#but arguably the fact that people are doing violence is more. societal.

[siaradwast]

yk how like. some british people make "jokes" about school shootings in the usa which are obviously not at all funny. well not only is it not funny but also it's like. not hypocritical, exactly, but something like that. because whilst the usa's issue with violence against children is based around gun violence, the uk actually has a pretty similar issue with knife crime against children. so i think the bigger thing to focus on is "hey it's pretty fucked up that there is so much violence against children" rather than "at least we don't have guns". because whilst i don't agree with the first amendment, im not entirely sure guns themselves are the whole issue, since a similar level of knife crime exists in the uk.

basically: the "violence" part of "gun violence in the usa" is quite possibly the bigger thing to focus on rather than "gun", especially when you consider that you can say "knife violence in the uk" and it would be a comparable sentiment

[chamerionwrites]

i’m curious as to whether your “live and let live” approach to non-normative behavior applies to those whose ‘kinks’ arguably cause material harm to themselves and others. i’m talking here about people who produce written or drawn CSAM, people openly fetishize rape in spaces full of abuse survivors, bdsm guys who get off on hitting women, and the like. are we to ignore them on the grounds that all parties involved gave consent? anyone who’s ever been in an abusive relationship can tell you that consent does not imply the absence of coercive dynamics, and all human behaviors, including sexuality, are influenced by & capable of upholding oppressive societal power structures. i suppose i’m just confused considering it’s generally accepted in leftist circles that we should critique and self-reflect upon the ways that our behaviors and interpersonal interactions are influenced by the society that we live in, but kinks are frequently treated as simple personal quirks—as if they exist in a vacuum.

This is frankly a very accusatory and passive-aggressive ask to drop into a complete stranger's inbox so I can only assume something I posted upset you, even though you haven't given me further context on what that might be. Are you "curious," or are you looking for a target to work out your discomfort or anxiety or frustrations around this topic? Because while I'm genuinely willing to have this discussion with you, I'm not optimistic that it will be a productive one if (my impression from the general tone here) you're solely looking for a fight.

That said, maybe I'm reading you wrong! Or maybe I'm reading real frustration and anxiety over some understandably fraught topics, but the curiosity and confusion are sincere. I'm not trying to dunk on you here; I'm just not interested in being a chew toy, and tone can be tricky on the internet.

What I will say for now is this: I need two hands to count the people I personally know (offline. that I know of.) who have been raped. I live in a country that locks away nearly 1% of its population in a prison system where rape is so endemic - and societally recognized as such - that it's the punchline to shitty jokes. Arguably rape is normal - or at least, the systems and attitudes that perpetuate it are normal. Which of course does not and could never make it moral, and which is exactly why I object to conflating normality with morality.

If someone is harming others the problem is that they are harming others, regardless of how normative or not their actions may be. "Nobody else is doing it," is not in itself an ethical condemnation, any more than "Everybody else is doing it," is an ethical defense. In fact, "normalcy" and respectability and the social power derived from upholding the status quo are frequently among the best weapons and shields of abusers.

Weirdness is not violence. Violence is violence, and frequently it's entirely "normal" (common, unremarkable, systemic) in everything but the minds and words of people who NEED it to be other and aberrant, lest they have to reckon with the radical social changes it would take to solve it.

[fangirleaconmigo]

Geralt of Rivia vs Dandelion, and Education

One of my favorite qualities of The Witcher books is the complexities of the characters and how their (often abusive) pasts are a dynamic and believable part of forming their characters.

This feels especially authentic in the Geralt/Dandelion friendship around themes of education. (Dandelion is Jaskier in the show.)

You might expect Dandelion, the man with a degree in the seven liberal arts from the preeminent educational institution to be the one to hold formal education in high esteem. You might expect Geralt, the witcher who makes his living providing dangerous manual labor, to be the one who puts less emphasis on education. (Yes I have already talked about how educated Geralt is, but humor me a little bit more in this context)

But right away, in The Last Wish, it is apparent that these expectations would be completely off the mark.

In their first scene together, Dandelion finds Geralt in Nenneke's library. Geralt has spent a few days in the library at that point, studying The History of the World by Roderick de Novembre. There is no mission or hunt related reason. He just likes learning and thinking.

Dandelion greets him, states that he did read the book at Oxenfurt, but that History was not favorite subject. He says that Geography was his favorite subject because you could "hide a demijohn of vodka" behind an atlas. He refers to Roderick de Novembre as "that old fart."

When Geralt offers him booze,

"The bard visibly cheered up. "Wisdom and inspiration, I see, are still to be found in libraries. Oooh! I like this. Plum, is it? Yes, this is true alchemy. This is a philosopher's stone well worth studying..."

Then Geralt waxes philosophical for four and a half pages about the ethics of his profession, bemoaning the difficulty of making a living when people are constantly expecting him to do cruel things, like kill or capture innocent creatures who aren't hurting anyone.

Dandelion calls him "philosopher" and urges him to stop feeling sorry for himself. He tries to get him to take action instead. He says that Geralt should either switch professions, or loosen up his ethics in order to better financially provide for himself.

He advises Geralt to:

"become a priest. You wouldn't be bad at it with all your scruples, your morality, your knowledge of people and of everything. The fact you don't believe in any gods shouldn't be a problem..."

The noble born, educated man is dismissive of historians and libraries, and stresses the importance of booze, pragmatism and survival. The witcher, by contrast, has spent days studying and thinking about history by choice, and has a steadfast attachment to ethical behavior and moral philosophy.

This makes SO MUCH SENSE to me. The recurrent theme is choice and expectations. What happens when you aren't given a choice? And how do inflexible societal expectations form you? Who do you become when you are forced to constantly push back against them?

Neither Geralt nor Dandelion had a choice in their early lives.

Not only was Dandelion, as a minor noble, not given a choice to be formally educated, but he was abused in the process. According to Geralt, Dandelion studied at a temple where literacy was "beaten into him" with a cane. It wasn't as horrific as the process of making a witcher (not much is), but for Dandelion, books and libraries remind him of having a lack of power over his own life, punctuated by beatings. He spent his college years constantly wasted, which, in this context, suggests to me that he arguably used alcohol as an emotional escape. Also, Dandelion knows the historians and academics personally, and how they treated him (for good or bad) probably also colors his judgment.

Whereas Geralt was forced into a profession where people always want to use him as an unthinking tool of violence. All he wants is to use his profession for good, and all everyone else wants, is to use him for any violence they need him to commit. In The Last Wish, he infuriates both Calanthe and Yen with his refusal to commit violence for them. He infuriates Foltest by insisting on using his own judgment with the striga. They are all pleased with his work by the end, but he has to defy them all to different degrees, risking punishment by execution each time, to handle their problems the way he sees fit. Geralt's desire to use his intellect and to stick by his ethics are a huge economic and physical liability in his life.

So, it makes perfect sense that in The Witcher, the 'lower class' man is the hero who fights to live by his own ethical code. The poet is the pragmatist. The survivor.

The monster hunter is the philosopher who finds refuge in books and libraries. The man with the degree in the seven liberal arts just wants to drink and love and be by his best friend's side.

I appreciate characters that reflect the nuances of how a person would develop under different types of early abuse or trauma or just under inflexible sets of societal expectations. That is how you defy expectations, subvert stereotype, and create characters that feel real to people.

Look, I could go on. There is so much more to the nuances of this friendship. And so many more witcher characters this applies to. But thanks for letting me ramble. I love that I've found people on the internets who like to nerd about about this stuff as much as I do.

[izzyliker]

I LIKE. totally get why people arent super into jondaisy or daisy in general and i dont really think people need to feel positively about daisy because like beyond the “someone who committed unforgivable acts of violence” angle there is also the layer of “police brutality” which is going to hit a lot of people in ways that are both very personal and stiflingly societal. but . i am going to discuss jondaisy. because i am so fucking fascinated by their dynamic in so many ways. 

anyway in s5 the things that stood out to me were. 

1. jon saying he never forgave daisy

2. daisy never asking him to

3. jon wishing daisy had recognized him, after going fully hunt. 

and it was i think such a chilling distillation of their dynamic that makes me FUCKING LOSE IT. like the fact that 

one, jon did not ever forget OR forgive daisy for what she did to him,

two, he TRIED TO CUT OFF HIS FINGERS and then GAVE UP HIS RIBS to go into the coffin to SAVE HER despite this, 

THREE, there is NO FUCKING WAY daisy didnt know that jon DID NOT FORGIVE HER and that him going into the coffin for her was NOT him saying its ok now, youre forgiven, but a very pointed its not fine and i dont forgive you but this is the right thing to do, and 

FOUR i believe that yes her reflection and introspection re her actions and the kind of person shed been and let herself be and enabled basira to be as well happened partially because she was in the buried for six months with nothing but her thoughts BUT the catalyst for her desire to ACTUALLY change and decide to do whatever the fuck it took to be better INCLUDING die was because jon got into the coffin to rescue her, NOT because he forgave her, but because he DIDNT, and he did it anyway. 

(arguably you can say that it was also a kind of a suicide mission. you can also argue it was because at that point jon was trying to get SOMETHING concrete GOOD done. you can also argue jon was just sort of like, resigned to the idea that he was good for nothing anyway so it didnt really matter. but jon saying he didnt forgive her makes me think there was an interpersonal relationship between them that made this a MORE complicated choice than “going into coffin easy way to die” like tim’s choice to blow the wax museum up was, or martin’s surrender to the lonely)

like. i cant fucking imagine the kind of person you have to be to be willing to cut your fingers off. to go to jared fucking hopworth and go take my fucking ribs idc. i need to go into the buried to save the woman who has been nothing but hostile to me and who tried to KILL me. and i need something to anchor me. so i will give up A PART OF MY BODY for that purpose. it makes me fucking lose my mind imagining the guilt daisy mustve felt. or not even guilt, because she wouldnt wallow in that, but – looking at someone who did that for her. who believed in her that much. that she was still worth saving. who said im a monster. and i dont forgive you for what you did to me, because i cant and dont want to and i get to choose if i do that and i won’t. and said youre a monster too. but i still think youre worth saving. so you can be better. because i still think we can both be better. 

which goes back to the wishing she’d recognized him. because she recognized him once, as a peer. as another person whod done things that they felt could never be forgiven (on a smaller scale and this is arguable anyway, sure, but still) but who still saw her as a person. there was a time where they saw each other as equals who were pushing each other to do better. and its such a fucking shame that it can’t happen again because daisy is gone now.

[rnelodyy]

C!Dream, the status quo, and why conflict is okay sometimes.

In this fandom, there is a lot of talk about conflict, who causes it, who avoids it, who is to blame for it, et cetera. An argument often heard from c!Dream apologists to justify his abysmal treatment of L’Manburg in general and c!Tommy in specific is “He was just trying to stop people causing conflict! He was protecting the server by stopping these conflict-causing maniacs!”

And it’s not hard to see where they get this idea from, because c!Dream repeats this sentiment a lot, from his “happy family” speech, to the speech during the final disc war about how c!Tommy causes constant conflict, to the fact that he always portrays himself as a reasonable authority figure trying to calm down these feral creatures always fighting with one another (and we’ll get to that idea…).

My reasoning for explaining how c!Dream’s worldview is deeply flawed may be a bit controversial, so I decided to write this essay to explore the following idea:

Sometimes, conflict is good actually.

(all /dsmp /rp, names refer to characters, not content creators)

Conflict, in itself, is morally neutral. It’s the context surrounding the conflict that allows us to ascribe morality to it. This fact makes this topic a LOT harder to discuss, because morality is subjective. What I’m writing here is all my own opinion, you may agree or disagree on some points, I just ask that you read it through and please don’t start shit over this.

Anyway, the context. It’s dependent on a number of factors.

Justification. Why was the conflict started?

Intent. What is the desired outcome for either party?

Proportionality. If the conflict is started out of revenge or punishment, is it proportionate to the wrong committed?

Power Dynamic. Is the person on the receiving end more, less, or equally as powerful as the person starting the conflict?

For example, let’s compare the L’Manburg War for Independence with the intervention during the Final Disc War.

Justification:

Dream declared war on L’Manburg because he saw them as traitors, and the land they occupied as rightfully his. Therefore, them making a country of their own where his rules didn’t apply was a violation of the status quo he wanted to uphold.

Punz and the others intervened because they didn’t want Dream to kill Tommy and/or Tubbo, and were tired of his constant meddling in their affairs.

Intent:

Dream’s intent was to attack L’Manburg until they surrendered, no matter how much hurt he’d cause or how many lives he’d take.

Punz and the other’s intent was to stop Dream from killing Tommy and Tubbo, and stop whatever plan he had to keep the server under control.

Proportionality:

L’Manburg declared independence in response to brutal violence as retribution for clumsy attempts at crime, on land nobody except Wilbur was using, were explicitly pacifistic and invited Dream to make an embassy in their land to discuss trade. Dream responded by declaring war, destroying their land, luring them into a trap and killing them, and continuing to beat them down until they surrendered.

Punz and the others intervened after Dream dragged two teenagers out into the wilderness to fight him, with little chance of them ever returning. This was after months of Dream’s meddling in conflicts he had nothing to do with, trying to control people’s actions, ripping Tommy away from his home and abusing him in secret and, in the end, destroying the place most synonymous with freedom from his rule. They intervened by getting Tommy and Tubbo to safety, letting Tommy (the kid who arguably suffered the most at Dream’s hands) take his items and beat him to death twice, then locking him up in prison.

