#like most conservative white men over the age of 30

[sscrambledmeggss]

rip bunny from tsh you would have loved talking about 9/11

[maaarine]

Why are British teenage girls so unhappy? Here’s the answer (Caitlin Moran, The Times, Sep 13 2024)

"The report, by the Children’s Society, found that British 15-year-old girls are the most unhappy in Europe.

British girls aged 10-15 are “significantly less happy” with their life, appearance, family and school than the average boy — and their happiness is still declining.

Boys’ life satisfaction, meanwhile, remains broadly stable. (…)

But I still didn’t have an “aha!” moment about why this so disproportionately affects girls until… I talked to some teenage girls.

It was at a party, and I went to vape with them on the patio. Because I take my nicotine like children do.

“Duh — it’s the boys,” one said when I brought it up, as all the others agreed.

“The boys?” I asked.

My last book, What About Men?, had been all about how much boys struggle these days: their loneliness; their suicide rates. I’d spent the past year feeling very sympathetic towards boys.

“Yeah, well, who do you think they’re taking out their unhappiness on? It’s us,” another girl said.

“One boy at school used to draw a picture every day of how ugly I was,” a third girl said. “Every day for two years.”

“They’ve all got ‘Rate The Girls’ polls on their WhatsApps,” the first said. “They mark you down for weight gain, haircuts, what you say.”

“But then, if you’re hot, it’s just as bad, in a different way, because they’ll be talking about how they want to f*** you.”

The girls discussed coping techniques. Bad news: none of them worked.

“The only way you can stop them is if you become ‘one of the boys’ and hang out with them. But then,” the second girl said with a sigh, “all the other girls call you a slut. Because you’ve gone over to the boys’ side.”

“Surely it’s not all the boys?” I said. “There must be some nice boys?”

“Oh, yeah,” one girl said. “But they keep their heads down. Because… well, look.”

She showed me the Instagram account of her friend. Under every picture she posted of herself — smiling in a new dress; with her dog — dozens of anonymous accounts had replied with the most rank abuse.

“Fat.” “Slut.” “You gonna try and kill yourself again, for attention?”

“They’re all boys from her school,” she said. “And look, this one boy tried to defend her.”

I saw a series of messages from a brave teenage boy, posting things like, “You’re all big men, leaving these replies under anonymous accounts.”

As I could see, this boy immediately became a target too. Mainly accusations that he was “white knighting” this girl: “You wanna f*** her, bro?”

“So,” I asked, “you don’t think it’s social media pressure to be beautiful, or the economy, that’s making girls so sad?”

“Well, yeah, them too,” the first girl said. “But, Monday-Friday, 9-3, I’m not on social media. I’m not… in the economy. I’m just with these boys. And no one talks about how horrible they are.”

I thought about another recent report, showing a 30 per cent ideological gap between Gen Z men, who are increasingly conservative, and Gen Z women, who are increasingly progressive.

I thought about Andrew Tate, who has nine million mostly young male followers — and faces human trafficking charges, which he denies.

And I thought: maybe these girls are on to something. Maybe more people need to vape with teenage girls and ask them for the school gossip."

[leohtttbriar]

Someone brought an overhated character poll to my dash about Kai Winn and im literally so sad about the responses. I knew there were people who hated her but it's really baffling to me how maybe 10 people tops acknowledge her past and the reasonings behind her choices, they just see a space Karen.

oh dude, i'm sorry that sucks. and "sad" really is a simple but fairly complete word when it comes to the character of winn adami, huh.

like. i think a lot about how she's the most normal-looking woman on the show. she is also, simply, normal. she is faithful and political and appears and acts in ways far more familiar to us than most characters. even the fact of her alien-faith hardly serves to alienate, given that she is faithful in the way we might be--without true expectation of ever meeting the divine in this life. while kira can seem more like a fictional character when she speaks of the prophets, due to her proximity to them, winn sounds like the person accosting you on a street corner to talk about the rapture.

that's the thing, though, isn't it. about the "karen" phenomenon in general. there is nothing uniquely bad about middle-aged white women--nothing that makes them uniquely ungovernable in social spheres in ways men aren't. in ways everyone isn't, in some way. (merely anecdotal evidence, but my own experience in the service industry made me far more wary of men in their 30s wearing patagonia vests over dress-shirts). winn adami is a normal sort of frustration to people. one they encounter in the day-to-day. the political conservative who stands outside of planned parenthood and tells girls not to throw away their everlasting souls. the pentecostal women speaking gibberish in church, gesturing to the heavens with their out-of-fashion french manicures, who brought a tater-tot hot dish with extra kraft cheese to the pot luck. the women with cross-walls. with like. so many crosses. the women with leathery tans on the aging skin of their arms and neck. the women who quietly walk into voting booths around the world and choose "safety" over anything else, whether or not that "safety" is real.

at least. that's who people think winn is. setting aside the fact that most people don't truly know the kinds of women listed above, that it's unlikely they've spared a single ounce of pity for women like that ever in their entire lives, winn is not exactly pitiable in this way. she is awash in power. she is intelligent. she thinks. she would stand in a voting booth and choose "safety" (whether or not it's real) but she's not the lady wearing a t-shirt that says trump could grab her pussy if he wanted. she's not one of the many blonde women on fox news. she's not even sandra day o'connor or any other female conservative intellectual. because she's a metaphor.

we don't know her real-world politics because she's a fictional character in a fictional universe leading a fictional world. we know she's a conservative because fights very very hard to maintain the status quo regarding her bajoran religion and its teachings. but we don't know how any of that can be truly allegorized to conservative policies in the real-world. the main tension being: conservatives in the real-world base a lot of truly evil policy on a made-up divine figure interpreted through thousands of made-up hermeneutics and it is materially all Not Real. in ds9, the prophets are actual beings who affect reality. winn's said and done things on the show that sound like something an annoying woman with a turquoise-cross around her neck would say at a utah city council meeting about creationism and "inappropriate books." she also says things that a woman would say at a protest against the racist and paternalistic policies of the british museum. all we know of her as a political figure is that she is conservative. and like, power-hungry and desperate, but those aren't essentially related. she wants to conserve. and that encompasses more than one thing.

which means that people, when they see her, simply aren't thinking. they react to a woman who looks as she does. who speaks like a politician. who makes decisions that are unfair. but, exactly as you said, the show grounds her. they give her a past. they richly flesh out so much about her. they have her acting too rationally sometimes for someone of her professed faith. they have her acting completely irrational as her gods reject her again and again. all while she clings to them with a faith that endured actual torture at the hands of violent imperialists who yet attack her planet and yet attack her and yet she has to speak with as the leader of bajor.

and it's hard to see (beyond the obvious) why this character receives so much vitriol when you have characters like garak and dukat and kira who all are considered charming and beloved in some way or another, while still being as complex as they are. (and i don't even think dukat is all that complex.) even sisko has some moments that, if i lived in his world, i would be somewhat repulsed by--like when jake begs him to let the prophets go and sisko embraces the cosmic over the request of his son. (again: the prophets are real though, so my "repulsion" is more a reaction against people i see as priests, who i find in the real world, as a rule, awful.)

so. it's definitely sad. because the level and kind of hate bestowed upon this character really does seem to be a symptom of a much larger issue: of course, misogyny.

also that people don't tend to think.

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Lilli Petersen at HuffPost:

When Taylor Swift came out to endorse Vice President Kamala Harris last month, it was the Instagram post heard ’round the world (or at least ’round the TikTok FYP algorithm). “I’m voting for @kamalaharris because she fights for the rights and causes I believe need a warrior to champion them,” Swift wrote immediately following the first, and only, debate between Harris and former President Donald Trump. She signed her message “Taylor Swift, Childless Cat Lady” — a knock at Republican vice presidential nominee JD Vance, who has used the term to demean women without children.

With her simultaneous endorsement of the Democrat and swipe at the Republican, Swift, at 34 arguably the most famous millennial woman in U.S. pop culture, also made herself the avatar of an ongoing shift in politics among her demographic of young women: For the past few decades, they have been tilting decidedly left. “It’s popping out in the polling because it’s more dramatic this year than it has been in other years,” said Elaine Kamarck, director of the Center for Effective Public Management at the Brookings Institution. The Harris campaign has been assiduously courting women, and particularly young women. Harris regularly makes abortion rights a talking point in interviews and stump speeches, has embraced the meme-ification of her campaign (including Charli XCX enthusiasm and Swift-themed get-out-the-vote campaigns), and recently went on the popular podcast “Call Her Daddy,” which began life as a relationship and advice podcast and whose audience is now over two-thirds female and over 90% younger than 45. Trump’s campaign, meanwhile, has been... less deft. From Vance doubling down on demeaning childless women and suggesting they should have less voting power, to Trump promising to be women’s “protector,” to, really, just all of the plain ol’ misogyny, it’s not surprising the gender gap isn’t in Trump’s favor.

“You hear important people talking like this, and you say, ‘What the hell?’ You know, ‘People with children should have more votes than people without children.’ What?” laughed Kamarck. “Between Vance and Trump, they are articulating an amazingly old-fashioned notion of women’s role in society,” she added. The shift of young women leftward is not a particularly new trend. Women are regularly more liberal than their male peers, and young people are regularly more liberal than their older counterparts.

[...] She also noted that the research only focuses on women who were ages 18-29 at the time of polling, which means the data reflects the views of multiple generations, rather than the changing attitude of a steady cohort. The overall picture also shows some variance by race: White and Black women under age 50 have especially moved to the left, while Hispanic women have largely stayed the same or even shifted rightward. “But even with the ups and downs, we’ve ended up at a place that’s significantly higher, on a percent level, than it was in 2015,” Saad said. And while young women are shifting left, young men are staying relatively moderate. Sixty-three percent of young women in 2001-2007 had views closer to those of liberals than of conservatives, a figure that jumped to 78% in the 2008-2016 period and then to 87% in the 2017-2024 period. Young men, meanwhile, saw those same figures move from 47% to 57%, and then fall to 50% for the period from 2017 to 2024. The divide is becoming ever clearer as the 2024 election approaches. According to a fall 2024 Harvard Youth Poll, Harris has a 31-point lead over Trump among likely voters under 30 — and when it comes to likely female voters in that age group, Harris leads 70% to 23%. “Brat,” indeed.

[...] Young women, though, are more likely than young men to be involved in liberal-leaning social movements like Black Lives Matter, #MeToo, environmental activism and gun violence prevention. Particularly involved are young women of color, who Kiesa notes have taken on “significant” leadership in activism work.

HuffPost’s Lilli Petersen explores why young women in the USA are shifting leftwards at a historic pace since 2015.

Read the full story at HuffPost.

[democracyunderground]

STOP BLAMING MEN FOR EVERYTHING

it's a gross generalization, it's sexist, and it's wrong.

the gender gap was actually smaller in 2024 than in 2020 or 2016.

as one example, women between 45 and 64 voted for democrats

by 7% less in 2024 than they did in 2020, and under 30 years old,

women voted 2% less, that's right, even under 30 voted less. but,

both men and women over 65 the same in both 2020 and 2024.

most likely, because of social security, medicare, and medicaid.

"Vice President Kamala Harris’ potentially history-making bid to become the first woman in the White House did little to bring more women voters into the Democratic Party during the first presidential election after the loss of federal abortion rights, with seemingly one exception: women over 65.

These women were motivated by the same issues that were important to the overall electorate, like the economy, threats to democracy, immigration and abortion, something central to Harris’ failed bid for the presidency. They were, however, more likely to name priorities like caregiving, aging in place and preserving the government retirement savings program Social Security as decisive factors, according to an AARP analysis of an AP VoteCast survey of 120,000 registered voters.

The specific priorities of women over 65 could explain why they voted for Harris at higher rates than men their age and moved more in Harris’ direction than younger women.

“Social Security … is not an issue that people said was either first or second most important, but 70 percent of voters said that Social Security was an extremely or very important issue in their vote, and it was slightly higher among voters who voted Democratic,” Jeff Liszt, a partner at Impact Research, a Democratic polling firm, said during a post-election briefing hosted by the AARP.

“And then voters 50+? Eighty percent of voters 50+ said that Social Security was extremely or very important in their vote,” he continued.

Across gender, age and race, the electorate largely moved away from Democrats this year and the shift typically, though not always, benefited Republican President-elect Donald Trump. This happened even as a record-breaking percentage of voters said that abortion was their top issue and majorities of the electorate across all demographic groups said they trusted Democrats to better handle it.

Trump picked up support despite his role cementing the conservative Supreme Court majority that overturned Roe v. Wade, the dozens of allegations of sexual misconduct against him and his conviction last year for sexual abuse. He received more support from women across all age groups compared to 2020, except for those 65 and older, who swung in Harris’ favor by several points: 54 percent of them backed Harris while her support from men of the same age group was 44 percent, according to CNN exit polls.

A main takeaway this year is that a gender gap that many political experts predicted could be historic did not materialize, in part because the share of the women’s electorate that Harris won decreased across all age groups, except for women over 65.

A gender gap has existed in every presidential election since 1980, with more women supporting the Democratic candidate. This year, it was smaller than in the past two elections. Trump competed in both — winning the first, losing the second — though each occurred before Roe was overturned and the former president’s sexual abuse conviction. He has also since been convicted of 34 felonies related to falsifying business records to obscure payments to an adult film star during his first campaign.

The gender gap is typically considered the difference between the proportions of men and women who supported the winning candidate. In 2024, there was a 10-point gender gap. In 2020, there was a 12-point gender gap. In 2016, there was a 11-point gender gap, according to the Center for American Women and Politics at Rutgers University.

A smaller proportion of women overall backed Harris this year than did President Joe Biden in 2020, with 53 percent voting for her; 45 percent cast ballots for Trump, according to a CNN analysis of exit polls, an imperfect science that nonetheless provides an initial look at the electorate.  The same exit polls from the 2020 election indicated that 57 percent of women backed Biden and 42 percent backed Trump.

The CNN exit polls indicated that Harris lost support across all other age groups of women this year. The drop ranged from two points among 30- to 44-year-old women to seven points among 45- to 64-year-old women..

But women and men 65+ moved roughly equal amounts in favor of Harris as compared to 2020  — and women in this age cohort remained more likely than men to support the Democratic nominee.

Liszt participated in the briefing hosted by the AARP, along with Bob Ward, a partner at Fabrizio Ward, a Republican polling firm. The two pollsters analyzed AP VoteCast data across 43 of the most competitive U.S. House districts, most of which were also in presidential battleground states. As they layered gender across age and race, a fuller picture started to come into focus about why women 65 and older in these key areas seem to have defied the ideological shifts seen across other demographic groups.

The AARP analysis showed that abortion and immigration were the top issues overall that determined candidate choices this year, with about one in four voters naming each as the decisive factor. The economy and jobs ranked at a close second, though it became the top issue overall when expanded to include inflation and Social Security in the broader category of “personal economic issues.”

