#external validation to me is most useful when i need to flex on people who have pissed me off or made me feel bad

[sibyl-of-space]

i may not agree with everything that very nice article said about robot detective (i don't really think it's a fair mystery - i was more concerned with writing a fun game than a good mystery - and i don't know how agatha christie it is either)

BUT

am i above posting that article in the discord server where a bunch of questionably-media-literate dudes gave "feedback/critique" that shat on the Amadeus demo, missed every point I was going for, and made me feel like shit about my writing?

absolutely not

[jcmorrigan]

There are some hot takes that I wish I’d heard as of late, so I’m going to put them down on blogspace and see if maybe they speak to anyone else in the way I hoped they would have for me.

First of all, if your interpretation of a character is different from canon, that interpretation is VALID. It’s not “better” or “worse” than what the original creator did, but it’s still valid.

Did you want the villain to redeem? Did you want the villain NOT to redeem? Did you want the damsel in distress to step up and take down her own captor before the hero got there? Did your favorite characters end up with a job or a ship you don’t approve of in the far-flung future of an epilogue? Does that one really funny character have a perverted side you wish he’d get over?

We get attached to characters for a whole bunch of reasons. All sorts of subtext tells us who a person could be depending on where their path took them. There are a lot of ways to interpret their character development and still keep them in character. (And if your early AUs end up a bit OOC? That’s how we all start out here in fanfic land! Practice makes improvement!) Choosing to read them, in your head, as making a different choice than what they made in canon or encountering a different set of external events that shaped them differently, isn’t wrong. Fanfic and fanart were made for speculation, and new takes on a character’s development, persona, or circumstances are ripe ground for building solid AUs. Whatever you believe “should” have happened to your fave, you thought for a reason.

All the same, it isn’t “better” than the canon path - but I say this not to berate but to take the pressure off. It doesn’t NEED to be. You don’t need to win people to your camp or to outdo the writer you resent for making the decision you didn’t like in order to be valid. Because your take isn’t worse, either. The original creator was the first one to have the idea, and they’re a writer or a team of writers just like the rest of us. You fell in love with their world after they did, and you did not and cannot get paid to develop it into the mainstream, but that’s the only difference. You’re a creator, too! So when you see people flocking to one particular AU or even defending canon you didn’t appreciate, it doesn’t mean you didn’t create something worthy.

Which leads me to a rather larger statement. A while back, there was discourse surrounding the concept of people “needing to learn the difference between bad writing and decisions they don’t like.” And that actually is a solid concept. Different things affect people in different ways; “bad writing” would be something that universally offended and hurt every single consumer across the board. There’s ethically dubious writing and there’s poor quality of story/character crafting, but usually, if something has made it to the publication stage, it will have both fans and haters, and elements that are less quality mixed in with elements that are more quality. This isn’t to say everything’s good, but things don’t become bad because you didn’t like the decision.

HOWEVER.

That doesn’t mean something well-written or adored can’t hurt you in particular. If you feel like something took away from your experience, or it made you sad in real life, that’s okay. It doesn’t need to be “bad writing,” but you really, REALLY don’t have to like or appreciate it, and you can wish it hadn’t gone that way. Making Fix-It AU is a good way to flex your creative muscles and make something proactive in this regard. In the same way, things that aren’t objectively well-crafted or liked by the masses can make you feel good. If you liked something while watching it, and either at the time or later became aware it wasn’t really high art or had a problematic aspect you don’t necessarily agree with, that doesn’t take away the memory of having good times with that piece of art.

We shouldn’t need to feel like we’re battling canon for dominance in order to be imaginative. Create what you want. Make AUs where things don’t go the way most would think they would. Swap moralities, prop up ships that didn’t become canon, empower the battered, break the successful, swap the significance of the major characters and the one-scene wonders. Fix what you think needs to be fixed in your own brain, regardless of whether or not it needs to be fixed objectively.

[schraubd]

The Problem of "Centering" and the Jews

Note: I wrote this piece quite a few months ago, shopping around to the usual Jewish media outlets. None were interested, and I ended up letting it slide. But it popped back into my mind -- this Sophie Ellman-Golan article helped -- and so I decided to post it here. While I have updated it, some of the references are a bit dated (at least on an internet time scale). Nonetheless, I continue to think a critical look at how the idea of "centering" interacts with and can easily instantiate antisemitic tropes is deeply important. * * * In the early 2000s, Rosa Pegueros, a Salvadoran Jew, was a member of the listserv for contributors to the book This Bridge We Call Home, sequel to the tremendously influential volume This Bridge Called My Back. Another member of the listserv had written to the group with "an almost apologetic post mentioning that she is Jewish, implying that some of the members might not be comfortable with her presence for that reason." She had guessed she was the only Jewish contributor to the volume, so Pegueros wrote back, identifying herself as a Jew as a well and recounting a recent experience she perceived as antisemitic. Almost immediately, Peugeros wrote, another third contributor jumped into the conversation.  "I can no longer sit back," she wrote, "and watch this list turn into another place where Jewishness is reduced to a site of oppression and victimization, rather than a complex site of both oppression and privilege—particularly in relationship to POC." Pegueros was stunned. At the time of this reply, there had been a grand total of two messages referencing Jewishness on the entire listserv. And yet, it seemed, that was too much -- it symbolized yet "another place" where discourse about oppression had become "a forum for Jews." This story has always stuck with me. And I thought of it when reading Jews for Racial and Economic Justice's guidebook to understanding antisemitism from a left-wing perspective. Among their final pieces of advice for Jews participating in anti-racism groups was to make antisemitism and Jewish issues "central, but not centered". It's good advice. Jewish issues are an important and indispensable part of anti-racist work. That said, we are not alone, and it is important to recognize that in many circumstances our discrete problems ought not to take center stage. That doesn't mean they shouldn't be heard. It just means they should not be given disproportionate attention such that they prevent other important questions and campaigns from proceeding. Ideally, "central, but not centered" in the anti-racism community means that Jewish issues should neither overwhelm the conversation nor be shunted aside and ignored outright.

Yet it also overlooks an important caveat. Too often, any discussion of Jewish issues is enough to be considered "centering" it. There is virtually no gap between spaces where Jews are silenced and spaces where Jews are accused of "centering". And so the reasonable request not to "center" Jewish issues easily can, and often does, become yet another tool enforcing Jewish silence. Pegueros' account is one striking example. I'll give another: several years ago, I was invited to a Jewish-run feminist blog to host a series of posts on antisemitism. Midway through the series, the blog's editors were challenged on the grounds that it was taking oxygen away from more pressing matters of racism. At the time, the blog had more posts on "racism" than "antisemitism" by an 8:1 margin (and, in my experience, that is uncommonly attentive to antisemitism on a feminist site -- Feministing, for example, has a grand total of two posts with the "anti-Semitism" tag in its entire history). No matter: the fact that Jewish feminists on a Jewish blog were discussing Jewish issues at all was viewed as excessive and self-centered.

Or consider Raphael Magarik's reply to Yishai Schwartz's essay contending that Cornel West has "a Jewish problem".

Schwartz's column takes issue with West's decision to situate his critique of fellow Black intellectual Ta-Nehisi Coates by reference to "the neoliberal establishment that rewards silences on issues such as Wall Street greed or Israeli occupation of Palestinian lands and people." Magarik's reply accuses Schwartz of making the West/Coates dispute fundamentally "about the Jews", exhibiting the "the moral narcissism in thinking that everything is about you, in reading arguments between Black intellectuals about the future of the American left and asking: How can I make this about the Jews?" Now, Magarik is surely correct that the Jewish angle of West's critique of Coates is a rather small element that should not become the "center of attention" and thereby obscure "the focus [on] Black struggles for liberation." But there is something quite baffling about his suggestion that a single column that was a drop in the bucket of commentary produced in the wake of the West/Coates exchange could suffice to make it the "center of attention". If Magarik believes Schwartz overreacted to some stray mentions of Jewish issues in an otherwise intramural African-American dispute, surely Magarik equally brought a howitzer to a knife fight by claiming that one article in Ha'aretz single-handedly recentered the conversation about the West/Coates feud onto the Jews.

