#but they see anyone who disagrees with them as ''an evil male'' and don't seem to understand that a good chunk of criticism against them

[vampirebeverage]

Jewish People: Hey don’t support JKR or the HP franchise, her work is anti-Semitic.

BIPOC: Hey don’t support JKR or the HP franchise, she’s really racist.

Trans People: Hey don’t support JKR or the HP franchise, she’s transphobic and uses her platform in ways that directly harm trans people.

TERFS: Oh I Absolutely Must Buy This Racist, Anti-Semitic Video Game! Take That, Transes!

[abybweisse]

People who don't believe in or even Hate the undertaker=cedric theory always have tow reasons, 1,they simp over ut so bad that they can't tolerate him having kids with another person 2, it will make him absurd, because love makes things cheap and not interesting, which I highly disagree with,because if there was anything ever between them I highly doubt it was lovey dovey and healthy, I mean we have ut who is a literal death God and I don't see him as a caring and gentle person like many do at all, and then we have claudia p ( I meant c'mon she is the grandmother of ciel and the mother of vincent, just imagine how deranged and manipulative she herself was) so I really think the relationship between tham was fascinating although I don't think we will ever get a flashback of them because it's not relevant to the current story... just wanted to know ur opinion on this.

Some UT x Claudia/Cloudia thoughts

Well, anon, it's an interesting take, and I agree with certain elements of it, but I have to disagree with the rest.

Some fans might simp over him so much they can't stand the thought of him canonically with anyone, and some might find the "I did it for love" motive to be too cliché and boring. But there are other reasons I've seen for why detractors or critics of the theory don't like it.

Many of them can't handle the idea that a reaper could or would mate with a human. I believe it's entirely possible within the Kuroverse; it's just forbidden. Well, when you are a reaper who has deserted your post, why would you care anymore about the rules? In fact, I think he could have his own motives for mating with humans... like giving his human offspring traits that are supposed to be reserved for reapers. Or even with the intention of decreasing the number of new reapers (if they are reborn to reaper couples, as I theorize). A relatively small chunk of the fandom doesn't want Undertaker to be Vincent's father... because they ship those two guys together. Though, finding out they are father and son might not entirely stop them. 😑

It's possible that a relationship between Undertaker and Claudia/Cloudia wouldn't be the healthiest thing for either of them... but I can totally see it being lovey dovey 🥰. Don't forget that well-written characters aren't so one-sided, and they are allowed to be -- for example -- manipulative and cruel and loving and generous, depending on the circumstances. Undertaker can be gentle and caring; he might have been even more so before she died. Grandma P might have been strong willed and possessing of an evil streak a mile wide, but she also might have fallen head over heels for the most attractive male character in the series, according to Yana-san herself. Don't forget that despite him being cruel and manipulative as queen's watchdog, Vincent does truly love his family -- something else Yana-san has previously said. Why wouldn't people like Undertaker and Claudia/Cloudia produce children like Vincent and Francis/Frances? They seem exactly like the sort of offspring I'd imagine from a pairing like that. They might have had children together for more than one reason, but I believe love is one of them. An act of rebellion might be another. 😏

I sure expect at least one flashback of them together, since it's totally relevant to what's going on. Remember when Sebastian asks our earl just how far back they have to follow the series of events to figure out which culprits to target for revenge? Well, I think our earl's problems largely started with that pairing. Or, more specifically, started with people who didn't appreciate that pairing. I think it's why she died when (and however) she did. I think it adds to the various reasons why the Phantomhives were attacked in 1885. Forget the fans who don't like the pairing; there must be someone in the story that doesn't like it, either. Like the queen... or John Brown....

When Sebastian asks Undertaker what his relationship to the Phantomhive family is, he says he'll leave it up to imagination. But, eventually, I expect him to explain it anyway. And that's when we'd likely get at least a panel or two of them together. We could even get several chapters of them together in a long flashback.

[welcometomypov]

I’d like to ask a question as a follow-up to a previous ask about Trump, if I may

You say that you, to paraphrase, if I’m understanding you correctly, have an obligation to make the world a better place, as outlined by Christ’s teachings, and that you feel that voting Republican, and for Trump by extension, is the best way to do that.

My question is, How do you reconcile your own Christian values with the things republicans do that are particularly UN-Christlike?

For example, I grew up Christian and Republican, but I always had a hard time with the Republican desire to lock down the border, neuter social programs, and enact stricter laws with harsher consequences, when these things seemed in direct conflict with what Jesus tells us to do: “For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me... Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me."

Big thoughts time! Mkay. (Linking ASK here for context.)

"How do you reconcile your own Christian values with the things republicans do that are particularly UN-Christlike?"

Hmhmhmhm, well, I just don't support the things that I don't like and make it very clear if I stand on an issue that's more liberal.

I used to think I was an Independent. Then I leaned more liberal for a hot minute, but I got on the internet and learned that having two or three Republican values was unacceptable for a liberal.

I wasn't seeing a lot of love. It was... Scary, for an anxiety child who was still finding herself to be in that peer-pressured environment.

So I turned Republican, learned more things that I like about their perspective, and have yet to change my mind.

Many of them have their flaws, but they've never *hated me for my opinions or bragged about their white male hate to my face. (Mostly a me issue as I am... Very protective of my brothers.)

If I don't like what the Republicans are doing, I don't support it. I tell my parents that I disagree and we argue about it. Then we move on and argue about it later because we're strong-willed. My parents don't hate me for disagreeing, but they want what's best for me and just believe that I'm doing something that's wrong and ergo bad for me.

They love me. And I love them. So we disagree.

Very few average Republicans will kick you out if you're a Pro-choice Republican or a Pro-trans Republican or you have two or three Liberal values mixed into your Republican beliefs.

So if I don't like what the Republicans are doing, I just don't support them and do my best to fight against them. It's my responsibility.

A paraphrased understanding that I have is...

A Republican leans towards the majority of Republican values and not the entirety of Republican values. If that makes sense?

So when someone says, "I'm a Republican but I don't like some of the things that they stand for/do", I go, "Chill, man, me neither."

I do approve of locking down the border.

Depends on which specific program, I think.

And I'm for this for *certain* cases.

Jesus was plenty strict. He did not pull his punches when it comes to how you should deal with giving into evil temptation.

"And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and cast it from you; for it is more profitable for you that one of your members perish, than for your whole body to be cast into hell."

Punishment is necessary for growth. But so is kindness and love.

