#but its not the embracement of feminity itself that's bad

[magiefish]

Y'know considering that I actually like Marina & Florence + The Machine & quite a few Billie Eillish songs, I might actually like Lana Del Ray's music if I listened to it, but I also just categorically refuse to do so because by this point she's become so intertwined with some of the most insufferable views of "feminity" I've ever seen that I literally just cannot do it.

[genderkoolaid]

the more i think about it the more i feel transunity is vital. i dont mean this hatefully and theres no way to say this that wont be misconstrued by someone but. i feel like so much trans activism has been focused on aligning trans women with other women in feminism (itself not a bad goal) but that as the end all be all of trans activism intrinsically hurts other trans people. so much baeddel rhetoric relies on "there is no trans community/trans people it should only be about trans women" and i think its extremely extremely important to talk about transness as its own class, and fully embrace how trans liberationism must involve completely deconstructing cis-centric analysis of gender/the patriarchy to include the full extent of trans oppression. the idea that transphobia is fundamentally and exclusively based in misogyny & is ultimately a part of women's oppression is just fitting transness into the cis-centric binary system we've always had. transphobia has to be seen as its own thing and transness as its own class, for the better of all trans people and especially transmascs & transneutrals who are otherwise forced to choose between misgendering/detransition or being left out of class analysis/treated as oppressors even while being oppressed. transness is not just a subsect of womanhood it has to be seen as its own thing. transunity or death

[apas-95]

saw someone, in the notes of a post about the historical racism around cannabis in the USA and how its criminalisation and racialisation have little to do with the plant itself and far more to do with politics, scoff at the idea and chalk it up to 'drug users rotting their brains'. click on the blog, go through a couple posts, and, predictably, they're a radfem，complaining about pronouns (and also edging into saying that being a childless woman is Bad Actually). as actually-radical politics upsurge, reactionaries find it harder and harder to embrace casual rightism. there's, as has happened before, a proliferation of guilt-free versions of every bigotry under the sun. repressive attitudes around gender and sexuality become feminism, eugenics becomes environmentalism, good old-fashioned anticommunism becomes the one true leftism, and war fever becomes anti-imperialism. it's a good sign, in truth, speaking to the actual existence and emergence of a leftist movement, but it still heralds a dark time to come. soon, the time of monsters.

[melrosing]

ok I'll share. I've been avoiding barbie conversations online (as much as that was even possible to do) bc I didn't want to get spoiled but the vibe I was getting was that it was going to be a film that might have been somewhat fresh in like 2012 but in 2023 it's just a repetition of all the conversations we've been having over and over throughout the fourth wave. and yeah that's exactly what it was.

like first of all I really don't buy this retroactive notion that Barbie was this paragon of feminism for little girls who have all become disillusioned since, like I ALWAYS felt alienated by the barbie brand as a kid, even as a skinny white girl, and every time I was gifted one of those dolls it was a reminder that this is what I as a girl was supposed to like and was supposed to be like, and that nobody seemed to care much if that wasn't me. the fact that they introduced Career Barbies and whatever else in the 2010s in an effort to appeal to modern sensibilities means nothing to me, it's just marketing. if they didn't think it would make profit, make the press, they wouldn't have done it.

so the brand just feels like entirely the wrong vessel for a feminist manifesto, and the manifesto itself is just so stale. like 'imagine if girls had the same jobs as men!'/'who cares if you have cellulite!'/'aren't boys boring sometimes!' like uh huh okay!! you got anything else?? I don't expect barbie to start speaking on abortion rights but from a director like greta gerwig I sure expected something more cutting than what we got, which was almost like an introduction to feminism to those who'd never heard of it

and I know Greta Gerwig is capable of greater subtlety and nuance than this so I assume that at least in part this was down to the fact that the whole film was an aggressive marketing vehicle for Mattel. and also chanel and chevrolet apparently?? like these brands stuck out like a sore thumb in a film that was pretending to be above all that, but the presence of Mattel throughout was just especially uncomfortable, like they joked about it being a male dominated company whilst flogging its wares through a feminist parable, and the 'sell sell sell' messaging just felt weirdly contrary to what the film seemed to claim was its heart, which is 'you can just be you without all the baubles' or whatever

and I think ultimately it didn't have anything to say that hadn't been said more articulately a hundred times over, in films that don't contradict themselves throughout. there was probably a good film in there that could've been made without Mattel glaring over everyone's shoulders, instead critiquing the Barbie brand's hollow pretences at feminism and white girlboss feminism more generally. or they could have just made a fun film about barbie, because the music and dancing was mostly great. but instead we got this which is pretending to be both and achieving neither and I really hate to be a killjoy but I just. really resent films as tawdry as this repeatedly placing at the forefront of the conversation around feminism, we need to stop having the same discussions over and over, and the only reason we are is because these are the easier conversations that are simple to sell. the more complicated shit is harder for brands to grapple with, and I am sick of brands being placed at the centre of debate on pressing social issues!!!

so idk what i was really expecting from a film called Barbie but in short I wish we could stop pretending it's something that it wasn't. everyone suddenly embracing the barbie brand and barbie nostalgia because they've decided it's feminist now just feels Bad

sitting on unpopular opinions about the barbie movie

[katsuflossy]

A Doll’s Palace

Pairing: Hawks x Reader 

TW: Angst, Mentions of maternal death, death, yandere themes, mentions of societal female expectations

A/n:  If it wasn’t for Echo and Mix, would’ve been straight booty cheeks so omg thank y’all for helping me edit this to near perfection ❤❤❤

Taglist: @johariameil @iiminibattlehero @ecao @melanimed​ @mixfi​

Chastity, Purity, Demureness, Divine Feminity: They built your enamored status and innocence in the kingdom of Braavos. A pure noblewoman is seen as the most remarkable feminine icon in society, and you involuntarily became the symbol that many women hated and men looked up to. A curse, your father had called it, as the most beautiful of your family is always the earliest to go, right after birth. Since then, you’ve grown to embody your mother, a face he so loved, and swore on his life that you would never die from a soul exchange as your mother did.

But your marriage with Takami Keigo? A reality every hopeless romantic maiden could only experience through dream. . King ‘Hawks’ was preferred by his people, an esteemed man that led millions to victory in battle with wit and millions of hearts to burst using charm. You were one in a million, the heart that won the golden ticket to strike the hawk’s heart.

Too bad, the reality was shared another lucky heart.

Red silks tailored to your natural measurements; the powdered innocent blush on your face was paralleled to the floor as your brain overflowed with thoughts. Your hands twirled the parchment scroll in your palms, but your eyes remembered the exact words inked on the paper. They jumbled with the script you’ve repeated since the crack of dawn. Midoriya fluttered about the room, making the bed you just laid in and unclogging the once cold bathwater made for you to look more ‘youthful.’ A simple day in the Crystal Queen’s life.

“Izuku?” Your manservant ceased his movement, eagerly giving his attention to you.

“Yes, my Queen?” His eyes tried to reach yours; however, they remained on the paper within your hands, slightly crinkled from when your restraint broke.

“You would tell me when I am wrong” Your irises slowly slid to his frame; pupils almost swallowed into the depths of your eye color. A shiver ran down his back . “right?”

“Y-yes, my Queen.” He didn’t dare to flinch under your gaze, which stared at him longer than what was comfortable. You ended your stare by closing your eyes, giving him a wide smile before rising from your love seat, slipping the parchment in your sleeve. Your steps passed straight by his still frozen figure until they had reached the door frame.

“Midoriya, my faithful servant.” Your voice echoed through the room like a skillful siren. His attention remained on you as you continued to speak.

“I want you in the main dining hall by eight on the dot. Please don’t be late.” You left before he could properly bow at your command.

The barren halls laughed at you, pricking your mentality, forming pairs of figures every few columns you passed. A maid was pressed against the left column just a while ago, arms wrapped around the pale neck of your husband, his arms around her peasant waist.

The one you just passed? The same maid laid her hands on Keigo’s face, smoothing out his goatee’s hairs, and he allowed her to.

The entrance of the dining hall up ahead held your heart’s worst fear. An exchange of breath, love, and intimacy that should be sacred between those wedded. Your mind pictured the peacock vase at the entrance shattering on your behalf, impaling the two’s skin. The imaginary screams were like wine to your ears as you finally entered the hall.

The area was warmed by the marble light of the great chandelier,everything was covered with the golden gleam, hiding the little splatters of deep red in the floor. A mint haired maid captured your attention.

“Your Majesty? I apologize, but the dining room is not finished for tonight’s dinner.” Her brown eyes stared at you nervously; her chubby cheek showed where her teeth bit into its flesh.

“Oh, no worries, I am just looking for now.” The fake smile stuck itself to your face as you examined the long dining table. Only a handful of food were fixated on the top.

“You make excellent food here, Cara. What beautiful carvings in the baby carrots.” You quirked up, noticing she stiffed at your last words.

“Of course, my work is only done best for you, y-your Majesty.” Your practiced laugh came through the room, instilling superficial relief in the maid.

“But I must ask, are you eating some as you cook? You’ve gotten wider in the last months.” Your hand took her chin; curious eyes roamed her plump face as she blushed by the attention.

“Haha, y-yes, I’ve been eating a little more than usual.” Her gaze shuffled to anywhere but you. She was such a terrible liar.

“As long as you’re not eating for two.” You threw your head back; melodious laughter exhausted your stomach pit. Cara barely joined in with her nervous laughter, face breaking red in embarrassment.

“Did I hear my little bird’s beautiful laughter?” The kingly presence broke into the room. Which one? You kept your tongue as Keigo wrapped you into a kiss, which sadly set your heart on fire. Your lips separated, trained eye watching as his own sneakily trailed to the kitchen maid. Your smile dulled before brightening .

“My King, I have exciting news for you.” Your face snuggled into his palm on your cheek. Hawks eyes gleamed like the most gilded of plates.

“Hm? Well, love, don’t keep me on my toes. Let me hear it.” You relished in his arms wrapped around your midsection before pulling out of his embrace, bopping him on the nose.

“That’s the purpose.o keep you anxious until the grand reveal.” Your smile started to burn your cheeks as you watched the room’s bustle, preparing for a grand disaster.

Violins and Cellos played throughout the dining hall as the dinner began. The long table set with food separated you and Keigo, each taking the farthest end. Playful looks and banters were exchanged between the two as the servants lined against the walls, ready for even the most subtle commands. After laughing at one of Keigo’s pun, you clapped, drawing everyone’s attention.

“Well, it was all a joyous evening, but I must bring attention to the evening’s highlight: the surprise.” Hawks quirked up in curiosity. The rest of the maids and Midoriya exchanged curious glances but did not say a word. You rose from your seat, hand gliding across the table’s surface.

“As you know, I am a lady of chastity, not by will, but by curse.” Your steps drew closer to your king.

“My father wishes nothing of seeing me carrying a little one. You, my king, are a young man, one who’s drive is active. A man who wishes to grow old with children around as you said at our first ball.” You were only a mere meter away from his seated figure, close enough to watch his adam’s apple bob in nervousness.

“Yes? But my little bird, why is this such an important announcement.”

“Be patient, my love. I am getting to that.” You were half a meter away from him now; his brow held the slightest furrow in them. Cara shuffled in the corner of your eye.

“Well, I begged my father, being of a monogamous nation, and it was hard. Harems were long abandoned in the kingdom of Braavos, but I did it.” You pulled from your sleeves the parchment paper and gave it to Keigo, whose eyes were full of anxiety. He opened the scroll to read.

“In the Kingdom of Fukuoka, the King will have the privilege of a harem, up to 20 women. He will be able to officially appear with them at balls, sleep with them, and—” his eyes flicker to you with shock before rereading what was written. “—procreate with them.”

You smiled before pointing to the end of the paper.

“Only if the Queen, rightfully crowned and inaugurated, is given the parenthood of all children birthed by the harem. The Queen will also be able to have a harem of her own, whether sexually or not.”

Hawks’ wings rose, eyes looking at you in disbelief. You lifted his face close to yours.

“Don’t worry, love. I only have eyes for you. Though,what happened to equality and freedom? The two things you fight for?” Your eyes flickered to Cara, whose face was red with anger. Keigo already took the pen from your sleeves and signed the paper.