What's going on here? How is it that the "centering" label -- certainly a valid concern in concept -- seems to routinely and pervasively attach itself to Jews at even the slightest intervention in policy debates?

The answer, as you might have guessed, relates to antisemitism.

As a social phenomenon, antisemitism is very frequently the trafficking in tropes about Jewish hyperpower, the sense that we either have or are on the cusp of taking over anything and everything. Frantz Fanon described antisemitism as follows: "Jews are feared because of their potential to appropriate. ‘They’ are everywhere. The banks, the stock exchanges, and the government are infested with them. They control everything. Soon the country will belong to them.” If we have an abstract understanding of Jews as omnipotent and omnipresent, no wonder that specific instances of Jewish social participation -- no matter how narrow the contribution might be -- are understood as a complete and total colonization of the space. What are the Jews, other than those who are already "everywhere"?

Sadly, the JFREJ pamphlet does not address this issue at all. When "central" crosses into "centering" will often be a matter of judgment, but while the JFREJ has much to say about Jews making "demands for attention" or paying heed to "how much oxygen they can suck out of the room", it does not grapple with how the structure of antisemitism mentalities often renders simply being Jewish (without a concurrent vow of monastic silence) enough to trigger these complaints. It doesn't seem to realize how this entire line of discourse itself can be and often is deeply interlaced with antisemitism. JFREJ's omission is particularly unfortunate since Jews have begun to internalize this sensibility. It's not that Jewish issues should predominate, or always be at the center of every conversation. It's the nagging sense that any discussion of Jewish issues -- no matter how it is prefaced, cabined, or hedged -- is an act of "centering", of taking over, of making it "about us." When the baseline of what counts as "centering" is so low, I know from personal experience that even the simplest asks for inclusion are agonizing. As early as 1982, the radical lesbian feminist Irene Klepfisz identified this propensity as a core part of both internalized and externalized antisemitism. She instructed activists -- Jewish and non-Jewish alike -- to ask themselves a series of questions, including whether they feel that dealing with antisemitism "drain[s] the movement of precious energy", whether they believe antisemitism "has been discussed too much already," and whether Jews "draw too much attention to themselves." Contemporary activists, including many Jews, could do worse than asking Klepfisz's questions. For example, when Jews and non-Jews in the queer community rallied against the effort by some activists to expel Jewish and Israeli LGBTQ organizations from LGBT conference "Creating Change", Mordechai Levovitz fretted that they had "promoted the much more nefarious anti-Semitic trope that Jews wield disproportionate power to get what we want." Levovitz didn't support the expulsion campaign. Still, he fretted that even the most basic demand of inclusion -- don't kick queer Jews out of the room -- was potentially flexing too much Jewish muscle. In this way, the distinction between "central" and "centering" collapses -- indeed, even the most tertiary questions are "centering" if Jews are the ones asking them. This is bad enough in a world where, we are told, oppressions are inextricably connected (you can tell whose perspective is and isn't valued in these communities based on whose attempts to speak are taken to be remedying an oversight and whose are viewed as self-centered derailing). But it verges on Kafka-esque when persons demand Jews "show up" and then get mad that they have a voice in the room; or proactively decide to put Jewish issues on their agenda and yet still demand Jews keep silent about them. Magarik says, for example, that Jews "were not the story" when the Movement for Black Lives included in its platform an accusation that Israel was creating genocide; we shouldn't have made it "about us". He's right, in the sense that this language should not have caused Jews to withdraw from the fight against police violence against communities of color. He's wrong in suggesting that Jews therefore needed to stop "wringing our hands" about how issues that cut deep to the core of our existence as a people were treated in the document. Jews didn't demand that the Movement for Black Lives talk about Jews, but once they elected to do so Jews were not obliged to choose between the right's silence of shunning and the left's silence of acquiescence. To say that Jews ought not "center" ourselves is not to say that there is no place for critical commentary at all. We are legitimate contributors to the discourse over our own lives. I'm not particularly interested in the substantive debate regarding whether Cornel West has a "Jewish problem" -- though Magarik's defense of West (that he "has a good reason for focusing on Palestine" because it "demarcates the difference between liberalism and radicalism") seems like it is worthy of some remark (of all the differences between liberals and "radicals", this is the issue that is the line of demarcation? And that doesn't exhibit some sign of centrality that Jews might have valid grounds to comment on, not the least of which could be wondering how it is a small country half a globe away came to occupy such pride of place?). The larger issue is the metadebate about whether it's valid to even ask the question; or more accurately, whether it is possible -- in any context, with any amount of disclaimers about relative prioritization -- to ask the question without it being read as "centering". The cleverest part of the whole play, after all, is that the very act of challenging this deliberative structure whereby any and all Jewish contributions suffice to center is that the challenge itself easily can become proof of our centrality.

But clever as it is, it can't and shouldn't be a satisfactory retort. There needs to be a lot more introspection about whether and how supposed allies of the Jews are willing to acknowledge the possibility that their instincts about when Jews are "centered" and when we're silenced are out-of-whack, without it becoming yet another basis of resentment for how we're making it all about us. And if we can't do that, then there is an antisemitism problem that really does need to be addressed. When discussing their struggles, members of other marginalized communities need not talk about Jews all the time, or most of the time, or even all that frequently. But what cannot stand is a claimed right to talk about Jews without having to talk with Jews. The idea that even the exploration of potential bias or prejudice lurking within our political movements represents a deliberative party foul is flatly incompatible with everything the left claims to believe about how to talk about matters of oppression. West decided to bring up the Jewish state in his Jeremiad against Coates. It was not a central part of his argument, and so it should not be a central part of the ensuing public discussion. But having put it on the table, it cannot be the case that Jews are forbidden entirely from offering critical commentary. One might say that a column or two in a few Jewish-oriented newspapers, lying at the tertiary edges of the overall debate, is precisely the right amount of attention that should have been given. If that's viewed as too much, then maybe the right question isn't about whether Jews are "centering" the discussion, but rather whether our presence really is a "central" part of anti-racism movements at all.

Drawing the line between "central" and "centering" is difficult, and requires work. There are situations where Jews demand too much attention, and there are times we are too self-effacing. But surely it takes more than a single solitary column to move from the latter to the former. More broadly, we're not going to get an accurate picture of how to mediate between "central" and "centering" unless we're willing to discuss how ingrained patterns of antisemitism condition our evaluations of Jewish political participation across the board.

via The Debate Link https://ift.tt/2MjQd84

[clarz-cc-archive]

answered June 4, 2020

Q: i agree wholeheartedly with this cc and your answer and sorry i know i’m not adding anything to the discussion but just needed to thank you for bringing up those infuriating LGBTQIA+ threads because they are SUCH a pet peeve of mine! the members getting praised for so much as LOOKING at a rainbow flag at a concert like jfc, the bar is really freaking low. and them then getting called ‘GAY KINGS!’ when there are actual korean people ACTIVELY lobbying for LGBTQIA+ rights, who get absolutely zero recognition. and when you try questioning these threads you get labelled as ‘homophobic’ because you are taking this away from gay people. same for those other ‘woke’ threads. and it all really feeds into that mindset that BTS can do no wrong, which only sets people up for either disappointment or mindless following. (in response to)