Power Dynamic:

L’Manburg was significantly less powerful than Dream and his goons, with less skilled fighters and heavily inferior gear. They held their position fairly okay at the start, but after the Final Control Room, they were basically defenseless against Dream’s assault.

Dream had always had unprecedented power on the server. He’s leveled entire countries, crowns and dethrones kings when he feels like it, overruled the decision of a court of law, and in the end, had Tommy and Tubbo completely at his mercy before the intervention. Even beating Dream was seen as such an insurmountable task that it took fourteen people (excluding Clingyduo) to take him down.

The thing about conflict, even violent conflict, is that it’s not always negative. If your sister is being abused by her boyfriend and refuses to report it out of fear, you’re gonna be hard-pressed to find someone unable to sympathize with you if you go over to his house and break his nose.

What is a defining feature of conflict, is that it disrupts the status quo.

That’s not to say that some characters are always disruptors and others always preservers of the status quo. For example, during the Disc War, Tommy is the one trying to preserve and Dream the one trying to disrupt (the status quo being: Tommy owns the discs), and during the L’Manburg War for Independence, Tommy and Wilbur are disrupting while Dream is preserving (the status quo being: Dream has absolute power and the entire server needs to follow his rules).

It’s ALSO not to say that this disruption is always bad, because sometimes, the status quo fucking sucks, and throwing it on its head is the right thing to do. Overthrowing Schlatt is seen by everyone on the SMP and pretty much every fan as morally correct, as while Schlatt being president was the status quo, it meant he was ruling as a dictator, exiling his political opponents, imprisoning and heavily taxing dissenters, being verbally and physically abusive to his cabinet members, and forcing a guest at his festival to execute a sixteen year-old boy for spying for the political opponent he exiled.

Conflict being a genuinely good force of societal change isn’t usually brought up in the fandom though, at least not consciously. A lot of people, both on the server and IRL, see conflict only as a source of hurt and pain, and try to prevent or avoid it as much as possible.

And here’s where Dream differs from someone like Ranboo. Because while both Dream and Ranboo operate on the assumption that all conflict is bad all the time, Ranboo shows this by becoming conflict-avoidant to the extreme, to the point where he refuses to pick sides in pretty much any conflict, no matter how obviously good or evil one side is. Meanwhile, Dream shows this by becoming controlling to the extreme. Mitigating conflict isn’t enough, he needs to control everything to prevent all conflict ever.

In Ranboo’s case, this is less due to ideology and more due to personality. Ranboo is a deeply anxious person, and hates being in the middle of fights. He’s also… not very self-critical? He has issues with self-worth, but he very rarely takes a look in the mirror to inspect what it actually is he believes and says, making him very gullible and convinced of his own righteousness. But while that’s a VERY interesting character trait, Ranboo’s conflict-avoidance doesn’t make him a very good character to examine in the context of conflict and what it means.

So let’s look at Dream. Because, despite claiming to want to stop conflict, Dream CONSTANTLY starts conflicts or escalates existing ones. The L’Manburg War for Independence could’ve been entirely avoided if Dream hadn’t lashed out so heavily at a nation of pacifists who made their own area to avoid violence from authorities. As I explored in my George Vod Analysis, the griefing of George’s house would’ve been a lighthearted dispute between two people if Dream hadn’t taken over the entire thing and turned it into one of the biggest diplomatic crises in the server’s history. Mexican L’Manburg hadn’t even existed for an hour before Dream came by to kill its residents and destroy its land.

So why is Dream so focused on stopping conflict, despite constantly starting it himself? Why is THAT his hill to die on?

Simple. Dream wants to prevent disruptions to the status quo. That status quo being “Dream is the one in power and everyone has to listen to him.”

But you can’t say that out loud. If you say “everyone needs to listen to me otherwise it’s not fair”, you sound like a whiny five year-old at best, and a tyrant at worst. So, instead of saying that, Dream says “I just want to prevent conflict, keep the server peaceful.”

Remember what I said about one party being the disruptor and another being the preserver? Well, Dream’s status in the early days of the server is almost always preserver of the status quo. The only times he’s the disruptor is if disrupting that status quo serves to strengthen the status quo of him being in power. For example: Stealing Tommy’s discs is a disruption of the “Tommy’s discs are his and his alone” status quo, but strengthens the “Dream is the most powerful dude on the server” status quo, because the discs give him power over Tommy.

By fighting L’Manburg, he was trying to preserve the status quo, because having a government on the server meant he no longer had absolute power. Hell, REALLY early on, he decided to kill George and burn all his stuff because George had full diamond while everyone else was still running around in iron armor.

However, after L’Manburg’s independence, Dream’s focus shifted. Instead of preserving the status quo, he’d disrupt it in order to return to the status quo as HE wanted it, with no nations, and himself at the top.

But again, that wouldn’t look good. Making yourself the undisputed ruler of the entire server is not good for optics, so instead, Dream hides behind the excuse that he’s just trying to stop conflict, or seeking retribution for slights against his nation.

By this point, Tommy, the only person who CONSTANTLY refuses to bow to his demands, becomes his scapegoat. Tommy is loud, enjoys chaos and getting on people’s nerves, and causes, admittedly, a LOT of conflict. Lighthearted, non-serious conflict with very little actual consequences, but conflict nonetheless. It’s not hard for him to start smearing Tommy’s name, painting him as this feral child at fault for every conflict ever, mostly because a lot of people already believed something like that to be true.

The idea that Tommy is uniquely destructive or chaotic is complete bullshit. Tommy is definitely on the more chaotic side, but he’s not that much more chaotic or destructive than your average server member, he’s just really loud and annoying about it, which makes the things he DOES do stick out more. But Dream, especially during the Exile Conflict, continuously pushed the idea that Tommy is the only one creating conflict on the server, that Tommy is responsible for all conflict ever, and that without Tommy, everyone would be at peace.

And at some point… Dream started believing this himself.

His speech during the Final Disc War illustrates this perfectly. He tells Tommy that ever since he joined, there’s been nothing but war and terrorism and conflict, and that those originated from the attachments Tommy brought to the server. That, by cutting off his own attachments, exploiting everyone else’s, and getting rid of Tommy, he could restore the old status quo, before L’Manburg, before Tommy, when everything was peaceful and no conflict existed. Except, Tommy is too fun to fuck with, so instead of killing him, Dream was going to lock Tommy up in Pandora’s Vault, probably for the rest of his life, to continue breaking him.

This is a prime example of Dream falling for his own bullshit.

First of all, Tommy didn’t cause all those wars, he was actually on the receiving end of most of them. A vast majority of the wars and terrorism Tommy got caught up in were actually started by Dream, or Dream was actively helping the guy who started it.

Second, Tommy didn’t bring the concept of attachment to the server. He gets very attached to things, true, but attachment is a very basic part of the human condition. Even Dream, the guy openly shunning all attachment, isn't immune to it, in the end, he’s attached to the server as a whole, and Tommy, who he gave almost biblical importance in his narrative. Like Tommy said, if you have no attachment to things, why does anything matter at all?

Third, getting rid of Tommy and controlling the entire server with their attachments… that wouldn’t have restored the status quo, because the status quo exactly as Dream envisioned it never existed. He’s not chasing a past that was ruined by Tommy, he’s chasing an idealized fairytale version of the past where everyone was friends and frolicked around in the fields and there was never any conflict, before Tommy came along and ruined everything. Before Tommy joined, there was a SHIT ton of conflict, from minor disputes over theft, to the above-mentioned incident where Dream destroyed George’s stuff, to the lemon tree conflicts that wound up being taken to court!

Except, even this idea of Dream wanting to restore an idealized, made-up past is only partially true. What Dream is looking to return to and uphold is a world where he was the only authority and nobody questioned him. The status quo he wants to return to, no matter how much he denies it, is the one where everyone was at his mercy and he could do whatever he wanted without impunity. However, because he’s convinced himself that conflict is the issue, not disobedience, even if his plan succeeded, he’d have to keep the entire server in a chokehold to get them to follow his ideal plan.

Because conflict is inevitable. Anywhere where there’s two or more people sharing a space, you’re going to run into conflict at some point. People will have disagreements, they will fight, they will have miscommunications, they will have a bad day or accident and antagonize someone else.

Resolving these issues through conflict, whether it’s verbal, physical or legal, will result in a healthier community in the long run, because people’s pent-up frustrations will get an outlet, and people will try to hash out compromises or accommodations based on the reactions they get. It’s not always the ideal solution, but it’s better than just sitting everyone down, telling them to play nice, and smacking them over the back of the head as soon as they start complaining.

But conflict threatens the status quo. And as Dream involves himself in more and more conflict, they increasingly start threatening HIS status quo. So in order to maintain his status quo, conflict needs to be stomped out as soon as it crops up, no matter how minor it is.

So, now to paint a timeline through this lens.

Dream started off as the ultimate power on the server, able to do whatever he wanted without consequence. Tommy joined and threatened that status quo, but he was just one guy, so keeping him away and occupied wasn’t too hard. It was fun, even.

Then L’Manburg came, and posed the first substantial threat to Dream’s rule. Dream tried crushing this rebellion before it had a chance to take root, but in the end, Tommy traded his discs (the things Dream was using to control him) for L’Manburg’s independence. The status quo changed, L’Manburg was here to stay.

However, L’Manburg still posed a threat to Dream’s rule, so manipulating events to destroy it became Dream’s next priority. He supported Schlatt during the election in the hope he’d destabilize the nation, then sided with Pogtopia in secret to help overthrow the government, then helped Wilbur with the TNT to blow L’Manburg sky high, then betrayed Pogtopia for Schlatt’s side for the revival book. When Pogtopia won, Dream was egging Techno on through whispers to try to get him to go ape shit, so with Techno’s withers and Wilbur’s TNT, L’Manburg was gone, and the old status quo had been restored.

Except it hadn’t been. L’Manburg was rebuilt, with Tubbo at the helm this time, and a new status quo was put in place, with L’Manburg still there and still a threat. However, with Wilbur’s death, Tommy was left almost completely unprotected, and Dream took his chance to get Tommy thrown out of the country, hoping to get his biggest threat out of the way, as well as being able to sink his claws into the L’Manburg Cabinet.

Dream isolated Tommy in exile and tried to break him to the point where he wouldn’t put up any resistance. During this time, he also commissioned the prison, which he claimed to only be for the most dangerous members of the server, but is a pretty transparent attempt to enforce his rule by making a place where he can stick anyone who disobeys him. The server is slipping more and more out of his control, with more factions popping up and more people outright defying him, so like any dictator, he takes harsher and harsher measures to stay on top.

Tommy escapes exile, and while Dream is keeping tabs on him, he can’t directly control him anymore. So, to prevent Tommy from returning to L’Manburg and stopping his plans at disrupting the status quo, he blows up the community house, frames Tommy for it, and goes to Tubbo to demand Tommy’s disc, the only reason destroying L’Manburg was disadvantageous for him. Tommy jumps in to defend himself and takes L’Manburg’s side, but in the end, Dream takes both the discs, then destroys L’Manburg with Techno.

By this point, the status quo Dream wanted to craft is almost complete. L’Manburg is gone, there are no other major factions threatening his rule, and he’s pretty much set a precedent for what happens to dissenters. All he needs to do now is get rid of Tommy.

Except he can’t kill him. Over time, Dream has become obsessed with Tommy, to the point where he’s started seeing Tommy as the lynchpin of the server that everyone else gravitates around. Tommy is almost a living MacGuffin: he brings chaos and attachment which gives him power, but in the right hands, that power can be harnessed to create order.

(This is absolute nonsense of course, Tommy is just A Guy, his presence itself doesn’t create chaos, and controlling him doesn’t mean controlling the entire server because a lot of people just plain don’t give a shit.)

So instead of killing him, Dream tries to put him in prison. He even outright says that he wants to finish what he started in exile, this time with even tighter control and no possibility for escape.

He goes to kill Tubbo for multiple reasons: Tubbo is no longer useful to him, Tubbo can be used as leverage to keep Tommy compliant in prison (the possibility to revive someone’s best friend is a pretty valuable bargaining chip), and Tubbo would absolutely raise hell if Dream threw his best friend in jail for no reason.

If Dream had gotten his way, he’d be able to blackmail everyone on the server into compliance. Tommy, his scapegoat, would’ve been in prison, so now without a scapegoat, he could’ve probably gone one of two ways.

He could’ve created a new scapegoat to blame all new conflict on. Quackity would’ve been a good candidate, he’s VEHEMENTLY anti-Dream, and would’ve had no qualms about starting shit with him. Whether it was with El Rapids or with Las Nevadas, Quackity would’ve been the biggest anti-Dream voice in Tommy’s absence. So c!Dream would keep Quackity around, blaming him for everything that goes wrong… Until Quackity would get too uppity and either gets murdered or put in jail with Tommy, and the cycle repeats until either people rise up, or everyone who isn’t completely subservient is in prison.

