#raymond amber

[choujinx]

HWANGNYEOUI BOSEOKAM (2021-?) by jyun & hongcha

[venusimleder]

Ph. Raymond Meier

[dalekofchaos]

The complete lack of a black protagonist in Life is Strange is disappointing

We've got 5 games and not a single game has gotten a single black protagonist.

I do love the series, but even I can see  a problem. A complete lack of black characters in the franchise. 

Found these two great articles that delves into the problem

Link 1

Link 2

None of the main characters are black. None of the secondary characters are black and the only black characters they have are side characters or background characters.

Like there was no reason whatsoever why Rachel, Warren, Kate, Steph, Ryan, Cassidy, Finn, Jacob, Sarah Lee or Chris couldn't have been black. Hell, there is no reason why Max, Chloe or Rachel couldn’t have been black.(although personally I would've loved it if Rachel was Indigenous)

And the black characters we do have is really bad in terms of representation.

Wells, a drunk and crooked  principal.

Hayden, a stoner and member of the Vortex Club

Drew North, a bully jock who got in the drug trade

Charlotte, a likable character, but who's anger is consuming her and blaming others around her, tho I understand where she is coming from, but her characterization tends to be reminiscent of the unfortunate angry black woman stereotype. And just so happens to own a pot shop...

Ms Grant, Mikey, Penny, and Joey the Nurse seem to be the only positive black characters in the series.

And we still have not gotten a single black protagonist in the franchise.

I find it weird that we seemingly have little good black representation that isn't just associated with drugs.

Like I’m not trying to say DONTNOD, D9 or Square Enix are racist or anything, but I’m saying they need to do better when it comes to representation. 

We were robbed of a black main character for Life Is Strange and are instead getting a cash grab sequel with Max who might as well be a completely new character seeing as how they’re throwing away everything that Max experienced and learned and everything we loved from LIS 1 to make it.

But considering how the fandom treated Sean and Daniel and their story, I can only imagine the disgusting hate a black protagonist would get in an extremely white franchise.

[grrl-beetle]

Vogue

[amberraymond]

Happy anniversary to the nanny

[mariocki]

The Suspect (1944)

"Don't you think that an innocent man might be more tolerant in the cause of justice?"

"No, I don't. I think an innocent man might behave precisely as I have."

"Well, I'm sorry, but I can't agree with you."

"Why don't you arrest me? Here I am."

"I'd like to, believe me, but unfortunately I can't."

"No, you've run against a blank wall. You take my advice and don't beat your head against it."

[yappacadaver]

Top notes

Black pepper || Bergamot || Sandlewood

Middle notes

Liqour || Myrrh || Lavender

Base notes

Amber || Leather || Almond

[midnight-nightrose]

When you accidently create almost the same character 3 times :|

[dreamberry24]

Sketches from last night/today :)

[choujinx]

HWANGNYEOUI BOSEOKAM (2021-?) by jyun & hongcha

[venusimleder]

Ph. Raymond Meier

[dalekofchaos]

How is Blackwell even a school?

Blackwell is insanely weird.

It has dorms but also lockers.

A barely functioning staff. We have two teachers, a principal, a custodian and a head of security. There is Mrs Hoida, but we never see her in LIS or BTS. Mr Keaton exists in BTS, but we never hear about him in LIS. There’s a nurse, but we never see her. There’s a coach for the Otters and Bigfoots, but neither Max nor Chloe are athletic, so we never see them. According to Chloe’s report card. There is an Art teacher, Phy Ed teacher, Practical Math and Life Skills Teacher, Social Sciences teacher and Personal Health Teacher. But we never see any of them.

Only two whole classrooms in the whole game.

It’s apparently the only school the town has and also is a super expensive exclusive private school.

It’s a high school that recruits world renowned artists and scientists to teach basic high school level classes.

It’s graduates supposedly go on to become famous successful people yet the school itself resides in a tiny rundown coastal Oregon town.

It costs a fortune to attend and yet it looks like it hasn’t been seriously repaired or renovated since the 1970’s.

Hell it doesn’t even have security cameras on campus.

According to google

"According to a student survey from the National Center for Education Statistics, 86 percent of middle school and high school students have security cameras installed in their schools."

Despite David being an asshole, it's standard procedure to have cameras up in the first place. David is wrong to put cameras in his home to spy on Chloe, but not wrong to have cameras in the school. If there were cameras already placed in Blackwell.

Frank Bowers would never be able to sell on school grounds

Frank never would've been close to Rachel

Nathan never would've gotten away with bringing so many illegal drugs to the Vortex Club

Kate never would've been dosed

Speaking of David. Why is he just a security officer? Why isn't he a cop? Wouldn't it make sense for David to work two jobs since the Prices are in debt? As a cop and as a security officer? The most unrealistic thing about LIS. David was too unstable to be a Arcadia Bay cop. The police have no standards and I'm shocked that David wasn't an instant recruit considering how the police in America wants people with low IQs and doesn’t care for obvious red flags.

