#Always have been a proponent of “If you're going to hate someone you need to do it for the right reasons”

[unsolicited-opinions]

this is a genuine question: why do you think the queer community is so bad when it comes to the antisemitism and even the overt Hamas support? I can’t figure it out at all. Jews have always been a huge part of and even pioneers in the community. now we’re banned and harassed and unsafe. I see a pride flag online these days and feel terror because I expect a watermelon or red triangle to be right next to it, it’s happened so often. I’d feel safer in a church than at a pride event. why do they hate us so much now? even those of us who are also part of that community?

I've been trying to figure that out, too.

I was pretty sure that the origin was in postmodern academia, but I didn't know much more.

I have never formally engaged with Queer Studies, nor with Gender and Sexuality Studies,so I had no idea where to start.

Someone on #jumblr (I regret that I don't recall who) pointed out this collection of essays, Poisoning the Wells: Antisemitism in Contemporary America.

Chapter 2 is "Pinkwashing Antisemitism: The Origins of Queer Anti-Israeli Discourse by Dr. R. Amy Elman.

I'm way outside my wheelhouse here, despite holding a degree in one of the social sciences.[1]

I'm going to try to summarize this in a way which is shorter and more digestible than reading the whole thing, but there's a link to the whole thing at the bottom of this Very Long Post.

Disclaimers:

1. Acknowledging the depth of my ignorance:

I don't have the contextual knowledge to know with confidence if this is an intellectually honest argument, or even if the history is fairly presented. If anyone on Jumblr has more experience studying this topic, I'd sure welcome their thoughts.

2. A note to LGBTQ+ readers on "queer":

I understand that some in the LGBTQ+ community don't care for the term "queer," and some regard it as a slur. I have tried, for this reason, to cease using this word in my daily life. Below, I'm going to use the word "queer" a lot here, however, because Elman does and the scholars she discusses do. If you're among those who dislike this term or find it hurtful, I hope that you will not see my doing so as a slur or an insult

3. My editorial comments are in blue.

4. This is long. Not as long as the article itself, but long for Tumblr. You are forewarned.

Got a coffee or an energy drink?

Continue below the break:

Elman says the increasing appeal of queer politics was for specifically millennials, and the BDS movement actively pursued a "queer" plank to broaden its appeal.

This tracks.

She says that Leaders from both movements saw a potential for synergy, with some suggesting queers could transform BDS from a "vanguard movement" to a "popular" movement.

Elman gives a history of the "Queer Movement" in which she argues its adherents are particularly susceptible to BDS's "pinkwashing" accusations.

She says:

- "Queer" is an intentionally broad, deliberately ambiguous term encompassing various sexual and gender minorities who reject traditional LGBT politics as conservative.

- The queer movement emerged in the late 1980s and early 1990s in opposition to both neo-liberalism and feminists who critiqued sadomasochism (S/M) and the sex industry.

- This opposition to feminist critiques of the eroticization of inequality, says Elman, is a crucial factor in understanding queer politics' susceptibility to antisemitism.

- Elman says early queer activists prioritized passion over reason, making them potentially vulnerable to harmful ideologies.

The Feminist Sex Wars

- There was conflict, says Elman, between lesbian feminists and proponents of S/M, arguing that the increasing acceptance of S/M within the lesbian community weakened its ability to resist fascist values.

I don't see the need to politicize whatever one enjoys in private as long as it is safe, sane, and consensual, but okay.

- Elman draws a parallel between the eroticization of fascism in the past (referencing Susan Sontag and Sheila Jeffreys' concerns about Nazi aesthetics in queer subcultures) and the current uncritical embrace of certain radical ideologies.

- Elman says the embrace of "outlaw" identities and the downplaying of the harmful implications of S/M practices (including the use of fascist symbols for parodic purposes) are problematic trends within queer politics.

Which made me think of seeing Queers for Palestine protestors calling Jews "Nazis" and combining the swastika with the mogen David.

- Elman argues that the rise of queer politics led to the silencing and marginalization of lesbian feminists who focused on women's rights and opposed the industrialization of sexuality and S/M.

Like Andrea Dworkin?

- Elman says Queer Theorists have dismissive attitudes towards lesbian feminist concerns and that the once-flourishing spaces and intellectual contributions of lesbian feminists were diminished within the broader "queer" coalition.

As a cishet man, I had thought the broadening of the movement, the addition of each letter in LGBTQ+, gave all parts of it more strength, but it seems obvious to me now that lesbian concerns aren't always the same (and may not be aligned with) gay men's concerns, enby concerns, trans concerns, etc.

I can see how being subsumed by a larger movement could dampen the voices of its different component populations and diminish the perceivability of the points on which they don't agree.

Judith Butler features prominently here.

- Elman seems to say Butler's nuanced stance on her lesbian identity is rather different from her non-nuanced Jewish identity, and it is "as a Jew" that she declares her anti-Zionism.

...in 1989, [Butler] was asked to provide a lesbian lecture and responded that she would rather describe herself as "being" homosexual because identifying as lesbian felt "neither true nor false." Yet, she demonstrates no similar reluctance to claim a Jewish identity years later. To the contrary, it is "as a Jew" that she condemns Israel and vows to develop a Jewish opposition to Zionism.

A decade after Butler vacillated over being lesbian, she similarly described her nearly two-decade-long relationship to S/M discourse as "active and complicated," a position in keeping with the tenor of her fourth book, The Psychic Life of Power. In it, Butler speaks of her "paradoxical" embrace of "injurious" names because they "constitute" her "socially."

Huh. Jewish identity without nuance? I'm not sure I've ever seen that...?

- Elman says Butler's engagement with S/M discourse and her concept of erotically embracing oppressive power structures are linked to the potential eroticization of antisemitism and the demonization of Israel.

As Martha Nussbaum explains, the central thesis of The Psychic Life of Power is that “we all eroticize the power structures that oppress us, and can thus find sexual pleasure only within their confines.”

