masculinity vs femininity

anonymous asked:

as an afab nb person i tend to shy away from feminine clothes since im uncomfortable with people thinking im a girl, but sometimes ill jst be in my room wearing a skirt n somethin frilly n cute and ill spin around and its so FUN to wear clothes like that. my point being when akira moves to tokyo and decides to just unleash his inner bastard he also says fuck it to gender norms and he wears feminine clothing sometimes bc its 1. pretty and 2. just inherently better than masculine clothes (pretty)

yes 100!! i’m the same way as i’m afab nb and i greatly enjoy feminine clothing as well - i love pastel colors, ruffles, frills, skirts/dresses, lace, tights, and socks, all of it!! i feel that traditionally feminine clothing has much more variety than traditionally masculine clothing and it’s often much more playful, plus it has way more pieces for layering and styling. i think akira would be incredibly drawn to that, the ability to look absolutely fabulous but also to have so much to choose from, so much more freedom in looks and silhouettes, something that allows his creativity to just run wild without being put into a box. i think he feels much more himself in a way when he gets to wear feminine clothes because it feels so much more glamorous and individual, like you can really build a unique look much easier in many ways (i know a lot of masculine clothes are starting to branch out and you can totally be creative, ESP in a place like tokyo but i think the vast variety in feminine clothes would be so attractive to him). and like. for real he just does not believe in gender roles/norms any more and he’s very fluid to me - sometimes he does like wearing masculine clothes, sometimes feminine, sometimes a mix. he just wants to be pretty sometimes, with makeup and cute clothes (he’s always a total goth to me, but he’s a cute one!!) and there’s nothing to stop him from that!!

Full offense, but butchness has absolutely nothing to do with men. At all. Butches aren’t defined by any comparison to men, nor are they defined by any comparison to society’s cishet ideas of “masculinity”.

It’s not about the separation of (our society’s cishet conceptions of) “masculinity” vs. “femininity”. It’s not about “masculine women”. It’s not about “women who want to ‘be’ men”. It’s not about men.

It’s about women’s reclamation of “womanhood” and “what it means to be a woman” from a cishet dominated society’s ideals and conceptions of those very things. Its about non-conforming for reasons such as comfort, happiness, communication, and freedom of personal expression. 

It is about women, and their love for other women. Period.

Masculine VS. Feminine

Requested (a very long time ago – sorry about that).

This has absolutely nothing to do with sex or gender. Masculinity and femininity are simply energies in astrology; masculinity is more or less extroversion and femininity is more or less introversion. Fire & air signs are masculine and water & earth are feminine, but your sun sign doesn’t determine this alone.

Note: this isn’t supposed to be some kind of formally informational post, so if it’s not completely accurate, it’s because it wasn’t meant to be. I’m just trying to illustrate the difference between the energies.

image

Masculine Aries: likes to show off, does things to get a rise out of people, wants a lot of attention, wants to be admired & perceived as strong or brave, very independent, confident, perhaps cocky, argumentative, energetic, usually optimistic, impulsive, adventurous, competitive, must get their way or they turn into toddlers, can be overbearing, want to make people laugh but sometimes go about it the wrong way and it ends up at someone else’s expense.
Feminine Aries: very high expectations for themselves, can beat themselves up over their failures & shortcomings, extremely independent, passionate, often creative, wants to be perceived as capable, can be narrow-minded because they get so determined, usually really funny, can be bullies because they internalize their energy and it turns to aggression without any other outlet, probably good at sports even if they don’t like them.

Feminine Taurus: can be extremely lazy, prone to self-indulgence, likes to have their own space and to be on their own, may need reassurance from time to time, has trouble motivating, does things at their own pace, stubborn, supportive, very loyal, clingy, envious, likes to share things they like with the people who are close to them (not necessarily possessions, mostly interests).
Masculine Taurus: likes to work in groups, relatively cooperative as long as they aren’t being disrespected, even more stubborn than a regular Taurus, can be arrogant, likes to socialize and to be included in things, may have a very tight clique that they prefer not to let too many people into, probably doesn’t have very many real hobbies but can be very creative.

Masculine Gemini: very talkative, likes to share ideas, has many friends but maybe one close one, can’t comprehend emotions, amazingly funny because they’re so witty and quick, can be extremely manipulative, jokes about everything and can be painfully inappropriate because of it, get bored super easily, often pretty optimistic people, change their mind at the drop of a pin.
Feminine Gemini: has a trillion hobbies, friendly but picky about who they hang out with, love reading more than life itself, energetic but they suppress their enthusiasm most of the time, concerned about how they come across, rarely know themselves so they’re frequently confused and can’t maintain healthy relationships very well, giggly, likely love memes, funny, can be timid.

