#the entitlement to my space and the treatment of it is starting to feel disrespectful

[puttingherinhistory]

“Covid has unleashed the most severe setback to women’s liberation in my lifetime. While watching this happen, I have started to think we are witnessing an outbreak of disaster patriarchy.

Naomi Klein was the first to identify “disaster capitalism”, when capitalists use a disaster to impose measures they couldn’t possibly get away with in normal times, generating more profit for themselves. Disaster patriarchy is a parallel and complementary process, where men exploit a crisis to reassert control and dominance, and rapidly erase hard-earned women’s rights. (The term “racialized disaster patriarchy” was used by Rachel E Luft in writing about an intersectional model for understanding disaster 10 years after Hurricane Katrina.) All over the world, patriarchy has taken full advantage of the virus to reclaim power – on the one hand, escalating the danger and violence to women, and on the other, stepping in as their supposed controller and protector.

I have spent months interviewing activists and grassroots leaders around the world, from Kenya to France to India, to find out how this process is affecting them, and how they are fighting back. In very different contexts, five key factors come up again and again. In disaster patriarchy, women lose their safety, their economic power, their autonomy, their education, and they are pushed on to the frontlines, unprotected, to be sacrificed. 

Part of me hesitates to use the word “patriarchy”, because some people feel confused by it, and others feel it’s archaic. I have tried to imagine a newer, more contemporary phrase for it, but I have watched how we keep changing language, updating and modernising our descriptions in an attempt to meet the horror of the moment. I think, for example, of all the names we have given to the act of women being beaten by their partner. First, it was battery, then domestic violence, then intimate partner violence, and most recently intimate terrorism. We are forever doing the painstaking work of refining and illuminating, rather than insisting the patriarchs work harder to deepen their understanding of a system that is eviscerating the planet. So, I’m sticking with the word. 

In this devastating time of Covid we have seen an explosion of violence towards women, whether they are cisgender or gender-diverse. Intimate terrorism in lockdown has turned the home into a kind of torture chamber for millions of women. We have seen the spread of revenge porn as lockdown has pushed the world online; such digital sexual abuse is now central to domestic violence as intimate partners threaten to share sexually explicit images without victims’ consent. 

The conditions of lockdown – confinement, economic insecurity, fear of illness, excess of alcohol – were a perfect storm for abuse. It is hard to determine what is more disturbing: the fact that in 2021 thousands of men still feel willing and entitled to control, torture and beat their wives, girlfriends and children, or that no government appears to have thought about this in their planning for lockdown. 

In Peru, hundreds of women and girls have gone missing since lockdown was imposed, and are feared dead. According to official figures reported by Al Jazeera, 606 girls and 309 women went missing between 16 March and 30 June last year. Worldwide, the closure of schools has increased the likelihood of various forms of violence. The US Rape Abuse and Incest National Network says its helpline for survivors of sexual assault has never been in such demand in its 26-year history, as children are locked in with abusers with no ability to alert their teachers or friends. In Italy, calls to the national anti-violence toll-free number increased by 73% between 1 March and 16 April 2020, according to the activist Luisa Rizzitelli. In Mexico, emergency call handlers received the highest number of calls in the country’s history, and the number of women who sought domestic violence shelters quadrupled. 

To add outrage to outrage, many governments reduced funding for these shelters at the exact moment they were most needed. This seems to be true throughout Europe. In the UK, providers told Human Rights Watch that the Covid-19 crisis has exacerbated a lack of access to services for migrant and Black, Asian and minority ethnic women. The organisations working with these communities say that persistent inequality leads to additional difficulties in accessing services such as education, healthcare and disaster relief remotely. 

In the US, more than 5 million women’s jobs were lost between the start of the pandemic and November 2020. Because much of women’s work requires physical contact with the public – restaurants, stores, childcare, healthcare settings – theirs were some of the first to go. Those who were able to keep their jobs were often frontline workers whose positions have put them in great danger; some 77% of hospital workers and 74% percent of school staff are women. Even then, the lack of childcare options left many women unable to return to their jobs. Having children does not have this effect for men. The rate of unemployment for Black and Latina women was higher before the virus, and now it is even worse. 

The situation is more severe for women in other parts of the world. Shabnam Hashmi, a leading women’s activist from India, tells me that by April 2020 a staggering 39.5% of women there had lost their jobs. “Work from home is very taxing on women as their personal space has disappeared, and workload increased threefold,” Hashmi says. In Italy, existing inequalities have been amplified by the health emergency. Rizzitelli points out that women already face lower employment, poorer salaries and more precarious contracts, and are rarely employed in “safe” corporate roles; they have been the first to suffer the effects of the crisis. “Pre-existing economic, social, racial and gender inequalities have been accentuated, and all of this risks having longer-term consequences than the virus itself,” Rizzitelli says. 

When women are put under greater financial pressure, their rights rapidly erode. With the economic crisis created by Covid, sex- and labour-trafficking are again on the rise. Young women who struggle to pay their rent are being preyed on by landlords, in a process known as “sextortion”. 

I don’t think we can overstate the level of exhaustion, anxiety and fear that women are suffering from taking care of families, with no break or time for themselves. It’s a subtle form of madness. As women take care of the sick, the needy and the dying, who takes care of them? Colani Hlatjwako, an activist leader from the Kingdom of Eswatini, sums it up: “Social norms that put a heavy caregiving burden on women and girls remain likely to make their physical and mental health suffer.” These structures also impede access to education, damage livelihoods, and strip away sources of support.

Unesco estimates that upward of 11 million girls may not return to school once the Covid pandemic subsides. The Malala Fund estimates an even bigger number: 20 million. Phumzile Mlambo-Ngcuka, from UN Women, says her organisation has been fighting for girls’ education since the Beijing UN women’s summit in 1995. “Girls make up the majority of the schoolchildren who are not going back,” she says. “We had been making progress – not perfect, but we were keeping them at school for longer. And now, to have these girls just dropping out in one year, is quite devastating.” 