If Nussbaum is correct, there may be no better explanation for the ongoing eroticization of antisemitism and the demonization of Israel.

So concerned was Nussbaum by Butler’s influence on American women’s studies programs in the 1990s that she concluded,

"There is despair at the heart of the cheerful Butlerian enterprise. The big hope, the hope for a world of real justice, where laws and institutions protect the equality and the dignity of all citizens, has been banished, even perhaps mocked as sexually tedious. Judith Butler’s hip quietism is a comprehensible response to the difficulty of realizing justice in America. But it is a bad response. It collaborates with evil. Feminism demands more and women deserve better."

"Hip quietism" makes me want to read more Nussbaum.

Butler was chair of the International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission (later renamed Outright First)...which was a UN recognized organzation. While the name might cause the casual observer to to think it would focus on gays and lesbians, it has seemed to focus on Israel.

Outright First claims it advances LGBT rights through awards consistent with its agenda, yet the first of these was not made until 2005, fifteen years after its founding and the same year that BDS was ostensibly established.

That year, the organization honored Mary Robinson, who decriminalized homosexuality as Ireland’s first woman president (from 1990-1997).

Robinson also served as the UN’s first woman High Commissioner for Human Rights and, in this capacity, Robinson oversaw the 2001 UN World Conference against Racism, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance in Durban, South Africa.

Despite the conference’s noble rhetoric, the antisemitism that it manifest led Robinson to resign in disgrace.

It was in Durban that “anti-racist” organizers revived the scurrilous Soviet charge from decades earlier that Zionism is a form of racism and Israel is an apartheid state. Although Robinson called these allegations inappropriate and unacceptable, she did not reject the conference’s final declaration that contained them.

Ach. The feckin' Irish again.

...in 2008, Desmond Tutu became the second recipient of the organization’s “Outspoken” Award. Tutu, a Nobel prize winning anti-apartheid activist, is also an outspoken critic of Israel for “practicing apartheid” in its policies against the Palestinians. While he too condemned bigotry against gay men and lesbians, like Robinson, Tutu may be better known for his opposition to Israel than for any long-standing and deep defense of LGBT rights. Thus, one wonders whether the “critical partnerships” Outright First fostered were less those that promoted the world’s LGBT communities than those that helped legitimize anti-Israel activism.

This example, it seems to me, is a more appropriate illustration of “pinkwashing”:

that is, pinkwashing may be less about bolstering Israel’s reputation than providing Israel’s sworn enemies a seemingly progressive mask behind which to conceal their animus.

Pinkwashing, Triangles, and Softcore Holocaust Denial

The term "pinkwashing" initially referred to corporate profiteering from pink-themed breast cancer awareness campaigns.

Elman contrasts this with the reclamation of the pink triangle by gay activists as a symbol of defiance after the Stonewall riots, noting that this is a "disturbing" appropriation of a Nazi symbol.

Years before American corporate executives bolstered sales through gender-conforming pink promotionals to women, American gay male activists openly embraced pink to signify their gendered defiance after the Stonewall riots of 1969.

This political reclamation manifested itself in their adoption of the pink triangle Nazis used to denote and facilitate the destruction of those men they identified as homosexual. That this exclusively male Nazi symbol came to signify LGBT rights is disturbing and reveals a movement that, whether through ignorance or choice, embraced a fascist aesthetic

Is that fair? The idea of reclaiming is to take the symbol away from the oppressor and redefine it, right?

ACT UP's use of the pink triangle and its analogies between the AIDS crisis and the Holocaust are presented as examples of "softcore" Holocaust denial that paved the way for later strained comparisons.

By 1987, the Nazi pink symbol gained American prominence when the AIDS Coalition to Unleash Power (ACT UP) used it for its logo, which also read “Silence Equals Death.”

Founded by Larry Kramer, ACT UP’s mission involved combating the public’s indifference to “the AIDS Holocaust.” Equating the epidemic with Jewish genocide, ACT UP’s gay pride float that year depicted a concentration camp within which activists posed behind barbed wire. Kramer’s book, Reports from the Holocaust: The Making of an AIDS Activist, further popularized this agitprop and the pink triangle marked its cover. As the HIV death toll mounted across the globe, ACT UP’s rhetoric and the Nazi triangle became internationally ubiquitous

So Elman believes this was softcore Holocaust denial through universalization/appropriation by the queer movement.

Holocaust images...absent the Jews. We see a lot of that on social media from the LGBTQ+ community right now.

BDS and "pinkwashing"

Sarah Schulman, an ACT UP alum, was as a key figure in popularizing the "pinkwashing" accusation against Israel. Here's an inside look at how that happened:

And here's Schulman's 2011 NYT piece:

If you need to get past the paywall, use this link.

Schulman's argument is that Israel's promotion of its LGBTQ+ rights is a cynical tactic to conceal human rights violations against Palestinians.

It couldn't be a natural outcome of an electorate with a majority which is socially liberal enough to not want to persecute their LGBTQ+ family members? Why not?

Oh, it's because Jews are sneaky and devious /s

Elman critiques Schulman's anti-racist pretense, arguing it invisibilizes Israel's diverse population and misrepresents the motivations behind Israel's LGBTQ+ initiatives.

The investment in Tel Aviv as a gay vacation destination is acknowledged, but its negative framing by BDS as "pinkwashing," says Elman, creates not just an entry point for antisemitism, but also a permission structure.

Soon "pinkwashing" took on a different meaning from the one intended by the women who originally coined it.

When applied by "pinkwatchers" whose sights are trained exclusively on Israel, the accusation became an entry point for antisemitism.

According to Wikipedia, it now describes "a variety of marketing and political strategies aimed at promoting products, countries, people or entities through an appeal to gay-friendliness in order to be perceived as progressive, modern and tolerant."