Voters 65 and older were also far more likely than those in other age groups to say “protecting democracy” was at least a “very important” issue to them. About 90 percent of 50+ women said that protecting democracy was very important, compared to 79 percent of men.

While women over 50 were less likely than men the same age to name “personal economic issues” as the most determinative, more of them specifically picked Social Security. Women in this age group preferred Democrats’ approach, with 59 percent of them reporting that Social Security is or is expected to be a “major source” of income for their household. Fifty-one percent of men the same age said the same, the AARP analysis showed.

The biggest gender gaps in 50+ voters were on the issues of abortion and immigration, with women prioritizing the former and men the latter, the pollsters said.

Voters caring for an elderly, ill or disabled adult were more likely to vote for Harris and more women than men over 65 reported being a caregiver. Women over 50 were also 10 points more likely than men to say they trusted Democrats more than Republicans to “help seniors live independently.”

AARP’s takeaways are supported by interviews The 19th did with 65+ women ahead of the November elections.

Take Kathryn Engelhard, 69. She said after a mid-October Harris campaign event in Bucks County, Pennsylvania, that protecting Social Security was her top concern, followed by health care, specifically the GOP policies related to reproductive rights and abortion.

Sue Shomsky, a 70-year-old Michigan voter who backed Harris, said she was inspired to put up yard signs and go door-knocking for the first time this year because of the January 6, 2021, insurrection at the U.S. Capitol, which she saw as a threat to democracy, as well as Republican abortion policies, which she considers a threat to her grandchildren.

“You know, after January 6, I said: ‘My God, we cannot let this man get back in the White House.’ I’m going to do everything I can to protect the rights of my daughter and my granddaughters. Whatever it takes, I’m willing to do it,” Shomsky told The 19th in late October.

The AARP analysis was based on AP VoteCast, which surveys more than 120,000 registered voters across all states and is conducted by NORC at the University of Chicago for Fox News, PBS NewsHour, The Wall Street Journal and The Associated Press. These interviews, conducted in English and Spanish, took place in the final week before Election Day and reflect responses from registered voters who cast ballots in person, early, absentee, by mail or decided not to vote. It is a more expansive survey than the exit polls analyzed by CNN, which were compiled by doing voluntary interviews with about 23,000 voters.

The post Harris lost support from women overall — but not women over 65 appeared first on The 19th."

[captainobviois]

Ok thanks to @grinn-amadan and @l0v3c0r3e I will be telling.

I want to start with what many conservatives will consider as this movie being over “woke.” There were several moments in the movie where the narrative was slightly broken to insert a quip or a voice over that covered some kind of acknowledgment of something that that could easily have made a rando on Twitter/tumblr/tiktok/whatever mad. There’s a point where Barbie says she’s not pretty and a voice over quips that Margot Robbie was bad casting to make this point. Another time Sasha, played by hispanic actress Ariana Greenblatt, makes a quip about Barbie being a white savior. There’s other moments like this in the move but I think it’s not to just have every possible message covered in this movie, but to protect it from having the important feminist message it contains from being destroyed by the culture of canceling or ignoring the valuable lesson of an entire pierce of media because of one thing.

On to actual messages of this movie. One of the first things that my dad said about the movie was that Ryan Gosling and Margo Robbie are too old to play these characters. I think the casting was genius in so many ways. Gosling is 42 and Robbie is 33. One of the supporting themes in this movie is the way that society devalues you as you age. It’s mainly shown in the context of women losing their youth and being seen as worthless when they gain cellulite, wrinkles, eye bags, whatever else that comes form just living. But they’re all still beautiful and worthy of love despite growing up and aging. There’s no big comment about men getting older in the movie because overall society doesn’t start undervaluing men as they age. However, they do in industries like film. Gosling still looks so good at 42. But somehow people are age shaming him just so casually. It’s an incredibly meta part of the commentary of this movie. I sincerely hope Greta Gerwig made this casting choice with intent.

While we are still on age, I also want to talk about the perceived young mess of Barbie. The point do this doll was that she was an adult. The first major line of dolls for girls that were not babies or children. She could have a fucking career because she’s an adult. My dad (a great man, I love him. Although I will be ragging on him in this post a bit) always thought she was like 17. 17 years old. He, and most likely many men, thought this woman doll with perfect curves and makeup and full tits was 17. I broke the news to him that Robbie was too young to be Barbie last night, since Barbie is in her mid to late 30s. Several careers that Barbie has would take years of med school, PhDs, and not to mention that being the fucking president has an age minimum of 35. And somehow somehow men believe that this movie is still somehow meant to please them. Because they were surprised that the hot blonde doll wasn’t played by the youngest 20 something actress possible for their being pleasure. No one is saying it that plainly, but just thinking that Robbie isn’t good enough to be Barbie, makes this true, and proves the point that I had sort of referred to in a scene earlier when she says shoes not pretty enough. (Margot fucking Robbie is gorgeous and was also an awakening for me when I was 15 so everyone who thinks otherwise can fuck off)

Let’s talk about the message that women are never good enough. Who hates Barbie? Everyone. During a certain stage in everyone’s life, you hate Barbie. Little boys will be told that it’s girly and too feminine, so they’ll foster that toxic masculinity (or sometimes give it up, but I guarantee more most amab people, at some point you tried to live in that toxicity just to fit in and feel accepted). So many girls will hate Barbie while they are in the phase of feminism where you realize that just being associated with female anything is going to hinder you in life so you try to throw away every bit of pink you own and all tour Barbies and other dolls. Many afab people will come back to these things and the color pink and realize that just rejecting femininity isn’t going to solve thier problems. There’s someone else who has explained or talked about this phenomenon better than me, so I’m not getting into it. Y’all all know what I’m talking about. But the bottom line is that people hate Barbie. A doll who was literally made to just be liked. She’s pretty to appeal to the male gaze. She has every career imaginable and branched (imperfectly, but efforts were made) into different ethnicities and body types. And yet she’s still hated. But what is Barbie? Barbie, at her core is just the idea of a woman. And this movie points out, that just that, the idea of a woman is so hated by everyone at least once.

A C-suite of men can have the best intentions for women and think they are great feminists, and still get it so wrong. Ignoring the problems with large corporations for this post, men in charge can do good things. They can belive themselves to be good people. But it is fundamentally a problem for products made for women to be made by men (and this goes for any group to have something made by an other group). This extends to men speaking for women. To have the element of female voice missing from products, policies, spaces, anything made for women results in something that just doesn’t work. I’m not a gender studies expert or someone who knows everything about this manifesting in society. But I know it’s there. I live through the society built by men for men and women as an after thought.

Barbie was made to uplift women, but instead contributed to poor self esteem and oppression. Right so this is partially due to Mattel being run by white men predominantly. And honestly I think it’s really interesting that they chose to affiliate themselves so intensely with the movie (giving all permissions to use their logo and brand and everything). So a lot of girls also hate Barbie because she’s a standard of beauty and imperfection that is unreachable. And the point of Barbie was to help show women in more roles than just mothers. But at the same time it put the pressure on women to be extraordinarily to be valued at all.

There is so much gender binary in this movie. I can see how it’s unappealing for nonbinary people to want to watch it. I myself and somewhere on the spectrum of nb (but as you can probably tell I keep being afab as a major part of my identify because it’s shaped me in fundamental ways that I can’t remove from the structure of my being without crumbling everything I am). There’s something in this move for nb too. Allen was a doll made with the tag line “Ken’s best friend. All of Ken’s clothes fit him too.” It’s marketing to sell another doll with the assurance that he can also wear all the boy clothes that kids would own from the ken doll. There are multiple Kens. There’s only one Allen ever made. This character feels out of place in Barbie land. They’re not one of the Barbies or Kens. But all of Kens clothes fit. He could be like a Ken, but he takes the sides of the Barbies. They are someone other than Ken. They aren’t included in either side. I’m not sure how intentional it was, but there’s a metaphor somewhere in Allen for the trans and nb experience.

Ok now we are reaching territory that may be considered spoilers

The patriarchy is learned behavior. That’s all I think really needs to be said. The movie did such a good job with showing this. The Kens weren’t taught that men are better. But just a few hours in the real world, and Ken learned all these biases and harmful rhetoric about women. And it wasn’t shown as some thing where Ken really hated women, it’s just that a world that caters to your gender specifically is so enticing that he’ll let women be oppressed to have it. And really I think Ken was a good way to just attempt to show men what it’s like to be a woman in the real world. It’s too hard for most men to sympathize with women’s struggles, so here’s a man going through the same thing. Do you get it now? Does it make sense when you see the tables turned?

Ok and the point where Barbie feels guilty for rejecting Ken and dismantling the patriarch he built. The fact that she had to have it pointed out to her that dismantling a broken system that someone made to specifically systemically oppress you because you rejected him isn’t wrong. That is the experience of being a woman. That you are taught to not fight for your rights if it might hurt someone’s feelings. To be empathetic to a point of self harm.

Any kind of gender oppression is wrong. Full stop. Feminism means equality. This movie didn’t end in a perfect society of equality for the Barbies and Kens either. It’s not a perfect ending. It’s supposed to give men that watch it the feeling of disappointment because hey wait a minute that’s still not fair. Even if there was a step made in the right direction in Barbie land towards gender equality. It’s not there yet. BECAUSE ITS NOT THERE IN OUR WORLD EITHER.

The movie captured what it’s like to play with a doll. In the scene with Barbie floating down from her house. Skipping to the good part where the dolls have their parties and award shows without showing the in between because that’s how we think up play scenarios in our minds as kids sometimes. The Kens fighting is just what it’s like when you get a boy to play dolls with you, which is just as fun for girls and just not usually something that we are taught to do in play.

The discussion at the end of the move that Barbie has with her creator Ruth made me sob. Barbie is the idea of a woman. And she stands before her literal god, who loves her so much. The idea of a woman, hated by so many and only created to be loved, asks permission to be human. The idea of a woman asks to just be thought of as human. That’s heartbreaking.

The absolute last scene where she went to see a gyno. She’s dressed with a blazer on and you think she’s going out to her big job or a job interview. Because the two main happy endings for female characters are that they get a man (and it was established her happy ending wasn’t being forced with Ken) or a a corporate girlboss. But it’s a fake out. Because the point is that women are just ordinary people and all still human and she’s going to do something so ordinary and human in just seeing a gynecologist.

There’s so much more that could be said, but I’m not a professional or expert in film analysis or feminist thinking. I really hope someone writes something more eloquent than myself that can go around for people to see why they should take the message of the movie seriously and why it’s so good. It’s not “anti-man” as so many aware saying. It’s just showing what the world is like for women. It’s Mattel taking some responsibility for how their doll lines have affected women.

And on top of all that. It’s so damn FUNNY. I got whiplash going from crying to laughing. It’s so fun, the dialogue, the music, the costumes, the gags. It was just an enjoyable film

I have so many feelings about the Barbie movie. If one person asks I will be spilling paragraphs

[macgyvermedical]

The Time My Mom Got in a High Speed Chase with a Transphobe in a 2011 Manual Subaru Forester on her Lunch Break

I think it is time for you to hear the tale of my mom’s crowning moment of awesome.

It’s been a couple years now, which I feel has put enough time between the thing and it coming out on the internet that she probably won’t be arrested for it.

First, I need you to picture my mom:

She is in her late 50s, a white suburban mother of 2 married to her husband of over 30 years. She is a social worker/ADRC specialist for the county. Short, kinda frumpy in the best way, totally unassuming, and the most liberal person in a mid-sized, half-rural, and very conservative county. She is also 100% down to fight whoever, whenever, as long as she can do it in a morally correct, legally defensible, or civilly disobedient way.

Which she can do, of course, because she is a white, straight, blond-haired, blue eyed, middle aged woman from the Ohio suburbs. And she knows it.

Anyway. She has spent the last 6.5 years as the leader of the only LGBTQ+ support group in the county. She’s used that position to spend nearly two years of that fighting the Catholic Diocese and Ohio Christian Alliance for a city ordinance for equal access to housing, employment, and public accommodations for transgender people. She’s won Ally awards from bigger cities for this. That’s a story in itself, but I’ll keep it to that for now because there’s a more exciting story here.

Naturally, these efforts have made her a lot of enemies, of which she is very proud.

On this particular day, my mom was at work when she noticed a woman gathering signatures out front. My mom, always a sucker for a good petition, went out to investigate. Clearly this woman did not know who my mom was, because she immediately launched into a spiel about how there was an ordinance in the city was going to allow men to enter women's restrooms and r*pe her children.

My mom listened as long as she could (I assume less than 3 minutes), and then got up in this woman’s face and said “and if even one kid dies because you think they shouldn’t be allow to access housing or employment, that they’re a second class citizen because of their gender identity because of your lies, that blood will be on your hands”.

The woman backed off, slightly.

But when my mom got in her car to drive home for her lunch break, guess who was sitting in the car next to hers? Why, Christian Alliance Lady with her clip board and everything, eating a sandwich. Well, my mom wasn’t going to stand for that. Instead of driving home, she decided a better use of her lunch break was to sit in her car and stare at this woman until she left.

After a few minutes of getting stared at by a possibly deranged ADRC Specialist with extensive civil disobedience training, this woman starts to get uncomfortable. She slowly backs out of her parking spot, parks in another spot, and continues eating. Well, my mom notices that there’s still a nice empty spot next to Christian Alliance Lady’s car’s new parking spot, and decides it’s only fair to continue the staring contest.

After an additional while of trying to ignore my mom’s extremely disapproving yet patient eyeballs, Christian Alliance Lady gets uncomfortable again. Her lunch break appears to be over anyway, so she gets out and goes back to the entrance of the county building, hoping maybe someone will notice her distress and tell my mom to bug off. My mom follows her, continuing to stare from about 10 feet away.

Everywhere Christian Alliance Lady goes, so does my mom. Staring. 

It’s her place of employment after all, on her lunch break. This lady, technically, is the one trespassing. My mom ends up following her up a hill behind the building, through the parking lot, and all the way back to her car. Eventually I guess she gets tired of being slowly followed by a 50-something persistence hunter, because she gets back in her car and pulls out of the parking lot.

Well my mom’s not just about to fall for that.

My mom drives over to the other entrance to the parking lot and waits for this woman to try to sneak back in. Which she of course tries to do. Seeing my mom too late to play it cool, she casually tries to drive past the entrance. My mom calls her bluff, pulls out, and begins to follow her. They drive slowly through a movie theater parking lot, and then a Target parking lot, and finally out to the main road. My mom keeps following. They drive through the town square, my mom keeping a plausibly deniable distance navigating one-way streets and parking lots she clearly knows a lot better than this woman does.

Finally, the woman apparently gives up, and heads for the highway.

My mom follows.

