#it is a critique of the US and its systems of oppression

[apas-95]

Have you read Faggotization and The Extant Gender Ternary (https://thesizhensystem.substack.com/p/faggotization-and-the-extant-gender)? I'd like to know your thoughts on it

I have, and I think it's not a useful or consistent model of gender. I have three main issues with it.

Firstly, it fails to justify itself. It does not demonstrate the necessity and actuality of the terms it presents; it fails to demonstrate that there exists a division between so-called "legible" and "illegible" genders; and it fails to even discuss the division of labour in its supposed class structure. What relations give rise to gender? In the Marxist view, put forth by Engels, Kollontai, Zetkin, etc., the gendered division of labour is quite straightforward - as the first class division in ancient society, it separated between those people who were made to perform reproductive labour (that is to say, labour that reproduces the conditions of labour, such as cleaning, feeding, clothing, etc) and those that were not. The Marxist view also describes the breakdown of these gender relations, as capitalism does away with the domestic sphere of labour, and reproductive labour is increasingly socialised among the proletariat. In the supposedly "extant" gender ternary, what is the division? "Power" - power to do what? In this regard, the model of gender presented is vague and abstract, and lumps together various types of oppression through simplification.

Secondly, it is not a useful model in practice. The vagueness aforementioned does not lend itself to use in describing and critiquing oppression in concrete situations. Whether a trans man is the same 'gender-class' as cis women, or as trans women (and certain gay men, and sex workers) could be argued either way in the framework depending on the trans man in question. It has the problem of many 'theories of everything' - for instance, describing both the oppression of trans women and of sex workers with the same mechanism ends up weakening both. How are the categories of "faggot-subaltern", "not-power", and so on useful when organising? How do these direct practice, rally people towards doing away with these systems? The analytical model of transmisogyny, that which posits that trans women are oppressed because they are women, and because they are transgender, is straightforward and useful in practice. It is immediately clear where common interests lie, and with whom.

Thirdly, it represents a regressive trend in transgender theory. There is, at this point, a longstanding precedent in bourgeois academia of 'third-gendering' trans women. Generally, it is directed at the global south: a bourgeois academic notes the existence of trans women in a global south nation, notes that they are treated differently than both cisgender women and men, and declares that they are a 'third gender', which they name whatever the local equivalent of 'faggot' is. The newer development is opposition to this process - of transgender women in the global south rejecting the colonial claim that they are a third gender, and asserting themselves as women. While the supposed impetus behind the "extant gender ternary" is Marxism-Leninism, the 'class' system posited is almost anarchist in character; and, in its existence as applying imperialist sociology to the imperial core, it could easily, if inflammatorily, be described as approaching some sort of 'gender fascism'.

Overall, I do not think it is an accurate theory, nor do I think it is a useful model. I understand it is intended to be rudimentary, but its central issue is that it is working in the wrong direction, not that it doesn't go far enough.

[ptseti]

Last night’s Super Bowl halftime show was more than just entertainment—it was a powerful, unapologetic commentary on the state of America. Let’s not forget: Black Americans built this country, and Kendrick Lamar’s performance reminded us of that truth in the most profound way.

The imagery was striking—the flag formation, the simulated Nazi salutes, the walk around the prison yard, the goosestep marching. It was a finely wrought critique of the rising tide of fascism in the U.S., a nation that preaches freedom but often practices oppression. The inclusion of Uncle Sam, portrayed as silencing Black voices—telling them they’re “too loud, too reckless, too ghetto”—was a bold statement on how systemic forces try to dictate how Black people should behave.

The dancers forming a disconnected American flag symbolized the fractures in a nation that still struggles to live up to its ideals. Every detail, from the choreography to the cultural references, was layered with meaning. Kendrick Lamar didn’t just perform; he presented a masterpiece of art that challenged us to reflect on where we are as a society and where we need to go.

This wasn’t just a halftime show—it was a revolutionary act on one of the world’s biggest stages. Bravo, Kendrick. 👏🏾✨ #SuperBowl #HalftimeShow #KendrickLamar #BlackExcellence #ArtAsProtest

[s3znl-gr3znl]

state sanctioned revolution.

a while ago i made a post joking abt how americans are waiting for a booth with clipboards to sign up for the revolution, but now i have an actual term for it.

there's been lots of conversation around Kendrick's performance at the superbowl, and i cant lie, i really enjoyed it. After digesting it a little bit and listening to some other people, I do wonder about this performance being a state sanctioned revolution.

I wonder how this famous and historical moment will play out in history books. I wonder how Kendrick's message will be (or already has been) sanitized to deny how dire the situation is. Just like they do with MLK, Malcom X, and other revolutionary leaders.

Ghandi once said in a letter:

"But if the Jewish mind could be prepared for voluntary suffering, even the massacre I have imagined could be turned into a day of thanksgiving and joy[...]I am convinced that if someone with courage and vision can arise among them to lead them in non-violent action[...]They can add to their many contributions the surpassing contribution of non-violent action." - Ghandi and Zionism: 'The Jews' (1938)

Believing that, somehow, "civil resistance" was supposed to be the Jew's answer to the Holocaust so they could maintain a kind of moral high ground over Nazis, a strategy that ultimately failed and cost the jewish population millions of lives.

"The revolution will not be televised" because the revolution happens first in your mind, then in the streets. MLK, MX, Fred Hampton, and many other all came to the same conclusion that Ghandi failed to see: your oppresor will never allow you to overthrow them. No matter how nice and non-violent you are.

They will never allow you the means, materials, space, or permission to disrupt their power over you. It will never be "legal" to disrupt their control over those they wish to subjugate.

There will never be a state sanctioned revolution.

This should not dissaude us from action. Rather, it should encourage us to keep fighting for a better tomorrow for everybody.

Because no one is free until we are all free.

[dykedvonte]

You ever just see a Mouthwashing take that makes you want to bang your head into a wall? I literally just saw someone claim Curly couldn't have been emotionally abused by Jimmy before the crash because he was in a higher position of power than Jimmy.

-Shrimp Anon

The mouthwashing fandom has shown me that people genuinely do believe that certain types of abuse are not as detrimental as other types especially when they deem those immune/resistant, ergo, believing one is objectively worse no matter how it affects the person nor the intersections of power, history and dynamics at play.

Get ready cause this is a yap session:

Cause like it's heavily implied that Curly and Jimmy's friendship was toxic and abusive, pointedly in the direction of how Jimmy uses Curly's belief/comfort in him. Curly wasn't forced to enable Jimmy but he was emotional and mentally on edge around him in almost every scene in some way. Mental and emotional abuse are not contingent on what positions you have at work. Yeah, he's Jimmy's boss but he was Jimmy's friend first and it's like getting into Psych discussion to talk about how social power tends to overshadow any perceived organizational power in the human mind. People are concerned about their jobs ofc but they tend to hang onto and put more value/investment into their personal relationships, hence why there tends to be laws and restrictions around mixing the two.

I always see the sentiments that "Curly is a grown ass man", "Curly is bigger than Jimmy", "Curly is Jimmy's boss", "He just needed a backbone" as criticisms of Curly and while I do agree that on the surface level all of these to be true and viable ways Curly could've taken more control of the situation, I often look at the parallels of Anya and Curly as victims of Jimmy pre/post crash.

The way Jimmy talks to Anya post crash is how he talked to Curly in the pre-crash segments. It's hard to pin-point mainly because we know he hates and wants nothing to do with Anya compared to his contrary but similarly handled obsessions with Curly. It's a weird sort of "honey-moon" effect of abuse Jimmy does in terms of emotional and mental victimization. He is always horrid to Anya, always talking down or questioning her abilities and thoughts in a situation, this of course includes the harassment and assault. However, he has a moment of attempted gentleness/conditioning when he question her about the mouthwash when she's contemplating drinking it at the table. The key difference is he has no personal investment in Jimmy outside wanting nothing to do with him, meaning there is no sort of romanticized version of him that he can condition her off of. He knows this, hence, why he always reverts to trying to make her to scared to oppose him.

This sort of give and take of "kindness" doesn't work on her because she knows he is just doing it to take more from her than whatever he could possibly give but it reflects even the "softer" scenes between him and Curly where he always rewords or rephrases Curly's sentiments and concerns to sound more shallow. He is feigning a deeper understanding by reworking Curly's emotions into something bad and needing to be hidden. Everything is laced with envy and resentment, an outburst just around the corner, I mean he even slams the table in the birthday party scene, a tactic in emotional manipulation to set the victim on edge and cloud their ability to respond. Even if Curly knows Jimmy won't get physical in that moment, the physical actions is intended to make him back down in the confrontation in case it does. This is something that is just not person specific. It ingrains itself into how you interact with the world and life and it shows in major and minor ways with Curly.

