#and so the fundamentally alien way that women were viewed rankles

[junewongapologia]

The fact is tho that no matter how you look at it, no matter how insufferable she is, no matter how Out Of Touch, regardless of whether she’s doing herself no favours: Eloise is right about society and just about everyone else in the show is wrong.

Like, she’s not got the full picture, she’s blinkered and her political philosophy is not very in depth or well thought out. But she’s right, and I think that’s why a lot of people watching really don’t like her because she’s breaking the illusion. All in all, the 1810s were a shit time to be alive for most people, and you can “well actually” it all you like, but the Luddite movement existed for a reason, the Chartists existed for a reason, Porto-feminist writers like Wollstonecraft and de Gouges wrote what they did for a reason.

So when you keep being reminded that it was a terrible social order for women - in a show targeted mainly towards women for escapist purposes then that character is going to come across as irritating, because she’s ruining the immersion.

Really, her attitude isn’t more anachronistic than the dresses, or the hairdos, or the diamond necklaces (men and women had been advocating women’s right to vote since before Eloise was born, lads), but it’s a problem because people are watching the show for the sweeping romances and the general regency vibe, they don’t want to think about how the regency was for most people. Which inevitably leads to some incredible projection, when watchers of a show with the central conceit of only being interested in the love lives of the top one percent of the one percent of the British aristocracy acting as though Eloise is the only privileged person on the show.

And yeah, she is better off than most of the people who exist in all of Regency Britain (though if you were to take the show as read, Britain is made up of about 70% aristocracy, 1% gentry, 5% urban bourgeoisie and 24% urban workers), but she’s the only one whose privilege is harped on out of her whole family and social circle. 99% of the speaking characters in the show come from a posher background than Beau fucking Brummell.

And! Eloise is literally just about the only main character who ever has to question her privilege! And when she is in season 2 she doesn’t throw a shitfit, she’s willing to learn! She goes out of her way to hear perspectives that she wouldn’t have heard in her social circle! But the narrative punishes her for that, and that’s because for all the criticism she gets about needing her privilege checked, they don’t actually want her to learn, they just want her to shut up and enjoy the trappings of regency decadence as much as they do.

Also - I know it’s really fashionable to rag on “pick-mes” and “Not Like Other Girls” - but actually, no, “traditional femininity” has never been socially unacceptable for women the way being GNC is, and it is in fact ruthlessly socially enforced against GNC women, even more so in the 1810s. Eloise is a teenaged girl in a society that stigmatises her for her wish for more legal autonomy, the idea that she’s somehow the villain for not being able to enjoy “feminine” hobbies without seeing them as just another element of the way women’s education is trivialised as ornamental, is farcical. “Sewing is a valuable and useful skill” so is cooking, but there’s a reason my mam, and not my dad, had home economics lessons, and that reason is still misogyny, despite the fact that it set her up better for being able to operate independently as an adult.

Idk I’m just kind of uncomfortable that in a world of rising reactionary political sentiment towards women, and this seemingly increasingly re-normalised view that women need to be wives and homemakers, people feel that the person on the show who needs to do the most introspection regarding their politics is an eighteen-year-old who is vocal about the fact that she has limited legal rights, and not any of the adult men in the show (a lot of whom probably have seats in the Upper House!!!) who never mention politics at all.

And frankly, given the shower who were Having Political Opinions in the long eighteenth century, Eloise’s brand of semi-anachronistic protofeminism is infinitely preferable to Hannah “I refuse to teach the poor how to write in my schools” More, or Edmund “don’t read my big thesis on revolutions too closely it’s definitely not all lies and junk history” Burke, or even a load of prominent members of the Bluestocking Society.

[deniscollins]

Walmart to Limit Ammunition Sales and Discourage ‘Open Carry’ of Guns in Stores

Walmart is the nation’s biggest retailer, and a large seller of firearms and ammunition. One month ago, a gunman killed 22 people at a Walmart store in El Paso. Would you continue to sell ammunition that can be used in military-style assault rifles: (1) Yes, (2) No? Why? What are the ethics underlying your decision?

Walmart stepped forcefully into the national gun debate on Tuesday, saying it would stop selling ammunition that can be used in military-style assault rifles, would discourage its customers from openly carrying guns in its stores and would call on Congress to increase background checks and consider a new assault rifle ban.

One month ago, a gunman killed 22 people at a Walmart store in El Paso, a massacre that put pressure on the company to respond to the wave of mass shootings across the country. It is the nation’s biggest retailer, and a large seller of firearms and ammunition.

Walmart said it made the announcement after weeks of discussion and research about how best to respond. The decision is in line with public opinion polls that favor more gun controls, and advocates, gun violence victims and others have increasingly called for action.

The company said that after “selling through our current inventory commitments,” which could take several weeks, it would stop selling certain short-barrel rifle ammunition and all handgun ammunition.

