#she is part of an oppressive culture and that will influence her behaviour and words

[gudvina]

In regarding to Effie/Hayffie (just briefly mentioned but i will include it) I feel like Katniss being a limited narrator (in the sense that she doesn't take a third party approach, and tells her story from the point of view she held while living its events) is something that's important to take in consideration.

What we do know of book Haymitch and book Effie (more so the latter) is limited to what Katniss sees firsthand.

Solely speaking about Effie, Katniss tells us a few things:

1. she's compassionate towards her and Peeta, and towards other victors too ("Oh, not Cecilia..." and her talking about Chaff)

2. Haymitch has an habit of defending her, and she does the same in the limits of her capacity

3. She is very observant; she sees that Katniss isn't able to sleep and gives her sleeping pills. She cares.

4. She was the one who proposed the tokens for the 75th HG.

Of course we don't get her full point of view or opinion, but that'd because Katniss genuinely didn't know, nor does she know about what happened to her in MJ until Flavius, Venia and Octavia tell her.

There is a lot that's said between the lines, that's easily forgettable but that make up her character and give us more context about what goes on with her.

Again, she's a character that's highly open to interpretation, because we don't know anything about her apart from these little tidbits Katniss shows us, and so it goes with Hayffie, if we want to make a stretch.

We only know that they often bicker, but we also see her defend Haymitch's role as a mentor, ally with him for Katniss and Peeta's sake and, again, we are told Haymitch will defend Effie.

And we are also told, in the end, that Haymitch and Plutarch take great pain to keep her alive.

Can't stress enough that the interpretations are endless, but the idea of Effie being more than a morally grey character (like an antagonist, or worse, a villain) is a stretch, given what we do know about her.

[piracytheorist]

I watched and react to Lindsay Ellis' 100 minute long "apology" video so you don't have to

First of all, the word apology is in quotes because she herself on that video mocks the whole concept of an apology video, which is fair cause truly that whole concept is fucked up, but I didn't want to call it excusing either because that's not what she does either... for some parts. Long post ahead.

So into the video, homegirl starts by saying she was recently in a restaurant. Recently. Restaurant. I'm not gonna make a deep research to find out where she lives, she mentions she's from Tennessee but idk if that's where she lives now, so unless she's somewhere in like Australia or New Zealand or any other place with significantly low numbers of covid cases... what is she doing, not only going into a restaurant during a fucking pandemic, but also telling it to her entire 1 million subscribers specifically and the whole world in general? I think it shouldn't be said it's irresponsible as it is, it's also a bit insensitive considering so many of us don't get to have that kind of luxury as it is now, either as customers that don't get to enjoy an evening/night out or as restaurant owners that watch their businesses collapse. Small thing to complain, but still.

That said, personal note, because I know some of my followers live down there in Australia or New Zealand; I'm happy for you, but I'm also jealous, and in a weird way right now being in a country with few covid cases is kind of a privilege. So enjoy that for yourselves.

Ok, second, introducing the concept of cancel culture, she goes on to talk about some cases where two white people made some well-intended but overall insensitive jokes and she talked about how their behaviour was, particularly, white privilege. Ignoring the fact that she's showing her own privilege by saying that she went at a restaurant during a pandemic, she says it all in the whole meaning of how cancel culture focuses on targeting, bullying and verbally lynching a person who acted on their privilege instead of looking out to tell them "Yo what you did was shitty but look out to do better" and how that either originates or is strengthened by nazis who pretend to be cool progressive lesbians of colour on twitter (that latter part is my own description, but similar to what Lindsay said). And the whole point about cancel culture is valid - she the use of the ol' "Listen to voices of POC" and that it is not valid because behind those "Queer progressive POC" accounts hide nazis... but she ignores the fact that another way to see that is "Are you white? Have you considered shutting the fuck up?"

And I say that as a white woman myself. I am very well aware that there are topics I cannot touch upon. Like, I have my thoughts, ok? About all races, religions (at least the major ones), sexualities, gender expressions. I can't help the thoughts... but I try my best to control my actions. There are times that I think something and I go like "Wow, can you realize how much the internet would drag you if you said that on a post?" so I shut the fuck up because a) I recognize my privilege and b) I'm mostly uneducated on most things I may have problematic thoughts on. Lindsay... idk exactly how educated she is, I know she has degrees, but in this case that doesn't seem to matter because she doesn't seem to have the concept of Shutting the Fuck Up White Person. That's what the "Listen to voices of POC" started for. Because historically POC have been the ones to be silenced and ignored by white people. So it doesn't matter if you're a woman, if you're bisexual, if you're educated, whatever whatever. If it's not your area, learn to shut the fuck up. And it's there that the problem begins, that Lindsay doesn't seem to get that idea.

Later on she says that a person on twitter compiled a thread of Lindsay's "sins" aka screenshots of problematic (or not) tweets, and though she (tbh rightfully so) considers making that compilation weird and creepy, she goes on to address every tweet on that thread.

I'm not gonna go down all of them cause from my judgement, some were legitimately very far-fetched to make her look problematic. And look, I don't think she's problematic. It's just that she has a lot to say and sometimes it feels like she has a need to say it all.

At the beginning, she mentions that twitter is garbage. Which, agreed, I've hateposted about that hellsite tons of times. But she's been knew it was. She had people bully her about her tweets before, and she kept at it, white person speaking, and like at some point you're like... is it fucking worth it? You know twitter is garbage. Is the clout you'll make on it worth it? You know people will judge you. You know they will take your sayings out of context. You know there are people obsessively following your page just to spot the tiniest piece of stuff you didn't think three hours on before posting so that they can crucify you over it. You been knew, we been knew. So I'm asking again, is it fucking worth it?

She even said it wasn't the first time she was cancelled, it's just that this last time has been the biggest one (... yet). So... why are people fucking obsessed with that fucking site? I'm a former bully victim, I detest and oppose bullying of any kind, but after a point, when you see a minefield, you gotta know that if you go skipping around without a second thought... ya gonna get hit. I may understand some people staying on twitter out of spite and/or in the hopes of "fixing" it... but again that's kinda hopeless and we all know that. There’s a saying in Greek that translates to “No matter how sugar you pour on it, shit won’t turn into lokum.” And that’s exactly what twitter is. Shit that people try to make functioning. It won’t.

I know the Shut The Fuck Up may be a bit excessive but... we all have opinions, yeah? It's a bit frustrating too considering she makes long videos that clearly have a lot of thought put into them, and then she goes on twitter and posts whatever the fuck comes up in her mind like... you should know better. In a way, Shutting The Fuck Up is also a way to avoid being seen as a bigot when you're not. Let oppressed groups do the talking for you, 'kay?

On another "receipt" she admits she was wrong, quote: "It was insensitive and careless. I definitely should not have said that." At the same time she says that she was influenced by her environment, and she also doesn't actually apologize. In a way she's sincere because a good sociopath would have searched and found that a good apology includes the words "I'm sorry" or some variation, and not trying to explain yourself by the circumstances surrounding you. So, it's sincere, but it feels a bit void. No-one cares what brought you to do this, we only care to see if you’ve changed from that.

I'm also putting the word receipt in quotes because I just think the whole concept of "receipts" is fucking weird, and as I said, some of them are completely pointless and taken out of context to make Lindsay look like the next Hitler. But I don't have another word for it so I'll go with that.

The next "receipt" is about her tweeting about the film The Prince of Egypt and mentioning the scene of killing the Egyptian first-borns, and being accused for anti-semitism because of it. First of all, your problem there ain't the film, it's the Bible, a work that was created by people who thought that a woman is a man's property, and then later on translated and modified by people with similar or worse problematic ideologies. The Prince of Egypt is a film that is inspired by the book of Exodus but at the same time... it doesn't fully excuse the plagues. They're portrayed as a necessarily evil, but whether that bothers you or not depends on whatever your relationship is to God and the fact that he allows covid to be a thing right now. But on the video, Lindsay talks about the portrayal of the plagues and how they're excused so that the Jewish people can be free.

But... it feels a bit... maybe she hasn't watched the full film in some time, and considering she doesn't really like it, I understand why she's making the mistakes on thinking it does. Yes, the film shows the plagues as a necessary evil. But the whole song The Plagues is about Moses being torn in two about the whole thing. "And even now I wish that God had chose another. Serving as your foe on his behalf is the last thing that I wanted." When he warns Rameses about the last plague, the "camera" shows the depiction of the previous massacre of the Jewish children... and Rameses' son is at the bottom of the children being dropped in the water.

It not only foreshadows the boy's death, it also compares the two massacres. It's like "Your father did that to the Jewish people, so the God of the Jewish people will do the same to your people." The scene where the Egyptian first-borns are being killed is haunting. It's dark, without music, eerie... you're not supposed to be happy about it. So I don't see how all that's excusing. In a way, to a people that at the time was enslaved and even now still faces discrimination, it could feel like vengeance. There's a big talk about morals that can be done there but again; WE'RE WHITE. We should consider shutting the fuck up. At least on our own, if talked about with someone who’s part of Jewish culture, that’s another thing.

Lindsay also says that in the film it looks weird that from the moment we see Rameses lamenting the loss of his son, the film cuts to the Jewish people singing about Miracles. And like... again I guess she hasn't seen the movie in some time, cause that's plain out wrong. At the time Moses sees that the son is dead, he already looks depressed. When he hears the cries of the people crying for their children, he breaks down and cries too. When the Jewish people walk out and sing for not being slaves anymore, that's when he starts smiling a little, and more when they're finally out of Rameses' kingdom. And again, it's about the liberation of an enslaved people whose culture we're not presently a part of. Like, the death of the Egyptian children was a bad thing - in retaliation of the same thing happening to the Jewish babies - but whether it’s being excused or not has context behind it.

I'm also talking a lot about it because she mentions she likes the film Noah from 2014, and she shows a small clip from the flood scene where the people on the Ark are depressed (that's not the right word but I can't find it right now) because they witness the deaths of the people who weren't on. I haven't seen the film, so I don't know how much that impacts the survivors later, but she's completely ignoring the fact that The Prince of Egypt also frames the death of the first-borns as tragic and that also Moses breaks down over it.

On my own opinion; I'm agnostic and anarchist af so while I also disagree with the depictions and the actions that God took to free the Jewish people... it's a fucking fantastic film. Animation, voice acting, music, directing... But at the same time, I've watched a bit of her videos and I may be a bit sarcastic here but I don't trust the taste of anyone who watches Treasure Planet and only refers to it as "Disney's space pirate flop" instead of the underrated masterpiece that it is. But I'm also mentioning it not-so-sarcastically, because underappreciated as it is (because Disney deliberately made it flop by the way), Treasure Planet has not had a widely massive impact. Speaking as someone who adores Treasure Planet, it has had a huge impact... to those few who've watched it. So while I meh'ed at her calling Treasure Planet what she did, it was just that; a meh.

But The Prince of Egypt? It has had an impact on ME, an agnostic anarchist. I cannot even begin to imagine what impact it has had on the millions of Jewish people worldwide. So when someone who has studied Media (or whatever, I'm not gonna search through the "Lindsay Ellis is cancelled" results on gοοgle just to see what she has studied), and decides to make a... while a bit understandable, not so well-studied critique on a film with that kind of impact... Have you considered Shutting the Fuck Up? She says that on twitter, she got responses on said tweet where people talked about how important that film is to them. Is that what she needed, to learn about this film's impact? For her to not know that... it's a bit hard to accidentally be that blind about that aspect, especially with her studies.

It's once again difficult territory to wade through - and she deliberately placed herself in it. And as I said, her problem is with the Bible. Not with the film.

So... yeah. I don't think it was anti-semitism on her part, but definitely not a good, well-thought move to make.

Next is her talking about the time she wore a niqab in a non offensive (I guess) way on an old video. She mentions she addressed it on a stream where they laughed about how... cringe-y of the time the whole concept of the video was. And again, the "Not thinking before acting" as well as White Privilege comes out, both in the video and in the way she presents the circumstances behind it. What inspired her to do it doesn't fucking matter. What matters is that she didn't think. Though she says she regrets it, she seems she only does so because she got responses from Muslim followers that told her "Please don't do that." Again, the fact that she needed someone else to say it... that's uninformed. And honestly, when you have such a following, you have a responsibility to know better. Money from patreon and youtube ads carry that. She does say she regrets it though.

Next, is her being called out for her "Dear Stephenie Meyer" video. In it basically she talks about how a lot of the earlier hate for Twilight was because of the fact that society hates teen girls and hates what they like and consider it inferior, and since a lot of teen girls like Twilight, the society had to hate Twilight. At the end of the video, she even said "I'm sorry" towards Meyer. That's a very quick summary and she had some good points, but this is Stephenie Meyer we’re talking about.

Oof. There's a LOT to unpack here.

For those of you who don't know, Twilight as a whole franchise has a ton of issues with racism, particularly against indigenous people and the very real, existing Quileute tribe. Lindsay says that at the time she made that video (2018), the backlash on Meyer was not so much about said racism. And boy, that's plain out wrong. She just didn't do enough research for it. And again, it's not deliberate. I'm not accusing Lindsay of racism. But Twilight was problematic (and even I as a semi-follower of the Twilight Rennaisance, as well as most of the fellow fans I've seen, admit that openly and we hate Meyer for it), and as I had watched that video, I know she did research on it. I find it outright impossible that a search for "Twilight criticism" wouldn't turn up some mentions about the Quileute racism, especially in 2018 with the fandom’s resurgence. There's an entire page from the Burke Museum in Seattle talking about the misconceptions of the tribe in the books and how little benefit the tribe has seen from having their culture appropriated by a white woman. Saying that it wasn't a common criticism is either a poorly put lie or an open confession that she didn't search much. Maybe she only searched about Stephenie Meyer and misogyny. I don't know.

Look, it is true that at the time of late 2000′s, the criticism was what Lindsay said; all about hating teen girls. I'm sure that there was criticism on the racism, but it was either less promoted or was trumped by the former type. But ignoring it completely, when at the time she made that video the criticism on racism was already getting more and more recognition... just why, Lindsay?

