Freedom In Wickedness

It is a consistent theme in past cultures that elite courtesans were often the only truly free women. They were women of intellect, education, and power in worlds which denied that a woman could be anything.

It's time to reclaim that heritage.



I want a story about Brooklyn residents and their POV after Steve moves back and is an Avenger and fighting and then coming home to Brooklyn and everyone simultaneously unphased and blasé but also alternately super protective and proud of their hometown hero.


This is why Steve will never, EVER forgive the Dodgers.

(Source: shieldsexual)

18 hours ago - 6302 -

Transgender Activists Harm Women



Rather people like it or not there are certain facts in this world. One of them being biological sex is not a social construct. A social construct is not tangible, but your sex organs are. Gender is a social construct in that one can not touch it for it is something chosen for them. Ignoring the…

Well first off you just dumped a steaming pile of steroetypes on us in a very typical fashion.

Never had a wig…almost never wear make-up or dresses.

But as I said first off.

You’re massively gaslighting Trans People here not all are violent or angry but we are all marginalized and labeled by posts like this. 

Gender is identity and that is different by far that what you’re ascribing it to.

Tell trans people the a social construct isn’t tangible the next time one of us is murdered because of your transphobia creating a narrative that creates a horizontal violence allowance.

You people are telling in the very posts and screeds like this, that it’s punishing something wrong that only you say is wrong.

Your transphobia enables the violence.

(via baileysummers)

4 days ago - 29 -

Blog Post: Frenkel's Lie


So, one of the things that affected the committee’s “sentence” for Jim Frenkel was his claim that his settlement with his former employer Tor (an imprint of Macmillan Publishing) would prevent him from speaking publicly about his conduct for five years, which would be four years now. The existence of this injunction became the basis for the time period before Frenkel could petition for readmission, since they couldn’t expect him to apologize and acknowledge what he did publicly before that.

I’ve said before that it was completely unnecessary for WisCon to incorporate this supposed settlement into their decision. Even if one accepts the idea that he could acknowledge his wrongdoing and petition for re-entry, any legal trouble that would prevent him from doing so until a certain date would be his problem. Setting the timetable based on neither helps nor harms him from a strictly objective standpoint.

Yesterday, it came out—confirmed by the legal department of Macmillan—that he was bound to no such agreement. He straight up lied about its existence.

Some people have positioned this as him lying to avoid apologizing, or lying to avoid punishment. I’m not sure that the second is exactly accurate—by which I mean, I don’t know that he actually avoided punishment by it—but the fact is, they’re both far too innocent a description for what happened here.

What he did was lie to avoid acknowledging his conduct, publicly and on the record.

Jim Frenkel is a serial harasser and abuser of women. I saw a disagreement on Twitter earlier today about whether he had really “flown under the radar” or whether he was a “known quantity”, and the fact is, he was both. Some people knew, some people didn’t, and the things that some people knew differed in apparent context and magnitude.

A man like this depends on the fact that information is compartmentalized, even within a community. A man like this needs to be able to shake his sadly and say, “Well, that’s their story.” or chuckle wryly and say, “The things they say about me.” or “You know these things have a way of getting blown out of proportion.” or (if he has the right audience) “Women, right?”, whenever there’s even a glancing mention of his past conduct.

He has to be able to spin off the things that “everyone knows” about him as so much rumor and innuendo and exaggeration to the people who aren’t part of the everyone who knows them.

The question of why it took so long for him to suffer any real consequences is a complicated and sad one involving many failings, societal and personal. I have to imagine that the matter of why now, though… the question of why critical mass started to build up around 2010 and a tipping point was reached between 2013 and 2014 has a lot to do with the internet, with the way that it has de-compartmentalized information and brought people together, and even changed the way that many people think about and deal with these things in offline spaces.

Frenkel has not acknowledged his conduct in any public space or forum. He showed up this year at WisCon 38 to assert his innocence. A man like this will privately express “regret” show “contrition” when necessary, but to have a public statement from his own lips or fingers where he owns up to what he did would be devastating. That’s the Game Over.

Or at least, a major setback. He might be arrogant enough to believe he could still spin that as an unfair condition that he was forced to accept, and might be charming enough to sell that to some people.