As Cary Nelson observed, "the pinkwashing accusation gives license" to condemn Israel, while discounting all of its achievements (e.g. legal protection against sexual orientation discrimination, recognition of same sex marriages, joint adoption, and open military service) without any reservation.

Want to know the first thing Sarah Schulman posted to Twitter on 10/7/23?

Here's Canary Mission's page about Schulman.

Elman continues:

There may be no better way to simultaneously encourage antisemitism and dismiss Israel’s LGBT initiatives (whatever their shortcomings) than to insist those efforts undermine the rights of Palestinians.

Were it not for BDS double-speak, Schulman could not maintain that she “never” betrayed queer people, despite her having acted in “solidarity” with “presumably straight Palestinians” to oppose Israel’s LGBT community.

Like countless other “queers” who take “pride” in being “ashamed” Jews, she received political “guidance” from “presumably straight” folks like Omar Barghouti, the purported founder of BDS.

Known for his explicit desire to “euthanize” the “Zionist project” and his vocal opposition to the two-state solution, Barghouti insists that not even “the end of occupation” will end his struggle.

Elman wraps up:

Like “Islamophobia,” “pinkwashing” and its corollary “homonationalism” are accusations often employed to silence critics while simultaneously providing those who issue them the appearance of being concerned about LGBT people and other minorities. Yet, this posturing offers little in return.

In fact, these denunciations are in keeping with the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation’s longstanding assault on homosexual conduct, gender equality, and universal human rights at myriad UN fora under the insidious cover of anti-racism and anti-imperialism.

You can grab a PDF of the whole book here.

That BDS similarly promotes itself through the cynical appropriation of social movements and ostensibly progressive claims that vilify the Jewish state represents a consummate act of public diplomacy in which anti-semitism itself has been pinkwashed.

_________

You read the whole thing, so have a cookie: 🍪

[1] I agree with Neil Postman that the social sciences would more accurately be called moral theologies...and are not sciences.

You can read more about Postman's point here if you want to know what I mean by that..

[lunar-years]

🕯️🍬🔪🌿 🍦 - for the writer ask game

🕯️ on a a scale from 1 to 10, how much do you enjoy editing? why is that?

uhhh... 4? It's my least favorite part of the writing process because 1) I write out of order and am also a proponent of the 'Write Now Edit Later' method so sometimes when it actually comes time to edit the draft is roughhhh and it is a PAIN to wad through. also 2) I am someone who needs to read through my work approx. 5000 times before I feel ready to post it which is. a very annoying way to be. (and then I always find at least 3 more errors as soon as I click Publish anyway, lol.)

🍬 post an unpopular opinion about a popular fandom character

Stranger Things: Steve Harrington's Dad is not abusive and Steve isn't chronically abandoned by him or whatever. They simply do not get along in a very normal father and teenage/young adult son kind of way where Steve thinks his Dad soooo doesn't understand him and is a corporate square bore and Steve's dad wants Steve to grow up a bit and take some responsibility. (Mind you, the only comments Steve makes about his dad in canon are like "oh no my dad made me get a job :(" or "oh no my dad is going to be pissed I threw a party with teenagers and beer when he was out of town :(" which are like...totally normal parent things?) I have NO idea why "Steve's Dad is at best neglectful and at worst physically and emotionally abusive" became "basically canon" for like 85% of this fandom but it drives me NUTS. I would just like it to be acknowledged as the headcanon it certifiably is, thank you.

Ted Lasso: Ted had the best possible ending for his character (in returning to Henry) and this was the natural culmination to the arc they'd been building for him for three seasons.

🔪 what's the weirdest topic you researched for a writing project?

uh, football ⚽️🤪

Jk jk lmao, I feel like I haven't written about anything that outlandish? Maybe that time I watched 15 minutes of Fast and Furious on Youtube so I could make it Jamie's favorite movie LOL.

Also, I currently have a tab open on how to help a recovering addict coming out of rehab (for Jamie father fic purposes) which isn't a *weird* topic by any means but would surely be alarming to my family members were they to open my laptop haha.

🌿 give some advice on writer's block and low creativity

switch stories!! Career Fic exists because I got bad writer's block on Jamie Father Fic. And now that I'm stumped on chapter 2 of Career Fic, I'm back to Jamie Father Fic! Also don't be afraid to write out of order. If I'm writing a fic because of one (1) fleshed out scene I have in my head meant to be the stories climax, I simply write that first. Don't force yourself to start at the beginning just because you think you ought to!

Also...if writing is a hobby for you, treat it as such and don't force yourself to write if you're not feeling it. Deadlines are arbitrary and your story will still be there tomorrow! and keep it fun (i like sitting down with a glass of wine or a pot of tea and a blanket to make it cozy as I write 🥰)

🍦 name three good things about a character you hate

uhhh idk what characters I hate apart from the characters I'm meant to hate LOL.

James Tartt Sr:

Gave us Jamie

Is the 1/2 of the Equation for why Jamie exists

the actor who plays him was really hot when he was younger (just like Jamie) 🤪

Writing Ask Game

[readingloveswounds]

Hi, Sophie! I just wanted to know if you feel the same way as me or if I'm just weird (some of my cohort peers share my feeling so I guess I'm not completely alone but)... I have such a hard time keeping motivated while writing a paper for publication. Because while my dissertation needs to get done, the paper does not. I mean, I have to publish something before I graduate but it can be paper A or B or C, you know? I don't know if paper A is actually good and what if I spend weeks on it and it doesn't get published? I find this idea so demotivating and I end up not working on articles for publication. But, I guess that's just how academia works, so I should really get over it.

Hi!

You are NOT at all alone - I suspect this is one of the reasons that I'm sort of scrambling to write an article / have struggled in the past without a pre-written paper (as in, a paper I had written for class that then became an article).

I keep having these ideas that I think are good, and then a little bit later I think "well actually this isn't that important" OR (even worse, honestly) "i'll never be able to do that justice" I! need! to! get! over! it! but like, in a nice, understanding way.

