#but that the backlash against it has been disproportionate

[pjharvey]

salt lake city has apparently the seventh largest lgbt population of any of the top 50 major cities in the united states and i think the main reason for this is that a lot of people here are essentially like me and multiple of my friends where they've moved to salt lake city because the homophobia in other parts of utah made life unbearable. like utah is one of the worst states in the country to be an LGBT youth specifically a trans youth, but salt lake city at least for its size and the state it unfortunately happens to be in is a pretty good place to be an LGBT adult. then as soon as you leave salt lake city people give you weird looks in public because you have a gay haircut. very interesting thing happening here

[thyrell]

aaron stated his pronouns were he/him to jounalists and news outlets before his self-immolation. speculating someone else's gender, especially after his death is disrespectful and not your business. even if he went by lilly and used other pronouns, you are essentially trying to out him and disrespecting his wishes. maybe you should do as aaron asked and keep your focus on palestine instead of sending hate to a black trans person on here

im not sending hate to this person, i havent even interacted with him unless those anons were sent by him. i continue to use he/him for aaron bushnell, as per his last public communications, because as per the original post this is about, this is all speculation. i appreciate you coming to me off anon to tell me this, but i want you to think about whether this discussion is genuinely harmful to aaron bushnell's legacy or the palestinian freedom movement as a whole, whether it is just uncomfortable or in poor taste, and most importantly whether it warranted the widespread backlash against trans women on this website that it elicited.

[witchyfoxelf]

today is an extremely bad day for the magic the gathering community.

if you don't play mtg, here's what you need to know: the most popular format by far is actually a fan-created format originally known as elder dragon highlander (edh), and later becoming enshrined as an official format under the name commander. despite its official recognition by wizards of the coast, the commander format was governed by an independent panel known as the rules committee. if my use of the term "was" sounds foreboding... it should.

on september 23rd, this independent rules committee announced the addition of four cards to the format's banned & restricted list. regardless of how you feel about these changes, they were aimed to do the one thing the rules committee cares about: keep the format fun & fair for all players. again, i must stress that this is their only motivation. that's something i'd like everyone to keep in mind before we move on to where we are today.

the rules committee was expecting the backlash to their decisions to be vitriolic. the cards they banned were popular among... a certain segment of players. and more importantly, they were cashcows for joyless collectors and the secondary market. the kinds of people who unironically refer to these little pieces of cardboard as "investments." and yeah, i'm being a little unfair here. i will acknowledge that. but i think it's pretty warranted considering what happened next.

what happened next were death threats. lots & lots of death threats. lots & lots of death threats, a disproportionate number of which were directed at the rules committee's only female member. yeah, shocking. ironically it turned out that she literally voted against the most unpopular changes to the banned & restricted list, not that she needs to have to make this entire thing reprehensible. but it's just... frustrating. all of it is very frustrating.

of course she isn't the only one who received these threats. the rest of the rules committee also received similar harassment, as did plenty of people who weren't even involved with this decision. it's just a very ugly moment for the community.

if you have ever considered sending someone actual, literal death threats over PIECES OF CARDBOARD, please reevaluate your entire life immediately.

and look, there are some extremely reasonable criticisms of the decision and how it was announced. i'm not denying that. and i will fully admit that i had a fairly positive view of the bans compared to the people who were angry. but regardless of how you feel about them, one thing is undeniable: they were made by people whose entire motivation is making the format more fun & fair. that was literally their only motivation. they were not beholden to shareholders or executives or any of the other machinery that makes Line Go Up. they just wanted the game to be as fun as possible.

today, wizards of the coast announced that the commander rules committee is officially handing over management of the format to wizards of the coast. a company who, ever since its aquisition by hasbro, has been nakedly motivated by profit above all else. a company who, even when it was more independent, would have ultimately had that motivation simply by virtue of being, you know, a company.

so tl;dr (too late), good job mtg community. you showed your entire ass to the world by harrassing people off of the internet over fucking pieces of cardboard, and now hasbro fully owns the game's most popular format. i hope you're fucking happy.

[haggishlyhagging]

But what exactly is it about women's equality that even its slightest shadow threatens to erase male identity? What is it about the way we frame manhood that, even today, it still depends so on "feminine" dependence for its survival? A little-noted finding by the Yankelovich Monitor survey, a large nationwide poll that has tracked social attitudes for the last two decades, takes us a good way toward a possible answer. For twenty years, the Monitor's pollsters have asked its subjects to define masculinity. And for twenty years, the leading definition, ahead by a huge margin, has never changed. It isn't being a leader, athlete, lothario, decision maker, or even just being "born male." It is simply this: being a "good provider for his family."

If establishing masculinity depends most of all on succeeding as the prime breadwinner, then it is hard to imagine a force more directly threatening to fragile American manhood than the feminist drive for economic equality. And if supporting a family epitomizes what it means to be a man, then it is little wonder that the backlash erupted when it did—against the backdrop of the '80s economy. In this period, the "traditional" man's real wages shrank dramatically (a 22 percent free-fall in households where white men were the sole breadwinners), and the traditional male breadwinner himself became an endangered species (representing less than 8 percent of all households). That the ruling definition of masculinity remains so economically based helps to explain, too, why the backlash has been voiced most bitterly by two groups of men: blue-collar workers, devastated by the shift to a service economy, and younger baby boomers, denied the comparative riches their fathers and elder brothers enjoyed. The '80s was the decade in which plant closings put blue-collar men out of work by the millions, and only 60 percent found new jobs—about half at lower pay. It was a time when, of all men losing earning power, younger baby-boom men were losing the most. The average man under thirty was earning 25 to 30 percent less than his counterpart in the early '70s. Worst off was the average young man with only a high-school education: he was making only $18,000, half the earnings of his counterpart a decade earlier. Inevitably, these losses in earning power would breed other losses. As pollster Louis Harris observed, economic polarization spawned the most dramatic attitudinal change recorded in the last decade and a half: a spectacular doubling in the proportion of Americans who describe themselves as feeling "powerless."