A: i think a large part of the reason i get annoyed at them is bc i'm a queer person in a country where, while we still have a LONG way to go on lgbtqia+ issues, i do feel like there is support available to me, both from media figures and from political leaders, even if that support is far from universal. i feel MOSTLY secure in my own identity as a queer person, and most days i don't really feel like i need anyone external to validate that for me, so to see bts giving such exceedingly lukewarm/vague support mostly makes me be like "lol nice that they're trying i guess." however, i can understand how, for fans who are in a situation where they don't feel accepted or where they don't see people important to them validating their identities, hobi even LOOKING at a pride flag and smiling could be monumentally meaningful on an emotional level. i try not to begrudge people taking whatever joy they can from these very small gestures, but for those gestures to then be taken by the fandom and repackaged as some kind of unquestionable and radical support that's used to flex on people or prop bts up as perfect people is indeed very frustrating.

asks in response to this one: #1, #2

[waspabi]

If you are still taking passage requests (I know this was like two weeks ago), the scene in Wolfborn post-Snow Moon run, where Nicky goes "pack is fucked." Or the stand-off between Nicky and Malkin. Thanks! :)

I’ll do BOTH, half because I wanna and half because both scenes revolve around the same questions: how do you be a leader, how do you be an adult, how do you figure out how to be both those things and also yourself?  

Wolfborn is about a lot of stuff (werewolves, the body, a Disney Channel Original Movie of a sports arc, Nicke and Ovi boning down in a big way) but one thing it is pretty obviously is a coming of age story. 

Nicke’s gonna be an outstanding team alpha in our present and his future, but when we meet him he’s a distracted baby who keeps losing his suitcase at the all star game and once left a big money paycheck in his dumb fuckboy mercedes and forgot about it for a month (both facts, can provide receipts). 

So we’re looking at this big q: how does he get there?

Nicke tried to tamp down the irritation bubbling in his stomach. Everything was so frustrating all the time. No one took care of the pack properly, and when someone fucked up nobody said anything about it. No accountability, no reliable hierarchy. He had thought things were getting better but really it was just as fucked as before.

The fun thing about being an idiot baby is that a lot of the time you have no idea what an idiot baby you are, which Nicke doesn’t. He really thinks he’s got this shit handled and if he were alpha right now, he’d be able to fix all the pack’s problems. 

On the other hand, he’s got some fair points Nicke truly. Truly nothing pricks his hide more than mismanagement and a lack of accountability. For fuck’s sake! Basic concepts! He sees a lot of examples of what a bad alpha is, but he doesn’t see any good ones. All he knows is this is not what he wants to be. 

“You always grumpy mornings,” Alex murmured, kissing Nicke’s throat.

That — wasn’t untrue. Nicke tilted his head back, giving Alex more room to work with. He was starting to get hard, which was annoying. He had shit to discuss. Alex was so fucking distracting.

Alex does not wanna talk about this and is gonna pull out all the stops to change the subjects before Nicke gets to the inevitable question, which obviously is about to be sprung:

“Why didn’t you take it? Alex, you will be alpha. Why wait?”

Alex stopped messing with Nicke’s neck and pressed his face underneath Nicke’s jaw. “I’m not ready,” he grunted, voice hoarse. “I feel it. Still young, stupid. Guys see me like annoying cousin, little brother. Not alpha yet.”

Nicke wanted to protest. He wanted to tell Alex that he got to decide how the guys saw him, that he led by example, that he had bolstered the team too many times to count. He brought his hand up to cup Alex’s head instead, fingers moving slowly to detangle his thick hair. It wasn’t his call. He wanted it to be his call, but it wasn’t his call.

Alex doesn’t feel ready. It’s also why he’s refusing the captaincy – which IRL Ovi did because he didn’t think his English was strong enough yet – Alex is really shaped by external opinion at this point in his life and he’s pretty vulnerable despite his big talk. He also doesn’t want to do it alone. He can’t do it without Nicke, and as a rookie Nicke can’t take up that role yet. 

Nicke, on the other hand, is not dependent on external validation, even as a little idiot baby who lost his shoes before the All Star/YoungStars event and had to borrow a pair that was two sizes too small (facts, can provide receipts). 

“Anyway,” Alex said, tilting into Nicke’s touch. “I think is gonna be you. We both gonna be alpha, but. Think you gonna be my alpha.”

OH HO HO! I wrote this part of the scene like three days into writing the story because I was so excited about it. 

I imagined werewolf power structures within hockey were sort of flexible, but at the end of the day, the buck stops with the alpha(s). And within an alpha pair, one of those is the Big Alpha. Alpha Prime. 

I never came up with anything good title-wise for our Big Alpha position, but werewolf language was part of the whole language theme in the fic: there is no good word for any of it. All the words characters use for werewolf concepts are vague gestures at the concept at best: marriage is just the closest human concept for their sort of bonded-partnership-pack parents vibe. 

(honestly a significantly better translation for team alpha would be team mom/team dad, so like, if you wanna know who is the alpha of another team ask urself: who are the team parents, and you’ll know) 

MOVING ON! 

Evgeni Malkin and Sidney Crosby are used throughout the fic as a comparison: another young alpha pair, already in charge of their packs, but doing things very differently to Alex and Nicke. So I went into this scene thinking: how is Nicke flexing his power? His authority? His position as Alex’s partner? It’s all very new to him, and he’s just starting to try it all on for size. 

Nicke’s just got off the phone with Tatyana, and he doesn’t know if he’s met her approval, he’s feeling vulnerable and territorial and as a result he’s feeling particularly prickly. 

Evgeni Malkin smelled of scented deodorant, foreign pack and generic shampoo. He held his phone in one improbably large hand and came right at Nicke, frowning. The NHL forbade wolfborns from marking territory in their game arenas, but usually there were ways of getting around that rule — Malkin was clearly comfortable in his territory. He exuded that particular high-handed alpha nosiness from every pore of his skin.

“Yes,” Nicke said. He put Alex’s phone in his pocket.

“Sasha okay?”

Nicke set his jaw. The wolf itched under his skin. “Fine.”

“Was accident, before.” Malkin shrugged. “Hockey.”

“Yes,” Nicke said, and imagined sinking his wolf teeth into Malkin’s throat.

Geno’s actually being fine. He’s got a question! He’s just got a question, he’s comfortably existing in his own territory, he’s already an alpha, he’s confident in asserting himself and it’s making Nicke so ornery he’s gonna pick a fight for no good reason. 

“Want see if he come? We have plan. Drinks.”

“No,” Nicke said firmly. Alex was injured. There was zero chance he could go to foreign territory injured, without a member of his own pack to back him up.

Malkin raised his eyebrows. “Okay,” he said. “You talk for Sasha?”

Well, this was stupid. Nicke motioned to the empty corridor. “You see him? Right now, yes.”

This is one of those things where when you’re under pressure, sometimes you reveal the core of who you really are. Nicke’s stressed about Alex’s injury, about Tatyana, about his territory, about not feeling in control. 

As it turns out, at his core Nicke is bossy as heck, unbelievably protective of his big idiot husband and completely unwilling to lose a fight (that he started himself for no good reason). He’s truly himself in this bitchfest of a nonsense standoff, and nothing brings me more joy. 

This standoff was one of the most fun scenes to write. Mean Lars emerging from his chrysalis to dead-eye Evgeni Malkin, ah, chef-kissing-fingers.gif, perfect.  

Malkin glowered at Nicke, and Nicke glowered at Malkin. This might have kept on going indefinitely had Sidney Crosby not rounded the corner. Nicke slightly loathed the sight of him, his aw-shucks jawline and boyish curls improbably wholesome despite the vicious way he’d checked Nicke in the second period. Nicke hadn’t managed to get him back, which rankled.

