#its liberal feminism in action i suppose

[dailyanarchistposts]

Militant about joy

We want to connect joy to militancy for a number of reasons. We are interested in how the capacity for refusal and the willingness to fight can be enabling, relational, and can open up potentials for collective struggle and movement, in ways that are not necessarily associated with control, duty, or vanguardism. We want an expansive conception of militancy that affirms the potential of transformation at the expense of comfort, safety, or predictability. A common definition of militancy is to be “vigorously active, combative and aggressive, especially in support of a cause.”[29] We are interested in the ways that putting joy into contact with militancy helps link fierce struggle with intense affect: rebellions and movements are not only about determined resistance, but about opening up collective capacities. With joyful militancy we want to get at what it means to enliven struggle and care, combativeness and tenderness, hand in hand.

However, the historical associations and current renderings of militancy are complex. Historically, militancy is often associated with Marxist-Leninist and Maoist vanguardism, and the ways these ideologies have informed revolutionary class struggle and national liberation struggles. These ideals of militancy have been challenged, especially by Black, Indigenous, and postcolonial feminists, who have pointed out the pitfalls of rigid ideology, patriarchal leadership, and the neglect of care and love. The traditional figure of the militant—zealous, rigid, and ruthless—has also been challenged by situationism, anarchism, feminism, queer politics, and other currents that have connected direct action and struggle to the liberation of desire, foregrounding the importance of creativity and experimentation. From this perspective, the militant is the one who is always trying to control things, to take charge, to educate, to radicalize, and so on. This kind of militant tends to be two steps behind transformations as they manifest themselves, always finding them lacking the correct analysis or strategy, always imposing a framework or program.

The contemporary discourse of counterterrorism associates figures of militancy with ISIL,{2} the Taliban, and other groups named as enemies of the United States and its allies. In this way, the specter of the “militant extremist” helps justify further militarization, surveillance, imperialism and Islamophobia. The suspected presence of one militant is enough to turn a whole area into a strike zone in which all military-aged men are conceived as enemy combatants, and everyone else as collateral damage. Within this discourse, the militant is increasingly the ultimate Other, to be targeted for death or indefinite detention. In all of these representations—from the Maoist rebel to the terrorist extremist—the figure of the militant tends to be associated with intense discipline, duty, and armed struggle, and these ways of being are often posed in opposition to being supple, responsive, or sensitive. It’s clear that militancy means willingness to fight, but in its dominant representations, it is cold and calculating.

At the same time, there are other currents of militancy that make space for transformation and joy. When we interviewed her, queer Filipino organizer Melanie Matining spoke about its potential to break down stereotypes:

The word “militancy” for me is a really, really hard one. It was used a lot in Filipino organizing. I would always connect it to the military industrial complex, and I didn’t want to replicate that. And then as I started peeling back the actual things we need to do… As an Asian woman, to be militant—that’s really fucking rad. It breaks down sterotypes of submissiveness. The concept of militancy is a new thing for me, and to embrace it I’m unpacking notions of who I’m supposed to be.[30]

Artist and writer Jackie Wang argues that militancy is not only tactically necessary, but transformative for those who embody it. In the context of anti-Blackness in the United States, Wang shows how the category of “crime” has been constructed around Blackness and how mass incarceration has led to a politics of safety and respectability that relies on claims of innocence, contrasted implicitly with (Black) guilt and criminality. Rejecting the politics of innocence means challenging the innocent/criminal dichotomy and the institutionalized violence that subtends it. This form of militancy, Wang argues, is “not about assuming a certain theoretical posture or adopting a certain perspective—it is a lived position.”[31] Drawing on Frantz Fanon, Wang writes that militancy has the capacity “to transform people and ‘fundamentally alter’ their being by emboldening them, removing their passivity and cleansing them of the ‘core of despair’ crystallized in their bodies.”[32] Living militancy, from this perspective, is inherently connected to a process of transformation that undoes the knot of subjection around innocence, challenges the carceral logics of anti-Blackness, and opens up new terrains of struggle.

When we asked Indigenous political theorist Glen Coulthard about his conception of militancy in the context of Indigenous resurgence, he called it an “emergent radicalism” that destabilizes relations of domination.[33] Coulthard’s work focuses on Indigenous resurgence and resistance to settler colonialism. He reveals the ways that Empire represents Indigenous peoples’ oppression as a constellation of personal failings and “issues” to be addressed through colonial recognition and reconciliation. He also focuses on Indigenous refusal and resistance, the revaluation of Indigenous traditions, and a rise in Indigenous militancy and direct action. Militancy, in the context of Indigenous resurgence, is about the capacity to break down colonial structures of control, including the state’s monopoly on the legitimate use of force; it is a break with the colonial state’s attempt to subjugate Indigenous people and ensure continued exploitation of Indigenous lands. This emergent militancy isn’t based on a single program or ideology, but comes out of relationships, as Coulthard says:

It’s emergent in the sense that it’s bottom-up. But it also emerges from something, and that’s those relationships to land, place, community. So that is the emergent part. Emergent doesn’t mean entirely new, because those relationships to place are not new. They’ve always been there, and are always re-emerging. It comes in cycles. The always-there emergent militancy is acted on through management strategies, recognition and accommodation, whatever. That has its effects: it dampens the crisis, it overcomes contradictions temporarily. And then the militancy will emerge again. And we’ve seen this four or five times in the last half-century, these series of containment/management strategies. …What’s always prior is agency of Indigenous peoples, and capital and the state are constantly on the defensive, reacting. As opposed to thinking that we’re always reacting to colonialism, when we privilege it. It’s this resurgent Indigenous subjectivity that the state is constantly trying to quell or subdue. And it’s successful, but never totally successful. And it boils over, comes to the surface, and some new technology is deployed in order to manage it, and reconciliation is the latest tool that is doing that work. But it’s always because of our persistent presence: we’ve never gone away and we’ve been articulating alternatives in words and deeds.[34]

This conception of militancy as emergent is important because it doesn’t come out of thin air, or from an enlightened vanguard of militarized men who suppose that they can see things more clearly than common people. It comes out of the ongoing refusal of Indigenous peoples to give up their ways of life. As Kiera Ladner and Leanne Betasamosake Simpson write in their introduction to This is an Honour Song,

The summer of 1990 brought some strong medicine to Turtle Island. For many Canadians, “Oka” was the first time they encountered Indigenous anger, resistance and standoff, and the resistance was quickly dubbed both the “Oka Crisis” and the “Oka Crises” by the mainstream media. But to the Kanien’kehaka (Mohawk) people of Kanehsata:ke, who were living up their responsibilities to take care of their lands, this was neither a “crisis” at Oka, nor was it about the non-Native town of “Oka.” This was about 400 years of colonial injustice. Similarly, for the Kanien’kaehaka from Kahnawa:ke and Akwesasne who created “crises” by putting up their own barricades on the Mercier Bridge or by mobilizing and/or mobilizing support (resources) at Kanehsata:ke, this really had nothing to do with Oka, a bridge or a golf course. This was about 400 years of resistance. Like every Indigenous nation occupied by Canada, the Haudenesaunee have been confronting state/settler societies and their governments since those societies began threatening the sovereignty, self-determination, and jurisdiction of the Haudenesaunee. It was not a beginning. Nor was this the end. This was a culmination of many, many years of Onhkwehonwe resistance resulting in a decision to put up barricades in defense of, and to bring attention to, Haudenesaunee land ethics, treaty responsibilities, and governance.[35]

Indigenous resurgence and events like Oka are not joyful in the sense of being happy, but in the sense that they are deeply transformative and able to catalyze solidarity across Turtle Island. But unlike Marxist conceptions of militancy in which the vanguard is supposed to usher in a global revolution, it is clear that Indigenous struggles do not implicate everyone in the same way. As it breaks down colonial structures of control and dispossession, Indigenous resurgence implicates us, as settlers, in complicated ways: it unsettles us and our relationship to land and place, and throws into question received ideas about who we are, our responsibilities and complicities, what it means to live here, and our received ideas about what “here” is. It compels us to learn, together, how to support Indigenous resurgence and resist settler colonial violence.

Joyful militancy has also emerged in spaces where people generate the capacity to move with despair and hopelessness, to politicize it. In her study of the queer movement ACT UP, queer theorist and activist Deborah Gould shows how their militant tactics not only won institutional victories that prolonged and saved lives; they were also a process of world-making:

From its start and throughout its life, ACT UP was a place to fight the AIDS crisis, and it was always more than that as well. It was a place to elaborate critiques of the status quo, to imagine alternative worlds, to express anger, to defy authority, to form sexual and other intimacies, to practice non-hierarchical governance and self-determination, to argue with one another, to refashion identities, to experience new feelings, to be changed.[36]

The militancy of ACT UP was not only about a willingness to be confrontational and defy conventions of straight society and mainstream gay and lesbian politics; the movement also created erotically-charged queer atmospheres and sustained networks of care and support for members who got sick. Catalyzed by grief and rage, it blew open political horizons and changed what was possible for people to think, do, and feel together.

When we asked the Argentina-based intellectual Sebastián Touza about militancy, he discussed the danger of defining it once and for all:

I don’t know if militancy can be defined “as such.” Probably it is not a good idea to define it that way because that would entail a general point of view, an interchangeable and abstract concept, valid for all situations. But, on the other hand, I would say that a militant is somebody who struggles for justice in the situation … Thus we have to pay attention to the situation, to the encounters that take place in it, to how meaning is elaborated there, to the subjectivities that arise as a result of those encounters.[37]

This “situated” militancy does not start from a prefabricated notion of justice. It is an attempt to intervene effectively in the here and now, based on a capacity to be attuned to relationships. An example of this could be Touza’s discussion of the struggle of the Mothers of Plaza de Mayo, a feminist organization that formed in resistance to military repression in Argentina in the 1970s:

Mothers grew up not from strategic plans but from below: from the pain of mothers seeking to recover their children who had been kidnapped, tortured, and “disappeared” by the state. Because they have not separated affects from political activity, Mothers never consider each other means toward ends. Nobody has to be subordinated to strengthen the organization. Rather, they regard each other as ends in themselves. What bonds them together is not an idea but the affect, love and friendship that arises from supporting each other, sharing intimate emotions, moments of joy and sorrow. They organize themselves through consensus, understood not as a system of decision-making or conflict resolution, but as a direct engagement with the lives of one another. As in a now long established feminist tradition, for them the personal is political. Mothers guide themselves by an ethics of intimate conviction whose exercise cannot be detached from everyday life. They have a profound distrust of ideologies and party lines and are proud of their autonomy from the state, political parties, unions and NGOs. Their autonomy does not consist in fighting against a dominant ideology, which might summon the need for the specialized knowledge of a vanguard party, but rather … in the affirmation of liberating aspects of popular culture that already exist among them.[38]

The Mothers are a powerful example of how militancy often springs from everyday life and the bonds of kinship, rather than abstract ideological or moral commitments. These struggles eventually waned or were absorbed by Empire, at least partially. The Argentinean government eventually began using the discourse of human rights and began to offer money and services as an attempt to relegitimize the state and regain control, causing deep divisions between the Mothers and other movements in Argentina.[39] The Canadian government used treaty negotiations, reconciliation discourses, and other formal processes in an attempt to quell Indigenous resurgence and militancy. As Coulthard explains above, new forms of militancy tend to provoke new strategies of containment and absorption by the state, leading to the invention of new forms of struggle. None of these movements stayed frozen in one form: in various ways they transformed, dissolved, shifted, or were institutionalized. But the fact that Empire always invents new forms of containment is not evidence that movements have “failed” or that they were misguided. Joyful transformation sometimes ebbs and flows, becomes captured or crushed, grows subtler or percolates into everyday life, but always re-emerges and renews itself.

Militancy is not a fixed ideal to approximate. We cannot be “like” a militant because militancy—in the way we conceptualize it here—is a practice that is based in the specificity of situations. We cannot become these examples, nor should we look to them as ideals. Rather than boiling joyful militancy down to a fixed way of being or a set of characteristics, we see it arising in and through the relationships that people have with each other. This means it will always look different, based on the emergent connections, relationships, and convictions that animate it.

In relation to this, we believe it is important to hesitate, lest our understanding of militancy become another form of rigid radicalism. Not everyone we spoke with has been enthusiastic about this word. For instance, in our interview with them, writer and artist Margaret Killjoy was ambivalent, emphasizing its connection to armed struggle:

I guess I see it as being someone who is “actively” involved in trying to promote radical social change, and in a non-reformist way. It’s dangerous as terminology … I don’t use it much myself … because of course the first implication it seems to have is that of armed struggle, which is far from a universally applicable strategy or tactic.[40]

We hope that joyful militancy allows for questions and uncertainties that are too often smothered by conventional conceptions of militancy. We also recognize that many will still prefer different language. We are not suggesting that all joyful struggles share an ideology, a program, or a set of tactics. What the above examples have in common is that they express a form of militancy that is attuned to their local situations and arises from people’s needs, desires, and relationships. What we are calling joyful militancy is not a shared content, though we do think there are some shared values and sensibilities. Rather it is an attunement and activation of collective power that looks different everywhere, because everywhere is different.

Besides these highly visible examples, joyful militancy also lives in art and poetry that opens people’s capacities for thinking and feeling in new ways. It is expressed in quiet forms of subversion and sabotage, as well as all the forms of care, connection, and support that defy the isolation and violence of Empire. It is not a question of being a certain way, but a question of open-ended becoming, starting from wherever people find themselves.

[cedarnommer]

There's a big and frankly stupid debate about trans women in sports and how we're supposedly predisposed to win in sports. I'll talk personal experiences rather than some big research. Not that people that hate trans women care for what we say, but I digress.

Prior to being on HRT, my body had a far higher nmol of t than actual cis men. It hovered between 230 and was almost above 250. The dysphoria I felt from that was awful. I was aware that at some point I had the crazy ability to just repeat a physical exercise a bunch and get muscular rapidly. I always avoided arm exercises yet I could lift up fairly heavy things. After starting estrogen, I noticed that I got weaker. After I started taking t blockers, it became significantly more apparent. Groceries of 5-10 kg that became easier to carry around now feel like me trying to carry them in my preteens to early puberty time.

None of this is to say cis women are weaker. Since our bodies are not absolutes and some cis men have lower t and some cis women higher t. But, trans women are likely to be taking some form of t blockers if transitioning. And this does affect our physical strength a lot.

The sports discourse is a fascinating intellectual tool used by actual sexists. It isn't necessarily just transmysogynist in its structure. The core argument made is that women are more physically weak than men. Therefore women need intervention so that they're protected from the physically superior men. It asserts that a patriarchal hierarchy is natural and actually beneficial to women. And I feel like it's this logical tool which tricks people into assuming this is to their benefit. We're nothing but a tool for actual cis men to assert themselves and gain power. So people that use the label feminist yet defend these actions aren't all that feministic. It reminds me of how many issues second wave feminism had in the US due to excluding non white women and lesbians. This isn't real feminism in this case. It gives acknowledgement that men are indeed superior and all feminism amounts to is an idea to beg and seek approval of spaces that men decided for women.

But all I hear is how we, trans women, dominate women's sports. Most of us can't even lift a bag of groceries well, let alone dream of doing this. The other rhetorical reasoning behind this is to belittle and attack our femininity as trans people. Our womanhood is denied while we're also called failed males. And ya know, this rhetorical idea was used by white feminists in the past to deny non-white women too. You're not the defender of women you think you are, if you're not seeking genuine liberation from this garbage gendered system.

But what do I know. I'm just the supposed weak "man" that's also somehow super powerful and superior to cis women. I'm also supposedly having a super imposing male privilege because everything I say is heard and enforced over cis women while people debate my literal right to pee in a public restroom.

Do I feel privileged and mighty? No. And I certainly doubt I can overpower cis women. And to be quite honest, I don't understand why I'm supposed to. I've never understood why men have this idea of domination and aggression. That should hint to you that I'm not a man.

Trans rights. Women's rights. The ghouls that enforce all this suffering can go to hell.

[femmesandhoney]

I made the mistake of browsing the feminism Reddit today. I saw posts saying exactly what radical feminists have been saying and sensible takes and heartbreaking tales of women suffering under the patriarchy.

But then I saw how much they hate ‘terfs’. How horrible we were, how we’re shaming radical feminism with our exclusions (somehow??) and how awful we were. And then I realised that all the removed comments were likely from radical feminists, not men.

And I thought, how can they not see how ridiculous this is? How can you lament about the actions of men and then turn around and say a man can be a woman? Claim you’re in a lesbian relationship? Commiserate with other women and then say your trans girlfriend is the best woman you’ve met?

And it got me thinking how hypocritical they are. They’re supposed to be the inclusive feminists, right? Feminism is for all ecetera. And yet they are so quick to condemn, harass, dox and threaten women they don’t agree with. Say what you like about radfems being exclusionary because we don’t include men, but from what I’ve seen, most radical feminists support all women. Even the ones we don’t agree with. I doubt the same can be said for the liberal feminists.

I think that this new feminism, isn’t feminism at all. Instead it’s something else, that calls itself feminism. Much like how men call themselves women. And isn’t that a coincidence?

I think liberal feminism or "choice" feminism has some good merits at times, but the way it completely all at once consumed the entire feminist movement as "the" feminist ideology because it was the easiest for men to co-op (equality! men and women as equals!) and subsequently steal the main feminist praxis away from women right under their noses doesn't slide by me.

it's not a surprise it's the type of feminism everyone is taught about in elementary school, that it dominates worldwide as the "best" ideological form of feminism, because it allows men a voice and a literal equal standing. if men and women are equals, well, duh, then ofc we should speak about men's rights and their "epidemics" and how hard they have it under the nebulous patriarchy just the same as women. it's technically doing what libfeminism wanted it to do, and now men use it as a cover to point at actual feminists who prioritize women and go "they're not real feminists! real feminism is inclusion and equality, they're actually encroaching on my rights as a man to not be included in their feminism". and ofc, liberal feminists agree outright bc they also are drinking the "everyone is valid everyone is so equal to the point women aren't even the forefront of their own movement" juice. its just like whelp. thats fun.

[hjellacott]

The biggest problem with the radical activism and woke lobbyes has nothing to fo with the actual collective they pretend to defend. It's their violence that's a problem.

My city is one of those with a history like "Romans now Muslims, now the Christians kill the Muslims, now the Jews win but now the Christians kill the Jews, now you can't be jew but Muslim is fine, now you can only be Christian or you're dead". Like, it's always been, until the day democracy came, about violent prosecution. One mafia of bullies that decides who's the new bad guy and threatens, harasses and kills them.

And yeah now Jews and Muslims all live at peace in the city. There are even neighbourhoods historically of one or the other and there's peace. There's respect. Even the million types of Christianism share the city as well and it's fine. But I still see that awful violence and anger towards the minority black in a school full of white, against women, against gays and lesbians... it just acquires other forms.

