So after slaughtering hundreds of men throughout the course of the movie, with never even a flicker of awareness or remorse, it is only when she confronts the one solitary femalebad guy - the genocidal germ warfare manufacturing ‘Doctor Poison’, responsible for most of the other deaths in the film - that Wonder Woman has a change of heart and lets her get away?
please, tell me a little more of your feelings on cersei burning the tower of the hand (if this is already in your tags, i am so sorry: mobile gives me the useless "there is nothing here")
Are you. Sure you want my feelings on this. Because I have. A lot.
Ok, so, one of the things that I love about ASOIAF is that it’s a story about stories.1 The Frog Prince, the Evil Queen, the Beast, the Huntsman, the Wicked Stepmother, Cinderella, Snow White, Red Riding Hood, the Witch – they’re all here. GRRM takes these timeless stories and twists them and turns them, telling them from the POV of the villain and other distortions. We glimpse their dim reflections over and over in GRRM’s dark funhouse mirrors, in Sansa and Arya and Lysa and Quentyn and Sandor and Tyrion and so many others.2 But obviously the character I want to talk about here is Cersei.
Cersei’s story is shaped and I would even say weighed down by fairy tales and famous literary figures. She is the Evil Queen, she is one of GRRM’s Wicked Stepmothers, she is Guinevere and Lady Macbeth and Clytemnestra.
But I think one of the most interesting fairy tales Cersei embodies is Rapunzel, the Maiden in the Tower. Rapunzel, “the girl with the impossibly long golden hair” “is a story about sexual desire and obsession
and cruelty. […] ‘Rapunzel’ is
largely a story about feminine power.” And Cersei’s story is her navigation of power in a world that actively denies her power, and it all ties into the Tower of the Hand.
Yet another campaign of pointing out one aspect of a problem and implying that that’s all there is to it. Millions of children are not educated, there are girls among them, therefore the world hates women. Girls are kidnapped, therefore misogyny, many times more boys are brutally slaughtered with the same justification, *crickets*, not so much as a “Patriarchy hurts men too”.
Girls have innate value, boys have to earn it. In societies where few can afford what the west takes for granted, an education might make the girls feel good about themselves but for boys working is not a choice. If they do not earn a living they are of no use to their families or to society, they are disposable.
For some reason, most anti-feminists and even many MRAs seem to think that the lack of consideration towards men is an entirely western phenomenon, that third world and middle eastern countries really do care about men and that’s a problem, it’s not that they do not have the means to treat women like royalty, but that they despise and oppress women and treat men like royalty. When the only difference is in how they prioritise women, not if. Not one country in the entire world views men as innately valuable and women as disposable, not one country prioritises men’s lives and well being over women’s or even comes close to considering them anywhere near equal in value. But that’s male supremacy. Somehow.
this is obviously not an exhaustive list and if you’re not on it, i promise it was not purposeful; there’s just so many of us! please shoot me a message if you’d like to be included on the next one i’ll make, and i’ll be sure to put you on it.
not everybody on this list is a radfem – some are lesfems, some are marxist feminists, some are rad-leaning, some are womanists… – and some of these blogs aren’t even political – but we all prioritize women, so we’re all worth a look!
i’m sorry it’s not alphabetical this time, i just really did not feel like going through and alphabetizing all these blogs lol.
Are Muslim Women Oppressed At Home? Not after watching this! - Na Maloom Vines
Muslims are just as gynocentric as everyone else, it just manifests itself differently. Isn’t it interesting that they refute the idea that they oppress women by pointing out that oft cited examples actually screw over men, as if that‘s somehow better.
A man does not buy a woman, the sex segregation is extreme in countries like Saudi (again, for protection, not hatred) but women are not bred on farms to be sold to the highest bidder. A man has to prove he is capable of providing for a family, he has a legal and religious obligation to pay his wife-to-be whatever she demands without complaint. Combine that with the fact that women have a legal right to refuse an arranged marriage while men do not, and the situation is pretty grim. Getting married under Islam is like getting a divorce in the west it seems.
The husband is not allowed any access to the dowry, or any money the woman earns or receives. Not so the other way around, as he is expected to be financially responsible for her every need no matter how little he has or how much she has. This is where you get cases of the wife starving the kids to death while the husband is away and he’s held accountable because she has no obligation to provide.
This video is basically “We’re not inferior because we treat women like shit, we’re superior because we treat men like shit.”
One side will scream Islamophobia if you criticise how Islam treats men, while the other will scream Islamapologia if you criticise how Islam treats men.
Why are you obliged to buy your fiancé a ring? It’s interesting how none of these modern women seem to have a problem with this patriarchal ritual. It’s only sexist when it doesn’t benefit women I guess.
2. Paying for dates
Only escorts should be paid for their company. If she is not willing to go dutch, she is using you.
If you ever feel the desire to help out a strange woman in distress, do not do it. It’s almost guaranteed she wouldn’t help you if the situation was reversed.
4. Objects for female approval
Only obtain material objects for your own utility, never for the approval of women. You’ll have much more money to spend on the things you actually enjoy.
