targeting women

anonymous asked:

How do you respond to people saying you shouldn't be getting angry over the new PPG because you're not its audience?

I AM in their target audience. Their target audience included women who grew up with the original show.

the main difference b/w bi women and lesbians, besides who we are attracted to, is that bi women use dual wield weapons and lesbians use one larger weapon. the dps is about equal but lesbians excel at single target and bi women are good at aoe, so i would suggest having at least one of each in your party for endgame discourse

straight couples specifically choose bisexual women to prey on because they believe bisexual women are disgusting, impure, and abnormal, and that we’re frothing at the mouth to try out any kinky version of sex. bisexual women who genuinely enjoy casual sex and threesomes are thrown under the bus because straight people assume that their casual enjoyment of sex has a sinful or forbidden quality to it. straight men who fantasize about fucking two women at once, or watching their girlfriends fuck another woman, project that fantasy onto bisexual women precisely because they perceive bisexuality as an experimental orientation plucked and ripened for their needs. they believe that we are “easy” and “available” to them. this is quite literally biphobia at its finest, the intersection of homophobia and misogyny against bisexual women. it’s misogynistic because it sexualizes a woman and strips her of her autonomy and it’s homophobic because it fetishizes and pathologizes a same-gender orientation by likening it to abnormality/kinkiness. but sure, straight couples who do this are actually all polyamorous queers seeking validity. this isn’t a problem of homophobia or misogyny at all! 

there is a reason this doesn’t typically happen to bisexual men, and there is a reason straight men tell their straight girlfriends to go on dating apps and target bisexual women who are specifically looking for a female partner or girlfriend. there is a reason why they expect this to be a one or two time thing and there is a reason why they expect bisexual women to not get attached, to not get emotionally involved, or to not receive anything in return, be it monetary compensation, affection, platonic intimacy, or even acknowledgement. 

@ all men

•Lesbians are not a prize to be won
•Asexuals are not a challenge to be had
•Aromantics are not a token to be your fwb
•Bi/pansexuals are not to be quested for your fetishes
•Trans women are not to be hunted and targeted for your pleasure
•Women of Color are not exotic treasures to behold

Leave us the fuck alone. If a person does not return your romantic or sexual advances, you fucking stop. If a person tells you they are not interested, ESPECIALLY if it’s because of their sexuality, you fucking apologize, then STOP.
You will not be the exception you will not be The One and no, you are not being an Ally by sexualizing LGBT+ women. Respect us and move on.

“Aphobe” has absolutely no power or history behind it. It has no power to do anything but make people laugh because its not aimed at actual oppressors because there is no ace oppression. So what do they do to feed their fear mongering bullshit? They use terms for those who oppress other groups to scare people. They use terms like terf rhetoric and biphobe when the topic has nothing to do with actual terf rhetoric or biphobe rhetoric.

And I am watching as they slowly try changing the definition of terf/twerf and moving it away from transmisogyny, transphobia and misogyny so they can give their “you’re aphobic” claims more power.

They are removing the definition so we cant use it to specifically refer to terfs and their harm to trans woman.

They are sticking with their claim that cishet aro/aces have it just as bad or worse than trans woman. They are continueing to compare trans woman to actual terfs and using their new definition to do so.

At least they are trying to. And its fucking disgusting. I had to witness inclusionists use a term that means “trans (woman) exclusionary radical feminist” to say
“ace exclusionists are just like trans exclusionists!”
then “ace exclusionary came from trans exclusionists” then
“ace exclusionism is terf rhetoric” and finally to
“ace exclusionists are terfs”.

We fucking see what you are doing.

Terf is not a slang word for you to use lightly against people you disagree with.

Terf does not mean just “exclusionary”. Terfs specifically target trans people. Twerfs specifically target trans women with the belief that trans women are not real women. Terfs specifically exclude trans women from spaces they need to survive.