I think the first step in getting tf over it is asking WHY I (and you) feel this way. I think, at least for me, it comes from a place of wanting to do good work and not embarrass myself among academics that I respect and/or want I would like to respect me in turn.

However, having received massive amounts of gossip from a medievalist friend about the state of medieval studies while at a conference - it will ALWAYS be a shambles and people are people enough that there will always be at least one asshole. I say this not to discourage you, but that you can't let that stop you. It really is better to try and fail than not try at all. Failure sucks when you've put a lot of work in, but you are often given some kind of comments when a paper is rejected so you can work on what the reviewers have said. Plus! Nothing is stopping you from submitting it to a different journal if it is rejected from a first.

The second step is: set aside time for it. Dedicate X hours on X day(s) to 'article time'. This privileges it in your mind and your schedule. Don't let yourself work on anything else - trap yourself into getting something done, even if you hate every second of it. Your mileage may vary, but I am a strong proponent of 'just five minutes' and then getting sucked into work. Make yourself pick one path to go down and see what you can make of it.

At some point, people will have to see what you've written - see if you can get someone else to give you deadlines, even a friend who will just check in and ask you if you have something yet. I work a lot better with external pressure. Also! Advice I never take for myself, but it's worth talking through what you're thinking about writing about with people, if you find a sounding board helpful.

I am currently in a 'get the fuck over it' stage as I try to figure out what I'm supposed to be doing post-dissertation, and I cannot say I'm perfect (have been panicking about doing 'nothing' for the past weeks), but I am going to push through and figure something out.

I unfortunately do not have the formula to overcoming this, but you are definitely not alone.

[eversea143]

Create

Reality is beautiful.

Everyone can write. Everyone can draw. Everyone can make art and do hobbies and be creative.

Art isn't always going to look pretty or sound nice. Creativity is part skill and skill requires time and effort to learn and develop. But it's never, ever impossible to learn.

The 'Modern' writers and intellectuales of today are unrightfully being marketed to be 'the best of society' and 'unreachable in their craft' when a majority started out as ordinary people who simply had the time and effort to develop their respective skills. They're not alone in that regard, they are just the ones who managed to go through the stupidly complex and unspoken process of publishing and marketing their work.

Every legal right is a decent way to protect your property, but they should never be used or abused in order to limit other people's efforts to create their own works.

To copy to learn is flattering and a real method of developing your skill. Plagiarism should only mean that a work was delibaretly duplicated and minimally altered in order to then publish it as an 'original' without consent or reference to the true original and its creator. You may hear the same sentence a thousand times in your life, this never made all the others after the first one exact duplicates.

Human ideas are only property when they are legally writ down as such. Never claim to have been the original source of an idea when you can't present any evidence. Ideas are a free resource. Two people who think alike may have the same ideas. There is no need or requirement to determine who was first. Prosper in knowing someone had the same idea like you, it may present new opportunities.

Every creator's frustration is pressure. No one is legally required to create for someone based on relation, work position, monetary wealth or societal standing unless written in a legal and formal document that is approved by both parties. You pay for the work, but the creator is the one making it. Is the result not to your satisfaction? Don't rant and rave about it, perhaps the maker simply misunderstood your wishes or is unable to visualize your idea. This is not their fault, everyone is unique and this makes finding common grounds difficult.

World shapes art and the art shapes the world, but neither are responsible for the other. The maker is the middle ground on both accounts. Do you not agree with a subject found within the work, but you are not the maker? At best, turn this into a conversation point or peaceful debate, not a reason to harm the creator or demonize their standpoint. Having an opinion is not the same as being an active proponent.

Open creativity is subjective and dependent on a person's entire personality. Everyone's creativity is subsequently unique and ideal for them and them alone. Aspects may overlap, but the odds of exact duplicates is astronomically small. Never hate on someone else's creativity, you are literally hating on a part that makes them an individual human being. Imagine how you may feel if the same happened to you. Doesn't sound fun, does it?

Right and wrong is also subjective. There is actually no right or wrong way to create, there's only your way. Everyone does it differently. At best you can help others find their own way or teach them ways to improve themselves. Never claim you're the best, many have done so before you but they're all dead now anyways. Being good doesn't make you the norm.

Leave existing art alone, even when the creator has long since passed. It's a piece of themselves they've left to world. It's history, even if it's not big or impressive enough for the Louvre. You will never find someone who can make exactly the same art.

Don't disrespect the creating process. Again, you would not like it if someone did the same to you. Creating is hard enough in these difficult times. Don't make it harder for anyone, especially those who struggle by default.

Now read the first letter of each section and tell me what it may mean.

[dhaaruni]

My hot take remains: neither Bernie nor Hillary should've run in 2016. Even if Biden was unavailable because of his son's cancer and stuff, they should've gotten someone who could look boring and rational next to Trump AND didn't have a built-in hatebase. Instead the Dems tried to out-shout Trump, which is a loser's game because bigots are always going to have more memorable things to shout than non-bigots.

Yeah, I'm the #1 proponent of "If you don't vote Democrat, you're a fundamentally bad person" concept, but I also don't entirely disagree with you. In 2016, we should have run a boring normie Democrat white man without any baggage against Trump and since Biden was unavailable, my choice would have ironically been Bernie Sanders' bestie Sherrod Brown. However, the other issue is nobody would have beaten Hillary in the Democratic primary in 2016 like BIDEN wouldn't have beaten Hillary in a Democratic primary, and it would have gotten ugly, which I'm glad we avoided.

I like Hillary a lot, I think she's a genius who's done a lot of good for this country in ways that we still probably haven't found out, but the fact remains that she's an extremely polarizing figure (whether or not it's her fault) and this is the reaction of so many seemingly normal men about her, including most of the Shor-pilled type tbh.

