#the majority of the population never had the “privilege” of not having their women and girls work

[lil-gingerbread-queen]

Also, women didn't fight for the right to work. Women always worked. Since the beginning of humankind, women worked. They hunt, they farmed, they took care of businesses. Even if the culture, like Ancient Greece, was saying "women shouldn't work, they should stay inside", the majority of women did work, because the society couldn't function if they didn't. No civilization ever existed where women didn't work. Rich women, probably, and that depends on the culture and civilization (noble women during medieval time, for example, had work to do. They would take care of the diplomacy, the politics, with their husbands. However, rich women in the 19th, they didn't work, but they didn't took care of their children neither. They would hang out at the Grand Magasin, where all the workers were women because their husbands got jealous)

Women fought for the right to be recognized, to have access to better paying jobs, to education, to not be working for free, to have access to food, to own their own home, their own bed, to own their own money and the money they made not going to a man. It's a fight that is not over, as equal treatment between men and women at work still isn’t the case everywhere, even in first world countries.

History fact: some factories only fed male workers. During WW1, some french factories would not fed women, the majority of the work force, to save money. They lived in poverty and they worked more than 8 hours a day, without eating, and would come back home to take care of the children, as their men were at war. And they went on a strike, btw, during this war, to ask for better treatment for all workers. They were the midinettes. Being a "midinette" is an insult in French, because it means "being an annoying complaining woman", when everyone gained so much rights from those women.

Women always worked, they just don't want to recognized women for their work.

man the weird new romanticization of tradwife/sahm stuff is honest to god so fucking depressing. its so fucking privileged and white and evil. imagine being given rights and then complaining about them when meanwhile there are little brown girls who cant even get an education.

there are women trapped in abusive relationships who literally cannot get a divorce and even if they could they couldnt support themselves because they werent able to get an education and have no outside work experience. very frustrating and upsetting.

like this is coming from the working wife of a stay at home spouse, like i am not the home maker, thats not what i want from my life and what makes me feel fulfilled and happy. but thats something weve heavily discussed. we have different wants and needs and priorities from our work and home life balances. my partner has options and chooses this. but it scares the SHIT out of me seeing this whole "why did we ever fight for the right to work? i want to be a brainless wifey who spits out babies and slaves away in the home and only speaks when spoken to!" bullshit actually pick up because of social media is absolutely fucking horrifying. like its unironically so fucking scary.

[sometimesoliloquy]

all of our time chasing America, but she never had a home for me

In season 2, desperate with worry over June's mental health, Nick says to Serena "She doesn't have anyone to look out for her." Serena rightly points out "It appears that she does". Through the years, through thick and thin, even when she was back with Luke and Nick remarried to Rose, he was always there looking out for her. But in the end it appears it was Nick who never had anyone to look out for him.

Nick—as a young man, essentially abandoned by his family, failed by his society and his country. Left without a safety net by the greed and corruption of a capitalist oligarchy masquerading as an equitable democracy. And finally, he ends up failed and abandoned by his own love, the very love that held so much potential to save him as it had saved her. The woman he did and would do anything for but who ultimately refused to fight for him when the raw face of his flawed humanity held up too painful a mirror to her own.

London Grammar’s beautiful song “America” has always made me think of Nick ever since I first heard it four years ago, but now, in the aftermath of season 6 and the series ending, it hits harder (and more tragically) than ever. Interestingly, the artist’s intended meaning behind the lyrics was a more symbolic one, using “the American dream” as a metaphor for her own personal journey of letting go.

But relating to the character of Nick, I think it also works very nicely as a more literal interpretation of how the America in the (semi)fictional world of The Handmaid’s Tale (and June, herself, in representing a much more privileged and complacent sector of that society) let him and so many others like him down—and how our real world America indeed continues to do the same.

How the “American Dream” has essentially become a cruel mirage for too large a swathe of the population, left to flounder and fight for meager scraps, all the while disdained by folks looking down from up on high scoffing “pull yourself up by your bootstraps!”, who themselves have never struggled to literally afford a pair of boots for them or their children.

I get that the writers and show runners wanted to hit a political message with their ending. What I’ll never understand though is the message they ultimately chose to send—one reeking of elitism, classism and non-intersectional white feminism—when they had such an important and poignant opportunity staring them right in the face, one that is both (unfortunately) timely and timeless.

The show really had a chance to highlight the socio-economic oppression that results from corrupt capitalist societies and exacerbates harmful societal division. Which, combined with self-absorbed, self righteous complacency from the upper and middle classes (often even in the most “liberal” and “progressive” populations), makes the rise of totalitarian regimes possible, with those would-be groups looking to grab power (exactly like the fictional Sons of Jacob) thriving on the confusion and division, the “othering” of certain groups, and preying on the most lost and vulnerable in society, those who are disillusioned and desperate, failed by their government and tossed aside by their fellow citizens who view themselves as more “deserving”.

Instead those in charge of THT seem to have doubled down on the idea that certain groups of people are in fact less deserving, in the end providing forgiveness and redemptive arcs for two major architects and founders of Gilead, a baby thieving rapist, and a cattle-prod-happy torturer of women. But not for the disadvantaged young man who got conned into a violent cult parading as a faith-based charity organization for a job and ended up a reluctant citizen of a totalitarian regime with a small amount of power.

They could have presented a message that sometimes good people do bad things out of ignorance and/or desperation, but are still worthy of being saved. That if they have a good heart and want do the right thing, all they might need is someone to say "I see you, I understand." To reach out a hand to help pull them out of the darkness. Instead they gave the character with a tragic backstory an even more tragic ending, with ultimately no one who would fight for him. It's not a very hopeful message if you ask me.

(Sooo this was part of a much much longer review I was writing on my phone in gmail drafts which gmail then decided to delete so fuck me, I guess😅😅😭 Anyway, this is all that was left and I don't have the energy to reconstruct it all, at least definitely not rn, so I guess I'll just leave this excerpt here.)

[hermiona52]

I can't stop thinking about the recent cases of horrible abuse of women in France, South Korea, Uganda and India, so this fragment of Pauline Harmange's "I Hate Men", about why misandry is actually a healthy and reasonable response, is always on my mind:

If misandry is a characteristic of someone who hates men, and misogyny that of someone who hates women, it has to be conceded that in reality, the two concepts are not equal, either in terms of the dangers posed to their targets or the means used to express them. Misandry and misogyny cannot be compared, quite simply because the former exists only in reaction to the latter.

You’d literally have to have never looked beyond the end of your nose –or alternatively to be possessed of exceptional bad faith – to deny point blank that the violence women suffer is, in the huge majority of cases, perpetrated by men. This isn’t a matter of opinion, it’s a fact. The reason society is patriarchal is because there are men who use their male privilege to the detriment of the other half of the population. Some of this violence is insidious, background noise in the daily lives of women, so pernicious that we grow up with the impression that it’s the norm in male/female relationships. Other kinds of violence are so shocking that they make the headlines in national newspapers.

In 2017 in France, 90 per cent of the people who received death threats from their partners were women, while 86 per cent of those murdered by their partner or ex-partner were also women. Of the sixteen women who killed their partner, at least eleven, that is, 69 per cent of them, had themselves been victims of domestic violence. In 2019, 149 women were murdered by their partner or their former partner. In 2018, 96 per cent of those who received a prison sentence for domestic violence were men, and 99 per cent of those sentenced for sexual violence were men.

It’s not only women who are the victims of sexual attacks and rape, though it’s hard to find statistics of sexual attacks on men. There’s an enormous taboo when it comes to talking about sexual violence perpetrated against men, who suffer the full force of sexist stereotypes that imply that aman cannot be raped, since supposedly they’re always up for sex. It’s also very difficult for men to talk about sexual trauma. Society expects them to be strong and virile: nothing can be forced on them – and if it is, they aren’t ’real’ men.

A significant number of rapes are committed against minors, both male and female, and here too, the perpetrators are overwhelmingly men. In fact, whatever the sex or age of the victim of sexual harassment or violence– whether male or female, child or adult – it is vital to emphasise that the vast majority of those responsible for such violence are men.

[...] There are plenty of reasons to dislike men, if you think about it. Reasons backed up by facts. Why do men hate women? During the thousands of years that men have benefited from their dominant social position, what did we do – what have we done – to deserve their violence?

Misandry has a target, but it doesn’t have a list of victims whose morbid tally is totted up on almost a daily basis. We don’t injure or kill men, we don’t prevent them from getting a job or following whatever their passion is, or dressing as they wish, or walking down the street after dark, or expressing themselves however they see fit. And when someone does give themselves the right to impose such things on men, that person is always a man, and it still falls within the heteropatriarchal system

We misandrists stay in our lane. We might hate men, but at best we put up with them, frostily, because they’re everywhere and we don’t have any choice (incredible but true: it’s possible to hate someone without having an irrepressible urge to kill them). At worst we stop inviting them into our lives – or at least we make a drastic selection beforehand. Our misandry scares men, because it’s the sign that they’re going to have to start meriting our attention. Having relationships with men isn’t something we owe them,a duty, but, as in every balanced relationship, all the parties involved have to make an effort to treat one another with respect.

As long as there are misogynistic men who don’t give a damn, and a culture that condones and encourages them, there will be women who are so fed up they refuse to bear the brunt of exhausting or toxic relationships.

[patriottruth]

American females outnumber American males by at least 6.1 million. The dominant American demographic deserves equal American human rights, civil rights, freedoms, privileges, and entitlements as the minority male population. Majority Rule via a Kamala Harris Presidency has been a long time coming since 1950.

It's common sense; and the minority male population of the United States would never tolerate the situation being flipped where they were the disadvantaged ones whose American human rights, civil rights, freedoms, privileges, and entitlements were being permanently erased.

It's as simple as treating people the way you'd want to be treated. Public Policy, Majority Rule, and the Law of Majorities demand that the majority female population of the United States be treated equally to the minority male population no matter how the minority male population might think or feel about it.

As the majority population of the United States, American females have a right to protect and defend their rights and interests against any and all attempts by the minority male population to weaken or destroy them.

In 2020, females continued to comprise a slightly larger share (50.9%) of the total U.S. population — 168.8 million compared with almost 162.7 million males (49.1%). Females have outnumbered males since the 1950 Census. Before that, males outnumbered females from the nation's earliest colonial times. (Census.gov)

American Women Have Only Had a Legal/Constitutional Right to Vote to Advance the Human and Civil Rights of All American Women and Girls Since August 26, 1920 (104 years).

American Women and Girls Have Only Had Access to Real Financial Independence Since October 28, 1974 (50 years).

American Women and Girls Have Only Had Access to Real Business Ownership Since October 25, 1988 (36 years).

The entire American story of real human and civil rights for American women and girls is only as old as most living American grandmothers and their daughters, granddaughters, and great granddaughters.

In the last 50 years of American history, when they've actually had the opportunities to do so, American women have pursued educations and financial independence from domestic slavery, forced breeding, sexual slavery, and child-rearing, and they now account for 77% of all teachers, 65% of psychologists, 62% of OB/Gyns, 59% of pediatricians, 42% of managers, 42% of business owners, 39% of attorneys, 38% of physicians, 35% of the science, technology, engineering, and mathematics fields workforce, and 32% of business executives in the United States.