“S-stop! This law c-can’t pass !” Her voice broke the cheery atmosphere, riddling it with confusion. The maids began to whisper frantically. You rose a brow at her outburst.

“And why is that? You have no say in royal affairs, kitchen maid.” Her eyes began to water, falling down her fat cheeks onto her fabric.

“P-please, d-don’t take my baby.” The room fell deadly silent after her plea. You ripped your hands from Hawks’ body, face morphing in shock.

“What do you mean, ‘your baby’?” Your eyes turned to Hawks, who sat silent. You could see the gears turning in his head to construct a lie.

“Hawks. What does she mean ‘your baby’?” His gears steamed before stopping abruptly, giving up on filing an excuse. His hands reached out to hold you.

“I can explain.” You moved quickly out of his range before halting him in his tracks.

“You can explain? Do you know how embarrassing that is to me? If it’s true, you’ve been cheating on me for months! Knowing that I couldn’t even bear for you!” Your heart pained you as the night you found out, reliving the shock and betrayal over again.

You were breaking character. Taking a deep breath, you turned away from your husband, a tear slowly streaking your face.

“We’ll talk about this when there aren't any spectators. Cara, bring out the special wine I’ve asked you to make for the celebration. I hope you two are happy.” Cara still stood on the spot, by fear and resistance. You turned to her; wide eyes staring straight into her soul.

“Now.” She ran to the kitchen, hand over mouth to hide her whimpers.

“Midoriya, help the pregnant lady out. It’ll be a shame if she broke her back or something.” Midoriya jumped up, running in the same direction as Cara.

“(Y/n), let me explain please—”

“There is nothing to explain; just enjoy your wine and celebrate.” The bitter sarcasm rolling off your tongue in waves. Cara and Midoriya entered the hall. Her eyes strong with will and face wiped of tears. Midoriya poured the wine for Hawks, filling his chalice to the brim. The winged king sighed and took an immediate gulp. You immediately turned to Cara, your eyes evoking sadness.

“I can’t even be in the same place as you two right now.” You stormed out of the dining room, leaving only the sounds of your shoes hitting the floor.

The candle lights flickered as Hawks entered your shared bedroom, dressed and cleaned for bed. You sat on your loveseat from the afternoon, now twirling a diamond ring on your finger. As he stood in front of you, your eyes remained on your hand.

“My love please forgive m—”

“Why?” You looked up at him; pupils dilated.

“Why should I?” He stepped back, startled to see the pain he had inflicted on you. He stared into your wide eyes for a moment longer until he knelt down, knees touching the red carpet’s wool. His hands clasped your own stopping the continuous twirl of your marriage symbol before wetting his dry lips.

“For a young royal bachelor, I was loved by all types of power-hungry men and women; they flocked me with compliments, ideas, whispers, promises. But you, you were the one that saw who I was behind my status, a young boy who lost his parents. A coward put into the place of a king before he could even blink. You saw the real me, and still, you didn’t turn away. We both embrace our vulnerabilities from each other, and if—” His Adam's apple bobbed, throat restricting as a tear fell from his eye. You shuffled in discomfort, your own tears brimming at his speech.

“—if I could take back what I had done, I would do so immediately, within a heartbeat. But she bears my child, and I...I can’t leave it as my father left me.” His neck strained to look up at you, forcing himself not to choke down a cry.

You laid your other hand on his own. Your tears were staining your cheek as you nodded your head frantically, taking him in your arms. He pulled you into a kiss, minty breath intertwining with your own as the candle flames swayed with the emotions.

The scream you let out in the morning had maids and guards rushing to your room. King Takami Keigo was found dead after you both went to sleep. Few hours from the coroner revealed he died of poison.

You walked down the winding stairs of the dungeon with Midoriya by your side. The last cell held a meager amount of light, only showing the mint green hair of Cara. She jumped at the sounds of your footsteps. You ambled up until the bars could touch your toes.

“To kill your very own king is a crime punishable by death.” She wracked in the chains, trying to get closer to you.

“I didn’t kill him! I swear it wasn’t me!”

“It wasn’t you?” You took the chalice from Midoriya, holding it up to the ceiling as if you were inspecting it.

“This was the last thing he consumed before coming to bed, so the maids say.” Your eyes turned back to the ex-kitchen maid who burst into tears; head bowed in shame.

“Everything has pointed to you, but I understand. I’d kill if the love of my life betrayed me too. I’d use the same exact poison too, Aqua Tofana, the famous poison used by many hurt women to end their lovers.” Her head creaked back to your figure, eyes widening with the growing smirk on your face.

“Although the law states you should serve immediate death, I don’t want that precious baby to go along with you. It’s my last semblance of Keigo, after all. So, as Queen of Fukuoka, I have decided to spare you until the baby has been born. You will stay in this jail cell with ample nursing so my child will be born safe and healthy. That is all.”

You and Midoriya left the dark dungeon, Cara’s screams echoing through the hollow area. Your smirk never softening as you climbed up the stairs, hand still holding Keigo's chalice.

Midoriya laid anxious the whole time. After all, he was guilty of killing the king, adding the poison to the wine when Cara wasn’t looking. His silence finally broke.

“My Queen? Why did you make me...do that?” You halted your steps, pondering as you looked at the golden chalice.

“Keigo would’ve never loved me again. She gave him what I couldn’t, a child to love. He would’ve rather played father with an actual mother, a mother who’d know how to love a child. So I had to stop that before I lost my throne.” Your fingers skimmed the actual feather-covered by gold on the cup, feeling its ridges and bumps.

“Izuku?”

“Yes, my Queen?”

“You would tell me when I��m wrong, right?

“Yes, my Queen.”

[larktb-archive]

Hi! I'm too shy to come off anon, but I need your help understanding something. I hope I'm not bothering you!!

I don't want to interact with anyone who is a fascist, but I'm not entirely sure what makes someone fascist. Can you please explain it to me?

I know I could look it up myself, but I know that not all definitions online can be correct and I just want your perspective;;

Thanks!

Hi anon! Well, fascism comes in many forms so “sussing out who’s a fascist” is technically a little harder to do than having a simple checklist. After all, doesn’t a White Supremacist have different beliefs to a Japanese fascist? And doesn’t a Japanese fascist have different beliefs to a Wahabist? These beliefs clash don’t they? Well, yes and no. Sure the surface level beliefs are different but the underlying core beliefs of these groups are actually quite similar; it’s the specifics which are different. Even though it isn’t a “bible” on what is fascism and shouldn’t be taken as gospel, Umberto Eco has an essay called “Ur-Fascism” which contains 14 points, which can help us identify whether certain beliefs are fascist no matter the specifics of their belief system. I’ll explain the points in short and give some examples. Quick disclaimer, I am not an expert on fascism or any of the ideologies I’ll discuss by any means so if you aren’t taking Umberto Eco’s writing as the 100% correct truth, definitely don’t take mine as that either (this is how you should treat most sources tho):

1. Cult of Tradition and 2. Rejection of modernity

I put these two together because they’re kind of inseparable. This is basically the idea that there was a “glorious past” that people need to return to and modernity is a corruption of that “glorious past”. In British fascist thought, this past is generally the 19th century at the zenith of the British Empire or mid-20th century Britain. The latter is more common for people who wish to be a little more PC with their writings; instead of trying to use a by-gone era that pretty much no one alive can remember, they use a much more recent time with nostalgic ideas of “the good old days” which doesn’t seem threatening on it’s surface but is dogwhistling for a time when there weren’t as many immigrants in the country.

You may have seen the “reject modernity, embrace tradition” meme and it’s pretty much the most obvious incarnation of this idea. Similarly you may seen people online use “degenerate” as an insult. If you look at the meaning of the degenerate it means “having lost the physical, mental, or moral qualities considered normal and desirable; showing evidence of decline”; it’s microcosm of these ideas put into a single insult. This is why you tend to see conservatives use it more than progressives.

I’d also argue that terfs obsession with 2nd wave feminism and their utter rejection of intersectionality and modern feminism is another manifestation of this idea. 

3. Action for actions sake

This is less detectable in terms of individuals but still important to note that these people tend to support action without a cause. Sure the insurrection at the white house earlier this year was action, but it had no substance behind it. It was action for actions sake, which is why any principled leftist didn’t support it. Fascists will tend to openly just call for action but won’t be very specific about the purposes of the action; as long as they agree with the ideology behind it they’ll support it. It’s why fascists love harassment campaigns and mindless acts of terror. Take Wahabist terrorist orgs like Al-Qaeda or ISIS, it doesn’t matter if bombing an Ariana Grande concert has no point, the only point is the action itself.

4. Disagreement is treason  

This one’s pretty self explanatory, they will ostracize you if you disagree with them. Again, terfs tend to do this, and I had a long conversation with an ex-terf I called a dumbass, who basically said that she was ostracized by them and mocked for having different beliefs (hope she’s doing well actually). There’s numerous stories from ex-terfs like this.

5. Fear of difference

There’s a tendency for fascists to group people into “us” and “them”. “They” are considered to be intruders who need to be removed whereas “we” are the people who deserve to be here because it is “our” right to be here. In Zulu Nationalism, this tends to be any non-Zulu speakers who they deem to be “Shangaan” even if they aren’t actually Tsonga, it’s just a pejorative at this point. If you see vague references to the “elite” without any reference to who they are and what makes them “elite”, this is tends to be a dogwhistle for Jewish people. Western Fascists have very little issue with the workings of capitalism itself or the accumulation of wealth by capitalists, they just don’t like “them”, taking “our” stuff. Any references to “us” and “them” is pretty much a red flag.

6. Appeal to Social Frustration

Fascists will tend to brush upon actual issues faced by the poor today but will instead blame it on an outside force. You’ll see job loss being blamed on immigrants or vague “elites”. Terfs do this too. They’ll see young girls who are genuinely struggling with patriarchal issues and divert all that pent up rage towards trans people and the “q*eers” (which they do tend to use as a slur unlike what most people would have you think). 

7. Obsession with a Plot

Everything is a conspiracy! The election was rigged! 9/11 was fake! that fucking pizza place/this furniture company is a sex ring! All of these are supposedly plots by the deep state who are trying to do... something or other. You’ll notice these “Plots” don’t actually have a purpose, but the fact that there is a plot itself is the issue. This is a way of engendering paranoia in the group while also feeling that there is a constant war against you even if there isn’t. This is also why, despite news sources being pro-capitalist the right will swear up and down it’s leftist media which is controlled by “them” (usually just meaning Jewish people).

8. The enemy is both strong and weak

“Trans people have infiltrated academia and the only reason people refuse to see gender as an immutable biological concept, is because they’re too afraid of the trans cabal to say anything. But also everyone can tell trans people are crazy and haha you have a high suicide rate.” It’s contradictory that’s the point. They need to feel that they’re both counterculture but also they need to be winning at all times so that contradiction is necessary. Also the use of the word “cabal” is a pretty big red flag for all forms of fascism.

9. Pacifism is trafficking with the enemy, 10. Contempt for the weak, 11. Everybody is educated to become a hero and 12. Machismo and weaponry

All of these are kind of interrelated so I’m grouping them together (also this is already fucking long as hell so I don’t wanna bore you any further). You’ll tend to see a love for the military or at least military aesthetics when looking through fascist blogs. Guns aren’t just a tool for fascists, they’re representative of masculinity and the necessity of violence. Pacifists and anyone who refuses to fight are weak and therefore are “degenerate”. If you do not fight, if you are not willing to fight, you cannot be a “hero” (an ubermensch or a matyr). This comes with the fetishization of violence instead of the recognition of violence being an means to an end, and the worship of individuals rather than of communities and organizations. Take Japanese fascists and their lionisation of the imperial military and their desire to once again have an actual army.

Terfs don’t necessarily fit these roles except for arguably 10 considering how much they seem to look down upon the mentally ill and those who commit suicide and surprisingly 11 since that involves the hatred of non-standard sexual activities and terfs hate non-standard sex (this is from the most vanilla bitch who is very uncomfortable with kink but understands its not inherently good or bad). I have a feeling this is more so because terfs are mainly women (there are male terfs ofc) whereas this was written for male led organizations. 

13. Selective populism

When fascists talk about “the people” they tend to mean “the people we like”. “The working class” can be translated to “this cishet white christian man from Minnesota who owns land but hey he lives in a rural area so he’s working class right?”. They’ll also tend to have “tokens” who will suddenly become the mouth piece of the entire community they’re supposedly representing even if no one in the community asked them to (i.e. Milo Yiannopoulos). 

