#in which they truly think that women oppress them and are responsible for their misery and 'gender inequality'

[iceyrukia]

i really think some "feminists" were very shortsighted with the whole "oh i split the bill and pay for my man because I'm an independent feminist that doesn't need a man and I feel like I owe him something if i don't pay".

Like I'm sorry to tell you this but a man isn't gonna respect you any more or is inherently more "feminist" if he always you to pay. In fact it just gives men another thing to benefit from women without them even doing the bare fucking minimum of even addressing serious issues that actually affect women's lives like sexual assault, rape or even other actual oppressive gender roles like being expected to do domestic labor or "sexual labor" for men. Men are not oppressed for paying a bill on a date because that transactional relationship that they complain about as "oppression" was their own doing so please stop trying so hard to prove to men that you're not a "gold digger" because I promise you that a lot of men will TAKE AND TAKE AND TAKE from you without any fucking shame or self-awareness because of their male entitlement. Your feminism doesn't owe men shit and your only goal should be to liberate yourself from male control and any man who tries to tell you otherwise in just another self-serving moid.

This is not me advocating for gender roles or hyper-gammy btw I'm just trying to highlight how men use feminism for their own gain.

[lotornomiko]

The Brokenhearted Comfort 16 (Worksafe)

Finally wrote something! Previous chapters can be found here: https://archiveofourown.org/works/4051705/chapters/9116500

Returning to the celebration, had been among one of the hardest things that Belle has ever had to force herself to do. The reality of facing those knowing eyes, the looks a mix of sympathetic and leering, the crew seeming divided down the line on just who they pitied more. The young woman they had gone through so much trouble to rescue, or that of their captain, the man that had gone so mad for her. There was even a few who might seem angry, or at the very least annoyed, some of the pirates bothered by Belle’s lack of gratitude where their leader was concerned. She blanched paler yet to see it, Kate’s hand on the small of her back, the only comforting presence that the woman had, the strong spirited lass guiding the princess past so many of the openly staring people, towards a smaller cluster of women. These ladies at least seemed more tolerant of the beauty’s situation, if not outright sympathetic.

Kate made the introductions, though try as Belle might, her mind was distracted, casting an uneasy look around the room. She could find no sign of the captain, of Hook, and was able to breathe a bit better with him being gone. It wouldn’t be a lasting reprieve, the ship that they were on, big but only to an extent. The pirate would eventually make his way back, and the beauty had to suppress a shudder at the thoughts of what would follow then.

It was noticed all the same, that haunted look leaking into her expression. Kate shared a frown with the others, and abruptly a mug of some kind was being pushed into Belle’s hands. It was slightly cool to the touch, that amber liquid almost hypnotic as the woman stared down into the stine. She could almost see herself reflected across the surface, and from the strong smell of it, the princess knew it was an intoxicant of some kind, and was the last thing that she truly needed.

“I shouldn’t...” She looked up from the mug, but whoever had handed it to her, had stepped out of reach.

“Some spirit will do you a world of wonders...” Kate advised in a kindly tone. “And not just that of the liquid kind!”

She might have blushed then, Belle starting to lower her gaze once more. “Spirited or not, I doubt that will help me much...”

“It certainly can’t hurt the situation anymore.” Kate retorted. “And you’re less likely to hate YOURSELF if you do something more than just roll over like some broken doormat...!”

“That’s not what I have been doing!” Belle protested with a gasp, but a sharper spike of something, guilt most likely, had then stabbed through her. For hadn’t that been exactly what she had been reduced to? Just rolling over for HIS lustful demands, pawed at and manhandled in front of every last man and women present in this room? Treated with little to no real courtesy as befit a lady, a princess, of her standing? She couldn’t stand what she was becoming, how broken, how beaten she already seemed to think of herself as.

“I really am without spirit, aren’t I...” She muttered it too soft for the others to hear over the roar of the celebrating pirates. There was no missing the frown on her face, or the frustration blooming in those expressive blue eyes, Belle so trampled and defeated by more than just the pirate. Yes, Hook had helped play a small part in it, but Rumplestiltskin and the Evil Queen had done a substantial amount of damage to the princess as well. She didn’t know how to recover from it, from any of them, and that left her smoldering with a kernel of anger from deep inside. A kind of resentment that could become fiercer yet, if only the woman knew how to nurture it.

That little ember inside her could flicker out completely, or be brought to ignite into a blaze, the woman nearly at a defining point. She was so tired, so tired of the pain, the heart ache and the fear, the despair that consumed her near every waking moment. Belle was in fact sick of being without hope, and though THAT wasn’t in any way within her reach, the young lady didn’t want to break any further. Didn’t want to lose anymore of her self or her spirit, some sliver of resolve seeping into the blue of her eyes.

“Oh aye, that’s more like it.” Kate was approving. “That bold blue suits you far better than the cold misery you have thus far been wrapping yourself in.”

She didn’t feel any less miserable, nor did the beauty feel any true empowerment. What Belle felt was that of being fed up, sick of everyone deciding that of her fate but her. It had started not with her captors, but with that of her own father, the man plotting out a suitable if loveless marriage for her. Gaston had been no better, the man pompous and overbearing, content to rule her and any decisions. No wonder she had all but jumped to go off with Rumplestiltskin, thinking a life as his slave would be better than anything back in the kingdom. It hadn’t been, the love she had grown into, deemed nothing more than nuisance at best, and thoroughly unwanted by the Dark One, Belle had been driven out onto the streets. Left broken hearted and loathe to return to her own kingdom, to be a martyr there, she had instead had her life further destroyed by the pirate and then the Evil Queen. There was a real resentment within her there, Belle not having had the chance to properly backlash her own feelings onto any of her tormentors.

Worst was the fact that all three had power over her. Be it of the magical kind, or that of brute physical strength, there was an imbalance to the dynamic between them. There would always be, she realized and recognized this as fact, and the ember inside her started to flicker as though to die. She was left suffocating with it, and then the resentment was burning stronger, Belle angry and hating, and absolutely furious over her situation. Over all of it, every last indignity and hurt that had been done her, and she was drinking down, swallowing down that amber liquid as though it would bolster her nerve sfurther.

She immediately began choking on the strong taste, that amber liquid so thick and burning as it went down her throat.

“Easy does it,” advised Kate. “It goes down rough, but you’ll get used to the taste soon enough!”

Belle just shook her head no, trying to pass the mug off to someone else. It wasn’t for her, this drink, or this life, the princess wanting something better than the hand that fate had tried to deal her. It all still seemed so hopeless, a better life something the beauty was now incapable of truly imagining. There was simply too many targets painted on her back, with little if any chance of evading THAT which was coming for her.

As if brought back by such thoughts, she felt it when he made his presence known. Felt the heavy oppression of his stare boring into her from behind. It made her skin crawl as all the color leeched from it, the weight of his looking almost a tangible thing, Belle feeling as though Hook was stripping her bare with his eyes alone. She braced herself, and pivoted in place, catching sight of the naked hunger of his expression focused unwavering on her. Like a frightened doe, she was caught and staring back, even as she inched closer towards the pirate lass, Kate, seeking a protection that couldn’t truly be given.

“It makes me wish she had knocked him unconscious for a time.” Kate muttered, the she that the woman referred to, being that of the cook.

“Suppose it too small a miracle to hope some sense was instead!” Another pirate wench murmured, her tone almost disapproving. Belle glanced at her, the woman a redheaded lass with a blue gaze that was narrowed towards the captain.