Also, School Resource Officers exist.

Then there is the fact that Max…BARELY uses the school of her dreams. We get one or two classes at best. Going to Ms Grant’s class does not count cause Max only went there to help Warren.

Chloe not using Blackwell makes sense. She hates the damn place and would rather learn about Rachel’s anatomy break the rules and chill in the junkyard.

But with Max, shouldn’t she actually be attending classes? I mean if I were attending a big private school at Blackwell, but didn’t attend classes. I think my ass would’ve been suspended within weeks and my tuition set on fire.

What kind of school, a HIGH school lets their students freely roam the halls, leave school grounds or chill in the dorms instead of doing class work?

For that matter. Why the fuck is Blackwell Academy a fucking High School? Why not a college? Art Colleges exists. I'd rather Blackwell be a college and for everyone to be of age, it'd explain a lot of stuff such as the drugs, parties, guns, and just a lot of stuff. Not to mention going through college you are still figuring out stuff, what you want to do with your life, and still figuring out who you are. Would've imo a lot better and explained why half the shit that was happening was.

I get this is an episodic game and there are more pressing concerns, but honestly Blackwell should’ve been like say Bully. We do the day’s worth of classes and then progress to the story. Hell, you could even implement a sort of friendship system. Maybe you pick who you sit next to and that raises Max’s friendship with them. Anything would’ve been better than Max skipping school altogether and just focusing on Chloe. Like we have an entire school, we should not have our focus be on Chloe. There could’ve been ways to work classes into the main story, but no. Blackwell is just background noise and it shows.

But the lack of a full faculty staff or an actual care that anyone actually attends class? What kind of fucking school is this?

[nobrashfestivity]

Kaigyokusai Masatsugu (1813–1892) "No Evil" Monkey Wine-colored amber Raymond and Frances Bushell Collection (AC1998.249.87)

more

[amberraymond]

Mrs.brown’s boys Wins NTA for best comedy

[odinsblog]

Thousands of Ukrainian children put through Russian ‘re-education’ camps

New report details network of dozens of Russian camps aimed at giving children pro-Moscow views, with some children detained indefinitely

At least 6,000 children from Ukraine have attended Russian “re-education” camps in the past year, with several hundred held there for weeks or months beyond their scheduled return date, according to a new report published in the US.

Russia has also unnecessarily expedited the adoption and fostering of children from Ukraine in what could constitute a war crime, the Yale Humanitarian Research Lab report found. The report was funded by the US state department.

Since the start of the war nearly a year ago, children as young as four months living in the occupied areas have been taken to 43 camps across Russia, including in Moscow-annexed Crimea and Siberia, for “pro-Russia patriotic and military-related education”, said the report.

In at least two of the camps, the children’s return date was delayed by weeks, while at two other camps, the return of some children was postponed indefinitely.

Russian authorities sought to provide a pro-Moscow viewpoint to children through school curricula as well as through field trips to patriotic sites and talks from veterans, the report found.

Videos published from the camps by the occupying regional authorities show children in the camps singing the Russian national anthem and carrying the Russian flag. In separate videos, teachers, employed to teach the children, talk about the need to correct their understanding of Russian and Soviet history.

Children were also given training in firearms, although Nathaniel Raymond, a Yale researcher who oversaw the report, said there was no evidence they were being sent back to fight.

“Mounting evidence of Russia’s actions lays bare the Kremlin’s aims to deny and suppress Ukraine’s identity, history, and culture,” the US state department said in a statement. “The devastating impacts of Putin’s war on Ukraine’s children will be felt for generations.”

There is little information on the explanation given to children regarding delays in their return. An official at the Medvezhonok camp told a boy from Ukraine that his return was conditional: the children would be returned only if Russia recaptured the town of Izium, the report said. Another boy was told he wouldn’t be returning home due to his “pro-Ukrainian views”, the report said.

Some parents were told that their children will be released only if they physically come to pick them up. Relatives or people given power of attorney were not allowed to pick up the children. Travel from Ukraine to Russia is difficult and expensive, and men between the ages of 18 and 60 are forbidden from leaving the country, in effect meaning only the mothers of the children may retrieve them.

“A significant portion of these families are low-income and have not been able to afford to make the trip. Some families were forced to sell belongings and travel through four countries to be reunited with their child,” the report found.

One of the camps is located in Magadan oblast, roughly 6,230km (3,900 miles) from Ukraine. This puts it “roughly three times closer to the United States than it is to the border of Ukraine,” the report said.

Raymond said that Russia was in “clear violation” of the Fourth Geneva Convention on the treatment of civilians during war and called the report a “gigantic Amber alert” – referring to US public notices of child abductions.

The Russian activity “in some cases may constitute a war crime and a crime against humanity”, he told reporters.

