#and then they worry about how they’re harming the gay agenda by not being into the troupe and it breaks my heart

[loptrcoptr]

I’m glad people are talking about this on good ol tumblr dot com, because I swear I only took a hiatus from this site for half a year, after a solid decade or so of daily tumblr use, and in that time I can already see an enormous change in attitudes toward shipping/fandom/interests in general that kind of worry me. So for those of yall who are young or maybe not so set in your ways…

your interests are your own and you don’t owe anyone shit. That includes explaining yourself for posting about your interests. No, no, babe. It’s your blog, it’s your rules, you do what you want.

You can’t judge a person by their tastes. Not just “don’t judge”, I’m saying you fully cannot. You can tell a lot about a person, sure, but you can’t know entirely what they are like and what their “morals” are based on the media they consume or things they are into. has a friend or partner ever told you about something they did in bed and you were like “wow idk if I would do that”. Did you immediately decide it made them a bad person and server ties?? No. That’s not how life works.

To be “interested” is not automatically to condone, and you can be fascinated with something without agreeing with anything about it. That girl on your bus who listens to serial killer podcasts and reads murderer autobiographies is not the same as a serial killer. One kills people, and the other is fascinated by it. it’s okay to inform yourself about taboo things because the taboo is inherently intriguing. The point is that you’re not out there breaking the social agreement and doing Bad Stuff. It’s kind of like saying anyone who’s into rape fantasy is inherently a rapist and that the existence of the subject is an afront to rape victims. But I gotta tell you, as a rape victim: go off queen, that’s your business. My lived experience is not relevant to your fantasy. No one’s is.

And for the love of all the gods I am begging you: there is no hierarchy of queer shipping that is more or less gay, makes you more or less gay for enjoying it, or makes you a disrespecter of the internet lgbtqiap2s+ community at large for enjoying it. I have seen so much of this type of shit in the last few months, and it genuinely frightens me. Sure, ship wars and anon hate and all that crap have always been a thing in fandom. However, this escalation into some kind of Queer Ship Pyramid of Objective Goodness is at best, whack, and at worst harmful to people’s self-worth and the next generation of kids coming online and figuring out their sexualities and identities. it used to be you just defined tropes, genders, gender identities, sexualities, and sexual acts in your tags and called it a day and that’s just… that. Now I’m finding this pattern reflected from old school anti-bi, anti-trans spaces; do not ship bi couples, they’re basically straight, even if one is trans, gender fluid, or enbi; shipping two hetero men is really just for basic straight women and is in and of itself an isolating act that ignores the needs of the queer community; ships that don’t include anyone who is trans show you have no imagination and that you are a disrespectful terf on the inside; ships that are monogamous are inherently Not That Gay, regardless of any identities or sexualities therein, because polyamory is the real pinnacle of queer evolution and something every queer person should aspire to. and I want to make it very clear that absolutely none of that is remotely true.

And it worries me that there’s this sliding scale of Nothing Being Gay Enough in fandom now. Like we’ve taken a good thing so far that now people don’t know how to enjoy it and still want that oldie but goodie gay-one-upmanship from the mid 2010s on tumblr: “I’m a better gay than you are, and I know that, because look at your tastes”. And I just hope that teens and folks in their early years of adulthood or early years of discovering their sexualities and identities know that none of that shit is real, and you are gay if you decide you’re gay, and it is not a ladder you have to climb, with monogamy, same sex relationships, and pan and bi identities on the bottom and only-trans cohabitational polyamory on the top. That is not how you support people, and it is not how you support yourself. what you’re saying is “my trans friend isn’t as trans as I am because I have two partners and he is monogamous”; “I’m a lesbian but im a better lesbian than my ex because her girlfriend is cis and mine is a butch demiboy”. This kind of shit is just an extension of the age old “you’re gay, but not that gay, because you’ve only slept with one person of the same sex, and I’ve slept with loads”.

You’re queer because you say you are, and the best way to be a queer ally to others is to not project your own self hatred upward and attempt to win an “uwu more oppresssed than u” battle online. The only person you’re fighting is yourself. It doesn’t make you less poly to read a fic with a monogamous ship. It doesn’t make you less gay to read a fic with a straight ship. It doesn’t make you less trans to read a fic where someone doesn’t have the same headcanon about a trans character as you do. your fandom preferences don’t affect your queer street cred, and it costs you nothing to ignore your friend’s ships instead of convincing yourself you’re better and gayer than they are. All that kind of attitude does is hurt you farther down the road. You’re not what you consume, and fic is for you, not for what you think will somehow make others online think you’re “gayer”.

(Sorry to bandwagon so extensively, op, this topic just concerns the hell out of me)

I really think everyone needs to truly internalize this:

Fictional characters are objects.

They are not people. You cannot "objectify" them, because they have no personhood to be deprived of. They have no humanity to be erased. You cannot "disrespect" them, because they are not real.

[hakasims]

The Most In-depth Analysis of Luca Marinelli’s Characters You’ll Ever Need

You’d think I was done with classifications, but I’m not! There’s so much more I can say about Luca Marinelli’s oeuvre and his magnificent roster of characters. And yes, I’ve made this post before where I highlighted specific tropes that show up in a lot of his movies, but that was surface-level shit. This is an actual exploration of what makes a Luca Marinelli character besides being a kinky little whore. And don’t worry, it’s still in that user-friendly question-answer format because I love you.

Here’s the thing: Luca is a chameleon but he also has a type, and this type is:

✨ a (likely) queer repressed addict with daddy issues ✨

That’s the skeleton. Let’s see how many of his major roles possess that skeleton at all and what flavors they add to the picture.

Disclaimer: I excluded characters with little screen time and Joseph from Mary of Nazareth because he doesn’t deserve rights. Also, instead of going in the boring chronological order, I’m gonna start with the least typical character for Luca and end with the crème de la crème. The results may not surprise you.

Nicky (The Old Guard)

Is he queer? Undeniably.

Is he repressed? No.

Does he have an addiction? No.

Does he have daddy issues? I know we’re all deeply affected by our shitty father figures but I would genuinely question Nicky’s sanity if he were still on that shit at the ripe age of 951. A little tip for daddy-hating immortals out there: just do what Angel did and kill your shitty dad. Problem solved.

Is he violent? Despite doling out tons of violence, he doesn’t have a violent nature and seems uninterested in hating his enemy or delivering retribution.

Does he need a good night sleep? I’m sure nothing helps one sleep better than a Joe-shaped big spoon.

Does he need a good cry? Doesn’t seem like it.

Flavors: A perfect immortal warrior bean in a healthy relationship.

Conclusion: Ironically but unsurprisingly, Nicky is the least Luca-like character.

Guido (Tutti i santi giorni)

Is he queer? I don’t believe so but who knows? If someone told me he’s demisexual, I’d believe it.

Is he repressed? The movie may disagree, but I say yes, obviously.

Does he have an addiction? Not unless you count his romantic relationship.

Does he have daddy issues? His family is so supportive and wholesome it’s almost parodic.

Is he violent? He’s the opposite of a toxic macho dude, but then he has a violent outburst out of nowhere because the movie is bad.

Does he need a good night sleep? He doesn’t like sleeping at night.

Does he need a good cry? Naturally.

Flavors: An adorkable awkward nerd with flowery speech.

Conclusion: I can forgive straightness and wholesomeness but I can’t forgive lack of complexity.

Martin (Martin Eden)

Is he queer? I don’t believe so.

Is he repressed? Yes.

Does he have an addiction? No.

Does he have daddy issues? Not to my knowledge.

Is he violent? When he deems it necessary to be.

Does he need a good night sleep? Sure.

Does he need a good cry? Cry your little heart out, Martin!

Flavors: An arrogant, pretentious, politically confused writer.

Conclusion: A little too straight for your typical Luca, but he makes up for it with being complex and complicated.

Loris (Il mondo fino in fondo)

Is he queer? I don’t believe so.

Is he repressed? So fucking repressed!

Does he have an addiction? Nothing beyond his savior complex.

Does he have daddy issues? He has a shitty dad he’s spent his whole life trying to please, and also his mommy left, so like yeah, obviously.

Is he violent? He has his straight dude moments.

Does he need a good night sleep? Definitely.

Does he need a good cry? Oh yeah, let him cry, it’s good for him.

Flavors: A casually homophobic mother hen.

Conclusion: Ruined by heterosexual agenda.

Lui (Ricordi?)

Is he queer? I don’t believe so.

Is he repressed? Very.

Does he have an addiction? No.

Does he have daddy issues? A big sack of them.

Is he violent? No.

Does he need a good night sleep? Oh yes. To sleep, perchance to dream about anything other than his traumatic memories.

Does he need a good cry? So much.

Flavors: Up-his-butt and pensive.

Conclusion: Leave it to Luca to take a guy who would be an absolute nightmare in real life and turn him into someone I actually want to watch for two hours and see happy by the end.

Gabriele (Waves)

Is he queer? There’s evidence he might be gay.

Is he repressed? I’d bet on it.

Does he have an addiction? Doesn’t seem like it.

Does he have daddy issues? Nobody knows.

Is he violent? No.

Does he need a good night sleep? He probably will with how the movie ended.

Does he need a good cry? At least one.

Flavors: A sweet introverted guy who loves boats.

Conclusion: While not particularly complex, Gabriele has layers and nuances. Also give him a big muscular daddy.

Fabrizio (Fabrizio de André - Principe libero)

Is he queer? I don’t believe so.

Is he repressed? He was before music became his only career.

Does he have an addiction? Alcohol, cigarettes, sex, cheating - take your pick.

Does he have daddy issues? Not as bad as some of the other guys here but he’s heard his fair share of “I’m not mad, I’m disappointed” speeches.

Is he violent? He’s soft.

Does he need a good night sleep? He’s an artist, what do you think?

Does he need a good cry? He’s an artist, what do you think?

Flavors: Fabrizio de André is the flavor.

Conclusion: Even though it’s a biopic, there are still many Luca-isms there. He’s just that kind of actor.

Milton (Una questione privata)

Is he queer? It could be argued that he is bisexual.

Is he repressed? Do you even need to ask?

Does he have an addiction? About half of the breaths he takes are filled with cigarette smoke.

Does he have daddy issues? He seems to have a good and loving relationship with both his parents.

Is he violent? Not by nature.

Does he need a good night sleep? Yep.

Does he need a good cry? He certainly does.