I should break here to point out that my mom both only drives manual vehicles that look like they absolutely and completely belong in suburbia, and also has never once broken 55mph on a highway.

Well, there’s a first time for everything, and my mom chases this lady, several cars back but still very obviously, at a still remarkably plausible 70+mph. When this lady changes lanes, so does my mom, for over 10 miles, until she hits the county line. At which time my mom decides her lunch break must almost be up, and returns to work.

Christian Alliance Lady is never seen again at the county building.

While she probably went somewhere else in the county to collect signatures, my mom is confident that she at least cost this lady a solid hour of petitioning, which may or may not have contributed to a slightly-too-low number of signatures to successfully revoke the ordinance in question.

[benevolentbirdgal]

“Thirteen″ Tips for Writing About Synagogues / Jewish Writing Advice / Advice for Visiting Synagogues

So your story includes a Jew (or two) and you’ve a got a scene in a synagogue. Maybe there’s a bar mitzvah, maybe your gentile protagonist is visiting their partner’s synagogue. Maybe there’s a wedding or a community meeting being held there. For whatever reason, you want a scene in a shul. I’m here as your friendly (virtual) neighborhood Jewish professional to help you not sound like a gentile who thinks a synagogue is just a church with a Star of David instead of a cross. 

Quick note: The are lots of synagogues around the world, with different specific cultural, local, and denominational practices. The Jewish community is made up of roughly 14 million people worldwide with all sorts of backgrounds, practices, life circumstances, and beliefs. I’m just one American Jew, but I’ve had exposure to Jewishness in many forms after living in 3.5 states (at several different population densities/layouts), attending Jewish day school and youth groups, doing Jewish college stuff, and landing a job at a Jewish non-profit. I’m speaking specifically in an American or Americanish context, though some of this will apply elsewhere as well. I’m also writing from the view of Before Times when gatherings and food and human contact was okay.

Bear in mind as well, in this discussion, the sliding scale of traditional observance to secular/liberal observance in modern denominations: Ultraorthodox (strict tradition), Modern Orthodox (Jewish law matters but we live in a modern world), Conservative (no relation to conservative politics, brands itself middle ground Judaism), Reconstructionist (start with Jewish law and then drop/add bits to choose your own adventure), and Reform (true build your own adventure, start at basically zero and incorporate only as you actively choose).

Synagogue = shul = temple. Mikvah (ritual bath) is its own thing and usually not attached to the shul. Jewish cemeteries are also typically nowhere near the shul, because dead bodies are considered impure.   

A Bar/Bat/Bnai Mitzvah is the Jewish coming of age ceremony. Bar (“son”) for boys at 13+, Bat (“daughter”) at 12+, and Bnai (“children”) for multiples (i.e. twins/triplets/siblings) or non-binary kids (although the use of the phrase “Bnai Mitzvah” this way is pretty new). 12/13 is the minimum, 12-14 the norm but very Reform will sometimes allow 11 and anybody above 12/13 can have theirs. Probably a dedicated post for another time. Generally, however, the following will happen: the kid will lead some parts of services, read from and/or carry the Torah, and make a couple of speeches. 

Attire: think Sunday Best (in this case Saturday), not come as you are. Even at very liberal reconstructionist/reform synagogues you wouldn’t show up in jeans and a t-shirt or work overalls. Unless they are seriously disconnected from their culture, your Jewish character is not coming to Saturday morning services in sneakers and jeans (their gentile guest, however, might come too casual and that’d be awkward).  1a. The more traditional the denomination, the more modest the attire. Outside of orthodoxy woman may wear pants, but dresses/skirts are more common. Tights for anything above knee common for Conservative/Reform/Recon, common for even below knee for orthodox shuls. Men will typically be wearing suits or close to it, except in very Reform spaces.  1b. Really, think business casual or nice dinner is the level of dressiness here for regular services. Some minor holidays or smaller events more casual is fine. Social events and classes casual is fine too.  1c. Even in reform synagogues, modesty is a thing. Get to the knee or close to it. No shoulders (this an obsession in many Jewish religious spaces for whatever reason), midriffs, or excessive cleavage (as I imagine to be the norm in most houses of worship). 

Gendered clothing:  3a. Men and boys wear kippahs (alt kippot, yarmulkes) in synagogues, regardless of whether they’re Jewish or not out of respect to the space. Outside of Jewish spaces it’s saying “I’m a Jew” but inside of Jewish spaces it’s saying “I’m a Jew or a gentile dude who respects the Jewish space.”  Outside of very Reform shuls, it’s a major faux pass to be a dude not wearing one.  3b. There are little buckets of loaner kippahs if you don’t bring your own and commemorative kippahs are given away at events (bar mitzvah, weddings). Your Jewish dude character not bringing or grabbing one is basically shouting “I’m new here.”  3c. Women are permitted to wear kippahs, but the adoption of a the traditionally masculine accessory will likely be interpreted by other Jews as LGBTQ+ presentation, intense feminism, and/or intense but nontraditional devoutness. Nobody will clutch their pearls (outside of ultraorthodoxy) but your character is sending a message.  3d. Tefillin are leather boxes and wrappings with prayers inside them that some Jewish men wrap around their arms (no under bar mitzvah or gentiles). Like with the kippah, a woman doing this is sending a message of feminism and/or nontraditional religious fervor.  3e. Additionally, prayer shawls, known as tallit, are encouraged/lightly expected of Jewish males (over 13) but not as much as Kippahs are. It is more common to have a personal set of tallit than tefillin. Blue and white is traditional, but they come in all sorts of fun colors and patterns now. Mine is purple and pink. It is much more common for women to have tallit and carries much fewer implications about their relationship to Judaism than wearing a kippah does.  3f. Married woman usually cover their hair in synagogues. Orthodox women will have wigs or full hair covers, but most Jewish woman will put a token scarf or doily on their head in the synagogue that doesn’t actually cover their hair. The shul will also have a doily loaner bucket. 

Jewish services are long (like 3-4 hours on a Saturday morning), but most people don’t get there until about the 1-1.5 hour mark. Your disconnected Jewish character or their gentile partner might not know that though. 

Although an active and traditional synagogue will have brief prayers three times every day, Torah services thrice a week, holiday programming, and weekly Friday night and Saturday morning services, the latter is the thing your Jewish character is most likely attending on the reg. A typical Saturday morning service will start with Shacharit (morning prayers) at 8:30-9, your genre savvy not-rabbi not-Bnai mitzvah kid Jewish character will get there around 9:30-10:15. 10:15-10:30 is the Torah service, which is followed by additional prayers. Depending on the day of the Jewish year (holidays, first day of new month, special shabbats), they’ll be done by 12:30 or 1 p.m. Usually.  After that is the oneg, a communal meal. Onegs start with wine and challah, and commence with a full meal. No waiting 4-8 hours to have a covered-dish supper after services. The oneg, outside of very, very, very Reform spaces will be kosher meat or kosher dairy. 

To conduct certain prayers (including the mourner’s prayers and the Torah service) you need a Minyan, which at least 10 Jewish “adults” must be present, defined as post Bar/Bat/Bnai Mitzvah. In Conservative/Reform/Recon, men and women are counted equally. In Ultraorthodox women are not counted. In Modern Orthodox it depends on the congregation, and some congregations will hold women’s-only services as well with at least ten “adult” Jewish women present.

In Conservative and Orthodox shuls, very little English is used outside of speeches and sermons. Prayers are in Hebrew, which many Jews can read the script of but not understand. Transliterations are also a thing.  In Reform synagogues, there’s heavy reliance on the lingua franca (usually English in American congregations). Reconstructionist really varies, but is generally more Hebrew-based than Reform. 

We’re a very inquisitive people. If your character is new to the synagogue, there will be lots of questions at the post-services oneg (meal, typically brunch/lunch). Are you new in town? Have you been here before? Where did you come from? Are you related to my friend from there? How was parking? Do you know my cousin? Are you single? What is your mother’s name? What do you think of the oneg - was there enough cream cheese? What summer camp did you go to? Can you read Hebrew? Have you joined?  A disconnected Jew or gentile might find it overwhelming, but many connected Jews who are used to it would be like “home sweet chaos” because it’s OUR chaos. 

In Orthodox synagogues, men and women have separate seating sections. There may be a balcony or back section, or there may be a divider known as a mechitzah in the middle. Children under 12/13 are permitted on either side, but over 12/13 folks have to stay one section or the other. Yes, this is a problem/challenge for trans and nonbinary Jews.  Mechitzahs are not a thing outside of orthodoxy. Some older Conservative synagogues will have women’s sections, but no longer expect or enforce this arrangement.   

Money. Is. Not. Handled. On. Shabbat. Or. Holidays. Especially. Not. In. The. Synagogue. Seriously, nothing says “goy writing Jews” more than a collection plate in shul. No money plate, no checks being passed around, even over calls for money (as opposed to just talking about all the great stuff they do and upcoming projects) are tacky and forbidden on Shabbat. Synagogues rely on donations and dues, and will solicit from members, but don’t outright request money on holidays and Shabbat. 

Outside of Reform and very nontraditional Conservative spaces, no instruments on Shabbat or holidays. No clapping either. Same goes for phones, cameras, and other electronics outside of microphones (which aren’t permitted in Orthodox services either).  11a. In the now-times an increasing number of shuls have set up cameras ahead of time pre-programmed to record, so they don’t have to actively “make fire” which is “work” (this is the relevant commandment/mitzvah) on Shabbat, so services can be live-streamed. 11b. After someone has completed an honor (reading from the Torah, carrying the Torah, opening the ark, etc), the appropriate response is a handshake after and the words “Yasher Koach” (again, Before-Times).

Jewish services involve a lot of movement. Get up, sit down. Look behind you, look in front of you. Twist left, twist right. A disconnected Jew or gentile visitor would be best off just trying to follow along with what an exchange student we had once termed “Jewish choreography.” Some prayers are standing prayers (if able), some are sitting prayers. It’s just how it is, although a handful of prayers have variations on who stands. 

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

* * * *

The COVID crisis has reduced to tatters the idea of American exceptionalism. The American cult of the individual denies not just community but the very idea of society. No one owes anything to anyone. All must be prepared to fight for everything: education, shelter, food, medical care. What every prosperous and successful democracy deems to be fundamental rights — universal health care, equal access to quality public education, a social safety net for the weak, elderly, and infirmed — America dismisses as socialist indulgences, as if so many signs of weakness.

COVID-19 attacks our physical bodies, but also the cultural foundations of our lives, the toolboxes of community and connectivity. COVID-19 killed 100,000 Americans in four months. Pandemics and plagues have a way of shifting the course of history, and not always in a manner immediately evident to the survivors. The COVID pandemic will be remembered as such a moment. COVID has reduced to tatters the illusion of American exceptionalism.

In the wake of the WW2, with Europe and Japan in ashes, the United States with but 6 percent of the world’s population accounted for half of the global economy, including the production of 93 percent of all automobiles. Such economic dominance birthed a vibrant middle class, a trade union movement that allowed a single breadwinner with limited education to own a home and a car, support a family, and send his kids to good schools. It was not by any means a perfect world but affluence allowed for a truce between capital and labor, a reciprocity of opportunity in a time of rapid growth and declining income inequality, marked by high tax rates for the wealthy, who were by no means the only beneficiaries of a golden age of American capitalism.

But freedom and affluence came with a price. The United States, virtually a demilitarized nation on the eve of the Second World War, never stood down in the wake of victory. To this day, American troops are deployed in 150 countries. Since the 1970s, China has not once gone to war; the U.S. has not spent a day at peace. President Jimmy Carter recently noted that in its 242-year history, America has enjoyed only 16 years of peace, making it, as he wrote, “the most warlike nation in the history of the world.” Since 2001, the U.S. has spent over $6 trillion on military operations and war, money that might have been invested in the infrastructure of home. China, meanwhile, built its nation, pouring more cement every three years than America did in the entire 20th century.

More than any other country, the United States in the post-war era lionized the individual at the expense of community and family. It was the sociological equivalent of splitting the atom. What was gained in terms of mobility and personal freedom came at the expense of common purpose. In wide swaths of America, the family as an institution lost its grounding. By the 1960s, 40 percent of marriages were ending in divorce. Only six percent of American homes had grandparents living beneath the same roof as grandchildren; elders were abandoned to retirement homes.

With slogans like “24/7” celebrating complete dedication to the workplace, men and women exhausted themselves in jobs that only reinforced their isolation from their families. The average American father spends less than 20 minutes a day in direct communication with his child.

Only half of Americans report having meaningful, face-to-face social interactions on a daily basis. The nation consumes two-thirds of the world’s production of antidepressant drugs. The collapse of the working-class family has been responsible in part for an opioid crisis that has displaced car accidents as the leading cause of death for Americans under 50.

At the root of this transformation and decline lies an ever-widening chasm between Americans who have and those who have little or nothing. Economic disparities exist in all nations, creating a tension that can be as disruptive as the inequities are unjust. In any number of settings, however, the negative forces tearing apart a society are mitigated or even muted if there are other elements that reinforce social solidarity — religious faith, the strength and comfort of family, the pride of tradition, fidelity to the land, a spirit of place.

But when all the old certainties are shown to be lies, when the promise of a good life for a working family is shattered as factories close and corporate leaders, growing wealthier by the day, ship jobs abroad, the social contract is irrevocably broken. For two generations, America has celebrated globalization with iconic intensity, when, as any working man or woman can see, it’s nothing more than capital on the prowl in search of ever cheaper sources of labor.

For many years, those on the conservative right in the United States have invoked a nostalgia for the 1950s, and an America that never was, but has to be presumed to have existed to rationalize their sense of loss and abandonment, their fear of change, their bitter resentments and lingering contempt for the social movements of the 1960s, a time of new aspirations for women, gays, and people of color. In truth, at least in economic terms, the country of the 1950s resembled Denmark as much as the America of today. Marginal tax rates for the wealthy were 90 percent. The salaries of CEOs were, on average, just 20 times that of their mid-management employees.

Today, the base pay of those at the top is commonly 400 times that of their salaried staff, with many earning orders of magnitude more in stock options and perks. The elite one percent of Americans control $30 trillion of assets, while the bottom half have more debt than assets. The three richest Americans have more money than the poorest 160 million of their countrymen. Fully a fifth of American households have zero or negative net worth, a figure that rises to 37 percent for black families. The median wealth of black households is a tenth that of whites. The vast majority of Americans — white, black, and brown — are two paychecks removed from bankruptcy. Though living in a nation that celebrates itself as the wealthiest in history, most Americans live on a high wire, with no safety net to brace a fall.

With the COVID crisis, 40 million Americans lost their jobs, and 3.3 million businesses shut down, including 41 percent of all black-owned enterprises. Black Americans, who significantly outnumber whites in federal prisons despite being but 13 percent of the population, are suffering shockingly high rates of morbidity and mortality, dying at nearly three times the rate of white Americans. The cardinal rule of American social policy — don’t let any ethnic group get below the blacks, or allow anyone to suffer more indignities — rang true even in a pandemic, as if the virus was taking its cues from American history.