The bottom line is, the fact that Jim Frenkel lied about this and the circumstances of the lie are collectively one of the most dangerous indicators of his true character yet revealed. They reveal that his contrition is a sham, they reveal that his manipulations are deliberate and calculated, and they reveal that his intentions are not to change his ways, not any more and for any longer than he has to, in order to continue to get away with this.

I know a lot of people have been hoping that the sub-committee’s decision would be revoked and substituted with another one. I know virtually everyone has been hoping that they will at least release an official clarification to firm up the timeline. I don’t know what the conversation around this in the ConCom looks like right now, or even if it’s still continuing.

I would certainly hope that the knowledge that he lied to the sub-committee would on its face be enough to end the debate and merit a permanent ban. I can sadly imagine people who still value loyalty over member safety, con ideals, or even the reputation of the con making the argument that there’s no rule that says that and it’s not like he was testifying under oath, which ignores the implication of the lie.

On the chance that the debate is still for whatever reason raging, I’d like to offer a way forward that doesn’t require another sub-committee and doesn’t require another decision of the same complexity.

The original decision mentioned that his provisional right to return would be subject to evidence of either substantial change in behavior, or continued problematic behavior. We now have evidence of continued problematic behavior, intent to continue problematic behavior, and fabricated evidence of changed behavior that calls into question .

My understanding is that the original decision was meant to say that there would be a hearing for this evidence in four years’ time. Well, for whatever reason, it doesn’t actually say that. Anywhere. All it says is that WisCon will entertain “grounded, substantive evidence” that he’s changed, and also any evidence against him. Well, we have the evidence against him, and this evidence makes it hard to believe any evidence he provides would be substantive or grounded.

So my suggestion to the ConCom is this: in keeping with the wording of the original decision and in light of the evidence, kick him out the door and lock it behind him. No hearing. He blew it. He’s gone.

Here’s hoping that you’re way ahead of me and these words are completely superfluous.

comment count unavailable comments

4 days ago - 7 -

On Political Lesbianism



Political lesbianism is an ideological concept introduced by the second-wave feminist movement which dictates that straight women should identify as “lesbian” as an ideological affiliation based on the rejection of males. Political lesbianism redefines being lesbian as

why is this real how is this real fucking stupid straight people just coming around declaring themselves more gay than gays because it “helps” their political affiliation??? this is disgusting i am disgusted i can’t believe you would further marginalize and already marginalized group of people for fuck’s sake

Not only is it (unfortunately) real, it’s been going on for a long time. Sheila Jeffreys launched her career as a radical feminist with this concept back in 1979, and it has caught on to a frightening degree.

5 days ago - 285 -


you know how dudes always complain about how women who write fanfiction Can’t Get Male Characters Right. that might be my favorite part about fanfiction. i love “feminized” male characters, i love it when masculinity is written as this distorted alien fetish object, as a caricature, i love any and all aspects of the Female Gaze that piss men off. i love being able to read every male character as either a girl or a girl’s fantasy

(via destroyedforcomfort)









Imagine stabbing someone with this knife. 

It would instantly cauterize the wound, so the person wouldn’t bleed, so it’s not very useful.

if you want information it is

and above, in order, we see a gryffindor, a ravenclaw, and a slytherin

why would you stab a PERSON when you can have TOAST?

There’s the hufflepuff

but is it WARM TOAST all the way through?  Don’t want it cold partway if the bread has been sitting there partly toasted.  

Ravenclaw again









Imagine stabbing someone with this knife. 

It would instantly cauterize the wound, so the person wouldn’t bleed, so it’s not very useful.

if you want information it is

and above, in order, we see a gryffindor, a ravenclaw, and a slytherin

why would you stab a PERSON when you can have TOAST?

There’s the hufflepuff

but is it WARM TOAST all the way through?  Don’t want it cold partway if the bread has been sitting there partly toasted.  

Ravenclaw again

(Source: picapixels)

Since her death in 1979, the woman who discovered what the universe is made of has not so much as received a memorial plaque. Her newspaper obituaries do not mention her greatest discovery. […] Every high school student knows that Isaac Newton discovered gravity, that Charles Darwin discovered evolution, and that Albert Einstein discovered the relativity of time. But when it comes to the composition of our universe, the textbooks simply say that the most abundant atom in the universe is hydrogen. And no one ever wonders how we know.