Feminine Cancer: super sensitive, moody, compassionate, manipulative, usually homebodies, creative, need lots of reassurance, can be brooding, some of the sweetest people you’ll ever meet, like to help, like to take charge and guide others (especially younger siblings/peers), can be pushy or bossy if they’re comfortable with you, extremely shy with strangers, have trouble opening up because they need to be proven that you’re a safe place.
Masculine Cancer: overbearing & domineering, clingy, goofy, enthusiastic, talk about wanting to have kids or own (more?) pets a lot, loses their shit when someone’s mean to someone they care about, nurturing in a leader kind of way, very creative, like to read, easily annoyed, easily hurt and may have a bad habit of calling people out, can be intolerant, extremely supportive.

Masculine Leo: remarkably energetic, full of enthusiasm, hilarious, bubbly, creative, usually loyal, maintain a positive outlook, can be vain, can be either very generous or very selfish, need validation, need attention, like to be in charge even though they may not know how to lead, want to be independent but also want a lot of friends, always need something to do and somewhere to go or they get annoyed, want to be entertained and to entertain.
Feminine Leo: insecure, can be self-depreciating (especially when joking), attention-seeking, generous, friendly, independent, may feel lonely a lot, very passionate, extremely sensitive, easily offended, can be argumentative, infatuated with the idea of being famous, maybe want to be performers but likely have stage fright, may not understand themselves, need to be reassured that they are loved and admired, want to be romanticized.

Feminine Virgo: inquisitive, insecure, don’t understand emotions and prefer to ignore them all, give up easily, mentally organized, refuse to open up, full of fear and worry, usually can’t stand up for themselves, nit-picky, critical, quiet, bookish, knowledgeable, care about being educated, care too much about their appearance, might have a warped idea of what health is because their perception of themselves depends on others’ opinions, linguistically creative, do lots of favors for the people they care about, need to be appreciated.
Masculine Virgo: extremely critical, neat, can be intolerant, considerate, can be bullies, can be unfriendly but usually polite, articulate, can think mechanically, have a hard time relating to other people, can be huge hypocrites, want to be understood, love to give and receive compliments, enjoy the sun, probably like to cook, usually consistent, careful, calculating, quick learners, love to learn, like to feel intellectually superior, down-to-earth, sarcastic and dry sense of humor, sassy.

Masculine Libra: charming, flirtatious, playful, apologize a lot, elegant, have a great appreciation for art, can be pretentious, always diffusing arguments whether they’re theirs or not, considerate, diplomatic, sassy, try not to say controversial things, can be extremely superficial, hate discord, don’t have very many strong feelings, don’t understand any emotions other than compassion and lust, infatuated with romance, idealistic, care about justice.
Feminine Libra: probably follow politics closely, educated, cultured, dainty, polite, kind, thoughtful, sweet, can be manipulative, can be two-faced, quick to compromise, can be huge pushovers, put others before themselves, can be hypocritical, need close friendships, hopeless romantic, cry a lot, feel lonely a lot, frequently ask for advice and external opinions, creative, have refined tastes, want everything to be beautiful, easily disappointed, hopeful.

Feminine Scorpio: extremely secretive, calculating, manipulative, independent, want to be in control, dislike the spotlight, suspicious, feels betrayed at the smallest things, internalizes their feelings, very compassionate, understanding, know how to handle people, sensitive, have lots of dark thoughts, loners, feel unsafe a lot, easily offended, passionate, ambitious, can have tunnel vision, need intimacy, need emotional feedback.
Masculine Scorpio: private, distrustful, vengeful, super funny, domineering, love animals, friendly but need a lot of alone time, can be explosive, have very strong opinions and may start drama wherever they go because of it, voice their mind whenever they want, can be headstrong, love dark comedy (they basically embody it), artistic, intrusive, can be hypocritical.

Masculine Sagittarius: huge show-off, energetic, enthusiastic, joke around a lot, full of wanderlust, experimental, adventurous, reckless, can be insensitive, usually blunt, don’t like to beat around the bush, love to explore, do things on a whim, can be hypocritical, can be bigoted, always want to be right, try to be open-minded, not often the judgmental type, scared of commitment (not only to a person but to ideas or lifestyles as well), desire freedom & knowledge.
Feminine Sagittarius: very independent, love to learn by reading or watching rather than doing, either extremely silly or extremely sarcastic (maybe both), make fun of everything, can be bullies, usually very intelligent and educated, cultured, impulsive but ironically not very reckless, may have a lot of fears, may feel trapped & restless a lot, have huge imaginations, high libido.

Feminine Capricorn: hardworking, ambitious, rarely ask for help, independent, have a very dry sense of humor, want to be seen as competent and to achieve power, driven, often pretty confident in their own abilities, very concerned with taking care of themselves, can’t express emotions, find intimacy difficult and vulnerability even harder, seldom open up, likely don’t trust anybody, feel wounded a lot but never let themselves be victimized.
Masculine Capricorn: conceited, sarcastic, often the “leader” of a project or group (and extremely good at it), incredibly intelligent, share their opinions in articulate ways, usually constructive individuals, can be controlling, may feel frustrated a lot, have impeccable self-control, know what they want and how to get it, probably look wealthier & more successful than they are, strong-willed, definitely somebody’s “rock,” steady, trustworthy, reliable, relentless.

