#pp discourse

[frankie-bell]

An Essay Exploring Psycho-Pass's Most Controversial Character

I know I’m opening a huge, slimy can of worms and potentially incurring the wrath of half the Psycho-Pass fandom, but I feel compelled to share my feelings on Mika Shimotsuki and how I believe she serves as a lightning rod for fan culture misogyny. Now, before I start, let me just say that this essay isn’t targeted at any one individual, and it’s just my personal opinion, which you are more than welcome to disagree with. I’d also like to stress that, despite my love for Mika’s character, I’m going to try my very best to approach this topic from an academic standpoint rather than an emotional one. I recently picked Parasocial Relationships and their effect on female celebrities and fictional characters as a thesis for my Gender and Media course, and it really got me thinking about this anime in particular, so here we go…

Let’s tackle the female side of things first, because it’s the one that shocks and disappoints me the most. Don’t get me wrong -- I think fandoms with a strong female presence are awesome, complex, uplifting, and oftentimes incredibly positive and inclusive spaces. I love being a female genre fan and interacting with other female genre fans. That said, I’ve noticed female fandom can sometimes fall prey to online bullying and misogynistic groupthink when it comes to (a) female characters they find arrogant, bossy, mean, etc. and (b) female characters who are positioned as potential love interests for their collective male "blorbos," "husbandos," "faves," whatever the term may be. These two things very often overlap, which I’ll touch on later, but for now, let’s talk about the first point.

There was a big movement online several years ago urging creators to “let women be mean. Let them be angry. Let them be petty and complex and difficult. Let them be messy.” I fully support this idea in both theory and practice and wish it were that simple, but unfortunately, it’s not, because uncomfortably large swaths of fandom don’t like/appreciate unapologetically mean female characters the way they do male characters. Men in fiction are allowed to be cutthroat, selfish, cruel, narcissistic, arrogant, and even evil without garnering even a fraction of the judgement that female characters receive for simply being “difficult” or “unlikable.”

Take, for instance, Shougo Makishima. The Psycho-Pass fandom at large adores this character (myself included), despite the fact that he’s a remorseless sociopath who touts the importance of free will as a wholesale excuse for murder. He is a bad person, full-stop, and yet he garners love -- even sympathy -- in abundance. He’s the subject of fawning fan fiction, chibi art, thirst tweets, and endless Reddit analysis. Fans are capable of seeing him, murderous warts and all, as a product of the warped dystopian society Sibyl has created. But Mika? Nope. Just “a bitch, a whiner, an arrogant little girl who deserves to get slapped in the mouth.” (I am not making this up. These are the type of comments I see *female* fans making left and right about her character). She receives far more hate for giving up the location of Akane’s grandmother as a blackmailed, frightened teenager than Makishima does for slashing Yuki’s throat or blowing up Masaoka. Hell, she catches more heat for Akane’s grandmother than Sakuya Togane, the woman’s actual murderer and -- I can’t stress this enough -- a 41-year-old adult man.

Now, I know what some of you are thinking -- Makishima and Togane are villains, so their personality flaws (putting it lightly) and horrible actions are essential to the narrative and indicative of good storytelling. We’re meant to “love to hate them.” All correct, and yet this doesn’t change or excuse the fact that their standing in the fandom, when compared to the equally complex and emotionally fractured Mika, is textbook pernicious misogyny. But, for the sake of argument, let’s compare Mika to another character ostensibly on the side of good -- Nobuchika Ginoza. [Note: Ginoza is my favorite character in Psycho-Pass, and any commentary regarding his PP1 shittiness is made with pure love and appreciation for him and nuanced character growth in general.]

When we first meet Ginoza, he is rude, terse, unyielding, intellectually smug, and totally unforgiving of those closest to him. He’s a brilliant character, and his behavior, no matter how insufferable and seemingly cruel, is the result of compounded trauma -- the trauma of having his father ripped away when he was only nine, the trauma of being unfairly judged for the “sins” of said latent criminal father, the trauma of his mother numbing her pain with medication and eventually becoming something akin to a human corpse, the trauma of finding a new support system and best friend in Kougami only to once again be “abandoned” for the other side of the law. In many ways, he’s still a hurt child lashing out at the world, unwilling to see it for the complicated, morally gray place that it is, because being mad is easier. Telling himself that Enforcers are nothing more than dogs for him to guide and use as shields is easier. Blindly trusting the judgements handed down by Sibyl is easier.

In this way, he and Mika are remarkably similar. When she first joins the MWPSB, she’s a 17-year-old minor whose best friend (and probably first love) was dismembered by a latent criminal under the direction of a serial killer disguising himself as a teacher -- a trusted authority figure. She’s filled with guilt and self-loathing over her failure to act, and the easiest way for her to sort out her feelings and ensure the same thing doesn’t happen again is to harden herself to all latent criminals. Distrusting them, treating them as “other,” is her form of self-preservation. Yes, it makes her come across as mean, as closed-minded, as unlikable, but that’s not a bad thing. It’s good storytelling, and it presents her with plenty of potential for growth, which she is certainly given.

[Upon discovering that her best friend, fellow Oso Academy student Kagami Kawarazaki, has been murdered by Rikako Oryo, Mika breaks down in tears, blaming herself for the tragedy. This is the moment her distrust of latent criminals is solidified.]

But, unlike Ginoza (a 28-year-old adult man), over half the fandom decided that Mika was so awful, so totally unforgivable, such a “heinous cunt,” that they were unwilling to allow her the time and space to grow beyond her trauma and immaturity. But why? Is it because we’ve been taught to judge women, even fictional ones, based on a different set of criteria than men? I think the answer is obvious, and I urge fans who dislike Mika’s character with such intensity to seriously examine their reasoning. I don’t mean to say that she’s infallible (hardly) or that it’s wrong to dislike her. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, and no one person’s take is more valid than another’s, but it’s definitely something to think about in the larger conversation that is media analysis.

Which brings me to Akane Tsunemori, someone who fits all the abovementioned criteria for a “likeable” female character. [Another note: I love Akane, and none of this is meant to disparage her. I am simply trying to point out that she’s a more easily digestible female when viewed through the patriarchal lens of pop culture.] She’s smart but not arrogant about it, strong-willed but never disagreeable, empathetic but not easily led by her emotions, and most importantly, she’s always kind to the fandom’s male faves. She is, in almost every way, trademark "Best Girl" material, and Mika is her foil (at least in PP2). She’s set up to be the anti-Akane, both in personality and narrative function. If Akane trusts someone, Mika doesn’t. If Akane wants to bend the rules, Mika is rigid in upholding them. If Akane isn’t afraid of clouding her Hue, Mika is downright terrified.

Though it’s never stated outright, she probably hoped her senior Inspector would serve as a mentor figure, yet we see none of that from Akane, who often abandons Mika to chase down seemingly wild leads and appears to be stuck in the past, yearning for the original Division 01. (Mika even says as much to Ginoza in a novelization of the first film.) On top of that, I think it’s important to remember that we’re predisposed to side with Akane, as she is both our POV protagonist *and* the hero of the narrative. We have unprecedented access to her private moments, motivations, and methodology. We know she means well and trust that her unconventional strategy will pay off in the end. Mika does not. All she knows is that her direct superior is habitually breaking the rules, overloading her team with what feels like excessive busywork, and ignoring the more bureaucratic side of the job in favor of unconventional/unsanctioned detective work. If I’m being perfectly honest, I would also be submitting concerned reports to my boss.

[When Akane blatantly disregards Sibyl's judgement of bomber Akira Kitazawa, talking him down from a Crime Coefficient of 302 to 299, Mika confronts her for putting both their colleagues and nearby civilians in danger. This later proves to be the right call, as Kitazawa attacks Inspector Risa Aoyanagi and escapes police custody.]

[While investigating Kirito Kamui, Akane keeps her suspicions/theories close to the chest, leaving Mika and the rest of Division 01 in the dark as to her game plan.]

[Although Akane's decision to entrust Hinakawa with all 185 Halos proves to be the right one, it's understandable why Mika is taken aback by her placing so much responsibility on a single subordinate -- especially one with Hinakawa's history.]

Now, that’s not to say Mika’s feelings about Akane are purely altruistic. She’s definitely jealous of her senior Inspector and resents her standing within the Bureau, which makes her behave in ways both petty and vindictive. But I’d argue that this, too, is understandable, if not wholly forgivable, when viewed through Mika’s eyes. Picture this: You’re the youngest-ever recruit to a highly coveted position. You follow protocol to a T, are deferential to your superiors, and show a genuine aptitude for the job. Even your callousness toward the Enforcers (again, your childhood best friend was butchered by a latent criminal) is in accordance with Sybil’s will. Shitty, yes, but standard for someone raised within the Orwellian hellscape of 2100s Japan. And yet, everyone around you prefers your senior Inspector. Your subordinates defer to her when you’re the officer in charge (Hinakawa) and even help her game the system (Ginoza). The Chief tells you you’re boring, but displays obvious favoritism toward her. This severely harms your self-esteem and colors the way you interact with everyone around you. After all, it’s hard to feel like a valued member of the team when you’re being undermined and lectured at every turn. This doesn’t excuse Mika’s behavior, and if she didn’t evolve, I might understand some of the hate, but she does evolve. Spectacularly. She’s just not Akane, and that’s okay.

