#as if that stereotype doesn't do immense harm

[willowsycamoretree]

I genuinely don't think that Patti LuPone intended her comments to be racially charged. When she said Hell's Kitchen was "too loud", she was not thinking about the Black cast, creative team or story that it tells. When she called Kecia Lewis a bitch in the New Yorker, and disparaged Audra McDonald in the next breath, she was not thinking about the fact that both these actresses she was putting down were Black women.

That's exactly what micro-aggressions are. It's not the blatant, intentional racism that we're used to seeing being called out. The "micro" does not reduce the scale of harm caused, but rather refers to the subtlety of the comments, how easily they can be skimmed over and normalised. It's the comments that without context, can pass by as rude, or entitled, but not racist.

Of course, calling a show "loud" in isolation doesn't raise any alarm bells. But once you add in the context that Black people are consistently stereotyped and minimised for being loud, then it becomes racially charged. We may not know how Patti would've responded to a show of the same volume with a predominantly white cast, but that doesn't matter because the reality is her choice to publicly criticise HK for being "loud" was made in the context of these stereotypes existing. You can perpetuate racial stereotypes without intention, without mean-spirit, without knowledge of them even existing.

All Patti needed to do was listen to the Black people who volunteered their time to explain why her comments were harmful, acknowledge them and apologise. IMO, the real harm she has caused isn't in the comments themselves. It's in the way she has refused to take accountability, and used her immense privilege and influence in the theatre world to put Black women down and minimise their accomplishments rather than take this opportunity to learn, educate others and uplift members of her community.

[lobajustdoodles]

It's been plaguing my mind for a few minutes but I can confirm I do like Beast x Ancients

BUT IM VERY DECISIVE ON THEM

welcome to my TED Talk about the ships and how I see them working (UTC):

(please keep in mind I never had interest in the Beasts until Eternal Sugar came around and my social media got raided ShadowVanilla)

MysticCacao

This ship has a lot of potential of Mystic Flour being taught by Dark Cacao to regain her empathy for cookies. I see that Dark Cacao understands what happened with her (overwhelmed by the requests of her followers and saddened/disheartened by what happened in her absence as she isolated herself to calm herself) and understands she wanted to help cookies like before, but does it in the wrong way.

By this, I see interactions between these two as Dark Cacao becoming the "teacher" to Mystic Flour, showing that things in the past would not happen now in the current timeline and that her past empathy and desires to help have not disappeared, but need a direction to be moved. (also apparently Mystic Flour cannot beat the resting bitch face era if she's being caring to Cloud Haetae sooooo a start)

I mainly ship these two, they can work so well together and can learn from each other a lot❤️

EternalHolly

Being honest, this whole episode made me get back to Cookie Run for many reasons. Eternal Sugar is one interesting Beast, her motivations are like Mystic Flour in a way (wanting to do good but goes about it wrongly) but she's also very cruel about it, mostly mentioned and through context clues from other cookies. (looking at you Pavlova and Sugarfly)

And with the recent episode of Hollyberry awakening and promising to return to Eternal Sugar's paradise to teach her the lost passion Eternal Sugar had for cookies, I see it working between them. Granted, I think Eternal Sugar (once given the chance of redemption) should immensely work on rewriting her wrongs of what she did to cookies of her paradise first and foremost and lessen her immense obsession and objectivity of Hollyberry.

I do ship them, but I glide a little towards SugarCheese (Eternal Sugar x Golden Cheese) and i could make it poly👌🏾

ShadowVanilla

ShadowVanilla. The biggest Beast x Ancient that plagues all social media. Not very much of a fan of how they woobify Shadow Milk and act like he doesn't cause the problems around Beast Yeast.

The dynamic is.... something. Shadow Milk mainly projects onto Pure Vanilla to the point where he turns Pure Vanilla to a different coin like he did. He's lonely in the sense of fearing to be the only Beast as he is, willing to tear others (even the other Beasts) down for company. And Pure Vanilla, once awakened, tries to show that there's opportunity to see the in between of lies and truth, which Shadow Milk is like "no" and is in denial about everything. (I haven't gotten to this episode so if I'm wrong on this analysis, correct me)

I do not ship them, I really can't. Shadow Milk needs a lot, A LOT, of help (therapy for the blue jester twink cookie) before getting with someone. I will throw him at a OC when it happens-

BurningCheese

I will say it here: I personally cannot ship these two together.

A lot of people say it's weird to ship them because of brutality on black women and harmful stereotypes, but I don't think that is much of the case for them. For this ship, I think the main focus of why people don't like it should be more on how Burning Spice is adamant to kill Golden Cheese himself, rather than watching someone else do the job. And also how he wants her to end him to end his depression of watching civilizations rise and fall countless times without changing the flow as the being of change itself. I think sizing this ship down as "brutalization of black women and harmful stereotypes" should be the LEAST of worries, coming from a black person.