14. Ur fascism speaks Newspeak

They speak in terms which are both inaccessible to anyone outside of their circles whilst being so simple that once you learn them it becomes easy to understand. They abhor any form of “academic” speech so you’ll rarely see them source things (unless those things happen to agree with their views, which is rare but Jordan Peterson is popular for a reason) and if they do source things they probably wouldn’t have read them fully and will rely on you also not reading them. This is to limit any critical thinking so that your brain is basically jellified into an unquestioning organ which only responds “yes” or “no” and only appeals to a higher authority without any form of reasoning involved. This is why they complain about “the lefts memes being too wordy”... because they’re used to not having to read (this is somewhat tongue in cheek but heyho if the boot fits).

And that’s the 14 main features of fascism, if anyone is displaying multiple of these ideas then they are most likely fascist, and if an organization or group continuously replicates these ideas, then they are definitely fascist. I hope this wasn’t too long but like I said... very complex topic. (Also hopefully this is written well, it’s 10 PM and I am surviving off Irn Bru energy drink). Hope this helped!

[evilelitest2]

What is the dirtbag left? People keep talking about it but I have no clue what it is

Oh this answer is gonna suck.  Good question as always though.  

Ok before we can get into the dirtbag left, I want to talk about the major factions of leftist in the United States, and I am discounting Moderates/Centrist/Blue Dog Democrat's, I am specifically focused on people who support actual left wing policies.  Roughly speaking they can be broken up into the following groups though each group is a lot more complicated than I am implying here

The first and most dynamic faction are the progressives, people who are focused on the rights of marginalized people.  Sometimes they are called “identity Politics”  They are further subdivided into a bunch of specific interest groups, but their main unifying argument is “society is specifically persecuting towards certain groups and we need to address that” 

Civil Rights, who focus on the rights of African Americans 

Feminists who focus on the rights of women

The Queer Community, who are focused on the rights of Gender and Sexual Minorities (Gay people, Trans people, Non Binary people, Bi people, intersex, asexual ect

This group is really divided within itself but lets not get sidetracked

Groups focusing on the rights of Latin Americans, both citizens and immigrants

Groups focusing on the rights of Muslims/Middle Easterners

Groups focusing on the rights of Jews/Combating antisemitism

Groups focusing on the rights of Asian Americans

And finally groups focusing on the rights of the disabled 

The next major group is the labor movement, who focus on the rights of workers, focusing on things like Unions, increasing the minimum wage, addressing the wealth gap and very New Deal FDR policies, and tend to be anticapitalistic or at least Social Democrat.   

Environmentalists, who want the world to not die

Anti War advocates

Pro Education/Pro Science anti Fundamentalists' people who just want good goverment.  

And some post modernists thrown in because why not?

The two main groups that make up the left are the first two, the issues of Identity Politics and Class, and there is a LONG history of these two groups having trouble le working together.  One of the major issue is that a lot of poor whites would happily welcome a lot of leftist social policies, but vote conservative if they believes those policies will help black people, even if it hurts their own best interest.  I mean take the New Deal, which was among the greatest economic period of US history and was popularly supported by most Americans.  However a lot of poor whites supported it because Latinos and Blacks were not allowed access to most of its benefits.  ANd once the Democratic Party started to pursue desegregation and women’s rights, these poor whites abandoned the party which gave them a future and voted for policies that hurt their own best interest because of their extreme bigotry.  Which is the most frustrating part of American History.   

And among a lot of Democrats (mostly centrist) there is this idea that the best way to win elections is to stab marginalized communities in the back in order to win Republican voters.  When Bill Clinton won in 1992, he did so in large part by abandoning a lot of leftist principles, he embraced Third Way style Liberalism and deregulation (which led to the 2008 crash thanks Clinton) but he also happily supported Right wing ideas about trying to keep crazy radicals minorities from advancing too far in politics.  Basically try to rebrand the Democrats as “we aren’t as crazy as the Republicans, but we ditched all of that lame uncool parts of politics that makes your family uncomfortable”.  

So the Dirtbag Left (there term not mine) was like “Hey could we do this...but for communism?”  And like most bad things, its origin is with Nazis.

The Dirtbag Leftist are Marxists who think the best way to win Trump voters over to the left is to combine Socialist style economic/welfare policies with conservative styles attacks on “Free Speech” and “Identity Politics.”  The “nicer” version of these guys basically say “ok we win them in with the economic policies and once we implement that, we can work on the other issues”.  The cruelr version of that basically want a socialist state...for white straight men and nobody else.  

This happened because some communists were looking at how the Alt-Right was radicalizing apolitical young men and were like “wait we can do that too”  

See if you have ever had the misfortune of being in Nazi/Red Pill/Gamergate style spaces you will notice that they actually share a lot of the left’s complains about the status que.  They dislike both parties, they don’t like capitalism, and they think our current consumerist way of life is souless drudgery.  So some communists were like “What if we found the exact same demographic as these guys but tried to turn them to communism instead of Fascism?”  Which sounds like a good idea but here is the problem

The type of people who become Nazis had to already be bigoted anti intellectuals in the first place.  All you have done is given some of them Marxist Rhetoric rather than Nazi Rhetoric, they are the exact same toxic people.  And in trying to cater to them, you have allowed them to infiltrate's your movement.  

The other quality of the Dirtbag Left is that they think that the Centrist Democrats (Clinton, Obama, Biden ect) are a greater threat than the conservatives, and that if the Far Right and the Far Left can team up to destroy the center, the radicals can work out their issues.  Which has never worked ever in human history but they keep trying.  

Initially the DIrtbag Left was basically vulgar leftists who wanted to down play the issues that trigger conservatives (Abortion, minority rights, feminism, being nice to people) in order to get them to support their social/economic policies, but it quickly became co-opted by the Alt Right themselves, and now they are basically just advocates of a Herrenvolk style social state.  Or really...they are what would happen if the Nazis actually tried to combine Nationalism with Socialism.  

And  while they aren’t a large group, like the Alt-Right they are really really prominent online and are constantly engaged in wide spread harassments campaigns that are basically find/replace Gamergate harassments campaigns.  They attached themselves pretty hard to Bernie's Sanders campaign and did a really good job in ruining his chances in both primaries, and then attached themselves to Tulsi Gabbard’s fucking toxic campaign after that.  At this point they are basically just Alt Rightists with a socialist brand reskin.   Sometimes called the Red Brown Alliance

[whitehotharlots]

Andrea Long Chu is the sad embodiment of the contemporary left

Andrea Long Chu’s Females was published about a year ago. It was heavily hyped but landed with mostly not-so-great reviews, and while I was going to try and pitch my own review I figured there was no need. Going through my notes from that period, however, I see how much Chu’s work—and its pre-release hype—presaged the sad state of the post-Bernie, post-hope, COVID-era left. I figured they’d be worth expanding upon here, even if I’m not getting paid to do so.

Chu isn’t even 30 years old, and Females is her debut book, and yet critics were already providing her with the sort of charitable soft-handedness typically reserved for literary masters or failed female political candidates. This is striking due to the purported intensity of the book: a love letter to would-be assassin Valerie Solanas, the thesis of which is that all humans are female, and that such is true because female-ness is a sort of terminal disease stemming not from biology but from one’s inevitable subjugation in larger social contexts. Everyone is a woman because everyone suffers. Big brain shit.

But, of course, not everyone is a female. Of course. Females are females only some of the time. But, also, everyone is a female. Femaleness is just a title, see. Which means it can be selectively applied whenever and however the author chooses to apply it. The concept of “female” lies outside the realm of verifiability. Suggesting to subject it to any form of logic or other means of adjudication means you’re missing the point. Femaleness simply exists, but only sometimes, and those sometimes just so happen to be identifiable only to someone possessed with as a large a brain as Ms. Chu. We are past the need for coherence, let alone truth or honesty. And if you don’t agree that’s a sign that you are broken—fragile, illiterate, hateful, humorless.

Chu’s writing—most famously, her breakthrough essay “On Liking Women”—establishes her prose style: long, schizophrenic paragraphs crammed with unsustainable metaphors meant to prove various fuzzy theses simultaneously. Her prose seems kinda sorta provocative but only when read on a sentence-by-sentence level, with the reader disregarding any usual expectations of cohesion or connection.

This emancipation from typical writerly expectations allows Chu to wallow proudly in self-contradiction and meaninglessness. As she notes herself, explicitly, meaning isn’t the point. Meaning doesn’t even exist. It’s just, like, a feeling:

I mean, I don’t like pissing people off per se. Yes, there is a pleasure to that sometimes, sure. I think that my biggest takeaway from graduate school is that people don’t say things or believe things—they say them because it makes them feel a particular way or believing them makes them feel a particular way. I’ve become hyper aware of that, and the sense in which I’m pissing people off is more about bringing that to consciousness for the reader. The reason you’re reacting against this is not because it contradicts what you think is true, it’s because it prevents you from having the feeling that the thing you think is the truth lets you feel.

And so she can get away with saying that of course she doesn’t actually believe that everyone is a female, the same as her idol Valerie Solanas didn’t actually want to kill all men. The writers, Chu and Valerie, are just sketching out a dumb idea as a fun little larf, to see how far they can push a manifestly absurd thought. If they just so happen to shoot a gay man at point blank range and/or make broader left movements so repulsive that decent people get driven away, so be it. And if any snowflakes complain about their tactics, well that’s just proof of how right they are. Provocation is justification—the ends and the means. The fact that this makes for disastrous and harmful politics is beside the point. All that matters is that Chu gets to say what she wants to say.

This blunt rhetorical move—which is difficult to describe without sounding like I’m exaggerating or making stuff up, since it’s so insane—papers over Chu’s revanchist and violent beliefs. Her work is soaked with approving portrayals of Solanas’ eliminationist rhetoric—of course, Chu doesn’t’ actually mean it, even though she does. Men are evil, even as they don’t really fully exist since everyone is a woman, ergo eliminating men improves the world. Chu goes so far as to suggest that being a trans woman makes her a bigger feminist than Solanas or any actual woman could ever be, because the act of her transitioning led to the world containing fewer men. Again: big brain shit.

I’ll leave it to a woman to comment on the imperiousness of a trans woman insisting that she is bestest and realest kind of woman, that biological women are somehow flawed imposters. I will stress, however, that such a claim comes as a means of justifying a politically disastrous assertion that more or less fully justifies the most reactionary gender critical arguments, which regard all trans women as simply mentally ill men (this line of reasoning is so incredibly stupid that even a dullard like Rod Drehar can rebut it with ease). Trans activists have spent years establishing an understanding of transsexualism as a matter of inherent identity—whether or not you agree with that assertion, you have to admit that it has political propriety and has gone a long way in normalizing transness. Chu rejects this out of hand, embracing instead the revanchist belief that transness is attributable to taking sexual joy in finding oneself embarrassed and/or feminized—an understanding of womanhood that is simultaneously essentialist and tokenizing. When asked about the materially negative potential in expressing such a belief, Chu reacts with a usual word salad of smug self-contradiction: 

EN: You say in the book that sissy porn was formative of your coming to consciousness as a trans woman. If you hadn’t found sissy porn, do you think it’s possible that you might have just continued to suffer in the not-knowing?

ALC: That’s a really good question. It’s plausible to me that I never would have figured it out, that it would have taken longer.

EN: How does that make you feel? Is that idea scary?

ALC: It isn’t really. Maybe it should be a little bit more, but it isn’t really. One of the things about desire is that you can not want something for the first 30 years of your life and wake up one day and suddenly want it—want it as if you might as well have always wanted it. That’s the tricky thing about how desire works. When you want something, there’s a way in which you engage in a kind of revisionism, the inability to believe that you could have ever wanted anything else.

EN: People often talk about the ubiquity of online porn as a bad thing—I’ve heard from lots of girlfriends that men getting educated about sex by watching porn leads to bad sex—but there seems to me a way in which this ubiquity is helping people to understand themselves, their sexuality and their gender identity.