[While dealing with the hostage situation in PP2, Mika notices Hinakawa working on something off to the side. When she confronts him about it, he admits that he's acting on Akane's orders, even though Mika is technically the officer in charge.]

[A similar incident occurs in Sinners of the System: Case. 1, when Ginoza shoots down Mika's (admittedly ridiculous) plan, which she interprets as him once again siding with Akane over her.]

Again, this is good storytelling at work, and you can acknowledge that these two women are diametrically opposed and still appreciate -- hell, even like -- both of them for the well-written characters they are. After all, most Psycho-Pass fans like both Kougami and Ginoza in PP1 despite their many differences, not to mention the fact that Ginoza is (and I say this with love) a giant asshole. Let’s not forget, he was *this close* to microwaving Kougami at Chief Kasei’s behest. You can tell yourself he wouldn’t have, but are you sure? Are you really sure? But we forgive him, because he’s a man. Anyway, back to Akane and Mika. For reasons I’ll never understand, many fans find it borderline impossible to love two women with beef, whether it’s one-sided or mutual. There can only be one Best Girl, and everyone better be on her team. It reminds me of the Sansa vs. Daenerys discourse that gripped the Game of Thrones fandom in its last few seasons. This is doubly ridiculous in Psycho-Pass’s case, because Akane and Mika come to trust, respect, and depend on each other. But people decided to hate this 19-year-old forever, so none of that matters.

[Notice how Ginoza's gaze narrows ominously in the last frame, suggesting he might actually have pulled the trigger, thereby killing his best friend, had Akane not intervened.]

Now, let’s return to my earlier point about certain fans irrationally hating any female character they deem unworthy of their blorbo, husbando, etc. This is where Parasocial Relationships become extremely interesting. As mentioned above, Ginoza is my favorite character in Psycho-Pass, which I think is pretty common. While I myself have never been one for self-insertion or creating OCs to pair with my favorite characters, I understand that it’s a popular trend, and if you enjoy it, more power to you. It becomes problematic, however, when those who engage in self-shipping/OC-shipping decide to collectively gang up on the female character creators have paired (or hinted at pairing) with the object of their affection. Enter GinoMika. Now, I know what you’re thinking -- “But Mika’s a lesbian!” I don’t necessarily agree. Do I think she was in love with her best friend at Oso Academy? Yes. Do I think she had a crush on Yayoi at the beginning of PP2? Yes. Do I also think it’s obvious she currently has feelings for Ginoza, which have been steadily growing since Sinners of the System? Absolutely. For this reason, I interpret her as being both bisexual and demisexual. But that’s beside the point --

The point is that many Ginoza fans who ship him with themselves, their OCs, or Akane (remember, she’s Best Girl) seem to enjoy trashing on Mika like it’s an Olympic sport. And when I say “trashing,” I don’t mean your normal yet still disappointing level of ship nonsense; I mean unhinged, violent rhetoric that makes me feel like the Internet is a place where women can never win. And why? Because she was mean to him when she first started working for the MWPSB? As if he was oh-so-kind to the Enforcers who worked under him. I seem to recall him screaming at his father and threatening to “make him pay” for visiting his sick wife without permission. Oh, and then there was the time he introduced Akane to her new colleagues by telling her, “Don’t think that the guys you’re about to meet are humans like us.” But yes, Mika once told him that she didn’t want his opinion as a latent criminal, which is so much worse. And before you can say that she’s still a bitch to him, let me point out that she is a textbook tsundere. That’s how she flirts, shows affection, etc. She can never come right out and say what she means, because that would make her vulnerable. But she can surreptitiously tell Ginoza he better come back alive by insisting he return her special Dominator. You know, because it would be a real hassle if she had to replace that thing.

[The language Ginoza uses when introducing Akane to the Enforcers, including his own best friend and father, is deeply dehumanizing.]

[When Aoyanagi takes Masaoka to visit his estranged wife, Ginoza reacts with explosive anger, reprimanding his father in front of their colleagues and threatening to retaliate should he do it again.]

Which brings us, at long last, to the male portion of the fandom. While many female fans like to call Mika out for her more negative character traits, completely ignoring any and all growth she’s experienced since PP2, male fans tend to direct their anger, dislike, etc. in a much more aggressive manner. I wish I was exaggerating when I say that I’ve seen multiple posts praying for Mika’s rape and subsequent murder. You can’t dive into a single “Season 4 Wish List” thread without finding at least one person wishing extreme ill on Mika Shimotsuki. It's pure misogyny, classic “I’ll fuck the bitch right out of her” rhetoric, and it has no place in this fandom or any other. You would never see a male character being talked about in these terms. Consider this: There’s more fan fiction featuring Mika being raped or coerced into sex by her tormentor, Sakuya Togane, than her having a positive, consensual experience with any other character. Love her or hate her, that is extremely fucked up. We as a fandom need to do better, because once this type of misogyny can be weaponized against fictional characters, it becomes much easier to use against real people. Fan culture, though it might seem trivial, says a lot about us and our values.

[This is just a sampling of the comments you'll find on Twitter, Tumblr, Reddit, and other social media sites.]

That said, I’d like to end this essay on a more positive note, so let’s take a look at all the ways in which Mika has become a better, more compassionate human being over the course of the series...

By PP3, she shows obvious concern for her Enforcers, values their opinions, and treats them like integral members of her team. In an especially cute scene, she even fist-bumps Tenma Todoroki after they work seamlessly to defeat Koichi Azusawa’s henchmen. She also makes a point to attend the party thrown in the Enforcers’ quarters, as she now longs to be part of the gang -- a gang she would have actively shunned in PP2. 

[During First Inspector, Mika shows time and again that she's willing to work with and for her Enforcers.]

[As Chief, Mika realizes that Enforcers deserve respect and gratitude from their superiors. They are no longer dogs to her.]

[In PP2, Mika tells Ginoza she doesn't care what the Enforcers think of her. By PP3, however, we see her display concern that her team might find her dull. She wants to be liked and accepted by them.]

She becomes far more flexible with her co-workers, allowing Inspectors Arata Shindo and Kei Mikhail Ignatov plenty of freedom to conduct investigations as they see fit. Yes, she consistently scolds them (textbook tsundere behavior), but this is done in a manner far more humorous than anything else. We know she actually trusts them and has their best interests at heart; she just can’t bring herself to say it aloud. She also repeatedly takes heat from Chief Hosorogi on their behalf and is genuinely worried for Arata when it seems like Sibyl might “eliminate” him. The palpable relief on her face when she finds out he’s allowed to remain an Inspector speaks volumes.

[Throughout PP3, Mika allows Kei and Arata to play to their individual strengths, even if it means bending the rules -- something she would never have done in PP2 or the first film.]

[Just look at that excited face. No caption necessary.]

She goes out of her way to make sure the immigrant prostitutes saved by religious leader Joseph Auma are protected following his death. This is an especially big deal, since many of these individuals are latent criminals, and Mika is forced to ask her newfound nemesis, Frederica Hanashiro, for a favor in order to secure their safety. When she tries to pretend it’s no big deal, Frederica calls her bluff by pointing out that no one would stoop to asking someone they hate for help in order to protect people whose fates they don’t care about.

[Even though Mika detests Frederica, she puts the well-being of the immigrants before her own pride.]

In Sinners of the System: Case. 1, her distrust of latent criminals is permanently altered after dealing with Izumi Yasaka, whom she works tirelessly to rescue and comes to view as brave, capable, and worthy of reintegration into society. She also displays genuine concern for and lack of discrimination toward Takeya Kukuri, the young son of a latent criminal, and is horrified to discover that the latent criminal inmates at Sanctuary are being used as disposable tools to move nuclear waste canisters.

[Sinners of the System: Case. 1 marks a decided shift in the way Mika views latent criminals. Instead of lumping them all together, she begins to see them as individuals who deserve basic human rights.]

[Even though Mika is unable to save all the latent criminals at Sanctuary, she does everything in her power to ensure Yasaka and Takeya walk away clean.]

When Enforcer Mao Kisaragi turns out to be the “fox within the CID,” Mika and the rest of Division 01 are united in supporting her claim of innocence. Mika trusts (without concrete proof, mind you) that she’s telling the truth about being an unwitting accomplice, something she never would have done in PP2 or even the first film.  

[While the old Mika would have been the first person to distrust Kisaragi, here we see her standing up for the beleaguered Enforcer.]

She comes to respect Division 01 (Akane, Ginoza, Sugo, Hinakawa, Kunizuka, and Shion), views them as a surrogate family, and misses them once their unit is disbanded. In Sinners of the System: Case. 3, Frederica Hanashiro, who temporarily worked as part of their unit, says, “CID Division 01… They’re not just capable; they have a rare teamwork that overcomes the barrier between Inspectors and Enforcers.” Yes, this is mostly due to Akane’s guiding influence, but it’s clear Frederica is talking about the whole team. It’s taken Mika years to get there, but she is now definitely part of the group, not a jealous outsider looking in. In fact, even Mika’s obvious dislike of Frederica in PP3 is a clear result of this affection. After finally finding a place to belong, she feels as though Frederica swooped in and stole her found family, leaving her right back where she started -- on the outside.