So again, I don't think it's deliberate. But it's poor pre-thought, poor work on it, and again when you have such a big following (and while Lindsay keeps saying how she's not that much famous on youtube, when you have a million subscribers and ten thousand patrons... ya ain't unheard of either) you have a responsibility to know better and research better before you do anything on it. Youtube is Lindsay's job, and she doesn't do a very good job at it when it comes to recognizing her white privilege and working beyond it.

Then she says that she talked with some indigenous (she doesn't mention they're Quileute btw) people about it; some said they hated the depiction, some said they liked that they were represented. Although why you would like to be represented by Jacob in Eclipse and Breaking Dawn, I have no fucking clue. In any case, it feels like because there were indigenous (no mention of Quileute talking with her, again) people who were okay with the inclusion, she felt that it was okay to make the whole Meyer apologia video without a single mention to the racism fact.

She also showed a video of a Quileute woman talking about how after Twilight, they were able to get back land that was taken from them. Given back by Obama, by the way. And... including this clip feels like... an excuse. Saying that Twilight, despite being racist, was somehow okay because it brought attention to the real Quileute tribe, and I hope y'all see why that is messed up. Meyer could have handled the issue better, and included the characters with much more respect and given them credit and some idk money from the millions she made appropriating their culture (though Lindsay mentions that last thing), but Lindsay thought that apologizing to Meyer anyway for being against her due to internalized misogyny in the late 2000's was the right move. It is true that at the late 2000's little of the known criticism was about the racism, but it's still a big fucking problem and purposefully ignoring that to apologize to Meyer... not a good look.

Again, blind due to white privilege, and acting without trying to see the whole picture. She says that Meyer, a white, rich, Mormon woman does not deserve the harassment she got, and again I'm against bullying but like... Meyer fucking sucks, and we ought to at least recognize that. She's not the one who deserves an apology - the Twilight fans *cough*me!me!me!*cough* who just wanted to enjoy the books and films (horrible as they were) in peace are.

By the way, the Quileute tribe has a fundraiser so that they can move their land to a higher ground where they won't be affected by tsunamis (and to her credit, Lindsay mentioned it and shared the link, but she said that another youtuber brought that to her attention, and again, where's the fucking research, Lindsay, pretty much every Twilight Renaissance post I've seen about the anti-indigenous attitude mentions that fundraiser and you're telling me it didn't come up in your searches) so if you can donate you definitely should: mthg.org

I mention around how Lindsay doesn't say "I'm sorry", and while as most people, I'd rather have no apology that a performative apology, it feels a little icky, that while she recognizes some of her screw-ups... I'm not sure if she recognizes that said screw-ups that-veer-towards-but-are-not-exactly-or-intentionally racism, ableism, anti-semitism, and transphobia... that shit is the shit twitter nazis thrive off of - and not to cancel people, but to build their own bigotry and take the attention away from actual hate crimes happening. And as a youtuber with a million subscribers and ten thousand patreon supporters, again, she should recognize her privileges a little more. Am I blaming her for nazis using her poorly thought tweets? Should she be super duper careful and spend a lot of time on her tweets to make sure nothing remotely problematic is on them?

... I mean, why the fuck do y’all think I hate twitter?

Next, she mentions being called out for "saying" that "trans-men are less oppressed than cis women" which she says is not what she said, but instead that "she's spoken to trans men who told her that they experience less misogyny after coming out". She even openly mentions it as "anecdotal" in her original tweet. And while I get that, my question is.... what's your fucking business about it? You're cis, shut the fuck up, let trans people talk about it.

Like, fuck. We haven't reached a time where acceptance of LGBTQ+ people, especially trans people, is at such a high that cis people by themselves can openly discuss about the experiences of trans people. Shut. The. Fuck. Up. Just show your support for trans people, let them do the talk about their lives and experiences, and share their content if you want your followers to know about trans experiences. If trans men experience less misogyny after coming out (and like, I understand why that would happen in some cases), that's not your area to gather twitter clout from. Think before you tweet.

~

TW: suicide mention, skip to after the ~ symbols if you want to avoid.

Next one is not problematic, it's just proof that Lindsay has no filter on twitter... which is probably the core of all the issues on this post. So condensing the whole thing; a Zack Snyder fan said "I don't like when people say that Zack Snyder hates his mother". A film critic was discussing with Lindsay about Snyder fans, and Lindsay, having never seen any Snyder fan actually say what the fan above said, responded in an obviously sarcastic way "I have it on good authority that Zack Snyder hates his mother." The next day, Zack Snyder's daughter killed herself, and twitter flooded to hate on Lindsay. Of course by the video, Lindsay seems to be upset by the whole thing and how bad the timing was for the post she made - and it is irrational to blame her on that. But! Zack Snyder's mother died in 2010, btw, from what I saw, and like... I think that some discussions around celebrities should be kept private, and this specific conversation between Lindsay and the film critic should have been private. Again, not problematic, but seems to show how Lindsay doesn't think before tweeting.

~

~

Next, she admits she was wrong about defending yellowface on the film Cloud Atlas and saying that it wasn't as bad as blackface. "My bad", no "I'm sorry". Again I don't know if an apology is what I "wanted", after all I'm also a privileged white woman, but idk some recognition that stuff like what she said are what twitter nazis thrive off of would have been nice. Because again, the good intention is there, especially by acknowledging how bad blackface is.

Anyway, some final thoughts, no I don't think she's problematic, or racist, or transphobic, or anything the twitter nazis like to label her as. I just think she's bad at tweeting (like many many people including yours truly, twitter sucks we've established that), and that as a youtuber with such an audience, she should understand her privileges a little more. Though she said she’ll step off from twitter and only use it to promote her books and other creators, so she did learn something from that.

As I said, we all have problematic thoughts. We all think of stuff that, if given a bit more thought, we’ll go like “why the fuck am I like this”. Our actions, on the other hand, is something fully on our control. And twitter thrives on people not putting too much thought on their actions, and letting their quick thoughts control them.

In conclusion, know your privilege, fuck twitter, and STAY THE FUCK AT HOME (except for you, Aussies and Kiwis, go all out - literally)

[arcticdementor]

“Come, you spirits / That tend on mortal thoughts, unsex me here.” This, one of Lady Macbeth’s most famous lines, is cited by Elizabeth Winkler in her recent Atlantic essay, “Was Shakespeare a Woman?,” as a thrilling instance of a woman’s resistance to femininity. Winkler then goes on to compare Lady Macbeth’s anger to women’s #MeToo “fury.” “This woman,” Winkler says of Lady Macbeth, woke her out of her “adolescent stupor” by “rebelling magnificently and malevolently against her submissive status.”

Of course, what Lady Macbeth is actually about to do is help her husband murder an innocent man, the king, in cold blood while he sleeps under her own roof. Unless one aligns female empowerment with sociopathic behavior, this isn’t really a triumphant moment for women’s liberation. Nor would any reading of the text other than a willfully perverse one count her as one of Shakespeare’s admirable characters. When she celebrates Lady Macbeth as one of Shakespeare’s heroines simply because Lady M has the desire to do something horrific, there is indeed something adolescent about Winkler’s attitude.

…

But what I find more troubling is the assumption that forms the foundation of Winkler’s thesis: the belief that men don’t really like women, at least not enough to think and write about them with understanding and empathy; not enough to see the value in female friendships and feminine bonds of love and fidelity; and certainly not enough to find strong, tough, funny, clever women believable, admirable, and desirable. When I consider the men I know, male friends and relatives, colleagues, fathers of my children’s classmates, Winkler’s failure to entertain the notion that a man could have written the compelling female characters that populate Shakespeare’s plays is more than merely baffling, it is an insult to men, both past and present.

I have written elsewhere about how contemporary feminism needs the idea of an oppressive patriarchy in order to define women as victims of oppression, and as such it seeks to attach to men a primal stain of (toxic) masculinity so that third-wave feminism is righteously justified in all its complaints against them. Fighting “The Patriarchy” is feminism’s raison d’etre, and without this enemy the cause itself is in jeopardy (see Feminism’s Dependency Trap in Quillette). It seems as though Winkler’s take on Shakespeare is yet another iteration of feminism’s belief that men have a blind spot for women’s humanity. The irony of the current feminist orthodoxy, however, is that it is women who fail to see men’s position clearly. A further —and funnier—irony, if one has a palate for the absurd and the tragic, is that most men, for their part, are usually so chivalrous, so solicitous of women as people, that they sympathize with women’s crusade against them, and by and large assent to women’s complaints. They must really like us!

…

But what troubles me is that women commonly fail to appreciate the internal struggle men have with their sexual instincts, and instead condemn them for having these instincts at all. In other words, consciousness raising feminism rightly asserts that men shouldn’t treat women like objects for their use, but it does so while being unconscious of men’s humanity, and as a consequence, both minimizes and punishes the male sexual instinct that causes men to see women sexually in spite of men’s civilizing efforts not to.

What contemporary feminism fails to adequately grapple with is nature itself, and as a result, feminist attitudes towards men, and particularly towards male sexuality, are compassionless and punitive (not to mention humourless—and human sexuality is so often very funny!). With a blind spot for men’s experiences, consciousness raising feminist attitudes towards male sexual energy are unlikely to inspire mutual respect, and instead work to engender resentment, anxiety, and unhappiness.

…

An obvious oversight in Winkler’s grad school approach to understanding Shakespeare is that while she is correct to assert that Shakespeare wrote female characters with whom he clearly empathises, she might have at least once considered that he also does the same with men. In what follows, I want to look briefly at one of Shakespeare’s most reprehensible male characters, the magistrate Angelo from Measure for Measure. I want to think about him carefully, not merely to look at how he uses his power to mistreat women in Weinstein-esque fashion (although he does indeed do this), and not simply to condemn him for his misogynistic sexual anger (although his behavior is very wrong). But, rather, to try to understand his internal struggle with his own lack of self-sovereignty, the crisis that his desire elicits: the sudden, inescapable, and unwanted pressure that his sexual nature exerts over his better judgement which overturns his self-autonomy and will.

…

In contemporary expressions of male predatory sexuality told from the perspective of women, such as Margaret Atwood’s The Handmaid’s Tale, now a popular television show, men are viewed as powerful, threatening, and in a real sense empty of humanity, a kind of monolith of authority. Shakespeare’s Angelo is very different in that when his sexual appetite is awakened, he realizes that he is in fact almost entirely powerless. He doesn’t want to want her, and is confused and overwhelmed by how his sense of identity and autonomy have been absolutely overturned by this woman, who intended to do nothing of the sort. It is in part his astonishment at his own sexual desires, and in part his disgust with these desires, that make him so fascinating.

“What’s this? What’s this?” he asks himself as soon as Isabella takes her leave after pleading with him to have mercy on her brother’s life, “Is it her fault or mine? / The tempter or the tempted who sins most, ha? / Not she, nor doth she tempt; but it is I.” In this moment Angelo encounters for the first time his own sexual nature that he would really and truly prefer to be without. Unacknowledged in himself previously, Angelo judges harshly others’ sexual desires (that is why he has arrested and condemned to death Isabella’s brother). In some ways, he is the #MeToo movement’s goal: to have an impartial bureaucratic system of rules rather than any actual humans arbitrate the morality that governs sexual behavior. His lack of humanity is what might make his authority fair, if it weren’t so brutal. And it is his encounter with his own messy humanity that causes him to realize that the self he has constructed, the chosen identity he wanted for himself, has collided with a nature about which he can do little to change. We are, all of us, in some ways, not at home in our bodies.

I am obviously not endorsing Angelo’s course of action. He is the slimy villain of this play, there is no doubt about that. And I am obviously not excusing any man’s sexual coercion of a woman. These are serious criminal and immoral acts. It isn’t at all Angelo’s submission to his desires that I find instructive here, but rather the internal self-abasement he feels at having them in the first place, a self-abasement that is transformed into self-disgust because he suddenly realizes how little control he has over his lust. “Blood, thou art blood,” he says. “I have begun, / And now I give my sensual race the rein.”

Again, and I feel like I need to keep repeating this here lest I be misunderstood and used to excuse sexual aggression, Angelo does not have control over his nature, but he does over his behaviour, and it is his refusal to find himself up for the task of contending with his nature that makes him a villain. What feminism doesn’t understand, and probably doesn’t want to understand because it might create compassion for male sexuality, is the internal struggle of men against their own appetites. Men must possess and exert a strong and powerful will, not over women to pressure them into unwanted sex, but over themselves so that they don’t. The male will, what Simone de Beauvoir called transcendence over immanence, might be a very real quality because from adolescence onwards men must be well practiced in it.

…

You might be asking, “Ok, men have powerful sexual desires that their masculine assertiveness must work to control. What now?” I am asking myself this same question, and of course there is no easy answer. The history of civilization is, in many respects, our struggle with the intractable problem of human sexuality: the conflict of our Nature and our Reason. Some cultures have taken the tack that it’s better to try and eliminate men’s oppressive sexual nature by hiding their oppressors, and so we can see the burka, for instance, as an attempt to minimize the constant gnawing pressure of male sexual instincts, with greater or lesser success. In the West, other codes have been adopted. Christianity’s influence, the ideas of self-sacrifice, service, and human dignity, have mixed with barbaric European warrior cultures, which resulted in the codes of chivalry. This approach to our sexuality has worked, not perfectly, but pretty well, actually, all things considered. Yet now the ground of Western civilization is shifting, not from influences outside us, but from within, and the assumptions of chivalrous attitudes are the very things being taken to task. What’s next? Women’s revenge? (I’ve read Hamlet—revenge seems like a bad idea.) An unsexing of the selves? (I’ve read Macbeth; this one seems like a bad idea, too.)

