women and interacting people . '

i zeriously don’t give a shit if you’re lesbian and say that you’re penis-repulsed or that you never want to have penetrative sex like obviously these are very very personal things and you have every right to dictate where your personal limits lie with regards to intimacy and sex.

like for REAL there are trans women who are penis-repulsed, who don’t want their own penis touched sexually at all (due to dysphoria or otherwise), who don’t want to have sex at all, who don’t want to have penetrative sex (receiving or giving), And of course there are also trans women who DO want all of these things…
(And there are trans women with a penis who are unable to penetrate or maintain an erection due to HRT or orchiectomy or otherwise, And there are trans women With A Fully Functioning Vagina That Is Physically Indistinguishable From An Average Cis Woman’s Vagina, but i digress…)

but the PROBLEM lies in the fact that people view trans women as a monolith! The problem lies in the fact that people assume that trans women are all just the same as the stereotype that you have built up in your minds! The stereotype of trans women as: a deceptive predatory sexually voracious straight man who will do anything to have sex with cis lesbians!

It’s not a problem for you to have your personal boundaries regarding intimacy and sex! What is a problem is when you have a malicious ideology against trans women and place your personal boundaries into this rubric. There is nothing forcing you to do that. There is nothing forcing you to apply malicious misinformation and stereotypes to trans women. There is nothing forcing you to call transgender women male, or men, or trannies, or transmale, or male-to-trans, or transwomen, (as a distinct and separate category from “Real” cis women!!) it is cruel and bigoted and transmisogynist for you to do these things.

However I will never concede the fact that stereotypes influence how you perceive people! And as a corollary to this fact, I can certainly say that there is transmisogyny among cis people. There IS a major phenomenon of straight men, lesbians, and bi/pan people, of any gender, viewing trans women as disgusting and ugly and undateable and To Be Avoided DUE TO STEREOTYPES AGAINST TRANS WOMEN.

This is not simply an issue that has regards to dating, obviously, it is something that informs all social interactions that other people have with trans women.

And, before you twefs jump in with “not being dated isn’t oppression!” I am going to pre-empt you and state that this is a similar issue to how straight women are homophobic towards bisexual men and avoid them and refrain from socializing with them or dating them, this is a similar issue to how white women and men are racist towards black men and avoid them and refrain from socializing with them or dating them.
Not equating these issues, just pointing out that social avoidance IS a part of interpersonal oppression against marginalized groups.

My position is that stereotypes and social norms inform behavior towards trans women and you have to take responsibility for how your bigoted rhetoric impacts the people it’s leveled against.

Bi and straight radfems are allllllways talking about how disgusting trans women are and it generally seems that they don’t even have any trans women as friends let alone date them, and I can’t help but beg the question: You don’t actually truly view us as men, do you? In fact, to you, we must be something different than men because you treat us terribly different than you treat men. You treat us much worse than you treat men, which is a major failure of your supposedly self-identified man-hating agenda. Get good, frankly.

Another pre-emptive statement before someone makes an ugly and unnecessary comment: I’m engaged and have been monogamous for 7 years so this is literally not a weird ideological quest for romantic contact for me, regardless of how so-called radical feminists might twist my words.

I’m tired of ~diversity~ meaning the core white people are safe while the poc get cycled in and out and tortured and sidelined, the lgbt characters can’t have happy relationships and the women can’t interact for more than five minutes. I’m tired of white people and straight people and men patting themselves on the back for regurgitating the same bullshit tropes and calling it art.

I think straight men generally don’t view women as autonomous, especially with regards to our attraction and sexuality. We divide ourselves by identity and experience, but they don’t clearly differentiate between women who aren’t currently expressing a willingness to be pursued by men. 

The individual identities of lesbians and bi women blur for them, and they only really distinguish between them so far as it relates to themselves. I’ve read that even straight women are frequently accused of being lesbians by male abusers, and of course we’ve all seen or heard of men accusing any woman who turns him down of being a lesbian. It seems to me that straight male conception of women’s sexuality revolves around themselves and to what degree they believe women are “cooperating” with their expectations. 

For example, when I was being abused by a man, me trying to assert my identity as a lesbian was something he saw as threatening and he’d often pull out really strong manipulation tactics to get me back in line (gaslighting, pretending I never said anything, threatening to out me, feigning injury, threatening to kill himself, etc.). He preferred me to identify as bisexual.