When analysts at Yankelovich reviewed the Monitor survey's annual attitudinal data in 1986, they had to create a new category to describe a large segment of the population that had suddenly emerged, espousing a distinct set of values. This segment, now representing a remarkable one-fifth of the study's national sample, was dominated by young men, median age thirty-three, disproportionately single, who were slipping down the income ladder—and furious about it. They were the younger, poorer brothers of the baby boom, the ones who weren't so celebrated in '80s media and advertising tributes to that generation. The Yankelovich report assigned the angry young men the euphemistic label of "the Contenders."

The men who belonged to this group had one other distinguishing trait: they feared and reviled feminism. "It's these downscale men, the ones who can't earn as much as their fathers, who we find are the most threatened by the women's movement." Susan Hayward, senior vice president at Yankelovich, observes. "They represent 20 percent of the population that cannot handle the changes in women's roles. They were not well employed, they were the first ones laid off, they had no savings and not very much in the way of prospects for the future." Other surveys would reinforce this observation. By the late '80s, the American Male Opinion Index found that the largest of its seven demographic groups was now the "Change Resisters," a 24 percent segment of the population that was disproportionately underemployed, "resentful," convinced that they were "being left behind" by a changing society, and most hostile to feminism.

To single out these men alone for blame, however, would be unfair. The backlash's public agenda has been framed and promoted by men of far more affluence and influence than the Contenders, men at the helm in the media, business, and politics. Poorer or less-educated men have not so much been the creators of the antifeminist thesis as its receptors. Most vulnerable to its message, they have picked up and played back the backlash at distortingly high volume. The Contenders have dominated the ranks of the militant wing of the '80s antiabortion movement, the list of plaintiffs filing reverse-discrimination and "men's rights" lawsuits, the steadily mounting police rolls of rapists and sexual assailants.

-Susan Faludi, Backlash: the Undeclared War Against American Women

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Robert Reich:

Friends, I’ve been spending the last several weeks trying to find out what’s really going on with the campus protests. I’ve met with students at Berkeley, visited with faculty at Columbia University, and talked with young people and faculty at many other universities.

My conclusion: While protest movements are often ignited by many different things and attract an assortment of people with a range of motives, this one is centered on one thing: moral outrage at the slaughter of tens of thousands of innocent people — most of them women and children — in Gaza. To interpret these protests as anything else — as antisemitic or anti-Zionist or anti-American or pro-Palestinian — is to miss the essence of what’s going on and why. Most of the students and faculty I’ve spoken with found Hamas’s attack on October 7 odious. They also find Israel’s current government morally bankrupt, in that its response to Hamas’s attack has been disproportionate. They do not support Palestine as such; most do not know enough about the history of Israel and Palestine to pass moral judgment. But they have a deep and abiding sense that what is happening in Gaza is morally wrong, and that the United States is complicit in that immorality. Unfortunately, many tell me they are planning not to vote this coming November — a clear danger to Biden’s reelection campaign.

Robert Reich explains succinctly what is motivating the campus protests against Israel's genocide in Gaza and the backlash against such protests.

[425599167]

Have you been keeping up with the Acolyte at all? I've been watching it and it's mostly been mediocre - definitely flawed - but the fan backlash against it felt disproportionate. I didn't see it being any worse than Book of Boba Fett or Kenobi or the last two seasons of Mandalorian. That being said, this latest episode - Ep. 5, Night - struck me as surprisingly good, at least by Disneyplus Star Wars standards. A villain that finally had some weight to them, actual deaths and consequences, suspense throughout, hinting at the Jedi having done a terrible event in the past, etc, etc. It's not perfect by any means, and I suspect it'll be too little, too late in the eyes of many fans, but at least for me it felt like it was operating at a higher level than the show has been thus far. I'm curious to hear if you have any thoughts on it.

My biggest criticism is the dialogue sounding pretty stiff, but I've sat through worse. The fan backlash is definitely disproportionate, and it's definitely due to racism and sexism.

Generally, I enjoyed it. The first few episodes built up tension with the question of Mae's motivation and the full story of the fire without resorting to methods I think are contrived. For example, I knew the killer was Osha's twin the second it was mentioned she had a sister, but the characters also realized it quickly without dragging it out. Or Sol quickly, successfully coming to Osha's defense when things didn't add up. Or how Osha stupidly handled the emptied poison vial and incriminated herself in front of everyone, then Yord vouches for her despite being the most skeptical of her, which also made my like Yord a lot more.

I'm curious how this will end given later events. A Sith has revealed himself to a bunch of Jedi. One way or another, they do not report their findings. The grimmest, most tragic option would be Osha taking Mae's place as the new acolyte and Sol being the Jedi killed without using a weapon. It looks like Qimir is aiming for that outcome.

edit: Well damn, I got it in one.

[creekfiend]

Just wanted to say thanks for "people from culturally Christian backgrounds" because that seems like a good way to phrase it, and I'm going to try to remember to use it when I'm talking about this sort of thing. (I try to not be a dick to people, when possible, and trauma's messy and complicated.) I'm sorry that some people are being horrible in this whole discussion, and I hope you are doing okay.