Liberalism and democracy were supposed to be about respect and freedom. Like, we were all supposed to live, do, say what we wish and we'd all respect each other and draw the line at actions that were actively a danger to life. But now there's this woke mafia of hyper correction and stupid moves that's ruining everything.

They first ruin it for the cause they claim to represent. I saw this first in the feminism, when extremists would violently harass people and turn them against feminism, when perhaps before they were neutral. Like, violent speech, harassment and bullying is never going to be the way to go. To me, it reminds me of the Nazis, and the way each religion was burned down in my city in different moments of its history. Prosecuted and made to disappear. And with that in my head, I'm never going to support people who harass, threaten, bully, insult and get violent. And you'll ask, but what if they were SS soldiers, wouldn't you get violent? Isn't violence sometimes justified? And it really isn't.

I'm not going to turn into those who prosecuted my ancestors. I'm a fierce believer in peaceful protest and I've been attending them and being in syndicates since my teenage years. If they behave like violent animals, burning bins and books, harassing, attacking, threatening... I'll go as opposite as I can. I stay with the law. I am active in politics, to make sure the people who'll do the good job get in the right positions, and if I see someone attack someone else, I stand in the middle. I fight one battle at a time, and adapt my weapons as I go.

So these gangsters, like I'm saying, first ruin it for their own causes, but then they ruin it for freedom of speech (hello cancel culture) and for democracy and basic freedoms. They create a world where you always feel watched and judged, so people will get so worried about others' opinions about them that they'll say what it takes to get in your good side. And that leads to performative activism. Look at how much money Adidas, umbro, primark and so on have made with lgbt merchandise. How many rich businessmen get richer by pretending to support the right causes, but do you actually know for sure that those boards of business people aren't a bunch of sexist, racist assholes? In most cases, you don't. But they do what it takes for the woke cult to shut it. I'd really be the most unsurprised if half of those celebs that look so supportive and lefty in social media are actually just performing, making money, lying... not really believing what they preach. What's trendy to preach.

This has created a world where, specially here in the left wing, you can't trust anyone. I'll explain. When Trump makes racist comments, you can trust and be sure that he really believes in that, because he's going with the non trendy behaviour. But if the trendy thing is to be against racism and misogyny and so on, then what you don't know is if the people around you that claim to support you (because they don't want to lose their jobs and that kinda thing) actually does support you. That's why we can't trust any more. Thanks to the radical leftwingers and radical right wingers who've pushed people into never again behaving sincerely, into performative activism, a pretend game, afraid of the punishment if they don't join the new trend. You can't even attempt to stay neutral. It doesn't work.

I'm a fierce believer in social-democracy. It's my favourite option. And as a bisexual woman, artist, and product of such an incredible genetic mix that nazis would've thrown me into a camp without a second thought, I'd love to believe that truly, the majority of the world would stand for a Jew, for a lesbian, for a black person, for any minority. But I can't. I look at the people with lgbt sweaters and can't help to think "yeah you'd sell us in a heartbeat, you're just going with the trendy thing". I look at people online defending BLM and I know more than half won't go to the protests or care the next week.

I know because as an activist, I'm sick of seeing millions of comments online in favour or against but then you go to the protests and where's everybody? At home. Where it was safe and comfortable, and probably sending cyberbullying and pretending to care about a new thing. A few months ago we were all about BLM. Now that's evaporated and it's all about the trans people. And while so many pretend to care, the ones who truly care are ignored, no one cares if you're a pretend activist just in social media or a real one, and the radical activists pretend to care the most and do the most harm.

[terven--godess]

Reproductive violence is a pervasive issue that affects women across the globe. From birth control sabotage to anti abortion laws, women's bodies are often the battleground for maintaining male control. This form of violence is deeply rooted in cultural and religious norms, but it ultimately serves to limit women's autonomy and keep them dependent on male dominated systems of power. The idea of radical feminism being labeled as "transphobic" for questioning certain practices around gender underscores the tension between different feminist movements. Issues like women's sports, lesbian spaces, and child sterilization are contentious within these debates. Often, it is men who enforce these ideologies within liberal feminist spaces, policing women's thoughts and actions. This dynamic reflects historical patterns of men controlling the discourse around women's rights and spaces. The gates that supposedly regulate access to life-altering medical interventions are not as fortified as one might think, leaving some to wonder whether this is truly in the best interest of the patients, particularly those with unresolved trauma or other significant mental health challenges. It's so obvious that it's not about 'maturity'. It's about control and power dynamics. They don't see these girls as mature, they see them as easily manipulated young girls who they can control and who will put up with their bullshit. If they could go lower they would. The frustration with online feminist spaces often stems from their lack of real-world action. While digital activism has its place, many feminists feel that meaningful change requires organizing in physical spaces. Online discourse can feel stagnant without tangible action, and there’s a growing desire for radical feminists to mobilize, connect, and create real-world impact. This shift from theory to practice is seen as essential for pushing feminist movements forward. men: Why is erf always gives pronouns to when were supposed to be slop? Me:

piss: Im not erf, but I could be penis. Me:

[daddydubreuil]

its great that tessas all about womens empowerment, it really is, but someone needs to free that girl from gender roles....baby u dont have to act like u like to cook its ok u never need to cook anything in ur life if u dont want to

[cendrillonmedousa]

Incomplete Masterpost on Radical Feminist Literature

This is an incomplete list of literature associated with radical feminism. Currently, it dates back to the late 1960s and goes up to the 2010s. Since this list contains historical readings, some books discussed were written by women who have done actions that ranged from questionable to the absolute immoral. In regards to the latter, I believe it would be incredibly irresponsible to pretend that radical feminism have not allowed these women a space in a community that is supposed to condemn those behaviors and actions. If you are interested in reading the literature created by any of the authors who participated, endorsed, or did unforgivable things, I urge you to find a means of accessing those works in a way that would not result in them or their foundations receiving compensation. Also, please remember to read their works with a very critical lenses. Thank you.

SCUM Manifesto (1967)

SCUM Manifesto argues that men have ruined the world, and that it is up to women to fix it. To achieve this goal, it suggests the formation of an organization dedicated to overthrowing society and eliminating the male sex. Author Valerie Solanoas, a lesbian, also urged women to "overthrow the government, eliminate the money system, institute complete automation and eliminate the male sex." It's currently debated whether SCUM Manifesto is satire or parody, due to its parallels with Freud's theory of femininity. NOTE: Author Valerie Solanoas is known for her stalking and attempted murder of Andy Warhol. The motive for the attempt on his life was decided to be due to undiagnosed mental illness that convinced her of conspiracy between Warhol and another artist to steal her works. Warhol developed PTSD after the incidents, according to his lover(s) and friends. Personally, it is up to yourself whether or not this information sways your decision to buy a copy or access it for free.

Notes From the First Year (1968)

New York Radical Women complied a group of feminist texts and speeches from their work in 1968. The compliation included texts from Shulamith Firestone, Jennifer Gardner, Kathy Amatniek, and Anne Koedt.

The Dialectic of Sex: The Case for Feminist Revolution (1970)

Described as a classic of feminist thought, Jewish author Shulamith Firestone argues that the biological division of labor in reproduction in the root cause of male domination, economic exploitation, racism, imperialism, and ecological irresponsibility. She argues that goal of the feminist revolution must be not just the elimination of male privilege but of the sex distinction itself, so that genital differences no longer have cultural significance.

Sexual Politics (1970)

Based on her PhD dissertation, Kate Millett's book is regarded as a classic of feminism and one of radical feminism's key texts. Dr. Millett argues that sex has a frequently neglected political aspect and discusses the role that patriarchy plays in sexual relations. She argues that authors such as D.H. Lawrence, Henry Miller, and Norman Mailer discuss sex in a patriarchal, sexist way. Meanwhile, she endorses the more nuanced gender politics of gay writer Jean Genet. Note: Kate Millet has endorsed pedophilia, excusing her endorsement by pretending it is for the liberation of children. If you have a desire to read Sexual Politics, please find a means to access it without contributing to her. Read the book with a VERY critical lenses due to what she endorses.

Sisterhood is Powerful (1970)

An anthology of feminist writings, it was edited by Robin Morgan and is one of the first widely available anthologies of second-wave feminism. The anthology calls for consciousness-raising and a call to action. The collection addresses several major issues, including "the need for radical feminism, the discrimination women experienced from men in the political left, and the blatant sexism faced in the workplace. Also, the collection most notably included Black Women's Liberation Group.

The Myth of Vaginal Orgasm (1970)

Essayist Anne Koedt responded to the sexual revolution of the 1960s by addressing both the myth of vaginal orgasms and previous thoughts about female orgasms in general. Her article played a vital role in feminist sexual revolution and draws on research done by Alfred Kinsey about human sexuality.

The Female Eunuch (1970)

This is a key text of the 1970s feminist movement, a mixture of polemic and scholarly research. An important text in the feminist movement, Germaine Greer's thesis is that the traditional nuclear family represses women sexually. She argues that men hate women, though the latter do not realize this and are taught to hate themselves. Note: Germaine Greer created and distributed a book that she claimed was "to advance women's reclamation of their capacity for and the right to visual pleasure." The cover of the book was a shirtless picture of 15-year-old boy, who discovered the use of his photo for this photobook in his early 30s. The contents of the book have been described as pedophilic. During the height of #MeToo, Germaine Greer called for women to show solidarity when other women are sexually harassed, but then went on to say: "But if you spread your legs because he said 'be nice to me and I'll give you a job in a movie' then I'm afraid that's tantamount to consent, and it's too late now to start whingeing about that." She also said that some women's disclosure of their assaults and harassment was "dishonorable" because some of the victims had been paid to sign non-disclosure agreements and only spoke out after the statute of limitations. If you have a desire to read The Female Eunuch, please find a means to access it WITHOUT contributing to her and keep in mind these events.

Off Our Backs (1970-2008)

Off Our Backs was a collective of women who practiced consensus decision-making. Consensus decision-making are group decision-making processes in which participants develop and decide on proposals with the requirement of acceptance by all. In the first issue, the editorial statement states that Off Our Back is a paper for all women who are fighting for the liberation of their lives and we hope it will grow and expand to meet the needs of women from all backgrounds and classes. They ask readers to use this paper to relate what you are doing and what you are thinking, for we are convinced that a woman speaking from the agony of her own struggle has a voice that can touch the experience of all women.

Lesbian Nation (1973)

In this book, lesbian separatist Jill Johnston outlines her vision of radical lesbian feminism, writing that women should make a total break from men and male-dominated capitalist institutions. She believes that female heterosexuality was a form of collaboration with patriarchy.

Woman Hating (1974)

Women Hating delves into the topics of misogyny and sexuality. Written by Jewish writer Andrea Dworkin, she examines the place and depiction of women in both fairy tales and pornography. She then compares and contracts between Chinese foot binding and European witch burning. The final section discusses the different cultural concepts of androgyny. Note: In Women Hating, Andrea Dworkin's use of the word erotic makes her sections on bestiality and incest upsetting and potentially triggering to read. Andrea Dworkin is using her self definition of erotic. She does defines erotic as non-sexual and similar to how intimate means close social relations, which is different to how we commonly define the word.

Against Our Will: Men, Women and Rape (1974)

Jewish author Susan Brownmiller argues that rape is a conscious process of intimidation by which all men keep all women in a state of fear. She criticizes men such as Richard von Krafft-Ebing, Sigmund Freud, Karl Marx, and Friedrich Engels for their oversights on rape, especially challenging the Freudian concept of rape fantasies. Her book is credited with inflencing changes in law regarding rape.

Pornography: Men Possessing Women (1981)

Andrea Dworkin argues that pornography dehumanizes women and that the industry itself is implicated in violence against women. She analyzes the contemporary and historical pornography industry in how it abuses women, both in production and consequences from consumption by men. This leads to humiliation and abuse of women.

Ain't I A Woman? (1981)

Titled after Sojourner Truth's speech, Black writer bell hooks examines the effects of misogynoir on Black women, the civil rights movement, and the feminist movements from suffrage to 1970s. She argues that the convergence of sexism and racism during slavery contributed to Black women having the lowest status and worst conditions of any group in American society. Furthermore, she argues that the stereotypes during slavery allowed white society to justify the devaluation of Black femininity and rape of Black women. She also argues that Black nationalism was a largely misogynist movement and the feminist movement did not articulate the needs of poor and non-white women.

Against Sadomasochism (1982)

An anthology with multiple authors, they critique sadomasochism and BDSM from a feminist perspective. Sadomasochism is described as being rooted in patriarchal sexual ideology. Three pieces cites the movement as insensitive to the experiences of black woman, citing "master/slave" relationships. Susan Leigh Star cites the use of swastikas and other Nazi imagery by BDSM practitioners as inherently antisemitic. Marissa Jonel and Elizabeth Harris give personal accounts of their experiences with sadomasochism, while Paula Tiklicorect and Melissa Bay Mathis use satire in their pieces.

Sweet Freedom: The Struggle for Women's Liberation (1982)

Anna Coote, Beatrix Campbell, and Christine Roche look at the progress of women's liberation so far and examine the the reasons for its achivements and failures. As active feminists since the early days of the movement, they provide a unique historical account and strategy for the future. She critiques The Feminine Mystique (1963) as being a limited perspective on women's reality despite its usefulness about the impact of misogyny on housewives, since it did not include non-white women. She uses the term "white-supremacist capitalist patriarchy" as a lens through which to both critique American culture and to offer solutions to the problems she explores. She addresses the goals of feminism, pacifism, solidarity, and the nature of revolution.

Feminist Theory: From Margin to Center (1984)

A feminist theory by bell hooks, bell hooks wrote the book as a response to the need for theory that took into account gender, race, and class.

Sisterhood Is Global (1984)

Edited by Robin Morgan, this anthology of feminist writings is the follow-up to Sisterhood is Powerful (1970). It was hailed as a historic publishing event and the definitive text on the international women's movement. It is typically a course text in women's studies, international affairs, global economics, and other disciplines. After its release, Sisterhood Is Forever was published in 2003.

The Spinster and Her Enemies (1985)

Lesbian author Professor Shelia Jeffreys examines feminist involves in the Social Purity movement at the turn of the century. Note: Shelia Jeffrey advocates for political lesbians, albeit her definition of a political lesbian is a "woman-identified woman who does not fuck men." Definitely not the worst of what I've written in "Note:" but I thought it should be mentioned as it is in many of her works as well as political lesbianism being lesbophobic.

Intercourse (1987)

Andrea Dworkin provides a radical feminist analysis of sexual intercourse in literature and society. She argued that the depicitions of intercourse in mainstream art and culture consistently emphasized penis-in-vagina intercourse as the only, most genuine form of "real sex." This kind of depiction then enforces a male-centric, coercive view of sexuality, thus making heterosexual intercourse itself become a central part of men's occupation of women. Although often read as her arguing that heterosexual sex is always rape based on the quote "violation is a synonym for intercourse", Dworkin had stated that "What I think is that sex must not put women in a subordinate position. It must be reciprocal and not an act of aggression from a man looking only to satisfy himself. That is my point."

Feminism Unmodified (1987)

Preceded by Sexual Harrassment of Working Women (1979) and followed by Pornography and Civil Rights (1989), legal scholar Catharine A. MacKinnon archives her collection of critical essays about pornography and liberal feminism. This book is one of the most widely cited books on law in the English language.

Toward a Feminist Theory of the State (1989)

Catharine A. MacKinnon argues that feminism had no account of male power as an ordered yet deranged whole. She proposes her book as an answer to this problem. She takes Marxism as the theory's point of departure. Unlike liberal theories, she states that Marxism confronts organized social dominance, analyzes it in dynamic rather than static terms,identifies social forces that systematically shape social imperatives, and seeks to explain social freedom both within and against history.

Only Words (1993)

Catharine A. MacKinnon contends that the U.S. legal system has used a First Amendment basis to protect intimidation, subordination, terrorism, and discrimination as enacted through pornography. She believes this violates the equal protection guarantee of the Fourteenth Amendment. Her book is divided into three discussions: defamation and discrimination, racial and sexual harassment, and equality and speech.

Radically Speaking: Feminism Reclaimed (1996)

This collection reveals the global reach of radical feminism and analyze the causes and solutions to patriarchal oppression. Author Diane Bell shows how radical feminist analysis cuts across class, race, sexuality, region, and religion. She makes visible how male control is exercised in every sphere of women's lives. Contributors to this book include Robin Morgan, Catherine MacKinnon, Marcia Gillespie, and Andrea Dworkin. The editors also asserted that radical feminism should always welcome and acknowledge the diversity of women while stressing commonality. Note: There is a section on therapy and how it is believed to undermine the practice of radical feminism. Do not think this means you are a "bad activist" by going to therapy. If you are interested, there is a type of therapy known as feminist therapy.

Scapegoat: The Jews, Israel, and Women's Liberation (2000)

Andrea Dworkin begins with an analysis of antisemitism and misogyny in world history, making a comparison between the persecution of Jews and the oppression of women. She discusses the sexual politics of Jewish identity and antisemitism, and called for the establishment of a women's homeland as a response to the oppression of women. Note: There is discussion of present-day Israel in this book and the book was found offensive to both Zionists and non-Zionists when it was published. Although Andrea Dworkin stated she supported the Jewish right to have their own state, she described Israel as a male-dominated, militaristic society built on a form of "near apartheid" against Palestinians and Arab Israelis. I recognized that the subtitle is controversial, so I thought fit to include this Note: here.

Sisterhood Is Forever (2003)

The final anthology to the Sisterhood Is series, it has more than 50 women contributing 60 essays. It discusses feminism's emphases and accomplishments as of 2003. Essays range in tone from scholarly to narrative and provide both conservative and liberal viewpoints. The focus is in the United States, addressing why feminism is still needed by providing alarming statistics from the United States.

Feminists Who Changed America, 1963-1975 (2006)

Lesbian editor Barbara J. Love created a comprehensive directory to document many of the founders and leaders of second wave feminism in America. It tells the stories of more than two thousand women who made permanent changes to customs and laws. She briefly discusses women's liberation to the earlier first wave feminism and presents a brief overview of what second wave feminism means.

The Industrial Vagina (2008)

Lesbian author Professor Shelia Jeffreys writes how prostitution has become a burgeoning and immensely profitable global market sector. She describes the globalization of sex markets, saying: "the right of men to women's bodies for sexual use has not gone, but remains an assumption at the basis of heterosexual relationship." She also draws links between marriage and prostitution, such as mail-order brides. Note: Shelia Jeffreys does advocate for political lesbianism, although she defines it as a "woman-identified-woman who does not fuck men". Very very tame in comparison to about Notes: on this list, but I thought it was important to mention as political lesbianism is lesbophobic.