But simultaneously, he didn’t respect bisexuality either. He would go through my computer when I wasn’t there and get angry at me if I had any evidence in my saved files or computer history of my attraction to women. He didn’t want me interacting with other LGBT people. I was forbidden from drag shows and gay clubs. He clearly didn’t actually want me to be bisexual. In his mind, bisexuality meant that I had no “reason” to leave him because I was capable of attraction to men, and therefore should surrender attraction to women because it was “unneeded” within a monogamous context.

Bisexuality, to abusive straight men, is basically a state where you have no right to turn them down because you’re theoretically capable of attraction. And that entitlement, in my opinion, is where a huge amount of abuse bi women face comes from. This idea that their sexuality is one that needs constant punishment to keep in line and to prevent them from “becoming lesbian” (which to the abuser just means “able to get away”). I think that’s why male abusers are so aggressive towards their bi partners when they have lesbian friends. Lesbians are seen as an inherently corrupting influence, as in the abuser’s mind, they haven’t been properly punished into submission and now aren’t attached to men as a class at all, which is threatening.

Straight women, on the other hand, are willing to acknowledge attraction moreso than they are willing to acknowledge connection to womanhood as a class. 

Straight women will try to convince questioning women that they too are straight, and will try to soften and accommodate attraction within the safety of straight womanhood, but if that fails and you actually do claim an identity label of bisexual or lesbian, straight women are quick to conceptualize you as outside of womanhood. This is most obvious with how straight women talk about and interact with butches, and the insistence that we’re “basically men” but it occurs on a spectrum of subtly for all women who love women. 

You quickly notice after coming out that the invisible rules of womanhood as a gender no longer apply to you. Physical touch, shared changing spaces, conversations about romance, conversations about men as a class, how you dress, whether you wear make up, whether you shave– all of these things will suddenly become highly scrutinized and the invisible rules of what is acceptable and unacceptable between women is noticeably different for you. You will be subtly divorced from womanhood, and then assumed your ideas about feminism and womanhood as a class are lesser or irrelevant because of this perceived distance. 

The differences between bisexual and lesbian- to the straight woman- are muted by whatever attraction a bi woman is currently speaking to (and by whatever degree an individual bi woman is gender nonconforming or unapologetic in her feminism). 

Straight people might act as if they would accept lesbians over bi women (”they’re seen as threatening non-women who lure ‘good’ women to their ‘side’ and hated for it, but straights aren’t trying to actively erase part of their identity”) or visa versa (“they’re seen as ‘flawed’ straight women who can be forced or coerced into line, so as long as they perform for homophobes they can be conditionally accepted”) but it doesn’t take long to figure out that neither of these is actually acceptance, and their treatment of us has more to do with how we’re currently behaving and much less to do with our actual identities. 

They create an illusion that they might treat us better if we identified one way or the other, and it’s unfortunately very effective at turning us against each other. But ultimately, homophobes are going to hate us for our attraction to women and for our distrust of men no matter how we identify. 

We are inherently disobeying the rules of the class of ‘woman’ and the reaction for all of us (though taking different forms in different contexts) is that men seek to abuse us back into that class and women seek to quarantine us as a separate gender altogether. 

anonymous asked:

doesn't mod s call herself a feminist? she can't be muslim and a feminist, islam is a male dominated religion, women have to be constantly oppressed. it's disgusting how muslim women are treated

Well, first of all, I’m use they/them, but thanks so much for misgendering me!

You wanna talk about how Muslim women and and woman-aligned people are treated? Fine, we can talk about that.

We can talk about how the Quran was revealed in 632 AD, saying how women are equal to men. (“And their Lord responded to them: ’…be you male or female - you are equal to one another.’” [Quran 3:195])

We can talk about how in the 16th century, western men were still debating if women had souls.

We can talk about how in 632, the 1st century, Muslim women had the rights to choose who to marry, to divorce, to work, to educate and be educated, to have their won inheritance, to their own land and property, to have their own businesses, to participate in combat, to half their husband’s wealth, to have their own opinions, to have custody of their children, and on and on and on.

We can talk about Muslim women’s right to have a voice in government. Tell me, when did the USA give (white) women “equal participation in the political process,” or voting? 1920. Muslim women have had that since 632.

We can talk about how Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indonesia, Turkey, Kosovo, Kyrgyzstan, and Senegal have all had female Presidents or Prime Ministers. How 1/3rd of Egypt’s parliament is female. How in the lovely USA, we haven’t even had a women vice-president yet.

