30
they/them/their
I like cute things and think too much. I like X-Files, Carnivale, The Fall and Twin Peaks. Pretty pictures, trauma/survivor stuff, disability things, assorted else.

 

Early female sexuality, AKA why statutory rape laws are important

misandry-mermaid:

  • Before age 15, “a majority of first intercourse experiences among females are reported to be non-voluntary*.” [source]
  • A detailed qualitative study of girls’ loss of virginity found that they “were almost all quite negative (and, in some cases, horrific).* [source]
  • Of adolescents engaging in oral sex only, girls were twice as likely as boys to report feeling bad about themselves and nearly three times as likely to feel used. [source]
  • Fathers of babies born to teens are often significantly older than their female partners. It is estimated that, among girls who have given birth to a child by age 15, 39 percent of the fathers are between the ages of 20 and 29.* [source]
  • The age gap between teen mothers and their male partners is particularly striking among the youngest adolescents. Among mothers ages 11 to 12, fathers are on average 9.8 years older, and among mothers ages 13 to 14, fathers are on average 4.6 years older.* [source]

*AKA rape, but notice the soft, diminishing language used.

gaypocalypse:

sunshineinmyveins:

gaypocalypse:

sunshineinmyveins:

gaypocalypse:

"If you think “monosexism” is a problematic term because it groups people of various identities into one category[…]"

ah yes, that’s what critics are saying, they’re just upset because it groups people of “various identities”! it doesn’t matter what those identities are! it doesn’t matter that they are gay people and straight people, it doesn’t matter that they are on the SAME AXIS and one is the other’s oppressor on THAT AXIS, no it’s just that “various identities” can never be grouped together under any circumstances, you have excellent listening skills and aren’t being incredibly disingenuous at all!

If I’m reading this right, this is saying that “monosexism” is problematic because straight people oppress gay people and therefore they cannot share prejudices and be grouped together based on those prejudices.

To which I say FUCK YOU AND FUCK THAT because that’s not how the world works. You don’t get to exist in a bubble free of critique because you’re oppressed by one group while you engage in the erasure (and/or oppression) of another.

Look at it this way: when it comes to racial/ethnic “minorities”, we all know white people are the worst. White supremacy victimizes all of us but it doesn’t do so equally because racism isn’t a binary of US (in this case, “minorities”) vs. THEM (whites). There’s a gradient wherein the “model minority” sits at the top and black people sit at the bottom. It’s called “anti-blackness” and you don’t have to be white to be anti-black. In fact, anti-blackness is pervasive across the board because it allows certain racial/ethnic groups to set themselves apart from one group. If I remember my history correctly, this is also how white immigrants like the Irish were able to become white according to the USA’s ugly standards - by standing on the shoulders of Black people and saying “but at least we’re not like them”.

And even if you aren’t personally anti-black, if you’re a non-black POC you still benefit from anti-blackness. And if it feels like a cheap handout from white supremacist bastards who hate us all for not being like them then good, it should feel like that because it’s bullshit. But you still benefit from it.

Same goes for monosexuals who have established a binary upon which they comfortably exist.

ok, i’m white so i’m not going to get into your analogy to race, because it’s not my place to have opinions on intra-poc issues or question your understanding of them. 

i will make some points about the intra-lgb+ topic at hand. and i’m bi, by the way, in case that affects your “fuck you” attitude at all.

i do not believe that gay and lesbian people should exist in “a bubble free of critique.” i believe that it is entirely possible, even important, to criticize other people in an oppressed community without suggesting that they share privilege with their oppressors.

i do believe that gay people can share prejudices against bi people with straight people. i also believe that bi people can share prejudices against gay people with straight people. i believe that these prejudices, when wielded by lgb+ people, constitute lateral aggression, not vertical oppression. i believe that they are products of internalized homophobia—using “homophobia” not to mean “bigotry against gay people specifically” but to refer to the larger system of homophobia/heterosexism that oppresses all people who are attracted to the same gender.

i do not believe that it is at all clear that we bi people are categorically the most oppressed group on the axis of sexual orientation. i believe that the larger system of heterosexism controlled by straight people sometimes attacks bi people by comparing them negatively to gay people, and sometimes attacks gay people by comparing them negatively to bi people, depending on which is convenient at the time, in order to more effectively hold us all down.

i don’t believe that gay people and straight people have worked together to establish the gay/straight binary and create the conditions of bi people’s oppression. people attracted to more than one gender were oppressed by straight people long before modern gay people had even the slightest crumb of social power, and long before we even had our modern conceptions of “gay” and “straight.” and those conceptions of “gay” and “straight” (at the time, “homosexual” and “heterosexual”) were formalized by straight people as part of defining gay people, and same-sex attraction itself, as perverse and pathological. this is not comfortable to gay people. the creation of this was not a perk for them, and it was not their doing.

i believe that bi people and gay people are oppressed on the same axis. i believe that our oppression has the same root—hatred of same-gender attraction—and that our experiences and fates are inextricably linked, and that our intra-community aggression toward one another hurts all of us. i believe that straight people are the only oppressors here.

so now, at least, you know what i believe.

Oh damn. I meant to save my reply to my drafts last night and apparently queued it up instead so I came home to this plus three LOVELY anonymous messages in my inbox presumably from three DELIGHTFUL lesbians who called me a lot of HEARTFELT names (don’t worry, you guys can see those messages as soon as I’m done here) and also this.