Flavors: A repressed bisexual feeling powerless in a horrible world.

Conclusion: This is proof that Luca can carry a whole entire movie on his sexy shoulders, alone. Also Milton needs a safe and loving triad.

Mattia (La solitudine dei numeri primi)

Is he queer? I personally read him as asexual. Though assigning asexuality to characters who are traumatized is a dangerous path so don’t quote me on this, okay?

Is he repressed? Just the most repressed.

Does he have an addiction? It’s debatable whether self-harm and eating disorders can be considered addictions, but they’re part of his character, and I thought you should know.

Does he have daddy issues? His parents played their part in messing him up which then led to the big thing that really messed him up, though other than that his dad is barely a presence.

Is he violent? Not at all.

Does he need a good night sleep? At least 17 hours.

Does he need a good cry? Oh, so much. He needs all the cry.

Flavors: A quiet genius with lots of guilt.

Conclusion: Can you believe this was his first film role? Our boy is talented af!

Fabio (Lo chiamavano Jeeg Robot)

Is he queer? Undeniably.

Is he repressed? You could argue that he is repressed by being limited in his place in social hierarchy.

Does he have an addiction? Amazingly enough, no. He has fixations, though.

Does he have daddy issues? Thinking his father was a loser and not wanting to end up like him is textbook stuff.

Is he violent? Very.

Does he need a good night sleep? Yes please.

Does he need a good cry? He needs to purge his soul from all the bottled up stuff.

Flavors: A campy psycho.

Conclusion: Luca’s most iconic character, so of course he scored high on the list.

Paolo (Il padre d’Italia)

Is he queer? Undeniably.

Is he repressed? I can’t even start listing all the ways in which he’s repressed.

Does he have an addiction? He smokes a lot.

Does he have daddy issues? His issues are more of a mommy variety.

Is he violent? Not in the slightest.

Does he need a good night sleep? He’s the poster boy for needing a good night sleep.

Does he need a good cry? A good cry, a good weep, a good sob, a good bawl, *googles more synonyms* a good wail, a good squall...

Flavors: A self-loathing gay orphan in need of some life goodness.

Conclusion: What can I say about Paolo that all of you aren’t already thinking? Decent film, great character, excellent portrayal.

Mickey (Die Pfeiler der Macht)

Is he queer? Undeniably.

Is he repressed? It’s Victorian England, you guys.

Does he have an addiction? He smokes casually but other than that... eh. And don’t tell me he has sex addiction. He uses his body strategically.

Does he have daddy issues? If what he has isn’t daddy issues, I don’t know what is.

Is he violent? He’s got tons of bottled up aggression.

Does he need a good night sleep? It would be great if he could use the day’s darkest hours for sleeping.

Does he need a good cry? Undeniably.

Flavors: A conniving slut extraordinaire.

Conclusion: A major player in the book (says me who managed like 50 pages), Mickey Miranda was turned into such a nothing character in the miniseries that they needed a truly extraordinary actor to make him memorable. And guess what, Luca delivered.

Cesare (Non essere cattivo)

Is he queer? Not explicitly, but come on.

Is he repressed? Lethally.

Does he have an addiction? He’s an addiction textbook.

Does he have daddy issues? *Jake Peralta voice* Yeah, the guy without a daddy is the one with daddy issues. Explain that logic.

Is he violent? Oh yeah, he’s a rabid little trash goblin.

Does he need a good night sleep? So much.

Does he need a good cry? He’s had his fair share of good cries, but he could always use more.

Flavors: A aimless junkie.

Conclusion: The quintessential Luca. Beautiful.

Primo (Trust)

Is he queer? Listen, just because we don’t see him fuck a dude on screen it doesn’t mean he isn’t a motherfluffing queer icon. It’s not subtext; it’s TEXT.

Is he repressed? Where do I even fucking start?

Does he have an addiction? Oh yeah. And a coke nail to prove it.

Does he have daddy issues? I would need a whole separate post to unpack his daddy issues.

Is he violent? So very violent.

Does he need a good night sleep? Yes, please. On an actual bed in an actual bedroom.

Does he need a good cry? You can just tell.

Flavors: A ruthless criminal with a strong mafia boss potential.

Conclusion: The pièce de résistance of the Luca Marinelli filmography. Not only does he tick every box, he gets bonus points for the excellent wardrobe choices that emphasize Luca’s best features. Primo Nizzuto is everything great you want from Luca, except singing. (Though in my headcanon that whole white car in a snowstorm monologue was a musical number.)

[youwontlikethisblog]

I Don't Believe He Desires Me

Before I continue I want you to know I will be talking a lot more about Betty in this post and there will be a brief mention of r*** in this post.

I keep mentioning how Betty is more than just an insecure girl, that she's more complex than that but I don't really explain it all too well.

I've been lingering with this thought for quit a while now and though this is something that is mentioned in future episodes and I try not to bring such far away episodes into the breakdown of the current episode I feel like it's important to do so in this post.

Betty's first time.

We're still in the same day as Betty with her new look. Aura Maria and Betty are sitting outside talking and Aura Maria is asking her if she desires her boyfriend and Betty explains that their relationship is more than just seggs but an intelectual relationship where they talk about thought provoking subjects and things that stimulate their brains.

Betty has mentioned in the past when she's writing in her diary that she is really attracted to Armando in a physical sense but I noticed a hesitation from her when talking about this with Aura Maria and isn't only because she's not used to talking about this but for another reason because its while Aura Maria tells her that she might be weird if she doesn't even desire him to a small level or that he might be gay that Betty confesses that she is attracted to and that she does desire him. Betty isn't that uncomfortable talking about the subject with Aura Maria so why does she hesitate?

Her first relationship in the romantic aspect was traumatic on it's own however in the physical sense it was more than traumatic.

Betty thought of herself so hideous before Miguel that she thought no man would ever be interested in her until he came along. He really did force Betty to have feelings for him. He courted her, her sought her out and he manipulated her through small gifts and cards with poems and dedications that soon Betty started to develop feelings for him. Once he had her in love he plain out pressure her to have seggs.

Though we are only told the general story of it we can understand why it was painful.

See Betty in love has always been unconditional, she has been sweet, kind, loving, and faithful. She has been unwavering in loyalty. She wasn't any less of that in her relationship with Miguel. The same way she is right now with Armando and his gifts is the same way she was with Miguel. Miguel's attention built her self-esteem, it built her self-worth.

Miguel manipulated Betty's innocence's and her low self-esteem to serve his own agenda without ever feeling anything, not even empathy, towards Betty. He made her feel special, desired, wanted, and attractive to him. He worked so hard to build her self-esteem just to pressure her to sleep with him so he could win a bet.

How does this affect Betty to this day?

I once mentioned that to Betty this translated that she was so heinous that not even her love convinced Miguel to love her.

Diving in deep it translated to something so much worse.

[This is your warning to skip to the next [RED].]

Her first time must've felt like r**e in the after math. I've thought about this for so long that it's the only way I could ever explain it.

For Betty that first experience has left her feeling like no man would ever be attracted to her in a physical sense, that no man would ever be attracted to her because of her personality. That she is so disgusting, so worthless that no man would ever notice her and the one who did was horrified by her body and felt a disdain towards her as he had seggsual relations with her. She was left bare, naked, and destroyed and the entire neighborhood laughed at her expense. They spoke badly of her for what Miguel did to her. She herself said that he "Suggested" that they have relations and though at fist she didn't want to that she decided to because she loved him and she gave all of herself to him that first time.

Her first time is enveloped in guilt, shame, embarrassment, and self-hatred that it causes her to not aspire for more in the relationship she is currently in. To keep herself safe and away from harm she doesn't want to believe that Armando would ever be attracted to her in anyway other than admiration for her intelligence and she doesn't want to feel guilty or like she forced(r**p) him.

[You may proceed below.]

She doesn't aspire for Armando to be attracted to her in that sense. She doesn't aspire for Armando to desire her or want to sleep with her. She's content with the kisses, with the dates where they dance and have intelectual conversations. Though she does desire him, she doesn't aspire for him to feel the same way. In an effort to self preserve her subconscious pushes her to only view Armando as a man who isn't seggsually driven, however Betty is fully aware that he is and she denies this fact for the sake of her heart.

She knows that he is, she says it herself that night at the museum but this time Betty says that she doesn't want to pressure him to do something he doesn't want to(like desire her or have relations with her, again this goes in hand with the idea that she has that she is so hideous no man would ever be attracted to her enough to desire her and that if they ever did have relations with her it would be forced.)

While Betty and Aura Maria are having this conversation in another part of the city Armando and Mario are having the same conversation(huh I just realized both of these side kicks are named Maria, except well Mario is the male version... and they're talking about the same thing, interesting...).

Armando, scared, asks Mario if he really believes that Betty would jump his bones of those days, to which Mario says that Betty is crazy for him so he does.

In the previous post(Betty's New Look) I mentioned how these episodes are to push Armando to accept to some degree Betty's physical appearance and his attraction to her(even if it's based on personality it is still attraction) and that he also had to confront his inner self that he's Betty's boyfriend.

In this scene he not only has accepted this but he also accepts that he has a relationship with her as he tells Calderon that the relationship he has with Betty is based on more intelectual stuff.

Mario then goes on to say than what's the point of having a lover if all he's gonna with her is have cerebral conversations, that the point is to have as much s. relations and for it to be good.

Armando proceeds to say that that's why he has Marcela and that's the only thing that keeps them together.

Back to Aura Maria and Betty:

"Betty remember, nothing about cerebral relationships or intellectual or anything like that. A relationship is maintained by appearances, you keep it with the bed involved, mija, otherwise someone more experience comes along and takes him and you end up like the fool."

"No Aura Maria, truth be told, I think he admires me for who I am, for my knowledge, for my career but I don't think... I don't believe he desires me." she looks at her embarrassed and sadden.

"Ay Betty, be careful, because of that guy doesn't manifest himself seggsually break up with him, mija, break up because there's only two reasons. One he's gay or you don't inspire him at all." Betty looks off, worried and confused her self.

This is why Betty starts acting so...heavy in the next couple of dates because she's testing him to see if he does desire her, if he does want to be with her, if he is attracted to her because she knows! She is fully aware of how seggsual the man is.

Back to Mario and Armando.

Mario has now told him that s. is the best way to compliment a woman because it means you desire her however Armando tells him something.