We can talk about the hijab, niqab, abaya, and burqa, how they’re mainly worn to protect women from leering men, and to allow women to interact freely in public without people being able to judge their bodies or looks and only having their minds and personalities to make judgements off of.

We can talk a out how the Western world has twisted our clothing into “women have to cover up because they’re indecent!” and women and feminine-presenting people get attacked and have their coverings yanked off, either because of Islamophobic hatred or misguided attempts at saving us.

We can talk about how I’ve had my hijab ripped off twice, both times by white men, once outside my community’s masjid (the Muslim place of worship.) And oddly enough, my clothing didn’t stop me from breaking one of those men’s noses when he went after my sister. Just like it’s never stopped me from going to school, or playing sports, or doing anything a white woman or woman aligned person could do.

We can talk about how outside of the masjid, where men and women are required to cover their heads, I’ve never once been made to wear a hijab.

We can talk about how the only people who have lectured me about dressing modestly were non-Muslim teachers and other educators.

We can talk about how people want to preach about how Muslims think women are indecent, when western schools freak out when a girl shows her shoulders.

We can talk about my cousin who once made a joke about women belonging in the kitchen and how out of thirty people in the room, the only person who laughed was his white friend. How his father immediately corrected him.

We can talk about how the first university ever, the University of al-Qarawiyyin, was founded in 858 by Fatima al-Fihri, a Muslim woman. How despite that, the summer I was thirteen and taking extra courses at the community college, an instructor praised me for joining even though “I know Muslim parents don’t let girls have higher education.” I had to look her in the eyes and ask who she thought was paying for my classes.

We can talk about the Prophet Muhammad (s.a.a.w.) who denounced all forms of enslavement of women, and assisted women in issuing their rights to exist freely.

We can talk about people who rush to condemn Muslim men for hurting the “defenseless” girls, then turning around and making jokes about raping and hitting women.

We can talk about the “saviors of Muslim women,” talking about how they’re so oppressed, they don’t get to make their own choices.

We can talk about how these people completely ignore anyone who says they’re wrong and call them brainwashed. Because of course millions of women have been coerced into believing in a tradition that views them as subservient, what other explanation is there?

We can talk about how patronizing and infantalizing this is, how it denies Muslim women and woman aligned people agency and puts our “saviors” on a pedestal. “We need to be their heroes! Because obviously they can’t fix their problems without the aid of white people!”

We can talk about how it’s true that Muslim women suffer from misogyny. How there are Muslim men who think of women as lesser, how some Muslim women are forced to cover themselves and marry. Because guess what? There is no culture that is exempt from misogyny and sexism, gender discrimination is a problem everywhere. But you cannot call an entire culture and religion inherently misogynistic, that is in no way true. 

We can talk about how somehow there’s this incredibly untrue idea that Western cultures have “progressed forward, and sexism doesn’t exist here, only in other countries and cultures.”

We can talk about how if people want to help Muslim women, all that is needed is for them to listen to us and follow our lead.

We can talk about how Muslim women and woman aligned people do not need white people to save them. We have always been capable of helping ourselves.

There are a lot of conversations to be had about the treatment of Muslim women, if it’s something you want to discuss.

But the thing is? People who talk about how oppressed Muslim women are generally don’t.

You want a deflection from your misogyny, “You think I’m bad! You should see how Muslim girls are treated.” You want an excuse for your Islamophobia, “We need to criticize Islam, they treat women awfully!” You want justification for western imperialism, “These wars are necessary! We need to save the poor girls!”

You don’t care about Muslim women and women aligned people.

Stop pretending like you do.

- Mod S

Sapphic Follow Train! 🌈👭🌈

i recently made a post about how fun it is to have other gay friends and a lot of people replied that they wish they had some… sooo like, reply, reblog, and follow each other on this post to make some new wlw friends! let’s talk to each other :D

Finally got my hands on Hana to Yume and could read chapter 150, and can I just say…

LADY INTERACTIONS! (*•̀ᴗ•́*)و ̑̑

*shrugs* maybe people point out OP is a terf/terf-supporter because it can change the context (or rather, make it more clear) of the post, or maybe some people just really don’t want to interact with someone who supports people who are actively against them/hate them for who they are and I mean you can think whatever you want about that but dismissing them as childish/derailing is kinda naive

I can’t get it out of my head. I can’t get it out of my fucking head with all the beautiful and amazing things that happened today.
I was in the library, bent over the DVDs near the circulation desk. There’s a regular guy there who pretty much hates everything he reads…Except Patterson. 

