I Never Understood Why When People Say They Identify With A Different Culture Because They Like The Stereotypical

I never understood why when people say they identify with a different culture because they like the stereotypical things associated with that culture (for example, koreaboos), everyone sees it for the fetishization it is and makes fun of them, but when people say they identify with the other gender because they like the stereotypical things associated with that gender, that suddenly makes perfect sense and they should be encouraged to 'live as their most authentic selves' even if it means making others uncomfortable and even putting women's safety at risk.

I got receipts receipts

“what oppression do women face? what rights don’t they already have?” let me explain something very simple to you. having laws that permit women to have jobs, divorce men, abort, or kill in self-defense is literally 25% of the battle. why? because of infrastructure and societal bias.

for example, it is technically illegal to rape (legislation) yet few rapists are ever convicted and even if they are, their sentences never match the crime. why? for one, it’s hard for girls and women of challenging socioeconomic backgrounds to access services or resources like rape kits or information on how to seek legal assistance; and in the course of this, the police men are likely to sexually abuse them as well, resulting in more trauma and reducing their chances at seeking justice (infrastructure). even if a woman were to get a job (and the law doesn’t allow discrimination), if the social bias is that she can’t perform well, she is still less likely to be hired. if she is hired, she is more likely to be underpaid (read up on the velvet or pink ghetto).

government (legislation and judiciary) are reflective of social consciousness. they may agree with the rights of women (sometimes) on paper, but whether or not they are meaningfully enforced is completely up to those with the most socioeconomic power, which, for now, is largely still men (in that men maintain most of the wealth, property, and high opinion in a populace, they also control most popular metanarratives via religion, education, pornography and entertainment which means they largely control public perception). because men in patriarchal society keep their resources to themselves and seek to elevate only themselves. racism can be illegal, and still rampant, in a country. so it is with misogyny and homophobia.

if men hate women in a system that has long been organized to benefit them, a few legislative changes won’t automatically change that system. it has to be altered structurally and socially as well.

and that takes a whole lot more fighting

that alternative ending where the tb stayed on the space station and became a researcher. how much angst do you think it can contain

Feixiao! 🔥 commission for HSR

my xilonen design!! this is what she looks like in my heart… 🫶

I don't think it's quite right to say that "nature is intrinsically patriarchal", nor that physical strength equates to dominance. Bonobos are one of the apes most genetically related to humans, and they're known for being matriarchal, or at the very least gender-equal in lower ranks, and their males are larger and stronger than the females, too.

The reason we would return to the violence of the past if we were to strip away modern protections is because patriarchy is already ingrained in our lives and we haven't experienced anything else. If humans were wiped out and they evolved again, they might initially evolve to be female-centered again, as they did the first time. Or they might not, it's impossible to say unless the exact same factors that led to the evolution of humans in the first place were recreated.

I don't think there's anything about society that "simply arises from nature", everything is a product of multiple factors. I don't see why we should accept misogyny as "a natural inclination" when it could simply be considered a consequence of the fact that, when the population growth which resulted from the successful social organisation started endangering the species who suddenly needed more food, men's physical strength was a more useful skill when humans started fighting for resources. Perhaps if there were more resources, or less people, there would have been no need for the aggression brought about by the need for survival and societies would have evolved more peacefully, without the constant wars men are so fond of, and then gender equality would have been just as natural.

Or perhaps the end result would have still been the same because men would have still started wars the moment they found out another settlement had something they didn't and refused to trade. Or perhaps not, because if women were still in charge at that point, they would have been more likely to initiate peaceful trading with other groups and less likely to start conflicts if faced with rejection, and eventually, without the need for survival interfering, human consciousness would have evolved to a point where they didn't feel comfortable attacking other humans for resources they didn't necessarily need. Regardless, I don't think patriarchy (or any kind of oppression, for that matter) is our natural state as animals.

https://vt.tiktok.com/ZS2cJ2a62/

This one of hers is very interesting… hmm, I have a lot of conflicting thoughts …

Radical feminism acknowledges the existence of the 2 sexes, and how the differences between male and female humans created patriarchy.

Men were able to use their physical strength and the advantages of not having to endure/ survive child birth to create systems of oppression.

But at the same time, there were quite a few pre-agricultural revolution societies that were matriarchal, with men hunting large game making them vulnerable and easily lost to the tribes… so hmm.

Nature definitely plays a huge role in patriarchy and how it’s the oldest oppression, and how every culture around the world currently oppresses women: but is it our natural state as animals? I don’t think so… I need read more on the subject tho, it’s very fascinating!