  “Honestly Belle, just what did you do to make him lose his head so?” A third inquired, hands on her hips. It wasn’t a truly mean spirited question, and yet Belle shrank from it all the same, the circle of females suddenly all looking at her once more.

“Nothing!” She squeaked out. “I did nothing of the sort!”

“Of the sort?” It was quickly seized upon as a topic of interest, and the princess just wanted to sink down into the floor and disappear.

“Whatever it was...you could make a killing bottling it, that’s for damn sure!” The redhead exclaimed with a laugh. ‘There’s more than a few broken hearts out there, that would have loved to have landed our captain!”

“Tis’ almost a shame...” Another mused. “That such be wasted on the unappreciative.”

“Malabeth!” Kate and several others snapped out the pirate wench’s name. She muttered an apology that was insincere at best, her eyes hardly as friendly as the others were, when looking at Belle.

“You’re more than welcome to him!” Belle exclaimed, her face and tone hot for her anger and embarrassment. Malabath looked to be fuming in response, and even more so when the other ladies began teasing her.

“Malabeth knows when she’s been outclassed.” One said.

“She’s tried and failed for more years than you can imagine!” Another laughed as this Malabaeth’s face soured.

“Pardon me if I fail to see how a...”

“That’s enough...ALL of you!” Kate snapped, cutting off whatever Malabeth had been about to finish saying. “This be a delicate situation, and not one that needs cut ANYONE anymore than they have already been.”

Malabeth still had that look in her eyes, a narrowed eyed focus of such anger and dislike. Belle didn’t want any more, and yet she felt like this woman was on the verge of becoming yet another one of her enemies, jealousy the trigger for such spite and malice. Belle almost let out a nervous laugh then, thinking how insane it was to earn such hate for having the attention of a man she did not even want. She wasn’t even sure how to make an attempt at smoothing things over, nor did he beauty truly feel like she had it in her to TRY.

Her plate full enough without some scorned lover to add to it, Belle could only hope that this wouldn’t become a problem that manifested anytime soon.

To Be Continued...

Short I know...I am just happy to have written something, anything for this story...been stuck on this chapter for a LONG time...Could never get it started to my satisfaction, and still didn’t get it advanced as far as I would like....

Been missing writing for this pairing. Randomly chose to start reading stuff while I was sick for ALL of July...only it was hard to get into this one, cause I was cringing SO hard on the first few chapters. I actually started trying to rewrite chapter one....but glad I didn’t finish the rewrite. While I hate how bad my writing was for the first batch of chapters, I do love how the story develops around nine and up....like I think my writing started to improve, and those are the chapters that made me eager to try and work some more on this story...though I feel so rusty....and maybe this was the wrong story to try when I feel so...meh...unused to writing for them.

Also think I was stuck...cause after looking at my notes for the fic, its like soon I have to make a decision on whether this becomes full non con or not...X_X Tough choice to make too...

---Michelle

[theculturedmarxist]

Mirror Mirror

American political education is absolutely abysmal. There really is no understating how woefully misserved young people are when it comes to the breadth, depth, or quality of politics, regarding both those in the United States and even more so abroad. Practically as soon as their education begins, they are taught to think in terms of us and them; you have the settlers and the natives, the colonists and the British, the Americans and everyone else, the Whigs and Tories, Federalists and Anti-Federalists, Republicans and Democrats, Right and Left. At its most fundamental level, it’s a division between ‘right’ and ‘wrong,’ a judgement dispassionately dispensed by the history of Winners and Losers. It’s a cornerstone of the American mythos, so much grease that keeps the gears of the illusory bourgeois democracy turning. ‘Democracy’ is right because it beat monarchy. The Allies were right because they defeated the Nazis. Capitalism is right because it beat Socialism. ‘American’s love a winner and will not tolerate a loser.’

This is an absurd, metaphysical view of the world. As Mao says, nothing is ever wholly good or wholly bad. Bad results can come from good events, and good results arise from bad events. History is a complex interaction of innumerable events, influences, processes, and factors resulting in sequences of unfathomable complexity. This is the reality of the world. There are rarely any easy answers, no one’s knowledge is complete, and black and white are so vanishingly rare as to scarcely exist at all.

It isn’t any wonder then that such a rigid dichotomy produces such intense alienation in those subjected to it. Male and female, man and woman, straight and gay, Black and White, all the innumerable false dichotomies perpetuated by this irrational philosophy are becoming increasingly manifest as the system which maintains them breaks down. It is a process long in coming. At every step of the way, it has been Capitalism producing the fertile ground necessary for these changes. Its destructive World Wars decimated the male populations in industrialized countries, thrusting women into industrial roles long reserved for men. The devastation of the first World War created in The Soviet Union the desperate need for skilled workers of any kind, opening up unprecedented opportunities for women as well as peoples throttled by the oppression of colonialism. This too was a manifestation of the absurdity of such a stark dichotomy. People are not content to subject themselves to the strictures of oppressor and oppressed.

Under Capitalism, there is no other choice. It all flows from the ultimate source: the logic of employer and employee, owner and lessee, bourgeois and prole.

We can see the results of this degrading logic here and now. Young people, finding themselves unable to be fit neatly into such trite categories as male and female, have ignited an explosion of exploratory gender expressions. As the brutality necessary to maintain Capitalism continue to manifest themselves, they increasingly turn away from the prescribed roles prescribed by it. As the system makes it impossible to achieve its allowed goals, people turn away from them. They see the folly in pursuing its hollow attainments, not only because their society has made it impossible to do so, but because they’ve seen the results of those that have; the wreckage of the lives of their brothers and sisters, parents and children, friends and family, continually wash up on the beaches of their own lives, embattled as they are by the tempestuous throes of Capitalism. 

This is an inevitability, but it is only the initial stage of its own long, involved process.

What we have to deal with here is a communist society, not as it has developed on its own foundations, but, on the contrary, just as it emerges from capitalist society; which is thus in every respect, economically, morally and intellectually, still stamped with the birth marks of the old society from whose womb it emerges. [Marx, "Critique of the Gotha Programme",Selected Works of Marx and Engels, Foreign Languages Publishing House, Moscow, 1958, Vol. 2, p. 23.]

These people, after first discovering the tremendous, obscene swindle that has robbed them of their lives up to the point of their revelation, are naturally upset, angry, to say the least. A person can endure great and terrible suffering, particularly in the service of what they believe to be a good cause. This is true even when they believe that the source of the suffering is their own fault, a flaw in themselves, that must be corrected through the agony of self denial and penitent flagellation. If they were only better, they wouldn’t need to suffer, and they can be so long as they choose to, or so they are told.

To discover at long last that the source of their suffering isn’t arising from within, but inflicted from without, often inflicts a wound so great it is nearly beyond healing. It’s beyond a simple lie–a cruel but necessary falsehood intended for their benefit. It’s a vicious, hateful deception perpetrated against them, not in the abstract, but in themselves. They discover that their suffering hasn’t been inflicted apurpose, or even necessarily by those that hate them. Rather, they’re victimized coldly and dispassionately by an impersonal system erected entirely to eradicate them only because they in themselves serve no useful purpose to the people that sit at its pinnacle other than to be destroyed. This is perhaps the most savage wound of all, inflicted by the realization that the people who not only set in motion and maintain such a system don’t even care enough to hate them, and in fact even find that ‘their kind’ participate in it. They aren’t persecuted because of who they are, but because they’re not even important enough to hate by those ultimately responsible. Whatever value they might have had as pariahs evaporates in the face of the illuminating realization that they are just grist for the mill, crushed impersonally, mechanically for the benefit of people who never knew or even cared that they ever existed.