That's also the #1 issue with the Shor-pill: Once presented with the statistics, everybody that isn't stupid agrees that Democrats need to win more white men, and stop slipping with non-college Hispanics, to be competitive in the Senate and electoral college but the Democratic primary electorate hates populists, they rejected Bernie soundly twice; and, until populist candidates learn to win over Black people and cringe women, they're never going to be Democratic general election candidates. Hillary won the South Carolina primary with 75% of vote in a 1-1 race, it wasn't close, and Bernie got similarly demolished in every single Southern state, which is why he lost that primary by 3.8 million votes. It's only because the MSM has had it in Hillary since the 1970s (not just right-wing media) that anybody pretended Bernie had a chance of being the nominee after Super Tuesday, and I'm never going to forgive them for it.

I predict that's the issue John Fetterman will face in the Pennsylvania Senate primary too, and one of his supporters said the quiet part out loud on Twitter, that he could win the general since PA is 80% white but the primary electorate has too many Black people in it who frown on candidates chasing unarmed Black men with shotguns when mayor. Like really, I wonder why!! And for the record, I actually agree, I think Fetterman, unlike Bernie the socialist who praised Fidel Castro, potentially could pull off the general election but I also think the Democratic primary is an uphill battle for him due to the jogger incident and the fact Conor Lamb is just as electable with the 80% white PA electorate due to being a prosecutor in the Marines and suburban women loving him, and Lamb also never drew a shotgun on a random jogger.

[bigskydreaming]

Here's a random question for you: I know you're a big (the biggest) proponent of Scanny, but if you had to pick someone else for Danny to have a relationship with, who would it be?

I actually have thought about this! Honestly, my go to after Scott for Danny is Mason, because the younger characters are literally only two years younger than the original characters even if it seemed otherwise a lot of the time. And so given that we never saw Danny and Mason interact due to the whole ‘oh sure, he totally graduated offscreen a year early just in time to not be around for the season that revolved entirely around his specific expertise aka hacking’ nonsense....I can easily imagine a few years in the future, Danny and Mason meet in college or grad school or somewhere they’re on even footing and learn they have mutual friends/experiences/knowledge in common and from there grow into a friendship and also maybe then they’re boyfriends and then husbands and then dads and then grandpas and happily ever after yada yada.

Meanwhile, if Danny encountered Liam at any age, I feel like he would just be like: “No.” And then wave his hand around in Liam’s direction in a circle like to encompass all of him, as he’s all. “All of this is just exhausting, whatever it is. I am too old and too tired to deal with this....vibe you’re emitting.”

LOL I can’t explain it, like Liam and Mason have entirely different energies and I feel that age isn’t even a factor as to why Danny would just not at all have patience for Liam. Like, I don’t think he’d DISLIKE him exactly, so much as just....’I’m going to be over here, and you’re going to stay over there, and I just think that’ll be best for everyone and we’ll all get along great that way.”

Hmm, who else. Controversial I guess, but I actually did kinda like Dethan, waaaay back at the very beginning of it, before that very same season crapped all over any real potential it or even the twins at all had in the show. Given that I’m fine with them and even like them in AUs or fics that diverge before they had anything to do with Boyd’s death, but if that’s at all in canon for a story, I have no interest in them as anything other than cannon fodder. Which let’s be real, you always kinda have a need for in TW stories. 

But initially, I REALLY REALLY liked the fact that there was this (at the time) mysterious new character that was there for DANNY, like, deliberately seeking him out because of real or suspected significance....I was all for that, because I was like yes, excellent, clearly this means they have plans to focus more on Danny and bring him into the core group eventually and also obviously Danny’s gonna turn this guy away from the Dark Side and make him betray his pack of overcompensating losers for Danny and the power of LOVE because who doesn’t love that trope, am I right? Its all so clearly laid out!

Ahhh, to be that dumb again.

Anyway, so in AUs or early canon-divergent fics, I can be all for Danny and a better, more fleshed out and non-jackass depiction of Ethan. But by the time Ethan returns in actual canon, the fact that he’s with Jackson just irritates me in a ‘hooking up with your ex’s best friend is a jerk move and we get it, show, you don’t consider Danny important and never did, jfc’ kinda way. Beyond that though, I’m just like, Jackson can have him at that point, they deserve each other, go Team Jerkwad.

I don’t see Theo and Danny ever happening because I like to think that Danny’s view on scheming, ambitious and boundary-breaking friends with possible homicidal inclinations has changed since Jackson and Ethan’s presences in his life, and he’s like.....”Nah, I’m not doing that again. Two of that type are enough for me, and I’m kinda always gonna put up with Jackson at this point because...look, I had my reasons probably, just because I can’t remember the basis of our friendship now, like....just back off, okay?”

Just saying, I don’t think he’d inherently hate Theo if Theo’s story happens in an AU kinda way where he doesn’t murder and betray his way through the show’s social hierarchy, lol, but Danny would still just be like “Look, whatever your issues are dude, I’m not trying to judge you for them if you don’t make me, but like, go put in some you-time offstage and then maybe we can talk. I am not emotionally equipped to put up with the schemes of yet another person whose whole thing seems to be ‘am I good or bad, you decide, because I sure as hell can’t.’ I don’t care how big your biceps are, that is not going to be a deciding factor for me, not this time, no sir, I have learned from my mistakes, I have had hashtag Growth, and you need to go now, and also please put on a shirt. I SAID GOOD DAY, SIR!”

Danny and Stiles is Lol That’s A No For Me, of course, Danny and Boyd I would be totally down for and can picture them being like, a snark queen power couple who hang back and watch all the drama unfold around them while providing entertaining commentary back and forth to each other but otherwise act like they’re not even there, and when someone annoyed by their running commentary finally snaps and goes “Why are you two even here?” like, I can so picture Danny and Boyd just blinking slowly and looking at them, then at each other, then back at them as if confused by the question. 

“It’s Date Night,” Danny says slowly, in the tone reserved for being asked to solve the equation on the board that’s already got the answer written out right there.

