I scheduled this to repost exactly one year later

These may be my last words or the last time I write a post, so I will not forgive anyone who sees this post and does not support me with a single word and ignores me.

I write this while writhing in pain, my eyes constantly brimming with tears. I can't bear this anymore. I'm utterly exhausted from severe anemia, the fainting spells I'm experiencing, and the exorbitant price of the medication I need.

All I care about is getting rid of the fainting spells I experience and the constant pain. Please help me buy my medication so my body can recover and I can continue living.

Please donate if you can. Your donation will enable me to buy my medication, and will save me, stop the fainting spells I experience, and end the constant pain.

please donate

There is only so much suffering one person can endure before resilience and hope is overtaken by desperation and despair. Please donate. Help him find relief from this pain and the means to escape this nightmare.

Fadel is still ill and in pain. Please share and give what you can for his vetted campaign. every bit helps him get the medical care he desperately needs!

My friends, please help me. You are my last hope. You are the only ones who can save me. Please donate to me. I desperately need all the help I can get so I can buy my medicine as soon as possible. Please donate.

For the love of all things holy, please stop referring to anatomy as "Afab and Amab" anatomy. Call it a penis. Call it a vagina. Say uterus. Say peope with penises, people with vulvas, people with uteruses. Please, AFAB anatomy and AMAB anatomy means nothing.

but... why do you need to know what parts someone has? it makes sense to know if they were afab or amab bcs it gives information on the gendered education they received. beyond that i don't care? if dick or pussy or both or neither?

The only way forward is to stop treating masculinity as synonymous with harmful, monstrous, or dangerous.

There is a fundamental difference between "men are dangerous" (wrong, bioessentialist) and "the patriarchy allows dangerous men to exist unchecked" (true).

Masculinity is a socialised concept though. It’s really not bio essentialist to see masculinity in a negative light. It says fundamentally nothing about how you see men, just that you don’t like role based thinking or the ‚male role’. Depending on how a man defines masculinity, esp with lots of social narratives aiding that the result def can be dangerous and harmful and often is.

We should also probably consider femininity in a negative light as well, since it is a patriarchy-based socialized concept that monopolizes gentleness and softness as woman-only traits, when in fact people of any kind can be gentle and soft. It exists only to force people into a different box.

Femininity might not be pretending to be superior, but it is still a problematic role because it was created/defined by patriarchy. The traits associated with it (gentleness, nurturing, etc) need to be decoupled from it, just like the traits from masculinity. This kind of gets to the point I'm making here- men should not have to be more feminine in order to be deemed 'good' or 'not dangerous'; what he needs to be is a good person. Both of these boxes that have been created by patriarchy are ultimately shitty and need to gradually be done away with. A man who likes roses and pink isn't 'being feminine'; he likes roses and pink. Same with a woman. Those things aren't 'feminine', they just are what they are. Grouping them with one 'type' of person of a body type is a problem to begin with.

The only way forward is to stop treating masculinity as synonymous with harmful, monstrous, or dangerous.

There is a fundamental difference between "men are dangerous" (wrong, bioessentialist) and "the patriarchy allows dangerous men to exist unchecked" (true).

Masculinity is a socialised concept though. It’s really not bio essentialist to see masculinity in a negative light. It says fundamentally nothing about how you see men, just that you don’t like role based thinking or the ‚male role’. Depending on how a man defines masculinity, esp with lots of social narratives aiding that the result def can be dangerous and harmful and often is.

We should also probably consider femininity in a negative light as well, since it is a patriarchy-based socialized concept that monopolizes gentleness and softness as woman-only traits, when in fact people of any kind can be gentle and soft. It exists only to force people into a different box.

Femininity might not be pretending to be superior, but it is still a problematic role because it was created/defined by patriarchy. The traits associated with it (gentleness, nurturing, etc) need to be decoupled from it, just like the traits from masculinity. This kind of gets to the point I'm making here- men should not have to be more feminine in order to be deemed 'good' or 'not dangerous'; what he needs to be is a good person. Both of these boxes that have been created by patriarchy are ultimately shitty and need to gradually be done away with. A man who likes roses and pink isn't 'being feminine'; he likes roses and pink. Same with a woman. Those things aren't 'feminine', they just are what they are. Grouping them with one 'type' of person of a body type is a problem to begin with.

