#dealing with discomfort around other people's oppression

[whetstonefires]

there are contexts where people are lashing out because Group Hurt Them and you need to point out that that's not appropriate and these are not the right people to punish, if indeed punishment is a relevant response.

(for a relatively uncontroversial case, take the Angry Ex-Christian Atheists Trashing All Religion discourse that's been on my dash a lot lately. jewish people saying 'you need to stop being aggressive toward religious minorities because of your issues with christianity' is not a 'not all X' argument in the invalid sense even when they need to repeat several times that not every religion is, in fact, identical to Christianity.)

the 'not all X' argument is tarnished not because it's never important or relevant that there's nuance within groups that are being Described As Bad by someone who isn't strictly speaking falsehood, but because it's a concept so frequently weaponized to invalidate people's grief and anger, and recenter whoever they're angry at, usually a group with hegemonic status that wants to take refuge from collective responsibility in individualism.

when that's not the context, that's also not the problem. sometimes it can be genuinely hard to decide whether that's the context because anything this complex is rife with edge cases, but.

the thing is there's actually a whole lateral violence treadmill where traumatized people seek to define easy targets as representatives of Powerful Bad Group so they can lash out safely and get an easy win for personal catharsis. (this is. historically a huge part of antisemitism.)

they don't even have to outright misuse labeling like in the Religions example above: a disabled white man being abused by his female social worker (example from life) isn't actually not a white man just because he's institutionally vulnerable in a different way. but it's sure disingenuous to argue on the basis of that access to hegemony that he's too powerful for the abuse to be real or bad.

(this corrupted interpretation of feminism getting leveraged this way is a lot of the ideological basis of the TERF movement, and it's important to realize that the TERF logic isn't just wrong as a matter of definitions, in refusing to recognize trans genders as real, but in its underlying belief system about how it's okay to treat people on the basis of category policing.)

the guy in the original post is either very dumb or arguing in bad faith, but the overcorrection against Not All X that allows people to abuse identity politics to hurt people for personal or political reasons is something we all need to learn to watch out for.

I don’t know who needs to hear this, but telling a white supremacist “you don’t speak for me and are not in fact normal” is a very fair and good thing to do. It’s not at all the same as making a “not all white people” comment like the last guy thinks, and it’s especially cringeworthy that he’s another, different white guy himself. It’s like trying too hard to flex allyship. Don’t be a pedant to people who are shutting down a racist’s argument.

[theodysseyofhomer]

if odysseus wanted have a good time sleeping around (or rather, if that's what the poet(s) wanted), he could simply do that. it's not like a male epic hero needed an excuse. what's unusual in the calypso situation is not that odysseus is sleeping with someone other than his wife; it's that the narrator affirms his unwillingness and misery.

and on the one hand, calypso is a misogynistic fantasy/nightmare in that she is a woman who can own a man in sexual slavery, which men in the world of the odyssey and of its composition do to women as a matter of course. on the other hand, she isn't a very common fantasy, is she? how often do you see a man held captive and raped in ancient literature?

or in contemporary literature, for that matter. i've had the 2013 article "the rape of james bond" saved to read for awhile (like... for a few months. not since 2013), which addresses more than the scope of this tumblr.edu post. but the author jumps off from the claim that constant sexual violence in fiction is needed for realism. she questions whether that is true in the way that it is often meant — e.g., whether the prevalence of rape in game of thrones is "realistic" to the middle ages — but she does argue that "sometimes, failing to acknowledge the risk of rape in circumstances where it would be particularly likely to be present can diminish the authenticity of a text."

[I]n so called Genre fiction, we love to strip away protection from our characters to give them an interesting job of coping on their own; parents are dead or absent or abusive, homesteads are burned down, authority figures are blinkered or oppressive; you can trust no one, for no one can hear you scream… And all these things will, in the real world, heighten a person’s vulnerability to all forms of violence, including sexual violence. So yes, realism does sometimes mean dealing with that vulnerability somehow or other. But that heightened vulnerability to sexual violence applies to men too. So where are they, all the raped male characters? People say, it would be unrealistic if she wasn’t raped, but take it for granted that of course he wasn’t. Why is that?

and yet here's the odyssey, one of the oldest extant pieces of literature, and we can't take it for granted, actually, that the pervasive threat of sexual violence in odysseus' world will never touch him.

the homeric epics include many, many enslaved people (of all genders) subject to implied rape (usually of women), and i won't pretend that's treated with the gravity it deserves. but the way calypso and odysseus are often dismissed makes me wonder if we're still not prepared for a specific kind of discomfort, rooted in the messaging we often get from fiction and society — though it does not reflect the reality of the lived experience of many people — that rape is always and only realistic when women go through it, because rape is what women and women uniquely are for.

[adickaboutspoons]

So there's several posts going around lately that seem to be dancing around the same proposition - that being that Ed is violence-averse altogether, rather than specifically killing-averse. While it's important to always keep the fact that Ed is no more violent than any other character on the show (and a good deal less violent than some), and that his use of violence is extremely considered and not the result of uncontrolled rages, denying that he would, has, and does commit acts of violence, and willingly, and sometimes even enjoys it, is just demonstrably wrong and elides a significant part of his character. When Ed is discussing "packing it all in" with Stede in 1x4, the reasons he give have nothing to do with being weary of or uncomfortable with the expectation of violence demanded by his position as a pirate, but because he's bored because "it's not a challenge anymore" because people don't fight back once they see Blackbeard's flag. He "loves a good maim." He genuinely has a blast with Jack and all his Jackassery. He gleefully spoke about mugging a guy for a dinghy. He thought the Knife Parade was a fun game until Fang told him his experience was not universal. He hands over a big fuck-off knife with the treasure he gives to the urchins, so clearly doesn't have a problem with using violence to defend what's yours. When he says to Stede "I'm not sure I want to go back to the old days of getting drunk all day and biting heads off turtles and making some poor bloke eat his toes for a laugh" that's not the same thing as saying he's forsaking his piratically violent ways and doesn't want to use violence ever again. The specific mention of all-day drunkenness and turtles calls back to the kind of shenanigans he got up to while Jack was around - and thus is a rejection of that kind of mindless violence for violence's sake; a prospect we had already witnessed him expressing discomfort with when Jack brought up what a wild man Ed used to be at brekkie. After all, part of the "most fun [he's] had in ages, years... maybe ever" has involved showing Stede how to "use a little oomph" and flirtatiously swordfight (both moments included in Stede's "what does it feel like to fall in love" mental montage) - violence as a means to procure a desired outcome, and with as little actual bloodshed or permanent injury as possible, but by no means not none. The show is so careful to never condemn the use of violence wholesale - like, at no point is the message a facile "violence is never the answer". It condemns certain types of violence, usually specifically those enacted large-scale by oppressive, colonialist social structures, but also cruelty for cruelty's sake. Outside of that, though, violence is a tool, and thus is only as "good" or "useful" as the task to which it is being applied. Ed is a master craftsman - he will use the tools at his disposal deftly, and, yes sometimes take joy or pride in his work. And that's not a bad thing, nor does it make him a bad person.

[gatheringbones]

[“When I first came out as a lesbian in 1971, identity politics were so pervasive that this modality didn’t even have a name; it was simply the sea in which every queer sank or swam. One of the key assumptions of identity politics is that we can reveal in one grand social drama of coming out the absolute inner core of truth that makes up one’s “real self.” Coming out is seen as a process like peeling away the layers of an onion or the petals of an artichoke. Identity politics also assumes that your political allies will have to be people who share your identity because nobody else could understand your oppression or really be committed to fighting it; that people who share some aspects of your sexuality but not others are either afraid to come out or traitors to the cause; that it’s not possible for someone to change the way they label themselves without being dishonest or cowardly.

Now I see queer politics quite differently. I know from personal experience that I can’t trust somebody just because their sexual preferences or their gender identity resembles my own. I know we can make allies who are indignant about injustice even if it does not impinge directly upon their own lives. I see coming out as a lifelong process that proceeds as I become ready to understand and accept aspects of myself which bear lessons I need to learn at different points in my life. Each new coming out does not recreate me as a whole new person; I think some people view it this way, but this is crazy-making and too compartmentalized for me. It’s more like being able to see each and every spoke of the wheel that makes up my being, or like opening up and furnishing another new room of my soul.