“You need to get more Patterson!” He says “I’m running out of books. The rest are women-authors and God knows what’s in those books.”

YEAH. 2017 I overhear that. You ever fantasize about putting that expensive manicure to use and slashing a guy’s throat?… Well me neither… I’m downright bristling and it’s taking every fiber of my self control to not whip around on this guy.
The librarian says in a stern voice “Now calm down, you.” I’m glad she didn’t fucking giggle. I like those ladies. They don’t take anyone’s shit within the confines of remaining professional.

LADIES, my fellow women-authors… We still have a patriarchy to smash, ladies. Step one; Stop calling yourself a female author and start calling yourself an author!
Step two; Publish your shit anyway! Flood the libraries with your books! 

Step three; Don’t take shit off of anyone who tells you what you can and can’t do thanks to the structure of your genitals.

PEOPLE WITH VAGINAS WHO WIELD PENS UNITE!!!

what anders fans want:

  • people to not tag their hate for anders by putting anders as part of the first five tags.
  • people not to reblog or derail their anders positive posts with hate. 
  • have a community that celebrates what we like about anders, since many of us identify with him. 

what anders fans don’t want:

  • to force you to like anders
  • to assume you’re ableist because you don’t like anders
  • to make you think that we ignore that anders reminds you of your abuser. 

if you don’t like anders:

  • stay out of his tag
  • don’t reblog anders positive posts
  • don’t follow anders positive people
  • spend time caring about things you actually like.

anonymous asked:

What is the bechdel test?

Also relevant:

@lena-in-a-red-dress​ replied to your post “youngbloodbuzz: [me seeing everyone reblogging that post claiming how…”

With the Bechdel test, I couldn’t remember if it was a total conversation test (where any dude talk took the convo out of the running) or a time test (which the scene would tech pass), so I admittedly have research to do. But I do wish men hadn’t been mentioned at all… from a storytelling/performance perspective, they could have easily hit all the same plot-necessary notes elsewhere in the plot-necessary notes without infringing on girl time at all.

(Bare with me, I’ll also be addressing some other recently popular fandom opinions in this break down.)


Application of the Bechdel Test:

The Bechdel-Wallace test is simply, “The movie has to have at least two women in it who talk to each other about something besides a man.”

It was inspired by the writings of Virginia Wolf in which she observed that women were rarely portrayed in ways other than in relation to men, with particular note that this weasels it’s way into fictional female friendship.

I think I’ve seen individual studies expand upon this by specifying that it has to reach some designated length of time (one minute, for example), but I’ve never seen it interpreted so that men being mentioned earlier in the conversation negates the fact that they were afterward talking about something other than a man.

If it were so, it’d seem rather arbitrary a rule. Would the second half of the conversation suddenly pass if they had cut away to something else in the middle, making it a separate conversation? How does that method tell us anything about the quality of the show or the characterization of the women?

Furthermore, the Bechdel test is not meant for singular scenes, it is meant for entire works. In this case—entire episodes.

Sometimes whole conversations between women will, in fact, be about men. And that’s okay, as long as there are also conversations between women about things other than men within the text. In this episode, there certainly were. There will be more episodes in the future with multiple women interacting without mentioning men at all.

Something that people seem to be forgetting is that there’s nothing innately wrong with women talking about men, it’s when it’s made to be the entirety (or majority) of their characters that there’s an issue.

The point of the test is not to stop women from caring about men or having any storylines to do with men, it’s to make sure that there’s more than that. That they aren’t reduced to only that.


So people’s issues with the scene actually have little to do with the Bechdel test, and more to do the fact that these women got together on a girl’s night and, for about half of the portion of it that we saw, they talked about guys.

People are upset about it as a sort of… girl’s night trope in a feminist way, and—more strangely to me—in a queer activism way.

The Queer Activism Way:

Recently (the past few weeks or couple months), I’ve seen an alarming number of posts with regard to Supergirl in which people forget that their experiences are not universal and that their personal discomforts do not necessarily equate injustice.

Perhaps the mere mention of relationships with men makes you uncomfortable because you headcanon the character speaking about it as a lesbian or it reminds you of how alienated you felt growing up and not being attracted to men, but that does not actually make the mention of relationships with men homophobic.

First, the writers are under no obligation to make their characters the specific sexuality that you desire, especially when there is no lack of lesbian representation within the text. Moving forward with the romantic and/or sexual attraction that they have chosen for a character is not a violence against you, and believing that it’s a move designed just to hurt you comes off as rather paranoid and egocentric. 

