#i think women are afforded a lot of space to be able to talk about shit that led them to certain points where men dont get that

[rigginsstreet]

theo rossi talking about how his dad abandoning him as a kid shaped this mindset of "well if he thinks im shit then i must be shit so let me prove it to the rest of the world and be horrible and abuse myself too"...

billy hargrove teas i fear

[drdemonprince]

in regards to the concept of abled people not existing/abled folks being expected to do more in relationships with disabled folks... You make some good points about us all being disabled in different ways and not recognizing it, but I still feel that there's quite a vsst gap materially between say, an ADHDer who can lift and push 50lbs easily/without pain and one who can't. And i have run into big roadblocks in relationships with other lefty types as the person who can't! And I think that expectation should be talked about and accepted more because I know a lot of "leftists" who would never think to apply this to stuff like doing the dishes because they're hellbent on everyone doing Equal Amounts. It's all fun and IG graphics about disability justice until they decide that youre Nonbinary roomate named sock who doesnt do the dishes etc etc , then see yourselves to the door!

You're absolutely right that there are differences in what various disabled people can do and the privileges that affords. It's glaringly obvious as a problem in Autism spaces, where people who can mask and speak like me are listened to and trusted and frequently talk over people who are nonverbal and cannot mask.

Even there, though, there are massive problems in attempting to rank-order someone's level of ability rather than just speaking specifically about these things in terms of privileges and oppressions. People assume I'm capable of all kinds of things I am not capable of, for instance, or hold me to ableist standards of productivity and ability because I "seem more capable. And Autistic people whose disabilities are more obvious have the opposite problem -- they are denied agency, presumed to be incompetent, not permitted to take on challenges they could find stimulating and worthwhile, and are dehumanized, etc.

And so where I'm getting with this is that we can't determine from the outside what a person is capable of doing, or what they should be capable of doing. It's not that far of a logical path to go from saying "Oh, this ADHDer is not physically disabled, they can lift 50 pounds, they can do a lot of things that I can't do" to saying "This ADHDer didn't unpack all our luggage for two weeks after our trip, they are lazy and not pulling their weight."

Someone might have the literal physical ability to do something in terms of strength or mobility, but not have the ability to complete a task because of the disabilities they do have (ADHD, in this case), and even if we are disabled ourselves we may be primed to see those people as lazy, uncaring, not pulling their weight, and all kinds of ableist interpretations.

So broadly I get your point, it is undoubtedly true some of us have abilities that others don't. but I think there's no way to put this idea into practice beyond just trusting people when they say they cannot do a thing, and not passing harsh judgement against people we think ought to be able to do a thing but don't (and maybe can't). This goes back to the original point of the discussion -- wondering why so many other people seem to fail disabled people and not show up for them.

To your second point, about a lot of even leftist people bringing therapy and instagram infographic "boundary setting" advice to their relationships and expecting all chores to be divided up equally, yeah that's a big problem and it's been a big problem in interpersonal relationships for many decades at this point. Most people overestimate the portion of the chores that they do, underestimate the work their partners or housemates do, and aspire to "equity" in a way that drives them absolutely crazy with score-keeping and resentment. There's a lot of research on how that outlook absolutely poisons heterosexual relationships and has done so pretty much ever since women started getting the ability to say no to a chore. It's a big problem of individualism under capitalism at its root, I think.

And the social change needed is much the same thing -- people need to learn to actually trust their loved ones when they say they cannot do the dishes, cannot clean the gutters, can't drop off the rent check, etc. I think a disability justice politics of raising everyone's class consciousness regarding their own disabilities and others is the way to go, and a massive strengthening of community ties.

[mrhaitch]

what are your views on booktok?

because in my opinion, it has caused a great deal of overconsumption and oversaturation in the literary industry. it's harder for authors who genuinely have a story to tell publish their books out there just because they don't contain the popular tropes or smut. (just to clarify, i grew up reading fanfics and i absolutely have nothing against smut or tropes, i write them myself. but they are not an indication of well-written literature.)

not to mention the rise in the romanticization of violence against women and toxic relationships. that was always there, but booktok kind of increased it in the name of being morally gray. morally gray characters can literally exist without being literal SAers. and it genuinely confuses me because booktok is a female dominated industry.

ive been reading since i was 6 years old and i was so glad when i found there was a community for readers on tiktok. i used to love booktok back in 2021 when people actually gave book recs based on plots and characters and depth and not how much smut it has. it couldve easily been a safe space for POC authors to publish books filled with representation and diversity and instead it turned into whatever it is now.

im also bitter because the girls who used to bully me for reading percy jackson and harry potter in middle school now claim to be readers while refusing to read anything that has no smut in it and reading books with worse plots than what i used to read on wattpad when i was 13.

(im not an elitist i swear i read and love books that arent just classics)

I believe I've talked about this a bit before, but I share your concerns. In fact I think it's part and parcel of people misusing and misunderstanding what social media is good for and what it's bad for.

Novels are complex media, the discussion of which requires time, space, nuance, and reflection. Tiktok affords users none of those, as it is focused entirely on quick, attention gabbing sips of raw dopamine. As such only the most salacious of story beats can be emphasised, as they're the most attention grabbing, which creates an atmosphere where books with MORE salacious content get more exposure.

The publishing industry, while made up of a lot of very smart and very passionate people, is collectively stupid - more so now that publishing houses are falling under the ownership of venture capitalists looking for a quick buck. Any trend or gimmick that's popular can and will be wrung until it's dry and howling. You'll be able to track this in real-time:

An excellent book becomes a cultural flashpoint, and people talk about it and recommend it to damn near everyone.

People who want to be published and successful and view those things as ends within themselves will try and distill that flashpoint into tropes, which they deploy themselves.

The market floods with more of the thing people like, and everyone's happy. The trend intensifies, each new iteration of those tropes becomes more and more basic - less a story which features those tropes, more a series of tropes with some narrative in between.

Then we hit peak saturation, and the appetite comes to a dead stop. Seemingly overnight readers will collectively nope out of the trend, and then start pushing back at it, complaining they're sick of having the same tired stuff shoved down their necks.

After which it's a case of waiting for the next thing. For examples see: Harry Potter, Hunger Games, Twilight, Game of Thrones, 50 Shades of Grey, and all of their respective derivatives.

Best advice - completely ignore it. Sidestep the whole fetid quagmire and do your own thing, it'll die out on its own.

[thedreadvampy]

genuinely though it is challenging to acknowledge that to be productive, feminism must engage with men's experiences and struggles

because feminism exists because we as women are pushed to occupy less space and to make ourselves compliant and perpetually centre our lives around men's needs and wants. it's very, very, very emotionally difficult to square the circle of both recognising that men are people harmed and amputated by patriarchy, and continuing to build ourselves the space to breathe and find independence.

but it does start with a) recognising that men have a valid perspective on patriarchy and are constrained and wounded by patriarchal constructs and b) recognising that, as with any other victims of abuse, we can't fix it For Them, nor is it our responsibility to; we can only recognise their pain and try to offer somewhere to come away from it to.

the challenge that bell hooks and others are offering here though is that it does require shifting away from thinking about feminism as the preserve of women, and towards accepting men (to be clear bc TERFs happen: MEN, not trans women, not trans feminine people) as participants in the movement against patriarchy, not visitors, observers or allies. and that is Fucking Hard and really discomforting to even consider, because all of us as women or as survivors of misogyny have very significant, traumatic experience of having our own needs and experiences constantly pushed aside to make space for men to talk. and feminism is meant to provide a route out of that gendered oppression and silencing.

but if we can recognise that men - even cis men, even straight men, even conventionally masculine men - are harmed by patriarchy, and that men have an interest in dismantling patriarchy for their own wellbeing as well as the wellbeing of women and other not-men, then we have to look for ways to create space for men as equal participants in the conversation.

because to be frank, femininity is in many ways constructed as the default social role. you have to WORK to be masculine or you will be INFECTED with femininity. femininity is broadly constructed as the absence of masculinity, and masculinity as a rigid, constructed and fragile thing. patriarchal masculinity conceives of femininity as an insidious poison (if you don't proactively raise your children to be Manly Men, they will be Feminised). and patriarchal femininity is definitionally adaptive and flexible - it has to be, because it's there to respond to masculine demands - so we're able to construct Women's Spaces wherever we are pushed to, while Men's Spaces are rigid and inviolable.