[Though she'll never admit it, Mika views Ginoza as both a mentor and a friend. When he leaves the PSB to join SAD/MOFA, she misses having him around.]

[During her lowest moment in PP2, a jealous Mika actually hopes that Akane's Hue will darken. In Sinners of the System: Case. 2, she pleads with her to take her own safety more seriously. It's clear a big change has occurred in the intervening years.]

[Instead of feeling constant competition with Akane, by PP3, Mika is finally able to give her her due. It's clear they trust and respect each other despite their many differences.]

She’s grown from an immature young woman who couldn’t bring herself to take responsibility for her failures -- most notably her involvement in Akane’s grandmother’s murder -- to a responsible PSB Chief who holds herself accountable for anything that goes wrong with her Inspectors and Enforcers. This is most evident in her reaction to Koichi Azusawa taking control of Nona Tower and subsequently endangering the lives of MWPSB faculty and agents. We first see inklings of this change near the end of PP2, when Kunizuka tells Mika she’ll never forgive the person who gave up Aoi Tsunemori’s location, and Mika responds in kind. It’s clear that she’s not merely parroting a response to save her own skin but is deeply troubled and filled with regret over her own actions.

[In PP2, Mika is constantly blaming others for her mistakes. By First Inspector, she's owning mistakes she didn't even make.]

[Mika trusts her team so much, she's willing to put her job on the line.]

[Although Mika doesn't come clean to Kunizuka about her role in Aoi Tsunemori's death, it's clear she’s haunted by it. Later, when she confesses the truth to Ginoza, he admits to feeling a similar guilt over the way he treated his late father, telling Mika they'll have to bear their respective shame silently for the rest of their lives.]

And lastly, I believe the biggest example of Mika's growth can be found in what is arguably her most important relationship -- the one she shares with Ginoza. Whether you view them as mentor/mentee, begrudging friends, potential love interests, or all three, you can't deny that they have one of the most interesting and entertaining dynamics in the series. As mentioned above, when Mika first meets Ginoza, she views him as a cautionary tale. His demotion from Inspector to Enforcer is her worst nightmare, something that could conceivably happen to her, though she'll never admit it. Because of this, she treats him with hostility, disregarding his opinions and shunning his advice. But the longer they work together, the more we realize that Ginoza brings out the best in Mika -- and vice-versa. His calm, cool demeanor tempers her fiery spirit, and her enthusiasm makes him feel like he still has a purpose. By the time PP3 rolls around, he's become her #1 confidant, the person she calls whenever she has intel to share, grievances to air, etc. And you can't deny that Mika is the one person who makes Ginoza funny. Their flirtatious banter is genuinely charming and shows the softer, more human side of both their characters.

[Given her history with latent criminals, Mika refuses to listen to Ginoza, even when he's coming from a place of experience and genuinely trying to help her.]

[After working together for several years, Mika learns to value Ginoza's opinion and even feels proud when he compliments her.]

[During the Sanctuary case, Ginoza admits to both Akane and himself that being an Enforcer isn't so bad, as long as Mika is the one calling the shots. He knows she has a good heart, and working for her reminds him why he joined the MWPSB in the first place.]

[Notice how Mika's body language changes from PP2 to Sinners of the System. She now looks at Ginoza with appreciation and, in certain instances, affection. The fact that he views her the same way speaks volumes about how far their relationship has come.]

If you made it to the end of this mammoth post, thank you for sticking with me. Hopefully, we can all treat Mika with a little more patience, kindness, and respect when PP4 arrives.

[cosmossystem]

neurodivergence IS a disability and not acknowledging that is ableist

some autistic people need caretakers, are they not disabled? some people with panic disorders or agoraphobia physically cannot go outside, are they not disabled? people with severe social phobias cannot hold a job or support themselves, are they not disabled? people with addictions physically cannot go without their substance and are often discriminated against because of it, are they not disabled? plenty of people with mental illness have physical pain and symptoms to the point where it is indistinguishable from a chronic illness, are they not disabled? what about people with amnesia?

do you think being neurodivergent means theyre "just sad" and not actually sick in the literal brain? do you think theyre "pretending to be disabled"? is that not what abled people say to you all the time? do you enjoy turning that on your own community? are you proud of that?

on the flip side, plenty of people with chronic illness arent disabled. plenty of them go their entire lives without even noticing or knowing or even think its normal. many even recover. if you try to lump everyone into the neat box of "physically ill and disabled" and "mentally ill and able-bodied" you are going to get nowhere real quick.

because dis/abled are medical terms used by the government to describe how you (dont) function in a capitalist society, and not an indicator of the pain you go through. you arent disabled because you have an illness: youre disabled because you cant support yourself. thats it.

invisible and neurological disabilities belong in your disability rights movement, always

[liauditore]

hey guys not to get too into it but would anyone be in favour of a weird tag specifically for scott stuff? I usually don't maintag my art of him anyway so if you've got that blocked it won't help. or do we simply not care enough lol

[todds-rwby-liveblog]

Anyone making fun of this shot either never took a 1st aid class or never paid attention in them and it fucking shows. Stfu please <3

[thatgrainfellow]

anyways, apparently there’s cc versus c discourse going on so i’m just gonna drop this clip from pixlriffs and leave

[wolf-skins]

online leftists are some of the dumbest motherfuckers alive

[communistkenobi]

If, as Isaac West observes, use of the public bathroom is “one of the most, if not the most, quotidian practices of citizenship,” then this chapter argues that surveillance criminalizing public bathroom use is one element of a larger effort to secure citizenship and spatial belonging through the apprehension of physical difference. [...]

Writing about the concept of civilization in the late nineteenth-century United States, Gail Bederman describes it as an “explicitly racial concept” that “denoted a precise stage in human racial evolution”: one that had evolved past primitive or barbaric characteristics. Drawing on Darwinism, this logic rationalized white supremacy through claims that people of color simply had not developed in the same ways or at the same rate as white people, situating civilization itself as a racial characteristic and producing and solidifying distinct racial categories. Bederman notes that gender was crucial in distinguishing civilized societies from the less advanced, with the former identified in part by clear binary gender divisions. [...] Moreover, in the era of formal Jim Crow, while bathrooms marked for white people were typically separated into men’s and women’s spaces, those labeled “colored” were often unmarked by gender at all, a practice that aligns with civilizational discourse. [...]

Yet citizenship status and gender status cannot be pulled apart [...]: just as the previous two chapters of this book traced specific aspects of the Department of Homeland Security that produce and rely on a gendered citizenship, we might consider how campaigns for neighborhood safety and family values regularly invoke a kind of good citizenship that is determined in part through gender attributes. [...]

We need only consider the emphasis on birth certificates to understand the extent to which anxieties about citizenship undergird these bathroom scenes, since those documents mark not only state-approved sex designation, but also legal citizen status. In the most formal sense, birth certificates purportedly confirm citizenship and thus one’s legal belonging to the nation-state. At the same time, they can serve as evidence of citizenship in a more informal or cultural sense: if producing appropriate paperwork is one way of complying with state regulations and requests, then doing so performs good citizenship. [...]

Discourses of bathroom contagion merge fears of “real germs” with “the fear of the other”; hence, public toilets provoke more anxiety than other germ-riddled public objects like computer terminals and doorknobs. Concerns about bathroom cleanliness are as much about bodily interactions and the difficulty of regulating public space as they are about actual dirt or waste. The racial integration of some U.S. workplaces during World War II, for example, prompted tremendous white anxiety about shared bathrooms, even as Black people had long cleaned toilets and beds, prepared food, and cared for children as part of their domestic work in white households. But this “private service work reinforced racialized gender hierarchies in ways that public intimacy undermined them.”

