#critical sociology

[marzipanbnny]

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 :)

[buttacake80]

I hope this isn’t offensive but as someone who is trying to learn about American politics and English being my fourth language some terms can get a bit confusing to me and everyone around me struggles with the same way.

what does being a liberal mean? As in are you a trump or harris supporter? Or more neutral?

Not an offensive question. Actually quite complex.

Here in the US, we have two primary parties. The Republicans and the Democrats.

At one time in our history, there were other parties. We have smaller parties, but none of them have held a majority or even a significant minority. And, to further complicate things, these two primary parties flipped ideologies. It's confusing and would need its own post.

So, I will start this from 1980 forward.

The Republicans existed as the conservative party that represented small government, low taxes, and a strong defense.

However, the Republican Party was taken over by the "Make America Great Again" movement, pushing the party to an extreme right since 2012 (prior to MAGA, it was the Tea Party movement).

The Democratic Party exists as the liberal party that advocates for more social spending, more corporate taxation, climate change advocacy, and a smaller defense budget.

Donald Trump identifies as Republican, but he does not represent traditional Republican values.

Kamala Harris was the Democratic Party candidate.

I am a proud Harris supporter.

Both parties support capitalism.

I would fall more to the left than most liberals, but I would not identify as a leftist. Leftists are anti-capitalists.

Capitalism ran rampant, leading to this oligarchy that includes Jeff Bezos, Mark Zuckerberg, and Elon Musk. The billionaires do not want to be taxed. They do not support the unionization of workers, and they would like more deregulation in order to further enrich themselves.

They bought a candidate: Trump.

Meanwhile, Trump's MAGA base is racist and xenophobic.

75% of our population identifies as white. This number actually includes Hispanics. If we remove non-Hispanic whites, the number drops to 60%.

13% identify as Black

7% identify as Asian

3% mixed race

1% Native American

And the remaining 1% is several small ethnic identities such as Pacific Islanders.

The white American population remains the overwhelming majority, but since the 80s, the far right has been pushing a narrative that white folk were going to become the minority and treated as horribly as the white folk have treated minorities.

Furthermore, a large segment of our population identifies as Christian. They have pushed a false narrative that this is a Christian nation when it has never been such. So, for the last 25 years, an ultra conservative Christian Nationalist movement has also taken hold of the Republican Party.

Trump used white folk's fears of being replaced to secure another term in office. In addition, here in the US, Black women have been vilified because we are the most loyal supporters of the Democratic Party. We hold most of the graduate degrees here in the US. We are the most educated demographic.

We are not a monolith, but they view us as one. A lot of white folks resent Black women, so they could not stomach having a Black woman as the Nation's "boss".

So, they voted to maintain white supremacy.

I hope that's easy to understand.

[rithikap12]

people who dont understand nuance and gray areas are immensely uninformed. to them it is either male or female, good or bad, smart or stupid, and most importantly yes or no. when people believe that recognizing race within contexts of opportunity is wrong, they forget that our current reality has been fueled by centuries of oppression. it is not hard to understand that people of color often cant win based on merit, not because they are incapable of merit yielding activities, but because merit wasn't assigned to those activities for them in the centuries prior (or the activity wasnt allowed, this applies to gender, sexuality, and any other identifying characteristic).

today donald trump passed the statement that the united states has been socially engineering race into aspects of life, and that we need to be race blind. at face value that is great, but with centuries of racial oppression, blindness now disregards the past, and subsequent present, struggle.

we cannot be merit based now because it disregards the nuance of how race is already ingrained into society.