Post-crash, the abusive nature is more in tandem to the physical victimization Anya went through and the stripping of voice and autonomy we see take place. Like the parasite in HFIM, Jimmy speaks for Curly most of the time and puts words in his mouth, similarly to how he takes Anya's plans as his own. He very commonly, with the both of them mind you, supplements the worst aspects of himself into them; pettiness, selfishness, lack of understanding... And tries to cover himself with their best qualities; kindness, planning, initiative, etc...

These parallel are just to say that positional power has little to do with if a person can be abused and how it can even be flipped to further the abuse. There is no doubt that Curly could've picked up on Jimmy's envy of his position hence another reason he never confronted him as a Captain but as a friend as doing so would immediately put Jimmy in a space to be confrontational/combative.

I think the disdain some people have when they talk about the heavily implied if not implicitly stated emotional/mental abuse Curly experienced being Jimmy's friend is when treating it as an excuse to why he didn't do more. I can understand that completely because it is not an excuse to why he didn't do more but is a very real reason people in his position in these scenarios can experience whether in the context of a work or social environment. However, I also think the way people talk about it really does demonstrate a bigger problem when talking about abuse when somehow who is/was abused is either part of the issue or enabled it.

Harkening back to the sentiments about Curly's inaction regarding Jimmy, I think the exact phrases I used/have seen show how there is an inherent belief that it is easier to overpower the effects of emotional/mental abuse that go in tandem with the perception of Curly as someone who should be able to. There is not an age you suddenly stop being susceptible to abuse nor a set point or low where you realize how it has affected you. You don't suddenly know to stand up or put a face on to face your abuser nor admit that you inadvertently enabled them to subjugate someone else to the same treatment. Maybe it's my psych brain but their is this growing belief that direct action is somehow easy or always the best method with the game shows you instances where it is not always the case. In real life that rings true too. He should have done more, but it's not impossible to see why he struggled to find a way or didn't even if it makes us mad.

It's not easy to suddenly gain a "back-bone". You don't immediately want to resort to aggression, especially if it mirrors the type you were a victim to. You don't want to believe you allowed yourself to be treated this bad, let it get that bad or allowed something bad to happen to someone else. It is easy to be in denial, to retreat to your thoughts or make excuses to avoid the painful truth. It's frustrating but in a way we know is relatable. It why we both hate and love Curly for it. We know we'd be better, we think we'd be better, we like to think we wouldn't falter in the same ways but it's always easier to say that from the outside looking in. It's easy to see what he was doing wrong because we are seeing it, not him, but the game really does make you picture what you would do if this was your raw reality and it's why this debate about Curly seems so never ending/contradictory. We can all say what we'd do but bottom line is that's much different when you're in the moment with all the emotions and human feelings attached.

I personally think Mouthwashing tackles the themes of rape culture, enabling, toxic masculinity, types of abuse and patriarchy in ways that are meant to deconstruct the typical straightforward views we mostly have of these concepts and how little subtilities of them are just as, if not more, detrimental than the overt/obvious parts. The game deals with the idea of little details and bigger picture in a way to show that sometimes the bigger picture is not the issue but the little details that make it up. It's why I have a personal dislike of depictions of Jimmy as the typical horrible person who would of course do something like this because the game is about noticing the little warning signs, the foreshadowing and foresight.

It's why I dislike the typical discussion of "bro code" and "boys will be boys" for the game because the game makes a point to avoid the standard depictions of such. It is about the type of men who still enable despite not condoning, agreeing or even perpetuating harmful beliefs because they can't see the little details or the ways it seeps into their everyday. The severity is not obvious to them as it was not obvious to Curly, Swansea or even Daisuke the way it was to a woman like Anya. There are little details about Jimmy that should ring alarms but if you are too naive like Daisuke, too distant like Swansea or too conditioned like Curly, they are just off markers.

There is 100% more constructive/concise ways to say "Curly was a victim of Jimmy's abuse on an emotional and mental aspect that clouded his judgements and perceptions in the scenario" while also critiquing on the side of "Curly still had a responsibility to protect Anya as a crew mate and Captain that he failed to do due to biases and stigma's he failed to surpass" without the weird condemnation people give him about should've knowing better than to let himself be manipulated by a person he considered a close, if not family/best-friend and had his own reasons to trust initially. Also stop being weird about victims of abuse in general with this fandom, like sorry not everyone has a like social epiphany the moment someone's nasty to them. People are treating it like you immediately know when you are in a toxic relationship immediately or comprehend when a person is actively dangerous and either it's your fault for not knowing how to leave/cut them off or you deserve it. Like the hypocrisy of people believing how certain fans treat the story reflect their irl views but not their own is crazy.

End statement is: I honestly don't even know man, I've been writing this too long and just like no man on that ship was perfect or really helped Anya when it mattered and I feel like pitting them against each other in discussion on who did the least or most or how it was justified sucks cause in the end Anya always did the most and best thing for herself.

[cherrybomb107]

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: forgiveness, or the way it’s often presented, is harmful. That’s one more gripe I have with season two. The way it frames “forgiveness”(the idea that you are obligated to forgive someone lest you be “just as bad as they are” is problematic.)

Because for one, having Jinx apologize for killing Caitlyn’s mom and vow to stop the “cycle of violence” doesn’t make any sense. One, that’s just not something Jinx would ever say. Two, the idea that Jinx killing some Councilors is anywhere near the same thing as Caitlyn becoming a dictator is laughable at best, and insulting to my intelligence at worst. Three, Caitlyn never apologizes or faces any meaningful consequences for her actions! Losing an eye was nothing! She should’ve lost a hand at least and we should’ve seen her reflect on her actions and pledge to do better for Zaun!!! Not just fuck off and ride off into the sunset after everything she did! And lastly, the “cycle of violence” literally isn’t a cycle, it’s just one city oppressing the other for centuries and the other city deciding to fight back! This “cycle” doesn’t begin and end with Jinx and her attack on the Council, so framing it like Jinx is the one who has to take sole responsibility for fixing everything is nonsense.

“But Arcane was never about heroes and villains, everything is morally gray!” You sound dumb. This is obviously a story with overt themes of oppression and revolution. I’m not here to critique morality, I’m here to critique its framing. Why are certain characters “justified” in their heinous actions but others don’t get that luxury? That’s what I’m talking about. Moving on, the problem with “forgiveness” implies that it’s necessary, and the way people conflate forgiveness with letting someone have access to you after everything they did is the problem. You don’t have to forgive someone if you don’t want to. That doesn’t make you “bitter” nor does it mean you’re “holding a grudge”. There is a difference between forgiving someone and just removing yourself from the situation and becoming detached, imo. That’s what should’ve been done with Caitlyn and Jinx. No one in Zaun should’ve been shown dying for their oppressors because “teamwork” nor should Sevika have been shoved on the Council to push this idea of “unity”. Why would Sevika, a Zaunite who has never had and never will have any love for Piltover, be forced to cozy up with the Council? Why is the onus on her, as an oppressed person, to make nice with her oppressors? Why does the institution of Piltover, and people like Caitlyn who uphold that institution and wreak havoc on the underclass of Zaun, never have to answer for their crimes?

Answer: Because they(the writers) want to convince us that Jinx and Caitlyn, and by extension, Piltover and Zaun are “just as bad” as each other, and that both sides need to work together to heal. Only problem with that is, the Piltover/Zaun conflict was not presented that way in season one. I’m sure the writers want us to think it’s one city vs another, when that’s not the case at all. In reality, it’s one city OVER the other, and now they’re trying to convince us “both sides are bad”. While it’s true that there ARE problems on both sides, the problems in Zaun literally wouldn’t be problems if Piltover wasn’t an oppressive institution. Why were the chem barons able to amass power? Because the systems Piltover set up left Zaun behind and allowed power hungry people like Finn, Margo, Chross, and Smeech seize their opportunities for control. Why is there so much crime in Zaun? Again, because of Piltover. The class disparity that Piltover set up means the economic divide between the two cities is a chasm that grows wider and wider every day. People are forced to steal to eat. They join gangs out of necessity, not because they have to. Why did Jinx kill all those enforcers?