Oops?

FIRST of all, I don’t know why knowing that you’re bisexual would change my stance on “fuck the original sentiment” but okay. You’re bisexual. That’s awesome. You don’t speak for all of us.

Granted, I also don’t speak for all of us. I only speak for myself and here’s what I know: the LGBTQUAI+ community has a disgusting habit of erasing everyone who doesn’t fall into the categories of “L” or “G” (and, of course, there are intersections here that go beyond bi/pan erasure or transphobia and include a pervasive sense of racism, ableism, fatphobia, erasure of nonbinary identities and asexual members of the community, etc., etc.). The movement for the Right to Marry which is framed as The Defining Issue For Our Community - and its sister issue The Right to Adopt - have been popularized largely thanks to these disgusting habits. Because it’s easier to convince heterosexuals that we’re not abominations if we buy in and assimilate. What do all good same-sex loving people want? A spouse and 2.5 kids. Why? Because they’re just like heterosexuals.

So forgive me for not wanting to pander to a community whose entire modern-day throughline is assimilation into the same bullshit binaries and white supremacist structures that heterosexuals uphold and revere and then wants to turn around and say that it’s disingenuous for anyone to tell them they have such a thing as  ”monosexual privilege”.

Also, while I respect your decision to avoid the race issue it also avoids the bigger issue here which is that you can be oppressed and still be an asshole or contribute to the oppression of others. Which is what gays and lesbians do routinely to the bisexual/pansexual, transgender, non-binary, and POC  members of the community that they own a monopoly on.

If we can’t address the disproportionate abuses of power common within the LGBTQUAI+ community and use that criticism to create a truly equal playing field, we’re just falling into the same traps laid out by the same cishet white dudes (and their female accomplices) who will eventually be fine granting us the right to marry whoever we want because it’s not asking them to address the truly ugly issues like, say, the number of homeless youth or the mortality rate of trans women of color (and trans men and women more generally).

Also, this:

i believe that bi people and gay people are oppressed on the same axis. i believe that our oppression has the same root—hatred of same-gender attraction—and that our experiences and fates are inextricably linked, and that our intra-community aggression toward one another hurts all of us. i believe that straight people are the only oppressors here.

Come on, now. When I come out to lesbians and am told to my face, “I would never date a bi girl” do you really think they’re saying that because they hate me for liking other women? When I come out to gay men and they continually ask me later if I’ve “picked one” yet, do you think that ignorance stems from their fear of me ending up with another woman? Well maybe. Gay men can be curious fellows. 

And calling it “intra-community aggression” in this context seems to imply that bisexuals are out here raining hatred and ignorance on gays and lesbians when that is … not ever the case? 

I don’t know, bi followers. Do you hate gay and lesbian people because they like only one sex/gender? Does that offend you? Scare you? Make you feel as though you’ve been given some kind of biological right to police their bodies and their sexuality, ask invasive questions, make boneheaded assumptions, and - if you choose - ignore their existence entirely because they don’t fit into your vision of what sexuality is and should be?

No?

Because that’s how the fuck gays and lesbians feel about us. And that kinda sounds a lot like how the fuck straight people feel about everyone.

But maybe I’ve just been misinterpreting all that delicious prejudice.

Anyway. I thought I’d let others handle the take down of your beliefs that gay/straight people didn’t work together to create/maintain the binary that allows their blatant and persistent erasure of us and that we’re not disproportionately affected by oppression (if not oppressed outright) so:

Here is a post with quotes from stories from bisexual people about how they were treated by gays and lesbians.

Here is a post with an epic take-down of bullshit lesbian superiority that also reminds us about how lesbians, not heterosexual women, had a large hand in defining bisexual women as “not queer” (gif warning).

Here’s a post about gay men openly welcoming bisexual men into the community. Oh, wait. That’s the OPPOSITE of what is happening here. 

Here is a post dropping some epic truth about imperialism, it’s role in bisexual erasure, and the mainstream gay movement’s adherence to said imperialist erasure. If the fact that the sexual practices of an entire continent are being erased to serve a monosexist agenda isn’t a symptom of privilege, I don’t know what is.

And finally here is a post that proves that oppression affects bisexuals disproportionately to gays and lesbians including lifetime rates of sexual victimization, suicidal contemplation, and poverty.

first off, i am truly sorry you got mean anons. i have asked my followers numerous times not to send mean anons to people i disagree with. obviously i can’t control them, but i do not condone that and i never have.

onward.

you didn’t just say “fuck that sentiment,” you said “fuck you” and then immediately assumed i was one of the “monosexuals” you have such a problem with, so it stands to reason that you at least might hate me slightly less knowing that i am, in fact, not.

of course the lgbt+ community has many problems. i’m not sure why you think lesbians are privileged within it on par with gay men, since gender is also an important axis of oppression.