I'm doing fine! I really sympathize with most of the people involved in this tbh (except the outright antisemites of course lol) bc like I HAVE seen a lot of reactive and reductive and unkind blanket statements about this by some jumblr people in which they are condescendingly explaining other people's realities to them. Which is my LEAST favorite thing. Jumblr can also be really... umm, dog pile-y in a way that I find frustrating and unproductive. However. I think it's also fairly obvious that most of these reactions are trauma responses, and while that isn't an excuse it is an explanation and provides additional context that I do not feel is irrelevant. For jews we have constantly been told 'well simply stop being jewish' like all the time by everybody, often at gunpoint. So like, when I see nonjewish atheists assert that stuff jews are TELLING you they have gone through "literally never happens" that ALSO REALLY SUCKS. like so so bad. Cannot overstate how much that sucks. Cannot overstate how much it sucks to see ppl I sympathize with deeply wrt their mistrust and hatred of like, organized religious authority, align themselves with people who refer to jewish atheists as "religious nationalists" for refusing to divorce themselves from their ethnic backgrounds/culture/community/traditions. That rhetoric is Just antisemitism in a form that has been used to cause real and violent harm to us in living memory.

Also really alienated by the idea that one must be This Vitriolically Angry About Religion to "count" as an atheist. Like what? That is bonkers. I do not understand why the people making seemingly reasonable posts about "actually here's some interesting writings by people from Islamic cultures or majority Hindu cultures or orthodox jewish cultures outlining the ways that the authorities in these societies have used religion to cause harm on a systemic level" (objectively true) seem to be aligning themselves with people who are doing the SAME THING TO JEWS that they resent being done to them -- e.g. condescendingly explaining to us that our negative experiences with a certain type of atheists Don't Exist or Don't Count or cannot possibly be rooted in antisemitism.

I find the whole thing depressing and troubling. I don't tend to follow jumblr because of the aforementioned issues I have w it but this backlash seems to me to be disproportionate and really hateful in a way that... combines poorly with the increased antisemitic sentiments being lobbed at jews from all ideological sides recently. I wish we could all be more congizent of 1. the role trauma is playing here for everyone and 2. the inherent lack of productive discussion that can be had when two parties are simply Trauma Responsing at each other back and forth endlessly.

Then there's the people who just get super aggressive about people "believing fake things" but I'm not sure there's any help for them. Sure wish that the nonjewish atheists who are not like that would disavow them though! I certainly am more than happy to say "acknowledging a cultural/societal dynamic that privileges one religion and culture as default and that existing in thay culture might cause people to have unexamined assumptions about other religions and cultures" should not be weaponized against individual people in order to bully them by insisting they are a thing that they manifestly are not (atheists aren't Christians. The fact that atheists from Jewish backgrounds will have Jewishness shackled to them regardless of their degree of identification with Being A Jew is actually bad and a function of antisemitism; it is not an aspirational dynamic we should be applying to other people simply because their cultural background is privileged over our own in our society.)

Like can we stop talking past each other and try to understand where people are coming from

People are expressing a lot of hurt and anger about atrocities and systems of oppression that I ultimately feel are totally interconnected. Because of this hurt and anger most people are not being precise in their language or prioritizing connecting or actual dialogue about this and instead focusing on dogpiling and gotchas. It's discouraging.

I'm a secular humanist jew with complex feelings towards both jewishness and atheism as concepts and movements. I want to understand and connect with people based on our common ground.

This is I guess all me being a big baby who is unsuited to internet fights but this one specifically feels really hurtful to me because I feel like my reality is being ignored and denied. I suspect a lot of people are also feeling that way. Which might be a good place to START the discussion to be honest.

[chalkrevelations]

Listen, I know I have ptsd from 813, and I actively try to limit my ability to see conspiracies around a lot of corners, but you know what? Fuck it. I’m going to go ahead and finally say this publicly:

Given the sheer speed, size and scope of the backlash against Build - both during Poi’s initial broadside and from the latest leaks - given the utterly disproportionate response, including the effort to completely drive him from public life; given the constant and on-going barrage of harassment that seems particularly tied to any indication that he’s making an attempt at regaining a career; given the actual lies and legally actionable slander that have been blithely spread across a massive amount of the fanbase, and the way they succeeded in poisoning discourse around him ...

Has anyone considered or discussed the possibility of an organized - if not paid - smear campaign as a factor?

Because this is NOT normal behavior. And it all looks kind of familiar.

[ausetkmt]

Angry White Men: American Masculinity at the End of an Era

"Angry White Men: American Masculinity at the End of an Era" by Michael Kimmel is a thought-provoking exploration of the cultural and social dynamics surrounding white male anger in the United States. Kimmel, a prominent sociologist and expert on gender studies, delves into the historical context and contemporary manifestations of this anger, providing a comprehensive analysis that is both insightful and accessible.

Click the Title LINK for a FREE Download

Overview

The book is structured around Kimmel's examination of the various factors contributing to the sense of disenfranchisement and frustration among white men in America. He argues that this anger is not merely a reaction to personal grievances but is deeply rooted in broader societal changes, including shifts in gender roles, economic instability, and the evolving landscape of race and identity politics.

Kimmel begins by tracing the historical roots of white male identity in America, highlighting how traditional notions of masculinity have been constructed and maintained over time. He discusses the ideal of the "American Dream" and how it has been intertwined with notions of white male privilege. As societal changes began to challenge these ideals, many white men found themselves feeling threatened and marginalized.

Key Themes

The Crisis of Masculinity: Kimmel posits that many white men perceive a crisis in masculinity, feeling that their roles and identities are under siege. This crisis is exacerbated by economic changes, such as the decline of manufacturing jobs and the rise of a service-oriented economy, which have disproportionately affected working-class men. Kimmel argues that this economic instability has led to a sense of loss and frustration, fueling anger and resentment.

