Men who want to be feminists do not need to be given a space in feminism. They need to take the space they have in society & make it feminist.
Aw Gawd, she’s back again with those rants about women and X, run for the hills!
Actually, this (hopefully) won’t be so much of a rant. It’s designed to be a catalogue of weapons, but in addition, I’ll be adding a few notes on their usage by women. Some of that will be theoretical, and some of it will be based on real figures. You’re just gonna have to trust me.
Let’s get started.
Overview: The dagger is a close combat weapon. They are typically composed of a crossguard hilt and a blade. Early daggers were more like knives and had one cutting edge, due to their use as thrusting weapons rather than swiping weapons. Their evolution has included the development of daggers without sharp edges, such as the misericorde, and those with two sharp edges. Its use isn’t limited to combat; daggers have a powerful history within the ceremonial and symbolic sectors.
Fighting with daggers requires speed and quick-thinking. The movements and techniques require the fighter to learn how to move fluidly and trick their opponent by using ‘feints’. ‘Feinting’ is delivering a partial attack, quickly withdrawing and executing another, instead. Light armour is an absolute must with this fighting style, if it’s going to be used at all, and using this weapon against a heavily armoured opponent would be a very bad idea. Daggers were a vital offhand weapon for fighters of any kind; being disarmed meant needing a spare, and in close quarters, a dagger could turn the tables in your favour.
Female Suitability: A common misconception about dagger-fighting is that it’s better to be small. That’s not necessarily true. As long as you can move quickly, you could master this fighting style. There are countless different ways of fighting with daggers, and just about as many different styles of the blades themselves. You’ll need to do some research, if you’re looking for exact descriptions of fighting styles, but in general, women who are quick on their feet and probably more slender would be able to use daggers with high levels of competency. It’s a brain-science as much as it is a physical one, so developing intellectual skills would be important. The mindset of the woman is much more important than her physique in this case; she’d need to be intellectually quick, adaptable and have a damn good poker face. Pile the ability to funnel that deviousness into her body and make that aforementioned body appropriate (realistically, slender, moderately athletic women whose weight is light enough to enable her to be swift), and you might well have a dagger mistress on your hands. In short, if we’re going D&D style, she needs enough strength to thrust, high levels of dexterity and above average intellect.
In the post-World War II era, the Klan experienced a huge resurgence. Its membership was skyrocketing, and its political influence was increasing, so Kennedy went undercover to infiltrate the group. By regularly attending meetings, he became privy to the organization’s secrets. But when he took the information to local authorities, they had little interest in using it. The Klan had become so powerful and intimidating that police were hesitant to build a case against them.
Struggling to make use of his findings, Kennedy approached the writers of the Superman radio serial. It was perfect timing. With the war over and the Nazis no longer a threat, the producers were looking for a new villain for Superman to fight. The KKK was a great fit for the role.
In a 16-episode series titled “Clan of the Fiery Cross,” the writers pitted the Man of Steel against the men in white hoods. As the storyline progressed, the shows exposed many of the KKK’s most guarded secrets. By revealing everything from code words to rituals, the program completely stripped the Klan of its mystique. Within two weeks of the broadcast, KKK recruitment was down to zero. And by 1948, people were showing up to Klan rallies just to mock them.
I ain’t the world’s best writer nor the world’s best speller
But when I believe in something I’m the loudest yeller
“Stetson Kennedy,” Woody Guthrie
If Woody Guthrie wrote a song about your merits, you freaking HAD them.
Stetson Kennedy: American Badass.
Have you heard it?
Take a listen. It’s pretty cool. YouTube’s got all sixteen episodes on it. It’s not Shakespeare, but I liked it.
It wasn’t until recently that the technique of "Character Charting" came to my attention. I’m not the one who came up with it, I don’t know who did, but I do know that it works. So, what is does: it’s a Check-Your-Work writing technique to ensure that your characters are both internally-consistent and actually growing over the course of the story. These two things are what makes characters lovable and memorable. It makes them feel real.
How it works:
1. Identify your main character & describe his or her personality. Figure out how this character reacts in certain situations. Is she combative when she faces trouble? Does he suddenly seem to know jiu jitsu when surprised by a spider? Write this down and keep it to yourself.
2. Read your story. Mark down every instance where the reader learns something about that character or where the character makes a conscious choice. Even little things count! Like if the character is helping his limping friend off a battlefield instead of just running for his own life - that’s a HUGE difference in character.
3. Check for consistency. Does he say that he really cares only about his friends, but when daunted by an evil sorcerer, runs by himself to the hills? Well, that might be interesting for character development, but it’s not so great if it wasn’t intended. This is where you’ll see the development in your characters, their growth, if they’ve grown, and where they’ll surprise the reader.
4. Make sure they do something surprising. That’s usually a sign of growth. It will shock the reader a little bit but its usually a good thing. Make sure all actions following that surprising one are consistent with the person your character has grown into.
Based on this (x). Conclusion: they’re still fuckers.
Or maybe daddy works all week to provide us money for food and clothes
Because daddy’s labour is arbitrarily placed at a higher value and the work he does all week is no more important or legitimate than domestic labour. The capital value of the same relative labour is dependent on the gender of the person its performed by, and the capital values of different, specific kinds of labour, are dependent on the gender of the person who usually performs them in a society. The work easily available to women is priced cheap or free, and the work women have to struggle harder to get is still worth less capital than that same work when performed by men.
In short, daddy gets to choose what he gets to work on, and the job he gets to choose can easily generate more than enough money to feed and shelter more than one person. In this scenario, women still have to do work, but are often forced to depend on others to support them, let alone able to consider supporting others with their labour.
In some cases, men might actually prefer their wives to do even less in terms of domestic labour, because it will be a symbol of conspicuous leisure, which is the mark of status. Women doing no work at all only happens if daddy has so much money and power that he wants to show it to people by how he can support a family with even less work on their part.
A society directing women to be dependent on men, who like their women that way, is definitively a patriarchy, and the division of labour between men and women continues to reinforce gender inequality even today.
Hopefully you can see more of the repercussions of EXACTLY WHAT WAS IMPLIED IN THE ORIGINAL POST now.
So this girl walks up to another girl and says “Hey, have you heard of the Bechdel Test?”
And the other girl says, “Yeah, my boyfriend was telling me about it the other day!”
i don’t get it
I feel like this is an inside joke that I am not getting