[hopey-thinks]

Loyal to the nightmare of my choice- An analysis of Riven from Winx Club

I’m at a point in my life (not long before I turn 18) where it’s natural that I’d start yearning to revisit my childhood and look back on the things that made me happy as a kid. And recently, my feed has been showing me memes I forgot about from Winx Club, a show I was captivated by when I was younger, and it got me thinking. What better way is there to honor my childhood than rewatching some of the media I loved when I was a kid that I forgot about? While I initially started doing it for fun, to my surprise I started to realize about 7 episodes into the first season that there was a good amount of substance in it despite it being targeted towards a younger audience, particularly in the way that some of the characters’ backgrounds and fears motivate their behaviors. The following episodes only proved that further, and one character stood out to me in particular throughout the run time, that being Riven. 

In today’s analysis we’ll be focusing on how insecurity, sense of self, and standards around masculinity combine into his character and motivate his actions throughout the first half of season one. I’ll also discuss how Musa and Darcy impact his development and the subtext that may indicate that he’s queer coded (in the sense that this part of his arc is representative of the experience of a lot of young queer men). I’ll note that I’ll be referring to Sky and Brandon as the Prince and the Blond guy so there isn’t confusion about who I’m referring to since their names apparently switch later on for some reason. 

Already by the end of the fourth episode, Riven has a decent amount of characterization. He’s abrasive, sharp-tongued, and cocky, often instigating turmoil and arguments between the specialists (particularly the blond guy) with his snarky comments and arrogance. Right off the bat we see he’s competitive and prefers to handle situations on his own, having a difficult time acknowledging his faults and blaming others for his failure when they try to work with him. 

His apparent ego coupled with his stubborn independence and frustration with the idea of relying on others shows that his need to prove his strength is likely masking something deeper, that being an intense discomfort with vulnerability. Yet when the other specialists say they’ll kick him off the team if he refuses to cooperate with the Winx in the fourth episode, he chooses to stay with them anyways despite his pride, revealing that he does indeed desire human connection and isn’t as confident in his own abilities as he lets on.

What’s interesting is how his aggression, which is typically associated with masculinity, is contrasted with how he actually chooses to express himself (mainly through fashion, occasional dialogue, and mannerisms) in ways that would be considered feminine at the time the show was released. Wearing a crop top and saying things like “sweetie” to your bro are just some examples of things he does that were stereotypically feminine in 2004. This juxtaposition of his different attributes calls into question how his need to prove himself and inability to be vulnerable may not just be related to insecurity with his abilities, but also with his identity as a man.

 Because he’s unsure of how he fits into male gender roles, he overcompensates and tries to bury his lack of confidence in himself by attempting to be hypermasculine in other aspects. And of course, the consequence of this response is how it’s damaging to his relationships. In trying to mask his insecurity, he isn’t being true to himself and therefore struggles to have deeper, genuine connections.

His characterization is reinforced in multiple ways during the 7th episode, the episode that sort of lays the groundwork for the major conflict he encounters in the next two episodes and their unfortunate resolution by the 10th. He charges in alone to fight the Minotaur thingy and insults the blond guy when he says they should work together, again offended by the idea that he isn’t strong enough to defeat it alone. He speaks lowly of the women he’s at the party with and sets himself above them, dismissing Musa as “better than some of the others” there (if you think that might imply misogyny I want you to hold that thought). But most importantly, when he’s found by Darcy and the others she states that he has extremely strong negative energy. His perspective on masculinity is immature and unhealthy (I predict that it’s primarily been shaped by trauma from past experiences) for not just the people he’s surrounded by (which we’ll get deeper into shortly), but also his own psyche and self worth. As is the case for many teenage boys, it’s not surprising that this attitude is emotionally taxing and even physically exhausting for him to maintain.

This leads up to what I think is one of the most interesting scenes in the show yet as far as gender criticism goes. Riven, the blond guy, the prince, Stella and Bloom are all in the city for the magix equivalent of Mother’s Day. After Riven reveals that he and the other two are going to be participating in a race being held for the holiday, the prince teases him for not having anyone to cheer for him, insinuating that he can’t find a girl that’s into him. 