These two are more-so comrades like from Genshin Impact with the interactions between Tartaglia/Childe and Player; can become great friends and make each other better people for not only themselves but to others around them. It may help with Burning Spice's identity as the being of change.

I also cannot bring myself to ship them, sorry. Would ship Burning Spice with a OC, tho-

Also since Silent Salt and White Lily's episode isn't out yet, I have nothing to say about their ship because I want to see the episode air and play through it enough to get a understanding of them.

With this in mind, I agree with most that say the Beasts can be redeemed with their Ancient counterparts giving them a push into the direction of being good and normal people.

It's just for some cookies (staring at Shadow Milk and Burning Spice) I can't really see getting romantic with their Ancient. Any other cookie (OCs included), yeah, but with the Ancient counterpart is just a no for me.

But yeah, there's my TED Talk on the Beasts x Ancients and pretty much my stance on shipping the Beasts in general.

[velvetvexations]

as an autistic trans man, sometimes I feel less safe in public presenting as a man than as a woman, because, especially in certain places, man + visibly autistic tends to be more often falsely read as "dangerous and predatory" than when people read me as a woman.

Yeah, as an autistic trans woman who doesn't pass, I feel that. <3

Honestly thank you so much for what you do on this app. I'm so glad there's people who are actually willing to stand with trans men instead of pulling the "um well I have it worse so do NOT talk about your own oppression EVER or else you're a transmisogynist!" I'm so happy I found your blog and I hope you have a great week <3

I hope you have a great week as well!

Eh a long while ago Chris Fleming made a video making fun of polyamorous people which used a lot of the same hurtful stereotypes society already perpetuates against us and I’ve not paid attention since

Noted, as someone who is also poly.

i wish the queer community didnt put so much emphasis on sexuality labels like i just want to have sex why do i need to put a word to it

very valid

about the dropout “discourse”: hot take but real life people are not representation. theyre people. real people are not queerbaiting you and real people happening to not be transfem (and I have literally seen transfems in some dropout episodes theyre just not part of the main cast) is not a lack of representation. these are real people. stop* *not you, the people being shitty about it

the complaint is not in any way coming from a genuine place tbh

hey! i just wanted to let you know how much your blog means to me as a trans guy. you and your reblogs have given me hope at trans unity, and lets me know that i-- that we-- aren't alone. so thank you for everything you do, and i greatly appreciate your support and look up to you 💛

Thank you. <3

i redownloaded etsy recently and seeing all the trans stuff saved to my favorites is so sad. i used to feel happy and proud and i wanted to be open about being transmasc. but since all the discourse got worse i just. cant bring myself to feel like it matters. it makes me feel like im trans and yet i will never matter the way other trans people do.

You do matter anon, I promise. I love you, you matter, and I'm glad you're here.

As a trans guy a lot of the self-ID'd TME transmascs weird me out so much. Like why do they all sound like "I am so strong and my power to Harm Women is immense. I could do it so much and I feel the pull to the Transmisogynist Dark Side but *unsheaths sword* I will protect them instead with my big strong testosterone arms from my fellow men" like what even is that. Who is into this.

it's so incredibly obviously bad but it reinforces some people's victim complexes so it's praxis now

a trans person will joke about their experience and a trf will jump in to assume theyre a white transmasc who has never ever faced any real difficulties for being trans

every time

Out of the many, many stupid ideas in this dumb discourse, I've finally decided the one I hate the most is that underlying implication that transmascs just aren't trans enough. It's so gross seeing people imply that we aren't really trans. Our dysphoria is minimal discomfort at most, apparently. I've seen people post about and imply that transmascs will never understand not feeling like a person or being unable to live a life pre transition and that's why we have privilege, i guess - are you kidding me? It's like our experiences are a joke to these people who are clearly so wrapped up in their online discourse bubble that they're just detached from what it's like for trans people as a whole. Sorry for the vent (would rather not post this on main and I don't have anyone to talk to) but it's just the most grating part. Also it's like. Low-key transmed shit. Thought we left that behind, c'mon.

transmeds are like ants they come back every summer

i wish TRFs had a label they proudly called themselves so i could jsut go through their tags and block them, but noooooo they HAVE to frame their transphobic bullshit as Brilliant Transfeminist Theory. like atleast radfems are fucking honest about being radfems

That's part of why I made antigonism a label for anti-TRFs to call themselves~!

[lesbiansforboromir]

Alright, I saw too many posts about DA4 and the pressure valve on dragon age opinions burst so I'm breaking my silence about mage discourse.

One day someone at bioware, can't remember who, made the worst possible PR decision and openly declared mages as an allegory for mental illness. It has all been downhill from there. Quite literally I could not be less interested in treating mages and mental illness as even tangentally related. Within the canon of DA, mages are people who literally have demons speaking to them, can literally become possessed by demons, and who are literally dangerous in extremely real and unavoidable ways even without the demon stuff. Lobotomies not only exist, but also work, the 'tranquil' are no longer plagued by the demons, nor do they have the powers of fireball anymore. It's like they called the 1300's and asked a witch hunter to write this.

