#But also because this was how she was explicitly recognized by contemporaries

[wonder-worker]

"Alice Perrers was perceived by her contemporaries to be an uncrowned queen and through an analysis of her activities it is clear she was able to utilise the practical benefits of queenship for her own ends. However, by taking on the mantle of queenship Alice fundamentally corrupted the sovereignty and kingship of Edward III. First, by her aggressively political behaviour she became the threat at the heart of the power structure that the gendered constructions of queenship were supposed to remove from a consort. Second, by taking on the practical aspects of queenship she inherently undermined the ideological role of queenship, both by the simple fact that she was a mistress and not a queen, and even more so because of her behaviour. The problems Alice caused and how she was perceived were amplified in contrast to the [...] demeanour of Philippa, who was widely respected and much loved by the people. Just as queens in their exalted position were ‘lightning rods’ for ideas about women and female power, so was Alice because of her proximity to the king."

-Laura Tompkins, The uncrowned queen: Alice Perrers, Edward III and political crisis in fourteenth-century England, 1360-1377 (Thesis, University of St Andrews, 2013)

"Alice's expansion of her power through the office of queenship was problematic for a number of reasons. First, while the queen’s power was legitimised by her marriage to the king and her coronation, Alice’s power was not formalised in this way and consequently would have been regarded as illegitimate. Second, she was not the right type of woman to share in the king’s dignity. She was not noble, she was not chaste and she was not virtuous. Instead, she was a low-born London widow and a businesswoman. Consequently, we find Alice being discussed in the language and stereotypes of queenship, but in a rather negative light. For example, while queens are routinely described as noble, beautiful and virtuous regardless of what they actually looked like, Walsingham is quick to emphasise that Alice was of low birth, and that, almost implied as a consequence, she ‘was not attractive or beautiful’. While we do not know what Alice looked like it seems unlikely that Edward III would have taken and kept her as a mistress for so long if she had been physically repellent. Third, and most significantly, not only was Alice an inappropriate mistress exercising illegitimate power, but she also broke all of the gendered rules that queenship was constructed around, inverting the ideal form of queenship to her advantage."

[heartfulselkie]

So, I read that it was okay to ask questions about Kaleidoscope: I haven't actually seen the most recent season of MLB, so maybe it's already been confirmed to be impossible... but, can more than one former Holder be accessed at a time? (though, iirc, Adrien doesn't want to risk dismissing Ladybug??) My point being; Tikki doesn't remember Marinette, but if another Historical Holder were active, would *they* be able to recognize her?

Yes, I welcome questions about any of my AUs! 🥰

So the Ladybug that Adrien summons is like a projected memory of her stored within the Miraculous. This is revealed to be possible in the Season 5 episode "Reunion" where Marinette is able to call upon Jeanne D'Arc as a past holder.

I can't remember if the episode explicitly says it, but it seems heavily implied that once a Reunion is chosen, you can't select another person until the previous one is dismissed. (I also can't remember if this is a "one shot only" type of thing where you only get one choice and one chance at it.)

Adrien is drawn to Ladybug's portrait when he calls for Reunion, and Tikki's inability to recognise her piques his curiousity further. So it's Ladybug he chooses.

But because neither Adrien nor Tikki recognise Ladybug but she so clearly knows both of them - well, it leads to a very confusing time. How does Ladybug know Adrien when he's the only contemporary holder (to his knowledge)?

They get off to a very confusing and rocky start, but Adrien quickly grows attached to her and is empathetic towards her position. Something is clearly wrong here, even if they don't know exactly what it is.

But since Adrien doesn't want to dismiss Ladybug (what if he can't get her back?) he's not able to ask another past holder through Reunion. Although, even if he could talk to another holder about the situation, the only past holder who might be able to recognise Ladybug would be Jeanne D'Arc. But Adrien and Tikki aren't aware that Ladybug has spoken with Jeanne D'Arc before, and Ladybug doesn't understand the power of Reunion enough to know if its a possibility that Jeanne might remember her.

So TLDR; they can't have multiple Reunions active. And even if they could, only Jeanne D'Arc might recognise Ladybug. But Adrien and Tikki don't know this, while Ladybug doesn't know or understand enough to consider it as an option.

[heartofstanding]

After finally reading Gemma Hollman’s “Royal Witches”, I’m having sad Eleanor Cobham hours again :(

The thing that stuck with me the most in relation to Eleanor was Jacquetta of Luxemburg’s section. I know their situations were very different and the accusations were also different, so its not really comparable, but I hadn’t realized before that not only was Jacquetta fully cleared by the king’s council, but her innocence was literally recorded in the Patent Rolls and in Parliament records at her demand for the whole realm to see (which I highly doubt would have happened without her son-in-law Edward’s approval and support). Its records also explicitly recognize how hollow and unjust the accusation of witchcraft was: “The Parliament record recognizes that Wake accused her, not only to hurt and impair her ‘good name and fame’ but to cause the ‘final destruction of her person’.”

I’m so relieved that Jacquetta was cleared and didn’t have to endure punishment for a “sin” that literally isn’t real (especially considering the immense hardships her family had already gone through at this point, to say nothing about their horrific losses in the future) but reading this right after Eleanor’s section enhances just the sadness of Eleanor’s fate, where her life was overturned and destroyed by this accusation. Obviously, the key difference, as Hollman notes, is that the government was ultimately on Jacquetta’s side and against Eleanor, which just goes to show how politically-motivated these accusations were, but how deeply personal and destructive their results could be

(Also, I did NOT know that Henry VI specifically wrote that "they should carry her (Eleanor) forward, not letting any sickness suffered by her to prevent the journey"? What the hell???)

… does this make sense? I think I’m rambling too much because I still can't believe how horrifyingly SAD Eleanor's final years were

Oh, it's always Eleanor Cobham hours here...

No doubt all four women found the accusations against them frightening and distressing, no doubt waiting for a trial and the trial (for those who received a trial) was an anxious, fraught time. But Eleanor was the one who suffered the most because of those accusations. Her marriage was ruined, she never faced any kind of exoneration, she lost her status, she lost her freedom. Her life was severely and permanently wrecked by them.

I sometimes wonder if it's this that makes people argue that she was guilty, to make her deserving of this punishment. That she was treated so harshly and never faced exoneration because she was guilty. Hell, I've seen people acting like she was oh-so-privileged not to be burnt at the stake (which was the punishment for women's treason as well as heretics) and she totally should have been. But the cases of Jacquetta of Luxembourg and Elizabeth Woodville tend to point away from this - had Warwick remained in charge, would Jacquetta have been exonerated? Had Richard III maintained his attack on Elizabeth, would she have faced trial and been found guilty? Would we speak of "blatant politicisation" of the charges against them or instead maintain that they were probably guilty because "no (surviving) contemporary (evidence)" explicitly suggested their innocence?* When no surviving English evidence explicitly clears Joan of Navarre of treasonable necromancy (her Breton sons did protest at her treatment at the time) and there no contemporary claims that the charges were politicised or fraudulent and her confessor, Friar Randolph, remained in prison for his part in her alleged plot?**

Another dimension is the fact that it's the soft-hearted Henry VI who was nominally in charge of Eleanor's treatment. After all, if there was the slightest doubt of her guilt, wouldn't he have pardoned her? But there's some evidence that suggests he could be vindictive, John Blacman's hagiography of Henry depicts him with what to appears to be a deep-seated fear and suspicion of women (though one could argue that this is perfectly fitting within the church's view of women in relation to male saints), and he seems to have been particularly sensitive to Humphrey as a threat... so he appears to have been a lot more complex than the soft-hearted, wholly good but naive man handing out pardons left, right and centre...

Historians generally take Henry's instruction that "they should carry [Eleanor] forward, not letting any sickness suffered by her to prevent the journey" to mean she was faking illness or malingering to avoid being moved, perhaps with an escape attempt in mind. It's entirely possible that she was faking illness for this purpose (Ralph Griffiths notes she had done so before). But... she might have genuinely been sick. Eleanor had walked barefoot through the streets of London in November across three days, she could have cut her feet or gotten blisters that burst and ended up with an infection. It was also winter by the time Henry made that order; she could have caught something like influenza or bronchitis either from the penance walks or afterwards. It might have even been a (very understandable) stress or trauma response to everything she had undergone. I don't think historians should automatically jump to "she was being a Deceptive Female and Malingering For Sneaky Reasons". Again, I think it speaks more to the impression of Henry as a bleeding heart and Eleanor as a Bad, Deceptive, Sneaky Woman.

Anyway, enough of that rant.

The period of Eleanor's imprisonment is so... sad to me. It was eleven years of being moved from one prison to another, of not being able to appoint her own servants but having to be tended by those appointed for her - the possibility that they were spying on her. There's not much surviving evidence for the conditions of her imprisonment, no accounts survive like they do for Joan of Navarre or Eleanor of Brittany. I wonder if she wrote letters seeking a pardon or better conditions or a release or some comforts. I wonder if she hoped the arrival of a queen would change something for her. I wonder if she became inured to it, whether she still hoped for pardon when she died or had accepted her prisons. I wonder how she coped with the events of 1447 when, about four months after her father's death, Humphrey died and she was declared legally dead. I wonder if the rumours of his murder reached her, whether she knew the truth or believed he had been murdered. I wonder how she died and where she was buried - we know it cost 100 marks, a "great expense", but no known tomb or monument exists for her, her grave lost.

There was a fairly strong folklore tradition relating to her time at Peel Castle on the Isle of Man - this was her most famous prisons and until the mid-1970s, believed to be her last prison where she died around 1457. However, she was moved to Beaumaris Castle in 1449 and died there on 7 July 1452. The folklore around her at the Isle of Man needs to be taken with a big pinch of salt - they tend to follow the 1457 date, which we know to be incorrect, and frequently invoke the supernatural (e.g. one, two). The earliest account I've found is in George Waldron's A Description of the Isle of Man (1731) which was written around 280 years after her death so it's hardly a reliable source. Still, it's interesting to me in what it suggests (tw for suicide attempt mentions in this and the next paragraph):

she lived in a manner befitting her dignity, nothing but liberty being refused: she appeared however so turbulent and impatient under this confinement, that he was obliged to keep a strict guard over her, not only because there were daily attempts made to get her away, but also to prevent her from laying violent hands on her own life.

Given she was at Peel Castle when her father died, when Humphrey died, when she was declared legally dead... I do wonder if Waldron's account of her "turbulent" and requiring a strict guard "to prevent her from laying violent hands on her own life". The line about the "daily attempts" to free her might reflect a garbled retelling of Humphrey's household being accused of plotting to free her.

It's just so sad. Her life is destroyed and she has to keep going, with no freedom, no mercy, no exoneration.

* The argument nearly always put forward for Eleanor's guilt is that there's no evidence that the charges were politicised or that no contemporary seems to have thought she was innocent. Which is an odd thing to say when you have Juliana Ridligo being horribly executed for telling Henry VI to his face to return Eleanor to Humphrey, or when you have orders for people not to interfere in the government moving her from prison to prison under a heavy guard, or when a sympathetic chronicler said Humphrey went to the Bury St Edmunds parliament where he was arrested and died to plead for Eleanor's release... sure, none of these things include an explicit statement of her innocence but they tend to imply that some people though she was innocent, don't they?

** Humphrey attempted to free Friar Randolph (apparently unsuccessfully?) and this is credited as the reason Henry Beaufort, Bishop of Winchester and soon-to-be-cardinal, ordered that Humphrey not be allowed in the Tower of London and the feud that evolved from there. Funny how Joan of Navarre's innocence is usually asserted and yet Humphrey's interference in Friar Randolph's imprisonment is deemed suspicious enough that Beaufort's actions were justified, isn't it?

[gigantomachylesbian]

saw your storygraph post, and now i'm wondering, do you have any favorites amongst the LGBTQIA+ books you've read so far this year? would you recommend any of them? i'd love to hear your answer!

Yeah absolutely! I'll try to recommend a variety of things (without going overboard) but I must admit that I'm very biased towards epic fantasy and horror in my reading (also wlw stuff more than anything else, though I'm trying to broaden my horizons a bit!) Under the cut because I have so much to say about books literally all the time every day.

She Who Became the Sun by Shelley Parker-Chan.

This is my absolute favorite book I've read so far this year, and it probably makes my top 3 overall! This is a historical fantasy novel inspired by the rise of the real-life Hongwu Emperor in the 1300s in China. It follows Zhu, a girl who takes on her dead brother's identity to also claim his fate of greatness, becoming a skilled tactician and ruthless enemy along her rise to power. This book has some of the best scheming, back-stabbing, and vying for power I've ever read--I cannot possibly emphasize enough that a guy gets drawn and quartered and it was delightful to me <3. In addition to just being deeply compelling and well-written (Zhu is SUCH a good, complex character, she is absolutely ruthless and clever and perceptive), it has some really interesting representation! Because it's set in historical China, a lot of this stuff isn't stated explicitly in the way it would be in, like, a contemporary novel, but it's absolutely clear in both how the text is written and its themes. Zhu does have a romance with a woman which I really enjoyed, and at a certain point she acknowledges that, while she's not a man despite living as one to maintain her power, she's not really a woman, either. At the same time, our other POV character (and Zhu's narrative foil, which is done so well it makes me BANANAS), is Ouyang, a eunuch within the Mongolian army who, while not transgender, faces a unique, interesting, and incredibly degrading position of gender within this society due to his status as a eunuch, and it drives everything he does. He's literally my favorite character in the entire book I need to study him like a bug. ALSO he's gay. She Who Became the Sun really explores, through Zhu and Ouyang, this theme of "like recognizes like," where, despite being on opposing sides, Zhu is able to recognize in Ouyang this sort of precarious gender status she herself experiences, and understand him better for it. This book is complex, extremely well-written, and delivered everything I want from a historical fantasy, from rich settings, cut-throat politics, complex and morally gray characters and, of course, ghosts! The sequel (I believe the series is a duology?) comes out this summer and I AM going to flip out about it.

Honey Girl by Morgan Rogers.