Entitlement and Privilege: The book explores the concept of entitlement among white men, who often feel that they are losing their rightful place in society. Kimmel discusses how this sense of entitlement is rooted in historical privilege and how it manifests in various ways, including resistance to social movements advocating for racial and gender equality. This entitlement can lead to a backlash against those perceived as threatening the status quo.

The Role of Media and Culture: Kimmel examines the role of media in shaping perceptions of masculinity and anger. He discusses how popular culture often glorifies violent and aggressive male behavior, reinforcing harmful stereotypes. The portrayal of white male anger in media can serve to validate and amplify these feelings, creating a feedback loop that perpetuates the cycle of anger and resentment.

The Impact of Social Movements: The book also addresses the impact of social movements, such as feminism and civil rights, on white male identity. Kimmel argues that these movements have challenged traditional notions of masculinity, leading to feelings of insecurity and hostility among some white men. He emphasizes the importance of understanding these reactions within the context of broader societal changes.

The Intersection of Race and Class: Kimmel highlights the intersectionality of race and class in understanding white male anger. He argues that while white men may feel threatened by the progress of marginalized groups, they often overlook the ways in which their own privilege intersects with issues of class. This intersectionality complicates the narrative of white male anger, revealing the complexities of identity and power dynamics.

Case Studies and Personal Narratives

Throughout the book, Kimmel incorporates case studies and personal narratives to illustrate his points. He shares stories of individuals who embody the anger he discusses, providing a human face to the statistics and theories. These narratives help to contextualize the broader themes and make the book more relatable to readers.

One notable example is Kimmel's exploration of the "men's rights movement," which has gained traction in recent years. He examines the motivations behind this movement and the ways in which it reflects broader societal anxieties about masculinity and power. By presenting these stories, Kimmel invites readers to engage with the complexities of white male anger rather than dismissing it outright.

Critique and Reflection

While "Angry White Men" offers a comprehensive analysis of white male anger, some critics argue that Kimmel's focus on this demographic may inadvertently reinforce a narrative of victimhood. By centering the experiences of white men, there is a risk of overshadowing the voices and struggles of marginalized groups who face systemic oppression. However, Kimmel is aware of this tension and seeks to navigate it by emphasizing the importance of intersectionality and the need for solidarity across different identities.

Kimmel's writing is engaging and accessible, making complex sociological concepts understandable to a broad audience. He balances academic rigor with a conversational tone, inviting readers to reflect on their own experiences and beliefs. The book is well-researched, drawing on a wide range of sources, including interviews, surveys, and historical analysis.

Conclusion

"Angry White Men: American Masculinity at the End of an Era" is a timely and important contribution to the discourse on gender, race, and identity in contemporary America. Kimmel's exploration of white male anger provides valuable insights into the cultural and social dynamics that shape our society. By examining the roots of this anger and its implications, Kimmel encourages readers to engage in meaningful conversations about masculinity, privilege, and the future

Click the Title LINK for a FREE Download

[dweemeister]

Devi (1960, India)

One year following his stunning Apur Sansar (The World of Apu) (1959), director Satyajit Ray reunited actors Sharmila Tagore and Soumitra Chatterjee. By this point, Ray was no longer the studious yet inexperienced hand that shepherded the Apu trilogy to its conclusion. But his lead actors were still only starring in their second-ever film. Bengali cinema (Tollywood, based in West Bengal) had a proud history before Ray’s Apu trilogy (1955-1959), but now had caught the attention of audiences beyond India – disproportionately so, as Bollywood (Hindi cinema, based in Mumbai) has always been the largest part of the nation’s film industry. Unlike some of the most popular Tollywood and Bollywood films of the time (and now), Ray never showed interest in romantic-musical escapism and instead dared to make films challenging India’s caste system, sexism, and religious fanaticism.

In his first work addressing religious fanaticism (and arguably his first truly political film) comes Devi, also known by its English-language title as The Goddess. Unlike 1965’s Mahapurush (The Holy Man), which also covers the same topic, Devi is thoroughly a drama, with no hint of comedy or satire. The film’s somber tone did not sit well with general Indian audiences used to lighter fare, and its willingness to criticize the extremes of Hindu religiosity saw the film’s harshest critics deem it (and Ray) as anti-Hindu. If released today, Devi almost certainly would receive a similar, if not more intense, backlash from groups and individuals in India criticizing it out of bad faith.

Somewhere in a rural town in nineteenth century Bengal, younger brother Umaprasad (Soumitra Chatterjee) is ready to depart for Kolkata for university and to study English. Umaprasad’s family is wealthy, with numerous servants tending to their multistory mansion. All is well in their richly-furnished, well-kempt home as he leaves his teenage* wife Dayamayee‡ (Sharmila Tagore) to take of his aging father/her father-in-law Kalikinkar Choudhuri (Chhabi Biswas). One night, Kalinikar awakens from a marvelous dream. An adherent of the goddess Kali, his visions lead him to believe that his daughter-in-law is Kali’s physical incarnation. Upon awakening, he rushes to Dayamayee and falls to his feet in worship. Dayamayee’s life as Umaprasad’s wife has ended. Against her will, she becomes an object of religious devotion as word spreads of Kalikinkar’s dream and a supposed miracle shortly thereafter.

Devi also stars Purnendu Mukherjee as Umaprasad’s brother, Taraprasad; Karuna Banerjee as Harasundari, Taraprasad’s wife; and Arpan Chowdhury as Taraprasad and Harasundari’s son (Dayamayee’s nephew).

