#Also I do not endorse not looking at women as humans

[puppyocto]

Pearlescent Moon and Medea. Can women be villains?

Now this isn't my usual thing (talking about Jimmy solidarity), but I reminded myself of it on twitter I think it's interesting. (This comes from a school assignment I did) Now we all now Pearl, I don't have to explain her tragedy to you, being abandoned by Scott, either choosing to engage in villainy or being forced to depending on your perspective. But what about Medea. Medea is an ancient Greek tragedy where the titular female character, Medea, is cheated on by her husband. However she had left her on country for him, meaning he leaves her abandoned and alone. (Also she kills her kids but that doesn't come up) Both of these characters have villainous men around them, Medea's husband or Scar in Pearl's double life (he suggests the whole ice thing). But, weirdly, these female characters face far heavier social sanctioning than their male counterparts. Social sanctioning being the ways people in society shame people into behaving in socially acceptable ways. For example judgemental stares or on a legal scale, being arrested. Medea, seems to reenact this social sanctioning on herself, showing she really has internalised these ideas whereas we see this less from Pearl. When speaking Medea says “For women, divorce is not respectful; to repel the man, not possible.”, now this shows her internalisation but also really highlights how absolute this issue is for Medea. Divorce clearly was not socially acceptable at the time Medea was written and therefore must be "not possible" or essentially completely impossible for women to do. And this is only the "for women". Not men. I also think it's interesting divorce isn't really that big an issue, compared to things like murder divorce doesn't seem that bad but that's the thing she talks about here because it doesn't have to be a big thing for it to be a big deal for women. Any deviation from traditional societal behaviours is too much for women. Now back to Pearl, as I said rather than doing it to herself often other people are really harsh on Pearl with Martyn saying "You guys have got this whole weird vibe going on, I’m an innocent party in all this, I blame you for this. I’m breaking up with you too, goodbye, goodbye. Nether again. I’m out." after him and Pearl are abandoned by Scott and Cleo respectively. This is different from how Medea is treated because yes all the blame is put on the female charater instead of the male character (look at how many times Martyn says you, he's really enforcing it" but it calls itself out a little. Martyn here with his pun, referces the nether which he convinced Pearl to go to, and is a big reason that Scott and Cleo broke up with them. So clearly Martyn knows he has a little fault. And yes he still blames Pearl but that is mainly to move the blame off of him. So overall I still think the same increased social sanctioning is done to Pearl but the tides are shifting, allbeit slowly from that of Ancient Greece. So back to our question, can women be villains? Not really? Women are often immediately shamed and ostracised for acting villainously in any little way that it's almost impossible for them to ever be villains, although this is changing and getting less true. I think this is because of the form of humanity women get to experience. Women aren't quite as human as men in society, meaning they are not afforded the same kinds of moral greyness. Continued in reblog cause Tumblr didn't like how long it was

[batboyblog]

I'm seeing a worrying amount of idiots on tumblr dot com push that "Kamala hates trans women" and I am losing my mind at how they are pushing it, constantly, saying she is a proven transmisogynist, despite it being a complete lie and her actively working behind the scenes to help trans women in prison. Is there like, sources that could help debunk this shit because I'm at my wits end as these people scream and cry and vomit trying to get biden to drop out but then are like "eghhhh still don't wanna vote for a transphobic cop..." when she's NEITHER-

Isn't the internet wonderful? first rule NEVER examine your priors! ALWAYS! hang onto whatever the first hot take you had on a subject to THE DEATH!

"Kamala is Transphobic!" over here in reality

past that trans and LGBT rights groups have been quick to endorse her like

Advocates for Trans Equality

Human Rights Campaign

just today 1,100 LGBT celebrities, lawmakers and leaders endorsed her

“The intersection on the issue of reproductive care and trans care, and the ability of families to be able to have care for their children and their families, is really, again, an intersection around attacks that are on an identity,” -Vice-President Harris, 2023

any ways the root of the idea she's transphobic comes from one case in 2015. Two inmates in the California State Prison system sued to get GRS, which as inmates would have been covered by the Prison system. It's worth noting here, both women got what they wanted, one was paroled and got the surgery covered by California Medicare while the other serving a life sentence was ultimately covered by the prison system.

Two things are important to bear in mind here, 1. Part of the job of California Attorneys General is to defend the state when it is sued, thats the job, 2. It seems early on in the case Harris was not personally aware of it, about 1,000 lawyers work in the Cali AG's office and so the AG cannot be personally aware of every case, and check this quote from the Lambda Legal lawyer handling the case:

“The California AG’s office shifted its handling of these cases significantly after now-Sen. Harris took over,” Renn said. “Initially there was language in briefing for the state that glaringly misunderstood the medical necessity of transition-related medical care and was patently offensive. But then, there was a dramatic change, which seems to have gone along with important policy shifts.”

Link

in 2019 Harris talked about the case and working after it was settled to change the policy of the California State Prison system

"When that case came up, I had clients, and one of them was the California Department of Corrections. It was their policy. When I learned about what they were doing, behind the scenes, I got them to change the policy," Harris said.

"I commit to you that always in these systems there are going to be these things that these agencies do. And I will commit myself, as I always have, to dealing with it," Harris said.

Any ways Harris can consistently spoken out for and supported Trans people, banned the hateful Trans panic defense when she was AG, in the Senate supported the Equality Act, during her 2020 campaign for President she drew attention to the hate crimes against black trans women while holding herself accountable for the 2015 case. As Vice-President she drew fire voicing support for Dylan Mulvaney during the hellish Bud Light backlash. Her Husband Doug was tapped to host the first ever White House Trans Day of Remembrance

basically you're looking at a great ally who clearly supports trans rights, who was involved in a case, which involved two people who got the surgeries they were looking for paid for by the State of California, close to 10 years ago now, there's evidence that both she moved the case in a better direction when she took over it and also that she changed the polices of the state to before more gender affirming.

[f1ghtsoftly]

Look as a lesbian it sucks to see women cap so hard for men who treat them….so badly but some of the leading lights in the history of feminism in the US/UK were in heterosexual partnerships with men they genuinely loved and went on to accomplish truly important things for women. I can’t say I fully endorse all het women going out and getting themselves a man, because it’s a tricky business and tough to get right.

So all I can say in regard to het women is this:

1.) You should be single for a while and put yourself in separatist environments regularly, because the social pressure to put up with bad behavior from men is *high* and it’s important you surround yourself with people who prioritize you for you if you’re going to withstand it. If those people are lesbians, please don’t talk about your relationship to us constantly, if you find yourself unable to think of anything else that you care about…consider if your partner has other hobbies or interests. Consider the gendered dynamics of you having only him and him having a life.

2.) Any male you end up with is going to be socialized to take advantage of you or other women around you, sometimes a lot, sometimes a little. Men can be human and have lovable qualities and still be misogynistic. Being able to love someone very much-but also refuse to sacrifice yourself to their subconscious (or conscious) beliefs is going to save you. Learn how to do it.

3.) Sometimes….none of it is going to be enough and celibacy is ok. It’s ok to feel so disgusted by patriarchy and men’s treatment of women you’re turned off from men on the whole and it’s definitely ok to feel this way and not be attracted to women. I know a few women actually who are just not interested in men after being treated particularly poorly by them. Women have found platonic companionship with one another for a very long time, just because you don’t want men-doesn’t mean that you’ll be alone.

Ultimately, lesbian feminists shouldn’t be the authority on the happiness of women interested in men but I do think because we prefer the company of women we can sometimes have fresh eyes when women get lost in the patriarchal sauce. And I think lesbian feminists who advocate for separatism come from a good place, I know a lot of wonderful women with good qualities who got lost in relationships with men who don’t value them and it’s very easy to get lost on that road, many people will encourage you and your socialization will work against you. At the same time, I never want to dissuade women from happiness or love or partnership or misrepresent the political project of feminism as being something dependent on one’s relationship status. Ultimately, women do not have to be defined by their relationships, they can be, but it doesn’t have to be so. As a sister who isn’t affected by this challenge, all I can offer is my solidarity, my support and perspective.

[reblogandlikes]

Self insert Fandom

I've come to realise that most of the toxicity within the acotar fandom is often rooted in a ridiculous amount of self insert. They see a character as them, therefore their actions are absolved. They see another character in their abuser, or worse, 'as' their abusers and so they can never be impartial towards them, thinking the worst because in real life they've dealt with a lot.

I get it. Art can sometimes mimic reality, but they are indeed forgetting that this is a whole fantasy fiction book about human women turned fae getting dicked down with a hint of war and political intrigue. These characters are not, in fact, you or your abusers. Making the series so personal to themselves can then lead to a lack of introspection of the work as a whole made to be enjoyed and critiqued to the readers' preference, whether shallow or in depth.

But because this fandom in particular seem to make these books so personal than reading it as a piece of fiction, they're inflicting real world scenarios onto fictional characters and if their characters face any backlash or reasonable questioning, they take it as a personal attack which for some reason leads to insults and wild assumptions of very REAL people.

"No, no one is saying you should forgive your abuser mum, boyfriend, sister, because this literally isn't about you. I dont know you or your situation. Im talking about *insert character*."

"No, I don't think reactive abuse is OK, though I also don't believe lying about SA is OK either, let alone condoning SA."

"What do you mean it's abusive to lock someone up and then make an excuse to say it's not abuse to lock someone else up?"

The mental gymnastics is truly outstanding. If they're so called morally grey, let them be just that.

Speaking for myself, it's easy to find some commonality in a characters personality. It's written by a whole human who has a personality too, after all. But I do not attach myself to these characters as if they are my family members or those dear to me. They are, in fact, not real, and I will talk about them in the context of a fantasy text, generally.