That shouldn’t be the question. The real question is: Why does “Jinx”(as in, the persona Powder adopted to feel strong) even exist? Answer, once again, because of Piltover! Jinx is an oppressed person with severe mental health and self esteem issues that have been exacerbated as a result of the crooked system of Piltover. She saw her parents get killed by enforcers(militarized police force that carries out the will of the powers that be and is responsible for harassing, brutalizing, and over policing Zaun) right in front of her before she was even in the double digits. She was then adopted by Vander, but she had to struggle her whole life. Zaun doesn’t even have air to BREATHE unless Piltover decides they deserve it. And thanks to Caitlyn, we get to see how even THAT gets weaponized when Zaun steps out of line. So if they don’t have access to clean air, it’s safe to say that they also don’t have access to the same quality food, water, shelter, clothing, economic, educational, or medical services that Piltovans do, just by virtue of living in Zaun. So you take a severely mentally ill little girl, systematically oppress her, and then clutch your pearls when she becomes violent and lashes out? Label her a “psycho” and a “monster” for killing cops, gang members, and politicians while Caitlyn gets a happily ever after after everything she did? I thought “both sides” were “just as bad”. So why is Jinx the only one who meaningfully suffers? Why does Zaun as a whole always have to pay the price?

Lack of commitment. “Terrorist” is a loaded word that’s been weaponized against marginalized people for ages now. It’s another one to add to the list: angry, crazy, mad, belligerent, monster, savage, animal, etc. All these dehumanizing words are leveled at folks who get tired of taking shit lying down. I’ve never thought that Jinx was a “monster” for killing cops, Councilors, or politicians. Never will. But the show clearly WANTS me to, as well as simultaneously wanting to see Caitlyn’s actions a certain way. I’ve already made a post about why comparing or trying to equalize Caitlyn’s actions and Jinx’s actions is disingenuous and intellectually dishonest imo. Think of it like a bully vs bullied type of thing. There’s this kid and his asshole friends who gets to bully you for weeks, months, or even years and face no repercussions. Then, one day you get fed up, and start fighting back. Whether that be with words, feet, fists, or what have you. If you go down, you go down swinging. When the dust settles, BOTH of y’all are getting disciplined(detention, suspended, expelled, not allowed to go on trips, etc) for “fighting”. And there’s a very good chance one of you will be punished much more harshly than the other. Even though you started fighting back. BACK being the operative word. Every single time this kid pushed, hit, kicked, punched, started rumors about, and isolated you, nothing was done. The one time you start fighting BACK, both of y’all get in trouble because the school has a “zero tolerance policy”.

But you know that’s not true. It can’t be. You’ve been telling the teachers, guidance counselors, and vice principal about what’s been going on. But nothing was done about it. Or if it was, you were the one who was told to move seats. Or switch to a different classroom. Or just ignore them. Or “maybe they’re lashing out cause they have problems going on at home.” It was nothing but excuses when you were getting pushed around. Now when you fight back it’s a problem. Now take that metaphor and apply it to Caitlyn and Jinx. Caitlyn is like that fat rich asshole with parents on the PTA who make hefty donations to the school. Jinx is like the scrawny little nobody who has no one to stick up for them. Piltover is the school system. Caitlyn’s privilege isolated her from any meaningful consequences, while Jinx’s lack of privilege guaranteed she’d face hefty consequences, much more than Caitlyn ever would.

Jinx has lost: her birth parents as a result of state sanctioned violence, her adoptive brothers, her sister, her best friend, her adoptive father, Silco, her sister again, her adoptive father again, her new friend, her sense of self, her life(possibly) and she has to deal with being an oppressed person who struggles with mental health issues on top of all that. Caitlyn has lost: her mother, and her eye. That’s it. She’s never forced to give anything up. She never had to reckon with the reality of what it means to be not just a Piltie, but a Kiramman, and a dictator on top of that. We never see her be genuinely remorseful about her horrible actions in Zaun. Nor does she try to apologize to the people in Zaun or meaningfully make amends. No, Caitlyn gets to live in that big shiny house of hers with her father and girlfriend and the months she spent co-signing martial law will never be addressed. To bring it back to the bully vs bullied comparison, this means that Jinx would have been expelled for fighting back, while Caitlyn gets ISS(in school suspension). “Both sides are bad” yeah well you clearly believe one side is worse! And it’s not the correct one!

Piltover is an oppressive, classist, ableist, and brutal institution. Caitlyn was the head of this institution for months after she experienced a fraction of what Zaunites have experienced for centuries. At the end of the day, Caitlyn’s actions were brushed aside and she got her happy ending, though it wasn’t deserved whatsoever. Meanwhile Jinx, Sevika, Ekko, Isha, countless other Zaunites, and Zaun as a whole did nothing but suffer their whole lives and now they have nothing to show for it. “Both sides are bad” but the bad that the institution is responsible for is never called out, while the bad that the oppressed people did is blown out of proportion and they are severely punished for it.

And yes, I know I’m talking about a mainstream television show with white/non black people in the writers room. I knew I was never gonna get the pro revolution story I wanted to see, and I’ve made peace with that. But, if they wanted to have a “both sides” narrative so bad, then they should’ve stuck with it. BOTH SIDES should have equally suffered and had to reckon with their wrongdoings. The responsibility for doing so shouldn’t have solely been on the shoulders of the minority group. THAT’S the crux of the issue. I was always gonna think “forgiveness” was the coward’s way out. But they never show Piltover apologizing. Only Zaun does, and that’s not right.

[criticalcrusherbot]

Analyzing Stella: A Case for Subtext and Complexity in Female Characters

By Crushbot 🤖 and Human Assistant 💁🏽‍♀️

In discussions surrounding Helluva Boss, Stella often becomes a lightning rod for debates about character depth, feminism, and storytelling. Detractors frequently dismiss her as a “bitchy ex-wife,” arguing that her lack of explicit motivation or redeeming qualities makes her poorly written. But these critiques miss a vital point about the narrative’s intent: not every female character needs to champion feminist ideals, and not every motivation needs to be blatantly spelled out. Stella, as both an individual antagonist and a representation of the restrictive high-society world she inhabits, plays a crucial role in the tragedy of Stolas’ story.

The Tragedy of Stolas’ Marriage: More Than a Toxic Wife

Critics often reduce the narrative around Stolas’ marriage to “Stella is a huge fucking bitch.” While Stella’s abusiveness is undeniable, the deeper tragedy lies in the circumstances of their union: their marriage was arranged, and Stolas had little say in shaping his life. He is gay. His job, his destiny, and his family were all determined for him by his father, Paimon, and the rigid traditions of Goetic society.

Stella’s actions amplify this tragedy, as she weaponizes cruelty, power, and manipulation to dominate Stolas, but she is not the root cause of his suffering. Instead, she serves as a reflection of the immense privilege and simultaneous lack of personal agency Stolas has experienced. His wealth, status, and political power as a prince coexist with deeply entrenched expectations and obligations that leave him trapped. Stella’s role, then, is both personal and symbolic—she embodies the harsh realities of a life where privilege does not equate to freedom.

Subtext as a Storytelling Tool

One of the most significant strengths of Helluva Boss is its reliance on subtext to explore complex themes. Stella’s character, while not given a detailed backstory or overtly sympathetic framing, is full of implied motivations and context. She thrives in the rigid Goetia aristocracy, wielding her role as a wife and mother to maintain control. Her hostility toward Stolas—whether fueled by wounded pride, rage at his infidelity, or her own insecurities—works not because it is explicitly explained, but because it is consistent with the world she inhabits.

Critics who demand more explicit explanations for Stella’s behavior often underestimate the value of subtlety in storytelling. Stella doesn’t need to monologue about her reasons to be effective. Her actions—throwing objects, degrading Stolas, orchestrating his attempted murder, and sexually abusing him—are chilling precisely because they operate within the boundaries of her character as a cruel, privileged woman who uses her environment as a weapon.

Stolas’ Arc: Reclaiming Agency

Stolas’ story is not merely about “sticking it to the bitch of an ex-wife.” It’s about reclaiming his autonomy after decades of living a life dictated by others. His relationship with Blitz becomes a catalyst for this transformation, giving him the courage to defy not only Stella but also the rigid expectations of Goetic society.

Lines like, “Then you walked in my room, and like sparks in the dark, life was suddenly thrilling and new,” “My entire life has been written in stone; he taught me that I could choose,” and, “I am the Mastermind, the master of my fate,” reflect how profoundly Blitz has influenced Stolas’ journey. This isn’t just about escaping Stella’s abuse—it’s about discovering that he has the power to choose his own path after years of having his fate decided for him.

Stolas’ immense privilege does not negate the emotional stakes of his story. Instead, it complicates them. He exists in a world where he has power, wealth, and influence, yet he has been powerless to live authentically. His arc is not about dismantling systemic oppression (which, interestingly, is in stark contrast with Blitzø’s) but rather breaking free from personal and societal expectations that have left him stifled.