They’re angry. They should be. They have every right to be.

But that isn’t enough.

Even having come to this understanding, it isn’t enough to free them from the logic of the system in which they have been indoctrinated since birth. If people with White skin are preferred by the system that oppressed them, then the natural response is to embrace people with ‘non-White’ skin. If heteronormativity is the social force imposed on them, then queerness is to be endorsed. If the gender binary is what Capitalist society demands of them, then nonbinary manifestations are to be championed.

This is a step in the right direction, but only just. They have come to understand the need to refute the system that binds them, but merely going this far doesn’t even jostle their cell door. Still they are bound up in its logic of dichotomies, of essential separateness between nonexistent or ultimately arbitrary distinctions imposed on them by bourgeois society. Instead of rejecting the illusion of good and evil, they’ve merely inverted its polarity, keeping its logic but inverting its direction. Anger is given an outlet, but rendered impotent, perpetuating the process that originally gave rise to it. In short, this reflexive anger is nothing short of reactionary, regardless of whom it is directed against.

You can see this clearly in the many ways in which the ‘Left’ on tumblr so perfectly reflects the ‘Right.’ They think and act in the same Hitlerite racial logic. They both behave in the same absurd tribal way: for the Right, it’s taking refuge in the illusion of racial or national identity. Many on the Left do this too, thinking the way to combat the racism of the Capitalist system is by turning it back on itself, aided with the flimsy, self-serving liberal logic like ‘racism is power plus privilege’ or ‘you can’t be racist against white people.’ They see fascists calling for the extermination of shitskins and mudslimes, and retaliate by calling for the genocide of cumskins and crackers. They demand and rejoice when ‘white characters’ are played by ‘people of color’ and react with the same idiotic reflexive tribalism as their white ‘opponents’ when they demand the same in return. They fail to see how their demands for ‘representation’ by this or that bourgeois lackey of whatever variety, in whatever vapid bourgeois fairy tale, is being used as a tool to further divide them from the other sections of the proletariat in a race to be financially exploited, all for the sake of demanding disposable entertainment ‘of their own’ to consume.

It isn’t difficult to see the absurdity in the Rightist fantasy of the ‘nation.’ Spin a globe and point, and whatever state you land on will be full of numerous peoples of varying superficial, religious, and cultural similarities and dissimilarities. Even a relatively small country like England, for example, is not homogeneous. Through its long history it has seen migrations of Celts and Latins, Saxons and Angles, Norse and Normans, and it tells in place names, dialects, physical characteristics—which of these is ‘English?’ Which could possibly be ‘more English’ than any other? ‘The English Nation’ don’t exist. No nation did or does or will. They’re a con, a PR campaign to convince the working class that their interests and the interests of the bourgeoisie align, connected through the primordial blood-ties of ‘the nation.’ Its purpose is to create the fiction that hardship and success are both shared measure for measure between the classes, that despite the misery it took to produce it, all share equally in the ‘achievements’ of the ‘nation-state.’ Sure, the Kaiser spends his days idle in sprawling palaces while millions upon millions of Germans are turned into hamburger on the fields of France and Russia, but he really, truly cares.

The Queer ‘nation’ isn’t any different. It’s contradictions are just as apparent. It strives at once to be both universally inclusive yet internally divisive. The Queer ‘nation’ is divided into innumerable discrete ‘ethnicities,’ all at once expected to be united in voice and action but materially, necessarily separate. Each jealously harbors every last shred of historical or contemporary resentment in a farcical pantomime of the national conflicts of old. Any preference or prejudice by the bourgeoisie toward one or the other is brandished as an implement to demand that their ‘liberation’ takes precedence. Endless arguments burn away as they argue around arbitrary definitions about who is what gender, what words to use (or not to use) and how, who is gay enough or too straight to be included. Instead of seeking to be liberated from the identities formed in opposition to yet necessarily within Capitalism, they too seek constantly to be recognized, represented, integrated within the bourgeois society that they ostensibly are revolting against.

Marx in his critique of Bauer’s On the Jewish Question examines what necessary facts are required in order to achieve universal human emancipation. Bauer asserts that for Jews to be emancipated as humans they first have to give up their Judaism, and similarly mankind give up it’s religiosity to achieve the emancipation of humanity. Rather Marx asserts the opposite, that merely abandoning Jewish religiosity won’t bring them any closer to emancipation as people. Instead, those conditions which make Jewishness possible have to be made impossible, as in, the social conditions to which Judaism has developed in order to manage have to be obviated.

This is the same concept which underscores the necessity of the revolutionary proletariat. It’s what makes Communism a truly revolutionary ideology. It doesn’t seek merely to replace one class with another. True, Marx does speak of replacing the ‘dictatorship of the bourgeoisie’ with the ‘dictatorship of the proletariat,’ but this isn’t the end of Communism, to merely invert the currently prevailing power structure.

And does modern history not speak to the truth of this? As we come into the 21st century, through much of the developed world Christianity has waned as an institution. The world is no longer so uncertain. To treat sickness means no longer to entreat God in His house, but to see a medical professional in a hospital. Material abundance has made the specter of famine a thing of the past.

We see further evidence of this in the likes of The New Deal. It didn’t emancipate the worker, but only extended to a certain section of workers privileges over the others. Nor was the Soviet Union able to abolish class society, and so degraded ultimately into Capitalism. Even for the accomplishments of the Civil Rights movement in the middle of the 20th century, have those accomplishments lasted? The political Jim Crow might have vanished, but isn’t it just replaced with a financial one? In every case, the contradictions were not reconciled, only mitigated, and only temporarily. That is not to fault them for not accomplishing more, but recognizing that their goals were only partially fulfilled, and undone by the contradictions they let linger.

Consequently, the emancipation of any ‘identity’ or ‘class’ becomes a possibility when and only when it seeks to obviate the conditions which necessitate its existence. ‘Homosexuals’ will only be emancipated when ‘heterosexuality ‘ becomes an impossibility. ‘Blacks’ will only be emancipated only when ‘Whites’ becomes an impossibility. ‘Transgenders’ will only be emancipated when ‘cisgenders’ becomes an impossibility. The proletariat will be emancipated only when the bourgeois becomes an impossibility. Founding movements existing only in opposition to these things, fighting for ‘gay rights’ instead of abolishing the privileges which subjugate gays in the first place, is not only reactionary, but self defeating.

The fundamental conditions from which all of these arise is the class society created and perpetuated by Capitalism. The only way to free the peoples trapped within it is to dispose with the conditions which created and presupposed them in the first place.

[sheikah]

Hello! I have recently been exposed to a lot of jonerys. I don't have anything against it but I'm not sure how I feel. Could you convince me?

Hi there! So honored to have you here! What a great and exciting ask. Sorry for my delayed response but I wanted to be sure to do it justice haha. 

Alright so there are a lot of reasons to love Jonerys. I’ve talked before about why I think they will be compatible, and I’ll probably recycle that answer a bit because I have a bunch of new followers since then. But before I get sappy I want to talk about the realm as a whole. 

I think that Jon and Dany as a pairing is the best and healthiest outcome for the realm.

Jon Snow’s arc has been focused on the themes of equality and personal freedom. Starting in Winterfell we see that Jon was marginalized and did not receive equal treatment due to the circumstances of his birth. This molded him into an insular and bitter young man. 