…

Just as Angelo fails to respect his own sexual nature until it overpowers him, the near-nun Isabella also fails to contend with her nature as a woman. She is disgusted with her feminine sexual nature, it seems, which is why she desires to enter into the strictest order of nuns in the first place. Isabella’s relationship to her own sexuality is complex, but at bottom what she lacks is the strength and willpower needed to confront and handle her sexual power over men. She doesn’t know what to do with her sex appeal. Like Angelo, what she has been unwilling to face is her own nature. Since she isn’t up for the task, she seeks to retreat absolutely from the challenge: become a nun of the strictest order. Without men to desire her, in herself she becomes sexless. In Isabella we are faced with the flip-side to Lady Macbeth’s “unsex me here,” which is, in that play, too, a rejection and denial of nature, not, as Winkler wants to believe, of woman’s submissive social status. By vilifying the male sexual desire for women, consciousness-raising feminism seeks to relieve women of the burden of confronting the part of their own sexual nature that comes into being as a response to male desire.

…

If contemporary feminist orthodoxy insists that masculine sexual energy is, in itself, “toxic” and must thus be written out of social discourse, women will not have to contend with their own powerful sexual nature as the inspiration and location for the masculine imagination. But women’s condemnation of men’s sexuality will not inspire women to understand themselves sexually, nor is it likely to help men understand women. No woman should lose her sense of agency and self-integrity, but is it really such a horror to accept that we’re not entirely autonomous creatures, that we’re, in fact, meant to understand ourselves not merely as individuals, but relationally? The failure to contend with our natures because it is easier to retreat into our own self-willed dream of autonomy seems less like moral progress, and more like a lonely lack of courage.

So what is the answer to the intractable battle of the sexes? Hopefully it will continue to be a somewhat awkward answer, one that we will have to fumble through together. But if we do not treat our natures with honesty and understanding, with affection, humour, and generosity, then I am unconvinced that we will become less resentful, more just, or in any way happy about our human bodies.

[redvanillabee]

Musings on A Study in Pink (2)

Part 2: ’You can’t have serial suicides’ – media, chain suicides, and social problems

TRIGGER WARNING: long discussions of suicide; image of a gun

Literally the whole of Part 2 is about suicide. If that is not what you want to read, close this tab and go look at some kittens. Take care of yourselves.

So here at the start of ASiP we have John Watson: recently invalided out of the army, the one place where he feels useful and respected. He is burdened by residual self-esteem and trust issues from his childhood. He is struggling – financially, mentally, physically – in a city that does not feel like home anymore. He has probably quite recently watched Sholto – the one he cares for, the one who has allowed him to embrace his sexuality to a fuller extent – fall from grace. In the news, people are committing suicides, albeit under suspicious circumstances.

What could possibly go wrong?

We know that at the beginning of ASiP, John is suicidal.

(If the gun itself is not clue enough, the notebook next to it is damning too:

SHERLOCK: This phone call – it’s, er ... it’s my note. It’s what people do, don’t they – leave a note? [x])

John’s suicidal thoughts, however, does not come entirely from within himself. They are instilled by others. Just like how the Cabbie (homophobia/heteronormativity) hunts down John mirrors and force them to kill themselves, the residual impact of his childhood oppression and abruptly shortened military career are pushing John to the brink of taking his own life. And he very easily could have, if he had not met Sherlock. 

Media and chain suicides: the contagion effect

[x]

While it may sound like an oxymoron, you can technically have some form of serial suicide. One cause is, of course, when a social problem arises, and a particular demographic is systemically marginalised and oppressed. ‘Members of minority groups experiencing economic or cultural discrimination’, among other groups, are usually at high risk of cluster suicides [x]. 

Another cause is when the media spreads what is known as a suicide ‘contagion’.  According to studies launched by the Centre for Disease Control, a suicide ‘contagion’ is ‘a process by which exposure to the suicide or suicidal behaviour of one or more persons influences others to commit or attempt suicide’. This study lists out certain aspects of media coverage that can promote suicide contagion: 

Presenting simplistic explanations for suicide

Engaging in repetitive, ongoing, or excessive reporting of suicide in the news

(The headline reads: ‘Boy, 18, kills himself inside sports centre’ [x])

Providing sensational coverage of suicide

REPORTER 3: Is there any chance that these are murders, and if they are, is this the work of a serial killer?

LESTRADE: I ... I know that you like writing about these, but these do appear to be suicides. We know the difference. The, um, the poison was clearly self-administered. [x]

Reporting ‘how-to’ descriptions of suicide

Presenting suicide as a tool for accomplishing certain ends

Glorifying suicide or persons who commit suicide

Focusing on the suicide completer’s positive characteristics

MARGARET PATTERSON (tearfully as she reads from her statement): My husband was a happy man who lived life to the full. He loved his family and his work – and that he should have taken his own life in this way is a mystery and a shock to all who knew him. [x]

As seen above, some of the coverages done by the media at the beginning of ASiP is precisely what is named problematic in the CDC study. When this kind of underinformed/glorified/sensationalised coverage reach high risk groups, an imitation effect could easily occur, ending up with more suicides. And John Watson very easily could have been similarly affected.

John has been following the news of the serial suicides. Just the day before meeting Sherlock, he made a blog post about it:

[x]

John is in the high-risk group. He is suicidal to start with. He follows the coverage of the serial suicides enough to make a note of it on his blog, just ~48 hours before Sherlock invites him on a case. The media could very easily have had an unintentional but fatal influence on John.

Media’s blindness to social problems

When the media is obsessed with the sensational in serial suicides and oversimplify the reasons, they are also turning a blind eye to (the possibility of there being) a/the overarching cause. Or sometimes, they just do not think such a cause could exist:

LESTRADE: Well, they all took the same poison; um, they were all found in places they had no reason to be; none of them had shown any prior indication of ...

REPORTER 1 (interrupting): But you can’t have serial suicides.

LESTRADE: Well, apparently you can.

REPORTER 2: These three people: there’s nothing that links them?

LESTRADE: There’s no link been found yet, but we’re looking for it. There has to be one.

…

REPORTER 2: But if they’re suicides, what are you investigating?

LESTRADE: As I say, these ... these suicides are clearly linked. Um, it’s an ... it’s an unusual situation. We’ve got our best people investigating ... [x]

The reporters believe that these deaths are suicides, on the basis that they are not/cannot be linked. As I said in Part 1, the Cabbie’s victims do not die of suicide. They are technically murdered. When the reporters obsess over them being suicides and dismiss the possibility of linkages, they are turning away from the social problem that could be existing, the social problem that is pushing people to commit suicide one after the other. In the case of BBC Sherlock and A Study in Pink, we can read it as the media’s blindness to homophobic violence in the country, obsessing over only the visible effect—deaths by suicide, but ignorant of the causes. 

It also means a lot that Sherlock is the one who insists that these are not just linked suicides.

REPORTER 1 (interrupting): But you can’t have serial suicides.

LESTRADE: Well, apparently you can.

REPORTER 2: These three people: there’s nothing that links them?

LESTRADE: There’s no link been found yet, but we’re looking for it. There has to be one.

(Everybody’s mobile phone trills a text alert simultaneously. As they look at their phones, each message reads:

Wrong! [x]

Sherlock is gay, and he is aware when ‘people who are different’ are being targeted, marginalised, and attacked, and he hates these oppressors:

MYCROFT: I’m glad you’ve given up on the Magnussen business.

SHERLOCK: Are you?

MYCROFT (stopping): I’m still curious, though. He’s hardly your usual kind of puzzle. Why do you ... hate him?

SHERLOCK (turning back to face him): Because he attacks people who are different and preys on their secrets. Why don’t you? [x]

As a member of the oppressed group, Sherlock is aware of the problem at hand, the problem that the hegemonic public, including mainstream media, are unaware of.

(This also puts Lestrade in the position of a mildly clueless straight ally. He believes that these are suicides, but there is also definitely a connection. Lestrade senses there is a larger problem at hand, but unlike Sherlock, he is unable to pinpoint what exactly is the problem.)

How does the Daily Mail, of all new outlets, recognise it as murder?

Ah, the Daily Mail. I am no expert in British media, but as far as I know, the Daily Mail is notorious for being unreliable, homophobic, xenophobic, and fearmongering. Their credibility is so bad that even Wikipedia banned Daily Mail as a source for the website. 

Let’s take another look at what the Daily Mail reporter actually said during the press conference: 

DONOVAN (to the reporters): One more question.

REPORTER 3: Is there any chance that these are murders, and if they are, is this the work of a serial killer?

LESTRADE: I ... I know that you like writing about these, but these do appear to be suicides. We know the difference. The, um, the poison was clearly self-administered.

REPORTER 3: Yes, but if they are murders, how do people keep themselves safe?

LESTRADE: Well, don’t commit suicide.

(The reporter looks at him in shock. Donovan covers her mouth and murmurs a warning.)

DONOVAN: “Daily Mail.”

(Lestrade grimaces and looks at the reporters again.)

LESTRADE: Obviously this is a frightening time for people, but all anyone has to do is exercise reasonable precautions. We are all as safe as we want to be. [x]

Yes, the Daily Mail reporter may insist that these are murders, but pay attention to their words: ‘the work of a serial killer’, ‘how do people keep themselves safe?’ The reporter is attempting to generate panic among the readers, convincing them that no one is safe. They are also eager to identify a lone, anti-social, alien, threat—a serial killer—and pin the blame on them. Even if they call these murders, the Daily Mail reporter is not identifying the nature of the problem, but going off on a tangent, creating a whole new smearing campaign.

The representation of news outlets in ASiP are also very much in line with what the show has been saying about the media—they lie, they manipulate, and generally horrible towards LGBT people. Kitty Riley in TRF, for instance, sneaks into a space not meant for her and claims she will ‘set things straight’ for Sherlock: 

KITTY: You and John Watson – just platonic? Can I put you down for a “no” there, as well?

(She stops him from opening the door and gets in his way, stepping well into his personal space. He breathes loudly and angrily.)

KITTY: There’s all sorts of gossip in the press about you. Sooner or later you’re gonna need someone on your side ...

(Reaching into her pocket, she holds up her business card and then tucks it into his breast pocket.)

KITTY: ... someone to set the record straight. [x]

And as Sherlock finds out, not only does Magnussen ‘attack people who are different’, he also has no qualms about lying in his news outlets:

MAGNUSSEN: Proof? What would I need proof for? I’m in news, you moron. I don’t have to prove it – I just have to print it.

(Sherlock’s gaze is lowered and his expression suggests that he is fully aware of how badly he has miscalculated.)

MAGNUSSEN (standing up and buttoning his jacket): Speaking of news, you’ll both be heavily featured tomorrow – trying to sell state secrets to me. [x]

We would not be strangers to these news stories. Just think of all the fake news, and all the entertainment news that insist on calling the relationship between John and Sherlock an ‘epic bromance’ (urgh). 

Part 1: Shot in the left shoulder – the Cabbie as a John mirror

Part 3: ‘Who’d be a fan of Sherlock Holmes?’ – The biggest obstacle to Johnlock

Part 4: ‘I that am lost, oh who will find me?’ – John Watson’s Final Problem

[pope-francis-quotes]

