#but also have his own flaws and unchecked privilege

[strawberrytalia]

No but Kyle is such a realistic leftist man of color because he’s the type to fight against oppression, call out institutions, prioritize human rights, punch homophobes, but then he’ll turn right around and make a misogynistic joke without even thinking

[maxdibert]

That essay reads like an AI which never read the books wrote it.

Going off on fans of the marauders, whilst only mentioning two of them, is poor effort. Don't forget Remus' lack of intervention (I guess we can't talk about Peter since he joined your favourite boy's racism corps).

So if I accept the marauders are flawed (they are: James was a bullying c-nt, Remus was a coward, Sirius was an elitist bully and Peter was also spineless) do I have your permission to say that Snape was canonically a child abuser, a racist and a bully?

Look, no one is saying Snape was a saint. But this isn’t about justifying his adult behavior—it’s about the way the Marauders treated him at school. Using Snape’s actions as an adult to excuse the bullying he endured as a kid is a pretty shaky argument, and it misses the point entirely. It’s a cheap deflection to go “yeah, but look how he turned out!” when we’re talking about the abuse he faced when he was still forming his identity. It’s no wonder he grew up with serious trust issues and resentment when his adolescence was marked by constant humiliation from a group of rich, popular kids.

And if we really want to get into how these characters ended up as adults, let’s not pretend the Marauders were beacons of maturity. Sirius never outgrew his bully persona; he tormented Snape as a teenager and continued to view him with the same venom well into adulthood, even trying to goad Harry into hating him. James, the “golden boy,” told Lily he’d “grown out of” hexing people, but we never saw any real growth before he died because even his friends said years later that he still did the same shit but not telling Lily. And let’s not forget Remus—who turned out to be a coward, running away from Tonks and the child he didn’t want to deal with, despite being nearly forty and supposedly wiser and needing a 17 years old to lecture him about his shitty behavour.

If anything, the Marauders’ adult lives underscore how little they reflected on the damage they did to others. They’re not held accountable for their cruelty, and their adult failures show they never fully owned up to their flaws. Saying Snape’s actions as an adult somehow justify his treatment in school is just a way to sidestep the real discussion: the unchecked bullying and class dynamics that shaped who he became.

And here’s the thing: just because someone later becomes a perpetrator doesn’t erase the fact that they were once a victim. Snape may have grown into someone deeply flawed—even abusive—but that doesn’t cancel out the abuse he suffered at Hogwarts. His bullies were still, undeniably, a bunch of privileged jerks who used their status to make his life hell. Trying to sweep that under the rug by pointing at who he became later is just lazy logic.

So go ahead, keep looking for weak excuses and baseless justifications if it helps you cling to your fanatical love for a group of spoiled bullies who never owned up to the harm they caused. But at the end of the day, it doesn’t change the fact that Snape was a victim of their abuse, and they were still bullies.

[littlesparklight]

I think Achilles' moment of "humanity" in Book 24 is way overstated, actually. I also think laying everything he has done/has been up until Patroklos dies to him being a demigod, as if it's the divine "half" (there is no divine half. He is mortal as any other mortal, and that overrides everything else.) is responsible for all this, is ridiculous.

Achilles is supremely human throughout the whole of the Iliad. He also just happens to be a very cruel, ruthless person - which he isn't alone about! Achilles - thanks to being a demigod, yes - just also has privilege and access to resources almost no one else in the Iliad has.

That is, not just a divine mother who can intercede on his behalf, but a mother who he has a good relationship to and can intercede on his behalf.

Which he uses, ruthlessly, fallen deep into his concerns for renown, glory, undying renown and the death he has chosen, and proving the inherently (selfish) society-disruptive tendencies of the heroic aims and social mores, when left unchecked.

Setting aside cruelty and ruthlessness, Achilles' flaw is his temper. A furious, deep, monstrous temper - and what's more human than that? Patroklos himself remarks on this! He is weary of provoking it, even if Achilles' temper wouldn't hit HIM directly in a negative way! Achilles simply doesn't have any incentive or desire to control his temper.

No, not even in Book 24, his "return to humanity".

Here: "The two wept bitterly - Priam, as he lay at Achilles' feet, weeping for Hektor, and Achilles now for his father and now for Patroklos, till the house was filled with their lamentation. But when Achilles was now sated with grief and had unburdened the bitterness of his sorrow, he left his seat and raised the old man by the hand, in pity for his white hair and beard[...]"

Not even moments later, comes this:

"Achilles looked at him sternly and said, "Vex me, sir, no longer; [...] therefore, provoke me no further, lest I err against the word of Zeus, and suffer you not, suppliant though you are, within my tents.""

This is not a man who has become fundamentally changed, and certainly not for the better, by showing a moment of compassion and pity for a man whose children he's been killing on the battlefield (plain murdered off it, in some cases), when he didn't need to be at Troy at all - aside for in the pursuit of his own immortal fame.

Achilles might no longer care about that now that Patroklos is dead, but he will still have it. As well as, still, his cruel temper, which hasn't changed at all from the beginning of the Iliad to the end of it.

[noctomania]

I want you to understand the cause and effect of what has led to what is going on in texas at least re: abortion laws.

First off let me clarify: Roe v Wade was not law...yet. When you see a ___ v ___, that is an opinion. Not in the sense you may think. It's an opinion decided through litigation which means it's a powerful opinion that has been hammered out through the judicial process of a lawsuit being drawn up, and worked out in court. It could be a local, state, or federal court. Typically the ones that are most significant are federal, or ones that have come before the US Supreme Court - either because it is the federal government that is being challenged, the defendant petitions to move it to federal, or that the case has been elevated through appeals.

There are particular circumstances that determine if a case can go federal level:

"Federal court jurisdiction, by contrast, is limited to the types of cases listed in the Constitution and specifically provided for by Congress. For the most part, federal courts only hear:

Cases in which the United States is a party;

Cases involving violations of the U.S. Constitution or federal laws (under federal-question jurisdiction);

Cases between citizens of different states if the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 (under diversity jurisdiction); and

Bankruptcy, copyright, patent, and maritime law cases.

In some cases, both federal and state courts have jurisdiction. This allows parties to choose whether to go to state court or to federal court."

Federal courts may hear cases concerning state laws if the issue is whether the state law violates the federal Constitution.

In the case of Roe v Wade, the attorney's filed to the Supreme Court since the argument was that the state law was a violation of a federal law - specifically the 14th amendment assertion of right to privacy. That is what determines the jurisdiction in this case.

RvW was decided in 1973 with a 7-2 ruling in favor of Roe's right to privacy and ultimately right to choose how to treated her pregnancy. Why hasn't it been turned into law? Obvious reasons over the years include what party is in power in executive, congressional, or even judicial circles. Right now though we have a D in the executive and congress, but something many are overlooking is the critically important and understates judicial branch - which holds significant changes Trump installed.

Also regarding congressional, though there is a stronger hold on the house (even with 3 vacancies), the senate is just barely D majority with 50 R, 48 D and 2 independent as shown in the charts below. The two Independent Senators, Bernie Sanders of Vermont and Angus King of Maine, caucus with the Democrats which brings it 50/50 and the US VP - Harris (D) in this case - is the President of the senate and ultimately serves as a tie breaker for votes as well as situations like this even divide of party members. Were the VP a republican than republicans would still have a senate majority.

I will dive more into what's going on with the senate and why even with a D majority it isn't where it needs to be as it's a bit less straight forward.

So how the hell are abortion rights being challenged? Why aren't the all powerful democrats doing anything?!

