#and criticised other women for poor behaviours too

[trans-wojak]

women bitch about misogyny so much meanwhile 99% of "misogyny" is women not getting special treatment lmfao (relevant examples: https://archive.ph/IUzLD http://breakingthescience.org/RichardGelles_MissingPersonsOfDV.php)

Honestly, a lot of the time they (feminists) accuse men of misogyny for very mundane things and it’s annoying because

1. They engage in full blown misandry all the time and pass it off as ‘acceptable’ because women have experienced gender based oppression or play it off as “just joking” (which is exactly what they get mad at men for doing)z

2. They can contribute to women having irrational fears. Most violent attacks on other people are experienced by men. But feminists will try to have you believe women are having a fucking genocide by lone strangers. I’m not denying women experience a huge amount of violence, especially through DV but men do too, it’s just not socially acceptable to talk about. Even in cases when the woman is the aggressor, the police are gonna arrest the man most of the time. Women face more rates of intimate partner violence but we also don’t know just how much men face it cause it’s not documented as much.

3. I agree with gender equality/equity. But part of that includes remembering that not everything is misogyny, I’m sick of being told EVERYTHING trans men face is misogyny instead of the fact there is deadset transphobia aimed at trans men. Some of it is misogyny yes, but some of it isn’t too.

4. While it is true misogyny is prevalent in society, there’s a double side to it - women get more sympathy for poor behaviour. When they commit crimes they are more likely to gain lesser punishment because “it’s a poor woman, she wouldn’t have known better.” Yes that’s misogyny but denying that it benefits them is redundant - considering they always point out that the patriarchy always benefits men.

5. A lot of them aren’t consistent with beliefs. Pro choice but only for those with uteri. If a man wants to give up parental rights for a child he never wanted, they tell them they’re losers who shouldn’t have sex/use a condom/get a vasectomy. The same talking points used against women who want an abortion. I’m aware that abortion is wayyyy different to payments for child support but at the end of the day, telling men they can’t have sex if they don’t wanna pay for a baby is against body autonomy.

6. They like to accuse me, a trans man that the only reason I do X or Y thing is to look “more male”. They think trans men should act “more female” because they still see us as women. I’ve lived as both a man and a woman, they both have disadvantages in life. We can acknowledge this without making it a pissing contest. Women face sexism yes. I’m not gonna deny that at all but my criticisms of some women aren’t invalid just cause they face oppression. That’s not equal.

7. I don’t know if it’s my autism or not but I honestly just see everyone as people first, gender is second. If I’m in a room of mostly women or mostly men, I don’t really pick up on it until later. The only time I notice (cis) men more is when they’re all bigger/taller than me and it makes me dysphoric lol. I treat women the same way I treat men. This includes not acting like women need to be coddled just for being women, so I won’t change the way I speak for them i.e online feminists being mad I talk crass and say cunt a lot.

[lunar-years]

everyone has different interpretations of scenes, but for real that scene with jamie and roy was just plain sexist. roy seriously said "i don't know if we're getting back together because she's a woman and you never know". like what the absolute fuck was that line? they showed up to her house condescending, completely unapologetic about their behaviour, and treated her like a trophy prize. she deserved to beat them up. jamie and roy have always been troubled characters, but they were never (not even in season one) sexist assholes. the show went out of its way multiple times to establish that even when they made mistakes it was due to personal insecurity and not misogyny.

and whenever it was something misogynistic, it was heavily criticised as such, which, in this episode, it was not. a lot of people did seriously not catch the blatant sexism of it at all and went "that's how these men act" (again, what the fuck?). jamie spent season three being respectful of roy and keeley's breakup and not making a move on her, out of consideration of roy's feelings. roy, who knows how abusive jamie's father is, probably better than any other male character on the show, physically assaulted him. despite the fact that throughout the season roy has been approaching jamie with affection, realizing that's what he needs to feel secure (complete disrespect to 2x08 too, one of the best episodes of the series). and while we're on the topic of violence, roy and jamie were never this violent with each other, even when they hated each other's guts. jamie, who gave keeley a truly heartfelt apology about the leaked video, making a point to not victim-blame or engage in literally ANY other sexist behaviour, just brings it up to upset roy in a dick-measuring contest. and one episode ago, one fucking episode ago, they were all getting along, keeley and roy were obviously trying to get back together, and jamie wasn't one bit bothered by it. they were holding hands on his bed and he saw them and smiled! regardless of whether you think the roykeeley arc was rushed (i do), jamie might have been heartbroken or sad, but he wasn't, not once, established as jealous of them. and this entire season was devoted to roy and jamie becoming friends by slowly growing comfortable around each other and actually trusting each other. every single one of those things was thrown into the trash. and yeah, sure, progress isn't linear and perfection isn't possible for people, but that WAS NOT regression. roy and jamie were never sexist dicks. those were two completely different characters.

ALSO, this scene normalizes the idea that it's perfectly forgivable to revert back to sexism whenever emotionally distressed, even if you are generally not like that in your life. it's not. in reality, you're either sexist or you're not, and doing this in one scenario will absolutely mean that you will be sexist in different scenarios too. nobody in real life will be sexist in some areas of their life and feminist in others. implying that this isn't the case shows a very poor understanding of feminist theory and ted lasso has more or less done a good job at not being sexist. i feel like this really excuses unacceptable behaviour that the show itself tells us, with rupert particularly, has very real consequences that perpetuate violence against women. to me, the light-hearted resolution of that whole scene was terrible and poorly written at best. people in the writers' room typed that scene, read through it, and did not find it weird at all. though it's not the first time in the third season, see: forgiving jamie's dad and far-right bigots (???).

and lastly, when people were asking for a love triangle resolution, they meant something fitting for the year of our lord 2023. healthy communication and conversations, mutual respect and love between the charactets, maybe even polyamory (3x11 had a great ot3 set up, too). nobody meant we wanted something from the fucking 1950s. literally the only worse way this could have played out would have been if keeley ended up with the one that caused the other more damage. legit disgraceful ending for roy and jamie as characters, and for the show as well. considering everything it has stood for so far.

(i'm sorry if this reads like i'm calling people out, i'm not, really, i'm just very mad. and also really sad, because i did not go into the ted lasso finale expecting unaddressed sexism. like that was Really Very Bad. for this show especially).

woahhh there's a lot going on here, anon. For anyone wondering, I'm assuming this is a response to this post of mine. While I don't mind discussion or being called out... this does feel like something that could've very well been your own post or an open response to mine instead of an anon note. Because if you've read my meta, you'll probably already know I'm not going to agree with you on this.

Just gonna drop a few short thoughts because I don't have energy to write a think piece when my broader thoughts are already contained in my original post:

I'm not sure where you think I was trying to excuse their words or pretending they weren't being sexist or like they weren't treating Keeley as a weapon in their own games or a prize to be won. I think there's a difference between excusing someone's actions versus trying to understand where they were coming from for the characters and where they are at now.

"while we're on the topic of violence, roy and jamie were never this violent with each other, even when they hated each other's guts" Roy & Jamie were literally beating each other up in the locker room and brawling right out there on the pitch in season 1, anon.

"Keeley and Roy were obviously trying to get back together, and Jamie wasn't one bit bothered by it." this is just not true. Roy was trying to get back together with Keeley. Keeley wasn't shown to be reciprocal (beyond sleeping with him, which is a repeated pattern of behavior for her on the show, and something she in fact did with Jamie in season one), and Roy misinterprets it, as Jamie misinterpreted it. In fact, I'd argue Roy deciding it was a good idea to try and make him and Keeley happen right there in Jamie's bedroom with Jamie crying to his mum one room over, shows he wasn't thinking about Jamie, not when it comes to Keeley. Roy wants what Roy wants and he assumed he was going to get it. And Jamie went through a whole journey of expressions when he opened that bedroom door, so I don't think it's fair to say he "wasn't one bit bothered." I think we've established at this point Roy and Jamie both love Keeley and have always been weird and jealous about it with the other.

"this scene normalizes the idea that it's perfectly forgivable to revert back to sexism whenever emotionally distressed" this scene didn't normalize anything, because the show immediately acknowledged that Jamie and Roy were both in the wrong and had Keeley rightfully kick them to the curb for it. The narrative was not that this is okay or acceptable behavior. I definitely didn't see the scene as light-hearted

"nobody in real life will be sexist in some areas of their life and feminist in others." i am a woman who considers herself very much a feminist. That doesn't mean I've never had moments of internalized misogyny or made harmful comments that buy into a patriarchal narrative, despite myself. Well-intentioned people make mistakes. We are all works in prog-mess trying to get through life as the best people we can be. Jamie and Roy, in my opinion, are fictional iterations of the same principle. I don't think this comes even close to destroying their entire characters in the way you are implying.

All the best x

[bella-goths-wife]

Mommy dearest?

Father lost boys x reader

The boys were at it again. They manipulated some poor soul into believing that they wanted to be with her forever, and she fell for it.

You didn’t however. You had seen hundreds of these girl. The girls who would come into the boys life and by extension your life and then die off a few months later. You couldn’t do it anymore.

This latest girl, Lola, had been a particularly tricky person to get along with. She was head over heels for the boys, she wanted the whole marriage and children ‘white picket fence’ life with them. And you disrupted that.

The boys had spun a story of you being David’s child who he had with star when they were teenagers. He acted like the doting father scorned by star who ‘kept you away’. In actuality you were staying with max while they tortured the poor girl and you visited on weekends.

Lola sympathised with David’s struggle but she still saw you as a threat. She saw a little fourteen years old girl as a threat. So she was continually rude to you when the boys weren’t around.

She would criticise you and call you “mini wife” as she saw you as something that connected David to star and she saw you as competition.

You weren’t bothered by her words, you knew she wouldn’t last long. She was temporary, that’s what the boys would always say when you asked about the countless women who would come into your life and act motherly towards you. You despised it, you had a mother who cared for you more than anyone else did.

She had also suggested that you call her mommy, which was insulting in its own way. She had claimed to the boys it was about respect but you knew it wasn’t. You knew it was about humiliating you and disregarding star

Lola would do anything to get your fathers attention away from you and onto her. There was one incident which included her passionately kissing Dwayne while you were next to him while making eyes contact with you so you would get uncomfortable and leave. She would do anything to have you out of the picture

“You should visit your father more” she had announced when she swanned into your room and stood in front of your bed “it’s disrespectful to him as your father when you only see him on weekends”

Who was she to lecture you? She was your fathers prey and yet she thought she could come to you and discipline you for something that wasn’t your doing. You didn’t choose to stay with max while she was there, you were told to to avoid seeing Lola being murdered.

“I’ll see if I can” you humour her act of fake motherly concern “I’ve just been busy lately”

“Too busy to visit your father?” She asked in a condescending tone

“I’ll work on it” you said calmly to avoid her drama.

She simply stormed out of your room and slammed the door on the way out like a child.

You thanked god that she would only last a month, you didn’t know how long you could handle her for until you snapped and hit her

———————————————————————

Lola did not last a month, she lasted three. All while you and star stayed at maxs and she lived with the boys in the cave.

You wondered why your parents had kept her around longer than the other girls, when you asked they would just tell you that they enjoyed playing with their meal. But the came they incident that sealed Lola’s fate.

She had swanned into your room once again and had taken a personal vendetta against your clothing. You usually dressed yourself like your fathers and they never seemed to have a problem with it. Lola did however, she saw it as ‘unladylike’ and thought it her place to comment on it

“I’m not throwing them out lola” you said, pointing to the band shirts on your bed that star had gotten you “my mom got me them and I like wearing them”

“How many times have I told you to call me mother” Lola whined like a child “it’s extremely disrespectful to me”

You sighed at her childish behaviour and chose to stay calm to avoid drama

“You not my mother Lola” you stated calmly “your just dating my dad”

And then came the action that Lola would soon come to regret. The sound of her slap echoed across the cave walls and eventually reached your fathers sharp ears as they jumped up to see what was happening. You cheek was bright red as tears built up in your eyes but you refused to cry for this woman.

“Don’t talk to me like that you little brat” Lola screamed in you face “I won’t be disrespected by a weekend guest”

“What’s going on here” Dwayne asked as he entered the room with the boys in tow as he glared at Lola menacingly.