Now the moment you take their actions out of a fantasy text, every character, and I mean, every character, needs to be dealt with the same scrutiny. Your faves will be called out and dragged. You cannot call real people names, but then think highly of yourself when your faves have done worse. What does that then make you? A racist? A misogynist? An AS denier? An abuse apologist? Someone who endorses apartheid? Someone who's OK with controlling the female body? A war criminal?

You see how absurd that all is?

Honestly, it's not that deep. But again, it's not bad to see yourself in character. Just realise that when people have some reservations about them, they are not calling YOU out. They are strictly talking about that character and that character alone. But maybe if you find so much offence, perhaps you should think about why that is. Look deep and figure out why it troubles you so much. Perhaps they're holding up a mirror, and you simply can not bear to look into it, seeming that that character represents you so much.

I think this is the only fandom I've been involved in where simply daring to disagree with the main MC and side characters can lead to online prosecution and just so much hostility. I've seen some truly nasty comments, and it's boggling. I can imagine how off-putting it may seem to newer readers.

I long for the days when people can talk about the characters and narrative alone without feeling the need to make disclosures about what they support in real life because it's truly unnecessary. I thought reading fiction was meant to be a form of escapism, not defending my moral standpoint.

If I said I enjoyed Katherine Pierce, Klaus Mikaelson and Kai Parker from TVD, what then? They're despicable, but fucking enjoyable. Don't get me started on Game of Thrones characters.

Alright, I'm done now 😅

[hamliet]

I was talking to a friend about how in recent years it has become so common to have anti-heroes and villains as protagonists. I think this trend started with Tony Soprano back in 2000 and it was definitely something that changed series and movies in a good way, gave us alot of great and interesting characters to explore (Tony Soprano himself was an incredible and complex character that captivated the audience, even though he sometimes did things that we found horrible and hated him for it. But seeing the success and popularity, it's no wonder that after the Sopranos show people started to explore the idea of ​​anti-hero/villain protagonists way more). I can't say when this trend started in anime, if it was before or after The Sopranos, but it also became something quite common (Light Yagami, Eren Yeager, Lelouch Lamperouge and the list goes on). I confess that sometimes I miss seeing a character with a good alignment as the protagonist, I wanted to know your opinion on these things.

So... I think there are a few layers here.

I don't actually agree that morally gray protagonists are very common at all, sorry Anon!, but--

I do think there is a general lack of well-written protagonists of all moralities, and--

All writing is a product of its time to an extent, and in a world where people at least pay lipservice to the idea that we are all culpable for the horrid state of the world, stories are at least going to pay lipservice to that.

On the line of lipservice.... Antihero protagonists do exist, but I think if anything protagonists have become very, very sanitized. Even the ones who are considered antiheroes aren't really doing anything bad. They're just vessels for the authors to preach... which, to be fair to authors, is also partially because I do think there's a lack of critical thinking among the populace and no one wants to be accused of supporting something truly terrible especially in an age where cyberbullying is an expected part of the job. But writing about it isn't inherently an endorsement.

Even in stories like House of the Dragon, which literally is based on a book that is all about gray morality, has sanitized the characters (especially the Blacks and even more so the women) so much that they are barely characters anymore. They're not the ambitious, human people who love and lust and hurt and do the unforgivable yet are still so human. Again, I think the reasoning is pretty clearly to appeal to the audience by not doing the misogyny GoT Season 8 was... except they ironically actually are but bending over so far backwards they're making the characters caricatures instead of people.

I mean, I don't know which movies nowadays besides nugu artsy ones don't have a "good" protagonist. It's far more common. Look at Pixar, at Marvel, at Disney's stranglehold on the industry. Look at BNHA. Part of this is genre-dependent too, but. Good guy wins. Bad guy loses.

In fact, it's so common for people to assume that protagonist status is an endorsement of everything the protagonist does that a sizable portion of AoT fans refuse to accept that Eren Jaeger wasn't intended to be a hero and created ANR, and other fans wrote for big-name publications directly calling Isayama a fascist for portraying a hero who sank into fascism. Overall, I do think the majority got the message, but I also think that while there are certainly some things that could have been done better, the main issue isn't the messaging of the story. I don't think AoT is muddy thematically. I do think the majority of people can't think critically if their life depended on it these days.

That said, I do think what you're onto is that a lot of characters and protagonists just are not well-written. Heroic or not, they're not well done. They're vessels to be used to prop up the author's moral views, rather than explore the difficult questions about what it means to navigate that morality in a bleak world. And I can't even blame them, because the way audiences respond gives them no choice.

Yet, antihero characters are often the more popular characters over MCs. Why? Because they're usually the ones who have a touch of humanity left, and also because tragic stories have appeal when the world is, well, tragic. Until the Mouse beats that humanity out of them anyways. However--

A good "good" protagonist is Luffy from One Piece, honestly. He's complex and interesting while maintaining his fundamental desire for kindness and compassion in the world. Or Tenma from Monster. Jim and Aja from Tales of Arcadia and Adora from She-Ra, too! And Xie Lian from TGCF (okay he considered genocide but--). And, of course, Ruby from RWBY!

[thegreatimpersonator]

Genuine question. What do you think about all of the political pundits and news anchors and other celebrities praising Taylor for the endorsement? They’re all saying she made such an eloquent statement but it wasn’t that good…?

I feel like both 'sides' of this are missing the point because it's the internet and all nuance is lost. Taylor finally endorsed Kamala and took an actual political stance for the first time in 4 years, and that's great. That act is gonna do wonders for the election and really helped move eyes and ears toward Kamala, Tim, and their campaign. There's no doubt it'll make a huge impact. So the reporters who are saying she made an 'eloquent statement' are correct, she did. So people who are looking to hate on that have no reason to hate on that aspect. She did a good thing by endorsing Kamala.

However, that's not what the issue was that people were talking about for years prior that hit a peak a few days ago- it's a part but not the whole picture. Her statement about the election missed the big picture, it never once condemned what people have seen her tolerate personally. Taylor, for the past 3-4 years has repeatedly surrounded herself with close-minded, ignorant, and actively bigoted people. From the people she's voluntarily chosen to work with (i.e David O Russell; a known abuser) to people she chooses to publicly be friends with (Brittany Mahomes, Lena Dunham, Zoe Kravitz, etc) and even repeatedly defended dating vocal bigot Matty Healy. She has repeatedly surrounded herself with people who actively go against everything she says she believes, and actions speak louder than words. How can you say you're an ally to the LGBTQ+ community and publicly be besties and lend your spotlight to someone who doesn't believe trans women are women and shouldn't be in women's sports (Brittany Mahomes). How can you support victims of SA/DV when you're friends/work with abuse apologists and actual abusers? How can you be an ally towards POC when you defended dating a man who publicly said he gets off to porn of black women getting beaten, or while you wear jerseys and support your current partner's team- a team that has made a mockery of Indigenous people who have repeatedly begged for them to stop? How can you be an ally for women when you haven't spoken up for Palestine, where women are being treated in unimaginable ways due to the ongoing genocide. That's the issue, her actions vs. her words.

She can say she believes in these subjects, and that's good it's better than nothing, but we all know the words are pretty empty and for show. A show is good but it always ends and you're left with nothing afterwards. She probably won't say much else about the election because in her mind she did her duty, and that to her is the bare minimum. Half-baked activism is applauded because we are so used to getting nothing. Endorse a candidate and go back to being friends with people who don't see certain groups as human beings. Tell people to vote but don't condemn their hatred, because then you'd also be condemning some of your friends. Enable that behavior and live in that privilege, it'll work out for her and that's what matters the most.

[evidence-based-activism]

Hope this isn't a weird question, but do women do well in positions of leadership? The constant statement that women are too emotionally to lead is getting tired.

I feel like that's a really unfair statement anyways considering women were kept out of leadership positions, and now many women refuse to lead. That's okay, not saying women must. However for the ones that do, I'd like to know some female leaders I could look up to.

Not weird at all! In short, literature on this topic suggests that women in leadership positions perform either the same or better than men.

First, there are a few laymen oriented articles that address this topic [1, 2, 3]. These were written by the American Psychological Association [1] and Forbes [2, 3] and are heavily sourced. I'll be referencing some (but not all) of their sources as well, but they should be easy to follow if you want to read more. The articles use links instead of a reference list, however, so if you find a broken link, consider using the WaybackMachine on archive.org to find a copy of the source.

Subjective Perceptions

The Harvard Business Review has gathered a large dataset on subjective ratings of leader performance as evaluated by peers, superiors, and subordinates. From this dataset, they found that women outscored men on 17 of 19 "leadership capabilities", replicating their earlier results and indicating that on-average female leaders have a greater subjective performance than male leaders [4].

The American Psychological Association (APA) conducted a meta-analytic review of "16 nationally representative U.S. public opinion polls ... extending from 1946 to 2018" [5] found that a public opinion shift took place over this time, such that women are now rated as either equally or higher than men for competence, intelligence, and communion (broadly: concern for others). Men have retained a slight advantage in ratings of agency (broadly: self-oriented goal attainment).

Beyond that, the "mere presence" of a female leader led people to anticipate fairer treatment [6].

And a Pew Research Center survey from 2008 found that people ranked women either equal to or higher than men on most leadership traits (e.g., honest, intelligent) and political performance skills. Almost 70% of people indicated women and men make equally good political leaders. However, despite women's clear advantage when asking about specific skills, when directly asked who makes a better leader only 6% of people said women and 21% said men. This suggests that people's answer to this second question may be driven by sexist stereotypes (i.e., despite ranking women's leadership skills as better, people still default to belief in male leadership). [7]

All in all, this suggests that people believe that women are either equally or more qualified than men to lead (even if that doesn't translate to an explicit endorsement of female leaders over male leaders). So ... what about objective measures?