10th September >> Pope Francis Homily During Mass in Colombia: ‘Peace requires healing of sins’ (photo ~ Pope Francis celebrates Mass in Colombia - AP) (Vatican Radio) Pope Francis celebrated Mass in Cartagena’s port area on Sunday at the conclusion of his Apostolic Visit to Colombia. The Holy Father reflected on the peace that Jesus brings through the community and how necessary it is for Colombian society. “For decades Colombia has yearned for peace”, he said, “but, as Jesus teaches, two sides approaching each other to dialogue is not enough; it has also been necessary to involve many more actors in this dialogue aimed at healing sins.” He said people cannot be ignored when making peace, in placing reason above revenge, and in respecting “the delicate harmony between politics and law”. “Peace is not achieved by normative frameworks and institutional arrangements between well-intentioned political or economic groups. Jesus finds the solution to the harm inflicted through a personal encounter between the parties,” he said. Please find below the official English translation of the Pope’s prepared homily: Homily: “The Dignity of the Person and Human Rights.” Cartagena de Indias Sunday, 10 September 2017 In this city, which has been called “heroic” for its tenacity in defending freedom two hundred years ago, I celebrate the concluding Mass of my Visit to Colombia. For the past thirty-two years Cartagena de Indias is also the headquarters in Colombia for Human Rights. For here the people cherish the fact that, “thanks to the missionary team formed by the Jesuit priests Peter Claver y Corberó, Alonso de Sandoval and Brother Nicolás González, accompanied by many citizens of the city of Cartagena de Indias in the seventeenth century, the desire was born to alleviate the situation of the oppressed of that time, especially of slaves, of those who implored fair treatment and freedom” (Congress of Colombia 1985, law 95, art. 1). Here, in the Sanctuary of Saint Peter Claver, where the progress and application of human rights in Colombia continue to be studied and monitored in a systematic way, the Word of God speaks to us of forgiveness, correction, community and prayer. In the fourth sermon of Matthew’s Gospel, Jesus speaks to us, who have decided to support the community, to us, who value life together and dream of a project that includes everyone. The preceding text is that of the good shepherd who leaves the ninety-nine sheep to go after the one that is lost. This fact pervades the entire text: there is no one too lost to deserve our care, our closeness and our forgiveness. From this perspective, we can see that a fault or a sin committed by one person challenges us all, but involves, primarily, the victim of someone’s sin. He or she is called to take the initiative so that whoever has caused the harm is not lost. During these past few days I have heard many testimonies from those who have reached out to people who had harmed them; terrible wounds that I could see in their own bodies; irreparable losses that still bring tears. Yet they have reached out, have taken a first step on a different path to the one already travelled. For decades Colombia has yearned for peace but, as Jesus teaches, two sides approaching each other to dialogue is not enough; it has also been necessary to involve many more actors in this dialogue aimed at healing sins. The Lord tells us in the Gospel: “If your brother does not listen to you, take one or two others along with you” (Mt 18:16). We have learned that these ways of making peace, of placing reason above revenge, of the delicate harmony between politics and law, cannot ignore the involvement of the people. Peace is not achieved by normative frameworks and institutional arrangements between well-intentioned political or economic groups. Jesus finds the solution to the harm inflicted through a personal encounter between the parties. It is always helpful, moreover, to incorporate into our peace processes the experience of those sectors that have often been overlooked, so that communities themselves can influence the development of collective memory. “The principal author, the historic subject of this process, is the people as a whole and their culture, and not a single class, minority, group or elite. We do not need plans drawn up by a few for the few, or an enlightened or outspoken minority which claims to speak for everyone. It is about agreeing to live together, a social and cultural pact” (cf. Evangelii Gaudium, 239). We can contribution greatly to this new step that Colombia wants to take. Jesus tells us that this path of reintegration into the community begins with a dialogue of two persons. Nothing can replace that healing encounter; no collective process excuses us from the challenge of meeting, clarifying, forgiving. Deep historic wounds necessarily require moments where justice is done, where victims are given the opportunity to know the truth, where damage is adequately repaired and clear commitments are made to avoid repeating those crimes. But that is only the beginning of the Christian response. We are required to generate “from below” a change in culture: so that we respond to the culture of death and violence, with the culture of life and encounter. We have already learned this from your own beloved author whom we all benefit from: “This cultural disaster is not remedied with lead or silver, but with an education for peace, built lovingly on the rubble of an angry country where we rise early to continue killing each other... a legitimate revolution of peace which channels towards life an immense creative energy that for almost two centuries we have used to destroy us and that vindicates and exalts the predominance of the imagination” (Gabriel García Márquez, Message About Peace, 1998). How much have we worked for an encounter, for peace? How much have we neglected, allowing barbarity to become enfleshed in the life of our people? Jesus commands us to confront those types of behaviour, those ways of living that damage society and destroy the community. How many times have we “normalized” the logic of violence and social exclusion, without prophetically raising our hands or voices! Alongside Saint Peter Claver were thousands of Christians, many of them consecrated… but only a handful started a counter-cultural movement of encounter. Saint Peter was able to restore the dignity and hope of hundreds of thousands of black people and slaves arriving in absolutely inhuman conditions, full of dread, with all their hopes lost. He did not have prestigious academic qualifications, and he even said of himself that he was “mediocre” in terms of intelligence, but he had the genius to live the Gospel to the full, to meet those whom others considered merely as waste material. Centuries later, the footsteps of this missionary and apostle of the Society of Jesus were followed by Saint María Bernarda Bütler, who dedicated her life to serving the poor and marginalized in this same city of Cartagena.[1] In the encounter between us we rediscover our rights, and we recreate our lives so that they re-emerge as authentically human. “The common home of all men and women must continue to rise on the foundations of a right understanding of universal fraternity and respect for the sacredness of every human life, of every man and every woman, the poor, the elderly, children, the infirm, the unborn, the unemployed, the abandoned, those considered disposable because they are only considered as part of a statistic. This common home of all men and women must also be built on the understanding of a certain sacredness of created nature” (Address to the United Nations, 25 September 2015). Jesus also shows us the possibility that the other may remain closed, refusing to change, persisting in evil. We cannot deny that there are people who persist in sins that damage the fabric of our coexistence and community: “I also think of the heart-breaking drama of drug abuse, which reaps profits in contempt of the moral and civil laws. I think of the devastation of natural resources and ongoing pollution, and the tragedy of the exploitation of labour. I think too of illicit money trafficking and financial speculation, which often prove both predatory and harmful for entire economic and social systems, exposing millions of men and women to poverty. I think of prostitution, which every day reaps innocent victims, especially the young, robbing them of their future. I think of the abomination of human trafficking, crimes and abuses against minors, the horror of slavery still present in many parts of the world; the frequently overlooked tragedy of migrants, who are often victims of disgraceful and illegal manipulation” (Message for the World Day of Peace, 2014, 8), and even with a pacifist “sterile legality” that ignores the flesh of our brothers and sisters, the flesh of Christ. We must also be prepared for this, and solidly base ourselves upon principles of justice that in no way diminish charity. It is only possible to live peacefully by avoiding actions that corrupt or harm life. In this context, we remember all those who, bravely and tirelessly, have worked and even lost their lives in defending and protecting the rights and the dignity of the human person. History asks us to embrace a definitive commitment to defending human rights, here in Cartagena de Indias, the place that you have chosen as the national seat of their defence. Finally, Jesus asks us to pray together, so that our prayer, even with its personal nuances and different emphases, becomes symphonic and arises as one single cry. I am sure that today we pray together for the rescue of those who were wrong and not for their destruction, for justice and not revenge, for healing in truth and not for oblivion. We pray to fulfil the theme of this visit: “Let us take the first step!” And may this first step be in a common direction. To “take the first step” is, above all, to go out and meet others with Christ the Lord. And he always asks us to take a determined and sure step towards our brothers and sisters, and to renounce our claim to be forgiven without showing forgiveness, to be loved without showing love. If Colombia wants a stable and lasting peace, it must urgently take a step in this direction, which is that of the common good, of equity, of justice, of respect for human nature and its demands. Only if we help to untie the knots of violence, will we unravel the complex threads of disagreements. We are asked to take the step of meeting with our brothers and sisters, and to risk a correction that does not want to expel but to integrate. And we are asked to be charitably firm in that which is not negotiable. In short, the demand is to build peace, “speaking not with the tongue but with hands and works” (Saint Peter Claver), and to lift up our eyes to heaven together. The Lord is able to untie that which seems impossible to us, and he has promised to accompany us to the end of time, and will bring to fruition all our efforts. [1] She also had the wisdom of charity and knew how to find God in her neighbour; nor was she paralyzed by injustice and challenges, because “when conflict arises, some people simply look at it and go their way as if nothing happened; they wash their hands of it and get on with their lives. Others embrace it in such a way that they become its prisoners; they lose their bearings, project onto institutions their own confusion and dissatisfaction and thus make unity impossible. But there is also a third way, and it is the best way to deal with conflict. It is the willingness to face conflict head on, to resolve it and to make it a link in the chain of a new process” (Evangelii Gaudium, 227)

[netflixanthrothings-blog]

Lust Stories Netflix Review - YSJ

‘Lust Stories’ is an anthology that explores contemporary relationships in modern India. I have chosen to use ‘Lust Stories’ for this assignment as the directors of each tale have successfully highlighted issues rarely portrayed in moving pictures. The issues explored in the stories include the idea and reality of marriage from a female’s perspective, in the Indian culture, and feminism.

Before I analyse each of the stories, the following is a summary of the chosen stories. In the first film directed by Anurag Kashyap, the story started with a woman named Kalindi that had sex with a man called Tejas. She was worried that he might become emotionally attached to her, but as the story unfolded, the audience realizes that Kalindi is the one who has become emotionally attached to Tejas. There were some parts of the film where Kalindi talks as if she is in a interview and mentioned that she was married to an older man, Mihir, who had previously dated many women before her and allowed her to explore and understand herself because she never had the opportunity to. In one of the scenes, she mentioned that she loves both Tejas and Mihir, but she could not be with the both of them because they felt insecure and jealous. However, she did not hold herself back from loving two of them. After her obsession with him, she confronted him and Tejas was willing to leave Natasha (the girl he was seeing) for her, which Kalindi replied that she is already married, leaving him speechless.

In the third film, the tale begins with a carefree couple, Reena and Sudhir, along the beach. It follows with love-making and cuts to the scene where in the midst of a conversation, Reena’s husband which is also Sudhir’s best friend, Salman called him and said he wanted to end his life because his wife wasn’t home to take care of the kids. He mentioned that throughout the course of their thirteen years marriage, she was only happy for eleven months. When three of them were in Sudhir’s place, it was revealed that she has been in a relationship with Sudhir and she was unhappy because Sudhir wants a mother, not a wife. After Reena and Salman spent the night together, she decided to return home for the sake of the children.

In the last film, a young teacher, Megha was arranged to wed Paras but after marrying him, she realised that their sex life is a zero-sum game wherein Paras’ sexual desire is always satisfied but he remained unaware of her sexual dissatisfaction. Megha discovered that her colleague, Rekha, using a vibrator to pleasure herself in the library and she stated, “Men are selfish. They cannot make a woman happy. We have to do it ourselves.” Out of curiousity, Megha decides to take the vibrator home to give it a try. However, while Paras comes home after a rickshaw accident, Megha, her mother-in-law and sister-in-law rushed to the living room to help him out. Unbeknownst to Megha, Paras’ grandmother found the vibrator controller and mistook it for the TV remote control, and increased the intensity until Megha reached sexual climax in the living room. Paras’ family wanted a divorce because her womb wasn’t suitable to bore children. A month later, they met up and he said he can put the past behind because it was a mistake, but Megha corrected him and said “it was not a mistake...women desire more than just children”.

This anthology is broadcasted via Netflix, therefore they would be an international audience who are able to explore female sexuality in India, providing atypical insight - a subject rarely dealt with in Indian films.

Majority of Bollywood films depict the lavish lifestyles of the rich and privileged in India. Nonetheless, according to Rao (2007), the participants of the research imply that these films do not represent India’s reality - a nation predominantly plagued with poverty and gender discrimination. In the first film, Kalindi (Screwvala & Dua, 2018c, 14:55) believes that she is allowed to love more than one person at the same time, however polygamy is reckoned to be wrong in India’s society, because love and marriage are known as a sacred bond between one man and his wife. This part of the film discusses women’s sexuality whereby it is acceptable to feel a romantic or sexual attraction to more than one person.

The definition of a “true” woman in the context of Indian society is devoted, caring, motherly homemaker, respected and loved, who is responsible for birth of the children (Dhawan, 2005). They were married off young, hence this women have no access to education and eventually abide with the norm whereby women should be homemakers and for future generations to do the same. Many Indian women accept their roles in their society as almost every daughter of a family, from young are encultured to be a future mother and reproduce and take care of a family. Women who are not mothers are deemed as deviant and incomplete, regardless of whether they are barren or actively chose to prioritize their careers first. As a result, these women acquire identity through traditional roles of being “good” wives, that presumably conditions them to be “good wives” and makes deviant women feel guilty to not live up to the standards labelled as “good” (Bhambhani & Inbanathan, 2018a).

Reena wanted to leave her husband due to the emotional abuse and the fact that Salman wedded her for his own selfish motives - in search of a mother, not a wife (Screwvala & Dua, 2018a, 1:17:45). Megha’s mother (Screwvala & Dua, 2018b, 1:32:53) mentioned that after being married, she will be content with her sexual life with Paras but it did not turn out that way. Similarly to them, there are several Indian women who still choose to get married because of the societal pressure that forces them to do so or they would be considered a disgrace to their family. When women’s behaviour do not conform to society’s expectations, such as complaining or talking back to their husbands; the husbands usually react with violence (Sharma, 2015). Violence in this context includes physical, emotional and sexual, and in a particular study, this research estimated that 4 in 10 Indian women reported experiencing domestic violence in their lifetime (Kalohke et al, 2016).

So the question remains: if India had not been colonised or affected by globalisation, would the Indian culture - specifically the rights of the women in India, be compromised? Nationalists believe in placing primary emphasis on promotion of its national culture, whereby women are kept out of education and employment and influence of westernization could preserve sanctified womanhood (Bhambhani & Inbanathan, 2018b). In the same context, cultural relativism would consider individuals’ cultural practices and ideology to be acceptable, thus becoming a norm to ignore fighting against what Westerners identify as the oppression of women (Peters, 2017). On the other hand, social reformers advocate for women’s rights based on the belief that the European idea of what to advocate or not to advocate for is superior, in other words - ethnocentrism. In this case, feminism would be denying human rights of Indian women. Since the idea of feminism is colonized, where individuals that view feminism form a white feminist culture perspective, differ from the insight of female rights in non-Western countries (Runyan, 2018), I feel that feminism should be practiced but in a decolonized form.

Watching ‘Lust Stories’ gave me the opportunity to passively immerse myself in the lives of women, outside of my culture, and learn how marriage, family and gender roles within these two systems differ between cultures, which may have been difficult to teach within classroom as not all of us come from the same cultural backgrounds and understanding. I believe that it is an exceptionally well addition to the course because it provided insight on how women as a class are oppressed and subdued by the hegemony of social patriarchy, where emotional, economic and social values associated with having children have made procreation a strong social expectation. Additionally, the struggles with proper representation of women in films which are sporadically discussed.

This is my favourite part among the four stories because it reminded me of a funny tweet (refer below). In this particular scene, Paras arrives at sexual climax before Megha reaches the count of five. On top of that, it reminded me of how most men are unbothered about women’s sexual discontentment.

[coldalbion]

Look I get it: Cultural Appropriation & Anthropocentrism

All the posts regarding cultural appropriation from closed cultures make sense - some have proper channels you can go through to get initiated. Others don’t. That’s fine, and people from outside the closed culture must respect that.

But there’s a glib phrase that often gets tacked on - some variation of “People are more important than spirits/non-corporeal entities.” And it is glib, because while the phrase is meant to highlight that structural racism and colonialism has occurred; that it has been and continues to be, damaging to varying cultures across the world, and thus the wishes of one human should not supersede or usurp those of entire cultures? It nonetheless neglects the ontological status of those same spirits and non-corporeal entities. The interactions with those same spirits and landscapes form the root basis of those same cultures. 

By glibly saying that people are “more important,” one is privileging humanity over over other entities - whether that be animals, plants (surprise: some non-human spirits are corporeal) landscape spirits or human dead. There’s a word for that: anthropocentrism.  And you know what? Anthropocentrism is ingrained; so much so that scientists are now calling the age in which we find ourselves the Anthropocene. They’re doing this because humans have had such an effect on Earth  that it’s rivalling major epochal events in Earth’s history - mass extinctions, climate change, geological and atmospheric shifts - you name it. Unless you have been raised in an indigenous society, (and sometimes even then) you’ve swallowed anthropocentrism hook, line, and sinker. It’s as much part of the Invisible Architecture of Bias as structural racism and gender inequality. Humans are the centre of the universe, the chosen species, the ones to whom all other wights and beings are subservient. (Spotting the Abrahamic bias you never noticed, yet? It’s even interesting from a Gnostic perspective - the arrogance of the Demiurge passed down.) Doesn’t that narrative also enable racism? Throughout history colonizers have treated native populations as sub-human or Other-than-human. Even indigenous and historical societies Othered their enemies, often making them out as monsters or bad spirits!  Here’s where it gets tricky: 

If every single one of us is enmeshed in anthropocentrism, what can we do? I’m a hard polytheist and it’s taken me years to recognise even the potential ontological implications of this. In an animist model, the ontological status of spirits or wights is both incredibly simple and mindbogglingly complex.