Marko approached you and softly held your bright red cheek while soothingly rubbing it and inspecting it.

“You shouldn’t coddle her so much” Lola snaps at Marko before turning to David “your making her spoilt”

“Is that so?” David said through gritted teeth “why don’t us and the boys go talk about it in the other room?”

Lola nodded in affirmation before leaving the room as the boys followed. David shot you a wink so you could know what would happen to Lola very soon before leaving.

You sighed as you readied your Walkman and headphones to drown out whatever noises would come from the cave.

———————————————————————

The familiar scream of terror came around an hour afterwards and filled you with a familiar sense of dread.

What you didn’t expect was the ferocious banging on your door. The boys never usually let their prey escape. You decided to humour her and hopefully alert the boys of her whereabouts.

You opened the door to find a snivelling Lola on your doorstep. She had blood gushing from her neck as she desperately cradled a clearly broken arm to her chest. She looked at you with a pleading look in her puffy, bleeding eyes.

“Please (y/n)” she quietly begged as she clutched your clothes to bring you closer out of desperation “please help me”

You sighed at her pathetic attempt. She had tears covering her face while she cowered into you. She clutched you tighter and whispered “my baby” over and over again

“Help me escape baby” she quietly begged and prayed “I can be your mommy if you help me”

She looked pathetic while she cowered and held onto your younger body like you were her saviour. You knew she was using you, she wouldn’t treat you like her own if you helped her escape. She wasn’t like star. Star claimed from the first week she met you that you were her her child even if you didn’t come from her womb. She was your mother, not this snivelling coward.

But even if you knew she was using you, you were tempted by her offer for a minute. A life without the boys abuse, what would that even look like? You loved your fathers and they were good to you most of the time. But the other times were filled with possessiveness, manipulation and emotional abuse. Was it so wrong for you to want to leave?

You hugged Lola back slowly as you felt sympathy crawl up your spine and enter your heart.

That quickly changed when you shoved Lola back and she hit the hard chest of Dwayne who held onto her tightly.

She begged and screamed for you to help but you just looked her in the eyes and felt the sympathy melt away.

“Bye bye mommy dearest” you said sarcastically as you shut the door in her face.

You heard her screams of agony and chose to drown them out with the music recommendations you had received from Paul.

You didn’t feel guilt for what you did to Lola. In fact you felt relived that you didn’t have to put up with her anymore. Maybe there was some David in you deep down.

You couldn’t help but smile that the boys protected you. Little did you know they would kill anyone who hurt you or tried to take you away from them.

Including yourself.

Thought id show you guys readers more cruel side that she got from her father, let me know if you wanna see more of this Side to her :)

Hope you guys enjoyed

Love ya ❤️

[luxe-pauvre]

In No Contest: The Case Against Competition, Alfie Kohn describes “pseudofeminism” as seeking “the liberation of women through the imitation of men.” It is a compounding of two assumptions: first, that gender differences are tied to character differences, and second, that the character types associated with men are more valuable, or even critical, for success. Of course, it’s not just women who are imitating men; it’s men too. Emmy Noether, Florence Nightingale, Yvonne Brill, and the women of Bletchley are just a few examples of how women have been successful without necessarily emulating the behaviour of men. Unfortunately, to counter the effect of women being valued only for traditionally acceptably “feminine” pursuits, there is a tendency then to celebrate them for being the opposite. There is a recent glut of books celebrating women who were “just like men,” emphasising that women can do everything men can do, or emphasising traits that are not the traditionally “feminine” ones. Their titles include words like “headstrong,” “badass,” or “rebel,” and I fall over them anytime I look for books about female role models from history. Sheryl Sandberg’s book Lean In: Women, Work, and the Will to Lead seems to urge women to adapt themselves to the (male-dominated) business world in order to be successful in it. It has been criticised in many ways, and one is that it seems to assume that in the current structures women can succeed if they just try harder, regardless of built-in sexism, racism, and other inequalities of access. And “trying harder” all too often seems to consist of trying harder to behave like successful men. I don’t think our aim should be to show that women can be “just like men.” I don’t think we should have to imitate or emulate typical male behaviour in order to be successful. Jessa Crispin includes this in her bracing takedown of some common forms of feminism: “a fight to allow women to participate equally in the oppression of the powerless and the poor. Making sure women can do all the things men do is some sort of progress but it doesn’t necessarily represent or cause a great leap forward for all other women. Sheryl Sandberg’s approach has been criticised as a “trickle-down” version of feminism. Having Margaret Thatcher as prime minister didn’t exactly bring about the end of discrimination against women in the UK, and the glass ceiling is alive and well despite her apparent shattering of it. Asking women to behave like traditionally successful men assumes that that sort of behaviour is crucial for success. It is what I referred to [...] as the assumption “Y is important for Z” where Y is some quality that men are perceived as having more than women do. Thus if women want to be successful, they must learn quality Y — that is, emulate the men.

Eugenia Cheng, x + y: A Mathematician's Manifesto for Rethinking Gender

[transpeculativefiction]

okay so I just watched the new ep of it’s always sunny.

It’s set in a knock-off/parody Chuck. E. Cheese place and the episode depicts the gang getting angry that things have changed since they were children. 

These tend to be safety precautions and changes to bigoted stereotypes/jokes/behaviour. 

For example, one of the characters was previously a disablist caricature, and Dee is upset that he no longer speaks with a stutter (Frank uses the r slur).

There’s an idea that older generations are always going to be upset about attempts to change things to be more progressive (with the gang obviously going overboard in their disgust/reaction). 

Frank keeps bringing up his experiences of the place in the 50′s, which horrify the others for its overt racism and misogyny. But then the rest of them criticise the place for no longer doing the bigoted things they loved as kids.

So, as always, the gang is in the wrong here. Still, there was a bit that bothered me.

One of the animatronics, a teenaged girl, had originally been designed with realistic breasts. These had been sanded down and replaced with bubble wrap. 

Dennis and Charlie react with disgust and Charlie says that “they mutilated this poor woman.” 

Initially Dennis suggests that this is the work of the “god damned libs,” but when Charlie suggests that it could be religious conservatives, Dennis agrees that “lopping tits off feels like a religious move.”

So. They’re talking about top surgery, right?

They must be. The language is too specific otherwise.

But this is not a trans character. Not a real person who can make this kind of decision. Not a personal choice by somebody exercising bodily autonomy.

This is an object which was censored, presumably to protect any kids who might accidentally (or even purposefully) see the animatronic topless.

This isn’t acceptance of trans people; it’s a safety precaution.

So, the analogy doesn’t work, right? They can’t be saying “trans people should be allowed to lop their tits off if they want to.” Because there aren’t any trans people! There aren’t even any cis people (who should, of course, also be allowed to lop their tits off if they want to).

The message can only be: “people who are disgusted by this are old-fashioned, ignorant, and misinformed.”

Old fashioned, because that is the theme of the episode. The characters are upset that times have changed. 

Ignorant and misinformed because of course, if you know anything about lopping off tits, you know that religious conservatives are (usually) very much opposed.

Dennis also says: “this is a sad day for women’s rights.” This could be a reference to terfs?

He, (who is currently perving on an animatronic teenaged girl) is positioning himself as an advocate for women’s rights by criticising “lopping off tits.” So, the joke is that he’s a hypocrite. He positions himself as a defender of women (and people he perceives as women) while actively harming them.

Idk. It’s not bad exactly, but it bothers me that it’s a reference to trans bodies without actually mentioning or depicting trans people.

I feel like it’s a problem that iasip has with all the issues it tackles. It lacks a certain clarity. It knows who it’s making fun of but it’s not entirely sure what the “right” position is. 

It’s always making fun of racists - but is it antiracist? It makes fun of transphobes - but does it support trans liberation?

[amberfmp]

Anorexia

People who have anorexia try to keep their weight as low as possible. They may do this in different ways, such as not eating enough food, exercising too much, taking laxatives or making themselves sick (vomit). This can make them very ill because they start to starve.

They often have a distorted image of their bodies, thinking they're fat even when they're underweight.

Men and women of any age can get anorexia, but it's most common in young women and typically starts in the mid-teens.

Symptoms of anorexia include believing you're fat when you're a healthy weight or underweight, eating very little or missing meals.

Anorexia is usually treated with talking therapies, such as cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT).

Signs and symptoms of anorexia include:

if you're under 18, your weight and height being lower than the minimum expected for your age

if you're an adult, having an unusually low body mass index (BMI)

missing meals or eating very little

thinking about food a lot and being very careful about what you eat, such as avoiding eating any foods you see as fattening

believing you're fat when you're a healthy weight or underweight

your periods stopping (in women who have not reached menopause) or not starting (in younger women and girls)

physical problems, such as feeling lightheaded or dizzy, hair loss or dry skin

Some people with anorexia may also make themselves sick or do an extreme amount of exercise.

Some use medicines to reduce their hunger (appetite suppressants), help them poo (laxatives) or make them pee (diuretics) to try to stop themselves gaining weight from any food they do eat.

Health risks of anorexia

Long-term anorexia can lead to severe health problems associated with not getting the right nutrients (malnutrition). But these will usually begin to get better once your food intake starts improving.

problems with muscles and bones – including feeling tired and weak, osteoporosis, and problems with physical development in children and young adults

fertility problems

loss of sex drive

problems with the heart and blood vessels – including poor circulation, an irregular heartbeat, low blood pressure, heart valve disease, heart failure, and swollen ankles, feet and legs (oedema)

problems with the brain and nerves – including difficulties with concentration and memory or, less often, fits (seizures)

kidney or bowel problems

having a weakened immune system or anaemia

Anorexia can also put your life at risk. It's one of the leading causes of deaths related to mental health problems. Deaths from anorexia may be due to physical complications or suicide.

Causes of anorexia

We do not know exactly what causes anorexia and other eating disorders. You may be more likely to get an eating disorder if:

you or a member of your family has a history of eating disorders, depression, or alcohol or drug addiction

you have been criticised for your eating habits, body shape or weight

you're overly concerned with being slim, particularly if you also feel pressure from society or your job – for example, ballet dancers, jockeys, models or athletes

you have anxiety, low self-esteem, an obsessive personality or are a perfectionist

you have been emotionally, physically or sexually abused

nhs.uk. (2021). Overview - Anorexia. [online] Available at: https://www.nhs.uk/mental-health/conditions/anorexia/overview/#overview. ‌

[positivityforlesbians]

i just read that anon asking she wouldn’t ever call herself a lesbian because we are terf (???) well, i HAVE to say a thing: y’all have to learn that even if we are called tErF (that for me hasn’t even a meaning because it’s used over everything, even my cat can be a terf lol) or people create 86858383 flags, we CAN’T be attracted to trans women. ever, sorry. also, it’s hilarious that we are targeting worse than witch back in 1664 and also, y’all really give a fuck when your poor angel friends call us FETISHISED or say to us we have TO GO TO A PSYCHOLOGIST because we have surely a trauma!1!1! oh yes how could y’all addresses this, your trans ally card could be removed if you say a word over this awful behaviour that your friends in that gbt community keep saying and doing 😔

it’s also extremely vile and stupid to put under buss again lesbians and the label, if you are i hope you can face your internalised lesbophobia and learning that in that community no one cares about us and that everyone’s trying to change our sexual orientation. (also a label isn’t a choice, you can’t say you are bi just bc yes and if you aren’t you’re appropriating a space that isn’t yours)

(of course this message is for that anon 😭)

This message was still in my inbox from early September somehow. But I remember the person anon is referring to, usually it's easy to remember idiots with internalised lesbophobia so huge that they call themselves bi (even though it doesn't fit their reality), saying lesbians are "terf". I was so taken aback from that ask but in a way also not surprised. This is the consequence of everyone and their neighbours criticising lesbians constantly and in supposedly progressive circles. Anyway anon you're right, they can run for now trying to escape from these homophobes it will come back to them just the same. Actual lesbians can't stay too long denying what's happening, the cognitive dissonance and frustration becomes unbearable and at one point or another you say something you think isn't problematic at all (according to these 2.0 homophobes' standards) but then they start coming for your neck.