Where a year prior Apur Sansar was Soumitra Chatterjee’s movie, Devi is likewise Sharmila Tagore’s. Tagore, sixteen years old upon the film’s release year, again finds herself in a role with little dialogue, even less than her supporting role in Apur Sansar. The moment Tagore’s Dayamayee becomes a devotional figure, her dialogue and ability to exert her own agency disappears. Until Umaprasad returns home shortly after the halfway mark, so much of Tagore’s performance before and after seems spliced from a great silent film. Perched on a small block, a pedestal if you will, she almost never looks at the camera or those intoning “Mā” (“Mother” in Bengali; Kali is the avatar of Durga, and both are forms of the Mother Goddess, Devi) as men and women pray and prostrate themselves in front of her. At times, Dayamayee’s mental and physical exhaustion is clear, even if she is looking sideways or into the ground, as she sits in place for several hours at a time. Is there any one there to make sure that this “goddess” is properly being taken care of? It seems doubtful.

It is unclear how long it takes for word to reach Umaprasad in order for him to return home to see the daily scenes at his family’s residence. Even for less than a day, this whole situation is intolerable to Dayamayee. Her resignation is evident in her slightly hunched back, unable to find a psychological or physical escape. The scene where Umaprasad returns home to see Dayamayee venerated as a goddess contains striking facial acting from both Tagore and Chatterjee. In Chatterjee, we see Umaprasad comprehending the situation in real time, as his horror renders him almost speechless. In Tagore, Dayamayee looks up, and in a figment of hope, there is utter heartbreak. These long days of adoration and miracle-seeking pilgrims have even shaken her sense of reality, as almost all vestiges of her past life wither away. In a rare private moment with Umaprasad, she questions her very being: “But what if I am a goddess?”

Satyajit Ray, who also wrote this screenplay based on the 1899 Bengali short story of the same name by Prabhat Kumar Mukhopadhyay, was part of the Brahmo Samaj movement, which advocates for a monotheistic interpretation of Hinduism. Brahmos, crucially, reject the caste system and avatars/incarnations of gods and goddesses. Ray’s adherence to the reforms of Brahmo Samaj color his filmography more obviously as his career progresses (I have not seen too much of Ray’s work, but I have not yet encountered a film of his that inelegantly portrayed his beliefs). Ray’s reformist and Western-leaning stances are embodied by Chatterjee’s Umaprasad, who we see clash with his more traditional father over social mores (the latter is distrustful of his son’s education, and derides his son for supposedly espousing Christian beliefs). Except for the scenes of a religious procession immediately after the opening credits, at no point does Ray imbue any of the religious images with any sense of glory, wonder, or veneration. Cinematographer Subrata Mitra (the Apu trilogy, 1966’s Nayak) dispenses of any ethereal lighting until the closing seconds, and his medium to close shots capture the uncomfortable anguish on both sides – Dayamayee’s alternating ambivalence and despair, the worshippers’ desire for comfort, deliverance, and the miraculous.

Like in several of Ray’s films including Mahapurush and Ganashatru (An Enemy of the People) (1989), Devi rejects dogmatism, miracles, superstitions, and anything that cannot have a rational or scientific explanation. Simultaneously, Ray realizes that most Indians, in the face of events profound and improbable, find science and rationality cold, confusing, and unsatisfying. Faith endows meaning to such moments. Faith ascribes purpose to happiness and suffering – something rationalism cannot provide. The unsuitability of both to provide a solution in Devi is the film’s secondary tragedy, as belief systems confront a scenario where a middle ground is impossible.

Devi’s principal tragedy is the religious objectification of Dayamayee. Of all of Ray’s female protagonists from Pather Panchali (1955) to this point, none of them are as constrained as Tagore’s Dayamayee. She may not live in poverty like Apu’s sister and mother in the Apu trilogy, nor is she the wife of an indulgent husband (1958’s Jalsāghar or The Music Room). And though she is not bound by shackles or subject to physical or sexual abuse, Dayamayee is nevertheless a victim of the unpredictable whims of men (and it is almost entirely men who worship her). Her portrayal is nuanced: she does not succumb entirely to self-pity, nor does she possess the strength to tell her father-in-law and his fellow worshippers to halt their devotional displays. She is aware of the communal damage she will cause if she so much renounces her unwanted divinity. At the same time, she cannot help but yearn for freedom, for others to speak to her like a human again – complete with aspirations, desires, and fears that no one can associate with a god.

Too often in cinema – wherever and whenever it hails from, including midcentury India – women play simplistic roles: the lover, the damsel in distress, the spurned wife. Where numerous filmmakers and actresses in the Hollywood Studio System were actively working to dismantle this element of patriarchy, I do not detect a similar level of rebellion in mainstream Indian cinema in the 1950s and 1960s (and, to some extent, this remains true). Ray did not stand alone in attempting to endow female characters with complexity (within and outside Bengali cinema), but his contributions to this development within the context of midcentury Indian cinema are crucial. Many of his films attempt a cinematic dialogue that critiqued patriarchal abuses with subtlety and bluntness – often to the chagrin of the public and government officials. The public outrage following Devi’s initial domestic release saw the film banned from seeking international distribution. Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru intervened and reversed that decision.

Nevertheless, consider some of the works in Ray’s first decade as a filmmaker: The Apu trilogy, Devi, Teen Kanya (1961), The Big City (1963), and Charulata (1964). Together, all seven of those films reveal a filmmaker willing to take mainstream Indian filmmaking to task for regressive and simplistic portrayals of women, whether in lead or supporting roles. Devi might be the most shattering of that collection, caught between human weakness and the unknowability of the divine.

My rating: 8.5/10

^ Based on my personal imdb rating. My interpretation of that ratings system can be found in the “Ratings system” page on my blog. Half-points are always rounded down.