They don't go hand in hand, but they're both necessary.

That's a lovely quote. It's one of the reasons my parents (at this very moment) have a homeless bag full of supplies in their van. Because we are always ready to help someone that is in need. We're always ready to make food for anyone who needs it. We're willing to forgive and forget those who hurt us, to love when we're hated, and to provide relief when someone is struggling, no matter who or why.

But we also know that housing someone who is not unable, but simply refuses, to work is not a way to help them. We know that giving money to someone who looks high is not reasonable.

We've spoken to legal immigrants who are furious that they escaped from rapists and murders and now Americans are freely letting them come into the country- ruining the safety and prosperity that they struggled so hard to find and secure for their families.

Everyone deserves a helping hand, but not everyone is ready to accept it. Or let us pull them to their feet.

Sometimes, they'll pull a knife when we reach out.

It's always smart to want to help. It's smarter to know when not to.

I really hope this makes sense! I reread it about three times because I wanted to make sure it wasn't offensive or attackish or anything. Let me know if anything sounds crude so I won't repeat a sentiment in the future! Thanks for the ask!

*To me, hating someone is the equivalent of wanting them dead

[andsheoverthinks]

Literature Review: The Essential Rationality of Male Violence and Violent Rhetoric: Why the Patriarchy Needs Andrew Tate -- New York Magazine Feature: Tate-Pilled

[Note: this post was drafted in March and does not include updates from the last two months. all emphasis is mine.]

You're living in your own world, where love is all synthetic [...] Yeah, poor little [boy]. Cries [his] eyes out, it's all part of the show. -- G-Eazy, Downtown Love [edited]

Tate-Pilled attempts to hone in on the evil that is Andrew Tate and his appeal to teenage boys. It's very comprehensive. However, I disagree with the premise that devotees of Tate are victimized by feminism and anti-racism and therefore cannot be blamed.

Tate-Pilled relies on a familiar litany in which boys, especially white boys, are constructed as infantile, vulnerable, and in need of validation and protection, lest they take violent and justified revenge when they reach manhood.

Likewise, Andrew Tate himself is constructed in a similarly sympathetic manner, despite the many descriptions of his callous, sadistic, and [allegedly] criminal behavior.

Miller [the author] suggests that Tate's 'barbarism' [her word, not mine] is simply a learned behavior and a rational, or at least, expected response to his experiences. Like the best and most sopping-wet pathetic little meow-meow of Tumblr's own beloved fictional male villains, Tate had a troubled childhood. His Black father was a paragon of the masculinity Tate portrays now -- gambling, drinking, womanizing, and left young Tate with his white mother, blaming her for the collapse of their family [It's a little Othello and Desdemona for my taste]. It's implied the combination of his parents' divorce and growing up poor soured him against all women, instilled in him both severe daddy issues, an adoration for toxic masculinity, and a ravenous hunger for wealth and fame.

As a poor kid in the council flats, Tate would see men driving Ferraris and become enraged that they seemed to be flaunting possessions he could not afford. Things would be different when he became “rich rich.” From Emory, the chess master, Tate seemed to have learned to see human existence as a battlefield with winners and losers, men and bitches, kings and “brokies.”

[Tate frequently alludes to metaphorical battles, and sigh, the 1999 film The Matrix, itself a metaphor for battle between truth and lies]

Tate is portrayed here not even as unstable and tragic, but as the rational outcome of a boy deprived of material wealth and his father. Whether intentional or not, Miller falls into a common pitfall to nearly all cultures -- a belief in the inevitability of male violence, one which almost always holds someone else responsible for a man's acts of violence, whether it's the system for not coddling him, women for not fucking him, or his parents for not teaching him to be a good man.

It wasn't always this way. The Ancient Greeks (misogynistic as they were, especially in Athens) valued small penises and sexual restraint as evidence of the essential rationality of men. Somewhere along the way, the cultural narrative has changed from 'men are always rational' to 'whatever men do is rational.'

In Miller's narrative, Tate's coming-of-age-story is paralleled, unsurprisingly, by that of his followers. However, these 21st century boys are not motivated by a broken home or a lack of material wealth, but instead and perhaps more insidiously, a system that is said to war against their very nature. These boys are facing feminism which has gone too far, anti-racism which has swung into reverse racism, and gay and gender-non-conforming men who stand to destroy all that is good and great about masculinity [shh, don't tell anyone tell them about Achilles and his *good friend* Patroclus].

In 2019, in an opposite corner of the internet, the YouTuber Natalie Wynn made a 30-minute video titled Men. Wynn is a transgender philosopher and commentator on gender politics, and she posted the video on her channel, ContraPoints, which has 1.65 million subscribers. In it, she lays out with surgical delicacy the ways she thinks feminists have failed to address what some now call “the masculinity crisis.” [...] But in Men, Wynn gently asks her progressive viewers to consider the possibility that men’s-rights activists’ concerns contain a nugget of truth: that the suffering of men is real, especially among those who were never high on any kind of ladder. Much feminist theory accounts for this, but many online feminists don’t. “Maybe the average man is also oppressed by the system the feminists call patriarchy,” Wynn says.

What the article neglects to mention is that Wynn is the child of a professor and a doctor, attended prestigious universities and started a PhD before becoming bored and dropping out. Wynn, firmly ensconced in the upper middle class, is very much part of the 'liberal elite.' Wynn has more in common with Elon Musk, fellow PhD dropout, than the average prole.

No one, feminists included, purports that no man has struggled ever, whether it's because of race, sexual orientation, disability, poverty, mental health, et cetera. However, no man suffers by virtue of being a man. Those who are 'never high on any kind of ladder' are not suffering by virtue of being men but for something else. For example, the suffering I experience by being a Black woman does not mean that I experience heterophobia because I happen to be straight and am suffering. I've suffered due to mental health, too, and also the general stresses of life, which escape no one. It's strange how we've all forgotten about the concept of intersectionality and instead try to pretend that women are hysterical and delusional, being the inherently irrational beings that we are and that, for example, white women having power over Black men in some instances means that patriarchy is as real as a dream on a dinner of bad cheese.

Andrew Tate isn't the first, and won't be the last, to seize on 'male suffering' as a rallying cry for violence. Suzanne Collins once described humans as “fickle, stupid beings with poor memories and a great gift for self-destruction,” and I fear she's right. Have we forgotten the translation of Mein Kampf (My Struggle)?