Masculine Aquarius: rebellious, inventive, like to push people’s buttons, social but reserved, flirtatious, very funny, imaginative, good-willed, have good intentions, try to be kind, can be idealistic, highly intelligent, have strong opinions, like to debate, like to come up with ideas, have trouble asking for help, hate feeling vulnerable, need lots of alone time, can be arrogant, can be very egotistical, dislike to admit when they’re wrong.
Feminine Aquarius: very creative, tend to isolate themselves, have a dry but hilarious sense of humor, can be very idealistic, can have trouble expressing their emotions, love to laugh, either very adventurous or a homebody, logical thinkers, may feel trapped within themselves, may feel like they’re observers of everyone else’s life (and possibly their own), like to be included, probably like to read or write, either have trouble trusting or trust too easily, may not put much faith in other people.

Feminine Pisces: very shy, can be timid, need reassurance, need to be appreciated, often too compassionate for their own good, sensitive, emotional, spend a lot of time daydreaming or thinking deeply, need space, need to feel safe before they can express themselves, have lots of needs, can be manipulative, tend to victimize themselves, feel responsible for the well-being of other people, creative, imaginative, often artistic, love animals, gentle.
Masculine Pisces: have many friends (because people adore them) but they may not feel particularly close to many of them, feel like they’re not a part of this world, often feel like they’re not achieving their full potential, wishful thinkers, can be either extremely pessimistic or optimistic, may be interested in more outgoing forms of art like acting but likely too shy or insecure to pursue them, funny as hell, probably cry a lot, big-hearted, poetic.

anonymous asked:

"I do have some issues with how GRRM chose to frame Sansa in AGOT". Could you expand on that? What are those issues?

Well I’ve reblogged quite a few metas on this subject and written a bit about it myself and I’d love to link some of that here but… how to find that stuff on my blog without slogging through months of irrelevant posting? Hmm… I really  need to organise this blog better… 

Assuming I don’t manage to find the relevant posts (or at least some of them) then I’ll just say that my issues with Sansa in AGOT have to do with how GRRM (apparently) originally conceived of her character and how much of that actually remained in the final product; that is to say, she was originally intended to be a foil to Arya and the one Stark kid who caused problems in the happy family group dynamic. This was apparently because GRRM thought it wouldn’t be realistic for all the kids to get along perfectly and for there to be no internal strife in the Stark family at all… but isn’t it odd that out of all the kids he chose the two girls to set at odds with one another? And isn’t it doubly odd that of these two girls it is the more stereotypically feminine one who was initially created to be that little “problem” in the family dynamic? Robb and Jon could easily have been the warring siblings instead, no? Or maybe Sansa could have been a boy instead and Arya could’ve had a male foil to argue with… but instead…

Sansa, despite clearly becoming a well rounded character in her own right by the final draft of AGOT, still retains quite a bit of that original character sketch. She is written to be a foil to Arya and to cause complications for her family due to her relationship with Joffrey. While with close reading - keeping in mind the social mores of her society and the way she has been raised - Sansa’s actions and beliefs about her world are quite understandable, she is not generally written in such a way that suggests the author meant to endear her to the reader… Contrast to the way Arya is written (because Sansa is her foil and GRRM wants us to compare them in this book!); introduced as a plucky underdog who challenges the status quo. We are meant to immediately identify with, like and root for Arya, and we do. We are not meant to immediately identify with, like and root for Sansa. 

We are introduced to Arya first and Sansa makes Arya feel bad about herself by being good at everything and prettier and getting her in trouble and… you get the point. Even though 9 year old Arya has biases, and we as readers should understand that, the mere fact that our introduction to Sansa comes through her POV already gives the reader a bias against Sansa on Arya’s behalf because that’s all we know about her! There’s also the fact that the quickest way to get your readership to identify with and like a character within a historical setting is to give them the values and opinions of a more modern person… and we get quite a bit of that with Arya, what with her challenging of gender norms and disregard for class and rank. We don’t get that short cut with Sansa. 

 When we actually meet Sansa in her own POV she is once again acting in her role as the foil… it’s the incident at the Trident where Sansa fails to stand up to Joffrey for Arya and Mycah the butcher’s boy and then doesn’t tell the king what really happened and “gets Lady and Mycah killed”, to hear some fans tell it (never mind her reasonable reasons for being confused about what to do and refusing to speak). It’s not a glowing moment for her here and tbh… there really is only one real glowing moment for Sansa in AGOT (before Ned’s imprisonment/death that is); the moment where she feels empathy for Sandor Clegane, overcomes her fear, and offers him the comfort he needs. 