And I am absolutely certain this framing is extremely cathartic for some people to relate too. Themactically speaking, turning all the dials up on a social issue for a fantasy world will always resonate with many of the victims of that issue. There is something impactful about taking all the insane stereotypes society has created around your lived experience, deciding they're real in an imaginary world and then playing out scenarios where you deal with them. God only knows gay people love vampires and werewolves.

But in that case it also has to be understood that others will not like it, or find it cathartic at all. The sticking point for me is probably the fact that mages are immensely powerful, something I find so egregiously unrelatable that any possible power fantasy it might be tempting me into just evaporates. And then of course there is Tevinter, which if we're following the allegorical logic is a state ruled by the mentally ill whom have 'embraced their demons' and so are now ruling an empire built on the enslavement of the 'pure' and 'untainted undemonic' population. Which I feel like, if we're weighing the mage narrative on the merit of it's being a cathartic themactic framing, is stretching the concept quite thin.

So I've always experienced mage based narratives as entirely seperate from their irl allegories at least emotionally, even if cognitively I do understand the parallels. And when you look at it like that, so sorry, it actually is a grey moral issue. If there were people in real life who could, without any additional equipment or technology, just create a fire/lightning storm from thin air, that on it's own would be a problem society would have to grapple with solving. You could not just let people with such power live under the same rules as everyone else. Like Wynne as a child nearly burned a barn down and scarred another child. These are not hypothetical issues within the canon.

And somewhat unrelated side tangent but I've seen people say, without an ounce of irony, 'magic doesn't kill people, people kill people' as an argument against the need for magic control. Which is just a fascinating framing all by itself, given the only difference between guns and DA magic is that one is an external tool and the other is built into select people. AND given that witholding gun licenses from the so called 'mentally disturbed' is an often advocated for policy... it's just kind of ironic is all!

Anyway the POINT is this is kind of frustrating to me because technically the mages COULD be a fun little play pretend thought morality experiment. This IS a difficult problem to solve, DA rightly engages with the fact that any institution created to control a subsection of people will create an environment of horrific abuse and dehumanisation. And that is only doubled with the introduction of religious control. When presented neutrally this is a 'do you sacrifice the few for the sake of the many' quandary with a lot of interesting caviates. IS it for the sake of the many? Would the actual number of people harmed by mages really exceed the number of mages themselves? Are we not just sacrificing the peace and freedom of many people for a hypothetical? But IS it a hypothetical since the slaver empire ruled by mages exists? But the hypothetical in the other direction isn't a hypothetical either, since the mage rebellion also exists and arguably did greater harm than free mages might have otherwise! But is that true? What about all the years worth of people in history hypothetically saved from harm by the strict control over mages? Isn't pushing for a more ethical circle a better plan than total abolishion? But is an ethical circle even possible given the cultural position mages hold? But in that case are free mages really going to be able to lead peaceful lives anyway? Doesn't the circle also protect them? But that is a situation the circle created and enforced right? Or is it? Since, once again, Demons definitely exist and mages have become possessed by them for centuries, and other mages have used their powers to dominate and abuse others in the past!

Theoretically, two people with exactly the same humanitarian purposes could argue the opposite ends of this debate in good faith, which is a fantasy. Because in the real world no one is born with a body inherrently able to cause more harm than the majority of other bodies. In fact, the opposite is true, people are born with more vulnerable bodies than the majority and are oppressed for it, their vulnerability taken advantage of by the dominant states in order to further those state's agendas in some way or other. Oppression does not have a 'good reason' to exist that originates from the oppressed class, those supposed reasons are fabricated after the fact to justify oppression in the minds of the general populace whom hold themselves to moral standards that a State does not. So, inherrently, the mages in DA are a fantasy idea and should be thought of as such.

But, amongst many DA fans, this is not the case. We've all seen people argue without irony that NOT taking a moral stance on the side of the mages and against the circles reflects badly upon your actual IRL moral compass. And it's not just that you cannot be pro-templar, even being neutral about it or finding the pro-mage characters or the mage narrative uninteresting is treated as an immoral action. People will ask things like 'who would even side with Meredith?' or 'does anyone even save the templars in DAI?' as if the choices you make narratively in a game have to be a moral judgement! Which we all know is nothing new in terms of fandom discourse, but within the mage/templar discussion it is so pervasive and so volatile that it makes it worth noting.

And like, obviously 'people get too serious about fiction on the internet' is such a non-issue that it's barely worth talking about. But I do find it interesting nonetheless as it's been a major part of my experience of being in the DA fandom, which now spans longer than a decade of my life (screams).

