Avatar

No one's innocent in crime town

@thedreadvampy / thedreadvampy.tumblr.com

Ruth (aka Red), 32, she/her, Scotland. Everything fine to reblog unless otherwise stated. I don't reliably tag triggers or spoilers because I forget, so if that's an issue for you, be careful/avoid. Bi, cis, VERY white, sorta disabled, polyamorous, illustrator (art @ongoingart), Quaker, lifelong dork. My first word was 'Zaphod'. According to my dear friend Kofi, "a notable wit and raconteur." Probably NOT an octopus, several cats and a large snake in a human suit, but it's best not to check.
Avatar
Reblogged

speaking of fuckawful ideas about gender saw a tweet (yes I am still on twitter shhhhh) where someone was like

NEVER BEFORE in history has it EVER been possible for men to go without casual interaction with women!!!!! That's why men are more misogynistic than ever!!!!

and like. I agree that young men are getting into an echo chamber of manosphere bullshit. but I really think you may have Lost The Fucking Plot.

men and women's work and social spaces have historically been way more segregated than they are now. men had coffeeshops and pubs and game fields and bookmakers and racetracks and libraries and clubs. women had parlours and kitchens and doorsteps and church. the battle for women to claim out-of-the-home social space has been LONG and not easy.

I am not going back super far here. 50 years ago women

  • weren't allowed in pubs or had to sit in the ladies' bar away from the men
  • were expected to primarily work in separate parts of the office to men for the most part, if they worked at all
  • were way more likely to attend gender-segregated schools and women's colleges (again, if at all)
  • socialised almost exclusively at home and at each others' homes, and a bit in the schoolyard if they had kids

and men worked and socialised primarily or exclusively among men. many many men into the 60s and 70s:

  • went to school and college with men
  • worked with men (and maybe a secretary or a couple of women in junior roles) in an office, or with only other men on labour sites
  • went to pubs and racetracks and golf courses and football matches where women were either not allowed or not welcome
  • read books by men and newspapers by men
  • only went home to eat and sleep
  • only went to mixed-gender spaces with the specific goal of picking up women
  • has no ongoing relationships with any women but their wives, sisters, mothers and daughters

again. the historical norm is absolutely not to understand women as people.

is it true that people in The Past never had meaningful, equitable human relationships between men and women?

NOPE. BULLSHIT. PEOPLE WILL ALWAYS FIND WAYS TO CONNECT AND WOMEN ARE STILL PEOPLE EVEN WHEN SUPPRESSED.

are we living in a post-feminist utopia with equality of the genders?

NOPE. LMAO. ABSOLUTELY NOT. MANY MEN STILL DO NOT THINK WOMEN ARE PEOPLE.

does that mean The Past was way better and more equitable?

MY GUY. WOMEN LITERALLY COULD NOT OWN PROPERTY INDEPENDENTLY WITHIN MY MOTHER'S LIFETIME.

speaking of fuckawful ideas about gender saw a tweet (yes I am still on twitter shhhhh) where someone was like

NEVER BEFORE in history has it EVER been possible for men to go without casual interaction with women!!!!! That's why men are more misogynistic than ever!!!!

and like. I agree that young men are getting into an echo chamber of manosphere bullshit. but I really think you may have Lost The Fucking Plot.

men and women's work and social spaces have historically been way more segregated than they are now. men had coffeeshops and pubs and game fields and bookmakers and racetracks and libraries and clubs. women had parlours and kitchens and doorsteps and church. the battle for women to claim out-of-the-home social space has been LONG and not easy.

I am not going back super far here. 50 years ago women

  • weren't allowed in pubs or had to sit in the ladies' bar away from the men
  • were expected to primarily work in separate parts of the office to men for the most part, if they worked at all
  • were way more likely to attend gender-segregated schools and women's colleges (again, if at all)
  • socialised almost exclusively at home and at each others' homes, and a bit in the schoolyard if they had kids

and men worked and socialised primarily or exclusively among men. many many men into the 60s and 70s:

