#critical sociology

[communistconsumerist]

Loving Lingerie! | How SKIMS Reiterates Consumable Conceptions of Phallic Love  

How scandalously sweet! Libido gets a helping of edible candy in SKIMS’ newest Valentine’s Day collection! The model—Lana Del Rey, the epitome of female submissive sexuality within the music industry—morphs into a cherub. Arrows pierce her embroidered breasts as they embellish her skin with wisps of white, adorning her frame where husbands would like to touch their wives. The Blue Velvet singer almost looks edible, lying in a pastel blue heart-shaped box, indeed wearing blue velvet—or, as SKIMS likes to market it, a 'Velvet Lace Teddy in Periwinkle'. 

What the scandalously styled singer and the CEO of SKIMS, Kim Kardashian, have crafted together ever-so carefully is a dulcet dream. In this dream, even when the cherub’s body is covered up, silk and lace hang onto the "female" body in a Kafkaesque manner, painting the portrait of a "woman" that only exists within the constructed confines of a draped frame. This image sags like a worn knicker, and it is painfully obvious that it is trying to prevent the sagging of the opposite—a worn phallus. The veil Del Rey wears only works as a reminder of what SKIMS is trying to sell—a woman’s expression of (bodily) Love. 

God has long disappeared to pass demur onto the phallus that lay opposite of this periwinkle phantasy, seeing that nowadays it is through secularity that sexuality can slip within the sphere of immaterial labor. Del Rey’s erotic capital shows no dissension to this notion. The singer’s “creative choices” and career based crusades have cleverly worked as a set of intangible skills and competence her discography helps to vindicate. They have landed her the most prestigious position there is for a "woman" when February’s cold has to be soothed with a perfervid calefaction of paucity—marketing lingerie on the day of Love. 

Understanding Del Rey's cultural coding in relation to her role in this ad campaign is vital, if one takes into account how eroticism has snowballed within the musician's lyricism ever since the release of her first album. The singer is famed for having “questioned the culture” that deems the sexuality she lays bare to be a romanticization of abuse. Yet while sex is no longer sacrilegious and ‘naturally’ infertile, her performance of eroticism blends all too well with body-smothering Valentine’s campaigns that blossom when the season of Love is nearing. As the likes of Eva Illouz would put it: objectification, during its course, provides a sense of empowerment and subjectivity. It enables a generation of economic value from the body—a self-objectification that ultimately reduces women’s voluntary participation in this “lingerie-ed self-loving” to a false consciousness that fails to account for the mechanisms of valuation contained in the marketed cloth. In this cloth—much like that of SKIMS’—all that is organic lies in the meshwork that cups the mammary gland of the woman. This organ is no longer productive for a child but is instead commodified by men. 

Or pornified. Patriarchically extirpated. Made phallic in its conception. 

Even though the aforementioned culture-questioner has spoken up about her “sometimes submissive or passive roles detailing my [Del Rey’s] sometimes submissive or passive roles in my [Del Rey’s] relationships," it has become hard to argue in favor of her dismissal for “setting back women a hundred of years." She is such a “right” fit for this Valentine’s campaign, after all!  

Yes, it might be that Del Rey has not draped her chest in the collection's heart-shaped candies—comestible as they come, confining the tit within a triangular frame, its strands of sweets functioning as a net. Neither has she worn its minimum-coverage throng and bralette—trimmed within its creases, embellished with heart-shaped rhinestones, making sure the teats and cucci spill out. Instead, what commodifies Del Rey’s selfhood is how the perfectly-placed cuts of her photographed bodysuits pass as an evaluation of Love, conducted on the basis of visual appearance. Here, the fashioned body—a commodity—is situated in a market of similar and competing commodities. 

It is no surprise then, consumeration finds that it proliferates best through heart-shaped cut-outs in Frolov’s Love-themed FW23 collection as well. As silk shimmies and swirls around the models' exposed stomachs and loins, stripteases unfold over their cloaked bodies, almost as if they are asking their audience to play-act the revelations of groins. It just so happens to be a coincidence that the hearts’ spikes—signifying Love—point towards the wearers’ reproductive organs! Likewise, Mirror Palais’ campaign for the 14th—dubbed ‘Forever Yours’—makes sure to accentuate the chest (again) with embroidered ribbon-ery. This ribbon-ery belabores bareness through material, ignores the wearer, and braids the camera’s lens to drop to the point where the elongation of a woman’s physique is eroticized.  

Whether through a bird’s-eye view or a worm’s—Mirror Palais makes it clear that on Valentine’s Day, a woman’s personhood should be traded for consumable erotica! 