Always focus on protecting the lesbian community y'all, we need to prioritise ourselves and we won't say it too many times. It needs to be said over and over because it's super important. Other members of the community (gb but especially t) have asked that we care about their issues and fight for them without them ever caring and fighting for us, worst, they are being flagrantly lesbophobic. We aren't being targeted worse than witches (we'd have to be tortured, physically humiliated, burned for that) but yes there's a heavy, constant, noxious environment these homophobes have created. Luckily it has become increasingly clear that lesbians aren't staying silent about it, we're pissed off and we're not letting anyone disrespect us, our past, our community, culture, we aren't going to be erased by clowns who have the Audacity to think they're legitimate when it comes to talking about lesbians. They can fuck right off.

[mithliya]

ive been saying that i’ll be posting receipts on the hetfem server, which was also heavily requested by plenty of people on here. this post is going to be pretty long, so i’m putting it under a read more. keep in mind, this isn’t every single wrong thing that has been said on the server, some may disagree with some parts even being wrong to begin with, and this post may have more added to it afterwards in the reblogs. the individuals who have provided me with receipts were all feeling threatened due to knowing how vicious and prone to harassing others the women in this server often are. so ive been sent countless receipts with context, which i have tried to summarise as well. please remember that the point of this post isn’t to call out specific individuals, but rather it is to showcase that the concerns and ‘rumours’ going around about this server were reasonable and true, and to show how lesbophobic and racist this server is (which many have publicly stated before being dogpiled by members of the server). 

first is the zionism and racism in that specific regard. “theHettyishere” is black-diaspora, “Autumn” is probablyaterf. both are partaking in the erasure & justification of how israel is treating palestinians, erasing palestinians proven ties to their country, erasing the war crimes israel partook in, and also erasing the racism within israel which prioritises ashkenazim over mizrahim and black jews.

then they got more blatant and started saying that if you’re anti-zionism then you’re .. anti-semitic ?? keep in mind these people aren’t even jewish 

then they go onto defending christianity

and falsely claim hitler ‘deeply respected’ islam. interesting considering hitler called muslims ‘half-apes’ and all but oh well!  

second set of receipts is the defending of blackface and justification of it. in both these ‘debates’, they literally only present one side and then act like they had a great discussion at the end of it when they’re all just confirming their pre-existing beliefs and using one another to support that. anyways, girlsfrommars had previously come under fire for publicly defending the blackface tradition existing in her country, the netherlands. this is her doing it again after backpedaling on tumblr on this topic, and people in the server standing by her. battleking is bookrebelwordwarrior on tumblr. 

the conversation kinda goes on for a bit and girlfrommars does the same thing she did on tumblr not long before this convo, which was give a “oh ok i’ll reconsider!” which may not be her truth anyways.

next is people on the server saying straight women don’t have enough good representation and even talking about being upset over bi women and even lesbians being represented?? again, autumn is probablyaterf. laughing bird will appear in the screenshots a lot, although i’m not sure what her url is.

idk how to tell these het and bi women.... that lesbians have practically no good representation. especially not as much as het women. there’s a lot of parts of this conversation that are highly questionable. tldr its bad if lesbians or bi women headcannon gnc women as bi or lesbians. also its bad if gnc characters aren’t straight.

this next screen is coming from a het woman so keep that in mind. i don’t know how to put into words why i find this iffy so yall can see it and decide for urselves

she justifies it w this when a couple of members make it clear they find her message questionable:

on a different occasion, girlsfrommars, a white woman, decides to randomly ask other white women in the server what they think about reparations. a bunch of racist white women show themselves during this conversation. please keep in mind i was not the one censoring their usernames so i myself have no idea who these women are, but the person censored in white is emanon, who has a tumblr. i dont know what her tumblr is, but she will appear in multiple other receipts after this. keep in mind this entire channel ends up being deleted by probablyaterf to cover up the racism and prevent the collection of receipts, which you’ll see evidence of later on in this post.

then one of the white women dismisses the impact of racism, basically,

then woc start to chime in (white is the white woman, ‘emanon’)

then, after this conversation went on for a while, a mod decides to tone-police and shame the woc for taking issue with what the white woman was saying. this mod is also white.

“my race doesn’t matter, but i’m jewish” sounds convenient. especially since this person admitted to being white and stated thats why she should stay in her lane the previous day:

back to the dispute between LB and the woc:

remember LB’s tone and behaviour in  the above screenshots as you’ll see how different it is from how she acted when a white woman was being lesbophobic on the server. 

probablyaterf eventually comes in with “both sides were bad :)” basically

girlfrommars makes a non-apology apology about bringing up reparations the way she did

the next set of screenshots is just.. i dont even know what to say about it? yall can see it for yourselves because i think its self-explanatory. battle king = bookrebelwordwarrior, thehettyishere = black-diaspora, autumn = probablyaterf.

then the subtle lesbophobia comes in

this convo was then moved to a channel that was eventually deleted (receipt of that will be shown on this post).

probablyaterf then comes in and says lesbians are All saying the things mentioned above 

then radfemkitten talks about how upset she was and probablyaterf goes on about how this conversation should stop or something 

PAT then lowkey admits that part of the point of her server is to be able to talk shit about lesbians without being criticised for lesbophobia: 

radfemkitten more or less confirms this

PAT basically says “if you think women here are lesbophobic then leave but if you keep criticising what is said then i’ll mute and maybe even kick you!” ok

after this PAT muted that woman for saying that some of the women were being lesbophobic. 

someone showed exactly where lesbophobia was present 

 “straight women should have a space where they can shit talk lesbians without criticism” basically ^. this is the 3rd screenshot where members of the chat, specifically the creator PAT, states that the server exists partially so that non-lesbians can say shit without being criticised for being lesbophobic. 

this was then said by emanon (racist reparations lady): 

then probablyaterf coddles the women who were upset for being held accountable and kicks out the women who called out lesbophobia

probablyaterf deleted entire channels which involved members being lesbophobic and racist for the bullshit reason she provided here, basically admitting she would remove things to prevent the collection of receipts:

this is why she is so confident on her blog about how people can’t possibly have receipts on her server. because she makes sure to delete the evidence. issue is, she did it too late. she then started twisting the story and lying to save face. she removed the conversations regarding reparations, separatism, the accusations of racism & lesbophobia, them complaining about there not being enough good representation of straight women, etc were all removed. evidence:

then it gets even more blatantly sketchy, where PAT basically tells the members of the group to not repeat the drama or dish the details of it, as any honest and open person not hiding questionable shit would do, apparently. 

the details and specifics of this drama were all kept quiet by those involved as well, and those involved agreed to not talk about what has happened in detail.

the bit “one of the members was crying SO MUCH because you called her lesophobic that she almost LEFT HER JOB :(” is funny as y’all can see the situation for yourself up there, she said something and people questioned her on it. this wasn’t a case of a poor defenseless victim being cruelly attacked or whatever.

���a lot of them do tho clearly” keep in mind that there were like what .. 4 lesbians that took issue with the server? and initially there was even less than that.

radfemkitten then goes onto a lesbophobic rant.  

then they changed the story within the server and claimed that the accusations of racism were directed at woc... when it was directed at white women exclusively, as shown above. keep in mind the person claiming this and putting racism in quotations is a white woman herself so. hmm.

next incident is some white woman being very blatantly lesbophobic on the server. several people took issue with it, and she received multiple warnings but was not kicked. keep in mind that earlier, someone was kicked simply for questioning a member on the server and saying they were being lesbophobic. yet when someone is blatantly lesbophobic, they receive multiple warnings and then get away with it. “pinkie the feral one” goes by roxxy, i don’t know if she has a tumblr. notice how laughing bird is comparatively very civil and patient with this roxxy person. 

bi & het women determining that lesbians talking about thinking of pussy somehow implies ‘homosexuals are sex crazed deviants’, is what’s homophobic, btw.

next are when the hetfem server came under fire after TD spoke against it and drama ensued. i was initially 100% for the hetfem server and said those opposing it were being illogical. however, after a while of that drama, some lesbophobia was starting to come out from the hetfems which is when i said i think both sides are wrong. the hetfems took this very personally and proceeded to make lesbophobic comments about how im just bitter bc i dont have a gf or something (altho i was in a relationship back then so lol) and then they blatantly said they dont think het women have power over lesbians. the convo resulted in them full on arguing that lesbians have it easier than het women.

next coming is the hetfem server arguing that abrahamic religions actually *helped* women and how radfems should be talking about that. keep in mind some of these are the same people that mock people who say islam is a ‘feminist religion’. 

next is them arguing on the hetfem server that Nasime Aghdam, the youtube shooter, is male and referencing a meme as a source. they completely ignored the fact that Nasime’s childhood photos make it pretty obvious that that meme was inaccurate anyways. also probablyaterf argued that it’s somehow racist to note that nasime aghdam resembles many other people in the middle east (somewhere im from & where ive lived my entire life). its interesting considering how many things she argued weren’t racist or homophobic, yet noting that someone isn’t a Weird Unusual Looking Alien like she wants to claim is ..racist

the probablyaterf goes on to strawman that i claimed all iranians are clones of each other or smth simply bc i said nasime aghdam’s face is not unusual in countries like iran. also keep in mind the person censored in red is a white woman lol.

henryhetta = foxfur-nadine.

listen.. ive seen women wearing borderline clown makeup in my country. it doesnt make them male. anyways then PAT says ‘maybe im wrong but ill insist im not anyways’, basically.

next is the time black-diaspora posted a pic of my mom taken from my country’s gov facebook page, which provides people with her first & last name. this was brought up on the server. they said i was lying (i was not) and went on about how im crazy and need to get laid. also calling me a ‘nigel’ in one of those screens.

then they just keep justifying it and insulting me. instead of taking issue with what a member of their server did.

so basically “calling out lesbophobia is bad, but posting information that leads to someone’s mom’s full name and facebook is ok, and somehow posting something from a ‘public news article’”

then they said “homosexuality is legal in bahrain” to somehow justify any of this??? as if Bahrain doesn’t have a history of killing, imprisoning, torturing, and exiling Bahrainis that they see criticising the government (which i frequently do) or anything. not like around 200 people have lost their lives for critiquing Bahrain’s government or anything. moreover, plenty of things are ‘legal’ in Bahrain but still lead to punishment. sex outside of marriage is illegal and gay people can’t legally get married, for one. and people have been imprisoned in Bahrain for kissing members of the same sex. but whatever i guess. anyways then radfemkitten argues that i sent a picture doxxing my own fucking mother to black-diaspora. so i endangered my own mother and then begged these people to delete the information they posted, apparently? 

sadly, that is the end of the receipts i have on the topic of BD endangering my mom and the hetfem server justifying it and finding ways to blame me for BD’s actions. so i don’t have the bit that confirms how she explained herself to others and justified it, however she did justify and defend it publicly when i called her out on it. BD was not kicked or muted or anything of the sort for what she has done, and as you can see, everyone justified it and took it as an opportunity to insult me. this wouldn’t have been as much of an issue if i wasn’t from a dictatorship and if my blog wasn’t so political. what BD posted is STILL present on another blog and i could not get staff to delete it, so if the information falls into the wrong hands i don’t know what’ll happen to my mother, or even to me.

next is them justifying allying with the right despite their homophobia, racism, etc. keep in mind some of these women reblogged white supremacist propaganda in agreement with it so this isn’t particularly shocking. christmas begins in november = autumn = probablyaterf.

the issue with this, by the way, is associating with a group that is often misogynistic, homophobic, and racist solely to have a slightly larger platform of people who are more or less heavily for gender, gender roles, and more, sends the message that somehow these are ok things to side with as feminists. yall notice how many ‘radfems’ are literally just conservatives who are against some aspects of misogyny or trans people? these are the people you’re roping in a lot of the time. and this makes the voices of radfems easier to dismiss by the left as well. instead of establishing a space in the left, you end up placing yourself closer to the right and effectively putting the success of your movement to a halt.

these coming screenshots are the hetfems arguing het women have it The Hardest in radfem spaces 

separate event is just some lesbophobia, again.