— Toby Beauchamp (2019), Going Stealth: Transgender Politics and US Surveillance Practices, pp. 81 - 101

In his book, Beauchamp argues that anti-trans bathroom bills should be understood as a form of state surveillance that is inextricable from anti-immigration and border security practices: these bills deputize members of the public to conduct bodily assessments of other people to determine whether they meet the criteria of a 'good citizen,' giving them the power to report 'fraudsters' to the authorities if a transgender person is found inhabiting a public bathroom. The criteria by which these assessments are conducted are explicitly white supremacist ones; not only because the imagined body of the 'good citizen' is one that reflects the ideals of white, bourgeois, cissexual bodies* (as clearly demarcated, binary gender roles is a sign of advanced white civilization, and perversion of these demarcations is a perversion of white civil life), but also because one of the primary forms of evidence that you belong in a gender-segregated public space (such as a bathroom) is a birth certificate, one issued by the state - as he says: "if producing appropriate paperwork is one way of complying with state regulations and requests, then doing so performs good citizenship." (p 93). Beauchamp criticizes the framing that trans people are treated like "second class citizens," as it accepts the white racial imaginary of (white) trans people being unfairly denied the benefits of full white citizenship; we should therefore understand gender segregated spaces not as a "remix" of "old" "historic" forms of racial segregation, but as a contemporary enforcement mechanism of it. Binaohan emphasizes this in their 2014 book Decolonizing Trans/Gender 101, arguing that non-white trans people are always "in public," denied any sort of private realm; they are always visible and marked as potential threats to white citizenship. (p. 39)

This is likewise reflected in Jenny Evang's 2022 work Is Gender Ideology Western Colonialism?, where she argues that anti-trans discourse situates the presumed natural state of 'sex' as being corrupted by an overly decadent form of Western cultural advancement, which is both degenerating the Western world and 'duping' the Global South into forsaking their relationship with nature, an argument that "[frames] “non-Western societies” as “more traditional” when it comes to gender, sexuality, and the family, since “gender ideology” has not yet gone as far there as in the West. Thus their argument relies on essentializing the very same conceptualization of “cultural difference” that structures femonationalist arguments in the first place, namely, that racialized, imagined elsewheres are stuck in a more traditional gender pattern, unable to keep up with the rampant development of the West." (p. 370). Locating the origin of transgenderism in the West reproduces notions of civilizational development, where the West is secure in its supreme cultural position but has merely gone "too far," "in the wrong direction," creating the circumstances of its own downfall - a downfall which is attributed both to mass immigration (particularly immigration of Muslims) and Marxism. (p. 372)

Fears of 'gender ideology' engulfing the Western world are inextricable from concerns about the maintenance of white social hygiene, as 'gender ideology' has been called "Ebola from Brussels" (p. 371), linking the corruption of binary, hierarchical, cissexual gender to a disease afflicting the body-politic of the white nation-state. The last paragraph of the quoted passage above from Beauchamp further demonstrates the fundamental interconnectedness between race, gender, and hygiene: The racial integration of some U.S. workplaces during World War II, for example, prompted tremendous white anxiety about shared bathrooms, even as Black people had long cleaned toilets and beds, prepared food, and cared for children as part of their domestic work in white households. But this private service work reinforced racialized gender hierarchies in ways that public intimacy undermined them." (p. 101) Discourses regarding public hygiene are civilizational discourses, as a clean world is a civilized world, and a civilized world can only be a white world.

*Beauchamp explicitly brings up that one of the 'problems' of using biometric data to scan the public for potential terrorists or 'fraudulent citizens' is the white inability to tell the difference between people belonging to different racial groups, i.e., the idea that all non-white people look too much alike and therefore must undergo even more intense scrutiny (p. 95).

[clementine-kesh]

Excerpt from Haunted by the Narrative: Fictional Fiction at the End of the Early Internet Era, by H. Ma and T. O’Neill. Published in the Journal of Digital Archeology, Issue 43, pp. 87-93, May 2094:

In late 2022, a surge of posts on early social media site Tumblr (2007-2029) appeared discussing a film entitled Goncharov, supposedly directed by Martin Scorsese and with a tagline that called it “the greatest mafia movie of all time”. While references to this film exist on movie review sites such as IMDB (1990-present) and Letterboxd (2011-2036), they all appeared after the creation of the earliest posts discussing the movie on Tumblr. Despite the fact that Goncharov appears to be completely fictional, Tumblr users collaboratively generated a cohesive narrative for the movie including characters, themes, and story beats (Figure 3). The vast majority of these elements were communicated through the creation of fictional analysis, discourse, and memes reflecting the popular modes of discussing media on Tumblr during this time period. In Figure 4, a post from user “lesbiancousingreg” references in a derogatory manner fans of Goncharov who ignore the deeper meaning of the film in favour of focusing on “shipping” the various main characters together, a common complaint in online fan spaces at the time (Aiken et al. 2091). Exemplifying the ways in which the self-referential nature of Goncharov’s creation was used by those participating in it to hold up a mirror to themselves in a form of light-hearted self-parody.

[gothhabiba]

For Hobsbawm and Ranger, historicizing tradition means finding the historical means by which a tradition was first invented and then naturalized as tradition. Tradition is sharply distinguished from custom [...]. Custom simply refers to a set of practices that combine flexibility in substance with formal adherence to precedent [...]. Tradition, on the other hand, is a set of rituals and symbolic practices that are fundamentally ideological rather than practical. Tradition, as Hobsbawm uses it, is bad, because it is usually a kind of modern ideological mystification which is installed as a constant by the elites and governments whose real interests are thereby served. To show that traditions are invented is in effect to show that traditions are not true, nor real, not legitimate.

[...] The clearest example of how the "invention of tradition" ploy can go wrong can be seen in the article by Hugh Trevor-Roper, "The Invention of Tradition: The Highland Tradition of Scotland" (Hobsbawm and Ranger 1983, 15-41). Trevor-Roper begins by arguing that the kilt, the tartan, "the clan, and even the bagpipe, rather than being signs of great antiquity and cultural distinction, are "in fact largely modern." If these things existed before the Union with England at all, Trevor-Roper asserts, they did so only in "vestigial form," and as signs of "barbarism." Trevor-Roper goes on: "Indeed, the whole concept of a distinct Highland culture and tradition is a retrospective invention. Before the later years of the seventeenth century, the Highlanders of Scotland did not form a distinct people (15)." And so Trevor-Roper proceeds to demonstrate, with convincing historical flair and wit, the recent vintage of Scottish national culture.

The only problem with Trevor-Roper's argument is that while Hobsbawm debunks mystification in general as well as in the particular forms of its manipulation by states, ruling classes, or colonial powers, Trevor-Roper debunks the the necessary claims of Scottish nationalists — necessary because of the hegemonic terms that became set in the eighteenth century for nationalist or populist political aspirations — that Scotland had its own authentic traditions, epics, and histories. Indeed, Trevor-Roper's argument has a genuine colonial ring to it, for, in recounting the invention of clans and kilts and the forgery of the great epic Ossian, it uses smug notions of authenticity and historical privilege to contest what appear to be absurd claims about Scottish customs and traditions. At the same time, and with similar colonial resonance, Trevor-Roper uses his historical mastery to conceal his own moral position, one that appears to justify, at least to support, the unification claims of the British state. The effort to historicize tradition and custom can thus both expose the mystifications of cultural hegemony, and be appropriated by them. When historical methods are used as if the methods themselves are exempted from historical scrutiny and critique, history becomes a way of deauthenticating everything but its own authority, denigrating difference and displacing the categories and logics of historical discourse.

– Nicholas Dirks, "Is Vice Versa? Historical Anthropologies and Anthropological Histories." In The Historic Turn in the Human Sciences. Terrence J. McDonald, ed. pp. 17–51. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. pp. 21–2.

[alwachart]

On Raphael and fandom discourse

I grow tired of writing the same thing every now and then when this topic comes up yet again, so I’m going to write my thoughts on one post and be done with it for good.

Here are my thoughts on “Raphael is bad in bed” discourse: when people with zero reading comprehension try to pass their loud take as canon. This is an analysis on fandom claiming “it's canon” and why it actually isn't.

For the devil’s sake let’s do this orderly, I believe he’d like that.

So these are the lines you get when you bed Haarlep and ask about Raphael’s performance. From here you can continue the game without killing Haarlep (let’s imagine we do this first) and use this information to mock Raphael, which results in you getting this line of dialogue lather when he he says “It’ll only take a moment to finish you”

This is an “I have a single incel brain cell” type of joke that forces Tav/durge to interpret a laugh and a “no” like a 15 year old incel guy roaming 4chan would. People are using it to say Raphael is a “two pump chump”and I…don’t get it. Maybe I’m too old for this fandom, who knows, but the way I see it this sentence is rooted in a fragile masculinity view on the issue of “bad s*x”. As a pan woman who has relations with any gender, it never crossed my mind that he was quick to finish when I heard the laugh and no, it didn’t because that's not what bad s*x is about. Believing so comes from a penis-centric interpretation, as if a pp is something necessary for pleasure during s*x, which it isn't, and how long you can use it as a measure of it, which again it isn't. The only person who needs a pp to feel pleasure during intercourse is the person who owns one. All in all, a very puerile and obviously wrong take. 

Real bad s*x lacks pleasure, it's icky, painful even, it makes your skin crawl and your insides twist. Best case scenario it is just boring and you’ll never see them again. So no, I don't think Raphael is “a two pump chump”, and I can say this isn't canon because nowhere in the game the dialogue states that as truth. It's an immature joke that's pushed on the player dialogue and fans fall for it like flies on honey. This aggressive rhetoric from a sector of the fandom is the only thing that makes it feel canon and has people claiming it is, repeating the line “bad in bed, bottom two pump chump” as often as you hear “cycle of abuse, Caz 2.0” in another corner of the fandom we all know very well. All because players lack critical thinking, life experience, a s*xual life or are simply too plain to understand the nuances of language and syntax.

On to the next line, because we not only have fragile masculinity here but also, you guessed it, homophobia! Yay!

This is the one that makes people say he’s a bottom. Oh boy, do I have things to say about this. Let’s start with a bit of syntax work!

To be on top or beneath: 

Here no one is talking about being a top/bottom, but rather where two bodies are positioned in a plane that works by the law of universal gravitation. It discloses zero information about pp placement of either one

Below, never on top, never: 

Listen, this is actually a rather homophobic take!! People jump to call Raphael a bottom in milliseconds as if 1- it’s something bad he should be mocked for, which even if he was…it isn’t, and as if 2- Haarlep said he's a bottom instead of what he actually says: that Raphael is physically under him when they have fun, well, when Raphael has fun, you know what I mean!