Other than this, her POV mostly focuses in on the trivialities of her interests and concerns, on how very little she actually understands the adult world around her, and we hardly see her interact with others in a positive way. Again… other than Sandor Clegane! She and Arya bicker, her relationship with Ned is somewhat strained since the Trident, and you get the vague impression that of his children, Sansa is probably the one he is the least accustomed to spending time with or talking to (we get no scene of parental bonding with Sansa, unlike Arya) and even Jeyne - Jeyne who is supposed to be Sansa’s best friend - we get no scenes of them having fun together, braiding each other’s hair, gossiping about cute boys, playing cyvasse… nada. Oh we get scenes of them talking, but it’s mostly in scenes which, again, are there to place Sansa in her role as the foil; demonstrating her naivety and ignorance of the dangers at court. The actual fun times they have together as friends, the actual comfort and happiness they give each other, well we’re told about this in a few stray lines here and there… we don’t actually ever “see” it! 

And that’s important! That’s the stuff that makes you like a character! But GRRM didn’t want to show us Sansa being fun and a caring friend in AGOT or even showing off any of the things she is reportedly so good at (she does actually show off some of these things; she shows she is naturally apt at diplomacy and has a good memory for important persons, houses and sigils and rank in this book… but this is all quite subtly introduced. Her cleverness is not meant to be something the reader immediately picks up on). He didn’t particularly want us to start sympathizing with her until near the end of the novel… and it shows. Sansa’s more positive character traits are de-emphasized by the author for most of AGOT and this, more than anything she actually does in this particular novel, is why so many fans come away seriously disliking her as a character (imho of course); many with the claim that she has no positive traits!

This ties into my larger issues with GRRM’s writing of women in general. He definitely treats his POV female characters like people who deserve to be just as well developed and complex as his male characters, and I appreciate that! However, he seems to have problems with depicting women’s relationships with other women. That is to say, if he can avoid female friendships, he does… at least in the early novels (things may be looking up based on more recent stuff). We get great male friendships, and male/female friendships, but when it came  to showing women who genuinely like each other interacting, GRRM just… didn’t go there at the beginning. Yeah, you’ve got Arya and Sansa not getting along, and Sansa and Jeyne’s friendship happening mostly offscreen but surely there must be more women who can be getting along… right? Well… no. 

Catelyn seems to have no female friends or companions at all, even from memory (which is ridiculous!) and her relationship with Lysa is extremely strained. Later she meets Brienne and while their relationship is a positive one for them both, it is more that of a Lady and her sworn shield than of friends. Cersei has no real friends at all, let alone female ones… she actually killed her childhood “bestfriend”. Margaery and the Tyrell cousins were not real friends to Sansa, Arya’s best friends and travelling companions are all male (albeit she does have a brief but very sweet interaction with Lady Smallwood) and Dany’s female companions are all servants to her. All in all, the situation with regards to sisterhood and female friendship in ASOIAF ain’t great. 

Topping this off, there’s also the fact that while GRRM’s understanding of what medieval noblewomen actually got up to in a day’s work is better than GOT’s, there are yet still some suggestions that feminine gendered activities are quite trivial and frivolous, and these suggestions are, again, most evident in Sansa and Arya’s AGOT chapters where they, again, serve to highlight Sansa as the silly, blinkered, girly-girl, to Arya’s rebellious, open-minded tom boy. 

To sum it up, it is of great significance that Arya, who we are meant to identify with and like, is a tom boy and Sansa, her foil, is extremely feminine. The negative aspects of Sansa’s personality, the ones being highlighted above her more positive qualities in AGOT, are therefore associated with that femininity because her negative traits are framed in contrast to Arya’s positive ones, and Arya’s interests and behaviour are more stereotypically masculine. I liked Sansa despite all of this because, paying attention while reading her chapters and fed up with trope of cool tomboys vs annoying girly girls, I was actually able to see the subtle allusions to there being more to Sansa than what the author was choosing to place on the surface. However, I understand how a reader who has no inclination to pay such close attention while reading her chapters could easily be put off from her character. GRRM did that on purpose… and I just don’t think it’s fair to the character who otherwise might have been given more of a chance by so many readers who, even now, still disregard her value to the story.