We need to keep growing forward and never go back to when women and girls had nearly no civil or human rights compared to the rights, privileges, and entitlements of American men and boys. "We The People" isn't a males-only country club; and "United" doesn't mean, "…fine print disclaimer…*** Excluding all American women and girls in the United States, of course! ***…"

For those who scream, "ALL LIVES MATTER!!!", accounting for all human life means no life is excluded; and "united" and "we" means everyone, with no exclusions; lest we be divided and conquered by hate and fear in all the same ways as every other civilization that fell and lost their lives and their homelands to colonizers and conquerors. Civilizations of the past experienced the same infestation and corruption of one of their political parties, who then caused massive division and hate on behalf of a foreign nation who wanted to conquer that civilization and take everything for themselves, immediately prior to the end of their civilization and nation.

Thankfully, American democracy, and the United States, itself, is being saved by Section 3 of the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution THIS TIME, but we'll only have our American Republic for as long as we're willing to fight for it. Unfortunately, half the United States voted against all American women and girls and the U.S. Constitution in the 2024 election. Here's to hoping at least some of those people will improve their tolerance of coexisting with American women and girls of all ages, along with their basic K-12 civics and history education, between now and 2026 and 2028.

[meangan-thee-lesbian]

I'm about to defend men rn, so feel free to tune out, but in my defence this will probably be the only time😂

"Gay men used to hang out with trans ppl, isn't it all so obvious who let the TRAism in?" Ok but lesbians also hung out with trans people (hasn't anyone watched The L Word these days?) the thing was that back then these trans people were same-sex attracted and stuck to their respective sex-based lanes. Tims with the gay men, tifs with the lesbians. And those trans people were a minority even among gays and lesbians. Many just had internalised homophobia, it was a regular discussion in the homosexual community, but at the end of the day our sex-based interests as homosexuals were all aligned. What changed with TRAism was the invasion of straight trans people.

Suddenly straight men were identifying as lesbian and invading lesbian spaces. They didn't have internalised homophobia, they had a straight man's privilege and entitlement. And they outnumbered us. Where did these straight men come from? Gay mens' spaces? The same gay men who have historically been so mean to (mostly heterosexual) transvestites that it's the reason for the "exclusionary white cis gays" trope? The same gay men who are the reason trans people were unwelcome at the Stonewall Inn and later at pride events? Those gay men?

Or do you think it was perhaps the demographic who exploded in population right as TRAism took off? Who have always espoused those homophobic ideas like "hearts not parts" and "sexuality/gender is fluid"? Whose identity politics have always served both their own interests and the interests of the straight men with which their lives are, statistically speaking, so very centred around? Whose obsession with finding ways to bring their men into lesbian spaces could fill several tomes? I am of course speaking about bihet women.

Now I understand it's never been popular to acknowledge the problems that bihet women have caused, especially to lesbians. They're a majority group, they can be counted on to tick the "yes I support marriage equality" box, they're all the things homosexuals do desperately need in order to have any hope of living a normal life in a society filled to the brim with groups so utterly opposed to us. But at the end of the day, you cannot just excuse someone of all criticism because they did a good thing one time.

I especially find it ironic that "gay men invented TRAism" is a popular hottake rn when bihet women, with the same identity politics that exist symbiotically with TRAism, are sitting pretty within the (straight) women's rights movement under the untouchable status of political 'lesbianism'. If your arm is looking to pull off one of your legs, maybe it should start with the leg proselytising about how straight women can identify as lesbians, which is somehow different to men identifying as women. But I digress.

So here I am on gay men's side for this one. Sure gay men can be problematic, I call that out when I see it too. For example, I see gay men reacting to this latest saga, which has been orchestrated nearly entirely by straight women, by pointing the finger at lesbians and saying "but, but, but the statistics show lesbians love girldick". And the majority of people who ticked 'lesbian' for these studies are the aforementioned bihet women and their men. The only thing these surveys are proof of is how lesbians have suffered the most from TRAism. Throwing lesbians under the bus for something straight women are doing ain't no better than throwing gay men under the bus for something straight women did. Instead how about we all join hands and acknowledge that straight people are the common denominator to every damn problem mentioned in this essay?

Even so, gay men being dumb ain't gonna cause me to come out here and support someone using homophobic slurs and being racist. Idc how many pedophiles they've busted, no one is above criticism, especially when they're doing shit that really needs criticising. You can applaud a publication (that routinely ignores the lesbian side of a story & routinely forgets to mention all the trans-identified men they feature are straight) having a go at gay men. You can invent fantasies about where TRAism really came from to justify it. But what's the point? Where is this new ideology going to lead you? You think the conservatives smashing the like button on this new excuse to hate gay men in a woke way are going to support women's rights beyond the kitchen?

Anyway, I dunno, I think a lot of the above could be solved by people just not being so damn reactionary. Get out your feelings and focus on the facts. I promise, the facts are so much more interesting and it's only through the facts that gays and lesbians have ever and will ever get our human rights.

[automatismoateo]

I'm tired of atheists saying they feel bad for religious adults via /r/atheism

I'm tired of atheists saying they feel bad for religious adults I don't feel bad at all. Whenever I go online and see atheists talking to theists and the theists is just an arrogant asshole saying how the Bible, Quran or whatever else is real because the book says so and atheists say they feel bad I get annoyed. I feel bad for me and other atheists that have to deal with religious agendas all of the time. I'm black, female and an atheist. It's been nothing but drama. Older Christian men trying to act as a father figure and sexualize me all of the time acting like theyre some savior, and Christian women enabling the behavior. Christian men that think all women are property and coming up to me on the street demanding sexually harassing me because," it's in the Bible that women and girls need to listen to men." I feel like most of the time the time the atheists that say this have grown up in a non religious area and they're lucky enough to not have experienced religious trauma or religious people trying to brainwash them saying their religion is the truth. I think my race is one of the most religious groups. At least 6 times a week I always hear someone talking about the Bible and how God is good. Someone is always trying push religion..don't get me started on black American and African Christians. Most of the time they'll try to set you up with manipulation tactics and try to wear you down until you say you believe what they believe. I'm tired of hearing stupid shit like," the Bible is true because it says so. Most black people believe it so it has to be true..why wouldn't you go with the majority?" The herd mentality has had a huge effect on my mental health. I feel like I'm surrounded by a bunch of mentally ill people all of the time and it's normalized. I can't believe people think like this and I have to deal with them...so if the majority of the population suddenly says rape is morally correct I'm sure a lot of these same people will just agree...it's very scary. These people have a choice whether or not they want to follow the crowd, but choose to do it anyway. And I don't feel like that worries a lot of people. I do understand indoctrination, however I do feel like when you're an adult and you're going around trying to manipulate people into your religion that you're not a good person. I know there's people that have deconverted and they take accountability if they've manipulated someone into their religion..those people get empathy from me. The rest that choose to just try to brainwash people because it makes them comfortable is a horrible, unstable person in my opinion. Honestly the only people I hear say they feel sorry for militant Christians are privileged white atheists that never had to deal with religious people attacking them. I roll my eyes whenever a Christian attacks an atheist and an atheist says that they're trolling..no the fuck they're not. These people are serious and some of us unfortunately have to deal with these kinds of people daily. These same people vote, they drive, they have jobs and they spread their bs without a care in the world about how anyone else feels. And yes I'm being judgmental because these same insane Christians will judge me and imply that the devil is possessing me because I don't want to blindly follow them. Call me arrogant all you want, but I don't like hearing people push their religious beliefs down my throat nearly every fucking day because they want to fit in with the popular crowd. Edit: I'm sure I have a lot of typos. I'm half asleep and decided to go on a rant. Submitted February 18, 2024 at 02:45PM by _HotMessExpress1 (From Reddit https://ift.tt/boeV1rH)

[foraged-obscurities]

Things I’ve learned in 2023:

1. I would rather adjust my life to their absence than adjust my boundaries to their disrespect.

2. When seeking advice, go to the person with the wisdom of that lived experience, not the one with knowledge of the topic.

3. Always cook the pasta longer than the box says.

4. The angrier a man is, the more he is in need of a good cry. Handle your emotions appropriately, not how society has permitted and excused.

5. In adolescence, we disrespect our mothers more than anyone else because she was the only one that exemplified unconditional love.

6. Most of my childless friends would make better parents than the ones that are choosing to have children.

7. If you were loved by everyone, you wouldn’t like yourself/ what you had become.

8. For a lot of people, there will come a time when they view their parents as vulnerable children in need of guidance and love.

9. If a majority of women like something, society will condemn it.

10. Instead of walking the dog with a purpose, let their nose lead the way, it’s more of an adventure, and their mind will get the stimulation it deserves.

11. A small matcha and a seltzer will give you the same energy as two cups of coffee without the unwanted jitters.

12. Keep in touch with your younger friends, you have more to learn from them than they have to learn from you.

13. Trauma bonding has been given a bad rep, but for a lot of people it helps us heal while seeking community.

14. Everyone is hero, a villain, and a victim in someone’s story.

15. Feminine rage is not portrayed justly in media, it is most often silent and internalized, we are not given the privilege of tantrums the way men are.

16. There is a difference between solitude and loneliness, men should fear this when it comes to dating.

17. Revenge can feel like unrequited love, most do not deserve the satisfaction.

18. Women fall in love with people the more time they spend with that person, men fall in love in their absence.

19. The less you dress for the male gaze, the more you seem to attract it.

20. 50% of the American population has narcissistic tendencies, trust a person on the spectrum to weed them out, they have a knack for it.

21. Emotional consideration is necessary for logic.

22. Douche bag comedian Matt Rife turned out to be a prick *shocker* and he sent a woman a face tuned dick pic.

23. When complaining about the struggles of the women of my grandparents generation, they always forget to highlight that they couldn’t even have their own credit cards/ bank accounts.. makes you wonder what could’ve been worse than not being able to have that kind of security.

24. Unless it’s absolutely necessary for your health, get rid of your scale. Or at least hide it when you have company over, you never know who is struggling. Also, weight fluctuation is NORMAL.

25. People are less likely to take women’s pain seriously when they masturbate to it.

26. “We live in our own reality” is just a kinder way to say that we all have our delusions.

27. Empathy/ emotional intelligence should be the gauge of inferiority/superiority. But we don’t acknowledge it because humans would likely not rank on that scale.

28. A lot of neurodivergent people need to have a safety person that they can vent to about another person’s wrongdoings in order to make sure that person is being held accountable. We often undermine ourselves and an outside opinion can bring about clarity and closure.

29. When someone leaves an abusive situation, don’t apologize, congratulate them.

30. Save the water you rinse your rice in, dunk your hair in it after you’ve showered, you won’t regret it.

31. If you still have butterflies in your stomach after hanging out with someone for 3+ months.. RUN. Your gut is trying to tell you something because your brain is clouded by hormones.

32. Therapy can be just as damaging as the experiences you’re trying to heal from, and talk therapy is only one step, it is not the solution.