And he immediately becomes defensive at this comment, feeling his masculinity has been attacked/questioned since social structures put pressure on men to attract women as accessories to and proof of their masculinity. Because of this, he tries to affirm his manliness to himself and his friends through performative masculinity. He claims he can have any woman he wants and tries to make a bet with his friends where if he wins the race, he can pick any of the winx to go out with at the ball. And he picks Bloom. 

      This in and of itself is a VERY problematic assumption on so many levels. It not only is completely disrespectful to the blond guy who very obviously has feelings for Bloom, but it’s even more disrespectful to Bloom and the other winx who he’s treating as possessions, not even considering if they’re not into him. (Remember how I brought up misogyny earlier?) 

Thankfully, Bloom doesn’t take any shit from him. She calls him out on his deplorable behavior and reminds him that it’s her choice to decide who she wants to go out with, stating that regardless of the outcome of the race she doesn’t want anything to do with him. But he completely ignores this sentiment and takes the disrespect a step further by grabbing her chin and getting in her personal space, insisting that she’s just hiding her feelings for him. 

This violation is inherently degrading not just because she didn’t consent, but also because in doing so he shows he took none of what she said seriously. He acts as if his ego gives him the authority to decide what’s good for her regardless of how she feels about it, demonstrating a patronizing form of misogyny. Bloom rightfully decides that she’s had enough with his bullshit and slaps his hand away from her. She teaches him a lesson by using a spell to pour water over his head and tells him he needs to treat others with more respect. 

Now, the thing that the series does wrong with this is how it portrays Bloom as having “gone too far” once Riven is rightly embarrassed by the turn of events and ashamed of his behavior. She feels the need to apologize when she wasn’t in the wrong whatsoever, which is admittedly a very bad lesson to teach young girls. At least Stella interjects and comments that he had it coming, but the fact the show treats Bloom like she needs to make up for embarrassing him when he absolutely deserved it is problematic and frustrating. 

He storms off and Darcy sees him, commenting that she likes his attitude and finds him physically attractive. The trix take note of this along with the bad state he’s in, deciding to use it to help them achieve their goal. And regardless of how I feel about it Bloom decides she wants to make it up to him, which they use to execute their plan. The trix take advantage of this by sending an imposter of Timmy to give her a helmet they can control to make him mess up the race to give to Riven before the race begins. Bloom ends up giving it to him but quickly realizes she made a mistake, but when she steps into the race to try and stop the witches she sadly falls hook line and sinker into their trap. They set it up to look like Bloom was the one who messed with his helmet while she interfered in the race, and Riven is left in a very vulnerable position emotionally. 

It’s deeper than him just being mad at Bloom in that moment because he thinks she made him lose. It’s a build up of the entire day. He feels like he was emasculated by his friends after part of his deep seated insecurity was named out loud and additionally is embarrassed by his failure in the race and to charm Bloom, reinforcing that insecurity. There’s only one thing on his mind right now, and that’s finding validation from someone. This makes him incredibly susceptible to Darcy’s manipulation.

She tricks him into thinking she saved him and goes to comfort him after the race, giving him what he craves in that moment that he feels his friends aren’t able to provide. He doesn’t believe Bloom and is frustrated that his friends aren’t immediately taking his side. And in what is a surprisingly real moment, he’s blinded by his ego and chooses to ditch the people who actually care about him, feeling betrayed. 

Musa and Darcy are also foils to each other, and Darcy herself is actually a pretty good example of how women can perpetuate the patriarchy if they believe they can become more powerful in some way by embracing it. While she does like Riven, her crush on him is only motivated by surface level attraction and not love, and ultimately is using him as just another way to get what she wants. The first thing she notes when she sees him in public isn’t anything about his actual personhood or a desire to get to know him better like Musa, but how essentially… she finds his attitude and body sexy. Darcy offers the shallow affirmation he wants on an egotistical level while Musa offers him a genuine acceptance for who he is despite his flaws, which is what he actually needs. And what’s sad about his choice is that Darcy is only feeding his ego to make him reliant on her affirmation because that’s what she needs to do to keep him under her thumb, whereas Musa and the others would’ve helped him find an actual stable sense of self worth. The kind that comes from within.