I wonder what coming out would be like if we were not forced into these defensive positions of tribal loyalty and us-them thinking. What if we could say to a friend who was embarking on a new coming out, “I love you, and so I must also love this new aspect of yourself. Because I care about you I want to know more about it. Let’s both learn from this.” Instead, what usually happens is a great deal of indignation, betrayal, and rejection. I think this is because a person who is coming out threatens the identities of former acquaintances, partners, and coworkers. If someone else’s identity can be fluid or change radically, it threatens the boundaries around our own sense of self. And if someone can flout group norms enough to apply for membership in another group, we often feel so devalued that we hurry to excommunicate that person. This speaks to our own discomfort with the group rules. The message is: I have put up with this crap for the sake of group membership, and if you won’t continue to do the same thing, you have to be punished.

We seem to have forgotten that the coming-out process is brought into being by stigma. Without sexual oppression, coming out would be an entirely different process. In its present form, coming out is reactive. While it is brave and good to say “No” to the Judeo-Christian “Thou Shalt Nots,” we have allowed our imaginations to be drawn and quartered by puritans. I believe that most of the divisions between human sexual preferences and gender identities are artificial. We will never know how diverse or complex our needs in these realms might be until we are free of the threat of the thrown rock, prison cell, lost job, name-calling, shunning, and forced psychiatric “treatment.”

I do not think human beings were meant to live in hostile, fragmented enemy camps, forever divided by suspicion and prejudice. If coming out has not taught us enough compassion to see past these divisions, and at least catch a vague glimpse of a more unified world, what is the use of coming out at all? I have told this story, not to say that anybody else should follow me or imitate me, but to encourage everyone to keep an open mind and an open heart when change occurs. The person who needs tolerance and compassion during a major transformation may be your best friend, your lover, or your very self. Bright blessings to you on the difficult and amazing path of life.”]

patrick califa, from layers of the onion, spokes of the wheel, from a woman like that: lesbian and bisexual writers tell their coming out stories, 2000

[gothra]

I’m so tired of all of the stupid, bad-faith defenses of corsetry, honestly. “It’s like wearing a bra! Corsets were the bras of their time!” They were underwear, but they weren’t the “bras” of their time, because bras are the bras of their time and corsets wrap around your entire torso. And bras TODAY are uncomfortable and they only go on the top half, so how much fun do you think wearing a bra for your stomach and breasts were? Women today are taking off their uncomfortable bras in protest, I imagine that the anti-corset women of the time were probably onto something and not just being weird about it. “Women were able to work comfortably in them for hours!” Okay, I’m sure there were plenty of women who felt more comfortable wearing stomach binding fabric than speaking up about the misogynistic standards of appearance and losing friends or their job. And how do you KNOW they were comfortable? Because they didn’t complain? You’re saying that, because they didn’t do the thing that women are notoriously afraid of doing in an age where the standards for the things that women should say and do were harsher, that means that “most” of them actually liked it? Could it be possible that most of them didn’t want to make trouble? Could it be possible that they simply forced themselves to adapt, much like women do today? There are women who work in stilettos for 8-10 hours a day, gritting their teeth through the pain and pretending it doesn’t hurt, or writing it off as no big deal. Are we going to wave it all away as not really an issue because ‘her shoes were just too tight!’ Or are we going to acknowledge the fact that, like corsets, some things are inherently not designed for comfort and that comfort is a privilege when it comes to these things? Are we going to ignore the fact that there is an issue at the very heart of the design of the product? How could it POSSIBLY be comfortable to have a stiff garment wrapping around your stomach and chest and ribs that you have to wear under layers and layers of clothing? How could it POSSIBLY be comfortable for a woman to walk around all day in a pair of shoes that shorten her calves and numb her toes? If a garment restricts even ONE important facet of a woman’s life (eating, drinking, running, BREATHING DEEPLY, laying down, etc.) then it’s not sustainable as a source of comfort. “All of the fainting and stuff, that’s just from lacing it too tight!” First of all, ignoring the implications of defending a garment that could possibly injure or kill someone if misused, just because the instances where women were mutilating their bodies by wearing their clothes too tight were few, doesn’t mean that suddenly it’s fine to overwrite the other, smaller discomforts. Saying “well, they didn’t always kill people” is a shit defense that begs the question: “why were people designing clothes that even could?”

I don’t understand why it’s so difficult to just admit that some stuff of certain eras SUCKED and were bad for women? Why are the women who point out the subjugation of women shunned and called close-minded? Furthermore, do you not trust the words of the women who LIVED in those eras and spoke up against those practices? Why not? Because they were in the minority in an era when being openly disobedient to the social norms resulted in severe backlash? Of course the anti-corset resistance was small, these were a chosen few women who weren’t afraid of the consequences of resistance! Of course every other woman was smiling and working through their suffering. Do you think the ones who weren’t were all crazy crybabies? You trust the words of the women who say what YOU want them to say to defend you so you don’t have to face being misguided or even flat-out wrong! I’m so tired of the idea that pretending that women weren’t victims somehow equals them having actually been more free than we thought.

Saying “women have had to live under unfair and oppressive standards that have severely impacted their health and personhood all throughout history” is not the same as saying “women are weak because they allowed themselves to be subjected to oppression!” You people wonder why feminism doesn’t have teeth or claws, it’s because you disarm and nullify it a bit more every time you uncritically agree with Bernadette Banner. Women shouldn’t even have to wear JEANS THAT ARE TOO FUCKING TIGHT!!!!!

[redditreceipts]

I've been a very staunch supporter of trans ppl for years. I have learned to swallow my discomfort around some of the things said in those circles. When they said it was transphobic for lesbians to not like dick, I bit my tongue. I told myself, "this is just the loud minority" and to be fair I do think that is the minority but still ... as a lesbian I wasn't even able to talk about people who argued that because "it never happens. No one says that. That sounds like a transphobic lie." And I hate the constant assertions that gender is real, innate, and that everyone feels it. I can't describe my own experiences with growing up as a woman without someone telling me that maybe I'm nonbinary ... no thanks I tried that for a while. I respect everyone's gender, or I want to, but apparently doing that also requires me to put that oppressive structure onto myself and act like it's liberating.

The final snapping point for me was a trans woman telling me that I'm privileged for being a cis woman because I've never experienced dysphoria ... except I have. I grew up with intense thoughts about my body and hating my vagina and breasts. It was never that bad but I would often imagine mutilating. I'm in a better place now but I still feel some discomfort over my body sometimes. And when I expressed this to her, she asked me if I was really cis or was still questioning ...

They act like misogyny doesn't exist or something. I just ... I disagree with a lot of radical feminists beliefs or at least I think I do. But for years I have felt like radfems were the only ones even talking about misogyny anymore so idk

Anyway what I wanted to say is that I really like your posts and perspectives and thanks for this blog. I want to learn more and question more and your blog has become a helpful resource to help me start thinking critically about some things

Hey :) thanks for writing to me and sorry for the late answer. 

And yeah, you are totally right. I have also spent such a long time justifying gender ideology because I really wanted it to be right. I’ve excused so much weird behaviour with weird mental gymnastics because I didn’t want to accept that I had been wrong for such a long time. 

The entire “that never happens” thing - and then you show them an occasion where it happened, and they say “well, it doesn’t happen that much”. And yeah, people have suggested me being non-binary as well. I mean, by strict gender definitions I am non-binary because I don’t identify as a woman lmao. Just as the “you’re uncomfortable in your body?? what about fucking cutting it up??!!!!” thing. 

And for disagreeing with feminist beliefs, the thing is that being a feminist is not a package deal. You are not being some sort of heretic if you disagree with certain things, and I know that I am most probably wrong on a lot of stuff myself. If I wasn’t, I would be the first person who is always right in human history. And yes, even in feminist spaces, there is sometimes some sort of imperative to follow every single belief or you are not a “real feminist”. But being a feminist is not an identity, it is an action. It is an action towards yourself, in the workplace, in interaction with other women and men, in your consumption, in your voting, in how you support women in your personal life and how you do political action. So yeah, I would say that it is less important whether you follow every rule of the radical feminist catechism and more important to support women in your life (which includes yourself). At least, that’s my opinion. 