That’s it folks, there’s no more to it, nothing more deep to read between the lines. There’s no more lines. Any take saying “Raphael is a bottom” simply comes from people lacking reading comprehension and having juvenile minds.

So, the answer questions everyone is making over and over, is Raphael bad in bed? Is he a bottom? The answer is: we don’t know, but what we do know is Haarlep doesn’t enjoy s*x with him, they always f*ck with Raphael being a lazy mf beneath him (can’t blame him, I’d let the incubus do all the work and take my form too, double pleasure? Fyeah). Him being a bottom is fanon. Nothing bad in picturing a fictional character like one if it brings you joy, but If you keep saying it’s canon over and over you’re only ridiculing yourself and exposing the views you have on the topics mentioned above (masculinity and homophobia) for the world to see.

Make yourself a favour and maybe go read some books, educate yourself and expand your vocabulary a bit. Also if you're inexperienced maybe ask a varied group of people what they consider to be “bad in bed” before using your imagination, the answers might surprise you! I promise you'll see the word in a different manner once you do!

[lilacsupernova]

A post- postmodernist world of gender?

And at the turn of the millennium, something occurred with the term gender: it stopped wandering around, froze and turned to stone. Suddenly it was no longer a system to be subverted, but an individual identity – no longer a cultural construct, no longer even something people do. At that point, gender became something a person is, an eternal inner essence beyond culture and power structures, even beyond genitalia. Now, gender is said to be something innate that no society on earth can change. We are being told that gender emanates from within us and only we ourselves can know is truth – list your pronouns and I will know who you are! Once you discover your gender, there is no turning back and no doubt – this is the real you. You 'are' woman, man, non-binary, trans or agender and have therefore always been so.

This is a giant step away from queer theory. In fact, postmodernism and queer theory seem rather outdated. They were merely stepping stones that abolished the notion of material sex, whose ruins the new-fangled essentialism then built on. The grand narrative now returns, claiming to own the truth about gender. Cue the cliche's about pink/blue, dolls/weapons, makeup/machines, passive/active.

This ideological shift from sex, to sex/gender, to gender, to gender/sex, represents a shift from metaphysics to dialectical materialism to postmodernism to postmodern essentialism. However, seamless the change might appear, it is important to note that in gender identity theory, we are dealing with an idea that diverges significantly from queer theory in its basic tenets. Whereas queer theory saw everything as discourse and nothing as real, gender identity theory in fact sees gender as very real and innate. Whereas queer theory was engaged in a constant, parodic, satirical subverting of gender, gender identity establishes that the discovery of ones true gender is a final verdict – and a deadly serious matter. Whereas [Judith] Butler postulated gender was an external system, imposing itself on us through interpellation, making us succumb, gender identity theory sees gender as a truth coming from the inside.

This postmodern essentialism is strange indeed, a biological determinism without biology, where the idea of becoming who you want to be is combined with the belief in gendered souls. Yet this is the only possibility for patriarchy to return inside neoliberalism. This way, one maintains notions of individual liberty at the same time as strict rules on gender return with a full blast. (Patriarchy also returns outside the neoliberal paradigm, with a conservative backlash on abortion rights and a clamping down on female sexuality, but this current is unable to fully penetrate ideologically progressive societies and circles.) Biological determinism of old was monolithic and fateful: born in a woman's body, you were told your brain was unfit for higher office. There was no escape. Anyone trying to break boundaries would hit their head against a wall. As opposed to that, biological determinism of today, gender identity-style, is fragmented: body and soul are said to each have a sex of their own. Thus, an escape route is inbuilt: anyone who feels their gender role is too narrow is given the opportunity to change and find a 'truer' self. Both determinisms juxtapose gender and sex, but in reverse order: sex determines gender versus gender determines sex.

– Kajsa Ekis Ekman (2023) On the Meaning of Sex: Thoughts on the New Definition of Woman, pp. 93-4.

[metamatar]

In the age of Hindu identity politics (Hindutva) inaugurated in the 1990s by the ascendancy of the Indian People's Party (Bharatiya Janata Party) and its ideological auxiliary, the World Hindu Council (Vishwa Hindu Parishad), Indian cultural and religious nationalism has been promulgating ever more distorted images of India's past.

Few things are as central to this revisionism as Sanskrit, the dominant culture language of precolonial southern Asia outside the Persianate order. Hindutva propagandists have sought to show, for example, that Sanskrit was indigenous to India, and they purport to decipher Indus Valley seals to prove its presence two millennia before it actually came into existence. In a farcical repetition of Romanic myths of primevality, Sanskrit is considered—according to the characteristic hyperbole of the VHP—the source and sole preserver of world culture.

This anxiety has a longer and rather melancholy history in independent India, far antedating the rise of the BJP. [...] Some might argue that as a learned language of intellectual discourse and belles lettres, Sanskrit had never been exactly alive in the first place [...] the assumption that Sanskrit was never alive has discouraged the attempt to grasp its later history; after all, what is born dead has no later history. As a result, there exist no good accounts or theorizations of the end of the cultural order that for two millennia exerted a transregional influence across Asia-South, Southeast, Inner, and even East Asia that was unparalleled until the rise of Americanism and global English. We have no clear understanding of whether, and if so, when, Sanskrit culture ceased to make history; whether, and if so, why, it proved incapable of preserving into the present the creative vitality it displayed in earlier epochs, and what this loss of effectivity might reveal about those factors within the wider world of society and polity that had kept it vital.

[...] What follows here is a first attempt to understand something of the death of Sanskrit literary culture as a historical process. Four cases are especially instructive: The disappearance of Sanskrit literature in Kashmir, a premier center of literary creativity, after the thirteenth century; its diminished power in sixteenth century Vijayanagara, the last great imperial formation of southern India; its short-lived moment of modernity at the Mughal court in mid-seventeenth century Delhi; and its ghostly existence in Bengal on the eve of colonialism. Each case raises a different question: first, about the kind of political institutions and civic ethos required to sustain Sanskrit literary culture; second, whether and to what degree competition with vernacular cultures eventually affected it; third, what factors besides newness of style or even subjectivity would have been necessary for consolidating a Sanskrit modernity, and last, whether the social and spiritual nutrients that once gave life to this literary culture could have mutated into the toxins that killed it. [...]

One causal account, however, for all the currency it enjoys in the contemporary climate, can be dismissed at once: that which traces the decline of Sanskrit culture to the coming of Muslim power. The evidence adduced here shows this to be historically untenable. It was not "alien rule un sympathetic to kavya" and a "desperate struggle with barbarous invaders" that sapped the strength of Sanskrit literature. In fact, it was often the barbarous invader who sought to revive Sanskrit. [...]

One of these was the internal debilitation of the political institutions that had previously underwritten Sanskrit, pre-eminently the court. Another was heightened competition among a new range of languages seeking literary-cultural dignity. These factors did not work everywhere with the same force. A precipitous decline in Sanskrit creativity occurred in Kashmir, where vernacular literary production in Kashmiri-the popularity of mystical poets like Lalladevi (fl. 1400) notwithstanding-never produced the intense competition with the literary vernacular that Sanskrit encountered elsewhere (in Kannada country, for instance, and later, in the Hindi heartland). Instead, what had eroded dramatically was what I called the civic ethos embodied in the court. This ethos, while periodically assaulted in earlier periods (with concomitant interruptions in literary production), had more or less fully succumbed by the thirteenth century, long before the consolidation of Turkish power in the Valley. In Vijayanagara, by contrast, while the courtly structure of Sanskrit literary culture remained fully intact, its content became increasingly subservient to imperial projects, and so predictable and hollow. Those at court who had anything literarily important to say said it in Telugu or (outside the court) in Kannada or Tamil; those who did not, continued to write in Sanskrit, and remain unread. In the north, too, where political change had been most pronounced, competence in Sanskrit remained undiminished during the late-medieval/early modern period. There, scholarly families reproduced themselves without discontinuity-until, that is, writers made the decision to abandon Sanskrit in favor of the increasingly attractive vernacular. Among the latter were writers such as Kesavdas, who, unlike his father and brother, self-consciously chose to become a vernacular poet. And it is Kesavdas, Biharilal, and others like them whom we recall from this place and time, and not a single Sanskrit writer. [...]

The project and significance of the self-described "new intellectuals" in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries [...] what these scholars produced was a newness of style without a newness of substance. The former is not meaningless and needs careful assessment and appreciation. But, remarkably, the new and widespread sense of discontinuity never stimulated its own self-analysis. No idiom was developed in which to articulate a new relationship to the past, let alone a critique; no new forms of knowledge-no new theory of religious identity, for example, let alone of the political-were produced in which the changed conditions of political and religious life could be conceptualized. And with very few exceptions (which suggest what was in fact possible), there was no sustained creation of new literature-no Sanskrit novels, personal poetry, essays-giving voice to the new subjectivity. Instead, what the data from early nineteenth-century Bengal-which are paralleled every where-demonstrate is that the mental and social spheres of Sanskrit literary production grew ever more constricted, and the personal and this-worldly, and eventually even the presentist-political, evaporated, until only the dry sediment of religious hymnology remained. [...]