Now, on a totally different note, I've got a contemporary romance! But not really of the rom-com variety necessarily. This novel follows Grace Porter, who recently completed her Astronomy PhD and celebrated by letting loose for once in her life--which results in her having a vegas wedding with a girl she just met. As silly as that premise is, much of the novel focuses on, yes, Grace's developing relationship with Yuki as the two connect, but also on the effects that Grace's perfectionism and burnout have on her mental health. The novel explores her feelings of uncertainty about her future, as well as how the scientific field she loves is 10 times harder for her to succeed in as a queer black woman, even when she's dedicated her whole life to it. It has some incredible discussions of both the beauty of science and of storytelling, a delightful and fleshed-out set of side characters (including a fantastic queer friend group that I adored), and absolutely beautiful, rich descriptions and prose. I absolutely adore Grace as a character and find her to be just so incredibly real and believable, and this was a book I could just sink right into with its beautiful descriptions.

Hell Followed With Us by Andrew Joseph White. Now we're onto a YA dystopian horror! This novel follows Benji, a trans teenager whose eco-fascist, Christian cult has destroyed most of the world, and turned him into a bioweapon to destroy the rest. He's on the run, and finds refuge in a group of survivors based out of a local LGBT+ teen center as they fight to survive when faced with the murderous cult members, horrible conglomerations of flesh and bone made to kill them, and a damaged, burning Earth. This novel has some absolutely fantastic body horror! It's very gnarly, and combines a lot of meat with Christian imagery in a way that was just delightful. The tension and horror elements definitely worked for me, and I really enjoyed Benji as a protagonist. Benji's experiences as a trans kid are pretty heavily focused on, especially combined with the community he finds in the other survivors and his relationships with them. Also, his love interest is canonically autistic! Overall, Hell Followed With Us has a great balance of nasty body horror, the challenges of fighting to survive, and the hope found in community.

Okay those are the only books I'm letting myself write extensive recommendations for because otherwise I'll be here all day, but here's some bonus recommendations: The Burning Kingdoms series by Tasha Suri (lesbian epic fantasy series, 2 books so far, Indian-inspired fantasy world with incredible world building, action, and complex women <3. Also in my top favorites from this year!), A Strange and Stubborn Endurance by Foz Meadows (mlm fantasy romance, explores cultural differences really well+a powerful trauma recovery narrative (with a touch of vengeance <3), first book in a series but the second isn't out yet, I LOVED this book and its characters and the romance so so so much, but do heed the trigger warnings as it starts out pretty dark), Plain Bad Heroines by Emily M. Danforth (Horror that plays with metafiction, weaves together narratives of past tragedies at an all-girls boarding school with the making of a contemporary film about those events, lesbian+bi+polyamorous rep, grossnasty bug stuff+picnic at hanging rock vibes. An absolute blast!).

Okay those are all my recommendations for now (and limited to just what I've read this year) BUT if you're looking for a specific genre, type of representation, or even just something more lighthearted than most of what I've mentioned, please don't hesitate to ask! I definitely have way more things I could've recommended if I didn't want this post to be a million miles long. Also thank you for asking! :^D

[thelesbiancitizen]

Reexamining Adrienne Rich’s essay “Compulsory Heterosexuality and Lesbian Existence” —

and why I think it is important for radical feminists to grasp Rich’s true message.

I’ve talked before about how Adrienne Rich’s theory of compulsory heterosexuality is woefully misinterpreted in contemporary feminist spaces, especially among young women. I think it’s quite a shame, because what she had to say is, in my opinion, incredibly relevant. And I think it’s about time we understand what she was really saying.

Compulsory heterosexuality is an incredibly complex and radical idea that has gotten watered down and misinterpreted over and over again by various groups of people. I’m not sure why, but I think it might be because Rich was mainly a poet. Her writing is prose-like, it’s a bit obscure, it is poetic   — which is part of its strength, but it also leaves room for misinterpretation because it’s not scholarly. It lacks the precise language used by academics, which again, is both a strength and a weakness. It’s difficult to glean the meaning of the essay from just taking out a sentence, or a paragraph. The entire essay needs to be read and analyzed as a whole. Her message is pretty difficult to parse out into little edible soundbites because she’s taking on a Goliath of a topic. I will attempt to illuminate her main points here, as best as I have understood them.

Here is part of her foreword:

“I want to say a little about the way “Compulsory Heterosexuality” was originally conceived and the context in which we are now living. It was written in part to challenge the erasure of lesbian existence from so much of scholarly feminist literature, an erasure which I felt (and feel) to be not just anti-lesbian, but anti-feminist in its consequences, and to distort the experience of heterosexual women as well. It was not written to widen divisions but to encourage heterosexual feminists to examine heterosexuality as a political institution which disempowers women—and to change it.”

Going off of that, I think it’s important to recognize that compulsory heterosexuality is meant to be part of a paradigm. That is, it is meant to be a model, a way of looking at patterns. It is not meant to be applied to an individual or an individual relationship. One alone is not “affected by compulsory heterosexuality”; it is a theory applied to a culture. The culture itself is heterosexual.

When you divorce a term from its wider theory, you lose some of the esoteric definitions that are specific to that theory. Rich uses many such esoteric terms in the essay, working with her own definitions. It’s important to keep that in mind, because as soon as you take the term out of the essay, it loses its context. When Rich talks about heterosexuality, she is not simply talking about a person who is exclusively opposite-sex attracted. She is speaking of heterosexuality as an institution. When she is speaking of lesbians she uses the terms “lesbian existence” and “lesbian continuum”  — which are controversial and quite radical even today  — to mean any woman who is aligned with other women. More on that later. Rich’s main complaint and reason for writing the essay is that her feminist contemporaries were “[taking] as a basic assumption that the social relations of the sexes are disordered and extremely problematic, if not disabling, for women”, and that they failed to acknowledge the reality of lesbian existence as a possible “path towards change”. “In none of them is the question ever raised as to whether, in a different context or other things being equal, women would choose heterosexual coupling and marriage; heterosexuality is presumed the “sexual preference” of “most women,” either implicitly or explicitly.” Now it seems a lot of people just stopped reading there and didn’t get to the rest of the essay because that’s how a lot of people interpret it, without getting into the guts of Rich’s ideas; that compulsory heterosexuality is, for example, simply just a lesbian thinking she’s straight. But this is what she says next: “In none of these books, which concern themselves with mothering, sex roles, relationships, and societal prescriptions for women is compulsory heterosexuality ever examined as an institution powerfully affecting these, or the idea of “preference” or “innate orientation” even indirectly questioned.” THIS is the crux of her theory. Heterosexuality as an institution which affects all women. The main point of controversy, I believe, lies in Rich’s use of her terms “lesbian continuum” and “lesbian existence”. She is using esoteric definitions here again, which when divorced from the context, are rather confusing. This is where her lesbian-feminist roots come into play and this is what seems to alienate liberal feminists and radical feminists alike. By Rich’s definition, any relationship between two women where no men are involved could be said to be a kind of lesbian relationship, which exists basically on a continuum of platonic to erotic. That includes mothers and daughters, female friends, sisters, lovers, which comprise a “lesbian existence”. Within lesbian-feminist literature, this isn’t a particularly unusual perspective. But it’s important to keep this in mind when analyzing the essay. She is not working with the mainstream definition of the word “lesbian”. 

In her words:

“I have chosen to use the term lesbian existence and lesbian continuum because the word lesbianism has a clinical and limiting ring. Lesbian existence suggests both the fact of the historical presence of lesbians and our continuing creation of the meaning of that existence. I mean the term lesbian continuum to include a range—through each woman’s life and throughout history—of women-identified experience, not simply the fact that a woman has had or consciously desired genital sexual experience with another woman. If we expand it to embrace many more forms of primary intensity between and among women, including the sharing of a rich inner life, the bonding against male tyranny, the giving and receiving of practical and political support, if we can also hear it in such associations as marriage resistance and the “haggard” behavior identified by Mary Daly (obsolete meanings: “intractable,” “willful,” “wanton,” and “unchaste,” “a woman reluctant to yield to wooing”), we begin to grasp breadths of female history and psychology which have lain out of reach as a consequence of limited, mostly clinical, definitions of lesbianism.”

Rich then quotes a passage from Kathleen Barry’s Female Sexual Slavery, which I think is integral to understanding the essay:

“As sexual power is learned by adolescent boys through the social experience of their sex drive, so do girls learn that the locus of sexual power is male. Given the importance placed on the male sex drive in the socialization of girls as well as boys, early adolescence is probably the first significant phase of male identification in a girl’s life and development. . . . As a young girl becomes aware of her own increasing sexual feelings . . . she turns away from her heretofore primary relationships with girlfriends. As they become secondary to her, recede in importance in her life, her own identity also assumes a secondary role and she grows into male identification.”

This is the effect of compulsory heterosexuality; the turning away from female relationships and “casting of one’s social, political, and intellectual allegiances with men.” This is how compulsory heterosexuality ends up affecting heterosexual and bisexual women, too. Rich suggests that all women are socialized to minimize the importance of woman-to-woman relationships, and are encouraged to devalue any relationship that does not include a man. This renders lesbian existence (remember that term?) invisible to society. This includes all relationships on the lesbian continuum, i.e. between females: emotional or physical, regardless of the women’s sexual orientations, and even the inner relationship to the self. This, of course, most profoundly affects lesbians, who have no primary relationships involving men at all. While heterosexual and bisexual women’s lives and relationships are distorted by male identification caused by compulsory heterosexuality, lesbian women are completely erased from the picture. She quotes Barry again on what male identification means for women:

The effect of male identification means “internalizing the values of the colonizer and actively participating in carrying out the colonization of one’s self and one’s sex. . . . Male identification is the act whereby women place men above women, including themselves, in credibility, status, and importance in most situations, regardless of the comparative quality the women may bring to the situation. . . . Interaction with women is seen as a lesser form of relating on every level.”

She goes on to illuminate the “many layers” of the lie of compulsory heterosexuality. She notes how the invisibility of woman-to-woman relationships is compounded for Black women and is even more profound for Black lesbians. She quotes Black lesbian-feminist critic, Lorraine Bethel, who “remarks that for a Black woman— already twice an outsider—to choose to assume still another “hated identity” is problematic indeed. Yet the lesbian continuum has been a life line for Black women both in Africa and the United States”:

“Black women have a long tradition of bonding together . . . in a Black/women’s community that has been a source of vital survival information, psychic and emotional support for us. We have a distinct Black women-identified folk culture based on our experiences as Black women in this society; symbols, language and modes of expression that are specific to the realities of our lives. . . . Because Black women were rarely among those Blacks and females who gained access to literary and other acknowledged forms of artistic expression, this Black female bonding and Black woman-identification has often been hidden and unrecorded except in the individual lives of Black women through our own memories of our particular Black female tradition.”

Rich also mentions how a focus on female relationships is often ridiculed or written off. In a heterosexual culture,  woman-identification is not seen as turning toward women but rather turning away from men, and is often framed as a hysterical overreaction or is otherwise pathologized:

“Another layer of the lie is the frequently encountered implication that women turn to women out of hatred for men. Profound scepticism, caution, and righteous paranoia about men may indeed be part of any healthy woman’s response to the misogyny of male-dominated culture, to the forms assumed by “normal” male sexuality, and to the failure even of “sensitive” or “political” men to perceive or find these troubling. Lesbian existence is also represented as mere refuge from male abuses, rather than as an electric and empowering charge between women.”

So there is much more to compulsory heterosexuality than the common definition that is passed around today’s feminist and LGBT spaces. It is imperative to read the entire essay to get a full understanding of this complex theory. The term has become so simplified and reduced to mean something that it does not. It often is simply equated to the idea of heteronormativity, when it is much more complicated and layered than that. And it’s much more radical, too. Quite radical. The context of Rich’s writing is of vital importance and when “compulsory heterosexuality” is stripped away from the vocabulary she used, it becomes rather useless as a term. She never meant for it to describe individuals or individual relationships. It’s meant to describe heterosexuality as a form of cultural hegemony.

So why does this matter, and why am I spending my time writing this post about compulsory heterosexuality in 2021? I will let Rich’s words speak:

“Woman identification is a source of energy, a potential springhead of female power, curtailed and contained under the institution of heterosexuality. The denial of reality and invisibility to women’s passion for women, women’s choice of women as allies, life companions, and community, the forcing of such relationships into dissimulation and their disintegration under intense pressure have meant an incalculable loss to the power of all women to change the social relations of the sexes, to liberate ourselves and each other. The lie of compulsory female heterosexuality today afflicts not just feminist scholarship, but every profession, every reference work, every curriculum, every organizing attempt, every relationship or conversation over which it hovers. It creates, specifically, a profound falseness, hypocrisy, and hysteria in the heterosexual dialogue, for every heterosexual relationship is lived in the queasy strobe light of that lie. However we choose to identify ourselves, however we find ourselves labeled, it flickers across and distorts our lives. The lie keeps numberless women psychologically trapped, trying to fit mind, spirit, and sexuality into a prescribed script because they cannot look beyond the parameters of the acceptable. It pulls on the energy of such women even as it drains the energy of “closeted” lesbians—the energy exhausted in the double life. The lesbian trapped in the “closet,” the woman imprisoned in prescriptive ideas of the “normal” share the pain of blocked options, broken connections, lost access to self-definition freely and powerfully assumed.”

If we as women truly aim to liberate ourselves, we must learn to identify with each other again, consciously, intentionally, visibly. We have to understand the ways in which all of us are affected by compulsory heterosexuality; how it denies us our history, our passion, our relationships with other women, whether familial, platonic, neighborly, romantic, or sexual. It is more than just being a bit confused about one’s sexual attraction. We have to learn to see the ways we are infected with male identification, so that we can begin to unlearn it. Rich is not proposing that heterosexual women divorce their husbands and leave their children. She is simply asking us all to examine how the institution of compulsory heterosexuality leaves women as a class splintered, lost, isolated, and unable to pull ourselves together long enough to effect real change. She leaves us with this: 

“As we address the institution itself, moreover, we begin to perceive a history of female resistance which has never fully understood itself because it has been so fragmented, miscalled, erased. It will require a courageous grasp of the politics and economics, as well as the cultural propaganda, of heterosexuality to carry us beyond individual cases or diversified group situations into the complex kind of overview needed to undo the power men everywhere wield over women, power which has become a model for every other form of exploitation and illegitimate control.”