  • went to school and college with men
  • worked with men (and maybe a secretary or a couple of women in junior roles) in an office, or with only other men on labour sites
  • went to pubs and racetracks and golf courses and football matches where women were either not allowed or not welcome
  • read books by men and newspapers by men
  • only went home to eat and sleep
  • only went to mixed-gender spaces with the specific goal of picking up women
  • has no ongoing relationships with any women but their wives, sisters, mothers and daughters

again. the historical norm is absolutely not to understand women as people.

here's the thing. I don't think that men and women can't be friends. I do think, however, that some men can't be friends with women. bc they are misogynists and don't see women as people. so if you as a man say men and women can't be friends I think you're telling on yourself

Avatar
Reblogged

still feeling disoriented about waking up from a migraine today to find multiple people replying to my “it sucks to imply that being unpersoned is gender-affirming for women and therefore less objectionable” with exactly that. jesus christ.

in the context of discussing the social history of the role of Wife in cultures where anyone in the Wife Role would simply not have civil rights, it is incoherent to propose a hierarchy of who was More Victimized by being legal property. insisting that actually trans men had it so much worse because they were punished for not conforming to gender roles is nonsensical when the gender role being talked about is being unpersoned. like. “not wanting to be raped by a husband” was gender-nonconformity. “wanting basic human rights” was departing from gender roles. to suggest that trans men were obviously harmed more by lack of those rights is, yeah, wildly misogynist because it implies that women experience lack of rights as gender-affirming and thus naturally handle it better. which sucks! that’s a fucking shitass thing to suggest and you should care about not believing it! and the fact that so many of you interpret “stop saying shit that betrays a subconscious belief that women are lesser people” as an Attack On Trans Men is horrifying and you should be ashamed of yourselves!

(This article is behind a paywall, so hit yon readmore for the full text)

January 13, 2026

The plan was never to become an ICE agent.

The plan, when I went to the Immigration and Customs Enforcement Career Expo in Texas last August, was to learn what it was like to apply to be an ICE agent. Who wouldn’t be curious? The event promised on-the-spot hiring for would-be deportation officers: Walk in unemployed, walk out with a sweet $50k signing bonus, a retirement account, and a license to brutalize the country’s most vulnerable residents without consequence—all while wrapped in the warm glow of patriotism.

At first glance, my résumé has enough to tantalize a recruiter for America’s Gestapo-in-waiting: I enlisted in the Army straight out of high school and deployed to Afghanistan twice with the 82nd Airborne Division. After I got out, I spent a few years doing civilian analyst work. With a carefully arranged, skills-based résumé—one which omitted my current occupation—I figured I could maybe get through an initial interview.

The catch, however, is that there’s only one “Laura Jedeed” with an internet presence, and it takes about five seconds of Googling to figure out how I feel about ICE, the Trump administration, and the country’s general right-wing project. My social media pops up immediately, usually with a preview of my latest posts condemning Trump’s unconstitutional, authoritarian power grab. Scroll down and you’ll find articles with titles like “What I Saw in LA Wasn’t an Insurrection; It Was a Police Riot” and “Inside Mike Johnson’s Ties to a Far-Right Movement to Gut the Constitution.” Keep going for long enough and you might even find my dossier on AntifaWatch, a right-wing website that lists alleged members of the supposed domestic terror organization. I am, to put it mildly, a less-than-ideal recruit.

If you're wondering why I haven't been around much, surprise! | live in South Minneapolis where things have been pretty bad. BUT my South Minneapolis friends and neighbors have been wonderful. I love my neighborhood and my city. We keep us safe.

For Minnesota residents, Defend612 has some great resources in the links.

ALSO if you're a cartoonist or a comics person, I invite you to journal your experience of how ICE has impacted your life with your own four-panel comics! I'd love to connect with you.

Stay frosty, but abolish ICE.

Avatar
Reblogged

My local mayor posted this and I'm mesmerised. Every time I look at it I spot a new problem. It's like a rorschach test.

Not only did the AI fail to make a functioning UK map despite TONS of accurate maps available, but then a team of people actually thought "that looks about right, that's probably the North, it's got at least one Hull that'll do" and posted it.

I'm so relieved you understand my crisis ^

Me when I tell two of my friends we’ll meet up at the station in Warrington:

if you have a regularly scheduled panic attack at work that's fine right? like that's probably ok?

