#“woman empowerment” COULD THEY NOT HAVE SHOWN IT SOME OTHER WAY????

[sweetnnaivete]

my toxic trait is always needing to feel enriched by the things i consume. i hate when films or books don't have a message bc then what was the point? it may be entertaining but what were you hoping to achieve? it's sooo unsatisfying and honestly just adds to modern brainrot

[raisedbythetv89]

Just finished “Poor Things” and damn what a fucking movie.

The mind of a child inside a woman’s body who has an insatiable sexual appetite and curiosity is uncomfortable as fuck but that’s the entire point. Children are innately curious and experimental and very simplistically seek pleasure and avoid pain and our puritanic (or in the story victorian) western society has turned all things sex related into such an uncomfortable taboo topic and this movie shoves that reality in our faces forcing us to confront how uncomfortable we are when it comes to educating children about sex and the relationships we have with our own bodies and pleasure and often resort to just telling them “it’s improper or wrong” and that leaves the door

W I D E O P E N

For men like the lawyer to come in and take advantage of the appetite others tell us to deny, the curiosity and the naïvety of someone who must venture into sexual relationships with absolutely zero frame of reference or knowledge. If you deny children the ability to learn something from you THEY WILL SEEK TO LEARN IT FROM WHOEVER IS WILLING TO TEACH THEM.

Every man who tried to control Bella failed miserably and what I ADORE about this film is it flips the traditional “poor naive girl goes to the big city, gets taken advantage of and ruins her life and is left with nothing and now she’s just another victim…. Poor thing….” completely on its head and not only that, better reflects real girl’s journeys through this world because we truly overcome so much in order to become the women we are. Yes she is taken advantage of and treated cruelly (“I wasn’t trying to educate I wanted to hurt you. I couldn’t stand to see such blind happiness”) yet she persists, she learns, she forms her own ideas and opinions and beliefs, she shuns societal norms and in the end the lawyer has been driven mad, her sociopathic husband from her previous life is a goat and she’s happy studying to be a doctor surrounded by women and a man who supports her to he exactly who she is and does not view her as her property. It was incredibly refreshing to see what is usually framed as a very dark traumatic journey for girls coming of age as one of self empowerment and agency. It was a magical adventure, an Odyssey. She is a true adventurer. Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt and Barbie to an extent are the only other stories I can think of that frame women’s coming of age journeys in this way (though I haven’t seen THAT many movies in the grand scheme of things so there very well could be others I’m unaware of)

I understand if you get stuck on the “child brain in woman’s body that men then desire” it is icky but this film is in no way condoning that behavior in men it absolutely is criticizing it. The lawyer is driven mad by the very childlike curiosity that drew him to her in the first place, it’s perfect we LOVE to see men go insane by getting exactly what they wished for 😌

It’s important to note that yes it’s a male director but Emma Stone was a producer and has said she had complete say and control with both how her body was shown and how the story was told. I personally tend to just viscerally react to male gaze media in an I’m immediately nauseous and on edge kind of way and didn’t get that at all with this film. My brain was like “this is weird and uncomfortable” but my nervous system wasn’t actually sending up and red flags that this was unsafe or insidious in some way like it did when I watched game of thrones for the first time. I knew shit was off on that set IMMEDIATELY which was then later confirmed to my unfortunate lack of surprise.

But anyway I’m not normally one who cares about oscar nominated films but this one had me laughing HARD and crying and it’s such a visually beautiful and interesting film I absolutely loved it.

[tamelee]

Hello Tamelee, I wanted to ask you if you agree with some popular claims in the Naruto (-Shippuden) fandom about Kishimoto and his writing. If you could give your opinion on the claims I would be very happy ☺️ Sorry for my English by the way, it is not my mother tongue.

1) Claim: Kishimoto does not know how to write woman.

2) Claim: Kishimoto does not know how to write romance.

3) Claim: Kishimoto wrote NaruSasuNaru on an accident. He did not meant to write them as gays.

4) Claim: Kishimoto forgets characters (Neji, Hinata and Sakura etc.). The story focuses to much on the relationship Naruto and Sasuke.

5) Claim: Kishimoto sucks writing Sakura like Sakura character is bad writing.

6) Claim: Kishimoto is an homophobe.

I think I did not forgot other claims. So far that is everything. Thank you for being so nice and talented. I love your Art. 💕

Warning; unpopular opinions ahead/me not agreeing:

Hello Nonee 💕 Okay let’s see! 

“1) Claim: Kishimoto does not know how to write woman. 5) Claim: Kishimoto sucks writing Sakura like Sakura character is bad writing.”

Ah yes. With these often there’s also “Kishimoto is a misogynist” and the “missed potential of the female characters”. 

It’s a broad and complicated topic tbh (or you could make it as complicated as you want..) because people bring in a lot of real life/political baggage into the conversation about this (unnecessarily imo)- largely surrounding Sakura and Hinata.

I only partly agree because most of Kishimoto’s female characters aren’t great compared to their male counterparts. But, from little snippets of his interviews it is very obvious that he always enjoyed writing through male-characters as were all his stories incl the rejected ones and I don’t think there’s anything wrong with that especially when we look at the targeted audience. That’s all. That is enough reason.. and it hasn’t so much to do with him not being able to, because there are female characters that are fine. 

Kishimoto could’ve developed some of them better.. but didn’t. I don't believe that is because of a lack of skill.

Sakura’s (and even Hinata’s) lack of development (= development which the fans wanted to see) had purpose and they were largely cast aside and underdeveloped (with purpose!!!) in order to show (contrast/)something else as well; the bond/love between Naruto and Sasuke. 

I don’t think there’s anything wrong with Saori (Mario), Tsunade, Ino, Temari, Konan or Kushina even. What do you expect more from Shonen? I would’ve loved to see more background about some of them, but story-wise it wouldn’t have been necessary. If he was going to flesh out any of the other characters (like many wanted from Tenten) it should’ve been with purpose, it would’ve had meaning.. Otherwise you’d just be thinking to yourself “why did I just read/watch this? Why exactly did Kishimoto want to show this thing about this character and why does it matter to the story? Is there a parallel, or could this be foreshadowing?”

So.. he didn’t and to me that makes sense. This story is about Naruto and despite him being the mc- it is also about Sasuke and their journeys about becoming great Ninja. Not “pinkyflinky and her selfish love for her cool-looking classmate.” 

It is great to want to find good female representation in media, as a female myself I find that to be quite the struggle.. especially nowadays -.- (all protagonists are wannabe annoying-ass girl-bosses whom are shown to be assholes for the sake of... feminism?? lately.. Idk but ugh!!) however I don’t expect to find great representation or empowerment for myself in a story like ‘Naruto’... never have. Criticizing ‘Naruto’ about something for which it had no intentions of in the first place makes no sense to me. Instead, the characters from Naruto whom are fleshed out and developed well (and there are many) inspired me too regardless of gender and I don’t see the point in looking through a gender-lens within my entertainment if it's not necessary. (I don't know why it would be tbh.) It is not like I can only see myself or get absorbed in a story through a girl/female-character. Kishimoto even made Sasuke the Heroin of the story much like Saori (the female-lead) was from his earlier story ‘Mario’ whom Sasuke resembled a lot. But make Sasuke into an actual female character in ‘Naruto’ and then the story, in the way it was written, would’ve made no sense. Or rather their actions. (The story would’ve been different then.) People wouldn’t have accepted it because then it’s suddenly obvious to the general audience who the love interest for Naruto is... -.- Insert; confusion. Then, if we accept ‘Naruto’ as a piece of gay-media... then why look for female-representation here and aren’t the characters fine as they are when you take that into consideration?

Besides, why can’t female characters have flaws and why is it always “bad writing” if someone doesn’t agree with the behavior of said character? Why can’t they just accept that some female characters are just not that great or that some of the characters don't have positive arcs for the sake of something else? 

Anyway, I don’t agree with the reasons people give for them being “so bad”. If we take Sakura for example, I see many people say she “deserved better” simply because she’s “the female lead” but this story was never about Sakura who’s character goal had been shallow from the start. Could a large portion of that have been fixed if Kishimoto gave her something else to fight for? Sure. But I rarely see them talk about her character-foundation and more so about getting “what she deserves” even though she practically did 2% in order to “deserve” (sorry I don’t like that word)- anything. So it mostly stems from her being female? And that only would’ve given her the privilege of actually surpassing Tsunade? (As Naruto and Sasuke also surpassed their masters when she didn't.) Or become Hokage even as some of her fans want her to be? But can you really (and be honest now) even compare Naruto and Sasuke’s journeys, efforts and development to.. Sakura's? Absolutely not. For which they agree because otherwise they wouldn't complain about a lack of development, so we have a contradiction here. What does Sakura know about running an entire village? Or the village in general? Nothing. What has she done in regard to Sasuke that wasn’t excruciatingly selfish? (Or Hinata in regard to Naruto also) Again, nothing. She didn’t even bother to find out anything about the thing she supposedly cares about; Sasuke who literally stood in front of her shouting out his pain about his clan, his brother and the village. Why would Sakura care about anyone other than herself or her version of Sasuke when she was willing to abandon her family and friends regardless of her teammates pain surrounding solitude to then say “she’d just be as lonely as Sasuke” who’s entire clan/family was murdered? She, who in the end pretty much stayed the same but gained physical strength which her fans can only acknowledge through the validation of male characters? I mean 👀.. (and yes she did have some good moments, but not even her own fans acknowledge these and instead try to hype up the bad ones. Even then they need validation from Sasuke, much like Sakura does, its weird to me.) 

Jun Esaka tried to “fix” Sakura in ‘Sasuke Retsuden’ as her number one fan... but did so horribly. (Yes, I read it) In order to lift Sakura up she wrote “handsome-looking-like-a-cat-Sasuke” (her words not mine) to be a wet fry on the side of a pool living life miserably and racked with guilt for the sake of his oh-so-amazing-sexy-and-good-with-anything-“wife” whom everyone in her story loves/desires, which makes Sasuke into this super jealous “husband” who suddenly couldn’t do anything anymore without her help and made OOC mistakes every page of that dumb novel... 👀 I’ll take Kishimoto’s Sakura over that bs any day. And yet her fans love to see Sakura “shine” like “she deserves” and criticize Kishimoto for not having made her similar to their headcanons in his Manga.. 

That’s all it is. Headcanon. 

Idc, I could go on and on about it, but I’ll leave it here. 

“2) Claim: Kishimoto does not know how to write romance.”

He can and did so several times. Just because some people aren’t happy with their underdeveloped “canon-couples" doesn’t mean that Kishimoto can’t write it as he has shown already that he can with others. Couples which are accepted by everyone as them having a romantic bond (now why would they only complain for Sakura/Hinata's sake I wonder?). Besides, ‘Naruto’ is one great lovestory if you’re willing to accept it. The Minato-Manga was a big “fuck-you” to those claims, Dan and Tsunade were great and he only needed a single page/a few panels to establish the romantic purpose between Yahiko and Konan. Even before ‘Naruto’ he wrote ‘Mario’ also. Etc-

So, false. 

“3) Claim: Kishimoto wrote NaruSasuNaru on an accident. He did not meant to write them as gays.” 

This is some bs. This man did not sit down for 15+ years, hunched over a desk with his mind swimming about this story, Naruto and Sasuke only for anything to be “accidental”. Come on now. Whether someone else accepts their love as being gay is something else- but nothing is accidental. There is way too much time, effort and thought that went into it for anyone to make such a disrespectful claim. Besides, it is not for nothing that Kishimoto had to fight his own editorial team in order to make some things happen. He literally had to fight for years to be able to draw some of the gayest panels. So? What does that tell ya? 

Well.. that nothing is accidental. With this also comes the bs-claim that Kishimoto apparently wouldn't even know what gays are which is laughable- don't let me start.

“4) Claim: Kishimoto forgets characters (Neji, Hinata and Sakura etc.). The story focuses to much on the relationship Naruto and Sasuke.”

The story is literally about Naruto, Sasuke and their bond. Their external goals (plot) by itself isn’t nearly as relevant as their internal needs and struggles which Kishimoto was perfectly able to steer the story (plot) with. That's the number 1 reason why it is a good story. It has nothing to do with “forgetting”. (Also why are Neji, Hinata and Sakura in the same sentence in regard to this?)

“6) Claim: Kishimoto is an homophobe.”

Sorry, I have no idea what this is about or where this comes from. 

__ Ah I know you didn't make those claims, in case it sounds like that 😅! I'm just talking in general about the claims- Anyway, thankyou so much for liking my art!! 💕 Hope you have a nice day 🌷

[findafight]

Sorry, you're going to have me rambling in your ask(?) box now.

