#address the issues within herself that were making her feel victimized by the outside world

[jureeya]

Damn i haven’t checked in on that in a while, what happened?

Ah

[desertdragon]

Hi hi hello ok here’s the EW Healer RQ review

Shorthand: It was solid in concept, but its theme is lacking in weight due to the scarcity of Fordola herself; somewhat wasted but not without its merits

Now:

1. My first issue is how the game continues to treat its politics as lukewarm, centrist, integration focused garbage, while creating narratives where these politics aggressively show they have no place there because they are radical issues being spoken of through a moderate lens. See the screenshots above. It places victims at the same footing as their oppressors and asks the two sides to simply try talking and getting along- to do otherwise is ‘extreme’. This is a major problem seen in White liberalism as well. What it really says is ‘Don’t rock the status quo’ while co-opting terms that trick others into thinking they want change.

There is a point in making money where greed takes over which leads to abuse of one’s workforce; including actual slavery of a ‘beast race’ as seen in the Copperbell Mines. When you have a council of Jeff Bezos, sitting on more money than their grandchildren will ever need, strong arming their policies over your nation and making it so human value is directly equivalent to coin, you have passed the point of being able to reason. It is wrong, and anyone with a conscious should realize force of action is the final resort we’ve arrived at. Once people have died, struggle to eat, to live, do not feel hopeful about bringing up families, there is no more discussion. Much like the position we the general population of the world feel now under flavors of capitalism.

It also feels off to have this issue brought up as if its comparable to what Arenvald and other Ala Mhigans are suffering. They were oppressed by a fascist empire for 25 years- they were shattered and must pick up the pieces, their identity was ripped from them as much as their blood; Nanamo allows the continued oppression of her people through wishy washy policy and spinelessness.

The two are no where close to similar, especially given that one is privileged in ways the other never will be. In fact one is basically taking nothing measures because real action would likely strip her of that privilege in the resulting revolution. Giving Arenvald advice from a regressive and self congratulating stand point that pats itself on the back for platitudes while people die in the street is just...I feel like whoever wrote it has never been broke or oppressed. Equally as likely is that this is continuing how SE has become, a fully capitalist money hungry machine.

I’ll never get tired of the Ballot or the Bullet speech and as an anecdote I recommend a listen, even if you aren’t a Black person there is still wisdom to relate to on these sorts of issues. Also Malcolm X was a brilliant man. A relevant quote would be: “As long as you think in that sit-down thought, you’ll be in some sit-down action. They’ll have you sittin’ in everywhere.”

2. I enjoyed addressing the way people within an ethnic group will turn on one another when given a third party oppressor who denies their survival. This is an extremely real issue which any Person of Color will recognize after generations of it burned into you, especially the Black community. It is covered pretty basically but I expected that given that SE is a company interested in profits and appeasement. As time passes I imagine someone would get fired if they wrote with the full depth needed for some of these topics.

So the fact it was addressed with a level of dignity was a nice scrap. It makes sense that these people need to learn to heal by reuniting their shared trauma from their oppressor, it makes sense that we recognize the way desperation pushes people to go into fight or flight. These things hurt, they take generations to repair, and they represent when an outside force inflicts inhuman pain on people who are then left to ask ‘Why?’. I enjoyed everyone resolving to recognize and unite over their shared scars. This is something another group, abusers, put them through. The memorial was a good idea.

Now this is the thing, it made sense to do this for Ala Mhigans, because as I said they were conquered, oppressed, then divided under fascism. They were forced into extremes just to eat and keep their children alive- when their very worth as human beings was broken and beaten, their culture erased, whitewashed. It made no sense applying this to Garleans in the MSQ because they started the oppression they inflicted. You don't get to cry "What about us?" while you invade someone's home and kill them without even an apology.

They are instead forever responsible for their actions, their armies, their ideologies, their weapons, their propaganda filled view etc. They have the trauma of what they’ve done to their victims, and to conduct themselves in a way that evolves past that old barbarism. Much like Germany, or Whites. Nobody put it on them, they’ve entrenched it in themselves, and that requires nuanced understanding of the difference.

It was good seeing the Ala Mhigans start getting their due as an oppressed people, and this one thread gave them more importance than Stormblood did, however small.

3. Fordola.

Fordola.

For a narrative where her position is the entire pin of the theme, she’s only a player at the very beginning and end. The initial situation where for some reason Raubahn sent her to do aid, like her very presence wouldn’t be a psychological trigger for unstable victims and herself, was undeniably hamfisted as it was stupid. I’ve already said things in my initial reaction, but now that I’m here maybe they thought having her thrown into poorly set up exposure therapy was enough. Maybe it was just another way to bench a female character out of her narrative so men can do the heavy screen time work. Maybe its both, I don’t know.

Regardless she should have been pulled from the front, logically, then she should’ve been there with Arenvald on his diplomacy tour. She should’ve either helped in writing his letter for the memorial or just reacted to it. She should’ve at least heard and asked questions about what was discussed at the memorial since she didn’t feel worthy of attending it.

The whole story is for people like her, traitors of their home out of survival. Why isn’t her input on how her captives/countrymen/future leaders will treat her given center stage? You can’t say a narrative will be about healing the most hurt minority then not have a character from that minority be involved in the conversation about themselves.

Not only that but pulling her from fighting to engage in diplomacy puts both her and the people who'd suffer from her presence out of harms way; it would also show her a way of communicating that for once in her life doesn't involve degradation and physical risk.

If they still wanted to involve people fighting off screen which is what they relegated Fordola to instead, then that's the job of Ala Mhigan soldiers. That's what they're there for; if they wanted to include something for a Healer to do with them then have them get hurt or take casualties and have to be treated by the player beyond that initial quest.

And it sucks because she steals what scenes she is in. It's clear her past weighs on her to the point of nearly transforming and dying multiple times. She's been severely traumatized by both herself and the Empire, and still has the conscious to seek righting that wrong because of guilt. It's made her suicidal through and through, which is only righted when M'nnago tells her if she dies before making progress and doing the hard work of atoning the rest of her life, then she changes nothing and heals nothing. Death here is the coward's way out.

Seeing the selflessness Fordola hides too when her first instinct was to save a girl from being attacked, or take responsibility for putting down Charlet, or her ability to sympathize with people or degrade herself because under everything she wants love, makes me so mad we didn't get more. She would've been so perfect if she were involved in the story!

And had she been involved, M'nnago telling her the entire moral here would've landed and made more sense rather than come at the last minute when you never got to see Fordola take that journey to reach that conclusion. Instead it's just shouted at her and she's like Yeah You're Right. It feels like they dangled her in the promotional material just to bait people into playing it. You want to see Fordola and instead you get an hour of men talking. And then when you do see Fordola there's such a rich tragic but hopeful character waiting to be explored. But the same way people in her life threw her away, she's ignored by her own creators.

That ending quest where Fordola sees her friends ghosts only landed for me because I liked Fordola already. If I didn't or if I had no idea of the context of her, then it happening looks out of place. And even as a fan it would've hit harder if she made more appearances beforehand rather than making me go 'Damn.' then moving on. Her being friendly with the girl she saved and her mother would've had more impact.

Anything that involved breaking her shell and looking at her with a human eye rather than a trauma piece and letting her keep her defensive walls, would've been helpful. It's clear she has a heart. There's no reason to not let her embrace it, when her narrative is about getting better. Characters talk on how she should just be better because they have her under surveillance and a collar on her neck rather than...provide her the tools and human connection to be better.

I liked the 0.5 seconds she was on my screen so slay queen 💖

Anyway Uh, W o m e n

[comrade-meow]

Spell-caster's notebook, 2nd half of the 19th century - 1st quarter of the 20th century, Haute-Saône. Photo credit: Musées départementaux de la Haute-Saône

“When total war is being waged with words, one must make up one’s mind to engage in another kind of ethnography.”

—Jeanne Favret-Saada, Deadly Words: Witchcraft in the Bocage (1977)

One of the best studies of the power of language and its relationship to violence is Jeanne Favret-Saada’s Deadly Words: Witchcraft in the Bocage (1977). In this groundbreaking ethnography, Favret-Saada discusses how witchcraft employs language to gain power and catch the subject within a web of words. For Favret-Saada, the ethnographer is the unwitcher who lets herself become entangled within a network of power in which words create spells. She calls this being “caught.” For “those who haven't been caught” spells simply “don’t exist” (15).

Similar to Favret-Saada’s work on witchcraft in France, today’s cultural-political economy is immersed in another politicisation of language. This time the catching of subjects, government and institutions is happening in the public sphere under the guise of linguistically codifying identity. All this necessarily relies upon a previous “bewitching” of subjects who are willing to recycle the language of the magical spells despite the absence of evidence.

In witchcraft, language becomes the contested space that Favret-Saada rightfully notes as having taken hostage the very premise of communication, writing, “[I]t is no longer truth or error that is in question, but the possibility of communicating.” Addressing those who have been caught within the spell of language—the bewitched and the suffering—Favret-Saada asks:

In what way are the bewitched right when they say they are suffering? And the unwitchers, when they say they “take it all” on themselves? (And what of the alleged witches, who remain obstinately silent, or claim they do not believe in spells?) What, then, is at stake when such a discourse is being used? These questions led to other, more fundamental ones, about the effect of spoken words and the very rationale of this discourse: why is talking in this way so like the most effective kind of act? How do words kill as surely as a bullet? Why do people talk rather than fight or die, why do they use precisely these terms? And why this kind of language rather than another? If one talks in terms of witchcraft, it must be that the same things cannot be said any other way. (13)

Although Favret-Saada asks these questions about rural Normandy of the 1970s and the role of the ethnographer in studying her own culture, we can easily expand upon Favret-Saada’s premise here. For as she posits in the Bocage that one need not believe in sorcery, there is an accounting that takes place by virtue of the group’s symbolic code where “you have to be caught to believe” and where those who haven’t been “caught” have no place speaking about spells. Favret-Saada poses this question to herself: “What ultimate authority could I invoke, in talking about spells to a bewitched person or an unwitcher?” Does being an insider lend to the currency of language and belief such that any interaction with an outsider necessarily invokes a turf war over space, bodies and language?

For Favret-Saada, words do not merely represent or communicate beliefs—they have noticeable effects on the vitality and well-being of both the bewitched and the dewitcher. Where her work examines how words “kill” and “heal,” today we are in the throes of a culture war where the claim—contrary to fact—of words causing death, of words being “literal violence” are now thrust to the fore. Indeed, words are laden with such potential for “violence” today that many think twice before speaking or writing. The mere accusation of violence has become the negative reinforcement of a movement that has been allowed to make up facts, statistics and now even the very non-reality of violence.

If we are to move forward through the current debates over gender, race, and various other orbiting identities whose moral framework rests almost uniquely upon claims of victimhood, often in direct opposition to material fact, we must return to some of the primal tenets of reason posed during the Enlightenment. We are in the throes of a society caught within a hall of mirrors—many of which are firmly and uniquely fixed within the virtual world of social media—where the narcissistic output is unparalleled even by a three-year-old having a strop on the playground. Where words are “violence” and opinions akin to “murder,” we are witnessing the conflicts created when a direct antagonism between perceived identity and material reality is met on the social stage.

In order to understand what is driving this culture of identifying with oppression—often feigning oppression—our task must be to address those who claim to be suffering. While the subjects caught in the spell of words have been at the centre of media and political attention in recent years, these communities rely upon the language “witchcraft” to divorce themselves even further from ontological and empirical reality while surrendering themselves to a language that holds no resemblance to the material world. There is something to be said for the punishing efforts of these lobbies which seek to project phobias and other -isms into any thoughtful debate or prose on issues of “race” and gender.

Favret-Saada noted that those who resist the language of sorcery will be made to suffer. Today, we must ask ourselves if those fighting for the recognition of their identities even if the older remedies of psychiatry or religion have failed:

The priest and the doctor have faded out long ago when the unwitcher is called. The unwitcher’s task is first to authenticate his patient’s sufferings and his feeling of being threatened in the flesh; second, it is to locate, by close examination, the patient’s vulnerable spots. It is as if his own body and those of his family, his land and all his possessions make up a single surface full of holes, through which the witch’s violence might break in at any moment. (8)

This study considers how the aporia left by the fading grip of religion and medicine has been filled by outside forces coming to confirm the subject: the suffering subject. Having worked with those who were caught up in a spell, the dewitchers and the wives and families affected by witchcraft, Favret-Saada notes how suffering forms the core of how witchcraft is exercised in this community and she explores the reasons for this suffering.

Today, suffering is undergoing a cultural redefinition in the west through the recycling of historical tropes of violence and oppression injected throughout identity politics. Unlike the distant witchcraft of Favret-Saada's fieldwork, historical atrocities cannot simply be cut and paste into a present-day reality in order to rejuvenate a fresh violent act of suffering through which the subject identifies. Where Favret-Saada shows how working with the bewitched and their unwitchers implicates the constant manoeuvring of “good and evil," she claims that all unwitching "is impossible to cure without switching to a position of indirect violence.” Violence is a discursive marker for Favret-Saada where "he who does not attack automatically becomes the victim."

To understand the political forces that revive discourses of racism and sexism today by those claiming victimhood, we must ask those suffering why they suffer. Then, we must also ask why the spell involves converting others to their ideology so that the subject might suffer less. The symptom of suffering that we see by those claiming to have a gender identity, for instance, is inextricably linked to their need for others to mirror their self-image through language. This is similar to what Favret-Saada claims about dewitching, “a technique that neutralizes and exteriorizes venomous self-doubt." There are clear ideological manoeuvres meant to inscribe healing through fiat.

We need to understand how people weaponise emotionally-laden discourse today. The public shaming of those who do not confirm the suffering or pronouns of another seems to be part of a larger network of “sorcery” where the current structural functioning of our society rewards those individuals who engage in the aforementioned language games while punishing those who refuse.

Favret-Saada’s identification of power as the primary element in the effectiveness of ritual forms is a crucial contribution to our understanding of such rituals. Still, we can see the pitfalls of reducing the language of witchcraft to a tidy binary of the subject who suffers and the dewitcher who does violence. Where “the sufferer can choose to interpret his ills in the language of witchcraft,” it is also the case that those who do not claim to suffer are deemed de facto oppressors.

Where oppression is a historical and current-day fact, the truly oppressed subject is mostly not heard. What time has the underpaid or economically destitute worker to chime in on Twitter or to write her local politician? We are captured within a political field where segments of the population use words like “literal violence” to refer to another group whose push back on their notion of oppression. Those who use the stage of oppression in order to be heard are as numerous as is their narcissism expansive. When the media prints that something is “oppression” or “murder” today, we can pretty much bet that what is being communicated is invariably the opposite. In a world where narratives of oppression have taken hold of democratic processes with fury and where the mere claim to victimhood is tantamount to fact, we must concede that we are living in a post-truth era.

Emotions are given enormous weight over facts in media today and all it takes for one to be considered oppressed is to use the “magical spell” of language. The only way out of this chasm between truth and narcissism is to revert to the institutions of science, philosophy, journalism and law. Let us not forget that long before smartphones it was possible—even pleasant—to have heated discussions over a meal with friends and strangers, everyone chiming in with their thoughts and disagreement.

We must reject illogical, illiberal hokum being fed us as the "new progressive" language of the day and instead we should return to the table of dinnertime debate where facts outweigh feelings and where individuals are held accountable for good-faith debate. I have often wondered if the current popular authoritarianism would have ever taken hold without the cloaked anonymity that social media affords. Still, I am quite certain that the current stifling of free speech, academic debate and the media's drive of anti-science narratives are all directly linked to the fact that politicians are not held to account for their performances that have zero political vaue. From AOC's sporting her "tax the rich" dress at the Met Gala for which attendees paid £25789 to attend to David Lammy who claims that males have cervixes, the left is in dire straits with a political class of professional liars who use words to bewitch us all.

I suspect that were the online debate moved to the salon or dining room, we would all be able to see the ruffian sulking silently in the corner, angrily seething because his arguments were unconvincing. His fist banging on the table evidence his every iteration as less rational and credible than the one before. As he struggles to bully all those in disagreement around him, his turbulent behaviour reveals him to be fundamentally an irritable prig who harbours deep-seated misogyny and homophobia.

Real-life interactions are part of the remedy to the addiction-addled cycles of social media use. We cannot replace the vacuum left by religion's demise with political or ideological orthodoxy any more than we can unwitch the possessed who identify with their fictional oppressions.

One of the options we have at our disposal is to unplug and go outside. I’m heading there now. Come join me.

[bestworstcase]

Hi, I really love your thoughts and analysis on tts so I wanted to ask if you have read The Vanishing Village Book? It made me really think about Eugene's character. I sorta disliked him in the book and felt his relationship with Rapunzel was different and strained. I guess my question is if you think Eugene is a good character? I feel that I am biased for liking the story and relationship between Cassandra and Rapunzel so perhaps I am not seeing him in a fair light but there's just factors that make me feel he might not be the best for Rapunzel. I love their relationship and value & dedication towards each other but their relationship can feel a bit stale sometimes and Eugene can come off as not understanding and dismissive towards Rapunzel sometimes so ig I'd like to be proven wrong and be reminded that Eugene is good for Rapunzel

i have read vanishing village (and i remember liking it better than lost lagoon) but i have to admit i don’t remember anything but the very broad strokes of the plot, so i don’t feel equipped to do any analysis of eugene based on it; that being said -

i do really like eugene as a character in the sense that he is. interesting / engaging / compelling, which yeah to my mind that’s what makes a “good character” but also has nothing to do with the, kind of, moral or personal question of but is he a good guy or is he likable or sympathetic or that kind of thing. and on that my feelings are more ambivalent kfjfjdhs

on the one hand i do find his relationship with rapunzel in tts to be fairly refreshing. it’s nice to see a fictional m/f couple that is just… comfortable with each other, friends with each other, able to talk about their problems collaboratively with each other. that is so rare in fiction, where the tendency is so often to rely on miscommunication to manufacture relationship drama or do the will they won’t they, on again off again nonsense which is just so tiresome - and it feels good to have a m/f couple that eschews that altogether. and it’s also imo really nice that the m/f relationship fades so much into the background vis a vis the wider plot, which i know is not necessarily a popular opinion [vague gestures at all the ‘eugene was sidelined’ discourse] but, like, i feel like i can count on one hand the number of stories i know where the female protagonist *has a male love interest* without the story being ABOUT him, and with the male love interest filling this supportive narrative role while quietly and subtly dealing with his own problems on the side? it’s so difficult to find stories where men aren’t centered and so i appreciate eugene and new dream a lot for that reason too.

but at the same time like - eugene def falls victim to the plot-driven writing just like every other character does and that frustrates me because i think ultimately having all these loose threads hanging with him means his character feels a bit stagnant, and that in turn makes his flaws more glaring because they’re never… worked on or addressed, they just sort of persist or silently fade away for the most part. (which again, is true of literally every character because the storytelling of tts is highly plot driven and episodic)

& that phenomenon can make character interpretation a little convoluted, because… well the intentions of the narrative are signaled pretty baldly (eugene grows out of his selfishness and becomes a compassionate hard working leader for corona, which he has embraced as his home) without having much if any on-screen development to back it up (indeed the premise of flynnposter involves eugene shirking his new responsibilities, and then it concludes with a commitment from him to take the captain gig seriously - but thereafter the only time we get to see this demonstrated through him encouraging project obsidian [which makes him look the opposite of compassionate or responsible given he is excitedly planning to extrajudicially murder cassandra] and then joining the fight against zhan tiri [which literally everyone in corona does]). so do we take what the textual development shows us and conclude that eugene is, at the end of the day, just another cop, or do we take the narrative signaling as a given and fill in the textual gaps with our own imaginations? i tend to fall heavier on the textual side but i do try to take intentions into consideration when they are signaled so clearly, because i understand the structural and corporate limitations on what the tts team were able to do with the story.

anyways - i also have some fraught feelings about new dream because, in the film, it’s not a relationship that i can buy into at all. rapunzel is 17, a few days shy of 18, when an adult man in his mid-twenties tumbles into her bedroom, hits on her, tries to take advantage of her naïveté so he can recover his stolen goods and screw her over because he’s spent his life cultivating an attitude of selfish disregard for anyone but himself, but she’s so sweet he decides to give emotional vulnerability a try and within three days they’re in love and then they get MARRIED?? and he’s literally the first person rapunzel has ever met who wasn’t her “mother”? excuse me???

and i get the impression the tts team was fully cognizant of that problem and made a real effort to address it, as much as they could within the context of the designated disney princess couple - that’s how we get things like the BEA proposal and rapunzel and eugene talking their feelings out afterwards and agreeing to take things slower, and that’s how we get things like rapunzel having cass and eugene having lance so they have lives and identities and relationships outside of each other, and it’s why eugene has a little arc of becoming less self-absorbed in the front half of s1 and why cassandra overtly criticizes his treatment of rapunzel in BEA and so on and so forth. like no one says it OUT LOUD in the series but rapunzel’s and eugene’s relationship is fraught with peril because of the way they met and came together, and it takes significant emotional work from both of them to navigate that to arrive at a healthy place, and i enjoy watching that play out.

so yeah eugene is sometimes too in his own head to notice when something is wrong with rapunzel, like how he misses how unhappy she is in BEA because *he’s* so jazzed about palace living, and sometimes they struggle to get on the same page with each other in general; but that’s just, kind of the gig where relationships are concerned. what matters to me is that whenever these hiccups happen we see, typically some confusion or distress from him or rapunzel or both, and then they reach out for each other and talk about it until they reach an understanding, which is the correct healthy way to manage this sort of conflict in a relationship. and of course through it all eugene is pretty unflagging in his absolute support of rapunzel - even if he doesn’t always *express it* in a good way, he is always very invested in rapunzel’s happiness and well-being. like even the BEA proposal, eugene’s fuck up lies in assuming that rapunzel felt the same way he did about everything and that proposing now would make her happy - there’s self-absorption there but not to the point where he isn’t concerned about her feelings, so when he upsets her he immediately realizes that he screwed up and shelves his own feelings to focus on hers, which is very Good Partner of him.

and then again on a metatextual level i do kind of hate that rapunzel’s arc is essentially, trapped in corona -> adventure! -> adventure is traumatic time to go home -> exact same circumstances she started in but she’s happy about it now. not to say i object to rapunzel embracing her role as a princess/queen per se, but in an ideal world i would like that to come from a place of rapunzel remaking her role to suit herself rather than just kind of… this ‘well got the wanderlust out of my system forever!’ vibe i get from plus est. this isn’t directly related to eugene at all but i think it does splash over onto him on account of him being so closely intertwined with her life in corona. if rapunzel were given an arc about tearing down institutions that stifled her in s1 and really rebuilding corona to be better (something that is lightly implied in canon but never quite makes its way to outright text) then of course eugene would have been her number one supporter - but she doesn’t get that arc and so eugene ends up just kind of being there while rapunzel settles into the role laid out for her. (the destiny narrative being played painfully straight in this regard doesn’t help either.)

this is all a bit of a ramble but i guess what i’m getting at is i think at the end of the day the thing that makes new dream feel a bit stale or stagnant is the series sticking to this aggressively pro-monarchy, status quo is good, mass market appeal narrative enforced by the reality of Disney Princess Show, and that’s not eugene’s fault or any character’s fault, it’s a corporate issue and writing issue.

oh and also personally i think eugene’s biggest flaw in the new dream relationship is he has a tendency to enable rapunzel’s worst impulses via unquestioning support - a little healthy skepticism can be very good for a relationship vs just being your partner’s yes man. so when i imagine a character trajectory for him post-series it involves eugene getting more comfortable pushing back when rapunzel is pursuing ideas that are bad in some way.