33. Men know exactly what weaponized incompetence is when a woman needs something from them, but only then.

34. Radicalized against a capitalist system just means you’re humanized.

[emmareadingjournal]

nov 28 - Idle No More 2012

PRE LECTURE / HOT TAKE

In 2012, I was eleven years old and only remember hearing about this social movement in passing from my parents. I definitely had no idea that flash mobs were involved. The Kuttner reading paints a beautiful picture of the round dances and other celebratory acts of resistance. Kuttner describes this scene as a powerful visual symbol. These round dances remind me of the carnival at the Battle of Seattle! Very cool to see an overlap of fun-like tactics!

I enjoyed the documentary aimed to inform Canadians of the major pillars of the Idle No More Movement. This short video highlights the systemic barriers Indigenous people face, which lead to an ongoing health crisis. I think that the folk in this video are inspiring because, despite government oppression, these people are standing up for what is right.

Chief Theresa Spence from Attawapiskat went on a hunger strike that lasted 44 days. This reminds me of the women who fought for their right to vote. This tactic is powerful as it draws the public's attention. However, it is dangerous as one could experience severe health consequences. While Chief Theresa Spence was not force-fed like the suffragettes, she was hospitalized for dehydration and determination. This shows how dedicated these women are to their causes.

My hot take is not shocking, but I think many people agree with it. I think that as someone who benefits from these systems as a white, educated female, I need to educate myself on the historical relationship Canada has with Indigenous people and listen to those who are telling their stories. I think that is essential that indigenous voices are being uplifted to avoid situations where people are speaking on their behalf because often those privileged with opportunities to speak are telling stories that are not theirs to tell.

POST LECTURE / MODERN DAY CONNECTION / REVISED TAKE

I am floored by "Trick or Treaty" I have never considered HOW treaties came to be. More specifically, it never occurred to me that Indigenous people most likely did not understand what was going on because treaties are a colonial practice, and they did not speak English. How could Indigenous people understand what cede, release, surrender, and yield meant if they did not speak English? I am shocked to learn that the diaries of those acting on behalf of the crown admitted to the differences between the oral and written treaties.

Additionally, I had no idea that the band council was an imposed structure. I naively assumed that this was the way that Inidengious people operated. I am especially saddened by imposing structures into these communities that may not have operated in that manner.

I did not realize pre-lecture that these issues that people advocate for affect us all. Serpent River, Grassy Narrows, the "cancer alley" of Aamjiwnaang, Fort Chippewyan and the Debeers mines near Attwaspiskat are crises that affect us all. We have one planet we must take care of it! However, as more non-indigenous folk get involved, I am reminded of a quote from the Occupy Wall Street AL Jazeera video in which one of the interviewers said something along the lines of " it took white girls getting pepper sprayed to care." In other words, people only seem to care when white folks are involved.

I think that this week connects to OWS in that one of the elements of the logic of the swarm is the principle of listening to your neighbourhood. This matters because local info leads to a global swarm, and global support is needed to tactile this human rights and environmental issue.

My modern-day connection is Greta Thunberg's climate activism. While she is not an indigenous person, she struggles to be heard as she is part of a population (youth) whose opinion is deemed unworthy of consideration. Greta too, needs to rely on tactics like the logic of the swarm to sway public opinion.

In class we were asked where are we now? The women who founded Idle no more say that the movement is still going strong. I think this is true as there are more conversations about taking on decolonization. In response to this question, my revised take is that we need to break down what decolonization means and not simply use it as a buzzword. There are a lot of calls to take on decolonizing practices, but not a lot of conversations about what this looks like for different institutions. To figure this out, we must connect with indigenous people.

[raven-at-the-writing-desk]

do u ever wonder why malleus is the only person who has holes in their ceremony robes and not any beaskind students ( which are probably over 200) and not even leona who's a prince (albeit second)

Also Jack states in Deuces' robes vignette that it's really hard for him to put his ears in the hood. He has the biggest ears of the the 3 so it must be even more uncomfortable.

I wonder if this is a sign that human society presses on the beastmen’s comfort and accessibility kinda like what they did with women's jean giving no pockets so they'd have to buy purses. Also if this subtly is implied there,is there a chance they would expand more on that narrative?

***Content warning!!: I briefly mention microaggressions during this discussion.***

I’ve never wondered why Malleus is the only person with holes his the hood because an explanation was provided for it (in his ceremonial robes vignettes). When Leona comes to return the clothing (due to the laundromat’s mix-up), Lilia states that Malleus had his robes specially tailored to accommodate for his horns. This means that had Malleus not gone out of his way to have that alteration made, he would have had a hood that looked like everyone else’s. It doesn’t seem to be a race or a prince privilege thing; it’s a personal decision on Malleus’s part. Please view the following screenshots (taken from EN; JP says something similar):

I’m not sure where you’re getting the 200+ beastmen students figure from? I’d be interested in seeing the math/lore on that! 🤔 It’s stated in Ace’s ceremonial robes vignettes, Endless Halloween Night, and the TWST light novel adaptation that there’s around 800 students (give or take) enrolled at NRC (a number which aligns with the figures of many real life private British boarding schools). The vast majority of those students appear to be human (which is also reflected in our main cast being mostly humans). Many generic NPCs or mob students also appear to be human, so it can be assumed that humans are the most prevalent race in their world (though, of course, demographics will vary by country; ie there are more merpeople in the Coral Sea than there are humans). Beastmen seem to be concentrated in Savanaclaw (likely due to ease for the devs/game limitations), but the manga adaptation and a line dropped by Riddle in Lyreless Lyre (the second Beans Day event) tells us that the other dorms (like Heartslabyul) likely also have beastmen in their ranks. This makes it difficult to calculate how many beastmen there are total of the NRC student population.

While there doesn’t appear to be inherent discrimination of beastmen in particular, this does seem to indicate that the ceremonial robes were designed with humans in mind, not other races (some kinds of fae, beastmen, anyone that has additional features which may not fit comfortable due to the hood, etc). This is a strange observation, because we see in practically every outfit of Savanaclaw’s that accommodations can and have been made to suit their differing physical traits. For example, beastmen wear pants with a zipper that can be adjusted for their tails to poke through; note that there is a difference in how Jack, Ruggie, and Leona’s tails present. (The image below is taken from my copy of the Magical Archives book.)

Accommodations have also been made for other characters whose physical traits cannot work well with usual fits; for example, Malleus often has hats of a slightly different design than the other characters’ to make space for his horns. In the case of hats, it seems like beastmen are able to usually hide their ears in the hat given that there is ample space, such as in their Masterchef and Halloween cards. There doesn’t seem to be comments about discomfort in these cases (and for Masterchef specifically, keeping fur out of food is probably for the best). However, we do have Ruggie’s Masquerade card, which definitely demonstrates that holes can be made in hats to accommodate for their ears.

So these alterations and similar ones are clearly possible (and even feature in dorm uniforms, such as Savanaclaw’s). Why aren’t there variations of the ceremonial robes that would allow more comfort for some of NRC’s non-human students??? I don’t think anyone has a clear answer for that quite yet 💦

I think there’s probably some practical (but still sort of dumb) purpose for it that probably hasn’t been explained yet?? It’s a common joke in the fandom that Crowley is cheap and wastes money on silly things (being a frivolous crow and all), so maybe he went with the human model for the ceremonial robes and left any desired tailoring/alterations for the students themselves to pay out of pocket?? This would save the school on some costs, but it still doesn’t fully explain why students that feel discomfort in wearing the hood (ie Jack) wouldn’t have it changed… I guess maybe because they so rarely wear the ceremonial robes that, in the eyes of most students, it doesn’t warrant shelling out money to have the robes altered?? (I don’t know why Leona’s hood isn’t the same as Malleus’s though; he definitely has the money for it and he could just as easily have told Ruggie to run the clothes to a tailor for him if he was too lazy to do it himself.)

A friend of mine has suggested that NRC loans the ceremonial robes out and went with a human model at different sizes when designing the hoods since that would best fit the majority of its student body. All humans, all merpeople (they have humanoid bodies on land), and some fae like Lilia would be fine with said hoods, so I’d imagine that this accounts for most of the students. Additionally, my friend argued that the (loaned) ceremonial robes would mean that NRC usually wouldn’t allow for drastic modifications because it means it may not be suitable for the next student that receives the robes (and NRC isn’t willing to keep making so many new robes every year). Maybe Malleus was just the exception due to his power and/or status, or both. Again, this would fall under the “Crowley wanted to save money” family of explanations 😂 (as well as the also common “Crowley sucks up to money and power” explanation—)

Using the “average” individual to base one’s plans and designs on certainly doesn’t come without its challenges or deviations from the average. However, this is often the standard used for many things, not just clothing. Many scientific tests and scales exist only because there is an average to be compared to. There’s nothing wrong with that; it may come off as selfish or not accounting for all cases, but it’s unfortunately what is most practical and convenient in a business sense.

ADDENDUM: This is a slightly different situation than the dorm uniforms, which have been stated that alterations are allowed; it is a privilege specifically for dorm leaders. It seems that school uniforms may also be modified to a slight degree, as there is clear variation in how the cast wears theirs. While it may sound arbitrary, I wouldn’t be surprised if an old fashioned private school like NRC has weird and inconsistent traditions for the various uniforms, allowing for more freedom in some areas and less in others, such as their apparently all important and famous ceremonial robes. Weirdly enough, it seems the robes are what is the fit that is most iconic about NRC; Leona’s sister-in-law wants to see pictures of him in it and Ruggie mentions just how famous the robes are to the public. Please note that the other uniforms are worn much more often than the robes are, while the robes are reserved for mainly special ceremonies. This may explain why the rules seem to be much more strict concerning the robes than other uniforms, to preserve the traditions of NRC. At most, they’d offer different robe sizes but not usually changes which would alter the physical design of the robes or fabric (which, as we see in Leona’s Ceremonial Robes groovy, is the case with Malleus’s robes; again, an exception may have been made here due to power/status).

Of course, this is all only speculation! It would be nice if the game actually told us why the robes are specifically different than the other clothes. Having said all of that, I don’t know if it’s fair to point at one outfit out of several and say that it could imply limited accessibility for beastmen 😅 A lot of their other outfits (even those provided by the same institution) seem to tell the opposite story. It’s just weird how ceremonial robes is the one glaring exception to that. It’s even weirder that we never got an explanation for why it’s only the ceremonial robes that are like this (though I guess it’s not like that part of the lore is super important in the grand scheme of things).

While it’s true that microaggressions can occur and are insidious in that they are subtle in nature (and thus difficult to detect and easy to go over people’s heads), I don’t see enough of this clothing issue to the point where it’s a systemic and normalized problem. We don’t have a lot of knowledge on human-beastman relations in TWST canon, and I’d rather not jump to conclusions when there’s not enough evidence to come to one. If anything, I think the narrative will try to elaborate on the tensions between humans and fairies (which has been references many times, sometimes with mentions of war), not humans and beastmen. We do have that upcoming Sunset Savanna event so maybe that’s a chance for us to learn more about beastmen (or at least the royal family??) and what their relations with other races are like.