I'm the one that sent the ask about Nancy cheating and ok. Female infidelity in Stranger Things bugs me. Like Karen is about to cheat on her husband (With someone young enough to be her son and I hate Billy but he should have not been the guy Karen tried to cheat on her husband with. Like anyone Karen's age. ANyone) and she decides not to and it has no impact! She's still with Ted! And it never gets resolved. Like the Wheelers could have been a great way to show how to work out issues in a marriage healthily or they could have shown Karen asking for divorce papers! Like this is seen as a moment of empowerment, but Karen actually doing something to change her marriage is far more empowering and that doesn't happen! And with Nancy, the cheating is never addressed because the narrative doesn't consider it cheating, but as you mentioned, if the genders were swapped, people would be having conniptions! (Also like with Nancy, if you swap her gender, a lot more of her actions get more unlikable) Like Karen and Nancy cheating doesn't have an impact on the narrative and it should! Because infidelity is not ok! And yeah, female infidelity is viewed/portrayed differently in media and it's interesting because it's how women broke free in a way, from unhappy marriages in the old days, but it shouldn't be that way these days. Even with the show in the 80s, Karen still had options to get out of her marriage. Nancy could have broken up with Steve anytime she wanted!

Honestly I love getting asks!! feel free to ramble away and I will do my best to answer in due course.

I was talking a while ago, I can't remember to who? About the whole Karen billy thing and how they either should have leaned further into it or leaned as far away from it as possible while still maintaining Billy's issues with middle aged women.

Like if they leaned further, they could have set it up with her sorta...making comments about/to Steve or touching his arm or something a bit too long. Nothing overt but definitely weird vibes. And then had her really into it in S2 when billy comes around, her playing into his flirting more. Similar in S3 but the only reason she doesn't go to meet him is Holly having a fever or something. Make it clear that while Billy is a racist asshole, he's also a kid that is being used by someone older than him that should know better, making him an easier puppet for the mind flayer.

But if they did that they'd have to address it and this show seems to actively avoid doing that.

Or if they leaned away, they could have had Karen looking uncomfortable and/or worried when Billy tried to flirt in S2, and in S3 maybe have her directly say to him that it's inappropriate and not safe for a boy his age to go after older women. Specifically showing concern for him (also this may have helped the writers not only with Karen but also with making Billy sympathetic by overtly showing he's got complex issues that he isn't dealing with, also foreshadowing losing his mom etc.)

Ohhhh okay but if Karen's infidelity sideplot was explored a bit more, with some random dilf, and she also chose not to go through with it, but then actually spoke to Ted about what she wants in the marriage? And how they can try harder to be attentive to each other? The fourth of July could be something of a "second first date" kind of deal. Idk if old mate Ted would be trying but. It could have shown Karen taking a more involved an engaged role in her own relationship. Would have been interesting. Nancy could have seen that too (idk if she'd like it I think she kinda wants their parents to get divorced.)

Also yeah. A woman in the 1800's cheating on her husband with the iceman, or a woman in 1950 lusting for her coworker, is not the same as a woman in 1985 cheating on her boyfriend or husband. Like. Historically marriage was a political or monitary contract, and while I'm sure many were loving, many more were of convenience and involved a lot of cheating on both sides. A woman taking a lover was a way of empowering herself in a system that actively denied her agency, but it was dangerous, and its not like it didn't hurt anyone? like if you're both married for political reasons and have an understanding, have at it. If one of you actually cares for the other, as in modern relationships, that's another thing entirely!!

No fault divorce wasn't a thing in most states until the 70's. So yeah some people were stuck, and some people continue to be stuck in bad relationships. I get that divorce is hard and scary to do, But part of having agency in a relationship is being the one to say "this isn't working for me anymore. Something needs to change. Maybe We should break up" whether or not that relationship is just dating or a marriage.

So while I guess Karen is a little more understandable (she has three kids with red who seems to have checked out, lives in a small concervative town, voted for Reagan so maybe also has religious objections to divorce but tbh they don't seem religious just conservative) in her temptations (if it weren't for the fact he was a teenager) Nancy literally could have ended things with Steve at any time. Like. She could have not gotten back with him in S1! Nancy not breaking up with Steve when she wanted Jonathan is not Steve's fault.

Okay going for the middle bit about the narrative not treating it as cheating: Nancy is such an interesting character because she's goodhearted and strong willed and willing to do just about anything for the truth and has flaws. She bulldozed over people she cares about. That's why she's interesting! She isn't perfect and it's frustrating when the narrative and fans treat her as such. Let women be imperfect and viewed as such! Let Nancy try to work on thinking about how her actions, while she views as just, might actually hurt someone deeply. Like. Steve is an interesting character because he's done bad things and is self-sacrificing and vain and protective and sometimes doesn't think before he speaks. He's a good guy with flaws. That's what makes a character interesting, and at least the show does treat Steve's flaws as flaws that he needs to work on (though it's also comic relief)

But please imagine if everything played out exactly the same, but instead of Nancy sleeping with Jonathan we saw Steve hook up with some girl (he wouldn't, because he's in love with Nancy but imagine). There would not be a day on earth where someone wouldn't bring up "Steve cheated on Nancy". Like if nothing else but which partner cheated changed everyone would actually see it as cheating, and it'd be treated as such by the narrative. It'd be another asshole Steve moment, and there's be very little argument about whether or not the relationship was over, because it wasn't.

[winns-stuff]

Something about LO that's never sat right with me was... I'm not sure how to say it, but it's lack of identity? Like, obviously there's heavy ddlg themes with Hades and Persephone. From Rachel's concept art to the comic frames themselves. And despite taking the dynamic too literal (making Persephone a teen and Hades middle aged, improper power dynamics, etc), there's nothing fundamentally wrong with that trope. Doms and subs are consensual, even in every day life. But my problem is, instead of having mature adults in this setting with this dynamic, Rachel somehow also wants to make it a coming of age story with feminine empowerment? Showing Persephone doing buissness for her mother, hyping her up as the dread queen, etc, yet making her useless whenever her love intrest is on screen. Not to say H and P can't be equals, but it always walks such a fine line of 'yes, this woman is the bad bitch, EXCEPT when it comes to her screen time.' Boiling H and P down, they seem so shallow. Sure, there's the friendly banter in previous episodes (thinking back to the chess game), but there's nothing tying the twos stability together. Persephone mostly seems to be lavishing in Hades body/money. Buying flashy outfits, lusting over his abs (I'm not counting 'Pers made her own money in the mortal realm by taking up Demeter's place' because we didn't see it and its never used again). Again, being a sugar baby is fine, but empty promises of 'tell don't show' makes it seem empty. Pers is supposed to be the queen of the underworld, and yet she wasnt present at all while Hades went to speak to Kronos? Didn't even know about it? Playing with sticky notes? Really? And with Hades, it's a mix of lust and emotional trama. He sees Persephone as a caretaker. Maybe not physically, but in the relationship, Persephone is the one whos literally compared to his own mother. Someone who's kind, nurturing, the embodiment of motherly. As long as Hades pays for everything (like he was doing with Minthe), he gets the perks of coddling. Besides that, what common interests do the two share? They both run buissness? Pers isn't working alongside Hades for buissness, aka Kronos. Thats legit the only reason I can think of. Pers can care less about the mortal realm, Hades sees the underworld more as a wallet than a realm of passion. It boils down to the show don't tell point. 'ill add spesifics to show that you're WRONG (Pers having her own place)! But now that I've won, I don't ever have to show it again! (Pers lack of independence being shown in the rest of the comic).'

Yeah, honestly LO feels like it doesn’t exactly care about the actual character development and storyline. There’s a reason why romance related movies, shows, and books have something to offer the reader other than romance. If you just have two characters always coming together no matter what with little to no development at all except for their shared shallow views of how the world works for over 100 episodes many people will get tired. There’s a reason why slow burns are so loved, because once the characters actually see the other romantically the audience and readers start to feel rewarded, they’ve waited this whole time and have been patient with the climaxes of the story for so long and now their patience is paying off, and they finally get to see their ship sail. With LO it’s like it tries to create some sort of slow burn tension but it’s all ruined because it’s not actual tension. There’s nothing keeping HxP from happening, they could be together completely no matter what without any other obstacles if they want but Rachel continues to drag it out as if Hades and Persephone just can’t possibly be together. She’s been doing this for a while now and it’s reasonable why people are no longer there for their romance anymore, it’s not written in a way that there’s a reward. You don’t get a reward for your patience, there’s nothing that you’re waiting for so you just feel empty the entire time you’re reading.

I’m very over LO being marketed as a feminist story though. Don’t get me wrong I’m utterly and completely a feminist, I support women until it’s clear that I shouldn’t (and no, that doesn’t mean I just blindly trust women either that sentence just means that if there’s a situation where it’s a crime against a woman, I’m going to side with her if there’s not obvious evidence that she either manipulated the situation, lied, or was the aggressor in the crime) but I absolutely see nothing aligning to feminism with LO. It’s honestly criminal how little the comic has to do with feminism, I feel like it got put in there because a woman was the “main character”. But it’s just depressing how LO is getting all of this fame for this so called feminist retelling yet there’s way better feminist driven stories out there. You know how many female main characters there are on webtoon who have depth, complexity, actual power, and other amazing qualities being showcased on webtoon in their own respective comics? I feel like everyone hates to say it so I will but because of the decline in storytelling and overall art of LO I feel like it’s time to at least congratulate people who still have passion for their work. I know writing webtoons are stressful, I hate even saying this cause I feel like I’m undermining Rachel’s work but it’s getting to a point where I don’t see as much effort anymore. I just wish more people were able to have their work appreciated, it’s not fair to them.

[project1939]

Day 21- Film: Outlaw Women 

Release date: April 4th 

Studio: Lippert Pictures 

Genre: Western 

Director: Sam Newfield, Ron Ormond 

Producer: June Carr, Ron Ormand 

Actors: Marie Windsor, Richard Rober, Carla Balenda 

Plot Summary: A woman in the Old West known as Iron Mae is sick and tired of never getting anywhere in life. She founds her own town run entirely by women, populated 9:1 by women. Success is more important to Mae than men or rules. Inevitably, they face threats from all sides- from roving bandits to local politicians. Can the town actually survive? 

My Rating (out of five stars): **½ for the actual quality of the film, ****½ for my enjoyment of it 

I had to do a little digging before I found this film, but I’m so glad I did! Yesterday’s movie was so bad it was just... bad, but this one is so bad it’s fabulous! (Except for the stupid ending, unsurprisingly.)  

The Good: 

It was a low-budget film, but it often didn’t look it. It was shot in color, and although it wasn't Technicolor, it wasn't bad. The acting could be quite good (although there was some cringey stuff), and it even had some decent musical numbers in it. 

Iron Mae! I loved her. She was a tough talkin’ tough livin’ dame who ran the whole town. She still dressed in glamourous traditionally feminine clothes, even if other female residents did not. Yes, she was a little harsh- I think that, and her distrust of men, was supposed to make us dislike her... but it didn’t work for me! 

Dora! Dora! My new love, Dora! She was one of the women who dressed like a cowboy, but she also smoked cigarillos, lit matches with her teeth, and kicked the shit out of more than one man. She even threw one over her shoulder to take his gun away. At the end, she remained unpaired with a man. I know she’s just a character, and she existed 71 years ago, but I’m not totally convinced she isn’t waiting in some saloon to marry me. 

The female empowerment in the whole thing. You could tell the filmmakers were trying to subtly say throughout the film that something wasn’t right about it, but I didn’t care. 

Did I tell you about Dora? 

The Bad: 

The ending! I knew it was probably coming, because a movie in the 50s could not allow for a woman-run town to be successful. It was especially infuriating because the government came in and demanded there be local elections, which meant women could neither vote nor hold office. They were cruelly screwed by the system they were trying to escape from. Virtually every woman was shown pairing off with a man at the end, as well. 

The kind of demeaning “Men will rightly be in charge of everything, but wives and mothers sort of run the show” wink-wink at the end. Have a little consolation prize, ladies. 

There were some comical sound effects in the fight scenes. The slaps and punches were way too loud. 

The background music was often overpowering and not always appropriate. 

[middlenamesage]

Black Moon Lilith and Lilith the Character Archetype: My Reflections Coming out of Black Moon Lilith Conjunct the North Node

Following the astrological transits, both the collective and my personal, I have for a while noticed that when Black Moon Lilith is at play, it’s really hard for this to go unnoticed in my life. I always could sense this energy, I knew what it felt like, but used to find it hard to describe, or at least to dissect enough to understand with any valuable meaning.