People have told me that I shouldn't treat this narrative theme as debatable because they relate to mage struggles as an autistic. And at the time I was pretty young and didn't really have a response to that other than a vague but powerful sense of discomfort. Nowadays, when I'm pretty sure I'm also autistic, I realise I was made deeply uncomfortable by the idea that there was anything relatable for me within the mage narrative. I do not have magic powers and I can't blow people up with my mind, I can't even get out of bed most days. Most people feel like mages to me just for being able to work a job or take care of themselves without help. And narratives of oppression that surround people with inherrent powers that far exceed anyone else just do not resonate! Which ultimately is just a reinforcement of the concept that the way people engage with fiction is not equivalent to actual real social issues, and really should not be treated as such.

[hyperfixingfr]

I'm sure by now we've all kind of picked up on the fact that Abby being the mom friend therapist is, like, a pretty typical black girl stereotype... That I'd argue is harmful in the sense that it burdens real black girls, because everyone thinks that they're supposed to tolerate their unprompted trauma dumps.

But for once I propose something a little different than "let's just pretend that doesn't exist", as I usually do when things like this exist. Abby is STILL the mom friend therapist, except it weighs on her, A LOT. It's pretty realistic considering most "mom friend therapists" are sacrificing themselves for that shtick, but I think it goes in line with Abby's character. Her friends don't mean to be malicious when they hire her to be the mom friend therapist because, well, they're kids too. Abby offers it herself, and that's why they do it without a thought. Abby herself doesn't understand that this is burdening her, because she was forced by society into believing that it was her role. The racist stereotype was enforced on her by authority figures at a young age, who always asked if she could deal with the emotional problems of her peers. This led to her offering herself up automatically each time someone got emotional, and never really realizing that it was causing her immense stress, and inevitably, depression and C-PTSD. I think this is a great way to rework a racist aspect of a character into a lore piece that shows the dangers of stereotyping and how it affects the mental health of minorities, even as children.

[zoobus]

What's your favourite entry on mangadex with a 6.xx score?

(Re: #Everything on mangadex with a 6.xx rating is either a powerful contender for best of the year or extremely niche fetish softcore)

Ugh, this is a hard one because I haven't been reading a lot lately and I lost a huge chunk of my saves after mangadex was killed off for some months. (Also because I don't actually finish anything I read, lots of my "favorites" are a first volume I loved so much I couldn't finish it. That's how my brain works. I haven't finished anything on this list.) Also best of the year *for the kind of story it's telling.

TW, a good chunk of these have sexual assault and/or skeevy sexual themes

Manga about girl with strong signs of BPD using sex to self-harm, I don't remember the name, sorry - Extremely pathetic girl, desperate to not get bullied ever again, thinks she can fool her peers into thinking she's one of them but nahhh, you see the looks the popular girls give each other - it's like cats watching a wet and whimpering mouse wearing cat ears bite the throat of other mice, looking over her shoulder for proof that this is worth it, that they think she's a cat too. Made me understand how self-harm sex works.

I Would Die for Your First Time - Okay, it's sitting at a 7.09 *now,* but when I read it like five years ago it at 6.18. Guy who looks like a stereotypical fat faceless hentai man marries so far out of his league, it causes him immense distress. Even though his super hot wife clearly loves him, he's unnerved by the fact that she's had so many partners before him, while he only had her. She swears that if she could go back in time, she would make him her first and oh wow is that literally the worst thing she could have said.

Because he does go back in time, and he does try to hold the assurances of his 30yo wife to her 15yo self who doesn't have a clue who he is, and he does find himself ruining the life (and the original timeline they shared) of the poor woman who made the mistake of loving him over and over and over again.

Tamarowa/Who Wants to Marry a Billionaire? - I both get and don't get the hate for this one, harem stuff seems to make people very mad. Anyway, Tamarowa is like if Danganronpa was about Who Wants to Marry A Billionaire, uncut HBO version. And if Danganronpa was good. Great example of horny and good story. Whenever some cornball suggests good writing and fetishistic, hand in pants writing are mutually exclusive, I think of Tamarowa. "I need you to psychoanalyze one of the contestants in my place. Go do ageplay with the milf and deduce the odds she's trying to murder me."

His Favorite Idol Moved Next Door - A fan has a crush on his idol. The idol has a merciless and cruel crush on him back. 6.02 because god forbid we cater to actual female sadists rather than masochists for once 🙄

The Villainess Wants To Punish The Sadistic Prince - I will probably get around to translating the final volume. One day. Please see first paragraph about loving things so much, I don't finish them.

