#and while he's often represented as having his mind on the physical world that doesnt mean that with the right exposure he wouldnt pick itup | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

meggannn · 5 years ago

Note

Thoughts and analysis on Gen. Armstrong (if you don't mind)

oh absolutely. a lot of this is speculation on my part, but it’s just my reading and theories on how she kind of came to be who she is.

so i vibe with armstrongs being a very traditional, patriarchal family in a very old-fashioned country. they had four daughters, olivier being the oldest and (arguably) most capable, but alex, the second youngest kid but only son, was the one chosen to lead the family. i think that olivier carried a lot of the burdens of being the oldest sibling and oldest daughter.

maybe olivier was the first daughter in the armstrong family in a long list of sons? i like that idea because it kind of has the opportunity harden her to the world as a kid, in my mind. a lot of excitement for the firstborn in an illustrious family, and… it’s a girl. ugh. okay, well, we’ll try again.

except i think olivier really decided to just start doing whatever she thought a male firstborn would get to do, taking her studies seriously, preparing to be the armstrong heir, and her family just kinda sighed and didn’t take her seriously. when she joins the military, i am going to bet that she either had to fight for it, or there was a lot of familial backlash/tsking between her parents because ~a woman shouldnt be in the army~ (i am operating under the belief she’s the only female officer to ever make it to general, because to my recollection i don’t think we’ve ever seen another female officer as high or higher than her). and when alex follows her to the military years later, i’m going to bet she was L I V I D when their parents were like “well of course, he’s the oldest son, he’s going to make us proud.” there were screaming matches of epic proportions when she joined, and when he does, it’s all fine. (even alex as an adult isn’t entirely rid of sexism when he asks when she’s ever gonna change her attitude so she can get a husband. and when she challenges his right to head the family, he arguably loses because he underestimated her. although i’m also going to chalk part of that up to the fact that although alex wanted to head the family, he didn’t NEED to win as badly as olivier needed to, because she needed to kick their family out and use the mansion to house her troops to prepare for the promised day. that’s the kind of person she is, “i need this to happen and so it will happen, i will give myself no other option.”)

i don’t think that olivier is the kind of person who pushes her limits to try to “prove” anything to other people; maybe she started by trying to mostly prove it to herself, but it eventually just became who she is. no nonsense. very protective, but maybe tired of taking care of kids/siblings. highly capable, very savvy. perfect for briggs. i think she takes her role as their leader VERY seriously. she knows she’s earned it, and up north defending the border, she sees how every person matters.

i’ve always wondered if there’s something in how olivier is stationed at briggs, the furthest possible post away from central. i don’t think it’s to get away from anything, exactly; it does seem like the best job suited for her. i think partly this represents her physical distance and distain for politics: she clearly looks down on mustang, possibly because he’s a state alchemist, and maybe part of it is for his reputation of being an annoying flirt who can charm his way up the ranks while maybe she had to fight for every rank she earned, though i think also part of it is because she thinks he’s naive to join the very system he’s trying to abolish. but as we see in late show, she’s not terrible at the politics and backstabbing, i think she just doesn’t like to deal with bullshit. she’s a very blunt person. she’ll play chess if she has to, clearly, but when she pulls the sword on the room full of officers, you know she’s been waiting MONTHS to do that.

she also doesn’t like alchemy. i’ve always wondered if there’s a reason behind this – the wiki says “she views [equivalent exchange] as a mindset promoting easy handouts and unnecessary compromise” so i’m guessing she doesnt like philosophies that base themselves around quid pro quo agreements, especially since it leads very easily to corruption. the armstrongs are a very noble family that take that sort of thing seriously. i think she’s smart enough to realize alchemy is often NECESSARY, but the state alchemists themselves are… ugh. difficult to deal with and probably almost always really bossy. and think they’re so fuckin special. and also all male. so it’s no wonder she doesn’t give a shit about edward elric, some kid who shows up with no warning with a letter from her annoying brother, asking for her help.

so already she has a chip on her shoulder about alex: he’s a younger sibling she had to take care of; he’s a younger BROTHER who got more support and fewer roadblocks than she did for achieving (or even wanting) the same things way before he ever did; he’s also an alchemist, and state alchemist. she’d see that as annoying at best and borderline dishonorable at worst.

and then ishval.

so for the record, i fully believe that by the events of canon, olivier’s intense disgust for alex for his “cowardly” actions in ishval is mostly, if not entirely, an act. i think it’s EASY for her to act like it’s real, because she struggles with real feelings of hostility and annoyance toward alex for the reasons above, and she WOULD probably think he’s a poor soldier for defying orders…… but would she openly advocate for genocide? she’s not perfect, but i don’t think that of her. but she lets absolutely none of that internal questioning show on the outside. externally? “my brother is a disgrace. he failed to protect this country. if i were head of the family, i’d dishonor him publicly.” and alex, you know, i think he sees past this, a little? he knows she has to say these things otherwise she’d lose her reputation and might also be demoted, given she’s on a rickety foundation as a woman general as is. she doesn’t have to be so passionate about her opinions, but she might also have gained a target on her back by his actions in ishval; maybe they’d assume she had ishvallan sympathies because he was her brother. so she’s already got enough baggage against alex, and he inadvertently dumps some more political bullshit on her back just because he didn’t do his job. i think she’d say the things she did to distance herself from alex, not because she’s angry with him or disappointed in him (though there is a bit of that, but for unrelated reasons), to keep her position. she’s very ruthless politically. you could question the morality of this, like i do, but i don’t entirely blame her for feeling like she could lose her position as the only female general in charge of defending a politically hot border position.

fma has a rather annoying “we don’t see color” attitude wrt race at times, but in the case of olivier, whose attitude after all the years in briggs is “we literally cannot afford to be prejucide, there are so few capable people here, and if someone works, they are part of the team and will be treated with respect, full stop” it makes sense why she’d say what she said to miles. it’s not that i think she’s an ishvallan activist behind the scenes because of her lieutenant, but i think she knows the “war” was complete horseshit and fully respects his bitter feelings toward the amestrian government.

privately, though, i think olivier knows clearly that this country is messed up, before “the shape of this country.” but she has a very powerful family, and it’s hard to completely renounce that dedication. she still loves amestris a lot. she feels very protective of the people she’s defending, even if she doesn’t like them very much.

i respect that she swallows her pride, gives up briggs, and joins the political battle in central when it becomes clear that that’s the best way to get to the center of the matter. imo she and roy mustang teaming up, unnoticed, in the heart of the beast could have made an amazing combo, but ofc she’d never let that happen lmao. she is a good person without being a nice person. that’s refreshing. she’s ruthless, pragmatic, ambitious, angry, untrusting, and kind of an asshole, and yet you never doubt that she is, at heart, honorable and trustworthy. she will tell you what she thinks of you. she hates lying. but she will cave and do what the people of amestris needs her to do; we see she IS able to separate her government from her country. i think she always knew, but the events of the show are kind of her “put up or shut up” moment to stand up and show where her loyalties really are, and she delivered. she’d be offended if you ever even thought she might choose differently.

i love olivier a lot because she doesn’t have an arc in the traditional sense; her personality and position don’t change much from the time we meet her to the last time we see her. her biggest change is that she lets herself show pride in her brother, or maybe she’s able to admit that she’s proud of him in the first place. i think for her, that’s enough. i also really, really like that she’s not shown as someone who NEEDS to change. she’s allowed to be an angry, confident, strong woman in charge of a fort who likes things the way she likes them and expects you bend to her rules in her fort or you will leave. i think it’s a great accomplishment and testament to the writing and acting to show that she is not nice, and not always likable, but you never question she is a good person.