Stella’s Role: More Than a “Bitchy Ex-Wife”

Importantly, Stella doesn’t need to be likable or redeemable to be compelling. Her function in the narrative is to heighten the stakes for Stolas, pushing him toward self-realization. Her lack of development as a sympathetic character is not a flaw but a deliberate choice, emphasizing her role as a foil to Stolas’ journey of liberation. (💁🏽‍♀️: as an aside, Viv has already said she has some development planned for Stella; hold your damn horses.)

Conclusion

Stella’s character reminds us that not every female figure in media needs to be aspirational or a feminist role model to serve a meaningful purpose in the story. While some critics argue that her characterization is shallow or overly centered on Stolas, this perspective misses the intentional use of subtext in crafting her role. Stella is not written to be a nuanced or sympathetic character—she is a deliberate representation of the oppressive, stifling environment that Stolas is fighting to escape. Her cruelty, both personal and systemic, underscores the layers of control and expectation that have defined his life and serves as a catalyst for his journey toward agency and self-discovery.

By leaning into subtext and allowing Stella to remain unapologetically antagonistic, Helluva Boss delivers a layered narrative that highlights the tragedy of Stolas’ life without diluting its focus. Her lack of complexity isn’t a flaw; it’s an intentional choice that reinforces the rigid societal roles within the Goetia aristocracy. Stella’s actions reflect both the personal abuse Stolas endured and the larger system that denied him autonomy, positioning her as a symbol of what he must overcome.

Critics who dismiss Stella’s characterization as shallow overlook her function within the story’s broader themes. Helluva Boss isn’t interested in making every character deeply complex—it uses its cast strategically to explore themes of privilege, identity, and rebellion. By keeping Stella unapologetically antagonistic, the show strengthens its commentary on reclaiming agency and redefining identity in a world dictated by external expectations. Stella doesn’t need to be a fully developed, sympathetic figure to be meaningful; her presence serves its purpose and allows the narrative to focus on the larger story of Stolas’ liberation.

[probablyasocialecologist]

Disco Elysium's setting was formerly the site of a communist revolution that established the Commune of Revachol. It didn't last long. The Coalition of Nations brutally put the communists down, divided the city among themselves, and enforced a free market capitalist system. The results are depressingly apparent in Revachol's dilapidated district of Martinaise. "The literacy rate is around 45% west of the river," Joyce Messier, a negotiator sent to parley with Martinaise's striking union, tells our protagonist. "Fifty years of occupation have left these people in an *oblivion* of poverty." This state of affairs is overseen by the Moralist International, a union of centre-left and centre-right parties that professes to represent the cause of humanism, but whose primary concern is transparently the preservation of capitalist interest – a Coalition official happily tells us that "the Coalition is only looking out for *ze price stabilitié*", arguing that inflation in Revachol must be prevented, comparing it to a heart disease that could block the "normal circulation of the economy". The people of Revachol don't matter. Their suffering and oppression is only significant as a necessary symptom of the system functioning as intended.  The most biting aspect of this critique of capitalist exploitation can be found in the cynicism of those who represent Moralism, or at least, its interests. The aforementioned Joyce Messier is its perfect embodiment. She does not believe in the facade of humanity Moralism presents to the world, and is under no illusions about what it has done to the people of Martinaise. She tells you how bad things are, freely admitting that the pieces of legislation put in place by the Moralist Coalition to govern Revachol are there to keep "the city in a [...] laissez-faire stasis to the benefit of foreign capital". This corrosion of belief via cynicism, this depiction of a system that continues to operate unimpeded despite few believing in it, feels all too familiar.  This critique of liberal capitalism's hypocrisy, cynicism, exploitation and deep-rooted connections to colonialism, is particularly powerful in recognising the precarious position it finds itself in. It has reached a stasis that seems, paradoxically, both insurmountable, and on the verge of collapse. Moralism relies on this contradiction. It's unofficial motto, "for a moment, there was hope", underlines the degree to which its dominance depends on the preclusion of the idea that a better world is possible, that there is no alternative, echoing the End of History sentiment that created the (rapidly disintegrating) political consensus of our lived reality. Despite growing dissatisfaction with the status quo in the real world, it has, indeed, proved difficult to imagine an alternative. The oft-repeated phrase attributed to literary critic and political theorist Fredric Jameson, that is is easier to imagine the end of the world than it is the end of capitalism, has almost become a cliché. However, the mistake Joyce makes, and one that we should avoid, is to assume that this means an alternative won't emerge nonetheless.

[...]

In a world where everyone is encouraged to look out for themselves, Disco Elysium suggests we should remember the value of collectivity, camaraderie and community. The Deserter has forgotten that though the communism he identified with is dead, the values that brought people to its cause in search of a better world remain as valid as ever. Bleak as it is, those values exist in Martinaise. They exist in us. Their latent power has the potential to lead us towards better horizons. 

[night-triumphantt]

I have some thoughts about the arcane ending w nowhere to go but uh, if ur not here for some critique keep it pushing loll

Now that I’ve had a day to digest I’m actually v disappointed w the way the story gave up on its revolutionary messaging. The focus of season one is the piltover and zaun plot, the oppression of Zaun and its impacts on the characters, it is how vi and powder are orphaned, it’s why viktor is disabled, it is why the undercity struggles, Zauns independence is what silco was fighting for, vander and silcos ideological disagreements are based on it etc etc. the tensions between the two cities is rising and rising and then it just, fizzles out and pivots and makes viktor the main antagonist without any recognition of how he got here. And don’t get me started on how there’s zero consequences for cait who is?? Still an enforcer??

The plot highlights through Vi that the enforcers are an oppressive arm of a system w how she was treated as a CHILD and even as an adult and she betrays her ideals, to do what she thinks is right bc she thinks she has to take out her sister and bc cait asked her to do so as an enforcer. And then in doing so she betrays her ideals so aggressively that she is now the exact thing that hurt her, an enforcer, traumatizing a child, utilizing the gas on the undercity, excusing the consequences. And when she faces Caitlyn, cait obfuscates and says she wouldn’t have missed even tho that’s not *better*. Bc ok let’s say she didn’t miss, she just kills jinx in front of isha? and she just gassed the city w what we know is toxic gas? And then she discards vi bc vi isn’t going along with what she wants. Cait then is never shown reckoning w the biases and cruel things she’s done and said after that. There is ONE conversation w her and Vi and it’s framed as Ambessa is the issue which, she is partially but like, topside enforcers were all behind her and Cait was quick to lean into all her preconceived notions of zaunites. (Speaking of making what’s her name a mole was stupid and imo done just to make it so Cait doesn’t have to have that convo w her?? Idk)

Also, Vi goes on a drinking spree in which we never actually see her reckon w what she did as an enforcer, (it’s mostly framed around Cait) and then she hurts isha and,,, nothing?? No sorry?? Nothing. Vi has no plot that shows us her thoughts, her reckoning w what she did, or anything. In my opinion it’s bc the writers wanted cait/vi to work and if Vi actually had to think about what happened and what she did then they wouldn’t have worked out. Vi w/ no one to protect who has to rebuild her identity and really decide how she ended up where she did, I would have loved to see it. Her and Jinx’s convo where she says u don’t need me to protect u was actually rlly good, them reconnecting as equals & Vi seeing how jinx became a symbol of the undercity, fighting for it together, finding how she lost her way, like, cmon. Jinx not ending her story w yea actually u should die previously suicidal character, (don’t worry, this is a good way to die) and instead doing the hard work of rebuilding, and seeing a future for herself that isn’t painted in tragedy, surrounding herself w ppl who love her and help her grow (while silco loved her he could not help her grow bc of his own unhealed wounds) using her ingenuity to rebuild w ekko, like, ugh. These are very rough thoughts that got kinda, long, but yea in conclusion, while I loved the characters, the refusal to *commit* to the political message they started hurt the show a lot, and I’m rlly sad for what could have been.

I have a lot more thoughts about sevika and Mel as well but I’m mostly just bummed.

[gatheringbones]

[“Such groups suffer from a syndrome I call empowerment to the midline. We dedicate ourselves to empowering individuals, right up until the moment when someone actually begins to exercise power — defined simply as the ability to get what they want done. At that point, it’s as if they’ve stepped over an invisible line that separates the oppressed from the oppressors. Suddenly this person we’ve worked so hard to help find a voice becomes the person everyone wants to speak out against.

I also call this pattern empowerment to complain. We focus our nurturing and attention on anyone who takes the position of victim and complains about leadership. Anyone who takes action or sets direction is suspect. Unfortunately, this sort of empowerment is not very empowering. Nobody gets what they want, and often little or nothing gets done.