Feminism and women's liberation has pushed most traditionally male spaces - work, sport, education, leisure, politics, etc - into having to admit women. (and to be clear, that's a Good Thing - I am financially independent and able to seek fulfillment and safety and stability on my own terms because of it. I am able to find joy that I would otherwise be cut off from because of it. I am able to get closer to building meaningful relationships with men because of it.)

But the same assimilation into cross-gender spaces hasn't happened in reverse - and in many ways it can't within patriarchal socialisation, because men aren't given the tools to be adaptive and flexible enough to find and build traditionally feminine spaces. women's spaces are rarely concrete, formal things; they're things that women build in community with each other, and men, particularly men who are subscribed to patriarchal masculinity, aren't afforded that type of community half as readily.

and just as it's vital to have some spaces where those of us who experience misogyny can discuss that among ourselves, men and people socially treated as men need spaces to discuss among themselves that traumatic experience. but they no longer have the sole claim on historic men's spaces, and they're also treated as outsiders in women's spaces. and that doesn't leave a lot of space to develop support networks for the work of growth.

like I'm very much not saying "you're not allowed to exclude men from feminist spaces" because I am actually pretty 100% on the need for spaces where we can discuss patriarchal misogyny among ourselves without having to handhold people who have no personal experience of it through the basics, or look after their feelings about it. Nor am I suggesting women should vacate historic "men's spaces" like work, pubs, sport, university, clergy, whatever, and get back in the kitchen - we've had centuries of that and that's uhhhhh not a winner, I would suggest. But we do need to engage with the value that those being gendered spaces can have for men beyond the preservation of power, and look at healthier and more equitable ways to meet those needs rather than dismissing it out of hand.

like: why do older men go to the pub and the football? because the pub and the stadium are spaces within patriarchal masculinity where men are allowed a measure of community, intimacy and vulnerability with other men! by making those cross gendered spaces, we provide a lot but we also do remove some opportunity to discuss the pain, difficulty and even joys of patriarchal masculinity with other people experiencing it - and as people who recognise the importance of sharing the experience of oppressive misogyny in spaces exclusively populated by people with that shared experience, we could probably recognise why spaces for men to share with men might be valuable in a context where we understand patriarchal masculinity as violently damaging to men in a way different to how it's violently damaging to women.

that's complicated, of course, by the fact that we have women-centred spaces because women are afraid of men - and men are also afraid of men. Patriarchal harm is produced through fear of men, so men harmed by patriarchy may often feel less, rather than more, safe in same-gender spaces. We're all performing for men - women-centred spaces provide relief for women that men-centred spaces can't provide for men.

so like I don't have an answer but the discomfort the question causes is worth examining. "Should men have an equal space in feminism?" is complicated because yes? no? maybe? sometimes? what would that look like? what do we lose? why should I give up space for men again? how can we change if we keep trying to retain separation? how do we remain safe and challenge gendered violence if we don't have spaces where men are sidelined? how do we if we do? I have no answers but I know it's something important.

[goddess47]

NASFIC Con Thoughts

I just spent Friday, Saturday, and Sunday at NASFIC - North American Science Fiction convention. This con is run when the Hugo award ceremonies (World con) are held outside the US. Since I live in the Buffalo area, going was kind of a no-brainer… (and the World Fantasy Convention is in Niagara Falls in October, if anyone is looking for a con to attend).

A variety of not-necessarily-related thoughts…

--I recently turned 70 (!) and was worried about being the 'old lady' at the con. Ha! There were more senior citizens than anything… evidently general cons like this tend to an older audiences. The con itself was relatively inexpensive, as such things go, but there is travel and other costs. So there is a certain amount of 'being able to afford to attend' involved.

--while there was a certain amount of diversity, most of the attendees were white and seem to be more men than women. But the con staff that I saw tended toward more female but the tech staff was male.

--evidently, there were about 500 attendees. I would have expected more but I don't quite know why. I'll be interested to see if the Fantasy con is bigger or smaller in the Fall.

--there was minimal or no use of tech to make presentations. That was good that there was no one reading from their power points… but there was so much information that I couldn't catch. Someone who is not an auditory processor would have problems understanding a lot of the presentations. There were regular requests to 'speak up' or 'speak into the mic' from the audience to the presenter or from the presenters when the audience asked questions.

--there were more people wearing masks that I expected. Maybe 5-8% but enough to be noted.

--there was the usual variety of discussion panels. Some were great, some were okay, a few were meh. A couple would have benefited from some thought put into the variety of presenters and what topics they were talking about. But all the panels were good about starting and ending on time.

--the presentations were all in one area of the hotel, which was excellent since I need to work on my own mobility (a whole separate discussion). The vendors and art were in another building I never forced myself to go to.

--the presentation rooms were okay. They tended to be cool, so I had a hoodie after the first day. Again, I didn't go looking too hard but there were no electrical plugs in the presentation rooms and no overt power stations. Maybe the vendor/art space had some of that, but since I didn't get there, I don't know.

--the people were overall pretty cool. I was more of a lurker than a participant, so I didn't interact with that many folk.

--real life events made it awkward to stay at the con hotel, so I went back and forth. That would make me miss out on some of the interactions as well as the evening events. I'm hoping to go to the Fantasy con and stay at the hotel, since the drive is longer. NASFIC was a 15 minute drive but Fantasy will be closer to 45 minutes. It's do-able but the fun is in staying.

--if it wasn't in Buffalo, I'd have to think hard about whether or not I'd attend again… there was a decent online offering this time and I would consider doing that. World Con 2025 will be in Seattle and it looks like 2026 will be in LA, so NASFIC won't be offered for at least a couple of years.

Overall, I was glad to go… it was good to get outside my comfort zone for a couple of days.

[yourgamemasterthewhiterabbit]

The great regular sleep experiment of 2024 part "REM"

Again I get into bed by 10 or 10:10 ish and an undoubtedly asleep by 10:30... again I sleep, wake briefly, sleep again and wake to find it is 1:44 or 1:45...

Again I lay in bed 2 extra hours trying to sleep before giving up to go pee and feed my cat, alert as can be. Tired, but so so alert.

Again I have had dreams of being back in circumstances involving ex's ex friends and old roommates... This time I am trying to tell someone, "No really, the skinny corset style top isn't mine, it is too small, my rib-cage alone would break it and I don't wear girly things with pink print all over them, it has to be Fine's. IDC if it's black or if you think it would 'suit me'..."

And why? Because men in my life, friends or otherwise were always doing that. They'd find a "girl clothes" in their/the house that's about 2-5X girlier than my gay ass would ever wear, and insist on repeat that it "MUST" be mine, that I am just not remembering and getting defensive, sometimes accompanied with comments of thinking it would look good on me or wanting to see me in it... Always until some other "woman" [because they would not acknowledge my masculinity, other women are women, i'm just a gay] would come forward and be like "Yeah, no I left that here."

And always always always it was someone who should have known me better than that. Someone who could have only missed what I generally wore if they hadn't bothered really looking at me for years at a time in close proximity. And often either my partner, or someone who seriously had no business picturing me in ANY clothes/outfits [like being 20 years older than me]. Very often they would have me confused with another 'girl' with dark hair, even when they are dating me. There is an insult inherent to this.

And now I have to fuckign DREAM that? Bullshit.

Who did I piss off?

But I guess my point is, it's becoming clear that I have been sleeping like this all along, but usually strung together on one end of the day instead of spaced out, so I couldn't really tell that when I am sleeping 8 hours I might only actually be getting half that many REM cycles.

Because either:

-I am having REM cycles faster than most people which means I am getting two in 3 ish hours of sleep, which explains waking in the middle and having dreams on both sides of that [8 hour equivalent in terms of raw REM cycles]

-I am only having one rem cycle per sleep, interrupted, which means currently having 2 per day [4 hour sleep equivalent to most people]

And if you have recommendations for affordable home equipment to measure that I am all ears, because I wouldn't survive going to a sleep clinic.

Every trick I have ever used to combat insomnia is failing me. Self hypnosis, meditations, other things you do before bed that knock people out cold sometimes... Any medication that's made me sleepy before, all of it, none of it.