Of all these setbacks, this will be the most significant. When girls are educated, they know their rights, and what to demand. They have the possibility of getting jobs and taking care of their families. When they can’t access education, they become a financial strain to their families and are often forced into early marriages. 

This has particular implications for female genital mutilation (FGM). Often, fathers will accept not subjecting their daughters to this process because their daughters can become breadwinners through being educated. If there is no education, then the traditional practices resume, so that daughters can be sold for dowries. As Agnes Pareyio, chairwoman of the Kenyan Anti-Female Genital Mutilation Board, tells me: “Covid closed our schools and brought our girls back home. No one knew what was going on in the houses. We know that if you educate a girl, FGM will not happen. And now, sadly the reverse is true.” 

In the early months of the pandemic, I had a front-row seat to the situation of nurses in the US, most of whom are women. I worked with National Nurses United, the biggest and most radical nurses’ union, and interviewed many nurses working on the frontline. I watched as for months they worked gruelling 12-hour shifts filled with agonising choices and trauma, acting as midwives to death. On their short lunch breaks, they had to protest over their own lack of personal protective equipment, which put them in even greater danger. In the same way that no one thought what it would mean to lock women and children in houses with abusers, no one thought what it would be like to send nurses into an extremely contagious pandemic without proper PPE. In some US hospitals, nurses were wearing garbage bags instead of gowns, and reusing single-use masks many times. They were being forced to stay on the job even if they had fevers.

The treatment of nurses who were risking their lives to save ours was a shocking kind of violence and disrespect. But there are many other areas of work where women have been left unprotected, from the warehouse workers who are packing and shipping our goods, to women who work in poultry and meat plants who are crammed together in dangerous proximity and forced to stay on the job even when they are sick. One of the more stunning developments has been with “tipped” restaurant workers in the US, already allowed to be paid the shockingly low wage of $2.13 (£1.50) an hour, which has remained the same for the past 22 years. Not only has work declined, tips have also declined greatly for those women, and now a new degradation called “maskular harassment” has emerged, where male customers insist waitresses take off their masks so they can determine if and how much to tip them based on their looks. 

Women farm workers in the US have seen their protections diminished while no one was looking. Mily Treviño-Sauceda, executive director of Alianza Nacional de Campesinas, tells me how pressures have increased on campesinas, or female farm workers: “There have been more incidents of pesticides poisonings, sexual abuse and heat stress issues, and there is less monitoring from governmental agencies or law enforcement due to Covid-19.” 

Covid has revealed the fact that we live with two incompatible ideas when it comes to women. The first is that women are essential to every aspect of life and our survival as a species. The second is that women can easily be violated, sacrificed and erased. This is the duality that patriarchy has slashed into the fabric of existence, and that Covid has laid bare. If we are to continue as a species, this contradiction needs to be healed and made whole. 

To be clear, the problem is not the lockdowns, but what the lockdowns, and the pandemic that required them, have made clear. Covid has revealed that patriarchy is alive and well; that it will reassert itself in times of crisis because it has never been truly deconstructed, and like an untreated virus it will return with a vengeance when the conditions are ripe. 

The truth is that unless the culture changes, unless patriarchy is dismantled, we will forever be spinning our wheels. Coming out of Covid, we need to be bold, daring, outrageous and to imagine a more radical way of existing on the Earth. We need to continue to build and spread activist movements. We need progressive grassroots women and women of colour in positions of power. We need a global initiative on the scale of a Marshall Plan or larger, to deconstruct and exorcise patriarchy – which is the root of so many other forms of oppression, from imperialism to racism, from transphobia to the denigration of the Earth. 

There would first be a public acknowledgment, and education, about the nature of patriarchy and an understanding that it is driving us to our end. There would be ongoing education, public forums and processes studying how patriarchy leads to various forms of oppression. Art would help expunge trauma, grief, aggression, sorrow and anger in the culture and help heal and make people whole. We would understand that a culture that has diabolical amnesia and refuses to address its past can only repeat its misfortunes and abuses. Community and religious centres would help members deal with trauma. We would study the high arts of listening and empathy. Reparations and apologies would be done in public forums and in private meetings. Learning the art of apology would be as important as prayer.

The feminist author Gerda Lerner wrote in 1986: “The system of patriarchy in a historic construct has a beginning and it will have an end. Its time seems to have nearly run its course. It no longer serves the needs of men and women, and its intractable linkage to militarism, hierarchy and racism has threatened the very existence of life on Earth.”

As powerful as patriarchy is, it’s just a story. As the post-pandemic era unfolds, can we imagine another system, one that is not based on hierarchy, violence, domination, colonialisation and occupation? Do we see the connection between the devaluing, harming and oppression of all women and the destruction of the Earth itself? What if we lived as if we were kin? What if we treated each person as sacred and essential to the unfolding story of humanity? 

What if rather than exploiting, dominating and hurting women and girls during a crisis, we designed a world that valued them, educated them, paid them, listened to them, cared for them and centred them?“

[love-that-we-were-in]

☕ kurt hummel

You and I both know how dangerous this is. A few notes before I get into this, I respect Chris himself. I have no issues with him or who he is. This is solely about the character. Alright, let’s go.

1. I don’t like him... in fact it very clearly verges on hate most of the time. I think he’s selfish and rude and oftentimes just a shitty person. He feels entitled to a lot of things and, when they don’t go his way, he always links it to his sexuality despite there being no correlation. (Season 2 when Burt told him to ask permission before having a bit stay over - the same rules applied to Finn and girls, for example)

2. He was a pretty terrible boyfriend most of the time. He was jealous constantly, had no respect for Blaine’s choices at points and thought he knew best. Some of the worst moments were 2x14 when Blaine is questioning, 5x16 when Blaine was watching porn because he felt like shit and instead of helping anything Kurt made him feel worse. (Look, it’s porn. It’s not a big thing. 99% of the time, watching porn means nothing to a person except a way to get off.)