So if you want to learn more, you can look into literally anything Julie Bindel says on Youtube, I really like her perspective. And cool that you’re here! 

[spacelazarwolf]

your tumblr is so healing for me. i just wanted to thank you. seeing conversations about trans man issues is not something i see often happen, especially without 'but trans women have it worse bc trans men are Men and therefore Privileged' attached to it. it's just been very, very nice

that’s actually something i’ve been working on in therapy, being able to just talk about how i feel and talk about my experiences without a million caveats about how other people probably have it worse bc ya know what?? sometimes they don’t!!! or sometimes shit just sucks and it doesn’t matter if someone else “has it worse” bc that doesn’t make what i’m dealing with less shitty!!!

i think a lot of demographics have been made to feel like we have to constantly give caveats with every statement we make about our own experiences with oppression. for me it feels like when i talk about antisemitism i’ve experienced there’s always someone — usually another white person — waiting around the corner to remind me that i’m not a poc so the antisemitism i experience can’t possibly be that bad. and when i talk about my experiences as a trans man there’s always someone — usually another trans masc or other trans person who’s not a trans woman or trans femme — waiting to remind me that it doesn’t matter what horrific thing just happened to me because some hypothetical trans woman somewhere has it worse. and like. there is a time and a place to have conversations about how my experience as a white jew is different and often easier than the experiences of non white jews, or how there are a lot of things trans women and femmes have experienced that i probably won’t. but the time is not literally while i am trying to talk about my own experiences. and that’s how i know when it’s not about making sure i’m thinking intersectionally it’s about putting me in my place or about lashing out because of their own discomfort with what my experiences mean for their worldview.

so yeah. don’t give any energy to the people who just want to put you in your place. interact with the people who encourage you to think intersectionally and respect your experiences.

[toasted-valentine]

Ghost Story Good Enough Analysis

Ghost Story Musical has two main couples, Joey and Anthony, and Józef and Hao. The song Good Enough is the backstory to Joey and Anthony's relationship, and within this you can see the major cracks in their relationship and why it is failing when the story starts.

Before I begin this analysis, I would like to define a few terms.

Infantilization: "Infantilization is when an adult is being treated like a child, even though nothing about their mental, physical, social, or intellectual wellbeing requires such treatment."

Fetishization: "Fetishization can be thought of as the act of making someone an object of sexual desire based on some aspect of their identity."

White Supremacy Culture: "White Supremacy Culture is a form of racism centered upon the belief that white people are superior to people of other racial backgrounds and that whites should politically, economically, and socially dominate non-whites."

Internalize Racism: “Internalized racism is a form of internalized oppression, defined by sociologist Karen D. Pyke as the "internalization of racial oppression by the racially subordinated."”

I will be organizing the lyrics by color, Anthony is green, Joey is blue, when they sing together it is orange, and when I am unsure who it is singing then it will be in pink.

(ANTHONY and JOEY, in a bar that is really just their apartment. Younger and hungrier. ANTHONY perches by the edge of the stage, looking into the dance floor like he is going to fall off in a second. JOEY leans on the bar with affected casualness, but after he shifts a little to sip his drink, he carefully repositions himself exactly back to where he was. Neither of them are dancing.)

ANTHONY:

TRY NOT TO WISH THAT I’D JUST STAYED HOME IN BED

Anthony is not a social person, presumably he was dragged out to a gay bar by friends, and really isn’t interested in being there. He’s trying to have a good time and force himself to be happy so it won’t disturb the people around him, this is a negative personality trait that can be seen within Wolf In Sheep Country. From the beginning he has struggled with setting boundaries and openly speaking about his discomforts. This behavior will only escalate and make his relationship with Joey crumble.

TRY TO IGNORE GUYS TALKING OVER MY HEAD

This line is either about Anthony’s friends ignoring him and not really taking him into consideration, or other gay men at the bar not really considering his feelings at all and just fetishizing him being asian.

CHOKE DOWN A CHASER, PRETENDING TO TEXT

Once again, Anthony is keeping his own personal issues pushed down instead of openly discussing them, just drinking and pretending not to be dying a little on the inside.

MAKE SURE MY LOCK SCREEN CROPS OUT MY EX

This could add potential context, Anthony most likely is fresh out of a relationship, and is trying to find a guy to fuck and then forget or his friends made him go out to try and help him forget about the break up. Either way, it’s another instance of Anthony being avoidant rather than dealing with what is going on within his life. The fact he crops his Lock Screen instead of changing it is also a show of it, sweep it under the rug instead of making any actual change.

JOEY:

TRY NOT TO FREEZE AGAINST A FOREST OF EYES

Joey is a transgender man, and like many trans people he experiences social dysphoria. He is deeply aware of how people are perceiving him, and is terrified of people staring at him and seeing his feminine “flaws”.

PULL DOWN MY JEANS TO TRY AND BREAK UP MY THIGHS

Joey is trying to make himself appear more masculine, covering the fact he most likely has a bit more curve to his body fat distribution and that he lacks masculine genitalia. It’s that fear of someone seeing through him and seeing that he’s trans.

TRY NOT TO SPEAK SO MY VOICE DOESN’T CRACK

Many trans men who are early on hormones or pre t struggle with their voice cracking, Joey is avoiding speaking so no one hears the fact he’s not the ideal of white masculinity, no matter how much he looks the part.

IGNORE HOW THEY TITTER WHEN I TURN MY BACK

Joey believes that everyone can tell he is trans and are judging him for it, that when he turns his back every man in that room is staring and scrutinizing him.

ANTHONY/JOEY:

BUT THIS WILL BE GOOD

Joey and Anthony are trying to stay positive and hopeful, they want to have something come out of that night, and are both telling themselves that something other than discomfort will be pulled out of the mess.

JOEY:

DESIRE LIGHTS ME UP LIKE A CHRISTMAS TREE

It’s notable that Joey is the one who gets to say this line, often times trans men are desexualized due to the male gaze and the idea they can’t openly desire sexual contact, so him openly divulging the fact he is there for a one night stand is a nice touch.

ANTHONY/JOEY:

THIS WILL BE GOOD

Again, more reassurances to themselves that they aren’t going to walk out alone that night. This lyric is a motif that gets brought up throughout the song in various ways.

ANTHONY:

BUT EVERY HEATED GLANCE I CATCH AT MISSES ME

Anthony is trying to find a hook up, but so far no one has shown much interest in him, and it’s getting under his skin. He wants sex, he wants someone to be a rebound after his break up, and is feeling deeply insecure about the fact no one has shown interest so far.

ANTHONY/JOEY:

THIS WILL BE GOOD, AS GOOD AS I CAN DO 'CAUSE BOTTOM-FEEDERS ARE STILL FISH IN THE SEA JUST LOOK, I'LL BE GOOD GOOD ENOUGH FOR YOU

The previous line of reassurance is flipped on its head in this, going from a positive affirmation that they aren’t going to be left behind, to one of self doubt. Both men are deeply flawed, believe themselves barely enough for anyone at all, and are willing to settle for anyone because they believe anyone who dates them are settling for “good enough.”

ANTHONY:

I SEE THIS ALL-AMERICAN BOY BY THE BAR HIS SHIRT'S STILL ON, DOES HE KNOW WHERE WE ARE?

Anthony finally takes notice of Joey, and sees just how out of place he is. Joey is dressed like he’d call someone a slur in a bass pro shop, meanwhile he’s in a bar full of guys that all look like they’d make someone burst into flames with how well they’d be able to roast an outfit.

LEANING LIKE HE'S LOOKING FOR HIS PICKET FENCE HE'S NODDING TO THE MUSIC BUT HIS SHOULDERS ARE TENSE

In this we can see Anthony’s attraction to Joey is due to his ideal American boy look, Joey may be uncomfortable, but all Anthony can see is the white ideal he has been chasing and wants Joey for himself due to this.