Or, he could’ve cracked down EVEN HARDER on conflict. Anyone creating a new nation gets stomped into the dirt, anyone fighting over resources gets murdered, anyone squabbling over griefed property gets thrown in prison for weeks at a time, all the while their property and pets that they care about more than anything else get dangled in front of their noses. Anyone who’s ever read any more than five pages about the dynamics of dictatorships can see that this kind of repression is basically ASKING for revolution, especially since Dream has shunned all friendships at this point and his only ally is only there because Dream pays him.

(this is all speculation, we don’t know what would’ve actually happened, dont yell at me)

The status quo Dream is trying to return to never existed, and the one he creates in the process isn’t sustainable. Stopping every conflict ever is completely unsustainable and detrimental to the larger community, which Dream knows, because he uses conflict CONSTANTLY to get his way, while still presenting himself as a peacekeeper. What he’s really against is disruptions of the status quo, because the status quo allows him to do whatever he wants and control the server as much as he wants.

Conflict isn’t inherently bad. Some conflicts are harmless, some are necessary disruptions of the status quo. Conflict itself is morally neutral, and trying to prevent all conflict ever leads into some… iffy territory. Remember when Ranboo yelled at the L’Manburgians for participating in conflict the day before Doomsday?

Anyway. Please examine situations with more nuance than “conflict bad”, it’ll make for much better analysis. Trust me. /nm

[flying-elliska]

one of the most impactful things I have read lately are two of French author Edouard Louis' books, Pour en finir avec Eddy Bellegueule and Qui a tué mon père (translated into English as The End of Eddy and Who Killed my Father). It's been two months and I'm still thinking about it.

The first book is an 'autobiographical novel' about the author's childhood growing up as an obviously gay boy in one of the poorest areas of France, until he leaves and reinvents himself as a writer. It's fraught with bigotry, abuse, bullying, violence, deprivation and social despair, and it's one of the most harrowing things I have ever read. It reads as many things as once : a recognition of trauma, an angry exorcism, a cry for society at large to pay attention, and to be honest, as a horror story.

It was criticized by some in France as portraying the working class in a manner that was too negative, which tells me they missed the point entirely...ironic for a book by someone who actually grew up poor - one of my least favorite things ever is progressives telling a marginalized person they can't talk about their own experiences because they don't fit the desired mold. (The French love to romanticize the working class and I'm pretty sure it's often an avoidance mechanism.)

The point of the book is so obviously not about 'look at how terrible and bigoted those poor people are'. Little Eddy spends a big part of the narrative trying to escape - himself at first, then his family/circumstances and the persistent homophobia everywhere. In the end of the book, he finally manages to get accepted into a fancy high school in the city on a scholarship and tries really hard to fit in. The last scene of the book is a bunch of his - educated, upper/middle class - classmates throwing homophobic taunts at him, starting the cycle anew. I can't think of a clearer way to say 'this is not a story about a sad gay boy escaping the evil bigoted countryside for the city and then everything was wonderful!!!! this is a story about a systemic, pervasive problem.'

One of the key arguments of the book, to me, is how homophobia, sexism and bigotry in general are both a product and a reproduction mechanism of social and economic exclusion. For instance, he describes how the norms around what it means to be a man in his village (being tough, disobeying authority, quitting school early to go work at the factory, drinking alcohol, neglecting your own health, fighting over women, repressing your feelings, etc) perpetuates the cycle of poverty ; but again this isn't 'oh these people are so stupid' and more 'these people are trapped'. Because he makes it evident how degrading and dehumanizing poverty can be, this masculinity reads as a desperate attempt to cling to a certain amount of dignity - it's an extremely dysfunctional coping mechanism. At the same time, anyone falling outside of the mold is violently ostracized (like Eddy, who tries and fails to fit in). So the system keeps reproducing itself.

In Who Killed my Father, the author makes his political argument clearer. This is more of an essay, centering on his father, arguably the most complex figure in the first novel. The man is an angry, bigoted alcoholic who makes his family miserable ; at the same time he is the son of an abusive father who makes a point of honor to never hit his kids or wife even though it's very normalized in this context. In this essay the author keeps talking about the moments of almost tenderness with his father that haunt him, the picture he has of him doing drag in his youth, the fact that the father tried to leave the village when he was young to find a better life for himself with a close friend but failed and had to come back - the moments of what-ifs, of trying to struggle free from the cycle, when the system appears almost fragile and not so unbreakable after all, that the son kept holding close like a sort of talisman.

The narrative is structured around the fact that his father injured his back working in a factory and that he had to keep doing physical labor afterwards for money, instead of resting to recover, until it completely destroyed his body. Now he finds himself bed-bound at 53. Louis inquires into who is responsible for this premature 'death'. After considering individual choices, he turns towards political decisions - the successive governments, left and right, who have been destroying the French welfare system for decades and accelerating inequality. The point is to step out of the neoliberal obsession with personal responsibility and who is guilty and who is a bad or good person, and look at systems.

An element that isn't focused on but hovers over the story constantly is that this village is one where the majority of the population consistently votes for the extreme right National Front party in most elections. The book is too angry and nuanced to be some stupid "it's not their fault that they're racist because they're poor!" argument. It doesn't make any excuses for how awful this is but instead illustrates how dehumanization replicates itself, how people being denied basic dignity leads to them wanting to deny it to others. If you want to really understand the rise of the far right you have to look at where the inequality comes from in the first place, and how easy it is for people in power to wash their hands of it by blaming the bigoted masses. (Just like you can blame societal ills on minorities ! Two for one strategy.)

Towards the end of the essay, the author talks about how proud his father is of his son's literary success - for a book who clearly depicts him as a horrible person ! And this is a man who has spent his life openly despising anything cultural, because it never showed him a life like his own. But maybe now he feels seen, now he knows people want to read about these things. Maybe there is a reclamation of dignity through looking at the horror head on. Maybe his son somehow slipping through the cracks of the cycle gives him more room. The man stops making racist comments, and instead asks his son about his boyfriend. Most importantly, he asks his son about the leftist politics he's engaged in. They talk about the need for a revolution.

I think what strikes me the most is this attitude of "wounded compassion" that permeates the book. What do you do when your parents are abusive but even after you grow up, you can't help but still love them, and you know they've been shaped by the system that surrounds them ? Recognizing, speaking the harm is essential. You need to find your own freedom, sense of worth, and safety. You need to dissect the mechanisms at hand so they lose at least some of their power over you. You need to find people who love and believe you. But then what? Do you dismiss your persistent feelings of affection and care for those who hurt you as a sign you're just fucked up in the head ? You could just decide to never speak to them again, and it would be justified, but is that really what is going to heal you the most? It's important to realize you have the choice. But there are no easy conclusions.

This makes me think of a passage I have just read in Aversive Democracy by Aletta Norval. The essential ethos of radical democracy, she says, is about taking responsibility for your society, even the bad parts, instead of seeing them as a foreign element you have to cleanse yourself of. It's too fucking easy for queer progressives, especially the middle class urban kind, to talk about dumb evil hicks, to turn pride into a simple morality tale, and forget that any politics that don't center the basic dignity and needs of people are just shit. The injury is to you and by you and you have a duty of care just as much as a duty of criticism. (And this is obviously not only applicable to class matters.) You can't just walk away and save your sense of moral purity. (This is not an argument that the oppressed are responsible for educating the oppressors ; it's about how privilege is not an easy simple ranking and it is too damn easy to only focus on the ways in which you are oppressed and forget the ways in which you may have more leeway.)

There is no absolute equivalence between political and family dynamics but the parallel feel very relevant somehow. Several truths can coexist at once : you needed help and it was not given. You were let down. It's important to recognize that people are responsible of how they treat each other. You need to call out what isn't ok and stand up for yourself. At the same time, there is a reason why things are like this. Making people into villains is often bad strategy (within reason!), and in the end, easy dichotomies are often an instrument of power. The horrors you have been through might have given you a very specific wisdom and grace you do not have to be afraid of ; you are not tainted by your compassion (it is very much the opposite of forced forgiveness ; it has walked through the fire of truth.)

To me these books fit into what French literature does best, sociological storytelling a la Zola or Victor Hugo - the arguments aren't new and they can come across as heavy handed, even melodramatic. But I'll argue that the viscerality is the point, how the raw experience of misery punches through any clever arguments about how exploitation persists for the greater good of society. Really worth reading if you can do so with nuance.

[watching-pictures-move]

Viddying the Nasties #39 | I Drink Your Blood (Durston, 1970)

Now, I can't say how apparent it is to strangers on the Internet, but if anyone has the misfortune of meeting me in real life, they'll know that I'm a huge square. I tuck in my shirt. (Even on Casual Fridays. Sorry, I don't believe in wearing long sleeve button-up shirts untucked, but will allow a few exceptions. Am I talking about clothes again? Yes.) I pay my taxes. I avoid jay-walking when possible. I've never even smoked a doobie. (Even though it's legal here.) What all this has to do with movies is anybody's guess, but let's entertain a hypothetical here. If a gang of dirty hippies rolled up into my town, how would I react? Probably indifferently, what they do is their business. What if they were a gang of devil-worshipping hippies? Again, what they do is their business. What if they started antagonizing the townsfolk? Would I do anything then? Yes, I would. I would very likely soil myself and then call the police (on the hippies, not on myself). Would I, I dunno, give them a bunch of meat pies tainted with rabid blood? Unlikely, but I probably wouldn't feel too bad if somebody did that in this chain of events.

This is roughly the plot of I Drink Your Blood, in which a gang of devil-worshipping hippies roll into a small town, rape a local girl, rough up an old man and give him acid, and then fall into a rabid, murderous frenzy after being fed contaminated meat pies by the old man's vengeful grandson. The obvious inspiration for the subject matter would have been the Manson murders, and the film was released as part of a double feature with I Eat Your Skin a year after Manson's conviction to capitalize on that publicity. (When combined with the similarly titled I Spit On Your Corpse and I Spit On Your Grave, one can extrapolate a tetralogy wherein a cannibal finishes up his meal and buries his victim unceremoniously after. Pointing out the movies have nothing to do with each other would only spoil the fun.) And this ripped-from-the-headlines quality lends the film a reading as a nightmare for a certain reactionary element in society, wherein the counterculture threatens to upend all that the mainstream holds dear. There are similarities to Night of the Living Dead in that respect, but while George Romero admits the result was somewhat accidental on his part (he's said many times that he cast Duane Jones simply for being the best man for the job), I Drink Your Blood is more calculated in its effect.

That the gang's most important members (Bhaskar Roy Chowdhury, who is Indian, George Patterson, who is black, and Jadin Wong, who is Chinese) are people of colour leans into this interpretation, but it's worth noting that these actors are also the most charismatic in the cast, which challenges the audience's sympathies. (Would you rather root for the lame-o kid who spiked the meat pies and his grandpa or these cool, groovy dudes and chicks?) Chowdhury, a dancer by training, is especially magnetic, and brings a physicality that makes him compelling both before and after the rabies-induced insanity. And while he's certainly othered, as far as American movies go, it's a pretty unusual role for a South Asian actor, and his Indian heritage isn't made a point of the way Patterson's blackness and Wong's Asian heritage are. The latter has a scene that brings to mind a famous photograph that would have very much been in public awareness at the time, and despite how insensitive it arguably is, the movie is piling up two-fisted images fast enough at that point that there's no denying to generates the necessary jolt in the viewer.

At this point the movie is at a fever pitch, having shifted to a vision of societal collapse not unlike the Romero film, with the heroes at one point holing themselves up in a none-too-secure-looking house while evading a mindless, violent mob. How the movie reaches this scale I won't exactly reveal and I didn't bother to research whether rabies can in fact be spread in the method employed in this movie, but will hint that the movie's use of a certain plot device subverts the usual kind of threat present when exploitation movies pander with sex scenes. Despite not being polished in the obvious sense, the movie also finds neat stylistic touches, as when it likens the buzz of an electric knife to the thrum of the electronic drone prevalent on the soundtrack. (The scene in question features Lynn Lowry, making her debut here. She has no dialogue, yet her off-kilter presence and distinct features make an impact.) This is far from the most violent movie on the Video Nasties list, and wasn't even the most violent movie released up to that point (Herschell Gordon Lewis had made more graphic movies in the preceding decade), but the fact that it places the violence in a context of societal upheaval, as well as its energetic delivery, give it a sense of real transgression. I'm obviously against censorship and the like, but I can understand why this ended up in a list of banned movies.

[phantomphangphucker]

Ectober week Darkness/Poison - Sinners Are We Chap.2: The Prince Of Poisoned Hope And The One Lurking In The Shadows

Even monsters can make a family. That’s no reason for the world to get its hopes up though.

History books will always show you how one simple change can change everything. Alter the course of History forever. And while that was true, today’s history books didn’t have much to tell. The universe had fallen to ruin in a matter of years after all. There were some who would say that this was the best possible outcome though. Even wrote books on it. That if it had been just one or the other, instead of the two of them together, that there wouldn’t be a universe left standing. Because together they changed one another, gave each other something other than obliterating things to focus on, and a heightened interest in the future.

The universe watched those two walk out on stage vengeful and angry, sadistic and carefree. One acting out of a twisted version of retribution and spite, the other who was more just a destructive force of nature. And as their show went on, one became more uncaring and unbothered by her past and the other grew even fonder of the idea of ‘irony’. The two former arch enemies in the eyes of anyone who knew of how they were before, now coupled together and encouraging each other in different was.