Terf rhetoric has actually caused deaths, terfs have been harming trans women from the beginning and you want to use that to scare people into believing in aphobia?

There is no fucking correlation between cishet exclusionary and trans women exclusionary you transmisogynistic a holes.

anonymous asked:

Isn't there a really dodgy bit in Why Does He Do That? I read somewhere that it says a man who says he's being abused is the abuser in a relationship, which... no, male victims of domestic abuse exist too...

Yes.  I was actually going to post about this.

It’s not just a “dodgy bit”.  There are multiple points at which he says things that I didn’t care for.

The “male abuse victims are probably lying” thing is is the biggest flaw in the book, but the book is still absolutely vital, and people should still read and recommend it.  Full stop.  Because a thing is flawed does not mean it has no value and should not be circulated to those people that it could help.  If the book were less shockingly accurate and unflinching in its portrayal of abusive men, if it were less good in the ways that it is good, perhaps I would feel more hesitation.

I’ve read basically the whole thing so far (I’m about 20-30 pages from the end in the PDF), and here’s the deal.

He doesn’t say unilaterally that men lie about being abused.  He says that abusive men lie about being abused by women.  It’s a fine distinction, and not really much better, but I want to be clear that that is what he is saying.  Not that men lie about all abuse, but that they lie about being abused by women.  Abusive men, especially, will tell this lie to get the upper hand.

Based on what he has seen after dealing with a couple thousand men who abuse women, I do not doubt that this is true.

But he seems to think the number of abused men is smaller than the number of abusive men who are lying about being abused.  Even if that is true, abused men are not acceptable collateral damage.  It’s not okay to act like the issue isn’t important just because liars exist.

He uses SOME qualifying language. I’m not going to go digging for it, but it’s along the line of “Male victims of domestic violence are really rare compared to the number of female victims.”  After that he kind of treats it like they either don’t exist, or the fact that they do is irrelevant in the face of the much more widespread problem of men who abuse women.  I won’t lie, that’s not good.

To be frank, he does not seem all that aware of social justice issues the way that all us gigantic queers on Tumblr are.  His awareness of LGBT issues is peripheral.  When he says “men” and “women”, he definitely means “cis men” and “cis women”.  And the book definitely reads like a book written by a cis dude to me.  But honestly, this is a book that only a cis dude could have written, because only a cis dude could have worked with other (cis) men the way he has, and it is precisely that experience that makes it so valuable.

The fact that he’s biased doesn’t mean he is talking out his ass the rest of the time.  He’s not.  At the time of publication (2002) he had worked with over two thousand abusive men whose targets were women.  He pioneered recovery programs for these men.  He was the first to really get down and work with them on a daily basis, both in group and personal therapy settings.  And that experience shows.

No.  He really really doesn’t understand abused men.

But he understands abusive men.  Specifically, he understands men who abuse women.

On the one hand, it’s given him an unprecedented level of insight into abusers’ mindsets, and that is so valuable.  

On the other, the graphic and awful examples he has seen of men who are lying to get themselves out of trouble or justify their behavior have definitely colored his views of male victims.  These men – men, I emphasize, referred to him by the legal system, meaning they were entirely confirmed abusers – WERE almost always lying about it.  I think he mentions two exceptions?  And yeah, that sounds like shit abusers fucking do.  I believe him.

Within his setting, within his sample, I believe he is 100% correct in his assessment – abusers are likely to be lying about having suffered partner violence.

That setting absolutely is not the rest of the world, and I think he loses sight of that, if he ever had sight of it to begin with.  That’s a terrible flaw.

Another flaw is that it gives very little face-time to same-sex relationship abuse.  It goes into it a little, and does it a little ham-handedly but not too badly, but mostly it gets ignored.

Rather than raise these issues at all and then doing it badly, I wish he had said “The issue of abuse in LGBT relationships, as well as the issue of women abusing men, is sadly beyond the scope of my experience, and therefore this book is not about those issues.”