When he first arrived at The Wall he behaved petulantly because he resented the feeling that he was deceived by Benjen and others when he discovered that the NW is not made of chivalrous men from noble houses, but commoners and many criminals. But befriending these men, starting with Sam, began Jon’s personal journey to help and uplift people who are looked down in society.

Of course his time with Ygritte and the other Free Folk contributed to this worldview and eventually as Lord Commander he made history by allowing them South of the Wall. So we know that as a leader Jon is someone who would value equality and freedom for all people which would help everyone to thrive. 

Meanwhile Daenerys was on a parallel journey. As an exiled young girl she had even less agency and autonomy than Jon did and was more or less sold into sexual slavery to Drogo. She saw how women were treated in that culture and how the poor, sick, and elderly were treated in a society that put so much value on physical strength. When her dragons were born she adopted the unwanted dothraki, the weakest among them, as her khalasar and protected them.  Her liberation of Slaver’s Bay parallels Jon’s liberation of the wildlings because like Jon, Dany knows what it’s like to be looked down on and sneered at. So instead of sailing for Westeros to fulfill her personal destiny when she had the chance, she stayed until Meereen was stable so that its people could live freely and equally and so that each and every person there could follow their personal destiny, too. 

So Dany and Jon come from similar backgrounds and have similar feelings about people and the world, and they both stand poised to rule. Jon has the loyalty of the North; Dany has the loyalty of the largest fighting force. 

If these two come together, not only can they save the realm from the WW (which is the most important thing of all) but they can also oppose rulers like Cersei and Euron who would only continue to let the realm wither under their oppression. 

But in addition to what they could do for the realm, think of what they could do for each other! Dany’s entire family was murdered and while she wasn’t around to feel the pain of most of their deaths, she still feels the pain of being alone without a family to take care of her. She also had to watch her brother, someone she loved in spite of his cruelty, die because he was such a threat to her and the life of her unborn child. Top this all off with the fact that in spite of Drogo raping her, she seems to have genuinely loved him over time and she had to end his life to put him out of his catatonic misery. Jon’s family was also murdered. He doesn’t know about Rhaegar and Lyanna, but like Dany, his father was murdered during Robert’s Rebellion and his mother died from childbirth. Ned was murdered, Robb was murdered, and like Dany having to witness the death of Viserys, Jon watched Rickon murdered right before his eyes. Finally, Just as Dany lost Drogo, Jon lost Ygritte and she died in his arms tragically. So they are both pretty much alone in the world. Together they are the last Targaryens, though neither of them knows about the other yet. Each of them doesn’t really have a home. I think it was telling in Sunday’s episode when Jon said that Sansa “is” the only Stark in Winterfell. He didn’t say, will be after he leaves. In other words, no matter how far he has come, no matter how welcoming and kind Sansa has been to him, Jon still believes that he is not a true Stark and still feels like a Snow–a bastard. 

Meanwhile, Dany’s homecoming in Dragonstone was not all she’d hoped it would be. She realizes that a piece of land and a castle do not equal a home. Because home is being with people you love. And Jon and Dany are going to be that for one another. I don’t think that either of them can find another person who will relate so well to everything they’ve been through. Because yes, there are other people who have suffered on the show. But Jon and Dany have both suffered and been left alone while also living as rulers. They both bear the burden and responsibility of the people who are loyal to them. For the first time they will find a person who actually understands what that is like.I think that’s going to be so beautiful. They can be truly happy together, even if that will be ruined by the war and violence and everything else.And while I know the incest freaks some people out, I’ve discussed why I don’t think it will be a problem here. But in addition to that, I was recently reminded that both Jonnel and Edric Stark married their neices, in addition to countless Targaryen intermarriages. I think the fact that Jon and Dany are both Targaryens matters. Because out of all the families, the Targaryens practiced this the most and it was by no means expected for incest to produce children who were physically or mentally affected by that. Aerys II does not represent all Targaryens or the supposed side effects of Targaryen incest. In fact, I believe that since Targaryens are the blood of Old Valyria, where intermarriage was also practiced, and since Valyrian blood is clearly magical (dragon taming, Dany’s invulnerability to fire, etc), we can’t really compare their unions to those of normal humans. And it’s possible that their magical blood actually makes them attracted to one another. It would help to explain how so many Targaryens practiced incest for so long. Even some of Aegon V’s children wed incestuously in secret despite his attempts to keep them apart. So I think that Targaryens possibly have a special bond with one another and that Jon and Dany might, too. I also talked about their overall compatibility this in response to a similar ask so there is some overlap but also some stuff I didn’t cover here if you’re still interested. I hope I helped to convince you some! Thanks for sending this and welcome to our fandom

[sta-ge]

The Abolition of Work – Bob Black

One of the most interesting readings that I have done in recent years, definitely more interesting than the previous readings we had to do. This reading by Bob Black, written in 1985 and being part of an anthology of essays named “The Abolition of Work and Other Essays”, which was published by Loompanics Unlimited, is (as the title states) about the abolition of work. But what does work really mean? 

According to Bertrand Russell on one of his essays in “In Praise of Idleness and Other Essays”:

“Work is of two kinds: first, altering the position of matter at or near the earth’s surface relatively to other such matter; second, telling other people to do so. The first kind is unpleasant and ill paid; the second is pleasant and highly paid. The second kind is capable of indefinite extension: there are not only those who give orders, but those who give advice as to what orders should be given.”

Or a bit more simplified, work is an activity performed by a person in exchange to (usually) economic compensation. So, is work really our best chance of being happy and having a “life”? Are we what we do?

I always thought that it was capitalism that made us, the proletariat, feel so miserably (spoiler alert, it is, but it’s a bit more complicated) and I never expected to find readings that would further enrich my beliefs on the subject as I didn’t know what I was looking for. Already deep and heavily influenced by (mostly) books of Marx and Engels (i.e. The Capital, The Communist Manifesto, etc.), Bakunin (i.e. Statism and Anarchy, God and the State, etc.), Kropotkin (i.e. The Conquest of Bread, etc.), Noam Chomsky (i.e. Chomsky on Anarchism, etc.), George Orwell (i.e. The Animal Farm, 1984, etc.), Ursula K. Le Guin’s The Dispossessed, I kept feeling like something was missing.

This is what The Abolition of Work by Bob Black is to me. When I came up with the story 2- maybe 3- years back, I was at a point that I was writing down ideas and concepts for stories with one thing in common, to stop the oppression. Ever since I was a kid, I did not like being told what to do, what to think, what to feel, I didn’t like being put into a box and the older I became, the more I felt this way. But being from a country where rebellions and revolutions against oppressors seem to be in our blood, I guess didn’t really help either.

Nevertheless, The Abolition of Work came and fit in my beliefs like a missing puzzle that I had been looking for for years. After countless conversations with friends, (it is Greece after all) I would always reach the same conclusion. I found the system wrong, faulty, it just never clicked with me, the whole concept of going to school to “learn” and be “taught” things that you are not even interested in and how bizarre it was that everything was so driven by memorising huge texts instead of creative thinking whilst your parents would, surprisingly, go to work those exact same hours; being forced to stay still at an age that you are bursting with energy -and if you have ADHD then good luck- otherwise you would get punished; getting forced to go to school at 8am and if you were late there would be a penalty; how we are taught from a young age to follow orders and be obedient and be rewarded for it, like we are being brainwashed to do what we are asked without questioning it, and the list goes on and on and on. As Black would say in the essay, “Discipline is what the factory and the office and the store share with the prison and the school and the mental hospital.” basically saying that the children, the “future”, are being brainwashed into being good employees as we are “living in a world designed for work”.  