“Okay, fine. But why are you HERE, then? If its your Date Night, like.....go have your date then. Catch a movie. Its all good, we don’t need you guys here at the moment.”

Boyd squints at them. “This IS our date. Whoppers?”

The latter is directed to Danny, as Boyd extends the box of candy towards him.

“Yes please,” Danny says, reaching for a handful.

Exasperated sighs are heard all around the room.

LOL anyway....who else....Jackson tends to be a no for me too, not for any real reason beyond like....I’ve read too many fics where they’re essentially treated as the Mirror Universe version of S/ciles, and you KNOW how I feel about that ship, so like, all even dubiously associated ships are by mere proxy also noped by me. *Shrugs*

Which mostly just leaves Isaac, and....idk, tbh. I’m not inherently opposed to them, and I’ve actually even read a couple of fairly long-ish and pretty enjoyable Danny/Isaac fics. But enjoyable in the sense of like....just as their own thing, a fun romance set in the TW setting/universe, between Danny and an Isaac-shaped woobiewolf. As the few Danny/Isaac fics I’ve found over the years tend to suffer from the exact same thing that’s always kept me from really ever getting into Scott and Isaac as a couple in anything other than theory...

Like, in the fics I’ve tried, I always tend to run into the same tendency to just....sand down all of Isaac’s rough edges and make him this shy, insecure, soft boy who is withdrawn until Danny or Scott bring him out of his shell....even when its based on the events of the show and Isaac’s already been turned into his leather jacket-wearing, snark-wielding, deliberately apathetic werewolfsona. 

And that’s just...not Isaac to me? So if I treat him as an original character basically, I can enjoy those stories, and do, just because there’s sooooo little Danny-centric fic that awhile back, I absolutely spent a good year or so making sure like, I found every last scrap of it, lol. I went spelunking in some deep, dark places in search of even a little spotlight time for Danny, because He Deserved Better and I was willing to put up with a lot to see him get even a little (except for like, blatant and unavoidable Scott hate being front and center in the fic as well. Then I exited with rapidity. I love Danny, but not even for him can I stomach that).

But yeah, otherwise, I very very rarely found a lot of Isaac fics, no matter who he was paired with, where he wasn’t like....constantly soft and vulnerable and the focus of Scott or Danny or whomever else’s regular attempts to comfort and protect him. Which I mean, I love Isaac, and I’m always projecting onto abuse survivors in fiction even if just a little bit, so its not that I object to the comfort and desire to protect him parts, just the sheer unevenness that tends to be present in his dynamics as well. I’ve always said that for me, the true theme of TW was survivor empowerment, that all of these kids had been hurt and exploited and traumatized in various ways and they all struggled individually and together to find ways to cope and to heal, and also to feel empowered enough to protect THEMSELVES from whatever or whomever tried to hurt them again in the future. 

And that’s the element that so often is missing from Isaac’s arc in fics, IMO...any hint of the character who he spent a lot of time and effort growing into on the show. Evolving first into a character who reveled in the power he’d been given and that made him feel safe and strong for the first time in his life, to the point where he was quite frankly an asshole a lot of the time. 

But then from there he grew into a character who came to terms with the reality that as his own power grew, so did the power of the new tormentors he was now often in conflict with, due to the source of his newfound strength...and his strength and brutality and apathy were not at all the tools able to help him find true protection and recovery in his new world. They just weren’t going to get the job done, and that’s when he started to let Scott’s example sink in and take his lead from that, finding the power and strength in committing himself more to others, becoming more of an active participant rather than just a spectator or a henchman who needed orders before acting.....allowing himself to be vulnerable in exchange for the benefits being more open to others afforded him.

Isaac’s growth onscreen from season to season was the very thing that made him so interesting and enjoyable to me....as well as how his bond with Scott did the same thing....so when the former isn’t really present in fics, even the presence of the latter doesn’t really do a whole lot for me. And its the same thing in the Danny/Isaac fics I read, so yeah. There for it in theory, but the execution I’ve found has never done anything to make it any more compelling a ship possibility than any other random ship.

I think that’s pretty much everyone though? Well I mean like, there’s Corey, but I don’t have strong feelings about that possibility one way or another. And there’s Derek, given the whole ‘Miguel’ thing in S1, but you know me, even in future/aged-up settings, I still tend to be ‘what if Derek dated people his own damn age tho, like just for the sheer novelty, let’s explore that some more’.....not to mention that as the show progressed, the more fandom hated on Braeden and her relationship with Derek, the more I spite-shipped them. To the extent that now I find it hard to picture even AUs where they’re not endgame, or if Derek HAS to be in another ship for some reason, then they still were a super serious relationship before the fic and there’s always that hint of her being the one that got away, kinda. 

*Shrugs* What can I say? The enemy ship of my enemy is my OTP. The Art of War, fandom style. I have no problem admitting it, lolol.

But yeah, that’s all of them I think now.

[andswarwrites]

Day 5

Random subject today, but I hate having to choose between two categories, like you're either a tea drinker or a coffee drinker.  I drink coffee in the morning, or when I feel like drinking it, and I drink tea in the afternoon, or, get this, when I feel like drinking it.  What about the cat person, dog person debacle?  I love dogs, and I love cats.  I guess that opens up a whole other subject: is there anything I dislike?  Of course there is, there are.  Can I be more specific?  I don't know.  They don't lurk near the surface of my brain.  Off the top of my head, I can't think of anything.  Most people hate Brussels sprouts and blue cheese.  Not me.

If there's one thing I can criticize, it is the actual action of being critical.  You'd think since I dislike snide, rude, or even forceful statements, that I'd be a proponent of optimistic, sunny positivity.  And there are the two categories again: you're either negative or positive.  You know what I want?  I want to be real.  Negativity can creep into speech and demeanor because someone is going through a difficult period of their life, they're having trouble adjusting, they don't have enough support, so they have to actively seek it, by telling their troubles over and over.  They just don't see the bright side.  What will help such ones?  A listening ear.

