#but the fact that it IS up for interpretation in the first place is a problem

[lu-is-not-ok]

Hi! I was wondering what your thoughts were on the relationship between Hong Lu and Xichun. Namely (if I'm interpreting this correctly), how much he seems to care for her well-being. This has been nagging me since Canto 7 but he was so insistent on her being careful or joining up with him. Like you can tell how bothered he was. And HL, while often repeating some form of "my family sucks" doesn't usually let it linger? He makes a joke and moves on. I haven't heard anyone talking about it but this is the first time HL has shown care towards any of his family, even if later he is all "yeah if she dies, she dies, oh well". You're not fooling anyone, you.

You're right on the money with that one! When Hong Lu calls Xichun his 'most amicable sibling', I believe he's very much being truthful about that. Because while yes, she's rude and tends to do everything in her power to push him away, there are small moments that show that their care for each other is in fact mutual.

After all, she herself even points out that if it was any other sibling he ran into, he would have already been taken out. But Xichun doesn't do that. She doesn't kill him, or try to capture him, even though she's clearly aware that their Family is actively looking for him.

In a way, she's similar to Hong Lu in that she's never entirely straightforward with how she feels about things. She often puts on some sort of facade to hide the true meaning of her words, just in her case it's a mask of hostility, likely to defend herself in her position.

There's two moments in particular I feel that exemplify this by alluding to how Xichun actually feels towards Hong Lu, beneath her anxieties and prey animal rage.

The first one is this.

I've already gone at length about this scene from Hong Lu's perspective, how the thought of being an embarrassment to someone else in his Family causes him to shut down and default to trying to nod along and speed through the conversation as fast as possible. However, I think Xichun's response here is likewise notable.

Because she almost immediately backs up. It feels almost as if she's lamenting that he's still dealing with such situations as badly as he did back at home, and after giving one more 'jab' (one that you could even read as a backhanded form of assurance that she is in fact safe for him to be around), she takes the hint and ends the conversation.

The second one is the exchange that leads to them parting ways.

This is perhaps the most obvious Xichun has ever been about her own worries for Hong Lu. She's very visibly showing concern and outright anxiety over the thought that Hong Lu isn't taking things seriously and putting himself in danger. And then I believe she realized why that is.

If you've seen any of my analyses and theories, you know that I'm a firm believer that Hong Lu lied about the reason why he left the Jia household, and that in reality he's a runaway. This moment here is I believe the moment Xichun realizes that he ran away as well, and as such his goal is completely different from hers. As Hong Lu himself later states, "The path diverges, and we must each take the other trail."

After that exchange she continues to show concern for him, if somewhat indirectly.

I don't think she's saying this just to give advice on what Donqui/Sancho might be feeling at the moment. I believe she's implying that she's recognising that Hong Lu himself might be or at some point have been in a similar situation, and is thus attempting to empathize with him. Hong Lu's response here feels like he's taken the hint and is confirming it, clearly speaking from a much more personal place and experience.

And then, of course, is the moment they split up.

Another one of Xichun's backhanded assurances. She might sound rude here, but the essence of what she's saying is clear here. She will come back for him and maybe even support him.

So, yeah! Hong Lu not only cares about Xichun, but has every reason to! She's clearly one of the few Family members he has that actually seems to care about him in return! Even if it is buried underneath her harsh demeanor.

And regarding the one scene you bring up, well, I might as well repeat my own full interpretation of it now that we've gained more insight into Hong Lu after the check-up intervallo.

Note how Hong Lu directly interrupts Gregor here. I believe Hong Lu here is reacting very emotionally, effectively snapping at Gregor for what he implied. Part of it I believe is the implication that the death of a loved one would hold any substantial meaning to Hong Lu, something he is extremely philosophically opposed to due to viewing all kinds of death as meaningless.

But the other part of it is, well, that the thought of someone he loved dying in front of his eyes brings up memories he doesn't want to acknowledge. So he snaps back with as straightforward an answer as he can come up with so as to not give himself the time to dwell on the idea. Because it sure is suspicious he has yet to mention the one other person in his household that is ought to be very amicable towards him, no?