SKIMS and the aforementioned brands have something in common, then—something Lana Del Rey does best. They sell submission as value, as erotic capital, in a Love market that generates uncertain returns. Lana del Rey is a victim, however. It is men who have dominated this visual-sexual industry, after all. Their eyes are embedded within every mediated depiction of what womanhood should be—whether we speak of her eternal devotion (fashioned through lace and veils) or her professions of love (fashioned through opportune bareness and whites). Their notions of docility and dominion are veiled within a marketed materialization of a body that asserts its independence through having its necessary product catered to be “for the woman”—not for the phallic gaze. What is campaigned as an “act of love” is a scandalously sweet scam. One promulgated to be made by choice—hence the use of ‘for her’ in all the campaigning.

Or ‘forever yours’ as labeling. 

SKIMS’ campaign ultimately presents a careful construction of this submissive sexuality, where cuts are placed neatly in one’s clothing to evoke a dynamicity that will appeal as striptease to a customer’s partner (akin to the male gaze). Lana Del Rey’s cultivated image of a compliant lover only exemplifies this—as well as the blue box of “chocolate” she looks so edible in. It is as if the brand is not even trying to hide that on Valentine’s Day—when skimpy bodices eat the flesh of the female and wrap it in craft paper, ever-so cute and cloying—the carnivorous phallic-phantasies that are being created through “leaflet and flyer” are culturally passable. It all shows that when push comes to shove—sex commodified, is Love sold. 

◆

Works referenced:

Illouz, E. (2021). The end of love: A Sociology of Negative Relations. John Wiley & Sons.

Lana Del Rey – Question for the culture. (2020). Genius. https://genius.com/Lana-del-rey-question-for-the-culture-annotated

◆

Related reviews:

previous | next

[floralfantasy]

Chizuko Ueno's feminism poses a challenge to nationalism and the many myths it tells in order to discredit feminism and women's movements.

Cite as

Ueno, C., (1997). In the Feminine Guise: A Trap of Reverse Orientalism. US-Japan Women's Journal. English Supplement, pp.3-25.

Follow us on Twitter @AACritPsy

[aretheygayvideos]

Hannah Montana’s Guide to Life Under Capitalism

Haven’t posted in a while but made a new video :)

[ittybittyremy]

I really hate the use of the word "hypocrite" in the CR fandom because it doesn't let people appreciate the nuances of the characters/situations. This is not to say that the characters don't have their hypocritical moments. I just think there are people who slap the word on a character and call it a day, not even bothering to try to understand it.

I have more to say but TLDR: Hypocrisy is a fact but it feels like an insult because it implies that there is no reason that the contrast of ideas exists.

You won't like to hear this but everybody (including you) is/will be a hypocrite at some point. There are many cases of this, some more severe than others.

As a small example, I hate the sound of other people clicking their pens repeatedly but I click my pen repeatedly all the time. Is that hypocritical? Yes! You could slap that label call it that and call it a day and it wouldn't be technically wrong. However, you could also figure out why these contrasts exist. In my case, my thing with noises has to do with control. I don't mind my pen clicking because I can choose the tempo and decide when to stop it. But others make that exact same noise, I can't control it and I don't know when it'll stop.

Hypocrisy is a fact but it feels like an insult because it implies that there is no reason that the contrast of ideas exists.

This is not meant to say that all hypocrisy makes sense or has reason. Reasonless hypocrisy is one of the foundations of prejudice/discrimination but that's a whole other conversation.

There will also be reasons of hypocrisies existing that you disagree with. However, just because you disagree with the reason doesn't mean that the reason does not exist.

Back to Critical Role

I made this post because of people's reactions to Ashton regarding their views on the gods versus the primordials. During the CR Cooldown, the cast calls Asthon out for their hypocrisy of their views on the gods versus the titans. This is what Taliesin says about it:

"It's the difference between the feeling of being small in front of someone rather than being small in front of everything. Is really what happened, which is instead of having the smallness and raging at the big person, it was 'I'm in the middle of this.' [Asthon] didn't feel separated from it... It was more feeling the place in the cosmos, rather than actual people going 'oh it's you' and you're like 'fuck'."

Of course, you can understand Ashton’s hypocrisy and disagree with the reasoning. That's fine, as long as you see their reasons and acknowledge that they exist. It may not make sense to you but it makes sense to the character.

[overleftdown]

farleigh start and racism; oh boy.