I rather dislike drawing parallels between disenfranchised groups lest it seem too much like a comparison, but I find the resemblances in the rhetoric eerie. Hitler's autobiography glorifies suffering, and how he claims it turned him into a genocidal anti-Semite (as well as xenophobic against the 'wrong kind' of white people). Mein Kampf is a tale of radicalization, of how Hitler claims he went from liberal to fascist.

One feels it again when one sees his photographs—and I recommend especially the photograph at the beginning of Hurst and Blackett’s edition, which shows Hitler in his early Brownshirt days. It is a pathetic, dog-like face, the face of a man suffering under intolerable wrongs. In a rather more manly way it reproduces the expression of innumerable pictures of Christ crucified, and there is little doubt that that is how Hitler sees himself. The initial, personal cause of his grievance against the universe can only be guessed at; but at any rate the grievance is here. He is the martyr, the victim, Prometheus chained to the rock, the self-sacrificing hero who fights single-handed against impossible odds. If he were killing a mouse he would know how to make it seem like a dragon. One feels, as with Napoleon, that he is fighting against destiny, that he can’t win, and yet that he somehow deserves to. 

-- George Orwell's review of Mein Kampf (1940)

Further, Mein Kampf also displays a sneering attitude to what present-day manosphere influencers would refer to as 'beta males' and soy boys.

Hitler, because in his own joyless mind he feels it with exceptional strength, knows that human beings don’t only want comfort, safety, short working-hours, hygiene, birth-control and, in general, common sense; they also, at least intermittently, want struggle and self-sacrifice, not to mention drums, flags and loyalty-parades. After a few years of slaughter and starvation ‘Greatest happiness of the greatest number’ is a good slogan, but at this moment ‘Better an end with horror than a horror without end’ is a winner. Now that we are fighting against the man who coined it, we ought not to underrate its emotional appeal.”

-- George Orwell's review of Mein Kampf (1940)

All this to say, I think Orwell was right and still is. Hitler didn't invent the glorification of a manhood of misery any more than Tate did. No wonder Tate and his ilk eschew soft fuzzy things like bubble baths, vegan diets, socialized healthcare, and makeup for men. The cultural script of the ideal man as a suffering, Christ-like warrior is incredibly pervasive, and that's partially why boys love Tate so much. He speaks a message that's subtly woven into our cultural cloth.

As Trumpers love to say when explaining their love for Trump, "He says out loud what we're all thinking but too afraid to say."

On a private jet, Tate taunts his brother, Tristan, for eating sushi. Eating “rice in a circle” will make men weak, Tate says, whereas his meal, fried chicken, makes men strong. “You know who eats sushi? Little fucking soy boys. Little fucking Democrats.”

I can't help but wonder if the distaste for protein sources that aren't meat amongst MRAs, specifically tofu and other soy-based products, is perhaps racist given that these are traditional foods in many Asian countries as well as the requisite anti-veganism (caring about the planet and cows is soft and fuzzy and therefore self-destructive).

The insistence that "boys don't cry" and "men are tough" isn't oppression. It's ensuring, and even grooming boys to grow into their roles as stoic oppressors. If we don't insist that they behave like they're meant to be on top of the food chain, they might decide they prefer a 'beta' life of veganism, cat-owning, and respecting women. The castration anxiety we manufacture in boys is the price they pay in order to benefit from patriarchy later on.

Tate’s saturation was so complete that he reached into the blue villages of New York City, where many boys in their bedrooms found his rude and ruthless evisceration of every sacred liberal value hilarious. Feminism, environmentalism, gluten intolerance, literature, Harry Styles, Lil Nas X — Tate assaulted all of these with pejoratives the boys themselves knew not to use. 

Despite her best efforts to be 'fair', Miller describes a Tate who is not appealing to a disenfranchised class, but to those who aspire to bully whatever and whomever is not sufficiently male and therefore subhuman. 'Repeal the 19th' (the amendment which gave women the right to vote in the U.S.) is not the rallying cry of a disenfranchised group, but those who wish others (women) would quietly go back to being disenfranchised.

He told the boys they were naturally programmed to want to acquire wealth and to compete to become what he calls “top-tier men” and that, as men, they were evolutionarily superior to women — more rational, better drivers, better leaders. Most of the fans knew better, but that was the funny part: They concede it gave them an illicit boost. ​If you’re a teenage boy and feeling misunderstood, “it’s helpful to hear I’m meant to be stronger than a lot of my peers, that I’m meant to be better, bigger,” says Jacob, a senior at a public high school in Brooklyn. “It’s appealing to think that you’re more rational than 50 percent of the population, just because.”

There's no secret, no trick to his appeal. Tate makes men and boys feel powerful, just for existing. His rhetoric proves a high that they can't get enough of, one that they begin to feel entitled to.

Furthermore, the peeks at Tate's rhetoric that Miller includes, the more one wonders -- how can anyone who didn't enter with a total callousness for women and girls find this funny? To anyone with the barest shred of empathy, Tate's comments are sickening and enraging. However, in greater society, female-directed violence (despite the adorable videos of little boys insisting that it's wrong to hit girls) is a joke, and every boy knows the punchline.

Men often say in half-hearted defense, I don't think Andrew Tate is that bad. He's a bit distasteful, he's a bit sexist, yeah, but I don't think he's that bad. I can see you're really concerned, but it's not such a big deal, yeah?

Christian [who is, admittedly, 12] regards the Tate panic as a misunderstanding: “He makes a lot of jokes, and people take him out of context.” He sees Tate as “a little misogynist but not much much.”

The context, of course, is a culture that accepts and rewards misogyny.

To many guys, Tate's that friend who gets a bit sexist, a bit callous, a bit rapey after a couple of drinks. To many guys, they'd never do that stuff their crazy friend does, but that's just him. Many guys see Tate as a spectacle, a character, the circus, pure camp, no different from a particularly wild episode of RuPaul's Drag Race or the 'Birds Aren't Real' guy.

He is a character, but he is also Tate, and in interviews, he claims that he’s joking and that he’s dead serious.

They don't think his behavior is a threat to anyone's safety. After all, his only victims are women, who aren't really that important.

I'm an irrational woman, you see, affronted because I don't believe in the inevitability of male violence. I, and every woman who is disgusted by Tate, has refused to get the memo. How would we understand the joke? How on earth would we get the punchline? Women aren't funny.

[The joke, for many, is not how ridiculous Tate looks in this still.]