Edit: A few discussions on this topic that I managed to find by searching the shadowy corners of my blog (this should be easier… I need to use better tags…) that elaborate a bit more on this…

https://maidenoftheforestlight.tumblr.com/post/163170555339/some-people-argue-grrm-has-done-sansa-a-disservice#notes

https://maidenoftheforestlight.tumblr.com/post/155575049279/what-is-your-opinion-about-the-friendship-between

https://maidenoftheforestlight.tumblr.com/post/148912128094/as-much-as-i-agree-george-couldve-done-better

http://asoiafuniversity.tumblr.com/post/119478322575/on-george-martin-ladies-of-asoiaf-and

http://nobodysuspectsthebutterfly.tumblr.com/post/149368992133/why-do-you-think-that-asides-from-jeyne-poole

https://maidenoftheforestlight.tumblr.com/post/158118270004/do-you-think-sansa-bullied-jon-snow-some-of-my#notes

Western culture is founded on the notion of sexual difference: the idea that there is an essential difference between men and women, expressed in the behaviors of masculinity and femininity and their attendant practices. It is so dominant and all pervasive, that the idea that women can positively “choose” the practices which express this difference makes little sense. 

-  Sheila Jeffreys, Beauty and Misogyny

It’s confirmed~ Yuuri has very womanly charms <3

He’s literally channeling a seductive woman and I love it. 

image

Yuuri is obviously quite innocent. And it’s confirmed that he’s inexperienced at the dating game and flirting.

image

Yuuri knows that he can’t complete with Victor in terms of pure playboy charm.

image
image

But as Yuuri himself says, he’s an adult and that he could exude mature sexiness if he wants to. 

But, clearly, the path of the debonair playboy is not for him.

So he tries something different.

image

Yuuri must have gotten inspiration from earlier in the episode when Victor said “I had long hair at the time, so my costume suggested both male and female genders at once.”

image

So he decides to play up femininity because he certainly is not as bold as a playboy.

image

He wants to channel being a devastatingly beautiful woman, that brings the men to him. A woman’s seduction is clearly more subtle, but definitely there and definitely as alluring. 

And, since Victor IS a playboy in this and fits that role extremely well, could this mean?!?!

Could this mean that Yuuri’s newfound charms will be able to seduce Victor?!?!

image

Also, Yuuri nails the emotional aspect of his program. And I can totally see how his confidence shines. 

His introspection has made himself realize just who he is and that while he may not be exactly suited for traditional masculine charms, he can be sexy and channels femininity to help him. 

He’s more ambiguous on the scale from ultra feminine to ultra masculine gender roles. He’s fluid in his gender presentation, at least in this episode.

I’m in love <3

anonymous asked:

what defines masculinity and femininity? like, if someone says i'm not feminine does that mean i'm more of a masculine female or is it that their definition of femininity differs from mine? isn't being female feminine enough and being male masculine enough?

Hey anon!

I think you may be equating gender and gender presentation, when actually they are not equal! Being female is not inherently feminine and being male is not inherently masculine. You can be feminine and female or masculine and female or even androgynous and female. However you identify is completely different from how you present

Gender presentation is kind of vague. When I think of it, I think of stereotypes - like feminine is cute and lots of dresses, while masculine is short hair and rougher. Really, perceived gender presentation is at least partially based in stereotypes. So yeah, I guess you could say they just have a different view on femininity!

- Maxine

Symbology of the Signs

Each Sign is symbolized in two ways – first, is the glyph that it is represented by, and second is the “animal” (or person) that it is characterized by. For all the Signs, the glyph is a simplistic representation of the animal (or person) that symbolizes the sign. These animals/person are directly correlated to the stellar constellations from which the signs originate. The animal symbols also are used to compare the likeness of that animals perceived instincts to that of the Sign’s personality.

Keep reading

what i appreciate most about otabek’s “yuri plisetsky had the unforgettable eyes of a soldier” comment is how it reveals a lot about yuri: what drew yuri to say yes to otabek’s offer of friendship is the same thing that made him respect lilia. both people saw his strength and capability to be stronger, albeit in different ways. otabek compares it to being a soldier, while lilia honed it through beauty. (”beauty is a crushing force of righteousness! strength means nothing without beauty.”)

yuri doesn’t mind being seen as masculine or feminine. it’s not a matter of presentation for him. the names ice tiger of russia vs russian fairy are not a matter of masculine vs. feminine for him; it’s more of which is more fierce-sounding, which is “cooler”.

so when people commended the welcome to the madness program as yuri finally doing something he loves, as if he was forced to perform agape and allegro appassionata, i vehemently disagree. which is why i appreciated the extra manga dispelling that notion. yuri didn’t dislike lilia’s program for him; it was just that he wasn’t in the right mindset, and he didn’t like how the program felt like riding upon the coattails of his FS, which lost to yuuri’s.