[midwesthoughts]

the sheer staggered disbelief Seon had when " the preverted kidnapper ( aka HIS OWN WIFE) sent the thigh mole picture and lol Seon's first reaction was " that's not my wife, I know her better than anyone .. nope that's just photoshopped "

the whole dynamic of the phone call is just excitingly exhilarating and at the same time melancholic because we know these two are so damaged by their "own blood relations" that they are unable to bring forth their feelings for each other..

AND THE RAGING GAIT... THE HURDLIEY TAKING OFF THE JACKET .. THE ALMOST KNOCKING ON THE DOOR.....

Don't even start!!!!

like that was absolutely screaming hot for no reason , how he was panting, breathless, ready to burn that supposed "pervert" alive by going to Heejoo's room and you know what's funny given their relationship I'd think he'd never went into her room apart from " hey are you home?" checking up on her if she is sleeping or maybe by accident.

and hereeeeee we have full blown catching and falling on each other , weighing down the body weights...

...when he was pulling the duvet with full strength, deep down he was ready to take on that man who has made him worried scared that his wife is infact with someone else... the mere thought of confirming that fear made him literally shaking... absolutely loved the scene and afterwards where he turned into a sulking boy and told Heejoo for the interpreter vacancy 😂

BUT the second time after the fire blast in his office HE WAS NOT HAVING IT!!!

also side not but I noticed how their clothes were almost same colour... now i might be too much obsessed with WTPR but i think that was to show how both are similar in their desires for each other ... passionate but tainted with self doubt...

YYS has always been a phenomenal actor but the way he controls his gaze, making it switch soft to dark doubtful is just AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

AGAIN THE HAND SHOT... AND love the detail of Heejoo's wrist watch making into the frame..

the way he was ready to check for himself the MOLE😩 and considering they were holding back for 3 years and in Seon case more than that .. IT'S CRAZY ... BONKERS how the sexual tension was scorching through my screen.

THE HAND PLACEMENT.....

* screams into nothingness*

absolutely love how Seon ate his own words "i know my wife better than anyone" only to be brought down to this pictured above ... like dude we know you are totally irrecoverably love your wife.

also the fact that he noticed Heejoo is uncomfortable on the kitchen table, that switched the place and he picked her up bridal style to the room.

forever our " action speaks louder" boy with our " scream the love you have for me " girlie...

they match each other's freak/obsession/want to the core!

I might need a breather after this whole write up🫢

[nightmare-of-homophobes]

It's funny how I saw your post now bc the same question crossed my mind some weeks ago and my general answer still is: I don't fucking know.

My young sister pointed out that her being a divination witch already makes her gay, but she did not give strong enough arguments to support her point.

Now, welcome to my monologue (From now on I'll just pour a mix of my unfiltered thoughts, interpretations of characters and headcanons in an answer while hoping that it'll make some sense or switch a light on your brain):

There's a lot of characteristics that as a whole makes me believe Lilia is a woman lover, tho I don't think any of them screams it (and I think this is the reason why I see/saw people around the fandom labeling Lilia as straight or ace or any other sexuality - what is up to each person, since her sexuality is not confirmed). Like, she's artistic, sassy and effortlessly gains other women trust/appreciation, but does any of those things sign her as gay immediately? I don't think so.

Maybe it's the fact that Lilia kinda tickles the mommy issues of not only the other witches (aka Alice and Agatha) of her coven but also of a good part of her fandom. Or, as someone said in the comments, the way she holds herself - her confidence, body language, expressions. Or her care for her coven, which she can't hold back from developing? Maybe.

But as I wrote this and kept searching in my mind for something that I could point out as "yes, this is certainly what makes Lilia a woman lover", I ended up returning to her backstory and to what my sister said.

Since the first episodes Lilia gave me queer vibes that I couldn't pinpoint why. She kinda always gave me that "single aunt that has been living with her roommate for the latest twenty years" vibes, but episode seven only clarified why those vibes.

Lilia and Agatha may be opposites but they're equally perfect material for queer subtext. Agatha has all her past with her mother while Lilia has her own with her coven. And both their stories revolve around power - and now let's think about power and being a witch in the whole as an allusion to queerness and self acceptance.