By the way, it might be my pride speaking, but I wouldn't include the last two entries in the niche fetishcore category. That's more for like "my childhood friend is annoying! and also keeps getting splattered with smushed bug goo every chapter" or those collection of pics titled stuff like "The women in your life flirt with you while insulting your gf's small boobs"

[bybdolan]

I watched Obviously Queer's video about the rise of mlm media yesterday, and while I think it was pretty good and insightful as a whole, I do feel like sometimes the women* and nonbinary people writing mlm fanfic and novels are let off the hook a bit too easily, if that makes sense. I myself am a writer of mlm stuff, and also not a beliver in strict Own Voices policies (duh), but I find it noteworthy that mlm-heavy fandom spaces tend to circle around very specific kinds of mlm works – namely stuff that was made with a non-mlm audience in mind – outside of the works they produce, which obviously colors their writing. (Look at the immense popularity of stuff like The Song of Achilles and Red White Royal Blue.) I like to think that it is universally acknowledged that when writing from a perspective that isn't your own, you should do research to try to be as accurate and respectful to the experience as possible, but I feel like that sentiment is not really Big when it comes to writing gay men. Part of me wonders if that is a result of the combination of the idea of "Own Voices" (understandably) mainly being used to critique writers who inhabit less privileged perspectives and insert their prejudice into their works while wanting to check progressive boxes, and the fact that people for some reason assume that gay men are the most privileged group within the LGBT+ community (as if you could make broad sweeping generalizations like that – i find this idea deeply troubling). People don't seem to feel the need to engage with mlm content that is actually aimed at gay men in order to better understand the experience they are writing. And it ... shows? Just because you yourself are queer doesn't mean that you automatically 100% understand the experience of people who are queer in a different way than you are. You are not immune to reproducing harmful stereotypes in your writing.

[spinaweb]

ive hated exercising since i was in secondary school (even since primary, probably) and ive come to the conclusion that it must be because ive had fibromyalgia way longer than i thought as there's no way playing fucking netball for example should have caused me immense pain for days after. i did also just genuinely hate the way it was structured and how we were forced into doing things. it was a real relief when the school's counsellor (who was cool as shit, btw) got it so i didn't have to do pe in years 10 and 11, so i would hang out in the art room working on my gsce art stuff during those periods (a blessing and a curse tho as ive always been fat so people just assumed i was being lazy which is such a harmful stereotype). anyway all this is to say that after finally seeing a doctor who seems to actually give a fuck, and has put things in motion for me to get support, ive felt comfortable to say about this and that has really helped me be able to start finding exercise that my body actually enjoys and doesn't cause such immense pain. it's been difficult more in the mindset side of it but really great as well, to be able to move in a way that feels good and not for any other reason than that.

[realjaysumlin]

We have far more to fear from stupidity than evil - Big Think

Religions and the misguided belief that race is solely determined by skin color represent significant dangers to society. These constructs undermine rational thinking and critical analysis, leading to detrimental consequences for humanity..

The toll of these ideologies has resulted in more innocent lives lost than all natural disasters combined. Furthermore, many individuals appear to adhere to the narratives propagated by those identifying as white, often perpetuating harmful stereotypes and actions that have historically caused immense suffering.

The theory of stupidity attacks the greatest minds in human history no matter what educational level one might have. Education doesn't have anything to do with people who suffer from stupidity mainly because the most educated people are the ones who make up shit that destroys our natural world.

The concept of race is invented by people who call themselves scientists and religious leaders worldwide and these stupid beliefs move their way into healthcare by professionals who are supposed to know better.

The theory of stupidity will always be the greatest evil on earth because it protects the two most evil systems on earth and this is religion and whiteness.

[therealmistressmidnight]

Myths About Submissives: Breaking down Common Misconception

The world of BDSM is vast and diverse, and yet, certain myths and stereotypes about submissives persist. these misconceptions not only misunderstand the roles of the role of a submissive but can also discourage people from exploring a dynamic they might find fulfilling. As someone who identifies as a submissive with bratty tendencies, I want to shed light on the truth behind these roles and debunk some of the most common myths.

Myth 1: submissives are week and passive

this is one of the most Common and frustrating misconceptions, submissives are often seen as lacking strength or being inherently passive, but nothing could be further than the truth

in reality submission takes complete trust, self-awareness, and emotional resilience. submissives actively choose to surrender control to their dominate partner, and that choice itself takes immense courage and strength. Submissiveness is in no way about weakness -it's about creating a space where vulnerability can be explored and empowering

Myth 2: submissives always want to be controlled

The idea that submissives are "on" 24/7 is another common misunderstanding. while some enjoy full-time dynamics, many others only engage in their role during negotiated scenes or specific situation .

Outside those moments, submissives are those with autonomy, agency, and the same need for balance as anyone else. being submissive doesn't mean forfeiting your independence or personality-it means choosing to explore a side of yourself in a consensual, structured way.

Myth 3: submissives have no limit or say (Gross)

this myth is not only wrong but absolutely disgusting but dangerous. A healthy D/S dynamic is built on mutual respect, communication, and consent. submissives have the absolute right and set to boundaries, express their desires, and use safe words or say no.

a true dominate partner will know and understand that submission is a gift, not something that can be taken or forced at least not in a healthy dynamic and should not be taken for granted. the idea that a submissive has no say in their experience is both gross and ignores the cornerstone of BDSM: consent and safety.

Myth 4: submissives are submissive in all areas of life

people tent to assume that people who are submissive in the bedroom are also submissive in their daily life. while this this may be true for some it's not for everyone, it's far from universal.

many submissives are assertive, confidant, and even dominate in their own carriers, relationships and personal lives. BDSM can be just one aspect in your life or identity without defining it.