[wilwheaton]

I was a fan of yours for years. I unfollowed you because I was concerned you were unsympathetic to victims of sexism. I am incredibly disappointed to see confirmation of that. "Now that abortions are essentially banned in Texas, what are they mistresses of Republican lawmakers going to do when they get pregnant?" This is an abominably sexist tweet. It treats women not as human beings, but as an extension of men. It reduces them to their sex lives. And it takes a phenomenally concerning issue, the complete potential loss of women's bodily autonomy, an issue that is currently destroying women's lives in Texas - and it treats it as a fucking joke. And not only did you NOT condemn this joke, YOU DOUBLED DOWN ON IT. If you had read a single article about the insanity currently going on near and around Texas, about the insanity affecting every woman who's ever had sex with man, with or without consent, I cannot believe you would've written something so cruel, unfeeling, disdainful, vile. Bodily autonomy affects all women you misogynistic garbage can. Most women, including the overwhelmingly majority of WHITE women, can't afford to take a week off of work, arrange childcare, if necessary, rearrange their whole lives, in order to retain their bodies and futures. You're in goddamn Hollywood. You are surrounded by wealthy white women who have never been protected by either their race or their class. We literally just started hearing all about how constantly raped and sexually harassed they are in the 21st century. Do you think none of this happened because actually they're in the same categories as you? There's one important difference. It's the difference that decides whether or not you experience sexism. Your response was fucking embarrassing. It was unbelievably misogynistic. It indicated not a single bit of EMPATHY or concern for women's bodily autonomy, for their human dignity. You are a wealthy white man. Not only are you responsible for your role in upholding white privilege, you are responsible for you role in upholding all misogyny. How do you get off claiming women don’t experience misogyny, that their class or race somehow undoes thousands of years of marginalization and oppression. "Rich" white women couldn't have their own finances, they could be legally raped by their spouses, and they couldn't escape until RECENT laws. Some of them only a few decades old. And even today, THEY DO NOT HAVE GUARANTEED BODILY AUTONOMY.

I would say "Do better." I would ask for basic empathy for all women. But if you've reached your age, and privilege, and level of education, and you still don't give a single shit about women, if you take the first opportunity given to treat them like they're still just property of men, to undermine the most serious recent destruction of their rights - then is there even a possibility of you trying to be fucking better? I doubt it. But hopefully you think twice the next time you fucking undermine the entire history of the fight for women's rights to fucking live in order to make a joke about Republicans. You might as well be one of them, since you apparently share their views regarding women. You don’t think misogyny’s a real issue, not unless it’s compounded by race or class (you know, issues that affect the real humans - men.) Do you consider women human beings, do you understand that they live independent of men, they aren’t just Mrs Man? If you don’t understand or care, but want to keep a reputation as not an asshole to 50%+ of the population, I’d recommend not writing with such obvious disdain about the women you yourself hold systemic power over, regardless of if they’re just as white as you.

It’s not ally ship with people of color or with impoverished people. It’s just misogyny. And it’s despicable.

You have made so many presumptions about me, I don't even know where to begin.

I say this gently and respectfully: you don't know anything about me, and while your anger is clear and undeniable, I'm not your enemy.

[sisterspooky1013]

Better Than Sex

Author: SisterSpooky1013

Rating: Teen and up

Words: 1666

Tagging: @today-in-fic

Read it on AO3

“Better Than Sex Cake” Mulder read aloud from the menu before looking across the table at Scully with his eyebrows raised in question.

They had just concluded an evening traipsing through an (alleged) actual ghost town, though no signs of ghosts were to be seen. Just a lot of graffiti, dirty mattresses and a used condom or two. Now they were sitting at the first diner they came across, Mo’s Café, and Mulder was considering the sex cake.

“Knock yourself out, Mulder, I’m sticking to coffee.”

“You aren’t curious as to whether this cake is, in fact, better than sex?”

“Well I’m sure it’s better than bad sex, but if it were better than great sex the population would die out because everyone would skip procreating and just eat cake.”

Mulder considered her statement. “Isn’t ‘bad sex’ somewhat of an oxymoron?”

She gave him an incredulous look. “Are you being serious?”

Now it was his turn to look incredulous. “The only bad sex is no sex, as far as I’m concerned.”

Scully shook her head ruefully. “Must be nice to be a man.”

Just then the waitress came by to take their order. Scully requested coffee and dry toast, while Mulder opted for coffee and the aforementioned sex cake. After she collected their menus and retreated to the kitchen, Mulder eyed Scully appraisingly, gaging her mood. Sometimes she was open and willing to talk about things of a personal or private nature, other times she kept her lips as tight as a steel trap. He suspected he might have a chatty Scully on his hands, and didn’t want to waste the opportunity.

“So, if I’m understanding correctly, Scully, there would be a circumstance under which you would choose a piece of cake over sex?”

She screwed up her mouth a little, not in consideration of how to answer the question, but whether to answer it at all. “Depends who the sex is with, I suppose, but yes, I could think of a few times where cake would have been a more enjoyable option.”

“Hm” was his only reply as he sat back against the seat of the booth, absorbing this information.

“Are you saying you’ve never had sex that was subpar enough that cake would have been better?”

He pulled in a deep breath and looked to the ceiling briefly, and she could imagine him running through his mental file of sexual encounters. “I don’t think so, no.”

“Is it wrong that I feel compelled to kick you right now?” She asked, just a hint of playfulness in her voice.

He laughed.“I’m not saying that every single time was Oscar-worthy, but even the worst was still better than some flour and butter.”

“And they say male privilege isn’t real” she deadpanned as the waitress came by to present them with two coffees, cake, toast and a tray of sugar and cream. She mixed the accoutrements into her cup while Mulder sipped his black, followed by a bite of the cake, which looked like a basic white cake with some kind of custard and whipped cream on top.

“This is pretty good, though I can’t say it lives up to its name” he said around the food in his mouth, pushing the plate towards her and holding out the fork suggestively. She took it and stabbed a small bite, meeting Mulder’s eye as she pulled the tines from between her lips. It was good, as most cake is, but nothing to write home about.

“Well?” He asked expectantly.

“Well what? She returned, wiping her finger at the corners of her mouth.

“Is it better than sex?”

She paused before answering, knowing that Mulder was going to keep picking at this until it got uncomfortable. He liked to do that, to see how far he could get her to go before she blushed and demanded they change the subject. He took immense pleasure in making her squirm, and even more in getting her to reveal something personal that he normally wouldn’t be privy to. Sometimes, she had as much fun indulging him as he did in goading her. She wasn’t above sharing something that she knew would shock him, just so she could see the look on his face. She liked that she could still surprise him.

“Not better than all sex, but certainly better than some of the sex I’ve had, regrettably.”

“What would make sex so bad that cake is better? I must know.”

“I think you can use your imagination, Mulder.”

“Come on, Scully, you could be saving some poor woman from ‘worse than cake’ sex with me in the future. Consider it an act of charity.”

She shook her head at him, but couldn’t hide the smile that tugged at her lips.

“Your answer lies in that drawer full of tapes that aren’t yours, Mulder.”

“How’s that?”

“Let’s see, sex starts when the man presents his erection and ends when he ejaculates. The woman howls like an animal no matter what he’s doing, though her orgasm is never mentioned. There is no foreplay. Would you like me to continue?”

He swallowed a mouthful of coffee he’d been holding, afraid he might choke. He’d never heard her speak so openly about sex before, especially not sex she had personally experienced, and though he’d been the one who initiated the conversation he was suddenly afraid he was going to have to walk out of this diner trying to hide a bulge in his slacks.

“Fair enough, Scully, but porn isn’t real. It’s like an action movie. No one actually hangs off the skids of a helicopter mid-air, it’s just fun to watch.”

“I’m glad to hear that you’re aware of that, Mulder, and I would implore you to spread the news to the rest of the male populace.” She punctuated her statement with a loud crunch into her toast.

Mulder’s mouth fell open slightly as he studied her, trying to tell if she was joking or embellishing.

“People really do that? Have sex like they do in porn? Men you’ve slept with?”

She rolled her eyes. “Mulder, if you’re going to sit here and tell me that you have never done that, even as a young man, I’ll have to call BS.”

He put his hands up in defense. “I’m not saying I emerged from puberty as Don Juan, but I don’t recall ever not being invested in my partner’s experience. I’m sure my skills were lacking at the outset, but I always tried.”

She looked at him derisively from under her eyelashes. “Well then, you really should get out there more, Mulder. Share your gift with the world.” Her voice was laden with sarcasm.

He laughed and ran his hand over the back of his neck. “How am I coming out to be the bad guy, here Scully? I’m not the one who gave you a ‘worse than cake’ lay.”

She smiled at him but her tone remained facetious “of course not, you’ve demonstrated that your skills in this area are unparalleled.”

“Damn straight!” He said with a slap of his palm on the table, and they both erupted into laughter.

They held eye contact as the laughter subsided, awkwardness descending over the conversation. He had made reference to the two of them having sex, which was a topic he’d only made innuendo about, never mentioned directly. Trying to break the tension, Scully finally spoke.

“Well, I guess you can see why I don’t bother dating.”

“I guess I can” he replied, swiping the last crumbs of cake off the plate with his finger.

“Why don’t you date, Mulder?” His expression registered surprise. “Or do you? I don’t want to be presumptuous.” She felt a pit in her belly at the idea that he may actually have a secret love life.

“No” he spat out, chuckling a little. “No, I definitely don’t date. It’s just too complicated I guess. I’m kind of a serial monogamist anyway.”

“Really?” Now it was her turn to be surprised.

“Yeah, for the most part. I’ve had a couple flings, but the vast majority of the women I’ve slept with I was in a relationship with. The emotional aspect is important for me.”

She studied him, imagining a version of Mulder who would be so considerate and giving. She didn’t need to imagine it, really, she’d seen it. While he was capable of being selfish and obtuse, he had also been incredibly tender and caring with her on many occasions. He had certainly shown a proclivity towards chivalry; opening doors for her, walking closer to traffic on the sidewalk, helping her into her coat or holding an umbrella for her. The idea that such gestures would extend into the bedroom was logical, but it still set off a stirring in her belly. In what other ways might he be so attentive to her needs? She swallowed the last of her coffee and tried not to think about it. Maybe later, but not here. Not now.

“Well, I hate to state the obvious here, Scully, but I don’t think you’re going to happen across the guy that will give you a 5-star experience if you never put yourself out there.” As soon as the words left his mouth he wanted to kick himself; why the fuck was he encouraging her sleeping with other people?

She smiled demurely and shrugged “for now I get my thrills from ghost busting and the occasional slice of really good cake.”

He bobbed his head and smiled back, pulling out his wallet and setting his bureau credit card on the tabletop.

In truth, she had already happened across that guy. He was sitting in front of her at a shitty diner in the middle of nowhere. And while she hoped that she may enjoy that 5 star experience in the future, for now just being in his presence, laughing and seeking the answers to the mysteries of the universe together, that was better than sex.

[potteresque-ire]

Happy Pride! 🏳️‍🌈  (June is Pride Month where I am 😊) For the occasion, may I recommend this animated musical short, 秘密港 Safe Haven, by the Beijing Queer Chorus (北京酷兒合唱團)? Published on the International Day Against Homophobia, Transphobia and Biphobia (IDAHOBIT; May 17th, 2021),  the animation, with its lovely (and at times, heartbreaking) song, is about a queer person and their friend who tries to offer their support. The lyrics is English-subbed.