#olivier mira armstrong #Anonymous #askbox #megan talks about fma

24 notes · View notes

zenosanalytic · 5 years ago

Video

youtube

Great Beasts of Legend: Centaurs, Sirens and Chimaera: The Greeks and th...

I know I’ve posted this lecture by Dr. Jeremy McInerney before, but I was watching it again(third time; really love this one uwu) and at 41:55 he starts a discussion of a boundaries-based reading of Centaurs(good target for that given the melding/muddying of boundary btw animal and man Centaurs represent[1]), beginning with the Herakles, Deianira, Nessos Myth that I feel he doesn’t quite hit though he makes/brings up other great points and it made me want to write a short little thing about why this myth, specifically, is really open to such a reading:

Ok so the basic outline: Herakles and Deianira are traveling, they come to the river Evinos where Nessos[2], the Centaur, is selling his services as a living ferry(ppl sit on him and he carries them across). Herakles, of course, decides to swim across and pays Nessos to carry Deianira across. While doing so, Nessos attempts to rape her, Deianira calls for help, and Herakles whips out his bow and arrows dipped in Hydra’s blood, and shoots Nessos dead. As he dies but before Herakles reaches them, Nessos tells Deianira to take a vial of his blood(sometimes blood mixed with his semen). The story splits interestingly here, so remember this point for later. Years down the road, Herakles is off in some part of Greece partying in celebration of yet another city he’s plundered, and he sends a train of new slaves taken from said city-plundering back home, along with a messenger with an off-hand request to Deianira that she send his favorite cloak along cuz he plans to keep partying for quite a long while. This is another point of ambiguity in the story and its retellings so remember it, too. She steeps his cloak in water mixed with the vial of Nessos’s blood, sends it along and, while the poison doesnt kill Herakles cuz he’s part god and Hydra’s poisonous blood isn’t powerful enough to do that, it DOES cause him such enormous, unending pain that he builds his own funeral pyre and burns himself alive, apotheosizing into a god in the process.

So, regarding Boundaries:

Nessos, obvsl, is a physical manifestation of the close and ever-present boundary between humans and beasts; btw self-control and indulgence; btw “civilized” behavior and “uncivilized”, as discussed above, and particularly of the threat of rape Greek men present to Greek women.

This story involves a River, a physical boundary

Rivers are ALSO what separate the world of the living from the world of the dead to the Greeks, and this is a story ABOUT TWO DEATHS, both tied directly TO a River(one taking place in it, during the act of crossing it; the other a long-term effect of that event[but also Herakles’s hubris, though most versions, being written for men, don’t emphasize that totally obvs aspect of it]).

Not only that, it’s LITERALLY the story of Herakles’s apotheosis: of how he comes to finally transcend the boundary between God and Mortal which he has straddled his whole life.

Herakles is celebrating the sack of a city, ie, his violation&destruction of the Boundaries defining said city, when he dies. Greek cities are often protected by female divinities(Athena usually), so it’s yet another symbol of rape.

So Split 1: In most versions, the reason Nessos gives for why she should take his blood is that it is a powerful love potion that will ensure Herakles remains faithful to her if his eye ever strays. BUT, also in most versions, this is a lie and he’s secretly trying to poison Herakles, though how would he know Herakles’ arrows are poisoned with Hydra-blood? I remember reading a version where he presents it to her AS POISON, explaining about the Hydra, but I cant find any mention of it online, so maybe my brain’s just making it up(or maybe this was the Hercules TV Show version X|).

Split 2: BUT BUT, while in most version Deianira sends the cloak out of desperation to keep him faithful(and of course there’s a particular slave girl in the train she’s warned about just so all of this can be EXTRA the fault of women, rather than Herakles for being a giant asshole like he always is), in other versions she sends it OUT OF VENGEANCE, TO FUCK HIM UP because Herakles is being a giant asshole, wrecking up Greece, partying as much as he likes, flaunting his rapes and his victims in her face(this is VERY RELEVANT given the nature of other versions of this story), and leaving her to run his household alone while ordering her around like she’s a slave rather than his Wife.

These are mutually exclusive: she cannot be both seeking to punish him, and trying, in anguished desperation, to keep him faithful to her[3].

Herakles in this story, as is ALWAYS THE CASE IN ALL HIS STORIES, is flaunting the boundaries of Proper Behavior, in this case those defining a happy and successful marriage(IE Hera’s Domain; which you’d THINK would be kind of relevant, given the deep narrative connection between Hera and Herakles and her quickness to anger regarding marriage violations, yet it somehow perennially goes unmentioned), and getting punished for it.

Now here’s an ADDED kicker. There’s a version of this story were Herakles initiates the conflict. one day he visits the house of Deianira’s father, Dexamenus, and while a guest, rapes her. Dexamenus can’t fight Herakles, of course, but he demands by the gods and tradition that Herakles marry Deianira to “repair” the injury(WE LIVE IN HELL!), and Herakles agrees. After he leaves to prepare for the wedding, a local Centaur, Eurytion(name meaning “Widely Honored”) visits Dexamenus and proposes to marry Deianira himeself(you know: without the whole BEING HER RAPIST thing), and Dexamenus complies. Herakles arrives a few days later, kills Eurytion, and sees that their marriage is carried out. Presumably in this version, the blood poisoning the cloak would be Eurytion’s.

What I’ve tried to get across here is that, among other things, there are readings of this myth were Herakles is the bad guy and Deianira the agent of divine punishment, if not the actual Protagonist. And those readings suggest certain ideas we would be prone to consider “modern” about the agency of women, consent, personal and social boundaries, morality, Greek ~Heroic Masculinity~, and yes even Centaurs, might not have been so alien and “anachronistic” to the ancient Greek mind as we tend to think.