And I just get to wake up vaguely annoyed I am wasting my precious vivid dreaming time talking to people I removed from my personal space for a reason, and other generic dream actors.

And the night sleep, well that's the one that butts up against the nope-time, 5-10 am... but the day sleep, I have tried to encourage the day sleep to extend itself with no luck either.

If I stopped sleeping at night, I might get the two sleeps crammed back together, but then it's exactly what I don't want, sleeping all day, and also -by virtue of it being regularly scheduled sleep- I won't be sleeping any longer than I am now.

I always liked a half day schedule. I liked it in theory and in the moments I could hold onto it in practice. It solves a LOT of my problems including waking up halfway through the night and not being able to sleep again, and it being too hard to force myself awake all the way till my next sleep time, that's only half a day away at most now.

I just... I need more than 8 hours of sleep, and I am getting 6 on a good day.

And that brings me to the next point... I am pretty sure the conflict is this:

-I have a delayed sleep phase disorder that sometimes looks like a non-24 hour sleep disorder because of how it keeps pushing my bedtime back when I sleep at night [I am a 'night person']

-I am a "super sleeper" in that I have the genes to have shorter sleep cycles or for my body to think it needs one fewer to be alert

-I also have chronic fatigue and require extra rest/sleep regardless, maybe specifically sleep to help with healing and converting adenosine, and this is incompatible with also having the genes of a "super sleeper"

-I am one of those people hardwired to "two sleeps" as was once more fashionable, and this doesn't stack well with everything else or with the societal expectation that I should sleep 8 hours in one block and only at night.

-My most natural time to fall asleep is right after sunrise and that is the ONE time it is most safe for me to run errands now, due to 'infectious dose' [or the dose of virus I -personally- react to, short of infection] vs 'viral load' [virus levels that build up in the air in buildings through the day] and the fucking perpetual plague, so it is the one time I need to be habituated to being alert enough to go out. First thing at opening, after walking there.

In a world without the plague I could probably sleep from midnight to whenever and only have to deal with SOME of the... Byproducts~ of a regular sleep schedule, a lot of people don't expect you to be an early morning person when you are disabled.

Anyway I am just going to start biting people now. [In dreams? who can say! It worked on the sleep paralysis demons didn't it?]

Love that I decided to do this to myself just to make SUPER SURE that regular sleep wouldn't solve my problems...

At least I am not hallucinating or having night terrors, sleep paralysis etc.

[boomstab-papa]

This is why feminism is for men, too. Why men are not just "allowed" to be feminists, they NEED to be.

When Rando Joe has been told by patriarchy his whole life that he's entitled to be the center of attention whenever he wants, then he wanders into leftist spaces and someone tells him "hey, don't talk over other people when they're talking, especially about their own experiences", Joe is not likely to believe women telling him "we are not 'silencing you', you just need to chill a bit". His feelings have been hurt! He had something to say!! He's probably not going to listen to that explanation. But he might believe a man explaining that to him.

When Rando Joe sees someone expressing frustration at people who look like him - white, men, able-bodied, what have you - and starts thinking "wait why does everyone hate me for my immutable traits", Joe is not likely to believe women telling him "we do not 'hate you' personally, but also, you have to accept that some people will have a harder time trusting you because of their past experiences with people who look like you and you can't take that personally". His feelings have been hurt! They shouldn't be mean to him like that!! He's probably not going to listen to that explanation. But he might believe a man explaining that to him.

Because misogyny is so prevalent that studies show that generally, men simply do not want to listen to women, be corrected by a woman, or follow a woman's directions. Unless any given man has done a LOT of work to examine this and try to deprogram this attitude, odds are it's going to control a lot of what he thinks, and this work will never "end". That's just how unpacking privilege and bigotry works. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/2051570719828687 https://www.bbc.co.uk/voices/yourvoice/classroom_talk.shtml https://web.stanford.edu/~eckert/PDF/ZimmermanWest.pdf https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/valr103&div=39&id=&page= https://www.jstor.org/stable/3346669

Meanwhile studies show that feminists do not "hate men". The idea that they do comes from... wait for it... misogynists. I grew up in a Rush Limbaugh-listening household and wow did that guy love telling us how "feminazis hate men". Another comment on this post linked this very poignant article so thank you genuinemusic for sharing it: https://www.forbes.com/sites/kimelsesser/2023/11/27/feminists-dont-hate-men-according-to-new-research/

So. Maybe the above comment thinks that women and leftists are always telling him "we hate men" because he still hasn't deprogrammed that part of his alt-right pipeline experience yet. Maybe he thinks that women and leftists pointing out his "immutable traits" (man, white, etc.) - and the privilege it affords him - is an attack and an insult. Maybe he thinks that being told "hey you need to chill before you talk over XYZ on XYZ" hurts his feelings and it feels like an attack and an insult. Maybe he's had a different experience I haven't described here. I'm not a mind-reader, I just read a lot.

Yes, leftists cannot be out here hating masculinity or hating men. I'm not going to pretend that I've never seen anyone behaving like this but most people do not do that. Also it can't be on women to lead this charge and never ever hurt men's feelings "or else I'll become a misogynist", as the previous comment says. If you're gonna be unpacking your bigotry, it's going to fucking hurt. But it will be much more than just this discomfort. It's much better for you than getting alt-right brainwashed.

Statistically, we need way more men talking men through this.

I couldn't have said it better myself.

[stellardeer]

this is not about tumblr because fuck these people, but it does genuinely boggle my mind that people get mad about websites trying to generate revenue. Like I get that the internet used to be free and wild and anyone could just host a website like it was nothing, but even back then there were still costs involved. Even if you were able to run servers entirely out of your home, there's power costs to that, there's a cost to DNS hosting your URL, which you can technically go without but it'll be a lot harder for people to find your site. And if you consider programming and graphics to be a form of labor then yeah you're also spending time and labor building and maintaining a website and maybe some people can afford to do that out of the goodness of their own hearts but if you want a site to have 24/7 support it's gonna require someone to have 24/7 compensation for doing that.

In the olden days all of this was paid for by advertisements. But now everyone uses adblockers and also ads fucking suck in general so it's not a viable way to sustain a site anymore. So yeah, some sites are gonna start rolling out premium plans or selling stupid little cosmetics or just straight up begging for donations every other week just to stay afloat. Or worse, selling user data to advertisers to keep the site free and you have no way to opt out or even know that they are doing this.

Again, fuck tumblr staff, but I was genuinely surprised and happy to see people actually get on board with the idea of buying ad-free or the little badges and shit when they first came out and spreading the word that if we enjoy a service and want to keep using it then we need to financially compensate the people running that service. It was great to see people actually starting to realize like 'hey yeah it sucks that things can't be free forever but the team of people running this place that i love so much need to afford to eat so they can have $5 from me sure' (Granted that didn't last fucking long because they won't stop banning trans women and POC and Palestinians, but it was good to at least see people getting the idea)

But I still see sooo much hatred on other sites towards staff for like.. adding more paid features or trying to increase the price of certain cosmetics or bringing in ads, and I get it, I truly truly do, I use uBlock just like everyone else and I'm not turning it off no matter how fucking much I love a website, I would rather give them $40/year than look at a single fucking ad, but some people act like certain websites existence and continued service/maintenance is just.. a given??? Like?? I wish just as much as the next fucking guy that the internet could idk be subsidized or something, like I don't even know what the alternative is, that's the thing. It's very much a have your cake and eat it to type situation, like if you enjoy using something that is not a necessity, like I'm not talking about having to use the internet to apply for jobs or do taxes or whatever else that damn well should be fucking free, but like games or hobby sites, whether it's run by 1 person in a studio apartment or a whole corporation, it's like paying dues to a club. And maybe you get lucky and even though you can't afford it, the dues that someone else pays are more than enough to compensate both of you sharing the space, but the space needs to be paid for either way.

And I know that it's really an issue with capitalism as a whole, like ideally not only should the internet be free I think that everything else should be free too! But I don't think that you're going to solve that by letting your favorite browser game die because you refused to compensate them for the work they were doing. Especially if you continue to show up and use their services without paying, you're just draining them even faster using up their resources. You're not sending a message to the company that they need to get funding from elsewhere all you're doing is showing investors that this type of thing is not profitable and thus no more of it will be funded. Most of these website also don't want to be doing what they're doing to try to stay afloat, and you're not going to stop microtransactions from existing by "boycotting" the services that start implementing them, you're just going to push every fun or interesting platform out until we'll be left with nothing but the data-selling websites. If you want things to be different you need to look to your politicians, not blame everything that's wrong with the world on the 25 people running a horse website, idk.

