#generations of oppression

[anghraine]

It's always been intriguing to me that, even when Elizabeth hates Darcy and thinks he's genuinely a monstrous, predatory human being, she does not ever perceive him as sexually predatory. In fact, literally no one in the novel suggests or believes he is sexually dangerous at any point. There's not the slightest hint of that as a factor in the rumors surrounding him, even though eighteenth-century fiction writers very often linked masculine villainy to a possibility of sexual predation in the subtext or just text*. Austen herself does this over and over when it comes to the true villains of her novels.

Even as a supposed villain, though, Darcy is broadly understood to be predatory and callous towards men who are weaker than him in status, power, and personality—with no real hint of sexual threat about it at all (certainly none towards women). Darcy's "villainy" is overwhelmingly about abusing his socioeconomic power over other men, like Wickham and Bingley. This can have secondhand effects on women's lives, but as collateral damage. Nobody thinks he's targeting women.

In addition, Elizabeth's interpretations of Darcy in the first half of the book tend to involve associating him with relatively prestigious women by contrast to the men in his life (he's seen as extremely dissimilar from his male friends and, as a villain, from his father). So Elizabeth understands Darcy-as-villain not in terms of the popular, often very sexualized images of masculine villainy at the time, but in terms of rich women she personally despises like Caroline Bingley and Lady Catherine de Bourgh (and even Georgiana Darcy; Elizabeth assumes a lot about Georgiana in service of her hatred of Darcy before ever meeting her).

The only people in Elizabeth's own community who side with Darcy at this time are, interestingly, both women, and likely the highest-status unmarried women in her community: Charlotte Lucas and Jane Bennet. Both have some temperamental affinities with Darcy, and while it's not clear if he recognizes this, he quietly approves of them without even knowing they've been sticking up for him behind the scenes.

This concept of Darcy-as-villain is not just Elizabeth's, either. Darcy is never seen by anyone as a sexual threat no matter how "bad" he's supposed to be. No one is concerned about any danger he might pose to their daughters or sisters. Kitty is afraid of him, but because she's easily intimidated rather than any sense of actual peril. Even another man, Mr Bennet, seems genuinely surprised to discover late in the novel that Darcy experiences attraction to anything other than his own ego.

I was thinking about this because of how often the concept of Darcy as an anti-hero before Elizabeth "fixes him" seems caught up in a hypermasculine, sexually dangerous, bad boy image of him that even people who actively hate him in the novel never subscribe to or remotely imply. Wickham doesn't suggest anything of the kind, Elizabeth doesn't, the various gossips of Meryton don't, Mr Bennet and the Gardiners don't, nobody does. If anything, he's perceived as cold and sexless.

Wickham in particular defines Darcy's villainy in opposition to the patriarchal ideal his father represented. Wickham's version of their history works to link Darcy to Lady Anne, Lady Catherine (primarily), and Georgiana rather than any kind of masculine sexuality. This version of Darcy is a villain who colludes with unsympathetic high-status women to harm men of less power than themselves, but villain!Darcy poses no direct threat to women of any kind.

It's always seemed to me that there's a very strong tendency among fans and academics to frame Darcy as this ultra-gendered figure with some kind of sexual menace going on, textually or subtextually. He's so often understood entirely in terms of masculinity and sexual desire, with his flaws closely tied to both (whether those flaws are his real ones, exaggerated, or entirely manufactured). Yet that doesn't seem to be his vibe to other characters in the story. There's a level at which he does not register to other characters as highly masculine in his affiliations, highly sexual, or in general as at all unsafe** to be around, even when they think he's a monster. And I kind of feel like this makes the revelations of his actual decency all along and his full-on heroism later easier to accept in the end.

------------

*The incompetently awful villain(?) in Sanditon, for instance, imagines himself another Lovelace (a reference to the famous rapist-villain of Samuel Richardson's Clarissa). Evelina's sheltered education and lack of protectors makes her vulnerable to sexual exploitation in Frances Burney's Evelina, though she ultimately manages to avoid it. There's frequently an element of sexual predation in Gothic novels even of very different kinds (e.g. Ann Radcliffe's The Mysteries of Udolpho and Matthew Lewis's The Monk both lean into this, in their wildly dissimilar styles). William Godwin's novel Caleb Williams, a book mostly about the destructive evils of class hierarchies and landowning classes specifically, depicts the mutual obsession of the genteel villain Falkland and working class hero Caleb in notoriously homoerotic terms (Godwin himself added a preface in 1832 saying, "Falkland was my Bluebeard, who had perpetrated atrocious crimes ... Caleb Williams was the wife"). This list could go on for a very long time.

**Darcy is also not usually perceived by other characters as a particularly sexual, highly masculine person in a safe way, either, even once his true character is known. Elizabeth emphasizes the resilience of Darcy's love for her more than the passionate intensity they both evidently feel; in the later book, she does sometimes makes assumptions about his true feelings or intentions based on his gender, but these assumptions are pretty much invariably shown to be wrong. In general the cast is completely oblivious to the attraction he does feel; even Charlotte, who wonders about something in that quarter, ends up doubting her own suspicions and wonders if he's just very absent-minded.