ALC: While I don’t have the research to back this up, I would certainly anecdotally say that sissy porn has done something in terms of modern trans identity, culture, and awareness. Of course, it’s in the long line of sexual practices like crossdressing in which cross-gender identification becomes a key factor. It’s not that all of the sudden, in 2013, there was this thing and now there are trans people. However, it is undoubted that the Internet has done something in terms of either the sudden existence of more trans people or the sudden revelation that there are more trans people than anyone knew there were. Whether it’s creation or revelation, I think everyone would agree that the internet has had an enormous impact there.

One of the things I find so fascinating about sissy porn is that it’s not just that I can hear about these trans people who live 20 states away from me and that their experiences sound like mine. There is a component of it that’s just sheer mass communication and its transformative effect, but another part of it is that the internet itself can exert a feminizing force. That is the implicit claim of sissy porn, the idea that sissy porn made me trans is also the idea that Tumblr made me trans. So, the question there is whether or not the erotic experience that became possible with the Internet actually could exert an historically unique feminizing force. I like, at least as a speculative claim, to think about how the Internet itself is feminizing.

Politics, like, don’t matter. So, like, okay, nothing I say matters? So it’s okay if I say dumb and harmful shit because, like, they’re just words, man.

Chu can’t fully embrace this sort of gradeschool nihilism, though, because if communication was truly as meaningless as she claims then any old critic could come along and tell her to shut the fuck up. Even as she claims to eschew all previously existing means of adjudicating morality and coherence, she nonetheless relies on the cheapest means of making sure she maintains a platform: validation via accreditation. This is all simple victimhood hierarchy. Anyone who does not defer all of their own perceptions to someone higher up the hierarchy is inherently incorrect, their trepidations serving to validate the beliefs of the oppressed:

I like to joke that, as someone who is always right, the last thing I want is to be agreed with. [Laughs] I think the true narcissist probably wants to be hated in order to know that she’s superior. I absolutely do court disagreement in that sense. But what I like even better are arguments that bring about a shift in terms along an axis that wasn’t previously evident. So it’s not just that other people are wrong; it’s that their wrongness exists within a system of evaluation which itself is irrelevant.

Chu has summoned the most cynical possible interpretation of Walter Ong’s suggestion that “Writing is an act of violence disguised as an act of charity.” Of course, any effective piece of communication requires some degree of persuasion, convincing a reader, listener, viewer, or user to subjugate their perceptions to those of the communicator. Chu creates—not just leans on or benefits from, but actively posits and demands fealty to—the suggestion that her voice is the only one deserving of attention by virtue of it being her own. That’s it. That’s what all her blathering and bluster amount to. Political outcomes do not matter. Honesty does not matter. What matters is her, because she is her. 

This is the inevitable result of a discourse that prizes a communicator’s embodied identity markers more than anything those communicators are attempting to communicate, and in which a statement is rendered moral or true based only upon the presence or absence of certain identity markers. Lived experience trumps all else. A large, non-passing trans woman is therefore more correct than pretty much anyone else, no matter how harmful or absurd her statements may be. She is also better than them. And smarter. And gooder.

Designating lived experience and subjective feelings of safety as the only acceptable forms of adjudication has caused the left to prize individualism to a degree that would have made Ronald Reagan blush. And this may explain the lukewarm reception of Chu’s book.

While they heaped praise upon her before the books’ release, critics backed off once they realized that Females is an embarrassingly apt reflection of intersectional leftism—a muddling, incoherent mess, utterly disconnected from any attempt toward persuasion or consensus, the product of a movement that has come to regard neurosis as insight. The deranged mewlings of a grotesque halfwit are only digestable a few pages at a time. Any more than that, and we begin to see within them far too much of the things that define our awful movement and our terrifying moment.

[qsdblogging]

10 More TV Shows You Need To See

This is the second installment of my recommendations of shows for you to add to your own lists. I watch a lot of television and I’ve got, what I consider to be at least, a wide variety of shows under my favorites. 

If you haven’t seen the first list, you don’t need to unless you want to see another list of ten shows you may want to check out if you’re looking for anything new to watch.

Warning, though, some of these don’t end the best way and may end up more as a disappointment. I’ll leave that up to you to decide.

I. Warehouse 13.

Pete and Myka, U.S Secret Service Agents, are deployed to South Dakota’s Warehouse 13 with a new assignment from an authority above and outside the government. 

Intrigued?

With the Warehouse comes assignments regarding objects that hold some sort of abilities that can cause people to do wild and crazy things. It’s their job to find the artifacts (as they all hold significance to history) and bring them back to the Warehouse for safe keeping.

Things get wild and some serious topics get handled, but the show isn’t alone. It’s connected to another on this list, Eureka. More on that when you get to Eureka.

Some familiar faces are Eddie McClintock who played a part in Bones, one episode of Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D., Joanne Kelly who played a role in The Dresden Files television series, Allison Scagliotti who played roles in Stitchers, The Vampire Diaries, and Drake & Josh, Aaron Ashmore (twin brother to Shawn Ashmore, who has been in the X-Men movies alongside appearing in The Boys, and voicing Conrad in Man of Medan) from Killjoys, Lost Girl, and Smallville, and Jamie Murray from Castelvania, Gotham, The Originals, Once Upon a Time, Defiance, and Dexter.

I highly recommend, especially because the dynamic of the characters is really interesting and covers a lot. 

II. Eureka.

As mentioned above, this is connected to Warehouse 13. But only in the last two seasons of this show are the two connected. 

Eureka is a town full of geniuses and advanced technology that the government funds, and when a new sheriff comes to town, he’s exposed to all the daily occurrences the locals get up to. And maybe a couple instances of time travel that may or may not have to do with the connection.

The town is full of faces you may recognize. Colin Ferguson who has roles in Haven, The Vampire Diaries, and Maytag commercials, Erica Cerra who has roles in The 100, Supernatural, Deadly Class, and the first Percy Jackson film, Felicia Day who has roles in The Magicians, Supernatural, Con Man, The Guild, Dr. Horrible’s Sing-Along Blog, and Buffy the Vampire Slayer, and Trevor Jackson who has roles in Grown-ish, and a couple Disney productions.

It’s a huge science fiction show and if you’re into that, give it a watch.

III. Alphas.

Now, like the two above is, Alphas is a science fiction packed drama. And it’s rumored to be connected, like be in the same universe, as Warehouse 13 and Eureka. It’s never been confirmed, but there is one character (same name and job) that plays a part in both Alphas and Warehouse 13, which is the stem for the theory. (Plus, some other ideas floating around). 

But Alphas focuses on a team that investigates people with supernatural abilities while they, themselves, have abilities. These powered people are referred to as Alphas, due to their nature.

Unfortunately, this show ends on a cliffhanger in its second season.

Yet, I still recommend giving it a shot because it truly is an interesting show and it’s got some people you may recognize. 

IV. Haven.

If you’re a fan of Stephen King’s “Colorado Kid”, you’ll most likely enjoy this show since it’s loosely based off of it. 

Set in the coastal town of Haven, Maine, FBI Agent Audrey Parker comes to town to find that the residents have dormant curses, or rather troubles, that can be triggered at any given moment. She, along with the Sheriff and the town’s black sheep, must deal with the troubles’ deadly effects. And a few things may be revealed about herself too along the way.

It’s pretty interesting and I enjoyed it quite a lot when I first watched it. I’m not the biggest fan of Stephen King, and the connection seems to barely be there, but I wouldn’t know given my dislike for King. 

I highly recommend giving Haven a shot, however, especially if you’re a crime and fantasy fan. 

V. Lost Girl.

Lost Girl focuses on the gorgeous and charismatic Bo, a supernatural being called a succubus who feeds on the energy of humans, sometimes with fatal results. Refusing to embrace her supernatural clan system and its rigid hierarchy, Bo is a renegade who takes up the fight for the underdog while searching for the truth of her own mysterious origins. (Taken from IMDB). 

Plus, there a lesbian romance or two. 

Now, the show itself is pretty strong holding in its own storyline and lore, but the last season does get a bit rocky feeling. It could’ve been better, and it definitely feels a little rushed, but it wasn’t too bad of an ending. However, it’s not a show that got cancelled before it could wrap things up and it leaves things pretty open-ended.

In my books, that’s a point. I highly recommend this is if you’re a fan of fantasy.

VI. Almost Human.

Unfortunately, this is one of the ones in the list that only has one season (that seems to be out of order and frankly I’m not entirely sure of the order myself, so rely on googling it yourself and hopefully you find the right order) and was cancelled not long after airing. 

BUT, it’s a good watch. It’s set in the distant future, where cops are assigned an android partner to protect and serve. Things get pretty wild and I’m quite sure there are some bombs involved at some point, but there’s a bonus to all the madness of Almost Human.

Minka Kelly and Karl Urban. Two incredibly beautiful human beings.

I highly recommend bingeing this single season show. 

VII. American Gods.

This shows feels very confusing. But it’s still a good watch. 

It centers on a recently released ex-con named Shadow Moon. He runs into a man full of mystery named Wednesday (and you’ll later come to find out who he really is, or you may already know given your knowledge on the book of the same name or just how well you know mythology) who seems to know more than Shadow about his own life and past. 

There are Gods, mischief, and a lot of crazy shit in this show. So far it’s on it’s third season as far as I know (I have to rewatch the first two before I pick it back up).

You should give it a shot, but I won’t blame you if you feel way too confused about the whole thing.

VIII. The Boys.

Now, there’s a lot of controversy regarding this Amazon Original Series, but honestly, I think everyone should at least give it a chance. I know a lot of Tumblr users were put off on trying to due to the advertisements on the site. 

If you don’t know what this series is about, it follows a group of vigilantes set on taking down the corrupt superheroes that are abusing their powers and status.

It covers a lot of ground. Murder, sabotage, terrorism, capitalism, and a lot more. Feminism and sexual harassment occur, but there are warning before each episode for what you may see in the contents.

Some familiar faces include Karl Urban, who’s known for his roles in Thor: Ragnarok, the newer Star Trek movies, Almost Human, Lord of the Rings, and more, Erin Moriarty from Jessica Jones, Laz Alonso from The Mysteries of Laura, Chace Crawford from Gossip Girl and The Covenant, and Jensen Ackles from Supernatural has been confirmed to be joining the cast for its third season.

The Boys is currently on it’s second season, being released on a weekly schedule. So, if you like superheroes and graphic content, this show might be it for you.

IX. Chuck.

Chuck is the result of when a twenty-eight year old computer geek inadvertently downloads critical government secrets into his brain, the C.I.A. and the N.S.A. assign two agents to protect him and exploit the knowledge, turning Chuck Bartowski’s life upside down. (Taken from IMDB).

This is one of the shows I cannot recommend enough to people. It’s the right mixture of action and comedy, plus a little romance. Spies, love, and murder, oh my! What more could you want? 

Plus, Zachery Levi plays Chuck. If you don’t know him by name, you probably would recognize him from some of his roles with the most recent being in Shazam!, Fandral in the second and third Thor films, voicing Eugene Fitzherbert (or Flynn Rider) in Tangled, and Heroes: Reborn. 

If Zachery Levi playing a lovable computer geek turned spy doesn’t interest you, maybe some more familiar faces will. 

Yvonne Strahovski from The Handmaid’s Tale, The Astronaut Wives Club, acting as Daenerys in a Princess Rap Battle on Youtube, and Dexter. Adam Baldwin from Firefly/Serenity, Bones, Angel, The Last Ship, and Independence Day. Brandon Routh who plays Ray Palmer from the DC Shows. Matt Bomer from Doom Patrol, American Horror Story, White Collar, Magic Mike, and True Calling.

X. Deadly Class.

Unfortunately, I have a truly bad streak with new shows. Deadly Class, like others that have been mentioned in these lists of mine, got cancelled and on a cliffhanger no less. However, that shouldn’t stop you from enjoying the action-packed coming-of-age story set in the 1980s. 

Following a new recruit for a high school training assassins, things get pretty wild when you pair death and teenagers. 

[fizzingwizard]

So I watched Enola Holmes!

As a long time Sherlock Holmes book nerd, I... didn’t actually know if I was going to bother watching it. I pretty much avoid any published Sherlock Holmes fanfiction. It’s not because I think it’s all wrong or bad (there are some pretty famous successful ones out there after all). It just those stories always makes me wish I was reading the originals, I think because my own vision of that world is so strong.