Also don't even get me started on how nobody seems to mind that the systems that maintain the internet are built on the backs of the impoverished and enslaved around the world and the amount of energy it takes to run all of it is killing the fucking planet, but like god forbid Wikipedia asks you for $3!!!!

[gordonurbsblog]

My Constantly Changing Understanding of Gentrification (Due 11/3)

Since I first heard the term, my sentiments towards gentrification has been constantly changing. The first time I was introduced to the word was in 8th grade by my Aunt who lived in Harlem at the time. For as long as I could remember (until COVID), my aunt lived a few blocks away from the Harlem 125th Metro North Station. When I was younger my father and I would drive into Harlem, but by the time I was around 13 I started taking the train into the city myself and walking to her apartment from the train station. When I was younger, I couldn't pick up on many of the changes that were going on in her neighborhood, but what I could take note of were the constant expressions of community and culture that would spread into the sidewalks and the streets. The whole neighborhood knew when it was someone's birthday, or when there was a culturally significant black or hispanic holiday. You could smell food being made on grills, music being played, and the laughter of individuals as they came together from the start of the day until the sun set. As I got older, a lot of these events stopped happening and I had asked my aunt why. She explained to me that many of those families had been moving out of the neighborhood and being replaced by either corporations or white families. At this age, I was very anti gentrification because I felt like the neighborhood was changing for the worse. It became quiet, you often didn't see people sitting out on the sidewalk anymore, the life that I had associated with my aunt's neighborhood in Harlem began to disappear.

I wouldn't consider where my aunt lived a ghetto, but I would consider it as a haven during those times where I felt the culture was rich. Lance Freeman introduced us to the changing characteristics of ghettos from havens to hells, and I think that for as long as I could remember, my aunts neighborhood near 131st street was a clear haven for those who lived there.

When I was watching the South Park Episode yesterday, Stuart reminded me a lot of my aunt, primarily because of all of the changes that were going on around him. The town officials made drastic efforts to change the spaces around Stuart, but Stuart himself was not moved out of the space which I found really interesting. For a while, until my aunts building was scheduled to be converted into a medical building, she was stagnant while major changes occurred around her. If I had compared her neighborhood when I first started going to her neighborhood now, I wouldn't be able to recognize it. When I think of gentrification, I often dont think of it as purely improving the surrounding areas. It's almost like I believe everything starts fresh. Like when I watched Who's Barrio and one of the women talked about a moment when she was showing a people around the neighborhood and they had asked when the affordable housing would be removed from the space. I think I unfortunately have that expectation based on how I have perceived gentrification, but others have that expectation because of the drastic changes they have participated in for gentrification.

[eulangelo]

Aight, I’ve got a few points I wanna make and give to you (and other people who hate transandrophobia bs):

1. People have forgotten the very useful term ‘conditional privilege’, which would clear up so much of the black and white thinking when it comes to talking about different forms of systemic oppression. Damn near ALL of us have some sort of conditional privilege, whether we want to admit it or not. This is specifically helpful when talking about social issues between different minority groups because it acknowledges both, the oppression and the privileges we have, while giving room for there to be nuance.

2. Men who are also minorities in other ways (being trans or non-white or not straight for example), will still have access to certain privileges that the women who they share these communities with will not have access to because of misogyny. The ‘conditional’ part only comes into play when it comes to those men challenging white cisheteronormative ways of thinking which will make them targets of bigotry. Since so many transmascs like to bring race into this conversation, here’s an example: while black men are definitely targets of rampant anti-black racism, they still hold privilege over black women and often are the first ones to spread misogyny within their own community, which in turn causes even more harm to black women (especially black trans women) since they already didn’t have access to same privileges given to white people and men.

3. That kid who responded to you claiming that you need to ‘listen to trans men of color’ while linking literally only 5 other transandrophobia truthers of color while I’ve seen hundreds of trans men/transmascs of color talk about how much they HATE the term gives me the same vibes when white kids try to tokenize their friends of color to prove a silly ass point 😂 And yes, they’re black but going back to my previous point: just because someone is a part of a certain community does not make them the spokesperson of that community. Being black and transmasc simply means you’re a person who has the lived experiences of being in both of those communities, not that you get to call the shots on what’s acceptable or not in either of them. Especially, if you’re only trying to use your identity to ‘prove someone wrong’ and not actually have legitimate sources or reasons behind the existence of this term.

4. My last point (I promise 😉): transandrophobia truthers want the privileges of being men while still being able to claim the victimhood of being women and it very much has it’s roots in the white victimhood mentality that they often can’t shed, even after they’ve come out and/or started to transition. This may sound mean or harsh but honestly, a lot of the white/white passing trans men and transmascs who push this term so hard still have white womanhood to fall back on. They’re still used to their voice being the one that’s taken seriously, even by cis men. That is a specific kind of privilege afforded only to white women (or those perceived as such 👀). They want the treatment that they see cis men get for being men, yet still want access into women’s spaces (particularly those where trans women are uplifted) so they can speak over women without being called out on their blatant misogyny.

Like, this is something I can attest to personally: whenever I hung out with white trans men irl, I could not feel safe around them because of the egregious amount of racism and misogyny they carried with them. They would always find a way to blame women either for not accepting their aggressive performances of cishet masculinity or for the way feminine men are treated by cishet society when they still got called out on their misogyny while they did the ‘uwu soft boy’ aesthetic.

I genuinely think the only reason so many transandrophobia truthers exist is because they want to gain a ‘monopoly’ on oppression while never taking any accountability for their own bigotry, specifically towards trans women/transfems. And to be even more honest: I don’t think trans men/transmascs have such hyper specific issues that really call for a term all their own. This is just my opinion but every single issue they have tried to bring up as ‘unique’ to trans men/transmascs…is literally something we share with other trans people or TME people. Reproductive rights and proper prenatal care (literally sharing it with cis women and nonbinary folks who aren’t transmasc). Assault based on our genitalia (literally can happen to anyone, even trans women). 😐😐😐 like…c’mon now…

yeah i p much agree with everything, and ive seen the op of that post saying that transandrophobia is the intersection of the transphobia+misogyny that trans men face (quoting word for word). to me that whole movement is literally just rebranded radical feminism with trans men being the focus instead of cis women. they will gladly play the victim whenever called out and absolutely refuse to own up to their wrongoings in a way that's typical of white cis feminism, where they believe they can do no wrong and that whoever calls them out is a predator/aggressor that wants their death or physical harm. similarly to them they revolve their activism on genitals and biological sex, saying "transandrophobia is the oppression against trans people who menstruate" or bringing up the reproductive health issue to back up why we need a term to talk about these transmasc-only issues (despite completely ignoring afab nonbinaries who arent men or masc-aligned). they will also pretend to be progressive and supportive of any and all identities yet they have no issues when misgendering a trans person they disagree with (not only has this happened to me, there's witches-of-color and visibility-of-color who were the victims of an actual harassment campaign perpetrated by transandrophobia truthers and they were repeatedly misgendered and had their gender identity invalidated multiple times by them) because deep down i think they know they don't really give a shit about making activism for transmascs, they just want to center any and all discussion of trans issue over them to discredit transfems and to not be held accountable for their tme privilege at all. it is a highly dangerous mindset and it should only be publicly condemned.

[dat-is-chill-ghafa]

some incredibly important things the director (rojda sekersöz) and head writer (lisa ambjörn) said during deep talk- netflix about the creation of young royals and their inspiration

“Representation isn’t about pressing things into places where they don’t exist. It’s about portraying reality as it actually is, because we don’t do that.”

“ when you do stories about the working class or the lower class, it’s very obvious. Then, you talk a lot about class. Journalists ask you those questions, those issues are debated. But when you do stories about the upper class, the class issue isn’t brought up in the conversation surrounding the piece.

“When we depict the working class through Simon and Sara, I don’t want it to be portrayed as the working class is usually portrayed. That it’s dirty, poor, problematic, with problematic family relationships.... it also shows how the working class can be.”