“imagine a straight/bihet woman wondering what the purpose of a lesbian is” go outside. there’s plenty of that. one idiotic woman saying that about bisexuality doesn’t somehow override that.

more blatant lesbophobia in a separate event. note the reactions underneath the text (all in agreement)

how often have gay people talked about how the stupid “you have equal rights now uwu” bullshit is simply bullshit? this is exactly what men use to dismiss feminists, why do it to dismiss talk of homophobia?

a bunch of white & het/het-passing women joking about making a straight pride or kkk march

remember the white woman, emanon, who argues against reparations because “what about poor white people? :(” she comes in with more racism, and some intersexism too! this is her calling caster semenya, an intersex black woman, a man and using ‘he’ pronouns for her. girlfrommars, the white woman keen on defending blackface, comes in to express her agreement.

then they argue that semenya was raised as a male.. because she refused to wear feminine clothing including in school & because some people thought she was, and thus treated her as such until they realised shes not, a man??

this is more recent than a lot of the previous receipts. i reblogged one post by radfemkitten a while back, and she was so flattered she felt the need to complain about it on the hetfem server, to which someone replied by likening me to a male hippo from madagascar. 

[misunderstoodnotevil]

Series 1, episode 2

Society classes. The upstairs and the downstairs. The aristocrats, the upper (as Isobel kindly provides) middle-class, the servants. Those who can talk and those who can't. There's a right there, and some have it and others don't. The writing narrative; the protagonists and the antagonists. The good and the bad. Everything is muddled. I could write long essays about each and every character and their interactions with the other characters and focus on the writer's own bias and prejudice (should I dare call it hypocrisy considering it’s clearly shown by the characters themselves?) that reflects on the character like on a newly ajax sprayed mirror. Alas, in this page, we'll stick to Thomas.

Thomas' age is unspecified -mostly due to Rob's age- but, I wonder if he can be older than in his late teens. So, until I'm proven wrong in regards to this, I will consider him a teenager (as weird as it seems). Miss O'Brien seems to be the only ally he has in the Abbey. And the both of them are -for reasons unknown as of yet- the antagonists.

When Thomas asks Mr. Carson if the latter has seen the new "family", his reply implies he doesn't think much of them. "I have that pleasure to look forward to this evening." "Pleasure" is uttered with an air of sarcasm. He won't be pleased to meet them. Cora doesn't want them at the beginning. The Dowager doesn't even try to be polite towards Isobel during their first meeting. Mary doesn't want them. But the issue, the one criticised is Miss O'Brien. Thomas follows his "betters" behaviour if you think about it when he serves Matthew "I will hold it steady and you can help yourself, sir." Everyone has declared Matthew a savage. Even if he isn't.

*

"Poor old Molesley. I pity the man who's taken that job."

How does Bates know Thomas applied for the job? Because, as Thomas himself says afterwards, Carson told him.

"I thought it might help me to get away from you, Mr Bates. " Why does Thomas want to get away from Mr. Bates. As I wrote for the first episode, all we know is that Bates took the job he wanted and apparently for Thomas, that's an insult as he think Bates can't be as good in the job as he is (and he may be right about it). Again, the issue is Thomas doesn't say anything particularly awful (as opposed to other times) but they frame him here as the "antagonist".  

* "She's a match for the old lady. She wasn't going to give in." Thomas says about Isobel (and Violet) to another maid, and he's been heard by Carson who doesn't hesitate to threaten him with his job. "What old lady are you referring to, Thomas? You cannot mean Her Ladyship the Dowager Countess. Not if you wish to remain in this house." It's not as if Violet is a young woman, is she?

When Carson talks with Hughes about Matthew being the heir which is the reason Mary doesn't like him, Carson is not only to justify her dislike of the man but criticise the law. And I don't question the fact he's right about the law not permitting women to inherit their fathers fortune, here is how he treats the woman with the most privilege in the Abbey thinking she should have even more privilege as opposed to threatening the one lower than him with his job.

Fast forward towards the end of the episode when Mr. Hughes calls Violet "an old bat". "I want to see the old bat's face when they announce it. I must try not to look too cheerful. Or shouldn't I talk like that in your presence?" and Carson doesn't mind one bit because a. he has his own problems of humiliation and b. he sees Ms. Hughes as an equal. However, old bat is far worse than the old lady Thomas said. Thomas expressed an opinion based on the interaction he witnessed between Isobel and Violet and he was right. Ms. Hughes in contrast is amused by Violet losing the battle. Even in this case Thomas is the antagonist.

*

"I don't think that's fair. Not here in the servants' hall."

Cora catches O'Brien speaking against Matthew at the servants' hall and calls out her behaviour. She calmly threatens her in a way. "Your sailing perilously close to the wind, O'Brien. If we're to be friends, you will not speak in that way again" They are not friends. O'Brien is at least right about that. If they were friends she would have been able to speak as she wanted to, like Violet or Mary. They are not the same. O'Brien is there to listen to Cora complains but she should never take it to heart because the latter can easily "remove her friendship". People are treated differently for saying the same things. Because people are not equal. It's not what they say, it's what they are.

It drives me up the wall.

And when Thomas tries to support him but claiming they have a right to speak their mind down there, Ms. Hughes is there to stop him. "Not when I'm in charge! Don't push your luck, Thomas." Don't push your luck Thomas, you have no right to speak or else...!

And O'Brien is right when she says to Anna that they -even the servants among themselves- are not friends she's right, and Anna proves it when she complains to Ms. Hughes Thomas is bullying William. As if Carson and Hughes haven't bullied and threatened him with their power over him his job.

*

"I'm sick of being a footman."

Thomas is fixing a clock in the yard when Ms. O'Brien finds him. She wonders how Carson permit him to do it, and Thomas has the skill as his father was a clockmaker. It's a bit surprising that that's an information Ms. O'Brien doesn't know because out of everyone else seem to be the closer (he does ask her to dance with him the grizzly bear before he goes with Daisy, as if he's certain she knows how to dance too), but I guess it was a way for the audience to know. Despite the fact she's part of the servants class, O'Brien thinks Matthew is no superior of her m, but instead of wanting to be a step up like he is, she wants to pull him down with her. "I'd rather be a footman than wait on someone who ought to be a footman himself," she says when Thomas admits he's tired of the job. Thomas' ambitions never work. But he seems to want to better himself. Both of them hate their work, but both of them know they need to be well liked by the "upstairs" if they want to keep working.

[skamamoroma]

Meg, always kinda wanted to ask....what’s your opinion on the actress who plays Sana in SkamIt not being Muslim?

This is the only post I’ll make on the issue ❤️

Skam is all about providing hope regardless of the issue or story. It is about giving the viewer an experience, giving them a close insight into a person person so that they can understand their story and provide hope.

Representation matters. A lot. It gives people a sense of belonging, of being seen and valued and appreciated and, above all, gives them a role model. It also teaches people who are not from that “minority” (for want of a better word) a new viewpoint and it can educate. It’s wonderful.

I am not a Muslim. I am not a POC. I have no religion at all. I will never understand what it is to be either. I have friends who are one or both so I have some knowledge of some issues my friends face from a closer perspective but I am absolutely never going to know what it is to experience life as a religious (and obviously religious) person or a person of colour.

My opinion matters here as much as anyone’s who is a non-Muslim non POC, aka only so far. The same way as I identify with the LGBT+ storylines, if someone none LGBT+ were to weigh in and say something about stuff they have no personal experience or knowledge of them that’s not at all helpful but if they have general comments about the storyline or the character or the behaviours then awesome! That’s a viewer 😊 that’s what you’re meant to do. But I am not going to devalue or overpower the opinion of someone who is a Muslim POC because their voice on these things deserves to be heard.

Having a Muslim person play a Muslim role is undoubtedly going to be a wonderful thing. Iman brought so much to her role. She gave understanding and depth and I believe even offered Julie tips and info. That’s special. That’s a community being represented by someone who gets it. She received a LOT of backlash for playing Sana from her own community and the guts that took. I imagine she realised the good a character like Sana could and was doing. Do you need to be a Muslim to play a Muslim role? The same way you don’t need to be gay to play the role of a gay teenager or you don’t have to have a mental illness to play someone with bipolar etc etc etc. There’s no requirement there but sometimes things more nuanced than that. Sometimes the need to further a cause is perhaps a bigger one and I absolutely see the value in a real, young Muslim girl playing that role and I can see how the impact can be felt as I’ve been in this fandom a long time.

Italy as a country needs Skam. Many countries need it but Italy’s political landscape is tricky and I have listened to Italian friends and lovely Italian folks on here who have expressed how needed an Italian s3 (Marti) and s4 (Bea) is. I have had Italian Muslims message me to tell me they’re thrilled Sana’s season is even a thing in their country. They have told me that they see that things are different there than in other countries who have Skam. They have commented that they themselves are a white Muslim and feel like Sana looks like they do in their country as they are hijab wearers too. This too can not be discounted. Political landscapes DO impact media and fiction because perhaps sometimes there is even more nuance at play. Perhaps sometimes there is stuff that people in other countries do not have to think about and perhaps to have a tv season shown and understood and accepted some things have to be a little different. These are things I have been told by Italian Muslims.

I am not a fan of how the issue has been handled. Besse is a tricky dude. He’s not subtle and he’s not someone who easily handles criticism even if it is constructive. He does handle it but he also makes snap reactions and it ain’t helpful. But he also cares a great deal. Julie Andem has said he’s the main producer to contact her and discuss, he has taken months to get to know and to understand Muslim youth in Italy, he cares about the show and characters on an immeasurable level, even going so far as to single handedly try to do the social media for s3 himself because they were having so many issues with Timvision. This is a man who gives a shit. He isn’t always right and sometimes goes about stuff in an less than ideal way but he gives a shit and I have respect for anyone who does.

This whole “no other Muslims came to casting”. I don’t know how true or untrue that is. I am sure there are many young talented Muslim or POC actresses in Italy but how am I to comment if that statement is true or not. I wasn’t there. Perhaps a little more insistence could have been had to find someone else?

Beatrice got the role. She’s a young actress, young lady and this is a huge acting gig. She is also perhaps lacking in education a little. Should she be ridiculed, put on the spot, forced to answer complex questions at the drop of a hat and expected to be a walking Wikipedia of social matters? Should she be ganged up on or singled out and made to feel less worthy? Should she be treated poorly and with contempt? Absolutely fucking not. She’s a human. She’s a young female in a complex industry that doesn’t tend to treat women all that well. She has emotions and feelings and a heart and is a person. Education and kindness and explanations are the way to handle stuff like this not sarcasm and vitriol and chastising. I get that anger is a thing people who are marginalised feel because I have felt it myself, I understand that those in the Muslim community understand a level of marginalisation that nobody who is outside if that community can possibly understand and I would never try to speak for the anger they should and shouldn’t be allowed to feel but I’m talking about a fellow human and a show that advocates hope and kindness and comfort and acceptance. Treating her like shit isn’t ok, it isn’t what Skam is about and it isn’t nice on a very basic human level.

The season is going ahead. Besse has done a lot of research and committed himself to making this season happen. He has spoken about how much he loves and respects the season’s issues and has made it clear how much he fought for it to be a thing in the first place. This isn’t a show runner who doesn’t care but it doesn’t mean he can’t be criticised still.

My view is that this would be a wonderful chance for a young Muslim POC to play a role that represents her. To embody a character that other young POC Muslims (or even not POC because white Muslims do exist) can look up to, to be a role model, to represent her community. That can only ever be a truly special thing and Iman did a magical job as have other actresses playing Sana. I wish that the casting directors and show runner had insisted on this.

But I do not want to discount the immense good that a Sana season could do in modern day Italy. I don’t want to suggest that I understand the decisions behind the scenes. I don’t want to speak for white Muslims living in Italy. I don’t want to speak against Muslim Italians who have commented how much Sana’s season will mean to them in their political landscape.

I love Skam Italia. I think it’s a wonderful show. I cherish so much of it. No show is perfect. No remake of Skam is perfect. No actor or actress is an immediate social justice warrior with all of the complex sensitive knowledge at their finger tips to spout forth in a speech to end social issues. I care about people giving a shit and I care about kindness and this cast do as do many of the other Skam casts. This show is precious and useful and unique and it also is made and shown in countries with their own political, social, historic landscapes that people from outside those countries do not understand and that should always be remembered too.