The joke: women are objects, and you can own them. The joke: women are scum. The joke: women deserve abuse. Et cetera. Ad nauseam.

And when women get angry, when woman swear up a storm and curse and accuse Tate and the manosphere of spreading dangerous rhetoric and normalizing violence against us, we're irrational, because with the inevitability of male violence comes the inevitability of female complacency. Women are supposed to be happy to be abused, or, at least, neutral. To rail against misogyny is to break the paradigm, and what lies underneath isn't pretty.

Given the tribalism of teenagers, I can only imagine that whichever boy in the friend group displays an initial queasiness towards Tate is told to suck it up and join his friends in what they believe is a glorious journey into manhood, facilitated by leaving their mothers' arms and being transmuted by the transformational and ancient power of woman-hating.

The process of dehumanizing a group as a way to legitimize and justify cruelty against its individual members is not something that porn producers invented. It has been a tried and trusted method adopted by many oppressors [...] Once the humanness of these individuals is collectively rendered invisible by their membership in a socially denigrated group, then it is that much easier to commit acts of violence against them.

-- Gail Dines, Pornland

Tate world is a bit like Pornland. In Tate world, the story is that women deserve abuse for refusing anything men desire [submission]. He advises 'disciplining' women for perceived misbehavior in the same way that one might smack the TV in irritation when it's not working properly -- although one would likely have more care for a pricey flatscreen than Tate has for women. If a dog owner treated their dog the way Tate recommends treating women, we'd call it animal abuse.

And yet, his young watchers laugh.

Boys entered Tate world through his most arresting clips — including those that suggest a violent hatred of women. In one TikTok that circulated untold millions of times, he describes what he would do as a pimp if a woman accused him of cheating: “Slap slap grab choke shut up bitch sex,” he said. [...] He had compared women to dogs and children. He said he preferred to have sex with 18- and 19-year-olds because they’ve “been through less dick.” He even appeared to endorse sexual slavery, once insisting on the Dave Portnoy podcast that a woman in a relationship “belongs” to the man, “and the intimate parts of her body belong to him.” [...] “Women have to want to work for you. Women have to want to obey you,” he explained. Tate compares himself to someone who “uses sex as a weapon” and a “reward.” [...] Tate said he had no use for a challenging woman. “All men want robots!” he insisted. “There’s no such thing as too submissive.” He seemed to be laughing, and his hosts, off balance, laughed along. 

The distaste for a challenging woman and desire to punish her exorbitantly is unsurprising to anyone who's read Genesis, which tells the tale of a woman who failed to submit, a husband who obeyed his wife, and the destruction of Paradise. Misogyny is women's eternal punishment for disobedience. According to the Old Testament, men listened to us once, and it ruined everything.

And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee. And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it [...] -- Genesis 3:15-17, KJV

A warning to all would-be feminists, if you will. Even in the so-called secular West, we cannot escape this notion -- that woman-hating and women's perceived inferiority is divinely ordained. Tate is referred to as 'Top G[angster]', but his followers see him as no less than a god, sending down truths that match our worst cultural norms. Tate-ism is a religion.

[These two lines in the Quran are in fact directed towards Allah.]

What's even more telling about that last quote from Tate in the indent, is the wording. "He had no use." A woman who dissents, even once in a while, is decidedly not an object, and thus cannot be used.

'No' is an uncomfortable proposition, and despite his glorification of struggle, Tate wants his suffering to be exclusively self-inflicted.

Just like snow-struck damsel-in-distress Kai in that lovely, fuzzy fairytale The Snow Queen (who becomes a raging misanthrope until he's rescued by his female friend), Tate's cold heart knows no love, no empathy, no compassion, no kindness. A human woman is of little 'use' to him.

The only good woman is a yes-woman. The only way a woman can be rational is if she is parroting everything a man says. Tate's supposed 'girlfriend' Sofiya epitomizes this as the ultimate NLOG meets traditional femininity.

On her Twitter, Sofiya posts endless tweets expressing love, loyalty, and support for Andrew Tate and his brother and attempting to 'disprove' the claims of human trafficking, even as the daughter of a Romanian MP comes forward, along with the occasional anti-LGBTQ or anti-vax messages, along with a undercurrent of white supremacy (she's also anti-seed oils. I did not know that was a thing before now).

The appeal to teenage boys is obvious: wealth, fame, Bugattis, and a beautiful yes-woman who worships at his feet. In one of Sofiya's Tiktoks, the camera cuts between her staring adoringly up at Tate and Tate, expression obscured by his dark sunglasses utterly still and stoic. Sofiya is perfectly submissive towards him, just how Tate likes his women. The message is clear. Top G is demigod-prophet, and to be Tate-Pilled is to be one of his holy disciples. Time and time again, humans (especially men) are shown to be highly susceptible to magical, religious thinking. This is beyond mere-celebrity worship.

Sofiya's worship at the altar of Tate and performance of ideal womanhood has garnered her perhaps not respect but praise, validation, and effusive compliments from fellow Tate fans.

[ad nauseam]

Despite the overall negative responses of women and girls to Tate (As Miller says, "Girls hate Tate."), his followers have convinced themselves that despite making up a majority, dissenters don't matter by using the age-old smack-down to tell women they don't matter: 'You're ugly.' In this paradigm, beauty is seen as an indication of a woman's inner virtuousness -- here, her adherence to ideals such as submission.

Unsurprisingly, this isn't new or inventive.

[The ugly suffragette vs the beautiful and virtuous ideal woman.]

Ironically, the reason Sofiya (and a few other women) slavishly follows Tate is for the same reason men and boys do: for the endless gravy train of validation. Tate's boys are Not Like Other Boys (NLOB), not like the betas or the cucks or the simps or the white knights or the soyboys. By following 'Top G,' you, too, can become one of the chosen ones.

Many insist that becoming a devotee of Tate alleviates depression as is an excellent form of self-help. Despite this, Tate is not good for teenage boys, and the more self-aware ones know it.

When he was about 13, he spent 18 months down the alt-right rabbit hole before he pulled himself out. Jacob thinks Tate’s influence on young men is “horrible.” ...  “Hate begets hate begets hate,” Jacob tells me. ... It’s a kind of arrogance, or at least a misapprehension, to believe that you can take the good without the bad, two different boys told me. One put it this way: “They think they’re taking the valuable stuff and leaving the garbage. But I don’t think they’re successful. People are much more susceptible than they like to think they are.”