“Work is the source of nearly all the misery in the world. Almost any evil you’d care to name comes from working or from living in a world designed for work. In order to stop suffering, we have to stop working.”

Black argues that work is the source of nearly all the misery in the world and we should abolish it and start living for us, instead of living to work. He proposes that instead of working (which as previously established has a negative meaning), maybe a new approach is taken, a more ludic, a more playful approach, as it won’t be forced on to you and make you miserable by slowly poising you, but it will be something that you chose voluntarily to do, making it more fun. The effects of this poison can clearly be seen in countries like Japan where 30,000 people, annually, is estimated to commit suicide -or as Black compares it to a homicide as these people were driven by their “jobs” to take their lives- because of the fact that a long weekly working schedule could be over 60 hours for men and over 45 hours for women. In Japan it is also not unusual to see people sleeping on the streets, or in some cases it is even encouraged as it shows how hard they had been working.

Leisure, also, doesn’t help. As a matter of fact, it can be considered to make things worse. How many times during holidays we try to do so many things because we don’t have the time to do them on our everyday lives and we return as exhausted, or even more exhausted? Thinking about work all the time doesn’t help either, things like counting down days to go back to work, hours, minutes, puts an enormous burden on or mental health making the whole concept of “freedom” –as that’s what the 5 hours after work are considered to be- a complete joke, just like the ‘carrot and stick’ approach popularised by Frederick Winslow Taylor (1856-1917). These 5-6 hours after work are truly hours to enjoy, are there just so that we can recover and regain our strength for the next day, a never ending cycle. As Joseph Lane Kirkland (1922-1999) a US labour union leader said “If hard work were such a wonderful thing, surely the rich would have kept it all to themselves.” but obviously that’s not the case. Another reason that the proletariat is working so hard with so little “free” time, is to make them think as less as possible, as that could lead to a revolution and that is something that they do not want. That’s why we have so many ‘trash’ TV-shows, to numb the brain, to keep us occupied and distracted at the same time that “people are earning less than they did 17 years ago” and, even worse, the “median income in the US is actually down over the last 17 years and is only 3% higher now than it was 30 years ago.” We are working more and make less, especially when you take into consideration the inflation in rent, food, etc. I do not think that it is a coincidence that in Greek the word work (translates as δουλειά), originates from the word δουλεία, that means slavery, as ancient Greek philosophers regarded work as an activity fit only for slaves.

We spent our best and most important and productive years of our lives working for someone else, getting stressed for someone else, ruining our health for someone else. “You are what you do. If you do boring, stupid monotonous work, chances are you’ll end up boring, stupid and monotonous.” as Black says, and this is exactly the premise of my story. A character so sick of being miserable and hating his life to the point of wanting to commit suicide to escape but unable to do anything to change it, trapped in this loop, stuck in this mundane routine. However, by taking a more playful approach and instead of ‘work’, we play ‘games’, instead of a ‘job’ and something that we are forced to do, we take advantage of whatever it is that various people at various times in fact enjoy doing. Or as Black puts it, “An optimal sexual encounter is the paradigm of productive play. The participants potentiate each other’s pleasures, nobody keeps score, and everybody wins. The more you give, the more you get. In the ludic life, the best of sex will diffuse into the better part of daily life. Generalized play leads to the libidinization of life. Sex, in turn, can become less urgent and desperate, more playful. If we play our cards right, we can all get more out of life than we put into it; but only if we play for keeps.” This is something I find that I find very easy to relate. Before coming to university to study Illustration, I would draw and practice in my ‘free’ time, filling sketchbooks within days. However, after attending university and having people tell you all the time what to do and how to do it, or how good/or bad your drawings are, to try different styles, styles that you don’t like, etc., it kind of took the fun away from it, I have found myself making excuses to avoid drawing because of that dreadful feeling that I have to do it. REFERENCE:

Black, B. (1985). [online] Available at: https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/bob-black-the-abolition-of-workhttps://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/bob-black-the-abolition-of-work [Accessed 26 Apr. 2019].

Black, B. - Afterthoughts on the Abolition of Work, published by LBC Books in 2015

Black, B. (2019). Instead Of Work : Bob Black : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive. [online] Internet Archive. Available at: https://archive.org/details/InsteadOfWork [Accessed 26 Apr. 2019].

Libcom.org. (2019). The abolition of work - Bob Black. [online] Available at: https://libcom.org/library/abolition-work-bob-black [Accessed 26 Apr. 2019].

Libcom.org. (2019). What do we mean by work?: A response to Bob Black's "The Abolition of Work". [online] Available at: https://libcom.org/library/what-do-we-mean-work-response-bob-blacks-abolition-work [Accessed 26 Apr. 2019].

Libcom.org. (2019). Work and the free society - Anarchist Federation. [online] Available at: https://libcom.org/library/work-free-society-anarchist-federation [Accessed 26 Apr. 2019].

What a path we made. (2019). Bob Black : The Abolition of Work, and other essays. [online] Available at: https://whatapathwemade.wordpress.com/2014/06/07/bob-black-the-abolition-of-work-and-other-essays/ [Accessed 26 Apr. 2019].

Marx, K. and Borchardt, J. (n.d.). Das Kapital.

Marx, K., Engels, F., Stedman Jones, G. and Moore, S. (n.d.). The Communist manifesto.

Bakunin, M. and Shatz, M. (2005). Statism and anarchy. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Kropotkin, P. (n.d.). The conquest of bread.

Marxists.org. (2019). Works of Mikhail Bakunin 1871. [online] Available at: https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/bakunin/works/1871/man-society.htm [Accessed 26 Apr. 2019].

Medium. (2019). The Philosophical Argument for Working Less (and Wasting Time). [online] Available at: https://medium.com/@ztrana/the-philosophical-argument-for-working-less-and-wasting-time-71bbbcb7310b [Accessed 26 Apr. 2019].

Medium. (2019). No One Should Ever Work on Introductions, by Bruce Sterling. [online] Available at: https://medium.com/@bruces/no-one-should-ever-work-on-introductions-by-bruce-sterling-7cb872e745aa [Accessed 26 Apr. 2019].

The Independent. (2019). Do Japanese really work themselves to death? In some cases, yes. [online] Available at: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/japan-overwork-working-60-hours-karoshi-a7166376.html [Accessed 26 Apr. 2019].

Nast, C. (2019). Everything You Need to Know About Capitalism. [online] Teen Vogue. Available at: https://www.teenvogue.com/story/what-capitalism-is [Accessed 26 Apr. 2019].

LLP, B. (2019). Motivational theory - Motivation - how Egg unleashes the power of people - Egg | Egg case studies and information | Business Case Studies. [online] Businesscasestudies.co.uk. Available at: http://businesscasestudies.co.uk/egg/motivation-how-egg-unleashes-the-power-of-people/motivational-theory.html [Accessed 26 Apr. 2019].

Russell, B. (2019). In Praise of Idleness By Bertrand Russell. [online] Zpub.com. Available at: http://www.zpub.com/notes/idle.html [Accessed 26 Apr. 2019].

Smith, Nicholas H. (2016). INTRODUCTION: PHILOSOPHY OF WORK

Business Insider. (2019). The gap between the top 5% and everyone else has dramatically grown over the last 50 years. [online] Available at: https://www.businessinsider.com/real-household-income-over-time-2017-5?r=US&IR=T [Accessed 26 Apr. 2019].

tutor2u. (2019). Theories of Motivation (GCSE) | Business | tutor2u. [online] Available at: https://www.tutor2u.net/business/reference/theories-of-motivation-gcse [Accessed 26 Apr. 2019].