3. I just didn’t like his fashion sense.

4. He could be a pretty awful friend as well. The way he treated Mercedes when he and Blaine started getting close, telling her that she just needed to get a boyfriend. I’m not a hummelberry fan because they’re both insufferable but the way he treated Rachel was pretty unfair sometimes.

5. The Chandler debacle. I understand that it can be considered cheating and that it can be considered not cheating. I’m very much of the opinion on the former. I think that when Rachel Berry is telling you you’re doing something wrong, you should rethink things. He didn’t tell Chandler he had a boyfriend (countering Blaine telling Sebastian about Kurt almost straight away), he didn’t tell Blaine about it and, as far as I could see, the messages were more romantic than they should’ve been.

6. In his defence, his is the only reaction to Brody that I can kind of stand. Finn, Santana and Rachel all treated him awfully when they discovered that he was a sex worker. So kudos to him for not beating him up, offering him money or confronting him with a song at his school for no reason.

7. Him at Dalton. From what we saw, he only befriended Blaine. He abandoned them as soon as they lost a competition. He had very little respect for their traditions (I get that he wanted some individuality but they were an acapella group. Teamwork is important there, uniformity is key. I understand that the way the new directions and the warblers worked was very different but he didn’t respect the Warblers at all).

8. The disrespect for Unique’s pronouns. Most of the characters were very guilty of this but, even in season 3, Kurt and Mercedes were really bad about it. There was no respect there. I just... couldn’t stand it.

9. NYADA admission. His audition was better than Rachel’s - I’ll give him that. But Rachel had so many extracurriculars on her application that Kurt didn’t have. He didn’t even consider it until the last minute and that’s probably a big part of why he didn’t get in the first time.

10. Kurt vs Sebastian. Anyone that follows my blog knows that I am a Seblaine shipper and a Sebastian Smythe stan. I’ve made no secret of it. But that’s not what this is about. Kurts treatment of Sebastian was pretty bad. I’m not going to defend Sebastian because he was a dick (I love him but let’s be honest). However, I do think some of the things Kurt said/did when Sebastian was around sucked. His possessiveness when it came to Blaine and Sebastian, his instant assumption that Blaine cheated with Sebastian, but especially his subtle slut shaming of Sebastian. We see it when he’s talking to Santana in 3x11 (and she’s just as guilty there) especially. I just think he had no right to say those things.

11. Klaine in New York. A fair bit of it wasn’t healthy. When Blaine first moved in, he wanted his own space, just something small so he could feel like he lived there as well, and Kurt shit all over it. I already spoke about Blaine’s weight gain. Blaine having to move in with Mercedes was what it took for their relationship to be okay - which shouldn’t be okay.

12. Blaine at McKinley. It started with Kurts constant questions about transferring and then after he had it was “I don’t want you to regret this” (which really should’ve been a point beforehand). Then it was Finn treating Blaine like shit for 8 episodes. And West Side Story was a whole thing but I’m sorry if when I think of the role of Tony, I don’t think of Kurt Hummel. Artie and Beiste and Emma were right - it just wasn’t there when it came to Kurt and playing Tony. There’s the argument in 3x17 over “sitting on stools” and watching Blaine perform. There was just a lot there.

13. Blainofsky. I firmly believe he had no right to react the way he did. Blaine owed him absolutely nothing - kurt broke off the engagement after being a pretty shitty fiancé - and Blaine was happy for the first time in a long time. Blaine is also in the wrong in 6x07 for kissing Kurt but Kurt made it so they sang that duet. I think Kurt just liked to manipulate things in his favour when it came to Blaine’s other relationships and I don’t like that.

There’s probably a lot more I could say about Kurt Hummel and some of it could be positive but probably not. This was just a bunch of word vomit so I’m sorry. But there you go.

[cliquestitsandicks]

Tracking Kat

Episode 1: Kat is mourning the end of her relationship with Adena. It has been 5 weeks since the breakup in Paris. She's still looking at old pictures of them and posted one. She still hasn't sent Adena's equipment to her, even though Adena has been texting her asking for it. By the end of the episode, she's admitted to (in order) Alex, Patrick, and Jane & Sutton that she is not okay. She is still sad about the end of her relationship. Alex tells her "you're so hard on yourself. You got your heart broken. There's no expiration date on heartbreak. You move on when you're ready to move on and when you *are* ready, you will find someone amazing. Someone who will never leave." Then Patrick is an entitled, invasive dick. She told her girls she wasn't ready for it to be real yet and that's why she hadn't told them... but she broke down in front of them. She'd finally accepted it was over. End of the episode, she makes an instagram post exposing her vulnerability to the world and packs up Adena's things for good.

Episode 2: Kat injects Jane for fertility treatment. She is very familiar with Jane's reproductive system at this point - best friends. She learns the Wild Susan, a club Adena took her to that became a safe space she frequents and which happens to be 1 of only TWO lesbian bars in the city, is closing. She learns the only reason it's happening is because developers want to gentrify the neighborhood. We learn Kat has a lawyer (not sure how that may come up later) that she met through the #BeReal campaign. Anyway, Kat throws a queer prom as a fundraiser to help save the Wild Susan. It ultimately fails because $42,000 in one night from poor people is a bit much. But it was a valiant effort and, as Kat learns, the gentrifiers were well aware of its impossibility. This episode is leading up to her political career. "I've been so into my feelings lately, it feels really good to challenge my energy into something that really matters". I am so proud of Kat. In Season 1, I would have worried she was avoiding her feelings, but the writers made a big deal of showing she's done the exact opposite of that in the prior episode.