Read the full essay here. I strongly encourage you to do so. Rich wanted to start a conversation, and I don’t believe that conversation is over; I think it’s barely begun. Maybe we weren’t ready for “Compulsory Heterosexuality and Lesbian Existence” in 1980, but I think we still have a lot we can learn from it today, now, when women seem to be more divided than we ever have been. We have always needed each other, always been there for each other, and we need to remember this, notice this; or else we risk falling far behind and losing everything we have fought for thus far. Think what you will of Adrienne Rich, but her words here are undeniably powerful. “Compulsory heterosexuality” deserves another look.

[milfzatannaz]

why do you think zee and john are soul mates?

there’s nothing in text to support my assertion I’m ngl. I’m a romantic and I find John’s origins being tied to her in a literal sense to be rlly interesting. The way I see it, DC/Vertigo writers knew their history when they wrote books of magic and HB #63, yet they were friendly anyway. Not saying showing up the 40th birthday party of the guy who was partly the reason your father died is like. Soulmate material. But it really makes me think. I also found it funny how in Zee’s appearances in the late 80s/90s they would reference him. Her dreaming about him in Zatanna: Come Together is cute as hell.

A recurring HB theme was John finding partners and it ultimately not working out because they weren’t a part of his world. But Zee is- She’s had her own run ins with dark magic. She’s also gone up against Satan before. I think she understands him in a capacity that gets overlooked.

And with identity crisis, I think the one person in the world who would understand her use of magic for less than moral or ethical goals and the subsequent guilt would be John.

In a contemporary sense, why would Zatara give up his life force for John? I mean, some ppl interpret it as Giovanni recognizing all that John sacrificed to get them to that point, but he also told zee he wanted to comfort her one last time, and then he brought John back to her. the panel said “cares deeply about” but not love, bc i think explicitly writing love would be too on the nose.

I just find it sweet and big brained how intertwined they are. I don’t believe in soulmates in the literal sense but when I look at both of them there’s not a single other person I’d want them to be with except each other

[bopinion]

2022 / 36

Aperçu of the Week:

"Beautiful memories are a second chance for happiness."

(Queen Elizabeth II)

Bad News of the Week:

Just as we thought it was over.... A thought that popped into my head several times this past week.

Example 1: Liz Truss was elected by the British Conservative party members as party leader - and thus also as the new prime minister. However, little is new about this. Truss is explicitly committed to the legacy of Boris Johnson, both in style and in substance. Brexit? A great idea, whose positive impact on the UK would only have to be unleashed. Immigrants, minorities, treaties with the EU, colonial responsibility, blah? All inferior and expendable. Remember, it was the previous Foreign Secretary, Liz Truss, who engineered the fabulous deal to simply dump refugees stranded in the UK into Rwanda. No matter how often she poses as the legendary Margret Thatcher, she remains a tired imitation of Boris "the missing haircut" Johnson. Congratulations!

Example 2: Nuclear energy in Germany was supposed to be a chapter of the past, and the last three nuclear power plants were to be shut down at the end of the year. But now two of them are to remain on the grid - as a reserve for foreseeable bottlenecks in the power supply. Says Economics Minister Robert Habeck. Yes, he is a Green. And he knows about the unsolved problems for future generations that this form of energy will inevitably bring with it. But what can you do? This dirty energy source is available, you just have to push the button. As if it were so simple. Congratulations!

Example 3: Munich marked the bitter 50th anniversary when German security agencies failed miserably to protect the Israeli Olympic team from Palestinian terrorists. 16 deaths stand in the balance of the "Games of Peace". And an appropriate memorial ceremony could only take place because the families of the victims were paid for it. And because German President Frank-Walter Steinmeier and Munich Mayor Dieter Reiter apologized personally. Although they were still underage schoolchildren at the time and thus untrustworthy as contemporary witnesses, let alone responsible. Congratulations!

Example 4: Polio is back. Poliomyelitis is an incurable disease that paralyzes primarily children's limb muscles and, in the case of respiratory muscles, leads to death. And there is an effective vaccine against it, which is why polio was actually thought to have been eradicated since the 1960s - in Europe and North America. But after cases of the disease in Ukraine a few years ago and evidence of sewage in London in June, there has now been a specifically proven case in New York City, for which an official catastrophe alert was declared the day before yesterday. Vaccination refusers do not only exist for corona and measles. Congratulations!

Good News of the Week:

After graduating from high school and before she starts university in a few weeks, my daughter did a so-called "voluntary social year" in a kindergarten. To have a year break from learning, to gain personal experience and also to give something back to society. All three make sense. Not only for her, but actually for all young people. That's why I'm pleased that the Conservative party CDU (Christian Democratic Union of Germany) decided at its party conference this weekend to include the concept of a mandatory "society year" in its basic program.

Many young women and men were attracted by the idea of "temporarily and concretely committing themselves to our country and to our society." Where young people can complete their service should be as flexible as possible, "be it with social institutions, in hospitals, with the German armed forces, in civil defense with the Federal Agency for Technical Relief or with the fire department, through recognized aid organizations abroad or in sport and culture or with nature conservation and environmental protection associations". The service is to be remunerated by an "attractive service allowance".

Of course, the organizations mentioned above are the first to benefit from this. After all, the personnel situation in the social sector in particular is tight, and only a few people decide to take up the profession as a nurse in an old people's home, for example. A social year therefore not only strengthens cohesion in society, but also makes it possible for many social programs to be able to provide their services in sufficient form. After all, more and more old people will have to rely on help, more and more children from working single parents will have to be cared for, climate change will require more and more social commitment, and the steadily growing poverty will demand more and more support.

In the current election forecasts, the CDU is well ahead of the current governing traffic light parties consisting of the Social Democrats, the Greens and the Liberals. Their basic program therefore has a real chance of becoming a government program. The socially oriented Social Democrats and Greens are not expected to put up much resistance, and German President Frank-Walter Steinmeier has already expressed sympathy for the idea. So it may well be that my daughter will one day prove to be a trendsetter. That can only do us all good.

Personal happy moment of the week:

The last four days we had visitors from Québec: my French-Canadian host father Maurice, with whose family I lived in 1987/1988, and his wife Claudia visited us on a little trip to Europe. Which made me, who travels little and is anything but diligent in keeping in touch even on the easy-to-use social media, very happy. And also my wife was very pleased that the language in our house was "Québecois" for a few days and she could exchange with compatriots. Thank you so much for being with us!

I couldn't care less...

...that the new British King Charles III swore an ancient oath after his proclamation, namely to uphold "the true Protestant religion" in Scotland. The oath has been taken in this way by all kings and queens since 1714. This will make little impression on the Scots - after all, they did not choose to be part of the kingdom themselves. They wanted to remain part of the EU, for example, and the regional government is trying to prepare a referendum on independence. In principle, I sympathize with all peoples who try to preserve their own cultural identity as part of a more or less accepted confederation of states. And who (coincidence?) like Bavaria and Quebec have a white-blue national flag.

As I write this...

...it is rainy for the fourth day in a row. Which is good for nature, which didn't get nearly enough water this year. In return, I'm happy to take a tour of the city with an umbrella or discuss with a waiter whether a table outside can be used. Unfortunately, it is already too late for the harvest in this sunniest and rainiest summer ever, animal feed will be scarce in winter and food prices will continue to rise. But this is something we will probably have to adjust to in the long term, because we have been too lazy to take climate change seriously for too long. "Homo sapiens" is therefore not to be taken literally.

Post Scriptum:

Elizabeth Alexandra Mary Windsor, better known as Queen Elizabeth II, is dead. I am far from being a royalist. Personally, it is more important to me that Bavarian King Max I Josef founded the Tegernsee Brewery than that Sissi's cousin King Ludwig II. built Neuschwanstein. Nevertheless, I must admit that the Queen set solid standards of her "profession" in terms of dignity - unlike some others of her family. In this respect, I can understand the grief of the British people. And will get used to the fact one day that the official head of state of Canada is now called Charles III.

[majimemegoro]

Matagi in yakuza 5 !

I was doing some research and it looks like the hunting village saejima visits in y5 is a Matagi village. Idk how much of this would be obvious to japanese fans, but it wasn’t at all obvious to me so im just gonna share my findings here in the hopes that they may be interesting or useful to someone else who was ignorant of this cultural context. I do think identifying the hunting village as Matagi gives a new angle of understanding to some elements of the mountain segment of the game.

Disclaimers: what ive written here is just based on a few articles I read. They weren’t even detailed articles. I am by no means an expert on the Matagi, and I would love to hear any input from people who know more than i do ! Now Read On

So the Matagi are a traditional northern hunting culture (perhaps indigenous Ainu in origin) who emphasize maintaining ecological balance and holding respect for life. They use every piece of the animal out of gratitude for the animal’s sacrifice. All of this matches perfectly with what Okudera says about hunting. he doesn’t emphasize the overtly spiritual aspects of Matagi culture, but these spiritual aspects are reflected in the mountain gods that Saejima interacts with and also arguably in the presence of Yama-oroshi as a kind of supernatural manifestation of the hunters’ crimes in upsetting balance on the mountain. (side-note: if anyone can offer insight into the etymology of the name yama-oroshi  “ヤマオロシ” id be interested to hear it, as all I could find out was something about graters and something about management…)

(A digression on okudera: as I recall the game does not specify his origins: he might have originally come from a hunting village and reconnected with his culture after escaping from jail, or more likely he is just appropriating the culture of the village lol. either way though I think we are warranted in reading Okudera as the village’s appropriate representative of the traditional hunting culture, given that he is the mouthpiece for the above hunting ethos, one which perfectly matches with the Matagi in the sources I looked at. more on this later.)

Additional evidence for the villagers as being Matagi: Mrs Nishina explicitly calls the villagers’ way of life “traditional,” contrasting it to recreational hunting. now some of the Matagi common game don’t match with the game available in the game (see what I did there??). For instance there is no japanese serow, but this makes sense given that hunting the serow has been banned and it would be pretty icky and weird to have a video game incentivize the killing of a specially protected animal. But their culture features a focus on – you guessed it – bears. The Matagi also mostly wear contemporary (vs traditional) clothing, so the village’s fairly modern aesthetic by no means precludes their being Matagi. finally, reading the village as a Matagi village also fits with what the villagers say about their being permitted to hunt by special license after regular sport hunting was made illegal, since the Matagi hunt by permit. So thought I was on the right track with identifying the village as Matagi, then I saw this picture:

Recognize the outfits? Look at the crossed ropes in the front holding up a lil fur cape/vest thing. It’s a very distinctive visual feature, I would go so far as to say unmistakable. Okudera #confirmed for Matagi.

(incidentally I think okudera’s fur thing might be serow fur, the serow being an animal which it is now banned to hunt even for the Matagi)

Ok now so what about it? The village being a Matagi village accounts for a few textual features that I found confusing. For instance it explains what Saejima says about the villagers “selling out” by accepting outsiders’ commissions for prize game. I was confused by this comment bc I think of people as only “selling out” if they know they are doing something bad, while the villagers didn’t seem to know that they would tip the ecological balance on the mountain. But in light of the Matagi culture it makes sense that hunting on commission would be a violation of their standards: hunting is permissible only for subsistence purposes. ‘subsistence’ doesn’t mean you can only consume/use animals and not sell them, but it does mean that you shouldnt hunt because it’s lucrative or in order to maintain a lavish lifestyle. Hunting is only appropriate to sustain a simple lifestyle. So by cashing in on the hunting boom prior to the enactment of the new hunting regulations, the villagers violated Matagi values whether or not they knew that their actions would do tangible harm to the mountain ecosystem.

(Of course this creates a huge ludonarrative dissonance when we think about HOW MANY animals saejima kills, in my case to sell the pelts and, uh, hoard the meat forever basically. But ludonarrative dissonance doesn’t admit of literary analysis so lets move on)

Reading the hunters as Matagi also adds new tragic depth to the attack of Yama-Oroshi and its consequences. When Mrs Nishina talks about how all the villagers used to help each other out, but don’t anymore since suffering starvation after the attack, shes describing more than just a breakdown of norms - shes describing an actual cultural crisis, and the dissolution of hundreds of years of tradition. The traditional Matagi collectivism apparently began to decline after guns replaced spears, obviating the need for group hunting. But what Mrs Nishina says points out that Yama-Oroshi’s attack sounded something like the final death knell for Matagi collectivist traditions in their village. Mrs Nishina even says explicitly that “our entire way of life [was at risk of being] lost to the ages.” :O :(

I have one last vague thought, which is related to Okudera’s outsider status. Whether or not he is ethnically (?) Matagi, he clearly did not spend any or most of his life following a Matagi lifestyle. Yet he seems to be the strongest adherent of Matagi traditions. Specifically okudera exemplifies the Matagi principle of mutual aid (though interestingly we mostly see him exercise it in helping outsiders rather than the other villagers, and it also does turn out that the villagers are looking after okudera more than initially appears…). Mr nishina also says that Okudera knows the mountain and travels quickly the best out of all the villagers, and that okudera reminded them all “how a hunter should live.” And sakurai: “okudera-san is truer to the spirit of the hunt than any of us native villagers.” Overall okudera, an outsider, is the authoritative representative of the Matagi ethos, a fact which receives a powerful visual representation in his traditional hunting attire. i wonder what this could mean thematically… something about the power of cultural sharing to help isolated individuals, who then if they are truly dedicated can help to revitalize a culture in turn ? but okudera himself attributes his understanding of the way of the hunter to the tutelage of the village and the mountain…

Thats all I have to say right now. If anyone has thoughts, more informed than mine or not, id love to hear em ! I hope this treatment was respectful and interesting.

Im gonna put sources in a reblog so this isn’t hidden from search results.

[dwellordream]

“In February 1924, Illustreret Fagblad for danske Damefrisorer, one of the leading trade journals for Danish women's hairdressers, reported that short haircuts for women were becoming increasingly common throughout most of Europe. Although the trend had not yet reached Denmark, it was likely to do so, the journal predicted, since "we have seen within the last couple of months the first signs of .. . shorn hair here in Copenhagen." The prediction proved correct. In July 1925, Ugens Spejl, another trade journal, reported that the new fashion was spreading "like fire in old houses." That same year, the president of the Ladies' Hairdressers Association estimated that 25 percent of Copenhagen's female population had their hair cut short.