COVID-19 didn’t lay America low; it simply revealed what had long been forsaken. As the crisis unfolded, with another American dying every minute of every day, a country that once turned out fighter planes by the hour could not manage to produce the paper masks or cotton swabs essential for tracking the disease.

As a number of countries moved expeditiously to contain the virus, the United States stumbled along in denial, as if willfully blind. With less than four percent of the global population, the U.S. soon accounted for more than a fifth of COVID deaths. The percentage of American victims of the disease who died was six times the global average.

Americans remain almost bizarrely incapable of seeing what has actually become of their country. The republic that defined the free flow of information as the life blood of democracy, today ranks 45th among nations when it comes to press freedom. In a complete abandonment of the collective good, U.S. laws define freedom as an individual’s inalienable right to own a personal arsenal of weaponry, a natural entitlement that trumps even the safety of children; in the past decade alone 346 American students and teachers have been shot on school grounds.

[thisiswhatwereupagainst]

Sebastian Shaw textually represents American values, politics, and ways of thinking, or at least used to. Not subtextually, but textually. But he hasn’t been written as such in years. And I think partly that’s because in 2009, a change was made to his history that made him have been Emma Frost’s former abusive lover, and writers prefer to focus on that---Emma is a far more popular character, and it’s a PERSONAL story rather than a political one---and because, if they go with this criticism as hard as some former writers did, they risk alienating a good chunk of their audience. Because while lots of people will agree with the message of “oh yeah don’t be mean to minorities” in a bland general way, Shaw represents a criticism of something FAR more specific, and far more culturally beloved. The American dream. I’m not reaching with this either, this is not simply my opinion, this is stated in the text itself: ”By the age of 30, Shaw had earned his first million. By 40, his first billion. He wasn’t just living the American dream, Sebastian Shaw was the American dream.” - X- Men: Hellfire Club #4” So, what does that mean, the American dream? The American dream is the ideal that anyone can make it if they work for it. That it doesn’t matter who you are, what you are, or where you come from, you can do it if you believe. And Shaw does]. Shaw is smart, he’s determined, he believes in himself, he never gives up, and he becomes a multi-billionaire for it. That’s lovely. It’s also the cherry on top of a stew of very dangerous boot-strapping ideas that blames people for their own poverty and the suffering that comes with it----suffering that ironically Shaw himself has been through. He grew up a deeply impoverished child and his mutation manifested due to literal class violence; a group of preppy college guys beat him up for being a poor kid on scholarship, for basically getting out of his place. More on that HERE. And yet despite this history, when Shaw himself becomes rich he espouses these views: “Our costumes signify our abandonment of the modern age–with its cloying ethics and bourgeois mercantile principles, where society is bent on protecting people from themselves at an cost—for a far simpler one…where a man was limited solely by the scope of his imagination, his ambition, his daring. And bound only by his own personal sense of honor. Society—the common herd–means nothing. The individual is all.” - New Mutants #22 “He [Shaw] will tolerate no inefficiency, no waste, no weak-minded liberalism.” —X-Men:The Legacy Quest Trilogy, Book Three, by Steve Lyons Bishop: “Out of the goodness of your heart?” Shaw: “Enlightened self-interest.” -  Uncanny X-Men #453 These are quotes that reflect very real-world libertarian and Objectivist politics. Shaw’s not a conservative, I should stress---as much as one might WANT to label him such, his investment in individual rights, individual self-interest, individual achievements, and personal freedoms above all else, including disdain for common morality and belief that one should set one’s own personal code of honor (which he did, very early in his writing, believe it or not), is much more Libertarian. Shaw is Black King of the Hellfire Club, I can’t really see him getting fussed over same-sex marriage or abortion the way conservatives do. His use of the phrase “enlightened self-interest” is also a real-world term in the philosophy of ethics. These quotes represent a lot of ideas that many people do find appealing---the values of individualism, of people choosing their own codes of honor rather than having them enforced by society and the government, of not being controlled by silly government things like safety regulations, the idea everyone should earn everything they have, that the government should not be trying to protect people from themselves (the term “nanny state” is often used by libertarians)---and there is even merit in them. There are good ideas here. But it’s coming from a villain. Sebastian Shaw is a bad guy. We are not supposed to agree with him. We are meant to see his point and his point of view (back when he was allowed to have one; he’s really not now) but at the end of the day, probably not to think he’s right. So, this man is textually referred to as The American Dream, he says these quotes, and he is the bad guy. A bigger criticism of these deeply held American values around “hard work” and “no big government” and individualism---for America is a deeply individualist country---would be hard to come by. Shaw also provides a comment both on how people from an underclass will turn on their own and how in fact our culture trains us to do so, and on America’s history with Communism, the antithesis of the ideals Shaw represents, and how that’s affected us to this day. Again, Shaw grew up very poor. He’s a self-made man, and very proud of that, and that is indeed the American ideal. And I think he represents very well both how people are ready to step on others once they themselves become successful enough to do so, but also how well Americans as a people are trained to RESIST what’s good for us. After all, the biggest haters of welfare here in the South (where I live) are the same poor white people who are on it. We’re a people who will vote to take away social programs and healthcare not just from others, but OURSELVES, because we are just that indoctrinated against anything that we think smells even close to socialism or Communism-----and Shaw was indoctrinated too, to a much more EXTREME degree than we are today. He’s in his 40s when he first shows up in the 80s, which means he was born in the late 30s, so he would have been growing up during the era of McCarthyism and the second Red Scare, when the American nation was actively terrified of Communism on mass scale and it was a HUGE impact on the culture. Combine that with being born in terrible poverty, and no wonder this guy grew up to embody all the worst excesses of capitalist greed and cruelty! Which is not to say he has an excuse to be the way he is, but just that, like most villains, he has a reason, and it’s actually more interesting than just “well he’s greedy” as it’s often boiled down to. But writers like to boil it down to that. It’s simple to understand...and it doesn’t take risks. You don’t risk pissing anyone off with another “greedy rich guy” cliché villain. That’s a very safe villain, very shallow, very easy to hate. You also don’t take risk with the “Emma’s evil ex” stories. That’s also a very safe villain, very easy for readers to hate and root against, and personal rather than political. But if writers today started having Shaw espouse the politics he previously did, that would NOT be a “safe” move. They would risk readers being pissed off because their own views are coming from a man who is unquestionably, irredeemably, and unrepentantly the BAD guy. Shaw believes things I suspect a great many X-Men readers believe, and will be angry at seeing critically examined and challenged. It’s easy to agree with stuff like “minorities shouldn’t be murdered” for readers, but Shaw takes on much more specific and deep issues that, while they do move the target away from the mutant minority metaphor, are worth discussing and make him a deeper, far more interesting character than he gets to be anymore….and I would like to see him be again.

[phroyd]

Rest In Peace, Alex! - Phroyd

Alex Trebek, who became known to generations of television viewers as the quintessential quizmaster, bringing an air of bookish politesse to the garish coli­seum of game shows as the longtime host of “Jeopardy!,” died Nov. 8 at 80.

The official “Jeopardy!” Twitter account announced the death without further details.

Mr. Trebek had suffered a series of health reversals in recent years, including two heart attacks and brain surgery, and was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer in 2019. He continued to host new episodes of his show until production was suspended in March because of the coronavirus pandemic, and then filmed socially distanced episodes that began airing Sept. 14.

For more than three decades, Mr. Trebek was a daily presence in millions of households, earning near-rabid loyalty for the intellectual challenge of his show, in which questions were presented as answers and answers were delivered in the form of questions. By the time of his death, “Jeopardy!” was one of the most popular and longest-lasting programs of its kind in TV history.

Mr. Trebek, the self-made son of a hotel chef, had no sequined co-presenter to match Vanna White on host Pat Sajak’s “Wheel of Fortune.” His show neither attracted nor allowed histrionics, no galloping, shrieking contestants such as those summoned to “Come on down!” on “The Price Is Right” with Bob Barker. Even the “Jeopardy!” theme song, one of the most recognizable jingles on television, was restrained in its dainty dings.

There was no “hot seat” like the chair for contestants on “Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?” with Regis Philbin — a show that “Jeopardy!” purists disdained for its elementary subject matter and inflated prize money.

On “Jeopardy!” there were only questions and answers — or rather, answers and then questions — leavened by the briefest of banter before Mr. Trebek directed his three contestants back to business.

He became known, a reporter for the New Republic magazine once observed, for his “crisp enunciation, acrobatic inflections [and] hammy dignity” as he primly — and with precise pronunciation — relayed clues in categories such as “European Cuisine,” “U.S. Geography,” “Ballet and Opera,” “Potent Potables” and “Potpourri.”

“The folding type of this cooling device became accepted in China during the Ming dynasty,” Mr. Trebek might declaim, as competitors raced to buzz in with the reply, “What is a fan?”

“Jeopardy!” was the creation of singer and talk-show host Merv Griffin, whose TV empire also included “Wheel of Fortune” and “Dance Fever.” His wife, Julann Griffin, proposed the show’s conceit. If players provided questions instead of answers, she said, then “Jeopardy!” would be safe from the high-profile cheating scandals that plagued TV quiz shows in the 1950s.

The Griffin brainchild aired on NBC from 1964 to 1975, then returned as “The All New Jeopardy!” from 1978 to 1979, both times with the stately actor Art Fleming as host. Mr. Trebek took over when the show was revived in syndication in 1984, also serving during his first several seasons as producer.

Much like his program, Mr. Trebek indulged in few frills. He favored conservative suits. When he shaved his signature mustache in 2001 — “on a whim,” he said — his viewership erupted in titillation.

The most exuberant flourish about the show might have been the exclamation mark in the title. Mr. Trebek, for his part, emitted few if any exclamations as he led contestants through the first round of clues; then a second, higher-stakes round dubbed “Double Jeopardy!”; and then “Final Jeopardy!,” in which players could wager all or some of their earnings on a single stumper.

“My job,” he told the Associated Press in 2012, “is to provide the atmosphere and assistance to the contestants to get them to perform at their very best. And if I’m successful doing that, I will be perceived as a nice guy and the audience will think of me as being a bit of a star. But not if I try to steal the limelight! The stars of ‘Jeopardy!’ are the material and the contestants.”

(Perhaps the show’s greatest stars were Ken Jennings, who reigned over the grid for 74 shows in 2004, claiming $2.5 million in winnings, and Watson, the IBM computer that defeated Jennings and another champion, Brad Rutter, in 2011.)

Fans who attended tapings of the show received a rare insight into Mr. Trebek’s dry humor when he held forth with them during commercial breaks, cutting up about how he didn’t “like spending time with stupid people,” which resulted in his having “very few friends.” He often regaled the crowd with tales of his DIY home-improvement projects.

He said his breakfast consisted of a Snickers and Diet Pepsi, or a Milky Way and Diet Coke. And he was not always as staid as he might have seemed, once tearing his Achilles’ tendon when he chased a burglar from his hotel room in 2011.

But to most “Jeopardy!” viewers, Mr. Trebek was akin to a neighbor they saw every day without becoming intimately acquainted. In a tribute to Mr. Trebek after his cancer diagnosis was announced, Jennings affectionately described him as “a riddle wrapped in an enigma wrapped in a Perry Ellis suit.” One of the few clues to his past was his slight Canadian accent.

George Alexander Trebek was born in Sudbury, Ontario, on July 22, 1940. His father was a Ukrainian immigrant, and his mother was French Canadian. In a memoir published in July, “The Answer Is . . . Reflections on My Life,” Mr. Trebek described a childhood marked by poverty and illness, including a painful form of rheumatism that he developed after falling into a frozen lake at age 7.

Mr. Trebek said that he considered becoming a priest but did not enjoy his experimentation with a vow of silence. “I was a very good student, but leaned more toward show business than anything else because I had a way of entertaining the class,” he told the Toronto Star. “I wasn’t the class clown, but always prominent — even when I was quiet.”

He said he was nearly expelled from boarding school and then dropped out of a military college after three days because he did not wish to subject himself to a buzz cut.

Mr. Trebek began working at the Canadian Broadcasting Corp. while studying philosophy at the University of Ottawa, where he graduated in 1961. As a broadcaster for radio and television, he delivered coverage in English and French, reported on news, weather and sports, and hosted “Reach for the Top,” a popular teen quiz show.

In 1973, Mr. Trebek came to the United States as host of “The Wizard of Odds,” a short-lived game show created by fellow Canadian Alan Thicke.

“It was canceled on a Friday, and I was disappointed, of course,” Mr. Trebek once said on “The Dan Patrick Show,” a sports talk program. “It was replaced the following Monday by a show called ‘High Rollers,’ which I also hosted. . . . After two and a half years, it was canceled, and it was replaced by another show which I hosted. So I have the either great honor or dubious honor of having replaced myself on three different occasions.”

Mr. Trebek, who became a U.S. citizen in 1998, also hosted shows including “Double Dare,” “The $128,000 Question” and “Battlestars.” He subbed for Chuck Woolery, Sajak’s predecessor on “Wheel of Fortune,” bringing him to the attention of Griffin. For a period Mr. Trebek hosted “Classic Concentration” and “To Tell the Truth” while also presiding over “Jeopardy!,” where he reportedly commanded $10 million a year.

As “Jeopardy!” host, Mr. Trebek participated in national contestant searches and shepherded the first teen, senior and celebrity tournaments. He also contributed clues, drawing from his knowledge in such arcane fields as oil drilling and bullfighting. He personally reviewed all clues before taping a show and claimed that he could answer about 65 percent of them correctly. If he judged one too difficult, he asked writers not to use it.

“I’ll say, ‘Nobody’s going to get this,’ ” he told the New York Times in a 2020 interview. “And they usually take my suggestions, because I view myself as every man.”

By the time Mr. Trebek completed 30 years as host, “Jeopardy!” reached 25 million viewers a week. His Emmys included a lifetime achievement award, and, in 2013, he ranked No. 8 in a Reader’s Digest poll of the most trusted people in America. Jimmy Carter, the highest-ranking president on the list, arrived at No. 24.

A ubiquitous presence in pop culture, Mr. Trebek appeared in the “Got milk?” advertising campaign, in films including “White Men Can’t Jump” (1992) and on television shows including “The Simpsons” and “The X-Files.” In a memorable episode of “Cheers,” Mr. Trebek welcomed as a contestant the postal carrier Cliff Clavin (John Ratzenberger), the sitcom’s most undesirable bachelor, in a round of “Jeopardy!” with categories including “beer,” “mothers and sons” and “celibacy.”

Mr. Trebek was spoofed on “Second City Television,” the Canadian TV sketch show, and “Saturday Night Live,” with comedian Will Ferrell, as his impersonator, barely containing his contempt for dimwitted contestants on “Celebrity Jeopardy!”