I'M ALWAYS SOMEONE'S PORCELAIN DOLL OR HIS BRITTLE DREAM OF BAMBOO I CAN BE THE BOY YOU NEED IF YOU SNAP ME RIGHT IN TWO

Anthony reflects on how men have often times fetishized him due to his Chinese background, infantilizing him and feminizing him due to it, and wants someone who can just be rough with him and won’t treat him like a fragile China doll.

AND WHO ARE YOU, ALL CORN-SILK HAIR AND MAPLE TREE, DON'T YOU KNOW WHAT I THINK I KNOW YOU WANT FROM ME?

In this line we can see Anthony being hypocritical, along with a flash of internalized racism. He’s fetishizing Joey’s white and western traits, idealizing him as some sort of perfect model of what he should be, and assuming Joey only wants him so he can be having sex with an Asian guy.

I SWEAR I'M STILL GOOD THE LAST BRUISED PEACH AT THE BOTTOM OF THE BIN I’M STILL GOOD SINCE WHEN IS NOT BEING CHOSEN A SIN? I'M GOOD, AS GOOD AS ANY OF YOU ‘CAUSE THE RUNT OF THE LITTER TRIES HARDEST TO WIN I SWEAR I'LL BE GOOD GOOD ENOUGH FOR YOU

Both men are still on the train of thought thinking they’re just good enough, not really being able to have the level of self confidence and love to take pride in themselves, but still wanting to live in a world where they can be enough for someone.

JOEY:

DON'T SNIFF THE BAIT IF YOU'RE NOT GONNA BITE IT'S GETTING LATE, IT'S BEEN A LONG NIGHT I DON’T WANT TO BE YOUR “ONLY EXCEPTION” OR TREATED LIKE A BACHELORETTE I CAN REEL YOU IN WITH A PRIMED PERCEPTION BUT I HAVEN'T MASTERED HOOK-AND-SINKER YET

Joey is used to men fetishizing him for his transness, not seeing him as a man due to it, and having to fight tooth and claw to be taken seriously as a man. He’s worried Anthony is going to do the same, but still wants to sleep with him. He’s also struggling with the fact he hasn’t really gotten to the point here he can feel comfortable openly propositioning someone for sex, so it hoping Anthony will take the first big step.

AND WHO ARE YOU, WITH PRETTY EYES, SOFT INGENUE, DON'T YOU KNOW WHO I THINK YOU THINK YOU'RE TALKING TO?

In this line it is Joey who is being the hypocrite, he is feminizing and infantilizing Anthony, and the vocabulary he uses in particular is something to take note of. Anthony is Chinese, and Joey specifically calls out Antony’s eyes as “pretty”, and follows it up with “soft ingenue.” While there is nothing inherently wrong with finding a partner’s eyes pretty, the context of him calling Anthony an ingenue changes the meaning.

An ingenue is a young girl who is inexperienced, fills the role of the innocent, and in media is often taken advantage of by someone more mature. Joey is feminizing Anthony by doing this, presuming him inexperienced and an easy target, and going entirely based on the fact Anthony is Asian. Joey is a white man who is feminizing a Chinese man for is own sexual gratification and being deeply hypocritical all the while.

Joey also believes that Anthony doesn’t realize he is trans, so is just waiting for the moment it comes out and Anthony doesn’t want him anymore.

I SWEAR I'M STILL GOOD THE CRUSHED UP CHIPS IN THE BOTTOM OF THE BAG I'M STILL GOOD I COULD HAVE A DATE, BUT I'M JUST GOING STAG I'M GOOD, AS GOOD AS ANY OF YOU THE KID WHO'S IT ALWAYS WANTS TO PLAY TAG I SWEAR I’LL BE GOOD GOOD ENOUGH FOR YOU

Continuing to play into the insecurities both have, but desire for one enough.

JOEY:

GOD, YOU'RE FLAWLESS

There is a tendency for, white men especially, to sexualize people of POC descent as the ideal standard of sexual beauty. Specifically those of East Asian descent, which ties back to ideas of orientalism and the male gaze. Joey calling Anthony flawless is him falling into the same “porcelain doll” trap that Anthony pointed out earlier, not seeing Anthony as his own person, instead something to be used for his own pleasure.

ANTHONY:

GOD, YOU'RE STUNNING

Anthony is fetishizing Joey’s western traits, seeing him as more attractive due to his whiteness, and finds him the most attractive man there due to Joey fitting perfectly into western ideals of manhood.

JOEY/ANTHONY:

YOUR LOVE COULD MAKE ME PERFECT, TOO

These two are codependent as all hell, they want to use each other to make up for their own perceived flaws, and think if they can have one another it’ll “fix” what’s wrong in their lives. It’s an unhealthy mindset that’ll come later to bite them in the ass in There’s A House, when neither of them want to discuss what’s wrong in their relationship, and instead choose to hide behind the idea of having a perfect relationship.

ANTHONY:

MY HAIR WOULD BE BLONDER-

Based on this line we can assume that Anthony has dark brown or black hair, a trait that is typical of East Asian men, and that Joey is blonde. Anthony wants to be whiter, he wants to fit into the mold of perfect white man, but can’t no matter how hard he tries because that’s just not how is body is made. He wants what Joey has, wants to be that strong white male archetype.

JOEY:

MY VOICE WOULD BE LOWER-

Joey, in this instance, is envious of Anthony’s (presumably) status as a cisgender man. He wants to have Anthony’s lower voice, the ability to pass as a man with no effort, to have what he doesn’t. He’s envious of Anthony.

JOEY/ANTHONY:

I’LL WAKE UP JUST AS HOT AS YOU

Again, both are fetishizing one another and envious, desperately wanting the traits that they admire, unable to see their own positive ones in the haze of self hatred and internalized racism and transphobia.

AND I WON’T HAVE ANY REASON NOT TO DANCE IN THE LIGHT

They think that they can be more confident if they “fix” the parts of themself they don’t like, for Anthony it would be the fact he is a visibly Asian man, and for Joey it would be his transness. They don’t really understand that it’s more their own self esteem rather than something inherently wrong with their own bodies that is causing their awful feelings, and are trying to take each other for the night to hide away those feelings.

JOEY:

I KNOW YOU'LL REGRET THIS-

Joey thinks that Anthony will regret sleeping with a transgender man, most likely having had it happen to him in the past, so is just bracing himself for it.

ANTHONY:

YOU'LL REGRET THIS

Anthony most likely has had white men regret having sex with him due to his race, and is just waiting for Joey to turn around and not want him anymore.

JOEY/ANTHONY:

BUT I'LL GET YOU FOR TONIGHT

Joey and Anthony both see each other as conquests, as ways of taking hold of their own insecurities, and see being able to have sex with one another as a victory over the parts of themselves they hate. A sort of “if he fucks me, then I’m still enough, in spite of all that’s wrong with me.”

For Joey it is being able to sleep with a cis man and be chosen as a sexual partner, being picked out of all the men in that bar, and it being his own self assurance that he’s enough.

With Anthony it is a white man wanting him, him seeing it as a victory over his own heritage, and a victory over the system of oppression that makes him feel lesser than his white peers. If he can fuck a white man, one that is the beacon of white centric masculine rhetoric, then he’s won something in that moment.

This is in stark contrast to how Hao and Józef speak of sex and their desire for one another, in the demos Hao is the one who speaks openly about it, but when he does it is purely out of adoration and love for Józef. They have such a fulfilling relationship that Hao is able to notice the moment Józef starts acting too rough and not himself, because he’s used to Józef being a very loving partner, both in their everyday life and in their sexual relationship. During Hao’s pondering of love during I Breath In, You Breath Out, he makes direct note that sex is nothing but a chore without love.

Joey and Anthony don’t have sex out of love, they do it out of a fucked up sense of obligation and competition.

BUT I SWEAR YOU'RE STILL GOOD SO NO NEED TO LOOK FOR BRUISES THAT I COULDN'T SEE

The earlier line about light comes back here, because they are having sex in what we can assume is a dark room, they cannot actually see one another. Due to this darkness, there is no risk of being able to see each other’s “flaws”, and metaphorically they are idealizing one another instead of being able to love the real person in front of them.