The following year, one Copenhagen barber claimed that no less than 75 percent of women under the age of 30 had adopted the new styles, leading the editor of yet another trade journal, Danmarks Barber-og Frisortidende to conclude that "there is something almost epidemically contagious about the advancing shingling. Each and everyone who lets her locks fall for the scissors immediately draws four or five others with her." Although contemporaries may have exaggerated the numbers, contemporary street photography and surviving photo albums suggest that a significant number of young women did in fact dispose of their long hair in the second half of the 1920s. 

It is also telling that no fewer than 48 of the 59 women interviewed for this project recalled having their hair cut short before 1930. As Anne Bruun explained many years later, "That was just what you did. If you were young and wanted to be in style, that was definitely the look. Anybody who wanted to be up-to-date did that." Helene Berg agreed. "Short hair made you look chic, made you look modern," she claimed. Besides, as Louise Ege pointed out, short hair "kind of fit with the other things that were fashionable. Short dresses and all that." But despite their enthusiasm for the new hairstyles, actually acquiring one of the fashionable bobs was not always easy. While the number of beauty salons had been growing since the turn of the century, women's hairdressers generally shied away from providing their female customers with the short haircuts they desired.

For decades women's hairdressers had worked hard to create a respectable female profession by promoting themselves as specialists in hygiene and conventional feminine beauty, an accomplishment they were not willing to sacrifice by embracing the controversial new styles. Moreover, since most hairdressers were only used to working with combs, brushes, and curlers, few were actually competent to cut hair. As a result, many women had to enter male barbershops to have their hair cut, a step many took with considerable trepidation. The difficulties of finding a stylist both willing and able to cut a woman's hair was not the only obstacle to a fashionable appearance. Many fathers and husbands explicitly prohibited the new styles. Others let their disapproval be known more indirectly.

As Magda Gammelgaard Jensen recalled, "I really wanted to get my hair [cut] short, but I didn't know how to go about it. It wasn't so easy when there was a man around." According to Mr. H. M. Christensen, the president of the Danish Grooming, Toilet and Sanitary Workers' Union, many women therefore chose to "have their hair cut at a time when their husbands and fathers [were] not at home." Outside the private sphere, other forces also strove to contain "that unfortunate tendency among young ladies to shear their hair." Some workplaces openly discriminated against women who adhered to the new fashion. Several prominent department stores did not hire women who sported the new hairstyles. Others fired employees after a visit to the hairdresser. 

In 1924, the personnel director at Crome & Goldschmidt, one of the leading clothing stores in Copenhagen, flatly declared that he "would absolutely not engage or employ any young woman with bobbed hair." Other businesses had similar policies. The president of Salomon David Jr. Inc., Inger Diemer, explained that she had "banned bobbed hair." "I demand," she continued, "that the women who work with us, sign [a contract] that they will not wear short hair. In my mind, that is not proper in an old, highly esteemed firm." The director of Bispebjerg Hospital, Charlotte Munck, also banned short hair for all nurses under her supervision.

Even women in less publicly visible occupations faced ostracism if they chose to adopt the modern styles. Inger Mangart, for example, who worked as a part-time cleaning assistant in a private home in the late 1920s, recalled being dismissed the first day she arrived with short hair. The press was equally adamant in its stance against the new styles. To discourage young women from following fashion, newspapers and popular magazines delighted in sensationalist stories about domestic turmoil caused by short hair. Divorces, physical abuse, family disintegration, and even murders were described as tragic, but predictable, outcomes of women's changed appearances.

Assuming, however, that young women were more likely to follow fashion prescription than sensible guidance, journalists and other commentators figured that the most efficient way to combat the modern styles was simply to declare them unfashionable. "Bobbed hair is no longer in style," one beauty advice columnist thus warned as early as 1922, several years before the new styles hit Denmark. "We hardly have to repeat that bobbed hair has already received the death sentence abroad," another fashion expert claimed that same year. "There is no doubt that this fad, the short hair, is coming to an end," Ugebladet asserted a couple of years later, and in 1925, B.T. was pleased to report that "all countries now agree that the fashion of short hair is finally on the retreat."

Yet despite these elaborate efforts to suppress the new haircuts, women's enthusiasm did not wane. Many critics therefore felt compelled to explain the dangers of the new styles in the hope that young women would be swayed by their arguments. Some journalists and beauty advice columnists sought to discourage young women from having their hair cut through use of the kind of racist imagery that permeated early twentieth century European culture. By labeling the new styles "Hottentot hair" or "Apache cuts," they strove to impress upon young women the incompatibility of short hair with refined Western womanhood. "Surely, no young lady wants to look like a monkey," one reporter thus argued, apparently hoping that young women would recognize the similarity between women's short hair and animal fur. 

Other observers claimed that short hair simply made women look ugly and unattractive. Cutting one's hair was therefore inevitably at the risk of losing "the man's admiration and desire." Although some men admitted that a short-haired woman might serve "as a drinking buddy," those who participated in the public debate all insisted that the new styles did not mix with marriage and motherhood, implying that short-haired women could expect to live out their lives as spinsters and old maids— an argument that presumably would dissuade any young woman from such reckless behavior. While most female critics tended to focus on the aesthetic aspects of the new styles, it was quite different considerations that fueled much of the vehement male opposition. 

Like many other people in the early twentieth century, these commentators believed there was a direct correlation between external appearance and internal self. When a woman cut her hair, she was not only defying conventional standards of femininity but was also prone to develop some of those mental traits that usually characterized people with short hair—namely, men. As Ludvig Brandt-Meller, a male hairdresser who opposed the new styles, explained, "Short hair tends to emancipate the woman. It is as if it affects her psychologically." Others found that short-haired women became "like men in character and gestures," insisting that "that 99 out of 100 women with short hair have simultaneously acquired boyish or mannish manners."'

A few alarmists saw even greater dangers ahead. The very act of cutting a woman's hair, they argued, would eventually alter a woman's biological constitution and turn her into a man. Believing that the mass of hair on a human body was constant, some argued that short hair would necessarily cause women to grow beards. Others predicted the advent of female baldness. "The evidence is right there, since 60 percent of all men over forty [who presumably had cut their hair since childhood] are bald, while less than 0.1 percent of all women [who had never previously cut their hair] suffer from this weakness," another critic of the new styles explained. 

While men had tended to object to short dresses because they rendered women too attractive, their reactions to short hair were therefore quite different. According to male critics, short hair "emancipated" women and made then unwomanly, even masculine, and not attractive enough, a violation of gender norms that seemed to them much graver and ultimately more unpleasant than women being overly sexy and seductive. Even those who did not necessarily believe that short hair would actually turn women into men found this quite disturbing because, as one correspondent wrote to the editor of the newspaper B.T. in 1925, "If there is something we men cannot stand, it is precisely women void of femininity. "

Young women's seeming disregard of men's opinions about the new styles only made matters worse. Apparently, young women were no longer pursuing physical beauty and style for the purposes of male pleasure and admiration. How, then, were men to understand women's enthusiasm for short hair as anything but a sign that women cared less about male approval than about their own "emancipation"? Some even feared that the popularity of the new styles might indicate an explicit sexual and emotional detachment from men. In comparison with those who defended short dresses when they first appeared, supporters of the new hairstyles were therefore faced with a much more difficult task. 

The opposition to women's short hair was much fiercer than the opposition to short dresses had ever been, as short hair connoted emancipation, female defiance, and rebellion against men's judgment in a way that short skirts never had. During this entire controversy, the voices of women who cut their hair were rarely heard in public. Under heavy fire, most young women seemingly preferred to avoid the discursive battles that raged around them. On the few occasions that any of these women did speak up, they generally adopted a very cautious stance, seeking to diffuse the opposition by reassuring critics of their whole-hearted commitment to femininity and respectable womanhood. 

In 1925, one young woman who described herself as "old-fashioned" despite her short hair thus sought to counter criticisms of the new styles by denying that there was any link between appearance and identity. "Why in the world should a young girl not be equally feminine and good whether she has bobbed hair or long hair?," she wondered. "It does, after all, not change the nature of the young girl to have her hair cut off." More often, young women simply tried to skirt criticisms by emphasizing the very pragmatic concerns that allegedly had led them to the barbershop. "Much can be said both for and against the bobbed hair, but the fact that it is a practical way of wearing one's hair, nobody can deny," one woman argued.

Nonetheless, the relative silence on the part of the women who wore the new hairstyles did not mean that no voices were raised in their defense. Complicating the picture of vocal male opponents and a largely silent group of female supporters, the chief public advocates of short hair for women in the 1920s were in fact male barbers. Not that barbers were a particularly fashion-conscious bunch or especially committed to young women's right to determine their own appearance. These men simply saw the new styles as a means to propel their profession out of the crisis in which it had lingered for decades. 

The rise of the medical and dental professions had dealt the first blow to the former surgeon-barbers, eliminating what had been the most profitable areas of their occupation. Later, when men began to shave themselves rather than frequenting the barber twice or three times weekly, the financial base of most barbershops had been further undercut, and scattered attempts at cultivating new areas of business expertise such as facial massage and manicure had contributed only little to their economy. 

In this context, the fashionable new styles for women seemed a god-send for barbers eager to cultivate both a new clientele and new sources of income, and since women's hairdressers generally opposed the short hairstyles and most often refused to cut women's hair, barbers were left with the uncontested responsibility for providing young women with the look they desired. Of course, barbers were not oblivious to the offense women's short hair provoked or the wrath they might incur by accommodating female customers. 

It was therefore in their own best interest to counter the opposition, and toward that end they adopted the same strategy that fashion advocates had successfully used a few years earlier, namely, to attempt to disassociate short hair from any kind of subversive intentions on the part of women. Short hair, they insisted, had nothing to do with defiance of feminine conventions or even modern fashions. It was a style adopted for reasons of comfort, ease, and practicality only. "It is not the senseless mimicking of fashion follies that has led women to allow their hair to be cut off," one barber thus insisted in 1926. "Rather, it is the natural development in all social strata that has forced the women to choose a practical hairstyle."

To give credibility to this claim, barbers traced the origins of women's short hair not to feminist rebels or decadent fashions, but to that highly respectable, self-sacrificing female heroine, Florence Nightingale. "When a war begins," one writer explained, "masses of younger and older women who wish to be nurses in the army immediately sign up. The healthiest among them are selected, and the first step on the road to their new vocation is to cut their hair as short as men's, first, because the daily care takes too long time, and secondly, because a nurse cannot run around with a zoo of carnivores [sicl] in her long hair." Upon their return, the reasoning continued, admirers adopted similar hair styles. 

Although there was little historical evidence to support such an explanation—after all, Florence Nightingale's reputation had been established during the Crimean War almost three quarters of a century earlier, and few women had followed her example in the intervening years —this argument had several advantages. First, it disassociated short hair from any kind of female defiance. Second, it sought to ground the popularity of the new hairstyles in admirable, patriotic concerns. And third, it tied short hair to notions of health and hygiene. From the mid-1920s, particularly the latter, combined with arguments about the practical requirements of the labor market, formed the core in the defense of women's short hair. 

In addition, barbers also sought to address anxieties over the seeming dissipation of gender differences by calling attention to the cultural and historical versatility of hair styles. In an article entitled "Masculine Girl Hair and Feminine Boy Hair," the author set out to prove that "women have not been 'the long-haired sex' for as long as we believe." A sampling of Greek, Roman, and Persian traditions led him to conclude that "long hair appears just as frequently on men as on women when one examines history, which is why hair has nothing whatsoever to do with sexual character." 

Just as long hair did not make men less masculine, short hair would not eradicate women's femininity. In fact, some argued, it held the potential of actually heightening it by drawing attention to women's fine facial features. "The shape of the face, the beauty of the skin, as well as the soft lines of the neck" were accentuated by short hair, one barber wrote, poetically comparing a woman's face to a "painting [that] is also seen more clearly in a simple frame." In the case of modern dresses, fashion advocates had gradually managed to convince most critics of their compatibility with conventional womanhood. Short hair fared differently. 

Short, simple haircuts for women never gained acceptance in the 1920s, at least not among the men and women who publicly expressed their opinions. The controversy over women's hair only died down at the end of the decade, when a new, modified style of short hair became popular. Ironically, this new short style, which eventually appeased critics, emerged from the beauty salon run by women's hairdressers. Having been entirely unsuccessful in their attempts to coax women into preserving their long hair and eager to regain some of the professional territory lost to barbers, women's hairdressers found themselves forced to dispense with their rejection of the short fashions. 

Still unwilling, however, to embrace the bobbed look, they devised a new strategy. Arguing that short hair unfortunately had been "carried to extremes... by the less cultivated segments of the female population" and was sported by "each and every factory and shop-girl," (middle-class) women were offered a chance to distinguish themselves as "finer ladies" through "feminine and graceful styles with curls and waves" while they were waiting for their hair to grow out again. By fashioning themselves as aides to women concerned with the reestablishment of their femininity and by presenting their care for short hair as a form of damage control, hairdressers were able to legitimize their growing interest in women's new hairstyles. 

With relatively few ideological scruples they were therefore able to plunge into this profitable market during the last years of the 1920s, gradually recapturing the patronage of most women. However, that women left the barbershop and (re)turned to the beauty salon did not indicate that long hair was regaining its popularity. Fashionable hairstyles for women remained short for the rest of the decade. What did change was the way short hair actually looked. Female hairdressers, one fashion columnist noted with applause, did "everything to give the short style a more feminine air than earlier." 

Permanent waves and curls, artificial hair pieces, decorative combs, ribbons, and barrettes all contributed to this goal. This new, feminized version of short hair quickly gained popularity among women interested in variation and possibly weary of public hostility. Within just a few years the original simple, straight styles had virtually been abandoned. Customers, one hairdresser noted with pleasure in 1927, now wanted "to become more feminine, not with completely long hair, but with longer short hair, enough to be curly in the back and around the face .. . so that the repulsive boyish head becomes beautified and more feminine."

Thus, after a brief but troubling intermission where women's adoption of short hair seemed to be blurring gender differences, new curlier versions of bobbed hair marked the reestablishment of gender distinctions in fashionable self-presentation. Even though women continued to cut their hair, the clear stylistic differences between short hair for men and short hair for women soothed critics, and gradually their opposition faded. With their confidence in the stability of sexual difference restored, some of the harshest opponents were even able to admit a few years later that they actually found short hair quite charming and attractive—if not on their wives, then at least on their daughters.”