Lilia has contact with her powers at a really young age under the help of someone she trusts and love, but with the loss of this someone and now alone and afraid of which consequences her powers could bring, she prefers to hide it in herself and take a place in society where even if spotted as a weirdo she could still make a living. Late in her life she finally finds this specific group of misfits where she feels accepted and comfortable enough to accept back her powers and stop hiding herself from what she is.

We don't have to look too deep in our society to find real Lilias. People who only felt safe to come out late in their lives after hiding under comphet. Maybe we were Lilia at some point in our lives.

So, I know I kinda missed the point of the initial question and dived into a character analysis, but maybe what makes Lilia so queer is her being tragic - oh, god, I'm again putting people in the tragic gay stereotype.

Being a witch - and my sister was somehow right from the start.

But, mostly, by sharing women's experience. And here I'm mostly projecting myself on Lilia because I can't help but relate to her in a lot of ways.

Though I do not see or label myself as a woman, I lived under this term since I was born and I like to joke that I love women as a lesbian.

Trying to point out what gives out Lilia as a woman lover for me is trying to point out why I love women. I don't know, but by sharing the same experiences with women, learning about their struggles and force and getting to know their care and love... How could I not love women?

And here is where I fully project myself on the character because Lilia certainly went through a lot and saw a lot. She saw not only her sisters in the craft but also common women die, but she also saw them resisting and, century by century, getting stronger. She saw the good and bad sides of men and women. And at the end of it all, how could she not love women?

I hope that something in this too-long reply makes sense to you because my answers seem great in my mind, but messy when I write them in English (and they just create more questions in my own mind).

I've been banging my head on the wall for some minutes, and I need all Lilia lovers' help because my gaydar is not working today:

What is something that Lilia does that screams "woman lover" from a mile away?

[sapphoscreature]

'The blade cuts both ways'

I interpret Caitlyn’s entire fight with Ambessa as both her atoning for her mistakes and taking on a punishment for them (something discussed in a great tiktok I linked here), but I really like this element at the end.

Ambessa uses Caitlyn’s own blade to carry out the symbolic blow to her eye.

Ambessa, the enemy who Caitlyn was ‘sidled up’ with as she lost sight of what was important in her need for revenge. The enemy who is much stronger physically than Caitlyn, who manipulated both sides of the conflict for her own ends.

Caitlyn cannot hold her off. And Ambessa, the character embodying Caitlyn’s reckoning with her poor choices, enacts the symbolic punishment. Caitlyn lost sight of what was important, and now an eye must be taken as both atonement and punishment (I think there’s a lot you could further interpret about it not being Caitlyn’s dominant shooting eye, i.e. the one which embodies precision and clear vision, and how this reflects her grappling with herself in act 2 until she does finally betray Ambessa).

There’s so much more I want to say about this entire fight which I might put in a separate post, but I think it’s a neat detail that this is Caitlyn’s own weapon doing the cutting. The weapon she had already used to get a hit on Ambessa, slicing her thigh, but which is used against her in the end, as her own grief and anger was (also fun to parallel with the fact that she was supposed to be executed by her beloved weapon- the rifle).

Caitlyn may have got a hit on Ambessa, but she hurt herself by working with her in the first place and now is hurt physically in this moment of reckoning- the blade cuts both ways.

But, as a final note, it’s important to also consider that Caitlyn also uses this moment as part of her atonement. She is able to outwit Ambessa, and her sacrifice allows her and Mel to finally take Ambessa down as she cuts the runes from Ambessa’s arm (pulling the dagger out of her own side to do so!!).

[evidence-based-activism]

I know you’ve found before that intimate partner violence against men isn’t underreported to police in comparison to violence against women, but has there been any research on police responses to domestic violence calls specifically? MRAs and misogynists always claim the man is automatically arrested just because police assume only men can be aggressors even if he is the victim (which is very rare in the first place even though they insist otherwise). But a lot of anecdotal evidence I’ve heard from female victims is that the police either did nothing or in some cases threatened to arrest her instead of her abusive partner, which makes sense considering the low conviction rate for domestic violence. Is there any data to debunk this idea that women are automatically taken seriously while men’s allegations are ignored?

There has been some work on this (and on tangentially related topics)!

Police response to domestic violence victims

First, a 2015 survey was conducted by the National Domestic Violence Hotline. It interviewed women who either had or had not had contact with the police about their victimization [1].