Political

A 2020 review on the impact of female political leaders [8] found strong evidence that more women representatives is related to lower levels of corruption, along with some evidence that more women in politics leads to better implementation of social programs, more legislation on neglected issues, and less conflict/human rights abuses. Women in politics are also more likely to prioritize human rights and access to "care" (e.g., health care, welfare, education, international aid, equal rights, etc.).

Another report [9] linked increased women’s political representation with greater legal equality and economic performance, and suggests that women's political representation leads to these outcomes. (While causation cannot be definitively established, the longitudinal research suggests a causal relationship such that having more female leadership leads to these positive outcomes.)

One way to objectively evaluate differences in men's and women's political leadership, is to examine differences in outcomes from a major global events like the COVID-19 pandemic.

This 2021 review [10], found female leaders (at country and state level) had a quicker response to the pandemic onset, lower fatality rates, and greater humanitarian response than male leaders. Given the comparatively low number of female leaders, some of these results were not statistically significant, but the pattern of results is still strongly suggestive. In any case, female leaders were at least as capable as male leaders in responding to the pandemic.

The above results are confirmed by a 2022 country-level analysis [11], and these results were strongly statistically significant, indicating that female leaders resulted in lower cases and deaths.

In fact, a Brazilian study [12] found that in addition to female leaders outperforming male leaders (in terms of a lower rate of COVID deaths and hospitalizations), local female leaders were able to mitigate the damage done by an irresponsible national leader (Bolsonaro). In short, "when faced with the decision between enforcing health measures against COVID-19 or trying to conquer the votes of local Bolsonaro supporters, our results suggest that female mayors were more likely to prioritize measures that can save lives".

All in all, female political leaders are either equal to or better than male political leaders.

Corporate

To start with, this 2017 review [13] indicates that some literature on financial outcomes suggests "firms run by female CEOs often report better ROA [return on assets], ROE [return on equity], and sales performance". However, they also indicate that research looking at a broader population (i.e., beyond "large firms in the United States"), does not always find this relationship. Even then, however, women's financial performance under a female leader is still equivalent to financial performance under a male leader.

An additional review [14], found similar results, with some finding a positive impact of female leadership on firm performance and others finding no difference between male and female leaders.

Other sources indicating increased profit under female leaders include:

A McKinsey & Company report [15] found greater diversity (i.e., sex and race) was associated with greater profitability. Specifically, the top 25% (top-quartile) most diverse companies worldwide had a 21% likelihood of outperforming their bottom-quartile peers.

A report by S&P Global, found firms with female CEOs and/or CFOs generated $1.8 trillion in excess profits and superior stock price performance [16].

An additional study [17] on 2 million companies across 32 countries in Europe found "a strong positive association between the share of women in senior positions and firms' ROA [return on assets]".

Beyond pure profit indicators, female corporate leaders are associated with:

Greater corporate responsibility [13]

Better internal management [13]

Lower firm risk [14, 20]

Better corporate credit rating [14]

Greater (bank) stability [18]

Fewer environmental violations [21]

Greater innovation [22]

Now, a reasonable criticism of all of this, is that this research is correlational and cannot establish causation. (The omnipresent problem in social research!) To a degree, this is a problem that cannot be fixed (i.e., there is no way to definitively prove causation without a controlled experiment). However, there are techniques that can provide strong support for causation. One such paper provides support against "reverse causation" (i.e., the idea that firms increase female representation when performing well), and found female representation among corporate board leadership predicts positive future performance [19]. This provides support for (but, again, cannot technically prove) a causal relationship between women's leadership and corporate performance.

Again, this indicates that female corporate leaders are either equal to or better than male corporate leaders.

Other

Political and corporate leadership are the two big categories where most of the research has been done. There are a few other relevant studies I'll describe here:

UNICEF (a part of the UN) reports that "women-led schools may perform better than men-led schools" as "learning outcomes ... for both girls and boys in female-led schools are higher" [23]

An experiment investigating team performance found "a positive and significant effect of female leadership on team performance" specifically "driven by the higher performance of team members in female-led teams" [24]

Unfortunately, the above study also found that "in spite of the higher performance of female-led teams, male members tended to evaluate female leaders as less effective, whereas female members have provided more favorable judgments", suggesting that men's interpretations of women's leadership abilities doesn't align with objective outcomes [24]

While not specifically about female leadership, a large study found that the "collective intelligence" of a group (essentially the IQ of a group rather than an individual) increases with the proportion of women in the group [25]

In addition, this review [26] describes a number of female leaders, so you may interested in it for "some female leaders [you] could look up to"

Women and Emotions

Lastly, I wanted to address "the constant statement that women are too emotionally to lead".

In terms of objective (or, as objective as we can get) measurements of emotional variability, there is little evidence that any sex differences exist, and if they do exist they are likely to be so small they would be (practically speaking) negligible [29].

However, an interesting study [27] examined "emotional expression content" by considering "feminine display rules" (suppression of negative emotions + simulation of positive emotions) and "masculine display rules" (suppression of positive emotions + simulation of negative emotions). As expected, women tended to follow feminine display rules, while men followed masculine display rules. However, this paradigm suggests it's not the amount of expressed emotion that varies by sex but the type of expressed emotion. Importantly, they also found that only the feminine display rules were associated with subjective distress.

A different study [28] examined sex differences in emotion regulation, specifically looking at two prosocial mechanisms and five antisocial mechanisms. They found women and men reported similar endorsement of 1 prosocial and 1 antisocial mechanism, women reported greater endorsement of the other prosocial mechanism, and men reported greater endorsement of the other 4 antisocial mechanisms.

One of the first articles I linked [2] discusses how women outperform men on prosocial behaviors/emotions (e.g., self-control, kindness, moral sensitivity) and men "outperform" women on antisocial behaviors/emotions (e.g., narcissism, aggression, etc.). To be clear, this is almost certainly a result of differences in socialization. That is: these differences are not "biological" or predetermined, instead society expects women to be more prosocial and men to be more antisocial, and we (tend to) meet those expectations.

All together, this suggests that men and women are both expected to modify their emotional expression (although the expectation for women is more likely to cause distress), women are more likely to display more prosocial and less antisocial emotions/behaviors, and women are more likely to deal with emotion constructively.

Ironically, based on the literature in the previous sections, society's expectations for women (i.e., empathy, team work, care for other people, etc.) are part of what drives their superior leadership performance over men.

TL;DR:

Women are either equal or better leaders than men based on: subjective evaluations, objective evaluations of political leaders, and objective evaluations of corporate leaders.

Women — in general and in leadership roles — improve the performance of people in their group.

Women and men likely don’t differ in emotional experience, but are both expected to modulate their emotional expression (in different ways).

Socialization and societal expectations induce more prosocial behavior in women and antisocial behavior in men. (Likely contributing to women’s superior leadership.)

References under the cut:

Novotney, A. (2023, March 23). Women leaders make work better. Here’s the science behind how to promote them. American Psychological Association. https://www.apa.org/topics/women-girls/female-leaders-make-work-better

Chamorro-Premuzic, T. (2021, March 7). If women are better leaders, then why are they not in charge? Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/tomaspremuzic/2021/03/07/if-women-are-better-leaders-then-why-are-they-not-in-charge/

Chamorro-Premuzic, T. (2022, March 2). The business case for women in leadership. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/tomaspremuzic/2022/03/02/the-business-case-for-women-in-leadership/

Zenger, J., & Folkman, J. (2019, June 25). Research: Women score higher than men in most leadership skills. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2019/06/research-women-score-higher-than-men-in-most-leadership-skills

Eagly, A. H., Nater, C., Miller, D. I., Kaufmann, M., & Sczesny, S. (2020). Gender stereotypes have changed: A cross-temporal meta-analysis of U.S. public opinion polls from 1946 to 2018. American Psychologist, 75(3), 301–315. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000494

Joshi, M. P., & Diekman, A. B. (2022). My fair lady? Inferring organizational trust from the mere presence of women in leadership roles. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 48(8), 1220–1237. https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672211035957

Men or women: Who’s the better leader? (2008, August 25). Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2008/08/25/men-or-women-whos-the-better-leader/

Cowper-Coles, M. (2020). Women Political Leaders: The Impact of Gender on Democracy. https://www.kcl.ac.uk/giwl/assets/women-political-leaders.pdf

Wyman, O., & Weh, D. (2023). Representation matters: Women political leaders. Oliver Wyman Forum. https://www.oliverwymanforum.com/global-consumer-sentiment/2023/sep/representation-matters-women-political-leaders.html

Luoto, S., & Varella, M. A. C. (2021). Pandemic leadership: Sex differences and their evolutionary–developmental origins. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 633862. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.633862

Chang, D., Chang, X., He, Y. et al. The determinants of COVID-19 morbidity and mortality across countries. Sci Rep 12, 5888 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-09783-9

Bruce, R., Cavgias, A., Meloni, L., & Remígio, M. (2022). Under pressure: Women’s leadership during the COVID-19 crisis. Journal of Development Economics, 154, 102761. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdeveco.2021.102761

Gipson, A. N., Pfaff, D. L., Mendelsohn, D. B., Catenacci, L. T., & Burke, W. W. (2017). Women and leadership: Selection, development, leadership style, and performance. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 53(1), 32–65. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021886316687247

Serena, Z. (2020). Do women leaders improve firm performance? European Journal of Economics and Management Sciences, 2, 21–26. https://doi.org/10.29013/EJEMS-20-2-21-26

Dame Vivian Hunt, Lareina Yee , Sara Prince, & Sundiatu Dixon-Fyle. (2018). Delivering through Diversity. McKinsey & Company . https://www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/people-and-organizational-performance/our-insights/delivering-through-diversity

Sandberg, D. J. (2019). When Women Lead, Firms Win. S&P Global. https://www.spglobal.com/content/dam/spglobal/corporate/en/images/general/special-editorial/whenwomenlead_.pdf