Myth 5: Submissives "ARE NOT DAMAGED OR BROKEN"!

Do not ever think that this is the case, this is such a harmful stereotype that make it sound like people only engage in submission because of trauma or low-self-esteem. while admittedly someone's past or trauma may shape someone's preferences, submission is not linked to negative emotions

many submissives find their role fulfilling, empowering, and away to explore trust and intimacy. it's in no way about being broken it's about exploring a part of yourself that is authentic and even exciting.

The Reality of Submission

Submission is aa varied and unique as the people who explore it. whether someone is a brat, a service sub, or enjoys occasional role play, there's no one-size-fits all definition of what it means to be submissive

At its core submission is about trust, communication, and connection. it's not all about making someone give up their power but choosing to share it in a way that feels meaningful and satisfying.

Why Understanding these Myths are Important.

breaking down these common misconceptions is important not just for exploring BDSM but for anyone looking to understand it better. by challenging these myths, we can create space for curiosity, education, and acceptance.

If you ever found yourself curious about submission or found yourself hesitant because of any of these myths, know this: you define your role, your boundaries, and your experiences. no one else.

let's keep the conversation going-what are some myths or misunderstandings about submissives you've encountered? how did you navigate them? share your thoughts below

[firstumcschenectady]

“Math for the Win" based on Galatians 5:13-21 and Luke 19:1-10

The math of the Zacchaeus story has always bothered me. Because if he gives half of what he has away, and then he gives back what he took inappropriately TIMES 4, he has negative income really fast. Right? Which would mean he can't fulfill his promise. But he is a tax collector so he can probably do math, so why did he say it?

For the first time in my life, this week, I let myself finish that thought. Because, despite the fact that math isn't usually a great source of Biblical insight, the decades of annoyance about the math just couldn't be silenced.

If the math is impossible, I started to wonder, does that mean that Zacchaeus is actually saying that he doesn't defraud anyone? Because if that is the case, then it would follow that he isn't actually a bad guy, despite being a tax collector! Which would mess up a whole lot of what I thought I new about this passage.

So, like you do, I did some digging in my favorite commentaries, and (shock of shock for those who listen to me regularly) the Social Science Commentary on the Synoptic Gospels had something to say about this that I found important. Namely that the Greek verbs that Zacchaeus speaks “I give” and “I pay back” are in the present tense, which indicates that even before meeting Jesus, “Zacchaeus is already practicing this kind of compensatory behavior. The trouble is that the crowd does not believe him. He therefore bristles a bit at the stereotyping behavior of the crowd and responds to Jesus with a description of his customary behavior.”1

As someone who heard this lesson in Sunday School and learned a very annoying little song about it that never quite leaves my head, this is kinda crazy to learn. Zacchaeus was a good guy all along! He didn't have some conversion experience upon meeting Jesus, what he actually had was a chance to be SEEN and KNOWN for the faithful human he already was- and the actions of Jesus in going to his house and in giving him a platform to speak were actions of HEALING between Zacchaeus and the community, because afterwards they could see him as he was and accept him as part of their communal life.

And, for the record, NOW it makes sense why he climbed that tree – if he was already a man who lived his faith, of course he'd want to see the guy whose live shined with God's light.

Thanks math.

All of a sudden, this story resonates with some universal truths. Because, who among us hasn't been misinterpreted, misunderstood, perceived in the worst light and desperately wished to be heard well, understood, and appreciated for who we are? I fear the answer is that no one has been excluded from that horrible human experience. The one where the good things you do go unnoticed or sometimes even are intentionally brushed away, and the mistakes you made are used to define you, and no space is given for you to talk about what your actual intentions were nor that you are sorry for the harm you caused. Everything you do or don't do gets interpreted as bad, usually without anyone even talking to you about it directly.

It is awful stuff, right?

And it is common.

And it feels terrible.

Oh how I wish this were one of those things that didn't happen in the church. However, this is a thing that happens in the church. (If you didn't know that yet, YAY!!!!!!!! And sorry to burst your bubble.) I guess, for me, it helps a little bit that Paul speak to this as well, because this being a universal human and church failing at least means it isn't just my own personal failure of leadership that this happens here sometimes too. I take what I can get.

Galatians, being one of the authentic letters of Paul, is a source of great wisdom and insight that still manages to annoy me immensely. In this case, I really hate that he engages in “body soul dualism” and attributes all the evil stuff to bodies. I pretty emphatically disagree. In my opinion, my worldview, body soul INTEGRATION is where it is at. Our bodies are full of useful information about who we are, how we are, what feelings we have, and what we need. Our bodies guide us to the fullness of our humanity, and as we make space for the fullness of our humanity we move toward the Divine as well. Which I think is really important.