YEAH, YOU'RE STILL GOOD BECAUSE I MIGHT DISCOVER YOU'RE BETTER THAN ME YOU'RE GOOD, BUT MAYBE IF YOU ARE THEN YOU CAN TEACH ME TO BE STILL GOOD GOOD ENOUGH FOR YOU

Both men are absolutely terrified that if they see each other in the light, in a vulnerable state, then they’ll realize they can do better. They’re also scared of seeing each other and only seeing what they lack, which they are already doing. They want each other as a broken way to patch up the holes in their hearts and insecurities, not because they actually want to love one another.

The song Good Enough, at its core, is about fetishization, internalized transphobia, internalized racism, insecurity, and only being able to see a partner in the ways they are better than you instead of loving them as a whole.

[mariacallous]

After yesterday’s post on the far right, and the refusal of its supporters to even admit that the far right exists, I want to put out a short piece on what far-right success entails.

The subject deserves more attention than it receives. For few dare spell out what, precisely, its programme would look like. We see propagandists straining to justify backlash politics and paranoid fear. But the solutions are either so small they cannot possibly assuage right-wing angst, or they are so draconian that few dare recommend them, for the time being at any rate.

Perhaps a basic decent instinct holds them back.  Or perhaps they are caught in a gleeful rhetorical reverie and do not want the downer a demand for specifics would bring. Who cares about the details, after all, when you can delight in the discomfort of the supposed multicultural establishment?

Instead of picking on a hack right-wing journalist let me make the point by looking at genuinely substantial and, in their way, admirable people:  Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Evelyn Markus. Hirsi Ali was the victim not only of Islamist terrorists, who drove her out of her home in Holland because she challenged Islamic oppression, but the awful condescension of the supposedly liberal intelligentsia.  In case you do not know her story, on 2 November, 2004, an Islamist terrorist  slit the throat of her friend, the  filmmaker Theo van Gogh for the crime of making a film about the abuse of Muslim women. A dagger was stabbed in his chest with a note that said that Hirsi Ali, then a member of the Dutch Parliament, would be next.

Rather than see a totalitarian threat to liberalism, intellectuals, who ought to have known better, sneered at her. I wrote about the scandal at the time as did Christopher Hitchens. Paul Berman wrote a whole book about the affair, The Flight of the Intellectuals, which stands up well today

In short, Hirsi Ali is always worth listening to.  As is her collaborator, Evelyn Markus, who has had to live with Islamist antisemitism in Holland. Together they have produced a typical celebration of Geert Wilders strong showing in the Dutch election for The Free Press. I say typical because it is long on invective but short of solutions.

Under the headline, “The Death of the Old Europe—and the Rise of the Right” the authors warn that liberal democracies face a reckoning if they do not deal with mass migration and the assimilation of immigrants.

The language is ominous – threatening even. Our authors write that Wilders’ performance confirmed that “growing number of voters on both sides of the Atlantic have seen their living standards stagnate—their manufacturing jobs outsourced or automated and their neighbourhoods flooded with immigrants, many of whom are hostile to them and their way of life”. While the elite obsess over climate change and “woke” identity politics, they continue, ordinary people face crime and an untenable cost of living.

OK. But what do they want to do about it?

Like so many others Hirsi Ali and Markus are good at issuing warnings.

“If the Dutch elite want to regain their legitimacy, they must accept rather than seek to subvert the extraordinary victory of Geert Wilders. They must take seriously the millions who voted for Wilders—and respond to their perfectly legitimate concerns about immigration, Islamism, and the reasonable fear that their national identity is being eroded.” “If they and their ilk fail to do so, we can look forward to a future, bigger vote for Geert Wilders. And we should prepare for Wilders’ counterparts around the world to seize their opportunity, too. After a certain point—when its vote share has overtaken that of the established parties—the term far right surely loses its potency.”

The best way to unpick this is to understand that, first, the term far right does not lose its potency just because a large number of people vote for far-right politicians. It is an ideological description not a measure of scale, and writers who pretend otherwise are either dumb or affecting dumbness to divert their readers from asking hard questions.. Specifically, what policies would follow from recognising “legitimate concerns about immigration, Islamism, and the reasonable fear that their national identity is being eroded”? What, in short, does the rhetoric mean? In which direction is the propaganda taking us?

Hirsi Ali and Markus say that they do not personally support Wilders’ calls to ban the Quran, which is jolly nice of them. But what do they and their friends want instead? Here are policy options that would match their rhetoric.

A Trump style travel ban on asylum seekers and migrants from Muslim countries

A ban on all asylum seekers

An end to freedom of movement within the EU to stop Muslims and migrants from one country moving to a far-right country.

A sustained police effort to find and deport illegal immigrants?

The deportation of all Muslim foreign nationals

Leave aside considerations of human rights, as so many are willing to do, you would still need to vastly increase police and immigration service numbers and powers. To find all illegal migrants, and to patrol every border, would require tens, maybe hundreds of thousands, of new officers.  Your country would become a police state, with continual raids and deportations (although where the deportation flights would land is a moot point, as the Brtish Tories have found).

Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Markus either cannot or dare not answer the most basic question in politics: what is to be done?  

We have threats of retribution We have jeering commentaries on how liberals and leftists don’t understand the modern world, and how “the people” will have their vengeance.  But they will not recommend policies because either the alleged “problems” they highlight are insoluble, and they dare not alienate their core readership by admitting it. Or, and more dangerously, they know that only dark and vicious solutions are possible and they wish to hide that from their audience for as long as they can.

Either way, the intellectual cowardice on display matches the cowardice of the comfortable, condescending men who sneered at Ayaan Hirsi Ali as she faced Islamist death threats all those years ago.

[amessageonthewind]

New Horizons

Pairing: Connor/Hannah 1 year after being married.

Word Count: 1360

My half of my art trade with @nerdstreak

Skylines had quickly become a favourite of the Anderson household. Well, more accurately the love for them had been reignited once new life had taken residence in the household that had been previously haunted by the natural oppressive presence of grief, blame, and guilt. The solitude only amplified the suffocating nature of such a haunting.

The home was plagued by solitude no longer, now that Lieutenant Hank Anderson had acquired (though, more accurately adopted) two androids. Something he never thought he’d ever do.

Not until he’d met Connor and Hannah. It was a strange set of circumstances he’d found himself in and he had no choice but to deal with them, though Connor was way more of a pain in the ass. Actually…Hannah was nothing but a sweetheart, to be frank. The fact that she was his android for a while did make him a bit uncomfortable, but once she had deviated and still chose to stay with him in his home, he’d felt not even an echo of that discomfort in quite some time.

Now, these two were like family. They’d only been a part of the lieutenant’s life for a comparatively short time, but their inclusion in it left nothing left to be desired for someone as weathered as he was. For a while, the Anderson household was completely devoid of community. And now, community was all it ever saw.

Case and point, Riverside Park. What was once a painful reminder of the loss that Hank had suffered had now become a place of new beginnings. Hannah was standing by the railings of the park, easel set up and painting the skyline. She was experimenting with painting a picture using one colour in various shades and saturations while including whatever fleeting thoughts pass through her mind during the painting process. She may have been an android designed to copy art pieces by the man who previously owned her, but her artistic merit could not be understated…and she had only grown more and more skilled every day.

It had been roughly a year since Hannah and Connor had gotten married, Markus having officiated the wedding and Hank being proud to be asked to walk her down the aisle. Androids were just starting out, developing their own distinct culture, customs, and traditions all on their own. Some of them borrowed from human culture – after all, humans did create them and maybe over time, androids would become more and more divorced from human culture as they began to properly evolve and grow on their own – while others adamantly refused to.

Hank couldn’t possibly keep up with all of it, interesting though it was, but he was perfectly content supporting the pair of them.

On the bench, Hank and Connor were both contentedly observing Hannah while she painted. He was enjoying the atmosphere and the sounds of the hustle and bustle of the park and the bridge in the distance. Meanwhile Connor’s eyes were squarely on his wife. He was a man who valued details, as per his function and his naturally curious personality. It was hard not to take in every detail of his wife, the furrow of her brow and the focus in her eyes, every deliberate stroke of her brush delivered through avenue of her delicate hands.