Well, they are and have been doing a lot - and I urge you in moments when you are frustrated by feeling as though "dems aren't doing anything" to dig deeper to understand how our government operates. It's very clear there is a poor comprehension of our civics system by the general population which is why I'm using this as an opportunity to not only inform but also to learn more myself. I was educated primarily in Texas public education system. I was privileged enough to have decent teachers, but there is still much to learn. I'm doing research as I write this. I've already learned a lot. Come learn with me!

Alright, you're on board with learning more? Great choice! Let's get into it.

So with dem control of executive and congressional branch, all that is left is judicial.

"Trump appointed 54 federal appellate judges in four years, one short of the 55 Obama appointed in twice as much time."

Trump also had a major influence on the nation’s highest court. The three Supreme Court justices he appointed – Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett – are the most by any president since Ronald Reagan (who appointed four) and the most by any one-term president since Herbert Hoover

Donald Trump has appointed and the Senate has confirmed 220 Article III federal judges through November 1, 2020, his fourth year in office.

The average number of federal judges appointed by a president through November 1 of their fourth year in office is 200.

Judges are supposed to be neutral impartial parties who use only what is presented in court and through the judicial process (which involves looking at current standing laws) to determine their decisions in court instead of using their personal opinion or political sway to inform them. However, as we saw all too often, trump was not interested in impartiality. He was interested in control, asserting his own personal opinion, even on occasion insisting he himself as president had more control than the constitution actually allows. So with that conflict and the fact he installed so many judges really makes huge impact on the judicial branch of our government. Since every branch is supposed to be fair and equal this causes a lot of road block when one branch is neither fair nor equal. You can't simply use the other two the gain up on the third - though in this case that would be convenient for dems, it would be much less convenient when the parties were reversed. It's also important to acknowledge the reality that D are not always impartial either - which again we will get to after judicial chat - nor are all R unfair. This can be a hard pill to swallow, even for me. Reality is not always easy to accept.

So of course appointments made by trump, of which there were many, can not be trusted to actually be acting in good faith, but in favor of personal or political interests (which also often come down to personal interest of a financial persuasion). When judges are not impartial, they may make decisions that ultimately contradict what was presented in court or what the law of the land says. Typically if a hearing with the Senate Judiciary Committee (you can see an example here of the first day of Amy Comey Barrett's hearing day 1/3) determines that there is a conflict of interest or that they are illgitimate, then ideally a judge will be blocked from appointment. This clearly also depends on the makeup and impartiality of the Senate and thus the Committee. The Committee will debate and vote on whether or not to confirm every nomination made by a President. (it used to require 3/5 of the senate or 60 votes but since 2017 only requires a "simple majority" or 51 votes for confirmation)

I want to take a quick aside here and go a little philosophical in understanding judicial impartiality, because I hope it will help you have some perspective on how it's an inherently difficult matter. Ultimately the court's impartiality comes down to checks/balances and faith. Not religious faith, but faith in humanity and honesty. Trusting that there is no hidden motive or lies or manipulation at play. We tend to have to rely heavily on the checks and balances part since faith in humanity can be easily manipulated with lobbying and politicians eagerness to look bipartisan for popularity in elections (appealing as more bipartisan is considered a way of winning over more votes like centrists and those just left and right of it). Checks and balances allows oversight of the 3 branches over one another and attempting to keep the scales balanced in order to prevent any one branch being too powerful and ultimately to avoid the US being something more like a monarchy - which was a primary goal at the time of forming the constitution and government since it is what we had fought to escape in the first place.

"So judges aren't allowed their 1st amendment rights?!"

Humans are merely humans no matter what title they have or role they play and humans are inherently flawed and partial. Nobody is perfect and some make mistakes as well as bad faith decisions for ulterior motives (could be a matter of loyalty to well funded lobbyists or even general unchecked and ultimately supported ignorance or a power grab). After and throughout checks and balances, that is where the faith part comes in that we hope we can trust judges to put their personal opinion aside and go with what the evidence presented in court and the law and super precedents tell them. We trust the Committee to do their due diligence in researching nominees and asking them tough questions. Realistically everyone can and likely will have some kind of opinion on any major issue, so it is not that anyone expects a justice to not have a personal opinion, only that they not use it to determine their decision in court. So, say i was a judge looking at a defendant accused of a civil rights infringement and i personally felt that they were guilty but there was no or not enough "valid" evidence to prove it, I couldn't assert they are guilty just based off my own opinion. I would have to depend on the evidence shown in court proving that it has infringed on precedents or existing law.

(All the appointments made by trump can be viewed more in detail here.)

"BLAHBLAHBLAH WHAT ABOUT THE SUPREME COURT"

It would be too tumultuous for me to dig into each of the 3 Supreme Court judge appointments by trump in regards to current issues around Roe v Wade, so I'm going to focus on one that is likely most relevant in particular: Amy Coney Barrett. Barrett was an appointment made when Ruth Bader Ginsburg's passing caused a vacancy in the court. (Why didn't she retire under Obama? The Senate was GOP controlled which made the odds of a pro-choice appointment being confirmed low). RGB was well known for being a strong advocate for the right to choose and for a long time was a stronghold in the court to ensure Roe v Wade was upheld. Since trump wouldn't want to lose too many votes from women and allies to women, he made the clear choice to appoint a woman which is what i would call performative in the case that though Barrett is a woman she does not particularly stand on the side of women's rights.

In day two of Barrett's confirmation hearing, Senator Klobuchar honed in on Barrett's opinions regarding Roe v Wade - especially as to whether it is considered what is called a "super precedent", an important matter when talking about codification. Klobuchar makes it clear that Barrett has said she finds Brown v BoE to be a super precedent despite the Supreme Court never impressing that opinion, but refuses to consider Roe v Wade a super precedent despite that being a Supreme Court opinion. Barrett's argument is that "scholarly literature" she has read has asserted it is not a super precedent because calls for its overrule has never ceased, where as cases such as Brown v Board "nobody questions anymore". Klobuchar digs in again asking if US v Virginia Military is a "super precedent" and Barrett refuses to answer - or as she phrases it "grade" - because it wasn't one of the cases Barrett spoke about in an article she had written.

After Klobuchar asked Barrett if Roe v Wade is a super precedent, Barrett asked Klobuchar how the Senator defines a super precedent. Reasonably so, Klobuchar - who is a senator and not a judge - scoffs and puts that responsibility back on Barrett who was nominated to be a Supreme Court judge. Barrett obliges and asserts a definition that she uses is of (supposedly not conservative) ONE scholarly opinion which depends on a case being "so well settle that no political actors and no people seriously push to overrule"

In a scholarly opinion in 2006 by Michael J Gerhardt at University of North Carolina School of Law defined a super precedent in many ways one being "decisions whose correctness is no longer a viable issue for courts to decide; it is no longer a matter on which courts will expend their limited resources."

However:

in the Roberts hearings, Charles Fried, a prominent conservative legal scholar at Harvard, agreed explicitly that Roe was a superprecedent. As solicitor general under President Ronald Reagan, Mr. Fried had asked the court to overturn Roe. But testifying on behalf of Judge Roberts, he said that Roe had become a super-duper precedent that would not and should not be overturned, because it was reaffirmed in 1992 and extended in subsequent decisions protecting gay rights and the right to die.

Here is a good example of what happens in academia and why i take "scholarly research" with a heap of salt since I have experience in doing scholarly research. When you are doing research, your audience is trusting that you have run through all the hard work of researching both sides of a specific matter - not just looking up opinions based on whether they are from a conservative or a liberal as that is not supposed to be what determines their opinion on any particular matter.