Hey, little baby passing tips for transmasc folks who can’t get a short haircut because of parents or work or school or whatever- try getting a haircut that’s more shoulder-length or chin length.

image
image
image
image

Compare to more feminine cuts of the same length-

image
image
image
image

Note that the feminine cuts have a more defined shape and lines, while the masculine cuts are more messy and wild. Feminine cuts are longer in the front and shorter in the back, while the masculine cuts are the other way around, and try to keep locks off and away from the cheekbones. Also- a side part tends to look more feminine, while a middle part looks more masculine. Another thing to notice is bangs. If you’re doing a short cut, it’s easier to pass with bangs, but if you need to keep your hair long for safety reasons (or if you just want longer hair! Guys with long hair are sexy as all getout.) you’ll want to avoid bangs, and get into the habit of sweeping your hair back away from your forehead. Not only is this a more masculine style, but the gesture of running your fingers through your hair like that is very boyish.

Now, you may have noticed the texture difference between the masculine cuts vs the feminine styles- masculine looks more wavy, coarse or curly, while the feminine looks are silky and straighter. This is because testosterone changes the texture of your skin and hair, and can make it thicker, coarser, give it more of a wave or curl. This obviously varies person to person and depends on ethnicity and genetics, but if you’ve got straight hair, adding a little texture will help you look and feel more masculine. Do not use curlers. Shiny bouncy ringlets are not the same as a masculine wave. What you’re gonna wanna do is avoid anti-frizz shampoos and conditioners, get yourself a nice curl cream, and introduce yourself to the low-budget miracle that is salt spray. All it takes is a little dollar-store spritzer bottle, warm water and salt. You can even add a nice little scent or oil if you wanna. Treat yourself. Basically, all it takes is fill up that little spritz bottle with warm water, add two or three spoonfuls of salt, shake to dissolve and voila. Spritz your hair with that stuff and run your fingers through, muss it up, and you’ll get nice, messy, beachy wave that looks masc as fuck and makes you feel like a sexy surfer boy.

Transmascs can absolutely rock a longer hairstyle, and if you’re closeted, pre-T or not going on T, if your parents are assholes or you just don’t wanna chop off all your hair, it doesn’t need to feel like a burden. You can still have fun with it and express your masculine style.

i feel like there’s something to be said about orpheus’ very high pitched singing vs. hades’ intense baritone. a social commentary about masculinity vs. femininity, the construct of the BusinessMan or naivety of youth. but every time i try to articulate those ideas i just think “orpheus said bottom rights”

whilst Sinclair Sexsmith’s latest piece “we need the new butch” makes some great points about racism, surgical choices, stigma against the feminine and the right of butches to be sexually submissive and receptive, it seems clear that Sexsmith themself both equates and conflates butchness with maleness - leading to some logical fallacies straight out of the radical feminist movement. this is nothing new - the false construct of ‘masculine vs feminine’ has been circulating the queer discourse for several years now. it’s long past time we rigorously addressed it.

sexsmith calls for a new kind of butch in a way reminiscent of calls for the definition of ‘man’ to be broadened, indicating they consider butch to exist on the same paradigm.

but when we understand ‘man’ and ‘woman’ as broad social categories of people (and not individual gender identities) that have had limiting definitions imposed on them, what becomes clear is that ‘butch’ emerged in response to the need for ‘woman’ to be expanded. ‘butch’ is an active, living effort to push the boundaries of a confining overclass. it does not itself need to be broadened as an identity to be more ‘inclusive’ of diverse expression like ‘man’ does because it is not in itself an overclass. it was created in order to describe a very particular way of being. it was never intended to be all-inclusive - but to identify a specific personhood. and its existence does not preclude the possibility of creating other subcategories to identify other alternative types of womanhood (again - emphasising ‘woman’ as a social category and not someone’s individual gender identity).

what most confounds me about this piece is the suggestion that ‘butch’ as an identity has something to gain in terms of political evolution from embracing more ‘femininity’. this completely disregards the cultural context that butch has emerged in - a society in which gender conformity is demanded, and in which diversion from is punished. ‘butch’ as an identity has always offered an alternative to the heteronormative and hegemonic boundaries of ‘woman’ - has given women the permission and freedom to not be feminine. ‘femininity’ as a social construct is designed to inhibit women’s autonomy and freedom of expression, to confine us to a role and way of being that revolves around the needs and wants of men. the pressure to gender conform absolutely manifests in violence and oppression, which many LGBT people testify to. butches have to continuously fight the heteropatriarchal world to assert their right to live authentically - their right to reject material and theoretical zones ascribed ‘feminine’. this resistance is often met with extreme violence - systemic, structural and individual.

that sexsmith does not factor this into their considerations of what a ‘new butch’ should look like underscores how pervasive the flawed logic of contemporary queer gender politics has become.  situating butch as an identity that holds imaginary structural power for being 'masculine’ that will become more enlightened through an embrace of the ‘feminine’ entirely ignores and erases the actual material reality that butches live. queer communities should not be emulating the heteropatriarchy in demanding that the butch identity express itself more through apparel and grooming techniques and ways of self-expression that are socially designated feminine. the queer community must remember always that butches have endured a life-long battle to assert themselves as valid and worthwhile without such visual coding - that women rejecting 'the feminine’ is not interchangeable with misogyny in the context of a heteropatriarchal society, but a statement of defiance, the pursuit of personal liberation and the will to live authentically, against the status quo.