Even though Tater Tots believe that no one can tell what their current media consumption habits are, women and girls pick up on the shift in rhetoric often enough.

Besides Tate's chilling rhetoric, there are also his actions.

[...] A sex tape [...] shows Tate hitting a woman with a belt. In the tape, Tate, kneeling in bed fully clothed, demands that the woman say she loves him before he pounces on her and begins thrashing her. (The woman later made a video saying it had been “pure game” and they were still friends.) Seven years later, the real reason for Tate’s removal would come to light: At around the time of the Big Brother taping, one of the women he hired had charged him with rape and another with assault. [...] Two days later, Tate and Tristan were jailed in Romania. They purportedly lured women to that country, then persuaded or forced them to work for their OnlyFans operation, “transform[ing] them into slaves,” according to Romanian prosecutors’ documents viewed by Reuters. In these documents, a Moldovan woman accused Tate of raping her twice and an American woman said she had been kept in a house manned by armed guards, her movements tracked by video cameras. (In addition to the accusations of human trafficking, organized crime, and rape, Romanian authorities said they are investigating the Tates for money laundering.

-

I've come across a few male social media influencers who promote a kind of 'third way' dudespace that's less reliant on the misogynistic cliches. The Good Men Project comes to mind.

Guys today are neither the mindless, sex-obsessed buffoons nor the stoic automatons our culture so often makes them out to be. Our community is smart, compassionate, curious, and open-minded; they strive to be good fathers and husbands, citizens and friends, to lead by example at home and in the workplace, and to understand their role in a changing world. -- The Good Men Project About Page

Despite this, I've never heard of groups of teenage boys going for these types of blogs or influencers. Is it because of the unfamiliarity of the rhetoric? There seems to be a consensus that masculinity without violence is somehow neuter.

Yet, there remains a pervasive 'counterargument' that boys only become swept up in the manosphere because of a lack of good male role models.

[Jimmy Gomez (D-CA)'s Dads Caucus, 2023]

Many would protest that Jimmy Gomez is too beta (soft, fuzzy, socialist) and not very masculine (warrior, struggle, suffering) in this picture to be someone for young boys to look up to -- despite sitting in the U.S. House of Representatives, a position of immense power in the grand scheme of things. The problem isn't a lack of male role models who aren't foaming at the mouth with dangerous and violent rhetoric, it's the belief that the death of unnecessary struggle and violence is the death of men. For men to be men it is essential to patriarchy that they possess at least the threat of violence.

If a single generation of men collectively decided women are rational people who deserve empathy, misogyny is depraved, and struggle and suffering are nothing to strive for, there might be an end in sight. That's why patriarchy needs men like Tate.

[bisexualgenderfemme]

this is hilariously and embarrassingly incorrect. trans ppl have been a major focus of the political lesbian & TRANS EXCLUSIONARY (literally right there in the name 🤦) radical feminist split since it's inception & to say otherwise is erasing our history.

all of your "proofs" seem to be modern screenshots from tumblr & the like. not academic works (from terfs OR trans feminists) of the time that I'm discussing.

honestly I don't think you fully read or processed most of these proofs, & if you did I genuinely disagree with your media literacy on the majority of them.

a good fourth of these screenshots don't mention men at all but instead literally just sexism someone is responding to. for instance:

screenshot two has nothing to do with hating men. pushing back on misogyny can be done with weird tone.

screenshot 4 is also just discussing how misogyny works, again the use of "male" is strange but some ppl r on baby blocks level discuss sexism.

same with sc 7. & sc 11 (why do you wanna throw down for literal KNOWN ABUSER Liam Payne so much?) & sc 20 & 21. (what sorry. you think any of the 70+ men who helped assault or did assault a woman sleep rough ANY night about it. or did before they were caught? why do you want to stick up for actual literal abusers & assaulters so bad? genuinely? like sure. everyone is capable of change abstractly but NONE of these ppl discussed in these sc I've just listed have shown they are that.)

I'm not even sure all those ones even are terfs? do you have proof they are or is anyone mentioning men or discussing misogyny just a terf to you? if so you have both bad opinions & a bad grasp on the situation.

sc 3 is asking that someone who assaulted someone gets more time. moid is a word they use for feminine men / trans women who don't pass. this is either regular assault accountability and or thinly veiled transmisoginy.

screenshot 14 is actually biphobia, not being anti men.

ANY SCREENSHOT THAT REFERENCES TIF OR "TROONS" IS ABOUT TRANS PPL SPECIFICALLY. THIS PROVES MY POINT ABOUT IT BEING ABOUT BEING TRANS. not about (cis) men. cis men hate is incidental & used sparingly, hate is focused on the trans. even when they criticize cis men, it opens to include trans people.

those other screenshots ARE horrible, but they are like what, less than half of your examples of examples already cherry picked from an incredibly modern perspective on single modern website. they are to be criticized but I don't really more than maybe one or two of them are specifically ab cis men in a way that can be removed from also trans people & at that point. a focus of the movement does not it make, & instead you're just seeing the breadth of human individuality in a movement.

terfism as an ideology is rooted IN THE PATRIARCHY it is a fascist movement that discourages the disillusionment of the sex & gender binary because the sanctity of "womanhood" (& thus also manhood) must be preserved & until we acknowledge that as the FOUNDATION & focus of the movement terfism will always be there to paint trans women as evil monsters, pre transition trans mascs as innocent little babies, and post transition trans men as third gendered destroyed lost causes.

genuinely & seriously think if you rly believe terfs/transphobes only hate trans women "because they think they're men" & not /because they are trans women/ then you do not spend enough time around trans women. terfs do not treat men the way they treat trans women. many terfs are pro cis men over trans women. many terfs platform cis men to put down trans women. If you think this is at odds with terfs misgendering & degendering trans women & trans people as a whole then you are not thinking large enough or critically enough. this doesn't mean an equal opposite where somehow terfs love trans men as men. because oppression isn't an equal opposite! the gender/sex class system isn't equal! it's not clean!