You are supposed to be actually looking into all the differing opinions on the specific subject matter. While it does help to have a context of the profile of the one giving the opinion, it is the evidence they present in their argument that is what should be prioritized in research. The audience is also trusting that the sources the researcher uses are valid, researched, and impartial and that any studies they use are peer reviewed and use proper methodology and are also impartial without any sway from funders. Since many academic resources that would elaborate on these details are often gatekept through paywalls or language or other accessibility barriers, it can be difficult for the general population to do their own research - the majority of which do not have access for one reason or another - they are left with nothing but to choose to have faith the researcher they are reading did their job earnestly.

Barrett focusing on opinions from scholars (actually it seems she is more dependent on one particular scholar's opinion - Gerhardt as seen in notes 128-132) based on whether or not they are typically conservative scholars is basing it on an irrelevant matter when she should have been taking on all opinions about super precedents and digging into comparing and contrasting them based on whether or not they hold water. It seems more like she sought a defense for her pre-determined opinion and insulated it from challenge by excluding any other assertions despite their significance. She ultimately failed at her responsibility as a researcher.

On Wednesday 9/2/21, the Supreme Court voted 5-4 to not block Texas SB8, a decision that weakens Roe v Wade.

Now this has been a very long form way of spelling out just SOME of the impact that trump has had on the judicial branch. I want to now go back to 2016 when he was elected, and try to extrapolate why what happened in that election was a serious failure in regards to those responsible for casting their votes: The People.

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

"We the people" is every single resident and/or citizen of the nation at any time. The constitution is essentially a contract drawn up between every single one of us including those born and raised here, those who move here, those who's communities were here before the formation of the nation, and those who may be a citizen but living elsewhere. The diversity of The People in every faucet of human life makes this document necessarily complicated and amendable. In consequence the way in which our government is also complicated but also amendable. One matter that has been a point of contention since the dawning of the nation is the right to vote.

Who could vote & When (.):

1776: white men over 21 who owned land

1870 Racial barriers eliminated tho 15th is not enforced by states

1920: white women can vote

1924: Native american's given voting rights

1964: Civil Rights Act - all above 21y/o may vote regardless of identifiers such as race - ensures Black people's right to vote

1971: Voting age lowered to 18

1984: Accessibility extended to disabled americans by setting accessibility standards

In between all of these are other matters that challenged the accessibility to voting for one population or another such as literacy tests, naturalization, and polling taxes. Many of the challenges were directly challenging to People of Color particularly Black Women. To this day there are still many who must fight to assert their right - a right that should never be denied, never be thought of as less than inherent. Access is less a concern for the wealthy and well to do as their needs are never on the line the way it is for people who are poor, Black, disabled, immigrant, or even just have a primary language other than English.

For those of us who have never had to fight to utilize our right to vote in our life have too often shown that we do not respect the power in this right. Or rather know exactly how powerful it is and choose to use that power in a destructive way because we aren't getting our faves. For the first many many years I was eligible to vote, I refused to at all because I do not like how our government and politicians conducts themselves. As soon as I learned about the filibuster I was so pissed I didn't want to partake at all. Have I be impacted by this personally? To an effect, but not in a way that impacts my life significant enough for me to really notice. But in congruence with other privileged decisions not to vote, it has certainly impacted many lives. In a nation where communities are still fighting to have the law meant to protect them properly enforced, it is entirely a privilege abused to choose not to vote.

Though I was 18 in 2007, 2016 I cast my first vote.

Why? Because it was finally looking as though I may face personal consequences if I didn't. Prior to 2016 i wasn't worried bc there was obama, i wasn't old enough to vote when bush was up for relection and seeing him win again embittered me further. by the time I was 18, I saw how unreliable 3rd party was despite my parents being all in that gambit, and otherwise it all felt like nobody was paying attention to the issues only on popularity contests. All i thought of though was my perspective on the matter. It was all me-centric, my choice to withhold from voting in any election. When trump started to look less like a joke and actually got traction, I saw my neighbors trump signs and i looked at where i was in life. I had also began to actually do the work and stop letting apathy guide my decisions, but to rather listen to my humanity and my responsibility as my neighbor's neighbor.

Quite literally. At the time my neighbor was a Black woman. I only spoke to her once and it was when she came by to selflessly make sure I was going to be ok when our landlord was kicking us out to sell the place out from under our feet - something I hadn't even considered doing yet seemed like second nature for her to do (to be fair i was struggling to find a place but i've no idea about her life). I wish i had gotten her name and stayed in touch, it's kind-hearted people like that that are hard to come by. I'm still working on being as selfless.

I was and am proud to have not only voted in 2016, but for my first vote to have been for a woman. I was scared and for someone other than myself for once in 2016. I had high hopes for Clinton based on name recognition and basic common sense.

Humans are not perfect. Nor are they inherently humble.

Trump encouraged arrogance among the most ignorant leaning right. Sanders encouraged arrogance in the most ignorant leaning left. Clinton seemed to always get the most dramatic fire though from both sides, which signaled to me some kind of mess was going on. My own parents tried to sell me on Sanders, but by this point I had a better concept of how to properly research and untangle the mythologies that were parroted by my own parents about Clinton. Even when I proved their parroted lies wrong they were unwilling to concede, only to move the goal post or deflect.

Now, I get to my point.

Which is to really smack upside the head of anyone who chose not to vote in 2016, everyone who is left or liberal but voted for trump, everyone who wrote in someone else. If trump hadnt made it in as POTUS, paired with the republican majority senate, the landscape of the judicial branch would not have faced such a conservative shift, it wouldn't have given mcconnell so much influence, it wouldn't have resulted in the pandemic being so much worse than it needed to be. Many lives would have been spared. You can only blame the government for so long until you realize we are the government, we install the government, and we hold power we must use wisely. We the People.

Many who voted for clinton have been critical of her. As we always should be critical of those we choose in any level of government. We the people hold responsibilities that build this nation from the ground up, and without adherence to those responsibilities it puts other's rights in danger. When we decide that something doesn't matter that much to us or weighing it against the consequences we may personally face - you're failing in your responsibility to your neighbor who is likely doing far more justice to you than you are extending to them.

Yes my white people i look at you.

Yes my white men I look at you.

Yes my white queers I look at you.

Yes my white degree holders I look at you.

Yes white youth I look at you where I once was. When I was younger and arrogant and naive and apathetic and bitter and I let all that guide my choices instead of my concern for the neighbor who was looking out for me.

I still matter in the formation and function of tomorrow's government and I'm going to make sure I let my impact be constructive for all my neighbors who have extended such courtesy to me by not shirking my main duty to make an informed vote in every election i may partake in from local to national.

The differences among us in this nation may seemingly tend to fall along party lines, what the real metric is:

Do you give a fuck outside your own home?

Or is it just about what you want, what you think, what you feel? Nothing in this nation is just involving you or your bestie or your family, we're in this together whether we like it or not. Trust me as someone who struggles daily to find the humanity in others, I know how toxic that can be to your perspective when you give into it. Believe in benefit of the doubt, believe in change, believe in your power to do good for others. Believe and invest in your humanity.

While i can be mad at conservative votes for trump that was to be expected. I'm far more disappointed in the right AND DUTY to vote being given up by so many on the left simply because their fave didn't make it to the finals. That is not how establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, or secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity. AOC and Pressley and Porter did not make it where they are by their supportive constituents abdicating their right to vote.