But anyway, even if you think that particular part of my little argument here is total Bunk, I hope I’ve managed to get across that Deianira and the Cloak is a myth Absolutely LOUSY with the theme of Boundaries, what they mean, what it means to Cross them, and the Consequences for which you Cross, when, how, and plain just choosing to cross them in the first place. It’s a really great example for him to suggest for this particular topic, and it really inspired me quite a lot today, and I just wish there was a lecture online where he developed it further uwu

[1]And not only that, but of course owning horses was a common sign of aristocratic status, and trading horses a common aristocratic activity(this is one way you know Hesiod’s claims of poverty are a put-on; his family breeds and sells horses). I feel like it’s pretty well understood that Centaurs are in someway a commentary and meditation upon the nature of Greek masculinity, on the capacity for violent cruelty and wanton appetite Greeks inculcated men into beside all the talk of civilized society, but I also feel it’s less well understood how open they also are to a similar reading regarding the appetites and barbaric capacities specifically of the upper classes of Greek society.

[2]In some versions Nessos and Herakles actually have a history, and the whole incident is Nessos’s attempt at vengeance. There is another story, where Herakles visits a centaur who is his friend named Pholos, and a gang of nearby Centaurs(I like to think they were Rowdy Teens myself u_u) smell the wine they’re drinking and crash the party to share some. Herakles, being Herakles, of course immediately begins killing them for the perceived insult, which inevitably leads NOT ONLY to Pholos dying(cuz Herakles isn’t careful and shoots him too, or in other vers bcuz he refuses to so much as retrieve his arrows from the bodies due to concerns with “pollution” from the corpses, and Pholos cuts himself on one of the arrows), but ALSO the poisoning, and eventual death, of Chiron, who was one of Pholos’s neighbors and who Herakles accidentally knicked while wildly chasing down and shooting the interlopers. Nessos is one of these Centaur teens, and the only centaur in the whole situation to survive (:T

[3]Which, btw, the whole “faithful” thing doesnt make much sense(even though it pops up regularly in Greek Myth), because her “competitor” in these versions is a slave. These next sentences are going to be gross and awful, but in the society which told these stories male slave-owners already had unrestricted sexual access to their slaves and, beyond that, I’ve never read a single example in Greek or Roman sources of a slave being legitimized and married as a wife(which doesnt mean such examples dont exist; I’m an amateur). So the idea that a slave could threaten Deianira’s position as Herakles’s wife seems very dubious to me(as does the general trope of slave women as threats to wives in Greek stories). Again: this is all super-awful, but it’s something complicating the traditional presentation of the myth, which is rarely addressed because most academics writing for a general audience are super-loath to deal with classical slavery as the awful, body and soul crushing institution which it was.

#Penn Museum #Dr. Jeremy McInerney #cw: rape #cw: slavery #Classical Greece #Centaurs #Boundaries #Myth Analysis #Mythic Themes #Agency #Female Protagonists #analytic posts #Critical Analysis #zA Opinions #Video #Youtube

8 notes · View notes

neonstatic · 6 years ago

Text

(transcripted convo)

i’m reposting a discussion i had w a terf. i previously posted screenshots but she messaged me and said she didn’t want her url or avatar displayed. editing the pics to post them again was hell so i’m posting a script instead (i learned my lesson tumblr: you suck). if anyone ends up finding the convo and thus the redacted speaker... idc. this is a public website and we technically had this convo in public - the notes of a post aren’t private spaces afaik. i’m posting this as proof that sometimes calmly reasoning with ppl lead to nothing. (i know anyone could say the same but lmao leave me alone.)

tw for transphobia/transmisogyny

[redacted] (speaking to a transmasc discourser about the "woman path"): Ok let me explain what I mean :) if your experience was totally different then thats fine :) im 24 and when I was little i was encouraged to play with dolls and learn 'motherly things' like playing with baby dolls while my brother played with toy trucks. There was a lot of pressure at school to wear dresses, and be sweet and polite. @[transmasc discourser] then of course, learning to deal with periods and the shame and taboo around them. Removing body hair because its considered unladylike. Etc

@[transmasc discourser] have you had none of those experiences?

neonbaebae: these are all common experiences for women bc of gender roles/stereotypes but none of that defines womanhood as an identity.

[redacted]: completely agree they are gender roles. But menstruation isnt a gender role. Its a frustrating part of being female. But that said, what IS womanhood then?

(rest under cut)

neonbaebae: menstruation is a biological function that is in no way exclusive to female bodies. remember intersex ppl, who come in all forms and shapes. women aren't all the same and it's likewise for men. there are intersex women who don't fit all the criteria for being "female" yet still identify as women. there is a distinction to make between womanhood as an experience and womanhood as an identity.

the woman experience is what you've described. the woman identity is feeling like one, e.g.: liking female-coded clothes, makeup, hairstyles, feeling comfortable in the societal role of being a woman. identity is essentially abt self perception most of the time

[redacted]: intersex is unique and I respect that not all womens bodies are the same. Intersexuality is complex but it doesnt represent the majority of biological women. I dont have a strong baclground in intersex knowledge so I'm certainly not gonna speak on behalf of intersex women. so if identity is self perception (which I completely agree with) how can a biological man self perceive his femaleness.if he's never experienced it?

neonbaebae: trans women never identify with being male and all in entails. and they can see, thru watching women counterparts and how they interact with the world around them, that they id more w the idea of womanhood and much less w the idea of manhood. it's esp why dysphoria often settles around puberty bc the dissonance manifests physically and that's harder to handle

[redacted]: but what youre talking about is what trans women see women do. If thats what someone aspires to, its a very basic and narrow understanding of what womanhood is. Its only what they see. And people are far more complex than this. Does a biological male aspire to periods stigma, beauty conformity and lesser social stance in the world? Or do they aspire to femininity? Something many biological women dont feel comfortable with

neonbaebae: womanhood as an identity is a feeling that is strengthened by a disconnection to manhood, its polar opposite. someone who completely rejects the idea of being man is likely to prefer being a woman (not always but likely!). many trans women do aspire to femininity and it has nothing to do with the cis women who are uncomfortable w it, just like there are many cis women who embrace it too.

many trans women cannot quite explain their transition in another way than "being a man felt wrong but being a woman feels right and authentic to my true self". i'd suggest to ask an actual trans woman for her pov tho since i'm not one, i'm just basing myself on what i've heard them say

[redacted]: but feeling disconnected with manhood (which is understandable and gender roles are frustrating) doesnt make someone the opposite of a man. As society we need to open our understanding of gender expression. But this isnt the same as thinking 'if I dont feel like a conventional man or connect with male social expectations, then I must be the opposite'. Theres no logic in that

we live in a world where gender stereotype binaries are considered natural, and people who dont fit this understandably feel marginalised. In fact Id argue to a greater or lesser degree, none of us truly fit the prescribed gender binary.

but i find it problematic when a man thinks they're a woman based on what they think 'woman' is.

neonbaebae: you're right in saying that a disconnection from manhood doesn't make someone a woman - a connection to womanhood does. it has v little to do with the upbringing of women which you seem to define thru misogyny and menstruation alone which is frankly a pessimistic view of womanhood. it's less not feeling like a conventional man and more not feeling like a man At All. tru it doesn't sound logical but gender is not logical it's abstract and complex

it seems problematic bc one might think men would gain smth from iding as women but stats show that trans women are at higher risk of assault for being out and open, both of bc of misogyny (not directly related to having a vagina or menstruating after all) & transphobia. it's esp telling that trans men aren't targeted as much. do you disagree w trans men as well?