Their wedding was a Zone-wide and universe-wide celebration. Not because anyone was happy for them, no, because not celebrating might get you killed. Those two were incredibly flaky over who they would and wouldn’t kill, maim, or torture now-a-day’s. But it was also officially a holiday. Because the king and queen were to be wed.

The King Of Ghosts and the Queen Of Mortals. And though the latter hadn’t actually been a thing until her, no one was about to oppose. Lest she sic one of her metal machines on you or came after you herself. If she was in a mood, maybe he would come after you instead. Which while promising a likely quicker death, also would likely get everyone around you killed or maimed too.

The living were overall more fearful of her but would rather suffer at her hand than his. Something similar happened with the dead. A ghost didn’t care much about the collateral around them, and loved chaos. So while they feared him more, they’d take his destructiveness over her torture any day. And arguably, when it came down to it? They fulfilled their conquered roles well. When he wasn’t running amok destroying areas of Zone, the place flourished and they had a leader that was feared. That meant a lot to those of the dead. Being feared was their bread and butter. And the places he destroyed, if he left them alone long enough, reformed better than before. Like a fire had raged through it and the new growth was coming back stronger. Similar went for her, her existence alone deterred crime and planets simply couldn’t survive without other planets help due to all the destruction and loss. The living were more connected than ever and better behaved. And the living and dead hardly harmed each other anymore, because doing so was a great way to get the two tyrants' attention. Which was very seldom a good thing.

Of course there were plenty who were genuinely loyal and fond of the pair. Often working as assassins, knights, or subordinate rulers under them. In fact, anyone with large amounts of power or sway could reasonably be considered at the very least sympathisers. Not that anyone could do anything about that. Most people just busied themselves with survival and enjoying every day as much as they could, it very well could be their last day at the drop of a hat after all. Though everyone paid attention and gaped when the firstborn Gray-Phantom was announced. One Russet Julius Gray-Phantom, the middle name wasn’t recognised for the warning that it accidentally was. Most actually genuinely celebrated because maybe, maybe, this would take up more of their time and attention. Maybe the kid could be a positive influence on them. Be a poison that could dissolve the ice and hatred around their heart and Core. Maybe they’d actually consider their own kids' opinions and wants; they didn’t care about anyone else’s after all.

At the same time though, lords know how fucked up this kid might be or get.

The second-born Gray-Phantom, one Orrin Jasper Gray-Phantom, being announced only four years later gave everyone genuine hope that maybe the two’s focus had genuinely shifted to building a family. That they would stay with their family and exist more in the shadows of the two Realms rather than tormenting them on the forefront. Which could be good or very very bad. The realms could end up with a whole family of violent psychotic monsters. With generations of them. A lineage of brutality. And yet at the same time, both realms had gotten used to the king and queen. The dead didn’t want their king to lose his touch, his fearsomeness; and him destroying things was a reason to socialise with each other more, they might need to stay at another ghosts lair after all. The living worried that crime might increase or that they might start nipping at each other’s throats; she had made the living more inclined to violence and survival of the fittest yet more tight-knit community wise.

Then the elder prince went and ripped a bunch of the living apart limb from limb while laughing like a mad man at thirteen years of age. The boy was an absolute demon child, and his parents had no interest in leashing him. Heck, those two probably enjoyed it. But this incident was also when the Mortal Realm learned halfas were a thing. In suitably dramatic fashion when the human-looking elder prince transformed directly in front of the police force before shooting into the sky cackling. Which was news that spread through the universe at breakneck speed, faster than any poison, both for the oddity of that and the impossibility of that. Plus, gossip surrounding the high royals always stirred up interest. Out of morbid curiosity and pure survival.

At least they knew what the elder prince looked like as a human now, so they wouldn’t be caught so easily by surprise. Which did result in him getting attacked by ghost hunters in human form once, which very noticeably pissed him off... and got the hunters killed. But people understood why they tried, it was a test to see how strong the teen was. Which was to say he was definitely not as strong as his father or as smart as his mother; and he had very little in the way of tenacity. Which was good for them, meant he could be easily deterred; running off to huff like a petulant child.

The younger prince was more of an unknown, an uncertainty. But those that did run into him or spot him from afar said he looked at people like he was judging their worth and made them feel small. Like they were staring into a black smokey void, So he was clearly intelligent. Him leaving an area, especially to ghosts, felt less like he was running off and more like he had decided that the place or person could be useful to him. But for the most part, he stuck to the shadows, or maybe just seldom left Phantom’s Keep. It was quite possible he hung around in his human form, if he was a halfa too; no one would know after all. Though there were rumours that he went and stopped some war in the Ghost Realm at some point. No one was sure if that meant he had been peaceful or just went and obliterated both sides. The second being more in line with the behaviour of the rest of the family. Regardless, both the living and dead preferred the younger prince. He wasn’t actively dangerous to them and seemed less wild. But considering the king’s and queen’s history, the fact that they had both been heroes and champions for good once hadn’t disappeared into forgotten history; the younger also made them more nervous. Russet’s motives and feelings were obvious, if you saw him you knew he was up to something that would get someone hurt or make him stronger; it was obvious by the time he hit adulthood that he was power-hungry. By twenty, everyone was pretty sure he would have tried to off his parents for the throne if they weren’t in a totally different league than him in the power department. The king and queen seemed to enjoy mocking him for that and were gleeful over him trying to make himself stronger. They viewed that as them trying to push him over the edge, push him even further into violent darkness. At least that distracted the man some.

While Orrin, even at sixteen, was still effectively a mystery. Based on him ageing the same as his brother everyone decided he was definitely a halfa too. For a short while they tried to pin down his mortal form, but even the dead had no luck with that. As a result the amount rumours about him were almost endless. The most popular was that he was a thief and trickster. That he would pop up randomly in houses and lairs, scaring or creeping people out and then something went missing. That might have been born out of the fact that Russet clearly didn’t get his father’s humorous side, so maybe Orrin got all of it.

So one was like a poison that ran around destroying things and causing mayhem; even a couple societal collapses. While the other stuck to the darkness and no one really knew what lurked in that darkness.

And then, the third Gray-Phantom was born. A little girl they named Dove Jay Gray-Phantom. Just like her brothers, she was born looking like a six-year-old and she caused a stir. Because she was beautiful. Many of the more poetic types likened her to a rose blooming in a field of thorns. Of course, roses had thorns of their own; but she literally looked like the feeling of innocence. The living were as relieved as they were willing to let themselves feel when it came to the high royal family, but the dead viewed her as a possible weakness. And so they went to ‘test’ her, or more accurately ‘attack her’ while the king and queen were busy dealing with their handful elder son.

But that’s when Orrin’s protective side came out and the realms got to see his thorns for the first time. Russet lashed his thorns around like an animal full of pride, but when Orrin’s burst out from the shadows everyone immediately knew who the stronger bother was. He completely annihilated the ghosts that went after Dove with a straight face and seemingly without effort. Dove, meanwhile, seemed clueless and reportedly hummed softly the whole time.

The younger prince and princess weren’t seen for a while after that, and the elder prince seemed more volatile than normal. It could be because Dove hadn’t protected herself, which for a Gray-Phantom was absolutely unacceptable. They were supposed to be God’s amongst men whose reach seeped into every facet of the universe after all. And the elder brother was likely foaming at the mouth over being shown up by the younger. Most of the realms honestly hoped that maybe the adorable princess would change things, doubtful. But images mysteriously leaked of her wielding a sword with puffed out cheeks inspired more hope than worry.

[my-darling-boy]

hello! i really want to learn more about ww1, i saw 1917 and it sparked something in me and ww1 specifically seems so complex and interesting, but it is has a lotttt of information, do u have any advice for any specific things to read/learn about first? or should i just dive in head first and learn about random stuff?

Good question! Also, I’m REALLY happy 1917 is bringing in a lot of new people wanting to learn more about WWI!

The good news is I find WWI is a subject that naturally allows you to branch out your knowledge no matter where you start. My best tip for learning more about the history: start out with ANY area that interests you, find a fact about it, and see where it takes you! I guarantee you’ll start out just wanting to know a little more about food served in the trenches and by the end of the week, you’ll be chest deep in a million other things you got caught up in learning!

For example, one of the first things that got me interested in WWI was a memoir (which I HIGHLY recommend) by Vera Brittain: Testament of Youth. From there, I researched her brother, Captain Edward Brittain and stumbled upon the story of his death and his homosexuality. It led me to Geoffrey Thurlow, a friend he showed clear evidence of having been in love with, and then the changes in male affection during the 1900s. It led me to learn of the “Edwardian Period” and delve into the social, political, and aesthetic aspects of the era. I started watching WWI films, reading academic articles, buying books, and one piece of information led to the next!

If 1917 is what got you into this, that’s a good sign! Cos I bet you were just as hurt as I was seeing depictions of that tragedy and were moved by that heartbreak! But while you’re learning about uniforms and trench foot and so on, I think a good chunk of time should also be dedicated to understanding why it’s simultaneously important to be critical of the war, and understand more about why people were very critical of it at the time, and the lasting impact it had on soldiers all the way up to young people today because it’s a HUGE theme throughout the conflict. I do a much more eloquent job explaining it in an ask someone sent me about my interest in studying, but like I said, VERY important to understand the extent of its effects and how what happened catalysed the modern lust for violence, and why a lot of mainstream remembrance efforts today end up exploiting this tragedy for nationalist-like agendas

I will say, even though it’s not filled with as many Insufferable White Boys as the ones found lurking in WWII forums, it’s war, so you still get your fair share of nationalist, white supremacist, imperialist, pro-war, sexist/misogynist pricks, so please do research with discretion and try to avoid these people (i.e. don’t even look at the comment sections on some websites) and watch out for those boasting about how “honourable” it is for boys to have joined up and died for their country at 15 and that there is something “glorious” to be had in war (because is the biggest lie men have invented for themselves and perpetuate the bs well into the 21st century unfortunately)

Some classic things I recommend reading/watching because they got me started on bits of my own research over time and one of them might be of some interest to you:

Testament of Youth, by Vera Brittain (Book)

This true memoir details how the war affected a young British university student and how the tragedies she witnessed led her to become a VAD nurse, feminist, and pacifist. If you are a more visual learner, it was made into a beautifully shot 2014 film (obviously with some inaccuracies and omitted details) and a more in depth BBC miniseries available for free on YouTube. You may also enjoy the books “Letters From a Lost Generation”, “Because You Died”, and “Vera Brittain and the First World War” which give even more information about the Brittains and the war written by the family’s historian

The Christmas Truce commercial everyone still cries over (video)

It’s a couple minutes long, perfectly sums up what draws me to keep studying the war and my love for learning about the unique changes in human connection during the war

All Quiet in the Western Front, by Erich Maria Remarque (Book)

Another classic example of anti-war literature a lot of people start out by reading from a German perspective. You can also watch the 1930 film adaptation of the book if you would like a visual (even if it has American actors)

They Shall Not Grow Old (Film)

AMAZING first hand accounts and original newly remastered footage from the First World War. It’s arguably neautral in its stance on various factors on the war, but it does a tremendous job showing what life was like at the front and giving voices to the soldiers that lived through it to share their stories.

Oh What a Lovely War! (Film)

Another solid (and entertaining) example of media showing high criticism for the war. This film was revolutionary for its time after roughly 50 years of societal silence about the consequences and negative impacts of WWI. It is incredibly condescending and an absolute anti-war gem

Great War Tommy: the British Soldier 1914-18 (Book)

If you’re a visual learner like me and want information about the kit of a British soldier and drill among other kit care details with LOTS of photos, this a GREAT book

British Uniforms and Equipment of the First World War (Book)

Like the above but has a VERY extensive library of photos for uniforms and equipment, and even shows niche patches and what some uniforms look like inside-out! It’s available for download through MLRS Books online

Valiant Hearts (Game)

From the French perspective. Very heartbreaking game about a French soldier produced in a very unique art style and has a wonderful soundtrack. Great if you like causal, story rich games

11:11 Memories Retold (Game)

This very artistic, stylised game tells the story of a Canadian photographer hired to take photos during the war as well as a German soldier looking for his son at the front. Again, superb soundtrack, and excellent if you love causal, story rich games

Shepard’s War, by James Campbell (Book)

A lovely compilation of original artwork and biographical details about E. H. Shepard during his time as an officer in WWI. If you don’t know, Shepard is the illustrator for Winnie the Pooh! Very intriguing to see his depictions of WWI soldiers as someone who was responsible for a childhood classic

Journey’s End, by R. C. Sherriff (Play)

This play tells the story of a trio of British officers on the frontline and how the effects of shellshock has greatly impacted one of the main characters. It was also made into a film in 2018 staring Asa Butterfield, Sam Claflin, and Paul Bettany

Not About Heroes, by Stephen MacDonald (Play)

A play which tells about the gay friendship between wartime poets and officers Siegfried Sassoon and Wilfred Owen

Blackadder: Blackadder Goes Forth (Show)

You might have grown up watching reruns of this show already, but in case you haven’t, it’s the fourth series of the BBC historical comedy show Blackadder and is about as condescending as Oh What a Lovely War, but much less Heavy, aside from the last episode that is. I’ve learned it’s kind of a staple in references made by some reenactment groups :P

YouTube also has TONS of WWI documentaries from every subject under the sun, ranging anywhere from 2 minutes to 2 hours. Obviously it will be a little harder to tell if the information given is without bias, misinformation, or has questionable undertones, but it’s usually a good way to teach yourself how to always be critical of any information you take in, and also a low-maitence way to keep learning. I find it’s nice to keep a balance between informative non-fiction and historical fiction when doing WWI research to keep variation in my study and also to test my ability to tell apart inaccuracies, or just to take a break from the crushing reality of it all!