so you believe that because many gay and lesbian people want the right to marry and adopt (which, by the way, is important for people in same-sex couples to get custody of their partners’ biological kids—it’s not just about racist/imperialist adoption practices which i am also hugely critical of), that that means a) that gay and lesbian people are assimilationist, and b) that they are especially assimilationist. what does it mean, then, that bi people (in the u.s.) are more likely to have children and more likely to be married, with a given bi person’s committed relationship having roughly an 84% chance of being with someone of the “opposite” sex? what does it mean that bi people are only slightly less likely to support same-sex marriage than gay and lesbian people (second link) and comparably likely to say that same-sex marriage has taken too much focus away from other issues (also second link; our rate of agreeing with that falls between gay men’s rate and lesbians’ rate)? why are gay and lesbian people’s marriages and children, and desires for marriage and children, evidence that they have bad politics and are trying to be “just like heterosexuals," while bi people’s marriages and children—with a large majority being "opposite"-sex marriages—are not evidence of the same thing? why are we so sure bi people’s theoretical lower prioritization of same-sex marriage would be evidence of an anti-assimilationist streak, and not just reflective of the fact that we are dramatically less likely to need it in order to marry our current partners?

there is, of course, a huge problem of racism and transphobia within the lgbt community (as well as class-based oppression, ableism, etc.). but why is this proof of “monosexual” privilege, specifically? are white, cis bi people like me less able to enact racism and transphobia against other members of the community? and where does this leave gay and lesbian poc and trans gay and lesbian people, especially trans lesbians and lesbians of color, and especially especially trans lesbians of color? does the racism and transphobia within the community prove that they’re privileged as well? obviously white cis gay and lesbian people (especially gay men) have more representation than bi people in (at least a lot of) lgbt communities, so of course they’re responsible for a lot of the racism and transphobia, but does that mean white cis bi people would necessarily be better if we were better represented? for example (in which gay and lesbian people’s analog is a privileged class, the better to suit you): white men hugely outnumber white women in congress, but does that imply that if white women were in charge instead, congress would be less racist?

the bigger issue here which is that you can be oppressed and still be an asshole or contribute to the oppression of others”

of course you can. i’ve said this already. of course gay and lesbian people can be assholes. gay and lesbian people do often engage in biphobia, which is a hugely asshole thing. and of course oppressed people can oppress other people—on a different axis where they have institutional power. this is literally the entire point of my original post. the fact that gay and lesbian people are oppressed on the same axis—sexual orientation—that they supposedly oppress us bi people on is incredibly relevant.

now again, wrt other crucial lgbt issues: according to the pew survey (about halfway down the page), lesbians are more likely than bi people (of both genders; they’re sadly not split up here) to say that legally sanctioned same-sex marriages are a top priority. BUT. and this is a BIG BUT. they are ALSO more likely than bi people—rather dramatically so—to say the following issues are a top priority: equal employment rights (by 20 percentage points), support for lgbt youth organizations (by 22 percentage points), and health insurance coverage of trans health issues (by 15 percentage points). (other issues that i think you and i would both agree are incredibly important were not asked about.) i just mention this to suggest that perhaps the situation is more complicated than simply “bi people care about important things like at-risk youth and trans women, but gay and lesbian people only care about marriage.” i would also point out that people who are more privileged in classic ways—who are white, cis, wealthy, male, abled, etc.—have hugely disproportionate power within the lgbt community, at lgbt organizations, etc., including among gay people, and suggest that this might go further to explain the racist, transphobic, etc. priorities of The Movement than simply “gay people are more racist, transphobic, etc., because/therefore gay people are privileged for being gay.” because after all, the gay people least likely to be racist—gay poc—and the gay people least likely to be transphobic—gay trans people—are also the least likely among gay people to be in a position to model the movement after their own priorities.

When I come out to lesbians and am told to my face, “I would never date a bi girl” do you really think they’re saying that because they hate me for liking other women?”

directly, on the surface? no, of course not. but their reasoning for it is not formed outside of heteropatriarchy, and it is not magically entirely divorced from ideas that devalue same-gender attraction (or, of course, ideas that devalue women). you’ve heard, i’m sure, as i have, “i’d never date a bi girl—she’d just leave me for a man.” why are the women who say this so sure that bi women will inevitably choose men over them? i believe—and many other bi women have theorized—that this certainty stems from insecurity and internalized homophobia (and misogyny). there’s a pervasive idea in our culture that “opposite”-gender attraction, sex, and relationships are more pure, real, and desirable than same-gender attraction, sex, and relationships. and that therefore if one has the capacity for “opposite”-gender attraction, sex, and relationships, one will inevitably choose it over anything else. this combines with the misogynist idea that men are more desirable than women to form the assumption that bi women will always choose men over women. this idea is hugely harmful to bi women! but it is also—with its implicit devaluation of same-gender attraction (and women)—harmful to lesbians, and the lesbians who subscribe to it are experiencing internalized homophobia (and more specifically lesbophobia), even if they don’t know it and think that putting down bi women is good for them.

this kind of logic underpins the larger myth that bisexuality isn’t real: either you must really just have “opposite”-gender attraction (because if you have it you must realize its inherent superiority, to the point of your same-gender attraction being negligible by comparison) or you must really just have same-gender attraction (because how could you have such inferior attraction unless you have no other choice?). for bi men, misogyny means they’re more likely to be told they must be gay than bi women, because as mentioned above, attraction to men is also seen as more real and understandable. as bi people, we are badly hurt BOTH by the strict biphobia of this myth, AND by the homophobia of it, because it devalues our same-gender attraction. and defending the existence of bisexuality strikes a blow against homophobia, by asserting that same-gender attraction can coexist alongside “opposite”-gender attraction without being dismissed as valueless—that it can even be equal to it, or stronger than it, depending upon the feelings of the bi person in question.