This is not an easy topic and I think anyone who is POC and or Muslim has a right to express opinion and those opinions should be listened to but the way with all of this is with kindness not hatred. I don’t tolerate poor treatment of people. We live in a modern time where being wrong is apparently nowadays a cause of bloody abuse and that’s insanity. Debate is important as is talking to understand. Sometimes there is a place for anger and righteousness and yes I’d absolutely agree that it can be used in a valuable way and especially minorities have no requirement to educate or spend their time being kind to people who are racist or homophobic or prejudice in any way... but where there is misunderstanding or perhaps debate to be had and where stuff concerns well meaning people who maybe need to understand another viewpoint etc etc etc, I’d advocate for kindness and education over anything.

So these are my feelings on the issue. I will watch Sana’s season and I’ll be absolutely willing to be constructively critical, as always. I will also listen to those who are Muslim and Italian about how they feel about the season. I am also watching significantly for other characters too. I love a lot of the general s4 storyline and loved Sana a great deal. By me watching the season, it does not mean I am not critical of some of the decisions made. I choose, in the circumstances we are in, to give it a chance and to appreciate the good it can still do.

I don’t want to have a mass debate on this topic. There are people better places to have that debate and I’m not one of them. Please be kind and respectful and listen, that would be my advice ❤️

[fymagnificentwomcn]

Ayşe Haseki and Gevherhan's friendship is so underrated too and obviously both of them deserved better ! I would've loved to see more of their friendship tbh the whole Farya plot ruined the entire show

Agree 100% Anon. We should have it explored.

I was really excited for Farya/Atike friendship because female friendship is always treasured on these shows, but what we got was a disaster. We received two entitled gal pals thinking they are so better than other “typical” women, merely endorsing and encouraging each other’s awful behaviour… and they talked about guys 95% of the time anyway. There was one decent scene of Farya when she told Atike that getting Silahtar was precisely what she wanted and that she was happy about what Murad had done… but it was clear that Farya wouldn’t have called Atike out on her bullshit if she hadn’t been frustrated by Murad being with another woman. Plus Atike’s contempt for Ayse.. where did it come from: “She can wield a sword, finally my brother met someone who deserved him” WTF ??? Well, Farya and Murad did deserve each other, but I don’t think Atike meant it in the way I do ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°).

Murad did reward Atike for sucking up to him and Farya, while Gevherhan had her own mind and was able to criticise them… but I honestly wouldn’t call a reward forcing a man to marry me for punishment. I’d expect of an older brother to show me the way and instruct me instead of making me a pawn to show how scary, unyielding and able to decide everyone’s fate I am.

If this whole situation does not again show that Murad does not not how to rule other than how to instill fear in everyone and command an army, I don’t know what else it is. Same about his understanding of the concept of “justice”, or rather lack thereof.

Farya ate so much screentime on her mostly fictional and absurd Hungarian history plot (and even her name isn’t Hungarian lmao), awful love story, awful friendship, awful rivalry and awful spy story and in the end introduced nothing of sense and meaning to the show. And in MYKS2 screentime was very valuable, as it turned out, and writers should have been aware because they already speedied up a lot of stuff in S1 due to poor ratings.

- Joanna

[serenagaywaterford]

But I think Nick will die for June at the end (Max, here is your chance to instill some life into the character, right before he dies. Ha) Oh, and yeah... people giving him a pass are just ridiculous. Granted he had little power, but he was driving when the commanders came up with the ceremony idea, and who knows what else he’s privy to in those 500 millions car rides. He has an important job, easy access to anywhere including the borders, knows a shit ton about the inner workings of Gilead.

Never did he try to escape, and share that intel with the rest of the world. It would’ve been so easy for him to do. Fine, let’s say he’s with the resistanc, trying to fight from within, but honestly he’s not done much on that front either. The previous handmaid killed herself, and he couldn’t do much for the current one. Never mind the others. Basically nothing in the past 5 years or so… why is he so great?

This is what annoys me about all the Serena hate. Sure, she’s awful… but she gets more hate than everyone else, including Fred sometimes. What about aunt Lydia? Carrying out daily punishments to all handmaids, literally has mutilated every sinlgle one of them.. but but she really really loves them!!

Or commander Joseph? He was the architect of the financial system, and also the colonies (if I remember correctly). Oh I don’t know, sounds like a big deal… but but he’s so quirky, and throws out a few funny one liners. Anyway, in conclusion, Serena good, everyone else sucks (j/k, sort of). Rant over.

—

This is such a huge, complex issue. This is gonna get loooooooooooonnnnnnngggggggggg.

Personally, I’m tired of the “he had little power” argument for Nick. It’s akin to “He’s just following orders” imo. The Nuremberg defense. He wasn’t that powerless, lbr. He’s a man. With a brain. The ability to say, “Um, no thanks.” Which puts him in incredible power over every single woman, including Wives. Maybe at the beginning when he was a mere driver he had less power (but he still had the ability to say no). But he still had a damn voice and opinion, and what did he do with it? Supported the Handmaid system. Blatantly. Barely any hesitation. Nick has been complicit in Gilead from the very beginning when he was literally hand-picked by Pryce because he was a disillusioned, entitled, little man with anger issues. (Hmm, sounds familiar to a lot of the ultra-right MRAs now.) He could have said no. I’m sure he could have even gotten out of that cesspool as soon as he saw where it was heading. Pryce is one of the OGs of Gilead. Nick stayed quiet and continued to support him, for years and years and years. Then he directly supported Waterford, another Gilead OG, for years. He did literally NOTHING to help any women at any point, until June came along and only then did he help her, but not women in general. Just June. He is so incredibly selfish and self-serving. But hey, woobie cinnamon roll. Blah.

Now, is it understandable? Sure. Nobody wants to be poor, sent to a labour camp, or die. But maybe Nick could have just been an Economan? He could have been a soldier. He could have been a rebel! Who knows. I never once saw him threatened with anything at all, except in 2x10/2x11. Sort of. I do get why Nick would stay quiet, keep his head down, and as man --have no concept of what he was doing. But I don’t think that absolves him of his involvement. Which is essentially my issue with him.

Even in mid-S2 he still had NO concept of what women really experience in Gilead. His whiny bullshit to June about not wanting to fuck Eden was just... the moment I realised he has literally learnt and absorbed NOTHING. He was literally whinging to JUNE WHO IS RAPED EVERY MONTH about how he doesn’t want to have sex with Eden.

Like, yeah, I wouldn’t want to rape a child either. (And yes, I do consider it rape regardless of whether Eden says she wants to do it or not. She has no concept of even the ability to consent. She thinks she HAS to or die, and Serena has confirmed that repeatedly.) And it’s a fucking horrible choice: rape a child or be hanged for being gay. Holy shit that’s awful. So, in a way, it’s mutual rape??? Well, that’s sort of awful since Eden isn’t doing anything at all. But Nick is being abused by the very system he helped organise. Funny that. (Not funny.)

I am just so fucking glad June called him on it. But it’s that sort of attitude and behaviour that makes it really hard for me to consider Nick an honest to goodness Good Guy, rather than just a Nice Guy TM. It’s not like it was just a flashback, it was current Gilead.

And because of that lack of understanding on his part, I think that’s why he’s done basically nothing. Honestly? What has he done for the resistance?

...

Um.

1. Gave letters to Luke.

...

That’s it. 

(Don’t get me started on that whole “these letters are so revolutionary!!!” subplot cos it was so nonsensical when there are literal human beings saying the same things RIGHT THERE lol.)

Not that it’s not a big deal. It was very important. But that’s literally all he has done for the resistance as an entity. Everything else has just been for June, specifically, which is, essentially for his own sense of well-being. He has SO MUCH DIRT on Waterford, at least. And like you said, he has so much background on Gilead as a whole. He knows every in and out of it and has nothing with it. At least that we’ve seen.

Other things he’s done? Ignoring June’s “misbehaviour”. Fucking June. Acting as a decoy to protect June at the house in the woods. Helping Serena forge security documents and various things (which is not for the resistance either but it was a Good Thing, but if we’re gonna give credit to him for that ya gotta give it to Serena (and June) too). Everything he’s done in terms of smuggling and Jezebels--which is not at all for the resistance and only benefits the men.

He’s just not that great.

ANYWAY. ENough about Nick. He’s not worth it lol.

This is what annoys me about all the Serena hate. Sure, she’s awful… but she gets more hate than everyone else, including Fred

THIS. IS. IT.

THIS IS THE MOST IMPORTANT INFURIATING THING IN FANDOM.

I AGREE 100000000%.

Serena by far gets the most hate, for ANY POSSIBLE THING. I think it’s come to the point where Serena could just walk a certain way and viewers would criticise her for which foot she put first. This woman BY FARRRRR gets the blame for everything. More than Fred. 

And we all know why.

Don’t even get me started on the fan-boner for Commander Lawrence. Oh my god, he’s so quirky and weird! He didn’t rape Emily! WHAT A GREAT GUY!!!! I HOPE HE’S IN S3!! I WANT TO KNOW ALL ABOUT HIM!!! HE’S SO AWESOME!

No.

He’s a fucking creep.

His wife is literally so traumatised by his existence she’s gone somewhat insane, so he LOCKS HER IN HER ROOM. “For her own good”, ofc.

He created the financial system AND the Colonies.

We literally have no idea if he’s beaten women, withheld anything, or raped them during Ceremonies. (I would assume he has. A man who invents the fucking Colonies doesn’t seem like the sort of dude to draw the line at state-sanctioned rape or corporeal punishment. So, let’s assume that at least he’s participated in Ceremonies in the past.)

But hey, he played some Annie Lennox and has cool comic books! And look, what an amazing man he is for helping Emily escape! He’s got such a pure heart!

Yes, the man who invented radioactive concentration deathcamps for gay/feminist/old/barren/adulterous women. He’s such a paragon of peace and feminism. We all should love him.

I...

CAN’T...

EVEN.

Meanwhile, yes, Serena has done fucking horrible things. (She did NOT invent the Handmaid system however.) But wait... HORRIBLE IRREDEEMABLE CUNT!!!!!!!!!! NEVER FORGIVE ANYTHING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! SHE HATES WOMEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! DIE BITCH DIE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And there is literally no interest in discussing her rationally, or even attempting to understand why she does what she does. BORING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! GO DIE!!!

(The gendered slurs towards Serena often are also very, very telling.)

I have no problem with people hating Serena, or criticizing her. Good. She deserves it. 

I do have a problem holding her to some different standard than literally ANY OTHER CHARACTER. While actively ignoring the horrible shit the men do on a regular basis. The two most hated characters? Serena and Lydia. But you’re right, I often see the “Aunt Lydia is horrible and I hate her... but she loves the girls in her own messed up way and is doing her best for them!!!” 

Yeah? Well, Serena loves children. Like, really fucking loves kids. In her own messed up way and is doing her best for them. 

I don’t think it’s any coincidence that the two most hated characters and the ones that receive the most vitriol are female villains whereas male villains are just sort of skimmed over. Sure, people say, “I hate Fred” it’s not nearly as gendered or as intense. And in a way I get it, cos women hating other women to such a degree is ... just... unbearable. But it was literally the men who both created and maintain the society. ALL MEN. No excuses, no exceptions. ALL men, including precious Nick. Whether or not he’s happy or likes the system, he’s still done fuck all to change it and he still benefits from it.

Where’s the outrage at Warren for sexually abusing Janine? Oh, right. He got punished for that so it’s all fine. (Serena was literally whipped with a belt for doing a Good Thing, and lost a finger for another Good Thing, but hey, “She deserved it. It’s not enough! She needs to DIE a horrible death ASAP.”) Where the consistent outrage at Fred for basically everything he ever says and does? Where’s the same outrage for participating in raping pregnant June? (I do get there is a difference and even June knows it but still. The outrage was not even close to the same level. They literally blame Serena for Fred’s behaviour like he’s some poor, voiceless rube that is controlled entirely by her.) And we’ve already discussed the lack of outrage at Joe, or Nick.