Christiansen, L. E., Lin, H., Pereira, J., Topalova, P., & Turk, R. (2016). Gender Diversity in Senior Positions and Firm Performance: Evidence from Europe. IMF Working Papers, 16(50). https://doi.org/10.5089/9781513553283.001

Sahay, R., Cihak, M., N’Diaye, P., Barajas, A., Kyobe, A., Mitra, S., Mooi, Y., & Yousefi, R. (2017). Banking on women leaders: A case for more? IMF Working Papers, 17(199). https://doi.org/10.5089/9781484318164.001

Qian, M. (2016). Women’s leadership and corporate performance (ADB Economics Working Papers). Asian Development Bank. https://www.adb.org/publications/womens-leadership-and-corporate-performance

Perryman, A. A., Fernando, G. D., & Tripathy, A. (2016). Do gender differences persist? An examination of gender diversity on firm performance, risk, and executive compensation. Journal of Business Research, 69(2), 579–586. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.05.013

Liu, C. (2018). Are women greener? Corporate gender diversity and environmental violations. Journal of Corporate Finance, 52, 118–142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcorpfin.2018.08.004

Chen, J., Leung, W. S., & Evans, K. P. (2018). Female board representation, corporate innovation and firm performance. Journal of Empirical Finance, 48, 236–254. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jempfin.2018.07.003

Brossard, M., & Bergmann, J. (2022, March 8). Can more women in school leadership improve learning outcomes? | Innocenti Global Office of Research and Foresight. UNICEF | for Every Child; UNICEF. https://www.unicef.org/innocenti/stories/can-more-women-school-leadership-improve-learning-outcomes

De Paola, M., Gioia, F., & Scoppa, V. (2022). Female leadership: Effectiveness and perception. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 201, 134–162. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2022.07.016

Woolley, A. W., Chabris, C. F., Pentland, A., Hashmi, N., & Malone, T. W. (2010). Evidence for a collective intelligence factor in the performance of human groups. Science, 330(6004), 686–688. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1193147

Abdul Wahab, Shazanah; Mohamad Rasidi, Nuur Mohamad Firdaus; Wahab, Samsudin. Influences of Women’s Leadership Performance Towards the Corporate, Political and Social Success: A Review and Research Agenda. Asian Journal of Research in Business and Management, [S.l.], v. 2, n. 4, p. 54-68, dec. 2020. Available at: https://myjms.mohe.gov.my/index.php/ajrbm/article/view/11571.

Simpson, P. A., & Stroh, L. K. (2004). Gender differences: Emotional expression and feelings of personal inauthenticity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(4), 715–721. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.89.4.715

Zimmermann, P., & Iwanski, A. (2014). Emotion regulation from early adolescence to emerging adulthood and middle adulthood: Age differences, gender differences, and emotion-specific developmental variations. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 38(2), 182–194. https://doi.org/10.1177/0165025413515405

Weigard, A., Loviska, A. M., & Beltz, A. M. (2021). Little evidence for sex or ovarian hormone influences on affective variability. Scientific Reports, 11(1), 20925. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-00143-7

[darcytaylor]

As someone very interested in psychology and also someone who had realised that humans react to traumas and triggers in a very predictable pattern, Im very fascinated by Luke.

1. On one hand, we have Nic who praises his support, sensitivity and kindness at every turn. Other cast endorse her. We saw him being tender and loving with his ex. Jade also constantly kept praising him on how loving and considerate he was. We saw that kindness and considerate behaviour in the BTS and the promo tour. What we gather is a soft, tender and considerate human.

2. Then we also saw his hot boy summer, dating very young women, the total lack of care for the show, cast and crew that brought him so much fame, totally dropping the ball on promotion, not even being nice to the girl he claims to be his gf. The f boy basically.

Who is he? I personally believe its the first, because so many attest to that, we saw that behaviour on video. But then why the current act. He is definitely going through something? Whats it? Heart break? Insecurities? Why would he risk his career for any of it? I just couldn't make sense of it.

I think that he can be both? I think that humans can have multiple sides to them. One of the things that Nicola said in the most recent Bridgerton podcast was that it's okay to have different sides of yourself and that it doesn't negate either version of you.

“And then you can come home to the person you love and be super soft and be like, you know, I'm baby here today. Like that, you know, that's all fine. And you shouldn't have to hide one version of yourself or feel like one version of yourself negates the other because it doesn't.”

I know that in this instance she was talking about women in general, but I do think that the same applies to men as well. There can be multiple versions of any person. It all depends on where you are, who you are with, what you feel like on that day, what is going on in your life, what has happened in your life.

I think that the age old debate of whether people are good or evil kind of applies. It's a question that really doesn't have a definitive answer. I think that everybody has the ability to be both, so in the end everybody is both. Everybody has the ability to have good qualities and bad qualities at the same time.

But then Luke has the added pressure of being in the spotlight. Everything he does is looked at under a microscope. But that is the nature of his career, that is the nature of being a celebrity. Right now I think he may be at odds as to what he is wanting to present to the world, I think he may be trying to figure that out. It's impossible to know what is going on in his head.

I also keep coming back to people saying he is so much like his character (his cast mates saying this). And I think that the audience always take it as Colin's good qualities. But Colin as a character also has bad qualities, and his cast mates may also be seeing some of that (obviously they would never voice that out loud).

But I don't know Luke personally. I have no idea what kind of person he is. What he presents to the fans may not be who he actually is.

But they always say that when someone shows you who they are, believe them.

(I could probably continue to expand on this and go more in depth, but I have to head to work!)

[horizon-verizon]

Isn’t it kinda weird that people ship daemyra? I'm not targeting daemyra, but the shippers. Though their relationship was acceptable in their era, I see many fans using this as a pretext to actively endorse it, which is problematic. It's one thing to acknowledge the historical and cultural context of a relationship, but it's another thing entirely to romanticize or ship it when we now have the knowledge and understanding that one of the individuals involved is a child.

Need your opinion on this

DISCLAIMER: I am a Daemyra shipper. Read with caution.

You're essentially asking why it isn't a dealbreaker? You could refer to my post HERE, but here it is in short:

Perhaps I'm going to be flowery, exhaustive, and "purple prosey" again, but I think it is basically that that very context creating the exploration of a tragedy of forces stronger than oneself. People love tragic tales, esp doomed ones. It's almost always validating in that there is a persistence of self against outside pressures that may or may not (but usually does) have said pressures be compulsions to conform against one's own happiness or authenticity, even and sometimes especially when the couple dies at the end. That in of itself is a sort of "resistance" that's supposed to coincide with GRRM's whole thing of "choosing life in spite of death" or "we found love in a hopeless place" sort of thing in ASoIaF, but for royals and in a royal iteration.

Rhaenyra's story is a doomed one not because she was the entire cause of the Dance pr some evil temptress but bc the historical actions of her ancestors and the feudal-patriarchal system they all live under has already set up designs against women and those the women could use to occupy the positions granted to men. GRRM loves his tragic tales of love; look at Rhaelya! But they also tend to--long way forward--lead to strains of hope in later generations...which works to make the whole thing even more bitter sweet and melancholy. They also both buy into it of course, which certainly contributed, but from the jump we know these two will not succeed. So from there it's a thing of enjoying the couple as they are and what they serve in the narrative. Oh, and of course the true star is Dany, and Rhaenyra had to die for Dany's story to be what it was (death of the dragons, women subjugated, Targs losing their sense of self leading to the Rebellion).

When there is no or mostly and actively morally upright party like a Daenerys, humans will root for the most impressive, thrilling, or aesthetically beautiful story/characters/relationships that scratches that itch some. You can certainly whack GRRM for creating so many ships that are this too-taboo thing(s), but people are very prone to misleading some things about people-as-people that I think (even with the historical inaccuracies GRRM defends as "accurate" about ages when noble people married) the writer does convincingly capture between this "conversation" in his work about the relationship between environment and choice. At least for enough people that there is something to how he's doing it.

And then, yes, sometimes people will over-romanticize, and much more than I think you're imagining it, anon. I've read some fics...let's say that sometimes people feel the need to dramatically change the characters that always puts me off bec it erases what was fun about them in the first place.

Here it is written in another way:

A)

The draw of Daemyra for a lot of people is that CONSIDERING THE CIRCUMSTANCES AND EVEN DESPITE/BECAUSE OF THEM, they had one of the most the strongest bonds for the longest time (and yes, even with Daemon loving Laena) in the orig story and they matched each others' drive/fire/pride (the last in all its meanings). They seem (operative word here) to understand each other the most, were the most comfortable with each other, and were the others' biggest support.

Again, it's not exactly the incest but what the incest/age gap (IN THE CONTEXT GRRM CREATED) does for the bond that comes to be.

Daemon for all intents and purposes could have become a perfect culmination of patriarchal privilege and male pride: one of the best warriors of his time, access to one of the most formidable and impressive creatures through his state of birth, action-oriented but not opposed to using strategy tactics, nearly irresistible to women an attitude and inspiring enough to men both in the story and in the fandom with his charisma, blah blah. And he certainly still had all those things or was written that way.

The kickers are that he's forced to acknowledge his truer desires to support his family towards prosperity and survival--where his loyalty to Rhaenyra comes in--and those desires are so much a priority he basically shuns much else, or at least removes himself from that, and thus he cannot/does not bother to put on much airs or try to gain approval...which is a very common thing amongst nobility who often curry favor or imagine themselves to be "good" people because they follow an honor code. There's a "purity" to that, an shameless honesty that draws people in similar to how some people feel about Oberyn and Jaime. And it especially is very attractive to people who have quite a bit of shame themselves over love and sex (for whatever reason, religious shame, queer shame, female shame for sexuality and desiring a stronger partner even anyway) and are (at first or never) inclined to not to try to ennoble it but are lonely and looking for a story of a strong connection/ride or die. That loyalty to Rhaenyra is a "flaw" that some men in the fandom never forgave GRRM for.