[girlboss-enthusiast]

So. I do not consider myself a radfem, TERF, or even gender critical. However, I have found myself reading more and more posts from radfem accounts and I'm kinda scared to say that they're starting to make more and more sense. I still support trans people, and most of the ones i've met are genuinely nice people that I wish all the best. However. I just dont buy into everything thats being said about including trans women who have not fully transitioned (aka no top/bottom surgery, hormones, etc) into women's bathrooms. I also feel ( no matter how hard I try to deny it) uncomfortable at the thought of letting trans women into lesbian bars, because its unfair of women to show forced attraction to literally the thing they came out as not being attracted to? Does that even make sense? Im confused, and worried, because most of my friends are very liberal an dsome are even trans/non binary/genderfluid, etc. and as much as I love all of them, Im starting to see things that they say or do that just dint make sense and seem suprisingly like something the media has brainwashed them into believeing and parroting. Idk what Im looking for- clarification? Reassurance? A horrible response so I can go back to hating/being against "TERFS"? Sorry for the long ask.

Hi anon! You totally make sense. I think a lot of us now-radfems had very similar experiences. I know I did. I'm no feminist scholar, but I do like to babble talk, so I'm going to give you my perspective on your points, then some resources that might help you sort things out. Though I am not going to touch on philosophical topics like postmodernism because frankly, I'm still trying to understand the details myself. First off, I know trans people whom I like very much. I used to ID as nonbinary and I still have friends from that time period who are pro-gender ideology. I don't think that individual trans people are evil, want to cause harm, or are intrinsically bad people. Personally, I approach the groups of trans people and Trans Rights Activists differently; the former are regular people who are doing their best to survive, like most of us. The latter are the ones pushing gender ideology into the public view and causing harm. There is considerable overlap, but this Venn diagram is not a perfect circle, so I'm being super-specific for clarity's sake. That said, some radfems genuinely do hate all trans people. I disagree with this, as you can see*. I take what I semi-jokingly call the JKR stance on trans people: many of them are good people. All of them deserve absolutely every human right that anyone else does, including respect, protection from violence, and medical care.

But there's a phrase that goes something like "Your rights end where they encroach on mine." That is my problem with gender ideology and the trans rights movement. Because proponents of gender ideology and trans rights are genuinely encroaching on women's rights. They are passing legislation to change the definitions of gender to be based on feelings and not on any material facts, suppressing not just the needs but the very existence of biological women.

Your mentions of lesbian bars and women's bathrooms are perfect examples—the eradication of female-only spaces in favor of ones inclusive of trans women (males). Women are being de-centered from womanhood—not just in feminism, or even in pop culture, but in the experience of being female and having female-specific needs.

So, why is this problematic? (PS: I don't know how much radical feminist theory you've read, so apologies if you're already familiar with these concepts.)

Female socialization begins at birth (or even before) and consists mainly of the stereotypes of femininity being enforced on us. This socialization is part of what creates the divide between the oppressed and the oppressor. This is true regardless of when a person transitions; they could be ten years old and still will have lived 10 years being treated as their biological sex. This is just true, regardless of what anyone says. There are countless studies on the topic, which I can link you if you want, and of course, our own lived experiences—females are treated differently (worse) than males, and it starts before girls can even consciously realize it.

So, females want our own spaces because we have different needs, for physical and social reasons, and those are being taken away. This isn't ~TERF hysteria~ but objectively true; males want into our space and society is being convinced to let them have it. In fact, I would argue that trans-identified males (trans women) are appropriating oppression for claiming discrimination when females assert boundaries for their female-only spaces. It is fundamentally unfair to expect women to drop their boundaries to be inclusive of males.

(oh god I wrote literal paragraphs on other material consequences of gender ideology...not posting them now but can share if you're interested)

You also mention that you've noticed your friends parroting ideas that don't make sense to you. You aren't imagining that or making things up. The words "groupthink" and "thoughtcrimes" get thrown around a lot, but I really do believe there is a massive suppression of critical thinking or even asking good-faith questions about gender ideology going on—you are socially punished for questioning it, and sometimes legally punished. So, many of your friends may be supporting TRAs out of fear. Some might feel powerful because of it and be happy where they are. Some might buy into gender ideology because it's easier than thinking critically about these concepts—I was like that for a long time. Gender ideology gave me nice, pat rationalizations about my own feelings, cushioned me from acknowledging the reality of misogyny, and provided a friend group based on the queer community. But it is fundamentally not true, and I decided I care more about truth than my own emotional comfort.

(That said, it did take me years to come to this conclusion, so I empathize very much with women who also take time.)

So what I'm trying to say here is that your concerns are valid. I encourage you very much to do your own research and form your own opinions on the topic of gender. Contrary to what some TRAs say, reading or watching radfem content is not going to brainwash you. For all I know, you'll think, "wow, this is bullshit." (I suspect not, but you never know.)

Regardless, learning about radical feminism will inform you, and you can take what you've learned and decide what to do with it. Please remember that you are a smart woman who doesn't need to adhere to the gospel of any community because they say so.

(And for what it's worth, I've found radical feminist communities to be much more open to differing opinions and debate than queer communities ever were.)

Here are some resources:

Material Girls: Why Reality Matters for Feminism - Kathleen Stock (I adore this book. She has a very measured take on the topic and concentrates on the impacts of gender ideology as a whole rather than on individual cases.)

JKR's infamous essay, if you haven't read it

Detransition: Beyond Before and After - Max Robinson (A tentative rec because I only just started reading it, but it's an account of a woman who underwent transition due to dysphoria, then detransitioned as she discovered radical feminism. Short summary of a complex book, but it might be worth reading.)

Good luck, anon! Please feel free to DM me or send me another ask if you'd like. I 1000% will never out anyone who contacts me.

NB: Can any of my followers contribue video resources anon might find helpful?

*I want to acknowledge that as a 30-something bi woman in a long-term het relationship who doesn't do much social media (or even interact with many people IRL), I haven't been exposed to the bigotry, hate, and occasional physical violence that, for example, an early-20s lesbian might have. I'm sympathetic to women who've experienced this and understand their anger.

[shieldofrohan]

I don't think GRRM explores the flaws in Arya's characterisation rather he explores how the world is unfair to her. Whenever I read Jon, Sansa, Dany , Robb and Bran, I feel they behave as their age requires them to be. They show capabilities yet are not exempted from bad choices which a character at their age can easily commit. With Arya, sometimes it feels like I am not reading a 11 year old kid but a grown up 25 year old woman who never messes up things or has any characterisation flaws which are not inherent within like the other child characters but those failings are primarily influenced by the society.

Hello Anon,

I have to agree and disagree with you.

I agree with that Martin writes Jon, Sansa and Dany better- MUCH BETTER.