Episode 3: Kat has been researching councilman Reynolds and he's a total piece of shit - helping gentrifiers, cutting funding to parks, and voting against paid maternity leave. She's fired up. Our girl is P A S S I O N A T E & informed! We meet the councilwoman for whom she plans to volunteer and her campaign manager, Tia. Tia's a tiny, bubbly boss with natural hair and a bright smile and we see Kat brighten up. We later learn she and Kat have more in common, both being NYU grads (actually overlapping while there) and both brilliant. Tia, however, is not from a wealthy and connected background. In their initial meeting, Kat tells Tia "I'm just looking for something to channel my rage and depression". Kat enlists her besties to help get the councilwoman to unseat problematic Reynolds. Sutton clearly sees something between Kat and Tia because she does a friend's background check (checking the social media) and tells Kat she looks very single to which Kat responds "it really doesn't matter because I'm still getting over Adena" and Jane seems skeptical of Kat's protestations with her silent smirk. We learn Kat has really soft lips. Kat is the voice of reason for Alex, being the first one to acknowledge the hypersexual "dangerous" Black man depiction that will likely be projected onto him if he admits he is the man in his friend's story. Then we see her naturally command the crowd at the rally. Again, I am so proud of Kat. She isn't holding back when she knows she should speak up. She's taking control of her narrative. She's fighting for what's right in a constructive manner. And now Tia, who has way more experience with this than Kat, is recommending she run for office.

Episode 4: We start the episode with Kat describing what would be her district and job description to her best friends. She's looking excited about the potential to do something that matters and really help people. In her conversation with the Toby (?. don't know, don't care), we get to see more of Tia being supportive of Kat and Kat being confronted with whether she's motivated to actually run or just wants someone to beat Reynolds. We learn Kat had an abortion in 2013 when she was 20 AS IS HER GOTDAMN RIGHT BECAUSE IT'S HER BODY, but it's something she's felt some sort of shame/concern over seeing as nobody close to her knew about it. Then, and this is so great, after telling her friends she has the conversation with Tia. Tia shares that she's had one as well and completely understands not wanting it to be public knowledge, but in sharing her experience educates Kat on yet another way vulnerable people are having their rights stripped, this time through manipulation and "crisis centers" that shouldn't exist. Tia remains supportive and doesn't pressure Kat at all with her decision. "I am by your side if they come for you, but you gotta do what's right for you". When we get that great speech from Jacqueline we see Kat being moved my the statement that you'll never know what you're capable of if you don't take a leap faith to face challenges that frighten you, then you'll never know what you're capable of. [i'd like to pause right now to say Jacqueline is fucking wonderful and i love her like my white auntie. also Sutton needed to hear that again just as much as Kat and i really appreciate this entire moment.] When Kat leaves Jacqueline's celebration, she passes by one of those "crisis centers" Tia told her about and decides to use her voice to help others. "I like to think of myself as a pretty strong, empowered, forward-thinking, open-minded woman. But, up until now, I haven't been able to talk about my abortion. If me putting myself out there helps even one woman to feel less alone, less ashamed, and less guilty then it's worth it." And just like us, dear Tia is blown away. She actually exhales a breath she didn't know she was holding and biiiiiiiitch (!!!! excitedly). and then they're dancing! This is the episode, upon rewatch, when i recognize how often Tia touches Kat unnecessarily.

Episode 5: Kat's entire recap includes Tia, ending with Sutton saying "she seems to be very single". Her very first scene, Tia is complimenting her walking out of some campaigning event we later learn was a Town Hall. Can we just talk about Kat's blazer for a second? First of all, i want it. Second, how did they find something so perfectly her? It's colorful but still semi-professional, fun, but still about her business. Heart-eye inducing. ok. So the next time we see Kat, she and Tia (whose last name they finally mention as Clayton) are reviewing campaign platform and doing debate prep at Kat's apartment. Tia's complimenting Kat almost continuously at this point. Clearly she's impressed, borderline gushing. and Kat tries to brush it off. Tia's not letting her. And there's this moment when Tia forces herself to break eye contact with her (around 5:40 of the episode). The show tells us Kat still hasn't dated since Adena, but Sutton brings up the "stupid smile" she gets whenever Tia's mentioned. She's making better decisions than Patrick and her being compared to Patrick is lowkey happening a lot. I'm starting to wonder if they're setting up Kat taking over digital if she doesn't win the campaign. Ok, the song choice as they pan to Kat and Tia... "I never normally check my phone 10 times in a minute. I'm not the girl to be kept on hold 10 miles from the finish." Again, Tia is very touchy with Kat, never anything inappropriate of course, but the hand is always on the back or the arm. and their interaction is just.. lovely. I squeal. it's so cute. they're so comfortable. Kat invites Tia to the dinner BEFORE (i got the timing on that mixed up before) Tia says she's "a boring straight girl" [the test determined that was a LIE... nah, my good sis Tia is dealing with some internalized homophobia which is no joking matter, but we don't learn that until the next episode]. Apparently, Kat can cook now? So she just liked Adena's food better i guess? idk... anyway. I get why some of the things Tia said can be taken as flirting, but i still believe that you accept what someone says is their sexuality until they say otherwise. yes, that's even when they're saying things like "when i see what i want, i go for it" and "Annndd she can cook. it's hot" and looking at you like that. Kat telling Jane to apologize because he's her boss and she got suuuper disrespectful and would absolutely deserve getting fired makes me proud. She's the mature friend now. She's the one with a level head on her shoulders. Kat finally makes her feelings known to Tia, but this is after Tia has already stated she's straight. Tia reiterates that this is a professional relationship and apologizes for Kat getting the wrong idea. I'm reminded of when Alex Danvers told Maggie Sawyer she was into her and she was rejected... but in that example i was floored and heartbroken for Alex because ugh, i just didn't see that coming. With this, however, it felt like Tia was clear in her words even if it shocked the hell out of me what the words were. So i didn't feel heartbroken for Kat. I thought... tbh... she brought it on herself for refusing to respect Tia's "no", however soft it was. But the writers did let us know it wasn't over with the music selection... Kat looking at "You and Tia make a great team :)" as "I'll go to war for you" plays.