Physically speaking, the astronomical point known in astrology as Black Moon Lilith is the point along the Moon’s orbit that is farthest from Earth (the lunar apogee), a point that changes position in the zodiac along with the changing orbit of the moon. To me it makes sense this point can be so potentially relevant to us, as all living beings are very much guided by the Moon, who keeps us in connection with each other. Out where the Black Moon is, in this metaphorical place of exile, it’s more of an “every man (or woman!) for himself!” vibe. Lilith is very much about the instinct of self preservation. It’s about resisting control or exploitation by others (and/or internalizing its effects). Often the two occur together as two faces of the same trauma. Black Moon Lilith represents the areas where life has taught us that we absolutely must advocate for ourselves. However, she can also bring shame and denial of wants wherever she is placed, or transiting, because this is something that generally develops where we have been told or shown we can’t have something.

Black Moon Lilith is in fact named for Lilith in the old testament/Jewish folklore, and the way we have come to make sense of its effects (rather, its correlations to our lives) is in considerable measure inspired by this character, and her archetype- who has many interpretations. Lilith was Adam’s first wife, before Eve, who left his ass! She refused to lie beneath him during sex, saying they were created equal. I think we can interpret this metaphorically, of course, as resistance to being controlled in many potential terms… but also literally, as there is a focus of unconstrained sexuality concerning Lilith, which I have observed has some definite relevance to the Black Moon too, but is far from the only or even the most important way to understand it.

Various legends say that after fleeing Eden, Lilith went on to become a she-demon/succubus/baby kidnapper/baby killer/so on….. (those are just the accusations I’m recalling off the top of my head). But over these many years, Lilith has picked up many other story lines, provided inspiration for phenomena such as Black Moon Lilith, and gained many evolving faces and interpretations. Other than being a religious figure, and/or a she-demon, some of her contemporary associations include witchcraft/dark magic, creative renditions in fantasy and horror, gothic culture, and the biggest switch of all, her status as the first feminist.

As a potent force from the most distant shadows of the Moon’s reach, where connection to one another is compromised and we must turn to ourselves to defend our basic natures, I’ve found that Black Moon Lilith can have both positive correlations- such as going one’s own way where it truly benefits one’s life, putting one’s foot down to mistreatment, and stepping into one’s personal power- and negative correlations such as pushing away and/or disregarding other people, general concern with defending one’s own initiatives, to the point where it is premature or anti-productive, and the shame, denial and/or rage that many have developed from being disallowed their power by others.

How we express Black Moon Lilith can be instigating healthy boundaries on one hand, and setting up unnecessary walls of defense on the other. It can be self respect on one hand, and self obsession/failure to consider others, on the other. It can be self protection on one hand, and self sabotage on the other. It can be shame and denial over who we really are/what we really want on one hand, and it can be where we liberate ourselves from shame on the other. Very often, it seems to dole out as a complicated mix of both the “bad” and the “good”.

It used to be that reflecting on my own experiences, despite my fascination with it, there was very little “good” I saw about the Black Moon’s correlations in my life. I came to associate the energy of Black Moon Lilith with a few of my “trauma responses” that have caused me to sabotage relationships. I felt she had helped me stand up for myself/walk away from people a few times when I actually needed to, but for the most part, she seemed to just make me quick to unconsciously wreck budding relationships, reject others, put up lots of walls, or not want to cooperate/compromise with others- even though this was also betraying my own desires deep down to be close with others. My natal Lilith is in Libra in my 7th house, so the relational element of her is especially relevant.

I think that this Black Moon wound of mine in the realm of partnerships has several big origins/perpetuators I can site, but one of the first and biggest that I can consciously analyze, is having internalized the messages I was told by a parent growing up (not necessarily said in as blunt of terms as I received them) that no one would ever want to be with me because I am too difficult to live with. (I was also shown this when my parents sent me elsewhere to live.) Internalizing this message about myself stripped away my personal power when it comes to partnerships. For so long I approached all relationships assuming they were damned to end before they ever got too serious (something I still do struggle with), and I long believed, a belief that at some times was not as much conscious as it was confirmed with my deeply engrained unconscious behaviors of sabotage, that a ‘true’ and committed relationship is simply something I can’t have. This long internalized belief has given rise to many of my independent behaviors in relationships... both in destructive ways that compromise my connection with others and/or alienate them, and in positive senses that protect my individuality and self respect.

Here’s the thing. I was never wrong to see my trauma responses in the force of Black Moon Lilith. Black Moon Lilith and Lilith the archetype are in fact rooted in trauma. We mustn’t trivialize that part. The defense mechanisms, rage, shame, denial, sabotage, the desire to leave people and things behind, and the general mechanisms for self-preservation which can accompany Lilith stem from instances where we have felt held down, lead to believe we don’t have power, mistreated, and in some cases even horribly abused/violated. But the reality of Black Moon Lilith’s painful origins does not make it all a bad thing! It can be a very empowering thing potentially, because where we are hurt is also where we can find the avenues for healing, and for gaining acceptance of our most authentic self and desires. And there is a very good reason we develop many of these less than savory reactions from traumatic experiences and messaging. Lilith teaches us to recognize our boundaries, and to reclaim the personal power that once was lost! - even if at times we may run too far with these prerogatives in stubborn quests for independence and personal autonomy wherever she resides.

Though I have been fascinated by and intent to ponder Black Moon Lilith for probably over a year now, my reflections on it, and later on the character Lilith for which the lunar apogee is named, have really gained a lot of new ground during this last month+ of Black Moon Lilith’s conjunction to the North Node. (Which is currently separating, but still in effect.) The Lunar North Node is another very important point in relation to the Moon’s orbit, which shows the path forward. Black Moon Lilith with the North Node in Gemini has proven too be so ripe with many new experiences for me to learn about Lilith. It’s hard to say if anything has actually changed about my relationship with Lilith, or if I am just starting to see more of the positive in her that was always there, instead of just noticing and perpetuating the glaring negative. Also, I decided it was about time to accept Lilith as a part of who I am. I can’t deny the power the associated energies and the archetype has had on my life, so I might as well embrace it- both the good parts and the parts that are a work in progress. (And that is the story of my new little stud earrings with the Black Moon Lilith symbol!)

One aspect of my relationship with Lilith that I think actually has started to bloom forth in more of a clear-cut positive way with this Lilith-North Node transit, is finding the power to actively and productively embrace a part of myself, via finding/claiming opportunities to keep cultivating this part, even though it’s meant having to disregard my reservations, and even fighting through some shame. I can see now that there is a whole world of great personal empowerment to be tapped into with Lilith, and not just in the ability to leave people behind. (But of course leaving people behind is one means she’ll employ, if it is necessary for stepping into her power!)

I have always seen myself as a writer. It’s not even by choice, and a great deal of the time, for a very long time, I have really resented this natural compulsion of mine. You see, I have a deeply complicated relationship with writing, one that undoubtedly needs some healing. Well, this Black Moon Lilith/North Node conjunction in Gemini, moving through my 3rd house of communications (and as I only found out the other day, also conjunct my natal White Moon Selena, i.e. the lunar perigee/polarity to Black Moon Lilith) ended up bringing me my first opportunities ever getting paid to write… something I guess I just used to assume I couldn’t do, due to my lack of a college degree, as well as the difficult relationship with writing and my paralyzing perfectionism. But with this transit, I placed aside my assumptions of what wasn’t possible for me, and I have some hope now that accepting the opportunity to write for other people, on subjects that generally don’t even mean anything to myself, may just turn out to be the good dose of objectivity needed to help restore some healing to my writing relationship.

Once again, where you’ll find the wounds in your relationship with your personal power, is also where you’ll find how to heal them, and use them to empower yourself and others- and that healing is really what Black Moon Lilith conjunct the North Node has been trying to facilitate for us all. Of course, the process is basically never straightforward and easy, nor all enjoyable. This transit has brought a wide range of Lilith experiences in my life to comment upon.

Some other occurrences have been: abruptly ending an extended off and on relationship with someone where there was always a good deal of power struggle (and would have been power imbalance if I had not stood my ground in a lot of instances), unconsciously driving away or creating distance with a few friends, being consciously and stubbornly persistent in putting more distance between myself and my family than ever before, and facing a couple situations providing awkward trial and error experiments in how I communicate my dissatisfaction to others who wronged me. But I know that all of these experiences are helping me to evolve, and to better understand my responses which stem from wounds that have set into me with the nature of Black Moon Lilith.

And I marvel at the fact that millions of other humans have also been going through experiences which are forcing them to confront and/or evolve their own instincts and behaviors associated with the Black Moon, whether they realize it or not.

Lilith says, “These are my boundaries[or conditions]. You will respect them, or I am outta here.” She says, ‘I know what I am capable of, so I’m gonna fight for it- even if I have to shut out other people.” The placement of our natal Black Moon Lilith shows a prominent area where power has been stolen from us, whether through physical or psychological means (and where the Black Moon is transiting can bring up these issues in other areas, as well). Lilith develops from a wound, and her determination to not feel the powerlessness again can serve as either the healing or the perpetuation of it.

* * * * * * * * * * *

P.S.

For any astro heads reading this with this knowledge of their birth chart, I welcome you to comment or reflect on where 5° Gemini falls in your chart. This is where the (currently separating) conjunction of Black Moon Lilith and the North Node occurred, so the house in your natal chart where it’s transiting, and any natal placements that may be in aspect to this point, especially conjunctions and oppositions, may be able to show where/how you have embodied or encountered Black Moon Lilith energy in recent times.

NOTE :

If anyone is wondering which “Lilith” in astrology I have been referring to, since it is a fairly infamous fact that there are actually 4 things bearing this name in astrology… I have for the most part only followed the mean calculation of Black Moon Lilith (and with Black Moon Lilith’s conjunction to the North Node, mean Lilith is what I’m referring to).

There is also Osculating Black Moon Lilith (aka True Lilith), which is a different calculation of the same concept I have discussed with Black Moon Lilith. A calculation that is actually technically more precise about the moon’s orbit, for the moment that it is taken, as the lunar apogee technically jumps around a little bit a whole lot… yet I have personally found Mean Lilith to be more worth following, especially when following collective transits, if trying to examine the effects of something lingering over an extended period of time, or if conceptualizing Black Moon Lilith’s cycles throughout the entire zodiac. I don’t doubt that the calculation of osculating Black Moon Lilith (which often is not too far from the mean calculation) has a lot of validity to it too though, perhaps especially for natal chart interpretations, and progressions.

As for the other two Liliths, there is the asteroid Lilith- but that is named for a French composer, not the Lilith archetype as we know her. Not saying it isn’t something worth looking into, it just hasn’t been a point of focus for me. And lastly, there is Dark Moon Lilith (aka Waldemath Moon), which is said to be a dark body of unknown origin revolving around the Earth- but there is a lot of debate as to whether it actually exists. I don’t have an opinion one way or another, and I haven’t followed it in transits. However, its placement in my natal chart, with an opposition to Black Moon Lilith for one, does peak my interest.

[justonecitizenoftheearth]

Why the ending of Supernatural is problematic - the meaning of storytelling

Originally, I wanted to write a full essay on this and I still might, but since the university libraries are closed and I have three other big writing projects at hand, one of which is my final thesis, this might take a while. I still want to share my thoughts about this. A lot of this has been said before, but not yet by everyone. Trigger warning for mentions of suicide and homophobia.

The thing that bugs me most about the whole discussion about the ending of Supernatural is people saying “why do you care so much? It´s just a story.” Storytelling has been a part of human culture for thousands of years, it is something that everyone does and to think that telling stories doesn´t have a function in society that goes beyond entertainment is just plain wrong. Every part of storytelling, be it the actions shown, the words used, the characters involved or the connotations connected with any of the above, have the power to influence the way that the recipients of the story perceive reality. Now let that sink in for a moment. 

To borrow some words from a text about gendered narration: “Narration is understood as a cultural practice that spans genres and media and it is of great significance for gender constructions and gender relations, because stories don´t simply reflect on the perception or imagination of ´gender´, but they create them. From this perspective, storytelling seems to be one of the performative acts that produce and establish identities and gender constructs in the first place.” (Nünning/Nünning (2006): Making gendered selves; translated from german). The important thing to take from this quote is the last bit: Storytelling is an act that produces and establishes identities. And from here, we jump directly into the ending of Supernatural.