The Silencing of Feminist Criticism of "Gender" (2013)

Written by thirty-seven radical feminists from five countries, the publication concerns itself with the rise of "gender theory," which avoids naming men and the system of male supremacy as the beneficiaries of women's oppression. It details how organizations tied to radical feminism have been treated by certain proponents of gender theory, such as individual Deep Green Resistance members being threatened with arson, rape, and murder. It also compares the similarities of reactions to feminism by transgender male-to-female individuals and Men's Rights Activists.

[italian-queer-history]

''Fuori! Mensile di Liberazione Sessuale''

To start off this blog with style, let's begin with a magazine created by the ''Fuori!'' Association, meaning ''Out!'' [of the closet], also known as ''F.U.O.R.I.'' Association, the acronym for ''Fronte Unitario Omosessuale Rivoluzionario Italiano'' (Italian United Homosexual Revolutionary Front).

This association followed Marxist beliefs, and was active in the 70s, being one of the first groups fighting for the rights of homosexuals in Italy (here ''homosexual'' is used as an umbrella term).

This group was active from 1971 to 1982 and published a magazine with the same name during its life.

Initially, the magazine was supposed to be published once a month, but due to financial problems, it soon started publishing once every three months and by the end of its life, it was published irregularly.

In ten years, there were 32 issues published.

Here's the link to all of them. This old site, omofonie, that's now recorded in the Wayback Machine, did what this blog is doing right now: collects and records Italian queer history. There are also some sources in English, French, and German, on the ''link'' page.

Here's the translation of the cover and the first page of the first issue.

Issue n.1 - June 1972

Aside from what I've already translated, the text under ''giu '72'' says ''monthly magazine for sexual liberation.'' Also, this magazine costed 400 lire, Italy's currency before the euro, which would be about 20 cents nowadays.

Here's the list of articles featured on the first page:

FUORI! collective: Homosexuality and Liberation;

Angelo Pezzana: Who speaks for the homosexuals?;

Sanremo: How to win against those who oppress us;

Alfredo Cohen: Against psychiatry;

Domenico Tallone: The warlocks of capital;

Fernanda Pivano's page;

Cuba-Spain-Feminism: Green Aid;

Page 1: Homosexuality and Liberation

Unfortunately, the text is printed in a very, very tiny font, so it's really difficult to post it in a way that makes it readable. I suggest going to the Wayback machine link if you want to read it properly.

This is the page that talks about ''Homosexuality and Liberation'' as the text in the middle of the page says. Honestly, I have no idea what the little illustration is supposed to be.

Here's the translation of this whole article:

''We've come out, but with a fundamental, authentically revolutionary condition: we've come out with the demand to be ourselves, with the will to find our vital identity again, in a structure where the OTHER has absorbed, morphed, prohibited any expression of the SELF.

Suddenly, without any middle ground solutions, without any stops or reformist checks, we've found in ourselves the right to life, which is first and foremost the right to our body.

We've surpassed the barrier of acceptance that's being offered, urgently, to us, but that is just the ''non-life of everybody''.

We've discovered, in the cultural mediation against our cause, the devitalization and the sinking of the cause itself and we've claimed the right, for ourselves and ourselves only, to talk about homosexuality.

And we've finally understood that our ''abnormality'' is a privilege, at the moment in which, discovering its roots in general oppression, it's allowed us to immediately gain a conscience that goes way beyond the homosexual problem.

⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯

Coming out, for a homosexual, can be everything or nothing, the action that makes one's history or cancels it.

The ''enfant gatè''[1] of literature, the well-awarded director[2], the interior decorator who's absolutely ''in'', they've all come out.

One is still desperately searching for his ''innocence'', he asks for it, he wants it back, he announces it.

Another one shoots fireworks and graciously winks: such a bad girl, but so good[3]!

Another one has a tendency for socio-cultural mediation: the tragedy of the immigrant, the decadent symbolism, the undoing of the bourgeoisie: in any case, any deviation will be met with death.

The crowd cheers, they're all very reassured: beyond that, there's emptiness. The madame, pleased and reassured, chirps: ''This director is so subversive!''[4]

And they, ''out''side only live in their lethal role.

⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯

[1]: Spoiled child;

[2]: Perhaps a jab at famous director Pier Paolo Pasolini, who was gay himself. Angelo Pezzana (founder of the FUORI Association) met him in 1972 and asked him to collaborate in the magazine, but he refused;

[3]: Intended as good at his craft;

[4]: Perhaps another jab at Pasolini. Some of his characters are gay stereotypes, depicted with contempt. One of his characters, a gay man wearing women's clothes, commits suicide in one of his movies;

⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯

THE ROLE: The father, the mother, the son, the professor, the student, the manual laborer, the office employee, the artist, the beautiful, the ugly, the competent, the incompetent.

Three roles for you, five for me, only one for the homosexual: the homosexual, precisely.

The role upsets you, chokes you, you feel it, you want to get out of it.

But then the other role comes in, the one given to you as gratification. The assembly line worker, the production line worker, he understands he can't take it anymore, he wants to explode.

But, once he's home, he's FATHER: ''Whoever has the responsibility of a family can't tolerate disorder!"

And then the mother, more and more desperately mother so the oppressed female[5] that's underneath her, won't understand her situation, won't rebel, she'll ask for a nice Communion for her daughter, a new backpack, plasmon cookies instead.

Everything for her son, everything, and the best of everything.

So then the FATHER - who can doubt that the father is a man? - starts to doubt the validity of his last strike! What a beautiful Communion, though[6].

But not the homosexual, he doesn't have any gratification roles: he's just homosexual.

The professor is competent, always. But the homosexual professor grooms children.

The labels that others have absorb everything else [about them], but whatever role the homosexual has is absorbed by his homosexuality.

The famous homosexual can be just that, so long as he hides, masks himself, and apologizes for his homosexuality. The label wins again.

The lack of gratification roles for homosexuals is only condemnation for those who, like everyone else, are searching for a decent place in a society that gives away dignity but also appropriates itself of any vital space in exchange, they're giving up on their life.

These people want to be accepted, and they don't know that acceptance is offered to them. In some countries, they get married too. They haven't understood that it's in the logic of the capital to absorb people and give back automatons.

You, homosexual, also want to be a man? You can't: be a spouse! You'll have your little gratification in dignity and a clear role, all to the advantage of the bossman: now you'll be able to produce and consume in peace, like everyone else.

In the capitals of the north, capitals of wellbeing, of so-called sexual freedom, the condition of free homosexuals is frightening: they've been accepted at the precise conditions of the capital and, is there even any need to say it, it's at [the capital's] advantage only.

Yes, because conditional acceptance is also in the capital's logic. Whoever wants to rule needs servants, and acceptance is exchanged with servitude.

This shameful pact was proposed to the [N-word][7] of America, But now they've understood it, and the Black Panthers are choking the presumptuous white man with it.

‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒

[5]: I'm not sure why the word ''female'' was used, instead of ''woman''. In Italian, it sounds like a childish term, but maybe that was the intent?

[6]: Sarcastic;

[7]: I think it's important to mention that this term in Italy doesn't have the same historical context as in the US, although the term is still rooted in racism. Nowadays, people are starting to avoid it, also because of the influence of the US. I believe that, at the time, it was the only term used to describe black people at all, but I'm still going to censor it;

‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒

THE KULTURE[8] today offers mediation to the homosexual. The enlightened culture, of course. But what meaning does this mediation have? What is the cultural mediation of homosexuality?

It's acceptance again, through the ability to retrieve the homosexual phenomenon, through its pre-established mental order: it's the tale of what doesn't belong to it, the analysis that hasn't been pushed by one's own motivations and prevents others from participating. So, the data must be manipulated, considered, studied, and always manipulated.[9]

The literary populism of the '50s, which seemed fundamental at the time, was pushed back to its exact proportions: that of the ''culturalization'' of a tragically real problem, which, mediated, explained, and digested by those people who know everything, the cultured and vomited back to those who own this Kulture by right, the wealthy[10], was consumed and extinct on the shoulders of the unaware underclass.

Frustrated, their identity eliminated by a role they think they have chosen but that actually rules over them, those who know everything, the educated, speak of the OTHERS.

More or less convinced of their alleged task of social push, but sure of their own success, they measure their validity on the unconditional approval of those they curse.

And so they faithfully reproduce the production-consumption process, actively cooperating in maintaining and consolidating the same system that they ''bravely'' declared that they want to change.

Cultural mediation for a homosexual turns out to be frightfully empty because it translates into seeking approval from the same establishment that created and maintains those oppressive conditions.

And it cannot be otherwise: whoever has vital urges but asks others, the ''competent ones'' for a solution, confesses their fear and implicitly accepts their condition of inferiority.

Not only does that not solve the problem, but it sinks it.

‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒

[8]: I'm not sure why it's spelled with a K, the correct spelling would be ''Cultura'', my guess is that it's meant to point out its evil nature;

[9]: I'm gonna be completely honest here, I have no idea what this paragraph says. It's straight-up word vomit, in both languages. I can probably guess that the author was condemning cishet authors speaking on queer topics, but from the rest of the article it seems like they're angry at queer people pandering to straight people and portraying themselves as ''one of the good ones'' while shoving the other under the bus;

[10]: Sarcastic;

‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒

CORPORALITY: The more it is attacked, squashed, and deprived of vitality, the more incorporated becomes the process of transferring the product on that larva that is man, more or less defined by those reifying[11] structures.

From the whole mind of an intellectual to the body-maker of production of the factory worker, the choice isn't possible anymore.

''Be an object'' is the only imperative because in the production-consumption dynamic your whole body doesn't have a place.

Wash, wear perfume, don't stink, grow, be taller, be larger, be shorter, have a white smile, digest, are all imperatives from which you can't exempt yourself, but you'll never be able to use their product if not to start again the process, of which the product is the goal and its degraded means is your body: the sponge!

And the more degraded your body is, the better your ability to absorb.

When consumption became necessary to capitalism, the mine was already there: it just needed to make use of it, making sure to keep the vein intact.

And so the banquet started over the body of women, that centuries-old patriarchy had eliminated and, having overcome a few taboos promptly replaced by the ''morals'' of production, and then moved on to an even more mortified body: that of the homosexual.

Both of them have been used to considering themselves object-holes for centuries, so they're both ready and subservient, these allies-slaves of production offer their own enslavement to anyone.

From the pages of a fashion magazine, the homosexual winks at his crotch in his extra-tight pants, and the woman offers her entire body. Everyone will have ''beer'' as sex[12].

But the woman and the homosexual will also receive the contempt that comes with the anger of deceit, they'll be the on the receiving end of other's self-contempt.

The process is actually way more subtle than what it would appear from a commodifying advertisement.[12] With the help of the western churches' negation of corporality, the bourgeois morality managed to stick even where the re-discovery of the body as liberation should have been one of the basic factors of the revolutionary process.

Because behind the screen of the clamored ''priorities'', of the action intended as a necessary but PAINFUL process, of the inane effort of cultural endorsement to action, how is it possible to not see the FEAR or liberation, which is the bourgeoise fear of the exchange between life and object?

⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯

[11]: In Marxist belief, reducing man to the condition of object;

[12]: I'm not sure what they mean by ''everyone will be having beer as sex'' but I think this is supposed to reference 70s beer ads that usually featured women in suggestive poses;

The revolution is JOY and it is so in the moment in which, overcoming all the barriers of a non-vital condition, it becomes LIBERATION.

Homosexuality, when it becomes conscious of its existence as an aberrant product of a society of production only[13], jumps over the far-too-easy demagogy of a class problem, in which static is only the refusal to abandon the OBJECT.

And it puts itself at the center of a dynamic process, where its means is the breakdown of the capitalistic-bourgeoisie structures, and at its end is the recovery of PERSONHOOD[14].

Because the homosexual, who doesn't have any gratifying roles to cling to hide his desperation, who doesn't have a culture to propose unrealistic ideals to and to whom the condition of object, hidden to others, appears in all its brutal evidence, can't not unmask any and all attempts to exploit us, from whichever side it might come.

The homosexuals of FUORI! have come out with the conscience of their homosexuality. But with the will to push their condition to the highest consequence, the revolution, and with the certainty that their revolution is LIBERATION!

COLLECTIVE FUORI!

⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯

[13]: As in, the exploitation of capitalism turning homosexuality into a product;

[14]: The original text says ''the recovery of MAN'' but I thought personhood fit better;

⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯���⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯

Whew, all done! This took me a long time! I didn't expect to find out 70s drama, but also the conversations here are still surprisingly relevant.

Second page coming soon, sorry but these guys write A LOT, and what they write doesn't always make sense.

[frankendeers]

I am Made of Love and It’s Stronger Than You: Steven Universe and Models of Queer Resistance in Science-Fiction

Chapter 1. Science-Fiction and Resistance in Queer Subjectivity 

“In other words, queer resistances emerge when the mechanisms of heteronormativity are exposed, when the concepts of gender and sexuality are being rearticulated in ways that defy the exclusion of subjects whose identities, desires, and practices are considered contradictory and unintelligible, and when ‘the presumption of heterosexuality’ no longer holds.” (Dhaenens, Articulations of Queer Resistance 4). 

In order to articulate how Steven Universe makes use of Science-fiction conventions to explore models of queer resistance, it is first necessary to examine how queerness is woven into the fabric of its setting. Although Gems as a species are distinctly queer, their society serves as a metaphor for the various ways the centre seeks to regulate categories of identity and desire. This section will not only demonstrate how the show utilises its speculative elements to express different modes of queerness, but also argue that herein lies a possibility for resistance. In the world of Steven Universe, queerness is not merely a vector for non-normative forms of desire and expression but also a powerful tool to dismantle systems of oppression. Refusing to assimilate to the hegemonic discourse means exposing the artificial processes with which these are constructed and denaturalising them in the process. These forms of denaturalisation function simultaneously as a legitimising force for queer subjectivities. It will, furthermore become clearer, how Steven Universe sees queerness in itself as a force of positivity. 

1.1. Gender and Performativity 

One of the most notable aspects of the show is the fact that all members of its alien race, the Gems, are presenting as female. Due to his hybrid nature, Steven is the only alien character to exhibit a male gender identity. This immediately separates Steven Universe from the values of hegemonic society which usually sees the masculine as representative of universality: “[…] the female body is marked within masculine discourse, whereby the masculine body, in its conception with the universe, remains unmarked.” (Butler, Gender Trouble 17). The show subverts the expectation of maleness being an unquestioned neutral, by never fully explaining why the gems refer to themselves using female pronouns and to what extent they actually identify with womanhood. Instead, Steven Universe asks the viewer to accept this premise and, in the process, turn the feminine into the new “unmarked” position. 

While the idea of single gender alien societies is not new, it is indicative of science-fiction’s power of questioning “heteronormative implications of progress” by “reimagining […] gender, sexuality, and identity.” (Thibodeau 263). In other words, while the Gems are repeatedly shown to be a highly advanced species, their singular gender separates them from the concept of heterosexuality. In fact, the heterosexual matrix cannot operate in Gem society, as it relies on both the existence of a rigid gender binary and the stability of the two genders it represents (cp. Butler, Gender Trouble 184). 

Steven Universe’s Gem race adhere to neither standard. Thomas adds that the Gems themselves have no biological sex or gender identity, in a way that humans might understand, therefore inviting queer analysis (cp. Thomas 4). Seeing as Gems are “outside of human conceptualisations of sex and gender” (cp. Férnandez 64), it only follows that their means of reproduction must also differentiate itself from human ideas about birth and sexual intercourse. In its place, the show offers an alternative model that shows Gems as artificially grown in gigantic plantations referred to as “kindergardens” (“On the Run”). The inorganic nature of Gem production completely subverts the heterosexual narrative around the importance of birth and family making. Such an analysis harkens back to Lee Edelman’s polemic No Future: Queer Theory and The Death Drive. Here, Edelman famously argues that the centring of the Child as the symbol for heterosexual reproduction stands in direct opposition to queerness. The Child is used to always deflect political action onto the future, stalling meaningful change (cp. Edelman 3). For Gems, neither children nor heterosexual reproduction are of any concern. The show establishes that they “burst out of the earth’s crust already knowing what they’re supposed to be” (“Greg the Babysitter” 06:50— 06:59). By utilising the genre of science-fiction, Steven Universe thus suggests to the audience that a separation of creating life and heterosexuality is possible, which broadens the perspectives about queer possibilities. 

The possibilities configured in the show’s alien species also expand to the realms of more profound matters of queer identity. The episode “Steven the Sword Fighter” reveals that Gem bodies are not material. A Gem’s consciousness is merely stored within her gem which in turn projects the body to the outside world. Therefore, a Gem’s appearance is merely “a conscious manifestation of light” (“Last One Out Of Beach City” 09:46—09:50). This feature of alien biology relates to Judith Butler’s theory on the performativity of gender. According to her work Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity, gender is not essential nor innate, but produced through repeated performative acts. These behaviours are regulated by cultural norms which then are projected onto the body: “[…] [A]cts, gestures, and desire produce the effect of an internal core or substance, but produce this on the surface of the body, through play of signifying absences that suggest, but not reveal, the organizing principle of identity as a cause. Such acts, gestures, enactments, generally construed, are to express fabrications manufactured and sustained through corporeal signs and other discursive means.” (Butler, Gender Trouble 188). True to this notion, the Gems reflect their identity onto their bodies, proving that, at least for them “gender is always a doing” (Butler, Gender Trouble 34). Steven Universe successfully shows by means of alien biology how femininity is a performance that can be presented by anyone or anything (cp. Thomas 6). This is a notion that is conform with queer theory’s aim of rendering essentialist notions of identity obsolete (cp. Hall 93) and contributes to the larger goal of achieving queer liberation. 

The ways the different characters make use of their abilities to play with gender are manifold and reflective of their progression as characters.  Valentín rightfully states that one of the more interesting aspects of the show is the unique ways in which all characters straddle the lines between masculinity and femininity (cp. Valentín 203). 

Amethyst in particular promises deeper insights into the potential of different configurations of gender and identity. As Gem bodies are essentially illusions, Gems have the explicit power to shapeshift, stressing the usefulness of speculative elements for queer explorations. Here, Amethyst stands out as she makes use of this power the most, constantly shifting between different appearances. She impersonates people, turns into animals, and even embodies inanimate objects for her own amusement. The casualness with which she regards shapeshifting show cases a fluid stance towards identity that is explicitly revelling in the act of imitation and queers her abilities. Moreover, it could even be said that Amethyst constantly parodies the notion of identity itself and mocks those with a more rigid mindset. Thomas implies that her experimentation with different gender expressions suggests a complicated relationship to identity, while still remaining open and playful (cp. Thomas 6). When Steven’s father, Greg, tells her, he is uncomfortable with shapeshifting, she transforms into him and replies: “Oh, I forgot. You’re so sensitive.” (“Maximum Capacity” 09:00—09:10). For Eli Dunn, these instances can force the viewer to recognise the implications of gender as a construct in ways that hold meaning for making a queer worldview more accessible: “The ability of the Gems to change their gender representation at will is a type of magic that fundamentally disconnects notions of gender from gender identity in the mind of the viewer. When the viewer is told that the Gems bodies are constructed and unreal, the viewer is forced to reconsider the implications of the female coded body traits […]” (Dunn 47). 