(some people are going to find this post really annoying. some people are like felix catton.)

read this.

just some thoughts from the perspective of a person of color who is slightly too obsessed with this character. this movie leaves the viewer a lot of wiggle room to interpret how dynamics such as race and privilege come into play. there are certain parallels between this movie and the real world, and how unnoticeable white privilege tends to be for white people.

lemme lay some groundwork. from what i understand, the most prevalent form of racism and white privilege within upper- and middle-class circles is implicit bias. this is racist conceptualization that subconsciously interacts with one's perception of society and people. implicit bias is often externalized through microaggressions, differences in treatment and language towards a marginalized person, misplaced guilt or pity, and persistent denial of any existing privilege or marginalization. most of these biases are also founded on stereotypes. some racial stereotypes are heightening (e.g. asians are all smart) and some are lowering (e.g. black people are all lazy). all stereotypes are harmful. i'm going to discuss some of the stereotypes that could theoretically interact within the saltburn canon, as well as some things i've noticed within viewers. can of worms, to be honest. boutta get INTO IT.

to use one of my externalization examples, let's discuss (or, more accurately, let me discuss) the denial of existing privilege or marginalization. this is a subconscious way to uphold a sense of morality, effectively avoiding "white guilt," so to speak. as is clearly presented to us, the cattons are very attached to their methods of upholding their own self-righteousness. saviorism is a common theme within both elspeth and felix. in oliver's conversation with elspeth about poor dear pamela, you can see that oliver recognizes elspeth's need to justify her actions in an attempt to preserve her sense of decency. one can only assume that this applies to how they view farleigh's relationship with them. there's more to talk about there, but i'd like to start with the only overt mention of race in this movie.

in felix's confrontation with farleigh, farleigh makes the bold and brave decision to mention his blackness. i call this brave because it's genuinely a terrifying thing to do, and the end of this conversation is proof. "oh, that is... that is low, farleigh. seriously, that's where you want to take this? make it a race thing? i never know our footman's names; the turnover for a footman is notoriously high!" we have felix's intentional or unintentional shaming of farleigh. we have felix's appalled denial of any involvement of race or racial bias. we have felix's diversion away from farleigh specifically and onto his own inability to know his staff's names. felix made no further attempt to recenter farleigh, aside from telling him that the cattons have "done what they can." (which is SO absurd on its own. they are clearly and obviously able to do more. they are disgustingly rich). farleigh does feel ashamed after felix's response; you can see it on his face, and archie says it directly. here is a relevant and prevalent stereotype for all marginalized people: that the discussion of marginalization is exclusively weaponized to gain something or manipulate a situation. this is how felix chooses to see farleigh's implication of existing white privilege. this conversation results in nothing, does nothing, as felix chooses not to confront what he's probably thinking as he repeats the words "begging bowl" to venetia.

now. saviorism, guilt, and pity. felix specifically tells oliver that sir james made an effort to support farleigh out of guilt. i'd like to order some things in a way that i perceive them. frederica start runs from england, which is explained in a condescending way by felix. frederica start marries a so-referred-to "lunatic" who dug through fred and jame's money, although it's farleigh who only mentions fred's financial irresponsibility. out of guilt, james offers to pay for farleigh's education. the specificity of education is compelling to me. perhaps james is simply a patriotic man who strongly believes that english education is better. or this is a mobilized racial stereotype! who can truly know. i digress. james' offer to pay for farleigh's foreign education puts the cattons in an odd position; if farleigh is to attend english schools, he will need to stay with the cattons. if farleigh is staying with the cattons, he will need to be treated as equal to felix and venetia. this is all one long chain of obligations. none of these acts from one family member to another should be considered "charitable," because family should intrinsically create a trustworthy and supportive dynamic.

i believe that the cattons do consider their fostering of farleigh as obligatory. moral obligation, as they recognize that families are intended to have a sympathetic and loving relationship. they cannot, however, escape the truth that they're just guilty. the "begging bowl" and "biting the hand" are more symbolic of a starving dog and its charitable adopter than a cousin/nephew who's staying with his absurdly rich family. see, the cattons are fully and entirely capable of affording another child, of supporting frederica financially, etc. the only way i can rationalize their reluctance to do so is by assuming that they don't feel like farleigh deserves it. is this a crazy assumption? i genuinely don't see why else. of course, i don't think this mentality is explicit or conscious. it's more-so the reality that when farleigh walks in a room, he's not the same as anybody else. aside from background characters at oxbridge, the only on-screen black people are liam, joshua, and james' godson's wife (who gets degraded on-screen). this is the reality of being different in an environment such as the english aristocracy. the cattons choose to see themselves as the hand that feeds the less fortunate, more entertaining, and least inconvenient. the cattons' inclusion of farleigh is not only reliant on how well farleigh performs, but also on their own pity and guilt.