What’s even more depressing is that he throws that opportunity away completely in his shortsightedness. After Musa sees him with Darcy in the restaurant and the other trix get a gang of girls to literally jump her, she finds him while trying to escape and begs him for help. To which he smirks and says “why should I?” And I’m here to tell you why you fucking should Riven. That girl is someone who genuinely respects, admires, and cares about you beyond just what you can do for her, and she has been NOTHING but kind to you. She’s coming to you in a time of desperation, and regardless of how you feel about her friends, standing up for her is the right thing to do even if it could cause you to lose what you want out of Darcy. But he turns a blind eye to this reality, and not just because he wants the present gratification he gets from Darcy.  

Despite it being what he needs to do if he ever wants to grow, he feels like he could never allow himself to let his walls down because that would require him to be vulnerable with someone and expose his low self confidence. And so he abandons his friends, Musa, everyone that was genuinely supporting him, which will inevitably become self destructive. 

Riven is also a fascinating character in how his motivations and internal conflict are extremely similar to the experiences of a lot of young queer men both past and present, and I think that there’s a good possibility that this was intentional. While I don’t like to throw around the term “queer-coded” I think there’s a decent amount of evidence to support looking at his character through this lens.

 Being feminine as a man is stereotypically associated with queerness, and as I explained before a lot of the ways he chooses to present himself would’ve been considered feminine or unusual for a man at the very least at the time. Villains were frequently queer coded in the 90s and 2000s (that was the only socially acceptable way to have a queer character in your story), and while he isn’t a villain (even if he functions more as an antagonist later in the season, there’s a difference) he serves a more antagonistic role in the story. He’s often the shit starter for many conflicts and is also just mean to the other characters. 

As for his experiences, trying to push people away and engage in performative masculinity to cover up fear and insecurity around your identity and how your community would feel about it is rather common among young queer men. The pressure to conform to oppressive social systems like patriarchy is destructive to many of the people it’s supposed to empower as well as the victims, and I was pleasantly surprised to see this portrayed in an older show targeted at younger audiences, even if it wasn’t perfect. It’s something I’d like to see covered in more in stories because media is a powerful socializing agent that influences how we view ourselves and our place in the world from a very young age.

I’m excited (and a bit nervous) to see how Riven’s decisions affect him in the future and how his perception may change because of that. 

I may make a follow up meta to this at a later point in his arc if enough people are interested, so let me know if you enjoyed this! Thank you for your time <3. 

[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.

[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

[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”

[rhiandoesfandom]

New post about our country conundrum for those with uteruses.

[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

[buttacake80]

I wanna expand on that 13% of the population that I am a part of.

Most Black Americans are the descendants of enslaved Africans stolen between 1618-1808.

Race is a social construct, and in our construction, possessing one drop of Black blood meant you were Black.

This man was considered Black.

He served as the leader of the NAACP at one time. He posed as white to infiltrate racist organizations. Of his 64 great-great-great-great-grandparents, 5 were Black.

To white folks, we are perceived as lazy & and stupid, yet it was their ancestors who went to a foreign land to steal millions of people to do manual labor.

Slavery existed for centuries. Ending in 1865 after a Civil War. There was a period of Reconstruction in which there was a genuine effort to make things equal, but the white folks rebelled and started burning down our neighborhoods and lynching us for minor transgressions.

There were laws & policies in place to try to redress that wrong, but Trump has taken steps to remove those protections.

Despite being only 13% of the population, Black folk are the main constructors of American cultural identity. It's our music, slang, food, mannerisms, humor, etc. that folks associate with Americans. We dominate in sports.

We use our own language called African American (vernacular) English. Even Elon Musk uses AAVE in his speech.

We are vilified while also emulated. White folks have stolen aspects of our culture then taken active steps to remove us from it. Re: Country Music

A lot of white people feel that because of their white skin, they deserve preferential treatment. That a white dude with no college education should have every opportunity to thrive.