Nicke has more conflict in the story with Geno, but it is Sidney for whom he has true deep disdain in his heart. 

Part of it is because Sid is already alpha of his pack and Nicke is jealous and feeling powerless which stresses him out, and the other part is because Sid does so much to make himself palatable to humans. He’s careful with grooming, careful to seem nonthreatening, careful with what he says – meanwhile Alex, obviously, could not be more of a werewolf stuffed into a suit if he tried

look at him! just shoved on in there ready to sign his crazy long contract. bout to bust free at any moment. mere hours away from delighted screaming with Nicklas Bäckström in a deserted carpark.

It personally galls Nicke when werewolves act tame or nonthreatening. Werewolf Nicke didn’t have to deal with humans in any real capacity for a very long time in his life, and he has little sympathy for people who feel they need to cater to them. Both Sid and Alex have had to deal with humans a lot but the way they’ve dealt with that pressure is in completely opposite ways, and for Nicke Sid’s way is… hm. Well. 

(Alex, meanwhile, does not care. sure, he doesn’t get that way of dealing with humans and frankly thinks it’s boring but he’s not gonna begrudge somebody their coping mechanism – so basically for nicke it’s all alex ovechkin is a good man. he’s got a good heart. he doesn’t hold a grudge. that’s what he has me [nicklas bäckström] for) 

This whole tangent is not really evident in the fic except in minute hints because it didn’t come up but it’s something I liked thinking about so: ur welcome for the unnecessary detail

I’m realising as I write this that I am essentially writing an essay about What Annoys Werewolf Nicklas Bäckström. Glad you asked: 

pack mismanagement

artifice 

omelets that are hiding secret mushrooms

hotel sheets

Thank you. 

Crosby glanced between them, frowning. “Geno? We have to go home.”

“Bäckström not let me talk to Sasha,” Malkin grunted.

“Uh, okay.” Crosby’s suit was terrible, grey and boxy, and he held a knit hat absently in one hand. “We have to go, though. Come on, Geno.”

Malkin looked between Crosby and Nicke like a dog torn between obeying his human and chasing down a particularly galling squirrel. 

I really liked contrasting Sidney’s very matter-of-fact non-reaction compared to Geno’s histrionics, and the exchange also revealed who amongst them is the alpha alpha: Sidney Crosby, which was confirmed to me by leading expert Eva @agonyandagony​, although I think at this stage of his life it was much less obvious. 

Sid and Geno (and Kolzig and Federov and Tatyana and Nylander) represent different ways of being an alpha. It’s that classic story thing of your minor characters being preoccupied with the same questions as your main character, and representing alternate ways of being. Each of them shows Nicke a way to be a leader, to be an adult, to be an alpha, and we learn along the way what he is going to take and not take onboard on his, like, Big Journey. 

Uh, anyway, thanks for giving me an excuse to write another 20k commentary to my werewolf fabrication, especially to talk about Mean Lars (Werewolf Edition) who is close to my heart and is someone I would give a 2 hour lecture about at the slightest provocation. 

[sylvaetria]

Secular Magic: Energy Sources

anonymous asked:

If you have the time/energy/desire, could you explain a bit about secular witchcraft, a la a beginner's guide. How do you charge spells/sigils/etc without a deity, how secular magic works, etc. Thanks!

I haven’t written a proper post in a while, so I’m taking this opportunity to get really into it and ramble on about things. Yay!

Warning: UPG and personal opinion abound.

We all know that witchcraft isn’t inherently religious - it can be performed just as successfully as any magical path that also happens to mingle with deities. It is also definitely possible to be religious and still practice secular magic; you just wouldn’t incorporate your religion into your magic, invoke your deity’s power, that sort of thing - they remain separate. The flavor of the magic / energy used in secular magic versus non-secular magic is a bit different, in my opinion, based off the sources you draw from - even individual sources of energy in secular magic still have their own vibrations and “best used for’s.

Before I get too into it about what these methods actually are, please note that while I’ll do my best to list as many as I can think of, the energy sources I will be listing here certainly aren’t all of them. This list is not extensive, as people are constantly finding new sources of energy to fuel spells with, and methods to utilize the more “common” energy sources in new ways.

The main source of energy for secular magic, in my opinion, is from one’s own body, our intents and desires and wishes. (This is not the only one, just the one I think gets utilized the most / the “default.”) We generate the energy required for the spells within ourselves, by summoning up the emotions and vibrations that match and fuel our intent, and then pushing them out into the spell. This is particularly strong in regards to cursing, if you happen to do them - you need to summon up all the anger and mean / hurtful feelings towards your target and use it to fuel the curse / redirect that energy to the target. This isn’t the only example of emotional magic, just the one that came first to mind.

Not only that, but think about what our body actually does! Blood is always pumping through our veins, our heart is always pounding, muscles are almost constantly flexing and exerting energy, synapses in our brains are firing. Think also about the physical energy we get from eating, or the heat and energy generated from exercise, even as simple as walking. All of those things can be drawn upon in spells and used to fuel magic.

The energy for secular magic can also be pulled from the world around us, environment wise. Some people do actually worship or revere the elements, as well as the planet, but that wouldn’t really fall under secular witchcraft anymore. It is still possible to utilize the energy from our environments in spells in a non-religious / -worshiping context, however. For instance, a lot of times that witches use their own energies for spells, they find they are drained, and then draw up energy from the earth / ocean to replenish themselves (a.k.a. a form of grounding). This can also be done before spellwork to ensure that you don’t suffer from the ever-possible energy drain from putting too much into your magic. Energy is drawn from storms, the ocean, even snowfall. The elements each have their own associations and energy vibes as well, and can be used individually, or drawn from all at once to encompass as much area, energy-wise, as possible.

Energy can be pulled from a bit further from home, too. Space witches draw their power and energy from the entire universe, from the planets and stars, from the infinite possibilities of space. While some do worship space (as @cosmic-witch speaks of in their post about [Astrolatry]), that isn’t necessarily in order to draw energy from the cosmos. I feel like people do more space magic than they think of. Items can be left to charge in sunlight, cleanse in moonlight; each of the planets have their own correspondences as well. 

In the case of drawing energy from the environment, or space, some people do tend to leave offerings as a sort of thank-you or attempt to give back what they took. This doesn’t necessarily equate to worship or drawing from a deity, but more honoring the source of the energy, or even trying to replenish what they may have taken by giving something back. (Some people do see these things as having spirits, but that doesn’t technically count as deities? :p)

Energy for spells in secular magic can also be drawn from objects. We know of the stereotypical herbs, candles, crystals, etc. These ingredients are so popular and commonly used because they have been used for a long, long time. And for good reason - each has its own vibration of energy, a different feel and purpose to its energy that can be drawn on and manipulated for use for our own purposes. They have proved time and time again to provide excellent fuel for magical workings. They also come in such a wide variety of types and intents, that allow for a huge range of work to be done for each. (Think of how people say rosemary is the go-to herb to replace one you don’t have, or quartz for crystals, white for candle colors, etc.)

Pulling energy in from external sources can also be considered a magic of its own. Just pulling in to you a certain frequency / “vibe” of energy can be enough to have an affect. For example - holding on to a piece of amethyst and feeling its calming energies flowing into you to help soothe anxiety.

In my opinion, anything that can generate energy, can have that energy channeled into magic. This includes electronics. The way I like to think about it, is every object is technically vibrating, some more than others, on a molecular level. That is the power that I think I draw on when I practice magic. Electricity is still a form of energy, and whether or not you channel it from a natural source (storm witches and lightning), or a “produced” source (teach witches and power sources like plugs or generators). These sorts of sources are still absolutely valid for drawing energy from.