Of the women who had interacted with the police:

~80% felt either no safer or less safe than before they contacted them.

~67% felt somewhat or extremely afraid to call the police in the future.

~25% had been arrested or threatened with arrest during a partner abuse incident or while reporting a sexual assault incident.

This report had the advantage of being detailed, but was unfortunately not nationally representative. This special report from the Bureau of Justice Statistics [2] helps fill in that gap.

However, it does report on domestic violence by both an intimate partner and "other relations", which is an important caveat when interpreting the results.

According to this report:

Male and female victimizations were equally likely to be reported to the police, except that male victimizations involving "serious injury" were more likely to be reported than female victimizations involving "serious injury".

The offender was similarly likely to be arrested during the initial report for incidents involving a female or male victim across incident categories.

Women were more likely than men to sign a complaint (or have one signed on their behalf).

Police were more likely to follow-up on incidents or arrest an offender at follow up when there is a signed complaint. This is relevant because women were more likely to sign a complaint, which makes it appear as though police follow up on female victims more often. This is an example of a factor that can correlate with sex, resulting in an illusory gender difference.

Notably, despite the fact that men were less likely to sign a complaint for serious injury than women, the police were still equally likely to follow up with male and female victims with serious injury.

Together, these reports suggest that police response to male and female victims in domestic incidents is similar. Further, women report many of the same negative police reactions as men do, including being arrested or threatened with arrest. In other words, men are not uniquely discriminated against by the police in domestic violence incidents; police officers are just disturbingly unqualified to deal with domestic violence victims.

Male police officers

And, to be completely clear about the problem, 73% of American police officers are male [3]. Furthermore, other work [4] states, "female officers were more likely than male officers to provide support to citizens involved in domestic violence".

Together, this indicates that the poor police response to victims – both male and female – is primarily the result of other men's actions.

Differences in men's and women's domestic violence

As you indicated, I've discussed this many times. However, it stands repeating that violence from male and female perpetrators is both quantitatively and qualitatively different [5-7].

For example, this review [5] describes how "women’s physical violence appears to be more in response to violence initiated against them". (In other words, women's physical violence is responsive or defensive.) They also describe how "the type and quality [of emotional abuse tactics] appears to differ between the sexes", where men "threaten life and inhibit partner autonomy" and women's tactics "consist of yelling and shouting". They also note that men are the "predominant perpetrators of sexual abuse”.

Other work [6] indicates "men generally did not consider physical violence to be threatening when it was perpetrated by women" and men were "not subjected to the multiple control tactics".

In this study [7], men are more frequent perpetrators of domestic abuse and commit more severe acts, and yet women were "three times more likely to be arrested per incident".

I mention all of this to highlight how it would be completely reasonable for police officers to assume the woman is the primary victim. (More data on this can be found in this post, this post, and this post, among many others in my #male violence tag and this website [8].) Despite this, police do not appear to be making this assumption. Instead, they take a “gender-neutral" approach to domestic violence. This is, therefore, evidence of police discrimination against women (i.e., unfairly treating them as equally likely to be the aggressor).

The impact of DARVO

Why does all of that matter? Because we have substantial evidence that perpetrators of domestic violence employ the principles of DARVO (i.e., Defend, Attack, Reverse Victim and Offender) [9-10].

According to this principle, some perpetrators of domestic violence claim to be the "actual" victim of their partner. Often, they convince critical people (e.g., police officers, juries, etc.) for long enough to cause severe harm (e.g., convince the police to arrest the victim, find the abusive defendant not guilty).

This is of particular relevance to this discussion, given the frequency with which women who employ self-defensive or responsive violence are misidentified as the primary aggressor [11-13]. (Also see this post for a hypothetical description of the issues involved.)

This facilitates their abuser's use of the legal system to extend their coercive control of these women [9-11, 14-15].

What I find most striking about this work is that it shows how the abuses Men's Rights Activists claim are frequently and uniquely happening to male victims actually feature prominently in many women's abuse histories and have for decades.

Perhaps this is best described as the employment of DARVO on a group level. Either way, it clearly indicates that there is no systemic bias against men in the legal system. Quite the opposite, research indicates a substantial bias against women.