There is nothing wrong with focusing on one aspect of the issue of intimate partner violence.  That he did so is not a bad thing.  The bad thing that he did is to treat the rest of it like a non-issue, when it isn’t, and that he said some things that encourage the reader to be generally suspicious of men who say that women have abused them.  Those are bad things.

Would I recommend it to a man who is being/was abused by a woman?  No no no.  Absolutely not.  Those dynamics are completely different, and the abuse is likely to look very different, and I feel like very little of it will be accessible to someone in that situation.  I think it would do more harm than good.

Would I recommend it to someone in a non-cishet relationship?  Maybe, but probably not, unless I had a little insight into the relationship and felt like it would be a good match.

Would I still recommend it to women, or to people who want a general understanding of the dynamics between abusive cis men and abused women?  YES.  YES A THOUSAND TIMES.

The book is not “good” in a morally/ideologically pure, okay?  It is flawed.  But for what it is, which is a book about men who abuse women, it is very good.   He is on the side of abused women, all the fucking way.  And that is still an astonishingly rare thing to find. 

It validates the experiences of women abused by men by showing different types of abusive behavior and different types of abuser.  He says at multiple points “If you’re wondering whether it’s abuse, then it probably is.”  And that is still such a radical, necessary, healthy and badly-needed thing to say.

I’m not going to defend the way he treats the issue of abused men, or abuse in LGBT relationships,  He barely deals with these issues at all, and when he does, it’s halfhearted at best and actively regressive at worst.  In that regard, it’s shitty.  If that is what you are needing, this book won’t give it to you.

I am going to defend it as an excellent starting place for women abused by men, or in toxic almost-abusive relationships with them.

I would prefer it not be flawed, and if it has to be flawed, I would prefer it come with a disclaimer, but I would rather it circulate flawed and without a disclaimer of any kind that fail to reach someone who really, really needs it.

We could be waiting a long time for a better, more inclusive book to come out.  There’s not time to wait.  This book is needed now.  TODAY.

That said, I am always glad to reblog helpful resources for abused men, or for people in non-cishet relationships, if you know of any.  I would love to know about comparable GOOD books for LGBT people, if you know any, or would love to know about GOOD books written for male victims of domestic violence.

Some people ask: ‘Why the word feminist? Why not just say you are a believer in human rights, or something like that?’ Because that would be dishonest. Feminism is, of course, part of human rights in general—but to choose to use the vague expression human rights is to deny the specific and particular problem of gender. It would be a way of pretending that it was not women who have, for centuries, been excluded. It would be a way of denying that the problem of gender targets women.
—  Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie, We Should All Be Feminists

Okay I’ve been getting upset about this subject a lot lately so I might as well type it up.

Your Orientation and the Ace Identity

Just to start with, I’m a gay (homosexual) asexual.

“But how can you be both homosexual and asexual?” you might ask.

That’s because the sexual orientations have nothing to do with whether you feel sexual attraction or not at all, despite what some definition written by a cishet white male doctor from fifty years ago might say.

Let me put it this way.

Sexual orientations = Who (Gender)
Ace identities = How (Lack of Sexual Attraction, Not Affected by Gender)

They’re about Who you’re attracted to, not how you feel that attraction. As such, asexual is not an orientation, but rather the lack of sexual attraction. It’s a valid identity, but it is not an orientation.

The Problem With Romantics and Split-Attraction Model

See, there’s a really big problem with the romantics, and why I refuse to ID with them and refuse to use the Split-Attraction model.

The split attraction model, for those who don’t know, goes like this:

____romantic (romantic attraction)
____sexual (sexual attraction)

Which almost completely contradicts my previous point:

The sexualities have nothing to do with sexual attraction.

Splitting attraction like this is misleading and inherently sexualizes the orientations, which makes me and a lot of others incredibly uncomfortable, but you can use it to ID yourself if you want to! Just do not use the split attraction model for people who don’t already use it.