language is specific and purposeful. ‘butch’ has explicit connotations because it is intended to - its purpose is to define a certain type of lesbian. if ‘butch’ ceases to have any coherent meaning, then what purpose does it actually serve? we have already seen the catastrophe that has resulted from trying to broaden the boundaries of ‘femme’ out of all significance. must we really now put ‘butch’ through that excruciating and ultimately pointless process?

and why do we never stop to ask ourselves why it is that lesbian-specific terms like 'butch’ and 'femme’ are alone subjected to this kind of scrutiny? do you EVER see this happening to terms that are not lesbian in origin? 

why is it that terms that were always intended to be very specific have such onus placed upon them to become more indiscriminate, defeating the point of language? why is it not acceptable for these terms to exist to describe specific categories of people? that is not the same thing as exclusion! why do we not recognise there is ample room for all of us, that we can create new terms to define ourselves if other specific terms do not describe us? 

the primary purpose of these terms are to communicate with each other - if they cease to have fixed definitions, then what are they really for? why have them at all? 

why do we never stop to deconstruct what we really want to achieve when we talk about inclusivity, and recognise that can’t be done through trying to redefine identities we created to give context to our experiences - that that is, in fact, a lazy and sloppy approach to authentic inclusivity? 

why are we all so reluctant to critically analyse our own essential discomfort with what too many of us still perceive as imitative of heteronormativity?

and why don’t we acknowledge that all of this is because so many of us still insist on positioning butches as essentially the same as men?

I also scribbled some Wurven facial variants. “Masculine” and “feminine” arent mutually exclusive and any wurven can have any of these facial shapes its just whats generally considered masculine vs feminine.

anonymous asked:

So I'm pretty new to this masculine vs feminine storytelling idea and find it fascinating. Could you, in simple terms, give your take on *why* the archetypal masculine power fantasy is to slay beasts, command armies, and rule kingdoms while the archetypal feminine one is to turn beasts into princes and cause them to fall in love? This feels... asymmetrical.

In simple terms? History and culture. 

Of course it’s asymmetrical. When a gender has been systematically reduced to powerlessness and subordination for dozens of centuries, of course it will develop fantasies centering around forms of “soft” power: taming the beast rather than slaying it (because beasts are powerful and consorting with them can make you powerful by proxy), being exceptional because of your intellect and personality rather than sheer muscular force (because that’s not what your gender excels at, on average), magic (again, something that doesn’t require physical force: immaterial but fearsome), compassion (what you hope to inspire in that other gender which holds all the power, both on a macro and on a micro/domestic level). 

The divide is not so clear cut though. Female fantasies are not always and not necessarily “soft”. There are violent and aggressive/gory elements in female power fantasies, just like a lot of male fairytale heroes are exceptional because of their wit and compassion rather than physical force or martial skills, they fall in love with a princess, etc. But romance, especially monster romance, is such a vital part in female-driven stories because women have historically been oppressed first and foremost through marriage and control/suppression of our sexual agency. Romantic/sexual desire, when it forms spontaneously and is actively chosen, is inherently subversive for women and that’s why it’s often the centerpiece of female power fantasies which in turn often revolve around a “beast” of sorts—it’s the opposite of what the patriarchy wants to impose on us, the opposite of what’s considered "an acceptable match”. The beast is our ticket to freedom, so we re-imagine it as a him, sexy and dangerous as he’s monstrous and in-human, the epitome of sex-for-pleasure and not sex as mandatory act between husband and wife to make babies. The beast represents an alternative masculine power to the patriarchal one, a kind of masculinity that wants to be one with us rather than control us. 

I know it all sounds very victorian and anachronistic but this cultural imbalance has been going on for centuries and won’t disappear in three generations. A lot of the pressure women face in romantic/sexual relationships to “choose wisely” i.e. pick what’s socially acceptable and conforming to dominant male wishes rather than what they find desirable has only changed on the surface. The whole *nice guy* narrative, for example, whether it comes from a male-centric perspective (”I’m such a nice guy, I deserve to get laid!”) or is rebranded as feminist discourse (”we women should learn how to stop being attracted to bad men”) is a direct evolution of it.

anonymous asked:

"a lot of people don’t realize how much they’ve all bought the distinct images of both Harry and Louis in certain ways" ow that hurt

This is why I will always push back against those horrific posts on this website that set Louis and Harry as opposites (masculine vs. feminine, hard vs. soft, etc.) because 100% of those posts buy into Louis’ closet.

anonymous asked:

Hey, I almost didn't go anon, but most everyone I follow + who follow me are very anti-terf and pro-trans mvmnt. I have always blindly thought that way too, thinking that it was the decent thing. But, after reading through your blog, I'm finding I agree with a lot of it. It's a little frightening how empowered I feel as a woman and how much I want to know more about rad fem. the overwhelming pc culture is getting old and oppressive. Would you mind filling me in on key concepts/vocab of rad fem?