I accept my faults in never having voted before 2016 even in local elections. It was stupid and selfish and 2016 woke me up to that reality. You don't go from 0 to trump overnight. Do you accept your fault in not voting in 2016 when one of the most detrimental candidates was running and won?

[harry-sussex]

You're lovely, and I enjoy seeing your blog on my dashboard. I'm sorry this has been such a difficult thing to process. It's always really difficult to rework an image of someone you once thought you knew. However I'd like to just put it out there - sometimes (I think the large majority of the time) news is presented in the most sensationalist way, such that nowadays I make a point of de-sensationalizing any news I read in my head. In the case of the whole Harry's memoir thing- I can sympathize with Harry as a person possibly just wanting to take back some control of the narrative for himself. Not just in the most recent events with family (that I tend to think are less horrifying than the fandom/Twitter sussex squad discusses it anyway), but in all aspects of his life. I do not at all think he's going to put his family on blast. I can easily imagine Meghan reigning that dialogue in; she has the tendency to think before she speaks that he seems to lack. And he loves his family. Similar to The Interview promos, I imagine the publishing house knew to increase the interest by implying it to be a tell all memoir. I think he's just done a lot of growing up that he didn't know he had to do over a short period of time, esp re: implicit bias/racism in the setting of media's blatant attack on someone he loves, and is disappointed by the institution's and his family's response to it. I think he's emerged a more introspective and aware human, albeit a disillusioned one. Yes it breaks my heart to think that Meghan won't get a break from the tabloids any time soon. If I were him I'd counsel him to write it & sit on it for a few yrs. But I don't want to give the media the power to destroy Meghan in my mind, and I pray she & Harry won't either. I think she'll be okay. She's a strong one, and I think he's able to draw that same link for himself and be thoughtful about what he does. No one likes being misunderstood/misinterpreted, and I wouldn't be surprised if Harry's especially triggered by that given his history with the press. Maybe this idea emerged from therapy, idk. I can empathize with that, even if I wouldn't do it myself. I hope and pray Meghan gets the support she needs from him and her loved ones in the meantime. I'm honestly not going to read it. I think the less attention I give the BRF the better off they are, unless they're doing something immoral/illegal (see: Woking pizza alibi). And I think at the end of the day, people will unfairly judge other people, especially public figures that have tragic pasts and are publically fighting with the media. A lot of it is going to be noise and I'm not going to give my energy into figuring it out. I like to think I've got a good sense of who they are as people - flawed but ultimately well meaning and earnest. I'm a huge admirer of Meghan and think Harry got really lucky with this one and I'm proud of him for choosing her in more ways than one. I believe Harry and Meghan are lovely people, and I 100% believe their interview. I believe that there are people in the palace with a lot of unchecked power who deliberately uncovered her and Archie from BRF protection for reasons of believed superiority over Meg & Arch. And they're figuring out how to deal with that as a couple and a family. And it's none of my business past that imo. I pray for them and hope it'll eventually end in peace for them all. Just wanted to add another perspective, and hopefully some levity. xx M

Hi, dear. First thing’s first, I really appreciate that this is off anon lol. I love it when people own their opinions, and it says a lot that you did. So thank you for that.

Second of all, I really appreciate the nuance and perspective that is in this message. I agree that the news is sensationalist, and my initial reaction was based off of that. I did watch the promotional clips of the interview and I believe it did sour my expectations going into it when I watched it nearly a week after it aired. I did my best to stay away from Tumblr because I didn’t want that to hinder my view, but it was impossible to separate the promotions that presented the information one way from what it actually was, and thank you for bringing that up with respect to the memoir because I hadn’t considered it. I will say that my knee jerk reaction is pretty on par with the way I still feel about it 24 hours later, especially since I got the news directly, not from Tumblr or Twitter or anywhere else, but you’re right that it could have soured my view from the very start.

I appreciate that he wants to take back some of the narrative but I think that ship has sailed, tbh. He did that with the interview and now I just think it feels like information overload. At some point, people are going to get tired of hearing the wealthy, privileged, powerful Prince complain about his life while more than 4 million people have died due to a global pandemic in less than 2 years. Not to say that he doesn’t struggle - in the words of Roxane Gay, there is no oppression Olympics (and that can be extended to struggle Olympics) - but people view it that way and will get tired of it, if they haven’t already.

I also agree that Harry’s past with the press has tarnished the way he has handled the media and the public post-exit, when he’s finally in a position to strike back without being somewhat obliged to them as part of the circumstances of his birth. I understand and sympathize with him but I just don’t think the public does, and the public matters much, much more than the perspective of one single American fan, to whom he’s never been obliged, and I simply do not think the public will afford him that same understanding, sympathy, and leniency. The public and the media are critical to his humanitarian work - his mother never realized that towards the end of her life, and I truly don’t think she would have been the martyr/saint she is perceived to be now if she had lived, because she did not know how to meet the media in the middle and eventually that started to piss people off. He’s starting to piss people off now and if it doesn’t bother him personally (which it definitely does), I don’t want it to affect his causes. The Invictus Games, Sentebale, Walking with the Wounded, WellChild, Mayhew, Smartworks, Archewell, etc. deserve better than to suffer the wrath of the media and an apathetic public because their patrons simply will not shut up lol.

I guess my point is that they will be unfairly judged (regardless, but especially due to the way they’re handling things), and I think it would suit them better in the long run if they adopted a different strategy. I really sympathize with the fact that he feels frustrated with the narrative that has been manufactured but I really, really think the narrative will only get worse and worse as he continues to go on and on about how badly his life sucks, basically. Again, I don’t deny that he struggles - we all do, some more than others, especially when there are mental health issues - but the public, to me, simply does not care. My own therapist has told me to simply stop caring about the things that I discuss with him. Not to say that they’re not relevant, important, or worthy of discussion - they absolutely are - but his point is that you cannot change people and you are wasting your energy and struggling yourself because you want to change them so, so, so badly that you’re neglecting your own self care in the process. I hate that I do it to myself and I also hate that he appears to be doing it to himself. I’m sure a lot of this conversation has been brought up in his own therapy, and I’m no professional, but I’m doing my best to heed the advice of my own therapist - which is the opposite of what Harry is doing - and it’s done wonders for me, when I actually can do it.

If there’s anything I know from this whole thing, it’s that Harry is absolutely punching above his weight, love him as I may, and that he adores, adores, adores his wife. He has chosen her from the very second she came into his life and I couldn’t want anything more for him or from her. I’m not going to lie, I would have been in this thing for any wife that Harry chose, because I was here long before Meghan specifically came into his life. However, I am glad every day that he chose her, that he loves her, that he wants to protect her, that she loves him back, that he lives the life with her that he’s wanted as long as I (and I’m sure he) can remember. I love her because he loves her, and I would have no matter what, because at the end of the day, it’s his happiness and comfort that matters to me, that has mattered to me since I discovered him and how wonderful he can be more than 7 years ago. What more could I ask of Meghan? What more, as his fan to the end (annoy me as he may), could I want for him? Who could say anything about her in that regard? If there’s anything that has come of this mess, to me, it’s that Harry loves, loves, loves his wife. I will always be happy for him and I will always be proud of him for choosing her, even if I don’t always agree with the way he goes about it.

I’m looking forward to peace, too. I cannot wait for things to just die out, for them to work things out as a couple and as a family, and for everyone to move on. The family will still do their thing and the Sussexes can do theirs, but I cannot deal with this back and forth, tit for tat, petty nonsense anymore. They’re wonderful and flawed, like the rest of them (except Andrew), and I just hope that they can all come to some kind of agreement or terms that lets this die down. It’s exhausting for everyone - themselves included. If I’m this tired, I can only imagine how tired they all are.