(Below the cut: a wish for the c-queer community; conception of Safe Haven, as explained by the Beijing Queer Chorus; CW/TW for homophobia, violence and forced abortion)

Background for my wish: with the recent Chinese government’s aggressive turnaround in its population control policy to combat its declining birth rate—on 2021/05/31, China further lifted the cap of number of children allowed per couple from 2 to 3 (the number was 1 for almost four decades, 1978-2015; the population control measure has therefore been colloquially called the “One Child Policy”), younger generations of Chinese are already feeling the pressure and fearing the consequences of non-compliance (for example, if the state levies heavy fines on non-child-bearers).   

While I have not yet read articles that directly connect the major policy shift with the c-queer community, I imagine it may bring both relief and additional challenges. The relief will likely take time to come; the challenges, meanwhile,  will likely be immediate. 

This has to do with the root of antagonism against homosexuality in Chinese societies. Unlike in their Western counterparts, Chinese queers have consistently reported that family, instead of societal, pressure as the greatest challenge they face (societal pressure includes that from religion, from government etc). C-queers are expected to abide to the heteronormative traditions of opposite-sex marriage and child-bearing, in a collectivistic, conformist environment still strongly influenced by the Confucian notion that continuing the bloodline is the primary responsibility of a filial child. Men, especially, are under heavy pressure to carry on their family surname. Those who fail to do so are seen as irresponsible at best, moral failures at worst. They suffer anything and everything from constant nagging from their relatives, to ostracisation, to disownment. 

A better known consequence of this cultural antagonism against homosexuality in the tragic Tongqi (同妻 “homo-wives”) phenomenon that is, perhaps, unique to China. 

Tongqi are straight women who unknowingly entered marriage with closeted gay man, who often learn about their spouse’s sexuality only after the filial obligation of having children has been fulfilled. It’s a form of marriage fraud; women who file for divorce, however, are likely to lose custody of their child(ren) under Chinese laws, and so many of them keep mum. The gay men involved are also victims in many cases; the lack of public, open education and discussion of queer topics in the country mean even the queers themselves may not have a full understanding of their own queerness, believe that “straightening” themselves is something they can do with sufficient willpower and love for their family. 

As one may expect, these marriages are mostly unsatisfying; psychiatric issues and intimate partner violence (IPV), which include verbal, emotional and physical abuse, have also been frequently reported. Just how prevalent are Tongqi’s in China that, in turn, reflect how many gay men in China are pressured to remain in the closet and get married? The following numbers may serve as comparison. In 2010, the percentage of gay men married to heterosexual women in the US was 15-25%. In China and in 2018, meanwhile, the reowned Chinese sexologist, sociologist and LGBT rights activist, Li Yinhe (李銀河), quoted an estimate of 80% of China’s ~ 20 million gay men were married to heterosexual wives; i.e. the Tongqi population amounted to ~16 million. Literature has reported a similar estimated size of the Tongqi population—at 13+ million, in 2016. 

(Reason for the numbers being estimates: the exact size of the c-queer community isn’t known. China’s decennial census questionnaire from late last year (2020) once again excluded questions about its own LGBT+ community. "Room mate” is how many c-queers have to refer to their partners).

While the Chinese government decriminalised homosexuality in 1997 and its current laws carry no clauses that target the queer community—the official stance of Chinese government on homosexuality is currently 不支持，不反對，不提倡 “not supporting, not opposing, not advocating”—what may seem to be its non-queer-related policies have indirectly but majorly impacted the lives of c-queers. In particular, the “One Child Policy” has been hypothesised to exacerbate the challenge faced by c-queers, as the only child becomes the sole “next generation” available for producing grandchildren and extending the family bloodline. 

Hence, my expectation / hope that the relaxation of "One Child Policy”, by lifting the cap on the number of children a couple can have, will bring relief to the LGBT+ population—even if the relief will only come years down the road, as the newer generations of c-queers will then have siblings to share their filial responsibilities. 

However, this also explains my worry for now, for the immediate months and years to come, for not only c-queers but the younger generations of Chinese in general. My worry is about how, exactly, the state intends to drive its birth rate upward, and the hardship the new policies may bring. 

The practices of China’s population control policies have historically been brutal. Forced, late-term abortions were common, for example. This is reflected in the country’s birth control propaganda banners, commonly seen in Chinese villages until late 2000s, which were infamous for their verbal violence:

“Beat it out! Abort it! Miscarry it! Just cannot give birth to it!”

Fines, which were levied on offenders of the One Child Policy, may seem like a better option but can place an unbearable burden on poorer families, of which there remain many in China. Premier Li Keqiang reported, in May 2020, that >40% of China’s population—600 million—are living with a monthly income of ~$140 USD or below, despite the glitz often seen in the country’s entertainment productions. Using One Child Policy era fines for reference, the famous Chinese director 張藝謀 Zhang Yimou was fined 7.48 million RMB (~$1.17 million USD) for his three children, in 2013. Defying the new population control policies may therefore be a privilege reserved for the very powerful and very rich. And the government is likely to be aggressive in enforcing its new policies—the social media accounts of > 20 feminist activists, who advocate for reproductive freedom among other women’s rights, have already been shut down in the recent weeks. 

Will the Chinese government find ways to penalise members of the queer community who do not contribute to the new baby count? Will it turn a blind(er) eye to the Tongqi 同妻 (and to a lesser extent, Tongfu 同夫 ~ heterosexual men married to lesbian women) tragedies happening every day? It’s impossible to say yet.

For this year, therefore, I wish the c-queer community this—I wish it to be safe from the reach of China’s population control policies, whatever they will be. 

Back to the animated short, Safe Haven, which is about coming out. In 2016, a 18,000 people survey by the United Nations Development Programme reported only 5% of Chinese queers had come out to people outside their families. Only 15% have come out to their families. A more recent survey reports a significant improvement in these percentages, with ~50% of gays, bisexuals and transgenders and 70% of lesbians having come out to their families (Table 2). Fully out queers remain rare (<10%).

There’s still, therefore, a long way to go. With queers often being out (if they’re out at all) only to their most immediate/intimate social circles, with the state’s censorship of LGBT+ presentation in visual media, many (especially older generations of) non-queers in China haven’t seen a living, breathing, outwardly queer person before. The process of coming out, by extension—what it means, what it takes for both the giver and receiver of the message—may have never entered the thoughts of these non-queers before.

What should they say? What should they do? What words and actions will convey support? What won’t?

Safe Haven is about these questions. I’ll end this post with a translation of the Weibo post in which the animated short was first published, in which Beijing Queer Chorus explained the project’s conception:

#517 IDAHOBIT# Do you remember how it was like, the first time you came out of the closet, or someone came out of the closet to you? Who was that person? What did you say at the time, and how did that person react?

The person who voluntarily exposes their heart requires courage. The person who receives the message may have their own heart filled with unease. 

Maybe, both are thinking: “What should I do?”

Coming out is such an important occasion. It can, perhaps, change a relationship forever.

Some will welcome warmth and hugs. Some others will get their first taste of homophobia. Yet some others will find neither.

After a queer person came out to their friend, they got, in return, “Don’t worry. I’ll still treat you as a friend.” It made them uncomfortable for a long time. But their straight family and friends didn’t understand. How could this be not a kind thing to say?

What is gay-friendly? What is homophobic? It appears that everyone has their own standards. The same words and behaviours transmit warmth to some, deep offence to others.

So, when we’re talking about “homophobia”, what are we talking about?

To commemorate this years #517 IDAHOBIT#, the Beijing Queer Chorus interviewed its tens of members and their relatives and friends, in hopes of investigating the difference in perspectives between homosexuals and straight people. How can this barrier be crossed, how can they work together to take care of the valuable relationships.

In the stories of all interviewees, a warmth like this can be felt: even with the risks, there remain those who are brave enough to display their true self; even with the misunderstandings, there remain those willing to keep the secrets of others, willing to learn to understand a whole new world.

We condensed these stories into an original, animated musical short, Safe Haven.

We hope every boat riding the winds and waves can find a harbour to unload their secrets. We also hope every person has enough gentle strength to be the safe haven for others. 

We offer our best wishes to every queer who lets their heart be seen ~ may your courage reap its rewards.

We thank every friend and family who have treated these hidden matters of the heart seriously. You make the world a better place.

[flying-elliska]

one of the most impactful things I have read lately are two of French author Edouard Louis' books, Pour en finir avec Eddy Bellegueule and Qui a tué mon père (translated into English as The End of Eddy and Who Killed my Father). It's been two months and I'm still thinking about it.

The first book is an 'autobiographical novel' about the author's childhood growing up as an obviously gay boy in one of the poorest areas of France, until he leaves and reinvents himself as a writer. It's fraught with bigotry, abuse, bullying, violence, deprivation and social despair, and it's one of the most harrowing things I have ever read. It reads as many things as once : a recognition of trauma, an angry exorcism, a cry for society at large to pay attention, and to be honest, as a horror story.

It was criticized by some in France as portraying the working class in a manner that was too negative, which tells me they missed the point entirely...ironic for a book by someone who actually grew up poor - one of my least favorite things ever is progressives telling a marginalized person they can't talk about their own experiences because they don't fit the desired mold. (The French love to romanticize the working class and I'm pretty sure it's often an avoidance mechanism.)

The point of the book is so obviously not about 'look at how terrible and bigoted those poor people are'. Little Eddy spends a big part of the narrative trying to escape - himself at first, then his family/circumstances and the persistent homophobia everywhere. In the end of the book, he finally manages to get accepted into a fancy high school in the city on a scholarship and tries really hard to fit in. The last scene of the book is a bunch of his - educated, upper/middle class - classmates throwing homophobic taunts at him, starting the cycle anew. I can't think of a clearer way to say 'this is not a story about a sad gay boy escaping the evil bigoted countryside for the city and then everything was wonderful!!!! this is a story about a systemic, pervasive problem.'

One of the key arguments of the book, to me, is how homophobia, sexism and bigotry in general are both a product and a reproduction mechanism of social and economic exclusion. For instance, he describes how the norms around what it means to be a man in his village (being tough, disobeying authority, quitting school early to go work at the factory, drinking alcohol, neglecting your own health, fighting over women, repressing your feelings, etc) perpetuates the cycle of poverty ; but again this isn't 'oh these people are so stupid' and more 'these people are trapped'. Because he makes it evident how degrading and dehumanizing poverty can be, this masculinity reads as a desperate attempt to cling to a certain amount of dignity - it's an extremely dysfunctional coping mechanism. At the same time, anyone falling outside of the mold is violently ostracized (like Eddy, who tries and fails to fit in). So the system keeps reproducing itself.