I wanna say I hate my job but the problem is I don't hate my job, I really like my job and I would like to stay in my job.

unfortunately there's this whole set of entirely necessary professional interactions that make me physically ill because the fucking head of services makes me so stressed out and triggers my shit so much that I have to carve out time for a 45 minute crying jag after any call with her. and you cannot. as the communications manager in a service delivery organisation. avoid talking to the service management. that isn't a negotiable part of the job. and it is a part of the job that, again, Literally Makes Me Physically Ill.

Avatar
Reblogged

speaking of misogyny why the fuck is half my day suddenly people saying 'uwu remember #NotAllMen are bad! don't let feminism make you think all men are bad! don't hate men!'

what is it goddamn 2010 in here? is this the priority at a time when violence against women and reactionary antifeminist politics are surging?

I am not fucking around when I say this really frightens me

'of course feminism but don't forget to be nice to men!' and the idea that by default feminism is a politic of manhating is a really long-standing and really effective attack on feminism

and I do not think it's a coincidence that as the mainstream politics in the US and UK get more explicitly antifeminist, British and American social justice blogs have started posting 'be feminist but don't let feminism trick you into hating men!!!!'

and the posts I'm seeing are explicitly saying 'feminism might make you think men are bad' btw. feminism is the explicit threat. which I do not think is improved by 'of course I'm a feminist and you should be a feminist but...'

(in 2009 I too generally said 'I'm a feminist but not one of those manhating feminazis!!! like I am a Reasonable Feminist I don't want to go too far!!!!')

btw don't want to leave it unsaid but a large part of why 'don't be mean to men!' is an effective attack on feminism

is specifically because. a large part of the social conditioning of both men and women is centred on it being really important to respect men

in terms of historical gender construction: where women are allowed personhood, it's contingent on it not being oppositional to men's. you may be independent while waiting to be told what to do, or if it's aligned with what men want you to do, but you're not capable of adequate independent thought for your decisions not to be outweighed by men's decisions.

the Gender Crime feminists are committing is not dropping their insistence on being people when men are unhappy about it. and men will be unhappy about it because Men. as a class not necessarily as individuals. have a specific vested interest in maintaining a relationship with Women where their opinions and wants are consistently prioritised.

Men, as a class, are in an oppressive relationship with Women, as a class. Part of the definition of Men as a class is that they have mastery over women.

That doesn't mean that men individually necessarily have or use full access to that power. Part of maintaining Men as a class is rigid gender policing and internal hierarchy, and this class dynamic intersects with other class dynamics. And men do have individual agency.

You can be refused access to the full class of Man, and be treated instead as a partial or failed man and punished for gender failure. You can be a Man, but be a Black Man or a Disabled Man or a Poor Man etc and be simultaneously handed power over Women while Women who are White or Abled or Rich are handed power over you, such that you can only really exercise power downwards.

And you can also. be a class traitor. it's an option and one that you're more likely to take if you have your own experiences with misogyny or gender deviance or meaningful equal relationships with Women. but like. that doesn't erase the nature of the class relationship, and it is an active choice that is significantly helped by recognising the underlying class systems.

you'll note nowhere in there am I saying men don't suffer, or that we should actively be seeking to hurt men. the usual position painted as 'man-hating feminism' imo is just saying. maybe it matters As Much how Women feel about a thing as how Men do.

which it does. because women are people.

Avatar
Reblogged

speaking of misogyny why the fuck is half my day suddenly people saying 'uwu remember #NotAllMen are bad! don't let feminism make you think all men are bad! don't hate men!'

what is it goddamn 2010 in here? is this the priority at a time when violence against women and reactionary antifeminist politics are surging?

I am not fucking around when I say this really frightens me

'of course feminism but don't forget to be nice to men!' and the idea that by default feminism is a politic of manhating is a really long-standing and really effective attack on feminism

and I do not think it's a coincidence that as the mainstream politics in the US and UK get more explicitly antifeminist, British and American social justice blogs have started posting 'be feminist but don't let feminism trick you into hating men!!!!'

and the posts I'm seeing are explicitly saying 'feminism might make you think men are bad' btw. feminism is the explicit threat. which I do not think is improved by 'of course I'm a feminist and you should be a feminist but...'