Thanks for stopping by, and sorry for the essay (essays, these past 24 hours lol). I really appreciate your kindness in this message, your presence in my notifications (I do see them!), your nuanced perspective and like I said before, I really, really appreciate that you own it!

[screechthemighty]

FR Octane is 100% one of those characters where I can see all the building blocks of WHY he behaves the way he does, but also acknowledge that his behavior is...Bad, it’s not great. And guess what, I accidentally wrote an essay about it if anyone cares! (Listen, I paid a lot of money for an arts degree, if I can’t over-analyze everything then that money was wasted, humor me) ETA: also if you’re thinking of dragging me for this post, please read this first and consider not doing that.

 We’re going to be looking at two big aspects of his character for this analysis. One is more subtext than actual text, but since all the evidence is there (and, if how they handled Wattson’s autism is any indication, will likely never be canon regardless of all the evidence) we’re just going to treat it as canon for the sake of argument. The other one is paracanon which, to be fair, isn’t as canon as “evidence actually in the text”, but again, for the sake of argument, we’ll treat it as such.

Fact the first: Octane, most likely, has ADHD. From the way he behaves, I’m assuming it is either undiagnosed OR he was never adequately taught how to manage his symptoms. The most relevant symptoms to this discussion are his seeming overreaction to Lifeline teasing him (Rejection Sensitive Dysphoria being a common ADHD symptom), his persistent and VERY canon inability to handle boredom, and his equally persistent and canon poor impulse control (especially related to the boredom but in this case it also goes hand in hand with the previously mentioned RSD).

Fact the second: He grew up in an emotionally neglectful and dysfunctional home--his dad had multiple re-marriages (and lbr, probably was cheating on his current wife with the next wife every single time), he was raised more by an assistant who didn’t care to learn his wants and needs, so on, so forth. IMHO, this fact does explain both his larger than life personality AND manipulative behavior. If he stands out and acts out, he gets the attention he craves. If he’s manipulative, he can actually get what he wants/needs from the uncaring adults in his life. He behaves badly because of childhood trauma.

So, with all of these facts in mind, here’s the sequence of events:

Octane is relegated to a task he considers painfully boring (keeping in mind that boredom is one of the worst sensations for the ADHD brain). He is forced to stay in said task by an authority figure who doesn’t listen to his input about what he’d rather be doing or what tasks he might be better suited for.

On top of that, he is teased by someone he considers a close friend (practically family by his own admission) in a way that a) makes light of the situation he finds uncomfortable and b) compares him to an “accountant”, something that is anathema to what he wants to be. Rejection Sensitive Dysphoria kicks in; the comment becomes genuinely hurtful and not just slightly unfunny but well-meaning ribbing.

His intolerance for boredom says “no, we’re not doing that task anymore, let’s go do the fun thing.” Poor impulse control and no buffer to mitigate the effects of poor impulse control say, “the first thought to pop into my head is right, let’s get that dopamine!”

His manipulative tendencies say, “If I make a big fuss, do something stupid, and let Ajay know it’s partially because she was mean to me, then she’ll understand that she hurt me and feel bad about it.” Unresolved trauma means that he doesn’t even THINK to communicate that to her, which would be the HEALTHY thing to do but likely not a method that has ever worked for him in childhood. Instead, he leaves an emotionally manipulative letter and peaces out. 

As of right now, we don’t know what the ULTIMATE outcome is (my money is on him getting his ass kicked TBH). But the IMMEDIATE outcome is that Lifeline feels responsible for something that isn’t her fault and now she and Gibraltar are both going to be put at risk of getting hurt. Octane has also put himself in a position where he’ll probably be hurt. This isn’t going to end well, is what I’m getting at.

NOW. Here’s the thing. The two facts I listed up above are not his fault. Him having ADHD? Not his fault. Him not getting the right help he needed as a child? Not his fault. Him growing up in a dysfunctional environment that had a negative impact on his emotional and interpersonal development? DEFINITELY not his fault. Everything about his behavior based on those two facts makes sense, and I’m not gonna sit here and act like he’s a bad person for being a neurodivergent abuse victim.

But, to paraphrase the very smart Jessica “How to ADHD” McCabe, it may not be his fault, but it is his responsibility--in this case “it” being how he treats other people, which is very much within his control. I get WHY he did it, but he IS being an absolute ass to Lifeline for the second time (that we know of), and that IS wrong. He HAS to learn at some point to not be like this. It’s already temporarily lost him a friendship, and it COULD get him or someone else killed this time around. He’s a grown adult, and despite my/the fandom’s jokes, he does have all his brain cells. At some point he’ll have to realize he can’t treat people like this and adjust his behavior.

To be fair to Octane, I completely understand and acknowledge that getting help and admitting to the things clogging up your brainspace is incredibly hard. Trust me, I have firsthand experience with this one, and my problems are small potatoes in comparison to what’s going on with him. So he’s not necessarily a bad person for not having taken those steps, especially because I’m still not sure he REALIZES he has a problem. Now, if he knew that he was hurting people and continued doing so because “that’s just who I am, they’re the ones who are wrong, actually” against all evidence, then that IS him shirking his responsibilities to other people and himself and I could criticize him for that. But I don’t think he’s at that point yet. Right now he just seems oblivious, which, yeah, we’ve all been in that position where you’re oblivious to your problems even as they’re slowly burning your house down (I cringe looking back on childhood me exhibiting early anxiety symptoms that went unchecked until now, when I’m well past college age).

I also think it would be helpful if someone told him in a CONSTRUCTIVE manner that his behavior is worrying and was able to help him get to that place where he can realize that himself and get help (not saying they should bear the majority of the emotional weight, AM saying that he seems like he needs the extra help and that’s valid, all things considered). Unfortunately...pretty much everyone in Apex Legends is their own flavor of messed up and they ARE in the middle of a crisis, so they’re likely either unable to see it or unable to help because y’know, lot going on.

In conclusion: I say none of this to demonize Octane? I say it because a) I think his character is really neat, flaws and all, hence me referring to him as a “problematic icon”, and b) because I think it does a disservice to his character to ignore his flaws. I don’t want him to be turned from a complex character with a lot of neat stuff going on to an uwu tortured sad boy who’s never at fault. I haven’t seen anyone do that YET (everyone seems to love him for being a trash baby and that’s valid), but, y’know, doesn’t hurt to start the conversation preemptively.

(QUICK sidebar that I didn’t think of until I was tagging his: his privilege as a rich child from a rich family definitely is a contributing factor to his behavior and another stumbling block to him getting help for a lot of reasons? I won’t go into all my thoughts on this because that could be its own essay but tl;dr Rich People often don’t believe in consequences as it is and don’t like to admit to being wrong, and some of this definitely wore off on Octane and is exacerbating the rest of it.)

[rjzimmerman]

Contemplating about what happened last week

I turned on the TV at the beginning of the Kavanaugh hearing and turned it off only when the hearing was over. I didn’t watch the whole thing, but the audio was on in the background. I watched the images sporadically, usually prompted by disturbing, engaging or frightening audio. I was pleased I was engaged in the entire hearing, mainly to scratch the lawyer itch, caused by the hearing process itself, as flawed as it was, and the purpose of the hearing: consenting to the nomination of someone to the U.S. Supreme Court.

I’ve been reading a lot of articles and essays in the media since then, and talking with friends and family. I was outraged and more than mildly worried about absorbing more evidence than our democracy is in trouble. But I needed to study a few bits and pieces in order to understand my outrage and worries.