The novel emphasizes that he is physically attractive, but it goes to pains to distinguish this from Wickham's sex appeal or the charisma of a Bingley or Fitzwilliam. Mr Bennet (as mentioned above) seems to have assumed Darcy is functionally asexual, insofar as he has a concept of that. Most of the fandom-beloved moments in which Darcy is framed as highly sexual, or where he himself is sexualized for the audience, are very significantly changed in adaptation or just invented altogether for the adaptations they appear in. Darcy watching Elizabeth after his bath in the 1995 is invented for that version, him snapping at Elizabeth in their debates out of UST is a persistent change from his smiling banter with her in the book, the fencing to purge his feelings is invented, the pond swim/wet shirt is invented. In the 2005 P&P, the instant reaction to Elizabeth is invented, the hand flex of repressed passion is invented, the Netherfield Ball dance as anything but an exercise in mutual frustration is invented, the near-kiss after the proposal in invented, etc. And in those as well, he's never presented as sexually predatory, not even as a "villain."

[stoat-party]

[the-agent-of-blight]

also, i really find it interesting how people can genuinely go about saying "Well this group isn't attacked for their identity so they can't be queer " while then turning around and. attacking said group. for their identity. and exemplifying classic __-phobic tropes. It's really dumb. You are being the thing that you claim does not exist

[finalgirlwillbyers]

Reminder: Will Byers, Lucas Sinclair, and Dustin Henderson are all visibly different. They're bullied because their respective sexuality, race, and physical condition make them outsiders. They're not bullied because of Mike.

Mike is someone who's different because of his interests. These interests allow him to associate with other "nerds and freaks". Unlike his peers, Mike has the luxury to hide what makes him different, granting him the opportunity to "enjoy" the prototypical, white middle class, suburban lifestyle laid out for him. Whether that path will lead to his happiness is another thing (that the writers will answer in S5).

Mike struggles to live his life truthfully, in spite of and because of his visibly different friends. While he values their differences and sees them as strengths, he's also keenly aware of how it makes them a target.

He saw bullies mock Will for being "a fairy" when Will's death was announced. He heard Will being called "Zombie Boy" which is an epithet referring to AIDS as much as Will's undead escapades. He saw Max's step-brother assault Lucas for being Black. He heard bullies call Lucas "Midnight". He heard bullies call Dustin "Toothless," and he'll soon witness the aftermath of Dustin being beaten for not forsaking the Hellfire Club.

Like Mike said in S3, "We're not kids anymore". He's grown to understand that being different is dangerous. These differences come with real threats that are just as scary, if not scarier, than the supernatural ones the party fights.

Please don't trivialize the struggles of the other party members. Their struggles are significant to the essence of the show, as well as more visible than Mike's, which makes overlooking them deeply ironic.

[curly-cottage-girl]

I’m sorry but my Mother Mary, Terror of Demons, Queen of Heaven, Star of the Sea, was not “REDUCED to motherhood” by God

[poisontheglamrockband]

gamers, i’m only on episode three of season two but i feel like cait’s “i keep telling myself you’re different. but you’re not” is very snowbaird in the sense that cait doesn’t see people from the undercity as people (obviously)

cait’s convinced herself that vi has become more piltover than undercity, and perhaps that was reaffirmed by vi surrendering to the idea that powder died years ago; because if vi can be convinced that even her little sister is nothing more than “the enemy” then surely vi can plaster that label onto any and every OTHER undercity citizen out there

i guess the comparison comes from the fact that cait and coryo (and jayce) are all so comfortable with ignoring their partners’ culture / how that culture affects their individual perspectives / etc. because they’re not LIKE them; which also leads to so much objectification because i believe (almost, because of jayce) all of them use their partners as tools to benefit themselves / their ego

[blackstarlineage]

Generational Trauma Left Unaddressed or Normalized: A Garveyite Perspective

Generational trauma is a persistent wound carried by the African diaspora—a trauma that has been left unaddressed, normalized, and passed down through centuries. From the scars of slavery and colonialism to the systemic oppression we see today, these traumas continue to shape Black communities worldwide. But what happens when trauma is not only ignored but becomes a part of our daily lives?

From a Garveyite perspective, the answer lies in self-determination, Pan-African unity, and economic empowerment. Marcus Garvey’s philosophy provides both a critique of generational trauma and a solution for breaking the cycle.

1. The Origins of Generational Trauma

Slavery and Colonialism: The Foundation of Oppression

The African diaspora was built on the forced removal of Africans from their homeland, the erasure of their culture, and centuries of systemic dehumanization. These experiences left deep psychological, social, and economic scars:

Displacement & Identity Loss: Stripping African people of their languages, traditions, and names created a generational disconnect from their true heritage.

Psychological Degradation: Centuries of forced subjugation led to internalized inferiority complexes.

Economic Enslavement: The denial of wealth-building opportunities reinforced cycles of poverty and economic dependence.

How Trauma is Passed Down

Generational trauma doesn’t just disappear—it is inherited. It manifests in:

Fear and Survivalism: Parents unknowingly pass down the survival strategies developed during oppression.