I am obviously not a Daenerys fan but I enjoyed her character more than I did with Arya. I said it many times but I am going to say it again: Daenerys is the best written character in the series. She is much more interesting villain than man-pain Tyrion [looking at you Martin.. really, Tyrion?].

Objectively I find her character well written and interesting. But my problem with her is that her cult like fans who completely ignore her true position and characterization in the books. Hopefully in the future people will enjoy Dany character for the right reasons.

I felt like I need to explain my thoughts about Dany first to show my problems with the way of Arya was written by the author.

Arya is the WORST written main character. TRULY. Everything about her is so FAKE/FORCED/CLICHE/UNREALISTIC…

Author says that Arya is the underdog/outcast of the family. Does the writing show this?

NO!

She is literally her father's favorite child. We see Ned constantly favoring her, letting her do what she likes, he never scolds her, he makes time to talk with her about her traumas like losing a friend, he fcking finds a Water Dancer for her [but not a harp teacher for Sansa]. I have a great dad but jeez, even he never showed me this kind of devotion.

Catelyn seems like she knows her daughter well… we don’t see her abusing or ignoring her. She even acknowledges her struggles.

Her siblings love her. Even Sansa tries to keep include her into her own circle to enjoy things together, she covers for her against Septa Mordane.

As we can see, she seems doing fine as a tomboy girl in the family of 5 men/boys and 2 women/girls.

BUT SHE COULDN’T SEW SO SHE WAS BEING ABUSED.

Really? Wow she must be the only special snowflake who wasn’t good at sewing. I am sure rest of the girls in North were all experts. Arya is the only one who lacks some skill people and it made her super sad.

Fans tried to paint this as some "omg anti-feminism/sexism in society" thing and it feels absurd because Arya was bad at history and heraldy too..

A tomboy is not good at some female-coded skill is so fcking cliche for character building and I am not buying it. And this is BAD/LAZY WRITING.

Did Martin try to make her look like an underdog with this??

Well Sansa is not good at math? I am sure she had bad days because of this too but we didn’t read it. If you ask me Sansa (girly girl) being bad at math (male-coded subject) was more sexist than sewing and Arya thing [considering Sansa was good at music and playing instruments which require math but whatever.]

Arya is an outcast because she is not like other girls… WOW, it has never been written before, how did George come up with this idea? Meanwhile we have girls like Mormont girls so obviously she is not the only "NOT LIKE OTHER GIRLS MARY SUE".

Evil Mordane bullied poor Arya. Mordane is totally not good for her BUT Arya literally never listens HER TEACHER. I am not talking about her lack of skill in sewing. Arya simply NEVER listens anyone. She disobeys her septa, she declines QUEEN’s invitations rudely, she talks sh*t about CROWN PRINCE while princess is next to them.

Girly lessons like sewing weren’t the only lessons she was not into it…

Sansa would have known who he was, and the fat one too, but Arya had never taken much interest in titles and sigils. Whenever Septa Mordane had gone on about the history of this house and that house, she was inclined to drift and dream and wonder when the lesson would be done.

[ACOK; Arya VII]

She simply never cares about any lessons and she simply refuses to learn basic DECORUM. Yeah I am sorry that she had to learn things she didn’t want to but welcome to real world.

MY POINT IS: all these are so weak points to make her look like an outcast/underdog.

Don’t even let me start with Jeyne Poole calling her HORSERACE nonsense. I said it before so I repeat it: This feels so forced in the story considering Arya is the daughter of Warden of the North and Jeyne is some simple daughter of a simple man who works for Starks.

This is what author himself says about class system:

Q: What was the hardest thing in writing about such an alien world?

GRRM: The vast majority of fantasy is middle agey time wise, and he himself finds the period fascinating; glad to adopt it for novel writing - likes knights and castles and such. He objects to bad fantasy practice which adopts a time setting without accepting the culture - imposing 20th century values like the cheeky stableboy telling off the princess (in reality cheeky stableboy would lose his tongue - look what happend to Mycah); the class system was not just and ornament and these people truly belived in blood, and the rank and priviledge that came with "good" blood. [2006]

But Jeyne somehow had no fear when she was “bullying” a princess. Does this make sense to you or does it feel forced to make Arya look like a victim. And this bad writing keeps repeating itself while author writes Arya and when you realize this pattern you can’t unsee it and it ruins the books a little.

I wrote all these to explain what is ACTUALLY wrong with Arya as a character. I don’t blame Arya for the bad writing, I blame the author.

And I disagree with you a little when you said: "With Arya, sometimes it feels like I am not reading a 11 year old kid but a grown up 25 year old woman who never messes up things or has any characterisation flaws which are not inherent within like the other child characters but those failings are primarily influenced by the society.”

[I explained the her failings in society’s eyes part already.. that thing is a cliche and unrealistic writing]

I don’t agree with that reading Arya feels like reading an older woman. No it feels like reading a VERY UNREALISTIC AND DISTURBING CHILD. She totally makes mistakes:

Talking bad about prince in a room full of people, declining Queen’s invitations, not listening her septa and Sansa, making prince angry, hiding for 4 days while she should have gone to her father to deal with the mess so maybe Mycah and Lady wouldn’t be dead, attacking her sister, killing a stableboy, killing many other people, joining a assassin cult, killing a Black brother because she thinks she has the right etc..

She makes mistakes but we didn’t see her face any consequences. Will we see her face them?? When it comes to Arya I don’t trust GRRM. GRRM covers for her all the time. GRRM = Ned Stark. He favors her. I mean look at this:

Sansa saves Dontos who later molests her and he works for Baeslish who also molests her.

Arya saves Jaqen H’ghar and he turns out to be a Faceless Man who kills THREE people for her.

Sandor sexually assaults Sansa but not Arya [I am not saying he should!! But why is it always Sansa? Does the author punish Sansa for her beauty… ANSWER IS YES because I am done!]

Sansa trusts Joffrey and Cersei ends up the most hated character in the books [even author says she had a part in her father’s death and he is ok with fans hating her]

Meanwhile Arya’s spider senses tell her to not trust Roose Bolton or anyone etc.

Arya runs into people like Yoren or Harwin meanwhile Sansa… you got it.

Basically this is a simple case of author favoring a character and it happens in all books.

The only thing that indicates author knows she is not perfect is that him calling her a “psycho” or not disagreeing when fans call her a psycho [I know I usually make fun of this but actually this is not some good take about a child character especially if you say Starks- including Arya- are the heroes]

In conclusion: I think she is written terribly, she is the weakest part in the story and character building. I simply hate the way author deals with her character. I think she is not interesting. She turned out to be a very dark and disturbing child character and I have no idea what is GRRM trying to tell with her.