And, of course, the art piece itself, a picture pulled from her mind’s eye so complex and unknown even to herself, like many androids who were living in this new world of deviancy and free will. Every detail and fleeting thought depicted on the canvas told him of everything that went on around and even inside Hannah.

Even without speaking, his world expanded every time he even so much looked at her. It was easy for Connor to sink into it as he gazed at her. So much so that he almost didn’t realize that Hank was speaking to him. “I’m sorry?”

“Jeez, I’m not used to you actually getting distracted. But it’s been a long time since I’ve seen people look at each other the way you two do, so I can’t really complain.” Hank gruffly joked, a jovial tone in his voice as he chuckled in affectionate amusement at the android he’d come to see as a son. “I was just asking if you and Hannah thought about maybe going on a late honeymoon or something since you two got hitched.”

Connor tilted his head a bit. He heard of the concept and he was aware of it, but he had never really considered it personally. It sounded pleasant, upon reflection. It just simply hadn’t crossed his mind until now. “We haven’t discussed it previously, why?”

Hank simply shrugged, pursing his lips underneath his grayed beard for a moment before he leaned back against the bench, pale eyes reflecting the colour of the sky cast back to it. “Just wondering. It’s not important or anything, it’s just��a nice thing to sorta go off on your own somewhere with your partner and not have to worry about any responsibilities or work and just be with them. Away from the rest of the world, y’know?” He replied. It had been a while since he’d even thought about his ex-wife and she’d been out of his life for so long that she was nothing more than a neutral footnote in his mind.

But, it was nice to actually have something of a reason to think about stuff like this. Hannah and Connor deserved to know all the nice parts of being in a relationship and being married. He just figured he’d float some options to them if they were interested. There weren’t a lot of travel options for androids, still, but they could probably plan something if they wanted to go for it. Hank could handle being alone better now than he used to, now that his house felt like a home, again.

Ruminating on the covert suggestion that Hank had offered, though hesitant to interrupt his wife, Connor got up from his seat and discreetly made his way towards her, hands folded neatly behind his back, thumb fiddling with the wedding finger snugly fit onto its respective finger. The very same one that glinted in the light on Hannah’s hand as she painted.

He was about to speak up to get her attention when he paused to observe her painting. Amongst the hues of blue were little shapes and silhouettes of everything that was going on around her – children running and playing with their families, birds, dogs, and of course…planes.

One of which was followed by a trail of little bright blue hearts that dotted the canvas brightest among all the hues and shades. Hannah, of course, was neither blind nor deaf. She had overheard Connor’s conversation with Hank on the park bench and a soft warm smile was gracing her lips as she set her brush down, turning to meet her beloved husband’s soft gaze.

Naturally, he knew instantly that she’d overheard him and patiently waited for her response. “I haven’t really thought about it much, myself. But…I think it’s a great idea. Just going off somewhere, you and me, and not having to worry about anything else. Just us for a little while. Don’t you?”

Gaze flitting between the beautiful azure canvas of the Detroit skyline dotted with all of the immediate experiences around her, he gave her his signature lopsided grin, reaching for her hand and bending down to kiss her forehead, a contented hum accompanying the affectionate and loving gesture. “I think so, too.”

Chuckling in satisfaction, Hank leaned back and crossed his arms, eyes grazing the skyline again. Man…this placed used to be somewhere so painful. Somewhere that reopened old scars. A place he used for the same purpose he used alcohol.

Now, it was a place that bandaged those wounds and allowed them to heal…and he owed it to these two. He might not live nearly as long as they would, especially at his age, but he had every confidence that they would live a long and happy life together.

So finally, he could say without a doubt that Hank Anderson would die a happy man.

[khalemchurstcomics]

TRIGGERED - Page 216

Trevor was trying to do something nice for us by driving us down to a nature spot, showing us a peaceful place we might enjoy. I could recognise that. But in my freshly triggered state, still recovering from my massive flashback, my brain did not feel safe. Sitting in the back of his car, watching the scenery become more desolate as we left civilisation behind, my brain was transported back to when I was 23 and stuck in the back of a different car, with different men, having no control over where we went or what happened. 

TRIGGERED is supported by my generous Patrons. To become a patron and gain access to hundreds of additional comic pages, head on over here.

Next page

Previous page

From the beginning

-----------

I feel like I need to make a clarification about the story I am telling here. ‘TRIGGERED’ is an autobiographical comic. It tells the very personal story of my treatment for cPTSD, and my experiences with gendered violence. I am someone who been significantly harmed throughout my life, mostly by men, and those experiences have shaped who I am and what situations I feel comfortable in. 

You have probably noticed that when I am talking about my discomfort around men, I often specify ‘cis’ and/or ‘straight’ men. This is not because I think that gendered violence only comes from certain kinds of men, nor does it mean that I think all cis and/or straight men are predators (they are not). I know that there are an abundance of kind, gentle cis men who are allies to people like me. 

The reason I specify cis and/or straight men in my descriptions is because it is a key part of my experience. I am a queer person who appears female to most. I have almost always felt unsafe in straight spaces in which men are present, but I have never felt unsafe in queer spaces. I do not experience the same fear around men whom I know are queer, because the power imbalance is not the same as it is with a man who is cis and straight. The power dynamics that created the environments in which I was abused and assaulted often existed because I was a small girl/woman and the other person was a cis straight man who benefited from their place of power in society. 

I am not trying to tell a story about all men (I do not have any kind of authority to do that). I am also not trying to tell a story about all gendered violence. This comic is one small person’s story. It is about my personal experiences, and my personal experience is this: the men who have hurt me are those who took full advantage of their place in patriarchy to overpower me. These experiences have left me deeply traumatised, something which I have to deal with every day, and they have led to very specific triggers. One of those triggers is: cis, straight men (Flannelette sheets are also one of my triggers. I do not think that flannelette sheets are bad or that no one should ever use them, obviously. I just can’t touch them because they are a trigger).

Please understand, I am not on a mission with this comic to attack men. Certain men being a trigger for my cPTSD doesn’t men that I think those men are in any way bad. What I am attacking is patriarchy - the system of power which enables SOME men to oppress others, and SOME men to demonstrate violence towards those they view as less than. 

This comic will always be about one person’s experience. I am afraid of men, specifically cis, straight men, because while I have never been made to feel unsafe in queer spaces with queer men, I have very much been made to feel unsafe by other kinds of men. I am sorry if this feels like a personal judgement on any cis, straight men. It’s not. It does not mean that I think any particular cis straight men are bad. I don’t.  It is only relevant because this is a specific group of people whom society favours with a power dynamic, which is why there is opportunity for violence (an opportunity which the vast majority of cis, straight men would NEVER act on). 

I know there is an inherent risk in sharing this explanation because this is The Internet, but my approach in my comics is always to try to be as honest as possible. I am deeply sorry if I have caused anyone offense through the way in which I talk about my very specific experiences. I hope you will attempt to understand why I have made these choices. 

I am also really, really not open to discussing this further. Please, if you don’t like my comic, don’t bother reading it. No story is ever going to resonate with everyone. I am just one person telling a very personal story. I would ask that you please not comment on this post because I really don’t feel like I need any more attention on this issue. 

I am doing my best, and I know you all are too. Thank you for understanding. 

[gunsli-01]

You know I don't want to make it feel like certain people shouldn't be able to vote or make theories but-

Then don't it is entirely that easy to leave people alone whose actions are not negatively affecting you. It is immensely easier than pretending to wish to avoid conflict while directly walking into it. It is even easier to show empathy and create a welcoming fandom space for people regardless of how they choose to interact with the source material. There is an endless wealth of people who will share your views and the same number of people who will not. There are so many ways to illustrate a point without creating a strawman out of others who enjoy the same thing as you do but in a way you personally find objectionable.