"And calling it “intra-community aggression” in this context seems to imply that bisexuals are out here raining hatred and ignorance on gays and lesbians when that is … not ever the case?"

i wish i could agree. i’m not going to make any blanket statements that bi people are super homophobic toward gay and lesbian people or anything. but just as gay and lesbian people absorb biphobic messages from a society that hates bi people, so too do bi people absorb homophobic (in the gay-specific sense) messages from a society that hates gay people. i’ve heard bi women repeat lesbophobic cliches just like straight feminists use about how they’re not like those ugly, hairy, mannish, man-hating, etc. etc. lesbians. i’ve heard bi men mock gay men specifically as slutty and effeminate and tainted by disease, affecting a stereotypical “gay voice” to do so. i’ve seen both bi men and bi women tell lesbians that their sexual orientation isn’t real or legitimate, that no one’s really a lesbian, that they can’t be sure they’re only attracted to women, that they’re using the wrong word, that they’re limiting themselves, that they’re naive, that they’re confused, and ask them if they’ve ever been with a man, and if so how many, or with a woman, and if so how many. i’ve seen bi people say that it’s good to be bi but straight-up wrong to be gay. i’ve listened to lesbians describe lesbophobic experiences at the hands of bi men that are so horrible i don’t even feel right naming them here, because they’re too serious to be used in the service of a point in an argument.

these things are all—i hope obviously—terrible. they also, i hope also obviously, don’t mean that bi people have institutional privilege over gay people. they are lateral aggression (sometimes combined with actual oppression based on gender). i don’t want to say they’re “just” lateral aggression, though, because just like the lateral aggression we bi people experience in the form of gay people’s biphobia, it’s incredibly harmful and awful. it’s just simply not backed up by institutional power. that’s all.

I thought I’d let others handle the take down of your beliefs that gay/straight people didn’t work together to create/maintain the binary”

i have already explained how they didn’t. i have already described, in brief, the literal actual history of our modern western concepts of “gay” and “straight” and the homophobia involved in their formalization. it’s right there in my previous reblog, and none of your links dispute it.

your first link is stuff i already know, that i’ve already incorporated into my point of view. i’m bi, remember? i don’t need to be educated on what it’s like to be bi? i have not led a magical charmed life free of biphobia, i simply understand that biphobia differently than you do.

your second link is embarrassingly historically bankrupt. there is a thorough explanation here

your third link: again, yes, gay people are often biphobic, wow, duh, i know.

your fourth link makes very important points. i will not defend imperialism, straight or gay (or otherwise—dr. herukhuti describes imperialism by western “lgbt people,” not just gay people). but this is still not proof that gay and lesbian people were responsible for the creation of the western gay/straight binary and bi erasure, or that it is harmless to them. it is entirely possible for the western gay/straight binary to have been forged by straight people as part of their pathologization of same-gender attraction, AND for gay people, now being used to this binary, to imperialistically force it on people in the rest of the world, and to benefit from it in that way, as all imperialists do. these things can both be true at the same time.

your fifth link: some of these claims are not properly sourced. number 5—“Forty percent of LGBT people of color identify as bisexual”—i couldn’t find support for in any of the linked sources (and yes, for those with broken links, i tracked them down). i don’t disbelieve this claim, i have just failed to find support for it among these sources. also, the williams institute report (pdf) seems to suggest that 40% bisexual is roughly the distribution among lgb people overall.

number 6—“Bisexual women are almost six times more likely than heterosexual women to have seriously considered suicide, and four times more likely than lesbians” seems to be partially true; the bisexual invisibility report states that bi women are 5.9 times more likely than straight women to have considered suicide, but it does not give an adjusted rate for bi women vs. lesbians, and the numbers given don’t seem to bear out the “four times more likely than lesbians” claim. possibly someone misread the figure that lesbians are 3.5 times more likely than straight women as bi women being 3.5 times more likely than lesbians? actually, i’m almost certain that’s what happened, since the claim about the data for men (#7) seems to make the same mistake.

numbers 8 and 9, about bi people being less likely to be out at work, i also couldn’t find support for. but again, i don’t disbelieve them. but i do question whether they are straightforward proof of being worse off than gay and lesbian people. not being out at work is hard for any lgbt person, no question. but for gay and lesbian people, on average, being out at work may be more pressing. you’ll remember that roughly 84% of bi people in committed relationships are in “opposite”-gender relationships. a bi person in a monogamous “opposite”-gender relationship may feel pain from not being out at work (though they may not, depending on the person; some people just don’t care and have told me as much). but they can stay closeted at work without having to constantly, actively lie about the basic material facts of their lives—such as who’s in that photo, who they have plans with this weekend, who is the other parent of their children. who’s worse off, a bi woman married to a man who can freely talk about her husband but whose coworkers don’t know she’s bi, or a lesbian who maybe didn’t feel at all comfortable coming out but chose that because it was less of a strain than the constant lying and evasion that was required to stay in the closet—or maybe she was even forced out by an accidental slip-up or being spotted with her partner outside of work? what about a bi woman in a relationship with a woman in that same situation? i don’t think it makes sense to say the bi woman with a man is definitely worse off, period, and even if it did, would that mean the lesbian is benefiting from her being closeted, as one does when one has institutional privilege? do gay people benefit from the conditions that make bi people in “opposite”-gender relationships uncomfortable revealing their same-gender attraction to coworkers? i don’t think so. in fact, if bi people felt more comfortable revealing that, it would be a positive thing for gay people as well.