It’s simple because it boils down to this: wights (an Old English word which roughly translates as conscious being  thus a useful catch-all term which includes gods, spirits and humans) have an ontic status.  For those who know your Heidegger, see also Dasein. That’s to say, wights have presence, a Being-There-ness.  The properties of a specific wight are distinct from the quality of their Beingness-in-the-world.

Once we acknowledge that presence of that which is other than ourselves, whether that be other humans, or spirits or gods, we must also acknowledge that sense of that presence is felt - that is to say, perceived by ourselves through our embodiment. For example:

I perceive my partner via my eyes and other senses, this perception allows me to acknowledge her presence in the world. I do not know for certain that she is capable of similar cognition or modelling as myself  but I extrapolate those qualities from observing her behaviour. However, such observation and extrapolation of her qualities is separate from her presence.

 I assume the presence of other entities in the world, even if I cannot directly sense them - readers of this piece, the 44th & 45th Presidents of the United States, the Prime Minister of Great Britain, @wolvensnothere, my cat, etc.

Even though I  cannot directly currently perceive the above, I assume their Beingness-in-the-world  using the same embodied cognition which feels the presence of my partner. The quality of that feeling, its nature, is irrelevant here. It nonetheless occurs, even if I am not consciously aware of it. It is this occurrence which levels things.

The assumption that all that is the in world has Beingness is now my baseline assumption. It is the root of my life. More than that, it is the root of all things. What does this mean?

This base is my way, my first few steps at an “intersectional” spirituality: if all Others have a root presence in the world, it is as if there is a vitalist commonality. This shared Beingness means that we cannot separate the intersections of landscape, wights and humanity. All are connected by Beingness. 

As such, interactions with spirits must be performed on fundamentally equal terms as with humans or animals or other entities. Note that this is not anthropomorphism - rather, it is a fundamental philosophical (and theological) axiom. The properties of each wight or entity must be considered on a case by case basis, as should their intersections with other entities I consider my extended kin-group (friends and family, and connected wights). Over time, the fundamental connection of Beingness provides us a path to recognize further intersections and connections between entities. For example, the genus locii/and/or landwights of a deprived neighbourhood might be investigated or contacted; they might be hostile, and even if not, they might require appeasement, or be willing to come to some arrangement for the benefit of all parties. Meanwhile work with the ancestral spirits of those in the neighbourhood might improve the personal economic situation of individuals who find they can now afford to donate to community causes. This sense of shared community leads to mutual support in times of trouble which means that relations improve, the landscape becomes more well treated, etc.

It is impossible, in this methodology, to separate both the presence and suffering of living communities from their Dead - and even more so in the case of oppressed folks. The memory of the community, the felt-sense of those-once-living held in the hearts of their loved ones, must be maintained, and from that, stretching back.  To know one’s history is to find connections; the oppression of today is rooted in the sufferings and actions (good or bad) of the Dead. To bring them forth, to interact with them as part of the world in which we now find ourselves? They are not cast-off husks, having served their purpose in order to engender us. On the contrary, it is they who give us our current vitality. Those slaves who died, those colonizers who took them; those who died in wars, and those who started them; those who loved freely and died of AIDS, and the cops who beat them. All these have Beingness, intersections with the communities in question. This is not about morality, after all.

We are but one node in a net, one arbitrary point made by intersection. There is no centre. To combat anthropocentrism is to engage in a difficult battle, because it requires us to hold several ideas in mind at once: 1. That we, as individuals, are not the centre of the universe.

2. That we as a species are not the centre of the universe; that we are not ‘set apart’; all that makes us ‘human’ is not better or worse than any other behaviours, be they organic or inorganic. It simply is.

3. All our moralities are rooted, at base, in felt sense - even if that felt sense is either empathy or that engendered by recognition of our own mortality.

4. That nothing we do matters.

5. That our actions and felt sense nonetheless create meaning.

6. That we are unaware of the majority of our actions and feelings.  

You might note there are some potential contradictions in this list, and that’s rather the point. To be able to hold contradictory ideas in mind and recognize them as such is important. Note also that these ideas are just the starting point I began at.

When idiots try to compare the Holocaust to factory farming? Or American slavery to Roman? Ask yourself why they are idiots. Go beyond the reflexive anthropocentrism; think instead of all those lost, all the connections and interrelations, the sonder of every single being, whether they be Jew, Rromani Black, LGBTQ+ or disabled, or some Other that has been persecuted or enslaved -  think  on their unique life and story. Think on the way their culture was torn away from them, how their family history was lost. And when that felt sense arises - when you have finished weeping and swearing never again, if you are so inclined - be aware of their presence. Even though they are dead, they are nonetheless in the world, influencing it - as individuals and as a whole. Beingness is outside of time. So here, we return to the notion that interaction with the world as manifold-presences in a particular area is the basis of all culture.  These interactions and intersections between wights and a landscape enlivened by Beingness, set in motion the actions and reactions which build a given culture.

Realising this blew my mind; that arguments over ‘existence’ were a blind alley. Cultures form out of particular survival methodologies and customs. That is the first step; ensuring your people stay alive and prosper. Pacts are made theophanies occur; bulwarks against an indifferent yet presence-haunted world.

To say “People are more important...” is to unknowingly benefit from thousands of years of precarious navigation through a living world; to benefit from centuries of habitat destruction and ruthless hunting to extinction; to cast spite into the teeth of ancestors and living indigenous traditions who consider the landscape an ancestor, or fight to protect their land from rapacious corporations seeking to risk poisoning rivers and causing earthquakes purely for profit. 

Despite its good intentions, statements such as this isolate us from the living whole, creating illusions of safety and false superiority where there is little to be found - only hard work and clear eyed acceptance of how things are, before we attempt to make them as we wish them to be.  Pardon the pun, but the idea of hermetically sealing ourselves off in our own domains, whether they be those of identity politics or living spiritual practice seems counter productive. Instead, we should realize we are merely one of the Many - and act accordingly.

[garp19-amyclarke]

Research Statement

1.       Ideation

After the initial ideation workshop, the subject I chose to focus on was how typography affects the user experience. I am interested in researching how different font choices can impact the viewer and if the typeface chosen has a real impact on how a message is perceived. I am interested in exploring how type is used within artwork as a form of communication and how artists use this with or in place of imagery. I am also interested in how the use of different typefaces can influence someone and how the tone of a piece of work can change dependent on the type choice. I think this would be of interest as learning how we can view certain typefaces would be useful knowledge for future projects. Possible focuses could also be on the use of type versus image, the use of typography within advertisements and the environment in which it is used. Another focus would be investigating if audiences are likely to enjoy artwork or become influenced based on the choice of typeface. This would be of interest as I could look at the trends of successful campaigns and those that were not as successful to investigate if typography had an effect. Another route of focus could be the use of typography in political art and the role it plays. I could investigate political campaigns from the past and present such as Nazi Germany or the 2016 US election campaign and look at how they used typography to persuade people nationwide. I think it would be interesting to look at how the political campaigns in the 2016 US election were used to engage different demographics and what role the typefaces played in helping or hindering this. Another focus could be North Korea and the typography-based design that has come out of a place of little western influence, this would be interesting to compare how North Korean artists and western artists use typography within their work.

2.       Research and Development

The area I will be focusing my research on is contemporary western artists and how they use or have used typography within their work. To begin my research, I explored David Carson’s work as he typically uses typography within his work, to connect on an emotional level with the viewer. Carson believes in the emotion of design and says, ‘a message is sent before somebody begins to read, before they get the rest of the information; what is the emotional response they get to the product, story or painting’ (Carson, 2003). I think this is interesting as he explores how the use of various typefaces can change the way someone views a message. For example, a sign can be the same colour, have the same message and words but the only difference is the expression that is carried across with the use of a different typeface. (Figure 1) He also looks at legibility of typography and how we can differentiate legibility and communication, Carson believes ‘just because something is legible doesn’t necessarily mean it communicates the correct message.’ (Carson, 2003) I think that this is important to consider as it shows Carson uses typography within his work to communicate to the viewer rather than using it as imagery.

Another artist I researched was Jenny Holzer as she uses typography in installation art utilising structures in urban environments and neon signs to communicate with her viewers. (Figure 2) ‘Holzer’s works often speak of violence, oppression, sexuality, feminism, power, war and death. Her main concern is to enlighten, bringing to light something thought in silence and was meant to remain hidden’ (Normoyle, 2011). Holzer uses typefaces such as Franklin Gothic which doesn’t carry cultural baggage, this enables her to communicate with clarity. Designer Robin Fior who was associated with radical and libertarian causes in the 1960s and 70s used Franklin Gothic also (Figure 3). ‘The graphic formula consisted of Artype Franklin Gothic on top of a news photograph printed in a non-natural colour’ (Fior, 2009, P.135). Whilst working on the newspaper National Socialism, Fior used the same formula to communicate to his audience, using Franklin Gothic as his main typeface. This is a simple, legible typeface in which many other artists have used including Lawrence Weiner (Figure 4). ‘Weiner’s pursuit of neutrality is something that also affected his choice of typeface. When developing his framework, he looked for typefaces that carry little cultural baggage thus allowing the clarity of message, he chose typefaces such as Franklin Gothic’ (Holmes, 1998). It’s interesting to note the message that both Holzer and Fior convey when using this typeface are politically persuaded, suggesting that this typeface has been selected for its neutrality.

Another artist I investigated was Barbara Kruger, as ‘her works examine stereotypes and the behaviours of consumerism with text layered over mass-media images. Rendered with black-and-white, red accented, Futura Bold Oblique font’ (Artnet, 2016). I find Kruger’s work interesting as like Holzer she focuses on subjects that are usually private or outspoken, although Kruger uses Futura Bold it has similarities to Franklin Gothic as they are both sans-serif and have a thick weight. (Figure 5) I think Kruger uses a modern font throughout her work to ensure her artwork doesn’t lose relevance throughout the years, as it is ‘the typeface of today and tomorrow’ (Rhatigan, 2014). Kruger says ‘when I need type that has to be set very tightly I always use Helvetica Extra Bold caps because it sets tighter than Futura. It cuts through the grease. That’s why I like it.’ (Kruger, 1991) I think this is of interest as Miedinger and Hoffmann who created Helvetica ‘set out to create a neutral typeface that had great clarity, no intrinsic meaning in its form, and could be used on a wide variety of signage.’ (Helvetica, 2007) Therefore I think Kruger selects typefaces that have no cultural baggage to ensure that the message she wants to communicate has clarity.

Another contemporary artist who uses typography effectively within their work is David Shrigley, ‘best known for his distinctive drawing style and works that make satirical comments on everyday situations and human interactions.’ (Stephen Friedman Gallery, n.d.). He utilises hand-rendered typography to accompany his drawings, which give his work a more personal touch. I think the way Shrigley uses typography compared to Holzer and Kruger is interesting as his hand-rendered type reflects his voice rather than using a typeface that carries little cultural baggage. Shrigley often uses linguistic signs within his work using the signified and signifier to create humorous artwork, for example within his ‘sorry I fell asleep whilst you were talking’ card (Figure 6) he uses text to communicate to viewers what is happening in the illustration and to get this point across faster,  without this text the viewer might not understand the correct message Shrigley is communicating. Tracy Emin also uses handwritten fonts throughout her work, producing works in a variety of media from embroidery collage to neon signs. Her subject of work is similar to Holzer and Kruger, focussing on personal and confessional artwork, although I think Emin’s approach seems more personal due to the choice of typeface. (Figure 7) I think Emin selects the correct typeface for this piece as its personal to her and her experiences therefore hand-rendered type enhances what it communicates to the viewer.

3.       Critique and explanation

Whilst researching these artists I noticed that some artists used typography to signify what they were communicating within the image and others solely used typography to communicate. I was interested to find out what the reason for this could be, that’s when I started to research semiotics. Semiotics is an investigation into how meaning is created and how meaning is communicated, through visual and linguistic signs and how they create meaning. (Figure 8) In the case of text works what was presented via typography was a context where the spectator could conceivably be engaged in the artwork through reading rather than through the reception of art through looking, as discussed by Robert Smithson (Smithson, 1979). Semiotics is a key tool to ensure that intended meanings are understood by the person on the receiving end. ‘The meaning of any sign is affected by who is reading that sign. Peirce recognised a creative process of exchange between the sign and the reader.’ (Crow, 2003, P.54) Therefore artists such as Holzer and Kruger use neutral typefaces to ensure there is minimal cultural effect on the viewer, whereas Shrigley uses hand-rendered font which can affect viewers in different ways. He also uses type to signify what he is communicating to eliminate confusion.

I then investigated Gestalt’s theory in typography and design principles:

Gestalt is a form of psychology that focuses on cognitive behaviours. Designers are influenced by the visual perceptual aspect of this, particularly the theory that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. The mind copes with the visual confusion of our everyday world by consolidating objects into groups to simplify input. (HOW Design, 2015)

Using this theory helps designers influence the viewer by controlling how the design is viewed. There are five design principles that derive from the theory: proximity, similarity, continuity, closure and figure/ground (Figure 9). Each employ different methods to create unity within the whole. Therefore, the way typography is used can affect the viewers thoughts and feelings towards an art piece.  Another theory that informs the way typography is communicated is the communication theory, this has been interpreted in various ways.  Shannon and Weaver's model (Figure 10) is one which is, in John Fiske's words, 'widely accepted as one of the main seeds out of which Communication Studies has grown' (Fiske 1982: 6). Claude Shannon and Warren Weaver developed a model of communication which was intended to assist in developing a mathematical theory of communication. ‘An underlaying assumption of the theory is that the aim of communication is ‘efficiency’, any different message being received is seen as a failure in communication.’ (Barnard, 2008) Therefore, one receiver could interpret a typeface as ‘conservative’ another could see it as ‘racy’. The idea that people from different social and cultural backgrounds interpret graphic design in the same way is flawed.  Possible questions that have arisen from this research so far are ‘Is it possible for a typeface to carry no meaning/ be neutral?’ Another question would be ‘Do artists have a specific method for choosing their typefaces?’. Another question is ‘Do artists use design theories when creating work that involves both image and text or is it just preference?’ ‘Do artists chose the right typefaces?’ ‘How much do artists engage graphic design and typography in the formation of their works?’