“I’ll take ‘Swords’ for $400,” Sean Connery, portrayed by Darrell Hammond, intoned in a Scottish accent when the category of clues was in fact “ ‘S’ Words.”

Mr. Trebek’s first marriage, to Elaine Callei, ended in divorce. In 1990, he married Jean Currivan. A complete list of survivors was not immediately available.

Little changed about “Jeopardy!” as the years wore on for the show, for Mr. Trebek and for fans. Newfangled topics, such as twerking, were occasionally introduced. Over time, contestants revealed themselves to be more familiar with Dan Brown, author of “The Da Vinci Code,” than with the English poet Samuel Taylor Coleridge, the New Republic noted. And Mr. Trebek was called upon to learn to rap to read certain clues.

But mainly the show stayed “comfortable, like an old pair of shoes,” Mr. Trebek once said. In its constancy, it became all the more comforting for the legions of fans who turned to “Jeopardy!” for its promise of clear right and wrong answers in a world where the matter of what is true was increasingly subjected to partisan debate.

“There’s a certain comfort that comes from knowing a fact,” Mr. Trebek told the Times in July. “The sun is up in the sky. There’s nothing you can say that’s going to change that. You can’t say, ‘The sun’s not up there, there’s no sky.’ There is reality, and there’s nothing wrong with accepting reality. It’s when you try to distort reality, to maneuver it into accommodating your particular point of view, your particular bigotry, your particular whatever — that’s when you run into problems.”

Phroyd

[bradleywebb]

Contest is open to legal residents of Canada. Entrants must be over the age of majority in zapatillas de tacos futbol their province or territory.

Survivors: Mother, and brother, James J. Yesterday announced it has signed a licensing agreement with an Italian designer to market and manufacture several lines of men's tailored clothing. Under an agreement with Mondo Inc. I personally am an IZOD fan. I find them to be great quality without being too expensive. While most of my IZOD shirts are in my signature color, I also have some in other colors as well. The following are some of the side effects that are known to be associated with this medicine. Just because a side effect is stated here, it does not mean that all people using this medicine will experience that or any side effect. For more information about any other possible risks associated with this medicine, please read the information provided with the medicine or consult your doctor or pharmacist.. Would you believe a price tag of $600? Prada's new red, white and black zigzag polo is for the man who is taking this whole neo preppy thing very, very seriously. In some circles, he'd even be slumming. Versace's long sleeved pink and orange striped polo checks in at a mind boggling $1,400.. They may also be interested in The Nike Store, Boston Traders, Laura Ashley, Dexter Shoe Factory Outlet, London Fog Factory Store and The Patagonia Outlet. Box 6677, Wyomissing, Pa. 19610; (800) 443 6610) The town of Reading calls itself ''The Outlet Capital of the World'' with more than 300 outlets spread across six different area malls drawing about 8 million visitors a year.. Environmental matters dominated the attention of the Anne Arundel County Council this week, as members voted to add restrictions on development in the county's so called "critical zapatillas de tacos futbol area" near tidal waters of the Chesapeake Bay and hosted a spirited public debate on the question of imposing countywide storm water management fees. By a 5 2 vote at their Feb. 19 meeting, council members approved the first measure, which supporters said brings the county's critical area code in line with amended state regulations.. No purchase necessary. Contest is open to legal residents of Canada. Entrants must be over the age of majority in zapatillas de tacos futbol their province or territory. Highlights the cost effectiveness of transformative transportation projects like these. City with a downtown network of protected bike lanes major boost to the nation second largest bike share system, Divvy. Further, many of Chicago existing bollard protected bike lanes are currently being rebuilt with concrete curbs. I recently read an article that quoted Philip Hochstein, the president of the Independent Contractors and Businesses Association. When asked to comment on Adrian Dix's speech to the Vancouver Board of Trade, Hochstein says, "I understand how he is going to regulate it and increase the regulatory burden. I understand he's going to tax it, to increase corporate taxes. For example a borrower may potentially be able to obtain a loan at a 10% interest rate yet the broker will only offer an 11% interest rate in order to receive two extra back end points from the lender. Home equity line of credits are adjustable rate loans. Most lease to own agreements are done with homeowners can't sell their home at the asking price or when the drk gumicsizma sütétkék housing market is a buyer's market.[16] The true financially conservative air max 90 ultra se option is to make a small down payment. In terms of specs, the Moto C gets a 1.1GHz quad core MediaTek processor and 1GB of RAM, plus 16GB of memory and a pair of basic cameras (5 megapixel and 2 megapixel). The Moto C Plus has a HD display, 2GB of RAM and an 8 megapixel main camera. Motorola also announces up to 30 hours of battery life for the Moto C Plus.. "While we chanel ágynemű have enjoyed a winning relationship with Ryan for over nike black tn 001 a decade and he has been an important member of the Speedo team, we cannot condone behavior that is counter to the values this brand has long stood for," the prominent swimsuit company said. Team at the opening and closing ceremonies, said it would not be renewing the contract that provided Lochte with financial support leading up to nike air max 102 essential white Rio. The statement from airweave said it had a similar arrangement ikea molnig csillár with the swimmer. "When you have a strong female role model who doesn't believe in or even acknowledge barriers, it establishes a high standard for what you expect from yourself and what you believe is possible. My mom definitely shaped me but I've learned a great deal from my father as well. Anyone who works with him will tell you that my dad Gary is a very hardworking and well respected man of great character. Joaquin "El Chapo" Guzman Loera is the definition of narco style and fashion today. According to public registries of the Mexican Institute of Intellectual Property (IMPI), in the last years there are some 10 . In front of El Altiplano prison on Feb. It's a good thing Jack isn't here. If he had a cupcake or even a croissant, there's no way he'd share it. Nope, if he knew you wanted it, he'd eat it right in baby nike trainers front of you. "With more than 10,000 lakes, thousands of miles of rivers and streams, and many thousands of acres of wetlands, it might be natural to think that our water is essentially unlimited," said DNR Commissioner Tom Landwehr. "But in some bdsm puma parts of the state, the unseen, underground aquifers that make up our groundwater resources are under pressure to meet growing needs for domestic water supplies, irrigation, industrial and other uses. These groundwater resources also are interconnected with lakes, streams and wetlands that we value for commerce, recreation, and water supplies.

[things2mustdo]

In order for a nation to survive, two critical emotions must be controlled. Contrary to popular belief, these emotions are not fear and greed—although these are very important to control, as well. Rather, it’s masculine aggression and feminine vanity that must be controlled…and we are doing a terrible job at this.

Unfortunately, over the past 70 years, we’ve seen sex roles and gender dynamics completely turned on their heads. Rather than men and women working together to create better relationships, more functional families, and more powerful countries, we’ve been pit against one another by toxic ideologies and ruthless demagogues.

It is not enough to simply know what is happening, however—we must know precisely how it’s happening, step by step, and more importantly, WHY it’s happening. In this article, I will explore why our society has gone so downhill so fast, and potential solutions we can integrate to remedy it (if we can save it, at all).

The Two Forces

As I said previously, there are two very delicate forces which must constantly be counter-balancing one another, and anytime they grow unbalanced, there will be chaos. These two forces are, of course, masculine aggression and feminine vanity. Too much masculine aggression, and a country becomes war-torn, unable to run itself or stay stable long enough to produce any sort of civilization (think the Middle East).

Too much feminine vanity, however, and the opposite occurs. Men become reclusive, because women become far too difficult to deal with. This is why we’ve seen the rise of the sigma male over the past 20 years—men who refuse to attach themselves to any sort of social hierarchy. They’re not alpha, beta, or omega. They just do as they do, without adhering to any sort of social group or workplace hierarchy.

As feminine vanity grows excessive, female hypergamy is given reign to run loose. Rather than men and women developing healthy relationships with one another, women become so conceited that they refuse to “settle” for anyone less than an alpha male Chad Thundercock, and thus we have a surplus of angry, bitter women who hit the wall at 30 and end up childless and alone.

It’s so obvious that it should go without saying, that we are currently in a serious imbalance. For far too long, masculine aggression has been hampered and stomped down by our effeminate school system, our brainwashing devices (aka TV’s), and our mass media control system. All the while, these things have encouraged women to do as they please, without any consequences or thought of their actions on a larger, societal scale.

Restoring the Balance

Balance will be restored, one way or another. There are only two ways for this imbalance to possibly be restored, and most men here will acknowledge, at least implicitly, that this is the case:

Men in OTHER COUNTRIES restore the balance (by coming here en masse)

Men in THIS COUNTRY restore the balance (by not being pussies)

Those are the only two options. There is no third option, where women somehow magically stop giving men 500,000 shit tests a day and step down to become good, faithful girlfriends, wives, and mothers. This will not happen. When a society reaches this critical imbalance, only one of two things can happen.

Of course, we all know what the elites (oy vey!) are pushing for. They want to bring millions of aggressive, young, fighting-age men to this country, to supposedly help combat “population decline.” We all know that this is complete horse shit, and that their true motive is to destroy America.

Even so, with the full force of the elites raining down upon us, there is hope. Over the past two years, we’ve seen more masculine energy emerge and come to the front of our socio-political battlegrounds than arguably any other time in history. For the first time in the past 70 years, men are reclaiming their manhood.

Let me reiterate that this is the only option. There is no magical world where everything just works out great, where we have millions of violent, aggressive 20-something-year-old men come into this country, and we retain our values as an Anglo-Saxon country. No. This will not happen. We either get our acts together, collectively, as men, or we watch our nation burn.

The Path Forward (2018-2020)

The next two years are of critical importance. We have collectively, successfully memed the most brutally alpha and pro-American president into office arguably since Ronald Reagan. This is not an opportunity that we can afford to squander—we must all begin proactively restoring the balance of masculinity in this country, from the top down, otherwise our nation will perish to globalists and their dumb, but useful allies.

There will be resistance, as there is whenever masculinity tries to assert itself. Pay no attention to this resistance. Simply follow the advice which the manosphere advocates for:

Create an income independent of a massive, bureaucratic, globalist corporation

Increase your testosterone levels (start by avoiding foods that kill testosterone)

Lift weights, and become physically able to stand up for yourself

Proactively participate in the upcoming midterms, and the Presidential Election of 2020

Do everything you can to red pill those who are ready (emphasis on them being ready)

If we, collectively, as a group of thousands of like-minded men all across the nation can successfully pull this off, we will see a resurgence of economic, political, and social growth which will have been unprecedented.

If we do not pull it off however, and our nation succumbs to the manipulations of the elite, a far more grim and sinister future will play out.

The Alternative

If we do not successfully reclaim the balance of masculine aggression and feminine vanity in this country, all will be lost, and we will be forced to either live through hell, or leave our homelands. Here’s what to expect over the next decade or so, if a social justice warrior is elected President in 2020, and we lose the culture wars:

Increasing surveillance over the internet

More thought crime policies instituted into law

The figurative castration of men all across the country

Eventual race wars, or religious wars, spurred on primarily by Islamic migrants

This is non-negotiable. If we lose the culture wars to SJW’s over the next several years, we will begin to see lobbying to shut down any and all manosphere websites dedicated to spreading the truth. We have already seen PayPal, YouTube, Amazon, Facebook, Twitter, and Google begin to censor people like Roosh, Alex Jones, Donald Trump, and other conservative/red pilled speakers. We cannot afford to stand this any longer.

If we lose these mediums to the globalists, they will easily gain the support of the public to institute thought crime policies into our legal system. You have a book by Bronze Age Pervert, that Amazon can track from your order history? NAZI SCUM! You’re going to prison. It doesn’t matter that you didn’t actually hurt anyone in any way shape or form, because you had an opinion that the globalists dislike.

As this begins to happen, men will self-imprison all over the nation. Some will fight, of course, and maybe win (if we’re lucky). Others will leave and attempt to gain citizenship in more male-friendly countries such as Denmark, Austria, and Poland. The rest will be forced to hang their heads in perpetual shame.

Eventually, as the population of third world migrants explodes, and tribalism is exacerbated by the polarizing media, we will begin to see rampant terrorist attacks, which are already happening in Germany, The UK, and other nations around the cucked European Union. Inevitably, this will end in a civil war.

It’s Our Choice

I have presented to you the only two choices that we have, and to me, the decision is quite simple. We can either sit around passively, and squabble amongst ourselves over stupid theories and philosophies, or we can take action to better ourselves and improve the stance of our nation.

The choice is clear to me. We either succumb to globalist propaganda, see the death of masculinity in the West, and see freedom of speech die as it is destined to do, or we fight back and create a better future. Some may say this is melodramatic. I would say that a mere cursory glance at history will prove otherwise.

Read Next: Cultural Collapse Theory: The 7 Steps That Lead To A Complete Culture Decline

It was Joe’s first date with Mary. He asked her what she wanted in life and she replied, “I want to establish my career. That’s the most important thing to me right now.” Undeterred that she had no need for a man in her life, Joe entertained her with enough funny stories and cocky statements that she soon allowed him to lightly pet her forearm.

At the end of the date, he locked arms with her on the walk to the subway station, when two Middle Eastern men on scooter patrol accosted them and said they were forbidden to touch. “This is Sharia zone,” they said in heavily accented English, in front of a Halal butcher shop. Joe and Mary felt bad that they offended the two men, because they were trained in school to respect all religions but that of their ancestors. One of the first things they learned was that their white skin gave them extra privilege in life which must be consciously restrained at all times. Even if they happened to disagree with the two men, they could not verbally object because of anti-hate laws that would put them in jail for religious discrimination. They unlocked arms and maintained a distance of three feet from each other.

Unfortunately for Joe, Mary did not want to go out with him again, but seven years later he did receive a message from her on Facebook saying hello. She became vice president of a company, but could not find a man equal to her station since women now made 25% more than men on average. Joe had long left the country and moved to Thailand, where he married a young Thai girl and had three children. He had no plans on returning to his country, America.

If cultural collapse occurs in the way I will now describe, the above scenario will be the rule within a few decades. The Western world is being colonized in reverse, not by weapons or hard power, but through a combination of progressivism and low reproductive rates. These two factors will lead to a complete cultural collapse of many Western nations within the next 200 years. This theory will show the most likely mechanism that it will proceed in America, Canada, UK, Scandinavia, and Western Europe.

What Is A Cultural Collapse?

Cultural collapse is the decline, decay, or disappearance of a native population’s rituals, habits, interpersonal communication, relationships, art, and language. It coincides with a relative decline of population compared to outside groups. National identity and group identification will be lost while revisionist history will be applied to demonize or find fault with the native population. Cultural collapse is not to be confused with economic or state collapse. A nation that suffers from a cultural collapse can still be economically productive and have a working government.

First I will share a brief summary of the cultural collapse progression before explaining them in more detail. Then I will discuss where I see many countries along its path.