It’s also worth noting that the writers stating that a character is attracted to men in no way prevents fans from shipping the character with a woman. Because, idk if you know this but… bisexuality exists!

Saying “we get it, you’re straight!” every time the character mentions having had a relationship with a guy is reductive and inaccurate.

(And I think it’s also worth noting that you’re probably making your local bisexuals uncomfortable when voicing how horrible it is that your headcanoned wlw is mentioning her relationships with men.

It may be coming from a place of “but we were attached to her being a lesbian! I was attached to her representing me, and having projected myself onto her, I feel uncomfortable when she is attracted to men,” but fans acting as if it is not simply a personal discomfort but an injustice that the character is made to be attracted to men? As a bisexual, it’s not a fun message to receive.)

And with regard to lesbian alienation in the face of discussion of relationships with men, Alex and Maggie were not uncomfortable hearing about their friends’ past significant others.

That is your personal trigger that you are projecting on two characters who are not at all left out in that situation, and who are actually—as the only characters in the room in a relationship—in a more enviable place than those there who are attracted to men.

This was a group of friends talking to each other about their past relationships. Just as it wouldn’t be wrong for your straight friends to talk about their past relationships in front of you, it is not wrong for the writers to have Alex and Maggie talk to their friends about their past relationships.

(Also, It’s likely that if Maggie were not there, they probably would have had Alex talk about her relationship with her.)

The Feminist Way:

It’s a bit of a cliche to have girls get together and talk about guys, but is it really that bad a thing? 

“But the scene perpetuates the stereotype that women get together and just talk about men!”

But the presence of stereotypical behavior within characters is alright, as long as there is enough representative content so that viewers do not get the impression that the stereotype is true for most/all people or most/all situations.

To compare, if there is a show filled with primarily bisexual characters and one of them cheats, it’s within the context of a group of bisexuals who have not cheated and thus can’t be mistaken for being representative of all bisexuals.

(This is why token characters can be so harmful.)

So if there is a show in which female characters regularly get together and interact in different ways and with varying topics, one half of a conversation in which they talk about their significant others who happen to be men is not indicative of negative representation of women.

This is why we use the Bechdel test, as low a bar as it is—to judge the discussion of men against the rest of the work. If it were not important to judge it against the whole of the text, the test would simply be “The movie has two have two female characters who never talk to each other about a man.”


Could this all have been avoided?

I really don’t think there is a different, natural way to bring up all of the elements that they wanted to bring up in this scene without mentioning significant others.

These are the topics they likely wanted to touch on:

1. Faith as a theme (“he asked me if I was baptized”)

2. Alex’s want for kids vs. Maggie not wanting them

3. Sam’s struggles with Ruby

4. Kara’s depression

Bonus: The tangible dynamic of Alex and Maggie being fully in the know with Kara, Lena knowing the half truth, and Sam knowing nothing

I’d be interested to see if any of you can actually come up with an alternative script for this scene in a way that isn’t too heavy or addressed later in the episode. 

(Using mothers as the link between these topics would work logically, with Kara’s depression being linked to the loss of her mother, but it’s a Heavy topic in a way that can’t be moved passed as easily as Kara’s “break up.” Not to mention Lena’s issues with her mom… It’d screw up the tone of the scene, and would be just a bit too on-the-nose with Alex’s current predicament. 

It’d also effectively skip through Sam’s storyline this episode right to the climax, because Lena would logically have given her the “my mom sucked, you’re doing pretty well” speech right there. (And again, that was a heavy scene that has no place at girl’s night.)

I also don’t quite know how you’d introduce faith as a theme or have Lena tell a funny story that doesn’t make everyone mildly uncomfortable if the topic is mothers.)

Perhaps you can figure out a way to have them avoid mentioning men at all, but you’re also more focused on that than the development of a natural and effective character interaction.

I think there’s a certain point where this becomes less about feminism and more about an intolerance to hearing about men.