In terms of both the subjects considered acceptable and the audience it was prepared to address, Sanskrit had chosen to make itself irrelevant to the new world. This was true even in the extra-literary domain. The struggles against Christian missionizing, for example, that preoccupied pamphleteers in early nineteenth-century Calcutta, took place almost exclusively in Bengali. Sanskrit intellectuals seemed able to respond, or were interested in responding, only to a challenge made on their own terrain-that is, in Sanskrit. The case of the professor of Sanskrit at the recently-founded Calcutta Sanskrit College (1825), Ishwarachandra Vidyasagar, is emblematic: When he had something satirical, con temporary, critical to say, as in his anti-colonial pamphlets, he said it, not in Sanskrit, but in Bengali. [...]

No doubt, additional factors conditioned this profound transformation, something more difficult to characterize having to do with the peculiar status of Sanskrit intellectuals in a world growing increasingly unfamiliar to them. As I have argued elsewhere, they may have been led to reaffirm the old cosmopolitanism, by way of ever more sophisticated refinements in ever smaller domains of knowledge, in a much-changed cultural order where no other option made sense: neither that of the vernacular intellectual, which was a possible choice (as Kabir and others had earlier shown), nor that of the national intellectual, which as of yet was not. At all events, the fact remains that well before the consolidation of colonialism, before even the establishment of the Islamicate political order, the mastery of tradition had become an end in itself for Sanskrit literary culture, and reproduction, rather than revitalization, the overriding concern. As the realm of the literary narrowed to the smallest compass of life-concerns, so Sanskrit literature seemed to seek the smallest possible audience. However complex the social processes at work may have been, the field of Sanskrit literary production increasingly seemed to belong to those who had an "interest in disinterestedness," as Bourdieu might put it; the moves they made seem the familiar moves in the game of elite distinction that inverts the normal principles of cultural economies and social orders: the game where to lose is to win. In the field of power of the time, the production of Sanskrit literature had become a paradoxical form of life where prestige and exclusivity were both vital and terminal.

The Death of Sanskrit, Sheldon Pollock, Comparative Studies in Society and History, Vol. 43, No. 2 (Apr., 2001), pp. 392-426 (35 pages)

[xxlovelynovaxx]

The queer community: LOVE WINS. LOVE IS WHAT MAKES YOU QUEER. LOVE IS WHAT MAKES YOUR IDENTITY VALID. SAY LOVE WINS OR YOU'RE HOMOPHOBIC.

The majority of loveless aros: Nah actually stop forcing love wins on me.

The queer community: LOVE WINS YOU BIGOT.

The majority of loveless aros: Okay y'know what fuck you. Love loses.

A random aroace blog claiming to be a safe space: LOVE LOSES IS HARMFUL AND EXCLUSIONARY SAY "LOVE WINS WITHOUT US" AND EXCLUDE YOURSELVES OR THESE OTHER REPLACEMENT PHRASES INSTEAD, OR YOU'RE APHOBIC.

Us: Um, fucking no? Stop trying to replace a phrase that's a direct response to "love wins" being used in arophobic ways?

Them: HOW DARE YOU GET UPSET AT THE ALTERNATIVES WE OFFERED. YOU'RE A HYPOCRITE FOR NOT JUST RECOGNIZING THEY'RE NOT FOR YOU EXCEPT THEY ARE BUT ALSO WE'RE TRYING TO TELL YOU THAT THE PHRASE YOU USE IS UNACCEPTABLE WHEN ALL YOU TOLD US IS THAT IT WASN'T FOR US.

Us: Okay literally just go away. You don't get to make that decision for the whole community because of your discomfort. Actually we even recognize if you feel hurt but "harm" is a bullshit claim.

Them: ACTUALLY WE MISINTERPRETED THE PHRASE "LOVE LOSES" AND KNOW NOTHING ABOUT ASPEC COMMUNITY HISTORY SO IT'S YOUR FAULT WE WERE ABUSED. ALSO US CONTINUING TO WATCH YOUR BLOG WHEN YOU'VE BLOCKED AND FILTERED US AND BLOCK EVADING TO HARASS YOU AFTER AN ATTEMPTED DOGPILE (that only didn't happen because we've been harassed before in this way and were proactive about removing all possible avenues to contact us) IS YOU CYBERSTALKING US BECAUSE YOU'VE VAGUED US A COUPLE TIMES AND CONTINUED TO TALK ABOUT THE WIDER DISCOURSE AROUND THESE PHRASES. THIS CONTINUED HARASSMENT AND VIOLATION OF YOUR CLEARLY ENFORCED BOUNDARIES IS US DEFENDING OURSELVES. DON'T YOU KNOW THAT IF SOMEONE SAYS SOMETHING ABOUT YOU THAT YOU DON'T LIKE AND YOU CONFRONT THEM AND THEY WALK AWAY AND TALK ABOUT IT SOMEWHERE ELSE AND YOU KEEP FOLLOWING THEM AND AGGRESSIVELY GETTING IN THEIR FACE ABOUT IT THAT'S SELF-DEFENSE?!

Us: Cool. We don't know if we'll be termed from malicious mass reporting or log on and see more harassment. We have made every attempt at de-escalation, including making our own post from the very beginning, except for letting them silence us entirely. We're in a constant moderately triggered state and yet they keep playing the victim, and misdirecting blame at the most marginalized members of the aro community and the ones who refuse to assimilate and pander to the idea that the social construct of "love", rather than the liberation of all queer people, is what needs to win or makes us not deserve oppression.

Y'all are so baldly two-faced and manipulative it would be funny if it weren't so scary. It's like you keep looking in the mirror and pretending it's a window that I'm standing on the other side of when you shout all these accusations.

At least we can admit that when we accuse you of the things you've accused us of, it's easy to spin that into pretending we're doing "DARVO", despite the fact that you were the ones who attacked us, denied our accusations, and pretending like you were the victim instead of us in the first place and continue to do so. And we actually can point to specific things you're doing and explain WHY they're harmful, rather than just making baseless claims that aren't logically supported or that even rely on logical fallacies.

Or to sum up the above:

Queer community: You have to say love wins even if you don't love because love is what makes us human and worthy of liberation, and if you don't you're a bigot.

Aros: Fuck no, love loses

The post that kicked this all off: You have to say love wins even if you don't love because love is what fights hate and stands against war, and if you don't you're a bigot.

P.S. To claim "love wins" is an anti-war statement, while continuing not to provide evidence, is at best a baseless misrepresentation of bigotry as war and at worst blatant historical revisionism.

PPS almost all of these posts, except for ones we missed due to being triggered (so the vast majority of them) are tagged love loses for easy filtering, but then again if you'd been filtering the phrase in the first place any of the "harm" you claim is the fault of people who use it wouldn't have happened in the first place. Like, when someone who doesn't have power over you uses a phrase about something you claim you don't feel to the point where it bothers you, and you DON'T literally just throw the phrase into the "don't show me this content" function, which would allow you to interact with the majority of aro community posts still... that's on you. Full stop. (The abuse still isn't. That's on your abusers. Not on the aro community.)

[crippleprophet]

Hey Mac! Do you have any crip books or resource recs for crip sex/sexuality?

Feel free to delete if you're uncomfortable answering :]

do i ever! i actually did an essay for my master’s in disability studies on the topic of disabled people’s access to sex so a lot of these are sources from that (feel free to dm me for my paper!) & others are things i’ve collected for leisure (hah)

i’m bolding my favorites and italicizing ones i haven’t read but have been recommended / have on my list; as with everything, having read a piece + recommending it is not an uncritical endorsement, & i have various contentions with all of these pieces ranging from minor nitpicking to outright disagreement.

feel free to send an ask or dm if you want my thoughts on a particular work or need help obtaining a pdf!

books

Sex and Disability ed. Robert McRuer & Anna Mollow

The Sexual Politics of Disability: Untold Desires by Tom Shakespeare, Kath Gillespie-Sells and Dominic Davies

Unbreaking Our Hearts: Cultures of Un/Desirability and the Transformative Potential of Queercrip Porn by Loree Erickson. York University, dissertation submitted 2015.

McRuer, R. 2006. Crip theory: Cultural signs of queerness and disability. New York: New York University Press.

Kinked and Crippled: Disabled BDSM Practitioners’ Experiences and Embodiments of Pain. Emma Sheppard. Edge Hill University, dissertation submitted 2017.

Love, Sex, and Disability: The Pleasures of Care by Sarah Smith Rainey

intellectually disabled people / people with learning difficulties’ right to sex

Hamilton, C. A. 2009. ‘Now I’d like to sleep with Rachael’ – researching sexuality support in a service agency group home. Disability & Society. 24(3), pp.303-315.

Hollomotz, A. 2008. ‘May we please have sex tonight?’ – people with learning difficulties pursuing privacy in residential group settings. British Journal of Learning Disabilities. 37, pp.91–97.

Vehmas, S. 2019. Persons with profound intellectual disability and their right to sex. Disability & Society. 34(4), pp.519-539.