In conclusion, the answer is jump right in! You’ll learn the ins and outs of WWI research as you go along! The more you learn, the more you’ll get the hang of it!

Happy researching!

[princesssarisa]

The feminism of “Wuthering Heights”

Not long ago on Quora, I answered the question of “Is Wuthering Heights a feminist text?” I thought I may as well share it here too, since my similar post on the feminism of Romeo and Juliet has been so popular.

Is Wuthering Heights a feminist text? It’s debatable.

It’s certainly not a work of modern feminism, and just because Emily Brontë was a woman doesn’t mean she lacked internalized misogyny, per se.

From a certain perspective, it can be read as a fairly sexist story. It revolves around a brooding, violent male anti-hero, Heathcliff, who emotionally and physically abuses women (among many other dark deeds), yet whom the reader is still clearly meant to feel some sympathy for. His descent into villainy is at least partly blamed on his beloved Cathy, because she rejected him for a wealthier man. As for Cathy herself, she’s a wild, fiery figure who defies society’s ideals of sweet, passive femininity and wields the chief power in both of her romantic relationships, and yet she’s portrayed as a vain, arrogant, vicious-tempered narcissist, prone to manipulation and hysterics, who emotionally betrays both men. Ultimately she’s “punished” with anguish-induced madness, sickness and death (and implied twenty years of wandering as a miserable waif of a ghost), and from then on she serves to fuel Heathcliff’s “manpain,” with his endless grief being used to stir up pity for him despite all his cruelty. Nor is Heathcliff’s abuse of women the only male-on-female violence to be found. In one scene Hareton Earnshaw slaps the younger Catherine when she insults him (to the approval of narrator Lockwood, who overhears it and thinks her “sauciness” deserved the punishment), yet he’s still portrayed as having a heart of gold under his gruff facade and is given a happy ending where he and Catherine fall in love and become engaged.

And yet…

It’s a story told mostly from a woman’s perspective. The chapters narrated by Lockwood are more of a framing device than anything else – the bulk of the story is narrated by Nelly Dean. And her focus is really more on the young women she serves than on Heathcliff, who sometimes disappears from her narrative for months or years at a time. Heathcliff might be the driving force of the plot as a whole, but it can be argued that the two Catherines are the real protagonists, with Heathcliff as the love interest to the first and the antagonist to the second.

Furthermore, all four principle females are three-dimensional characters. The two Catherines, Nelly Dean and Isabella Linton each have distinct, multilayered personalities and none can be reduced to stereotypes of womanhood. None of them are objectified or sexualized the way even the most “feminist” male author’s female characters tend to be. Nor are any of them meek or passive; in different ways, each one is feisty, sharp-tongued and rebellious. All of them are flawed too (putting women on a pedestal is almost as anti-feminist as vilifying them) yet with the possible exception of the elder Cathy, none of them are treated by the narrative as bad people. At the very least, they’re no worse than the men around them, and even though they suffer for their mistakes, none are portrayed (again, with the possible exception of the elder Cathy) as deserving the bad things that happen to them. Young Catherine and Nelly both receive happy endings, while Isabella’s ending is bittersweet, and none of them need to conform to a societal ideal of womanhood to escape from tragedy.

It’s too bad that most adaptations cut the second half of the book, because without the younger Catherine, the elder Cathy’s portrayal might create the sense that Brontë was condemning high spirits and willfulness in women. But young Catherine, who is portrayed sympathetically and gets a happy ending, is very much like her mother: lively, strong-willed, adventurous, temperamental, and sometimes too proud for her own good. In her ultimate romance with Hareton, as she “civilizes” him and teaches him to read, she arguably takes almost the same dominant role her mother did over Heathcliff in their childhood, though unlike her mother she is willing to listen to him and compromise with him. The fact that during his reading lessons she gives him “smart slaps” when his attention wanders and playfully threatens to pull his hair for his mistakes helps to compensate for the one slap he gave her back when they were “enemies.” (It seems unlikely that their marriage bed will be a tame place.) She earns her hopeful future not by being more passive or ladylike than her mother was, but just by being a kinder, more compassionate person and more willing to recognize her mistakes and grow past them. Hareton contrasts with Heathcliff in much the same way.

Nor, contrary to popular belief, is Heathcliff ever romanticized. His horrific deeds are never excused away and he’s not portrayed as a desirable romantic partner for anyone but the equally fierce Cathy. The very notion that he’s a romantic hero is brutally deconstructed by Isabella’s storyline, as she naively idealizes him and thinks she’s in love with him, but is horribly abused after she marries him and quickly comes to despise him. Brontë might ask us to understand him and pity him, but she never tries to make us love him. He’s a tragic monster.

Nor, unlike in the Hays Code-compliant 1939 film, is Isabella trapped for decades in her miserable marriage. She leaves Heathcliff, escapes to London, and builds a new life for herself and her son Linton. True, she still dies young, but she dies free.

Without being heavy-handed about it, the book also condemns the era’s patriarchal laws and customs that made women powerless. The laws that let husbands abuse their wives (Heathcliff and Isabella), that let fathers-in-law lord over and abuse their daughters-in-law (Heathcliff and Catherine), that prevented daughters from inheriting their fathers’ property in favor of the male next-of-kin (Thrushcross Grange going to Linton Heathcliff instead of to Catherine), that gave unfit fathers custody of their children against the mother’s will (Heathcliff and Linton), and that forced women to depend on marriage to raise their own fortunes and to escape from a toxic family (Cathy).

Yet it’s what little power the women do have within these confines – emotional power – that leads to the hopeful ending. Catherine, with help from Nelly, overcomes her own bitterness and reaches out to Hareton, finally freeing him from Heathcliff’s degrading influence with her friendship and later love. This, combined with the dead Cathy’s ongoing hold over Heathcliff’s psyche, is what makes Heathcliff finally give up on life, with his death bringing peace both to himself and to everyone he terrorized.

Last but not least, let’s discuss Cathy. No, she’s not portrayed as a good person, and yes, her sins are “punished” with brain fever and death. But still, it’s gratifying from a woman’s perspective to see the object of an imposing Byronic anti-hero’s love not be a delicate ingenue whom he controls, but an iron-willed firebrand whose passion equals his own and whom he gladly lets dominate him. And any claim that she’s worse than Heathcliff (as bad as, maybe, but worse?) or that she deserves no sympathy whatsoever smacks of misogyny. Her struggles are very relatable for women who feel torn between rebellion and conformity. This quote sums it up well: “I wish I were a girl again, half savage and hardy, and free”.

As a child she was fully herself: wild, androgynous, barely distinguishable from Heathcliff. But it came at the price of disapproval from her stern father and servant caregivers, and later from her tyrannical brother, who viciously abused Heathcliff and tried to separate them. Then she discovered the world of the Lintons: wealth, status, beautiful clothes, good manners, kindness, affection. It’s so easy to condemn her as a “shallow gold-digger” for giving in to the lure of that world and choosing to marry Edgar instead of Heathcliff. But one glance over her great speeches should reveal that regardless of her other flaws, she’s not a shallow person. With her family and all of society holding up the Lintons and their lifestyle as superior, and when the only alternatives she sees are either staying under Hindley’s brutal thumb (again, remember: for a girl, marriage was the only escape) or starving in poverty as Heathcliff’s wife, it’s understandable that she should give in, even though it means betraying her true self, donning the mask of a proper lady, and rejecting her soul mate. Yet she always knows she really belongs with Heathcliff, not with Edgar, and she tries to have them both by maintaining her “friendship” with Heathcliff while married; before Heathcliff runs away and makes his own fortune, she even plans to help him by sharing Edgar’s wealth with him. But eventually and inevitably, the two men clash and her double life shatters. It’s not just the stress of the love triangle that causes her breakdown, but what it represents: her yearning for freedom while trapped in the confines of upper-class womanhood and knowing what she would loose if she were to choose one over the other. What woman hasn’t struggled with society’s demands of “proper” womanhood and felt torn between wanting to rebel and wanting the benefits of conforming? I don’t think any character who embodies that struggle as powerfully as Cathy can be labeled an anti-feminist character, no matter how deeply flawed she is or how tragically her story ends. The fact that it’s not her failure to be a proper lady that dooms her, but her choice to become one and deny her authentic, wild and androgynous self, can be seen as a particularly feminist statement.

Also, I respectfully disagree with the claim I’ve read that the only purpose of Cathy’s strong will and free spirit is to intoxicate Heathcliff. They’re essential to her entire personal character arc. None of the characters in this complex book are only written to serve another character’s development, male or female.

Is the book feminist in every way by modern standards? No. But does it still have many feminist qualities and themes? Does it speak powerfully to women and empower them in subtle ways? I think it absolutely does.

@theheightsthatwuthered, @astrangechoiceoffavourites, @wuthering-valleys, @incorrectwutheringheightsquotes, @nitrateglow

[glumvillain]

GlumReviews #10

If you’re like me then the year 2001 was just a shitty year to be alive.  George Bush was president,  Now That’s What I Call Music was on it’s 7th volume, Freddy Got Fingered and Bridget Jones’ goddamn Diary.  The internet had transformed the landscape of music and the industry was pivoting to serve a customer base that no longer wanted to pay for the music they so enjoyed.  Pandora internet radio would not be a public option until 2005.  The ancient technology known as just the plain ol’ radio was a large factor in determining one’s career success.  Yes, you could spend years touring on underground circuits garnishing a cult following from small town to small town, but nothing quite beats a radio single that can be played simultaneously for an entire nation.  In other words, the general public still played a determining factor for your determined breakthrough.

It is with this in mind that I present to you the case for Nickelback’s 3rd studio album Silver Side Up.  One cannot deny the societal connotations that come with just mentioning this band, and in my opinion, that horse has just long been laid to rest and I invite you to open your mind musically for just one second, as I have forced myself to in this series of truly eye-opening reviews.  Taking the title as Canada’s most commercially successful band among many many other prestigious honors of a similar nature.  Surely an entire generation doesn’t consider this band laughable and just a shitty shitty representative of rock music, especially in the year of our forsaken lord 2001? 

Is Nickelback a prime example of male mediocrity failing upwards into superstardom? or is there a valid claim for their status as a “pussy band” (which sounds kinda cool to me tbh) among rock n roll aficionados and real cool dudes in the scene?  We plumb the depths of a road at least 10 million have previously plumbed.

1.  Never Again

I’m gonna have a difficult time saying this is a “shitty” band whenever their first song addresses something that (excuse the pun) hits so close to home.  As an intro track they open up with a pretty heavy song about domestic violence “He’s drunk again, it’s time to fight/ She must have done something wrong tonight/  The living room becomes a boxing ring”.  Told from the point of a view of a child growing up to see his mother abused at the hands of his drunken father.  It’s a heartbreaking song that has a satisfying ending for those of us who don’t like to dwell too much on the downsides of life. Especially if one chooses to escape through music, but sad music in sad times is a personal habit I partake in.  This is a great song, content wise.  Kinda weird to have it set to such an upbeat sounding song but I guess it goes to serve the rage of a child being helpless in the face of his abusive father.

2.  How You Remind Me

Does the lead single of this album really need a review? Yes, because this review is about taking a second look at shit you take for granted.  This song is just poetry.  In the fact that it’s just a perfectly executed song, lyrically.  Being non-cryptic and just flat out honest about ones feelings.  There’s thousands of songs about being down in the dumps or heartbroken and I can see why this is easily one of their biggest hits.  It’s a song that doesn’t care about your preconceived notions of masculinity or what rock music should or shouldn’t be.  Some people were put on this planet to make one song to connect the world to each other, and I think this is Nickelback’s song.

3.  Woke Up This Morning

Now I wouldn’t exactly call this metal, but it’s too heavy to be pop-rock.  But it easily straddles these fine picket fences of being almost too heavy for their own lyrics at times.  There’s noticeable flavors of southern rock sprinkled throughout the album which I can see having a blue collar/WWF crowd appeal.  Again another song consisting of being absolutely honest with the listener “I felt like shit when I woke up this morning, I’ve been a loser all my life I’m not about to change”.  

4.  Too Bad

With the events of Track 1 in mind, this song takes a remorseful shift into the story of the father.  Now racked with guilt, the song title lays it out pretty evenly.  It’s too bad.  It’s too late.  Despite the behavior of an antagonistic and toxic father, they made it out on their own without the breadwinner of the family.  At the expense of the mothers time and love, at least they still had clothes on their backs and food to eat.  Another heartbreaking but heartfelt song that is one of the first songs that I’ve reviewed in this series that actually gave me chills.  