“that it’s still hard to be homosexual or bisexual or LGBTQ+ at these schools. You think that the rest of Sweden has come far, we’re at the forefront, we have democracy and equality and equality between the sexes. But there are people at these schools who might be together with their roommate, but that’s not talked about until a long time has passed”

“I think it was important that this LGBTQ+ theme that it isn’t a sign, that it just exists in the world.”

As filmmakers at some point you have to take a stand about reproducing certain stories around LGBTQ+ characters, and instead just let them be people and characters who “happen to” have a certain sexual orientation or a certain identity, but that’s not at the forefront, it’s there as part of their character.”

“Creating representation is just about saying: Let’s look at the whole world. Let’s look at all the stories that can be told and that aren’t told, and are actively disregarded”

“That’s what I like about making this into a youth series, we constantly show and we trust our audience. We don’t have to tell our audience how they should feel and think or what is right or wrong”

“ so important to have a wide search in casting, and not be stuck on a particular skin colour or a certain clothing size, or whatever”

“in film or tv, you look for the things you’re familiar with. It’s a vicious circle when you don’t see people like you portrayed. Then you don’t think you stand a chance, and you don’t apply for things.”

“And then somebody is watching this and seeing themselves in it. Maybe they cry maybe they laugh, it’s magic”

“That we talked about, was that we’d cast real young people. That they’d look like real young people, because a lot of the dramas I watched, I loved everything, everyone I saw... but I was never able to feel that “she looks like me”, we might think about the same things but that person is gorgeous. We have the most beautiful cast in the world.. but they look like real people.. it’s so damn important ” “and most importantly they’re not 30 year olds playing 16 year olds”

That’s something.. the pressure, that anxiety, that coverage that isn’t just like normal media, but anybody could film you... that’s something we worked hard on in this series because it’s something that is part of everybody’s not just young peoples lives.”

“Whereas now, you’re meant to have YouTube channels or you can look at the whole Megxit thing, and just posting or participating in the media where ordinary people are. This causes that last wall to fall, in front of the small private space you may have”

“You want to get famous. You want attention. You might think that you want attention, when you might need acknowledgement. But attention doesn’t have to be positive. It can be very damaging. Everybody needs that acknowledged. To feel that you’re capable and pretty or whatever it is. That you are enough.”

“Those who become known on social media... often have a particular socioeconomic background. You must be able to afford to buy things or be able to generate collaborations.. the class structure is perpetuated”

“At that age, you feel a lot of things very deeply. You think it’s your last chance. Or, “I will never” it’s rewarding to dramatise and work with..

In conclusion- the incredible people behind young royals- especially these talented and more than important women - ingrained so many important and essential things into this show that is v cool and necessary to acknowledge and appreciate.

[female-malice]

I don't believe that we will manage to cut our power needs without the deaths of millions of people. Hospitals need a lot of electricity. So do schools. Homeless shelters and nursing homes and universities and kindergartens and veterinary clinics and dentist offices. You can't really cut power there. In private homes there are certain things that simply need power 24/7 like fridges, heaters in winter, acs in summer - and those are normal every day things, but some people have electrically powered medical equipments in their homes that they need to live too. While I agree that there's too many cars and some people do not need them, a lot of other people do. And I'm talking about normal "civilian" cars, not ambulances, fire trucks and police cars, none of which we can get rid of. In my normal everyday car I drive my aunt to physical therapy because a) she can't afford to live in a nursing home and b) medical transport is very expensive and probably even more environmentally unfriendly than my small car. People from rural areas won't be able to all move into the city, we see the reverse trend, because of housing crisis people from big cities are moving out to nearby villages. I don't believe that it's possible to make public transport available to all of them. Also I don't believe that people will want to give up their cars. Maybe if they're living in a city centre and do not have to get anywhere else, but the rest? Also also me and many of my female friends use cars (especially to get to work while working nights) because public transport is more dangerous. I haven't seen any stats about it for United States but surely men molest women in public transport there as well. Do you think that people will change their minds and try to stop the climate disaster or that it's more probable that scientists will come up with some "remedies" that won't need people's approval and sacrifice? I'm sorry if this ask is confusing, my English isn't very good

90% of private transport needs to be replaced with public transport. With robust public transportation systems, some people still might need cars but 90% of people won't.

The world is full of auto boneyards. Brand new cars that are manufactured every single year. Brand new cars that no one ever buys. So they're driven out to the middle of nowhere to collect dust.

Instead of manufacturing all these cars no one buys, we should be building trains.

You're worried about cutting energy use because you're worried about cuts and changes effecting human welfare. But energy use from hospitals and appliances is negligible compared to energy use by industrial manufacturing. Hyper consumerism requires massive amounts of energy to maintain. Products don't just magically appear on shelves. They've gone through a massive energy-consuming process just to be manufactured. Then it's another energy-consuming journey just to reach the shelf.

And now, with our delivery economy, even more energy is used to deliver products directly to consumer doorsteps.

Is hyper consumerism necessary for human welfare? Or is it a luxury?

Ecological economics is about balancing human welfare with ecological boundaries. It's about finding the donut.

The space outside the donut is our ecological ceiling. When society overshoots that ceiling, society is unstable.

The hole in the center of the donut is the social foundation. When there are welfare shortfalls, society is unstable.

The goal is to maintain that balance in the green donut for a stable society. Here's how Earth is doing now, more or less.

Notice how certain parts of our current society aren't listed as social foundations? Consumer choice is not a social foundation. Humans don't need consumer choice to thrive.

If we dismantle consumer society, we will cut our energy use in half. Will millions of people die if they can no longer shop on Black Friday? No. Humanity will be just fine on an energy diet.

[fatliberation]

I’m Abandoning Body Positivity and Here’s Why

In short: it’s fatphobic.

“A rallying cry for a shift in societal norms has now become the skinny girl’s reassurance that she isn’t really fat. Fatness, through this lens of ‘body positivity’, remains the worst thing a person can be.” (Kayleigh Donaldson)

•  •  •

I have always had a lot of conflicting opinions about the body positivity movement, but it’s much more widely known (and accepted, go figure) than the fat liberation movement, so I often used the two terms interchangeably in conversation about anti-fatness. But the longer I’ve been following the body positivity movement, the more I’ve realized how much it has strayed from its fat lib origins. It has been hijacked; deluded to center thin, able, white, socially acceptable bodies.

Bopo’s origins are undoubtedly grounded in fat liberation. The fat activists of the 1960s paved the way for the shred of size acceptance we see in media today, initially protesting the discrimination and lack of access to equal opportunities for fat people specifically. This early movement highlighted the abuse, mental health struggles, malpractice in the medical field, and called for equal pay, equal access, equal respect, an end to fatphobic structures and ideas. It saddens me that it hasn’t made much progress in those regards. 

Today, the #bopo movement encapsulates more the idea of loving your own body versus ensuring that individuals regardless of their weight and appearance are given equal opportunities in the workplace, schools, fashion and media. Somehow those demands never made it outside of the ‘taboo’ category, and privileged people would much more readily accept the warm and fuzzy, sugar-coated message of “love yourself!” But as @yrfatfriend once said, this idea reduces fat people’s struggles to a problem of mindset, rather than a product of external oppressors that need to be abolished in order for fat people to live freely.

That generalized statement, “love yourself,” is how a movement started by fat people for the rights of fat people was diluted so much, it now serves a thin model on Instagram posting about how she has a tummy roll and cellulite on her thighs - then getting praised for loving her body despite *gasp!* its minor resemblance to a fat body. 

Look. Pretty much everyone has insecurities about their bodies, especially those of us who belong to marginalized groups. If you don’t have body issues, you’re a privileged miracle, but our beauty-obsessed society has conditioned us to want to look a certain way, and if we have any features that the western beauty standard considers as “flaws,” yeah! We feel bad about it! So it’s not surprising that people who feel bad about themselves would want to hop on a movement that says ‘hey, you’re beautiful as you are!’ That’s a message everyone would like to hear. Any person who has once thought of themselves as less than beautiful now feels that this movement is theirs. And everyone has insecurities, so everyone feels entitled to the safe space. And when a space made for a minority includes the majority, the cycle happens again and the majority oppresses the minority. What I’m trying to explain here is that thin people now feel a sense of ownership over body positive spaces. 