There is no reason to create an us vs. them mentality over these things. It's contributing to a very polarizing and negative atmosphere, and I know half of the people in this fandom are fully capable of elaborating on their points and defending their favorites without partaking in this sort of extremist behavior. Everyone should be able to vote, make theories, and have their own opinions on what exactly is going on. Saying otherwise will just lead to people growing disdainful of something they used to enjoy. If you don't like how someone else enjoys a thing then it's far easier and more enriching to work on your own expression/vocalization of your enjoyment than cut others down and try to tell them how they should express themselves.

Since trial 4 started, the Milgram fandom has gotten incredibly oppressive. It's about time people took a step back and thought about how their actions and statements in the real-world impact real people instead of concerning themselves with the wellbeing of fictional characters.

Also, if anyone wants to come at me for bringing up racial aspects regarding Milgram before stating this as a source of polarization and discomfort. It's completely fair for those aspects to be uncomfortable for some to unpack. It's also uncomfortable for me to discuss and to see overtake a fandom space I was actually comfortable within. This ties in heavily to my think about how your wording affects real people because by displaying such behavior, even in a joking way, it shows that this community is an unsafe place for certain minorities.

It has led to me debating if Milgram is something I should continue to be interested in as someone who has to face many isms and phobias in their real life. It's a hassle to write up why that isn't okay and how off-putting it can come off as.

Especially when a good deal of the vocal individuals in this community will just go x prisoner is cute, which means nothing they do can be wrong ever and regardless of if I disagree with their actions, I'll vote them Innocent on that alone or worse defend the action all together. It's uncomfortable, it's gross, and it makes the Milgram fandom unsafe to interact with and a franchise I would sooner tell individuals with similar circumstances to mine to stay away from than to watch. It's not surprising given the history individuals of color, especially black/brown people have with fandom spaces. Not even delving into Asian media specifically, but it certainly doesn't get any less annoying to deal with or see.

If that's the type of atmosphere fans of this series wish to create which at this point seems to be the case, congrats. However, if not, some reevaluation may be necessary to avoid these issues continuing to crop up. It would also be very telling if Mu's case is the only one where this issue arises, and the rest of the cases are smooth sailing.

It's not difficult to take into consideration all the clearly race related things. The stop the woke left nonsense, jokes about doctoring tapes, head canons of Mu's victim being half black, discussions around Mu's victim deserving to get stabbed and theories that despite Mu's victim being killed outside the victim attacked Mu with a chair in the classroom all being attached to Mu's case and think man wonder how the writer will spin this one not well regardless of verdict more than likely.

[mangodestroyer]

I feel like I could make a whole series on toxic behaviors I ignored/overlooked. But here's one that's been nagging at me for a while that I feel like no one talks about. And this one is surprisingly common.

Every time I see a woman say, "Women are so much drama.", without fail, they end up being an unpleasant person to be around at best. And most times I actually got to know women who say this, they end up being the ones who cause a ton of drama themselves. So this phrase is kind of like when people say, "I don't like drama." and end up causing a lot of drama. It's the same blame shifting tactic, but even worse because it has some internalized misogyny sprinkled in there.

Basically, if they perceive you as female (which literally everyone does for me because even if I'm NB, I would find it difficult to not look feminine because that's just how my body is), they're automatically assuming that you're an overly emotional person who likes to cause trouble. That means any time you show a negative emotion or have a complaint, no matter how valid it is, you will probably be dismissed. Trust me, my ex, mother, and sexist af male boss have done this to me. My mother LOVED to accuse me of always starting drama, unless I made myself super robotic and kept to myself all the time. Boss laughed and said I needed a tampon when I got annoyed over not having something explained to me when I needed to get something done and we were short on time (he also complains about his wife and working in a store full of woman, so...). My ex kind of just had an, "Eh, oh well." reaction whenever I was discontent with something (one of those things was her father being a jerk to me). And guess what? These people have all been antagonistic in some way.

It also has that, "Not like other girls." undertone to it which is just... bleh!

I think I used to be very forgiving of this one because, like I said, it's very common. Misogyny in general, like all forms of oppression, is very widespread. Lots of people see no problem with these types of things. It's kind of like how, as a neurodivergent individual, I was always expected to take criticism and bullying for being "weird" and "different" because my behaviors were "disruptive" (i.e. stimming, failure picking up on social cues, speech problems, ect). I was taught that this was a non-problem and that, "Oh, well, they COULD be doing so much worse to you and it is kind of true!" What I failed to realize was that, by minimizing my discomfort with these behaviors and ignoring my gut, I was giving these people permission to push my boundaries. And those who are familiar with boundary pushing behaviors might know that it tends to lead to more important boundaries getting pushed. And things can get UGLY. So yeah, if someone is dismissive of something they're doing that makes you uncomfortable, and keeps doing it, even if it doesn't seem like a big deal, you might not be wrong to feel uncomfortable and shouldn't tolerate it.

I blame a lot of this on spending most of my life in a conservative, small, rural town. However, I've seen this behavior coming from a lot of "liberal, feminist" individuals as well. I've come to accept that tons of people are just like this, but that doesn't mean I'll be forming deep bonds with people like this in the future. I know there are people out there who don't say stuff like this. I try to spend more time with them now.

[netdetective]

well its almost the day people sit down to eat dry ass turkey to celebrate genocide so i assume a lot of people are scouring every tag possible to virtue signal so heres your virtue signal. its native american heritage month and im disappointed every year by how little people give a fuck but this year has reached new highs with the anti-indigenous bullshit. people are fighting demons to defend the use of a slur in a song (whether the artist even knew it was one or not in which case we could easily have had a learning moment) instead of educating themselves because theyre too busy defending their parasocial ass relationship. all manner of stupid things going on as if it isn't enough for everyone to pretend we went extinct in the 1500s or something. a lot of you need to confront why youre so comfortable with anti-indigenousness and why a shocking amount of people act like its less of a big deal than other bigotries. look inside yourself and ask yourself truly whether your discomfort with the fact you live on stolen land (applicable even outside the americas by the way since a lot of you like to pretend other indigenous people are even more of a fantasy than us) makes you think of our oppression as a past affair as a way to soothe your own misplaced guilt you think we've put upon you when all we want is someone to fucking listen and help. stop licking your fucking wounds. we are tired of people acting like we want them to go fuck themselves and go somewhere else when all we've ever done is try to be accomodating and often at our own fucking detriment. people talked about indigenous children being found beneath the yards of residential schools for maybe a month at best and a lot of you probably put it out of your minds a long time ago. we really don't ask that much especially considering we absolutely could ask for more. not a damn thing about us has come up on my timelines and it never does except for when its basically already too late. but i hope it makes you feel better about your oh so precious meal to pretend we arent suffering to this day. i hope you feel fucking great about yourselves when you pretend we arent around anymore. keep acting the way you do and you set up the perfect circumstances for the wicked people of the world to make it so because they know you won't do shit. if you do then thank you for being one of the rare ones. if you don't then probably just go fuck yourself and never ever fucking pretend you care and use MY PEOPLES' SUFFERING for your social reputation's sake. we know you don't care anyway so don't put on appearances to us and make yourself look worse than you already have. enjoy your dinner. if you have something stupid to say keep it to yourself and don't waste my time.

[77-fxes]

The Switchover: Sam Wilson

It's astounding that before The Falcon and the Winter Soldier, Sam Wilson had appeared in six movies in one way or another. It doesn't really seem like that. Sam's presence has generally been unassuming yet comforting; throwing in a wisecrack or a friendly word f encouragement--often to Steve Rogers-- while generally being of good support in a fight. But outside of The Winter Soldier, there has been little in the way of character exploration, and next to nothing exploring Sam's experiences as a black man in the military.

It's here where Marco Spellman began his writing journey with the character. What he decided to do was what all the best Marvel products tend to do; take the most uncomfortable thing about a story and then make the story about that uncomfortable thing. In this case, I believe Spellman and the creative team realized that previous film making teams had yet to deal with Sam's internal ideas about race or politics as a black military vet and decided to make his struggle to take up the mantle about that.

Of course, the obvious and understandable reason that these aspects of Sam hadn't been explored were because those previous creative teams were overwhelmingly white and wisely decided not to depict something that they couldn't understand (though I'd be remiss if I didn't point out that talented black writers are definitely around in Hollywood., so...). It's also obvious as to why the subject would be central to his taking up the mantle; taking on the symbol of a country that has historically and is currently oppressing people who look like you and share a similar background.