5.  Just For

This is the typical male violent fantasy that could lean either way.  It’s either about a girl he lost to another man, or given the past material in the album being about his mom, it could be pertaining to his relationship with his father.  However you feel personally about this band, understand that lead singer Chad Kroger opened his soul up on a record which is rarely an experience put forth in an album.  Now arguably you could tell me that’s what all bands do, and yes I’m inclined to agree.  But it’s rare that it’s not wrapped up in sarcasm or a false sense of confidence.  Usually such displays of anger and torment are disguised with metaphor and mystery.  There’s none of that at play here.  And usually I’d call that dumb music for a monkey brain audience.  But this is just some of the most sincerest lyrics you could listen to.

6.  Hollywood

Now listen I know I said all that stuff about his lyrics being pretty straightforward?  Well I’ll eat my own words on this song, as I can’t really pickup the metaphor he’s laying down...correct me if I’m wrong but is this song about being in a mental hospital or going to a methadone clinic?  Don’t beat yourself up if this track isn’t your cup of tea, I didn’t really vibe with it like other tracks.

7.  Money Bought

Pretty straightforward song about a woman whose living off of her parents just being an all around Samantha .  Songs like this I could really do without, heavy strong riff but if there’s one production complaint I have is that alot of the mixes are too guitar heavy and the drums get washed out.

8.  Where Do I Hide

Feels like a continuation of the previous song with the too loud guitar mix, the lyrics themselves are pretty boring and not really worth going over as I can’t figure out if he’s making an outlaw fantasy song or something about his dad again. There’s a decent little guitar solo but I wouldn’t say to go out of your way to listen to this song.

9.  Hangnail

I’ll give them this, they can kick out some pretty good riffs.  But like good standard rock riffs.  I couldn’t tell you they have their own sound musically.  I think their sound is largely wrapped up in the lead singers voice.  You could convince me it was 3 different bands if 3 different singers sang their songs.  This song feels like a weak follow-up to “How You Remind Me”, and if that’s the case it really missed a mark in my opinion.

10.  Good Time’s Gone

Nothing says “album closer” like acoustic guitar strumming away into a swaying jam.  Definitely leaning more country western than most of their songs, but with a hard rock kick to it.  It’s a nice revamp of energy from the previous couple of songs that just felt to get a little weaker as the album progressed.  Kroger gives a powerful vocal performance to lead us out and I can’t help but think to myself, dear god I just listened to a Nickelback album several times today.

So where do you land on the spectrum of hate for Nickelback?  For me, personally I see absolutely no reason why Nickelback is more hated than say Three Days Grace or Papa Roach, both of which have garnished their own cult followings respectively.  No, I believe this to just be a meme that society has taken and ran with it by constantly making Nickelback be the butt of some non-existent joke.  Are they the best band ever? Fuck no.  Should people be mocked or made fun of for listening to bands they enjoy? Double fuck no.  Because music becomes your personal experience, and we should let others bask in what little, small things bring them joy.  Why gatekeep listening to music?  Music is supposed to connect others and bring about the feeling of belonging, the act of belittling others for their choice in music isn’t only pointless, it’s just downright disrespectful of a persons identity and personal choices.  And with that being said, Five Finger Death Punch is REAL garbage music.

I refrained from mentioning that this album was actually released on September 11th, 2001.  Not wanting that to factor into my writing but it’s at this point that I argue the case that Nickelback was a relic of a time before shit got worse in America.  Without 9/11 in the narrative of some of these tracks I feel like they don’t hit as hard and yeah, in some fucked up way I’m saying that if it wasn’t for 9/11 itself, I don’t think they would have had a breakthrough.  As audiences scrambled to tune into something different I’m sure the radio offered some form of escape from a world ravaged by national news.  I give the album:

⭐⭐⭐/5

This album begins pretty lively and begins to fizzle out about halfway with track #6, saved only by the ending track.  This was a decent album and if you’re curious to check it out, I recommend tracks 1-5, then just skip to 10, the album makes more sense that way. 

[ssaalexblake]

Honestly, i know 13 Immediately latches onto Kane as somebody she can take her anger out on (Before she actually finds out all of Kane’s misdeeds, so it’s not like she evaluated her personality and deemed her terrible, she decided to dislike her and then acquired reasoning instead), but i’m honestly not sure what kind of read I personally have on Kane?

She’s not as Blatantly Evil as a lot of dw antagonists, she’s not even that antagonistic in the plot, the danger is the dregs, Kane is... There? 

I mean, on some level, it wasn’t actually Necessary for her to really have an easily defined arc or personality, she’s a tool for 13 to release her anger and she’s there as commentary for a handful of different societal subjects (capitalistic greed, the idea of generational culpability, to name a couple) but i can’t really say much about her other than her sketchy protective skills and that she’s very Blunt to the point of social awkwardness. 

And i’d be quick to hiss poor writing but... The character writing in this episode, imo, is top notch??? Everything else is Not (and that’s from somebody who Enjoys the tacky awfulness of this ep), but 13 is a Joy to watch in this one, the moments of Graham’s sheer panic and fear for Ryan are brilliant, the narrative backing up for the second time that Yaz has a trait where she will call out Anything she has a problem, with no matter what it was or who did it (before we’d only really seen her talk truth like that to people with power over her, which is admirable as hell, but she Also is willing to call out loved ones, which is equally strong and difficult at times). Ryan is even forced, for the first time really, to properly have to go out and attempt to fix things on his own (arguably you could say this happened in battle of whatever the planet was called, But he Chose to go back for Graham, in this he has no agency and has to work with what was given). 

So i’m kind of??? On the idea that Kane being Vastly unaware of any kind of interpersonal etiquette with her blunt and pushy personality was actually kind of meant to be... like 13? Once we get to know Kane more we see so many things in her that would absolutely set the doctor off, playing soldier for one, her gravitation to being in charge (the doctor doesn’t Like being told what to do)... That blaze attitude to killing and people being killed. But, also the doctor is a hypocritical jerk who Also likes to be in charge and is pushy about it, plays soldier to devastating effects and can have a Mighty blaze attitude to killing and the dead. 

I don’t think they’re Dissimilar, necessarily, is what i’m saying. In fact, i’d say 13′s in Ascension of the Cybermen could parallel Kane’s in this episode, because stylistically both episodes share a base format of terrifying monsters chasing us to kill us, Having to resort to violence at times to survive, running away when you can, etc etc and i am on the fence as to whether i think it was purposeful or not. Both characters, even, got themselves and the others present into these messes with their own misdeeds. 13 sacrifices humanity's very future and damns it to extinction so she can have the humans and world she has Now because of her trauma, Kane’s greed and capitalistic views that the very best thing she can do for her daughter is to leave on some shady money making scheme because the Best thing in life is cash, damn dozens of people. 

I just think it’s interesting i can make a Reasonable comparison between the two, considering 13 immediately decides she’s detestable. Also, 13 only manages to get her groove back in the finale After she rejects Kane’s mode of operating and goes back to being the Doctor, enforcing that Kane very much was in the wrong. 

[conchabae]

I Am Malala: Book Review

It is hard to find the proper words to rightfully encompass Malala Yousafzai’s autobiography, I am Malala, yet the words resilience, hope and kindness ring the truest.

Malala Yousafzai’s story is so important in giving a more complex inside look of how her family, her faith, Pashtun culture and experiences in Pakistan have shaped her into the education activist and global force that she is. I was pleasantly surprised by the amount of anecdotes and background descriptions Malala provided of her family and especially of her father and role model Ziauddin Yousafzai. Malala’s description of her family members brought to life their humanity and influence on her, but also emphasized the Pashtun love for family and community. 

In the western hemisphere, we do not see enough middle-eastern people represented in a positive light, we do not often get to see their intellectuals, community leaders or activists. Malala’s individual story is extraordinary, but so are the millions of girls like her (that do not get their stories published) and her in-depth descriptions of her family, her people and the public’s concerns, everyday trauma and reality in Pakistan are eye-opening and empathy inducing, in a way that it should be required reading for every child globally. Which is another reason why the book deserves its international attention and according to the Nielsen Book Research in 2016, I am Malala has sold approximately 2 million copies world wide and counting. 

  Photo by Michael Prince: Malala Yousafzai at the Forbes Philanthropy Summit.

Malala Yousafzai also gives humanistic insight to how Islam has shaped her values and the Koran scriptures that have empowered her to be benevolent, to give to those who have lesser than, and to value education and knowledge. As an Atheist who has lived in somewhat secular but Christian-dominated lands all my life, it is refreshing and beautiful to read Malala’s descriptions and acknowledgement of her faith influencing her everyday life, providing her comfort and strength. It gives a strong contrast to western media’s tendency to tie heavy devotion to Islam, to extremism and terrorisms, which does not represent all Muslims. While many many be drawn to read this book to learn about the amazing Malala, she also uses this medium to deconstruct harmful stereotypes and notions about the various identities she has, that actually contribute to her greatness, according to Malala. Throughout her youth, Malala does not only condemn the Taliban, but she gives voice to her community who have been looted, beaten, murdered or terrorized by the Taliban and who been victimized because of a lack of political leadership to fully stop the terrorist group. 

One of the major themes in the biography is women’s rights in Pakistan and the importance of education. Malala gives important insights into the social expectations of Pashtun Muslim girls (being traditionally encouraged to domesticate, provide for husband as homemakers). Yet there is some complexity in the Pashtun tribe, as they also view Malakai, a young woman who bravely helped the Pashtuns victoriously fight off the British Empire, as their greatest hero. Coincidently, Malakai, is whom Malala is named after, and a great source of inspiration to her belief in securing women’s equality and equal autonomy to men. Because of her support and encouragement from her father, an academic and educator, Malala has confidence in her abilities and wants to increase the amount of girls and women who have access to education. Before Malala even reached her teens, she understood something really important about the Taliban, that they were just men taking out their anger and fear out on women, using violence and intimidation on all people to enforce their ideology. As the book progresses, we gain insight on how Malala’s life is impacted by the Taliban as her family is forced to uproot themselves for safety from civil war. We also get an insight on how her well-being and everyday life is impacted by several Taliban decisions enforced, sa. women having to wear a burqa and be accompanied by a male chaperone, not being allowed to attend school, fewer rights than men in court and law, and more. Malala’s story has so much trauma and Pakistani women have so many obstacles to face: for example, she accounts her fear of getting acid thrown in her face for disobeying the burqa rule, and experiences death threats as she raises funds to fund girls’ education.

 “I would do everything in my power to educate girls just like her. This is the war I was going to fight.”

Malala was very lucky to have grown up in the loving and supportive household she did, and her father’s academic career and ownership of a school definitely helped influence her passion for education and love of learning. There are moments in her story where circumstance and luck are intertwined and moments perhaps Malala would view as fate from the great creator himself. Malala started anonymously blogging for the BBC about her experience in Pakistan as a young girl, which became her first big momentum as an activist, garnering attention and praise from her community but also a global audience. The writing gig was in fact created by a BBC worker who was friends with Ziauddin Yousafzai, who mentioned it in passing to Malala, and Malala pitched herself to be the correspondent. The ultimate chance of luck occurred during the assassination attempt of Malala, where the bullet just grazed her brain and eye but didn't lead to a fatal shot. This book was sensationalized in global media upon release because of this traumatic incident with the Taliban and it was the most emphasized moment of her life story in global news. However, I really appreciate how Malala’s story is not solely defined by nor ends at this traumatic event. Malala  story continues, as does her ambition with the Malala fund, and it currently has funded millions of children’s education, furthering her life mission. 

 One of my favorite excerpts and quotes from the book is: “I saw a young girl selling oranges, she was scratching marks on a scrap of paper with her nail, to account for the oranges she had sold, as she could not read or write. I took a photo of her and vowed, I would do everything in my power to educate girls just like her. This is the war I was going to fight.”

According to the CEO of the Malala Fund, Farah Mohamed, if all girls went to school for 12 years, developing economies could add $92 billion per year to their economies. We also know from extensive research that education for women not only decreases their likelihood of marrying young, teen pregnancy, likelihood of contracting STDs - which increases women’s and public health and women’s opportunities, it also leads to increased innovation in society, especially in  environmentalism and entrepreneurship. In an article for Quartz: “Girls’ education is the best investment we can make to grow the world’s economies”, Mohamed states that 76% of men currently participate in the global labor market, yet only 46% of women do. In many nations, women face several challenges and life-threatening risks that deter them from being able to pursue education. If we ensure equal opportunity, there will be less gender inequality in all levels of society, as women can secure economic autonomy, increased political influence and legal rights. If we give women access to free education and safety while doing so, we invest in double the amount of great minds, innovators, revolutionaries and visionaries. The world arguably would have less war if women had equal opportunity to men, as they would be in spaces for decision making as well as further social progress and societal development. In a world where all children have access to quality education, we would unlearn many evils, limit the amount of authoritarian regimes and groups and our world would bloom from its transformation.

[worms-wav]

Inhabiting The Body

I began this essay wanting to write a structured, academic piece about the body as a home. Habitat. But the more I searched, the more I realised academia is not the framework within which I can best unpack and understand my (or anyone’s) relationship to the body. I grew up being told that Western forms of knowing were the only ones that were correct. You cannot write an essay without citing sources. It is not enough to just know something, or to inherit knowledge passed down in whispers. Real knowledge is double-spaced, Times New Roman, and cold. This is not to say that I don’t think that kind of research and knowledge is valid. I think there are certainly situations where I want to understand something through the lens of academia, through other people’s research, through a bright, naked paper trail.