For more of my reviews tagged “My Movie Odyssey”, check out the tag of the same name on my blog.

* There were no child marriage laws in India in the nineteenth century, when this film is set. Child marriage remains prevalent in India, despite loophole-filled laws and a lack of enforcement.

‡ Multiple spellings of the protagonist's name are out there from reputable sources. I am using either the most or second-most common spelling here.

[thatstormygeek]

First, these are examples of backlash, of a post George Floyd politics. After the outrage associated with the death of Floyd, it seemed for a passing moment that American institutions in government, business and academia were paying real attention to historical problems. The most meaningful policy result, however, has been to mobilize the right wing to both mischaracterize such efforts and go after institutional nods to fairness they previously saw as unattainable, such as DEI offices. Contrary to what you have been told about wokeness run amok on campus, it is now much more professionally risky for scholars to study topics related to race, or to be public facing scholars if they do so, than it was before 2020. Second, the goal is to feed a culture of fear within research institutions. Knowing that you are going to be placed in the crosshairs by a bad faith antagonist is intimidating. Rufo published his accusations against Gay, and then Cross, in City Journal, a media outlet of the right wing Manhattan Institute. This tactic reflects an ongoing pattern of a new right wing media seeking to intimidate and cancel scholars that do not share their views, and especially those who study race. If you do not study this topic, or are not a scholar of color, or are not critical of right wing ideas, you can stay safe in the academic cocoon. Which is what they want.

Third, the message is that the topic of race, and the Black scholars that disproportionately pursue the topic, simply do not belong in elite institutions. The mode and nature of the targeting feeds into prejudices, clearly felt by those doing the targeting. On BlueSky, Jamelle Bouie wrote “the key thing here is that "plagiarism" here means "being a black person in a prestigious position"" The mere presence of scholars of color is taken as clear evidence of a sign a decline of institutional merit (compared to the good old days, when you could get a job based on the strength of a letter of recommendation from a mentor at an elite institution).

[beardedmrbean]

Farmers in Spain have joined their European counterparts in staging protests across the country.

Like farmers elsewhere, they demand more flexibility from the European Union, tighter controls on the produce of non-EU countries and more help from their government.

In several regions, they blocked roads and caused severe disruption to motorists.

A large demonstration in central Madrid is planned for later this month.

On Tuesday, farmers took to the streets of agricultural areas in Spain's northern interior, driving tractors in convoys, beeping horns, waving Spanish flags and brandishing placards.

They also protested in the north-eastern region of Catalonia, the southern region of Andalusia and Extremadura in the west.

Spain's farmers have similar grievances to their counterparts in France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Italy and other countries that have been protesting recently.

They say that regulations which form part of the EU's Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), along with high fuel and energy costs, make it difficult for them to make a profit.

"The costs, when it comes to producing wheat and barley, are very high," said Esteban, a cereal farmer who preferred not to give his surname who was protesting in Aranda de Duero. "You've got to pay for fertiliser, pesticides, fuel - it's killing us. We have to pay very high prices and yet we sell at low prices."

Protesting French farmers accused Spanish producers of undercutting them by not fully observing EU rules. Last week, French former minister Ségolène Royal triggered controversy by claiming that Spanish organic tomatoes were "false organic". Amid an angry backlash from the Spanish food and farming industry, Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez invited Ms Royal to try a Spanish tomato.

However, Spain's agricultural sector in turn levels similar criticism at non-EU countries, such as its southern neighbour, Morocco, which it claims is not subject to the same environmental and sanitary regulations as European producers, allowing it to sell cheaper produce.

"We have to undergo a lot of controls, a lot of sanitary regulations which products from [non-EU countries] are not subject to," said Estrella Pérez, who farms livestock and cereal.

"We just want a future for farming and right now, we don't see it."

The plight of Spanish farmers has been compounded by drought. Many areas of the country have not seen normal levels of rain in recent months which is affecting harvests. Spain is the world's biggest olive oil producer, but prices have been pushed up by low production. Last week, Catalonia declared a state of emergency due to a three-year drought, the longest on record.

Elsewhere, Italian farmers have been gathering from north to south for a week, also protesting against EU regulations and red tape. They are planning to converge on Rome at the end of this week.

Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni has backed them, saying that the EU's Green Deal will hit farmers' lives disproportionately. But farmers are also concerned about government plans to end tax subsidies for the agricultural sector.

On Tuesday, EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen announced she wants to withdraw a plan to slash the use of pesticides, describing it as "a symbol of polarisation".

Belgian Prime Minister Alexander De Croo welcomed the announcement, saying it was "crucial we keep our farmers on board to a more sustainable future of farming, as part of our determination to get the Green Deal done".

[solarwynd]

armys have been dragging bp for payola and never write their songs and have english album, and they now have jk with 41 songwriters for jk and english album, and worse payola than bp

armys called olivia industry plant only to get industry forest not even a year later lmao

armys call taylor fraudulent for releasing album versions only to get more album versions and remixes

all the drags are back to them but 10 times worse I'm laughing

it’s terrible for them out here.

armys aside though, you also have to look at jk too because to their credit, they didn’t know any of this would go down. I mean I certainly didn’t. joon has been the spokesperson for the group. he always said he doesn’t want to speak for the rest of the members, but I still believed the core value of not taking the easy road was just something they all agreed on. (taehyung said the same about people offering ways to get ahead and them declining) so for jk to come out and do everything I thought he’d be against was disappointing.

maybe that was on me being naive and believing that they all shared that value or on me thinking that I knew these men. well at least where artistic integrity is concerned anyway. armys are still absolutely hypocrites though because if all it took was for a member to do everything y’all said you were openly against to go back on your stance about industry manipulation, then y’all were never really against it in the first place.

mentioning olivia, because I was here for that g4u and butter head butt, the label aid that she got wasn’t even anything absurd? the dragging she got was real disproportionate. not going back on her starting off as an industry plant, because she was, but she puts in the work. she writes her songs and I think guts is a really solid sophomore album.

album versions were never the issue, it’s just when people release an exorbitant amount that’s obviously just geared for charting is when it gets ridiculous. taylor only has 3 for that re-record I think. personally, 4 for me is the max before it feels like someone is doing too much. jk had 11 plus how ever many exclusives he has in stores. but the remixes are the most irritating thing for me though, because the crucifying jimin went through for just 2, jk received no where near the same backlash from other solos or antis for his going on 30.