all of this is somehow, painfully mirrored by some takes i've seen on farleigh. maybe this entire post is presumptuous, but you know what isn't presumptuous? saying that certain people hold farleigh to an incredibly odd standard. while the cattons never canonically said anything along the lines of "farleigh doesn't deserve our love and support," mfs on the internet have. the number of times people have referred to this character as greedy, lazy, petty, and malignant is so odd to me. i'm insane, i know. i just don't understand how people can hold farleigh to the backdrop of an english aristocratic family and so passionately say that he, of all characters, is the most detestable. or that he, of all characters, has no reason to behave in the way he does.

is farleigh greedy? greed is defined as a desire for more. farleigh has no desire to climb ranks, no desire to replace or surpass felix, no desire to hold any power over any family member. he is maintaining, upholding a standard that has been set for him throughout his life. is it kind or selfless of him to meddle in other people's affairs with the cattons? no. does he have a reason to be upset that non-relatives of the cattons are a threat to his inclusion in the first place? yes. is farleigh lazy? i don't even need to explain this one. no. if you don't consider oliver lazy, then i really don't want to hear anything. is farleigh petty? pettiness is defined as "an undue concern for trivial matters, especially in a small-minded or spiteful way." farleigh's meticulous attention to trivial matters isn't undue in any sense. a person of color and their meticulous attention to trivial matters is almost never undue. elspeth is a good example of petty. is farleigh malignant? there are a lot of definitions of malignant and i've seen people apply all of them, in some way, to farleigh. that's just wrong. archie madekwe once said, "i was interested in humanizing what, on paper, seemed like a mean character, a villain, or a bully. i don't think he's any of that. he's very self-serving, but i think he's really a heartbreaking character." case closed, this was for my own piece of mind. had to write this section because good lord.

in conclusion to this post that has gone tragically off the rails, i think the in-canon and viewer perspective of farleigh is, perhaps, a little racially motivated. sue me. they are all very centered on this idea that farleigh doesn't deserve inherent respect, support, and love. to remove farleigh's rational position within the cattons family would be akin to removing his right to familial love. genuinely, that's how i see it. the transaction nature of farleigh's actions is responsive. he sees felix as a social shield at oxbridge, he sees elspeth and james as the beholders of his perceived security, and he sees saltburn as a way to escape from his lack of privilege and his lack of stability in america. boom. bam. pow.

[queenvhagar]

You wrote a fabulous essay about Ser Criston. Can you do one for Prince Aemond? 👉👈

Aemond grows up a neglected second son to Viserys (who killed his first wife in pursuit of a son only to neglect the three he actually had in favor of his eldest daughter and her sons). He is born dragonless and faces bullying. He risks his life numerous times to get a dragon, frequently sneaking into the dragon pit to try and find an egg (Helaena says he "did it again" after almost being toasted by Dreamfyre).

At Driftmark, he hears Vhagar call to him, and he knows this is his only real chance to claim an adult dragon, as the other ones are on Dragonstone where Rhaenyra and her family live and his parents are against the idea of him risking his life to try to claim one, likely meaning he would not get the chance again for many years and his bullying would persist. So he risks his life, knowing in all likelihood Vhagar would kill him. But she doesn't. She chooses Aemond as her next rider, and Aemond becomes at dragonrider at age 10. Immediately upon returning, though, he's ambushed by four children who start physically attacking him, at one point punching and kicking him as he's curled up on the ground. He defends himself, hitting the kids back away from him and taunting them about their birth. Jacaerys gets angry about Aemond's words and pulls a knife on him. Aemond uses a rock to disarm him and threatens more harm if the boys don't back off. But then Jacaerys throws sand to blind Aemond as Lucerys picks up the knife and slashes him across the face, cutting out his eye and permanently disfiguring him. Instead of any of the four children being chastised for their role in ambushing him, his older sister uses the situation to demand he be tortured for information and weaponizes the situation to her own benefit. His father angrily questions him and his family in front of the entire court and threatens them with disfigurement if they speak the truth again. In this moment Aemond realizes the powerlessness of his family's position when it comes to his eldest sister and her children and their father's favoritism, and he begins to train to be able to defend his family, embracing his new dragonrider identity to become a warrior that could protect his family from future violence.