In Who Killed my Father, the author makes his political argument clearer. This is more of an essay, centering on his father, arguably the most complex figure in the first novel. The man is an angry, bigoted alcoholic who makes his family miserable ; at the same time he is the son of an abusive father who makes a point of honor to never hit his kids or wife even though it's very normalized in this context. In this essay the author keeps talking about the moments of almost tenderness with his father that haunt him, the picture he has of him doing drag in his youth, the fact that the father tried to leave the village when he was young to find a better life for himself with a close friend but failed and had to come back - the moments of what-ifs, of trying to struggle free from the cycle, when the system appears almost fragile and not so unbreakable after all, that the son kept holding close like a sort of talisman.

The narrative is structured around the fact that his father injured his back working in a factory and that he had to keep doing physical labor afterwards for money, instead of resting to recover, until it completely destroyed his body. Now he finds himself bed-bound at 53. Louis inquires into who is responsible for this premature 'death'. After considering individual choices, he turns towards political decisions - the successive governments, left and right, who have been destroying the French welfare system for decades and accelerating inequality. The point is to step out of the neoliberal obsession with personal responsibility and who is guilty and who is a bad or good person, and look at systems.

An element that isn't focused on but hovers over the story constantly is that this village is one where the majority of the population consistently votes for the extreme right National Front party in most elections. The book is too angry and nuanced to be some stupid "it's not their fault that they're racist because they're poor!" argument. It doesn't make any excuses for how awful this is but instead illustrates how dehumanization replicates itself, how people being denied basic dignity leads to them wanting to deny it to others. If you want to really understand the rise of the far right you have to look at where the inequality comes from in the first place, and how easy it is for people in power to wash their hands of it by blaming the bigoted masses. (Just like you can blame societal ills on minorities ! Two for one strategy.)

Towards the end of the essay, the author talks about how proud his father is of his son's literary success - for a book who clearly depicts him as a horrible person ! And this is a man who has spent his life openly despising anything cultural, because it never showed him a life like his own. But maybe now he feels seen, now he knows people want to read about these things. Maybe there is a reclamation of dignity through looking at the horror head on. Maybe his son somehow slipping through the cracks of the cycle gives him more room. The man stops making racist comments, and instead asks his son about his boyfriend. Most importantly, he asks his son about the leftist politics he's engaged in. They talk about the need for a revolution.

I think what strikes me the most is this attitude of "wounded compassion" that permeates the book. What do you do when your parents are abusive but even after you grow up, you can't help but still love them, and you know they've been shaped by the system that surrounds them ? Recognizing, speaking the harm is essential. You need to find your own freedom, sense of worth, and safety. You need to dissect the mechanisms at hand so they lose at least some of their power over you. You need to find people who love and believe you. But then what? Do you dismiss your persistent feelings of affection and care for those who hurt you as a sign you're just fucked up in the head ? You could just decide to never speak to them again, and it would be justified, but is that really what is going to heal you the most? It's important to realize you have the choice. But there are no easy conclusions.

This makes me think of a passage I have just read in Aversive Democracy by Aletta Norval. The essential ethos of radical democracy, she says, is about taking responsibility for your society, even the bad parts, instead of seeing them as a foreign element you have to cleanse yourself of. It's too fucking easy for queer progressives, especially the middle class urban kind, to talk about dumb evil hicks, to turn pride into a simple morality tale, and forget that any politics that don't center the basic dignity and needs of people are just shit. The injury is to you and by you and you have a duty of care just as much as a duty of criticism. (And this is obviously not only applicable to class matters.) You can't just walk away and save your sense of moral purity. (This is not an argument that the oppressed are responsible for educating the oppressors ; it's about how privilege is not an easy simple ranking and it is too damn easy to only focus on the ways in which you are oppressed and forget the ways in which you may have more leeway.)

There is no absolute equivalence between political and family dynamics but the parallel feel very relevant somehow. Several truths can coexist at once : you needed help and it was not given. You were let down. It's important to recognize that people are responsible of how they treat each other. You need to call out what isn't ok and stand up for yourself. At the same time, there is a reason why things are like this. Making people into villains is often bad strategy (within reason!), and in the end, easy dichotomies are often an instrument of power. The horrors you have been through might have given you a very specific wisdom and grace you do not have to be afraid of ; you are not tainted by your compassion (it is very much the opposite of forced forgiveness ; it has walked through the fire of truth.)

To me these books fit into what French literature does best, sociological storytelling a la Zola or Victor Hugo - the arguments aren't new and they can come across as heavy handed, even melodramatic. But I'll argue that the viscerality is the point, how the raw experience of misery punches through any clever arguments about how exploitation persists for the greater good of society. Really worth reading if you can do so with nuance.

[dramaqueeenamby]

Waves: The Read

A/N: I am a shady bitch, and I regret nothing.  Also, if ya’ll remember, Mercedes is Summer’s publicist/manager. I mentioned that in a few waves, so don’t get confused, friends!

Warnings: None. 

Word Count: 2K

Masterlist

TAGS: @notacamelthatsmywife​ @babe-im-bi​ @liquorlaughslove​ @letsshamelessqueen-m​ @missyperle​ @valkryienymph​ @tashawar​ @mani-lifes​ @missdforever​ @hello-therree​ @toni9​ @queenshikongo3​

"How many solos has my sister had?"

The room grew quiet, all eyes on the speaker. They’d just finished a number, or rather, Finn and Rachel had just finished a number. The rest of the students served more as props than singers. Ad-libs only constituted so much.

Mr. Schue’s smile dimmed. Slightly. "W—what?"

Alexus shrugged, motioning around the room. "Or any of the kids whose names aren’t Flipper or Rachel?"

"It’s Finn."

"I don’t care," she dismissed, eyes still on the instructor. "I’ve been here a whole week, and not once have I seen someone other than Cher and Sonny score solos."

Mr. Schue scoffed, crossing his arms. "Now, hold on a second, I treat all my students fairly. Any student is allowed to audition for a solo—"

"And how many who have auditioned actually received one, other than your prized pupils?"

Mercedes stood up. "Alexus—"

"No." Alexus lifted her hand and looked over at her sister. "This isn’t right, and you’re too kind and understanding to say anything, so I will."

"You’re out of line, Alexus."

She laughed, looking back at him. "Out of line? I’m not one of your little students, and you’re not going to shut me down like you do them. I’m going to say what I want and need to say, and then I’ll leave, but you’re going to catch this read, first."

"And, cut!"

Summer broke from character and offered Matthew a fake smile before turning away and catching Amber’s gaze. They shared an unspoken exchange, one that caused Amber to laugh after Summer rolled her eyes.

Summer didn’t know why she was so weary about accepting this role. Only 10% of it was acting, the rest was her actually reading the problematic cast members, which was all but a handful. But, to fulfill her petty side and get paid?

It was a double win.

Summer noticed Ryan was speaking with Lea, which ignited another eye roll. She was the guest star, not that Barbara Streisand wannabe. Still, Summer counted her blessings, because she could only take Ryan in small doses. He wasn’t as bad as his prized actress, but it was the fact that he allowed her to treat everyone like shit that made her think less of him.

Perhaps she was spoiled in the sense that every other director she’d had the privilege of working for would never tolerate such behavior. She had to accept that Hollywood was a game, and the rules changed constantly.

"Someone was having fun," Mercedes, Summer’s assistant chimed, coming to walk beside her.

Summer feigned innocence. "I have no idea what you’re talking about."

Mercedes smirked. "Yeah, right. You weren’t acting. You were giving them all a piece of your mind."

Summer retained her smile as they reached her trailer, Summer opening the door so Mercedes could enter first. "Are you trying to insinuate that I was using my job to tell these people how I really feel?"

"I surely was."

As soon as the door closed, Summer confessed. "You know me so well."

The two laughed. "Girl, you know Lea is probably complaining to Ryan right now."

Summer sucked her teeth. "You know she is." Walking over to the kitchenette area, she turned on the Keruig and opened the drawer to select a pod. Her hand ghosted between the caramel and the dark magic, before she settled for caramel. "That black bitch—"

Mercedes snickered. "You sound just like her."

Summer frowned as she insert the pod and selected 8oz. "God, you’re right. I have to have to get out of here."

Smiling, Mercedes swiped down to refresh her emails. "Hey, look at it this way, you keep up this level of performance, and you’re a shoe-in for that Primetime Emmy.

The idea of adding another award to her resume was more than enough to keep Summer focused and dedicated. As a dark skinned black woman, she had to work ten times harder just to remain 20 steps behind. Anything she could do to push herself, she cherished.

Summer added creamer and sugar to her coffee, blowing before taking a sip. "After this, I need a quick break."

Mercedes hummed. "Umm, about that—"

"No."

"Summer—"

"No, Cedes, I’ve been working back to back since I scored 4AM, I think I’ve earned a little vacation time."

"I don’t disagree." Mercedes raised her hands in surrender.

"Thank you," Summer nodded, taking another sip of her coffee.

"But—"

"Here you go."

"I’m just saying, I’m hearing rumors about a potential role that’s gonna start casting in a couple of months."

Summer rolled her eyes and brought the mug to her mouth. "And?"

"And." Mercedes also rolled her eyes. "It’d be perfect for you."

"Mmmhmm."

"Summer," Mercedes lowered her voice. "It’s Storm."

Summer narrowed her eyes. "Storm?" Mercedes nodded. "You don’t mean—"

"X-Men Storm? I surely do."

Summer gasped and covered her mouth. "Bitch!"

"I know!" Mercedes giggled, shushing her client. "So do you see why I want you to keep your options open?"

Summer downed the remainder of her coffee and washed her mug in the sink all the while still stuck on the information she’d been told. "Do you really think I could be Storm?"

"Summer, please, you won an Oscar for your first Hollywood role. You’re a shoe-in."

"What about Shipp?"

"Shipp can skip her ass off somewhere."

The two women laughed when a knock on the trailer door prompted Summer to walk over, opening and smiling when she saw Amber. "Hey girl, come on in."

"I wish." Amber rolled her eyes. "Lea’s ready to start filming again. I mean, Ryan is ready to start filming again."

"You’ve got to be kidding me." Summer checked the watch on her wrist. "It hasn’t even been twenty minutes."

Amber sighed. "You know the saying. She says jump. We say—"

"Trip, bitch."

Amber laughed, as Summer looked back at Mercedes, pointing a finger. "This conversation isn’t over."

Mercedes winked at Summer, the two actresses sauntering back onto set.

Summer wondered if Lea had been listening outside her trailer, because it seemed as if Ms. Michele was purposely antagonizing Summer. Any scenes they had together, Lea would abruptly call cut and give Summer "pointers," all the while Ryan sat in his chair and said nothing.

Summer, forever the professional, managed to keep her composure, but there was only so much she could take.

Finally, when it came time for Summer to film her final scene, she saw an opportunity.

"Alright, and action!"

"I just want you to know that despite your distasteful behavior toward me, I hold no animosity and hope that one day you can release your unwarranted rage, and we can be cordial once I’m on Broadway."

Alexus turned to Rachel and tilted her head, crossing her arms. "I don’t like you. Never have, never will."

Rachel’s smile faltered. "Well, I-I’m sorry you feel that way, but--."

"Let me explain something to you, Berry. This is Lima, Ohio. The biggest thing we have going for us here is Breadstix, a restaurant chain that’s been on it’s last leg since that lawsuit filed by the kid who got two breadsticks stuck up her nostrils."