And it’s understandable that this tolerance has suffered after last season’s focus on Mon-El to the detriment of Kara’s characterization and the Danvers Sisters interaction, but if you’re expecting them to actively avoid mentioning him or other men, you’re simply expecting too much.

anonymous asked:

I'm a lesbian and I don't want a relationship with a man or sex with one, and all my relationships with women are fulfilling and I feel so much real pleasure from them. But I have such a hard time feeling or noticing attraction to women before I've become literally intimate with them like I see a woman I can't automatically register "hot" or attraction or desire or whatever. I didn't know I liked women until I "experimented" physically why do you think this is the case for many women?

oh, this is not uncommon! I used to feel the same to a much stronger degree and still do at times, and have had so many friends come to me with the same worry. most women grow up societally anticipating, and grooming themselves for, desire for men. that is the blueprint/language of love that we learn. 

on top of the fact that most of the IRL models of intimacy we see are straight, we are also inundated with thousands of images to our brains (movies, magazines, articles, books, shows, advertisements, educational texts) of heterosexual desire. heterosexual relationships. heterosexual sex. we learn what a “desirable” man looks like. how we are supposed to feel when we interact with a man. when we first learn about sex/arousal it is via a straight lens. we do learn about women being desirable, but not re: how we could see them in this way. instead it’s “how should women work to be desirable to a man” (so it’s unsurprising that a lot of us have a disconnect where we can see and name a woman as beautiful, but don’t tie that automatically to a desire to act on a tangible attraction even tho we know we can/have had feelings for women) 

all the above is the formative input we receive while our brain develops its framework for “what is desire”, so naturally we are experts at identifying heterosexual desire. some of us gay women even create something that looks like it superficially within ourselves without a second thought.

meanwhile, when are we ever given a framework/consistent models of what desire for women could look like? many of us spend years never considering the possibility. it’s a code missing from our processing system. can we experience the attraction? clearly yes, but we aren’t given the social language to parse it, we aren’t taught how to feel and experience it, or that we even can. years of expecting to feel certain physical/emotional responses to men builds up a norm re: how we process interactions with people based on gender. for many women going into interactions with other women, their brain is not preparing to feel attraction, or even think that it could be there.

that’s why that “spark” or lightbulb moment sometimes first happens with gay or bi girls when they are put in a situation especially close with a woman in a new way. e.g crushes on childhood best friends - you’re very close physically and emotionally, and that intimacy produces feelings or desires you weren’t anticipating in the past just looking at women. same with “experimenting”  - again re: the way you looked at the world you weren’t necessarily socialized to see a woman and feel certain desires, but suddenly now you are touching a woman and those feelings are there and you’re surprised by them.

long story short, it doesn’t make you a weird lesbian to know from experience that you like sex with women, but also feel an odd disconnect when trying to view images of women or women you don’t know well as “sexy” (to you personally, not just in the “she is pretty” emotionless observation way) or connecting them to physically wanting something. 

just like we talk about gay women’s first relationships being a hot mess emotionally because they weren’t shown any models of relationships between women ever and are flying with no instruction manual, the same can happen sexually / when psychologically processing desire for other women. the means of processing, recognizing and experiencing that desire can manifest very differently or even be stunted because you weren’t prepared for it or taught that it could/should exist. 

compound this by the demoralizing and objectifying ways w/w sex is viewed and presented, and the disconnect widens even further like. I remember looking at degrading “lesbian porn”, or less degrading but “delicate, pretty, feminine” depictions of lesbian love in movies or books presented by straight directors/writers, and thinking “oh I don’t feel pulled to any of this at all”, but then having amazing lesbian sex IRL once I found a woman I was close with and realizing how much we were drawn to each other - the experiences were polar opposites. 

ofc there are probably other pieces to the puzzle especially depending on the individual that I didn’t touch on but I hope that provided some insight anon!

terfs will reach to the ends of the earth trying to drag trans people and trans activists with their biology, and their disgusting comments about anti-men, and anti-gender. but as soon as you call them out with facts you’re either misogynistic, and hate women, or lesbophobic. lmao i’m done with them

twentyone-seven  asked:

Hey there! I really really liked your blog, and I wanted to ask you, i already know my sun, moon, and rising sun, but i don't how the planet signs work. Could you explain it to me please?

Thank you! And sure, I’ll do my best

Planets: our need and drive for something

Sun: the ego, the father, need to shine, self-steem, personality traits that remain through our lives, individuality, creativity.

  • Rules Leo, Exalted in Aries, Detriment in Aquarius and Fall in Libra.
  • Takes aproximately a month to change sign.
  • Personal planet.

Moon: emotional nature, the mother, instant reactions, instincts and intuition, needs, how we feel nurtured and how we nurture others, memories.

  • Rules Cancer, Exalted in Taurus, Detriment in Capricorn, Fall in Scorpio.
  • Aproximately 2 days and  half in each sign.
  • Personal planet.