Ukraine’s government recently claimed that more than 14,700 children had been deported to Russia, where some had been sexually exploited.

(continue reading)

[gatheringbones]

[“Feminists’ discomfort with proximity to sex workers reached a fever pitch during the so-called ‘sex wars’ of the 1980s and 1990s. In this era, radical feminists locked horns with ‘pro-sex’ feminists over the issues of pornography and prostitution. The radical-feminist perspective on sex work holds that it reproduces (and is itself a product of) patriarchal violence against women. This analysis could extend to all heterosexual sexual behaviours, as well as public sex and kink (commonly known as BDSM, for ‘bondage, domination, submission/sadism, masochism’).

The focus in this era was on censoring porn and ‘raising awareness’ rather than addressing prostitution through criminal law directly, but a nonetheless vehement anti-prostitution stance became commonplace in the feminist movement. Writer Janice Raymond stated that ‘prostitution is rape that’s paid for’, while Kathleen Barry said buying and selling sex was ‘destructive of human life’.

The defence of porn and prostitution that followed in response was based on ideas of sexual liberation through nonconformist sexual expression, such as BDSM and the ‘queering’ of lesbian and gay identities. Many ‘pro-sex’ or ‘sex-radical’ feminists posited that not only could watching porn be gratifying and educational, it could upend patriarchal control over women’s sexual expression. Moreover, that the sex industry was sticking two fingers up at the institution of marriage, highlighting the hypocrisy of conservative, monogamous heteronormativity. While some people who fought for sexual liberation were sex workers – such as LGBTQ and AIDS activist Amber Hollibaugh – many sex radicals advanced their arguments from a non–sex worker perspective. Defending porn often meant defending watching it, rather than performing in it.

Radical feminists famously described sex radicals as ‘Uncle Toms’* pandering to the primacy of male sexuality, while they in turn were derided as ‘prudes’ invested in preserving sexual puritanism. Rather than focussing on the ‘work’ of sex work, both pro-sex feminists and anti-prostitution feminists concerned themselves with sex as symbol. Both groups questioned what the existence of the sex industry implied for their own positions as women; both groups prioritised those questions over what material improvements could be made in the lives of the sex workers in their communities. Stuck in the domain of sex and whether it is ‘good’ or ‘bad’ for women (and adamant that it could only be one or the other) it was all too easy for feminists to think of The Prostitute only in terms of what she represented to them. They claimed ownership of sex worker experiences in order to make sense of their own.

Anti-prostitution activist Dorchen Leidholdt spoke to this feminist impulse; ‘this de-individualized, de-humanized being has the function of representing generic woman … She stands in for all of us, and she takes the abuse that we are beginning to resist.’ It was in this context that former prostitute Andrea Dworkin’s work became highly influential in the movement, and set a new tone for criticism of sex work. The Prostitute, she said

lives the literal reality of being the dirty woman. There is no metaphor. She is the woman covered in dirt, which is to say that every man who has ever been on top of her has left a piece of himself behind … She is perceived as, treated as – and I want you to remember this, this is real – vaginal slime.

Her confrontational writing style – and her experiences in the sex trade – helped to legitimise and normalise similar usage of graphic and misogynist language in ‘feminist’ discussions of sex workers and their bodies. Barry, a contemporary of Dworkin, likened prostitutes to blow-up dolls, ‘complete with orifices for penetration and ejaculation’, while Leidholdt wrote that ‘stranger after stranger use[s] her body as a seminal spittoon … What other job is so deeply gendered that one’s breasts, vagina and rectum constitute the working equipment?’ Academics Cecilie Høigård and Liv Finstad wrote of women who sell sex that ‘at the core they experience themselves as only cheap whores’.

Sex working feminists have long found themselves harshly excluded, and not only by de-humanising language in academia, but by explicit lack of invitation into spaces. Kate Millett recalls a feminist conference on prostitution, held in 1971. Disgruntled working women arrived to demand a seat at the table: An inadvertent masterpiece of tactless precipitance, the title of the day’s program was inscribed on leaflets for our benefit: ‘Towards the Elimination of Prostitution’. The panel of experts included everyone but prostitutes … all hell broke loose – between the prostitute and the movement. Because, against all likelihood, prostitutes did in fact attend the conference … They had a great deal to say about the presumption of straight women who fancied they could debate, decide or even discuss what was their situation and not ours.

Unlike the hostile environment of radical feminism, sex radicals were welcoming and supportive to sex workers. This influence helped shape the movement’s growth. In 1974, COYOTE hosted the first National Hookers’ Convention. The bright orange flyer nodded to the way prostitutes had been shunned from the women’s movement: emblazoned with a hand touching a vulva, it proclaimed, ‘Our Convention Is Different: We Want Everyone to Come’”]

molly smith, juno mac, from revolting prostitutes: the fight for sex workers’ rights, 2018