"I’m much better now."

Alexus ignored Britany and continued. "So, I’ll give you this, this small town notoriety and fame, because I know and you know, that once you actually make it out into the real world, reality is going to slap you so hard, you won’t need to have a nose job."

"Alexus—"

"Your stardom is limited to this pathetic town and its almost entirely pathetic population. And don’t get me wrong, you’re very good at manipulating and controlling individuals, because you can. For now. But, let’s be real, your voice isn’t anything I haven’t heard coming from street singers in NYC. Face it, you don’t have the talent nor the looks to make it into this big star you think you’re going to be. NYADA?" Alexus laughed. "Maybe you’ll make it, I doubt it, and even if you do, once you realize how utterly mediocre your narcissistic ass truly is compared to real talent, you’ll come crying back to Lima and spend the rest of your life working nights at Breadstix while watching reruns of Funny Girl on a goodwill VHS player." A beat. "Now, how’s that for raining on your parade?"

"And, cut!"

——

PRESENT TIME

"Christopher, stop!" Summer laughed as Chris came from behind and lifted her up against his solid frame. "I’m trying to do my makeup."

"You don’t need it," he murmured into her neck. "It’s going to end up all over the pillows anyw—"

"Sir!"

"Autumn."

"Would you please leave me alone?" Summer managed to wiggle herself free from her husband, flipping him off when he slapped her ass. "I am a human being."

"Allegedly."

"Alleged—lemme stop before I end up going to jail." She leaned over and examined her skin, feeling for the tackiness to see if her primer had settled. "This is why I can never do my makeup right. If it’s not him, it’s the twins."

We wanna see the babies!

I don’t get it. Why is she always so mean to him???

^^^^You must be new around here…

What makeup do you use?

Summer caught the last comment and grabbed her foundation and concealer, flashing them on the camera. "You know I have to support my girl, Ri. It’s Fenty Beauty all day everyday over here, ya’ll."

More comments came rolling in, Summer partially paying attention while she tried to do her makeup. Chris was taking her out on a date, the first they’d been on since the birth of the twins.

Summer was actually excited. She was in much need of alone time with her husband.

She grabbed the Snap shadow and blending brush when she noticed majority of the comments kept mentioning Lea Michele.

She didn’t even attempt to hide her distaste. "Why are ya’ll asking me about that girl? Did something happen?" Different stories were coming in prompting Summer to do her own research. "Baby, can I see your phone?"

Without hesitation, Christopher jogged into the bathroom, grabbing onto Summer’s hips while she typed Lea’s name into google.

Five minutes into reading, Summer slammed his phone onto the counter.

"Finally!"

"You’re paying for that," Chris muttered, grabbing his phone, thankful that it wasn’t cracked.

"Sorry, baby." She leaned up and kissed his cheek before looking into her phone. "Ya’ll, okay, most of you should remember I played Mercedes sister, Alexus, on Glee, right?" A wave of "yes" rolled in. "So, I’ve worked with the bitch, and I am not exaggerating when I say bitch. That heifer is literally the worst person I have ever had the displeasure of working with."

Summer pushed Christopher out the bathroom, in case her adding onto the Lea Michele drag train somehow ended up bad. "Now, I’d heard she was a nightmare, but I like to give everyone the benefit of the doubt."

"But, literally the first time I walked onto set and introduced myself to her, she looked me up and down, turned up her nose, and walked away." Summer clapped and covered her mouth. "It took everything in me not to call her ass out, but it was my first day, and I didn’t want to cause a scene."

"Obviously, I was a recurring star on the show so I would make appearances throughout the series, and each time I was there, she treated me, and everyone around her, like trash."

"Okay, but here’s the real tea, you know that read Alexus gave Rachel in season 3? That wasn’t in the script." Summer laughed at the comments. Her fans were freaking out. "My line ended when I told her I didn’t like her or something, but it was my last day of filming, and I’d literally had enough of her."

Even more comments came rolling in of laughing, frog, and tea emojis. Summer sucked her teeth and placed her hand on her hip. "Ya’ll, her white ass thought she was gone’ be a thirty something Maria from West Side Story on broadway." A beat. "Somebody had to let her know!"

[blkgirlsinthefuture]

Trauma, Power, the Body, and Ships

There are lots of things I can say about Legendborn, but first I want to say that I loved the book! I really think it is a pivotal text in the rediscovery of my love for reading. Maybe I stopped reading fantasy novels because I never saw myself. Another thought… where are all the Black people? I hope to see a lot more in the next book. I would love to see more Black community for Bree. Also #teamsel. I ship Bree and Sel. Nick? I can’t say I care who he ends up with or if he ends up with anyone at all. NOW, on to my academic thoughts regarding the novel.

There are three things that Tracy Deonn does (in my opinion) really well in the novel. Two of the three things are actually mentioned in the podcast we had to listen to a few weeks ago. All three things help provide phenomenal representation

1. Collective memory and generational trauma manifesting in the body

2. Identity world building in fantasy

3. Biracial and Queer romance in young adult literature

In terms of collective memory and generational trauma, I wrote a post a couple weeks ago concerning Black-Womanhood and whether it is inextricably linked to violence and pain. Again, I’m not sure I can say that they are tethered together, but violence, pain, and trauma are all a major part of Black-Womanhood. I loved How Deonn introduces a major part of the Black-Womanhood experience in a way that is accessible to younger audiences in contemporary fantasy while also paying homage or respects to those that have passed. She showcases the connection of Black-Womanhood from generation to generation while not sugarcoating the past. She also conveys pain as well as power in the body. With Kindred, Dana has power but at the mercy of the white male oppressor. Dana’s power is limited. It is connected to the pain and creates/causes more pain in the body. In Legendborn, Bree’s power is also connected to pain, but is more often than not, controlled by and at the mercy of the Black women that came before her. Yes, King Author posses her body at the end, but throughout the novel Bree and her ancestors dictate the use of the power in her body. Black-Womanhood is made to be more than just trauma and pain, but power and anger and strength.

I don’t read a lot of fanfics, but when I do, I HATE when y/n is obviously white. No… no he can not run his fingers through my hair. No it did not take 20 minutes to wash my hair. Deonn does a great job at taking the time to incorporate everyday aspects of Black-Womanhood and Blackness in general. The things that seem trivial to white readers but mean the world to little Black girls. One thing about marginalized populations, is that we can almost insert ourselves when we aren’t there. It’s the same reason ships (relationship pairings) come in all shapes and sizes. A ship may not be canon, but we can create queer ships and biracial ships and create fanart etc. to create our own representation. But that can be frustrating. Even with fan-art, Black artists often redraw characters as Black! There was a whole month (Blacktober) dedicated to it (it was GREAT by the way). Marginalized people have always inserted themselves into stories, because where else could we have gotten the representation? If we are limitless, we have the power to recreate stories through our own lens. Instead of having to assume Bree would take forever to wash her hair, it is explained. The Black reader doesn’t have to insert their experiences where they aren’t there because they are there, and white readers don’t get the privilege of assuming their experiences are there at all! This is so important. Whiteness is decentered and Blackness is centered! It means the world to me!

Last I want to touch on biracial relationships/romance in the novel. Many Black kids assume white people (especially white boys) will never see beauty in them. I don’t feel that way now nor do I care about white male validation, but at 15 I did. I’m not saying Bree is getting white male validation, but I am saying that Black characters can be in relationships with anyone. Growing up, the two sole Black characters always magically got together. They were pushed to the side and placed together. White writers and creators were lazy with their representation. A lot of Black kids get excited to see biracial romance with their representation. It’s honestly nice to see and I think would have made my childhood self happy. I don’t think it is always necessary, but I think it does some good work especially when the Black character (in this case Bree) is “unapologetically Black.” Lgbtq+ representation is even more so necessary and Deonn incorporates it well. Queer love triangles and relationships are introduced so well! I think for young adult readers it is important to showcase non heterosexual relationships. With homophobia in the Black community, I am happy to know there are young adult fantasy novels catered to Black audiences that provide representation that is often seen as taboo in the Black home.

[antoine-roquentin]