Hi there. I’m glad that this blog is helping you find your way to radical feminism. To many women, radical feminism is a huge eye-opener: it tears down the ideological veil that has blinded us since we were little. We come to realize a lot of truths - to me it was that men don’t have to be cruel, narcissistic, or sexually entitled, that nature did not make them this way, and that we don’t just have to accept it and submit. We can protest. Radical feminism is a teacher of discovering your boundaries and self-respect, of finding our worth in a world that tells us we have none, and of saying something as controversial as “no” to men. It is a school of thought that absolutely terrifies men, because it teaches women we are strong and complete without them - which is why men, and the men within the transmovement, fight so hard against us. It is the epitome of counter-culture, hence the hate we face, from men and women both.

Anyway, let me sum up just a few quick radical feminist concepts and topics:

- Gender as a construct (femininity/masculinity) vs essentialism.
- Female sex and female sexuality as the basis of patriarchal oppression.
- Class analysis/women as a group/class/caste vs. liberal “feminism” with focus on the individual.
- Sex critical (often known as “sex negative”) vs sex “positive”. Meaning we scrutinize and analyze everything - “The personal is political”. An example would be our criticism of BDSM culture and the idea of “consent”.
- Being anti-prostitution and anti-porn: we see both as fundamentally misogynistic. Hence why we are often called “SWERF”s.

There are a myriad of topics to explore, honestly. It’s a bit difficult to name it all on the top of my head, but I’m hoping other radfems can contribute with ideas, resources, or other. You are welcome to write me if you have questions or would like to discuss, etc. Especially if you ever feel alone in the land of transmania ;).

Here are some links suggested by other radfem bloggers:
https://radicalhubarchives.wordpress.com/tag/radical-feminism-101/ https://thefeministahood.wordpress.com/2015/04/05/what-is-a-woman/ https://deepgreenresistance.org/en/who-we-are/faqs/radical-feminism-faqs http://www.feministcurrent.com/
http://radfem.org/
https://inferior-mirage.tumblr.com/tagged/books

Masculine VS Feminine

The topic of toxic masculinity came up on Twitter and it made me want to rant a little bit about it.

What is toxic masculinity? It’s when boys shame each other for being associated with anything feminine. It’s when men act like women are lesser for being female. It’s when men ignore or shame women who display masculine traits.  It’s “you throw like a girl”, it’s “boys don’t cry,” it’s denying respect to people who show any sign of weakness. In an age where we are fighting for respectable female role models we are ignoring the fact that many male role models are not worthy of the respect they already have. 

Masculinity and femininity are aspects. That’s all they are. Neither one is good or bad. They are simply more or less valuable in different situations. Standing up for yourself when you are wronged is masculine. Swallowing back aggression to maintain harmony is feminine. All people have varying degrees of both these aspects regardless of gender, but because our language has associated them with the sexes it is very easy to try and pretend they are exclusive clubs that only people with this magic body part can join. 

Masculinity is: Strong, Brave, Responsible, Prepared, Reliable, Determined, Honorable, Independent, Aggressive, Competitive, Protective, Loyal, Ambitious 

Femininity is: Gentle, Kind, Nurturing, Social, Emotionally Expressive, Vulnerable, Attentive to Detail, Patient, Prudent, Sympathetic, Sensitive, Cooperative

All of these traits are valuable and none of them are exclusive to any sex. Liking pretty things means you’re human. Being scared of spiders means you’re human. Repeatedly reminding your boss to give you the raise he promised three months ago makes you human. Punching a guy for trying to kick your puppy makes you human. Not wanting to work in a group for a really important assignment makes you human. Finger painting with your kids makes you human.

Whenever you hear the term “real men,” it’s usually someone about to spew some gatekeeping rhetoric about not being feminine. “Real men don’t eat salad.” Well why not? Do you really want colon cancer that badly? “Real men don’t apologize.” Well that’s just terrible advice. You lose credibility with others when you fail to acknowledge your mistakes and that makes you look weaker than apologizing ever would. Rejecting anything that makes you seem vulnerable only serves to show how insecure you are.

When it comes to the more feminine activity of child rearing, men are often treated like babysitters when mom is away. Mothers are automatically the court’s pick for custody in a divorce unless she is proven unfit. Domestic violence is more likely to end with the man getting arrested even if he is the victim. A man who is raped by a women is brushed off and laughed at instead of supported. Men are held in suspicion if they take jobs as teachers for young children. We cannot allow our communities or our legal system to favor one gender over another for any reason.

Masculine and feminine traits balance us out. Promoting them as being exclusive hurts everyone.