This is the holy grail of gynocentrism. It locks you into a three way contract with the state where your wife can take your property, current wealth, future wealth and freedom on a whim.
something that really bothers me is like. how prominent misogyny is in trans dude spaces it’s so bizarre like i’ll scroll a lot of other trans guy blogs and they’re reblogging those posts written by people who think misandry is real and like. a societal power lmfao and i literally saw one say ‘men need support in this increasingly gynocentric world’ (??) and i dont even fuckin know what that means??? like i know what it means but what??? in big posts giving tips to other trans guys they’re like ‘you don’t have to be a ~feminist~ but like. treat women okay lol’ and share that post thats like 'support men who yell and break things when angry’ like. what. 'support men who are hairy and masculine and like doing athletic things!!’ not even about trans guys but guys in general as though cis guys need to know that being masc is okay??? why are y'all like this did i miss the memo what the hell. from one trans masc person to another y'all literally sound like meninists it’s embarassing and harmful cut that shit out
Women are so oppressed, they get special treatment for the consequences of their actions. Looks like “The PatriarchyTM“, sounds like gynocentrism and female privilege.
“It is now well recognized that a misplaced conception of equality has
resulted in some very unequal treatment for women and girls.“
Nondiscrimination is apparently sexist to women, and it is your duty as a patriarch to realize women have no idea what they are doing in life, apparently, if this bullshit is to be believed. It’s where feminism and male chauvinism collide.
The Labrys is a symbol of gynocentric cultures. It was a originally a female-only ceremonial weapon. The Labrys is symbolic of labia and the entrance to the womb, as well as rebirth. The two heads symbolize the waxing and waning Moons.
The study of women and religion encompasses three rather different
fields: (1) the study of female symbols, (2) the study of official
(which is usually synonymous with male) definitions of the religious
role and status of women, and (3) the study of the actual
religious lives of real women. The last of these fields is of prime
importance to the anthropological study of Jewish women.
Unfortunately, studies of women and Judaism have tended to
confuse these inherently distinct approaches. The first two types of
studies typically approach women as objects of men’s perception.
Within traditional Judaism, texts written by men legislate women’s
status (halakah) and elaborate upon female symbols (midrash and
kabbalah). Through study of these texts one can learn a great deal
not only about men’s view of the role of women in the family and
society but also about men’s use of “the feminine” as a cultural symbol.
To the anthropologist, however, it should be clear that feminine
symbols are not real women. Feminine symbols may in some more
or less (in)direct way reflect real women, they may be projections
of male wishes or fears, they may be concise ways of expressing the
various existential dilemmas that grow out of gender distinction, they
may explain certain rituals, they may be a number of other things,
but they are not real women, and the anthropological study of Jewish
women must clarify that point from the outset. Similarly, laws
made by, expounded upon, and enforced by men should not be treated
as expressing women’s worldviews, women’s moral voices, or even
women’s wishes. In cultures that emphasize gender difference and
sex segregation, one cannot assume that men speak for both men
and women …
The androcentric perspective assumes that men somehow create
religion. One result of this perception is that religious symbols are
studied either as projections of male psyches or as outgrowths of
men’s cultural needs. While one may choose to argue that in patriarchal culture men do indeed create military or political institutions, it would be difficult to convincingly argue, based on empirical evidence, that men alone create religion. However, only a few scholars explicitly state that they believe that men create religion. Instead, we find studies of religion that assume that where women’s explanations of religious phenomena differ from men’s, men’s explanations somehow came first and women’s are a sort of feminization of the male-created cultural norm. Unless such a sequence can be convincingly proven in a specific case (and it rarely can), this type of assumption has a deleterious effect on the study of Jewish women.
The first steps in avoiding the trap of androcentrism must be
conscious and concerted efforts to see women as normative rather
than as exceptions, as actors rather than objects acted upon. In cultures (such as many traditional Jewish cultures) where men and
women concentrate on different activities, priorities, and norms of
behavior, we can expect to find that men and women see the world
somewhat differently: a given phenomenon may quite naturally look
very different from an androcentric and a gynocentric perspective.
“Toward an Anthropology of Jewish Women: Sacred Texts and the Religious World of Elderly, Middle-Eastern Women in Jerusalem” by Susan Starr Sered, from Active Voices: Women in Jewish Culture, edited by Maurie Sacks
Ignoring MGTOW didn’t work, it’s grown to a size which can no longer be ignored.
Shaming MGTOW doesn’t work, we are immune to shame.
Women against feminism didn’t work, most of them are feminists.
Female MRA’s didn’t work, they are not interested in changing the biased laws.
Traditional women didn’t work, it just means the alimony payments will be maximal once the divorce goes through.
Their next strategy is to proclaim they are wgtows. It is nothing more than a transparent attempt to ingratiate themselves with MGTOW and portray themselves as NAWALTS. Their hope is to redefine going your own way as gender neutral and then to lead men back onto the plantation. Women can’t go their own way, they are completely dependent on men.
They realize that they cannot be mgtows, so they are trying to influence it indirectly, by co-opting it and then undermining it’s fundamental premise; anti-gynocentrism.