[thefudge]

Just out of curiosity, did you read JK's essay? I don't support everything in it but many parts resonated with me. Not to mention the horrific online abuse hurled at her, especially the countless, countless "choke on my dick" phrases thrown at her which are so violently misogynistic, it left me with a deep seated feeling of not only discomfort but fear as well. Idk I guess I just felt safe sending this because your blog seems more open to discussion from the other side instead of instant cancel.

i’m glad you think so about this blog and i hope that remains the case.

i didn’t have a chance to read JK’s essay until today (my previous ask about her was written before that) but here are some very, very imperfect thoughts on it:

the essay confirmed my previous take that she has inoculated herself against certain outside arguments but it’s also made me wonder about JK’s understanding of gender and sex. She is very attached to “natal women” and calling all people who menstruate “women” because of “common experiences”, despite the fact that her beloved de Beauvoir, whom she quotes in the essay extensively, acknowledged that “woman” is a social construct. JK herself at one point complains about having to comply with the rules of femininity while growing up and how it made her want to stop being female, so what is the truth? She argues that young girls shouldn’t be thinking about transitioning just because they are made to hate their femaleness but that’s!!! exactly what!!! pushing the term “woman” as sacrosanct does to girls!!! most of what JK felt in her childhood was the kind of misogyny which connects women strictly to their uterus. it made being male a better alternative precisely because of the gate-keeping of penis/vagina. a young girl who acted like a tomboy, for instance, would be criticized for trying to deny her sex, because deep down her biology still made her a “woman”. both sex and gender cannot be divorced from socio-cultural realities, because we act with our bodies and embody what we act. so, if we expand what it means to be a “man” and a “woman”, we liberate, not confine. JK wants young people to feel free to be whoever they want to be, but they must be called “women” when discussing menstruation or else (i won’t even go into the obvious addition that many cis and trans women exist who cannot or no longer menstruate).

Now, she does bring up some fair points about cancel culture and freedom of expression that I will level with, but the problem is that the nuancing she is trying to achieve also serves as weirdly specific dog-whistling. So let me address that:

(warning: spoilers for the Cormoran Strike series)

Right off the bat, we have this explanation added in her intro: 

“On one level, my interest in this issue has been professional, because I’m writing a crime series, set in the present day, and my fictional female detective is of an age to be interested in, and affected by, these issues herself (...)”  

and already, i’m asking questions. how is Robin Ellacott, one of the protagonists of the Strike series, “affected" by these issues, personally? she’s “of an age” to...what? be gender critical? there’s not a lot of that in the novels (unless you count Robin being tall and knowing how to drive well being framed as anti-girly...).  How does crime relate to it? How is she connected to this really? 

the real connection JK wants us to see because she’ll reveal it later in the essay is that Robin was r*ped in college. she’s a sexual assault survivor, which must make her critically engaged with the fate of trans women because....because underneath JK’s empty statement about her female detective....is the correlation that men “disguised” as trans women can perpetrate the same sort of horrific abuse.  she keeps making this correlation throughout the essay.

Here she talks about various people who’ve reached out to her:

They’re worried about the dangers to young people, gay people and about the erosion of women’s and girl’s rights. Above all, they’re worried about a climate of fear that serves nobody – least of all trans youth – well.

And again here:

“So I want trans women to be safe. At the same time, I do not want to make natal girls and women less safe. When you throw open the doors of bathrooms and changing rooms to any man who believes or feels he’s a woman – and, as I’ve said, gender confirmation certificates may now be granted without any need for surgery or hormones – then you open the door to any and all men who wish to come inside. That is the simple truth.”

This one is my favorite because it’s so twisted (here she’s listing her charity work):

“The second reason is that I’m an ex-teacher and the founder of a children’s charity, which gives me an interest in both education and safeguarding. Like many others, I have deep concerns about the effect the trans rights movement is having on both.”

“safeguarding”

hmmmm

What JK wants to spell out with these “common sense” arguments is that she fears that trans women are predatory, and the most convincing argument she can bring, ultimately, is that she herself has been the victim of sexual abuse and therefore, that potential fear never goes away. That’s a very dangerous leap to make. The climate of “fear” she mentions is also connected to cancel culture, of course. She fears women won’t be able to express their opinions online without receiving various amounts of vitriol. But you see how she has merged all three issues together? So that if you agree with one, you must agree with the others. Because yes, cancel culture often goes too far, and yes it is a real issue, but to say that the trans community shutting her down foments the same atmosphere of “fear” as boogie trans women hurting children in bathrooms and her being abused by her cis husband… that’s a veeery slippery slope. Instead of sticking to “freedom of speech” and whatnot, she keeps correlating these issues that should not be correlated (some of them being false issues, as well).  

Is there too much opprobrium around discussions of trans identity? Yes. Are there worthy discussions to be had about young women, homophobia and gender dysphoria? Absolutely. Can being trans become a fashionable trend/identity among kids, like the bygone goth and emo labels? Sure, but these discussions shouldn’t be had at the expense of trans people who have to constantly prove that they “mean” it. Because by stringing up all these issues together, JK is saying “the kids don’t know any better, and the adults are faking it”. Yes, cancel culture is impeding dialogue, yes, we shouldn’t shy away from discussing young teens’ identity problems, but if you pile up all of these things in a giant “trans women are the problem and they might be predatory too” milkshake, you won’t get anywhere.

I want to come back to this quote:

The second reason is that I’m an ex-teacher and the founder of a children’s charity, which gives me an interest in both education and safeguarding. Like many others, I have deep concerns about the effect the trans rights movement is having on both.

Beyond the (in my opinion) not very tasteful enumeration of things she’s done to help, JK’s mention of “education” there is veeery interesting. On the one hand, she probably feels that schools will try to censor “free speech”, but on the other hand, I bet she’s also concerned schools will not do enough censoring, so that impressionable kids become pressured into adopting a trans identity. You see how it flips on a dime? What does she ultimately want children to learn about this? Does she want them to be kept in the dark completely? Does she want them to be allowed to critique or invalidate trans identities without being censored? On this second point, things get complicated. Schools and institutions will naturally censor free speech.  Kids are there to learn how to express that free speech; they will be told “hey, don’t say that to your colleague, it’s not very kind” or “you need to structure your argument appropriately instead of just saying “I don’t like it””. Is there room for criticism in how schools operate that benevolent censorship? Obviously. Hell, Foucault & co. have been talking about this for decades. So what does this argument about education ultimately mean? What are we protecting the kids from? Imo, it goes back to that covert argument about sexual violence.    

Since I’m a teacher too, I’ll talk about my own experience: I brought some texts to my undergrad class about the trans experience with the goal of 1) building empathy, because literature is the grand unifier of experience and 2) showing different literary perspectives which i also included within literary theory. ultimately, the trans experience is about being human. we were learning about being human, nothing more, nothing less. if younger kids end up treating it as a fad it means that a) they need more, not less education,  b) parents and schools should work together to make them understand that being trans is not the same as being “emo”, for instance. this partially resembles the trend of white kids adopting black culture just because it’s cool, but not actually engaging with the black experience. who do you sanction for this? black people? because in this analogy, the trans community should be responsible for children not benefiting from education and parental support.

oh, I know what JK is saying. the trans community is responsible for shutting down conversations about this. it’s part of the general climate of tiptoeing around trans issues. yes, here I can agree with her that Twitter discourse either helps build sympathy or loathing for the “cancelled” person instead of seriously grappling with what that person has done. it’s the nature of Twitter and I hate it, but to go from that to saying women and young girls are in danger from other “fake” women really undermines her own argument. There are normal pitfalls as we try to incrementally do some good in this world. Cancel culture and the deplatforming and ruining of lives of certain individuals will not promote the cause and is certainly to be frowned upon, but JK will be absolutely fine. there are hashtags right now like “istandwithJK” and there’s a slew of people who support her. the misogyny she faces is deplorable, but we shouldn’t conflate valid criticism with trollish vulgarities. I don’t want to minimize the dangers of online culture; I know people have lost jobs and livelihood, but that is a discussion to be had under different parameters, admitting the responsibility of both parties (for example, maya forstater realizing that maybe saying some hurtful things about public figures and proudly talking about the “delusion” of transwomen will come back to bite her in the ass) and the fact that under capitalism, your job is always at the whim of appearances and simulacrums. essentially, you are the job. this is a state of things that deserves a larger discussion not on the back of the trans community. should we live in a world where you are allowed to say anything, free of consequences? some of us do, because we can say whatever we want in our head, in our room, in our house (other ppl aren’t so lucky), but the trouble starts in the public sphere. even if we wanted to build a public sphere where everything goes, we’d be at each other’s throats in five seconds anyway because we’re human. the most we can do is educate and correct where we can.  “facts don’t care about your feelings” discourse is often not informed by facts at all and forgets the vital importance of feelings.

anyway, that’s my incomplete take. still lots to think about and debate. ultimately, i think any fair points JK brought up were tainted by other bad-faith arguments and i wish she’d use this time to self-reflect because this isn’t a topic that should be breezed past in 3k words. nor should young trans ppl be called “adorable” (facepalm). i myself have many questions and constantly grapple with all of this, but since she’s a writer (and for better or worse, i still like her books), she is in a perfect position to investigate the matter with kindness and stop giving ultimatums. and i hope this post fosters discussion and doesn’t shut anyone down.

( forgot to mention that other nifty subplot in the Strike series about these really unlikable kids who are transabled and experience BID ( Body integrity dysphoria)  and want to have a disability. Strike is super-offended by them since he’s genuinely disabled and we as readers are meant to think they’re real pieces of shit, and while transableism is suuuuper complicated and my thoughts on it vary wildly, i do think those BID kids also stand in for other folks in her mind..again, food for thought.)

[luminescentlyricist]

♎ Guillotine ♎

Terezi was a woman of law. She knew what was right and what was wrong, most of the time, and she could smell a red herring from miles away. She didn't need her eyesight to tell her that. Her dragon-headed cane, the one that concealed deadly blades, hung loosely at her side. Terezi was too busy addressing the court, by which she was arguing with her scalemates in her hive, all alone. She ignored the insistent buzzing of her friend's notifications on Trollian. She had much more important issues to address. She thought that her buddies would know that by now. They knew how seriously she took her work, and had aspirations akin to Karkat's strong will to be a Threshecutioner. Terezi willed for the building of justice, as well as her need to perform it.

She glared at the plush dragon who was all too guilty, detesting the snivelling fool in front of her nose. Her glasses did nothing to obscure the blind hatred with which she looked at the simple toy. The tealblood knew, however innocent they pleaded, they were guilty of much more than just crime. The noose hanging from the tree outside her windows was free of blood and plush-guts, and ready to be stained once more in the name of highest justice. Her steps were slow and deliberately so as she circled her prey. She paid no mind to the fact that the scalemate wasn't a real being, let alone a troll. Any plush or toy, any friend or foe, was real enough when they turned out to be a victim of Terezi's judgement. She sniffed the air, wrinkling her nose after.

"YOUR D3C13T ST1NKS, S3N4TOR L3MONSNOUT. 1'LL BR1NG YOU TO JUST1C3. 4S 4LW4YS."

Terezi growled, her voice low and dripping with a quiet venom. It could be considered ridiculous how seriously she could take her court games, just how many plushes she had destroyed at her whims, but she wished for nothing else. Terezi wasn't phased by the harsh comments she received on that front, and never intended to let them get to her, as she knew how much enjoyment she gleaned from doing such things. It was training to become a legislacerator in her eyes, anyway. It was her sworn duty to protect the world she lived in from wrongdoing. She knew that no one else, not even Latula, would rise to the challenge of bringing those who needed it to their rightful place. Though it was a one-troll justice system, It was more than enough for her.

"1T'S 4 SH4M3. YOU COULD H4V3 B33N 4 V4LU4BL3 4SS3T TO TH3 COURT, H4D YOU NOT B3TR4Y3D M3 SO BR4Z3NLY. DO YOU F1N4LLY W4NT TO PUSH 4W4Y YOUR COW4RD1C3, TO 4DM1T YOUR WRONGDO1NG? DO YOU R34L1S3 4ND W1SH TO STAND UP 4G41NST TH3 COURT'S WORDS, THOUGH 1T WOULD B3 INCR3D1BLY 1N4DV1S4BL3 TO DO SO?"

The toy, of course, made no effort to reply. Tensions were thick in the air nonetheless, and Terezi narrowed her dulled red eyes at the dragon who she couldn't see. She muttered under her breath, her fingers twining together and unlacing as her brain worked. She debated whether she should get another, fresher noose, to give her latest charge a gentler passing, even though he had committed many, many crimes against her and the rest of her friends. She was mulling over what knot to tie, which would be the most secure. She ran her fingers along the careful stitching - courtesy of Kanaya - around Lemonsnout's stomach and neck. The dragon had escaped her so many times, regardless of how many stitches she felt. It infuriated her, and she longed to condemn them to the gallows once and for all.

"TH3S3 ST1TCH3S W1LL NOT L4ST MUCH LONG3R. B3 GR4T3FUL FOR WH4T L1TTL3 T1M3 1'M G1V1NG YOU, THOUGH 1 TH1NK 1T 1S F4R TOO MUCH. S4Y YOUR GOODBY3S, 4ND B3 QUICK 4BOUT 1T B3FOR3 I MAK3 YOU S1GHTL3SS. CONS1D3R, NOW, TH3 P41N 1T BR1NGS M3 B3FOR3 YOU F33L 1T. 1 KNOW TOO W3LL TH4T YOU DO NOT C4R3 FOR SUCH TH1NGS, BUT 4LLOW M3 MY HOLLOW HOP3S."

She muttered this, sorrow lacing her tone, the likes of which was barely contained beneath a seething anger. Her emotional response was somewhat... unbecoming, considering the fact that she was directing it towards the condemned. Terezi forced her sadness down into her body, away from her eyes that threatened to spill tears. She was gifted in hiding such things, knowing very well that she wouldn't be able to show such empathy, a recognition for her own suffering and others, if she were to command the gallows. Clearing her throat, the tealblood narrowed her sharp gaze down at the dragon, all traces of sadness and emotion swept away within an instant. It was frightening, almost, just how quickly it had happened. Terezi had clearly had practice.

Her fingers curled tighter around the head of her cane, and she raised her head, calling loud enough that the entire court would be able to hear her. They would have been, anyway, had there been a court with functioning ears. The pile of stuffed animals before her were capable of giving her no true input, and it was only up to her imagination to decide, within reason, whether the defendant was guilty or innocent. The dragons were all grouped by scent and taste. As gross as it had seemed, though she knew that the materials that her friends inside her hive had not been made of tasty things, she licked them all anyway. She had discovered, rather quickly, that none tasted nice at all. She had sorted them due to scent anyway, having been able to smell their true colours. Not the ones their scales were at all.

"TH3 COURT M4Y D1SP3RS3 FOR 4 BR13F R3C3SS WH1L3 TH3 D3F3ND4NT S4YS TH31R GOODBY3S."

She announced, dragging her fingers down her face afterwards in a tired gesture. Her voice once more rung loud and clear, and it wasn't obvious at all that there had been any sadness. The choking feeling, the welling of tears, it was all... distant. However ridiculous it seemed that the Pyrope was getting worked up over a fictional court case, it felt real to her. Though her blindness did little to set her back in the world she was born to, she still felt like the hive-based, plush courtroom mimics were her only chance. Doubts were heavy in her mind at all times, despite her intense longing for the title of legislacerator. She had worked for all of her six sweeps, worked hard. She had no need for troll-braille, but still felt self-conscious whenever she went to the bookhive with her sightless gaze.

A huff passed her lips, her fingers still at work. She seemed only to be fidgeting, but she had decided on her verdict within mere moments. Terezi was simply preparing herself for the undoubted struggle that her victim would put up when she took them to be hung. She would make sure that the yellow plush didn't escape her clutches ever again, and was mulling once again over the knot that she'd tie. Her eyes swept to her defenceless defendant, a small and coy smile gracing her expression that had seemed so morose, so reluctant a mere moment ago. Though she couldn't see them, she sensed their fear as quickly as any other troll would see a cowering face. The troll's training had paid off in that trial, and it had done so infallibly once more. Terezi began to unpick the stitches, letting her prey 'bleed out', leaning closer. Her voice was a hiss in their unhearing ears.

"L3MONSNOUT, LOY4L S3N4TOR TO PYRALSP1T3 ONLY, YOU H4V3 B33N FOUND GUILTY, GUILTY 4S CH4RG3D."

[hellzyeahwebwielingessays]

The Not-So-Amazing Mary Jane Part 26: AMJ #2.2

Previous Part

Next Part

Master Post

It’s a little pointless giving you context for this post. We are picking up where we left off last time so simply read the prior instalment.

On the next page we get into yet more problems. MJ states to ‘Cage’ (whom she refers to as ‘Quentin’) that the potential investors see them as a major risk.  She comments that it’s better for them to find the right  investor who believes in the project, as opposed to what ‘Cage’ did before. Namely, lying about the project in order to attain funding.

MJ is then taken aback when Beck proceeds to drop the Cage McKnight façade and reveal himself as Mysterio on the street. As Mysterio he unleashes some of his trademark smoke upon which he projects huge images of MJ and Spidey villains (presumably from the film) on the attack. This sends people scattering in fear believing the villains are on a rampage. People abandon their cars, run in the streets and on the roads, car horns honk away.

Mysterio rants that he couldn’t stand selling his film to ‘philistines’. However, he hoped that they would understand/appreciate it once they saw it. Once they saw what they’d accomplished, the success it’d be, the awards it’d win, etc.

MJ approaches a sad looking Beck and tries to empathise with him. Specifically she deduces that Beck (at least on some level) hoped that in seeing his life on screen that they’d forgive him. This acknowledgement prompts Beck to reveal his real face.

These pages are a double-edged sword.