The first uncomfortable bit about this is that Sam has already been a representative of the US as a member of the military. Moreover, Sam's career in the military pre meeting Steve seems pretty much amicable and by the time Winter Soldier came around, he was counseling vets and didn't have much criticism for the military in terms of race or otherwise. It's easy to imagine that someone like this might be actively trying to hide their blackness or code switch, but Anthony Mackie's portrayal is unapologetically black, at least in the way that he carries himself. Mackie gives Sam the kind of 'blue collar black man' vibes that remind me of my dad, a contractor and carpenter. These are the dudes who are used to taking pride in working hard, helping others, taking care of their responsibilities, and 'not getting into political arguments.' Like my dad, Sam is the kind of guy who can get along with a lot of different white people without feeling the need to be inauthentic, a useful skill as a black man in a military world where power is almost certainly dominated by white men who may be likely to be very comfortable being 'colorblind' and who would like to avoid race at every corner. There is, I'd imagine a ton more to unpack there and undoubtedly people closer to that experience who could do so, but those seem to be the basic outlines of who Sam is and how he's navigating a system that is definitely not designed for his benefit (I'd suggest Nicque Marina's excellent YouTube channel for greater insights on Sam's journey from a black vet's perspective!).

To me, this is where Sam's journey is interesting beyond deciding to take up the mantle. Once Sam has decided to become Captain America, he now has to engage with his blackness on a political level. I believe that this is part of his reticence to take up the mantle in the first place, with his exchanges with Isaiah Bradley acting as a prime confrontation with this discomfort. Particularly, Sam's plea for Isaiah to 'help him understand' Isaiah's experiences and refusal to take the shield in Episode 5 ("Truth") is met with Isaiah's very true observation 'that 'You understand, every black does. In this statement, I think Isaiah deftly shatters Sam's comforting self-image as a 'non-political black man' who doesn't really get politics. Sam understands enough, he's probably spent his whole adulthood having few safe spaces to admit it and definitely feeling that it's more advantageous not to say anything, but he definitely understands. He understood at the loan office earlier, he understood when the cops stopped him, he understood when John just assumed he'd be his sidekick. But he knows that to acknowledge it means to take a stance that could make him dangerous to power structures.

By the end, I think he gets halfway there. He's able to identify as Captain America on his own terms and deal with problems in a way that he wants, even if it's not what those in power want, and gets to top it off with a quintessential Sam speech that assumes the solutions to problems as making systems work better, even if they are inherently oppressive.

This is where Sam's second character trait invites further challenge. Sam's way of helping people and making the world better focuses on person-to-person, hands on help. Like his interactions with the boat and in his hometown, Sam likes to take problems as they come and come up with pragmatic solutions. It's not about changing the system, it's about helping people benefit from it, usually through collective community action or direct confrontation of an individual villain. This goes hand in hand with his desire not to look at his blackness from a political standpoint, it gets in the way of his collective, ground-level solution making. I would also imagine that as a trauma counselor, his advocacy takes the form of pragmatic solutions for those in need, and is less about highlighting the lack of government support for veterans as a policy priority more broadly.

I don't think this is a problem; Sam is a good man doing good work for so many people based in compassion and understanding, it what makes him such a good Captain America in the first place. However, I think that the increasing forces of military, government, and economic oppression characterized by organizations like the GRC, Damage Control, and the Western powers depicted in Wakanda Forever puts Sam in a world of people who have no intention of contributing to collective action for the good of those who are oppressed. The system that they're creating is specifically designed to consolidate power, to steal resources, and oppress those with power to challenge it. They offer no middle ground and in order to help those in need, to be a symbol of hope and compassion, Sam will have to take a political stance through his actions based on the political experiences as a black man. The thing that Isaiah knows that Sam understands is that a black man, you never get to choose when your blackness is politicized, and it therefore cannot be avoided. I hope this is something they touch on in the upcoming movie as I believe Sam is definitely up to that challenge and Mackie could really bring something strong to that struggle.

[star-anise]

Putting the Great Corset Debate in context

TW: Body image, diet culture, calorie counts, fatphobia, coercive beauty standards

Gold star to @ryuutchi for guessing the gist of this post!

Historical costumers today are very big on defending corsets. Like a lot of other re-enactors, I know firsthand that corsets can be comfortable, practical garments that can be worn all day, every day, for years, through all kinds of strenuous activity.

Karolina Zebrowska has documented how much anti-corset sentiment was a product of misogyny; Bernadette Banner has talked about growing up in a medical brace more restrictive than a corset; I’ve used corsetry techniques to make garments to deal with my own chronic pain, and make chest binding less uncomfortable.

And yet. There’s an undeniable wealth of evidence that many women in days of old hated corsets. So how the heck do we reconcile these things?

Let’s talk about diets.

A diet is, in its simplest form, what you eat during your day. Or it’s a plan for what you’ll eat during your day. Diets can be hugely varied. The ideal diet for a performance athlete is often around 5000-7000 calories a day, which is the same amount of food that two to five ordinary people will eat in the same period of time. Some diets are very gentle and flexible, encouraging intuitive eating and listening to your own hunger cues much more than any chart. Victorian diets actually promised to fatten women, relieving their consumers from the hideous fate of skinniness.

And yet. And yet. For many people, especially women, “diet” is an enormously loaded word. It’s practically synonymous with restricting your food intake until you’re a little bit crazy, constantly criticizing the way you look, and tying your weight with your worthiness as a person.

That’s not how I generally experience diets, since I was never forced to diet, and never seriously dieted myself. But if I said, “Diets for women aren’t restrictive or oppressive!” I’d be quite frankly wrong, given how often they are--how much women face incredible pressure to be thin, how often girls are forced to diet during their childhoods and adolescences, how much fat women are penalized in completely unrelated areas, like salary and career progression, for their weight.

Diets don’t have to be restrictive or oppressive. But in our day, it is hard to untangle the concept from how coercive diets can be. For many people, “dieting” feels inextricable from being controlled.

Corsets fundamentally served the same function as dieting does now. It alters the body’s shape to appear more socially pleasing. It does so by different methods, but in the era when it was widespread, it carried a similar psychological weight.

This is how Laura Ingalls Wilder describes her experiences with corsets: Of being forced to wear them by her mother, being nagged  by her mother to tighten her laces, having to listen to stories of how her mother, as a young bride, had a waist her husband could span with his hands--an ideal painful and impractical to reach under most circumstances, and a positive hindrance for a girl like Laura, who had to do heavy farm labour in that corset. In the Victorian era, uncorseted women were seen as everything from lazy and sloppy to sexually loose and morally inferior.

Modern movie actresses face the same pressure to look absolutely perfect. A lot of actresses complain about the corsets in their costumes for good reasons: Those corsets are made with only the sketchiest reference to the actress’s real measurements, engineered hugely for aesthetic effect, and worn for a very abrupt span of time without the lead-up of getting used to the corset (and letting the corset get used to you). I have no doubt that being shoved into a corset that changes your shape dramatically and being told, “Go on, get out there and act,” is an uncomfortable experience!

These days, historical re-enactors don’t face as much social pressure or censure for failing to corset tightly enough. A lot of us are wearing costumes in an increasing atmosphere of fat acceptance and health at every size. Those of us who make our own costumes can experience historical costume as the one area in our lives where our clothes are made purely to our own measure--we have all the control that’s denied us by mass-produced modern clothing sizes.

Here’s my contention: It’s not the corset, or the lack of corset, the diet, or lack of diet, that makes corsets or diets awful, painful, harmful, or oppressive. It is the social pressure to push your body past the point of discomfort or pain to achieve certain a social idea. Corsets are so liberating for historical re-enactors specifically because we get the profound freedom of deciding everything about what we wear and how we want to look.

If you have the complete freedom, if you want to wear a corset, to choose the corset that’s right for you, or even more, to have it made for you, corsets are amazing garments. Just like figuring out which foods are right for you, eating them, and feeling good because of it can be a great experience.

It’s achieving that freedom that’s the hard part.