Years later, his sister and her sons return to beg his father to protect them from the consequences of their actions once again, and he does. At dinner, despite apologies and toasts occurring, nobody mentions how Aemond was disabled and in fact the boy who did it laughs in his face about the whole thing while the other brother dances with Aegon's wife to embarrass him. The two boys feel untouchable now that Viserys has yet again supported their mother over his wife and her children. That's when Aemond makes a toast, provoking them to an attack that reveals Aemond and Aegon have the upper hand physically and the other boys are incompetent when it comes to fighting (and they need their mother's husband to step in to save them). Aemond and his brother work together to face them, as they learned at Driftmark that they are the only ones in this world who have each other's backs.

When Viserys dies, despite believing he is more suited, Aemond helps find Aegon and install him as king, and he goes as an envoy to Storm's End to make a marriage pact with the Baratheons to gather support for his brother. The boy who cut out his eye shows up and demands Lord Baratheon remember his decades old vow to be subservient to Aemond's eldest sister. Now that Lucerys is unprotected, Aemond seeks justice for what was done to him. While he might have forgiven his eye being cut out, he did not forgive that there were no consequences for it. His ensuing reckless actions with Lucerys result in the death of him and his dragon, effectively ensuring war (or it should have, but the show brushes aside this and B+C as the major motivating events for the start of the war to push an agenda of the women desiring peace no matter what and the men wanting war at all costs).

Because of Aemond's killing of Lucerys, Blood and Cheese is set into motion by Daemon for Rhaenyra (and Rhaenyra condones the action). At this point in the story, Aemond should feel responsible for Blood and Cheese and in some part Aegon should blame him for it, even though full blame is recognized as going towards Daemon and Rhaenyra. This is what would realistically drive animosity between the two (not some childish bullying scene, as if that would be enough to get Aemond to kill his own brother and take out one of their side's only dragons, after everything they've all been through together). Aemond would seek redemption for his role in starting the violence, which he would hope to find in Rook's Rest where he would help Aegon take down a dragonrider from Team Black. Except it is not enough, and it does not save Aegon from being burned (this is not an intentional moment of revenge or power grab by Aemond, but rather Meleys or Vhagar's dragonfire manages to injure Aegon before Rhaenys and Meleys are taken down).

In the aftermath, Aemond is Prince Regent. He is not next in line with Maelor alive, and he doesn't seem to claim the throne with Aegon incapacitated. Instead, he seeks to win the war so Aegon can sit the throne undisputed. Alicent supports him, as she supported Aegon, as this was her goal their entire lives (instead of Alicent being sympathetic to people who would kill her sons and have killed her grandson or trying to take power for herself, as her whole role and beliefs in the whole conflict have been ruling with soft power and through the men in her life - the Greens should be a united front, as they have been since at least Driftmark, and united in their goals of seeking power for themselves and protection against Team Black). Aemond from this point up until his involvement with Alys, once King's Landing has fallen and his brother's cause seems next to hopeless, leads him to pursue his own agenda. No longer seeking to win the war, he uses Vhagar to punish those who got in the way of his family's victory and who helped facilitate Rhaenyra taking the throne from Aegon.

Aemond has always been concerned with his family and since he claimed Vhagar and lost an eye he has acted as their protector, training with the sword and reading histories to prepare himself to do just that when the inevitable conflict broke out. There is no reality where he plots to steal power from his brother or make his family suffer for his own whims. The character of Aemond is not some psychopath who delights in sadistic acts and seeks to further his own self-interest at the cost of his family (nor is Aegon, for the record).

The real Aemond has understood that the only people who have is back are his family, and so he will have their backs in return. This should be his driving force and motivation. But the show doesn't want Aemond to seem like able or redeemable in his love for and loyalty to his family, nor do they want the Greens to seem like a competent, united front in the war, so Aemond characterization and motivation bends to the will of the writers and follows whatever plot beats they want him to follow to fill their agenda of creating shock value and shaping the Greens into outright evil, almost-caricature villains to oppose their chosen hero.

[bobbyfiend]

I'm a little high so now is the perfect time to write shit.

TW: mention of violence and (briefly) of suicide

Today's shit is: Stop saying Fragile Masculinity unless you know what the fuck you're talking about.

I feel the boldface above is perhaps too aggressive, but whatever. Moving on.

The interwebs seem to think Fragile Masculinity means a man who is fragile. Or a guy who is a douchebag. Or something. IDK. What does it really mean?

Fragile Masculinity (a.k.a. Precarious Manhood) is an academic theory about the nature of "masculinity" in patriarchal societies. From here on out, I'm talking like the theory, so I don't have to say "according to..." 100 times.