But I also like Millie Bobby Brown, and also, honestly, I just wanted to see what a Henry Cavill Holmes would be like. Because as much as I like Henry Cavill, he’s very much not the guy I’d cast as Holmes.

That’s point number one: Sherlock Holmes is not that important in Enola Holmes. He’s a prop that holds up her story, but not much more. That was clear from the trailer, so I wasn’t expecting him to be anyway.

I also didn’t know that Enola was based on a book series, though I did assume so because of the way they have Enola address the audience directly or sometimes just stare into the camera. It seemed like a way to stylize a first person novel that has a lot of exposition. I haven’t read the books, and I’m not going to, so maybe I’m off on how its written, but anyway, I was right that the movie is based on books.

So as I started watching, I quickly felt concerned over these questions:

Why Sherlock Holmes at all?

Why make Mycroft such a bad guy?

Will Enola be interesting by herself or am I expected to find her interesting just because she’s a Holmes and a feminist?

Where is John Watson?

Now understanding that the movie is based on books, the answers to all these questions are obvious. But I didn’t want spoilers, so I didn’t look it up. Fortunately, the movie answers each question itself anyway.

So I can say it was a fun little movie. Millie Bobby Brown did a really good job. It’s not going to be the next blockbuster, but the quirky Holmes women, as well as the other quirky characters, were more than just entertaining to me. And I enjoyed the specific way they painted the backdrop of the women’s suffrage movement. In school you’re pretty much taught that it happened. It’s things like these - books and movies, etc - which may take creative liberties with history, but also showcase the details and grittiness that textbooks wash out.

And I did like Enola for herself. She’s like Anne of Green Gables if her hobby were puzzles instead of daydreams. I liked The Boy too (sorry I can’t be bothered to type his name! let’s call him Tooks). He was pleasantly ridiculous while being any teenage girl’s dreamboat. Does he qualify as a himbo?

The relationship between Enola and Tooks was cute and didn’t distract from everything else. I loved the framing of Enola’s injury tryng to rescue the sheep with her trying to rescue Tooks. At first, it was just sweet, but that scene at the end where we find out that she succeeded at rescuing the sheep totally cinched it for me. Although it’s the typical thing for a young heroine to do - go against her mother’s advice because she hasn’t experienced life enough to become so careful and calculating, and do the selfless thing - it also meant that Enola’s not just her mother’s puppet, she makes her own choices.

We’re seeing the dynamic of competent-woman-idiot-male-sidekick a bit more often, and the thing that always stands out is how rarely the male sidekick is ever really an idiot. Like Tooks, usually they get chances to be cool. So it’s not quite the same as the old trope of “hero rescues damsel in distress.” But honestly, nowadays, who’d want it to be? A totally passive character is boring. You rarely remember the damsel, only that the hero won her. Women actually like romance, we want to like and remember the love interest. :P And even then. The true hero/damsel trope appears rather historically that people think. Because, guess what, most writers like to write characters, not tropes.

The flip side of all this is that there is also a theme that’s becoming more and more common about feminism where the woman still ends up in a relationship, and it still being feminist. Like the recent Little Women movie, where Jo has to suffer and wrestle with herself for so long in her journey to achieve her dreams and in the end discovers marriage is part of her dream. None of this is wrong, but it is interesting how we see “lone feminist” as someone cold and sad about being alone, and are so quick to embrace the feminist who wants to be in a romantic relationship with men. The feminist can’t be whole if she’s sacrificed her ability to love for feminism. Meanwhile, in Enola, Sherlock Holmes, a man, is right there, being unmarried and uninterested in love and happy anyway.

None of this is Enola Holmes’s fault, it’s just a trend that I keep seeing in modern, uncomplicated feminist stories.

In sum, I liked Enola, I liked Tooks, the movie didn’t blow me out of the water or anything but I wasn’t expecting it too... I’m pretty sure this is for kids? In which case it’s fun and interesting the way Matilda or Pippi Longstocking are fun and interesting. As for the other questions...

Why Sherlock Holmes? Because he’s Sherlock Holmes. If you want to write about a female detective, and you want to do it against the backdrop of women’s suffrage in Victorian England, I think it’s only natural to make her a Holmes. That being said, Henry Cavill... is great, but not Sherlock Holmes. Bahaha. He has way too much chin. Who was that person, not Sherlock. RDJ was a more convincing Sherlock (and RDJ is not a convincing Sherlock!). That doesn’t mean I didn’t like him (I like RDJ too), it’s just a reminder that this is not a Sherlock Holmes movie. That’s why he doesn’t act much like Sherlock Holmes. Inspecting some coal dust does not a Sherlock Holmes make.

Why make Mycroft such a bad guy? Because Mycroft represents England. In the same way the assassin Enola kills says his employer is “England,” Mycroft’s job means the way he feels about Enola reflects the way England feels at the time about what a woman’s role should be. Why they made him such an idiot compared to Sherlock, though... Even after I answered these questions, I sometimes couldn’t help feeling “but it all feels so pointless when you’re just going to change so much of canon!”

Where the heck is John Watson? This one stumped me, but it is answered in the movie as well. I missed it because it wasn’t answered in a way I found satisfying. Pretty much, there’s no Watson because Holmes in Enola hasn’t met him yet. This makes no sense in terms of canon - timewise they’d have met a couple years ago, but canon Waston isn’t the best with dates, so I could overlook that - but Holmes is becoming popular. Holmes is becoming famous. Watson does that. Before Watson, Holmes is well known at Scotland Yard, but he’s more infamous than famous, and he’s not in many headlines partly because he makes an effort not to be. So Enola Holmes shouldn’t be well known at all if there’s no Watson praising him from the hilltops. I was half-expecting the movie to end with “pssst... Enola is the real Watson!” but I’m glad it didn’t. It sounds like Watson is a background character in the books so all of this was just “we couldn’t think of anything for Watson to do so we cut him.” But as weird as it is to ever see Holmes without Watson for me, if he’d been included he probably would have had like a couple stupid pro-patriarchy comments to make and that’s it. The Sherlockian me is baffled, but the wiser me thinks his absence is for the best.

[raspberryfanfics]

nejiten fanfic binging guide

My recommended Nejiten fics. All stories are complete and are good enough to be reread again and again:)

Narutoverse

Exceptions by IncessantOblivion — The first Nejiten fic I have ever read, also one of the closest to my hearts. Though the author admits it, it does have themes of sexism and homophobia, but not strong. It portrays Tenten as extremely inexperienced and though I’m not a fan of authors who write her that way, I’m glad she is shown as independent otherwise. Despite the criticism and obvious flaws, the romantic scenes are written perfectly and I get a huge wave of feels every time I reread it. Besides the slight hints of sexism, this story is the most favourited Nejiten story on FFn for a reason: you’re so emotionally connected to it. My chest literally constricts every time I read it, it’s so good. 

Land of Pretend + Reality by trilliumgt — The first story, (Land of Pretend), despite being without a super solid storyline, is just so heart-wrenching. I’m pretty sure I cried the first time I read this and the sequel but even if it didn’t trigger as much as an emotional reaction, it was surprisingly not boring. Though “Reality” wasn’t as “feel-triggering”, it was very well thought out. 

About a Daddy and a Nanny by syaoran no hime — Perhaps one of my favourite Nejiten fics of all time. I was originally skeptical of this fic because of the title since Daddy and Nanny fics can be ridiculously degrading. They tend to be overly cliche where the female character is a useless Mary Sue. Yet when I gave it a shot, I was pleasantly surprised to see that it was most definitely not cliche in the slightest. It may not be the best fic I’ve read in terms of romanticness, however, the humour is unbeatable. Before class, I had read this on my phone and couldn’t stop laughing because the author writes Tenten to have an alter-ego nanny, (very minor spoiler), and she is absolutely hilarious. The romance lies in the unspoken words and the reminiscence, not in the make-outs, but in a way, that just makes it what it is. It’s the type of fic that makes you wanna laugh and cry and smash your screen at the same time. The story is so so sooo good.

SharpBladed Spirit by FenixPhoenix — Dark and a little gruesome, therefore rated M. It isn’t so much a romance, rather an adventure story with a side serving of the two love interests. Nonetheless, it’s captivating, character development is phenomenal, and every character is strong and moves on the plot.

On Qipao Flirting and Buying Drinks by needdl — While this is only a two-shot, it is such a beautifully written story. The best part of it isn’t the romance, but the reactions to change and change itself. Characters change in subtle ways and the creative ways of expressing Neji’s reactions to Tenten becoming more and more feminine make me smile constantly. What I also love is that it has a slight feminist viewpoint to it in the fact that she embraces her femininity, which is the whole point of feminism (in which femininity is embraced just as much as masculinity and the belief that all are equal, which hopefully you are up to date to because it’s 2020 for kami’s sake). Anyways, the first part of the story is absolute pure fluff but if you read the second part, (especially on Ao3)...well that is some hot stuff let me tell ya.

In Front of Every Star by NessieGG — A short story with lots of fluff, angst, and feminism. (YAY!) It loaded with small snippets of moments, sadness, and really makes you think about your own values. Would you leave the love of your life to save your home country? What I love about this story is that the pain the characters feel may be selfish but they are completely realistic. It reflects off of our own lives, trying to let go of our feelings after letting go of the person. Every piece of it is flawless.

Ms X by Blade Rewind — This was the second-ever Nejiten fic I’ve read, and though short in the chapters, it certainly gives a lot of content. It’s light, airy, fun, and a little bit cliche, but in a strangely good way. The writer executes a classic plot with grace and humour and there isn't’ a point where you wanna die because of the unoriginality. 

On Sex by Lotos-eater — I was skeptical about this at first because sometimes titles like these indicate really bad smut, which is almost as bad as an overused cliche. However, this was exactly the opposite. While there is certainly mature content, it isn’t in the way you’d think. Sex is portrayed as an obstacle in this story and approaching it is awkward in every way. Kissing is awkward, touching is awkward, in fact, this is a romantic story with no romance whatsoever. I don’t know how the author pulled it off, but it was simply amazing. It is hard to read not because it is bad, but because you can really empathize with the Neji and Tenten as they try to have sex with non-existent chemistry. Yet my favourite part of this story is the amount of complexity within each character and the way Gai is written in a much more different light. I never imagined Gai to have a dark side and this story executes it perfectly.

Alternate Universes

Complexities of Blackmail by Aquarius Galuxy — I read the summary for this one and was impressed at the word count so I quickly jumped aboard my first AG Nejiten fic train and just...wow. So like, I don’t know where to start. It’s a military space AU and what I love is that up to a certain point, everyone’s backstory until Naruto Shippuden era is almost exactly the same as the Narutoverse. Team Gai is a predeveloped relationship but had deteriorated. Blackmail is very explicit, lots of smut, but damn is it quality smut. It might not be your cup of tea, but if you don’t mind it, this story is amazing. Neji is slightly out of character, but you can understand why with his motivations, even though I personally wouldn’t write a story with the situation. Development is great, chemistry is over the top fantastic, and there’s a perfect amount of angst. It is a bit lengthy but so worth it. Every other character involved is so unique, I loved seeing Izumo and Kotetsu getting a bigger role, Ino was so in character; highly, highly recommend.

f 2-8, ISO 100 by Aquarius Galuxy — Of course, we have another AG fic and this one has sex scenes, but not as *cough* rough *cough* as Blackmail. The maturity mostly comes from the fact that Tenten is a photographer and art can sometimes be...graphic. Yet I have an appreciation for this fic since it states that art is art and the fact that AG came up with the photography is like aiming a shot, (since Tenten never misses). Neji is a politician and pianist, which is a suitable career that both covers his genius and soft side. Once again, great chemistry. This fic flows like a river, it’s so beautiful.

Cutting Water by Nessie GG — A historic AU in which Tenten the leader of a prestigious clan in China and Neji is an ambassador from Japan. Reads more as an adventure and friendship story resulting in romance in the last few chapters rather than just romance. The details are amazing and the style of the writing makes it so elegant, perfect for the time period. It’s the type of story that mysterious and sophisticated at the same time.

Perfidy by KNO — Similar to Cutting Water as it is a historical AU. Its backstory is vaguely similar to Mulan, however, in this case, the hot general doesn’t forgive her immediately. Tenten, who was saved from dressing as a guy to serve in the army, is sent to train another generation of female soldiers. It’s a great story, a great plot, though it does tend to run on uselessly at times. However, it is solid otherwise. 