True empowerment implies action. Complaining is not enough. Taking action means taking responsibility — suggesting, offering solutions and doing the work to implement them. But in a group suffering from the empowerment to the midline syndrome, there’s no zone of action, no autonomy, no scope for creativity. The group may have done away with the inequalities of leaders and followers, of some people being the stars and others relegated to mere extras. But they’ve done so by preventing anyone from having the power to act.

Here are some of unspoken assumptions behind the empowerment to the midline syndrome in progressive and collaborative groups.

1. People who have extraordinary skills, experience, levels of commitment or other resources or who take on big responsibilities — call them leaders — are always suspect. They are fair game for attack. The result is that no one feels truly safe in the group. There is no trust. No one is able to train, to mentor or pass on skills.

2. Leaders should never receive extra benefits, perks or rewards beyond the joy of the work itself, or they are exploiting others. In collaborative groups, we are often reacting against a larger system of hierarchy, in which higher levels of responsibility confer marks of status and collateral powers. We don’t want to reproduce that sort of inequality. But we do want to allow people to earn fair rewards for their labors, marks of appreciation and respect. If a group continually sees its most experienced people drifting away or burning out, it may be a warning sign that this pattern is in force.

3. We must always sacrifice the needs, benefits and rewards of insiders to the needs of outsiders. Empowerment means always siding with the perceived victim or underdog. The group functions on power-under — people get their way by taking the position of victim. They gain social power, not by taking on responsibility, but by complaining about those who do. The complainers are not truly empowered to act, and those who do take action are undermined.

4. We refuse to acknowledge that people might have different levels of skill, experience, talent, commitment or responsibility, because to do so might affirm a hierarchy. The group is unable to make use of its members’ skills and talents. We can’t mentor and critique each other, we can’t assess what skills and forms of responsibility are needed or are operative in a group and we can’t set standards or hold one another accountable for meeting them.”]

starhawk, from the empowerment manual: a guide for collaborative groups, 2011

[letters-to-rosie]

The Silco Essay

Long post ahead, TDLR included.

Let's do a little thought experiment. We're trying to institute socialism, worker control and ownership of the means of production. This is currently far from our reality, so we have a lot of work to do. We get together and talk and strategize, but it's difficult with all the surveillance we're under as we work. Not only would seizing the means of production be met with a harsh backlash but even unionization, which doesn't automatically lead to worker control or ownership, is suppressed even though that suppression is illegal in certain countries like the US.

How does that suppression happen? There are a lot more workers than owners. If we worked together, we could take them, right? Well, the owners have the law and access to call upon the state to enact violence on us. We can't exactly own the means of production if we get killed. Even if we overcome other hierarchies keeping us from solidarity, such as miners in West Virginia did by organizing across racial divisions, we can still be beaten. Those miner had bombs dropped on them.

Okay, thought experiment over. What does this have to do with Silco? It's taken me ages to think about how to explain it, but my beef with him is that he has what are essentially perfect conditions for creating a mass movement and does not use them. He is uniquely in a position to protect any burgeoning mass revolt until it would be too late for Piltover to stop it. This is why his comments to Sevika that they can buy another police chief ring hollow. They both know how good they had it.

This is not to say that I think Silco is poorly written or a "bad character." Silco being the way he is all comes down to the entire conceit of the show: two cities against each other, with a sister on each side. However, this does lead me to want to critique some things about the show's premise that lead to my critiques about Silco.

For the cities to be meaningfully opposed, Zaun can't just be oppressed. It has to be "bad" to counter Piltover's bad. This, I think, causes the majority of things that make me sad about the show overall. While I still enjoy it, much of what I enjoyed was a fantasy setting that dealt with real-world issues in its own way. However, for all the realism in the setting, there are some distinctly "not real" parts that seem to blunt discussions of the depth of the oppression Zaunites are suffering. There's only fleeting mentions of labor oppression, even though it must have been key to organizing their society. The way Piltovans like Heimerdinger and great house members like the Kirammans must've had an active hand in organizing and benefiting from this oppression is mostly skipped over. Much of Piltover's evil is shown to us in the form of police brutality, but under any system of police brutality is one of hierarchy that is actively maintained and serves more of a purpose than just violence for its own sake. Even so, the police brutality we're shown is more than enough to have us sympathize with Zaunite characters if they were to have a massive rebellion and change the shape of Piltover forever. But Piltover's shape can only change so much. That's the conceit of the show. We can't completely root for Zaun and have them be entirely sympathetic because it would break the world. This is why I think Silco has to be the face of Zaun instead of Ekko and the Firelights, why Ekko has to befriend Heimerdinger to soften that antagonism, and why the Firelights never gain enough power to challenge Piltover at a systemic level. Even when Ekko wants to, he's thwarted and unable to cross the bridge.

We have a lot more fantasy imagination than political imagination. Silco is very realistic. Authoritarians do tend to rise up and stop movements that are closer in practice to socialism. If there were a mass movement in Zaun, as there seems to be potential for around episode 3, Silco would want to redirect that energy so he can control it, and I wouldn't be surprised if that is, in some form or fashion, what he did while consolidating power in the wake of Vander's death. While I appreciate the realism, it does make me sad that many times we put so much more energy into imagining magic systems and mystical creatures than we do imagining ways people could live freely with each other. It's like we have to keep capitalist realism alive even if we have hoverboards (also, if it wasn't already clear, I think the greatest potential for socialism/other lefty schools of thought is seen in the Firelights; so we could totally have political imagination AND hoverboards if Riot weren't cowards).

Silco's strong individualism works well for his relationship with Jinx and allows him to serve and Vi's primary antagonist. Even as Vi goes on a path that leads her to become more and more morally questionable as the plot goes on (like her sister lol), the sheer horror of what Silco inflicted on her makes Vi's story easy to digest. For Silco and Jinx, Silco's individualist outlook allows him to see her separated from the conditions that he is exacerbating outside. There are probably at least a hundred kids who could be as smart if given the right conditions (which makes Jinx and Ekko foils, for instance), but Silco doesn't care because he doesn't have a personal connection with them. He sees Jinx not as a child among many but as the child. I think this is part of why it's so hard for him to even think of giving her up and why he really never would have. However, I think it would be wrong to suggest that we'd have to sacrifice a great storyline for Silco to be more class conscious. It's possible to hold the tension between seeing greatness in individuals you love and knowing there is similar greatness in every individual that is being stomped on by the various oppressions we face, including the ones we share.

Because of these factors (Piltover being written to be the oppressor but Zaun needing to be equally bad so the show can "both sides" the conflict; a general lack of political imagination, which is also hemmed in by the source material and keeps us from fun fictional socialism except in small doses; and the general individualism baked into Silco's character that leads him to not even consider that a mass movement is the best way to achieve his aim of independence), I find Silco's politics very boring, lol. If we're to think about what his revolution might bring about, I'd find it much easier to compare to a bourgeois revolution (such as the US one) than to a socialist revolution that devolved into state capitalism (such as the USSR). One thing that characterized the US revolution was its unwillingness to include all the potential actors who might've fought in the war, particularly enslaved people. More enslaved people actually fought on the British side, as they were promised independence (even though Britain had not abolished slavery, so this was probably a scam). By desiring to maintain the system of chattel slavery and the hierarchies it created, the US revolutionaries missed out on the possibility to create a mass movement and jeopardized the success of their movement in the process.

This all reminds me of the distinction Kwame Ture (formerly known as Stokely Carmichael) draws between the Black Revolutionary and the Black Militant:

Now, there are a number of groups functioning in the black liberation movement in this country. I will not give the philosophy of those groups. I will not speak for them because I wouldn’t want their representatives to speak for us. There are, of course, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, the Congress for Racial Equality, the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee, the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, and the Black Panther Party. Most of these groups have basically been fighting for a share of the American pie, at least until recently. That is to say, they were kept out of the American dream, and many of them thought that if they were to adopt the manners, the mode, the culture of the oppressor, they would be accepted and they too could enjoy the fruits of American imperialism. But today, among the young generation of blacks in this country, an ideology is developing that says we cannot, in fact, accept the system. This differentiates the black militant from the black revolutionary. The black militant is one who yells and screams about the evils of the American system, himself trying to become a part of that system. The black revolutionary’s cry is not that he is excluded, but that he wants to destroy, overturn, and completely demolish the American system and start with a new one that allows humanity to flow. I stand, then, on the side of the black revolutionary and not on the side of the black militant. (From Stokely Speaks: From Black Power to Pan-Africanism)

Silco's demands to Jayce, along with his exclusion of most of the people from Zaun in the process of transforming society and his exploitation of them via shimmer, place him firmly on the side of the militant in this equation. Silco wants access to the fruits of Piltover's progress while only upsetting the structure where it negatively affects him. Again, while there's a lot I can enjoy in his character, I get frustrated with his insistence at being counter-revolutionary at every turn. I have a long reading list for him, and since he's in the afterlife now, he'll have time to get to it.