"I don't desire her, I am not crazy about, especially now with that new look.(can't understand what he says at the end)"

When Mario and him talk about plastic surgery. He does entertain the idea but dismisses it when he says that Marcela wouldn't allow that as well as tell us that Marcela is so controlling that she checks his bank records. Personally, I don't care how many people think that Betty would agree to get that plastic surgery if Armando told her to, she wouldn't. She said it herself in previous episodes that she doesn't believe in plastic surgery and that true love goes beyond what is skin deep. She said so in the first episode and when Bertha was talking about getting lipo. She said that with her self-esteem being non-existing and having no ego and her ego has grown just a tad bit since starting that relationship with Armando.

Even in this same episode when Aura Maria tells her to get plastic surgery Betty tells her that she won't because that's for women who like to get attention, that she is more discreet. One could argue that for love Betty would do anything, but even for love she didn't go all out on her new look because though Betty is unconditional one cannot fight the subconscious nature of our brain and the desire to maintain itself safe so even if Armando did agree to the plastic surgery and told Betty about it she wouldn't go ahead because her issues are far beyond just skin deep and she knows that.

In the next scene Betty is faced with AA's picture on Armando's desk and we hear Betty remembering what Armando said about AA. As she stares at this picture Daniel walks into the office and clears his throat.

"How are you, Sir?" Betty hurried to stand by her office.

"Worried, displeased, surprised. You and I ma'am agreed that as soon as money came into the company that you'd deposite what was mine to my account and in my account there's nothing."

"Yes I understand, Sir. I'm embarrassed with you but we had to pay roster but by first hour tomorrow we'll deposite your money." Betty proceeds to smile. "You've got my word, Sir."

Daniel proceeds to look her up and down and tell her "Is your word as serious as your look." and her proud smile disappears. "'cause that attire, that hairdo, more than an assistant to presidency, you look like an circus assistant." Betty stares at him hurt.

"Excuse me?"

"Yes I know Armando is a clown and that this entire company is just clownery but that doesn't mean that you should be dressed like one. You have to have a little discretion."

Betty here tries to stand up for herself and tells him "Excuse me Sir but you're offending me."

"No the one that's offending here is you." and Armando is seen walking towards his office, through the open double doors we see him stop on his tracks and look at Betty. "What were you thinking? When you got dressed in that clothing? What went through your head when you were doing your hair? Did you think you looked devine?" Armando now looks at the back of the head of Daniel like a bullseye. "No ma'am you look worse, so much worse."

"Sir please, respect me. You're treading on something personal."

"Tsk tsk tsk. I'm butting into the imagine of my company. Do us the favor to come like a normal person. Are you convinced that because you have a boyfriend(Armando for a second unfocused and turned to look at Betty and then focuses again on Daniel and his anger) you can do what you want and finish with peoples retina? Please, pity humanity."

"Daniel Valencia." Armando prepares to yell at him furiously. "Get the hell out of my office! Now."

"Hello Armando." Daniel turns to him.

"Hello nothing! Get out of my office now! and stop disrespecting my assistant."

"The one who is disrespecting everything here is her. She is disrespecting aesthetics, the company, the retina. Someone with such an important title. Someone who practically manages the company under the incapability of her president. Someone who has under her command a company that designs style, fad, and color can't be dressed like that."

"What? Did you not understand me Daniel Valencia? Get out! Now!" Armando grabs him by the caller of his blazer and they spin(honestly this reminds me of valet lmbo).

"Sir, please."

"Out!"

"Be very careful. I am not one of your clowns. Don't you ever place your hands over me again."

"Oh no?"

"Much less push me."

"You didn't like that Danielito? You didn't like that?" He moves to grab him again but Betty goes to hold him back. "What then? What then!" He yells.

"Sir, please." Betty pleas.

"Get out!"

"I understand that you defend the economist but her bad taste?"

This retaliates in him understand that Armando in the past defended Betty's job in Eco Moda and that he was aware that she is smart but for him to defend her on something so personal, he doesn't.(You're blind, Danny boy).

"No then, Tarzan and cheetah(someone explain this to me... why cheetah? Tarzan killed it.)."

Now lets bring the previous post and this one to a concluding halt with the following break down.

After watching this exact scene so many times I feel confident in my understanding of what we are being shown and told here.

In this exact day, when Betty wasn't around, Armando showed to be upset and furious at Marcela, Patty, and Hugo for their jokes about Betty's new look and the jokes they were making about her boyfriend. Since Betty wasn't around we can conclude that it wasn't projecting or him faking it because he didn't have to prove anything to her right there since she wasn't even there.

Now in this scene Betty's eyes are always on Daniel, never drifting or shifting between Daniel and Armando but focused solely on Daniel and what he is saying. You can tell she's upset, hurt, feeling humiliated but even then she respectfully tries to stand up for herself. Since Betty hasn't taken notice of Armando in the background and Armando isn't even paying attention to Betty but solely focused on Daniel we can asume he isn't doing this for show but in fact feels furious at Daniel exclusively for the way he is talking to Betty.

For a moment though he does look away from Daniel and that's when he mentions that Betty has a boyfriend like all of a sudden he's been hit with the ole "Betty has a boyfriend?" and then realization comes "Right. I'm her boyfriend." and he returns to focus on Daniel. Why is that the thought I decided was in Armando's mind at the time? Because he blinks repeatedly and looks confused for a second before no longer being confused. It's either that or he wondered if Betty told him about the boyfriend or how he found out but decides not to care and only focus on his anger.

Armando up to this point has always been very composed towards Daniel, never shy to to show his dislike and even hatred towards him, however he's never been close to throwing hands. Even when he yelled at him to mind his business(RagTela telling betty they'd give her a commission of 10% if she got them the business deal with Eco Moda and Danny Boy went and snitched on her.) he did so because he was mad that he wouldn't let him do anything in the company without spying on him and he wanted to be left alone but he didn't even make a move to throw hands, he just yelled. This time, just like that night before, Armando is ready to throw hands.

Why does he do this with everyone else except Mario? With Mario, though he says that he doesn't like Betty's new look, that he doesn't have the imagination to sleep with her, and that she's ugly, he doesn't really talk make fun of her. He complains(this doesn't make it okay) but he doesn't say the really cruel things that Mario does and he says really bad things about Betty, like naming a list of all her physical flaws and not once does Armando stop him. He doesn't even tell him to shut up or look angry like in the past. This time he looks concerned, worried, and pained.

While yes he does hate that people devalue and disrespect Betty he doesn't have the balls to actually defend her to Mario and that plays such a huge role. It also shows that Armando is still very much in denial and ignorance towards his attraction to Betty.

Betty is visibly hurt here. She tries not to frown while Daniel says all these awful things to her and even then tries to be respectful while she defends herself. She don't need no man.

When Daniel leaves Armando takes notice of Betty's arms around him, holding him back and though he looks panicked for a second he rolls his eyes and turns to comfort her(see he's forced to place Betty's needs before his own).

"Easy Betty. I just don't like it when people mess with you, for them to bother your or make fun of you." He gently passes the back of his hand against Betty's face in an affectionate way(which he's been doing a lot more as their dates progress 😏).

"Don't worry, Sir, because he's right." Betty turns around and walks to her office while Armando disagrees. When Betty shuts the door to her office Armando stays in his and turns to look at the opposite direction, sits on his desk, and looks thoughtful.

Like I mentioned in the last post; Armando is being forced to accept Betty's appearance and not only because of what Mario told him but because he has witnesses everyone making fun of her while he is now having stronger feelings towards Betty.

This is such an important thing for him to achieve, not only because of his feelings but because this literally is what moves him to be more accepting of said feelings because you really do start to see Armando become more attentive to Betty. He becomes more affectionate, little by little like touching her face a lot more frequent(if I were Betty I'd tell him to keep his hands off my face because acne, like hello?) wanting to kiss her and not pulling away right away.

At the ending this all comes full circle. These episodes are critical to what happens on the B-Day episodes and Armando's reaction for not knowing it was her B-Day.

BONUS:

When Armando enters her office and tells her to not listen to Daniel Betty tells him that it wouldn't hurt her if was all just speculation but she thinks he's right about her new look. Armando lies and tells her her new look is great and she looks devine.

"Really Sir?" Betty looks at him, "Because It for you, only for you. So you could see me differently." She says timidly and laughs softly. Armando's entire expression softens and a smile creeps on his face while he stares at Betty.

He's happy to know that Betty would do something only to make him happy, which again, shows that Betty is the first person to ever truly love Armando while the same thing could be said that Armando is the first person to truly ever love Betty.

Though Armando is lying straight outta his...teeth this is different under context because he's not lying to keep Betty in an affair that means he gets to prove he's better than Nicolas and that Nicolas won't take away his company which is a disguise for his fear that he'll take Betty(though he is worried about Eco Moda too except it's not really his main priority). This time Armando is lying to her to not destroy her self-esteem. In his mind what he is doing is telling her a white lie while also convincing her to go back to her old look. Yes he's lying here but at least it isn't all based on selfish things.

Imma be real with ya, it really concerns me how they NEVER shut the doors in his office whenever they're having "romantic" moments in the office, like yeah son no one is going to walk in there and overhear y'all talking about love and ish.

Anyway again, I need sleep.

'Til next time :)

[nerdygaymormon]

My parents are claiming that Holland's talk was not hurtful at all, in anyway. And they think I'm just an agenda pusher for disagreeing. I thought what he said was very hurtful, but they just claim I like playing the victim.

They claim that this talk was 100% loving. They claim that the brothern and the church are nothing but loving to the community, and everyone is just crying victim because the church won't give them "everything they want"

I don't even know where to begin having a discussion with them... if it were my choice, I wouldn't, but they're relentless.

I know you're busy but I would really appreciate having some help coming up with some points for people who, are impossible to talk with...

This isn't because I want to argue with my parents, it's because they're forcing me to talk about this, and if it doesn't go well, our relationship will never be the same, and I might be kicked out.

Thank you so much

Elder Holland is one of the most popular members of the Quorum of the 12. Most members think of Elder Holland as having a kind heart and would never harm anyone, therefore the metaphors he used were just a way of saying we need to protect the things we believe in. Most members, like your parents, are similarly kind and see nothing unusual in what he said.

However, there are some members who aren't so full of love and are willing to harm others. They can/will see Elder Holland's metaphor as marching orders. Unfortunately, the number of people who fit this group isn't small.