For starters, they contradict issue #1. There Beck’s given reasons for making the movie had nothing to do with earning forgiveness. He wanted to do right by a woman he felt he wronged, and to make something good for the world at large.

However, they once again demonstrates MJ’s people skills and their ability to reign Beck in. She’s talked him around to obtaining money less dishonestly than before (but still not actually honestly). She’s able to make him halt his tantrum and avoid scaring or harming people. And she’s established more trust between them, which in theory will make keeping him in check easier.

It also is wonderfully on point characterization for Beck himself. It displays a vulnerability and sadness within him. It plays him as what he’s always been, an artist craving attention and to be understood. The duality of this is played well in the scene. His words play him up as sad and sympathetic (from a certain point of view). But his actions make him less sympathetic, much like a child he’s throwing a tantrum because he can’t appropriately deal with his feelings and wants attention.

It’s genuinely magnificent Mysterio writing, a beautiful microcosm of his character.

So again, Williams proves she can deliver great characterization. But she’s also once more doing it within a crappy context.

The whole scene is confusing and incredibly damning MJ’s character and motivations.

In addition to pretending to be McKnight, Beck also  pitched a different movie from the one he was actually making..

This is baffling. Neither Nick Spencer’s issues setting up this mini-series and AMJ #1 absolutely didn’t put forward that idea. Those issues made it clear that this was always a Mysterio biopic and was always going to be sympathetic towards him. The only contradiction to that idea was at the end of AMJ #1 when MJ spoke to Peter (see part 6).

Is Williams implying that the later is what Beck also pitched to the investors? It’s really not clear. None of this is clear in fact.

Are we to presume Beck is now pitching the movie as he actually intends to make it?

If so why not just lie again?

Maybe it’s because MJ is encouraging him to be honest but she  might’ve been lying about it to Peter last issue. And even if she wasn’t, she was complicit in the deceit of the original investors. It wasn’t as though she was telling them what the actual movie was like.

If MJ was encouraging Beck to be more honest about the movie, isn’t that aggressively hypocritical considering she’s not encouraging him to stop using Cage McKnight’s identity!

It’s all a big mess!

Playing Devil’s Advocate, let’s say the intention was something more simple. Maybe the lies Williams was referring to was simply about Beck pretending to be McKnight. But that doesn’t quite make sense. Even if the movie was got more funding that deception would remain the same.

No matter what interpretation you pick it doesn’t add up. And either way, it further proves MJ is complicit in Beck’s crimes and is being a royal hypocrite. She’s even trying to help him commit more of the same crimes, just to a lesser degree  than he had before.

On top of the damage already wrought to McKnight’s reputation, he’s now someone who’s actively sold studios on one movie and delivered another one. An extremely controversial and difficult to sell one at that. Imagine if a director promised investors ‘The Dark Knight’ but delivered 2019’s ‘Joker’ instead. They’d lose their goddam minds!

And for this, this extremely risky artistic vision by a terrible person, Mary Jane is risking the lives and livelihoods of herself and other civilians.*

Unless they’ve explicitly consented to it, no film is worth someone being seriously injured.

More importantly the scene should be a deal breaker for Mary Jane’s trust of Beck.

So far he’s assaulted one of his staff. He’s flipped over a table. He’s been arguably verbally abusive to someone. And now caused a serious public disturbance.

He’s just terrorised people right in front of her for no reason other than he was sad and angry.

He’s potentially caused people to be injured as they run away.

He’s potentially caused vulnerable people to have anxiety, panic or even heart attacks.**

He’s potentially caused people to abandon their vehicles or other property. This leaves them vulnerable to any carjacker, any one who might run into a building and steal from it.

And all because he having a tantrum.

Does this convince Mary Jane that Beck is too dangerous to be left unchecked? That there is no reason to believe he couldn’t have another, maybe even worse, tantrum later?

Does it convince her that at best she can hope to minimize any harm he might cause? That she should contact the authorities to hopefully mitigate or at least further  minimize any more damage he might cause?

No.

It causes her to connect with him even more.

What the fuck is this characterization?

To make matters worse Beck’s dialogue clearly reveals how the project wasn’t altruistic. It’s a total vanity project. He’s doing this in the hopes that his movie will be so award winning that people will forgive him for his crimes. Call me nuts but wouldn’t apologising to/ helping his victims or their loved ones be a more useful or sincere effort to attain forgiveness?

Wouldn’t MJ feel that way too? She began to forgive herself for her past sins when she helped her sister in ASM #292

And her lover has (at least arguably) spent his life helping others to balance the scales for his indirect  role in his uncle’s death.

Yet here, MJ feels sympathy for a man trying to earn forgiveness by making others see how sympathetic he  is? A man who ha unapologetically victimized people, including herself, her friends and family. A man who is actively victimizing an innocent man right now by wearing his face. A man who is terrifying people right in front of MJ because he’s throwing a tantrum.

Shit like this is why all the good work Williams does ultimately doesn’t matter. This is character assassinating stuff.

On a side note by the way, I like the acknowledgment of Doc Ock’s return. It’s the first time it was acknowledged since the end of Superior Spider-Man volume 2.

Moving on, MJ gently informs Beck that he’s scaring people. He reveals no one can see him (addressing why dropping his guise was no big deal). MJ snorts and prompts him to dial it back a bit. She argues that they’d want to avoid spoilers. Beck agrees and claims that the disturbance will be rationalized as a flash mob once the smoke clears.

MJ confirms that the reason the investors pulled the money was specifically because ‘McKnight’ was delivering a different product to the one pitched. See above for my comments on that mess. As they get into their car MJ also speculates that ‘Cage’s’ abrupt personality change scared them away too.

For the most part this page is just more of the same. We do get a hint though that MJ is knowingly playing Beck, as her comments about ‘spoilers’ can be read as an attempt to slyly protect people.

Nevertheless, it makes matters worse in several ways.

For starters we see a woman practically falling out of her chair in response to Beck’s illusions. Even if she wasn’t physically hurt there is no guarantee there aren’t similar or worse instances of that going on. It’s a tiny concern next to more serious injuries, but it exemplifies how more serious injuries are a very real possibility where Beck is concerned.

But MJ doesn’t seem to care too much. She’s even snorting in the scene implying she finds something funny.

Weirdly Williams’ dialogue tries to addresses why outside observers of the incident wouldn’t get suspicious. This is stupid because what about the eye-witnesses? What about security cameras?

There is no reason at all the incident would just be hand waved as an ambitious street performance. Even if it were it misses the more essential point that Beck potentially caused physical or mental harm to civilians!

Also, we get explicit acknowledgment that Beck’s disguise is negatively impacting the real McKnight’s reputation. Beck is such a douchebag he doesn’t even consider this possibility.

But that’s nothing next to what happens on the following pages.

MJ shows Beck a news video depicting his assault of the crewmember from issue #1. The title even acknowledges this is abuse. She follows up by mentioning that the real Cage used to have a reputation for being calm and quiet. They arrive at an auto and body and MJ proceeds to give ‘Cage’ a makeover.

Giving him her sunglasses she ‘rebrands’ Cage to be more in line with his ‘new personality’. Rather than a meek cinephile nerd, MJ declares him a Hollywood bad boy. An eccentric genius who runs hot. An auteur who won’t compromise his artistic vision.

Beck gets into the spirit of things causing MJ to giggle smile with delight.

This is yet another double-edged sword situation.

On a conceptual level, MJ and Beck ‘playing’ together through their mutual knowledge/love of acting is an interesting, even organic, idea. Or it would be if MJ had little idea of who Beck was or what he’d done.

Furthermore, MJ using her acting, social and fashion skills in this way is a stroke of genius. She is in a sense creating a façade for Beck, much the same way she formed one for herself for so many years.

It’s exemplary of Williams’ ability to accentuate realistic strengths of a normal person who lacks fantastical abilities. In other words it’s a brilliant way of framing MJ kind of like a super hero without her actually being one.

Stuff like this is a proof of concept for how an ongoing MJ solo-title absolutely could work creatively.

For that Williams should be commended.

But alas, she should be condemned because of that oh so pesky context again.

It was bad enough that MJ was simply allowing Beck to joyride McKnight’s life. It was bad enough that has resulted in him being depicted as abusive in the news, of being emotionally unstable.

But now MJ  is actively  interfering herself.

Does Mary Jane simply doesn’t care much about Cage McKnight’s reputation? Or does she/Leah Williams have some kind of long-game plan to ensure all damage done to Cage’s reputation? If so, then you know a little hint of that  would be nice. You know, just to make sure MJ doesn’t come off as selfish or stupidly out of character.

I mean honestly. Mary Jane has all this sympathy for a goddam murderous criminal, but none for an innocent man’s career and reputation?

Who the FUCK is Mary Jane to play with another person’s identity, their reputation, their career, like this?

The real McKnight hasn’t given her his consent to do that. He doesn’t even know her! 

It is especially damning when we consider MJ’s own acting career. For years she struggled against unfair labels and assumptions born from her looks and modelling career.

Mary Jane isn’t even rebranding McKnight for the greater good. This doesn’t protect innocent people or their property or herself or Peter.

In fact it does the opposite as it makes it easier  for Beck to impersonate McKnight. To those who knew him only by reputation or merely as an acquaintance, MJ has just helped make his abrupt personality change more believable. She’s just made it harder for anyone to become suspicious of McKnight and therefore to bring Beck to justice.

This is immensely illegal to say the least. But at least MJ is having some fun  whilst she uses someone’s identity as a dress up doll.

It also doesn’t really make sense given Beck’s skills as an actor. In ASM v5 #25 Kindred himself accuses Beck of going ‘method’.

I’m not suggesting Beck had to go method for McKnight. But is he really so incompetent as to have not considered that his behaviour would raise suspicions? Would he really have not accounted for those inevitable suspicions? Would it really take someone else  to think of that?

I will remind you, this guy figured out how to fool Daredevil, the guy who has an in-built lie-detector as a super power!

Alright, maybe he didn’t have all that much time to prepare to become McKnight. But there is no indication of that in the story. And even if there was it doesn’t address why he wouldn’t realise his behaviour would arouse suspicion.

Finally, I should also mention that Gomez is on fire on this page. He utterly nails  MJ’s personality.

Anyway, MJ takes Mysterio to their last shot at getting cash for the movie. The investor isn’t all that wealthy but he is a film buff. Once again MJ and ‘McKnight’ are juxtaposed as she is open and social, whilst he’s once again aggressive.

The investor is sceptical because he sees the project as lacking ‘art’. This prompts ‘Cage’ to go into a passionate speech about the nature of art. This convinces the investor who gives them a quarter of what they had before. ‘McKnight’ begins to argue but MJ grips his neck to keep him under control.

Once more MJ’s strengths are on display here.

Once more Gomez’s art makes her shine.

Once more Williams displays some of the greatest Mysterio writing of all time!

And once more this is toxic to MJ’s characterization because she just helped con this man out of his money and possibly endanger both his business and his life.

She can’t be sure Beck’s ‘passion’ won’t somehow turn dangerous (as it did mere pages ago) and be directed at this man. She can’t be sure that the reputation of Cage McKnight wasn’t a factor in this man’s investment. She can’t be sure she can keep Beck under control. Notice how she just used physical contact to reign him in, an escalation from her words and charm.

She can’t be sure of a lot of things, but I guess the risk is worth it because Beck would just be that  sad if he didn’t make his movie.

Later, Noah returns the equipment to the film set whilst MJ and Beck chat about being an indie film. MJ says she feels good about the project. It’s nice that she feels happy about conning an innocent person. It’s nice she feels good about continuing to be complicit in several crimes. It’s nice she’s buddying around with the man who nearly killed her lover less than a few months ago.

They are so chummy in fact that Mary Jane sings ‘McKnight’s praises to Mallorie.

Whilst trying to find Ken (the actor cat as Mysterio), they discover he’s leaving the movie. With less funding he’s breaking contract, but is nice enough to offer ‘McKnight’ a place at a rehab centre. This is yet more proof of how Beck has damaged McKnight’s reputation, now he’s considered to be on drugs.

‘McKnight’ is distraught over losing their lead but MJ suggests he simply play Mysterio.

Do I even need to explain this one?

Mary Jane is actively interfering with McKnight’s reputation and career again! There is no evidence that McKnight was ever an actor. Even if Mysterio pulls it off it will be an expectation the real McKnight might have to deal with later in his career. And that’s if the audience accepts his performance at all.

Once again, she has no right to do any of this with someone else’s identity.

On the next page MJ refers to Cage as a megastar. This again muddies the waters from the last issue as Cage’s indie status shouldn’t make him a megastar of anything.

Mallorie encourages ‘Cage’. She comments that since since he isn’t really Quentin Beck this is hardly a vanity reel. With MJ’s help Beck agrees and thanks MJ for believing in him.

They then hear a crash and scream and discover it’s Vulture’s Savage Six. They’ve attacked the set and crew, prompting Kangaroo  to retaliate. Vulture threatens to kill the actor playing him before spotting McKnight.

Mallorie’s dialogue is rather ambiguous. It’s not clear if she (or anyone other than MJ) are aware that ‘McKnight’ is really Beck. That is certainly not the impression I got. Accepting that interpretation, Williams’ attempt at irony here is too blunt to work and further hurts her narrative.

It further confirms that  the movies is  a vanity project. This would mean that Williams is aware  Beck is actually being selfish, and thus that MJ is aware of that too. So why  is she writing MJ as so sympathetic towards Beck? Why is she pretending a vanity project like this is at all an opportunity for Beck to make amends?

Can Williams honestly not recognize that a criminal (a murderer no less) making a vanity project is not a legitimate means of making amends?

It’s a legitimate question because she’s further deepening MJ’s friendship with a guy who has tried to murder her lover multiple times!

And as for the Savage Six…I actually don’t have much to say about them.

Unless issue #3 makes a big reveal, they don’t seem to know Beck is McKnight. If that is the case, then they’d have attacked regardless so MJ can’t be blamed for that at all.

Really all I have to say is Kangaroo is way out of his league, especially since he’s going head-to-head with Rhino of all people.

With that we’ve completed issue #2 and the results are not good.

Williams continued and further exacerbated the problems she created in the first issue. That leaves me with little confidence that she has a master plan to sow everything up neatly in the future.

*And she was doing that in the hope the studios would accept getting a different movie from the one they asked for.

**You know, people similar to Aunt May!

Previous Part

Next Part

Master Post

[aion-rsa]

Stargirl: How Cindy Burman Became the Most Intriguing DC TV Villain

https://ift.tt/2ZMmxp2

This article contains Stargirl spoilers.

Stargirl is the sort of superhero show that has no right to be as good as it is. A story about a teenager discovering a glowing, sentient staff and fighting supervillains with names like “The Gambler” in a costume that’s little more than a midriff-baring Captain America rip-off should, in all honesty, be a joke. Therefore, the fact that it’s actually one the best DC television series currently on the air may come as a surprise to many, but this little show has proven over the course of its first season that there’s basically nothing it can’t do.

A perfect mix of heartfelt optimism and deep cut fan service, Stargirl soars because it trusts both its characters and its audience. This is a show that encourages its viewers to embrace complexity and to hold often competing concepts together in the same moment for maximum narrative impact. Stargirl itself exists in a similar duality, a show with a classic comic book feel and bright tone, but whose youthful verve and risky storytelling points the way to the exciting and different things this genre is still capable of doing.

And there’s no better example of this than Cindy Burman, who is simultaneously a monster and a horribly lost teenage girl.

When we first meet Blue Valley High HBIC Cindy she appears to be little more than your average mean girl. A less interesting Cheryl Blossom-type, her only goal seems to be to make herself the center of attention at all times, whether that means sabotaging another student’s election as class president, winning the school talent contest with subversive-for-Nebraska dance moves or simply being rude to new students. Entertaining, yes – but probably not that important to the overall story that Stargirl was telling.

This is an assumption that turns out to be the furthest thing from the truth.

Because Cindy is a character – much like Stargirl itself – that’s much more complex and nuanced then she appears at first glance. The DC TV universe’s first teen supervillain, Cindy is vicious, dark, and deadly by turns. Yet, even as Stargirl acknowledges her evil nature, it also takes pains to make sure she remains at least somewhat relatable, allowing Cindy to occupy an intriguing liminal space within the narrative. She’s a teenager who knows too much to enjoy her status as a high school queen bee, but who is still seen as too young to have a proper seat at the Injustice Society’s table. She’s both the Dragon King’s daughter and someone who was likely one of his very first victims. And she’s both determined not to need anyone, and miserably lonely at the same time.

In the “Shiv” two-parter that essentially serves as Cindy’s origin story, we see a girl who is condescending and cruel, but who also desperately wants to find someone who can understand what she’s going through. She repeatedly tells her father how frustrated she is by being “all alone up there” in the world of Blue Valley, forced to date a boy that she doesn’t even like that much in order to monitor him for the Injustice Society and unable to tell the truth about herself to any of her supposed friends. The Dragon King – like so many fathers of teens before him, supervillain or no – refuses to see her for who she is, offhandedly recommending she fix her problems by going shopping or throwing another party.

Read more

TV

Stargirl Season Finale Ending Explained and Unanswered Questions

By Rosie Knight

Both the show and actress Meg DeLacy do a great job making Cindy sympathetic without undermining or trying to justify just how truly terrible she is. She’s a girl who hides deep insecurities behind a performative bitchy persona, but who also has no problem casually murdering her father’s brainwashed lackeys (for what is apparently not even close to the first time). It certainly makes sense that Cindy might be drawn to Courtney Whitmore, a new girl with a forthright attitude and little respect for the established way things work in Blue Valley. Who better, after all, to truly see you than someone who doesn’t know you at all?

It would be easy for Stargirl to insist that Cindy and Courtney are destined to be enemies because Starman and Dragon King were, their vendettas predetermined long before these girls even knew who the other was. But like so many other tropes this series has tackled this season, the show isn’t content with anything so basic. Instead, when it pulls out the traditional “we’re not so different, you and I” speech that often passes between a hero and a villain, the conversation lands differently – because Stargirl has taken the time to show us long before this moment that it’s a cliché that’s actually mostly true in this case.

In a different world, it’s pretty easy to imagine how these girls could have ended up in each other’s places, through accidents of birth or circumstance. In this one, it’s still not completely outside the realm of possibility to envision them as a sort of uneasy frenemies at some point in the (distant) future.. The Cindy who visits Courtney’s bedroom to taunt her and threaten her friends is also there because she’s literally never had anyone she could talk to about this whole superhero and/or supervillain lifestyle before, and that’s a true gamechanger for her.

Stargirl has already hinted there’s still more to Cindy than we viewers know. According to Beth, she used to be nice before her mother died, and it wasn’t until afterward that she became the “scariest kid in fourth grade”. Given that the show has repeatedly hinted that she somehow caused her mother’s death, that seems as though it’s probably when her father started experimenting on her, and we’ve yet to truly see the extent of how that’s affected her. 

Yet, despite the Dragon King’s repeated abusive and cruel behavior, Cindy remains convinced her father loves her. She even still covets his good opinion – or, at least, she does right up until the moment she stabs him through the chest. Much like everything else involving this character, CIndy’s murder of her father is a complicated decision, an act that appears to be as driven by pain as much as it is by fury. 

Read more

TV

Stargirl: What is Eclipso?

By Rosie Knight

(No matter how messed up she is, hearing that her father – and all his supervillain friends – considered her a failed experiment has to hurt.) 

And though Cindy doubtless mourns her father  in her own way (if he’s even actually dead for real), she’s also eager to establish herself in his place as the new de facto head of the next generation of the Injustice Society. Though Cindy is knocked out by Courtney during the battle in the season finale, we see her retrieve a jewel from what is presumably her father’s vast archive of unlabeled evil materials. 

Before the screen goes dark, she addresses it as “Eclipso,” indicating that she’s well on her way to building her own version of the Injustice Society (surely Cameron Mahkent or Isaiah Bowin  might have some legacy anger issues to work out next season?). But what that will ultimately look like is anyone’s guess – particularly since this show has already proven that it’s both willing and eager to take the road less traveled, narratively speaking. 

Will Stargirl and Shiv somehow become besties who do one another’s nails and have sleepovers? Probably not. But that doesn’t mean that there’s no room for something else between them, either. Particularly since they’ve both moved out from under the shadows of the men they once called their fathers and are forging their own paths. 

After all, Stargirl is a show that’s strengthened by the familiar ground of comic book clichés, rather than weakened by them – and all because it doesn’t count on vague tropes to do its heavy narrative lifting. Instead, it leans into these familiar aspects, sharpening their edges and allowing the familiar bones of old stories to light our path to new ones.