- Birgitte Soland, “The Emergence of the Modern Look.” in Becoming Modern: Young Women and the Reconstruction of Womanhood in the 1920s

[komoryriku]

Queering KH Part 3: A JoshNeku Aside

An Example In Practice

If you already feel like you understand queer coding then you can skip this but I wanna play here for a minute x). KH as a series is rather subliminal in its queer coding, which makes sense since it was originally released in 2002, which meant its gay story would need to be highly censored. As such, I don’t wanna just jump in without giving you a clear sense of how to decode a queer text and what you’ll wanna look for when queering a text. So let’s do something super fun and easy as fuck. Let’s Queer Joshua! As if he doesn't do that himself already lmao

Joshua Kiryuu is one of my favorite characters- ever lol he is so shameless in how gay he is. But I’m getting ahead of myself here, let’s go back to how we’re gonna decode Joshua as gay. 

So Joshua Kiryuu is a- character in The World Ends With You (TWEWY), a game developed by the same team as Kingdom Hearts, and creatively produced by KH’s Nomura Tetsuya himself. Spoilers ahead btw.

Just from looking at him, he isn’t necessarily gay coded. He looks like your stereotypical angelic bishonen but as I said before, that doesn’t mean anything in Japan. Only an American like me would look at this guy and say “This asshole is one dangerous twink” lol. What you should know about TWEWY however is it is a very contemporary fantasy story about dead kids in Shibuya receiving game instructions from (gay) reapers in the form of memes on their cell phones. This may be a stretch, but Nomura’s KH team already has to keep in mind how things come off to American audiences, especially with a game like this so targeted to teens. As such, I suppose it could be worth considering that Joshua was designed to be so feminine looking, on top of everything else I’m about to drop, which would make him seem gay coded to American players. Him displaying feminine behavior in the form of constant wrist flicks sure wouldn’t go unnoticed in America either… intentional or not that’s top tier gay coding in ‘merica right there. But like I said, probably meaningless by Japanese standards.

Here is what clear coding IS given to us though: Joshua’s text.

Joshua spends a whole scene demanding he be given Pink for his code-color during this cute little kid adventure he’s a part of. A menial, fun little task for Kami-Sama in his off time lol.

Pink is also typically a feminine color. This is true in Japan as well, that’s why Eri and Kairi are covered in Pink, as they are femme and it is standard for a girly girl. In America, its also a gay code, though I can’t say for sure if that counts as one Japan. The fact that a male here is actively embracing Pink for his code color still signals a non-normative personality though. And they certainly recognized its place in romantic coded symbolism:

“Blue and Pink go together.” Blue being Neku. See below.

I love reappropriating heteronormative tropes for our own gay agenda~

Joshua insists on going into the tunnel with Neku, and flirts with him in doing so. Yes you heard me, he flirts. Serious or unserious, Joshua flirts with Neku. He says he could never live with himself if he let Neku go it alone, and proposes they “spend some quality time” together.

Shiki and Beat then make the flustered comment that they didn’t realize Joshua and Neku were a couple, embarrassing Neku but amusing Joshua who leans right into it by calling him “dear.” This coding might actually be too easy lol that’s almost just gay text in itself, really. The characters insinuate that Joshua and Neku are a couple, due to Joshua’s unabashed flirting with Neku, and Joshua never once shies away from it. 

Neku’s response might leave us rather unsure of his own sexuality or feelings about Joshua, but he hardly fights the assumption they’re a couple beyond angrily shaking his fist at how Joshua just embarrassed him. But even so, either way, Joshua never once gives us a reason to think he himself is not gay, even if he isn’t interested in Neku as a partner. (Play TWEWY so you can learn about how likely it is that Neku actually likes Joshua back though 8)). Joshua should be well aware of how gay he is coming off to these people so if he cared to follow heteronormative rules, he would’ve stopped by now if he wanted to. He clearly doesn’t want to lol. Near-explicit as this may be, it is still text that depended on the Blue x Pink coding of romantic archetypes to be discussed by the characters. The only thing working against the fact that Joshua is gay is that you could argue that Joshua is just flirting with Neku to make him uncomfortable… But even as Yoshiya-, a Lamb of a Boy, a Joshua with no godliness or memories of TWEWY, the meek version of himself, -Joshua is still trying to read Neku poetry as soon as they meet. Reading poetry to someone is typically a signal or code that this character likes that person.

If these two were a boy and a girl, there would be no doubt at this point that Joshua is highly attracted to Neku. Always remember that standard in coding. If it makes sense for a boy and a girl to be romantic based on the coding, then it should and surely will make as much sense for 2 boys to be romantic with the same coding. If Shiki were to read Neku a poem, heteronormativity would assume she likes him romantically. Now, remove that heteronormative lens. If Joshua were to read Neku a poem, queer coding should tell you that Joshua likes Neku romantically.

It’s simple math. Straight: a+b=c Gay: a+b=c Straight: Shiki + poetry = Crush on Neku Gay: Joshua + poetry = Crush on Neku

The only difference being that the gay equations go unrecognized most of the time lol. Shiki is also coded as a lesbian so I hope you can forgive me for just using her as a hetero example.;;

Just as blue and pink go together with male and female, so do they go together with male and male. Blue and Pink are still kinda heterosexual-based symbols though..

But you know what IS definitely a gay symbol? 

Rainbow.

As if there were any doubts left about where Joshua’s sexuality lies, he gave us the most damning symbol possible besides explicitly kissing Neku or screaming “I’m Gay”, censors be damned. After all Joshua’s fuss about demanding to be Pink in their group’s color coding, he sees a Rainbow pin and IMMEDIATELY demands to be the Rainbow Pin. MVP Chef Doi making the rainbow pin just for Joshua specifically is so sweet too<3

And that’s not even covering the subtext about Joshua in the rest of TWEWY, (I didn’t even mention the Ramen Date he took Neku on), or even in Dream Drop Distance (didn’t comment on the longing he expresses to be with his friends, to be with Neku again). These are just some of the most explicit codings I know of for him. Hopefully you can agree with me when I say in the end, despite how much straight players might try to dismiss Joshua as gay, it is honestly just easier to believe he is gay, loves being gay, and actively wants to be with Neku. 

So now we’ve gotten through the preliminary, back to KH. The reasonI had us do that is that Kingdom Hearts, while still very gay, relies a lot harder on subtext than Joshua gives enough of a fuck to bother with. So I wanted to exercise us in some easy coding that is much harder to get past a straight pair of eyes before going into KH in which trained eyes are a greater requirement for finding and analyzing the subtext in various places. Fret not though, because this is Kingdom Heart’s secret weapon: the overt gay is so well hidden that the straight people who would cancel the gay agenda simply Cannot see it. Cannot touch it. Cannot stop it. Thankfully, WE will have the tools and power to uncover the gay subtext within. Now let’s deep dive into Kingdom Hearts.~

See you in Part 4 for Dream Drop Distance fun~

[wonder-worker]

"It is too easy to dismiss [Leonor of Navarre] as an overambitious schemer who would do anything to obtain a crown, shedding the blood of her own siblings and her subjects in order to attain the throne. However, a deeper investigation of her long lieutenancy and ephemeral reign shows a woman who fought tenaciously to preserve her place but also worked tirelessly to administer a realm which was crippled by internal conflict and the center of the political schemes of France, Aragon, and Castile. She tried to broker peace, fight off those who opposed her, repair the wounds caused by conflict, protect the sovereignty of the realm, and keep the wheels of governance turning. Leonor was not always successful in achieving all of these aims but given the background of conflict and the lack of cooperation she received from all of her family members, bar her loyal husband, it is a huge achievement that she survived to wear the crown at all. Many writers have argued that Leonor deserved the troubled lieutenancy, personal tragedies, an ephemeral reign, and a blackened reputation, basing their assumption that she committed a crime that cannot be [conclusively] proven. However, a more fitting description of her would be that of a resolute ruler who successfully overcame a multitude of challenges in order to survive in a difficult political landscape and gain a hard-fought throne.”

-Elena Woodacre, "Leonor of Navarre: The Price of Ambition", Queenship, Gender and Reputation in the Medieval and Early Modern West, 1060-1600 (Edited by Zita Eva Rohr and Lisa Benz)

[discotreque]

Disco 3.04: Forget Me Not

The way Doug Jones delivered “Previously, on Star Trek: Discovery” this week—audibly out of makeup, almost entirely out of character, and over the super-intense footage from 3.02 of Disco plummeting helplessly to a shattered ruin of a planet—in such a brisk, cheerful little chirp had me laughing so hard I was wheezing. I could see his little mannerisms and everything 😂

I slept like a brick last night, so I’m a little too disoriented for much of a preamble. Let’s get right into it. Spoilers ahoy:

REPAIR ROBOTS!!!

Prop watch: the “salt-shaker” medical scanner Culber uses during his opening voiceover is by far the most elaborate we’ve ever seen on Star Trek. Try to fit that into the top of your tricorder. (I guess it’s connected to an iPad now...)

Adira has amnesia too? Literally a mystery wrapped in a mystery, lol.

Stop calling it a squid! It’s an ankylosaur! (ˈaŋkɪləsɔː)

Michael asks Adira on the bridge if the planet Trill looks familiar. Not to be a planet-racist, but don’t all Class M planets kind of look alike from orbit? I’m not sure I could reliably recognize that much of Earth, especially under so much beautifully rendered CGI cloud cover.

I’m going to be praising Doug Jones a lot this season—he’s not just playing Saru as captain, he’s playing Captain Saru in an interesting and distinctive way. He’s not the babysitting big brother anymore—now he’s their dad, and he’s still visibly getting used to the role. It’s played so sweet and subtle and I’m really loving it, and the way the show as a whole is leaning into the “family” vibe this season.

The holographic version of a red-yarn-string conspiracy board that Michael is using when she talks to Culber is one of those acceptable sci-fi breaks from reality for me. It looks super cool and futuristic, but imagine actually working like that for a few hours. Your arms would get exhausted. My neck hurts just watching her crane around. And the eyestrain of focusing on glowing shit, in mid-air, at various distances, with no backdrop whatsoever? Fuck off completely with that. But it’s simple and tactile, so the audience immediately understands the general idea of what she’s doing, and it’s literally see-through, so we can simultaneously know how she feels about it. And if you’re not a total weirdo like me, you won’t be thinking about any of this, except maybe “oh, neat!” when Culber first walks in—it just helps establish Michael’s state of mind at the beginning of the scene.

OKAY SO TWO EXTREMELY IMPORTANT THINGS ABOUT MICHAEL’S QUARTERS. First, she decorated!!! 😭😭😭 Last season they made a point of (repeatedly!) contrasting her uhhhh “minimalist” living space with Tilly’s more personalized and homey side of the room, and now they explicitly note that Michael either brought her 32nd-century knick-knacks over from Book’s ship or replicated a bunch of new ones for Disco, and frankly either scenario makes my heart want to scream into a pillow.

THE SECOND THING IS THAT SHE’S STILL LIVING WITH TILLY??? ARE YOU ACTUALLY KIDDING ME WITH THIS SAPPHIC SHIT. I WAS READY TO BID MY SAD FAREWELLS TO MYLVIA AND HOP ON THE BURNBOOK TRAIN AND YOU DO T H I S??? YOU’RE PLAYING WITH MY HEART, MICHELLE.

I thought it was unfair that people were criticizing the last episode for not like, fully developing every single one of the plot points it was obviously setting up to play out over the rest of the season—but fair or not, I was genuinely surprised when they came back to Michael’s insecurities around leadership, so I guess this show is still working on winning me over too.

“Post-traumatic growth... can inspire us to evolve, to live our lives in a different way.” Well, fuck 😭😭😭😭😭

This is going to sound like either rank sarcasm or damnation by the faintest of praise, but it’s actually a genuine and heartfelt compliment: I did not expect this show to ever even approach the emotional depths of the recent She-Ra reboot on Netflix, let alone include a conversation that directly evoked one of the most powerful moments of that entire series for me. “You know what I love about you most? You’re a responsibility hoarder” has the exact same energy as “You’re worth more than what you can give to other people,” and it sucker-punched me right in the goddamned heart. Let 2020 be the year all our overly self-sacrificing heroines learn to let themselves accept the same love and support they give so freely.

AND THEN SHE JUST LAUNCHES INTO BIG-SISTER MODE WITH ADIRA??? Put me in a photon torpedo and shoot me into space while Scotty plays Amazing Grace on the bagpipes because I am D-E-A-D dead. (Also any time SMG lets her accent out a little bit I just fucking swoon, and apparently that accent is an integral component of her big-sis persona, so 😍😍😍😍😍)

I have been waiting my entire life for a Star Trek character who stuns first and asks questions later.

No. No WAY. THIS is how the Disco computer becomes Zora??? Basically the same way Data created Moriarty, except with a boost from the sphere data, and driven by Saru wanting to heal the crew’s emotional trauma? Holy SHIT.

I’m not sure I realized how many gaps existed in Trill lore until now. We knew a lot about Dax’s specific experiences, but I never had a good sense for how “typical” Dax actually was, and I feel like I learned more about Trill in general in this episode than I did over seven seasons of DS9, which is cool.

Listen, Saru, if you want to have family dinners with the crew, sometimes they’re going to turn out like family dinners.

The closed captions when Michael was arriving in the Trill dreamscape or whatever said (ambient warbling), which is also one of my favourite genres of music.

“I know you’re afraid, but you have to let them connect with you.” OKAY, STOP, JUST STOP.

I guess it wouldn’t be Discovery if every other character didn’t have a grotesquely tragic backstory, but Adira and Gray’s managed to cram about half a dozen of my favourite romantic tropes into a few fleeting moments of screen time before crashing into my heart—much like an asteroid crashing into the side of a generation ship that really should have solved the “random asteroid collision” problem at, like, the blueprints stage—so this one hurt even more than usual.

(Looking forward to blocking all the cis people with ~scorching hot takes~ about Adira and Gray this week. If you’re not trans, then your feelings and opinions about this are literally meaningless to me.)

One of Tal’s previous hosts is seen in a circa-2399 Starfleet uniform, which unfortunately doesn’t fit him any better than it fit anyone on Picard. We also get a (presumably fairly contemporary) admiral’s uniform on Senna, but there’s a lady on the far left with a different style of uniform but the same “post-canon” oval-backed delta concept for the combadge, and I wanted to see more of that one.