Breathe Again by Kicho-Keynote — A modern AU in which Neji is an army veteran. The story is slightly dark, as it deals with PTSD and triggering situations. Each character is complex and the development is simply amazing. Everyone has visible flaws, relationships are so well-developed, and it has brought me to tears several times. There are several mentions of ShinoTen, and even though it’s not my favourite couple, it plays a huge role in the story so just a warning. Thankfully, it doesn’t go into detail about their personal lives and it still is a Nejiten story, despite other love interests. It also runs on at parts but overall, it’s extremely well developed.

Authors

Aquarius Galuxy @aquariusgaluxy — The “Papabay” of Nejiten fics. Every story is beautiful, perfect, and intimate. Chemistry is always there. Everything is so beautiful and each has a different mood. Nothing is half-assed and it is just...I wish AG was still active I love those works so much.

KNO @zealousheart — If Aquarius Galuxy is the “Papabay” of Nejiten fics, then KNO is the “Ghost Bananas”. KNO’s work is creative, light, complex, and meaningful. The best part is, if you compare the earlier works to the more recent ones, you can really see the difference in skill level and how much KNO has improved.

Goldberry — Do you need one-shots? Goldberry has plenty. Though there are only a couple stories, there are one-shot collections, drabbles, and a whole bucketload of one-shots I haven’t even got to. It’s pure Nejiten Heaven

NessieGG — More one-shots but guess what? They’re all AU one-shots! Now, this is Nejiten AU heaven!

needdl — All of needdl’s works are filled with fluff. They are adorable, sweet, yet some of them are sincere and romantic. 

Cyberwolf — There are so many short light drabbles from Cyberwolf, each an idea that seemingly came from random thoughts but ended up on FFN for all of us to read.

MOST OTHER AUTHORS MENTIONED IN THE SUGGESTED STORIES ALSO HAVE OTHER NEJITEN WORKS, JUST NOT AS PLENTIFUL OR MOSTLY NEJITEN AS THE ONES LISTED ABOVE. I SUGGEST YOU CHECK OUT THEIR PROFILES AS WELL!

[genderkoolaid]

I am trying to teach people about feminism, but I don’t even know if I am a feminist. Or, I call myself a feminist, but I don’t really know what that means. Nobody seems to really know what that means, because feminism doesn’t really seem to be about anything anymore, except as a collection of aesthetic sensibilities (buying certain t-shirts, expecting a certain number of women to be in the superhero movies I watch, wanting people to mind what words they use when). This is not to say that there isn’t feminist action happening—you only need look at the Herculean efforts of women in Argentina, Ireland, and First Nations women in Canada to know that feminist activity is abounding—but these are limited campaigns, limited actions with limited goals. Abortion, contraception, equal pay, employment rights, these are all the demands that serve as cornerstones of feminism (and have since its earliest days!), but they are just that: demands. They aren’t strategies, they aren’t tactics, they aren’t ideologies, and half the time, we don’t even know why we call these things feminist demands, just that we do, to say nothing of problematising whether or not we even should call them feminist.

And herein lies the crux of the problem: feminism doesn’t mean anything anymore. Everyone, so it goes, is a feminist these days. The barrier to entry is nonexistent, with a gesture as simple as purchasing a $25 graphic t-shirt, you too can be a feminist. The ‘movement’—if it even merits that label, which I’m not convinced it does—is so amorphous as to be practically uncriticisable. Who do you hold to account for the lack of strategy, when all of us are equally as feminist as the next person? Is it Mary-Sue-Ann in the ‘I Drink Male Tears’ t-shirt’s fault that the movement doesn’t have a 5-,10-, or 20-year strategy? Is she more or less to blame than Cheryl Sandberg, or Angela Davis, or Gloria Steinem? 

So why does feminism not mean anything anymore? Where did we lose our way? Feminist historians have lots of answers—as a lapsed one myself, I can certainly rattle off moments in history that feel like the moment it all went wrong: Women’s Liberation Movement conferences gone awry, political campaigns that relied too much on the American legal system, the election of Margaret Thatcher… All of these feel like good answers to the question, they sound nice and clever, and importantly, they absolve us in the present day of any responsibility. The truth is, as bell hooks writes, far more mundane than any Singular Event, but rather the professionalisation and institutionalisation of feminism. “The dismantling of consciousness-raising groups,” she writes, “all but erased the notion that one had to learn about feminism and make an informed choice about embracing feminist politics to become a feminist advocate.” When ‘feminist’ became a viable career choice, feminists who staked their livelihoods needed to ensure that those livelihoods weren’t taken away from them; the radicalism inherent to feminism, a radicalism borne of criticising the status quo, or proposing, defending, and living out alternatives to patriarchy, all became untenable—it’s very hard to kick out against the structures of patriarchal oppression when it is the patriarchy itself that pays your bills. But that’s a bad narrative, it’s an uncomfortable one, and it implies that, in some small way, feminism (and by extension, feminists, including the individuals who now cash their paycheques in its name) failed. Rather than radicalising feminism, it was necessary to universalise it, to make it palatable (and marketable!) to as many people as possible, to ensure that feminists could feel like they’d succeeded even if in practical terms, they hadn’t.

A fundamental rule of marketing is that you can’t call your customer a cunt. Another fundamental rule of marketing is that you probably also shouldn’t call them a moron. Unfortunately, these are both essential elements of intellectual debate, and have been since the very earliest days of the Enlightenment—unpleasant, difficult, and often outright cruel discussions have always been a cornerstone of the development of intellectual and political movements globally and historically. Should that be the case? Maybe, maybe not, maybe we would get farther if we learned to be a smidge nicer to one another, but the parallel (and well-documented) conflation of disagreement with cruelty has stifled the evolution and course-correction of feminism, allowing it to be almost entirely hijacked by those who would see it turned into little more than a slogan on a graphic t-shirt. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not advocating for a return to the brutality of the 1970s Women’s Liberation Movement (though I would argue that it has truly never left, it’s just that the women doling out the brutality are now the ones in power), but I am arguing that we need to throw off the yoke of marketability and get comfy with being uncomfy.

I don’t say this to be pretentious, but the average person who calls themselves a feminist really shouldn’t be doing that. They haven’t done the reading, they haven’t done the thinking and introspection, and they haven’t exhibited the praxis necessary to earn that label. Yet poll a room of left-liberal people, and easily 90% or more of them will openly identify as feminists. That’s an enormous problem, a problem that should be getting far more airtime than it is. The truth is, I don’t want people—here meaning left wingers, I really couldn’t give a fuck about liberals—to feel comfortable calling themselves feminists unless and until they can argue back against principled anti-feminists on both the left and right. I don’t want ten thousand people who call themselves feminists but subscribe to bad or meaningless feminism, I want a hundred people who subscribe to ideologically-rigorous feminism and can defend it as staunchly as they defend socialism. And the only way we’re going to get there is by teaching people about feminism, and then putting it into practice. Good feminism, not shitty, milquetoast, fits-on-a-bumper-sticker feminism. If I had to trade for a world where nobody called themselves a feminist but everybody did feminist things, I would make that trade in a heartbeat, because it would mean at last—at last!—a recognition that political ideologies are instructions for action, not identity labels. 

One of my biggest worries is that a focus on comfort and marketability has made it impossible to teach people about feminism. I am not railing against ‘wokeness’ generally, or the apparently-popular surge of support for increased sensitivity for the life situations of those around us—those are broadly good things, and things I am happy to see more of. What I am worried about is that the emphasis on conflict avoidance over conflict resolution means that the extremely, extremely questionable tenets of liberal feminism are impossible to dismantle because it requires dealing with subjects that are, well, uncomfortable.

[...] Left wingers are content to make fun of liberals for frothing at the mouth over ugly shots of six women doing Tory power stances in billion dollar film franchises, but they’re not content to make fun of themselves for having no viable alternative to that brand of feminism, except slapping ‘socialist’ stickers on their ‘This is what a feminist looks like’ t-shirts. I need people to treat feminism as seriously as they would treat Marxism, and I need them to recognise that Marxism’s history is littered with bitterly uncomfortable disputes that ultimately led to better outcomes for Marxist praxis and theory. I need people to get uncomfortable with occasionally telling the women in their lives that they’re bad feminists when they do things that represent acts of bad feminism. I need people to get comfortable being wrong, not knowing everything, and telling other people that they are wrong or don’t know everything. I am trying to teach people about feminism, and I’m struggling to do it because feminism right now is bad, and we’re all too scared to talk about it. 

I know someone who calls herself a feminist, puts her pronouns in her work email signature, donates money to women’s empowerment funds, and thinks we should deport more refugees. I also know someone who calls people ‘pussies’ when he plays video games, who doesn’t know what a pronoun is, and, for his defence of low-wage women workers in a highly-exploited industry, is a better, more strident defender of the rights of working-class women than almost anyone else I know. Of these two people, I know who is on my team, and who I want on my team, yet the standard liberal feminist calculation would have me chose the woman who loves a little deportation over the man who is occasionally uncouth, solely because the woman knows to keep her language civil, and the man doesn’t. Liberal feminists get incredibly caught up in the politics of language, because language is all they have. They don’t have a revolutionary programme for overthrowing patriarchy, so they’re forced to tinker around the edges of it, quibbling over word choice and jargon instead of building the coalitions necessary for destroying patriarchy.

— We Should Not All Be Feminists by Frances Wright

[eyreguide]

5 Things I Learned About Jane Eyre

A few years ago I was interviewed by a UK based educational company in preparation for their release of content about the Brontës aimed for teachers and students. Sadly the company, Train of Thought Productions, seems to be no more, but at the time they sent me a complimentary copy of the DVD titled “Brontës in Context”.  Unfortunately I believe it is hard to find now, but I found it a very interesting examination of the Brontës’ lives and work.

The Jane Eyre section of the DVD was especially illuminating.  I’ve never studied Jane Eyre in school, and although I've read critical texts about the story, there are schools of thoughts that I haven’t really explored.   Jane Eyre is such an intertextually rich story, that I should have anticipated that this DVD would be eye-opening in unexpected ways. So this post is about the things I learned from the "Brontës in Context" DVD. 

1st Person Narration

Okay, I do know that Jane Eyre is written in the first person. And I know that because the novel has a first person POV, the reader is drawn more into Jane's story, her spirit and her fiery nature. But one comment from a professor on the DVD really struck me - the idea that Jane addresses the reader personally (by saying "reader") more and more as the story progresses. "Reader, I married him." being the famous example. I was curious though to see if that was really true, so I went to the Gutenberg online copy and did a search - in the scroll bar, there are little yellow ticks that show where the word comes up in the text, so I took a screenshot of that bar to illustrate (I made the scroll bar horizontal).

From left to right: The beginning of Jane Eyre to the end

Again the yellow marks are every time Jane says "reader" (which is not absolutely accurate since there are like three times it's in the novel, and it's not addressing the reader of the book) But it's true that Jane does directly reach out to the reader more as the novel progresses. The professor on the DVD explains it as Jane wanting to take control of her story, and one way she does this is by correcting the reader's thoughts - by giving them the truth directly. I thought that was a fascinating and accurate explanation of the purpose of Jane addressing the reader.

Bluebeard

To me, Jane Eyre is most succinctly compared to two fairy tales - Cinderella and Beauty and the Beast. I am aware of a Bluebeard connection, but I feel like the aforementioned tales encompasses the story more. But after watching this DVD I am leaning more towards seeing Jane Eyre in a "Bluebeard" light. Especially as Jane Eyre is a Gothic novel, and Bluebeard fits that genre the best of these three tales. There's a "secret at its heart" (quote from the DVD) which is a thoughtful encapsulation of both stories. And there was a comment made by one of the professors that placed the reader of the novel as the curious Bluebeard wife, reading the novel to discover the secret. Such an interesting idea! (And does that mean that Mr. Rochester is my husband??)