The only way forward is to stop treating masculinity as synonymous with harmful, monstrous, or dangerous.

There is a fundamental difference between "men are dangerous" (wrong, bioessentialist) and "the patriarchy allows dangerous men to exist unchecked" (true).

Masculinity is a socialised concept though. It’s really not bio essentialist to see masculinity in a negative light. It says fundamentally nothing about how you see men, just that you don’t like role based thinking or the ‚male role’. Depending on how a man defines masculinity, esp with lots of social narratives aiding that the result def can be dangerous and harmful and often is.

We should also probably consider femininity in a negative light as well, since it is a patriarchy-based socialized concept that monopolizes gentleness and softness as woman-only traits, when in fact people of any kind can be gentle and soft. It exists only to force people into a different box.

Femininity might not be pretending to be superior, but it is still a problematic role because it was created/defined by patriarchy. The traits associated with it (gentleness, nurturing, etc) need to be decoupled from it, just like the traits from masculinity. This kind of gets to the point I'm making here- men should not have to be more feminine in order to be deemed 'good' or 'not dangerous'; what he needs to be is a good person. Both of these boxes that have been created by patriarchy are ultimately shitty and need to gradually be done away with. A man who likes roses and pink isn't 'being feminine'; he likes roses and pink. Same with a woman. Those things aren't 'feminine', they just are what they are. Grouping them with one 'type' of person of a body type is a problem to begin with.

The only way forward is to stop treating masculinity as synonymous with harmful, monstrous, or dangerous.

There is a fundamental difference between "men are dangerous" (wrong, bioessentialist) and "the patriarchy allows dangerous men to exist unchecked" (true).

Masculinity is a socialised concept though. It’s really not bio essentialist to see masculinity in a negative light. It says fundamentally nothing about how you see men, just that you don’t like role based thinking or the ‚male role’. Depending on how a man defines masculinity, esp with lots of social narratives aiding that the result def can be dangerous and harmful and often is.

We should also probably consider femininity in a negative light as well, since it is a patriarchy-based socialized concept that monopolizes gentleness and softness as woman-only traits, when in fact people of any kind can be gentle and soft. It exists only to force people into a different box.

I cannot believe there's absolutely no way to watch free shows and movies anymore, there are too many paid streaming platforms and pirating websites have viruses and ads preventing you from watching it uninterrupted((.)) id rather follow the rules and purchase media moving forward because it is too inconvenient. Seriously, free and no ads or viruses with 1080p streaming is DEAD.

Exactly! It's freaking annoying when I want to watch movies but I would have to subscribe to like 24 different services . Just to watch the shows that I like.

Oh and wouldn’t it be nice for cartoons? Just anything animated. I just wanna stream things without getting conned. Must I be cartoonless forever?

i like using streaming apps but there are waaaay too many and they're all stealing my data .i wish there was a secure and organized way to have millions of shows and movies available one one app. but alas. we've truly gone full circle back to cable + now it spies on you. its a real shame. i dont want to fill my device storage with tons of boring and stupid cash grabs.

WELP, that ends my account.

Qobuz is the most ethical alternative to spotify and even tidal (tidal is just pandora radio in a different font; you can't curate playlists, which i absolutely fucking hate, but you can curate playlists on qobuz, and the royalties they pay to their artists are far larger than spotify) that i've been able to find, thanks to this post on instagram by singer-songwriter laura burhenn. the post also lists other alternatives, including tidal, but qobuz is by far the best of the lot. they even have a free feature called soundiiz where you can transfer all of your playlists from spotify to qobuz!

Worth a reblog for this great info.

no no trust me THIS system of categorizing people into one of two categories with no nuance will work perfectly