Episode 6: All the emails have been released and Kat has no worries at all about that because she's a professional. And we get to see her be a boss addressing the entire group. Patrick isn't there this episode (YAY for our sanity!) and i think Kat being a boss so often when Patrick isn't around is intentional. When we see Tia, she says last night is forgotten but she thinks it's a bad idea to remain Kat's campaign manager... which is clearly a hard rejection. One can argue that it's too harsh for someone merely admitting they were into you. But it's just as easy to argue that it's appropriate after telling someone, very clearly, that you are not into them romantically and them ignoring that and saying that you were flirting with them on this date they never called a date before you were already there?? so i'm not mad at it. At the end of the episode, we find out that Tia was rejecting herself, not Kat. Turns out, Ms. Tia Clayton has known she's attracted to women since she was in high school, but she "didn't want to want it". Tia is so TINY AND ANXIOUS ABOUT HER SEXUALITY AND MANY OF US HAVE BEEN THERE. But... and i say this in jest... for someone who is really trying not to be out in the open with her gay, she sure was comfortable kissing Kat all outdoors for anyone to see. My good sis is smitten. I'm excited for the story. Again with the music during their scenes though... "I cannot fallll in love with youuuuu. I cannot feeeeel this way so soon, so soon." Also, my girlfriend and I have watched the gifset of the kiss over the phone and swooned (we live in different states for now). This episode, we also got the flashbacks (i missed Lauren so much). Kat's got red streaks in her hair, is a friend to strangers, has regrettable sex with men who taste like pickles, and is cute as a button. She also called Jacqueline "Mama Jackie" and that's it; that's her name now.

[jodhballdiwuss1980-blog]

The Basic CeremonyThere are as many ways to celebrate the joining of two people as you can think of. Probably there are even more than you can imagine. No matter if you are going traditional or modern, religious or not, the basics of the ceremony remain the same. It weird that my doctors and kids pediatricians force me to take the inserts (or some page with all the info and the vaccine). I have three kids under three so I no stranger to vaccines and it feels like someone is getting a shot every month. I tell the nurses I don need the paper and to use it for someone else (save the trees please) and they tell me they are required to give it to me. If you get the 서울출장마사지 opportunity when you alone, clap your hands three times in your workspace every so often to keep the energy from becoming stagnant. When you get in to work in the morning, imagine four pillars of light around the edges of your workspace and a fifth in the centre, purifying the space. If LBRP is your thing, do a subtle one (or similar) to ward off their negative energy. Everything can be hard and 서울출장마사지 impossible if you have too much of it. My family can be taxing, editors can be taxing, friends can be taxing. The more you can try to get your needs met from a variety of sources, the better off you are. I swam every summer and ate nothing but home cooked healthy food. But every doctor using the BMI told me i was unhealthy and fat. Tbh i have some serious bodily insecurities because i listened to the doctors about it growing up. I thought I broke my rib bone last year from coughing. I had to get X rays to make sure my lungs were ok because apparently a broken rib could have punctured them. As it turned out, I didn't break any bones, but I did tear the rib muscle between the rib bones. It has a chemically smell, but it not generally really strong. That or I don cleanse under my nose well enough because I never noticed it until I just went to go sniff at it just now. In my defense, I only been using it since allergy season kicked in, so maybe I just can smell as well as I usually can. Wrong. Men store fat in different places than women. Ask any fitness expert and they will tell you that men have to workout 4 times as hard in order to lose fat. Yes, we can. Thank you, thank you. So philanthropicic with what you're doing and so giving. Having patience is fine and dandy, but past a certain point noone reasonable is going to put up with being made to wait for some mediocre game that has yet to live up to any "potential" every release that gains traction and subsequently fails nowadays supposedly has. The large majority of people have already moved on, completely purged the new Valve game off their memory. There are better games to play, there are better games to wait for.. The existing hair falls out, and the process is repeated hair by hair [source: American Electrology Association]. Those who opt for electrolysis may need to return for treatment between 10 and 25 times to destroy all the unwanted hair. The method can cost up to $90 per treatment [source: Bouchez].. Black squirrels are melanistic variants of grey squirrels. It's a genetic "defect", but they are the same species. It's basically the opposite of albino and occurs in a bunch of species (but not humans). Best of luck 14 points submitted 15 days agoHey you're not alone, I lose my cool sometimes too and get a little snappy back with the guests when they start being dicks or rude to me too, and I know it's something I gotta work on putting an end too as well but I can't stand these entitled ass rude people disrespecting me and treating me like I'm nothing like hell no they aren't going to talk to me all nasty!Today I had a guest when I was at the front helping out with something, and keep in mind I don't even work the front and this bitch starts getting mad and complaining about the long line with another guest behind her and then got mad because they opened a lane without pulling people from that line she was in and then says to me "wHy diDnT tHeY get us who've been waiting a LONG TIME" and she starts bitching at me and I straight up said "I didn't open it, so I DONT KNOW!!" And walked away lmao but then she saw me again and she kept looking at me so I flipped my name tag around and she came up to me and was like "WHATS YOUR NAME?" And I made up a random name and she walked away all pissed and I told her very sarcastically HAVE A BEAUTIFUL NIGHT!! ughhh this bitch I was just minding my own business, I should've walked away until she left for good now that i look back on it but yeah we can only take so much you know? I also had other rude guests earlier in the day so i think i just snapped on this woman 7 points submitted 15 days agoLmao I've had that happen too except the guest started yelling at me in front of everyone bc I called for backup and the cashier didn't go and grab him from the line and everyone turned around and was staring at me, mind you this was a grown ass man screaming at me and I was barely 19. I got so embarrassed that I started yelling at him and walked off but the funny thing is I kinda feel bad after bc I hate letting them get to me bc I know they're just miserable but sometimes I feel like I can't compromise my pride in this job considering everything else we compromise working for target. But I do like that name tag trick, might keep that in mind for next time 2 points submitted 14 days agoI'm glad you yelled at him, especially if he made you look stupid in front of everyone.