[commandtower-solring-go]

Hey you wanna learn something insane?

Unalive has been used and popularised by creators of colour who were being disproportionately banned and removed from Tiktok for using terms like 'kill'. Hollistically, those who use it resent having to use it, but they are forced to in order to not have the rug pulled out from beneath them.

This was most recently shown to be true when Hank Green pushed back against the term, and received a lot of backlash from creators of colour who mirrored his opinions but explained they were forced to speak in euphamism.

"Un-uhlaive? UN-UHLAIVE? Ma'am, that man has been killed. He has been MUHDUHED. To DEATH."

[jewy-gum]

🌐 Week 10: Digital Citizenship and Conflict – Social Media Governance 🔍

This week’s theme dives into the power plays and complexities of social media governance - where freedom of expression, user safety, and community values collide. Social media isn’t just a digital playground; it’s a space where the rules we follow (or break) shape our experience, and sometimes, our real-world identities. Let’s explore why it’s so crucial for us to navigate these waters carefully and demand better governance from the platforms we use daily.

💥 Online Harassment: An Unseen Threat to Digital Citizenship

Ever felt the urge to delete a post or stay silent on an issue because you feared backlash? You’re not alone. Research shows that online harassment disproportionately targets women and marginalized groups, often silencing voices that challenge the status quo (Haslop et al. 2021). For many, logging in means risking exposure to abuse, trolls, and coordinated attacks that are more than just “words on a screen.” They are reminders of the deep-rooted biases that our digital spaces reflect - and amplify.

Watching comedians like Hannah Gadsby and Amy Schumer tackle online harassment through humor has been inspiring. It’s a powerful reminder that even in conflict, there are ways to reclaim the narrative and demand change. Their standup routines highlight an essential truth: social media governance shouldn’t be left to algorithms and vague community guidelines alone. It’s personal, it’s political, and it’s urgent.

🛡️ Social Media Governance: Who’s Responsible for Our Safety?

Platforms like Twitter and Instagram often claim to have our safety in mind, but are their efforts enough? Recent laws, such as Australia’s Online Safety Act, attempt to enforce accountability by mandating the removal of harmful content within 24 hours. However, enforcement is tricky - how do we ensure these measures protect us without infringing on freedom of expression? And how do platforms address the sheer volume of content they moderate daily?

This week, I found myself reflecting on the role of brands in supporting online safety. Tamara Littleton, CEO of The Social Element, advocates for brands to actively protect and support creators against harassment. When brands take a stand and back up creators, it sends a powerful message that online abuse is unacceptable, reinforcing that social responsibility is a shared duty across users, creators, and corporations.

Link to "Statutory Review of the Online Safety Act 2021":

https://www.infrastructure.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/online-safety-act-2021-review-issues-paper-26-april-2024.pdf

🌐 Digital Citizenship: Our Role in Shaping the Internet We Want

As digital citizens, we have a role beyond just being consumers - we’re the ones who shape the culture and tone of these platforms. That means calling out harmful behavior, supporting each other, and pushing back against a culture that normalizes harassment. If we want social media to be a safe space, it requires active participation and responsibility from all of us.

References

Australian Government 2022, Online Safety Act, Australian Human Rights Commission, viewed 5 November 2024, <https://www.legislation.gov.au>.

Haslop, C, O’Rourke, F & Southern, R 2021, ‘#NoSnowflakes: The toleration of harassment and an emergent gender-related digital divide’, Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies, vol. 27, no. 5, pp. 1418-1438.

Pew Research 2021, Public Attitudes Towards Social Media Harassment, viewed 5 November 2024, <https://www.pewresearch.org/>.

[atliqai]

AI Ethics and Regulation: The need for responsible AI development and deployment.

In recent months, the spotlight has been on AI's remarkable capabilities and its equally daunting consequences. For instance, in August 2024, a groundbreaking AI-powered diagnostic tool was credited with identifying a rare, life-threatening disease in patients months before traditional methods could. This early detection has the potential to save countless lives and revolutionize the field of healthcare. Yet, as we celebrate these incredible advancements, we are also reminded of the darker side of AI's rapid evolution. Just weeks later, a leading tech company faced a massive backlash after its new AI-driven recruitment system was found to disproportionately disadvantage candidates from underrepresented backgrounds. This incident underscored the critical need for responsible AI development and deployment.

These contrasting stories highlight a crucial reality: while AI holds transformative potential, it also presents significant ethical and regulatory challenges. As we continue to integrate AI into various aspects of our lives, the imperative for ethical standards and robust regulations becomes ever clearer. This blog explores the pressing need for responsible AI practices to ensure that technology serves humanity in a fair, transparent, and accountable manner.

The Role of AI in Society

AI is revolutionizing multiple sectors, including healthcare, finance, and transportation. In healthcare, AI enhances diagnostic accuracy and personalizes treatments. In finance, it streamlines fraud detection and optimizes investments. In transportation, AI advances autonomous vehicles and improves traffic management. This broad range of applications underscores AI's transformative impact across industries.