If you're in a group who is deprived of rights & privileges, like gay members of the Church, this is frightening. These people have been attacked before and worry about being attacked again. Also, they're just trying to exist and believe in the gospel while having to reconcile messages that suggest their very existence is a problem. They face a nightmare struggle from within the church that the majority doesn't experience. They are more sensitive to language which further marginalizes them or can be seen as a hint for further attacks on them by those willing to do harm.

Assuming Elder Holland meant no ill will, because of politics in the Church, it's unlikely Elder Holland would reframe or clarify his remarks once he hears how the queer LDS community received his words.

[masterthespianduchovny]

Steve, Bucky, and Peggy: The Love Triangle that Isn’t

There is a popular narrative among a certain crowd that Steggy only happened so Steve isn’t perceived as gay or having feelings for Bucky. And maaaaaybe this is true, but honestly, I don’t agree.

Peggy was supposed to be the great love of Steve’s life that never got to happen due to circumstance. And then comes along Sharon who is supposed to be his great next love. But, what happened is that not that many people were interested and, funny enough, more were drawn to Steve’s reaction about Peggy—him visiting her and her later dying than they actually have a fuck about Staron or whatever the ships name is.

Coincidentally, this is the SAME movie that Bucky as winter soldier is reintroduced in. The movie where they try to establish a new romantic relationship for Cap and have us met the new Bucky, which the former isn’t Bucky.

What happened is this: fans essentially completely rejected Sharon and salivated for Bucky and this devotion Steve had towards him. It was a shipper’s dream the way Steve behaved. BUT, Steve and Bucky was never on the menu and it was never teased canonically.

I cannot say if the actors or those connected to the MCU queerbaited fans, but actors and connected employees have the habit of trying to be supportive of fans and ships by entertaining things they aren’t necessarily invested in or care about all that much. Some of that is because they appreciate the fans enthusiasm and the other part is it being apart of the job to have enthusiastic fans.

It reminds me how how John Boyega supported two/three ships on Star Wars, but it wasn’t necessarily because he was a shipper himself. The only actor in the current series who seems like an actual shopper is the one who plays Poe.

So, after they got rid of Sharon in the third cap “movie”, they had to figure out what to do about his love interest. Again, the only significant and canonical one people gravitated to was Peggy, but she was dead. BUT, there was also a consistent thread about Cap’s feelings for her. Almost every movie that desires cap prominently has some small scene or moment that references her.

So, for people to act like Peggy was Sharon is dishonest. Or how they want to act like Peggy was some random girl. Peggy met Steve before he was cap—I know, I know, Bucky did too—but, this is important because it sets up their relationship about how she cared for him and took him seriously as a person even then. Her feelings grew romantic as did his, but their feelings was based on friendship and their mutual respect for one another. Peggy also helped Steve to defy orders to do what he felt was right, so they share values as well. I believe all this happened over a span of two years.

When she is in the hospital Steve regularly visits her and is distraught when she dies. His behavior is a call back to that old fashioned romanticized love in which one half of a spouse is loyal, dedicated, and (always) by their beside. Despite Steve still having g his youth and presumably young, interested women clamoring for him, he is devoted to Peggy and takes time out of his week to visit her. When she dies, he’s even her pallbearer.

This behavior is more than “a connection to the past.” I guess since it’s muted and not fighting to save someone you care about at all cost, it doesn’t read a love or romantic.

But, it’s clearly established that Steve’s love has never faded and even though he has young women interested in him, he’d rather sit by the side of his 90 year old (former) love.

We even see him carrying a locket with her picture in it as well. The MCU has gone out of its way to show how very real Steve’s feelings are.

Enter in Bucky.

When we first meet Bucky, we see he’s the best friend of Steve. The charming ladies man who exudes confidence. He looks out for Steve, esp because Steve likes to get up for trouble when standing up for his values. Yet, neither Steve nor Bucky are particularly attached to one another—meaning to subtext of homoeroticism that speaks to deeper feelings known or unknown.

We could argue that Steve’s feelings became prominences, but not known to him, when he saw Bucky again, but I’ll continue to lay out for my reasoning for not believing that.

Winter soldier sets for the foundation of how captain American went from a loyal patriot to questioning and distrusting his government. Despite his camaraderie with the avengers, he still feels alone and like a man out of time. He leans on his patriotism to get him through this totally unique and indescribable experience. But, I’m the second movie, he’s on the run from that very same government and is finding out about their secrets and lies.

During this time he runs into Bucky, his best friend who he thought died.

We must keep in mind that Cap’s two direct connections to the past in this moment are both Peggy and Bucky. We see his loyalty to Peggy due to reasons I mentioned, but there is another factor going on with Bucky: it’s him, but it’s NOT him.

It was completely disorienting for Cap to see a man who was supposed to be dead and in his 90s looking youthful and a unrelenting killer. There was no way they was the Bucky Cap knew. Cap has to get to the bottom of what happened to Bucky and, later, avenge his friend. His autonomy and agency was violated, he was experimented on, and brought back to life to be a trained killer.

Of course Steve feels that deeply, especially because he underwent a similar experiment, but willingly and retained his agency and independence. But, it’s also about corrupting the past for Steve. The way the government manipulates and pushes things forth for the agenda. There’s levels to this.

Then, when Bucky saved Steve, and then disappeared, Steve was largely fine, but concerned about Bucky. And why wouldn’t he be? Bucky almost killed him, saved him, and then left—he doesn’t know how Bucky is dealing and coping with what happened to him. How could he know?

Steve fighting and protecting Bucky in his third movie and, eventually, fighting against Tony is about how we shouldn’t punish an exploited person for something that were manipulated into doing. And how they’re being used as patsy’s to shift blame. Bucky was a victim in the second and third movie. Bucky needed someone to stand up for and advocate for him, which only Steve did.

I mean, did Bucky deserve to die for something he had no choice over? Or imprisoned?

That doesn’t mean that they couldn’t have been two men in love, but once Cap knows he’s safe and protected—meaning, he’s allowed to make a “full” mental and emotional recovery without further exploitation—Cap doesn’t worry or obsess over Bucky. Bucky was on the way to regaining agency and independence and that’s all that cap wanted.

Once Bucky looks happy and healthy when they see each other again, cap goes to treated him like he did in first avenger.

And I fill that this must be pointed out: some friends do go above and beyond for people who 1. Have mental illnesses, no systems in place to assist them, and no advocates other than them 2. Someone who has been harmed/manipulated/exploited, is triggered, and potentially down spiraling. 3. PTSD.

Steve is being a damn good friend and advocate to/for Bucky.

With that being said, some don’t feel that stucky was going to be canon, but that the MCU went out of its way to prove Steve was straight. As a reminder, the Steve and Peggy thread has been CONSISTENT since day one. Since Sharon failed, they wanted to find a love interest for Steve’s endgame, no pun intended. Personally, I think that they went Natasha/Steve because Natasha/Bruce doesn’t work. I understand Natasha and Steve has a great friendship for the “why can’t men and women be friends” crowd, but Natasha also has other male friends, sooo....

To use Star Wars as an example again, this isn’t Poe and Keri Russell’s character who exists solely to prove Poe is STRAIGHT.

Peggy was never created to be someone who existed to prove Steve’s sexuality, but she was someone he was in love with and never stopped loving. She was someone that we knew Steve loved deeply and could never get over.

I know people feel that Steve going back undermines his values both in the comics and the series, which I fee is valid. But, honestly, Steve has spent a good chunk of protecting others and putting his life on the line. We see many of the other avengers be in relationships, have families, and overall fulling lives and Steve just has the avengers.

Which isn’t a bad thing in and of itself, but he’s allowed to want more than that. His life shouldn’t be dictated by if he can be of service to others.

Steve didn’t “abandon” anyone. Most of the avengers are adults who don’t need Steve. He may have been the leader, but anyone in the group can be the leader. There are other heroes.

And Bucky doesn’t need him.

Bucky understand all that cap went through and sacrificed. He doesn’t need cap to always near and hold his hand. That’s not how friendships work. That’s not how families work or, at least, healthy ones.

I’m fine with people who ship stucky, but this animosity against Steggy and Peggy is ridiculous. No movie or show owes you an open ending so you can ship who you want. From what I can recall, there was no canonical queerbaiting (I believe Chris Evans supported both ships, but I think Steggy more). And Peggy isn’t some random woman or a woman he knew for three seconds, she was important to him and their relationship meaningful to him for the rest of his life.

[hellomynameisbisexual]

5 Ways That Bi Erasure Hurts More Than Just Bisexual People

December 2, 2014 by Milo Todd

This year, Bisexual Awareness Day/Celebrate Bisexuality Day was on September 23rd.

That same day, the National LGBTQ Task Force thought it’d be a good idea to post an article entitled “Bye Bye Bi, Hello Queer,” in which leadership programs director Evangeline Weiss said “she is ready ‘to say bye bye to the word bisexuality.’

She said it does not describe her sexual orientation, and she encouraged readers to cease using the word as well as she felt it reinforced a binary concept of gender.

Let me drive that home a little more. The National LGBTQ Task Force not only thought it would be a good idea to publish an article insulting, misrepresenting, and forsaking the bisexual letter in their own name, but did so on Celebrate Bisexuality Day.

Rude.

And a fantastic example of the constant, ongoing erasure bisexual people have to deal with. This one just happened to be incredibly blatant.

What happened as a result of that article? People got pissed.

People got so pissed that the Task Force not only removed the article from their website, but posted in its place this non-apology (it keeps being referred to as an apology, but I’m not so easily pleased): “Having listened to a wide array of feedback on the timing and content, we recognize that this blog offended people. For this we sincerely apologize. It has been removed.”

In other words, “Sorry you got pissed off. Hopefully you’ll shut up if we take it down.” Which, as far as I can tell, isn’t much of an apology for a blatant disregard of an entire community of people.

Misunderstanding of the bisexual community has been the crux of biphobia’s history and the ongoing battle to erase bisexuality from the LGBTQIA+ community.

It’s a scary time to be bi, especially when your lesbian, gay, pansexual, and queer siblings and allies are calling for your blood simply because they’ve fallen victim to the mainstream agenda without realizing it. (Say what?! Jump to #5.)

It’s time for a change.

It’s time for all of us to properly understand one another and to — hope of hopes — become allies for our incredibly similar endeavors. To help initiate that friendship, I ask you, dear reader, to go through the following three steps.