4.       Action Plan

I still need to research further into why artists chose the typefaces they do and how they do so, I think it would be interesting to find out how artists know which typefaces will work in communicating what they want and how we as an audience perceive these. I think I need to research further into semiotics to do this as I would like to find out how we recognise symbols and use this knowledge to communicate with image and type. I could also go onto looking at the use of typography within political graphic design and if they use typefaces with or without culture baggage. Particular methods of research would include further reading into semiotics, how artists use this knowledge to effectively communicate within their work and how they choose the best typeface. I could also interview current artists that use typography within their work to find out how they decide on which type to use. Over the summer I aim to further research into these subject to help me decide on a final question to answer, after this I will continue to build upon the research I have already carried out and if necessary I can then carry out interviews with artists.  

 5.       References

Artist Rooms: Jenny Holzer (2018) [Exhibition]. Tate Modern, London. 23 July 2018 – 31 July 2019.

Artnet. (2016). Barbara Kruger | Artnet.com [online] Available at: http://www.artnet.com/artists/barbara-kruger/ [Accessed 9 Apr. 2019].

Barnard, M. (2008). Graphic design as communication. London: Routledge.

Carson, D. (2003). Two garage doors. [image] Available at: https://postmodernmovieposter.wordpress.com/2013/12/30/legibility-vs-communication-in-design-david-carsons-point-of-view/ [Accessed 9 Apr. 2019].

Carson, D. (2003). Design and Discovery [Video file]. Retrieved from https://www.ted.com/talks/david_carson_on_design [Accessed 2 Mar. 2019]

Crow, D. (2003). Visible signs. Crans-près-Céligny: AVA, p.54.

Eco, U. (1994). Role of the Reader: Explorations in the Semiotics of Texts (Advances in semiotics). Indiana University Press.

Emin, T. (1997). Terribly wrong. [image] Available at: https://www.tate.org.uk/art/artworks/emin-terribly-wrong-p11565 [Accessed 9 Apr. 2019].

Fior, R. (1960). Black Dwarf journal. [image] Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2012/oct/05/robin-fior [Accessed 9 Apr. 2019].

Fior, R. (2009). Modern typography in Britain. Reading, Eng.: University of Reading, Dept. of Typography & Graphic Communication, pp.135-140.

Fiske, J. (1989). Introduction to communication studies. London: Routledge.

Helvetica. (2007). [film] Directed by G. Hustwit. Plexifilm.

Holmes, R. (1998). Eye Magazine | Feature | The work must be read. [online] Eyemagazine.com. Available at: http://www.eyemagazine.com/feature/article/the-work-must-be-read [Accessed 5 Mar. 2019].

Holzer, J. (2007). Blue purple tilt. [image] Available at: https://elephant.art/jenny-holzers-truisms/ [Accessed 9 Apr. 2019].

HOW Design. (2015). Gestalt Theory in Typography & Design Principles. [online] Available at: https://www.howdesign.com/resources-education/online-design-courses-education/gestalt-theory-typography-design-principles/ [Accessed 5 Mar. 2019].

Koffka, K. (1923). Gestalt's theory. [image] Available at: https://pgdip2016.myblog.arts.ac.uk/2015/10/19/gestalt-principles/ [Accessed 10 Apr. 2019].

Kruger, B. (1991). ‘Reputations: Barbara Kruger’. Interview with Karrie Jacobs for Eye Magazine issue no. 5 vol. 2, 1991. Available at: http://www.eyemagazine.com/feature/article/barbara-kruger [Accessed: 9 Apr. 2019]

Kruger, B. (2010). Past/Present/Future. [image] Available at: https://www.designboom.com/art/barbara-kruger-in-taking-place-at-the-temporary-stedelijk/ [Accessed 29 Apr. 2019].

Normoyle, C. (2011). A look at Barbara Kruger and Jenny Holzer’s use of Typography. [online] Cat Normoyle. Available at: https://catnormoyle.com/2011/02/02/a-look-at-barbara-kruger-and-jenny-holzers-use-of-typographic-art/ [Accessed 9 Apr. 2019].

Rhatigan, D. (2014). Ultrasparky: Futura: The Typeface of Today and Tomorrow. [online] Ultrasparky.org. Available at: http://ultrasparky.org/archives/2014/01/futura_the_type.html [Accessed 29 Apr. 2019].

Sagmeister, S. (2004). Happiness by Design. [Video file]. Retrieved from: https://www.ted.com/talks/stefan_sagmeister_shares_happy_design#t-793986 [Accessed 2 Mar. 2019].

Saussure, F. (1965). Signifier and signified. [image] Available at: http://www.decodingculture.in/2010/05/noise-semiotics.html [Accessed 9 Apr. 2019].

SCHRAMM, M. (1954). Schramm model of communication. [image] Available at: https://www.communicationtheory.org/osgood-schramm-model-of-communication/ [Accessed 10 Apr. 2019].

Shrigley, D. (2011). Sorry I fell asleep whilst you were talking. [image] Available at: https://www.artimage.org.uk/19945/david-shrigley/untitled--sorry-i-fell-asleep---2011 [Accessed 29 Apr. 2019].

Smithson, R. (1979). Robert Smithson, the collected writings. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Stephen Friedman Gallery (n.d.). David Shrigley. [online] Stephenfriedman.com. Available at: https://www.stephenfriedman.com/artists/david-shrigley/ [Accessed 9 Apr. 2019].

Weiner, L. (2009). Placed on the tip of the wave. [image] Available at: https://www.lissongallery.com/artists/lawrence-weiner [Accessed 29 Apr. 2019].

[seo32company321toronto]

Education for the Advancement of Women and the Social Development of the Planet

Not often does it fall to individuals to be a part of history in the making. For the few who are given that privilege, its true value can only be estimated only in hindsight. More than 150 years ago in a garden at Badasht, Tahireh - Iranian poet and revolutionary - renounced her best shapewear  veil and before the stunned participants announced through the power of this deed a new age in the cause of women. Four years later, at the moment of her execution, she cried "You can kill me as soon as you like but you cannot stop the emancipation of women".

One and a half centuries later, and a decade into a new millennium, I pause to remember Tahireh, and all those men and women since, who have kept the flame of her cause burning brightly down all the years and passed this torch on to our generation here today; another people, another land, another century. In my mind they remain with us, and will continue to inspire and guide us just as we too must inspire and guide the generations still to come.

The Connection Between Education and Emancipation In the globally disseminated statement "The Promise of World Peace" the Universal House of Justice describes the important connection between education and discrimination, stating "...ignorance is indisputably the principal reason...for the perpetuation of prejudice."

More and more we realise that if we are to change the cruel, destructive ways in which human beings treat one another, we must first change the way they think, and the things they value. Highlighting the supreme urgency of re-educating the souls and minds of Maternity Shapewear humanity, H. G. Wells said "Human history becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe."

A crucial aspect of this education which is necessary if we are to avert catastrophe and bring balance to the present state of disequilibrium, and which will eventually contribute to a new definition of humanity, is the process which some have called the 'feminisation' of the planet.

'Abdu'l Baha, son of Baha'u'llah, Prophet Founder of the Baha'i Faith, described this process;

"The world in the past has been ruled by force and man has dominated over woman by reason of his more forceful and aggressive qualities both of body and mind. But the scales are already shifting, force is losing its weight, and mental alertness, intuition and the spiritual qualities of love and service, in which woman is strong, are gaining ascendancy. Hence the new age will be an age less masculine and more permeated with the feminine ideals, or, to speak more exactly, will be an age in which the masculine and feminine elements of civilisation will be more properly balanced."

The first entry in Collins Dictionary defining the word education is " the act or process of acquiring knowledge...". This broad definition vastly extends the sphere of education beyond that limited and formalised type of education provided by the state school system. Clearly 'the act or process by which we acquire knowledge' takes place on washer dryer clearance  many levels. One purpose of this paper is to identify some of the primary ways in which we have acquired our present beliefs about the role and value of the sexes, and to suggest positive directions for future educational change.

True Education Creates Enduring Change The real value of education lies in how it permanently changes our behaviour and our thoughts. Professor B. F. Skinner offers this definition; "Education is what survives when what has been learnt has been forgotten." People can learn to behave in outwardly politically correct ways, but the real challenge is to so internalise new values that they become an inseparable part of the individual. This is what Baha'u'llah asks of us when He calls for us to become "a new race of men." Steven Covey, author of "7 Habits of Highly Effective People" says "What we are communicates far more eloquently than anything we say or do." How you behave in your day-to-day life is a truer indication of your inner beliefs than are the words you speak. For this reason we need to focus upon our deeds rather than our words. Baha'u'llah says "The reality of man is his thought, not his material body". In seeking to promote the advancement of women, we need to retrain thoughts, attitudes, beliefs and values. We need to do this for ourselves as individuals, but we also seek to influence others at every level of our personal and collective lives.

A popular catch cry of feminism has been the statement that "The personal is political". "The Promise of World Peace" describes how personal attitudes do indeed have political and international appliances houston consequences, stating that denial of equality "promotes...harmful attitudes and habits that are carried from the family to the workplace, to political life, and ultimately to international relations."

In the article 'Training for the Year 2000', James Aggrey maintains that the education of girls is of the greater importance because "To educate a man is to educate a single individual, but to educate a woman is to educate an entire nation." The words of William Ross Wallace that 'The hand that rocks the cradle Is the hand that rules the world' have become legendary.

An earlier quotation from 'The Promise' described how inequality promotes harmful attitudes and habits which men carry with them into all spheres of life. It continues by saying "Only as women are welcomed into full partnership in all fields of human endeavour will the moral and psychological climate be created in which international peace can emerge" and in the subsequent paragraph states "...it is through educated mothers that the benefits of knowledge can be most effectively and rapidly diffused throughout society."

Here then are two key factors in the education and feminisation of our society; * the education of women which will enable them to participate equally in all fields of human endeavour and in doing so become in themselves a source of education; a 'feminising influence' to car dealerships in houston  others * the crucial role played by women in the education of the coming generation

The Education of Men is Crucial to True Equality It is impossible to consider the issue of the advancement of women as belonging to women alone. In fact the Universal House of Justice states it is an issue that men too must own; "It is important to acknowledge that the wellbeing and advancement of men is impossible as long as women remain disadvantaged. Men can not be happy whilst women are oppressed, and neither can they hope to remain unaffected by the changes women are making for themselves. The growth and development of women needs to be balanced by complementary growth and development on the part of men."

Poet and pacifist Robert Bly stated:

"Contemporary man is lost... damaged by a childhood lack of contact with a strong male figure to initiate him into manhood. He has become a "soft' or   naive' male, who, by rejecting the aggressive and obnoxious male traits that he has been taught women dislike, has also abandoned the forceful and heroic aspects of masculinity, to the detriment of society."

Christchurch psychotherapist Paul Baakman bluntly observed "No wonder when boys grow up they can't talk with other men, they've never learnt to talk with their bloody fathers."

The N.Z. Dominion newspaper carried luxury cars houston  a report of an 11-country study of parental involvement with children. The study reported that "Preschoolers worldwide are alone with their fathers on average less than one waking hour a day...". In their survey of the routines of four-year-olds, researchers found young children were rarely in the sole care of their fathers, regardless of the culture, and the article quoted an editor of the study as saying that "It certainly indicates that the rhetoric of equality and the male taking his share of the responsibility for child-rearing is a lot of talk but certainly not a lot of action."

Sandra Coney writing in the N.Z. Sunday Star Times (22.1.95) describes how faulty perception of male roles in society creates negative behaviour patterns which may have contributed to that country having the world's highest youth suicide rate, reporting;

"Research by the Alcohol and Public Health Research Unit at Auckland University found low self esteem was the dominant characteristic of today's young men.

The men's peer group was their principle source of belonging, support and acceptance. The group's solidarity was reinforced by drunken, foolish exploits which won approval and became part of the lore of the group.

Women threatened the young men and the cohesion of the group. They represented commitment, responsibility Houston SEO Expert  and the possibility of rejection. The men protected themselves from this by being hostile and offensive around women.

The cultural context we provide for young men is all wrong. We expect, even tolerate their antisocial behaviour. Fathers provide poor role models as husbands and fail to develop emotionally close relationships with their boys."

And, as final evidence of the faulty role modelling of males in Western society, let's not forget comedian Rod Dangerfield who also suffered from low self esteem as a child, and complained; "Once I told my father, 'Nobody likes me'. He said, 'Don't say that - everybody hasn't met you yet." "

The need to develop positive sex roles is common to both men and women, and presents an important challenge for our communities in order to heal past sufferings and bring about personal transformation, through identifying and developing strong options for the future. As Elizabeth Kubler Ross said; "I'm not OK, you're not OK, but that's OK".

'Abdu'l-Baha emphasises that the equality of men and women presents issues which will negatively affect us all until they are resolved;

"Until the equality between men and women is established and attained, the highest social development of mankind is not possible....Until woman and  man recognise and realise equality, social and SEO Company Toronto  political progress will not be possible."