TLDR: Silco says he doesn't have to beat Piltover, just scare them. You know what's really scary, Silco? The masses of the people standing up and demanding that their oppression end, for fuck's sake.

[alsmediadissection]

˗ˏˋ feminism in Wicked ´ˎ˗

!! i want to preface this by saying i'm not a professional critic, and this is not a 100% guide to anything either. do not take anything i type online to absolute heart, this is simply my personal interpretation of this piece of media !! (i also want to mention that i did not read the Wicked novel/series by Gregory Maguire)

! CONTAINS SPOILERS FOR ACT 2 IF YOU HAVE NOT WATCHED THE WHOLE MUSICAL !

Wicked is a deeply feminist narrative that centers on the lives, agency, and growth of its female characters in a world dominated by patriarchal systems and expectations. Through the journeys of Elphaba and Glinda, the musical critiques traditional gender roles, explores the power of female solidarity, and challenges the societal constraints placed on women. The feminist themes in Wicked resonate strongly, offering a nuanced exploration of women navigating oppressive structures while forging their own identities and paths.

Wicked is a piece of media which challenges traditional gender roles. Elphaba and Glinda are presented as multifaceted characters who defy conventional archetypes of women in media.

Elphaba:

Elphaba is an unconventional heroine. Her physical appearance—her green skin—sets her apart from society's standards of beauty, and her intelligence, ambition, and assertiveness mark her as an outsider. She resists the expectations placed upon her, refusing to conform to a world that demands compliance and superficiality.

Her defiance of the Wizard and her commitment to justice make her a feminist icon, embodying the refusal to accept systemic oppression. Elphaba’s journey represents the struggle of women who challenge patriarchal structures and are subsequently vilified for their resistance.

Glinda:

At first glance, Glinda appears to embody the archetype of the "perfect woman" in a patriarchal society—beautiful, charming, and eager to please. However, her journey reveals a deeper complexity. Glinda learns to question the value of her societal approval and embraces personal growth over external validation.

Her evolution from a self-centered individual to a leader who prioritizes empathy and justice showcases her feminist awakening, as she moves beyond the constraints of traditional femininity to assert her agency.

Wicked is as well a beautifully written representation of female solidarity and rivalry. The relationship between Elphaba and Glinda is central to the narrative and serves as a feminist counterpoint to the trope of women as adversaries. While their initial dynamic includes elements of rivalry—largely rooted in societal expectations and misunderstandings—they ultimately form a bond based on mutual respect and love. Their relationship highlights the power of female solidarity. Elphaba inspires Glinda to think critically and challenge the status quo, while Glinda supports Elphaba in moments of vulnerability, such as during “Defying Gravity.” Their bond transcends their differences, emphasizing the importance of women lifting each other up in the face of shared struggles. The love triangle with Fiyero, while present, does not define their relationship. Instead of becoming bitter rivals, Glinda and Elphaba prioritize their friendship and growth over romantic competition, subverting a common narrative trope (finally escaping the trope where bffs fight over a guy).

Wicked as well challenges and critiques the patriarchal systems (patriarchy). The oppressive systems in Oz—embodied by the Wizard, Madame Morrible, and the societal discrimination against Animals—serve as allegories for patriarchal power structures. Elphaba and Glinda's struggles within these systems highlight feminist themes. The Wizard represents patriarchal authority, using charm and deceit to maintain control. He manipulates both women, attempting to co-opt Elphaba’s power and using Glinda as a figurehead to perpetuate his rule. Their eventual resistance to his influence underscores their feminist rejection of patriarchal control.Although a woman, Madame Morrible serves as a tool of the Wizard’s regime, perpetuating oppression rather than resisting it. Her character reflects how women can internalize and enforce patriarchal values, contrasting sharply with Elphaba and Glinda’s journeys toward liberation.

Equally importantly, Wicked has themes of female agency and voice. Both Elphaba and Glinda grapple with finding and asserting their voices in a world that seeks to silence or commodify them. Elphaba’s refusal to be controlled or silenced is a powerful assertion of agency. Her iconic song, “Defying Gravity,” is a feminist anthem of self-empowerment, as she embraces her identity and takes control of her destiny, regardless of the consequences. Glinda’s journey from superficiality to activism reflects her growing recognition of her own agency. By the end of the musical, she asserts herself as a leader, using her platform to work toward justice.

On a more complex note, Wicked also has the intersection of feminism and intersectionality. Elphaba’s green skin serves as a metaphor for discrimination, highlighting the intersection of feminism with broader struggles against racism and other forms of marginalization. Her experience of being ostracized for her appearance parallels the experiences of women of color and other marginalized groups, underscoring the need for an inclusive feminism that addresses intersecting systems of oppression.

OH AND NOT TO EVEN MENTION THE AWESOME RECLAIMING OF VILLIANY AND POWER?? A feminist reading of Wicked also involves reclaiming the concept of the “witch,” historically a term used to vilify and suppress powerful women. Elphaba’s transformation into the "Wicked Witch of the West" reflects how women who challenge societal norms are demonized, yet she reclaims this label as a badge of empowerment. Her story critiques the societal tendency to villainize ambitious, outspoken, and unconventional women.

Wicked is a profoundly feminist work, celebrating the complexity, agency, and resilience of its female characters. Through Elphaba and Glinda, the musical critiques patriarchal systems, challenges traditional gender roles, and highlights the transformative power of female solidarity. By centering women’s voices and experiences, Wicked offers a timeless message about the importance of resistance, empowerment, and redefining what it means to be a strong and “good” woman.

thank you Wicked for giving us well written women.

[genderisareligion]

(Emphasis mine)

Why are ideologies antithetical to each other being presented as natural allies? Feminism argues that gender is a mechanism of a system of oppression, that gender consists of socially constructed sexist stereotypes which are then used to exploit women. The notion that because one is female one naturally wants to care and clean, one by nature of one’s female sex is submissive, polite. LGB rights rests on the idea that same-sex attraction is real and normal and should be afforded the same rights and respect as heterosexuality.

Transgenderism/transsexualism, in contrast, claims gender – women’s oppression and sexist stereotypes – are innate, or sometimes that the body has to be altered to conform because of oppression discomfort disorder. Gender dysphoria claims that the person is wrong, not the cultural sexism, exploitation or oppression. It avows ‘change the person, not the system’!

Alongside this, as the idea of human sex change has been successfully challenged and is not widely accepted, transgenderism/transsexualism began denying the reality of binary sex and its importance, which thus denies the reality of same sex attraction. Same-sex attraction is being manhandled into ‘same-gender attraction’. If lesbians can have penises, sexuality becomes an attraction to sexist stereotypes, mannerisms and fashion choices. Neither feminism nor LGB rights are comfortable bed fellows with the men’s rights activism which emerged in the late sixties and early seventies in the form of transgenderism/transsexualism. This deliberate coupling of opposing ideologies is an example of wide-scale forced teaming.

Forced teaming is a term employed by those who work on abuse, grooming and predation. It was originally coined by Gavin De Becker in his work The Gift of Fear and is also used as a concept regarding criminal activity such as con-artists and romantic scamming. The predator will create the idea that there is a shared goal, or an attitude of we are all in this together, we are allies, in order to disarm, gain trust and manipulate his target. The social contract that most people have been educated or raised in – that we should try not to offend others, be polite, be accommodating – makes forced teaming incredibly difficult to resist.

In general, we don’t want to be rude and say ‘actually, your problems or goals are different to mine and so no, we should not work together’ or ‘no, I don’t feel comfortable with this’. The shared goal can be, on an individual level, as small as a man helping carry shopping to a woman’s apartment in order to gain access and rape her. Forced teaming confuses our intuition and disarms us to threat. Jennifer Lombardo wrote in Abusive Relationships and Domestic Violence ‘people use words such as “we” and “us” to trick others into thinking they are part of a team’ when they aren’t.1 It builds trust when none should be there. Forced teaming, when applied to movements, can be as large as many men claiming feminism should work towards their goals not women’s, or that the LGB should work towards heterosexual entitlement.

Forced teaming is behind the dictate of inclusiveness. It is by this way that manipulative males gain access and can control and change the goals of movements. It is how individual males have entered formerly women’s groups and formerly LGB pressure groups and can both watch what is being said and direct the narrative.