[eichy815]

I Don’t ‘Consent’ to This Narrative

Almost one month ago, I authored a Morpheus magazine op-ed entitled “#MeToo: Oh, But Not You.”  In this piece, I argued how male survivors of sexual abuse, harassment, assault, and rape shouldn’t be excluded from the #MeToo discussion.  Although, statistically and numerically speaking, there will be a higher number of women sharing their stories, as survivors – if we aren’t so hesitant to allow male survivors to speak out within the context of #MeToo, it will only enhance the discussion on how to dissolve the patriarchy and rid our society of toxic masculinity.  

ON-EDIT (two days after the original publication of this 12/27/17 blog piece) – Relationship coach Harris O’Malley just authored an op-ed for The Good Men Project entitled “Be Proud of Being a Man.”  In it, he makes the argument that part of redefining masculinity is to reassess how we view maleness (at the social level) in relation to one's purpose, community, and service.

However, fashion blogger Andrew Spena had previously epitomized a distinct strand of misandry that has reared its ugly head – and been perpetuated by a shrill minority of the population – as everyone tries to make sense of public discourse due to the fallout of the #MeToo dialogue.  As I discussed in my “#MeToo: Oh, But Not You” editorial, this invective is being inflicted upon males “as a group”...including those of us males who are members of the LGBT community.

Proving my point, in his mid-October editorial entitled “Men, Please Hold Your ‘Well, actuallys’ in the Wake of #MeToo,” Spena squawks:

I’m certainly not the first person to call out cis queer men on the Internet for this, and sadly, I won’t need to be the last.  Queer cis men, before you see a chance to jump on a trending hashtag, take a second to think about who’s steering this narrative and what they’re trying to say.  Ask yourself if this is your story to tell or your moment to sit back and thank the people who are sharing their stories.  (Hint: If you have to ask, it’s almost always time for you to sit back and listen.)

That’s what #MeToo is all about: hearing and believing women.  It’s about amplifying voices who’ve been ignored.  If you haven’t done a great job so far, now’s a great day to start.

I could go hog-wild on a diatribe breaking down Spena’s numerous fallacies while eviscerating his warped worldview.  But I feel that I have already done so, at great length, refuting other voices amongst Spena’s like-minded ilk in my “#MeToo: Oh, But Not You” manifesto from November.

Instead, I want to take a different approach.  During the week of December 18, ABC’s Good Morning America did a journalistic series entitled “Raising Good Men.”  This three-day series of news segments took a look at the process of redefining masculinity.  While it explored some healthy concepts in terms of raising future generations of boys with better values than many of their predecessors, it also (unfortunately) harbored traces of a neofeminist, neoliberal, misandrist, heterosexist framework – albeit a fairly subtle one.  My social commentary today will discuss why and how that is harmful.

The first segment of “Raising Good Men” focused on young boys ranging from the ages of seven through ten.  These boys were residents of the Houston area, having participated in the local Boys & Girls Club’s “Passport to Manhood” program.

To start off the segment, the Houston-era boys were asked their opinions about girls...including how girls should be treated.  Some of the boys’ answers were mature (e.g. one respondent citing fair treatment based on gender/race) – valuing the concepts of respect, manners, personal space, listening, behaving, and asking for consent.  Some of the role models who these boys named from their own daily lives included teachers, coaches, or barbers (in addition to fathers or other male family members).

But, to my chagrin, many of the boys’ answers were steeped in an outdated worldview of “chivalry” based on traditional gender roles.  They gave examples such as “buying flowers” (for females in their lives) or “opening doors” for women.  One kid named Cooper mentioned how he had specifically been taught to open the door for his mother and sister.  When asked by moderator T.J. Holmes what the terms “Be a man!” or “Man up!” meant to them, these boys indicated that it conveyed how they were expected to act strong and tough.  Holmes may have been operating the interview from a place of subconscious heterosexism and gynocentrism, as he neglected to ask the Houston boys any real questions about how they relate to (or show affection for) their male peers.

Dr. Dave Anderson of The Child Mind Institute had been observing their interview from behind-the-scenes.  Anderson emphasized how the concepts of respect, empathy, and consent need to be GENDER-INCLUSIVE...not just applying to boys, but applying to anybody.  He also said that positive modeling behavior needs to remain gender-neutral; we have to stop conditioning our boys to believe that girls are “frail,” which also means we need a more diverse social message.  Such messages should include the age-appropriate teaching of consent.

I will simply concur with Dr. Anderson’s statements, here – while also citing my editorial pieces entitled “Redefining Masculinity in the Modern Era” and “Chivalry: A One-Way Street?”, from December 2013 and May 2014, respectively.

The second segment profiled older teenaged boys ranging from the ages of twelve through sixteen.  This group of older boys was from the Denver area, and ABC News moderator Paula Faris asked them a number of questions as to how they interact with peers upon having entered puberty.

One striking difference I observed between the younger boys from Houston versus the older boys from Denver was how the Denver boys gave much more thoughtful responses.  For example, when Faris asked them how they show affection to girls (and notice how she never even entertained the possibility that any of them might be homosexual or bisexual), they mentioned holding hands while walking together to Panera (a popular neighborhood hangout near their school).  They also specified the need to create dialogue, such as asking, “Are you okay with it?” or “Does it feel good to you?”