Conclusion

In conclusion, research suggests:

Men are not "automatically" arrested in domestic violence cases

Police response is similarly poor to both male and female victims

Most police officers are male, and male police officers tend to be less supportive in domestic violence incidents

Men's and women's violence in relationships is very different both in quantitative and qualitative terms

Women are more often misidentified as the primary aggressor than men and the principles of DARVO play a significant role in this (and other) legal abuse of female victims

References under the cut:

National Domestic Violence Hotline, Who Will Help Me? Domestic Violence Survivors Speak Out About Law Enforcement Responses. Washington, DC (2015). http://www.thehotline.org/resources/law-enforcement-responses

Reaves, B. A. (2017). Police response to domestic violence, 2006-2015. Washington, DC: US Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics.

FBI. (2019). Table 74 – Full-time Law Enforcement Employees . https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-u.s.-2019/topic-pages/tables/table-74

Sun, I. Y. (2007). Policing domestic violence: Does officer gender matter?. Journal of Criminal Justice, 35(6), 581-595.

Hamberger, L. K., & Larsen, S. E. (2015). Men’s and women’s experience of intimate partner violence: A review of ten years of comparative studies in clinical samples; Part I. Journal of Family Violence, 30, 699-717.

Nybergh, L., Enander, V., & Krantz, G. (2016). Theoretical considerations on men’s experiences of intimate partner violence: An interview-based study. Journal of family violence, 31, 191-202.

Hester, M. (2013). Who does what to whom? Gender and domestic violence perpetrators in English police records. European Journal of criminology, 10(5), 623-637.

Domestic abuse is a gendered crime. (n.d.). Women’s Aid. Retrieved from https://www.womensaid.org.uk/information-support/what-is-domestic-abuse/domestic-abuse-is-a-gendered-crime/

Quinonez, A. A., & Kuennen, T. (2023). Turning the Tables: How Those Who Are Accused Deny, Attack, and Reverse. Wis. JL Gender, & Soc'y, 38, 64.

Harsey, S. J., & Freyd, J. J. (2022). Defamation and DARVO. Journal of Trauma & Dissociation, 23(5), 481-489.

Reeves, E. (2020). Family violence, protection orders and systems abuse: views of legal practitioners. Current issues in criminal justice, 32(1), 91-110.

Henning, K., Renauer, B., & Holdford, R. (2006). Victim or offender? Heterogeneity among women arrested for intimate partner violence. Journal of family Violence, 21, 351-368.

Nancarrow, H., Thomas, K., Ringland, V., & Modini, T. (2020). Accurately identifying the “person most in need of protection” in domestic and family violence law. Australia's National Research Organisation for Women's Safety.

Douglas, H. (2018). Legal systems abuse and coercive control. Criminology & criminal justice, 18(1), 84-99.

Dichter, M. E. (2013). “They arrested me—and I was the victim”: Women’s experiences with getting arrested in the context of domestic violence. Women & Criminal Justice, 23(2), 81-98.

[strangeanduncanny]

You've made some really great points here. I love the scene where Mina uses her knowledge of the train schedule (certainly painting her as a modern woman) to help the plan to defeat Dracula. Unrelated, but this also makes her a great narrative foil to Dracula who is also very interested in train schedules.

I just want to clarify some of my original points, but I'm definitely not disagreeing with you necessarily.

When I referred to Mina using modern knowledge to help the men I was actually referring to before her assault not after. For example, one of Mina's standout skills is her ability to write in shorthand, which is pivotal in the plot against Dracula. This is a skill she explicitly learns to act as Jonathan's assistant in his solicitor work. She write to Lucy: "I have been working very hard lately, because I want to keep up with Jonathan’s studies, and I have been practising shorthand very assiduously. When we are married I shall be able to be useful to Jonathan, and if I can stenograph well enough I can take down what he wants to say in this way and write it out for him on the typewriter, at which also I am practising very hard." That is, Mina resembles the New Woman in ways that useful for Jonathan to succeed in his work.

In regard to Mina losing narrative control, she is the one to organize the first half of the narrative. This is said explicitly in the text. We might assume she does the same for the latter half of the text, but there is no evidence for this. In fact the beginning of the novel only states that "these papers have been placed in sequence" and "ll needless matters have been eliminated." Nothing is said of who organizes the papers.