I don´t think I have to explain a lot about what happens in the last two episodes of Supernatural. But I want to go into the potential impact. So, in the ending of episode 15x18, we see a male presenting character, Castiel, declare his love to another male presenting character, Dean Winchester. It is made very clear, both by the actual show and the comments of Misha Collins, who plays Castiel, right afterwards, that this is in fact meant to be romantic. Right after that scene, Castiel dies. He not only dies by coincidence, but confessing his love is the thing that makes him happy and therefore, because of a deal he made with the empty, is the thing that kills him. It is not explicitly said if Dean loves him back. In the next episode, this confession is never mentioned, but Dean shows some signs of wanting Castiel back desperately (begging Chuck to bring him back, running up the stairs because he thinks that Cas will be there), but these signs just stop at some point during the episode. In the series finale, Castiel is mentioned twice, but not once by Dean and always in a fleeting manner. It never becomes clear if Dean loves him back and life apparently just went on without him. Not to mention that death has never been a permanent or undefeatable state in the show. But Castiel never comes back, his feelings are never mentioned and neither are Dean´s, although it has been clear in previous seasons that he usually takes it very, very hard to lose Castiel, to a point where he becomes reckless and suicidal (see early season 13). 

There are a few things to address here, but the main thing for me is that it seems like Castiel loses his status as a friend who will be dearly missed as soon as he comes out as in love with Dean Winchester, which is perceived by the audience as being gay (angelic gender discourse aside). And this is a bad message. It´s a really bad message both for people who struggle with their sexuality and see all their fears come true, and for people who have prejudices about LGBTQI+ people and get the message that they are less valuable as human beings. Which is not true, but again: Storytelling is an act that produces and establishes identities. The death of Castiel was only one of the problematic messages. Dean Winchester, who has been coded and perceived as bisexual and who has been a beacon of light for many who struggle with mental illnesses, dies too. Worse, he basically chooses death, which completely destroys the hopeful message of never giving up. Eileen Leahy, a deaf character who represents a group of people who are seldomly represented in media in a positive and empowering way, disappeares from the narrative, too, without an explanation and takes that empowerment with her. There are more examples, but the general idea is clear.

And this is, for me, the main problem with the Supernatural finale. The ending of Supernatural helps to establish hurtful tropes and assumptions. It transports messages that can be very harmful both for people who identify with those characters and see their own very real and important hopes and dreams fall to pieces, and for people who could use to see good representation of diverse characters to question their own values and opinions. 

I hear you asking: “Okay, so bad media representation is bad in an abstract, cultural context. But how big can the impact of such media representation actually be for individual people? And how do you prove that?” So let me ask back: “Have you ever heard of the Werther effect?”

In 1774, Johann Wolfgang von Goethe published the novel “The sorrows of Young Werther”. In this book the main character kills himself after being rejected by the woman he´s in love with. After the novel had been published, a number of young men committed suicide, following the example of the book character Werther. This is not the only case where the depiction of the suicide of a character inspired people who strongly identify themselves with the character commit suicide: “There have been other such “epidemics” [meaning suicides in imitation], such as the rash of suicides in young Jewish females after the publication of Otto Weininger´s Sex and Character in 1903. However, an earlier recorded epidemic occurred in the early 1700s in Japan.” (Krysinka/Lester (2006): Comment on the Werther effect. S.100). 

Long story short, it is a known phenomenon that media has a huge influence on the lives of recipients, especially if they can identify strongly with the characters, all the way to existential decisions like suicide. And in the case of Supernatural, that´s an extraordinarily relevant question.

The character Dean Winchester has battled depression, trauma and suicidal thoughts and tendencies in his journey. Many people who battled the same issues could identify themselves with this character, which is a known fact in the fandom and has been said multiple times on conventions and on social media. Showing that this character accepts death, even though it is questionable if that was necessary, and implying that the only way that he can find peace is by dying is highly problematic. Combined with the number of people who identify as LGBTQI+ and who have a strong connection to the character Dean Winchester, and considering the high suicide rate among LGBTQ+ individuals, death as the conclusion of his character arc is a dangerous message.

To summarize my point, storytelling is an insanely powerful instrument to shape the collective social memory of a culture and it has direct influence on how we perceive the world and other humans. Bad media representation causes real life issues and can be very harmful, both on a personal level and in society, for those who are affected. It lets hypocrites, homophobes and racists stay in their bubble of righteousness and fails to call them out on their bullshit. It is a lethal threat to some. Bad media representation and thoughtless storytelling is dangerous. And this is why I care so much. Because it´s not just about a story.

So, that´s it for now. I would love to hear your thoughts about it! 

And I send love to all of my mutuals, everyone who loves Supernatural and hates the finale because of it, all of my rainbow siblings and everyone who needs it! <3 

[yetanotherbuffyblog]

Origin of the Slayer!

The actual Plot of this episode doesn’t kick in until about halfway through, as we sort of get the characters going over how they’re training the Potentials and such? Principal Wood has a box from his mother that he gives to Buffy, and after one of the Potentials hangs herself (talked into it by the First) and Buffy upsets everybody by telling them that they’re not working hard enough, they open the box to find this weird shadow puppet thing. It comes with a book that tells the story of the first Slayer. A portal opens, and Buffy jumps through, hoping to find something there that will help her defeat the First.

She does run into these three guys who show her how they made the first Slayer: they chained the young woman down and bound her to a demonic spirit. They want to do it again to her, saying it’s the only way she’ll have the power to beat the First (don’t know how), but she refuses and calls them out on this nonsense.

Okay then.

Back on Earth, some demon thing came through the portal, and the Scoobies think to get Buffy back they have to take this demon thing and push it back through. There’s also this thing about Willow embracing her own power. Spike is the one who actually takes down this demon because he needs to prove to himself and to Buffy that he’s still a badass.

When Buffy does return, she’s been shown what’s coming: an army of the uber-vampires in a cave (presumably under that big seal). Hooray!

Notes!

-This is a good Plot outline for the final season? The whole idea of Slayers, and diving into how that works, while also bringing back the First, who is essentially the Devil. Can’t up the ante much more than that.

-Principal Wood is a snazzy dresser.

-Andrew is more of a “guestage”.

-Potential training seems hardcore? And I understand why it is that way. But it seems a bit much, and not as helpful as it could be.

-How DOES Dawn deal with schoolwork? She jokes about flunking and paying someone to do her work just to mess with Buffy, but they find the body before they get to an answer.

-The First is a jerk.

-Someone has to explain ‘TTFN’ to Buffy which is a bit… much, I think. Seems extraneous to the drama. Doesn’t matter if Chloe loved Winnie the Pooh or not.

-Buffy takes Chloe’s death a bit hard. I get why she reacts the way she does. Don’t think it was a productive speech though.

-The shadow puppets mentioned in the episode description don’t show up until about halfway through the episode.

-Why the fudge would Wood’s mother have that shadow puppet thing? It doesn’t seem like most Slayers get a bunch of magic artifacts. It’s not out of the question, okay, but it is a bit weird. We don’t need an explanation, but it would be nice.

-The monster that comes out of the portal looks like an Uruk-hai.

-Did Principal Wood pull a bunch of ninja stars out of his armpits?

-Someone uses a sword, which is cool, because that rarely happens on this show. It’s more common than in Supernatural at least.

-Wearing a jacket and turtleneck in the desert must get really hot? Buffy must be very uncomfortable when she went through the portal.

-I kind of assumed the men who made the first Slayer were like, the Watchers, or something like the Watchers? A sort of precursor organization? Still, it is immensely uncomfortable that 

-What language are they speaking on the other side of the portal?

-Willow breaks the Latin and switches to English and that was kind of cool, I think.

-So many people have died in the Summers house it’s kind of crazy that anyone still lives there. Although it is probably cheaper than getting a different set.

-Uh, that CGI at the end of the episode there is not fantastic. But it was probably okay by TV budget standards of the time?

-The reveal that the origin of the Slayer is from merging with some sort of shadow demon is… gross and weird, but it does make a certain amount of sense with what we’ve seen in the story. Does it work like with Raava and the Avatar? Does the shadow demon thing pass from one woman to another? [shrugs] I dunno.

-We’re… going to talk about the origin of the Slayer for a minute.

These dudes got together and chained down a young woman, and used magic to make her fuse with a demon to become stronger. This is not a comfortable process, and the First Slayer was not a willing participant in this. The show deliberately and consciously draws a parallel to rape--Buffy, after all, calls it being “knocked up” by a demon. And to be fair, the show calls this out as something bad and not the right way to do things.

It still doesn’t make it comfortable, or even okay, that the origin of the Slayers is a rape. The fact that there were three men standing by making this happens makes it feel a bit like a gang rape. And that’s… I know that Joss Whedon’s whole schtick was female empowerment bought through extreme suffering and this is garbage? I’m not saying that women overcoming trauma and pain is bad, or even that these shouldn’t be in the backstory. But Whedon’s thing is consistently that if there is a strong female character, she absolutely must  have some mind-breaking trauma. 

[I distinctly remember that before he left the Batgirl project, his approach to Barbara Gordon becoming Batgirl was explicitly asking “What’s her damage?”]

It’s not a cool backstory indicative of everything wrong with Whedon’s approach to “strong female characters” and I don’t like it.

[for-peace-war]

No, really. Lovecraft Country sucks.

These are spoilers, but I also don’t give a shit because it’s a bad show and I hope you skim enough to fucking skip it.  I took a few days to decide if I hated it enough to write this and well, I do. 

I will try my best not to say “X is a bad actor,” but instead stick with the characters as they’re intended save for one particular issue.

The Story

It isn’t very Lovecraftian.  And don’t take this as me saying Lovecraft was some kind of master of his craft.  I think he was an absurd racist that used xenophobia as his guise for what truly horrified the sane mind. That being said, the element of the unknown is definitely the hallmark of his world and that in no way is represented in this show.  It could easily be called “Goosebumps: The Black Version” and it’d be just as authentic--if not more so, really.

The story deals with the Bible (?) and magic that comes from uh, knowing the names of things.  You speak a made up language and then you do some kind of confusing magic that has no real purpose or point.  I sound dismissive of this because I am, to be clear.  They could have just as easily had this language be something whites stole from Africans and then perverted into their own means of power (it’d be a pretty easy parralel to any number of imperialist issues left behind in Africa, huh.)

But anyway, it has a tentacle monster. I think we see a big scary octopus at one point.  But the monsters are often in your face and it’s probably less scary than Stranger Things S1.

Honestly, the characters repeat “autumnal equinox” so much that I felt I was going to have a fucking breakdown.  Just the writing is very empty and no one seems to really care about anyone else on the screen except for in a rare moment between the only two characters that make it far and matter. 

Characters

They aren’t very good.  There are tropes present, which isn’t bad at all, but the way the characters interact, speak, and in general move us through the story feels stilted, often nonsensical, and entirely reliant on the viewer assuming that the latest sentence spoken is the only one that matters.

Atticus “Tic” Freeman

A war criminal that derives his power from the white blood inside of him. Again, dismissive but true.  We see this man struggle to connect pieces to a puzzle and eventually he pays the price for it, but not in the way Lovecraft would have someone pay for endeavoring beyond their realm.  Rather, something about fate and a book. Look, honestly? Who gives a shit.  Tic murders a woman in coldblood and it’s never really touched on.  There’s a lot that could be said about militaries, oppression, etc, but we often see these characters enact violence and then the story skips merrily beyond it.  So yeah, he summarily executes a Korean woman and then is later shown torturing another, but it’s okay because he feels a little bad and fucks the Korean sex demon woman.  More on that later.   I felt nothing for him.  He didn’t have some deep animus over being a torturing war criminal.  He was just kind of moving through scenes and having confusing fights with his girlfriend/baby mama.

Letitia “Leti” Lewis

This is what empowerment shouldn’t look like. It amuses me that the show claimed to subvert some kind of norms when the primary love interest (and ultimate heroine) remains the lightest skinned sister in the room.  She is able to maintain the appeal of the ingenue while at the same time having the understood attractiveness of her complexion. As far as Leti is concerned as a character, she too seems to be a pretty shitty person.  We hear that she has “transactional” friendships and she seems pretty much all about self-survival and rarely if ever puts up where others do.  She’s a heroine in the sense that the story makes her be heroic, but it never addresses how her flaws are ultimately all self-inflicted and unnecessary.  She could just not be a shitty person.

Hippolyta Freeman

Well. Hidden Figures was an excellent film, and I think that’s where Hippolyta came from.  In a more serious series, perhaps she and her daughter could have had a very touching arc that would deal with survival and exceptionalism in a world that maligns you for your very being.  Unfortunately, in reality she just comes off as a character that’s quirky in a world that’s also quirky and she doesn’t get to harness her power. There’s an entire episode dedicated to how she discovers who she is and the result is well, her hair turns blue and she makes robots?  I think the character TYPE is great, but they misused her here in all ways.