The post Stargirl: How Cindy Burman Became the Most Intriguing DC TV Villain appeared first on Den of Geek.

from Den of Geek https://ift.tt/3kD6F1t

[kokkuri3]

I think VnC’s treatment of female characters is better than in PH, where most of them were props, tools to further the development of males, *coughLacieyoudeservedbetter*, tools to humanise the males *coughAdayoucan’tfixhimwithlove, endlessly forgiving and impossibly saintly *coughreallyAlyssyou’rejustgonnaforgiveJacklikethatyouarenotangryatall??*, amongst other problematic tropes.

VnC’s treatment of female characters is absolutely better than PH’s-- in fact, I’d say VnC was one of the few shounen manga to consistently treat its female characters with the same passion and respect as its male ones. One thing I say often is that VnC feels as thought it was written with Mochizuki having acknowledged PH’s problems (the complete lack of nonwhite characters, the continual mistreatment of female characters, the at times facetious treatment of issues such as incest or pedophilia which is... Not A Fan) and to that effect, I think she is making a deliberate effort to make multiple female characters with their own arcs which exist outside of men, who have important relationships with other women, who are capable of agency in the same capacity as their male counterparts.

This post isn’t really about VnC though so I’m not gonna sing its praises much anymore. I’ve talked before about how, despite being written by a woman, despite clearly acknowledging misogyny as a chronic problem among violent men PH is... not especially self aware when it comes to the misogyny of its own narrative.

I’ve made my thoughts on Lacie clear before (see here) and particularly how I believe her treatment was one of the times where PH’s treatment of women was particularly remarkable in that it’s good, despite her arc being drenched in misogynistic abuse and violence. I absolutely wish that the atrocities pinned on Lacie being not her fault was made more clear (aside from what I said in the post, and Oz saying that Lacie would never desire for the destruction of the world she loved) but I don’t think her writing itself was misogynistic-- I’d even go as far as to say it was feminist, though, obviously, I’m open to disagreement.

What most certainly does piss me off, however, is the writing of Ada’s arc. Yesterday I joked about Ada being the ‘anti-Lacie,’ and while it was a joke, I still intended some seriousness with it. Unlike Lacie, who was forced to constantly reevaluate her morals and the positions of her and her loved ones as a person whose existence was an inherent sin and who was abused throughout her life, Ada’s arc is built around the fact that she has never had to question anything. Similarly, while Lacie’s arc is about how she sought her own agency despite being surrounded by and allowed only those who were at best complacent in her suffering, Ada’s arc is about how... she continually sought out and apologized for a misogynistic predator despite being surrounded by better options.

The gender of the Core of the Abyss is something which I think warrants a separate post, but the official translation refers to the Core as being female, and for nearly the entire story she takes the form of a girl. Lacie reached out to an entity referred to and most often perceived as female, sought to understand her, and was abused as a specific consequence of this. Ada, meanwhile, made no real attempts at sympathy for her female counterparts. She never sought to question the circumstances of Noise, or Echo, or their relationship with Vincent. She gave forgiveness for crimes she had not been affected by nor did she even understand; her defense of Vincent was done not out of concern for Noise’s psyche but out of unquestioned pity for her abuser.

Ada’s arc bothers me for its utter lack of agency. She was a teenaged girl, expected to fix a predatory, abusive man in his twenties, and throughout her arc she is given no real means of choosing other options nor protecting herself. Her decision to defend a predator was not even an educated one; she simply did not know. Nor did she ever really come to understand anything about Vincent, aside from brief glimpses into his past. Ada is dragged around by the plot, pursuing an abuser she did not know was an abuser yet still felt sure she could heal, being forbidden from choice-- where she was not denied choice in the sense that she lacked the knowledge to make one, she was denied choice via other characters forbidding her. She was not allowed to protect Vincent though she wanted to because Vincent felt it was too dangerous to allow her to, she was not allowed to remain beside her friends and family though she wanted to because they felt it was too dangerous to allow her to, she wasn’t allowed to stay with Vincent because it was too dangerous, she wasn’t allowed to see him again because it was too dangerous... and she’s never given the choice to do anything but go along with it.

Alyss’s forgiveness of Jack is... a more complicated issue. That Ada “forgive” Vincent-- along with many of their other interactions, I might add-- felt utterly meaningless to me. Ada had never really perceived Vincent as performing a slight against her, being perfectly willing to assign any violence he committed against her as either her own fault, or part of his mental illness, thus Not His Fault. That Alyss forgive Jack, who was violent towards her, who she understood as victimizing her and others... I don’t like it, exactly, but at least it’s not the same.

I’m not sure “forgive” is even the correct word for what she did-- she acknowledged him, and she was gentle, but she never told Jack that she forgave him. Vincent’s dialogue during Retrace CIII supplements this in saying he suspects that Alyss’s feelings for Jack are the same as his own.

Vincent feels unable to either forgive Jack nor reject him entirely, feeling that he had done too much good for him to ever really hate him. Alyss, similarly, felt too strong a love for Jack to reject him outright. She never expressed sympathy for his actions, nor did she make any attempts to defend him. There was no misunderstanding on Alyss’s part on whether her love for Jack was unhealthy, but she loved him nonetheless. When she finally “finds” him, she offers no words of kindness. She simply expressed her gratitude in having done so before calling him a hopelessly lonely man, making no further attempts at even acknowledging him.

Of course, there is the inherent misogyny of a character arc about a young girl infatuated with an adult man, to the point of destroying her other relationships in pursuit of it. That Alyss was deliberately isolated and that Jack be the only person aside from the other Alice and the Core of Abyss-- two entities that cannot be meaningfully separated from herself-- is an obvious contributor, but that does not erase the problematic aspects of her arc. Then there’s the matter of Alyss’s wish to die being the only one treated as though it was a necessary evil, as opposed to a reflection of the individual’s personal instability that should be addressed through supporting them as opposed to killing them. It’s sort of an unfair double standard, and that the plot make Alyss’s death a necessary evil is a matter of author choice, not something inherent to the work.

On the topic of other instances of misogynistic writing in PH as a whole, there’s the matter of Alice and Sharon’s arc. While I don’t think either arc is in itself misogynistic, both characters are totally ignored in favor of their male counterparts. Despite Alice being one of the most important characters in the series, she has almost no narration and is frequently characterized as, to quote a friend of mine, a “feral animal.” She’s not given the same emotional or psychological depth as Oz or Gil, despite having around the same number of appearances and being the plot’s catalyst. Sharon has her own arc, theoretically, but we only ever see it within the context of Break or Reim despite being more of a main character than the latter. That Sharon spend entire volumes not appearing a single time is a recurring joke. A major part of her characterization-- that she feel insecure in relationships due to her halted aging-- is not revealed until the last chapter of the comic. Her arc ends with her marrying to a character who... I wouldn’t have been upset if the two of them had had any real interactions outside of Break, but they didn’t. There’s no inherent problem with their relationship except it’s boring and rushed.

Then there’s the matter of the sheer number of female versus male characters whose purpose in the plot is to die violently-- the Flower Girl, Vanessa Nightray, Bernice Nightray, Miranda Barma, Mary, etc. All of these characters did little or nothing to actually progress the plot, and all are murdered by a male character with the exception of the Flower Girl (who is a sex worker in the anime adaptation, and while I don’t know the canonicity of that, I feel it worth mentioning). 

Ultimately, PH suffers a lot for Mochizuki’s internalized misogyny. Her narrative seems over eager to forgive perpetrators of misogynistic violence, and in many ways over eager to characterize sympathetic men as misogynists. A Pandora Hearts without its themes of misogyny seems... nearly incomprehensible, though that’s in large part because of how meticulous the narrative as a whole is. The improvements Mochizuki has made subsequently, though, are noticeable and greatly appreciated.

[theowlandthekey]

We Don’t Need Covens: In This Essay I Will...

I'm a big fan of Sarah Anne Lawless. I never got the opportunity to speak with her personally, but for those of you who've been around long enough, you likely know about her blog discussing traditional witchcraft and her shop. I often found her posts to be inspirational, providing a unique clarity on subjects that most books skip over. To this day her belladonna ointment is one of the few things that can make my wife's back spasms stop.

Unfortunately both her blog and her shop have closed up. All I can find are interviews with her. In a very broad sense, Lawless came out about abuse and manipulation within the pagan community. She named names and instead of addressing the problems and having an open discussion about it, she was harassed until she backed off.

It upset me at the time in a very distant sense. As I said I never knew her, but I admired her passion and the certainty with which she practiced her craft. Though it's now long after the fact, I finally think I have the ability to put my thoughts into words.

We don't need covens. We never did.

I've been practicing off and on for about fifteen years or so. I've played around with different methods of witchcraft, wicca, and pagan worship. I've been the member of a druid grove, a loose coven association, and even a few on-line groups that claim to do all their spell casting via chat. In the end, I've found them all to be much the same. They promise a great deal and frankly fall short of everything from education to community.

I'm likely going to upset quite a few people with this statement. That's fine. You shouldn't trust anybody who thinks they can tell you your business. But for what it's worth, take a moment to read this over. If something here strikes you as familiar, it might be time to consider another path.

IQuick Note: I know there is a lot of grey area as to what could be considered a witch. You have pagans, heathens, wiccans and the like. Some are comfortable being called witches while others are not. But the connotation changes depending upon each individuals definition. So let's look at witches as people who, for whatever reason, have decided to intentionally avoid Christianity in favor of practicing a personal path of self-realization and independence involving magic, spells, enchantments and the like.

Cult Mentality

First thing you ought to consider is the potential for manipulation and control that exists in any group. This is especially true whenever matters of religion and faith are concerned. It's a touchy subject, no doubt. People are particular about religious practices. For my part, I maintain that witchcraft isn't a religion or a faith. It's a craft. But that doesn't change the fact that people will use religion as a method for controlling others. Especially others who are hungry to fit in with a group that they feel represents them. For this very reason, I firmly believe that witches should avoid becoming a congregation of any kind. Too many of us think of witchcraft as a religion, and while you can play pretend all you like most of us were raised Christian and still have difficulty shaking off the mimicry of organized religion. Our power is in our independence and our ability to think for ourselves, and it becomes much more difficult to do this when you form yourselves into a coven.

Respect My Authority

On that note, you can't form a group without some kind of a hierarchy making itself apparent. I have a strong distaste for covens who create arbitrary titles. They're largely meaningless. You don't really need a high priestess or an archdruid to go around wearing robes with more trim than everybody else. It's just an excuse for someone to hold themselves higher and make decisions without consulting anyone. You'll often find that people who hold these kinds of titles become very upset when someone disagrees with them and find ways to flex their authority in a 'funny' or 'joking' way. Basically telling others that if you disagree with them then you don't need to be there. This comes off especially hard on people who may be new to the craft and are still seeking approval.

Calling Ourselves Out

As sexual abuse allegations are on the rise, we have a duty to be aware of people within our community who put others in danger. We have heard it said that 'while not all priests are abusers, abusers tend to gravitate towards positions of authority'. This is no less true just because those leaders are witches and not priests. You don't get a Free Pass. Covens and groves all seem to want that central authority figure to which they can turn to. We tend to protect them because these people act as a spokesperson for us as a whole. But this does not mean they should be protected if they behave reprehensibly! They are not above the law and if we really want to present ourselves as being different from Christians, we should take a stance of pushing out people who are abusers and manipulators.

But here's the thing. We seem to have this self-righteous indignation that comes with being witches and pagans. Any questioning or perceived threats, especially ones that come from outside the community, are deemed as being biased because of Christian society. While this isn't entirely untrue, it also has a problematic effect on us wearing a permanent set of rose-tinted glasses whenever we look at the pagan community and it's 'stars'. Instead of seeing them as human beings with flaws, we view them as celebrities. We avoid using critical thinking skills when someone in the community comes up against criticism and it can end up damaging our reputation as a whole.

Witch n’ Bitch

While this is one of the most obvious issues with modern witchcraft groups, it is far from the bottom of the cauldron. While many groups come together promising to provide resources for education, help learning rituals and practices, and open discussions, I find that very few of them ever deliver on these promises. I've joined more than a few witchcraft 'study groups' only to have them disband after a few sessions for one reason or another. Others have sessions which quickly get derailed from methods and history into a bitching session about over covens, daily drama, or the like. Instead of helping interested parties by providing resources and discussion, it basically becomes a witches tea party. Brooms are snatched.

Exclusion By Design

Something else I want to bring up is the exclusion by design if not by intention concept that plagues covens. I have seen this manifest in more ways then I can count. Most typically it crops up in the form of “you're not experienced enough in our particular tradition”. However, I've noticed a lot of problems with most pagan groups being painfully white. The excuse is that this makes sense because most witchcraft traditions are European. However, that doesn't seem to stop most witches from liberally grabbing whatever non-European cultural paraphernalia they feel fits their witchy aesthetic. The most notable victims being the American Indians, the Voodoo/Santeria practitioners, and Mexican folk beliefs. I've been told by several people that this isn't on purpose. It's just how it ended up. But when you have to triple check everybody on a Norse Heathen group chat to be sure none of them have any racist ideology there is an inherent problem with the community which is long overdue for exposure.

Queer Craft

I’d like to bring up the patriarchal and hetero-normative slant that is heavily enforced in modern witchcraft and neopaganism. I want to preface this by saying that when I think of a witch, I think of a woman who lives apart from societal norms. She is autonomous. She is self-aware. She is unruffled by others perceptions of her. This is what makes her a force to be reckoned with. Yet much of wicca and neopaganism strives to enforce a very heteronormative perception of a woman's role in society by establishing the narrative of the Maiden/Mother/Crone archetype. While there is beauty in each of these phases of life and there is nothing wrong with a woman finding power in them for herself, enforcing them as a role model for what a woman should be has dangerous implications. A woman must be a virgin, reproductive, or too old to bother with. And it should come as no surprise that concepts have no real male counterpart.

This becomes an even bigger problem as we look forward to a more inclusive world where we are learning to recognize a larger spectrum of gender and sexuality. Where does the Queer witch fit in with these very narrow perceptions of the divine within the self? The pagan community loves to talk about itself as an accepting and open community that embraces all sexualities openly. But that isn't very well reflected in its liturgy and conception. I don't think this gets discussed much because people have heralded the God/Goddess, Horned God/Earth Goddess format for so long that we take it for granted despite these perceptions being relatively modern ones. While there are some traditions which put emphasis on the Queer spectrum and embracing it as a source of power and self-realization, they are few and far between.

Psudo Ethics

The final thing I want to bring up is the irritating moral high-ground that people in the pagan community are so willing to put forth any time we are questioned about our beliefs. It is just as irritating if not more so than listening to Christians proselytize. The Wiccan Rede has held a position for a long time as a general set of standards for what witches and wiccans should consider before acting or casting spells. However, I'm pleasantly surprised to see more of a discussion happening on morality in witchcraft. We don't exist to turn the other cheek. While I'm not a believer in the 'strike first' policy, I am a believer in defending myself when attacked.

I see a lot of judgment happening in the wiccan community, especially now that witchery is in the forefront of social media. People poking their noses into how others practice and deciding to take it upon themselves to 'correct' how another practitioner does their work. I understand why some people want to pursue a more positive and affirming lifestyle through wiccan practices. There is nothing wrong with that. But I confess myself irritated when I'm chided by other witches for casting a curse or have a discussion with a demon. My prerogatives are not your moral imperative, nor are any other witches. So long as my actions are not directed against you, it isn't any of your business what I get up to.

In Conclusion

Ironically, one of the biggest issue with discussing if not resolving many of these issues is that we, as witches/pagans and the like, are NOT a unified group. We are a loose collective. We don't have one central figure who decides doctrine. We don't have any of those things that make for dogma. The fact that we can choose to act independently of one another is a big part of our power. It emboldens us to think for ourselves, question tradition, and seek out new methods and practices which are better suited to our needs. Witchcraft does not begin and end with the anathema and the chalice. We can choose to both acknowledge the gods without permitting them too much influence over our lives. We can dance naked under the full moon while enticing a demon or just make a hot cup of tea while we listen to the rain and meditate. All of this is within our grasp.

But before we can practice together, we have to learn how to function together. And right now I don't' see a great deal of that happening. I believe that by learning how to be ourselves first, by practicing as solitary and independent witches before seeing out a group, we can be more confident overall. After fifteen years of practicing, I can tell you truthfully that I haven't learned anything in a group that I couldn't have learned by studying and practicing on my own. Mostly because 90% of the groups out there read the same damned books I do and are more into repetitive ritual than anything else. I would have loved to work with someone like Sarah Anne Lawless, even just to attend a few workshops led by her. Until we can learn to be better individuals as witches first, I don't know if our community can be better together.

[hetmusic]

Women in Music | HumanHuman

It’s time again to celebrate International Women’s Day with our annual review of what it means to identify as a woman within the music industry right now.

In 2015, we invited influentials within music to talk about their work, what changes they have seen in the industry regarding the attitudes of and towards women, and also addressed the issues yet to be solved that consider to hinder greater equality across the business. In 2016, we celebrated a year of activism and progression, a year that saw many mainstream musicians taking full ownership of their womanhood, but not without a reminder that giant leaps for some might only translate into small steps for others, especially when we consider the demographic of the top tiers. Here we find ourselves in 2017, and well, there’s a tendency to feel a tad dubious. We’ve entered into a new year where presidential candidates openly degrade women and yet still end up in office, where the only obstacle between an actor charged with sexual harassment and an Oscar is settlement fees, where there is still an unfair discrepancy between wages for men and women in the same or similar job roles.

As already conveyed, the potential undervaluation of human rights across the political and cultural spectrum is a real threat to everyone, especially women. In Ireland, there’s protests to repeal the ban on abortion; in Jakarta, women join together to raise key gender equality issues; around the world, people continue to march in a show of solidarity in the global phenomenon of Women’s Marches. 2017 has been a truly special year for feminism in action and the music world is an essential part of the movement. Let’s take the example of MILCK’s self-named one woman riot, the single “Quiet”, which was transformed into a defiant group anthem thanks to two choirs and surrounding individuals at the Women’s March on Washington D.C.. Speaking with Billboard, the 30-year-old songwriter Connie Lim passionately asserts that “once the [US presidential] election happened nobody could keep quiet. The words of violence towards women… We need to step up and protect people and make them feel safe and loved again.”

We’ve certainly seen the resurgence of protest music touting various social justice causes recently, and yet it’s a trend that goes beyond the marches. One artist synonymous with creating music with purpose is Sevdaliza, whose 2015 single “That Other Girl” tackled the ways that consumerist culture affects personal relationships. Later came “That Damaged Girl”, featuring A$AP Ferg, which displayed strength in womanhood and independent musicianship. Most recently, the songwriter spoke out against Trump’s immigration ban with “Bebin”. The legislation directly affected the Dutch-Iranian artist who no longer was able to enter the US, but this song was not to be taken as a personal affront. Sevdaliza released this statement: “In protest of the inhumane political climate, I could not rest my head in privilege. I wrote “Bebin” in Farsi, to solidify. I stand strong with love. In this case I choose to avoid mainstream media, because I have no interest in part taking in a victimized concept. As I will not be able to travel to the United States for indefinite duration, take this message without lights, camera, action. I am solely a messenger. In the act of love, there is no place for racism nor bigotry.” To further the impact beyond a listening experience, all sales of the song will be donated to victims of racial exclusion. Further examples of artists working outside of mainstream media come via the recommendation of Noisey and Paste Magazine music journalist Emily Reiley who passionately told us about two of her contemporary heroes - Grindmother and Saltland. Both of these Canadian musicians utilise their art to bring awareness to issues close to their hearts. For Grindmother, the 67-year-old grindcore singer decided that her extreme vocal talents would be used to call attention to the environmental and political discourse of her home country. Similarly, the classically-trained cellist and post-punk experimentalist Saltland, aka Rebecca Foon, “seeks to bring awareness to the fight against climate change with her moody, strings-driven album,” as Reily explains.

“I think that we're at a really exciting time in music where women have a platform to talk about more than what has traditionally been acceptable for us. It's important that we take that space now and use it to turn things around.”— Ayelle

Using music as a platform for change is something that singer-songwriter Ayelle also demonstrates with single “Machine”. Featured in our Best Music Video Debuts of 2016, the song is an exploration of “women's role as sex objects within the patriarchy and our institutionalised servitude to the male gaze.” Through writing the song, Ayelle realised traits in herself that subconsciously pandered to others desires and expectations. Left unaddressed, this cycle of approval-seeking behaviour is bound to continue, which is why it’s vital to keep “creating art that inspires those important conversations.” Now, simply because art and music strives to destroy societal misconceptions of women as sexual objects, it doesn’t mean that their bodies should be left outside of the discussion. As actress Emma Watson recently expressed in an reaction to the criticism of her Vanity Fair cover photo, “Feminism is about giving women choice. Feminism is not a stick with which to beat other women with. It’s about freedom, it’s about liberation, it’s about equality,” and so those who suggested that one “couldn’t be a feminist and have boobs” are ignoring basic biology. Voicing her opinion on the matter, Louise Pétrouchka (a producer, radio presenter and webzine curator) uses the example of the unfair criticism of artist Ariana Grande, arguing that “Being sexy, sexual even, is her choice, and because she's sexy in a video clip doesn't mean that she is an object and that you shouldn't treat her as a person who deserves respect.” One such artist whose forthcoming EP, The Body, fearlessly celebrates the female physicality is Starling. Her music, videos and even an online photo collection explore the relationship between outer beauty and inner darkness. In EP tracks “No Rest For The Wicked” and “Large It”, Starling is a woman of the city with all the human complexity, desires and physical awareness that historical propaganda of her home country Britain has wrongly painted as simply not existing in the female gender. When we questioned Starling about the expression of identity through her music, she responded that true ownership is “genderless,” because “Art is the thing not image.”

“I would love to encourage women to believe in their voice - metaphorical and literal - on their output of creation and to focus less on image.”— Starling

While for some countries, women have reached a level of equality, others are yet to see such a correction, and once again music proves to be an inexhaustible tool in raising awareness. What we’re talking about here is the viral sensation, Majed Alesa-directed “Hwages”. The incredible arabian-pop music video sees women wearing full niqab and subverting all societal expectations with colourful clothes, scooters, skateboards, basketball games, awesome dance routines and trips to the carnival. The video has gained huge popularity across the Middle East and beyond, with praise for the fun choreography and tongue-in-cheek lyrics that calls out the insanity of the deeply entrenched patriarchal legal and rights systems in Saudi Arabia. The use of skateboards and breaking stereotypes are themes we also see in the video for Wild Beasts’ Sasha Rainbow. Through this visual, the director pulls apart the song title to find out what ‘alpha female’ really means. Through her work, she emphasises the importance of women within the creative industries to make their own platform

“... to celebrate women boldly going against the grain through affirmative, inspiring action, by following their passions.”— Sasha Rainbow

The rising wave of conferences centered on women in the music industry is also a clear signifier of the inspiring action happening at all levels of the business, not purely as a final product in songs and music videos. At the end of last year, nonprofit organization Women in Music held their 31st annual party at New York’s famous Webster Hall, to celebrate success and host an all inclusive conversation surrounding women’s rights and the movement for greater equality. In January, the Association of Independent Music gathered in London’s City Hall to hear key figures discuss the next generation of women in music. At the end of this month, the inaugural Sound Industry event will be held in Bristol to showcase unique journeys of survival in the creative industries, questioning gender roles in music, examining mental resilience in the all too often cut-throat music world and wondering how much weight privilege carries these days. This year will also see the first International Conference on Women’s Work in Music over a weekend in September at Bangor University. This is merely a snapshot of the recognition that women in music quite rightly deserve, but of course, the future ideal is that we won’t need separate female-focussed conferences to celebrate women in music, because we should all be able to share that stage of credit where due, whatever a person’s gender may be. It’s a feeling perfectly summed up by previously introduced contributor Emily Reily:

“Women have been there for decades; it’s just that sometimes, they were behind the scenes, or simply not common enough to raise nationwide attention. It’s time to put that “girl” designation aside and focus strictly on the talent and creative goals of a band, regardless of their genders.”— Emily Reily

Awards nights provide one such arena where we’re able to praise achievements in music through a medium that’s directly in the public gaze. Recently, it’s become an optimum forum to set the record straight as to what being a woman in the music industry means today. Our contributor Starling singled out “Titled” songwriter Christine and the Queens for setting the example of “owning your weirdness regardless of gender or sexuality.” That’s the exact sentiment that Heloise Letissier was keen to share at this year’s NME Awards, where she took home four awards in total. In her first acceptance speech of the night, the French artist put forward this moving declaration: “All the females that are nominated with me are amazing and present a really strong way to exist as a woman in today’s world and my way is a bit twisted and a bit awkward.” Then there was the powerful challenge to the male dominated top tier from Head of Global Consumer Marketing at iTunes and Apple, Bozoma Saint John, who picked up the award for Executive of the Year at Billboard's Women in Music 2016, with this girl-power punch: “People might tell you that you have to wait your turn, but I'm here to tell you to say no. We're knocking these dudes out of the way to make room for you.” Another feature of that event was of course, Madonna, who candidly portrayed herself as a “bad feminist” for refusing to deny her sexuality, her age, her body, even at the chagrin of acclaimed feminist writer Camille Paglia. She also aligned herself to Ann Friedman’s Shine Theory, calling out the female viewers “to start appreciating our own worth and each other’s worth, seek out strong women to befriend, to align yourself with, to learn from, to be inspired by, to collaborate with, to support, to be enlightened by.” Reclaiming one’s identity and empowerment of women is also the driving force behind Zohra, Afghanistan’s first and only all-female orchestra and now winner of this year’s Freemuse Award in recognition of their determination to become the first women in their families, their community, their country to openly learn and play music in over thirty years.

We are all witnesses to to the increasing appraisal of women’s contributions and influence in music. In many areas, you could argue that equality has been found. Yet, there still exists many failings to truly represent women within the music world. Let’s look to a returning topic of our Women in Music articles - festival line-ups. In 2015, Crack in the Road editor Josh Dalton released an edited version of the Reading & Leeds Festival poster that revealed of the one hundred acts booked to play over weekend, there were only nine with at least one female member. Despite widespread criticism for the blatant gender bias, Republic boss Melvin Benn dismissed the need for change, telling The Guardian that “We put on bands that people want to buy tickets to watch,” and therefore implying that the public don’t want to see female musicians perform. Over the past two years, this ridiculous and frankly prehistoric attitude has not wavered, and this year’s first announcement consists of fifty-seven men and one woman. The line-up editor Dalton explains that this isn’t a vendetta against Reading & Leeds Festival, but as a way to highlight “the underlying and often unspoken issues regarding representation and visibility within the music industry,” which he explains further:

“This is still at times an industry that still has a certain level of exploitation of women at it's core when it suits, be it in music videos, artwork, or even just being the focal point of songs - yet when women rightfully want to take part in these spaces, they aren't given the same opportunities or respect.”— Josh Dalton

A dismal lack of equal representation also extends to the easily-digestible, widely popularized article format of the list. This year’s Billboard Power 100 was brought to our attention by industry commentator and blogger Mike Schreder, aka Oblivious Pop, as a list which only recognised seven women as being “powerful” enough. If you’re yet to be convinced that this list is biased towards men, then take a look at their Billboard News round-up video, introduced by a clip from Kanye West’s “Power”, where you’ll clearly pick out the line “no one man should have all that power.” Perhaps, they were being ironic. It’s a similar story over at DJ Magazine with their Top 100, the most recent published in April last year, which listed just two female DJ acts, Nervo at #45 and Miss K8 at #88. While lists like Red Bull’s 25 Best Producers Under 25, with a 16% female presence as opposed to Billboard’s 7% and DJ Mag’s 2%, and Forbes’ Hip-Hop Cash Princes, which despite it’s name featured Young M.A. and Noname in an exclusive crew of twelve, there’s still an obvious gender gap in play here. As Schreder quite rightly suggests “The music industry is filled with powerful women that are entrepreneurs, executives, and leaders of stellar teams that succeed to the highest degree, but these women rarely receive the acknowledgement they deserve. There needs to be calls for equality among lists like The Billboard Power 100 to include more women in this male dominated list.”

This call to action is already in steady progression, as we have seen throughout this article with musicians and industry leaders speaking up, stepping out and encouraging others to do the same. Returning to Shine Theory, we shouldn’t be intimidated by these strong figureheads or feel that our efforts will fail to match up to their example, an issue raised by Microcultures producer Louise Pétrouchka with what she refers to as the “imposter syndrome.”

“We tend to feel less secure, even if we have experiences, even if we “want to”, it's always fighting our impostor syndrome to push through.”— Louise Pétrouchka

However, we’re not without a remedy to this mindset, what we need is encouragement from all parties, from all areas of the music industry to become even just “one link in the chain that could help starring women in music.” Pigeons & Planes recently published the article Music Industry Advice For Women, By Women, in which it called on veterans of the music world to share their indispensable wisdom resulting in six key strategies: do your research, find mentors, demand respect, speak up, work harder than the rest, and trust your instincts. It’s advice that a person of any gender could follow in their attempts to access the business, but for writer Adrienne Black, this is essential to combat a world where “women have a harder time earning the success or respect they deserve without being subjected to gender stereotypes or consistently being objectified for their image.” We have another four-point plan system from Sarah Thompson, the owner of Charmfactory PR, whose own career began in 1996 as an early adopter of online music promotion and over that time she’s seen major moves towards equality in the industry. As she tells us, “I think it could always be better but compared to when I started back in the mid ‘90s we have come along way!” Her experienced outlook proves that straightforward steps to “be smart and choose your friends carefully,” “always respond to help,” get involved in social media groups and be active in the real world to, for example by attending gigs, can lead to dramatic change, on a personal and career level, but can also lead to a ripple effect throughout the industry. Further sage also comes from our contributor Lisa Murgatroyd, leader of Sofar Sounds Manchester, who advocates a community mentality, with a reminder than we can learn from our peers’ failures as much as from their successes.

“We need to collaborate and share our experiences, best practice and tips to help each other across all types of roles.”— Lisa Murgatroyd

What’s become clear throughout this article is that we all possess the ability to have an impact on the established system, to mold it in our own image and to delineate the idea of separation between different genders, and by extension between all various forms of identity. We need to collaborate, congratulate, challenge and inform. As Ayelle conveys, “There are still so many things about the music industry that remain largely unchallenged because we've internalised this environment and adapted to it in order to survive in it, but more and more women are starting to break that pattern and I hope it continues in 2017.” It’s also an optimistic viewpoint shared by the Head of Music at The Most Radicalist Black Sheep Music, the music division of BBH, who notes that sexism exists within many industries, not as a vacuum in the music world, but it’s a trend on the decline. “If the music business is indeed a mirror to societal trends at large, then I have more hope for the eradication of misogyny and sexism now than ever before.” As with many of our contributors whose ultimate goal is to disband with this conversation of gender altogether, because Owen envisions

“... a world for young women looking to enter the music business where it’s no longer necessary to talk about being a ‘female leader’. We are simply leaders.”— Ayla Owen

Whether it’s through songwriting, directing a music video, optimizing each and every platform, pointing out social, political and cultural injustices or by simply being more conscious of our own attitudes towards gender. As MILCK’s protest song shows, we can’t keep quiet, and it's why music (and art) for that matter can help to solve this issue. It allows us to understand and celebrate one another: which is beautifully portrayed in the Rupi Kaur's debut collection, Milk and Honey:

“our struggle to celebrate each other is what’s proven most difficult in being human”— Rupi Kaur

https://humanhuman.com/articles/women-in-music-2017

[ultrafuturisticbouquetkingd-blog]

Relationship Blog Attempts To Address Parental Alienation

“My Ex Pushed Me Out Of The Family”

Recently the following appeared in a relationship blog. While there are currently over 500 comments, upon review, many can be classified into two categories. If they are not ‘spam’ they could be considered judgemental and disconnected from reality.

Upon such a discovery, the troops were rallied with a call for all hands on deck. The community of target parents pulls together with a loyalty that is unshakable and unbreakable. There is a bond that brings this group of target parents together in such unity that if one is under attack from the outside world, we all are.

Below is the letter sent to Meredith, editor of the Boston Globe’s “Loveletters.” More importantly, are the replies posted almost immediately by target parents who passed this around our community for support and setting the record straight.

The full thread can be found here

CALL TO ACTION: Add your reply to the comment section.

SUBMITTED QUESTION

Dear Meredith,

I was married for 23 years. It was not a good marriage. I helped to raise two stepsons and had good relationships with their mothers. My ex and I had two of our own children. It was a very busy household full of homework, football practice, and navigating the pickup and drop-offs for many kids. I actually was responsible for 99 percent of it because my ex could not get away from work.

Our divorce was awful. I was going through major family trauma (including a parent being diagnosed with Stage 4 cancer), and right in the middle of this, my ex asked me to leave. We had been having a lot of issues.

I left and began to work on myself. I rode my bike everywhere. I read books and listened to music. I just was enjoying my life and figuring out who I was. My kids didn't want to have anything to do with me (they were in high school and college at this point). I went to therapy, joined a church. I was hurting a lot. I did fall in love.

I met the love of my life and two years later, we own a home and a dog. My big issue is that my own boys still will not have anything to do with me because my ex sets the narrative. I text and call. I'm not overbearing. Crickets, chirp chirp. I paid for my oldest to go to college by working a few jobs. He didn't want me to attend his ceremony because he didn't want his dad to be hurt. His dad has a girlfriend, for Pete's sake.

I don't know what to do anymore – how to deal with an ex who has pushed me away from my family. My ex feels proud of the alienation. I pray about this all the time, but my heart is broken. Do you have advice for me? I need to heal and wait patiently, but sometimes there are days where I just don’t think that I can make it.

– Hurt

LOVELETTER’S REPLY

Below are the replies posted by the #erased within hours of the posting.

Dear Meredith - You completely missed the boat here. The writer may be the targeted parent of Parental Alienation Syndrome and her children the objects caught in the middle. It doesn't matter how old the children are at the time of the parental split. Next time just end with "This is out of my area of expertise" and "Please talk to a therapist or find a PAS support group". Dear Hurt - I want to let you know there will come a day when your children will come back to you. I want to let you know that your children will appreciate you giving them the space they need right now, but do continue to send them the occasional text message and birthday card (they may not respond today or tomorrow, but eventually they will). Your children are not emotionally strong enough to handle the dynamics of dealing with both of their parents and I'm sure they know you will always be there to greet them with open arms. (Note: When I talk about their father, it's always with respect. If I need to vent about something concerning him, I talk to my friends and leave them out of it).

Serenity111

Hello Meredtith; I wrote a couple of paragraphs yesterday that could help understand the mother’s situation. I found abhorrent how the ignorance of some of your readers abuses an already abused person, with no sympathy whatsoever to her pain, the pain of having her children emotionally murdered by a vindictive and narcissistic previous partner, in punishment for the failure of the relationship. How, one parent may use the children as a weapon to inflict pain to the other parent in a cruel act of emotional family violence (IPV) === And the story goes: == I was talking with someone yesterday, and I heard myself describing this pathology. I think I came up with a very simple description. 1.- The child has two parents; One of the parents will love the child does not matter what, and would never hurt the child. The other parent will hurt the child if she does not comply to her whims. ∴ The child complies with the abusive parent wishes, as she does not want to get hurt. 2.- After a while, the child starts doubting her own feelings. She is supposed to fear him, but ‘why?’, she would ask herself. 3.- There comes the GAL; she says the non-abusive parent must change his behaviour, she tells the child the non-abusive parent MUST stop scarring the child. 4.- Then comes the therapist; The non-abusive parent must stop scaring the child, and must apologize for his behaviour, to the child, he tells the child and the parent. This, said in front of the child to the non-abusive parent. 5-.- The child, who does not know why she is supposed to be scared; Has been told by a therapist that being scared of the non-abusive parent is a valid feeling Has been told by a GAL that the other parent is not up to task. 6.- The child does not know any better, but everyone cannot be wrong, they are professionals, the child tells herself. The child now is 100% convinced that she must reject the non-abusive parent, for valid reasons. She will manufacture reasons. Of course, the initial doubts where received from the abusive parent, not by using English (the child would understand this and be able to reason it out of her system). The abusive parent uploaded the fear on the child by the use of the language of feelings, something the child has not yet completely developed. Gender comment: This is not gender guided; give me a neutral pronoun in English for a person, and I'll use it. In the meantime, this is all I can do. ('It" sounded wrong to me today). === end of the story. == This is real, this is painful. Perhaps the biggest pain anyone can suffer. Losing its child, having its child murdered, while the child is still alive but unavailable. Can you imagine your children disappearing one day, with zero communication, while you know they have unjustified hate towards you? You should learn more about this. Join the Facebook group “Alliance to solve parental alienation”, and read Dr. Childress posts there. You could help your readers understand family abuse. — Raul Zighelboim.

I’m appalled at your insensitivity and that of your readers. The responses try to shame a parent who was caught in a high conflict divorce and is the victim of the unwarranted, manipulative and abusive tactics of the other parent. 22 million parents alone in the US are estranged from their children due to a phenomenon called “Parental Alienation.” It is real, it is painful, it is traumatic and debilitating to the parents who are #erased from their children. Since I left my family in 2015, I too have been #erased from my children’s lives. I left an emotionally abusive marriage but I NEVER left my children. I am completely shut out from their lives and my ex has masterfully brainwashed/altered my children’s minds to think that I never loved them. He has employed tactics like that in a cult. Is this healthy for the children to reject a once loving parent? Is this healthy parenting behaviors when divorce occurs? Is it healthy to try to hurt the other parent? I invite you Ms. Goldstein and most particularly “Hurt” to come to a support group that I now lead along with 2 mental health professionals experienced in parental alienation and listen to members’ painful stories. Come learn about this epidemic and understand the underlying behaviors. I led a group that brought a new documentary to Newton a month ago called “Erasing Family” and 150 people came! Watch the trailer: https://erasingfamily.org/. Also listen to: https://www.iheart.com/podcast/960-cindy-stumpo-is-tough-as-n-29001812/episode/parent-alienation-50342688/ . “Hurt,” I’m sorry that you are experiencing such loss but understand that you are not alone. You did not cause this untenable situation. I’m ecstatic that you found happiness and if you would like to reach out, you can find us at: https://www.meetup.com/New-England-Parental-Alienation-Support-Meetup/members/. Deb Black Co-Host of New England "Parental Alienation"

Dear Readers, While many who commented have good intentions, it is essential to know what “Hurt” is living through is a form of domestic violence. You may read this statement and react with thinking, “What!?!? No way! This, as domestic violence, is a stretch and makes zero sense!” Follow me on this. I believe some of the emotionally charged comments attacking “Hurt” may be rooted in personal experiences, similar to what her children are living. I want to use this thread as a tool to educate and help the 22 million US families who are dealing with this daily. Along with fantastic comments (see Caroncoss, Blackie10, and RedSagitta for great insights!), I want to extend this to include research-based information for everyone reading this. As you consider the following information and perhaps realize this pertains to you, the reader, know that you are not alone. There are Boston and Online Support Group meetings via https://www.meetup.com/New-England-Parental-Alienation-Support-Meetup/ Let’s talk about evidence. First….(via Dr. Amy Baker) THE EIGHT BEHAVIORAL MANIFESTATIONS OF PARENTAL ALIENATION These are the symptoms of parental alienation that appear within alienated children. Generally, the more symptoms present and the more severe the symptoms, the more severe the alienation; all manifestations do not need to be present for alienation to exist. 1. Campaign of denigration: Strong or utter rejection of one parent, willingness to tell others, erasing past positive aspects of relationship and memories. 2. Weak, frivolous, absurd reasons for the rejection: When pressed to explain, the child will give reasons that do not make sense or align with the level of animosity, provide false memories (proclaiming to remember something from a very young age), or are patently untrue. 3. Lack of ambivalence: For the most part, one parent is seen as all good while the other is viewed as all bad. 4. “Independent thinker” phenomenon: The child strongly emphasizes that the favored parent played no role in the child’s rejection of the other parent. The child believes the decision is theirs entirely. 5. Reflexive support of the alienating parent. The alienator can do no wrong, and the erased parent can not do right. 6. Absence of guilt: Alienated children appear to have no qualms about cruel and harsh treatment towards the rejected parent. 7. The presence of borrowed scenarios: Use of words and phrases that mimic or parrot those of the favored parent. 8. Rejection of extended family of rejected parent: Refusal to spend time with or acknowledge formerly beloved family members. While this has become quite lengthy, I will create another reply that addresses the strategies parents use to erase the loving bonds between children and a loving parent… Signed, MiningGypsy

Dear Hurt - I am so sorry you haven't been able to have a relationship with your children. Parent Alienation is real, sadly it is not a stage!!!! I write from experience, so I know it hurts, and I know how debilitating it can be. You are not alone! There are more than just a few of us fighting, healing, supporting, and educating each other on how to navigate the PA world. I admire your strength to keep going, and still having the ability to give without getting anything in return (but rejection). I am pretty sure is called LOVE. Much love and light, Priscila a loving imperfect mother p.s. every situation has a different prospective at different times of our lives, and how we feel and react to pain is very unique to our experiences and values.

Dear Readers, Below are strategies used by parents to alienate their children from the other parent. The alienating parent engages in these strategies against the targeted parent. If you find this has impacted your life, there is help locally. https://www.meetup.com/New-England-Parental-Alienation-Support-Meetup/ Also, if you know someone experiencing this, you must speak up. Kids need both parents. As I work with adult children who experienced this, they all were secretly wishing someone swooped in and called out the bad behavior of the alienating parent. As the child could not do so themselves because of the horrific consequences they would face when standing up for themselves. 17 STRATEGIES USED BY ALIENATORS: 1. Badmouthing 2. Limiting Contact 3. Interfering with communication 4. Interfering with symbolic communication (i.e., pictures and photos are defaced, removed, destroyed) 5. Withdrawal of love if expressing positive toward the target parent 6. Telling the child the targeted parent is dangerous (extreme behaviors include filing false charges with Child Protective Services) 7. Forcing the child to choose between parents 8. Telling the child the targeted parent does not love him or her 9. Confiding in the child rather than a peer or therapist 10. Forcing the child to reject the targeted parent 11. Manipulating the child to spy on the targeted parent. 12. Having the child keep secrets from the targeted parent 13. Referring to the targeted parent by their first name and encouraging the child to do the same 14. Referring to a step-parent as “Mom” or “Dad” and encouraging the child to do the same 15. Withholding medical, academic, and other relevant information from the targeted parent/keeping the targeted parent’s name off medical, academic, and other relevant documents (see your state’s law on this one!) 16. Changing the child’s name to remove any association with the targeted parent 17. Cultivating dependency/undermining the authority of the targeted parent (may include overly permissive parenting by the alienating parent) If any of this resonates with you, please reply or leave a message at https://www.speakpipe.com/voicesoftheerased #kidsneed BOTH parents! Signed, MiningGypsy

Dear Ms. Goldstein, After reading "Hurt's" letter to you dated November 5, 2019, I was quite astonished by you and your commentators' reaction to this woman's pain of losing her children. Studies have shown 86% of High Conflict divorces found that ONE parent, not both will sabotage the relationship between the child and the other parent. This means ONE parent will psychologically manipulate a child into turning against the other parent. With frequency and intensity, the alienating parent manipulates a child into believing that the targeted parent is unloving, unsafe and unavailable. It’s called Parental Alienation (PA). PA is a distinctive, destructive and counterintuitive form of psychological and family violence towards both the child and the rejected family members. It is a worldwide, inter-generational phenomenon and occurs regardless of nationality, religion, socioeconomics, race, or gender, This is NOT ESTRANGEMENT! It is induced psychological splitting in a child … an alignment or enmeshment. Alienated children display unjustified contempt and an attitude of entitlement towards the targeted parent and have a perception of an “all-wonderful” alienating parent and “all-bad” targeted parent. This is a dysfunctional coping mechanism which if not addressed leads to an unstable personality disorder and disrupts social-emotional development throughout a child’s life as a consequence of Parental Alienation. Dr. Jennifer Harman’s studies have confirmed that 22 million parents in the US alone are experiencing Parental Alienation. This means there are at the very least, 22 million children in the US who will most likely manifest difficult behaviors. Statistically, 4-5% of school children under the age of 18 are experiencing some level of mild, moderate, or severe alienating tactics and PA is 3x more prevalent than children on the Autism Spectrum. According to experts, it is psychological and emotional child abuse and is JUST as injurious as physical or sexual abuse and the World Health Organization recognizes Parental Alienation. Those who engage in severe alienating tactics often have a personality disorder. If you think a child could never be brainwashed … think of charismatic cult leaders like Jim Jones, Rev Sun Moon ... thousands and thousands of adults were manipulated. How could a child resist their own parent? This is not a divorce issue. This is not a custody or a parental rights issue. This is a mental health issue that is affecting our children around the world. These children will grow up not knowing how to be in a relationship and are emotionally stunted. This is what is happening to the children. You can also empathize with either a father or a mother who are experiencing the loss of their child(ren) through Parental Alienation. We are available to have a conversation with you or any of your readers ... If you'd like to learn more about Parental Alienation, or if 'Hurt' wants to contact for support ... Deb Black Co-Host of New England Parental Alienation Support Group https://www.meetup.com/New-England-Parental-Alienation-Support-Meetup/ Respectfully, Caron Warren MA.Ed.

Seems like we're all making lots of assumptions! It's hard to know what the family dynamics are. It could be LW is the toxic person who is responsible for her own estrangement from her children. Or, the real story may be more complicated... I was estranged from my father for more than 5 years as my mother carefully controlled information and manipulated me (and my sibling) into thinking our dad was the villain in their divorce. For years, I ignored calls or replied curtly to emails from my dad.... it saddens me to think of how I shut him out. He didn't want to cause me further pain, so he gave me space. Luckily, my dad was resilient . Eventually, crazy stuff happened, and I realized the truth my dad is flawed like anyone else, but he is not the abuser my narcissistic mother would have me believe. LW, if your ex is the crazy maker, then get therapy, take care of yourself, call on your support system, find other ways to bring meaning into your life.... you'll be in a better place for whatever comes. Therapy will help you figure out how to see toxic patterns, define and set healthy boundaries. If you're the crazy maker, well.. then I still urge you to get therapy and find ways to rebuild and reach out to your family in ways that are respectful.

YoungatHeartToo

Don't let stress over the situation affect your health or your good relationship with the current love of your life. Be proud of whatever you did for your kids. If you were not perfect, they are not perfect in not forgiving or not considering your feelings. They have their own lives now, and you should move on with yours, but hopefully they will mature more in the future. And any spouse who alienates kids from a halfway decent ex is not doing right by the kids or the ex.

Lexgal

Sorry Meredith but your advice is so unbelievably tone deaf. The guy LOVES that he is in charge and sets the narrative. In his mind he won. Do you REALLY think a coffee shop meeting or family therapy is going to happen? He is looooooong gone. LW - even though there is no reason given for the divorce this is a sad letter and I feel bad for you, after everything you did you deserve to be treated much better. Maybe the boys blame you, again, not sure why you divorced. Just keep killing your kids with kindness. Don't get mad, every once in awhile ask if they want to meet and 1 of these days they will. You really need to let them know how much this hurts you in a matter of fact way, I'm sure they have no idea. Maybe send them a random card with a brief note explaining your pain? You have nothing to lose.

THE Guru

Wow. So everyone is blaming the mother, even though the husband booted her, even though she continues to support the kids financially, even though she gives the kids space despite how it hurts her to be isolated from them. And the father, on at least his 3rd marriage and booted his wife while she was dealing with a parent with cancer, is a prince? This certainly is bizarro world! Gee, victim-blaming much?

Tie--Dye--Brain--Fry

I cut my dad out of my life for a lot of the tone that's similar to this letter. No acknowledging your own role in the estrangement, acting like a complete victim, blaming everyone else for your problems. My advice would be to write a letter to your kids (individually - don't treat them interchangeably), saying that you miss them dearly and don't know what you did to drive them away, but that whenever they are ready, you would like to hear their side of things and that you promise to LISTEN and not make it about yourself, that you won't get defensive or lay any guilt on them for it. If you want them back in your life, you need to acknowledge that you have hurt them deeply, and that even if your ex was badmouthing you, if your relationship to your kids was genuinely strong enough, it would have survived that.

audreylyn

This is an inspiring letter. You managed to overcome many difficulties, got yourself on a bike, got to church, met someone new, rebuilt a life for yourself after a lot of emotional trauma. You're a survivor. Parenthood comes with no guarantees about payback. But as your kids mature, they might develop a different perspective. Keep the olive branch out there and focus on what you do have, your new relationship, your home and your dog.

Jim501

I'm disgusted by the tone of the comments I've read here today. I had to stop, so I just hope the later ones were more sympathetic. My advice to the LW is to find a good therapist who can listen to you and help you work out both your feelings and an effective strategy for reaching out to your children. Clearly, writing to an anonymous mob on the internet is not the way to go.

OutOfOrder

I read this as being written by a man. Maybe it’s because I have a friend who is a good man in a very similar situation, having an ex wife who has poisoned their children against him. It’s a horrible thing to do to a child as well as the father. Little by little, he has made inroads just by being there for them. He keeps reaching out. Hopefully, when they’re older and have been away from their mother for a longer period of time, they will do a complete tour-around.

Seenittoo

"... in my experience, tend to side with the parent who has been there for them." I would politely disagree, and say that kids will side with those who "manipulate best". Usually the most toxic wins. The reality is that it may take the kids till they are 40+ and raising their own families to start to get the separation and hindsight they need to rectify the state of affairs, but that, of course, is no given.

MrTrumping

The only thing you can do is to love your kids in whatever way they will let you, which is what you are already doing. If they have any sign of intelligence and if college did anything to teach them how to think independently, at some point, maybe even soon, or maybe when they start their own family, they will start to question what they are being told. At that point, you will have amassed a lot of evidence (texts, calls, letters, paying for college, etc.) over time that you are not exactly what your ex says you are.

sexual-chocolate

HarrisBlackwoodStone

it will take time. that's all. there's nothing more you can do for your children than send them birthday and holiday cards and gifts. when they become adults, assuming you haven't left anything out of this picture you've painted for us, eventually they will seek you out.

red-speck

This letter (including the fact that it's one side of a mutifaceted story) leaves out a lot of detail, but assuming LW's is a reliable synopsis, the kids were hurting like hell through the divorce, too. LW doesn't mention whether they went to counseling or their emotional states throughout. I'm glad she's getting things sorted out.

As for her relationship with the kids, my wife's parents divorced when she was a teen. Took her decades to come to the realization that her parents weren't awful people, just broken ones trying to cope with their lives flying apart. All you can do is keep inviting them into your life and trying, graciously, to remain a part of theirs. Don't hold "I did X for you" lists over their heads; just rebuild a relationship from this day forward. With any luck, you'll come to some measure of healing in due course.

Leftylucy

I agree 100% with you here.

redsoxpatriotsnyfan

The best advice to you is to hire a good lawyer!

Anon

Funny thing is -- in divorce cases where there are custody orders -- attorneys typically accelerate the alienation. We need to make family court therapeutic, not adversarial. I hope you can spread the word!

[thewebofslime]

[Our correspondent Dianne Lipson attended the indictment dismissal hearing for Jeffrey Epstein today and gives an impressive report on the events.] By Dianne Lipson Because of Jeffrey Epstein’s untimely death, US District Judge Richard Berman held a hearing today to dismiss the indictment. In a twist, the judge allowed the alleged victims to make statements at the hearing. Instead of being held, as previously scheduled, at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan Courthouse, the hearing was held in a larger room at the older, venerable, Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse. Waiting to enter the courtroom, I saw a tall woman wheeling a baby in a stroller. She turned out to be an Epstein victim, represented by Gloria Allred. Judge Berman began by thanking everyone for their hard work. He said the news on August 10th that Epstein was found dead in his cell was shocking. The anticipated next step would have been the defense motions, followed by a jury trial in which the accusers and the accused would meet face to face, and everyone would get their day in court. The judge called Epstein’s death a stunning turn of events. Judge Berman made reference to an article critical of him, in a New York Law Journal titled, “The Judge in Epstein’s Case Should Not Turn the Dismissal Into a Drama for the Victims,” which said of his decision, “This is an odd moment for transparency in a criminal case.” Judge Berman disagreed with the article and gave examples to bolster his decision, adding that there has not been much minimization of the drama in this case. It’s better to involve the victims before rather than after. He also mentioned that one of the authors is counsel in one of the Epstein related cases. Maurene R. Comey, a prosecutor, assured the judge that the government would still pursue others who may have aided Epstein, saying those investigations “have been ongoing, remain ongoing and will continue.” Prosecutors also said a grand jury was investigating Epstein’s death. Reid Weingarten, one of Epstein’s lawyers, asked Judge Berman to conduct an independent investigation into Epstein’s death. Weingarten said Judge Berman could hold hearings or assign an independent lawyer. A lawyer for Epstein also brought up the serious improprieties in the jail. There are allegations that people falsified documentation. Epstein was never to be left alone. The defense was also assured from medical and scientific professionals that Epstein’s injuries were more consistent with assault than suicide. Regarding Epstein’s death, he said defense lawyers did not see a despondent or suicidal person. Moreover, “We have heard that the [surveillance] tapes were either corrupted or not functioning.” The defense heard that the tape system was broken for six months. But what if the tapes were only inoperative or corrupted on the day he died? The defense stated that these are incredibly important questions, that there are conspiracy theories galore, and the court has the authority to find out what happened. This is important for the public to have confidence in the system. Conditions in US Federal Prison Are Like Third World Conditions at the jail were dreadful, both for Epstein and other inmates. Vermin, abuse, it’s a disgrace, his lawyers said. He cited reports that conditions at Guantanamo Bay are better. A second defense lawyer said that the government should keep its defendants safe. He also spoke of conditions at the jail, citing vermin, wet floors from leaking plumbing, no sunlight, limited exercise. No defendant should be subjected to this. The government [judiciary] should see what kind of conditions exist 50 or 100 yards from the court. He reiterated the assertion that no new evidence surfaced of any Epstein crimes taking place after 2005. He said the defense had an attendant doctor at the autopsy, who found the broken bones in Epstein’s neck more consistent with external pressure; Homicide, rather than suicide. The time of death was at least 45 minutes before he was found but may have occurred hours before. He was moved after he was found, which makes the scene more difficult to reconstruct. Like the other defense lawyer, he also asked when the dysfunction of the video was known to MDC. “We ask your honor to find out what happened to our client,” he said. The prosecution responded that the circumstances of Epstein’s death were the subject of ongoing and active investigations, and that it was not relevant to today’s hearing. Alleged Victims Began to Line up The many alleged Epstein victims began to line up in the aisle of the gallery, and subsequently found seats. The prosecution stated that some witnesses did not come out of fear of public exposure. Some used their names, and some did not. The government attorney took issue with the law journal article, which she said seems to say that transparency is not important. She said that assertion is tough to swallow. Alleged victim Courtney Wild’s attorney, Brad Edwards, said she came to him in asking for the government to talk to her, not to sue him for money. A few months later, they learned of the secret plea deal. The victims were treated as though they did not matter. Edwards thanked Judge Berman for making things very different now. The victims are not ‘one size fits all.” He said this hearing means a lot to the victims. If they were accorded their rights, would any of us be here now? Wild said she was 14 years old and wearing braces when she was recruited outside a high school to give Epstein massages. “Jeffrey Epstein robbed myself and all the other victims our day in court to confront him one by one—and for that, he is a coward,” she said. “I am angry and sad that justice has never been served in this case.” Wild broke into tears. Jane Doe 1, who had a hesitant speaking manner, cried when she said she read other victim stories that were similar to her own. A lot of girls were raped, and change needs to happen. Jane Doe 2 said the experience was really hard to explain to people who have not gone through it. Things happened slowly over time. We are not bad people. We were vulnerable and sometimes in extreme poverty. Jane Doe 3 came from a small town to New York City to be a model. She met a female who told her about an amazing man who was able to help her. At Epstein’s home, she was sexually assaulted. She was ashamed, embarrassed. This was not how she was brought up. Her world spiraled. She stopped modeling, became depressed, and left New York. She buried what happened deep within her. Jane Doe 4 said Epstein took away the future she had envisioned for herself, and she will never fully heal. Jane Doe 5 seemed to be speaking of her assault and trauma. She was in tears throughout, her voice choked with emotion. Next came Chauntae Davies, an aspiring masseuse. She said Epstein flew her to his private island in the Caribbean, where his associate instructed her to give him a massage. She said the encounter became violent when Epstein grabbed her wrist and pulled her body “onto his already naked body,” she said. She begged him to stop but “that just seemed to excite him more” and he raped her. The abuse continued for three years. She had been conditioned to accept it. She spoke of every [subsequent] relationship that she had to end. In a strong and confident tone, she said, “I found my voice now. I needed him to hear the pain he caused.” She added that Epstein’s death gave her no satisfaction. Another alleged victim said it’s tragic when someone dies, but she is truly relieved that Epstein will not be in a position to hurt any more children. A letter from alleged victim Michelle Acosta was read in court. She was told that Epstein would be held accountable, but then there was the secret plea deal, making her feel she was treated as if she did not matter. She said this time it was completely different. Her attorney was able to tell her what happened at every stage. Now, she feels that she and the other victims matter. A legal speaker, Paul Cassell, a former judge, said transparency is the overriding objective. Victims need to be treated with fairness and respect. He said the one positive thing that came of this was to allow the victims to come forward. Judge Cassell encouraged Judge Berman to publish his decision. Judge Berman had not been aware that Cassell was going to speak, and he was pleased that Cassell had traveled to New York in order to do so. Another lawyer who represented five alleged victims said that Epstein could not have done what he did on such a scale without co-conspirators. His first client who spoke said 17 years ago she came from California to New York. What happened was a dark corner in her life. She felt shame and anger for normalizing it. Now it’s time to bring light to replace the darkness. It was a phase in her life that she is no longer covering up. Jeffrey Epstein is no longer here, but the women who helped him are. She mentioned the name of Ghislaine Maxwell. Virginia Roberts Giuffre spoke next. Like many others, she thanked the judge for allowing her to address the court. She thought she was being given her big break, but her hopes were quickly dashed, and her dreams stolen. But the reckoning and accountability have begun. Annie Farmer spoke. She also appreciated the opportunity to speak, and was sorry others did not have the opportunity to do so. She was disappointed by Epstein’s death but encouraged to hear of the continuing investigation. Epstein did not act alone, and others must be held accountable. Ms. Farmer’s story is here, along with a link to a podcast. https://ift.tt/3238N8H The Sisters Who First Tried to Take Down Jeffrey Epstein – The New York Times Ms. Farmer moved to New York in 1993, eager to pursue her passion for art, and enrolled at the New York Academy of Art. She already had a specialty, exploring figures of nudes and adolescents, and … www.nytimes.com The next woman was a model who agreed to meet Epstein at his house. Attorney Lerner from Lerner & Lerner described a client’s experience. She was 14 years old. What he could not buy, he forcibly took. He surrounded himself with facilitators. She asked that all enablers and co-conspirators be brought to justice, Epstein no longer has power over her. Then a client described, in tears, how Epstein stole her chances for love by making her too scared to trust anybody. She was ashamed and embarrassed until she found out there were other victims. “The fact I will never have a chance to face my predator in court eats away at my soul,” said Jennifer Araoz, who accused Epstein of raping her when she was a 15-year-old student at a performing arts high school in New York. “They let this man kill himself and kill the chance of justice for so many others in the process, taking away our ability to speak.” Next came victims represented by attorney Lisa Bloom. Jane Doe 7 said she used to be carefree, hopeful, and excited about life. Her life became dark. Epstein and his recruiter “ruined me.” In the immediate aftermath, she was unable to function. Her parents brought her home and she became a recluse for years. She thought she did this to herself and that she had allowed it to happen, and she felt she didn’t deserve to be happy. She spoke of a reckoning, and thanked Judge Berman. Jane Doe 8 feels she is still a victim. There is no closure because Epstein took his own life. She and others will never have an answer why or an apology. In choosing death, Epstein denied everyone justice. She still wants closure. As if to save the most dramatic for the end, Gloria Allred’s clients were the last to speak. Some had sent statements, read by Ms. Allred. She thanked the Judge, and said many victims never even told their own families what happened to them. Allred said it would increase confidence to have the court oversee the investigation into Epstein’s death because the court is a neutral party. She asked if there was a way to keep the record open for victims who were not present, or had not yet spoken to an attorney. She said this is about power, and the fear that rich and powerful men have power to silence the victims. Jane Doe 9, in tears, also said she is still a victim of Jeffrey Epstein. She is fearful for her daughter and for everyone’s daughter in a world where there are predators and cowards. She was 17 years old and she thought she found someone who cared about her. Epstein took advantage of that poor girl who will never be the same. ‘He thought he was untouchable and so did I.’ Jane Doe 10 related that when she was 15 she was on a plane to the ranch. Paraphrase: ‘When I was molested, he explained to me how beneficial this experience was to me and how he was helping me to grow. After he had finished, he told me to describe how good my first sexual experience had felt.’ Allred read a statement of another victim. She was from a small Texas town, her mother died when she was 11, and the family was poor. At 15, a lady approached her and told her she worked for a rich man. She could arrange transportation and the girl would be there and back before anybody knew about it. Over four visits, things progressed to oral copulation. She stopped going. She took a gun to kill herself, but remembering her mother’s voice stopped her. She said Epstein took the easy way out. Another victim statement read by Allred, paraphrased: I was a 16-year-old virgin when Jeffrey Epstein first raped me. I was impressed by him – he called celebrities in my presence, as well as award-winning actresses and supermodels. They always took his calls. My mother wanted us to go to college. My life was turbulent. He promised me a letter of recommendation to Harvard, saying he was donating money to them. A massage turned sexual almost immediately. Even if I resisted, I was no match for him. I wanted to vomit. The progression was constant and unending. I had never even kissed a boy. Epstein never kissed me. He said, ‘If you’re not a virgin I will kill you.” Then I wasn’t a virgin. I protested. He forced my face into the bed. If I missed an appointment, he said, “I’ll bury you. I own this f’ing town.” Then the appointment was rescheduled. He was the master of the universe, the world bent to his will. I felt less human. One day I walked out and saw another girl. I had an epiphany. I realized I was one of many. I went into a deep depression and locked myself away from everything. I could never go back to my old life. How easy it is to manipulate a 16-year-old virgin. I went into therapy and took antidepressants. They say you never forget your first time. I’m trying to do just that. Years later I married. When Epstein was arrested I thought, I’ll show him I am worthwhile. His ghost is laughing at us. Allred read a final victim statement. She was a model from another country. A booker said she should meet Epstein in order to be a Victoria’s Secret model. She went to the mansion. A woman told her to be nice to Epstein. He met her wearing a robe. He took the robe off. The door was locked. He touched her genitals. She refused. A girl outside said to be careful if I didn’t do what Epstein wanted. The hearing ended and Judge Berman thanked everyone for their participation. The Epstein victim who came with her baby appeared outside with Gloria Allred and another victim. Allred said Judge Berman was paying attention and listened carefully to all the victim’s statements, and she thanks him for that.

[farawayhills2-blog]

Carrie Underwood: Cry Pretty Album Review

This album represents Carrie's first formal role as producer (although there have been indications that she frequently discussed production and made suggestions before.) Here she shares production with David Garcia, a relatively new connection, that evolved from songwriting together. Although Garcia has had some recent connection with Mainstream Country, his main experience has been in Pop and Contemporary Christian Music, enabling him to bring mixed influences, and probably relatively few genre preconceptions, to the production desk. Many of the songs do strike me as having a definite "Carrie" feel, and I think she has made considerable use of the freedom her co-producer role has given her to innovate and express herself in a variety of ways. What I believe is likely to have been of considerable help to Carrie in expressing musically the styles she wanted to develop, and in giving much of the album an overall cohesion is the continuity of key musicians. Throughout her major label career, Carrie has shown a marked tendency to use the same session players on substantial parts of her albums. Her favoured rhythm section, of Chris McHugh on drums and Jimmie Lee Sloas on bass, have appeared on every one of her albums, as has electric guitarist, Tom Bukovac, and although the same combination is not heard on every track, it is on the majority. Other players, such as multi string specialist, Ilya Toshinskiy, and flatpicking acoustic guitarist, Bryan Sutton, are also well known from several earlier apperarences. This tends to give rise to a situation in which she knows and trusts the musicians, and they are pretty familiar with her singing styles. A number of other specialist players also make a strong contribution, and the combinations show that the two producers have been prepared to put considerable effort into musical planning and innovation. This has resulted in a situation in which the music and the vocal lines seem particularly to complement each other, and, for me, this remains apparent even when bold and complex production is being employed. One result is that I find that Carrie's exceptional vocal talent often comes across with more variety and clarity than ever.

The two albums with which I'd be most inclined to compare this one are "Storyteller" and "Some Hearts". "Storyteller" is an easy comparison, since I think this album noticeably builds on directions which Carrie was already exploring on its predecessor. In that category I'd place the willingness to explore more personal and intimate themes, the desire to push some songs in a deeper Country stylistic direction, and the Pop-leaning experiments in other songs. All those trends occurred, to some extent, in earlier work - but I feel it is in the two most recent albums that they find a fuller expression - a sign of Carrie's greater maturity and confidence, and perhaps willingness to explore areas she chooses, with relatively less concern for the expectations of outside interests.

The comparison with "Some Hearts" may be less obvious, but I mention it for two reasons. Firstly, both albums have a group of standout songs that are stylistically different from other parts of the album, and which I consider to be among Carrie's best work. The four Country singles from "Some Hearts" were largely responsible for winning her critical acclaim and her early spate of award wins at the Country trade shows, and it was only later, with lighter songs such as "Last Name" and "All American Girl" that some of that support moved away from her, notwithstanding her continued commercial success. I believe there is a block of songs on "Cry Pretty" which, if they receive sufficiently wide exposure, could restore her earlier reputation.

The second reason is that both "Some Hearts" and "Cry Pretty" appear to be aimed at a mixed audience - probably to a greater extent than the intervening albums, which, while varied, stemmed from a situation in which Carrie's career seemed securely focused on a prominent position within Mainstream Country radio. "Some Hearts" came at a time when that position was not secure, and her reputation as a Country singer of note had to be established, while, at the same time keeping faith with the more mixed audience which had encountered her on "American Idol". In the case of "Cry Pretty", Carrie is arguably also at something of a career turning point, since gaining a wider international audience is one of the stated objectives of her move to a new label group - which, by definition, means, to some extent, looking beyond Mainstream Country radio. I think it would probably be a mistake to over-emphasize that point, because much of the album has the feel of being personal to Carrie, expressing what she wants to say, as an individual and as an artist, rather than simply being targeted to particular tastes. But, nevertheless, the potential audiences for different types of song do seem to have been taken into account,

(The bonus track, "The Champion", is the only one with a different producer, Jim Jonsin, and, while the new direction it explored, and the interest and popularity it aroused, justified its album place as an extra, because of its very different origins and purpose, I've not included it in this album review)

CRY PRETTY

This title track, and lead single was co-written with the three Love Junkies, who also provided one of the most memorable (and emotional) songs, "Like I'll Never Love You Again", on Carrie's last album. This one sets the scene for the new album, by emphasizing some of the developments in production, vocal delivery, and more personal themes that Carrie is experimenting with. The first minute is a slow, stark and emotional statement of feelings, accompanied by a sparse arrangement that creates a sense of foreboding. This is probably one of the longest passages of quiet vocal development that Carrie has used, and is very effective in identifying the raw sense of dichotomy between an artist's inner feelings, and the expectations of glamour that her public role insists on. It's followed by a bursting out of Carrie's well known power singing. Inevitably, perhaps, this section seems less innovative, but it serves to reassure the many listeners who principally identify with this style that it is still an important part of her stylistic range. It is in three quarter time, evoking the traditional Country Waltz feel - a reminder that Carrie likes to combine striking modern arrangements with touches that still pay homage to older styles. What I find becomes particularly impressive and unusual about the later development of the song is that both the music and the voice continue to build up into an increasing sense of chaos and despair, in which the lyric sometimes melts into a wordless wail. This is very effective in expressing the theme of the song that, regardless of appearances, an artist might be almost overwhelmed by her own inner feelings, that can arise from matters quite beyond the artificiality of her stage role. In that sense I would regard this song as one of four on the album that deal with topical issues: the demands of the entertainment world (here); substance abuse ("Spinning Bottles"); empathy with victims of gun violence ("The Bullet", and "Love Wins"); political division and prejudice ("Love Wins"). Carrie has addressed social issues before ("Temporary Home", "Change" and "Nobody Ever Told You" being earlier examples), but "Smoke Break" on the previous album, and the four songs on this one, represent a definite development in both depth and emphasis

GHOSTS ON THE STEREO

Sadly one of the writers, Andrew Dorff, passed away shortly before Christmas, 2016, at the early age of 40, and this remarkable song must serve as one of his memorials.

I have seen some criticism that Carrie, a leading Mainstream singer, may have chosen this song as a "nod" to evoke a nominal allegiance to traditional singers whose work runs counter to her own - but that criticism strikes me as missing the whole point, in two important senses. One is that Carrie, although a contemporary singer, who draws on a mix of influences (something which, if we're honest, we should admit has happened throughout the genre's history), she does show a persistent and marked loyalty to her place in the genre (something she would have had numerous opportunities to reject), and does take more trouble than many contemporary chart artists to include specific references to the genre's traditions in much of her own work. Hating on the Mainstream is often understandable (I share that emotion often enough myself!), but singling out Carrie as the symbolic target is far from identifying the worst offender. The second reason is contained in the song itself - the character is described as going through a separation, but finding solace in listening to recordings of past heroes. The point is that the party mood described is imaginary - it seems like a haunted house, with just one car in the drive. But the singer finds her company in identifying with the timeless mood of the songs she recalls. Far from being a "nod" to a set of names, connecting with the stream of emotion those singers represent is the whole point of the song. And we should not miss the significance of the guest artists brought in to supplement Carrie's more usual session players. Holly Williams is Hank's granddaughter, and Ben Haggard is Merle's son. Steel player Steve Hinson often worked with George Jones. These people didn't need to appear, and the fact that they did is consistent with my own experience - years ago, I was persuaded to look up Carrie's work by remarks made by women singers in Roots Country who admired her. The reality is that she often gets more respect from artists in that sector than from some of the more partisan critics. "Ghosts on the Stereo" is one that I find to be among the most memorable tracks on the album. I like the concept, find the music interesting with the slow build up, and the sequence of notes that keeps recurring through the changing background. And Carrie's vocal conveys the mood well, knowing when to draw out the emotion, and when to emphasize the sense of recovery, showing enough power singing, without going over the top, in a song that might be spoilt by too forceful a delivery,

LOW

A standout track, with some of the best lyrics, and one of the best vocal performances of Carrie's career - this is a singing style that I would hope Carrie will continue to develop. Coming after the last song, this track clearly reflects the influence of Hank Williams' landmark album "Moanin' The Blues", both in the general singing style, and in the lyrical references to the whippoorwill and to lonesome, which recall the track, "I'm So Lonesome I Could Cry", often considered his lyrical masterpiece. However, I would also point to possible influence from Bill Mack's 1958 song "Blue", both in the drawn out vowel wail, and in the specific wording "so lonesome for you". Williams' album (which has influenced generations of Country singers, especially in the more Roots-leaning sectors) came out in 1952, but was really a collection of singles dating from 1947 onwards - so in drawing on these two influences, Carrie is probably reaching back 60 to 70 years in the genre's history. But nothing stands still, and this is not just a derivative track - the strong percussion that breaks in, and the electric guitar work of Danny Rader and Rob McNelley add notable modern progression to the arrangement. Since the album came out, Carrie has revealed that she suffered three miscarriages in the years since her last album. There is a prevailing sadness in several songs on this album, but some of those seem to involve broken relationships, or other issues affecting people in general - "Low", though, strikes me as one of the most personal, in which Carrie may have focused particularly on her own feelings. The line "Everything that was right is wrong, ever since baby you've been gone" seems especially poignant, in light of what has since been revealed, and may go beyond the more superficial interpretation of a departed lover. And it is interesting that Hillary Lindsey plays acoustic guitar on this song. She has sung on every one of Carrie's albums, but just playing seems new - it is tempting to interpret this as a friend, who was with her in the writing session, accompanying her while she tracked her vocals, to support her on what may have been a difficult song for her to sing.

BACKSLIDING

In my opinion, this song could be a strong launchpad for a thrust into the UK General Music market. It demonstrates the advantages to Carrie of taking control of her own production, since it enables her to use a multi-layered arrangement to create a song that seems to transcend genre, in a way that ties together varied modern elements, without sacrificing an underlying Country feel. Dan Dugmore's pedal steel glides through the song, giving it a haunting, timeless quality. And there is an interesting lyrical point, that I think reinforces the sense of the song bridging a transition through time for Carrie herself. She uses a line which is almost a doublet for a line in the very first Country song she recorded after "American Idol" - Gretchen Peters' "Independence Day". The line in the older song (on which Gretchen herself played strings for Carrie's recording) was "Word gets around in a small, small town", and the line Carrie uses here is "word gets around in such a small town". That close resemblance seems unlikely to be accidental, and suggests to me that Carrie might be using it to emphasize that this album too is a new turning point in her career. Her vocal line in the verses comes across as particularly clear and expressive, not swamped by the complex, but relatively light, musical production. It is combined with choruses that bring in an element of her signature power vocal, and allow her to express the sense of desperation and inevitability in the repetition of the word "Backsliding". The background vocals (where Carrie joins her co-writers Hillary and David, in tracking her own voice) are an interesting element, which adds mood to the song, and Bryan Sutton's melodic riff gives it a perfect finish.

SOUTHBOUND

While the more memorable songs on this album lean towards sadness and retrospection, this track breaks that mood with a nod towards the prevailing Mainstream liking for party songs. That may increase its appeal to radio, and to listeners seeking a lighter, upbeat song to balance the more serious tracks. Those considerations may justify its inclusion, but for me, this is a disappointing song, which seems an ill fit for the mixture of progressive innovation and deep genre references that characterize the album as a whole. It is Carrie's second venture into "getaway" songs, but in my opinion, her earlier "One Way Ticket" showed a greater individuality, having more of the feel of a parody, and a touch of defiance in telling the boss to "stick it". By contrast, I feel that "Southbound" seems too accepting of "bro country" conventions of parties, boys catching the eye of pretty girls, tan lines and outdoor dancing. The music seems to include a slight Louisiana Cajun influence, but that strikes me as virtually the only concession to variation, in a rather obvious pitch to an arguably over-used Mainstream sub-genre. Carrie has always enjoyed some fun songs - but her singles have usually striven to add depth and originality to the general run of radio hits. This, I feel, would risk that reputation, and it's an album track I'd be inclined to skip.

THAT SONG WE USED TO MAKE LOVE TO

This is one of the most experimental songs on the album, and indeed, of Carrie's career so far. Some might criticize it for going too far "off genre", but I find that criticism misplaced, and would judge the song a success. Hilary Lindsey's co-writer here is Jason Evigan, a Californian writer and artist/producer, who has worked widely in innovative Pop. His involvement, and the use of electronic programming give this song a definite General Music feel in its experimentation. But, while it may be a reasonable criticism that this trend is increasingly watering down the character of Mainstream Country, especially when simply copying other musical forms, Carrie seems to have planned to take care here to have woven this innovation into Country. Her vocal retains a strong Country tone (ironically, perhaps, more noticeable here than in some of her more soaring "Pop Country" chorus-driven songs). And she relies heavily on her familiar cohort of Country session players, with Dan Dugmore, Danny Rader and Ilya Toshinskiy all playing variations on the steel guitar. The resophonic tone more than holds its own amongst the electronic instruments, and this combination strikes me as closer to some of the Progressive music being played in Alternative Country circles than to the off-genre music of some of the contemporary male Mainstream singers. I get a somewhat similar impression here to the one I gained several years ago, when Carrie collaborated with Swedish Pop producers, on "Quitter" - namely, that she will try new approaches, but is confident enough to use them to enlarge a genre that she's at home in, rather than attempt to leave it. The complex vocal on this song is all Carrie, tracking her own voice - again, a confident move. And another point that I find striking is that she's prepared to use quite erotic lyrical lines, "When you laid my body down, and then got drunk on me like wine"; "baby go on, let it take my breath" - making this probably her most passionate song since she covered Maria McKee's "Show Me Heaven" as a teenager. All told, this is a bold experiment, by an artist not prepared to always accept limitations.

DRINKING ALONE

Another experimental song, with synthesized programming, and a variety of vocal effects tracked into the mix by Carrie herself. This time, she relies on Danny Rader's dobro to add some acoustic twang, but that element is generally less evident here than in some of the other songs. Perhaps because the theme suggests a classic Country "tear in my beer" motif, I would have preferred more emphasis on the twang (but, presumably, that would miss the point that Carrie wanted to ring the changes with something more unexpected). As it is, her vocal tone in the main chorus line is one of the most Country aspects of the song - and this is one of the few occasions where I prefer her chorus delivery (which, in other songs, can sometimes prove too overwhelming for my taste). Here, her verse narration, which is often the most interesting part of her songs, strikes me as rather rushed in parts, where I would have preferred a more lingering, reflective delivery. Although I don't find this song to be the most successful of the album's experiments, I admire the uncompromising tone of some of the lyrics, such as "Tonight all I need is a stranger, lips with a whiskey chaser, and a corner booth kiss to make me forget that he's gone" - which shows a willingness to defy the more one dimensional "girl next door" image that some might want to persist in applying to a mature and varied artist.

THE BULLET

A much needed song, and one that I find stronger and more effective than the album's somewhat similarly themed and topical song, "Love Wins". "The Bullet", too, may fall rather short of being a perfect track - mainly, in my opinion, because the production tends to become rather forced and overly dramatic as the song develops, blurring some of the sense of emptiness that is at the heart of the lyric - but it is, nevertheless, one of the most significant statements by a leading Mainstream artist, and a topic which would shame the genre if it was kept suppressed as something too controversial to be broached. I've seen criticism that the song ducks placing any blame - but I disagree. It says plainly "You can blame it on hate, or blame it on guns" - and those are the very things that the root of the issue can be blamed on, rather than taking refuge in secondary excuses about loners, misfits, social degeneration, patchy background checks, or failure to arm more responsible civilians. I admire Carrie for tackling the topic - and it both strengthens the song's impact, and seems very much in line with her personality, that the lyric focuses on the pain and ongoing effects of premature loss on the families and survivors. The recording seems most effective in its mainly acoustic opening passages, where Carrie's vocal delivery is at its simplest and most sensitive. This style returns at various points, including the very effective closing chorus. But, in general, as the song progresses, the production becomes more complex, and the vocal (where Carrie is supported by Hillary, although neither was a writer here) becomes more forceful, and the delivery rather more hasty. This strikes me as the style Carrie often prefers, when dealing with emotional topics. It can be effective, in stressing a sense of desperation and anguish - but the downside can also be that it puts the singer rather more into a staged role, a little removed from personal immersion in the feelings expressed in those parts of the song. Carrie has said that she would find this song difficult to perform live - and if this more detached, role playing style is the one that helps her deal with more heart-rending topics, then we must accept that that may be the price of including such significant themes on her albums. This may not become a single, but I consider it one of the corner stones of the album.

SPINNING BOTTLES

Drinking references have played have an increasing part in Carrie's songs, on both "Storyteller" and "Cry Pretty", and this album, in particular, shows how they can be used, in the stronger songs, to reflect a range of themes, including desperation, recovery and abuse. This is one of the starker, and in my view, most effective, songs, which focuses on the way alcohol addiction can destroy a relationship. The song is skilfully constructed, to show first the apparent harmlessness of the over-indulgence, by comparing it to a children's game with empty bottles, and moving on to the anguish of the wife, waiting at home, not knowing when, or if, the addict will return - then considering the addict's own perspective, wanting to quit, but knowing he won't, and that it will finally lead to separation, before collapsing in a lonely hotel room. The track begins with a sparse piano arrangement, and later two keyboard parts (played by Dave Cohen and David Garcia) intertwine, being joined by melodic lines from 'cello (Austin Hoke), and pedal steel (Dan Dugmore). This amounts to one of the more contained musical arrangements on the album, but the interaction between the instruments is more complex than it might at first appear, and its relative lack of additional effects brings out the disparity between apparent normality, and the mounting despair of the lyric. It enables Carrie to concentrate on a more intimate, emotional, vocal delivery, which I think proves to be one of the most expressive of her career. I've been hoping that she'd explore song constructions and vocal deliveries more along these lines, as her career matures, and I hope this development continues.

LOVE WINS

This song has attracted considerable attention, much of it focusing on whether it can be seen as a Gay anthem (for which it's both been applauded as a relatively bold step in the context of her career limitations, and also criticized for not going far enough). But that entire area of interpretation requires the listener to relate the song to an external back story - something which doesn't actually appear in the song itself. I think it's worth emphasizing that the two actual issues that are highlighted are the effects of a shooting, and the political divisions that are so apparent in society today (and not just in the USA). As these are specifically mentioned, they deserve to be considered as issues that Carrie considered important in her choice and development of this song (especially as it is the second album track to focus on shooting). Beyond that, the song is a general appeal for love - something that any listener can apply, regardless of context. That generality can be a strength - we need that uplifting message, and it certainly deserves support. But, sadly, I do feel that the wish to make the song as general as possible has led Carrie into its relative weakness. The main problem for me does not lie in what it may fail to say (I understand her wish not to see the song lost in bickering and controversy) - but rather in what I see as its relative failure to live up to the overall feel and spirit of this innovative album. It involves virtually the same musicians as appear in "Kingdom" (which I regard as a much more exceptional and successful track), and they provide some pleasing touches in the musical backing - but the overall production here seems less innovative and more wary of challenging listeners' expectations. And, for me, that becomes even more apparent in the vocal style that Carrie mainly adopts, after the opening stanzas. I'm not questioning that she is, indeed, an exceptionally gifted singer, nor that a great many listeners do relate to this style. But the fact that this seems mainly a reprise of a style that she's used many times before, with an emphasis on power singing, hastened delivery, and considerable lyrical repetition, makes it appear something of a backward-looking approach and a rather problematic fit for much of the rest of the album. That does make this a rather disappointing song for me - something I regret in view of its potential and its positive message.

END UP WITH YOU

Another of Carrie's interesting use of cross genre influences, this song is one that might fit well into today's Mainstream radio chart. The mix of musical backgrounds is a particularly striking feature here. Of Hillary Lindsey's co-writers, Brett McLaughlin (who also records as Leland) is generally known for his Pop work (though he has also worked in Country with Kelsie Ballerini) - while Will Weatherley has, for example, also worked on Dan Tyminski's innovative album "Southern Gothic", both as writer and electronic programmer, as he is here. The music also reflects this innovative mix, with a leading role given to Rob McNelley, who has won Guitarist of the Year at the ACM, and performs with Bob Seger's Silver Bullet Band, as well as being a leading session player in progressive Country Rock. Here, he shares the rhythm role with Nir Z, an Israeli drummer with a distinguished career in General Music, working for example with Genesis, and John Mayer. (Carrie's own interest in percussion is also seen here, as she adds her own support to the mix). There will, inevitably, be those who regret the tendency to blur the Mainstream's musical identity in stylistic mixing - but this also occurs in many of the Roots fields, where it usually seems more acceptable. The key point is often not the fact that it occurs, but more the way in which it is done. In this example, I think Carrie has taken steps to handle the experimentation along lines sympathetic to current trends, but also in a way that evokes interest in the forms the innovation takes. For those listeners who prefer a soaring, pure voice led delivery, the staccato, singalong lyrical couplets of this song may not be among their favourite Carrie styles, but it is unrealistic to expect an artist to become stereotyped to a particular style, and I think this could stand out favourably among many of the contemporary radio offerings.

KINGDOM

Leaving aside the bonus track (which, for all its merits, has no production or thematic connection to the album as a whole), "Kingdom" is effectively the album's closing track - a placing that Carrie traditionally reserves for a song that has a special meaning for her, and which has often been different, in style and theme, from the rest of her albums. This time, the personal meaning is certainly there - but rather than being an outlier, I see it this time as a culmination of the production innovation and stylistic growth that Carrie and David Garcia have been experimenting with on this album. And in that, I would rate it as a success, and one of the best songs on the album. I love the way the production develops through this song. It could be described as an increasing build up in sound and power - but that would also oversimplify its complexity, for there are also a variety of sections, where different instrumental and vocal textures predominate - and that is what holds the interest. Although they are very different songs, "Good Girl" is the earlier one that most reminds me of the complexity and surprises in the music that can make a song exceptional. In "Kingdom", I love the acoustic beginning, led by Ilya Toshinskyi and Dan Dugmore, with special touches like the pedal steel echoing Carrie's opening hum. I like the part where Chris McHugh's drums dominate. The speciality string playing of Kris Wilkinson (viola) and Carole Rabinowitz (cello) - two ladies who, between them, have played with so many of the great names of the contemporary scene, in Roots music and well beyond - is effective here. And Carrie's multiple tracking of her own voice in the latter part of the song was a bold additional element that worked well, in my opinion. We know that Carrie loves power vocals and strong production - and I have found this approach overwhelming in some of her earlier work (her Greatest Hits album, where the songs included lacked the counter-balance of the more varied textures of their original albums was a case in point). The power elements occur in "Kingdom" - but here, they seem more in context, with the layered production itself supplying the variety of interest, and I prefer this approach to some of her more "concert stage" vocals. Much of the song is built around Carrie's own life, with domestic details, due weight given to her personal faith, and a willingness to acknowledge that life can pose personal challenges, even for the glamorous and most successful. But, at the same time, God, Home and Family are classic Country themes, and the stanza about hard times seems aimed at people generally, and this can be a relatable song for many in her audience. I get the impression that much of what Carrie wanted to say and do with this album finds its conclusion in this song.

[viss-uh]

== Be the loyal captain

Gender: Female Blood color: #793e77 Land dweller Trolltag: perspicaciousVisionary 

Typing quirk: N/A How's your vocabulary? Are there any phrases you like to use?: My vocabulary is just fine. There's not anything special in the way I talk, I'm a pirate, not a scholar. But I'm capable of intellectual conversation, but half the time it seems I'm dumbing it down for the likes that I interact with outside of my crew. As far as phrases go? I have a sailors mouth; twat, shite, and bugger are words I use frequently. Age: 906 solar sweeps/ 1963 years Wriggling day: 14th bilunar perigree of the 4th dim season Sign: My sign means warrior. I suppose it fits. Physical description: 5'7", 139 lbs. Well built, strong, toned but with still a little softness to her curves. Triangular face with deep-set, piercing upturned almond eyes. Thin lips with a fuller bottom lip than the top. Lustrous, wavy hair that stops just above the shoulders, a little past if it were straight. Powers: Dream manipulation- A user can create, shape, enter and manipulate the dreams of oneself and others, including modifying, suppressing, fabricating, influencing, manifesting, sensing, and observing dreams as well as nightmares, daydreams, etc., possibly including past ones. They can produce and modify dreams, bestow nightmares or lucid dreaming, entrap people in REM, and promote spiritual/emotional healing within dreams. In some cases, user's power extends to the real world, such as wounds inflicted on a sleeping victim, healed damage (mental or physical) affecting the physical form, and otherwise blurring the line between waking and dream. They may be able to pull someone from the waking world into the dream world or brings people/things from the dream world into the waking world. Right handed or left handed: Left handed Strife: A steel double-headed battle ax. The ax heads are identical, with bat-wing shaped edges. The mahogany (hard and strong dark wood) handle is 2 feet long and is bound in tattered lilac silk. It is very heavy, perfectly balanced. What is something you like to keep in an accessible place in your sylladex?: Quill and leather bound journal Lusus: Caracal Do you get along with your lusus? Are they difficult to feed?: She was a wonderful lusus and we got along very well. She tended to hunt for herself though, but I'd still go out with her and help. It was a team effort. I miss her a great deal Hive: From the outside, the hive looks old, but quaint with character. Built with white stones and red pine decorations. Small, octagon windows brighten up the rooms and have been added to the hive in a symmetric way. The hive is equipped with a large country home-style kitchen, a guest bathroom, and master bathroom. It also has a cozy living room, two bedrooms, a modest dining area and a study. The building is shaped like a short U. The second floor is the same size as the first, which has been built exactly on top of the floor below it. The roof is high, triangular, but one side is longer than the other and is covered with brown roof tiles. The hive itself is surrounded by a modest garden, covered mostly in grass, a few flower patches, and a small pond. Three random interests: cartography, oil painting, relic collecting How do you handle stress?: I'm a level-headed woman, and honestly, think my clearest in situations of stress. Simply because I have to in order to find a solution to whatever problem I'm having. What do you know about your ancestor? Do you believe in that story?: I've never bothered to look into it, partly because I'm not that interested and also because I'm a little worried I might not like what I find. Are you a leader or a follower?: Considering I'm a captain, I'd have to say, leader.   Are you more introverted or extroverted?: More often than not I tend to be introverted, preferring solitude to company, unless it's Akofen. Do you tend to argue or avoid conflict?: I don't seek it out but I certainly don't allow any troll to walk over me. Conflict is necessary and unavoidable in my chosen field. Are you a listener or a talker?: A listener. I myself don't have a whole lot of desire to talk to folks I'm not close with, and the people I call true companions are very few. But I've got no issue lending an ear. How long is your attention span?: It's plenty long. I make maps for god's sake. That requires a ridiculous amount of concentration and patience. Do you laugh a lot? What's funny to you?: Ako makes me laugh with his dry humor, but outside of the privacy of my hive or his, I'm not the most visibly joyous of people. I smile, and I'll chuckle lightly but I'm more reserved with my feelings. Are you more athletic, artistic or intellectual?: I'd like to think I'm a little bit of each, but artistic is probably the most of the three. What would you do if someone attacked you for no reason?: I'd defend myself. What else is someone supposed to do in a situation like that? Just die without a fight? I think not, not for this woman. Any fears?: I fear failure. Rejection. Loss. What would happen if your greatest fear manifested itself?: One of them has before. I was thrown off my own ship when I was the captain of my first crew. They turned against me and sent me off with nothing but a rowboat, an oar and a beaten and bruised body out into the middle of the ocean. I was close to death when my now dear departed friend Jarles found me and took me onto his ship. But a fear I hope never comes true is watching my moirail be killed right in front of me. I would lose a part of myself without Ako. I'd be left as a shell. Do you make decisions based on emotions or logic?: A bit of both. If you make all decisions based completely on one or the other then you're going to make many mistakes. What is your earliest memory?: I remember being curled up against my lusus's body, I was 4 sweeps, and we were listening to the rain. I was drifting off. Her fur soft against my small hands, the warmth of her body lulling me to sleep. It's a vivid memory, and one I'm very fond of. What do you consider the most important event in your life so far?: Being found by Jarles and his crew. It was an unfortunate set of circumstances that led me to them but if it weren't for those circumstances I wouldn't have grown in the ways that I have. Who has had the most influence on you?: Kindra, the matesprit I left behind to pursue my fantasy of adventure and power. She always tried to see the good in everyone, I tried to do the same to some degree, but I never could as well as her, at least not then.

What is your greatest regret?: Leaving Kindra and never bothering to go back because I was ashamed. Have you killed somebody? How do you feel about it? Have you killed more than one person? Then whose death impacted you the most?: Yes, multiple, unsurprising to everyone I'm sure. I feel that it is part of piracy and that if those I've killed didn't bother to go toe to toe with me and my lot then I wouldn't have had to end their lives. I'm not going to sit back and watch my crew fight without me alongside. And the fights are almost always to the death. The only death that I've caused that has ever made me feel remorse was a young teal blood. They weren't fighting willingly, or even knowingly, but under the control of their captain, a cerulean. Has someone close to you died? How? If they were killed do you want revenge?: Yes, Jacobi Jarles, the man who saved me from starving out at sea. He was harpooned through the chest by the leader of a group of sick, scar-faced fucks. But revenge has already been taken. It makes no difference though. It won't bring him back. Have you ever almost died? Or been seriously injured?: I think I've already addressed this but yes, I nearly starved to death out at sea, with infected wounds to boot. If you could change one thing from your past what would it be?: I would have never taken that traitorous scum breather onto my ship, into my first crew. He turned them against me, and there were too many for me to fight off, but it didn't stop me from trying. It ended up earning me the pretty scar I have across my face. Have you betrayed someone? Do you regret it?: I betrayed Kindra. I know she wouldn't say so or think the same but I did and I regret it every day. In general, how do you treat others (politely, rudely, by keeping them at a distance, etc.)? Does this change if you know them well?: It all depends on how they treat me. I give respect when I get respect. And I wouldn't bother to get to know someone if I didn't intend on treating them with kindness or reverence. But more often than not I keep acquaintances at a distance, yes. What do you look for in a potential matesprit?: A genuine soul. Someone who bothers to show mercy despite the strength and ability to kill easily. Someone with plenty of patience, considering I'm not the easiest woman to get to know. And if they can make me laugh or smile that'd be lovely too. Any current relationships?: Matesprit: Moirail: Akofen Enidae Kismesis: Austispice: What are some past relationships that didn't quite work out?:  I fell in red love with a stubborn man once, he had a good heart, but neither of us were prepared for something like what we were feeling. Not much ever came from it, which is likely for the best. And then Kindra. I feel we would have worked if I hadn't of chosen a life of piracy over her. Hindsight is 20/20.   If you have a moirail do you usually find yourself calming down your partner or is it the other way around?: We both bring each other peace. If ever I'm having a shite day I'll crawl into his coon with him, and he holds me. So I suppose he does more of the emotional caring since that man doesn't let much of anything affect him. Is there anyone you platonically despise?: Yes, but they're dead. How do you feel about where you stand on the spectrum?:  I'm lucky to be in a position of privilege, but I'm not hemo-ist in the slightest. I might as well be color blind. What are your opinions on the hemospectrum as a class system in general?: It's a way for the trolls higher on the spectrum to use and control those at the bottom. It's not something I see changing anytime soon though, but I think anyone that treats each other regardless of the hemospectrum makes a difference, even if only a small one. Do you like to read? If so, what genre?: I…enjoy romance novels… What would you die for?: My crew. What is your most treasured possession? Why?: A small, stout looking stuffed kitty that Kindra made from a burlap sack, I treasure it for obvious reasons-- because it's from her. It’s the only thing I have from that time in my life actually. Favorite food?: Potato, carrot and beef stew What is your greatest strength?: My perseverance Greatest weakness?:  My stubbornness, ironically.

[motherofrainbows-blog]

Princess: The Dirty Word

Why is being called a princess an insult? What gives the word the sting? The backlash that sends people running to their keyboards and pounding out riots?

The answer is simple, it is associated with weakness. Girls are the weaker sex, the gentle people who sit at home and nurture the children. While the men go out and wage war with their guns and their swords. Hunt with their bows and arrows, return a hero bearing meat on their backs.

It also puts in mind the image of the classic damsel in distress. The stupid girl sitting on her castle window in a tower somewhere, praying for a prince to come along and save her. Making friends with animals to pass the time and falling in love the second anyone bothers to say a grand hello.

In essence, the word princess is meant to invoke a feeling people have felt for centuries. Powerlessness, weakness, being thrown down under the bus and screaming as you watch the tires rip up your face. It makes us feel powerless and broken down, as if the only useful thing we could do is sit there and do as others tell us. That is what princesses do, after all, isn’t it?

No.

Princess has become a victim. Not of her own doing, but by the people all around her. Men, women, people who have come along and poured crap all across her good title. She has been put in a prison where there are only two categories she could fall into. Classic age, or modern day. Someone who sits in the window waiting for prince charming, or someone who slashes his throat and proclaims she doesn’t need anyone but herself. Many people would be inclined to believe that the latter is the better of the two. But I propose we analyze both stereotypes of the princess, and think on what each means.

The classic princess for certain is the very reason the term has been allowed to become derogatory. For far too long, men made princesses weak. In European countries princesses were treated, more or less, as baby machines with a giant sack of money attached to her. Dowries used to sell girls away into a life of servitude and, often, abuse from her lord and husband as well as a double standard of infidelity. Of course there will always be exceptions to this. Queen Elizabeth, for example, lived a long and proud reign as the Virgin Queen. An independant woman in her own right, someone who didn’t look to a King for every decision she made. Mary Queen of Scots was renowned for her affair with James Hepburn, otherwise known as the Earl of Bothwell, granted their circumstances were far from ordinary in the cases of royals. But in stark contrast, there are thousands upon thousands of records of kings and princes having ‘favourites’, ‘mistresses’, and ‘concubines’ and all sorts of sexual contact outside marriage...Yet no backlash.

In comparison, the modern day princess is someone who does not, bluntly, take shit from a man. She can wield weapons just as good as anyone else. Stand up to her enemies for herself without a touch of fear. Look that attractive prince right in the eye and tell him she doesn’t need his romance. She is a proud and independent force whose only support she needs is herself. Examples in modern day culture, let us focus on the infamous case of...Disney princesses. Moana has made records in recent media for being what many people consider to be the first truly independent disney princess. She fights, she stands up for what she believes in, is of equal power to her fellow protagonist, Maul. Whatever comes at her she bounces back and doesn’t let anything keep her down. And in so many ways, she is grand and inspiring for little girls all across America. But she also represents something else, a modern day classic that I believe is highly troubling. Part of the reason people love Moana so much is a very simple fact...she has no romantic interest.

Here, my readers, is where I see the issue.

Why, in order to be considered revolutionary and feminist approved, is there a requirement to be single?

Of course women need to be able to care for themselves, there is no question in that. Every person, whatever their gender is, has a right and a need to be able to exist without a romantic partner. You need to be able to understand and care for yourself before you should ever consider sharing your life with another. And when it comes time to meet that person, they need to be just right for you. Whatever that means to you and not anyone else. This does not mean you should disregard the advice of others, but they are not the ones who have to exist within the relationship. If there is not a threat within it, you feel safe, happy, and secure every day with that person, whomever they may be, I would think it is safe to assume you have found your match.

That being said, there is always going to be someone who prefers the company of themselves. That is okay, I am in no way trying to attack the people who are single and proud. Currently, I myself am one of these people. But someday, personally, I would like to share my life with someone. This is not the case for all people. But for those who do, I know I want to live in a world where this is accepted. Where I do not have to sit and listen to other women, and sometimes men, tell me that because I am in a relationship, I am not feminist. I want to live in a world where a princess can have a romantic interest, and still be considered a powerhouse who can fight for herself. Because true love has no limitations, it does not hinder your ability to defend or live for yourself. True love only add to that gratification you get from yourself, and it will come in the form of another person. That does not mean you depend on them, it means you love them. You can stand life without them, but you prefer your life to exist with them as long as you are both healthy and happy.

This is why I question this common belief, that you can only be an independent woman if you are alone. That is not true, nor will it ever be. You can always be your own person, it is a matter of choice. Choice of who you love and who you associate with, or who you chose to be in your daily life on your own. And your partner can be the very same way, woman, man, agender, whichever they are. You can always be able to care for yourself, and still have a healthy relationship.

So why are princesses with love interests degraded? Because, unfortunately, often times in media we are confusing real romance with theatrical romance. The ‘love’ you see on movie screens is not often what real love looks like. Though of course, as with everything, there are always exceptions to this rule. And people love to put up the classic image of a woman giving up everything for her love. Or her love giving up everything for her. But is that love? Or is that a good plot devicey way to make people burst into tears in the theatre. Think about it. “Oh he loves her so much, he gave up his entire career for her!” “He would give up his life for her!” “She would die for him!” So on, so forth.

Looking at another example from Disney, Belle gave up her entire life for her father and lived as a prisoner with the Beast. Of course, in the end he ends up changing and becoming her Prince Charming(Prince Adam). Their love affair has always been a sore spot for many people, for several different reasons. Abuse, beastality, anti-feminist. And as it stands, some of these claims are very true. As much as I love, and always will, the Beauty and the Beast films, there is no denying that the instant Belle fell in love with the Beast she was quick to give up her idea of “More than this provincial life”. Even though I would like to think that in the end, after their ballroom scene, they go and galavant the world just like Belle wanted, introducing the Beast to everything he had missed during his trapped state...Reality is that they likely stayed in the castle, had children, and lived the typical monarchy life.

Now, it is time I addressed something many people have thought, does being a housewife, or living the stereotyped role of a woman make me Anti-Feminist?

No. The entire point of Feminism is that women are equal to men. If, in your relationship, your say and right is just the same as your partner’s, then you are not Anti-Feminist. You are just living a life that is not considered to be the classic Feminist role nowadays.

Again, the typical Feminist ideal forces women who are comfortable living a different way to think they are hindering the cause of their fellow women. Isn’t that the exact opposite of what feminism intends? Isn’t the driving force of the movement to be accepted for who you are, whoever that is, and being given the rights and privileges just like anyone else?

Yes.

Then why have we been brought to this point? There is nothing wrong with single living, there is nothing wrong with being a single mom, a housewife, someone without children, an independent ‘boss ass bitch.’ Women are women. Men are men. People are people. They can live however they chose to, as long as it does not hurt or demean others.

Then why does the term princess still cut? And why, now, in a time where women have more rights than ever before, are we limiting our ideal ‘princess’ to a single woman? There are all kinds of women around the world. Of all different circumstances and races, manners, thoughts, and bodies. No woman should ever have to feel Anti-Feminist because she fell in love. And no princess should ever have to be degraded, and thought less of, because she fell in love.

Love does not hinder, it makes you grow.

The term princess refers to someone who has a royal title, the negative connotation comes from people who have made her seem weak. Who have limited her in her life, and changed her to a cut example out of a sheet of paper and plastered her on the walls and said “This! This is a princess, because I say it is!”

But now is not then, and I propose to everyone that we rethink the term princess. Like how other groups have reclaimed their names in the past, why can women not do the same for princess? Princesses can be strong, they can be weak, they can be anything and everything in the world because she is a person. And people are not limited to what people believe they are, or should be. People exist because they are unique, and princesses are just the same. People, a name. They only have whatever power it is you chose to give them.

Picture a movie, if you will, of a princess who is independent and strong, but also has a love interest. Also proud and strong of who they are. They do not hinder each other, they complement one another and build them up to be a better person because of the love they share. Two people, in one relationship, striving always to be better not just for the other but for themselves. When the giant crushing moment in the movie happens, they both collectively rise each other up because two forces working together can overcome challenges. Just as a single one can.

Picture a world in where girls say they are princesses proudly, and everyone looks and them and says “Yes, you are a princess.” Without assuming damsel in distress, or pink lace bows and fancy dresses. But whoever that person is, just with the title princess before their name. Something that makes them happy, and proud of who they are.

That is a princess. Someone who can be anyone they want to be, with whomever they want to be with, or not at all. They are themselves. Not a derogatory word that tears them down. They are proud, and they are strong, even if not physically, mentally, or whatever strength you want to be.

They are a princess, and nobody has the right to take that away from them.