Cultural Disconnection: A lack of knowledge about African history and heritage leads to internalized self-hatred.

Economic Hardship: Systemic barriers (e.g., redlining, mass incarceration, education inequities) reinforce generational struggles.

2. The Normalization of Trauma in Black Communities

When oppression becomes routine, trauma is no longer recognized—it is accepted. Garveyism challenges this normalization, calling for Black people to wake up and reclaim their dignity.

Signs of Normalized Trauma

Colourism & Self-Hatred: The colonial obsession with whiteness led to generations of Black people being conditioned to prefer European beauty standards.

Community Distrust: Systemic oppression created deep divisions within Black communities, fostering competition instead of unity.

Economic Dependency: Many Black communities have been taught to depend on external institutions instead of building self-sufficient economies.

How Institutions Maintain the Cycle

Education: Schools reinforce Eurocentric histories while minimizing African achievements.

Religion: Christianity and other religious institutions have often been used to pacify rather than empower.

Legal Systems: Mass incarceration and policing disproportionately target Black communities, reinforcing trauma.

3. The Garveyite Solution: Reversing Generational Trauma

Marcus Garvey believed that mental liberation precedes physical liberation. Breaking the cycle requires:

1. Mental Reprogramming: Rejecting Internalized Oppression

Reclaiming African Identity: Teaching real Black history and embracing African traditions.

Celebrating Black Excellence: Uplifting achievements that counter colonial narratives.

Healing from Colonial Trauma: Rebuilding self-worth and rejecting inferiority conditioning.

2. Economic Self-Sufficiency: Building Wealth & Power

Garvey’s Universal Negro Improvement Association (UNIA) championed economic independence through:

Business Ownership: Black entrepreneurship as a means of liberation.

Cooperative Economics: Community-driven wealth circulation.

Land Ownership: Agricultural and industrial development for sustainability.

3. Pan-African Unity: Strength Through Global Connection

Garveyism teaches that Black people worldwide must unite to reclaim power. This means:

Cultural Reconnection: Restoring the bond between Africa and its diaspora.

Global Economic Networks: Strengthening Black-owned businesses and trade.

Ending Internal Division: Unifying around a shared vision of liberation.

Final Thoughts: Breaking the Cycle is Our Responsibility

Generational trauma is not just history—it is an ongoing reality. But trauma does not define us. Garveyism teaches that we are the masters of our destiny. The path to liberation requires rejecting the psychological chains of oppression, rebuilding economic independence, and uniting as a global force.

If we fail to address generational trauma, we allow it to continue. But if we reclaim our power, we break the cycle for future generations.

Rise up. Reclaim. Rebuild.

[derpymidnight]

shitty alignment chart i did

[crazysodomite]

its insane how you literally can't talk about the oppression caucasians face (what was the last time you read about the genocide or imperialist aggression caucasian people went through? actually?) without an american/westerner piping up with "umm... lol... you think White people are oppressed? lol"

Isn't it crazy how people use caucasian to make fun of white people while literally Completely erasing the struggles of a racialized group? Isn't it crazy how no one cares and people keep doing it without batting an eye? And isn't it crazy when you try to look up something about caucasians you get stupid ass articles about "are white people opressed or not? are white people entitled? are white people this or that?"

[hellothepixel]

I want to be able to discuss transmisogyny, both to be able to defend myself against it and to help other transfems suffering from it. But if the person talking about it goes out of their way to frame trans men as inherently more privileged than women, or dismiss transandrophobia, then- i have to be weary.

How can I trust that you're being accurate about the bigotry you experience, when you are being dismissive of the bigotry fellow trans people experience?

Truth is that transmasc people suffer a unique blend of transphobia, one that insists they are women and then enacts misogyny upon them based on that assertion. This is transandrophobia. Why shouldn't transmasc people be able to use this label to correctly identify their struggles, as we transfem people use transmisogyny to correctly identify ours?

[calcified-fluorited]

imagine if, for once, the "cycle of violence" wasn't about how the oppressed side has to forgive and forget, or that killing a mass murderer in self defense makes you just as bad, and maybe was instead about something that's actually proportional, like fuckin.. idk. romeo and juliet I guess?

[gender-critical-analytical]

the way some of you clearly think bisexuals don't experience actual attraction and feelings for people, but rather decide ahead of time if they want a man or a woman this time and then just go and pick whoever comes into their line of sight next is so obvious and definitely makes me think you all don't need to speak on things you don't know about

[r1zza]

noah my queen how underrated you are. if only conqueror of shamballa had the chance to become a miniseries or really just be told in any form that allowed it room to breathe. I do in fact think noah’s desperation to find a world that isn’t violently bigoted towards her being so strong she’d actively side with an oppressive force just for that chance to be compelling. and I also think it’s so tragic that if she did make it to amestris she would find that her idea of it to be so hopeful it’s heartbreaking.

[nando161mando]

An Anti-fascist Guide to the US 2024 Election https://www.anarchistfederation.net/an-anti-fascist-guide-to-the-us-2024-election/