i’d ask a similar question about number 3, which concerns bi people being less likely to be out as bi to their doctors. obviously, not being out as bi to your doctor can have serious negative implications for your health! but does it always? i personally am not out as bi to my doctor. but she knows the relevant details of my actual life and practice: she knows that i’m with another cis woman, and that i only have sex with that one cis woman. it’s possible that, if my doctor is aware of the particular health risks of bi women in the aggregate, she could be missing the chance to watch me more keenly for those, but that’s the only way i can think of that this could harm me. (one could have emotional pain about her not knowing one’s bi identity, but i personally don’t.) and again, the circumstances of this are likely to be different for gay and lesbian people. because of heteronormativity (including bi erasure!), the doctor of a sexually active gay person who is not out to them will more than likely have no idea about the same-sex sexual activity they are (most likely) having. this seems much riskier than my situation. obviously a bi person could also be in that gay person’s situation! but bi people will be more likely than gay people to be in a grey area of not-out-to-the-doctor-ness like mine. and again, do gay people benefit from bi people’s awkward situation with our doctors? put another way, would gay people lose some benefit if more or all doctors were suddenly literate in bi issues and asked each patient whether they were gay, straight, bi, or other? again, no. in fact, they would also benefit from such a state of affairs.

as to the other statistics. unfortunately, most of the data we have on bi people as compared to gay and lesbian people is just survey data and has not been controlled for other important factors that are likely to affect rates of poverty, mental health outcomes, etc., such as race, class, age, and region, and this is also the case here. i do not believe it makes sense to declare that gay and lesbian people must be privileged over bi people on the basis of sexual orientation because of statistical disparities when we can’t even demonstrate that said disparities are explained by sexual orientation. even if we could, i don’t think that alone would be proof of a privilege/oppression dynamic, because a privileged class needs to benefit from the other class’s oppression. how do gay and lesbian people benefit from bi people’s high rates of poverty? if the conditions that lead to bi people’s high rates of poverty were ameliorated, would gay and lesbian people lose some benefit?

bi women’s higher lifetime prevalence of sexual violence: this claim comes from the national intimate partner and sexual violence survey (pdf), and it’s true and very troubling: without controlling for any other factors, bi women were significantly more likely than lesbians to report experiences of sexual violence (p. 10). but what that post doesn’t mention is what we know about the perpetrators: 89.5% of bisexual women reported only male perpetrators (p. 27). you already know what i’m going to ask: how do lesbians benefit from bi women’s rape and sexual abuse at the hands of men? and you already know what i’m going to say: they don’t, and it’s low to suggest that they do. and by the way: i know a lot of bi women who absolutely hate having their rapes used by other people in order to score points against lesbians and cast them as their oppressors.

i believe that the issues bi and gay and lesbian people face are too complex and nuanced to be simplified to just “gay people like straight people have institutional privilege over bi people.” i believe that both of our communities would be better off if we made a genuine and loving effort to understand both other lgb+ people’s experiences and our own, without constantly claiming our struggles are one another’s fault. and i believe that if we want to fight the real oppression within our community, we must center people of color, trans people, poor people, disabled people, and people oppressed on other intersecting axes—both bi and gay and lesbian. we don’t have to be enemies. this is our shared struggle, and we can work to mend the rifts between us and fight it together, stronger.

if you’re still dead set against this view, i see no point in our continuing this exchange, but i do hope you have a good day.

catracism:

aber-flyingtiger:

catracism:

aber-flyingtiger:

catracism:

aber-flyingtiger:

theyrefuckingtrilbys:

miss-beasty:

theyrefuckingtrilbys:

manslator:

theyrefuckingtrilbys:

manslator:

catracism:

I swear I’m not just making these in photoshop

Manslation (of the image): I can’t understand why non-men aren’t hanging on my every word when it comes to my opinion on their humanity. After all, as a man, I’m the MOST human, and this qualifies me to offer my opinion where it isn’t needed. Because I am positively swimming in male privilege, it’s fun for me to treat this topic as one for light banter and academic debate rather than the real-world issue it is.

So I gather you take the position of ‘sit down and shut up’ if you’re not a woman?

Certainly not, but a person is never obligated to listen to the opinions of a man with regard to their humanity and equality, nor are they obligated to engage in debate at the whim of a man. It’s also ridiculous for someone to ask an individual a question like this, because no one person can speak for why those people wouldn’t listen to him. Could be his opinions are complete garbage.

No one is ever obligated to listen to anyone’s opinion on anything, nor to engage with them else wise. His gender has nothing to do with it.You certainly are speaking for him, considering you’ve admitted that you know nothing about the situation that prompted his statement and question. Could be his opinions were anything.

I don’t really care what his opinions are; that is the most immature, butthurt comment with which you could possibly try to start a conversation. “Care to offer a rebuttal?” Christ. I swear, feminists are some of the most indiscriminately shat upon human beings in existence, but straight white males whine twice as hard about discrimination.

So, asking if someone is willing to engage him about his experience with your movement which he’s tentatively in support of is bad.Just because he used the word rebuttal? He doesn’t even seem that upset, he’s still trying to engage and participate.I think you’re judging his word choice harshly, without actually trying to see what he’s trying to convey, considering you know nothing else about his experiences or situation.