Masculinity isn't an innate aspect of a person in this conception; it's a status or identity conferred on certain people (i.e., people who look like "men") by their culture or community.

Your culture gave you masculinity, and it can take it away. Easily. "Fragile Masculinity" means that masculinity, as a concept or identity or social status is hard to achieve and easy to lose. It's fragile, get it?

Femininity or Womanhood, by contrast, is not thought to work the same way, usually. The theory isn't really about women, but writers/theorists comment on the contrast, sometimes: Women in patriarchal societies aren't potential people in charge, or even particularly agentive; they're resources to be utilized. Those resources need to be available at any time, and how they feel about that, or what they've done in their lives to be good resources are less important than mere existence and availability. Women become women, generally, just by growing up and having the "right" biological bits. Even bad women are still women. Even women declared good for nothing but sexual or domestic use are still women. By contrast, men become men (i.e. masculine) by doing the right things, and not doing the wrong ones, and they stay masculine the same way. Masculinity can be lost easily.

How do you lose masculinity? You fuck up. You fail to do the things the culture thinks men should do. You fail to retaliate when another man insults you. Or compliments your girlfriend. Or makes out with your wife. You fail to commit the situation-specific violence your society requires of men. You fail ?o dominate others--especially men--in social interactions. You get dominated--much worse if by a woman. You show insufficient physical strength, or (worse) you show fear of being hurt.

I'll stop with that, now. I think you get the picture.

Or you do things the culture says men should not do: you listen to your gf or wife's thoughts a little too much. You play a sissy sport or no sport at all. You hang with gay people. You are gay people. You are (or seem to be) trans--and yes, the system seems to be rigged so that both MtF and FtM trans people will generally be seen as insufficiently manly.

Getting the picture? You don't become a man just because you get physically older; you have to do things, and you have to not do other things. Otherwise, you're not a man, not really.

And every damn day there will be at least one (and maybe a hundred) tests of your manhood. If you fail to meet any one of them, your "man" status can be damaged or revoked.

Why is that so bad? Because non-men have no place in patriarchal society. Men have a place, weak-ass men sort of have a place, women have a place (most of them, most of the time); non-men do not have a place. Non-men do not receive or deserve anyone's respect or even kindness. Non-men are homo sacer. Hurting them is a great pastime because it both harms someone who should should be ashamed to exist and gives you status points with your buddies (this includes both men and women). "Hurt the outsider" is one of the most reliable methods for bonding with your tribal group. It's even better if the outsider is a traitor, someone who used to be one of you. Outsiders can be hurt because they're outsiders. Traitors should be hurt because they have committed one of the worst possible moral wrongs: they were good group members and then they chose to not be. It's disloyalty to the group. Non-men are traitors so fuck 'em up.

What is a man to do who has been declared "non-man", or just lost some of his man status, or is just worried he might? Maybe he gets the most manly job ever: cop, soldier, WWE wrestler. Maybe he makes sure to commit some extra amounts of culture-sanctioned violence or domination. Maybe he kills himself.

I hope you're getting this. Fragile Masculinity is not a description of some men's insecurities or overcompensation (though it's not totally separate from that). It's a sociological/critical theory about the concept of masculinity itself, and how it works within patriarchal cultures. Masculinity in such a culture is fragile. It's hard to achieve and easy to lose. That has a lot of really bad consequences.

[happycattail]

I think there’s an interesting study to be had about Twitter CR Fandom vs Tumblr CR Fandom when it comes to character conflict and the sides that they choose.

I believe during the whole Ashton and Fearne Shard debacle, Tumblr sided with Fearne while Twitter sided with Ashton and there were once again words of “infantilization” of woman being thrown around.

It’s similar to the current fandom conflict except in the opposite direction now. It’s Twitter on Laudna’s side and Tumblr on Orym’s side and “infantilization” is being used yet again as an argument against siding with the more feminine presenting characters of the group.

Not to mention the way everyone keeps trying ti shift all the blame into one character or even those who says that “both are in the wrong” there’s a very clear emphasis on who is “more wrong”

[chicago-geniza]

It's crazy that in the 40s and very early 50s Stefania was doing a variation on what the Frankfurt School were doing but nobody connected them because she was writing in Polish for immigrant newspapers published in London

[queercodedangel]

"Understood in its totality, the spectacle is both the result and the goal of the dominant mode of production. It is not a mere decoration added to the real world. It is the very heart of this real society’s unreality. In all its particular manifestations — news, propaganda, advertising, entertainment — the spectacle represents the dominant model of life.