Mercury: thinking process, ideals, need to communicate, how we express ourselves, rationality.

  • Rules Gemini and Virgo, Exalted in Aquarius, Detriment in Sagittarius and Pisces, Fall in Leo
  • Can stay in a sign from 14 to 30 days in one sign depending on it’s motion.
  • Personal planet.

Venus: approaching love, affection, our beauty, need to enjoy the physical world, self value, how we interact with other people, women we attract and feel attracted to, how we make ourselves look appealing to others, feminine part of our psyche.

  • Rules Taurus and Libra, Exalted in Pisces, Detriment in Scorpio and Aries, Fall in Virgo
  • Goes from 23 days to a little over 2 months in one sign (every 8 years it returns to the same degree and over time forms the pentagram)
  • Personal planet

Mars: sex drive, asserting ourselves, how we go for what we want, energy, dealing with anger, agressiveness, where we employ our energy, men we attract and are attracted to, how we make ourselves look sexy (lilith may play a minor part on it too).

  • Rules Aries, some astrologers think it rules Scorpio too (and it did until Pluto came into the picture), Exalted in Capricorn, Detriment in Libra (and maybe Taurus if you consider Scorpio as a ruler), Fall in Cancer.
  • Takes about a month and a half to change sign.
  • Personal planet.

Jupiter: need to aspire and believe, luck, expansion, benevolence, protective urge, generosity, wisdom, things we are very good at.

  • Rules Sagittarius and Pisces (same as Scorpio it was like this until Neptune appeared, some astrologers still consider it as a ruler), Exalted in Cancer, Dertriment in Gemini and Virgo, Fall in Capricorn.
  • Remains round a year in a the same sign.

Saturn: limitations and restrictions, fears, need to test reality, need for structure, things that are hard for us, where we may feel mistreated or disappointed, urge for protection and safety, ambitions, discipline, insecurities, facing fears.

  • Rules Capricorn and Aquarius (that was before Uranus, some people still consider it as a ruler too), Exalted in Libra, Detriment in Cancer and Leo, Fall in Aries.
  • Stays in the same sign for 2 and a half years approximately.

Uranus: imagination, originality, revolution, independence, need to change, freedom urge,  where we tend to do the unusual.

  • Rules Aquarius, Exalted in Scorpio, Detriment in Leo, Fall in Taurus
  • Takes 7 years to move to the next sign.
  • Generational planet.

Neptune: illusions, dreams, intuition, spiritualism, need to trascend and emerge, abnegation, compassion, psychic abilities, urge to escape, addictions.

  • Rules Pisces, Exalted in Leo (some authors say it’s in Cancer though), Detriment in Virgo, Fall in Aquarius (or Capricorn)
  • Remains in the same sign for about 14 years.
  • Generational planet.

Pluto: transformation, destruction, rebirth, complexity, secrets, our “dark side”, need to bond intimately with our psyche and other people, obssession, death, solving problems on our own, the part of us we don’t let anyone see, subconscious.

  • Rules Scorpio, Exalted in Aries (or in Pisces according to some authors), Detriment in Taurus, Fall in Libra (or Virgo).
  • 14 to 30 years to change sign.
  • Generational planet.

Signs: how we express our planets

Aries: assertively, impulsively, dominantly, arrogantly, independently, egoistically, boldly, competitively, explosively.

Taurus: patiently, persistently, possessively, sensually, obstinately, conservatively, indulgently, greedily, carefully, calmly.

Gemini: nervously, cheerfully, versatilely, resourcefully, ungratefully, scatterbrainedly, adeptly.

Cancer: emotionally, in a manipulative way, warmly, sensitively, protectively, temperamentally, attached,  jealously.

Leo: self-absorbed, creatively, fearlessly, viciously, generously, dramatically, childishly, optimistically, confidently, vainly.

Virgo: efficiently, pragmatically, critically, modestly, shy, skeptically, petty, humanely, thoughtfully, methodically.

Libra:  diplomatically, charming, affectionately, indecisively, influenciably, contemplative, shallow, dependent.

Scorpio: obssessively, destructively, resentfully, intensely, powerfully, possessively, stubbornly, enviously, vengefully, secretively, magnetically, sexually.

Sagittarius: freely, bluntly, optimistically, idealistically, exaggeratedly, impatiently, philosophically, self-indulgent, evasively.

Capricorn: responsibly, formally, traditionally, cautiously, deeply, quietly, ambitiously, unforgiving, hardworking, egotistically, coldly.