Jeremy Knowles, discussing the complete lack of recognition Cecilia Payne gets, even today, for her revolutionary discovery. (via alliterate)


Cecilia Payne’s mother refused to spend money on her college education, so she won a scholarship to Cambridge.

Cecilia Payne completed her studies, but Cambridge wouldn’t give her a degree because she was a woman, so she said fuck that and moved to the United States to work at Harvard.

Cecilia Payne was the first person ever to earn a Ph.D. in astronomy from Radcliffe College, with what Otto Strauve called “the most brilliant Ph.D. thesis ever written in astronomy.”

Not only did Cecilia Payne discover what the universe is made of, she also discovered what the sun is made of (Henry Norris Russell, a fellow astronomer, is usually given credit for discovering that the sun’s composition is different from the Earth’s, but he came to his conclusions four years later than Payne—after telling her not to publish).

Cecilia Payne is the reason we know basically anything about variable stars (stars whose brightness as seen from earth fluctuates). Literally every other study on variable stars is based on her work.

Cecilia Payne was the first woman to be promoted to full professor from within Harvard, and is often credited with breaking the glass ceiling for women in the Harvard science department and in astronomy, as well as inspiring entire generations of women to take up science.

Cecilia Payne is awesome and everyone should know her.

(via bansheewhale)

(via in-a-drought-lioness)

Radical feminists: the sex industry is dangerous to women!
Sex workers: I experience these dangers and also depend on my job to support myself, so will you support me in making my working conditions safer?
Radical feminists: the sex industry results in human trafficking!
Sex workers: actually, sex trafficking statistics are confused with trafficking statistics for domestic labor and often include voluntary sex workers such as migrant workers.
Radical feminists: the sex industry causes rape!
Sex workers: we're at risk of violence due to stigma surrounding our work that results in an inability to report that basically allows rapists to target us without giving us any recourse.
Radical feminists: we need to shut down the sex industry to protect these women!
Sex workers: forcing us out of our jobs is just going to force us into poverty though, why don't you listen to us and help us make our work safer?
Radical feminists: false consciousness! handmaidens of the patriarchy!
Sex workers: I thought you wanted to help us?
Radical feminists: fuck you for selling out women! You deserve what you get! Throwing women under the bus!
Sex workers: . . .
Radical feminists: I only care about trafficked women!
Sex trafficking survivors: criminalization actually makes things worse for us by contributing to stigma, statist violence and limiting our ability to access support through peer-based organizations and other workers
Radical feminists: abolish the sex industry!
Sex workers and trafficking survivors: . . .


Radfems wanna talk shit about how trans women are “socialized differently” from cis women. But non-white women are socialized differently from white women; Indigenous women are socialized differently from non-Indigenous women. Poor women are socialized differently from rich women. Women are socialized differently because they are raised in all kinds of environments with all kinds of privileges and disadvantages—it doesn’t negate their identity as a woman.

Like, you don’t get to fucking pick and choose whose gender identity is invalid because of a different upbringing. If I told a white woman that she isn’t a woman because she grew up white, cis, and rich, then these people would attack the fuck out of me. But they’re somehow allowed to decide that AMAB women aren’t women.

This is something I’ve spent a lot of time and energy analyzing, both on my own and as part of the numerous psychology, sociology, and women’s studies classes I’ve been a part of.

This idea of a totally universal “female socialization” which transcends race, class, culture, and every possible demographic factor lies at the heart of both the overt transmisogyny and the tacit racism of radical feminism. It’s basically radical feminists taking the informal zeitgeist of the second wave white feminist movement — the “sisterhood of all women” — and turning it into the defining cornerstone of a formalized ideology. In doing so, they took the fact that second wave feminism already overemphasized and centered on upper-class white cis women, turned it up to eleven, and then declared it to be Unchallengeable Holy Writ.