Rhaenyra similarly could have been a typical or ideal princess--either way, people wouldn't have liked her or found something to say was a damning "flaw" to say she deserved her fate-- and in some ways, she was. Loved wearing luxurious things and showing off her beauty, beautiful, fertile. But she's inplacably different from the ideal of Andal patriaechy be

Rhaenyra "replaced" Daemon as heir, yet instead of really planning her downfall and committing to his ire against Viserys (yes after being forced away), he appears accept his subordinate position towards the middle and end of his life, even before they marry and fully commitsd to her without losing his own...je-ne-sais-quoi. Despite her loneliness and the surrounding doubt around her for being a female heir, Rhaenyra never seemed to seriously lose her belief in her right to occupy that sort of space and never demurred like some other female characters we (pre-the rise of YA fiction and the Capable+Alluring MC Girl/Woman) were familiar with WHILE not being that kind or good a person (the trope of a Steel-Under-Silk strong, Lady usually has the Lady be good or kind of selfless, sometimes to the point of self effacement). Both had a sort of belief in themselves to a degree and under contexts that put off both readers and their own contemporaries--for different reasons...sometimes the same ones. that sort of symmetry is very appealing BECAUSE OF AND UNDER THE CONTEXT of a world and system (unequally, but the closest it's gotten and could get).

B)

The argument of "for the time/environment", I think, is for use of when we have people claim that some characters like Ceryse Hightower, Larra Rogare, Daemon, Viserys I are pedophiles...when we have Robert Baratheon, Craster, Walder Frey, etc. right there. that they go out of their way to mess up children or teens bec they are genuinely want them for their teenhood/childhood. The childness (full knowledge of childness) is exactly what they aim for.

Sure, none of these characters do not and cannot have the exact same moral systems or values as real moderns (sometimes Western people) do...because they simply do not have that framework to live on and through. So automatically saying a character is a pedo or a groomer can be hasty and inaccurate.

SOMETIMES (again, Walder, Craster, Robert).

It requires one to think about what a groomer or a pedo really is. Which I've squared down to the person wanting to prey on what is known to them and everyone around them as a "child" or "too young" that is socially excluded from every practice and dynamic of sex and romance that adults are expected to participate with each other, and not with said child (or simply manipulate them away from their security/non-security to do so) because the "child" cannot develop psychologically/physically when said adults interrupt their development and/or make them think is one thing when it is the other. Characters like Daemon, Viserys, etc. do not try to seek out what is recognized as "children" or "childlike" (and the "young maidens" or virgins the text states weirdly juxtaposes the lack of Daemon continuing said behavior into his adulthood, which true groomers/pedos always do). All this is strictly against the idea of him being a "groomer", even though like other men and a few women, he gets into something with 14/15 yr old Rhaenyra...

HOWEVER, it is true that patriarchies tend to apply sex-purity values in ways that inevitably encourage attentions on teens (as these are the closest) AND this ALSO doesn't mean that GRRM wasn't/isn't trying to say that this is still a wrong thing for 111 A.C. Daemon to have done and that it wasn't potentially screwy. (I think this is kinda what also "saves" it for some people, that the narrative acknowledges this particular crazy as crazy).

And just as with Dany and Drogo and the age revealed at her first pregnancy, even with Dany having been a bridal slave to Rhaenyra's princess and thus presenting a more visceral stake the latter doesn't have, determining how one sees Dany's regard for Drogo as blatant victim-mindset. For Daemyra, though, it's still not exactly the same and it's just that there isn't much for a claim, story-wise not life wise, of blatant you-know-what-it's.

There are about 4 main theories as to why Daemon of the bk does what he does with Rhaenyra:

he wanted to get back at Viserys for all the years of his ignorance and the recent event of his shipping Mysaria off only her her to lose what would have been Daemon's first kid (so a denial of person, position, and his own heir/family when he seemed to start trying to make himself after a long series of war in the Stepstones, also trying to make some "glory" for himself that Viserys--for him--keeps preventing or ruining)

he thought that the issues of succession Rhaenyra or even Viserys might have with the burgeoning greens, esp Otto, would be better handled if he forced Viserys to have him and Rhaenyra marry and combine lineages...tag him in, coach, he's been ready and you're not doing the job right, so let me in (ironically, I think this is very Visenya-coded...no one is going to be as competent and dedicated as me...just [ugh] with all the male trappings and privilege that shaped his...all that) -- a burgeoning storm they all had to prepare for, and he has to be there for them to survive -- he sees Rhaenyra at court surrounded by greens and is so offended he's even more determined--some might read "desperate"--to handle things even with such little...grace, shall we say

he was "tailoring" and "preparing" Rhaenyra to become more like the wife/partner that would make him most happy and rationalized that he would pay her back with his "hand" and sword, bc they were the best bet for their house...yeah...

when he got there and saw Rhaenyra in her "marriageable" state, he became attracted to her and similar to Laena and the duel, decided to "risk" the damage to his own rep...without letting himself onvder over the possible damage to Rhaenyra

or, ALL OF THE ABOVE...SOME OF THE ABOVE

Whatever Daemon did with her/to her (sex, kissing, near-sex, groping, etc., we don't know what happened but I think it was either sex or something that looked like it would definitely lead to that), it wasn't based on a habit and intention of straight up p*dophilia. More so him being very selfish, continuing the pattern of Targ men Targ-menning against their female counterparts. Using Rhaenyra against Viserys, putting his foot down, whatever.

Therefore he was still abusing his experience and relation with her, the "child-not-child-who-should-have-been-seen-as-a-child-but-wasn't-bc-society-and-patriarchal-selfishness/advantage". So I don't fault or perfectly disagree with people who say "groomer!" After all, their priority is not allowing other crazy people or out already-male-scorched world in further footholding for nonsense in the real world. Can't call them stupid or morally incorrect for that or being concerned. However, I still think there's a misunderstanding of what's being conveyed by the text versus what such a thing would be in real life (Watsonian vs Doylist) AND we can't stop ourselves form writing or showing even the odd and taboo or genuinely concerning stuff when there's something to be shown/told.

It changed to what it needed to be, became what was its potential, AND Rhaenyra was set to marry someone else (before the confirmation that it was always gonna be Laenor, and she didn't know it was him until last minute) who she would likely never be able to trust because of her position, men, yada yada. Might as well be someone she cared for her entire life and we know would not go out of his way, even shift for someone he thought was "worthy", and whoo-boy, was Rhaenyra "worthy" to Daemon. Again, refer to the doomed narrative.

Now Daemon here is so not exactly a good guy if he:

was willing to use his own about-to-married-off-and-subiect-to-purity-politics-standard-that-could-affect-her-reputation both as a girl/woman-as-a-female-heir niece in this way, even if it was after Viserys basically caused him and Mysaria to lose their first kid and came after years of Viserys basically ignoring Daemon--Daemon's eyes, bk and show--in favor of a man who could never hope to be as loyal as Daemon....IN FACT, THIS PROVES HE WAS NEVER THE "GOOD" GUY (I'm yelling at some fics)

prioritizes "sameness" and it comes off as arrogance--"only people like me can handle all this"...however, he'd be not totally incorrect (just annoying to some, charming to others, a little bit of both and feeding-into-each-other for others-others). He's not only a person who grew up, like both female and male nobles, value having the highest classed and prestigious person as a potential mate even if it may contradict "obedience" and he like others wishes to, he also. Again, the appeal of SYMMETRY. And sameness (albeit, in lesser degrees) does have an importance in how many people define what their ideal partner is. Not have the same hobbies or ways and color of dress, but values. Which Rhaenyra and Daemon have the potential of to the max.

If a potential partner's "worth" to be of a certain category or class...but it's fun to see shamelessness at a point AND such shamelessness works to, again, support said female character bc it's a great pair to loyalty, which Rhaenyra needs a lot of and assurance of from. And, no, I don't think she got enough of that from Harwin for all that she did love him (if they did become lovers...but I know you know they were, come on now). Those two had to hide; Rhaenyra's not a hider, not where it doesn't concern her kids' safety at least.

C)

Ironically those assurances come from the reversed--or at least done a little topsy turvy--familial relations, feudal constraints, AND the reality of Targaryens being both a part of this society but also not really on part because of their dragons/innate magicness but also because they are the ruling family.

They are apart from most people around them and find more things in common between themselves, us against the world (yes, in the bk, too); isolated always--unless you're like Rhaena, Dreamfyre's 1st rider, who could and did find female friends everywhere and discovered more freedom and comfort in them through their woman-ness than anyone in her family...but even then, she was more or less emotionally isolated just by being such a woman and a Targ, and the male stink still manages to encroach its way in through Androw Farman and the love she had for Androw's father/her lover's love for said Androw. and as royals, they are by social definition not in physical proximity, thus not as easier seen as any more than political figures/leaders. I mean, sure, we might say "boo hoo", and we'd not be totally wrong, but there is still an effect of treating people not like people that humans have never been able to rein in, and it's important to how the Targs handled many things and were perceived, thus how they responded--queue Jaehaerys I. When we especially talk about the costs to oneself and to how others treat you under the nonphysical protections of power. Whether for good or ill.

Contrast to Jaehaerys and Alysanne, who, thought GRRM notes as one of the greatest pairs, also end up separated by Alysanne's & Jaehaerys' fights over their children's safety and places in the succession, with the obvious running line of it going back to misogyny for the sake of assimilating/holding power instead of using it for making the said society a little better/a lot better.