The Cultural Collapse Progression

1. Removal of religious narrative from people’s lives, replaced by a treadmill of scientific and technological “progress.”

2. Elimination of traditional sex roles through feminism, gender equality, political correctness, cultural Marxism, and socialism.

3. Delay or abstainment of family formation by women to pursue careerist lifestyles while men wait in confused limbo.

4. Decreasing birth rate among native population.

5. Government enactment of open immigration policies to prevent economic collapse.

6. Immigrant refusal to fully acclimate, forcing host culture to adopt external rituals and beliefs while being out-reproduced.

7. Natives becoming marginalized in their own country.

1. Removal of religious narrative

Religion has been a powerful restraint for millennia in preventing humans from pursuing their base desires and narcissistic tendencies so that they satisfy a god. Family formation is the central unit of most religions, possibly because children increase membership at zero marginal cost to the church (i.e. they don’t need to be recruited).

Religion may promote scientific ignorance, but it facilitates reproduction by giving people a narrative that places family near the center of their existence.[1] [2] [3] After the Enlightenment, the rapid advance of science and its logical but nihilistic explanations into the universe have removed the religious narrative and replaced it with an empty narrative of scientific progress, knowledge, and technology, which act as a restraint and hindrance to family formation, allowing people to pursue individual goals of wealth accumulation or hedonistic pleasure seeking.[4] As of now, there has not been a single non-religious population that has been able to reproduce above the death rate.[5]

Even though many people today claim to believe in god, they may not step inside a church but once or twice a year for special holidays. Religion went from being a lifestyle, a manual for living, to something that is thought about in passing.

2. Elimination of traditional sex roles

Once religion no longer plays a role in people’s lives, the stage is set to fracture male-female bonding. It is collectively attacked by several ideologies stemming from the beliefs of Cultural Marxist theory, which serve to accomplish one common end: destruction of the family unit so that citizens are dependent on the state. They achieve this goal through the marginalization of men and their role in society under the banner of “equality.”[6] With feminism pushed to the forefront of this umbrella movement, the drive for equality ends up being a power grab by women.[7] This attack is performed on a range of fronts:

medicating boys from a young age with ADHD drugs to eradicate displays of masculinity[8]

shaming of men for having direct sexual interest in attractive and fertile women

criminalization of normal male behavior by redefining some instances of consensual sex as rape[9]

imprisonment of unemployed fathers for non-payment of child support, rendering them destitute and unable to be a part of their children’s lives[10]

taxation of men at higher rates for redistribution to women[11] [12]

promotion of single mother and homosexual lifestyles over that of the nuclear family[13] [14]

The end result is that men, confused about their identify and averse to state punishment from sexual harassment, “date rape,” and divorce proceedings, make a rational decision to wait on the sidelines.[15] Women, still not happy with the increased power given to them, continue their assault on men by instructing them to “man up” into what has become an unfair deal—marriage. The elevation of women above men is allowed by corporations, which adopt “girl power” marketing to expand their consumer base and increase profits.[16] [17] Governments also allow it because it increases their tax revenue. Because there is money to be made with women working and becoming consumers, there is no effort by the elite to halt this development.

3. Women begin to place career above family

At the same time men are emasculated as mere “sperm donors,” women are encouraged to adopt the career goals, mannerisms, and competitive lifestyles of men, inevitably causing them to delay marriage, often into an age where they can no longer find suitable husbands who have more resources than themselves. [18] [19] [20] [21] The average woman will find it exceedingly difficult to balance career and family, and since she has no concern of getting “fired” from her family, who she may see as a hindrance to her career goals, she will devote an increasing proportion of time into her job.

Female income, in aggregate, will soon match or exceed that of men.[22] [23] [24] A key reason that women historically got married was to be economically provided for, but this reason will no longer persist and women will feel less pressure or motivation to marry. The burgeoning spinster population will simply be a money-making opportunity for corporations to market to an increasing population of lonely women. Cat and small dog sales will rise.

Women succumb to their primal sexual and materialistic urges to live the “Sex and the City” lifestyle full of fine dining, casual sex, technological bliss, and general gluttony without learning traditional household skills or feminine qualities that would make them attractive wives.[25] [26] Men adapt to careerist women in a rational way by doing the following:

to sate their natural sexual desires, men allow their income to lower since economic stability no longer provides a draw to women in their prime[27]

they mimic “alpha male” social behavior to get laid with women who, without having an urgent need for a man’s monetary resources to survive, can choose men based on confidence, aesthetics, and general entertainment value[28]

they withdraw into a world of video games and the internet, satisfying their own base desires for play and simulated hunting[29] [30]

Careerist women who decide to marry will do so in a hurried rush around 30 because they fear growing old alone, but since they are well past their fertility peak[31], they may find it difficult to reproduce. In the event of successful reproduction at such a later age, fewer children can be born before biological infertility, limiting family size compared to the historical past.

4. Birth rates decrease among native population

The stage is now set for the death rate to outstrip the birth rate. This creates a demographic cliff where there is a growing population of non-working elderly relative to able-bodied younger workers. Two problems result:

Not enough tax revenue is supplied by the working population in order to provide for the elderly’s medical and social retirement needs.[32] Borrowing can only temporarily maintain these entitlements.

Decrease of economic activity since more people are dying than buying.[33]

No modern nation has figured out how to substantially raise birth rates among native populations. The most successful effort has been done in France, but that has still kept the birth rate among French-born women just under the replacement rate (2.08 vs 2.1).[34] The easiest and fastest way to solve this double-edged problem is to promote mass immigration of non-elderly individuals who will work, spend, and procreate at rates greater than natives.[35]

A replenishing supply of births are necessary to create taxpayers, workers, entrepreneurs, and consumers in order to maintain the nation’s economic development.[36] While many claim that the planet is suffering from “overpopulation,” an economic collapse is inevitable for those countries who do not increase their population at steady rates.

5. Large influx of immigration

An aging population without youthful refilling will cause a scarcity of labor, increasing that labor’s price. Corporate elites will now lobby governments for immigration reform to relieve this upward pressure on wages.[37] [38] At the same time, the modern mantra of sustained GDP growth puts pressure on politicians for dissemination of favorable economic growth data to aid in their re-elections. The simplest way to increase GDP without innovation or development of industry is to expand the population. Both corporate and political elites now have their goals in alignment where the easiest solution becomes immigration.[39] [40]

While politicians hem and haw about designing permanent immigration policies, immigrants continue to settle within the nation.[41] The national birth rate problem is essentially solved overnight, as it’s much easier to drain third-world nations of its starry-eyed population with enticements of living in the first-world than it is to encourage the native women to reproduce. (Lateral immigration from one first-world nation to another is so relatively insignificant that the niche term ‘expatriation’ has been developed to describe it). Native women will show a stubborn resistance at any suggestion they should create families, much preferring a relatively responsibility-free lifestyle of sexual variety, casual internet dating via mobile apps, consumer excess, and comfortable high-paying jobs in air conditioned offices.[42] [43]

Immigrants will almost always come from societies that are more religious and, in the case of Islam with regard to European immigration, far more scientifically primitive and rigid in its customs.[44]

6. Sanitization of host culture coincides with increase in immigrant power

While many adult immigrants will feel gracious at the opportunity to live in a more prosperous nation, others will soon feel resentment that they are forced to work menial jobs in a country that is far more expensive than their own.[45] [46] [47] [48] [49] The majority of them remain in lower economic classes, living in poor “immigrant communities” where they can speak their own language, find their own homeland foods, and follow their own customs or religion.

Instead of breaking out of their foreigner communities, immigrants seek to expand it by organizing. They form local groups and civic organizations to teach natives better ways to understand and serve immigrant populations. They will be eager to publicize cases where immigrants have been insulted by insensitive natives or treated unfairly by police authorities in the case of petty crime.[50] [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] School curriculums may be changed to promote diversity or multiculturalism, at great expense to the native culture.[56] Concessions will be made not to offend immigrants.[57] A continual stream of outrages will be found and this will feed the power of the organizations and create a state within a state where native elites become fearful of applying laws to immigrants.[58]

7. Destruction of native culture

This step has not yet happened in any first-world nation, so I will predict it based on logically extending known events I have already described.

Local elites will give lip service to immigrant groups for votes but will be slow to give them real state or economic power. Citizenship rules may even be tightened to prevent immigrants from being elected. The elites will be mostly insulated from the cultural crises in their isolated communities, private schools, and social clubs, where they can continue to incubate their own sub-culture without outside influence. At the same time, they will make speeches and enact polices to force native citizens to accept multiculturalism and blind immigration. Anti-hate and anti-discrimination laws will be more vigorously enforced than other more serious crimes. Police will monitor social networking to identify those who make statements against protected classes.

Cultural decline begins in earnest when the natives feel shame or guilt for who they are, their history, their way of life, and where their ancestors came from. They will let immigrant groups criticize their customs without protest, or they simply embrace immigrant customs instead with religious conversion and interethnic marriages. Nationalistic pride will be condemned as a “far-right” phenomenon and popular nationalistic politicians will be compared to Hitler. Natives learn the art of self-censorship, limiting the range of their speech and expressions, and soon only the elderly can speak the truths of the cultural decline while a younger multiculturalist within earshot attributes such frankness to senility or racist nostalgia.

With the already entrenched environment of political correctness (see stage 2), the local culture becomes a sort of “world” culture that can be declared tolerant and progressive as long as there is a lack of criticism against immigrants, multiculturalism, and their combined influence. All cultural identity will eventually be lost, and to be “American” or “British,” for example, will no longer have modern meaning from a sociological perspective. Native traditions will be eradicated and a cultural mixing will take place where citizens from one world nation will be nearly identical in behavior, thought, and consumer tastes to citizens of another. Once a collapse occurs, it cannot be reversed. The nation’s cultural heritage will be forever lost.

I want to now take a brief look at six different countries and see where they are along the cultural collapse progression…

Russia

This is an interesting case because, up to recently, we saw very low birth rates not due to progressive ideals but from a rough transition to capitalism in the 1990’s and a high male mortality from alcoholism.[59] [60] To help sustain its population, Russia is readily accepting immigrants from Central Asian regions, treating them like second-class citizens and refusing to make any accommodations away from the ethnic Russian way of life. Even police authorities turn a blind eye when local skinhead groups attack immigrants.[61] In addition, Russia has also shown no tolerance to homosexual or progressive groups,[62] stunting their negative effects upon the culture. The birth rate has risen in recent years to levels seen in Western Europe but it’s still not above the death rate. Russia will see a population collapse before a cultural one.

Likelihood of 50-year cultural collapse: Very low

Brazil

We’re seeing rapid movement through stages 2 and 3, where progressive ideology based on the American model is becoming adopted and a large poor population ensure progressive politicians will continue to remain in power with promises of economic redistribution.[63] [64] [65] Within 15 years we should see a sharp drop in birth rates and a relaxation of immigration laws.

Likelihood of 50-year cultural collapse: Moderate

America

Some could argue that America is currently experiencing a cultural collapse. It always had a fragile culture because of its immigrant foundings, but immigrants of the past (including my own parents) rapidly acclimated into the host culture to create a sense of national pride around an ethic of hard work and shared democratic values. This is being eroded as a fem-centric culture rises in its place, with its focus on trends, celebrities, homosexuality, multiculturalism, and male-bashing. Natives have become pleasure seekers with little inclination to reproduction during their years of peak fertility.[66]

Likelihood of 50-year cultural collapse: Very high

England

While America always had high amounts of immigration, and therefore a system of integration, England is newer to the game. In the past 20 years, they have massively ramped up their immigration efforts.[67] A visit to London will confirm that the native British are slowly becoming minorities, with their iconic red telephone booths left undisturbed purely for tourist photo opportunities. Approximately 5% of the English population is now Muslim.[68] Instead of acclimatizing, they are achieving early success in creating zones with Sharia law.[69] The English elite, in response, is jailing natives under stringent anti-race laws.[70] England had a highly successful immigration story with Polish immigrants who eagerly acclimated to English culture, but have opened the doors to other peoples who don’t want to integrate.[71]

Likelihood of 50-year cultural collapse: Very high

Sweden

Sweden is experiencing a similar immigration situation to England, but they possess a higher amount of self-shame and white guilt. Instead of allowing immigrants who could work in the Swedish economy, they are encouraging migration of asylum seekers who have been made destitute by war. These immigrants enter Sweden and immediately receive social benefits. In effect, Sweden is welcoming the least economically productive people in the world.[72] The immigrants will produce little or no economic benefit, and may even worsen Sweden’s economy. Immigrants are turning some parts of Sweden, such as the Rosengard area of Malmo, into a ghetto.[73]

Likelihood of 50-year cultural collapse: Very high

Poland

From my one and half years of living in Poland, I have seen a moderate level of progressive ideological creep, careerism among women, hedonism, and idolation of Western values, particularly out of England, where a large percentage of the Polish population have emigrated for work. Younger Poles may not act much different from their Western counterparts in their party lifestyle behavior, but there nonetheless remains a tenuous maintenance of traditional sex roles. Women of fertile age are pursuing relationships over one-night stands, but careerism is causing them to stall family formation. This puts a downward pressure on birth rates, which stems from significant numbers of fertile young women emigrating to countries like the UK and USA, along with continued economic uncertainties faced from transitioning to capitalism[74]. As Europe’s “least multicultural” nation, Poland has long been hesitant to accept immigrants, but this has recently changed and they are encouraging migrants.[75]  To its credit, it is seeking first-world entrepreneurs instead of low skilled laborers or asylum seekers. Its cultural fate will be an interesting development in the years to come, but the prognosis will be more negative as long as its young people are eager to leave the homeland.

Likelihood of 50-year cultural collapse: Possible

Poland and Russia show the limitations of Cultural Collapse Theory in that it best applies to first-world nations with highly developed economies. They have low birth rates but not through the mechanism I described, though if they adopt a more Western ideological track like Brazil, I expect to see the same outcome that is befalling England or Sweden.

There can be many paths to cultural destruction, and those nations with the most similarities will gravitate towards the same path, just like how Eastern European nations are suffering low birth rates because of mass emigration due to being introduced into the European Union.

How To Stop Cultural Collapse

Maintaining native birth rates while preventing the elite from allowing immigrant labor is the most effective means at preventing cultural collapse. Since multiculturalism is an experiment with no proven efficacy, a culture can only be maintained by a relatively homogenous group who identify with each other. When that homogeneity breaks down and one citizen looks to the next and does not see a person with the same values as himself, the culture falls in dis-repair as native citizens begin to lose a shared means of communication and identity. Once the percentage of the immigrant population crosses a certain threshold (perhaps 15%), the decline will pick up in pace and cultural breakdown will be readily apparent to all observers.