Then, when Faris asked them what the phrase “Be a man!” means to them, this group of boys spoke (rather forlornly) about the social expectations of acting emotionless as a sign of “maturity.”  They universally expressed how they felt afraid to show their emotions publicly, but they often wished that they could.

Dr. Stephanie Dowd (observing from behind-the-scenes, the way Dr. Anderson had been, the previous day) says that it’s “rigid” and “dangerous” to use these traits as barometers of masculinity.  She cites concepts such as “mutual respect,” “compromise,” and “genuine caring” as new emphases that could transform “toxic masculinity” into “healthy masculinity.”

Perhaps the most compelling difference that I’d noticed, comparing the Houston boys vis-a-vis the Denver boys, was that most of the language used by these adolescents from Denver was gender-neutral (in the context of this discussion).  Some of their parents (who had also been secretly listening in, from the next room) even admitted that they had begun to realize how they’d been sometimes sending the wrong message to their teenaged sons.  After the fact, Faris told her ABC News peers (via their in-studio dialogue on that morning’s broadcast) how she was extremely impressed with this group of young dudes from Denver.

The final segment featured a group of young men, aged 18 through 22, who resided in various parts of New York City.  This segment was moderated by Deborah Roberts.

When prompted by Roberts to name some of the words they associate with “healthy masculinity,” they invoked concepts such as “Love,” “Humble,” “Respectful,” “Value,” and “Responsible.”  Building on that, these young men expressed that they want to take positive examples that they see in older men...and then become better versions of what they see.

Then, when pressed by Roberts as to whether they’re reluctant to speak up in an all-male environment where there is “locker room talk” objectifying females, one of the New York dudes admitted that, if someone tries to speak out against such “locker room talk” that he may find to be distasteful, the rest of the group can tend to gang up against that one moral naysayer.  In her post-production commentary, Roberts explained how this is the age when alcohol consumption can become a gateway to sexual assault.

These young men from NYC unanimously responded that it is important to step in when you see any type of assault happening...even if it’s your own buddies who are doing it.  One member of this NYC-based focus group, additionally, specified the importance of checking in with your own friends to make sure they’re okay, beforehand, as an approach of crisis prevention.

However, in her narration, Roberts phrased it as the need to “...step into situations with women when they feel something is abusive or unfair.”  This, unfortunately, is a narrative that inherently deemphasizes the necessity of males stepping in to come to the aid of their male peers who are being assaulted or harassed (regardless of whether such abuse is sexual, behavioral, or social in nature).

Also, according to one of the college-aged participants:

The onus and responsibility is on men to make a change and to address these issues even when it seems like it may be socially-uncomfortable to do it at that time.

This worldview is subliminally repressive and sexist.  It assumes that males are predisposed to violence and disrespect (vis-a-vis females).  It posits that boys and men are automatically heterosexual (and/or sexually-voracious) until proven otherwise.  It implies blanket culpability on the part of male survivors while not imposing any such social expectations on female survivors.  And it misappropriates the existence of male privilege as a pretext for minimizing any abusive actions that females may inflict upon males (or upon other females).

Another participant in this NYC-based focus group likened reverence for women to treating a girlfriend or wife the way one would treat his mother.  Some of the participants had started an NYU chapter of a social activism group entitled MARS (Men Against Rape and Sexual Assault).  One of them vocalized how males can’t just sit on the sidelines – we need to be a proactive part of the conversation.  #MeToo, he says, isn’t supposed to be just about women calling out men; it’s also about men joining in to change things.

Roberts also acknowledged that ABC’s news division intends to create news segments on “Raising Good Women”...as well as discussing these issues with coed focus groups.  When the NYC students’ parents (who had also been listening in, behind-the-scenes) joined their sons after the segment had concluded, the parents all reiterated to Roberts that they wanted their sons to learn from their own past mistakes.

But what kind of mistakes are we poised to make, in the future?  If males are going to be a proactive part of the #MeToo dialogue, it can’t be solely at the whims of those who bask in their anger to bring others down while pushing myopic personal agendas.  As actress Minnie Driver sneered, earlier this month, in response to actor Matt Damon’s contention that there is a spectrum of different types of abuse, harassment, and assault:

I honestly think that until we get on the same page, you can’t tell a woman about their abuse.  A man cannot do that.  No one can.  It is so individual and so personal, it’s galling when a powerful man steps up and starts dictating the terms, whether he intends it or not...How about: it’s all fucking wrong and it’s all bad, and until you start seeing it under one umbrella it’s not your job to compartmentalize or judge what is worse and what is not.  Let women do the speaking up right now.  The time right now is for men just to listen and not have an opinion about it for once...

There is not a woman I know, myself included, who has not experienced verbal abuse and sexual epithets their whole fucking life, right up to being manhandled and having my career threatened several times by men I wouldn’t sleep with...In the same stereotypical way that we see women being supportive of men in their endeavors, I feel that’s what women need of men in this moment.  They need men to lean on and not question.  Men can rally and they can support, but I don’t think its appropriate, per se, for men to have an opinion about how women should be metabolizing abuse.  Ever.

The poison in Driver's words and sentiments is self-evident.  While I agree with Driver that we shouldn't be "ranking" the oppression and abuse that people endure, she is ultimately doing exactly what she accuses powerful men of doing -- creating an exclusionary binary where her moral compass apparently gets to establish the terms under which everyone else can participate.  This is especially jarring in light of how Driver's own ABC family comedy, Speechless, is one whose writing team glorifies the outlandish terrorizing and shaming of "wimpy" males (most notably through the other characters' unapologetic abuse of the Ray DiMeo character, which is normally played off for laughs at the adolescent male character's expense).