Again, though, each source of energy will have different sorts of vibrations and feels to the energy, and you might find that certain energies are better suited for certain types of magic or intents. For instance, I feel that using the body’s natural energy (from blood pumping and exercise, etc) is best used to charge sigils drawn on the body. Herbs and crystals are best combined, I have found, or used in conjunction with other methods. Experiment, try out different sources of energy, see which ones you like best, which feel best to you, which might work best with different intents, etc. See if you can discover any sources of energy I haven’t mentioned here, or tweak some that already exist. Possibilities are limitless. :)

I wanna make a sidenote here, not necessarily exclusive to secular magic, but just magic in general. Some say that things “natural” from the earth or universe are the most potent for energy / spellwork, and should really be the things that you go for to use in magic. Along this train of thought is that organic herbs are better than dried / processed. Not true. While the energies might be different (if anything maybe slightly more potent at best, but not enough to matter in my opinion), that doesn’t mean that alternatives will not work as well - heck, maybe even better. Everything that has an association with it - imagery, symbolism - those things can be drawn on and used to fuel or contribute to a spell in some way. Your personal connections to certain things are super potent energy-wise as well, which can make a well-loved plastic charm more suited for a calming spell than one you don’t like made of rose gold.

Tl;dr - the energy for secular witchcraft comes from many sources, ranging from yourself to the environment, and from the natural world to the man-made one.

I hope that covered this topic enough, or answered your question adequately anon! I know it was a long post, but I felt it deserved it, and I also feel I was a bit slacking on my posts lately. 

Again, this list is not complete or extensive in any way, but are just some of the energy sources that I feel are pretty common or well known, and also the ones I could think of at the time of writing this post. My opinions bout what I wrote here may change over time; however, this is how I currently feel on the topic. Feel free to agree or disagree - after all, witchcraft is unique to everyone who practices it, and you are allowed your own opinions (as am I, writing this heavily opinionated post, lol), even if they differ from the masses. Feel free to break out, try something new, prove me wrong, whatever you wanna do - your craft, your choices. :D

[viralnewstime]

Brisbane behemoth The Amity Affliction have been on a seemingly endless rise since dropping Severed Ties back in peak MySpace era of 2008. Having more than earned their place on the metalcore mantle, with five records filled with anthemic bangers, the band took more than a few left turns on 2018’s Misery inspiring both applause and anger within and outside of their core fanbase. Irrespective of what side of that divide you fell on, the band is back at their raging best on their upcoming seventh full-length Everyone Loves You…Once You Leave Them.

As lead singles ‘All My Friends are Dead’ and ‘Soak Me in Bleach’ hinted, Everyone Loves You…Once You Leave Them is a heavier and more aggressive record than its predecessor. A band that has always been open about the debilitating impact that poor mental health has had and continues to have on their own lives and the lives of those around them, The Amity Affliction have long provided a source of personal empowerment for their fans, by acting as a voice for their struggles, struggles that are far too often ignored in the modern world. As such, it’s not uncommon to see Amity fans singing choruses at their shows with the passion of a televangelist preaching the good news.

In the lead up to the release of Everyone Loves You…Once You Leave Them, vocalist Joel Birch reveals the very personal nature of the musical and lyrical narratives of the record, while taking time to dish out some much-deserved dirt on some of the less, celebratory, elements of the music industry.

MF: Hey Joel, thanks for talking to Music Feeds, how are you?

Joel Birch: I’m good, man, just eating a sandwich how are you?

MF: I’m good! Now quality sandwiches aside, it’s a really exciting time in the Amity camp at the moment, with the new record Everyone Loves You…Once You Leave Them dropping on Feb 21! How are you feeling in the lead-up?

JB: Really good, really good. I think it’s a good one and I’m excited for everyone to hear it.

MF: As the singles ‘All My Friends are Dead’ and ‘Soak Me in Bleach’ show, this is a much heavier outing than Misery? Is that a deliberate move?

JB: More than anything, when we were touring Misery, we had more fun playing the heavier songs and the heavier stuff. So we figured we’d write more of it!

MF: People tend to lose themselves a little more to the heavier stuff too, so that has to help with the onstage vibe as well?

JB: You definitely feed off of the audience, so if we can inspire them to move a bit, it’ll help.

MF: I feel like the experimentation of the last few records though has really helped you to land where you are on Everyone Loves You…Once You Leave Them, in the sense that this record, to my ears anyway, takes elements of all the previous releases and packages them together in a way that’s peak Amity!

JB: Yes, well thank you. That’s nice man! I think we got to a point in our career where we felt stagnant and wanted to try something new, we tried it, we did it, we’re proud of it, we learned from it, but at this point now, Misery feels more like an album for people to listen to at home, rather than for us to get out there and perform. So it’ll be fun to get out there and play some of these newer, heavier ones again.

MF: On a personal front, your vocals have gone to a whole new level on this release, as have your lyrics, what was the inspiration for you, on a personal level headed into this album?

JB: This is going to sound harsh, but a bit of hatred of music media.

MF: Hahahaha, that’s alright man, let’s talk it out!

JB: It’s not everyone man, but there are some people out there in the industry who I don’t think have any place in the industry. I don’t know why they are there, why they say the things they do, but it’s pretty frustrating. We had several people in the last cycle getting online and pushing this narrative saying that we only do it for the money, and that I’m not suffering from a mental illness and that that whole aspect of the band is a front. That’s really frustrating, because the fact is I have bipolar, and I struggle, relatively regularly with depressive episodes. That’s why there are lines on there like, “I’ve got everything to lose or everything to prove”, that’s a direct stab at people saying that kind of thing. Then there was another incident, after one of my friends killed himself, that left a bad taste in my mouth.

In addition to that, I have addressed how I feel on the record, I have some pretty severe episodes and my wife has to deal with them. It was just really frustrating.

MF: That’s a completely rational human response! I’d be pissed as well. Most people would be.

JB: The thing that triggered a lot of it for me, in particular, that line I referenced, is the realisation that a lot of the people who are out there pushing that idea that I’m not mentally ill, that I don’t have issues, those are probably the same people that if I was to die, would be out there trumpeting and eulogising me saying how I was such a great advocate for mental health and conversations around mental health. That just pissed me off. I don’t understand the purpose of either side of that. I don’t get what people gain from attacking someone in that way. I have bipolar, there’s nothing that changes that fact. I mean we’re successful, but success doesn’t negate anything.

That’s something that goes unspoken in the music industry. One thing that really stuck with me throughout the aftermath of [Linkin Park lead vocalist] Chester Bennington dying, is that some people were out there saying “this guy is rich and entitled” but it doesn’t stop anything from being a problem. It can temporarily alleviate it, playing shows really does help alleviate the personal suffering that I go through, being on medication helps with the logical processing, but it doesn’t go away. Nothing makes it go away. I have a beautiful family, I have a fantastic relationship with my wife, I’m constantly surrounded by friends, and that’s not enough. So certainly success in a band is not going to fix anything. As fulfilling as that all is, and it is, don’t get me wrong, my family plays a more fulfilling role in my life. So if they can’t fix it, then nothing will. I just hate that idea that you get to comment on someone else’s misery and agony, that just pissed me off, so I wrote about it.

MF: It could be an opportunity to open up a long-overdue conversation. That being successful doesn’t fix everything. Despite being shown repeatedly by so many of our heroes suffering or leaving this world early, that realisation doesn’t seem to sink in, perhaps this record can help in some way to start that conversation?

