaleness. It’s misogyny. But then are butches rewarded for masculinity? No. They are punished for it. For failing to conform, for masculinity that “doesn’t belong to them.” So then this becomes a more complex form of gendered oppression, I wonder if there is a word for that? Google, what is butchphobia? What is antimasculism?

So are women always punished for femininity? Not necessarily. Women who “conform” are rewarded in the way that they are where they are “supposed to” be. Which is still regarded as inferior to men. But embracing gender roles can give you a leg up in bigoted spaces. Is that a reward? Is it punishment? Is a step higher on the ladder privilege or do you have to be at the top?

So if Black men are punished for their masculinity, are they never rewarded for it? No, especially when leveraging misogyny, masculinity can be a powerful tool, but it is not seen as comparable to white masculinity by society. So are Black women rewarded for femininity? Not necessarily. Not in the way white women are. Are they demonized for their masculinity? Very much so. And oh wait, what’s this? How do we account for the way Black women who are feminine are seen as masculine for their features even when they aren’t? Are they perhaps experiencing a more complex form of gendered oppression that needs language to accommodate? Google, what is misogynoir?

Now, since y’all will just insist you are trying to center transfemmes, let’s discuss transfemmes. How do we view butch trans women? Is she rewarded for her masculinity? Absolutely not. Is she punished for not being feminine? Absolutely. Is she seen as predatory and a faker? What about masc AMAB enbies? Are they rewarded for masculinity? Are they rewarded if their features appear male? No and no.

Are trans women rewarded for their femininity? Sometimes. For conforming. For appearing how she’s “supposed to.” For transitioning the “right” way. Is femininity always rewarded? Fuck no. She’s going to be subject to misogyny too. Even if she’s not masculine, if she’s not feminine enough her features are going to label her masculine, label her male, and then she’s going to be subject to transphobia directed at her inability to conform. Her “masculinity” or perceived maleness is a threat, not conforming. Damned if you do, damned if you don’t. A more specific manifestation of oppression which is a combination of transphobia and misogyny (and arguably antimasculism). Is there language for this?

Masculinity and femininity are not straight shot rewarded versus punished. Maleness and femaleness are not straight shot rewarded versus punished. Femininity/femaleness are punished through misogyny viewing them as inferior. It can be rewarded (somewhat) through conformity. Masculinity/maleness can be rewarded through conformity, it is punished when it is non-conforming or a threat to those in power.

Is the masculinization of fat women a reward? Is the feminization of Asian men a reward? Is the hyper-sexualization of trans women a reward? Is the desexualization of disabled men a reward?

Binaries are a wildly incomplete analysis of how actual power manifests, what is considered conforming versus an “attack”, and what behaviors actually grant admittance to the club and what labels you as storming the keep.

Almost as if anything short of the pinnacle of white supremacy has the potential to be victimized and every step on the ladder has the potential to gain a higher foothold if they climb onto the people around them.

“Women are—“ stop, what women? “Trans men are—“ stop, what trans men? Scrub “all” and “never” and absolutes and binaries from your discussions of gender.

@kit-mc-corny a good point. What does “reward” look like? What does “punish” look like?

musenkuss:

update complaints in the olden days: Now the reblog buttom is at the bottom of the post?! I enjoyed scrolling all the way back up!!! >:( ! Every time I like something there’s a little HEART that goes RED and it’s so cringe and I hate the whimsy of it >:(! They CHANGED the shade of BLUE!!!! >:(((((

update complaints now: botticellis primavera is deemed adult content. every new follower is a bot. you can’t pause videos anymore. dash looks like a twinsta clone. they’re taking reblog chains from us.

wild-saber1337:

MY GOD WHAT HAVE I FOUND XD

I’m not sorry for having you know this exists XD

beatrice-otter:

merfilly:

elizabethgoudge:

egberts:

companies really have got to be okay with stagnant profits. what is wrong with earning the same amount every year? why does it always have to be more? it’s not sustainable. there are only so many people on the planet you can profit from 😭

This is the thing. If there are only so many people they can profit from, and they demand to see profits go up every year, they will have to steal more out of the pockets of the little people each year, either by paying less, or by charging more. And that is the problem. Because that is exactly what is happening. And the rich get richer. And the poor are getting so poor that it is coming to a crisis point. They seem to have forgotten what happens at the crisis point though: people who have nothing to lose, will rise up and fight.

Cancer: a malignant tumor of potentially unlimited growth that expands locally by invasion and systemically (Merriam Webster)

See also: Capitalism

But also, “increasing profits every quarter” is a relatively recent thing. It’s new since the 1980s! In the 1980s, Reagan heavily promoted the economic theories connected with the Chicago school of economics. (“Reaganomics” is basically the Chicago school ideas dumbed down to fit in soundbites.) The Chicago school is, among other things, responsible for such wonders as “all regulation in the marketplace is always bad” “monopoly is good because it’s efficient” and “trickle-down economics.” When those ideas became mainstream, and were adopted wholeheartedly by Wall Street, they spawned the idea that the most important measure of a company was its stock increasing in value. Not how much business it was doing, not how well its customers liked and valued it, not how stable it was for the long-term. Is its stock increasing is the only measure of value.

Prior to that point, a business–even large corporations!–were valued more on how reliable they are. If I invest in this business, will it still be there five, ten, fifteen, twenty years from now? Businesses were good if they were profitable and stable. Increasing profits was wonderful! But they understood that that is not infinitely sustainable, and that if you wanted to maximize long-term profits for individual investors and for the economy as a whole, you did not want flash-in-the-pan trendiness, and you didn’t want a business cannibalizing itself, you wanted a business that was stable and took good care of its customers so they’d keep coming back.

sadlekane:

you’re laughing. i told you a joke and you’re laughing. i love you