The retailer, whose sheer reach has reshaped communities nationwide, largely avoids publicly wading into politics. That made Walmart’s statement on Tuesday even more notable. It called on leaders in Washington to enact stronger background checks to “remove weapons from those who have been determined to pose an imminent danger.” The company said it also supported a new debate over an assault rifle ban.

“As we’ve seen before, these horrific events occur and then the spotlight fades,” Walmart’s chief executive, Doug McMillon, said in the statement. “We should not allow that to happen. Congress and the administration should act.”

Supporters of gun rights sharply rebuked Walmart’s decision. The National Rifle Association predicted in a statement that Walmart would lose business to other retailers, “who are more supportive of America’s fundamental freedoms.”

“The strongest defense of freedom has always been our free-market economy,” the group added. “It is shameful to see Walmart succumb to the pressure of the anti-gun elites.”

Walmart several years ago stopped selling the type of assault-style rifle that was used in the El Paso shooting, but the company will now cease selling effectively any ammunition that could be used in those weapons.

Firearms are not a particularly vital business for Walmart. But the company’s evolving policies signal a broader business strategy.

Probably more than any other retailer, Walmart serves Americans of every socio-economic and cultural stripe, which means that any public policy stance the company takes will inevitably alienate many. And while it remains a dominant force in rural America, Walmart is betting much of its future on growing its e-commerce business in East and West Coast cities and suburbs, where potential shoppers tend to hold more liberal views, including on the need for more gun restrictions.

With 1.5 million employees, Walmart is the largest private employer in the United States, most of them the cashiers and managers in its network of 4,000 stores. However, the company is also trying to build its online business to compete with Amazon by recruiting younger engineers and developers, who are attracted to companies that profess social values that reflect their own.

“Any decision that a company that is that big and that ubiquitous makes is going to please some people and upset others,” said Aron Cramer, chief executive of BSR, a nonprofit group that advocates for social responsibility in business. “It is extremely hard not to take action when people are dying at one of your stores.”

Mr. McMillon, who became chief executive in 2014, has tried to bridge these various constituencies. He is a Walmart lifer who began working for the company as a warehouse employee when he was still in high school. In 2017, he was critical of President Trump’s comments after the violent rallies in Charlottesville, Va. But he has also emphasized his roots growing up in Arkansas, noting on Tuesday that he was a gun owner himself and acknowledging that the new policies may rankle many customers.

Walmart has taken steps to restrict gun sales during his tenure — like videotaping the point of the firearms sale and raising the minimum age to buy a gun to 21. But most of those moves have been done with little public fanfare, while also often avoiding the broader topic of gun violence. In 2015, for example, the company said its decision to stop selling assault rifles was due to sluggish demand.

Since the shooting in El Paso — a few days after two people were fatally shot by a disgruntled worker at a Walmart in Mississippi — the company said it had undertaken a “thoughtful and deliberate” process in formulating a response to the violence.

Shortly after the El Paso shooting, Walmart removed signs for violent video games in its stores, but gun-control groups and several Democrats running for president called for more substantive measures.

On Tuesday, gun-control advocates celebrated Walmart’s announcement as evidence that most of the country supports more firearms restrictions. “They have their pulse on what Americans want, and the Senate should take note,” said John Feinblatt, president of Everytown for Gun Safety.

Mr. McMillon said the company would focus its gun business entirely on supplying rifles and ammunition for hunters.

“We have a long heritage as a company of serving responsible hunters and sportsmen and women, and we’re going to continue doing so,” he said.

Walmart described its new limits on ammunition sales, which includes no longer selling handgun ammo, as “dramatic.” The decision is expected to reduce the company’s share of the nation’s ammunition market to as low as 6 percent, from 20 percent. The company said last month that it accounted for about 2 percent of the nation’s firearm sales.

The retailer said it would no longer sell handguns in Alaska, its last state with such sales. Walmart stopped selling handguns in every other state in the 1990s, but continued to sell handgun ammunition across the country.

The effort to discourage customers from openly bringing firearms into stores, which other companies, like Starbucks and Target, have tried in recent years, could prove challenging and divisive. Store workers will have to be trained how to request that customers not openly carry their weapons, and the laws can vary by state.

The new policy stops short of banning open carry. Rather, Walmart said it would begin “respectfully requesting” that customers not bring their weapons along while they shop, unless they are concealed.

How the company, which as a private entity has the right to restrict the possession of guns inside its stores, intends to enforce the new policy is murky. The spokesman said employees would take a “nonconfrontational” approach. In some cases, the store may say nothing to customers with weapons if they seem innocuous. If customers or employees feel unsafe around someone openly carrying a gun, the store will contact the authorities, Dan Bartlett, Walmart’s executive vice president for corporate affairs, said during a call with reporters.

Shortly after Walmart’s announcement, the grocery chain Kroger said it too was requesting that its customers not carry weapons into its stores.

Regarding open carry in Walmart’s stores, Mr. McMillon cited “multiple incidents since El Paso, where individuals attempting to make a statement and test our response have entered our stores carrying weapons in a way that frightened or concerned our associates and customers.”

“These incidents are concerning and we would like to avoid them,” he added.