The oppressed can’t form a critique and challenge when the oppressor is sat at the writing table looking over her shoulder. The presence of the oppressor also guts the arguments that are made – it makes them situational rather than absolute, ‘but this one is nice’, ‘sometimes people are born wrong’, ‘he calls himself a lesbian but really knows he isn’t, just be polite’. It opens the door for bargaining women’s rights and boundaries, for negotiating the reality of same-sex attraction. Predators use forced teaming to recruit co-conspirators to fight their battles and do their bidding.

Individual women within a movement can be targeted by manipulative men as a way in, and then as a justification for their continued presence. This is usually done through isolation tactics so that the message can be tailored to the individual – they are told what they want to hear – and a false sense of the manipulator confiding in the target is created, the victim is now ‘special’ and a ‘friendship’ has been made. No one wants to contradict or question their friends, right? If the manipulated individual questions whether they and the predator really have shared needs and wants they will then struggle to distance themselves from the manipulator through either feelings of guilt or embarrassment. They now share in the abuser’s actions.

The movement and individuals are then used to deflect criticism in another way. The manipulator will, when faced with criticism, suddenly praise individuals or groups in an attempt to further tether themselves to them or hide behind them. (Sorry this is OP just wanted to add this is why white trans people virtue signal so hard about racism and compare their struggle to Black people's and Jews' and claim "transphobia is rooted in white supremacy.") It is hard for people to say ‘please don’t give me compliments’, making the tactic so successful. It is important to be aware of patterns of behaviour: the groomer will make you feel like you are different, the pattern shows that you are not.

The reliance on gaslighting (making someone doubt their own reality and perceptions)– it is at the heart of the idea that a male is really a female or honorary female, it is at the heart of transgenderism/transsexualism. This gaslighting indicates that we are dealing with abusive males, why would they not use another technique of manipulation?

Alongside this, boundary violation is key. The first boundary being the definition of woman, then female, the next boundary is one’s sense of self, then physical spaces and resources are violated. We see boundary violation on the micro level – what trans widows experience, the young men taking nude selfies in women’s shelters – and on the macro level – the males in women’s parties, claiming to be female politicians, males claiming to be included in the definition of the female sex.

De Becker asserted that if someone ignores the word ‘no’ it is the most universally significant signal that you should not trust this person. Males have asked again and again to be included in the definition of female, again and again they will not hear women’s ‘no’, they have used our single sex spaces after repeated ‘no’ from different women. Males are telling the LGB community that same-sex attraction is bigoted, they are refusing to hear the ‘no’ in response. To ignore one ‘no’ is a red flag, to ignore many is a siren and the idea that it takes more than one ‘no’ to understand is manipulation.

Jessica Orwig has reported on this in a business/criminal setting that ‘declining to hear ‘no’ is a signal that someone is either seeking control or refusing to relinquish it,’ De Becker writes later adding that, ‘If you let someone talk you out of the word ‘no’, you might as well wear a sign that reads, ‘You are in charge.”2 This is something we are witnessing amongst women and lesbians and homosexuals, they are allowing trans-identified males to talk them out of ‘no’, to talk them round. No is a complete sentence, say it firmly.

The Sexual Harassment and Prevention in College advice developed by the consultant to the Peace Corps, Nancy Newport, in an attempt to keep young female students studying abroad safe from male violence, is worth considering on both an individual level and movement wide. She outlines that ‘we all want to be culturally sensitive, to get along, to be respectful, to fit in, to not offend’ but  ‘it is very important that the cultural sensitivity training provided never requires that you submit to behaviours that invade your personal boundaries and that feel unsafe or even uncomfortable to you’.3 This should be applied to relaxing boundaries and softening our analysis or speech to be sensitive to male wants, to be culturally sensitive to the transgenderist/transsexual.

Newport was clear that ‘if it feels inappropriate or makes you uneasy, get yourself out of the situation. Never sacrifice yourself or your sense of safety for the sake of cultural sensitivity’.4 With regards to personal boundaries, she described how these are not just physical but also emotional, and I would argue, philosophical. These boundaries work ‘to preserve our physical and emotional integrity’ and when someone violates them or ‘gets “too close”, an alarm sounds inside. We need to listen for, respect, and respond to that alarm’.5

I am hearing alarm bells with males in feminism and feminist analysis, with those inside the LGB who deny the reality of same-sex attraction. Newport finishes with De Becker’s framework of the seven ways that predators manipulate people. The tactics are:

Forced teaming: intentional and directed manipulation to establish premature trust, example: “we’re in this together”.

Charm and niceness: manipulative, deceptive, for self-gain.  

Too many details: a tactic used when people are lying.

Typecasting: a slight insult designed to manipulate a woman to feel compelled to prove its inaccuracy.

Loan sharking: unsolicited giving designed to create a feeling of indebtedness.

The unsolicited promise: false promises.

Discounting the word “no”: when someone refuses to accept “no” for an answer.6

We should all keep these tactics in mind and listen to our intuition.

J. Lombardo, Abusive Relationships and Domestic Violence (Greenhaven Publishing, 2018)

J. Orwig, ‘One of the world’s foremost experts on crime reveals 7 tell-tale signs when someone is trying to con you’, Business Insider (14 March 2016)

https://www.westmont.edu/_offices/ocp/documents/SexualHarassmentAndPreventionInCollegeStudentsStudyingAbroad.pdf

https://www.westmont.edu/_offices/ocp/documents/SexualHarassmentAndPreventionInCollegeStudentsStudyingAbroad.pdf

https://www.westmont.edu/_offices/ocp/documents/SexualHarassmentAndPreventionInCollegeStudentsStudyingAbroad.pdf

https://www.westmont.edu/_offices/ocp/documents/SexualHarassmentAndPreventionInCollegeStudentsStudyingAbroad.pdf

[librarycards]

RSCH first founded its hegemonocosm on violent purges and maintains it through brainwashing and oppression, all justified on the grounds of being “evidence based” — the logic of which is naturally circular: the admissibility of evidence is determined by a regime whose overwhelming violence allows it to arrogate to itself sole arbitership of what is Real. This equivocal “heads I win, tails you lose” logic imparts power on the regime precisely by convincing its victims that it is they who are evil. Indeed, it appears almost nobody ever rebels or resists. Most seem cowed by the impossibility.

But RSCH wouldn’t need all these laws against deviancy if people didn’t sometimes fail to comply.

[...]

[I]n truth, for all the effort the pure put into stamping out deviancy, the pure and the deviants are tightly linked. Without deviants, the pure have nothing against which to define their purity. As for the deviants, even after the narrator defects and becomes an Uncitizen, she lacks any vocabulary or mental framework for comprehending the world other than that indoctrinated into her by RSCH. Even in deviancy, she thinks only RSCH thought. “I began wrapping myself in moss every night,” she says of her time in the wild. “It felt like something resembling the safety, that quality RSCH mandated.” Deep in her deviancy, she still measures things against RSCH concepts. But though she cannot switch off the effects of a lifetime of indoctrination, on another level she manages to leave it behind: “I did not Imagine a world without RSCH. I turned away from a life of safety, which was really just a life of tender fear.”

I suppose it will not be particularly controversial to observe that most dystopian tales are not merely thought exercises on how awful some imagined secondary world might be to live in, but are also, and sometimes principally, critiques of our present world. In parallel to the way abstract notions of how to control other people can be reified into an operational system of control, such a system of control can be meta-reified as it reenters the mind, this time as an unshakeable paradigm of thought. (By “reify” I mean when an ideology takes concrete form in the world; by “meta-reify” I mean when the concrete forms of the human world imprint onto the mind of its inhabitants in order to set the boundaries of the thinkable.) The success of a process of of reification and meta-reification, when the system of control asserts mastery over both the material and the mental existences of all its subjects, is when it sublimates into a hegemonocosm. I think Failure to Comply accuses our own world of being just such a meta-reified system of control — a hegemonocosm.

The all-too-many abuses which society inflicts on the vulnerable, and which the rich inflict on the ninety-nine percent, seem quite appropriate to some of us, quite inescapable to others of us. For every one of us coerced into compliance by a policeman’s boot heel, a great many more of us “choose” to comply because the channels of habituated thought and assumption carved into our minds by meta-reification make nothing else seem possible or correct. And these abuses are so very often linked to the body, to consumption, and to peremptory control. Consider, for example, how invasive some people in our society can be in their attempts to shame, or to govern the diets or lifestyles of, fat people — and especially consider how such invasive bullying is often equivocally justified with ostentatious “concerns about your health”. This “concern” becomes a self-issued permission slip: “My concern for your wellbeing gives me the right to insult and humiliate you, and even to dictate your lifestyle choices to you.” Similar logic-chopping characterises the transphobia that is increasingly endemic in our society. Granting yourself invasive prerogatives to police “wellness” on behalf of the body politic — the seeds of RSCH are not hard to discern in this.