So, what did I see and hear? Here are a couple of essays.

I saw the caption of an essay which had the words, “toxic masculinity” in it. Hmmmm, that seems to fit what we saw and heard, and what we’ve been seeing with trump and his White House since he was elected. But it also applies generally to the white male, generally white old male, that constitutes the power structure of the republican party, and it has for years. It also applies to decades of behavior toward women and other groups that displease the republican party, and its supporters. The article was published in The Real News Network (along with its video cousin) under the caption, “Kavanaugh Hearings: Toxic Masculinity is ‘Endemic’ to the Far Right.” Here’s the link, and one excerpt:

Well, I think there are a number of things at stake. I mean, I think at one level what we’re seeing is a display of a kind of toxic masculinity that is actually endemic to a kind of fascist politics where women are seen as disposable, are seen as access and are seen as getting in the way, particularly when it comes to sort of articulating through their own voices the kind of suffering they’ve experienced, particularly at the expense of men who are privileged, who have the power to silence them and will absolutely do anything to do that, and are completely unremorseful about what they’re doing.

I think secondly, it seems to suggest that not only is such an attack visceral in terms of the pain and the suffering it inflicts on people who have been victims, but I think at the same time, it begins to speak to policies that might emerge out of this court that are as anti-women, anti-just as the proceedings themselves. And that’s particularly scary. I mean, I think that when any group or any element of the population is seen as so disposable, is treated with such almost visceral violence, we begin to get a whiff of something that is at work here that really isn’t being talked about, and that is a kind of fascist politics that absolutely hates democracy, hates the truth, hates public participation and is doing everything it can to hide, would seem to me, any visible element of what it might mean to take this woman’s narrative seriously and to talk, basically, about the crimes that are built into the system in ways that have to be addressed.

Then I wanted to address the lawyer part of this nomination, and why the process and generally most nominations to the U.S. Supreme Court are part of an elite class of powerful lawyers who basically constitute an unelected, unchecked, uncontrolled de facto nominating committee. I noticed an essay in Think Progress, which was noted online as “A brief guide to the ultra-elitist legal culture that gave us Brett Kavanaugh.” The actual caption of the article is “Brett Kavanaugh hurdled his better-credentialed peers to get his nomination. This is how he did it.” Here’s the link. Basically, it tells us that Harvard and Yale Law Schools dominate the U.S. Supreme Court, and have for years. If Kavanaugh is approved, all the justices will be alumni of those two law schools. (Note: Ruth Ginsberg started at Harvard Law, but transferred to and graduated from Columbia.) There are hints of scandal and naughty in this essay. Worth a read. Excerpt:

The important thing to understand about the Federalist Society is that, with rare exception, they do not promote unqualified ideologues into key jobs. What they can do, however, is make it more likely that when a feeder judge (or a justice, or an attorney general, or a president) is confronted with a dozen highly qualified applicants for a powerful job, the person who ultimately gets the job is a staunch conservative.

The story of how Roberts became a [Judge Henry] Friendly clerk is painfully ironic. Roberts’ predecessor was Merrick Garland, the Supreme Court nominee that Senate Republicans refused to consider in President Obama’s final year in office. Friendly reportedly asked Garland to identify the smartest graduating student at Harvard, and Garland told his boss to hire John Roberts.

Roberts, in other words, does not owe his first big career break to a conservative fraternity. He owes it to a man he has little in common with ideologically. That may explain why Roberts has shown a bit of an independent streak on the Supreme Court. He owes far less to the Federalist Society.

Then, finally, this little bit about what Senator Lindsey Graham called the “gold standard” represented by the “well qualified” rating from the American Bar Association (ABA). Turns out that (1) the ranking level assigned to Kavanaugh by the ABA for his nomination to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in 2006 was lowered during the nomination process, because of concerns about his ability to be a “fair” judge, and (2), while the ABA didn’t withdraw its “well qualified” ranking for the Supreme Court nomination, it delivered its letter Thursday evening requesting an FBI investigation. Here’s a story published by the Washington Post under the caption, “The American Bar Association had concerns about Kavanaugh 12 years ago. Republicans dismissed those, too.” Here’s the link.

[obsidianarchives]

What 'Harry Potter' Doesn’t Teach Us About Allyship & Activism

There is evidence through survey research that for millennials, Harry Potter has contributed to a more tolerant and inclusive political culture and increased investment in diversity and equality. In 7 books, J.K. Rowling gives us a magical world whose characters struggle with personal, social, and political challenges that mirror our own and provide for lessons that continually present themselves in new ways over time. It seems the major themes, like “authoritarianism is bad” and “standing up for yourself is good” hit their mark. When we look more closely, however, we can see gaps in the lessons Harry Potter gives us about heroism, allyship, and anti-racism.

"Anti-racism is defined by the Anti-Racism Digital Library (a research development initiative dedicated to the 9 victims of the Emmanuel AME Charleston 2015 shooting) as some form of focused and sustained action with the intent to change a system, institutional policy, practice, or procedure which has racist effects. "  -- https://sacred.omeka.net/

Harry Potter is not marketed as a story about race or even about activism, though these themes are woven throughout. The heroes of the story are the characters who fight against the idea that there should be an established hierarchy with pureblood wizards at the top, half-blood wizards underneath, and everyone else — Muggleborn, Muggle, and non-human magical creatures — at the bottom. The most prominent system of oppression in the book is aligned to blood status and not skin color, but the parallels between the ideology of pureblood supremacist wizards and the white supremacist Nazis of our world are overt and important. And so, I will use the terms anti-supremacist and anti-racist interchangeably as I talk about the work the heroes of the story do to overthrow Voldemort and the Death Eaters and what they would have done well to approach differently.

The Order of the Phoenix, our main band of heroes, does some great work in the fight against Voldemort. They save Muggle lives when and where they can, they protect Harry, and they show up to fight to the death for their cause. Still, it never seems to occur to the Order or Dumbledore (their leader, who is supposed to be the greatest wizard to ever live) that the fight against the Death Eaters is just one piece of a larger fight to destroy the pureblood supremacist systems they interact with daily. If the Order had realized this, they would have spent the 13 years between the First Wizarding War and Voldemort's resurgence continuing to engage in anti-supremacist work. This means the kind of work that happens away from the battlefield and over shared meals, with community service, and through identity-development is the foundation of true anti-racism and the only way we can see lasting change.  

"If the Order had realized this, they would have spent the 13 years between the first Wizarding War and Voldemort’s resurgence continuing to engage in anti-supremacist work."

An Order of the Phoenix that had a true vision for what a totally restructured and supremacy free Wizarding World looks like would have used the reprieve from fighting Voldermort to educate others about why wizards shouldn't fear or hate Muggles. They would have committed themselves to working for healing and new partnerships with the giants and werewolves preemptively. They would have built contingencies to fight for the closing of Azkaban and fair trials for those accused. They would have distributed the power and privilege they had in order to care for the powerless in their society. Instead, Dumbledore allows history courses in Hogwarts to be run by an uninvested ghost; Muggle Studies continues as an elective and not a requirement; Snape allows students in his house to make comments of blood purity unchecked; Vance, Podmore, and others at the Ministry allow bribery by wealthy families to go unquestioned; and the most marginalized and vulnerable members of the Order are left to survive on their own. The Order of the Phoenix could have multiplied 5 times in size over the course of 13 years and been so influential in the society that the fear and hopelessness felt by the general population when the Death Eaters resurge would have been replaced with resolve. Instead, they allow Voldemort to return to a world operating with business as usual.