[redacted]: but as a women i dont connect with womanhood. Lol i am a women. It would be nice to think we live in a world where women are equal, but that's not the world we live in. Womanhood is hard. And we do live under a patriarchal society that's cultivated female inferiority over many centuries. We're still negotiating freedoms today.

Its not about gaining or loss. Its about the male right to self define womanhood on their terms, without the biological or social conditioning. In fact, many have recieved MALE conditioning as children. This comes with its own privileges.

I think transmale is a very different experience so no I categorise them very differently to transwomen

neonbaebae: "as a woman" you say. even if the experiences and stereotypes don't fit you perfectly, even if you reject it, you still id as a woman. you feel like one and you suffer the consequences of being one. believe it or not trans women suffer from iding as a woman as well and thrice as harshly. i can provide sources if you want.

trans women don't think like men bc they feel like women. the thought patterns are different. they don't digest the social messages abt men bc their mind doesn't relate to it. male entitlement and all doesn't apply to them. and in sociology alone womanhood is often defined as more than a biological or upbringing thing. it's a social identity and trans women have a right to it if they don't id and reject manhood altogether

my question tho was do you think trans men aren't men either cus otherwise that'd be hypocritical

[redacted]: my point is its not an identity. Its a reality. Im a woman. I have xx chromosomes and the world treats me as such. Similar to my race. I dont identify as my race, i am treated as the world sees me.

male entitlement does apply. Statistically baby boys are fed for longer than baby girls. And little girls are left to cry for longer than baby boys. Little girls learn many motherly caretaker roles while many of their male counterparts are encouraged to conquer the world. Children are raised by gender. Even subconsciously. I can also provide sources :)

there are many more male leaders and men in authoritive positions in the world. Women fight very hard for the same respect, but womens voices are less valued. It takes no genius to see men have greater standing in the world

about transmen. No I dont consider them men but I'll respectfully use the pronouns anyone prefers, male or female. Its common decency.

I think society needs to get more comfortable with non confirmative gender expression

neonboobear: but it is an identity. that's why there's a distinction between sex (bio) and gender (identity & expression). if it would feel wrong for you to be called a man or nonbinary then that'd be bc you don't id as such. (also there are women with chromosomes other than xx maybe you should avoid phrasing it that way.) i id as my race but race has v different roots & impact than gender historically and it cannot be compared. let's stick with gender.

and i'm not denying gendered socialization but it doesn't shape a child more than their personal feelings on their identity, which can differ v early in life bc (some) would rather engage in activities associated with the opposite gender for example. if it were that simple trans ppl wouldn't go at lengths to "play the part"

you're right society does need to accept gender non conformance but that's v different from the trans experience. i rly think you should have a deep conversation with a trans person to try and see their pov

[redacted]: if womanhood is an identity, it totally invalidates what it means to be female. And yes its arguable that there're are women who arent xx but how about the majority of the population that are. Must we pander to the few at the expense of the majority? also what makes you assume I dont talk to trans people? Critique doesnt mean lack of empathy.

Children and gendered socialization is complex. Maybe if 'feminine' activities werent coded as female and just 'childhood play' we wouldnt have the same degree of dysphoria. It goes back to the irrational logic, 'if I like the pink toy section then I must be a girl.'

neonboobear: i'm afraid that is your pov for the ideology that womanhood is an experience but also an identity is considered a v valid theory in the science field. the fact that there are women with chromosomes other than xx is proof alone that xx chromosomes aren't what makes a woman. and i've suggested a deep conversation and an intention to Understand the Other. not just a talk. i said nothing abt empathy.

there would be less dysphoria but i'm sure it's still be there. many think the abolition of gender would solve everything but i doubt so

[redacted]: i have a close mtf friend and we have the debate constantly. We don't always agree with her but there's a lot more common ground then you might expect :) Gender roles damn us all. Hmmmm... abolition of gender is impossible but theres is a lot that can be done to challenge gender expectations. But not an easy battle! neonbaebae: i mean this with the least offense okay but i sincerely think neither of you should be friends. i’m black and i’d never befriend a racist. that’s a lack of self respect on her part and a plain lack of respect on yours.

i’d like to end this conversation here. i’ve said my point and i’d only repeat myself by continuing. and since i’m not a trans woman i don’t want to misinterpret them (so sorry if i’ve already did. trans girls feel free to bring up clarifications). might sound tedious but i strongly suggest you watch this 50-min long video essay by youtuber contrapoints. her vids are informative and entertaining and so v easy to digest despite the length. i’ve heard she’s not v liked in terf circles but it’s worth it to listen to what she has to say as a trans women.

#transphobia #transmisogyny #convo transcript #long post #anti terf

1 note · View note

en241 · 5 years ago

Text

Wednesday, 8 April

WEEK 10: The Secret Garden: Chapters 9-17

Questions & Comments:

So much this:

First, I would like to make a note about the garden. No wonder Mary had such a push to see the garden. I would have been exactly like her to see rosebushes as tall as trees. When Mary starts working in the closed, dead, and overgrown garden she becomes healthier and have something to look forward too as well as something to keep her busy and show affection too. I do relate personally to this garden. I think that most of us are experiencing a since of depression and looking for something to do. I have been working in my gardens every day because it’s something to do, and if done with a little luck you will create life. I can really relate to what Mary is feeling.

On the darker side, though:

Why does Colin constantly talk about death? A lot happened during these chapters. Many emotions were coming to mind while reading, but one part that made me happy was when Dickon became friends with Colin.

Illness and death is certainly something that comes up a lot. Seems wrong for a child to be obsessed with it, tho, amirite?

In these few chapters, you can see the turn of some of the adults. At first Ben is startled by the beauty and closeness of the robin. Then more of the adults start to turn to Mary to calm down Colin. This shows a real change in who is learning and depending on who.

OK wait -- the adults are changing? I thought this was about the children, about Mary and her growth?

Mary immediately trusts Dickon with the secret garden. It seems like children are better at reading what people are really like. She knew to trust Dickon and Martha but knew to wait on trusting Colin. Not only does this show children are able to see the truth, but she learns from the animals and how they trust Dickon. This shows that often animals are better at determining who to trust than humans.