Aquarius: eccentrically, unique, rebelliously, imaginative, logically, sincerelly, cheerfully, unpredictably, good heartedly. 

Pisces: sensitively, spiritually, pessimistically, dreamy, abnegatedly, kindly, understandingly, lack of pride, timidly, artistically, lovingly, intuitively.

Houses: where this energies are expressed

First house (AC): identity, physical body, approaching new situations/ people/ environments,  how we present ourselves to the world, first impressions.

Second house: possessions, self-worth, money, sensuality, what makes us feel secure, earining power.

Third house: communication, thinking process, siblings, short trips.

Fourth house (IC): family, stability, nurturing parent, origins, deep thoughts and desires, emotional vulnerabilities.

Fifith house: fun, casual sex, children, creativity, talents, romance, enjoying life, pleasure, risk taking.

Sixth house: work, health, routines, co-workers, attitude towards serving others, attention to details.

Seventh house (DC): marriage, partnerships, need for balance, traits we reject of ourselves, who we are attracted to, what we need to work on to become a better person, competition, helping and interacting with other people.

Eighth house: other people’s money, sex, death, rebirth, transformation, private life, sexuality, taboos, hidden fears.

Ninth house: long trips, beliefs, aspirations, religion, optimism, values, mental exploration, rewards from suffering.

Tenth house (MC): career, sense of responsibility, rule-making parent, authorities, status, social recognition, what we aspire to be and want to be admired for.

Eleventh house: groups, friends, hopes, wishes, networking, other people’s children, social concience and belonging.

Twelfth house: self undoing, sacrifice, betrayal, mysticism, subconscious, addictions, karmic debts, loss, past life, fears. 

Mental health: incredibly complex subject, where a very wide range of different factors interact in many different ways…..or something that’s entirely the fault of women having jobs?

TREVOR HAS A THEORY

(spoiler alert: it’s the women)

really not liking how “you don’t have to have kids BUT if you don’t like them you’re still a heartless monster who’s probably a child abuser” has somehow become mainstream feminist discourse on this site tbh. like these posts will always include some kind of tepid disclaimer about how they’re not claiming people (read: women) who don’t enjoy interacting with young children are automatically mean to them and/or somehow mistreat them but then proceed to make essentially that exact assumption

you all seem to be under the delusion that there exists some kind of natural automatic progression from “liking” children to actually treating them well and therefore the reverse must also be true (i.e. if you’re childfree and don’t like kids then that means you must treat them like shit when they’re around), which looooool fuck no it isn’t. i don’t particularly like kids, and yet despite not wanting to interact with most of them if i can help it, i still seem to be far more concerned about their health, safety and general mental and emotional well-being than people who just LOOOOOVE CHILDREN SO MUCH OMG but who will still emotionally and/or physically abuse the fuck out of their own kids in various ways and think that’s somehow not what they’re doing or insist that it’s justified in some way. you’ll notice that liking kids or even loving them ultimately still doesn’t seem to prevent many people from treating them like pets or trophies instead of human beings

shaming women for not possessing what you deem an acceptable level of General Maternal Instinct but dressing it up in feminist buzzwords is still a really tired, regressive and ultimately boring opinion. like at least be fucking honest about what it is that you’re doing when you make these posts, because i’ve yet to see a single “don’t be mean to children” post (a sentiment i wholeheartedly agree with btw!) that doesn’t include at least one potshot at childfree people. the truth of the matter is that women who don’t want children are considered so abnormal and even monstrous in our culture that even feminist spaces are full of this crap, hence the popularity of “it’s okay to not want kids i GUESS but you still have to constantly reassure everyone how much you love them anyway and are totally willing to perform mothering in other ways or else you’re an evil harpy”

Misogynistic twra: I PUNCH TERFS if I see you in the street I’m kicking your ass for trans women!

2 hours later: …could people please stop reblogging my post and interacting with me about it? I’m not neurotypical and discourse upsets me. This is giving me anxiety.

White women just love viewing themselves as temperate, patient teachers and use womanhood to place themselves in this position when interacting with men of color, but they hate they can’t do the same thing with women of color.

anonymous asked:

Hey ik I'm a bit late who's Candice and what happened

Candice Swanepoel is a model who works with Victoria’s Secret, she and Harry opened the show this year, and they just followed each other on instagram. Some people are already being ridiculous with their handwringing when she literally has a child and a fiance who she has been with for 12 years.