What we do know is the men (Van Helsing, Harker, Quincy, and Holmwood) all agree that it is too dangerous to include Mina in their plans when she is under Dracula's thrall. Van Helsing tells Mina after the attack that that "When we part to-night, you no more must question. We shall tell you all in good time. We are men and are able to bear; but you must be our star and our hope" and "All the men, even Jonathan, seemed relieved." In response, Mina thinks to herself "I could say nothing, save to accept their chivalrous care of me." This to me seems a far cry from the Mina who bore the emotional weight of all the men (comforting Seward when he cries in front of her and reading Harker's diary when he is too weak to do so himself).

The only voice that is left to her (one could argue) is Dracula, as she is hypnotized to tell the Crew of Light (as Christopher Craft names the team against Dracula) of Dracula's leaving England. Something to not about these hypnosis scenes is that Mina longer retains her ability to make sense of or interpret these narrative events. She answers Van Helsing's questions about what she hears and feels Dracula doing, but he is the one that understands Dracula's plan.

Regarding Lucy wanting three husbands: "Why can’t they let a girl marry three men, or as many as want her, and save all this trouble?" Of course, we can read this as Lucy being simply sweet and not wanting to hurt the feelings of Quincy and Seward. It's how I'm inclined to read her.

However, considering her transformation into a vampire makes her a very sexual creature, it's not a reach to say that she is punished for being sexual. Moreover, it's explicit in the text that female sexual desire is evil. Seward comments on Lucy's transformation that she had a "deliberate voluptuousness which was both thrilling and repulsive."

Holmwood claims that "he felt since then as if they two had been really married [because he transfused blood to her] and that she was his wife in the sight of God." This is after she has already received blood from Seward, Quincy, and Holmwood. (Note: I'm not 100% sure she gets blood from Quincy, but if I'm remembering correctly she does). This, in the context of the period the novel was written, does suggest Lucy to be a polygamist.

Also @lasarusbird called me out mentioning that op had already read many academic statements. I was definitely not trying to be patronizing or imply that they hadn't. OP put academic in quotations marks, so I assumed they were being facetious. Also, the articles I referenced are just ones that I find particularly interesting and useful for this field. Carol Senf especially is instrumental in the field of Dracula scholarship.

Finally, I just want to mention that I love 'Dracula' and Mina is one of my favorite characters of all time. My first year thesis was actually written entirely about my frustration with how Coppola weakened Mina's agency in the film adaptation by including her love plot. But I also enjoy engaging with literary criticism which is why I wanted to include my argument her.

actually insane that i wasn't sure if i should read dracula because i had seen so many 'academic' claims of misogyny and then i finally read it and mina murray harker is literally one of my favorite characters in like a decade. like she's got so much personality and agency and like yes she has internalized the expectations of women at the time but they literally can't beat dracula without her, she is essential. she is intelligent and funny and intense and weird and i adore her.

what the fuck is everyone smoking to claim that she's a sad little housewife who is dracula's bride or whatever.

[ecoterrorist-katara]

I kind of love how Zutara has two distinct ship dynamics

dynamic 1: “I will save you from the pirates,” enemies-to-lovers, Zuko is dangerous but sexy, bad boy x good girl, morally grey antihero, Dramione vibes etc

dynamic 2: Zuko is an awkward turtleduck, idiots-to-lovers, pining for your best friend, having each other’s backs, thinking she’s the coolest thing since sliced bread, Percabeth vibes etc

We can argue about which is the correct interpretation until the cows come home, but I love that the possibilities exist in the first place. From s1 to post-series headcanons there are such distinct stages in their relationship, and you can basically pick whichever point that appeals to you and run with it. There’s something for everyone. Yet another reason why they’re the best ship y’all

[whenthegoldrays]

I was fine with forgiving Greta Gerwig for splitting up Barbie and Ken and just believing that the two would reunite eventually, but today I remembered that this isn't the first time she breaks up a canon couple.

In 2019, Greta (at least implied that she) also broke up Jo March and Friedrich Bhaer, my literal OTP OF OTPS.

I get that the way the story in Barbie (2023) plays out means that Barbie and Ken's breakup makes sense and is almost something necessary, but it's really sad to me that Barbie is portrayed as never having loved Ken despite the fact that, oh I don't know, they were literally made for each other.