In addition to their shortcomings in anti-racist work in the community, the Order fails at true allyship within the organization. The Order capitalizes on the marginalization of members without real attempts to change their position in the larger Wizarding World. Remus, Dung, and Hagrid are all good examples of this exploitation. If we accept that the only possible job Dumbledore could find for Lupin in 13 years is as a teacher at Hogwarts, then we must ask: why must Lupin work in order to deserve care? Could they not come together to provide basic necessities for Dung and Remus, secured room in the Hogshead perhaps? If we accept that none of the Ministry-connected Order members can stop Fudge from sending Hagrid to Azkaban with no trial, hearing, or proof, then we must ask how they helped him recover? The expectancy of Molly to care for everyone, the expectancy of Sirius, Remus, and Hagrid to relive their childhood traumas without argument, and the expectancy of Mrs. Figg to fill the role of multiple people with no magic of her own are just a few additional examples of the lack of true allyship and care for one another within the organization. What incentive would a wizard without a direct link to Dumbledore have to join the Order when they see so little benefit? What reason would house-elves or goblins have to partner with the Order when the Order allows for the mistreatment of elves in their care, has little interest in the freeing of elves overall, and shows no value or respect for goblins and others. 

What the Order of the Phoenix teaches us is that measuring heroics or goodness by ideology alone clouds our reality. A character should not simply have to align with Dumbledore or hate the Death Eaters is to be accepted as good. It is this measure that allows for debate on whether a character that delights in the abuse of children under his care is in fact a hero because he also seems to believe that Voldemort is bad and receives Dumbledore's knighting into the Order of the Phoenix. It is also this measure that allows us to see Molly and Arthur as faultless despite their desire for an enslaved elf, the racist and sexist beliefs we see in Ron and the other boys, and the unfair judgment shown towards others like Fleur and Dung. It is the measure that ranks Albus Dumbledore as the greatest wizard of all time despite his manipulation of the most vulnerable and his willingness to sacrifice others, and the selective nature of the injustices he chooses to fight. Sirius Black tells us that the world isn't divided into good people and Death Eaters and I think we need to accept that the world is also not divided into bad people and heroes. There are many of us, arguably decent humans, who have incredibly far to go in backing up our beliefs and values with real action and change before we earn any badge of honor. The Wizarding World’s problem is this flawed perception that if they just get enough people to believe the right things, society will restructure itself. This magical world, like ours, doesn’t want to question, it doesn’t want to reconcile, it doesn’t want restorative justice, but is then shocked that supremacist uprisings keep occurring.

"This magical world, like ours, doesn’t want to question, it doesn’t want to reconcile, it doesn’t want restorative justice, but is then shocked that supremacist uprisings keep occurring."

In our world, this looks like not challenging problematic family members in their views and then being surprised when they are recorded acting on their beliefs. It looks like not reporting sexual harassment in the workplace and being shocked at the number of victims your team member has assaulted.  It looks like spreading trans-exclusionary rhetoric and still believing you are champion of the marginalized. We must do better than our beloved characters in this series that we look to for guidance by remembering not to ascribe the evils of the world to one person or government. There is no one "big bad." When we are not all intentional about learning the actions and ideas that reinforce and perpetuate systems of oppression so that we can interrupt those things daily, our good hearts are meaningless. 

The millennial generation is often called the Harry Potter generation as a compliment and a nod to how accepting and progressive we are. But maybe it’s time for the Harry Potter generation to grow up and be more. Because just being accepting — or just focusing our energy on one Voldemort at a time — isn’t actually what tears down systems of oppression. It’s the daily work of practicing what you preach and committing to learning more. The Harry Potter generation, like Dumbledore and other Order members, is comfortable “knowing where we stand” and nothing more. But just as we’re left questioning the “goodness” of Snape, Sirius, or even Molly and Arthur, future generations will question ours if we don’t actively live out our self-claimed anti-racism.

If you are interested in learning more about Anti-Racist work, you can visit Ibram Kendi’s anti-racism center, RacialEquityTools, or Teaching Tolerance. The Harry Potter Alliance is an awesome organization that is dedicated to making activism accessible and sustainable. There are also incredible Harry Potter fan communities engaging in critical fandom and collectively using their learning to foster change in the real world at Black Girls Create and Harry Potter and the Sacred Text.

[latestnews2018-blog]

'Generation Wealth' Is A Wild Peek Into The 1 Percent, Where Women Just Can't Win

New Post has been published on https://latestnews2018.com/generation-wealth-is-a-wild-peek-into-the-1-percent-where-women-just-cant-win/

'Generation Wealth' Is A Wild Peek Into The 1 Percent, Where Women Just Can't Win

One of the most prophetic photos in Lauren Greenfield’s 25-year-long documentary project, “Generation Wealth,” shows a 12-year-old Kim Kardashian hanging out with friends at a school dance in the early 1990s.

Dressed casually in overalls and a white T-shirt, Kardashian is more than a few reality TV spinoffs away away from the glam icon she’s become. Yet her lips are touched with rouge, hinting at a budding fancy for self-enhancement. And while her classmates ignore the camera in their midst, Kardashian perks up at the sight of it, gazing into the lens with curiosity and slight amazement. 

It’s an eerie premonition of what’s to come, the Kardashian-ization of our cultural consciousness. Back in the ’90s, Kim K. was another privileged kid at a Los Angeles middle school populated by celebrity offspring. But fast forward a couple decades and “[k]eeping up with the Joneses literally became keeping up with the Kardashians,” Greenfield often repeats in interviews about her project.

Greenfield, the filmmaker behind “The Queen of Versailles,” has spent two and a half decades obsessively filming, photographing and interviewing hundreds of subjects like pre-E! Kardashian, whose lives have been in some way warped by capitalism’s scourge ― from hedge fund managers to child beauty queens, aspiring rappers to trust fund teenagers. 

The anthropological study took the form of a photography exhibition last year, a disorienting glimpse into the lives of the 1 percent, as well as with those who crumble in their desperate attempt to reach the upper echelons. Now, it’s headed to the big screen as a documentary distributed by Amazon.

Overall, the documentary ― like the photo project that preceded it ― critiques what it perceives to be our new, debased American dream and everything that comes along with it: greed, vanity, unchecked ambition, an obsession with surfaces. All no good, very bad consequences of corporate capitalism.

Kardashian reappears in the film, framed as the embodiment of societal ills all grown up. Clips of her sex tape play as Courtney Roskop, a former adult film actress, says, “I always say Kim is my inspiration.”

Greenfield posits Kardashian as the ultimate incarnation of our fame-hungry culture and its all-consuming desire to get more by doing less. Her reality TV empire played a critical role in obscuring the line between fiction and reality. Most damningly, Greenfield suggests, she’s transformed her body into a commodity, embraced sexuality as a form of currency, and inspired other women to do so, too. 

And therein lies the problem with Greenfield’s doc. 

Whereas the project’s still photos depict their subjects ― flawed and outrageous as they may be ― with empathy and detached fascination, as if her camera can’t help but be somewhat seduced by the shiny horrors it aims to criticize, the film lacks this same nuance. Instead, it beats viewers over the head with overwrought narration, a cheesy soundtrack and a moralizing tone ― one that’s particularly deaf in its treatment of women, who, in an effort to climb the ladder to success, historically start more than a few rungs down from their male counterparts.