I dunno.

It makes me so sad and angry. Serena could just sigh the wrong way and fans will insist she dies. Fred is an architect of the system (WAY more than Serena), continues to support the system wholeheartedly, cheats on his wife by grooming and sexually assaulting the Handmaids (yes, plural), then blames his wife for him cheating, beats the shit out of his wife, chops off her finger, rapes a pregnant woman (not to mention all the other rapes, where it is completely in his power to say no thanks not tonight at any time), wallops June across the face, gleefully supports murdering children, and implies that he wants to continue raping June for as long as possible to get a son (so, FOREVER), and hey, that’s just Fred being Fred. Cos, look, he lets June play Scrabble and see her baby. Fred has not done a single Truly Good Thing.

Not to say Serena hasn’t done almost equally awful things to some of those things. She has. But the sheer hatred towards her and the vocal outrage far surpasses Fred. Even when she legitimately does a Truly Good Thing (of which she has done exactly 3 lol), people say, “Well, so what? Hang the bitch!!!!!!!”

I know I sound like some delusional Serena Joy stan but really, the sexism and misogyny even in a fandom like THT is staggering. 

Because sadly, I see it towards June as well. I have literally read terrible takes about how June isn’t that great, but Nick is the true gem. June isn’t that great cos she’s the Other Woman and wasn’t compassionate to Luke’s wife accosting her, but Luke is fine even though he was the actual adulterer and he was totally right to be screaming at his (ex-)wife like that on the phone. June gets a shit load of criticism for a lot of things while certain other male characters, again, get a pass for sometimes worse decisions and behaviour.

So, yes, I agree SO FUCKING HARD with your rant and always feel free to rant!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :DDDDDDDDDD

[tipsycad147]

The Forfar Witches

Illustration of witches, perhaps being tortured before James VI, from his Daemonologie

by Amanda Moffet

The Royal burgh of Forfar, a small faming and market town nestled in the Strathmore valley in the east of Scotland, is a respectable and quiet community. The burgh lies only five miles from Glamis Castle, family seat of the Earls of Strathmore and Kinghorn, childhood home of Queen Elizabeth, the Queen Mother, and the setting for Shakespeare’s play Macbeth.

The Forfar tollbooth doesn’t exist anymore – the dilapidated medieval tolbooth.was replaced with the Town and Country Hall.  The Market Cross which stood outside the Tollbooth  has been moved to Castle Hill.  This historic landmark gives no clue to the religious hysteria, suffering and cruelty for which it was the setting almost 400 years ago when this unassuming burgh was the backdrop to the most widespread witch hunt that Scotland ever had. Between 1661 and 1663, 42 suspected witches were imprisoned in the tollbooth, and so offensive were these prisoners to the good people of Forfar that the windows were boarded up to stop the accused witches from shouting down to the public.  The individual characters involved in the accusations, trials and resulting executions make a fascinating tale of misfits, persecution, torture and religious hysteria.

The Town and County Hall on the right was erected in 1787 – 1788. It replaced the dilapidated medieval tolbooth.

The Market Cross was originally situated in front of the old tolbooth and was the centre of burgh life.

The story starts when King James VI, son of the executed Mary Queen of Scots, married the young Princess Anne of Denmark in 1589. James has been described as “the most learned man who ever occupied a British throne” and his achievements were many. It was James who foresaw the benefit of a political union between the kingdoms of Scotland and England. He spoke passionately of tolerance in an age of great persecution, he wrote eloquently in English, French and Latin and strongly criticised a new practice that was becoming extremely popular with the ruling classes with publication of his work A Counterblast to Tobacco.

However, when King James’ new bride Anne, whom he had married by proxy, was sailing from Scandinavia to join her husband, she was almost killed during a fierce storm. The ship was forced to take shelter to await calmer weather, so James decided to sail to Norway to escort his bride home. They were formally married in Oslo and after a honeymoon, set sail for Scotland again. When yet another raging storm befell the ship, the captain and the king became convinced that dark forces of evil were working against them.

On his return to Scotland, James led an investigation to find those responsible for the acts of “malefice” and uncovered more than 100 “wyches” in North Berwick. It was clear to the king that these witches had deliberately raised the tempest by swinging cats around their heads and throwing them into the sea. The witches were tried and several were executed in a very high-profile and public trial. The king developed an obsession with these evil-doers who sought to destroy him, and in 1597 published his work Daemonologie, a study of witchcraft and devil worship, with clear instructions on how to identify a witch.

This royal endorsement led to Scottish witch hunts which resulted in the trial of many thousands of accused, mainly women, and the execution of more than 1,000 of these unfortunates.

Most accusations of witchcraft resulted from petty disputes between neighbours or when something disastrous happened inexplicably, like the failure of harvest, the inability of a cow to produce milk or a calf, or a sudden death. People were superstitious and fearful and looked for an explanation – for someone to blame. Very often, they did not have to look far.

In the burgh of Forfar, one local woman, Helen Guthrie, was a well known drunkard and troublemaker – a “verrie drunkensome woman.” She had frequent disputes with her neighbours and liked to frighten people with her claims of supernatural powers. Helen told tales of how she had murdered her own infant sister, Margaret, and was by all accounts a loud and disagreeable individual. Helen was accused – along with her coven – of wrecking a ship in Carnoustie harbour and destroying an important bridge at Cortachy by raising supernatural forces and consorting with the devil himself.

While imprisoned in the Forfar tollbooth, Helen claimed she knew of other witches in the town. She pointed her finger at one Jean Thornton, whom Helen claimed was also in league with the devil. Jean had already drawn attention to herself during a dispute with her own son. He had bought a cow from his mother, but Jean was adamant that the animal still belonged to her because he had not paid for it. A family feud developed which Jean decided to resolve in her own memorable way. She ran to her son’s small farm with a noisy group of women and reclaimed the cow from it’s pen. Jean then rode triumphantly home on the back of the poor beast for all to see.

Such a rowdy behaviour was completely unacceptable at a time when the church had a powerful hold over the daily lives of parishioners. The kirk ministers preached the values of respectability, piety, Godliness and modesty, so outlandish behaviour was seen as scandalous and an affront to public morality.

Other local women were accused, tried and executed after confessing to such outrageous acts as dancing with the devil, flying on broomsticks (which was treated with the flesh of dead infants) and causing the deaths of local worthies by the use of spells and incantations. These confessions were of course, extracted under torture and deprivation of sleep, food and light. The inquisitors in Forfar used the branks – an iron band fastened to the cell wall and around the head of the prisoner with a long barb into their mouth preventing the prisoner from eating, drinking, sleeping or resting, and causing constant agony.

The Branks

Helen Guthrie, however seemed to delight in feeding her accusers with outlandish tales of her adventures with the devil himself, and was eager to provide names of locals who were also witches. Of the 40 “Forfar witches,” 30 were personally accused by Helen Guthrie. She told of midnight gatherings in the Forfar churchyard or by the loch where she and her fellow coven members would dance with the devil and plot acts of evil.

They desecrated the grave of an unbaptised infant, cooking the remains in a pie. Present at this gathering, claimed Helen, was Isobel Shyrie. The local baillie had recently paid an official visit to Isobel’s home to remove property in place of debt she owed. Soon afterward, he dropped dead, casting suspicion on Isobel. Helen’s affirmation that Isobel had indeed caused the death of this good man led to the latter’s imprisonment in the Forfar tollbooth. There, under toture, she confessed to poisoning the deceased with a potion of “two toad’s heads, a man’s skull and dead man’s flesh which had been perfumed by the Devil.”

In September 1661, she was tried in the tollbooth which was her prison, her jury consisting of five local landowners. They found her guilty of the “abominable cryme of witchcraft,” and the expert services of Donald the executioner from nearby Montrose were employed for the princely sum of 1 pound and 4 shillings to carry out her penalty. Donald strangled Isobel with a rope which had cost 12 shillings and 6 pennies, then she was burned in a barrel which was purchased for the occasion for 16 shillings.

Elspeth Alexander and Janet Stout were two other local women named by Isobel as members of the coven, with both making their confessions to witchcraft the very day after Isobel. They admitted to being part of the group that had destroyed Cortachy bridge and sunk ships by supernatural means. They told of renouncing their Christian baptisms and entering a pact with the devil, all sure signs of being a witch according to King James’ Daemonologie.

Elspeth Alexander was strangled and burned in January 1662 and we assume the same fate for Janet.

John Tailyour was one of the few men accused of witchcraft; he, too, was named by Helen Guthrie. He confessed to the heinous crime of transforming himself into a pig and running amok through his neighbour’s neat cornstalks, causing much damage and havoc. During a meeting with the devil, John had taken the name of Beelzebub as his own.

Helen made many accusations of witches causing harm to the good people of Forfar by using malevolent powers. Those named and tried include Katherine Porter, James Pearson and George Sullie. She prolonged her imprisonment – and her life – by continuing to make her own confessions which included a failed attempt by the devil when he heroically tried to free Helen from the tollbooth, and also by her long list of fellow witches and their crimes.

A serious contender to Helen’s self-claimed title of preeminent witch of Forfar was Isobel Smith who was brought to the attention of the authorities by Helen. Isobel was an admitted adulteress when this was a serious sin against the church and an affront to public decency. Isobel described how she had sold her soul to the devil for the price of 3 half pence per annum. Unlike the coven members who met with their diabolic leader in a group, Isobel met with him one-to-one when he revealed himself to her on a hillside when she was gathering heather.

Isobel and Helen were kindred spirits; they both seemed to attract disagreement and become involved in disputes and feuds. When a farmer’s wife refused to give Isobel milk, she went straight to the cow and helped herself, then took the calf home with her (although she said the animal had followed her). She claimed to have killed another protagonist simply by touching him and putting a hex on yet another enemy, one Janet Mitchell, by holding an image of her. Furthermore, she had caused a fine horse to die after she cursed it when it ate her corn. In those days of hand-to-mouth subsistence, these allegations were very serious because a productive cow or a strong horse was often the only barrier between the family fed or falling into ruin.

During her trial, Helen stated that she could identify another witch simply by looking at her. She was presented with Elspeth Bruce and confirmed that Elspeth was indeed a witch who had caused the death of Lady Isobel Ogilvy. This was obvious, claimed Helen, because Elspeth had been seen dancing around a fire on the night the noblewoman had died. Elspeth was also accused of enjoying a roast goose, a great delicacy, on the very night Cortachy bridge had been destroyed supernaturally by the Forfar Coven. Elspeth was the only one to deny all accusations against her, although she did admit to adultery. In July 1662, Elspeth was tried but no record remains of her fate.

By the end of that year, Helen, was still imprisoned in the tollbooth, eking out a miserable existence by continuing her role as chief witness for the prosecution. By then Helen had become quite a cause célèbre and she was so important a witch that a commissioner traveled from Edinburgh to oversea the proceedings at her trial.  On November 14, 1662, the day after her trial, Helen Guthrie was executed and “burnt to ashes.”  In addition to the usual fees for the executioner, rope and barrel, an additional 15 shillings was spent on ale for those attending the public burning.

Helen Guthrie was the last witch to be executed in Forfar.  After her death several women imprisoned in the tollbooth were released because nobody could be found to speak against them.  One of these was Janet, the young daughter of Helen, who was seen as a witch by association.  If the mother was a witch, then so was the daughter.  Janet was banished from the burgh of Forfar with an exclusion zone of eight miles.  Unworthy of marriage, Janet would spend a miserable life as an outcast and a vagrant.

By the time Elizabeth Bruce was released and banished in 1664, public opinion was changing and those in the positions of authority became concerned that due process of law was not being carried out.  Many accusations seemed to be personal, petty and vindictive.  Fear, superstition and religious intrench began to lessen their hold as new thinking in science, medicine and education shed their light on the population of Scotland.

The witch hunts were over and the burgh of Forfar returned to its business.