JB: Hopefully. It’s definitely part of a bigger issue in the music industry, that people think that if you’re in a position of success, that you’re living a life that is painted in gold, but that’s just not the reality of it always. We’re still people.

MF: It’s a valid point and I hope that your fans or our readers might be inspired to think twice before they judge someone’s actions or think they know the whole story, because the truth is they can’t ever really know.

JB: I certainly hope so, I really want this conversation to be driven forward in the music industry. As much as the stigma about discussing mental health is kind of dissipating, and people are getting more comfortable, I think within the music industry with everyone’s touring and rehearsals and press schedules and the expectations of fans and agents and labels and managers and other elements of the industry, and all of the other external pressures, a lot of musicians are really suffering under the weight of it all. That’s something that goes mostly undiscussed because everyone assumes that because they’ve had some form of great success, that nothing could possibly be wrong. It’s definitely possible for that to change and it needs to.

MF: I genuinely hope it does. This feels like an important conversation for us as a whole industry to have. Speaking of conversations, you’re also an outstanding Twitter follow because of your willingness to just openly speak your mind about things and support others speaking there’s!

JB: I think in one of my first-ever interviews, just after Youngbloods I said that if I’m given this position, this pedestal then it’s my responsibility to use it to push conversations in the Amity community about human rights, gay and trans rights, indigenous rights and these other issues that I address and continue to address. I feel like I have to speak about them because otherwise, I wouldn’t be being true to myself. While the band itself is not political. I am a very politicised person and you definitely get a sense of that when I am speaking from my own personal profiles.

MF: One way that the band has flexed its muscle for good, is that stacked charity show you put together in response to the bushfires. Did it feel good to be able to do that much good for others?

JB: It’s amazing. It’s amazing that all of the bands came together. Asking Northlane, they said yes, right away, even though they were mid-tour, they flew down to do it, then Tonight Alive were on a hiatus, but they agreed immediately as well, it’s pretty amazing that you can get bands together, that quickly to do something genuinely helpful, especially when politicians at the time were doing basically nothing to aid the recovery effort. Even when they do something, initially, it was just redistributing funds they’d agreed to give in a previous budget. As well, the Red Cross, which is great, but they were looking at something like 11 million in admin costs and then only dispersing a small percentage of the funds to the bushfire relief and recovery effort. So while that’s all good, we wanted to focus on giving to a few indigenous Go Fund Me [appeals], because we feel that their communities have been deeply impacted and yet have gone mostly ignored by the mainstream relief efforts. They’ve been especially impacted by fires and now the floods, I know the Corner also donated 5k to one of those. It’s just really nice to see that type of direct action and everyone in the music industry, no matter what genre or status, coming together to do some genuine good. Overwhelmingly, musicians are pretty left-leaning.

MF: The amount of funds all of these benefit shows and benefit efforts raised, really makes a lie of the idea that music isn’t a valuable industry hey? As a community, we were immediately, directly and impactfully responsive.

JB: Absolutely, there’s this misnomer in Australia that the arts aren’t valuable. It’s just not true. But they’ll remove the funding from arts programs or music programs because they aren’t profitable or valuable or whatever but then they’ll give 500k to an elite school rowing team while pulling 100k from a creative space in Western Australia, that was specifically set up to help disadvantaged young women break into the arts. I don’t understand when much of our society is built on the arts, that the arts are treated as just a hobby, that can be thrown away. A lot of great philosophy, a lot of conversation, a lot of social movements, activism and change has come through art, a lot of education, and of course a lot of escapism has come through art, and a lot of healing too, yet we see it endlessly being pulled apart by people who don’t value it and want you not to value it too.

MF: We could have that conversation for hours, you’re very much preaching to the choir so to speak on that issue, but we do need to wind it up, so I’ve got a couple of quick q’s for you before you can finish that sandwich! First up, you’ve just finished a regional Aussie run, then it’s Europe with Beartooth and the US for their spring, what about local touring, when might we see Amity on the new record cycle?

JB: We’re trying to run Heaven and Hell again, so if that gets up and running, that’ll be the focus of our touring in Australia this year, and then yeah, it’s looking like 2021 for the rest of the cycle as far as Australia goes.

MF: I’m stoked to hear Heaven and Hell is returning, that was a hell of a time! Now my final question is a lot of Amity fans are passionate, you’re their ride or die, so I want to know who is your ride or die, musically and personally?

JB: Nick Cave. Musically and personally. I just think he’s such a champion of the arts and a beautiful, powerful musician and lyricist. He’s just so talented. He’s a brilliant composer. A lecturer in English, just a real purveyor and an example of what it is to be a true artist in my opinion. So yes, Nick Cave is my ride or die!

–

The Amity Affliction’s new album ‘Everyone Loves You…Once You Leave Them’ is out this Friday, February 21.

The post Joel Birch On The Amity Affliction’s Heavy New Album & The Unspoken Issues Within The Music Industry That Inspired It All appeared first on Music Feeds.

from Music Feeds https://ift.tt/2P9qHmj

[theghostwritersstory-blog]

“I WAS CHEATED ON!”

SOCIAL MEDIA-TION

Recently, while getting into a heated debate, on a popular social app, a guy decided to throw the fact that I had been “cheated on” in my face. This is a classic case of someone not having enough facts, or words to back up their debate/argument, so instead they throw insults-- what THEY consider to be insults, anyway. This is something I’m used to, being that my debating skills are pretty A1, the only thing that can stop them are usually things that have nothing to do with said topic. 

Now, the back-story behind this, is that I happened to ask him about the girl my ex cheated on me with, when it first happened. Because social media makes this world very small (mutuals, subtweets, hints), I had every reason to assume he knew something about the incident. And for those of you wondering why I would ask another person, and why I would go “that far”, or be “that dumb”, just be aware if you were in my situation, and somone was going as far to hide the details from you as my ex did to me, you would understand. The last thing I thought I’d ever be doing at my age was digging for answers from a third-party source, about a man I thought I knew, but life comes at you fast.

Social media has not only made dating harder, but its made the world a lot more transparent, to an extent. And what most people don't realize about me, is that as “private” as I can be, there is really no shame in my game as far as spilling the beans on my lessons learned. In fact, it really motivates me, and lifts a weight off my shoulders. 

ONCE IT’S PUBLIC, I’M SHARING

I keep a lot to myself, unless something happens in a public light, to me, or has been discussed publicly (in a way that it didn't happen). I’ve had plenty of falling outs with people that I have never discussed or posted. So what makes a situation post-able for me? If the situation causes me a great deal of trauma, or was done in a way to try and create damage in my world (publicly)... it will be turned into a discussion topic, before it can be fully let go. This is my process, and I don’t expect for everyone to “get it”.

So, the fact that this situation was made public, thanks to social media (where the girl my ex cheated with, posted him on her story for NYE) I can write about it. And as for the guy I was arguing with, that called himself “exposing” my ex? All he did was give me the green light to start my next post. 

THE ‘IF I FEEL THIS WAY, YOU MUST TOO’ PHENOMENON 

I’ve also learned that if something embarrases others, they assume it must be the same for you, so they project:

“Why is she telling us this?”

“Why do we need to know?”

“Why share your business?”

But their reality is not mine. It took me a long time to realize that what works for some, just doesnt work for me, and vice versa. And that usually the people projecting that onto me were going through their own internal battles and struggles, but they didn't yet feel free enough to release or share that. 

Over time, I've just learned to be less judgmental as to how people decide to relieve their traumas, because I’ve realized not everyone will understand how I choose to heal, nor do I see why they care. “They” can’t see the way my life does a complete 180 when I decide to do this one simple thing, release my truth. I’ve even started to see life as a game, every time I do something outside of my comfort zone, I’m rewarded in an external way (job, money, faith). It may sound weird to some, but it’s not for them to understand. 