He may have worded it somewhat poorly, making him seem a tad arrogant, but he’s trying to engage in debate which is something adults often do, and there’s nothing wrong with that. 

"he’s trying to engage in debate which is something adults often do"
is this true. i don’t think it is. in fact i’m positive it’s not. you are confusing conversations/discussions with debate. i’m 1000000% sure it’s not an adult thing to just launch into a conversation with someone you’ve never met and say something and be like “care to offer a rebuttal?”

You can have a debate as part of a conversation. As I said, they way he worded it was poor but the sentiment isn’t that bad. People do this sort of thing on political issues all the time whether they’ve known the person five minutes or five years. 

the fact that he wanted to “debate” or have a discussion on something is not what’s pissing everybody off (me included since I was the one who got it) about this message, the fact that this guy is smug enough to think that his opinions about feminism are this important is what’s hilarious/disgustinganyway whatever i don’t care anymore

I don’t really see how anything he said is disgusting, or hilarious for that matter. He’s just stating his experience. 

what made him think that i or anyone else cares about his experience is the crux of the issuemen are constantly told that their opinions matter and that they should share them with everyone when in fact few things could be less important politically

catracism:

aber-flyingtiger:

catracism:

aber-flyingtiger:

catracism:

aber-flyingtiger:

theyrefuckingtrilbys:

miss-beasty:

theyrefuckingtrilbys:

manslator:

theyrefuckingtrilbys:

manslator:

catracism:

I swear I’m not just making these in photoshop

Manslation (of the image): I can’t understand why non-men aren’t hanging on my every word when it comes to my opinion on their humanity. After all, as a man, I’m the MOST human, and this qualifies me to offer my opinion where it isn’t needed. Because I am positively swimming in male privilege, it’s fun for me to treat this topic as one for light banter and academic debate rather than the real-world issue it is.

So I gather you take the position of ‘sit down and shut up’ if you’re not a woman?

Certainly not, but a person is never obligated to listen to the opinions of a man with regard to their humanity and equality, nor are they obligated to engage in debate at the whim of a man. It’s also ridiculous for someone to ask an individual a question like this, because no one person can speak for why those people wouldn’t listen to him. Could be his opinions are complete garbage.

No one is ever obligated to listen to anyone’s opinion on anything, nor to engage with them else wise. His gender has nothing to do with it.

You certainly are speaking for him, considering you’ve admitted that you know nothing about the situation that prompted his statement and question. Could be his opinions were anything.

I don’t really care what his opinions are; that is the most immature, butthurt comment with which you could possibly try to start a conversation. “Care to offer a rebuttal?” Christ. I swear, feminists are some of the most indiscriminately shat upon human beings in existence, but straight white males whine twice as hard about discrimination.

So, asking if someone is willing to engage him about his experience with your movement which he’s tentatively in support of is bad.

Just because he used the word rebuttal? He doesn’t even seem that upset, he’s still trying to engage and participate.

I think you’re judging his word choice harshly, without actually trying to see what he’s trying to convey, considering you know nothing else about his experiences or situation.

He may have worded it somewhat poorly, making him seem a tad arrogant, but he’s trying to engage in debate which is something adults often do, and there’s nothing wrong with that. 

"he’s trying to engage in debate which is something adults often do"

is this true. i don’t think it is. in fact i’m positive it’s not. you are confusing conversations/discussions with debate. i’m 1000000% sure it’s not an adult thing to just launch into a conversation with someone you’ve never met and say something and be like “care to offer a rebuttal?”

You can have a debate as part of a conversation. As I said, they way he worded it was poor but the sentiment isn’t that bad. People do this sort of thing on political issues all the time whether they’ve known the person five minutes or five years. 

the fact that he wanted to “debate” or have a discussion on something is not what’s pissing everybody off (me included since I was the one who got it) about this message, the fact that this guy is smug enough to think that his opinions about feminism are this important is what’s hilarious/disgusting

anyway whatever i don’t care anymore

I don’t really see how anything he said is disgusting, or hilarious for that matter. He’s just stating his experience. 

what made him think that i or anyone else cares about his experience is the crux of the issue

men are constantly told that their opinions matter and that they should share them with everyone when in fact few things could be less important politically

darnhomosexuals:

khvdahafiz:

smaug-official:

wicked-mint-leaves:

naoren:

filmeditor16:

official-sokka:

thats-not-a-toilet:

korrastyle:

OH SHIT

is this why the show was taken off nick?

So this is what air benders can do. Sucking the air out of people’s lungs. Just as cool as lightening bending if you ask me

No I don’t think you guys understand this is frightening

Airbenders are pretty much the most powerful benders. A firebender has to create fire. A waterbender is most powerful on the open seas as much as an earthbender is on land. But air is literally everywhere.
The Air Nomads weren’t dangerous because they chose not to be.

you’vE GONE TOO DEEP

Hey, HOLD UP.
While I agree that Airbenders do have a lot of power at their exposure, they aren’t the only ones.
Waterbenders can bend any type of fluid containing water, even blood inside the human body! That’s pretty fucking metal.

They can also take the water vapor out of the air, use their own sweat or even drain the water out of every living thing nearby. 