St. John and Helen

The role of religion is touched on in the DVD, and there was a thought that the character of St. John Rivers (who is not a bad person, but is kind of unforgivably self-righteous - oh, just me?) hearkens back to Jane's friend Helen Burns.  Helen is such a positive character and St. John considerably less so, that I initally felt it's almost a slur on Helen to link the two. But in the context of what the professor on the DVD said it makes sense -  they are similar in that they 'quash physical desires'.  And in that way I can understand why Jane would be drawn to them - they both encourage Jane to embrace a devotion to God and reason, at a time when her passionate nature is giving her the most pain. Unfortunately for St. John, his function later in the novel means he also has to show Jane that living such a cold, dispassionate life is not for her. And hey, both Helen and St. John meet untimely ends. Which to my mind is Charlotte making a harsh judgement on the idea of living just for God.

Jane and Injustice

Here's something that is hugely appealing to me about this novel. The novel can be pointed to as a feminist work, and Jane is speaking out for women everywhere, but what I love about Jane is that it's not her treatment as a woman that makes her upset. She's really angry at injustice. And the whole misogyny thing is just a part of that. It really took this DVD to drive that home to me. Jane is so passionate about what she feels is not right - the inability of Mrs. Reed to love her, the treatment of the girls at Lowood, the way Mr. Rochester speaks of Bertha, St. John Rivers not wanting to marry Rosamund Oliver. It's a glorious aspect to her character and reminds me of a line from an old sixties adaptation of the novel - Mr. Rochester calls Jane "the small crusader, pitiless with righteousness and rectitude." Rochester was a little harsh with that line, but I do like the 'small crusader' imagery. (In the 1961 adaptation he's more perturbed than happy that Jane's come back to him after he's been blinded and can not be the kind of man he wants to be for her.)

Postcolonialism

The DVD touches on three critical schools of thought in connection to Jane Eyre - Feminism, Marxism and Postcolonialism. And I learned two things in relation to the last one - what Postcolonialism is exactly, and that I really don't like seeing Jane Eyre in that context. In a nutshell, Postcolonialism is looking at the imperialist, British attitude as represented by Mr. Rochester as rich white guy, and Bertha as poor Creole woman. And Bertha's relation to Jane as a dark mirror. There's even a book written with those themes called Wide Sargasso Sea which is a prequel to Jane Eyre. It's from Bertha's viewpoint. I didn't care for the book actually. The thing with me is, I am sympathetic to Mr. Rochester. And I don't really see how you can accept the view that Mr. Rochester is a lying, manipulative scoundrel with no redeeming qualities and still like the novel or Jane. Because Jane - the character to whom the reader is intimately involved and invested in - chooses Mr. Rochester in the end, as the person who makes her the happiest. And if you love Jane because she is an intelligent, moral, capable heroine, as we have gotten to know her and rely on her throughout this story - it's silly to think she is so mistaken as to have made a horrible choice in the end. Also she is telling her story with 10 years distance, and not repenting her decision. She is happy, so what more could anyone ask for?

But back to Postcolonialism and why it does not gel with me; because I also feel like making a story called JANE EYRE, with the first person narration by said JANE EYRE, and then evaluating the story through NOT the main character is kind of ridiculous. Jane Eyre is such a personal journey, that I feel it's a big leap to talk about the novel like Charlotte Brontë was seriously examining slavery/race and British imperialism. If one chooses to see Bertha as completely innocent and horrendously mistreated, at least let it be because Mr. Rochester has misjudged her and acted unsympathetically, before saying it's obviously a master/slave dynamic. And I will just insert this excerpt of a letter that Charlottë Bronte wrote in response to some comments on Bertha:

Miss Kavanagh's view of the Maniac coincides with Leigh Hunt's. I agree with them that the character is shocking, but I know that it is but too natural. There is a phase of insanity which may be called moral madness, in which all that is good or even human seems to disappear from the mind and a fiend-nature replaces it. The sole aim and desire of the being thus possessed is to exasperate, to molest, to destroy, and preternatural ingenuity and energy are often exercised to that dreadful end. The aspect in such cases, assimilates with the disposition; all seems demonized. It is true that profound pity ought to be the only sentiment elicited by the view of such degradation, and equally true is it that I have not sufficiently dwelt on that feeling; I have erred in making horror too predominant. Mrs. Rochester indeed lived a sinful life before she was insane, but sin is itself a species of insanity: the truly good behold and compassionate it as such.

- Charlottë Bronte to W.S. Williams, written 4 January 1848

For me, the interesting points in the letter being Charlotte was (later?) more sympathetic to Bertha's plight, but not condemnatory of Mr. Rochester - she mentions that Bertha has led a sinful life before she was insane and that because of the nature of Bertha's insanity (as Charlotte wrote and understood it), it was probably too easy to 'demonize' her from the character's POV, which shouldn't happen to someone who is truly compassionate. Obviously Mr. Rochester doesn't get points in the philanthropy department which is noted by Jane early on. I understand and completely believe that Bertha's situation is awful and sad in so many ways, but I don't feel that it is important enough to the novel to base interpretations of the story on. Yet can I point out that Mr. Rochester didn't lock up Bertha for funnsies - it would have been so much easier for him if she were not mad because then he could divorce her. (The law at the time being that you could not divorce your wife if she was diagnosed insane.) If he could have let her go to have a normal life and not been responsible if she attacked people, he probably would have been all over that.

To wrap up, I am saddned that this DVD is not widely available any more (at least my google searches have not been fruitful) because it was a very well concieved educational program.  This DVD was sent to me in 2015, and I’m revisiting it, by posting this on my blog.  I orginally posted this on a former blog.  And I believe this post once featured on the Train of Thought Productions website, but sadly that site is no more.

[theexistentiallyqueer]

@papercraftcynder replied to your post: “After a while, you start to understand what different terms on the...”:

@theexistentiallyqueer the argument of "male invasion" is something I've only ever heard cis men use, and it is not something I associate with the concept of feminism. Maybe it's because all they talk about is men in women's bathrooms and never about women in men's bathrooms. Either way, it sounds less like feminism and more like reinforcing the idea that women need to be protected from/by men (which has routinely led to inequality, which is the opposite of what feminism stands for).I could try to explain further, but it could turn into a giant wall of text, but if you're curious, let me know, and I'll start typing.

I have a joke for you: a TERF and a Republican walk into a unisex bathroom. They’re both outraged the bathroom is unisex, but they’d rather pee in occupying stalls than share a gendered bathroom with a trans person. They leave the bathroom and go their separate ways, and the Republican votes to defund Planned Parenthood and the TERF makes angry posts on their blog about abortion being about saving women from the tyranny of men. Days later the TERF starts a fundraiser for Planned Parenthood and the Republican pays for his mistress to have a secret abortion.

This may sound strange if you’re not really familiar with all of the dynamics, but there’s a HUGE overlap between TERFs and the far right. When you look at TERF and you know the last letter stands for feminism, you have to take a far, far step back from that. They use that word specifically as a smokescreen. TERFs are very, very comfortable with Nazis, because TERFs and Nazis define gender in the exact same way.

It helps if you don’t think in terms of cis vs trans. Think instead in terms of change and what makes it so scary to people who are afraid of what they stand to lose from it. 

Gender and sexuality are the equivalent of the mathematical concept of zero: empty and infinite all at once. It’s Schrodinger’s cat, both there and not there at the same time, until you open the box. Language is an inexact medium through which to describe science or society, but it’s the only tool we have, because we are human and we are imperfect and fallible.

This scares people.

It makes sense if you think of gender as a bedtime story. You can pull yourself up by your bootstraps if you work hard enough. All men are created equal. The police are your friend. Racism is bad and it happened but it’s all over now and everyone is equal. America is the land of the free and the home of the brave, our military brings freedom with its guns, and we have never gone to war for an unjust cause. Little girls are made of sugar and spice and everything nice, and little boys are snakes and snails and puppy dog tails. People like bedtime stories because they can fall asleep to good dreams, and the real world is scary.

It also helps if you remember that the only difference between cis men and cis women is the second word in the variable. Man or woman, they’re still all cis, and they’re afraid of waking up from their bedtime story dreams.

Gender is a power structure. Gender is a system. Gender is myth our prehistoric ancestors told themselves to justify sexual labor, and therefore property rights, and therefore inheritance, and therefore warfare, and therefore the whole ugly course of human history.

That doesn’t make gender inherently bad, or a thing that’s not real. What it does make gender is something that makes people who aren’t ready to question it very deeply uncomfortable when it is questioned--and undermined--and redefined--and overturned--and deconstructed--and destroyed.

TERFs and transphobic cis men have so much in common. What they have in common is that they hate trans people (specifically trans women), and also that (in the case of TERFs) they’re almost always white. What they have in common is that they don’t like the fact that trans people taking up space just by living our lives makes them have to face the question, “Does gender really matter?”

They don’t like that question, because they take it as a given that gender does. Transphobic cis men, well--you see the picture for itself: the single defining system universal to every facet of unjust systems the world over are all rooted in the patriarchy, and their power is fragile. Their power relies on people not asking questions. If gender suddenly becomes a question instead of an immutable fact, the next question is then, who put you in charge? And then it just spirals on from there.

TERFs want to believe that women (specifically cis women, specifically white cis women, specifically able-bodied white cis women) are the single most marginalized demographic in the world; TERFs don’t care about people of color, about indigenous peoples, about disabled people or disabled people or even about gender non-conforming women. TERFs don’t even care about victims and survivors of sexual violence, domestic violence, physical violence, domestic partner violence, because despite the fact that trans women carry that mantle in more counts than cis women, but TERFs don’t care about the violence trans women have endured.

TERFs live in a world where they’ve embraced the patriarchy as an inevitable fact of life. TERFs like the patriarchy. Under the patriarchy, TERFs can feel superior to trans people, because unlike trans people, TERFs are valid. TERFs can access avenues of power by capitalizing on the fact that they’re white, able-bodied, not indigenous, gender-conforming, and most, most, most importantly, because they’re not trans.

The world is full of small-minded people, and small-minded people are afraid of questions.

[pass-the-bechdel]

Crazy Ex-Girlfriend season three full review

How many episodes pass the Bechdel test?

100% (thirteen of thirteen).

What is the average percentage per episode of female characters with names and lines?

41.16%

How many episodes have a cast that is at least 40% female?

Seven, so just over half. Three of those are 50%+.

How many episodes have a cast that is less than 20% female?

Zero.

How many female characters (with names and lines) are there?

Twenty-four. Thirteen who appeared in more than one episode, five who appeared in at least half the episodes, and two who appeared in every episode.

How many male characters (with names and lines) are there?

Thirty-nine. Eighteen who appeared in more than one episode, seven who appeared in at least half the episodes, and one who appeared in every episode.

Positive Content Status:

Not nearly as good as you might expect or hope. As with previous seasons, the show’s most impressive content is not the feminist stuff at all, and on the feminist front it feels sometimes as if the show spends more time denouncing different aspects of the feminist movement as ‘the wrong kind of feminism’ than it does declaring and upholding the aspects it does approve. I tend to feel that it spends time talking the talk on women’s issues, but doesn’t often get up to walk the walk (average rating of 3).

General Season Quality:

Easily better than the previous two seasons, despite a deflated ending. It takes a much more focused approach to its storytelling in the beginning of the season, in a manner which briskly becomes refreshingly confronting and leads in to a powerful middle. Unfortunately, it never sustains quality for very long, and overall the show still suffers for being too easily distracted. It’s not infuriating, but it can be frustrating.

MORE INFO (and potential spoilers) under the cut:

Ok, let me explain something about myself first, something I’ve mentioned in other (non-Crazy Ex) posts which have gone live long before this one will, but for anyone who missed it in any of those other places, here it is: I am, right now, pregnant. In fact, I am pregnant with a child conceived non-traditionally with a gay friend of mine, and as such, Darryl’s non-traditional quest for biological parenthood in this season struck a very personal chord (though, unlike Darryl, I used the phone-a-friend option as my first choice, not a fallback. Would recommend, if it’s ever relevant to your life). I bring all of this up because I can categorically declare that there are certain plot threads that you absolutely will NOT have the same reaction to if you don’t have that very personal chord being struck, and even moreso if that chord is relevant to your life right now, rather than being something that you’ve experienced in the past but has since slipped from the forefront of your attention. Thus, when I talked about feeling like the emphasis was in all the wrong places for Darryl’s part of the narrative, and expressed irritation with Heather’s pregnancy and birth? I sure ain’t mad about it for no reason. I am extremely, extremely aware of what those processes are actually like right the heck now.