Regardless, Amethyst’s queer approach towards identity does not mean a complete disconnection to the concept itself. On the contrary, the effects of internalised self-hatred are most visible in Amethyst’s expressions of body variance. A later episode shows Amethyst’s physical body being repeatedly destroyed, forcing her to retreat into her Gem and regenerate (“Reformed”). Due to her impatience, she does not undergo the process as intended and returns in a deformed state. As the episode continues, her teammates chastise her to do it properly, leading to her spitefully taking on more and more ridiculous forms. While doing so, she mocks the notions of what constitutes a “proper” body at all: “Just as bodily surfaces are enacted as the natural, so these surfaces can become the site of a dissonant and denaturalizes performance that reveals the performative status of the natural itself.” (Butler, Gender Trouble 200). In this way, Amethyst’s alien abilities function as a tool of critique, revealing how the body can act as performance. The interesting part is, that Amethyst’s questioning of bodily norms does not only read as  decisively queer, but also thematises how repressive norms can affect an individual. 

As Gem society is extraordinarily normative, Amethysts are expected to attain a certain standard of height. Even though shapeshifting is a possibility for Gems, the ability requires conscious effort and is therefore not sustainable. It is because of this reason that Amethyst’s lack of height is considered a defect on Homeworld. Melzer states that identity performance always acts within a “highly regulative set of norms” which dictate what is considered a valid representative of any given category (cp. Melzer 43). Amethyst moves between gendered positions by means of coping with Gem society finding her to be insufficient. As height is often associated with strength and masculinity, Amethyst occasionally takes on the wrestling persona of “Purple Puma” (“Tiger Millionaire”). While in this form, she towers over ordinary people, exhibiting a flat, hairy chest and uses masculine pronouns for herself (cp. Valentín 204). Jack Halberstam recognises that some forms of female masculinity are a form of “social rebellion” or “the place of pathology” wherein women use masculine signifiers to escape restrictive expectations (cp. Halberstam, Female Masculinity 9). These observations are in accordance with Butler’s assertion that gender as a performance is “open to splitting, self-parody, self-criticism, and those hyperbolic exhibitions of “the natural” that, in their very exaggeration, reveal its fundamentally phantasmic status.” (Butler, Gender Trouble 200). 

Not only does Amethyst’s repeated mockery of body and gender norms expose them as illusions, but the show itself hints at experimentation with identity possibly alleviating feelings of inadequacy. Amethyst confesses later that she does not need the figure of Purple Puma anymore, as she now accepts herself the way she is: “I needed it when I felt like I wasn’t good enough. But I don’t feel that way anymore” (“Tiger Philanthropist” 07:10—07:16). Nevertheless, the show manages to avoid pathologizing queerness. The end of the episode shows Amethyst return to her alter ego, not in search for validation but because her time as a wrestler “meant everything (to her)” (“Tiger Philanthropist” 09:03—09:06). Without disregarding the play on parodic masculinity as a coping mechanism, Steven Universe attests a healing quality to the experimentation with gender. The alien body is presented as the site of social criticism, as well as positive connotations to queerness itself. These positive feelings towards queerness are depicted as harbouring an immense power for resisting further oppression. 

How an acceptance of one’s own status as a queered entity can be harvested for resistance, is perfectly encapsulated in Amethyst’s confrontation with the enemy Gem Jasper. The parallels between these two opposing factions are clear: Jasper, similarly to Amethyst, was created to be a Homeworld soldier. Contrary to Amethyst, however, Jasper is described as the perfect example of what her specific Gem type should be (cp. “Beta”). Jasper herself asserts her superiority and makes clear the consequences of not fulfilling Homeworld’s demands: “Every Gem is made for a purpose: to serve the order of the Diamonds. Those who cannot fit inside this order must be purged!” (“Earthlings” 02:00— 02:06). In this sense, Jasper functions as the embodiment of Homeworld’s hegemonic discourse that excludes undesirable bodies and identities. She looks down on queerness and explicitly connects her abilities to serve the rigid system to her own worth: “Fighting is my life! It’s what I was made for! It is what you were made for too, runt.” (“Crack the Whip” 07:35—07:42). As Jasper repeatedly judges Amethyst according to normative standards of body and identity, Amethyst’s desire for victory over Jasper is framed as Amethyst complying to Homeworld’s demands. Instead of accepting her difference and alignment to queered identities, Amethyst attempts to meet Jasper on her terms which can only result in failure: “Steven... I can't win. No matter what I do, no matter how hard I work, she came out right, and I came out... wrong...” (“Earthlings” 03:54—04:05). It is when Steven redirects her focus onto the strength of their shared status as queer subjectivities, that they decide to team up: “That's just what Jasper thinks. She's the only one who thinks you should be like her! Stop trying to be like Jasper. You're nothing like Jasper! You're like me! Because we're both not like anybody.” (“Earthlings” 04:05— 04:18). In this way, Amethyst’s acceptance of her queered body leads to a connection to Steven as an ally in shared marginalisation. Their subsequent fusion defeats Jasper with ease where both of them alone where unable to do so. 

Although fusion will be examined in detail later, its role in this encounter is particularly meaningful. Fusion, as the process of merging bodies, revolves around the feminine realms of emotional connection and the queer concept of blurring the boundaries of body and mind, turning it into the perfect metaphor for the strength of acceptance and unity for queer liberation purposes. In contrast to Jasper, Amethyst’s closeness to fluid identities and queerness makes it easier for her to engage in fusion and find strength. While it is true that Steven Universe does not negate physical limitations, the show proposes queer solidarity and self-acceptance as means of liberation. 

The theme of gender expression standing in direct correlation to healing is also explored from a different angle in the character of Pearl. Pearl’s relationship to gender fluidity and performative identity is best understood when analysed through the lenses of lesbianism and female masculinity. Naturally, this beckons the question of how technically genderless aliens can be regarded lesbian. This is deeply connected to the nature of the category woman itself. Jack Halberstam criticises the mindset of restricting the boundaries of womanhood while leaving the lines of masculinity open: “[…] why is it [….] that one finds the limits of femininity so quickly whereas the limits of masculinity [….] seem fairly expansive?” (Halberstam, Female Masculinity 28). The policing of womanhood can be traced back to the masculine as unquestioned neutral territory when the feminine is only allowed to be represented by a highly specific set of features. When we return to Butler, the problem starts to dissolve in her theory of performativity. Womanhood is a set of behaviours and not dictated by biology: “The very subject of women is no longer understood in stable or abiding terms.” (Butler, Gender Trouble 2). The category of woman is henceforth rendered queer, as it is unstable and subject to change. 

To regard Pearl as a woman and lesbian is therefore to view her identity not in terms of heteronormative discourses of biology, but allowing for the possibility to extrapolate valuable insights about gendered positions in society: “However, in an exploration of the fundamental instability of the category “women” does not find against feminism but, in resisting the urge to foreclose prematurely that category, licenses new possibilities for a feminism that constitutes “women” as the effect of, not the prerequisite for, its inquiries.” (Jagose, Way Out 273). With regards to the popular definition of lesbians as women cultivating romantic relationship with other women, identifying Pearl as a lesbian is a valid point of analysis. Steven Universe takes great care to repeatedly emphasise and explore the relationship between Pearl and Steven’s mother, Rose. The romantic attraction Pearl harbours for Rose defines her character and affects most of her actions throughout the course of the show. Interestingly, her progression in terms of lesbian affiliations and resistance towards Homeworld’s demands are reflected onto her body in increasingly explicit ways. Pearl embodies a progression into female masculinity where her gender performance changes with her widening understanding of liberation. This harkens back to Halberstam’s identification of female masculinity as a tool to subvert masculine power by turning a “blind eye to conventional masculinities and refusing to engage” (Halberstam, Female Masculinity 9). 

To understand this better, one needs to examine the role Pearl is meant to fulfil in the social hierarchy of her home planet. Pearls, as a category of Gems, are made to serve and entertain elite Gems: “[…] Pearls aren’t made for this. They are meant for looking nice and holding your stuff for you […]” (“Back to the Barn” 03:02—03:12). Pearls are therefore, more than other Gem categories, marked with femininity and womanhood. Simone de Beauvoir remarks upon women’s role as subservient to  masculine powers, always forced to obey as the perpetual Other (cp. de Beauvoir 29). Pearls are not only meant for the purpose of servitude, but also reduced to their appearance which usually mirrors that of her master: Upon examining Pearl, a Homeworld Gem remarks: “It looks like a fancy one, too. Who do you belong to anyway?” (“Back to the Barn” 03:38—03:42). Pearl herself disturbs these lines and expresses liberation through a refusal of participation in the hegemony of Homeworld, going as far as to openly rebel against it. 

The progression becomes ever so clearer when the programme offers a flashback to show how Pearl conducted herself on Homeworld. Her dress is designed to be decidedly feminine while she defaults to a subservient body position. As Homeworld demands conformity to the role of a “Pearl”, the parallels to earth’s gender discourse become highly visible. Despite the Gem at the core of their being serving as the only material reality behind their existence, Homeworld society expects a certain set of presentation and behaviours from each Gem. Deviation from the norm is not allowed and can be met with punishment. With regards to her latter transformation, Pearl’s position on Homeworld recalls Butler: “Femininity is taken on by a woman who ‘wishes for masculinity,’ but fears the retributive consequences of taking on the public appearance of masculinity.” (Butler, Gender Trouble 70). After Pearl flees to earth and joins a rebellion against Homeworld’s regime, her presentation and performance become masculinised. She takes up sword fighting, fully knowing that this is not acceptable for a Pearl (“Sworn to the Sword”), and her subsequent regenerations take on more masculine aspects with each iteration: “The lesbian body, then, (like every body) is discursively constructed, a cultural text, on the surface of which the constantly changing, and contradictory possible meanings of “lesbian” are inscribed and resisted.” (Jagose, Way out 280). 

First, Pearl’s dress is exchanged for a pair of leggings with a tule skirt serving as a layer (“Gem Glow”), the second transformation shows her abandoning the skirt while still suggesting a feminine alignment by incorporating a large bow into her outfit (“Steven The Sword Fighter”). Meanwhile, the colour pink becomes less apparent in her design with time. The show suggests Pearl’s move from the feminine towards the masculine end of the spectrum that is used to embody resistance to Homeworld’s demands of femininity. In other words, Pearl’s female masculinity is constructed in the same way, even conceived through the same discursive means, as the hegemonic identity she inhabited before (cp. Jagose, Way out 278). Pearl’s identity becomes queered as her body proves to be signifier of gender fluidity that always changes within contexts (cp. Butler, Gender Trouble 188). This can be seen as a typical articulation of queer resistance, as it not only exposes the artificiality of gendered categories but also refuses to replicate them (cp. Butler, Gender Trouble 201). Steven Universe implies a connection between queer desires and the ways they are reflected on the body. Halberstam himself states that this mixture can be particularly dangerous to heteronormative society: “[…] when and where female masculinity conjoins with possibly queer identities, it is far less likely to meet with approval. Because female masculinity seems to be at its most threatening when coupled with lesbian desire.” (Halberstam, Female Masculinity 28). 

The programme outright states that the moment of awakening for Pearl is directly incited by her love for Rose to whom she was gifted as a servant: “I was supposed to make her happy. I just never could” (“Now We’re Only Falling Apart” 03:06—03:10). Seeing how Rose is uncomfortable with the restrictions on Homeworld, Pearl incites the first sparks of rebellion in an effort to make her happy. She suggests tricking the authorities and spending a day on earth when it was explicitly forbidden for Rose to do so (“Now We’re Only Falling Apart”). This slight misdemeanour quickly spirals out of control, as both Pearl and Rose grow endeared by Earth and develop a desire to live there freely. The liberational implications of their actions are hard to miss. They harken back to the building of queer utopia which proves how queerness itself “is a longing that propels us onward, beyond romances of the negative and toiling of the present. Queerness is that thing that lets us feel that this world is not enough, that indeed something is missing.” (Muñoz 1). 

However, Pearl’s freedom from authorities may be paradoxically stifled because of her connections to Rose. The programme grapples with the fact that Pearl’s wish to follow Rose may be interpreted as her remaining subservient to her former master instead of breaking free. To counter that, it can be said that Pearl’s love for Rose is completely inappropriate to Homeworld society. When Pearl attempts to fuse with Rose, she exclaims: “This is very not allowed.” (“Now We’re Only Falling Apart” 09:58—10:01). This means that their lesbian relationship is a societal taboo that gives room to further transgression and ultimately, rebellion. How exactly queer love and the war against oppression are cause and effect of one another within the show will be examined at a later point. For now, it is important to note that Pearl’s inability to let Rose go is presented as a failure to completely liberate herself. While the relationship is still queer, it is not equal and remains tenuously connected to the hierarchy out of which it was born. Various scenes suggest that even after Rose’s death, Pearl is unable to let go of their relationship: “Everything I ever did, I did for her. Now she’s gone. But I’m still here.” (“Rose’s Scabbard” 09:30—09:35). It is when Pearl accepts Rose’s death and experiences attraction to a human woman that her arch is completed. The episode “Last One Out Of Beach City” shows Pearl trying to flirt with a mysterious girl and breaking various rules in the process: “I am done thinking about the past. Tonight, I am all about the future.” (“Last One Out Of Beach City” 04:50—05:00). The symbol for overcoming the boundaries of her past and freeing herself from the last constraints of Homeworld’s oppression are encapsulated in her wearing a jacket. As a Gem’s attire is normally an inseparable part of her body, wearing clothes overstep Gem conventions and signify human territory. Here, she crosses lines between cultures to fulfil a romantic desire. Even her interest in the girl itself is significantly queered as an example of interspecies romance. 

The importance of this experience can be observed with Pearl’s last regeneration. Her new form reflects the change towards a more queer, liberated identity onto her body. The colour pink is entirely absent from her design, signifying her removal from symbolic femininity as well as her freedom from Rose. The ways the design incorporates pants and a jacket recall the events of “Last One Out Of Beach City” while suggesting a close alignment to the classical butch identity (“Change Your Mind”). (Fig. 1. Pearl in her jacket. “Last One Out Of Beach City.” 02:52) Amethyst shrugs off masculinist notions about strength and overcomes her desire to fit into hegemonic society by questioning the nature of normativity itself. Pearl, on the other hand, escapes demands of femininity and her fate as a servant with the transformative power of queer desire. Consequently, Steven Universe uses the alien biological components of shapeshifting and the fantastical element of alternative societies to subvert expectations of hegemonic gender and reveal the artificiality of identity as a construct. While doing so, the programme also refers to Butler’s theories in ways that renegotiate queer subjectivities along the lines of political change: “The critical task is, rather, to locate strategies of subversive repetition enabled by those constructions, to affirm the local possibilities of intervention […]” (Butler, Gender Trouble 200). Both Amethyst and Pearl gain the strength to overcome the hegemonic oppression put upon them by their home planet through means of performativity. The queer reality of Pearl’s and Amethyst’s victories negate hegemonic assumptions about identity in ways that threaten oppressive forces. Queering one’s own identity is deeply connected to envisioning a future where categories break down. By engaging in performative practices, one is already in the process of building this exact world: “Performativity and Utopia both call into question what is epistemologically there and signal a highly ephemeral ontological field that can be characterized as a doing in futurity.” (Muñoz 26).

Works Cited:

 Beauvoir, Simone de. The Second Sex. New York: Vintage Books 1989, c1952. Print. 

Butler, Judith. Undoing Gender. New York: Routledge, 2004.

 --. Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity. 1990. 

Dhaenens, Frederik: “Articulations of queer resistance on the small screen”, Continuum 28.4, 2014. Pp. 520-531. 

-- “The Fantastic Queer: Reading Gay Representations in Torchwood and True Blood as Articulations of Queer Resistance”, Critical Studies in Media Communication, 30.2, 2013. Pp. 102-116. 

Dunn, Eli: “Steven Universe, Fusion Magic, and the Queer Cartoon Carnivalesque.” Gender Forum: An Internet Journal of Gender Studies 56, 2016. Pp. 44–57. 

Edelman, Lee. No Future: Queer Theory and the Death Drive. 2004. 

Halberstam, Jack. Female Masculinity. Durham: Duke University Press, 1998.

 Hall, Donald E. Queer Theories. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan, 2003. 

Hollinger, Veronica.: “(Re)Reading Queerly: Science Fiction, Feminism, and the Defamiliarization of Gender.” Science Fiction Studies 26.1, 1999. Pp. 23–40. 

Jagose, Annamarie. Queer Theory: An Introduction. New York: New York University Press, 1996. Print. 

--: “Way Out: The Category ‘Lesbian’ and the Fantasy of the Utopic Space.” Journal of the History of Sexuality, 4.2, 1993. Pp. 264–287.

 --: “The Trouble with Antinormativity” Differences 1 26.1, 2015. Pp. 26–47. 

Jameson, Fredric. Archaeologies of the Future: The Desire Called Utopia and Other Science Fictions. London: Verso, 2005. 

Melzer, Patricia. Alien Constructions: Science Fiction and Feminist Thought. University of Texas Press, 2006.

 Merrick, Helen: “Gender in Science Fiction.” The Cambridge Companion to Science Fiction, edited by Edward James and Farah Mendlesohn, Cambridge University Press, 2003, pp. 241–252. 

Moore, Mandy Elizabeth: "Future Visions: Queer Utopia in Steven Universe," Research on Diversity in Youth Literature 2.1, 2019. Pp. 1-17. 

Muñoz, José E. Cruising Utopia: The Then and There of Queer Futurity, 2009. 

Pawlak, Wendy Sue: “The Spaces between: Non-Binary Representations of Gender in Twentieth-Century American Film.” Dissertation Abstracts International, 73.11, U of ArizonaProQuest, 2013. 

Pearson, Wendy Gay: “Alien Cryptographies: The View from Queer.” Science Fiction Studies 26.1, 1999. Pp. 1-22. 

--: “Science Fiction and Queer Theory” Published as a book chapter in: The Cambridge Companion to Science Fiction. Edward James and Farah Mendlesohn. (Eds.), 2003. Pp. 149-160. 

Roqueta Fernandez, Marta: “Posthumanism and the creation of racialised, queer identities and sexualities: An analysis of ‘Steven Universe’” Monográfico: Nuevas Amazonas, 2.7, 2019. Pp. 48-84. 78 Shelley, 

Valentin, Al: “Using the Animator’s Tools to Dismantle the Master’s House? Gender, Race, Sexuality and Disability in Cartoon Network’s Adventure Time and Steven Universe.” Buffy to Batgirl: Essays on Female Power, Evolving Femininity and Gender Roles in Science Fiction and Fantasy, edited by Julie M. Still et al., McFarland & Company Publishing, 2019, pp. 175–215. 