It is the omnipresent affirmation of the choices that have already been made in the sphere of production and in the consumption implied by that production. In both form and content the spectacle serves as a total justification of the conditions and goals of the existing system.

The spectacle also represents the constant presence of this justification since it monopolizes the majority of the time spent outside the production process."

- Guy Debord, The Society of the Spectacle

[queering-ecology]

Eluding Capture: The Science, Culture, and Pleasure of “Queer” Animals by Stacy Alaimo

The chapter begins with three separate quotes—the one that speaks to me the most is by Bruce Bagemihl and his theory of Biological Exuberance where he defines it as, “above all, an affirmation of life’s vitality and infinite possibilities: a world that is at once primordial and futuristic, in which gender is kaleidoscopic, sexualities are multiple, and the categories of male and female are fluid and transmutable. A world, in short, exactly like the one we inhabit” (51).

Alaimo’s opening sentence is a powerful one, “’Nature’ and the ‘natural’ have long been waged against homosexuals, as well as women, people of color, and indigenous peoples”(51). Queer theory is guilty of trying to fully separate nature/natural from queer desire, attempting to make queer sexuality a uniquely social, human phenomenon. When the reality is that nature is awash with examples of gender and sexual diversity. The question and larger discourse ask; is nature queer? Can nonhuman nature be queer? and if so, what might that mean for other discourses?(What are the implications?) Alaimo states that we need better, ‘more robust and complex’ ways of engaging with materiality, that account for the diversity and ‘exuberance’ of a ���multitude of naturecultures” (52).

Books such as Bruce Bagemihl’s Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity (1999) (among many other examples) present possibilities for “radically rethinking nature as queer, by documenting the vast range of same-sex acts, same-sex childrearing pairs, intersex animals, multiple ‘genders’, ‘transvestism’ and transsexuality existing throughout the more-than-human world. Bagemihl restricts himself to mammals and birds but still manages to discuss nearly three hundred species and over 200 years of scientific research. “Bagemihl’s exhaustively researched volume renders any sense of normative heterosexuality within nature an absurd impossibility” (52).

Alaimo provides several other examples of challenges to heteronormativity in nature in recent years, including an exhibition at the Natural History Museum at the University of Oslo in Norway called, “Against Nature?” (2007). According to the website for the exhibit, “Homosexuality has been observed in most vertebrate groups, and also from insects, spiders, crustaceans, octopi and parasitic worms. The phenomenon has been reported from more than 1,500 animal species, and is well documented for 500 of them, but the real extent is probably much higher” (Against Nature 2007)(54).

The author argues that recognizing the sexual diversity of animals has several significant benefits; heteronormativity has damaged and diminished scientific knowledge (the author uses biology, anthropology as examples but I’d say this is an issue that science in general must contend with). The ‘scientific silence on homosexuality in animals amounts to a cover-up, deliberate or not’ (54) and thus scientists have a duty to correct this.

Researchers have documented how the ‘majority of scientists have ignored, refused to acknowledge, closeted, or explained away their observations of same-sex behavior in animals, for fear of risking their reputations, scholarly credibility, academic positions , or heterosexual identity” (54). Alaimo then gives examples of cases where this was the case in varying levels. As we’ve learned, the assumption of heterosexuality as the ‘only natural form’ is not an ‘appropriate benchmark for ecological research’ (54) and heteronormative bias might render already difficult work even more so.

“Endocrine disruptors alone demand an extraordinarily complex and nuanced understanding of the ‘mangling’ of environmental science, health, and politics, with misogyny, homophobia, and other cultural forces’ (55). The author recognizes that rather than simply tossing ‘queer animals into the ring of public opinion to battle the still pervasive sense that homosexuality is unnatural, we need to embrace the possibilities for the sexuality diversity of animal behavior to help us continue to transform our most basic sense of what nature and culture mean’ (55).

Alaimo’s continues by saying that biological exuberance, vast diversity ‘deviance’, and astonishing difference make nonsense of biological reductionism and the idea that animals are ‘genetically driven machines’ but creatures who exist fully within their own ‘naturecultures’ (56).

[demacage]

Fandom Study Seeking Participants

In connection with my graduate studies, I am completing a research study on the impacts of fandom and online community. To Participate, all you have to do is schedule an interview with me. I am a fellow fandom fanatic and tumblr user who has been on this site for 10 years. Please consider participating and reblog if you can to increase reach further. Thank you in advance!

Consent Information

Sign-Up

[vspin]

I've been playing RPGs my entire life, and I find it very interesting that for BG3 specifically, I see a lot of people say that Tav/Durge is always a self-insert/representation of you.