Old photograph of houses and shops on the High Street in Forfar, Scotland.

he memorial stone is simply dedicated to the “Forfar Witches”, and features 22 dots that represent each of the women who were killed for the “abominable cryme of witchcraft.” At the bottom, the legend reads, “Just people”.

https://www.scotclans.com/the-forfar-witches/

[snughuz]

Piers Morgan article copied. No pictures

PIERS MORGAN: Meghan and Harry's nauseating two-hour Oprah whine-athon was a disgraceful diatribe of cynical race-baiting propaganda designed to damage the Queen as her husband lies in hospital - and destroy the Monarchy

By PIERS MORGAN FOR MAILONLINE

PUBLISHED: 07:33 EST, 8 March 2021 | UPDATED: 07:47 EST, 8 March 2021

Sickening.

Shameful.

Self-pitying.

Salacious.

Scandalous.

Sanctimonious.

Spectacularly self-serving.

Those were just my initial thoughts after ten minutes of the Oprah whine-athon with Meghan and Harry, and while restricting myself to only using words beginning with the letter 's'.

By the time I'd finished the whole two-hour orgy of pious, self-indulgent, score-settling twaddle, the steam was erupting out of my ears like an exploding geyser, and my lexicon of rageful epithets extended to the full range of the alphabet.

Never have I watched a more repulsively disingenuous interview.

Nor one more horrendously hypocritical or contradictory.

Here we had the Duke and Duchess of Privacy flinging out the filthy family laundry for the delectation of tens of millions of people all over the world, whilst simultaneously bleating about press intrusion.

They moaned about the terrible pain of their royal titles but were also outraged their son Archie wasn't allowed to be a Prince.

They told of their constant trauma from nasty newspaper stories, but repeatedly insisted they never read any of them.

They claimed they were forced to sign gazillion-dollar deals with Netflix and Spotify because Prince Charles cut off their allowance, despite Harry inheriting millions from his late mother Princess Diana and having his entire life bankrolled by the Royal Family.

And so, it went nauseatingly on.

In the middle of a pandemic that has already taken over 2.5 million lives, a staggeringly rich and entitled couple living in a $14 million sun-kissed California mansion wanted us all to know that THEY are the real victims around here.

Meghan even compared her former life living in a palace to the crippling freedom-robbing existence of coronavirus lockdowns, which must have sounded so empathetic to large families living at the top of tower blocks with three kids they're trying to home-school and no job to pay for food.

'I couldn't even meet my friends for lunch!' wailed the Duchess of Delusion, who flew to New York for a $500,000 baby shower with all her new-found celebrity pals, then flew back to London like any good eco-warrior on George Clooney's carbon footprint guzzling private jet.

But amid all the relatively trivial gossipy stuff emerged some incredibly damaging bombshells deliberately detonated to do maximum damage to the British Royal Family and the Monarchy.

First, Meghan claimed to have been left suicidal by the pressure of being a Princess and had her requests for help rejected by the cold, heartless Palace.

We weren't told who did the rejecting, or why she couldn't seek her own therapy or treatment if that's what she felt she needed. After all, her husband has spent years talking about mental health and has close connections with all the major mental health charities.

Instead, we're left to believe the Palace spurned a pregnant suicidal woman in her hour of desperate need.

But that wasn't even the most explosive revelation.

No, that came when Meghan told Oprah that a member of the Royal Family had queried what colour her baby would be during a conversation with Harry.

In fact, she said there were several conversations, whereas he said there was only one.

But neither of them would name the offending Royal.

Harry said he would never reveal the name.

So, we're now left to view all the Royals as racists.

Nor were we given any details of exactly what was said, or in what context it was said.

Would an older senior Royal innocently asking Harry what skin colour his baby might have, given that Meghan's mother is black and her father white, constitute racism?

It would if there was any derogatory tone to the question, or any suggestion that it would be a problem how dark the child's skin was. But we don't know the answers to those vital questions, because having let off the racism bomb, the Sussexes won't say any more.

I find that cowardly.

And the racism charge got worse.

Meghan followed up by asserting, without providing any evidence, that the Royal Family decided to change the rules specifically to prevent her son Archie from being a Prince, because of his skin colour.

Again, no name was given for the appalling racist at the Palace responsible for such a disgusting discriminatory decision.

But, as Meghan and Harry both know, the only person who has final say over titles is the Queen.

So, in making this astonishing unproven claim, they're effectively branding Her Majesty, Harry's grandmother, a racist.

It's hard to think of a more disgraceful slur to make against a woman who has devoted her whole life to the service of her country and the Commonwealth.

The Queen is not a racist and has never been a racist.

To even suggest that she might be is disgusting.

But to do so at a time when her 99-year-old husband Prince Philip has spent the past few weeks lying seriously ill in hospital is worse than that, it's contemptible.

Nothing that Meghan Markle said in this interview surprised me.

From the moment Oprah announced her scoop, I predicted to anyone who asked me that Meghan would aggressively play the mental health and race cards to deflect from any criticism of herself and her own behaviour or accountability.

I also cynically suspect it's the reason why she chose to do such a sensational interview when she's five months pregnant. Why would any woman do that after suffering a miscarriage last year, knowing the obvious controversy, media attention, and stress it would provoke? The answer, I fear, is that she thought the pregnancy would afford her another layer of protection against the inevitable furore and criticism that would result from her trashing the Royal Family.

Having had personal experience, on a very small scale, of Meghan Markle's ruthlessness when dispensing of anyone in her life that's ceased to be of use to her, it was no great shock to see her lighting a gigantic bonfire that will surely cause irreparable damage to her husband's family.

After all, she's torched all her own family, along with her ex-husband and most of her old friends.

This was the acting performance of her life, with every word, every facial expression carefully planned and choreographed.

In fact, it it's not late, someone should nominate it for the Oscars.

I mean, this is a woman who was photographed on the railings of Buckingham Palace as a starry-eyed teenager but now wants us to believe she knew nothing about the Royals and never once Googled her handsome Prince when they met.

Given these are both obvious lies, why should we believe anything that comes out of her mouth?

'Nobody told me how to curtsy or sing the British national anthem,' wailed a 39-year-old woman, married to someone who can probably help with both.

But make no mistake, this interview will be a triumph for Meghan in America. Her narrative of a poor, vulnerable, unsuspecting bi-racial woman thrown to the wolves by a white, racist Royal Family and racist British press is already being heralded as 'courageous' and 'brave' and 'iconic' across the United States.

She's got exactly what she wants: her homeland feeling sorry for her.

And woe betide anyone who criticises Meghan, for you will be instantly lambasted as a 'racist bully' towards a woman who stands accused of subjecting her own young female Palace staff to horrendous bullying.

But what about Prince Harry, and his own homeland of Great Britain?

How on earth could he allow his wife to take down his family like this on TV, and attack and belittle the very institution held so dear by his grandmother?

He even let her chuck his brother William's wife Kate - a woman who has never once said a bad word about Meghan in public - under the bus by saying she made her cry in a row over kids' wedding dresses.

That 'space', which is how Harry framed his current fractured relationship with William, will now be the size of 1000 Grand Canyons.

And then Harry gleefully joined in the Sopranos-style whacking too, revealing incredibly intimate secrets about his father Prince Charles of the type that he would scream in fury over if they'd been revealed by the tabloid press.

He claimed Charles stopped taking his calls last January after he and Meghan quit their country and the Royal Family and cut off his massive financial allowance too. And Harry's still furious with his Dad, apparently, for letting him down.

Yet, what has Charles done wrong exactly, other than try to deal with his headstrong younger son's constant self-pitying hunger for drama?

He bankrolled Harry and Meghan for years, and even stepped in to walk her down the aisle when her father pulled out after suffering a heart attack and was disowned by his daughter (where were Oprah 'nothing's off limits' Winfrey questions about that?) - yet they now pay him back with this open back-stabbing treachery.

Harry disloyally says Charles and William are 'trapped' in the institution of the Monarchy because they are the heirs to the throne.

'They don't get to leave, and I have huge compassion for that,' he claimed.

Oh please.

He and Meghan bang on endlessly about their compassion yet show the complete opposite to their own families.

If Charles or William wanted to leave, they could do exactly what Harry's done, and what Edward VIII did when he abdicated the throne.

Any royal can 'leave'.

But only Edward and Harry actually did it, both coincidentally after falling in love with American women.

The only difference is that Edward and Wallis Simpson never spoke badly in public about the Royal Family or trashed the Monarchy.

Within hours of the Oprah interview airing, the hashtag #AbolishTheMonarchy was trending on Twitter.

That's the effect that Meghan and Harry's accusations have had with their shockingly poisonous allegations.

Ms Markle won't care about the damage she's done to an institution she clearly reviles.

But Harry should.

The fact he's so willingly taken part in such a despicable public attack on the Royal Family – HIS family - and the Monarchy is utterly shameful.

And to have caused so much extra hurt to his 94-year-old grandmother the Queen at a time when her husband lies seriously ill in hospital, is just appalling.

When it comes to mental health and having a heart, it appears Meghan and Harry only care about themselves.

Share or comment on this article: PIERS MORGAN: Meghan and Harry's nauseating two-hour Oprah whine-athon was a disgraceful diatribe.

[socialprotection]

THE CASE FOR UNIVERSAL SOCIAL PROTECTION IS MORE SELF-EVIDENT THAN EVER

Shahra Razavi, 17 May 2020

The idea that societies can be secure by relying on individualised market-based provision for those who can afford it, and porous ‘’safety nets’’ for the poor, has proven to be illusionary.  If the COVID-19 pandemic has sent the world one message, it is that we are only as safe as the most vulnerable among us. If people are unable to access quality health care and quarantine themselves, they face serious health risks and may transmit the virus to others, and if one country cannot contain the virus, others are bound to be (re-)infected. And yet, with the exception of those countries with robust and comprehensive social protection systems, many are struggling to safeguard the lives and livelihoods of all those affected.

After the last global catastrophe – the 2008 financial crisis – the international community unanimously reaffirmed the human right to social security by adopting the ILO Social Protection Floors Recommendation, 2012 (No. 202). In doing so, countries pledged to guarantee at least a basic level of social security, including access to health care and income security over the life cycle for all, as part of their national social protection systems, and to progressively ensure higher levels of social protection. More than a decade later, as the current crisis makes clear, not nearly enough progress has been made.

However, in the midst of the COVID-19 crisis there are glimmers of hope. Both the pandemic and the ensuing economic meltdown have spurred a flurry of government action on social protection. Between 1 February and 12 May 2020, 168 countries and territories announced at least 915 social protection measures in response to the COVID-19 crisis, with a notable number of countries extending coverage of existing programmes, including to workers in the informal economy, and removing various obligations and behavioural conditions to facilitate access. It is still too early to know whether these will be temporary stop-gap measures, or if they will be sustained and integrated into national social protection systems. A lot will depend on the broader macroeconomic context: concerns that austerity may be around corner if not already here cast a dark shadow. However, what is clear is that particularly in a complex, fast moving and unpredictable crisis like COVID-19, universal or categorical approaches are preferable to narrowly targeted ones which leave governments struggling to reach large swathes of the population. The case for universal social protection is further strengthened by the fact that it is a powerful economic and social stabiliser, softening the impact of crises and contributing to a swifter recovery.

In recent weeks, even the World Bank has spoken of the merits of “universal entitlements to health care and income support” and the need to reach the “missing middle”, i.e. those not covered by social insurance or social assistance, while the IMF recognises the logic of universal responses, at least in the short term.  One can only hope that this will herald a move away from the narrow means-tested targeting (and problematic proxy means-tests) strongly advocated in the past.  Targeting methods though have long been criticised for their arbitrariness, exclusion errors and stigmatising effects, not to mention their higher administrative costs. Another desirable outcome would be to avoid cumbersome and punitive behavioural conditionalities often attached to targeted family-oriented cash transfers.  A decade of feminist research demonstrates the detrimental effects conditionalities may have in contexts where quality public services are in short supply and where intersecting forms of discrimination mean that well-intended programme requirements easily slip into coercive and disempowering implementation practices. These concerns together with the exigencies of mitigating the crisis can open the door in many more countries to both universal child benefits (UCBs)[1] and universal social pensions – two core components of a social protection floor.