Supporting the advancement of women is clearly in the interests of men, on many levels. Because women are the first and most influential trainers of sons, their development will in turn enrich men, who will be better educated from the earliest years at the hands of proficient mothers. When fully one half of the world's human resources, lying largely untapped in the hearts and minds of women, are released and developed, the potential for global transformation on every level is profound. Therefore, in view of the eventual advantages to both males and females, it is easy to see why Abdu'l-Baha states "The woman is indeed of the greater importance to the race. She has the greater burden and the greater work..." '

New Concepts of Power Many people have felt the need to what career is right for me  coin new terms for the advancement of women that are not burdened with the negative associations many now attach to the word 'feminism'. The term 'feminisation' has already been mentioned. Another phrase used by Maori in New Zealand-"mana wahine"-refers to a recognition of the rights of a woman to participate in all aspects of society. Until recently there have been clear distinctions between politically feminist and more spiritually-inspired thought. Feminism has focussed strongly on the achievement of equality through the acquisition of power by women. The spiritually-inspired ideal seeks power too, but in a different context. The development of a more balanced view was expressed in the opening address at the 1985 Nairobi Conference on Women by the Conference Secretary-General who commented ;

"Power, as it is increasingly seen by women today, is not a means of dominating others but rather an instrument to influence political, social and economic processes to create a more humane and democratic world. Will this vision be translated into reality? Let us hope so."

In this context women seek the power to influence, to have access to areas of human endeavour where our voices can be heard and our feminising influence, our 'mana wahine', felt. We seek for men to actively support us in becoming more educated, more influential. One business analyst certification  potent means of educating others is through the 'power' of example.

Role Modelling Role modelling is a popular term for what is referred to in Baha'i teaching as 'the dynamic force of example'. Tahireh was an early champion of this influence, in her challenging words to "Let deeds, not words, be your adorning." 'Abdu'l-Baha offered the example of His own life, saying; "Look at Me, follow Me, be as I am". The Universal House of Justice calls upon the Baha'i community to be a model.

Women have always exerted a strong yet often unacknowledged influence upon following generations through the power of their own lives. Macho Australian league player Alan Jones said; "What Australia needs today are examples and heroes, people and standards to look up to and live by. My mother will always be my hero."

The powerful attraction exerted by mothers makes them important teachers and role models for better or for worse, whether they do so consciously or unconsciously. Even the physical proximity  early childhood development of mothers is powerfully attractive; Helen Keller recalled; "I used to sit on my mother's knee all day long because it amused me to feel the movements of her lips and I moved my lips too, although I had forgotten what talking was."

The creation of more role models for young women was considered to be one of the lasting benefits of Women's Suffrage Year. Our communities need to consider how we can promote good role models for both our male and female children, within our families and within wider society, in day-to-day life and in their formal education.

Women's History How well does the present system of state education promote healthy sex role attitudes? Personally speaking, my own experience of school inclines me to the same view as rugby-playing All Black Andy Haden who said "I make no secret of the fact that I went to school to eat my lunch"

Does the content of our formal education promote healthy attitudes free from prejudice or is prejudice still perpetuated in ways which are especially dangerous because they are so insidious, subtle and deceptive? Our present education system is in reality only a narrow slice of human knowledge; it omits the input of many cultures and, with few exceptions, fully one half the world's population since it is largely the history and knowledge of men. It denies intuition, and creates an artificial  technical schools near me separation of church and state, of science and religion, of materialism and human values.

For example, Rosalind Miles, in 'Review of The Women's History of the World' tells us what we could have been, but were not, taught, that;

"Aspatia, a women of Miletos was Plato's principle teacher.

Aristoclea, another woman, taught Pythgoras.

In the fourth-century Alexandria, Hypatia, again, a woman, invented the astrolabe, the planisphere and a hydroscope, Artemesia in the command of the fleet, defeated the skilful Athenians near Salamis.

Mary Reiber was transported to Australia in 1790 at the age of 13, for stealing a horse; she was to become a grain trader, hotelier, importer, property developer and shipping magnate."

It is no surprise that girls have grown up burdened by a belief that they have only a narrow sphere of influence and opportunity in the world, whilst males have an opposite but also burdening belief that they must know everything. This societal pressure has produced what was wittily described in an article called "Male Answer Syndrome; Why men always have opinions, even on subjects they know nothing about." I admit the tone of this article is a little flippant and unscholarly, but readers who are able to approach it with a sense of scientific detachment can easily recognise the key point, which is of course an exposure of the tragedy of faulty  A+ certification training sex role stereotyping.

Mothering Politically-slanted feminist conceptions of power usually diminish the role of motherhood with its attendant physical and historical limitations and restrictions. Spiritually-based teachings on equality place great emphasis on the role of women as mothers. Indeed, this is the area in which women have the greatest manifestation of their power. 'Abdu'l-Baha states that the greatest of all ways to worship God is to educate the children and that no nobler deed than this can be imagined, thus acknowledging the primacy of mothers in their capacity to shape minds and souls during a child's most formative period. In this context it is mothers who, upon receiving the necessary education and resources to maximise their own potential, can "..determine the happiness, the future greatness, the courteous ways and learning and judgment, the understanding and faith of their little ones."

The role of women in educating children, particularly in early childhood, provides the vital foundation for the collective education of humanity, for it is in early childhood that values are most effectively transmitted from one generation to the next, and "....it is through educated mothers that the benefits of knowledge can be most effectively and rapidly diffused throughout society." It follows that the role of the family in the advancement of women is a crucial one for it is here that attitudes are most rapidly and effectively disseminated from the individual to the family and ultimately to the world.

Therefore, in considering future directions in the advancement of women, primary considerations include; * raising the status and perceived  plus size shapewear value of mothering * providing training and resourcing for women to become competent mothers * developing and promoting quality parenting programmes * investigating and demonstrating how such mothering is compatible with full participation in wider human society * providing good role models of this compatibility * educating and supporting fathers, and providing strong role models *fostering an understanding and value of the importance of families to the world *fostering the development of scholarship and literature to develop new models for mothers, fathers, families, workplaces etc.

The Transmission of Values A primary function of the mother is to teach good character and conduct, to train the children in values. Without morals or values, education can become as much a source of harm as advancement. G.M.Trevelyan observed of education that it "...has produced a vast population able to read but unable to distinguish what is worth reading."

There appears to be one noteworthy exception to the lesser role into which men have traditionally cast women. Those values which men may not be able to recognise in women collectively, they are often able to appreciate in their own mothers. The musician Glenn Miller testified to his mother's training in values, describing her as "The inspirational head of a family in which she tried hard to establish an exceptionally high code of morality and a really deep-seated and lasting mutual love."

Len Evans said of his mother; "There was great love, affection and care, but there was also a rigid code of conduct which followed her perception of exactly what was right or wrong...inflexible, stubborn perhaps, but also totally honest, upright, endearing and supportive. A woman to be reckoned with."

The development of courses such as The Virtues Project, a global grassroots initiative inspiring the practice of virtues in everyday life, have proven to be effective first steps in helping mothers and fathers raise a new generation committed to equity, justice, cooperation, peacefulness and those other divine qualities which will transform individuals, galvanise nations, and unite the world.

Ultimately, all those who labour in the cause of the emancipation of women must realise that concepts of equality, unity and equity are spiritual concepts. Their true attainment is reached only through spiritual striving, They cannot be lobbied, legislated or demonstrated for. Feminism for the most part seeks to create outer forms and representations of equality, but it is not looking to the only sure and underlying source of sustained unity which is achieved through spiritual education which begins in the family.

Peace Issues New Zealand is distinguished for being the first country in the world to grant votes for women; it is also a country distinguished for horrific loss of life on the battlefields of the twentieth century.

"My poor little New Zealand" said James Herbert Henderson. "Exporting frozen meat in peace, live meat in war."

Women are the most important factor in world peace; surely the present day attlefield of women, having attained used appliances houston distinction in winning the vote, is to become distinguished in the pursuit of a peace which will preserve the lives of sons and grandsons to come. The Universal House of Justice states;

"The emancipation of women, the achievement of full equality between the sexes, is one of the most important, though less acknowledged prerequisites of peace. The denial of such equality perpetuates an injustice against one half of the world's population and promotes in men harmful habits that are carried from the family to the workplace, to political life, and ultimately to international relations. There are no grounds, moral, practical, or biological upon which such denial can be justified. Only as women are welcomed into full partnership in all fields of human endeavour will the moral and psychological climate be created in which international peace can emerge."

The peace which spiritually-minded women seek is not to be gained by waving banners and lobbying politicians, but by creating in our human society a climate both moral and psychological, in which the attitudes of peace will gain widespread acceptance. The process of the feminisation of the workplace will introduce into daily life those qualities essential to the creation of a peaceful world, as women model the reality of "Abdu'l-Baha's words that "...women are most capable and efficient...their hearts are more tender and susceptible than the hearts of men...they are more philanthropic and responsive toward the needy and suffering...they are inflexibly opposed to war and are lovers of peace."

When women, aided and encouraged by those very men whose own lives are most at risk from war, achieve full partnership in all areas of influence and decision making, the qualities of tenderness, compassion and peacefulness will prevail in human affairs, and the Most Great Peace, the Kingdom of Heaven, will come.

I began by recalling the events of the conference at Badasht, and the occasion on which Tahireh chose to announce the liberation of women from the shackles and veils of the past. I close with those same words from the Qur'an with which Tahireh, the Pure One, concluded that address, and which foreshadow the age of peace to come

[cabiba]

Decades of white-run, white-owned, monocultural LGBT magazines came to an end last month. Gay Times, Britain’s oldest gay title, made an announcement: Its new editor would be Josh Rivers, who, as a mixed-race British-American, is the UK’s first BAME editor of a gay men’s magazine.

The news was greeted ecstatically, not least because Gay Times, founded in 1984, attributed the appointment to a desire to “best serve the magazine’s diverse and culturally inquisitive audience.” Rivers, 31, promised “a monthly journal that speaks to the vast and varied lived experiences of our community ­– in its entirety.”

This, many hoped, could mark a new beginning of inclusivity, where sexual racism, body fascism, ableism, and other forms of oppression permeating gay media and beyond could be challenged. Say goodbye to the flip book of white abs and white pecs.

The news came as Edward Enninful, British Vogue’s first black editor, was preparing his first issue. And it came just 18 months after hip-hop visionary Mykki Blanco said amid a stream of tweets railing against the absence of diversity in the gay press: “I think I will probably be dead before White Gay Media ever becomes inclusive.”

Gay Times, it seemed, could prove him wrong.

But while researching Rivers – previously the magazine's marketing manager – following an invitation to interview him, BuzzFeed News found several dozen tweets between 2010 and 2015 that would shock many people.

There were tweets about Jewish people: “I wonder if they cast that guy as ‘The Jew’ because of that fucking ridiculously larger honker of a nose. It must be prosthetic. Must be.” In another tweet, he applauded as “genius” a quote from animated sitcom Family Guy: “Jews are gross. It’s the only religion with ‘ew’ in it.” In a third, he asked for film recommendations – except ones about the Holocaust.

Then there were the tweets about Asian people: “The creepiest gay men are short, old asian men with long nails. Fact.” He also described two Chinese people sat next to him at the 2012 Olympics as “sneaky fucks” because he didn’t see that they were there while he “screamed ‘we just shat all over china’.” In another tweet he wondered: “Long day. How would I type that with Chinese accent? Wong way?”

Rivers tweeted his views about other parts of the world, too: “Waitress from next door just got back from Africa & told me I should go soon. Do I look like I’m trying to get killed? Jog on, honey.” And, “So the Egyptian men celebrate by raping women? Cool. Freedom rings for fat, smelly, hairy, cunt-face, backwards rapists. YAY!”

The tweets about women were of a similar ilk. “I’ve just seen a girl in the tightest white tank & lord help me if she’s not pregnant, she should be killed. #gross”

And, “Fucking cunting whiney cunts. Cunting whiney fucking cunts. Go change your fucking tampon & stay the fuck out of my way.”

He also tweeted about lesbians: “I hope that piece of machinery that asshole lesbian next door has been using since 8am cuts off her goddamn hand.” Anyone hoping Gay Times would include stories about gay women might also be disappointed if they saw another of his tweets: “So was getting geared up to watch Lip Service. Turns out it’s about lesbian dramas. DELETE.”

To describe transgender people, Rivers used the word “tranny” or the alternative spelling “trannie”. One example: “Look here, tranny. 1) you look like a crackhead 2) YOU’RE A TRANNY & 3) your wig doesn’t deserve a mention. Avert your eyes, honey.”

This is all before we come to Rivers’ endless tweets about "fat" people (“obese people wind me up. There should be a fat lane”); old or "ugly" people (“People-watching in Soho is amaze. You’ll never see a more confident bunch of ugly people”), and homeless people (“I’m thankful for TFL [Transport for London] & rising bus fares. Let’s keep homeless people on the streets & off our buses! #TT”).

Outlining his vision for Gay Times and how it can be used to promote diversity, Rivers tells BuzzFeed News: “It is incumbent upon those of us who hold positions of influence to make sure we’re using our platforms to speak to the multitude of experiences of our community.

“Whether that’s transgender, femme, nonbinary, it’s important we’re leading on those conversations and handing our platforms over to the people who are best placed to do that.”

He adds: “Representation has been a huge issue for me personally."

His political awakening has "actually been relatively recent", he says. “In the past couple of years.”

Rivers begins to talk about a “network of mentoring, learning and support” he set up called Series Q, based on research findings about the proportion of LGBT people who go back into the closet when they enter corporate environments. "We have a responsibility to show all types of different people, all different shapes, colours, and creeds, that they are valuable, that they are beautiful, and they are loved," he adds.

How then does he square that with his tweets over the last few years that many would regard as concerning to Jewish people and other minorities?

“In what way?” he replies. When his tweets start being read back to him, beginning with the “large honker” one, he is stunned.

“Oh my,” he says with incredulity, “That’s on my Twitter?”

As he hears more, he asks for a link. He then asks when the tweet is from. “Wow,” he replies when he learns it's from 2011. As he is read more and more tweets, his replies begin to form one of uniform astonishment. He says "wow" when he hears his tweets about Jewish people, Egyptian people, women, lesbians, trans people, and fat, ugly, and homeless people. To all: “Wow.”

“This is really hard to hear,” he says, as if this is all new to him, but there are dozens like this. “I’m kind of stunned…” He pauses. And then offers: “I think it shows an immaturity, a certain amount of self-loathing. I think it shows that before recently I hadn’t been aware of the effects that social media and using platforms in such a nasty and pernicious way had.” I think, he says, “it shows I have grown."