SAVING 10,000 - Winning a War on Suicide in Japan - 自殺者１万人を救う戦い - Japanese Documentary - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oo0SHLxc2d0

[rabbiandrewrosenblatt]

Us-and-Them

Tragedy such as what happened last Shabbat in Pittsburgh is unfortunately not new to the Jewish people. In 2014 four Jews were murdered at prayer in Har Nof, Israel. In 2015 the heavily secured synagogue in Copenhagen was attacked at prayer by a gunman who killed two and wounded five police officers. In 1986 an Abu Nidal terrorist opened fire on Jews praying in a synagogue on Shabbat in Istanbul.  

Killing people at prayer is nothing new to the United States. In 2012, a white supremacist killed six and wounded four in a Sikh temple in Wisconsin. In 2015 another killed nine people, including the church’s pastor, at Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston, SC. In 1963, white supremacists killed four African American girls in the infamous 16th Street Baptist Church bombing in Birmingham.

If misery loves company, we should find solace in confronting again such a tragedy, especially in this era when victimhood is a badge of honour. Yet we find only unspeakable pain. Maybe this tragedy was different from all those listed above. In fact, some communities recited Kinot, the prayers read on the 9th of Av, reserved for profound destruction. Perhaps that was because this tragedy was the bellwether signaling the end of American exceptionalism.

Based on what has been happening in Europe, the events in Pittsburgh might be an early sign of things to come here. The daughter of a famed Holocaust denier nearly won the majority of French votes. The Polish government has passed a law designed to whitewash their involvement in the Holocaust. Here is what the Hungarian prime minister recently said about the Jews:

We are fighting an enemy that is different from us. Not open, but hiding; not straightforward but crafty; not honest but base; not national but international; does not believe in working but speculates with money; does not have its own homeland but feels it owns the whole world” a thinly veiled reference to the Jew as enemy.

I think we need to be concerned about how anti-Semitism has played into the historical framework of partisan political conflict. I believe that we have entered a new phase defined by a societal, racialized, and binary struggle to the death of an us-versus-them. It is even a war to claim the privilege of who gets to define the terms of the us and the them. I don’t know exactly how we got to that state of affairs, but I think it is glaringly obvious that politics is no longer about policy and government. It is about culture and opposing teams. When that happens, politics feeds on conflict, rather than working to resolve conflict. Each side’s party profits from the vilification of some enemy.  

It used to be that political news was about policy, decisions, markets, entitlements and programs. I can remember when conservatives talked mostly about free markets and fiscal responsibility. Consider what dominated the news cycle at the end of September. It was one story: Brett Kavanaugh. That American story even played out here in Vancouver. Young women from a Vancouver private school told me the Kavanaugh story dominated their classroom discussions.

Consider what else was going on in the news then. On the same day that everyone was watching the Kavanaugh hearing, the New York Times reported that the U.S. Government will soon spend more on interest payments than on the military. The US might may spend 13% of its budget on interest payments alone by 2028.  

Which of those stories is more important? I would argue both are important. However, spending 13% on interest payments will have a huge effect on the economy. The impact to entitlement programs and government deliverables will affect most people much more than the times – if any - that Brett Kavanaugh’s vote will determine an American Supreme Court case.

Political discourse is now about name calling. It is about making people afraid of caravans by hinting about security threats. It is about calling the supporters of this candidate or that bigots, deplorables and the like. It is about making nefarious enemies out of philanthropists who advocate for political solutions that one’s party disagrees with. The Koch brothers and George Soros serve as evil puppet masters in the eyes of their political opponents.

In The Great Revolt: Inside the Populist Revolution Reshaping America, Salina Zito studied people who had voted twice for Barack Obama and then voted for Donald Trump, specifically in states that had a long history of electing Democrats. She wanted to know why. She found that Trump made them feel that he was looking out for them. There is nothing wrong with political leaders letting constituents know they will be supported. The question is how do politicians get voters to believe that they will be supported?  

Look around the world. Listen to the language of Hungarian nationalists, Brazilian militarists, Brexit, the ascendency of Marine Le Pen, and the gains of German neo-Nazi parties. They all speak to this. You will hear it in the tone of cable news, which seems designed to foment anger against the political opponents of their regular audience. When government employees are evicted from restaurants because they work for certain politicians, they are being treated as an enemy in partisan politics. When we accuse the other side of inviting terrorists and violent actors to cross the border, we are treating the other side like enemies.

Political gains are now made by vilification, by painting the other side as a threat. It is us-versus-them.

We Jews generally do not fare well in an us-versus-them environment. We often look like an us, but others might be inclined to believe that we are secretly one of them. Alfred Dreyfus is a perfect example. He was convicted as a fifth columnist – in league with enemies of the people. He looked like a French officer in high command. He was suspected of really being a traitor and outsider. The fact that he looked like an ordinary French officer in high command was used as evidence that he was nefarious, and truly a traitor. When one is presumed to be guilty, any sign of innocence can be re-interpreted to accentuate their aura of guilt.

Look on Twitter and consider why there are three sets of parentheses around certain names. It is code to indicate the accounts that belong to Jews. Why? Because we Jews look like the host culture. Since we are assumed to be the eternal, international fifth column, we need to be outed, brought out from behind our camouflage. The Pittsburgh attacker’s postings on Gab were meant to serve this purpose.

HIAS [Hebrew Immigrant AID Society] likes to bring invaders in that kill our people, I can’t sit by and watch my people get slaughtered. Screw your optics, I’m going in.  

This is the distillation of us-versus-them, mixed with the Jew-as-clandestine-enemy fifth-columnist trope. That part of the killer’s motivation is less a psychotic break, and more a slice of what lurks on the edge of the cultural bell curve in the us-versus-them world of modern politics. In the culture of vilification, there is room for all supporters and allies. There, even white supremacy finds a comfortable home. And there, even  some who claim to be progressive will  defend to the death, under various names, your right to hate Jews.

I am loath to suggest that we Jews will be able to reverse the tide of populism, nationalism, and the us versus them that has smitten the world. Our job, as a nation, is to be a “light unto the nations.” For that to happen, the rest of the world has to be willing to give us more of a chance than the current climate affords. However, I think the Torah still offers us an essential lesson in how to shine that light.

We are told 36 times in the Torah to not oppress the stranger, because we were strangers in Egypt. Consider the character of Pharaoh in the narrative about the origin of oppression in Egypt. He makes the Jews out to be an enemy, a nation within his nation, that could rise up as a fifth column. Contrast that with Abraham, who travels to a strange land, calls himself גר ותושב אנכי אמכם a stranger and resident among you, and literally loves welcoming other strangers into his tent. Rav Moshe Lichtenstein noted that Avraham, like the modern Jew, is both citizen and stranger. Many Jewish communities of old straddled the fence – e.g., Shushan under Mordechai, Spain from Maimonides to Abravanel, Frankfurt under Samson Raphael Hirsch, to name a few.

There is a strong universalist thread in the Torah. Read Maimonides on the burial of deceased non-Jews, or on feeding the poor among non-Jews. He says that we do so because Gd is good and merciful to all - as articulated in the Ashrei prayer. Maimonides exhorts us to care for all Gd’s children. The great Zionist Rav Kook wrote a responsa that says that Gd never intended for Israel to be exclusive to Jews, if, for no less a reason, the milking of cows on Shabbat.