Regardless of how badly thin people feel about their bodies, they still experience thin privilege. They can sit down in a theater or an airplane without even thinking about it, they can eat in front of others without judgement, they can go the doctor with a problem and actually have it fixed right away, they can find cute clothes in their size with ease, they do not suffer from assumptions of laziness/failure based on stereotype, they see their body type represented everywhere in media, the list goes on and on. They do not face discrimination based off of the size of their body. 

Yet diet culture and fatphobia affects everyone, and of course thin people do still feel bad about the little fat they have on their bodies. But the failure to examine WHY they feel bad about it, is what perpetuates fatphobia within the bopo movement. They’re labeled “brave” for showing a pinch of chub, yet fail to address what makes it so acceptably daring, and how damaging it is to people who are shamed for living in fat bodies. Much like the rest of society, thin body positivity is still driven by the fear of fat, and does nothing to dismantle fatphobia within structures or within themselves.

Evette Dionne sums it up perfectly in her article, “The Fragility of Body Positivity: How a Radical Movement Lost Its Way.”

“The body-positive media economy centers these affirming, empowering, let-me-pinch-a-fat-roll-to-show-how-much-I-love-myself stories while failing to actually challenge institutions to stop discriminating against fat people. More importantly, most of those stories center thin, white, cisgender, heterosexual women who have co-opted the movement to build their brands. Rutter has labeled this erasure ‘Socially Acceptable Body Positivity.’

“On social media, it actually gets worse for fat bodies: We’re not just being erased from body positivity, fat women are being actively vilified. Health has become the stick with which to beat fat people with [sic], and the benchmark for whether body positivity should include someone” (Dionne).

Ah, yes. The medicalization of fat bodies, and the moralization of health. I’ve ranted about this before. Countless comments on posts of big women that say stuff like “I’m all for body positivity, but this is just unhealthy and it shouldn’t be celebrated.” I’ve heard writer/activist Aubrey Gordon once say that body positivity has become something like a shield for anti-fatness. It’s anti-fatness that has been repackaged as empowerment. It’s a striking double-standard. Fat people are told to be comfortable in their bodies (as if that’s what’s going to fix things) but in turn are punished when they’re okay with being fat. Make it make sense.

Since thin people feel a sense of ownership over body positive spaces, and they get to hide behind “health” when they are picking and choosing who can and cannot be body positive, they base it off of who looks the most socially acceptable. And I’m sure they aren’t consciously picking and choosing, it comes from implicit bias. But the socially acceptable bodies they center are small to medium fat, with an hourglass shape. They have shaped a new beauty standard specifically FOR FAT PEOPLE. (Have you ever seen a plus sized model with neck fat?? I’m genuinely asking because I have yet to find one!) The bopo movement works to exclude and silence people who are on the largest end of the weight spectrum. 

Speaking of exclusion, let’s talk about fashion for a minute.

For some reason, (COUGH COUGH CAPITALISM) body positivity is largely centered around fashion. And surprise surprise, it’s still not inclusive to fat people. Fashion companies get a pat on the back for expanding their sizing two sizes up from what they previously offered, when they are still leaving out larger fat people completely. In general, clothing companies charge more for clothes with more fabric, so people who need the largest sizes are left high and dry. It’s next to impossible to find affordable clothes that also look nice. Fashion piggybacks on the bopo movement as a marketing tactic, and exploits the very bodies it claims to be serving. (Need I mention the time Urban Outfitters used a "curvy” model to sell a size it doesn’t even carry?)

The movement also works to exclude and silence fat Black activists.

In her article, “The Body Positivity Movement Both Takes From and Erases Fat Black Women” Donyae Coles explains how both white people and thin celebrities such as Jameela Jamil profit from the movement that Black women built.

“Since long before blogging was a thing, fat Black women have been vocal about body acceptance, with women like Sharon Quinn and Marie Denee, or the work of Sonya Renee Taylor with The Body Is Not An Apology. We’ve been out here, and we’re still here, but the overwhelming face of the movement is white and thin because the mainstream still craves it, and white and thin people have no problem with profiting off the work of fat, non-white bodies.”

“There is a persistent belief that when thin and/or white people enter the body positive realm and begin to repeat the messages that Black women have been saying for years in some cases, when they imitate the labor that Black women have already put in that we should be thankful that they are “boosting” our message. This completely ignores the fact that in doing so they are profiting off of that labor. They are gaining the notoriety, the mark of an expert in something they learned from an ignored Black woman” (Coles).

My next essay will go into detail about this and illuminate key figures who paved the way for body acceptance in communities of color. 

The true purpose of this movement has gotten completely lost. So where the fuck do we go from here? 

We break up with it, and run back to the faithful ex our parents disapproved of. We go back to the roots of the fat liberation movement, carved out for us by the fat feminists, the queer fat activists, the fat Black community, and the allies it began with. Everything they have preached since the 1960s and 70s is one hundred percent applicable today. We get educated. We examine diet culture through a capitalist lens. We tackle thin, white-supremacist systems and weight based discrimination, as well as internalized bias. We challenge our healthcare workers to unlearn their bias, treat, and support fat patients accordingly. We make our homes and spaces accessible and welcoming to people of any size, or any (dis)ability. “We must first protect and uplift people in marginalized bodies, only then can we mandate self-love” (Gordon).

Think about it. In the face of discrimination, mistreatment, and emotional abuse, we as a society are telling fat people to love their bodies, when we should be putting our energy toward removing those fatphobic ideas and structures so that fat people can live in a world that doesn’t require them to feel bad about their bodies. It’s like hitting someone with a rock and telling them not to bruise!

While learning to love and care for the body that you’re in is important, I think that body positivity also fails in teaching that because it puts even more emphasis on beauty. Instead of saying, “you don’t have to be ‘beautiful’ to be loved and appreciated,” its main lesson is that “all bodies are beautiful.” We live in a society obsessed with appearance, and it is irresponsible to ignore the hierarchy of beauty standards that exist in every space. Although it should be relative, “beautiful” has been given a meaning. And that meaning is thin, abled, symmetric, and eurocentric. 

Beauty and ugliness are irrelevant, made-up constructs. People will always be drawn to you no matter what, so you deserve to exist in your body without struggling to conform to an impossible and bigoted standard. Love and accept your body for YOURSELF AND NO ONE ELSE, because you do not exist to please the eyes of other people. That’s what I wish we were teaching instead. Radical self acceptance!

As of today, the ultimate message of the body positivity movement is: Love your body “despite its imperfections.” Or people with “perfect and imperfect bodies both deserve love.” As long as we are upholding the notion that there IS a perfect body that looks a certain way, and every body that falls outside of that category is imperfect, we are upholding white supremacy, eugenics, anti-fatness, and ableism.

[fishmech]

I just don't get the deal with demanding a one bedroom specifically. Studio apartment is more than fine for single person, often even more space for the money in a lot of places.

And if we want to talk about "the point of minimum wage" as originally constructed, well you have to get used to pre-wwii notions of what people would be living in, particularly in cities but also in a great deal of towns. You would be expected to live in a rooming house arrangement, which sometimes were just large houses and other times were even midrise buildings.

You wouldn't have a full apartment, typically just a bedroom with maybe your own sink and faucet. In nicer places you might even have your own private toilet, but usually there were communal bathrooms. And the kitchen was communal too, often with the "house" providing at least a breakfast and dinner, whether provided by the management or made in lieu of partial rent payment by residents. And usually you'd have a shared parlor or living room as well as a shared dining room, meant for socializing with fellow residents or some invited guests.

This whole system made for relative small but also quite cheap living space, particularly for young single people, the elderly poor, and married couples who weren't having kids yet. Making your way up to an apartment where you weren't sharing communal rooms was generally something that took some time to be able to afford. And due to the decent savings you could build up with inhouse meals and all, and the general low price of a bedsit like room , some people who could otherwise afford moving up to the private apartment as long as they could.

As an example, all of my grandparents lived in such accommodations while they were single, except the one who lived with her relatives. It's simply what was done, with my one grandma being in a specialized boardinghouse arrangement for young women working in the city, while my grandfathers were in different mixed gender and mixed age boarding homes.

Minimum wage was founded around that as the basic model for low income worker housing away from family, and frankly has never really been adjusted upward to "distinct 1 bedroom apartment" levels.