Also, the three groups of male students (Houston, Denver, NYC) interviewed by ABC News were simply sample focus groups.  The differences in their perspectives could partially be attributed to geography – seeing how Texans would be likelier to teach traditionalism to their youth, Coloradoans would tend to be more balanced and moderate, and New Yorkers would be more prone to accepting a doctrine of “female exceptionalism.”

And, although I have survived many traumatic instances of sexual harassment, assault, abuse, and intimidation throughout my own life, #MeToo has also impelled me to reflect on how I could have taken more proactive steps, myself, to stand up for others who were being harassed or abused – even when I wasn’t the direct target.

While I personally have been privileged enough to have never found myself in a situation (as a bystander) where I had to intervene in a rape, a fight, or a sexual assault – I also know, firsthand, what it feels like when I have been targeted and no one in proximity will step in to back me up.  So, with this knowledge, I try to reflect on whether I can recall any examples of this occurring in the past.  I’m sure there may have been several of which I just haven’t retained the memories (or didn’t notice it happening, at the time).  It reminds me that I need to be consciously on the lookout for these instances, in the future.

But there is one very vivid incident that happened, where I was neither the aggressor nor the target, but #ILetItHappen nonetheless.  This might seem like an anecdotal example, but I keep it in mind as an example of my past inaction...so that I can hopefully find a way to intervene or diffuse any similar type of situation in the future.

One year, while I was in college, a bunch of us were waiting in line for the cafeteria to open for dinner.  I was there by myself, so everyone else who was in line around me was a complete stranger to me...but, nonetheless, what happened next was absolutely disgusting.

Two guys in front of me proceeded to spend at least five minutes making snide and derogatory comments about the cosmetic “ugliness” of the cafeteria employee (a middle-aged woman named Ruth) who was waiting to open the doors for us and who was tasked with swiping our cards.  Even after she’d opened the doors and was getting the register prepared, they still proceeded to make those comments – clearly WITHIN EARSHOT of Ruth.

I look back on that and wonder, “Why didn’t I say anything to them?”  Especially once the doors had opened?  Why didn’t I tell them off to their faces?  Why didn’t I tell Ruth not to pay them any mind?  Why didn’t I loudly say my piece...and then storm out of there to make a point (or, better yet, go get the manager)?  Probably a number of reasons:  worrying about my own physical safety (although in hindsight, I realize they probably wouldn’t have physically attacked me), worried about making a scene and getting in trouble myself, worried about subsequent repercussions against me, self-consciousness about my own looks that made me just want to “blend in,” etc.

But I do know this:   if it happened today, and I was a witness to it, I would definitely say something.  I would absolutely “make a scene” on Ruth’s behalf (assuming she was the same victim in a contemporary scenario)...because that’s the type of thing I would want someone to do for me, if I was the victim.  

One missing link that seems to be left out of this entire conversation is how we can cultivate healthier friendships and bonds-of-brotherhood between boys – that they bring with them into adulthood as they become men.  This was a question underlying Remaking Manhood co-author Marc Greene's fantastic February 2015 op-ed for The Good Men Project, entitled "Why Do We Murder the Beautiful Friendships of Boys?"

So rather, than go on another rant, I will pose these questions to everyone insofar as how the #MeToo dialogue continues from here:

*****************************************

What value is there in silencing male survivors who have endured rape, sexual assault, sexually-driven harassment, or bullying throughout our lives?

Should the #MeToo discussion extend to women beginning to self-examine how they themselves may have acted sexually-oppressive toward men throughout their lives?

Piggybacking off of the previous question:  should women be encouraged to stand up for other women if they observe female-on-female violence/harassment occurring?

Regardless of your sex or gender identity:  how many times in your life have YOU stood idly by and been an enabler of #ILetItHappen?  How many times didn’t you speak up for someone (or intervene, on their behalf) if you witnessed them being sexually assaulted, harassed, or degraded?

Are there ever occasions where – by speaking up and/or intervening – you might be putting YOUR OWN physical safety at risk, amid the crossfire between aggressor and victim?  Why should there necessarily be a greater onus on males to take this potential risk (to our physical well-being) as opposed to females doing so?

What role does perpetuating traditionalist gender roles play when creating environments that enable the types of assault and abuse that the #MeToo movement seeks to confront?  How does the targeting of transgender people stem from this dynamic?

If we do indeed subscribe to the nonsensical Minnie Driver doctrine of "Men should just listen and not have an opinion" – at what point are males going to be allowed to reenter the discussion?  And who, specifically, gets to decide those terms?

If our focus shouldn’t be to “rank” survivors’ traumatic experiences against one another (and, instead, recognize every woman’s past trauma as its own distinct truth), then shouldn’t we be showing equal respect and deference to the traumatic experiences of male survivors?

*****************************************

Although my sentiments toward redefining masculinity haven’t changed, I am grateful to the #MeToo movement for motivating my need to engage in personal introspection.  The value in this will be how I can use that knowledge to protect and defend others – female and male, alike – whenever I encounter them being exploited or preyed upon within the context of my daily life.

I will speak out on every facet of this epidemic.  We need to broaden the discussion to protect boys (who are minors, legally) and LGBT people.  We need to start taking it seriously when we encounter domestic violence cases where a victim happens to be male.  We need to crack down on same-sex abuse regardless of sexual orientations of any parties who are involved.  And we need to find ways to prevent CONSENSUAL forms of positive bodily-contact between friends (e.g. hugging, kissing, sports-based camaraderie, locker room horseplay, faux-flirting) from becoming stigmatized. 

Many of my critics might sneer that I’m laying out all of these terms in a very “Eichy-centric” way.  Yes, my life is “Eichy-centric”...because it’s MY LIFE.  But I’m the one who has to live my life – and I want to live in a world where friends, acquaintances, and strangers feel reasonably comfortably around me.  I will continue to fight for this type of world, for as long as I breathe.

If you object to that, you’re going to have to put a bullet in my head.