Significance of the attitudes of police and care staff toward sex and people who have a learning disability by A. Bailey & D. Sines. Journal of Learning Disabilities for Nursing Health and Social Care (1998), 2(3), pp.168-174.

sexual facilitation & making sex accessible

Bahner, J. 2016. Risky business? Organizing sexual facilitation in Swedish personal assistance services. Scandinavian Journal of Disability Research. 18(2), pp.164-175.

Linda R. Mona (2003) Sexual Options for People with Disabilities, Women & Therapy, 26:3-4, pp.211-221.

No Pity Fucks Please: A critique of Scarlet Road’s campaign to improve disabled people’s access to paid sex services by Tova Rozengarten and Heather Brook. Outskirts vol. 34, 2016, pp.1-21.

Julia Bahner (2013) The power of discretion and the discretion of power: personal assistants and sexual facilitation in disability services, Vulnerable Groups & Inclusion, 4:1, 20673.

BDSM, paraphilias, & alternative sex

Goldberg, C. E. 2018. Fucking with Notions of Disability (In)Justice: Exploring BDSM, Sexuality, Consent, and Canadian Law

Hollomotz, A. 2013. Exploiting the Fifty Shades of Grey craze for the disability and sexual rights agenda. Disability & Society. 28(3), pp.418-422.

Reynolds, D. 2007. Disability and BDSM: Bob Flanagan and the case for sexual rights. Sexuality Research & Social Policy. 4(1), pp.40-52.

Tellier, S. 2017. Advancing the discourse: Disability and BDSM. Sex & Disability. 35, pp.485-493.

Sheppard, E. 2018. Using pain, living with pain. Feminist Review. 120, pp.54-69.

Tyburczy, J. 2014. Leather anatomy: Cripping homonormativity at International Mr. Leather. Journal of Literary & Cultural Disability Studies. 8(3), pp.275-293.

Sheppard, E 2019, 'Chronic Pain as Fluid, BDSM as Control' Disability Studies Quarterly, vol. 39, no. 2.

other articles

Finger, A. 1992. Forbidden Fruit

Fritsch, K., Heynen, R., Ross, A. N., and van der Meulen, E. 2016. Disability and sex work: developing affinities through decriminalization. Disability & Society. 31(1), pp.84-99.

McKenzie, J. 2012. Disabled people in rural South Africa talk about sexuality. Culture Health & Sexuality. pp.1-15.

Shakespeare, T. 2000. Disabled sexuality: Toward rights and recognition. Sexuality and Disability. 18(3), pp.159-166.

Shildrick, M. 2007. Contested pleasures: The sociopolitical economy of disability and sexuality. Sexuality Research & Social Policy. 4(1), pp.53-66.

Wentzell, E. 2006. Bad bedfellows: Disability sex rights and Viagra. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society. 26(5), pp.370-377.

“‘Like, pissing yourself is not a particularly attractive quality, let’s be honest’: Learning to contain through youth, adulthood, disability and sexuality” by Kirsty Liddiard and Jenny Slater. Sexualities 2018, Vol. 21(3), pp.319–333.

non-academic texts

Andrew Gurza’s blog - andrewgurza dot com / blog

Disability After Dark podcast

A Quick & Easy Guide to Sex & Disability by A. Andrews

Cripping Up Sex with Eva

my cripsex tag, which i’ll add to this post, has other relevant content, & i welcome any additions from folks! all the best to you 💓

[antiradqueer]

Hey tumblr.

It's Luna, or more, someone of us who has no clue who they are right now. We feel like the embodiment of being sick and tired and just so done.

We have been thinking long and hard about what to write in this post or if we even want to make a post like this, but now that we're typing out these words, we don't know why we put it off so long.

We are permanently fucking off from the radqueer discourse. We can't take it anymore and we don't care anymore. We've lost all empathy and sympathy for everyone and everything involved in this shitshow, no matter which side they're on. The reason for this is not that we suddenly are neutral, we are still anti-radqueer, but we are so burned out and just start to dissociate the second we open the tags or see a radqueer post in the wild. We're naturally low empathy to begin with, but now every last ounce of that is completely gone when it comes to this topic, plus we just... don't care anymore. There's the 100th transnazi popping up? I don't care. Another "cisabuser" in the tags? doesn't matter. whatever. We're not a bad person, we are just done. We can't keep on doing this or this will eventually throw us into depression again and that might literally kill us. and I'm not going to let that happen.

when I think about radqueers, I feel so much anger, frustration and sadness - or more, that's what I felt. now all of that is just drowned by a dark cloud of tiredness and nothingness.

so, this is our goodbye. Knowing us, we will probably still roam the tags sometimes and depending who is fronting, some of us might even interact with discourse still, but like, officially, we are gone. (@ mod mew: if you could let us still have access to this account that would be dope af tho!)

I will also use this post to to encourage every anti-radqueer who's fighting tooth and nail to get blogs taken down and people banned, to step back for a minute, take a deep breath and think about if you really want to keep on doing this. we thought this would never take a mental toll on us, yet here we are. I'm not saying what you're doing is wrong, but I'm saying that maybe you could use your energy and will to fight for something else.

let's face it, radqueers will never be an actual threat to society. they are pathetic, sad people, hiding behind their screens, screaming "the future is radqueer!" over and over, but in reality this "movement" will burn to the ground eventually and they will go down with it.

do people get hurt in radqueer spaces? yes, they do and that's horrible (just a note as to how bad it's gotten with us: I write this and logically know that yes, it IS horrible - but I feel absolutely nothing. In all honesty, I currently don't care if people get hurt or not, because I can't care. it's like our brain shut off all emotions regarding this topic to protect ourselves). and I'm not saying you should stop offering them help, but I think you can stop worrying about the radqueers taking over society or whatever. if you feel this taking a toll on your mental health, please put yourself first. protecting your health and your life is always, ALWAYS more important that fighting strangers on the internet.

okay, in case you don't think of us as a total asshole with a heart of stone now and are interested in our plurality- and alterhumanity-focused tumblr life, here's out brand new system blog: @the-exodus-fleet And also our hosts blog: @talks-with-the-void

Take care of yourselves and thanks for every kind word and all the support we've got along the way /gen

PS: if any radqueer reads this and wants to celebrate this as a win or whatever, go ahead. if you need this to feel some joy in your sad, miserable little life, I'm not stopping you.

PPS: I still genuiely hope all radqueers eventually come to their sense and leave this bullshit ideology behind

PPPS: and to all radqueers who hide behind this label to abuse and groom other, I hope you lose all your friends and your family over this. you deserve no happiness.

[pleasecallmealsip]

“this is easier than posing the true problem”

Florence Gauthier: On the subject of Wajda’s “Danton”

Annales historiques de la Révolution française, No 251 (Janvier-Mars 1983), pp. 182-185

Certainly, all political discourse began with 1789, indeed, so much for François Furet’s wishful thinking that the Revolution is finished! (1) If there was a time in which 1789 founded the Republic, then there also came a time in which 1789 became the embryo of the proletarian Revolution. From teleology to teleology, today we have arrived at this: the French Revolution, according to Wajda, was an early draft of Stalinism.

It is essentially by psychologic methods that Wajda shapes his film to lead us deeper into these totalitarian hearts. And what comes first is fear.

The film bathes in oppression, the greenish, greyish, brownish colours, the harsh blue lighting, make the actors look diseased. Fouquier-Tinville is pale as linen, Saint-Just is bistre, Robespierre goes from yellow to grey and ends up in the most mortuary green imaginable on his bed of expiation. Not one “normal” head apart from that of Danton, the eyes are reddened, the teeth are unclean, the wigs are askew. Conversations between people are sharpened with a knife, not one smile, “people pout and sulk”, people yell instead of talk, people bark, several bursts of nervous laughter. Only Danton has a real human laugh and displays some trace of tenderness.

Not one feminine presence. Éléonore Duplay, the “fiancée” of Robespierre, rigid as the Puritanism that she presumably represents, slaps her little brother who cannot learn his table of the Rights of Man and of Citizen and weeps without a sound. Lucile Desmoulins is hard as a rock.

The angles of view are clogged up. All is cut off by corners of walls, by corners of streets, by narrow doors, by corridors, by railings. Every view is framed, driven along like hunted game. A noise from the deep perpetually grinds at the characters and the audience; far-away whispers from far-away people?

Not one “normal” voice, all are raspy, what an ordeal! The horrible bitter voice of Robespierre, the whimpering of Desmoulins, the barking of Saint-Just, the dog teeth of Billaud-Varennes. The figures…! They come out of the most sordid hovel imaginable. Is that Collot with his blackened eyes, his vermillion mouth open like a shop-window? That head of an old haggard, is that Couthon? Apart from Danton, all the others hail from the hideous underbelly of I don’t know which Hospital. The mediocrity, the gross vulgarity, the burden of chains weighing on all … this is hell. Is this the revolution? How horrible! Try as Danton might to stop this dance, he is caught up in the inexorable mechanics. Try as Robespierre might to reign in the process, he is carried away in the well-oiled mechanism that overpowers his illusions as a utopian, as a lover of Truth, of Justice, of Equality. He is the Conscience and he must pay for his folly. Hell is revolution.