Benefits Of Artificial Intelligence 

Healthcare: AI improves diagnostic precision and enables early detection of diseases, potentially saving lives and improving treatment outcomes.

Finance: AI enhances fraud detection, automates trading, and optimizes investment strategies, leading to more efficient financial operations.

Transportation: Autonomous vehicles reduce accidents and optimize travel routes, while AI improves public transport scheduling and resource management.

Challenges Of Artificial Intelligence

Bias and Fairness: AI can perpetuate existing biases if trained on flawed data, leading to unfair outcomes in areas like hiring or law enforcement.

Privacy Concerns: The extensive data collection required by AI systems raises significant privacy issues, necessitating strong safeguards to protect user information.

Job Displacement: Automation driven by AI can lead to job losses, requiring workers to adapt and acquire new skills to stay relevant in the changing job market.

Ethical Considerations in AI

Bias and Fairness: AI systems can perpetuate biases if trained on flawed data, impacting areas like hiring and law enforcement. For example, biased training data can lead to discriminatory outcomes against certain groups. Addressing this requires diverse data and ongoing monitoring to ensure fairness.

Transparency: Many AI systems operate as "black boxes," making their decision-making processes opaque. Ensuring transparency involves designing AI to be understandable and explainable, so users and stakeholders can grasp how decisions are made and hold systems accountable.

Accountability: When AI systems cause harm or errors, it’s crucial to determine who is responsible—whether it's the developers, the deploying organization, or the AI itself. Clear accountability structures and governance are needed to manage and rectify issues effectively.

Privacy: AI often requires extensive personal data, raising privacy concerns. To protect user privacy, data should be anonymized, securely stored, and used transparently. Users should have control over their data and understand how it is used to prevent misuse and unauthorized surveillance.

In summary, addressing these ethical issues is vital to ensure AI technologies are used responsibly and equitably.

Current AI Regulations and Frameworks

Several key regulations and frameworks govern AI, reflecting varying approaches to managing its risks:

General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR): Enforced by the European Union, GDPR addresses data protection and privacy. It includes provisions relevant to AI, such as the right to explanation, which allows individuals to understand automated decisions affecting them.

AI Act (EU): The EU’s AI Act, expected to come into effect in 2024, classifies AI systems by risk and imposes stringent requirements on high-risk applications. It aims to ensure AI is safe and respects fundamental rights.

Algorithmic Accountability Act (US): This proposed U.S. legislation seeks to increase transparency and accountability in AI systems, particularly those used in critical areas like employment and criminal justice.

The Need for Enhanced AI Regulation

Gaps in Current Regulations

Lack of Specificity: Existing regulations like GDPR provide broad data privacy protections but lack detailed guidelines for addressing AI-specific issues such as algorithmic bias and decision-making transparency.

Rapid Technological Evolution: Regulations can struggle to keep pace with the rapid advancements in AI technology, leading to outdated or inadequate frameworks.

Inconsistent Global Standards: Different countries have varied approaches to AI regulation, creating a fragmented global landscape that complicates compliance for international businesses.

Limited Scope for Ethical Concerns: Many regulations focus primarily on data protection and safety but may not fully address ethical considerations, such as fairness and accountability in AI systems.

Proposed Solutions

Develop AI-Specific Guidelines: Create regulations that address AI-specific challenges, including detailed requirements for transparency, bias mitigation, and explainability of algorithms.

Regular Updates and Flexibility: Implement adaptive regulatory frameworks that can evolve with technological advancements to ensure ongoing relevance and effectiveness.

Global Cooperation: Promote international collaboration to harmonize AI standards and regulations, reducing fragmentation and facilitating global compliance.

Ethical Frameworks: Introduce comprehensive ethical guidelines beyond data protection to cover broader issues like fairness, accountability, and societal impact.

In summary, enhancing AI regulation requires addressing gaps in current frameworks, implementing AI-specific guidelines, and fostering industry standards and self-regulation. These steps are essential to ensure that AI technology is developed and deployed responsibly and ethically.

Future Trends in AI Ethics and Regulation

Emerging Trends: Upcoming trends in AI ethics and regulation include a focus on ethical AI design with built-in fairness and transparency and the development of AI governance frameworks for structured oversight. There is also a growing need for sector-specific regulations as AI impacts critical fields like healthcare and finance.

Innovative Solutions: Innovative approaches to current challenges involve real-time AI bias detection tools, advancements in explainable AI for greater transparency, and the use of blockchain technology for enhanced accountability. These solutions aim to improve trust and fairness in AI systems.

Role of Technology: Future advancements in AI will impact ethical considerations and regulations. Enhanced bias detection, automated compliance systems, and improved machine learning tools will aid in managing ethical risks and ensuring responsible AI practices. Regulatory frameworks will need to evolve to incorporate these technological advancements.

The rapid advancement of artificial intelligence presents both unprecedented opportunities and significant ethical challenges. As AI systems increasingly influence various aspects of our lives, we must address these challenges through responsible development and deployment practices. From ensuring diverse and inclusive data sets to enhancing transparency and accountability, our approach to AI must prioritize ethical considerations at every stage.

Looking ahead, the role of technology in shaping future ethical standards and regulatory frameworks cannot be underestimated. By staying ahead of technological advancements and embracing interdisciplinary collaboration, we can build AI systems that not only advance innovation but also uphold fairness, privacy, and accountability.

In summary, the need for responsible AI development and deployment is clear. As we move forward, a collective commitment to ethical principles, proactive regulation, and continuous improvement will be essential to ensuring that AI benefits all of society while minimizing risks and fostering trust.