AWWWWW, STAMETS ACTUALLY DID STOP BEING A JERK, GOOD FOR HIM <3 (And if I’ve learned anything from science fiction, it’s that dark matter can do literally whatever the writers want, so this seems like a promising road of inquiry!)

Is Gray going to live in Adira’s head like a non-toxic version of Six and Baltar on Battlestar Galactica? Because I am into it.

...and that’s four in a row that ended with a goddamned tsunami of feelings. It’s still finding its feet, but this new version of the show—this slower, softer, sweeter version of Discovery, and the things it’s even attempting—you could say it gives me hope.

Next week: we finally get to see Starfleet in the 32nd century, who are as friendly as everyone else has been so far, and I’m going to have to figure out who’s playing the admiral who talks to Michael in the trailer, because he’s such a “Hey, It’s That Guy!” I got whiplash.

[fuckheadwitha]

Listening to Rolling Stone's Top 500 Albums of All Time

Rolling Stone released an updated list of their top 500 albums of all time and being trapped in the purgatory of covid quarantine this seems like the perfect moment to tackle what an almost completely irrelevant former counter-culture institution has to say about music (we can’t actually blame Rolling Stone for this list, a huge number of musicians and critics voted to make it). I am going to listen to every single one of these, all the way through, with a level of attention that's not super intense but I'm definitely not having them on in the background as simple aural wallpaper. Two caveats though: I can make an executive decision to skip any album if I feel the experience is sufficiently miserable, and I'm also going to be skipping the compilation albums that I feel aren't really worth slots (best ofs, etc.). In addition, I will be ordering them as I go, creating a top 500 of the top 500 (it will be less than 500 since we've already established I'm skipping some of these).

Here are 500-490:

#500 Arcade Fire - Funeral

I can already tell I'm going to be at odds with this list if one of the most important albums of my high school years is at the bottom. That being said, I haven't actually given this whole thing a listen since probably the early 2010s, before Arcade Fire fatigue set in and the hipsterati appointed band of a generation just kinda seemed to fade from popular consciousness. I actually dreaded re-experiencing it, since the synthesis of anthemic rock and quirky folk instrumentation which Arcade Fire brought mainstream has now become the common shorthand of insufferable spotify friendly folk pop. Blessedly, the first half of the album easily holds up, largely propelled by dirty fast rhythm guitar, orchestration that's tuneful rather than obnoxious, and lyrics which come off as earnest rather than pretentious. The middle gets a little sappy and “Crown of Love”, a song I definitely used to like, really starts the grate. And then we get to “Wake Up”, whose cultural saturation spawned thousands of dorky indie rock outfits that confused layered strings and horns with power and meaning. This song definitely hasn't survived the film trailers and commercials which it so ubiquitously overlayed, but the line about "a million little gods causing rainstorms, turning every good thing to rust" still attacks the part of my brain capable of sincere emotion. This album is probably going to hold the top spot for a while, because although so many elements of Funeral that made it feel so meaningful, that made it stand out so much in 2004, have been seamlessly assimilated into an intellectually and emotionally bankrupt indie pop industrial complex, the album itself still has a genuine vulnerability and bangers that still manage to rip.

#499

Rufus, Chaka Khan - Ask Rufus

Before she became a name in her own right, Chaka Khan was the voice of the band Rufus, and it’s definitely her voice that shines amongst some spritely vibey funk. That’s not to say that these aren’t some jams on their own. “At Midnight” is a banging opener with a sprint to the finish, and although the explicitly named but kinda boring “Slow Screw Against the Wall” feels weak, this wasn’t really supposed to be an album of barn burners. This was something people put on their vinyl record players while they chilled on vinyl furniture after a night of doing cocaine. “Everlasting Love” is a bop with a bassline like a Sega Genesis game, and the twinkling piano on “Hollywood” adds a playful levity to lyrics that are supposed to be both tackily optimistic about making it big out in LA and subtly realistic about the kind of nightmare world showbiz can be. “Better Days” is another track that manages to be a bittersweet jam with a catchy sour saxophone and playful synths under Chaka Khan’s vamping. This album definitely belongs on a ‘chill funk to study and relax to’ playlist.

#498

Suicide - Suicide

We’ve hit the first album that could be rightly called a progenitor for multiple genres that followed it. Someone could say there’s a self-serving element of this being on a Rolling Stone list (the band was one of the first to adopt the label ‘Punk’ after seeing it in a Lester Bangs article) but the album’s legacy is basically indisputable. EBM, industrial, punk, post-punk, new wave, new whatever all have a genealogy that connects to Suicide, and it’s easy to hear the band in everything that followed. But what the band actually is is two guys, one with an electric organ and one with a spooky voice, doing spooky simple riffs and saying spooky simple things. Simplicity is definitely not a dis here. The opener “Ghost Rider” makes a banger out of four notes and one instrument, and the refrain ‘America America is killing its youth’ is really all the lyrical complexity you need to fucking get it. “Cheree” and “Girl” have almost identical lyrics (‘oh baby’ vs ‘oh girl’) but “Cheree” is more like a fairy tale and “Girl” is more like a sonic handjob. “Frankie Teardrop” has the audacity to tell a ten minute story with its lyrics, but of course there is intermittent, actually way too loud screaming breaking up the narrative of a guy who loses everything then kills his family and himself. The song is basically a novelty, and I think you can probably say the whole album is a novelty between its brevity and character. But for a bite sized snack this album casts a huge shadow.

#497

Various Artists - The Indestructible Beat of Soweto

The fact that this particular compilation always ends up in the canon has a lot to do with the cultural context it existed in, being America’s first encounter with South African contemporary music during the decline of apartheid (it wouldn’t end until a decade later in 1994 with the country’s first multi-racial elections). Music journos often bring up the fact Ladysmith Black Mambazo, the all male choir singing on the album ender “Nansi Imali”, sang on Paul Simon’s Graceland like their virtue is they helped Paul Simon get over his depression and not, like, the actual music. But also like, how is the actual music? Jams. Ubiquitous, hooky guitars propel the songs along with bright choruses over low lead vocals, but I didn’t expect the synthesizer on the bop “Qhude Manikiniki”, nor the discordant hoedown violin on “Sobabamba”. “Holotelani” is a groove to walk into the sunset to.

#496

Shakira - Donde Estan los Ladrones

So this is the first head scratcher on the list. It’s not like it sucks. And I think I prefer this 90s guitar pop driven spanish language Shakira to modern superstar Shakira. But I mean, it’s an album of late nineties latin pop minivan music, with a thick syrupy middle that doesn’t do anything for me. The opener and closer stand out though.  ‘Ciega, Sordomuda’, one of the biggest pop songs of the 90s (it was #1 on the charts of literally every country in Latin America), has a galloping acoustic guitar and horn hits with Shakira’s vocals at their most percussive.

#495

Boyz II Men - II

So, if you were alive in the 90s you know Boyz II Men were fucking huge, and the worst song on the album is the second track “All Around the World”, basically a love song to their own success, and also the women they’ve banged. You can tell it was written specifically so that the crowd could go fucking wild when they heard their state/city/country mentioned in the song, and I’m not gonna double check but I’m sure they hit all fifty states. Once you’re over that hump though you basically have an hour of songs to fuck to. “U Know” keeps it catchy with propulsive midi guitar and synth horns, “Jezzebel” starts with a skit and ends with a richly layered jazz tune about falling in love on a train, and “On Bended Knee” has a Ragnarok Online type beat. Honestly this album can drag, but you’re not supposed to be listening to it alone in a state of analysis, you’re supposed to have it on during a date that’s going really, really well.

#494

The Ronettes - Presenting the Fabulous Ronettes

A singles compilation of the Ronettes, the only ones I immediately recognized were ‘Be My Baby’ and ‘Going to the Chapel of Love’, the latter of which I didn’t know existed since the version of the song I knew was by the Dixie Cups, which was apparently a source of drama since the Ronettes did it first but producer Phil Spector refused to release it. I feel like as a retro trip to sixties girl groups it’s full of enough songs about breaking up (for example “Breaking Up”) getting back together (for example “Breaking Up”) and wanting to get married but you can’t, because you’re a teenager (“So Young”).

#493

Marvin Gaye - Here, My Dear

This album only exists because Marvin was required by his divorce settlement to make it and provide all of the royalties to his ex-wife and motown executive Anna Gordy Gaye. It’s absolutely bizarre, phoned in mid tempo funk whose lyrics range from the passive aggressive (“This is what you wanted right?”) to the petulant (“Why do I have to pay attorney’s fees?”). There is a seething realness here that crosses well past the border of uncomfortable. I don’t think it’s an amazing album to listen to, but it’s an amazing album to exist: Marvin Gaye is legally obligated to throw his own divorce pity party, and everyone's invited.

#492

Bonnie Raitt - Nick of Time

I have never heard of Bonnie Raitt before but apparently this album won several grammys including album of the year in 1989 and sold 5 million copies, which I guess goes to show that no award provides less long term relevance than the grammys. The story around the album is pretty heartwarming, it was her first massive hit after a career of whiffs, and Bonnie Raitt herself is apparently a social activist and neat human being. I say all this because this sort of 80s country blues rock doesn't really connect with me, but the artist obviously deserves more than that. I unequivocally like the title track though, a hand-clap backed winding electric piano groove about literally finding love before your eggs dry up.

#491

Harry Styles - Fine Line

I do not think I have ever heard a one direction song because I am an adult who only listens to public radio. I’m totally open to pop bands or boy bands or boy band refugee solo artists, but I don’t like anything here. It’s like a mixtape of the worst pop trends of the decade, from glam rock that sounds like it belongs in a car commercial to folky bullshit that sounds like it belongs in a more family focused car commercial. This gets my first DNP (Does Not Place).

#490

Linda Ronstadt - Heart Like a Wheel

Another soft-rock blues and country album which just doesn’t land with me. But the opener “You’re No Good” is like a soul/country hybrid which still goes hard and the title track hits with the lyrics “And it's only love and it's only love / That can wreck a human being and turn him inside out”.

Current Ranking, which is weirdly almost like an inverse of the rolling stones list so far;

[angelfishreveal]

FRANKFURT UPDATE / DISORGANIZED RANT ABOUT TRUTH AND ART AND FASSBINDER

by Camille Clair

I spent the strict quarantine following my arrival in Frankfurt studying German in the mornings, and watching Fassbinder in the evenings. The time between morning and evening was spent...nervously. 

I watched so many Fassbinder films during my quarantine that I began to feel his cabinet of actors were my companions (quarpanions). We were all crying and grinning and swallowing our pills together. 

I am one of those people that believes that pain/discomfort/anxiety is necessary, important, a catalyst. That is one of the reasons I left, have left in the past, will leave again. Sometimes the next best life move involves ripping your heart out! Sometimes it isn’t quite so abrupt, and your heart will sizzle in the pan for months. You may even grow to cherish the sensation because it means you are working toward something. You may recognize your true self in that pain. And in that truth, your mission, which may, or may not be, your art. 

I do believe that, as an artist, you have to be a bit of a masochist. Your life is sustained via chopping yourself into bits, and, if you’re lucky, stowing those bits in the pockets of the wealthy, the devious. And though you may consider yourself an orthodox Marxist, this seems to be the only way to keep the axe swinging. I would never say aloud that I believe suffering produces great art, but I also must admit I understand the desire to drag oneself across shards of glass a la Chris Burden in Through The Night Softly. I relate to the impulse to bear it all. I want to be torn apart! For art. 

I don’t always want this, but fresh out of my Frankfurt quarantine - following a confounding summer in Los Angeles - I want this. I really, truly want to exhaust myself. 

Though Fassbinder himself may have been a bit amoral, he was, at the same time, so undeniably invested in all that is human. Many of Fassbinder’s characters seem to cave inward, unable to stand erect under the weight of the social, the political, the bureaucratic: the simultaneity, and responsibility of it all. Fassbinder’s characters give into their truth, or they parish. No time is wasted on the performance of goodness, because salvation was never in their cards to begin with. 

What I desire and revere most in art is truth. I want my “self” and my “art” to be inseparable, the same. I want my body to vanish in the company of my art. I don’t really want to exist. I repeat variations of a line from Reena Spaulings in my head all day long: Where does my (boyish, jaunty, smooth, freckle-dusted, foxy, stiff, screen-like) body end and a real event begin, for once? I do a little dance in the mirror. I have never been this alone. Some days I feel stiff with sorrow, so I remind myself that I am a character, and the director expects a performance, and then I stretch. 

Walking home in the rain, I envision Margit Carstensen waiting for me in my flat. I am her aloof lover. Or she is mine. I’ll fall through the door with a sigh, she’ll pour me a little glass of schnapps, and we’ll heartfully console one another. I sometimes play The Bitter Tears of Petra von Kant (1972), which starts Carstensen, in the background while I go about my tasks. I speak my favorite of Petra’s lines back to her as part of my daily Deutsche practice. Maybe by Spring, I’ll have the entirety of her central monologue memorized. I love to fantasize about the spring, it’s become one of my favorite pastimes. It is possible to imagine nearly anything happening in the spring because real life has become so severely abstracted. 

I lament…

What is real? Now? And in hindsight, what was ever real? Is it, or was it, ever recognizable or is it just whatever you put into your head on a given day? I scroll through Contemporary Art Daily on acid and feel confused about what it is I am supposed to want. My eyes linger on words that used to resonate, and it stirs some sort of longing. I want it to be physical, I want to get dirty and injured in the process. I want to be so involved it’s disgusting. But for now, nearly everything I want is impossible. Maybe it's a symptom of the current situation, but I want to be overinvolved. I generally find most performance excruciating, but now I feel I would do anything for an audience. I desire an audience. 

I envy Fassbinder’s overinvolvement. In Beware of a Holy Whore (1971), a film about making a film, Fassbinder seems to play himself. He doesn’t play the director, he plays Rainer Werner Fassbinder. Often fussing around or yelling in the background, it’s unclear exactly what his role is in the production, but as a viewer one is intensely aware of him at all times. Upon first watch, I felt envious. I want to be present in that way, shrieking for the sake of, and within, my art. The ringleader, and also, the eager participant. In the opening scene of Germany in Autumn (1978), Fassbinder, dials a call, and says “Ich bin es Fassbinder” into the receiver. We know of course, who the man on the screen is, though we aren’t immediately sure who we are meant to recognize him as. 