And then, as bell hooks pointed out right back then — one doesn’t need to look far at all to see them being called out on this — they sold out actual radicalism in order to gain institutional power for themselves in academia. Which insulates them even more from the lived realities of unprivileged women, even as they point to their Holy Writ as an excuse for why they don’t need to include anyone outside of their ivory tower echo chamber, it’s all covered and they can’t possibly be wrong.

(Source: witchy-moomin, via lisaquestions)


transmisogynist colonial anthropologists tend to make a lot of the ‘fact’ that a lot of the cultures they’re producing a discourse on ‘only’ have trans identity categories for transfeminine AMAB people

the argument is that because our current, deeply colonial interpretation of historical data collected by literal white supremacist colonists doesn’t identify transmasculine AFAB people in colonial-era indigenous societies, that those identities never existed

this selective blindness is the result of settler discourses having, in most cases, almost completely obliterated our own traditions. settler transmisogyny would have been far more surprised to see indigenous trans women and to identify them as such than it would have been to see indigenous trans men (who they’d be more likely to have read as just Women Doing Things Men Usually Do)

then those people all die and the only records we have to look at are the settlers’ ones, which only mention the ~men performing women’s social roles~ becuase that’s what scandalised them

you can’t draw reliale decolonial conclusions about our precolonial societies from archives created solely by settlers, that’s two distinct transmisogynist alien perspectives and you’re not going to be interfacing with our genuine traditions at all. 

I am an adult female human being. A woman. I am also a trans person. This is fact.






And, as is typical of facts people don’t like, it seems to make people make up all kinds of lies about me.

Which makes them terrible human beings.

So you are a man that dresses like a woman and has a mental illness…

I’m against hate towards anyone but I dislike those who ignore fact and harass other more than anything.

And here we have a radical feminist aggressively defending a LITERAL NAZI — a self-described National Socialist complete with fucking swastika — because the Nazi is attacking a trans woman. The radical feminist literally asserts that harassment BY A NAZI is justified because transphobia is fact-based.

1 week ago - 115 -


I loved this so much. It was really one of the first times I saw a female character address sexism onscreen and it made a HUGE impact on me. She was scared, she was the girlfriend of one of the leads, but she was still capable, brave, intelligent and she was the girlfriend because she wanted to be, not because she had to be for the hero to have someone to save.

I love you, Dr. Satler. Never change. 

It’s actually both sexist and unethical for her to be the girlfriend, because the book clearly states that she’s a grad student under Dr. Grant and has a fiance (he just isn’t around). Grant is her mentor and friend; he’s not a romantic interest.

The movie changed this because they decided they HAD TO at least hint at a romantic subplot. Which is total bullshit.

(Source: yourfireflycatchingdays, via sonneillonv)

Here I’ve constructed a flow diagram of the “respectability politics” that is so widely practiced by both cis LGB people and cis feminists against trans women, and by white feminists against women of color. Note that this isn’t exclusive to these movements but a fundamental hypocrisy I see in virtually every Western civil rights movement, especially when they “make it” and can gain institutional power by cozying into the system.

Here I’ve constructed a flow diagram of the “respectability politics” that is so widely practiced by both cis LGB people and cis feminists against trans women, and by white feminists against women of color. Note that this isn’t exclusive to these movements but a fundamental hypocrisy I see in virtually every Western civil rights movement, especially when they “make it” and can gain institutional power by cozying into the system.


In the end Belle just brought out a mirror and Gaston managed to distract himself for like a week

(via jemeryl)

"Science" Magazine Runs Transmisogynistic Cover, Editor Tweets ‘Deception’ Tropes When Challenged


“Science” Magazine Runs Transmisogynistic Cover, Editor Tweets ‘Deception’ Tropes When Challenged


One of the best known and most respected publications in science and technology chose to run a sexualized, transmisogynistic photo for its cover this week, and when the editor was challenged on twitter for pandering to the male gaze, he responded that he thought it would be interesting what would happen when those males “find out.”

While the focus of Sciencemagazine’s July 11 issue on combating…

View On WordPress

It really shows just how endemic transmisogyny is to mainstream feminism when a man’s first response to feminist criticism is, “Oh, but those were trans women!” in the clear expectation that cis feminists will respond, “Oh, that’s okay then! Carry on!”

(via ananiujitha)