#like they don't know any better or they're being disingenuous or they're oppressed

[good-to-drive]

Girls5Eva is the best thing that ever happened to me, actually

[fleapit]

Look, a lot of the trans women "bitching" about trans men don't hate trans men, and I won't deny that you probably face different strains of transphobia than us. The issue lies in that trans men often wield intracommunity privilege over trans women and many refuse to recognize that. Worse, it's been weaponized against trans women seen as undesirable far too many times. I know you're a good dude, I just ask that you think a little critically about why the divide exists and listen to women's grievances rather than boil it down to bitching.

nothing i say is anti trans women. i love trans women. some of my best friends in the entire fucking world are trans women and i take every chance i can to uplift them and to support them. my beef is NOT with trans women. it's about people- ANY person, regardless of if they're trans or not, regardless of if they're a woman or not- saying that trans men do not face oppression both in and outside of the queer community - mocking and denying our experiences, making fun of ANY word we coin to describe it, and acting like were just trying to earn pity points by complaining.

this is NOT me saying that trans women oppress trans men and i have literally never said that. i have never said that trans women have any privilege over trans men- and im not saying you're accusing me of that, anon, but people have in the past.

i think that every single argument about why trans men have privilege over trans women is either misconstrued or perpetuated by bad actors and terfs trying to divide the community. we do NOT have it any better than trans women do, we do NOT suddenly gain 'male privilege' when we socially transition, and while i do understand women's grievances, it is NOT FAIR to accuse RANDOM TRANS MEN of oppressing you/having privilege over you just because we are hyper-invisible and you do not see the harm that comes to our community.

we are ALSO run off this website. just nobody talks about it. we are ALSO murdered, raped, abused. just nobody talks about it- and if they do, we are women in the news. women in reports. women in statistics. even historically evident transmascs are CONSTANTLY erased and reduced down to 'lying about their gender' because it was safer to pass as a man, or being lesbians. even when the person themselves says in manuscripts and letters and historical records that they identify solely as a man. we are easy targets. extremely easy targets. nobody will defend us but ourselves - and in turn, we have to be everyone else's defenders, or we are worth nothing in the eyes of the community and the world.

we are NEVER taken seriously as men, so to say that we have inherent male privilege- and ESPECIALLY inherent privilege over our trans siblings- is disingenuous at best and dangerous at worst. it erases any concept of intersectionality, of how every trans person's experience is different because of differing factors- identifying as a woman or a man is not the be-all end-all of oppression. our abuse is systemic, and it targets all of us, no matter how we identify, because our transness is seen as undesirable regardless.

any infighting we partake in is just an engineered distraction so they can slaughter us easier.

[bastard-coatedbastards]

"sysmeds are sexist" oh my godddddd they ALWAYS gotta weaponize trans identities among traumatized queer people??? Not every system is queer but the majority who use social media likely ARE, and they're trying to lump plurality in as a kind of queerness. It's not the same. Brain structure, as a construction of the electrical impulses in your brain so that it can communicate with itself, is always gonna be separate from the arbitrary shit show that is gender identity. I've dealt with both, clinically and culturally.

It is indeed a terrifying prospect so PLEASE do not get caught up in obsession around this conspiracy. It will help you gain insight into how dissociation is in fact weaponized for capitalism and imperialism (I know I'd spend hours on this fucking phone with or without DID), but please don't feel like you need to change their minds or save anyone else from their own bullshit. Put your oxygen mask on first; save yourselves, block and move on, and focus on what you CAN control. It's not a conspiracy "theory" unfortunately, it's well-documented that infiltration has been going on in oppressed groups even before the internet. The internet makes everything SUPER easy for infiltration into minority groups.

But yeah some people are way to gung-ho about this for comfort. It reminds me of McClean's little panel of "doctors" (overpaid sleazebags who do not care to listen to patients as opposed to REAL DOCTORS) totally dismissing traumatized people's experiences altogether, except their coming at it from a place of disingenuous "concern" for these kids instead of focusing on what actually happened to them.

The pro-endo community is tough because supposedly they support systems. So many younger systems who believe they don't have trauma are being convinced that they simply MUST be validated online anyway. They go into these spaces, and see traumatized systems talking about what caused their system to form and feel a need to go "well it's not always trauma >:(." And inevitably, a traumaholder in some other system gets angry at them, because there are other alters IN OUR OWN SYSTEMS who don't believe us.