Sadly, a lot of white Americans have "Temporary Broke Billionaire Syndrome" or TBBS. They will vote for billionaires, despite not having a million, because they believe they are one lottery ticket away from becoming a Billionaire. 🙄

Meanwhile, Black folks buckle down and get our degrees.

Let me address Affirmative Action because a lot of white folks are just plain ignorant.

The largest group to benefit from Affirmative Action has been white women.

The current largest groups include VETERANS and the DISABLED. Note that there are no racial categories there.

White folks spun it that unqualified Black folk were stealing their spots.

As someone who sat on a college admissions committee and drafted a Native American student recruitment plan, that's not how it works.

Affirmative Action does not take the least qualified Black person to put in a spot that was reserved for a white person, but that is how white folks viewed it.

Instead, Affirmative Action refers to taking affirmative action to build a workplace or educational institution that reflects greater American society. Quotas are illegal which means no employer or college was allowed to say, there are 13% Black folk so we must have 13% student population. That was illegal but white folks believed otherwise.

So they mobilized to strike down Affirmative Action in education which impacts veterans, rural white folk (who were also part of Affirmative Action plans), disabled, LGBTQI, and first generation Americans.

Now, they are destroying every "Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion" or DEI programs just to remove Black folk from spaces. If they had their way, they would strip us of our citizenship and put us back into shackles.

This is all to say that white folks voted against Harris simply because she was a Black woman. They wanted a fascist because he would do the dirty work of putting us in our place.

[lionshavegoldenhearts]

Are we too self-centered in modern times?

We live in a time where the philosophies egoism and hedonism lead the face of everything that's trendy.

For those that may not know:

Egoism: Self-interest serves as both the motive and the moral. Your thoughts and actions revolve around your personal interest.

Hedonism: Pleasure and self-indulgence are the goal. Your thoughts and actions revolve around pleasure.

*please note that these are not the same; hedonism cannot exist without egoism (self-centeredness), but egoism can exist without pleasure being the ultimate goal

Mainstream social media content subtly preaches the importance to prioritize the self and indulge in pleasure or activities that contribute directly to pleasure for the self. Living life for yourself (life coaches and travel blogs), self-care (skin/hair/nail/etc. -care girlies), discipline for the sake of self-betterment (gym bros), moral validation (same-belief political discourse), and beauty & fashion (self-explanatory) all seem to make up the overwhelming majority of social media content aside from news.

There are, of course, other facets of the internet where this is not the direct message. A good example is the recent rise of the "nuclear family trad-wife." One would think that the goal is to be subservient and show submission and compassion for the family, but who is truly being validated by "performing" well? The wife. The pleasure of the family and the wife, as well as the satisfaction of success, can still be linked back to egoism and/or hedonism.

These values can also be found outside of the realm of the internet. People act in the best interest of their self All The Time, and it's not an inherently bad thing. Caring for yourself and your state of being is survival. It's commonplace, and so natural that we don't even think of it most of the time. We eat and drink to sustain life. We make choices in our youth that are either for the sake of our future or our own desires in the moment (high school). Even something as small as readjusting your sitting position to be more comfortable is acting in the best interest of the self. These, of course, are not examples of egoism and hedonism, because that's determined by bigger, fully conscious decisions. The point is that it's important and a good thing to look out for oneself; it's human nature at the core. If you or a someone you know is seriously struggling with this concept, please consider seeking help for you or that person.

*Suicide and Crisis Lifeline: 988

If self-centeredness and pleasure-seeking is key to enjoyment and survival of life, then when does it become a problem?

Humans are social creatures. We have constructed a society where it is nearly impossible to live without impacting and interacting with others in some way, even if you live off the grid. I'm not just talking about the Butterfly Effect either. Even our choices to avoid interacting with others will impact the outcomes of their situations. These are represented through phenomena like the bystander effect, neglecting to vote in elections, inaction leading to someone's death, not crashing a wedding, not returning calls, not getting in someone's way, etc.