George Freeman

Well, well.  If the series had remained about George, Tic, and Leti adventuring through America and encountering sundown towns and monsters both human and otherwise, I think it’d have been okay.  The issue is, they wrote this series by the numbers so George is immediately thrown away.  He’s a wise and circumspect guy that has his own flaws (he has patrarchical notions built around protecting/babying his genius wife, clearly), but the flaws he has are understandable and well reasoned. George dies early on.  Then he sort of doesn’t, I guess? But the fact he did was really the nail in the coffin for this series.  The moment they did that, the rest just became empty strokes.  A story where George witnessed the others dying and going back to his wife and daughter would have had so much more heart to it, but well.  Uncle George is literally one of the few bright spots.

Ruby Baptise

Much like her sister, Leti, Ruby is a terrible attempt at showing empowerent on the one hand, and a masterwork on the other.  The bad first: she’s a rapist.  I’ve been called a nigger before and while it didn’t feel great, I don’t think I’d have been justified in just sodomizing the person that did it.  That entire sequence was weird and they tried to hype it as her reclaiming something, when really it spoke to a disgusting and gratuitous tendency toward Ruby: she’s always too much. Ruby, IMO, should have been Tic’s love interest.  In a sense.  First, because Wunmi Mosaku was a very attractive woman with impressive acting chops (she’s where I’ll break my moratirum, sorry), but also because it wouldn’t be what you’d see in every other show now: light-skinned pretty sister, dark-skinned sexual eikon.  And that’s the issue with Ruby there: she’s always too much.  She’s sexual by existing and that isn’t necessarily to her benefit since Leti, the good one, is an actual virgin before her sudden period sex. So the narrative has already spoken as to how it views sex. Yet, because they tried to give Ruby these strange strokes, she comes out as an interesting character.  She has feelings, aspirations, and dreams that she’s kept from and that’s very real. In a story about the absurd, a sense of realness is a familiar handhold to gather your wits.  She’s all that, really.  It’s why she has the best relationships in the show, which is AGAIN an issue, but well. I’ll say Ruby was never bad to have on screen though I was disgusted with how often her blackess (and Blackness in general!) became the source of grotesque horror.

Christina Braithewaite

This is where I get annoyed.  My issue with Christina is that she should have easily been the most hated character, but they overplayed their hand with not showing how nefarious she was.  In fact? Christina and Ruby’s relationship is the only meaningful, real, and understandable one in the entire series.  I felt no joy during her downfall, because I didn’t really get to see her doing anything bad? Just, consider what the show is.  It’s about Lovecraft’s lore, ostensibly, which treats all non (specific types of) white men like dogs.  So Christina comes at it from the “white” but “woman” perspective and you know, she has moments of duality that you can say is she more white or woman here.  But they don’t execute on how sinister she should be.  She’s a little rude at times? Yet she is the only person to treat Ruby like she should be treated and she’s the only person that seems to have a goal outside of “the quest.” It really bothered me that she came out so well done, because either they needed to have her for two seasons and make her far more nefarious after the first, or to just make her less a force for good.  She saves the characters more than a few times and pays for it by being killed when she’s at her lowest.  Yeah, it’s... a weird take.  

Ji-Ah

What can I say?  There are depictions of sex in the series, and they’re all negative: most of Ji-Ah’s scenes, Montrose’s angry self-loathing sex with his boyfriend, Ruby’s morphic horror scenes.  In the case of most of those, there’s something being said.  Ji-Ah is a monster, literally, that could be seen as Lovecraftian in the sense she’s an exotic Asian woman that kills men that sleep with her.  So, HBO was like “we’ll blow our tits and ass budget on her,” and she exists for a series of sex scenes and vague, inscrutable... shit, maybe SHE is the most Lovecraft of all the characters! Anyway at some point she joins the party after confusing drama with Leti because they both fucked Tic.  It’s okay though, because Ji-Ah isn’t here for any of that now.  She’s the one who had the best friend that had her teeth yanked out by Tic, and also who was there when he shot her other friend in cold blood, but they get over that and she’s now their friendly red panda pal or some shit.  It’s fucking trash.   Much like the Freemans (sans Tic), I think she’d have done great in another show. But they rushed her story and it felt less Ghost Nation (Westworld) and more Masturbation (Jordan Peele).

Diana Freeman

Confusing.  A stock character (quirky kid that does art, is impetuous, and won’t take no for an answer) that is given a lot of screen time.  When she sort of hijacks an episode when two ragamuffin girls chase her down and infest her or something because racist cops.  Well, the story veers to her direction.  What can I say?  If you like 11 from Stranger Things but wanted her to have Mike’s attitude, well.  Here you go.

Montrose Freeman

He could have been a good character, I guess. He seemed unnecessary and often was there purely for an x-factor of “uh?”  Like, his infamous scene where he slits a two-spirit Native American’s throat after we learn that this indigenous person had just been restored after being raped by bad guys.  So there’s that.  Also I guess he was self-loathing so he beat his son (that may not be his son???) and also liked fucking dudes, which was I think where we were supposed to care about him. It’s like someone saw Omar was a gun-wielding desperado of drug theft and decided, “Well what made him okay is he’s gay!”  But it didn’t add much.  I get he was angsty but other than Tic calling him a “faggot” (one of the few good scenes between them in terms of emotion), it all seemed empty and kind of meandering. At no point does Montrose seem a part of the team.  He just half-mumbles, gets angry, cries, and falls apart.

Captain Seamus Lancaster

He’s barely a character, but I need to include him for another point. He’s the “bad guy.”  I guess?  He uses the bodies of black men to stay alive, which is actually a really smart reference to black bodies fueling the American system, but it comes off as cheesy because it just never comes up.  He’s cartoonishly bad in a way that he’s less sinister than a meme.  Compare him to say,   Ridgeway from Colson Whitehead’s The Underground Railroad. One’s a sinister representation of an oppressive system and the other’s well, a joke.

Racism

How could this not be a theme?  The issue, as was shown with Lancaster, is that it isn’t even remotely handled with seriousness.  The best scene of racism is in the first episode when Tic, George, and Leti are forced to leave a Sundown county before they’re lynched by the racist sheriff.  The anticipation and animosity lead to some serious anxiety and it was a nailbiter.

But after that?  White people say “nigger.”  Then they get, I don’t know, raped or spit on or who knows.  A lot of black people talk back to the cops anyway in the 50′s and that’s cool.

But the real monsters of the series are all black people.  Let’s go through it: 

Tic brutalized women in the Korean War.

Montrose killed the two-spirit person.

Ruby rapes the shop owner.

Diane crushes Christina’s throat.

Ruby literally sheds her flesh in repeatedly gratuitous acts of the grotesque.

Even Ji-Ah, who’s not black, is a monster in the literal sense.  We do see the doctor that experimented on black people, but that’s about 5 minutes at the end of an episode that has a baby’s head on a man’s body so I was too busy laughing at the absurdity to take any real meaning from it.

The truth is, in Lovecraft Country, white people always should do their best to kill or keep black people down.  It definitely doesn’t speak at all to any togetherness or what have you.  Just, well. Magical negroes doing bad stuff because nothing can stop them.

The show misses the chances to show real horror in race.  Hell, the Tulsa Riots are reduced to a backdrop for a confusing book scene.  But then again, Emmett Till becomes a kind of empty reference point that we then see a white woman act out... for some reason? 

Again, the only characters with any chemistry are Ruby and Christina, which is very unfortunate for any number of reasons. As far as a statement that racism is bad goes, I mean. I barely saw it.  If I was a racist I’d be like hell yeah, Lovecraft was right they are dangerous.

Even when people try to indicate the horrors of it like, “Oh, the Korean War scenes are bad because we see how men are forced into the military complex!”  We didn’t see a white officer say “Shoot her, boy,” it was just two black guys killing women with no care at all. And no compeuppance, so that’s cool.

The Music

Sucks.  Thanks Peaky Blinders for making modern music over gif sets a thing.

Conclusion

I sure as hell would never watch it again.  If I can get one other person not to, then maybe it’d be worth it. It’s not a good show.  It’s not “smart,” and there’s no secret subversion in it.  It’s just... bad.

I won’t post on it anymore.  Please, in true Lovecraft fashion, trust me when I say that this show is so bad it cannot be comprehended. 

[buddha-in-disguise]

I have so much to unpack from last night's Supergirl episode. Since it ends at 3am UK time, I often tweet a little before I finally fall asleep. But it is now midday, so here goes on further thoughts on it all. I know this is going to be pretty rambling but I hope it makes sense.

First. Up until this half of the season, not only did Supergirl consistently trend in the UK, so did other words associated with it, most notably Kara and Lena.

Since 5B began, the trending has failed to materialise in the UK. The hiatus of two those blocks almost immediately on top of each other hasn't helped, but it is still a salient point.

Now for the rest. I'm not even sure where to start, but I will try my best.

The opening scenes in the bar.

No Nia. No Kelly. Where were they? Nothing was even mentioned. It wouldn't have taken much to have Alex say if Kelly was working, or running late. Anything. Hell, they had Kelly/Dansen and Nia meet up in a bar scenario in 5A. Why suddenly are they not there? They wouldn't necessarily need dialogue (I mean, Kelly has barely had any since Crisis anyway, so what's new?)

Yet in walks William and suddenly Alex is teasing Kara about inviting him. Winn is also there saying, hey it's okay. You barely know the guy, you had a shitty relationship beforehand, but go ahead, date the dude.

We had a prime opportunity for the Danver sisters to do karaoke together. Instead it was with William. At the expense of sister time (so many would’ve loved the sisters singing together).

So much here is wrong for me as a viewer.

If you have a show about female empowerment, yet the lead of that show is having to be told by others that dating a guy she has barely shared any positive moments with, let alone any romantic feelings for beyond a really awkward moment the episode before; that is not empowering a woman.

All too often Supergirl (as the lead in the show) is looking at dating, but not being capable of making her own romantic choices without the interference from others around her.

The only one I can think of who didn't need that was S1 James and to some degree Adam. Kara showed interest, but ultimately made the decisions on her own. Kara also recognised that with Winn, they were better off as friends. Yet S2 began and inexplicably Kara and James had broken up, and the need for Kara to get told to go for it by others began.

Mon-El was extremely problematic. As is William. Both were allowed to lie, to treat women like garbage at times with immunity. Yet here is another double standard. Kara and the Superfriends lied to Lena for 3 years, yet Lena is a bad person for reacting. I will repeat what has been said I don't know how often about Lena's reaction. It isn't without issue in how she is dealing with it. She isn't evil, but she has handled it badly. Her own emotional trauma, that was partly unpacked in 5A helps though explain why she behaved as she has.Yet, Mon-El faced no consequences for his actions. William can be a complete nightmare in how he treated Kara in 5A, but all is suddenly forgotten about or forgiven because of the reset? That is a cop out if ever there was one.

This hypocrisy is what annoys me the most, and frankly it is misogynistic all too often.

I actually pity any woman who believes it is okay for a man to behave as many do towards Kara. The message it sends is awful. I know the men in my family would be horrified by the actions of these love interests. I know of some men watching the show who feel the same way.

As for Lena and Kara. The trauma both have faced has shaped them. Yet Kara appears unaffected by losing her world a second time when Earth 38 was destroyed. On losing Argo. Sure they got it back, but as a changed merged World. You expect us to believe having to watch an antimatter wave destroy those you love has no effect? That being trapped for months with only the other paragons and Lex didn't cause trauma, even with a positive outcome. That seeing Krypton destroyed the first time wasn’t traumatic enough. That’s not something that just goes away. Add in losing Jeremiah, losing Astra (again), the trauma Supergirl must face when she can’t rescue everyone, that has a lifelong impact.

Lena has shown her emotional trauma has also been lifelong, albeit in a different way. To dismiss the emotional abuse Lena has suffered to attack her actions now is pitiful. Winn even suggests to Kara, that in the future, Lena does come through this, and isn't evil personified some want to make her out to be.

Yet Mon-El gets excused, William gets excused. Ugh. I’m sick of the double standard.

So, let’s unpack this further. Kelly Olsen was in the military. She wasn't just trained, but had an active role in the army. She recounted an event at a checkpoint where she was serving in S4. So she had active service, and it was in that moment when Kelly decided she wanted to help others more.

Kelly also knows the stress of keeping an important part of your life secret. She then also fell in love with a woman, someone who was her Sergeant, who was then killed on patrol (another reason we know Kelly was on active duty). It devastated Kelly who hadn't even told James of her relationship.

Later, upon completing her service, Kelly became a psychologist specialising in trauma.

Nia is also someone facing problems. Not only did her becoming Dreamer lead to discord with her sister, as well as the tragic loss of her mother, she has problems with Brainy. Nia offered to be there for Kelly when she was upset over watching Alex get hurt, but we saw nothing to suggest they had a heart to heart. Azie posted something that suggested they filmed a scene that did this, but it never made it on the final edit. Instead, once again we had William taking screen time.