Vasques Vital, André: “Water, gender, and modern science in the Steven Universe animation”, Feminist Media Studies, 2019. Ward, Pendleton, creator. Adventure Time. Cartoon Network Studios, 2010. 

Wälivaara, Josefine. Dreams of a Subversive Future: Sexuality, (Hetero)normativity, and Queer Potential in Science Fiction Film and Television. Umeå, 2016

[queermediastudies]

Putting the “Camp” Back in “Conversion Camp”

How But I’m a Cheerleader (2000) Makes a Comedy Out Of Conversion Therapy (And Whether or Not it Should)

Jamie Babbit’s cult classic, But I’m a Cheerleader (2000) paints a satirical portrait of what most queer youth fear most, conversion therapy. The titular cheerleader, Megan (Natasha Lyonne) is your typical all-American good girl. She goes to church, she never drinks, and she is even dating the high school football star. She is the kind of daughter that white, middle-class Americans dream of having, with one glaring exception. Megan is a lesbian. With the help of the self proclaimed “ex-gay” counselor Mike (RuPaul), her family and friends stage an intervention before shoving her off to True Directions, a conversion camp run by Mary Brown (Cathy Moriarty). Once there, she realizes that she is in fact a lesbian, one who is in love with her fellow camper, Graham (Clea Duvall). 

The film is hilariously over the top, hence it’s description as a camp classic. Babbit uses exaggerated gender roles to illustrate the intersection between gender performativity and sexuality. Unfortunately this decision to poke fun at heteronormative stereotypes come at a cost. Even the gay characters are uncomfortable stereotypes, and the film ignores any questions of intersectionality. Moreover, Babbit does not always handle the horrors of conversion therapy with the kind of tact and grace such a subject demands. Essentially, while the film attempts to show the ridiculousness of gay conversion, its use of stereotypes and one-dimensional characters lashes back to harm the very people Babbit is speaking on behalf of. 

One of the most easily recognizable problems with But I’m a Cheerleader is its overwhelming whiteness. There are all of four characters of color, and only one of those characters is a woman. Jan (Katrina Philips), the one woman of color, is treated terribly in the film. She shows up with a unibrow, dark mustache, shaved head, and baggy clothes. When she introduces herself, she smiles and says, “I’m Jan, and I’m a softball player, and I’m a homosexual” (00:14:36). Essentially, Jan is a lot of outdated stereotypes about lesbians put into one character. The twist, though, is that Jan is actually straight.

This is a good example of how Babbit attempts to tell an important message, but she fails to see the harm she causes while doing it. Jan’s character is essentially Megan’s foil. She is everything a “dyke” is supposed to be, except that she is not attracted to girls. Megan, on the other hand is a lesbian that completely defies all of the stereotypes that Jan encompasses. Both women are meant to discourage our tendency to make assumptions based on appearance. While that is a wonderful message, the problem is that Jan is the only woman of color. There is a definite lack of positive representation for masculine women of color, so there is nothing inherently wrong with having a black, butch character. However, black women are often portrayed as more masculine than white women in both fiction and non-fiction. One need only look at the conversations the media has had about Serena Williams or the New Jersey Four to see how black women are ascribed a level of masculinity that white women are not. In the film, this is exacerbated by the consistent assertion that Jan is ugly, which is never challenged by any of the characters. The motive behind Jan’s character was excellent, but it is clear that the consequences were not thought out. Babbit could have avoided the problematic elements of her character by adding in more women of color, giving the masculine stereotypes to a white character, or by having a conversation about how her blackness and dark facial hair affected how she was treated. Instead, the meaning of Jan’s character is one-dimensional, and she comes off as the butt of the joke rather than the harbinger of an important message. 

Jan is not the only character wrought with gay stereotypes. Andre (Douglas Spain) is the most stereotypically gay man in the film. Whether by coincidence or not, he is also a person of color. Regardless, his character is so stereotypical it is almost offensive. The boys are taught to play football, chop wood, and fix cars in the hopes that heteronormative activities will straighten them out, so to speak. Andre fails miserably at all of these tasks, which, again, is fine in concept. What is offensive is the way he flails about and shrieks in a way that is so unnatural it plays out like a bigot’s idea of what a gay man is really like.

There are other issues of intersectionality and representation that are not quite so garishly offensive. For example, Joel (Joel Michaely) is Jewish, and very devoutly so considering he is never seen with his yarmulke. The True Directions programs, however, is very Christian-oriented. This tension between the two religions is never addressed, and that is truly a shame. Moreover, race is not mentioned once. As previously mentioned, there are horrendously few characters of color. Even worse, however, is the fact that not one of them has a storyline that acknowledges the difficulties of being a gay person of color. The film is a comedy, so no one should expect an especially fruitful in depth analysis, but there is not even one or two off handed jokes about it. The fact of the matter is that the characters of color are not fully realized people. They are surface level representations that rattle off jokes. It should be acknowledged that pretty much all of the characters have this shallow level of development (such is the price one pays when creating a satire that makes such liberal use of stereotypes), but that is no excuse for not acknowledging how race plays a factor in homophobia and gender norms. Much of the movie is centered around learning how to “act straight”, but performances of gender and sexuality shift when different identities come into play. Harris and Holman Jones explain how intersectional performances play into feeling like a minority, “In “feeling queer,” racialized subjects intersect with religious, gendered and sexualized minoritarian subjects to “do” minoritarianism differently” (Harris and Holman Jones, 2017, p.574). In a film that is all about acting out the roles society demands, ignoring how people of color are expected to perform their minoriatarianism does an injustice to the topic at hand.

There is also a good bit of homonormativity, a concept that describes the push for queer people to fulfill heteronormative roles even in gay relationships. The three same sex couples we see in the film follow the general idea that one person in the relationship should be more feminine and the other more masculine, though some couples embody this concept more than others. Dolph (Dante Basco) and Clayton (Kip Pardue) are the couple that fit this mold the least, but one there are remnants of it in their relationship. Dolph is on the varsity football team, and Clayton is generally more demure and submissive. Unlike Dolph and Clayton, Graham and Megan fulfill their homonormative roles with a good amount of clarity. Graham is by no means butch, but she is more masculine than she is feminine, at least by society’s standards. She has short hair, she never wears skirts, and she has a tendency toward profanity and vulgarity. Megan, on the other hand, is, well, a cheerleader. She only wears skirts, she wears her hair long, and she spends most of the moving gasping at any mention of sex. Finally, there is the old gay couple, Lloyd (Wesley Mann) and Larry (Richard Moll) who are “ex-ex-gays” as the film calls them. Once again we see the more feminine half of the couple, Lloyd, performing typically feminine activities like setting up dinner and getting in touch with his emotions. Larry, on the other hand, is a curt, large, bearded man who is quick to anger. The two could easily fit in to any heterosexual sitcom. 

While domesticity is the goal for many queer couples, the film ventures into what Duggan (2002) calls, “equality politics,” (p. 44). Essentially, it is the trap that members of the gay community where they ask the powers that be for marriage and military equality. After that, they feel that there is nothing left to do, so they promise to depoliticize gay culture. Duggan describes them best when she writes, “These organizations, activists, and writers, promote ‘color-blind’ anti-affirmative action racial politics, conservative-libertarian ‘equality feminism,’ and gay ‘normality,’” (Duggan, 2002, p. 44). In it’s failure to acknowledge race and the enforcement of heterosexual roles onto gay characters, the film certainly demonstrates these equality politics and a message in favor of homonormativity.

Perhaps the most difficult to address issue with the film is the premise itself. It begs the question: should conversion therapy be used for comedy? Moreover, questions of how to do that respectfully arise, and, frankly, there were several instances where Babbit failed to do so. Babbit’s own history is important in understanding why she created a comedy about conversion therapy. She herself is a lesbian, and her mother worked at New Directions, a rehabilitation center for teens and young adults. Obviously, the name of the conversion camp, true directions, is a play on New Directions, and Babbit further explains the connection between her mother's career and But I’m a Cheerleader in an interview with Wheeler Winston Dixon. “So I'd always wanted to do a comedy about growing up in rehab, and the absurdity of that atmosphere. But I didn't want to make fun of twelve-step programs for alcoholism and drugs, because they really help people, but when you turn it into Homosexuals Anonymous, then I felt that was a situation I could have fun with” (Dixon, 2015, p. 2). Babbit likely felt that conversion therapy would be a harmless target because making fun of the programs and their leaders is not damaging to anyone. However, as we have seen with Jan and Andre, the queer community was not spared from the ridicule. Moreover, while belittling the programs themselves, Babbit made light of some truly traumatizing experiences. For instance, the teens are given electric wands, which they must use to shock themselves when they have “unnatural” thoughts. Pain-based aversion therapy is a very real, traumatizing experience that too many people have had to face. But I’m a Cheerleader makes a mockery of it by using it for a number of sex jokes and showing that it does not hurt that bad. Graham playfully shocks Megan with it, eliciting a yelp, but not much else. Another girl in the program, Sinead (Katherine Towne), proclaims that she likes pain. She is then shown in multiple scenes using the electricity as a masturbatory tool. There may be arguments in favor of this detail, perhaps that Babbit was trying to show how pain can be reclaimed and used for pleasure, but I personally find it tasteless. It is especially questionable since Babbit herself has never gone through that trauma. When creating gallows humor, one must examine if they are on the gallows or a member of the crowd. A person on the gallows who laughs is using humor to cope. A person in the crowd who laughs at the man getting hanged is simply cruel. It seems that Babbit believes that she, having experienced lesbianism, has just as much of a right to stories of conversion therapy as someone who actually experienced it. She does not. This is not to say that the premise of this film is off limits. Babbit simply should have been more careful in how she portrayed the horrors of conversion therapy.

But I’m a Cheerleader has the difficult job of being a breakout text. Cavalcante explains that a breakout text accomplishes three things, “ Breakout texts also generate three definitive breaks: (a) a break into the cultural main-stream, (b) a break with historical representational paradigms, and (c) a breaking into the every day lives of the audiences they purport to represent,” (Cavalcante, 2017, p. 2). It may have not been hugely successful, but it was popular enough to make its way into straight communities. Moreover, it breaks plenty of ideas of historic representation. Finally, it made its way into gay communities, and it has continued to live comfortably within them. This is why we need to be so hard on the film. As with anything that may be the foundation for someone’s knowledge about a topic (i.e. homosexuality, conversion therapy, gender non conforming heterosexuals, etc.) there is a responsibility to provide quality representations. Babbit sometimes fails to do so, and if that those failures are not examined critically, then harmful information will be mindlessly spread around.

As a pansexual woman, I am always looking for content that portrays strong, sapphic characters. I am also always on the fence about using tragedies to create humor. I am stuck between knowing that some people use humor to cope with trauma and wondering if people should be laughing at atrocities. That is what drew me to But I’m a Cheerleader. I enjoyed the film, in spite of its flaws, but I do have to say I was a bit hurt and disappointed. I am Latinx, and I have been teased about my dark facial hair in the past. Hearing Jan get torn into for her unibrow and mustache while the pretty, white women around her did nothing was really upsetting. Moreover, as someone who is undecided about particularly dark humor, I really do feel that Babbit was tactless in her making of this film. Still, there were elements that I truly loved. As mentioned in the title and the introduction, this film is beautifully camp. The 1950′s aesthetic that the straight people emulate obscures the setting of the film, and the garish colors tell a story all on their own. The gay men are forced to wear bright blue, and the lesbians are forced to wear pink. Everyone, and I do mean everyone, outside of the program wears brown, obscuring their own identities and showing just how they all fit in together. The set design is also used in a really stunning way. Every once in a while something, typically something that represents sex or genitalia, is placed in the background to remind viewers that the sexuality of the participants will never be erased.

When it comes down to it, But I’m a Cheerleader has heart, and it has a great message. It is immensely funny, and the characters are shallow but lovable. The film’s best attribute is that it shows that anyone can be gay or straight, regardless of our assumptions based on how well they perform gender norms. The criticism shown above should not discourage anyone from watching the film. Rather, it should encourage people to watch it while being able to recognize and accept the ways in which it can be hurtful. It can have harmful stereotypes, unhelpful ideologies, and tactless jokes, but it also has love, bite, and an abundance of humor.

References:

Cavalcante, A. (2017). Breaking Into Transgender Life: Transgender Audiences' Experiences With “First of Its Kind” Visibility in Popular Media. Communication, Culture & Critique, 10(3), 538-555. doi:10.1111/cccr.12165

Dixon, W. W. (2015). An Interview With Jamie Babbit. Post Script, 34(2).

Duggan, L. (2003). Equality, Inc. In The Twilight of Equality? Neoliberism, Cultural Politics and the Attack on Democracy (pp. 43-66). Boston: Beacon Press.

Harris, A., & Holman Jones, S. (2017). Feeling Fear, Feeling Queer: The Peril and Potential of Queer Terror. Qualitative Inquiry, 23(7), 561-568. doi:10.1177/1077800417718304

[wirelessoffline]

So you are choking on God's cock? Reflections and personal revelations from Beyond God the Father by Mary Daly

I am at odds with my physical and mental self. This dissociation of mind and body extends to my surroundings. A constant inability to ascribe words to this instability makes it feel overwhelming. Its lack of acknowledgement is terrifying and I find myself desperate to consume any material that at the very least can validate this fear. When discussing women’s liberation, despite my desperate support, I find myself second guessing if even describing women’s oppression is appropriate. Is this description dramatic or potentially hyperbole? Does it even seek to overshadow more pressing issues?  Author Mary Daly identifies this as the actions Trivialization and Particularization. Trivialization refers to the downplaying of this imbalance and Particularization refers to its forced normality. To enact Particularization is to make women’s issues alien. Liberation becomes something necessary for those in extreme scenarios; women oppressed by religion or existing in communities with a patriarchal structure apparent in the extreme. This attitude of othering women experiencing the effects of the patriarchy is condescending and a misunderstanding of the patriarchy’s existence as a structure. Instead, only acknowledging its symptoms.  Irony exists in self proclaimed progressive and often agnostic circles. The distancing between themselves and the “other” indicates this fundamental misunderstanding or potential refusal of understanding. Daly describes how male dominated academia perpetuates Particularization. She describes how circles which entertain the ideas of Freud must also acknowledge context. “Freudian theory emerged as the first wave of feminism was cresting,” and it is impossible to detach any writing of the time from its then present reality. The modern theorist should be hyper aware that “psychiatry and psychology have their own creeds, priesthoods, spiritual, counselings, rules, anathemas, and jargon.” To proclaim self awareness without this awareness perpetuates oppressive systems, intentionally or otherwise. 

To this day I become uneasy when thinking about my upbringing. I consider myself to have had the average childhood but occasionally a conversation with a friend will shatter this reality. Ages six to thirteen I went to church five days a week. On Sundays I listened to a sermon on the second floor and Monday through Friday I had school on the third. In the morning I went to Ecclesia, named after an Ancient Greek assembly and meaning a group of “believers,” to pray with other children. Every morning we said pledges to the American flag, the Christian flag and the Bible. My history classes were taught centered around the birth and death of Jesus Christ. My fifth grade math teacher taught our class the Bible story of Jesus exorcising a man, and sending the demons into a herd of pigs, which subsequently killed themselves by jumping from a cliff. Demons, hell, the devil were not for halloween, they were real and to be feared. To this day I have to remind myself that god is not listening in on my thoughts. My entire world was set up to have me believe a man died for me so I must live for him. In doing this, I must give away my autonomy. I have countless memories that indicate the way my beliefs were attempted to be shaped; like my mother noting that our neighbor at the time, an unmarried middle aged woman, was not following god's plan because she had no children. Or the time my grandmother was upset that a woman conducted the sermon at a friend's funeral. Apparently it is possible to be too involved in the church. So as I aged, watching my male  pastors preach to a congregation of hundreds, while the modestly dressed women sang backup, I looked around and wondered where this was all heading. Was I expected to perform a modest but attractive woman one day? Was I supposed to be attracted to the men around me who believed all of this? Did I believe all of this? Yes I did.

Years later I am sitting in the parking lot of my old school and current church. Notoriously late for everything, I could get away with driving separately and secretly spending my morning in the furthest parking spot in the lot. I wasn’t a little kid anymore and although I would probably still have claimed my faith at any cost, I had discovered freedom from my religious isolation. Looking back I treasure the small but brave steps I took to assert myself as free from this community. It wasn’t the nose ring that set off alarms for my relatives, as those became popular in the central Texas Christian community in 2016. It was the betty bangs and the collared shirts. Less about my choice presentation and having to do more with it’s intent; It was no longer being seen as attractive by the average Christian male. If I wasn’t the target of advances by a Christian boy how would I become a Christian wife? To renounce my faith is death in the next life. Without it I am unhinged in this one. To a child taught the air is filled with demons whispering my temptation, things start to get weird. I am an adult now, I think of the person I could be if I had been given the freedom of choice when I was younger. What monikers would I be brave enough to take? How would my mind work and as a result how would I choose to express myself? I become very sad when talking about this subject because I know I mentally have so much to undo. I  fear when people learn of my foundation they will doubt my ability to view things objectively. In a way I am glad at least I know this side of things. This is many people's reality, varying in extremes, mine not even being close to the rigidity of others.  I think it only appropriate to speak about my experience, but the watchful eyes of god are something no one is free of. In America they are in our constitution, his name on our currency. It has been established there is no coincidence between the popular American depiction of Jesus as a white man with blue eyes. I believe there is no coincidence a higher power, so complex our tiny idiot human brains can’t comprehend, has a dick.

No one has ever said god has a dick?! I must admit that statement was meant to make people angry. I think it’s only fair after years of gaslighting, being told a version of religion palatable enough for the masses. It is not spirituality or organized religion that I believe to be inherently problematic. Admittedly, who am I to define that. My argument is American Christianity limits mobility for those who identify outside of its strict moralism. The role of god as He and as the father is a manifestation of the narrator's influence on his story. “If god is man is man god?” 

The writings of the Bible and its manifestations in present cultural expectation cannot be separated from its authors. Illustrating this concept Daly writes, “A woman whose consciousness has been aroused can say that such language makes her aware of herself as a stranger, as an outsider, as an alienated person, not as any daughter who belongs who's appointed to a marvelous destiny. She cannot belong to this without assenting to her own lobotomy.” Finding myself identifying with this described woman I am at a loss of what to do next, but what I can say is that if I find myself in a position where I am asked to draw the form of God the(hi)mself I will be sure to give them the biggest breasts possible. 