To be honest I think a lot of people who struggle now with living on their own, regardless of whether they're making minimum, would be better served if society was more open to boarding house living again, especially to help people stay in their communities - among other things these housing systems did a lot to prevent people from ending up in long term homelessness while still making sure they got to have private rooms and storage that most homeless shelters today refuse to provide - but in a lot of places they've been all but barred from operating. Usually by late 20th century excuses of ensuring urban renewal I might add.

[diamond-coral]

The Heist- Part One

dark!Steve Rogers x Reader

You were just supposed to rob a government official’s apartment. Not Captain America’s. Right?

Series Warnings: Dark, Rape/Non-Con, kidnapping, strip club stuff, swearing

Chapter Warnings: Mentions of a strip club, swearing, committing crime ig, nothing much really.

You sure as hell weren’t a criminal. Well- your record would say otherwise, but it’s not like this was your dream profession. You wouldn’t call yourself a criminal. More of a Walmart Robin Hood; stealing from the rich and giving too...well...yourself. Fine. You were a criminal. But a girl had to pay the bills. At least you got to stick it to the man, right?

You let out a sigh while evaluating your life choices. It wasn’t every little girl’s dream to be breaking into houses and apartments for some cash or valuable possessions. Technically, you were an artist by day, going to art school in New York, living the aesthetically pleasing dream of student loans and a sky-high rent that your shifts at the strip club were hardly making a dent in. But hey, at least one time you got to dance for Captain America, even if he was reluctant and a bit shy. You were certain very few women could say the same.

And that’s how you found yourself in the elevator of a cozy apartment complex, traveling upward toward your new objective. Bella, your roommate, literal partner in crime, and the only good thing that came out of socializing with your coworkers at the club, had given you a new lead of a man who was supposedly loaded and yet lived in an accessible and modest living space. He was single, and worked some sort of political job that left his apartment constantly vacant, specifically on the day you planned for your heist. A perfect target. Some corrupt government worker who wanted to live a ‘low profile life’ yet was dumb enough to settle down in a complex who’s only security was a couple cameras and guards. Bella would easily be able to freeze the frames on the cameras for an hour, giving security the false pretense that the hallways were empty and giving you the perfect window to snatch some fancy watches and some cash.

The elevator doors opened right as you received a text message from Bella.

Cameras taken care of. Now go pay our rent ;)

You exited the elevator only to collide with a blonde woman carrying a laundry basket.

“Oh god, I’m so clumsy I’m so sorry!” she exclaimed while bending down to pick up the clothes that had fallen out of the basket.

You bent down to help her collect her clothing. “No, I’m so sorry! That was completely my fault!” You offered a smile as you stood back up, but was met with a calculating gaze as she studied you.

“I’m sorry, are you new around here?” She seemed to catch herself and her demeanor changed. “It’s just, I’ve never seen you around here before.” She gave  a small smile.

“Oh ,I’m just a girlfriend!” you replied. “Just stopping by.”

“Are you Steve’s girlfriend?” she asked while gesturing to the door at the end of the hallway with her head. It was your target’s door. So the political scumbag’s name was Steve. Lovely. “I don’t think he’s home right now.”

Your brain churned out a fast response. “Yeah, I know. Unfortunately for me, he’s always working. I just left my purse, and he gave me his keys to stop by and pick it up.”

“Well I’m just glad he’s found someone with all his work. I know it’s been hard for him.”

The two of you exchanged one last goodbye smile before she stepped into the elevator.

“I’m Sharon by the way. And you are...?”

“Olivia,” you replied, the fake name came out as a second nature as the elevator doors closed.

You let out the breath you’d been holding. 

“Well that could’ve gone worse,” you mutter to yourself as you approach the door at the end of the hallway.

You slipped the lock picker out of your sleeve before checking your surroundings cautiously. A minute after proceeding to insert the pick into the lock, a soft click resounded from the wooden door, and it easily swung open with a turn of the knob.

As you entered through the doorway, you took into account the little bits of vintage decoration that was dispersed amongst more modern furniture. A small Uncle Sam poster, a couple of war antiques, and some old photos with figures that remained unrecognizable in the distance. This government official seemed to have fought either in World War II or Vietnam, probably making him old. You shuddered at the fact you’d called yourself his girlfriend, but Sharon hadn’t seemed to bat an eye. Either way, you didn’t care for antiques, as much as they would have sold for a hefty price. They were probably personal to him and as you walked around, you realized there were quite a few personal items that were no use for you. As you walked into the bedroom a glint from the dresser caught your eyes, and your chest filled with giddiness and excitement as you neared. Three beautiful watches were on display under the mirror that sat atop the dresser. A Cartier that would probably sell for 8,000, a Rolex that would go for 10,000 easily, and then a beautiful older Rolex. With careful hands you snatched up the two newer watches and placed them into the small knapsack you’d been carrying. After consideration, you decided to leave the older one as it probably held a sentimental value and wouldn’t give you as much money as the other two.

You walked around some more, occasionally picking up valuables like solid gold tie clips and little pieces of Stark technology, which you were surprised he had. You had to be filthy rich to support, much less afford, anything made by that war profiteer. You picked up stashes of cash lying around, which seemed to be a lot. This man definitely seemed to use cash more than credit card which wasn’t as common around people your age. As you were rummaging around his study for any pieces of fine art (which you had already gotten two of) or government documents you could sell on the black market, you knocked over a picture frame which had landed on a file that read CLASSIFIED in red letters...right under the six letters that spelled S.H.I.E.L.D. This fucker was a S.H.I.E.L.D official. You were gonna kill Bella for the vague intel.

“Shit I need to get out of here,” you mumbled. Senators and representatives were fine targets, all usually too old and skeevy for you to care about, but a S.H.I.E.L.D. official was dangerous and could get you somewhere worse than jail. Hell, you could’ve accidentally broken into Nick Fury’s place. You were screwed. So screwed. And you needed to get the hell out of this apartment. As you went to put the picture back, you glanced at it, before doing a double take and squinting at it in the dark room. Oh. This was much worse than accidentally breaking into Nick Fury’s place.

The two men laughing with an arm around each other in war uniforms with an arm around one another was innocent enough until you could finally make out their faces. Steve Rogers an easy enough one to make out, especially considering you were on his lap a couple weeks ago, and James Buchanan Barnes looked practically unrecognizable without a murderous glare on his face.

“No,” you muttered before quickly placing the picture back down. 

You once again assessed your surroundings. It all made sense. The subtle 1940’s vibe, the war antiques. Bella had said he did work for the government and that wasn’t a lie. In the corner of the room you spotted a large circular leather case that was partially unzipped. Through the slight opening of the brown leather, the red, blue, and glinting bright silver was unmistakable.

“No, no, no, fuck,” you muttered frantically as you checked your watch. You still had 38 minutes before the security cameras in the hall unfroze. That was enough time to put everything you stole back. You’d much rather work open to close shifts at the club every day for three months straight than get fucked over by Captain Fucking America. 

You scrambled out of the study, moving to the living room first to put back the authentic paintings. You grabbed a stool from the high bar counter in the kitchen so you could rehang the medium sized work of art. Your mind was racing. This had to be karma for all the horrible shit you’d done in the past. God decided he had enough of your delinquent shenanigans and set you marching straight into the arms of America’s righteous hero. As you finished hanging the painting you spun around on your heel, completely forgetting you were on a wobbly wooden stool. Your heart stopped for a moment before you regained your footing. Carefully climbing down the stool, you almost missed the subtle turn of a lock coming from the door.

Oh you were so done for. Your limbs flew everywhere as you scrambled to the bedroom, sliding under the bed right as you heard the door open. The rumble of Steve Roger’s voice was clear as he talked on the phone and it cut through the walls from the living room.

“Well yea Buck, obviously Tony’s gonna be a little cold toward you. Not that I blame him. I’m just thankful he didn’t start an entire civil war over it. I guess it’s just a good thing we’re not war criminals.” He let out a chuckle before pausing. “Hey Buck? Yeah. I’m gonna have to call you back.” Another pause and you heard some rummaging around. “Why? I think my apartment was just broken into. I gotta go down to security. Yeah, thanks bud.” 