Step 1: Look below. If I’ve played my cards right, virtually every reader should find at least one category with which they identify.

Step 2: Approach your designated section(s) with an open mind, an unprejudiced heart, and a desire to further enhance your own community/ies. It’s difficult for people to learn new things and see different views if they automatically approach them with resistance, which is often the case with bisexual topics.

Step 3: See how bi erasure hurts you as a person and, while you’re at it, likely hurts the people you care about. Because it really is happening.

So here are five ways in which bi erasure is hurting people of layered identities.

1. Female-Identified People and Feminists

Bisexuality is one of the only non-monosexual* identities currently recognized in the English-speaking world. If bisexuality is kept underground, it suppresses our limited, precious resources for open discussion about non-monosexuality. This hurts female-identified people and feminists regardless of their sexual orientation.

To this day, female-identified people can’t get a fair shake. Pay is unequal, birth control access is limited, and objectification is a daily thing. Non-monosexual women in particular are often not taken seriously because they’re seen as sluts, greedy, or unable to make up their minds.

Also, the general fetishizing of women is particularly intensified in the bisexual realm by (straight-identified) men, turning the very act of women’s sexual freedom, empowerment, and self-expression into nothing more than something for male gazes. (This is most often seen through the relentless prompts for female-female-male threesomes and masculine catcalls in bars when two femme-appearing women make out.)

By participating in or casually allowing bi erasure to happen, we’re ignoring the specific plights and abuses of bisexual women, thereby contributing to the ongoing problem of female inequality, objectification, and silence.

As feminists, we can’t pick and choose which women to fight for. The complexities of womanhood — and all of its cultural suppressions — are an all-or-none deal.

*Note: Non-monosexuality usually refers to someone who is interested in more than one sex or gender. (In other words, somebody who isn’t gay, lesbian, or straight.) Another way to say “non-monosexuality” would be “polysexuality” to help keep it from sounding negative.

2. Male-Identified People and Male Liberationists*

Just like with female-identified people and feminists, bi erasure hurts male-identified people and male liberationists regardless of their sexual orientation.

Allow me to make this pretty basic: Men continue to be fed the message that being gay is bad. Being gay means you’re not really a man, which means you lose your dude membership and the bulk of your male privilege. And since gayness equals the slightest shred of attraction to or intimacy with another male, all manners of bromance must be squashed.

In short, many guys live in a state of silent terror in this regard.

Bi men are afraid of being banished from the world of lady-loving, gay men are worried about losing all of their connections to hetero land, and nothing is worse for a straight man than being called a fag.

Constant monitoring, constant filtering, constant stress: Is this really the kind of world we guys want to keep living in?

By being able to talk about bisexuality — remember: one of our only non-monosexual identities — male-identified people can begin to break free from the masculine ideal.

Bi talk helps bridge the gap between being a man (straight) and not being a man (gay) and realizing, hey, having some manner of attraction to or intimate interaction with another guy is totally okay, masculinity unscathed.

Gay men can begin to regain their identities as men, bi men can finally start coming out, and “fag” will lose its strength as an insult from one straight man to another.

*Note: Male liberationists are more or less seen as allies to feminists and vice versa. Both will argue that patriarchy is bad, but while feminists talk of how it’s bad for females, male liberationists talk of how it’s bad for males. Examples include the inability to romantically or sexually love another male, the emasculation of men of color, and the physical, verbal, and mental abuse that comes from society’s expectations to be stereotypically masculine.

3. People Who Identify as Trans Sexual, Trans Gender, Genderfluid, Genderqueer, or Gender Non-Conforming

This one’s pretty easy. Some people on the trans spectrum identify as bisexual. But then they’re told they can’t or that it’s an insult to their trans siblings because bisexuality is believed to be trans-exclusive.

The problem with bi erasure is it adds to the ongoing problem of cis people — LGQ or not — telling trans people what to think. Cis people have a bad habit of thinking they need to speak for people on the trans spectrum even when trans people are quite capable of speaking for themselves. This is even more frustrating when it comes from a community supposedly meant to support them.

Despite the personhood for which they’re continuing to fight, trans people can receive backlash from the lesbian, gay, and queer communities as their identities and bodies are turned into political battlegrounds.

Sometimes, they’re used without consent by some cis individuals so that points can be made for non-trans-specific agendas, and sometimes they’re ironically used in the attempts for cis identities to help better the trans worlds.

For instance, automatically dismissing bisexuality as trans-exclusive and guilting any person on the trans spectrum that wants to identity as bisexual, if I may make so fine a point.

As blogger Aud Traher writes, “If you want to support trans people like me, don’t erase me or speak over me or cause me harm out of self-righteous biphobia. Look into yourself and deal with that internalized biphobia and then help others get over theirs. Don’t advocate for the destruction of a community in the name of ‘saving’ it. And, especially, don’t do it in my name.”

4. People Who Identify as Gay, Lesbian, or — Yes — Straight

Quite simply, it makes gays and lesbians (and straight people) look bad, too.

Bisexual people get a bad rap for apparently upholding the gender binary by saying they love only (cis) men or (cis) women, but isn’t that pretty much exactly what gays, lesbians, and straight people are saying when they identify as gay, lesbian, or straight? That they’ll only love either (cis) men or (cis) women?

But where’s their rampant backlash from the rest of the community for upholding the gender binary? I’m just sayin’.

Even when these groups extend their definitions to include trans people and people on the gender non-conforming spectrum, it’s often still as long as those trans people exhibit some manner of gender representation that falls into the lover’s category of desire.

Now, I’m honestly not trying to rag on gays, lesbians, or even straight people. They have as much right to identify how they want as anybody else. And there’s nothing wrong with feeling primarily attracted to only, say, cis or trans men if your brain simply tells you that you only like guys. That’s fine. Go ahead and do that. I’m not saying you can’t.

What I am saying is you can’t be spewing bi hate or letting bi erasure slide because 1) it’s incredibly one-sided and unfair, and 2) in the end, it’s making you look bad, too.

What do you think will happen if bi erasure is a success? You’ll be next, dears.

*cue Jaws theme*

5. People Who Identify as Queer, Pansexual, or Another Fellow Non-Monosexual

In late October, Lizzy the Lezzy — who I quite enjoy, by the way — shared a photo on her Facebook timeline explaining sexuality in terms of guests at a BBQ.

This would be all well and good if it didn’t include a glaring misconception about bisexual people, especially when compared to pansexuals. While bisexual people were defined as getting both hot dogs and hamburgers, pansexuals were defined as getting hot dogs, hamburgers, “and a salad.” Oops. What year is this again?

I’m going to make something very plain to you, dear reader: Bisexual people don’t just love (cis) men or (cis) women. That’s not how the ballpark definition goes. The “bi” in “bisexual” does not indicate a binary. Well, okay, it does indicate a binary, but probably not the one you think.

Instead of “bi” meaning a love for only cis men or cis women or otherwise putting men and women at two opposite ends of a spectrum, “bi” means a love for identities bisexual people identify with themselves and identities that they don’t.

Or, as the popular Robyn Ochs definition goes: “I call myself bisexual because I acknowledge that I have in myself the potential to be attracted – romantically and/or sexually – to people of more than one sex and/or gender, not necessarily at the same time, not necessarily in the same way, and not necessarily to the same degree.”

Look at that very closely. That’s still a binary. That’s still “bi.” And there isn’t a thing wrong with it, no exclusion to be seen.

When compared with the general concepts of pansexuals and queers, our orientations suddenly sound pretty darn similar: We love everyone.

Bisexual people get a bad rap for apparently being transphobic. While we’ve already seen a little bit in #3 as to why we aren’t, I want to further drive the point home here. A large portion of the transphobic accusations toward us come from the queer and pansexual communities, which in turn seem to derive from some serious misinformation and misdirection by the mainstream.

For the record, queers and pansexuals are cool. I like them. But the fact of the matter is that the misconception of the “bi” in “bisexual” as meaning an attraction to only (cis) men or (cis) women — and therefore upholding the gender binary — was created and imposed upon bisexual people by the mainstream. You know, the people that want the gender binary to stick around.

And some queers and pansexuals ate the propaganda they were fed? That’s terrifying. It starts to show just how large and sneaky the mainstream’s gender binary monster truly is.

By defining and erasing bisexuality on the grounds that it upholds the gender binary, pansexuals and queers are not only reinforcing the binary they so sorely wish to dismantle, but they are losing important focus on where the problem actually resides: the mainstream’s insistence to force the gender binary on non-mainstream groups such as bisexual people.

Further, holding bisexual people responsible for the abuse they’ve suffered is simply wrong. All that’s doing is blaming the victim. But, by recognizing and respecting bisexual people as they truly are, bisexual people can not only help dismantle the gender binary and put a new definition on the concept of the spectrum, but finally be allowed to team up with pansexuals and queers to crush mainstream abuse on non-mainstream identities.

Doesn’t that sound nice? I think it sounds nice.

TL;DR

Dear non-bisexual identities, please stop shooting yourselves in the foot and then wondering why you’re missing toes.

We’re here for the same reasons you are: for the right to love whoever we want and for the right for others to do the same.

So let’s finally be friends. We’re never going to get anything done if we keep spending our time putting each other down.

[theliberaltony]

via Politics – FiveThirtyEight

At a campaign event in southeastern Iowa in December, a graduate student named Charlotte Moser was waiting to ask Sen. Elizabeth Warren a question. As we sat and talked in a crowded union hall before the event began, Charlotte told me she felt a little guilty that it wasn’t about Warren’s plans or policies. But what she really wanted to know, she said, was how Warren coped with sexism on the campaign trail. “She’s faced a lot of that recently — being called elitist and unlikable and angry,” she said.

The previous day, a similar version of Charlotte’s question had cropped up at another town hall, when a middle-aged woman named Kris stood and asked Warren why “so many Americans would rather see a man with a tie” in the Oval Office. And the candidate got another twist on the same query a few hours after I talked to Charlotte, at another event in a neighboring town overlooking the Mississippi River. This time, it was from a reporter in a scrum who wanted to know why Warren thought sexism was such a preoccupation for the voters who had come hear her speak.

In both cases, Warren had an answer that amounted to this: It shouldn’t be. “I think a lot of the world changed after 2016,” she told Kris, going on to describe the flood of women’s protests in the days after President Trump’s inauguration and the wave of women elected to state legislatures and Congress in 2017 and 2018. “And I think in 2020, women are stepping up, friends of women are stepping up, and this is when we’re going to make it happen.”