Contrast to Daario and Daenerys (yes, yes, why would I compare PoV character's observations of a person vs a history book, we get it), Daemyra/RoguesDelight has Daemon knowing and giving more suggestion of longevity bc it's suggested in the text that he had access to the most intimate stirrings of Rhaenyra's head (final letter at Maidenpool as well as all I said above) in a way Daario never did or wanted to with Dany. Oh, of course Daario knew Dany loved her people, was lonely, was all that and the 3rd; but I trump that up to be his observation of what she needed and wanted so he could indulge in being with such a woman and profit from it. Even though he wasn't exactly terrible or whatever, or impatient. This is far from Dany's fault, tbc. Daario is gonna Daario. But, as one person kind brilliantly explained about Dany being a goddess in Twitter:

Part of her struggles is w being dehumanized as a symbol of power but she constantly subverts that by placing the weight of her responsibility/influence into liberating ppl.

Jaehaerys I sorta sets himself and his later scions, by contrast, even with it having had the desired effect of getting people off his back about sibling incest. So does Aegon I, tbh, when while it left the Targs the ability to adapt to their necessities concerning succession, his and his sons leaving it open to duking-it-out...then Aegon named heir over Rhaena...made way for the first stone against women in their house....those most necessarily it seems (after the Dance).

Anyway, they were pretty solid until Rhaenyra's kids started falling like dominoes and were caught in a deceit.

D)

I remember an ask I got once about Daemon showing Rhaenyra explicit imagery in S1E4, where anon said that him doing so proves he is a groomer in the show, where Rhaenyra is 19 instead of 14-15. And adult but just barely AND a lot of people hold that grooming--nonsexual, too--can happen to people to people as old as 34. Personally, I think that the latter is more general manipulation more than "grooming", but I digress and it doesn't really work for 18-20 year olds and up, who again, are practically teenagers.

But I brought up my misgivings about Daemon wanting to abuse children/children adjacent for its own sake already, and it's less evident in the show where the show makes it a point that he wanted Rhaenyra at most stages of her life (when again, she wouldn't be a child-child to them, scowl at GRRM, not me):

the beach scene in S1E7 with adult Rhaenyra, we all saw them heave for each other

we hear/see nothing of his messing with too-young girls after said marriage...the narrative implies he was likely imagining it as some "perfect" Valyrian bride...who happens to be around the same age as state as his niece (still problematic for all the implications of Rhaenyra's significance to him----both in the nature of sex work affecting women/girls AND we really didn't need to hear of that without proving how old those girls usually were to be so used like this as proxies…this is where I personally would have rolled my sorry self out) -> -> -> the probable immediate recall of Jorah doing similar with Dany OR simply Mysaria's observation of this unconscious/repressed desire/teasing him and show!Daemon never having actually done these things -> -> -> of course this could be due to any number of reasons, like his frustrations with Viserys manifesting in looking for a companion in the closest person possible more than that sort of desire

Mysaria: What troubles you, my Prince? I could bring in another. Perhaps a maiden. I have several. I could even arrange one with silver hair. [pause]

This included language of "could" and "perhaps" and "even" (as if this were a thing that she knows it's out of the ordinary) plus her solicitousness to meet his silence and disappeared enthusiasm indicates that show!Daemon was not in the habit of messing w/very young sex workers as bk!Daemon is rumored and told (A Question of Succession):

"and was said to have an especial fondness for deflowering maidens"

Language is important these types of documents. We're given an entire description of his philandering and the contrast of "he sampled" (definite, final, statement-to-not-be-doubted), but there is room with "was said" for Daemon to not have gone around this particular act of seeking out virgin girls. Like how one would say now "I heard such and such also went pulling people's pants down after Marcus saw him go into a strip club" or "people say that Marsha went to Payless for her prom shoes".

Active ("he sampled") vs passive voice ("he[...]was said") can be pretty important to indicate what def happened vs what people believed and could have happened but was never proven. But what do I know, I'm just a probably too-biased Daemyra shipper (this genuinely was not to be snarky, really, you can take or leave my points).

END

For me, it's more when Rhaenyra & Daemon both get older that they shine and I "approve" or really most enjoy Rouges Delight (bk ship name some have taken to call Daemyra) whatever you want to name and distinguish the couple. (I prefer their younger interations [pre E6, S1] in the show not bc Emma is a bad actor--they re not, they're just underutilized and Rhaenyra is written so...terribly that I can never get as into it...I liked Daemyra when they reconciled in S2, for example, but I hated how they got there and not bc of "the ship is sinking" but bec it genuinely was not written well and depended on diminishing both characters). I'm not, however, out here trying to say that anyone else should love this ship, this couple, this story just as much as I don't really mind people not getting into GRRM's writing.

The 111 A.C. issue, there is a certain odd quality it of being obviously out of line and manipulative...while evidence of being a convergence of long-held tension, a beginning towards an inevitable outcome years down the line. SYMMETRY and good writing. I suspect that part of the appeal for some is that push-pull of the delight of "matching freaks and the moral conflict of "but....he's her uncle and he's 2x her age and/or they probably did things when she was way too young", but that's a whole other thing. It keeps people engaged and is perfectly symptomatic of that quality of medievalesque/historical fiction, sure, but bc humans love to play with taboos in fiction...to a certain point. (Personally, again, it is that later timeline that "saved" Daemon for me, as flawed as that may be.) They can indulge in the curiosity of the play of "what ifs" GRRM writes and the subsequent quandaries safely in fiction without getting openly judged & misunderstood for wanting such stories. Sometimes we "play" too close to the sun, though, I admit.

So unless someone's gone off the deep end trying to say that they wouldn't be bothered by a 15 yr old and her 2x older uncle smooching in real life, or try to deny that Daemon was performing, it really doesn't discomfit me that much in the grander scheme of things to me.

Again, I can't blame HotD for uping Rhaenyra's age AND people for just not jiving or hating the ship just as there are those who cannot ever get into ASoIaF for the incessant (to them, too often unpunished by the narrative) incest even outside of the Targs alone. And I get how this is just not going to be enough or that he later is her strongest supporters is enough for a lot of people. But I do want the air cleared a bit and explain the position from where I'm standing. Could change, but I dunno about that. Perhaps this all too biased a breakdown. I warned ya.

This is all in regards to shipping, of course. 😉 Anyway, watch out, there might be more freaks about you in your everyday life like Daemyra shippers, anon!

[demoisverysexy]

So, the great Me Pendulum has swung back to feeling more favorable towards Mormonism- it's got some very good bones, I just dislike the organization- so I'll ask: What's your view of "your body is a temple"? It's often taken as a proscription against body modification but is there room for nuance in that?

Good question! Basically, yeah that is definitely how the institutional church likes to use the idea of the body as a temple: don't change your body, don't get tattoos, only women can get piercings and only one pair in your earlobes and thats it. I tend not to be a fan of the phrase for that reason, and tend to take a more expansive view that favors bodily modification.

Tangent incoming, though I promise this is relevant to your question:

One of Mormonism's doctrines that sets it apart from other Christianities is the idea that God has a physical body, and that we are literally made in the image of God (e.g. God has a physical human body). This stands in contrast to the neo-Platonic view of a God without forms or passions. The God of Mormonism is very physical.

This is, I think, a good theological development, and gives Mormonism room to play with ideas like materialism (such as Joseph Smith's canonized insistence that there is "no immaterial matter" and that intelligence is eternal), and even allows it to flirt with non-theism. However, it does also give rise to potentially anthropocentric views of Christianity (the universe was made for humans, who are the most special things ever). I tend to be skeptical of the idea that God is inherently human for that reason (and also why, despite my disagreements with it, I think that C.S. Lewis's Out of the Silent Planet could propose a new way of approaching the idea of what the image of God is).

Back to your question. Given this insistence by Mormons that the human form is sacred and close to the divine, I think it would be hard to get Mormons on board with body modification. But I do think there is hope. For one thing, if we consider the fact that Jesus, who Mormons assert was resurrected with a glorified, perfected physical body, kept the wounds in his hands, feet, and side, perhaps God does not share our ideas of what a perfect body looks like (I would be shocked if he did). I also think it shows us that God could, potentially, be able to chose how he wishes his body to appear (and also, incidentally, leaves room in Christian theology for disabled people). This is a bit of a basic argument, but it does leave the door open for more in-depth questions about the role of the body in Mormonism. Mormons are very pro-body, but I think we shouldn't assume that one body is pre-eminent above all others, given our supposed dedication to materialism.

I think my favorite work on this subject though comes from my favorite Mormon theologian, Adam S. Miller. He actually gave a whole talk at the Mormon Transhumanist Association (which is apparently a thing) on this very subject. Keep in mind this is attempting to imagine what a transhumanist mormonism would look given Mormonism's current stances on things, including things such as its insistence on eternal gender roles (though he does leave room for transgender people in his discussion in a very wink-wink nudge-nudge sort of way, albeit in a binary fashion). Basically, I endorse most of what he says here but I'm way more explicitly queer affirming and nonbinary with it. And way more furry and more skeptical about the idea that the human form is all that and a bag of chips.

Hope this answers your question! Lemme know if there's more I can explain here.

[krisandthebluesurgeons]

Do you endorse guilt tripping/shamming people into supporting moral causes?

I'm sorry, I've just seen far too many Palestine and Gaza supporters use guilt tripping to gain more traction.

It gives me the feeling people can't understand that people can be good people and not care for supporting what they want.

Like I'm all for not killing people but people make me and others out for trash for not wanting to do anything and continue on with our lives despite the knowledge.

I don't know i just want to ask you about this.

There is... so much wrong with this ask. I wanted to just block this account and move on, but I can't just... Not do anything about this. Maybe I can't convince you to care about what's going on, but I can try, and I want to try. I try to see the best in people. I'm hoping, sincerely hoping, that you're just... ignorant of the situation, and not just plain heartless.