Judaism is the only Abrahamic religion that believes people from other religions have a place in heaven. Judaism does not proselytize, nor does it force those who dwell among its people to convert. We have no need to make enemies of other peoples, nor to alienate anyone from their own people. In the last 1,400 years, it is only under Jewish administration of Jerusalem that all three Abrahamic religions have been able to freely and openly worship at their holy sites there.

None of this is to say that Judaism does not have its protectionism. We are very afraid of the forces of assimilation. We have dietary rules that compel us to prefer eating with other Jews. We prioritize the charity toward the Jewish poor. We even have special dispensations on Shabbat for the purpose of acquiring land in Israel. In that sense, Torah has a formula of us-with-them, even us-within-them. We can even say, us-recognizing-the-value-of-them. It is a formula of coexistence with a 3,000-year history.

The American and European formula of democracy has but a 250-year history. So far, we have learned to transfer political power without killing our opponents or making them into enemies.

Unfortunately, that seems to be changing. The current wave of anti-Semitism may just be the beginning of another cycle of baseless hatred against us. If history teaches us anything, it is that our hope for the future lies in our commitment to the Torah’s timeless formula for coexistence. When we say “may the memory of the martyrs be for a blessing,” perhaps peace, or civility could be such a blessing. Perhaps, we can all take note of how tone, and hyperbole lead to vilification and how vilification leads some to violence.

May the memory of those murdered while praying at the Tree of Life synagogue bring us to the greatest of blessings: Peace.

---

An Open Letter to the President of MIT from Terry S. Neiman

To: L. Rafael Reif, President

MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY

(c/o leadreshipnews@mit.edu)

1 November 2018

Dear Mr. Reif,

Two days ago, I received your email, “Consoling each other and helping to heal the world.” While its message was in many ways laudable, I was troubled by its tone. As you say, “official statements matter.” In response, and after much reflection, I have decided to suspend my service as an MIT Educational Counselor.

You note that the nation has “once again confronted heartbreaking mass violence.” I think that the once you refer to is the Tree of Life synagogue shootings. You use that moment as a platform to criticize a US Presidential policy, promote awareness of MIT harassment policies, and specify the persecution of transgender people as the case in point. You announce an event “to honor those killed or injured.” Here, I believe that you might seek to do a service to the Tree of Life victims, by associating their persecution with the more general case of baseless hatred. I support those goals. It does not even trouble me that you, in effect, exploit the victims to further a good cause. As we say in Judaism, “may their memories be a blessing.”

However, for all of your discourse on “violence, racism, harassment and bullying,” on the dignity of “a million transgender Americans,” and the various cities where other forms of violence have taken place, you never once acknowledge that the cause célèbre - the congregants of Tree of Life - were targeted because they were Jews.

The erasure of anti-Semitism is itself a form of anti-Semitism. You have left us in the dark…

Like you, I believe that “the light” here is, “respect, sympathy, decency, humility and kindness; the responsibility each of us has to make sure that everyone at MIT can truly feel at home...”

In this context, omitting acknowledgement of the anti-Semitic nature of what happened at the Tree of Life synagogue, and its corrosive ripple effect on others – Jews and Gentiles – leaves me not “truly feel[ing] at home” at MIT just now. I do not feel comfortable promoting MIT admissions.

I take my leave with a heavy heart, having been an MIT Educational Counselor since 1982. However, I have been, and will always be Jewish.

Sincerely,

Terry S. Neiman, [MIT] Class of 1980

[srach0]