A lot of people would see those tweets and think he’s nothing but a racist. “I think those tweets, yeah, they’re perhaps reflective of a lack of awareness.” Rivers says he has only recently started reading feminist texts and understanding how misogyny is reflected in language.

It is of course the case that not everyone is schooled in feminist theory, queer theory or the sociology of race. But how, as a queer person of colour, could he be so unaware of his own attitudes to tweet such things?

“I think it is a question that can be asked of our community at large,” he replies. But as someone who now has a public platform, it’s also a big question for him.

“The reasons I say it’s a question that can be asked of the entire community is it’s something we as a community are not very good at if we think about supporting others,” he says. Is it not extraordinary that he could be so blind to his own prejudices?

“I think it is unremarkable,” he says. “It is very normal to be blind to ourselves. There is nothing new or particularly outstanding about that. We as individuals can move through the world mindlessly. Until recently, I chose to be blind to the world.”

“We don’t all get it right,” he says. But most people also don’t get it so spectacularly wrong so often over such a long period of time.

“Absolutely,” he says. “I am a product of my environment – like many of us are.”

Rivers doesn't agree that it could sound as if he's blaming his environment, instead of taking responsibility. “I feel like you’re suggesting no one has ever grown or learned or developed,” he says. “I wasn’t born ready or awake. We should all be given the chance to learn to grow.”

Given how recent these tweets are, given how recent his political awakening is, and given how he has only just begun to assess his own shortcomings, is he the right person to lead the charge into greater diversity and representation?

“I guess it’s never too late to try and be the best version of yourself,” he says.

The discussion moves on to his tweets about fat people. The gay media has long been accused of body fascism, so tirelessly featuring gym-buffed V-shaped torsos as to compound the insecurities of its readers. Where does his loathing of fat people come from?

Rivers initially says he does not know, that he is “speechless”. “I’ve never reflected…” he says, before pausing. “I’ve never come back far...to look at how my behaviour in the past… I don’t have a problem with people who don’t fit ideal body types.”

And yet in one tweet he wrote, “Argh, fat old people, bane of my life.” Again, why is there such a lack of self-awareness?

“People go through the world mindlessly,” he says, in the same vein as before. “But I have woken up, I have changed, I have grown up… I have said things that are not kind or not nice and nor do they reflect the type of person that I have become.”

To not be politically awakened is one thing, but what caused that vicious, harsh view of others?

“Self-loathing is not new,” he says. “Whether it’s coming to terms with sexuality, not feeling beautiful enough, not feeling fit enough, not feeling smart enough, not feeling confidant enough, not feeling like I have a place in the world.” Were those all things he felt?

“Yes,” he says. And it feels like a breakthrough, a moment of genuine self-reflection.

Rivers continues down this path. “I think those tweets show that I was a really unhappy person who lashed out at the world around him.” He stops momentarily. “I didn’t think this conversation was going to be so personal, but I have since been in therapy and spoken to people about the things I need to speak about. That has been part of my personal journey and it’s unfortunate that I’ve said things that are so horrible about people in the past.”

Rivers begins to confess further. “My own inability to accept who I am, to accept the intersection of queerness and blackness, to find a place for myself in the world, that journey I’ve been on has led me to a place where I want to do good in the world.”

But given how recently he has changed, is he ready to edit the world’s longest-running gay magazine?

“I have accepted the challenge,” he says. “I believe I can do this.”

It is certainly the case that many people, when faced with terrible things they have said in the past, would not have immediately stopped, thought and listened, offering contrition, reflection and honesty.

And when Rivers is asked if he would consider apologising to Jewish people and other ethnic minorities, women, lesbians, and trans people he immediately says yes. Within an hour of the interview ending, Rivers sends a statement through his publicist:

“My tweets from a number of years ago show a great deal of self-loathing, a complete unawareness of the world around me and a disregard for others that I find deeply upsetting. To every single person these tweets will offend and disappoint: I am sorry. My role as editor of Gay Times today is to squash prejudice and represent our community in all its glorious and varied diversity. It is through my own development and desire to be a force for good in the world that I can apply my own learnings to help create a space for all of us to thrive within.”

Hours after BuzzFeed News published its story on Rivers' tweets, Gay Times said he had been suspended pending an investigation.

"Josh Rivers' past tweets do not align with the values of Gay Times, or any of our employees, in any capacity," a statement posted on Twitter said. "Josh has been suspended with immediate affect while we investigate the facts. Appropriate action will be taken in due course."

https://twitter.com/GayTimesMag/status/930836598815625216

On Saturday, Gay Times will host an evening of “honours” bestowing the leading lights of the LGBT community who have influenced and achieved the most over the last 50 years since the partial decriminalisation.

One wonders what the host of the event, Jinkx Monsoon, will make of Rivers’ previous tweets. She describes herself as “Seattle’s premier narcoleptic Jewish drag queen”.

[catholicwatertown]

Pope in Colombia at Mass: ‘Peace requires healing of sins’

(Vatican Radio) Pope Francis celebrated Mass in Cartagena’s port area on Sunday at the conclusion of his Apostolic Visit to Colombia.

The Holy Father reflected on the peace that Jesus brings through the community and how necessary it is for Colombian society.

“For decades Colombia has yearned for peace”, he said, “but, as Jesus teaches, two sides approaching each other to dialogue is not enough; it has also been necessary to involve many more actors in this dialogue aimed at healing sins.”

He said people cannot be ignored when making peace, in placing reason above revenge, and in respecting “the delicate harmony between politics and law”.

“Peace is not achieved by normative frameworks and institutional arrangements between well-intentioned political or economic groups. Jesus finds the solution to the harm inflicted through a personal encounter between the parties,” he said.

Please find below the official English translation of the Pope’s prepared homily:

Homily: “The Dignity of the Person and Human Rights.”

Cartagena de Indias

Sunday, 10 September 2017

In this city, which has been called “heroic” for its tenacity in defending freedom two hundred years ago, I celebrate the concluding Mass of my Visit to Colombia.  For the past thirty-two years Cartagena de Indias is also the headquarters in Colombia for Human Rights.  For here the people cherish the fact that, “thanks to the missionary team formed by the Jesuit priests Peter Claver y Corberó, Alonso de Sandoval and Brother Nicolás González, accompanied by many citizens of the city of Cartagena de Indias in the seventeenth century, the desire was born to alleviate the situation of the oppressed of that time, especially of slaves, of those who implored fair treatment and freedom” (Congress of Colombia 1985, law 95, art. 1).

Here, in the Sanctuary of Saint Peter Claver, where the progress and application of human rights in Colombia continue to be studied and monitored in a systematic way, the Word of God speaks to us of forgiveness, correction, community and prayer.

In the fourth sermon of Matthew’s Gospel, Jesus speaks to us, who have decided to support the community, to us, who value life together and dream of a project that includes everyone.  The preceding text is that of the good shepherd who leaves the ninety-nine sheep to go after the one that is lost.  This fact pervades the entire text: there is no one too lost to deserve our care, our closeness and our forgiveness.  From this perspective, we can see that a fault or a sin committed by one person challenges us all, but involves, primarily, the victim of someone’s sin.  He or she is called to take the initiative so that whoever has caused the harm is not lost.

During these past few days I have heard many testimonies from those who have reached out to people who had harmed them; terrible wounds that I could see in their own bodies; irreparable losses that still bring tears.  Yet they have reached out, have taken a first step on a different path to the one already travelled.  For decades Colombia has yearned for peace but, as Jesus teaches, two sides approaching each other to dialogue is not enough; it has also been necessary to involve many more actors in this dialogue aimed at healing sins.  The Lord tells us in the Gospel: “If your brother does not listen to you, take one or two others along with you” (Mt 18:16).

We have learned that these ways of making peace, of placing reason above revenge, of the delicate harmony between politics and law, cannot ignore the involvement of the people.  Peace is not achieved by normative frameworks and institutional arrangements between well-intentioned political or economic groups.  Jesus finds the solution to the harm inflicted through a personal encounter between the parties.  It is always helpful, moreover, to incorporate into our peace processes the experience of those sectors that have often been overlooked, so that communities themselves can influence the development of collective memory.  “The principal author, the historic subject of this process, is the people as a whole and their culture, and not a single class, minority, group or elite. We do not need plans drawn up by a few for the few, or an enlightened or outspoken minority which claims to speak for everyone. It is about agreeing to live together, a social and cultural pact” (cf. Evangelii Gaudium, 239).

We can contribution greatly to this new step that Colombia wants to take.  Jesus tells us that this path of reintegration into the community begins with a dialogue of two persons.  Nothing can replace that healing encounter; no collective process excuses us from the challenge of meeting, clarifying, forgiving.  Deep historic wounds necessarily require moments where justice is done, where victims are given the opportunity to know the truth, where damage is adequately repaired and clear commitments are made to avoid repeating those crimes.  But that is only the beginning of the Christian response.  We are required to generate “from below” a change in culture: so that we respond to the culture of death and violence, with the culture of life and encounter.  We have already learned this from your own beloved author whom we all benefit from:  “This cultural disaster is not remedied with lead or silver, but with an education for peace, built lovingly on the rubble of an angry country where we rise early to continue killing each other... a legitimate revolution of peace which channels towards life an immense creative energy that for almost two centuries we have used to destroy us and that vindicates and exalts the predominance of the imagination” (Gabriel García Márquez, Message About Peace, 1998).  

How much have we worked for an encounter, for peace? How much have we neglected, allowing barbarity to become enfleshed in the life of our people?  Jesus commands us to confront those types of behaviour, those ways of living that damage society and destroy the community.  How many times have we “normalized” the logic of violence and social exclusion, without prophetically raising our hands or voices!  Alongside Saint Peter Claver were thousands of Christians, many of them consecrated… but only a handful started a counter-cultural movement of encounter.  Saint Peter was able to restore the dignity and hope of hundreds of thousands of black people and slaves arriving in absolutely inhuman conditions, full of dread, with all their hopes lost.  He did not have prestigious academic qualifications, and he even said of himself that he was “mediocre” in terms of intelligence, but he had the genius to live the Gospel to the full, to meet those whom others considered merely as waste material.  Centuries later, the footsteps of this missionary and apostle of the Society of Jesus were followed by Saint María Bernarda Bütler, who dedicated her life to serving the poor and marginalized in this same city of Cartagena.[1]

In the encounter between us we rediscover our rights, and we recreate our lives so that they re-emerge as authentically human.  “The common home of all men and women must continue to rise on the foundations of a right understanding of universal fraternity and respect for the sacredness of every human life, of every man and every woman, the poor, the elderly, children, the infirm, the unborn, the unemployed, the abandoned, those considered disposable because they are only considered as part of a statistic. This common home of all men and women must also be built on the understanding of a certain sacredness of created nature” (Address to the United Nations, 25 September 2015).

Jesus also shows us the possibility that the other may remain closed, refusing to change, persisting in evil.  We cannot deny that there are people who persist in sins that damage the fabric of our coexistence and community: “I also think of the heart-breaking drama of drug abuse, which reaps profits in contempt of the moral and civil laws.  I think of the devastation of natural resources and ongoing pollution, and the tragedy of the exploitation of labour. I think too of illicit money trafficking and financial speculation, which often prove both predatory and harmful for entire economic and social systems, exposing millions of men and women to poverty. I think of prostitution, which every day reaps innocent victims, especially the young, robbing them of their future. I think of the abomination of human trafficking, crimes and abuses against minors, the horror of slavery still present in many parts of the world; the frequently overlooked tragedy of migrants, who are often victims of disgraceful and illegal manipulation” (Message for the World Day of Peace, 2014, 8), and even with a pacifist “sterile legality” that ignores the flesh of our brothers and sisters, the flesh of Christ.  We must also be prepared for this, and solidly base ourselves upon principles of justice that in no way diminish charity.  It is only possible to live peacefully by avoiding actions that corrupt or harm life.  In this context, we remember all those who, bravely and tirelessly, have worked and even lost their lives in defending and protecting the rights and the dignity of the human person.   History asks us to embrace a definitive commitment to defending human rights, here in Cartagena de Indias, the place that you have chosen as the national seat of their defence.

Finally, Jesus asks us to pray together, so that our prayer, even with its personal nuances and different emphases, becomes symphonic and arises as one single cry.  I am sure that today we pray together for the rescue of those who were wrong and not for their destruction, for justice and not revenge, for healing in truth and not for oblivion.  We pray to fulfil the theme of this visit: “Let us take the first step!” And may this first step be in a common direction.

To “take the first step” is, above all, to go out and meet others with Christ the Lord.  And he always asks us to take a determined and sure step towards our brothers and sisters, and to renounce our claim to be forgiven without showing forgiveness, to be loved without showing love.  If Colombia wants a stable and lasting peace, it must urgently take a step in this direction, which is that of the common good, of equity, of justice, of respect for human nature and its demands.  Only if we help to untie the knots of violence, will we unravel the complex threads of disagreements.  We are asked to take the step of meeting with our brothers and sisters, and to risk a correction that does not want to expel but to integrate.  And we are asked to be charitably firm in that which is not negotiable.  In short, the demand is to build peace, “speaking not with the tongue but with hands and works” (Saint Peter Claver), and to lift up our eyes to heaven together.  The Lord is able to untie that which seems impossible to us, and he has promised to accompany us to the end of time, and will bring to fruition all our efforts.

[1] She also had the wisdom of charity and knew how to find God in her neighbour; nor was she paralyzed by injustice and challenges, because “when conflict arises, some people simply look at it and go their way as if nothing happened; they wash their hands of it and get on with their lives. Others embrace it in such a way that they become its prisoners; they lose their bearings, project onto institutions their own confusion and dissatisfaction and thus make unity impossible. But there is also a third way, and it is the best way to deal with conflict. It is the willingness to face conflict head on, to resolve it and to make it a link in the chain of a new process” (Evangelii Gaudium, 227).

(from Vatican Radio)

from News.va http://ift.tt/2wR0qBj via IFTTT from Blogger http://ift.tt/2xYam9X