In the process of condemning the commodification of women’s bodies, “Generation Wealth” demonizes sexuality as a means of appealing to the men who profit most from the system anyway. And it fails to acknowledge sexual expression as anything but an unfortunate side effect of patriarchal capitalist culture’s blight. By embracing eroticism as a form of capital, Greenfield winds up alternately walloping and pitying the women who yearn for it and exude it. At times, her critiques of their lifestyle veer off the topic of wealth all together. 

In the end, Greenfield’s cinematic portrait paints the Donald Trumps and Stormy Danielses of the world with the same broad brush. 

Lauren Greenfield courtesy of Amazon Studios

For example, Greenfield invites “Generation Wealth” viewers into an upscale workout class, dubbed cardio striptease, where a room full of women spin around poles and dance suggestively as a teacher cheers them on.

“Let’s roll over and crawl and act like we like it,” the teacher says, as women move sensually on all fours. The smiles and laughter, however, suggest they genuinely do enjoy exploring their sexuality in such an open, though perhaps absurd, safe space. Greenfield interprets the scene differently. Even women who don’t financially benefit from their sexuality, she seems to argue, manage to exploit themselves. This is the capitalistic hellscape we occupy.

Cut to Magic City, a strip club in Atlanta, Georgia, where a combination of narration and hedonistic imagery cue the intended lesson. “At Magic City, beautiful girls use their sexual capital to rise to the top,” Greenfield proclaims, as images of naked black women dancing amid flurries of cash play on-screen. 

“When I first started dancing, I felt like I made it,” Diamond, a stripper at Magic City, tells Greenfield. Her words play over footage of women on their hands and knees, gathering wads of money from the floor. “Being average has never been an option for me.” The intended juxtaposition ― Diamond’s words versus the reality Greenfield sees ― is cringeworthy. 

Greenfield places the onus of responsibility not on the men treating women like objects (“I’m throwing money on a person, and she likes it!” a DJ who also works at the club says into the camera) but on the women who take pride in their work and their bodies for being blind to their supposed exploitation. Diamond doesn’t seem to possess the outrageously deep pockets of some of Greenfield’s other subjects, nor has she indicated in any way that stripping has negatively impacted her life. And yet Greenfield frames her as an unfortunate casualty in capitalism’s wake, conforming to the patriarchal underpinnings of the patrons and employers who might objectify her. 

Lauren Greenfield, courtesy of Amazon Studios

Adam, 13, and a go-go dancer hired to entertain at a bar mitzvah party at the Whisky a Go Go nightclub in West Hollywood, 1992.

But one need not venture into a strip club to witness women exploiting themselves, Greenfield argues. All you need is an internet connection. Although social media didn’t exist when her project began in the early ’90s, Greenfield suggests that it provides the perfect platform for women to Kardashian-ify themselves now. 

Take it from Greenfield’s 15-year-old son Noah, who conducted an “Instagram study” on the subject, the findings of which wound their way into his mom’s doc. “I feel like a lot of my friends are in very revealing bikinis to make sure they get a lot of likes,” he says against a backdrop of Instagram photos of underage girls in bathing suits, their faces blacked out.

“Guys want what’s really demeaning to women,” Noah continues, as an nude selfie of Kim K. hits the screen. “To match guys’ expectations, I think lot of women try to replicate it.” A 15-year-old boy’s dogged conviction that scantily clad women are debasing themselves for men’s enjoyment is taken as fact, thereby amplifying the film’s overarching message that women are incapable of subverting the capitalist trappings thrust upon them. 

Noah then discusses which Instagram posts don’t get as many likes: namely, in his experience, those which depict family. A cute family photo of the Greenfields flashes on screen.

Family, the film emphasizes, is the way out of our current consumer dystopia, and childbearing an antidote to women’s perpetual self-degradation. Most every hopeful moment in “Generation Wealth” revolves around family, and in particular, motherhood.

Suzanne, a workaholic who spent unseemly amounts of money on her personal appearance, describes feeling changed “so dramatically” by the birth of her daughter, whom she describes as “the prize.”

When she muses on her shifting spending habits, from contemporary art for herself to ballet classes for her daughter, the film’s happy Disney background music communicates a positive change has occurred. Never mind the fact that her spending seems just as exorbitant. 

Lauren Greenfield courtesy of Amazon Studios

Mijanou, 18, who was voted Best Physique at Beverly Hills High School, at Senior Beach Day, Santa Monica, California, 1993.

The sentiment continues as Greenfield revisits a woman named Mijanou, whom she initially met in 1994 as a high schooler in Los Angeles, when she was awarded “best body” of her graduating class.

As an adult, Mijanou is just as beautiful, though her style is more bohemian earth mother now. In the film, she runs with her daughter Sahaya through an idyllic field, conveniently located in the backyard of a mansion that she is probably not trespassing on, as she praises the benefits of “conscious parenting” and a TV-less lifestyle. 

“I feel protective over her. She’s so beautiful,” Mijanou says of her daughter, before recalling the more painful memories of her own adolescence. “I think about that time, and how even I used to dress, and I’m now like, oh my God, I would never want Sahaya to go out like that.”

She’s framed as having escaped consumerism’s devilish grips, primarily by covering up and giving birth.

Overall, the documentary provides a wild glimpse into the highest ranks of wealth. And it admits that, under capitalism, women get the short end of the stick. However, by framing family as the ultimate panacea to the damage consumerism inflicts, and caricaturing the women whose priorities remain elsewhere, Greenfield muddles her point.

She fails to consider that child-rearing isn’t an antidote to income inequality, but in fact, a sure way to perpetuate it. 

!function(f,b,e,v,n,t,s)if(f.fbq)return;n=f.fbq=function()n.callMethod? n.callMethod.apply(n,arguments):n.queue.push(arguments);if(!f._fbq)f._fbq=n; n.push=n;n.loaded=!0;n.version=’2.0′;n.queue=[];t=b.createElement(e);t.async=!0; t.src=v;s=b.getElementsByTagName(e)[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(t,s)(window,document,’script’,’https://connect.facebook.net/en_US/fbevents.js’); fbq(‘init’, ‘1621685564716533’); // Edition specific fbq(‘init’, ‘1043018625788392’); // Partner Studio fbq(‘track’, “PageView”); fbq(‘track’, ‘ViewContent’, “content_name”:”‘Generation Wealth’ Is A Wild Peek Into The 1 Percent, Where Women Just Can’t Win”,”content_category”:”us.hpmgarts” ); fbq(‘trackCustom’, ‘EntryPage’, “section_name”:”Culture & Arts”,”tags”:[“@health_gad”,”@health_pain”,”@health_depression”,”@health_adhd”,”@health_models”,”@health_hiv”,”@health_erectile”,”@health_ibs”,”kim-kardashian”,”income-inequality”,”wealth”,”documentary-film”,”lauren-greenfield”],”team”:”us_enterprise_culture”,”ncid”:null,”environment”:”desktop”,”render_type”:”web” ); waitForGlobal(function() return HP.modules.Tracky; , function() /* TODO do we still want this? $(‘body’).on(‘click’, function(event) HP.modules.Tracky.reportClick(event, function(data) fbq(‘trackCustom’, “Click”, data); ); ); */ );

[itsblueberry13-blog]

#THIS IS NOT KYLE HATE#!!!!!#i love him#but i think he genuinely might be like every leftist moc i know#and fight for the right things#but also have his own flaws and unchecked privilege#i promise i’m not hating on him 😭💞 this is also slightly a joke#kyle rayner#pls don’t attack me

No but Kyle is such a realistic leftist man of color because he’s the type to fight against oppression, call out institutions, prioritize human rights, punch homophobes, but then he’ll turn right around and make a misogynistic joke without even thinking