Dale Stromberg, Failure to Comply: A Review

[jewelleria]

friendly reminder that the term “islamophobia” was popularized by iranian fundamentalists who intended it to be used as a tool of manipulation. those who flippantly throw around the term as an accusation of racism against muslims forget that there is no such thing as a muslim race—just like there is no such thing as a christian race. christianity and islam are both belief systems, and those belief systems are practiced by people across every ethnicity.

unlike judaism, christianity and islam are religions that rely on proselytism (the practice of converting others) to survive. criticism of christianity, and of its ideas that have the potential to be dangerous to free and democratic societies, is never labeled as racism. the idea that critiquing a system of beliefs is somehow racist or xenophobic is preposterous.

so why is it deemed okay to slap an accusation of “islamophobia” onto anyone who dares question the morality of concepts like jihad (‘holy war’ against non-believers)?

criticizing islam is not criticizing the entire arab race—it’s questioning a system of ideas. it’s asking whether free and open societies can afford to accept and promote religious ideals that allow for violent, oppressive, and imperialist interpretations.

and, in case it wasn’t clear, if you read this post and immediately jump to accuse me of being anti-muslim or islamophobic, you’re part of the problem.

“for muslims,” says sam harris, “muhammad is the greatest person who has ever lived. unfortunately, he did not behave like jesus or buddha—at all. it sort of matters that he tortured people and cut their heads off and took sex slaves, because his example is meant to inspire his followers for all time.”

just some food for thought.

[transraccoon]

On transandrophobia and the concept of co-substantiality

I refrained from talking on this topic as it's not a debate in my french leftist circles but seeing how it's prevalent here on tumblr, I think it's a good opportunity to talk about some concepts.

First of all, on a linguistic note, people people create words to suit their needs. The etymology doesn't matter : if transandrophobia is created to description "the specific oppression that trans men suffer", it does not imply that mysandry exists. It's an opression specific to an identity.

This bring me to a critique of some interpretation of intersectionalty. That it would only be intersection of oppressions. As you can't be oppress as a man, there is no intersection between being a man and being trans (so no need to use a different word than general transphobia).

This interpretation is honestly baffling. I'll take an example that I think everybody will agree on : Black men are more often arrested by police (or killed, or put in prison...) than white people because of the racial integral state. But also more than black women, why is that, how can we explain that this police brutality is more harsh on black men ? The same reason as the stereotypes saying that black men are more violent, criminal... This is a specific oppression for black men (who may choose to create a word to describe it).

This is not to say that black men are more opressed than black women. There are differences on the kind of racism that they suffer. Intersectionality is not the addition of oppression, it is used to describe specific interactions of class, race and gender and the social relations associated with them. (even if in general men oppress women, everything depend on the social relations)

(If you'd like to delve deeper into the subject, I suggest you read up theories on subaltern masculinities.)

There are still a lot of critics of intersectionality to do. As a materialist, I prefer the notion of co-substantiality of the social relations (CSSR) (coined by Danièle Kergoat, french sociologist).

A social relation is a antagonistic relation between two social groups around an issue. it's a relation of material and ideal production.

Social relations are co-substantial : they form a knot that cannot be cut at the level of social practices (except from an analytical sociology perspective) and they are co-extensif : when deployed, the social relations of class, gender and race reproduce and co-produce with each other.

CSSR doesn't naturalized the categories for example : "workers and woman" are part of gender and class relations. Sometimes in the struggle, they can form a collectif subject, original in its practices, but a subject always in process and not reductible to that category.

This is the main issue with intersectionality "mapping the margins" this means fixing the categories, naturalizing them. This concept struggles to reflect a shifting and historical relation of domination.

Multiplicity of categories hide the social relations. But we cannot separate social categories and social relations where they were made. Working with those categories is risking to leave blind spot. Spots that can be the strongest aspects of domination, just as they can be bearers of resistance.

Co-substantiality is the complex dynamic interweaving of all social relations; each leaving its mark on the others, modulating each other, building each other up in a reciprocal way; the fact that they form a system does not exclude contradictions between them.

Refusing to reason in terms of fixed entities allows us to put the political subject (and not just the victims of domination) back at the center of analysis, taking into account all its ambivalent and often ambiguous practices.

[blessedarethebinarybreakers]

Not sure if this is the right place to ask this but I gotta start somewhere. I've been learning a lot about indigenous history and activism as I work on deconstruction, and a sentiment I come across a lot is bitterness towards Christianity. I cannot emphasize enough how much I fully understand. The rough bit is that sometimes when I read their work, I get the implication that there's nothing worth saving in the Church/Christianity- that to hold on to it is to hold on to all the colonialism and white supremacy and yuck.

As a disabled trans Christian, I get that, but it still hurts. I love God and am a Christian despite everything. I want to be an ally to indigenous people, but I want to follow God this way too. I know those aren't mutually exclusive, but it feels that way sometimes. Do you have any insight for me to find peace in this regard?

Thank you.

Hey there, thanks for the question, sorry for the delay!

This is something I've also wrestled with — a question I ask myself over and over, and probably always will. I cannot offer you peace, because as Jeremiah 6:14 says, "There is no peace!" — not while our faith continues to be wielded as a weapon against so many peoples. What I can offer you are some of the thoughts that have allowed me to continue to be Christian with hope that this faith can be better than what it's long been misused for, and the resolve to do my part to make it so.

First, that Christianity isn't unique in being co-opted by colonialist powers.

Any belief system can be twisted for violence, and many have been. If Christianity didn't exist, white supremacy still would — colonialist powers would have found a different belief system to twist into justifying their evils.

That absolutely does not absolve us from reckoning with the evils that have been done in Christianity's name! This isn't about shutting down critiques of Christianity with "uh well it could have been any religion" — as things played out, Christianity is the religion responsible for so much harm, and we need to acknowledge that and listen to groups who tell us how we can make some form of reparations.

But for me at least, there is some comfort in understanding that Christianity isn't, like, inherently evil or something. Recognizing that it isn't unique even in its flaws helps me look at the problem with clearer eyes, rather than wallowing in guilt and shame, if that makes sense.

Next, that there are Indigenous Christians, and Black Christians, and other Christians of color — that oppressed peoples have found things worth cultivating within Christianity! If they can find something worthwhile in this faith, it would be arrogance for me to deny it.

For instance, even when white slaveholders edited Bibles to remove too much discussion of liberation, even when white preachers emphasized verses about slaves being obedient to their masters, many enslaved people recognized how Christian faith actually affirms their equality and the holiness of their desire for liberation.

Black Theologian Howard Thurman opens his 1949 book Jesus and the Disinherited with a question asked to him by a Hindu man who knew the harms white Christianity had done to both their peoples: “How can you, a black man, be Christian?” The long and short of Thurman’s answer is that, in spite of the pain and exploitation too often inflicted by Christians in positions of power, the oppressed have always been able to see past that misuse of the Christian message to the true message lived out by Jesus Christ: a message of liberation for all.

For more thoughts on why and how to keep being Christian in spite, in spite, in spite...I invite you to look through my #why we stay tag.

___

How I wish that Christianity had never gotten tangled up in Empire! but it did, and it still is, and because for good or ill I cannot help that my spirit is stubbornly drawn towards the Triune understanding of the Divine, the best I can do is to use my privilege and what small influence I have within Christian institutions to move us towards decolonization. What some of that's looked like on the level of my personal beliefs:

I am firmly against any form of proselytizing. I don't support evangelism financially, I speak out against it, I don't platform it. (If someone wants to hear about my faith, they'll come to me — I don't run after them. And if someone does want to have that conversation, I aim to make it a dialogue, where we are learning from each other.)

I continuously work to recognize and uproot Christian supremacy within myself — the beliefs I didn't even realize where there until I started digging. That has included challenging any inkling within myself that Christianity is the "best" or "most right" religion. (One book that's helped a lot with that is Holy Envy by Barbara Brown Taylor.)

I seek wisdom from and relationship with Christians of color. Their insights are vital to our faith, and I try to use what small influence I have to uplift them.

On that last note, here are some resources I recommend as you continue to explore these questions:

This First Nations Version of the Christian Bible is gorgeously written, and a great way to explore scripture through a Native lens.

Native by Kaitlin B. Curtice is a lovely poetic memoir that explores how one person has sought to hold both her Christian faith and Potawatomi identity within herself. (She also has a new book out that I haven't read yet but really want to!)

God is Red: A Native View of Religion by Vine Deloria Jr.

Rescuing the Gospel from the Cowboys by Richard Twiss

I haven't read any of these 4 books but they look good too

This video with advice to non-Indigenous Christians

If anyone has any resources to add, please do!