Current policies to solve low birth rates through immigration is a short-term fix with dire long-term consequences. In effect, it’s a Trojan-horse prescription of irreversible cultural destruction. A state must prevent itself from entering the position where mass immigration is considered a solution by blocking progressive ideologies from taking hold. One way this can be done is through the promotion of a state-sponsored religion which encourages the nuclear family instead of single motherhood and homosexuality. However, introducing religion as a mainstay of citizen life in the post-enlightenment era may be impossible.

We must consider that the scientific era is an evolutionary maladaptive feature of humanity that natural selection will accordingly punish (i.e. those who are anti-religious and pro-science will simply breed less). It must also be considered that with religion in permanent decline, cultural collapse may be a certainty that eventually occurs in all developed nations. Religion, it may turn out, was evolutionary beneficial to the human race.

Another possible solution is to foster a patriarchal society where men serve as strong providers. If you encourage the development of successful men who possess indispensable skills and therefore resources that are lacked by females, there will be women below their station who want to marry and procreate with them, but if strong women are produced instead, marriage and procreation is unlikely to take place at levels above the death rate.

A gap between the sexes should always exist in the favor of men if procreation is to occur at high rates, or else you’ll have something similar to the situation in America where urban professional women cannot find “good men” to begin a family with (i.e., men who are significantly more financially successful than them). They instead remain single and barren, only used occasionally by cads for exciting casual sex.

One issue that I purposefully ignored is the effect of technology and consumerism on lowering birth rates. How much influence does video games, internet, and smartphones contribute to a birth decline? How much of an effect does Western-style consumerism have in delaying marriage? I suspect they have more of an amplification effect than being an outright cause. If a country is proceeding through the cultural collapse model, technology will simply hurry the collapse, but giving internet access to a traditionally religious group of people may not cause them to flip overnight. Research will have to be done in these areas to say for sure.

Conclusion

The first iteration of any theory is sure to create as many questions as answers, but I hope that by proposing this model, it becomes more clear why some cultures seem so quick to degrade while others display a sort of immunity. Some countries may be too far down the wrong path to be saved, but I hope the information presented gives concerned readers ideas on protecting their own culture by allowing them to connect how progressive ideologies that may seem innocent or benign on the surface can eventually lead to an outright collapse of their nation’s culture.

[msclaritea]

A very important history lesson and why we have to fight back this time.

A lot of people saw the White Tears Death March at Michigan's capitol & said: "If black people did that..."

"Some mentioned Reagan's gun control law after '67 Panthers protest But there are many historical examples of white people freaking out when blacks protested.

(A thread) 

After the Not-So-Civil War, this happened ALL THE TIME.

Remember, the states that got their asses kicked were not automatically allowed back into the Union. Southern white supremacists were so scared when blacks exercised their new right to vote that they started a race war. 

In 1866, La. reconvened its Constitutional Convention because Democrats were trying to stop blacks from voting. (This was before conservative Southern "states rights" advocates switched became Republican. We'll get to that)

Of course, black people marched (but not like that). 

When the black people showed up, a group of white supremacists (Y'all call them "Confederates now — same thing) was waiting on them and opened fire.

To be fair, the black ppl weren't actually protesting, per se when the racists opened fire. They were doing something much worse: 

They were dancing and playing music.

Y'all, those racist bastards opened fire on a MARCHING BAND.

Then this happened:

Partly because of the New Orleans Massacre, Congress passed the First Reconstruction Act. Black Louisianans were guaranteed the right to vote but the act did something else that would make the racists even madder.

It took away the right to vote for any ex-Confederate. 

If you think this was bad, Georgia was even worse.

Ga. holds the distinction of being the only state that was so racist that we had to kick the ENTIRE STATE out of America.

Seriously, that happened. And it was partly because of the Camilla Massacre. 

First, you gotta remember that blacks damn near outnumbered whites in Georgia. So, after they got the right to vote, 33 black ppl were elected to the state legislature.

Wypipo wasn't having that shit.

So the white legislators called their homeboys up (Y'all call them the KKK) 

The KKK ran the DULY ELECTED "Original 33" out of office.

Then the Ga. Supreme Court ruled that black people were technically citizens, but the Ga. laws were only meant for white people, so... Black ppl, y'all need to go somewhere with that "equality" shit.*

*I'm paraphrasing

A week after they ousted the Original 33, one of the (did I mentioned DULY ELECTED) legislators organized 200-300 blacks & marched from Albany to Camilla to hold a rally in the town square

When they got to Mitchell County, whites waiting in storefronts and on roofs, opened fire 

The Camilla Massacre got Georgia kicked BACK OUT of the Union and the state had to be readmitted for a second time in 1870 after it seated SOME of the Original 33.

Why not all?

Well, 1/4 of the Original 33 were murdered or attacked. 

On October 25, 1870, 2,000 black people gathered at a rally in Eutaw, Ala. right before the Nov. election. The crowd wanted to prove they weren't of white racists.

Why would they be scared?

Well, in March, 30 masked white men had lynched James Martin, a black Republican. 

It happened again in July, but they didn't just kill Gillford Coleman, they cut his body up into pieces. The racists were afraid Eutaw Co. blacks would help elect a Republican Gov. liked they helped Grant win the county by 2000 votes the 1868 election, 

Klansman rode into town and opened fire on adults and children and promised to do it again if Black people voted.

The tactic worked.

Instead of Republicans winning, the county by 2000 votes, the Democrat Governor won by 43 votes. 

That was lame compared to the Battle of Liberty Place.

Remember when this whole "Confederate Statue" thing first started a couple of years ago? It was partly about a monument to the Battle of Liberty Place, when a whole white supremacist army overthrew the Louisiana gvt. 



In 18 months a white supremacist ARMY called the "white league" (racists are notoriously bad for coming up with nicknames) killed hundreds of Black voters in Colfax, New Orleans, Coushatta & Opelousas

This is what led to the passage of the 2nd Ku Klux Klan Act 

(Side note: The Colfax Massacre also resulted in a Supreme Court Case, which was the first time the Supreme Court said the Second Amendment guaranteed individual citizens the right to own guns)

A lot of Black folks weren't having this shit. So they formed their own armies. 

In SC, the KKK and other Dollar Tree brand racist groups were killing Blacks in the lead up to the 1876 election. In Ellenton, over 100 black voters were murdered.

But it wasn't just about politics. White people HATED when blacks told them what to do. 

You gotta remember, most southern whites were Confederates, so during Reconstruction military occupation, a lot of the soldiers were black.

On July 4, 1876, in Hamburg, the town next to Ellenton, SC, a group of black national guardsmen were drilling while black people watched 

A group of these Dollar Tree white soldiers called the "Red Shirts" came through trying to flex and the Black Guardsmen told them to wait to pass until they finished.

Yall know those former whip crackers weren't having that. 

A white judge told the Red Shirts that they could take the black NATIONAL GUARDSMEN's guns, they found the black militia and began opening fire.

94 white men were indicted.

0 were convicted

The leader of the Hamburg Massacre?

He went on to serve 24 years in the US Senate 

Again, it wasn't just about stopping black people from voting.

In 1887, 10,000 black workers went on strike and started forming a union on La sugar plantations.

So the plantation owners hired the KKK to come in and kill the organizers. Then, it became any black person. 

No one knows how many were killed but the official number is "enough"

Louisiana sugar plantations wouldn't organize again for another 50 years. 

On July 3, 1919, a group of black Buffalo Soldiers went to Bisbee, Ari. Now, this may have been before cookouts were invented, because the soldiers had planned to march in the parade the next day. 

Bisbee's white sheriff told the black soldiers that they couldn't walk around with their guns. When the police officers tried to disarm the Buffalo Soldiers, the refused. So they deputized all the white men in town to disarm the negroes 

The soldiers were like: "Fuck y'all lil' parade, then," and were preparing to leave when one of the deputies was like: "You can't talk to a white man like that."

He opened fire.

The other deputies did, too. 

An investigation would later reveal that it was planned.

The Sherriff and others "had planned deliberately to aggravate the negro troopers so that they would furnish an excuse for police and deputy sheriffs to shoot them down."

No word on the cookout. 

Later that same year, black cotton sharecroppers met at a church in Elaine, Ark. They were trying to organize to get better prices but white farmers showed up. After an exchange of gunfire, a white man ended up dead.

The rumor spread that there was a black coup in Elaine 

Whites from all across the South came to Elaine to literally hunt Black ppl. No one still knows how many were killed. Estimates range up to 250. You know how they finally ended it?

Federal troops arrived...

And arrested all the black people who were left alive. 

In 1945, 19 black Air Force fighter pilots were arrested for trying to integrate an all-white officers club at an Indiana Airbase. 17 more showed up. They were arrested. 25 more showed up the next night, and were arrested.

Segregation was technically against military rule 

So the Air Force gathered all 101 black airmen in a room & offered a deal: All they had to do is sign a paper saying they agree to the segregation or,

Face arrest for violating a direct order, which was technically punishable by death.

All 101 refused.

They were all arrested 

Historically, the white "patriots" who love the flag and the troops treated black soldiers like they all took a knee before an NFL game.

In August 1947, Chicago residents grew angry when they realized the gov't was giving homes to Black veterans in the white Fernwood Park area 

The day after the families moved in, on August13, the whites attacked

For 3 days, as many as 5,000 white rioters pulled Black people out of cars and beat them. They threw rocks at the homes and smashed windows. Then they started setting fires.

The police did nothing. 

In 1949, black Chicago union stewards assembled went to a meeting. There were white people at the meeting, too. The meeting was even in the home of a white couple, but a rumor had already been circulating that black people were planning to buy a house in the white neighborhood. 

By the end of the meeting, hundreds of whites were outside.

This one lasted 5 days.

An estimated 10,000 white rioters took part in the Englewood riot.

Police did nothing to stop it. 

Remember when MLK wrote about "white moderates" in the Letter from a Birmingham Jail?" Well, those protests were partially successful.

On May 11, 1963 black protesters were celebrating. The city had decided to desegregate water fountains, lunch counters, retail stores... 

On May 11, 1963, the KKK was also planning a march in Bham because...you know.

Just before 11 am, a uniformed Bham police officer got out of his car and put a package on the porch of a small house.

It was dynamite.

It exploded. 

A few minutes later, another bigger bomb at the AG Gaston motel.

Everyone knows about the 16th St. church bombing in Birmingham, but few people know that there were more than FIFTY bombings in "Bombingham" during the Civil rights era 

One section of town was bombed so often it's still called "Dynamite Hill."

Of course, the KKK marched anyway.

Oh, and that bombed house belonged to A.D. King, Martin Luther King's brother.

King had left town a few hours earlier...

After checking out of the AG Gaston Hotel 

(Fun fact: Angela Davis and Condoleeza Rice grew up around the corner from each other in Dynamite Hill)

On February 5, 1968, black students from SC State tried to integrate a bowling alley. They were kicked out, but this time, the police were waiting to beat protesters. 

But students kept showing up. So the governor called the state troopers and the National Guard.

On Feb. 8, while attempting to put out a bonfire, the Troopers opened fire on 200 protesters, shooting dozens of black students and protesters. 

1 high school student was killed and 2 SCSU students. Police said they thought the students were shooting,

They weren't

One person was arrested, convicted and served time, Cleveland Sellers...

A student.

You might know his son @Bakari_Sellers 

In March, 1970, in Lamar SC, a mob of angry white people attacked black protesters. Well... these protesters were kinda young and they were protesting in a weird way:

They were going to school.

A judge had ordered the school district to integrate

There are so many more examples

Check out "Ax Handle Saturday" in Jacksonville, Fla.

Read about when Fannie Lou Hamer and the Mississippi Freedom Democrats showed up at the '64 convention

The Freedom Riders

Bloody Sunday in Selma

Art Bacon in Talladega 

So when white people show up to protests angry and outspoken, and nothing happens, you don't have to wonder what would happen if black people did that,

Just remember what happened when black people just SHOWED UP

Not if...

WHEN."

[charliejrogers]

Gone With the Wind (Or, Why are we still talking about this?)

Beyond the second Godfather, Titanic, Avengers: Endgame, The Irishman, and Tarantino at his most indulgent (The Hateful 8) my experience with films over the 180-min mark is rather paltry. I haven’t seen many of those epic “classics” of days past, not because of disinterest, just lack of time. I’ll get to you yet, Doctor Zhivago! But that’s not the case for Gone With the Wind: I just never had any interest. Though I love Titanic, I never had interest in watching a four-hour love story from the 1930s. And for all it’s praise, I never knew anyone who had seen it, nor did I hear a lot of praise about it on online forums/websites. Perhaps because the internet tends to dominated by male voices who would rather tout gangster films than the passionate drama I was led to believe this film was. In sum, I just sort of took it for granted that Gone With the Wind was some all-time classic, but one which I would just never get around to seeing, and I was ok with that.

That changed in 2018, when Spike Lee used a scene from the film to start his own movie BlacKkKlansmen. Before this, I had never known there was ever any controversy surrounding a move that was supposedly as good if not better than Casablanca. Lee used the scene from Gone With the Wind (in addition to a scene from The Birth of a Nation) to criticize the way Hollywood has long served as a bastion for white supremacy, giving voice and platform to hateful speech and thoughts. In the case of Gone With the Wind, that means a work which embodies those hateful thoughts, and yet has been celebrated and praised despite doing so ad nauseum for 80+ years. At that point, I lost even more interest in the film, now not wanting to watch a racist movie.

Fast-forward to 2020 in the wake of George Floyd’s murder (among many other Black people killed by police recently and throughout American history) when HBO is under severe controversy for first putting Gone With the Wind on its streaming service, and then subsequently under more controversy for taking it down. A debate took place about censorship, free speech, and the other bullshit conservatives use to sustain their own beliefs while hypocritically arguing against when things don’t go their way. Regardless, for myself, in order to enter into the debate informed I felt like I wanted to know what the hubbub was all about. Frankly, I was curious to see why a movie that was so obviously racist was so adored.

Three hours and forty-five minutes later, I’m not really that sure. On the one hand, putting myself in the shoes of an audience member in 1939, the first half would have blown me away, with the drama taking place in Georgia at the very start of the Civil War up through its grand destruction under General Sherman. The colors and cinematography capturing the landscape of Georgia are just downright beautiful , unlike anything that had been in films prior. Yes, it’s not the first movie to be shot in color (nor was the Wizard of Oz which came out just 4 months prior), but I can’t imagine films before this were as devastatingly beautiful. Everything from the colors of the women’s dresses to the multiple picture-perfect sunsets pops out and catches your eye, and not in the fairytale, bubblegum way of Wizard of Oz. Gone With the Wind captures the natural beauty and colors of our world, and put it on display in a grand way. The cinematography really deserves every praise it gets.