I’m not going to linger on all the details, but I am particularly annoyed at the writers for dropping the ball on the pregnancy/birth part, specifically because it’s something which is so often badly dramatised in tv and film already, and the writers not only know that, they openly reference it as if they’re somehow doing better. The same way that medical professionals sometimes find it too frustrating to watch hospital dramas because of all their inaccuracies, or someone in law enforcement might cringe their way through all the egregious breaches in procedure in a cop show, there’s always a significant risk that anything depicted in fiction will make you want to tear your hair out over the way the plot warps or disregards reality that is pertinent to your life, either through a lack of proper research or understanding of the subject matter, or a conscious choice to prioritise desired storytelling beats/developments over actual logic and realism. Suffice to say there are a LOT of concessions Crazy Ex-Girlfriend asked me to make to their storytelling with this little subplot, some of which most people who have never been pregnant wouldn’t notice, and yes, some of which I would probably dismiss if I were not in the midst of the reality right now. I’m someone who has been present at actual births before and has been raised with an above-average understanding of what’s involved, so I’m used to gritting my teeth and hoping to just not be too annoyed by the way pregnancy and birth is typically depicted on screen. The fact that I am currently immersed in the reality of preparing to give birth makes me less forgiving of fictional contrivances, yes, but in the case of this show’s approach, it’s also more than that: it’s the fact that this show actively promotes itself as a feminist text. And if you’re gonna do that, and criticise the way other things (”written by men!”) depict labour, but then you also choose not to include any education/empowerment of your pregnant character, rattle off a variety of (uneducated, disempowered) cliches anyway, and then handwave it all with ‘nevermind, she just got an epidural!’ as if that ‘solves’ the difficulties of birth (and post-birth recovery, for that matter), frankly that’s just...a really unimpressive failure of feminist storytelling. Congratulations, you neglected the subject completely, at the same time as actively claiming your intent to do better than all that written-by-men schlock out there! What a tiresome charade this turned out to be.

Setting that aside though (difficult for me, as I am...very preoccupied with it), there was actually a good lot of things to like about this season, even if I do still feel that I ultimately have more criticisms than I do praise. Having Rebecca actually reach crisis point in the form of a suicide attempt, and consequently getting a diagnosis for her mental disorder and finally being able to move forward in learning to live a balanced life with BPD? Frankly, it’s not a move that I anticipated, and if you’d asked me where I thought Rebecca’s mental health plot was heading, I probably would have just shrugged it off as an unfocused thread where the ultimate goal was just ‘figure out how to be happy on your own terms instead of defining happiness through someone else’ (which is solid advice, but generalised advice, not something that would require the show to commit to a genuine mental illness). Acknowledging that Rebecca’s behaviour comes from a more distinct source than just the nebulous idea of being ‘crazy’ is a vitally important development, and it ushered in some of the best storytelling the show has offered thus far, at least when the plot maintained steady focus and made an effort to be responsible and mature in its exploration of the issue. As ever, there were still times when the show used Rebecca’s mental state for comic relief in a manner which made me uncomfortable, and times when I couldn’t interpret the intentions of the narrative - I have come to the conclusion that this show and I are on completely different wavelengths, which makes us a bad match, regardless of any elements which I do appreciate. 

On the subject of things I appreciate, I’m going to discuss the true character highlight of the show, someone I wanted to talk about after last season, not realising that if I held off until this review instead, he was gonna wind up so terribly underused in the meantime that it’s almost weird that he’s still technically part of the main cast at this point: Josh Chan. Josh Chan is...kinda the most believable part of this show, both in the bumbling good-natured balance of the character himself, and in other character’s feelings about him. Being able to buy the idea that someone would give up their whole life as they knew it to chase after this guy is kinda important to selling the concept of the show from the outset, and honestly, Josh Chan is the only time I’ve ever seen a central male love interest for whom the hype seemed to make sense. Is he perfect? Not by a long shot, but that’s fine because ‘perfection’ is as conditional as it is unattainable. The problem with male love interests, often, is that they’re written by heterosexual men who treat the character as some kind of masculine wish-fulfillment, a combination of ‘guy I wish I could be’ and ‘guy I think women should want (me)’. Josh Chan is a great example of a love interest written by women for women: he displays positive masculine-coded traits (protective, physically capable), while rejecting negative, toxic-masculine elements (aggression, possessiveness), and he embraces key ‘feminine’ traits (non-threatening, kind, soft, emotionally expressive, family-oriented), while his flaws are unobtrusive and potentially even endearing (the main one is that he’s quite stupid, which is something a lot of straight women will happily admit to liking (at least in theory), and other traits such as Josh’s childish streak can be a source of joy under some circumstances, as well as being something Josh mostly keeps a hold on so that it doesn’t become a burden to his partners). Also, it would be remiss of me to neglect to mention how refreshing and meaningful it is to have an Asian male love interest. I really enjoy not being bored to death by Josh Chan, and I am annoyed at how little of him we got this season while we wasted time with that generic slice of white bread, Nathaniel. Bring back the Chan plots, season four. Do it for me.

[thinkingthinking]

excerpt from an Alenka Zupančič interview

How does such a position allow for a different take on contemporary political movements that are precisely trying to (again maybe) politicize sex (think of the LGBTQ+ but also of #MeToo)? I strongly believe, perhaps against all contemporary odds, that the inherent and radical political edge of sexuality consists in how it compels us to think the difference. A difference that makes the difference. This is what I tried to say earlier, concerning the question of “sexual difference” and feminism. In the LGBTQ+ movement I perceive a similar general course or destiny as in the feminist movement, that is a shift from struggle aligned with political struggle for social transformation, to identity movement and struggle for recognition. There are very few people who feel perfectly and completely at home in their bodies and sexual identities, starting with those who think of themselves as men and women. And one could plausibly argue that these (who feel perfectly and completely at home in their bodies and sexual identities) are not exactly what one would call ‘normal people’, since the latter are usually prone to have all kinds of tormenting doubts and uncertainties in this respect. There is a reason for this, and Freud was the first to point it out: sexuality appeared to Freud as redoubled by its own inherent impasse and difficulty. Ok, goes the objection, those who think of themselves as men and women may well have their own uncertainties and identity problems, but these are not problems of social discrimination based on their sexuality. Really? The history of feminism has a different story to tell. The fact that “woman” has always been a legitimate sexual position or “identity” did nothing to prevent all kinds of atrocities, injustices and discriminations being conducted against women. Do we need to remind ourselves, for example, that women only got the right to vote in 1920 in the US, in 1944 in France, in 1971 in Switzerland (at federal level), and in 1984 in Liechtenstein? And one would be wrong to assume that these battles were won once and for all. Recently the alt-right leader Richard Spencer openly said for Newsweek that he was not sure that women should vote. The fact that it is even possible to say something like this publicly should give us a strong jolt. The fact that to be a “woman” has always been a socially recognized sexual position, did little to protect women against harsh social discrimination (as well as physical mistreatment) based precisely on this “recognized” sexuality. Part of this discrimination, or the very way in which it was carried out, has always led through definitions (and images) of what exactly does it mean to be a woman. So a recognized identity itself does not necessarily help. And the point is also not to fill in the identity of “woman” with the right content, but to empty it of all content. More precisely, to recognize its form itself, its negativity, as its only positive content. To be a woman is to be nothing. And this is good, this should be the feminist slogan. Obviously, “nothing” is not used as an adjective here, describing a worth, it is used in the strong sense of the noun. So, what is sexual difference if we don’t shy away from thinking it? Sexual difference is not a difference between masculine and feminine “genders”; it doesn’t start out as a difference between different entities/ identities, but as an ontological impossibility inherent to the discursive order as such. Or, to use a Deleuzian parlance, it is the difference that precedes individuation, precedes differences between individual entities, yet is involved in their generation. This impossibility, this impasse of the discourse exists within the discourse as its division. And constitutes, or opens up, to a political dimension. This “radical” political dimension is what tends to get lost in identity-recognition politics, and in the terminological shift from “sex” (which originally refers to division, cut) to “gender”. What are genders, as different from sexes? They are seen as ways in which we construct our sexuality in relation to the sexual division which, in turn, is often reduced to a merely biological division. This retrospective naturalization of the “masculinity” and “femininity” is indeed a curious effect of switching from “sex” to indefinite number of gender(s). When it comes to describing specific features of these genders’ particular identities, terms “man” and “woman” are often used in these descriptions as natural elements which then get combined in different ways and in different compounds. There are several problems at work here, which should be discussed. It may be politically correct to sweep them under the carpet, but at the same time this is precisely politically wrong. Because this way, we also sweep politics (of sex) under the carpet. So let’s briefly discuss this. On the webpage containing a “Comprehensive list of LGBTQ+ vocabulary definitions” we read for example: “We [the creators of this webpage] are constantly honing and adjusting language to — our humble goal — have the definitions resonate with at least 51 out of 100 people who use the words. Identity terms are tricky, and trying to write a description that works perfectly for everyone using that label simply isn’t possible.” Language is understood and used here as a tool with which we try to fit some reality. The problem with this is not simply that this reality is already “constituted” through language; but also that language itself is “constituted” through a certain sexual impasse. This, at least, is a fundamental Freudo-Lacanian lesson: sex is not some realm or substance to be talked about, it is in the first place the inherent contradiction of speech, twisting its tongue, so to speak. Which is why we can cover sex with as many identities we like, the problem will not go away. It is in this sense that sex (as division, impossibility, as well as “sex struggle”) is sealed off when “sex” is replaced by “gender” and multiplicity of gender identities. But sex keeps returning in the form of the +. The + is not simply an indicator of our openness to future identities, it is the marker of Difference, and its repetition. As I put it some time ago: sex and sexual difference as understood by psychoanalysis are always in the +. Not because sex eludes any positive symbolic grasp or identity, but because sex is where the symbolic stumbles against its own lack of identity, its own impasse and impossibility. (“The Woman doesn’t exist” is a way of formulating this.) As it is sort of “visually striking” in the formula LGBTQ+, and many of its longer versions, identities are formed by way of externalizing the difference that always starts by barring them from within. And when a new identity is formed, and hence a new letter added, it just pushes the +, as the marker of the difference, a little bit further. The “bad infinity” (and so on …) suggested in this form of writing is a symptom of our inability or refusal to think the difference as the form of what Hegel would call a true infinity. The difference that is being thus repeated and externalized is one and the same difference. And this is the Difference (and not simply yet another identity) that makes a difference. This is the real meaning of “sexual difference”. There may be many genders, but there is only the singular sexual difference that is repeated with them, and expulsed/ pushed forward when they are constituted as identities. What I’m saying IS NOT that the difference between “men” and “women” is repeated with (the constitution of) all these different identities; no, I’m saying that what is repeated with them is the impossibility of this difference (the impossibility of a sexual “binary” as difference between two entities or identities), which is the real of sex. Emancipatory struggle never really works by way of enumerating a multiplicity of identities and then declaring and embracing them all equal (or the same). No, it works by mobilizing the absolute difference as means of universalization in an emancipatory struggle. There is a joke from the times of the Apartheid that can help us see what is at stake here: A violent fight starts on a bus between black people sitting in the back and white people sitting in front. The driver stops the bus, makes everybody get out, lines them up in front of the bus, and yells at them: “Stop this fight immediately! As far as I’m concerned, you are all green. Now, those of the lighter shade of green please get on the bus in front, and those of the darker shade, at the back.” What this joke exposes concisely, in my view, is how “neutralization” strategy can be rather ineffective in stopping the perpetuation of discrimination. (“Queer” or “third sex” strategy sometimes function like the “green” in the joke). If we forget, or decide to let go of the concept of sexual difference in this radical sense, we risk ending up like the passengers of this bus: declared non-sexual, yet continued to be discriminated and/or “framed” on the basis of sex(uality). As for #MeToo, it is a very significant movement, already and simply because it is a movement. But movements have a way of sometimes inhibiting their own power. #MeToo should not become about “joining the club” (of the victims), and about demanding that the Other (different social institutions and preventive measures) protect us against the villainy of power, but about women and all concerned being empowered to create social change, and to be its agents. Movements generate this power, and it is vital that one assumes it, which means leaving behind the identity of victimhood. And this necessarily implies engagement in broader social solidarity, recognizing the political edge of this struggle, and pursuing it.