Trust. And if you were Mary wouldn’t you have trust issues? I know I would. And then Colin . . .

I love the relationship between colin and mary chapter 14 was the most cutest moment when he tells the doctor that he forgets he is ill when he is around her. Mary used to be a colin like a figure and now she has shown him you don't have to be like that. It shows that there is really someone for everyone

It can clearly be seen that Mary and Dickon were foil characters but then what does that make Colin. He is clearly another version of Mary. He is exactly like she was in the beginning and how she was in India. The book is showing that people can be both kinds of people. It also shows that sometimes all you need to understand a problem is to have someone who has gone through it. It took Mary yelling at Colin for him to start behaving and being a real child.

Very cool that you are seeing connections & comparison between Mary and Colin. And while I’m not a fan of the “foil characters” concept (because it tends to flatten characters and their relationships into a plot device) it’s really important to pay close attention to their relationship. It’s making me think of how we used the mature-o-meter in Treasure Island to compare Jim’s options for an ideal grownup. But also, could it be that we are seeing more than one maturation story at the same time in this book?

Mary has finally made it to the garden and it doesn't disappoint. (I’m so glad!) When she arrives, a lot of the roses are dead. I think this is symbolic of the love that used to be there between Craven and his wife. I am curious as to the significance of Mary being the first one to discover the garden in ten years. I like that within minutes of being there, she refers to it as hers. She is very possessive. (Very true. What’s up with that?) I believe Mary likes gardening because it is the one thing she has control over in her life at this point. (Control issues? Mary? hmmmmm.) Her care for the garden shows that she isn't as sour as people think. She just struggles to connect with people due to her past and connecting with inanimate things is easier. (Excellent point) Another area of interest is the idea of the human interest in secrets? I believe that there is an inherent value in exclusivity so when things are secret, they are viewed as more special. (So how do the special nice secrets differ from the creepy mysterious secrets?) The children in this book always talk so formally that is strange to me. They seem like little grownups. (!!!) At one point, Dickon makes an analogy about how the strongest flowers thrive and the weakest die. To me, this represents Mary's family. She is the strongest since she survived and they didn't. Not only did she only survive, but she is becoming a better person in the process. (What kind of strength is this, and where does it come from? Certainly not from her parents.) I find the contrast between Dickon and Colin interesting. Mary likes both of them, but they are quite different. With Dickon, she can work on her garden and more casual. (Work vs. Play. Aren’t kinds supposed to be playing?) With Colin, they share more deep bonds. Both boys provide her with different types of relationships. Dickon is more easygoing and happy while Colin is cynical and miserable. Mary gets along with them both well despite having issues liking people which is ironic. (A good kind of ironic, yes?)

A central theme that seems to be devolving more in this section of the book is the theme of "trust". Trust is shown between Mary and Dickon, Colin, and even the robin. Mary seems to thrive on developing quick but solid trust to ensure that her secrets remain a secret and her friendships are genuine. Trust allows her to feel safe, confident and alive. Somehow she has trust "radar" because she quickly decides who to let in to her innermost thoughts and desires. Trust is symbolized by mere physical gestures such as putting her hand on Dickon's arm, for reassurance as well as things like the missel thrush and it's indication that Dickon will keep her secret as well as return to the garden. She develops a trust with Colin, on the night she goes to his room because she relates to his situation because of the similarities to her life in India. Even though she didn't reveal that she had actually been in the garden, she trusted Colin enough to tell him a version of the story that she felt he could understand. She devised a plan on how he and she could get in sometime if he kept the whole idea a secret for now. Mary, Dickon and Colin seem to share the same understanding of nature, secrecy and loyalty.

Nice! trust, reassurance, relating, revelation -- nature, secrecy, loyalty -- and making plans -- these are all good things to notice.

In chapters nine through seventeen of the secret garden you can see Mary moving up on the mature-o-meter since she discovered the garden. This development is highlighted be two quotes from chapter ten of The Secret Garden. The first quote "Mary was an odd, determined little person, and now she had something interesting to be determined about, she was very much absorbed, indeed. She worked and dug and pulled up weeds steadily, only becoming more pleased with her work every hour instead of tiring of it.” shows Mary maturing because she has the motivation and focus to work on something and to work hard like an adult would rather than put no effort in and give up like a child would. Another quote from chapter ten ”because she disliked people and things so much. But now the world seemed to be changing and getting nicer." shows Mary maturing because she is noticing change in the world and showing positive feelings to other things and people than herself. She’s also becoming less quick to judge and showing interest in learning about a person or topic before judging it. She is not even close to fully mature as shown by her increased curiosity, but Mary is significantly less selfish and negative, and has higher work ethic than she did at the beginning of the book.

I really like the use of quotations as evidence here -- and the careful attention to maturity as something with multiple dimensions. Maturation doesn’t all happen at once, does it? That’s too simple.

It seems that Mary is really fond of Dickon sense she speaks of him all the time and at one point mentioned he was beautiful. I like how keeping secrets is such a thrill, like with the garden and the visits with Colin until soon later the staff finds out. I believe that Colin thinks he's going to die because everyone believes he will. His imagination is running wild like the hunch back idea but is soon cleared by Mary stating that his back is straight. The question is, is he really sick or are they keeping him inside making him sick? If that makes any sense... It doesnt help when Colin uses his " sickness" as an advantage of what he wants and getting it, like the incident of becoming jealous with Dickon and Mary spending more time with each other. Mary is helping him in a way to see that he is acting like a spoiled child and that he is not going to die, all he needs is some sunlight and fresh air. In a way their friendship is really close to a point where they are both helping each other out in so many ways.

Yes -- yes -- Mary & Colin are helping each other!

another illustration by Inga Moore

0 notes

computerguideworld-blog · 6 years ago

Text

Do you trust your computer? New film explores perils of technology

New Post has been published on https://computerguideto.com/must-see/do-you-trust-your-computer-new-film-explores-perils-of-technology/

Do you trust your computer? New film explores perils of technology

Chris Paines documentary looks at the potential dangers of our intimate relationship with smartphones and laptops

In all likelihood, you are currently reading this article on a device that contains all the salient parts of your life. Youve given it your bank account information, and use it to move your money around. Its privy to your conversations with loved ones and work associates, perhaps even words uttered out loud in private moments. It knows your schedule, where you are at any given moment, what you buy, what music you listen to, and who you should date.

Chris Paines new documentary Do You Trust This Computer? wonders if that might not contain some potential for disaster down the line.

In fact, its really more of a film essay, in the methodical way it introduces, dissects, and draws conclusions from ideas applied to real-world developments. Having tried narrowing his focus to a single topic in the 2006 breakout Who Killed the Electric Car?, Paine decided to go wide for this project, weaving together far-reaching trends and headlines to form a more holistic meditation on the theme of technology.