So anyway, the point of all this is: guess who is placed to actively help Lena and/or Kara with the problems?

Kelly. Who apparently doesn't know Kara is Supergirl yet. So while Kara wonders if she should tell William, she could have the exact same conversations with Alex, only substitute Kelly for William. Overall, the plot could easily be maintained, and the established cast get good solid and plausible screen time. She could even talk to Nia about it, yet doesn't.

Another thing I find hard to understand is why haven't they used the link of Kelly, working at Obsidian North, where they could establish the Leviathan link.

If Lex has made the connection to Leviathan, you are telling me, even without Brainy helping them, Alex, Nia, J'onn and Kara haven't made the same connection? C'mon. Two investigative journalists, one who has won the Pulitzer, two DEO trained agents, and if Kelly was brought in, someone military trained; aren't able to make the connections? J'onn has all those computer banks in the tower, and while none of them are Brainy or Winn, he can't use said computing power? Why bother having it, if they are only props in the background. They could even ask Lena to help, since she has shown willingness to work with them if the reasoning was good enough. Leviathan is someone she knows (after all, Lena could have her memories returned by J’onn too). She knows the danger Leviathan poses. She could use the leverage to still get the lens from Obsidian in a similar way to now, but through Kelly if needed.

Actually, if they are using the tower, how does J’onn afford to pay for all this? I can only assume being as old as he is, he made some great investments over time, allowing him to be independently wealthy? But again nothing really suggests this.

Oh as for Alex leaving the DEO, great. After all, she was the Director but hasn’t been able to lead the DEO in all that time. Let alone some of the morally grey areas the DEO skirted around all too often. Still, where will she get her income from? Does she get paid as part of J’onn’s PI firm? Kara barely makes rent and food costs (at least she says her apartment is rent controlled so wouldn’t be able to afford it otherwise), so no way can she afford to help Alex out financially. Kelly might be able to support her, but again I cannot imagine it would be sustainable.

I feel like banging my head against a brick wall.

Onto Nia. I've said this a few times now, but here I go again. Back to William. I get the reason he came along in regards to Russell and so the Andrea connection. That story made sense. What hasn't made sense - William being used as a journalist, when Nia is right there! Nia has barely had any screen time, and virtually none as a journalist; you know - her actual job. I'm not sure what the minutes on screen ratio has been this season between the two, but it has felt completely slanted towards William as a viewer.

Instead of Kara and Nia investigating Leviathan after William was 'exposed' in 5A, now Nia is sidelined again, because they want Kara to team up with William to investigate Lex. Why do they need that journalistic pairing of William and Kara, when Nia - who as a Superhero, is better placed if danger from Lex occurs. But no, they're making it about Kara having to work with William because Lex threatened to kill him. Plus Nia was being mentored by Kara. Is she no longer being mentored by Kara? Are they a team? Even if the mentoring has ended, Nia is still not being utilised as a journalist. As the saying goes, make it make sense!

As for Lex. I love Jon Cryer. I’ve loved his version of Lex, but once again I feel Lena is just as well placed to take on his role in bringing down Leviathan. Why add another villain to this plot? We were told it was Leviathan who were the bad guys for this season, but once again we barely have a glimpse of them, but all the screen time on Lex, also to the detriment of Lena. We could be using this time to begin to mend Lena’s relationships with not only Kara, but the Superfriends. Instead we are getting bit and pieces, that seemingly bear little resemblance to the ‘fight for Lena’s soul’, or the ‘Stronger together, weaker apart’ tag lines the SG team used to market the series in 5A. (See attached photo). So again, this is frustrating for us to watch, as there is absolutely no cohesion to the storytelling. We know it is the ‘nothing is as it seems’ season, but to have no really coherent storylines so far this late on? It is baffling for me.

The sidelining of Nia and Kelly also brings to the fore the way the LGBTQ characters are being treated.

Dansen feels like a long lost legend from the mists of time. As I said earlier, there was a perfect opportunity for a Dansen scene in the opening part of the show, yet we might as well watch tumbleweeds fly past, for all the screen time Dansen or Nia have had. Well, rather haven’t had.

It seems we shouldn't ask for justification as to why William is on the show, but when we say the LGBTQ characters are being sidelined, that it doesn't matter one jot how diverse a cast can be; if said cast are not being given credible storylines or screentime, and if we say as much, we have to continually justify why that is the case. We get told to take what we are given. To insist on better, is oppressing white CIS men (in some cases CIS women have argued the same). This isn't oppressing anyone, but asking that if we get given relationships, given characters we want to invest in, they get the storylines to accomplish that. Supergirl is failing the LGBTQ audience so badly at the moment. So many have the same complaints it is ludicrous to suggest this is just one section of a fandom or trolls.

What I'm taking from all this at the moment is that 20% of the main viewing demographic as per GLAAD figures (and more besides, as I've seen straight viewers recognising the problems as well), have serious concerns with Supergirl.

But keep telling us we are overreacting. Or we should take what we are given. Or that we are delusional. After all, it is the kind of crap we have sprouted at us continually away from Supergirl, why shouldn't it be the case here.

I look at S4, heck even 5A, to what the show is doing now and it feels like an unmitigated disaster. Episodes are running out fast, so even if they increase Dansen, or Nia's screen time, it won't be enough to make up what has been lost. They're running out of time to give us a solid ending that ties up the mess they've created.

I really don’t know where this will end? CW Supergirl - do better. You have some phenomenal actors and actresses in your cast. Do them and your audience justice. Because right now you aren’t at all.

[caltropspress]

FEEDBACK LOOP #6: Cargo Cults’ “Rammellzee”

Since these symbols and all symbols are drawn, infinity’s separation from all symbols must be shown through drawing. The only proof of such a separation of the infinity would be the understanding by the majority of the planetary peers. There is no other way.

—from IONIC TREATISE GOTHIC FUTURISM ASSASSIN KNOWLEDGES OF THE REMANIPULATED SQUARE POINT’S ONE TO 720° TO 1440° THE RAMM-ΣLL-ZΣΣ (1979, 2003)

The rabbit-hole went straight on like a tunnel for some way, and then dipped suddenly down, so suddenly that Alice had not a moment to think about stopping herself before she found herself falling down a very deep well.

—from Lewis Carroll’s Alice in Wonderland

Riding among an exhausted busful of Negroes going on to graveyard shifts all over the city, she saw scratched on the back of a seat, shining for her in the brilliant smoky interior, the post horn with the legend DEATH. But unlike WASTE, somebody had troubled to write in, in pencil: DON’T EVER ANTAGONIZE THE HORN.

—from Thomas Pynchon’s The Crying of Lot 49

1.  I walk down the street and people look at me and say, “Who the hell are you?”

Cargo Cults (Alaska and Zilla Rocca) begin their track “Rammellzee” with the voice of the some-16 billion-years-old being himself. The song is an ode, an invocation. The organ sample provides a bizarre ride: a carousel of colors. We immediately plummet—into a well, a subway tunnel, a cosmos of linguistics. Not a nonchalant That’s deep, but a depth of knowledge where “cipher” means code, means Supreme Mathematics, means gathering with your rapfolk outside the Nuyorican Poets Cafe or in Washington Square Park: a deep connection. Mimicking Rammellzee, Alaska presents the listener with “swirling pages / forming mazes of [his] formulations” and subsequently “break[s] them down into a form that’s shapeless.”

2.  Hip-hop is ageist….In blues, you ain’t official until you fifty. (Ka, Red Bull Music Academy interview with Jeff Mao, 2016)

The phrase …of a certain age has, historically, been used euphemistically to describe someone (typically a woman) who has existed for a “shameful” tally of years. Society is still undoing the stigma, but rappers have made strides.

In Adult Rappers, a 2015 documentary directed by Paul Iannacchino (Hangar 18’s DJ paWL), Alaska is [accidentally?] presented twice in the closing credits—like a double, a separate persona—which calls to mind the multiple personalities of Rammellzee: Crux the Monk, Chaser the Eraser, Gash/Olear, et cetera. Age allows for maturation, for building, for bettering. In Rammellzee’s case—and I’d argue Alaska’s—it allows for complexity to emerge organically through wisdom. It allows for reinvention, for many versions of one’s self. Age and development is how an aerosol can with a fat cap can graduate to customized deodorant roll-ons and shoe polish canisters.

It begins with jerry-rigging a nozzle and ends in diagramming a “harpoonic whip launcher/pulsating extendor” to illustrate the deconstruction of letter-formations in the English alphabet. The spirit of experience pervades the Nihilist Millennial album. As anyone who has ever sat on the couch knows, communication can also improve with age.

3.

Artists and rappers like Rammellzee and Alaska rely on wild-styles, a self-made world that warps quantum physics and disregards notions of dimensionality. It’s dream-vision. It’s liberation. It simultaneously celebrates and critiques communication: like the image of a muted horn.

“Communication is the key,” cried Nefastis. “The Demon passes his data on to the sensitive, and the sensitive must reply in kind. There are untold billions of molecules in that box. The Demon collects data on each and every one. At some deep psychic level he must get through…”

“Help,” said Oedipa, “you’re not reaching me.”

“Entropy is a figure of speech, then,” sighed Nefastis, “a metaphor. It connects the world of thermodynamics to the world of information flow. The Machine uses both. The Demon makes the metaphor not only verbally graceful, but also objectively true.”

[…]

Nefastis smiled; impenetrable, calm, a believer.

The wordplay seems just that: play—that is, until you find the thread. Alaska cobbles together words like rubbish, W.A.S.T.E. Words appear daisy-chained together—flowery, ornate, and strung together by their stems: “fatalism, Fela Kuti, razor thin” / “smash the superstitions with acid tabs and some Sufi visions” / “deep dive Sonny Liston” / “Walt Whitman.”

The track reads like a codex. Something crafted in a scriptorium. His words are warfare—double-tracked/double-barreled—and he slips into braggadocio to prove it. It’s an authoritative posture of experience. Having started atomically small—from Breaking Atoms bedroom listening, to Atoms Family—Alaska’s flow presents nuclear now: maximum damage.

There’s a refinement to what this duo is doing: “Me and Zilla well-established with a lavish vision. / Both hands crusty with Ikonklastic Panzerism.” The boasts rely on royal diction: Camelot, palace doors, Prince Paul. Each man a king, a God, and each one should teach one. Mentor texts for the masses.

4.  

Rammellzee is an equation, And simply stated it’s the way of life I’m chasing. That’s why I praise the future-Gothic future-prophet. Gotta rock it, don’t stop it, Gotta rock it, don’t stop.

You find diversions on the song, exits into familiar chambers. GZA quotations (“I was the thrilla in the Ali-Frazier Manila”) and allusions to Main Source. Large Professor rapped “Dead is my antonym,” and if that’s to be proven true, money needs to be removed from the equation. The refrain of “Gotta rock it” not only calls to mind “Beat Bop,” Herbie Hancock, and Grand Mixer DS.T (or his later incarnation, DXT), but rockets—Afrofuturist angles, future shocks (Bill Laswell [Material], friend to Rammellzee, had a hand in all this). It’s not so much a “future-prophet” as a “future profit.” “Freedom in the process” means creativity without expectation, without the constraints of market value.

Alaska gives it to us straight: “I don’t care if you don’t like it, and I don’t care if you don’t buy it / ’Cause I find freedom in the process.” Despite becoming increasingly complex in his visual approach—like a heap of garbage that loses the definition of its component parts over the ages—Rammellzee understood time equals clarity of vision. A wasted world becomes a meaningful one. Of course, we got to pay rent, so money connects, but ownership of one’s art is about empowerment. “Selling out” is the opposite—an evisceration of one’s self and spirit. “We lost control from the second we sold the art,” Alaska raps. “We sold our future….We should be seeking enlightenment.”

The moment arrives, epiphanically: “I find freedom in the process so I’m grateful, / And that’s my main source: it’s my friendly game of baseball.” For Alaska and Zilla Rocca, it’s not a job—it’s a passion, a pastime.

5.  Nascent imagination deep inside a battle station.

Post-9/11 meant luxury apartments displaced Rammellzee’s Battle Station loft, his living museum. But the art has been excavated and exists posthumously. His Gothic Futurism and Ikonoklast Panzerism seem at home archived on the internet—a network that appears more like a chaos cloud. Rammellzee deconstructed and transcended language—junk monk scripts and calligraphic cut-ups of consumerism. His art is the empowerment a recycling arrow-triangle could only hope to be. Recycle is also rebirth. Rammellzee’s career path is circuitous, deep-tunneled (subway-esque), eternal.