Imagine that ^^ happening to a person..
Next we have fire, the element of destruction. Like Airbenders, they can use the air around them, and transfer it into energy. Firebenders can bend or generate anything fire/ heat related.  That means lightning, flames, or extreme heat that has the potential to shape its environment (such as melt molten rock and metal.) Even fire breath!



Next we have Earth. Earthbenders can bend anything related or comprised of Earth, such as metal, rock, dirt, sand, etc. EVEN LAVA. Anything mineral related? You got it. Admittedly, minerals- although extremely easy to come by, are not as present as water or air. But there sure is enough to make use of, and we can’t say Earthbenders aren’t powerful!

This guy just stopped a volcano. 

Not only are they powerful, but they are also graceful. 

And I mean look at this! Avatar Kyoshi Earthbends a freaking continent in HALF!

In conclusion, fear all benders. 

And think about it- earth benders can bend metal, can bend iron…. Iron is basically the most crucial part of our body if you think about it- it’s what binds oxygen to it to deliver it from the lungs to the tissues. So basically earth benders could theoretically bend the iron in the human body and fuck up the hemoglobin and the O2 sat curve and basically…basically could slowly kill you. It wouldn’t be as drastic as air benders taking the oxygen out of your lungs but it’d literally look like carbon monoxide poisoning. also if they can cause iron depositions elsewhere they can cause diseases like hemochromatosis..which normally progress relatively slowly but if a bender does it they can focus all the iron straight to the heart to cause the congestive heart failure seen in it. And if earth benders can bend stuff like copper and shit then they can also do more damage there.
Idk man earth benders can be fuckin’ metal *collective groan*

They bend “the earth within the metal”, which I’m taking as meaning that they bend carbon within steel (and we have also seen them bend coal).
Which would then mean that they can bend carbon atoms, from which we can deduce that a sufficiently “aware” earthbender could rip your body apart on a molecular level.
we’ll just ignore why Suyin was able to bend mercury
in conclusion: Amon was right

darnhomosexuals:

khvdahafiz:

smaug-official:

wicked-mint-leaves:

naoren:

filmeditor16:

official-sokka:

thats-not-a-toilet:

korrastyle:

OH SHIT

is this why the show was taken off nick?

So this is what air benders can do. Sucking the air out of people’s lungs. Just as cool as lightening bending if you ask me

No I don’t think you guys understand this is frightening

Airbenders are pretty much the most powerful benders. A firebender has to create fire. A waterbender is most powerful on the open seas as much as an earthbender is on land. But air is literally everywhere.

The Air Nomads weren’t dangerous because they chose not to be.

you’vE GONE TOO DEEP

Hey, HOLD UP.

While I agree that Airbenders do have a lot of power at their exposure, they aren’t the only ones.

Waterbenders can bend any type of fluid containing water, even blood inside the human body! That’s pretty fucking metal.

image

They can also take the water vapor out of the air, use their own sweat or even drain the water out of every living thing nearby. 

image

Imagine that ^^ happening to a person..

Next we have fire, the element of destruction. Like Airbenders, they can use the air around them, and transfer it into energy. Firebenders can bend or generate anything fire/ heat related.  That means lightning, flames, or extreme heat that has the potential to shape its environment (such as melt molten rock and metal.) Even fire breath!

image

image

image

Next we have Earth. Earthbenders can bend anything related or comprised of Earth, such as metal, rock, dirt, sand, etc. EVEN LAVA. Anything mineral related? You got it. Admittedly, minerals- although extremely easy to come by, are not as present as water or air. But there sure is enough to make use of, and we can’t say Earthbenders aren’t powerful!

image

This guy just stopped a volcano. 

image

Not only are they powerful, but they are also graceful. 

image

And I mean look at this! Avatar Kyoshi Earthbends a freaking continent in HALF!

image

In conclusion, fear all benders. 

And think about it- earth benders can bend metal, can bend iron…. Iron is basically the most crucial part of our body if you think about it- it’s what binds oxygen to it to deliver it from the lungs to the tissues. So basically earth benders could theoretically bend the iron in the human body and fuck up the hemoglobin and the O2 sat curve and basically…basically could slowly kill you. It wouldn’t be as drastic as air benders taking the oxygen out of your lungs but it’d literally look like carbon monoxide poisoning. also if they can cause iron depositions elsewhere they can cause diseases like hemochromatosis..which normally progress relatively slowly but if a bender does it they can focus all the iron straight to the heart to cause the congestive heart failure seen in it. And if earth benders can bend stuff like copper and shit then they can also do more damage there.


Idk man earth benders can be fuckin’ metal *collective groan*

They bend “the earth within the metal”, which I’m taking as meaning that they bend carbon within steel (and we have also seen them bend coal).

Which would then mean that they can bend carbon atoms, from which we can deduce that a sufficiently “aware” earthbender could rip your body apart on a molecular level.

we’ll just ignore why Suyin was able to bend mercury

in conclusion: Amon was right

darnhomosexuals:

marxvx:

to all the carnists who say going vegan is “too expensive:” i just got back from scavenging the dumpsters behind whole foods and found


one ripped dishwashing glove (repaired with duct tape)


two used duracell batteries


the key to a volvo


a losing lottery ticket from last night’s mega millions drawing

darnhomosexuals:

marxvx:

to all the carnists who say going vegan is “too expensive:” i just got back from scavenging the dumpsters behind whole foods and found

  • one ripped dishwashing glove (repaired with duct tape)
  • two used duracell batteries
  • the key to a volvo
  • a losing lottery ticket from last night’s mega millions drawing

(Source: marxvx)

Normaling is the kink of conforming to classic gender, sex, and “couple” stereotypes of our culture and getting off on it. Not because you feel you have to, but because you want to. It’s edgy and it’s dangerous.

gothiccharmschool:

marypsue:

marypsue:

Vampires who look and dress like fourteen-year-old budding goth kids because no one will ever believe that they’re actually vampires, no matter what they might see or hear.