It was a practiced response to a question that can turn into a trap for female candidates, even when it’s asked with the best of intentions. During the Democratic debate last week, Warren disputed on national television what she says Sen. Bernie Sanders told her in a private meeting in 2018: A woman couldn’t defeat Trump. Sanders denies ever saying this, but when asked about the exchange by a moderator, Warren used it as a moment to attack doubts about women’s electability. “Look at the men on this stage: Collectively, they have lost 10 elections,” she said. “The only people on this stage who have won every single election that they’ve been in are the women.”

Studies do show that when female candidates run for Congress, they win at about the same rate as men. That doesn’t mean the playing field is level — the women who win are generally more qualified than their male counterparts, and perhaps held to a higher standard by voters — but what often gets lost in the debate over electability is just how adept women are at responding to sexism in politics, whether it’s from their opponents, voters or the media. Still, it’s hard to know what will reassure voters whose fears mostly seem to be grounded in one specific election, and one specific candidate — 2016 and Donald Trump.

That tension is something I’ve been rolling around in my head ever since I got back from Iowa, because it’s hard to figure out how gender is shaping a race while it’s unfolding. What I saw in Iowa was far from an overwhelming consensus that Warren was doomed to fail. Nor was it especially reminiscent of the “you go girl!” excitement of the 2016 election. Instead, voters were grappling with a conundrum that felt very familiar to me: How do you acknowledge the reality of the challenges that women face without going too far and contributing to the forces that keep them from winning?

On the one hand, there’s evidence that in the last few years, voters are increasingly likely to identify gender discrimination as a major reason women are not elected to top positions. And people who study gender and politics still argue that voters’ biases remain a real barrier for women who run for office. But those factors don’t necessarily determine the fate of Warren or any other female candidates. Women win elections all the time. And there is a clear risk that if these doubts are given too much weight, concerns around a female candidate’s electability will become a self-defeating cycle where even the people who are most excited about the prospect of a female president are too afraid to vote for one.

On the campaign trail, Warren brings up her gender in subtle ways, like when she was fired from her job as a teacher after getting pregnant. But she still frequently gets questions from voters and reporters about how she navigates sexism in politics.

Spencer Platt / Getty Images

“I thought Hillary would be our first woman president. I wanted her to be,” said Chris Moore, 70, at a town hall in a brightly lit school gymnasium as snow started to fall outside. It wasn’t her first time seeing Warren speak, and she told me that of all the Democratic candidates, she thought Warren would probably make the best president. “I guess the question is, is she electable?”

I asked Moore what she thought might harm Warren’s chances. “I hope being a woman isn’t a negative,” she said. “But it could be an issue for some people — maybe not for Democrats, but we need to attract independents in order to win.”

This was something weighing on many of the voters I spoke with. When the conversation touched on Warren’s gender, it seemed difficult for them to not at least briefly contemplate a future in which another woman went up against Trump and lost. Part of the trouble may be that while men’s failed presidential runs have become routine, Hillary Clinton’s loss was entirely novel and therefore harder for voters to move past. But some also recognized their own role in that process, and said they’re trying to resist the temptation to look to the past for clues about which candidate to support.

“Look, I get that people are afraid about what happens if Trump wins again — we’ve got to beat him,” said Matt Falduto, 48, who had brought his daughters to a Warren town hall on a chilly Sunday morning. “But you can’t let those fears make you second-guess your instincts about which candidate is the best.”

Few of the voters I talked to in December had fully committed to a candidate, and a month later, the race in Iowa still looks like a free-for-all. And as I moved through bunting-adorned elementary schools and knelt next to voters on the floor of a sandwich shop turned rally space, it was clear that anxiety about sexism was only one part of the equation. For some, Warren was too liberal; others thought she wasn’t liberal enough. I heard worries about whether she’d be able to connect with voters of color or people who were less educated. But this year’s election also seemed to be a reckoning of sorts for many voters who were struggling with how to wrap their heads around the reality of sexism in politics and figure out what — if anything — it should mean for their vote.

On the campaign trail, Warren doesn’t talk much about what it would mean to be the first female president. Instead, she brings up her gender in subtler ways, like when she talks about being fired from her job as a teacher when she got pregnant. Her affect is folksy and down-to-earth — she jokes about her snap decision to go to law school but delicately skirts her decades as a professor at Harvard Law School. When I saw her in Iowa, she was in the midst of an attempt to pivot away from the health care debate she’d found herself mired in and back to the bread and butter of her candidacy: her pitch to voters that economic populism and an anti-corruption agenda are what’s needed to beat Trump in 2020.

In some ways, being a woman could help her make that pitch. Research has shown that elected women are generally perceived to be more honest than their male counterparts, which could give Warren’s anti-corruption message extra heft. And there are other reasons to think that Warren should be more appealing to primary voters than her rivals at the top of the field, who are white, male and either gunning to be the first octogenarian president or the youngest to ever be elected.

An NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist poll conducted in November found that 83 percent of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents say they would be enthusiastic about voting for a female candidate — substantially higher than any other type of candidate mentioned in the poll, including someone under 40 (62 percent), a white man (53 percent), and someone over 70 (31 percent). In surveys conducted recently, Democrats say they favor female candidates over male candidates, all else being equal.

Democrats are enthusiastic about a woman candidate

Responses to a November 2019 NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist poll of Democrats asking whether they would be enthusiastic about candidates with the following qualities

Type Percent A woman 83%

–

Someone who is gay or lesbian 69

–

Someone under 40 62

–

A white man 53

–

A socialist 37

–

A business executive 34

–

Someone over 70 31

–

From a survey of 453 Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents conducted Nov. 11 to Nov. 15, 2019.

Source: NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist

But there are also signs that in the aftermath of the 2016 election, voters are more cynical about women’s chances in the presidential arena — and especially against Trump. Surveys of Democratic voters by the left-leaning group Avalanche Strategy, for instance, have found that Warren is most popular when respondents are given the ability to pick a presidential candidate without having to worry whether they’ll beat Trump. In follow-up interviews, many of those would-be Warren supporters said the negative impact of gender was a big part of their calculus. Other polls have found that while most Democrats say they are comfortable with a female president, they think their friends and neighbors might be more reluctant to support a woman.

It’s not clear that these fears are entirely baseless. A survey conducted by The New York Times in October found, for instance, that Warren performed worse than Sanders or Biden in head-to-head matchups against Trump in key battleground states — a pattern that can also be seen in head-to-head national polls. Admittedly, Warren’s liberal views are a confounding factor. In that New York Times survey, 52 percent of voters who said they’d vote for Biden but not Warren in a matchup against Trump (Sanders wasn’t part of the equation) said it was because she’s too far to the left. But 41 percent also agreed with the statement that women who run for president “just aren’t that likable.” Those groups represent only a fraction of the electorate.1 But in a close election, they could make a difference.

Democrats think others wouldn’t support a female president

Responses to October 2019 Morning Consult/Politico poll of Democrats answering “Yes, definitely” to the following questions

Question Percent Do you think you are ready for a female president? 71%

–

Do you think America is ready for a female president? 57

–

Do you think your neighbors are ready for a female president? 31

–

From an online survey of 736 Democrats conducted Oct. 25 to Oct. 28, 2019.

Source: Morning Consult/Politico

Whether it’s helpful to dwell on these fears or emphasize the barriers female presidential candidates face is up for debate, even among the people who spend their lives studying gender and politics. After I got back from Iowa, I called Kathleen Dolan, a political science professor at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, to get her take on how much gender bias really seemed to be hurting Warren. She told me she found the media’s focus on it exasperating. “I would give my eye teeth for a process where no reporter asks questions about what it’s like to be a woman in politics, how they deal with sexism, whether a woman can win,” she said. “Then we’d have a genuine sense of whether voters are actually worried about this.”

But other researchers have argued that sexism is probably hurting Warren and the other female candidates. Dan Cassino, a political science professor at Fairleigh Dickinson University, concluded from a recent survey experiment that sexist views are fairly widespread among voters — particularly male voters — and many of those voters are less motivated to support a female candidate. “Eventually, we will get to a point where enough women have run for president that it’s entirely unremarkable,” he said. “But we’re not at that point yet, and I think the Democrats will probably lose some votes if they nominate a woman.” I asked Cassino how much of a difference it could make, compared to other factors that voters care about like age, ideology or political experience. “Could those lost votes be offset by a million other factors?” he said. “Absolutely. If it’s a choice between a worse male candidate and a better female candidate, you still want the woman. But it’s a calculation.”

The trouble is that weighing those trade-offs is hard to do in hindsight, and nearly impossible to do in real time. Case in point: Nearly four years later, political scientists are still trying to figure out exactly how much of an impact sexism had in the 2016 election. The consensus among most of the experts I’ve spoken with is that sexism does seem to have moderately helped Trump and hurt Clinton — but seeing the attacks on Clinton may also have galvanized some of her supporters. And all of this might not tell us much about how a different woman, with different policies, in a different year, would fare.

Warren speaking at a town hall event in Des Moines, Iowa, just days after the January debate.

Spencer Platt / Getty Images

In Iowa, some of Warren’s supporters told me they were trying to resist the urge to compare this year’s crop of female candidates to Clinton. “I really hope people don’t assume that all women who run for office are kind of cut from the same cloth,” said Robin Flattery, 31. It would be a mistake, Flattery added, to allow Warren’s gender to obscure the aspects of her biography and candidacy that are very different from Clinton’s — her working-class roots, her unapologetic progressivism or the fact that she hasn’t weathered decades of scandal and controversy.

There is one inescapable similarity between 2016 and 2020, though: the Republican opponent. And while the research doesn’t suggest that a majority of American voters simply won’t accept the idea of a female president — the fact that Clinton won nearly three million more votes than Trump is pretty good evidence to the contrary — it’s not hard to understand why some voters are worried about another woman going up against Trump. “I think the conversation would be different if the Democrats weren’t facing the prospect of a scorched-earth campaign by a president who’s willing to use sexism and what had previously been socially unacceptable language and attacks against a woman,” said Danny Hayes, a political science professor at George Washington University.

As Warren is fond of pointing out, of course, the world has changed since 2016. The Women’s March happened; the #MeToo movement happened; a historic number of women ran for office and won in 2018. The problem is that it’s not clear how much those changes help her. There was never much reason to believe that female voters would coalesce around Warren simply because she was a woman. Plus, a general electorate may be less inclined to get behind Warren’s particular brand of liberal politics.

So it’s worth thinking about the lessons we’ll take from Warren’s candidacy, not only if she wins the Democratic nomination — but also if she loses. The risks in failing to confront sexism in politics may seem obvious. And if nothing else, the spat between Warren and Sanders brought the issue into plain view, perhaps forcing more voters to grapple with it as the Iowa caucuses draw closer. But there’s also a danger, Dolan said, in taking for granted that it’s a decisive factor, particularly as women running for president becomes more routine. “Yes, we need to call out sexism when we see it,” she said. “But we also need to avoid the assumption that when a woman fails, it’s because she’s a woman.”

[naliewoes]

Today's Marriage Trends and Difficulties in America

Over the past couple of decades the marriage trends in the United States of America have changed a lot. Just thirty years ago the median age for first marriages for women was about 24 years old and for men it was 26 years old. Now days the median ages are about 27 years old for women and 29 years old for men. About forty to fifty percent of first marriages end in divorce. Because of the rise in divorces there are many more step families/blended families. Also, cohabitation is widely practiced and in many cases it is used as an alternative to marriage. Far more children are being born out of wedlock and are being raised in single parent homes or in homes where their parents are cohabitating (sometimes the parents will marry, but many of them end up separating). Couples are also waiting to have children later in their marriage and are having fewer children. Additionally, the debate about gay rights has become more prominent in recent years and homosexualism is heard of more than ever before.

In the midst of all these changes, those Americans who have been affected by this the most (or who have attributed the most to these statistics) are those defined as the “Middle America” or those who “have a high school but not a four-year college degree”. About sixty percent of Americans between the ages of 25 and 60 fall into this category. This group has seen the greatest decline in stable marriages. And these statistics are just a few of the basics about the marriage trends in America now days.

All of these marriage trends are troubling to many throughout the states. The family is the central unite of our society and it has been struggling/fading in many respects/areas. A few papers, articles, studies, and talks that show all of this are:

The State of Our Unions: Marriage in America 2012: The President’s Marriage Agenda by The National Marriage Project and the Institute for American Values

The Impact of Family Formation Change on the Cognitive, Social, and Emotional Well-Being of the Next Generation by Paul R. Amato

Divorce by Dallin H. Oaks)

Families Can Be Eternal by Spencer W. Kimball

Father Come Home by James E. Faust

Divorce School for Kids videoed by ABC News

In my opinion, the ones who suffer the most from all these trends are the children of America. Fewer children are being born and those who are born are more and more likely to be born into divorced, or blended, or single parent homes. There have been many studies done to show how these things affect children in and throughout different areas of their life. All of it chalks up to be mostly harmful/difficult for them. A few things that these children deal with are:

·         Feeling torn between the parents

·         Getting into drugs and alcohol

·         Moving from one place to another

·         Being teased

·         Not having the proper support or guidance

·         Having to take on grownup responsibilities while they’re still young

·         Weaker emotional bonds with their parents

·         A fear that they might end up in the same situation as their parents

·         Feeling that they are somehow to blame

·         Depression and/or anxiety

I have a dear friend whose parents divorced when she was very young. Growing up she felt torn between her two parents and felt like it was a competition between them. She’s related to me how difficult it was to go back and forth between the two houses and to essentially have two separate lives. She had to mature quickly for one of her parents in order to help emotionally support them and do things for their family (like making sure that the payments for their utility bills were taken care of). She struggled with feelings of self-worth and worried about her future. Nevertheless, she is one of the few who are lucky enough to change their lives around and to make things better for themselves and their own future families. She knew she wanted something different, something more, for herself and her future children. With the help/support from her friends and the Lord, she is raising her own family with her loving husband by her side. They are giving their children something that she never had: a family that can last for time and all eternity.

[asiawrites]

The Ramblings Inside My Creative Mind: You Might Be A Homophobe If...

        I’m not going to be nice in this post because I’m absolutely tired of the same repetitive bullshit when it comes to marginalized groups. In 2019 I refuse to keep going back and forth and back and forth with people when my underlying message to everyone is to let everyone live their best lives. Period. 

        So, whether you watched the Oscars or not. Whether you know who Billy Porter is or not (He’s on Pose, was on the last season of American Horror Story, and for me personally, I will always remember him from the movie The Broken Hearts Club) you know that Billy came to slay your whole life in an amazing tuxedo dress that was an homage to Hector Xtravaganza who is very well known in the ballroom community and recently passed in December. No matter your opinion on sexuality you have to admit that the dress was fierce. That’s what award shows are all about, the fashion.

           Something as simple as a dress on a man is causing so much controversy and as I see it, personally, especially in the black community. I don’t know why when a person of color decides to live loud and proud other black people scream out about a “gay agenda” or “wHat aM I SuPPoSeD tO TeLl mY kiDs?” or just throw out some random bible verse. Frankly, I sick of it. There’s no “agenda”. I’m 36 years old. Homosexuality wasn’t as talked about when I was a kid as it is now. We really only had a character on a few tv shows like “My So-Called Life” and a few others. Guess what? People still grew up to be gay. So how can someone being themselves make another person be something that they’re not? The only way another man is going to be gay is if he has a love of dick. He’s not going to do it as a fashion trend. I just don’t see how a community who wants so badly to unite and completely dismiss a whole group of people. You can’t say “We all need to come together.... Except for you gay folks. Keep that shit over there.” It’s beyond ridiculous. Some people could have children in their homes who may be LGBTQ+ and they’d never know because the child has heard them bash LGBTQ people so much that they live in fear of being unloved, kicked out, beaten, or worse. 

           People are really out here pressed about a few extra feet of cloth. You don’t want to wear a dress? Cool. Don’t wear one, but don’t state that if another man decides to that it’s the feminization of black men. A handful of people do not represent the masses. No one says that gangs like the Crips or Bloods make all black men look bad so how does a few famous gay black men make all black men look bad. We always talk about not letting someones bad behavior speak for us as a whole, but then we do shit like this. Why are we so uncomfortable with ANOTHER person’s sexuality that we actually kill them for it? Why are we so uncomfortable with ANOTHER person’s sexuality that we shun them for it? We take away homes, kids, and jobs for it. Someone help me understand. A black woman that is a lesbian doesn’t make me feel any less feminine. A black woman that is a lesbian doesn’t make me feel uncomfortable in a bathroom or locker room. I don’t feel the need to bash her when all she’s trying to do is work, go to school, get groceries, pay bills, provide for her family, and enjoy life the same way I am. 

         I wish that our community was a little more accepting of each other. Other communities have their issues. I know this, but it’s safe to say that our history is horrific, so why now in 2019 can’t we come together to tackle bigger issues like police brutality, the fucked up prison system, gentrification, etc. ALL of us need to come together. Not just straight black people. Not just black men. Not just black millenials. ALL OF US, gay, straight, light, dark, poor, rich, high school dropouts, college graduates, the elderly, the young, male, female, and in between? We need everyone. Why can’t everyone grasp that? If you set people in their little cliques nothing gets done. We do such a poor job or looking out for one another. If we’re not blaming gay poc for making us all look bad we’re blaming young black girls for getting raped because they’re “fast”, and if we’re not doing that, we’re blaming women for wearing makeup and being fake, if not that we call all black men deadbeat fathers, and so on and so on. When do we ACTUALLY start to stand up for each other? 

        In short, I don’t have time for the fuck shit. I support LGBTQ. I will not stand silent while people try to bash or harm anyone living their lives. I will also not deal with any other sexual and race based phobia. I don’t have time for the -ists either. racist, sexist, ableist, etc. The world would be a better place if y’all just knew how to leave people the fuck alone and mind your business. So worried about a man in a dress that you’re not even paying attention to the skeletons falling out of your own closet. 

-Asia Aneka Anderson, 2019(c)

[randomthoughts123sblog]

What's Wrong with a Few School Shootings?

School shootings – they’re tragic, aren’t they?  This disrupt my day for a few minutes when I hear about them on the news, and it’s particularly upsetting when it interrupts Wheel of Fortune or Yellowstone.

I’m a Republican.  My pronouns are “Rich”, “Successful”, and “Manly”.  I don’t care if those aren’t pronouns; they identify as such.  And I’m not afraid to call it like it is:  my kids don’t go to the schools that are being shot up.  My friends, and every lawmaker in DC – and the ones that can afford it outside of Washington – send their kids to private schools.  No one’s shooting at rich kids. 

Look, if your kids are dying for no reason, I’m sorry (not sorry). But the fact is, they’re collateral damage so that people like me can have our guns.  It’s a shame that innocent children are dying, but here in America we have a right to bear arms, and that right should never be imposed on.  And why would the Founding Fathers give us the right to have guns if they didn’t intend for us to use them?   If you’re a kid, or a psycho, or even a negro, you should be able to buy guns and do whatever you want with them.  Well, maybe not the negroes so much, but nothing should ever be done to take the guns away from good white people (and we’re all good, by the way). 

We’re at war with the immigrants, gays, leftists and uppity college graduates that want to make it harder for some of us to have guns.  And in every war, there are casualties.  Kids being shot at school are unfortunate victims of this war.  When we win – and Trump help us, we will – every person in the country will have guns, will carry them everywhere, and we will be a much safer country for it.   In the meantime, send your kids to school with Ted Cruz’s little ones, or to whatever wealthy Caucasian private school your Congressman or Senator sends their kids – the reason we don’t have laws restricting guns is that the people making the laws don’t have to worry about their loved ones being harmed.  If your kids are in schools with theirs, your kids are going to be safe.  Everyone else?  Well, they’re in a game of Russian Roulette, only with more victims.  Too bad for you.

Also, who’s to say these shootings are even real?  The Jews that control Hollywood could easily stage some “school shootings” and release the footage as “news”.  Thank God we have people like Alex Jones to harass the parents of the supposed victims, and the NRA to arrive quickly to remind the hysterical that guns don’t kill people, people with guns kill people.

And any Republican can tell you that the easiest way to stop school shootings is to arm the children.  Why are we spending so much money teaching kids things like history or English when we could be teaching them how to shoot?  Shit, ain’t they learnin good English at home?  They should be out on the firing range an hour a day rather than learning about things that don’t even exist, like dinosaurs and evolution.  Let them get their history and science from the Bible.