Similarly, Alaska’s multisyllabic patterns are an endless barrage, like weaponized letters tilted sideways, like bottle rockets angled into a bottle’s neck: “Armament / Now my names are built like a BattleBot / Locked inside an ad hoc Camelot, I rather not / Tangle with a rabid lot, hop inside a rabbit hole.”

Alice was beginning to get very tired of sitting by her sister on the bank, and of having nothing to do: once or twice she had peeped into the book her sister was reading, but it had no pictures or conversations in it, “and what is the use of a book,” thought Alice “without pictures or conversations?”

Boredom can make trouble, but boredom can also breed creativity. Alaska rather not spar with trolls under ISP bridges—though he’s equipped to. Instead, he channels his energies into material.

6.  Our culture is done. We lived it.

Near the end, Alaska paraphrases Rammellzee: “I’m not the first or the last to don the mask. / I see it as a title, I’m monastic with these raps.”

Living a life of art—making it regardless of accolade or monetary payment—is the highest form of creativity. Live the art and die by it, like Stan Brakhage, poisoning himself at a slow pace as he applied toxic dyes to celluloid film. Like Rammellzee executing graffiti pieces maskless, huffing the carcinogenic fumes.

MF DOOM (née Zev Love X)—a Rammellzee descendant—taught us how to revel in anonymity, the importance of not spotlighting yourself, but instead seeking out the shade, secret passageways, and the trapdoor in the stage floor. Not all of us heed the advice, but some do, and they feel the throb of real success, not the sort that shows up in bank statements and 401(k) plans.

Images:

“Beat Bop” test pressing, Rammellzee and K-Rob, art by Jean-Michel Basquiat, 1983 (detail) | Rammellzee black-and-white portrait photograph (unknown) | Ikonoklast Panzerism diagram from IONIC TREATISE GOTHIC FUTURISM ASSASSIN KNOWLEDGES OF THE REMANIPULATED SQUARE POINT’S ONE TO 720° TO 1440° THE RAMM-ΣLL-ZΣΣ (1979, 2003) | Page 34 (muted post horn) in Thomas Pynchon’s The Crying of Lot 49, Bantam Books edition (1966) | “A scribe at work,” from an illuminated manuscript from the Estoire del Saint Graal, France (Royal MS 14 E III c. 1315-1325 AD) | Herbie Hancock, Future Shock cassette cover (1983) | Grand Mixer D.ST comic book image (unknown) | Stan Brahage at chalkboard (unknown) | Stan Brakhage, Mothlight celluloid (1963) | “Beat Bop” test pressing, Rammellzee and K-Rob, art by Jean-Michel Basquiat, 1983 (detail)

[fans-to-stans]

The Impact of Dystopian Novels on Gen Z

In the following post, I will be discussing the digital revolution as well as YA novels, namely the dystopian type from the late 2000’s to the early 2010’s, and the various impacts they have had on Generation Z. I will focus mainly on the effects of fandom culture as well as the adoption of culture and characteristics of fictional realities, and the emergence of the dystopian female lead trope.

Following the digital revolution, access to information and discussion platforms (such as Tumblr) became rampant. Fandoms hence became one of the dominant modes of engagement online. People across the globe could now find a community of people who share the same interests on the same platform, hence creating common ground for like-minded people to relate. That being said, fan culture existed way before the arrival of the internet, but I will be specifically referencing the post-internet understanding of fandoms as that is what I can relate to. The arrival of the internet led to a new level of globalization of fandom culture. (Janya Sindhu, 2019) These communities were based off popular culture such as tv shows, books, films, music, and more. I will be discussing the impacts of The Huger Games series and the Divergent series. 

Both novels are set in dystopian, futuristic realities where the general population has been divided into separate classes. In the Hunger Games, we are introduced to the concept of “districts”, running from 1-12, where each district is in charge of a specific industry. This is a fascinating depiction of classism as it clearly demonstrates the disparity between amount of work and the level of compensation received depending on which district you were born in. Katniss Everdeen, the protagonist, was born into the 12th, the poorest district, which focuses on coal. (Henthorne, T., 2012)

On the other hand, the Divergent series is separated into factions. There are five factions, Erudite (the intelligent), Amity (the peaceful), Candor (the honest), Abnegation (the selfless) and Dauntless (the brave). In the divergent universe, people are born into a faction, and on their sixteenth birthday, they can choose which faction they wish to switch to. From then on, they have to forget who they once were (including their families) and adopt the traits of their new persona. 

The reason I am explaining these fictional social systems is that following the arrival of social media platforms, people began relating and adopting certain aspects of these novels. People could now order the signature mocking jay pin worn by Katniss Everdeen as a symbol of revolution, or perhaps her bow and arrow, As for Divergent, online quizzes could tell you what your true faction was depending on your personality. What was once a figment of one’s imagination, generated by a script could now feel and seem as real as ever. You could now literally immerse yourself in these universes with some kind of physical “proof”. (Janya Sindhu, 2019)

One of the first instances of this happening was following the Harry Potter boom, where the different Houses and their given specific personality traits created an obsession amongst fans to see where they fit in. People began adopting these traits and labeling themselves accordingly. Obsession could hence be legitimized and encouraged. The development of a new kind of fan known as a stan where someone revolves their entire like and personality around a specific cultural idol can be observed here. The internet, where personality quizzes, discussion platforms, immediate and intimate access to celebrities through Instagram and more injected fandom and stan culture with an extra strength dose of false legitimacy. Even if the algorithm that creates these life altering claims off of 12 seemingly random questions is completely random, the obsession some people have with inserting themselves in their beloved fictional universe will legitimize nearly anything.

 Moreover, Gen Z has grown up reading these dystopian novels and idolizing their female protagonists. Katniss and Tris (the protagonist from the Divergent series) heavily impacted me growing up. It was once of the first instances that I can remember where the lead female was not depicted as the damsel in distress, but as the hero. On multiple occasions, both Katniss and Tris were both the brains and the muscle behind successful operations aiming to either overthrow their corrupt governments or save their male love interests. (Balkind, 2014) Unfortunately, both of these novels only depicted hetero-normative relationships. That being said young girls everywhere began idolizing these characters as it finally gave us a positive depiction of woman in sci fi where their looks and sexuality were not the main focus. Women began wearing their hair in a single French braid pushed to the side because “that’s how Katniss wears hers”. I was absolutely one of those girls. There is a certain empowerment that comes with mimicking one’s heroine, especially at such a young age. In the Divergent series, Tris joins the Dauntless faction where she breaks down gender stereotypes by becoming one of the most lethal members of the faction. (Wiyani, et al., 2017) Katniss is a really interesting character as she demonstrates typically male characteristics (such as being removed, thinking with her head and confidence) all the while maintaining her compassionate side which is shown to her loved ones. The female dystopian lead trope is one of my favourites as, more often than not, these women clearly struggle with trying to find balance with where and how they fit in with society as so many women do. They are absolutely not perfect and often make biased choices and mistakes but that is what I believe makes them so relatable. (Nelson, C., 2014)

To conclude, in my opinion, Generation Z is becoming one of the most outspoken and influential generations yet. With access to information at the tip of our fingers and platforms such as TikTok, twitter, Instagram, etc., our voices and opinions can be shared effortlessly. Growing up with rebellious and headstrong icons such as Tris and Katniss have given young women a chance to see how powerful one person’s voice can be when utilized properly. In the context of fandom and stan culture, the impact of the digital revolution is incomparable.

References: 

2015. What Divergent faction are you?. [image] Available at: <https://www.playbuzz.com/ralflet210/what-divergent-faction-are-you> [Accessed 2 May 2021]. Henthorne, T., 2012. Approaching The Hunger Games trilogy: A literary and cultural analysis. McFarland. https://br.pinterest.com/saradomonkoov/ - Image taken from Pinterest Wiyani, N.P., Sili, S. and Valiantien, N.M., 2017. The Psychoanalytical Study on The Characteristics and Causes of Adolescent Deviant Behavior Found in Divergent Novel by Veronica Roth. Ilmu Budaya: Jurnal Bahasa, Sastra, Seni dan Budaya, 1(2). Janya Sindhu, 2019, Medium Journal, How the Internet has made Fandom Culture Powerful. [online] Available at: <https://medium.com/swlh/how-the-internet-has-made-fandom-culture-powerful-7609ae60e4bf> [Accessed 2 May 2021]. Reid, S. and Stringer, S., 1997. Ethical dilemmas in teaching problem novels: The psychological impact of troubling YA literature on adolescent readers in the classroom. Balkind, N 2014, Fan Phenomena : The Hunger Games, Intellect Books Ltd, Bristol. Available from: ProQuest Ebook Central. [1 May 2021]. Nelson, C., 2014. Female rebellion in young adult dystopian fiction. Ashgate Publishing, Ltd..

[notfromanotherworld]

On Sep. 24, South Korean boy group BTS gave a speech on empowerment and love at the United Nations headquarters in New York City. The event marked the launch of “Generation Unlimited”—a partnership between the UN and UNICEF that aims to promote education and empowerment for young people. The choice of BTS, also known as the Bangtan Boys, appeared sensible. They are widely recognizable figures with a global following as well as recent winners of Golden Disk and Billboard Music Awards. They also serve as UNICEF Goodwill ambassadors. Many South Korean feminists, however, condemned the choice. To them, BTS is representative of the misogynistic music scene in their country. They contend that BTS, like many male musicians in their South Korea, objectifies and degrades women with their lyrics and comments. “They have been controversial figures for a long time, but this issue has never gotten wide public attention. I think international fans are not aware of how the group is perceived by Korean feminists,” said Uh Hye-sun, a 23-year-old South Korean student and self-identified feminist.

BTS arguably has become the most visible face of South Korea’s music industry—often called “K-pop” in English—which has achieved phenomenal growth in recent years...But the music scene has a dark side, not least its long history of exploiting musicians and culture of misogyny. Signed by major management agencies, aspiring stars can toil for years under unequal contracts that compel them to give up a bulk of their future earnings and personal freedom. And its depiction of under-aged girls—who perform under the label of “idols”—has come under fire for encouraging pedophilia...

More worryingly, the group has made certain comments that many South Korean feminists say reflect the country’s traditional expectations toward women. When asked about ideal women, J-Hope, yet another member, answered that his was someone who is good at naejo—literally “domestic support”—which refers to doing various household chores that a stay-at-home wife performs to support her husband’s career. The group’s vocalist, V, told entertainment site Star News that his ideal was “a woman who spends wisely the money I bring home.” On one of the tracks on BTS’s 2013 album “2 Cool 4 Skool,” the members discuss their childhood dreams, and Jin, the oldest of them, says, “Just like my dad, I wanted to go to work at 7 am and come home at 6 pm to eat the meal that my wife cooks for me.” Then another member chimes in and adds, “I also thought that would be the best [life]. … What is hip hop good for anyway?”

Even the group’s official twitter account (@BTS_twt) has shown indifference to women’s rights. One tweet, dated to Feb. 9, 2013, went: “Girls have got to dress cold [and show skin] both in winter and summer. That’s how men would like them.” “Are women mannequins and not human beings?” a user replied to the group’s post. “We are neither sexual objects nor born to be your eye candies.” BTS never responded. In replying to a comment from another Twitter user (@minj0213), the BTS account tweeted that she should “turn her cheek” so that they could “punch it with a fist.” Many fans defended BTS and claimed the remark was a joke, but some feminists say the group’s attitude toward women should not be overlooked in a country where domestic violence is pervasive. The Korean Institute of Criminology’s 2015 report shows that 71.7 percent of women in South Korea had experienced physical or psychological abuse from their male partners at one point in their lives.

Most importantly, the group’s lyrics seem to not only ignore gender inequality in South Korean society, but also go so far as to perpetuate and even encourage them. Several of BTS’ songs, for example, have been accused of expressing misogyny and sexism.

On July 7, 2016, BTS’ agency, Big Hit Entertainment, apologized in a statement to “everyone and many fans who felt discomfited by BTS’s lyrics and SNS contents.” But South Korean feminists like Jang Yoon-jeong expressed doubt over whether the group and its agency truly understood the perspectives and criticisms of women who felt the lyrics were misogynistic. Jang, who also happens to be a BTS fan, said that she was disappointed when BTS released its song “Not Today” just a few months after the apology, in February 2017. The song was criticized for the phrase “Just break the glass ceiling that imprisons you,” because it seemed deliberately engineered to counter the criticisms about BTS’s past stance on women without being specific on how the group had been wrong. It implied the group supported women and minorities that were wrongfully stopped from achieving the success they deserved, even as it failed to acknowledge or explain the group’s past objectification and denigration of women.