Book Review: ‘The Great Theft’ by Khaled Abou El Fadl

Khaleds views are very refreshing, and very much needed in our time. He speaks the words that many think but refrain from saying due to the fear of being condemned or seen to be 'controversial'. Let it be clear that he under no circumstances sees 'Islam' as being the issue in creating extremism, but the interpretation of Islam by some groups. Although I did not agree with all of his points, such as the extent or even the idea of 'reforming' some areas, I did agree with his general argument. I think this is necessary reading for anyone, both Muslim and non-Muslim alike. Although I do believe that it is imperative for Muslims of today to read this in order to fully understand why they see Islam the way they do. Why the majority of 'Islamic' scholarship in our time tends to push one narrative, that being a strict, black and white interpretation of Islam. Why some groups teach you not to question their beliefs, and that if one does so then one is not a true follower. Why some groups have the audacity to claim that a person is a believer or not if they do or do not believe in a particular ideology. Islam is a peaceful religion, one of tolerance, compassion, mercy, kindness and ease. Not one of arrogance, harshness, rigidness and ugliness. Khaled makes this clear in this beautifully written book. A few quotes I highlighted below: "By controlling Mecca and Medina, Saudi Arabia became naturally positioned to exercise a considerable influence on Muslim culture and thinking. by regulating what might be considered orthodox belief and practice, Saudi Arabic became uniquely positioned to greatly influence the belief systems of Islam itself." | p.72 "According to its adherents, Wahhabism is not a school of thought within Isla, but is Islam itself, and it is the only possible Islam." | p. 74 "In the puritan paradigm, subjectivities of the interpreting agent are irrelevant to the realisation and implementation of the Divine command, which is fully and comprehensively contained in the text. Therefore, the aesthetics and moral insights or experiences of the interpreting agent are considered irrelevant and superfluous." | p.96 "If the men of this orientation feel the need to compensate for feelings of powerlessness by dominating women, they read the text to validate the subjugation and disempowerment of women." | p.97 "All along the puritans claim to be entirely literal and objective, and to faithfully implement what the texts demand without their personal interference. This claim is simply fraudulent and unture because in every situation we find that the puritan reading of the text is entirely subjective." | p.97 "God has many attributes, but it is fair to say that the attributes most emphasised in the Quran are the mercy and compassion of God." | p.126 "In moderate thought, God is too great to be embodied in a code of law. The law helps Muslims in the quest for Godliness, but Godliness cannot be equated to the law. The ultimate objective of the law is to achieve goodness, which includes justice, mercy, and compassion, and the technicalities o the law cannot be allowed to subvert the objectives of the law. Therefore, if the application of the law produces injustice, suffering and misery, this means that the law is not serving its purposes." | p.131 "Submission to God means refusing to submit to any other person or thing. For a Muslim to be dominated or subjugated by a human oppressor is fundamentally at odds with the duty of submission to God. Human free will cannot be surrendered or submitted to anyone but God, and a Muslim is commanded to accept no master other than God." | p. 131 "God consistently sets out in the Quran the types of people that God loves - God loves those who are just, fair, equitable, merciful, kind, and forgiving, those who persistently purify themselves, and so on. At the same time, the Quran repeats that God does not love those who are aggressors, unjust, corrupters, cruel, unforgiving, treacherous, liars, ungrateful, arrogant, and so on." | p. 133 "To truly love God, one must love all human beings, whether Muslim or not, and love all living beings as well as all of Gods nature." | p. 134 "According to moderate Muslims, no person or institution is authorised to judge the piety of another or evaluate the closeness of any particular individual to God. In this regard, moderate Muslims rely on the Prophets teachings, which emphasised that people should not be so arrogant as to presume that they know what is concealed in a persons heart." | p. 137 "In numerous traditions, the Prophet Muhammaed also warned Muslims against the immorality of thinking ill of others and the arrogance of presuming to know how or what God thinks about any particular person. Furthermore, in addressing the Prophet Muhammad in the Quran, God emphasises time and time again that he (Muhammaed) was sent but to deliver a message and not to subjugate or dominate people. Accordingly, as the Quran stresses, even God's Messenger does not have the right to presume to know what is in the hearts of people." | p. 137 "Human beings make a best effort to reach for and understand the eternal law, but it is arrogant and offensive to ever claim that human beings could be certain that they have successfully comprehended the eternal law." | p. 150 "The specific rulings of the Quran came in response to particular problems that confronted the Muslim community at the time of the Prophet. The particular and specific rules set out in the Quran are not objectives in themselves. The rulings are contingent on particular historical circumstances that might or might not exist in the modern age. At the time these rulings were revealed, they were sought to achieve particular moral objectives, such as justice, equity, equality, mercy, compassion, benevolence, and so on." | p. 156 "Building upon the Islamic tradition, moderates argue that at a minimum all human beings have a right to dignity and liberty. The moderates' belief in democracy and human rights begins with the premise that oppression is a great offence against God and human beings. The Quran described oppressors as corrupter of the earth and also described oppression as an offence against God. In moderate thinking, it is recognised that all human beings are entitled to dignity. The Quran clearly states that God has endowed all human beings with dignity. Liberty and choice are the essential components that constitute human dignity. I think it is all too obvious that when human beings are shackled, imprisoned, suppressed, or denied the means to self-determination, they feel that their sense of self-worth is greatly diminished." | p. 184 On liberty and freedom of choice "In a well known islamic tradition, Umar, the second caliph and the close Companions of the Prophet, declared that humans are created free. Umar instructed one of his governors that injustice could be a form of enslavement and subjugation, and he rhetorically asked his governor: Who has the right to oppress people when God has created them free? Moderates usually cite this tradition and others in arguing that liberty is a natural right for all human beings, and that robbing people of their liberty is equivalent to subjugating and enslaving them. Submission to God can only be meaningful if human beings are free to submit or not to submit. Without freedom of choice, obedience, and submission to God became entirely meaningless. Choice (liberty) is a Divine fist, and this gift is part and parcel of the ability to submit to God, and hence, the freedom to pursue Godliness or to refuse to do so." | p.184 "Being enslaved or subjugated by a human being is fundamentally inconsistent with the duty to submit oneself without reservation to God. In fact, the Quran invites Muslims and non-Muslims to reach a consensus between them to worship God alone and not to take one another as lords. For moderates, this verse affirms a basic and crucial principle: human beings should not dominate each other. The only submission that is ethical is submission to God, but the submission of a human being before another is nothing but oppression. This Quranic discourse encourages Muslims and non-Muslims to find an arrangement according to which each one of them does not dominate the other." | p. 185 On the status of women... "There is one word that sums up the puritan attitude toward women: fitna. Fitna is a vast term that has many connotations, all of which are decidedly negative. Fitna mean sexual enticement, a source of danger, civic and social discord, a sense of instability and impending evil." "Although puritans often praise and celebrate the role of women as mothers, in every other role women are portrayed as deficient and subservient. Therefore, as a wife, she is completely under the tutelage of her husband; as a daughter, she is under the tutelage of her father; as a member of society, she is under the tutelage of all men. she is never an independent and autonomous being who shares in equal measure the obligation of fulfilling the Divine convenient. In the puritan paradigm, she is cast in a role in which she fulfils her obligations only through men-whether as husbands, fathers, or men who control the public space. Consequently, it is hardly surpassing that puritans often claim that women will not enter Heaven unless they subserviently obey men on this earth." | p. 257 "The Quran exclaimed that a husband should either live with his wife in kindness and honor, or divorce her also in kindness and honor; but in all situations, those who hold on to their wives in order to torment or harass them have committed a great sin and they have . become among those who are unjust toward themselves." | p. 270 "The Quran consistently and systematically condemned conditions that were oppressive and abusive toward women. There is a condition in the Quranic language called 'istid'af (abusive and oppressive treatment that renders a person powerless). The ethical lesson consistently and systematically taught by the Quran is that placing women in oppressive and abusive conditions is fundamentally at odds with Islamic morality and with the very idea of submission to God." | p. 270

[unsentimentaltranslator]

#ic.text#like i used to believe this myself and thought ' if i ever date a man in the future im gonna do feminism right and pay so the dynamic#of gender roles get cancelled out and maybe he wont be entitled to sleep with me#until i learned more about feminism and noticed how “egalitarian” moids or “leftist/feminist” men operate#in which they truly think that women oppress them and are responsible for their misery and 'gender inequality'#and think women not paying a bill is equally 'as bad' as men killing and SA women for thousands of years#+ all other things i dont have to get into#so sincerely fuck them and if a dude ever get snappy with you and their main topic of “gender inequality” is about him being victimized for#you 'using him for his money' then run for the hills#he's a misogynistic piece of shit who'll use feminism to benefit and leech of women EVEN MORE

GOD THIS MAKES ME MAD

Like you said, what was supposed to happen was that women pay for themselves so as not to get into debt that they're expected to pay off with sex. But this didn't account for male and female socialisation. The women kept having sex when and how the man wanted them to, usually faking an orgasm, WHILE ALSO paying for their meal, so now men get outraged when their quasi-prostitutes are so uppity as to want PAYMENT for the sex they're providing. (This is also why men despise OnlyFans girls - they're fine with paying a pimp who is at best cheating his prostitutes and at worst outright enslaving them, but a prostitute being in charge of her own finances is insubordination.)

please stop trying so hard to prove to men that you're not a "gold digger" because I promise you that a lot of men will TAKE AND TAKE AND TAKE from you without any fucking shame or self-awareness because of their male entitlement. Your feminism doesn't owe men shit and your only goal should be to liberate yourself from male control and any man who tries to tell you otherwise in just another self-serving moid.

READ THIS AND READ IT AGAIN. Really understand how male and female socialisation affect how all of this plays out, and if necessary, don't date men until you feel equipped to navigate dating without taking their bullshit. The best thing I ever did when I was younger was take an honest look at my assertiveness levels, recognise that I was vulnerable to being exploited by men, and decide not to even consider dating them until I was confident that I could handle myself in the face of their shitty, entitled attitudes. That turned into a decision to never date them, because the older I get, the more I can see that most men are big, shitty, disrespectful burdens on their wives and girlfriends, and I'm not saying y'all HAVE to make that decision but I am saying that male-attracted women are socialised to not see it as an option and I'm here to tell you that it is an option.

i really think some "feminists" were very shortsighted with the whole "oh i split the bill and pay for my man because I'm an independent feminist that doesn't need a man and I feel like I owe him something if i don't pay".

Like I'm sorry to tell you this but a man isn't gonna respect you any more or is inherently more "feminist" if he always you to pay. In fact it just gives men another thing to benefit from women without them even doing the bare fucking minimum of even addressing serious issues that actually affect women's lives like sexual assault, rape or even other actual oppressive gender roles like being expected to do domestic labor or "sexual labor" for men. Men are not oppressed for paying a bill on a date because that transactional relationship that they complain about as "oppression" was their own doing so please stop trying so hard to prove to men that you're not a "gold digger" because I promise you that a lot of men will TAKE AND TAKE AND TAKE from you without any fucking shame or self-awareness because of their male entitlement. Your feminism doesn't owe men shit and your only goal should be to liberate yourself from male control and any man who tries to tell you otherwise in just another self-serving moid.

This is not me advocating for gender roles or hyper-gammy btw I'm just trying to highlight how men use feminism for their own gain.