Thanks for the ask. Have a nice day.

[nitannichionne]

The Captain's Secret (Chris Evans Captain America Fanfiction) Chapter 28: Man on Fire

THOR POV

"Thor, he is a man possessed."

I looked at Hogun, away from the practice arena where it seemed my men were being taught a lesson by the Captain. "He is readying for battle."

"No," Hogun disagreed. "Can you tell us more about this Lesedi? He fights as a man would for his child or for his woman."

"Has he injured anyone?" I asked.

"Bruises, sprains, nothing of consequence, he has been careful," Hogun reported. "But there is a fire within him. I thought you said this man was calm."

"He..." I trailed off, not sure what to say. "There is much to consider. Lesedi was raised by a very honorable man, who entrusted Captain Steve Rogers with her life upon his death. This man was murdered by Loki. That is a lot to face."

Just then Fandral joined us. "He's not letting up, not even with Volstagg." We looked on as Volstagg and Captain America sparred. "This is a Midgardian?"

"He is rare among them," I explained.

"So is this Tony Stark," Fandral nodded. "I sense we are similar, but he has a keen focus and understanding I envy when it comes to the sciences. He said he is 'tweaking things.' What does that mean?"

"He is improving and changing what he has," I explained. "And if our people are smart, they will learn what they can from him. He is always learning."

"What will we do about him?" Hogun cocked his head toward the practice arena, where the Captain moved, pivoted, flipped and fought tirelessly.

I have seen Captain America-Steve Rogers-fight before. He has been in the thick of battle by my side. I have seen him make hard choices and not flinch, making sacrifices. I have seen him injured and fight with a determination earning song in the halls of Asgard, and in Valhalla. Even the stories before I met him were worthy of that.

But he is a man possessed now. I was concerned as I watched him practice with the palace guards. I've never seen him faster. I've never seen him so methodical and yet somewhat ruthless. He was even holding his own with my circle and after he had defeated the majority of our men. Sif was fighting him, and starting to lose. He didn't want to fight her; he wasn't used to fighting women. Maybe this was a chance to get him to stop.

"Captain!" I called.

He turned, blocking Sif's attack blindly and catching his breath, also giving the men a break. Groans of gratitude sounded from them.  Sif looked angry, though she needed one, too. He looked a bit annoyed at the interruption.

"You must eat and rest," I said. "Tomorrow is the day."

"I'm fine!" He turned back to the group he was sparring against. Sif went into guard stance.

I came down to the arena. "It is very important that you eat and rest."

"It is very important I am ready to face anything!"

I looked in his eyes. I'd never seen fear before, not in this man's eyes, but I saw it now. The only sounds that could be heard were hard breathing of all that had been sparring. "Dismissed."

Sif's eyes flared wide. I knew that look. It was the Why? I can take him! look.

I shook my head. "Thank you." One nod, and that was all; I had issued the order to go. All left the practice arena. I watched the Captain turn on his heel to leave. "Steve?"

He stopped, and straightened. He took a deep breath and turned.

"You do need food and rest--"

He sucked in a breath, as if for patience. "If it was Jane Foster," he exhaled, tightening his jaw. "Would you?"

I was taken aback by that line of questioning. All knew that Jane was a sensitive subject. "I understand." I paused, checking my own emotions. I had not seen her in some time, and I missed her so much, even though Heimdall was helpful in keeping track of her. "But you must be at your best tomorrow." I took a deep breath. "Please join us. It would be seen as rude to not attend the meal."

Captain America closed his eyes for a couple of seconds. "Fine." He left the arena.

I took a deep breath. I had to get Tony now. I was hoping it would be easier. I was about to leave the arena when I saw him in the corridor leading to the great hall.

"How's he doing?" Tony asked.

I shook my head. "He's alright, but then he's..."

"Not?" Tony finished. "Surprise, surprise." He fell in step next to me as we headed to the great hall.

I gave him a warning look. "He will be alright."

"He needs to admit he is feeling more than brotherly concern for her."

"That time may come, it will." I told him. "How are you?"

"Just learning as much as I can, trying to tweak everything. Asgard may be of great help to Midgard in the future--"

"We don't interfere--"

"Riiiiight," Tony smiled. "By the way, how's Jane doing?"

I grabbed him by the front of his shirt, but he didn't flinch.

"Listen, we are warriors and there is real evil out there. As warriors, we protect our women first, but we do want to protect their world, don't we? Don't we?" His eyes never wavered on mine. I released him. "I, for one, am going to be ready. You can sit here on your perch if you want to, but you know what's bad about that?"

"What?" I loosened my grip on his shirt, but still held it.

"If you barely look around, and you never look up, you've developed your own blind side." Tony bit out. "Midgard may not be Asgard, but at least we are on some kind of guard, and when I get back, I'm going to increase it tenfold, hundredfold if I can. You need to think about that. We all need to." Tony pulled free and headed off to the great hall.

I stood there, watching him. He had a point, a few of them actually. But one thing at a time. Right now, we had to get Lesedi back, and then I would try to see Jane, if only briefly. Heimdall told me that she was changing her travel plans from the Arctic. She wasn't going home to the Americas. I wondered if she figured out that I arranged to have her out of harm's way during the Battle of Midgard Manhattan. I will try to find out why as soon as I take care of matters at hand.

The thing I wouldn't and couldn't tell Steve was that Heimdall saw Lesedi locked away with males circling her. One of authority seemed to be keeping them at bay.

We had to hurry.

@nuggsmum @messyinsomnimaniac @jencanbeyouryengeralt @sweetdreamsofgelato @@mary-ann84 @omgkatinka @the-soot-sprite @viking-raider @keanureevesisbae @henryobsessed @summersong69 @sunshine96love @michelehansel @thelastsock @tumblnewby @tenaciousneckpartypainter @rn7rocks @daydreamin83 @musicartmayheminmyheart @kaatelyynn-blog-blog@forallthebrokenheartedthings @alphacancrii @liquorlaughslove @designerwriterchic @tamychm @nikkilynn303 @circesgirl1 @xoxohannahlee @pixie88@fckdeusername @maan24 @kaatelyyynn​ @october505​ @absentmindr​ @introvertedmouse​ @sassy-pelican @griscka75 @kebabgirl67 @its-carlerr