When we make decisions in our own best interest or in the name of pleasure, we have the ability to cause harm towards others. I don't need to explain further or give examples for that claim be true.

However, that is not the kind of interaction I'm talking about.

There is this group of ideas: "I did not ask to be born in this world, therefore I owe nothing to the people that inhabit it." "I'm not responsible for what happens to other people; that's their business, not mine." "I should not have to go out of my way for the sake of others, as I'm not debted to anybody."

Before I get yelled at, I promise I'm not a boomer trying to complain about 'kids these days' refusing to work or go the extra mile. I'm one of y'all, I swear 😔.

Now, before folks get upset, I'm not saying there's anything straight up wrong or "incorrect" about those statements. With that being said, I'm not explicitly agreeing with them either.

I'm saying that these ideas can be potentially dangerous when applied to everything.

When we devalue compassion and empathy for others, people get hurt. It sounds a lot like "Well yeah, you don't have to go out of your way to xyz, but are you responsible for the effects caused by your lack of action?"

We don't have to be polite, other people choose how they react to my words. We don't have to make all places accessible and welcome, nobody's entitled to be there. We don't have to out people as dishonest to others, because that's not our business. We don't have to tip or donate to the less fortunate, even if we live comfortably enough to do so without any issue. We don't have to respect the people that disagree with us as equal individuals, sometimes their wrongfulness means they have less worth than us. We don't have to move for anybody, and we don't have to share our space because that's their responsibility. I don't owe it to anybody to be kind, because the world doesn't deserve my forgiveness after what it's done to me.

These are examples of the sort of reasoning I see most often. These ideas can come from all kinds of people. There's a harshness to the truth in them. Realistically, we don't have to do anything at all. It is true that no other person is entitled to the services you provide. That is a fact that I will never dispute. I'm also not saying that these statements are morally incorrect.

The problem arises when large groups of people with influence believe in these things. Of course we don't need to have compassion and empathy for others, but when people that hold ANY kind of major power over the outcomes of others' situations believe this, it's dangerous. I'm talking about both rich/influential people AND average joes.

I'm talking about the bystanders that were there to witness me getting textbook bullied from elementary school up to my freshman year of high school. They did not owe me anything. They didn't have to intervene, because my personal wellbeing is nobody's responsibility but my own. Do I still resent them for watching me without a shred of sympathy? It's complicated. Those people (kids AND adults) are not bad people for standing off to the side. They caused me no direct harm, and they didn't bully me.

I'm not seeking attention or sympathy, I swear. Just using my experience to communicate my thoughts.

This story sounds biased, and it probably is, but it's still true that they were under no obligation to help me (except for some of the adults, lol). Of course it would have been nice, but that is their decision to make.

The people that watched are good to me now. They were good to me then, just not in the moments that I got bullied, which were unfortunately often. They weren't bad people in those moments, just absent: bystanders looking out for themselves.

Now imagine these scenarios: Sometimes, the bystander is also the bully. Sometimes, there is no obvious bully. Sometimes, the bystanders are not good people at all. Sometimes, the bystanders are bystanders ALL the time. Sometimes, the victim is a bad person. Sometimes, the bully is always good when they're not actively bullying the victim. Sometimes, the bully is life.

The question lies in where we as a society draw the line.

Where is it morally unacceptable to watch from afar without intervention?

Is it wrong to be focused on your own interest rather than the interests of other humans?

If this can be true on any level, are we all bystanders at some point in our lives?

Are we even capable of being egotists and hedonists without directly harming others in some way?

Or

Is this a passing trend?

Will there be a time and place where people focus more on the community rather than the individual? Or is compassion fading away for the better of the individual man?

Also if this was hard to read, it's cause I'm tired and too lazy to edit. Quite... egoist and hedonist of me... ���