When you use the split attraction model for non-aces and people who don’t use it themself, you are sexualizing them without their consent by making their orientation inherently sexual.

You can use the sexual orientations even if you’re ace and don’t experience sexual attraction.

The Problems with Allosexual

The term allosexual was coined by ace individuals to refer to non-aces. The problem with this term is that it implies a power structure and axis of oppression that does not exist.

Women are not privileged for having sexual attraction. Women are invalidated and oppressed for being sexual or non-sexual.

SGA and Trans individuals are discriminated against MORE if they experience sexual attraction. 

The only people who are privileged for their sexual attraction are cisgender hetero males, primarily white.

How CisHet Aces and CisHet Aros are still Straight

“But how can they be straight AND asexual?” you might ask.

It’s easy. Because asexuality does not affect your orientation. It is a modifier identity that tells others you have a lack of sexual attraction.

You agree that Heterosexual non-aces are straight, yes?
Then Hetero- Aces are straight too.

Ace identities don’t affect your orientation, and as such do not affect the privileges or oppressions you have based on your gender identity or orientation..

The Ace Community and why it is not be LGBT

This is a hot topic lately and I can sort of understand why. Let’s begin with how the A for Ace campaign began.

David Jay, a Cisgender Hetero Ace man advocated to make the Ace Community LGBT so it could use the LGBT Community’s visibility.

Let’s start of here: He is a CisHet man. He had no right advocating to include the Ace Community in the LGBT community because he is both Cisgender and Hetero.

The LGBT community began as a movement to fight systematic homophobia and transphobia.

This right here is the big ticket item. I’ll try and make it simpler to understand why other orientations and genders outside the LGBT acronym are included.

Homophobia - Systematic opression directed at those who experience same gender attraction. All LGBT subsects have systematically suffered under this.

Biphobia - Largely stems from homophobia. It’s a mixture of homophobia and other discrimination that only bisexuals and those under the bi umbrella (MGA) face.

Lesbophobia - Homophobia specifically targeted at women. Includes Misogyny. Only wlw experience this type of oppression.

Transphobia - Specific set of systemized oppressions that Trans, nonbinary, and agender individuals face for not matching their socially designated gender. Trans individuals also suffer under homophobia, which was equally directed at them throughout history.

That was a bit longer than I planned to write it, but that’s the gist of it.

The Ace Community, as it stands, does not suffer under any of these other oppressions, or subsets of them, for being ace. Ace discrimination and stigma does not stem from homophobia or transphobia, but from ignorance, ableism, and misogyny.

The Problem with Q*eer

The problem with q*eer, other than it being a slur, is that it has solely been aimed at those suffering under homophobia (and its subsets) and transphobia.

If you are Cisgender and Hetero, you are not allowed to use q*eer.

We are not the Q*eer community. It is a slur. You may only self-identify as it if you experience SGA/MGA or are Trans.

In Summary

  • Cisgender Hetero Aces are straight because being ace does not affect the privileges one has by virtue of their gender identity or orientation.
  • Allosexual is a homophobic, transphobic, and sexist term that implies that LBGT individuals and women are privileged for feeling sexual attraction.
  • The Ace Community does not suffer under an axis of oppression by virtue of being Ace.
  • Q*eer is a slur, not an umbrella term. Only SGA/MGA and Trans individuals can use it to identify themselves.

In closure, we are valid, we are loved and accepted by eachother, but we are not LGBT for being ace.

in turku, 8 of the 10 victims were women, two of whom died. the two men were attacked because they were trying to help the female victims. these heroic men have been named as hasan alazawii, a local entrepreneur, and hassan zubier, a swedish tourist. let us not gloss over the fact that the attacker targeted women.

White Nationalists on 4chan start a fake social media campaign to smear Antifa as promoting the targeting of white women for violence

Kind of ironic since white nationalists are the ones who by and large abuse women.