When attempting to verbalize my described imbalance I am left speechless. The lexicon of the present is not equipped to delineate these happenings. I find myself using vague descriptors like happenings to acknowledge a tinted reality. Daly proposes a potential reworking, the goal being mobility for all and freedom from expectation. In the past we have “screened out experience and responded only to the questions considered meaningful and licit within the boundaries of prevailing thought structures.” What is a reality like, in which we counteract these structures and exist as honestly as possible within them? Recognizing this all encompassing fog makes way for something unseen, a fluidity and being which we can “express dimensions of the search for ultimate meaning.” 

[intergalactic-zoo]

Whoopsie, went a whole year without posting.

I very much enjoy the Arrowverse shows, even though the only episodes of Arrow I've seen are the crossover tie-ins. Legends of Tomorrow is a constant delight, Black Lightning is incredible, The Flash is good superhero melodrama, and Supergirl is fine. It's fine. It's generally mostly fine. 

Look, Supergirl started out strong on CBS, but since it moved to CW, it's been plagued by recurring problems. The cast is stellar. I love every actor and character on that show. Dreamer is a revelation, and I want to see her ongoing comic series (where maybe her powers will be slightly more clearly developed). 

But the politics? The recent episode dealing with violence against trans women (and trans women of color in particular) was a welcome and refreshing shift in the show's usual tone of Peak Liberal White Feminism. For a show that has its heart so clearly in the right place, tackling real-world issues like internment camps for immigrants and the radicalization of cishet white men into fascist paramilitary organizations, it has also featured a hero who, up until last season, was consistently working with a government organization and adopting center-left approaches that openly demonized actual leftists and ignored intersectionality in favor of a lily-white worldview. 

Buckle in, comrades. This is an anarchist blog now. 

There are other problems as well. The way they derailed the Kara-Jimmy relationship to pair her with Mon-El for a season, then fumbled around to find something to do with his character until he left the show, feels more than a little casually racist. I think there are legitimate queerbaiting complaints to be had about how they've handled the Kara/Lena relationship. Alex's shifting desires and priorities have felt less like character development and more like trying to figure out where she fits in the show now.

There's a lot of good, too, especially with some of this most recent season's course corrections. Killing Dean Cain's character offscreen was a hilarious solution to that unfortunate problem. I appreciated Brainiac-5's evolution that gave him a more comics-accurate Coluan appearance and removed some of the played-out "smart guy doesn't understand emotions" character type. I like that every time Lena says "Non Nocere" it makes me think of standing in a Buffalo Stance.

And I've liked Tyler Hoechlin and Bitsie Tulloch as Superman and Lois Lane, on the occasions where they've appeared. Tulloch isn't my favorite Lois, and I wish Hoechlin's costume had the trunks, but they've been quite good when they've shown up. And, you know, this is the first live-action Superman show with tights and flights and the word "Superman" in the title since 1997. I am, unexepctedly, excited for that. 

Besides that, it's a different take on the characters. Lois gets second billing, but rather than being a will-they/won't-they romantic dramedy, it's centered on Clark and Lois as an established couple and experienced parents of teenagers. Personally, I'd prefer the kids to be younger—Crisis changed their single infant into two teenage boys—but I suppose there are some story and tone reasons to prefer teenage kids. Overall, I think a lot of the choices are really savvy: setting the story in Smallville immediately sets this show apart from urban Supergirl, and the teens who cut their sci-fi melodrama teeth on Clark and Lois and Lex in Smallville are now in their thirties, settling down and having kids of their own. This show has the potential of tapping into that 20-year nostalgia cycle for the mid-2000s.

But...well, my excitement has been dampened somewhat in the lead-up to the premiere. Naturally, there's the stories Nadria Tucker has told about experiences in the writers' room, how they dismissed concerns about racism and sexism, about "#metoo jokes" and the like. There's also the optics; Supergirl is coming to an end next season, and it's hard not to feel weird about the diverse, female-dominated show about found family being more-or-less replaced with the nuclear family show whose principal cast is four white people, three of them dudes. I never really watched the trailer, but the response to it on my social media feed was largely negative (though for whatever reason, my social media feed is heavy on people who apparently aren't happy if Superman's not snapping necks in a rubber suit). On the other hand, I've seen really positive responses from two of the Superman fans I respect the most, Charlotte Finn and David Mann. And that clip of Hoechlin in the Fleischer suit and the Action #1 pose? Yeah, that's pretty cool. 

So I'm not sure what to expect as I finally hit up the ol' TiVo and watch the two-hour Pilot. But I'm about to find out. 

[materialfeministatraduzido]

“What is Sorority? – Learn about the meaning of the political tool and its social unfolding”, by Yasmin Morais (@vulva_negra), extracted from her personal page on the platform “Medium”.

Photograph by: Mimi Mutesa

This article is protected by Creative Commons CC BY-NC-ND, which only allows it to be utilized as long as credit is given to the author, but without it being altered in any ways or used for commercial purposes.

This term has been placed in the pedestal of curiosity, beginning in the year 2017. Recently fomented in Brazil, the phrase “What is Sorority?” had been one of the most asked questions made by Brazilians in Google’s tool, according to the ranking of the digital search engine itself. Becoming extremely popular, the notions of “Sorority”. populated magazines, videos published on youtube, tv shows and became the standard in the discourses of any digital influencer.

After translating into wide adhesion, the term was quickly coined by the Liberal tendency, which had highlighted the metaphysical characteristics of the supposed feeling which would edify an alliance among women. Tending to a particularly simplistic analysis, the term which had that did the accomplishment of projecting itself beyond the activism bubble, suffered a constant emptying of its revolutionary meaning. In this sense, Sorority had become the target of immense criticism in feminist academic productions and intersectional perspectives.

“Sorority for whom? What I have seen a lot in the feminist movement is sorority only towards one’s own kind - white women practicing it with white women, for example, and with black women there is no idea of complicity. Often, the idea of sorority is used to silence one, especially when a person that does not have priority to speak on a given subject uses sorority in a debate to silence another person [...] ”.

- Scarlett Rodrigues da Cunha, Master's Student in Public Policy at Universidade Federal do ABC

Potential restlessness proliferated, turning the term into an unknown polysemic. After all, is Sorority unilateral? Was it a feeling? Political action? It will be my crucial objective to bring such questions to light.

Sorority: An Alliance among Women?

Sorority is the Lusophone variation of the term derived from the Latin sóror = sister. Coined as a political nomenclature, its significance would be an opposition to the term fraternity, which would designate the union between male human beings

Sorority would be described as a political, social and cultural alliance between women, who, because they understand empirically the implications of belonging to the female sex in a patriarchal society, would share specific experiences with each other. In this way, sorority emerges such a feeling theoretically common to all women, which, at its core, has the potential to build bridges between the most varied female classes. However, it should be noted that, from a radical feminist perspective, sorority as a “common feeling” among women, would not be something sufficiently capable of promoting the revolution that is being proposed.

When the second-wave feminist movement emerged between the 1970s and 1980s, the term sorority was not even used to designate the alliance established between different niches of American women who cried out for the weakening of sexism, the end of gender stereotypes, the acquisition of rights, the end of wage inequality and other oppressions related to the female class. Initially, the proposal for solidarity among women had emerged beyond subjective borders and had become a political, social and cultural desire.

Greek ceramics (unknown) portraying an Amazon, a human female that integrate an old, matrilineal and warrior nation according to Greek mitology.

Feminism, in its libertarian essence, called for the notions of archetypal union among women, which recalled the power of the female class when united in pursuit of a common goal. Historically, the conception of females, who held power and lived under the emblem of a matrilineal community, had been edified on countless civilizations. The Amazons, Valkyries and the Daomé Warriors, together project archetypes related to the strength arising from the female union in different cultures and historical periods.

However, sorority posed intrepid challenges to those who did not have a real desire to establish solidarity among all female classes. For, sex as a constituent category of the class, is intertwined with the categorizations of race and social class, which produce and sustain different levels of oppression among women. In this way, black women remain historically vulnerable and politically inferiorized to Caucasian women. A supposedly equitable alliance among women, could never be established, if racism and female classism were not strongly faced. However, at that time, several Caucasian feminist groups maintained perspectives entirely directed towards sex, excluding demands related to racialized women.

Significantly, sisterhood (sorority) could never have been possible in all the limits of race and class, if individual women were not willing to alienate their power of dominating and exploiting subordinate groups of women. While women are using the power of class or race to dominate other women, feminist sisterhood (sorority) cannot be fully realized.

- bell hooks, “Feminism is for everyone”

In this way, the utopian and discriminatory potential in which sorority was initially interpreted and applied by activists is displayed. For, through structural racism, such Caucasian women allocated themselves as a unique and representative expression of the female class, neglecting social movements which removed from them the ethnic-racial and economic power to oppress. The dematerialization of the political alliance is an imminent danger. After all, when political experiences are reduced to feelings, which belong to an intangible nature, the materiality of political action is compromised.

Sorority: Brief History of Female Alliances

Throughout history, alliances made up of women in the face of patriarchal oppression have shown themselves to be diverse. At the heart of countless civilizations, human females jointly challenged the social dogmas which corroborated the maintenance of the male yoke. From the occurrences in the mythical imaginary, to the female resistance during the Early Middle Age and the groups of women who rose up against oppression in the Middle East, the female potential has always been stimulated by the desire for revolutions or social non-submissiveness.

“The Witches” by Hans Baldung (1510). In the painting, one perceives the misogynistic and stereotyped conception in which the imagery of the “medieval witch” was constituted. Elderly, naked females riding winged brooms and summoning devils. The demonization of women was a useful tool for the institutionalization of female genocide.

However, the operation inherent in the patriarchal organization, has constant discursive battles. Under hegemonically male dominance, History is told in distorted ways, which favor the female dispute and the slanderous archetypes which have historically been attributed to women. Since Christian domination in medieval Europe, the demonization of pre-Christian religious practices and the female class, had made the alliance among women a symbol of the satanic uprising which should be continually combated. United, women cared for each other, even though they were politically accused of organizing satanic sabbaths and secret demonic associations.

Undoubtedly, the alliance among human females evokes ancestral symbologies in cultures from all the known civilizations. Having been linked to the great acquisition of power, the movements which were self-organized by women, caused extreme fear in the existing patriarchal systems. The female who chose to abandon phallic worship and turn to her own kind was personified as a traitor; heretic which needed to be severely punished. Through the constitution of strict hierarchies among women, in which those who loved insubordination were completely demonized and those who were submissive to the male and Christian yoke were considered devout women, the bitterness towards female associations, had historically been sown in the psyche of women. which maintained the belief in patriarchal providence.

In the 21st century, minor adaptations took place. However, the core of such behavioral hierarchies, remains on its usual podium. The insubordinates are no longer witches, warriors or sorceresses, however, women who stand up vehemently in favor of female emancipation and do not commune with patriarchal subservience. However, under the face of a liberal revolution, devout women have subsisted, becoming those who do not yearn for trustworthy emancipation.

The Problematics of “Horizontal Hostility”

“It was to be learned that the oppressed can also be oppressive. Not only can the oppressed share, even if minimally, the status and privileges of the dominant at the expense of other oppressed ones.”

- Denise Thompson, "A discussion of the Horizontal Hostility problem".

It is necessary to conceive the lacerating premise, which they constantly obscure: “women have status passible to oppression, they can use certain privileges related to class and race to override others. Certain women corroborate and work for the current system”. The processes of female socialization in a primarily patriarchal system, are based on the gradual alienation of female associations and belonging to the class.

The human female, socialized as such, submits to the frequent annulment of Being as a powerful and emancipated instance in the world. In this way, from disciplinary mechanisms which train psychically and physically, women are instructed in an indisputably phallic-patriarchal hierarchy. In this one, the male and instances conceived as masculine, allocate themselves in the antagonistic apex as dominant, therefore, the female and instances conceived as feminine, relegate themselves to socially undesirable, rejected and vexatious positions.

Within the scope of this premise, the human female, whose unconscious is attentive to the socio-symbolic inferiority attributed to her sex, craves the acquisition of power in the social structure, through reproducing of socializing perspectives raised from the male perspective. In the homonymous article produced by the theoretician Denise Thompson, entitled “A discussion of the problem of horizontal hostility”, the oppressive dynamics which emerge in the socio-cultural circles experienced by women are explicit.

"Horizontal hostility is the best method of the heteropatriarchy to keep us in 'our proper places'; we do the work of men and their institutions for them… (…) it makes us direct our anger - which arises from our marginal and subordinate status in heteropatriarchy and which should be directed at our oppressors - at other women, because we know that it is safer … ”— Penelope, 1992 in “a discussion of the horizontal hostility problem”.

Thus, in addition to the stratification promoted by the Racial and Economic Hierarchy, fragments of female socialization culminate in behavioral action that is opulent in envy, sabotage, hatred, competition and subordination among women. After all, at the heart of a patriarchal society, the human female engages, consciously and unconsciously, in the struggle for male approval which, in the light of such a system, would provide her with divinized social redemption. However, it becomes explicit that only a select class of women will be able to ascend to patriarchal molds, thus generating the perfidious atmosphere in which females fight each other, while male hegemony feeds back and strengthens itself through its efforts.

A Treat for a Possible Sorority

It is imperative to abdicate to the liberal and reformist perspectives currently in force in the mainstream conception of sorority. After all, the inhospitable rescue of the mystical notions of alliances established by women, vetoes the political, organizational and materialistic potential held by such links. There is no feeling common to human females. Nor there are equitable and homogenized relationships between women. To raise the gynocentric ancestral perspective is the ground zero of the establishment of a possible sorority. For it is only through a confrontation with the androcentric conception that a real alliance between women can be conceived.

Socially, women are indoctrinated to live the human experience in the light of a male interpretation. The male as an archetype, shows himself as the great carrier of humanity, wisdom, justice and beauty in its highest degree. Only him can antagonize with other males, which establishes himself as a protector. In this way, women are socialized so that they prioritize the relationships they establish with men. Females are alienated from their revolutionary potential, which develops greatly when in assembly. We are led to the perception that other women are the perfidious antagonists who wish to take from us the miserable crumbs offered by the patriarchal regime.

A rupture with male hegemony runs through psychological, socio-cultural and economic instances. Women's groups, when not psychologically, are financially and politically sabotaged. However, the traps structured by the Patriarchy, through female socialization and the establishment of dark archetypes about the Female Being, haunt us and lead us to socio-political isolation or superficial relations with other women. We need to revisit the circles we have entered into and rescue the principles of the female community. It is notorious to establish an anti-racist, anti-sexist, anti-lesbophobic and gynocentric political alliance.

Admitting to having privileges related to race and class and, in fact, addressing the structuring of associations in which women and children become politically, socially and economically prioritized, will lead to a future in which, undoubtedly, a society in which the alliance between women rises in all its revolutionary drive can be structured. There will be no sorority as long as it is not possible for us to cry out against the oppression experienced by other women and dedicate ourselves to building a truly emancipatory and intersectional socio-political movement.

HOW TO CITE THIS ARTICLE ACADEMICALLY: MORAIS, Yasmin. “O Que é o Sororidade?”. Medium, 2019. Available at: <URL>. Access in: day, month and year.

_________________________________________________________

Originally available at: https://medium.com/qg-feminista/o-que-é-sororidade-5ce259b53a98

[goldietm]

            *      ╰      new   york’s   very   own   𝐠𝐞𝐨𝐫𝐠𝐢𝐚   ‘   𝐠𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐢𝐞   ‘   𝐡𝐞𝐧𝐝𝐫𝐢𝐱   was   spotted   on   broadway   street   in   louboutin   carnababy   ankle   boots   .   your   resemblance   to   𝒛𝒆𝒏𝒅𝒂𝒚𝒂   is   unreal   .   according   to   tmz   ,   you   just   had   your   twenty   -   third   birthday   bash   .   while   living   in   nyc   ,   you’ve   been   labeled   as   being      𝒂𝒖𝒔𝒕𝒆𝒓𝒆   ,   but   also      𝒑𝒖𝒓𝒑𝒐𝒔𝒆𝒇𝒖𝒍   .   i   guess   being   a      virgo      explains   that   .   3   things   that   would   paint   a   better   picture   of   you   would   be      𝒂      𝒇𝒆𝒂𝒓      𝒐𝒇      𝒍𝒊𝒎𝒊𝒕𝒂𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏𝒔      𝒈𝒓𝒆𝒂𝒕𝒆𝒓      𝒕𝒉𝒂𝒏      𝒍𝒊𝒇𝒆      𝒊𝒕𝒔𝒆𝒍𝒇      ,         𝒂      𝒍𝒊𝒍𝒂𝒄      𝒑𝒐𝒘𝒆𝒓   -   𝒔𝒖𝒊𝒕      𝒔𝒆𝒏𝒅𝒊𝒏𝒈      𝒃𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒏𝒆𝒔𝒔      𝒆𝒎𝒂𝒊𝒍𝒔      𝒂𝒕      𝒕𝒉𝒆      𝒄𝒍𝒖𝒃   ,      𝒅𝒂𝒓𝒌      𝒆𝒚𝒆𝒔      𝒔𝒘𝒊𝒎𝒎𝒊𝒏𝒈      𝒘𝒊𝒕𝒉      𝒕𝒉𝒆      𝒓𝒆𝒔𝒐𝒏𝒂𝒏𝒄𝒆      𝒐𝒇      𝒖𝒏𝒔𝒑𝒐𝒌𝒆𝒏      𝒕𝒉𝒐𝒖𝒈𝒉𝒕𝒔      .   (   my   ex   -   fiance   was   a   pr   stunt   set   up   by   our   manager.   i’m   not   sure   they   knew   that   until   i   inadvertently   cheated   on   them   .   )      &      (   cis   female   &   she   /   her      )     

tw   :   homophobia   ,   biphobia   ,   suicide   mention   ,   emotional   abuse   .


𝒊       .        𝒔𝒕𝒂𝒕𝒔       .