Now that I've argued with Paul, I can move on and say that I agree with his opening point that being free in God should not be taken as a reason to bite and devour each other. We are to love our neighbors as ourselves – the ones near and far, the ones in the church and out of it. If you are being distracted by his long list of “bodily desires” and those have been used against you in the past, let me offer the words of Dr. Wil Gafney on this, “In this case the author is focusing on excessive desires and self-gratifying desires rather than condemning the care and ending of one's body and health. Mutual sexual gratification would seem to be beyond rebuke.”2

Now that we've de-escalated our responses to Paul, what we can do with his wisdom that people who seek to be loving to each other sometimes chew each other up and spit each other out – like people did to Zacchaeus? He recommends “walking in the Spirit.” I recommend staying in your body. Really. I recommend letting yourself be mad, or sad, or disappointing in another, and then checking to see if there are any other emotions around it, and then finding out what thing(s) you value are violated and then thinking about what might make those better – and then if you can thinking about what the other person may be feeling, needing, valuing – and then TALKING ABOUT IT WITH THE PERSON.

Yes.

WITH the other person.

Because the Bible is really clear that the best way to deal with each other is directly. Even though it is really hard. Can you imagine if someone had said to Zaccheaus, “Hey, you are in a really awful profession, but you claim to be a decent guy. That doesn't add up to me, can you help me understand?” Or even, “I think you took too much money from me.” Or, “You claim to love God, but you seem to love money. Does that seem true to you?”

Those wouldn't be easy conversations, but they might have changed everything. I have been so grateful in my ministry for the people who say, “I see you doing this thing, and I think you should be doing that thing,” and say it to me directly so we can chat! I've also been grateful for those who say, “I was really offended by this thing you did.” Because we can figure out together what matters to us together and how to find an answer for the future that works for us both. And no one else is stuck in the middle, or pulled into drama, and no one is being maligned. It is a hard, beautiful thing.

I think that's the miracle of what Jesus did with Zaccheaus – he reconnected him to people so the people could talk to him again, ask him questions again, call him out even. He opened up the lines of communication. Because that's what it means to be in community – it means to be in communication with people, including in difficult communication.

Thank God Jesus called Zaccheaus out of that tree, and thank God his math SO CLEARLY didn't add up so he could become multi-dimensional to us, and THANK GOD other people have been misunderstood so we don't feel alone, and most of all thank God for the times when people are brave enough for the hard conversations. Those are the most holy ones.

Amen

1Bruce J. Malina and Richard L. Rohrbaugh Social-Science Commentary on the Synoptic Gospels (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2003) “Textual Notes: Luke 16:1-16” p. 303.

2 Wilda Gafney, A Women's Lectionary for the Whole Church (New York, NY: Church Publishing, 2021), p. 278.

Rev. Sara E. Baron 

First United Methodist Church of Schenectady 

603 State St. Schenectady, NY 12305 

Pronouns: she/her/hers 

http://fumcschenectady.org/ 

https://www.facebook.com/FUMCSchenectady

September 3, 2023

[spider-xan]

Not tagging this bc it's outside the scope of the novel and getting into real life, but once again, I am frustrated with trying to explain the racial politics that complicate discussions of benevolent misogyny bc a lot of white women just won't listen to WOC who try to explain that white women are both harmed by AND benefit from - even enable - benevolent misogyny, at the expense of POC (including MOC), it just gets reduced 'But it's all equally bad for all classes of women', and I and other POC are sitting here thinking of all the times we've experienced white women confidently being racist bc 'I'm a strong, outspoken woman', and if we even so much as say, hey, can you please stop being racist?, these white women start crying and yelling for the nearest white men to save them from the ethnic~ bullies~, like, that is a VERY common way that white women are yes, being patronized and treated as lesser by white men, but also using it against POC, and that's not even getting to when it escalates to the racist police being called on Black people especially.

[mack3030]

Imagine deciding that you want to make money off of people's mental health problems by creating paywalled "traits".

^ A post from the creator(s) "The Official Eunola".

I am 100% for mental health awareness and support, however there's a few things that should really be said: - If you do not have the illness in question, you'd better do your research and get input and support from people who DO have that illness. - You need to make sure that your traits/mod/etc do not play into or endorse/promote harmful stereotypes or imagery. For example, making "depressed" sims always sad is a stereotype. Just because you have depression doesn't mean you are always sad. Just because someone is "anxious" doesn't mean they are always scared or have irrational fears...etc. - People's mental health struggles should be respected and handled VERY carefully, and certainly should not be used to make a buck. Early access is well and good as it can be a great way to get input and make sure your content is respectful, but perma-paywalling something that is representative of people's real everyday struggles that have ended up with people very sick, and in some cases dead, is not classy. Do better. Also, as to the permapaywalled part of it, you claim that you can do this because your models were hand meshed by you. This tends to come from a post that has often been taken very out of context. Catsaar does a great job debunking it in THIS POST. Here's a great diagram that also explains this concept:

AND last, but not least: The only good thing about this being paywalled is the fact that at LEAST it might keep it out of the hands of the VARIOUS MINORS who play this game. Because they should not be exposed to any sort of content like this at all. The amount of disgust I feel towards these "creators" for not taking the (obviously well-deserved) flack they were getting and deciding to nix this whole project is immense. There are quite a few creators who do a very GOOD job with researching and representing mental health struggles in the sims without trying to profit off it, or adding harmful content. Your False Hope and @snowiii95 are two modders who do a very good job at this. :) If you can, please spread the word about this around. Because we do not need modders who are trying to profit off of mental health struggles in our community.