⁂

Wajda wanted to give a psychological dimension to the Danton case. All this is in play from the very first scene, in which Robespierre, already green with envy, watches through his window Danton basking in the crowd. Danton is supposed to love Robespierre and finds joy in having humiliated him. Then comes a little tenderness: he lets himself be touched on the neck by forcing Robespierre’s hand up there, and he groans with pleasure. Robespierre refuses this love, he is presumably envious of Danton’s vitality, the vitality that he is incapable of. Hence Danton will die.

The relationship of Saint-Just – Robespierre is cut from the same cloth. Saint-Just is in love with Robespierre and incessantly circles him like a fly. He comes to celebrate victory after Danton’s death. Scene at bedside, Robespierre unwell. Saint-Just holds out his arms and his brilliant idea: he offers personal dictatorship to his idol. Robespierre refuses, he certainly does not want to be loved!

It must be clarified that no document at all backs up these interpretations and I ask myself, is this what “psychology” is, is this the humane and profound dimension? Is today’s trend to reduce the human being to these little connections?

Here we see Robespierre once more emasculated under a persistent legend, for the Sex of the Jacobins “works” well for many, and a vast literature please themselves by contrasting a corruptible, bon-vivant Danton, in short, a humane man, with a puritan Robespierre and thus, for one thing follows another in deduction, a frigid and despotic Robespierre. What is the point of hiding behind these oppositions reduced to differences in character when it was also about political conduct and about different interpretations of power? Robespierre did not abuse his position or his power to exercise sexual power, and thus we see him here accused of impotence (and of repressed homosexuality and of being unable to love and thus of despotism, etc, etc…) It is true that this is easier than posing the true problem, the problem of one aspect of power so concealed in Robespierre’s case and presented in Danton’s case as a trait of a human and “natural” character. In both these cases, the problem of power has disappeared. Is it understood that Robespierre was a young and beautiful man, elegant, refined, and that he had much success? I must naively recall this fact, since this opposition of characters that Wajda imposes is supposed to allow him to “explain” his characters and the revolution.

There is not one “woman” in this film. In the 18th century, were all relationships relationships between men? Wajda pairs up Danton-Robespierre, the two complementary aspects, the Flesh and the Conscience. Yet the Wajda’s talking point here is too Catholic for the era, it belongs to the 17th century and elsewhere. The Enlightenment’s humanism, the pantheist revolution, the thought of Nature – all this is simply absent. Why do we have to think of Robespierre disguised as the tortured Jesus and as an archbishop? (2)

Is this not a double-reading of the Danton-Robespierre pairing that is proposed to us? Danton the material for the west, Robespierre the passion, the folly for Poland. But no, this Catholic and masculine conception does not belong to the 18th century. No, Danton could not be reduced to animality, and Robespierre, anti-clerical, pantheist, the philosopher of Nature, is not the Catholic and romantic hero presented here.

⁂

This error of perspective is compounded with innumerable factual errors. Here are but a few of them: the ransack of the printing house of “Le Vieux Cordelier”, pure invention. Robespierre wanting to remove Fabre from David’s tableau, The Tennis Court Oath, pure invention (Wajda reaches a peak here: he accuses Robespierre of falsifying history, and it is he, Wajda, who is inventing this episode!), this archbishop costume on Robespierre preparing for the Festival of the Supreme Being, pure invention. Yet these inventions are not mere details, since they were intended to portray a character. It is by these little touches that Wajda establishes a parallel between the Terror and Stalinism, and he does not hesitate to present Robespierre as the chief of a totalitarian regime. This hardly acknowledges reality and the Robespierrists’ reflections on power and on democracy. Thus, Wajda makes Danton say this line: “the people have only one dangerous enemy, it is their government.” Yet we find out that it was Saint-Just that delivered it in his speech from 10th October 1793, establishing the “revolutionary government”. The perspective is bizarrely false. What did Saint-Just say? “You had energy, the public administration lacked it. You desired economy, the accountants did not follow up with your efforts. All the world has pillaged the State. The generals have waged war against their own army. The owners of productions and of foodstuffs, all the vices of the monarchy, at last, have joined forces against the people and against you.＊ A people have only one dangerous enemy, and that is their government; your government has waged war against you with impunity.” (3)

In the summer of 1793, Robespierre turned down a proposition to hand all power over to the Committee of Public Safety. The complex establishment of the “revolutionary government” must have allowed the application of a policy based on the popular organisations (agrarian law: the suppression of feudal dues; the parcellation of land; the price maximum: a fight against the high cost of living; waging civil war and war on the borders).

The Robespierrists, predicting that power naturally corrupts, took all possible precautions so as to prevent the organs of the “revolutionary government” from exercising tyranny on an institutional level. Thus, the Committee of Public Safety, which answered to the Convention, for the Convention alone governed, was re-elected every two months⁑ by the Convention. When we know that a vote in the Convention sufficed to eliminate the Robespierrists on 9 Thermidor, we should understand that power of a dictatorial nature was entirely outside of the Robespierrists’ conception. Thus, that Saint-Just could have offered Robespierre personal dictatorship is some notable nonsense. Furthermore, the Jacobins were never a uniquely powerful party, and they were a minority in the Convention as well as in the Committee of Public Safety.

⁂

Wajda presents a Danton who wants to pause the revolution and to enjoy life, that is to say, he wants to enjoy the wealth that the revolution has brought him. Since only the economic question is evoked, let’s talk about it. In the Montagnards’ programme, the fight against the high cost of living holds an essential place. Let us recall very quickly what this entails. After 29th August 1789, the Constituent declared “economic liberty”, and then, faced with resistance, “martial law” to facilitate its implementation, on 21st October 1789. This economic liberty accelerated the increase in prices, exacerbated by the creation of the assignat. Since no taxes (impôts) have been paid since 1789, the government departments resorted to money-printing. This resulted in an unprecedented economic crisis. Up to 1793, the departments of the government merely imposed martial law, so hundreds of people were repressed, massacred, and condemned. This was the period of liberal terror. Let us recall that the economic question was the principal cause of the fall of the Gironde on 31st May - 2nd June 1793.

Martial law was abolished on 23rd June 1793, and economic liberty was also abolished by establishing the price maximum in September. The prices of foodstuffs were raised by a third compared to the pre-assignat prices from 1790 and fixed at that, and wages were raised by a half: so, there was a relative rise in wages. To make the policy of the price maximum coherent, the Robespierrists called for the suppression of the assignat and a return to metallic money. The Convention, however, refused their calls systematically, and the so-called omnipotent Robespierre in the Committee of Public Safety was unable to obtain this suppression.

At the time of the Danton affair, the application of the maximum price limit was very severe, and the black market was growing. Only popular mobilisation allowed people to wrest every sack of grain from the producers. The Robespierrists depended simultaneously on the government and on popular mobilisation to effectively fight the rising prices. They did not succeed in this, and the reasons are still very poorly understood, for hardly any studies exist on the application of the agrarian law of Year II, or on the price maximum.

Wajda seems to be saying that the government is responsible for the economic crisis. That is doubtlessly the case, but the government itself was conflicted about what policy was to be followed, and this ought to have been clarified. It was in this context that the Dantonist offensive, sensing the weakening of the popular movement, was launched, demanding, among other things, to end the then-ongoing implementation of the anti-liberal economic programme. How could it be that it is the Dantonists who are presented as the “friends of the people”? Since we know that the abolition of the price maximum in Year III was followed by an appalling crisis, it is reasonable to doubt this. We shall therefore be honest and present them as the friends of the speculators, of the army suppliers, of those who purchased national property, in short, of the profiteers of the revolution. We will learn more by plainly stating what the problem at the heart of Year II was.

Florence GAUTHIER

＊This speech was addressed to the Commission, hence the difference between "the people" and "you". Recall Slavoj Zizek's claim that the Jacobins never was a Party that could create the People embodied in it.

⁑ This seems to have been an error. The Committee of Public Safety had its powers renewed by the Convention every month.

Notes in the original:

1 F. FURET, Interpreting the French revolution (Penser la Révolution française), Gallimard, 1978, and his interview in “Libération”, 17th January 1983, where, referring to Wajda, he compares openly, and for the first time, Robespierre to Stalin. One can compare this excellently with the latest book of J. -P. FAYE, Portable Politic Dictionary in Five Words (Dictionnaire politique portatif en cinq mots), Gallimard, 1982, which does not recognise in the Jacobin discourse the source of totalitarianism.

2 Albert MATHIEZ noted already in 1910: “the physiognomy of Robespierre has been really deformed for 20 years by republican historians such that talking today of the religious ideas of the Incorruptible might appear an impossible task. Robespierre, it is proclaimed, was a man with a narrow brain, a man of the old regime, a cold man of ambition, who wanted to reign over France and through the terror impose on her a counterfeit of Catholicism, the deism erected into the religion of the State.” Study on Robespierre, edited Sociales, reedited, p.157. As we see here Wajda takes us 70 years back.

3 SAINT-JUST, Political Theory, Seuil, 1796, p. 234.

I would like to thank @czerwonykasztelanic for offering to emend the draft.