Once that is added to the Jo/Friedrich thing from Little Women (2019), I'm starting to think Greta doesn't believe in love 😔

[truethes]

the fun thing about luoch.a is the realisation of how his defense isn't donning a mask, he's more of an actor instead. the version of him that you meet is typically the version of him that you, as a person, have interpreted in your head - and one in which he, in turn, will continue to play off as and, effectively complete that role.

like please think complete angelina joli.e girl interrupted rn: i'm playing the villain baby, just like you want.

[rivilu]

Everyone's on about Miguel beefing with a 15 yo, which sure it's funny, but y'all are letting the Spot, "I now declare this child that MY INVENTION inflicted this anomalous occurrence on, my lifelong nemesis", the ULTIMATE beef haver, to go unchecked.

[mutalune]

hey siri how do I stop feeling gutwrenchingly anxious in the guilt way for using the treatment methods available to me to not be in constant misery

[jacksintention]

.

[onlythebravest]

I was listening to chicago and it hit me (no it didn’t I’ve been thinking this ever since I figured out the lyrics but I decided to voice it today) but he’s singing and is your brother doing alright? is he still getting out of fights? and like, he is assuming that their brother is still getting into fights, that hasn’t changed. he’s just unsure whether or not he’s getting out of them. I wonder what the brother did to make him so sure he’s still getting into fights years later

[voidscreamns]

./

[luckyladylily]

So a few months ago there was the discourse about would you rather meet a man or a bear in the woods. I didn't want to touch it while the discourse was hot and everyone dug in hard because those are not good conditions for nuance, but I waited until today, June 1st, for a specific reason.

I'm not going to take a position in the bear vs man debate because I don't think it matters. What is really being asked here is how afraid are you of men? Specifically, unexpected men who are, perhaps, strange.

People have a lot of very real fear of men that comes from a lot of very real places. Back when I was first transitioning in 2015 and 2016, I decided to start presenting as a woman in public even though I did not pass in the slightest.

I live in a red state. I knew other trans women who had been attacked by men, raped by men. I knew I was taking a risk by putting myself out there. I was the only visibly trans person in the area of campus I frequented, and people made sure I never forgot that. Most were harmless enough and the worst I got from them was curious stares. Others were more aggressive, even the occasional threat. I had to avoid public bathrooms, of course, and always be aware of my surroundings.

I know how frightening it is to be alone at night while a pair of men are following behind you and not knowing if they are just going in the same direction or if they want to start something - made all the worse for the constant low level threat I had been living under for over a year by just being visibly trans in a place where many are openly hostile to queer people. You have to remember, this was at the height of the first wave of bathroom law discussions, a lot of people were very angry about trans women in particular. My daily life was terrifying at times. I was never the subject of direct violence, but I knew trans women who had been.

I want you to keep all that in mind.

So man or bear is really the question "how afraid of men are you?", and the question that logically follows is "What if there was a strange man at night in a deserted parking lot?" or "What if you were alone in an elevator with a man?" or "What if you met a strange man in the woman's bathroom?"

My state recently passed an anti trans bathroom bill. The rhetoric they used was about protecting women and children from "strange men", aka trans women.

Conservatives hijack fear for their bigoted agenda.

When I first started presenting as a woman the campus apartment complex was designed for young families. The buildings were in a large square with playgrounds in the center, and there were often children playing. I quickly noticed that when I took my daughter out to play, often several children would immediately stop what they were doing and run back inside. It didn't take me long to confirm that the parents were so afraid of "the strange man who wears skirts" that their children were under strict instructions to literally run away as soon as they saw me.

"How afraid are you of a strange man being near your children?"

I mentioned above that I had to avoid public bathrooms. This was not because of men. It was because of women who were so afraid of random men that they might get violent or call someone like the police to be violent for them if I ever accidentally presented myself in a way that could be interpreted as threatening, when my mere presence could be seen as a threat. If I was in the library studying and I realized that it was just me and one other woman I would get up and leave because she might decide that stranger danger was happening.

Your fear is real. Your fear might even come from lived experiences. None of that prevents the fact that your fear can be violent. Women's fear of men is one of the driving forces of transmisogyny because it is so easy to hijack. And it isn't just trans women. Other trans people experience this, and other queer people too. Racial minorities, homeless people, neurodivergent people, disabled people.