[taylastudio2022]

'MICRO-WAVE FEMINISM WITH SHANIA' - PODCAST

The Micro-wave Feminism Podcast hosted by Jasmine

"To be a woman is to be a Human Being"

Notes:

Cultural intersectionality

- intersectional lens - a woman of colour, the importance of that

- the term "woman" - constantly evolving - although social construct - being aware that experiences vary

- learning about a wider experience

- how you find your own identity - within being a woman - it's so different and personal - different stereotypes - some people may reject - some might resonate within them

- culture - feminism has been birthed in this western ideal - that sometimes doesn't meet up

- feminist doesn't have to be someone who' trail blazing' or intentionally being super political - mother - huge icon for me - looking up to my own mum

- culture plays into it immensely - homemaking - lesser valued - not roles is the issue - but the value of the roles is the issue - bot shying away from that domestic "house-wife"

- "feminism was first introduced to me by a pakeha woman" - didn't connect/relate well- until seeing the Ted Talk "We Should All be Feminists"

- Speaking on lived experience

- finding more experiences - intersectionality - not just one narrow white definition of feminism

- growing up - putting beauty on a pedestal

- " what you choose to do with your body decides how much of value/attractive you are"

- found that women more interested in connecting

- human rights - predominately woman - not paid as much, more caring role - than that of corporate law - more assertive - paid more - male-dominated.

As a Pākehā woman - this podcast further reinforced the importance of making sure I don't subscribe to "white feminism" - although my work stems from autobiographical places and personal narratives - I don't want to in any way be harmful towards feminism - for everyone. Definitely want to look outside of just white women precedents and ideas of feminism - without of course appropriating. Think that the main takeaway from this podcast for me is again - there are many many varying lived experiences of women and I have only lived these privileged white women's experiences.

I also liked how Shania spoke on the fact that her mother was a huge feminist icon for her - whether she knew it or not. This resonated with me - as my mother has been a huge inspiration for me - and I feel like that speaks to this generational - matriarchy sort of themes that I am starting to flesh out from knitting.

There was also a discussion surrounding bringing value to traditionally feminine roles. In many cultures, women take pride in being homemakers and enjoy things such as cooking and cleaning for their families. It's important to value these roles as much as we do traditionally masculine roles. Similar to how knitting should have the same value as something like playing football.

[silhouettecrow]

Wow, so, uh, that Sia video fucking sucked.

It did feel more like it was catering to queer people than trying to depict acceptance for autistic people, which is offensive two groups of people. The spinning camera, bright coloured background and actors' clothes, and flashing/colour-changing lights all made it super inaccessible for a lot of people who are affected by visual sensory overload. I only really get audio sensory overload unless visuals are super intense, but this was even hard to watch.

And Maddie Ziegler's overexaggerated facial expressions really sold it as mocking and mimicking autistic people 'cos that is such a stereotype. Are some autistic people super expressive? Yes, of course. But usually not to this extent, and it still doesn't excuse the fact that it's a stereotype and looks practically infantalising. I have ADHD and I'm very expressive, but what I saw was taking something I do and turning it up to a comedic and gross degree, which is immensely harmful to autistic people across the board, highly expressive or not.

Björk's video feels natural and genuine and the only thing I can imagine that might cause overload would be the blurring effect, which is pretty mild and not used that often. And the song is kinda haunting and eerie in the best way, so we love that.

For those who don’t understand what autistic & disabled (and many other) people mean when they say the NT actress looks gross imitating an autistic here is one point of comparison

Bjork « I might fall somewhere on the autistic spectrum (2011) » who has been performing in movies, clips, writing songs, being overall one of the best artist of the last three decades) watch closely her performance on « hunter » her stim-like dancing and expressions, this is so heartfelt

And then look at Sia’s clip and how weird and unnatural it feels, scripted, almost robotic, it’s really just a NT imitating an autistic person and it lacks a soul

Maybe an autistic person could not have performed on sia’s clip without discomfort (a lot of people talk about the bright colors and sensory overload) they still should have been able to make adjustments (note choosing a oner, less dance...)

Bjork’s clips feel easier on the singer (she moves less sometimes, there are cuts, postproduction and a lot of 3d) those clips were made so that she could be featured in it and they’re amazing pieces of art.

Sia made a clip for a NT to play in it and then complained autistic people couldn’t. It’s harmful, this is what society constantly does to Disabled people. And that’s why we don’t want NT to steal our voices