Steve hung up and you heard some angry muttering as he walked into his room. From under the bed you saw his tennis shoes and dark jeans as he paced at the foot of the bed. You covered your mouth to stop your anxious breathing, afraid he’d hear you from your hiding spot. 

The few minutes he spent in his room felt like eternity before he stomped out and you heard the opening and closing of another door as he exited the apartment. You crawl out from under the bed, your head spinning as you attempted to think of a way out of your predicament.

The window.

Quickly and quietly, you stood up and made your way to his bedroom window, looking out for a fire escape and letting out an annoyed huff when you saw none.

‘Maybe there’s one for the living room window,’ your brain chimed.

You rushed to the living room, scooping up the two watches and your empty knapsack on your way, and almost screamed with joy at the sight of the fire escape next to the window. Your fingers curled around the bottom of it and give it a sharp tug up, opening it just enough for you to squeeze through. 

Just as you were about to lift your leg over the ledge and climb down the stairs to sweet sweet freedom, being able to forget about everything that ever happened tonight, a large hand wrapped around the back of your neck and wrenched you back with such force that you tumbled backwards and landed on your butt.

He was massive. Six feet of pure muscle towered over you as you trembled from your position on the floor. He squatted down, resting his elbows on his knees as he took you in, blue eyes practically cutting through the darkness, and you let out a small whimper.

“Didn’t your mother ever tell you stealing is wrong?”

[unrestedjade]

More baseless Ferengi headcanons no one asked for: LATINUM EDITION~~~

- Almost every home is a rental, as almost all usable land is corporate-owned. Might as well daydream about owning a moon, it's no less realistic than owning the house you grew up in. (No I'm not frustrated with my $1500 rent at all, no I'm not miserable watching 40-year-old trailer homes selling for $250k to a property management firm that's going to rent it out. Surely a place like Ferenginar wouldn't be equally ridiculous, hahahahahahahahHAHAHAHA. Ahem.) - Latinum as religious fetish. We see Quark offering slips of latinum while he prays to the Blessed Exchequer before bed. He even has a little shrine. What's unclear is whether you're meant to reuse the same slips each day or if you have to actually "give up" the latinum over the longer term for the offering to count. You can break a piggy bank, but it's probably bad to break an image of the Exchequer, unless he's very chillaxed compared to the majority of gods. - Assuming really giving up the latinum is better, is destroying it extra good? Or are you sinning by removing it from the Continuum? Are there Ferengi extremist sects that sink latinum into bogs or launch it into a star?

- What do they think and feel about latinum with regards to the Exchequer? What does a god need with it? Is it meant to be his lifeblood, figuratively? Or literally, via transubstantiation? (Catholic Ferengi. Cathipitolists.)

- How was latinum treated in the days before they knew to process it with gold so it could be handled safely? It's very pretty and ethereal-looking in its raw form, and also very, very toxic. Depending on the symptoms of latinum poisoning, I wonder if it had anything to do with it gaining religious significance? Ancient Ferengi priests seeing visions and going a little funny in the head from handling raw latinum for years and years?

- The way Quark and Brunt talk about taxes in S7 suggests there's not a lot of taxation in Ferengi society (officially, anyway. idk what else you'd call their ubiquitous bribes/tips than unofficial taxation). In any case, since one of the major purposes of taxation in modern economies is to control inflation by removing money (governments create/destroy money; they don't really keep a little checkbook register of surplus/deficit the way a household does) offering latinum to the Exchequer as an act of worship could be a good way to take money out of circulation for a while. - Latinum vs fiat money? Latinum is canonically used as coinage by multiple species. (It would seem like Ferengi are putting themselves at a bit of a disadvantage by also attaching a spiritual importance to it, but who knows, and this is a tangent on a tangent.) Is all their money backed by latinum? It can't be, right? Just conceptually, their stock markets and banks can't possibly be tying every value in every account to a real, physical measure of latinum, that's horribly inefficient. Can "latinum" also mean any legitimate liquid asset? Or does the Exchequer insist on the real thing? Much to ponder. - Brunt implies in Family Business that Ferenginar has houseless people and beggars. There's no point in begging if no one ever gives you anything, so some people must give charity to beggars. What's that look like, is it something kind-hearted Ferengi do in spite of the RoA explicitly stating that charity is only acceptable when you come out richer than you started? What's their rationalization in that case? Are they left feeling shameful about it? (Obviously the people stuck begging feel shitty, by design. Ironically, they might feel less shitty than we would, since the Exchequer doesn't appear to care how you get money, only that you get it.) - If you're moved to give money/material aid to a needy person, you'd probably do it quietly. Here in the good ol' US of A a common view is that "hand-outs" hurt the needy person in the long run because you're removing their impetus to stop being lazy sponges. And that's from people who follow a religion that commands them to care for the needy! So it's gotta be even harsher under a religion that's completely mask-off in its worship of individual prosperity. - (You just know Keldar was one of those people tossing a few slips of latinum for someone sleeping under a shop awning each morning. His business sense sucked but Ishka made him sound like a warm person. Folks gotta eat.) - Reincarnation... Alright, so if you were a dude and you die broke it's implied you can't reincarnate/are damned to the Vault of Eternal Destitution. Cool and fair, nothing to unpack there. What about women? They're half the population but seem to have been overlooked on this point in this here 10k-year-old religion. Which is telling in itself, of course, but you'd think someone would have addressed this? Who reincarnates female? Is the accepted understanding that females reincarnate female and are totally removed from the requirement to bid on their life? But that still doesn't solve the problem, because even if reincarnation were assigned-sex-segregated (god what a shitty idea, compels me tho) you're still losing X number of men to the Vault each generation. - I want to see what Ferengi religious debates look like. Pel is shown to be a serious scholar of the RoA as they've dug into not only the text itself but all the commentaries and refutations and deep-dives others have published about it. That's gotta fuel some spicy convo around the tongo table once everyone's a few drinks in. - Are there multiple sects? People arguing whether this or that rule is meant to be taken literally vs as metaphor? Everyone can't be in lockstep on this stuff. Quark seems to have been raised within the currently-hegemonic sect, but surely there's others.

- There don't appear to be any clergy or equivalent persons, so I wonder if there's different sects how they organize themselves? Do they host different subs on Ferengi Reddit? (Ferengi Reddit...shudder) - Ferengi atheists slacking at work or living as drifters because there's no point saving money for a next life that's not real. Life must drive them to drink. That's when you go out into space to live with the sane people and never call home.

- Is the rest of the population chill with atheists, or is that a no-go? I guess it would depend on how loud the person is and whether they follow the Rules or not.

- You know who they're definitely not chill with: socialists. Do they have Satanic Panics about this or that media turning the youth into commies? If you're an outspoken socialist, are you looking at exile? Arrest? An unexpected date with an Eliminator? - Conspicuous consumption seems to be a thing, and it's interesting in light of the whole "needing a good high score for a good reincarnation" idea. It still boils down to showing off how much you can afford to waste, but the stakes are undoubtedly higher for the faithful. - If something happens and you're at risk if losing everything, is it safer to just off yourself while you still have money? What if you're going to lose more than you'd ever be able to make back? (In economics this is called a perverse incentive lulz)

- The Great Monetary Collapse must have suuuuucked. It's the Great Depression x100, and also your god is mad at you, maybe??? And your next life is totally screwed now, too. Fuckin' dire, man. When Quark mentioned it in the show, it was with this flippant air like he was waiting to see how Miles and Julian reacted. He might have elaborated more if they hadn't reacted...the way he probably assumed they would. (Partially a self-fulfilling prophecy given the way he primed them to treat it as a joke, but I digress.) - Suicide rates are measurably higher in societies that elevate achievement and work ethic (see the Protestant vs Catholic divide on this, it's interesting and very depressing as a lapsed protestant in a protestant-dominated country). Just saying. - On this same bummer track: hedonic depression could be very commonplace among Ferengi. Every minute not spent working is spent on distraction because life is just such an exhausting grind, and a lot of factors determining whether you're a good/successful person are out of your control. Booze, porn, and gambling are all very distracting, and thus very popular. If a lot of this just sounds like regular degular capitalism: yes. It's actually proving difficult to push the fictional society further out because we're already living beyond satire. Maybe that's why I like these awful little guys so much. (´▽`ʃ♡ƪ)