In a 1997 eulogy for ArtForum, Gary Indiana writes, “what can you say about a fat, ugly sadomasochist who terrorized everyone around him, drove his lovers to suicide, drank two bottles of Rémy daily, popped innumerable pills while stuffing himself like a pig and died from an overdose at 37? [Fassbinder was]  a faithful mirror of an uglier world that has grown uglier since his death”. Fassbinder knew truth, and truth is as beautiful and precious, as it is vile. 

My sister, who is 17 and only just got drunk for the first time last week, told me she could never watch The Shining (1980)  knowing how much Shelly Duval was tormented in the making of it. I felt I couldn’t argue with her but I also wanted to argue with her. “So you will never watch what is widely considered one of the greatest films of all time?” 

“No,” she said. 

“Okay,” I said. 

Perhaps we are reaching an age in which you really cannot separate the art from the artist. Maybe it’s never actually been possible. But then again, there are so many things that seem to be art by mistake, and so many artists who die without recognition.

In the eulogy, Indiana goes on to say, “there is nothing you can say about Fassbinder that he hasn’t already said about himself”. This line again brings to mind Fassbinder in Beware of a Holy Whore, berating everyone in the vicinity, utterly repulsed by a multitude of things never made explicitly clear. Fassbinder lying dead in the train station after an overdose in Fox and his Friends (1975). Fassbinder lying dead, with a cigarette between his lips and notes for an upcoming film lying next to him, from an actual overdose. A parallel that reveals art is just as intertwined with death, as it is with life.

I realized this year that many of the artists I respect care a great deal about film, about drama. I have found solace in films, because I am alone nearly all of the time, and I don't know when I will see any of my cherished ones again. I am living vicariously through characters, beginning to think of myself as a character, which is admittedly therapeutic. I am the director. And I chose myself from a lineup of nervous red haired girls. I recognised myself at once, and thus, here I am. 

Some artists, or people!, are overly concerned with their own narrative. It can be irritating, indulgent, abject, but it’s convenient, and it may save your life. Though you’re never really alone you may feel really alone. Allein. Alleine... Sometimes there is nowhere to turn but toward yourself. And, once you begin to think of yourself as a character, you no longer bear the full responsibility of your being. You have been put in place to carry out the artistic vision. So, in a sense, all characters are artists, just as they are products of art. It’s reflexive, and Frankensteinian, in that way. 

Maybe as an experiment, try referring to your dismal flat as “the set”. 

Are you at home? 

I’m on set. 

Complain aloud, but to no one, about the uninspired refreshments. 

Stare longingly at everything. 

There is a misanthropic edge to many of Fassbinder’s films. A bleakness. It is often said that his work is about the fascism at play in interpersonal relationships. The fascism that blooms in all of our hearts.There are instances across Fassbinder’s filmography of, not only an awareness, but a patience, for all that is despicable. Human beings are weak, impressionable, they want to be liked but if it doesn’t work out, they’ll settle for being hated or feared. Often, Fassbinder will have a character do or say something that completely skews, if not, obliterates your previous impression of them. For example, in Ali: Fear Eats the Soul (1974), Emmi who is, up until this point, mostly redeemable, chooses Hitler’s favorite restaurant to celebrate her and Ali’s wedding, stating upon entry that she has “always wanted to go”.  In the scene that follows, she mispronounces the names of menu items, the server scoffs, and one can't help but feel a bit bad for her. Is her desire to eat at Hitler’s favorite spot purely aspirational, a misguided highbrow charade? Or is she a sympathetic fascist? This is another fault of the character, any character, their world view is often contrived, never holistic. 

Fassbinder is the Postwar German filmmaker - generally considered the “catalyst of the New German Cinema movement”. In his films, World War II is often alluded to / background / partial context / a shadow, but it is never the subject, or the main event. A character’s idiosyncrasies, or disturbances, could be attributed to the wartimes, but often, their faults seem too deeply intertwined with their truths. But of course they’ve always had a tremor, a temper. Many of Fassbinder’s characters have a hard edge, or have suffered immense loss. They are either in, or narrowly escaping, crisis. 

In Fassbinder’s Berlin Alexanderplatz (1980), Franz Bieberkopf, a rampant dilettante, oscillates between political affiliations. When we first meet Bieberkopf, fresh out of prison, he is a bit of an anarchist, sympathizing with soldiers and workers above all. As the series progresses, Bieberkopf is revealed to be immensely impressionable, confused, vindictive. He exhibits symptoms of several political philosophies, albeit meekly. Bieberkopf even briefly wears a Nazi armband, which, when questioned about, he is unable to defend, and from thereon, is never seen wearing it again. Franz Bieberkopf is similar to Tony Soprano in that way. Selfish, gruff, deeply flawed, indubitably human. Tony Soprano bites into a meatball sub and sauce dribbles onto his shirt and you forget, momentarily, that he's a bigot, because he’s the protagonist. And it is the job of the protagonist to represent a spectrum of human strength, and fallibility. It is arguably better, or more redeemable, to be overtly, rather than covertly, self-serving because then at least one is operating in defense of their own truth.

Truth is constructed daily and could easily be mistaken for anything but. Truth is nearly impossible to represent, and harder still to recognize. Truth is a fallacy, and thus, very lonely. Still, it must be guarded, I have been listening to The Sorrows of Young Werther by Johann Wolfgang von Goethe as I walk around Frankfurt which, in all honesty, fertilizes the melodrama blooming in my heart. Werther is bitterly alone, consoling himself via drawn out descriptions of his loneliness. “I am proud of my heart alone”, he says, “it is the sole source of everything, all our strength, happiness and misery. All the knowledge I possess everyone else can acquire, but my heart is all my own”. 

I am alone in Frankfurt, but I have my heart.  

[fightmeyeats]

Fantasy Racism™ Sure is Pretty White: A Critique of “Carnival Row”

One of the problems with the “politically relevant” fantasy genre is that it frequently offers “representation” and “relevant” critiques of social problems in ways which favor the representation of the oppressions people face, rather than of the people themselves--meaning metaphors which parallel fantasy races to people of color while using a predominantly white cast. Often times this further reifies the unmarked categories of the cultural context the work is produced in (ie whiteness as the dominant & default category), further marginalizes and dehumanizes people of color, and positions white folks as the victims of metaphorical white supremacy. Amazon’s new streaming original Carnival Row is an unfortunately clear example of this continued fetishization of white poverty/desperation/vulnerability at the expense of communities of color. 

Spoilers below. 

While one might rightly critique the “trauma porn” genre and the way that people of color are often brutalized on screen or depicted only as victims of violence in discussions of oppression, with the solidarity and resistance of communities of color erased from dominant narratives, substituting white bodies into these sequences of violence does not offer us a useful subversion. In her book What You Are Getting Wrong About Appalachia, Elizabeth Catte talks about the historical and contemporary use of a particular image of white poverty. The focal example of Catte’s book is J.D. Vance’s memoir Hillbilly Elegy (2016) where Vance consistently uses the image of the bad, dependent poor white to reify racist images of poverty and undermine the need for programs and systems to support poor folks--just one example of this is the way he insists that the “welfare queen” is real and implicitly argues that the use of this stereotype to undermine welfare programs is not racist because he has known white welfare queens. Outside of contemporary use, Catte also gives examples such as how in the 1960s “white poverty offered [white people uncomfortable with images of civil rights struggles] an escape--a window into a more recognizable world of suffering” (59), and the quotes Appalachian historian John Alexander Williams comments on the way that, in the displays of Appalachian poverty, “‘the nation took obvious relish in the white skins and blue eyes of the region’s hungry children’” (qtd Catte 82). This obsession with white poverty has little to do with addressing the actual problem; instead, it is a tool used to obscure oppression, resistance, and transformative solutions to these problems. 

Carnival Row offers a discourse on colonialism, racism, and xenophobia intended to mirror the political climate of the real world, namely the violence experienced by refugees and undocumented immigrants. It also attempts to comment on the way that Global North/colonial nations often create or are implicit in the creation of catastrophes which cause Global South/colonized nations and regions to become unsafe and result in refugee migrations, as well as the subsequent way that many times when refugees end up immigrating to the very nations that played a role in the collapse of their homelands, they are met with violence on multiple levels and their traumas are ongoing. In this current moment, this kind of discourse/intervention is “relevant” (I use scare-quotes because while the treatment of refugees in many Global North nations is horrendous in this current moment, this is not a new problem the way it sometimes is imagined) and I’m even willing to concede that there are some things which I think are done well. However--and this is a big however--the choice to make a predominantly white non-human population the metaphorical stand in for real life people who are predominantly of color greatly undermines what the series is attempting to accomplish. The implicit message is that it is easier for general audiences to sympathize with and recognize the personhood in non-human white figures than it is to sympathize with and recognize the personhood in real life people of color who are actively experiencing the violence fictionalized in this series. Furthermore, even as the victims obscure the real role white supremacy plays in xenophobia and the violence experienced by migrants and refugees, it still is a form of trauma porn. The only real difference is that because of the dominant whiteness of the victims, this version of trauma porn allows for the voyeuristic participation in systems of violence wherein many who are passively complicit (or even actively responsible) in the very systems causing violence are able to relate to the victims and experience a sort of cathartic release which allows them to maintain their complicity, feeling “good” that they consumed “politically relevant” content which allowed them to “care” safely, without having to address the reality that they are part of the brutalizers not the brutalized.

One of the ways that the show attempts to somewhat skirt around this problematic of white victimhood is by giving many of the white refugees, namely the main character Vignette (played by British actor/model Cara Delevigne), Irish accents and setting it in a time period which ambiguously mirrors the time before (as Noel Ignatiev puts it) “the Irish became white”. Celtic whiteness is used both in Carnival Row and with the case of Appalachia, and seems to be a particular favorite flavor for the fetization of white poverty. My personal theory is that this is because, when used in this way, the British colonization of Celtic peoples works to simultaneously obscure the racialized realities of both poverty and colonialism--in this fashion, Celtic whiteness is Othered just enough to justify the creation of white victimhood as a fetish object, but still undeniably white enough to connect this victimhood to the universal construction of whiteness. While there is nothing inherently wrong with including Ireland (or Scotland or Wales) in discourses of colonialism/neocolonialism because Ireland and other Celtic lands were and are colonized by the British and this colonization has had a clear and lasting impact on these regions and these peoples, using it as part of the fetishization of white poverty does not further anti-colonial goals, and again is being used to displace and obscure the way racism and white supremacy are central to anti-refugee and anti-immigrant rhetoric, policies, and popular practices.

During the first few episodes, I tentatively imagined myself commenting on the only semi-positive aspect I saw in the show’s use of whiteness: while obscuring metaphors for white-supremacist politics are deployed in many fantasy works, they often position people (humans) of color as being members of the human-supremacist groups which are meant to reflect real life white supremacy, further obscuring the real stakes of the topic being discussed. For the first four episodes, Carnival Row avoids this problematic and gives a representation of the metaphorical anti-immigrant/“pro-Brexit” crowd exclusively through white humans--and bonus points, they can be found in both the political elite and the working class/poor. While the whiteness of fantasy races means that the real life targets of white supremacist violence (people of color) are obscured, at least this allows us to remain clear on who is responsible. That, unfortunately, changes in episode five. One of the major places where we can see this change is in the introduction of Sophie, a woman of color, who takes over her (white) father’s seat in parliament after his death. Sophie gives a speech where she mobilizes her status as a woman of color to further fantasy-racism, stating that her mother had “desert blood” and experienced racism, but that the city overcoming racism and recognizing the value of racial diversity does not apply to the “Critch” because “our differences are more than skin-deep” (ep 5, 34:15). While this is predominantly intended to differentiate real racism (which I guess has been solved?) from Fantasy Racism™, it also serves to undermine the dehumanizing politics of racism which are continuously deployed. It reassures audiences that real life racism can be solved because race is just skin deep and we’re ultimately all pretty similar. This obscures the historical and contemporary claims about “race science” and “racial difference” which often explicitly and implicitly justify racism. While in this present moment “race science” has become a more latent belief--most people laugh at the idea of measuring skulls--everyone with a White™ Facebook friend who's taken a 23-and-Me to prove they’re 0.005% African can speak to continuing beliefs in biological race theory. 

Ultimately, like many other “politically relevant” fantasy works, Carnival Row’s use of a white washed Fantasy Racism™ as a metaphor for the systems of oppression that, in the real world, affect people of color remains highly problematic. In both our personal viewing practices and in our practices of creating and curating stories, we must think critically. Storytelling is a powerful tool in shaping how we perceive and consider reality, so when we choose to tell stories that represent marginalized communities exclusively by their oppressions, and especially when we choose metaphors that participate in the fetishization of white desperation and whitewash these communities we are doing real harm. 

[precuredaily]

Precure Daily Halloween Special 2019

Episodes: SPC 37, HaCha 37, GPP Movie, MPC 38-39, KKPC 37, HUG 38, STPC 37 Dates watched: 30-31 October 2019 Original air dates: Sunday in October 1-2 weeks before Halloween, 2011 & 2016-2018, and the Saturday of Halloween, 2015

Is that little girl in the witch hat dressed as Akko from Little Witch Academia in a nod to her seiyuu, Han Megumi, playing Hime or is this just a coincidence? These are the questions that keep me up at night.

You may remember the PCD Christmas Special I did last year, where I watched every Precure Christmas episode and compared them to each other, charting the common elements and evolution in how they handle the subject. Well, I really love Halloween, but for a while, Japan didn’t celebrate it. It only started to catch on in the late 2000s and into the 2010s, and so despite several episodes of Precure airing on or near Halloween night over the years, the first time it was brought up in the franchise wasn’t until 2011′s Suite Precure. You can read more about how it became acceptable to celebrate and the ways in which the Japanese people enjoy themselves in this article, but the important takeaways are that Halloween events are more about food and festivities, and trick-or-treating is a highly organized activity, no going door-to-door.

At this point in the shows, all extra heroines have been introduced and the team is usually on the cusp of acquiring a new powerup. The villains have suffered significant losses and are preparing to pull out some form of trump card (this will facilitate the team getting their new attack). Typically, the monster of the week will be made from a Jack O’Lantern or some other Halloween decoration. In more recent years there’s been a tendency to explain what Halloween is about, but they don’t always do this. The biggest draw of a Halloween episode, though, in my opinion, is getting to see the characters in costumes. I’m going to briefly run down each Halloween episode (or movie) and then compare common elements at the end.