Now, before I criticize positivity, after saying I don't like being critical, I want to explain my point of view.  If you naturally see the cup as half full, if you can always find the silver lining, that is awesome.  I flatter myself that I'm a little like that too.  But I worry that the urge to be positive can result in a lack of trueness to ourselves.  We all have rough days.  We all have low times.  Acknowledging such days and times is much healthier than trying to gloss over them.  And if honestly opening up about what you are going through is met with almost hostile "feel-goodness", that's almost worse than apathy.

There are many different forms of grief, though everyone understands grief when you lose someone in death.  But think of all the other ways we experience loss.  As amazing as parenthood is, there are so many stages: babyhood, toddlerhood, small child, not so small child, pre-teen, teen, and all of a sudden (I'm not there yet with N-, but it's close) they're out of your home, making a home of their own, living their own life.  I wouldn't have it any other way, of course, I wouldn't want to stunt my kid's growth to keep her with me indefinitely, but sometimes, you have to deal with the loss of one stage, and accept and at length appreciate the new one.

We experience loss in relationships.  Someone we were extremely close to at one point, now lives across the country or even the planet, or neither of us can any longer make the time to communicate with each other.  Maybe the dynamic that brought us close together has faded.  Sometimes there is a difference of opinion, and you need to give the person some time and space, in order to hopefully make peace at some point.  And in a marriage, you have to deal with change over and over again.  Every few years, both partners change just enough that you have to get to know each other again.  And that can be fun, but also difficult.

There are more examples with which I am less familiar, such as the loss of a job, the loss of health, or the loss of youth.  I've heard about these trials from friends and family.  I realize that you need to process the loss until you accept it, and one of the best ways to process and eventually accept new situations is to talk about what you are going through with others, if you have a circle of supportive and rational friends.  Now imagine if a "negative" person is talking to a "positive" person, how is that going to go?  Will our "negative" person be interrupted, corrected, or even exhorted?

I cringe because, I've been the "positive" person in that scenario.  I didn't understand that someone you know might talk about what they are going through every time they see you, and that's not because they are being "negative".  What they are going through hurts.  If you see someone in physical pain, do you expect them to just stop suddenly because their pain is inconvenient to you?  The pain killer is a listening ear.  And after listening to the pain being expressed, you might need a listening ear yourself.

I know it seems like I'm knocking positivity, and I'm not.  Having a positive outlook in life is healthy and will get you far.  But in my case, I keep that outlook as something personal, not something I have to shower on everybody I meet.  I don't feel the need to adjust everyone else's perspective, that's not my place.  Like I said, I used to try to force feed others positivity when I was younger, and I am so over that.  If you come to me with a problem, I will first let you get it all off of your chest, and then I will ask if there's something you need that I can help with.  That's where I'm at right now.

Imagine that your brain and what you communicate are a refrigerator and its contents.  How many of us leave leftovers and condiments, or even fresh fruit and vegetables at the back, and we have all this crowded, cluttered mess in front.  Now something makes you reach into the rear of the fridge, and you pull out something rotten, mouldy and downright nasty.  That's a thought that has been festering, unattended.  The best place for such a thought is in the garbage.

The point of that fridge illustration is that anyone can have toxic traits, right?  It doesn't make you a fundamentally bad person, you just neglected to clean out the fridge for a while, and when you got around to it, it was unpleasant and a little loathsome.  Now imagine you're cleaning out the fridge with a friend, and they make you feel like they've never left a jar of olives until it was coated in nastiness.  A friend should roll up their sleeves and help out, not sit in judgement.  It may be hard to listen when you don't agree, or you're struggling to understand, but remember, if that thought doesn't get expressed, it's going to just get worse.  Listen.  Without judgement.  Not always easy, especially if it's directed at you.  That's where I've got some work to do.

[abassi-okoro]

THE ANGRY WHITE WOMEN

by Abassi Okoro Eziokwu

Hate is too strong of an emotion to waste on people who don't deserve it. I hate Meghan McCain. Rather I hate what she represents, angry white femininity. It was an angry white woman who caused the savage annihilation of Emmet Till. It is the knee-jerk reactions of angry white women who call the police on black people for doing nothing more than blinking one too many times. White women are just always angry with something or someone. Have you noticed that? Despite the racial stigma that black women are often awarded, the “ANGRY BLACK FEMALE,” at least black anger is justifiably directed at a specific or definitive idea – RACISM!

Black anger carries a certain rationale, a certain sanity. It's understandable to sympathize with the anger of a people who are systematically and institutionally oppressed, abused, and persecuted – and that's only talking about black MEN! Now add to that persecution the reality of being a black WOMAN and your abuse has just gotten worse. But in 2019, you would think that it is "White Women" who are the benefactors of white male infliction or structured social abuse and oppression. It seems that every time we tune into FOX, CNN, or some feminist round table television talk show - there is no shortage of snarling, beady-eyed, 'trembling in anger' blonde-haired, white women all too eager to tell the whole of America how they're outraged over something or someone or how “women” (which is really code for WHITE women) are discriminated against more than black folk in this country.

These white women remind me of yappy little – big eyed Chihuahuas barking uncontrollably at the slightest insignificant sound or purely imagined discomfort. When white folks profess their anger over something, they call it "Outrage." Black folks call it, "White Tears." They're always stepping out of line, ridiculing and pointing fingers and especially when it comes to American Patriotism. Nothing gets these white women barking louder than the notion that American "Ideals" are being threatened by black people's audacity to call to attention racism or the fear that immigration of Hispanic people is going to colorize and lord forbid, "colonize" lily white neighborhoods like Boise Idaho or Cedar Rapids Iowa (because I'm sure that one of the whitest towns in America is worried to death over some Mexicans coming in and stealing their warehouse associate jobs at the Adam's Lumber Yard). Or the worse case scenario, Colin Kaepernick takes a knee. Tomi Lahren every week on her show damn near had a complete mental and emotional meltdown anytime Colin Kaepernick's name was mentioned. Despite my thoughts of her anger being nothing more than a cover-up for wanting to sleep with him, she didn't fail once at getting her "outrage" out to the American public. Meanwhile, white male executives who control the FOX network had no problem offering her the platform to exploit her little annoying blonde ass.