Some experts said the new policy might have the opposite effect, inspiring supporters of gun rights to openly bring firearms into Walmart stores.

“I wouldn’t be surprised to see people force a confrontation and try to ruffle Walmart’s feathers,” said Adam Winkler, a law professor at the University of California, Los Angeles, and the author of “Gun Fight: the Battle Over the Right to Bear Arms in America.” “The store employees are the ones who will have to solve the problem without getting themselves shot.”

[reloha]

#there’s been something of an uptick in posts being like#oh women have always been able to /influence/ politics#oh women weren’t treated incredibly terribly as a rule they were mostly fine#women had support circles and family and-#but all of this is second to the fact that they were literally legally lesser than their male couterparts#any and all political influence women managed to have#was in spite of society and the law#i think people really like to reach backwards to see the similarities between then and now#and so the fundamentally alien way that women were viewed rankles#we need women to have been fine with it or blind to it or working around it#Eloise’s impotent rage at a system she can’t hope to change as much as she’d like - if at all is irritating#but i feel that impotent rage now towards a lot of political structures#and privileged though i am compared t most people who have ever lived (i have access to disposable income and sweets)#i also can’t change much#Eloise can’t change the minds of everyone around her - no one in her family takes her seriously#but she can spoil their fun and their peace#so she does#not an uncritical Stan of either wollstonecraft or de gouges but they’re p clear that at least some women Were Not Fine with their situation

The fact is tho that no matter how you look at it, no matter how insufferable she is, no matter how Out Of Touch, regardless of whether she’s doing herself no favours: Eloise is right about society and just about everyone else in the show is wrong.

Like, she’s not got the full picture, she’s blinkered and her political philosophy is not very in depth or well thought out. But she’s right, and I think that’s why a lot of people watching really don’t like her because she’s breaking the illusion. All in all, the 1810s were a shit time to be alive for most people, and you can “well actually” it all you like, but the Luddite movement existed for a reason, the Chartists existed for a reason, Porto-feminist writers like Wollstonecraft and de Gouges wrote what they did for a reason.

So when you keep being reminded that it was a terrible social order for women - in a show targeted mainly towards women for escapist purposes then that character is going to come across as irritating, because she’s ruining the immersion.

Really, her attitude isn’t more anachronistic than the dresses, or the hairdos, or the diamond necklaces (men and women had been advocating women’s right to vote since before Eloise was born, lads), but it’s a problem because people are watching the show for the sweeping romances and the general regency vibe, they don’t want to think about how the regency was for most people. Which inevitably leads to some incredible projection, when watchers of a show with the central conceit of only being interested in the love lives of the top one percent of the one percent of the British aristocracy acting as though Eloise is the only privileged person on the show.

And yeah, she is better off than most of the people who exist in all of Regency Britain (though if you were to take the show as read, Britain is made up of about 70% aristocracy, 1% gentry, 5% urban bourgeoisie and 24% urban workers), but she’s the only one whose privilege is harped on out of her whole family and social circle. 99% of the speaking characters in the show come from a posher background than Beau fucking Brummell.

And! Eloise is literally just about the only main character who ever has to question her privilege! And when she is in season 2 she doesn’t throw a shitfit, she’s willing to learn! She goes out of her way to hear perspectives that she wouldn’t have heard in her social circle! But the narrative punishes her for that, and that’s because for all the criticism she gets about needing her privilege checked, they don’t actually want her to learn, they just want her to shut up and enjoy the trappings of regency decadence as much as they do.

Also - I know it’s really fashionable to rag on “pick-mes” and “Not Like Other Girls” - but actually, no, “traditional femininity” has never been socially unacceptable for women the way being GNC is, and it is in fact ruthlessly socially enforced against GNC women, even more so in the 1810s. Eloise is a teenaged girl in a society that stigmatises her for her wish for more legal autonomy, the idea that she’s somehow the villain for not being able to enjoy “feminine” hobbies without seeing them as just another element of the way women’s education is trivialised as ornamental, is farcical. “Sewing is a valuable and useful skill” so is cooking, but there’s a reason my mam, and not my dad, had home economics lessons, and that reason is still misogyny, despite the fact that it set her up better for being able to operate independently as an adult.

Idk I’m just kind of uncomfortable that in a world of rising reactionary political sentiment towards women, and this seemingly increasingly re-normalised view that women need to be wives and homemakers, people feel that the person on the show who needs to do the most introspection regarding their politics is an eighteen-year-old who is vocal about the fact that she has limited legal rights, and not any of the adult men in the show (a lot of whom probably have seats in the Upper House!!!) who never mention politics at all.

And frankly, given the shower who were Having Political Opinions in the long eighteenth century, Eloise’s brand of semi-anachronistic protofeminism is infinitely preferable to Hannah “I refuse to teach the poor how to write in my schools” More, or Edmund “don’t read my big thesis on revolutions too closely it’s definitely not all lies and junk history” Burke, or even a load of prominent members of the Bluestocking Society.