NO SHAME, NO GAIN

I encourage women to say they’ve been cheated on, with pride, in a male chauvinistic world, that creates this double standard, insinuating women are to blame for a man’s infedelities. 

And personally, I refuse to feel low because someone I was with chose to cheat, with a girl that... let’s just say was pretty “known”, and not in the best way. Social media is small, and it’s made even smaller if you’re promiscuous, male or female. (This is not me throwing shade, but this is the truth.)

Let’s just say I immediately went and got tested, just to make sure everything  was ok, with ME. The only thing that I’m thankful for is going to the doctors, and being told that I was completely healthy. And no, I never got back with this person, but seeing how low he would go, and the lack of standards, made me question what was going on during the whole relationship. And I think it’s very scary how people can have you trusting them, while they simultaneously are out here putting you in danger, for their own selfish gains. But I will say, being aware of how much trusting a person can actually put you in harm’s way is very eye opening.

WHEN MEN BRAG TO “FRIENDS”

The night of NYE, my ex went on to brag to one of his “friends” about how this girl was his, “p*ssy for the night”, a disturbing phrase that I will never quite forget. My ex had convinced me that he was spending the holidays with his dying grandfather, meanwhile there he was getting spotted on social media, in other snap stories, etc. 

This is where I say social media is made so small, because of course these same “friends” of his ended up getting the info back to me. My ex tried so hard to fit in and “flex” for a group of guys that always treated him like the underdog. He also went so far to attempt to hide this from me, even deleted mutuals that we had, he change his story settings, deleted posts, etc. 

This person went so far to “hide” these things from me, not realizing that social media is forever, and that word travels fast. There is no “bro code” when social media is involved. Nor when you have friends that actually wish they had a woman like you had. Also, something I notice of men who openly try and disrespect women, for the attention of other men, usually get the least respect in their friend groups. These men are usually overcompensating to feel that void. He went around bragging to the same friends that told me about him being a cheater, like I wouldn't find out, how ironic. 

SEEKING VALIDATION

I think it’s because certain men, especially ones with low self esteem, are constantly looking for that next badge of approval or acceptance, that they handle things the way they do. I had even seen it with the way he constantly posted pics of me on social media. He got so much validation from it, that he wouldn't even take them down once we were over. And I'm not a cocky person at all, but I definately made him look good, in every possible way. 

So many people would always try to discredit him for his “looks”, and they would wonder why I was with him, but I always defended him and called these people shallow. At one point, the same friends of his that most-likely encouraged his cheating behavior, were the same ones constantly asking if I had friends for them.

Once the relationship was over and I made it clear I wasn't getting back together with him, this is when he started gas-lighting me for figuring out the truth. This was when he realized that to feel some power in the ending of the relationship, he had to turn it around on me. All of a sudden, I was “crazy” for figuring out all that this person did behind my back. I had to beg for him to take my pics down. He would say I was crazy for hitting him up to take, MY pictures down. I no longer wanted to be associated after the public incident. 

GET TESTED

I told him to take down the pictures of him and I, and to post the girl he had cheated with. But this was not something he even felt comfortable even doing. But, he was comfortable when he was bragging to friends about his, “p*ssy for the night”. 

He might have wanted to mention the permanent STD his new fling had, or the “bros” of his that she had slept with prior to him. But men won't mention that part will they? ‘Cause the truth doesn't sound as good as the fairytale they make up for the approval. They won't mention the TYPE of girl thy cheat with. 

He didn't share the fact that the night after he cheated, when he realized this girl was only jealous of hs girlfriend, and didn't really want him... he was blowing my phone up, covering up lies, bribing me with money, backtracking all his prior statements, like I didnt know. He even tried to lie, saying he hadn't seen this girl since college.

Slowly but surely, the reality of everything I thought I knew about this person came crashing down. I had never dealt with such a pathological liar, nor had I ever seen anything like it in life. I felt like I was in the twilight zone. How do you lie about something that has been seen by so many others via socials? But it was also a relief to finally known the truth, in some odd way. 

The oddest thing is, during the relationship I had great times, and shared great memories with this person. But the way a situation ends, says a lot more than what the entire two year relationship could. It took a long time to get over, because part of me was always searching for a glimpse of that loving, sweet, and always caring person that I thought I once knew. It was waking up from that illusion which caused my brief suffering. 

DEVIL’S ADVOCATE: WHY SHARE THIS?

Now no one has asked me this question, but I constantly do this thing, where I play devil’s advocate with myself. It helps me get better at debating, overall, as well as having a “comeback” to questions I might be asked. Don't ask why, I just like to stay prepared . Maybe I’ve been conditioned, because I know what to expect from people -- opposition.

The reason I feel it’s so important to share the fact that my ex cheated, is because for far too long its always seemed like this is looked at as a stigma, or burden for the woman to bear. Often times, when a man is unfaithful in a relationship these are the narratives you hear:

NARRATIVES:

”She got played.”

So often in these situations, it truly comes down to the man playing himself. Nine times out of ten, at least in the situations I’ve been in, when a man cheated on me, not only did they end up begging to come back, but they ended up in situations where they actually looked stupid. Situations where they seemed to instantly realize the grass wasn’t greener. And found themselves SOL, when they thought they’d be welcomed back. And this may be my ego speaking, but I don't believe that a majority of women ever get “played”. Even if a man doesn’t attempt to come back, this isn't a measure of your worth. It could mean they have too much pride to admit they have ruined a good thing, and some men aren't mature enough to even face that reality, I'm learning.

I feel like most women uprage after situations like this (mentally, emotionally, and physcially) and end up seeing their true worth. I even used to joke and say I wanted my heart broken so that I can GLOW-UP. I’ve also noticed that in the long-run, the men that do you wrong never seem to fully get over it. Even an ex I pined over in the past, back in college, called me months ago wanting to “talk”, and I was so unfazed by his call. I ignored it. Women may hurt more at first, but men never seem to get over that hurt in the long run, I’ve realized. So who is really “getting played”? I see too many women claim and own this, when in reality it is so far from true. 

“Playing” a good woman, who loved you despite your flaws, despite what you did or didn't have, and despite your short-comings, is hard to find. You may not realize it in the them moment, but a good woman doesn’t get played, she just adjusts, and gets better for the right man herself.

 “She couldn't keep a man.”

We hear this all the time. It implies that to “keep” a man, you must do a,b,and c, and if you can't keep him, or his interest, you’ve failed miserably, correct? Not exactly. You see, there are women that will do everything they practically can for a man, and they still get cheated on. There is no surefire way to keep a cheater from being what he was, probably before he even met you-- a cheater!

There are even some women that turn a blind eye to cheating, as they feel like it is a prize to keep a man, no matter the cost. And I don't judge that anymore, I think everyone has their own standards, and I've learned not to judge what is acceptable in other relationships or not. Relationships are so hard to judge, because you realize that no matter how much you tell a third-party, no one can truly understand you and the bond you and that person share. I try to keep this in mind before I judge what the next person puts up with. 

However, I decided a while ago that if lowering my standards when it comes to unfaithfulness, just to keep a relationship, was just not going to be my portion, no matter how deep I thought our love once was. I put up with that back in college, but I’m grown now. I don't have the same mind I once had, then. 

Most men can’t keep YOU. I think most men do realize the qualities of the woman that they have, they just don’t assume that woman will ever leave them. They start to think maybe that kind of woman will come a dime a dozen, and when they see that’s not the case, they rush back. But you can’t keep me, with cheating ways. It took me a long time to realize that very literally and figuratively, men could not obtain the standards they started off with, and couldn't keep ME. A lot more women have to realize this. 