"people can be good people and not care for supporting what they want"

What they want??? What they WANT??

Palestinians are being murdered, they're starving, being tortured in Israeli concentration camps, and you're speaking as if this is a matter of opinion. Human rights are not an opinion.

Good people are those who care about the lives of others, who know that the oppressed should not be hurt by the hands of their oppressors. Don't even say anything about it starting on October 7th- this has been going on for 75 years. It is normal to care. Even most "bad" people can understand that what's going on in Palestine is an injustice.

"not wanting to do anything and continue on with our lives despite the knowledge"

If you can stomach the genocide of millions in Palestine, children, women, men, and you can just move on without doing anything- You need to do some serious self reflection because this isn't okay. I'm not saying this as a lighthearted jokey thing. This is just Not okay.

You're saying you can't even share resources to help these people? If you can't donate, that's alright, there are so many economical problems going on in this day and age, but you can't even be bothered to share some posts? Information? To share some gofundme's?

You do not have to watch videos of people getting blown up and killed. You don't have to subject yourself to that. But you need to be knowledgeable about these things, you need to know that these things are happening, you should be horrified because these things are not normal. Nothing is normal about millions of people losing their futures.

Just as you deserve to dream of a future, these people deserve the same.

"I don't know i just want to ask you about this."

Another thing that's bothering me. Why ask me about this? Are you just asking any Palestine supporter this question???

If you want information on what's going on in Palestine, if you want reasons to care about this, look at Bisan, Motaz Azaiza, Eid Yara, Plestia Alaqad. These are brave people from Palestine who are suffering, showing the war from their eyes. They're experiencing it.

I want to make it clear, just because I show respect to my followers, does not mean you can confide to me about anything. I am trying to be kind, by pushing you in the right direction. I want you to understand that this mindset you're following is apathetic, it is harmful to others yes and also to yourself. I'm being harsh because I want you to realize that this whole situation, this is wrong. I have hope that you'll understand! That's why I didn't just block you straight up.

I don't hold any hope or respect for zionists, but you just seem ignorant at best. That's why I want to try and push you on the right direction, and if I can't, if I failed to, that's no fault of mine. I did what I could, and I hope you can do better. I sincerely hope so! I know you can improve yourself, you just have to try! Even if you don't think so. I believe you can.

It is dangerous to be uncaring. It is dangerous to not be radicalized.

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Qasim Rashid at Let's Address This:

This article will upset some people. But my responsibility as a human rights lawyer is not to speak soothing falsehoods, but hard truths. The Democratic Party has lost two winnable Presidential elections in the last three contests, resulting in devastating consequences for the American people. This moment calls for self-reflection and self-analysis. The fate of our republic is literally at stake, and we cannot afford continued failure. What went wrong, and how do we fix this? Let’s Address This.

A Quick Overview

Let’s start with some high level points. Black women and Black men showed up, voting 92% and 78%, respectively, for Harris. White women and white men, meanwhile, voted 52% and 59%, respectively, for Trump. Latino men shifted right 18% from 2020, and 54% voted for Trump in 2024. Latino women shifted right 7% from 2020, and 37% voted Trump in 2024. In short, Black people showed up for Harris, white people showed up for Trump, and Latino’s shifted right to Trump—with the overall majority of Latinos still voting for Harris.

Let’s also acknowledge the continued failure of legacy media. From LA Times and Washington Post refusing to endorse any candidate, to CBS and CNN refusing to fact check the Presidential debates, to the New York Times whitewashing Trump’s clear cognitive decline—legacy media absconded in its responsibility to hold powerful politicians accountable. Many will note that while Biden’s age was a constant state of focus, the moment he resigned media completely forgot that Trump is only a few years younger than Biden. Next, racism and misogyny absolutely played a damaging role in this election. Legacy media gobbled up Trump’s attempts to question Harris’s identity, distracting from issues that matter—like her actual policies. Disinformation about Haitian migrants created fear and hate of Black people and of immigrants. Misogyny and racism continued to dominate political discourse and Harris faced the onslaught of both, undoubtedly costing her votes in ways she had no ability to mitigate.

And finally, third party candidates like Jill Stein, Cornell West, and RFK played their roles in trying to break up the duopoly, with negligible success. Election results demonstrate that Stein did not cost Harris any electoral votes, and little evidence exists that her involvement played any meaningful role in Trump’s win. In other words, she did not pull a Nader 2000. All of the above are factors that impacted the election, but none of them individually, or even collectively, prevented Harris’s victory. It is critical the Democratic Party reflect on the matters within their control that they fumbled—fumbles that directly resulted in a Harris loss and Trump re-election to the White House—if they have any real hope of preventing a third presidential loss in four tries in 2028.

1. Joe Biden’s Arrogance

Let’s be blunt about this. I put the primary blame for the Election 2024 debacle on Joe Biden. And I will be as bold as to say that he set up Kamala Harris and the Democratic Party for failure. Here’s why. Back in 2020 Joe Biden ran for President on the promise of being a “bridge President” to a younger generation, suggesting he would only serve one term and then pass the torch. At numerous rallies he loudly declared,

[Look, I view myself as a bridge, not as anything else. I view myself as a transition candidate.]

It was with that explicit expectation that a monsoon of young voters helped him cross the finish line with a victory, earning 7 million more votes than Donald Trump. But when it became clear that President Biden had no intention of stepping down, those who suggested he follow through on his campaign promise were dismissed, decried, and denounced. Even as poll after poll showed that Biden’s support among the young people who helped him win in 2020 was all but gone, those who believed Biden should withdraw were shouted down. 

And there are countless such examples. By backtracking on his campaign promise to serve only one term, and then stepping down last minute, Joe Biden denied Democrats a robust primary. How valuable is a robust primary? It is quite literally the difference between winning and losing. The data on this is undeniable.

[...]

Now in 2024, the Democratic Party did not, or was unable to, hold a primary. The end result—Harris lost the popular vote by 4.5 million votes, lost the Electoral count 226-295+, and voter turnout dropped 2.5% to 64.5%—a drop that cost the Democratic Party the White House, the Senate, and potentially the House. Just like in 2016 when a 2.4% drop in turnout was the difference between controlling all of the White House, House, and Senate, and controlling none of them, in 2024 a 2.5% drop in turnout has resulted in Democrats losing control of the White House, the Senate, and grasping at straws to win control of the US House.

To be clear, this analysis does not absolve the very real misogyny and racism Kamala Harris faced. But those two obstacles of misogyny and racism make holding a primary that much more important, because such primaries help build the critical and larger coalitions needed to more effectively overcome the obstacles of misogyny and racism. Likewise, this analysis does not second guess nominating Kamala Harris. After Joe Biden finally dropped out, she was the most logical choice as the Democratic Party’s nominee. This analysis is a critique of the fact that an impossible job was thrown upon her—pick a VP running mate with negligible voter input, speed date 330 million Americans, and define yourself as distinct from Joe Biden, all in 100 days or less. Black women can, and do, many amazing things, but a person can only be at one place at one time. It is revealing that even on Election Day one of the top google search questions was, “Did Joe Biden drop out?” That is not a question any voter should be asking on November 5, and one no voter would be asking if the Democratic nominee had more than the blink of an eye to make her case to the American people via a robust primary.

[...]

Losing the Palestine Argument

Despite the improved rhetoric from Harris on Palestine, when asked whether she has any policy shifts from Biden, the answer was always a firm no. This is significant because polling was absolutely clear that stopping arms to Netanyahu would result in more votes for Harris. Harris could have broken away from Biden by stating that she sees no contradiction between maintaining Israel’s security and upholding American and international human rights law. She chose not to, and Trump was able to commandeer the brand of the “peacetime President.” A YouGov/IMEU Policy Project poll among Democrats and Independents in the swing states of Arizona, Georgia, and Pennsylvania, found that the Harris/Walz path to victory included announcing a cessation of arms to Netanyahu.

In Arizona, 35% of voters said they would be more likely to vote for the Harris if she vowed to stop weapons to Israel. Only 5% said they are less likely to vote for that policy—a 7:1 ratio of voter support in a state Biden won by only 11,000 votes.

In Georgia, 39% of voters said they are more likely to vote for Harris if she vowed to stop weapons to Israel. Only 5% said they are less likely to vote for that policy—an 8:1 ratio of voter support in a state that Biden won by 12,000 votes.

In Pennsylvania, 34% of voters in Pennsylvania said they are more likely to vote for Harris if she vowed to stop weapons to Israel. Only 7% said they would be less likely to vote for that policy—a 5:1 ratio of voter support in a state Biden won by only 82,000 votes.

And beyond swing states, a national CBS/YouGov poll reported the following critical facts about American support of a policy change to withhold arms from Israel:

61% of Americans oppose weapons to Israel’s assault in Gaza

77% of Democrats reject US weapons to Israel

63% of moderates reject US weapons to Israel

77% of voters under 30 oppose weapons to Israel

75% of Black Americans oppose weapons to Israel

66% of women oppose weapons to Israel

64% of Hispanic Americans oppose weapons to Israel

56% of white college grads oppose weapons to Israel

American Muslims comprise of roughly 1% of the United States population. The vote some American Muslims withheld due to Biden’s policy on Israel did not impact the election results. But the Biden administration’s refusal to listen to 77% of Democrats, 63% of moderates, and 61% of all Americans, absolutely did.

[...]

Conclusion

The Harris campaign raised nearly $1 billion in just three months, compared to Trump’s $388 million over 10 months. Yet, at the end of the day, Trump found ways to ensure his base came out and voted for him, and the Democratic Party found ways to ignore the critical voters that catapulted them to victory in 2020. Racism, misogyny, media failures, Russian interference, third party candidates—all played a role. But at the end of the day, this was the Democratic Party’s election to lose, and they must take responsibility if they hope to meaningfully reform their fatal flaws and win in 2026 or 2028, and beyond.