But trying to write this essay has taught me that that can’t be the only kind of essay I try to write when I want to understand. Which has been a difficult thing to unlearn, especially when the body has always felt like a site of public discourse. Even more so when the body is femme, grew up as a cis girl, of mixed heritage. Less so because the body is able-bodied, light-skinned, Chinese-passing, and cis-passing. The body -- and I say ‘the’ body instead of ‘my’ body because in analysing it, it rarely feels like my own -- is a crazed intersection of privileges, learned behaviours, unlearned truths and internalised value systems. Who owns the body? Who has a right to the body? When do these people have a right to the body? What is the body in the context of the self? What is the body in the context of society? What is the body in the context of other bodies? These are questions that, perhaps, can be trudged through in Scopus and JSTOR, but are really, honestly, best understood through turning inwards, thinking, and speaking quietly to the people who don’t necessarily wish to filter their experiences through the pipes of academia. Western academia feeds into the myth that the mind thinks, and the body follows. The genesis of an idea can never be in the doing -- it is in the conceptualising, the theorising, the thinking. So when we think about the body, we think of it as primal and lesser and full of instincts we must evaluate before following.

And even as I write this, I know that this essay is not exactly the anarchist anti-academia piece it wishes it was. Perhaps I am Southeast Asian, but I have been so colonised that my regional awareness is clinical, not cultural. I come from Singapore, which has been dubbed ‘the imperialist of Southeast Asia’ because of how passionately we suck the empire’s cock and try to distinguish ourselves from the rest of Southeast Asia. Last year, we celebrated the ‘Singapore Bicentennial’. What is that? It was a nationwide commemoration marking the 200th anniversary of Stamford Raffles’ arrival in Singapore. Raffles was the British son of a slave trader, whose arrival on our shores marked the beginning of our colonisation. So when I speak about the body outside an academic understanding of it, as much as I want it to be an ode to local, indigenous ways of understanding the body, I know it never will be.

So here is the first marker of my body: colonised, but also, coloniser. Literate, in someone else’s tongue. Literate in someone else’s tongue that, for most of my growing-up years, was indistinguishable from my own. 

This essay is self-serving. It’s not meant to be a great essay. There are millions of great essays out there by much more qualified people than I. All I want through this essay is a space in which my thoughts and feelings can visibly exist. I speak about my own body and my own feelings, and I understand that academia does not always enjoy these things. We are meant to be rational and disconnected, a voice displaced from personality. But again, perhaps academia is not the entity that needs to read this, and perhaps there is merit in writing about my own experiences and those of the people around me. If art is about externalising the internal, then here is my contribution.

The genesis of this project lay in my own tangled relationship with my body. I used to believe it was normal to be unable to perceive my body accurately -- after all, we drown in images of other people’s bodies on the daily, and we’re constantly told what our body should and shouldn’t look like. It was unsurprising to eleven-year-old me that the sight of my body in mirrors and photographs repulsed me. But the nonchalance turned to concern when the repulsion morphed into vivid hallucinations, also often centred on my body. They ranged from the mild (the body grows old, then it is a man, then it is my father) to the terrible (the skin on the body melts off flesh, exposing neon maggots within).

I wish I could package that discomfort neatly within my relationship with my gender. I wish I could make a broad, sweeping statement like, “once I acknowledged I was non-binary, the hallucinations stopped, and I felt more connected to my body” but this is wholly untrue. I’m sure, deep down, there is some connection between my gender trouble and my disconcerting grip on reality, but on the surface at least, the only thing they have in common is my body. And so this is where we begin - at the body. At my colonised, coloniser, dissociating, disconnected, immaterial, tangible, hallucinogenic, Queer body.

I think most of us begin to conceptualise the body as a space long before we find the words for it. We explore our bodies, trace topography, memorise shortcuts, collapse geography, navigate terrain. We know what goes where, what feels good, what hurts, what is part of our body and what is outside it. We create a distinction between our own bodies and other people’s bodies. Just as geography is not simply a matter of cartographic divisions, the borders between bodies are not simply physical. Our bodies and what they mean, where they are, bleed into each other in meaning and solidarity and sex and pain. How do we group some bodies together, decide the societal value of bodies based on similarities and differences? A friend named Ants points out that the body is not truly separate from the world around us - we are a microcosm of organisms and other things, the “edges” that cut us off from the air around us do not truly exist. Art teachers tell you to look at the world and recognise there are no lines -- this is true on a bodily level as well. This friend points out, ‘the notion of a “home” relies on the ability to invite in and to refuse entry - but actually wow humans are more permeable than we like to admit.’

This permeability goes beyond the physical entanglement of us and our surroundings. We are not the only ones residing in our bodies - we share the room with a thousand other people’s opinions of us, some more dangerous than others. Some bodies, the system has decided, do not belong to themselves. There is a lot to be said about the colonisation of the bodies of Black and Indigenous People of Colour (BIPOC) by the violence of white systems of power within which much of the world operates. There is also a lot to be said about the gentrification of our bodies to fit in, the policing of femme bodies by a patriarchal system, the cheapening and exploitation of some bodies, and the way some bodies must mortgage themselves to imposed power structures in order to survive.

If the body is a space, then capitalism wants to cut us all up into little bitty pieces and make sure each of our components is most efficiently and clinically used. And, as dystopic as this idea is, it has already been achieved. We all labour under capitalism, our bodies are broken and exploited (again, some more than others. Some much more than others.), and we all go to sleep only to wake up to do it again. When the world is constructed such that nothing belongs to you without capital, the body feels like precious real estate (or, conversely - the body feels incredibly fucking distant). We want agency over it, we want control over it, we want it back. We want to feel comfortable in our skin, so we pay a premium to make sure our physical, spiritual and emotional selves line up with the identity we have created for ourselves in our minds. We find ways to slide ourselves into our bodies, we look for things like connection and authenticity. We want our bodies to feel like home. And yet, the language we are given to talk about habitation of body, of space, corner us to think about our agency in very specific terms.

When we think about habitation, we think about the home. ‘Where do you live?’ is the same question as ‘where is your home?’ or, more transparently, ‘where is your house?’ Although the concept of home is arguably intangible, we find ways to ground it in a very material context. Linguistically, we position ‘home’ through idioms like ‘home is where the heart is’, ‘a man’s home is his castle’, ‘home ground’... The English language has developed a very extensive range of phrases that link ‘home’ to a sense of permanence, ownership and identity. This conceptual positioning of the home is mirrored in very tangible ways. We want to buy a house, not rent one. We have landlords who own our houses but do not live in them. We deliberately build walls, doors and locks to demarcate ‘our’ space. And ‘our’ space is defined mostly by the fact that it is not anybody else’s. 

We think of habitation in terms of property. It is not really surprising that England declared the legal definition of property in the 17th century, around the same time the colonial empire was established. Theorists like John Locke tried to naturalise the concept of ownership -- in the process, also cementing who was viewed as a person and who was not. Property is an inherently racist, sexist and problematic idea. And yet, we don’t view home ownership as the selfish offspring of imperialism (see: mass deaths and poverty). The home, by all means, is a warm, comforting concept. The home is where the heart is! The home is where we take off our bras, put on a stained shirt and dance arrhythmically to Diana Ross. It is a safe space, where we unfurl, exist without fear of being watched, exist without concern about acing the performance. The home is apolitical - you don’t have to have the right opinion when you are at home. You can just be.

Before thinkers like Proudhon, Marx, Lenin and Mao called for the abolition of private property, there were indigenous peoples who viewed the land as sacred, as living, as relatives and ancestors, who continue to view the land in this way. We do not own the land - we exist alongside it. In many ways, we owe our existence to it. In 2017, New Zealand’s Whanganui Maori iwi won a 140-year-long legal battle to give their ancestral Whanganui river the same legal rights as human beings. India’s Uttarakhand high court cited this case when it ruled that the Ganges River and the Yamuna River have the legal statuses of people. I’m going off on a tangent. The point is that before we dive into thinking that abolishing private property is a radical new thought, it is important we remember it is the age-old thought of the voices we have drowned out.

The relationships between land and humanity, between property and agency, between capitalism and the individual, are complex and political. So when I speak about the body as a site of habitation, there are thousands of unavoidable histories inherent. When I refer to the body as a home, that claim does not exist in a vacuum of happy thoughts and first-world identity crises. Bodies and land are both sites of violence and ownership - historically, they have been, and presently, they continue to be. I move away from describing the body as a ‘home’ because of the way I’ve unpacked it in this essay - but I also want to be clear that I am not trying to police the language we use to discuss our bodies, our relationship to the land, the spaces between us.

In my work, I spoke of the body as a habitat. A space, landmark, geographical love letter. The home is not a habitat, and vice versa. While ‘home’ conjures images of place and ownership, ‘habitat’ alludes to something more natural, more accidental. The space we end up in because it is best for us. The space that feeds us, shelters us and places us within a larger ecosystem of which we are an essential part. When I ask ‘how do we inhabit the body?’ I am not asking ‘how do we make the body a home?’ because the home has already been made for us. It is a question, then, not of altering the body to a point of marketability, but of peeling it back and returning to the state that feels the most comfortable.

So what does it mean to inhabit the body? What does it mean for Queer people whose bodies often feel inherently hostile? How do you slide into a body that, for one, does not feel like the body you want to slide into, and for another, does not feel like it belongs to you? How do you exist as a transgender and/or non-binary person whose body doesn’t feel like the habitat it is naturally supposed to be?

At this point in the essay, I got stuck. I messaged a friend saying, ‘I forgot what my point was.’ And was promptly reminded that I started this essay to de-intellectualise the relationship I have with my body. To feel my way through the words, rub out this idea that I have to have sources and academic knowledge to discuss my primary site of existence. If that was the point of this essay, then you and I both know I have failed. I’ve intellectualised the hell out of the body. And I realise a lot of us Queer people do this - we see the body as distant, so it is much easier to evaluate it without engaging directly with the sense of loss that comes with putting ourselves inside our bodies (not to mention the fact that most of us are rarely, if at all, inside our bodies). But perhaps this, too, is a Western approach to Queerness. I think of the thousands of indigenous cultures that treated Queerness as the norm until their land was colonised and their beliefs stamped out to make way for Western laws. Singapore’s ‘main’ ethnic groups and our indigenous peoples all have long histories of non-binary genders: from the five genders of the Bugis people to the gay Hainanese sex workers to the Malay sida-sida. Was gender ever supposed to be this complicated? Or are the complications a Western import? You can understand my rage with Western LGBTQIA+ activists who view Southeast Asian countries as ‘behind’. ‘Behind’ is a flaccid word coming from those who tread on us until we could no longer walk forward.

And yet, ‘behind’ is such an important position to us -- in Singapore, we want to be ahead. Myself, in my body, wants to be better, as if better is an absolute point that can be reached if I just do the right things, am the right type of person. ‘Better’ is a weird thing to want for a body that does not really feel like it belongs to you. Early in the morning, my mama chides me: ‘you’ll never know what it’s like to fight until you have your own children.’ and I think about the life that I fight to live and I wonder if that’s not real fighting because the body I am fighting for is so far removed from my soul, the soul that is trying its best to inhabit it. And again, what does it mean to try our best to inhabit a body? At what point have we succeeded in being?

This essay is maybe useless academically, but it is useful spiritually. Writing this piece has felt like detangling a very long clump of hair in a drain, spreading them out on wet tile bathed in sunlight and watching them dry til they curl back in on themselves. I am no longer interested in coherence. I am interested in this dissonance, the words I say versus the words I learned, the land I walk on versus the land taken away from me versus the land that was never really mine to begin with. The body as its own agent but so bounded by words and language and bullshit that I have to write an entire essay just to arrive at the point of: oh. Perhaps it is okay for all these feelings to be messy, to be just loosely strung together. Perhaps it is okay that the only thing that they have in common, is my body.

[blackswaneuroparedux]

Viking sex slaves: The making of Iceland

I’ve been to Iceland on more than one occasion and I love everything about the place from its stunning scenery, its friendly people, and interesting food from Kjötsupa (Traditional Lamb meat soup) and Svið (sheep's head) to Hákarl (fermented shark) and .Hrútspungar (sour ram's testicles) - yummy!

But take a trip to the National Museum of Iceland, and you might find a display there with an interesting statistic. In fact, it’s a statistic with some dark implications for Iceland’s past.

Given the genetics of Iceland and the nature of the people who settled it, Both archaeologists and scientists now coming around to the firm belief that a large percentage of the first women on Iceland were taken there as slaves.

After analyzing the DNA of modern Icelanders, scientists have been able to come up with a fairly accurate idea of what the founding population of the country looked like. Around 80% of Icelandic men were Norse, hailing from Scandinavian countries like Norway, Sweden, and Denmark. Of course, as a colony founded by Norse settlers, that’s to be expected.

But based on the mitochondrial DNA, which is only passed down in the female line, we know that over half of the female settlers were Celtic, meaning they came from Ireland, Scotland, and the northwestern islands of Britain. So essentially, the founders of Iceland were a strange combination of Norse men and Celtic women.

At first glance, that fact is just an interesting bit of genealogy. But it quickly grows more disturbing the more you think about it. After all, the people who settled Iceland were also the same people who produced the infamous Vikings.