Vampires wearing bad plastic fangs and tacky red contacts everywhere they go and telling people to call them things like “Lord Bloodfang McDarkness the Third” and “Salacia, Mistress of the Night”.

::falls over laughing::

onecenturion:

kinkyturtle:

avri-wallflower:

sourcedumal:

Fuck special snowflakes who think like this.
Gurl bye
Your ass ain’t fucking special because you don’t wear makeup.
You’re not fucking better than the woman with large breasts who wears tank tops.
You’re a piece of shit because you are putting sexist stereotypes onto other women in some anti-feminine bullshit.

If you don’t like it, why’d you comment on it? I think it’s awesome and you’re probably one of the girls up there that wears makeup and shortshorts and tiny tanktops. And most kids today wear makeup because they think they aren’t pretty and need it. So deal with it. And get over yourself.

girl bye.
lemme tell you something: I wear tons of fucking make up. I wear short dresses. I walk around with a face that looks about as fake as it can get outside of a fucking barbie doll. and I like it that way. and, despite what you seem to think, no, it’s not because i think i’m ugly. i just fucking like makeup (and trust, i’ve spent years examining my own motivations and how they’re tied to internalized self-hated, fatphobia and misogyny so don’t EVEN cause you don’t know what you’re talking about).
I also read ravenously; engage in discourse regarding philosphy, art, economics, politics, race, gender, sexuality; make subversive art; and love comics and film and music. I’M A FUCKING PERSON IS WHAT I’M SAYING. 
like how fucking deep is this goddamn image when the spine of the book JUST SAYS THE WORD ‘BOOK’.
this kind of bullshit narrative, other than furthering a misogynistic dichotomy that pits women against each other, is also a complete fucking fallacy. A huge majority of average women DON’T DO THIS. you aren’t the lone plain jane in an army of cake-faced, bottle blonde barbies—if you look around, you’ll see that most women just throw on jeans and tops and very little makeup. 
I get that this kind of shit is an attempt to fight back against media-made images of what womanhood is supposed to be. I get it. (thought isn’t it interesting that the “weirdo” in the picture is still thin and conventionally attractive??)
but attacking other women who you perceive as being stupid or carbon copies because of their fucking appearance doesn’t fight back against shit. it actually does EXACTLY what the patriarchy wants us to do—engenders more hatred and competition between women. 
but you know, whatever, continue to think you’re so goddamn special. i’ll be over here reading AND wearing hot pink lipstick and having a hell of a time doing it. 

Awesome

onecenturion:

kinkyturtle:

avri-wallflower:

sourcedumal:

Fuck special snowflakes who think like this.

Gurl bye

Your ass ain’t fucking special because you don’t wear makeup.

You’re not fucking better than the woman with large breasts who wears tank tops.

You’re a piece of shit because you are putting sexist stereotypes onto other women in some anti-feminine bullshit.

If you don’t like it, why’d you comment on it? I think it’s awesome and you’re probably one of the girls up there that wears makeup and shortshorts and tiny tanktops. And most kids today wear makeup because they think they aren’t pretty and need it. So deal with it. And get over yourself.

girl bye.

lemme tell you something: I wear tons of fucking make up. I wear short dresses. I walk around with a face that looks about as fake as it can get outside of a fucking barbie doll. and I like it that way. and, despite what you seem to think, no, it’s not because i think i’m ugly. i just fucking like makeup (and trust, i’ve spent years examining my own motivations and how they’re tied to internalized self-hated, fatphobia and misogyny so don’t EVEN cause you don’t know what you’re talking about).

I also read ravenously; engage in discourse regarding philosphy, art, economics, politics, race, gender, sexuality; make subversive art; and love comics and film and music. I’M A FUCKING PERSON IS WHAT I’M SAYING. 

like how fucking deep is this goddamn image when the spine of the book JUST SAYS THE WORD ‘BOOK’.

this kind of bullshit narrative, other than furthering a misogynistic dichotomy that pits women against each other, is also a complete fucking fallacy. A huge majority of average women DON’T DO THIS. you aren’t the lone plain jane in an army of cake-faced, bottle blonde barbies—if you look around, you’ll see that most women just throw on jeans and tops and very little makeup. 

I get that this kind of shit is an attempt to fight back against media-made images of what womanhood is supposed to be. I get it. (thought isn’t it interesting that the “weirdo” in the picture is still thin and conventionally attractive??)

but attacking other women who you perceive as being stupid or carbon copies because of their fucking appearance doesn’t fight back against shit. it actually does EXACTLY what the patriarchy wants us to do—engenders more hatred and competition between women. 

but you know, whatever, continue to think you’re so goddamn special. i’ll be over here reading AND wearing hot pink lipstick and having a hell of a time doing it. 

Awesome