𝒏𝒂𝒎𝒆 :     georgia   cheyanne   hendrix 𝒏𝒊𝒄𝒌𝒏𝒂𝒎𝒆𝒔  :   goldie   ,   golds   .   georgie   ,   gigi   ,   g   . 𝒂𝒈𝒆   :        twenty  -    three    𝒛𝒐𝒅𝒊𝒂𝒄   :   virgo    𝒐𝒄𝒄𝒖𝒑𝒂𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏   :  former   beauty   pageant   competitor   and   2016’s   miss   teen   usa   ,   2017′s   miss   new   york   ,   2018′s   miss   usa   ,   current   film   and   television   actress   ,    model   ,   business  entrepreneur   ,   philanthropist   ,  and   activist   .       𝒓𝒆𝒄𝒐𝒈𝒏𝒊𝒛𝒆𝒅   𝒇𝒐𝒓   :   her   mother’s   political   career   ,   starring   in   hbo’s   television   series   euphoria   ,   being   the   first   openly   queer         representative   for   the   usa   in   the   pageant   circuit   ,   her   advocacy   for   feminism   and   criminal   justice   reform   ,   a   bustling   social   media   page   ,   being   one   of   forbes   2019′s   top   30   under   30         . 𝒈𝒆𝒏𝒅𝒆𝒓    𝒊𝒅𝒆𝒏𝒕𝒊𝒕𝒚    /    𝒑𝒓𝒐𝒏𝒐𝒖𝒏𝒔    :   cis   female   /   she   her   hers    𝒐𝒓𝒊𝒆𝒏𝒕𝒂𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏  :  bisexual   ,   biromantic    𝒉𝒆𝒊𝒈𝒉𝒕   :   5’9    𝒄𝒉𝒂𝒓   𝒊𝒏𝒔𝒑𝒐𝒔   :   meredith   grey  &  cristina  yang   from   grey’s   anatomy   ,   spencer   hastings   from   pretty   little   liars   ,   hermione   granger   from   harry   potter   ,   meghan   markle   ,   angela   martin   from   the   office   ,   alex   cabot   from   law   and   order   svu   ,   and   more   than   anything   ,   claire   from   fleabag   .   𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐧   𝐢𝐟   𝐮   𝐬𝐤𝐢𝐦   𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐲𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐠   𝐞𝐥𝐬𝐞   ,   𝐢   𝐛𝐞𝐠   𝐨𝐟   𝐮   𝐭𝐨   𝐰𝐚𝐭𝐜𝐡   𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐬   𝐯𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐨   𝐣𝐮𝐬𝐭   𝐭𝐨   𝐠𝐞𝐭   𝐥𝐞𝐱’𝐬   𝐞𝐬𝐬𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞   𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐬𝐞𝐝   𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐨   7   𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐬   . 𝒌𝒆𝒚   𝒕𝒓𝒂𝒊𝒕𝒔      :     -     acquiescent    ,   cold   ,   emotionally distant    ,         obsessive   ,  control   -   freak +   intelligent  ,   astute   ,   focused    ,  protective   ,  passionate         𝒉𝒐𝒈𝒘𝒂𝒓𝒕𝒔   𝒉𝒐𝒖𝒔𝒆   :   toss   up  between   slytherin   and   ravenclaw  !  𝒔𝒐𝒏𝒈         𝒊𝒏𝒔𝒑𝒐𝒔         :     𝐭𝐢𝐚   𝐭𝐚𝐦���𝐫𝐚      -   𝑑𝑜𝑗𝑎   𝑐𝑎𝑡   𝑓𝑡   .   𝑟𝑖𝑐𝑜   𝑛𝑎𝑠𝑡𝑦  /   𝐢𝐜𝐞   𝐦𝐞   𝐨𝐮𝐭   -   𝑘𝑎𝑠ℎ   𝑑𝑜𝑙𝑙   /   𝐧𝐨   𝐬𝐦𝐚𝐥𝐥   𝐭𝐚𝐥𝐤   -   𝑘𝑎𝑟𝑖   𝑓𝑎𝑢𝑥  /  𝐂𝐘𝐀𝐍𝐈𝐃𝐄   -   𝑑𝑎𝑛𝑖𝑒𝑙   𝑐𝑎𝑒𝑠𝑎𝑟 /  𝐛𝐫𝐨𝐤𝐞𝐧   𝐜𝐥𝐨𝐜𝐤𝐬   -   𝑆𝑍𝐴   /   𝐬𝐚𝐲   𝐬𝐨   -   𝑑𝑜𝑗𝑎   𝑐𝑎𝑡  /  𝐛𝐞𝐞𝐟   𝐟𝐥𝐨𝐦𝐢𝐱   -   𝑓𝑙𝑜   𝑚𝑖𝑙𝑙𝑖  /  𝐜𝐨𝐜𝐤𝐲   𝐚𝐟   -   𝑚𝑒𝑔𝑎𝑛   𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑒   𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑙𝑙𝑖𝑜𝑛  /  𝐜𝐡𝐮𝐧-𝐥𝐢      -   𝑛𝑖𝑐𝑘𝑖   𝑚𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑗  /   𝐝𝐨𝐢𝐧   𝐭𝐨𝐨   𝐦𝐮𝐜𝐡   -      𝑘𝑎𝑠ℎ   𝑑𝑜𝑙𝑙  /    𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐝𝐞𝐫   𝐣𝐨𝐞   -   𝑗𝑢𝑛𝑔𝑙𝑒𝑝𝑢𝑠𝑠𝑦  /     𝐈𝐂𝐘   𝐆𝐈𝐑𝐋   -   𝑠𝑎𝑤𝑒𝑒𝑡𝑖𝑒  /   𝐩𝐡𝐢𝐥𝐥𝐲  𝐣𝐚𝐰𝐧   -  𝑘𝑜𝑡𝑎   𝑡ℎ𝑒   𝑓𝑟𝑖𝑒𝑛𝑑   /   𝐛𝐨𝐬𝐬   𝐛𝐢𝐭𝐜𝐡   -   𝑑𝑜𝑗𝑎   𝑐𝑎𝑡 𝒂𝒆𝒔𝒕𝒉𝒆𝒕𝒊𝒄𝒔   :         an   intellect   that   remembers   everything      ;      wild   caramel   curls   with   just   enough   composure   to   seem   effortless      ;      a   fear   of   failure      more   crippling   than   life   itself      ;      the   smell   of   fresh   linen   and   lavender         ;      a   color   -   coded   itinerary         ;         a   perfectly   choreographed   interaction   ,   each   time      ;      lilac   power   -   suits   and   an   immaculate   composure      ;         unspoken   mommy   issues      ;      tenebrous   ,   intent   gazes   swimming   with   the   resonance   of   unspoken   thoughts      ;      ‘   don’t   touch   me   please   ‘   syndrome      ;      kicking   out   hookups   before   you   both   fall   asleep      ;      ordering   the   same   thing   at   a   restaurant   ,   every   time      ;      flinching   at   ‘   i   love   you’s   ’      ;      drafting   business   emails   at   the   club         ;      an   admiration   of   atlas   ,   with   the   world’s   weight   upon   your      shoulders   .

𝒊𝒊       .    𝒃𝒂𝒄𝒌𝒔𝒕𝒐𝒓𝒚    .

though   goldie   should   be   proud   to   carry   the   hendrix   name   (   a   prominent   black   woman   in   politics   as   a   mother   and   a   fortune   500   ceo   father   )   ,   the   odds   have   been   against   the   hendrix   progeny   since   they   come   into   the   world   .   despite   her   mother   being   a   female   senator   ,   she’s   a   infamously   staunch   conservative   with   rather   regressive   opinions   .   her   father   ?   none   the   better   ,   driven   by   greed   and   the   illusion   of   power   .

georgia   emerges   first   into   the   world   with   kalani   following   soon   after   ,   a   dynamic   they   hold   onto   for   the   rest   of   their   lives   .   their   brother   michael   follows   a   few   years   later   ,   completing   the   illusion   of   the   perfect   american   family   .   goldie   ,   as   she   is   quickly   known   as   ,   is   a   perfectionist   by   heart   ,   a   trait   that   is   only   further   emphasized   by   a   cold   ,   disconnected   mother   who   only   truly   acknowledges   her   when   it’s   following   an   accolade   .   lani   never   seemed   bothered   and   would   find   solace   in   mikey   —   goldie   ,   on   the   other   hand   ,   took   her   mother’s   emotional   distance   more   personally   than   anything   in   her   life   ,   past   or   future   .   

her   mother   ,   a   former   pageant   star   herself   ,   is   elated   to   hear   goldie’s   interest   in   starting   in   the   circuit   in   middle   school   ,   launching   a   career   for   herself   in   the   new   york   pageant   scene   .   this   perfectionist   mentality   lends   itself   easily   to   her   competitions   ,   and   the   naturally   competitive   girl   takes   the   pageant   world   by   storm   .   she   pushes   herself   to   her   peak   through   new   york’s   elite   prep   schools   ,   scoring   top   marks   and   heading   countless   clubs   to   pad   an   otherwise   still   impressive   resume   .   she’s   making   waves   in   every   circle   she   enters   ,   preparing   a   valedictorian   speech   and   touting   early   acceptance   into   princeton   when   her   world   flips   on   its   head   .

mikey   ,   vibrant   and   beautiful   ,   everything   goldie   did   not   see   herself   as   ,   comes   out   as   gay   to   their   family   ,   and   following   the   heinous   response   of   their   parents   and   the   mounting   pressures   to   keep   up   appearances   ,   takes   his   own   life   during   the   twins’   senior   year   .   goldie’s   life   is   shattered   ,   and   her   family   falls   apart   quickly   after   ,   with   lani’s   outburst   of   her   own   coming   out   and   reprimanding   their   parents   for   their   part   in   mikey’s   passing   being   the   final   tear   of   the   hendrix   tapestry   .   goldie   ,   harboring   a   budding   sentiment   of   bisexuality   all   her   own   ,   sees   the   effect   the   dual   coming’s   -   out   have   on   their   family   and   can’t   bring   herself   to   rock   the   boat   a   third   time   ,   doing   what   she   does   best   and   keeping   her   mouth   shut   for   appearances   .   

while   lani   makes   a   name   for   herself   protesting   and   doing   her   activism   ,   goldie   continues   to   dominate   pageantry   ,   quickly   snatching   up   titles   of   miss   teen   usa   ,   miss   new   york   ,   and   going   on   to   set   her   sights   on   2018′s   miss   america   .   during   the   question   and   answer   portion   ,   when   she’s   asked   about   the   mental   health   crisis   in   her   home   state   of   new   york   ,   her   mind   drifts   from   her   prepared   statement   and   instead   pivots   to   a   cause   near   and   dear   to   her   heart   ,   the   lgbtq+   mental   health   crisis   .   her   life   changes   with   one   simple   slip   of   the   tongue   on   live   national   television   .   

                   “   as   a   bisexual   woman   myself   ,   i   believe  —   ”

though   entirely   unintentional   ,   the   moment   liberates   her   and   thrusts   her   forward   into   the   life   she   now   has   ,   a   name   made   for   herself   ,   by   herself   .   despite   the   collective   shock   of   her   unexpected   coming   out   on   national   tv   ,   she   is   enthusiastically   crowned   miss   america   much   to   her   own   surprise   ,   though   her   actions   are   not   without   consequence   .   fuming   at   the   perceived   treachery   of   the   child   that   was   supposed   to   be   ‘   the   good   one   ,   ’   senator   hendrix   pulls   some   strings   to   get   goldie   kicked   from   the   pageantry   world   ,   but   it   comes   as   a   blessing   in   disguise   .   

goldie   changes   her   major   at   princeton   to   public   policy   ,   and   once   she   leaves   the   pageant   world   ,   she’s   flooded   with   offers   for   modeling   campaigns   and   sponsorship   deals   .   she   becomes   one   of   the   most   noted   humanitarian   activists   of   her   generation   ,   fighting   for   women’s   rights   ,   mental   health   advocacy   ,   and   criminal   justice   reform   .   while   lani   takes   to   the   streets   ,   goldie   takes   to   the   stands   ,   giving   speeches   and   meeting   with   policy   makers   as   she   begins   to   dive   into   the   world   of   entrepreneurship   .   the   twins   start   a   foundation   for   lgbtq+   people   they   name   the   mikey   hendrix   foundation   in   honor   of   their   younger   brother   ,   and   are   in   constant   tabloid   stories   due   to   their   speaking   out   against   their   parents   .   goldie   makes   an   easy   transition   from   paper   to   stage   ,   and   finds   a   blooming   acting   career   that   serves   as   an   even   greater   platform   for   her   to   speak   out   about   the   causes   nearest   to   her   .  

𝒊𝒊𝒊       .       𝒅𝒊𝒔𝒑𝒐𝒔𝒊𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏 

            perhaps   goldie’s   most   notable   quality   is   being   driven   by   an   unyielding   fear   of   failure   and   mediocrity   .   there   is   no   task   small   enough   that   goldie   will   not   accomplish   to   the   best   of   her   execution   ,   and   if   she   can’t   ensure   perfection   ,   she   will   refuse   to   give   it   an   attempt   at   all   .   this   all   or   nothing   attitude   stems   from   an   obscene   obsession   with   control   and   remaining   in   control   ,   something   those   around   her   are   all   too   aware  ��of   . 

               despite   a   rather   charming   and   gregarious   disposition   on   the   red   carpet   ,   many   will   note   that   goldie   is   incredibly   reserved   when   meeting   her   in   real   life   .   the   pageantry   training   has   kicked   in   to   give   her   a   facade   to   push   when   she’s   in   the   spotlight   ,   though   her   true   disposition   is   much   less   play   and   much   more   work   .   she’s   stoic   and   serious   ,   knowing   just   what   to   say   at   what   time   to   continue   the   narrative   that   she   is   completely   in   control   .   cool   and   calculated   ,   her   affect   is   usually   stern   and   unwilling   to   reflect   any   sentiment   of   softness   or   goofiness   —   many   business   associates   note   her   absolute   maturity   and   rationality   even   at   the   tender   age   of   23   .   her   energy   ,   as   subdued   as   it   may   be   ,   commands   the   room   with   a   power   of   self-assuredness   that   only   stems   from   a   confidence   rooted   in   something   to   back   it   up   .   she’s   an   elderly   woman   in   a   millennial’s   body   ,   and   this   tends   to   show   in   her   dry   wit   humor   ,   relative   moodiness   ,   and   general   propensity   for   wanting   things   done   exclusively   her   way   .

               goldie’s   intellect   has   always   been   a   strong   suit   of   hers   ,   a   photographic   memory   that   allowed   her   to   glide   through   school   with   the   least   of   struggles   .   astute   and   well   -   spoken   ,   monotone   and   unlikely   to   crack   in   her   stony   temperament   ,   she’s   a   force   of   nature   to   be   well   reckoned   with   .   luckily   ,   goldie   shows   little   to   no   interest   in   engaging   with   petty   drama   and   tends   to   keep   in   her   own   lane   ,   losing   interest   nearly   immediately   in   the   mindless   pettiness   some   of   her   friends   wrap   themselves   up   in   .   rational   ,   arguably   to   a   fault   ,   goldie   has   a   bad   habit   of   censoring   herself   and   limiting   her   own   commentary   when   in   the   company   of   anyone   she   needs   to   maintain   her   reputation   with      ;      close   friends   ,   on   the   other   hand   ,   will   easily   characterize   her   as   blunt   and   straightforward   ,   almost   too   aggressive   with   her   honesty   for   her   own   good   .   though   she’d   rarely   voice   it   ,   she   has   an   undeniable   superiority   complex   stemming   from   a   recognition   that   whatever   she   does   ,   she’s   incredibly   good   at   (   ignoring   her   unwillingness   to   step   out   and   try   anything   outside��  her   comfort   zone   .   )

               this   is   the   curious   dichotomy   of   georgia   hendrix   ,   considering   one   of   her   most   notable   flaws   is   her   unwillingness   to   invest   .   despite   being   perhaps   overly   honest   ,   the   moment   a   conversation   (   or   relationship   )   runs   the   risk   of   becoming   too   emotionally   risky   ,   she   shuts   down   .   flames   have   been   ghosted   ,   relationships   have   been   ended   ,   and   friendships   have   been   cut   off   simply   because   goldie   deemed   them   to   be   a   danger   to   her   mission   of   remaining   in   complete   control   of   herself   and   her   life   .   the   select   few   that   have   plowed   through   goldie’s   rather   prickly   initial   interactions   have   earned   themselves   a   friend   forged   from   gold   ,   loyal   to   a   fault   and   ready   to   drop   anything   at   a   wind’s   blow   to   aide   those   she   loves   most   .   defensive   and   ornery   ,   the   pageant   girl   facade   soon   blows   over   to   reveal   an   anal   retentive   ,   emotionally   stunted   grandmother   who   loses   her   lid   over   the   most   minute   of   inconveniences   if   they   step   out   of   her   pre - established   plans   and   routines   .

               hiding   beneath   her   layers   of   fake   smiling   at   redundant   questions   ,   unapproachable   hostility   and   being   an   otherwise   unmeltable   ice   queen   ,   goldie   harbors   a   deep   intensity   that   overcomes   her   when   allowed   to   reign   (   and   very   rarely   is   allowed   to   reign   )   .   she   does   not   invest   in   small   doses   and   despite   the   relative   unlikelihood   of   her   allowing   a   distraction   such   as   a   relationship   ,   the   few   she’s   had   have   been   intense   whirlwinds   led   by   goldie’s   own   inability   to   limit   herself   —   she’s   all   ,   or   she’s   nothing   ,   but   nowhere   in   the   middle   .

[marjanefan]

The Devil of Christmas and the 1970s. A Dark Nostalgia

’The Devil of Christmas’ is much respected among fans of the show ‘Inside No.9’for being an affectionate pastiche of a certain sort of 1970’s television show, a meticulous recreation of how these shows were filmed , and for a particularly dark pay off. Pemberton and Shearsmith grew up watching the type of shows it pastiches and the episode makes their affection for them clear . They credit shows such as ‘Armchair theatre’, ‘ Beasts’ and especially ‘ Tales of the unexpected’ with inspiring them to work in the anthology format. The episode manages to be a knowing and humorous tribute to these shows. But it also subtly passes comment on the attitudes of the programmes and those who made them.

The episode is directed by Graham Harper, who in a long TV career has directed episodes of both ‘classic’ and ‘new’ Dr. Who. Derek Jacobi (who voices Dennis Fulcher) and Rula Lenska who appears as Celia /Nancy both worked extensively on television during this period. Adam Tandy, the show’s producer had worked as a child actor during this period and he discussed his experiences in the audio commentary with Pemberton and Shearsmith. So this would have been a nostalgic experience for quite a few people involved in the making of the episode (apparently the crew also enjoyed dressing up in 70s styles for the closing scenes).

This review will contain extensive spoilers so only continue if you have watched the episode

Nostaliga for the past is always a two edged thing.. We risk overlooking the problematic aspects of periods such as the 1970s when we look back too cosily. The show 'Life on Mars' took apart the culture of sexism, racism and toxic masiculinty of the 1970s as portrayed in shows as 'The Sweeney' while making us cheer the politically incorrect antics of Gene Hunt. This blog post does an excellent job (far better than I can) of illustrating how the ostensible story we are watching in ‘The Devil of Christmas’ comments on the casual misogyny of 1970’s television drama. It also makes an important observation about how Dennis Fulcher’s attitude toward the violence inflicted on the female star of the episode can be shown to fit in what we have learnt in recent years about the abuse of young women within the television industry of this time.

https://dodoswords.wordpress.com/2017/01/05/inside-no-9-review-series-three-the-devil-of-christmas/

In the commentary on this episode Pemberton and Shearsmith commented on the fact that the type of television programs ‘The Devil of Christmas’ pastiches regularly used the trope of a wife/husband deliberately brining about the mental collapse of their spouse or driving them to their deaths. It is interesting that this particular trope became popular during this period of societal change. Women would make greater use of liberalised divorce laws and begin to assert their right to pursue professional careers. The trope spoke to men’s anxieties about women becoming more assertive and empowered. It is worth noting the 1970s television series Derek Jacobi is most associated with ‘I, Claudius’ had several scheming unfaithful female characters, most of whom were young and attractive, who often met nasty ends, rather like ‘Kathy’ does in this episode . It’s problematic portrayal of women has been a subject of academic discussion.