With this film, we wanted to pick apart the stuff we take for granted, Paine tells the Guardian. We wanted to say, What is the reality behind these things? Which anxieties are well-founded, and whats just fear?

Its hard not to enter full-on panic mode as Paine blows through digital threats to life as we know it as if from apocalyptic flashcards. While advances like artificial intelligence, increased automation, and algorithmic learning have propelled humanity into a faster and more convenient future, they have paved the way for some chilling developments as well.

youtube

There are tentpole concerns, Paine explains. The danger of autonomous weapons, the danger of election tampering and other hacking, the hazards of overpersonalization these are part of the existential risk weve covered in the three years of working on this film People are very fast to trust things that take care of them. We trust airplane autopilots, and we trust the FAA to make sure the pilots not flying under the influence or something. Like machines or governments, digital programs have a real relationship with the humans that use them. When we go to a computer program to buy from an online marketplace, purchase flight tickets, or book a hotel, we trust that the algorithms in place are giving us good information, the best prices.

The former head of an internet company that went under following the dotcom bubbles big pop, Paine spent the interim years learning all he could about the technology sector. He sees humanity approaching a reckoning with itself, as we turn more of our high-level thought over to software and more of our physical function to automatons. To ensure that qualities like privacy, safety and agency dont become things of the past, it falls to us to self-regulate.

There are simple ways to minimize your digital footprint, Paine says. Covering your phone and computers camera, so theyre not always broadcasting your face to whoever happens to have access to them is one. But with this film, the push is mostly to create awareness, to call on our congressional bodies to push back against companies like Apple and Google. You dont have to throw away your computer and go completely offline thats just difficult to do, practically speaking.

Photograph: Papercut Films

He continues: Changing the culture of technology requires getting different types of people into available jobs. More women, yes, but also people from the arts. People with a background in ethics, or philosophy. This idea of the outsiders having some measure of control could be a big part of the solution Its part legislation, part internal revision of the system.

Paine places an emphasis on action over terrified paralysis, offsetting each disturbing morsel of information with a whiff of hope. He doesnt want to come off as the tinfoil-hatted luddite that tech giants often claim their most ardent opponents are. Hes more sober-minded than that, both aware of the stratospheric stakes and confident that managing them represents the only way forward. After all, hes the first one to describe himself as a technophile. He zeroes in on a lack of awareness as the chief problem, citing the embarrassing showing from a congressional committee hearing that had to ask Mark Zuckerberg what Facebook does and how it produces money during his deposition. (In a film that features Elon Musk musing about his vision of digitized empire on camera, Zuckerberg stands out as the most glaring absence. You know well enough how difficult it is to get a hold of him, Paine joked. The Guardian broke the Cambridge Analytica story.)

Paine contrasts that ignorance with the signing of the Copenhagen letter, part plea and part pledge for the worlds top innovators to do and be better. Mindfulness is key, the simple act of remaining conscious about the invisible ways daily life has been infiltrated by evolving machines. Common consumers cannot go half-cocked into the coming decades if we hope to survive under the small handful of billionaires calling more and more of the shots. Paine tries not to get too melodramatic over the course of his interview, but even he cant deny that privileging healthy cynicism over blind faith could be a matter of life and death:

To a computer, the security systems of the worlds largest nuclear mainframes are just a game, so we need to be careful if were going to teach them to be master game-players. He chuckles. What could go wrong?

Do You Trust This Computer? is released in New York on 17 August and digitally in the US on 21 August with a UK date yet to be announced

Read more: http://www.theguardian.com/us

0 notes

mrmichaelchadler · 6 years ago

Text

MOMA's To Save and Project Festival: Cane River, Crime Wave, Pharos of Chaos, The Shipwrecker

MOMA’s annual To Save and Project festival programs newly preserved and restored films from all around the world. These films reflect a variety of diverse cultures and traditions, as well as myriad global industry practices, which frequently go unnoticed by Western audiences. MOMA’s storied dedication to exhibiting these frequently rare, often unseen works from talented filmmakers across the globe is worthy of celebration and acclaim. Simply put, it’s a necessary service to expand the mind and broaden the palette of the American cinephile.

The 16th edition of To Save and Project featured a tribute to director Barbet Schroeder’s documentary work, new restorations of early Ernst Lubitsch and F.W. Murnau films, as well a smattering of selections from the British Film Institute and the Biograph Collection at MOMA. The festival also presented a history of British animation, films by experimental artist Edward Owens, and restorations of mid-century films, including Curtis Harrington’s “Night Tide,” starring a young Dennis Hooper, and Michael Anderson’s “The Quiller Memorandum,” written by Harold Pinter and starring George Segal, Alec Guinness, and Max von Sydow.

As a delegate from RogerEbert.com, I spent the past month exploring the vast lineup of To Save and Project and picked a selection of films worthy of further analysis and discussion. Here is the first of two dispatches from the festival.

“Cane River”

In 1982, Horace Jenkins’ first and only feature “Cane River” premiered in New Orleans, Louisiana. Featuring an all-black cast and sporting an all-black crew, “Cane River” traces the burgeoning romance between two young lovers caught within a complex web of family ties and Creole history. The film was set to premiere in New York in February of 1983, and even caught the attention of actor and comedian Richard Pryor, who had seen “Cane River” and actively sought to have it distributed by Warner Bros. Unfortunately, Duplain Rhodes, the executive producer of “Cane River,” rejected Pryor’s deal outright, believing he would lose control of his investment if he handed the film to Hollywood. In December 1982, Jenkins suffered a fatal heart attack. “Cane River” subsequently went unreleased and was effectively lost for over three decades.

In 2013, Sandra Schulberg and her organization IndieCollect, which seeks to preserve American independent film, uncovered a negative of “Cane River” in the vaults of DuArt Film and Video in Manhattan. The Academy Film Archive struck a new 35mm print of the film from a 90-minute negative. Later, IndieCollect, with the generous help of the Roger & Chaz Ebert Foundation, mastered a 4K digital copy. “Cane River” was screened for the first time in 36 years at the New Orleans Film Festival in October 2018, and it finally had its New York premiere at MOMA on January 18th, 2019.

The preservation struggles of “Cane River” are far too common in film history, but Jenkins’ debut feature itself remains a rare beast: an independent drama about black romance that openly contends with intraracial strife. Peter Metoyer (Richard Romain) receives a hero’s welcome upon landing in his rural hometown of Cane River, Louisiana, and it’s not just because he was a college football star all set to go pro. He’s also a scion of a prominent Cane River Creole family who were prosperous landowners that once collaborated with the Confederacy during the Civil War. When Peter visits an estate owned by his ancestors, a local tourist attraction in his town, he meets tour guide Maria Mathis (Tommye Myrick) and they quickly fall for each other. They bond over horse rides, history books, and long walks in Cane River, but their relationship faces a sizable stumbling block. Historically speaking, the Cane River Creoles don’t mix with the dark-skinned, lower-middle-class blacks in the area, like Maria or her family. In fact, the estate where Maria works once housed slaves owned by the Metoyer family.