When you uncritically engage with questions like man or bear, when you uncritically validate a culture of reactive fear, you are paving the way for conservatives and bigots to push their agenda. And that is why I waited until pride month. You cannot engage and contribute to the culture of reactive fear without contributing to queerphobia of all varieties. The sensationalist culture of reactive fear is a serious queer issue, and everyone just forgot that for a week as they argued over man or bear. I'm not saying that "man" is the right answer. I am saying that uncritically engaging with such obvious click bait trading on reactive fear is a problem. Everyone fucked up.

It is not a moral failing to experience fear, but it is a moral responsibility to keep a handle on that fear and know how it might harm others.

[libraford]

It is possible to interact with people whom share opposing views and no this is not about pineapple on pizza. In fact, it is imperative that you learn how to be civil with some people who you may find difficult to agree with.

At work, Youngin would often tell me that the guy that trained him (Ginger) was a misogynist. I had never met Ginger, and I had very little to say on this matter. But I would ask Youngin some questions about him because I like to know the other seasonal workers a little. I ask about Ginger- first words from Youngin's mouth 'he's a misogynist.'

I asked him why he thought that. (There are many misogynists at this location, as someone that is woman-shaped I see it often, I am comparing notes.)

"We were on our way to a location and a driver was going really slowly. When he got around her he said 'fucking women drivers.' Like he was going out of his way to prove that the driver was a woman."

The last month or so, Youngin worked exclusively with me because I knew that it was a matter of time before he said something that pissed off one of the guys. He was not going to get along with people here, it just wasn't happening.

When he left, everyone wanted to know what he was like to work with. And I finally got to have a conversation with Ginger.

"I'd like to ask you something a little strange- he said that on his first day there was an issue with a driver going slowly. Can you tell me about that?"

"Oh yeah! She was going super slow and when I got around her I said 'yup- little old lady driving.' And he was like 'what's that supposed to mean?' And I just kind of dropped it, but I hear he was saying I was a misogynist over it?"

So I give Youngin some grace because he's young, he's got a social bubble that's very liberal, he has not met very many people that weren't part of that kind of scene. But he often talked about how every person here has said something that pissed him off and he seemed really surprised that I (woman-shaped queer liberal) would be okay working with all these sexist homophobes.

And I give grace to Ginger because he had no reason to think that his words would be interpreted like that. What he was saying was normal to him. This is... somewhat the culture of landscaping jobs. And its not even close to the worst thing I've heard out of these dudes mouths. (Literally had one of the dudes comment that he would like to 'motorboat' one of the pedestrians.)

It was weird for Youngin to carry that with him for the whole two months that he worked here, over a very... small comment.

Every single person I've worked with here has said something that has given me pause and I tuck it away to rant about later and then I let it go. If it gets out of hand, I talk to one of the bosses about it. I know how to contact HR. I came into this place knowing that I was going to disagree politically with most of the people that I work with because I'm coming in to a culture that is fundamentally different from my own.

If I am being frank, I find the overt bigotry somewhat better than the corporate bullshit of 'we value your contributions, but won't be granting your accommodations request out of fairness to other workers' or the glass cliff or literally being fired for my sexual orientation but phrased with 'oh you just weren't a good fit for the culture here.' I at least know what I'm getting into when I come to work. I know what not to talk about. Last time I thought I was safe to talk about something queer with my boss she blindsided me with some transphobic garbage.

Its admirable to stick up for the marginalized people in your life, but part of changing minds is knowing the time and the place to comment. I think I've changed more minds at this warehouse by being a visibly out lesbian at work than I have by making carefully crafted speeches.

That is fine. It is fine to disagree. Sometimes you have to work with racists, homophobes, and assholes. That is part of being an adult. You talk about things like... sports or TV or weather or some cool bug you saw. Finding common ground with people who are different from you in many ways is an important part of socialization and it sucks to think you have anything in common with a jackass but look- you're spending 7-ish hours with these people and at some point some of them are going to say stupid shit. You are going to say stupid shit also. I have said my fair share of stupid shit. Deal with the fact that you're all stupid shits.

And for fuck's sake, wear your hardhat.