“If celebrities really want to advocate social issues, they have to proactively bring up arguments [that are central to the issues]. However, BTS tries to attract the public with abstract messages,” said Kim Sun-hee, a visiting professor of philosophy and keen K-pop observer at Ewha Woman’s University in Seoul...

The question of whether BTS is espousing misogyny led to online disputes between South Korean feminists and the fans of BTS who refer to themselves as ARMY—which stands for “Adorable Representative Master of ceremonies for Youth”—and are famous for their passionate defense of the group. On Twitter shortly after BTS spoke at the UN, some feminists pointed out the irony of BTS encouraging the youth to love themselves when the group itself has a record of sexism. Those who spoke out against the group’s controversy, however, became targets of a fierce backlash. One South Korean feminist who asked to be unnamed for this piece reached out to me privately to share her experience of being cyberbullied for publicly criticizing BTS on Twitter on the grounds that the group did nothing for the LGBTQ community in South Korea and yet used its pro-LGBTQ image as a marketing strategy to appeal to international fans... Another feminist on Twitter lamented, “The one who spoke at the UN has a reputation of acting misogynistically.” She added that “only Koreans know that the group has such reputation.”

The UN seems to have been woefully ignorant of BTS’s background before they issued the invitation for the group to speak...

Georgina Thompson, media consultant at UNICEF New York, refused to answer questions regarding the group’s previous misogynistic controversies. UNICEF Korea, which organized BTS’ appearance at the United Nations at least according to one Korean news media outlet, failed to return my multiple requests for comment over the span of a week... That comment illustrated the difference in the ways that the BTS is perceived—by its international fan base, the South Korean government and international organizations such as the UN and UNICEF on the one hand; and by South Korean feminists on the other. “Discrimination against women exists in our daily lives in Korea,” said Kim Kyung-min, a 17-year-old South Korean ARMY who, despite liking BTS, thought having the band speak was a poor choice by the UN.

- “BTS: Generational Icons or Misogynists?” by Chaewon Chung

[the-busy-ghost]

Alright here’s my belated Thoughts on that latest TSP episode. I should add again, I am in no way saying people shouldn’t like this show, I just need to be petty on my own blog. 

- Stafford’s Performative Masculinity is a bit Much, even for a sixteenth century man

- Katherine doesn’t want Wolsey appointed chancellor because that would give him too much power and the chancellor is apparently the second most powerful man in the kingdom... so powerful in fact that I’m not even sure we’ve seen the current chancellor on screen, except in his ecclesiastical role as archbishop of Canterbury

- Ah the migrating towers of Holyrood. They weren’t there for the last two episodes and they won’t be there next scene either but they’ll be *theoretically* here all week folks.

- It is mildly hilarious that this show seems to think that every single moment in Scottish politics took place in one wee house in Somerset “Edinburgh”, and the only people who are ever involved are two dozen stereotypical Scottish noblemen, and one Englishwoman (and no clergy? Which is extremely weird given how heavily involved they were in royal administration).

- Not to mention they imply Holyrood is meant to be Edinburgh (it is now, then it was actually in the burgh of the Canongate but close enough) and yet the burgh skyline of Edinburgh is never visible in the background of these shots, just rolling fields and a nondescript hill that I assume is meant to be Arthur’s seat.

- Ok so we’re portraying Angus as the poetic soul instead of his uncle, that’s fine, that makes no sense but it’s fine.

- Who the fuck is Bishop McElroy. Setting aside the fact that McElroy was more common in Ireland than Scotland during the sixteenth century (and there were no major noble or even influential lairdly families bearing the surname), why could they not have just done a google search and found out that, oh yeah, there were Real Life Scottish Bishops in 1515, anyone of whom would have done. And I don’t know why they mucked about with the timeline but if they were going to muck around with the timeline anyway then then how about maybe even, dare I say it, Gavin Douglas, bishop-elect of Dunkeld???

- Also I didn’t quite catch the full line so I may have misheard but I think Margaret states that they got married in the kirk of South Queensferry? I mean tbh this only confirms my belief that the writers think everything happened in the vicinity of Edinburgh (and that they didn’t even bother to think to TRY and find out where the marriage might have taken place, just started tossing a few Scottish place names out there as if that would do. The Ferry’s not even that private, it was on a major pilgrimage route and an important crossing point over the Forth). It’s also a bit irritating because there’s no reason for the inaccuracies? They didn’t have to show the wedding so they didn’t have to change the location or characters for ease of filming or anything, it’s just a throwaway line, there’s no reason for them to make up a bishop and unlikely wedding location? Anyway join us next week as Henry VIII and Anne Boleyn conduct their affair in the middle of London Bridge.

- Also excuse me while I make an unconvinced noise at that line about how the Douglases (i.e. all of them, not just the Red ones) have always ‘licked the balls of England’. While their notoriety for being Shady As Fuck and occasionally siding with the English was certainly well known, no sixteenth century Scotsman worth his salt would have sullied the name of the Good Sir James just to score points off the Angus branch of the family.

- (Maybe this is a bad time to point out that they’re not technically licking ‘balls’ in this instance either...)

- I take it back there was one (1) woman very briefly in that scene where Margaret and “Angus” rushed to grab the bairns. She was promptly never seen again. Confirmed Cryptid.

- Also where did all the other bairns (James IV’s ones, not Margaret’s) go. I mean they were actually there last episode I think, so it’s not like they were implying that Margaret got rid of them as soon as she could. Have they FINALLY grown up?

- How quickly do letters travel in this world? How long have they been in that cellar? Are they still there?

- Wait so now Katherine of Aragon knows his name is Archibald??? Why has everyone been calling him ‘Angus Douglas’ then, even when his dad (and presumably grandfather) was alive?

- Lol @ Henry ‘after all I’ve done for her’. Do tell, what HAVE you done for Margaret.

- Hang on so Thomas Boleyn is Earl of Wiltshire already and yet his father-in-law Thomas Howard still isn’t duke of Norfolk

- Second LOL @ an archbishop of York willfully summoning a naturalised Frenchman to Scotland without the king of England’s permission, as if Scotland lay in his gift and as if that was in any way a good idea, even for some political point-scoring

- “Margaret’s sons must take the throne”- Katherine are you aware that James V was crowned King of Scots not two weeks after Flodden, and approximately seven months before his younger brother Alexander was even born.

- Again, HOW LONG HAVE THEY BEEN IN THE CELLAR? Angus has grown a BEARD.

- He’s not the future king he IS the king. A tiny toddler king. You help him go potty you disrespectful shite, I don’t care if you’re having a nervous breakdown. (May I just point out again it is CRIMINAL that David Lindsay isn’t in this)

- We all pause for An Exaggerated Whispering Scene, that great period drama staple. I mean are we sure they’re gossiping about Henry and a *woman*, because the way people are talking about Wolsey at that dinner once again makes it look like he’s the real Mistress

- So wait how is this ‘letting’ Margaret go with Howard thing supposed to work. Is it like knock-knock special delivery for the duke of Norfolk, here you go please take your princess back.

- And when exactly did Angus do all this negotiating when he has supposedly been stuck in a cellar for weeks. Gavin Douglas has a lot to answer for, and not just the sheer length of the Eneados.

- ‘Bog-fuckers’ - not a bog in sight in this west country version of Scotland. Also er, just how does one fuck a bog. Asking for a friend.

- I’m just being pedantic, Howard’s foul mouth is actually the only genuine piece of comedy the writers can come up with in this tv show.

- Howard putting up a good front here but come on there’s like six of them and about two dozen Miscellaneous Scotsmen. I know that the English were very practised in quartering Scots whenever they liked but eight to one is not good odds, even for the victor of Flodden.

- Yeah that whole scene is not how the history worked. At All. But let’s let them ride dramatically away across a field as if it’s at all plausible. (Also why is it always fields- I know Scotland’s roads were bad in the sixteenth century, but seriously they were at least *technically* roads when you got near Edinburgh)

- And there was definitely no Isabella Hoppringle, which is again, criminal. I mean I expected it but it’s still sad. Mind you I suppose that might imply that Scottish women are real creatures and not cryptids which, as we know, is totally unrealistic.

- Even weirder though, they’re not including Margaret Douglas? Why?

- Only one man has ever been in the king’s rooms? Seriously? You expect us to believe this, not only from a historical accuracy perspective, but also from the tv show that gave us implied Wolsey/Henry?

-  The Great English Midwife Shortage c.1509-1516

- Do NONE of the many many grown-up people at the English court understand the lottery of birth and that you can’t just like, assume the baby will be a boy even if you hope it will. Wishful thinking is one thing (and common) but this wholehearted belief thing is frankly unrealistic.

- It’s also unfair how they’re treating Mary as unloved by both her parents. We know Katherine loved her daughter in some way, and it’s also not really fair to say that Henry VIII was anything less than a doting father in her early years.

- And the record for fastest churching goes to Katherine again. Cracking cape though.

- Katherine all ‘he won’t visit his daughter’- you won’t even look at her either though. How is this a sympathetic depiction of Katherine again? Don’t get me wrong, it’s absolutely understandable if a royal mother didn’t always want to hold her daughter but really? After every other negative light they’ve shown Katherine in and called it Empowerment?

- Hey I don’t know much about English customs but seems to me that inviting the French to intervene in Scotland without consulting the king might just be a beheading offence Wolsey. AND THEN HENRY COVERS FOR HIM? THE PAGES OF ENGLISH HISTORY BOOKS ARE NOT STAINED WITH THE BLOOD OF CIVIL SERVANTS EXECUTED FOR FAR LESSER OFFENCES FOR THIS KIND OF NONSENSE TO BE ACCEPTABLE.

- Thomas Boleyn, dad of the year

- People do kiss, Margaret Pole. That was a common thing. MEN kissed each other goddamnit. Not really good enough. I mean by your logic Katherine should have broken up with Henry after her dad laid one on him in the first episode.

- How is it that Thomas More, of all people, has the Goss. 

- Oh and apparently there was also a National Laundress Shortage in 1516 too.

Ok so it was about as meh as every other episode but I think this one really brought home to me how poorly thought out Margaret’s storyline was. I mean usually these period dramas have to insert Drama for no reason to keep people interested, but Margaret’s life was FULL of drama and they had so much to work with. Instead they seem to have actually stripped most of the drama out to tell an utterly incomprehensible story about a bunch of stereotypical Scotsmen, who all live in the same house in Fake Edinburgh, chasing the only woman in Scotland into the cellar, and then posting her off back to England a few weeks later.

[jentwiy]

 Community Healing Among Puerto Ricans Blog 7

Throughout the reading, there was a section that portrayed a very feminist aspect with multipe lens and it just all ties in with the though or action of healing. On page 126 it states how a woman visited an Espiritista center because she became depressed due to her daughter's death in a car accident. The mother blamed herself because she allowed her to go out pretty late. Healing through release of feminie mother nature due to daughter's death. At the Espiritista center she connected with her daughters soul, in which she obtained the message to release all fault she feels because there is no way she could have prevented anything from happening that would stop her car accident that lead to her death. At last the daughters soul made sure her mother knew she was happy and that her mother should not feel guilty. Sooner rather than later the mother began crying relaying the message that she missed her. The group to support the mother cried along with her and felt her pain. The mother was very thankful of the Espiritista Center for helping her connect with her daughter and realize she was not suffering but she was happy. Now, Espiritismo is a indigenous healing system, where Puerto Ricans use this as a health care system. This healthcare system is used to heal and treat mental health related issues. Ideally, within Espiritismo there is a belief in communication with the spirits world through intermediaries that are mediums. Some Puerto Ricans consider this a religion thats a healing system in hopeless moments. Now as the mother portrayed a very femine/feminsit moment of taking blame for what happened to her daughter demonstrates the absolute mother instinct. The reading states that, “One can argue a dependence on spirits to resolve problems work against the process  of empowerment. But the Espiritistam medium believes that besides asking for help from the spirits, a client must assume an active involvement in treatment.” The mother is dependent on this as a healing process but has done her part to release within crying. The mother is acceptive of the response and treatment. Concludingly Espiritusimo is a system meant for healing created by and for the community to help them surpass moments of crisis like the mothers experience with her daughter. (pg.129) Once one receives the help and understanding of the process the mother will  be sure to share her experience and educate others. This also portrays a very femine and feminsit side of the mother as it is an instinct  to help others who are in need. Another femine side that was shown her was the release of the mothers emotions for how long she held the cry in for. Many mothers do absorb a lot of emotions before releasing to the borderline.  Many mothers wish they could do so much for their children as my mom sometimes personally says and wishes. My mother personally holds a lot of emotions before releasing and reaching her borderline.