However, as most people know, the Vikings had a habit of carrying off slaves. Given the genetics of Iceland and the nature of the people who settled it, it’s possible that a large percentage of the first women on Iceland were taken there as slaves.

Slavery played a much larger part in Norse society than most people are aware of. Slaves, or “thralls” as they were called, were present in most Norse communities, with many being taken in Viking raids across Europe. While the warriors spent most of their time fighting or drinking, it was up to slaves to do a great deal of the work around the village.

In fact, it was a serious insult to a Viking to say that he had to milk his own cows. That was considered work for slaves and women, and with so many around, no free-born Norseman needed to milk any cows.

The lives of slaves were often quite brutal. Slaves were regularly subjected to violence, both as punishment and for religious reasons. When their masters died, slaves were often murdered so that they could serve them in death as they had in life.

Above all, Vikings prized young female slaves. These girls taken in raids could expect to be raped regularly while being pressed into a life of domestic servitude. The desire for women might even explain a lot about why Vikings began to raid Britain in the 9th century.

Some scholars have suggested that early Norse society was polygamous, and powerful chiefs married multiple wives, leaving none for other men. According to this theory, Vikings first took to the seas to find women because there were few available in Scandinavia. So they went wife hunting to the shores of Britain.

This theory could also explain why Vikings leaving to settle Iceland would have looked to Britain as a source of women. There simply weren’t enough available women in Scandinavia to help settle the island. If this is the case, then the settling of Iceland involved Norse raiders making stops in Britain on the way, killing the men, and carrying off the women.

It’s important to emphasis from what we historically prove and what we can speculate based upon what we already know of Viking customs and societal mores.

So for example, once on the island, it’s harder to say what these women’s lives might have been like. Some historians have suggested that though they started out as slaves, the Norsemen in Iceland eventually took the women as wives. If so, then they may have treated them with a basic level of respect. Norse culture placed a heavy emphasis on maintaining a happy household with a spouse.

Other historians have made a strong case that these women may have willingly gone to Iceland with Norsemen who settled in their communities. But the Vikings were never shy about taking slaves, and there certainly were slaves in Iceland.

Although the Viking period has never been my area of historical expertise as I primarily was educated in Classics, my academic instincts along with what I’ve read or followed other more qualified scholars in this field - archaeologist Neil Price of Sweden’s Uppsala University, archaeologist Marek Jankowiak of the University of Oxford, and archaeologist Anna 
Kjellström of Stockholm University - lead me to steer a middle course.

To my mind, the most likely explanation is that there were Celts who volunteered to go to Iceland as well as Celtic women who were taken there as slaves. That means that, on some level, sexual slavery played a significant role in the settlement of Iceland. The argument that Vikings set out to capture women gets tantalising support from recent genetic studies of living people in Iceland but arguably scholars are at just beginning to get a more full picture as more research proceeds.

[aboycalledeverything]

An In-depth Response to JK Rowling from a Transman

**CW: transphobia, suicide, surgery, discrimination, assault**

Let me first say that we should not allow this conversation to derail the progress and momentum of the Black Lives Matter movement. Though race and sexuality intersect in many fascinating and important ways, it is important to allow the voices of our BlPOC to be heard and amplified for as long as it takes for meaningful, sweeping changes to be made in our society. That being said, I would be remiss if I did not take the time to process and respond to the conversation you have chosen to bring to the table. 

TLDR: To JK’s assertion that trans women threaten the political and biological class of ‘women’,  Acknowledging that trans women are women is not the erosion of a political and biological class. It is strengthening those classes by accepting the women who, despite all threats of assault or death, stand by their identity and celebrate womanhood.

Let me also begin by saying thank you. For surviving, for persisting, for blessing the world with the gift of magic. The books-which-need-not-be-named were and are pillars of my childhood, identity, and life philosophy. I will never stop finding solace in the pages of those books. 

Before we can continue the conversation, I need to introduce myself. I am a (relatively) young white transman and former D1 softball player. I chose to defer physical transition but came out socially as a transman in my sophomore year and was one of the few openly trans NCAA athletes at the time. I was also a student, and spent a large portion of my collegiate career studying LGBTQ+ issues and how they connect to human psychology. My senior capstone was a paper titled “Transmen and Suicide: Unique Contributors to a Disproportionately High Suicide Attempt Rate.” This involved both an in-depth literature review of trans research and theory as well as an independent collection and analysis of transman testimonies. The year after graduation was spent as a Lab Coordinator for the Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity: Health and Human Rights Lab at the University of Texas at Austin which does phenomenal sociological and psychological research on queer youth in particular. This is not to say that I am an expert, but rather to make it clear that I, too, have spent years researching the fraught topics of gender and sexuality.

Thank you for referring to my trans brothers as “notably sensitive and clever people.” We do try to use the unique empathy granted by being seen and treated as both women and men. Most of us grew up as girls and have been targeted by the misogyny and sexism that you reference; we try to use those experiences to inform our responses and opinions to societal issues. I, specifically, am going to use my lived experiences to respond to your essay. There are some points with which I agree and appreciate your recognition - freedom of speech, the importance of nuanced conversation, and the fact that both women and trans people are at disproportionate risk of violence and must be safeguarded. There are other points with which I take umbrage and will address one by one.

JKR: “It’s been clear to me for a while that the new trans activism is having (or is likely to have, if all its demands are met) a significant impact on many of the causes I support, because it’s pushing to erode the legal definition of sex and replace it with gender.”

Response:  Let’s be clear: trans activists - at least the majority of us - are not trying to erase sex as a definition. Instead, we are asking that the parameters be reconsidered to make space for intersex people and who have biologically transitioned. Your points about the biological differences in treatments for MS are well taken. Ignoring intersex people and focusing on only the binary sexes male and female, you’re right. There are often sex differences in diseases and health disorders. But the problem is that we don’t always know what drives those differences; if they’re based on hormones, physical bodies, or something else entirely. Intersex and trans people, if they choose, now have the medical capability to change their hormones and physical bodies to the extent that they can be classified as male or female.

I’m not going to give you a full explanation on sex as an expression of levels of hormones, chromosomes, and physical organs. I’m sure you already know that both biological men and women have varying amounts of the same hormones, and that hormone replacement therapy can and does give trans men and women the hormonal levels that correspond to each definition. I have been taking testosterone for just under 2 years and, for all intents and purposes, have the chemistry of a biological man. In the same way, surgeries can and do affect physical biology and organ makeup, from removal or reconstruction of a penis or vagina to the removal of ovaries and uterus entirely. 

This creates a gray area as to how to medically treat diseases like MS in trans people. We’re still learning, and I’ll be the first to admit that. What I can say is that there are many binary trans people who are not trying to replace legal definitions of sex with gender, but rather are trying to expand the legal definitions of sex to those who, for all intents and purposes, are biologically male or female.

JKR: “I’m concerned about the huge explosion in young women wishing to transition and also about the increasing numbers who seem to be detransitioning (returning to their original sex), because they regret taking steps that have, in some cases, altered their bodies irrevocably, and taken away their fertility. Some say they decided to transition after realising they were same-sex attracted, and that transitioning was partly driven by homophobia, either in society or in their families.”

Response:  I would very much like to see the studies that you are referencing in this “huge explosion” of detransitioning individuals. If you’re referencing the article by Lisa Littman, it is definitely worth noting that her study was a) descriptive rather than empirical and b) based on the testimonials of parents and not the actual trans youth.

According to a different and arguably more experienced researcher, Dr. Johanna Olsen, regret and detransitioning as you talk about it are extremely rare. I encourage you to watch her video below and read over some of the other research she is and has been doing.

Even if we were to listen to descriptive research such as Littman’s and assume that there are people who wish to detransition, the lack of fertility you’re talking about is not universal and, as with people assigned female at birth, varies. According to recent studies, trans men who wish to reproduce biologically can take a break from testosterone while carrying their children and resume afterwards. So far, there are no negative side effects for the children of transmen.

What should also be considered, especially in youth, is that hormone blockers are entirely reversible. But puberty is not. When trans children are put on hormone blockers, they are essentially delaying permanent puberty and taking time to examine whether it’s right for them. Access to medical care such as hormone blockers are essential to trans youth because it does give them time to figure out their identity before going through the male or female puberty that affects them.

I have not seen any cases of transition driven by homophobia, but would like to note that working to make parents less homophobic and transphobic seems to be a better use of time than arguing against the right of many trans youth who do need access to medical intervention.

JKR: “The argument of many current trans activists is that if you don’t let a gender dysphoric teenager transition, they will kill themselves. In an article explaining why he resigned from the Tavistock (an NHS gender clinic in England) psychiatrist Marcus Evans stated that claims that children will kill themselves if not permitted to transition do not ‘align substantially with any robust data or studies in this area. Nor do they align with the cases I have encountered over decades as a psychotherapist.’”

Response: This point is one of the more frustrating parts of your article because it is using one medical professional’s opinion to ignore a horrifying truth. Trans adults and youths experience suicidality and depression at staggering rates. While I cannot comment on studies in the UK, here in the US the lifetime suicide ideation rates for trans adults is 81.7%. The attempt rate is 40.4%, almost 10x the national average of 4.6%. 

And those are just the statistics of the people who survived long enough to participate in the study. Denying the real threat of suicidality in trans youth is not only saddening - it is actively harmful.

JKR: “The allure of escaping womanhood would have been huge. I struggled with severe OCD as a teenager. If I’d found community and sympathy online that I couldn’t find in my immediate environment, I believe I could have been persuaded to turn myself into the son my father had openly said he’d have preferred.”

Response: This is one of the most frequent arguments I see for people denying trans men their identity. My own mother has suggested that I transitioned to escape sexism. To this, I respond that choosing to transition does not provide an escape to discrimination and harrassment. I was well aware, when choosing to come out and transition, of the statistics of discrimination I was entering. I was well aware that it might mean the loss of my athletic scholarship, the dismissal of the team of sisters that I played on, It was not a matter of escaping sexism, but rather a matter of being my most authentic self. Even if you dismiss my own personal experience, I would point to the trans women who actively transition and give up their male privilege in exchange for the trials and tribulations of womanhood. Either way, I can assure you that the suicidality trans people experience makes the “choice” to transition no more of a choice than raising your hands because a gun is pointed at your head. 

JKR:  “ I want to be very clear here: I know transition will be a solution for some gender dysphoric people, although I’m also aware through extensive research that studies have consistently shown that between 60-90% of gender dysphoric teens will grow out of their dysphoria”

Response:  I appreciate your recognition of our reality! I would love to see the studies that present a 30% difference. In my experience, those of us that lived long enough to see adulthood have not grown out of dysphoria, even if we’ve learned coping strategies to make it bearable. And again, hormone blockers for teens allow the opportunity for them to grow however they need to without permanent changes being made.

JKR:  “So I want trans women to be safe. At the same time, I do not want to make natal girls and women less safe. When you throw open the doors of bathrooms and changing rooms to any man who believes or feels he’s a woman – and, as I’ve said, gender confirmation certificates may now be granted without any need for surgery or hormones – then you open the door to any and all men who wish to come inside.”

Response:  Once again I cannot speak to the politics or legislation of the UK. What I can say is that “bathroom bans” on trans people that require us to use the fitting room/bathroom/locker room of the sex we were assigned at birth lead to significant sexual and physical assault on trans people, which already face a disproportionate risk (as you mentioned). I personally have been fortunate enough to have not been physically assaulted when I was trying to go to the bathroom, but have been harassed in both mens and womens bathrooms (which I varied between during my transition, depending on how well I thought I was passing). Many of my friends are not as lucky.

JKR:  “But, as many women have said before me, ‘woman’ is not a costume. ‘Woman’ is not an idea in a man’s head. ‘Woman’ is not a pink brain, a liking for Jimmy Choos or any of the other sexist ideas now somehow touted as progressive.”

Response:  The implication that trans women - who are literally dying to be acknowledged as women - putting on a “costume” is flagrantly offensive. I am choosing to believe that you did not intend this implication and instead are confusing sex and gender. In which case,would refer you to the seminal work Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity by Judith Butler. According to her, gender is literally a performance that one chooses to express. Transwomen define their gender and femininity as individuals, and do not choose to go through the grueling process of changing their biological sex because they like Jimmy Choos. The gender ‘woman’ is not a “pink brain” but rather an identity that can be inwardly cultivated and outwardly expressed. The sex ‘woman’ or female is an amalgamation of complex physiological systems that, as we’ve already discussed, can be altered. 

JKR: “I refuse to bow down to a movement...” 

Response: There is undeniably a movement, a “cancel culture” that dismisses nuanced conversation. I, like you, am concerned about the erosion of free speech and the expression of alternative points of view in nuanced discussions such as this one. But this movement is not specific to trans people and should not be described as such. Most trans activists and researchers that I know are not asking you to “bow down.” We’re asking you to come to the table and have an open mind. We’re asking you to use your huge platform to help trans people (as you clearly want to) without harming them (as you clearly have).

JKR: “...that I believe is doing demonstrable harm in seeking to erode ‘woman’ as a political and biological class and offering cover to predators like few before it.”

Response: This is the crux of the “TERF wars”. The refusal to accept trans women as women. To this, I would simply say: Acknowledging that trans women are women is not the erosion of a political and biological class. It is strengthening those classes by accepting the women who, despite all threats of assault or death, stand by their identity and celebrate womanhood.