It's already natural to get defensive around having trauma because that's how the brain protects itself from remembering, and the feedback loop of dopamine that comes from engaging in discourse is a perfect distraction for that. It's psychologically damaging. "Endos" who are convinced individually that they have no trauma are not necessarily dangerous on their own, but the continuous discussion of not "needing" trauma at all is a cesspool of irrelevant drama and misinformation.

You'd be better off talking to a black person with knowledge of the cold war and 70s-ish era civil rights on this one, but it's one of the most well-documented findings on government infiltration into the discussion within oppressed groups.

There's a whole lot of hardball there. They literally have a whole handbook for the CIA on this kind of sabotage through "purposeful stupidity" published long before the above example. Do you have any idea how easy it is to do these things online now?

"Organizations and Conferences

- Insist on doing everything through “channels.” Never permit short-cuts to be taken in order to expedite decisions.

- Make “speeches.” Talk as frequently as possible and at great length. Illustrate your “points” by long anecdotes and accounts of personal experiences.

- When possible, refer all matters to committees, for “further study and consideration.” Attempt to make the committee as large as possible — never less than five.

- Bring up irrelevant issues as frequently as possible.

- Haggle over precise wordings of communications, minutes, resolutions.

- Refer back to matters decided upon at the last meeting and attempt to re-open the question of the advisability of that decision.

- Advocate “caution.” Be “reasonable” and urge your fellow-conferees to be “reasonable” and avoid haste which might result in embarrassments or difficulties later on."

This is all to halt CONSENSUS, which is imperative for any non-government community to work together.

The US government has a long history in the involvement of war (which causes trauma), misinformation about neurodivergence and other mental health matters (which causes trauma), and worst of all direct human trafficking (systemic traumatization for profit).

No the government is not "trying to get you," or anything of the sort in a stereotypical sense. But they do want you to doubt yourself, your memories, and your community. That's how empires maintain control over otherwise independent-minded beings. Denial is a slippery slope that is horrifically easy to exploit. You see that in singlets who continue on as normal in the middle of a GENOCIDE every day. It goes double for people experiencing any sort of amnesia.

I am NOT wasting my time here because doubting who's system is "real" gets nobody anywhere. You can't read someone's mind. Endos ARE wasting time on denial of their own life experiences, because if the aggressive ones had genuinely healed they could live peacefully without caring what others think. Nobody gets to ask a system "oh yeah, what's ur trauma?" anyway!! That's super rude!!!! So why waste so much time trying to prove a negative? That you "don't have any?" It's a stupid discussion to have when that's all you have to bring to the table.

I push people to recognize that life is inherently traumatic, and if anyone tells them differently they should ask who benefits most from that narrative. Because the denial of traumatic life experiences, and refusal to talk to those who do have them as a cause of their system, has consequences.

Like, I sincerely don't mind untraumatized systems until they start pointless arguments that give less stable alters who struggle with denial something untrue to latch onto. THEY are the ones dividing the community by throwing a pity party anytime someone "invalidates" them instead of simply blocking and move on.

Like it or not, outright fakeclaimers and people who basically go "shut up about having trauma that's not what systemhood is from" are on the same team. It's about silencing people and causing them to doubt their memories, and getting vulnerable young people addicted to this back-and-forth nonsense is literally straight from the CIA playbook I linked. It's not a conspiracy "theory" so much as a reasonable deduction based on history.

We live in a dark, cruel world. We need to be a light for each other in this community. Labeling people with things like "sysmed" as if splitting is as simple as a cultural identity, especially when they shame us for not loving our systemhood 24/7 or act like pseudomemories aren't for a reason, plays into the hands of literal dictators.

You can have cultural identity within your system! Your system can be a part of your spiritual life! You can have a functional system without PTSD symptoms it's called healing!! The neuroscience does not have to conflict with any other worldview to be correct; early stress and disorganized attachment, for whatever reason, causes a brain to develop multiple separate identities. Even the most well-meaning caregivers are still just humans, living in an ever-increasing shitshow under capitalism. Cause and effect doesn't have to dictate how you live right now, but don't EVER act like trauma is an irrelevant thing in this kind of life.

If it's irrelevant for you personally, that's not an invitation to derail conversations and throw traumatized people under the bus cuz we're "mean" or whatever. If someone is mean to you, block them. No one has to give you validation but you.

("You" as a rhetorical term not explicitly you who replied, tysm for the response!! We feel appreciated/gen)

How many times are you people going to complain about therapists not being adequate, and also act like a therapist wouldn't be biased towards an explanation for how you are that involves you not having complex trauma (which is a lot more work)?????

Yes therapy is important. I have a therapist and I love him but we were very picky about where we went for therapy. I don't care where you think your problems plurality etc comes from, finding somebody who will listen first and ask open-ended questions rather than push whatever treatment their garbage professor from 100 years ago told them to is hard to find for anyone.

Therapists are often stupid and lazy and more focused on whatever their capitalist handbook tells them to do than listen to their clients. Duh!!!!

If you're a plural person and you don't feel like your trauma is a relevant part of that, any therapist is going to be thrilled!!!! Thrilled!!!!!!!!

And then guess what when a traumatized system with a lot of problems does come in, the therapist is going to be naturally biased towards the explanation that gives them the easiest job.

You need to be picky with therapists for a reason and I'm not going to have misinformation spreaders make it more difficult by giving these people an out when it comes to looking at complex trauma.

You don't need your trauma to be a central part of your system life but for people who do have that as a struggle it's ridiculous to push the idea that it's ever irrelevant.

Pro-endo narratives that push and push and push the trauma is not always a factor grind my gears because I am convinced it started as a psyop. Life is inherently traumatizing. For anyone, including your caregivers. People hurt others without realizing and sometimes you can heal that on your own even after forming a system; and other times it takes a very long time. Knowing a therapist would rather adopt the narrative that it's "not always trauma" (and plenty would!) and push for assimilation into capitalist hell than study complex trauma and do their job grinds my gears. Misinformation does have consequences; just because all the information out there regarding plurality doesn't apply to you doesn't mean it's incorrect entirely.

It may just be Validation Olympics on the internet for you, but for many systems this stuff can be a very slippery slope. Denial is one of the slipperiest of slopes and KILLS PEOPLE VERY EASILY. Unhealed trauma, when you have it, leaks. If you don't have any to acknowledge great but don't give people who have a hard time acknowledging it a false glimmer of hope.

[nona-gay-simus-main]

7 Tropes That Make Me Uncomfy

Disclaimer: This is my personal opinion, calm down. Also, I'm white and do not speak for BIPOC communities

1. The Black Cop

Look, cops are racist af, we all know this. So what is this obsession with cops in media being Black? Is it to make them seem more palatable to liberal/leftist audiences? (That's rhetorical, we know it' is.)

Here's a wild idea: instead of making cops Black, stop writing stories about cops. Even if you want your protagonist or one of your main characters to be an investigator: private detectives exist. Defense lawyers, investigative journalists, there are literally so many options that don't have to include cops.

2. The Supernatural Police Procedural

This one I just don't understand. So you have zombies in your show, or the devil, or whatever, and you made it a police procedural? Really? There were no other, more interesting options out there?

I guess the supernatural element adds a bit of an original twist to the genre, but at the end of the day they're still cops investigating a murder. I think there might be more fun ways to use your supernatural characters than copaganda.

3. Rape as Karma

I think get the appeal of good, old schadenfreude. I too love when a bad guy gets a taste of their own medicine, it feels very satisfying & ironic. And irony is great!

But when it comes to rape, I just feel like it's one of those things that shouldn't really happen to anyone, even if they themselves are a rapist. It just feeds into the toxic mindset that some people are acceptable victims or that they 'deserved it' and I don't see how that's any better than what we have now.

4. The B word

No, I'm not talking about bitch - weirdly, that's one most media has no issue with. (I wonder why...) I mean 'bisexual'.

Why does media treat the word bisexual like it's a slur? I've seen shows that go to extreme lengths just to avoid mentioning it., "ex lesbian", "lower on the kinsey scale" and the always popular, "i like people, not gender." Oh my god, just say bisexual! Or pansexual! Or whatever you actually mean and stop this beating around the bush. Please, I beg of you! And ofc this isn't to say that some people don't use labels and that's also a valid experience, but why is it that the unlabeled characters are ALWAYS the ones attracted to multiple genders??

And stop treating bi characters as gay or straight based on the relationship they're currently in. Newsflash, but most bisexuals date men and women (and non-binary people) at different stages of their life and their sexuality doesn't actually change based on their partner's gender.

5. Queer In Name Only

You know that queer character, that's queer, but they also don't speak, act, think, dress, or even the same sense of humor as any real life queer person you know? Usually, it's a traditionally attractive, feminine, white cis woman - once in a while, the same, but a guy.

Now, obviously, there is no one way to be queer. That's not what I'm saying, nor am I advocating to bring back two-dimensional stereotypes. I'm just saying that it feels incredibly disingenuous that most of the 'representation' we have in mainstream media feels completely divorced from real-life queer culture.

6. Rampant Misogyny in Fantasy

This applies to any sort of bigotry, but misogyny is the most common one, because there is plenty of fantasy with no PoC or queer people, but there's almost no fantasy with no women.

And they are always there to be oppressed, be sexually harassed and assaulted (or at least attempted to be assaulted), and saved by the hero if they are lucky. Maybe there's one woman that has power, but she's usually evil or she dies. And if there is a stronger, warrior type woman, she has to be Not Like Other Girls and detest anything féminine from dresses to kindness.

I get that for most of human history women have had a pretty rough deal (and still do in most places) and I know that fantasy is often inspired by history, but it's still made up. You're allowed to create your own rules. So why do they always have to be sexist?

7. The Strong Female Character

I like a good, well-rounded female character, but what I'm talking about the Not Like Other GIrls, Strong Female Character who has to be stripped of any softness and compassion, and any femininity (besides maybe a surface level-one like love for dresses and nail-polish, if that) to be a true #GirlBoss.

Can we maybe stop doing that? Believe it or not, you can be 'emotional' and be a good leader. You can have healthy relationships with other women (platonic or sexual). You can even be a smart and dedicated person rather than a fighter.

I'm just tired that every female character has to fit this 90s femininism mold now. Where are the complex, broken women? The ugly women? The women who use compassion, intution, and vulnerability as their strongest qualities, rather than just a literal weapons? God, just give me more than this please.

[feral-radfem]

I'm reminded why I don't try to engage with any of y'all with any kind of genuine interest. It's because y'all are no different than any other online social movement. Dishonest. So let me make myself abundantly clear since @blkwmn and others want to continue to pretend like I was saying something I wasn't.

1) I was not saying that the dehumanization of young black girls and women is an a about all women, I'm saying that most women who use the non-binary identity are trying to 'reclaim their personhood' from their oppression, and I do understand that racism as an additional layer of dehumanization that pushes, and influences young black people to transition.

2) I hold all women accountable for the actions they do that her other women, which is a feminist principle. We should all be criticizing individualistic actions that cause damage to the communities we say we represent and care for. It's why I talked to the bimbo community about their choices, it's why I talked to Tifs, but it's why I talked to misogynistic lesbians about their actions. Because part of my duty as a feminist is to approach these topics with them and explain the damages they did.

3) Women of color have a unique relationship with racism. I'll never once denied this, I never once so that lesbians relationship to misogyny is exactly the same as theirs. I've said it multiple times, though they like to ignore it, that it was to show that I'm being ideologically consistent, that was the only point to it because we have a similar, not same, negative stereotype about us.

4) And this one I know she's being particularly dishonest about because she deleted my response, you should hold white women accountable for racism. There's no amount of minority groups a white woman can possess that excuses her racism or should shield her from our criticism of it. I don't think you even have to be particularly nice to them, because racism is obviously known to be bad in this day and age and there is no excuse. Where I understand that we need to have some compassion for the trans identified lot because of the social pressures they're under. I don't know why she thinks that my opinion would change there with my entire point this entire time is being that I will remain ideologically consistent. But it's most likely because she doesnt have anything she could screenshot that shows me being actually racist. This is a little more than a smear campaign.

If we all agreed that black women have a unique relationship to misogyny, and that you should be compassionate to the NBs that you're trying to talk to, the only disagreement I thought we had was that you should excuse this behavior and give them a "pass". If that's not the case you're a purposely defaming my character for literally nothing. I'm not being racist. I was literally saying that I cannot turn a blind eye to an entire demographic of women just so they don't have to hear the exact same feminist criticism I give other tifs.

Like I said, you're no different than any other political movement on here, disingenuous and just trying to cause drama for the clout.

It was a misinterpretation that multiple people came to the same conclusion of me as. Maybe you should write your post better, because a number of us misinterpreted it. I am in complete agreeance that we should talk about the push that racism has to get black women do not identify as women. I never a disagreed with any of that parts of those posts and I made sure to say so multiple places in my original post. I also preemptively apologize in my first posts tags in case I did misinterpret it stating that I was only replying to the interpretation that this meant that we need to let them continue this behavior.

I will try better in the future to ask before making assumptions on a topic but to continue to perpetuate the idea that my issue was anything to do with the actual context of the post when you know I misinterpreted it is disingenuous. This isn't coming from a place of racism, that's just your only defense against a perfectly fine critique of giving women a pass because of a minority status, which wasn't the point of your post. Why are you so mad I disagree with something you weren't saying when I do you agree with everything you were? It doesn't make any sense.

The least you could do is quit lying on my name. It's pathetic to continue to paint my intentions as anything other than what I explicitly said they were. If you actually had a fucking leg to stand on here you wouldn't have deleted my response that told you, yeah I expect you to hold everyone to the standard I'm holding every women to.

We should call out problematic behaviors in women. I stand by that, because that's how political/feminist critique gets out. I don't care, if you need to paint me as a racist, rather than a person who simply misinterpreted the intention of your post, then do what you want. I just think it shows more about your character than it does mine.

This is the last thing I'm doing in regards to this. I dealt with the absolute TRA level tactics all day yesterday and I'm not going to have a bunch of people personally insult me because I misinterpreted a post I apologized about the first time I reblogged it. Anything you pretend I'm saying that hasn't been explicitly stated by me you can honestly shove up your ass, I don't care. I'm disappointed this community has just as little principle and can't approach topics and (perceived) disagreements with honesty and instead have to make up fake narratives so that they can seem objectively right. It's pathetic.

[emma-what-son]

(Echee post) Emma Watson criticises 'dangerously unhealthy' pressure on young women

Posted on March 30 2014

From theguardian.com March 2014 Emma Watson has criticised the "dangerously unhealthy" image projected by the fashion industry and said the pressure to look perfect has taken its toll on her. The actor has also described her doomed attempts to merge into the background as a student at an American university, where she found herself being trailed everywhere by British photographers. After the recent New York premiere of Noah, she tweeted a photograph of the array of cosmetics – and a guardian angel pin – that she said were essential aids to her flawless appearance, and another of herself in a backless dress captioned: "I did NOT wake up like this." The actress said she is better at taking criticism these days than she once was. "As a younger woman, that pressure got me down, but I've made my peace with it. With airbrushing and digital manipulation, fashion can project an unobtainable image that's dangerously unhealthy. I'm excited about the ageing process. I'm more interested in women who aren't perfect. They're more compelling." Watson became famous playing Hermione Granger in the Harry Potter movies and has been constantly in work since. She is about to start filming a thriller, Regression, by Alejandro Amenábar and is also trying to complete her degree at Brown University, Rhode Island. She enrolled in 2009 for what would have been a four year course, but has taken several breaks for film work, and spent a year studying at Oxford. "After Harry Potter, all that mattered was university," she said, in an interview with the Sunday Times. "It wasn't always easy to break down barriers, as having men from the British press following me with cameras didn't help my mission to integrate. The American press, by contrast, "afforded me so much privacy", but her fellow students recognised her at once. "On the first day, I walked into the canteen and everyone went completely silent and turned around to look at me. I had to say to myself 'it's OK, you can do this'. You just have to take a deep breath and gather your courage."

GUARDIAN COMMENTERS SAY: So something like this Burberry campaign she did a few years ago? Hypocrisy at its finest. She flaunts with the fashion industry and enjoys its perks all the time, but hops on the 'female beauty' bandwagon and enjoys a moan when it suits her. I'd find her socially conscientious pleas convincing if she hadn't profited in the hundreds of thousands (if not millions) from the big, bad, evil fashion/beauty industry. A few years ago, Emma Watson appeared in high-profile advertising companies for posh Paris fashion house L'ancome. I'm guessing she was handsomely remunerated for her 'work'. Certainly she was not forced into letting her photo shopped image be used to market expensive cosmetics and perfumes. Did she only discover how 'oppressive' the fashion industry is when L'ancome cancelled her lucrative contract? Ms Watson is essentially a third-rate actress, and her pronouncements on large and complex issues, such as the pressures on women, are so idiotically vapid that one is brought to conclude that she really can have very little aptitude for higher education. I mean, her comments are hardly indicative of an educated person, or even of a moderately literate or intelligent person. By the way, I understand that she spent a year at Oxford as a visiting and/or exchange student while enrolled at Brown. How come? She is a British national, and so by rights she should not have gone to Oxford on a visiting/exchange student programme, irrespective of whether she happens a student at an American university. If I am wrong about this, then I should like to have some explanation as to her status at Oxford, and how she came by it. Otherwise, I suppose that one might be forgiven for thinking that it is yet another case of a once respectable academic institutions bowing down before the false idols of celebrity and money. (This is quite apart from the fact that all that one has read about her since she began life as a student concerns her acting career, her modeling and her various boyfriends.) SOME COMMENTS FROM THE DM ARTICLE Notice how it's always people who are very aware of how attractive they are that babble on about how it's okay to have physical blemishes? I'd like to see an ugly person say the same thing. Only someone young, beautiful and with her whole life before her can say that, and mean it. Sometimes, her comments maKe her more stupid. Get lost and Wingardium Leviosa. What a daft thing to say. But, then again, this is coming from someone who can't seem to finish uni. I feel like I've aged about 10 years reading this article. Annoying girl. Not only annoying, but also pretentious and disingenuous. ^None of this is my words. It from commentators from two sites emma-what-son posted many more so check out her page

Here's what I think As for what she is saying about Brown it's a complete 180 from how she described it before 2013. In 2013 she started to elude to the fact it was not as great as she made it out to be. She gushed how wonderful her experiences had been to so many magazines. Now I think she's looking for pity and to have excuses why she never stayed at Brown. She preached how she was staying put. I am so fucking tired of having to post quote after quote proving my point with this when she lies time after time. She is not honest! What the truth is doesn't matter because she always lying. It's a constant thing with her. As for the pressures on women she is really a piece of work. The guardian commenters summed it up nicely. She had no problem attaching herself to Burberry and Lancôme. She's had no problem giving them praise and talking about fashion and make-up in just about every interview. That part where she talked about photo shopping and air brushing. Just wow! Did she see the Wonderland magazine she edited? Some photos it didn't even look like her. She'll continue allowing her image to be manipulated no matter what. She thinks she’s aging? She still looks 15 without all the make-up and photo shopping. Last year she was stopped at JFK because they thought she was a unaccompanied minor. Did you know one of the product she pushed when modeling for Lancôme was an anti-age cream? That's the dumbest comment in her entire interview. But really she's said this kind of stuff the last three years and most notably in 2011 where she had a various quotes about body image and being comfortable in your skin. I wont bore you with those quotes since I have before. She gets lauded for those comments and people place her in role model status but when you closely look at it they were just words that meant nothing at the time other than to make people think, “Emma is so anti-Hollywood!! She’s a role model for women and young girls” but meanwhile she never believed in any of it in the first place. At the time she said those things she was at a more healthier weight than she ever was. In 2011 you can tell she either stopped working out or ate more. I thought she looked her best then. Now she’s back to stick thin and even surpassed it a way IMO is unhealthy. She sending a bad message to women. From standard.co.uk July 2011, “She sees modeling as an extension of acting, in fact - just playing a role - but is conflicted about its demands. “I think the pressure the media and the fashion industry put on women to look a certain way is pretty intense. There’s a certain tyranny to trying to achieve that kind of beauty. I don’t know, I’m maybe not the best person to speak about this because I obviously completely adhere to it,” she laughs nervously. “ ^She really needs to start taking her own advice and quit being a judgmental hypocrite. Not just with this topic but everything she tends to speak out against that she does it herself. Recently she tweeted a photo of all this make-up and I posted this on my tumblr days ago

^Same phone in this photo is what they're using in the bottom photo that I also posted on tumblr She said something else recently (Sunday Times interview) that is just typical Emma. I covered this a few times. From emmawatsonbelgium.blogspot.be March 2014, "For someone who has starred in eight blockbuster movies and is worth an estimated £30m, she is endearingly modest about how green she felt leaving Harry Potter behind in 2011. Emerging from that magical machine was “really intimidating”, she says. “I’d done two tiny plays when I was, like, six and eight, but I wasn’t driven to act. I wasn’t doing Oscar acceptance speeches into a hairbrush." Yeah it might have no been a hairbrush but who knows she could be lying about that. She'd practice her speeches in mirrors. From telegraph.co.uk July 2007,  "Pauline is utterly obsessed with being an actress and I was just like that when I was younger. I dreamt of it. I practised speeches in front of mirrors. Whenever there was a part at school, I went for it. I was probably a bit of a show-off in the sense that any chance to get up and be seen, I did it. I was such a drama queen. I used to wail and moan and cry, and little things were blown up into being big things. I don't know how my parents stood it, really. I've grown up a bit. I've had to. I actually really want to be an actress, a proper actress who makes it her career. I'm always expecting to be found out and I thought, If I'm no good, now is the time to find out." She really wants people to think she all of a sudden wants to act. What I think is she is really trying to distance herself from her lack luster post Potter career by making it out like she now wants to act and that’s why she has no lead roles because her resume does not equal her hype. The last few years she’s separated herself from “always wanted to be an actress” to “I was not sure”. She’s being disingenuous as usual and people believe it. Plus she said she did modeling so directors and producers would look at her differently so that's why she used Burberry and Lancôme. And she did a course at RADA in 2008 so if she was not sure or didn't want to than why did she do these things? One more thing from the Sunday Times interview From emmawatsonbelgium.blogspot.be March 2014, "It’s about as close as she’ll get to revealing anything about her newest relationship, with Matt Janney, rugby hunk and Oxford’s most eligible bachelor. “I can’t comment on it, I’m sorry,” she says, suddenly jumping up and hastily bundling her things back into her bag, which has exploded across the sofa beside her. “I’m trying to keep my private life sacred, although I don’t want to lock myself up and never go out. So I guard it, because I don’t date people who are famous, and I don’t think it’s fair that, all of a sudden, intimate details of their personal life are public as a direct result of me. I find that so uncomfortable, and I wish there was a way I could protect those people, but it’s not in my control.” When I suggest her boyfriends are consenting adults, she looks worried. “But you don’t choose who to love, who you have feelings for, do you?” She throws her phone into her bag and retreats home to pack, as she’s flying to LA. Just a normal girl, then, off to present an Oscar."

So she can go to international magazines and complain she can't find a man or that men are intimidated by her? She had in the past before Will Adamowicz. It was in almost every one of her interviews for a few years. So she can use Matt Janney (this new guy) on a beach in a bikini PDA session as a publicity stunt to cover up her ex boyfriend being caught rolling coke bombs and also use him to product place an iPhone in Madrid but she wants to keep it private? And she doesn't date famous guys? What about Johnny Simmons (Young Neil) and George Craig (Front man for rock group One Night Only)?  If you can Google their name and you see them in movies or music videos, they're famous.

[influenczarscrew]

, no, I don't have any racial slurs in anything. WTF is this person even talking about? Probably just trying to get me banned because they're prejudice against anyone who's different, especially intelligent people. And then, manipulative people don't talk about their intelligence so that the insecure majority will like them but they're just manipulative and that's not being intelligent, it's being selfish while enabling the majority and it's being disingenuous. Hate to break it to you but some of us aren't going to feign humility just to manipulate a bunch of petty cowards who are ruining every intelligent person's potential and oppressing us by insisting that we never speak when the majority are wrong and We know better. You can talk about how good you are at art or basketball but you can't talk about how smart you are and it's a double standard that trivializes every intelligent person and it's proof that there needs to be laws that protect intelligent people from discrimination and the schools need to change how they teach people. The majority need to face their insecurities and stop making it intelligent people's problem.