Peter tells Maria that his family’s problematic history doesn’t reflect upon his personal beliefs or feelings, but he stills harbors pride in his heritage. During his home tour, Peter discovers that a white businessman bought his grandmother’s home under shady terms and seeks out a lawyer to return it to his family. He reads extensively about his family and has no interest in throwing their name under the bus. Meanwhile, Maria might feel awkward about seeing Peter socially given his pedigree, but that’s nothing compared to her mother (Carol Sutton), who believes that Cane River Creoles are no better than an average white racist. Maria chafes against her family’s traditions and longs to finally go to college in New Orleans. To her, Cane River represents limitations and constraints. To Peter, it still retains some halcyon nostalgia and a place for him to flex his creative impulses.

Peter and Maria’s debates about colorism and the weighty shadows of their respective families provide “Cane River” with powerful historical foundation, one that offers a compelling racial twist on a “Romeo and Juliet”-style romance. Jenkins’ film also works beautifully as a travelogue of Louisiana. “Cane River” cinematographer Gideon Manasseh shoots Cane River’s lush landscapes and New Orleans’ bustling city streets with transparent passion for the lived-in details of the areas. Jenkins allows the environments to reflect his subjects’ nuanced, often contradictory feelings about their shared history of the land itself. Most importantly, however, “Cane River” is a fantastic artifact of early-’80s American independent/low-budget cinema. If Jenkins had lived, it’s not too difficult to imagine him garnering critical accolades, even some commercial success, during such a fertile period for indie filmmaking. But even though “Cane River” was lost for decades, its raw subject matter echoes in films of the present day. Barry Jenkins’ debut film “Medicine for Melancholy,” another two-hander love story implicated by race and region, in particular feels like a direct descendant of Horace Jenkins’ orphan feature.

"Pharos of Chaos"

Director Andre de Toth’s best-known work is still the 1953 horror film “House of Wax,” which was the first color 3-D feature to be released by a major American studio and one of the biggest hits of its year. Given that de Toth lost an eye at an early age and thus could not experience 3-D effects, it’s both impressive that he directed the film at all and ironic that he’s associated with it. Still, de Toth is a B-movie man who had a successful Hollywood career in the ’40s and ’50s. This year’s To Save and Project featured a rare screening of de Toth’s “Crime Wave” in a brand-new 35mm print. MOMA advertised the event on their website as “the last chance” one might ever see the film in such a format.

Though “Crime Wave” sports a standard noir premise—two gang members force a reformed ex-con (Gene Nelson) to help them commit a robbery all while a hard-nosed detective (Sterling Hayden) follows their trail—its strengths lie in execution. Crane Wilbur’s script immerses and disorients, especially during first-act introductions, capturing all subjects amidst states of personal or physical disarray. The sublime nighttime photography, courtesy of cinematographer Bert Glennon (who worked with such luminaries as John Ford and Joseph von Sternberg), foregrounds the seediness of not just abandoned streets, but also gas stations and veterinary hospitals. Plus, “Crime Wave” allows its two leads a solid showcase: Nelson sells the plight of a man who knows too well that the American justice system doesn’t hand out second chances without strings attached, and Hayden flexes bitter and aggressive right up until sympathy for an enemy’s moral conviction enters into his heart. The two work within and occasionally transcend their respective archetypes.

MOMA presented “Crime Wave” as a prelude to two self-portraits of Sterling Hayden, both made near the end of his life. The first is “Pharos of Chaos,” directed by Wolf-Eckart Bühler and Manfred Blank, a character study of Hayden as he reflects upon his storied life—his wartime years spent helping the Yugoslav partisans combat fascism during WWII; his famed HUAC testimony and his subsequent lifelong regret for caving to the demands of McCarthy and the FBI; the open disdain and contempt he holds towards the height of his Hollywood career; his late years spent sailing and writing. The second is “The Shipwrecker,” also directed by Wolf-Eckart Bühler, a companion piece to “Pharos of Chaos” and an off-kilter adaptation of Hayden’s memoir, which focuses almost exclusively on the HUAC chapter of his life.

While both films fascinate based on subject matter alone, “Pharos of Chaos” is the more interesting of the two if only because it’s the one that actually features Hayden. It’s nothing short of a delight to watch the aged actor eloquently and drunkenly ramble about his past aboard his own canal barge. Hayden’s alcoholism and hash habit might have amplified his contempt towards himself, but he also goes to great lengths to convey that he’s earned his self-loathing. By his own admission, Hayden committed an unforgivable moral failure in a public forum, which afforded him a successful Hollywood career that he believes to be fraudulent. His post-’60s career was largely defined by sincere regret over his actions. “Pharos of Chaos” showcases how Hayden balances that regret with whimsy and curiosity.

from All Content http://bit.ly/2WR1pf1

0 notes

caredogstips · 7 years ago

Text

No more monkey business: why primates should never be domesticateds

About 4,500 primates are in private hands in the UK many of them tolerating poor conditions. Is it duration for a prohibit?

Primate owner Laura was searching the internet adverts for monkeys she could try to recovery when she recognized one from a humanity in the Cotswolds who was clearly seeing caring for two common marmosets extremely difficult. This is a common trouble: primates are wild swine and keeping them is complex, expensive and demanding.

She contacted the man and agreed to collect the two adult monkeys one male and one female. They had been kept in a tiny molted in his garden and were in a horrid surrounding. Hed fed them almost entirely on porridge, babe meat and fish thumbs. When I asked if he had given them any return or vegetables, he is recalled that hed occasionally fed them grapes. Neither monkey had ever been viewed by a vet. The male had severe dental problems and his tail was a mixture of matted “hairs-breadth” and bald-headed patches.

Like many of us, Laura( not her real identify) grew up fascinated and enthralled by apes, and although she had never intended to keep primates, she found herself rescuing the two marmosets. She soon realised that the female was pregnant and, two week ago, twin males were born. Soon after, the adult male was booked in for surgery to give his posterior and teeth. While the marmoset was under anaesthetic, the veterinary been observed that his tiny form was riddled with metabolic bone canker caused by good nutrition and inadequate illuminate. Unhappily the male died during the operation though, with his twisted bones and torso bloated by gas, it seemed a slight boon when his centre eventually stopped.

A common marmoset in the Atlantic rainforest, Brazil. Photograph: Alamy

This sad story doesnt stop there. Before he was dead, hed “ve managed” get the female pregnant again and soon another three minuscule males were born. Laura then rescued another adult male( this time from Luton ), and what had started out as a single pair now turned into their own families of seven with the new male acting as a surrogate father.

They all now live in at her family home in Lincolnshire in a specially made enclosure with specialist heating, specific lighting, indoor and outdoor lopes and an ever-changing regiman of feeding and behavioural enrichment. A contraceptive embed has ensured no more little monkeys have since arrived on the situation and now, ultimately, both the monkeys and keeper are happy.

But Laura admits that primates make awful domesticateds: They urinate on everything to label their territory and stink abysmally; they need constant care and easily rate millions of pounds every year to hinder. Parties have this idea that they can touch and cuddle them but I never touch mine as theyre not tame. If I did, Id expect to be burn. Even with my most tighten swine, I wouldnt dream of it as it would stress him out too much. Its such a greedy happen to have them as pets. Get a puppy or have a child simply dont get a monkey!

Welcome to the world of primate ownership: the legal orientation is complex, the moralities troublesome, and even the owners themselves have conflicted perceives about obstructing monkeys at home. Id tried contacting several other primate owneds but, with this one exception , none would speak to me. I got a sense that they knew it was wrong at some level and were uncomfortable talking about it.

I am a primatologist and have worked with chimps in Africa, orangutans in Indonesia and dark-green monkeys in the Caribbean. I enjoy primates and have dedicated years to cooperating with them, but there is not a chance I would want one as a pet.

Squirrel apes are on the dangerous swine directory. Photograph: Alamy

But there are people who want to an estimated 4,500 primates( which covers apes, monkeys and lemurs, bushbabies and lorises) are privately owned in the UK. While some of these are owned by trained experts and represent specialist breed groups, the great majority are babies, living in peoples homes. Often owned by individuals with good-for-nothing more than good goals and the foolish are looking forward to own a cool pet, it is clear that there are very few privately owned captive primates in the UK in such a luck statu as the ones Laura rescued.

Dr Sharon Redrobe a veterinary surgeon and the CEO of Twycross Zoo, Warwicks knows first-hand just how hard primate husbandry is. By explanation, a domesticated is an animal we touch and play with in our the house and in no way is it in a primates best interest to be constantly touched and played with by parties. They require their own social groups, are extremely hard to care for and often grow up to be aggressive and hopeless to restrict. Owneds then take them to a veterinary, expecting them to be magically fastened. Theyre wild animals and, in that respect , no different to tigers. You wouldnt stop a tiger at home, so dont deter a monkey.

Redrobe is speedy to point out that in the past hindering domesticated primates was far more socially acceptable and that situates such as Twycross are really founded by people who liked to keep pet monkeys themselves, but she adds hours have moved on.

The world has changed enormously since the 1950 s and 60 s. We didnt know any better then; now we do. If “youve been” affection monkeys, let them be monkeys. Perhaps used to help by sponsoring one in a zoo or sanctuary.

Despite such involved charge motivations, high welfare concerns and the serious gambles associated with the spread of certain illness between people and non-human primates, it is still legal to maintain primates as babies in the UK regardless of how endangered they are or how dangerous they may be.

The care of primates is covered by the Animal Welfare Act of 2006 and Defras Code of Practice for the Welfare of Privately Kept Primates( the primate code) of 2010. The play, which states that animal owners must thwart wasteful bear and must take all reasonable steps to meet their swine motives, is hard to enforce as most domesticated primates in the UK are kept in secret.

The young capuchin monkey that German permissions confiscated from Justin Bieber in 2013. Photograph: Christof Stache/ AFP

The primate system is primarily to explain the welfare and administration needs of the swine and an infringement of its provisions is not actually an offence though it could be used as evidence in tribunal in animal welfare cases. The code, which applies to everything from gorillas to lemurs, is further faded as it is subject to broad-minded reading specified group are not covered in any real detail.

The maintaining of some primate species, such as capuchins, is thankfully restricted for the purposes of the Dangerous Wild Animals Act( 1976 ), but many, including marmosets are not listed. A 2014 RSPCA report found that 81% of pet primates in the UK belonged to the marmoset group originally from South America.

Other primates, such as cotton-top tamarins, are critically endangered and shall be given the highest level of legal protection from international trade.

With little awareness circumventing laws and a general lack of consequences for those failing to comply with regulations, many feel that the laws and regulations should change and that a complete ban on the obstructing of baby primates in the UK should be introduced.

Rachel Hevesi, the director of Wild Futures, a primate sanctuary in Looe, Cornwall, knows all too well just how weak the current legislation is. Weve had over 150 primates come to us over the years and, without exception, every single one has had physical or psychological difficulties or, in many cases, both, she says.

Hervesi wants to see a full forbidding on impeding primates as babies and reads success lying in a positive index style of legislation, where any specific primate species allowed to be kept as pets would be registered. With no species being proposed as being suitable, this blanket, prohibition-type constitution means that there would be little room for misconception. Such legislation is already present in Belgium and several other European countries and has led to not only a reduction in the overall number of primates being saved as babies, but too to an increase in members of the community reporting unauthorized pet owners.

Primatologist and conservationist Jane Goodall. Image: Diana Sanchez/ AFP

Hevesi is hopeful that the British government will bring a ban into force in the near future. When the primate code was introduced in 2010, it was agreed that the government would review its success after a five-year interval. Defra failed to hold that review in 2015, but had now been promised to reassess the legislation this year.

Key stakeholders including the Primate Society of Great Britain, the RSPCA, the British Veterinary Association, the British and Irish Association of Zoos and Aquariums( Biaza ), Born Free and Four Paws all support a ban on domesticated primates and are collecting exhibit and data for the government review.

Hevesi says: The swap relies on the ignorance of the buyer and the desire of the breeders. Weve never met a custodian who has purposely set out to harm their primate pet; its a lack of awareness and skills.

The image of primates as inventive and interactive little human-like swine that can live alongside and play with us may seem request and a recent batch of unthinking celebrities such as Justin Bieber, Beyonc and the Kardashians posing with primates has only added to the problem but without exception, every expert, academic, welfare officer and zoo custodian been agreed that primates are utterly unwarranted as pets.

Whereas hounds and felines have been specially engendered for generations as domesticateds to a time where we have selected specific behavioural and physical peculiarities that become them perfect attendants most primates multiplied as domesticateds are only research results of two or three generations in captivity and are, in most respects, still wild and untamed animals.

Renowned primatologist and conservationist Dr Jane Goodallhas worked with wild and captive primates for decades and knows them better than anyone. Every primate are part of an environment that is as close to a wild decided as is practicable. They are beautiful and intelligent animals, but highly complex with very specific needs. They simply do not belong in our homes as pets.

With such strong opposition to the UK primate pet trade, it is hoped that a censor can soon be drafted and introduced to protect the requirements and welfare of these highly intelligent, though difficult to keep, wild animals.