I feel like when you decide to sabatoge a whole relationship for one night, that shows me where I am on the list of prioroties, and that’s unforgivable. I just try to stay aware of what I will not tolerate. And I can name a few people that would still love me in their life if I decided to turn a blind eye to their bullshit, but that’s not something my heart allows me to do. And I’m aware of the conflicts that arise form me choosing not to believe that “all men cheat”, but does that mean I stop fighting for what’s right, for me? I just don't think that’s the case. 

-”She’s crazy.”

I was talking to a friend of mine the other day, and she joked to me,”Men will drive you to crazy, drop you off at the destination, and then CALL you crazy,” and I felt that. I’ve realized, since it’s almost expected for women to be “crazy”, this is a good word to use whenever a woman is actually being logical about something that the man doesn't want to deal with. Rarely do women wake up one day and decide to be “crazy”, out the blue. Most times, the man will just leave out all the ways in which he triggered a woman to get to that “crazy” point. 

In conclusion, women go through a lot at times. Including being made a villain in situations that a lot of us are actually victims to. And no this isn’t insinuating that all men are bad, and women are good. It just seems like on a large scale, men forget that women often get tired of them too. Women lose interest and feel like cheating, and sometimes we’d like to see how other guys differ from the man we are with, but most times I see us women staying loyal. And it’s just assumed that “men will be men”, and have their fun.

To any woman that relates to my story, just know you aren't alone. 

[inpurposegreatness]

There’s more to you than your clothes so if someone dismisses you based on the way you look, it’s their loss, not yours. The last thing you need in your life is someone who finds it hard to accept people for who they are.

It’s okay for your stomach to fold over when you sit down because guess what? You have skin, and under that skin, is tissue, muscles and organs - all of which are squishy. It is not ‘unattractive’ for this to happen. Unless you are made of cement, it is impossible for your stomach to not fold when you bend your body. Don’t worry about what guys think of this. Any guy who finds common folds unattractive is still mentally pre-pubescent and deserves laughter in response to his ignorance. Stay healthy, fit and love yourself, baby girl.

Side note: make sure that you are making your outfit decisions to please YOU. Do not live according to anybody else’s standards except your own. You do not need to be ‘sexy’ for anybody else unless you WANT to, with the full knowledge that it is a decision that you have made by yourself. The right person, who loves you for your intrinsic being, will find you eternally attractive, with or without the snazzy outfits.

The first statement clearly solidifies the annoying, outdated, incorrect idea that women are solely here for male consumption. First of all, women do not exist for the consumption of men. Biologically, our bodies are built for babies. Babies don’t care about how perky your boobs are; they just wanna be fed. Men aren’t and will never be in a position to tell women 'how to be a woman’. Impressing men isn’t even a goal worth making. As long as you have a female reproductive organ, men (cis-het) will naturally be drawn to you anyway. Nature doesn’t recognise beauty standards. There is literally no wrong way to be a woman. There is literally no wrong way to have a body as long as your body is functioning well enough to keep you alive.

Majority of the time, people’s problems with you are an extension of their problems with themselves. It’s hard enough, trying to silence the voice in your head telling you that you will never be good enough so why make room for an external voice that will only amplify that self-hating voice?

campaigns and music videos are directed by men (who a lot of the time, don’t even know what they want anyway so why aspire to please an inconsistent person?). If I had seen women with saggy boobs being glorified for their beauty, I wouldn’t have developed a complex as a very young teenager. This is exactly why representation is important. The more you see someone who looks like you in positions of success, the more your image is normalised; the less of a spectacle your reflection is; the more comfortable you will be in your body. It is that deep.

People keep taking advantage of your kindness but you never fail to remind yourself that they can only treat you as well as they treat themselves.

The concept of a 'revenge’ self-improvement defeats the meaning of growth. By seeking revenge through your appearance, you are still seeking validation from the very person who left you at your lowest. The issue with seeking validation from someone else is that there’s an evident deficiency in self-confidence. YOU are the root of the problem. Not your ex.

Funny enough, the best way to get your awesome self back, is to remove your ex from all your social media accounts - if possible, block them. That way, you won’t have to worry about 'who’ sees you. You won’t have to curate your life for someone else instead of to live it for yourself. It’s important to understand that as long as you’re still seeking someone’s validation through your 'revenge self-improvement, that person STILL has power over you. Using yourself as a weapon against someone else will only harm you. Because until that person validates your 'revenge body’, you won’t be satisfied with yourself. Nobody deserves such power over you. The REAL post-breakup self-improvement begins with mentally de-shackling yourself from what once held power over you. We can’t be chasing success in the aims of irritating people from the past. It’s empty. The aim is to flex on the inner voice that tells you that you aren’t good enough. No self-improvement is valid until YOU are satisfied with YOURSELF. Until you free yourself from someone’s judgement, you will always belong to other people before you belong to yourself. It’s never too late to free yourself. This world wants me to hate me because insecure people are the easiest to control. And the easiest way to make someone insecure is to convince them that they are not and will not ever be 'enough’. As a result of this, we, as people of colour end up chasing the unattainable validation of our equally insecure oppressors who use the bullying of majestic, beautiful people as a coping mechanism for their own self-inflicted insecurities. Fall in love with what you have been taught to believe that are your flaws. As hard as it is to believe, the more in love you are with yourself, the more someone else (who deserves you) will love you. Notice that trying to love someone who doesn’t love their self very much eventually becomes tiring. Love shouldn’t be about constantly reassuring you that you are beautiful. It should be about reminding you of what you already know. You can tell how much someone loves their self by the way they treat other people. People regret treating you badly when you start to treat yourself better. The less you tolerate, the more people will respect you. The more you tolerate, the less people will respect you because you don't seem to have any boundaries. Boundaries are important. Extremely important. Make it clear that you are not going to accept 'anyhow' treatment by distancing yourself when you feel like you are tired of repeating yourself. The most beautiful things happen when we let go. Recline and trust that you will be adored for who you are one day. Until then, focus on being the best you that you can be for yourself right now. You must understand that for the person you are right now, you are enough. Everything you need to get through this moment, is already here within you. You will always be enough, deep down. But do not attach your enough-ness to someone else because for the wrong person, even at your BEST, you still will not be enough in their eyes. But for the right person, even at your worst, you will still be WORTH IT to them. I promise. It is better to be alone by choice, than to be in an environment where you feel lonely. Relationships, as much as they are romanticised, are overrated when you really do weigh up the psychological and emotional strain it comes with when you find yourself in a constant state of arguing with the other person. Having said that, I do think relationships are amazing. Being alone by choice allows you to form a relationship with yourself. This is the most important relationship of all because this sets the tone for every other relationship you will have. It is very okay to find yourself beautiful. You are an expression of the Universe. You are not a fluke. Not everybody has the same heart as you. Keep it pure and keep it moving. The less you expect, the less disappointment you will feel. You are capable. Yes, you. Your confidence will make you memorable. Have you noticed that the more confident someone is in the way that they carry their self, the more we want to be around them? You are irreplaceable. It's never too late to own your beauty. But the earlier you start, the more content you will feel in life. The last thing you want to do is look back on your life and only see a person who didn't love their self as much as they deserved to. Ever since birth, we as people, have been taught that it's 'vain' and somewhat wrong to love yourself 'too much'; it's okay to love yourself as long as you don't intimidate anybody whilst doing so. I think that is wrong. I think it is beautiful to love yourself without limitation because self love is not just about finding yourself beautiful - it is all about self-acceptance, self-forgiveness and self-care. Without loving yourself, you cannot grow because growth can only happen when you believe in better for yourself.