Thoughts, prayers, yada, yada, yada.  I look forward to the day when there’s a school shooting and it doesn’t even make the news.  We all have more important things to do than hear about kids that should be in expensive schools or armed to the teeth being killed by someone that is just exercising his constitutional right to own a gun and use it.  Now, pardon me, but I’m going to Walmart to stock up on ammo before Pelosi and Biden use this “tragedy” to push their commie agenda of promoting free health care or higher education and taking away our rights to put money where it’s really important:  getting guns into the hands of every white man and controlling the bodies of our womenfolk.

[moonlit-maiden]

I was honestly so excited for the live-action Beauty and the Beast when they first announced that they were making it, but now after seeing practically everything for it, I'm not so sure. I can't enjoy the soundtrack and hearing Emma Watson's voice b/c it's so clear that it's auto-tuned and I just?? They should have picked a Broadway actress or an actress with a musical background. Her yellow dress is absolutely horrendous and I've seen so many better cosplay versions (1/?)

from cosplayers and even when they recreated Belle’s dress and the dancing scene on Once Upon A Time (a modern retelling of classic fairy tales) on a later season. Belle is my absolute favourite Disney princess and is one of my role models that I looked up to growing up. I’m so scared that watching this movie is going to ruin that for me now. While I’m excited to see the library (my first love, haha) and Josh Gad’s performance as Le Fou, my expectations for the movie are so very low now (2/2)

My friend @ringo-ichigo is a BIG Belle fan too and she too hates what she’s seen so far. The change with the yellow dress, ultimately, symbolizes how much Emma forced the writers to bend to her agenda. Like, look, she can have her political opinions and ideals. I’m not saying that. But she changed so much of the core that it’s kind of scary.

The one no one really talks about is Belle being an inventor, not her father. She, apparently, takes her father’s inventions and makes them better. Emma had the father’s role reduced to the damsel in distress, ironically. I could work with the ‘Belle as an inventor’ angle if it was a partnership. A father-daughter inventor duo would be awesome!!! It would also encourage girls to want to choose engineering and other STEM fields more; isn’t that part of the feminist agenda? Wouldn’t that be a good change and not shafting the father?

Then there’s LeFou being gay. I think that was pointless. COULD he be? Eeeh… if you stretch. LeFou always struck me as a 'yes man’ and hero-worshipping Gaston, not wanting to fuck him. Though, I think people are overreacting with regards to that. I think it was unneeded but it’s not THAT big of a deal and I can leave it be. But the actor’s performance is SO damn spot-on I am genuinely looking foreword to seeing it!!

The castle looks great, the servants look great too. The CGI is REAL damn good in this, like in Jungle Book. So a positive. But I too am worried Emma shoving her feminist ideals so much into the movie to the point of actually harming certain moments and characters will make it fall apart.

I’d say, if you feel brave enough, go see the movie. I know I will. That’s the best way to figure out how you feel. And regardless of how it ends up, don’t let it take away from your joy and connection to Belle. The best part about characters is that, if they’re reinvented a lot, you can choose the one you prefer and stick to that version. :) I'll also probably write up a review of it once I go see it.

[groundramon]

'i hate the party that doesnt explicitly support trans people as well as it should and the party that explicitly wants to make it legal to be violent towards trans people equally' is absolutely a reasonable, responsible position. yup. nice work. it's not just your life on the line, pal. that holier-than-voting attitude hurts the entire lgbt community.

That’s not what I fucking said.  If it was that simple then duh.

I hate the party that abuses minorities to fit their political agenda and wants to shape the country in a way i believe is harmful for my future (as in, collapsing the economy so bad that I die) as much as the party that believes freedom of speech is more important than my inalienable rights and safety as a human being.

Big democrats don’t give a fuck about me any more than big republicans.  They just want to keep themselves in power by going after the people who were shunned by the other side.  A lot of republicans don’t want us dead either, they just want us to conform to their side.  Quite frankly, the democrats aren’t any different than that.  Dare I point out how Hillary Clinton’s husband used the whitehouse to assault women, and how she defended them, and I’ll be called a nazi apologist.  I always want to be careful with any potential racism or antisemitism that I may have internalized, but I’m also not going to shut up about how the Clintons are NOT good people.

And im not holier than thou!! god bless the people who go out and vote!!! but i for one do not have the mental stability to exercise that right at the moment because of blatant political lies from both sides and the fact that tumblr likes to fearmonger and spread rumors.

I reblog things without fact checking but unlike on tumblr, IRL me ACTUALLY CARES about fact checking, and fact checking thoroughly.  And sometimes I factcheck things on tumblr and they’re a load of crap.  Other times they’re very real.  But it’s exhausting to have to do thorough research on everything, especially when even mainstream media (and i dont mean in a “CNN and New York Times are Liberal Scum but Fox News is an objective source” way btw, fox news sucks absolute ass and most other news sources just depend on the author) isn’t reliable.

I can’t handle the stress of participating in democracy when I’m being manipulated at every angle and will never get my facts straight until I’m able to read Complex Shit That I Don’t Understand (like actual statistics).

I’m not allowing you to emotionally manipulate me into voting your way when I can’t make an informed decision.  I’ll do things my way and I’m not going to let you make me feel bad about myself for taking care of myself.

And do you think I was fucking having a panic attack over MY life?  I could care less about my own life.  It’s my friends lives that I’m worried about.  All the kind trans people I’ve had the pleasure of meeting throughout my life.  I’d live the rest of my life in the closet if it meant they could all be respected for who they are for the rest of their lives.

Unfortunately, I don’t believe republicans or democrats will give that to us.  Or rather, I don’t believe the people I would be able to vote for at these midterms would affect it.

I’ve actually done legitimate research into the house representatives running for this election in my area and I’ve had a very hard time finding their stances on issues I care about.  The republican candidate’s policies on government spending make the most sense to me, however her votes for LGBT rights are all over the place.  The democratic candidate’s policies on government are exactly the problem with California, and I want no part of that spreading to the federal government, thanks.

Keep in mind that the richest fucks in the USA live primarily in California.  All those hollywood abusers?  California!  They’re friends with politicians and shit-whatnot and California hasn’t done hell about it.

California is such a different state than most of the USA.  Part of the reason I put a “don’t RB” on my original post (but not the primary reason) is because it’s something that only a select few individuals in the USA can relate to.  A lot of places have a VERY different culture than California, and I know this.  I’m not voting between someone who wants gay people dead and someone who wants gay people alive - there’s much more to them than that and furthermore, there aren’t a lot of republicans in southern california that are on that extremist side.  Homophobic republicans, yes of course.  But my parents are shocked whenever I bring up violent homophobes despite being VERY homophobic themselves.

In my case, I’m voting between someone who has had a very wish-washy stance on LGBT people (re-elected) and someone who wants to reform healthcare and government budgets in a way I don’t agree with.

I just turned 18 less than a month ago.  In the future, I plan to exercise my right - in particular I will for the next presidential election (altho lets face it, unless an independent candidate makes it, California will go blue anyways and all its votes will go to the democratic candidate).  But I am not going to make an uninformed vote when I know I’ve been fed propaganda from both sides.

(I’m saying both sides not because I’m equating democrats to rebublicans btw, I’m saying it because I’ve been fed conservative propaganda all my life, and I’m still working to unlearn it.  And the lies that float around the leftist internet don’t help me unlearn my biases at all.)

So fuck off, anon.

[randomthoughts123sblog]

School Shootings Aren't Tragic

School shootings – they’re tragic, aren’t they?  This disrupt my day for a few minutes when I hear about them on the news, and it’s particularly upsetting when it interrupts Wheel of Fortune or Yellowstone.

I’m a Republican.  My pronouns are “Rich”, “Successful”, and “Manly”.  I don’t care if those aren’t pronouns; they identify as such.  And I’m not afraid to call it like it is:  my kids don’t go to the schools that are being shot up.  My friends, and every lawmaker in DC – and the ones that can afford it outside of Washington – send their kids to private schools.  No one’s shooting at rich kids. 

Look, if your kids are dying for no reason, I’m sorry (not sorry). But the fact is, they’re collateral damage so that people like me can have our guns.  It’s a shame that innocent children are dying, but here in America we have a right to bear arms, and that right should never be imposed on.  And why would the Founding Fathers give us the right to have guns if they didn’t intend for us to use them?   If you’re a kid, or a psycho, or even a negro, you should be able to buy guns and do whatever you want with them.  Well, maybe not the negroes so much, but nothing should ever be done to take the guns away from good white people (and we’re all good, by the way). 

We’re at war with the immigrants, gays, leftists and uppity college graduates that want to make it harder for some of us to have guns.  And in every war, there are casualties.  Kids being shot at school are unfortunate victims of this war.  When we win – and Trump help us, we will – every person in the country will have guns, will carry them everywhere, and we will be a much safer country for it.   In the meantime, send your kids to school with Ted Cruz’s little ones, or to whatever wealthy Caucasian private school your Congressman or Senator sends their kids – the reason we don’t have laws restricting guns is that the people making the laws don’t have to worry about their loved ones being harmed.  If your kids are in schools with theirs, your kids are going to be safe.  Everyone else?  Well, they’re in a game of Russian Roulette, only with more victims.  Too bad for you.

Also, who’s to say these shootings are even real?  The Jews that control Hollywood could easily stage some “school shootings” and release the footage as “news”.  Thank God we have people like Alex Jones to harass the parents of the supposed victims, and the NRA to arrive quickly to remind the hysterical that guns don’t kill people, people with guns kill people.

And any Republican can tell you that the easiest way to stop school shootings is to arm the children.  Why are we spending so much money teaching kids things like history or English when we could be teaching them how to shoot?  Shit, ain’t they learnin good English at home?  They should be out on the firing range an hour a day rather than learning about things that don’t even exist, like dinosaurs and evolution.  Let them get their history and science from the Bible.

Thoughts, prayers, yada, yada, yada.  I look forward to the day when there’s a school shooting and it doesn’t even make the news.  We all have more important things to do than hear about kids that should be in expensive schools or armed to the teeth being killed by someone that is just exercising his constitutional right to own a gun and use it.  Now, pardon me, but I’m going to Walmart to stock up on ammo before Pelosi and Biden use this “tragedy” to push their commie agenda of promoting free health care or higher education and taking away our rights to put money where it’s really important:  getting guns into the hands of every white man and controlling the bodies of our womenfolk.