If every language is acquirable, its acquisition requires a real portion of a person’s life: each new conquest is measured against shortening days. What limits one’s access to other languages is not their imperviousness but one’s own mortality. Hence a certain privacy to all languages. French and American imperialists governed, exploited, and killed Vietnamese over many years. But whatever else they made off with, the Vietnamese language stayed put. Accordingly, only too often, a rage at Vietnamese ‘inscrutability,’ and that obscure despair which engenders the venomous argots of dying colonialisms: ‘gooks,’ ‘ratons’, etc.12 (In the longer run, the only responses to the vast privacy of the language of the oppressed are retreat or further massacre.) Such epithets are, in their inner form, characteristically racist, and decipherment of this form will serve to show why Nairn is basically mistaken in arguing that racism and anti-semitism derive from nationalism – and thus that ‘seen in sufficient historical depth, fascism tells us more about nationalism than any other episode.’13 A word like ‘slant,’ for example, abbreviated from ‘slant-eyed’, does not simply express an ordinary political enmity. It erases nation-ness by reducing the adversary to his biological physiognomy.14 It denies, by substituting for, ‘Vietnamese;’ just as raton denies, by substituting for, ‘Algerian’. At the same time, it stirs ‘Vietnamese’ into a nameless sludge along with ‘Korean,’ ‘Chinese,’ ‘Filipino,’ and so on. The character of this vocabulary may become still more evident if it is contrasted with other Vietnam-War-period words like ‘Charlie’ and ‘V.C.’, or from an earlier era, ‘Boches,’ ‘Huns,’ ‘Japs’ and ‘Frogs,’ all of which apply only to one specific nationality, and thus concede, in hatred, the adversary’s membership in a league of nations.15 The fact of the matter is that nationalism thinks in terms of historical destinies, while racism dreams of eternal contaminations, transmitted from the origins of time through an endless sequence of loathsome copulations: outside history. Niggers are, thanks to the invisible tar-brush, forever niggers; Jews, the seed of Abraham, forever Jews, no matter what passports they carry or what languages they speak and read. (Thus for the Nazi, the Jewish German was always an impostor.)16 The dreams of racism actually have their origin in ideologies of class, rather than in those of nation: above all in claims to divinity among rulers and to ‘blue’ or ‘white’ blood and ‘breeding’ among aristocracies.17 No surprise then that the putative sire of modern racism should be, not some petty-bourgeois nationalist, but Joseph Arthur, Comte de Gobineau.18 Nor that, on the whole, racism and anti-semitism manifest themselves, not across national boundaries, but within them. In other words, they justify not so much foreign wars as domestic repression and domination.19 Where racism developed outside Europe in the nineteenth century, it was always associated with European domination, for two converging reasons. First and most important was the rise of official nationalism and colonial ‘Russification’. As has been repeatedly emphasized official nationalism was typically a response on the part of threatened dynastic and aristocratic groups – upper classes – to popular vernacular nationalism. Colonial racism was a major element in that conception of ‘Empire’ which attempted to weld dynastic legitimacy and national community. It did so by generalizing a principle of innate, inherited superiority on which its own domestic position was (however shakily) based to the vastness of the overseas possessions, covertly (or not so covertly) conveying the idea that if, say, English lords were naturally superior to other Englishmen, no matter: these other Englishmen were no less superior to the subjected natives. Indeed one is tempted to argue that the existence of late colonial empires even served to shore up domestic aristocratic bastions, since they appeared to confirm on a global, modern stage antique conceptions of power and privilege. It could do so with some effect because – and here is our second reason – the colonial empire, with its rapidly expanding bureaucratic apparatus and its ‘Russifying’ policies, permitted sizeable numbers of bourgeois and petty bourgeois to play aristocrat off centre court: i.e. anywhere in the empire except at home. In each colony one found this grimly amusing tableau vivant: the bourgeois gentilhomme speaking poetry against a backcloth of spacious mansions and gardens filled with mimosa and bougainvillea, and a large supporting cast of houseboys, grooms, gardeners, cooks, amahs, maids, washerwomen, and, above all, horses.20 Even those who did not manage to live in this style, such as young bachelors, nonetheless had the grandly equivocal status of a French nobleman on the eve of a jacquerie:21 In Moulmein, in lower Burma [this obscure town needs explaining to readers in the metropole], I was hated by large numbers of people – the only time in my life that I have been important enough for this to happen to me. I was sub-divisional police officer of the town. This ‘tropical Gothic’ was made possible by the overwhelming power that high capitalism had given the metropole – a power so great that it could be kept, so to speak, in the wings. Nothing better illustrates capitalism in feudal-aristocratic drag than colonial militaries, which were notoriously distinct from those of the metropoles, often even in formal institutional terms. 22 Thus in Europe one had the ‘First Army,’ recruited by conscription on a mass, citizen, metropolitan base; ideologically conceived as the defender of the heimat; dressed in practical, utilitarian khaki; armed with the latest affordable weapons; in peacetime isolated in barracks, in war stationed in trenches or behind heavy field-guns. Outside Europe one had the ‘Second Army,’ recruited (below the officer level) from local religious or ethnic minorities on a mercenary basis; ideologically conceived as an internal police force; dressed to kill in bed-or ballroom; armed with swords and obsolete industrial weapons; in peace on display, in war on horseback. If the Prussian General Staff, Europe’s military teacher, stressed the anonymous solidarity of a professionalized corps, ballistics, railroads, engineering, strategic planning, and the like, the colonial army stressed glory, epaulettes, personal heroism, polo, and an archaizing courtliness among its officers. (It could afford to do so because the First Army and the Navy were there in the background.) This mentality survived a long time. In Tonkin, in 1894, Lyautey wrote:23 Quel dommage de n’être pas venu ici dix ans plus tôt! Quelles carrières à y fonder et à y mener. Il n’y a pas ici un de ces petits lieutenants, chefs de poste et de reconnaissance, qui ne développe en 6 mois plus d’initiative, de volonté, d’endurance, de personnalité, qu’un officier de France en toute sa carrière. In Tonkin, in 1951, Jean de Lattre de Tassigny, ‘who liked officers who combined guts with “style,” took an immediate liking to the dashing cavalryman [Colonel de Castries] with his bright-red Spahi cap and scarf, his magnificent riding-crop, and his combination of easy-going manners and ducal mien, which made him as irresistible to women in Indochina in the 1950s as he had been to Parisiennes of the 1930s.’24 Another instructive indication of the aristocratic or pseudo-aristocratic derivation of colonial racism was the typical ‘solidarity among whites,’ which linked colonial rulers from different national metropoles, whatever their internal rivalries and conflicts. This solidarity, in its curious trans-state character, reminds one instantly of the class solidarity of Europe’s nineteenth-century aristocracies, mediated through each other’s hunting-lodges, spas, and ballrooms; and of that brotherhood of ‘officers and gentlemen,’ which in the Geneva convention guaranteeing privileged treatment to captured enemy officers, as opposed to partisans or civilians, has an agreeably twentieth-century expression. The argument adumbrated thus far can also be pursued from the side of colonial populations. For, the pronouncements of certain colonial ideologues aside, it is remarkable how little that dubious entity known as ‘reverse racism’ manifested itself in the anticolonial movements. In this matter it is easy to be deceived by language. There is, for example, a sense in which the Javanese word londo (derived from Hollander or Nederlander) meant not only ‘Dutch’ but ‘whites.’ But the derivation itself shows that, for Javanese peasants, who scarcely ever encountered any ‘whites’ but Dutch, the two meanings effectively overlapped. Similarly, in French colonial territories, ‘les blancs’ meant rulers whose Frenchness was indistinguishable from their whiteness. In neither case, so far as I know, did londo or blanc either lose caste or breed derogatory secondary distinctions.25 On the contrary, the spirit of anticolonial nationalism is that of the heart-rending Constitution of Makario Sakay’s short-lived Republic of Katagalugan (1902), which said, among other things:26 No Tagalog, born in this Tagalog archipelago, shall exalt any person above the rest because of his race or the colour of his skin; fair, dark, rich, poor, educated and ignorant – all are completely equal, and should be in one loób [inward spirit]. There may be differences in education, wealth, or appearance, but never in essential nature (pagkatao) and ability to serve a cause. One can find without difficulty analogies on the other side of the globe. Spanish-speaking mestizo Mexicans trace their ancestries, not to Castilian conquistadors, but to half-obliterated Aztecs, Mayans, Toltecs and Zapotecs. Uruguayan revolutionary patriots, creoles themselves, took up the name of Tupac Amarú, the last great indigenous rebel against creole oppression, who died under unspeakable tortures in 1781. It may appear paradoxical that the objects of all these attachments are ‘imagined’ – anonymous, faceless fellow-Tagalogs, exterminated tribes, Mother Russia, or the tanah air. But amor patriae does not differ in this respect from the other affections, in which there is always an element of fond imagining. (This is why looking at the photo-albums of strangers’ weddings is like studying the archaeologist’s groundplan of the Hanging Gardens of Babylon.) What the eye is to the lover – that particular, ordinary eye he or she is born with – language – whatever language history has made his or her mother-tongue – is to the patriot. Through that language, encountered at mother’s knee and parted with only at the grave, pasts are restored, fellowships are imagined, and futures dreamed. 12. The logic here is: 1. I will be dead before I have penetrated them. 2. My power is such that they have had to learn my language. 3. But this means that my privacy has been penetrated. Terming them ‘gooks’ is small revenge. 13. The Break-up of Britain, pp. 337 and 347. 14. Notice that there is no obvious, selfconscious antonym to ‘slant.’ ‘Round’? ‘Straight’? ‘Oval’? 15. Not only, in fact, in an earlier era. Nonetheless, there is a whiff of the antique-shop about these words of Debray: ‘I can conceive of no hope for Europe save under the hegemony of a revolutionary France, firmly grasping the banner of independence. Sometimes I wonder if the whole “anti-Boche” mythology and our secular antagonism to Germany may not be one day indispensable for saving the revolution, or even our national-democratic inheritance.’ ‘Marxism and the National Question,’ p. 41. 16. The significance of the emergence of Zionism and the birth of Israel is that the former marks the reimagining of an ancient religious community as a nation, down there among the other nations – while the latter charts an alchemic change from wandering devotee to local patriot. 17. ‘From the side of the landed aristocracy came conceptions of inherent superiority in the ruling class, and a sensitivity to status, prominent traits well into the twentieth century. Fed by new sources, these conceptions could later be vulgarized [sic] and made appealing to the German population as a whole in doctrines of racial superiority.’ Barrington Moore, Jr., Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy, p. 436. 18. Gobineau’s dates are perfect. He was born in 1816, two years after the restoration of the Bourbons to the French throne. His diplomatic career, 1848–1877, blossomed under Louis Napoléon’s Second Empire and the reactionary monarchist regime of Marie Edmé Patrice Maurice, Comte de MacMahon, former imperialist proconsul in Algiers. His Essai sur l’Inégalité des Races Humaines appeared in 1854 – should one say in response to the popular vernacular-nationalist insurrections of 1848? 19. South African racism has not, in the age of Vorster and Botha, stood in the way of amicable relations (however discreetly handled) with prominent black politicians in certain independent African states. If Jews suffer discrimination in the Soviet Union, that did not prevent respectful working relations between Brezhnev and Kissinger. 20. For a stunning collection of photographs of such tableaux vivants in the Netherlands Indies (and an elegantly ironical text), see ‘E. Breton de Nijs,’ Tempo Doeloe. 21. George Orwell, ‘Shooting an Elephant,’ in The Orwell Reader, p. 3. The words in square brackets are of course my interpolation. 22. The KNIL (Koninklijk Nederlandsch-Indisch Leger) was quite separate from the KL (Koninklijk Leger) in Holland. The Légion Étrangère was almost from the start legally prohibited from operations on continental French soil. 23. Lettres du Tonkin et de Madagascar (1894–1899), p. 84. Letter of December 22, 1894, from Hanoi. Emphases added. 24. Bernard B. Fall, Hell is a Very Small Place: The Siege of Dien Bien Phu, p. 56. One can imagine the shudder of Clausewitz’s ghost. [Spahi, derived like Sepoy from the Ottoman Sipahi, meant mercenary irregular cavalrymen of the ‘Second Army’ in Algeria.] It is true that the France of Lyautey and de Lattre was a Republican France. However, the often talkative Grande Muette had since the start of the Third Republic been an asylum for aristocrats increasingly excluded from power in all other important institutions of public life. By 1898, a full quarter of all Brigadier-and Major-Generals were aristocrats. Moreover, this aristocrat-dominated officer corps was crucial to nineteenth and twentieth-century French imperialism. ‘The rigorous control imposed on the army in the métropole never extended fully to la France d’outremer. The extension of the French Empire in the nineteenth century was partially the result of uncontrolled initiative on the part of colonial military commanders. French West Africa, largely the creation of General Faidherbe, and the French Congo as well, owed most of their expansion to independent military forays into the hinterland. Military officers were also responsible for the faits accomplis which led to a French protectorate in Tahiti in 1842, and, to a lesser extent, to the French occupation of Tonkin in Indochina in the 1880’s . . . In 1897 Galliéni summarily abolished the monarchy in Madagascar and deported the Queen, all without consulting the French government, which later accepted the fait accompli . . .’ John S. Ambler, The French Army in Politics, 1945–1962, pp. 10–11 and 22. 25. I have never heard of an abusive argot word in Indonesian or Javanese for either ‘Dutch’ or ‘white.’ Compare the Anglo-Saxon treasury: niggers, wops, kikes, gooks, slants, fuzzywuzzies, and a hundred more. It is possible that this innocence of racist argots is true primarily of colonized populations. Blacks in America – and surely elsewhere – have developed a varied counter-vocabulary (honkies, ofays, etc.). 26. As cited in Reynaldo Ileto’s masterlyPasyón and Revolution: Popular Movements in the Philippines, 1840–1910, p. 218. Sakay’s rebel republic lasted until 1907, when he was captured and executed by the Americans. Understanding the first sentence requires remembering that three centuries of Spanish rule and Chinese immigration had produced a sizeable mestizo population in the islands.

Benedict Anderson, Imagined Communities