Of course, we've all played a self-insert character before (and it is a valid way to play) but half of the fun for me personally is RPing a character. Coming up with a backstory and personality. These traits will be the driving factor behind the decisions they make in the game, not my IRL views.

That's not to say my personal experiences aren't influencing my characters, because they are. But I'm not playing me in the game.

I wonder if that is why in the BG3 fandom I've seen so much discourse around certain choices?

No wonder people are fighting about Ascending vs Spawn Astarion because they believe that if you Ascend him you are making that decision based on your real-life views. After all, your character is a representation of you! (Btw, I'm not saying all outcomes are good for the in-game characters, I believe there are bad vs good endings)

I find it very fascinating. It's like the concept of role-playing in an RPG doesn't even cross their mind.

I have also never seen so many self-insert/second POV fics before!! Even in Elder Scrolls fandom where I've read so many fics and the character is also a blank slate like Tav.

[theneptunianmind]

[omegaphilosophia]

Theories on the Philosophy of Power

The philosophy of power encompasses various theories that seek to understand the nature, sources, and implications of power in human societies. Here are some key theories in the philosophy of power:

Pluralist Theory: Pluralist theory posits that power is dispersed among multiple groups and individuals in society, and no single entity holds absolute power. According to this view, power is decentralized, and different groups compete for influence through political, economic, and social channels.

Elite Theory: Elite theory contends that power is concentrated in the hands of a small elite group within society, such as political leaders, business magnates, or cultural elites. According to this perspective, elites wield disproportionate influence over political decisions and societal outcomes, often at the expense of the broader population.

Marxist Theory: Marxist theory emphasizes the role of economic power in shaping society and maintains that power relations are fundamentally determined by class dynamics. According to Marxists, the bourgeoisie (owners of capital) hold power over the proletariat (working class) through the control of economic resources, leading to exploitation and inequality.

Foucauldian Theory: Drawing from the work of Michel Foucault, Foucauldian theory examines power as a diffuse and pervasive force that operates through disciplinary mechanisms and social institutions. Power is not solely held by individuals or groups but is embedded in societal structures and practices, shaping norms, behaviors, and subjectivities.

Feminist Theory: Feminist theories of power highlight the gendered dimensions of power relations and critique patriarchal structures that perpetuate male dominance and female subordination. Feminist scholars analyze how power operates within families, workplaces, and political systems, and advocate for gender equality and social justice.

Poststructuralist Theory: Poststructuralist theorists, such as Jacques Derrida and Judith Butler, challenge essentialist notions of power and instead focus on power as performative and discursive. Power is understood as fluid and contingent, constructed through language, discourse, and social practices, rather than being inherent or fixed.

Network Theory: Network theory conceptualizes power as emerging from relational connections and interactions between actors within complex networks. Power is distributed unevenly across network structures, with some nodes or actors exerting greater influence due to their centrality, connectivity, or resource control.

Rational Choice Theory: Rational choice theory models individual behavior as driven by rational calculations of costs and benefits, including the pursuit of power. According to this approach, individuals seek to maximize their utility or achieve their goals by strategically deploying resources and forming alliances to enhance their power position.

Critical Theory: Critical theories of power, influenced by the Frankfurt School and critical social theory, emphasize the role of ideology, culture, and social institutions in perpetuating power inequalities. Critical theorists analyze how power operates through processes of domination, hegemony, and ideological control, and advocate for emancipatory social change.

Intersectional Theory: Intersectional theory considers how power operates at the intersections of multiple axes of identity, including race, gender, class, sexuality, and ability. This approach recognizes that power relations are shaped by intersecting systems of oppression and privilege, and emphasizes the importance of addressing multiple forms of inequality simultaneously.

These theories offer diverse perspectives on the nature and dynamics of power, illuminating its complexities and providing insights into its effects on individuals, groups, and societies.

[tamaharu]

the try guys put out this video like a week ago that was like 'trans guy gets a makeover!' and i havent watched it but when i first saw it the thumbnail was a photo of him and his mom, with no pre-transition pictures. and later, i noticed the thumbnail was changed to, you guessed it, a pre-transition -> makeover photo. the dimensions to that alone - him being a public figure of sorts (having apparently appeared on buzzfeed back in the day), the nature of engagement on social media and its necessity for funding, and the way the transition (as in the action) is sensationalized for cis consumers - are fascinating, even without watching the video/unpacking the nature of the makeover in relation to transgenderism. id love to see those guys try to deconstruct that for their next video.