Megyn Kelly spends a great majority of her airtime interpreting innocent remarks or acts as "sexist." That's why she always has a frog up her ass, she thinks everything is sexual. Meghan McCain's shtick is that everyone and anyone who falls short of worshipping white Jewish people is, "Anti-Semitic." Then there's the rest of American white women in general who have a long history of voting against their own best interests. White women historically have always been proponents of white supremacy and the Feminist movement is an off-shoot of that white supremacy. Black women told you that years ago that white women were going into the black neighborhoods trying to recruit black women for white feminine agendas while suggesting to these black women that they would have to leave their families, give up their black men before they could be part of the “Women's Liberation Movement.”

And so many black women did exactly that. They stopped being mothers, wives, caretakers, they got jobs in corporate America, became “secretaries” in white owned companies, put on a business suit, told their kids, “I ain't cooking shit - I ain't got to take care of you,” traded in their natural hair for a perm, learned how to talk “white” on the phone and if the police came knocking at the door, they had no problem turning in their black boyfriend or black husband and especially if he was not treating her right. The white feminist snatched up many of these black women and said, “We're sisters now” and eventually sisters became partners and partners over time became "lovers." Meanwhile, white men were locking up black men over petty shit like 10 to 20 years for $10 of weed. That's called, “Engineered Racism” folks.

BUT WHY ARE WHITE WOMEN SO ANGRY?

I'm not suggesting that only certain people are allowed to be angry (the oppressed) but it sure does make more sense for oppressed to be angry and non-oppressed to NOT be so angry. Unless of course you're implying that white women are an oppressed marginalized group? I was told that white women are angry over gender inequality and especially in the political arena. Makes sense - if I was ignorant that is. When asked a little under two years ago how Donald Trump got elected, the answer that was told to us was because the people who voted for him were white and angry. They were suffering from financial anxiety and Trump's rhetoric of bringing jobs back to America sounded pretty darn good to Becky and Bob. Now here we are in 2019 and those Trump voters who were white and angry are STILL white and they’re STILL angry but only now they're angry because they STILL haven't landed those good ole' American jobs that they were promised back in 2016 and on top of that, Trump is more concerned with building a wall to keep Mexicans out than opening up a factory in your already dilapidated - one sheriff- rural town. I'm sure it feels awful to white people who just aren't accustomed to being bent over and screwed in the ass. But if you need a shoulder to cry on white people, give people of color a call. We're experienced at being lied to by white assholes. The grief counseling hotline after being lied to by white men is 1-800-YOU-DUMB. Negroes, Mexicans and Native Americans are waiting by the line to accept your calls.

FEMINIST RAGE 101

White women in particular are encouraging each other to let out their anger in the face of the current administration. Yet, white women have failed miserably in dismantling racism. It appears that white women's rage only became a thing when white men became indifferent to white female sexuality. In other words, white men simply are not that into you (just like the movie suggested). When white men were abusing women of color, sexually exploiting black women, committing sexual violence against black women with impunity, and we didn't hear a single outcry from white women. Instead, white women actually downplayed and silenced the anger of women of color - hoping that it would gain favor in the eyes of white men. You held out for nothing, he didn't care that you had his back. White men don't need your help with being a racist or a rapist. But in recent years, white women switched and played the role of “Social Activist” and despite all the protests and public outcries and unpaid emotional labor by women of color, what did these "socially aware" white women do? White women turned around and sold black women out. They threw black women under the bus and went out to the polls and voted for the party of toxic white supremacy. It's safe to say that white women are more likely to betray their gender for their race, a proverbial gut-punch to black women who have been victims of white masculinity for generations. White women should be more ashamed than angry.

Bu let me tell you how angry white women really are. White women are so angry that 53% of them put their white privilege above their 2nd class gender status to vote for Donald Trump. Despite their "anger," white women believe they benefit from white male patriarchy by trading on their whiteness to monopolize resources for mutual gain. In return, they’re placed on a pedestal to be “cherished and revered,” by white men who in reality will not only be quick to deny them their basic human rights but will, "Grab them by the pussy" while denying them. Look, let's cut through the bullshit and just go ahead and be brutally honest: White women, your white man will NEVER love you the way he should (to full capacity.) Maybe because he spends most of his time fantasizing over black, Latin and Asian women. He'll never tell you that, but I will! Hurts doesn't it? Maybe that's why you're angry because despite supporting the system of White Supremacy, you know deep down inside your soul that the whole premise of white supremacy is predicated on white male sexual inadequacy (white genetic survival, penis envy and trying to get back into the womb of the black woman in order to recreate himself without the genetic deficiencies). Isn't that why many of your fellow white women leave their white men to be with black men to begin with? Because even white women know who the real KINGS are (Royal blood). Now pick your jaw up off the floor.

Isn't this the real reason for white female fragility? The answer is yes! There exist a lot of truths about ourselves that most of us aren't willing to explore. For white people, some of those truths paint them in a very pathetic light. I'm sorry, but as a white woman in America - you're simply not a victim of anything structural. You may be a victim to some personal and isolated incident but there is no systemic or institutionalized "ism" in place to destroy you and NO, Sexism isn't your collective oppression. You can't claim that because sexism isn't exclusive to just the female gender and white men have always treated you like shit and so don't start acting like now all of a sudden you have a problem with being his bitch and especially after 53% of you voted in a "Pussy Grabber" as your President. GROW UP white women. Pull yourself together ladies. It's not a good look to be angry for no goddamn reason.