‘Kathy’ is set up as a bad woman. She is a disloyal wife and stepmother. She is shown to be a gold digger who deliberately causes the death of her husband and who hates her young stepson. She is also unfaithful and is unashamed about carrying another man’s child. The audience of ‘The Devil of Christmas’ would obviously approve of and enjoy her eventual punishment. But Penny, an innocent young actress, suffers for Kathy’s ‘crimes’.

Elizabeth, Julian’ first wife is set up as the ‘good’ wife . Tellingly she is already dead (in misogyny the best sort of woman). Celia, Julian’s mother is suspicious of Kathy’s intentions and tries to warn Julian to no avail. The two women of the piece must be in conflict with each other as no solidarity or sympathy must be allowed between women. Dennis Fulcher expresses his frustration that Nancy, the actress who played Celia would not wear glasses (arguing they were not right for the character) meaning she more than once missed her mark. While Dennis is somewhat dismissive of Nancy , it is worth considering she wanted to appear glamorous as Celia and refused to wear glasses because she was afraid that being older woman and no longer physically attractive would have a detrimental effect on her career. (I wonder what memories of being a young actress in this period must have brought up for Rula Lenska)

Dennis comments on his commentary that he has ‘Kathy’ be pregnant as it would ‘tee up the ending if you sensed there was something inside Kathy making it more poignant’. This speaks to both men’s fear and envy of women’s reproductive capacity (and their desire to control it). Penny is also dressed in white for the final scenes, ironically the colour of supposed innocence given ‘Kathy’ s actions. This heightens the impact of her appearance as a sacrificial victim in the final seconds.

For me personally one the most shocking moments in the episode is when Julian hits Kathy. The audience can see that the hit is filmed is such a way that Brian (who plays Julian) does not actually hit Penny (who plays Kathy). The moment is plays into the pastiche of 1970s television as we can see that it is obviously fake. But the casual act of domestic violence shows how it was written off and normalised in this period (not that things are much better today). It is also shocking coming from a character like Julian who is otherwise portrayed sympathetically. It also happens in front of a child (both in the story and filming). Dennis also directs Brian to play the moment more angrily.

Of course the horrific conclusion of the episode with its very real violence and Penny’s absolute terror as she realises her fate. She actually cries ‘Dennis’ in her final seconds pleading with him to save her. The over the top acting of the rest of the episode is suddenly horribly recontextualised. The very artifice of episode stands in stark contrast and almost as a mockery beside this final act of violence. The pride Dennis takes in this particular moment and Penny’s ‘genuine fear’ is truly blood chilling. As WeeLin noted in her analysis of the episode what does it say about Dennis’ exposure to and involvement in ’Snuff’ that he says ‘In it’s defence, it was one of the better ones’ (it is also hinted this may not have been the only ‘snuff’ film he directed). He cannot bring himself to watch Penny’s murder, refusing to accept his role in enabling it, and moans ‘ but If only I’d got Gummidge’ more concerned about his career than the brutal killing of a young woman.

There is another narrative from the 1970s. This was the period of second wave feminism and the women’s liberation movement. Feminists set up rape crisis lines and women’s shelters and highlighted the issue of violence against women and girls. They also critiqued the way women were portrayed in the media. They helped critique and call out the attitudes toward women that ‘The Devil of Christmas’ lampoons.

It is worth looking briefly at how second wave feminists reacted to the film ‘Snuff’ itself. The original film ‘Snuff’ was a grindhouse film that was released in early 1976 (about a year before ‘The Devil of Christmas ‘was set). The female lead character Terry London (who apparently gets killed at the end) was pregnant like Kathy in ‘The Devil of Christmas’. It also ends with the crew apparently killing the female lead. (information from the Wikipedia page for the film). While it was very obviously a hoax it caused a considerable amount of controversy. Andrea Dworkin and other feminists would lead protests against it in New York and it would lead to the formation of the group ‘Women against violence against women’. The supposed existence of ‘snuff’ films would be brought up feminists like Dworkin in their campaign against pornography over the next few years.

Mary Daly in her book ‘Gyn/Ecology’ discusses the original film ‘ Snuff’ and discusses the men who enjoyed films like it. She states ‘This type of entertainment is enjoyed by judges, physicians, police, physicians, and other professionals today in the line of ‘duty’, when women who have been victimised (rape victims, for example ) come under their power ‘ [Mary Daly Gyn /Ecology, Woman’s Press, 1979]. Daly points out that not just that the most respected and powerful men in society enjoy these types of portrayals of violence against women but it informs their treatment of the vulnerable women in their power. Daly links the attitudes of these men toward women to the misogyny of the male witch finders of the past in the following paragraph. So there is an argument to link the way ‘The Devil of Christmas’ examines and subtly calls out the misogyny of its time to the way ‘The Trial of Elizabeth Gage’ examines the misogyny that underlay the seventeenth century witch trials .

While Dworkin, Daly and others have been mocked and decried for their apparent gullibility in believing in the existence of snuff as a genre, this loses sight of a wider point. They were correct in pinpointing the misogynistic attitudes that underlay the original ‘Snuff’ film and films that came in its wake. They were also correct in their calling out of the mistreatment of women in the adult entertainment industry, which was rapidly growing in the 1970s. But as we have discovered with the #metoo movement and the Weinstein scandal the entertainment industry has been rife with male abusers.

Dennis expresses casual surprise that this dark piece from his past eventually surfaced, almost as if being involved in a woman’s murder was a minor thing in his life. Many of the men who were investigated by investigations such as Operation Yewtree obviously did not expect to be called to account for their crimes. We have only in recent years started to look honestly at the abuses of this period. With that we have had to evalate the media of this period to. It may have taken almost forty years but Dennis Fulcher is finally made to account for his role in Penny’s murder. His is not the final voice we hear in the episode but the detective investigating him.

[things2mustdo]

We are all too familiar with the SJWs’ “muh feelings” pose. We are also familiar with the Leftists’ manipulative stance, be it through their sanctimonious bullying, guilt-tripping, appeals to a pseudo-consensus, veiled threats, or constant emotional blackmailing. The maelstrom of emotions the Left plays with makes tempting to withdraw emotionally. We might be led to think that the higher good lies in “cold, hard facts” alone. But if we do so, we easily forget that cold facts do not prompt for any action, and if we merely describe while trying to get emotionally disconnected, we cut ourselves off the game.

Passions are part of the game

When the infamous Karl Marx wrote that modern capitalism “drowned the most heavenly ecstasies of religious fervour, of chivalrous enthusiasm, of philistine sentimentalism, in the icy water of egotistical calculation,” he had a point. The bourgeois world of classic modernity is emotionally lacking, and both the bohemian artistry and Communist radical politics stepped up to fulfill the void. This historical point is still relevant today. Conservatives fail to make stands because they are much more passionate about their personal interest than about defending anything they pretend to stand for. SJWs, on the other hand, went very far into shrieking and bullying because they are usually passionate for their points. Different motivations lead to different outcomes. And a strong motivation, not to say a deep or passionate commitment, greatly helps to build a strong character.

The far-left was able to pick up people’s passions because the bourgeois would not, and perhaps could not, do that. The bourgeois idea of progress was about people becoming farm animals, individuals reduced to the status of producers and consumers in a world where nothing really new or interesting could appear anymore. In such a world, there is no need for passions and no need for politics, isn’t it? Well, the individuals would not let themselves get boiled down to the status of mere economical agents, and many preferred embracing some ridiculous strand of new-age spirituality, worthless artistry or even becoming Communists than living through the bourgeois-conservative nothingness..

Rejecting the passions and emotions, or at the very least trying to put them aside as to ignore them, made men weak and unable to take a stance. It has also made women unhinged, shameless, and willing to do anything for short-term pleasure, as no men were able to give them a proper sense of boundaries. Plus, passions being powerful motivators, the far-left mastery when it comes to stirring some made it tremendously powerful as well.

We must face passions, not as an annoyance, but as a resource that has to be mastered. This is true for ourselves and others. First, when we are aware of our emotional states without being directly prompted (“triggered”) by them, we gain the ability to choose consciously what we do and want to do, and can follow our own intuitions instead of getting framed by an alien narrative. Second, when we are also aware of others’ emotional states, we can steer them in a specific direction.

The latter is especially true for women: today, they follow fashions and MSM approval, when not following their own sluttiness and attention-whoring… but if men were able to reward, shame, and inspire proper passions in them, they would follow us instead. If we want this to happen, we have to take over the empire of passions and stir up some emotions in the public’s hearts, be it through discourse, artwork, or daily conversations. Here are three emotions I think we should be keen to stir.

1. Empathy

According to Dr. Neel Burton,

Empathy can be defined as a person’s ability to recognize and share the emotions of another person, fictional character, or sentient being. It involves, first, seeing someone else’s situation from his perspective, and, second, sharing his emotions, including, if any, his distress. (Burton, Heaven and Hell, chap.21, p.153)

As empathy fits well with maternal instinct and motivates nurturing tendencies, women are naturally prone to it. Up until a very recent time, they took care of babies and small children, participated to local charities, worked in shelters for the homeless or went through menial but important tasks as nurses. They did so because their natural empathy motivated them to act this way.

By contrast, a striking feature of feminism is that it destroys womanly empathy and nurturing tendencies. From a feminist point of view, men are enemies or at the very least potential oppressors and children are a burden. Feminism reverses the empathy, turns it into defiance or even hatred. Worse: after women have lost their ability to feel positively towards the men they should at least respect, cultural Marxism stirs their natural empathy towards “minority” identities. Thus we see grrls caring about thugs, invaders, or weirdos, who are all positively portrayed in the media, more than they care about what should be their community.

The lack of empathy is also a problem among white men. Though black men often exert violence against each other, the majority of them always bonds when it comes to attacking the depleted white majority. The same goes for any community out there: they empathize with each other more than they would ever empathize with us. We, white men, are the only ones who do the exact opposite by being hypercritical against each other when we should actually be supportive and look at the positive rather than the negative.

There should be a lot more empathy towards us than there currently is. Others should be more sensitive to our plight, suffer when we suffer, or at least feel compelled to suffer when we do. We are the proximate [prochain?], not the Big Other. We, too, should have more empathy among ourselves: nice guys, for example, should not be considered as “jerks” or “bastards,” as say some red-pilled guys who seem to have internalized a negative framing, but as misled victims who proved some nobility by trying to conciliate “respect” for women with the healthy desire to get a deeper relationship. Along the same lines, the working- or middle-class average Joe who got disenfranchised should be painted on a positive and humane light so that wealthy liberals cannot ignore or merely sneer at him.

2. Hope

Here is an emotion the Left has really abused from. Remember 2007-8, when the first “black” president was supposed to end the racial tensions in the US as well as the neocon foreign wars? Democrat activists at that time wrote without batting an eyelid about their hope for a world without losers, for an outcome where everyone would win. Then, the racial tensions have never been so high, the white majority is more dispossessed than ever, and the same liberals who were trumpeting about a world without losers have no shame calling us losers—from their choices and politics. Hope has been abused from, and we have to take it back. In fact, we have already started to.

Hope can be defined as the desire for something to happen combined with an anticipation of it happening. It is the anticipation of something desired… To hope for something is to desire that thing, and to believe, rightly or wrongly, that the probability of it happening, though less than 1, is greater than 0. (Neel Burton, Heaven and Hell, chap.14, p.103)

Trump is a wild card who comes with no guarantee, for sure. He still gives us something no Obama could ever give us—hope. The Alt-Right, manosphere, and the whole flourishing of high-quality dissenting intellectual efforts give us hope as well. Someone wrote that “the Alt-Right represents the first new philosophical competitor to liberalism, broadly defined, since the fall of Communism.” Someone else, here on ROK, noticed that more and more women were fed up with misandric grievance-mongering and longed to become mothers. These trends are more than interesting: they seem to point towards a better future that we still have to conquer.

On the other side, the liberal status quo and Hillary in particular mean pure hopelessness. If Hillary gets elected, we will have even less jobs, anti-white and anti-male organized groups will attack even more, the wealthy globalists will get fatter at our expense, and so on. Interestingly, liberals today use arguments of a conservative kind: when they shriek something as “the 5 last US presidents tell you not to vote for Trump” or “the Alt-Right and deplorables are un-American,” they look more like McCarthyists than hippies. They are the establishment clinging to the status quo and worsening. We are the embodiment of hope for a positive change.

3. Love

While hope should be spread among any decent people and is pretty straightforward once we agree on the intrinsic value of its object, love appears a bit trickier. In a relationship, whoever loves the other most is dominated whereas who loves less has more room to take action. If a man falls in love, he falls in the sense that he gets dumbed down, pedestalizes the girl, who in turn will get bored and look for a more challenging partner. Thus, seduction must be used to stir love in women: they must love us as well as their children. Both as a mistress and a mother, both as sexual and nurturing, a woman exerts love.

In men, love must be exerted in a more distilled and thoughtful form: when we protect our dear ones, toil for them, care about their interests, these efforts are an expression of love as well—although this form of love must be more distant as to allow ampler room for action. In any case, the feminine element must love the most and more directly.

It should be added that masculine and feminine can be conceived, not only as absolute, but also as relative terms. Esotericists consider that we are all “feminine” when considered under a higher point of view: the most fierce, courageous and risk-taking warrior remains “feminine” relatively to a genuine spiritual authority, and any human is “feminine” relatively to God as the ultimate Father. The Bible compares the good ones to a bride that shall get married to God (Revelation, 19). Hinduism recommends bhakti or devotion, i.e. religious love, to those belonging to the warrior caste, whereas the spiritual authority is more “masculine” as it enjoys a higher and more direct knowledge of God. These considerations might seem a bit far-fetched, but they were already highly relevant before the tiniest stint of modern degeneracy was born. Just remember that being in love is acceptable for a man as long as it never equates to pedestalizing a woman.

Conclusion

Passions and emotions matter. If we set them aside as irrelevant, someone else will push our emotional buttons—and the girls’—and spin us in no time. The philosopher René Descartes wrote that “all the good and the bad in this life depend from the passions” and that we had better be able to use them wisely. Ironically, the word “Cartesian” now denotes a logical, rationalistic, supernatural-denying mindset. This is accurate for the young Descartes, who was among the top scientists of his time, but tosses aside an important twist: the philosopher eventually lost his only daughter, Francine, and the sadness he felt while mourning her made him aware of the power of emotions. Yet, instead of being dominated by said emotions, Descartes strove to gain cogency about them, and he wrote a very interesting little treatise to expand a whole theory of the “passions of the soul.”

Our case is the same. Most if not all of us have been blue-pilled since infancy. Cultural Marxism was shoveled down our throat by school teachers, media figures, movies, social pressure. At each step of this process, our emotions were stirred and directed by spinsters so that, for example, we would feel a high empathy for so-called minorities while ignoring the homeless “white males” dying of cold at winter.

Ride the tiger of your own emotions and of (some) others’ as well if you don’t want sinister globalists to.

https://www.returnofkings.com/11010/how-to-control-your-emotional-state

We all have our ups and downs. Some days you feel on top of the world, you ooze a sexy masculine confidence that women love whereas other days you couldn’t be bothered to shave — you scowl at the thought of doing anything interesting and avoid all outside contact. Many guys accept this with a “que sera, sera” mentality. They feel it is just the natural ebb and flow of things, that taming your emotional state would be too chaotic of a task.

Those who do wish to change usually use hokey terminology talking about “energy” and the “universe.” They’ll seek guidance from another source so that they do not have to take responsibility for letting their emotions get out of check. People also seek a quick cure for a continual state of happiness, but what they do not realize is that happiness is transient.

I do believe there is a way to wrangle your emotions that relies on you, your habits and the power you have to respond to various stimuli. Essentially you must minimize the negativity and maximize the positivity in your life by altering certain habits.

Minimize Habits That Lead To Negativity

Take a moment to think about any time you’ve lost control of your emotions. When did you last get angry, depressed, hateful, etc.? What do you do when you’re out talking to girls that hurts your success? Do you have unreasonable limiting beliefs? Do you believe you always need to be happy to be successful? Do you get frustrated when you have anxiety because of any of the above?

If you think about the above long enough and are mindful when such emotional states occur you will begin to notice a trend in what triggers them.

For me the biggest habits that lead to a negative state of mind, in which I lacked motivation, was depressed, and stayed inside all day, were my nutritional habits. I started to recognize a pattern: I’d go out drinking or eat highly processed foods, I’d wake up the next day tired and dehydrated, then I’d stay inside all day watching movies because I didn’t want to go to the gym or talk to people. The cycle would just endlessly repeat until the natural ebb and flow of things took me to a high point.

Maximize Habits That Lead To Positivity

Repeat the exercise above. When was the last time you felt on top of the world, when did you last feel invincible, when did you last have no anxieties? When were you on fire when talking to girls, what were you doing that made you so successful? What were the thoughts running through your head?

Again if you pay attention you will begin to see patterns. You’ll start to realize what habits lead to a great mood.

For me I felt the best when ‘rewarded’ with something. Whether it was having great sex, sharing something with a friend, new PRs in the gym, busting my ass in the library and getting a good grade, or learning a new skill.

The Keystone Habit

Roosh brought up keystone habits in a recent article titled “One Approach A Day.” Essentially it is an innocuous habit that has a much larger effect than planned.

For me I started a few keystone habits: I started the day off with a nice cold glass of lemon water and my vitamins. In doing this I started drinking more and more water leading me to be less dehydrated, more energetic and making better food choices.

I also made a rule that as soon as I start talking myself out of something reasonable I would force myself to do whatever it was I was trying to rationalize my way out of. Maybe I’d start thinking “I’m kind of sore and I still haven’t seen the new episode of Game of Thrones, I think I’ll go to the gym later.” I know I wouldn’t go to the gym later so I would immediately get up and put on my workout gear. Just by doing this I started getting in the mood for lifting — I’ve also heard of guys packing a gym bag every night and leaving it in their car.

The peaks and troughs of our emotional state should not define us. As a man, whether it be through eliminating negative triggers or forming positive habits, you should be fully in control of your emotions. Use the power of a keystone habit to enact much larger scale change so you can be in a perpetual state of positivity, or at the very least, neutrality.

Read Also: How To Change Your Bad Habits