The recurrent motif of characters’ shadows being casted onto the wall behind them during key emotional scenes was one I never tired of. Not only are the shadows beautifully captured by the camera, but, especially in a movie where every character seems to have a secret passion they refuse to express, the shadows strip away all our external beauties (make-up, facial features, dresses, and all the stuff this film has in spades), leaving us with figures that are still obviously human and whose feelings are immediately understood. All that is needed to convey grief is to see two shadows with the heads hung low.

The other positives of this film? Clark Gable is a handsome fucking man. He walks the fine line of confidence and smug so well that few others than, say, Brad Pitt could have ever performed the role of Rhett Butler so well. I particularly loved how he portrayed his relationship with his daughter, and the genuine love he showers upon her. Yes, he obviously spoils the child, but he’s so charming and so sincere that rarely have I seen such devoting love from father to daughter on screen, even 80 years later. As one character says, “there must be a great deal of good in a man who would love a child so much.”

But Rhett’s also kind of a despicable human being. He’s a brutish MAN, who loves his daughter because she is someone he can finally “completely own,” (an interesting choice of words said by a Southerner just after the Civil War) which is indicative of his philosophy towards love. Yes, love should be reciprocal, but his idea that his wife should exist in strict subservient, obedient love to him is ridiculous, yet he pursues it like it’s his right. He is otherwise prone to petty jealousy and drunkenness, and he is emotionally abuse toward his wife, Scarlett O’Hara (Vivien Leigh). It’s uncomfortable today to watch these scenes of abuse, like where he threatens to crush her skull to get the thoughts of another man out of her head, or where, after O’Hara makes abundantly clear that she never wants sex with Butler again, he in a drunken fit picks her up in order to carry her to bed, saying essentially “I know you said you didn’t want to but I’m going to fuck you.” After such deplorable behavior in a movie today, there would at least be ambiguity about Butler’s character or morality. Nope, not here. We see O’Hara the next morning essentially elated by the burst of passion that just a few hours earlier she was dreading and resisting. Throughout everything, Butler is held up as one of the film’s main heroes, growing from the film’s start as a noble rapscallion who values money too much and gradually evolves into a war hero who earns his people’s respect by protecting his people (and we’ll for argument’s sake just ignore that “protecting his people” means protecting men accused of doling out vigilante, lynch-mob justice which we can only assume implies the KKK). In sum, he’s a complex and charismatic character played wonderfully by Gable, but a character nevertheless that is problematic and would have been better served by a film as willing to highlight these problems as they are willing to highlight them in the film’s protagonist Scarlett O’Hara.

Yes, I’m a thousand words in, and I haven’t even started talking about the actual main character. The movie, for as much as it is discussed as being a love story between O’Hara and Butler or an ode to the Old South, is more a coming-of-age tale (in its first half) and a character study (in its second) focused on O’Hara. She starts the film out a vain, self-indulgent belle of the ball, but faced with the horrors of war and subsequent poverty, she becomes an embodiment of the rotten side of the American Dream: greedy, self-indulgent, and out-of-touch with the world she came from. I suppose that at the end of the film, abandoned by her husband, having lost both of her children, as well as her best friend, O’Hara’s revelation that she should return home to her family’s plantation is supposed to be suggest that she will seek redemption and give up her excesses. That’s fine with me, but I’m not sure the film deserves to just end it there and not allow us to see if she actually earns that redemption. I’m not saying I want MORE Gone With the Wind, just that the story feels incomplete in telling O’Hara’s full story arc.

Still, I can’t say I didn’t enjoy watching O’Hara’s tale unfold. It is always somewhat refreshing to watch film from decades’ past that refuse to present stories that are morally simple (not that I think people in the 30’s were incapable of complex morality, just that movies at the time tend to reflect more simple black-and-white values). To that extent, O’Hara is not a simple character, and is actually quite fascinating. She’s a ruthless capitalist and opportunist, much in the vain of her male counterpart, Butler. I’m curious to know how, for a country just starting to crawl its way out of the Depression and which in just a few short years would see the rise of Rosie the Riveter women, how O’Hara’s devotion to never be in poverty ever again (even if she has to “lie, steal, cheat, or kill”!) was perceived by audiences. Specifically, released at a time when gender norms were all but fixed, I wonder how men thought of her taking advantage of, and almost weaponizing, her femininity for her advantage, marrying three times not out of love but to better herself and survive. Yet, hypocritically she clings to the ideals of femininity of the past. Her use of her femininity to survive she accepts, yet she abhors the film’s stereotypical heart-of-gold prostitute for her moral licentiousness despite her good nature.

Throughout the film, especially in the later half, it was unclear to me how much we as the audience were supposed to like or dislike O’Hara. Yes, she’s hard-working, resilient, and acts heroically multiple times in the film. But she’s also kind of a child til the very end, obscenely jealous, while also cold and calculating, counting down the days til her best friend dies so that she can sleep with her husband. I liked that ambiguity. It made her feel like a real person. To some degree Leigh’s performance as O’Hara is undercut by histrionics and bouts of “hysteria” that were more common in film performances from that time, but which seem a little annoying and grating today. But damn if it isn’t a great performance, display the full emotional range in this film, from buoyantly bright and cheery, to desperate and despaired.

So yeah, I guess I do get why it’s considered a classic, or at least why it made such a splash in 1939. There was nothing like it! The cinematography is great, its characters are fascinating, complex, and engrossing, and the performances (by Gable in particular) are wonderful. But the elephant in the room, then but especially now, is that… damn… this movie is racist, like in its DNA. They double down on this at the VERY START! The fourth shot of the movie (FOURTH!), after first showing a sign announcing the studio who produced the film, then a look at the plantation-like building bearing the studio’s name, and finally some clouds at daybreak, is of slaves tending to crops. The image is set to a triumphant score while the overlaying text tells us that the movie will be based on Margaret Mitchell’s “Story of the Old South.” This is not done ironically. With the beautiful landscape and music, we as audience are to think, “Wow, what a great time this was.” At the end of the opening credits, the prologue text tells us that the antebellum South was the last in a long line of great lands. It’s the last time “gallantry” would exist, and “the last ever to be seen of Knights and their Ladies Fair, or Master and of Slave.” Holy Shit. As if “Master and Slave” is something to celebrate?! “Those damn Yankees would destroy such a beautiful world!” the film argues. Again… not presented ironically. It’s pretty jarring.

That said, I do want to say that to a minimal degree that film is right when it just presents War (with a capital W) in general as a destructive force that either destroys lives outright, or destroys enough property to send lives to ruin. That’s a truth propagated by media as far back as the Iliad, and is sometimes shown effectively here, such as the oft-discussed slow-pan show of the countless Confederate bodies lying dead on the ground mid-way through the film. It’s a depressing sight on an apolitical human level. But, at the same time, the movie’s inability and refusal to address the reason those bodies are there in the first place (racist need to continue slavery), and instead obliquely suggest that the Antebellum South was without any suffering until those damn Yankees brought them ruin is, frankly, insulting and disgusting. It outright ignores the suffering of Black people in favor of highlighting the suffering of whites. A tale unfortunately told ab aeterno in America.

I know others can, have, and will say more about the treatment of Black characters within the film and how they serve only to reinforce negative stereotypes. Mammy, despite being wonderfully acted by Hattie McDaniel, and other house slaves are presented as being eternally grateful to have been enslaved to their white masters, so much so that even after the war they continue to serve them --- because why would they ever want to do differently?! (the film seemingly asks and answers). After the war, Scarlett is more than willing to accept that her lumber mill should be worked by convicts who will be paid less than other workers and suffer harsh treatment, arguing that it is no different than slavery and that has always been ok. WHAT?! And Prissy, the slave who reassures Scarlett that she knows everything about birthing babies, up until the point where her knowledge is needed and she turns out to be nothing more than an airheaded twit, has to be one of the ugliest depictions of a slave I have seen. Particularly, she serves little more than really bad comic relief… with the joke seemingly just being “wow look at how stupid and annoying slaves were.”

This is more than I intended to write, so I won’t go on, but I think everything I had to say has been said. It’s a beautifully shot film, with rich, deep, and complex characters that would be even better served in a movie more willing to dive into the moral ambiguity of their characters, and for Butler in particular not bend over backwards to make him look like a good guy. And I get why it made such an impact 80 years ago, especially in that first half where there’s all the excitement of war and some notable action set-pieces. But even taking out the significant problems the movie has with race, it’s hard for me to understand anyone considers this essential viewing for anyone today besides those with an interest in cinematography, film history, or interested in how race is presented on screen. Its proto-feminist Scarlett O’Hara and her role within an evolving economy and evolving societal ideas of what “love” is are interesting, but they certainly not things that are worth the average viewer’s nearly four hours’ worth of time. It’s a museum piece, one that captured the spirit of a time (and the decades beyond it) where Hollywood felt it was completely OK to romanticize life under slavery, and bemoan its destruction by Yankees. If you want to see this museum piece, go ahead, but don’t let anyone convince you it’s one of the all-time greats.

***/ (Three and a half out of four stars)

Capsule Review: Long movie with great performances and beautiful cinematography... also racist to its core.

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

September 6, 2021

Heather Cox Richardson

This week, lawmakers will begin to construct the details of the $3.5 trillion infrastructure package they declared their intention to pass. On August 11, the Senate approved a budget resolution telling committees to hammer out the details of a bill that will deal with the “soft” infrastructure not covered in the $1 trillion bipartisan infrastructure bill that dealt with roads, bridges, broadband, and other “hard” infrastructure needs. The larger bill will focus on child care, education, elder care, health care, and climate change.

If this measure passes, it will expand the ways in which the government addresses the needs of ordinary Americans. It updates the measures put in place during the New Deal of the 1930s, when Democrats under President Franklin Delano Roosevelt shored up nuclear families—usually white nuclear families—by providing unemployment insurance, disability coverage, aid to children, and old age insurance.

After World War II, people of both parties accepted this new system, believing that it was the job of a modern government to level the economic playing field between ordinary men and those at the top of the economic ladder. Republican presidents Dwight Eisenhower and Richard Nixon expanded government action into civil rights and protection of the environment; Democrats Harry S. Truman, John F. Kennedy, Lyndon B. Johnson, and Jimmy Carter expanded education initiatives, health care, anti-poverty programs, civil rights, and workers’ rights.

But opponents insisted that such government action was “socialism.” In America, this word comes not from international socialism, in which the government owns the means of production, but rather from the earlier history of Reconstruction, when white opponents of Black voting insisted that the money to pay for programs like schools, which helped ordinary and poorer people, must come from those with wealth, and thus redistributed wealth. They demanded an end to the taxes that supported public programs.

They elected Ronald Reagan president in 1980 to reject the post–World War II “liberal consensus” that used the government to level the economic playing field, focusing instead on cutting taxes to return power to individuals to make their own decisions about how to run their own economic lives. Over the past forty years, that ideology has cut the national safety net and moved economic power dramatically upward.

True to that ideology, opponents of the $3.5 trillion infrastructure package are already calling it, as Senator John Barrasso (R-WY) said, a “freight train to socialism." But more than 60% of Americans want to invest our money in our people, as lawmakers of both parties did from 1933 to 1981.

Grover Norquist, a former spokesman for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce who rose to power by pushing the opposite idea, that economic development depended on consistent and complete tax cuts, told Michael Scherer of the Washington Post, “We are really on this precipice, this knife’s edge, and each party goes, ‘If I just push a little bit harder I can control politics for the next 20 years.’” The conservative activist added, “And it’s true.”

But what Norquist didn’t spell out was that Democrats are trying to win control by protecting the ability of Americans to have a say in their government, while Republicans are trying to make their ideology the law of the land by skewing the mechanics of our democracy to permit a minority to rule over the majority.

Scherer laid out what this skewing looks like. Since 1988—the year George H. W. Bush was elected—Democrats have won the popular vote in seven of nine presidential elections. And yet, Republicans have taken the White House through the Electoral College and have appointed 6 of the 9 justices now on the Supreme Court.

The concentration of Republicans in rural states with smaller populations means that the Senate is also skewed toward the Republican Party. Public policy scholars Michael Ettlinger and Jordan Hensley crunched the numbers to show that today’s 50 Democratic senators represent 26% more people than Republican senators: 202 million compared to 160 million. They go on to say: “A Black American is 16% less represented in the Senate than an American on average; [a] Latinx American 32% less.”

Ettlinger and Hensley note that, as the Senate has become less representative, Republican senators have relied on arcane rules to let a minority stop popular legislation. “In the current Senate,” they report, “41 Republican senators representing as few as 75 million people can block most legislation from even coming to a vote—thwarting the will of a group of Democratic and Republican senators representing as many as 270 million Americans."

In the House of Representatives, gerrymandering allows Republicans to hold more seats than their share of the popular vote. In 1996 and 2012, Republicans lost the national vote tally but controlled Congress nonetheless.

The skew in state legislatures is also large. Scherer points out that the Michigan legislature, for example, has a Republican majority although Democrats have won a majority of the popular vote there for a decade. In North Carolina in 2018, Democrats won 51% of the popular vote but got only 45% of the seats.

After the 2020 election, Republican-dominated legislatures in states where Democrats likely make up the majority—Georgia, Texas, and Florida, for example—have worked aggressively to restrict voting rights. More than a dozen states have enacted more than 30 new laws to suppress votes. Tonight, Texas governor Greg Abbott announced that tomorrow he will sign another major voter suppression measure in his state.

Noting “how far the [Republican] party has fallen on fundamental matters of democracy,” the Washington Post editorial board today called on Democrats to pass the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, which would restore and expand the Department of Justice’s protection of the right to vote, gutted by the Supreme Court in 2013 and 2021.

The board continued: “They should merge it with other provisions designed to promote fairness at the ballot box, such as universal voter registration, protections for absentee voters, standards to guard against rampant gerrymandering and restrictions on partisan interference with vote counting. They should dare Republicans to vote down a package that unambiguously enhances democracy, with no extraneous measures. If Republicans continue to unify against it, they should consider ways to reform the filibuster rule blocking urgent democracy reform.”

At stake is whether our government will work for ordinary Americans who make up the majority of our population—including in 2021 women and minorities as well as white men—or whether it will serve an entrenched minority.

—-

Notes:

https://www.npr.org/2021/08/10/1026081880/senate-passes-bipartisan-infrastructure-bill

https://mettlinger.medium.com/the-2021-senate-is-exceedingly-unrepresentative-in-multiple-ways-899ceedf064a

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/abortion-republican-victories/2021/09/04/c7a0b8da-0c23-11ec-a6dd-296ba7fb2dce_story.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/06/us/politics/democrats-biden-social-safety-net.html

Marc E. Elias @marceelias🚨BREAKING: Texas Gov. Abbott will sign the voter suppression bill tomorrow at Noon ET. Expect litigation to be filed immediately thereafter. Follow @DemocracyDocket for alerts and details.

3,198 Retweets12,143 Likes

September 6th 2021

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/09/06/john-lewis-act-would-restore-key-voting-protections-democrats-should-fight-it/

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON