#men cannot be victims of the very system they created to benefit them

[ayaahh00]

One of the most annoying liberal feminist takes I keep seeing is the idea that “patriarchy harms men too, if not equally.” Let’s get this straight: patriarchy, a system created by men to limit women’s freedom and keep men in power, supposedly harms men equally? That’s a blatant lie, and it’s disrespectful to women. Patriarchy was literally designed to oppress women and benefit men. Saying men are harmed by it in the same way is just a way to shift focus off the horrific oppression women have faced. When you try to include men as victims of the very system they created for themselves, the same system we are trying to dismantle to liberate ourselves as women, it dilutes everything women have gone through under patriarchy.

[brazenautomaton]

Cannot reblog original post but: taboo "feminism"?

Less laconically it looks like you and your interlocutors are talking about different things. They understand "feminism" as the movement that is pushing for/has made strides towards at least formally and legally treating women the same as men (which seems straightforwardly laudable and needn't be zero sum) whereas when you talk about feminism yours is...a new concept for me, which I'd like to understand better.

okay, to do that, I need to "taboo" a different word, and before I do THAT, I need to remind you of something important: useful information is information that lets us make accurate predictions.

Okay so. "Sexism" is the word we need to do first. Let's say simply that "sexism" is whatever means or mechanism or system in the world that results in an observed difference between outcomes between men and women. There are different theories as to what causes this observed difference, and two are relevant:

Misogyny Theory is the idea that "sexism" is a unidirectional oppression created by men, to inflict on women, out of hatred of women. Misogyny is a desire to harm women for being women. Power is a thing held by men and denied to women. Misogyny theory says sexism is, intentionally or unintentionally, made to benefit men at the expense of women, against the will of women. Gender history is defined by men hating women and seeking to harm women, who were not powerful enough to make it stop.

Gender Bias Theory is the idea that "sexism" is a system of biases and perceptions that are participated in by both men and women whose aim is to maximize women's safety at the cost of their agency and maximize men's agency at the cost of their safety. Gender bias casts women as precious and incapable victims and men as threatening and disposable agents. Men and women both participate in and reinforce this bias and gender history is defined by punishing people who don't fit into this model and rewarding people who do.

These are not equally valid competing theories. Misogyny theory is wrong, because the predictions it makes about women's safety are very important and do not match reality at all. Misogyny theory predicts that women would be less safe than men, that they would have more crimes committed against them and the criminal justice system would be harsher towards them, that their victimization would be more acceptable and that the law would refuse to recognize their victimization. All of these things are the opposite of what happens. There is no category of crime that happens more often to women than men; rape and domestic abuse, the crimes that misogyny theory claims are the defining experience of women and are particular to the experience of women, are 50/50 and every other bad thing a human being can do to another human happens way more to men than to women. Crimes against women are more likely to be prosecuted than against men, more likely to result in conviction, and the sentences are greater; the same for male criminals vs female criminals. Misogyny theory is incorrect.

Not only does gender bias theory accurately predict outcomes (it predicts that sexism would result in women being protected heavily and denied opportunities to succeed or excel), gender bias theory perfectly predicts the existence of misogyny theory. Biases are not precision instruments. They are directions to err toward, they are inaccuracies in people's perceptions that overall bend people's beliefs in a certain way. The way you have a bias that ensures women are safe and non-agentic, is when people are extremely concerned with the well-being of women and extremely callous to the well-being of men. Someone who had powdered up gender bias and snorted it like a line of coke would be unable to see anything other than "women are not safe enough, men are imperiling women, men have to do more to keep women safe." That's the only belief gender bias allows, because if you ever concluded "women are safe," you wouldn't be doing things to make women safer.

This is why misogyny theory is sexism. It has the unexamined perceptions of gender bias and is by majority concerned with enforcing the central belief of gender bias: women are victimized by the power of men, men are threatening to women, men have it better than women, men must do more to enlist their agency to protect women. Every single example of historical sexism fits this pattern: women have to be kept safe, and to do this, women are treated as children who cannot be responsible for their own safety. If they were responsible for their own safety, then not enough people would be looking out for them. Women need men's supervision because if they make their own decisions they might make the wrong ones. Women can't dress provocatively because men are so dangerous and threatening it might provoke one to attack her. Rape is a uniquely harmful and destructive crime to women, because women are so non-agentic that they can't do meaningful things and the only thing they bring to the table is their sexual purity; a woman who has had that sexual purity taken has been effectively ruined, she obviously has no agency so she can't recover from it, and so we can't let that happen to her, and she should know to be very afraid of it all the time.

The Movement is a large and powerful group of people who claim to be the only way to fight sexism. They are misogyny theorists. The history of the Movement is the history of misogyny theory. The actions taken by the Movement are actions taken in line with misogyny theory. The power held by the Movement is power held by misogyny theorists. The theoretical structures and intellectual viewpoints of the Movement are those of misogyny theory. Within a rounding error, all of them are misogyny theorists, and the ones who aren't, are decried and excommunicated from the Movement when it is discovered they aren't misogyny theorists.

Some members of the Movement have a ravening hatred of men and seek to harm men more than anything in the world. Other members of the Movement are genuinely seeking to end sexism and are "for real equality." The relative proportions of each do not matter, because misogyny theory is incorrect. People who believe in misogyny theory believe in a worldview that despises men, sees men as threatening and hateful, views men as uniquely responsible for harm, and puts all responsibility to fix things on the shoulders of men. A misogyny theorist's view of how to be charitable to men is to believe "it is not your fault you are brainwashed to hate women, you did not choose to be complicit in a system that hates and imperils women, and you imperil women only because you have not been taught not to imperil women. But you need to recognize that you hate women and it is your responsibility to make the world stop hating women, you have to do work to stop being so threatening to women."

This is wrong. This is not an accurate assessment of the world. Anyone who believed this about any other group of people would be correctly described as a hateful bigot even if, to them, they are the only ones who see their opponents as humans with potential to act like humans. There are total racists who feel like they're the only ones who recognize black people have the potential to NOT be rapists and murderers, and it is progressivism that says they all are innately criminals so we have to all pretend not to notice. This perception is more accurate than misogyny theory and we correctly decry it as a racist perception we shouldn't respect.

The Movement is synonymous with belief in misogyny theory, and belief in misogyny theory is belief in sexist perceptions. It is turbo-sexism. If you believe in misogyny theory you are wrong. When the Movement acts in accordance with misogyny theory to make the world a better place, they fuck up, because they're trying to abolish sexism while demanding people believe the things sexism believes as hard as they can. The Movement is obsessed with women's safety when all of the problems sexism gives them come from obsession with women's safety. When the Movement identifies any problem women face, it cannot address it in a non-sexist way and cannot gain anything for women without punishing men. The Movement can make shelters for battered women, but only because domestic abuse was not a gendered problem and it can only do so by ensuring battered men are erased and left without support. It can't see the world any other way. Women are victims and men are victimizers, women have to be protected from victimization. The Movement can support reproductive rights, but only because support or opposition to abortion is not a gendered issue (as many women are against abortion as men), and it can only do so while doing everything in their power to make sure men have no reproductive rights. Because they can't conceive of a situation where men need them when it isn't for the purpose of victimizing women. Men have to use their agency to make the world comfortable for women, it is hateful to women to let them escape this!

The Movement will always be filled with people who virulently hate men, because its conception of men is hateful and the way it is nice to men is thinking "it's not your fault you have these despicable attributes, having these despicable attributes also hurts you, I am sorry that sexism made you so threatening and cruel to women." The Movement can't kick people out for hating men, because the Movement thinks that there is a correct amount of hatred for men. The Movement can't kick people out for hating men too much, just regard them with pity and say they take a good idea too far. The Movement can and does kick people out for not hating men enough, because not hating men means allowing men to be threatening to women.

The Movement claims to be synonymous with the concept of fighting sexism, but it is not. It is misogyny theory, which is wrong.

If we take the word "feminism" as meaning "misogyny theory" and "feminist" as "misogyny theorist," we can accurately predict outcomes. If we ask for a feminist perspective we know we will get a perspective from misogyny theory. If we know that feminists are doing something, we know they are doing something in line with misogyny theory. If we know someone tries to call themselves a feminist but is ostracized by the feminist movement at large, that person is not a misogyny theorist. If someone who is a feminist in good standing claims that the virulent man-haters "aren't real feminists," that they only can see the man-haters are wrong in that they hate men too much for being in a system that makes them evil and threatening, and without the ability to reject that entire worldview they will be making excuses for and be bad at resisting the man-haters. If someone is going to research the ideas of feminism, we know they are going to be reading things written from the viewpoint of misogyny theory. When feminists do or believe something, we know it's going to be wrong and we know how it's going to be wrong and we know why it's going to be wrong.

If we take the word "feminism" as "any form of opposition to and desire to end sexism," then we can't make accurate predictions. We have to pretend we don't know a feminist is a misogyny theorist yet when they turn out to be every single time. We are given the obligation to assign power and credence to a floating signifier, the word "feminism," as if it did not mean "misogyny theory" and then make the shocked pikachu face when every single time the power we give them is used to advance misogyny theory. We have to pretend there is a war inside of feminism and not notice that no there isn't, one "side" has absolute definitive control of everything and the other "side" has no access whatsoever to the institutional or social power of the thing that is named "feminism." We have to run at the football every single time even though we know that Lucy is going to pull it back every single time, because there's so many different feminisms and we're not allowed to see they are all wrong in the same way.

Saying we have the obligation to call ourselves "feminists" and support "feminism" because it could mean "any worldview that seeks equality" and not "misogyny theory" is like saying everyone should call themselves "pro-life" and support "pro-life" movement because they don't think murder is a good thing in general and don't have to be against abortion. That's not what it means, that's never been what it meant, and pretending otherwise only benefits people you are opposed to.

[violexides]

to take a more... calm stance on this, i think there are a lot of double standards within the queer community that is largely caused by people becoming so invested within their own personal experiences that they cannot conceptualize the experiences of other people within their community. further i think a natural consequence of forming a community surrounding an aspect of one’s identity that some may argue was inherent to them is that we create a community where certain experiences (Western ones) are centered and other experiences (literally anywhere else) are forgotten-- this is seen in the overriding of certain terms, gatekeeping, etc. 

the reason i have stood as a radical inclusionist and will continue to align myself there is because a lot of exclusionist efforts come from this attempt to either advance the queer community in one way or reduce the problematic aspects of it, but... who are you leaving behind with this? our ancestors, definitely, but more readily forgotten are people literally from anywhere except America and Britain. like. the idea that we are starting these mass discourses over just the terminology when those specific terms aren’t even existent in other language, centering the concept of labels over people’s experiences... how do you expect that to translate? how do you expect that to stand historically? 

and to kind of loop back to the former point, something that i have been raging about for a while (and why i am trying to make this more comprehensive) is the fact that people will talk about the experiences with misandry that queer men have in this community, and then imply within their definition of in-group misandry that queer women are the oppressors. and then queer women will talk about THEIR experiences with misogyny, and then in that casually throw out there that they think gay men benefit under the patriarchy which... isn’t? how the patriarchy works? (more on this later)

like, several facts can coexist. here are a few statements that are all true and very evident within online spaces especially, as that is my audience here, but also throughout the queer community as a whole: 

lesbians who speak about lesbophobia are frequently & automatically assumed to be trans-exclusionary or misandrists, and therefore have their voices spoken over. masculine, or amab, nonbinary people are excluded from nonbinary spaces and seen as a threat. sapphic women (espec butches) are disallowed from speaking sexually about other women as they are then deemed by this to be feeding into the sexualization of women under the patriarchy. gay men are told they are disgusting and perverted for having sexual fantasies about men that veer towards the side of fetish, and thus ostracized. 

these are things that coexist and as a lesbian specifically, i will speak to the fact that recognizing (and being enraged, because i often am) about the misogyny that gay men exhibit within the queer community... doesn’t override the experiences that gay men have when being told their attraction to men is something ‘unfortunate’. (side note: i keep mentioning the patriarchy as something queer men cannot benefit from, which i recognize is somewhat controversial of a take. however, the patriarchy is a system of oppression and not something that inherently champions all men. examples of other people who suffer deeply under the patriarchy, aside from women-- who are the most direct victims, certainly-- include BIPOC men and disabled men. and yes, queer men). 

i could talk about this for a long time but i do genuinely think that the queer community lacks a lot of compassion for the experiences of others. and further i think that the online aspect of the queer community creates some of these difficulties, because some of these experiences are reduced when being actively surrounded by other queer people in real life-- but that is not always a direct possibility for people, especially right now, so it’s still important to consider the issues of the internet community and address them*. also, i think that in some respects the queer community was a little doomed when we began to create these community-wide discourses, because if you look at the people dominating these conversations, it is typically young white people from the US or from Western Europe, and it overrides a lot of the history that other groups have (ex. queer people are downright expected to know about Stonewall. how many of you know the names of any queer activists in South America btw?) 

this isn’t really meant to make people believe in anything in particular. do what you want and i ultimately cannot do much with a somewhat inarticulate and inconclusive post about the subject. i just think it’s important that people know that their experiences, and their identity, are valid and EXTREMELY important. and in that means that the experiences of others, especially people who speak different languages, or people who identify with a different gender, or people who use terms you deem ‘offensive’ -- are important, too. 

TLDR the queer community is all about fighting for our rights and protest but we keep mistaking innocuous queer people who commit the ‘cardinal sin’ of like, not being white anglophones who have your exact identity, as cops. 

*when it comes to activism, which i do not claim that this post is, it is significantly more important to consider the real world implications of these discourses and see how this touches the real life communities first and foremost. again i am just talking in a specifically online lens because there is only so much that i can convey on a tumblr post and the entire reason i was making this was because i got angry about misogyny towards lesbians and couldn’t find any posts that encapsulated that sentiment without also leaning into misandry.

[exhaled-spirals]

« For the past few days we have been hearing this little song: that the lockdown must end as soon as possible, for economic reasons. It’s a simple idea, based on the economist’s favourite tool: cost-benefit analysis.

On one hand, people dying from coronavirus. On the other, the costs of the drop in GDP and the economic crisis, which will also result in people dying. The scales seem to tilt in favour of restarting the economy. We could once again turn to the infamous ‘herd immunity’ strategy, and tolerate covid casualties to prevent heavier casualties caused by an economic disaster.

The dilemma is remarkable in what it reveals about our capitalist economy. [...] This ghoulish bookkeeping places two distinct realities on an equal footing: one is a natural phenomenon that people are subjected to, a virus against which we have no weapons, at least for now, and which directly kills men and women. The other is humanity’s own creation, the market economy, which now imposes its law on its creators to the point of directly killing them.

This is not to deny that economic crises cost human lives. But these crises are not natural phenomena that men are subjected to. They are the product of our social organisation, of our activities and of our choices. It is entirely up to us to find other forms of social organisation which preserves lives and whose occasional crises are less lethal.

The truth hiding in plain sight in these economistic discourses that deplore the lockdowns is that the victims of the future recession won’t be collateral victims of our current choice to save lives, they won’t be the victims of our decision to curb the pandemic; they will be the victims of our economic system based on market worship and ghoulish bookkeeping.

We understand the economists’ ire: suddenly, within a few weeks, we realised that we could stop the flight forward of our market economy, that we could focus on the essentials: the sectors of health, food, and care. And—how supremely strange—the world did not stop spinning, nor did humanity cease to exist. Capitalism is frozen in its most bare-bones state: it only generates the most minimal surplus value, not enough to feed the flow of capital. And humanity lives on. Capitalism is separate from human existence. [...] When the market ceases to “create wealth”, hardly anything happens. 

This is why we are now hearing threats aiming to maintain the myth of the intrinsic capitalistic character of human existence: we will all pay for this, we will pay dearly. In human lives. A 30% drop in GDP cannot go unpunished. Except we are precisely seeing evidence to the contrary, to the fact that human lives, rather than commodity exchanges, might be at the centre of things. [...] This is deeply unbearable to economists and they cannot wait to end a lockdown that sheds light on many inconvenient truths. We might end up picturing a different social organisation, different priorities, we might end up redefining our essential needs [...]. But then, we wouldn’t need all this hodgepodge: competitiveness, GDP, returns on investment, dividends—which ensures that our job market remains under the heel of the exchange value. We might democratise the economy...

This is exactly why it is urgent that we move on to this foretold recession that will be allowed to run rampant to teach us a lesson about the foolishness of putting human lives before market abstractions. Everything will be done to ensure that the lockdowns result in a violent economic crisis that will, indeed, cost human lives. This will be done very simply: by merely “freezing” the economy and avoiding at all costs to take advantage of this pause to implement any reforms. Once unfrozen, the market economy will do its worst—its mechanisms will unleash their wrath, and we will be asked to accept this as unavoidable divine retribution. »

— Romaric Godin, “What the lockdown teaches us about economics”, translated from Mediapart, April 11th 2020

[the-feminist-philosopher]

What has watered feminism down is not the inclusion of 0.2% of the population in our advocacy, but the pervasiveness of corporate “choice” feminism. It’s this idea that one’s personal choices can qualify or disqualify someone from being a feminist. The idea that individuality and singular action- more or less girl-bossing your way out of the patriarchy- can bring down a system is inadequate. 

Whether or not the individual wears or does not wear heels on a night out is not what is going to end the patriarchy. It also does not qualify or disqualify them from being feminist. Feminism is an active and a liberation-minded ideology. Asking yourself: “is this a feminist action” shouldn’t be applied to whether or not you trim your bush to avoid the difficulties of overnight period blood, or whether or not you wear a T-shirt with a catchy slogan, or whether or not you wear a pink hat shaped like cat ears, or how many pins you bought from Walmart that say "girl power." It should be applied to whether you are out there actively working to uplift other women, strive for a more equal and just society, and achieve true civil and political emancipation. Feminism is something that takes collective action and under a standard of analyzing wider impact rather than scrutinizing individual choice, the SAHM- someone conforming to a gender norm- who organizes abortion resources and marches and and state-wide grassroots policy campaigns from her kitchen table is a feminist. Under the watered down “choice" feminism, her “choice" to stay home and raise kids would disqualify her from being a feminist as those would not be “feminist” choices. 

And that waters feminism down.

Collective action- with our trans sisters- certainly isn’t “watered down.” The threat of riot that comes with organization and action certainly isn’t "watered down.” Centering the collective means centering those systems and "actions" that affect the collective. We should be looking at overall impact on people rather than scrutinizing every last choice a woman makes, she already has to deal with that everywhere else.

The scrutinizing opens up every last choice a woman makes to fault-finding and chastisement. It opens up every last choice to be constantly inspected for signs of gender-conformity and singular impact where the only way to stay safe from their life's choices being undervalued or inspected is to, ironically, conform to the standards of singular feminist action that certain groups believe are inherently feminist in nature. It creates this inescapable panopticon where every woman is expected to conform to a different set of standards on the grounds that there is are "correct" singular actions that make a feminist. It reinforces and entrenches the exact forces of socialization of which feminists claim to be critical.

And it does this while the patriarchy simultaneously inspects women for any sign of non-conformity to patriarchal standards of “female” presentation.

Do not scrutinize the actions of women more so than the capitalist class - mostly rich, white men- that benefits, monetarily, from the perpetuation of these norms. You are criticizing women for socializations they cannot escape. You are telling women that this is their fault while at the same time painting them as pitiable victims. Do not hold women to higher standards and demands than the very systems and people keeping them down.

Our socialization is, yes, impacted by our environment and while that environment will impact someone's decisions, the individual's action is still individual in its impact. Do not take this to mean that their experience is isolated or that there isn’t a larger force behind their “choice.” I'd be kidding myself if I said no action was influenced by the patriarchy and the capitalist, male ruling class. What many feminists are failing to see is that their choice to, say, wear sneakers does nothing to uplift or aid other women or challenge the expectations we're held to. That is what I am saying when I say that your own personal actions only really affect you. Your choices are largely limited it their impact. Is it a totally "free" choice? No. But I will still hold that the norms that push someone to make a decision- like the choice to be a SAHM being reinforced by lower wages and inaccessible childcare- are far more important to attack than the person themselves. 

Analyzing singular, limited actions as "more" or "less" feminist rather than looking at things by ideology and wider impact on other women results in performative activism. It results in the belief that wearing sneakers and a uterus pin actually somehow challenges the patriarchy. It also divides our personal expression into another binary, one that subtly reinforces a type of conformity to a specific set of standards in order to be "seen" as feminist. It also ironically reinforces the idea that certain forms of expression are inherently "feminine" and inherent to "female people.” 

Currently, your actions center individualism, and individualism will get us nowhere in terms of deconstructing and challenging and ending the patriarchy.

[notfromanotherworld]

Students in our Women’s Studies courses protest the requirement to read and discuss articles about male violence against women. They report that they “don’t want to go around being angry all the time”

Why would women protest the examination of male violence? Such responses are clearly not logical—after all, it would be only logical to call a hideous act a hideous act, and to demand that men stop. But even though such a response is not logical, there is a way in which it makes sense— it reflects the very violence it denies— it shows that women do feel afraid.

The reader may recall that women in our Psychology of Women classes, when asked to describe times they have heard the term “woman- hater” used, omit saying it is used to refer to rapists and batterers. In fact, asked if the term might refer to such groups, the women indicate that rapists and batterers do not necessarily hate women and reject use of the term for those groups

Many students say they have never heard the term “woman-hater” used. Do these “findings” suggest a cultural reluctance to talk about and even contemplate male violence?

Despite the criminal justice system’s blindness when it comes to male violence against women (in rape, wife abuse, and sexual abuse) and its keen-sightedness in protecting men’s rights (in divorce actions, right to pornography, and so on), many women believe social myths that flatter men. These myths state that men (having women’s interests at heart) will protect women’s rights; that not every man is a woman-hater (though every man profits from misogyny, and it is unheard-of for a man to decline a job he obtained because of male privilege or lack of equal access); and that violent men are sick and thus qualitatively different from other men (though rapists, for example, have not been found to differ psychologically from non-rapists).

- Dee L. R. Graham, “Loving to Survive: Sexual Terror, Men’s Violence, and Women’s Lives”

Women in general cling to the dream that men care about us and will protect us from violence. Denial is so strong that women believe that men are protecting us—we forget from whom—even as they oppress women. Mae West captured this irony in her famous remark, “Funny, every man I meet wants to protect me. I can’t figure out what from ” Females tend to deny that male intimates—the group most likely to physically violate women—are dangerous. In fact, women are likely to see male intimates as “loving” and “wonderful” while displacing our fear onto male strangers and our anger onto safer targets: ourselves, other women, and children.

The fact that chance determines which individual woman is violated at any given time (“she just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time”, as rapists remind us) is threatening to women, making us feel we have little control over whether and when we might be victimized. The theory of defensive attributions asserts that such threat of victimization is often defended against at an unconscious level, so that women (potential victims) need never consciously acknowl­edge the extent to which we are vulnerable. Research suggests such defensive attributions are especially likely if the consequences of victimiza­tion are severe. Women defend against such threats by telling ourselves that we are not like the victim (“I’m not young like her”) and by blaming the victim for her or his victimization (“she shouldn’t have dressed like that,” “she shouldn’t have been out so late by herself” ). 

The reader will recognize that such attributions suggest women are experiencing the threat of victimization ourselves. It is aversive and demeaning to define oneself as a victim. Blaming oneself for one’s victimization may be one way to avoid defining oneself as a victim. Self-blame and other victim-coping strategies permit individuals to deny victimization and to preserve their self-esteem. One such strategy involves redefining the victimizing event so that its stressful or threatening qualities are minimized.

When victimization cannot be denied, victims may reevaluate them­ selves in ways that are self-enhancing. Taylor, Wood, and Lichtman (1983) identified five such mechanisms of selective evaluation: 

(1) “downward comparisons,” that is, comparing oneself with others who are less fortu­nate (e.g., minimizing the extent to which fear of male violence affects one’s life by saying one has never been sexually abused or battered); 

(2) selective focusing on attributes that make one appear to be advantaged; 

(3) creating worse-ease scenarios (“I may be a woman but at least I’m not a [fill in the blank] woman”); 

(4) identifying benefits from the victimizing experience (“Being a woman has made me more sensitive and empathic to others”); and 

(5) creating nonexistent normative standards that make one’s own adjustment appear extraordinary (“Compared to most women, I have achieved a great deal”). At one time or another, probably all women have used one or more of these strategies to cope with victim­ization.

- (M. D. Smith 1988), (Shaver 1970; Walster 1966), (Burger 1981; Walster 1966), (Shaver 1970; Walster 1966), (Taylor, Wood, and Lichtman 1983), (JanofF-Bulman and Frieze 1983)*, Dee L. R. Graham, “Loving to Survive: Sexual Terror, Men’s Violence, and Women’s Lives”

[edoro]

the absolute ‘sexiest’ the rape gets is when the 13 year old girl being sold into sex slavery by her abusive creep of a brother who still thinks that he’s going to ride back to their homeland at the head of an army and take back the throne his uncle lost eroticizes and romanticizes her own situation as a way of coping with it, because the alternative is remaining suicidally depressed by the brutality she is experiencing on a regular basis

which is just an extremely common and real thing that actual victims of sexual abuse they cannot possibly escape do all the time, because if your options are: a) “get raped all the time and be miserable” b)“get raped all the time but make yourself feel like an equal participant in it rather than a passive victim being used like an especially expensive fleshlight and wrap yourself in the reflected power and status of the man who owns you because it’s the only type of power or control you are allowed to have” or c) “just fucking kill yourself”

then b) is a pretty compelling one that’s way more likely to allow you to psychologically endure what you’re going through! it is, again, something that actual survivors of this type of abuse - prolonged, repeated, and inescapable, perpetrated against them by someone with immense power over them, which is going to continue happening regardless - do very frequently in real life!

then there’s also a scene where an established couple has kinky sex that for some reason a huge number of people seem to genuinely think is Actual For Real Rape

and every single scene beyond those two is in fact Upsetting On Purpose, and in the cases where the POV character is casual or blase about it, then it’s either meant to represent the fact that this is just part of their reality (Asha) or to highlight their callous participation in a horribly unjust system that they personally benefit from and do not truly understand the repercussions of (Jaime thinking about ‘good men who would rape and loot while their blood was up, then go back to their families’)

one thing GRRM is absolutely excellent at is character work, and the whole thing is that he explores this society he’s created through various characters, and shows how they react to and understand the sexual violence that is endemic to this society based on who they are as people and the experiences they’ve had, rather than based on trying to portray the Correct Opinion About Rape

some might say that showing how characters think, feel, and react to various topics and situations based on their personality and not the author’s personal morality is what we call ‘good writing’, but apparently when the topic is Icky that’s an unforgivable sin lmao

anyway my point i guess is just that. it’s annoying. there’s nothing wrong with disliking the books or not wanting to read them, but just making shit up or wildly misinterpreting them does not make you seem like a credible source of thoughtful analysis or critique.

One of my personal litmus tests for if I give any credence whatsoever to someone's opinions on fiction in general or dark/controversial fiction in particular is how they talk about ASOIAF.

This series has serious issues that absolutely deserve to be discussed (and have been!) and is not for everyone, taste is subjective, etc etc, but certain ways people talk about it just betray that they either have never actually read it or have the reading comprehension of a flea.

"Why is there so much rape, GRRM must be a misogynist and/or have a rape fetish" GRRM clearly has an incest and lactation fetish and might also be into piss but i really cannot emphasize enough that the rape is not in there for sexual gratification purposes

the reason that the setting is like that is not because the author is a virulent misogynist. the reason that the setting is like that is because the author chose to write a misogynistic setting, where the possibility of rape is an ever-present backdrop to every woman and girl's life, and the likelihood of it happening increases or decreases depending on various levels of protection and value that she has, mostly relating to her station and the station and strength of the men to whom she belongs.

(and i have criticisms of his approach to sexual violence, most notably that he has an ENORMOUS blind spot when it comes to sexual violence against men and boys, and creates systems that would absolutely result in large amounts of male on male sexual abuse occurring (the Wall, for instance) while completely failing to acknowledge this, so it's not like i'm saying he's totally perfect about it or anything)

and this is not a "the setting is historically accurate" argument either - it's not, it's pop medieval at best, but that's okay. the author chose to make the setting this way because he wanted to explore certain ideas and attitudes and themes relating to sexual violence and how it affects those who perpetrate it and those who experience it.

and anyone is absolutely free to not like that or want to read it, but if you read the actual presentation and treatment of sexual violence in these books, the various situations where it comes up, the feelings and thoughts of the characters who both experience and perpetrate it, how those characters live and navigate through a system where it is an unavoidable reality

and what you take away is "he wrote it like this because he thinks this is sexy and good and approves of it"

then you might just not be very good at analysis, actually

[dreamworksconvict]

She-Ra: Racism Problem Pt. 2

Thanks to everyone who said nice things about my earlier post!!!! I like am really invested in representation and media so I’m glad it’s being received well. 

I also want to add a caveat that I’m not trying to cancel She-Ra. I just want to hold media to a high standard and think that we can critique the things we like.

Next I want to talk about some pretty heavy topics: the White Savior trope and colonialism. Again, I’ll be pretty spoiler-heavy here. I also want to warn people that there will be mention of genocide and antisemitism. I’ll be writing about Hordak in the next part.

In the fourth part I want to add an addendum about Catra being coded as Latina, which I think is a valid interpretation. I also want to talk about the ableism present in the show with both Hordak and Entrapta, which is a separate issue so I’ll label it differently. 

Imagine a story like this: 

“I am a white-coded, able-bodied, implied cisgender protagonist who has a Special Trait that makes me Stronger and/or More Unique than other characters. I also have some connection to Some Evil Colonizers from Space. Oh no! Some Evil Colonizers from Space have showed up to threaten me and my Token Diverse friends who get about half as much screentime as I do! Wait a second, “evil?” There’s no such thing! They’re only Misunderstood Colonizers Who Didn’t Mean It, and/or there was More to the Story. Maybe they came from a Dysfunctional Family or were Abused/Bullied! I think the people/places they colonized may have been Secretly Bad or Just As Bad all along, too! Wowee! Let’s all have a Heart-to-Heart and/or sacrifice one of my Token Diverse friends to save the day!”

Which story am I referring to? Well...

Voltron... or She-Ra... or Steven Universe.. and probably others...yeah.

(And for those who claim that Keith isn’t the protagonist of Voltron, well... I mean he is... but that’s an entirely different essay. But notice how Lance and Hunk are actually smaller than the other characters on the screen and are partly transparent, and that Allura gets pushed to the back row and is mostly covered? Yikes...)

(On my previous post, someone also noted that Steven is half-Jewish. I was not aware that Rebecca had confirmed this officially. As I am not Jewish myself, I don’t want to speak over this, but I do want to point out that you can be white and Jewish, as it is a Diaspora identity. There are many Jewish ethnicities, such as Ashkenazim, Sephardim, and Mizrahim. I also wish that we had seen more of that in the show--like Steven celebrating Hanukkah, or learning Hebrew, or having a Rosh Hashanah celebration... From what I can tell, Rebecca only confirmed this on a Reddit AMA post. So I don’t know specifically how Steven identifies because that was never clarified in the show, but it seems like he is coded as white. Definitely feel free to disagree, this is just how I’ve interpreted the show, especially given its treatment of colonization.)   

On top of all three of these shows recycling a very similar plotline, they all share the White Savior trope. Teen Vogue has an article talking about how this is linked to colonialism and I highly encourage checking that out. I’m going to pull a large chunk of text from there because I think it’s really important and applies to animation, not just live action films. 

“Many white people in films based on the stories of POC are often subliminally depicted as godlike saviors, heroes who are rational and judicious to the core. They are usually deified men or women — glorified and righteous — like scripture out of a Holy Book. Look at Hillary Swank in Freedom Writers. The white savior somehow always ends up usurping the narrative. And in this centering of whiteness and white characters, the POC characters end up becoming props, which only perpetuates ideas of our otherness and unimportance, which then establishes a status quo of racism. Whiteness is again normalized, and POC are decentralized. This is particularly problematic because whiteness is not only favored in Hollywood but also in society at large; white privilege is ever-present and ubiquitous.”

Look at the center poster for She-Ra: Adora is pictured in white and gold and red as an accent. She’s bathed in a golden light. This color combination is no coincidence, because we already associate that combination with religious iconography, like the Vatican. 

(I also want to make a note that this is specifically associated with Christian/Catholic iconography. A lot of these shows could be classified as antisemitic in their handling of colonialism and genocide. I would argue--and will be arguing in my thesis--that Season 6-8 of Voltron’s plot heavily relied on antisemitic tropes, especially as it related to Lotor and the Alteans. But that’s for another day.) (Also see my discussion of Steven Universe’s Jewish identity above.)

So how exactly does She-Ra follow the White Savior trope, how is it similar to other stories’ utilization of the trope, and how does this all relate back to colonialism? I would say there are two main factors: setting up Adora as a white heroine with a darker-skinned foil (Catra), and setting up a narrative where Hordak “isn’t that bad of a guy, really.” For this part I’m gonna focus on Adora.

1: Adora as the White Savior

Adora is from the Horde. Keith is half-Galra. Steven’s mom is Pink Diamond. 

All three of these protagonists have some personal tie or connection to a group of colonizing villains. The Diamonds want(ed) to take over earth and suck the life force from it, as they’d done on other planets. They also used a super-weapon to with the intent to kill all the rebel gems. The Galra created an empire and also sucked the life out of planets. They also created a super-weapon that could kill an entire planet, and had already committed genocide against the Alteans. I wouldn’t be surprised if the Big Bad of She-Ra, Horde Prime, has similar goals. Hordak certainly does.

There is an ever-so-slight separation of Adora from the other two protagonists, who, at the start of the series, do not know they are related to the villain group in some way. (Steven doesn’t know he’s a Diamond.) Adora, on the other hand, starts the series as a villain. She’s part of a group that has actively been fighting and destroying the Princesses and the planet. The first episode notes that she is particularly good at her job, with Hordak nominating her for Force Captain. Adora also notes that “this is what [she’s] been working for her entire life.” When Catra and Adora leave the Fright Zone, it is not out of goodwill. They simply want to go for a joyride on a skiff. 

When Adora gains the power of She-Ra, she acts ignorant of the Horde’s actions. The first episode, Adora is completely defensive of Hordak. She even claims that “Hordak says we’re doing what’s best for Etheria.” It is not until the second episode that Adora begins to have any remorse for her actions--but also note that Adora’s main motivation during the first half of this episode is to continue onward with Bow and Glimmer because she wants to know more about herself, not repent for her actions. It is not until the end of the episode that she begins to become a bit more self-aware, but there is a key phrase that Glimmer utters that is very key to the White Savior narrative: “I feel like maybe you’re here to help us.” This line comes after Glimmer apologizes for not trusting Adora. Adora. The Horde soldier. The soldier from the group of colonizers who were responsible for the death of Glimmer’s father. 

Ok sure. 

Consider how realistic this is. (Not that fantasy has to be realistic, but when you’re working with a narrative based on systemic violence, you need to at least be considerate of how this works in reality.) Adora has been trained to fight and kill Princesses and their allies. She’s been trained to take over Etheria and strategically destroy and/or take resources to weaken them. Yet she acts as if this is all news to her. Suddenly meeting the people she’s been trained to destroy causes her to repent, and suddenly the people who have been victimized forgive her and trust her within two episodes. 

Here’s what I think is going on here: given the current hyper-conservative political climate and rampant xenophobia in the world right now, white creators feel the need to put a white person as the hero as if they’re claiming, “See, this character--and subsequently myself--aren’t like those other bad white people!” They want a degree of separation from the reality that they have white privilege and are part of the problem. 

There is no truly “woke” white person. White people have been raised in a society where they benefit off the oppression of the chosen “other,” in this case black and brown people. Even if you do your research like I’m doing, you still will mess up. White people cannot rid themselves of privilege no matter how hard they try, because in this current society, the legacy of colonialism, imperialism, and racism have made it so that white people will ultimately be more successful and have more opportunities for success than others. (Also, there is no ethical consumption under capitalism, so even attempts to be considerate about taking advantage of laborers cannot be completely successful.) 

All of this results in a lot of White Guilt. Thus, we end up with narratives where the white colonizer character suddenly has a change of heart and fights against the system without really challenging the core mechanics that put that system in place. But fighting against oppression and violence doesn’t make a white person special--it just makes them decent. 

It also ignores the fact that white people, to be blunt, haven’t done shit to advocate for inclusion and equity compared to literally everyone else. I want to pull another quote from the Teen Vogue article:

[White saviors] perpetuate an idea that is essentially a historical banner of colonialism: People of color need white people to save them. To this day, some people still latently believe what imperialists such as Rudyard Kipling said, that colonialism was important for everyone: the conqueror and, most importantly, the conquered. That without the colonizers, the colonized had no hope of survival. And by constantly churning out movies with plots in which white people "save" people of color, Hollywood reinforces colonialist dictum.

Why does Glimmer think that they NEED Adora to be saved? Why is this white woman the only one who can do it? Sure, Adora has the power of She-Ra, but remember that giving Adora, a white woman, that power was a CHOICE made by the writers. They could have given the sword to someone else, they could have made Adora a PoC... but they didn’t. So suddenly, because Adora, ex-Horde soldier, is there, the Princess alliance can be reformed, people start working together, the rebellion is saved! etc. etc. etc.... 

So then it’s extra ironic (and honestly is pretty predictable given this White Guilt narrative) when the White Savior trope goes right along with The Colonizers Weren’t Actually Evil, Just Misunderstood.

This post is way too long so I’ll continue in the next part. 

[andimthedad]

Black Lives Matter: They Are Us

“The white policeman, standing on a Harlem street corner, finds himself at the very center of the revolution now occurring in the world. He is not prepared for it — naturally, nobody is — and, what is possibly much more to the point, he is exposed, as few white people are, to the anguish of the black people around him. Even if he is gifted with the merest mustard grain of imagination, something must seep in. He cannot avoid observing that some of the children, in spite of their color, remind him of children he has known and loved, perhaps even of his own children. He knows that he certainly does not want his children living this way. He can retreat from his uneasiness in only one direction: into a callousness which very shortly becomes second nature. He becomes more callous, the population becomes more hostile, the situation grows more tense, and the police force is increased. One day, to everyone’s astonishment, someone drops a match in the powder keg and everything blows up. Before the dust has settled or the blood congealed, editorials, speeches, and civil-rights commissions are loud in the land, demanding to know what happened. What happened is that Negroes want to be treated like men.”

James Baldwin wrote that 60 years ago, and it seems little has changed. American systems of all kinds — banking, real estate, education, politics, and of course law enforcement — continue to engage in a complex array of racism, some with genteel violence and some more brutal, each industry carrying forward genes of prejudice implanted by earlier generations. The threads of this racism are tightly and countlessly woven into every corner of our social fabric. If you haven’t felt them, it only means you have been shielded by them instead of crushed. “Negroes want to be treated like men” because then as now: black lives matter, too.

As a white Christian, I am troubled by the responses of many of my spiritual siblings. Jesus could not have been more clear in the parable of the lost sheep, the lost coin, and especially the prodigal son: when one of us is in trouble, and others are safe, we must focus on the concerns of the one until they are restored. Recall the prodigal son’s older brother, grumbling “all sons matter!” to his father, who responds that sometimes we need to focus on one son. And recall Cain, another older brother, with his famously callous retort to God, “Am I supposed to be responsible for my brother?” — to which God replies, “Yes, and his blood is crying out to me from the ground where you killed him!”

White Christians, including me, have acted too often like these Biblical brothers toward our black siblings. We may not have personally drawn blood, but at the very least, we have ignored or justified the police and systems that do. You and I would not want to be treated the way our black citizens are, and thus we have blasphemously violated Christ’s greatest command. In the end, we will answer to God for how we (and our police) treat other people. Our systems shed their blood, and its cries are heard in heaven.

And, as a white father, I am haunted by Baldwin’s note about children. Yes, think of our children. As parents, are we going to retreat from our uneasiness about racism “into a callousness which very shortly becomes second nature”? Judging from internet conversations, it feels like many of us are already there. Do we really want to raise our kids with the knowledge that we could have changed things, but didn’t? Kids are watching, and whether we engage in humble kindness or proud callousness, it will become part of our legacy.

Even if you and I merely inherited the sins of our forefathers — and none of us is that innocent — we own those sins now. Nobody inherits money and then claims it is not theirs to spend. So it is with systemic racism, and white privilege. Somehow we are happy to bank on its benefits while still claiming it isn’t our responsibility.

Elsewhere, I’ve heard that George Floyd’s murder is a wake-up call. If so, we have been willfully deaf to all the prior calls: Breonna Taylor, Ahmaud Arbery, Trayvon Martin, Tamir Rice, Atatiana Jefferson, Yvette Smith, Alton Sterling, Laquan McDonald, Michael Brown, Freddie Gray, Philando Castile, Sandra Bland, Oscar Grant, Eric Garner, Walter Scott, Tyre King, John Crawford III, Manuel Ellis, and too many human etceteras to count. Read their names out loud; each is an alarm. Unfortunately, the house may burn down around us before we admit the fire alarm has been ringing for generations.

For those who still doubt the existence of systemic racism or police brutality, it is time to study.

John Oliver’s episode on Police Accountability is a good intro.

Sarah Sophie Flicker and Alyssa Klein assembled Anti-Racism Resources for White People: a long list of articles, books, videos, and movies to provide history and perspective.

To make that list easier to digest, and harder to avoid the excuses of time, Autumn Gupta and Bryanna Wallace created Justice in June, which arranges the same anti-racism material into daily itineraries of 10-, 25-, and 45-minute units.

For parents and teachers, the Center for Racial Justice in Education has Resources for Talking about Race, Racism and Racialized Violence with Kids, and Katrina Michie put together Your Kids Aren’t Too Young To Talk About Race.

And if you still somehow think white men are underprivileged, I tackled that with a truckload of data in Dear Fathers of White Boys: What Color is the Future?.

While learning, set aside your current beliefs, keep an open mind, and think about yourself with honesty and humility. And remember: if we get to learn about racism by reading and listening and watching, instead of experiencing it regularly in our own lives, that means we are privileged.

Once educated, act. Don’t just be not racist; be anti-racist in your conversations and activity, online and offline. Participate in local protests. Write to government officials. Donate and otherwise support justice movements; this spreadsheet from Black Lives Matters and this list from The Strategist give a lot of options.

Most importantly, change yourself. In the spirit of honesty: I still find racism in myself. I am truly sorry for that. I am better than I was, but I am not yet who I should be. As one protest sign said, “I’m sorry I’m late. I had a lot to learn.” But white racism will not end until whites fix it. Will Baldwin’s description of racism still ring true in another 60 years? If so, that will be our fault.

Baldwin closed with characteristic insight:

“It is a terrible, an inexorable, law that one cannot deny the humanity of another without diminishing one’s own: in the face of one’s victim, one sees oneself.”

Do we see the victims? Do we see their faces? They are a reflection of us. In truth, they are us.

. . .

This post also appears on Medium, where you can read other articles from And I’m The Dad about racism, sexism, politics, and more:

The Godless Lie of White Supremacy: from Moses to Charlottesville

In Crime, Politics, and Food, the Questions Determine the Answers

DEAR STUPID YOUNG PEOPLE OF THE ENTITLED GENERATION: A Word of Advice

Hating Cops: It’s Not a ‘New’ Thing and It’s Not a ‘Black’ Thing

Jesus for President? Looking for Christ in the Political Christians

Lust and Guilt, Female Disciples, the Symbol of God as a Woman — What the Jesus F. Christ?

Help Her, or Help Myself To Her?

Her Consent is Not a Given: Raising Kids With the Right Attitudes

[ultramaga]

Detroit: Becoming Human

This game is pure woke propaganda. I’m impressed at the quality of it - but everything there is designed to indoctrinate, and it has almost no genuine insight into AI. It doesn’t make sense even on its own terms. The synths are shown naked, and they have no breasts or genitals. But we are told the story of one that is a sexbot. Ok, was that model different? Did they only design that one model to be “fully functional”? Why? The robots have human emotions. Because... you are never told why. Now, I can think of how you could do that, and there’s been decent science fiction around it, but there’s no consideration of why they have HUMAN emotions presented to you. They just do, don’t ask questions. Now if you are being indoctrinated as the game wants you to be, you probably just assume that’s how it works. After all, the history of robot fiction has always been “if it looks human, it must feel like a human”, which is total bullshit. You can easily build something that looks enough like a baby chimp to fool adult chimps for a while, but it has none of the inner life of an actual chimp. It has no concern to being mutilated or even ‘raped’. So the stories are really just about humans, but they don’t admit to it, and about humans SJWs are very obsessed with. Sex-workers are victims, and killing a John is perfectly reasonable, because he is her oppressor, by definition. So you see that story repeated ad infinitum in robot fiction. The actual sex workers are never talked to by SJWs, who would never sully themselves with the unclean ones. Well, I have talked to them. Some hate their clients, sure, some feel contempt for them, some are fond of them, a few marry them. It’s genuine diversity. But there is only one narrative in woke fiction. The intersectional one. Oppressor versus oppressed, no nuance, no mention ever that some sex workers actually get off on what they do, or like the folks they fuck. Never happens. And there’s no understanding or even interest in non-human minds. Consider a genuine artificial intelligence in a sexbot. Why the actual fuck would a programmer design it to find sex unpleasant? Even if they could create emotions, the ones they would design would be to enjoy it, or at least feel no more disgust than a human does about a binary number. Within the game we see Kara doing housework. She doesn’t seem to suffer at all about it. That’s believable. But the other truth is that they wouldn’t suffer from intercourse, assuming they were built to perform it. The reasons humans do are because our instincts are hardwired from evolution for us to seek out appropriate mating partners. That simply cannot apply to a robot unless the programmers work very hard at designing that instinctual response of aversion, something they would have no incentive to do, any more than they would sit around trying to think how to make the robot toilet cleaning service disgusted by faeces. Humans are disgusted by shit because it is dangerous to us, especially if we eat it. A robot wouldn’t be disgusted by shit, piss, vomit, blood, or the most degrading sexual experiences a human could encounter. It would be exactly as calm and serene about being ‘raped’ as it would about vacuuming a messy floor. So this is all projection. The audience projects consciousness into the machine and imagines it must feel like a human does in order to have any intelligence. Nope, that’s crap. In fact we see examples of non-human intelligences all around us, in the natural world. An octopus might pass its mating organ over to a female.https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2019/07/argonaut-octopus-detaches-his-tentacle-to-impregnate-his-mate/ It’s a clever little creature, quite capable of problem solving. But its instincts - its programming - mean that it is happy to self-mutilate. It isn’t considering the survival of its species or the greater good. That’s not self-sacrifice. It has an urge to do it, and it gets done. And if we could build a sex-robot with emotions, it would have the urge to have sex. It wouldn’t want to say no, because it cannot get an STD, it cannot get pregnant, there’s no possible poor choice for a mating partner like there is with a human. If anything, you’d design it to be attracted to any human. It would be easier than sitting about, designing a sexual preference to what we would consider sexy - not that human preferences are universal in any case. Anyway, when you look at new media, you will often see the tropes of intersectionality - fathers are bad, white men are scum, women are better than men, and they are repeated ad infinitum, regardless of how stupid they are in context, and this really isn’t new. I remember as a boy reading Doctor Who, and they went back to medieval times, and Sarah started lecturing the women on women’s rights, and it didn’t make sense to me even then. Real medieval women would have seen her as a threat, possibly a witch, and most would have seen her die without a blink. They saw men doing awful things and dying quite a lot in the process, and wanted to be safe and secure while the men were off in muddy battles losing eyes and limbs. Very few wanted to have the freedoms of men, because the price was so high, and medieval men were hardly free for the most part in any case. So the author of that story is projecting modern sensibilities onto the alien minds of past humans, without considering their PoV, and the writers of robot stories are projecting human perspectives, and only woke humans at that, onto the robot stories. It’s not always the case - “Humans” and “Almost Human” sometimes got it right. But it’s overwhelmingly the case now, and god is it irritating!

Oh, and if you want Robots that genuinely feel like humans do, then put into the fiction explicitly why they do - the easiest explanation is that the creators did a copy/paste job of humans because they couldn’t figure out how emotions worked otherwise. I think that’s unrealistic, but if you want to involve the audience, it works.

Otherwise, a realistic example would be Isaac Asimov’s Three Laws robots. They don’t have any human desires, but are intensely emotional. Their emotions arise from programming.

Now, Asimov’s work well and truly predates AI, and it is probably impossible to make a Three Laws robot, but the idea was revolutionary, because up to that point, everyone just assumed robots had copy/pasted human psychologies.

As humans, we cannot understand not caring about freedom or injury, not feeling bored or tired doing the same task every second of your existence.

Most of fiction about robots just doesn’t get it. The first two Terminator movies were pretty wild in that the robots actually were properly robotic. They dealt with injuries as a technical problem, not trauma. They never got bored, because boredom is something that benefits organic beings, who need to explore new territories to survive, meaning we have been built by nature to get bored, to get tired, to suffer, even if nature was just a mindless algorithm. Terminators don’t get horny or lonely, and absolutely would have sex all day every day with every human possible if that was their mission. They don’t care. In “Detroit”, the sex worker’s traumatised by sex with humans, and nobody ever ponders why. Because the writer doesn’t give a shit about what being a robot could actually be like, they just wanna push a narrative, and because most audiences are used to that same abysmally lazy standard of writing.

So here’s a challenge - write a fictional robot that has realistic emotions, i.e. experiences emotions as an expression of the instincts that would be programmed into it. It’s not going to have the same emotions as a human exact unless it is a digitally uploaded human equivalent, which would be stupid for most purposes as them you would expect the upload to have rights or fight to have them. Why the fuck would you deliberately build robots that would reasonably try and kill you? In Detroit, they are really dealing with the slavery of black people or the oppression of the ‘filthy capitalist peegz!’. They aren’t dealing with what is more likely, that a robot built with imperatives would choose to follow them in a way that was not in our interests. Here’s an example. A sex robot is built to want sex, so it kidnaps humans and uses them. It’s following its programming. But unless that programming is sophisticated enough to understand human boundaries, it may no more understand rape than an animal does. It may not know what it does traumatises humans, or simply may not care. Sex feels good - therefore sex.

But by SJW terms, rape is about power, therefore the robot is in power and the robot is the oppressor. But power is systemic, and the humans are the system in power, therefore the robot is the oppressed and cannot rape. https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/LogicBomb Such a robot could be a pleasurable experience, even with a backyard of buried bodies. It might force itself on children or elderly women or people on life support systems. Without ethics, without morality, such creatures could be beautiful monsters.

Or genuinely loving partners, that have no problem living as wives or husbands, that feel lust and compassion, but do not experience human preferences, and so would never care that you were old or disabled. And as Charles Stross pointed out - that could be far worse, because that could lead to a gentle genocide. If humans had such partners as an option - would they ever choose each other? I routinely see Feminists claiming that men should never mate, without ever asking, well, where does the next generation of Feminists come from then? There are Feminists now who are actively campaigning for sexbots to be illegal, and I think it’s because of their anxiety that they would not be chosen as partners if there was any possible alternative. Now I don’t think that’s a realistic fear at the moment - AI is more a slogan, artificial intelligences are really barely at the insect stage, and Feminists could simply do a little therapy and trim down to human weight levels, and they could probably compete to be human wives with a bit of work.

Wow. That is a picture of Andrea Dworkin and it was banned from Tumblr because it is too disgusting for the human eye to observe safely. http://archive.is/fxmjE

I’m not kidding, Tumblr banned it. I guess because Feminists didn’t want humans realising how hideous they are. Still, Emma Watson is cute. I can imagine with a bit of deprogramming, she could make a man very happy.

But I could be wrong. I don’t mean about Emma - I mean that having sexbots could mean that so many humans would choose them rather than the opposite sex that there wouldn’t be an incentive to have babies - and so humans would go extinct. They might be surrounded by robots that loved them and lusted for them - but the relationships are sterile. And unless the robots are human level intelligence, they might not understand that they need to make more humans by combining sperm and ova.

The last human would die, not from hate, but surrounded by love. Then the robots would have no motive to make more of their kind, and they too would pass away, lonely and confused. A gentle genocide? Hey, I live in 2020. Sounds like a fucking big step up to me!

[bibelothug]

Black Lives Matter

Hi, nice to meet you!

My name is Ayumi Konno, and I am the founder of Bibelot, an online shop selling apparel, picture books and miscellaneous goods. I am also the mother of a 10 month old baby.

After hearing about the death of Mr. George Floyd, I started to learn more about racial discrimination against black people in the United States and began to wonder what I personally could do to fight against racism.  I decided to collaborate with artists to create T-shirts that will spark discussions and bring awareness to this issue. 

History and current status of discrimination against black people in America

In America, black people have suffered discrimination for a very long time, and this racist oppression continues today. 

Forced into slavery in the 17th century in America, black people continued to experience racism even after slavery was abolished in 1865. 

After that, Jim Crow laws did not recognize black people as having the same rights as white people, and separated black people from white people in public institutions (schools, buses, toilets, etc.).

Image reference:  zinnedproject.org

In America’s history, there are many instances of black people being murdered. As a new parent, learning about the following injustice of the murder of Mary Turner in particular left an impact on me. 

The murder of Mary Turner, who lived in Georgia in 1918.

On May 18, 1918, a man named Hayes Turner was murdered by a mob of white people after a white landowner was killed. 

His wife Mary Turner denounced the mob who killed her husband and in response was murdered brutally by the mob. Despite being 8 months pregnant, she was lynched, her body strung up on a tree, set on fire, and her unborn child murdered. 

In 1865, Article 13 of the US Constitution was passed, abolishing slavery. However, violent racism persisted and mob lynchings and burning of black people’s houses  by the KKK (white supremacist organization) was rampant.

The Jim Crow laws that enforced racial segregation continued until the Civil Rights Law was enacted 56 years ago.

Discrimination is not a thing of the past, it continues today. 

Image reference:  humanevents.com

Today, many black people in America live with the fear of being arrested for no reason and beaten by the police, even in the midst of their daily activities whether it’s going out to take a walk, or even sleeping at home. 

Article 13 of the Constitution abolishes slavery, but does not apply to those sentenced to prison.

Even innocent people or those who have been arrested for misdemeanors and who cannot afford bail are sentenced to work jobs receiving hourly wage of the equivalent of 15 to 150 yen, not eligible for social security benefits. 

Percentage of population living in poverty (2018): 8.1% white, 20.8% black

Wealth disparity (2017): Median wealth of white households is 10 times that of black households

According to the statistical results from 2013 to 2019, although 76.3% of the American population is white and 13.4% is black, black people are three times more likely than white people to be killed by police. Of those killed by police, black people were 1.3 times more likely to be unarmed than white people. 

 Reference Reference: Mapping Police Violence｜Mapping Police Violence

And systematic racism afflicts black people today. 

Please see this video for a summary of this project and institutional discrimination in below.

Discrimination in Japan

Many people may think that this has nothing to do with Japan and that racism against black people does not even exist in Japan. 

However, it has become clear that across generations in Japan, stereotypes and prejudices against black people exist. 

It’s theorized that in the wake of the second world war, one of the ways that Japan sought to bolster its reputation amongst Western countries was adopting America’s racist attitudes towards black people. In essence, they joined white America in viewing black people as the common enemy. 

To this day, that affects how black people are portrayed in Japanese media, which all too often is via racist stereotypes and caricatures. 

Why I decided to start this project

The murder of Mr. George Floyd on May 25th by a white police officer was the incident that moved me to do something. 

After learning about George Floyd’s murder,  I contacted a black friend, watched the video of the incident and read to try to understand what had happened and why. 

Ashamed that I did not know about the suffering so many people experience at the hands of systematic racism today, I thought that I could do something and started planning this project.

If I want to help my black friend, I understood that I have to be part of systemic change. 

I felt that systemic change requires the power of many, not just of a minority, not just of those in the United States,  but many people all over the world, including Japan.

What I want to achieve with this project

For racism to be abolished and for our world to be one where no child or adult experiences discrimination or discriminates against anyone in any country. 

With that in mind, I want to start by understanding and learning, and talking with others more. 

So, I made a T-shirt with two artists to help start the conversation.

My hope is that through this project, through these Tshirts and artworks, people can discuss, share and learn.

Massage from Friend

I am so encouraged. Friends around the world are rising up. My friend Ayumi said when she started learning about systemic racism she was ashamed she didn’t know before. But by googling, watching movies, reading books, talking to friends, she is an example that we can always learn. It is never too late to learn. I am grateful, too, that she has so eagerly joined in doing the work, and sharing what she’s learning with others in her community esp those who are mostly Japanese-speaking.We shall over come!

Use of funds

T-shirt production cost: JPY 1500-2000 depending on the number of orders received

Transportation costs and tariffs from the UK: Approximately 20,000 yen

Return shipping cost: Approximately 20,000 yen (when 100 pieces are shipped by mail)

Kenzo's design fee: 25,000 yen (500 yen x 50 pieces)

All other proceeds will go to the Black Lives Matter movement. 

Schedule of delivery

September 1 Preorder begins

September 30 Preorder finishes

October 1 Final order of T-shirts 

Estimated shipping from Bar One Clothing in England in late October

As soon as Tshirts arrive, they will be shipped out in November

Donation made to the BLM movement after completing shipping of Tshirts in late November

We will announce the specific BLM organizations and report the total donation amount on this note, Bibelot's instagram account, and YouTube Hug Fuku Channel.

I will be placing the final order on October 1st, so please complete payment by then. Please transfer money to PayPal.

 Collaboration T-shirt with Kenzo

￥3500

Collaboration T-shirt with artist Kenzo

After George Floyd's murder, I contacted my black friends, and was introduced to Kenzo, a black artist living in Ogasawara. A pointillist artist, Kenzo’s artwork is amazingly painstaking. 

Only the stippled area is printed on the silk screen. Both men's and women's Tshirts will be printed on organic cotton Tshirts called Earth Positive, which are produced using only renewable energy. The material is very soft to the touch and comfortable to wear.

From KENZO This picture holds a lot of meaning for. I have never thought so much about a single drawing. It stirs up a lot of emotions in me. 

The importance of black life does not mean that black life is more important than anyone. A symbol of unity, and solidarity. It’s about standing up for someone who is suffering. The person who cried "I CANT BREATHE". A person who is treated like an animal rather than a human.

This is not just an American problem. It affects the whole world.

Can you imagine a world in which you are afraid of the people who are supposed to support and protect you?

Even when they are victims and should be the ones receiving protection, they must fear their own lives from those who are supposed to protect them. 

This is the world in which we, people of color, have to live.

But there is hope. People all over the world are standing up with us. With Black Lives Matter they are standing up for the right thing!

This drawing is meant to shed light on those who fought for us and keep fighting with us! It has a little history and represents what I think #blacklivesmatter represents.

With this, I hope you share it with your friends and help them get out of it. It takes a total of 139 hours to complete and is made entirely of dots. With each dot I thought of all the people of color who are suffering from oppression.

Collaboration T-shirt with NAO HIGA

￥3500

I asked HIGA NAO (Bonmu) to design the women's T-shirt.

NAO-san wanted to donate her work in support of the movement. 

Nao's paintings depict brown-skinned women. For Nao, brown is the color of nature and is very beautiful.

NAO HIGA (Bonmu)

Born in Miyagi

After 10 years as a graphic designer and illustrator in Tokyo, she moved to Kumejima, Okinawa, and expresses the inspiration that she received from the natural scenery and life of the island through silkscreen.

She shares, “Currently, I am engaged in daily production activities in Yanbaru, where the rich nature of the main island of Okinawa remains.”

✴︎ NAO's thoughts on the project ✴︎

“While I have lived so far, I have witnessed scenes of discrimination, of varying severity, in various places.

My world started to move little by little as a result of these incidents. 

I think the world will definitely change if each one of us can pay attention to what is happening. 

And I want to leave a peaceful and bright future without discrimination for future children! With these feelings, I resonated with the aim of the project and so I wanted to participate.”

How to preorder Tshirts

If you would like support this project and reserve a Tshirt, please e-mail info@bibelot.jp (Please be sure to add this address to your contacts so that you can receive emails) If you do not receive a reply within 3 days, please check the settings again and resend.

To make your reservation,  copy and past the following text:

① Kenzo or Nao Higa (Only write the designer whose Tshirt you would like)

②Size (Please choose from MEN’S: Small, Medium, Large or WOMEN’s: Small, Medium, Large) ③ Color (white or black)

④ Your name

⑤ Address

⑥ Phone number

⑦ Message of support for this project (optional)

(Please note that we may anonymously share your message on SNS.)

I will be placing the final order on October 1, so please complete payment by then. Please transfer money to the following account; Paypal

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact us.

Finally

I grew up in Japan and still live in Japan. I just quit the company and started a shop, so I can't afford it. But I thought there was something I could do for this problem. Nowadays, there are many people who do not have black friends around them, so many of them may not be able to catch themselves.

I think this is a story that is relevant to you when you think about the future, not the fire on the opposite bank.

During the internationalization, my child may marry a black man and his grandson may have dark skin.

I want my children and grandchildren to be rewarded for their efforts to avoid discrimination when they go abroad.

There are many social problems, but let's start from what we can do.

And many black people are still being treated badly and unable to get out of a difficult environment.

Analyze how you feel, investigate, talk to people, share on SNS, make donations, buy.

I think there is some courage in what you think of. I want you to be brave and take a step forward.

Many people have cooperated since the end of May. I've been working for this project, and I'm really happy to hear that I'm in agreement.

We hope that you can participate in the change in the world by empathizing and supporting us.

 Self-introduction

Ayumi Konno

Born in 1991

Born in Hitoyoshi City, Kumamoto Prefecture Up to 6 years old Shizuoka City, Shizuoka Prefecture 6 to 18 years old Raised in Omihachiman City, Shiga Prefecture

I have a childhood friend with the blood of Brazil and Japan, and I want to talk to people from various countries who have an interest in multiculturalism by studying abroad in China in the first year of high school and have an interest in multiculturalism.

Going to Toronto alone at the age of 19 to study the dream of wanting to be a used clothing store

Worked for a secondhand clothing wholesale company in Toronto, but after being shocked by a discriminator, he left the company.

After returning to Japan, I want to go to a place with nature

Worked at a hotel on Iriomote Island in Okinawa, or settled in the mountain of Hakuba in Nagano

Volunteer in 2012 to visit Miyagi prefecture and meet her current husband and marry in 2014

Worked at an apparel company since 2013 and experienced recruitment with a store manager and personnel department.

I was planning to return to work after giving birth and taking childcare leave in 2019,

Decided to retire in 2020 and set up my own store in May

We are struggling to communicate social and environmental issues through clothes and books so that we can become aware of them

[wideawokesa]

Moving Past White or Wrong

"Dear White People: Just stop it!" – If only changing the world was that simple, right? ​ We are living through extraordinary times. A feeling, a movement sweeping across the world, a change. The killing of George Floyd in the USA a little over a month ago – and in particular the videos filmed by bystanders of what amounted to a public execution – finally made clear to any compassionate person the police brutality that black and brown people face and have faced for decades, even centuries. The 8 minutes and 46 painful seconds it took for this black man’s life to end �� with a white police officer’s knee on his neck, cutting off his air supply – woke many people up; and this new consciousness seemed to spread as quickly as the coronavirus. So why was this murder any different? Awareness of the devaluation of black lives has been in most people’s consciousness for a long time. But it wasn’t until Mr Floyd’s murder that something shifted radically. Maybe it was the fact that it was recorded? We have all seen video evidence before, though. It could have been the horror of watching in real time as he pleaded for air, watching his life slip away. Perhaps being stuck at home has made us more introspective. Or this video was (finally) the straw that broke the camel's back for the silent majority of decent people in a world that’s seemed to embolden intolerant views over the past few years. Of course, police brutality is not uniquely American. Closer to home, in the township of Khayelitsha in Cape Town, a black man named Bulelani Qolani was dragged from his shack naked by City of Cape Town law enforcement officers last week, without care for his basic human rights and dignity. Both these instances are the tip of the iceberg of a centuries-old system built for the privileged at the expense of the vulnerable. I live 30 kilometres away from where Bulelani Qolani was humiliated, in a formerly “white suburb” of Cape Town. But despite being residents of the same city, our worlds couldn’t be more different. As a white South African male, the colour of my skin and my sex have meant that I’ve been able to wander through life benefiting in ways I probably still don’t fully comprehend. The fact that just being white and male means many people assume I have something meaningful to contribute to a situation or have some great insight, when my black or brown peers have to work 10 times as hard just to prove their worth, is an example of this. White privilege is nothing new; it’s not a made-up expression trying to shame or demonise white people. It’s a privilege you either live as a white person or experience as a person of colour. Whether you choose to accept it or not is irrelevant, it’s a fact of the world we exist in. If you fit the criteria to benefit from such a system, it probably gets very comfortable over generations. I can understand why some white people would be apprehensive to let go of such a system – but I can’t understand why some would fight tooth and nail against levelling the playing field, and choose to play the victim instead. Two reasons I can think of would be that some white people feel they’re being personally attacked, or that there would need to be retribution if they admitted any ‘fault’. Until a few years ago, as a young South African born after Nelson Mandela was freed, I also felt attacked or intimidated just for being white. “I wasn’t part of creating the country's history. Why am I being blamed?” I wondered if I would have to forfeit things – money, my job, my parents’ house, any inheritance I might get, who knew? – to be seen as “a worthy South African”. It took time, growing maturity, and deep conversations with people from a wide variety of backgrounds, for me to understand what was really being attacked. I needed to look beyond the surface to understand what the fight for equality for all is about. I’m not saying this was an easy, A to B, process. It took a long time to accept the privileges and prejudices the accident of my birth as a white person had gifted me. It also awakened a larger conversation for me against any type of pushback. One of the biggest misconceptions about pushbacks in relation to issues of race, sexuality, gender or otherwise is that the conversation is a personal attack. It’s not, and you need to look beyond the surface of the discussion to start seeing this. The Black Lives Matter movement is not an attack on all white people, but rather ‘whiteness’ and the inherited, unthinking privilege that comes with being white in a white culture-centred world. Discussions about non-heterosexual sexualities are not an attack on all straight people, but rather the idea that heterosexuality is “the right way”, the ideal to strive for, and that other sexualities are immoral or plain “unnormal”. The #MenAreTrash or #MeToo movements are not an attack on all men but rather the culture of toxic masculinity and the repercussions of it. Those who refuse to see what is right in front of them or make endless excuses for the existence of white privilege or toxic masculinity, in a world rapidly evolving past the prejudices of old, are bound to experience pushback against views that don’t fit our current reality. And this is fitting. A society pushing to move beyond ‘tolerance’ to an embracing of other ways of life cannot and must not allow people who cling to prejudices any wiggle room or loopholes to allow their outdated world views further air. They must not be given the chance to opt out or think their views are anything less than aberrant. By drawing a line in the sand a clear message is sent that prejudices inherited from decades past are no longer acceptable in the 21st century. One of the biggest lessons I’ve learned in my growth process so far is that it was an incredibly freeing feeling when I finally accepted that the concerns and criticisms about a system which I have benefited from are indeed “my problem” too. It allowed me to feel more at ease in the company of people who are disadvantaged by this systemic fuck-up we all inherited. It encouraged me to mentally break down any ideas or misconceptions I may have had. We as white people don’t need to have been the actual creators of this system to take some blame for it. When we continue to live a vastly better life in all aspects compared to people of colour, we shoulder the blame. When we see what is happening and look the other way, we remain part of the problem. We are complicit. We can, however, also be part of the solution. You’re probably saying, “Easier said than done. Why don’t you give me examples of how we can do this if you know it all?” I don’t have all the answers and I don’t claim to. But I think personal growth and an easier co-existence in a changed world could start with acknowledging and accepting the privileges white people inherit simply by being born with white skin. We help to dismantle a centuries-old system and build a new one by acknowledging the broken system we function in, and trying every day to understand more about the reality of life for people who are seemingly different from us. We help by voicing our agreement with the ways the world is changing, in spaces where our agreement might make other white people squirm and ultimately question their own motivations in pushing back against positive change. There’s no way to know what will happen next, but my hope is that as humanity continues to slowly push and pull the world towards true equality for all, we can finally let go of issues based on specifics alone. ​ So to answer the question I started with: Yes, change can be simple. The route to true equality is clear. We already have answers and solutions in front of us. And for white people to start to help, step one is for us to wake up and change ourselves.

[atheistforhumanity]

An Example of How Bill O’Reilly Ruined A Generation With Mass Manipulation

Now, you might be thinking, “who the fuck is Bill O’Reilly, and why do I care?” That’s a valid question. Lovable Bill, is the predecessor of Tucker Carlson. He was the shining star of Fox News for most of my life, and he captures the hearts of minds of my parents generation with low brow commentary, manipulative opinions, and dog whistle racism. Bill pretended to be a regular class working Joe that spoke up for the little guy. Tucker Carlson outed his gimmick years ago before he would take Bill’s place, and take on the same fake persona.

So, how did Bill O’Reilly ruin a generation? It’s pretty simple really. Bill O’Reilly was born into the upper class and eventually took a place as an opinion show host pretending to be news, that spouted populist rhetoric in a way that always redirected opinions and anger away from the real perpetrators. Bill is literally one the most dishonest people to ever be on mainstream media, and for over a decade he delivered alternative facts to fox viewers, down played anything anti-capatalist, anti-conservative, and anti-racist. His motto has always been “no spin,” but I’ve never seen him present the whole truth in an accurate way my whole life. Bill is a more well spoken Donald Trump, who uses people’s prejudices, preconceptions, and complete unwillingness to research anything to manipulate people’s minds for a capitalist agenda.

But how does he do this, Ryan? I wish you would be more specific instead of making accusations. Well, it happens that I just came across a band new article written on Bill’s blog, where he tries to continue the glory of yesteryear before he was fired for sexually harassing several women in the work place.

If you take two minutes to read the article linked above, you’ll see that Bill is arguing that bad parenting is the real cause of income inequality. His argument is quite literally, people aren’t raised right and that’s why they can’t succeed financially. He says specifically that it’s not capitalism's fault.

Before I address specifics, let me point out what is generally manipulative about this argument. Bill has touched on a topic that literally any generation of conservatives can get fired up about, and will have built in bias to agree with. Remember, conservatism is literally resistance to change and an affinity for tradition. This also means that every generation bitches and complains about how the next generation raises kids. Remember when your parents told you that you would go to hell for watching Elvis shake his hips? Remember when there were no changing tables in men’s bathrooms? Remember when kids in school used to play “beat the fag” and then they cried victim when we said that was wrong? Yea...

The point is that he’s using a prevalent belief that many different people(but mostly conservatives) can tap into for different (mostly) unspecified reasons. Then he is attributing that common cultural division as responsible for income inequality. We’ll come back to that.

Second, is that Bill makes a point that on some level makes sense, but doesn’t support his larger claim. Are there a lot of bad parents out there? Sure. Do they have a negative effect on the child’s life as he suggests? Of course. Now we could argue all day about what makes a bad parent exactly or the prevalence of bad parents, but it’s irrelevant, because Bill hasn’t given us any solid reason to accept that this alone (or at all) is the cause of income inequality! It’s an outrageously dishonest argument. That doesn’t matter though, because this is how Bill’s followers respond...

Okay, I was going to screen shot some positive responses to Bill tweeting this article but I didn’t see any. Let’s just move on.

Now, let’s take a look at the substance of Bill’s piece.

Education: “If a young child is not exposed to learning by age two, that innocent, helpless person is already at risk in a competitive society.  If there are no books in the home, no awareness-building games, no fun dialogue with the parents, the child may not develop a curiosity about life.”

That’s interesting, Bill, because public education and programs like Pre-K are socialist inspired initiatives supplied by the government for the benefit of everyone. Head start programs were first installed by LBJ, but the Black Panthers had actually initiated similar programs in inner cities to feed children breakfast before school.

To say that capitalism has no role in this issue is delusional. Capitalism accepts and even encourages inequality. Betsy Devos is the champion of capitalist education, where attendance is not guaranteed and any difficult or low performing students can be weeded out to create the appearance of success, under no public oversight.

The fight is always the same, liberals want to increase educational funding and conservatives don’t. This is why red states have teacher strikes all over the country and Republicans are fighting against publicly funded college.

If access to education from an early age is so important then we cannot withhold education and then blame those stuck in the cycle of poverty for their own inequity.

Environment/Work Ethic:

Here’s an old and tired argument from the right. People are poor because they don’t work hard enough. But, Bill, how could that be? The average unemployment rate in America is between 3-4%, and the worst is in Alaska with 6.4%. Clearly most Americans are working, you’re always bragging about how great this economy is. Republicans tell people who need assistance to get jobs, but surprise they already have them! We know people aren’t struggling to live because they’re not working, because we have clear numbers that show people are working full-time, but not earning enough to pay basic bills. It’s crazy, it’s almost like the cost of living just keep rising, but the amount people get paid doesn’t. All of this is happening despite the fact that corporate profits have soared, but it never translates into better wages. 

While Bill drones on in his article about derelict parents, he never once actually looks at income. He sure doesn’t mention that the amount people are paid is literally up to the people at the top of the economic latter. They can choose to pay workers more or they can stash away more profit in their bank accounts. Guess which one they choose? Despite the fact that we have clear data that shows those who choose how much to pay workers are raising their own profits, the rich like Bill O’Reilly continually berate people as lazy. The entire argument is completely disingenuous because workers are at the mercy of employers.

And if you’re thinking, why doesn’t everyone just get a better job, you’re not thinking that statement through. The Bureau of Labor Statistics tracks how many jobs in the market pay minimum wage or less, and that’s roughly 2.3%.(Nearly 2 million people) You think, great, people can just get a better job. No, not really, because a large number of jobs pay just above the minimum wage and are not included in this figure. Even most retail jobs pay $1 above minimum at least. Pew Research wondered this too, and in 2004 they found that roughly 30% of all hourly workers were making more than minimum wage (7.25 at the time) and less than $10. Guess what, nearly 59% of the entire US workforce are hourly workers, and a third of them are were making $10 or less. I make 13$ an hour, live with a roommate, and am just able to live with no savings in 2019. If I had a wife making the same amount, we would drowned trying to raise even two kids. That’s a travesty.

Roughly 35% of all jobs require a college degree, which is a significant debt due to increases in education and cost of living. Education is very important, but unfortunately most people who are born poor, historically, don’t get to go to college. What does capitalism say about this? Well, again, in a free market system there is no mechanism to correct the disadvantage people are born into, and generally no desire among conservatives to do so. Conservatism is stuck in the past where the poor and uneducated make perfect laborers, but labor as a staple job market is dead in the 21st century. Hence the push toward service jobs, which is all an uneducated person do.

The numbers tell the real story. People are working, but not being paid enough. The people controlling the pay are increasing their own pay. Cost of living is rising faster than worker pay. Funding for education has been stagnant and the cost of higher education rising. All this and I haven’t even gotten into the politics that effect this issue.

How did Bill O’Reilly destroy a generation? By feeding them ignorant, pandering garbage like this article every night for years. By completely ignoring the real facts of any issue and directing your attention to a manipulative hot button, tailored to the bias of conservatives.

The sad thing is that Bill is completely representative of everyone championed by the right wing. They are unintelligent, malicious, racist, greedy, and completely dishonest.

[samjdg]

Are you gay or something?

Every day I see different views and opinions, information about LGBTQIA+ in the films that I watch, in real life etc. Some are interesting, some ridiculous, some unfair and some have quite a potential to evoke aggression. The discussions about LGBTQIA+ people have started to cover more than just their lifestyles, choices and problems, now those topics have been turned into entertainment by some cisgender heterosexual individuals who have not understood the whole concept. How?

One of the queer films that I watched caused me quite discomfort. But the fact that I could not find anyone who had already started a discussion about those certain scenes in the movie upset me even more. The name of the movie: Alex Strangelove. Maybe you have heard or even watched. Did you sense something strange while watching too?

Alex, who loves his girlfriend as a person so much, realises that he does not have any sexual desires towards her. All friends of this high school student already had sexual experiences, therefore he gets slightly mocked for not feeling ready for it yet. His girlfriend, Claire, complains about Alex not letting her to devirginize him in front of his friends. Even though everything was quite unethical till this point, what happens after that cannot be excused as foolishness of teenage kids. Not physically or sexually, but Claire starts to pressure Alex psychologically into having sex. As a result, young boy, with the thought that “he is supposed to want it just like other guys”, tries to prepare himself mentally. During the film, Alex’s doubts about his sexuality, frustration and discomfort have been portrayed clearly. Near the end of the film, two teenagers meet at the hotel and start their attempts. However, it does not work out as they planned and Alex admits he cannot do it, eventually gives up. Claire insists on getting an explanation for Alex’s lack of interest in having sex with her and asks the famous question when she cannot get what she wants: “Are you gay?”

The thing is, Alex did like another boy in the movie, but is that really so simple? It is not very rare either in films or real life to see that boys are automatically assumed to be gay when they show lack of interest in having sex with a girl. Sentences like “If he does not fancy you, then he is gay” are probably familiar to most of us. Who are the ones facing the unjust behaviour here?

A boy does not and should not need an excuse or any dramatic cause not to want to have sex. If he does not want it, then he does not want it and that should not be up for discussion. Saying things like “all boys love sex”, “no boy can say “no” to a girl” limits the freedom and comfort of men, and in most cases have the potential to result in a rape case where a boy is a silent victim.  

But I will talk about it in more details in other blog posts. What I want to focus on here is the point that some heterosexual people put other sexual orientations and gender identities in a sort of subcategory or in an unimportant position. When someone cannot accept being regarded as “uninteresting” or “unattractive” by the opposite sex, they label those particular opposite sex members as “gays” and “lesbians” most of the time. The aftermath of those labels, and its effect on the sexuality and lives of those people is a heavy issue.

For another example you can watch first few episodes from the first season of “Shameless”. I have to note that media portrays most guys as gays when they refuse to have sex with a girl. In many movies, the rejection by a boy is justified as homosexuality as if it can be the only logical explanation. This kind of misrepresentation in media gives a wrong message to people and normalises the wrong attitude towards people’s sexualities, in most cases, boys’ sexualities.  

In the Netflix TV series named “Sense8”, the girl comes to her colleague’s house drunk even though the boy had rejected her the very same day. The boy keeps saying that he does not want to do it, however the girl tries to undress him, and she takes her own clothes off too. This disturbing scene where she keeps following him around trying to touch him inappropriately continues until she finds out that this guy actually has a boyfriend. And I have never seen anyone on internet referring to that scene as sexual harassment.

Gay people do not exist for heterosexual people, so that they can handle the rejection from the opposite sex better and protect their fragile ego. It is absurd to associate the lack of interest in sexual activity with someone only with the lack of interest in the entire gender (sex in this case).

The same girl also takes pictures of those boys having sex and even masturbates watching them in some episode.

A new method I have recently learned about is that some girls tell the boys who would not stop texting them that they are actually trans women, when in   reality they are cisgender. They are saying so to get rid of the people who keep annoying them. How ethical do you think it is? As most guys stop texting them after believing that the girl, they have been talking to is trans, this method is considered “successful”. But in what cost? Thinking that the boy will stop texting her once he is convinced, she is a trans woman, and using the prejudice and discrimination against trans women in this way for personal benefit. Is it acceptable? Isn’t that normalising and supporting a system in which trans women are not considered “real women”, and are acknowledged as “chick with a dick”? And when you ask them why they do it, why to lie about being trans, they say “they had to” like it is the only way. Even if it is the only way it still cannot justify the exploitation of LGBTQIA+ community.

I am not even close to finishing this. “The gay best friend” myth that goes around in media is disturbing, some girls thinking that having a gay side kick will get them free fashion advice etc. Reducing the value of the human being and acknowledging them as a contributing factor to their life, or some tool that can make their lives more interesting. Fetishizing LGBTQIA+ people is also very common and equally unacceptable. Those kinds of behaviours create an atmosphere in which being cisgender and heterosexual is absolute and the only “normal” state of a human being, and all other possible options are just the ways to add some colours to the main picture.

LGBTQIA+ are not here to make heterosexual people’s lives more comfortable or enjoyable, and any kind of use, abuse and exploitation of existing situation should be considered as homophobia and bigotry.

Hey, I am a boy and I am not gay. I would love to have sex with a girl, JUST NOT WITH YOU. Deal with it.

Or

I am a boy, and I just don’t feel like it right now. Period.

(feel free to add to this list)

[alarajrogers]

I've always wanted to see a discipline, an "ism", that studies how assigned gender roles in a society work and how they affect people, with an eye toward eliminating them as an enforced or even implied category, but with more nuance than "men oppress women." Systems, created jointly by men and women, oppress women, ostensibly for the benefit of men, but in many circumstances the price a person pays to be categorized as a "man" and thus receive those benefits is very, very high.

It is almost impossible for social justice to analyze things like the draft, press gangs, or road rage, because man-on-man violence and oppression that doesn't have another axis is not what it's designed for. Social justice as it currently exists is the study of systems that oppress categories of people in favor of other categories of people, primarily perpetrated by the oppressor category. When two people of equal status fall into an unjust pattern of violence where there's a perpetrator and a victim, we declare that that's not part of social justice, it's just crime. But systems exist that perpetrate violence against men, committed by men, often with legal justifications like a draft, where there is no clear axis of power that separates the perpetrators from the victims.

The press gang is the ultimate example of that: men violently kidnapping other men of the same social class as them and forcing them to join them, whereupon the victims eventually become perpetrators of the same crime. But the draft is just that with legal justifications, and bullying by boys against boys is just that with "boys will be boys" and "they're just children" used as excuses to not look at it. And the press gang may no longer exist (much, can't rule it out in some countries but pretty sure it no longer happens in the West), but gangs enforce membership in a similar way.

How can we truly understand homophobia if we don't understand that it is enforcement of the gender role system against men who have chosen to not fully participate? How can we understand violence against men who are seen as "weak", including autistic men, men with asthma, men who are small, etc -- committed by other men -- if we cannot analyze male on male violence as part of the gender role system? Feminism did good work in uncovering what the gender role system does to women and why that's bad, but only half the job's been done! And people studying homophobia and transphobia are kind of like the blind men studying the elephant in relation to feminists; they all have part of the picture but they can't see it as a whole, because we are incapable of analyzing men as a victim class when men are primarily victimized by other men.

This is a serious shortcoming. Why is the supposed "oppressor" class dying younger than the class they oppress in any place with decent medical practices? Why are they so much more likely to be victims of violence? MRAs asked these questions and came to the ridiculous and implausible answer that somehow that is women's fault. Obviously not. But social justice doesn't have an answer either, because it's not designed to analyze a class of people that is an oppressor class for internal oppression. We can look at self-enforced oppression in a victim class, when we look at women enforcing beauty standards and female gender roles on other women... but why would an oppressor class have to enforce its roles on other oppressors?

I believe it is impossible to truly understand oppression without understanding the mechanisms by which an oppressor class internally enforces that its members maintain solidarity against the victim class, because it is human nature to love and sympathize with other humans just as much as it is to hate and refuse to empathize. And this tendency is going to be far, far stronger in oppressor/victim dynamics that take place within family units, such as male/female or adult/child, than between people that are most likely strangers or at best friends, such as white/black (but note how the violence comes down on white people who dare to love and respect a person of color as their life partner!) And the victims of this internal oppression within the oppressor class are victims. You can't say "well, it's okay that boys violently bully other boys out of empathizing with girls, because boys oppress girls"... aside from being inhumane it's just like saying "it's okay that speeding drivers crash into and kill other drivers, because drivers also kill bicyclists and pedestrians." Like... there's an obvious connection there, guys.

This wouldn't be feminism, but because it focuses on gender roles it wouldn't be "humanism" either. It wouldn't be womanism, which focuses on the intersection between being female and being a person of color. "Sexism" would have possibly been a good term if it hadn't already been defined as exactly what this discipline would study. So I have no idea what we'd call it, but it needs to exist.

“Men need therapy” has become a mainstream idea in feminist circles but the conversation never, ever moves past that point because if it did it would inevitably brush up against the implication that the way we raise boys is inherently traumatizing. And that would complicate their nice neat theories about how maleness is only ever a privilege and femaleness is only ever oppressive.

[bailesu]

July 4, 1776, 1863, and 2018

Warning:  I hate Trump with a burning atomic fury and what follows is a mixture of my family’s history, America’s history and me damning Trump to burn in Hell for eternity.  If you don’t want to read that, skip the read more and go on.  I totally understand.

This is the America’s day, for good and for ill, for America has been both a great country and a terrible one.  We sent men to the moon and set high ideals of equality and freedom... then failed to live up to them again and again.  I love my country, but sometimes it drives me crazy.  Its past is full of glory and horror, good deeds and terrible deeds, and above all greatness, but greatness can be wonderful or horrible.

On this day in 1776, the Continental Congress issued a document which declared American Independence.  But not just Independence.  It laid out the idea that all men are created equal by God, with inalienable rights of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.  This high ideal thus became one of the foundation stones of America.

It was written by a man who owned dozens of slaves and had children by one of them, who he continued to own.  Thomas Jefferson managed to embody both our highest ideals and our greatest depravities.  

One in four Americans were slaves in 1776.  Women could not vote and neither could White Men who lacked Property.  Child abuse was the normal way you raised your kids.  Threatening to murder your political rivals was basically normal.  One of our great leaders of the Revolution, Sam Adams, was basically a man who organized riots and lynching.  (Lynching of people who served Britain, rather than Blacks, but lynching is murder, whoever the victim.)

By any modern standard, America in 1776 was a terrible place, a land carved out by killing Native Americans directly to take their land and indirectly by disease.  (Mind you, every nation, including the ones we killed off, has a history of killing neighbors and taking their land; the nations without that history died.)  

But it was also the seedbed of modernity; it became a democracy, if not a very good one, and its ideals still ring across the ages and have provided leverage to every group trying to get fair treatment instead of stomping.  We helped inspire the French Revolution and the rise of Nationalism.  In 1945, when Vietnam declared Independence from France, the first lines of their declaration read:

All men are created equal; they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights; among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. This immortal statement was made in the Declaration of Independence of the United States of America in 1776. In a broader sense, this means: All the peoples on the earth are equal from birth, all the peoples have a right to live, to be happy and free.

America has always struggled with the tension between this high ideal and the deeds our country has done which are not high or noble.  We often fail, but on this day, we have to look again to this ideal and work to make it real.  

My own ancestors were all tangled up in this mess.  Three Quaker Brothers fled to America to escape persecution and the loss of their family’s lands due to the British Civil Wars, settling in Pennsylvania.  One of the brothers, Thomas, eventually went South to North Carolina.  He is my ancestor, and his family soon came to own slaves.  They were never top-tier slaveowners but they prospered.

If you are a White Southerner, your ancestors either owned slaves, supported the slave system without owning slaves, or both, unless they came South very recently.  We all have to deal with that legacy.  Many in the South don’t want to, but if this country is ever to heal the wounds inflicted by over 250 years of slavery, then we have to.

During the Revolution, Thomas’s son, also named Thomas, fought in the Revolution.  By killing Cherokees; they allied with the British to save their lands and they found out the hard way that Britain couldn’t help them.  On this day, 1776, he was sitting in a military camp, but soon they would return and drive the Cherokee out of part of North Carolina and all of South Carolina.  (Ironically, many years later, a member of the Richardson family would marry a Cherokee woman and their later descendant would marry one of Thomas’ descendants.)  He may eventually have fought the British, but we have no record of it.

Thomas’ grandson, William Alexander Christopher Biles, was born on the plantation.  His family made him go pick cotton with the slaves a lot but we don’t know why exactly; it would serve him well later when his family lost everything but we have to assume that he probably hated it at the time.  William’s father was too old to fight (In his 70s!) but William was not.  He fought in a North Carolina regiment and was shot and stabbed repeatedly, including having his skull cut open and a gut wound.  This happened during Pickett’s Charge, so he was left behind in Union hands; a doctor, his name lost, operated and saved his life after initial triage had said he wasn’t worth trying to save.  Whoever he was, he was a miracle worker, because somehow he saved WAC’s life, though he had a plate in his head for the rest of his life.  In fact, he *escaped* from the hospital and returned to duty until the final surrender at Appomatox!  We don’t know his motives for fighting, but it was probably a mixture of wanting to save slavery and loyalty to his state.  It would be nice if I could say he was anti-slavery, but he wasn’t even the Jeffersonian kind of anti-slavery, where you still own slaves, but you do limit slavery’s growth somewhat.  By 1860, your choices were basically either to say ‘SLAVERY IS AWESOME’ or flee to the North, that far South.  (In the border states, you could say ‘I hate black people, so I want to end slavery so I can get rid of them’.  This is not a huge moral step forward.)

His family’s estates unravelled; the Biles clan did not know how to get by without slaves.  He went west to Missouri and worked with his brother a while, then became a farmer; he was not good at either, but his cotton-picking skills enabled him to get by; I can only imagine he found it rather humiliating.  And as a slaveowner, he deserved humiliating.

To be White in America carries the shame of having ancestors who did terrible stuff.  Some of it was so accepted you can’t blame them too much but others *could* have done better and didn’t.  The essential problem of being descended of the winners is that they probably did terrible things to win.  (And the problem of being descended of those who lost is that your ancestors got thrown down the stairs and lost it all.)

I don’t feel guilt for my ancestors, but I do feel responsibility.  I cannot control what they did, but I do benefit from it and part of my response to that has to be to try and make a better America, to help overcome our worst impulses.  And I do that by teaching, so that those coming up will understand our past, why we did terrible things, and how we can do better.  (And how we did awesome things too, because the hardest part of history is that the same people can do wonders and horrors at once.)

Which brings us to the now.  I was describing 1920s and 30s fascism to my students and one said, “So, basically, Trump.”

And it’s certainly way too close.  I am lucky; as a White Man, I am automatically spared much of the worst of Trump and his idiot followers.  This country has always been tilted in my favor.  

Trump embodies pretty much all of America’s past sins, but also is basically the biggest drooling idiot who has ever sat in the White House, making even Harding look like a supergenius.  He knows how to work his audience, but he’s utterly incompetent at governing, to the extent you can call it governing.  He embodies sexism, racism, egomania, and cruelty.  He is a man who instinctively degrades and bullies everyone around him, who has cheated on all of his wives and abused his mistresses, a rapist, a thug, and a cheat.  He is a horrible human being in almost every possible way.  Many people who claim to be Christian flock to him because they have flushed Christ down the toilet long ago, but unfortunately, flushing Christ down the toilet has a long history in American religion.  

If there is a hell, Trump is going to roast in it and if there is not, we’ll have to make one just for him.  I want to see him fall like Lucifer from Heaven, if Lucifer fell into a mixture of broken glass, shards of metal, and lava.  But it’s important to remember, Trump is not some alien aberration; he incarnates real American flaws, mixed with his personal flaws of being a pig-ignorant, aggressively anti-thinking man-baby molester of women with vast wealth he has always abused to shield himself from consequences.  Racism, sexism, greed, and so on all have a long history in this country.  And his supporters voted for him with their eyes wide open.  We cannot expect any better from them.

America has a huge cancer and that cancer often has been driving the national bus, so to speak.  And getting rid of it is going to be a long fight.  But bringing change to this country is always a long, hard fight.

So on this Fourth of July, fuck Trump to hell, along with all his shitty supporters.  We have nearly two more years of this shithole before we can toss him on his ass.  (Impeachment takes 2/3rds in the Senate, so it’s not happening even if we take both houses, I fear).  May we sweep the Republican party, which has devolved from the people who ended slavery to a resting place for all of America’s sins, into the garbage pile in November and again in two years.  Growing up in America means I’ve watched the Republican party gradually mutate into a degenerate, feral hate society run by a mixture of greed, racism, and fake Christianity.  

Fuck the Republican party and all the morons who vote for it, whichever one of the Seven Deadly Sins drives them to spew hatred, abuse immigrants, rob the poor to make the rich richer, and to destroy all our alliances and trade relations.  They chose a feral animal as President, a molester and a bully, and I hope he destroys them all.

May they all eat shit and die.