Take the instructive example of UCBs. These can be potent tools for reducing poverty, as evidenced by existing UCB experience and by country simulations. When compared with benefits for children using narrow targeting, UCBs often perform better in terms of poverty reduction. Moreover, UCBs directly fulfil child rights, better ensure early childhood development needs, and incentivise birth registration by helping to link parents with essential social services. There is also great potential for universal social pensions to reach the more than 80 per cent of older women and men over statutory retirement age in low-income countries who currently do not receive a pension. This is particularly important given the disproportionate threat to the health, rights and socio economic well-being of older persons caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.

With UCBs alone, globally, it would be possible to reach two-thirds of all households (because they include children).[2] In Sub-Saharan Africa, for example, where social protection coverage tends to be particularly patchy, more than three-quarters of all households include children below the age of 18. Taking into account the age composition of the population living in poverty – 44 per cent of those living in extremely poor households, subsisting on less than $1.9 per day, are children below 15 – UCBs would not only reach many households in general, but many households living in poverty. Universal social pensions, in turn, could reach one-fifth of all households globally, or roughly 15 per cent of households in Sub-Saharan Africa.

The renewed interest in universal approaches is also evident in the lively debates about the promises of a Universal Basic Income (UBI), especially an ‘emergency’ UBI as a crisis response (ECLAC, Standing). Yet, in order to achieve the objective of ensuring a basic level of income security, not any UBI will do. The impact a UBI will have largely depends on its design, including the level of benefit it provides, how it is financed, and how it relates to existing tax and social security systems. UBI proposals are indeed very diverse and guided by different motivations – ranging from interest in its emancipatory potential (i.e. expanding choices and resourcing meaningful autonomy), to concerns about cost-savings or reducing the size of the state. In a context of fiscal belt-tightening, there are justified concerns that UBIs may be promoted to replace contributory social security systems that offer higher levels of protection, undermine workers’ rights and crowd-out public investment in essential services, thereby reinforcing their unchecked privatization.

Unlike a “thin’’ or minimalist understanding of a UBI, the concept of universal social protection is firmly grounded in the international human rights framework and encompasses three key aspects: (1) universal coverage ensuring that everyone is protected; (2) comprehensiveness of protection for the full range of contingencies covered; and (3) the adequacy of benefit levels to support a dignified life. Universal social protection means that everybody is adequately protected against the full range of risks throughout the life course, but this does not require that everybody receives a benefit at every point in time. It also allows for differentiation of needs (ILO 2019). For instance, targeting within universalism means that groups or individuals that require additional or different kinds of support, for example indigenous communities or persons with disabilities, can receive it.  Similarly, UBIs do not differentiate between adults with different needs and responsibilities; yet without sufficient public investment in quality care services, women’s ability to access employment is likely hampered.  

Last but not least, a human-centred recovery requires a ‘jobs-rich’ response, including the creation of millions of much-needed decent jobs in the care sector, now deemed ‘essential’, and the green economy.  Not only does employment have intrinsic rewards given its social dimensions and ramifications, it also generates (through taxes and social contributions) most of the resources needed to finance a comprehensive and universal social protection system. A concern with some variants of UBI is that by de-linking employment from social protection the benefits they offer can be overly thin.

If the pandemic has a silver lining, one hopes that it spurs governments to deliver on their promise to achieve universal social protection by 2030, to expand access to health services, sickness benefits, paid family leave, unemployment protection and other types of social protection benefits. Only then will our societies and economies be able to weather the COVID-19 pandemic – and the other crises to come.

[1]        UCBs are a cash or tax transfer paid to households with children, unconditionally and on a regular basis.

[2] All the figures in this paragraph are preliminary calculations based on UN DESA (2019).

[aedraeatingdisordercentre]

Negative body image

Negative Body Image and eating disorders

We all have a body-image. Beginning at birth, body image develops as we experience life, incorporating the messages of our personal experiences and of the culture, (through adverts, movies, the internet) into the picture that forms in our mind’s eye. Ideally, this inner self-image is going to be mostly positive; I say 'mostly' because I've yet to come across someone with a 100% positive body image, as everyone seems to find some fault with the way they look, but the ideal would clearly be a good balance of seeing the good and accepting the not-so-good. Body image isn’t a uni dimensional construct. It’s actually made up of four aspects:

Perceptual body image: how you see your body

Affective body image: how you feel about your body

Cognitive body image: how you think about your body

Behavioural body image: the way you behave as a result of your perceptual, affective, and cognitive body image (NEDC, 2017) 

Body image concerns are beginning at an increasingly young age and  often endure throughout life. By age 6, girls especially start to express concerns about their own weight or shape, and 40-60% of elementary school girls (ages 6-12) are concerned about their weight or about becoming too fat.(1) . Furthermore, over one-half of teenage girls and nearly one-third of teenage boys use unhealthy weight control behaviours such as skipping meals, fasting, smoking cigarettes, vomiting, and taking laxatives (2).

BIOLOGICAL EXPLANATIONS

Researchers are increasingly finding a biological basis for negative and distorted body image within eating disorders. A team led by Henrik Ehrsson, a neuroscientist at University College London,  identified that the parietal cortex generates the body image. Disruption of this region's normal functioning could play an important role in conditions such as anorexia and body dysmorphic disorder.Other research has found that different sub-types of eating disorders, with their cognitive differences, may be related to the activation of different parts of the brain;  with the amygdala being significantly activated in AN-R (restrictive anorexia) patients, AN-BP (anorexia binge-purge) patients, and healthy women, and The prefrontal cortex (PFC) was significantly activated in AN-BP patients and healthy women, but not in AN-R and BN (bulimia nervosa) patients. Brain activation pattern differences between the various EDs may underlie cognitive differences with respect to distorted body image, and therefore might reflect a general failure to represent and evaluate one's own body in a realistic fashion (3)

CRITICAL SELF-TALK AND POOR BODY-IMAGE

The biological explanations for the existence of this dysfunctional scheme for self-evaluation within so many people with eating disorders, doesn't mean the issues can't be addressed. We can tackle poor body image at several levels, not least the constant flow of self-critical thinking that ensures negative self-image becomes entrenched enough to be central to our actions, relationships and approach to life and cause everything we say, do and think to become distorted by the lens of this belief about ourselves. People with eating disorders, as well as survivors of trauma, tend to fix their attention on these distorted perceptions of themselves. In an attempt to avoid these ' felt' connections they may numb feelings and sensations to stifle overwhelming emotions, and engage in punitive and negative thoughts and self talk regarding their perceptions of themselves (4)Because of the deep interconnectness of our body with our thoughts, attitudes and feelings, the body and mind cannot be treated independently of one another (5)

STARTING TO HEAL POOR BODY IMAGE

Developing or increasing our capacity to resolve  damaging body-image issues must include examining what underlies the negative perceptions and feelings. Exploring the impact of your self-perception  has to  include an emphasis on living “in” rather then controlling the body.All too commonly those of us with EDs see ourselves as failures, disappointments and burdens to their families and loved ones. There is, more often than not, a voice stuck on a continual loop repeating that we're worthless and possibly even telling us that nobody would care if we weren't around.These emotions are felt and experienced in the body, (with me it was always like a cold weight in my chest) ; it can be a knot in the stomach that can make you feel heavy, weighed down and hopeless that things will ever feel different. Nothing ever feels quite real, and no accomplishment (getting the 'right' job, or the  'best' qualifications or whatever) will feel quite enough.

THERAPY FOR  POOR BODY-IMAGE

In order to begin working on poor body image psycho-education , experiential therapy and therapy informed by psychodynamic counselling can help work on enhancing your strengths (we do all have them!) and begin to re-balance our body image so that negative thoughts are no longer dominant. We can learn to identify how our self-perception takes form and exists in our body, and how we express this through our body language. This sort of therapy involves helping understand how we see ourselves, and, importantly, how we believe or perceive that others see us. In order to properly understand and challenge how our body- image impacts our lives we must explore and develop strategies to resolve these damaging body-image issues.When you feel you are turning towards disordered patterns as a response to stress, anxiety or other feelings of being overwhelmed, therapy can help you learn to use these feelings or distortions as a warning that you are having a conflict; this can be an important way to identify what feels wrong, so you can choose to take positive, healthy action and avoid lapses in your eating disorder recovery.

The use of Dance/Movement Therapy (DMT) as one of several types of expressive therapy can help address poor body-image.Using carefully monitored movements and breathing techniques, DMT can help you to develop body awareness and tolerance. 

Expressive movement techniques are developed by the therapist to embody understanding of emerging issues and this movement work is processed on a body level as well as a cognitive level. Using  journals or worksheets to externalise insights on body image can create a useful resource to establish 'mini-goals': from this you can create action plans on body image issues. Feedback from your therapist or coach provides further direction and support, along with a framework for guidelines for further exploration of body image issues

We may use an eating disorder (once it has been triggered and become established) to make us feel less anxious and more in control . It can quite successfully move the focus away from the things that we don't want to address or feel, like the effects of our poor body-image. Self-compassion work, and therapies such as Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT)  can help us find ways to acknowledge, accept and learn how to express our feelings. A 2011 Harvard study found that mindfulness techniques, especially meditation, helped create measurable differences on sense of self.

TIPS TO START WORKING ON  YOUR BODY IMAGE TODAY

1. QUESTION WHAT THE MEDIA IS TELLING YOU

Always question what you're being sold by adverts on TV, magazines, the internet. The diet industry is massive, generating approx $68.2 billion a year globally, and continues to grow by exploiting and manipulating poor body-image and low self-esteem. These messages are constant and unrelenting, telling us we have to buy their products and their programmes to get 'bikini ready' or  banish that cellulite' , " bounce back after baby" or "fight for those six back abs"; we're always being told we should regard some foods as 'bad' or 'naughty' , trying to convince us that there's one version of beauty, an acceptable template we should spend our lives trying to fit. This, of course, is bullshit. It constantly reinforces the nonsense that thin=good and larger bodied=bad. Our worth is not defined by our weight, the size of our jeans or the shape of our body. We cannot tell the health of a person by the way that they look. The goal has to be to know your value and worth and nurture yourself so you have the energy and vitality to enjoy your life to its fullest.

2. EXPLORE YOUR BELIEFS AND VALUES

Take time to dig down and explore your own thought patterns and beliefs. It might help to keep a thought log during your day and find a therapist, coach or trusted friend you can explore these with. Where did your beliefs come from? What purpose have they served for you? Is there validity and truth to them or are they beliefs that you are able to challenge and unpack?

 3. GO THROUGH YOUR SOCIAL MEDIA

Begin unfollowing accounts that make you feel bad about yourself, like you need to change who you are or like you’re not doing enough . Social media can be a great thing and it can also be dangerous, for example, higher levels of Instagram use has been linked to significantly increased symptoms of orthorexia. Setting firm boundaries for yourself such as who you follow and how much time you spend on it can help keep it a positive tool (there are some great apps that can help with this)

4. OFFER YOUR BODY RESPECT

Self-love may seem a long way off, but you can practise respecting it and taking care of it. Respecting your body means appreciating it for all of the great things it does for you. Respecting it also looks like listening to and trusting your body's messages and needs. Focusing on what your body can DO over how your body looks can help begin this process.

5.  CHOOSE KINDNESS

In the simplest terms, be kind. Begin noticing the negative things you are thinking to yourself and substitute it with something kind and compassionate. A great exercise to practice is 'the criticiser, the criticised and the compassionate observer'. When you have a negative thought say it out loud. This is the criticiser. Next follow it up with the person being criticised. Begin to challenge those negative beliefs out loud. Lastly, practice speaking from a place of compassion. Saying it out loud can begin to put things into perspective and offer you a chance to really challenge your thoughts.Negative body image will never heal by changing what our body looks like. It needs to be really tackled where it starts, on the inside. The process is challenging and can take a long-time, but it can be transformational.

References

(1) Smolak, 2011

(2) Neumark- Sztainer, 2005

(3)  Brain activation during the perception of distorted body images in eating disorders.

Miyake Y1, Okamoto Y, Onoda K, Kurosaki M, Shirao N, Okamoto Y, Yamawaki S. .

(4) Kleinman, 2009

(5) Ressler & Kleinman, 2012