Donald Trump is a fascist, and Project 2025 will invite fascism to America. This is the reality we face. The Democratic Party must understand that it will never ‘out conservative’ or ‘out center’ Republicans. Instead, the Democratic Party must stop cosplaying as a left party, and actually become a left party that prioritizes economic, social, and climate justice with meaningful action, not meaningless rhetoric. Today, the Democratic Party has two very distinct paths ahead of it. It can either blame everyone else as racist, embrace war criminals like Dick Cheney, and hold loaded primaries, thereby ensuring a repeat of this election’s failures in the future. Or, the Democratic Party can look inwardly and actually listen to its base and future—young voters, Black voters, Asian and Muslim voters, and Latino voters—and ensure success on the local, state, and federal level for a generation or more.

Qasim Rashid is 100% correct about what went wrong for the Democratic Party in the wake of Tuesday’s loss, and there were multiple factors that played into it: the global anti-incumbency trend, mainstream media’s sanewashing of Donald Trump, racist and sexist prejudice against a Black and South Asian woman leading the nation, Joe Biden’s decision to run for re-election, too much deference to protecting Israel at all costs, and alienating the base by lurching too much towards the center-right.

As for Kamala Harris herself, she help saved the Democrats from an even worse loss. While it was a short-term loss, it was a medium-to-long term win that keeps them alive.

[hero-israel]

I really don't know how to get leftists to care about the truth again. Facts matter. I feel like so many leftists are willing to use very specific, serious words like a toy and lob them at their enemies (or perceived enemies) without a single further thought of how this might impact the situation.

Genocide is a very serious accusation. Genocide denial is a very serious accusation. Apartheid is a very serious accusation. Apartheid denial is very serious accusation. Bombing civilian targets like hospitals is a very serious accusation. Excusing or denying that that happened is a very serious accusation. Etc.

And so many people are so afraid of being unfairly tarred as being deniers of human rights abuses that they won't ask the necessary questions to get the information and facts needed to decide whether those allegations are true or not. And it doesn't impact them directly, so they have zero motivation to actually ask the questions that one must to substantiate such claims.

I'm just so exhausted and infuriated by having to constantly defend myself against people who refuse to engage past the slogan and Instagram graphics point.

What happened to caring about fake news? Is that only relevant when Republicans do it? Is there no guardrail of truth on the left?

There is not.

It looks like we are seeing a full-on magnetic polar realignment in American political / activist culture. The Voting Rights Act famously made all the Deep South racist conservatives switch from Democrat to Republican. 10/7 made the anti-fascist Nazi-punchers into, well...

The one-day glimpse into what it would look like to truly destroy Israel and kill all the Jews - looking so tantalizing, so achievable, so appealing in particular to men with poor financial and family prospects and who see women as rewards - that was their activation code, it tripped their sequence and once they have witnessed the dream there is no going back to life before they saw it. They will always cherish it and always want more. Along with the QAnon, Jan.6th crowd, they are another front in the social destruction of American sanity and functionality.

SEVERELY tragic irony: the general uselessness and lack of concrete accomplishments of American Leftists is now going to be something of a protector for American Jews, who overwhelmingly support most of those Leftists' other goals (besides Jewish genocide, that is). The activist Left couldn't protect Roe vs Wade, which was enormously popular; couldn't enact gun control, also a bipartisan issue; has won utterly fuck-all when it comes to the environment, an issue that is literally life-or-death to literally everybody. If they can't take power on those issues, they won't take it for establishing a National Quds Day Rally.

But they might not need political influence if they are just so much more confident in rampaging in the streets and burning synagogues down.

I also think a lot of their participants will come to regret their normalization, their eager endorsement, of punitive rape. The distance between "never" and "once" is much, much bigger than the distance between "once" and "more".

[nini123]

I don't really talk about politics but I feel the need to say it

People who voted for trump do NOT care about anyone but themselves they only care to benefit themselves and the celebrities who endorsed him are absolutely selfish

And the women, Mexican Americans and middle class people who have voted for him this WILL backfire onto you

I honestly did not expect Kamala to win because I know that this country is to misogynist to let a woman be in charge plus she did not have much time to get people on her side.

BUT to the woman who voted for her, you are not only stopping other women from the right to abort a child that will end up being mistreated and neglected, but you are also taking the lives of the many women who wanted to have the baby and end up having complications in their pregnancy, and who have to bleed out because doctors are too afraid of giving them treatment. You have been brainwashed to believe that abortion is just about "getting rid of a tiny human being"

You aren't "Pro Life" you're Pro death and pro neglect

I personally have decided from an early age that I would save myself for marriage but that does not mean I don't care about the women who have an active sex life and about the women who are or are planning on getting pregnant

To the Mexican Americans who voted for this man, as a Mexican American and a daughter of an immigrant I am very disappointed. And our ancestors are disappointed that you would give into the brainwashing of a white man. A man who would have stood by the side of the men who took our land. You do not deserve to identify yourself as a Mexican if you voted for this man.

To the middle class, you say that the economy was so great when he was president last. Well that was obamas economic plan! So good job! We actually will have an increase in everything because he does not understand how government works, and business in general. This so called successful business man has lost millions of dollars in many different businesses including when he made a casino!

I live in California, and Kamala won our electoral votes. But looking at each of the regions votes a lot of you voted red... and are still living here benefitting off of liberal policies.

I do not care if you agree or disagree with me at all. I am simply saying my opinions and stating facts. I will not be arguing with anyone in my replies

[batboyblog]

oh silly liberal me thinking such silly stupid meaningless differences over superficial questions like: "are trans people really humans? and do they deserve to live?" was really important. ha ha ha of course have to keep the eyes on the prize for that worker's revolution that is totally totally coming and will totally be pro-LGBT rights, trust us.

any ways listen to real Unions not people who aren't in a union but shit post about things they don't understand:

AFL-CIO to give Biden the earliest Endorsement in it's History

oh whats that America's biggest labor union to endorse Biden earlier than it's ever endorsed a candidate before? but but... teens on the internet keep telling me Biden is the most anti-Union President ever, the Union buster of the 21st century!

this might be because the White House has been working for the rail union since December (when these people stopped checking the story) and has gotten agreements to sick leave all the major train companies have made deals with the union since the strike failure:

When Joe Biden and Congress enacted legislation in December that blocked a threatened freight rail strike, many workers angrily faulted Biden for not ensuring that the legislation also guaranteed paid sick days. But since then, union officials says, members of the Biden administration, including the transportation secretary, Pete Buttigieg, and labor secretary, Marty Walsh, who stepped down on 11 March, lobbied the railroads, telling them it was wrong not to grant paid sick days.

oh wow look, Union officials crediting the Biden team's work on this very subject wild (the union officials are Artie Maratea, president of the Transportation Communications Union, and Greg Regan, president of the Transportation Trades Department of the AFL-CIO)

Joseph McCartin, a labor historian at Georgetown University, said: “It’s a significant set of quiet victories. It shows that it really makes a difference to have a pro-labor president.”

of course, people like the commenter don't want railway workers to get sick time, or anything else. They want a strike! not a strike to win better deals no no no! but for the REVOLUTION! that will totally happen... sometime... and the brave men (and I guess women..) of the working class will rise up overthrow capital! while he sits in his room and posts about it (bravely!)

[yourgamemasterthewhiterabbit]

Shout out to the guy who read:

"I keep trying to warn you where this will lead.

It isn't about what I want or what I think should happen, I'm not endorsing anything, let's be clear, it's about what will happen, really, it's about human nature.

This isn't about what's moral, or what's reasonable, or what you think you can stoke a divisive culture war against, it isn't about my opinion, I did not invent the nature of need, it's about what people have always done when faced with no good options, guns in their hands and staring up at the people sentencing them to suffering and death."

Interpreted it as me saying "gun violence is the appropriate solution" and then threatened me with gun violence for saying it was the solution...

And then deleted his reblog when I pointed out his lack of reading comprehension and blocked him.

Leave alone that he is exactly the kind of disillusioned right wing supporting gun toting reactionary who I was trying to point out will be the ones actually enacting the gun violence [not so much the staunch leftists who believe in the value of human life]... As has actually already been proven at least 3 times now.

I'd like to remind him that I do report people for threats of physical violence and for harassment.

And I'd like to recommend stepping away from the internet and having a nice hot bath or something every time he feels the need to try to make a nasty comment... Before he makes an ass of himself again.

I'd also like to reiterate that I am not endorsing gun violence, I am merely pointing out that this will continue to happen if we stay on this trajectory, and you can't reasonably expect another outcome.

Look at history's example.

You are fucking so deeply with human rights and everyone being able to meet their basic needs that the angry incels who used to be taking aim at women and students, are the exact group who are now looking angrily up at billionaires and politicians, having finally seen who they should be mad at [not an endorsement of them seeing gun violence as the solution], and wow I bet THEY -the largely rich white men who are 'calling the shots'- don't like it when the guns are being aimed at them instead of the women and children they can usually scapegoat...

Maybe try not to literally threaten to shoot the messenger?

I mean, I can also predict that suddenly gun reform will start to seem okay or be dropped as a main talking point by the political right once enough billionaires, CEOs, and politicians are shot/shot at... That's just me pointing out what's a near inevitability... Not me exerting some power to try to make it happen. [I have none]

I'm not the one with the gun, and I'm not the one stripping people of their basic human rights or denying their needs for survival. I have no power to tell people what to do and I have about as much influence as your average tumblr shit-poster at best. That is in fact the MOST power I have in any facet of my life. I'm just telling you what I see happening. If you think lashing out at me solves anything, you are misdirecting that energy, buddy.