Note: At the time of writing, I am about 6 episodes behind in Star Twinkle Precure, did not wish to skip ahead for the purposes of this article, and didn’t have the time to catch up. I will add my thoughts on STPC 38 at a later date, and I will announce when I have done this via a reblog to @pcd-status​. Thank you for your patience and understanding.

Star Twinkle section added 12 Nov. 2019

Suite Precure 37 - “Wakuwaku! Everyone Transforms for Halloween!” Original air date: 30 October 2011

With Mephisto freed of his brainwashing, Falsetto takes charge of Trio the Minor and leads an attack on the girls. Ako has decided to stay in the human world, and the older girls take her to a Halloween celebration to brighten her spirits. Ako isn’t really enjoying herself, but some younger kids rope her into playing with them and that brightens her up. When Trio the Minor turn a pumpkin into a Negatone, they try to perform a new attack with Crescendo Tone: Precure Suite Session Ensemble Crescendo, but it falls apart, so Ako uses her invidual attacks while the older trio uses their group finisher. At the end, Falsetto sings an incomplete Melody of Sorrow to speed up Noise’s revival.

Costumes and references: Hibiki is dressed as a pirate, but specifically she resembles a genderbent Captain Marvelous, the red ranger from the contemporary Sentai series Gokaiger. Kanade is dressed as a pumpkin witch. Ellen is dressed as a black cat, an allusion to her true form, and Ako is a dressed as a princess, which she is. (not digging very deep for this)

HappinessCharge Precure 37 - “Big Bang, Defeated! An Unbelievably Strong Enemy Appears!” Original air date: 19 October 2014

Oresky, Namakelder, and Hosshiwa are all feeling weakened after taking the Happiness Big Bang attack, so Queen Mirage concludes they may not be useful to her anymore and prepares her next agent. Meanwhile in Pikarigaoka, Megumi encourages Blue to join them at the town’s Halloween festival, and he agrees. They all begin to share pumpkin cakes with each other, a local tradition. Seiji shares his with Megumi, Megumi eagerly shares hers with Blue, and the other girls look on from a distance as they recognize the love triangle unfolding in front of them. Oresky appears, trying to ruin the Halloween festival that makes people happy and attempting to prove his worth. He really wants to be the number one general in the Phantom Empire, as he feels that if he’s not first, he’s worthless and he doesn’t want to be replaced. The girls transform, and begin to persuade him that there’s enjoyment to be had in fun things, and it’s okay if you’re not first. They hit him with Happiness Big Bang and it begins to purify him, when suddenly an attack interrupts it. As the smoke clears, their new opponent is revealed to be a corrupted Cure Tender, Iona’s missing older sister.

Costumes and references: Megumi is wearing a Halloween-themed dress, orange with jack-o-lanterns on it. Hime is dressed as a princess, which much like with Ako, seems kind of low-effort since she’s an actual princess. Yuuko is dressed as a witch, and Iona is a fortune teller. Also, Blue is dressed as a vampire.

Go! Princess Precure: Go! Go!! Gorgeous Triple Feature Original release date: 31 October 2015

The Princess movie was experimental, being made of three shorter films: a chibi short with no dialog, a 50-minute traditional feature, and a 20-minute all CG adventure. The film leaned hard on its Halloween theming, with Pumpkins and Halloween being prominent motifs in all three parts. I’ll break them down individually.

Cure Flora and the Mysterious Mirror

This is a cute sketch where Cure Flora finds a fancy crown, puts it on, and accidentally startles some mischievous sprites on the other side of what she thinks is a mirror. They have the ability to transform, so they take on her appearance and mirror her, but they forget to duplicate the crown and eventually they begin to compete with the real Flora, doing tricks. She accidentally breaks the crown, so the sprites decide to transform into a special pumpkin outfit for her, just as the other girls come in. The 5-minute short uses a super deformed art style with all CG animation and has no dialog.

Costumes and references: Cure Flora’s pumpkin dress and hat.

The Pumpkin Kingdom’s Treasure

Haruka, Minami, Kirara, and Towa are transported to the wondrous Pumpkin Kingdom, where the royal chancellor Warp is hosting a Princess Contest to find a princess for the kingdom. Towa, being well-versed in evil schemes, smells a rat and is on edge. Haruka finds the true princess of the kingdom, Pumpururu, who is locked away, and learns that the Pumpkin King and Queen are under Warp’s control. Minami, Kirara, and Towa each win their rounds in the contest, but the former two are captured while Towa is able to avoid capture. Haruka participates, even managing to snap the monarchs out of the control. She transforms, frees the others from their capture, and Warp transforms to a giant monster. Pumpururu, the sprites, and the Precures’ strong feelings summon Halloween Dress Up Keys that the girls use to defeat Warp and save the Pumpkin Kingdom.

Costumes and references: The girls get special outfits to wear for the Princess Contest (not halloween themed), as well as Mode Elegant Halloween dresses that feature pumpkin flowers on them.

Precure and Leffy’s Wonder Night!

This is an episode-length feature using the CG animation style from the dance endings. Haruka discovers a doll on her desk, when she’s suddenly transported to the Pumpkingdom, already transformed, and the doll is now a girl named Leffy. Leffy tells the cures they need to defeat Night Pumpkin, who has taken over Pumpkingdom and stolen the daylight from them, making it always night. What follows is essentially an ongoing chase through the city to the top, where they fight and defeat Night Pumpkin and restore daylight to Pumpkingdom. Haruka is then transported back to her room, and the Leffy doll is gone. It’s worth noting that Leffy appeared as Pumpururu’s doll in the previous portion. The connection to this section of the film is unclear. Also, Minami, Kirara, and Towa do not appear in their civilian forms at all.

Costumes and references: Leffy isn’t overtly pumpkin themed, and nobody else gets any special forms in this one. However, there is a glorious moment where Flora accidentally bonks Night Pumpkin on the head.

a proud Precure tradition

Maho Girls Precure 38 - “Is it Sweet or Not? The Magic Pumpkin Festival!” Original air date: 23 October 2016

This isn’t explicitly a Halloween episode, because the Magic World doesn’t celebrate Halloween, but they have fall traditions that involve pumpkins and sweets so it counts. Their tradition is to chase a Pumpkin Bird that appears every year. It shoots candy from its mouth, and if it hits someone, they turn into a giant piece of candy. If you capture it, you get a special prize. One of the villains brings up the actually valid point that the creature may not like being chased and that’s why it runs, but Mofurun talks to it and finds out it just has a cavity. The girls transform into Topaz Style to fight Shakince in a creatively silly battle. When they beat him, Mofurun gets the credit for “capturing” the Pumpkin Bird and so she gets presented with its prize, which turns out to be a seed that grows into a tree which sprouts toothbrushes. I am not making that up.

Costumes and references: Mofurun gets a special orange and yellow dress to wear when she receives the prize but it’s never shown in closeup from the front. Also, there is a cameo appearance by Watanabe Mayu, who sings the insert song for the Maho Girls Movie that was in theaters around this time, and also served as the ending theme for episodes 38 and 39 (only on the TV version, on home release they use “Magic a la Domo”). She makes a special appearance as herself. Even better, in a flashback, she’s seen beside giant statues of Mipple and Mepple.

Maho Girls Precure 39 - “This is Halloween! Everyone, Smile!” Original air date: 30 October 2016

The girls from magic school come to visit the non-magic world and learn about Halloween! But Jun, Kay, and Emily have to be reminded, even when things seem bad, to not use magic to help out. The students of the non-magic world are running a crepe stand and the magic world students decide to chip in, and after being scolded for using their powers, they learn how to do things the old-fashioned way and appreciate the value of hard work. In the middle of all of this, Ha-chan changes costumes almost every scene. Benigyo is extremely confused by all the Halloween festivities and doesn’t understand what the girls want when they tell her to stop ruining it. They never do give her a proper explanation, but she summons a Donyokubaaru that blows air and the girls have to transform to Sapphire form to fight it off. There’s a small plot point about Mirai’s grandmother recognizing the magic school Headmaster from her own youth. At the end of the episode, it’s implied that Liko’s father has made a big breakthrough about relations between the magic and non-magic worlds, and more ancient powers. Kind of a disjointed episode.

Costumes and references: Mirai is dressed as Mofurun, Liko is dressed as a cat in an orange and purple dress, Mofurun is dressed as Cure Miracle, Chikurun is dressed as a bunny, and Ha-chan is dressed as:

an alicorn

a sarcophagus

a mummy

a sphinx

a UFO

and a thunder god (Raijin)

And just a cool thing I noticed, the final stage for the ending dance was updated with a Halloween theme. I’m really curious why, since they replaced the ending with “The Right Way to Use Magic” in the initial television broadcast of this episode, and I don’t think the Halloween version was seen in any previous or subsequent episodes.

Kirakira Precure a la Mode 37 - “Salut! Ciel is Going Back to France!?” Original air date: 22 October 2017

Ciel’s old boss, Madame Solaine, finds her and tries to get her to come back to Paris and work for her there, feeling that Ciel’s talent is wasted in this small town. Not wanting to admit that she initially came searching for her brother, and that she’s got responsibilities as a Precure, she tries to demonstrate what she likes about Ichigozaoka. Everybody is worried that Ciel is going to leave, and even lowkey encouraging her to do what’s best for her career, but she wants to stay. Ultimately she wins Madame Solaine over with a dish inspired by Ichika’s cooking style. Elisio is the antagonist of this episode but I honestly found the battle to be completely irrelevant. The most notable point for the villains is that Grave makes some kind of discovery at the end of the episode.

Costumes and references: Their costumes here are modifications to their patisserie uniforms. Ichika is a jack o’lantern, Himari is an angel, Aoi is a devil, Yukari is a cat (of course), Akira is a vampire, and Ciel is a witch.

HUGtto! Precure 38 - “Charged with Happiness! Happy Halloween!” Original air date: 28 October 2018

Hagukumi town is going to be hosting a Halloween Party, with Papple’s business providing food and entertainment. Daigan is tasked with food prep, but he gets frustrated with a very delicate task, and a visit from Bishin has him questioning his loyalties. The girls are ready to hit the town, and have even prepared costumes for Harry and Hugtan. They made a lot of costumes for Hugtan, in fact, but Ruru detects that she doesn’t really like any of them, so they ask her what she wants to be, and she responds “Pwecyua!” They set to work making her a Precure costume in short order, but an Oshimaida attack secretly requested by Daigan threatens the party. The girls transform and make a show of it to keep people’s spirits high, finishing the monster off with Cheerful Attack. Papple knows that Daigan was responsible and chides him for defecting, even momentarily, and informs him that everybody loved his food. Up at Beauty Harry, the girls finish Hugtan’s costume and show her to Harry, who briefly has a flash of Cure Tomorrow.

Costumes and references: Hana is a witch, Saaya is a lolita devil, Homare is a cowgirl, Emiru and Ruru are pirates, Harry is a werewolf (because he’s.... hairy, IDK if that was the joke), and Hugtan is dressed as Cure Yell. Foreshadowing ahoy!

Star☆Twinkle Precure 37 - “Cryptids Will Win! The Halloween Costume Contest” Original air date: 21 October 2019

Mihoshi Town is having a Halloween costume contest with prizes for best group, so everybody brings their A-game. Except Yuni, she takes the chance to walk around in her true Rainbownian form. Everybody is having fun and the girls get to explain Halloween to Yuni and Lala. Unfortunately, Kappard is hanging around, reminiscing about what happened to his planet, and he doesn’t like the festivities. Everyone thinks he’s just dressed as a sexy kappa and they want pictures with him, which annoys him even more, so he steals one arguing couple’s imagination and goes on the attack. In an effort to guide him away from all the people and hide their identities, when the girls transform, they claim to be the Mihoshi Stars and do a full Sentai roll call, finally settling the debate over Milky and Cosmo’s color designations. (I was probably one of the last people to maintain that Milky was blue by this point, tbh) They lead him away from the festivities and then try to talk him down, but all he can say is he doesn’t believe different species can live in harmony, that Lala and Yuni are living a lie by celebrating Earth customs, and he doesn’t understand this holiday at all, so they defeat him and return to the festival. Elena wins prizes as part of two different groups, but Kappard is declared the overall winner. Too bad he’s MIA. This episode doesn’t do much for the plot, but it does give a little backstory to Kappard, as we see that his planet got destroyed by a non-native species monopolizing all of their natural resources. Considering what we see of Eyewan and Tenjou in the next few episodes, it’s possible we’re aiming to redeem the villains. Hard to tell with an ongoing show.

Costumes and references: Hikaru is a yeti, Lala is a tsuchinoko, Madoka is a cat, Elena is a flower (with her family) and a cat (with Madoka and Yuni), Yuni is herself, Fuwa is a sheep I guess, and Prunce is the Michelin Man (TELL ME I’M WRONG).

Analysis

Halloween episodes, unlike Christmas episodes, don’t have as much of a running theme. Halloween is more of a dressing than an opportunity to explore feelings. The placement of these episodes in the series means that things are usually starting to ramp up, but none of them features a major conflict. In a few episodes, the fight with the villains felt downright inconsequential, while it was more meaningful in others. There was a trend in more recent years to explain the origins of Halloween, as a gathering of spirits, but otherwise there aren’t as many identifiable patterns or shifts in patterns as there were in the Christmas episodes, it’s mostly been “this is Halloween, have fun.” The Go Princess movie had the opportunity to make the most of their halloween theme, but instead they just focused on pumpkins, pumpkins, and more pumpkins without really diving into what makes Halloween as a holiday special or significant. It’s an alright movie but it’s a sour note on an excellent series that knew what it was doing. HappinessCharge probably utilized Halloween the best as a setting, using some Halloween traditions to create romantic tension, and I appreciated Maho Girls’s attempt to create a Halloween-ish fall holiday for a fictional culture, and then also bringing those people in to explore our Halloween. Since it’s a newer holiday for Precure to work with, only getting regular exposure since 2014, we might see them figure out more ways to spin Halloween in the future. Honestly I hope so, and I’ll be here to write about it for you.

Happy Halloween, everybody, and look forward to more Yes 5 coming soon. Hopefully I’ll finish that by the end of the year. Hopefully. (yeah not likely)