(in 2009 I too generally said 'I'm a feminist but not one of those manhating feminazis!!! like I am a Reasonable Feminist I don't want to go too far!!!!')

in the contemporary world, the most fundamental human right - and, it often seems, the least protected one - is "being both Allowed and Able to go Somewhere Else." the rest is commentary.

the torments of prison are predicated on Not Letting You Leave. the most terrifying and degrading aspects of childhood are predicated on Not Letting You Leave. misogynists wail and moan and fearmonger about divorce and equal opportunity employment because they Allow Wife To Leave. borders and immigration restrictions exist, in no small part, to Prevent People From Leaving countries where they will be exploited and/or oppressed. fuck you for trying to leave. fuck you for exerting any control over your life whatsoever. that makes you the one at fault, actually.

david graeber described three fundamental freedoms: freedom to move, freedom to disobey orders, and freedom to reorganize social relations

fundamental human right

like I really think people sometimes forget that a foundational precept of hundreds (if not thousands) of consecutive years of cultural gender roles are built around the idea that women are, at best, conditionally people.

sometimes women are capable of being people, but expected to stop it if it gets in the way. sometimes, women are just straight up understood as incapable of original thought.

that doesn't mean women ever have been incapable of original thought or agency. but the cultural class of Woman hasn't historically included space to both express independent agency and be Correctly Womaning.

because most people no longer explicitly say that, it's easy to overlook. but that is the foundation of the current system of gender roles.

Avatar
Reblogged

there is not a difference between homophobia, transphobia and misogyny. they're not three separate systems. they're one system expressing itself multiple ways.

arguing about whether eg violence against transmascs is more rooted in homophobia, transphobia, """"androphobia"""" or misogyny is pure semantics

because those are different names for overlapping elements of the same system of cisheteronormative gender policing. which is perfectly capable of punishing someone for failing to meet norms of womanhood and norms of manhood at the same time, and which treats gender transition, gender nonconformity and non-heterosexuality as entirely interchangeable.

I am just saying a lot of conversations on here are entirely baffling to me because they seem way more focused on granular terminology over recognising that cisnormativity, heteronormativity, and misogyny aren't just interlocking systems, they're the same system focused differently on different people.

it isn't that everything boils down to misogyny or that everything boils down to cisheteronormativity

other systems of oppression are both enormously impactful and intersect often with this one

but a LOT OF STUFF

a loooooot of stuff

boils down to:

  • the only acceptable ways of being are within binary and socially enforced gender roles
  • those roles are rigidly hierarchical and only one of them uncontroversially includes Being A Person
  • those roles are directly tied to a sexual dynamic which is focused on a) heterosexuality and b) a male-agent female-object paradigm where the Man acts on the Woman based on the Man's desires

all sorts of stuff troubles that dynamic. being gay. being trans. being active in sexual dynamics as a Woman-Type or passive in sexual dynamics as a Man-Type. excusing yourself from heterosexuality or from sexuality entirely. acting outside your socially assigned role (which for women includes Existing As An Individual Agent Separate From Men).

and if you are seriously moved outside of gender classes, you can be punished simultaneously for being a woman wrong and for being a man wrong! yaaaaaay!

Avatar
Reblogged

it’s frustrating when you’re talking about an inherently oppressive institution that dehumanizes everyone who is subjected to it and someone is like “it’s especially bad for those it is incorrectly applied to!” as though being the intended victim of an injustice makes it less of a tragedy

been thinking about this lately after some discussions about historical marriage where people have chimed in about how extra awful it would have been for trans men forced into The Wife Role because of dysphoria. which like. yeah. but the thing about The Wife Role in the context of not having civil rights and being the property of a husband is that it is inherently dysphoria-inducing to anyone who identifies as a human being instead of an object.

[opens notes] Jesus CHRIST you people are fucking hopeless I have no fucking words

WOMEN ARE PEOPLE!!!!! ohhh my god WOMEN ARE PEOPLE what is WRONG WITH YOUUUUUU

Sponsored

You are using an unsupported browser and things might not work as intended. Please make sure you're using the latest version of Chrome, Firefox, Safari, or Edge.